For Orthodox Jews--a Primer on Fundamentalist Protestants (Vanity; Jewish/Noachide ecumenical)

First, an apology for making this a cacused thread. I know that Fundamentalist Protestant FReepers will feel cheated at having their religious beliefs explained by one not of their number, but to leave the thread open would be to invite thousands and thousands of posts, each and every one of them quoting the "new testament" to "prove" this and that. While I am no longer a Fundamentalist Protestant or chr*stian of any kind, I nevertheless used to be one and feel competent to explain their beliefs to Orthodox Jews--especially when those beliefs are so misunderstood and misrepresented.

I also feel compelled to inform the reader that while I am no longer a Protestant or chr*stian of any kind I still very much consider myself to be a Fundamentalist, for two reasons. First, "fundamentalism" as I define the term is the equation of religious truth with actual truth (ie, facts) rather than with allegedly more "profound" non-factual truth (note that this does not at all preclude deep profound truths that lie beneath the surface, nor does it entail a rejection of an authoritative Oral Interpretive Tradition). Secondly, "Fundamentalist" is as much an ethno-cultural designation as a theological one, and this means I was born a "Fundamentalist" and will remain one until I die because I was born a poor Southern rural Anglo-American (ever heard a Black Biblical literalist called a "Fundamentalist?").

A very devout, very learned, and in fact very "fundamentalist" (non-Modern) Orthodox rabbi for whom I have the greatest respect has a video at his web site (otherwise I could not share this information) in which he says that no matter how pro-Israel or pro-Jewish Fundamentalist chr*stians may be, their friendship can never be fully accepted because they still believe that Jews "go to hell," which he interprets as the belief that Jews are "evil" and that Fundamentalist chr*stians must hate Jews if they believe such a thing. And I'm sorry, but this isn't true. Fundamentalist chr*stians do not believe that Jews are any more "evil" than any human being (including Fundamentalist chr*stians themselves) nor do they hate them. The fact is that, just as Fundamentalist chr*stians misunderstand Judaism because they impose their own worldview onto it, Orthodox Jews misunderstand the purpose of Fundamentalist chr*stianity, and that purpose is not to create good people or to suffuse the lower world with G-dliness. It is "to save souls."

In the Fundamentalist chr*stian worldview, every human being born into the world since the sin in the Garden is born "damned." He is born that way because thanks to "the Devil" he has something G-d never intended him to have--an evil inclination. You see, as they understand it, G-d, being good and perfect, simply cannot be responsible for the existence of evil or imperfection in any way whatsoever. In fact, He cannot abide it. His only option, compelled by His own holiness, is to "damn" every human being who is flawed and imperfect. Sounds harsh? Well, to you it does. To them it makes perfect sense. Get set for some real "multiculturalism," Reader!

Now every human being born into the world (though the Jewish mystical tradition disagrees here) has certainly been born with an evil inclination--a yetzer hara`. It is this, and not the actions to which it leads, that deserves "eternal damnation." The yetzer hara` is like a disease, and actual individual sins are like the symptoms of that disease. In any diseased population there will be some variety in the manifestation of symptoms. But the disease, along with its consequences, is present in all. This means that for the Fundamentalist Protestant (just as an example) both Joseph Stalin and Mother Teresa are equally worthy of damnation. The fact that the former manifested more symptoms--ie, more actual sins and acts of evil--has nothing to do with it. They both were born with the disease. Both deserved, and were destined, for "eternal damnation." Fundamentalist Protestants in no way hated Mother Teresa, nor did they consider her "evil" in the same sense that they consider Joseph Stalin to have been evil. But they insist that they both had the same "disease."

So if G-d did not create the yetzer hara`, who did? Their answer: "the Devil." Here G-d had created a world every bit as perfect, flawless, and sinless as Himself (being holy, He could have created no other kind) when along comes an evil supernatural counterpart and mucks the whole thing up. The world that was intended by G-d to be as perfect and sublime as Himself was now flawed and imperfect, and the Good G-d can respond to imperfection in only one way. Yes, like "Nomad" on that episode of "Star Trek." And a lack of personal sins or the presence of great personal holiness in this or that individual doesn't change a thing. Yes, so-and-so may have blessedly few symptoms, but the disease of imperfection is still present.

So G-d hit upon a wonderfully ingenious plan that would provide a loophole for each individual while still allowing Him to maintain His holiness by damning every single imperfect individual cursed with a yetzer hara`. [`Avodah zarah warning: read the following with caution] He would, chas vechalilah, incarnate Himself as a human being and then, chas vechalilah, vicariously damn Himself in the place of every single solitary human being who would ever live. This way He gets to maintain His holiness by damning every flawed, imperfect, sinful being (ie, every being with a yetzer hara`) while everyone has the opportunity to not actually experience this damnation personally. The catch: to take advantage of this loophole one must explicitly "accept" it. Every single solitary human being who does not explicitly accept this "gift of salvation" must, by G-d's holiness, be eternally damned. As for those who do accept it, they still deserve to be damned, but they can't go to "hell" because in G-d's eyes they're already there!

Sof davar hakol nishma`. Period. End of story. That's it, people. There are no commandments to observe and, actually, no "religion" to "practice." There is only this one-time-only acceptance of the "gift" and that's the end of the whole thing. It's not so much a "religion" as an innoculation program. The sole purpose for living for each and every Fundamentalist Protestant (unless they're Calvinists or universalists, and some are) is to help innoculate each and ever single human being. Now, from the perspective of Orthodox Judaism/Noachism this is horrifying, but these people do not have that perspective. It's a different religion, people. That means a different worldview and a different purpose. And to expect them remain chr*stians and not have this attitude is absolutely unreasonable and utterly impossible for them in good conscience. If they shared the Orthodox Jewish/Noachide worldview they wouldn't be chr*stians in the first place!

No, not to Judaism, but to the Noachide Laws, the true and only G-d-authorized religion for all non-Jewish humanity.

What is the root of this entire erroneous worldview? A denial of One G-d. A belief in an evil counterpart of G-d who spoiled G-d's perfect creation and in fact acted as a sort of co-creator, G-d forbid, in that he helped produce the world as it exists today. They don't understand that G-d, by His Blessed Will, intentionally created this lowest of all worlds with all its imperfections (even before the sin in the Garden). They have never heard of the first sin in history being committed by the ground before man was even created, or of the envy of the moon, or that HaShem Himself mandated a "sin offering" in His own behalf for having reduced the moon. They do not understand that G-d created the yetzer hara` and placed it within Adam before the commandment not to eat the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge had even been given. They do not understand that G-d Alone rules supreme and absolutely and that HaSatan is merely one of His angels doing his job, like all the others.

And why has no one ever told them these things? That's simple also. It's because they were too busy calling them "haters" and "bigots" and "intolerant" to do so. And when they weren't calling them that they were trying to make liberal chr*stians out of them. How many millions and millions of dollars have been spent on "museums of tolerance," "brotherhood" campaigns, or propaganda to convince Fundamentalist chr*stians that "all religions and all 'gxds' are equally valid?" (And how in the name of all that is reasonable can anyone who goes by the name of Jew propagandize for such a thing?) And so long as Fundamentalist chr*stians sincerely believe that G-d wants them to "save" every single human being they will continue to try to do so and nothing you can say or do will dissuade them. You may criminalize chr*stian proselyitism, but all you will do is make Fundamentalist chr*stians into criminals by doing so. What if the government outlawed circumcision or eating matztzot during Pesach or qeri'at shema`? Whom would you obey--men or G-d? Then why do you ask Fundamentalist chr*stians to behave differently? They will stop trying to "innoculate" the world for only one reason: because they know that G-d has not commanded this. Once they know that they are not presently objectively obeying G-d then they will be able to stop proselytizing with a clear conscience. Until then each and every one of them feels personally responsible for every single individual who dies "unsaved." Considering that fact, I think they display remarkable restraint. They actually deserve to be praised, not calumniated for their "intolerance."

I myself can personally testify as to how liberating learning the Truth can be. I had always believed that after "Satan" had (chas vechalilah!) "run G-d off His throne" that he had "taken over" as the "gxd of this world" and that ever since Adam "acquired" the yetzer hara` by eating the fruit that I and every single human being was born the property of "Satan." By nature, he was our "gxd." G-d, the One, A-mighty, Omnipotent G-d, the King of the Kings of the Kings, was no longer naturally G-d. He didn't become a person's G-d until they received their innoculation. Until that point "Satan,"and not G-d, was "gxd." No matter how much I loved and desired Him, no matter how much I prayed to Him, He was not my G-d and would never be my G-d until I had received my "innoculation" (the "assurance" of which I never had, which meant that I had not received the "innoculation" at all even after doing everything I was supposed to to receive it). Do you know how astounding it is to Fundamentalist chr*stians to see Jews calling G-d their Father and enjoying a relationship with Him without having to ever pass "from nature to grace?" The idea that every single human being already has a relationship with G-d merely because He is our Creator and L-rd, is absolutely incomprehensible to them. Yet they already have this relationship. And all they have yet to do is to acknowledge it and accept HaShem as their G-d to complete the process. No "innoculation" or "salvation experience" required.

Before closing bringing this vanity to a close I would like to address two other areas. The first is the difference between Fundamentalist Protestant and ancient liturgical chr*stians; the second is the issue of Jews, especially Orthodox Jews, promoting "tolerance" as the greatest virtue.

On the surface, Orthodox Jews will feel much less afraid of and much more comfortable with Catholic, Orthodox, Non-Chalcaedonian, and Non-Ephesine chr*stians. This is somewhat ironic considering that it is precisely these churches that have committed the vast majority of all chr*stian atrocities against the Jewish People. But they do not proselytize--in fact, are as opposed to Protestant missionaries as Jews are--(being, like Judaism, essentially ethnic religions, however "universal" they proclaim themselves to be), and they do not subscribe to the radical antinomian "loophole" soteriology I have elucidated above (since they hold that the world has been "redeemed" for two thousand years and every human being born since that time is born into a "redeemed" world and assumed to be somewhere on "the path of redemption" himself). However, this is not to their credit. Fundamentalist Protestants have taken the Pauline doctrine of the inadequacy of the "Law" (the Holy Torah) and have very logically and consistently applied it to all human effort. The more ancient versions of chr*stianity, on the other hand, have restricted Paul's critique of "the law" to the Holy Torah. It alone is useless. It alone has been replaced. Natural human efforts to the good are still valid and useful, and of course they claim that after abrogating the Torah (G-d forbid!!!) G-d immediately replaced it with the laws, ceremonials, and customs of chr*stianity (chr*stmas replacing Pesach, rosary beads replacing tefillin, etc.). However easier to get along with these chr*stians are (at least in the modern world), their animus to the Torah is much greater because it alone is rejected as "insufficient for salvation" ("salvation" not being its purpose to begin with). In rejecting all human effort--and very much rejecting traditional chr*stian law and ceremonial--Fundamentalist Protestants are acknowledging that no law could ever be greater than the Holy Torah. If it is (chas vechalilah!) "insufficient," then so is all human action. And contrariwise, if any human action had any merit at all, it would be obedience to the Holy Torah. It must also be remembered that Fundamentalist Protestant antinomianism and rejection of "unwritten tradition" was not formed in opposition to Judaism but to Catholicism.

Then of course there is the fact the that "tolerant" and "philo-Semitic" chr*stians whom most Jews prefer to the Fundamentalists almost always have a very low view of the Torah and deny that any authorititative Revelation has ever occurred in history, but that all claimants at such revelation are myths. Of course such people don't believe that Jews "go to hell." They don't believe anyone does! And yes they "respect" Judaism--but no more and no less than any other religion on the face of the earth, since they are all "equally valid." Why in the world would Orthodox Jews want to encourage such an erroneous attitude?

And this serves as a useful segueway to my final point, which is that Orthodox Jews have no business promoting "tolerance" in the first place, and for a very good reason: Orthodox Jews are Monotheists (indeed, the only true Monotheists), and Monotheism is the antithesis of "tolerance." A "monotheist" who advocates "tolerance" as the supreme virtue is like a square circle--a contradiction in terms. If it's tolerance you want, then I have the perfect solution for you: polytheism. It's the most tolerant religion in the world! The rabbi I mentioned at the beginning of this vanity points out in his videos that until chr*stianity arose there was no "anti-Semitism" in the modern sense of the word and that the ancient world, with some exceptions, was very "tolerant" of Jews. But the ancient world was polytheistic! Of course when non-Jews abandoned polytheism for a watered-down monotheism they became intolerant. Monotheism teaches that G-d is a Jealous G-d, not a "tolerant G-d!" For any Jew to proclaim in one breath that the essence of Judaism is undying warfare against polytheism and in the next that Judaism teaches tolerance of all other faiths is to flatly contradict oneself. If Jews want a tolerant world, Jews should drop Monotheism at once and become crusaders for the restoration of ancient polytheism.

I would like to make just one more point. It is often pointed out that Judaism teaches that "the righteous of the nations have a portion in the World To Come," but this is grossly misunderstood. The "righteous of the nations," objectively speaking, are observant Noachides, not "all good people regardless of what they believe." Once again, this is objectively speaking. Subjectively speaking, only G-d alone can judge the heart of each individual and know whether that person would be an observant Noachide if he understood this to be G-d's Will. However, speaking objectively again, all non-Jews are commanded to relinquish all false religions (including "monotheistic" ones like chr*stianity and islam) and accept and abide by the Seven Noachide Commandments and all their implications (with repentance always available for our failures, thank G-d!). So once again Judaism, while it does not and has never sought to make Jews out of all humanity (the Jews are a small chosen nation), are nevertheless commanded to "compel"--not "suggest," but compel--all mankind to abandon their false "gxds" and their idols and accept HaShem and His Laws. So much for "the righteous of the nations have a portion in the World To Come" making this unnecessary.

In closing, I apologize for my often blunt and corrective language in addressing Orthodox Jewish FReepers who for the most part are not guilty of the things I wish to correct, but as the case of the pious rabbi I mentioned illustrates, even the most understanding of Torah Jews do not truly understand the Fundamentalist Protestants because they do not share their worldview. I have elucidated that worldview to the best of my poor ability not to proselytize for it (G-d forbid!) but to make it better understood so that its adherents may be better apprised of their true duties to G-d and be liberated from all false and erroneous religious doctrines.

Zionist Conspirator -

In post #95 you said, “I do not need to provide a point-by-point refutation.” Yes, you do. Otherwise, you are handwaving (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handwaving), and assuming the credibility of one who has proven nothing.

In post #95 you said, “The Torah is supreme and the Torah does not authorize or even provide for such a religion as chr*stianity. Its commandments are stated to be eternal many times, and the only reason the Prophets we have today are in the Hebrew Bible at all is because they were canonized by the Men of the Great Assembly, which means that they were understood from the beginning to be in submission to the Torah. ‘Nuff said.” Whether the worship of Yehoshua HaMashiach fulfills the Law of Moses as is done by Christians around the world, or the festivals should be carried out eternally as is done by Messianic Jews around the world is irrelevant. The question at hand is, does the Torah and Tanakh point to a 1st century arrival of the Messiah? The Tanakh, fully authorized as the word of God by Deuteronomy 18:21-22, points to the 1st century arrival of the Messiah via Daniel 9:24-27, Haggai 2:10, Malachi 3:1, and Genesis 49 in ways I have already shown in my mega-post.

In post #95 you said, “You certainly misdated the Babylonian captivity.” The dates for the Babylonian captivity are the dates recognized by both the secularists at wikipedia, and by means of the records of the lunar and solar eclipses kept by the Babylonians. By using the velocity and position of the moon, we can know WITH CERTAINTY when events in their history, like the Babylonian captivity took place. When we use the Tanakh in places like Ezekiel 4, Jeremiah 25, and Leviticus 26 and we take the Word of God literally as shown in http://www.direct.ca/trinity/y3nf.html we see that not only are the Prophets on an equal footing with the words recorded by Moses as from God per instructions given face to face to Moses whose eye was not dim, nor his natural force abated in Deuteronomy 18:21-22, but also, Israel’s birth in 1948 and 1967 were foretold.

In post #95 you said, “As I have said many times, Judaism has nothing to prove.” It has everything to prove, given that God has moved according to scripture, and has given us prophets per Deuteronomy 18:21-22 who told of Moshiach who would arrive in what we call the 1st century because of Haggai 2:10, Genesis 49, Malachi 3:1, and Daniel 9:24-27. These days, Judaism is a bloodless shell of what was given in the mountains of Sinai, where Leviticus 17:11 is counted as nothing, another victim of handwaving.

In post #95 you said, “Your invoking RaMBa”M and the Talmud overlooks the fact that both these sources, which you claim have a view of Mashiach in harmony with chr*stianity, rejected that religion. If chr*stianity were as harmonious with their understanding as you say it is, then they would have certainly endorsed that religion, but they did not.” If RaMBa”M or the Talmud inadvertently lend credibility to the 1st century arrival of Messiah despite their rejection of Messiah, why would I not utilize them? The Talmud testifies in Yoma 39b that God stopped accepting the sacrifices of the Jewish people 40 years before the destruction of the 2nd Temple in 70A.D.. The Jew that trembles at God’s word asks themselves, “What happened that year?”, the answer is Yehoshua Ha Mashiach was preaching and teaching, and was pointed to by the Pharisees (your spiritual forefathers), and called an agent of the Devil! Blasphemy of the 1st order! To the Jews who bought the lie that the Romans not the Jewish leaders ordered the execution of Messiah, or that Jesus was made into Messiah later by Christians, that quote from RaMBa”M neatly kills those lies.

In post #99 you said, “Your main argument on this point was to invoke the “prophet like unto” Moses in Deuteronomy. I’m afraid that taking that one verse (which is the mitzvah to hearken to a prophet) and pretending that it overturns the entire Torah simply cannot satisfy anyone other than one who is already convinced.” Deuteronomy 18:21-22 does not by itself do anything of the sort. It simply tells us who speaks Gods word, and who does not. By that verse, the pre-Christian Jewish scribes who had no Christian axe to grind deemed the Tanakh to be the word of God, worthy of preservation. Modern Rabbinic Talmudists, masquerading as Jews, pretend it’s not of equal authority to the Torah, but that is strictly a modern invention, contradicting Torah! Repeating a point I made in this post, whether Messiah fulfills the law through our faith as done by Gentile Christians, or whether the feasts are to be kept in a Messianic context as is done by Messianic Jews is not the issue. The issue is whether the Tanakh points to a 1st Century arrival of the messiah. Neither has a response has been provided to the evidence at http://www.direct.ca/trinity/hidden.html. Is it a lie? Is it mistaken? What is it? It is definitely sourced from the Torah.

In post #99 you said, “You then invoked the criteria for a true prophet as enumerated in the Torah. Yet you continue to ignore the case described in Deuteronomy 13 of the false prophet who makes predictions which come true but which are to be ignored because they are merely a test from G-d to see if the hearers of such prophecies (and witnesses of such fulfillments) really will stay with the Torah rather than going to something new.” I’m glad you admit that the predictions made by Yehoshua HaMashiach and his apostles came true. I apologize for not having a Stone Tanakh on me right now. The Soncino Deuteronomy 13:3 says, “Let us go after other gods, which you have not known, and let us serve them” If it is substantially different in the Stone, please tell me. Anyways, Yehoshua HaMashiach DID NOT claim to be another God, nor did he claim his Father was another God. He claimed in John 8:58 to be the same “I AM” we met in Exodus 3:14. He quoted the Torah. He quoted the Tanakh. He performed miracles. He rebuked hypocrisy the very year that God stopped accepting the sacrifices of the Jewish people per Yoma 39b in the Talmud. He gave the most scathing denunciation of the whole New Testament in Matthew 23 a short 40 years before the destruction of the 2nd Temple on the watch of your spiritual forefathers. He arrived on time. He fulfilled 300+ prophecies per http://www.messiahrevealed.org/category-index.html.

Between the prophets pointing to the 1st century in ways I have already spelled out to you in the other thread, and Yoma 39b saying that God stopped accepting the sacrifices of the Jewish people, EXACTLY WHEN the Pharisees insulted the Son of God, I’d say that Rabbinic Talmudism which masquerades as Judaism, and is not, has everything to prove, and stands on the spindliest of legs, waiting to be pushed over by the plainest of evidence.

- ROTB

P.S. Pinging “The Usual Suspects”. :)

Whether the worship of Yehoshua HaMashiach fulfills the Law of Moses as is done by Christians around the world, or the festivals should be carried out eternally as is done by Messianic Jews around the world is irrelevant.

On the contrary, this is the very heart of the matter! You will notice that the only "mashiach" mentioned by the Torah is Aaron and his successors. The messiah isn't the point of the Torah at all; rather the Torah is the point of the Messiah!

The commandment to obey a prophet is not a "prophecy" of the chr*stian "messiah" and can only be made to be so by assuming the truth of chr*stianity from the outset. Furthermore, as I have pointed out previously, The Torah in Parashat Re'eh warns that sometimes G-d sends false prophets, even allowing their prophecies to come to pass, for the express purpose of seeing if Israel will follow that prophet or else (as He wants) reject that prophet and stick with the Torah.

The question at hand is, does the Torah and Tanakh point to a 1st century arrival of the Messiah?

No it is not. The messiah is not the heart of Judaism--Torah is! Your assertion is merely the claim of chr*stianity. The claims of chr*stianity are not "self-evidently" true. Furthermore, your whole worldview is based not on authentic chr*stianity but Protestantism, which never existed until the sixteenth century. The contents of your FReeper home page are classical antinomian "loophole" Protestantism: G-d demands perfection or else He is compelled to damn the sinner, no one is perfect, therefore all must be damned, therefore G-d (chas vechalilah!) "incarnated" and vicariously damned Himself. I'll let you and kosta50 discuss how this differs from the original chr*stian teaching.

When we use the Tanakh in places like Ezekiel 4, Jeremiah 25, and Leviticus 26 and we take the Word of God literally as shown in http://www.direct.ca/trinity/y3nf.html we see that not only are the Prophets on an equal footing with the words recorded by Moses as from God per instructions given face to face to Moses whose eye was not dim, nor his natural force abated in Deuteronomy 18:21-22, but also, Israel’s birth in 1948 and 1967 were foretold.

I'm sorry, but this simply is not so, and there is absolutely no logic to your "proof" whatsoever. The Torah is supreme over and above all other revelation--past, present, or future. The Torah was written by G-d Himself before the universe was created. The Prophets and Ketuvim were not. Every prophecy, every prophet, must be judged by the Torah. Whether the prophet works miracles is irrelevant. Even if a prophecy he makes comes true, this may still be merely a "test" from HaShem. Your assertion is merely the chr*stian claim, and I have pointed out many times that the chr*stian claim is not "self-evidently" true.

Judaism was already here when chr*stianity arose. It was based on the Revelation of G-d at Sinai. Even chr*stianity acknowledges this. Therefore it has nothing to prove and sits in judgment on all who claim to be the messiah. And as I keep telling you (and which you keep ignoring because it contradicts your dogmatic assumptions), Judaism isn't about the Messiah. Judaism is the Torah. The Messiah is merely the facilitator--perhaps the ultimate facilitator--for Torah observance. So your assertion that the question is whether the "messiah" arrived two thousand years ago is an error based on chr*stian assumptions, not the self-evident message of the Torah itself.

Tell you what: you let me know when you find a verse in the Torah that teaches that it (the Torah) is merely meant to be temporary. And it must make that claim, not merely command obedience to a prophet or state that at a certain time the tribe of Judah will lose its national sovereignty. Where does the Torah claim to be temporary?

The question at hand is, does the Torah and Tanakh point to a 1st century arrival of the Messiah?

Is the chr*stian definition of Messiah, the same as the Hebew definition? Nope.

Messiah from the Hebrew
4899 mashiyach maw-shee'-akh from the root of 4886;

anointed; usually a consecrated person (as a king, priest, or saint);
specifically, the Messiah:--anointed, Messiah.
1) anointed, anointed one
a) of the Messiah, Messianic prince
b) of the king of Israel
c) of the high priest of Israel
d) of Cyrus
e) of the patriarchs as anointed kings

Now Christ from the Greek
5547 Christos khris-tos' from the root 5548;
anointed, i.e. the Messiah, an epithet of Jesus:--Christ.
Christ = "anointed"
1) Christ was the Messiah, the Son of God
2) anointed Notice what IS MISSING? In the Greek, there are no other options given.

Psalm 2
2   The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD, and against his anointed, saying,

Psalm 18
50   Great deliverance giveth he to his king; and sheweth mercy to his anointed, to David, and to his seed for evermore.

Psalm 89
20   I have found David my servant; with my holy oil have I anointed him:

So, Yehoshua wasn't the only one annointed.....

Psalms 2:7 I will tell of the decree: YHWH said unto me: 'Thou art My son, this day have I begotten thee.

First of all, in Hebrew, there are no upper or lower case letters.

Psalms 2:7 I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, thou art my son; this day have I begotten thee.

1 Chronicles 22
9   Behold, a son shall be born to thee, who shall be a man of rest; and I will give him rest from all his enemies round about: for his name shall be Solomon, and I will give peace and quietness unto Israel in his days.
10   He shall build an house for my name; and he shall be my son, and I will be his father; and I will establish the throne of his kingdom over Israel for ever.

We 'could' take the same liberty that the publishers of the KJV took.

1 Chronicles 22
9   Behold, a son shall be born to thee, who shall be a man of rest; and I will give him rest from all his enemies round about: for his name shall be Solomon, and I will give peace and quietness unto Israel in his days.
10   He shall build an house for my name; and he shall be My Son, and I will be His Father; and I will establish the throne of His kingdom over Israel for ever.

Wow, look at that, Solomon was The Messiah..... Just so nobody complains, the bold verses of course have been changed by altering the upper/lower case. This shows how easily the publishers of the KJV could steer the reader and get them to believe what they wanted them to.

At any rate, Yehoshua wasn't the only one YHWH called son.

The term "moshiach" or "messiah" literally means "the anointed one," and refers to the ancient practice of anointing kings with oil when they took the throne. The moshiach is the one who will be anointed as king in the End of Days. The word "moshiach" does not mean "savior." The notion of an innocent, divine or semi-divine being who will sacrifice himself to save mankind from the consequences of their own sin is a purely chr*stian concept that has no basis in Jewish thought. Unfortunately, this chr*stian concept has become so deeply ingrained in the English word "messiah" that this English word can no longer be used to refer to the Jewish concept.

Jews do not believe that Yehoshia was the moshiach. Assuming that he existed, and assuming that the chr*stian scriptures are accurate in describing him, Jews maintain that he simply did not fulfill the mission of the moshiach as it is described in the biblical passages cited in the Jewish Scriptures (the following passages in the Jewish scriptures are the ones that Jews consider to be messianic in nature or relating to the end of days. These are the ones that they rely upon in developing their messianic concept: Isaiah 2, 11, 42; 59:20 Jeremiah 23, 30, 33; 48:47; 49:39 Ezekiel 38:16 Hosea 3:4-3:5 Micah 4 Zephaniah 3:9 Zechariah 14:9 Daniel 10:14). Yehoshua did not do any of the things that the Jewish Scriptures said the messiah would do. (1) The Jewish Messiah is to be a human being born naturally to husband and wife. He is not to be a god, nor a man born of supernatural or virgin birth, as chr*stianity claims.

Nowhere does the Jewish Bible or Prophets say that the Messiah would be a god or God like. The very idea that God would take on human form is repulsive to Jews because it contradicts the concept of God as being above and beyond the limitations of the human body and situation. Jews believe, according to the Jewish Scriptures, that God alone is to be worshipped, not a being who is His creation, be he angel, saint, or even the Messiah himself.

Nowhere does the Bible predict that the Messiah will be born to a virgin. In fact, virgins never give birth anywhere in the Bible. This idea is to be found only in pagan mythology. To the Jewish mind, the very idea that God would plant a seed in a woman is unnecessary and unnatural.

What would be accomplished by such a claim? To serve what purpose?

The claim that Mary did not have natural relations with her husband must have made the Jews of that time suspect her of wrongdoing. The New Testament admits as much when it says (Matthew 1:19), "Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away privily."

The whole idea of virgin birth serves no purpose, except to attract pagans to chr*stianity.

Judaism believes that God is eternal, above and beyond time. God cannot be born, He cannot die, He cannot suffer, He can not "become flesh," nor can He be divided into sections ("Father, Son, and Holy Ghost"). These are pagan notions.

(2) The Jewish Messiah is expected to return the Jews to their land. Jesus was born while the Jews still lived in their land, before they had gone into exile. He could not restore them to their land because they were still living in it!

(3) The true Messiah is to rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem — but Yehoshua lived while the Temple was still standing.

(4) The Jewish Bible says that the Messiah will redeem Israel. In the case of Yehoshua, the very opposite took place. Not long after his death, the Holy Temple in Jerusalem was destroyed, Jerusalem was laid to waste, and the Jews went into exile to begin a 1900-year-long night of persecution—-largely at the hands of the followers of this self-styled "Messiah!"

(5) The Prophets in the Bible foretold (Isaiah 45) that when the Messiah comes, all the nations of the world will unite to acknowledge and worship the one true God. "The knowledge of God will fill the earth. The world will be filled with the knowledge of God as the waters cover the seas" (Isaiah 11:9). Nothing of this nature took place following the death of Yehoshua. On the contrary, Islam developed and became the religion of the Arabs and many other nations, chr*stianity broke up into many conflicting sects which were constantly at war with each other, and a large part of the world continued to worship idols. Even today the world is far from the worship of one God.

(6) When the true Messiah comes, his influence will extend over all peoples who will worship God at the Temple in Jerusalem. The Prophet says, "For My House will become the House of Prayer for all the Nations." This has obviously not yet taken place, and, therefore, the Messiah has not yet come.

(7) During the time of the Messiah a new spirit will rule the world, and man will cease committing sins and crimes; this will especially apply to the Jews. The Torah (in Deuteronomy 30:6) says that "God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your children to love God." The Prophets taught: "And your people are all righteous, they will inherit the earth forever" (Isaiah 60:21); "In that day I will seek the sins of Israel and there will be none" (Jeremiah 50:20); "A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh. 27   And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them." (Ezekiel 36:26,27). Soon after the time of Yehoshua, ignorance of God and even ignorance of science and philosophy filled the earth, as the "Dark Ages" overtook the world.

(8) The true Messiah is to reign as King of the Jews. Yehoshua's' career as described in the New Testament lasted all of three years, at the end of which he was crucified by the Romans as a common criminal. He never functioned as anything but a wandering preacher and "faith healer"; certainly, he held no official position or exercised any rule of any kind.

(9) One of the Messiah's major tasks is to bring peace to the entire world. In the time of the Messiah, there are to be no more wars, and the manufacture of arms will cease. The Prophet Isaiah (2:4) says, "And he shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people: and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more." Yet, chr*stian nations are continually at war and wars have been going on almost non-stop since the time of Yehoshua up to and including today.

(10) The New Testament itself claims that the prophecies concerning the Messiah were to be realized in Yehoshua's own generation. Mark (13:30) clearly says, "Verily I say unto you, that this generation shall not pass, till all these things be done." In Matthew 4, Yehoshua is quoted saying that “The Kingdom of Heaven is at hand." Almost 2,000 years have passed and still nothing has been accomplished.

(11) The Bible says that the Messiah would be descended in a direct line from King David. However, if God was Yehoshua's "father," is it not somewhat ridiculous to claim that he is descended from King David on his father's side?

(12) If Yehoshua was really the Messiah, why does the New Testament admit that all the rabbis of the time, without one exception, rejected his claim? Why was there not one man of learning, nor one prominent leader who accepted him? Who was in a position to judge if he was or was not the Messiah—-his own people, who anxiously awaited the arrival of the Messiah, or pagan peoples who had no understanding of what the concept really meant?

(13) If God has "rejected" the Jews for not "accepting Yehoshua" as chr*stians claim, why have the Jewish People managed to survive 2,000 years of chr*stian persecution? How do chr*stians explain the miracle of Jewish survival? Why has God restored the city of Jerusalem and the Land of Israel to His "rejected" people?

(14) Nowhere does the Jewish Bible teach the Messiah would come once, be killed, and return again in a “second coming.” The idea of a second coming is a pure rationalization of Yehoshua's failure to function in any way as a Messiah, or to fulfill any of the prophecies of the Torah or the Prophets. The idea is purely a Christian invention, with no foundation in the Bible, and created only to explain away why Yehoshua did not return in the generation of his followers as the New Testament attests.

given that God has moved according to scripture, and has given us prophets per Deuteronomy 18:21-22

I have yet to see a verse from the Tanakh that suggests or predicts that YHWH will come in the form of man.   The prediction was that YHWH would raise up a prophet from among the Jews, like Moses. Yehoshua himself tells us that he is/was a prohet.

Matthew 13
57   And they were offended in him. But Jesus said unto them, A prophet is not without honour, save in his own country, and in his own house.

Luke 13
33   Nevertheless I must walk to day, and to morrow, and the day following: for it cannot be that a prophet perish out of Jerusalem

Acts 3
22   For Moses truly said unto the fathers, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you.

Acts 7
37   This is that Moses, which said unto the children of Israel, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear.

The operative words in these verses are PROPHET! YHWH would raise a PROPHET amidst them, NOT a second-god, nor a god-man, or demi-god or sun-god. Yehoshua was a prophet and he told people what to do. To repent and keep the commandments.

“What happened that year?”, the answer is Yehoshua Ha Mashiach was preaching and teaching, and was pointed to by the Pharisees (your spiritual forefathers), and called an agent of the Devil!

Not quite.

Mat 23:23
Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier [matters] of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.

He placed 'moral' law above 'ceremonial' law. This is why some 'thought' that he 'broke' the law. You have to remember that Yehoshua taught in a period of transition, during the development of different schools of interpretation in Judaism. It is inevitable that there would be variant interpretations of the Law as recorded in the Gospels. With the Pharisees, Yehoshua accepts the Law of the Sabbath; he differs only in the interpretations of that law as found in the Oral Law. The Oral Law detailed the many conditions that allowed for the breaking of the Sabbath.

For example, the Rabbis of the Hillel School of Pharisaism declared that is was permissible to violate the Sabbath to preserve life, that in doing so you violate a Sabbath to ensure the observance of future Sabbaths. This was accepted interpretation by the Hillel Pharisees of which Yehoshua belonged, but not to the Shammai Pharisees or the Sadducees who were ultra-strict, always adhering to the 'letter of the Law' over the 'spirit of the Law' (Oral Law). It has been said that in elevating the spirit of the Law over the letter of the Law one can understand the minimizing of the ceremonial laws. But it is not that simple according to Yehishua. As gentiles, we are not aware that the Oral Law brought a proper understanding to the Written Law if matters were in doubt.

These (least commandments) you ought to have done, without neglecting the others (grave-weightier commandments). In drawing such a contrast, Yehoshua does not annul the Written Law (613 laws), nor even the ceremonial laws; he only brings priority to the obedience of all the Laws. Jesus did not stand against the Written Law or Oral Law, nor even Pharisaism, but only against the elevation of the 'letter of the Law' above the 'spirit of the Law'.

Rev 2:19
I know thy works, and charity, and service, and faith, and thy patience, and thy works; and the last [to be] more than the first.

Notice that works is mentioned twice. Check out the two tablets (commandments). The 'moral laws' (those between us and our fellow man) and 'ceremonial laws' (those between us and YHWH).

As for the ending of sacrifices, there are plenty of verses to indicate that YHWH never commanded sacrifices. They seem to be merely allowed and were being phased out in lieu of prayer and contrition. The sacrifices seem to be more of a practice brought back from their captivity.

In Exodus, God told Moses to ask Pharaoh to allow the Israelites to travel three day's journey into the wilderness to offer sacrifices to Him. Now, did God really want the Israelites to offer Him animal sacrifices, or was this a ploy, a plausible excuse to persuade Pharaoh to let them leave? The real purpose, after all, was not to go out, make sacrifices, and return. Rather, it was to get the Israelites out of Egypt permanently. So there could be some subterfuge involved.

In reviewing this passage, this verse jumped out at me:

We must go three days' journey into the wilderness and sacrifice to the LORD our God as he will command us." (Exodus 8:27)

At this point, God hasn't told Moses that He really wants sacrifices, or what sort of sacrifice He would command.

Continuing on in Exodus, we see in chapter 12 that God does specifically command the Passover sacrifice as a perpetual ordinance.

Next is where it gets interesting. In chapter 18, Moses' father-in-law Jethro, a priest of Midian came to where the Israelites were camped in the wilderness.

And Jethro, Moses' father-in-law, offered a burnt offering and sacrifices to God; and Aaron came with all the elders of Israel to eat bread with Moses' father-in-law before God. (Exodus 18:12)

Nowhere is this sacrifice commanded by God. It is only after this that God begins to tell them how they are to make the regular sacrifices. One could read this to imply, "well, if you are going to insist on doing this, then this is how I want it done".

There is a difference of opinion in Judaism, even within orthodox Judaism, about animal sacrifices. Maimonides, one of the great medieval Jewish theologians, speculated that God, rather than commanding them, merely permitted them. That it was a concession to the Israelites, who saw their neighbors making sacrifices and wanted to "keep up with the Joneses". Maimonides saw God as weaning Israel away from sacrifices, by gradually restricting where they could be offered, etc. Certainly in the Prophets we see the devaluation of sacrifices in favor of repentance.

The great Jewish philosopher Maimonides stated that God did not command the Israelites to give up and discontinue all these manners of service because "to obey such a commandment would have been contrary to the nature of man, who generally cleaves to that to which he is used," For this reason, God allowed Jews to make sacrifices, but "He transferred to His service that which had served as a worship of created beings and of things imaginary and unreal." All elements of idolatry were removed. Maimonides concluded:

By this divine plan it was effected that the traces of idolatry were blotted out, and the truly great principle of our Faith, the Existence and Unity of God, was firmly established; this result was thus obtained without deterring or confusing the minds of the people by the abolition of the service to which they were accustomed and which alone was familiar to them.

The Jewish philosopher Abarbanel reinforced Maimonides'argument. He cited a Midrash that indicated that the Jews had become accustomed to sacrifices in Egypt. To wean them from these idolatrous practices, God tolerated the sacrifices but commanded that they be offered in one central sanctuary:

Thereupon the Holy One, blessed be He, said "Let them at all times offer their sacrifices before Me in the Tabernacle, and they will be weaned from idolatry, and thus be saved." (Rabbi J. H. Hertz, The Pentateuch and Haftorahs, p. 562)

Rabbi J. H. Hertz, the late chief rabbi of England, stated that if Moses had not instituted sacrifices, which were admitted by all to have been the universal expression of religious homage, his mission would have failed and Judaism would have disappeared. With the destruction of the Temple, the rabbbis state that prayer and good deeds took the place of sacrifice.

Rashi indicated that God did not want the Israelites to bring sacrifices; it was their choice. He bases this on the haphtorah (portion from the Prophets) read on the Sabbath when the book of Leviticus which discusses sacrifices is read:

I have not burdened thee with a meal-offering, Nor wearied thee with frankincense. (Isaiah 43:23)

Biblical commentator David Kimhi (1160-1235) also stated that the sacrifices were voluntary. He ascertained this from the words of Jeremiah:

For I spoke not unto your fathers, nor commanded them on the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt-offerings or sacrifices; but this thing I commanded them, saying, "Obey my voice, and I will be your God, and ye shall be my people; and walk ye in all the ways that I have commanded you, that it may be well unto you. (Jeremiah 7:22-23)

David Kimchi, notes that nowhere in the Ten Commandments is there any reference to sacrifice, and even when sacrifices are first mentioned (Lev. 1:2) the expression used is "when any man of you bringeth an offering," the first Hebrew we ki being literally "if", implying that it was a voluntary act.

Many Jewish scholars such as Rabbi Kook believe that animal sacrifices will not be reinstated in messianic times, even with the reestablishment of the Temple. They believe that at that time human conduct will have advanced to such high standards that there will no longer be need for animal sacrifices to atone for sins. Only nonanimal sacrifices (grains, for example) to express gratitude to God would remain. There is a Midrash (rabbinic teaching based on Jewish values and tradition) that states: "In the Messianic era, all offerings will cease except the thanksgiving offering, which will continue forever. This seems consistent with the belief of Rabbi Kook and others, based on the prophecy of Isaiah (11:6-9), that people and animals will be vegetarian in that time, and "none shall hurt nor destroy in all My Holy mountain."

Sacrifices, especially animal sacrifices, were not the primary concern of God. As a matter of fact, they could be an abomination to Him if not carried out together with deeds of loving kindness and justice. Consider these words of the prophets, the spokesmen of God:

What I want is mercy, not sacrifice. (Hos. 6:6)
To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices unto Me?" sayeth the Lord. "I am full of the burnt offerings of rams, and the fat of fed beasts; and I delight not in the blood of bullocks, or of lambs or of he-goats...bring no more vain oblations.... Your new moon and your appointed feasts my soul hateth;...and when ye spread forth your hands, I will hide mine eyes from you; yea, when ye make many prayers, I will not hear; your hands are full of blood. (Isa. 1:11-16)
I hate, I despise your feasts, and I will take no delight in your solemn assemblies. Yea, though you offer me burnt-offerings and your meal offerings, I will not accept them neither will I regard the peace-offerings of your fat beasts. Take thou away from me the noise of thy song; and let Me not hear the melody of thy psalteries. But let justice well up as waters, and righteousness as a mighty stream. (Amos 5:21-4)

Deeds of compassion and kindness toward all creation are of greater significance to God than sacrifices: "To do charity and justice is more acceptable to the Lord than sacrifice" (Prov. 21: 3).

Perhaps a different type of sacrifice is required of us today. When Rabbi Shesheth kept a fast for Yom Kippur, he used to conclude with these words:

Sovereign of the Universe, Thou knowest full well that in the time of the Temple when a man sinned he used to bring a sacrifice, and though all that was offered of it was fat and blood, atonement was made for him. Now I have kept a fast and my fat and blood have diminished. May it be Thy will to account my fat and blood which have been diminished as if I have offered they before thee on the altar, and do Thou favor me. (Berachot 17a)

Jeremiah 7
22 For I spake not unto your fathers, nor commanded them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt offerings or sacrifices:
23 But this thing commanded I them, saying, Obey my voice, and I will be your God, and ye shall be my people: and walk ye in all the ways that I have commanded you, that it may be well unto you.
24 But they hearkened not, nor inclined their ear, but walked in the counsels and in the imagination of their evil heart, and went backward, and not forward.

Hosea 3
4 For the children of Israel shall abide many days without a king, and without a prince, and without a sacrifice, and without an image, and without an ephod, and without teraphim:
5 Afterward shall the children of Israel return, and seek the LORD their God, and David their king; and shall fear the LORD and his goodness in the latter days.

Hosea 6
6 For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings. Hosea 14
2 Take with you words, and turn to the LORD: say unto him, Take away all iniquity, and receive us graciously: so will we render the calves of our lips.

Isaiah 66:3-4 (KJV)
3 He that killeth an ox is as if he slew a man; he that sacrificeth a lamb, as if he cut off a dog's neck; he that offereth an oblation, as if he offered swine's blood; he that burneth incense, as if he blessed an idol. Yea, they have chosen their own ways, and their soul delighteth in their abominations.
4 I also will choose their delusions, and will bring their fears upon them; because when I called, none did answer; when I spake, they did not hear: but they did evil before mine eyes, and chose that in which I delighted not.

Micah 6
6 Wherewith shall I come before the LORD, and bow myself before the high God? shall I come before him with burnt offerings, with calves of a year old?
7 Will the LORD be pleased with thousands of rams, or with ten thousands of rivers of oil? shall I give my firstborn for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul?
8 He hath shewed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the LORD require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?

Psalm 51
16 For thou desirest not sacrifice; else would I give it: thou delightest not in burnt offering.
17 The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit: a broken and a contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise.

1 Samuel 15:22
And Samuel said: 'Hath YHWH as great delight in burnt-offerings and sacrifices, as in hearkening to the voice of YHWH? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams.

Psalm 40
6 Sacrifice and offering thou didst not desire; mine ears hast thou opened: burnt offering and sin offering hast thou not required.

Throughout the Jewish scriptures, the prophets declared that repentance and charity are more pleasing to God for atonement than a blood sacrifice. I think there is good indication that sacrifices were never meant to be. Jeremiah 7:22-24. But, since they were utilized, against YHWH's wishes, I think sacrifices were to be replaced with PRAYER! Hosea 14:2. The people were doing it for themselves of their own accord and not YHWH's. It is my belief that this IS why the Temple keeps getting destroyed.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.