The Siddur is a reflection of both the heart and history of the Jewish people. The prayers and blessings come from a variety of sources spanning from the Bible to contemporary Sages and Rabbis (depending on the siddur). Most of us are familiar with the prayers and blessings that are prominant during a traditional Shabbat service such as the Shema, a portion of the Amidah, Ashrei, Adon Olam, Ein Kayloheynu – just to name a few. But if we are not careful we will miss some wondrous blessings and praises that can enhance our daily worship as well as help us to relate to our people and to help us in explaining Yeshua and Messianic Judaism.
One such blessing is called Ribbon Kol HaOlamim (master of the worlds). it can be found in the Artscroll Ashkenaz Siddur on p. 26 second paragraph. It originates in the Talmud (Yoma 87b) in a paragraph that discusses the necessity of confessing sins frequently. This blessing is a statement of our inadequacy and our utter need and thankfulness for the benevolence of God:
Not on the merit of our righteousness do we cast our supplications before you but on the merit of your abundant mercy. What are we? What is our life? What is our kindness? What is our righteousness? What is our salvation? What is our strength? What is our might?
This is followed by a declaration of our covenant relationship with God. As Jewish people, we stand in relationship with God via the promise that He initiated with Abraham and confirmed as a result of the “binding of Isaac”. it is a promise of national destiny and purpose. As a messianic community, we are reminded that that God has initiated the New Covenant with us through the death and resurrection of Yeshua the Messiah. As the remnant of Israel along with all people who embrace Yeshua we are able to appropriate these new covenant blessings of complete forgiveness, intimacy with God and bodily resurrection (see Eph. 1:1-13).
The final section is filled with praise and an acknowledgment of blessing:
Therefore we are obligated to thank you, praise you, glorify you…We are fortunate – how good is our portion, how pleasant our lot , how beautiful our heritage.
We should never take for granted the covenantal purpose and destiny that we have as a people and we should never take for granted the blessings of life and forgiveness of sin that we have in knowing Yeshua the Messiah. What a wonderful way to start each day – being rememinded of our standing before God that comes via his grace and mercy.
This prayer came to mind recently when a Jewish friend challenged me on the need for believing in Yeshua. He asked me the question that we have all faced at one time or another – what about good people who have never heard of Yeshua? How unfair is it that some people live in places where they have never heard of Yeshua. I responded by talking about Ribbon HaOlamim. I told him that this prayer tells us that no one is worthy of the blessings of God and that we as Jewish people should be the most thankful people to have this covenant relationship that we have done nothing to earn. It is not a question of fairness, rather it is an issue of the grace and mercy of God. I said that clearly our people have not lived up to our end of the bargain and that Yeshua came to initiate the restoration of Israel and to be the vehicle himself for the nations to hear the good news as preached by Isaiah and Yeshua himself. I told him that embracing Yeshua means that we can appropriate New Covenant blessings of forgiveness of sins, intimacy with God and a place in the World To Come. In the end, we do not know how God may reveal himself to the hearts of individuals but we know that we are called to be a light to the nations and that is why we are called to bring Yeshua to all peoples – beginning with our own people. In Him is the promise of resurrection. My friend did not suddenly embrace Yeshua. However I hopefully communicated that we are not preaching an unfair message and that our messsage – while not in agreement with traditional jewish understanding – can find some validity from the Siddur.
May Ribbon HaOlamim remind us to be ever thankful for Messiah Yeshua.
Yeshua Matters 
This reminds me of one of the commentaries I read over the last two parashat readings.
The haftarah readings were from John 7-8 and 9-10. The commentator referred to Yeshua as the “Mikvah of Israel” the rejected pool of Shiloam ( Jer. 2: 13; John 7: 37)
As Master of the World to come and the Living Water of Israel, it is no wonder that Israel( and those who are grated into the rich olive tree are assured a National destiny and purpose.
Question: Is Israel’s National Destiny assured outside of embracing Yeshua? How does her national destiny differ from or relate to each person’s individal relationship with Yeshua?
thanks, Janice Stewart
Janice, just an FYI: the haftarah readings roster are selections from the Hebrew scripture, from the prophets, chosen centuries before John was written. To this day, those selections are read in synagogues round the world every Saturday morning. (I cannot vouch for what is read in churches, or in churches that call themselves synagogues. Perhaps there they do read John and call it haftarah.)
Janice,
i think you meant to say that the New covenant reading was from the Gospel of John. the Haftorah would be from the Prophets.
Hello Janice!
Israel’s national destiny is based on the calling of Abraham in Genesis 12. Israel is called to be a blessing to the nations; a light to the nations. God gave Israel the Torah to live a certain way to be the light. In Romans 11, we read that the Romans 11:12-15 Now if their transgression is riches for the world and their failure is riches for the Gentiles, how much more will their fulfillment be! 13 But I am speaking to you who are Gentiles. Inasmuch then as I am an apostle of Gentiles, I magnify my ministry, 14 if somehow I might move to jealousy my fellow countrymen and save some of them. 15 For if their rejection is the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead?
Israel’s destiny is to dwell in the land in realtiomship with God. when this happens the world will be blessed.
However, when it comes to individual destiny, each individual must have sins forgiven and come to faith in the promie of God -Yeshua.
A good “columbus” illustration would be the Ohio State Buckeyes. The team has a “destiny” to be the national champions. However, the team is made up of indivduals who cahnage from year to year. Their indvidiual destinies have to do with their own decisions but the “team” has a destiny.
hope that helps.
howard
Thank you for refreshingly reminding all Jews of the supreme importance of the Talmud in their monotheistic religious heritage. The Talmud, or the redacted Oral Tradition the Jews received together with the written Torah from G-d, explains His meaning in the confusingly abbreviated Pentateuch. It has been said that the Bible can be construed to mean anything at all due to it’s apparent ambiguity. “Ashrei” (per your reference, lit. “fortunate”) are the Jews, because they are in receipt of G-d’s Bible, and His Talmudic explanation thereof.
Unfortunately, Christendom has reached into Judaism like some kind of a grab bag, and pulled out the highly condensed text of the Hebrew scriptures, altered it only slightly here and there for a better fit, and then superimposed on it a storyline of a superhuman messiah, a triune godhead and vicarious atonement utterly irreconcileable with the comprehensive divine revelation the Jews witnessed. Christianity then, lacking any tradition of an explanation from G-d of what the Torah text means, is a “fundamentalist” religion. It accepts only that the Tanakh itself is divine, and that the meaning of typically impenetrable scriptural verses are up for grabs and therefore subject to twisting to fit Christianity’s New Testament and other pagan doctrines. Judaism differs from Christianity, then, thank G-d, in that it is not a fundamentalist religion.
So, while it’s refreshing to read your references to Yoma (a tractate of the Talmud–a tractate? yes, there’s that much depth to G-d’s Oral Tradition), it’s so important to understand clearly that the Talmud profoundly and resoundingly rejects the notion that the Bible leaves any wiggle room for the messiah to be a fatherless demigod, for the G-d prayed to with the Shma to be a trinity rather than a unity, or for man to escape his own guilt or responsibility by assigning it to another person or demi-deity. (Please let me know if you require citations on each of these points.) Thus, I find your references to Talmud sequeing into discussion of “Yeshua” as a demi-god, part of a “Trinity”, and a man/god who died for others’ sins, frankly, disappointing, dishonest, and just generally intellectually unsound.
And, while we’re on the topic of dishonesty, I want to bring your attention back to another comment on a previous entry of yours regarding the name Yeshua (see below). Jesus’ Hebrew name was not Yeshua, it was Yeshu. Throughout the Talmud, references Jesus’ (once a common Jewish name) are clearly spelled Yeshu–not Yeshua. It is simply dishonest to hide the obviously damning parallelism between Jesus’ actual Hebrew name and the Hebrew acronoym Ye-Sh-U for “yemach sh’mo v’zichrono”, meaning “may his name and his memory be erased”, and instead changing Jesus to a name that sounds like the authentic Biblical Jewish leader Joshua (commonly pronounced in Hebrew as Yeshua, though spelled Yehoshua).
I would hope that Jewish readers here would be analytical enough to connect the dots about the integrity of the religion being promulgated here, given the dishonesty of referencing the Talmud that “Messianic Jews” reject and altering Christianity’s god’s name in English, all as part of an effort to reel you in, to proselytize to you, to give “testimony” (even though it was your ancestors who attended the revelation at Sinai, not the Christians’), to evangelize, to missionize, ultimately, to convert you and rob you of your Jewish heritage.
eric,
thank you or reading my posts. of course, i could not disagree with you more. there is no point in arguing with you. all i can say is that there is no dishonesty here. Yeshua was resurrected from the dead as the first fruits of the restoration of the Jewish people. and his name was Yeshua.
thanks again for reading the posts.
Howard,
I understand that we are in disagreement, and that either you are dishonest, as my posting clearly explains, or you are not, as you claim. I don’t want to argue with you, either, I just want your audience to have the benefit of the facts as they evaluate the doctrine you advocate.
I and many others have looked high and low through the Hebrew Bible, through the siddur, and through the Talmud. And nowhere, but nowhere in those foundational documents of Judaism is anything like your statement that “Yeshua was resurrected from the dead as the first fruits of the restoration of the Jewish people.” So if you’re co-opting the Talmudic honorific “rabbi”, which means a teacher and practitioner of traditional, Talmudic Judaism while you preach a theology that is irreconcileable in fact and philosophy with the Talmud, Jewish readers should know that so they may come to the appropriate conclusions about your honesty on their own.
I am compelled also to correct you once again on the spelling of the Christian deity’s name as it is spelled in Hebrew. The silent letter ayin at the end of the word “Yeshu” has no vocalized vowelization. I’m sorry to say that, while you do get the flexibility to interpret the facts and come up with your own conclusions, you certainly don’t have the right to invent your own Hebrew language and suddenly declare the Hebrew name Yeshu is now Yeshua any more than I have a right to heist the English language and declare that your name is actually pronounced Howdy Doodie.
Thank you for making your posts available. They provide not only needed comic relief but also an opportunity to address in a public forum the many insurmountable subtle as well as obvious problems Christianity poses for Jews.
Eric;
For one who tauts the Talmud so much, maybe you can show us where does the Talmud concents Gay rabbis, and where does it sanction gay marriages?
People who throw stones should not live in glass houses.
Greetings from HELL.
That’s right, from Hell. The Christian missionary who operates this blog, Howard Silverman, bases his proselytization of the Jews out of his headquarters in none other than Gahanna, Ohio. For those who don’t know what Gahanna is a transliteration from in the Hebrew Bible, Gahanna means Hell.
Nice place for a “rabbi” like Father Silverman to set up shop, eh?
Coincidence?
Or one more hint that Silverman’s idolatrous prescriptions are very bad medicine indeed for Jewsish souls?
Hello Randy,
i will have to alert the chamber of commerce of the “Gahanna” meaning! However, what if i was from Hell, Michigan? That would be worse.
There are a number of jewish people who live in Gahanna ohio. Are you disparaging all people who live in Gahanna ohio? Not nice!
i am no Father, although i am a father – of three.
thanks for reading the post.
Howard,
In your “about” section of this blog site, you inform followers that your “academic interests” include “biblical exegesis of both Hebrew and Greek Scriptures”.
Given that, your obvious unfamiliarity with a elementary Hebrew Jewish term like Gahanna and even your man Jesus’ correctly spelled and pronounced Hebrew name, Yeshu, quite shocking.
So, I have another theory I’d like to advance. My theory is that you don’t know a thing about the language of the Bible, that your exegesis is actually an imposition of the theology you learned in Christian Bible school onto bastardized Christological revisions of the Hebrew Bible text (like the one offered in the KJV), and that, when called on your abject ignorance of the Hebrew scripture, you consistently resort to restating your theological views without supporting them with the text and you attack people like me who point out what’s wrong in what you say by making fun of us: “Are you disparaging all the people who live in Gahanna?” Gimme a break.
Howard, this is serious business. Intentionally leading Jews to worship a three-part godhood and otherwise violate G-d’s eternal covenant is not something you want to face the consequences for. It is not too late for you to get a handle on your life, though, and turn things around. But you need to get serious. You need to actually become a scholar in the Hebrew texts, and examine them with your own Jewish eyes and your own Jewish soul. Not through the prism of a non-Jewish religion’s dogmatic text. As long as you remain in a state where you’re just prattling the lines from whatever church organization sponsors you, as long as your laughing away serious challenges to those lines with no serious, honest, intellectually rigorous examination, you have only yourself to blame for your eternity–or lack thereof.
Eric,
your concern about the name and spelling of a town is ridiculous and not worthy of further comment.
Regarding the name of our Messiah, he is referred to as Yeshu in the Talmud either because it is a shortened form or because it is a reaction to Christianity and a way to disparage his name. In the Greek version of the hebrew scriptures called the septuigint (approx. 150 BCE), the name “yehoshua” is translated as “Yesus” which is the Messiah’s name in the New Testament. In the Hebrew bible, a shortened form of “yehoshua” is used in the post exile time of Ezra and Nehemiah and following. For example, in Ezra 2:36 the name is translated “Jeshua”. It is even spelled this way in the english translation published by the Jewish Publication Society. the name is common in Jewish writings until about the 2nd century CE.
Eric,
of coure the siddur, and talmud do not speak of the resurrection of the Messiah. the reason is sadly that our people have rejected the Messiah, although more Jewish people are realizing the truth that He did indeed rise from the dead. The Hebrew bible does not mention the resurrection of yeshua the Messiah because the event occured after the Hebrew Scripturs were written. However, the Hebrew Scriptures, the Siddur and the talmud do speak of the resurrection of the dead which is the hope of our people.
Howard,
First, there are no more people “realizing” that Jesus arose from death. That is because there is no credible reason to believe that he did. The only source for the claim is the New Testament, a document committed to paper only decades after the supposed fact. The daily newspapers at the time apparently didn’t think it was a story, giving reasonable people 2 millennia on good cause to question the veracity of the claim. Further compounding the credibility of the Jesus revivification narrative are the conflicting New Testament accounts of the timing and sequence of Jesus’ post-crucifixion appearances. And the dearth of witnesses. If Jesus really had come back to life and that was a miracle meant to show mankind what a god he was, don’t you think he would have done it before a crowd? Instead, he did it in front of two or three people, none of whom bothered to tell anybody else about it or write it down for another 50 years or so. Because the story is so far-fetched, illogical, and so improperly documented even by the standards of the day, very few new proselytes are available for your recruitment. That is why such a high percentage of your congregation is not Jewish.
Second, you wrote “The Hebrew bible does not mention the resurrection of yeshua the Messiah because the event occured after the Hebrew Scripturs [sic] were written.” Therein lies a major problem with Christianity. Christianity claims to worship the Jewish messiah prophesied in the Hebrew scripture. And yet, none of the Hebrew scriptural prophecy regarding the messiah have transpired. Moreover, the very proof Christianity offers that Jesus was the Jewish messiah–namely, his revivification–is specifically not mentioned in Jewish scripture as a proof of messiahship claims or anything else to do with the messiah. Given the fact that Jesus did not fulfill the Hebrew Biblical messianic prophecies (ex. ingathering the Jewish exiles, rebuilding the Temple in Jerusalem, ending all war, etc.), the Talmud and Siddur were absolutely correct not to record Yeshu’s resurrection as a fact or as an indication the messiah had finally arrived. Those documents, which were under edit during Jesus’ time and beyond, were focused on the Jewish understanding of messiah, the Biblical one, so stories of Jesus’ resurection bore no religious relevance (or credibility) to the Jews. On the other hand, the Christians were left with a problem. They claimed Jesus was the messiah, the Jewish messiah of the Hebrew scriptures. And Jesus hadn’t fulfilled the Jewish messianic prophecies before amply and publicly demonstrating his ordinary mortality. Thus the Christian theologians were left with little choice but to concoct a “second coming” theology that has no basis at all in Jewish scripture, with the claim that when he comes back later Jesus will circle back and fulfill the Jewish messianic prophecy that defines who the messiah is in the first place. It’s fairly obvious why the second coming line was necessary, and that it’s baseless. But even if we allowed for a moment that it were otherwise, it would still be very silly for an intellectually honest person to “accept Jesus has a personal savior” up until the point that Jesus makes his next appearance and ushers in eternal world peace. It’s only after the messiah fulfills the prophecy that Jews will know their messiah has arrived. That’s just obvious. That’s the whole point of receiving the prophecy, so the Jews will know when the messiah promised them by G-d, the patrilineal descendant of David, will have finally arrived.
As a final aside, you really need to re-read your siddur. The restoration of the dead to life is not something we Jews pray for only or specifically with reference to the messiah. We pray to G-d, in Whose hands are the souls of all of the living and all of the deceased, and He has the power to revivify any of the dead, and we hope he will do that, soon. If you devote your life to a three part god that you have to pray to through a deceased human intermediary (directly contradicting the first two of the famous 10 commandments), you may not be setting yourself up to participate in post-messianic life, though.
I am not “concerned” about the fact that you live in a town literally named “Hell” in the language of the Bible. I never expressed concern about that; it has no bearing on me. I expressed surprise that you, a self-described scholar of Hebrew scripture didn’t even know the eyebrow raising scriptural Hebrew etymology of your hometown’s name. Your ignorance on that particular point was surprising, but only in the light of your claim to be a Hebrew expert. It goes to the question of your honesty.
Similarly, up to your last response, you’ve been consistently using the misnomer “Yeshua” for the man Christians idolize, and even went so far as to deny my correction of fact that his name is actually Yeshu. Now, at last, we’re starting to see some of the daylight of truth creep in as you adjust your position to acknowledge that in fact there is NO Yeshua in the Bible, NO Yeshua in the siddur, and NO Yeshua in the Talmud. And, you’re at last admitting that which you denied earlier, that Yeshu (NOT Yeshua) appears in the Talmud. However, you still cling wrongfully to your claim that Yeshu, which happens to be pronounced the same as the Hebrew acronym “may his name and his memory be erased”, is used in the Talmud in reference to the Christian idol merely as a term of disparagement. Nothing could be further from the truth. In the Hebrew and Aramaic text of the Talmud, acronyms do not appear as spelled out names. There is a punctuation mark similar in appearance to an English quotation mark in acronyms that call out those words as acronyms. If you were half the Hebrew scholar you claim to be, you would know this. Thus, Yeshu in the Talmud is a proper name. In fact, multiple Yeshus appear in the Talmud; prior to the rise of heretical Yeshu worship, Yeshu was a common Hebrew name (it was, however, abandoned in the wake of the rise of Christianity). But in Talmud writing, the acronym for the expression “may his name and memory be erased” is ALWAYS written YESH”U (note the quotation mark). So, going again to the question of honesty in your missionizing, here as well you’ve asserted something that is flat out false. The Talmud never disparaged Jesus by calling him “Yeshu”, it was simply using the proper name by which he would have identified himself.
I can’t answer for improper transliterations in the various versions of the Septuagint Christian theologians claim is authentic, nor on the New Testament. I am not Greek, nor do I understand Greek, nor is the Jewish religion of my Hebrew forefathers based on any Greek source documents. In my Bible, Yehoshua–Joshua, not Jesus, in English–was an actual leader of the Jews, and he was not forecasted in any Jewish text to come back to life as Jesus and die for other peoples’ sins. Since you do not claim that Jesus was actually Joshua, I see little relevance to your protestations that Yeshua actually appears in Hebrew scripture as a diminutive form of Joshua. Even if we accepted that inane postulate, how does that salvage your persistent assertion that Yeshua is a correct rendering of Jesus’ Hebrew name Yeshu? I’m confused, and I’m still not getting how you’re honest and full of integrity by your calling Jesus “Yeshua” when the fact remains that in every available Jewish religious source that name is Yeshu.
Eric,
When I say that Yeshua is not in the Siddur, Talmud or Bible I am speaking historically. yeshua was not born in history until after the canon of the Tanak was closed. He is not in the Siddur because our people do not believe he is the Messiah – again i am speaking historically. in the Talmud, he is referred as Yeshu becasue as you say it is an acronym for “may his name be erased”. It was not his real name.
Let me ask you a question: do you believe that there will be a resurrection of the dead as we read in Isaiah and Ezekiel?
Eric,
thank you for spending so much time on this. just to your first point. about the historicity of the resurrection. you say that it was witnessed by only a few people and the only place that it is written about is the New Testament. but could not something similar be said about Sinai? now don’t misunderstand me. i believe in the historicity of the Torah. but could it not be argued that it was an ancient story created to be a narative for israelite existence? i use the same rationale for believeing in the resurrection of Yeshua as i do for beleiving that there really was a Sinai experience. What is the credible proof for belieivning in the birth of Isaac? the parting of the Sea?
eric, just one quick comment,
i never said that i was unaware of Gehenna and its meaning. i am well aware of it.
Howard,
You wrote:
“Hello Randy,
i will have to alert the chamber of commerce of the “Gahanna” meaning!”
But now you write:
“i never said that i was unaware of Gehenna and its meaning. i am well aware of it.”
So I ask:
Which one is it? You can’t have it both ways.
-Eric
Eric,
My statement to randy does not infer that i do not know what the word Gehenna means. It means that i was being sarcastic. sorry for the misunderstanding. also, you state that i have said that i am a hebrew expert. Where do i say that i am a hebrew “expert.” ?
Response to #19:
Howard, it is obvious from your response to Randy, in which I agree that you were employing sarcasm as cover, that you were expressing surprise at the revelation of a fact you’d not known before and that you wanted to trivialize through ridicule.
A normal, expected response to Randy’s commment from someone who knew what Randy was writing might have been to say “I know that, but it’s unimportant because….” You’re comment read like a state department obfuscation that we “can neither confirm nor deny”, leaving rational observers to conclude there’s room to doubt your knowledge about the common Hebrew religious term’s meaning. Personally, I believe your claim not to be expert in the Hebrew language more and more as these exchanges unfold, and I find your claim to have an “academic interest” in Hebrew Biblical exegesis less and less credible all the time. You still persist in rendering the Hebrew name Yeshu as “Yeshua”, and that is very strong proof that you lack even a basic Hebrew text reading skill set (or, that you’re ideologically prevented from confessing the truth about Jesus’ actual Hebrew name).
Eric
Howard,
To your 7/10 8:48pm comment (“in the Talmud, he is referred as Yeshu becasue as you say it is an acronym for ‘may his name be erased’. It was not his real name.”) and your 8:40pm comment (“Where do i say that i am a hebrew ‘expert.’ ?”): You claim in your biography section of this Web site to have an “academic interest” in Hebrew Biblical exegesis, but I now get that your interest in the Hebrew language is not coupled with an ability to understand it. Your comprehension of the English language also appears compromised. I wrote a lengthy explanation to you of the Talmudic distinction between the acronym Yesh”u and the Hebrew name Yeshu. However, without rebutting any of the facts I presented, you replied by persisting in the falsehood that the Talmud refers to Yeshu (Jesus, in English) as a pejorative. That is simply not true. It is simply not true that Yeshua is Jesus’ Hebrew name. Your resistance to linguistic and historic fact on this matter is puzzling and bizarre. Please, please re-read my comment of 7/9 5:29pm so that we may have an intelligent discussion about why Christian missionaries are so keen on renaming Yeshu/Jesus “Yeshua” when clearly that wasn’t a name he would have answered to, but we can’t delve into the “why” and get at the explanation without first establishing the truth which needs explaining.
Howard,
To avoid making folks scroll up and down this page to find your comment to which this is a reply, here is an excerpt of your 7/10 9:04pm posting: “about the historicity of the resurrection. you say that it was witnessed by only a few people and the only place that it is written about is the New Testament. but could not something similar be said about Sinai? now don’t misunderstand me. i believe in the historicity of the Torah. but could it not be argued that it was an ancient story created to be a narative for israelite existence? i use the same rationale for believeing in the resurrection of Yeshua as i do for beleiving that there really was a Sinai experience. What is the credible proof for belieivning in the birth of Isaac? the parting of the Sea?”
I think you’ve asked a marvelous question: what’s the difference between the credibility of Jewish scripture and the NT?
From a credibility perspective, the two documents are worlds apart.
Consider the credibility of the Torah. Every Jewish man, woman and child, without exception, having experienced the miraculous exodus from Egyptian bondage, stood together at Mt. Sinai, 3 million strong, and all experienced prophecy. The entire community listened as G-d told them that Moses was His prophet and as He began to enumerate the Ten Commandments. After that event, there was no Jew who didn’t know about G-d and the validity of Moses’ messages from Him. If any one Jew were to have spuriously denied the mass prophecy the community collectively experienced, he would have been corrected en masse from his entire cohort that would have known he was lying. In subsequent generations, if anyone in the Jewish community would have concocted a line the revelation at Sinai never really occurred, Jews had the benefit of examining such a claim against their familial tradition. They could check it against what their parents had told them, which in turn they’d learnt from their parents.
On the other hand, had no mass prophecy transpired at Mt. Sinai, it would not have been possible to create an entire nation with a belief that it had. If someone told you that ALL of our Jewish ancestors had been visited during one of their assemblies in the distant past by a UFO with little green men on board, you would easily demonstrate his dishonesty by checking his claim against your ancestors’ tradition. Since the claim of divine revelation was to the entire Jewish community, it obviously had to be true in order to have maintained communal acceptance throughout the ages.
You will note that among all of the various religions across all of human history on every part of the plant, Judaism’s claim of collective direct communal communication with G-d is stunning, and absolutely unique. G-d noted this and exhorted us to be mindful of it in Deuteronomy 4:34.
By comparison, the credibility of Christianity hinges on Saul/Paul’s claim that one day, when he was alone, he fell off his horse and Jesus appeared to him. There is no entire-community tradition against which to compare Paul’s Christian claims. Like the rest of the world’s religions (except Judaism), there is an inherent zero-credibility quality to Paul’s claims: nobody else was there, or maybe just a handful of folks, and there’s basically just as much reason to believe it as there is to reject it. This is how all religions crumble under comparative scrutiny to Biblical Judaism: Mormonism, Islam, Indian religions…all hinge on the claims of one or a very few private “prophets”. Some Christian claims of Jesus’ miracle performance involve public audiences (not the entire community, though), but, again, these reports are documented only by lone individuals, and even in those cases the documentation is drafted only decades after the fact.
So, there is a huge chasm in credibility between the Hebrew Bible and the NT. The NT’s credibility is further undermined by it’s insistence that the Hebrew scripture is true, because the NT contradicts the Bible on so many centrally important levels which I’ve addressed in previous postings to you and will not suffer to repeat again here.
Does this at least begin to answer your question?
Eric,
i asked you if you personally believe in the resurrection of the dead which is spoken of in Isaiah 26 and ezekiel 37. you have not answered.
Apologies for that oversight, Howard. You did ask me a straightforward question, and I neglected to supply an answer.
I believe with complete faith that in the era the messiah will usher in, the righteous will be revivified in accordance with G-d’s word in Jewish scripture.
It bears emphasis that the sequence of events in Jewish scripture is arrival of the messiah first, and revivification of the dead second. If I may presume to anticipate your response that Yeshu’s “second coming” is part of the revivification prophecy, you have a problem there due to this sequence, and because Jesus is, by NT reports, “risen” and not dead, and therefore eminently ineligible for further resurection.
Wow, Howard! You asked a very deep and important question about the comparative credibilities of the Hebrew scripture and the NT, which I provided a substantial answer to.
You didn’t have any reply to it at all? Your only real concern was whether or not I believe scriptural prophecy?
Sheesh!
By the way, when are you going to re-post my comment that you squelched and then agreed to reverse course on (in your blog entry on “messianic” Jews talking out of both sides of their mouths or being double faced or something like that)? Have you decided your mission to convert Jews into Christianity is better served by censoring dissent after all?
-Eric
Eric
That’s a great reply to the question asked of you , And of course I agree 100% about the Mountain top experience in the Torah.Specifically in the book Exodus.But most of the problems I have with what you are saying comes from the oral tradition I can only assume that you are taking this information from the Talmud or maybe the most ancient second century midrashic source,the Mekhilta.Was this also part of the oral tradition? If these are part of the oral tradition. When were they written down? It would also be good if when you claim something that you would reference where that information could be found.
I am not really uninterested in what you say might happen with little green men and is really just a waste of space, and a straw-man for you to take apart later.I think if we are to be of a benefit we should stay away from those type of comments.
Mark
Oh, Mark, how I wish I could answer your question to your satisfaction. However, as I am prevented per your rule to establish a straw man, you have made my task impossible.
You see, you do not accept the Talmud’s legitimacy, and were I to cite it you’d of course tear it down. Thus, you’re attempt to maneuver me into the creation of a straw man contradicts your imperative to me not to do so.
Do you see how transparently silly your setup was? The rest of us do.
-Eric
P.S. It makes no difference at which point in history subsequent to its revelation to Moses and the Jews that the Jews decided to commit their tradition to writing. Moreover, your “100%” acceptance of the Jews’ oral account that the received the Torah from G-d and experienced collective prophecy at Sinai and your simultaneous rejection of their account of what else they received from G-d lacks any basis in reason. Either the logic of the collective Jewish experience with G-d holds water, or it does not. You may not have it both ways.
Eric
I am hurt by your suggesting I set anything up.Maybe I need to make myself clearer so you don’t jump to any unwarranted conclusions.I asked a question about the where you get your information,the Talmud or some other source.Because I wanted to read it for myself. I hold no opinion about the legitimacy of that writing.I just suggested that you let the reader know where the information was coming from when ever you quote something. You mention scripture and verse when using the bible why not when using other writings.
And when I said I agree 100% I was only speaking to the book of Exodus In The Bible I have not research the other Jewish writings on this subject.Only some Christian sources.
The green men is your attempt at setting up a straw man,not mine.
I never said I rejected anything.That’s you putting extra words in my mouth. I had a problem with what YOU are saying because I don’t know where you are getting the information from. So it does matter to me when the oral tradition was written down because I want to know.
But I can’t reply to your post so I will re-post the questions. Maybe you will answer maybe you won’t.
Mark
Hello Eric,
i left a comment about your comment that i deleted where you originally wrote it. i do not think i can retrieve a comment that has been deleted. as i wrote there, i tried to find it even before you mentioned it but without success. since you are asking me to retrieve it do you know how to do that? i will repost it and then expalin to you why i am not an anti-semite, as you so generously accused me. if you have a copy of it repost it.
Alert Readers:
Howard deleted a post he did not agree with.
But, when called on it he agreeed in principle to restore that which he deleted.
Now, in Soviet style, he’s putting the onus of restoring that which he deleted on the writer, me, who typed it in his site’s text box and clicked send.
Howard has committed an unreasonable trespass against you through his censorship, and is compounding it by attempting to suggest it is others’ responsibility to maintain copies of their postings in case he deletes them on purpose.
Do not think you are reading an intellectually rigorous collection of viewpoints here. Dissent has been quashed, and may be again.
eric,
you certainly have a flair for the dramatic! the only thing squashed is your emotional outburst of name calling – sorry if it contained other information. But i will put up with your outbursts because yes, you have the right to express yourself.
Is this all you have? Deafeating Messianics on computer technics? No wonder Reform Judaism is a joke. by your underhanded remarks you prove to everyone here what a loser you are.
As to the creditility issue, i wll be commenhting – but here is a question.
your defense of the historicity of the sinai expereince was based on the largeness of the community. you wrote that the resurrection of Yeshua is questioanble becasue there was a small audience for verification. but how many people were around when Isaac was born to an elderly couple? How many people wwere present when God made his covenant with Abraham?
Howard,
I look forward to your forthcoming credibility comment, and how you think anything you have to say will make up for your deletion of what others have to say.
I need to correct your understanding that the credibility of the Torah stands on the largeness of the Sinai witnessing crowd. It is not only the size. It is the completeness. It is that every last Jew was there. That precludes any possibility of an argument that some Jews made this claim about a divine revelation, but others who were around at the same time say it didn’t happen. That’s what’s so absoulutely unique in human history, and one important reason why it’s quite irrational to deny that Sinai happened.
To you question about Isaac: part of the divine revelation before all of Jewry at Sinai was the clarity G-d imparted to the Jews that Moses was His prophet. The Jews all understood that G-d had chosen Moses to bring His messages back to them. Having received that understanding directly from G-d at the foot of Sinai, the Jews were then told by Moses that he alone was going up to the top of the mountain to receive further instructions from G-d, and that he would be back in 40 days. Then the Jews all witnessed Moses ascending the mountain, staying out of site for 40 days, and then returning with further instructions. For an extended period of time thereafter, the Jews witnessed Moses retreating to a tent in which he communed with G-d. After each of those private meetings, Moses would then reveal his face, which the Jews all saw was literally glowing. Among the other astounding historical events of profound ethical import that Moses learned from G-d and relayed to the Jewish people was the story of Isaac’s miraculous life.
Eric,
You say that revivication of Yeshua is far fetched and illogical. First of all it was not revivication. It was resurrection. Second is it far fetched because it is supernatural? If that is the case I must ask you again about the birth of Isaac. How many people were present? Who wrote the eye witness account?
You say that few people were aware of the resurrection for 50 years. According to the text many people were aware of the resurrection. Thousands were aware or became aware on Shavuot of the year of Yeshua’s death and resurrection. The history was not written down for decades, but people were aware of it. We know it because of the NT documents. It is the documents that we rely on.
You said that the credibility of Sinai rests on such a large crowd witnessing the event. But Eric, neither you nor I were present for the event. The only way we know about it is from the Torah. When was the event put on paper? How many years later? Within the Jewish world there is much discussion about what took place and how it is described.
You say that the credibility of Christianity hinges on Saul/Paul’s claim that one day, when he was alone, he fell off his horse and Jesus appeared to him. Eric, the credibility of yeshua does not lie on that historical event. It lies on the resurrection of Yeshua. In addition, just as I said about Sinai, it is only through the text that we have the history. The credibility of the text of the NT is superior to much historical documents of the day. If you want to start naming supposed contradictions, should we start at the beginning of Genesis? All i am saying is that the same standard of criticism should be used.
Howard,
See my posting of a moment ago re. why it’s appropriate and imperative for Jews to believe the entirety of the five books of Moses. But, in summary, I’ll restate here that the entire Jewish community witnessed G-d’s appointment of Moses as His messenger to them. Thus, we believe everything Moses told us. Even those of us who are alive today, even here in Western civilization, in spite of all of the pressure to assimilate the Christians have impressed upon us, it is still possible to find members of many families who did not succomb to the economic pressures to, say, work on the holy sabbath day, families who can trace their ancestry in an unbroken chain of Torah transmission dating back to Sinai. I have that tradition in my family. Why would my folks have made the story up? I don’t think it’s reasonable to suppose they would have. I have a neighbor who can trace her ancestry directly back to David the king. She got that story from her mother, who got that from her father, etc.
We don’t find that among “witnesses” of Jesus. Nobody today traces back a family tradition of having been fed fish by Jesus or watching him rise from the dead. Rather, Christian claims about Jesus are exclusively rooted in the gospels. Four men, decades after Yeshu supposedly lived, wrote their mutually incompatible accounts of Jesus’ life, and in those late writings they asserted unidentified witnesses saw Jesus perform miracles.
I really don’t see how you think the NT has any basis for credibility claims that remotely approach that of the holy Torah. However, because you may strongly desire to evade any personal responsibility to live up to the Torah, because of the understandable appeal of having someone else absolve you of punishment for your own failings, I can certainly see why you would do your best to put on blinders and ignore the flimsiness of the NT’s credibility. But I hope our conversations will continue to spur you to strive for truth.
Eric,
Hello, my name is Eric as well. Anyway, I have been reading this exchange between you and Howard. I just wanted to ask a few questions and make a few comments. You say:
“I really don’t see how you think the NT has any basis for credibility claims that remotely approach that of the holy Torah. However, because you may strongly desire to evade any personal responsibility to live up to the Torah, because of the understandable appeal of having someone else absolve you of punishment for your own failings, I can certainly see why you would do your best to put on blinders and ignore the flimsiness of the NT’s credibility. But I hope our conversations will continue to spur you to strive for truth.”
For starters, I certainly believe in the Sinai Event is historical. But you seem to over simplify things a bit with stating the New Testament books are written decades after Jesus’ life. Can you give the dates of the 27 books- of the New Testament? Secondly, I wonder why the New Testament authors continued to appeal to a credible eyewitness so they could certify a claim as factual. One of the primary stipulations in the giving of the Torah to the Jewish people was that false witness had serious ramifications (Exod 20:16). The Jewish law of multiple witnesses reflects the life-or-death importance of the command (Deut 17:6-7; Num. 35:30). Even Yeshua practiced this principle (Read John Ch 5). The emphasis in credible, eyewitness testimony carried on the time period of Jesus and the early church. The stress on more than one witness was used for church discipline (Matt. 18:16; 2 Cor 13:1;1 Tim 5:19). Also, the principle of giving a true testimony and making a true confession are evident in the early church (Matt 10:18; Mark 6:11;13:9-13;Luke 1:1-2;9:5;21:12-13;22:71;John 1:7-8,15,19,32,34;3:26,28;5:32; Acts 1:8,22;3:15;5:32;10:37-41;13:31;22:15;18;23:11;26:16; Rom 1:9;1 Cor 1:6;15:6;2 Cor 1:23; Phil 1:8; 1Thess:2:5;10;1;1 Tim 6:12-13;2 Tim 2:2; 1 Pet 5:1; 2 Pet. 1:16; 1 John 5:6-11; Rev 1:5; 2:13; 3:14;6:9; 11:3; 17:6). Do you think the New Testament authors were lying or had no interest in getting the story right?
The role of testimony is one of the primary ways humans can know anything about historical events. Testimony as an epistemological enterprise plays a large role in the most recent work by British scholar Richard Bauckham in his book called Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony. Bauckham does a superb job in evaluating how testimony can be treated as historical knowledge. He also compares the use of eyewitness testimony in the Gospels and the survivors of the Holocaust. of course, we see in the New Testament where testimony is used as a means of verifying events. As Bauckham notes on his book, the Greek word for “eyewitness” (autoptai), does not have forensic meaning, and in that sense the English word “eyewitnesses” with its suggestion of a metaphor from the law courts, is a little misleading.The autoptai are simply firsthand observers of those events. Loveday Alexander, in his book The Preface to Luke’s Gospel offers the translations: “those with personal/firsthand experience; those who know the facts at hand (Bauckham, pg 117). One of the greatest assets of Bauckham’s book is the reminder that ancient historians thought that history had to be written during a time when eyewitnesses were still available to be cross-examined.
Also, when to comes to historiography, it does not matter how great the revelation event was at Sinai. Many religions boast of revelatory experiences and events. As I said, I believe in the Sinai event. But if I was an historian and wanted to look at the documents we have for the Sinai event, what is the date of the earliest copy we have of the event? In other words, how far is the copy we have from the original event? For example, the earliest testimony we have for the resurrection is 1 Corinthians 15: 3-7 . The date of the this letter is 55 A.D., which is only 20-25 yrs later after 33.AD. If this tradition originated in the Aramaic language, the two locations that people spoke Aramaic were Galilee and Judea. Paul most likely received the oral history of 1 Cor, 15: 3-7 in his visit to Jerusalem (Gal 1:18)- Paul received the creed only 5- 7 yrs after the resurrection of Jesus. The Greek term “historeo” is translated as “to visit” or “to interview.” Hence, Paul’s purpose of the trip was to interview Peter was to determine historical facts. The late Jewish New Testament scholar Pinchas Lapide was so impressed by this creed that he concluded that this “formula of faith may be considered as a statement of eyewitnesses.” (The Resurrection of Jesus: a Jewish Perspective, pgs 98-99).
And in relation to historiography, what are the tests that historians look at in examining the credibility of an ancient document? How do you know the New Testament does not pass these tests?
Take care,
Eric
Hey Eric,
I’m not going to answer your questions here, because I already have in the postings which you’ve already read.
Although I’ve seen your argument employed by Christian apologists many times before, it never ceases to amaze me. This is its essence. Sure, the Christian NT contains some really unbelievable claims. But so, after all, does the Hebrew scripture, and if you’ve swallowed that, what’s wrong with just a little more? And anyway, every other religion too features unbelievable claims about events, usually in the distant past; that’s just something which necessarily goes with religion.
I’m always amazed when missionaries expect that line to win acceptance of NT claims, since it’s really an argument in favor of dispensing with all religion! But, as I’ve written in previous postings, there is a reasonable basis for believing the Jewish Bible claims, one which is unmatched in all of human history (see my prior posting).
A favorite method of casting doubt on the Hebrew scripture, and thereby to equalize its credibility with the NT, is to suggest that we can not know what happened before. How do you know, the argument goes, that George Washington really existed? You never saw him with your own eyes, did you? The very obvious problem with this approach is that historians can in fact support historical claims with one very important tool: evidence. We have writings from Washington’s times, and an unbroken tradition in America from those who knew him and knew of him. Our entire knowledge of Washington does not derive from a book written decades after he died and which was rejected as fiction by a majority of Americans when the book was published.
Eric Y.,
on july 13th you said:
To you question about Isaac: part of the divine revelation before all of Jewry at Sinai was the clarity G-d imparted to the Jews that Moses was His prophet. The Jews all understood that G-d had chosen Moses to bring His messages back to them. Having received that understanding directly from G-d at the foot of Sinai, the Jews were then told by Moses that he alone was going up to the top of the mountain to receive further instructions from G-d, and that he would be back in 40 days. Then the Jews all witnessed Moses ascending the mountain, staying out of site for 40 days, and then returning with further instructions. For an extended period of time thereafter, the Jews witnessed Moses retreating to a tent in which he communed with G-d. After each of those private meetings, Moses would then reveal his face, which the Jews all saw was literally glowing. Among the other astounding historical events of profound ethical import that Moses learned from G-d and relayed to the Jewish people was the story of Isaac’s miraculous life.
Eric, so it was supernatural – God brought plagues on mighty egypt, God spoke to a man, god related the supernatural birth of issac to him, a supernatural parting of water, the nation followed the man, they eventually en masse – millions of people – entered canaan. we know about it because it was was written in a book thousands of years ago and not verified in any other source of the day. millions of people invading – and no other source mentions it.
like you, i believe it. just like i believe the NT. Same God working among his people.
Our issues about the Messiah are Jewish issues about his calling of the jewish people to be a light to the nations. when god sent the prophets, they were rejected by the people except for a remnant. When the Messiah came he was rejected as well except for a rremnant today. the difference is the nature of the Messiah. a supernatural birth and the enfleshment of God – not another God. He is also the light of the gentiles. over time the gentile culture overtook the Jewish essence of being a follower of the Messiah. We messianic jews are de-contexualizing what it means to be a follower of Messiah. He is a prophet like Moses but more than Moses, and you should think about considering his claims. The same God who redeemed our people from egypt, gave them the torah and sent them on the journey to the land, is the same God who sent the Messiah, who is calling his people today to repentance and restoration and who one day will bring all of our people to restoration. Restoration does not only include the forgiveness of sins but also includes the return to the land of Israel, Jewish identity, and the ability to be obedient to god via the Ruach HaKodesh. it also includes being a light to genetiles. Many people toeday around the world are familiar with the 10 commandments because they learned them as followers of the Messiah. Gentiels who beleive idnt hemessiah are not Jews but they are beleiving in the Jewish messiah.
Hi Eric,
I really don’t think you addressed any of my comments. I have no need to cast doubt on the credibility of the Hebrew Scriptures. I believe they are accurate and historical. I am just asking you to apply some of the same standards to the NT. You use the term “evidence” –but still will not tell me what the tests are that an historian will use in looking at the evidence for the NT. I am so happy you brought up George Washington. Kenneth Bailey, a scholar who lived in the Middle East for yrs studied oral tradition. In his article called Middle Eastern Oral Tradition and the Synoptic Gospels- he tells of the time when he went to present his findings of how oral tradition works to a group of educated Westerners and a doctoral candidate in American history who was writing a dissertation on George Washington.
When Bailey explained the issues of oral tradition in relation to the synoptic tradition the doctoral student said,
“Dr. Bailey, you are a lucky man! What you describe means that the material you have available to you in your study f Jesus of Nazareth is historically more reliable than the information I have available to me in my study of George Washington. I have no way of knowing if the author of a particular journal is telling the truth, or trying to get elected to office, or engaging in fabricated name-dropping. You are discussing material recited in public to a community that already knows the material and exercises control over what is recited. I have no controls.”
Take care,
Eric
To Howard (no. 38):
Howard, you wrote of the exodus “it was was written in a book thousands of years ago and not verified in any other source of the day. millions of people invading – and no other source mentions it.
like you, i believe it.”
My response is that no, you do not believe it like I do. I believe it like I believe that George Washington really did exist, because evidence and logic bear up that supposition. You believe it without regard to evidence and logic, merely as a “leap of faith”. (See Eric, no. 39 to this blog entry, for the wild lengths Christian apologists will pursue in pseudo-intellectualism to support substituting faith leaps for critical analysis of evidence in accepting historical and ahistorical facts and narratives). I believe the Hebrew Bible because every Jew witnessed the revelation at Sinai, and there is no Jewish family to this day with a tradition from their parents passed down through the eons that the mass prophecy did not occur, and because I do have a tradition from my own family that it in fact did happen.
On the other hand, there are no Christians who have a tradition that their ancestors witnessed NT events. Rather, there are billions of non-Jewish Christians who believe a book that tells them there were Jewish people who witnessed the events in the NT despite the lack of any such passed down tradition in any Jewish family anywhere.
I hope you can appreciate the difference. It’s huge. The Jewish Bible was transmitted from all of the numerous direct witnesses one-to-one down through the generations. The Christian text’s only corroboration is it’s own claim to be true and to record witnessed events.
Beyond that discrepancy are other NT problems. First, the NT describes events that were to have occurred at a time and place that major and minor events of the day were routinely recorded in minute detail. Yet the NT itself remains the only document to record events that would have been earthshattering in Israel had they actually transpired, and it was not written until much, much later–decades after Jesus’ supposed death. It’s useless to apply that particular problem to the Hebrew Bible, though you may be sorely tempted to as an illustration that your doctrine is as credible as Judaism’s, because in the harsh environs of the desert wilderness there of course were no daily newspapers. And then there’s the problem with accepting the many NT passages and concepts that directly contradict the established Torah (think trinitarianism, vicarious atonement, eternal laws no longer binding, etc.).
We’ve both noticed that you and others have continued to assail this basic credibility delineation with a lot of verbiage, and that none of it has successfully rationalized making leaps of faith while having evidence to suggest faith in the NT is misplaced. Rather than continue to reiterate these obvious, gaping differences in the credibility of our respective religions, I’m going to refer any future questions on this topic back to this posting. I look forward to contemplating with you other important and interesting topics about the wisdom of practicing Christianity if you’re a Jew in the future.
-Eric
Mark (re. no. 28): Because you haven’t shown, and I’ unaware of, any relevance of your question to the matter of the credibility of Judaism’s written and oral traditions, I’m not going to address it in this forum.
However, for your own edification I recommend using the keyword “mishna” to your research terms.
-Eric
eric,
what i understand you to be saying is that judaism is a communal faith that is not simply based on precepts or on the “the book” but on the peoplehood of Israel. I understaned that. and believe it or not, we (and i do not speak for all jewish believers in the messiah)believe that we are part of that communal peoplehood. as i wrote in a different post. i am a levi. i know that from my father and he knows that from his father. our uniqueness is that we embrace yeshua as the messiah. Now i know that you will say that that is impossible because of the nature of yeshua. but we do not understand him to be a different god or a man who became God. in the Torah God manifests himself to such people as Abraham, Hagar and Manoah the father of Samson. He revealed himself in space and time while still being everywhere at the same time. When the messiah came, God revealed himself again but this time in complete enfleshment.
Howard,
Your understanding of my point is incorrect. To understand what I actually said, carefully read post #40.
In each of the three cases of G-d revealing Himself that you cited, G-d did not reveal Himself. You misspoke/mistyped. In reality, the Bible says that an angel appeared to Abraham, an angel appeared to Hagar, an angel appeared to Manoach.
The Omnipresent’s imanent presence is a spiritual phenomenon that you and I cannot comprehend, so I will not devote more space to discussing it with you now (or more time to discussing it with you here). I will say that G-d’s imanent presence has nothing to do with assuming human form.
Over and over again, our Bible tells us that G-d cannot be reduced to human “enfleshment” (nice word, Howard). You say G-d revealed Himself as a man. But G-d says “G-d is not a man” (Num. 23:9). If we are to believe Ex. 33:20, and I do, then none of the witnesses who saw Jesus’ godly face could possibly have survived to relate their NT testimony. The preposterous Christian notion that G-d assumed human form is ridiculously anti-Biblical. I’m surprised an intelligent guy like you would be seriously advancing such a silly idea.
-Eric
Eric
How do you explain? Num. 24:4 Now God met Balaam,and said to him.Also Num. 24:16 Then the Lord met Balaam and put a word in his mouth.Balaam seems to survive the encounter.
Mark
Eric,
You say the following:
“I hope you can appreciate the difference. It’s huge. The Jewish Bible was transmitted from all of the numerous direct witnesses one-to-one down through the generations. The Christian text’s only corroboration is it’s own claim to be true and to record witnessed events. Beyond that discrepancy are other NT problems. First, the NT describes events that were to have occurred at a time and place that major and minor events of the day were routinely recorded in minute detail. Yet the NT itself remains the only document to record events that would have been earth shattering in Israel had they actually transpired, and it was not written until much, much later–decades after Jesus’ supposed death.”
As far as a tradition that is followed, I am still looking for you to respond to the issue where I said the following:
One of the primary stipulations in the giving of the Torah to the Jewish people was that false witness had serious ramifications (Exod 20:16). The Jewish law of multiple witnesses reflects the life-or-death importance of the command (Deut 17:6-7; Num. 35:30). Even Yeshua practiced this principle (Read John Ch 5). The emphasis in credible, eyewitness testimony carried on the time period of Jesus and the early church. The stress on more than one witness was used for church discipline (Matt. 18:16; 2 Cor 13:1;1 Tim 5:19). Also, the principle of giving a true testimony and making a true confession are evident in the early church (Matt 10:18; Mark 6:11;13:9-13;Luke 1:1-2;9:5;21:12-13;22:71;John 1:7-8,15,19,32,34;3:26,28;5:32; Acts 1:8,22;3:15;5:32;10:37-41;13:31;22:15;18;23:11;26:16; Rom 1:9;1 Cor 1:6;15:6;2 Cor 1:23; Phil 1:8; 1Thess:2:5;10;1;1 Tim 6:12-13;2 Tim 2:2; 1 Pet 5:1; 2 Pet. 1:16; 1 John 5:6-11; Rev 1:5; 2:13; 3:14;6:9; 11:3; 17:6). Do you think the New Testament authors were lying or had no interest in getting the story right?
Also, you are assuming the NT was not written by direct witnesses to the events. I already mentioned that the autoptai are simply firsthand observers of those events. Loveday Alexander, in his book The Preface to Luke’s Gospel offers the translations: “those with personal/firsthand experience; those who know the facts at hand (Bauckham, pg 117).
As I said, ancient historians thought that history had to be written during a time when eyewitnesses were still available to be cross-examined .And you still have not answered me on the date of the first copy we have of the Sinai event – compared to 1 Cor 15. For you to assert that the NT is written much later- therefore, it is unreliable is problematic , given how far away the first copy we have of the Sinai event.
Take care,
Eric
Eric,
Thank you for the copy-and-paste job.
Your point that we don’t have in our possession the original Torah scroll and we must therefore conclude the written Torah didn’t exist until the carbon dating on the oldest scroll we can find dates from is lacking with this iteration, too. At the time of the oldest available scroll, we find no written record and no oral tradition that it was a phony concocted at that point for the first time. Rather, we have an oral tradition that that scroll was copied verbatim from another, which was copied perfectly accurately from another, etc., all the way back to Sinai.
On the other hand, the oral tradition surrounding the NT is that it was written by several individuals much later than the events about which they wrote.
I really don’t know how many times I have to write this rather simple message for you in different words until it sinks in. I’m beginning to conclude, though, that the answer may be infinity, because you have a will to believe in the NT that is interfering with your clear thought about reasonably obvious facts that have now been laid out before you repeatedly and which you still resist coming to grips with.
I really don’t know/care who Loveday Alexander is. He lived 2,000 years after the NT events were to have occurred, none of those events were reported in the local news at the time, and even the NT itself, written by a few individuals, wasn’t written until decades after the events. Again, I’ve provided you with this fact pattern multiple times before. Why do you keep asking me about it?
-Eric
Eric,
You say the following:
Over and over again, our Bible tells us that G-d cannot be reduced to human “enfleshment” (nice word, Howard). You say G-d revealed Himself as a man. But G-d says “G-d is not a man” (Num. 23:9). If we are to believe Ex. 33:20, and I do, then none of the witnesses who saw Jesus’ godly face could possibly have survived to relate their NT testimony. The preposterous Christian notion that G-d assumed human form is ridiculously anti-Biblical. I’m surprised an intelligent guy like you would be seriously advancing such a silly idea.
My response:
For starters, is the divinity of Jesus really non-biblical and non-Jewish? In a televised interview, the late Orthodox Jewish scholar Pinchas Lapide said the following: “I used to think the becoming incarnate was impossible for G-d. But recently I have come to the conclusion that it is un-Jewish to say that this is something that the G-d of the Bible cannot do, that he cannot come that close I have second thoughts about the incarnation.” (Oscar Skarsaune, In The Shadow of the Temple: Jewish Influences on Early Christianity (Downers Grove, ILL: Intervarsity Press, 2002), 335-36.
Most recently, I attained a current workbook called The Messiah Mystery: Toward A Perfect World. Montreal , Quebec , Canada , The Jewish Learning Institute,. The entire book is about the Messiah concept, etc (maybe you have it?) Anyway, in that book, it says the following: “In the Bible, the Shechinah is the visible manifestation of the presence of God in which He descends to dwell among men. In Midrash Rabbah, Bamidar (Numbers) 13:6, it says: From the first day that G-d created the world, he desired to dwell with His creations in the lowest realms (tachtonim) but He did not do so until the Tabernacle was constructed and He caused His presence (Shechinah) to dwell therein. When the princes came to bring their sacrifices, G-d said, “Let it be written that on this day the world was created.” (The Messiah Mystery: Toward A Perfect World. Montreal , Quebec , Canada , The Jewish Learning Institute, pg 13).
In looking at this comment, I will elaborate. I am sure you know that the Hebrew form Shechinah, from the root “shachan,” means “dwelling” while the Greek word “Skeinei” means to tabernacle. The Shechinah glory is seen in a variety of visible manifestations such as light, fire, cloud, the Angel of the Lord, or a combination of all of these. For the Jewish people, the ultimate manifestation of the Shechinah was seen in the giving of the Torah at Mt. Sinai (Ex.19: 16-20). Therefore, in relation to the incarnation, the Shechinah takes on greater significance in Jn. 1:1-14. As John says, “And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.” As already stated, the Greek word “Skeinei” means to tabernacle. Jn. 1:14 literally says,” the Word became flesh and tabernacled among us.” John is not communicating a non-Jewish idea.
In the same book, (The Messiah Mystery: Toward A Perfect World), R. Jacob Immanuel Schochet says the following about one of the expectations of the Messiah. He says: “His wisdom shall exceed even that of King Solomon; he shall be greater than all the patriarchs, greater than all the prophets after Moses, and in many respects even more exalted than Moses. His stature and honor shall exceed that of all the kings before him. He will be an extraordinary prophet, second only to Moses, with all the spiritual and mental qualities that are prerequisites to be endowed with the gift of prophecy.”
It is interesting that Yeshua spoke about this very issue.Yeshua fulfills the role of a sage by attributing the Wisdom literature to Himself. He says in Matthew 12:42: “The Queen of the South will rise at the judgment with the men of this generation and condemn them; for she came from the ends of the earth to listen to Solomon’s wisdom, and now one greater than Solomon is here.”
There is also a relationship between Yeshua as the figure of Wisdom and Torah. The rabbis could speak of taking upon oneself the yoke of Torah or the yoke of the kingdom; Yeshua said, “Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me.” (Mt 11:29). Also, the rabbis could say that if two or three men sat together, having the words of Torah among them, the shekhina (God’s own presence) would dwell on them (M Avot 3:2) ;Yeshua said, “Where two or three are gathered in my name, I will be among them” (Matt 18:20). The rabbis could speak about being persecuted for God’s sake, or in his Name’s sake, or for the Torah’s sake; Yeshua spoke about being persecuted for and even loosing one’s life for his sake. Remember, the prophets could ask people to turn to God, to come to God for rest and help. Yeshua spoke with a new prophetic authority by stating, “Come to me, all you that are weary and are carrying heavy burdens, and I will give you rest” (Mt 11:28). ( Skarsaune, O. In The Shadow Of The Temple : Jewish Influences On Early Christianity. Downers Grove , ILL : Intervarsity Press. 2002, 331).
One other thing to ask: According to Acts 2:24-25, less than two months after Yeshuas’ crucifixion, Peter preached a sermon at Pentecost in which he quoted Psalm 16:8, “I saw the Lord always before me, for he is at my right hand so that I will not be shaken.” Peter applies the word “Lord” which had always referred only to the G-od of Israel to the resurrected Yeshua. In other words, Peter did something that had never been done in the Hebrew Bible nor the Intertestamental Literature: he transferred nomenclature for the G-d of Israel to a human being. As Larry Hurtado declares, [Lord Jesus] goes back to the devotional life of Jewish Believers- Lord Jesus Christ-pgs 20-21.
Furthermore, it would have been no problem to confess Yeshua as prophet, priest, or king since these offices already existed in the O.T. And all these titles were used for a human being- in other words, there was nothing divine about them. Could the early Jewish believers be emulating the Gentiles and its polytheism? There are references to the negative views of gentile polytheism (Acts 17: 22-23; 1 Cor 8:5). The Jews were resistant to Hellenism and paganism. In other words, to say that the Jewish believers laid aside their monotheism in order to reach a Gentile audience is problematic. They regard Gentiles as sinners (Gal 2:5) and idolaters (Rom 1:23). The attempt to show that the early believers tried to apotheosize Jesus into another Greek god is inherently weak as a hypothesis.
So without a resurrection, is there any explanation for a divine Yeshua? I don’t think so.
And when you say ” You say the following: “Yet the NT itself remains the only document to record events that would have been earth shattering in Israel had they actually transpired, and it was not written until much, much later–decades after Jesus’ supposed death.”
My response:
How earth shattering does it need to be? It is within Acts that Paul announces that the coming of Jesus and the worldwide spread of the gospel were “not done in a corner” (Acts 26:26). The events show God revealed his divine truth to people within the context of secular history. The people were able to verify the events. It is within Acts that we see the recording of thousands of Jewish people coming to faith in Messiah. But I suppose now we have to ask why trust Acts? I guess why not?
I will list a few things that Classic’s scholar Colin Hember lists in his book C. J. Hemer, The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History, C. H. Gempf, ed. to show Acts does show accurate history.
1. A natural crossing between correctly named ports (13:4–5). Mount Casius, south of Seleucia, stands within sight of Cyprus. The name of the proconsul in 13:7 cannot be confirmed, but the family of the Sergii Pauli is attested.
2. The proper river port, Perga, for a ship crossing from Cyprus (13:13).
3. The proper location of Lycaonia (14:6).
4. The unusual but correct declension of the name Lystra and the correct language spoken in Lystra. Correct identification of the two gods associated with the city, Zeus and Hermes (14:12).
5. The proper port, Attalia, for returning travelers (14:25).
6. The correct route from the Cilician Gates (16:1).
7. The proper form of the name Troas (16:8).
8. A conspicuous sailors’ landmark at Samothrace (16:11).
9. The proper identification of Philippi as a Roman colony. The right location for the river Gangites near Philippi (16:13).
10. Association of Thyatira with cloth dyeing (16:14). Correct designations of the titles for the colony magistrates (16:20, 35, 36, 38).
11. The proper locations where travelers would spend successive nights on this journey (17:1).
12. The presence of a synagogue in Thessalonica (17:1), and the proper title of politarch for the magistrates (17:6).
13. The correct explanation that sea travel is the most convenient way to reach Athens in summer with favoring east winds (17:14).
14. The abundance of images in Athens (17:16), and reference to the synagogue there (17:17).
15. Correct identification of the Corinthian synagogue (18:4). Correct designation of Gallio as proconsul (18:12). The bema (judgment seat) can still be seen in Corinth’s forum (18:16).
16. The name Tyrannus, attested on a first-century inscription (19:9).
17. The cult of Artemis of the Ephesians (19:24, 27). The cult is well attested, and the Ephesian theater was the city meeting-place (19:29).
18. Correct title grammateus for the chief executive magistrate and the proper title of honor, Neokoros (19:35). Correct name to identify the goddess (19:37). Correct designation for those holding court (19:38). Use of plural anthupatoi in 19:38 is probably a remarkably exact reference to the fact that two men jointly exercised the functions of proconsul at this time.
19. Use of precise ethnic designation beroiaios and the ethnic term Asianos (20:4).
20. Implied recognition of the strategic importance assigned to Troas (20:7–13).
22. Implication of the danger of the coastal trip in this area that caused Paul to travel by land (20:13). Correct sequence of places visited and correct neuter plural of the city name Patara (21:1).
23. The correct identifications of Ananias as high priest (23:2) and Felix as governor (23:34).
24. Identification of a common stopping point on the road to Caesarea (23:31).
Take care,
Eric
Eric,
Let me take your questions in order:
1. Yes, Jesus’ being a divine person is foreign to the Bible and Judaism (remember Num. 23:9).
2. No, I don’t have that book. I do have a Bible, though, and in it (at Num. 23:9) G-d says that He is not a man.
3. You wanted to “ask about” when Peter in Acts “transferred nomenclature for the G-d of Israel to a human being.” I couldn’t tell exactly what your question there was, but I thought you provided an excellent example of the NT contradicting G-d’s word in Num. 23:9.
4. I’ve already provided you with two important reasons not to believe the theological messages in Acts, and, more broadly the NT. Most, but not all, fiction is composed within the framework of real famous peaple and places. Just as you would not argue that the movie “The Last Temptation of Christ”, which portrayed a lusty Jesus, was true in every respect because it took place in real historical cities and involved a main character you believe existed, it is silly to believe Jesus walked on water just because the same book that says so also includes a reference to a pit stop along the road to Ceasarea. The two reasons, again, are: the NT records events that only its authors, who came along much later than the stories they write about, vouch for as witnesses; and, Acts and the NT clash directly with all of the primary theological messages of the clearly substantiated Tanach upon which the NT claims to rest.
Have you noticed that you’ve gone to great, verbose lengths to demonstrate that G-d is a man, and still, even with Lovejoy Alexander’s help, you still haven’t been able to get around Num. 23:9? Sooner or later, you’re going to have to deal with Num. 23:9, and the fact that no one can dispute that it is G-d’s word.
-Eric
Eric,
Once again, I see you fail to address several of my questions. At this point, I assume you don’t know the answers or just don’t care. You keep saying the NT is problematic but don’t answer any of my questions about tests of historiography/evidence, the dates about the Sinai event and the first copy, the dates of the NT books, or the rule of the testimony of the witnesses, etc- following from the Tanakh that carried on throughout the NT. Now you are attempting to say the NT is some sort of fiction. Before we make such statements, it would be helpful to have an understanding of the genre of the books of the NT. And an attempt to make a dichotomy between theology and history won’t work. Scholars have attempted to that with the Torah. I don’t do it. But I would not attempt to do that with the N.T.
As far as Numbers 23:19, you fail to grasp the context and setting of the verse. This verse has nothing to do with the composition of G-d or the incarnation. Rather, in context, it has to do with the character of G-d. Some translations says “G-d is not a human being that he should lie.” In the context of Num. 23: 19, the point is when G-d makes a decision He follows through on it. It is also important to practice the hermeneutical principle of allowing Scripture to interpret Scripture. Is it wise to take one text such as Num. 23:19, and build an entire theological position? Even though Num 23:19 is not about G-d’s composition, etc, I think it would be wise to look at all the passages that talk about G-d’s nature, etc…
Take care,
Eric
Eric,
Again, I’m not getting dragged into a high falutin’ hitoriographicaliologyism with you. That is a spitting match of vanity, at the end of which you’ll be no closer to the truth than you are right now.
Numbers 23:19 does NOT say “G-d doesn’t change His mind”. It says “G-d is not a man, and does not change his mind [like a man]”. It is not for us to decide which of the words in G-d’s sentences He really means, and which ones we are free to throw out. Two things are absoultely evident in Numbers 23:19–that G-d is not a man, and that G-d does not change His mind. It is by definition heretical to say or believe that either of His statements are erroneous.
And then we have Exodus 33:20, in which G-d clearly states that no human being can survive the experience of seeing G-d’s face. That obviously rules out the possibility that Jesus, whom Christians venerate as their god, lived out his life in a society of human beings who survived looking at his face.
I’m sorry, Eric, that you wish to persist in pseudo-academic babbling about Alexander Lovejoy, the meaning of historiographical aptions and the age of the oldest Torah scroll known to modern historians. Those are distractions from the fact that in Num. 23:19 G-d in His own words told the Jews that He is not a man. Because I am rational, I do not need to follow you on wild escapades through fake archeology and Christian apology masquerading as logic. I need go no further than the Bible to find out whether or not G-d was a man. As for you, good luck!
-Eric
Eric,
Good enough. My only suggestion is to not make claims that can’t be substantiated. I guess you would rather not attempt to answer my questions (and I don’t take your comment about Numbers 23:19 as a very good explanation). I know all about the Exodus passage. But once again, you ignored the issue of letting scripture interpret scripture. As far as being rational, two areas that are part of being rational are the ability to use logic, and systematic criteria.
Let’s look at the following syllogism:
1. The New Testament documents are historically reliable evidence.
2. The historical evidence of the New Testament shows that Jesus is the Jewish Messiah.
3. Therefore, there is reliable historical evidence that Jesus is the Jewish Messiah.
Since you would rather not answer my previous questions, I guess we need to ask who is being rational?
Take care,
Eric
What fitting argument on behalf of your logically indefensible creed, Eric: two wrongs make a right.
-Eric Y.
Good enough Eric. It is good to see that you continue to offer no evidence to back up your claims.
Take care,
Eric
Huh?!
I offered Num. 23:9. That’s the evidence we have that G-d is not a man.
You offered your opinion that when G-d in the Bible says “G-d is not a man”, you find that unconvincing.
I really don’t think you want to be asserting that I’m the one around here making baseless statements without evidentiary support.
Peace, out.
-Eric
Obviously, I meant 19, not 9.
Eric Y.
Do you believe anything God says? Apparently you did not read Levit 18:22, or did you?
Eric,
Never mind. If you are still concluding that I offered no evidence, we need to go over the basics of what qualifies as evidence. When evidence is given, it is many times given in the form of a deductive argument which includes two premises and a conclusion. At this point, it is time ot move on.
Eric
let us put an end to the debate surrounding Yeshua’s name.
Eric Y. has said:
It is simply dishonest to hide the obviously damning parallelism between Jesus’ actual Hebrew name and the Hebrew acronoym Ye-Sh-U for “yemach sh’mo v’zichrono”, meaning “may his name and his memory be erased”, and instead changing Jesus to a name that sounds like the authentic Biblical Jewish leader Joshua (commonly pronounced in Hebrew as Yeshua, though spelled Yehoshua).
We use the name Yeshua because it is the masortic vocalization for his name. You see this name in a number of verses in the hebrew scriptures where it is spelled in english as “Jeshua” For example, see: 1 Chr. 24:11; 2 Chr. 31:15; Ezr. 2:2, 6, 36, 40; 3:2, 8f; 4:3; 5:2; 8:33; 10:18; Neh. 3:19; 7:7, 11, 39, 43; 8:7; 9:4f; 10:9; 11:26; 12:1, 7f, 10, 24, 26
In the first century the final “a” was not pronounced. for example the name Hosea did not have a final “a”. the name Joshua did not have the final “a” pronounced.They end in “ayin” which was not vocalized as eric has said. But notioce the inconsistancy. In judaism, certainly the prophet Hosea’s name is pronounced with the final “a” and the name of the successor to Moses is not Joshu but rather Joshua. So why is it that there is such an inconsistancy in the pronunciaiton of the name of our Messiah Yeshua? Why does Eric Y. insist on calling him Yeshu but not insisting that we call Joshua Joshu or Hosea Hose? The reason is that Eric Y. wants to defame the messiah of israel by taking the initials to say to “yemach sh’mo v’zichrono”, meaning “may his name and his memory be erased”. it has nothing to do with clarity or honesty – it has everything to do with defaming the very Messiah of Israel. We are simply being consistant with our pronunciatons. We say Joshua, Hosea and Yeshua.