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