Simple Reasons Why Jews Don't Believe in Jesus and Christianity

[Ehav4Ever]

Christian Challenge #1 - The Jewish Christians, Who Were They and What Happened to Them? (Part 1)

With the history of how modern Torah based Jews came about and received the Torah from previous generations being explained and with details provided to describe the process dictated by Hashem for a Jew to determine truth being defined - we now can present a few challenges to Christianity.

The best way I know is to start this part is by using an example. Imagine a Torah based Jew, fluent in Hebrew and Aramaic, along with a family history that traces back to Mount Sinai, who has never heard of the NT and has never heard of Jesus. Imagine what would happen if they were approached by a group of Christian missionaries whose goal is to convince the before mentioned Jew to believe in Jesus as the Christian style messiah.

Taking this to its most extreme, let’s consider what kind of issues that such a Jew would bring up first, based on the Torath Mosheh requirements listed earlier.

Remember the big question we want to answer for this part is, “What would it take for this kind of Jew to even listen to what the Christians have to say?”

I propose that the first questions that such a Jew would have for said missionaries would/could be:

1. Who are you and what is it that you want to show me?
2. This book of yours can you show me the most ancient and authoritative version of it?
3. This book that you have: how did you come across it and why was its oldest version written in Greek?
4. This thing you are presenting, does it come from Jews? If so, who were they? (Family pedigree, their teachers and students) Show me their Mesorah going back to Mount Sinai.
5. You say that someone named yeshu is a “Jewish Messiah?” What do “you” mean by the word “messiah?” I.e. what is a messiah for you?
6. The Jews who believed in this thing you claim where they now?

Thus, based on the requirements that Hashem gave to the people of Israel at Mount Sinai – these are some of the questions that such a Jew would need to ask, long before hearing what the Christian’s NT has written in it. The realities that said Jew would find after an investigation of the NT text and its authorship can be first summed up by the following video.

Thus, this is the kind of response that one would expect.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

Why the Christianity and Messianic Movement are not Torath Mosheh

Answering these questions are the first step in determining if anything that follows is valid.

1. Are there any real historical/first-hand Jewish accounts or evidence that Jesus even existed?
2. If Jesus did exist are there any 1st hand accounts of him written by Jews who that can be verified by Jews? (Accounts written between 7 BCE to 33 CE)
3. What is the history of the gospels and what is the history of their authorship?
4. Do modern day Messianic groups serve as reliable sources for commentaries to the New Testament?
5. Why was the New Testament written in Greek rather Hebrew or 1st cent. Aramaic?

Further, these questions are important if one wants to try and use Jewish texts, such as the Talmud and Midrashim, to try and make sense of Christian texts. If the baseline facts about Christian texts cannot be backed up by Torah requirements for information, said Christian text cannot be analyzed in a Torah manner. Answering the above questions reveals the following answers:

1. There is no evidence of the existence of an individual named Jesus who resembled the accounts written in the new testament. There were about 40 historians who wrote during the first two centuries and none of them who lived during his supposed time period mention Jesus or many of the events of the four gospels as well as the history given in the book of Acts.
2. There are no first-hand accounts of Jesus, and he himself wrote nothing. The consensus of many biblical historians put the dating of the earliest Gospel, that of Mark, at sometime after 70 C.E., and the last gospel, John after 90 C.E.
3. In Jerusalem there was not one primitive church but two. A separate group was early on formed by the so-called 'Hellenists' led by Stephen and Philip (see Acts 6:5). The 'Hellenists' were Diaspora Jews who had moved to Jerusalem and there joined the Jesus movement. They were distinguished from the 'Hebrews' led by Peter and companions by language and partly by cultural legacy. The Hebrews spoke Aramaic, the Hellenists Greek.
4. There soon appeared serious tensions between the Hebrews and the Hellenists. The situation was made more inflamed by the attitude of the Christian Hellenists to non-Christian Jews. The reasons for the conflict were the Hellenists' liberal attitude towards the Torah and its purity regulations, criticism of the Temple and an open-hearted attitude towards Gentiles. Finally, the Hellenists were forced to flee from Jerusalem. The Hebrews remained.
5. There is no explanation, meeting Jewish historical requirements, of why the Gospel texts were written so late and why gospels such as Mary, Phillip, and Judas were excluded. Just to note, the format of the "current" New Testament comes directly from the Church Fathers and the early Catholics after the controversy of Marcion of Sinope who claimed that the only valid gospel was Luke, and that only some of Paul's writings were acceptable. Marcion of Sinope was the first to create a "known" New Testament and the current format was a response to his work. What existed before is speculated, even amongst Christian scholars.
6. Modern day Messianics do not have any historical or ancestral connection to the first Christians. According to Christian sources all of Jesus’ disciples were killed with no identifiable descendants. It is also possible that Paul’s teachings led many of the early Jewish Christians into extinction.
7. The use of Greek as the textual language of the New Testament further distances it from a Jewishness since it also quotes the Greek LXX that was translated by non-Jewish Christians.

From a historical perspective, neither Christianity or the modern-day Messianic movement have valid answers to the above the issues.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

 

[Ehav4Ever]

Who were the Early Jewish Christian Sects?

From its inception, Christianity has been divided by different practices and different interpretations of religious texts. In the early centuries, their were many Christian groups floating around and councils were held to define unified beliefs. Sects that failed to accept the agreed upon doctrines were kicked out of the mainstream church which became Catholicism. In one analogy used in a Time magazine, Christianity had previously been seen as oak tree with branches such as Catholicism, Orthodox Christianity and Protestantism at the top but now is seen more as a mangrove with branches at the top and numerous trunks with names like Gnosticsm, Ebionism and Marcionism. Scholars debate their significance: some simply dismiss them as “2nd century rubbish." Other say they made important contributions to the devolvement of mainstream Christianity.

Ebionites believed that Jesus was the Jewish Messiah and he wasn’t divine at birth but was chosen by God to sacrifice himself to redeem humanity’s sins because was unusually righteous and followed the hundreds of Jewish laws to the letter. The Ebionites believed that one had to be a Jew to be a follower of Jesus. They obeyed Jewish law; ate kosher meals; took ritual baths; prayed facing Jerusalem; and required men to be circumcised. Their text consisted of the Old Testament plus the Gospel of Matthew. And disliked Paul because of his rejection of Jewish law. The sect was particularly attractive to Jews who could follow the sect and remain Jews.

Marcionites rejected Jewish law and Old Testament teachings and believed in two Gods:

1. the Jewish God, who created a canon of laws that were impossibly difficult for humanity to keep and made them miserable; and
2. Christ, an unrelated individual who freed humanity from the grasp of the Jewish God. The sect was very popular in Asia Minor. Followers were attracted by its emphasis on love and salvation rather than judgment, punishment and damnation.
3. Thomasines believed that all human beings were born with a divine competent and Jesus taught us how to rediscover our divine self with an emphasis on faith rather than following laws. The Thomasines are believed to have been ascetics who explored esoteric ideas, were open to women's participation, rejected hierarchal structures and allowed personal expression. The Thomasines primary text was the Gospel of Thomas, a collection of 114 sayings of Jesus written in Coptic and found at Nag Hammadi. Some scholars consider it to be the 5th Gospel. Many of the sayings are similar to those in the Gospels but some have a more introspective twist and advocate seeking self-knowledge rather than finding answers through Jesus and Christian doctrine.

Ascetic sects also arose in early days of Christianity. They made vows of poverty, obedience and chastity and headed to the deserts of Egypt to seek solitude and communion with God. Some lived for years in caves on nothing but bread and water. The most famous of these hermits was Paul of Thebes who reportedly lived for 112 years in the 3rd and 4th centuries. The word “hermit” is derived from the Greek word cremeites, meaning “desert dweller."

Gospel Authorship Issues

The names that are attached to the Gospels was done by the Church Fathers. As we know the Church Fathers were not Jews and none of them knew Jesus or any of his disciples personally. Further, proof of this is in answering one simple question. What is the name and history of the Jew that decided that there were only four gospels? So let’s look at the facts.

1. The Gospel of Matthew does not name its author. The Christian bishop, Papias of Hierapolis, about 100-140 CE, in a passage with several ambiguous phrases, wrote: "Matthew collected the oracles (logia - sayings of or about Jesus) in the Hebrew language (Hebraïdi dialektōi - perhaps alternatively "Hebrew style") and each one interpreted (hērmēneusen - or "translated") them as best he could.
2. According to Irenaeus, Papias of Hierapolis, writing in the early 2nd century, reported that this gospel was by John Mark, the companion of Saint Peter in Rome, who "had one purpose only - to leave out nothing that he had heard, and to make no misstatement about it."
3. The view that Luke-Acts was written by the physician Luke was nearly unanimous in the early Christian church. The Papyrus Bodmer XIV, which is the oldest known manuscript containing the start of the gospel (dating to around 200 CE), uses the title "The Gospel According to Luke". Nearly all ancient sources also shared this theory of authorship-Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and the Muratorian Canon all regarded Luke as the author of the Luke-Acts. Neither Eusebius of Caesarea nor any other ancient writer mentions another tradition about authorship.
4. Concerning the gospel of John, the gospel identifies its author as "the disciple whom Jesus loved." The text does not actually name this disciple, but by the beginning of the 2nd century a tradition began to form which identified him with John the Apostle, one of the Twelve (Jesus's innermost circle). According to the Church Fathers, the Bishops of Asia Minor requested John, in his old age, to write a gospel in response to Cerinthus, the Ebionites and other Hebrew groups which they deemed heretical.

So, as you can see the information who wrote the gospels comes from the Church Fathers. None of them were Jews and none of them had first-hand knowledge of who wrote the gospels so there is no evidence, especially from a Jewish source, of who the authors were. What this tells us is that there were no Jews involved in the process of redacting and approving what went into the New Testament on non-Jewish Christians who were working off 2nd to 3rd hand information. Modern day Messianics make use of the texts and interpretations of the non-Jewish Church Fathers and they bring nothing of their own that is derived from ancient Jewish Christian sources.

Marcion of Sinope (85-160 CE), who was mentioned earlier in this paper, was a bishop in early Christianity and was the first to create a type of new testament text. He stated that there was only one gospel, that of Luke, and that only some of Paul's letters were valid. He further stated that there were two gods, one of the old testament and one of the new testament. He further claimed, that the god of the new testament came to free humanity from the god of the old testament.

Use of the term New Testament to describe a collection of Christian Greek writings as a whole can be traced back to the Latin Novum Testamentum first coined by Tertullian (160 - 220 CE).

Tertullian, writing in the early-3rd century, offers the first known use the terms “novum testamentum”/new testament and “vetus testamentum”/old testament. In Against Marcion book 3 (written in the early 3rd century, c. 208 CE), chapter 14, he wrote of:

.....the Divine Word, who is doubly edged with the two testaments of the law and the gospel​

And in book 4, chapter 6, he wrote:

.....it is certain that the whole aim at which he [Marcion] has strenuously labored even in the drawing up of his Antitheses, centres in this, that he may establish a diversity between the Old and the New Testaments, so that his own Christ may be separate from the Creator, as belonging to this rival god, and as alien from the law and the prophets.​

The most obvious question would be, “why was there all this confusion during the establishment of the Christian church?"

 

[Ehav4Ever]

What Happened to the first Jewish Christians / Nazarenes?

In the New Testament, the books of Jude 1:12-25 and 2 Peter 2:1 records numerous apostates to the early Jewish Christian fold who after only two generations were already creating problems in the new sect. Then, after only two generations no direct historical references to the existence of an identifiable “Jewish Christians community” can be found.

Besides the Ebionites, there were other Jewish Christian sects, such as the Nazarenes, the Symmachians, and the Elkasites, but it is difficult to distinguish one from the other, and the names are not used with any consistency. Ebionite is the most common designation, and it may simply have been a term used to characterize any form of Jewish Christianity with a stress on the observance of Jewish law……

Ebionite Christianity did not remain the only form of Christianity. St. Paul preached that the Jewish Law was no longer necessary for salvation. This less strict form of Christianity gained many converts, especially amongst the gentiles (non-Jews), for whom circumcision was distasteful. The Ebionites repeatedly condemned Paul as his preachings gained support, because of his denigration of Jewish Law and the Ebionites considered all of his writings to be dangerous sources of sinful living. "Indeed, for them, Paul was not just wrong about a few minor points. He was the archenemy, the heretic who had led so many astray" by saying that you could be saved even without keeping the Jewish Law, "and who forbade circumcision"……

We know of Christian groups taking stands on Judaism that were at polar ends of the spectrum, some groups insisting that the Jewish Law was to be followed for salvation and others insisting that the Jewish Law could not be followed if one wanted salvation. All of these groups claimed to be representing the view of Jesus himself. [1]​

Further,

In Jerusalem there was not one primitive church but two. A separate group was early on formed by the so-called 'Hellenists' led by Stephen and Philip (see Acts 6:5). The 'Hellenists' were Diaspora Jews who had moved to Jerusalem and there joined the Jesus movement. They were distinguished from the 'Hebrews' led by Peter and companions by language and partly by cultural legacy. The Hebrews spoke Aramaic, the Hellenists Greek.

There soon appeared serious tensions between the Hebrews and the Hellenists. The situation was made more inflamed by the attitude of the Christian Hellenists to non-Christian Jews. The reasons for the conflict were the Hellenists' liberal attitude towards the Torah and its purity regulations, criticism of the Temple and an open-hearted attitude towards Gentiles. Finally, the Hellenists were forced to flee from Jerusalem. The Hebrews remained. [2]​

Thus, because the early Christian Jewish Church was very apocalyptic in nature we see that just as the Torah states that the strangers that they would bring into their fold would become greater than them which sounds similar to how the non-Jewish element of early Christianity became greater and number and in Jesus centered scholarship than the Jewish Christians did. We see that modern messianics utilize texts preserved and expounded on by the Church Fathers with none of the original texts of the early Jewish Christians having survived past the 2nd cent. CE.

[1] 1st Century Christian Ebionites: The Original Christians?

[2] The Followers of Jesus.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

Now moving to the next phase. Now it is time to start covering some of the various claims that are made and how these have been handled in the past.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

In the previous post I proposed that the following issues to be discussed after the foundation of the Torah is set.

1. Why do Torah based Jews insist on Hebrew texts as THE standard?
2. Is the Jewish concept of (משיח) mashi'ahh the same as the Christian concept of "messiah"?
3. What issues do Jews have Christian texts and interpretations?

I think it is possible to cover all these together. Personally, I see them all as interconnected.

So, starting with why we Jew insist on the Hebrew Tanakh as THE standard, it would seem that this would be a no brainer. The Torah was given in Hebrew by Hashem to the Israeli/Jewish people. The text was given w/o a written dictionary or lexicon internal or external to the text. People who have not grown up in a Jewish communitty and or have not learned Hebrew from Jews would obviously not have the ability to take a Hebrew text and interpret it.

In short, the Jewish perspective, based on the Hebrew Tanakh, on the future events will be.

1. There was a time where Jews were not allowed to live in or go to Israel. That situation has changed.
2. There was a time where a large number of Jewish communities were held hostage in some unfriend host countries, in some cases not allowed to leave even in the face of an oncoming pogroms. That situation has dramatically changed.
3. There was a time when a large number of Spanish/Portuguese Jews were forced to covert to Christianity or were tortured or killed by the various inquisitions. That situation has changed and there are a number of descendants of coverted Jews who are returning to the Torah and the Jewish community.
4. Going forward - there has been a big push by various Torah based Jewish leaders to convince secular or converted Jews to return to Torath Mosheh. Rabbis and organization such Rabbi Amnon Ytzhaq of Shofar, Rabbi Zamir of Hitdabroot, Aish HaTorah, Mechon Meir, OutReach Judaism, Jews for Judaism, etc. have been very successful in this regard.
5. There are positions held by the Sages of Israel, from before the last 800 years or more, that when there are a enough Jews actually living in Israel and when Israeli Jews start to return to the Torah more and more Hashem will strengthen an Israeli Jew of Davidic descent, that can be proven by a Mosaic Court, who is strong/wise/an expert in the Torah and halakha (Jewish Law) and he will become a strong leader able to unite Jews in Israel under the Torah and halakha.
6. There will be a Mosaic court of 71 in Israel that will be reformed and lead the halakhic process of the Torah.
7. This same Israeli Jewish leader will cause Jews to return to the land of Israel. He will cause the rebuilding of the Temple in Jerusalem.
8. Israel, from top to bottom, will be seen as keeping the mitzvoth of the Torah as it was given at Mount Sinai and then a conflict called (גוג ומגוג).
9. When the conflict is settled and the Torah based kingdom is still standing the world knows that Hashem is Hashem, and the reality of what the Torah says about Hashem, world peace. Nations able to deal with each other in a more truthful manner and so on.

The rest is just commentary - so here we go.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

For the additioanal understanding see the following:

For a non-Jewish view on this, in connection to the New Testament claims, see the following.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

Another consideration to make:

 

[Ehav4Ever]

Another consideration before I go forward.

 

[Jake1001]

Christian Challenge #1 - The Jewish Christians, Who Were They and What Happened to Them? (Part 1)

With the history of how modern Torah based Jews came about and received the Torah from previous generations being explained and with details provided to describe the process dictated by Hashem for a Jew to determine truth being defined - we now can present a few challenges to Christianity.

The best way I know is to start this part is by using an example. Imagine a Torah based Jew, fluent in Hebrew and Aramaic, along with a family history that traces back to Mount Sinai, who has never heard of the NT and has never heard of Jesus. Imagine what would happen if they were approached by a group of Christian missionaries whose goal is to convince the before mentioned Jew to believe in Jesus as the Christian style messiah.

Taking this to its most extreme, let’s consider what kind of issues that such a Jew would bring up first, based on the Torath Mosheh requirements listed earlier.

Remember the big question we want to answer for this part is, “What would it take for this kind of Jew to even listen to what the Christians have to say?”

I propose that the first questions that such a Jew would have for said missionaries would/could be:

1. Who are you and what is it that you want to show me?
2. This book of yours can you show me the most ancient and authoritative version of it?
3. This book that you have: how did you come across it and why was its oldest version written in Greek?
4. This thing you are presenting, does it come from Jews? If so, who were they? (Family pedigree, their teachers and students) Show me their Mesorah going back to Mount Sinai.
5. You say that someone named yeshu is a “Jewish Messiah?” What do “you” mean by the word “messiah?” I.e. what is a messiah for you?
6. The Jews who believed in this thing you claim where they now?

Thus, based on the requirements that Hashem gave to the people of Israel at Mount Sinai – these are some of the questions that such a Jew would need to ask, long before hearing what the Christian’s NT has written in it. The realities that said Jew would find after an investigation of the NT text and its authorship can be first summed up by the following video.

Thus, this is the kind of response that one would expect.

When you say “this kind of Jew”, Ehav, you don’t mean that in a derogatory sense, right ?

 

[Ehav4Ever]

When you say “this kind of Jew”, Ehav, you don’t mean that in a derogatory sense, right ?

Greetings. When I wrote "this kind of Jew" it was in connection to an example I mentioned at the beginning of the that post. I.e. when I wrote, "Imagine a Torah based Jew, fluent in Hebrew and Aramaic, along with a family history that traces back to Mount Sinai, who has never heard of the NT and has never heard of Jesus."

That is the Jew I am referencing when I wrote "this kind of Jew." This kind of Jew = an imaginary Torah based Jew, fluent in Hebrew and Aramaic, along with a family history that traces back to Mount Sinai, who has never heard of the NT and has never heard of Jesus. that I need to reference for my example.

The importance of the reference is that missionaries like Dr. Michael Brown claim that the rabbis are blocking Jews from hearing about Jesus. The idea that missionaries like him claim is that IF a Jew were allowed to hear about Jesus, in the way the missionaries present him, then they would immediately recognize Jesus as a messiah. I hope that makes sense.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

Analyzing the Scriptural Claims of Christianity and Messianics - Part 1

We have already seen that the history of the early Jewish Christians and the text of the new testaments makes it clear that the Christianity and the various types of Messianic movements are not accurate. We have also seen how on face value it is not Torath Mosheh and thus is against the Torah of Hashem. On those grounds alone we can surmise this is not something that is sound.

Yet, to really seal the deal lets analyze the claims of Cohen when it comes to the Tanakh and determine if they have any grounds. One of the best ways to do this is to determine what it would take, from a Tanakh perspective, for the Jesus / Yeshua described by the new testament is the mashiahh / Davidic king / Jewish leader.

Using a Christian translation of the new testament into Hebrew[1], to answer the question, we can determine what would need to appear “exactly” in the Torah.

1. A clear statement which states (אלוהים רצה שהמשיח ימות על הצלב בעד חטאינו)[2] “Elohim wanted that the mashiahh would die on the cross on the account of your transgressions.”
2. A clear statement which states (נקבר וקם לתחיה ביום השלישי)[3] “he will be stabbed and rise to live on the 3rd day.”
3. A clear statement which states (אכן על-פי התורה כמעט הכל מטהר בדם, ובלא שפיכת דם אין מחילה) “per the Torah almost all is purified with blood, and without spilling of blood there is no forgiveness.”
4. A clear statement which states that (המשיח נהרג למען החטאים והדם שלו יכפר) “the mashiahh will be killed on account of the transgressions and his blood will atone.”
5. A clear statement which states that (המשיח יולד מבתולה בלי זרע של בן אדם) “the mashiahh will be born to a virgin without the seed of a man.”
6. A clear statement which states that (הן גם המשיח ימות לכפרת חטאים, אחת ולתמיד, הצדיק בעד הרשעים) [4] “thus, also the mashiahh will die for atonement of transgressors, once and for all, the tzadiq for the sake of the wicked.”
7. A clear statement validating the following (ישראל מתים לגבי התורה בגלל התורה, כדי שנחיה לאלהים)[5] “Israel dies on account of the Torah because of the Torah, so that will live to Elohim.”
8. A clear statement validating the following (הלא אם אפשר להצדק על-ידי התורה, הרי שהמשיח מת לשוא) [6] “Surely
9. A clear statement validating the mashiahh is (הדרך והאמת והחיים. אין איש בא אל האב אלא דרכו)[7] “the path and the truth and the life. No man goes to Hashem except through him.”
10. A clear statement validating that (כי שכר החטא הוא מות) [8]“the wages of sin of death.”

Thus, because the new testament authors claim that the above is directly from the Tanakh it would stand to logical reasoning that these statements would be easily sourced from the Torah with nothing in the Torah contradicting them.[9]

[1] ????? ????? - ????? ???

[2] Galations 1:4

[3] 1st Corinthians 15:2

[4] 1st Peter 3:18

[5] Galations 2:19

[6] Galations 2:21

[7] John 14:6

[8] Romans 6:23

[9] Because the Torah, its language-structure-formation, was dictated completely to Mosheh (Moses) so that Mosheh would a) write the written text in a very specific form (Torah Scroll) and b) that the correct method of deriving the truth be given as a part of the oral transmission of how live out and interpret the text we know that first and foremost all concepts must be scrutinized using the Torah. That includes anything written in a so-called prophetic text and any concept associated with reality. This means that the first stop is the Torah, since it is the word of Hahsem, and if something doesn’t line up with it and the transmitted information / traditions that Mosheh learned from Hashem taught to Am Yisrael then we reject it since we know that in reality Hashem rejects it also.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

Analyzing the Scriptural Claims of Christianity and Messianics - Part 2

The next part is from a response I made to a messianic who wrote a paper making bold claims about atonement.

A Messianic stated: In the absence of our Temple (destroyed two millennia ago, in 70 c.e.), we have no sacrificial system to deal with the justice demanded by our human sins. Without atonement (just punishment for wrongdoing), G*d cannot simply “forgive” sin and remain just. Without blood-sacrifice, there can be no atonement (Leviticus 17:11ff): and without our Temple, there can be no sacrifices, and thus no forgiveness of sin through that means.

Ehav Ever’s Response: So let’s test Messianic’s claim. Let’s determine if the Torah really claims that a) Hashem cannot simply forgive sin and remain just and b) if the Torah claims that there is no atonement without blood sacrifice.

Starting with this concept that Hashem cannot simply forgive sin and remain just we have to ask the question, “Where in the Torah is such a mandate presented that Hashem can’t forgive sin and remain just?” The first problem is that the western/Christian concept of “sin” is not found in the Torah to begin with.[1] If we look the Torah in Exodus 32:33 after Mixed Multitude and the 1st born of many of the tribes of Israel of that generation of Israel had created the golden calf, and killed when Mosheh offers his death to atone for Am Yisrael Hashem states the following:

שמות לב:לג​

ויאמר יהוה, אל-משה: מי אשר חטא-לי, אמחנו מספרי​

(Translation) And Hashem said, to Mosheh: The person who has transgressed [against Me], I will erase them from my book.[2]

So, from this learn that Hashem does not hold the transgressions of Torah done by others over those who have not done those particular transgressions.

דברים פרק כד:טז​

לא-יומתו אבות על-בנים, ובנים לא-יומתו על-אבות: איש בחטאו, יומתו​

(Translation) The fathers will not die due to the sons, and the sons will not die due to the fathers: each person in their own transgressions, they will die. [3]

This concept is repeated in the Prophets, in Yehhezqel (Ezekiel) 18: ‘The soul that sin, it shall die… the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.’ The prophet Yirmeyahu (Jeremiah) looks to the day when the mistaken belief that one man’s death atones for another man’s sins shall no longer be held by anyone: in Yirmeyahu (Jeremiah) 31:29-30, the prophet says: ‘In those days they shall say no more, The fathers have eaten a sour grape, and the children’s teeth are set on edge. But everyone shall die for his own transgressions: every man that eats the sour grape, his teeth shall be set on edge.’[4]

Further, according to the prophet Yeshayehu:

ישעיהו פרק נה:ו-ז​

דרשו יהוה, בהמצאו; קראהו, בהיותו קרוב. יעזב רשע דרכו, ואיש און מחשבתיו; וישב אל-יהוה וירחמהו, ואל-אלהינו כי-ירבה לסלוח​

(Translation) “Hashem requires in his creations; and he calls him, to be close. Abandon transgressor his way, and man of transgression from his thoughts; and return to Hashem he [Hashem] will have mercy on him, and to our Elohim because increased / much [he is] to forgive.”[5]

Lastly, to this point we have the book of Yonah where the prophet Yonah was commanded by Hashem to proclaim to the citizens of Nineweh that in 40 days the city would be destroyed.[6] After hearing the words of Yonah we are told that the entire city from the king, to the average, and even the animals made teshuva and turned away from the previous behavior. They fasted and sat in regret for their behavior and Hashem’s response was to not bring about the destruction that had announced upon them. It is important to note that the declaration that Hashem gave never gave the option of making teshuva. Yet, their actions of turning away was enough without any type of Qorban, sacrifice, or blood.[7]

When Yonah saw this, he was angry about the situation and he stated to Hashem:

יונה פרק ד:ב​

ויתפלל אל-יהוה ויאמר, אנה יהוה הלוא-זה דברי עד-היותי על-אדמתי--על-כן קדמתי, לברח תרשישה: כי ידעתי, כי אתה אל-חנון ורחום, ארך אפים ורב-חסד, ונחם על-הרעה​

(Translation) Yonah 4:2 “And he prayed to Hashem and said, please Hashem surely this is my I and I ran away to Tarshish: because I knew, because you are an El of mercy; slow to anger and increased on mercy, and you on the wicked.”

Thus, we can see that the “G*d” that this messianic believes in is not Hashem that gave the Torah and sent Yonah to Nineweh. In reality, Hashem has a history of forgiving without pagan style practices that rely on sacrifices for the sake of justice.



[1] Meaning that in Christianity sin is more of a general rebellious and carnal type of concept which they often trace back to their concept of the fall of Adam. Where in the Torah there are different types of transgressions of the Torah and those categories are further broken down into whether their person did so by mistake, did so with a lack of understanding, or did so with full knowledge and intention. None of these found in the Torah are connected to a "sin" committed by Adam.

[2] Shemoth (Ex.) 32:33

[3] Devarim (Deut.)

[4] Point made by Rabbi Stuart Federow 2013

[5] Yeshayahu (Isiah) 55:6-7

[6] Yonah 3:4

[7] Yonah 3

[8] Waiyiqra (Lev.) 17:1-3

[9] Wayiqra (Lev.) 17:4,10

[10] Wayiqra (Lev.) 5:1-13

[11] For example, BeMidbar 31:50; BeMidbar 17:11-12; Daniel 4:24; Yonah 3:10; 1st Melachim 8:46 to 50

[12] ספר משלי פרק טז:ו

[13] Hebrews 9:22 According to the law, in fact, nearly everything must be purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.

[14] This means that those who believe in the New Testament only come to these conclusions because of the claims of the New Testament and not because they were convinced first by the Tanakh only to have it confirmed by the New Testament later on.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

Analyzing the Scriptural Claims of Christianity and Messianics - Part 3

Concerning this messianic’s claim that the Torah sanctions “blood sacrifice” as the sole method of “atonement,” without there is no atonement, we can make several points to disprove him. First, the Torah never uses a word in Hebrew for atonement that is comparable to the English meaning of the word sacrifice. messianic wisely only points Waiyqra 17:11 without addressing the pasukim that proceed it.

​

ויקרא פרק יז:א-ג​

וידבר יהוה, אל-משה לאמר. דבר אל-אהרן ואל-בניו, ואל כל-בני ישראל, ואמרת, אליהם: זה הדבר, אשר-צוה יהוה לאמר. איש איש, מבית ישראל, אשר ישחט שור או-כשב או-עז, במחנה; או אשר ישחט, מחוץ למחנה​

​

(Translation) “And Hashem spoke, to Mosheh to say. Speak to Aharon and his sons, and to all of Benei Yisrael, and you will say, to them: this matter, which Hashem commanded to say. A man a man from the house of YIsrael, who will do schihhta [kosher preparations of an animal for consumption] [of] a bull, a lamb or a goat, in the camp; or he will do schihhta, outside of the camp.” [8]

So, this starting pasukim explain that the pasukim that follow it are talking about one aspect of the process of performing schihhta. Thus everything that follows is concerned with the process of schihhta inside of the camp and outside of the camp.

ויקרא פרק יז:ד, י
ואל-פתח אהל מועד, לא הביאו, להקריב קרבן ליהוה, לפני משכן יהוה--דם יחשב לאיש ההוא, דם שפך, ונכרת האיש ההוא, מקרב עמו..........ואיש איש מבית ישראל, ומן-הגר הגר בתוכם, אשר יאכל, כל-דם--ונתתי פני, בנפש האכלת את-הדם, והכרתי אתה, מקרב עמה.​

​

(Translation) “And to the opening of the tent of meeting, don’t bring, to draw close Qorban to Hashem, before the Mishkan of Hashem—blood is thought to that man, blood he will spill, and that man will be cut off from his people……and the man a man from the house of Yisrael, and from the Geir the Geir from among you, who will eat, all blood—I have given before me, in the soul he eats the blood, and I will cut off [that person], from his people.” [9]

Again, we are clearly reading about a prohibition of consuming blood with connection with a type of Qorban and not about blood being “the only” method of atonement because of justice, as the messianic stated. i.e. the reason for not consuming blood with food.

As we continue through the chapter we get to the pasuk that the messianic mentions as his proof for his concept of “blood sacrifice.” If the messianic is being truthful, we should find that in Hebrew that the Torah states something along the lines of what is stated in the New Testament book of Hebrews which claims (ובלא שפיכת דם אין מחילה) i.e. “without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness”. An even stronger point can be made that if Hashem had intended that the blood a person named Jesus was going to be the method in the future it would make more sense for the Torah to include a statement that says, (רק הדם של ישוע יכפר).

Yet, what the Torah really states is the following:

ויקרא פרק יז:יא
כי נפש הבשר, בדם הוא, ואני נתתיו לכם על-המזבח, לכפר על-נפשתיכם: כי-הדם הוא, בנפש יכפר.​

(Translation) “Because nefesh of the meat, it is in the blood, and I [Hashem] have given it to you on the mizbeah, to atone on your souls: because the blood it, in the nefesh it will atone.”

Even alone we find that this pasuk the messianic provides as his proof does not support his position that without blood sacrifice there is no forgiveness of “sins.” Like the rest of the Torah, it also does not support the idea that atonement only comes from any person, whether claimed to be divine or not. Maybe this is the reason that the messianic does not actually quote the Torah, in either Hebrew or English, because it would be clear as day that that the Torah never claims that blood sacrifice is the sole method of atonement.

We can further prove this fact by reviewing the various methods of Qorbanot described in the Torah. There are numerous types of Qorbanot that are brought for transgressions of the Torah which do not even require an animal as a Qorban. These types of Qorbans are called in Hebrew (קרבן עולה ויורד) “Qorban Oleh and Yored” to which a subset are known as (מנחת חוטא) “Minhat Hote” which are brought in situations where the person who transgressed the Torah cannot afford an animal as a Qorban and instead they bring flower or other baked products.[10]

שמות פרק ל:טו​

העשיר לא-ירבה, והדל לא ימעיט, ממחצית, השקל--לתת את-תרומת יהוה, לכפר על-נפשתיכם. טז ולקחת את-כסף הכפרים, מאת בני ישראל, ונתת אתו, על-עבדת אהל מועד; והיה לבני ישראל לזכרון לפני יהוה, לכפר על-נפשתיכם.​

​

(Translation) Shmoth (Ex.) 30:15-16 The rich will not give more, and the poor will not give less, from the half [sheqel], the sheqel—to give terumah of Hashem, to atone on your souls. And you will take the atoning silver/money, from the Israelis, and you will give it, on the work of the Tent of Meeting; and it will be to the Israelis for a remembrance before Hashem, to atone on your souls.

Further, in various parts of the Tanakh, various other methods of (כפרה) “atonement” are stated[11] such as performing mercy and truth (בחסד ואמת, יכפר עון; וביראת יהוה, סור מרע).[12]

This begs the question why would the messianic believe that the Torah supports his claim? The reason is because the messianic’s claim / belief does not come from the Torah at all. It is a concept sourced from the New Testament found in the book of Hebrews and this book has been known, even to Christian scholars, to mistranslate and misrepresent the Torah. [13] This means that no person who has never heard of or read the New Testament would ever come to the messianic’s conclusion while reading the Torah, in Hebrew, first; i.e. a person who is misguided can only come to the conclusion presented by the messianic after first accepting the New Testament’s claims.[14]

We see that the Torah is talking about the reason not to eat blood and not claiming that performing a “Sacrifice” with blood is “the” way to atone. Further to this point, the Torah claims that Fasting and prayer are also specified as means of atonement (Isa. 58:1–10; Jonah 3; are a few examples) We also see that Hashem clearly provided numerous methods of atonement for transgressions of the Torah that don’t even include animals. Thus, the messianic’s concepts are not based on Torah and can only be sourced from non-Torah based sources that he learned as a student of Christian based teachers.



[8] Waiyiqra (Lev.) 17:1-3

[9] Wayiqra (Lev.) 17:4,10

[10] Wayiqra (Lev.) 5:1-13

[11] For example, BeMidbar 31:50; BeMidbar 17:11-12; Daniel 4:24; Yonah 3:10; 1st Melachim 8:46 to 50

[12] ספר משלי פרק טז:ו

[13] Hebrews 9:22 According to the law, in fact, nearly everything must be purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.

[14] This means that those who believe in the New Testament only come to these conclusions because of the claims of the New Testament and not because they were convinced first by the Tanakh only to have it confirmed by the New Testament later on.

 

[Jake1001]

These posts are too long Ehave. No one will read them. Please edit for brevity.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

These posts are too long Ehav. No one will read them. Please edit for brevity.

Most Christians who ask the questions that sparked this thread won't read it no matter how short it is. They often come in with a built in state of mind that often won't be corrected unless they see in full detail what the issues are. I.e. there is no short one two punch with them and they essentially have to be overwhelmed.

There are some though who are really asking the question from an honest place and once they get past the first post they will go further.

One of the advantages, for me at least, is that when the topic comes up again I can reference this thread w/o having to rewrite it every single time.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

To close out the information I hoped to provide and store in this thread I present the following videos.

 

[WonderingWorrier]

• Why do Torah based Jews not accept Chrisitian scriptual interpretation?

• Why do Torah based Jews not Jesus as a/the Messiah?

• Why is there a divide between "Judaism" and "Christianity?"

There are verses in the New Testament of the bible that shows knowledge of the word structure that is hidden within the Tanakh. There are people who can't hear it. So interpretations are divided.

There are verses about a man and Jesus speaks of his coming. The man with a rod of iron (The Tanakh shows a Rod of iron means Earthly correction).


And he shall rule them with a rod of iron; as the vessels of a potter shall they be broken to shivers: even as I received of my Father. Revelation 2:27


Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. Matthew 10:34

Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word. John 8:43

Who hath ears to hear, let him hear. Matthew 13:9


And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God. Revelation 19:15

You have to remember, my rule is I accept the truth from whichever path it comes. I learn from all sources.

 

[Ehav4Ever]