Evidence: What is the evidence for the Mount Sinai Event that is so difficult to dispute?

First, let’s differentiate between “difficult to dispute” and “indisputable.” I don’t believe there’s indisputable evidence for any event of history. All we can do is apply the same criteria we apply to everyday situations. When we sit in the dentist’s chair, we don’t demand “indisputable proof” that he’s a dentist. There’s the possibility that he’s not. Really—it’s happened. But that’s how life goes—you take the most likely scenario.

The MSE (Mount Sinai Event) is the most likely scenario to explain the Jewish people. Any other scenario is **very** difficult.

The evidence for the MSE has been discussed by many classic Jewish writers. The best known—but not the only—proof is that stated by Rabbi Yehuda HaLevi in his book known as the Kuzari: “The Mount Sinai Event is the central event of Jewish history, theology and consciousness. It is the shared memory of an entire people who claim to have heard the Creator of the Universe speaking to them en masse. It’s far too outrageous to be a myth—how could you possibly convince an entire nation of such an event if it never happened? People would say, ”Why did my father never tell me any of this?” The very fact that no other people ever came up with anything like it screams out its veracity.”

It’s too difficult to convince people of a historical event of this sort that never happened. This means that historical events involving masses of people are very difficult to make up. That’s why legends and mythology are always about private or “biographical” events. For example, a certain person, or small group of people, were told something by G-d (or “the gods”). Or a great hero wrestled a monster before a handful of villagers. Those things are easy to make up. But to come to a people and say, “Guess what! Your father and mother may never have told you this, but all of our ancestors experienced this cataclysmic event that forged our entire history ever since!” You’ve got a hard sell.

Why would you want to make such a sale? So that people will obey these commandments, I suppose. Which leaves a very good question: If this is such a good way to get people to follow the laws of your society, why didn’t any other people come up with the idea? Why does everybody else either claim their laws were handed to a single individual or small group, or simply admit that they were made by human beings? For the reason I gave above: It’s too difficult to convince people of an historical event of this sort that never happened.

You might say, “Well, maybe they took some minor event and just kept exaggerating it over the centuries?” This could happen. People love to add on to stories.

However, when this occurs we inevitably end up with highly diverse, multiple versions of the story—sometimes so diverse they are no longer recognizable as the same story. In our case, there is only one version of the story, accepted by not only all Jews until recent times, but also the ancient Romans and all Christians and Moslems. This can only be attributed to the preservation of a consistent written account.

But, as I wrote the **real** problem for most people is not the evidence or lack thereof, but the difficulty they have in conceiving such an event. It simply does not fit into their normative realm of experience. That is why I wrote what I wrote—simply to relate it more to that which we know and understand.

Rabbi Tzvi Freeman
http://www.askmoses.com/article.html?h=416&o=399

Refutation: The concept of a New Testament in Judaism

Behold the days are coming says the L-rd when I will make a new
covenant with the house of Israel and the House of Judah.(Jer 31:30-
31 quot in Heb 8:8-12, 10:16) Christians claim that this is prove
that the old covenant will be abolished for the new one of J.c(HV)

1)Verse 33 says "I will put my Torah within them". It does not say
new Torah, it is the same Torah put it will become a permanent part
and will not be forgotten as in the past

2)It says in verse 34 "No longer will they need to teach one
another . . .for all of them, from the least to them to the greatest,
shall heed Me, declares the L-rd" If the Christians have to go out
into the world to tell people about G-d is proof that he did not
fulfill this prophecy.

Here are some verse which show that the covenant of G-d will never end.

3) (Ecc 13:14)"Whatever G-d decrees shall be forever; nothing shall
be added to it nothing shall be taken away."

4) (Is 40:18)" The word of the L-rd shall stand firm forever"

5) (Num 19:21)"and it shall be law for all time"

6) (Num 15:14)". . .There shall be one law for you and for the Ger
(Convert), it shall be a law for all time throughout the ages."

7) (Num 15:21)"You shall make a gift to the L-rd from the first yield
of your baking, throughout the ages"

8) (Ex 31:16)"The Israelites people shall keep the Shabbat, observing
the Shabbat throughout the ages as a covenant fro all time."

9) (Dt 4:2) "Every word which the I command you. You shall observe
and do Thou shalt not add unto it nor diminish it"

10)(Ps 119)

11) (Dt 4:40) "Observe His laws and commandments, which I enjoin upon
you this day, that it may go well with you and your children after
you and you may live in the land that the L-rd your G-d is assigning
to you for all time."

12) (Num 15:23) "All that the L-rd commanded you by the hand of Moses
from the day that the L-rd gave commandments and onward throughout
your generations."

13)(Ex 12:17) "And you shall observe the (commandment of) Unleavened
bread . . .you shall observe this day throughout your generations as
an ordinance forever."

14) (Is 49:14) " But Zion says, The L-rd has forsaken me, and my L-rd
has forgotten me. Can a woman forget her sucking child, that she
should not have compassion on the son of her womb? Yes, even they may
forget, but I will not forget you"

http://qumran.com/Refuting_Christianity/no_such_concept.htm

Analysis: The religion of "Christianity"

A Primer: Why Jews Can't Believe in Jesus

By Bruce H. James
© 1999, 2000, 2001

Christian missionaries in every Jewish forum I've ever visited have
asked that single question. Although there are many knowledgeable
people who address the question accurately, very often the questions
and the answers appear in the middle of threads and take some
searching to find. So, below, I'm reprinting (with some new
information) a piece I started in another Delphi.com forum.

I. The concept that there is a "New Covenant" that replaces the
various Covenants between G-d and the Jewish people, is illegitimate.

A. The Torah as a Contract

The Torah (the Five books of Moses, i.e. Genesis through
Deuteronomy), which constitutes the basis of Jewish Law and the
prophecy of Moshe Rabeinu (Moses our teacher), tells us in several
places that it is also an "Everlasting Covenant" between Israel and
the All Mighty. In the 28th and 29th Chapters of Deuteronomy we see a
summary of the terms (also described in Leviticus) of the contract.
It instructs us that if we observe the mitzvot (commandments
described throughout the Torah), we would receive manifold blessings,
but if not there would be series of punishments, each increasingly
worse. But at any time, the Torah says, we can "cure" (a legal term
for resolving any breach of contract) our breach of contract by doing
tshuva (repentence) and once again observing the mitzvot.

B. The Torah Cannot Be Replaced

In the Book of Deuteronomy G-d tells us that He has given us the
complete Torah and that, "Lo bashamayim hee" (It shall not come from
Heaven), there would be no further revelations related to the Law or
amendments to the Contract. Deut. 30:12. See also Deut. 4:2 ("Ye
shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye
diminish from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your
G-d which I command you.")

C. There Have Been Many "New Covenants," But None Has, or Can Replace
the Torah

The Covenant at Mt. Sinai was not the first, nor the last covenant
between G-d and the Jewish people. See, e.g. Gen. 8 (with Noah); Gen.
17 (with Abraham); Gen. 28:10-22 (with Jacob); Joshua 1 (with Jewish
people who crossed into Israel). In every case, the prior covenant
was not replaced, but merely reaffirmed, expanded or codified
existing practice. Not one of those covenants is or has ever
been "obsolete." Yet, missionaries claim that the Torah ? G-d's
Covenant with the Jewish people as a whole -- has been superceded by
a "New Covenant" and replaced by a "New Testament." Hebrews 8:13. In
support of their position they refer to the Jeremiah 31:31-34 where
the prophet predicted that there would be a "new covenant" in the
Messianic Age. Indeed, Jeremiah did make such a prediction, but the
verse implies no rejection of the Covenant of the Torah (aka "the
Law"), but rather says that the Law shall be "inscribed in the
hearts" of the Jewish people (i.e. they will not have to study the
Law, as before, but all of its details will be known "by heart" and
practiced by every Jew without question.

D. The "New Testament's" Differing Views of the Torah

The main source for missionaries in their claim that G-d has
supplanted Judaism with Christianity is the Christian Bible. Yet, it
appears to be an unreliable source and the result of a tortured
editing process between the followers of Paul, and those of James,
the half-brother of Jesus. This is especially apparent with regard to
their different views of Torah law. The Epistles of Paul say not only
that the Torah was replaced by the "New Covenant," but that is also
something that was "obsolete" (Heb. 8:13), "kills" (2 Corin. 3:6) and
a "curse" (Galatians 3:13). This is not only an insult to the Jewish
people, but an insult to G-d! Missionaries who follow these teachings
(nearly all of them as far as I can tell) suggest that G-d knew, when
He gave the Torah to the Jewish people, that they would never be able
to fulfill it. Put another way, G-d created doomed His Chosen people
from the start and that He had no intention to fulfill all of the
promises He made in His contract with them. This is absurd. Why would
G-d do that? Was the Omniscient G-d only playing with us? This view
of Paul that the Torah was impossible to follow is directly
contradicted by the Torah itself. The Torah, it says, "is not too
hard for thee, neither is it far off." Deut. 30:11. King David called
the Torah Laws "perfect," "sure, making wise the simple," and "pure,
enlightening the eyes." Ps. 19:8-9. Compare Paul's comments with
those by Jesus and James. Jesus, himself accepted the Torah as
obligatory, saying that not only was the Written Torah eternal, but
accepted the understanding of the Pharisees (the rabbis whose
teachings would be later recorded in the Mishna, which is part of the
Talmud) that the Written Torah is supplemented by an Oral Torah which
provides details about how to fulfill the commandments, and that
these regulations were taught by Moses and passed down from
generation to generation. In Matt. 23:2-3, Jesus says that the
Pharisees "sit in the seat of Moses; therefore all they tell you, do
and observe." His brother James, too, required strict observance of
the Torah Law in its entirety. James 2:10-11. These conflicting
testimonies, along with numerous explicit contradictions between the
Christian Bible and the Hebrew Scriptures, makes the Christian Bible
suspect either as an accurate historical account or as the Word of G-
d.

II. Judaism believes in One G-d.

A. G-d is One.

As every Jewish child learns, "Shema Yisroel, HaShem Elokeynu, HaShem
Echad" ("Hear or Israel, the Lord is G-d, the Lord is One"). Deut.
6:4. This is a very simple and fundamental concept. G-d is One.

B. The Trinity.

Christians give lip service to the Shema, but their theology says
that there is a Trinity -- G-d, Jesus (the "son of G-d") and
the "Holy Ghost." They will try to teach you that this Trinity of
three entities is really just one, like a "bunch of grapes" is one.
But the Torah is very precise in its language. Throughout the Torah
if echad is to be applied to a bunch of something, the word "agudat,"
or a form of the word, would be used. Christians cite to Gen. 1:5
("v'ai yehi erev, v'ai yehi boker, yom echad" -- ". . . and there was
evening and there was morning one day") to suggest that echad
modifies morning and evening and puts them together into a "bunch."
Clearly, it only modifies the word "day." Similarly, they quote
Numbers 13:23 which describes how the Israeli spies cut down a branch
with one ("echad") cluster of grapes. But here, too, echad modifies
the word "cluster" and not grapes. In the Shema, echad modifies the
word "G-d" and means precisely what it says -- "one." Moreover, if
the Torah wanted us to know that G-d was more than One it would have
told us then about the Trinity instead of making a specific point
that there was only One G-d.

III. The Requirements for the Messiah and Christian Contradictions.

A. Here is just a brief list of some of the requirements for the
Messiah:

(1) He must be Jewish (see Deut. 17:15; Numb. 24:17);
(2) He must be descended from Judah (Gen. 49:10) and Solomon
(numerous places, but see I Chron 22:9-10);
(3) With the coming of the Messiah will be the physical ingathering
of Judah from the four corners of the earth (Isa. 11:12, 27:12-13);
(4) Also with coming of the Messiah will be the reestablishment of
the Holy Temple (Micah 4:1);
(5) In addition the Messianic age will be one of world-wide peace
(Isa. 2:4, 11:6, Micah 4:3); and, finally,
(6) In the Messianic age the entire world will believe in G-d (Isa.
11:9, 40:5; Zephaniah 3:9).

B. Satisfying the Criteria -- the Geneology Problem

Even if Christians could establish that (a) Jesus existed and (b)
Jesus was Jewish, they would have trouble proving that (c) Jesus was
descended from Judah and Solomon. Both of the detailed geneologies in
Matthew and Luke trace Joseph's lineage to King David, albeit
differently since Matt. 1:16 says that a fellow named Jacob was
Jospeph's father, and Luke 3:23 tells us that Joseph was the son of
Eli. (It seems that that family had a lot of problems determining
fatherhood.) But these geneologies are bogus because Matthew tells us
that Joseph wasn't the father of Jesus, but that he was born of
immaculate conception! Since we know that geneology runs from the
father (Numbers 1:18; 2:2), Jesus cannot claim descendency from
Judah.

C. No Messianic Era.

Even still, Christians still have a problem because they still can't
establish points 3, 4, 5, or 6 in paragraph A, above. Saying that
those events will happen in a Second coming is circular at best and
contradicts Revelations 22:20 ("Yes, I am coming quickly.")

IV. Trial and Error

The story most central to the Christian Bible is the trial,
crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus. As noted above, the prophets
anticipated only a general resurrection of the righteous, not one
limited to the messiah, so I won't address that further here. But the
N.T.'s account of the trial and crucifixion of Jesus greatly
conflicts with what the Torah and Talmud tell us about the Jewish
system of legal juris prudence at the time of the Second Temple.

A. Background: the Jewish legal system during the Second Temple

As a starter, you should have some background into some relevant
fundamentals of the Jewish legal system in effect during the Second
Temple.

1. First: No trials of any kind were held on any day but Mondays and
Thursdays, which were market days and ensured the highest chance that
witnesses could be found and available. (In addition, it was believed
that those are the days when G-d's holy court was in session.)
Furthermore, no trial could be held on a Jewish festival such as the
first or last day of Passover. Source: Talmud tractate Beitzah.

2. Second: Jewish law requires (then and now) that a person accused
of a capital crime be convicted only if (a) two valid witnesses come
forward and testify that the accused was warned that doing X would
result in the death penalty; and (b) two valid witnesses testified
that after the warning, the accused violated the law anyway. A false
witness was liable to the same punishment as would have been given to
the accused -- hence a strong deterrent against perjury. Moreover, a
defendant could not be convicted on his own testimony. These are
fundamental principles you'll find in the Torah itself. E.g. Deut.
16:6

3. Third: When one stands accused of a capital crime, a towncryer was
to go out through the community and announce that so-and-so was
accused of such and such and is being tried at such and such time. In
addition, the towncryer was to also announce that any witnesses
favorable to the defendant should step forward to the Sanhedrin. This
was not a short process and could not be done in a single day.
Source: Talmud tractate Sanhedrin.

4. Fourth: Execution was only permitted by four methods under Torah
law: stoning, burning, beheading and strangulation. These are the
words used in the translation, but the Talmud explains that "burning"
required that the convicted felon dring a liquid metal that would
kill him immediately, and that beheading did not mean literally to
remove the head, but merely severage of the windpipe and the artery
to the brain, resulting in immediate death also. The Talmud taught
that these methods were all designed to limit disfigurement of the
body and result in rapid death with limited pain. Torture was
forbidden under Torah law. I believe that this is all discussed in
Tractate Yevamos, but I'm not certain off hand. But in Yevamos there
is discussion of crucifixion as a strictly Roman practice.
Furthermore, it was taught that if a person testified (on behalf of a
widow seeking proof of her husband's death) that so and so was
crucified, but he did not actually see the body after death, then
there is no proof of death as people had been known to survive
cruicifixion.

5. Fifth: The Torah strictly prohibits a body of an executed criminal
from being hung out for view past nightfall. Deut. 21:22-24.
Furthermore, it would be prohibited to transport a body through a
public area to a private area (such as a cave) on the Sabbath. Talmud
Tractate Shabbos.

6. And sixth: The death penalty was carried out rarely in Israel.
According to Rabbi Akiva, if an execution occurred more than once in
seventy years, that court would be considered a "bloody court" and
would have a stained reputation. Besides the issue of a stigma on the
court, executions were rare because of the high standards of evidence
required for a conviction. To put this in context, Texas, this year
alone, executed 40 prisoners.

B. With these six principles in mind, lets examine the trial and
execution of Jesus.

1. First, the NT says that the trial was on a Friday, and that on the
night before, Jesus celebrated the Passover meal with his disciples.
Accordingly, that would mean that his trial was on the first day of
Passover. Here is a violation of two legal principles -- his trial
was not on a Thursday or Monday as required, and it was on a holiday
when no trials whatsoever could be held.

2. Second, there were no witnesses of a warning to Jesus and no
witnesses of his actual crime. The NT account of his trial shows that
he was convicted on his own testimony. This is a severe violation of
the Torah.

3. Third, there is no account in the NT of any call for defense
witnesses.

4. Fourth, the choice of execution methods violates Torah completely.
If convicted for Sabbath violation or false prophecy, the appropriate
punishment was stoning. Why use a Roman torture method that took days
to kill the felon, if it did at all, and resulted in a mutilated
corpse?

5. Fifth, if the trial and execution were indeed held on Friday,
there are several problems, including limited time for a trial, and
limited time for the execution. A crucifixion on a Friday afternoon
was certain to run over through Shabbat and then later. Assuming that
the 120 judges of the Sanhedrin would have permitted a crucifixion
(which is unlikely), one would doubt that they would have risked
having Jesus die on the cross after the Sabbath began Friday night.
Because of the Sabbath laws, they would have been unable to carry the
corpse to a burial site, and leaving the corpse on the cross
overnight would be a Torah violation.

6. Finally, sixth, there is no record teaching that the court of that
era was known to be reckless with the use of the death penalty. Yet,
not only was Jesus crucified, but so were two petty criminals,
according to the NT, and their crimes did not even justify the death
penalty under Jewish law.

C. G-d needed to experience pain?

One more note: With the rushed trial and execution, Jesus could not
have been put on the cross until 1 or 2 in the afternoon. And then
he's taken down before sundown. That means, at most, he spent just
four or five hours on the cross. If G-d wanted to understand the
suffering of man, and did so by living the life of Jesus, you would
think he would have hung there and taken the pain a little longer.

Taken together, these discrepencies between the Jewish legal system
and the depiction of the trial and crucifixion of Jesus raise grave
questions regarding the credibility of the account.

V. Abuse and Misquotes of the Hebrew Bible

A. Isaiah 53. Who Was the "Suffering Servant"?

Missionaries commonly Isaiah 53 as a proof text that the Messiah will
suffer for the people's sins. E.g.:

"(3)He was despised and rejected by men; a man of sorrows, and
acquainted with sickness; and we hid as it were our faces from him;
he was despised, and we esteemed him not:
(4)Surely he has borne our sicknesses, and carried our sorrows; yet
we esteemed him stricken, struck by God, and afflicted:
(5)But he was wounded because of our transgressions, he was bruised
because of our iniquities; his sufferings were that we might have
peace; and by his injury we are healed:
(6)All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to
his own way; and the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all:
(7)He was oppressed, but he humbled himself and opened not his mouth;
he was brought like a lamb to the slaughter, and like a sheep, that
is dumb before its shearers, he did not open his mouth:
(8)By oppression and false judgment was he taken away; and of his
generation who considered? For he was cut off from the land of the
living, stricken for the transgression of my people:
(9)And they made his grave among the wicked, and his tomb among the
rich; although he had done no violence, and there was no deceit in
his mouth:"

On its face it sounds convincing in retrospect knowing what we know
about Jesus from the NT only. But, who is the "he" referred to in the
verses? Let's trace it back a few lines to the previous chapter (52),
where the discussion of what "he" will do begins. At 52:13 it appears
to begin with "Behold, my servant shall prosper, he shall be exalted
and extolled, and be very high."

OK, so now we know that "he" is G-d's "servant." But who is G-
d's "servant"? Let's trace our steps a little further. In Isaiah 41:8
the question is answered: "But Israel is my servant." The next line,
Isaiah 41:9, adds some more: "You are my servant, I have chosen you
and not cast you away." Just so we shouldn't miss the point, Isaiah
quotes G-d saying: "Fear not, O Jacob, my servant; and you, Jeshurun,
whom I have chosen." (Is 44:2); "Remember these, O Jacob and Israel,
for you are my servant. I have formed you; you are my servant; O
Israel, you shall not be forgotten by Me." (Is 44:21); "For the sake
of My servant Jacob, Israel My chosen one." (Is. 45:4); and "You are
My servant, Israel in whom I glory." (Is 49:3). Get it? Israel -- not
a person -- is the servant whose suffering is predicted in Isaiah 53.
Certainly we Jews have suffered through our years on this earth. G-d
also promises that we will do well: See Isaiah 52:12-15 ("For you
shall not go out with haste, nor go by flight; for the Lord will go
before you; and the God of Israel will be your rear guard. Behold, my
servant shall prosper, he shall be exalted and extolled, and be very
high.")

In Chapters 52 and 53, Isaiah's prophecy gives Jews today a good look
at their history over the last 2500 years or so. We've had both good
times and suffered like no one else. But we are still around, and it
is the Jewish Torah and the other Hebrew Scriptures that three of the
four major religions on earth are based upon. Isaiah would not have
been surprised, except to hear that his prophecy has been misused by
missionaries to apply to Jesus.

Another perspective regarding these chapters is that the Messiah will
indeed suffer as do all righteous men and women in their generations.
Why do they suffer? One view brought down in the Talmud is that some
people in the world live lives of relative sin for which their
punishments in this world would be great. But G-d understands that
many people would not react to Divine punishment with greater faith
in G-d; they might even lose faith. Accordingly, the rabbis believed
that G-d lightened such people's punishments but put them instead
upon righteous Jews. These are called "afflictions of love" and are
given to the righteous because it is assumed that they will
understand that receiving punishment from G-d is an act of love, just
as a punishment given by a father to a child is given with love so
that the child will learn and grow. Righteous Jews in every
generation have suffered greatly, either from external causes such as
the Holocaust, or from grave and painful illnesses, lack of children,
and more. The view along this line says that the Messiah would
naturally suffer like any other righteous Jew. So even if we take
this position that the Messiah will be a "suffering servant" by and
of itself, suffering is no proof that one is the Messiah.

B. Isaiah 7:14 -- Virgin or Not?

A center point of Christian belief is in that Mary conceived Jesus
without sex. Matthew 1:22-23 states: "Now all this took place that
what has spoken by the L-ord through the prophet might be fulfilled
saying: 'Behold the virgin shall be with child and shall bear a son
and they shall call his name Immanuel, which translated means, 'G-d
with us.'"

In the King James Version (KJV) of the Bible, the translation of
Isaiah 7:14 seems to be the prophecy Matthew spoke of: "Therefore the
L-rd himself will give you a sign: Behold a virgin will be with child
and bear a son and she will call his name Immanuel" (KJV).

But wait! The Hebrew text (of which a 1900 year-old version is on
display in the Israel Museum) doesn't mention anything about
a "virgin." The Hebrew word for virgin is "betulah" but it appears
nowhere in this text. The word used is "almah" which refers to a
young woman, but not a virgin! Isaiah only uses the word once. But he
knew how to use the word "betulah" -- he uses it five times.

Another problem with the text is that it is not a prophecy with
respect to the coming of the Messiah. If one reads the entire
chapter, one sees that flaw immediately. The birth of the child,
Immanuel, was to be a sign from G-d to King Ahaz, who lived at least
500 years before Jesus. The sign is meant to convince Ahaz that he
shouldn't worry about the two invading armies. A simple analogy is in
old spy movies where the spy meets someone secretly and recognizes
him because he is standing in a pre-arranged spot, wears clothing and
ornaments that are relatively unique, and says something that would
not seem remarkable except for the spy expecting to hear it. Clearly,
the sign for Ahaz is something that would seem unremarkable to most
people -- a young woman has given birth to a boy whom she happens to
name Immanuel, which was perhaps not the most popular name in those
days. But to Ahaz it is a special sign that had meaning 500 years
before Jesus, and apparently occurred.

Christian missionaries, nevertheless, will tell you that this sign
also was meant to predict who the Messiah was. Moreover, they will
say that an "almah" can be a virgin. Well, I doubt the first
argument. It is absurd to think that G-d would give him a sign Ahaz
needs right away that will not occur for another 500 years. The
second issue is also absurd. Can you imagine poor Ahaz going to each
household asking new mothers if they were virgins or not? Poor Ahaz
would have thought to be totally screwy and would have been
overthrown.

A final problem with the text is that it predicts that the child
would be called "Immanuel." Jesus was not called "Immanuel," he was
called "Jesus."

Why did the Christians manufacture a prophecy about a virgin birth --
something that is not required of the Messiah? The answer is clear.
When the Jews did not accept Jesus as the Messiah (because the many
preconditions for the Messianic era had not been fulfilled), the
Church faced the real threat that non-Jews would reject him too. So
Paul did two things: He issued an order that said that a Christian no
longer had to observe Jewish laws (Acts 15), and he introduced a few
pagan myths into the new Christian religion so that it would appeal
to the pagan gentiles. One such myth concerned the god Attis, who was
worshiped in Western Asia (where Paul actively preached). According
to The Golden Bough, by Frazier, Attis was born from a virgin. He
later was mutilated and bled to death. The worship of Attis involved
an effigy of him that was hung. Afterwards it would be buried in a
cave, and when the tomb was reopened, the god Attis would rise from
the dead and softly whisper glad tidings of salvation. In the Roman
worship of Attis, an animal's blood, symbolic of the blood of Attis,
would be poured on worshipers. They believed that his blood would
wash away the worshipers sins. (Like Early Christians, worshipers of
Attis also practiced celibacy). The two religions are so close that
it cannot be a coincidence. Rather, Paul introduced these ideas into
the worship of Jesus. Hence, he had to manufacture in Tanach a
prophecy that the Messiah would be immaculately conceived.

C. Psalm 22: Crucifixion Foretold???

In an old Jews for Jesus brochure I saved from my college days, there
is a section that quotes several Biblical verses which they say
foretell the life of Christ. One of these is Psalms 22:16, which they
translate as "They pierced my hands and feet." This supposedly
foretells the crucifixion of Jesus where his hands and feet were
pierced by the nails that hung him to the cross. One problem, it
doesn't work in Hebrew.

The Psalm describes the angst of the psalmist (I think David) who is
surrounded by enemies and asks why G-d has forsaken him. Psalms
22:16, which in Hebrew says "k'ari b'yadai v'raglai" ("Like a lion
(the enemies) are at my hands and feet"). The disputed word here
is "k'ari" which is spelled kaph - aleph - resh - yud. Most graduates
of a Hebrew school education know that an ari is a lion, and that the
use of the letter "kaph" before a word means "like" or "as." The
Christians appear to have invented a new Hebrew word which they
pronounce "koari" yet no such word exists in Hebrew with the same
spelling. There is a similar sounding word to koari that is used to
mean to dig, or perhaps bore (as in a hole), although there are
better words for that. But the spelling is much different. In "koari"
there is no letter aleph as there is in the word k'ari and no
grammatical reason for dropping it.

D. Psalm 110 -- One Lord or Two?

In Matthew 22:41-44, there is a reported conversation between Jesus
and the Pharisees concerning the genealogy of the Messiah. The
Pharisees said that the Messiah will be the son of David, and Jesus
reportedly counted: "'How then does David in the spirit call
him 'Lord,' saying: 'The Lord said to my Lord, "Sit at My right hand,
till I make your enemies your footstool"? If David then called him
Lord, how is he his son?' And no one was able to answer him a word,
neither did any man from that day forth ask him any more questions."
This conversation could not have happened! Matthew is referring to
Psalm 110:1, and is based on a clear mistranslation. The first "Lord"
in the sentence is properly capitalized because it uses the four-
letter Hebrew name for G-d, the Yud kay vav kay. We would pronounce
that in prayer as "Adonai," which means Lord and only applies to G-d.
The second "Lord" is improperly capitalized because the Hebrew word
used at that point is "adoni" which means "my lord" and only refers
to a human. So Psalms 110:1 should read: "The Lord said unto my lord,
sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool." So
who is the second and lower-cased "lord"? King David. This psalm
begins "LeDavid Mizmor" (A song to David as opposed to by David).
Accordingly, the song is written for David and makes him the subject
of the first sentence. With that knowledge, the rest of the psalm
makes perfect sense, G-d is giving much needed comfort to the King of
Israel. Alternatively, it can be understood as a psalm written by
David to be sung by the Levite choir praising him after his death.

Certainly any Pharisee would have known the meaning of Psalm 110 and
would not have been confused by "Adonai" versus "adoni". It is not so
clear that a Greek-educated story teller with little or no Jewish
training, and a Christian axe to grind, would have been so
knowledgeable. The story in Matthew then must be made up and judged
self-serving.

Yet despite the obvious mistranslation, Psalms 110:1, continues to be
misused by missionaries to prove that the Messiah sits at G-d's right
hand and is like G-d. Judaism, however, believes that the Messiah is
a human being, not a god.

http://qumran.com/Refuting_Christianity/a_primer.htm

Refutation: The Islamic Claim on Deuteronomy 18

Claim: The Torah Itself Predicts Mohammed as a Prophet

Many Muslims will claim that the Torah itself (apparently the "uncorrupted" part) predicts the coming of their so-called prophet some time after the giving of the Torah. All Bible translations are directly from the Hebrew, all of them literal.

Where Did They Get That Idea?

The relevant verse of the Torah is as follows:

Deuteronomy 18:18 A prophet I will raise up for them from amongst their brethren like you and I will give my words into his lips and he will speak about them all that I command him.

We must ask the following: who is "I", who is "you", who is "them/their"? "I" is G-d, "you" is Moses, "them/their" refers to the Israelites.

So a paraphrase could be: G-d will raise up for the Israelites a prophet from the Israelites' brethren some time in the future that will be like Moses and speak the words of G-d.

Having established that, what's the connection?

The assertion is that "from amongst their brethren" refers to the Ishmaelites, and as Muslims assert many times, Mohammed is descended from Abraham through Ishmael.

In order to properly analyze this, I will not make a table comparing Moses, Jesus, and Mohammed, as many do on both Christian and Muslim websites in order to pervert the meaning of this verse.

Instead, I will make a minor sidestep into the world of Jewish thought.

For those of us that do not have the presumption that the Torah is wrong and faulty, there is a list of thirteen basic rules on how to deduce meaning from the Torah. They are provided as the introduction to Sifre, and are recited in the preliminary portion of the daily morning prayers.

Just as in the Torah where there are laws that are obviously "just" and those that we cannot comprehend, a parallel applies here. Some rules make sense, and others are assertions of rules. I will make use of two rules that make a good deal of sense.

Rule number 2 states quite simply "mig'zerah shavah" which means "From a decree of equality".

Rule number 12 is that "davar halamed m'inyano, v'davar halamed m'sofo" which is often translated like "An item is taught/clarified from it's context, or from nearby verses."

Why these two rules? Rule number 2 tells us that if we have a word in one location that is vague, and the same word elsewhere more clear, we can use one to clarify the other. The reason for the second rule will be evident shortly.

The Rebuttal

Just a chapter back, in Deuteronomy 17, we find a similar phrase, but the voice is different. This time Moses is delivering a message from G-d directly to the Israelites, speaking to the Israelites as a single group, instead of us hearing what G-d says to Moses.

Deuteronomy 17:15 You shall put (appoint) upon yourself a king that G-d will pick him; from amongst your brethren you shall appoint a king; you will not be able to give upon yourself a foreign man that is not your brother.

This verse, just a chapter behind the verse about the prophet is quite explicit. It uses the phrase "amongst (their/your) brethren" and then clarifies that a foreigner, which is definitely a non-Israelite, is not the Israelite's brother.

For further explicitness of the term foreigner, let's turn to Exodus 12.

Exodus 12:43 And G-d said to Moses and Aaron: This is the ordinance of the Passover offering, every son of a foreigner shall not eat of it.

Conclusion

Since we can now see that a foreigner does not take part of something as central as the Passover celebration, which is incumbant on all Israelite males when the Temple stands, we can see that a foreigner is simply a non-Israelite, and it doesn't matter their genealogy.
That being said, we have also shown that a foreigner is someone who is not from "amongst the brethren" of the Israelites.

Source: http://messiahtruth.com/islam18.html

Analysis: The religion of "Islam"

From "messiahtruth.com":

Using logical analysis, let us examine the primary proofs used for Islam.

1) The Claim of Corruption in the Bible -- Do Muslims offer proof supporting corruption in the Bible? Yes, they do. Where do they derive this proof? They derive it mainly from atheists whose aim in pointing out "contradictions" is to convince people that G-d does not exist. For someone who already believes in G-d's existence, this should seem to be a rather questionable ethic. Secondly, Muslim apologists will sort through biblical archeology and biblical criticism, each of which range from both ends of the spectrum, from supporting the Bible 100% all the way to saying that the Bible is 100% fiction. Once having done that, they present the material that is best suited for their purposes, never telling anyone what a hot issue biblical criticism is, or that for every negative view, there is an equal and opposite positive view. Thirdly, the Qu'ran itself says that the word of G-d cannot be altered, all the while making the claim that the Bible was originally the word of G-d but corrupted by man. This is a contradiction in itself. If the Torah was the word of G-d, that means, according to the Qu'ran, that it is categorically impossible for man to change it. Hence, using Muslim logic, the Torah we have in our hands today is the same Torah that Moses handed down to the Jews at Mount Sinai.

2) Mohammed's Illiteracy -- Even when he lived, proving this would be problematic. The possibility that this is a lie exists, alongside the impossibility of proving that Mohammed was illiterate. Taken into account with the fact that the Qu'ran quotes from Jewish sources such as the Mishnah (the legal part of the Oral Torah, committed to writing around the year 170 CE) and the Midrash (a separate part of the Oral Torah, dealing with extra details of stories in biblical texts, committed to writing around the same time), this "proof" of Islam's legitimacy wears somewhat thin.

3) Miracles -- As with any religion, miracles are claimed. Islam claims some very famous miracles, such as the splitting of the moon. Realistically, had this happened, everyone on Arabia's side of the planet would have seen it, yet no one else ever wrote anything about it. Less advanced peoples would likely have used this to start their own new religions! In speculation, the Catholic Church might have found some way of using it to reinforce Christianity in places distant from where Mohammed was. Since they are objectively unverifiable, the credibility of Islam's claims of miracles is identical to Christianity, no more credible and no less credible.

4) The Arabic Language -- The claim is made that if a person were to learn the Arabic language, and read the Qu'ran in the original tongue, the person would be totally convinced that it had a Divine author. There are problems with this proof as well. Firstly, this is far too subjective to use as reliable proof. What inspires one person might not inspire another. Secondly, this interferes with us explaining the creative genius of figures like Einstein in the sciences, or Michelangelo in the arts. Should we assume Judaism is true because Einstein was inexplicably brilliant and also a Jew? Should we assume Christianity is true because Michelangelo's art was beautiful and he was a Christian? Of course not. Thirdly, less than one thousand years ago, Arabic was the most common language spoken by the Jewish people, replacing Aramaic, which had been their common language for approximately 1500 years, since the Babylonian Exile. Moses Maimonides (or Rambam, the acronym name by which he is known to the Jews) lived under Muslim rule and wrote his great works under Muslim rule. Among those works is the Moreh Nevuchim (The Guide for the Perplexed), which was written in Arabic to reach the largest possible audience. Maimonides had a brilliant mind, knew the entire Jewish Bible, the Talmud, and numerous other Jewish writings exceedingly well, in addition to being the personal physician of the sultan of Egypt. Jews have known Arabic, Jews have read the Qu'ran in the original tongue, and Jews such as Maimonides have been completely unimpressed by it (for reasons such as those listed at the end of item #2).

5) Rapid Conquest -- Shortly after Islam began, Muslim armies conquered a great deal of the world in a rather short time. Muslims attribute this as proof that Islam is true. Is this proof? Alexander the Great conquered what he had thought was the entire world before he died. Alexander, by all contemporary accounts, was a pagan idol worshipper. Are we to attribute Alexander's success to his gods (heaven forbid!)? Secondly, the book of Genesis tells us that G-d promised Abraham that Ishmael would become a great nation. The indoctrination of Islam into the Arab population and the subsequent conquest can surely be interpreted as a fulfillment of that prophecy.

So, when we examine these proofs with even a superficial eye, we see that they do not hold water. Even more so if we were to examine them under greater scrutiny.

http://messiahtruth.com/analysisi.html

Analysis: Quran Confusion

It is always interesting when reading what the Quran says about Pharaoh. I mean, with the Tower of Babel and Haman running around during his time period according to the Quran, I am pretty confused when looking over that part. I then realised, did Pharaoh even die according to the Quran when Moses split the sea?

Was Pharaoh killed or not killed by drowning?

"We took the Children of Israel across the sea: Pharaoh and his hosts
followed them in insolence and spite. At length, when overwhelmed with the
flood, he said: "I believe that there is no god except Him Whom the
Children of Israel believe in: I am of those who submit (to Allah in Islam). (It was said to him): "Ah now!- But a little while before, wast thou in rebellion!- and thou didst mischief (and violence)! This day shall We save thee in the body, that thou mayest be a sign to those who come after thee! but verily, many among mankind are heedless of Our Signs!"
(10:90-92).

Moses said, "Thou knowest well that these things have been sent
down by none but the Lord of the heavens and the earth as eye-opening
evidence: and I consider thee indeed, O Pharaoh, to be one doomed to
destruction!" So he resolved to remove them from the face of the earth: but We did drown him and all who were with him,"
(17:102-103).

If your confused, so am I...

Did the deity of Islam save Pharaoh or drown him? And after we get by all that, why on earth do is Haman in this time period and the Tower of Babel as well!

Analysis: Karaism

To those who do not know, the Karaites are a sect that has declared that the Oral Law is not a part of Judaism. They believe only in the divinity of the Tanakh and when interpreting scripture, Karaites strive to adhere only to the p'shat (plain meaning) of the text. Followers of the sect which believe in "Reformism" have also denied the Oral Law, yet they deny the Written Law as well, so they will not be addressed here. Therefore, I call on the Karaites to answer these two questions:

1. The Torah commands that one who assaults his fellow must pay "an eye for an eye" (Exodus 21:24) Can you provide for me when in Jewish history physical punishment was meted for an assault?

2. Moses instructed the Jews to perform Kosher slaughter as "I have commanded you" (Deuteronomy 12:21). Can you find me in the Written Torah where he had commanded them?

Many similar illustrations can be given like those above. There is obviously a companion of the Written Law, which is of course the Oral Law. Without the Oral Law, the Written Law can be twisted and misinterpreted, which it certainly has been by the ignorant down through the centuries.

Sources: The Art Scroll Chumash (stone edition).

Refutation: Evolution II - "The Apple"

Either way you look at an apple, whether it was made for people or people were made for it, it shows awareness of human needs, and the human body shows awareness of what the apple offers. No matter which "adapted" to which, the question is: the ability to adapt, the fact that the body knew exactly how to digest those apples, how to grow in order to reach the apples, what limbs it needed to reach the apples, etc -- was that accident or intelligence?

That is the issue here - there are only two possibilities: (a) accident or (b) intelligence.

To say that it adapted or evolved just evades the question: adaptation and evolution are either accident or intelligence. Either a string of billions and trillions of perfectly aligned accidents or there is something in the organism that knows what direction it needs to evolve.

And don't forget - the organism needs the ability to be able to "evolve" to begin with. If we were all made of stone we couldn’t "evolve" lungs, etc.

So the proof still remains: the perfectly designed and aligned natural phenomenon could not have, by any reasonable odds, accidentally ended up this way.

And the only alternative to accident is intelligence.

It doesn't matter if the apple "adapted" for people or people "adapted" for the apple. Either way, accident is beyond believable odds.

What is referred to as "likelihood" of life evolving, still amounts to staggering odds. The numbers are too large to describe.

The fact that elements got together and life came from them is itself ridiculous by accident.

And the fact that life "knows" how to evolve is also impossible by accident.

You may not realize the level of coincidence that is needed to do this. Did your stomach "evolve" before the lining that protects it from the acids? If so, it would have been destroyed after the first meal. If the lining evolved before the acids, then nature must also be endowed with prophecy, because it was burdened for millions of years with some useless lining, until the acid evolved.

The chicken egg needed to be the right thickness - not too thick and not too thin - to allow the development and hatching of the chicken, from the start. Or else even one generation of chicken would not have been able to survive.

And even if, theoretically, all this did evolve, the fossil evidence would have to show the billions and billions of species that did not survive - the "non fittest" that fell by the wayside. For every survivable species, you are talking about countless non-survivors. The odds are ridiculous. And the fossil record so far has ONLY COME UP WITH VIABLE LIFE FORMS.

We still have no answer to the question; How does anyone account for the staggering odds of life forming by accident?

What the scientists are saying in essence is, "Yes, but it could happen."
Well, that is of course true, but then you would be unable to prove anything at all, because similarly, "It could always happen."

If G-d Himself would come and reveal Himself to the entire world an say "I am Hashem", that, too, by atheist standard wouldn't prove anything because a happy string of coincidences could account for natural sounds and sights that happened to have coincidently united at the right time and place to cause such a phenomenon.
It could happen.

Proof, in any other context other than atheists talking about G-d, is not expected to reach the level of absolute impossibility. There is no such thing as absolute impossibility. Anything "could" happen, as long as it is not an absurd concept that cannot exist (such as a triangle that is round).
You would send someone to the electric chair if you were a juror and the defendant’s fingerprints were found on the strangled victim's neck. A video of the murder, and perhaps 20 witnesses would make the verdict a no brainier.

But witnesses could lie, a video could be forged - one may even go so far as to claim that some technology exists out there that we are as yet unaware of that synthesized such a realistic video.

And please note, that there is no proof anywhere that says two people cannot have the same fingerprints. In fact, there is absolutely nothing in nature at all that precludes duplicate fingerprints. How in the world would my fingers know, when I am born, the patterns of fingerprints that have already been "placed" on the fingers of every other human being? How do my fingers know which fingerprints are "used" already so as to avoid duplicating them?

The only reason that we assume - yes, assume! - that two sets of fingerprints cannot be alike, or that two snowflakes cannot be alike, is because there are so many billions of possible fingerprint patterns, and snowflake patterns, that the odds of two like patterns existing are so staggering that we don’t even consider it a possibility.
Even though it could happen.

So if you are a juror and the defense attorney claims that nobody "proved" that the fingerprints on the victim's neck were really the defendants - because it could happen that by coincidence two identical sets exist, and that you can't "prove" that the 20 witnesses told the truth (they could have all lied and coincidently made up the same exact details in the story), and that you cant "prove" that the video cannot be faked, he would be laughed out of the courtroom.

Even though it all "could happen".

And you would send the defendant to his death, because you saw proof "beyond a reasonable doubt" or "beyond a shadow of a doubt" that this man is guilty.

You have no proof that your desert is not poisoned, but you would take the chance of eating it anyway.

Once the odds reach a certain point, we don't consider the alternative as viable.

Even though your desert could be poisoned.

And so, the amount of "coincidence" and lucky accidents needed to create life are so ridiculously beyond reason, that you’re talking about a universe of people with duplicate fingerprints and continents of totally identical snowflakes.

You're talking about a monkey typing away at a keyboard and producing the Works of Shakespeare. Or more like, the entire stock of the library of congress.

It could happen.

We live our lives laughing at such claims. We would call the ambulance at someone who really believes those things.

Except for the atheist discussing G-d.

It's amazing how, on that level of reasonableness, a person would risk his life and send others to their death, but to avoid eating pork, for that, he needs "absolute proof".

The question is not "can we prove G-d?" The question is, given the proof that we do have, why in the world would anybody NOT believe in G-d???
And to that, so far, no atheist has come up with anything close to a sensible answer.

Source: frumteens.com "mod".

Refutation: Christian Salvation

Christianity maintains that all men are doomed to sin, and everyone will go to everlasting hell unless they accept Jesus as their savior. Hell and damnation―another fear tactic.

Judaism has always held that you do not need that sort of salvation, for we are not doomed or damned at birth. We are not doomed or fated to sin―quite the contrary. The Torah says: "If you do good, won't there be special privilege? And if you do not do good, sin waits at the door. It lusts after you, but you can dominate it." (Genesis 4:7) In other words, you can do good, and if you do, things will be better for you. If you do not do good, sin wants to be partners with you.

But you can control sin, you can control your evil desires, and you can be good. In other words, we all have free will, and that is what Judaism has always believed, because that is what the Torah teaches. The Torah does not teach, or even mention, that people are "born in sin," or that we are fated to sin. Torah teaches just the opposite. We all have the ability to choose, which means that we can be good, or we can be evil. It is clearly up to us. And if we can be good, that means we can be righteous. I cannot understand how or why Christians like to say that no one can be righteous in the eyes of Hashem. The Torah says otherwise.

Christians say that all people, including Jews, are sinful and cannot be righteous. But the Torah says quite the opposite: "All your nation is righteous; they will inherit the earth eternally; the shoot that I have planted, the work of My hands, something to be proud of" (Isaiah 60:21). So we are righteous, and Hashem is proud of us. And it says, "Open the gates, so that the righteous nation that keeps the faith may enter" (Isaiah 26:2). We, the Children of Israel are righteous, for the Torah says so. Of course, we must uphold the Torah, or otherwise we might cease to be righteous. But as long as we keep the Torah, we are righteous.
The Prophets of the Torah warned us about this many times. They often called us wicked, when?―when we did not obey the Commandments of the Torah.
Yet never once in all of the Hebrew Bible did the Prophets chastise the Children of Israel for not believing in the messiah! Not once! Christians claim no one can be righteous in the eyes of Hashem. Then how can the Torah call Noah righteous (Genesis 6:9, 7:1), as just one example? "Noah walked with Hashem," the Torah says. Obviously you can be righteous and you can walk with Hashem. Was Moses righteous? Didn’t he kill an Egyptian? However Hashem called Moses His trusted servant, and was closer to Him than any other prophet. Moses spoke directly to Hashem, and Hashem spoke directly to Moses (Numbers 12:6-8). Moses was Hashem’s right hand man on earth. The problem is that Christians do not understand the meaning of the concept "righteousness." Christians think righteousness means that one has never sinned. Never sinning is almost impossible. The Torah says, "There is no person on earth so righteous that he does only good and never sins" (Eccl. 7:20). Rather, the definition of a righteous person is as taught in Proverbs 24:16: "The righteous fall even seven times and still get up, but the wicked stumble in evil."

Being righteous does not mean that one never sins. It means that after you sin you get back up again, repent, and try again. You keep on trying. That is being righteous. Not only that, but even if you keep on trying, and you don't succeed very well, and you have many sins, you can still be forgiven and go to Heaven. In the Book of Job (33:23) it says that if someone has even only one merit and 1,000 sins, he is rescued from hell. So we are not doomed to hell. That's what Judaism teaches, as we see from the Torah.

The Christian bible, on the other hand, teaches that there is no repentance after sinning.

Here is what it says in the Christian bible: “For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the L-rd and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning .For it would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them.” (2 Peter 2:20-21)

In other words, if anyone accepted Jesus as savior, and then sins, they are in worse trouble than they were before they accepted Jesus. So what then is the advantage of accepting Jesus? It seems better to stay with Hashem! Hashem accepts repentance, and loves all those who turn away from sin, no matter how many times they have sinned and repent "For the righteous stumble even seven times, but they get up again!" And they are still called righteous! And the wicked who repent are no longer called wicked. “Even when I have told the wicked that he will die, but then he repents, and he does justice and righteousness; he returns the collateral when he is supposed to, he repays what he stole, he begins to live by the Laws of Life, and does not do evil, he will live, and he will not die. All the sins that he committed will not be held against him, for he has begun to do judgment and righteousness; he shall surely live.” (Ezekiel 33:14-16)

We see, therefore another fallacy of the Christians, who argue that "sin has separated us from a perfectly holy Hashem." We are not separated from Hashem at all. The Torah teaches that all we need to do is repent. But no, say the Christians. Repentance won't work, for some reason that we cannot understand. They claim "no one can be close to Hashem without Jesus." This is completely wrong. The righteous live by their faith. (Habbakuk 2:4) We do not gain life or atonement by the faith or righteousness of Jesus. We are masters of our own fate, because the choice to do good or bad is our own.

Was King David separated from Hashem? The Torah says that he did one thing wrong (1 Kings 15:5) and yet he was considered righteous and Hashem was with him (1 Kings 11:34; 1 Kings 18:14). Whenever a royal descendant of King David did the right thing, the Torah says about him that he followed in the ways of his ancestor David. (1 Kings 14:8; 2 Kings 18:3; 2 Kings 22:2; etc.)

If you examine the Christian belief in this matter, you will even find denominations that believe Hashem only chooses those that He has previously decided to choose. In other words, Hashem will accept into Heaven only on those whom He has decided to accept into Heaven, and we have no free will or choice! That means that we cannot even be good people if we try! It's all up to Hashem! "Many are called, but few are chosen." How is this merciful? What about all those people who are not chosen? How do they attain "salvation?" Why can they not attain salvation, when it isn't even their fault? That is possibly the cruelest doctrine I have ever heard! No matter what a person does, he will get Heaven only if Hashem had previously chosen him to get Heaven! Everyone else goes to eternal hell!

In Judaism, it is entirely up to you. If you do good, you will get good. Nowhere in the Tanakh (Hebrew Bible) would you connect salvation with sin. On the few occasions where salvation is mentioned, it is on a national scale rather than an individual one. In these cases the Tanakh talks about Israel, as a nation, being saved from oppressors (1 Samuel 11 & 19:1-6; 1 Chron. 16:16:35). As for individual salvation, 2 Samuel 22:1-3 gives a case of when David is delivered out of the hand of all his enemies and out of the hand of Saul and Hannah says, “I rejoice in thy salvation from being a barren woman (1 Samuel 2:1). In many of David psalms, he is either praying for salvation or rejoicing in salvation and on all occasions there is no mention of salvation from sins (Psalm 3:9; 62:1-8).

The question “are you saved?” is foreign to the Hebrew Bible. The weird Christian concept of sin, sacrifice and instant salvation obtained by belief in a man dying on a cross, is in no way a fulfillment of the Hebrew Scriptures.
In Judaism, it is entirely up to you. If you do good, you will get good in return.

Sources:
1. Mordechai Housman and Shmuel Golding
http://www.jdstone.org/cr/files/howisajewsaved.html

Perceptions: Judas' death - a contradiction

So Judas threw the silver coins into the temple and left. Then he went out and
hanged himself. - Matthew 27:5

Now this man Judas acquired a field with the reward of his unjust deed, and
falling headfirst he burst open in the middle and all his intestines gushed out.
- Acts 1:18

Two contradictions here. The first passage says that Judas gave back the money, and hanged himself. The second passage says he bought some land with the money (so I guess he didn't give it back) , and he fell down and burst open his body, and his intestines came out.

Another contradiction in the NT. Only one of these can be true, because you cannot die twice, and you cannot give back and keep the money.

Source: Adam of JewsforJudaism.com forum.

Refuation: Could Jesus have been the Messiah?

Let me tell you that I was asked an odd question by a Christian. He said that "Jesus could have been it, how on earth do you know?" I smiled and asked him if he believed that the Torah was the word of G-d. He told me that he did, so I then said okay:

First the book of John (Christian book) says:

And therefore did the Jews persecute Jesus, and sought to slay him, because he had done these things on the sabbath day. But Jesus answered them, My Father worketh hitherto, and I work. (John 5:16-17)

Therefore, we can see that Jesus worked on the Sabbath. So now let us see what G-d has told us in the Torah (which Christians accept as the word of G-d):

The Torah tells us that the laws of the Sabbath are eternal:

"The Israelites people shall keep the Shabbat, observing the Shabbat throughout the ages as a covenant for all time." (Exodus 31:16)

Therefore, how could Jesus be the Messiah when the word of G-d says the Sabbath is eternal, yet he breaks it?

Refutation: Zechariah 12:10

ANALYSIS OF ZECHARIAH 12:10

10. "I will pour out on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem the Spirit of grace and supplication, and they will look onto Me whom (et asher) they have pierced and they will mourn for Him as one mourns for an only son, and they will weep for Him like the weeping over a first born. 11. In that day there will be a great mourning in Jerusalem like the mourning of Hadadrimmon in the plain of Megiddo. 12. and the land will mourn every family by itself; the family of the house of David by itself; and their wives by themselves; the family of the house of Nathan by itself; and their wives by themselves..."

The Christian reading of this passage is somewhat problematic. The words "Me" and "Him" makes it quite obvious that the text is speaking of two different subjects. The gospel of John acknowledged this and therefore rendered the passage as, "they shall look on Him whom they pierced." This New Testament mistranslation of Zechariah in and of itself demonstrates that the New Testament is fallacious.

To interpret this passage that at some future time the "Jewish people shall look unto Me (G-d/Jesus) whom they (the Jewish people) pierced" does not seem to be what John had in mind. It is important to note that according to John, Zechariah's prophesy was fulfilled at the time that the Roman soldiers pierced the side of Jesus. As it says in John 19:36, "For these things came to pass that the scripture might be fulfilled." John saw the two different subjects of Zechariah's passage as the Roman soldiers and Jesus.

"They (the Roman soldiers) shall look on Him (Jesus) whom they (the Roman soldiers) pierced.

There is an additional problem in this passage. The Hebrew words "et asher" are not found very often in scripture. When they do occur together the phrase is read as "concerning whom" or "concerning that" but never as "whom". You can see this by reading the Hebrew original of Ezekiel 36:27. (It is also interesting to note that the Septuagint does not translate "et asher" as "whom." Its translation does not at all resemble the Christian interpretation.)

The correct translation of Zechariah 12:10 should be.

"they will look onto Me concerning whom they have pierced and they will mourn
for him"

This is consistent with the two subjects. By reviewing the context we can also understand of whom this passage is speaking. Starting with the beginning of Zechariah chapter 12 the prophet speaks of a time when the nations of the world will be gathered against Jerusalem to destroy it (Zec 12:3). On that day, G-d Himself will defend Jerusalem and destroy all of its enemies (Zec 12:4-9). G-d will pour out a spirit of grace and supplication toward the Jews. Grace is requested from G-d and supplication are directed to G-d.

This new spirit will motivate the Jewish nation to look towards G-d concerning those Jews (collective Jewish Martyrs) (see Hosea 11:1 for the Jewish people described as him. See Ex.1 etc. verbs of oppression in singular. Cf. Deut 32, Hos 8:3 and Ex. 19:2) who have been killed in battle prior to G-d's divine intervention in fighting our adversaries.

All the inhabitants of Jerusalem will mourn. This has obviously not yet been fulfilled, now or when the Roman soldier looked at Jesus.

This understanding is validated by the scriptural description that this mourning in Jerusalem would be "like the mourning of Hadadrimmom in the Valley of Magiddo." This refers to the death of King Josiah who was killed in battle with Pharaoh Neco (2 Kings 23:29-30). After his death all of Judah and Jerusalem mourned for him (2 Chron 35:22-25). In the same way that the Jews mourned over King Josiah who died in battle so too will the Jewish people in the future mourn over their war dead.

© Rabbi Bentzion Kravitz, 1998 to present
Source: http://jewsforjudaism.com/web//j4jlibrary/zechariah-1210.html

Refutation: The "virgin" claim

Question: A Christian co-worker recently told me that the Bible contains a prophecy, in the book of Isaiah, forecasting that the Messiah would be born to a virgin mother. She then showed me the verse in her Bible: "Therefore the L-rd Himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel." I suspect that something must be wrong here. Could you please shed some light on this matter as this sounds like it was fulfilled by Jesus.


Answer: Although this passage has historically been a favorite Christian "prooftext", serious weaknesses have caused a recent decline in its popularity. A comprehensive examination of this verse (Isaiah 7:14) is beyond the scope of this column; we will limit ourselves to a consideration of just two of its many problems.Someone once quipped that "a text without a context is pretext". The first question that needs to be raised is whether the verse cited here is indeed a reference to the Messiah. We might ask the missionary to provide some compelling reason for us to accept that the verse warrants such an interpretation. We suspect that the missionary will be hard-pressed to provide a logical basis for this assumption.

Then, of course, there is the crucial issue of the general context. The seventh chapter of Isaiah takes place about 700 BCE, and describes an alliance between Syria and the northern kingdom of Israel, whose combined forces threaten to destroy the kingdom of Judah. The prophet Isaiah assures Achaz, King of Judah, that G-d will protect his kingdom. He prophesies that a child will be born to a certain woman, and that, before the child learns to distinguish good from evil, the two kingdoms threatening Judah will be destroyed (verses 15 - 16). The prophecy contained in Isaiah 7 clearly addresses this particular political crisis; it in no way refers to the concept of a Messiah. Furthermore, Jesus was not born until 700 years later; his birth could hardly offer any reassurance to King Achaz!

The second flaw in this prooftext, and the one which ultimately condemns it to oblivion, is that it's founded upon blatant mistranslation. Isaiah, in fact, merely speaks of "the young woman "almah" who will give birth. Christian translators took great license, as did the New Testament when it "quoted" this verse in Matthew, when they rendered this word "virgin". There is a specific Hebrew word for "virgin" (betulah), which Isaiah would have used if that were what he meant.

Modern Christian scholarship has recognized that the "virgin birth" prophecy is based upon a distortion of the Hebrew scriptures. Beginning with the Revised Standard Version of the Bible in 1952, virtually all Christian translations have adopted "young woman" rather than "virgin" as the correct rendering of "almah".

Source:
http://jewsforjudaism.com/web//j4jlibrary/virgin-fallacy.html

Did G-d write the Torah?

The authorship of the Torah has one of two possibilities: either Hashem wrote it, or a human being wrote it. Let's take for argument's sake the side that a human being wrote it. If so, we discover a very strange phenomenon.

This human being could not have been a Jew! Can we actually believe that a Jew would write such negative, detrimental, and destructive descriptions of his ancestors?

Listen to what the author of the Torah describes: That his patriarch, Jacob was a liar and tricked his father, Isaac; that the sons of Jacob kidnapped and sold their brother Joseph into slavery; that the Jews of the Desert preferred slavery in Egypt rather than freedom; that the Jews are a stiff-necked people; that Moshe, the true prophet of Hashem, complains to Him and does not want to be the leader of what he describes as such a rebellious nation; that the Jews of the Desert worshiped a golden calf; that they showed a lack of trust in Hashem by believing the spies' evil reports concerning Israel.

The list goes on and on.

Included in this list is the event in Parshat Chukat (Vayikra 20:7-13) that tells the story of Moshe and Aharon's failure in hitting the rock instead of speaking to it, in order to draw water to quench the people's thirst. Moshe and Aharon are punished and not permitted to enter the Land of Israel.

Of course, the real meaning and interpretation of these difficult passages are explained by all the commentaries and they are not as negative as they seem. Sometimes the verses are simply misunderstood at the surface level and not meant negatively at all (as is the case with Jacob seeming to trick Isaac). But no Jew would ever risk the tarnishing of his ancestors' reputations even if only at the superficial level of understanding.

Why would a Jew write such terrible things about his ancestors? No other nation records an unfavorable history of their ancestors. One cannot read of a single defeat of Egypt in Egyptian history books. One must turn to the Assyrian texts to read of Egyptian failures, and vice versa. Even today, there are major distinctions between British and American history books in their accounts as to what happened in the American Revolutionary War. But somehow the fact that descendants generally look at their ancestors with reverence in their historical writings is not true when it comes to the Jews and the Torah.

So which human wrote the Torah? It could not have been a Jew! The only possibility then is that an anti-Semite wrote it! But then we are left perplexed as to how this anti-Semite could have persuaded the Jews to accept it!

To suggest that a human wrote the Torah is not a realistic possibility.

If Hashem wrote it, then we understand how the Jewish people accepted it. They knew what Hashem writes is true and they trusted that He, at times, writes negative and critical descriptions only in order to teach important lessons. Hashem, in writing such fact, does so to engage in constructive criticism.

This unique aspect of revealing negative-sounding ancestral history makes us stop and realize that Hashem must have written the Torah. But there are other distinct facets described in the Torah that also lead to the conclusion of its Divine authorship.

The Torah makes prophecies that have come true. Now, there are many books that have made prophecies of the future such as Nostradamus, that some claim to have been true. But a close examination of these prophecies reveals them to be ambiguous and it is virtually impossible to prove their accuracy. Any 'prophecy' that can only be understood after an event has already taken place cannot be accepted as prophecy.

True prophecy is clearly comprehended before an event takes place and then we can see for ourselves whether the prophecy came to fruition or not. We find exactly such prophecies in the Torah. These prophecies are impossible for a human being to have predicted.

The fate of the Jewish nation, if they are to abandon Hashem, is specifically described in horrid detail (See Vayikra 26, Devarim 28:15-68, 29:17-28, 30:1-10, 31:16-21, much of Yeshaya and Yechezekel). Sure enough, all of the details have indeed occurred throughout history. The Torah writes that the Jews will be thrown out of their land, return, and then thrown out again. It then foretells that the Jews will come back to Israel much later. The Jews held on to their faith in the Torah's promises of their return to Israel for 2,000 years. And now in modern times, the Jews have come back. It is surely not coincidental that there have been no other nations who have not assimilated into their occupying or host nation after hundreds of years of exile and destruction. Moreover, not only did the Jews survive 2,000 years of exile, but they did so despite being scattered among various nations without a common language or culture.

This was all stated way in advance! The Torah, written over 3,000 years ago, teaches that the Jews will be dispersed to all the corners of the earth but would maintain their distinct identity. What human being would write such nonsense? How could he expect the Jews to accept it and live with faith in it?

But if Hashem wrote it, it is obviously understandable. He can know that the Jews would never assimilate into the nations of the world. And if the Jews knew Hashem wrote it by their witnessing Hashem speak to them at Sinai, their faith in their eventual return to Israel is comprehended.

(There are more points to ponder concerning the veracity of the Torah's claim that it was written by Hashem. See Kol Yaakov V'etchanan and Behar)

If one takes the time to stop and think about the unique aspects of the Torah, one is inevitably drawn to the conclusion that the Torah could not have been written by a human being. It must have been authored by Hashem.

by Rabbi Boruch Leff
Source: AISH.com

A guide to missionary tactics

A GUIDE TO MISSIONARY TACTICS
Edited by John Stone

This guide is intended to teach you about the tactics used by missionary groups and cults

The tactics of missionaries and missionary groups may vary, but there are some basic guidelines to keep in mind that will be helpful in dealing with them.

CAMOUFLAGE
Some missionaries attempt to develop a rapport with their subject without divulging their own religious affiliation. If you are not sure about the religious identity of the stranger who begins talking to you about religion, ask him directly if he is a believer in Jesus. Be suspicious of an indirect answer.

Don't be deceived by any outward signs of love and caring. Missionaries are taught to make their targets feel more comfortable by making the speaker seem to be genuinely loving and caring. Missionaries are coached by their superiors to not to arouse suspicion.

ASSUMING SUPERIORITY
When talking to a person about religion, a missionary may attempt to elicit as many "I don't know" responses as possible, in order to establish his superiority in matters of religion. Don't allow yourself to be intimidated!

Remember, the missionary has studied for the sole purpose of leading you [the heathen/unbeliever] to Christianity. Keep in mind that he is not speaking to you to exchange ideas, but rather to lead you away from your beliefs to his. If you want to learn more about the OT or Original Text (Hebrew Bible), do so from someone who doesn't have hidden motives. Therefore, feel free to simply end the conversation and walk away.

However, some of you may want to listen to their arguments and then learn the honest [Hebrew source] response, to be better prepared for future encounters. The following pointers should give you a basic idea of what to look for.

DECEPTION
The missionary may tell you that he (or a Christian friend or acquaintance) was once a non-believer or a member of another faith in which he had a solid bible education, a traditional family life, etc. This is almost always a lie, so don't let him fool you. The hidden message that he is attempting to convey is that he came to believe in Jesus after knowing and overcoming all of the Hebrew Bible objections, and therefore, why should you bother to check it out?

He may drop certain catchy phrases or talk about the details of his "traditional" upbringing, all designed to lend more credence to his story. In fact, his "memory" is often the result of careful coaching.

Usually, all that is necessary to expose this type of hoax is to ask him about various small details of Hebrew/bible life that any Jewish child would know, and see how he responds. In almost all cases, he will begin to hedge about the extent of his "background" and "Jewish knowledge." Unfortunately, most people are themselves not knowledgeable enough to be able to expose this type of deception.

In the same vein, the missionary might tell you that he knows the objections to his arguments, and will then proceed to show how such objectives are ill-founded. Don't expect to hear the real Hebrew Bible/Original Text response from such a source.

LOVING US TO DEATH
Don't be taken in by the "good cop - bad cop" routine. This routine involves a "bad cop" who threatens the subject, and a "good cop" who protects him from the "bad cop". The subject is so grateful to the "good cop", and so worried about losing the good-will of his protector, that he invariably shows his appreciation by telling the "good cop" what he wants to hear. In similar fashion, the "good" Christian talks about how much he loves mankind, Jews, Israel, bagels and lox, etc., while denouncing the "bad" Christians who hate and persecute Jews. Anyone with any knowledge of Christian anti-Semitism will feel grateful to the "good cop," and may automatically judge him to be a friend and reliable ally. Watch out for hidden motives behind such "friendship".

COVER-UP
At the outset, the missionary will talk about his belief that Jesus is the messiah. Many people don't find out until later, often after they have joined the missionary’s Christian group, that their fundamental belief is that Jesus is G-D. Any talk about "the messiah" or "son of G-D" is merely a cover for that belief, basic to both fundamentalist Christianity and unaffiliated Christians. However, since such a concept is repugnant anyone who knows the truth of Torah and the Hebrew Bible. This most basic belief of Christianity is glossed over as much as possible when missionaries talk to non-Christians such as Jews.

THE NUMBERS RACKET
Don't be impressed by the claim that Christians have 50, or 100, or 300 "proofs from the Hebrew Bible" that they are correct in their claims about Jesus. As proof after proof is shown to be meaningless, the missionary will hide behind his numbers, as if to say: "Well, we have so many more proofs, what's the difference if you can disprove some of them". He will attempt to "split the difference" with you: "Well, even if half our proofs prove nothing, we still have another 25 or 50, or 150". Remember, all of their proofs can be shown to be untenable. Keep in mind that a faulty point is not worth 50% of a good point, or 25%, or 10%. It is worthless. The simple mathematics are: 50 x 0 = 0, 100 x 0 = 0, 300 x 0 = 0.

CIRCULAR REASONING
Very often, the reasoning used by Christian missionaries is circular. That is, the "proof" only points to Jesus if you believe in him in the first place, and therefore is no proof at all.

Let us take as an example the words of Isaiah 11:2; "And the spirit of the L-rd will rest upon him (the messiah), the spirit of wisdom and understanding... .” This verse refers to the messiah, but it does not identify him. The followers of Jesus chose to attribute this verse to him, and it subsequently became one of the "proof-texts" to support the claims of Christianity.

One way to test such verses is as follows: Pick a figure that neither you nor the missionary believes to be the messiah. (It can be George Washington, Reverend Moon, or your great- grandfather.) Then see if the "messianic prophecy" would point to the figure in the eyes of anyone who believed him to be the messiah. If it can be used that way, the verse obviously proves nothing.

MISTRANSLATION
Be aware of the problem of mistranslation. A person who is not familiar with Hebrew (or with the Hebrew text of the Bible) can be lead to accept a mistranslation of the Bible which puts a Christian "twist or spin" on a verse that never had such a meaning in the original. If you can't check it out yourself, talk to a reliable person who can. Remember, it is no coincidence that the Jews, who are generally much better versed in the original Hebrew Bible, never have any serious problems refuting Christian missionary arguments.

QUOTING OUT OF CONTEXT
Often a verse will be quoted to you that has been taken entirely out of context. When the entire chapter that contains that verse is read, it becomes clear that: 1) that the verse is not a messianic prophecy, and/or 2) the prophecy could not possibly refer to Jesus.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

USE THE PROPER RESOURCES!
If you need advice concerning a problem of this sort, get in touch with people who are familiar with the tactics being used and who know how to deal with them.


ORIGINAL SOURCE:

JEWS FOR JUDAISM: http://www.jewsforjudaism.org/web/faq/general-tactics.html

ISAIAH WARNS AGAINST CHRISTIANITY

ISAIAH WARNS AGAINST CHRISTIANITY
by John Stone

Christian missionaries try to support their theology by supposedly quoting the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh). In this analysis, real quotes from the Tanakh turn the tables and debunk Christianity. Passages from the prophet Isaiah in the Tanakh and associated references from Torah are compared with passages in the so called New Testament (Christian Bible)

Isaiah (Yeshayahu) , in Chapter 24 warns of coming chaos:

24:1 Behold the L-rd empties the land and lays it waste, and He shall turn over its face and scatter its inhabitants. 2. And it shall be, as with the people, so with the priest, as with the slave, so with his master, as with the maidservant, so with her mistress, as with the buyer, so with the seller, as with the lender, so with the borrower, as with the creditor, so with the one who owes him. 3. The land shall be emptied and it shall be pillaged, for the L-rd has spoken this thing. 4. The land has mourned, it has withered, the land has been humbled and withered, the highest of the people of the land have been humbled.

Then he says WHY this will happen:

24:5 And the land has deceived because of its inhabitants, for they transgressed instructions, infracted statutes, broke the everlasting covenant. 6. Therefore, an oath has consumed the land, and the inhabitants thereof were wasted; ...

The so called New Testament advocates all three of these things; that people transgress the laws, change the ordinance and break the everlasting covenants. So, let us now examine these very problems, using the Christian Bible!

Before we proceed, let's take a look at the Christians bible. It is supposedly from their god, inspired by their holy ghost; the authors are unknown and when written no one knows, but to Christianity that does not matter. Why not you ask? Because the only glue that holds the Christian religion (Pauline Christology) together is not facts, not history, not G-d's Torah, but " blind faith." In other words, simply an intoxication with their dead man-god, Jesus.

1. Transgressing the Law:

"Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree" (Galatians 3:13 King James Version)
Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster. (Galatians 3:24-25)

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. (Romans 7:6)

But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law. (Galatians 5:18)

For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law. (Hebrews 7:12)

For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith. For if they which are of the law be heirs, faith is made void, and the promise made of none effect: Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression. Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all, (Romans 4:13 -16)

2. Changing the Ordinances:

Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace; (Ephesians 2:15)

Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, ... (Colossians 2:14)

Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances, (Colossians 2:20)

3. Breaking the Everlasting Covenant, i.e. the Sabbath, the Brit Milah or the everlasting priesthood.

1. Sabbath -- as specified in:

Thus shall the children of Israel observe the Sabbath, to make the Sabbath throughout their generations as an everlasting covenant. Between Me and the children of Israel, it is forever a sign that [in] six days The L-rd created the heaven and the earth, and on the seventh day He ceased and rested." (Exodus (Shemot) 31:16-17)

Each and every Sabbath day, he shall set it up before the L-rd [to be there] continuously, from the children of Israel an eternal covenant. (Leviticus (Vayikra) 24:8)

And He set it up for Jacob as a statute, to Israel as an everlasting covenant. (Chronicles I (Divrei Hayamim I) 16:17)

Christianity repudiates G-d's commandments by establishing a "new" Sabbath on the first day; the so-called "Lord's Day" (see Acts 20:7 and Revelation 1:10). This unmitigated arrogance clearly ignores G-d's command that the Sabbath is for the Jews, the Children of Israel, ONLY. The Sabbath is not for Gentiles!

2. Brit melah -- as specified in:

This is My covenant, which you shall observe between Me and between you and between your seed after you, that every male among you be circumcised. And you shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin, and it shall be as the sign of a covenant between Me and between you. (Genesis 17:10-11)

Those born in the house and those purchased for money shall be circumcised, and My covenant shall be in your flesh as an everlasting covenant. And an uncircumcised male, who will not circumcise the flesh of his foreskin-that soul will be cut off from its people; he has broken My covenant. (Genesis 17:13-14)

Christianity now spits in the face of G-d, speaking against the very people He chose for His special mission1

Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing. (Galatians 5:2)

3. Everlasting priesthood -- as specified in:

It shall be for him and for his descendants after him [as] an eternal covenant of kehunah, because he was zealous for his G-d and atoned for the children of Israel. (Numbers 25:13)

But, as we have seen time and time again, eternity and G-d's word mean absolutely to the unknown Christian writers. They again go against G-d.

For the priesthood being changed, there is made of
necessity a change also of the law. (Hebrews 7:12 )

What this all means, according to Christian theology, is that G-d's words given over 3,316 years ago do not matter. What matters to Christianity is what some unknown people wrote at unknown times, later edited and changed by the early church fathers. Your Creator's eternal promises to the children of Israel are only something to be thrown in the trash -- discarded willy nilly.

What have you now learned? Has not Christianity done precisely what Isaiah warned us about so very long ago?

As I continually remind people, "As G-d created our minds, He expects us to use our reasoning together with our faith. Faith is not a substitute for reason, but a development from it and alongside it." Use your head, think. "Brains to the lazy are like a torch to the blind." (Bechinas Ha'Olam, a Torah commentary).

A final word of wisdom from the real Bible, the Hebrew Bible -- a prophetic warning from Jeremiah:

O L-rd, Who are my power and my strength and my refuge in the day of trouble, to You nations will come from the ends of the earth and say, "Only lies have our fathers handed down to us, emptiness in which there is nothing of any avail! (Jeremiah (Yirmiyahu) 16:19)

We report, you decide!

Footnotes

1. And I will make you into a great nation, and I will bless you, and I will aggrandize your name, and [you shall] be a blessing. 3. And I will bless those who bless you, and the one who curses you I will curse, and all the families of the earth shall be blessed in you." (Genesis (Bereishit) 12:2-3)

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