No, a mamzer cannot become a kohein (priest). The child of adultery between a kohein (or incest) falls under forbidden sexual acts and any resulting children would be considered ממצרים / mamzerim. Jewish priests have many prohibitions on whom they may marry (more on that momentarily)...
A mamzer / ממזר is the result of a couple whose sexual relationship is forbidden by the Torah and punishable by kareit or death. The term "bastard" is an inaccurate translation as "bastard" has to do with a child born out of wedlock. There is no such term in Judaism.
The word mamzer / ממזר comes from mum / מוּם = defect, and זָר = alien, stranger. (Jerusalem Talmud, Kiddushin).
What relationships are forbidden? The Torah forbids sexual relations between:
Most issues with being a mamzer relate to whom he or she may marry. A mamzer may only marry converts to Judaism, eved (servants / slaves) fellow mamzerim, and their descendants who are also mamzerim.
Of course mamzers are not damned -- in fact in some ways their souls are considered holier than those of ordinary Jews. The Talmud tells us: "a mamzer, who, notwithstanding his status, is considered a brother." Yevamot 22b. Yet it is also true that the mamzer has no genealogy, hence is called mamzer, thus there is no right to inherit any tribal status.
Although כֺּהֵן (kohein) is used to speak of the descendants of Aaron and is often translated as "priest" it can refer to others as well.
Although כֺּהֵן (kohein) is often translated as "priest" it is closer in meaning to a minister -- and is used in the T'nach to speak of government ministers (rulers): "And to Joseph were born two sons before the year of the famine set in, whom Asenath the daughter of Poti phera, the governor / כֹּהֵן / kohein of On, bore to him." B'reshit / Genesis 41:50.
Most Christian translations erroneously have "priest of On" -- but the Hebrew word אוֹן on is not a place “force” or “power” and was used by Jacob when he blessed his son Reuven in B'reshit / Genesis 49:3, "Reuben, you are my firstborn, my strength and the first of my might. [You should have been] superior in rank and superior in power.").
"And Benayahu the son of Yehoyada [was over] the archers and the slingers; and David's sons were chief officers / כֹּהֲנִ֥ים / kohanim." Shmuel Beit / 2 Samuel 8:18.
Speaking specifically of the "priests" (the descendants of Aaron who ministered the Temple) they have many marriage prohibitions. They can't marry a divorcee, a prostitute, a convert, or a dishonored woman (חֲלָלָה / chalalah) See Vayikra / Leviticus 21:7.
If a kohein married a disqualified person (including a mamzer) he would lose his priestly duties and could not serve. It is permitted for a convert to marry the daughter of a priest, since women with a priestly father were not prohibited from marrying those disqualified for the priesthood.
The term mamzer does not refer to the child of two unmarried individuals who could theoretically marry -- hence it does NOT mean "bastard."
Someone wrote “I wrote on some YouTube video that God is not a man. Some Christian lady told me explain how come God comes many times as angels / bush or other shapes.
"I explain that an angel is not a man but she of course doesn't like answers that make sense. She finished with the following: Jesus is your Messiah. The New Testament is part of the Jewish bible written by Jews for Jews and gentiles. Jesus is one with the father. Explain to me who is the angel of the Lord. Why did Hagar say what she said and why did the angel say what he said. Why non of.the regular angels speak as.this angel of the lord speaks. Who is this angel that appears to Moses in the burning bush. Explain to me this, otherwise this is the evidence that God and Jesus are one."
You get a call on your cellphone. It’s FaceTime so you can see the person as you talk to them. Does that mean your phone is really a human?
How about watching television. Is the television a human?
Of course not, it is ridiculous, right? A phone isn’t a person and neither is a television.
And G-d may communicate with humans, getting our attention with a cloud (for example) but the cloud is no more G-d than is a cellphone call or a television show.
An angel isn’t G-d.
A burning bush isn’t G-d.
Humans (a man) isn’t G-d.
Only G-d is G-d.
The Hebrew Bible tells us time and time again that G-d is not a man, G-d has no form at all.
"G-d is not a man." Bamidbar / Numbers 23:19;
"I HaShem do not change ." Malachi 3:6;
"Remember the first things of old, that I am G-d and there is no other; I am G-d and there is none like Me." Isaiah 46:9.
There are many more such statements that tell us G-d is one (not a trinity), G-d is unique, no one can see G-d and live, there is nothing like G-d…
Let’s address her arguments.
She says G-d comes “many times” as an angel. This is 100% false. G-d never appears as an angel.
The very word for angel in Hebrew means messenger. The word is מַלְאָך / "mal'ach” which translates to “messenger.” In the Hebrew Bible there are HUMAN "angels" (messengers) as well as heavenly -- somehow the Christian translations don't call the human ones angels -- they translate the word there as messenger.
"Jacob sent messengers / מַלְאָכִים / m'lachim ahead of him to his brother Esau, to Edom's Field in the Seir area." B'reshit / Genesis 32:4.
Why do suppose that the King James Version and other Christian translations choose the word "messenger" here and not "angels"? A bit self serving, wouldn't you agree?
Somehow when it applies to humans it is translated as "messenger" and when it refers to a heavenly messenger the word is suddenly translated as "angel"!
Do you see why translations are traitors?
Heavenly messengers are servants of G-d. None are G-d Himself. A heavenly messenger simply relays a message from G-d -- telling a person of G-d's will.
Since when is one entity its own messenger? That is an oxymoron – not possible. A messenger delivers a message for SOMEONE ELSE. Thus the word itself refutes her assertion that G-d is His own messenger!
G-d never appears as anything – including angels or burning bushes or anything else.
Speaking of the burning bush – she said G-d “came many times as an angel/bush”… (ridiculous)…
In Sh'mot / Exodus 3:2 Moses did not "see" G-d at all in the bush — it was an "angel" (messenger) not G-d. The angel did not take on the form of a burning bush either -- "G-d's angel appeared to [Moses] in the heart (or flame) of a fire."
She asked “who is the angel in the burning bush?” That is totally unimportant (or the Torah would tell us). An angel is JUST a messenger. That angel was relaying a message to Moses, nothing more.
She asked “who is the angel of the Lord?” Her first problem is a mistranslation. The Hebrew Bible never says “the” angel of the L-rd. Nope. Not once. It says “מַלְאַךְ יְיָ / mal'ach hashem”, which translates to “a messenger of the L-rd”—note the indefinite article "an" (no “the”). Christian translations also capitalize it "the angel of the LORD" to make it seem unique, although Hebrew does not have capital letters.
The phrase “an angel of the L-rd” appears 58 times in the Hebrew bible and Christians often translate it as “the angel of the L-RD” instead of the correct “an angel of the L-rd.”
There is absolutely nothing in the text that suggests the same entity is meant on every occasion let alone that it is a “holier” angel or (heaven forbid) G-d Himself!
Which brings us to Hagar (Abraham’s concubine who ran away and nearly died in the process). She must think this speaks of “the angel of the L-rd” but it is a perfect example that it says no such thing. It has “מַלְאַךְ יְיָ / mal'ach hashem” – AN angel of the L-rd… Look it up! “וַיֹּאמֶר לָהּ מַלְאַךְ "", שׁוּבִי אֶל-גְּבִרְתֵּךְ, וְהִתְעַנִּי, תַּחַת יָדֶיהָ”
Three different angels spoke to Hagar – but G-d did not. She asked "Why did Hagar say what she said and why did the angel say what he said."
The exchange takes place in B'reshit / Genesis chapter 16 after Hagar has run away from Sarah... "And an angel / מַלְאַ֧ךְ / mal'ach of the L-rd found her by a water fountain in the desert, by the fountain on the road to Shur." B'reshit / Genesis 16:7.
Verse 10 even says 'And an angel of G-d said to her / "" וַיֹּאמֶר לָהּ מַלְאַךְ' -- so this is an angel, not "the" angel and not G-d. Again we see the word for angel / messenger but no "the." In Hebrew "the" would be a heh / ה as a prefix to the word... It isn't there.
The messenger tells her that she will have a child and that he will father many nations.
This is why the angels (plural, there are three of them in this chapter -- each angel has one specific mission. Refer back to the story of Sodom for proof of this) visited her and told her what they did...
Nothing to do with "the angel" let alone with an angel being G-d. Hagar then prayed to G-d who had communicated with her (through those three angels)...
You may notice that even Jewish translations may say "the angel of G-d" in this chapter, and the only explanation I can give (since the word "the" is not present) is that many translators try to stay close to the familiar in order to sell their translations... If you check the Hebrew and search this chapter for מַלְאַךְ you will see that not one of them has the heh / ה as a prefix which would make it "the angel."
The Torah tells us G-d is incorporeal (has no physicality) time and time again.
"You did not see any image on the day that G‑d spoke to you at Horeb [Sinai]."-- D’varim / Deuteronomy 4:15.
G-d has no physical manifestation -- He is not a bush, a cloud, or a man. (D'varim) Deuteronomy 4:15 clearly tells us that the Israelites did not see G-d in any form. Ergo G-d was NOT the pillar or the cloud. "You cannot see My Face, for man cannot see Me and live." (Sh'mot / Exodus 33:20).
There plainly G-d says no man can see Him and live – yet this woman disagrees with G-d Himself?
There is zero evidence that Jesus ever existed, let alone that he was a messiah and most definitely NOT G-d. Even if everything she had claimed were true (that G-d was an angel or a bush or a frog for that matter) it would not be evidence that Jesus was anything at all. She is simply wearing Jesus colored glasses and doesn’t see that her argument is no argument at all!
We’ve spent enough space here refuting her, but the fact is that Jesus (if he lived at all) was never a messiah – an anointed king of Israel. He didn’t have any right to be one either. The messiah must be born of human Jewish parents. The father must not only be Jewish, he must be of the tribe of Judah and descended from Kings David and Solomon. (see B'reshit / Genesis 49:10, Y'shayahu / Isaiah 11:1, Y’rmiyahu / Jeremiah 23:5, 33:17; Y’chezkel / Ezekiel 34:23-24).
If the virgin birth story was true, and Joseph was not the biological father of Jesus then Jesus did not even have the most basic right to even try to be the messiah.
Finally her point seems to be that because Jews were the original followers of Jesus this MUST make him the messiah.
Did she forget all those Jews who worshiped the false gods of Ba’al and Moloch?
How about the Jews who thought Bar Kochba was the messiah (and were wrong)?
How about the Jews who thought Shabbatai Zvi was the messiah (and were wrong)?
If Jesus existed and if he had early Jewish followers “so what”?
Sadly there have always been Jews who turned away from G-d and into idolatry.
Christianity is primarily the religion of Rome, not of Jews and it bears scant resemblance to Judaism. It has far more in common with pagan religions where gods as men was common (not to mention gods with a human mother!).
Her claim “The new testament is part of the Jewish bible written by Jews for Jews and gentiles” is most likely false as well. No one knows who wrote the Christian bible but very unlikely any were Jewish. They get too many basic facts wrong (Paul certainly did!). There were Ebionites who claimed that Paul was a non-Jew who converted to Judaism simply to marry a priest’s daughter and when he was refused, he became anti-Jewish. Given his views this wouldn’t surprise me!
Epiphanius (4th century CE) wrote: "They declare that he (Paul) was a Greek (not a Jew)...He went up to Jerusalem, they say, and when he had spent some time there, he was seized with a passion to marry the daughter of the (Jewish) priest. For this reason he became a proselyte (convert) and was circumcised. Then, when he failed to get the girl, he flew into a rage and wrote against circumcision and against the sabbath and the Torah (bible / Five Books of Moses)" (Epiphanius, Panarion, 30.16. 6- 9).
But again “so what” if Jews did write the Christian bible?
Christians wrote the Book of Mormon – does she think that gives credence to the Mormons? If so she should immediately convert and become a Mormon!
Did you notice that she threw out numerous arguments? This is typical of a missionary – they flood you with arguments hoping one will “stick.” It takes time and effort to show the ignorance (“the angel of the L-rd being a perfect example).
These missionaries don’t know a word of Hebrew and read their “bibles” in mistranslations. They believe the third party translation (usually translated from other translations) and are bullheaded in their insistence even though they are clueless as to what the Hebrew Bible really might say…
In closing, it isn’t worth your time (or mine) to argue with dyed in the wool missionaries who will simply change the argument when you refute them with proof. I went to all this trouble not for her, but for you. I hope you found this response helpful.
Of course not!
Some Jews never left at all!
Jews were often forbidden to live in Eretz Yisrael (the land of Israel) although some managed to survive forced exile and murder...
In 131, Emperor Hadrian banned Jews from Jerusalem. He killed about 580,000 Jews in the process. In 136 CE R' Akiva was murdered by the Romans who killed him by flaying him alive with hot combs. Jewish leadership moved to Yavneh Israel (Palestine) after the failure of the Bar Kochba revolution, and continued to work on the Talmud (Mishna). Hadrian renames the province of Judea to Syria Palaestina.
Jerusalem became a Christian city in the 4th century and Jews were still banned from living there. Later in the 4th century Jews were allowed to return, and thousands did return.
Jews lived in at least forty-three Jewish communities in Palestine: twelve towns on the coast, in the Negev, and east of the Jordan, and thirty-one villages in Galilee and in the Jordan valley. History of the Jews and Judaism in the Land of Israel, Wikipedia.
In the early 7th century the Byzantines won the land and banned the Jews from the Byzantine Empire including Israel, thousands of Jewish refugees fled to Egypt.
They returned later that century and historical sources say 300,000 and 400,000 Jews lived in Jerusalem.
This story continued -- being banned, being allowed to live there under one ruler or another. Muslim dynasties, the Crusaders, more Muslim overlords until the Ottoman Empire conquered Israel (Palestine). The Ottoman Empire survived some 600 years (it amazes me how many people never heard of the Ottoman Empire!). The Ottomans ruled Palestine for 401 years.
During this time, a full thousand years after the fall of the Jewish state, there were Jewish communities all over the country. Jewish communities included Jerusalem, Tiberius, Ramleh, Ashkelon, Caesarea, and Gaza.
The Jews almost alone defended Haifa, Israel against the crusaders holding out for a month (June–July 1099).
The first Crusade was 1096-1099. In 1099 the Crusaders conquered Jerusalem and nearby coastal areas, losing and recapturing it for almost 200 years until their final ouster from Acre in 1291.
The Crusaders murdered most of the Jews in Jerusalem, rounding them up and burning them to death in the Synagogue... According to the Muslim chronicle of Ibn al-Qalanisi, "The Jews assembled in their synagogue, and the (Christians) burned it over their heads."
Survivors were sold into slavery, some were beheaded and others thrown alive into the sea...
Then the Muslims took over again. Ayyubid Sultan Saladin allowed Jews to return (late 12th century). At times the Muslims forbid Jews from living in the land, and at others they could live there but not have Synagogues...
The second Crusades (1147-1149) found many vibrant Jewish communities in Israel. From the Jewish Virtual Library
"Benjamin of Tudela and Pethahiah of Regensburg , who visited the crusading kingdom around 1160 and 1180 respectively, found well-established Jewish communities in Ashkelon , Ramleh , Caesarea , Tiberias , Acre , among other localities, with scattered individuals living elsewhere: it seems that the Jewish settlement of Jerusalem was restricted to a handful of individuals." The Crusades, Jewish Virtual Library.
The third Crusade was 1189-1192. Judah Alḥarizi (1216) found a prosperous Jewish community living in Jerusalem. In 1211 300 rabbis from Western Europe went to Israel. This was during the third Crusade.
Around 1220 Al-Mu'azzam Isa ordered much of Jerusalem burnt -- and many Jews left yet again. The Rambam (Maimonides, Moshe ben Maimon) arrived as an exile on May 23, 1165... But the land was very desolate, very few people lived there.
Prominent rabbis established communities in Safed (Tzfat), Jerusalem and throughout Israel during the next 300 years.
The Ramban, Nachmanides, the 13th-century, worked to resettle Jerusalem with Jews. Many Jews from Egypt and other countries would come for holidays...
In 1517 the Ottoman Empire conquered it. They held it until the British took control in 1917.
By the early 19th century-years before the birth of the modern Zionist movement-more than 10,000 Jews lived throughout what is today Israel. When Jews began to immigrate to Palestine in large numbers in 1882, fewer than 250,000 Arabs lived there, and the majority of them had arrived in recent decades. If memory serves about 20% of the population was Christian...
The famous novelist Mark Twain wrote of the land of Israel in 1867: “….. A desolate country whose soil is rich enough, but is given over wholly to weeds… a silent mournful expanse…. a desolation…. we never saw a human being on the whole route…. hardly a tree or shrub anywhere. Even the olive tree and the cactus, those fast friends of a worthless soil, had almost deserted the country....Jerusalem itself, the stateliest name in history, has lost all its ancient grandeur, and is become a pauper village...A fast walker could go outside the walls of Jerusalem and walk entirely around the city in an hour. I do not know how else to make one understand how small it is...Palestine is desolate and unlovely.” Chapters 45-56 of Innocents Abroad by Mark Twain.
By the time Mark Twain visited my family lived there. Some lived in Jerusalem and some in the countryside.
The Jerusalem estimated population the year Twain wrote the above? 14,000.
The first mass return of European Jews (and some from Yemen) began with the first aliyah from 1882 - 1903. The Ottomans wouldn't allow Jews to purchase land, but as soon as Jews were allowed to do so they began buying land.
Jews bought about 907 kilometres of land as of 1945. Jewish land purchase in Palestine, Wikipedia.
At this time there were also about 800,000 Jews living in Arab lands (some had lived in Babylon since the exile there).
In July, 1922 Britain gave 77% of "Palestine" to the Arabs, most of which today is modern Jordan. Jews had purchased land in parts of this land, and they lost the rights to that land. Today 70% of Jordan's population is Arab Palestinian... British Palestine Mandate: History & Overview, (1922 - 1948), Jewish Virtual Library.
After the United Nations authorized two states: one Arab and one Jewish many of the Jews who had lived thousands of years in Arab lands were exiled -- some 800,000. Most fled to Israel, although about 200,000 fled to Europe or America. Jewish Refugees from Arab Countries, Virtual Jewish Library.
Jewish Virtual Library: "After the Arabs rejected the United Nations decision to partition Palestine ...the Jews of the Arab lands became targets of their own governments’ anti-Zionist fervor. As Egypt’s delegate to the UN in 1947 chillingly told the General Assembly: “The lives of one million Jews in Muslim countries will be jeopardized by partition.
"Throughout 1947 and 1948, Jews in Algeria, Egypt, Iraq, Libya, Morocco, Syria, and Yemen (Aden) were persecuted, their property and belongings were confiscated, and they were subjected to severe anti-Jewish riots instigated by the governments. In Iraq, Zionism was made a capital crime. In Syria, anti-Jewish pogroms erupted in Aleppo and the government froze all Jewish bank accounts. In Egypt, bombs were detonated in the Jewish quarter, killing dozens. In Algeria, anti-Jewish decrees were swiftly instituted and in Yemen, bloody pogroms led to the death of nearly 100 Jews.” Jewish Refugees from Arab Countries, Virtual Jewish Library.
In the 2000 years since Jerusalem was burned in 68 CE it remained a small, depressing place -- through Crusades, Ottoman Empire and other wars. . . until the Jews began returning to the land en-mass and revitalized the city. Today it is a vibrant, growing city with a population of 857,800.
Israel itself has a population of 8,655,535. 76% of the population is Jewish. 1.9 million are Arabs (there are Arabs in the Knesset, the Israeli Parliament). A Brief History of Israel and the Jewish People, Israel Science and Technology Directory.
Someone asked "What is the poppycock about Jewish people having horns or some association with the Christian assigned devil 👿? I read something the other day and was shocked that this is an actually belief people have ????? "
Believe it or not, this happened to me! When I was in college a friend from Iowa discovered that I was Jewish and fled the room in tears! It turns out she thought all Jews had horns and was suddenly terrified of me.
This is what ignorance and hatred can foment...
The error first showed up in Jerome’s Latin Vulgate of Exodus 34:29 has “et ignorabat quod cornuta esset facies sua” which translated is, “did not know his face had become horned.”
How can a face be horned in the first place? It would have to be the skull or head, not the face! But what can you do with mistranslations?
Sir Thomas Browne wrote in Pseudodoxia Epidemica: "The ground of this absurdity, was surely a mistake of the Hebrew Text, in the history of Moses when he descended from the Mount;3 upon the affinity of Kæren and Karan, that is, an horn, and to shine, which is one quality of horn: The Vulgar Translation conforming unto the former. Ignorabat quod cornuta esset facies ejus. Qui videbant faciem Moses esse cornutam. But the Chaldee paraphrase, translated by Paulus Fagius, hath otherwise expressed it. Moses nesciebat quod multus esset splendor gloriæ vultus ejus. Et viderunt filii Israel quod multa esset claritas gloriæ faciei Moses. The expression of the Septuagint is as large, δεδόξασται ἡ ὄψις τοῦ χρώματος τοῦ προσώπου, Glorificatus est aspectus cutis, seu coloris faciei."
Then Michelangelo carved his famous statue of Moses which included horns.
The word mistranslated is קָרַן / karan which means shone...
Some sources (including the infamous Strong's Concordance) say that קָרַן / karan can mean to shoot out horns, but also rays. Well, yes and no. קָרַן / karan is a verb and if it meant horn here the word in the context of the sentence would be different. It might be מְקוּרְנָן not just קָרַן .
Let's revisit the applicable passages in the Torah which speak of Moses' face shining:
"(Moses) descended from the mountain and Moses did not know that the skin of his face had become radiant while He (G-d) had spoken with him. . .all the children of Israel saw Moses and behold! the skin of his face had become radiant, and they were afraid to come near him. But Moses called to them, and Aaron and all the princes of the community returned to him, and Moses would speak to them." Sh'mot / Exodus 34:29 - 31.
BTW, some Christians will say that Jews have a "veil" over their hearts and this is why they can't "see" that Jesus was the messiah / god.
This is partially based on Paul's lies about this very verse.
To explain away Jews 2000 year refusal to “accept” Jesus as a god (let alone a messiah) many missionaries blithely say that “Jews are blind – a “veil” has been put before your eyes so you can’t see the “truth” that Jesus is the messiah.” This outrageous slander is straight from the Christian bible:
"We are not like Moses, who would put a veil over his face to prevent the Israelites from seeing the end of what was passing away. But their minds were made dull, for to this day the same veil remains when the old covenant is read. It has not been removed, because only in (Jesus) is it taken away." 2 Corinthians 3:13-14.
When Moses entered his tent to speak with G-d he did not wear a veil.
Moses never wore a veil when speaking to G-d or when giving G-d’s words to the people.
Paul is 100% wrong -- whether because he did not know the truth or because he lied to his followers. Paul was not above lying to gain his purpose:
"Someone might argue, “If my falsehood enhances G-d’s truthfulness and so increases his glory, why am I still condemned as a sinner?” Romans 3:7.
"But be it so, I did not burden you: nevertheless being crafty, I caught you with guile." 2 Corinthians 12:16.
Moses' face is NOT COVERED. The people came forward and Moses spoke to them (no veil / hood).
"the children of Israel would draw near, and he would command them everything that the L-rd had spoken with him on Mount Sinai. When Moses had finished speaking with them, he placed a covering over his face." Sh'mot / Exodus 34:32 - 33.
The words of the Torah are the OPPOSITE of what Paul claims. Moses only covered his face when he was finished speaking to the Jews.
When the words of G-d are communicated to the Jews there is NO VEIL. (hood).
And WHAT was supposedly “passing away”? The eternal promises G-d made to the Jews which He repeatedly tells us ARE eternal?
And WHAT was supposedly “passing away”? The eternal promises G-d made to the Jews which He repeatedly tells us ARE eternal?
"And You did establish to Yourself Your people Israel to be a people unto You forever; and You, L-rd, became their G-d." Shmuel Beit / 2 Samuel 7:24.
"The grass withers, the flower fades; but the word of our G-d will stand forever." Y'shayahu / Isaiah 40:8.
"Forever, O L-rd, Your word stands in the heavens. . . Were not Your Torah my occupation, then I would have perished in my affliction. T'hillim / Psalm 119:89-92.
"Thus shall the children of Israel observe the Sabbath, to make the Sabbath throughout their generations as an everlasting covenant. Between Me and the children of Israel, it is forever a sign." Sh'mot / Exodus 31:16-17.
"The hidden things belong to the L-rd, our G-d, but the revealed things apply to us and to our children forever: that we must fulfill all the words of this Torah." D'varim / Deuteronomy 29:28.
Paul is either ignorant of G-d's eternal promises to the Jew -- or he is simply lying to his followers. Paul even has the arrogance to say
“But their minds were made dull (the Jews) for to this day the same veil remains when the old covenant is read. It (the veil) has not been removed, because only in (Jesus) is it taken away.” 2 Corinthians 3:14.
Paul says the Jewish mind is dull, yet G-d says the revealed things apply to us and to our children forever.
Which is it?
Who to believe: Paul or G-d?
Ask yourself, if Paul reversed what the Torah said in this instance then how much more can you believe in the Christian bible?
No doubt I have many failings, but perhaps the most egregious of all is a lack of patience with stupid people.
I have no trouble having patience with ignorant people. An ignorant person does not know something, but they are teachable.
A stupid person is quite different. A stupid person declares their knowledge as they spout nonsense and do so arrogantly.
I have no patience at all with such fools.
So what brought on this diatribe? A comment to me from a person on Facebook.
This one wrote that Hebrew had been dead for at least 500 years and that anyone who disagreed was obviously brain damaged. The renewal of modern Hebrew, stated this one, created a new language on the ashes of the old -- bearing little in common.
This claim, based on ignorance and stupidity, is right up there with the comment a week ago from an idiot who said there are no longer any Jewish priests! I suggested this person visit any Synagogue on a Shabbat to meet at least one and perhaps many (Jewish priests are given the first blessing over the Torah reading)...
But how can anyone think that Hebrew died 500 years ago? Or 1000? Or 2000?
The famous commentary of Rashi (1040 CE to 1105 CE) was written is in pure Hebrew - and, what is more, Rashi's commentary is written for common Jews rather than scholars.
Maybe this person can explain how a commentary written nearly a thousand years ago, and intended to be read by laymen, can possibly be in Hebrew if the language had "died"???
Rashi's commentary is studied and has been since the day he wrote it -- yet this stupid person says "Hebrew died out 500 years ago."
While many Jews (not all) spoke either the language of their country of exile or a Jewish language (such as Yiddish or Landino) in every day speech not all did. There were always Jews living in Israel even after the exile and most of them spoke in Hebrew. I have a diary written by such a relative in the 18th century which is written in Hebrew cursive and was many, many volumes in length (most of his adult life he kept it).
Jews have always spoken Hebrew. Prayers are recited in Hebrew many times a day. The Torah is read out loud in Hebrew in our Synagogues. Torah scrolls are written by hand in Hebrew and have been for millennia.
But this person stated emphatically that Hebrew had been dead prior to the arrival of Eliezer Ben Yehuda in the later half of the 19th century. This was the reemergence of Hebrew as an every day language -- and it is now the language of the modern State of Israel.
If he "invented" modern Hebrew then explain to me why Jews from European descent have some different pronunciations than do Jews of Spanish descent? They speak the same language -- but there are differences in pronunciation of some words. If Hebrew was "invented" a mere 100 years ago wouldn't they all speak it identically?
Ignorance, too -- but rather than try to learn the facts the stupid one insists on reveling in their stupidity!
These are the same fools who would tell you that Jews couldn't read the Hebrew Bible until the Masoretes invented vowel notations between the 6th and 10th centuries CE.
How do Jews read Hebrew in Israel today without vowel notations (most Hebrew is written without them)... if the Masoretes invented "modern" Hebrew over a thousand years ago?
The Masoretes were Jewish scribe-scholars who invented a method to note pronunciation of Hebrew since written Hebrew is (primarily) without vowels. The word Masorete gets its name from the word “masorah” which means “tradition;” and their purpose in doing this was to maintain tradition Jewish meaning -- NOT to change it!
So the Masoretes didn't change or invent Hebrew.
Hebrew was not dead 500 years ago (or 1000 or "fill in the blank")...It has never been "dead."
So how did Jews read Hebrew before the 6th century CE?
How do Jews read Hebrew in Israel today without vowel notations (most Hebrew is written without them)...
A former moderator at the Virtual Yeshiva (Netanel) once wrote:
"Using "dead" to describe the language which has been taught from generation to generation, from parent to child, for millennia is fallacious, sensational, and hyperbolic. The teaching of Hebrew to our children has been one of the main factors in keeping Jews - whether rich, poor, healthy, ailing, young, or old - literate no matter our standing, while the Christians and Muslims save the upper echelon more mostly illiterate.
"For three and a half millennia we have taught and been taught to read and understand Hebrew and Torah, it is one of the supreme commandments, and one which has never died.
"That it was not spoken as the main language in many a diaspora community does not negate the fact that it is and always has been central to every Jewish community up until and perhaps thus excluding some of those who tried to sweep their Jewishness under the rug during enlightenment and reformation. I pity the ignorance of those who regard Hebrew as ever having been dead, as they apparently don't understand the history of the usage of and regard for Hebrew, nor do they seem to understand the meaning of the word dead. Such claims are extremely insulting."
I have no patience at all for these stupid oafs. Perhaps I should work on this aspect of my personality. I probably won't bother!
What is the JEDP theory (sometimes called the documentary hypothesis (DH) or the Graf - Wellhausen hypothesis) that so many Christians are taught is the "real" story of how the Hebrew Bible was written?
Well, you'd think the word "theory" would make them realize it isn't "real" or a "fact." Nope. It is a theory.
And it is a theory based on a very basic lack of bible knowledge from so-called bible experts.
This theory divides the Torah into four separate sources:
Did anyone bother to explain to Wellhausen that the "names" for G-d are really descriptions?
There are nine "names" for G-d that appear in the Scriptures “which may not be erased” and another eleven “which may be erased”—these are all listed in Treatise Shavuot 35a.
“Ehyeh asher ehyeh / אֶֽהְיֶ֖ה אֲשֶׁ֣ר אֶֽהְיֶ֑ה” is one of the nine “which may not be erased”.
This is the "name" in Sh'mot / Exodus 3:14. It translates to "I will be as I will be."
Kabbalah (Jewish mysticism) speaks of 72 names for G-d.
Yet, not one of them is really a name.
G‑d has no name. He is infinite and does not have a name -- or a title or a description for that matter. You could say that by definition, G-d has no definition.
What we call His name(s) are simply our attempt at describing the indescribable.
This JEDP idea was the theory of one Julius Wellhausen (May 17, 1844 – January 7, 1918) -- a German, and son of a Protestant minister and Karl Heinrich Graf (February 28, 1815 – July 16, 1869), also a German Protestant. These men's education was at the hands of other Protestant theologians including Georg Heinrich August Ewald of the 19th century.
Graf and Wellhausen seemed to have been a product of their anti-Semitic 19th century German world. Graf - Wellhausen based their theory on the fact that because the bible uses two names for G-d (there are actually far more than two!) there must have been a "merging" of two gods / two religions. They thought that Moses could not have written the Torah (thus lessening its value) because the Torah uses the Tetragrammaton (holiest name) and "elohim" (which means a mighty judge / ruler and is used to speak of G-d, false gods, angels and even humans) to speak of G-d. They decided that since there were "two names" there had to be different authors. This theory divides the Torah into four separate sources:
So the fact that the JEDP theorists decided that four of the "names" had to mean four different authors is based on error.
For example, "elohim" / אֱלֹהִים (a word used to speak of humans, angels, false gods and G-d) means a mighty judge. The word "adon" / אדן means a lord or master and so on. . .
Although many Christians are taught the JEDP as if it is "fact" it has actually been disproved by archaeology -- which shows that there is historical proof for the Torah (and 'nach) dating much farther back than there theories would contend.
"On Bible Criticism and Its Counterarguments" from Torat Emet:
"Umberto Cassuto (1883-1951) and Yechezkel Kaufman (1889- 1963) further demolished the theory, showing that Wellhausen's observations contradicted his conclusions. Kaufman's main contribution lies in his thesis that monotheism was not, as Wellhausen and others had stated, a gradual departure from paganism, but an entirely new development. Israel's monotheism began with Moshe and was a complete revolution in religious thought. . .
"Special mention should be made of the famous archaeologist William F. Alright. He convincingly demonstrated that archaeological research did not support, and in fact often contradicted, this view of history. In many of his works, Albright destroyed the very foundations upon which Wellhausen's edifice had been erected. . ."
One of Graf-Wellhausen's main points was that the Torah wasn't written until after the Babylonian Exile. Archaeological discoveries in Israel alone disprove this -- as does the discovery of the silver scrolls which was discussed in yesterday's post. Some estimate the scrolls date back to 700 BCE (whereas Ezra returned to Israel around 350 BCE)... Even later opinions of the scrolls still date them to pre-Babylonian Exile times (pre-dating Ezra and his return)...
Prof. Moshe David (Umberto) Cassuto wrote a detailed analysis of the Documentary Hypothesis (JEDP). The author notes that some of the JEPD theorists may have had an anti-Jewish bent and so were trying to distance us Jews from our own bible.
"Solomon Schechter famously equated “higher criticism” with “higher anti-Semitism." . . .one can indeed find anti-Jewish references. . . one example concerns. . .David’s efforts to procure materials for the construction of the First Temple under Solomon. . . Wellhausen writes, “1 Chr. 22-29 is a startling instance of that statistical fantasy of the Jews which revels in vast sums of money on paper.”
The author goes on to state that the underpinnings of Wellhausen’s hypothesis (JEPD) may be seen to have an affinity with Protestant theology.
Some proponents of Biblical theory point to Spinoza (17th century) -- a man born Jewish to parents who had converted to Christianity but fled from Portugal to return to Judaism... Spinoza invented his own iteration of what he thought Judaism to be (he wasn't the first or the last). He believed that G-d and nature are equivalent, and that the T'nach is allegory...
Spinoza was cut off from the Jewish community due to his refusal to actually practice Judaism (observe the mitzvot). Spinoza is known as the "Jewish Atheist" if that gives you some clue! Some proponents of JEDP will point back to Spinoza as some sort of foundation for later theories -- but this would be akin to pointing to Mormonism as proof of Catholicism. It makes about as much sense!
Jews have an unbroken chain of transmission of the Torah going back to Moses. It seems that some of these theorists on the history of the Torah have a zeal to discredit Judaism.
Here is a link to the Rambam (Maimonides) Introduction to the Mishneh Torah where he discusses Torah transmission giving the name of each generation up to his time... the lists have continued to this very day...
Judaism has a very rich history of using stories (called midrash aggadah) to make a moral point. These stories are not meant to be taken as “fact” – but missionaries quote them time and time again as if they are reality and Jewish theology.
Legends presented as truth.
To complicate matters these stories are also often mistranslated.
Pesikta Rabbati is one that missionaries love to reference. It is a collection of Aggadic Midrash (homilies), but missionaries often quote it to “prove” some error they have about Judaism or the T’nach (bible) – stories are not proof of anything.
Pesikta Rabbati is not ancient, either. It dates to the 8th century of the common era. The stories are about Jewish festivals throughout the year.
Why do missionaries like this particular set of tales? There is one which missionaries claim is about moshiach ben Yosef suffering, tying it to T’hillim / Psalm 22. Moshiach ben Yosef is not “the” messiah. There is a possibility that a messiah from the house of Yosef (Ephraim) will be a soldier who lives at the same time as the messiah, and who will die in battle. Dying in battle is no doubt painful, but it does not “fit” the suffering of Y’shayahu / Isaiah 53’s servant who is said to have suffered for a very long time (as if from lengthy illness).
There is another claim that one story is about satan or angels being hurled into "hell." FYI, hell does not exist in Jewish theology. That reference is wrong. It seems to be given from a big mistake in the early 20th century publication called The Jewish Encyclopedia.
To add insult to injury (using stories as if they make a point) so many of the references are mistranslated to the point where meanings are often reversed. Continuing with Pesikta Rabbati here is a picture of the actual text http://www.daat.ac.il/daat/vl/psiktarabati/psiktarabati06.pdf Comparing it to the mistranslations here are just a few:
Mistranslation "put away His Messiah"
Correct translation "put IT (light) away FOR His Messiah"
Mistranslation "G-d replied, "For him who will turn you back and put them to utter shame."
Correct translation "G-d replied, "For him who will turn you back and put YOU to utter shame."
Mistranslation ""Surely this is the Messiah who will cause me and all the counterparts in heaven of the princes of the earth's nations to be swallowed up in Gehinnom,"
Correct translation "Surely this [is] the Messiah who will CAUSE MY DECENT and all the counterparts in heaven of the princes of the earth's nations in TO Gehinnom, "
"Counterparts" refers to a managing angel – every nation on earth has a managing angel except for Israel. They are referred to as the nations "counterpart" in heaven.
Mistranslation "In that hour, all princely counterparts of the nations, in agitation, will say to Him,"
Correct translation "In that hour, all of the nations, in agitation, will say to Him, "
Mistranslation "Master of the universe, who is this through whose power we are to be swallowed up? What is his name? What kind of being is he?"
Correct translation ""Master of the universe, who is this that we will fall into his hand? What is his name? What is his character?"
So far we’ve identified three big problems with this ONE missionary source which is misused:
There is a 4th:
Many missionaries leave things out. For example, Michael Brown references Pesikta Rabbati 36:2 in one of his books. The reference is wrong (it is really 36:3, not 2). Brown relied on the text at the "Chazak" messianic site which supposedly copied these from "Pesikta Rabbati: Homiletical Discourses for Festal Days and Special Sabbaths" by William G. Braude.
In other words the missionary website Chazak didn't use the original source, and Brown compounded the error by relying on Chazak's source -- no one went to the original.
In Brown's book (Answering Jewish Objections, vol 3, 4:24) he has the source listed as 37:1, -- another typo. His referenced quote is lengthy and is joined with a few others, and speaks of the author's point of view that the false and fallen Moshiach ben Yosef will be redeemed as well and come to terms with the fact that he was wrong.
You have the Chazak/Brown version ending with "At these words, the Messiah will reply: 'Now I am reconciled. The servant is content to be like his Master'" But here is the actual next line..."[HaShem responds] "Since the day that the evil Nebuchadnezzar came forth and he destroyed My house and burnt my palace and exiled My children". .. "
In fact, there are three sentences that he doesn't translate that is between "your distress is now like my distress" -- adding insult to injury it says "say" (amar) and not "answer", and in the context of the other three sentences, it changes the flavor from that Brown / Chazak (missionaries) would like to sway the reader to believe.
Bottom line: beware when missionaries begin to reference Jewish sources other than the T'nach (bible). Odds are they are quoting a story as if it is "fact", it may well not exist at all -- or it may be so badly mistranslated (including gaping holes between sentences) to fit their narrative. . .
The Tetragrammaton (four letter holy "name" of G-d) is found over 6,600 times in the Torah, including with the patriarchs who preceded Moses.
In Sh'mot / Exodus 3:15 we are told "G-d then said to Moses, 'You must [then] say to the Israelites, 'Hashem (Tetragrammaton), the G-d of your fathers, the G-d of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, sent me to you.' This is My eternal name, and this is how I am to be recalled for all generations."
Here we are told that the patriarchs knew G-d by this title (not really a name) and the elders of Israel would certainly recognize the holy name when Moses used it.
The word is translated (above) as name but it really means renown.
The Tetragrammaton (the four letter holy name of G-d) consists of four letters:
yod / י
heh / ה
vav / ו
heh / ה
None of those letters individually is a name of G-d.
G-d's holiest name is not really a name at all. None his names are really names -- they are human efforts to describe the indescribable.
The word here more properly means:
This is what G-d will be known as forever -- His reputation - a G-d who is with the Jewish people now and forever. He will be (ever faithful)....
R' Aryeh Kaplan (Z"L) in his translation (The Living Torah) wrote: "The Tetragrammaton denotes the level where past, present and future are the same (Tur, Orach Chaim 5; Rabbi Eliezer of Garmiza on Sefer Yetzirah 1:1)."
This particular "name" (or description) of G-d means "I shall be" (not "I am").
G-d was telling Moses to tell the Jews that He would always be with the Jews -- and was with them in their slavery in Egypt...
The tetragrammaton (four letter name for G-d) is in the third person singular imperfect of the verb "to be" -- as in ''causing to be'' or ''causing to exist."
Do keep in mind that since Hebrew is written without vowels (consonants only) the proper pronunciation (hidden) could modify the meaning of the word...
Given that the patriarchs knew G-d's holy name, as did the elders of Israel who recognized it when used by Moses -- how do we explain the verse:
"I revealed Myself to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob as G-d Almighty (El Shaddai), and did not allow them to know Me by My name HaShem (Tetragrammaton)."
But they DID know His holiest name -- so is this a mistake -- or perhaps a less than enlightening translation?
G-d did not allow them to know Him by His holy name, but they obviously knew it.
While the Tetragrammaton was never used in speech before the time of the Patriarchs, it is used in connection with them (B'reshit / Genesis 15:7 with Abraham for example)...
So what did G-d mean that the patriarchs did not know Him by His holiest name?
Well, there is a way to know and a way to know.... Consider that you may know a piece of information, but in the Torah we also know that when a man "knows" his wife they have sexual intercourse.
The word has a depth of meaning -- particularly in Hebrew. This is yet another term that loses quite a lot in (mis)translation.
What G-d is telling Moses is that while the patriarchs used this name, they did not know of its power and importance.
Rabbeinu Bahya on Sh'mot 6:3 tells us
"He had not employed the powers inherent in the use of His four-lettered holy name. in His relations with them. According to the opening word וארא, “I have become visible,” in our verse, the word נודעתי used as a contrast is strange; we would have expected the Torah to write לא נראתי להם, I have not become visible to them, by My (holiest name).
"the patriarchs as a rule experienced their visions at night. It was appropriate therefore to apply the expression “vision” from the root ראה “to see” to their experiences of encounters with G’d. G’d wanted to contrast the fact that Moses had been granted a revelation of His presence while he was fully awake already the first time he had had a communication from G’d..."
Moses' knowledge of G-d was a different level than that of any other, and this is the meaning in Sh'mot / Exodus 6:3.
The Tetragrammaton was known before Moses, but not its inner significance (see the Ramban and / or Ibn Ezra). Again, quoting R' Kaplan:
"This was because the Patriarchs received their prophecy from the level associated with the name El Shaddai, while only Moses received it from the level associated with the Tetragrammaton (Moreh Nevukhim 2:35; Ralbag; Milchamoth HaShem 6)."
Someone asked: "What is the Jewish view of the death(s) of the uncircumcised? The significance? A little background to my question. Genesis 17:14 Any uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin shall be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant."
(recently pointed out to me) Exodus 4:24-26, (paraphrased by me) the L-rd met Moses to put Moses's son to death because he had not been circumcised, it appears."
And to the prince of tyre, in Ezekiel 28, who figuratively sits in the seat of G-d, claiming to be G-d, magnified in his heart as being G-d.
“The deaths of the uncircumcised you shall die at the hand of foreigners, for I have spoken," says the L-rd G-d.”
My question also entails - how could the prince of tyre, unless being a code name for someone else, die the deaths of the uncircumcised, unless he were a Jew, who had broken the everlasting covenant made on Mt. Sinai - by claiming himself to be God? And cut off from the Jewish people.
There is no significance – apples and oranges.
B’reshit / Genesis 17 and Sh’mot / Exodus 4 are both speaking of the covenant of circumcision (Brit Milah / בְּרִית מִילָה).
Y’chezekel / Ezekiel 28 has nothing to do with the covenant of circumcision (Brit Milah) – so you are jumping to an erroneous conclusion that they are the same thing. They are not.
As you mention, this chapter is speaking of the prince of Tzor who was egotistical – a god himself! He even had a throne that symbolized him ruling over the sky and ocean! G-d is prophesying the downfall of this king and nation – who are uncircumcised (the Greeks and Romans did not circumcise their people).
Thus it is the death of the uncircumcised.
The Artscroll footnote indicates that in Ezekiel 28 the circumcision referred to is of the heart.
“This refers to those of uncircumcised heart, meaning that they persist in their wickedness and refuse to accept the truth.” See also Ezekiel 44:7. Artscroll, Stone Edition T’nach.
B’reshit / Genesis 17 and Sh’mot / Exodus 4 do refer to the mitzvah of Brit Milah (the covenant of circumcision). In B’reshit / Genesis we are told that a Jew who does not observe this positive mitzvah will be kareit / כָּרֵ֥ת – cut off. This term normally refers to being spiritually cut off from G-d and the Jewish people (not physical death).
To be כרת / kareit -- cut off from G-d, is very rare. It is even rarer in the world today as many people do not know what is expected of them. G-d judges us not only with mercy, but He judges us based on who we are (our personal abilities and limitations as well as our understanding of what He expects from us).
In the case of Abraham and Moses both of them were very holy and also in direct communication from G-d. Thus they were held to a very high standard if they did not observe the mitzvot on purpose. Consider
"[Therefore] keep the Sabbath as something sacred to you. Anyone doing work [on the Sabbath] shall be cut off spiritually from his people, and therefore, anyone violating it shall be put to death. 31:15 Do your work during the six week days, but keep Saturday as a Sabbath of sabbaths, holy to God. Whoever does any work on Saturday shall be put to death. 31:16 The Israelites shall thus keep the Sabbath, making it a day of rest for all generations, as an eternal covenant. It is a sign between Me and the Israelites that during the six weekdays God made heaven and earth, but on Saturday, He ceased working and withdrew to the spiritual." Sh'mot / Exodus 31:14-17.
We then hear of a man who went out to collect would on Shabbat – this was a willful and defiant act – and as a result he was put to death.
Rashi, quoting the Talmud (Sanhedrin 41a), says that the mekoshesh eitzim – the individual who desecrated Shabbat by gathering wood, was warned by witnesses that it was a death penalty offense, yet he ignored them and continued collecting wood. Thus the man's actions were done to willfully disobey G-d. It was a pĕsha' / פֶּֽשַׁע --- a wilful wrongdoing in defiance of G-d (you know it is wrong, you know G-d forbids it and you defy Him). You have a man who willfully, knowingly, in defiance of G-d did this knowing that the penalty was death.
The issue in both situations: Moses not circumcising his son and the man picking wood on Shabbat have to do with knowing there is a mitzvah which commands something -- and willfully not obeying said mitzvah.
WILLFUL DEFIANCE is the issue here. Willful defiance of something you learned directly from G-d and agreed to do! This is very different from a person today who may not fulfill a mitzvah (even on purpose) because they are removed from having been told THEMSELVES to do this mitzvah.
The death possibility for Moses for not circumcising his son before leaving Midian had nothing to do with circumcision itself, it had to do with willful defiance of G-d and his mitzvah of not observing the COVENANT of circumcision – the very first covenant G-d made with Abraham and thus the Jewish people.
The Christian bible has nothing whatsoever to do with Judaism. It is as pertinent to a Jew as the Koran or Book of Mormon is to the average Christian. Unfortunately tens of millions of dollars are spent annually by Christians to try to convert Jews to their faith.
Sadly, many Jews are raised without knowledge of Judaism (secular), or in homes which may observe some mitzvot, but fail to teach their children diligently.
So just how reliable is the Christian bible?
Christian "scholars" themselves attest to the fact that it is totally unreliable. There are no "full papyri of the GT" dating earlier than about the 16th century of the common era (CE).
"What do survive are copies of the copies some 5,366 of them in the Greek language alone, that date from the second century down to the sixteenth. Strikingly, with the exception of the smallest fragments, no two of these copies are exactly alike in all their particulars. No one knows how many differences, or variant readings, occur among the surviving witnesses, but they must number in the hundreds of thousands." (The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture: The Effect of Early Christological Controversies on the Text of the New Testament. New York: Oxford University Press, 1993, page 27).
So how reliable do you think it would be if 5,366 fragments are all different except for the smallest fragments that don't even make up entire words? The Greek text used today (what you like to call the "new" testament) today bears no resemblance to those early, contradictory fragments.
The Acts of the Apostles: An Introduction and Commentary (The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries) by I. Howard Marshall:
Modern Greek texts of Acts are essentially based on the Egyptian manuscripts, Codices, Vaticanus and Sinaiticus.
There are many differences (additions and omissions of words, changes of words, and so on) in the version of the text found in Codex Bezae and other manuscripts which mainly come from the western area of early Christendom; this form of text can be traced back to the second century.
Arguments that it represents the original text of Acts, or a second edition of the text by the original author, have failed to produce conviction.
It is generally thought that it represents an early scribal revision of Acts although on occasion it may preserve the original wording of Acts when the Egyptian text goes astray. But the whole matter is far more complicated than the present brief summary indicates.
The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible, a book written to prove the validity of the Christian bible says:
"A study of 150 Greek [manuscripts) of the Gospel of Luke has revealed more than 30,000 different readings... It is safe to say that there is not one sentence in the New Testament in which the [manuscript] is wholly uniform."
The earliest papyri has been dated to around 125 CE (although some apologists have dated them earlier -- there is no consensus).
• P52 -- a fragment of John 18 (written ca. 125 CE)
• P90 -- a fragment of John (ca 175 CE)
• P66 -- portions of John 1, 6, 15-16, 20-21 (ca. 200 CE)
• P64; P67 -- fragments of Matthew 3, 5, 26 (ca. 200 CE)
There are no papyri of the Christian bible containing more than one gospel date only after 200 CE.
The oldest one appears to be P52 which contains a snippet from what appears to be part of John 18:31-33. It cannot be proven to pre-date Josephus. The Harvard Theological Review writes:
"Paleography (dating things by handwriting) is not the most effective method for dating tests. . .the real problem is thus in the way scholars of the New Testament have used and abused papyrological evidence. . .I have (shown) that any serious consideration of the window of possible dates for P52 must include dates in the later second and early third centuries. thus, P52 cannot be used as evidence to silence other debates about the existence (or non-existence) of the Gospel of John in the first half of the second century. Only a papyrus containing an explicit date or one found in a clear archaeological stratigraphic context could do the work scholars want P52 to do. As it stands now, the papyrological evidence should take a second place to other forms of evidence in addressing debates about the dating of the Fourth Gospel."
Take a look at an early papyrus which is said to be of the Christian bible. Let's talk about P75. Most scholars date P75 to the 3rd century. It is sometimes called "the most significant" papyrus of the Christian bible yet discovered (in the 1950s).
Yet P75 has Luke 3:18-24:53 -- yet Luke 22:43–44 is missing.
Besides missing Luke 22:43-44 there are differences in P75 from than the text in the Codex Sinaiticus. It is NOT THE SAME. Luke 8:21 it reads αυτον instead of αυτους.
αλλα ρυσαι ημας απο του πονηρου (but deliver us from evil) (Luke 11:4)
is not even in P75.
Also missing is: "And Jesus said: Father forgive them, they know not what they do." (found in Luke 23:34 in modern Christian bibles) Luke 16:19 is different from modern Christian bibles.
Even a cursory reading of the Christian bible used by Christians today shows one contradiction after another.
Even the current Christian bible is full of contradictions which most ignore, but when one realizes how none of the early sources match up it is a scary thought indeed that 2.4 billion people believe in this religion without actually researching the "facts."
Someone wrote "Hello, A missionary wrote "WHO MADE THEM EAT FLESH AND DRINK BLOOD AND WHO TOLD THE SON OF MAN TO DO IT?
Ezekiel 39:17 “As for you, SON OF MAN , thus says (G-d): Speak to the birds of every sort and to all beasts of the field: ‘Assemble and come, gather from all around to the sacrificial feast that I am preparing for you, a great sacrificial feast on the mountains of Israel, and you shall EAT FLESH AND DRINK BLOOD."
Can you explain this? I know I buy Kosher meat and the blood is separated from the meat. I know it's not a sacrifice, but I think the missionary is talking about "in remembrance of me" drinking blood?"
It really helps if these missionaries would read the bible IN CONTEXT. Y'chezekel / Ezekiel 39 is about Gog. There may be a war (Gog and Magog) prior to the messiah. All negative prophecies are given as warnings --- meaning they can be avoided if we heed the warning...
This missionary also seems to think "son of man" = Jesus.
In Hebrew it is בֶן־אָדָם / ben adam / son of man = human. The word adam means man and is often used throughout the Hebrew bible, as is son of man (son of Adam)... It just means a human, nothing more. The term is often used to speak of Ezekiel.
See Y'chezkel / Ezekiel 20:3.
"Son of man (Ezekiel), speak to the elders..."
After the end of the war of Gog and Magog (if it happens) there will be so many bodies of the dead from those kingdoms which attacked Israel that G-d tells Ezekiel to speak to the animals and birds, telling them gather around the slaughtered masses in order to devour them. They will eat the flesh of the warriors from Gog until they are satiated...
THE ANIMALS eat the flesh and blood.
"to the birds of prey, to all the winged creatures and the beasts of the field have I given you to be devoured." Y'chezekel / Ezekiel 39:4.
It isn't people eating flesh and blood -- but rather animals such as birds of prey, winged creatures and beasts of the field.... they are devouring the fallen soldiers of Gog...
"And you, son of man (Ezekiel), so said the L-rd G-d: Say to every winged bird and to every beast of the field, Assemble and come; gather from around My slaughter, which I am slaughtering for you in a great slaughter on the mountains of Israel, and you shall eat flesh and drink blood." Y'chezekel / Ezekiel 39:17.
The above is the Judaica Press translation, but Artscroll's Stone Edition also chooses the word "slaughter" and not "sacrifice."
Sacrifice here is a poor word choice. The noun זֶבַח (ZEvacḥ) is used in the Bible for "a sacrifice" but only when it is associated with a sacrifice which is then eaten. This is why the word is also translated as "slaughter" -- because that is what one does to an animal before it is eaten... hence זֶבַח (ZEvacḥ) can also mean "a slaughter" or even "a massacre". Two examples of that use beside the two in Y'chezekel / Ezekiel 39:17 are present in Y'shayahu / Isaiah 34:6 (slaughter) and Y'rmiyahu / Jeremiah 46:10 (massacre).
Why is sacrifice a poor translation choice זֶבַח (ZEvacḥ) in this verse?
Because it is the ANIMALS and not humans who are doing this -- and the carrion they are eating are already dead -- having been slaughtered by G-d Himself, not given as a sacrifice to Him by humans in the proper manner...
Y'shayahu / Isaiah 34:6: - "The L-rd's sword has become full of blood, made fat with fatness, from the blood of lambs and goats, from the fat of the kidneys of rams, for the L-rd has a slaughter / זֶבַח (ZEvacḥ) in Bozrah and a great slaughter in the land of Edom."
Y'rmiyahu / Jeremiah 46:10: - "And that day shall be for the L-rd G-d of Hosts a day of vengeance, to avenge Himself against His adversaries, and the sword shall consume and shall be sated, and its thirst shall be quenched by their blood, for the L-rd G-d of Hosts shall have a massacre / זֶבַח (ZEvacḥ) in the north land by the Euphrates River."
The Hebrew word most commonly associated with sacrifice is qorban / קָרְבָּן. The word here is זֶבַח (ZEvacḥ) -- to slaughter, massacre or to sacrifice as for a feast... See Mishnah Chullin 2:3 for an example. It can be used to speak of an animal sacrificed that may be eaten (most were not eaten, most were burned) -- but in those cases an animal (for a Jew) had to be kosher, properly slaughtered and all the blood drained (Jews can't eat blood)...
It even says that there will be so many dead from Gog and Magog that it will take Israel 7 months to bury them all -- and the nations will speak well of the Jews for showing compassion in burying their enemies.
Sheesh -- do these people even bother to READ the text?
Animals eat blood. Jews are forbidden from doing so.
Vayikra / Leviticus 3:17
This is a lasting ordinance for the generations to come, wherever you live: You must not eat any fat or any blood.
Vayikra / Leviticus 7:26
And wherever you live, you must not eat the blood of any bird or animal.
Vayikra / Leviticus 7:27
If anyone eats blood, that person must be cut off from his people.' "
Vayikra / Leviticus 17:10-11
If any person, whether of the family of Israel or a proselyte who joins them, eats any blood, I will direct My anger against the person who eats blood and cut him off [spiritually] from among his people. This is because the life-force of the flesh is in the blood; and I therefore gave it to you to be [placed] on the altar to atone for your lives. It is the blood that atones for a life.
Vayikra / Leviticus 17:12
Therefore I say to the Israelites, "None of you may eat blood, nor may an alien living among you eat blood."
Vayikra / Leviticus 17:13
Any Israelite or any alien living among you who hunts any animal or bird that may be eaten must drain out the blood and cover it with earth.
Vayikra / Leviticus 17:14
because the life of every creature is its blood. That is why I have said to the Israelites, "You must not eat the blood of any creature, because the life of every creature is its blood; anyone who eats it must be cut off."
The biggest mistake in the Christian bible is thinking G-d is a pagan god that needs blood (e.g. is "blood thirsty"). G-d needs nothing and He is loving, not cruel. קָרְבָּן / Qorban aka "sacrifice" (and prayer for that matter) is for US, not for G-d. G-d needs nothing.
A poster's thread had been deleted because he posted a link to an inappropriate website (rule violation) with no content of his own. The link was to a website that purports to "debunk" biblical content. In this case the link focused on Psalm 137, verse 9.
The NIV translation is "Happy is the one who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks."
T'hillim / Psalms are poems and prayers primarily written by King David. They were sung in the Temple, and we still recite them in our prayer services. They are not literal (are poems ever literal)? This psalm is about the Babylonian exile and per Midrash Eicha Zuta, it was written by ירמיה / Y'rmiyahu / Jeremiah. Ibn Ezra and the Radak stated that it was authored by exiled Jews as they "sat by the rivers of Babylon" in exile. The Gemara to Gitten 57b says that David wrote it as he was aware of the prophecy regarding the Babylonian Exile... Ergo the author is unknown, but there are plenty of suggestions!
So what is the purpose of #137?
It is bemoaning the fate of being exiled and mistreated by your enemies.
"By the rivers of Babylon, there we sat, we also wept when we remembered Zion...For there our captors asked us for words of song and our tormentors [asked of us] mirth, "Sing for us of the song of Zion." "How shall we sing the song of the Lord on foreign soil?" If I forget you, O Jerusalem, may my right hand forget [its skill]..." T'hillim / Psalm 137:1 - 5.
The Jews are in exile and their captors are tormenting them.
Do you think the Jews in the Holocaust didn't wish that Hitler would die a horrible death and his family, too? Have you never heard someone exclaim "I'd rather be dead" or "I wish you were dead"?
The Judaica Press translation of T'hillim / Psalm 137:8 - 9 is
"O Daughter of Babylon, who is destined to be plundered, praiseworthy is he who repays you your recompense that you have done to us. Praiseworthy is he who will take and dash your infants against the rock."
For what you have done to us, may you be punished! May you experience even a little of the pain you've inflicted upon us!
Again -- this is a poem, not some promise that Jews will be throwing Babylonian babies against rocks."
It might interest you to know that the Nazis did just that to Jewish babies. They would dash infants against walls until their brains exploded, they would throw a baby into the air and catch it on a bayonet -- the Nazis actually did these horrible things to Jewish babies -- not even 80 years ago...
Read the psalm, the ENTIRE psalm -- then read verse 9 realizing it is discussing the horrible tortures and barbarity that other nations perpetrated against the Jewish people.
The poet is crying out in pain at the mistreatment of his people and wishes that the tables were turned and that those who torture the Jews would experience even some of the pain we have endured.
When read in context the poet is saying that those who destroyed Jerusalem will themselves be destroyed -- and that the destruction of Babylon will not be mourned by anyone due to their treatment of their victims.
We first see the term used to speak of a false god in Bamidbar / Numbers 22:41: "In the morning, Balak took Balaam, and brought him to the In the morning, Balak took Balaam, and brought him to the High Altars of Ba'al, where he could see [as far as] the outer edges of the [Israelite] people., where he could see the outer edges of the people."
Josephus, the Jewish priest and historian of 2000 years ago, wrote of a mountain by this name that was about 60 furlongs or five miles from the camp of the Israelites. (Antiquities of the Jews 4:6:4).
In Shoftim / Judges 3:7 we are told that the Israelites served אֶת־הַבְּעָלִ֖ים / et HaBa'alim / the Ba'al. אֶת / et is a preposition that serves as the marker of a definite direct object of a verb. The Hebrew preposition אֶת / et is used with a semantically definite direct object of a proper noun or personal pronoun, but not with indirect objects. English does not have this concept.
After the אֶת / et is מַקָּף makkaf which appears as a dash, and connects the words in the way a hyphen connects words in English.
Then we have the word בְּעָלִ֖ -- ba'al.
Next is the ים / im ending which can infer plurality, but only if the verb is also plural. If the verb and adjective are singular it infers majesty, or power...
So here we have the instance of the Israelites appearing to worship a false god named Ba'al.
Why would the name of a false god in the T'nach (bible) also be used to speak highly of some people, too?
The word בַּעַל / ba'al means master or lord. While it was used for a false god it is also used to speak of others including G-d. Consider that Saul's son was named Eshbaʿal ("The L-rd is Great").
The word simply means "master." So the Israelites of the northern kingdom worshiped a false god they called "master." The term is often found in Judaism -- including in the term you mentioned -- "baal teshuva" -- a master of returning (to G-d)...
The honorific Baal Shem Tov means ''Master of (the) Good Name.''
Why did the elders believe that G-d sent Moses (Sh’mot / Exodus 3:16)?
Was it because Moses performed miracles?
Was it because Moses just "showed up?"
The elders of Israel believed Moses because Moses told them a secret message -- one he himself may not have realized was special.
Moses repeated to the elders the very words G-d had spoken through Ya'akov / Jacob and Yoséf / Joseph as a promise long before they were enslaved.
This secret message which Ya'akov / Jacob told his sons and Yoséf / Joseph told his brothers had been passed down to their children and theirs -- a treasure held by the elders of Israel.
Here is what G-d told Moses to say to the elders of Israel:
“'Go, gather the elders of Israel, and say to them, HaShem, the G-d of your fathers, appeared to me - the G-d of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. He said, 'I have granted you special providence (פָּקֹ֤ד פָּקַ֙דְתִּי֙ / remembered you) regarding what is happening to you in Egypt.” – Sh’mot / Exodus 3:16.
What is so special about that statement from G-d?
Why is it more powerful than a miracle as proof that Moses was sent by G-d?
Yes, G-d gave him a staff that turned into a snake and back again.
Yes, G-d turned his chest diseased and back to health as a sign.
But those were not the reasons the elders believed G-d had sent Moses.
Read Sh’mot / Exodus 3:16 closely and then Read B’reshit / Genesis 50:24:
“Joseph said to his close family, 'I am dying. G-d is sure to grant you special providence (פָּקֹ֧ד יִפְקֹ֣ד / will remember you / will attend to you) and bring you out of this land, to the land that he swore to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.'”
There is a secret code there – the words of Ya’akov / Jacob are repeated by Moses and this was how the elders knew G-d had sent him.
The secret password (as it were) are the words פָּקֹ֤ד פָּקַ֙דְתִּי֙ / special providence (surely remembered or surely visited)…
Yosef / Joseph tells his brothers (the sons of Ya’akov / Jacob) that G-d will grant special providence / פָּקֹ֧ד יִפְקֹ֣ד.
The verb פָּקֹ֧ד / pakad can have several meanings; according to Bolozky in "501 Hebrew Verbs":
to hold a census
And G-d does not merely use this word once.
He uses it twice.
In a row.
This repetition of the verb implies "surety" – it is said twice!
G-d will "surely remember!"
In other words this is an extremely powerful statement “I will remember! I will remember!!!”
In fact the phrase "פָּקֹד פָּקַדְתִּי" translates as "I have surely remembered!".
When the Torah repeats something, it is because the message is critically important.
In the case of this phrase the repetition of these two verbs appears no less than five times in the T’nach:
"פָּקֹד פָּקַדְתִּי" at Sh’mot / Exodus 3:16;
"פָּקֹד יִפְקֹד" at B’reshit / Genesis 50:24 and 25, Sh’mo t / Exodus 13:19;
"פָּקֹד יִפְקְדֵנִי" at Shmuel Alef / 1 Samuel 20:6.
This coded message is so critical that the Torah repeats it: “Joseph then bound the Israelites by an oath: 'When G-d grants you [this] special providence (פָּקֹ֨ד יִפְקֹ֤ד / will remember you / will attend to you), you must bring my remains out of this place.'” B’reshit / Genesis 50:25.
Moses tells the elders that G-d has granted them special providence / פָּקֹ֤ד פָּקַ֙דְתִּי֙ – just as was prophesied by Jacob not once, but twice.
This is no coincidence – it is G-d letting the Israelites know that Joseph’s words were prophetic – and that prophecy is being fulfilled in the person of Moses.
Go back a bit further to B’reshit / Genesis 21:1: “G-d granted special providence to (remembered / attended to) Sarah as He said He would, and G-d did what He promised for Sarah.”
Rashi in his note on the words וְשָׁמְעוּ לְקֹלֶֽךָ (“and they will listen to your words”) in Sh'mot / Exodus 3:16 wrote: “And they will listen to your voice”—by themselves [i.e. without any further proof of your authenticity]; they will listen to you as soon as you say to them the words: “pakod pakad'ti”, because they have long had a tradition that their chosen redeemer would identify himself by using this specific expression [i.e. the doubled use the verb / pakod / פקד, literally ‘to visit’, “attend,” or ‘remember’]: Ya'akov / Jacob had told them v'élohim pakod yifkod ĕt'chĕm (“and G-d will definitely bear you in mind” [see note below] and Yoséf also told them pakod yifkod ĕlohim ĕt'chĕm “G-d will definitely bear you in mind” (B'réshıt / Genesis 50:25).
Did you notice that in Rashi’s statement both Ya'akov / Jacob and Yoséf / Joseph said “G-d will definitely bear you in mind”?
Yet the Torah has both statements made by Yoséf / Joseph.
Why does Rashi say that the first is by Ya’akov?
Sh'mot / Exodus Rabbah 5:16, a midrash (story) says: “...they had this tradition from Ya'akov / Jacob, because Ya'akov / Jacob had transmitted the secret to Yoséf / Joseph and Yoséf / Joseph had passed it on to his brothers.”
This appears to be the source for Rashi’s statement that both Ya'akov / Jacob and Yoséf / Joseph repeated this important code to the brothers – the sons of Israel (Ya’akov / Jacob)…
Rashi’s claim seems since the prediction about the doubled use of the verb פקד contains an element of prophecy and Yoséf / Joseph was not one of the 48 prophets listed in the Talmud, while his father Ya'akov / Jacob —in common with both of the other Patriarchs—was listed as a prophet.
Whether both Ya'akov / Jacob and Yoséf / Joseph or only Yoséf / Joseph stated the important phrase not once but twice (and Torah, when it repeats, does so because there is something very important to be learned) this very important message was remembered by the generations in slavery – taught from one generation to the next…
These words were said to the children of Ya’akov before they were enslaved.
The important root word used is פָּקֹ֤ד / "pakad."
Although usually translated as “remembered” it actually has a number of meanings including "bear in mind" and "count", not just “remember."
These were special instructions…
Special instructions from a death bed…
Yoséf / Joseph did not tell his brothers יִזְכּוֹר אֱלֹהִים אֶתְכֶם / yizkor elohim et'chem ("G-d will remember you"); what he said was פָּקֹד יִפְקֹד אֱלֹהִים אֶתְכֶם / pakod yifkod elohim et'chem, using the unusual verb פָּקַד pakad – a verb only ever used of G-d – and even more striking the Torah uses a doubled form of the verb, too (פָּקֹד יִפְקֹד / pakod yifkod).
And these are the words used by Moses when he approached the Elders of Israel – and they knew he was sent by G-d. G-d had given them special providence – He had remembered His people in merit of the patriarchs.
Moses was not a member of the Elders – and he did not grow up being taught these secret words.
Moses grew up in Pharaoh’s palace.
During his first outing from the palace he killed the Egyptian taskmaster and went into exile.
How could he have known the phrase that was used?
The Egyptian prince's repetition of the unusual phrase to the elders, who surely remembered Yosef's last words, were proof of prophecy (knowing things that a person could not have known).
And therefore the elders believed him.
Moses had quite a few names, but this name is from his Egyptian name. "When the child matured, [his mother] brought him to Pharaoh's daughter. She adopted him as her own son, and named him Moses (Moshe / משה). 'I bore (mashe) him from the water,' she said.” (Sh'mot / Exodus 2:10).
There were even a number of Pharaohs with similar names including Thutmose who was the third pharaoh of the 18th dynasty of Egypt. He received the throne after the death of the previous king, Amenhotep I.
Some of our sages (including חזקוני / Chizkuni of the13th century) state that his mother named him and told the Egyptian princess the name...
The footnote from The Living Torah says: "In Egyptian, Moshe means a son. Thus, his naming is prefaced by a phrase that is literally translated, 'he became to her as a son' (cf. Ibn Ezra; Hadar Zekenim). Significantly, the suffix moshe is found (and exclusively so) in the names of many Pharaohs of the 18th Dynasty, such as Ka-moshe ('son of [Ra's] majesty'), Ach-moshe (Ahmose; 'son of the moon,' or 'the moon is born') and Toth-moshe (Thutmose; 'son of Toth'). The word moshe may indeed be of Semitic origin (see next note, this verse, 'bore'), introduced by the Semitic Hyksos.
"According to other ancient sources, the name Moses comes from the Egyptian mo (water) and uses (drawn from) (Josephus, Antiquities 2:9:6, Contra Apion 1:31; Philo De Vita Moses 2:17; Malbim)."
Some sources state that Moses' Egyptian name was Monius (Ibn Ezra; cf. Abarbanel; Josephus, Contra Apion 1:26, 28). Other ancient sources claim that Moses' name was preserved among the Gentiles as the legendary Musaeus, teacher of Orpheus, from whom the Muses obtained their name (Artapanus, in Eusebius, Preparatio Evangelica 9:27).
Artscroll's footnote says: "She gave him the Egyptian name Monios, which means that he was drawn from the water. Moses/Moshe is the Hebrew translation of that word (Ibn Ezra)."
Vayikra Rabbah 1:3 (midrash probably compiled around the fifth century CE) tells us that Moses had ten names:
Miriam (his sister) gave him the name Yered (ירד).
His grandfather called him Avigdor (אבי גדור).
Some say his father named him Chever (חבר).
His mother called him Yekutiel (יקותיא‑ל).
His brother Aaron called him Avi Zanoach (אבי זנוח).
Another name was Tuviah (טובי‑ה).
The Jewish people named him Shemayah (שמעי‑ה).
Ben Evyatar (בן אביתר) and finally
From Vayikra Rabbah 1:3:
The Holy One said to Batya, the daughter of Pharaoh: "Moses was not your son, and yet you called him your son. So too, you are not my daughter, but I call you my daughter."
Moses was known by 10 names: Jered, Chever, Yekutiel, Avigdor, Avi-Socho, Avi-Zanoch ... Tuvia ... Shmaya ... Levi ... and Moses, which makes 10.
The Holy One said to Moses, Behold! From among all the names from which you are known, I only refer to you by the name that Batya, Pharaoh's daughter, named you.
1. Yered (ירד), implying descent. According to one opinion, Miriam gave him this name, for because of him, she went down (yarad) to the Nile to see what would become of him. Alternatively, Moses was called this name because he brought the Torah down to the Jewish people, and the Divine Presence back down to this physical world.
2. Avigdor (אבי גדור), master of the fence. According to the Yalkut Me'am Loez, he was called this (by his grandfather, Kehat), because "since Moses' birth, G‑d has fenced in Pharaoh, not allowing him to continue his decree to drown Jewish infants."
3. Chever, (חבר) meaning, companion, or connector. Either because Moses connected the Jewish people with their heavenly Father, or because he prevented Heavenly retribution for their sins. Some say that Amram, his father, gave Moses this name, because Moses was born after his father had once again joined his wife after having divorced her.
4. Avi Socho, (אבי סוכו) Father of Seers. He was given this name by his grandfather, Kehat (alternatively, by the nurse who helped Moses' mother raise him), because Moses would grow up to be the "master" (avi) of the seers (sochim) and prophets.
5. Yekutiel (יקותיא-ל), from the root kavei (קוה) meaning hope. His mother Jochebed called him this name because she had hope and trust in G‑d that He would return Moses to her. Alternatively, because she foresaw that Moses would be the Jewish nation's great hope.
6. Avi Zanuach (אבי זנוח), literally, "master of rejection." Aaron, Moses' brother gave him this name, saying "My father rejected my mother, but took her back because of this child." Alternatively, because Moses would make Israel reject idols.
7. Tuvia (טובי'ה), implying goodness.
8. The Jewish people called him "Shemaya (שמעי-ה) ben [the son of] Nethanel." They predicted that in his days, G‑d would hear (שמע) their prayers.
9. Ben Avitar (בן אביתר), son of pardon, since Moses was the Jewish son who would solicit G‑d's pardon (ויתר) for the Jewish people's sin of the Golden Calf.
10. Levi (לוי), so named after the tribe to which Moses belonged.
(Source: Rabbi Eliezer Danzinger, Chabad.org)
"My people has been eliminated for lack of knowledge; for you have spurned knowledge and I will spurn you from serving Me; and as you have forgotten the Torah of your G-d, I too, will forget your children." Hoshea / Hosea 4:6.
Throughout history Jews have turned their backs on G-d and followed false gods -- many out of ignorance. This was true in the days of the prophets Isaiah and Ezekiel, and it has been true throughout history.
Jews converting to Christianity tend to epitomize two things:
1. A lack of decent Jewish education
2. An underlying issue (mental, emotional, wanting to escape antisemitism and "fit in" with the society around them).
By underlying issue I mean that converts to Christianity tend to be swayed by emotions -- either the "Christian love" they are shown by the missionaries trying to convert them, or sometimes a "personal revelation" that sways them emotionally to believe in Jesus. They only tend to try to support their conversion with "proof texts" after the fact, but I have yet to meet even one who converted based on studying Christianity and making an intellectual choice.
The Torah warns us to not be swayed by personal visions and revelations -- all religions except for Judaism are based on personal revelations.
This warning is found in many places, but is shouted loud and clear in D'varim / Deuteronomy 13: "The entire word that I command you, that shall you observe to do; you shall not add to it and you shall not subtract from it.  If there should stand up in your midst a prophet or a dreamer of a dream, and he will produce to you a sign or a wonder,  and the sign or the wonder comes about, of which he spoke to you, saying "Let us follow G-ds of others that you did not know and we shall worship them!"  do not hearken to the words of that prophet or to that dreamer of a dream, for HASHEM, your G-d, is testing you to know whether you love HASHEM, your G-d with all your heart and with all your soul.  HASHEM, your G-d, shall you follow and Him shall you fear; His commandments shall you observe and to His voice shall you hearken; Him shall you serve and to Him shall you cleave."
1. If there is a dreamer (visions -- from others or your own) do not believe them.
2. If they even show you miracles do not believe them.
G-d is testing you.
3. Observe his mitzvot (do not desert them to "believe" in Jesus or Mohamed or anyone else).
Which brings us to one Max Wertheimer.
Max Wertheimer was an early 20th century Reform Rabbi. He was born in Germany and eventually moved to the United States.
Apparently quite a few American Reform Jews (non-observant) of the late 19th and early 20th century converted to Christianity. There is a question as to "why" -- there was a concerted effort at the time to convert Jews, and many European Jews who had suffered pogroms and prejudice wanted to assimilate (become part of the country in which they lived). They began to abandon Jewish practice, and Jewish education suffered. These assimilated Jews had little to no religion, and perhaps this is why quite a few became Christians.
It was these uneducated Jews who, to a very great extent, began to immigrate in large numbers to the United States in the 19th and early 20th centuries.
This certainly seems to fit Max Wertheimer who converted in the early 20th century (possibly late 19th) to Christian Science, and later became a Baptist. He seems to have turned to Christian Science upon the death of his wife...
He was definitely uneducated and must not have been able to read Hebrew. He is quoted as saying that after his wife died of an illness he began to “search.”
“he began reading the New Testament, comparing its content with that of the Old Testament, and stumbled across Isaiah 53, Isaiah 50:6 (“I gave my back to the smiters”), Psalm 110 (“The Lord said to my Lord, Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies your footstool.”), and Isaiah 9 (“For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given ….”). Messianic Judaism from the 6th to early-20th Century: Textual Evidence by Hélène Dallaire, Ph.D.
No one who could read Hebrew would be persuaded by the mistranslations in any of those passages. For example, T’hillim / Psalm 110:1 actually says that G-d said to an earthly (human) master (the word is adoni – it is never used to speak of G-d)… So he had to have been terribly uneducated – and early Reform Jews did not use Hebrew at all – they were pretty much churches without Jesus in the early days… (Reform has much improved, but still is very far from traditional, observant Judaism)…
I am speaking of historical Reform Judaism as it was founded in the 19th century in Germany and its early years in America where it was founded in 1841 by Isaac Mayer Wise (1819–1900), a German emigrant. Scrolls: Essays on Jewish history and literature, and kindred subjects, Volume 1 by Gotthard Deutsch (died 1921 -- a Jewish historian) discusses "rabbis" in the 19th century often referenced by missionaries as converting to Christianity. From the book starting on page 116:
"the present chief rabbi of London referred to the fact that three reform rabbis had converted to Christianity. He preferred not to give the exact number, because he probably had reason to fear the exact memory of those who remembered a previous statement of his that he could fill a book with the names of the disciples of Isaac M. Wise (founder of Reform Judaism) who has become converts to Christianity."
Wise, the founder of American Reform Judaism declared that he didn’t believe in a personal messiah or in bodily resurrection. He created a Reform prayer book which eliminated prayers for a return to Israel and the rebuilding of the Temple. The 1885 Reform official declaration was anti-Zionist and even rejected Judaism as a people :
"We consider ourselves no longer a nation, but a religious community; and we therefore expect neither a return to Palestine, nor a sacrificial worship under the sons of Aaron, nor the restoration of any of the laws concerning a Jewish state."
Max Wertheimer was educated at Wise's "seminary" and was one of those three Reform rabbis Deutsch mentions converted to Christianity... BTW, the first graduation ceremony of this "seminary" served shrimp (trief -- not kosher)...
Many, many of the early Reform Jewish adopters had children who became Christians.
The early Reform movement also disavowed the divinity of the Torah, saying it was written by men. They gave up being kosher, and shrimp was often served at official meetings (including the first graduation ceremony -- along with clams -- also not kosher). The early Reform movement moved Shabbat to Sunday (to be like the Christians). The services were held in German, not Hebrew. They had choirs and organs, like the Christians...
A Reform rabbi of this period would not be expected to be a great Jewish expert -- and this certainly includes Wertheimer who attended the Reform seminary and this is where he claimed his semicha (rabbinical ordination).
Max Wertheimer claimed to have been born and raised Orthodox in Germany (highly unlikely if he became a Reform Rabbi). When you look at Jews who missionaries hold out as Jews who have converted to Christianity they often inflate their backgrounds.
Why do I doubt that Wertheimer was raised Orthodox?
There are contradictions in the information we have about Wertheimer. His obituary states that he came to America at the age of 13 (in other words, he wasn’t old enough to have been raised in an observant home as is the claim that he was Orthodox). His autobiography claims that he left his German secular high school for a mercantile apprenticeship while he attended night school, eventually coming to America where he completed high school (seemingly as a young adult). So was it 13 or adult? No way to know...
Upon the death of his young wife he says he had a revelation and became first a Christian Science member (thinking they could heal) and then dropped it to become a Baptist.
Some said he was mentally unstable.
The American Jewish Archives supplied me with a copy of an article written by Leo Wise in 1900. Leo Wise was the son of Isaac Wise, the father of American Reform Judaism (and the founder of the Hebrew Union College). Leo Wise wrote about Wertheimer in 1900:
“The general impression…is that Mr. Wertheimer is mentally unbalanced, an opinion which has prevailed among his friends in Dayton and elsewhere for some time past. Mr. (not Dr.) Wertheimer appears, according to what he says, to have left the Jewish Church without having lost a particle of his faith in its teachings, and to have affiliated himself with a Christian sect, without having the slightest belief in any of the cardinal doctrines of Christianity, such as the immaculate conception, vicarious atonement, etc.
(note that Leo Wise wrote this in 1900 when Wertheimer was a Christian Scientist, before he became a Baptist in 1904)…
“Mr. Wertheimer’s days of usefulness in the Jewish pulpit have long been over; it would not be far from the truth to say that they never really began…The new Rabbi soon evinced peculiarities, wild eccentricities, that led those who came in contact with him to believe that he lacked mental balance. He was soon at loggerheads with his congregation, and as time went on the relations between them did not improve…
“When the proper length of time after his graduation had expired, Rabbi Wertheimer presented to the faculty of the Hebrew Union College (the Reform school for rabbis) a thesis as a candidate for the degree of D.D. (Doctor of Divinity). This paper was declared by the faculty not up to the required standard, and the degree was not conferred. Another application had a similar result. This angered Mr. Wertheimer very much. His vanity, which by the way, is one of his marked idiosyncrasies, led him to believe that the refusal to grant the degree was brought about by personal prejudice against himself, not by his lack of requisite scholarship.
“He thereupon joined the enemies of the Hebrew Union College in their attacks upon the good name of the institution, the scholarship of the faculty and the character and capacity of the graduates – a rather extraordinary proceeding toward his alma mater and fellow alumni, especially as in addition to free tuition he had, during his college career, been a pensioner, and had been fed, lodged, clothed and generally cared for gratuitously. This naturally seems abominable to an American, but Mr. Wertheimer is a Frenchman by birth…”
(Wertheimer’s autobiography claims he was German, not French)…
“As time passed Mr. Wertheimer grew more eccentric…after the sad death of his wife he became more erratic than ever… Finally, at the expiration of his last term of office his congregation…informed him that he could not remain with them any longer. This was followed by a dismissal in the usual delecate way, i.e., by re-electing him for a further term and then accepting his resignation, which he tendered.”
Now that is interesting – because Wertheimer’s autobiography states that he resigned because he was leaning towards Christianity – yet it appears that he was fired – this was not voluntary. He was simply allowed to resign to “save face”.
(He) “then became a candidate for various Jewish pulpits that were without incumbents, but in every instance his reputation for being exceedingly erratic had preceded him and he was not selected.”
Wise then goes on to state that he thinks Wertheimer chose Christian Science because it was closest to Judaism of the various Christian denominations.
“Rabbi Wertheimer’s defection is mainly due to the fact that his peculiarities of disposition and character disqualified him for the Jewish ministry, and he very wisely, left it, as it…He was an applicant for (a position of a rabbi) about a month ago.
“I have known Mr. Wertheimer from the time he entered the preparatory department of the Hebrew Union College, and have watched his career since he graduated. With full knowledge of the facts, I have no hesitation in saying, that, unpleasant as it is to have a Rabbi become an apostate…it is far better that he should have withdrawn in this manner than to have remained in it. As he stands today he is a mild annoyance, for some time past he has been a source of harm to Judaism.”
This certainly is an interesting perspective and seems closer to the truth than Wertheimer's autobiography. It seems that he had many eccentricities including a large ego -- with a brain that didn't match (he never received is D.D. from the Hebrew Union College). He was forced out of the Reform rabbinate and had to find a way to survive after his young wife died and he had debts to pay. In 1904 Wertheimer became a Baptist having accepted the trinity based on Greek translations of the Hebrew bible. No kidding.
From “A Rabbi who Turned,” by Alfred Segal, The American Israelite (an English-language Jewish weekly newspaper published in Cincinnati, Ohio), May 9, 1957:
"One day he found something in a Greek translation of our Pentateuch (written 275 years before Jesus); it persuaded him that even that long before Jesus was born the Greeks foresaw Jesus’ coming. In that translation they spoke of Joshua as Yesous and to Max Wertheimer “Yesous” suggested “Jesus.” Wertheimer wrote: “I could hold out in unbelief no longer…I was convinced of the truth of G-d as it is in…Jesus… I cried, “L-rd, I believe that Thou as Jehovah Yesous has made the atonement for me. I believe that Jehovah Yesous died for me!"
That is certainly not stable -- why would a man who could, supposedly, read Hebrew turn to a translation of the bible and then, dependent on some unknown translator's choice for the name Joshua uses this to convince himself of Jesus as a god and part of the trinity?
That is not reasonable, let alone stable!
Perahaps Gotthard Deutsch (a professor of Jewish history at Hebrew Union College - Reform Movement) who was a contemporary who knew Wertheimer, put it best:
"I have been connected with Hebrew Union College for 20 years, and know all its graduates, and therefore can state positively that there were no more than three conversions among its graduates. Samuel Freuder, the first of the converts, returned to Judaism, declaring the whole missionary business a fraud, and is now living a retired life, earning only a modest livelihood. Max Wertheimer turned out a failure as a Christian Science practitioner, and entered the Baptist ministry..." The Jewish Archives, Gotthard Deutsch.
A missionary has brought up the antisemitic accusation that the Talmud permits sex with three year old girls. He wrote: "I use the Talmud online, not some secret Talmud. Please justify the following if possible: MISHNAH. A GIRL OF THE AGE OF THREE YEARS AND ONE DAY MAY BE BETROTHED BY INTERCOURSE ... GEMARA. Our Rabbis taught: A girl of the age of three years may be betrothed by intercourse; so R. Meir. But the Sages say: Only one who is three years and one day old. What is the practical difference between them? — The school of R Jannai replied: The practical difference between them is the day preceding the first day of the fourth year."
The Talmud is a law book. Law books explain the law and often present cases that epitomize the law, and the Talmud does this, too.
Consider this: the United States has laws about murder and rape. Does this mean that the United States condones, or even endorses, murder and rape?
Ridiculous -- but this is exactly what the antisemites do when they say the Talmud condones sex with children!
The Torah tells us: "If a man encounters a virgin girl who is not betrothed and is caught raping her, then the rapist must give the girl's father 50 [shekels] of silver (the normal dowry price). He must then take the girl he violated as his wife (only if the girl consents (Yad, Naarah Bethulah 1:3), and he may not send her away as long as he lives." D'varim / Deuteronomy 22:28 - 29.
A rabbi on the website Aish wrote: "The demand is to the rapist to protect the daughter, her reputation and her dowry. The rapist is held accountable and is made to be responsible for his actions. Rape of a single woman carries a heavy monetary fine (depending on the age of the victim), plus the rapist has to pay reparation for damages, as well as for her suffering, embarrassment and emotional anguish. The rapist also incurs lashes. This is all intended as both a deterrent and a punishment (D'varim / Deuteronomy 22:28-29, see also Rambam Rotzai'ach 2:4-5).
"As regards to what you read, it is true that the Torah states that the rapist must marry (and may never divorce) his victim (actually only if she is at a certain young age at the time), but both she and her father can refuse the "match" – which they are extremely likely to do. I believe the message of the Torah is not that the rapist can have whom he wants, but quite the opposite. If he wants to enjoy another human being, he cannot just do so and split. He becomes responsible for her – for the rest of his life."
The Talmud discusses what to do if a male child molests a female adult or if a male adult molests a young female child (Ketuvot 11b). Remember that virginity was highly prized in ancient times -- is the raped 3 year old girl now considered a non-virgin for the purposes of a dowry later in her life? The Jewish judges wisely said that she is still considered a virgin for her sake and future. Jewish law does not condone sex with a 3 year old or children, the opposite is true.
The Talmud states (Kiddushin 41a):
האיש מקדש את בתו כשהיא נערה: כשהיא נערה אין כשהיא קטנה לא מסייע ליה לרב דאמר רב יהודה אמר רב ואיתימא רבי אלעזר אסור לאדם שיקדש את בתו כשהיא קטנה עד שתגדל ותאמר בפלוני אני רוצה
Translation: “A man may marry off his daughter when she is a na’ara / נערה / young woman" When she is a na’ara (young woman), yes. When she is a child, no. This supports the teaching of Rav, for Rav Y’huda said in the name of Rav, and there are those who say Rabbi El’azar, “It is forbidden for a man to marry off his daughter when she is a child, until she grows up and says, ‘I want to marry So-and-so.'” (Talmud, Kiddushin 41a).
Further, Niddah 13b says: ת”ר הגרים והמשחקין בתינוקות מעכבין את המשיח… דנסיבי קטנות דלאו בנות אולודי נינהו
Translation: “The Rabbis taught in a b’raita: Converts and those who play with little girls delay the coming of the Messiah… The latter refers to those who marry [and have sexual relations with] girls who are too young to [safely] bear children.”
Molesting a child, whether above or below the age of three, is forbidden as stated clearly in both Kiddushin 41a and Niddah 13b.
Further, the Rambam (Maimonides, 12th century) in Issurei Biah 21:18 writes: “A man should not marry a minor who is not fit to give birth.”
Jewish law strictly forbids not only child molestation but all kinds of non-marital sexual relations are prohibited. The Rambam wrote in Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Ishut 1:4 "a person who has relations with a woman for the sake of lust, without kiddushin (marriage), receives lashes as prescribed by the Torah."
The Talmud strongly opposed formation of the marriage bond by sexual force (at any age) and punished those who acted in such manner (Kiddushin 12b).
Sanhedrin 55b says IF a girl is raped if she is younger than 3 she is still considered a virgin for the sake of later marriage. If she is older then 3 it is considered RAPE and one of the compensations is that her father may demand the perpetrator marry her as well as pay all the criminal penalties.
Remember that the man is not allowed to have sex with a 3 year old we are discussing what happens if someone DOES. The Talmud goes on to say that the father's right to marry off his daughter was to be used for her benefit. The age and manner of marriage is to a large extent a societal variable but at Kiddushin 41a the rabbis taught: "It is forbidden for a man to betroth his daughter while she is young [but rather he should wait] till she has grown and says 'This is the one I want [to marry]" and this teaching is repeated elsewhere in the Talmud.
The Laws of Niddah pertain to family purity (think menstruation or giving birth and once again becoming ritually clean by immersing in a mikvah). This chapter is discussing how old a person (male or female) can be ritually impure.
"This mishnah teaches that in a legal sense, sexual relations with a girl over the age of three counts as sexual relations. I should emphasize that this mishnah in no way condones such an act (which is certainly rape) it just teaches that this counts as an act of intercourse. At the core of this notion is their understanding of the physical consequences of intercourse for the first time namely the breaking of the woman's hymen. As we can see at the end of the mishnah, if a girl has intercourse (i.e. is raped) before the age of three her hymen will repair itself. After the age of three, it will not. This, to the rabbis, means that after the age of three, intercourse "counts" in a legal sense. Before the age of three, it does not. Having taught this mishnah (and others like it) many times, I realize that this is a very sensitive issue. To talk about sex with young girls is very troubling. I certainly don't want people to read this and think that the rabbis thought that it was okay for men to have relations with little girls. As usual, the mishnah uses a clinical, emotionally distant tone. That's just the way the rabbis composed much of the mishnah." Modern commentary from Sefaria on Niddah 5.4.1.
So if a young girl three years old (or older) is raped the rapist may be forced to marry her and take care of her -- IF the father agrees, and the girl (when she is old enough) must also agree. Sex with a young child is not allowed in this situation -- it is a legal requirement on the part of the rapist.
The Talmud is stating that a girl younger than 3 is still considered a virgin for the purposes of a later marriage dowry (dowries were monies paid by a prospective husband to the girl's parents). Dowries for a virgin were higher priced than dowries for a widow or other non-virginal woman... A girl older than 3 who was raped would thus be financially impacted, and this law states that the father can demand that the virginal dowry price be paid...
There is no real Talmud online unless you are reading it in Aramaic. The highly abridged ones online are very poor translations -- and again, highly abridged. |
Arranged marriages with children was very common – particularly among Christians. In July 1543, Mary of Scotland was betrothed to be married to Edward, son of King Henry VIII of England. She was 6 months old.
SIX MONTHS OLD.
It doesn't mean they had sex -- it was an arranged marriage.
Someone asked me: You have said "This oil was never used on Jesus, and since he was not in an unbroken and uncontested line to the throne he would have to have been personally anointed with the very specific compound of spices and oil whose exact composition is stipulated in Sh'mot / Exodus 30:22-33 for use in the “anointment” of Jewish kings or priests:" But According to the Talmud Horayos 12a the anointing oil was compounded only once in Jewish history, by Moses, and the supply made by him sufficed for the whole period from the anointing of Aaron and his sons until the residue was hidden away by Josiah. Anointing oil was therefore not used for the kings and high priests after Josiah, and it was one of the five appurtenances used in the First Temple but not in the Second. So Are you saying the the hidden temple items including the oil must be back before the messiah?
Yes, that is what I'm saying. The holy anointing oil was hidden along with the אָרוֹן הַבְּרִית / Aron HaBrit (Ark of the Covenant) before the Babylonian Exile.
The Torah tells us of a special oil which was used to anoint kings and priests. was a special mixture of spice and olive oil that was used for “anointing” of kings and priests. This special oil is called שֶֽׁמֶן מִשְׁחַת קֹדֶשׁ shemen mish'ḥat kodesh (“Oil of Anointment of Sanctity”) and is given in the passage of Sh'mot / Exodus 30:22-33 which gives the formula for making it and how to properly use it. . .
"G-d spoke to Moses, saying: 30:23 You must take the finest fragrances, 500 [shekels] of distilled myrrh, [two] half portions, each consisting of 250 [shekels] of fragrant cinnamon and 250 [shekels] of fragrant cane, 30:24 and 500 shekels of cassia, all measured by the sanctuary standard, along with a gallon of olive oil. 30:25 Make it into sacred anointing oil. It shall be a blended compound, as made by a skilled perfumer, [made especially for] the sacred anointing oil. 30:26 Then use it to anoint the Communion Tent, the Ark of Testimony, 30:27 the table and all its utensils, the menorah and its utensils, the incense altar, 30:28 the sacrificial altar and all its utensils, the washstand and its base. 30:29 You will thus sanctify them, making them holy of holies, so that anything touching them becomes sanctified. 30:30 You must also anoint Aaron and his sons, sanctifying them as priests to Me. 30:31 Speak to the Israelites and tell them, 'This shall be the sacred anointing oil to Me for all generations. 30:32 Do not pour it on the skin of any [unauthorized] person, and do not duplicate it with a similar formula. It is holy, and it must remain sacred to you. 30:33 If a person blends a similar formula, or places it on an unauthorized person, he shall be cut off [spiritually] from his people." Sh'mot / Exodus 30:22-33.
Moses was ordered in Sh'mot / Exodus 30:22-25 to make personally (he was not to delegate the task to an assistant), which was to last “for all our generations” (Sh'mot / Exodus 30:31), and which was never to be duplicated ever again by anyone else (Sh'mot / Exodus 30:22-33).
So the Torah says this oil was only made once and will never again be duplicated -- but it also says it will be the sacred anointing oil for all generations -- so it will never be used up either.
The questioner mentioned Horayot 12a. The answer to his (her?) question is found in Horayot 11b:
אמר לו רבי יהודה וכי נס אחד נעשה בשמן המשחה והלא תחלתו שנים עשר לוגין וממנו היה נמשח משכן וכליו אהרן ובניו כל שבעת ימי המלואים וכולו קיים לעתיד לבוא שנאמר (שמות ל, לא) שמן משחת קדש יהיה זה לי לדורותיכם
Rabbi Yehuda said to him: And was it merely one miracle that was performed with regard to the anointing oil? But wasn’t it initially only twelve log, and from it the Tabernacle, and its vessels, Aaron, and his sons were anointed for the entire seven days of inauguration, and all of it remains in existence for the future, as it is stated: “This shall be a sacred anointing oil unto Me throughout your generations” (Exodus 30:31)? Since the entire existence of the anointing oil is predicated on miracles, it is no wonder that its preparation also involved a miracle.
THUS SHALL BE A SACRED ANOINTING OIL UNTO ME (G-D) THROUGHOUT YOUR GENERATIONS...
Horayot 12a goes on to say:
"Rav Pappa said: They anointed Jehoahaz with pure balsam oil, not with anointing oil. "
It does not say that the שֶֽׁמֶן מִשְׁחַת קֹדֶשׁ shemen mish'ḥat kodesh (“oil of anointment of holiness”) was made only once or that it was used once and only once. It also doesn't say that it will never be used again after Y'ho'aḥaz / Jehoahaz. It simply says "They anointed Y'ho'aḥaz / Jehoahaz with pure balsam oil, not with anointing oil."
Y'ho'aḥaz / Jehoahaz wasn't properly anointed by a known prophet (as is required) either. See M'lachim Beit / 2 Kings 23:30, where it was the people who anointed him - no mention of a prophet or priest: "And the people of the land took Y'ho'aḥaz / Jehoahaz the son of Josiah and anointed him and made him king instead of his father."
The people would not have had the holy oil -- and they are not the ones who can properly anoint a king -- that honor falls to a known prophet... In other words -- his anointing was not done properly according to the Torah (known prophet and the shemen mish'ḥat kodesh “oil of anointment of holiness" being used).
There are three situations that "trigger" the requirement that the messiah be actually anointed with a very specific type of holy oil (which was never used on Jesus). The three situations are:
Again, see Horayot 11b which confirms my three points:
ואפילו כהן גדול בן כהן גדול טעון משיחה ואין מושחים מלך בן מלך ואם תאמר מפני מה משחו את שלמה מפני מחלוקתו של אדוניה ואת יואש מפני עתליה ואת יהואחז מפני יהויקים שהיה גדול ממנו שתי שנים ואותו שמן קיים לעתיד לבוא שנאמר שמן משחת קדש יהיה זה לי לדורותיכם זה בגימטריא שנים עשר לוגין הוו
The baraita continues: And even a High Priest, son of a High Priest, requires anointing, but one does not anoint a king, son of a king. And if you say: For what reason did they anoint King Solomon (see I Kings, chapter 1), who was the son of a king? It was due to the challenge of Adonijah, who sought to succeed their father David as king. And they anointed Joash due to Athaliah (see II Kings, chapter 11). And they anointed Jehoahaz due to Jehoiakim, who was two years older than he was (see II Kings 23:30). In all these cases, it was necessary to underscore that these men were crowned king. And that oil remains in existence for the future, as it is stated: “This [zeh] shall be a sacred anointing oil unto Me throughout your generations” (Exodus 30:31). The numerical value of zeh is twelve log, indicating that this amount of oil remains intact despite its use."
There would have been no need to anoint a king who was inheriting from his father unless it was contested or was not a direct line of descent. Horayot 11b specifically mentions the שֶֽׁמֶן מִשְׁחַת קֹדֶשׁ shemen mish'ḥat kodesh (“oil of anointment of holiness").
There are only two explicit accounts of proper anointment of kings beyond King Solomon. One account describes the anointing of Jehu King of Israel by one of the disciples of Elisha - M'lachim Beit / 2 Kings 9:8. The other account describes the anointing of Joash King of Judah by Jehoiada the priest - M'lachim Beit / 2 Kings 11:12 & Divrei Hamayim Beit / 2 Chronicles 24:11. It is most likely that the other kings of Judah were properly anointed being legitimate descendants of King David through King Solomon. It is doubtful that the kings of the northern kingdom of Israel were properly anointed, since the special oil of anointing was kept in the Temple in Jerusalem.
Prophecy is a communication direct from G-d through a prophet to the people of his or her generation. The message may or may not contain visions of future events. The message may have importance to future generations (us), and those were written down for posterity in the Torah (the prophecies of Moses) and Nevi'im (Prophets) in the T'nach.
Prophecy is always based on the plain meaning of the text -- not on hints or "shadows." Consider the famous chapter of Y'shayahu / Isaiah 7. it does not speak about virgins giving birth, and the woman (and her child) are incidental to the actual prohecy which was for the then living king, אָחָז / Ahaz.
Y'shayahu / Isaiah 7 begins "And it came to pass in the days of Ahaz son of Jotham son of Uzziah, king of Judah, that Rezin, king of Aram, and Pekah son of Remaliah, king of Israel, marched on Jerusalem to wage war against it, and he could not wage war against it."
G-d tells Isaiah (prophecy! direct communication of G-d to Isaiah) to go to King Ahaz and tell him: "Feel secure and calm yourself, do not fear, and let your heart not be faint because of these two smoking stubs of firebrands, because of the raging anger of Rezin and Aram and the son of Remaliah." (verse 4).
So the prophecy is for King Ahaz, the prophet is Isaiah. The message is "don't be afraid of the two kings (Rezin and Pekah)."
Prophecy is never based on hints, or shadows or vague possibilities. Judaism is replete with stories and "tall tales" -- but those are not literal and are not meant to be taken literally. A principle of the Talmud that Rashi quotes several times states that אֵין מִקְרָא יוֹצֵא מִידֵי פְשׁוּטוֹ -- in English this would be "A verse cannot depart from its plain meaning." (Treatise Shabbat 63a, Treatise Y'vamot 11b, 24a; quoted by Rashi at B'réshıt / Genesis 15:10, 37:19, and Sh'mot / Exodus 12:2).
Likewise the concept of "dual fulfillment" is totally non-biblical.
Missionaries often reference midrashim (stories meant to make a moral point) as if they were prophetic -- either from ignorance or malice.
Thus a "secondary message" that is not clear (requires drash, aka "types and shadows" let alone "dual prophecy") violates the very concept of prophecy itself. Even a "first message" which came directly from G-d (required to be prophecy) that was unclear or required interpreting hints (remez) or inferring something that isn't clearly there (drash) doesn't fit the definition of prophecy.
For those reading this who do not know the terms p'shat, drash and sod, these terms relate to the various levels the Jewish bible is read, PaRDeS:
* P'shat (פְּשָׁט) - the "plain" ("simple") meaning of a passage (prophecy is always based on 'pshat)
* Remez (רֶמֶז) - "hints" implied in the text but not explicit
* Drash (דְּרַשׁ) - which is a deeper or even midrashic meaning -- often inferred from other scripture
* Sod (סוֹד) - "secret" ("mystery") meanings
On top of all that prophecy is never hidden.
The Jewish bible itself never once gives an example of a prophecy being "dual" or being "hidden."
Thus the Christian concept of changing the meanings long after the fact are simply not supported in the Jewish bible.
The real meaning of any biblical passage is the p'shat (plain meaning). Everything else is a kind of midrash, -- a story which is not literal, but is meant to teach some supplementary message.
The Rambam wrote: "I maintain that it is not proper for a person to stroll in the Pardes unless he has filled his belly with bread and meat. "Bread and meat" refer to the knowledge of what is permitted and what is forbidden, and similar matters concerning other mitzvot. Even though the Sages referred to these as "a small matter" - for our Sages said: "'A great matter,’ this refers to Ma'aseh Merkavah ("Maaseh Merkavah" and "Maaseh Bereishit," are the mystical study of the Creator and His Creation). `A small matter,’ this refers to the debates of Abbaye and Ravva" - nevertheless, it is fitting for them to be given precedence, because they settle a person's mind." Yesodei haTorah, chapter 4.
Missionaries will dabble quoting sages speaking of drash or remez -- as if they are literal. They are doing so out of ignorance -- and as the Rambam continued to state "strolling in the PaRDeS (orchard) is restricted to accomplished Torah scholars who are already well founded in the literal understanding of the Torah (p'shat)...He stated:
"The Sages of the early generations commanded that these matters should not be expounded upon in public." Yesodei haTorah, chapter 4.
The Orthodox Union puts it well:
"Some authorities maintain that there should be a general limit on the study of kabbalah and other esoteric subjects. Rabbi Shlomo Luria, the Maharshal (d. 1573) complains (Shu”t 98 ) about ignoramuses learning kabbalah.
"The Rema equates the substance of philosophy and kabbalah and penned a lengthy essay (Torat Ha’olah, part 3, ch. 4) and a long response (Shu”t 7) on the topic of studying them. He displays intimate familiarity with kabbalah, and explains that he personally only studies such matters on Shabbat, yom tov and Chol HaMoed, and uses the rest of his time to study Mishnah, Talmud, halachah and the relevant commentaries. (Similarly, the Sanzer Rav, Rabbi Chaim Halberstam, states that the essence of life is to study the main parts of Torah all day, and that he involves himself with kabbalah when other people are in their beds and he is fighting off sleep [Divrei Chaim 2, YD 47]).
"The Maharshal derives his knowledge of philosophy only from Jewish sources such as Rambam. The Rema bemoans the lack of true kabbalists and that instead “every bore who knows not his right from his left and cannot learn parashah with Rashi, jumps to learn kabbalah."
Prophecy is NEVER based on drash, still less from rĕmĕz or sod. Prophecy is only based on a text’s p'shat (actual meaning)—never on d'rash (sermons derived from, or based on, it). The Talmud tells us: "A verse cannot depart from its plain meaning." Shabbat 63a, Y'vamot 11b, and Y'vamot 24a. Rashi, the 11th century Torah commentator, quotes this at B'reshit / Genesis 15:10, 37:19 and Sh'mot / Exodus 12:2).
I received an email which reads: “If you read Genesis 15 carefully from the Jewish perspective, you will notice the reference to Jesus.”
A link was provided FROM the website with the article. The article was complete nonsense, and "no" I will not provide a link as that was most likely the desire of the author (to receive visitors at my expense).
B’reshit / Genesis 15 has nothing to do with Jesus and only someone with Jesus blinders on would “see” him in it. This chapter, part of Parsha Lech Lecha / לֶךְ-לְךָ פָּרָשָׁה.
It begins with Abram having a vision -- he is concerned because he has no children to inherit from him. G-d tells Abram that he will have a son and through that son will have many descendants...the Jewish people. G-d tells Abram to get various kosher animals, which Abram does -- and Abram sacrifices them.
The article makes a “big deal” out of verse 15:10 where Abram takes the animals G-d asked him to get and cuts them in half. To the author this means it all about blood (not about the “halves” which is really the point). He says Abraham split the animals even though G-d didn’t say to do so.
This is a mistake -- G-d and Abraham now have a contract -- G-d's promise to Abraham, and this promise is sealed as contracts were created in ancient times.
The author, apparently ignorant of both Hebrew and ancient history, has jumped to an erroneous conclusion.
It is not all about blood (as the author assumes) -- it is about dividing something in half to form a contract or covenant. The Hebrew term for establishing a covenant / contract / treaty between two entities is known as "כריתת ברית" / kritat brit.
It translates to "dividing a contract."
Dividing -- as in cutting in half -- which is what Abram DOES.
In the Hebrew language, the verb that is used for "making" a b'rit is כרת, which literally means "to cut". In English you "make" or "sign" an agreement or a treaty - in Hebrew you "cut" one. In cutting the animals in half Abraham was creating a covenant with G-d.
Now do you see why Abram did what he did – taking the animals G-d had designated and using them to create a pact / treaty / covenant with G-d?
By cutting the animals in half Abram is formalizing the treaty with G-d via the symbolism of cutting or tearing an object in halves where each party keeping one half.
BTW – this all happened in a vision – none of it happened in reality – which your research source also seems to ignore. Read the very first line of the chapter: “God's word came to Abram in a vision…”
G‑d seals the Covenant Between the Parts / ברית בין הבתרים / Brit Bein HaBetarim which is actually the point of this chapter (chapters being a Christian invention, Jews read the Torah in parshot -- sections designated by spacing between passages in the Torah).
In this chapter Abram (later Abraham) is told that the he will have many descendants who will become the Jewish people. The exile and persecution is told, and אֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל / Eretz Yisrael (the land of Israel) is given by G-d as the eternal heritage of the Jews.
Why did G-d choose Abram for this covenant?
Go back a few chapters and read for context. In the end of chapter 13 Abram settled on the plains of Mamre. Soon after war came. A group of five kings went to war against a group of four kings (chapter 14). Lot, Abram's nephew, was captured in this war by the second group. Abram took 318 men and went to save his nephew, which he did.
Abram's victory was nothing short of a miracle, and he was concerned that G-d had performed a miracle for him for his past observance of Him -- and that now that might have "evened the score" -- meaning G-d would no longer be there for Abram.
In this vision G-d promises Abram that He is still His G-d and the covenant "seals" the agreement. G‑d reaffirms His promises to Abraham and Abraham confirms the covenant with the sacrifices..
I suppose the email's author equates Jesus with this chapter because of blood, G-d's word being mentioned (the very first sentence speaks of G-d’s “word” coming to Abram in a vision) and even odder -- a fiery torch also being mentioned.
The simple use of the word "word" somehow translates to the missionary as Jesus as John 1’s the word as flesh. It is an impossible notion in Hebrew and incomprehensible to the Jewish mind because the Hebrew word דָּבָר davar (word) is the closest thing that Hebrew has to a neuter noun and actually means a "thing", i.e. an inanimate object.
The "word of G-d" (and Jesus as the word) is just a repackaging of a pagan Greek concept of the λόγος / lōgos, the "personified word."
Whoever wrote your reference is unaware of Hebrew and made up a story to fit Jesus into a passage that has nothing to do with anyone other than G-d and Abram.
Then the author of the email and website somehow relates Jesus to being a “torch” and the passage speaks of a torch – so this HAS to be about Jesus s/he proclaims!
This person literally references John 1:4-5 about the word being flesh and “the light shines in the darkness.”
To this person light = flaming torch in B’reshit / Genesis 15.
I kid you not.
It gets even more ridiculous. On the website s/he writes: “As Abram stood in front of the pool of blood trembling in fear, Jesus told him in Genesis 15:13-16 that while trials await him and his kids.”
So blood, torch = word as flesh (also non-biblical) = light = Jesus and now Jesus (who needless to say is not in the passage) is now there talking to Abram.
The insanity is mind boggling.
The whole nonsense of a torch being Jesus as the word is flesh and somehow a torch is reaching to an unbelievably ridiculous extreme.
The footnote of this verse from the Artscroll Stone Edition translation says: “The furnace and fire symbolized that eh Divine Presence was there to seal the covenant, and the smoking furnace also symbolized Gehinnom, , into which the Four Monarchies would descend (Rashi). Alternatively, they symbolized the intense darkness and the fire that would be present at the Revelation at Sinai.” (Sh’mot / Exodus 19:18) (Moreh N'vuchim, "The Guide for the Perplexed," the Rambam).
Sophiee Saguy has been countering false missionary claims about Judaism and the T'nach (Jewish bible) for nearly twenty years. You may find her on FaceBook and at the Messiah Truth forum.