I list Marcion as a heretic for one specific reason. He denies the divinity of Yeshua. And his entire theology is built upon doing this very thing. I find it quite ironic that if you look up the word "catholic" it means universal. While Marcion was considered a Catholic bishop, he apparently was not "catholic" enough to stay within the Catholic church. Hence I see "God's holy church" as having a contradiction. But lets go back to Marcion. I believe it is necessary to cover this gentleman as a church father in a sense, because his worked is often revered as necessary by Christians today, even though most claim to not subscribe to it. And of course, his theology has been quite influential in the movements of Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons today. We shall get to what I mean.
Marcion of Sinope the bishop has been described as being a heretic in regards to the Christian background. Marcion in like fashion was consecrated as an early church bishop. Its often ironic that I see Christians divide the Old Testament from the New Testament, so-called, because Marcion is the very one who created the two terms. His purpose for doing this was to divide God into two natures. While Clement of Alexandria places a certain Marcion around the time of Peter, this appears merely a contradiction if it were to apply to the Marcion that we are talking about. Tertullian, a more likely source for Marcion places him around the year 144 A.D.
So lets continue on. We can talk about the history of the Pope at a later time. What I want to look at right now is how the heretical doctrines espoused by Marcion are being instituted within many of our churches today. Marcion is recognized as having a huge following by Justin Martyr and other church fathers like Tertullian by the year of 150 A.D. leaving Clement as a dubious source on this issue.
Now its interesting that these are two terms that seem to be relegated by people within the church even today. By Marcion, there was a God of the Old Testament, who relegated his people to the status of following the Torah and was an issuer of legalistic reciprocal justice, and then there was "our Heavenly Father" who is described as a universal God of love who looks upon humanity with benevolence and compassion, rather known as the God of the New Testament. Before being educated on the Bible, I had this idea of God myself. What is quite interesting is that this terminology is still being utilized in the Christian church today. Lets continue on. Marcion declares in his book "Antitheses" " "One work is sufficient for our God: He has delivered man by His supreme and most excellent goodness, which is preferable to the creation of all the locusts."[ This was viewed upon as being a reconciliation between what was thought by Marcion to be a contradiction between the God of the Old Testament and the God of the New Testament. He also believed in a docetic nature of Yeshua.
Marcion is significant in another way however. Because of this falling away and division of the Bible that we see here in order to promote his Theology that Yeshua was not divine, we get the development of the dogma within the Catholic church that was relegated up until the Protestant Reformation period. So essentially because of this falling away via man's power and necessity to control the issue of where Marcion's theology was heading, through the Catholic church, we get the beginnings of Christian halakah if you will, that which would eventually keep Jews out of the church.
We have this division between the Old Testament and New Testament even to this very day. Let me share something ironic with you however. Marcion's critics came from the very resources that utilized this division. Ireneous, Polycarp, Ephraim of Syria, Theophilus of Antioch, Philip of Gortyna, Hippolytus, Clement and Origen of Alexandria all opposed the teachings of Marcion. The irony is that they also chose not to oppose the teachings of Marcion by splitting the Bible into two halves. This motivation was a motivation shared by Marcion, which had anti-semitic overtures behind it, due to its replacement theology, which was shared by the early church. Marcion was the original founder of this fallacious belief system, often refered to today as Gnosticism. Thus there have been some which connect the Catholic church to Gnosticism.
I want to take a look at some of his viewpoints in relation to scripture now. Of course most Christians need not have a need to understand how the church viewed the diety of Yeshua. This is a non-issue even amongst the Messianic Jews for the most part. We need go no further than John 14:6 and John 10:30. But I want to see why it is impossible according to scripture to separate the Old from the New Testament if you will.
The word that is translated in Jeremiah 31:33 for "new covenant" as it is being applied to the "New Testament" in Hebrew is hadashah, and Aramaic is khawdata. 1 Sam. 11:14; 1 Chr. 15:8; 2 Chr. 24:4, 12; Job 10:17; Psalm 51:10; 103:5; 104:30; Isaiah 61:4; and Lamentations 5:21 all use the term "hadashah". The word for hadashah is the same word utilized by the Jews to refer to the "new" moon. Thus, what happens is not that there is a "new" testament, but in the context that the word is utilized a "renewed" testament. When we have a "new" moon, we don't get a brand new moon. It is merely a "renewed" moon. And the Jews rightfully translated this as "renewed" and it is even understood by us in the Western society to mean renewed, not a brand new covenant. So this separation is unwarranted, and does not even come close to matching the context of scripture.
I don't believe I need go any further with this gentleman except to ask, out of these heretical claims you have heard today, which do you believe apply to your following of Yeshua? This will be very valuable to understand and adjust when walking with Yeshua.
Saturday, July 10, 2010
Observing Galatians 3:16...
I have been looking over some information on Galatians 3:16 for purposes of clarification. But we have to observe the wording of some passages from the Bible to make a clear determination of what the Bible is saying, and what the Bible is NOT saying.
The fallacy that Christians commit when looking at Galatians 3:16 is what is known as a sweeping generalization. It can mean something in one place, but the nonsequitor becomes, that it can mean that everywhere. It can also be viewed as an unwarranted expansion of semantics. Galatians 3:16 is a commonly cited passage by the Christian audience to declare that the Jews have fulfilled their purpose, and God is done with them. Lets take a look at what it says. "16The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. The Scripture does not say "and to seeds," meaning many, but "and to your seed,"[a] meaning one, who is Yeshua." The covenants were spoken to Abraham and to Yeshua. This declares one important thing to us...that Yeshua can be the only Messiah. There are Jews who believe that there will be multiple Messiahs within our generations. How funny that we get correction regarding this from one of the most popular students of the most popular teacher, Gamaliel, from the school of Hillel So do we then go further to the conclusion that God is done with the Jewish people? No, because it is only referencing the part of the promises of scripture where this applies. As Paul declares in Romans 11:1-2, "Heaven forbid." As a matter of fact, taking into account the context, this implies only that the promises were being spoken to Abraham and the Messiah. Was the Messiah preexisting? I don't think that the Christians would be willing to disagree with this expression as it applies here. So if we go back to the Tanakh, we can see what Paul is trying to state, and what he is not trying to state about the Torah. I will have to say that this was a verse that I was hardpressed to answer for probably the past week or so, on a personal level, so it required some heavy duty research.
Lets take a look at what this is being applied to. Derek Leman, a Messianic Jew, agrees that what Paul is doing is midrashing. He declares this in his article at his blog that can be found here http://derek4messiah.wordpress.com/2007/01/29/pt-5-thoughts-from-levines-3rd-chapter/. According to the Lexicons, the word utilized by Paul may be plural (spermas). It can refer to one and many, which also ties back into the Genesis accounts. What is Paul clearly trying to do? He is telling those who are following traditional Judaism that the passages so applied to Abraham are also indicative of a singular seed, which is the Messiah. Now lets take a look at what the John Wesley commentary says on this matter. " Now the promises were made to Abraham and his seed - Several promises were made to Abraham; but the chief of all, and which was several times repeated, was that of the blessing through Christ. He - That is, God.Saith not, And to seeds, as of many - As if the promise were made to several kinds of seed. But as of one - That is, one kind of seed, one posterity, one kind of sons. And to all these the blessing belonged by promise. Which is Christ - including all that believe in him. Genesis 22:18 ." http://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/wesleys-explanatory-notes/galatians/galatians-3.html
The way Christians utilize this verse is abominable. What many, especially of the Preterist breed I have encountered, take this to mean is that the only person that all of these promises are being applied to is Yeshua. So lets take a look at this passage more clearly as we cross reference scripture. Genesis 12:7 states "7 The LORD appeared to Abram and said, "To your offspring [a] I will give this land." So he built an altar there to the LORD, who had appeared to him." Here it is referring to a singular seed. But not a singular person. The parallel is obvious, but the context forgotten by the Jewish audience that Paul is teaching to. It means both Yeshua and what was later Israel. Now to Genesis 13:15 15 All the land that you see I will give to you and your offspring [a] forever. In 15, we observe again the restatement of the passage. It is referring to Yeshua. The Hebrew word here is "ul'zer'akha" which applies to a singular.
16 I will make your offspring like the dust of the earth, so that if anyone could count the dust, then your offspring could be counted.
Here is where we run into a problem. Zera is once again utilized. But it is being applied to a plurality of people. So we can't say that it refers to just one specific individual when we get to this passage. That is a contradiction based off of the Christian interpretation.
I want to look even closer at some other passages. The usage of the words is important to grasp here.
Genesis 16:10 - And the angel of the L-rd said to her [Hagar], “I will greatly increase your seed ( , zar’ech) and they will not be counted for abundance.” Here the word for seed is being utilized in the plural sense. And this is in reference to Gentiles. As prophecied, their seed has greatly increased.
Genesis 24:60 - And they blessed Rebecca and said to her, “May you come to be thousands of myriads, and may your seed ( , zar’ech) inherit the gate of his foes.” - Again, this is referring to Jacob and Esau's children, and the nations that develop out of it. Who gets the blessing and the birthright? We can see all of this developing, especially here. Again, zar'ech, the plural, is being utilized. This is one of the promises to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. This clearly is referencing who will be established as the nation before God as well.
Lets see some further contexts that are being missed by Christians. One of the most popular that we all should know about is Abraham and Isaac. The aftermath of the event is declared in Genesis 22. Genesis 22:16-17 - 16 and said, "I swear by myself, declares the LORD, that because you have done this and have not withheld your son, your only son,That in blessing I will bless you, and in multiplying I will multiply your seed ( , zar'acha) as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea shore; and your seed ( , zar'acha) shall possess the gate of his enemies;
Here, another form of the plural of zera can be seen in the form of the word "zar'acha." This is a covenant made between God and Abraham. I have a huge problem with giving up that the promises to Abraham include more than the Messiah based off of this VERY passage. The context may only refer to a plural, so this means through Abraham's actual seeds if you will. So based off of the supersessionistic strategy, we have a contradiction as is being applied to Galatians 3:16. We have to understand the purpose of the Messiah, and the purpose of the Torah.
The purpose of the Messiah is as follows. This will not come as a huge surprise to the Christian audience either. If you accept the Messiah as your savior, you will go to heaven and inherit the land. You will be judged according to this in the book of Life. Most people want to stop here though without looking further at the judgment process. The purpose of the Torah must be remembered and is as follows. The purpose of the Torah is obedience. We follow it out of love for God first and foremost. And our works will be judged according to the book of the Law, clarified in Revelation. But not just there, as we can see in Deuteronomy 30 which states " 6 The LORD your God will circumcise your hearts and the hearts of your descendants, so that you may love him with all your heart and with all your soul, and live. 7 The LORD your God will put all these curses on your enemies who hate and persecute you. 8 You will again obey the LORD and follow all his commands I am giving you today. 9 Then the LORD your God will make you most prosperous in all the work of your hands and in the fruit of your womb, the young of your livestock and the crops of your land. The LORD will again delight in you and make you prosperous, just as he delighted in your fathers, 10 if you obey the LORD your God and keep his commands and decrees that are written in this Book of the Law and turn to the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul." I ask you to find where Paul or Yeshua has preached against this. There is a Book of the Law, that extends all the way through Revelation. Everything you do will be judged according to the Book of the Law. So the purpose of the Torah is to observe the works that are appropriate to follow. As James declares " 8If you really keep the royal law found in Scripture, "Love your neighbor as yourself,"[a] you are doing right. 9But if you show favoritism, you sin and are convicted by the law as lawbreakers. 10For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it. 11For he who said, "Do not commit adultery,"[b] also said, "Do not murder."[c] If you do not commit adultery but do commit murder, you have become a lawbreaker.
12Speak and act as those who are going to be judged by the law that gives freedom, 13because judgment without mercy will be shown to anyone who has not been merciful. Mercy triumphs over judgment!"
The Torah is not to be a burden to us. Deuteronomy 30:12-14 "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." My Jewish brethren, I encourage you to read the fullness of what the Brit Hadashah has to say. The Biblios (Tanakh and Brit Hadashah) never declares that we are to do away with the Torah. I have encouraged many of my Christian friends to show me somewhere in which another talmidim besides Paul teaches against the Torah. Not surprisingly, nothing has turned up (and we have even observed why it merely appears that Paul teaches against the Torah). My Christian friends, I encourage you to see how easy the Torah is to follow, and apply it to your lives. It is not as difficult as you might think.
Thus we can conclude based off of this information alone, that Galatians 3:16 is not referencing what supersessionists believe it to be referencing. Replacement of Israel never occurs.
To anyone further who wishes to declare that Galatians is where the Torah is abolished, lets take a look at that.
Galatians 3:17-21 states "17What I mean is this: The law, introduced 430 years later, does not set aside the covenant previously established by God and thus do away with the promise. 18For if the inheritance depends on the law, then it no longer depends on a promise; but God in his grace gave it to Abraham through a promise.
19What, then, was the purpose of the law? It was added because of transgressions until the Seed to whom the promise referred had come. The law was put into effect through angels by a mediator. 20A mediator, however, does not represent just one party; but God is one.
21Is the law, therefore, opposed to the promises of God? Absolutely not!"
Right here, we may stop because this is exactly what we in the Messianic community believe. The passage in Galatians 3:16 is referencing the inheritance of the land, and how one may inherit the land. One must follow and accept the promise that God gave in relevance to it, which is Yeshua. But does this mean that the Torah sets aside this covenant? Absolutely not. And does this mean that the Torah is opposed to the covenants made by God (that being any and all of them)? Absolutely not! Paul's clarification states that through the covenant was given the Torah, and that the Torah is not opposed to the promises of God.
This is clearly merely a midrash. As we clarified through the Greek and through Scripture, this can not be clarified in the sense that it is describing one person. The references that Paul is talking about clearly define more than one person in the sense that it is describing. And this is why we must avoid cherry picking from the Bible, but rather understand it fully in its context.
The fallacy that Christians commit when looking at Galatians 3:16 is what is known as a sweeping generalization. It can mean something in one place, but the nonsequitor becomes, that it can mean that everywhere. It can also be viewed as an unwarranted expansion of semantics. Galatians 3:16 is a commonly cited passage by the Christian audience to declare that the Jews have fulfilled their purpose, and God is done with them. Lets take a look at what it says. "16The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. The Scripture does not say "and to seeds," meaning many, but "and to your seed,"[a] meaning one, who is Yeshua." The covenants were spoken to Abraham and to Yeshua. This declares one important thing to us...that Yeshua can be the only Messiah. There are Jews who believe that there will be multiple Messiahs within our generations. How funny that we get correction regarding this from one of the most popular students of the most popular teacher, Gamaliel, from the school of Hillel So do we then go further to the conclusion that God is done with the Jewish people? No, because it is only referencing the part of the promises of scripture where this applies. As Paul declares in Romans 11:1-2, "Heaven forbid." As a matter of fact, taking into account the context, this implies only that the promises were being spoken to Abraham and the Messiah. Was the Messiah preexisting? I don't think that the Christians would be willing to disagree with this expression as it applies here. So if we go back to the Tanakh, we can see what Paul is trying to state, and what he is not trying to state about the Torah. I will have to say that this was a verse that I was hardpressed to answer for probably the past week or so, on a personal level, so it required some heavy duty research.
Lets take a look at what this is being applied to. Derek Leman, a Messianic Jew, agrees that what Paul is doing is midrashing. He declares this in his article at his blog that can be found here http://derek4messiah.wordpress.com/2007/01/29/pt-5-thoughts-from-levines-3rd-chapter/. According to the Lexicons, the word utilized by Paul may be plural (spermas). It can refer to one and many, which also ties back into the Genesis accounts. What is Paul clearly trying to do? He is telling those who are following traditional Judaism that the passages so applied to Abraham are also indicative of a singular seed, which is the Messiah. Now lets take a look at what the John Wesley commentary says on this matter. " Now the promises were made to Abraham and his seed - Several promises were made to Abraham; but the chief of all, and which was several times repeated, was that of the blessing through Christ. He - That is, God.Saith not, And to seeds, as of many - As if the promise were made to several kinds of seed. But as of one - That is, one kind of seed, one posterity, one kind of sons. And to all these the blessing belonged by promise. Which is Christ - including all that believe in him. Genesis 22:18 ." http://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/wesleys-explanatory-notes/galatians/galatians-3.html
The way Christians utilize this verse is abominable. What many, especially of the Preterist breed I have encountered, take this to mean is that the only person that all of these promises are being applied to is Yeshua. So lets take a look at this passage more clearly as we cross reference scripture. Genesis 12:7 states "7 The LORD appeared to Abram and said, "To your offspring [a] I will give this land." So he built an altar there to the LORD, who had appeared to him." Here it is referring to a singular seed. But not a singular person. The parallel is obvious, but the context forgotten by the Jewish audience that Paul is teaching to. It means both Yeshua and what was later Israel. Now to Genesis 13:15 15 All the land that you see I will give to you and your offspring [a] forever. In 15, we observe again the restatement of the passage. It is referring to Yeshua. The Hebrew word here is "ul'zer'akha" which applies to a singular.
16 I will make your offspring like the dust of the earth, so that if anyone could count the dust, then your offspring could be counted.
Here is where we run into a problem. Zera is once again utilized. But it is being applied to a plurality of people. So we can't say that it refers to just one specific individual when we get to this passage. That is a contradiction based off of the Christian interpretation.
I want to look even closer at some other passages. The usage of the words is important to grasp here.
Genesis 16:10 - And the angel of the L-rd said to her [Hagar], “I will greatly increase your seed ( , zar’ech) and they will not be counted for abundance.” Here the word for seed is being utilized in the plural sense. And this is in reference to Gentiles. As prophecied, their seed has greatly increased.
Genesis 24:60 - And they blessed Rebecca and said to her, “May you come to be thousands of myriads, and may your seed ( , zar’ech) inherit the gate of his foes.” - Again, this is referring to Jacob and Esau's children, and the nations that develop out of it. Who gets the blessing and the birthright? We can see all of this developing, especially here. Again, zar'ech, the plural, is being utilized. This is one of the promises to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. This clearly is referencing who will be established as the nation before God as well.
Lets see some further contexts that are being missed by Christians. One of the most popular that we all should know about is Abraham and Isaac. The aftermath of the event is declared in Genesis 22. Genesis 22:16-17 - 16 and said, "I swear by myself, declares the LORD, that because you have done this and have not withheld your son, your only son,That in blessing I will bless you, and in multiplying I will multiply your seed ( , zar'acha) as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea shore; and your seed ( , zar'acha) shall possess the gate of his enemies;
Here, another form of the plural of zera can be seen in the form of the word "zar'acha." This is a covenant made between God and Abraham. I have a huge problem with giving up that the promises to Abraham include more than the Messiah based off of this VERY passage. The context may only refer to a plural, so this means through Abraham's actual seeds if you will. So based off of the supersessionistic strategy, we have a contradiction as is being applied to Galatians 3:16. We have to understand the purpose of the Messiah, and the purpose of the Torah.
The purpose of the Messiah is as follows. This will not come as a huge surprise to the Christian audience either. If you accept the Messiah as your savior, you will go to heaven and inherit the land. You will be judged according to this in the book of Life. Most people want to stop here though without looking further at the judgment process. The purpose of the Torah must be remembered and is as follows. The purpose of the Torah is obedience. We follow it out of love for God first and foremost. And our works will be judged according to the book of the Law, clarified in Revelation. But not just there, as we can see in Deuteronomy 30 which states " 6 The LORD your God will circumcise your hearts and the hearts of your descendants, so that you may love him with all your heart and with all your soul, and live. 7 The LORD your God will put all these curses on your enemies who hate and persecute you. 8 You will again obey the LORD and follow all his commands I am giving you today. 9 Then the LORD your God will make you most prosperous in all the work of your hands and in the fruit of your womb, the young of your livestock and the crops of your land. The LORD will again delight in you and make you prosperous, just as he delighted in your fathers, 10 if you obey the LORD your God and keep his commands and decrees that are written in this Book of the Law and turn to the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul." I ask you to find where Paul or Yeshua has preached against this. There is a Book of the Law, that extends all the way through Revelation. Everything you do will be judged according to the Book of the Law. So the purpose of the Torah is to observe the works that are appropriate to follow. As James declares " 8If you really keep the royal law found in Scripture, "Love your neighbor as yourself,"[a] you are doing right. 9But if you show favoritism, you sin and are convicted by the law as lawbreakers. 10For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it. 11For he who said, "Do not commit adultery,"[b] also said, "Do not murder."[c] If you do not commit adultery but do commit murder, you have become a lawbreaker.
12Speak and act as those who are going to be judged by the law that gives freedom, 13because judgment without mercy will be shown to anyone who has not been merciful. Mercy triumphs over judgment!"
The Torah is not to be a burden to us. Deuteronomy 30:12-14 "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." My Jewish brethren, I encourage you to read the fullness of what the Brit Hadashah has to say. The Biblios (Tanakh and Brit Hadashah) never declares that we are to do away with the Torah. I have encouraged many of my Christian friends to show me somewhere in which another talmidim besides Paul teaches against the Torah. Not surprisingly, nothing has turned up (and we have even observed why it merely appears that Paul teaches against the Torah). My Christian friends, I encourage you to see how easy the Torah is to follow, and apply it to your lives. It is not as difficult as you might think.
Thus we can conclude based off of this information alone, that Galatians 3:16 is not referencing what supersessionists believe it to be referencing. Replacement of Israel never occurs.
To anyone further who wishes to declare that Galatians is where the Torah is abolished, lets take a look at that.
Galatians 3:17-21 states "17What I mean is this: The law, introduced 430 years later, does not set aside the covenant previously established by God and thus do away with the promise. 18For if the inheritance depends on the law, then it no longer depends on a promise; but God in his grace gave it to Abraham through a promise.
19What, then, was the purpose of the law? It was added because of transgressions until the Seed to whom the promise referred had come. The law was put into effect through angels by a mediator. 20A mediator, however, does not represent just one party; but God is one.
21Is the law, therefore, opposed to the promises of God? Absolutely not!"
Right here, we may stop because this is exactly what we in the Messianic community believe. The passage in Galatians 3:16 is referencing the inheritance of the land, and how one may inherit the land. One must follow and accept the promise that God gave in relevance to it, which is Yeshua. But does this mean that the Torah sets aside this covenant? Absolutely not. And does this mean that the Torah is opposed to the covenants made by God (that being any and all of them)? Absolutely not! Paul's clarification states that through the covenant was given the Torah, and that the Torah is not opposed to the promises of God.
This is clearly merely a midrash. As we clarified through the Greek and through Scripture, this can not be clarified in the sense that it is describing one person. The references that Paul is talking about clearly define more than one person in the sense that it is describing. And this is why we must avoid cherry picking from the Bible, but rather understand it fully in its context.
Tuesday, July 6, 2010
In the next couple of days....
We're going to be looking at more early church fathers. I will be examining Ireneous, Origen and Marcion. Our goal will be to evaluate how they did with their information as it pertains to their Biblical teaching. I don't believe this is done well enough on most Messianic sites, because most Messianic sites look solely upon how the early church fathers were anti-semitic. While there is tremendous amount of merit to this, and this teaching goes against what the Bible teaches, I have always been one to want to look at topics more deeper and thoroughly. Dr. Michael Brown does a good job, but more detail to the projects I believe is warranted. Deeper evaluation I believe will help the cause, and that is my calling on this project. We're also going to have information up on the Virgin Mary as it relates to the Bible and additionally on Calvinism. I have a few Christian friends, and some other Messianic friends who will be assisting on these two projects, and they will get their due credit as it is well deserved, and I have great gratitude for their willingness to help me out.
We're also going to take a look on the flip side, something that most are not used to hearing. We're going to look at the anti-Christian sentiment of Orthodox Jews. We will examine Bar Kochba a little bit more, and how the prayers within the Synagogue that were directed against Yeshua were hurtful, mostly to Messianic Jews, but the effect could also be extended to Christians. I hope this information will interest you.
Once again, if you feel I have erred on any piece of information, you may e-mail me at hamashiachagape@yahoo.com. I am always open to hearing comments and discussing. And I am always open to correction where it is warranted, as I am here to do my best to "present myself to God as one approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth." (2 Timothy 2:15 paraphrase).
We're also going to take a look on the flip side, something that most are not used to hearing. We're going to look at the anti-Christian sentiment of Orthodox Jews. We will examine Bar Kochba a little bit more, and how the prayers within the Synagogue that were directed against Yeshua were hurtful, mostly to Messianic Jews, but the effect could also be extended to Christians. I hope this information will interest you.
Once again, if you feel I have erred on any piece of information, you may e-mail me at hamashiachagape@yahoo.com. I am always open to hearing comments and discussing. And I am always open to correction where it is warranted, as I am here to do my best to "present myself to God as one approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth." (2 Timothy 2:15 paraphrase).
Saturday, July 3, 2010
To the Jew: Did Yeshua come at the expected time, and are we living in the Messianic era?
We've spent a lot of time looking at Christian objections to Judaism, but now I want to spend sometime "Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus." (Sorry Michael L. Brown for the pun on words). Some of this material can be found in Dr. Brown's book "Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus" volume 1 being that he answered this very objection within his book (page 70-73). Most of this will be my wording however. I want to look into the matter of whether Yeshua came at the time he was supposed to come. First of all, what does the Tanakh say? We're going to look at this first, and then, I want to look at some Talmudic tradition so that Gentiles might be able to answer what the Jews have to say on the matter, and Jews may begin to get a better grasp on where we are at. First of all, how can we know from the Tanakh that Yeshua came in the right period to be called the Messiah? Lets start with Daniel 9:25-26 "
"Know therefore and discern, that from the going forth of the word to restore and to build Jerusalem unto Mashiach, the prince, shall be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks, it shall be built again, with plaza and moat, but in times of distress." Daniel 9:25-26"
So this is discussing the decree to rebuild Israel. When is this mentioned to have occurred? The decree to rebuild Israel is mentioned in Nehemiah 2:1. Lets read it in context starting with 2:1-17 " 1And it came about in the month Nisan, (Z)in the twentieth year of King (AA)Artaxerxes, that wine was before him, and (AB)I took up the wine and gave it to the king. Now I had not been sad in his presence.
2So the king said to me, "Why is your face sad though you are not sick? (AC)This is nothing but sadness of heart." Then I was very much afraid.
3I said to the king, "(AD)Let the king live forever Why should my face not be sad (AE)when the city, the place of my fathers' tombs, lies desolate and its gates have been consumed by fire?"
4Then the king said to me, "What would you request?" (AF)So I prayed to the G-d of heaven.
5I said to the king, "If it please the king, and if your servant has found favor before you, send me to Judah, to the city of my fathers' tombs, that I may rebuild it."
6Then the king said to me, the queen sitting beside him, "How long will your journey be, and when will you return?" So it pleased the king to send me, and (AG)I gave him a definite time.
7And I said to the king, "If it please the king, let letters be given me (AH)for the governors of the provinces beyond the River, that they may allow me to pass through until I come to Judah,
8and a letter to Asaph the keeper of the king's (AI)forest, that he may give me timber to make beams for the gates of (AJ)the fortress which is by the [b]temple, for the wall of the city and for the house to which I will go " And the king granted them to me because (AK)the good hand of my G-d was on me.
9Then I came to (AL)the governors of the provinces beyond the River and gave them the king's letters Now (AM)the king had sent with me officers of the army and horsemen.
10When (AN)Sanballat the Horonite and Tobiah the Ammonite official heard about it, it was very displeasing to them that someone had come to seek the welfare of the sons of Israel.
Nehemiah Inspects Jerusalem's Walls 11So I (AO)came to Jerusalem and was there three days.
12And I arose in the night, I and a few men with me. I did not tell anyone what my G-d was putting into my mind to do for Jerusalem and there was no animal with me except the animal on which I was riding.
13So I went out at night by (AP)the Valley Gate in the direction of the Dragon's Well and on to the Refuse Gate, inspecting the walls of Jerusalem (AQ)which were broken down and its (AR)gates which were consumed by fire.
14Then I passed on to (AS)the Fountain Gate and (AT)the King's Pool, but there was no place for my mount to pass.
15So I went up at night by the (AU)ravine and inspected the wall. Then I entered the Valley Gate again and returned.
16The officials did not know where I had gone or what I had done; nor had I as yet told the Jews, the priests, the nobles, the officials or the rest who did the work.
17Then I said to them, "You see the bad situation we are in, that (AV)Jerusalem is desolate and its gates burned by fire. Come, let us rebuild the wall of Jerusalem so that we will no longer be a reproach."
So we have the Torah admitting the Messiah will come into Jerusalem around 483 years after the rebuilding of Jerusalem's decree from Nehemiah. So given this was about 445 B.C., what happens nearly 483 years later? Yeshua enters Jerusalem. Working from a decree by Cyrus, we arrive around the birth year of Mashiach. So given the Tanakh, we can demonstrate when the Messiah is supposed to arrive.
Now what does the Talmudic tradition declare? "The world will exist six thousand years. Two thousand years of desolation (Adam to Abraham), two thousand years of Torah (Abraham to around the beginning of what we know as the Common Era) and two thousand years of the Messianic era (the last two thousand years or so); but because our iniquities were many, all this has been lost" (i.e., the Messiah did not come at the expected time;) b. Sanhedrin 97 a-b).
So to the Jews, your Messiah according to your own writings was supposed to come around 2000 years ago? What happened 2000 years ago? This guy Yeshua walked amongst us. We need to view this further in context. The famous Jew, Rashi declares that the above passage from the Talmud means because of Israel's sins, the Messiah did not come. In Rashi's own words "After the 2000 years of Torah, it was G-d's decree that the Messiah would come and the wicked kingdom would come to an end and the subjugation of Israel would be destroyed....the Messiah has not come to this very day." Most traditional Jews will follow what Rashi is talking about to 200 C .E. Problematic in this is that this is an error in the Talmudic tradition, because the Second temple stood for approximately 600 years (the 6th year of King Darius's reign (521 B.C., Ezra 5) 515 B.C. to 70 A.D.http://judaism.about.com/library/1_jerusalem/bl_jerusalemhistory2.htm ), instead of the believed 420 years that the Rabbinical Jews believed in. So Rashi's calculations are off. According to the accurate calculations that we have, the Messiah came around the beginningo f the common era.
Now I want to examine this further by looking at Rabbi Yehoshua ben Chananyah declarations from the Talmud. Rabbi Yehoshua declared when the midpoint of the world would be. The Athenian elders argued with Rabbi Yehoshua (this is not the Yeshua of the Brit Hadashah) that "the present should be the midpoint between the two productive eras of the world, the eras of Torah and Mashiach. but obviously he has not come, for you Jews have certainly not been redeemed. We have crushed you and turned you into a nation of ruin, disaster, and despair. The 'midpoint of the world' has manifestly passed by and the Era of Mashiach has not begun. Why, then, do you persist in hoping for his arrival? Why should he come in the future if he did not come at his appointed hour? Is it not clear that the time for his arrival has passed you by forever?" (Sanhedrin 97 a-b).
The Vilna Gaon states that the Athenian elders were unaware of the Talmudic tradition that states "The son of David (the Messiah) will not come until all the government has turned to heresy" (b. Sanhedrin 97a). From page 149 of the Gaon, it explains "When the Elders asked, 'Where is the midpoint of the world?' Rabbi Yehoshua raised his finger and said, "Here!" He was saying that although the Jews had not merited Mashiach's coming by their deeds, nevertheless, the Era of Mashiach had indeed arrived at its appointed time. At 'the midpoint of the world' G-d began turning the wheels of history to insure the ultimate arrival of the scion of David." The purpose further mentioned in the Vilna Gaon states "mankind will realize that the only way to convert himself back into a tru human, a G-d-like being filled with wisdom, love, kindness, and an exalted spirit, is by the acceptance of G-d's dominion. And when G-d demonstrates all of this and man recognizes it, Mashiach will finally come" (p. 150). Thus it further declares from p. 150 "with the advent of the last third of human history; the Era of Mashiach may not be apparent, but it is 'here.'"
Most Jews viewing this who are knowledgeable of their faith will recognize that Rabbi Yehoshua was referring to ropes and measures when asked to prove his point about what he was declaring in regards to what time period we are in. He references 2 Samual 8:2 and Zechariah 13:8-9. "The ropes of King David are the measure of human history. The two-thirds of world history which did not choose to recognize G-d's dominion refused to choose life. But the last third will be directed towards eternal life by a Providence which will lead the Jews step by step to the recognition of G-d. What is the basis of your assertion, asked the Edlers, that "here", in the last third of human history, G-d's mercy is at work and we are in the Era of Mashiach? Answered Rabbi Yehoshua: Remember the ropes of King David and you will learn the ways by which G-d directs his world. They teach us that G-d will never abandon his world, and that ultimately the good for which G-d created it will be realized." (151-152). The Vilna Gaon's interpretation of the Talmudic account states that we are in the age of Mashiach. This was written some 1800 years ago. Now the Vilna Gaon did not believe in Yeshua as the Messiah. So this brings something else up that is very significant. Why did the Orthodox Jewish community reject Yeshua as the Messiah?
Lets take a look further at what the Talmud declares "Why was the first Holy Temple destroyed? Because of three wicked things: idol worship, adultery, and murder. But in the second Temple in which time the Jewish people were occupied studying the Torah and doing good deeds and acts of charity why was it then destroyed? The answer is: It was because of hatred without a cause to teach you, that hate without a cause is equal to these sins and that it is as serious a crime as the three great transgressions of idol worship, adultery, and murder. [Yoma 9]." In the Bible, it states that Yeshua was hated without cause and was rejected. Who do you think this is referring to? Psalms 69:4 warns Israel about doing this "Those who hate me without reason outnumber the hairs of my head; many are my enemies without cause, those who seek to destroy me. I am forced to restore what I did not steal." And in John 15:25 states "But this is to fulfill what is written in their Law: 'They hated me without reason.'"
So who do you think the Rabbis hated without cause? It was Yeshua ha Mashiach, whom the Christian community has relabelled in light of viewing him as a Roman blonde haired, blue eyed gentleman we have totally a misunderstanding of. This is prophetic though my Jewish brethren! If Yeshua has come in the role of the high priest, lets think about this for a minute. That would make him ben Yosef. The story of Yosef is as followed though. What did his brothers see of this Jew when they viewed him? They saw an Egyptian, and because of this, they were unable to recognize him. So has become of Yeshua Ha Mashiach. We have clothed him as a Roman, and now the Jews are unable to recognize him as the Jew that he is! Yeshua Ha Mashiach is Elohim, the annointed one. He is preexistent just as the rabbis taught the Messiah would be. He has put his Earthly kingdom on hold, but will be returning to the Earth in the form of Ben David as he declares from his partial reading of Isaiah 61:1-2 in Luke 4:18-19. He only goes through half of verse 2, so Yeshua tells us the role he has come in. A close paying attention of the Brit Hadashah, now commonly known as the New Testament because of the heretic Marcion's separation of Old Testament and New Testament, whom not even the Christians admire (ironic isn't it?) will reveal that in the first 4 books, he has fulfilled the role of High Priest, and did not come in the role of the King of Kings and establish his kingdom on the Earth. We know that he's returning because in Acts 1:6-11 Yeshua and the messenger of the Lord declares " 6So when they met together, they asked him, "Lord, are you at this time going to restore the kingdom to Israel?"
7He said to them: "It is not for you to know the times or dates the Father has set by his own authority. 8But you will receive power when the Ruach Hakodesh comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth."
9After he said this, he was taken up before their very eyes, and a cloud hid him from their sight.
10They were looking intently up into the sky as he was going, when suddenly two men dressed in white stood beside them. 11"Men of Galilee," they said, "why do you stand here looking into the sky? This same Yeshua, who has been taken from you into heaven, will come back in the same way you have seen him go into heaven." Jews want a sign, and here it is! I want to stop here because we see that Yeshua is telling us. Most Christians will read through this and say "Samaria, Gentiles!" No. Samaria was the capital of Israel. It was the burial place of Obadiah, Elisha and Yochanan the Immerser (known to Christians as John the Baptist). It is defined as such here - http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=109&letter=S Samaria is mentioned all through the Tanakh as being associated with Israel. Yeshua is telling us to do what here? Go to the Jews first, then to the Gentiles. Christians have not been doing this, and on their behalf and because I once was one, I apologize! I have found the errors of my ways and am trying to help my Christian friends to do the same. Where do we find the role of ben David in the Brit Hadashah?Revelation talks about the role he will fulfill when he arrives a second time to Earth. He will establish his kingdom after the 7th shofar is blown (and we are going to put away the viewpoints of Preterism in a later article!). If paid close attention to, he is riding a white horse. He rode a donkey (another Rabbinical Messianic sign) into Jerusalem the first time. The 2nd time he will be riding in on a white horse on the clouds, which means he will be king of kings and lord of lords. He is not King of Kings and Lord of Lords over all the Earth yet. But my Jewish brethren, you are looking for ben David when looking at Yeshua when you should be seeking the first role that he fulfilled instead. The role of ben David has not been established yet, but it will in the future, and the prophecies given still to the Jews (and only to the Jews) within the Brit Hadashah demonstrate this. Further evidenced is that we have no further way to trace a Messiah since the destruction of the temple. Perhaps G-d did this for a reason? I pray that you will consider Yeshua ha Mashiach as your Messiah. Not Jesus Christ, Yeshua ha Mashiach.
"Know therefore and discern, that from the going forth of the word to restore and to build Jerusalem unto Mashiach, the prince, shall be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks, it shall be built again, with plaza and moat, but in times of distress." Daniel 9:25-26"
So this is discussing the decree to rebuild Israel. When is this mentioned to have occurred? The decree to rebuild Israel is mentioned in Nehemiah 2:1. Lets read it in context starting with 2:1-17 " 1And it came about in the month Nisan, (Z)in the twentieth year of King (AA)Artaxerxes, that wine was before him, and (AB)I took up the wine and gave it to the king. Now I had not been sad in his presence.
2So the king said to me, "Why is your face sad though you are not sick? (AC)This is nothing but sadness of heart." Then I was very much afraid.
3I said to the king, "(AD)Let the king live forever Why should my face not be sad (AE)when the city, the place of my fathers' tombs, lies desolate and its gates have been consumed by fire?"
4Then the king said to me, "What would you request?" (AF)So I prayed to the G-d of heaven.
5I said to the king, "If it please the king, and if your servant has found favor before you, send me to Judah, to the city of my fathers' tombs, that I may rebuild it."
6Then the king said to me, the queen sitting beside him, "How long will your journey be, and when will you return?" So it pleased the king to send me, and (AG)I gave him a definite time.
7And I said to the king, "If it please the king, let letters be given me (AH)for the governors of the provinces beyond the River, that they may allow me to pass through until I come to Judah,
8and a letter to Asaph the keeper of the king's (AI)forest, that he may give me timber to make beams for the gates of (AJ)the fortress which is by the [b]temple, for the wall of the city and for the house to which I will go " And the king granted them to me because (AK)the good hand of my G-d was on me.
9Then I came to (AL)the governors of the provinces beyond the River and gave them the king's letters Now (AM)the king had sent with me officers of the army and horsemen.
10When (AN)Sanballat the Horonite and Tobiah the Ammonite official heard about it, it was very displeasing to them that someone had come to seek the welfare of the sons of Israel.
Nehemiah Inspects Jerusalem's Walls 11So I (AO)came to Jerusalem and was there three days.
12And I arose in the night, I and a few men with me. I did not tell anyone what my G-d was putting into my mind to do for Jerusalem and there was no animal with me except the animal on which I was riding.
13So I went out at night by (AP)the Valley Gate in the direction of the Dragon's Well and on to the Refuse Gate, inspecting the walls of Jerusalem (AQ)which were broken down and its (AR)gates which were consumed by fire.
14Then I passed on to (AS)the Fountain Gate and (AT)the King's Pool, but there was no place for my mount to pass.
15So I went up at night by the (AU)ravine and inspected the wall. Then I entered the Valley Gate again and returned.
16The officials did not know where I had gone or what I had done; nor had I as yet told the Jews, the priests, the nobles, the officials or the rest who did the work.
17Then I said to them, "You see the bad situation we are in, that (AV)Jerusalem is desolate and its gates burned by fire. Come, let us rebuild the wall of Jerusalem so that we will no longer be a reproach."
So we have the Torah admitting the Messiah will come into Jerusalem around 483 years after the rebuilding of Jerusalem's decree from Nehemiah. So given this was about 445 B.C., what happens nearly 483 years later? Yeshua enters Jerusalem. Working from a decree by Cyrus, we arrive around the birth year of Mashiach. So given the Tanakh, we can demonstrate when the Messiah is supposed to arrive.
Now what does the Talmudic tradition declare? "The world will exist six thousand years. Two thousand years of desolation (Adam to Abraham), two thousand years of Torah (Abraham to around the beginning of what we know as the Common Era) and two thousand years of the Messianic era (the last two thousand years or so); but because our iniquities were many, all this has been lost" (i.e., the Messiah did not come at the expected time;) b. Sanhedrin 97 a-b).
So to the Jews, your Messiah according to your own writings was supposed to come around 2000 years ago? What happened 2000 years ago? This guy Yeshua walked amongst us. We need to view this further in context. The famous Jew, Rashi declares that the above passage from the Talmud means because of Israel's sins, the Messiah did not come. In Rashi's own words "After the 2000 years of Torah, it was G-d's decree that the Messiah would come and the wicked kingdom would come to an end and the subjugation of Israel would be destroyed....the Messiah has not come to this very day." Most traditional Jews will follow what Rashi is talking about to 200 C .E. Problematic in this is that this is an error in the Talmudic tradition, because the Second temple stood for approximately 600 years (the 6th year of King Darius's reign (521 B.C., Ezra 5) 515 B.C. to 70 A.D.http://judaism.about.com/library/1_jerusalem/bl_jerusalemhistory2.htm ), instead of the believed 420 years that the Rabbinical Jews believed in. So Rashi's calculations are off. According to the accurate calculations that we have, the Messiah came around the beginningo f the common era.
Now I want to examine this further by looking at Rabbi Yehoshua ben Chananyah declarations from the Talmud. Rabbi Yehoshua declared when the midpoint of the world would be. The Athenian elders argued with Rabbi Yehoshua (this is not the Yeshua of the Brit Hadashah) that "the present should be the midpoint between the two productive eras of the world, the eras of Torah and Mashiach. but obviously he has not come, for you Jews have certainly not been redeemed. We have crushed you and turned you into a nation of ruin, disaster, and despair. The 'midpoint of the world' has manifestly passed by and the Era of Mashiach has not begun. Why, then, do you persist in hoping for his arrival? Why should he come in the future if he did not come at his appointed hour? Is it not clear that the time for his arrival has passed you by forever?" (Sanhedrin 97 a-b).
The Vilna Gaon states that the Athenian elders were unaware of the Talmudic tradition that states "The son of David (the Messiah) will not come until all the government has turned to heresy" (b. Sanhedrin 97a). From page 149 of the Gaon, it explains "When the Elders asked, 'Where is the midpoint of the world?' Rabbi Yehoshua raised his finger and said, "Here!" He was saying that although the Jews had not merited Mashiach's coming by their deeds, nevertheless, the Era of Mashiach had indeed arrived at its appointed time. At 'the midpoint of the world' G-d began turning the wheels of history to insure the ultimate arrival of the scion of David." The purpose further mentioned in the Vilna Gaon states "mankind will realize that the only way to convert himself back into a tru human, a G-d-like being filled with wisdom, love, kindness, and an exalted spirit, is by the acceptance of G-d's dominion. And when G-d demonstrates all of this and man recognizes it, Mashiach will finally come" (p. 150). Thus it further declares from p. 150 "with the advent of the last third of human history; the Era of Mashiach may not be apparent, but it is 'here.'"
Most Jews viewing this who are knowledgeable of their faith will recognize that Rabbi Yehoshua was referring to ropes and measures when asked to prove his point about what he was declaring in regards to what time period we are in. He references 2 Samual 8:2 and Zechariah 13:8-9. "The ropes of King David are the measure of human history. The two-thirds of world history which did not choose to recognize G-d's dominion refused to choose life. But the last third will be directed towards eternal life by a Providence which will lead the Jews step by step to the recognition of G-d. What is the basis of your assertion, asked the Edlers, that "here", in the last third of human history, G-d's mercy is at work and we are in the Era of Mashiach? Answered Rabbi Yehoshua: Remember the ropes of King David and you will learn the ways by which G-d directs his world. They teach us that G-d will never abandon his world, and that ultimately the good for which G-d created it will be realized." (151-152). The Vilna Gaon's interpretation of the Talmudic account states that we are in the age of Mashiach. This was written some 1800 years ago. Now the Vilna Gaon did not believe in Yeshua as the Messiah. So this brings something else up that is very significant. Why did the Orthodox Jewish community reject Yeshua as the Messiah?
Lets take a look further at what the Talmud declares "Why was the first Holy Temple destroyed? Because of three wicked things: idol worship, adultery, and murder. But in the second Temple in which time the Jewish people were occupied studying the Torah and doing good deeds and acts of charity why was it then destroyed? The answer is: It was because of hatred without a cause to teach you, that hate without a cause is equal to these sins and that it is as serious a crime as the three great transgressions of idol worship, adultery, and murder. [Yoma 9]." In the Bible, it states that Yeshua was hated without cause and was rejected. Who do you think this is referring to? Psalms 69:4 warns Israel about doing this "Those who hate me without reason outnumber the hairs of my head; many are my enemies without cause, those who seek to destroy me. I am forced to restore what I did not steal." And in John 15:25 states "But this is to fulfill what is written in their Law: 'They hated me without reason.'"
So who do you think the Rabbis hated without cause? It was Yeshua ha Mashiach, whom the Christian community has relabelled in light of viewing him as a Roman blonde haired, blue eyed gentleman we have totally a misunderstanding of. This is prophetic though my Jewish brethren! If Yeshua has come in the role of the high priest, lets think about this for a minute. That would make him ben Yosef. The story of Yosef is as followed though. What did his brothers see of this Jew when they viewed him? They saw an Egyptian, and because of this, they were unable to recognize him. So has become of Yeshua Ha Mashiach. We have clothed him as a Roman, and now the Jews are unable to recognize him as the Jew that he is! Yeshua Ha Mashiach is Elohim, the annointed one. He is preexistent just as the rabbis taught the Messiah would be. He has put his Earthly kingdom on hold, but will be returning to the Earth in the form of Ben David as he declares from his partial reading of Isaiah 61:1-2 in Luke 4:18-19. He only goes through half of verse 2, so Yeshua tells us the role he has come in. A close paying attention of the Brit Hadashah, now commonly known as the New Testament because of the heretic Marcion's separation of Old Testament and New Testament, whom not even the Christians admire (ironic isn't it?) will reveal that in the first 4 books, he has fulfilled the role of High Priest, and did not come in the role of the King of Kings and establish his kingdom on the Earth. We know that he's returning because in Acts 1:6-11 Yeshua and the messenger of the Lord declares " 6So when they met together, they asked him, "Lord, are you at this time going to restore the kingdom to Israel?"
7He said to them: "It is not for you to know the times or dates the Father has set by his own authority. 8But you will receive power when the Ruach Hakodesh comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth."
9After he said this, he was taken up before their very eyes, and a cloud hid him from their sight.
10They were looking intently up into the sky as he was going, when suddenly two men dressed in white stood beside them. 11"Men of Galilee," they said, "why do you stand here looking into the sky? This same Yeshua, who has been taken from you into heaven, will come back in the same way you have seen him go into heaven." Jews want a sign, and here it is! I want to stop here because we see that Yeshua is telling us. Most Christians will read through this and say "Samaria, Gentiles!" No. Samaria was the capital of Israel. It was the burial place of Obadiah, Elisha and Yochanan the Immerser (known to Christians as John the Baptist). It is defined as such here - http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=109&letter=S Samaria is mentioned all through the Tanakh as being associated with Israel. Yeshua is telling us to do what here? Go to the Jews first, then to the Gentiles. Christians have not been doing this, and on their behalf and because I once was one, I apologize! I have found the errors of my ways and am trying to help my Christian friends to do the same. Where do we find the role of ben David in the Brit Hadashah?Revelation talks about the role he will fulfill when he arrives a second time to Earth. He will establish his kingdom after the 7th shofar is blown (and we are going to put away the viewpoints of Preterism in a later article!). If paid close attention to, he is riding a white horse. He rode a donkey (another Rabbinical Messianic sign) into Jerusalem the first time. The 2nd time he will be riding in on a white horse on the clouds, which means he will be king of kings and lord of lords. He is not King of Kings and Lord of Lords over all the Earth yet. But my Jewish brethren, you are looking for ben David when looking at Yeshua when you should be seeking the first role that he fulfilled instead. The role of ben David has not been established yet, but it will in the future, and the prophecies given still to the Jews (and only to the Jews) within the Brit Hadashah demonstrate this. Further evidenced is that we have no further way to trace a Messiah since the destruction of the temple. Perhaps G-d did this for a reason? I pray that you will consider Yeshua ha Mashiach as your Messiah. Not Jesus Christ, Yeshua ha Mashiach.
Revelation 22:18, what is it talking about?
I have heard many an objection regarding this scripture. I had a discussion with a Catholic Apologist on this, and he was more than willing to state that when the word used for book is used in Revelation, that it is referring only to the book of Revelation, and nothing more. This interpretation would have made Muhammad and Joseph Smith, and Joseph Fletcher, as well as Jim Jones very pleased. However, when in doubt, go to the Greek. What is Revelation 22:18 saying?
"For I say to every man to whose ears have come the words of this prophet's book, If any man makes an addition to them, God will put on him the punishments which are in this book: And if any man takes away from the words of this book, God will take away from him his part in the tree of life and the holy town, even the things which are in this book." Now at first glance, when we see the words "of this prophet's book" one is quick to incline that this is MERELY referring to John's book, and nothing else. Lets see why this is wrong. What is John referring to? Those who are listening to his book. The problem comes into play when we look at the Greek translation for the word "book" here. Whats the problem? It is plural. Had John wanted to make this specifically to his book of Revelation, the word "Biblos" would have been translated here. A weird turn of events for those who have ever discussed this topic and agree with the former translation. The translation for one of these "books" is βιβλίου. The Greek form of the majority of the texts looks like "Μαρτυρῶ ἐγὼ παντὶ τῷ ἀκούοντι τοὺς λόγους τῆς προφητείας τοῦ βιβλίου τούτου· ἐάν τις ἐπιθῇ ἐπ’ αὐτά, ἐπιθήσει ὁ θεὸς ἐπ’ αὐτὸν τὰς πληγὰς τὰς γεγραμμένας ἐν τῷ βιβλίῳ τούτῳ,. The Greek form of the Diacritis translation of Revelation 22:18 looks like this "μαρτυρέω ἐγώ πᾶς ὁ ἀκούω ὁ λόγος ὁ προφητεία ὁ βιβλίον οὗτος ἐάν τὶς ἐπιτίθημι ἐπί αὐτός ἐπιτίθημι ἐπί αὐτός ὁ θεός ὁ πληγή ὁ γράφω ἐν ὁ βιβλίον οὗτος" The other book is "βιβλίῳ." Biblio or Bibliou (both translations utilized in this case mean the same thing) refers to a group of books, not a single book. So what group of books does John talk about here? We call it today, the Bible. Even Catholics would not be willing to concede that the Bible is only composed of Revelation (that is complete nonsense). And this is how we know that this would be the final book of the Bible based off of John's writings. It is that simple. He is sealing up the words of the entire Bible here. No one may add to these written words.
2 Timothy 3:16-17 states "
"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine , for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness. So that the man of God may be complete, trained and made ready for every good work." 2 Timothy 3:16,17.
"For I say to every man to whose ears have come the words of this prophet's book, If any man makes an addition to them, God will put on him the punishments which are in this book: And if any man takes away from the words of this book, God will take away from him his part in the tree of life and the holy town, even the things which are in this book." Now at first glance, when we see the words "of this prophet's book" one is quick to incline that this is MERELY referring to John's book, and nothing else. Lets see why this is wrong. What is John referring to? Those who are listening to his book. The problem comes into play when we look at the Greek translation for the word "book" here. Whats the problem? It is plural. Had John wanted to make this specifically to his book of Revelation, the word "Biblos" would have been translated here. A weird turn of events for those who have ever discussed this topic and agree with the former translation. The translation for one of these "books" is βιβλίου. The Greek form of the majority of the texts looks like "Μαρτυρῶ ἐγὼ παντὶ τῷ ἀκούοντι τοὺς λόγους τῆς προφητείας τοῦ βιβλίου τούτου· ἐάν τις ἐπιθῇ ἐπ’ αὐτά, ἐπιθήσει ὁ θεὸς ἐπ’ αὐτὸν τὰς πληγὰς τὰς γεγραμμένας ἐν τῷ βιβλίῳ τούτῳ,. The Greek form of the Diacritis translation of Revelation 22:18 looks like this "μαρτυρέω ἐγώ πᾶς ὁ ἀκούω ὁ λόγος ὁ προφητεία ὁ βιβλίον οὗτος ἐάν τὶς ἐπιτίθημι ἐπί αὐτός ἐπιτίθημι ἐπί αὐτός ὁ θεός ὁ πληγή ὁ γράφω ἐν ὁ βιβλίον οὗτος" The other book is "βιβλίῳ." Biblio or Bibliou (both translations utilized in this case mean the same thing) refers to a group of books, not a single book. So what group of books does John talk about here? We call it today, the Bible. Even Catholics would not be willing to concede that the Bible is only composed of Revelation (that is complete nonsense). And this is how we know that this would be the final book of the Bible based off of John's writings. It is that simple. He is sealing up the words of the entire Bible here. No one may add to these written words.
2 Timothy 3:16-17 states "
"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine , for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness. So that the man of God may be complete, trained and made ready for every good work." 2 Timothy 3:16,17.
Thursday, July 1, 2010
Does Ephesians 2:11 support the viewpoint that Ephesians 2:15 does away with the Torah following?
I want to first mention that I received this comment in a discussion at Christianforums where i am a regular nondebater :). I do participate in the Apologetics section there, but I refuse to argue or debate. Lets analyze this position. First of all, we need to go to Ephesians 1 to understand where I will be going with this argument. It is here where Paul identifies himself as the writer. It should also be worthy of note that this was written somewhere around later in Paul's ministry, around 60 A.D. This will be important to know given the context of the letter. What does Paul state here? Ephesians 1:15-16 gives us some insight to Paul's relationship with the people he is writing to. "15For this reason, ever since I heard about your faith in the Lord Jesus and your love for all the saints, 16I have not stopped giving thanks for you, remembering you in my prayers." So what does this tell us of significance? That Saul/Paul has visited this congregation before. So what does Ephesians 2:11 state? 11Therefore, remember that formerly you who are Gentiles by birth and called "uncircumcised" by those who call themselves "the circumcision" (that done in the body by the hands of men). The argument being made here is that this refers to all Jews because the word circumcision is being utilized here. Now, lets put some pieces together because we are going to have to understand what Paul is teaching all of the congregations he's visiting. Is Paul talking to all Jews when he states this? The answer is clearly no. Lets look at Romans, an earlier writer of Paul's, to demonstrate what he is teaching to the churches. Romans 2:28-29 states " 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." In other words, spiritual circumcision is more important than a literal circumcision. This is directed only at his Jewish brethren, this part of the scripture, so Gentiles are not included in this (redundant as this may be to say). Romans 2:17 clearly demonstrates the intended audience "17But if you bear the name "Jew" and (A)rely upon the Law and boast in God." Those of the two house theory, Gentiles need not apply. This tells us some valuable information. Is a Jew circumcised if only done by human hands? The answer is clearly no. What is Paul teaching here? That a man must be circumcised of the heart. Before we jump to the conclusion that Paul is redefining what it means to be circumcised, lets look at the Torah. Deuteronomy 30:4-6 states "4 Even if you have been banished to the most distant land under the heavens, from there the LORD your God will gather you and bring you back. 5 He will bring you to the land that belonged to your fathers, and you will take possession of it. He will make you more prosperous and numerous than your fathers. 6 The LORD your God will circumcise your hearts and the hearts of your descendants, so that you may love him with all your heart and with all your soul, and live." So what is being taught? That one must let God circumcise the heart in order for one to be a true and spiritual Jew. A teaching that is taught by Paul in the Brit Hadashah is also a prevaltn teaching in the Torah. So all Paul is doing is reiterating what the Torah states in Romans 2:28-29. Now lets proceed forward from here. We have learned that Paul does not include Jews who are circumcised of the heart when referencing Ephesians 2:11. So who is he referencing? The Jews who were following the halakah/oral tradition. The ones who were not following Torah. What does Ephesians 2:12 state? " 12remember that you were at that time separate from Christ, (A)excluded from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to (B)the covenants of promise, having (C)no hope and (D)without God in the world. " So what Paul teaches is that Gentiles were excluded from the covenants of the promise. Why? Because of a dividing wall of enmity. The dividing wall of enmity can't be the covenants of the promise (the Torah, or the promises given to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob), because these are things Paul wants to be received. I want to also demonstrate two other scriptures that fly in the face of this. What does Paul state in 1 Corinthians 9:21? 21to those who are (A)without law, (B)as without law, though not being without the law of God but (C)under the law of Christ, so that I might win those who are without law. English Wycleffe states " 21 to them that were without law, as I were without law, when I was not without [the] law of God, but I was in the law of Christ, to win them that were without law [that I should win them that were without law]." Paul says he is not without the law of God, but rather is under the law of God (we do agree that Yeshua is God right?). His purpose is to try to win those who are without the Torah, by helping them to follow the Torah. Another place we need to look at that and is of interest is Acts 24:14 "14"But this I admit to you, that according to (A)the Way which they call a (B)sect I do serve (C)the God of our fathers, (D)believing everything that is in accordance with the Law and that is written in the Prophets; " Paul is still following the Torah! If Paul does away with the Torah, then why does he keep following it and believing everything that is in accordance with the Torah? No matter which way you slice it, the Ephesians 2:15 abolishment of the Torah is a matter of Christian cherry picking. There is no way in context that Paul EVER says that we should not follow the Torah. As we have even spotted in an earlier chapter, and yes this is a mistake in Strong's dictionary too, the word Nomos is not even mentioned within the Greek context of Ephesians 2:15 (see Tim Hegg, www.torahresource.com/EnglishArticles/Eph%202.14.pdf). Dogma is used instead. So instead of doing what Christians want for Ephesians 2:11, based off of the Roman verses, it actually enhances the definition that we want it to have. That the thing that is being abolished is the halakah that divides the Jew from the Gentile. Just recall in Ephesians 2:14 the word utilized is "
perifrassein" which means "to fence about." One may find the same context within the Talmudic writings "
R. Akiba said, Jesting and levity habituate [a man] to lewdness. [The]
Tradition is a fence to the Law; tithes are a fence to riches; vows are a
fence to abstinence; a fence to wisdom is silence.41 (m.Avot 13.3) The Qumran scrolls also utilize the term "
bonei hacheitz). which means "builders of the wall." So not to the contrary it can be plainly seen that Paul is not telling us that the Torah has been abolished, but rather the fence that has been built around the Torah has been abolished. The context of
"ton nomon twn entolwn en dogmasin" has never ever been utilized to mean the Torah, and this can be evidenced by Genesis 26:5's translation from the LXX. It has always been utilized to mean the Talmud, in the LXX, Josephus and Philo.
Thus we conclude that Ephesians 2:15 abolishment of the Torah is not hurt by Ephesians 2:11, but rather enhances the claim that Paul is making that the Torah does not stand in the way of Gentiles becoming followers of Yeshua.
perifrassein" which means "to fence about." One may find the same context within the Talmudic writings "
R. Akiba said, Jesting and levity habituate [a man] to lewdness. [The]
Tradition is a fence to the Law; tithes are a fence to riches; vows are a
fence to abstinence; a fence to wisdom is silence.41 (m.Avot 13.3) The Qumran scrolls also utilize the term "
bonei hacheitz). which means "builders of the wall." So not to the contrary it can be plainly seen that Paul is not telling us that the Torah has been abolished, but rather the fence that has been built around the Torah has been abolished. The context of
"ton nomon twn entolwn en dogmasin" has never ever been utilized to mean the Torah, and this can be evidenced by Genesis 26:5's translation from the LXX. It has always been utilized to mean the Talmud, in the LXX, Josephus and Philo.
Thus we conclude that Ephesians 2:15 abolishment of the Torah is not hurt by Ephesians 2:11, but rather enhances the claim that Paul is making that the Torah does not stand in the way of Gentiles becoming followers of Yeshua.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)