Defending Torah Judaism

Perceptions: Jesus had a form!

2007-08-13T22:48:00.000-05:00

The Torah says (Deut. 4):

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

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

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

Misconceptions: Josephus proves that Jesus existed

2007-08-08T23:01:00.000-05:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Refutation: Leviticus 17:11 claims

2007-08-01T19:42:00.000-05:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Perception: Crucifixion Idiosyncrasy!

2007-07-31T20:50:00.000-05:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is Christianity a higher religion?

2007-07-19T20:22:00.000-05:00

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

Even a casual study will easily disprove this.

Let's begin by discussing the Torah.

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

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

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

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

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

There is nothing higher than the Torah.

King David says in Psalm 19:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Protestants have been no better.

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

And it does not end there.

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

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

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

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

Here are some more choice statements by Martin Luther:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2007-06-29T14:38:00.000-05:00

by Rabbi Nechemia Coopersmith and Rabbi Moshe Zeldman

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

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

Correct answers -- but NOT according to the Bible.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How so?

HISTORY AND LEGENDS

Two types of stories are part of any national heritage.

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

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

What is the difference between legend and history?

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

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

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

THE BELIEVABILITY GAME

Gauge the level of credibility of the following scenarios.

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

Scenario #1:

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

Believable?

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

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

Scenario #2:

Would you believe me if I told you the following:

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

Believable?

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

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

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

Scenario #3:

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

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

Is this believable?

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

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

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

SINAI: AN IMPOSSIBLE HOAX

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

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

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

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

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

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

REVELATION CLAIMED LATER IN HISTORY

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

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

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

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

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

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

INTRODUCED LATER?

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

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

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

How would you respond to such a claim?

The people give Ezra a quizzical look and say,

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

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

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

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

Everyone would know it's a lie.

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

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

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

SINAI: THE ONLY CLAIM OF NATIONAL REVELATION

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

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

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

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

Maimonides writes:

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

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

A BOLD PREDICTION

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let's summarize two primary questions:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Question: Who is the Son of G-d?

2007-06-13T20:59:00.000-05:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

G-d's Firstborn Son

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Messiah's Message to the World

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

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

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

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

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

An Urgent Call to Action

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

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

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

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

References:

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

Perceptions: Jesus was not merciful

2007-06-13T20:44:00.000-05:00

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

The first statement is a lie.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And so on, all over the Torah.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Question: Was Jesus sinless?

2007-05-20T14:25:00.000-05:00

WAS JESUS SINLESS?
Shmuel Silberman

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Question: How do you define "everlasting"?

2007-05-20T13:14:00.001-05:00

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

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

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

The definition is: "Lasting forever; eternal."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Perception: The theory of evolution, eating beef and morality

2007-05-16T14:59:00.000-05:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Perception: The writers of the Gospel relied on Greek

2007-05-16T14:38:00.000-05:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Perception: Calling the Jews "blind fools"

2007-05-16T14:23:00.000-05:00

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

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

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

Perceptions: Jesus misquoted the prophets

2007-05-15T12:35:00.000-05:00

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

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

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

Now, was there a Zecheriah son of Berachiah?

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

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

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

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

So maybe Jesus should have payed more attention in class.

Misconceptions: The Torah has been superceded

2007-05-13T10:17:00.000-05:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Refutation: Islamic claim of Jeremiah 8:8

2007-05-04T16:13:00.000-05:00

Muslims assert that Jeremiah 8:8 says that the scribes used a "false pen" in their feeble attempt to justify their outrageous claim that our great sages corrupted the Torah and Tanakh. They make these claims by misquoting the Tanakh, and relying on defective Christian translations.

The translation and general lack of understanding lead Muslims to such a dim-witted conclusion. The proper translation of the verse is:

How can you say, We are wise, and the Torah of the L-rd is with us? Surely,
the pen wrought in vain, in vain the scribes. The wise men are ashamed, they are
dismayed and taken: Lo, they have rejected the word of the L-RD; and what wisdom
is in them?
(Jeremiah 8:8)

The verse is telling us that they rejected the Torah, so they have no wisdom. They essentially did not follow the Torah, so their writings and study were in vain. Jeremiah then writes a bit later:

And you shall say to them: So said the L-rd, If you do not heed Me to walk in My
law that I have placed before you, To heed the words of My servants, the
prophets, whom I send to you betimes, and you did not heed. I will make this
house like Shiloh and this city I will make into a curse to all the nations of
the earth.
(Jeremiah 26:4-6)

How could we follow the law that G-d places before us (bold text), if the law was corrupted? This presupposes that the Torah was uncorrupt and available during the time of Jeremiah. Since Jeremiah wrote Jeremiah 8:8, who better than he to tell us the precise meaning of the passage in question? The mistranslation of the Islamic claim is quite evident.

Perception: The place of Sun rise and Sun set

2007-05-04T15:09:00.000-05:00

Till, when he [the traveller Zul-qarnain] reached the setting-place of the sun, he found it going down into a muddy spring, ...
-- Sura Sura 18:86

Till, when he reached the rising-place of the sun,
he found it rising on a people for whom We had appointed no shelter from it.
-- Sura Sura 18:90

First: It is scientifically proven that the sun does not go down in a muddy spring.

Second: This seems to presuppose a flat earth, otherwise how can there be an extreme point in the West or in the East? It does not say, he went as far as possible on land in these directions and then observed the sun-rise or sun-set while standing at this shore. A sunrise there would be basically just the same as at any other place on this earth, at land or sea. It would still look as if it is setting "far away". It does say, that he reached THE PLACE where the sun sets and in his second journey the place where it rises.

Furthermore: Yusuf Ali in his commentary reports that Zul-qarnain is thought to be Alexander the Great. And so does the "Concise Dictionary of Islam." Looking at verses 98-101, this would make Alexander the Great a Muslim -- 1000 years before Muhammad. Yet that is for sure not true. The history does not relate that Alexander the Great had any other religion than the pagan Greeks he came from and ruled over. This is historically blatantly false.

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

2007-04-23T21:40:00.000-05:00

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

2007-04-22T23:08:00.000-05:00

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"

2007-04-22T23:05:00.000-05:00

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

2007-04-22T22:58:00.000-05:00

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"

2007-04-22T22:55:00.000-05:00

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

2007-04-22T22:44:00.000-05:00

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

2007-04-19T15:09:00.000-05:00

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"

2007-04-17T17:24:00.000-05:00

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

2007-04-17T16:19:00.000-05:00

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

2007-04-17T15:46:00.000-05:00

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?

2007-04-15T18:22:00.000-05:00

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

2007-04-15T17:38:00.000-05:00

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

2007-04-15T17:34:00.000-05:00

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?

2007-04-13T17:11:00.000-05:00

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

2007-04-13T17:07:00.000-05:00

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

2007-04-13T14:44:00.000-05:00

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

"new" Testament contradictions

2007-04-13T14:10:00.000-05:00

I had probably never seen such a mess in my life, until I read the Christian writings. I left each book even more confused as they seemed to all argue over what was true and not:

Is Jesus equal to or lesser than the "father"?

"I and my Father are one."
(John 30:10)

"Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I."
(John 14:28)
______________________________________

This passage just gives the impression of a debate. If I wanted to read such a debate, I would have studied some Talmud!

What were Jesus' last words?

"And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, "Eli, eli, lama sabachthani?" that is to say, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" ...Jesus, when he cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost." (Matthew 27:46,50)

"And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, "Father, unto thy hands I commend my spirit:" and having said thus, he gave up the ghost." (Luke 23:46)

"When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, "It is finished:" and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost." (John 19:30)

Quran contradictions II

2007-04-13T13:20:00.000-05:00

Does Mohammad ask for a fee?

Yes he does:

Spend your wealth for the cause of Allah, and be not cast by your own hands to ruin; and do good. Lo! Allah loveth the beneficent.
(Quran 2:195)

And know that whatever ye take as spoils of war, lo! a fifth thereof is for Allah, and for the messenger (Mohammad) and for the kinsman (who hath need) and orphans and the needy and the wayfarer, if ye believe in Allah and that which We revealed unto Our slave on the Day of Discrimination, the day when the two armies met. And Allah is Able to do all things.
(Quran 8:41)

No he does not:

Follow those who ask of you no fee, and who are rightly guided.
(Quran 36:21)

This it is which Allah announceth unto His bondmen who believe and do good works. Say (O Muhammad, unto mankind): I ask of you no fee therefor, save lovingkindness among kinsfolk. And whoso scoreth a good deed We add unto its good for him. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Responsive.
(Quran 43:23)

Pharaoh, Haman, bricks of mud and the tower of Babel!?!

2007-04-12T20:25:00.000-05:00

Wait a second! The Quran mentions Pharaoh, Haman, and the Tower of Babel in the same story! And contradicts known history on how the Egyptions made their bricks?

Pharaoh and Haman, and their hosts were sinners ... And Pharaoh said, "Council, I know not that you have any god but me. Kindle me, Haman, a fire upon the clay, and make me a tower, that I may mount up to Moses' god; for I think that he is one of the liars." [Sura 28:8,38]
Pharaoh said, "Haman, build for me a tower, that haply so I may reach the cords, the cords of the heavens, and look upon Moses' God; for I think that he is a liar." [Sura 40:36-37]

This is another possible example of two historical compressions in the same story and the same confusion in both texts that recount the event. At least in this case, the Qur'an is consistent within itself.

According to Surah 28:35-42 and 40:36-37, Haman was a minister or official of the Pharoah (king of Egypt) who lived in the same time as Moses. According to Jewish history Haman served as the minister of Ahasuerus (king of Persia, Xerxes I is his name in Greek). Apart from the error in location, this is placing Pharaoh (Moses) and Haman in the same story even though they lived 1,000 years apart. [See Esther 3:1.]

Furthermore, in the Qur'an Haman is ordered by Pharaoh to build a tower reaching into heaven ("the Tower of Babel") which is a well known story of an event that took place long before Abraham, who lived at least 400 years before Moses. [See Genesis 11:1-9, especially the verses 3-4, "Let us build make bricks and bake them thoroughly. ... and build a ... tower that reaches to the heavens."]

This connection is confirmed through another piece of historical, archaeological evidence.

Sura 28:38 tells us: And Pharaoh said: O chiefs! I know not that ye have a god other than me, so kindle for me (a fire), O Haman, to bake the mud; and set up for me a lofty tower in order that I may survey the god of Moses; and lo! I deem him of the liars.

The Egyptians constructed their public buildings with cut stone, not bricks. The Mesopotamians, by comparison, constructed most of their public buildings with baked bricks since they lacked a good source of cut stone.

However, the Qur'an makes an historical error when it claims that the Egyptians used baked bricks. Except for some minor ruins at Nebesheh and Defenneh, baked [or burnt] bricks were not used in Egypt before the Roman period (Manual of Egyptian Archaeology, G. Maspero, H. Grevel, p. 4).

The Bible tells us in Exodus 5:6-7 :
That same day Pharaoh gave this order to the slave drivers and foremen in charge of the people: "You are no longer to supply the people with straw for making bricks; let them go and gather their own straw.

Archaeologists and historians agree:

"The ordinary Egyptian brick is a mere oblong block of mud mixed with chopped
straw and a little sand, and dried in the sun ... one man is told to break up
the ground; others carry the clods, and pile them in a heap, while others again
mix them with water, knead the clay with their feet, and reduce it to a
homogeneous paste. This paste, when sufficiently worked, is pressed by the head
workman in moulds made of hard wood, while an assistant carries away the bricks
as fast as they are shaped, and lays them out in rows a little distance apart,
to dry in the sun." (Ibid., p. 3)

This illustration is from an 18th Dynasty tomb painting, found in the Tomb of Rekhmara. It shows the process by which bricks were made in ancient Egypt.

Source: "answering islam"

The Quran Comedy

2007-04-10T21:01:00.000-05:00

The Quran says:

"The Jews call Ezra a son of Allah, and the Christians call Christ the son of Allah. That is a saying from their mouth; (in this) they but imitate what the unbelievers of old used to say. Allah's curse be on them: how they are deluded away from the Truth!" (Quran 9:30)

An odd claim indeed. The Quran claims that "the Jews" actually call Ezra the "son of G-d" like the Christians do, when they refer to Jesus. Of course, Muslims will try to explain this error, by saying that some of the "Jews in Arabia" worshiped Ezra as a "son of G-d". But I challenge those people to find me any writings of those Jews which claim they worship Ezra.

Not only that, but they seem to forget that the verse states "The Jews" the same way it says "The Christians". Yet they explain that the first part of the verse refers to "some" Jews and the second part of the verse refers to "all" Christians, despite the language being identical.

Here is the Arabic of the first part of the verse transliterated for you all:

Waqalati alyahoodu AAuzayrun ibnu Allahi
waqalati alnnasara almaseehu ibnu Allahi

You can see that both parts are identical. "yahhod" refers to Jews and "nasara" refers to Christians. "Uzayrun" refers to Ezra, while "Maseehu" refers to Christ.

A careful observations shows that the verses are exactly alike, except for the names, yet Muslims claim one refers to "some" Jews, which they in turn provide no record for, while the other refers to "all" Christians since, believing Jesus is the son of G-d is a fundamental belief in Christianity.
__________________

The Quran says, G-d created humans, however, how did he do so?

It is He Who has created man from water: then has He established relationships of lineage and marriage: for thy Lord has power (over all things). (Quran 25:54)

Proclaim! (or read!) in the name of thy Lord and Cherisher, Who created man, out of a (mere) clot of congealed blood. (Quran 96:1-2)

Lo! thy Lord will gather them together. Lo! He is Wise, Aware. Verily We created man of potter's clay of black mud altered, And the jinn did We create aforetime of essential fire. (Quran 15:25-27)

If any do seek for glory and power,- to Allah belong all glory and power. To Him mount up (all) Words of Purity: It is He Who exalts each Deed of Righteousness. Those that lay Plots of Evil,- for them is a Penalty terrible; and the plotting of such will be void (of result). And Allah did create you from dust; then from a sperm-drop; then He made you in pairs. And no female conceives, or lays down (her load), but with His knowledge. Nor is a man long-lived granted length of days, nor is a part cut off from his life, but is in a Decree (ordained). All this is easy to Allah. (Quran 35:10-11)

These verses are in direct contradiction with eachother.

___________________________

Since Islam's "Quran" teaches the Noahide laws, I will cease from attacking the book anymore, now that I have made my point.

How does Judaism's claim that the world is over 5,700 years old coincide with science?

2007-04-08T03:26:00.000-05:00

Torah and science can never contradict each other, because two truths cannot be contradictory. When we find an apparent contradiction between the two, it is generally due to a misunderstanding regarding what one is saying.

Science cannot really prove the age of the universe. All that scientists can do is speculate about the age of the universe by extrapolating from observed phenomena. No scientist alive today can say that he or she has first-hand information regarding the beginning of the universe.

The Torah tells us how old the universe is.

Science tells us how old the universe seems to be.

The scientist that does not believe in G-d has no reason to assume that the age of the world is different than what it appears to be To give a simple example: how old was Adam when he was first created? Was he a baby? Young man? Old man?

Our sages tell us that he had the body and maturity of a 20-year-old man. Now, let us imagine Adam going for a medical exam a day after he was created. The receptionist asks for his age and he answers: “one day”. “You must be kidding me,” she would reply. “You seem to be at least 20 years old!”

They are both right. Adam is saying how old he really is, while the receptionist is estimating his age based on “scientific proof.”

The scientist that does not believe in G-d has no reason to assume that the age of the world is different than what it appears to be. The one who believes in G-d, however, can perfectly accept the fact that the world was created in a mature state and therefore does not contradict the fact that it is really younger than it seems to be.

by Mrs. Sarah Levi, from askmoses.com

So... the world was created by accident?

2007-04-08T01:28:00.000-05:00

First, what you must understand, is why the theory of evolution was created. Atheists had to find a way to show that the world was not created by G-d. Therefore, they are putting their money on the odds. They say that it is possible that chemicals flying all around, mutations occurring, and evolving animals who needing to survive would develop organs during the period of billions of years occurred. They claim that little pieces of algae decided to develop and what came from it was male and female, the human eye, all our nerves running perfectly etc. Of course this theory is not convincing but they say it happened because it is the only way to explain the world without G-d, and things could happen against the odds. Hmmm....

Now what if someone told you that the CD player came by accident - billions of years of accidental natural upheavals caused the glass to be formed out of sand, the wires out of copper, the body out of raw aluminum that melded with other metals, that it all accidentally came together, including the logo and the letters on the front, the hinged cover, the playing mechanism, the machinery, the batteries, everything - that it came not through design but through accident --

-- what would you say?

You'd say he's out of his mind. The odds of a CD player coming by accident are psycho.

There are only two ways anything happens in this world: (a) accident or (b) intelligence. If the CD player could not have come by accident, that automatically means it was designed by intelligence. There is no third alternative.

If so, what should one say about finding not If that is what we would say, conclusively and without any room for doubt, about a camcorder, what, then, shall one say about the human eye, which demonstrates plan and purpose compared to which a CD player is no more primitive than a rock.

Light enters your eye, and these cone sensor tools fine tune the color contrast and detail of the image, based on the lighting conditions.

There are seven million of these color sensors in your eye. Seven. Million. All of them work together to give you a realistic color image.

Seven million.

If there's not enough light for them to create color, like in a shadowy place, the color tools give the job over to a different group of black & white image enhancers. There are about 127 million of them.

Meanwhile, at the same time, a computer in your optic nerve receives signals from those 127 million sensors, changes them into code and sends them, translated, through a few hundred thousand nerve fibers that lead to your brain.

How do these millions and millions of tools know how to do all this?

Accident or intelligence?

Why doesn't your eye send the signals to your stomach or foot? How does it know which direction the brain is? How did the optic nerve in your brain know where to create a connection?

But we're not finished yet. While all this is happening inside your eye, the pupil, that black hole on the outside of your eye, is measuring the amount of light it needs to let inside the eye, and it opens and closes, like a lens, to accommodate the exact right amount. A stereo focusing system is busy maintaining maximum image sharpness and a sophisticated image enhancer is clarifying tiny blurs in your vision caused by motion or darkness.

But that's nothing. The image then gets sent to your brain.

Your brain has about ten BILLION nerve cells. Each of these ten billion cells grows between 10,000 - 100,000 fibers in order to connect to other nerve cells in the brain. The total number of these connections, which totally work in tandem with each other, equals one quadrillion. That is: 1,000,000,000,000,000

If you want to know how much that is, here's an example:

Imagine a forest half the size of the entire United States - one million square miles. A thick forest, with 10,000 trees per square mile. If each of these trees had 100,000 leaves, the total amount of tress in the entire forest would equal one quadrillion - the amount of nerve fiber connections in your brain.

Ask an atheist what he would do if he was on a jury and they found the fingerprints of the accused on the victim's throat. The defendant claims that it wasn't him, and there must be someone else with the exact same fingerprints that he has. Plus the 20 witnesses who saw him strangle the victim lied.

You can't PROVE that this guy is guilty. It is possible that there exist in the world 2 like sets of fingerprints. There's nothing scientific that makes sure, when a baby is born, that his fingers make sure to not to duplicate everyone else's prints. the reason why we assume there are not 2 sets of prints the same is that there are so many possible ways for fingerprints to look, the odds of 2 being the same are staggering.

If the atheist will not believe that two sets of fingerprints are possible to be the the same, that he would send someone to the electric chair and consider it proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that this was indeed the defendant and not someone else who killed the victim (witnesses can lie, too, you know), ask him then, how he can believe that the human brain came by accident - if he believes that, he should surely believe in the possibility of a whole slew of people with the same sets of prints.

-Thank you "moderator" of frumteens.com for your excellent post on this topic.

Is religion the reason the world is not peaceful?

2007-04-08T01:08:00.000-05:00

Many atheists will assert that religion causes wars, genocide, persecution, and many other terrible things. If religion was removed from the world, then would the world really be that much better off?

The Soviet Union was officially secular, supported atheist ideology and suppressed religion througught its existance. By far, the consensus figure for those that Joseph Stalin murdered when he ruled the Soviet Union is 20,000,000.

That is right. The most recent country to be run by an atheist ideology, killed over 20 million people! So let me ask the question again... "Is religion the reason the world is not peaceful?"

Did Christianity violate copyright laws when they copied paganism?

2007-04-08T00:44:00.000-05:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oh, so your prophet performed a few miracles?

2007-04-07T23:13:00.000-05:00

So anyone telling you, "our prophet performed miracles, and many people witnessed it"? Well, if they are, ask them if G-d spoke to millions of people when creating their religion or are they just relying on the fact that one man says that G-d spoke to him.

Well they might have very well performed miracles! After all read the Torah (Deuteronomy 13:1-5):

13:1 Everything I command you that you shall be careful to do it. You shall neither add to it, nor subtract from it.
13:2 If there will arise among you a prophet, or a dreamer of a dream, and he gives you a sign or a wonder,
13:3 and the sign or the wonder of which he spoke to you happens, [and he] says, "Let us go after other gods which you have not known, and let us worship them,"
13:4 you shall not heed the words of that prophet, or that dreamer of a dream; for the L-rd, your G-d, is testing you, to know whether you really love the L-rd, your G-d, with all your heart and with all your soul.
13:5 You shall follow the L-rd, your G-d, fear Him, keep His commandments, heed His voice, worship Him, and cleave to Him.

So let us see, a guy comes along and says that his "prophet" named Jesus or Mohammad comes along and in violation of the verse 1, subtracts from the law, saying we no longer should follow the Torah, but instead follow their books, and to show "proof" because they perform a "miracle".

After reading the above verse, can you do anything but laugh at them? I mean, G-d describes it at a very simple level to us!

The sign of forgery within the "New Testament" and "Quran"

2007-04-06T18:25:00.000-05:00

The "Quran" and the "New Testament" do not breathe one word of criticism against their leaders. Our Torah and also the other sacred books are full of criticisms. Errors and faults are pointed out in everyone. Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, the ten brothers of Joseph... Moses, Aaron, the levites Korach Judges, Eli, Samuel, Saul, David, Soloman, are all criticized. Such criticism of great men is found in no other religions. Because this is a sign on truth. The claim of infallibility is the sign of forgery.

No one is perfect but G-d, and no one has lived their entire life without committing one sin, even Moses! The easiest way to see that the books of Jesus and Mohammad are fakes, are that Jesus and Mohammad are never criticized in them. They do no wrong, which is the most obvious sign of forgery.

Some ideas and arguments have been taken from Rabbi Avigdor Miller's book "Rejoice O' Youth".

Rabbinical authority is not biblical?

2007-04-06T18:08:00.000-05:00

Many people these days say that the Rabbi's have influenced Judaism to much. They want to follow the Torah and not made up rabbinical stuff right? Well following the Rabbi's is following the Torah:

Deuteronomy 17:8-12 from the Artscroll Stone edition:

17:8 If a matter of judgment is hidden from you, between blood and blood, between verdict and verdict, between plague and plague, matters of dispute in your cities - you shall rise up and ascend to the place that Hashem, your G-d, shall choose.
17:9 You shall come to the Kohanim, the Levites, and to the judge who will be in those days; you shall inquire and they will tell you the word of judgment.
17:10 You shall do according to the word that they will tell you, from that place that Hash-m will choose, and you shall be careful to do according to everything that they will teach you.
17:11 According to the teaching that they will teach you and according to the judgment that they will say to you, shall you do; you shall not deviate from the word that they will tell you, right or left.
17:12 And the man that will act with willfulness, not listening to the Kohen who stands there to serve Hashem, your G-d, or to the judge, that man shall die and you shall destroy the evil from Israel.

How is Judaism different from the other religions?

2007-04-06T17:46:00.000-05:00

The scriptures, only call on Israel who witnessed G-d's deeds to follow and keep his laws. No other nation is threatened or blamed for not accepting the Torah/Law; they are not obligated to, for they did not witness the miracles which prove the truth of the Torah/Law! Moses did not demand that the children of Israel should believe in him, for none of them ever disputed the truth of the law, which they had witnessed together with him. But the books of Islam and Christianity vehemently curse everyone in the world who disbelieves them although they did not demonstrate their proofs to the whole world. Judaism says the non-Jews who did not recieve the proofs that the Torah is divine do not need to follow it. They just have to follow the seven laws of basic morality.

Therefore, do you believe it is fair that G-d would tell one guy like Jesus, or Mohammad about a religion, and then expect the whole world to believe it, or go to hell? What about the people who never get the message? It makes a lot more sense that G-d would tell everyone about the religion he is creating and then tell them that covenant is eternal, so they have to pass down the religion from generation to generation. "HASHEM said, 'Still, your wife Sarah will give birth to a son. You must name him Isaac. I will keep My covenant with him as an eternal treaty, for his descendants after him. (Genesis 17:19)

It makes sense. G-d would only expect those that he demonstrated proof, to follow and pass the religion on to each generation.

I mean, what makes more sense, telling one guy about the religion you wish to create and expecting the entire world to believe him? Or saying "Anochi, lo yihiyeh lechah" and giving the Torah in front of the entire nation, after splitting the seas, and removing them from bondage (which more and more proof is coming from archeology supporting the fact that the Israelites were indeed slaves in Egypt and for some reason freed.)

I challenge all reading this to find me another religion which claims to have had a mass revelation and do not put all their hopes on one man saying G-d spoke to him. Of course, these religions could not claim that G-d came to the masses and said “Hello, I want to start Christianity”, because the masses don’t know anything about it. If Jesus would have told everyone “The Creator of the world came to all of us 400 years ago and told all of our ancestors to follow Jesus”, they of course would have said, “Hey Jesus, how come you’re the only one that knows about this?”. You can’t make up a story that involves the ancestors of millions upon millions of people. Not possible.

What is Torah Judaism?

2007-04-05T21:29:00.000-05:00

Torah Judaism is an English term, mostly associated with Haredi Judaism, to describe a Judaism based on a strict adherence to the laws of the Torah's 613 mitzvot and the Halakha.

Please see our answers to different religions and questions throughout this site.

2007-04-05T20:22:00.000-05:00

2007-04-04T20:24:00.000-05:00