Jews for Allah

Jewsweek ^ | 9-9-03

[Zionist Conspirator]

You stand condemned by the Noahic laws you embrace to death. What are you going to do?

Myself, I think you need a substitutionary sacrifice. Jesus is willing to take the heat, as prophesized in the Old Testament. But you obviously have another solution. What is it?

You really insist on trying to win me back to the very same beliefs I once held and came to reject? And you think you can do this by recycling arguments I myself used to use until I saw the problem with them? Okay. Exercise your fingers.

I understand that you hold that G-d, in order to be holy, must respond to the slightest sin (or actually, to the sinful nature which leads to individual sins) with eternal damnation unless the damnation is borne by a "scapegoat." You hold that if G-d forgives a sin without this that he will "topple from His Throne of Holiness" (see, I know the whole deal).

In order to justify this view you hold that the qorbanot (offerings) of the Torah were "allegories" or "prophecies" or whatever that either served only a didactic purpose or else pushed the guilt off year by year until J*sus came. Let's look at his a little closer.

The qorbanot did not suffice for all sins. They were offered only for unintentional sins and no others. What about intentional sins? Was there no forgiveness for them? Well, if all the criteria were met for the death penalty that served as an atonement. Otherwise, complete repentence between the sinner and G-d has always sufficed. In fact, the Sages observed that it was repentance that turned intentional sins into unintentional sins.

Furthermore, you are very shortsighted to insist on seeing the animal sacrifices as "prefiguring chr*st" while ignoring the many other offerings that did not involve the slaying of animals. What about the grain and wine offerings? I suppose a Catholic or Orthodox chr*stian would state that these "obviously" prefigure their "eucharist" just as you insist the slaying of the animals prefigures the death of J*sus. Why do you want to invoke only the aspects of the `Avodah useful to you while ignoring the others?

I also know all about the argument that Judaism has "obviously" been replaced because the Temple and offerings are no more. This is a totally spurious argument. the Temple was destroyed once before by Nevuchadnetzar and the offerings were not offered again for some seventy years. By this argument the messiah came in the days of Nevuchadnetzar!!! It is true that the current desolation has lasted longer than the first one, but this is more a quantitative than qualitative difference.

As a matter of fact the Torah warns many times (especially in the tokhachot of Leviticus and Deuteronomy) that G-d will allow the Temple to be destroyed, the offerings to cease, and Israel to be exiled to the four corners of the earth as a punishment for abandoning the Torah. There is not a single solitary place in the entire Torah where the `Avodah is considered temporary or where G-d says He will destroy the Temple when it has "served its purpose!" Instead He reiterates that if Israel disobeys they will be deprived of their offerings but if they return to the Torah the Temple Service will be restored to them. Can you deny this? There is not a word about the Temple offerings ceasing when the messiah comes! Their ceasing is always and only a punishment for sin (not the sin of rejecting J*sus but of abandoning the Torah) and there is always a promise that it will be restored! How do you read J*sus into this? You can't and you don't. You simply assume from the get-go that the "new testament" is part of the Bible and therefore accept its claims about J*sus being foretold in the TaNa"KH. If you did not assume this from the outset you could not believe like this.

Again (and I hope you will think about this), you must consider that the "substitutionary death" theory of the crucifixion is but one among many, and according to the Orthodox it is a late and foreign interpretation. They would probably point out as well that the crucifixion did not take place on Yom Kippur (the Day of Atonement) but at Pesach. This would probably be invoked by them as "proof" that the crucifixion was not a substitutionary sin offering but a "ransom" paid to the Devil. This is one of their pre-atonement theories. Another is the so-called "mouse trap" theory. At any rate, they will tell you that the whole idea of the crucifixion as an atoning substitionary sin offering was dreamed up in the Middle Ages by Anselm. Why would they say this? Even if it is untrue, where would this ancient chr*stian communion have gotten the idea that the crucifixion was not a substitutionary sin offering as Western chr*stians hold? Hmmm?

Are you aware that the ancient Churches do not even claim (as does classical Protestantism) that G-d HAD to damn all sins vicariously before He could forgive sinners but only chose the death of J*sus for aesthetic reasons (to illustrate His love and the seriousness of sin)?

I realize (as I said before) that you regard any claim that G-d has the power to forgive sins and to reward obedience to His Commandments as an arrogant belief that one can put G-d in debt. Yet liturgical (Catholic and Orthodox) chr*stians defend their own doctrines of works and merit by pointing out that while G-d can never "owe" anyone anything, He nevertheless has the right to forgive repentant sinners and to reward obedience to His Commandments. Why is it all right for chr*stians to obtain "merit" or forgiveness of sins but not for Jews or Noachides? All you have done is replace the Biblical G-d with J*sus and the Jewish commandments and ritual with those of chr*stianity!

And before you dismiss my invocation of the ancient churches, please consider something. You think that you can deal with all these hypocrisies of the liturgical churches by blaming them on Constantine, who allegedly corrupted an ancient Southern Baptist church. Once again, I used to believe this as well! But I am afraid you are very naive here. The Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches are NOT the only ancient churches that hold all the doctrines you consider "Catholic," nor do they all date back to Constantine. Did you know that the Armenian Church was made the official religion of Armenia ten years before the notorious year "313?" Why then is the Armenian Church a liturgical/ritual church with merit and demerit depending on works? Armenia was not part of the Roman Empire! Or again, how about the chr*stians of Kerala state in southwestern India, who trace their churches back to the apostle Thomas in the year "52?" How did Constantine corrupt them??? Or how about the ancient Nestorian Church of Persia and Assyria, which was never under Rome at any time and never even took part in the ancient church councils? It was a totally isolated backwater! Why isn't it like the Southern Baptist Convention? Why does it teach baptismal regeneration, ritual, works, confession of sins, etc? Well . . . why doesn't it? And btw, all these ancient churches have web sites!

The sad fact is that your "once saved always saved" vicarious damnation Protestantism has no roots in the ancient chr*stian past. Protestantism only exists either in northwestern Europe and those parts of the world colonized and missionized by northwestern Europeans. It is the ancient liturgical churches (which give the lie to your version of chr*stianity) that contain the direct desendants of the first chr*stian converts in places like Greece, Rome, Egypt, Turkey, Syria, Iraq, India, Iran, Macedonia, Ethiopia, etc. That is a plain, undeniable fact. And you want me to become a chr*stian? To be a real one I'd have to ignore you and join one of these ancient churches. And, as I point out continually, once one admits these ancient churches are the real chr*stians their hypocrisy becomes evident. Since they make J*sus a "savior" from whom one must spend a lifetime earning this "free salvation" of theirs, rael chr*stianity collapses like a house of cards. And if real chr*stianity collapses, why should I turn to a recent, inauthentic, ahistorical pretender to that name???

So if chr*stianity is the message of the Torah (!!!) I must according to you either join hypcritical churches taht extol J*sus as their savior while continuing to threaten their members with eternal damnation if they don't "do their part" or else accept a beliefs (salvation by J*sus' death alone, once saved always saved, etc.) that obviously didn't even exist in the days of the early chr*stians. Do you honestly believe I am going to accept either one of those ridiculous alternatives???

I know that at present you cannot believe that G-d is even capable of forgiving sins or granting (not owing, but granting) merit to people without the vicariously damned scapegoat, in the absence of which each and every human being must be eternally damned. Until you examine these assumptions there is no need continuing our debate. In fact G-d looks at and judges the totality of our lives in a way no one else could. Every sin and good deed is taken into account. Complete repentence erases a sin completely. In the absence of this, a sin not completely erased does not mean automatic eternal damnation. Rather it must be punished or atoned for in some other way, in this life or by one's death or in Gei' Benei Hinnom) ("Gehenna"). The souls of the truly wicked and unrepentant are ultimately destroyed. As I said, I know this is alien to you. But perhaps you should realize that nowhere in the TaNa"KH is there any such thing as "eternal damnation" in the entire book. It was invented by chr*stianity (along with the claim that it is called for by any and all sins of any kind) precisely to create the necessity for J*sus. And then after that the good chr*stian may still be damned after all, or else suffer in purgatory (Catholicism) or else have to pass through a series of demon-manned "toll booths!!!"

The whole thing sounds like one big con to me. Sorry.

PS: Allow me to give you a friendly reminder that since I do not believe the "new testament" is part of the Bible, you cannot prove anything to me by quoting it, anymore than you can prove islam by quoting the qur'an!

Be well.

[Alouette]

I am skeptical of your sources regarding 19th century missionizing among the Jews, though, because it doesn't make any internal logical sense.

Fine, don't take my word for it, this is the experience of someone who was actively involved.

My point, which you seem to be missing, is that the Baptist Rev. Morris AKA "Moishe" Rosen is LYING about himself in order to "bring Jews to Christ." He may or may not be an ethnic Jew, I don't know his ancestry. But he is not a rabbi, never studied to be a rabbi, and never set foot in a yeshiva. Yet he claims to be these things in order to give himself credibility with the uneducated Jews he targets. Is that kosher?

I have no complaints against honest and sincere Christians, and even my fellow Jews who may embrace Christianity from a sincere (although, in my opinion, mistaken) belief. But Rev. Rosen is a liar and a fraud who is in it for the money and the notoriety.

[ChicagoHebrew]

I have no intention of debating you on the merits of Christianity. You might be shocked to hear this, but I have heard every argument for Christianity 1000 times, and found each argument totally preposterous and without merit. Your recitation of them is merely boring to me, and will not accomplish your evangelical goals.

Similarly, I have no intention of putting forth 1000 arguments against Christianity (most perfectly valid and logically consistent)-- as I know from experience that you will simply ignore them and repeat your pathetic attempts at missionizing.

I was merely stating facts regarding Judiasm and Islam as faiths. Judaism as the religion that exists today rejects the Trinity (as it always has, and entire Tanakh does-- though I refuse to exert the mental energy trying to convince you of something you will never believe). Islam totally rejects the Trinity. Therefore, on the Oneness of G-d, Islam and Judaism are more similar than Islam and Christianity.

Similarly, though "salvation" is not a Jewish concept-- Judaism as a religion demands strict adherence to Law as the way towards G-d's favor. Islam as a religion demands strict adherence to Law as the way towards G-d's favor. Christianity as a religion believes one is saved through "faith alone." Therefore, Judaism and Islam are more similar than Judaism and Christianity on this issue as well. I might also add that the structure of Jewish Law and Islamic Law is remarkably similar-- just as American Law is similar to British Law (both based on similar Semetic methods of textual interpretation, just like the US and UK both have common-law systems)

Likewise, Judaism and Islam both reached fruition and full development within the confines of Middle Eastern Semetic society-- in Israel and Babylon for Judaism, Arabia & Syria & Babylon for Islam. Christianity spread among Greeks and had its doctrines finalized by the Roman Council of Nicea. It's cultural base therefore rests in Hellenic civilization.

Finally, both Judaism and Islam forbid any statute or image of divinity. Conversely, Christianity universally accepted such images for 1500 years-- and today most Christians still do, though I acknowledge that some Protestant sects do not. Again, here too Islam and Judaism share a closer link than Christianity and Judaism.

[ChicagoHebrew]

I also know all about the argument that Judaism has "obviously" been replaced because the Temple and offerings are no more. This is a totally spurious argument. the Temple was destroyed once before by Nevuchadnetzar and the offerings were not offered again for some seventy years. By this argument the messiah came in the days of Nevuchadnetzar!!!

Well, actually a Messiah did come about 70 years after Nevuchadnetzar... his name was Cyrus. Something only true Hebrew speakers know-- the word Messiah (or Mashiach in Hebrew) does not mean a single "savior"-- or even a "savior." It means "annointed one." It therefore refers to anyone annointed with oil (Saul, David, Jereboam and all the Kings of Judah and Israel), as well as anyone elected by G-d to fulfill a specific task... such as Cyrus.

[cookcounty]

I'm thinking I should break this off, I'm not trying to win an argument. Moishe Rosen does not refer to himself as "Rabbi" and the organization does not refer to him as a rabbi. Rosen retired a couple years ago. It's now headed by David Brickner whom I knew many years ago, when my wife and I moved out of our apartment, David moved in. David doesn't call himself a rabbi either.

You're right though, that there are Jewish followers of Jesus out there that do use the term.

bonne nuit et shalom. Cubs win!

[ChicagoHebrew]

But I thought the qur'an says both the Old and New Testament are to be considered Scripture and are true. Which makes the qur'an's subsequent contradictions of the New Testament an internal contradiction in the qur'an. And yes I know the qur'an claims for itself not to have internal contradictions but if I'm right about this, that's an internal contradiction in itself. I have read this also in my studies of Islam so far.

Muslims believe that the Tanakh and so-called New Testement were originally given in a form different than what they are now. Indeed, they were originally given as the Koran itself. Overtime, Muslims believe that Jews corrupted the text for their own purposes. Therefore, God sent Jesus to restore the uncorrupted text of the Koran. However, in the Islamic view, Christians also overtime corrupted the text for their own purposes. Therefore, God needed to send Muhammed as a final messanger to once again restore the pure Koran.

Accordingly, Muslims accept all Jewish and Christian prophets as prophets... but do not necessarily accept the strict text and language of their prophecies, as they feel that subsequent generations corrupted the pure original versions.

You can criticize this theology all you want, I personally find it no more unreasonable than Christian efforts to distort the Tanakh to manufacture Jesus prophecies. But your specific "contradiction" doesn't hold water.

[joe032783]

here's a reply to everyone,
i'll do my best to cover everything i can.

i'm not an expert on anything. i'm just a muslim who is doing his best to explain and defend his faith. i recognize that if have duties to both muslims and nonmuslims.
let me relate a couple of sayings of muhammad, doing my best to convey their meanings
1. if you see an injustice anywhere you should work to correct it with your hand. if that is not possible, then speak out against it. and if that is not possible, then at least recognize it in your heart, but know that that is for the weakest in faith.
2. no matter what the circumstance are, you should help your brother(that is, your muslim brother in faith). someone then said to the prophet, "i can understand helping my brother when he is being oppressed, but what about when he is the oppressor?" the prophet then replied, "stop him from oppressing."

you can tell me how to interpret this, or how i should, but i think, that as a muslim, i'm the one who decide for myself. It seems clear to me, that i have a duty to stop injustice wherever i see it, whether it be jews being unjust to jews, jews being unjust to palestinians, palestinians being unjust to jews, americans being unjust to americans, saudis being unjust to saudis, or whoever.
i obviously don't have the power to stop every injustice with my hand, but i can stop some.
i can't speak out against every injustice, but i do my best.
i'm not perfect, but atleast i can try to feel in my heart all the injustices done in the world.

next matter,

about jesus(peace be upon him) dying on the cross. it says clearly in the qur'an that jesus(pbuh) did not die on the cross, nor was he crucified.
i don't know exactly what all of the hadith say. in the muslim world, over the centuries, people have come up with their own ideas about what happened. many of my muslim brothers have confused these traditions with what is in the qur'an and what muhammad(peace be upon him) said about the matter. the way i look at the matter is that since the qur'an states clearly that god has no son, and since jesus(pbuh) is described as a prophet only, and a man, i find it not so important what the details of his ascention in to heaven are.

about the palestinian/israeli conflict, i didn't want to bring it up, because this discussion could turn pages of political talk, when the issue at hand, judging by the content of this article, is faith based. here's my view anyway:

while some scholars disagree with me, i think that some things are clear. suicide bombing is not allowed in islam, because suicide is forbidden under any circumstances. that part is clear. that said, i don't condone any suicide bombings. i condemn them, so i don't wan anyone to say i don't. i tell my brothers this too. i speak out against it right? it's not like i can stop it with my hand, can i? and i feel it is wrong in my heart.

about suicide bombings targeted soley at civilians, this is doubly wrong. as far as i know, in a situation of war, a muslim soldier is not allowed to kill any civilian men and women, or children. destroying unneed property isn't allow either. also, i think that in usual circumstances you can't even kill a soldier if they are off duty. there were seemingly exceptions to this rule, mentioned in the qur'an, but that was limited to killing soldiers whether they had their weapons or not. that's how i understand it.

about suicide bombings against military targets? that's still wrong in my view because islam forbids suicide under any circumstances. so the kamakazee of the japanese and the suicide bombers of today can not be justified by islamic rulings.

about israel,
they use american weapons and kill both palestinian civlilans and militants. they drop on bombs where they know civilians are and justify their deaths as collateral damage.
the country is basically a rascist state similar to that of south africa under the apartheid. if you're ethnically jewish, you're free. if you're palestinian or muslim, you're a dog. a friend of mine went to visit israel with our local peace delegation. he was the only muslim in the group and was rejected because he was "a threat to security" they gave him no reason why.
another friend of mine was walking through jerusalem on a visit. he went to see the house where his mother grew up. it is now a israli owned coffee shop. his mother is not allowed into jerusalem and no one paid her for her old house.
so, basically, palestinians have good reason to be pissed off. they are imprisoned in their refugee camps while isralis keep building more and more settlements on their reduced plot of land. it's just like what we did to the american indians, only this is happening today. it's messed up stuff i tell you.

anyway, that's enough for now. i'm sorry if i didn't answer every question, but you can see that i've probably written more than you want to read. let me know what you think.

[joe032783]

i forgot to address this part,
i don't think the bible as we now have it is the word of God. i believe the qur'an is. i believe that jesus was a prophet of God and given revelations. so some of the material that jesus said may of may not be contained within the modern new testament. i think there is some, but clearly not the stuff that contradicts the qur'an, because i think the qur'an is unadulterated. why? because the new testament was written between 30 and 100 years after jesus(peace be upon him)'s death. the qur'an however was memorized in full by many people and compilied into a written version by a close companion of the prophet muhammad(pbuh)
most non muslim scholars of islam agree that qur'an could not have changed much if at all since muhammad spoke it. the difference in muslim belief, is that we believe the angel gabriel gave it to muhammad and that God himself gave it to the angel gabriel.

[joe032783]

by the way, i've read most of the bible, in an english translation.

and,

one of my teachers has memorized the bible, in english, in full
along with the entire qur'an

[joe032783]

i'm radically muslim man,
and many leaders do condemn it.
i'm sorry if the media makes it hard to read about.

[Lion in Winter]

Hey, buster... I DO NOT LIKE ANY MUSLIM. Period. YOU ARE MY ENEMY and an ENEMY TO ALL CHRISTIANS AND JEWS!

[joe032783]

what is an "islamic"?
you can at least learn to use correct terminology if you want to talk about something and not sound inintelligent.
it's "muslim."

anyway, show me the source for the belief. it's a tricky matter. the qur'an says very little and the hadith say a lot. it's also the case that many muslims confuse them all with tradition.

it is said in the qur'an that it was made to appear that jesus(pbuh) died on the cross. if you have some details i don't know about then please show me the sources in the qur'an or the hadith.

whoever was responsible for jesus to appear to have died on the cross, whether it be jesus, or God, or whoever, the qur'an has already spoken the truth according to the muslims about the matter. it says "jesus did not die on the cross, nor was he crucified"

[Lion in Winter]

mohammed was a crazed child molestor!! You follow a real creepy child molestor. YUK!!

[joe032783]

just a clarification,
the qur'an states that different books were given to some prophets, like moses and david. and different pages were given to other prophets like adam.(or that might be hadith).
anyway, they were not the same as the qur'an.
the muslim belief is that they were divine messages nonetheless and they changed over time.

[Lion in Winter]

You are NOT making ANY points here buster. Nobody likes you are YOUR weird beliefs. Wipe your left hand off and USE soap and water and toilet paper like People the CIVILIZED WORLD.

[Lion in Winter]

Get lost...hambone!!

[joe032783]

well, at least i don't throw insults around, but rather rationally defend my beliefs or at least explain them as correctly as possible when i see people telling me i believe differently. i can insult you, but i don't think it will help.

hey,
what would jesus do?
as a muslim, i have to ask myself that.
also,
what would muhammad do?
you know,
i think that jesus or muhammad would be as kind as possible to anyone who insulted them. so i'll follow their practice.

[joe032783]

some of your "contradictions" are just not there
the one, for example, about creation, gets the numbers and content wrong in surah 41.

about alexander the great, he is never mentioned by name in the qur'an. "dhul karnain" is mentioned, who some people assume is alexander the great. if what you say is true, then it's probably not him.

about the inhericance numbers, you applied them wrong. there are many conditions stated in the qur'an which adjust inheritance. you adjusted them, or whoever gave you the idea adjusted them in an incorrect manner

about the angel of death thing, you're ignoring the rest of the qur'an. "nothing happens, unless allah wills it" so, it may be said that God is causing me to write, just as he caused you to write, while at the same time i wrote and you wrote. it's a matter of theology, and hardly a contradiction. God takes the soul at death by having the angel of death take it, if he so wishes. God may do things in whatever manner he sees fit.

basically, errors arise when people who don't know theology or the arabic language

[American in Israel]

Well Joe you are a pretty moderate western version of Islamic in my eyes. Blessings on you, may you find the truth out for yourself.

I live surrounded by 1.5 million normal Moslems within 50 miles that by American standards, (or any other human standards), are criminally insane. I blame it on Islam of course, as do they.

Your version is the version that is taught as the Moslems establish a forward base, once you are indoctrinated enough and they have enough power base they will go to advanced training in hopes to get you and yours to become their cannon fodder.

Sad, but true as it has been the same pattern for 1400 years.

As for the many leaders that do condemn it, they do not exist here in the heartland of Islam. If one were to dare do so he would be executed in the streets as a collaborator. That is not hidden knowledge, it is openly discussed or even bragged about in the local Arabic newspapers. It is considered that anyone who wants peace is against the Jihad and therefore prejudged of a capitol crime.

[American in Israel]

You need to read the rest. I suggest you start with the new testament. The first few books are about the story of Jesus. Notice the radical difference between what Jesus walked, talked and lived and Islam. They are like night and day. Now if Mohammad was right and Jesus was a prophet, then Islam is not of God.

Just think, love your enemies as your self vs strike off their fingertips and cut off their heads.

Oil and water my man...