Perceptions: Jesus had a form!

The Torah says (Deut. 4):

The L-rd spoke to you out of the midst of the fire; you heard the sound of the words, but saw no image, just a voice.And He told you His covenant, which He commanded you to do, the Ten Commandments, and He inscribed them on two stone tablets. And the L-rd commanded me at that time to teach you statutes and ordinances, so that you should do them in the land to which you are crossing, to possess. And you shall watch yourselves very well, for you did not see any image on the day that the L-rd spoke to you at Horeb from the midst of the fire. Lest you become corrupt and make for yourselves a graven image, the representation of any form, the likeness of male or female.

The Torah says it very clearly. (1) G-d spoke, but nothing was seen, and (2) this was because G-d did not want to be compared to anything that has a form, and example would be a "male or female". Therefore:

If G-d does not want to be represented by any form, than Jesus must be false if he is considered a 'god' since Jesus had a form!

Misconceptions: Josephus proves that Jesus existed

Christians love to point out that Josephus, a Jew, wrote about Jesus, thereby validating the historical existence of Jesus.

However, the part in Flavius Josephus about Jesus was placed there much later, after Josephus’ death, by Christians. The alleged Josephus' reference to Jesus in the Testimonium Flavianum may be translated from the Greek as follows:

"At this time there was Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who performed surprising works, (and) a teacher of people who with pleasure received the unusual. He stirred up both many Jews and many of Greeks. He was the Christ. And when Pilate condemned him to the cross, since he was accused by the first-rate men among us, those who had been living (him from) the first did not cease (to cause trouble), for he appeared to them on the third day, having life again, as the prophets of God had foretold these and countless other marvelous things about him. And until now the tribe of Christians, so named from him, is not (yet?) extinct." Flavius Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, Bk XVIII, Ch III, Sn 3

The knowledge here compresses the kerygma, the earliest formulation of the Christian message by the author of the Gospel of Mark and the apostle Paul. However, because it has an explicit acceptance of Jesus as Messiah [Christ] and of his resurrection, almost all scholars believe that this passage is a Christian interpolation AND thereby a forgery. There are some scholars who believe that the core of it is original, and Christians added only the parts acknowledging Jesus as Messiah and the reality of resurrection.

“Probably the most damning evidence against the Josephus passages is that the two interpolated passages do not appear in Origen's second-century version of Antiquities. Origin was locked in a fierce debate with the Platonic philosopher Celsus over the merits of Christianity in Origen Contra Celsum (Origen against Celsus) and although Origen quotes freely from Antiquities to support Christianity, he never once used either of these passages instead remarking that 'Josephus did not believe that Jesus was the Christ.'" - James Still, "Biblical and Extra-biblical Sources for Jesus"

"For more than two hundred years, the Christian Fathers who were familiar with the works of Josephus knew nothing of this passage. Had the passage been in the works of Josephus which they knew, Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Origen and Clement of Alexandria would have been eager to hurl it at their Jewish opponents in their many controversies. But it did not exist. Indeed, Origen, who knew his Josephus well, expressly affirmed that that writer had not acknowledged Christ. This passage first appeared in the writings of the Christian Father Eusebius, the first historian of Christianity, early in the fourth century; and it is believed that he was its author. Eusebius, who not only advocated fraud in the interest of the faith, but who is known to have tampered with passages in the works of Josephus and several other writers, introduces this passage:" - Marshall J. Gauvin, "Did Jesus Christ Really Live?" "Certainly the attestations I have already produced concerning our Savior may be sufficient. However, it may not be amiss, if, over and above, we make use of Josephus the Jew for a further witness." - Eusebius, Evangelical Demonstration, Book III., p.124

"Everything demonstrates the spurious character of the passage [Testimonium Flavianum]. It is written in the style of Eusebius, and not in the style of Josephus. Josephus was a voluminous writer. He wrote extensively about men of minor importance. The brevity of this reference to Christ is, therefore, a strong argument for its falsity. This passage interrupts the narrative. It has nothing to do with what precedes or what follows it; and its position clearly shows that the text of the historian has been separated by a later hand to give it room." Marshall J. Gauvin, "Did Jesus Christ Really Live?"

After Josephus died, his writings were gone over by the early church with a fine tooth and comb.

As Eusebius was so famous of doing, there would be no doubt that any literature that needed to be changed to justify the Church’s concept of Jesus would indeed be changed, colored and flavored.

And who were alive then that had knowledge of Josephus’ writings to challenge Eusebius? Even Josephus couldn’t defend his own writings.

So using Josephus, to say anything about Jesus is scholarly absolutely not valid.

http://jdstone.org/cr/files/josephuscouldnotdefendhimself.html

Refutation: Leviticus 17:11 claims

Leviticus 17:11 is often cited to "prove" that blood atonement is needed to atone for sins. The KJV translates it like this: For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.

This interpretation has problems. First, the passage does not say that blood is the only means to atone for souls, and, in fact, Torah lists several other means -- e.g. flour (Lev 5:11), money (Exodus 30:15-16), jewelry (Numbers 31:50) or putting fire from the altar in a censure (Numbers 17:11). In addition, Hosea 14:3 says that our lips (i.e. prayers from our lips) can substitute for bulls (i,.e. blood sacrifice), Micah (6:6-8) says G-d wants a good heart rather than blood sacrifices, and the both Isaiah (1:11) and the Psalmist (40 and 50) say that G-d does not need or care about blood sacrifices. Blood is just one of many means for atonement. (See "Verses Missionaries Ignore" for details.)

Secondly, Leviticus 17:11 speaks of atonement ("kapare" in Hebrew) for our souls, but not for 'sin' -- i.e. an act of intentional wickedness. What else could atonement be for? The Bible evidently has additional uses for the word, because the Bible speaks of atonement for acts committed by mistake (which we do not usually consider sins), and also speaks of making atonement for the altar (Exodus 29:36). The word here may have the implication of making durably holy by applying a coating (see the story of Noah's ark), but whatever the meaning, one cannot impute deliberate wrongdoing to an altar.

One cannot apply this verse to Jesus' blood in any event, because it specifies blood on the altar, and Jesus did not die on any altar, let alone the altar in the Holy Temple in Jerusalem which is clearly the altar Leviticus is referring to.

Finally, the verse is taken out of context. Verses 10 to 14 say (KJV):

10 And whatsoever man there be of the house of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among you, that eateth any manner of blood; I will even set my face against that soul that eateth blood, and will cut him off from among his people. 11 For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul. 12 Therefore I said unto the children of Israel, No soul of you shall eat blood, neither shall any stranger that sojourneth among you eat blood. 13 And whatsoever man there be of the children of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among you, which hunteth and catcheth any beast or fowl that may be eaten; he shall even pour out the blood thereof, and cover it with dust. 14 For it is the life of all flesh; the blood of it is for the life thereof: therefore I said unto the children of Israel, Ye shall eat the blood of no manner of flesh: for the life of all flesh is the blood thereof: whosoever eateth it shall be cut off.

In other words, the verse has nothing to do with salvation. It is about the dietary laws -- specifically, the comments about the life being in the blood are an explanation for the prohibition against eating blood.

Source: http://home.att.net/~fiddlerzvi/j4j_no.html

Perception: Crucifixion Idiosyncrasy!

Question: Both Matthew (27:46) and Mark (15:34) use Psalms 22:2: "My God, my God, why have You forsaken me?" as the last words spoken by Jesus from the cross. Why should Jesus have thought himself as separated from God at the very moment when, according to Christian theology, he was fulfilling God's plan?

Answer: It is certainly questionable why the Jesus of Christian theology should have expressed this sentiment. Luke and John omit this cry in their crucifixion accounts, and instead, imply that Jesus himself was in complete control of the event. According to Luke, the final cry of Jesus was: "Father, into Your hands I commit my spirit" (Luke 23:46), words taken from Psalms 31:46. John also views the crucifixion not as an abandonment by God, but as the conclusion of Jesus' divine mission, in which he peacefully surrenders his soul to God: "He bowed his head and gave up his spirit" (John 19:30).

Some Christian commentators explain Jesus' feeling of abandonment, as recorded by Matthew and Mark, by claiming that he had in mind, not only the despairing words of verse 2, but also the trusting words with which this psalm ends. But this is conjecture on their part. What matters is that Jesus made use only of the opening words of the psalm, expressing despair, and failed to continue with the concluding words of the psalm, which are expressive of hope and trust in God.

Are we to believe that Jesus, who is supposed to be God's equal, and His only begotten son, fell into deep depression and anguish because God refused to help him in his hour of need? Wasn't his death essential for the reason Jesus supposedly became incarnate? Why should he offer prayers to be saved from a fate that he is knowingly supposed to endure in order to redeem mankind from the power of sin? How could Jesus have entertained the thought that God forsook him? If Jesus is who Christianity claims him to be then he knew that by his death mankind was given the only means of attaining salvation. If, as the Gospels assume, Jesus knew and predicted long in advance the events surrounding his death, and if these events were neither a surprise nor a defeat, but a working out of a divinely designed plan, what sense does it make for Jesus to complain: "My god, my God, why have You forsaken me?"

Earlier, in Gethsemane, Jesus is alleged to have prayed that God should spare him from having to undergo his bitter fate. However, Jesus added that not his will, but God's will, should be done (Matthew 26:36-45, Mark 14:32-41, Luke 22:41-44). Why did Jesus give vent to feelings of despair and failure while supposedly knowing that he was really acting out a preordained cosmic plan? It is said that he knew what was to occur: "From that time Jesus began to show his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem, and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised up on the third day" (Matthew 16:21; Mark 8:31; Luke 9:22); and "After this, Jesus, knowing that all things had already been accomplished, in order that the Scripture might be fulfilled, said: 'I am thirsty'" (John 19:28).

On the one hand, did Jesus have foreknowledge of events as the evangelists claim? On the other hand, in those last agonizing minutes on the cross, did he truly feel personally abandoned, his mission coming to grief as recorded by Matthew and Mark? If Jesus did feel abandoned, he could not be the Messiah that the New Testament authors believed him to be. If he were the Messiah, as envisioned by the New Testament, he would have known that the crucifixion was essential to his mission. Yet, if he knew this, he knew he wasn't abandoned, but was working out the divine plan. In that case, his words of despair were deceiving, something unbefitting the true Messiah.


Content Copyright Gerald Sigal, 1999-2003
http://www.jewsforjudaism.org/web/faq/faq-cr.html

Is Christianity a higher religion?

Christians believe that the Law of Moses has been abolished in favor of a better, higher religion. They believe that the Torah is bad and gives death, but their faith gives only life.

Even a casual study will easily disprove this.

Let's begin by discussing the Torah.

The Torah comes from Hashem, so how can it be cruel or bad?

Furthermore, the Torah itself says that the Torah is our life.

"I call as witnesses today, heaven and earth, that I have offered to you life and death, blessing and curses. You must choose life, so that you and your descendants will live. You must love Hashem your G-d, which means obeying His instructions, and clinging to Him, for that is your life and your survival...." (Deuteronomy 30:19-20).

And it says, "For a Commandment is a lamp, and the Torah is the light..." (Proverbs 6:23).

And it says, "Your days are increased through Me, and that's how years are added to your life" (Proverbs 9:11). So you see, we get life from Hashem directly, and we do not need jesus or Christianity.

There is nothing higher than the Torah.

King David says in Psalm 19:

The Torah of Hashem is perfect, it restores the soul.
The testimony of Hashem is trustworthy, it turns simple people wise.
The instructions of Hashem are proper, they make one's heart happy;
The commandment of Hashem is clear, it enlightens the eyes.
The fear of Hashem is pure, and endures forever.
The judgments of Hashem are true, consistently righteous.
They are more desirable than gold, even more than the purest gold! Sweeter than honey that drips from the honeycombs.
"The Torah of Hashem is perfect, it restores the soul." Think about what those words say about the Torah. Yet Paul, the reshaper of Christianity, hated the Torah, and said many nasty things about it, when he wasn't busy saying nasty things about women.
The Torah has everything in it that a person needs to restore his soul. It is the most perfect of teachings, and it is complete. It lacks nothing.

What are some of those rules that Christianity claims make their religion loftier than Judaism? Here are a few examples:

"If you want to be perfect, sell all that you have and give it all away to the poor." Does any Christian sell everything he or she has and give it to the poor? Only Catholic priests do, because this is not a practical instruction.

Judaism, by contrast, prohibits, in most cases, giving away all your assets, because that would make you destitute and dependant upon charity yourself, forcing others to support you when you are capable of supporting yourself. It would make you a burden to society. Judaism insists that you give charity, and that you must do your share to support yourself and your family as well. Which, then is the better and more reasonable Law?

A Christian once said to me that this rule only applies to those who want to be perfect. But jesus taught that you should be perfect! "Be therefore perfect, just like your Father in heaven is perfect" (Matthew 5:48). Because if you are not perfect, he says, "what reward will you get for what you do?"

And according to Judaism, you can be perfect even without giving away everything you own. Again I ask: which, then is the better and more reasonable Law?

It is no wonder that Matthew quotes jesus as saying that the way to eternal life is narrow and difficult! (Matthew 7:13-14) The Christian way is indeed difficult. The Jewish way is easier.

"Judge not, lest you be judged." And "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." This is why Christians NEVER become judges, right? But they do. Almost every Christian Church has tribunals. The various Christian Churches have tried many people over the past two thousand years, and sentenced many of them to death. Christians have always tended to JUDGE Jews as being devils and evil people often without even meeting any Jews or knowing any personally. (Shakespeare wrote the Merchant of Venice, and had seldom even seen any Jews, since Jews had not been allowed in England for over a century.)

Christianity has never been better than Judaism. When Christianity was first invented it was an alternative to the pagan cultures. It was, perhaps, something of an improvement over most of the pagan faiths. It was never better than Judaism, though they would like you to think it was.

The teachings of most Christian denominations today contain some rather horrifying things.

For example, The Anglican Articles of Religion state, in Article 13, that when someone who does not believe in jesus does a good deed he is really performing a sin, and not a good deed at all! According to them, all the non-Christian people who have ever given charity, helped a sick person, fed a hungry person, clothed a needy person, prayed to G-d, or defended the weak, every single one of them will go to everlasting hell, and cannot be "saved."

But the Torah teaches us, "Hashem does not bury the reward of any creature" (Babylonian Talmud: Pesachim 118a; Nazir 23b; Bava Kama 28b; Horyos 10b). Anyone, even an animal, that does a good deed, is rewarded for it.

The Christian bible practically claims to have invented love. It is interesting to note that the Christians like to say that Jews did not and won't accept jesus because we are full of hate and sin. Jesus was a man who said that he would have all his enemies destroyed. Where is the love in that? Indeed, the Catholic Church has been directly responsible for most of the horror and death that has taken place in the past two thousand (2,000) years. And they say we are the ones full of hate?

The Christians lay claim to the phrase, "Love your enemies." Yet, as I said above, Christians have been more responsible than anyone else for killing their enemies, and even their friends who slightly disagree with them. If you don't believe this, ask the next Abigensian you meet. I'm willing to bet that unless you are a history buff you have never even heard of the Albigensians. That's because the Christians killed them all out in the twelfth century. You know why they killed them? Because the Albigensians believed that all physical things are inherently evil, so the preached against wealth and physical acts of ritual. Unfortunately for them, the Catholic Church was rich and fat on the wealth of Jews and everyone else they didn't like, and they didn't take too well to people telling them it was wrong to have material goods. Furthermore, the Catholic Church was offended because the Albigensians were against the wafer and wine sacraments, which is a ritual that the Catholic Church believes in very strongly. So, the Catholic Church did the simplest thing. They killed all the Albigensians, showing their love and tolerance.

You might think that the Catholic Church is better about these things today. You'd be mostly wrong. They are not apologetic at all about it. In the Catholic Encyclopedia, I found these words:

The death penalty was, indeed, inflicted too freely on the Albigenses, but it must be remembered that the penal code of the time was considerably more rigorous than ours, and the excesses were sometimes provoked....Pope Innocent III was justified in saying that the Albigenses were "worse than the Saracens"; and still he counselled moderation and disapproved of the selfish policy adopted by Simon of Montfort. What the Church combated was principles that led directly not only to the ruin of Christianity, but to the very extinction of the human race.
(The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume I
Copyright © 1907 by Robert Appleton Company
Online Edition Copyright © 1999 by Kevin Knight)

No apology, no contrition, no acknowledgment that the Albigensians had done nothing wrong. No, the Albigensians deserved it, because they supposedly attempted the "very extinction of the human race," and besides, the penal code of that time was very rigorous anyway.

This is just one example. The Catholic Church has been responsible for more acts of hatred than any group ever to exist. Admittedly, they have been around very long, but there are groups who have been around even longer and have not been responsible for such death and destruction. Buddhism existed at least 400 years before Christianity, and they are not known for such wholesale destruction.

The Protestants have been no better.

Take, for example, the Protestant persecution of the Society of Friends, otherwise known as Quakers. They had to escape and come to America, where they continued to be persecuted again, also by Protestants! The first American Protestants had themselves escaped persecution from other Protestants, and then turned around and persecuted everyone else who came to America, especially Catholics. This is the love of the Christian Churches. This is their "turning the cheek."

And it does not end there.

The Lutherans denounced and excluded the reformed Calvinists from salvation. The Calvinists roused up the people against the Lutherans. Zwingli, who started his own Christian sect in Switzerland, complained of Luther's intolerance when Zwingli and his group were the victims, but he and his followers tied the Anabaptists in sacks and threw them into the Lake of Zurich! Zwingli, by the way, followed the typical Christian method of spreading his religion by destroying churches and burning monasteries of rival religious sects. It can be argued that he was only responding in kind to the way he and his group were treated, but what about the Christian dictum to love your enemies and forgive them? What about the Torah's Commandment not to take revenge?

C. Johannes Janssen, author of a 16-volume history of Germany during "Reformation" times, quotes the Protestant theologian Meyfart that: "At Augsburg, in the first half of the year 1528, about 170 Anabaptists of both sexes were either imprisoned or expelled by order of the new-religionist Town Council. Some were . . . burnt through the cheeks with hot irons; many were beheaded; some had their tongues cut out." The Catholics had no monopoly on torturing dissidents.

Protestants do not generally spread around the fact that Martin Luther himself wrote that Jews should be murdered or forcibly converted, and that all the synagogues should be burned down.

And Luther wrote about fellow Christians who did not go to church: "It is our custom to affright those who . . . fail to attend the preaching; and to threaten them with banishment and the law . . . In the event of their still proving contumacious, to excommunicate them . . . as if they were heathen."

Here are some more choice statements by Martin Luther:

"The Pope and the Cardinals . . . since they are blasphemers, their tongues ought to be torn out through the back of their necks, and nailed to the gallows!"

"It were better that every bishop were murdered . . . than that one soul should be destroyed . . . If they will not hear God's Word . . . what do they better deserve than a strong uprising which will sweep them from the earth? And we would smile did it happen. All who contribute body, goods . . . that the rule of the bishops may be destroyed are God's dear children and true Christians."

And as I mentioned above, the Anglican Church teaches that anyone who does not believe in jesus and does something good has really done something evil.

How is that a religion of love and tolerance? By contrast, Judaism believes that all righteous, of every religion, goes to Heaven. Not only that, but a Gentile can go to Heaven without keeping the Torah! Gentiles have to keep only Seven Laws (which mostly they do anyway, today), but Jews have to keep the Commandments of the Torah and their Laws. So actually, according to Judaism it is easier for a Gentile to go to Heaven!

In what way is any branch of Christianity better and more loving than Judaism?

"Turning the other cheek?" "Resist not evil?" Most denominations of Christianity have not kept those teachings in any way, shape or form. Most of those who have claimed to espouse such platforms have turned out to be the worst offenders. Such "high moral" claims are not practical, and no one keeps them. Certainly, if someone robbed you, you would take them to court to try and get your money back.

This has always been the problem with christianity. They talk a lofty talk. It sounds so holy, and spiritual, and beautiful. Forgive everyone! Love everyone! How sweet. So why has this not worked in practice? Because it can't. When you are adamant in teaching an unreachable trait, it backfires. History has shown that unattainable and unrealistic ideals are very dangerous.

This was perhaps the source of one of their greatest errors. They thought they could improve on the Torah; they thought they could improve on what G-d Himself taught.

It can't be done. Hashem knows what humans are capable of, and what we are not capable of. And Hashem commanded us according to our ways.

Christian practice is simply NOT higher or better than Hashem's word. It is a lot less practical than Jewish practice. By contrast, Jewish practice is Hashem's word, and it is entirely practical.

Education: Did G-d speak at Mt. Sinai?

by Rabbi Nechemia Coopersmith and Rabbi Moshe Zeldman

Who did God give the Torah to at Mount Sinai? Most people reply, "God gave the Torah to Moses."

And what were the Jewish people doing while Moses was receiving the Torah? "Worshipping the Golden Calf."

Correct answers -- but NOT according to the Bible.

The above answers come from Cecil B. DeMille's classic film, "The Ten Commandments." Amazing the impact one movie can have on the Jewish education of generations of Jews. It's a great film, but DeMille should have read the original.

The version found in the Torah is quite different. The Torah's claim is that the entire people heard God speak at Mount Sinai, experiencing national revelation. God did not just appear to Moses in a private rendezvous; He appeared to everyone, some 3 million people. This claim is mentioned many times in the Torah.

[Moses told the Israelites]: 'Only beware for yourself and greatly beware for your soul, lest you forget the things that your eyes have beheld. Do not remove this memory from your heart all the days of your life. Teach your children and your children's children about the day that you stood before the Lord your God at Horev [Mount Sinai]...

God spoke to you from the midst of the fire, you were hearing the sound of
words, but you were not seeing a form, only a sound. He told you of His
covenant, instructing you to keep the Ten Commandments, and He inscribed them on
two stone tablets.' (Deut.4:9-13)

'You have been shown in order to know that God, He is the Supreme Being. There
is none besides Him. From heaven he let you hear His voice in order to teach
you, and on earth He showed you His great fire, and you heard His words amid
the fire.' (Deut. 4:32-36)

Moses called all of Israel and said to them: 'Hear, O Israel, the decrees and
the ordinances that I speak in your ears today -- learn them, and be careful to
perform them. The Lord your God sealed a covenant with us at Horev [Mount
Sinai]. Not with our forefathers did God seal this covenant, but with us -- we
who are here, all of us alive today. Face to face did God speak with you on the
mountain from amid the fire.' (Deut. 5:1-4)

The Torah claims that the entire Jewish nation heard God speak at Sinai, an assertion that has been accepted as part of their nation's history for over 3,000 years.

DeMille's mistake is such a big deal because the Jewish claim of national revelation, as opposed to individual revelation, is the central defining event that makes Judaism different than every other religion in the world.

How so?

HISTORY AND LEGENDS

Two types of stories are part of any national heritage.

The first kind is legends. Included in this category is George Washington's admission to chopping down the cherry tree, along with his statement, "I cannot tell a lie." Johnny Appleseed planting apple trees across America with his discarded apple cores is another legend.

Then there is history. For example, George Washington was the first president of the United States. William the Conqueror led the Battle of Hastings in 1066 in which Harold, King of England, was killed. The Jews of Spain were expelled from their country in 1492, the year Christopher Columbus set sail.

What is the difference between legend and history?

A legend is an unverified story. By their very nature legends are unverifiable because they have very few eyewitnesses. Perhaps little George did chop down the cherry tree. We can't know if it happened. This does not mean that the legend is necessarily false, only that it is unverifiable. No one thinks legends are facts, therefore they are not accepted as reliable history.

History, however, is comprised of events we know actually happened. It is reliable because we can determine if the claimed event is true or false through a number of ways. One key to verification is the assertion that large numbers of eyewitnesses observed the specific event.

Why is the number of claimed original witnesses a principal determining factor in making historical accounts reliable? This can be understood through looking at the nature of the following series of claims and weighing their levels of credibility. The nature of the claim itself can often determine its degree of believability.

THE BELIEVABILITY GAME

Gauge the level of credibility of the following scenarios.

Some claims are inherently unverifiable. For example, would you believe me if I told you the following:

Scenario #1:

"Last week after dinner, I went for a walk through the forest near my house. Suddenly everything was awash in a tremendous light and God appeared to me, designating me as His prophet. He told me to announce this revelation to you at this time."

Believable?

In theory this could have happened. It doesn't seem likely, but you don't know I'm lying. Would you choose to believe me?

Without any substantiating evidence, why choose to believe me? A foolish move, indeed.

Scenario #2:

Would you believe me if I told you the following:

"Last night while I was eating dinner with my family, the room started to suddenly shake and God's booming voice was heard by all of us. He designated me as His prophet and commanded me to announce this revelation."

Believable?

This could have happened too. If I were to bring in my family to confirm the story it would be more believable than the first story. You certainly don't know if I'm lying.

Would you believe me? Would you fork over $10,000 dollars if I told you God commanded you to do so?

No way. There is still not enough evidence to trust my claim -- because it is very possible that my family is lying.

Scenario #3:

There is another type of claim that you can know is false. For example, would you believe me if I told you this:

"Do you remember what happened 10 minutes ago just as you began reading this article? Remember how the room started shaking, then the ceiling opened up to the skies, and you and I together heard God's booming voice come down and say 'Thou shalt hearken to the voice of Nechemia Coopersmith for he is my prophet!' And then the room went back to normal and you continued reading. You remember that, don't you?"

Is this believable?

This kind of claim is completely different. The two previous scenarios at least had the possibility of being true. You chose not to accept them because they were unverifiable. However this third scenario is impossible to believe. I'm claiming something happened to you that you know did not happen. Since you didn't experience it, you know I'm lying. I cannot convince you of something that you yourself know didn't happen.

This first type of claim -- that something happened to someone else -- is unverifiable, because you do not know for certain that the claim is a lie. Therefore it is possible for a person to decide to accept the claim as true if he really wanted to and take that leap of faith.

However, the other type of claim -- that something happened to you -- you know if it is inherently false. People do not accept patently false assertions, especially those that carry significant consequences.

SINAI: AN IMPOSSIBLE HOAX

So far we have seen two types of claims -- one is unverifiable and the other is inherently false.

Could the revelation at Sinai have been a brilliant hoax, duping millions of people into believing that God spoke to them?

Let's imagine the scene. Moses comes down the mountain and claims, "We all today heard God speak, all of you heard the God's voice from the fire..."

Assuming Moses is making it up, how would the people respond to his story?

"Moses! What are you talking about?! Boy, you sure had us going there for awhile. We may have even believed you if you came down and claimed that God appeared to you personally. But now you blew it! Now we know you're lying because you're claiming an event happened to us that we know didn't happen! We did not hear God speak to us from any fire!"

If the revelation at Sinai did not occur, then Moses is claiming an event everyone immediately knows is an outright lie, since they know that they never heard God speak. It is preposterous to think Moses can get away with a claim that everyone knows is lie.

REVELATION CLAIMED LATER IN HISTORY

Perhaps a hoax such as this could have been attempted at a later period in history. Perhaps the claim of national revelation did not originate at Sinai, but began, for example, 1,000 years after the event was said to have occurred. Perhaps the leader Ezra, for example, appears on the scene, introducing a book purported to be written by God and given to a people who stood at Sinai a long time ago.

Could someone get away with this kind of hoax? For example, would you believe the following:

"I want to let you in on a very little-known, but true fact. In 1794 over 200 years ago, from May until August, the entire continent of North America mysteriously sank under the sea. For those four months, the whole continent was submerged and somehow all animal, plant and human life managed to adapt to these bizarre conditions. Then, on August 31, the entire continent suddenly floated up to the surface and life resumed to normal."

Is there a possibility that I'm telling the truth? Do you know for a fact that it is a lie? After all, it happened so long ago, how do you know it didn't happen? Maybe you learned about in school and just forgot about it.

You know North America did not sink hundreds of years ago for one simple reason: If it did, you would have heard about it. An event so unique and amazing, witnessed by multitudes of people would have been known, discussed, and passed down, becoming a part of history. The fact that no one has heard of it up until now means you know the story is not true, making it impossible to accept.

An event of great significance with a large number of eyewitnesses cannot be perpetuated as a hoax. If it did not happen, everyone would realize it is false since no one ever heard about it before. Thus, if such an event was indeed accepted as part of history, the only way to understand its acceptance is that the event actually happened.

INTRODUCED LATER?

Let's assume for the moment that the revelation at Mount Sinai is really a hoax; God did not write the Torah. How did the revelation at Sinai become accepted for thousands of years as part of our nation's history?

Imagine someone trying to pull off such a hoax. An Ezra figure shows up one day holding a scroll.

"Hey Ezra - what are you holding there?"
"This is the Torah."
"The Torah? What's that?"
"It's an amazing book filled with laws, history and stories. Here, take a look at it."
Very nice, Ezra. Where did you get this?"
"Open up the book and see what it says. This book was given thousands of years ago to your ancestors. Three million of them stood at Mount Sinai and heard God speak! God appeared to everyone, giving His law and instruction."

How would you respond to such a claim?

The people give Ezra a quizzical look and say,

"Wait a second, Ezra. Something is a little fishy here. Why haven't we ever heard of this before? You're describing one of the most momentous events that could ever happen, claiming that it happened to our ancestors - and we never heard about it?"

"Sure. It was along time ago. Of course you never heard about it."

"C'mon Ezra! It's impossible that our grandparents or great-grandparents would not have passed down the most significant event in our nation's history to some of the people! How could it be that no one has heard about this up until now?! You're claiming all my ancestors, the entire nation, 3 million people heard God speak and received a set of instructions called the Torah, and none of us have heard about it?! You must be lying."

If one cannot pull off a hoax with regard to a continent sinking, so too one cannot pull off a hoax to convince an entire people that their ancestors experienced the most unique event in all of human history.

Everyone would know it's a lie.

For thousands of years, Sinai was accepted as central to Jewish history. How else can this be explained?

Given that people will not fall for a hoax they know is a lie, how could national revelation have been not only accepted -- but faithfully followed with great sacrifice by the vast majority of Jews?

The only way a people would accept such a claim is if it really happened. If Sinai did not happen, everyone would know it's a lie and it would never have been accepted. The only way one can ever claim a nation experienced revelation and have it accepted is if it is true.

SINAI: THE ONLY CLAIM OF NATIONAL REVELATION

Throughout history, tens of thousands of religions have been started by individuals, attempting to convince people that God spoke to him or her. All religions that base themselves on some type of revelation share essentially the same beginning: a holy person goes into solitude, comes back to his people, and announces that he has experienced a personal revelation where God appointed him to be His prophet.

Would you believe someone who claims to have received a personal communication from God appointing him or her as God's new prophet?

Maybe He did. Then again, maybe He didn't. One can never know. The claim is inherently unverifiable.

Personal revelation is an extremely weak basis for a religion since one can never know if it is indeed true. Even if the individual claiming personal revelation performs miracles, there is still no verification that he is a genuine prophet. Miracles do not prove anything. All they show -- assuming they are genuine -- is that he has certain powers. It has nothing to do with his claim of prophecy.

Maimonides writes:

Israel did not believe in Moses, our teacher, on account of the miracles he
performed. For when one's faith is based on miracles, doubt remains in the mind
that these miracles may have been done through the occult and witchcraft...

What then were the grounds of believing him? The revelation on Sinai
which we saw with our own eyes, and heard with our own ears, not having to
depend on the testimony of others... (Mishna Torah - Foundations of Torah 8:1)

A BOLD PREDICTION

There are 15,000 known religions in all of recorded history. Given this inherent weakness, why do all of them base their claim on personal revelation? If someone wanted their religion to be accepted, why wouldn't they present the strongest, most believable claim possible -- i.e. national revelation! It's far more credible. No one has to take a leap of faith and blindly trust just one person's word. It is qualitatively better to claim that God came to everyone, telling the entire group that so-and-so is His prophet.

Why would God establish His entire relationship with a nation through one man, without any possibility of verification, and still expect this nation to obediently follow an entire system of instructions, based only on blind faith?

Yet, Judaism is the only religion in the annals of history that makes the best of all claims -- that everyone heard God speak. No other religion claims the experience of national revelation. Why?

Furthermore, the author of the Torah predicts that there will never be another claim of national revelation throughout history!

'You might inquire about times long past, from the day that God created man on
earth, and from one end of heaven to the other: Has there ever been anything
like this great thing or has anything like it been heard? Has a people ever
heard the voice of God speaking from the midst of the fires as you have heard
and survived?' (Deut. 4:32-33)

Let's consider the option that God did not write the Torah, and its author successfully convinced a group of people to accept a false claim of national revelation. In this book, the author writes a prediction that over the course of history no one will ever make a similar claim. That means if such a claim is ever made at some future time, the prediction will end up being false and his religion is finished.

How could the author include in the book he is passing off as a hoax the prediction that no other person will ever attempt to perpetuate the same hoax when he just made that exact claim? If he could do it, he can be certain that others will too, especially since it is the best possible claim to make. If you are making up a religion, you do not write something you know you cannot predict and whose outcome you would think is guaranteed to be exactly the opposite.

However, aside from the Jewish claim of Mount Sinai, it is a fact that no other nation has ever claimed such a similar national revelation.

Let's summarize two primary questions:

1. Out of 15,000 known religions in recorded history, why is Judaism the only one that claims national revelation, the best of all claims? Why do all other religions base themselves on the inherently weak assertion of personal revelation?

2. If Judaism's claim is indeed an example of a successful hoax that falsely asserts national revelation, the author just got away with passing off the best possible claim, and others will certainly follow suit. Why then would he predict that no one else will ever make a similar claim, a prediction he knows he cannot foresee, and whose outcome is likely to be the exact opposite?

There is one simple answer to both questions. A national revelation -- as opposed to personal revelation -- is the one lie you cannot get away with. It is one event you cannot fabricate. The only way to make this claim is if it actually happened.

If the claim is true, the people will believe it because they are agreeing to something they already know. Either they personally witnessed it, or their ancestors collectively passed down the account as part of their nation's accepted history.

If the claim is false, it's like trying to convince you that God spoke to you or your parents and somehow you never heard of it. No one would ever accept such a claim.

Therefore no other religion has ever made the best of all claims, because it is the one claim that can only be made if it is true. One cannot pass national revelation off as a hoax.

When inventing a religion, the originator must resort to personal revelation, despite its inherent weakness, since it is a claim that is unverifiable. The originator can hope to find adherents willing to take a leap of faith and accept his or her religion. After all, no one can ever know it is a lie. [Of course, no one can know if it's true either.] This simply cannot work with national revelation since it's the one claim that everyone will know is a lie.

Only Judaism can claim national revelation since the Jewish people is the only nation in the history of mankind who ever experienced it.

Furthermore, it is interesting to note that the other major religions of the world both accept the Jewish revelation at Sinai, including the Five Books of Moses in their Bible, and hold the Sinai revelation as a key component of their religion.

When starting their own religions, why did they build upon the Jewish claim? Why didn't they just deny the revelation ever happened?

The answer is that they knew that if national revelation can never be fabricated; so too, its validity can therefore never be denied.

Now it is understandable how the Author of the Torah can confidently predict that there will never be another claim of national revelation in history.

Because only God knew it would happen only once, as it did -- at Sinai over 3,000 years ago.


Based on a segment of Aish HaTorah's Discovery seminar.
http://www.aish.com/spirituality/philosophy/Did_God_Speak_at_Sinai$.asp

Question: Who is the Son of G-d?

You were created so that you could recognize your Creator, love Him, and serve Him here on earth. But do you know Who G-d really is? The answer to this question surprises many people.

It is an easy mistake to think that one is worshipping the one, true G-d, while actually serving a false one. To help prevent this mistake, G-d described Himself in the Bible, warning us to remember how He appeared when He gave the Ten Commandments:

And the Eternal spoke to you from the middle of the fire; you heard the sound of words, but you saw no form, only a voice....

And guard your souls carefully, for you did not see any form on the day the Eternal spoke to you in Horev from the middle of the fire, lest you become corrupt and make for yourselves an idol, an image of any physical shape, the form of a man or woman (1).

In other words, G-d has no physical shape. He is infinite and unlimited, and never appears in the form of any human.

Nor does G-d have any "partners." He alone is the only One Who brings us eternal salvation, as He says in the Bible:

Am I not the Eternal? And there is no other god besides Me—a just G-d and Savior; there is none else. Turn to Me and be saved, all the ends of the earth, for I am G-d and there is none else (2).
Anyone who makes the mistake of worshipping a man for spiritual salvation will be betrayed (3). Eternal life comes directly from G-d, Who is One and infinite, and not through any mediator.

G-d's Firstborn Son

So how has G-d brought His message of truth to the world? According to the Bible, G-d declares that He does have a special son whose mission is to bring His blessings and His salvation to the entire world.

Who is this son? Many religious leaders have offered their opinions on the identity of His son, but really we should find out G-d's "opinion" on this matter.

In the book of Exodus, G-d openly proclaims His son to the world: "Thus says the L-rd: My firstborn son is Israel" (4).

"Israel" is the Jewish people—all of them. The Jews were chosen by G-d to be His special "son," to be, in the words of the Bible, "a kingdom of priests and a holy nation" for the whole world (5).

All people are G-d's children, of course, but the Jews are like a "firstborn son" who brings G-d's Word to his younger brothers. Every person who learns from the Jews, and helps them fulfill their special role, becomes a part of G-d's kingdom.

Unfortunately, many times people have not listened to the Jews. For many centuries, the Christian church killed hundreds of thousands of innocent Jews—men, women, and children -- to prevent their holy message from reaching the rest of the world. Today, church leaders still try to silence the Jewish message by sending missionaries to convert Jews to Christianity!

The Bible tells us that the Jews would suffer greatly, not just for their own sins, but also for the sake of bringing G-d's Word to a rebellious world:

"Comfort, comfort my people," says your G-d. "Persuade Jerusalem and call to her, for her time is full, for her sins have been repaid; for she has received from the hand of the L-rd double for all her sins" (6).
Salvation Through the Law

The Jewish people have been taught the secret to eternal life and blessings for all people, and now they finally have the freedom to reveal G-d's message.

According to that message, the key that unlocks the door to a personal relationship with G-d is His Law—one part for the Jews, the other part for the rest of the world.

At Mount Sinai, G-d gave the Ten Commandments (and hundreds of others) to the Jewish people. These laws apply only to the Jews in their special role as the world's spiritual leaders.

But for everyone else, G-d gave the Seven Commandments (and dozens of other laws). These commandments were given to Noah, after he left the ark that saved his family from the great flood, as an eternal covenant with all the peoples of the earth (7). Since Mount Sinai, the Jews have carried the message of these seven laws to all the peoples.

A non-Jew who follows these commandments is called a Hasidic gentile, and he receives both eternal life and G-d's blessings in his earthly life. By doing good works exactly as G-d commands, he earns a close relationship with his Creator.

A Hasidic gentile celebrates certain "Old Testament" holidays, not Christian holidays. He prays to G-d in the proper way, according to G-d's instructions. He also helps the poor, and he guides his fellow humans—including non-religious Jews—back to G-d's Law. A Hasidic Gentile learns how to redeem every part of his life from the emptiness of modern existence, becoming a "soldier" in G-d's spiritual army.

The Messiah's Message to the World

By asking the Jews for spiritual guidance and turning back to "Old Testament" Law, a Child of Noah also accomplishes the most important task of all: He helps bring the Messiah to redeem the entire world.

The Messiah is a Jewish king who will gather all the Jewish people to Israel, destroy all evil, rebuild the Holy Temple in Jerusalem, and bring true freedom to the world by returning everyone to the Law. He will institute G-d's eternal kingdom here on earth.

The Messiah will teach the Word of G-d to all nations, causing Christianity and all other religions to disappear. The Bible says that everyone will become a Hasidic Gentile, thirsting for the ancient Truth:

O L-rd, my strength and my fortress, and my refuge in the day of distress, gentiles will come to You from the ends of the earth and say, 'We have inherited only lies from our fathers, vanity and things which are not useful. Can a man make gods for himself, and they are not gods?'
Therefore, behold, I will cause them to know, this time I will let them know My hand and My strength, and they will know that My Name is Hashem (8).
In our generation, the spiritual leader of the Jewish people—and therefore of the whole world—is Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson (known as the Lubavitcher Rebbe"), in New York. He is a righteous prophet who has never sinned, nor even been tempted, in his entire life; indeed, he has brought hundreds of thousands of Jews and gentiles back to the Law. Moreover, he is a direct descendant of King David.

The Rebbe has revealed that the Messiah will finally arrive now, in our generation, amidst great miracles. He has also announced that every Jew, and every gentile, is a representative of G-d to help bring the Messiah immediately.

An Urgent Call to Action

In the book of Genesis, G-d told Abraham that his descendants, the Jewish people, would bless the world with the light of G-d's Word. Only by turning to the Jews can anyone join G-d's holy kingdom:

And I will bless those who bless you, but I will curse those who curse you; and through you all the families of the earth will be blessed (9).
G-d promised Abraham that this covenant of priesthood would apply to all the Jews, forever:

And I establish my covenant between Me and you and your descendants after you, throughout their generations, for an eternal covenant (10).
Regardless of your race, religious background, or nationality, G-d is calling on you to help the Jewish people bring the Messiah. You don't have to be Jewish to help; in fact, Hasidic Gentiles can serve G-d in special ways that Jews cannot, since G-d's Law is stricter for Jews.

You can start today, simply by asking for more details. Don't miss this exciting opportunity!

References:

1) Deuteronomy 4:12, 15-16.
2) Isaiah 45:21-22.
3) Psalms 146:3.
4) Exodus 4:22.
5) Exodus 19:6.
6) Isaiah 40:1-2.
7) Genesis 8:20 - 9:17.
8) Jeremiah 16:19-21.
9) Genesis 12:3.
10) Genesis 17:7.

Perceptions: Jesus was not merciful

Many Christian missionaries make the claim that the Jews see G-d as cruel, and that in contrast, Jesus is merciful.

The first statement is a lie.

The second claim, that Jesus was merciful, is certainly not supported by the words of the Christian bible, as we shall see below.

Let us discuss the two claims in order. According to Judaism, no one can be more merciful than G-d. It is impossible. G-d is the most merciful of anything in the universe that exists, all of which G-d created. According to Judaism, it is heresy to claim that anyone or anything is more merciful than G-d.

What do Christian missionaries mean when they say that Jesus is more merciful? They usually don't answer this one directly, because missionaries seldom answer any direct questions. The answer appears to be that supposedly "Jesus accepts repentance, and the Jewish G-d does not."

However, that is also untrue. Hashem most certainly does accept repentance, and sacrifice is not necessary for forgiveness and atonement. (More about that in another article.)

Hashem forgives sins, and it is only Hashem who forgives sins, as it says, "I, I alone, erase your sins, for My sake, and I will not remember your iniquities." (Isaiah 43:25) And also, it says, "I, I alone am G-d, and no one other than I is a savior." (Isaiah 43:11) And it says, "I, I alone, comfort you; how can you, who are worthy, fear a person, who will die, a son of man, who is as short-lived as grass?"

Statements of Hashem's mercy are found all over the Torah.

"For Hashem is a merciful Power...." (Deuteronomy 4:31)

"For he is merciful, He will atone sin, He will not destroy..." (Psalms 78:38)

"And he prayed to Hashem, and he said, Please, Hashem .... for I know that You are a merciful and compassionate Power, difficult to anger, and has much kindness, and forgives evil." (Jonah 4:2)

"The wicked should forsake his ways, and the evil person should forsake his plans, and return to Hashem, Who will have mercy on him, for He forgives abundantly." (Isaiah 55:7)

"Hashem is merciful and compassionate, difficult to anger, and has much kindness." (Psalms 103:8)

"Tear your hearts, and not your clothes, and return to Hashem your G-d, for He is compassionate and merciful, difficult to anger, and has much kindness, and forgives evil." (Joel 2:13)

"Hashem has made memorials of the miracles He performed for us; Hashem is full of compassion and mercy. Hashem is good to all, and His mercy is on all His creations." (Psalms 111:4-5)

And so on, all over the Torah.

And in our prayers, we say three times a day "Blessed are You Hashem, who is compassionate, and forgives abundantly." (Amidah prayer, sixth blessing)

As to sinners, the Torah says, "He who hides his sin will not be successful, but he who confesses to Hashem and forsakes his sin, will receive mercy." (Proverbs 28:13)

Now let's examine some of the things that the Christian bible records Jesus as saying. We will find that Jesus was cruel, very unforgiving, and full of a great deal of unrelenting anger.

Since there are so many examples in the Christian bible of cruel things in the name of Jesus, I will restrict the following quotes to the book of Matthew, the book that is placed at the beginning of the Christian bible, and therefore the first encounter anyone would have of Jesus in the Christian bible. So all quotes not otherwise accredited are from Matthew.

Jesus is quoted as having said: "But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth." (8:13) Why doesn't he just forgive them, and allow them into Heaven? Where is the forgiveness? Where is the mercy?

Jesus is also quoted as saying, "But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven." (10:33) So those who do not believe in Jesus will not go to Heaven. How is that more merciful?

"And you, Capernaum, which art exalted unto heaven, shalt be brought down to hell." (11:23) It is not explained why Capernaum was exalted to Heaven, (meaning that many miracles supposedly took place there), will be brought down to hell. In any case, since they Jesus considered it worse than Sodom, they would be destroyed and sent to hell. Again, where is the mercy in this?

"...but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men." (12:30) Notice that not only is this considered a sin, it won't even be forgiven! This is reiterated again (in verse 32), "whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come."

And here's a beauty; "but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath." (13:12) Of course, that one doesn't even make sense. How can you take away something from someone who has nothing? But what does that matter in the face of strong blind faith? Christians are taught to have blind faith, The actual words written in the Christian bible are not as important as having faith.

It made sense, by the way, in the original Talmudic version that Jesus distorted it from, which was, "Whoever tries to take what does not belong to him, what he seeks he will not get, and what he has shall be taken away from him" (Babylonian Talmud, Sotah 9a).

What Jesus did there is to take part of the words and apply them to something else. What he applies them to shows yet more of his cruelty. The disciples ask him why he speaks in parables. He answers that it is to prevent the masses from understanding him. For the masses have nothing, that is, they do not know the 'mysteries of Heaven." Since they do not know those secrets, they have nothing, and therefore they shall be given nothing, and all their merits -- although they have none -- will be taken away from them.

Well, they have no merits, he says. And you know what, Jesus says that he will not even give them the chance to get any merits at all!

Jesus said that he spoke in parables so that the masses would not understand and perhaps gain heaven, because they had closed their own eyes and it was their fault anyway. "Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand. And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive: For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them." (13:13-15)

In other words, if they would understand the parables, they might repent, and be converted, and he would heal them from their sins. And he does not wish that to happen for them. He cruelly denies them the possibility of repentance and conversion! (Not that he could really have granted it to them anyway, but the Christian belief is that he could have. In that case, he is cruel for refusing to do so!)

He and John the Baptist did a similar thing with the Pharisees. According to Matthew (3:7), the Pharisees came to John the Baptist when he was baptizing people, but he rejected them and refused to baptize them. " But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism, he said unto them, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come?"

Later, Jesus said that the Pharisees were to blame for not going to John the Baptist! "For John came unto you in the way of righteousness, and ye believed him not; but the publicans and the harlots believed him: and ye, when ye had seen it, repented not afterward, that ye might believe him." (21:32) John never even gave them a chance, and Jesus still blames them! This is merciful?

What will happen in the future, asks Matthew? "The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity; And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth." (13:41-42)

He repeats this again: "So shall it be at the end of the world: the angels shall come forth, and sever the wicked from among the just, And shall cast them into the furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth." (13:49-50)

No forgiveness, no mercy, for those he considers evil. But wait! It gets worse!

Who does he consider evil? Get a load of this! "Whosoever shall say, You fool, shall be in danger of hell fire." (5:22) In other words, just for calling someone else a fool, you will go to hell forever. This is being merciful?

"But if you forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses." (6:14) While this seems somewhat logical and fair, it is not particularly merciful. In what way is Jesus merciful?

"That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven." (5:21) In other words, if you are not very righteous, says Jesus, you will not go to Heaven. No mercy, no exceptions.

But it gets worse! Look what Jesus says about the average person:

And Jesus spoke to them again with parables, and said, The kingdom of heaven is like a certain king who made a wedding for his son, And sent out his servants to call the guests to the wedding: but they would not come. Again, he sent our other servants, saying, Tell the guests, Look, I have prepared a large dinner: I have killed my best animals for the meal, and everything is ready: so please come to the wedding. But they didn't take it seriously, and continued whatever they had been doing before: one went back to his farm, another went back to selling his merchandise: And the rest of them took the king's servants, and treated them spitefully, or killed them. When the king heard about this, he was very angry, and he sent out his armies, and destroyed those murderers, and burned up their city. Then he said to his servants, The wedding is ready, but the people who were originally invited were not worthy. Therefore, Go to the highways, and invite to the wedding everyone you find there.

So those servants went to the highways, and gathered together everyone they found, both bad and good people: and the wedding had a lot of guests. And when the king came in to see the guests, he saw there a man who was not wearing a wedding garment: And he said to him, Friend, how can you come her without wearing a wedding garment? And the man was speechless. So the king said to the servants, Tie him up very tightly, and take him away, and throw him into outer darkness; there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth. For many are called, but few are chosen.

This is from Matthew, Chapter 2, verses 1-14

In other words, a simple man from the street, who did not expect to be called to the wedding, was suddenly brought to the wedding. Yet because he was not already wearing wedding clothes, he was punished! Many are called, Jesus says, but this man was NOT called. It is hardly his fault that he was not ready!

This parable reveals the horror of Jesus' teachings. The people in the street had not been invited to the wedding, and they never expected to be there. They had no command, indeed, they had no reason, to be wearing wedding clothes or to get ready for the wedding in any way. Yet they were pulled in suddenly, unexpectedly. And for not being prepared for something they had no reason to attend, this man is punished!

And the meaning of this parable is that when the time comes, and someone is not ready for G-d, he will be punished even though he did not expect to be called! This is cruel in the extreme.

Jesus was not merciful. Jesus condemns everyone who does not believe in him.

"Afterward came also the other virgins, saying, Lord, Lord, open to us. But he answered and said, Verily I say unto you, I know you not. Watch therefore, for ye know neither the day nor the hour wherein the Son of man cometh." (25:11-13) Where is the mercy here? The statement here is that they did not deserve to go to Heaven. If only those who fully deserve it go to Heaven, how is that being merciful?

And then there is Jesus' beliefs about marriage and divorce. How cruel it is to force a man and woman who are incompatible with each other to stay married to each other and not remarry (5:31-32). Moreover, he said that it is better not to marry (19:10-12). But if a man marries, and discovers that it was better not to marry, he must still suffer all his life in the marriage!!! This is kind? No, this is cruel!

Think about it. Jesus said that it is better not to marry. Yet nevertheless, he forbade divorce to everyone, even though not everyone can take it! It is hard to know which is crueler, to force men to stay single, or to force an incompatible couple to stay married. And if the woman leaves the husband, she may not even remarry, because Jesus says that this is adultery (5:32)! Jesus commits numerous cruelties with this ruling.

The very fact that such words were attributed to him by the very people who adopted him as god-messiah and brought him to the rest of the world as god-messiah, means to me that I don't want or need to know anything more about him. His own believers and followers reported him as being cruel, and no amount of whitewashing by later Christians can change that.

By their account, Jesus was cruel, which in itself shows that he was not on Hashem's side. According to his words, it is very difficult to attain Heaven. For he demanded that his followers love him more than their parents and children (Matthew 10:37); that they give up their entire lives and travel with him (ibid, 38-39); that they give away all their possessions and all they call their own (19:21); and that they never get divorced (5:32). His demands were utterly impossible, often abusive, and indeed, few Christians have ever fulfilled them.

As if those are not sufficiently difficult, he also insisted that you allow people to rob you, and even help them hurt you (5:38-41). Of course Christians don't keep that! All of society would collapse if those rules were kept! In point of fact, Christians have been the biggest source of hurt throughout history.

The Christian bible insists that Christians sell everything they own, and give it all to the poor. Is this more merciful than Judaism? Judaism (i.e., the Law of Moses, the Hebrew Bible, Jewish Law, the Torah) in most cases prohibits giving away all your assets, because that would make you destitute and dependant upon charity yourself, forcing others to support you when you are capable of supporting yourself. Therefore, the Law of Moses commands you to give only a tithe, one tenth of your assets. At most you may give one fifth, except in case of certain emergencies. Jesus demands that you give everything away. Giving away everything you own is much harder than giving away only a tenth. Yet Paul claims that the Law of Moses is more difficult to keep than the Laws of Jesus. Not true, obviously. Jesus' laws are cruel, unreasonable and wrong. Of course, very few (if any) Christians keep them, because they know those laws are impossible to keep.

Incidentally, many of today's churches ask for tithes, i.e., a tenth of each member's income, relying on the Law of Moses that they claim is no longer in effect! There is no real consistency in Christianity.

I think, all in all, the Jewish G-d is much more kind and merciful than the Christian "god."

Source: http://www.beingjewish.com/toshuv/crueljesus.html

Question: Was Jesus sinless?

WAS JESUS SINLESS?
Shmuel Silberman


When we claim that Jesus did not live a sinless life, this is not to single out Jesus for special condemnation. Ecclesiastes 7:20 says, "There is no righteous man on earth who does good and sins not." Having a flaw is no disqualification for being a rabbi or prophet. This essay is rather to challenge the Christian doctrine of a "sinless Jesus" because of its significance for Christian theology.

In the New Testament Paul maintains it is not possible to keep the Law, and that flawless fulfillment of the Law is necessary to please G-d. For this reason Jesus as man-god had to fulfill the Law for everyone and die a sacrificial death to atone for a sinful humanity. This theology rests in part on the belief that Jesus was sinless.

When one examines the Gospels and compares the stories with the commandments of the Torah (Hebrew Bible) this doctrine of a "sinless Jesus" is not supported. Instead we find that Jesus in fact violated a number of Biblical commandments:

1. Procreation
"Be fruitful and multiply" (Genesis 1:28). This obligates a person to marry and have children. Jesus remained single his entire life. He also encouraged others to disobey this commandment by recommending celibacy (Matthew 19:12)

2. Sabbath Observance
"The seventh day is a Sabbath to the L-rd your G-d. Do not do any work" (Exodus 20:9). Jesus defended his "hungry" disciples when they plucked grain on the Sabbath. This is agricultural labor and is unquestionably a violation of the Sabbath.

Christian apologists insist that Jesus was revealing the true meaning of the Sabbath when he said, "The Sabbath is not made for man; man is made for the Sabbath (Mark 2:27)." This is untenable. Deuteronomy 17:8-13 says that we are to follow the Jewish High Court in disputes of Jewish law and this requirement is recognized by Jesus himself (Matthew 23:2). With whom is he arguing in Mark? It is the same Jewish legal authorities who are Biblically authorized to interpret the Law!

If Jesus meant that they were starving and their lives were threatened, the Gospel account must be fictional.1 Talmudic (Pharisee) law agrees this would be a reason to violate the Sabbath (Talmud Yoma ch.8). The Rabbis would not have quarreled with Jesus if this were the case. If there was no danger to life, then plucking grain violates the Sabbath and the apostles were probably guilty of theft for eating from a field not theirs.

3. Not Honoring a Torah Sage
"Honor the face of an elder [zaken] " (Leviticus 19:32). Zaken does not simply mean an old person; for that is the subject of the first half of the verse ("You shall rise before an old person [seiva]"). This is a commandment to respect Torah scholars. Judges and religious leaders are typically called zaken in the Bible (Exodus 24:14, Leviticus 4:15, Numbers 11:25, Deuteronomy 22:16, 25:7). If Jesus did not violate this by calling them "vipers," no one ever did (Matthew 23:13-33).

4. Hand Washing-Failure to Obey the High Court
(Deuteronomy 17:8-13): The obligation to follow the High Court includes rabbinic law. Jesus defended the failure of the apostles to follow a rabbinic requirement ? to wash their hands before eating. Jesus rejects rabbinic law as the "traditions of men (Mark 7:8)." He also defied the Rabbis regarding the Sabbath (see #2)

5. Insulting a Human Being
Jesus insulted a gentile woman by calling her a dog (Matthew 15:22-27). This is hardly befitting righteous and holy people. Whatever his pedagogical purpose, such a designation is inappropriate.

6. False Prophecy
Deuteronomy 18:20 prohibits false prophecy. The same passage defines false prophecy: "the word does not materialize or come to pass." As the New Testament asserts that Jesus is a prophet (Acts 3:22) one must regard as false prophecy the following statement: ".this generation will by no means pass away till all these things take place." (Matthew 24:34).

This statement follows a description of signs of the End of Days. "This generation" of course died about 2,000 years ago and the prediction was never actualized. Here is how a prominent Christian commentary (NIV Study Bible p.1613) defends Jesus' "prophecy:"

a. Jesus may be referring to the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE.

b. Jesus may be referring to a future generation alive at the beginning of "these things."

This is hardly convincing. Jesus explicitly describes his Second Coming: "At that time the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky and all the nations of the earth will mourn (24:30)." It will involve suffering "never to be equaled again (24:21)." This did not happen when the Temple was destroyed.

The idea that Jesus is referring to a future generation fails too. Throughout this speech Jesus refers to his audience as "you." When Jesus says, "when you see.. (v.15)" the NIV itself explains this as referring to events that happened long ago. Jesus tells his audience they will live to see "all these things" and "all" includes past events and the Second Coming. Obviously Jesus falsely predicted he would return in his audience's lifetime.

7. Not Honoring Parents
"Honor your father and mother" (Exodus 20:12). Jesus ignored his mother when she came to visit. "Someone told him, 'your mother and brother are standing outside, wanting to speak to you' He replied to him, 'who is my mother, and who are my brothers?' Pointing to his disciples, he said, 'Here are my mother and my brothers" (Matthew 12:47-49).

Jesus caused his parents a whole day of worrying. His parents returned from Jerusalem, assuming Jesus was with them. In fact, Jesus stayed in Jerusalem without informing his parents. They returned to Jerusalem to look for him. "His mother said to him, 'Son, why have you treated us like this? Your father and I have been anxiously searching for you?' (Luke 2:48)."

8. Kosher Food (Leviticus 11)
Jesus permitted eating food that is not kosher. Although the beginning of Mark 7 addresses the issue of eating with unwashed hands, the end of that chapter goes much further. "It is not what goes into the mouth that defiles but rather what comes out of the mouth that defiles" (Mark 7:15) As if we may have missed the point, 7:19 reads, "In saying this, Jesus declared all foods clean" [KJV reads 'purged all meats']." Biblical law teaches that what goes into the mouth indeed defiles (Lev.11:39). Ironically, Christianity maintains that the Original Sin was eating.

9. Failing to Rebuke
"You shall surely rebuke your fellow" (Leviticus 19:18). This requires correcting, not excusing, the infractions of others. We have mentioned that Jesus defended Sabbath violation (see #2) and the failure to wash hands before meals (#4), and permitted non-kosher food (#7). Ironically, Jesus said one who teaches others to break a single commandment "will be called least in the Kingdom of Heaven" (Matthew 5:19)

10. Not to Add or Subtract From the Law (Deuteronomy 13:1, 4:2) Jesus changed Biblical law with regard to divorce. The Bible permits divorce (Deuteronomy 24:1). Jesus does not dispute this point, however, he maintains this law is no longer valid. Thus he subtracted from the Law. "Why then, they asked, did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away? Jesus replied, Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning [when G-d made them male and female (Genesis 1:27) and one flesh (2:24)]. I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery (Matthew 19:7-9)."

Since Biblical law permits divorce and does not consider remarriage a form of adultery, Jesus is changing Biblical law. Jesus' reference to Genesis is of no avail, for Moses knew Genesis and still proclaimed divorce permissible. Also, Moses said that the Law cannot be changed. Jesus changed the laws of kosher food too (see #7).

11. Opposing a Biblical Commandment (Vows)
Jesus accuses the Pharisees of undermining the commandment to honor parents with the following statement: "But you say that if a man says to his father or mother 'Whatever help you might otherwise have received from me is Korban (that is, a gift devoted to G-d)' then you no longer let him do anything for his father or mother" (Mark 7:11-12). What Jesus is opposing is not rabbinic, but Biblical law! 2. The Bible grants human beings the power to bind themselves through vows and oaths. A pledge to the Temple is a valid pledge, however foolish or insensitive. This can be compared to a person who sold his entire property for $1 and has no more money to support his ailing parents. This is a foolish sale, to be sure, but a valid sale that cannot be revoked from the lucky buyer.

12. Truth-telling
"Keep far from a false matter" (Exodus 23:7). This verse obligates us to tell the truth. Jesus made a false accusation when he said the Pharisees bear the blood guilt of Cain's murder of Abel-in fact the guilt of all righteous blood shed on earth (Matthew 23:35). That is libel.



Footnotes:
1. Hyam Maccoby, The Mythmaker: Paul and the Invention of Christianity, p.40
2. Gerald Sigal, The Jew and the Christian Missionary: A Jewish Response to Missionary Christianity, p.256

Question: How do you define "everlasting"?

A question that must be asked a lot is how Christianity defines the word "everlasting" means?

Exodus 31:17 says: "The B'nei Yisrael shall preserve the Shabbos, to maintain the
Shabbos for their generations, as an everlasting covenant.

Why did G-d write that the covanent was everlasting if he did not mean it? Did He really mean that it was only temporary? Then why write that it is everlasting?

The definition is: "Lasting forever; eternal."

Instead we are suppose to observe a pagan ritual of worship on sunday??? And pray to Jesus who resembles pagan idols as seen in my article??? "Did Christianity violate copyright laws when they copied paganism?" It is illogical. Christianity is mere paganism.

Roman Pagan Religion: Attis was a son of the virgin Nana. His birth was celebrated on DEC-25. He was sacrificed as an adult in order to bring salvation to mankind. He died about MAR-25, after being
crucified on a tree, and descended for three days into the underworld. On Sunday, he arose, as the solar deity for the new season. His followers tied an image of Attis to a tree on "Black Friday,"
and carried him in a procession to the temple. His body was symbolically eaten by his followers in the form of bread. Worship of Attis began in Rome circa 200 BCE.

Greek Pagan Religion: Dionysus is another savior-god whose birth was observed on DEC-25. He was worshipped throughout much of the Middle East as well. He had a center of worship in Jerusalem in the 1st century BCE... He was viewed as the son of Zeus, the Father God.

Egyptian Pagan Religion: Osiris is a savior-god who had been worshipped as far back as
Neolithic times. "He was called Lord of Lords, King of Kings, God of Gods...the Resurrection and the Life, the Good shepherd...the god who 'made men and women be born again'" 5
Three wise men announced his birth. His followers ate cakes of wheat which symbolized his body. Many sayings associated with Osiris were taken over into the Bible. This included: 23rd
Psalm: an appeal to Osiris as the good Shepherd to lead believers through the valley of the shadow of death and to green pastures and still waters Lord's Prayer: "O amen, who art in heaven..." Many parables attributed to Jesus.

Worship of Osiris, and celebration of his DEC-25 birth, were established throughout the Roman
Empire by the end of the 1st century BCE.

Persian Pagan Religion: Mithra was a Persian Savior. Worship of Mithra became common
throughout the Roman Empire, particularly among the Roman civil service and military. Mithraism was a competitor of Christianity until the 4th century. Their god was believed to have been born on DEC-25, circa 500 BCE. His birth was witnessed by shepherds and by gift-carrying Magi. This was celebrated as the "Dies Natalis Solic Invite," The "Birthday of the Unconquered Sun." Some followers believed that he was born of a virgin. During his life, he performed many miracles, cured many illnesses, and cast out devils. He celebrated a Last Supper with his 12 disciples. He ascended to heaven at the time of the spring equinox, about March 21.

The Babylonians celebrated their "Victory of the Sun-God" Festival on DEC-25. Saturnalia (the Festival of Saturn) was celebrated from DEC-17 to 23 in the Roman Empire. The Roman Emperor Aurelian blended Saturnalia with a number of birth celebrations of savior Gods from other religions, into a single holy day: DEC-25. After much argument, the developing Christian church adopted this date as the birthday of their savior, Jesus. The people of the Roman Empire were accustomed to celebrating the birth of a God on that day. So, it was easy for the church to divert people's attention to Jesus' birth.

References:
B.G. Walker, "The Woman's
Encyclopedia of Myths and
Secrets," Harper & Row, (1983)
Copyright ©
1997, 1999, 2000 and 2002
by Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance

Perception: The theory of evolution, eating beef and morality

from a great friend whose nickname is "the rav". He defends Torah everyday against the evils of "Jewish atheism", "Jewish Buddhism" and "Jews for Jesus" and all the others who attack our faith. Props to him, and his inspirations.

Researching into the theory of evolution I believe I can securely state that eating beef and believing the theory of evolution to be scientifically valid disclose that the individual is void of a system of morality, by his own standards.

What line can people who believe in the theory of evolution draw between eating beef and eating men?

If the criterion is mere power, and men may eat animals because they gained power by accidental evolution, then the evil Nietzsche was right when he approved the oppression of the weak by the strong; and thereby every evolutionist is ideologically a criminal. The murder of weak innocents is but a logical result of the theory of evolution, which can recognize no distinction between cattle-slaughter-houses and the German-Nazi Murder factories, except to the degree of “accidental evolutionary development”.

If a scientist finds himself alone on a desert isle with a weak old man who possesses a chest of diamonds, what is to hinder him from strangling the old man and taking the diamonds? His conscience? He does not admit the validity of conscience for he declared that men are animals which are descended from reptiles, who are descended from slime cells.

He debates inwardly: "True, I do not consider man sacred. I could kill him just as I killed a frog in the laboratory... But if law and order are not maintained, perhaps someone would slay me." Then as he visualizes the glittering stones, he thinks "But no one will ever know. No one will be influenced by my example. The fear that society may eventually be corrupted does not deter me, for the effect will be to far into the future to affect me. Since there is no right or wrong but only usefulness, then surely it is useful to posses diamonds."

Indeed, none of the academics have ever declared it was "scientifically" wrong to vivisect even a man; they have never stated that anything was wrong "scientifically".

The academics take their morals from the Homicide Squad. For the criteria of right or wrong the scientists have no recourse but to rely on the patrolmen and state legislature. If not for these unscientific people, then they could not condemn murder because then the professors who eat beef should be expelled! All I can ask is the same question: What line can people who believe in the theory of evolution draw between eating beef and eating men? Is it because we are stronger? Can anyone be morally secure with the belief that it is okay to eat something that you descend from or are "related to" because of survival of the fittest? We can oppress the weak in slaughterhouses because we are stronger and gained power because of accidental evolution? It is thought provoking.

Perception: The writers of the Gospel relied on Greek

Now Jesus came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up, and went into the synagogue on the Sabbath day, as was his custom. He stood up to read, and the scroll of the prophet Isaiah was given to him. He unrolled the scroll and found the place where it was written,

“The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives and the regaining of sight to the blind, to set free those who are oppressed, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.” - Luke 4:16-20

Notice the part I bolded and italisized. This is Isaiah 61:1-3 (well sort of.) Here is what the Hebrew says:

1. The spirit of the Lord God was upon me, since the Lord anointed me to bring tidings to the humble, He sent me to bind up the broken-hearted, to declare freedom for the captives, and for the prisoners to free from captivity.
2. To declare a year of acceptance for the Lord and a day of vengeance for our God, to console all mourners.
3. To place for the mourners of Zion, to give them glory instead of ashes, oil of joy instead of mourning, a mantle of praise instead of a feeble spirit, and they shall be called the elms of righteousness, the planting of the Lord, with which to glory.

Do you notice a difference? The Hebrew doesn't contain the phrase "regaining of sight to the blind" anywhere in it. So where did that come from? The Greek Septuagint, which was translated by non-Jews, contains this phrase. Why is it in there when the original Hebrew does not have it? Who knows why it was added, but it is, and it is not supposed to be there. Why is it relevant? Because it means that in the passages from Luke I quoted, JC wasn't reading the original Hebrew, but rather a mistranslated Greek version. There are many problems with this. First, a translation would never, ever be read in a synagogue. But if some reason he was reading a translation, if he was "G-d in the flesh" [sic], he should have seen that he was reading a mistranslation, and corrected it.

So why is this relevant? Because Judaism has always stated that the prophecies that JC allegedly fulfilled come from looking to the Septuagint for reference, and finding the mistranslations, and forming a religion based on it. This is further proof that whomever wrote this story, was using a greek mistranslation of the Tanach to reference the "prophecies", and not the original hebrew. So why should we believe the writings of someone that couldn't even read the original hebrew, and made mistakes because they referenced non-existant prophecies?

This is just further proof that the events of the NT were fabricated and written by either non-Jews or hellenized Jews, who had little to no knowledge of Torah and Judaism.

Perception: Calling the Jews "blind fools"

When reading the "new testament" a perception was made. Jesus makes the bold statement that anyone who calls someone a "fool" will go to hell. An odd statement indeed, because a bit later, Jesus himself labels others as fools:

"But I say to you that anyone who is angry with a brother will be subjected to judgment. And whoever insults a brother will be brought before the council, and whoever says ‘Fool’ will be sent to fiery hell. - Matthew 5:22

Blind fools! Which is greater, the gold or the temple that makes the gold sacred? - Matthew 23:17

Perceptions: Jesus misquoted the prophets

Important question: "Why doesn't Jesus himself know his own scripture, if he's "G-d" [sic] and he spoke it?!?

In this example, let's take Matthew (Christian Bible) 23:35, which says:

"...that there may come upon you all the righteous blood spilled on earth, to the blood of the righteous Abel to the blood of Zecheriah son of Berachiah whom you murdered between the sanctuary and the alter."
(Matthew 23:35)

Now, was there a Zecheriah son of Berachiah?

"In the eighth month, in the second year of Darius, the word of HaShem came to Zechariah, the son of Berechiah, the son of Iddo the prophet..."
(Zecheriah 1:1)

Ok, so far so good. But now it comes time to grade his paper...!

And the spirit of God came upon Zechariah the son of Jehoiada the priest, who stood above the people, and said to them, Thus said God, Why do you transgress the commandments of the Lord, so that you cannot prosper? Because you have forsaken the Lord, he has also forsaken you. And they conspired against him, and stoned him with stones at the commandment of the king in the court of the house of the Lord."
(2 Chronicals 24:20-21)

Jesus confused the son of the priest with the prophet???

So maybe Jesus should have payed more attention in class.

Misconceptions: The Torah has been superceded

One concept, which Christians are quick to present is the idea of Jesus "fulfilling the law." As I’ve been told by many people, "the law was fulfilled in Christ." In essence, that’s like saying Jesus did the right thing so you don’t have to do it anymore. Over and over again in the Jewish scriptures, we are told to follow the Torah, follow the Torah, and follow the Torah. Then one self-proclaimed prophet comes along and preaches otherwise, and the masses believe him instead.

Deuteronomy 4:40 Thou shalt keep therefore His statutes, and His commandments, which I command thee this day, that it may go well with thee, and with thy children after thee, and that thou mayest prolong [thy] days upon the earth, which the LORD thy G-d giveth thee, for ever. (KJV)

Deuteronomy 4:2 Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish [ought] from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your G-d which I command you. (KJV)

Deuteronomy 5:29 O that there were such an heart in them, that they would fear Me, and keep all My commandments always, that it might be well with them, and with their children for ever! (KJV)

Deuteronomy 12:32 What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it. (KJV)

Follow the commandments, don’t add to them or subtract from them, and do them forever. That seems fairly simple to grasp. How well does this fit with sublime passages such as these below:

Romans 3:20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law [is] the knowledge of sin. (KJV)

Romans 7:4 Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, [even] to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto G-d. [5] For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death. [6] But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not [in] the oldness of the letter. (KJV)

Romans 10:4 For Christ [is] the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth. (KJV)

So, when given the choice, who do you believe? Do you believe Moses the greatest of all prophets, who gave us the Torah and told us to perform it forever, or do we believe Paul, a single upstart who contradicts Moses’ Divine message?

The concept of one man performing the commandments so perfectly that others would not have to do the same is completely poisonous compared to the sweet drink one takes from the fountain of Torah. If one man does it perfectly, then he is to be commended. If he can encourage others to do the same, so much the better.

I have no argument with the observation that keeping the Law completely is difficult. The rewards are great; why should the effort required be small? And clearly, were it not for G-d’s infinite Grace and Mercy, no human would live long enough to "fulfill" the Law. Ask yourself this: If G-d really expected us to be perfect right off the bat, why does the Torah describe the procedures required for atonement? I’d think that if G-d expected us to do everything perfectly the first time, and that if we were going to Hell for doing otherwise, then repentence, the sacrificial procedures and the Day of Atonement would not be part of the Jewish faith. G-d knows we aren’t perfect. He simply expects us to try our best, to work constantly at becoming more perfect than we are.

Genesis 4:6 And HASHEM said to Cain, "Why are you annoyed, and why has your countenance fallen? [7] Surely, if you improve yourself, you will be forgiven. But if you do not improve yourself, sin rests at the door. Its desire is toward you, yet you can conquer it." (Artscroll)

But is the law itself too difficult to try keeping at all? Your New Testament will tell you that. However, what does it tell you when G-d Himself disagrees?

Deuteronomy 30:11 For this commandment that I command you today -- it is not hidden from you and it is not distant. [12] It is not in heaven, [for you] to say, "Who can ascend to the heaven for us and take it for us, so that we can listen to it and perform it?" [13] Nor is it across the sea, [for you] to say, "Who can cross to the other side of the sea for us and take it for us, so that we can listen to it and perform it?" [14] Rather, the matter is very near to you -- in your mouth and your heart -- to perform it. (Artscroll)

G-d Himself knew there would come a time when people would start to think that the Torah was too difficult to follow, so He assured us that the law was always within our grasp to perform. Additionally, the Torah is G-d's standard of right and wrong. Are we to think that standard would change? G-d told us that the eating of certain foods defiled us. The standard changed? While the dietary laws seem minor, the fact remains that G-d gave us 613 commandments in the written Torah, which govern right and wrong. When you say that "Jesus fulfilled the law so I don't have to" what happens to your moral compass? How do you decide what is considered right and wrong? If you can say that the eating of certain foods is no longer forbidden because it's no longer wrong, what's to stop you from committing adultery, murder, and idolatry? Jesus fulfilled the law, didn't he? Doesn't that mean we don't have to avoid these things any longer? The doctrine of fulfillment is a self-defeatist's doctrine. All it tells me is that a Christian will only follow G-d's law when it isn't an inconvenience.

Exodus 23:13 Be careful regarding everything I have said to you. The name of the gods of others you shall not mention, nor shall your mouth cause it to be heard. (Artscroll)

We don't get to pick and choose which laws we follow. G-d gave us all of them.

We have the following passage from the Sermon on the Mount:

Matthew 5:19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach [them], the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. (KJV)

According to Jesus, those who preach that you don't have to follow the Torah are going to be the least in the kingdom of heaven. While being the least in the kingdom is still being in the kingdom, it's not exactly the most desirable position to be in that kingdom. What does it tell you about Paul?

Psalm 111:2 The works of the LORD [are] great, sought out of all them that have pleasure therein. [3] His work [is] honorable and glorious: and his righteousness endureth for ever. [4] He hath made his wonderful works to be remembered: the LORD [is] gracious and full of compassion. [5] He hath given meat unto them that fear him: He will ever be mindful of His covenant. [6] He hath shewed his people the power of his works, that He may give them the heritage of the heathen. [7] The works of his hands [are] verity and judgment; all His commandments [are] sure. [8] They stand fast for ever and ever, [and are] done in truth and uprightness. [9] He sent redemption unto his people: He hath commanded His covenant for ever: holy and reverend [is] His name. (KJV)

Even in the Book of Psalms, which the Christians are so fond of quoting, we find clear indications that the Torah is eternal, and to be observed forever.

Ezekiel 11:17 Therefore say, Thus saith the Lord G-D; I will even gather you from the people, and assemble you out of the countries where ye have been scattered, and I will give you the land of Israel. [18] And they shall come thither, and they shall take away all the detestable things thereof and all the abominations thereof from thence. [19] And I will give them one heart, and I will put a new spirit within you; and I will take the stony heart out of their flesh, and will give them an heart of flesh: [20] That they may walk in My statutes, and keep Mine ordinances, and do them: and they shall be My people, and I will be their G-d. (KJV)

To fully understand the word usage in the following reference from Isaiah, I shall use Artscroll’s translation:

Isaiah 2:2 It will happen in the end of days: The Mountain of the Temple of HASHEM will be firmly established as the head of the mountains, and it will be exalted above the hills, and all the nations will stream to it. [3] Many peoples will go and say: ‘Come, let us go up to the Mountain of HASHEM, to the Temple of the G-d of Jacob, and He will teach us of His ways and we will walk in His paths.’ For from Zion will the Torah come forth, and the word of HASHEM from Jerusalem.

In the KJV, the word "law" is used in place of "Torah." However, I used the Artscroll translation here because "Torah" is literally the word used. Now, we see that the Messianic Age is characterized by increased, not decreased observance of the Torah. This point seems beyond debate.

By far one of the most substantial messianic prophecies is in the 37th chapter of Ezekiel. If you read it, you’ll find out why. It describes a mass resurrection of the dead of the House of Israel. Verse 24 finally speaks of G-d’s servant David being made king over us in that age. It is not David in the literal sense, but the promised descendant of David, whom we call by convention the Messiah. At this point, you’re probably wondering why I’m apparently going on a tangent here.

Ezekiel 37:24 And David my servant [shall be] king over them; and they all shall have one shepherd: they shall also walk in my judgments, and observe my statutes, and do them. (KJV)

Here again we see the age of the Messiah, observance of the Torah will be increased, not decreased! Torah observance is an integral part of G-d’s plan, from now until the end of time.

Unless otherwise indicated, all the following verses are from the King James Bible:

Leviticus 19:37 Therefore shall ye observe all My statutes, and all My judgments, and do them: I am the Lord.

Leviticus 20:22 Ye shall therefore keep all My statutes, and all My judgments, and do them: that the land, whither I bring you to dwell therein, spue you not out.

Leviticus 25:18 Wherefore ye shall do My statutes, and keep My judgments, and do them; and ye shall dwell in the land in safety.

Deuteronomy 4:1 Now therefore hearken, O Israel, unto the statutes and unto the judgments, which I teach you, for to do them, that ye may live, and go in and possess the land which the Lord G-d of your fathers giveth you.

Deuteronomy 4:8 And what nation is there so great, that hath statutes and judgments so righteous as all this law, which I set before you this day?

Deuteronomy 11:1 Therefore thou shalt love the Lord thy G-d, and keep His charge, and His statutes, and His judgments, and His commandments, alway.

Deuteronomy 30:16 In that I command thee this day to love the Lord thy G-d, to walk in His ways, and to keep His commandments and His statutes and His judgments, that thou mayest live and multiply: and the Lord thy G-d shall bless thee in the land whither thou goest to possess it.

This isn't just something that might be a good idea. This is the way it is. What do we see when we look at David's instructions to Solomon before he died?

1 Kings 2:1 Now the days of David drew nigh that he should die; and he charged Solomon his son, saying, [2] I go the way of all the earth: be thou strong therefore, and shew thyself a man; [3] And keep the charge of the Lord thy G-d, to walk in His ways, to keep His statutes, and His commandments, and His judgments, and His testimonies, as it is written in the law of Moses, that thou mayest prosper in all that thou doest, and whithersoever thou turnest thyself:

David knew how important the commandments were, and so did Solomon. Unfortunately, it seemed like only every other king of Judah heeded this message. As time went on, G-d's prophets continually stressed the importance of adhering to the Torah:

Jeremiah 11:3 And say thou unto them, Thus saith the LORD G-d of Israel; Cursed be the man that obeyeth not the words of this covenant, [4] Which I commanded your fathers in the day that I brought them forth out of the land of Egypt, from the iron furnace, saying, Obey My voice, and do them, according to all which I command you: so shall ye be My people, and I will be your G-d: [5] That I may perform the oath which I have sworn unto your fathers, to give them a land flowing with milk and honey, as it is this day. Then answered I, and said, So be it, O LORD. [6] Then the LORD said unto me, Proclaim all these words in the cities of Judah, and in the streets of Jerusalem, saying, Hear ye the words of this covenant, and do them. [7] For I earnestly protested unto your fathers in the day that I brought them up out of the land of Egypt, even unto this day, rising early and protesting, saying, Obey My voice. [8] Yet they obeyed not, nor inclined their ear, but walked every one in the imagination of their evil heart: therefore I will bring upon them all the words of this covenant, which I commanded them to do: but they did them not.

Proverbs 4:2 For I give you good doctrine, forsake ye not My law.

Proverbs 6:23 For the commandment is a lamp; and the law is light; and reproofs of instruction are the way of life:

Proverbs 7:2 Keep My commandments, and live; and My law as the apple of thine eye.

Daniel 9:4 And I prayed unto the LORD my G-d, and made my confession, and said, O Lord, the great and dreadful G-d, keeping the covenant and mercy to them that love Him, and to them that keep His commandments; [5] We have sinned, and have committed iniquity, and have done wickedly, and have rebelled, even by departing from Thy precepts and from Thy judgments: [6] Neither have we hearkened unto Thy servants the prophets, which spake in Thy name to our kings, our princes, and our fathers, and to all the people of the land. [7] O LORD, righteousness belongeth unto Thee, but unto us confusion of faces, as at this day; to the men of Judah, and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and unto all Israel, that are near, and that are far off, through all the countries whither Thou hast driven them, because of their trespass that they have trespassed against Thee. [8] O Lord, to us belongeth confusion of face, to our kings, to our princes, and to our fathers, because we have sinned against Thee. [9] To the Lord our G-d belong mercies and forgivenesses, though we have rebelled against Him; [10] Neither have we obeyed the voice of the LORD our G-d, to walk in His laws, which He set before us by His servants the prophets. [11] Yea, all Israel have transgressed Thy law, even by departing, that they might not obey Thy voice; therefore the curse is poured upon us, and the oath that is written in the law of Moses the servant of G-d, because we have sinned against Him. [12] And He hath confirmed His words, which He spake against us, and against our judges that judged us, by bringing upon us a great evil: for under the whole heaven hath not been done as hath been done upon Jerusalem. [13] As it is written in the law of Moses, all this evil is come upon us: yet made we not our prayer before the LORD our G-d, that we might turn from our iniquities, and understand thy truth. [14] Therefore hath the LORD watched upon the evil, and brought it upon us: for the LORD our G-d is righteous in all His works which He doeth: for we obeyed not His voice.

Joshua 1:7 Only be thou strong and very courageous, that thou mayest observe to do according to all the law, which Moses my servant commanded thee: turn not from it to the right hand or to the left, that thou mayest prosper whithersoever thou goest. [8] This book of the law shall not depart out of thy mouth; but thou shalt meditate therein day and night, that thou mayest observe to do according to all that is written therein: for then thou shalt make thy way prosperous, and then thou shalt have good success. [9] Have not I commanded thee? Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the LORD thy G-d is with thee whithersoever thou goest.

Jeremiah 16:10 And it shall come to pass, when thou shalt shew this people all these words, and they shall say unto thee, Wherefore hath the Lord pronounced all this great evil against us? or what is our iniquity? or what is our sin that we have committed against the Lord our G-d? [11] Then shalt thou say unto them, Because your fathers have forsaken me, saith the Lord, and have walked after other gods, and have served them, and have worshipped them, and have forsaken me, and have not kept my law; [12] And ye have done worse than your fathers; for, behold, ye walk every one after the imagination of his evil heart, that they may not hearken unto me: [13] Therefore will I cast you out of this land into a land that ye know not, neither ye nor your fathers; and there shall ye serve other gods day and night; where I will not shew you favour.

Jeremiah 26:4 And thou shalt say unto them, Thus saith the Lord; If ye will not hearken to me, to walk in my law, which I have set before you, [5] To hearken to the words of my servants the prophets, whom I sent unto you, both rising up early, and sending them, but ye have not hearkened; [6] Then will I make this house like Shiloh, and will make this city a curse to all the nations of the earth.

Jeremiah 44:23 Because ye have burned incense, and because ye have sinned against the Lord, and have not obeyed the voice of the Lord, nor walked in his law, nor in his statutes, nor in his testimonies; therefore this evil is happened unto you, as at this day.

Jeremiah was perhaps the most tragic case, warning of the grim fate that would befall the people, the first exile.

Ezekiel 18:5 But if a man be just, and do that which is lawful and right, [6] And hath not eaten upon the mountains, neither hath lifted up his eyes to the idols of the house of Israel, neither hath defiled his neighbour's wife, neither hath come near to a menstruous woman, [7] And hath not oppressed any, but hath restored to the debtor his pledge, hath spoiled none by violence, hath given his bread to the hungry, and hath covered the naked with a garment; [8] He that hath not given forth upon usury, neither hath taken any increase, that hath withdrawn his hand from iniquity, hath executed true judgment between man and man, [9] Hath walked in my statutes, and hath kept my judgments, to deal truly; he is just, he shall surely live, saith the Lord G-d.

At this point, it should be fairly obvious that the prophets, at G-d's instructions, stressed how important the Torah is.

Malachi 3:5 And I will come near to you to judgment; and I will be a swift witness against the sorcerers, and against the adulterers, and against false swearers, and against those that oppress the hireling in his wages, the widow, and the fatherless, and that turn aside the stranger from his right, and fear not me, saith the Lord of hosts. [6] For I am the Lord, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed. [7] Even from the days of your fathers ye are gone away from mine ordinances, and have not kept them. Return unto me, and I will return unto you, saith the Lord of hosts. But ye said, Wherein shall we return?
G-d does not change. If He doesn't change, what makes one think that His law or the requirements that come with it changed? Malachi was the last of the prophets. Just before he tells us Elijah the prophet will return at the end of days, he gives us a message of paramount significance.

Malachi 3:23 Remember the Torah of Moses My servant, which I commanded him at Horeb for all of Israel -- [its] decrees and [its] statutes. (Artscroll)

This verse (4:4 in Christian versions) tells us the way. G-d will return to us if we return to Him. How do we return to Him? We return through the Torah of Moses, His servant, our teacher.

2 Kings 17:37 And the statutes, and the ordinances, and the law, and the commandment, which He wrote for you, ye shall observe to do for evermore; and ye shall not fear other gods.

This is not a difficult concept to grasp. The prophets repeatedly told us that we have to perform the Torah forevermore, and then Paul came along and said otherwise. That makes Paul a false prophet, because he contradicted Moses.

G-d formulated the Torah. The Torah is perfection. For a Christian to say the Torah is anything less is to insult G-d. G-d gave the Torah to Moses. Moses taught it to the children of Israel. Moses told us that this was the way it was going to be forever. It's that simple.

Copyright © 2001, Michael Levy for http://response.messiahtruth.com/.All rights reserved.
Messiah Truth