Tuesday, June 29, 2010

A critical review on Apologetics and Justin Martyr

The next church father we are going to look at is Justin Martyr. Again, the objective with the church fathers is to view what they are saying, and see whether or not they are extending their teachings from the Bible, or another source.

First of all, who is Justin Martyr? Many do not know much about him. I am very familiar with him coming from a Christian Apologetics background. Justin Martyr was a gentleman who wrote the books "The First Apology" and "The Dialogue with Trypho." Of notable interest to us especially is the 2nd book. Essentially it was a debate that he had against a Jewish man named Trypho. This was an excellent opportunity in my viewpoint to encourage a Jew to become a Christian. What is interesting to note about Justin Martyr, is that while he is utilized as an accurate source among the Christians of today, Matthias Flacius Illyricus, the Lutheran Reformer, discovered a very paganistic side to his writings. It is not a secret to many that he attempted to reconcile a Greek Philosophy with the Bible, with a rather Stoic outlook on the Bible. Obviously, I have a problem with this based off of Rav Shaul's encounters with the Stoics in Acts 17. The Greeks are not looked upon as a very knowledgeable bunch.

But lets continue nonetheless. What are some notable things that Justin Martyr did? One thing of note is the ideology of the Logos that Justin Martyr did. This was where he basically began the separation of God the Father from God the Son as an actual person. This was the first gentleman to do this. "For next to God, we worship and love the Logos who is out of the unbegotten and ineffable God, since also He became man for our sakes, that, becoming a partaker of our sufferings, He might also bring us healing" (Second Apology, 13).

"There is, and that there is said to be, another God and Lord subject to the Maker of all things who is also called an Angel, because He announces to men whatsoever the Maker of all things, above whom there is no other God, wishes to announce to them.... I shall endeavour to persuade you, that He who is said to have appeared to Abraham, and to Jacob, and to Moses, and who is called God, is distinct from Him who made all things, I mean numerically, not in will. (Dialogue with Trypho, 56).


So as we see, Justin Martyr places God the Son below God the Father, while also separating the two. They are not on an equal parallel. And this is where trinitarianism roots from. It is in fact based on a hierarchical sytem based around the ideology of a pagan. And it is in effect promoting paganism.

What is further problematic with this? The Shema in Deuteronomy 6:4 goes into a direct contradiction with the trinity ideology. Lets see what this states " 4 Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one. [a]" No mistake about it. It doesn't state that God has more than one personality. Instead, it says that God has a character of Echad, or Oneness. Remember that Yeshua says "I and the Father are One." John 10:30. Also John 14:7 says that "If you had known me, you would have known my Father also: and from henceforth you Know Him and Have seen him." So not Three in One, but rather Oneness. A better idea to think about this from a Biblical perspective is that God is spirit and may exist in any form that he likes. He has identified himself in the form of 3 different but not separate forms. It is illogical for 3 separate personalities to encompass one being in the sense of having one personality. A person is defined as an individual. Where one individual ends and another begins is associated with the concept of trinity, thus it is contradictory to describe God in the triune sense that trinitarians do (don't get me wrong, I believe in a triune nature of God). But God is infinite, so therefore he can not be 3 different individuals. That is an inaccurate Biblical perspective. Justin Martyr was instrumental to the eventual separation into the trinity that was accepted by Constantine, whom we will talk about later in our discussions.

There were other not so great things that Justin Martyr did. One of the things that Justin Martyr stated was ""The Scriptures are not yours, but ours." Secondly, it is stated by Justin Martyr " "We, too, would observe your circumcision of the flesh, your Sabbath days, and in a word all your festivals, if we were not aware of the reason why they were imposed upon you, namely, because of your sins and hardness of heart." (Dialogue 18,2)." Obviously Supersessionists and most Christians and Catholics alike eat this up. But we've just gone through over and over and over again how the covenant is still with Israel. This I have brought up on numerous occasions within the articles of the site. So since this was not a Biblical motive for Justin Martyr to make this claim, what was his motive? What exactly was going on back then to make Justin Martyr state this claim? The aftermath of the 2nd Jewish Revolt. What happened was that during this revolt that was overthrown by the Roman Emperor Hadrian, the Jews named Bar Kochba as the Messiah. They believed he had come to fulfill the role of Ben David whom some of the Orthodox Jews were looking for even during the time of Yeshua, instead of listening to what Yeshua was trying to tell them. What this caused to happen was the Messianic Jews decided to pull out. Eventually the Orthodox Jews were defeated. The aftermath was that the Orthodox Jews started to speak against Yeshua in the synagogues. I stated earlier that this was a perfect opportunity for Justin Martyr to attempt to help fix the situation between the Jews and the Christians during the time period. However, Martyr's motives were not to seek peace between Jews and Christians, but rather what ended his intent was to separate themselves from the Jews entirely to make them stand out as Roman citizens, instead of what Rav Shaul or anybody else called them to be. Justin Martyr's words and actions were put above what the Biblical writers were trying to lay claims to by himself. This we have also seen from Ignatius and it is quite plausible that he was following suit from Ignatius. Regarding the Eucharist, we see from Justin Martyr "He then speaks of those Gentiles, namely us, who in every place offer sacrifices to Him, i.e., the bread of the Eucharist, and also the cup of the Eucharist, affirming both that we glorify His name, and that you profane it." (Dialogue with Trypho). Once again, we see his politically motivated agenda is to put something unBiblical in the place of something Biblical (the Eucharist is neither mentioned nor taught about in the Bible) in order to alleviate himself and others the responsibility of having to follow Jewish beliefs regarding the Passover. We see that Justin Martyr, henceforth does not follow a Biblically sound doctrine by any means, and he should be avoided as a source who is a strong follower of Yeshua. Though revered as a strong follower of Yeshua, we clearly see that his actions speak otherwise. He is certainly deviating from God's commandments in the Torah, to follow his feast days, and shabbats.

Perhaps Justin Martyr would have done well to listen to Trypho's statement in his Dialogue with Trypho. Trypho states, "“(You Christians) spurn the commands…and then try to convince us (Torah-observant Jews) that you know God, when you fail to do those things that every God-fearing person would do. If, therefore, you can give a satisfactory reply to these charges and can show us on what you place your hopes, even though you refuse to obey the Law, we will listen to you most willingly, and then we can go on and examine in the same manner our other differences.”18

Justin Martyr fails to give an adequate explanation to this. He instead insists that the Torah was "obsolete." This is his given interpretation, nothing from the Bible declares this. He actually even has to concede "“Yes, Trypho, “I conceded, there are some Christians who…desire to observe as many of the Mosaic precepts as possible—precepts which we think were instituted because of your hardness of heart—while at the same time they place their hope in Christ…”20 when Trypho asks him if it were possible to follow the Torah and Yeshua. Not only some Christians, but there were entire Messianic groups who did the same. (Nazarenes, Ebionites, Pseudoclementines just to name a few).

When actually reading through Justin Martyr's books and looking at the strategy that Christians today utilize in debating, we can see a similarity. The overall theme that we see from Christians in Apologetics is those who will put down people who do not share their belief systems in order to make themselves look superior. Justin Martyr demonstrates this same attitude through his writings. Christians are not far off from this example. And thats the problem. We have to understand the background of whats going on, and why Martyr is doing this. His example should not be followed. It is neither healthy as a perspective to utilize in debating and evangelizing nor rewarding. When I followed the footsteps of Justin Martyr, I was responsible for the conversion of 0 people. The constant complaint I hear from Christians who are in Apologetics is that they always get angry Atheists or other religious people who come they feel forced to minister to when they correspond with them. Instead of helping the cause out, they demonstrate a prideful spirit. Apologetics has a place, but it does NOT serve the place of which Christians have placed it. Yeshua was gentle, yet honest when speaking to people, not harsh in tone. He did not belittle people, but rather was understanding. He would certainly ask the Pharisees "have you not read" "Have you not heard". It is also a true claim that Yeshua was utilizing this language for the purpose of demonstrating to the Pharisees that they were on the wrong path. But was it utilized to belittle pharisees? This goes against the nature of being humble in spirit that Yeshua was talking about. So the answer is indubitably no. If God is slow to anger, then so must Yeshua be. And likewise, so must we be. Remember these words when debating ALWAYS. 14Keep reminding them of these things. Warn them before God against quarreling about words; it is of no value, and only ruins those who listen. 15Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth. 16Avoid godless chatter, because those who indulge in it will become more and more ungodly. 17Their teaching will spread like gangrene. Among them are Hymenaeus and Philetus. I don't know about everyone else, but I'm sick of my teaaching spreading like gangrene. Its time for us to stop approaching discussions in the way that we do, and turn away from debating. Its time we handle things according to 1 Peter 3:15 "15But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect," So we must give an answer for why we believe, but NOT DEBATE. We must be gentle. We must be polite. We can not go around with a haughty spirit and put down people because we believe they are inferior to us and expect people who are from different religious backgrounds to listen to us. We have seen that Martyr's intentions were not to attempt to convert Jews. Why would Christians go around utilizing the same strategy when witnessing to other people? We will continue to have no new converts to the kingdom of heaven this way. Instead of patronizing people who don't want to hear the word of God, (we need not base this on our own voices), rather do the opposite and listen to what the Bible says. Dust your feet off and move on to another place.

Monday, June 28, 2010

Does God take away the Biblical feasts and divorce Israel in the Tanakh?

This is a question I didn't even think I would have to answer. Its absurd. However, antisemitic Christian websites have abounded with such an argument utilizing the writings from Hosea 2:11, Amos 8:10 and Isaiah 1:14. Lets reason together about this. First of all, a background history lesson for viewers here. What do these three books have in common? They were both written around the same time period. When? Amos was written in 750 B.C., Hosea in around 715 B.C. and Isaiah in 700 B.C. Lets read what these three verses say. Hosea 2:11 - 11 I will stop all her celebrations: her yearly festivals, her New Moons, her Sabbath days—all her appointed feasts. Amos 8:10 states " 10 I will turn your religious feasts into mourning and all your singing into weeping. I will make all of you wear sackcloth and shave your heads. I will make that time like mourning for an only son and the end of it like a bitter day." Also Isaiah 1:14 " 14 Your New Moon festivals and your appointed feasts my soul hates. They have become a burden to me; I am weary of bearing them."

By now we should know the danger that occurs when cherry picking scripture. But lets take a look at all three of these verses and read them carefully. What do all three of them have in common? Two things. The first thing is that all three of these things are occurring around the same time that the oral tradition began, after the Assyrian captivity. The other thing very important. Not one of the three verses says God will do away with HIS appointed times. Instead it is Israel's appointed times that God hates because they are not HIS appointed times (interesting for Christians to think about who have decided to turn to Easter and Christmas, but just as significant for those who call Yom Teruah "The head of the year" to the Jewish side). So what is going on here? We can gain more insight by reading the verses in context.

Amos 8 says "1 This is what the Sovereign LORD showed me: a basket of ripe fruit. 2 "What do you see, Amos?" he asked. "A basket of ripe fruit," I answered. Then the LORD said to me, "The time is ripe for my people Israel; I will spare them no longer.
3 "In that day," declares the Sovereign LORD, "the songs in the temple will turn to wailing. [a] Many, many bodies—flung everywhere! Silence!"
4 Hear this, you who trample the needy and do away with the poor of the land,
5 saying, "When will the New Moon be over that we may sell grain, and the Sabbath be ended that we may market wheat?"— skimping the measure, boosting the price and cheating with dishonest scales,
6 buying the poor with silver and the needy for a pair of sandals, selling even the sweepings with the wheat.
7 The LORD has sworn by the Pride of Jacob: "I will never forget anything they have done.
8 "Will not the land tremble for this, and all who live in it mourn? The whole land will rise like the Nile; it will be stirred up and then sink like the river of Egypt.
9 "In that day," declares the Sovereign LORD, "I will make the sun go down at noon and darken the earth in broad daylight.
10 I will turn your religious feasts into mourning and all your singing into weeping. I will make all of you wear sackcloth and shave your heads. I will make that time like mourning for an only son and the end of it like a bitter day.
11 "The days are coming," declares the Sovereign LORD, "when I will send a famine through the land— not a famine of food or a thirst for water, but a famine of hearing the words of the LORD.

The proper context needs to be understood here. The 2nd verse says that he will spare his people no longer. A better way to think of this translation is thus. He will not overlook their offenses is the proper way to translate this. So he's getting ready to punish Israel, not take away their feasts. This tells you what the people of Israel are doing with the gifts that God has given to them. But remember from Romans 11:28-29 that God never does away with his gifts, so these gifts will remain. But the abuse of them is what will end. His people WILL return to him, and as Yeshua infers from Matthew 23, Jerusalem will one day proclaim "blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord" and accept Yeshua. Yeshua won't come back until that day.

Hosea 2 says "1 "Say of your brothers, 'My people,' and of your sisters, 'My loved one.'
Israel Punished and Restored 2 "Rebuke your mother, rebuke her, for she is not my wife, and I am not her husband. Let her remove the adulterous look from her face and the unfaithfulness from between her breasts.
3 Otherwise I will strip her naked and make her as bare as on the day she was born; I will make her like a desert, turn her into a parched land, and slay her with thirst.
4 I will not show my love to her children, because they are the children of adultery.
5 Their mother has been unfaithful and has conceived them in disgrace. She said, 'I will go after my lovers, who give me my food and my water, my wool and my linen, my oil and my drink.'
6 Therefore I will block her path with thornbushes; I will wall her in so that she cannot find her way.
7 She will chase after her lovers but not catch them; she will look for them but not find them. Then she will say, 'I will go back to my husband as at first, for then I was better off than now.'
8 She has not acknowledged that I was the one who gave her the grain, the new wine and oil, who lavished on her the silver and gold— which they used for Baal.
9 "Therefore I will take away my grain when it ripens, and my new wine when it is ready. I will take back my wool and my linen, intended to cover her nakedness.
10 So now I will expose her lewdness before the eyes of her lovers; no one will take her out of my hands.
11 I will stop all her celebrations: her yearly festivals, her New Moons, her Sabbath days—all her appointed feasts. "

Again in context, there is no divorce from Israel. As Paul rightfully interpreted God has always kept a remnant. This is directed towards the 10 upper tribes that were scattered after the Assyrian captivity. They were also the ones who corrupted the feast days. So again, the ones committing adultery "her" festivals will stop! That doesn't mean Sukkot will stop, just the improper method of following them.

1 The vision concerning Judah and Jerusalem that Isaiah son of Amoz saw during the reigns of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz and Hezekiah, kings of Judah.
A Rebellious Nation 2 Hear, O heavens! Listen, O earth! For the LORD has spoken: "I reared children and brought them up, but they have rebelled against me.
3 The ox knows his master, the donkey his owner's manger, but Israel does not know, my people do not understand."
4 Ah, sinful nation, a people loaded with guilt, a brood of evildoers, children given to corruption! They have forsaken the LORD; they have spurned the Holy One of Israel and turned their backs on him.
5 Why should you be beaten anymore? Why do you persist in rebellion? Your whole head is injured, your whole heart afflicted.
6 From the sole of your foot to the top of your head there is no soundness— only wounds and welts and open sores, not cleansed or bandaged or soothed with oil.
7 Your country is desolate, your cities burned with fire; your fields are being stripped by foreigners right before you, laid waste as when overthrown by strangers.
8 The Daughter of Zion is left like a shelter in a vineyard, like a hut in a field of melons, like a city under siege.
9 Unless the LORD Almighty had left us some survivors, we would have become like Sodom, we would have been like Gomorrah.
10 Hear the word of the LORD, you rulers of Sodom; listen to the law of our God, you people of Gomorrah!
11 "The multitude of your sacrifices— what are they to me?" says the LORD. "I have more than enough of burnt offerings, of rams and the fat of fattened animals; I have no pleasure in the blood of bulls and lambs and goats.
12 When you come to appear before me, who has asked this of you, this trampling of my courts?
13 Stop bringing meaningless offerings! Your incense is detestable to me. New Moons, Sabbaths and convocations— I cannot bear your evil assemblies.
14 Your New Moon festivals and your appointed feasts my soul hates. They have become a burden to me; I am weary of bearing them.

In Isaiah 1, we still see no letter of divorce between the Lord and Israel. As a matter of fact that prophecy was never made in the Tanakh. Why? Because it will never come to fruition. Rav Shaul makes mention of the verse in Romans 11, he says he would turn away ungodliness from Israel and cause her to sin no more. God is a jealous God and he wants Israel to follow him. And God is not a breaker of covenants. He has had to renew the covenant on several occasions however. As Paul states in Romans 9 however, there will always be a remnant of Israel, so God will never totally destroy the entire nation of Israel or her inhabitants. This nation will be preserved for without this nation, and thank goodness for the Gentiles. Without her, the natural branches, holding up the wild olive branches, the Gentiles, the wild olive branches will fall, because they have no foundation to stand upon. Remember in our studies on Romans 11, the Gentiles are engrafted AMONG the people of Israel.

Its our job to stop turning to antisemitism. God is never pleased when people start talking about him divorcing his own wife. These are God's chosen people, but not favored. Gentiles have a role in the kingdom and if they fulfill this role, God will be pleased. What we do to Israel, will be done to us. So far, the nations have not treated Israel well. As a matter of fact, it has been the Gentiles for some 1700+ years who have boasted over the branches. This needs to stop. WE ALL must provoke Israel to jealousy/zealousness. Lets start this trend today!

Saturday, June 26, 2010

On "St." Ignatius of Antioch

This is the very first "early church father" we shall look at. The most horrendous thing the Christian church has done with these people is assume that in some manner, Paul was establishing a new system that these guys followed through with. To the contrary however. Paul as we have seen time and time again, often promotes the Torah. So it is a horrendous matter for one to draw from the church father writings as if they were to provide us more insight as to how the early church functioned. As we will see, these church writers teach AGAINST what Yeshua and Paul teach, thus steering the Christian church into the wrong direction.

Ignatius is one of the most important to the Orthodox Christian church because of their belief that the centerfold of the church was in Antioch, and thus begins the anti-semitism within the church. We will see that this was not the original church, but something that stemmed out of a paganistic culture that mixed Christian identity within its roots.

Ignatius (35-107 C.E.) is considered a disciple of John by the Orthodox Christian movement. Oddly enough it is not documented anywhere that he ever met John, nor that he ever personally studied under him. It is rather more documented that he established a Greek philosophical version of the Christian religion as it has now become today. Ignatius did not make a distinction between the Jews as anything but legalists and Judaizers, despite the fact that in Acts, there are 10,000s of Jew who were Messianic during the time period. He also despised the observance of the Shabbat, even though it was commanded by God that all follow it forever in the Tanakh, and instead favored Ishtar's "Lord's day" which was Sunday as it has come to be today. Ignatius also promoted the "infallibility of the church" and a "universal church." Ignatius instituted a Hellinistic autocratic mindset within the church. It is he who has termed the words "deacon" "presbyter" and "bishop" as they were under a separate category of people with Yeshua-like abilities and authority. His nickname was "Theophorus" as he gave to himself, which means "the God-bearer." Ignatius believed "without the bishop's supervision, no baptisms or love feasts were permitted" and he also instituted the concept of "the virginal Mary" and the eternal virgin mother of God. Many wonder what is wrong with this? Nothing except for this matches with Roman paganism, and the ideology of Zeus having an eternal mother that reigned in a sense over him. So we can piece together that this practice is one of paganism, and was discouraged by Rav Shaul when writing to the Romans.

Ignatius has some interesting writings to 4 distinct groups of people in particular; the Magnesians, the Philadelphians, the Smyrnaeans and Polycarp. To the Magnesians he writes "4"2-3 even as some person have the bishop's name on their lips, but in everything act apart from him. Such men appear to me not to keep a good conscience, forasmuch as they do not assemble themselves together lawfully according to commandment."

This doesn't sound too bad at first glance. The only problem is that the commandment he is referring to is the commandment of the hierarchy as it has been taught to the Orthodox churches. This began the Neo-platonic cycle within churches that can even be seen further within the writings of other so-called "church fathers" such as one of the guys I used to follow and adore as a Christian Apologist, "St." Augustine. I think some of his stuff is still good, but generally speaking, we can commit most of his stuff to the flames as sophistry.

Ignatius continues in 8:1-8:2. "Be not seduced by strange doctrines nor by antiquated fables, which are profitless. For if even unto this day, we live after the manner of Judaism, we avow that we have not received grace." An interesting teaching since Yeshua promoted the teachings of Judaism. What does he state about those who do not follow the Torah? They should be considered least in the kingdom of heaven. Ignatius also seems to have misunderstood that grace was also taught in the Tanakh in some of his writings and that it is an invented concept in the Brit Hadashah. Those who have studied further, such as my brothers and sisters in the Messianic movement know better.

Going now to 9:1 "If then those who had walked in ancient practices attained unto newness of hope, no longer observing sabbaths, but fashioning their lives after the Lord's day." This is interesting since both Yeshua and Paul, as well can be said for the rest of the New Testament writers taught that the Shabbat should be followed as well as all of the rest of the commandments. So if we're not supposed to be following shabbats, then where is this teaching coming from? Not from the Brit Hadashah (a.k.a. New Testament). This guy is supposed to be a teacher of the Word, yet we have spotted three areas that have gone against the word.

Continuing further. 10:5 "Therefore put away the vile leaven which hath waxed stale and sour and betake yourselves to the new leaven which is Jesus Christ." OOOOOO, we who are from the Jewish movement all know there is a problem with this one. The Orthodox Jews at their homes are probably trying not to fall out of their seats from laughter after reading this concept. This is because when the Bible refers to leaven, it is talking about sin. So this reads to us who are knowledgeable of Jewish custom "Therefore, put away the vile sin which hath waxed stale and sour and betake yourselves to the new sin which is Jesus Christ." I would pray none of my brethren take this seriously.

In 10:7 Ignatius states "It is monstrous to talk of Jesus Christ and to practice Judaism."
But Jesus Christ says "17"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven." So it is Ignatius who is teaching replacement Theology, and practicing heresy since he opposes the will of God. We note from the previous article that Paul never taught anything similar to this in Romans 9-11 which talks specifically about the grafting-in process. That is why I spent so much time covering it in depth. Ignatius would have done well to discern between the Torah and the halakah in his writings.

10:8 "For Christianity did not believe in Judaism, but Judaism in Christianity, wherein every tongue believed and was gathered together unto God." This is news to us, and would have been to Yeshua and his talmidim/disciples who were of the Nazarene sect of Judaism.

We can see already Ignatius is establishing the Greek Philosophy that has taken precedence over Jewish customs.

Now to the letters to the Philadelphians. 6"1-4 is of crucial importance. "But if anyone propound Judaism unto you, hear him not: for it is better to hear Christianity from a man who is circumcised than Judaism from one uncircumcised. But if either the one or the other speak not concerning Jesus Christ, I look on them as tombstones and graves of the dead, whereon are inscribed only the names of men. Shun ye therefore the wicked arts and plottings of the prince of this world, lest haply ye be crushed by his devices and wax weak in your love."

What does this sound like? It sounds like this is trying to write like Paul. The only problem is that Paul doesn't say this. We shall note from Romans 3:1-2 "1What advantage, then, is there in being a Jew, or what value is there in circumcision? 2Much in every way! First of all, they have been entrusted with the very words of God." So again we find an area where Ignatius opposes the Biblical teachings. Ignatius was trying to teach "uncircumcised" Gentiles who kept Torah and the circumcised Jews to not listen to one another essentially, though not intentionally being the likely case.

Now we move onto the Smyrnaeans. 6:9 which reads "because they allow not that the eucharist is the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which flesh suffered for our sins, and which the Father of his goodness raised up." Now what in the world is Ignatius talking about here? He is directly tying paganistic ideology into the Mashiach. He is teaching that the flesh of Yeshua is holy and this teaching can not distinguish between the nephesh or Ruach Hakodesh. This is seriously a drastic problem, and it is still taught in our Catholic masses on Saturday nights and Sunday mornings.

8:2-8:9 - "Do ye all follow your bishop, as Jesus Christ followed the Father, and the presbytery as the Apostles." STOP! What does Yeshua say about this to Jews? This directly opposes the teaching from Matthew 23:8-10 " 8"But you are not to be called 'Rabbi,' for you have only one Master and you are all brothers. 9And do not call anyone on earth 'father,' for you have one Father, and he is in heaven. 10Nor are you to be called leader for you have one Leader, the Christ.[b] " We are not to follow the bishop in this manner according to Yeshua. We shall proceed
8:3 "and to the deacons pay respect as to God's commandment." Mentioned where in the Tanakh?
8:4 "Let no man do aught of things pertaining to the Church apart from the bishop." Sounds like the Jewish rabbis in the Orthodox community right? Think about this Jews next time you follow your Rabbis teachings, as you are doing the exact same thing as Catholics/Orthodox community does today. If you truly wish to not be associated with them, perhaps you should read Sid Roth's book "They Thought for Themselves" and see what thats all about.
8:5 "Let that be held a valid eucharist which is under the bishop or one to whom he shall have committed it. Wheresoever the bishop shall appear, there let the people be; even as where Jesus may be, there is the universal Church." This is the very first time that Catholic church is ever mentioned anywhere. It is not a Biblical term at all. It was first coined by a pagan. Think about this next time you want to talk about the "church." One should see and understand where this definition truly comes from before actually wishing to utilize the term. This has become the number one reason I am wary of utilizing the term myself.

8:8 "It is not lawful apart from the bishop either to baptize or to hold a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve, this is well-pleasing also to God;

So Ignatius teaches that the hierarchical system of man is to be venerated. This is nothing new under the sun for those who under the Talmud. Does not our calling come from God? Do we have any other leader but God? This is another anti-Biblical teaching. Jews might remember a similar teaching from the Talmud. In the Talmud it states that one can only obtain knowledge of the Torah if you go to a habbat house. Again, the Christian church is as far to the left as the Orthodox Jews are to the right. One may point out that this follows suit from Romans 13. See http://www.yashanet.com/studies/romstudy/text13.htm. Roman authorities were not looked upon favorably by Jews. So in context it is more rightful that Paul is talking about those who interpret the Torah in the context of the writing, and not some bishop hierarchical system. This didn't exist until well after Paul's teachings. Again, pointing back to Yeshua's teachings in Matthew 23, this is very much opposed to what God had in mind.
1Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: 2"The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat. 3So you must obey them and do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach. 4They tie up heavy loads and put them on men's shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them.
5"Everything they do is done for men to see: They make their phylacteries[a] wide and the tassels on their garments long; 6they love the place of honor at banquets and the most important seats in the synagogues; 7they love to be greeted in the marketplaces and to have men call them 'Rabbi.'
8"But you are not to be called 'Rabbi,' for you have only one Master and you are all brothers. 9And do not call anyone on earth 'father,' for you have one Father, and he is in heaven. 10Nor are you to be called leader for you have one Leader the Christ.[b] 11The greatest among you will be your servant. 12For whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.
13"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the kingdom of heaven in men's faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to.[c]
15"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as you are.

This same can be applied to the Greek Christian hierarchical system.

Furthermore, this chapter applies to Exodus 23:2 which states "you shall not follow a multitude to do evil; neither shalt you answer in a cause to decline after many to wrest judgment."

Also read 2 Corinthians 2:8 "Not one of this world's leaders has understood it (wisdom of God Paul is speaking of); because if they had, they would not have executed the Lord from whom this glory flows."

It goes hand in hand with God's theocratic system of government and nothing more.




Further understanding context can be found when Ignatius talks to Polycarp.

6:1 "Give ye heed to the bishop that God also may give heed to you. I am devoted to those who are subject ot the bishop, the presbyters, the deacons."

First of all, where in scripture is any of this mentioned? Secondly, in context to what is being stated, Polycarp was resisting the Ishtar celebration of what has become Nicene Christianity. Polycarp made a trip to Rome to exhort the Church to continue observing Pesach in the light of Torah.

Before we get started, Romans 9-11 in context

I think before we get started on the church fathers, we have to understand these chapters by Paul in context. These are some of the most misunderstood chapters of the Bible by Christians today. I have had an extensive argument against a very anti-semitic person from Theologyweb regarding this chapters. Likewise, what we are going to begin by doing is to demonstrate that the church fathers were anti-semitic at worst for most of their works, and mistaken at best for the rest.

Its important to understand what this is in contextual relation to. This is referring to the grafting in process of the Gentiles. If we go back to Numbers 15:13-16, we find this written. " 13 " 'Everyone who is native-born must do these things in this way when he brings an offering made by fire as an aroma pleasing to the LORD. 14 For the generations to come, whenever an alien or anyone else living among you presents an offering made by fire as an aroma pleasing to the LORD, he must do exactly as you do. 15 The community is to have the same rules for you and for the alien living among you; this is a lasting ordinance for the generations to come. You and the alien shall be the same before the LORD : 16 The same laws and regulations will apply both to you and to the alien living among you.' "

This is a lasting ordinance made with the nation of Israel. The same laws and regulations refers to the Torah. They will be a lasting ordinance FOREVER as the terminology refers to whenever we see the text "for the generations to come." This is how the Israelites would understand the terminology.

We must refer back to Matthew 5:17-20 now. Yeshua teaches that not one letter from the Torah will be done away with. The problem becomes when we look at these verses in their understanding. Hosea 2 talks about some heavy things. If not read carefully you do not know who this is being addressed to. Hosea 2 in and of itself sounds like a divorce decree between God and Israel. And according to most Bible translations (with the exception of David Stern's, who includes this part with Hosea 2, which is fine because man is the one who has come up with these chapters in the first place), Hosea 2 sounds very awkward as related to the rest of the Tanakh. It seems like its just placed there. Until we read THIS part of Hosea 1 - "10Yet the number of the children of Israel shall be as the sand of the sea, which cannot be measured or numbered; and instead of it being said to them, You are not My people, it shall be said to them, Sons of the Living God!(C)
11Then shall the children of Judah and the children of Israel be gathered together and appoint themselves one head, and they shall go up out of the land, for great shall be the day of Jezreel [for the spiritually reborn Israel, a divine offspring, the people whom the Lord has blessed.](D)

What is going on here? The house of Israel and the house of Judah are two different things. What happens in Hosea is there is a punishment between God and the 10 Northern tribes.
God says he will take them back. This is also often called "the 10 lost tribes of Israel." This will be important to understand when reading Romans 9-11, but it should also be kept in mind that it is still a subject of debate between the Ephraimites and the Messianic Jews. Tim Hegg does a great job explaining the problems that are mentioned in his article here - www.torahresource.com/.../Two%20House%20Fatal%20Errors.pdf . There are writings to demonstrate that God has maintained a remnant within the Bible of Israel, as well as from the book of Tobias in the Septuagint. "
"The book of the acts of Tobit the son of Tobiel, son of Ananiel, son of Aduel, son of Gabael, of the descendants of Asiel and the tribe of Naphtali who in the days of Shalmaneser, king of the Assyrians, was taken into captivity from Thisbe, which is to the south of Kedesh Naphtali in Galilee above Asher. I, Tobit, walked in the ways of truth and righteousness all the days of my life, and I performed many acts of charity to my brethren and countrymen who went with me into the land of the Assyrians, to Nineveh. Now when I was in my own country, in the land of Israel, while I was still a young man, the whole tribe of Naphtali my forefather deserted the house of Jerusalem. All the tribes that joined in apostasy used to sacrifice to the calf Baal, and so did the house of Naphtali my forefather. But I alone went often to Jerusalem for the feasts, as it is ordained for all Israel by an everlasting decree. Taking the first fruits and the tithes of my produce and the first shearings, I would give these to the priests, the sons of Aaron, at the altar. Tobit 1:1 -61 (approx. 200 BCE) " This is a good historical document. Also from the book of Sirach,
"So that the sovereignty was divided and a disobedient kingdom arose out of Ephraim. 22 But the Lord will never give up his mercy, nor cause any of his works to perish; he will never blot out the descendants of his chosen one, nor destroy the posterity of him who loved him; so he gave a remnant to Jacob, and to David a root of his stock. Sirach 47:212 (approx. 180 BCE)

Again, some great items from the Apocrypha/Septuagint writings. Josephus has writings on this too, but I really wish to save this for another writing, lest I get sidetracked from the issue at hand.

What most people leave out from the Biblical writings is this -
"Now in that day the remnant of Israel, and those of the house of Jacob who have escaped, will never again rely on the one who struck them, but will truly rely on YHVH, the Holy One of Israel. A remnant will return, the remnant of Jacob, to the mighty God. For though your people, O Israel, may be like the sand of the sea, Only a remnant within them will return; A destruction is determined, overflowing with righteousness. For a complete destruction, one that is decreed, the Lord YHVH of hosts will execute in the midst of the whole land. " Isaiah 10:20-23

Jeremiah 31 and 33 are valuable as well. So does God divorce the people of Israel? Not according to the Tanakh. So since Yeshua says that we are to follow the Tanakh, lets see what Paul has to say and if he should be called least in the kingdom of heaven or not.

We begin first with Romans 91I speak the truth in Christ—I am not lying, my conscience confirms it in the Holy Spirit— 2I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. 3For I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, those of my own race, 4the people of Israel. Theirs is the adoption as sons; theirs the divine glory, the covenants, the receiving of the law, the temple worship and the promises. 5Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of Christ, who is God over all, forever praised![a] Amen.
To who do the promises belong forever? Israel, the physical nation. Thats who Paul is talking about. The next verse begins the controversy. 6It is not as though God's word had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel. 7Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham's children. On the contrary, "It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned."[a] 8In other words, it is not the natural children who are God's children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham's offspring.

Again, who is Paul addressing here? Physical Israel. Not everybody who is from Israel is a part of the promises of God. Why? Because some of them have turned away, and they are being punished. This will clear up much controversy as we proceed. This is not a new definition for Israel as many "scholars" have proclaimed. Circumcision of the heart is required in Deuteronomy 30:6 (before any of the controversy begins with any of this, even within the Ephraimite movement) 6And the Lord your God will circumcise your hearts and the hearts of your descendants, to love the Lord your God with all your [mind and] heart and with all your being, that you may live. It is even reinforced again in Romans 2:28-29 - 28A man is not a Jew if he is only one outwardly, nor is circumcision merely outward and physical. 29No, a man is a Jew if he is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code. Such a man's praise is not from men, but from God.

We can tell very plainly that in Romans 3:9 there is a distinction made between a Gentile and a Jew. This reoccurs in Romans 3:29. There are two different parties mentioned in the Bible. As we will come to find, both of these parties have different roles. The role of the Gentile will be defined later. So there is an Israel within Israel if you will.

Lets proceed further.

9For this was how the promise was stated: "At the appointed time I will return, and Sarah will have a son."[c]
10Not only that, but Rebekah's children had one and the same father, our father Isaac. 11Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God's purpose in election might stand: 12not by works but by him who calls—she was told, "The older will serve the younger."[d] 13Just as it is written: "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated."[e]
14What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! 15For he says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion."[f] 16It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy.

This describes in the covenant of God. Salvation does not depend on man's effort. Thus one can not enter into the covenant of God based on their works. Given the context of Pauls' background of being a Pharisee, who would understand this better than himself?
17For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: "I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth."[g] 18Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.
19One of you will say to me: "Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?" 20But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? "Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, 'Why did you make me like this?' "[h] 21Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?
22What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction? 23What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory— 24even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles? 25As he says in Hosea: "I will call them 'my people' who are not my people; and I will call her 'my loved one' who is not my loved one,"[i] 26and, "It will happen that in the very place where it was said to them, 'You are not my people,' they will be called 'sons of the living God.' "[j]

Here we see from Hosea a passage from chapter 2. We have already gone over this in much detail earlier. Gentiles are being described as part of the child of promise. We have already looked at what was going on in Hosea in part because I am not going into the Ephraimite arguments just yet. We might go into them after we observe what the early church fathers did with scripture. The main thing to keep in mind stems back to Numbers 15, where the Gentiles are called to be in the covenant of God as well. There is no division between the Gentiles and the Jews described. This passage from Hosea is about the Israelites who were rebelling against God, and did not follow his appointed holidays, shabbats and new moons in accordance to his will. Again, this passage refers to the Northern tribes of Israel. This is not a divorce decree. It is a punishment. Its important to realize in the end, Adonai the Lord says in Hosea 2 "16 "In that day," declares the LORD, "you will call me 'my husband'; you will no longer call me 'my master. [c] '
17 I will remove the names of the Baals from her lips; no longer will their names be invoked.
18 In that day I will make a covenant for them with the beasts of the field and the birds of the air and the creatures that move along the ground. Bow and sword and battle I will abolish from the land, so that all may lie down in safety.
19 I will betroth you to me forever; I will betroth you in [d] righteousness and justice, in [e] love and compassion.
20 I will betroth you in faithfulness, and you will acknowledge the LORD.
21 "In that day I will respond," declares the LORD— "I will respond to the skies, and they will respond to the earth;

This is calling back the people of Physical Israel. Lets move forward with Romans 9. 27Isaiah cries out concerning Israel: "Though the number of the Israelites be like the sand by the sea, only the remnant will be saved. 28For the Lord will carry out his sentence on earth with speed and finality."[k]
29It is just as Isaiah said previously: "Unless the Lord Almighty had left us descendants, we would have become like Sodom, we would have been like Gomorrah."[l]

So God is stating that he will always preserve a remnant of the Israelites. To those who prefer a redefinition of Romans 9:6 of Israel, who is Paul talking about here? Physical Israel. Also much to the dismay of the anti-semitic people who state that the descendants of Israel who are Biblical no longer exist today. Further, there has always been a faithful remnant that God has preserved. So did the Messianic Jewish movement precede the Christian movement? No question about this. Otherwise, we see other problems of irreconcilable matters for the Christian movement (by this I mean the Nicene Christians, not the Spiritual Christians). Sorry for the pun, lol. Good to have a bit of a sense of humor when writing I suppose.

30What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; 31but Israel, who pursued a law of righteousness, has not attained it. 32Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works. They stumbled over the "stumbling stone." 33As it is written: "See, I lay in Zion a stone that causes men to stumble and a rock that makes them fall, and the one who trusts in him will never be put to shame."[m]

Does it say anywhere here that Israel should not pursue the Torah? No. They pursued it not by faith, but as if it were by works. Legalistic observance, and not through faith. Again another reference to a physical Israel is being made.

Now we're done with Chapter 9. Onto Chapter 10.

1Brothers, my heart's desire and prayer to God for the Israelites is that they may be saved. 2For I can testify about them that they are zealous for God, but their zeal is not based on knowledge. 3Since they did not know the righteousness that comes from God and sought to establish their own, they did not submit to God's righteousness. 4Christ is the end of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes.

Again, Paul is talking about Physical Israel. They are zealous for God, but their zealousness is not based on the foundation of God's wisdom (Torah). Here we see another controversial verse in verse 4. If it is translated that Yeshua is the end of the law in the manner most Christians like to mention then Chapter 10 makes no sense. Telos is the Greek word utilized here for "end", and this means the goal at which something is aimed. Lets proceed from here.

5Moses describes in this way the righteousness that is by the law: "The man who does these things will live by them."[a] 6But the righteousness that is by faith says: "Do not say in your heart, 'Who will ascend into heaven?'[b]" (that is, to bring Christ down) 7"or 'Who will descend into the deep?'[c]" (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead). 8But what does it say? "The word is near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart,"[d] that is, the word of faith we are proclaiming:

The Torah contains righteousness in it. Aren't we supposed to be following righteousness? So if Yeshua is the end of the law like the Christians state it is, or in Galatians 2:21 as they like to lay claims to, then Paul is in a serious contradiction. This is why skeptics are always claiming that the Bible has contradictions in it, and why Christians look absurd when trying to defend the Bible. Its in the way they define "under the law" and "works of the law" or "observing the law." We talked about this in the last article.

Another thing to mention is verse 8. What in the world is Paul trying to reference here? Deuteronomy 30. Is the Torah hard to follow? In Deuteronomy, we spot the a reference that states that the Torah is not hard to follow at all. It is only hard to those who make it hard. It is not in heaven that these things are obtained. It can be found when people write the Torah on their hearts. Deuteronomy 30:11-14, the previous words were my paraphrasing. "11 Now what I am commanding you today is not too difficult for you or beyond your reach. 12 It is not up in heaven, so that you have to ask, "Who will ascend into heaven to get it and proclaim it to us so we may obey it?" 13 Nor is it beyond the sea, so that you have to ask, "Who will cross the sea to get it and proclaim it to us so we may obey it?" 14 No, the word is very near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart so you may obey it. " These verses have been manipulated by Jews in certain ways, and we'll touch base on this at a later time. The rabbis do not control the scripture much to your dismay, and it is certainly evidenced when the Rabbis turn against scripture. I have written articles on this, but I believe it is a calling to have an entire article on what the rabbis have done with the Torah, which has turned away the Gentile believers in God on so many levels.

9That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved.

Verse 9 is the most abused scripture by Christians in my honest opinion. While there is a tremendous merit to it, the way Christians present this as is an incomplete picture. We have to confess Yeshua is Lord and believe in our hearts that God raised him from the dead to be saved. They are spot on about this. But the process of how to do this is often ignored. It is tying this back into the Torah. We are to approach Yeshua in the same way that the Jews of antiquity approached the Temple sacrifices.

11As the Scripture says, "Anyone who trusts in him will never be put to shame."[e] 12For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile—the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him,

Here one is compelled to believe that there is no difference between a Jew and Gentile. This statement is also used in the same statement Paul makes when he states that there is no male or female. In context this reads the same as Ephesians 2. That in the Lord, we are One New Man. In the spiritual sense, there is no difference between Jew and Gentile. In a physical sense there is. Think about this next time you want to disobey the Torah.

13for, "Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved."[f]
14How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them? 15And how can they preach unless they are sent? As it is written, "How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news!"[g]
16But not all the Israelites accepted the good news. For Isaiah says, "Lord, who has believed our message?"[h]

Both parties, Christians and Messianics agree with verse 13 the same exact way. We believe ANYONE who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved. And Paul once again makes mention of the Israel he is talking about. The Physical Israel was mentioned in Chapter 9. Not all of the Israelites accepted the good news, but there is still a remnant saved over.

17Consequently, faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word of Christ. 18But I ask: Did they not hear? Of course they did: "Their voice has gone out into all the earth, their words to the ends of the world."[i] 19Again I ask: Did Israel not understand? First, Moses says, "I will make you envious by those who are not a nation; I will make you angry by a nation that has no understanding."[j] 20And Isaiah boldly says, "I was found by those who did not seek me; I revealed myself to those who did not ask for me."[k] 21But concerning Israel he says, "All day long I have held out my hands to a disobedient and obstinate people."[l]

Again, talking about the natural children (am still not seeing where Christians say that Paul is talking about a redefined Israel). Its dangerous to cherry pick one verse and make it the foundation of your belief system. Paul gives a very important piece of advice as it pertains to the Gentile nations, and as it is described in the Tanakh. Its amazing when we read this in context and reference the New International Version of the Bible how much Paul is teaching from the Tanakh. He cites Leviticus 18:5, one of the most important passages for both Jew and Christian to understand - 5 Keep my decrees and laws, for the man who obeys them will live by them. I am the LORD. He cites the Deuteronomy passages that I cite. He goes into Isaiah 28:16. 16 So this is what the Sovereign LORD says: "See, I lay a stone in Zion, a tested stone, a precious cornerstone for a sure foundation; the one who trusts will never be dismayed. The cornerstone is the Messiah. The foundation is Israel! So without Israel, we don't have a foundation (something I came to find on a practical level). Lets go further with Paul's teachings from the Tanakh. That is mentioned in Romans 10:11, the verse right before he says that Jew and Gentile are no different in spirit. Interesting he would utilize Isaiah 28:16 if he were trying to get rid of the covenant with Israel in this very place. It makes no sense. Paul concludes with Isaiah 65. Lets take a look at the entire context of the passage he is laying claims to here - 1 "I revealed myself to those who did not ask for me; I was found by those who did not seek me. To a nation that did not call on my name, I said, 'Here am I, here am I.'
2 All day long I have held out my hands to an obstinate people, who walk in ways not good, pursuing their own imaginations-
3 a people who continually provoke me to my very face, offering sacrifices in gardens and burning incense on altars of brick;
4 who sit among the graves and spend their nights keeping secret vigil; who eat the flesh of pigs, and whose pots hold broth of unclean meat;
5 who say, 'Keep away; don't come near me, for I am too sacred for you!' Such people are smoke in my nostrils, a fire that keeps burning all day.
6 "See, it stands written before me: I will not keep silent but will pay back in full; I will pay it back into their laps-
7 both your sins and the sins of your fathers," says the LORD. "Because they burned sacrifices on the mountains and defied me on the hills, I will measure into their laps the full payment for their former deeds."
8 This is what the LORD says: "As when juice is still found in a cluster of grapes and men say, 'Don't destroy it, there is yet some good in it,' so will I do in behalf of my servants; I will not destroy them all.
9 I will bring forth descendants from Jacob, and from Judah those who will possess my mountains; my chosen people will inherit them, and there will my servants live.
10 Sharon will become a pasture for flocks, and the Valley of Achor a resting place for herds, for my people who seek me.

He won't destroy Israel. He will restore his servants, and punish those who fall away. But nowhere does it say he will destroy.

Lets keep going, because the next 2 verses will be the most crucial in understanding this passage.

1I ask then: Did God reject his people? By no means! I am an Israelite myself, a descendant of Abraham, from the tribe of Benjamin. 2God did not reject his people, whom he foreknew. Don't you know what the Scripture says in the passage about Elijah—how he appealed to God against Israel: 3"Lord, they have killed your prophets and torn down your altars; I am the only one left, and they are trying to kill me"[a]? 4And what was God's answer to him? "I have reserved for myself seven thousand who have not bowed the knee to Baal."[b] 5So too, at the present time there is a remnant chosen by grace.

WHERE DOES IT SAY THAT GOD HAS REPLACED ISRAEL WITH THE GENTILES?

Nowhere, he never did. God has never rejected his people. He always keeps a remnant because he loves the people of Israel.

The next verse is another abused passage by Christians.

6And if by grace, then it is no longer by works; if it were, grace would no longer be grace.[c]
7What then? What Israel sought so earnestly it did not obtain, but the elect did. The others were hardened, 8as it is written:

WHOSE GRACE? It is by God's grace that he preserves the Israelites, not by legalistic works (Shma my Jewish viewers). This again refers to physical Israel.

"God gave them a spirit of stupor, eyes so that they could not see and ears so that they could not hear, to this very day."[d] 9And David says: "May their table become a snare and a trap, a stumbling block and a retribution for them. 10May their eyes be darkened so they cannot see, and their backs be bent forever."[e]

More of the Tanakh being referenced here. Much like the rest of the passages Psalm 69:23-24 states "23 May their eyes be darkened so they cannot see, and their backs be bent forever.
24 Pour out your wrath on them; let your fierce anger overtake them." It infers a punishment to those who are disobedient within these passages. It does not infer all of Israel.

The other excerpt is from Isaiah 29:10. This is in reference to those who oppose Israel. It is important for those who read these chapters written by Paul to go back and look over all of the information that he cites from the Tanakh before drawing unwarranted conclusions.

11Again I ask: Did they stumble so as to fall beyond recovery? Not at all! Rather, because of their transgression, salvation has come to the Gentiles to make Israel envious.

Romans 11:11-12 is very important. He reiterates, has Israel, that is physical Israel stumble to the point of no return? The reply of Paul says, "Not at all." Because of their iniquitiy, salvation has come to the Gentiles to make Israel envious. That right here is a description of what the Christian church is supposed to be doing under the covenant of Israel (not their own manmade doctrine). Let me explain this a bit further so that one can understand the fullness of what is going on. All of the feast days, and sabbaths are commandments that last forever according to God. Dr. Michael Brown is one of the top 5 scholars in Hebrewic studies, and he defines every place in reference to where God utilizes Le'olam to mean forever. When you see "for the generations to come" mentioned in the Bible, or a "lasting ordinance" or "an everlasting covenant" something like this mentioned, it means forever. It is not an opinion, but a commandment of God. Later in Romans 11, we're going to spot a point that Paul even agrees with this claim. If we return to following these commandments, and the Jews today see the Gentile world follow the commandments while also following Yeshua, then we will see the day that the entire nation of Israel will say "Blessed is he that comes in the name of the Lord" "Baruch hasem Adonai!" Matthew 23 says that when this happens, Yeshua will come back to the Earth in the clouds! This message sent out to the Gentiles, is what I am called to teach you. It is some kind of wonder that the Jews have been kept away from a Jewish Messiah following Jewish practices for as long as they have. You have heard it taught that Jews believe Jesus was merely a teacher. Well they do but this is because they follow more the text of Shemtov Matthew because it is a text written from the Spanish Inquisition by the Jews in rebellion against the Catholic church! There was a political motive underlying it. Most Christians don't understand a thing about this document. Unbeknownst to the Jews during the time period, the Catholic church was utilizing Jewish writings, and it should have been made more clear to the Jews by Shemtov that this was what was going on, there was an abuse of scripture. But Shemtov was an Orthodox Jew who did not have this political intention at all, so given his hatred of what the Christian church was doing during the time period, it was only natural that he would write something that was to oppose Christian teaches, up to and even including the Messianic teaching about Yeshua Ha Mashiach. Do you see where the division comes into play?!! Most of the fault lies on the shoulders of the Christian world, and it is their responsibility to fix this.

12But if their transgression means riches for the world, and their loss means riches for the Gentiles, how much greater riches will their fullness bring!
13I am talking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch as I am the apostle to the Gentiles, I make much of my ministry 14in the hope that I may somehow arouse my own people to envy and save some of them.

Paul is saying that because he is ministering to Gentiles, that he is going to teach Gentiles how to provoke the Jews to jealousy. We can obviously see what he's doing through his teachings. He's teaching the Gentiles the Tanakh, so that they can follow it and show them how to follow the Torah out of love (see Deuteronomy 6:4-5). Also of importance, he distinguishes the Gentiles from Israel from verse 13.

15For if their rejection is the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead? 16If the part of the dough offered as firstfruits is holy, then the whole batch is holy; if the root is holy, so are the branches.

Paul is talking about the root and he is referencing the root of the olive tree. The olive tree is described in the Tanakh as being the nation of Israel. The branches are called holy here. And these branches are also of Israel.

Next will be very important to understand. "17If some of the branches have been broken off, and you, though a wild olive shoot, have been grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing sap from the olive root, 18do not boast over those branches. If you do, consider this: You do not support the root, but the root supports you." Here it talks about what has happened with the Gentiles. The Gentiles are not at the foundation. They are referred to as a "wild olive branch" grafted into the covenant. Now the nature of how they are grafted in must be taken into account. Are they grafted in "instead" of the other branches, or are they grafted in "among" the other branches? It is because of the other branches that they can be grafted into the covenant in the first place. They are grafted in among them. And those who are grafted in among them should not boast over them, because it is the root that supports them. 19You will say then, "Branches were broken off so that I could be grafted in." 20Granted. But they were broken off because of unbelief, and you stand by faith. Do not be arrogant, but be afraid. 21For if God did not spare the natural branches, he will not spare you either."

So yes you are grafted in Gentiles. But you are not to stand in arrogance over the natural branches, because its illogical to do so. If God did not spare the natural branches, he will not spare the wild ones coming into the covenant. Again, the emphasis is put on the natural branches, not the wild branches.

22Consider therefore the kindness and sternness of God: sternness to those who fell, but kindness to you, provided that you continue in his kindness. Otherwise, you also will be cut off. 23And if they do not persist in unbelief, they will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again. 24After all, if you were cut out of an olive tree that is wild by nature, and contrary to nature were grafted into a cultivated olive tree, how much more readily will these, the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree!

Again, we see the reference ultimately being to the olive tree that I was mentioning, regarding the roots which are supported by God. It once again distinguishes between the olive tree of Israel and the wild branches that are grafted into the covenant. The natural branches again refer to Israel. If the unbelieving branches come back into their own olive tree, they will surely hold precedence over the wild branches in God's eyes only because they are a part of the sustaining root of the natural covenant of God. This is why Jesus puts so much emphasis on his people returning to him in Matthew 23. Its all prophetic.


25I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers, so that you may not be conceited: Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in. 26And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written: "The deliverer will come from Zion; he will turn godlessness away from Jacob. 27And this is[f] my covenant with them when I take away their sins."[g]

Some have tried to use this as an explanation to state that Israel is not the centerfold of the covenant of God. This is because 25 is usually taken out of context. ALL ISRAEL WILL BE SAVED. You can join us for the ride, or we will leave you behind, but our mission proceeds forward.

28As far as the gospel is concerned, they are enemies on your account; but as far as election is concerned, they are loved on account of the patriarchs, 29for God's gifts and his call are irrevocable.

Stop right here. Do you remember when I made the statement that God's covenants are forever? Here Paul is laying the very same claim down. God's gifts and his calling are irrevocable. God's call has been with the nation of Israel from the very beginning. So if that be the case, he can not thus go against this calling. God wants the Gentiles to follow the Torah when they are engrafted, not do away with it. Paul lays claims to the very same statement that Yeshua makes in Matthew 5:17-20.

30Just as you who were at one time disobedient to God have now received mercy as a result of their disobedience, 31so they too have now become disobedient in order that they too may now[h] receive mercy as a result of God's mercy to you. 32For God has bound all men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all.

I have seen someone try to utilize these verses to lay claim that this verse concludes that the church has overtaken the covenant of God.

In context however, this can not be shown. From a Yashanet article - The gentiles at Rome were benefiting from the "unbelief" of these Jews, yet (as we will see), condemning them because they (the gentiles) did not see God's unfathomable ways (re: verse 33). Both the Jewish disobedience and God's mercy are in present tense. Mercy is shown to the Jews through gentile inclusion in the faith of Israel. The present stumbling of these Jews is a blessing, not a curse (in God's deep wisdom) as it brings salvation to gentiles and provokes unbelieving Israel to reconsider.
http://www.yashanet.com/studies/romstudy/text11a.htm
This would also be an incorrect interpretation because Paul would have contradicted himself in verses 28 and 29. We are saved from this contradiction since the Jewish disobedience and God's mercy are both in present tense. Because of this it does not follow that this relationship will be so forever or in the future. So we know what it is not talking about, and that is the actual covenantal relationship with God. So one can not use these verses to lay claim to an eternal curse to the Jew, or even the church being at the centerfold of the covenant. It will not be a Christian church, or a Messianic synagogue that God comes back for. It will be the body of Messiah, which includes a Jewish belief system through the covenant of Israel. Welcome, doers of the Torah, to the ministry that God has called you to.

In the love of Yeshua Ha Mashiach,

hamashiachagape

Thursday, June 24, 2010

Teaching on the early church fathers

In the coming days we will be going over the teachings of the early church fathers and the Epistle of Barnabas. We are sure to find some interesting information in regards to their temperament. We will start with Ignatius, and proceed from there to some of my who used to be my favorite church fathers, such as Augustine (I used to be a Neo-Platonist).

Tuesday, June 22, 2010

An intellectually honest critique of the Muslim faith

Many people have heard a variety of different stories concerning the Muslim faith. We have heard a lot of emotional arguments and reasons to not follow the Quran and have seen various actions of violence from members of Islam. However, today I want to take a strictly intellectually honest view at the Muslim faith. We will evaluate it and critique it honestly and see how much merit it holds. We will proceed by looking at the source of the Muslim faith, the Quran.
Let us start out with with looking at different Suras within the Muslim faith. The first Sura we shall look at is Sura 26:192-195 which states, "This is a revelation from the Lord of the universe. The Honest Spirit (Gabriel) came down with it, to reveal it into your heart that you may be one of the warners, in a perfect Arabic tongue" (Sura 26:192-195) Interesting here we see what is believed about the Quran and how it originated. However, the Honest Spirit may have been a demon as Muhammad believed he was being possessed during the time he was receiving the revelation he claimed. We shall proceed with what the Quran states about its authority. "Say, 'Anyone who opposes Gabriel should know that he has brought down this (the Qur'an) into your heart, in accordance with God's will, confirming previous scriptures, and providing guidance and good news for the believers'" (Sura 2:97). What this claims is that we have to confirm the previous scriptures in order to conform to God's will. These are also defined in the Suras. Sura 4:163; 5:44-48 define these previous scriptures as being the Torah, the Psalms of David and the Gospels of Yeshua. Sura 4:163-164 - Indeed, We have revealed to you, [O Muhammad], as We revealed to Noah and the prophets after him. And we revealed to Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, Jacob, the Descendants, Jesus, Job, Jonah, Aaron, and Solomon, and to David We gave the book [of Psalms].And [We sent] messengers about whom We have related [their stories] to you before and messengers about whom We have not related to you. And Allah spoke to Moses with [direct] speech. Sura 5:44-48 declares "Indeed, We sent down the Torah, in which was guidance and light. The prophets who submitted [to Allah ] judged by it for the Jews, as did the rabbis and scholars by that with which they were entrusted of the Scripture of Allah , and they were witnesses thereto. So do not fear the people but fear Me, and do not exchange My verses for a small price. And whoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed - then it is those who are the disbelievers. And We ordained for them therein a life for a life, an eye for an eye, a nose for a nose, an ear for an ear, a tooth for a tooth, and for wounds is legal retribution. But whoever gives [up his right as] charity, it is an expiation for him. And whoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed - then it is those who are the wrongdoers.And We sent, following in their footsteps, Jesus, the son of Mary, confirming that which came before him in the Torah; and We gave him the Gospel, in which was guidance and light and confirming that which preceded it of the Torah as guidance and instruction for the righteous.And let the People of the Gospel judge by what Allah has revealed therein. And whoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed - then it is those who are the defiantly disobedient. And We have revealed to you, [O Muhammad], the Book in truth, confirming that which preceded it of the Scripture and as a criterion over it. So judge between them by what Allah has revealed and do not follow their inclinations away from what has come to you of the truth. To each of you We prescribed a law and a method. Had Allah willed, He would have made you one nation [united in religion], but [He intended] to test you in what He has given you; so race to [all that is] good. To Allah is your return all together, and He will [then] inform you concerning that over which you used to differ."

Where do we especially have a problem? Sura 10:94 is a foundational problem when honestly investigating the truth of the Muslim faith. ""If you have any doubt regarding what is revealed to you from your Lord, then ask those who read the previous scripture" (Sura 10:94). What this tells us is that we have to test the Quran against the previous scriptures as previously defined. Heres where we run into problems. According to Sura 4:171 and 9:30 the Quran does not identify Yeshua as the Son of God, and condemns the title from being used. We see in the actual Gospels of Yeshua that the Son of God title was used quite frequently, and was even affirmed by Yeshua himself in Matthew 16:16-17. Foundationally there is a problem here. Yeshua's deity is denied in Sura 5:17, 75. There are frequent passages in the Gospel accounts that refer to Yeshua deity, including his own admission in John 10:30. Further his pre existence is denied in Sura 3:59-60. Based off of both Tanakh writings and the Gospel writings, it is affirmed that the Messiah, Yeshua, was preexistent. Also further problematic, the Koran states that Ishmael is the child of promise in the Suras. If we go back to the Torah, it is stated that Isaac is the child of promise. This source comes from Sura 19:54 and we need compare Sura 37:83-109 with Genesis 22:1-19. God had promised the child of promise to come through Sarah, and not Haggar. So based off of this information, we have ample evidence to state that the Quran is self refuting and is not founded on truth. It does not confirm the scriptures as it proclaims to do within its own text.

Monday, June 21, 2010

Romans 14 in Context

I would like to first declare that there will be some information taken from the resource at http://www.yashanet.com/studies/romstudy/text14.htm as I believe this is probably a better job with the text from Romans 14 that I could ever provide. So I guess I should get started with Romans 14 as it should be taken in context. Many people will observe that Romans 14 is a chapter that does away with any need for the Shabbat observance or the kosher dietary law. What I am going to proceed to do before I jump into the detail is copy out Romans 14.

Romans 14
1Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters.
Interesting to point out here, where has either Shabbat or Kosher law ever been a disputable matter? In the Tanakh it is made very clear that the Shabbat is to be followed, and food is even defined in Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14. Pig is described as disgusting in the book of Isaiah, so we see this carried forward. And in 1 Timothy 4:3 it states "3They forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth." What did God create to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe? We will direct your attention back to Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14, where it devotes 2 chapters of the Torah to describing and goes into extensive detail. We thus know that the kosher law, part of the Torah is not a disputable matter. It has already been settled. We proceed.


2One man's faith allows him to eat everything, but another man, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables.

At Yashanet, it is stated that those whose faith is weak is actually describing the Talmudic Jews. Essentially in the oral tradition it makes the claim that Jews should not dine with Gentiles. So basically the problem we have addressed is that Paul is making the claim that the Talmudic Jews should be able to eat the meat served by Gentiles, so long as its kosher. Refer back to 1 Timothy 4:3, to show that Paul teaches that God has only allowed certain foods to be cleaned, and he teaches this to the Gentiles. I believe this is referring to something else however. I think another interesting thing to mention is that if this were talking about vegetables, it refers to those who are vegetarians as weak. Thus it would appear that it is describing those who do not eat of the passover lamb as weak if it were to relate to kosher law. Likely however given the context of verse 1 and what the Talmud states about dining with Gentiles, it is a direct reference to the Talmud.

3The man who eats everything must not look down on him who does not, and the man who does not eat everything must not condemn the man who does, for God has accepted him. 4Who are you to judge someone else's servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.

It appears this is talking to a group of those people who are Gentiles and have accepted Yeshua based on teachings from Romans 9-11. Thus it goes further to demonstrate that these believers are not strictly Gentile pagans, but rather new believers to the faith. In context of this light, it appears that the man whose faith is weak is those who follow God's commands, but not God. Thus we have the Halakah Jews here. The Halakah Jews as I will refer to them as are those Jews who follow the kosher diet in the first place. Thus its safe to say that when he is talking about eating, he is referring to food defined in Leviticus 11 in the first place. It is simply again the halakah issue of following the belief that Jews should not eat with Gentiles that is at risk here, since that would be a disputable matter or opinion based. While it appears that God has accepted him and we should not pass judgment utilizing our own opinions on this matter, it nowhere states that we should not utilize what God states in regards to the obedience factor. Paul will later lay claim to what is required to be in obedience to God's word. But in regards to what man has to say, he is stating it does not matter because we are not a slave to the oral traditions of man. Again, while he has been accepted by God, whether or not he's following God's word is another matter.

5One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind.

This verse is often taken by Christians to mean that whatever day is meant to be holy should be followed in regards to when they should celebrate holidays, and thus since the "holy" days of God don't mean anything to them, they should do away with them. Again, we go back to whether or not this is a disputable matter. Its funny though that Paul praises doers of the Torah in Romans 2 and this conclusion can be come to. In fact Paul never addresses the days held to be holy by God in a negative light. The question becomes, what is Paul talking about here? Actually the resource above agrees with my conclusions. Its likely this passage has to do with Halakah following Jews drawing issue to which days they should eat with the Gentiles because of the fact that they didn't know which days the market held food not sacrificed to idols. Paul proceeds further from this conclusion. Romans 3:28-31 refutes a need for this to have anything to do with the Shabbat observance, also Romans 7:12, and Romans 11:28-29.

6He who regards one day as special, does so to the Lord. He who eats meat, eats to the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who abstains, does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God. 7For none of us lives to himself alone and none of us dies to himself alone. 8If we live, we live to the Lord; and if we die, we die to the Lord. So, whether we live or die, we belong to the Lord.

Up unto this point, we see that Paul reiterates his point that the God of the Jews is the God of the Gentiles and that we are one under God. Essentially, that viewpoint is stated again and again in Numbers 9:14 and also Numbers 15:13-16. So its a verse that applies to both Jew and Gentile even from the Torah.

9For this very reason, Christ died and returned to life so that he might be the Lord of both the dead and the living. 10You, then, why do you judge your brother? Or why do you look down on your brother? For we will all stand before God's judgment seat.

11It is written: " 'As surely as I live,' says the Lord, 'every knee will bow before me; every tongue will confess to God.' "[a] 12So then, each of us will give an account of himself to God.
13Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in your brother's way.

Again much of this stuff is reiterated from the Torah. We will have to answer to everything that we have done in the past. So we don't deviate from the Torah. Also its interesting that we can confirm that Paul is talking about those engrafted into the olive tree by stating that one should not put an obstacle or a block in their brother's way. So basically, we will all give an account as to what we eat even. The whole concept of putting a stumbling block in front of your brother goes back to the Torah in Leviticus 19:14 - 14 " 'Do not curse the deaf or put a stumbling block in front of the blind, but fear your God. I am the LORD. And one stumbling block that could be put in front of a brother is to teach against what Yeshua says in Matthew 5:17-20. So since this is the case, a stumbling block would also be defined as not following the parts of Torah in Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14. Thus this refers to nothing regarding the kosher diets.

14As one who is in the Lord Jesus, I am fully convinced that no food[b] is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for him it is unclean.

We finally get to the meat of what Paul is talking about here. He defines the very thing that he has been alleged to be talking about is that the matter is of whether something is food or not. The same mistake is made in 1 Corinthians 8-10. Again, the point to be made is that the food is unclean if it is not kosher. Paul never takes this away from his writing, as again, it is referring to matters of opinion. Thus this is made very clear. God's law is not a matter of opinion, and it never has been made so by him. Anything not defined to be food from the Torah is not something that Paul condones eating.

15If your brother is distressed because of what you eat, you are no longer acting in love. Do not by your eating destroy your brother for whom Christ died. 16Do not allow what you consider good to be spoken of as evil.

If any interpretation can be thought of here, it is that eating can destroy someone who is trying to follow Yeshua and that we should not allow a brother to fall based off of what someone eats. Romans 6 teaches Gentiles to follow the Torah, as does Romans 3:8 and Romans 12. These verses and chapters are shared with the source above. Its important to realize that Paul is at this point calling those who are Jews and those who are Gentiles following the Torah as brothers in Messiah.

17For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit,

It would follow since the Torah is described as being righteous in Romans 7:12 that the matter is not referring to observance of the actual act of eating and drinking, but following and having the intention of being righteous to God by following his Torah out of love.


18because anyone who serves Christ in this way is pleasing to God and approved by men.

And in order to serve Yeshua, we must keep his commandments. Torah is included here.

19Let us therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification. 20Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All food is clean, but it is wrong for a man to eat anything that causes someone else to stumble. 21It is better not to eat meat or drink wine or to do anything else that will cause your brother to fall.
22So whatever you believe about these things keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the man who does not condemn himself by what he approves. 23But the man who has doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and everything that does not come from faith is sin.

The interesting point to be made concerning verse 19 is that it follows with the teaching of Hillel. "Be disciples of Aaron, loving peace and pursuing peace, loving people, and drawing them near to the Torah. " Talmud, Avot 1:12. This comes directly from the school of Hillel. He is teaching them to follow the Torah as indicative of the language he utilizes in the Bible. Again, all food is clean, but food is defined as by Paul who is a Jew as that in conformity to God's word. A part of peace is love and a part of love is following the commandments of God. So it is best that people not eat meat or drink any wine that will cause those who follow Yeshua to fall. We should teach our brothers in essence to follow kosher law.

Basically there is nothing in this chapter that teaches against following the Shabbat, the festivals of God nor kosher law. If we go back to Colossians 2, the only issue at hand is the human traditions of mankind. That is the halakah, the dogma. There is no reason to follow suit with the idea that the Torah has been done away with. The final part of Romans 14 makes a similar claim. Essentially what is done regarding kosher law is to be kept between mankind and God, not the rabbis. We should not condemn ourselves by following the Torah according to how man describes it to be followed. Thus it follows that Paul teaches this chapter in accord with how mankind should follow the Torah.

What does Paul mean when he says "Under the Law" and "Works of the Law" ?

This is an interesting question because what is commonly taught within Christian circles is that because of Romans 6:14, and various other sections, such as Galatians 2:21 is that the Torah is either weakened or not necessary to follow. Before we begin though, we have to hear what Peter states about Paul's writings. He declares " “His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction. Therefore, dear friends, since you already know this, be on your guard so that you may not be carried away by the error of lawless men and fall from your secure position” (2Pet.3:16f). This is important because this is what I am trying to demonstrate within my writings. I wish for Christians and Jews alike to keep this words in the back of their minds. It is a dangerous thing to hear someone who is telling us not to follow the Torah based off of what Paul states. I will show you why Paul's letters are indeed hard to understand, and even harder for those who do not wish to understand Jewish context of scripture. Peter goes on to declare that lawless (torahless) men are in error. Lets take this scripture in Romans 6:14 and Galatians 2:21 and read it for what it means. If we read Romans 6:14 it says - 14For sin shall not be your master, because you are not under law, but under grace. Galatians 2:21 also reads - "21I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!"[a] Galatians 2:16 is referencing the same exact concept "16know that a man is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by observing the law, because by observing the law no one will be justified." Again though it follows suit that "through the law" or "by works of the law" and "under the law" are commonly utilized phraseology. Most people do not actually realize how commonly utilized it was, and how nonsurprising the information would be to someone hearing this and not actually think that the Torah was being communicated. This was commonly utilized and most people do not realize this. It also saves Paul from sounding like a schizophrenic person when we understand this. In Romans 7:12 for instance it states that the Torah is righteous. So following the Torah leads to righteousness. So what on Earth is Paul trying to tell us here? I believe a lot of this problem can be figured out by utilizing the interpretation given to the text by David Stern. We'll get to this a bit later. First of all, who is at fault here? It is the foundation of where most Christians get their information from. It is being taught in our churches that when Rav Shaul or Paul actually utilizes these phrases erga nomou and upo nomon as it is stated in the Greek it means the Torah. Where is the problem with all of this? The problem is that most Christians don't understand Greek. Furthermore, they don't understand what the Dead Sea Scrolls state. It is not taught in the churches what the Pharisees state according to the Dead Sea Scrolls under the Qumran community. And it becomes a significant fault because these are foundational structures for interpreting the Bible, the very ones that are utilized by scholars. So we see a problem here for those who need to understand the Jewish community and the language of Greek which is utilized by Christians when interpreting the Bible. A translator of the Bible David Stern is able to fix this problem by looking at the text and referring to erga nomou and upo nomo as legalistic observance of the Torah, which by definition would lead us to believe it is the Talmud that is being referred to in Romans 6:14 and Galatians 2:21. So lets go back to Paul's background. What do we know of Paul? That he was a Pharisee originally making a transition into a Jewish background that did away with the oral tradition, also known as the Messianic movement in today's environment. We have to understand the dead sea scrolls so lets go back a bit. How far do these terms "works of the Torah" and "under Torah" predate Paul? Most Christians would be absolutely floored that this terminology was utilized several hundreds of years before Paul even walked the face of the Earth. More significantly the terms are found in the Dead Sea Scrolls under "A Sectarian Manifesto 4QMMT:4Q394-399." Here it is stated " "Now, we have written to you some of the works of the Law, those which we determined would be beneficial for you and your people, because we have seen [that] you possess insight and knowledge of the Law. Understand all these things and beseech Him to set your counsel straight and keep you away from evil thoughts and the counsel of Belial. Then you shall rejoice at the end time when you find the essence of our words to be true. And it will be reckoned to you as righteousness, in that you have done what is right and good before Him, to your own benefit and to that of Israel."

Quoted from: A Sectarian Manifesto 4QMMT:4Q394-399. Now I want to look specifically at the time period of what is going on during these days. According to The Dead Sea Scrolls: A New Translation by Michael Wise, Martin Abegg JR. & Edward Cook p.359, 364. "Works of the law" as we can clearly see is talking about the halakah, or oral tradition, as it is distinguished from the Torah. But the fact of the matter is that the oral traditions were followed by both the Essenes and the Pharisees. We can also detect based on this an earlier version of something similar to the Talmud, if not perhaps the very Talmud itself. An excellent idea for Christians is to order books on the Dead Sea Scrolls and look through the information that we have. It is the earliest documented Tanakh that we have available today, and its also significant in that it describes and discusses some interesting material about the early Jewish community. Lets continue now. The Essene tradition is based around an ultra religious halakah system as we have just discussed. They put the Oral tradition above the work of God. They would prefer to let someone drown on Shabbat rather than actually risk doing work. And these same rules and observances are being taught by Pharisees but not to this extreme. But I need to stop here. Some may be asking, what is the connection between the Pharisees and the Essenes? Well, the Essenes as a group are unmistakeably mysterious to certain degrees. But there is a direct connection, to the point that it has even been stated by certain scholars related to the subject that the Pharisees were connected in some way to this group, perhaps as a descendency. When comparing certain ways of the Pharisees with the Essenes there are tremendous parallels. "'And when the Pharisee saw it, he marveled that he had not first washed before dinner (tou aristou). And the Lord said unto him: Now do ye Pharisees make clean the outside of the cup and the platter…Ye fools…behold all things are clean unto you (Luke 11:38-41).’
‘So they wash their whole body (apolouontai to swma) in cold water; and after this purification (agneian)…being clean (kaqaroi) they come to the refectory (to dine)…And when they have returned (from their day’s work) they sup in like manner (B. J. ii. 8. 5).’
‘After a year’s probation (the novice) is admitted to closer intercourse (proseisin eggion th diaith), and the lustral waters in which he participates have a higher degree of purity (kai kaqarwterwn twn proV agneian idatwn metalambanei, § 7).’

It is a custom to wash after it, as if polluted by it (§ 9).’
‘Racked and dislocated, burnt and crushed, and subjected to every instrument of torture…to make them eat strange food (ti twn asunhqwn)…they were not induced to submit (§ 10).’

‘Exercising themselves in…divers lustrations (diaforoiV agneiaiV...empaidotriboumenoi, § 12).’

The only difference we see really in this language is that within the Dead Sea Scroll language, the Essenes as I have laid claims to, take the tradition to an entirely different level. The Pharisees did hold the halakah to be equal to the Torah. We know that Paul was taught by one of the greatest teachers, Gamaliel, from the school of Hillel. So we know that the terminology when we compare the Aramaic documents with the Greek documents, and go back to the Aramaic sister language of Hebrew that what Paul is talking about is the Talmud, which is now written down. So what is really going on here is that Paul is approaching Gentiles who basically want to tell this guy to bug off. Pharisees were completely opposed to being associated with any sort of "alien"/Gentile. The Halakah thus was a dividing wall of enmity between Jews and Gentiles and often taught Jews to treat Gentiles as less than human beings. Do you not think that the Gentiles had never heard of Paul? One of the understudies to the most popular Talmudic (or halakah)teachers of the time period? So the Gentiles understand where Paul is coming from. He is a Pharisee in their eyes. He is going around telling the Gentiles that he is supposed to be leading them to the Messiah. And how do you think he would have been received by the Gentile nations? Not well at first until he wrote these letters describing his intentions. He is telling the Gentiles that we are not under the halakah! Glory! We are to not be like those who are following the traditions and dogma of man. Its really interesting that the only actual person utilized in Christian circles to not follow the Torah can be documented SOLELY by Paul. It is mentioned nowhere else in scripture in a questionable manner. The only one who Christians teach told us to do away with the Torah can allegedly be found in Paul's writings alone! Never in James is it said to be done away. Never in John's writings, nor Luke's writings, nor Mark or Matthew's writings is this taught. In the book of Matthew is teaches to follow the Torah. And in the book of Mark it is taught that the halakah or the oral tradition should not be taught by Yeshua as well. So the next time you hear someone teaching against following the Torah, ask where the person received the information from. Likely the source will be Paul. If you get that answer, then ask that individual why they adhere to the writings of Paul, because Yeshua clearly states in Matthew 5:17-20 " 17"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven." By their reasoning and logic, Paul should not be a teacher of God, because he's not following God's instruction in Matthew 5. Make a determination as to whom you will believe, the interpretations of man, or after a more thorough background study, the correct interpretation of the Bible. Another thing that I would highly recommend readers of this blog to do is go out and find a copy of "The Complete Jewish Bible" by David Stern. Also tell others about this interpretation, because the answer to the question is that based off of material that we possess, David Stern is correct in interpreting the parts of the Bible that he interprets as the Talmud. Though his translation is not perfect, it fixes a lot of inaccuracies that can be found in most Christian Bibles, and it will give you the reader of the Bible a more clearer and solid foundation for what the intended message of the Bible really says and dictates.

Remember these words by Paul next time you wish to not follow the Torah.

"Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate , deceit, malignity; whisperers, Backbiters, haters of Elohim, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, Without understanding, covenant breakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them." Romans 1:29-32