The (Ir)Rational Response Squad - Opiate of the Asses -

Come on, with a name like that, you'd be irrational to think that nobody would have played on this earlier.

The (Ir)Rational Response Squad is a group that got its start on Youtube, and its focus is to have people "deny the Holy Spirit," which according to Christian belief, lands you in Hell. The point of this denial is to a) affirm the atheism of the testifier, and probably to interject themselves onto their fancified understanding of what Galileo and other "famous rejectors" have turned into by way of contemporary biases, and b) to show their belief that Christianity is false and that they have no fear of going to Hell.

A few criticisms by way of a rational believing monotheist Jew, if I may. a) I am not above saying that the majority of the people who "testify" in their denial of the Holy Spirit probably have not taken the time out of their busy lives to sit and ponder about just what exactly it means to believe in G-d. As it were, their philosophy on theism, to use the Rational Response Squad's key word, is probably painfully underdeveloped at least and embarrassingly humorous at worst. b) There is a certain contemporary pop-culture chicness associated with atheism, but like other philosofads that pop up and down like plastic beavers at miniature golf course, those ideas bubble loudly and neutralize softly. It reminds me of when I used to cook spaghetti in my pot on the oven; when the heat was turned on, the water would violently bubble and threaten to boil over the top, but when I would turn off the heat, the water would almost immediately lose its resolve and return to calmness. "Pathetic display of power," I thought, for such a loud noise. Perhaps those rebellious youth and well-seasoned anti-conformity elders have not taken into account that this particular wave in which they are surfing, which is more like a groove in the water, makes usage of the same mind-control for which they bash religion. Who says that the chemical, disaffectionately coined by (the Jew) Marx as "the opiate of the masses," inside the body does not work on atheists and those irresolute? Are they above biology and social human psychology? Does their pituitary gland cease to function when they cease believing in the existence of a Creator? The opiate is too of the asses. From what I've seen by speaking with several atheists, some have good thought-out questions, but more often than not, many of them simply suffer from an inability to make lasting moral demands of themselves, demands that would require an unchanging commitment were their peers and general society to shift directions. "Atheism" is and has been for a while now a philosophically-charged word for "confusion" and/or "agnosticism" and also perhaps "moral relativism," including the silver-haired intellectual elite on top of their mountain of colorful books. Go, go! Your disciples of mice are calling for you, you fat hungry cats. You will eat seven fat mice and still be skinny.

A Jew and a Christian Discuss -

The Jew is me, Yaniv, and the Christian is Danny, a friend of mine from Tucson. Grab the popcorn, sit back, and enjoy - a modern-day debate between a Jew and a Christian for your enjoyment!

Danny said:

http://www.wayofthemasternews.com/raysmonthlycolumn.htm

I thought you would since I have seen you talk about this subject.

Love,

Danny

Yaniv said:

I tried to keep it short, hehe.

I too used to hold Christianity's involvement in the Holocaust against Christianity, but over the years I've learned a bit about the true essence of Christianity. I don't really bother to be angry at Christianity for its involvement anymore, now it's just its theology that keeps me away from it. What I mean is, it would be irrational for me to say that just because Christianity was so intimately related to the Holocaust and helped it occur that I should resent it forever. The truth is that Christians can repent for their involvement, this is true, any many have, but the true problem with Christianity is not its history but its theology, which is pagan. As long as that lasts there is a problem. I won't hold Christianity's involvement in the Holocaust against any Christian because they can't be held accountable.

This is the connection. Paganism/polytheism have always sought to destroy monotheism, this is probably the root cause of all (or a huge majority) of the world's problems - the tension created by the fundamental conflicts resulting from the clash of monotheism and polytheism and their respective values. The opposite is also true - monotheism seeks to destroy polytheism, but how is another topic. Theologically speaking, Christianity is not monotheism and so it too has in it buried the nagging desire to push against Judaism. The unique thing about Christianity is that it is polytheism in monotheism's outfit, and it speaks in its name. I realize that we won't agree on this, and that's fine, but how exactly was Hitler able to use Christianity to rile up the masses, many (or most? I don't know) of which were Christian, to unite against the Jews in such a fashion? Clearly, Danny, there was some overlaying hostility in Christianity towards the Jews, and Hitler just found a way to tap into that and release it. Yes, my friend, the Christians were not very happy with the Jews and Hitler manipulated their "grievances" against them, although I agree that there were many more elements to the Holocaust than just religion.

Since Hitler found a way to tap into that anger, we have to ask why it existed in the first place. As a rule of thumb, polytheistic and monotheistic religions cannot essentially get along, look at the history of the Jews and their neighbors; the Midianites, Moabites, Babylonians, Assyrians, Egyptains, Persians, Philistines, Canaanites (Amorites, Amalekites, Jebusites, Girgashites), Greeks, Romans, etc... At one time or another all of these people tried to destroy the Jews, or Israelites or Hebrews, depending on when, even when those groups recognized that "the G-d of the Hebrews" existed. Christianity was a deviation from Judaism. It eventually appealed to Gentile societies, whom were all polytheistic, and succeeded in spreading by infusing Jewish legal terms (sacrifices) with easy-to-understand pagan theologies (Divine duality, multiplicity). In other words, the religion of Christianity (regardless of its Jewish roots) became a Gentile religion, and those Gentiles, most of whom were Roman subjects and elitists, were not very far away from resenting Jews already. When Constantine rose to power and Judaism turned into a minority religion in the Roman Empire, some accounts of history explain that a huge number of Jews were killed. Considering that technology wasn't as good then, it is said that the number was basically proportionate to the number of Jews killed in Germany in the 20th century. I can try to find the source if you want. This kind of thing kept happening on and off for the next 2,000 years in Christian countries (both Catholic and Protestant) all over Europe and that trend made the Holocaust very possible. I can forgive a Christian because they are not accountable for it, and I am actually more than happy to because I don't want to live with that anger festering away at my soul. However, I am turned away from Christianity because of its paganism; if there is a connection between paganism and resenting Jews, this is definitely demonstrable throughout contemporary and Biblical (OT) history.

How your individual identity fits into Christianity is impossible for me to know.

Peace, your pal, Yaniv...

Also said by Yaniv:

Theologically speaking, Christianity is not monotheism and so it too has in it buried the nagging desire to push against Judaism. The unique thing about Christianity is that it is polytheism in monotheism's outfit, and it speaks in its name. Forget Hitler, he's dead; what should really alarm you is that your religion has internal elements of polytheism and you should ponder if that makes G-d very happy with you. This is much more sinister than any human being could ever hope to be, especially since it seems like monotheism.

All said as a pal, Yaniv...

Danny said:

Well, my thing is that I don't think people are smart enough to make up G-d being three separate entities but fully God as one being. It sounds a little like it is beyond human understanding. Also when I read the Old Testament from the first chapter and especially the profits, I get this very same understanding from them. Daniel even goes so far as to predict the exact day God will show up on earth, which happened with Christ. Also, Christ taught and magnified the Law of G-d even to the heart level, G-d sees our inward parts. Meaning G-d will judge us for our thought life as well as our actions and is mad at sin. Christ is perfect, holly and righteous. Your G-d doesn't hold everyone accountable for every, word, thought and deed.

Danny said:

Why would a demon teach humans to be good, kind and loving, focused only on G-d and not our selves? Why would a demon, teach us to be righteous and give G-d glory in all situations? No other religious book does that. All others teach work righteousness and against the Ten Commandments.

Oh and the other thing was that the Old Testament says that only G-d can tell the future and it be fulfilled. Well, Christ told the future with it coming true, a demon can not do that. He also shared wisdom which is against society and man's understanding even today. G-d in the old testament says that his wisdom is not like man's.

What I am saying is I am not concerned about what term Christ seems like, polytheism or what not. I am only concerned if my life matches up with all of scripture, weather I like what it says or not. Most of what is in the New Testament is challenging and life changing beyond the core of me. It is 90% mental and only 10% physical, it comes down to, it only matters if it is true or not.

Sorry, tried to make it short,

Danny

Yaniv said:

I'll respond to the things in order.

People are smart enough to make up anything; Communism, Socialism, Darwinism, Atheism, that religion that Tom Cruise practices, because the human mind is incredibly dynamic. That the human mind can conceptualize (to limited degrees) the wonder of G-d is dangerously close to being able to "inventing" the existence of G-d Himself. You should hear the arguments for that, which ultimately cannot stand but at least they sound sophisticated. I once heard a saying, "I wouldn't have seen it if I hadn't believed it with my own mind." The point is that you can see anything you want in the "Old Testament" whether it's actually there or not.

It would be basically pointless for us to talk about what the prophets actually meant if we hold that subjectivity is the prime factor in our decision making, which is what I'm reading from you. Most of what you're saying to me in the first paragraph doesn't seem very thought out, such as "Daniel even goes so far as to predict the exact day G-d will show up on earth, which happened with Christ." If you and I are having an intellectual discussion, you won't change the way I think about things by simply telling me something that you believe or that your Bible says. I don't believe that "G-d showed up on earth" with Christ, and I certainly don't believe that Jesus was the Messiah. You have never tried to live your life by the Law, or by a type of religious law, so your understanding of the Law of the Torah is insufficient to comment on the way it affects man. One of the most fundamental Torah lessons is to internalize the Law and to become a "pnimi," a person who is trying to condition himself with it.

As a Christian you need to believe that the Law of the Torah cannot penetrate into the heart of man and fill him with joy and devotion and compassion, because if it did, what would be the point of Christianity? If that is what you really believe then you are sadly mistaken. In other words, you need to believe that your religion provides something that Judaism doesn't, but that's not true. "My G-d" certainly does hold everybody accountable for their every sin, thought, or deed, both good and bad and everywhere in between, because He is the perfect Judge. If you have not gotten this message from reading "my Bible" then you haven't been paying attention or you've been hearing the wrong thing.

Deception needs to be deceiving if it's going to work. The people who make Coca-Cola make sure that it tastes really, really good, but it's pretty bad for you. If they made it taste as bad as it was for you, then you wouldn't even dream of drinking it. The Satan is a deceiver and it has been endowed its powers by G-d Himself and so the illusions with which it tempts humanity are incredibly effective, even on people that are equipped to deal with them. It doesn't have the powers of G-d but there is a source in the Torah (Talmud) saying that demons have the ability to create small illusory worlds. I don't know exactly what that means, but if you have ever seen a person completely lost in a certain way of life, it is as if they are indeed lost in a small world. So yes, that is the power of a demon, and it will lace a bad thing with good things so that you do not see the bad in it.

All of the religious books present their message as a positive one; why would they do otherwise? Would make it make sense to have a religion that allowed the follower to know that it was to deliberately harm people? That would not be very deceiving.

In the Tanakh we see all kinds of idol worshippers and star worshippers telling the future, and they did not do it through prophecy. The reality of the world is that they were able to tap into elements of truth through these things, but not absolute truth. There's a source in the Torah that says that when Potiphar's wife went to seduce Joseph that something else was actually going on. She had told Joseph that the stars inferred that they were to be together, and Joseph checked the stars (astrology) and found that she was right, and just as they were about to commit the deed his father Jacob appeared to him in a window (also in the stars) and told him that it was not the right way, so he stopped. Jacob himself used a form of divination when he made Lavan's sheep give birth to only speckled sheep, which he kept for himself. The way he did that was by having them look at striped pieces of wood when they were mating and then they gave birth to speckled sheep (does that make any sense to you? It was divination). The Egyptians also used loads of black magic and were actually able to simulate the things that Moses was doing through the Hand of G-d, such as turning the staff into a snake and making the water turn into blood, which is written in the text of the Torah. Bilaam, the prophet of Midian, was able to achieve a level of prophecy as well through very questionable means, which the Torah explains was through having relations with his donkey, which the text specifically mentions was a "she-donkey." The Torah has a commandment not to communicate with the dead and not to partake in the rituals of the pagan nations. But why not? If their gods aren't real then why does it matter? The answer is that their gods aren't real but that their rituals worked because G-d made the world with those things accessible. However, He also intended for those things to be off limits to humanity and so He commanded us not to do them. Only the wisest and most discerning people who are thoroughly steeped in Torah study and living should touch on those things because only they will use them for the right purposes and the right way.

The core religious experience provided by every single religion in the whole world is that it provides the follower with the ability to reach something outside of himself. However, being taken outside of our core is not how we measure the truth of a religion because every single religion in the world is designed to take a person out of himself. So does music, sex, drugs, and even violence, which explains why people speak about those things in spiritual terms (and why, to a degree, religion utilizes these things for spirituality). Again, I can't make judgments on your personal spiritual experiences, but all I can say is that everybody is capable of spirituality and that in and of itself is not self-validating.

I also tried to make it short. Peace, Yaniv...

Danny said:

Well, my thing is that I don't think people are smart enough to make up G-d being three separate entities but fully God as one being. It sounds a little like it is beyond human understanding. Also when I read the Old Testament from the first chapter and especially the profits, I get this very same understanding from them. Daniel even goes so far as to predict the exact day God will show up on earth, which happened with Christ. Also, Christ taught and magnified the Law of G-d even to the heart level, G-d sees our inward parts. Meaning G-d will judge us for our thought life as well as our actions and is mad at sin. Christ is perfect, holly and righteous. Your G-d doesn't hold everyone accountable for every, word, thought and deed.

Dan A. orginally said:

"My personal belief, not an argument, is that people are still not intelligent enough to understand that concept of G-d that Jesus describes and what I feel the profits also described. That would be consistent with it being written that God choose the foolish things to confound the wise. God resist the proud and has chosen foolish things to confuse the wise. Pr 3:34, Isa 29:14"

Yaniv responded:

"I read Proverbs 3:34, and mine reads "If {one is drawn] to the scoffers, he will scoff, but [if one is drawn] to the humble, he will find favor." Maybe our translations are a bit different, but I'm trying to connect this verse with our topic and I can't really see how they connect with each other. However, Proverbs 3:1 seems to connect pretty well to the conversation. "My child, do not forget the Torah, and let your heart guard My commandments, for they add to you length of days and years of life and peace. Kindness and truth will not forsake you. Bind them upon your neck; inscribe them on the tablet of your heart, and you will find favor and goodly wisdom in the eyes of G-d and man." I scanned through the next couple of Proverbs and all I found was a constant reference to the wisdom of the Torah and the call to keep it. Proverbs 7:1-2 is especially telling, "My child, heed my words and store up my commandments with yourself. Heed my commandments and live, and [heed] my Torah as the apple of your eyes." G-d speaking to the Jews as "My child" is exactly what I was talking about when the "Father Son" analogy is filled between G-d and the Jewish People, and to a degree the Gentiles as well.

As for as Isaiah 29:14, I agree fully. Isaiah was very big on castigating the Jews based on their insincere sacrificial offerings , their idolatry, and just plain out acts of immorality and treachery. He also rails the surrounding nations and tells them that they're going down too, and tells them when they're doing the right thing. Back to the Jews, check out Isaiah 11, to the Jews, whom he refers to as "people of Gomorrah," "Why do I need your numerous sacrifices? says Hashem." Good place to stop, but the next verse says, "I am sated with elevation-offerings of rams and the fat of fatlings; the blood of bulls, sheep, and goats I do not desire. When you come to appear before Me,who sought this from your hand, to trample My courtyards. Bring your worthless meal-offering to Me no longer, it is incense of abomination to Me." Notice, G-d tells Isaiah "I am sated with elevation offerings of rams and the fat of fatlings," -- G-d was satisfied with the genuine offerings, which took away sin, but deplored the bulls, sheep, and goats, because it had apparently become a trend to bring countless sacrifices that were not genuine, and G-d was interested in genuine service to Him. Also, it seems that G-d was more satisfied with the minimum sacrifices done genuinely than with the larger sacrifices, when brought in the proper spirit, sanctified G-d's Name. The problem is that people were bringing them improperly, to bribe G-d, as it were, and this enraged G-d. Skip back real quick to Exodus 29:38, where G-d commands Aaron to bring the continual offering. "This is what you shall offer upon the Altar: two sheep within their first year every day, continually. You shall offer the one sheep in the morning, and the second sheep shall you offer in the afternoon; and a tenth-ephah of fine flour mixed with a quarter-hin of beaten oil, and a libation of wine for each sheep." Turns out that the Jews had forgotten how to do it the proper way, and G-d sent Isaiah to warn and remind them.

Here's the part I really wanted to emphasize, in Isaiah 29:14, when G-d says, "Bring your worthless meal-offering to Me no longer, it is incense of abomination to Me," contrast this with Exodus 29:41, in which G-d describes the proper sacrificial meal-offering, "You sh all offer the second sheep in the afternoon, like the meal-offering of the morning and its libation you shall offer for it, for a satisfying aroma, a fire-offering to Hashem; as a continual burnt-offering for your generations, at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting, before Hashem; where I shall set My meeting with you to speak to you there." To break it down even more, the contrast is between "it is incense of abomination to Me," and "for a satisfying aroma..."

If you read on in Isaiah 29:14, those verses G-d also deplores the New Moon and "appointed times," i.e., other holidays, because the Jews were getting carried away with proper ritual and slacking in proper ethics and morality towards their fellow man; see Isaiah 16, "Wash yourselves, purify yourselves, remove the evil of your deeds from before My eyes; cease doing evil. Learn to do good,s eek justice, vindicate the victim, render justice to the orphan, take up the grievance of the widow." Ultimately, Isaiah 29:14 speaks against the corruption of the Law (Isaiah 29:13 - ---their fear of Me is like rote learning of human commands ---), but even, and especially he understood that there was a proper version of the Law, to which he alludes throughout the entire Book. Your own misreading of the verse has to do with your reading that the "human commands" to which he refers are the commandments that G-d gave, but a different reading into the text suggests something entirely more consistent with Torah and Judaism. That settles it, there is a Jewish way and a Christian way to view these things, but the Jewish way, in which we still keep the commandments, is a far cry more consistent with Isaiah's charges than is Christianity. There is no way to apply Isaiah's charges to Christianity, but there is definitely a way to apply it to Judaism, at least in theory when the Temple is not standing.

Dan A. orginally said:

"When you look at Mithraism, Attis, Krishna, and Horus stories, it's like comparing apples to oranges. Sure there are similarities but they are not the same story. Just read the stories themselves not the comparisons. You will not be able to put them together like I have seen authors do.

All accounts of gods share a common denominator when you look at the actual stories of their legacies. They were always conquerors that slew down their enemies in heroic super human fashions. And many times they did not die. In stories that god's did die, it was in a glorious destructive super human fashion. They usually were fighting, showing further that they were gods and not men. The stories would not show any kind of weakness to their god, they showed them served by men, and they could not be hurt by men."

Yaniv responded:

"It seems to me that in the End of Days, the Christian version, that Jesus and Satan "have it out" in a war for humanity, as is explained in Revelations (of which I am no expert what-so-ever). What you get is a serious war of duality between good and evil, which Judaism believes in as well, but the difference is that Revelations explains it as a literal battle of sorts where all kinds of physical emanations of both good and evil (Jesus and Satan) expresses themselves (the red moon, the wife in white, the four horsemen, etc...) and then something about the very ominous and physical "mark of the beast," another physical thing. At best, without sounding insulting, it's a bit reminiscent of a comic book where the good guys and bad guys meet in one final showdown for turf, and of course the good guys win. I give it to you, it's a bit more sophisticated than the all-out pagan "versions" from earlier times, but I think that the Christians, who at least felt themselves to be monotheists, rejected much of the imagery of pagan antiquity from their works. Nevertheless, they didn't do the job quite as good as they should have for monotheists. What I mean is, it was a valiant effort and I even respect them a little bit (from my comfortable seat in 2007), but to me it shows that Revelations was a human work based on a humanly-established religion with a human Trinity, which is not very far in its roots from that same pagan antiquity.

Dan A. originally said:

"You can see then why Jesus was different. He was the Prince of Peace not war, he came to serve others and not to be served to, he was humble enough to wash others feet, and was willing to surrounded himself with those scorned by society. He also was willing to die in a shameful, dishonored fashion for the glory of His Father. There was really no way to make Christ up because people did not see any of his qualities, before him, as God like features."

Yaniv responded:

"I object only to the last part. Surely his anger, judgment, knowledge of the Law and authority of the Law, not to mention his kindness, compassion, and ability to tell the future and perform miracles, and of course his immortality, were elements of his being due to being G-d. All in all, from a narrative perspective, even from a Jewish narrative perspective, Jesus is the kinder, gentler, sweeter emanation of G-d. However, it's pagan and not Jewish because while there are a few canonical Jewish narratives about a physical G-d (the Song at the Sea calls G-d a "Man of War" and other texts talk about G-d in physical terms), there is no place anywhere in (canonical) Jewish thought where G-d has a literal physical body and is found walking around and talking with people. The fact that the Jews did not include any of the Christian works (the original first few of which had Jewish authors) in the Tanakh, other than the politics of religion, is the same reason that the Book of Baruch (I don't know what it's called), and others, are not included in the Tanakh's canon - they were deemed, and were in fact, heretical texts. Yours just has the pleasure of becoming a religion unto its own.

Yaniv originally said:

It would be basically pointless for us to talk about what the prophets actually meant if we hold that subjectivity is the prime factor in our decision making, which is what I'm reading from you. Most of what you're saying to me in the first paragraph doesn't seem very thought out, such as "Daniel even goes so far as to predict the exact day G-d will show up on earth, which happened with Christ." If you and I are having an intellectual discussion, you won't change the way I think about things by simply telling me something that you believe or that your Bible says. I don't believe that "G-d showed up on earth" with Christ, and I certainly don't believe that Jesus was the Messiah.

Dan A. originally said:

Again, it doesn't matter what I believe it only matters if the Bible says it or not, meaning that it is true or not. Since you say it is all subjective then that means you can't tell me that it doesn't say that, so I could be right. Every time I back something up with Scripture though you tell me that it doesn't really say what I read so, what is the point? I have shown you in the book of Daniel before where he predicts to the day when G-d will show up. You basically told me it is not saying that, it is a big coincidence that it mathematically works out right? Daniel 9:25-26

Yaniv responded:

I didn't say that the Torah is subjective, I said that your readings of the Torah were subjective and therefore we would go back and forth talking about what we think they mean, and that would get us nowhere. Alright, but you point was made. I'm going to save this one for a bit later because it's late at night and I don't want to do any math right now.

Yaniv originally said:

You have never tried to live your life by the Law, or by a type of religious law, so your understanding of the Law of the Torah is insufficient to comment on the way it affects man. One of the most fundamental Torah lessons is to internalize the Law and to become a "pnimi," a person who is trying to condition himself with it.

As a Christian you need to believe that the Law of the Torah cannot penetrate into the heart of man and fill him with joy and devotion and compassion, because if it did, what would be the point of Christianity? If that is what you really believe then you are sadly mistaken. In other words, you need to believe that your religion provides something that Judaism doesn't, but that's not true. "My G-d" certainly does hold everybody accountable for their every sin, thought, or deed, both good and bad and everywhere in between, because He is the perfect Judge. If you have not gotten this message from reading "my Bible" then you haven't been paying attention or you've been hearing the wrong thing.

Dan A originally said:

That is what Christ was all about helping people do, internalize the Law, Ten Commandments specifically. I know what the Bible says but you say something different. You say as long as people follow I guess the Law of Noah, you are fine. Well, it says that no one has followed the law. Well, then we are all in big trouble. You say yes we have followed the law but that is not what the Bible says. You also say if we have broken the law then with prayer we would be forgiven. That is not what the Bible says. It says that a sacrifice needs to be made to cover sin, not the forgiveness of it. You say there is no need for a sacrifice because the Temple is gone. A sacrifice was required before the Temple and so a sacrifice is required when there is no Temple. Also G-d says that he only hears the prayers of the priests that offer scarifies, to atone for sin. So, prayer from individuals is no good, where are your priests that offer the sin offerings?

Yaniv responded:

But Danny, the Law is 613 commandments, not ten, although the Ten Commandments make up an essential bulk of the spirit of the Torah. Where does "it" say that no one has followed the law (of Noah, I guess)? I would agree that the Gentiles are in trouble for not following the Law of Noah, as in much trouble as the Jews are for not following the Law of Moses. You also don't believe in the existence of an Oral Law, which I have shown you exists, so of course you are not seeing the Law of Noah listed in the Torah. Actually, the Torah does say that prayer can lead to forgiveness. It's in Hosea and recited in the prayer service in the morning, saying, "May You forgive all iniquity and accept good [intentions], and let our lips substitute for bulls." (Hosea 14:3) Hosea was a book written over a period of 300 years, according to what I read, and was written b y many people. Hosea himself was a contemporary of Isaiah according to the Sages (the Oral tradition). Correction, there IS a need for sacrifice even though the Temple is gone, because G-d has not abolished that system permanently - it's an eternal system, that's the biggest key about all of this. Initially, before the Temple was built and Jews were bringing sacrifices in the Tent of Meeting, a sacrifice was brought simultaneously with repentance. Numbers 15:25 explains this, "The Kohen shall atone for the entire assembly of the Children of Israel and it shall be forgiven them," so you're right, but we are living in a post-Temple time where even if we wanted to bring sacrifices we couldn't. Therefore, G-d accepts atonement from us in a different way until that time has been returned to us because He wouldn't let us go without a way to atone.

Dan A. originally said:

The Law is justice so that doesn't mean you can just apologize or do some good things to make up for breaking the law. If you are in court and a judge is going to sentence you then nothing you can do can make up for it. You can not do a bunch of good things because the Judge would not be upholding justice if he lets you bribe him with good works or apologies. Therefore God will give everyone justice that has broken his laws. Not everyone receives justice on this earth so his justice must be after we die. Psalm 55:15

Yaniv responded:

I haven't looked at the verse yet, but I agree. Okay, now I'm looking at the verse. It says, "together we would take sweet counsel; in the House of G-d we would walk in company." The later verses have to do with death and going down to the grave. I've dabbled in the Psalms and much of the time David is not always referring to the Law, per se, sometimes he's referring to generally good and evil behavior, such as that of his enemies, who we know were from the House of Israel, i.e., often people that wanted to take him down. However, you're still not exactly right because G-d takes into account the intent of man during their judgment and considers it before sealing them. True, you cannot apologize during your judgment, but you have a whole life ahead of you to do that and to do repentance and you don't need to wait until then.

Yaniv originally said:

Deception needs to be deceiving if it's going to work. The people who make Coca-Cola make sure that it tastes really, really good, but it's pretty bad for you. If they made it taste as bad as it was for you, then you wouldn't even dream of drinking it. The Satan is a deceiver and it has been endowed its powers by G-d Himself and so the illusions with which it tempts humanity are incredibly effective, even on people that are equipped to deal with them. It doesn't have the powers of G-d but there is a source in the Torah (Talmud) saying that demons have the ability to create small illusory worlds. I don't know exactly what that means, but if you have ever seen a person completely lost in a certain way of life, it is as if they are indeed lost in a small world. So yes, that is the power of a demon, and it will lace a bad thing with good things so that you do not see the bad in it.

Dan A. originally said:

Well then you would confuse every good work of G-d as Satan’s. That is why the Bible tells you what is of God and what is of Satan. That is why you study the word to know the difference. That is why a Profit had to profess the future %100 or he was killed. And if a house is divided against itself, that house will not be able to stand. (Mark 3:25)

Yaniv responded:

Just because Satan creates illusions, which is his job, it doesn't mean that a person is hopeless for the truth. Every good work being confused as G-d's when it is really Satan's applies to you too. G-d has told us the truth with the Torah so a person who follows the Torah need not fear. "Hashem said to the Satan, 'Hashem shall denounce you, O Satan, and Hashem, Who selects Jerusalem, shall denounce you again. This is indeed a firebrand rescue from flames." (Zechariah 3:2)

Yaniv originally said:

All of the religious books present their message as a positive one; why would they do otherwise? Would make it make sense to have a religion that allowed the follower to know that it was to deliberately harm people? That would not be very deceiving.

Dan A. originally said:

Yes, but other religion's doctrine always calls evil good and good evil. Isaiah 5:20 They also describe God in a different way than what has been reviled in scripture. Job 37-42 It describes how high G-d is mighty and high and how low and horrid we are. His perfection is majestic and we are low and detestable. We are to be servants to the most High not the other way around.

Yaniv responded:

Isaiah is referring to corruption within the Jewish People, because Isaiah 5:19 says, "Those who say, 'Let Him hurry, let Him hasten His actions, so that we may see it; let the plan of the Holy One of Israel approach and take place, so that we may know it.'" I think you can still apply what Isaiah said there to actual idolatry in general, for sure, but it's not the jist of the text. This is one reason I am Jewish. Your reading of those verses of Job are expressive of the misery contained in Christianity theology; where in the world do you get from those verses that we are "low and detestable?!" Rather, G-D IS HIGH! Even the best of us, as high as we are (and there are some amazing holy people in this world) are lower than G-d, because HE IS THE HIGHEST! Unfortunately, this is how you read the message of Job because Christianity encourages a miserable and lowly view of the human being, which is the ANATHEMA to the way G-d desires us to view ourselves. I can't help but to be depressed by your view via Job. Job is uplifting explaining to us that G-d is so great that His most basic inventions are entirely mysterious and confounding to us. Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is not a reason to be lowly and depressed but a reason to rejoice; G-d's perfection is majestic, but we are also His creatures and so we are low, but majestic too, and not in the least detestable! And HORRID!? What a word to use on the apple of G-d's eyes! It says in the Torah about the commandments, "You shall live by them and not die by them," we should also live by the glory of G-d and not die by it. Servants to a King Who loves us, now Who believes that we are horrid mongrels, even if we sometimes, maybe often, act like it.

Dan A. originally said:

So, scripture is my standard to know what is true and what is false. First I look at the Torah and Profits, and then I look to see if it says that there is more for us to know. It says he will reveal more info to us. Only 400 years passed since the New Testament. Malachi says in chapter 3 that G-d will come. Jeremiah 31:31 So, then I look to the New Testament to see if that matches up to what is predicted because that too claims to be the word of G-d. If it matches up, then I see if there are going to be anything more for me to know in the future after that. The New Testament says, NO! I do not have to look any further now for more info that God will be sharing.

Yaniv responded:

Jeremiah 31:31 does not fall on deaf ears. Read on, "Thus said Hashem, Who gives the sun as a light by day and the laws of the moon and the stars by night; Who agitates the sea s that its waves roar; Hashem, Master of Legions, is His Name: If these laws could be removed from before Me - the word of Hashem - so could the seed of Israel cease from being a people before Me forever. Thus said Hashem: If the heavens above could be measured or the foundations of the earth plumbed below, so too would I reject the entire seed of Israel because of everything they did - the word of Hashem." (Jeremiah 31:34-36) Just as the laws of nature are established and unchanging, so does G-d keep the Law alive and unchanging all the time, forever. The LAW my friend, the LAW. Which Law? Perhaps is it the Law that I keep? Our people-hood is based on the existence of the Law; they are basically synonymous - "the word of Hashem."

Yaniv originally said:

The core religious experience provided by every single religion in the whole world is that it provides the follower with the ability to reach something outside of himself. However, being taken outside of our core is not how we measure the truth of a religion because every single religion in the world is designed to take a person out of himself. So does music, sex, drugs, and even violence, which explains why people speak about those things in spiritual terms (and why, to a degree, religion utilizes these things for spirituality). Again, I can't make judgments on your personal spiritual experiences, but all I can say is that everybody is capable of spirituality and that in and of itself is not self-validating.

Dan A. originally said:

That is great but I was not talking about a feeling. The Bible says our feelings are wicked and deceitful, so I would not go on feelings. I am talking about the challenge of being perfect as G-d is perfect. It is completely challenging, there is a peace because I am no longer an enemy of G-d but am now one of his children reconciled to him. It is not a trance like state, it is where your mind is engaged and focused on God’s word. You also have a consistent experience of dieing to ones self and letting God lead you away from your nature of wanting to do to what is against God. You continue to give up your will for his. John 3:3

Yaniv responded:

Yes, I can agree with the part about dying to one's self and letting G-d lead you away from your nature of wanting to do what is against G-d. It seems that the way most religions understand return to G-d is very, very similar, the "born again" sentiment, which I definitely had. However, if there IS a difference between Judaism and Christianity with respect to this, I would say that it is that Judaism, via the Torah, doesn't view humanity as a miserable wretch of a being due to the fall of Adam and Eve and original sin, because G-d "is a jealous G-d, Who visits the sin of fathers upon children to the third and fourth generations, for My enemies; but Who shows kindness for thousands [of generations] to those who love Me and observe My commandments." (Exodus 20:5-6)." We are not trying to get G-d to forgive us for the sin of Adam and Eve, because we are not liable for their sin. Rather, we are liable for our OWN sins and it is to THOSE sins which G-d holds us accountable. That's why you need Jesus and I don't, because G-d holds me accountable for my sins and helps me stop doing them and forgives me for them when I am genuinely interested in being forgiven. "Hashem, Hashem, G-d, Compassionate and Gracious, Slow to Anger, and Abundant in Kindness and Truth; Preserver of Kindness for thousands of generations, Forgiver of Iniquity, Willfull Sin, and Error, and Who Cleanses..." (Exodus 34:6). "Hashem is close to all who call upon Him - to all who call upon Him sincerely." (from Psalm 145, all of which is very good and is a daily prayer in the service).

To Yaniv (from the response to previous e-mail):

All your wisdom is the wisdom of the world. You don't back up any thing you say against scripture so I don't know how you expect me to take you seriously. The Lord's word should be the standard for all that you hold true, not doctrines taught by men. I know you do not believe the Messiah is Yahuâshuah Hamashiach the anointed one. (Romans 1:18) It doesn't come down to what you believe it comes down to if it is true or not. Christ said that he was the way the truth and the light, no one comes to the father except by him. That means he was either correct, a liar, stupid or crazy. (John 14:6) I have found that he is true now as he has always been. I know for sure that he is still alive, he is well right now. I also know that death could not hold him because he was the very essence on earth of the Most High. Who but God can give life and have dominion over death?

Your depiction of the Jewish people is not the depiction set in the Bible either. First there is Deuteronomy 9:6-29, Jeremiah 7-8, Ezekiel 16. G-d's word shows how rotten the Jewish people are and how his anger burns against them. God no longer hears your prayers or accepts your sacrifices. It shows how detestable Jewish people are for doing wrong against God. Yet all I hear from Jewish people is how great they are. How happy God is with their righteous deeds and pure culture that is following G-d's laws. I hear something different from Christians. I hear how detestable we are, how we are perverse enemies of God. How even though we are horrid in the sight of God he choose to save us anyway. That matches up with scripture, before and after Christ. Acts 7, Romans 3

Yaniv responded:

Quoting Dan, "Your depiction of the Jewish people is not the depiction set in the Bible either."

Neither is yours.

Danny, don't complain how horrid, detestable, and preverse Christianity says you are; I have nothing to do with what Christianity says! And who said that He chose to save you anyway? And it doens't match up with Scripture because G-d isn't levelling anywhere near the majority of criticisms towards you, but towards the Jewish People.

Dan A. said:

The message of the Bible is the same in Old Testament as it is in the New Testament. What I see the Jewish people do is change it to meet their own purposes. In fact that is why I do not say it is the same G-d at all that you worship. You worship a God that serves you and not a God that is to be served.

Yaniv responded:

Right, which is why we live the way we live. Surely it is a self-serving life! An Orthodox Jew's life is a life of dedication to G-d every step of the way that puts G-d's Will before his own. You can't get off easy telling me that the Jewish people changed the Law, or the Spirit of the Law, or whatever, in order to meet our purposes anymore than you can say that the Christians actually changed the text and the original meaning. Who was here first, the Jews or the Christians? So who changed the original? This particular argument that you made sounds a bit like the Muslim one.

"You worship a G-d that serves you and not a G-d that is to be served." All you know about Jewish living and the Jewish people is through Christian propaganda. The other part you "know" due to an internal fear that perhaps we are living the right way and so that way of life has to be devalited in order to make room for Christianity. It's okay, Danny, it's not your fault, it's a 2,000 year-old tradition and it's how Christianity began. The way a religion begins is the way it stays forever. This is true for Islam and for Christianity, which will always want to push up against Judaism. It's also true for Judaism, which began with revelation. You mistake continued revelation to be corruption, and there is room to see some truth in that, at least theoretically, but Christianity is definitely not continued revelation, and neither is Islam.

It is Christianity's god that serves them to its death, not Judaism's. It is Christianity's god that gives a knowing wink over at his followers saying, "Don't worry, I gotcha covered." It is Judaism's G-d that demands life and not death, and does not die Himself, as the liturgy says, "He has no body and no image of a body." It is Judaism's G-d that demands us to toil for our redemption and forgiveness and Who helps us accomplish these things, whether we know it or not or believe in Him or not. It is Christians who stand over their god as did Pharaoh over the Nile, expecting it to serve him.

Dan A. said:

The G-d of the Bible speaks about how he is Holly and perfect. His perfection was laid before us before the law and humans sinned against him. Then he gave his law written by his own finger. The Ten Commandments outlines his perfection, Moses says do not add anything to this because it is enough but scholars did and that is why the Talmud exists as disobedience to G-d. (Deuteronomy 4:2) G-d warns that if you lie, steal, blaspheme, covet, worship a god that you make up that suits you, disobey your parents, have anger or murder, have lustful thoughts or commit adultery, you will be judged and punished by God. (Psalm 1:6) That is why with great trembling we should cry out to him to save us from his wrath and unquenchable fire. He also says Isaiah 8:14 that G-d has put a stumbling block before the Jewish people and that is why your wisdom is darkened and you do not except the truth. Only G-d himself can save us from himself and his punishment. That is why Jesus came because only he can save us from himself, so that he receives all the glory and not us. We can do nothing to evade G-d because he knows everything and is everywhere. There is no way to hide from him and his justice. He will judge even our thoughts. Jewish people consistently say they follow the law and that they have not broken it but the bible says Psalm 14:1-3. It does not exclude Jews from this truth. I say this to Christians too! If a so called Christian says that they are good or that they have anything to offer God though their deeds then let them be dammed because no one is good and it is only though G-d's mercy and grace do we have any hope. God gets all the glory not though anything that we do to glorify ourselves.

Yaniv responded:

"He shall be a sanctuary, but also a striking stone and a stumbling rock, for the two houses of Israel; a trap and a snare for the inhabitants of Jerusalem." Isaiah 8:14. Christian readings of Jewish texts give the most backward, despondent, and dispicable readings, and not to mention hateful. It's okay, we'll continue to ignore this type of thing.

Dan A. originally said:

If Christ is false then all Christians are in trouble because we would have worshiped a false G-d that is not the almighty one. G-d's anger would burn against us and we will be destroyed. If the Jew is right the same thing will happen to them because like Isaiah 53 describes no one has taken the punishment that we deserve. There is only one God and why would he not save us from his wrath? Why would he not warn us and set his standard before us, not just to the Jews? Maybe G-d is not justice because he forgives without payment for sin but that is not the G-d of the Bible. There is only one G-d and why would the Devil command us to read and know G-d's word as Jesus does? Why would he command us to be wise and research all things? Jesus alone has brought G-d's truth and light to every nation, to follow his commands. That is what G-d wanted from the Jews but it did not happen because of disobedience.

Yaniv responded:

Yes, we are a stiff-necked people, that much is true! Of course, to hear all this from a Christian, who is just as stiff-necked in his idolatry as a Jew is in his faithlessness, well, makes some sort of sense. Hear what Isaiah has to say to you, "Come close, O nations, to hear, and regimes be attentive; let the earth and its fullness hear, the world and all its offspring. For Hashem has a fury against all the nations and a wrath against all their legions; He has destroyed them, He has delivered them to the slaughter. Their slain will be thrown aside and their corpses will bring up stench; the mountains will melt from their blood. All the host of the heavens will dissolve and the heavens will be rolled up like a scroll; all their host will shrivel as a leaf of grapevine shrivels and like a shriveled leaf of a fig tree. For my sword has been sated in the heavens; behold, it shall descend upon Edom and for judgment upon the people of My destruction. The sword of Hashem is full of blood, greased with fat, with the blood of fatted sheep and he-goats, with the fat of the kidneys of rams; for Hashem is making a sacrifice at Bozrah and a great slaughter in the land of Edom. The wild oxen will go down [to the slaughter] with them, and bulls and fatted bulls; their land will be sated with blood and their soil enriched with fat. For it is a day of vengeance for Hashem; a day of retribution for the grievance of Zion."

Edom is Rome, and what survives of Rome today? G-d had a message for your own stiff-necked people!

Dan A. originally said:

The Septuagint Helps Us Understand the Hebrew Texts

Much is often made of the word for "virgin" in Isaiah 7:14

("The Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son."). Some have contended that the Hebrew word translated "virgin" -almah - simply means "young women." This indeed is one of the possible meanings of the Hebrew. However, in the Septuagint the word clearly indicates the Jewish scholarly opinion before the time of Jesus. The Greek word is parthenos (also used in Matthew 1:23), which very specifically means "virgin."

Seventy esteemed scholars understood what the ancient Hebrew meant, and they translated this meaning into Greek. Naturally they would have no incentive to invent prophecy about Jesus more than 200 years before he was born. Hence when key words are in question, the Septuagint often clarifies the precise meanings of the ancient Hebrew far better than the critics of today.

Yaniv responded:

Interesting, I'll have to check into that. All I can say before I do that is I am sure that these esteemed scholars, if they were religious, had no qualms about what the text actually meant from a theological perspective. I feel that Jewish translators, even religious, have been skittish, in the event that "almah" means "virgin," about actually writing that definition because they don't want to create an impression from a Jewish translation that Christianity is true. It's much easier just to have the text say something else if we already know what the truth is. Still, I speak Hebrew and have always learned that the word for (female) virgin is "betulah," and for a male, "batul." It shares a root with the word "betul," which means "nullified" or "devalidated," which probably is a reference to a person's marital status (because virginity was ideally lost on the night of marriage).

Dan A. said:

You can use what ever you want on your Blog, I just plead with you do not do a chop job!

Lots of Love,

Danny

Yaniv responded:

Don't worry, I won't. Peace, Yaniv...

Discussion with a Christian Friend from Tucson -

I'm having an e-mail discussion with a Christian friend from Tucson. Depending on his pending response, if he says it's alright I'll post the whole conversation on here, which has only gotten to three e-mails so far. This is my latest response to his latest e-mail. I know that it makes less sense without his original e-mail, but you'll probably do fine until then. Peace, Yaniv...

I'll respond to the things in order.

People are smart enough to make up anything; Communism, Socialism, Darwinism, Atheism, that religion that Tom Cruise practices, because the human mind is incredibly dynamic. That the human mind can conceptualize (to limited degrees) the wonder of G-d is dangerously close to being able to "inventing" the existence of G-d Himself. You should hear the arguments for that, which ultimately cannot stand but at least they sound sophisticated. I once heard a saying, "I wouldn't have seen it if I hadn't believed it with my own mind." The point is that you can see anything you want in the "Old Testament" whether it's actually there or not.

It would be basically pointless for us to talk about what the prophets actually meant if we hold that subjectivity is the prime factor in our decision making, which is what I'm reading from you. Most of what you're saying to me in the first paragraph doesn't seem very thought out, such as "Daniel even goes so far as to predict the exact day G-d will show up on earth, which happened with Christ." If you and I are having an intellectual discussion, you won't change the way I think about things by simply telling me something that you believe or that your Bible says. I don't believe that "G-d showed up on earth" with Christ, and I certainly don't believe that Jesus was the Messiah. You have never tried to live your life by the Law, or by a type of religious law, so your understanding of the Law of the Torah is insufficient to comment on the way it affects man. One of the most fundamental Torah lessons is to internalize the Law and to become a "pnimi," a person who is trying to condition himself with it.

As a Christian you need to believe that the Law of the Torah cannot penetrate into the heart of man and fill him with joy and devotion and compassion, because if it did, what would be the point of Christianity? If that is what you really believe then you are sadly mistaken. In other words, you need to believe that your religion provides something that Judaism doesn't, but that's not true. "My G-d" certainly does hold everybody accountable for their every sin, thought, or deed, both good and bad and everywhere in between, because He is the perfect Judge. If you have not gotten this message from reading "my Bible" then you haven't been paying attention or you've been hearing the wrong thing.

Deception needs to be deceiving if it's going to work. The people who make Coca-Cola make sure that it tastes really, really good, but it's pretty bad for you. If they made it taste as bad as it was for you, then you wouldn't even dream of drinking it. The Satan is a deceiver and it has been endowed its powers by G-d Himself and so the illusions with which it tempts humanity are incredibly effective, even on people that are equipped to deal with them. It doesn't have the powers of G-d but there is a source in the Torah (Talmud) saying that demons have the ability to create small illusory worlds. I don't know exactly what that means, but if you have ever seen a person completely lost in a certain way of life, it is as if they are indeed lost in a small world. So yes, that is the power of a demon, and it will lace a bad thing with good things so that you do not see the bad in it.

All of the religious books present their message as a positive one; why would they do otherwise? Would it make sense to have a religion that allowed the follower to know that it was to deliberately harm people? That would not be very deceiving.

In the Tanakh we see all kinds of idol worshippers and star worshippers telling the future, and they did not do it through prophecy. The reality of the world is that they were able to tap into elements of truth through these things, but not absolute truth. There's a source in the Torah that says that when Potiphar's wife went to seduce Joseph that something else was actually going on. She had told Joseph that the stars inferred that they were to be together, and Joseph checked the stars (astrology) and found that she was right, and just as they were about to commit the deed his father Jacob appeared to him in a window (also in the stars) and told him that it was not the right way, so he stopped. Jacob himself used a form of divination when he made Lavan's sheep give birth to only speckled sheep, which he kept for himself. The way he did that was by having them look at striped pieces of wood when they were mating and then they gave birth to speckled sheep (does that make any sense to you? It was divination). The Egyptians also used loads of black magic and were actually able to simulate the things that Moses was doing through the Hand of G-d, such as turning the staff into a snake and making the water turn into blood, which is written in the text of the Torah. Bilaam, the prophet of Midian, was able to achieve a level of prophecy as well through very questionable means, which the Torah explains was through having relations with his donkey, which the text specifically mentions was a "she-donkey." The Torah has a commandment not to communicate with the dead and not to partake in the rituals of the pagan nations. But why not? If their gods aren't real then why does it matter? The answer is that their gods aren't real but that their rituals worked because G-d made the world with those things accessible. However, He also intended for those things to be off limits to humanity and so He commanded us not to do them. Only the wisest and most discerning people who are thoroughly steeped in Torah study and living should touch on those things because only they will use them for the right purposes and the right way.

The core religious experience provided by every single religion in the whole world is that it provides the follower with the ability to reach something outside of himself. However, being taken outside of our core is not how we measure the truth of a religion because every single religion in the world is designed to take a person out of himself. So does music, sex, drugs, and even violence, which explains why people speak about those things in spiritual terms (and why, to a degree, religion utilizes these things for spirituality). Again, I can't make judgments on your personal spiritual experiences, but all I can say is that everybody is capable of spirituality and that in and of itself is not self-validating.

I also tried to make it short. Peace, Yaniv...

G-d, Noah, Moses, Jesus, Muhammad, G-d

Christians grow impatient with us Jews because of what they explain is our unwillingness to “share” G-d with them. Their grievance is that they also want to be in the Covenant with us and that their belief in G-d and Jesus is their sharing with us in the G-d of Israel. However, it is a faulty charge that we do want not to share G-d with them, because if they only looked in the Torah they would see that G-d makes Himself readily available to the Gentiles throughout the entire Tanakh – and this is central to the Jewish canon. How does G-d make Himself available to the Gentile nations? Through their own Law; Judaism explains that the Gentile covenant and obligations to G-d were forged in an agreement pre-existent to the deliverance of the Torah to the Jewish nation – through Noah. Therefore, there is One G-d and two Laws, one for the Jewish nation and one for the Gentile nations. The Gentile Law, or the Seven Laws of Noah, also known as the “Noahide Laws,” exists alongside the Jews’ Mosaic Law; the difference is that the Mosaic Laws are more specific than the Noahide Laws.

The nature of the charge is that we (Jews) are being “greedy” with G-d because we absolutely reject the divinity of Jesus. If you think about the nature of this charge, it is truly childish; the Jewish rejection of a theology insisting that the Trinity is equal to the Unity of G-d is not greed, it is the rejection of polytheism/paganism – G-d does not “belong” exclusively to the Jewish people, humanity belongs exclusively to G-d! Since Jesus is not G-d, the belief in him, as a god, must be rejected; this not the same as giving some consideration to his thoughts. In rejecting Jesus (and therefore not sharing in faith with Christians) Jews are saying that Christians are not worshipping G-d. Perhaps the same/similar anger that Christians have towards Jews is the same/similar anger that pagans had towards the Jews when we would not bow down to their gods and goddesses. A very concrete example is the anger spurned in King Nimrod of Babylon when Abraham would not bow to his idol – Abraham absolutely and outright rejected the abomination to truth which was the idol and this angered Nimrod; can we not imagine that Nimrod was insulted? Perhaps he reasoned, “Why is my faith so repulsive to Abraham?” Abraham, whose primary characteristic was kindness, was not moved by compassion to soothe Nimrod by bowing to his idol because to do so would be to sacrifice truth.

The Muslim response to Christianity is similar to that of Judaism. However, the Muslim theology rejects that there is the One G-d but two Laws; they reason, in a fashion sound with monotheism, that if there is the One G-d then there must be one Law. To the religion of Islam, that one Law is the Law of the Qur’an. In most situations this logic would be sound, and I am not a Muslim scholar, but Islam, like Judaism, in a matter of speaking does actually believe that there are two forms of Law. Judaism believes in the existence of a Law prior to its own – the Noahide Laws, and Islam believes in the existence of a purely monotheistic faith prior to its own as well; Judaism, Christianity, and a religion belonging to a group of people known as “the Sabians.” The relationship between the Law of Torah and the Law of Noah is equal to the relationship between the Law of the Qur’an and the Law of the Torah. This “duality of Law” is expressed in the Qur’an as “there is no compulsion in religion,” and if this is true and if Muslims hold it to be true, then to what other religion can the Qur’an be referring other than Judaism, Christianity, and the Sabian religion? That the world needs to accept Islam and that the Qur’an says that “there is no compulsion in religion” are two contradictory concepts, and if there can indeed be only one truth, then either one or the other of these is Islam while the other is not.

However, the relationship is converse; while Judaism insists that the majority of the world has to follow the Noahide Laws and that only the minority population which is Jewish needs to follow the Torah, Islam insists that the majority, the entirety actually, of the world’s population needs to follow Islam and that nobody needs to follow Judaism or Christianity. To explain this in Jewish terms it would be as if, once Moshe delivered the six hundred and thirteen commandments to the Jewish nation through G-d, that the entire population of the world had to observe them, or in essence, to become Jews. Minus a few “isolated incidents” in Jewish history, the insistence that the nations of the world and their members follow all of the Mosaic commandments was not an occurrence; “conversion” consisted of shifting from polytheism to monotheism and the application of the Seven Laws of Noah – this was a time in human history when religions, including Judaism, were relegated to the (non)truths that they expressed and were therefore nameless. We see that Noahides never had to (and do not have to) leave their Seven Laws for their Mosaic counterpart. The way Islam explains it (or actually, the way Muslims have explained it to me) is that there is no compulsion in religion (coverting to Islam) but that people should do it on their own. The difference is that Judaism does not say that Gentiles should accept Judaism and therefore the yoke of Torah but rather that they should not. What they need to is accept the yoke of the Seven Noahide Laws, which are eternally binding on them in the same manner that the Mosaic Laws are eternally binding on the Jews. Islam uses the nomenclature “Islam” when referring to the faith of the faithful preceding the literal advent Islam (in the 7th Century) and in doing that retroactively, to use a politically incorrect term but one which I think accurately explains the phenomenon, “invades” history and claims it for itself, stifling it and making no room for others. It is no wonder that this is the connection between religion/theology and “political Islam’s” attitude towards politics; be it physical, temporal, or spiritual, all belongs to Islam. The way Islam seizes time is the way it seizes land. This is not the way monotheism was intended to be, i.e., it is perfectly in line with monotheism to have two sets of Laws and harmony with its neighbors.

To conclude, Islam creates an unique type of stress and pressure on the world; the stress not only to accept monotheism (which is the type of stress that Judaism places on the world), but the pressure to, once having done that, accept the practices and specific religion of Islam. By uniting the specifics of the religion of Islam (the particulars) with the cosmic, moral, and absolute truths of existence (the universals) in one category, Islam transforms from a religion of peace into a religion and cause of war. There is no way at its current progression that Islam will deliver anything remotely resembling peace to the world - it wants to shock humanity into faith rather than hold its hand and lead it into truth. The solution to all the problems in the Middle East (which affect the entire world) lies in the realization that there is no peace with one whom rejects not just the right of another to exist, but rejects their actual existence.

Car Accidents

I'm driving down the street and I run a red light but get through safely. A cop pulls me over and I get a ticket and a court date. When I arrive in court the judge pardons me for my illegal infraction. The next week I speed down the street fifteen miles per hour over the speed limit. A cop pulls me over gives me a ticket and I get a court date. I arrive in court and the judge pardons my illegal infraction. The next week I am speeding by fifteen miles an hour and run a red light at the same time but get through safely. A cop pulls me over and gives me a ticket and a court date. I arrive in court and the judge pardons me for my illegal infraction.

You see, the man sitting in the corner of the court, he's my friend and he has the insides with the judge, they're real good friends, in fact they're even family. I look over and give a wink to my friend 'cuz he has an agreement with the judge, who is his father, and the judge pardons me. It works every time. I leave the court and as I'm pulling out of my spot, some guy hits me with his car! A cop happens to be nearby and he sees that the guy is clearly at fault, so he gives him a ticket and a court date. Later I find out that the judge pardoned him too, I guess the guy who hit me knows my friend too. Man, that guy in the corner of the courtroom is real friendly! Perhaps too friendly 'cuz now I gotta deal with this car accident.

Later I find out that the man in the corner of the room has some real power because his dad, the judge, has got some real power in the city I live in. My friend decided that he's gonna take away all the red lights, all the speed limit signs, and all the lines on the road; ya'll can do whatever you want as long as you show love to the other people on the road, like letting 'em pass you when they're in a hurry. Man, that guy in the courtroom, my friend, yah he's real nice and all but I don't think that what he did was such a good idea.

You see, I was on my way to work the other day in my car when I saw a big ol' traffic jam. I was like, "Man, what's going on?" Then I realized that there were all these accidents in the intersection and cops were everywhere. Apparently all these people ran through the intersection at once because there were no more traffic lights and they all hit each other. On top of that, they were all speeding because there was no more speed limit. And to make it worse, they all cut each other off because there were no more lines on the street. There was this huge accident and many people were hurt. Then I couldn't believe my eyes; that same cop was giving 'em all tickets and court dates and they were all standing in line at the court room.

Later that day after work when I finally got home (it was just as bad on the way back from work) I found out that the judge pardoned each and everyone of those people for their illegal infractions. Turns out that they all know my friend in the courtroom, the judge's son; he pardoned them all! I was thinking to myself, "Man, I don't know what's going on here, but this judge and his son are up to some weird stuff." They take all the traffic lights and speed limit signs down and they erase all the lines off the road. OK, they left some of the lights, signs, and lines where they were, but only in certain parts of the city. Man, I don't understand what they're thinking. Tomorrow I'm going to that courtroom and having a talk with that judge, or maybe I'll call his son, my friend, on the phone and have a little talk with him because it's a jungle out there and I don't even feel safe leaving my house!

*You see, the world is like a crowded street and the Torah is like the driver's manual. When we're driving and we see a red light, we know that we have to stop. When we see a green light, we know we have to go, and when we see those lines on the road, we know that we can't pass 'em or only can pass 'em at certain times. We obey the rules of the road because we know that if we didn't that we would be endangering our lives and the lives of others around us. The rules of the street are there to protect us. Whether or not we understand their purpose, we know that they have a purpose.

I'm driving down the street and I run a red light and hit someone, G-d forbid, or someone runs a red light and hits me, G-d forbid, one of us is gonna be real hurt, G-d forbid. That's why red lights exist and the rule that says not to run them. Now, let's say that I run the red light and get through the intersection fine and a cop catches me, I'm gonna be in big trouble. I'm gonna get pulled over, the cop's gonna give me a ticket, and I'm gonna have a court date, and to be honest, I'm probably gonna get a fine or worst. If I don't have the common sense or insight not to run a red light, at least the rules will deter me.

Little Donkey Carry Mary.... Through Roadblocks and Tanks ---------------------------

The other day I ran by this article about trying to understand what Jesus' life might have been like in the 1st Century. The author went around trying to place himself in this context by consulting Palestinian "refugees" in Israel and attempting to understand how they felt crossing through all those checkpoints.




Dear webmaster, I am shocked at what I read in this article. http://www.cms-uk.org/news/2005/bethlehem_231205.htm

It has already been a propaganda ploy to equate the State of Israel with the Nazi regime. This "effort" has largely been lead by Palestinian propaganda outlets, eager to weaken Israel's integrity by attempting to demostrate that Israeli's (Jews) are guilty of doing to others what was done to them. Ironically, it is only when the propagandists need to compare Israel to Nazi Germany when they concede that the Holocaust did in fact occur. Other than that, they deem it an exaggeration or an all-out lie. Needless to say, the analogies are weak and improbable, to say the least. Your usage of "the suffering Palestinian" narrative, actually heeding the grievances of Fassed, to try to place yourself in the life and times of Jesus is quite grotesque. Jesus was a Jew, "Palestine" was his home, not the home of Muslim Arab invaders that came and snatched from it their hands generations later. In the name of historical accuracy, it would be more fitting to compare the oppressive and aggressive occupying Roman force to the Arab invaders of the 7th century, whom were the first Muslims. The Jews have regained some control of their rightful sovereignty in their homeland, Israel, which you call "Palestine," only to be obstructed by problem-ridden Arab countries whom wish to see Israel go away. If you realize the backwardness of this situation momentarily, you might start crying. Israel is the Jewish Holy Land, only holy to Islam as a means to garner political control. The Palestinians are not refugees in Israel, they are the remnants of invaders, belonging to Arab countries that didn't succeed in military attempts to destroy Israel (such as the 1948 and 1967 wars). Your analogy between Jesus and a Palestinian crossing through checkpoints is bizarre; Jesus was a Jew, not an Arab Muslim labeled a "Palestinian." It is a better analogy to compare it to a Jew whom is spit upon by Arabs as he walks through the "wrong parts" of Jerusalem, those parts dominated by Arabs. It takes a lot of chutzpah for an Arab to spit on a Jew while the Jew walks through the holiest site in his Land. The line of reasoning in this article justifies that chutzpah (audacity), turning Jesus, which Islam considers to be a prophet, into a suffering Palestinian figure, thereby confirming the entire "Palestine was invaded by Jews" myth. The Palestinians kill innocent people by blowing themselves up in cafe's, crowded streets, and clubs, the major reason for this restricted access. Jesus, the Jew, nor any of his family, tried to do this to any of the Romans. Had the Palestinians lived in 1st Century Israel, they would have most definitely resorted to the disgusting tactics applied on Israel today. Are you sure that you want to make this spiritual link between Jesus and Palestinian nationalism?

Yaniv...


His response:

Dear Yaniv

The CMS webmaster Alister McLeod has passed on your email. It's always helpful to get feedback so thanks for your comments. I haven't heard from you before. Do you read our website regularly?

On you comments:

1. I don't see any evidence for suggesting that this article compares Israel to Nazi Germany.

2. I don't think we are saying there is a spiritual link between Jesus and Palestinian nationalism. Jesus was not a 'nationalist' and that categorisation doesn't shed meaningful light on who he was or what he did.

3. It's plausible to suggest that the Holy Family might have encountered Roman checkpoints and this probably was not a comfortable experience. I'd suggest there's no military checkpoint anywhere that isn't somewhat intimidating and I know from first hand experience that the same is true of Israeli checkpoints.

4. We could discuss forever the historical details. I think history is important but I'm not sure it helps much with micro issues that arise when ordinary people, Israeli and Palestinian alike, get caught at the sharp end of wider circumstances and suffer as a result.

Kind regards


John Martin

John Martin
Head of Communication
CMS Partnership House, 157 Waterloo Road, London SE1 8UU
Switchboard: (020) 7928 8681; Fax: (020) 7401 3215
Direct Line: (020) 7803 3311
E-mail: john.martin @cms-uk.org
www.cms-uk.org
CMS is a community of mission service
· living a mission lifestyle
· equipping people in mission service
· sharing resources for mission work



My response:

You're right, you made no comparisons between Israel and Nazi Germany, but you tried to understand Jesus' life through the scope of what some people call "the Palestinian struggle." This is rich in political implications. Not to mention, that "struggle" is one of the most vociferous, Jew-hating movements around; it seeks to undermind Jewish rights at their very core. Like I said, the roadblocks are there to keep Palestinians from entering "Israeli territory" (technically it's all Israeli territory) and blowing themselves up, something that the Jews of 1st Century Israel were not doing to the Romans. It seems that the Jewish and Muslim attitudes towards oppression are quite different. You didn't compare Israel to Nazi Germany, but you compared, in effect, Israel to the Roman occupying army, which is essentially the same thing if we view Rome as a Nazi-type power, which it was. Either way, you fell into the trap of equating Israel to its oppressor and comparing the Palestinians to the Jews. Why can't you compare Israel to Israel; Israel is a sovereign state right now, why can't you compare that to King David's reign over the Land of Israel?

Mrs. McLeod said:

Jesus was not a 'nationalist' and that categorisation doesn't shed meaningful light on who he was or what he did.

Agreed. So why make the comparison between Jesus and the attempt of Palestinians to get through Israeli roadblocks? The Palestinians are nationalists, and the "roadblock experience" is something they deem as part of their obstructed national aspirations. Can you not see the implications here?

As for the third point, that is true, but remember that it is Israeli land, it was not Roman land, and similarly it is not Arab land.

And you are correct about point four. However, it is specific macro issues that give rise to these micro issues. I don't expect a Palestinian child to look out his window, see Israeli soldiers, and love them; that's the micro. I also don't expect the Arabs known as Palestinians to understand that they are a part of a larger Arab predicament, incapable of dealing with internal societal problems and projecting those problems externally, and Israel is the target of that projection; that's the macro. It is not micro issues that give rise to the macro issues; you have the situation reversed. In your heart of hearts, how do you think that Jesus, were he alive today, would react to witnessing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? What would he think?

Thank you, Yaniv...




His response with mine intertwined:

I responded in the same manner you did, within the text, but I can't change the color of the text here so I made spaces between the responses.


You're right, you made no comparisons between Israel and Nazi Germany, but you tried to understand Jesus' life through the scope of what some people call "the Palestinian struggle." This is rich in political implications. Not to mention, that "struggle" is one of the most vociferous, Jew-hating movements around; it seeks to undermind Jewish rights at their very core. Like I said, the roadblocks are there to keep Palestinians from entering "Israeli territory" (technically it's all Israeli territory)

[John Martin] there are people who would debate with you on that point.

That’s fine, they are free to debate this, which can be done on a political basis. Religiously however, if you want to put it that way, the Torah says that Israel is the Land of the Jews.

and blowing themselves up, something that the Jews of 1st Century Israel were not doing to the Romans.

[John Martin] Yes, they had no explosives. But by the time you get the lead-up to the fall of the Temple and Masada from AD70, Jewish Zealots taking desperate (and usually futile) measures.

Great point. The only difference is that the Jewish Zealots killed themselves on Masada, rather than to surrender to Roman rule and become essential slaves and probably forced to worship idols. When it comes down to it, it is more noble to kill yourself for purposes of ideology, conviction, and suffering than to kill another. Technically, you don’t have the right to kill yourself either, but I would imagine that it is more “proper” to kill yourself than another, because the other might not want to die. Very generally, the Jewish concept of martyrdom is to kill yourself while the Muslim concept of martyrdom is to kill others (which could be accomplished by killing yourself). We need to keep in mind that the Muslim Arab practice of suicide bombing did not come into existence until this century. This coincides perfectly with the first time in history that the Arabs have fighting a battle from below rather than from a dominating position. This has directly led to the advent of suicide bombing, a play on the Muslim ideal of martyrdom but with a twist of bleakness rather than triumph, and wallah, suicide bombing. Those who simply label it “desperation” are missing large historical background information.

It seems that the Jewish and Muslim attitudes towards oppression are quite different.

[John Martin] This might be true. Of course, our main interest as CMS is with Arab Christians and I don't think on the whole they are associated with suicide bombings, etc. There is, moreover, a range of expressions and viewpoints.

And it is not Arab Christians killing Jews, but it is Arab Christians suffering from the acts of the Muslim Palestinians; there is no way to “filter” through Christians while the Muslims have to stay back, unless of course Israel forces them to wear some kind of physical symbol to be able to distinguish between them. Perhaps you should go to the problem at the root cause. The Palestinian Muslims sometimes treat the Christians horribly, as I have seen a documentary or two on this.

You didn't compare Israel to Nazi Germany, but you compared, in effect, Israel to the Roman occupying army, which is essentially the same thing if we view Rome as a Nazi-type power, which it was.

[John Martin] I'm not sure my point is the same as the original writer, but I wanted to suggest that wherever there is a military presence it is often intimidating for civilians even when miltiray duties are exercised with empathy and compassion.

And it is equally intimidating to know that you might die on the night out on the town with some friends or while taking a bus to school or work. Something had to be done about the suicide bombing, and up until the fence/wall was built, road blocks did the job. They were, perhaps, and inhumane response to an even more inhumane cause. Actually, I don’t believe that road blocks are inhumane; history shows that much worst things can be done to a group of people, and ironically, we can look back into Jewish history to find some example, and even more ironically, we have a hard time finding examples in Muslim and Arab history. Random chance has it that women will give birth and things like at the checkpoints, but no human has caused that to happen. Now you have people condemning the wall as apartheid – I guess the conclusion is that Israel does not have the right to defend itself and should just perish and/or be soaked into the larger Muslim population, the Umma.

Either way, you fell into the trap of equating Israel to its oppressor and comparing the Palestinians to the Jews. Why can't you compare Israel to Israel; Israel is a sovereign state right now, why can't you compare that to King David's reign over the Land of Israel?

[John Martin] That's an interesting line of thought. You would have more idea than me what the Israel to Israel might look like. I suspect from reading between the lines of 1 Samuel-2 Kings that the rule of the ancient kings at least sometimes had oppressive dimensions.

Yes, that is true as well, but the oppressive dimensions were from the Israelite/Judean king over his subjects, whom were largely Israelite/Judean as well, not over another population. There were, however, other peoples living in the Kingdoms, and that is exactly my point. The Palestinians can be those people, but they can’t revolt and rebel against the Kingdom; the Kingdom would have not tolerated it, but the State does, and might just be the State’s downfall (I’m no prophet). Similarly, to take a cue from Muslim history, Jewish subjects of Muslim societies and empires were expected to remain docile and appreciative, which in fact, usually was the case (those Jews are so much easier to get along with, no?). There is a correlation; they had a special (second class) status called “dhimmitude,” whereby they were afforded certain rights, along with a lower civil class. They didn’t rebel or complain, and everything was fine. If there was a civil law suit between Jew and Muslim, the Muslim would always win (this is not the case with the Israeli Supreme Court). They would also be required, like all subjects, to pay a special tax affording them the protection that a dhimmi received, called the “jizya tax,” which was sometimes collected in a harsh way, such as with slapping and pulling his beard, to remind the person of his submissive status in Muslim society. If he didn’t submit to Al-lah, then he would have to submit to the Muslim people. When Israel became a state, the Arab societies when bogus and expelled nearly 100% of their Jewish populations! Clearly, Israel does not treat its Palestinian subjects in this way, and much of the harsh treatment they receive is directly related to suicide bombing. Mind you, if Jews in Muslim lands had done anything remotely similar to what the Palestinians do today, they would have been either expelled immediately or killed. I sense a real passive-aggression on the part of the Palestinian people and Arab Muslims in general, and maybe Christians too; they don’t respect Israel because Israel doesn’t have the same values as they do, i.e., it lets them get away with things that the Muslim society would never dream of letting the Jews get away with. Truly, Israel is too nice to them, but does that mean that we have to be savages like them in order to get their respect? There is nothing that we can do that will get their respect; even giving them land doesn’t get their respect, they see it as a state-supported form of military plunder, while your liberal Israeli sees it as an attempt to make peace – it’s a joke. The truth is that none of this would have happened if Israel had expelled the Jordanians and Egyptians from Israel in 1967. It didn’t and they eventually became known as “Palestinians.”

Mrs. McLeod said:

Jesus was not a 'nationalist' and that categorisation doesn't shed meaningful light on who he was or what he did.
Agreed. So why make the comparison between Jesus and the attempt of Palestinians to get through Israeli roadblocks? The Palestinians are nationalists, and the "roadblock experience" is something they deem as part of their obstructed national aspirations. Can you not see the implications here?

[John Martin] You could be right. But at a less ideological level, what about the stresses on ordinary Arab people who for example need to cross a road block to get medical care, and find it takes hours?

As for the third point, that is true, but remember that it is Israeli land, it was not Roman land, and similarly it is not Arab land.

[John Martin] As I said, some people might debate that point. But to take a parallel to the point I think you are making from somewhere else: Is Australia a European land of should indigenous Australians have the right of sovereignty? If the answer is yes, what should happen to people who have settled there since 1788?

Well, the Jews were definitely the indigenous population at the time of the spread of Islam in the 7th Century when Muslim forces took control over the area and turned all (Jewish and Christian) sites into Muslim sites. The Jewish population has remained alive in Israel since, but as a super-minority (in its own land!). The Arabs should have made room for the Jews, for a variety of purposes, but clearly this is an irrational expectation. The result is war; sometimes you have to fight for what is right and for what is yours. Clearly, that is silly to say to a degree because people eventually get sick of fighting, but the Arabs show no sign of easing up, at least not the militants, and they control everybody.

And you are correct about point four. However, it is specific macro issues that give rise to these micro issues.

[John Martin] True.

I don't expect a Palestinian child to look out his window, see Israeli soldiers, and love them; that's the micro. I also don't expect the Arabs known as Palestinians to understand that they are a part of a larger Arab predicament, incapable of dealing with internal societal problems and projecting those problems externally, and Israel is the target of that projection; that's the macro. It is not micro issues that give rise to the macro issues; you have the situation reversed. In your heart of hearts, how do you think that Jesus, were he alive today, would react to witnessing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? What would he think?

[John Martin] That is a profoundly important question and those of us who follow Jesus have to work that out every day. I suggest: 1. Jesus would be interested in questions of justice and how this worked out in the micro. 2. Jesus would have been full of compassion, so he would take account of the Israeli national experience; and he would have been compassionate towards Arab individuals caught up in the accidents of history. 3. He would have raised the question of forgiveness, though I don't know how Jewish or Muslim mindsets would be able to apply this.

It is a profoundly important question but the answer is profoundly amalgable to one’s own presuppositions. It seems, from the text, that Jesus had an hostility towards the Romans, the civilians as well. I don’t know exactly, but when the Gentile woman went to Jesus to ask for a blessing, he replied to her by saying something along the lines of, “Why should I give the food to the dog and not the crumbs?” He had an “anti-Gentile” and “pro-Jewish” attitude. It might be fair to say that many Jews there had that attitude because of their treatment and because it was their land, but it is also fair to say that Jesus was a bit of a hateful figure. Then the text has him take a 180 in the other direction. I believe Jesus was a man, and even if I concede that he was a great man with some very great teachings, I still believe that his humanity would have revealed an end to his patience and compassion and he, like the prophets of the Torah, would have held some bitter resentment towards “the enemy.” In the end, he would have seen himself as one of his people, suffering under the yoke of the Romans as they were, he would not be so quick to “love the Palestinian” when all that the Palestinian is doing to the Israeli is hating and plundering him. I’m not sure how much of what is said about Jesus in the New Testament is a construction of a narrative rather than fact. You could say that this makes me a skeptic, but I am not, I am simply trying to understand the Jewish response to things by comparing them to real-life Jewish responses as I experience them, and the Jesus narrative just doesn’t add up.

Thank you, Yaniv...

-----
That’s fine, they are free to debate this, which can be done on a political basis. Religiously however, if you want to put it that way, the Torah says that Israel is the Land of the Jews.

[John Martin] Yes, the Torah makes that promise but on my reading the granting of the land was conditional on keeping the Covenant, refraining from idol worship etc.



And it is not Arab Christians killing Jews, but it is Arab Christians suffering from the acts of the Muslim Palestinians; there is no way to “filter” through Christians while the Muslims have to stay back, unless of course Israel forces them to wear some kind of physical symbol to be able to distinguish between them. Perhaps you should go to the problem at the root cause. The Palestinian Muslims sometimes treat the Christians horribly, as I have seen a documentary or two on this.

[John Martin]
I think we have some common ground here, though not all Arab Christians avoid nationalist rhetoric. Maybe they don't appreciate how tough life would be under a radical Muslim state.


And it is equally intimidating to know that you might die on the night out on the town with some friends or while taking a bus to school or work.

[John Martin]
Agree


Something had to be done about the suicide bombing, and up until the fence/wall was built, road blocks did the job. They were, perhaps, and inhumane response to an even more inhumane cause. Actually, I don’t believe that road blocks are inhumane; history shows that much worst things can be done to a group of people, and ironically, we can look back into Jewish history to find some example, and even more ironically, we have a hard time finding examples in Muslim and Arab history.

[John Martin]
True


Random chance has it that women will give birth and things like at the checkpoints, but no human has caused that to happen.

[John Martin]
But if this is not handled humanely it's a bad propaganda loss to those who staff the roadblocks, etc


Now you have people condemning the wall as apartheid – I guess the conclusion is that Israel does not have the right to defend itself and should just perish and/or be soaked into the larger Muslim population, the Umma.

[John Martin]
I'm not sure if I'd label the wall apartheid, but I'm not yet convinced that it's a strategy that will achieve the hopes attached to it.


Well, the Jews were definitely the indigenous population at the time of the spread of Islam in the 7th Century when Muslim forces took control over the area and turned all (Jewish and Christian) sites into Muslim sites. The Jewish population has remained alive in Israel since, but as a super-minority (in its own land!). The Arabs should have made room for the Jews, for a variety of purposes, but clearly this is an irrational expectation. The result is war; sometimes you have to fight for what is right and for what is yours. Clearly, that is silly to say to a degree because people eventually get sick of fighting, but the Arabs show no sign of easing up, at least not the militants, and they control everybody.

[John Martin]
This is very complex. I agree that the Arabs have done wrong and even stupid things but I'm not sure they are without grievances which won't be able to be addressed until hostilities end.


You could say that this makes me a skeptic, but I am not, I am simply trying to understand the Jewish response to things by comparing them to real-life Jewish responses as I experience them, and the Jesus narrative just doesn’t add up.

[John Martin] I'm glad you present a reasonably consistent position on Jesus. I don't think its very helpful for a Jewish person to say Jesus was a great teacher because his vision for the Jewish faith and its future sits very uncomfortably with mainstream expressions of the Jewish faith. Putting that aside, I would suggest: (a) he was a Jew and his worldview was informed by his Jewishness. He believed himself to be David's son and that somehow his death would be the route that ushered in the rule of God and a new era for the Jewish people (this is a standard Christian interpretation of the Prophecies of Isaiah) . (b) By comparison with the Zealots he could look as if he was bordering on being pro-Roman (eg the saying "render unto Caesar the things that are Caesars and to God the things which are God's". (c) In the end his real problem was with the religious parties of his day and both the Pharisees and Sadducees in the end combined in opposition to him and negotiated his death with the Romans. (d) It's interesting that Christian narrators were willing to preserve the story of Jesus and the woman you mention. It's one of the strengths of the Christian (and also the Jewish) traditions over against Muslims resist the temptation to massage a point where Jesus found himself shifting ground once the inconsistency of his original statement dawned on him.


Hi, I only want to respond to your second and last points.

The Covenant is eternal. In Christian thought, I am aware that there is a particular line of thought which explains how an eternal Covenant can be abrogated. As far what I've heard, it goes like this: G-d made an eternal Covenant, the Jews broke it time after time, G-d, perhaps realizing that it was impossible to keep, abrogated, or as Christian thought says, "added" on a section to it that would complete it. Somehow, this addition was manifested as an omission, or taking out of large sections of the Law that were originally there. Now, we both speak English, and we both know that the concepts of "add" and "omit" are actually opposites; unless we fudge the facts can we find a way to reconcile these two opposite concepts. What I mean is, we have to go through a series of unlikely loopholes in order to align such concepts. That is why I am of the opinion that the writings of the Christian texts, which seek to show how these two inherently different concepts are the same, are a product of human ingenuity, yes ingenuity, but not Divine revelation in the sense of the revelation of the Law. What this would mean then is, the Jews can break the Covenant over and over and over again, but it cannot be broken, i.e., from G-d's side, He won't break it. Now, unless we want to believe that the Covenant had a "dormant" manifestation hidden within it, set to emerge forth only a certain time, and did, according to your belief, with Jesus, there is absolutely no intonation of that "hidden" covenant in the text of the Tanakh. I am aware that there are many verses in the Tanakh that Christians take to be allusions to it, but many of them have a separate "Jewish interpretation" that renders an entirely separate conclusion. It might be accurate to say that these interpretations precede the Christian interpretations. Having said that, if the Covenant cannot be broken, then neither can the Land aspect of it.

However, we see time and time again that G-d's wrath was turned against the Jews and that they were removed from their Land. This is not to mean that the Covenant had been abrogated because we also see their return upon certain points in history; do we ascertain from this that the Covenant was "re-cast" and then broken again? This seems like a sadistically playful G-d, not to mention, confused. It doesn't matter very much, I mean, the point is moot and doens't need evidence because of the declaration upon G-d's making the Covenant with the Jews that it was eternal. Since He said that, there is not much of a need for logical evidence to show that the Covenant doesn't change. It is a matter of faith, but moreover, knowledge, because it was told.

Did you know that Islam shares the same exact line of reasoning as Christianity as far as the removal of the Jews from the Land is concerned? It is actually that same line of reasoning that has removed the Christians from the grace of G-d and has replaced them with Islam. I'm not saying you're doing this, but it would be difficult to say that G-d made that type of change one time but that He didn't make it again, yet the belief that He did that opens up the path for saying that He can do it again and again and again. Today, the procession goes as follows; Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Seikhism, and B'hai (and I think others), all of which declare the same thing, that they are the new covenant between G-d and humanity. Why not, maybe they're right?


As far as for the last point, we have to understand what mainstream Judaism is, or what it says. There is some room to see the similarities between elements of mainstream Judaism and things Jesus was saying, or at least some of them. One example that goes unexamined by many (Christians and sometimes Jews) is what Jesus said about 'it's not what goes in, but what goes out." There is a specified teaching in the Talmud, the Jewish Oral Law, explaining the high importance of proper speech, and it is one of the fundamental things taught to Jewish children to this day. Now if you ask me, Jesus was making an allusion to that, i.e., he was drawing from the large body of Jewish Oral Law, or in other words, bringing attention to a very well-known matter of Jewish principle. It was the Pharisees, not the Sadducees, that recognized the validity of the Jewish Oral Law, and so Jesus was "siding" with the Pharisees. There is reason to believe that Jesus was quite close to "mainstream" Judaism. If you ask me, he was saying that, in accordance with the teaching, that one must not neglect proper speech when he is keeping the Law. "Kashrut," keeping kosher, is such a basic part of the Law that it can serve as a basic symbol of it, that to make a reference to it is to make a reference to the letter of the Law. Again, my thought here, he was saying that the spirit of the Law cannot be abandoned just because the letter of the Law is observed. I don't believe that he actually was telling people not to keep kosher, or that G-d somehow changed His mind, but that it is one of the elements of the human ingenuity which found reason in changing the religion. As a Jewish emphasis, it is not that radical, and it is found in mainstream text. Mind you, this occurred under the auspices of Rome and by relatively Rome-friendly individuals and religionists. Therefore, I don't think that it was intended to be a "grafting" on to Judaism, but a movement set against Judaism and which had nothing to do with it. In other words, I don't believe that Jesus said those words, as no Jew, no matter how radical (and if you want to see radical check out Jeremiah), ever said anything along the lines of removing Kashrut from the Covenant. Even Jeremiah, with his "famous" quote about the new covenant, actually makes reference to statutes and decrees in reference to the Covenant in the same way that the other prophets also made reference to statutes and decrees – what statutes and decrees?. The Jewish interpretation is that G-d will again make the Covenant with the Jews in End Times, and that that time they will accept it (again). It is "not like the Covenant I made with your fathers in Egypt" because maybe it won't come with fanfare and splitting seas and a huge exodus, but it will be made and understood. It will be "written on their hearts," they will have an internal understanding of what G-d wants from them, adherence to Torah. If the Christian interpretation makes sense, then the Jewish one also makes sense, maybe more.

If he was G-d, then he had no worldview, because he was G-d. Only humans have worldviews. Maybe "render unto Ceasar's" means "let man take care of manly things," or "let political leaders take care of political things and let religious people take care of G-dly matters." Maybe it was a reference to separate religious authority from state authority, maybe. Do you know to whom he directed that statement? Were there Caesar's in his time?

Maybe there is reason to believe that the Pharisees and Sadduccees, who couldn't stand each other and almost considered each other heretics, found unity in resenting one Jew so much that they bent to Roman rule and asked them to kill that Jew. That would be like two opposing Jewish "sects" in the camps, upon seeing a Jew being tortured by the Nazi's, a Jew who was perhaps disliked, viciously turn him over to the Nazi's to be hanged on the gallows. Maybe the analogy of the camps and the Romans aren't exactly perfect, but it makes sense still. And then, according to the way Pontius Pilate reacts in the text, to imagine the S.S. solider publicly expressing remorse about having to kill a vermin. It makes no sense, but it's what the text wants us to believe. They should, G-d forbid, be destroyed just for that. The prophets also were tortured at times, but most likely, as the text says, it was against the will of the Jews and according to the will of whomever was ruling.

Hmm, wow, that's very interesting what you said about Jesus changing his mind and that being preserved in the text and being one of its strengths. I'm not exactly sure if that's the reason that it was kept, and if it wasn't, then why was it? I would actually like to find out, could you find out for me? It could be the reason though, I wouldn't know. But Jesus was supposed to be G-d, so it wouldn't make sense that he made a mistake and then corrected it. That seems like a human trait, not the trait of G-d. I could see a man troubled by his surroundings, believing that he had something to offer, going through an ideological development, but only a human. Maybe, like you said, they kept in the text on purpose to show that development, as a way to convince readers. However, if Jesus was G-d, he knew that he was G-d and trial and error wouldn't really be realistic. It's almost as if to say that Jesus was a man whom discovered that he was G-d, but that just doesn't make sense, for what would be G-d’s role in that?.