Month: July 2016

All the prophets prophesied
only of the days of the Messiah
-Talmud-Sanhedrin 99a

Isaac and the Future Sacrifice (continued):
The event involving Abraham and Issac is called the aqedah. Jewish author Philip Segal writes,

Two concepts of Judaic theology emerge from the story of the aqedah: vicarious atonement and the suffering of the righteous. Both are impenetrable mysteries, and both are illustrated by the prophetic portion of the Bible that speaks of a suffering servant of Yhwh (Isa. 53).1

Note that he ties the aqedah with the suffering servant of Isaiah 53.

Pesikta Rabbati 40:6,

What is meant by Moriah? R. Simeon ben Yohai said: It is the Land which, if it were an arrow, would shoot up through the heavens directly to the heavenly altar. Here the world is derived from the stem shot through (yrh) (Exod. 19:13).

Midrash Rabbah-Genesis LVI: 3 commenting of Genesis 22:6,

“AND ABRAHAM TOOK THE WOOD OF THE BURNT-OFFERING (XXII, 6)-like one who carries his stake on his shoulder.

Footnote: “The stake on which he is to be executed.”

Concerning the suffering servant of Isaiah 42, 49, 50, 52, 53, Raphael Patai; Noted anthropologist and Biblical scholar who taught Hebrew at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem writes:

The Aggada, the Talmudic legend, unhesitatingly identifies him with the Messiah, and understands especially the descriptions of his sufferings as referring to Messiah ben Joseph.”2

The Torah: A Modern Commentary states,

There was…a remarkable tradition that insisted that Abraham completed the sacrifice and that afterward Isaac was miraculously revived…According to this haggadah, Abraham slew his son, burnt his victim, and the ashes remain as a stored-up merit and atonement for Israel in all generations.”3

Encyclopedia Judaica 2:482,

Ibn Ezra (commentary on Gen. 22:19) also quotes an opinion that Abraham actually did kill Isaac…and he was later resurrected from the dead. Ibn Ezra rejects this as completely contrary to the biblical text. Shalom Spiegel has demonstrated, however, that such views enjoyed a wide circulation and occasionally found expression in medieval writings.

Henry H. Halley wrote,

A Father Offering His Son: the Son, for Three Days, in the Father’s Mind, as good as Dead (22:4): a Substituary Sacrifice (22:13): and it was on Mount Moriah (22:2), same mount on which Jesus was Crucified, same place where Abraham had paid tithes to Melchizedek (14:18), Salem being on Mount Moriah. As Melchizedek seems to have been a primeval Shadow, in Abraham’s Life, of the PERSON Abraham’s Nation would bring into the world, so here seems to be a Shadow of the EVENT in the Coming Person’s Life by which He would do His work. What an apt Picture of the Death and Resurrection of Christ!”4

The Serpent in the Wilderness and the Lifting Up of the Messiah:
Jesus said,

And just as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that whoever believes in Him may have eternal life (John 3:14).

After the Exodus from Egypt the people of Israel, yet again, complained against Moses and against God so God sent poisonous serpents among them and many of them died (see Numbers 21). When the people repented God told Moses to make a serpent out of brass and raise it up on a pole and that whoever looked to it would be healed.

Of course, looking at a twisted piece of metal had nothing to do with it; the point was to turn the people’s attention back to God, so that He would forgive them and heal them. In the scripture brass is symbolic of judgment and the serpent is symbolic of sin. God told Moses to make a serpent out of brass and lift it up to demonstrate that the people were being judged for their sin and that God forgives.

This is why Jesus said that in the same way Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness He too would be lifted up and Jesus certainly was lifted up on the cross in the same way and for the same reason as the serpent; in order to demonstrate the judgment for sin and the forgiveness and salvation. This is one of many ways that the Old Testament points us to the Messiah through symbolism.

Can you imagine dying a terribly painful death by snake venom just because you were not willing to follow the simple instruction of looking up? Jesus once cried out,

Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her how often I’ve wanted to gather your children together, just as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing (Matthew 23:37).

Unwilling to simply look up.

Abraham Cohen; Editor of the Soncino Books of the Bible and participated in the Soncino translation of the Talmud and Midrash,

“Could the image of the serpent kill or save life? But the Israelites kept looking at it and believing in Him Who commanded Moses to act thus, and the Holy One, blessed be He, performed a cure for them.”5

Odd and Unfounded Assertions:
When we are presented with fanciful interpretations of evidence we inevitably run across strange comments on all sorts of issues.

Here are two examples:

“Carney Matheson, a scientist at the Paleo-DNA Laboratory at Lakehead University in Ontario, Canada_ ‘Judah,’ whom they indicate may have been their son, could have been the ‘lad’ described in the Gospel of John as sleeping in Jesus’ lap at the Last Supper.”1

One could only wonder whence the word “lad” was being quoted or where it is stated that anyone fell asleep in Jesus’ lap.

What we know about the event is the following:

“But there was one of His disciples leaning upon Jesus’ bosom, the one whom Jesus loved. Peter therefore signaled to him to ask whom it might be of whom He spoke. And lying on Jesus’ breast, he said to him, Lord, who is it?” (John 13:23-25).

“Then Peter, turning around, saw the disciple whom Jesus loved following (the one who also leaned on His breast at supper, and said, Lord, who is he who betrays You?) Seeing him, Peter said to Jesus, Lord, and what of this one?” (John 21:20-21).

The “lad” was John, who constantly describes himself as being the one whom Jesus loved. Moreover, we are told that it was a “disciple” and not a son. Although, the documentary claims, without evidence, that the beloved disciple was John’s way of secretly referring to Jesus’ son.
Furthermore, John did not lay down in Jesus’ lap in the way we would describe laying down. The way that they ate communal meals at that time was not to sit around a table (as in the Last Supper painting). Rather, they lay on their sides, on the floor, with their heads towards the meal and their legs away from it. In order to “lay on” Jesus’ John would merely have to lean back slightly: “they reclined and ate” (Mark 14:18), “He and the twelve apostles with Him reclined” (Luke 22:14).

Simcha Jacobovici states (paraphrase of DSC):

“The writer of the Gospel of Matthew (28:12-15) addresses a rumor that was circulating in Jerusalem at the time of the Crucifixion, a rumor that we suggest can be taken for the truth. The rumor was that the disciples came by night to remove Jesus’ body from the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea. They would have done this to safeguard his remains from desecrators. His followers then would have taken the body of Jesus to a permanent tomb.”2

The documentary’s narrator stated,

“But according to the Gospel of Matthew there was another story circulating after Jesus’ death. And though the Gospel called it a lie, it was rumored that Jesus’ disciples secretly too their mater’s body. Presumably to give Him a permanent burial.”

Simply stated, there is absolutely no historical/archeological evidence, not even in the documentary, that the disciples ever did any such thing. This is purely imaginative storytelling that will, sadly, be taken by some to be more reliable than, among other things, the 24,000 manuscripts of the New Testament. Moreover, the rumor was not that they wanted to give Him a permanent burial but that they sought to deceive people into thinking that Jesus had physically resurrected (this would have made them purposeful deceivers who later were martyred for the lie that they invented).

Incidentally, there are also some other simply odd details shown in the reenactments: the woman caught in adultery is actually shown being stoned and Jesus literally jumps into the middle of flying stones. The woman who washed Jesus’ feet and dried them with her hair actually cuts her hair and then uses the handful that she cut to dry them. Etc.

Is it really PZ Myers’ propensity towards, as Massimo Pigliucci puts it, being like “an intemperate teenager in the midst of a hormonal rage” that accounts for the “theatrics that apparently makes him so popular”? Is PZ Myers really merely a misunderstood mild mannered commentator?

Is PZ Myers really fierce and malicious?

Only God and PZ Myers know with certainty, but let us consider the issue.
PZ Myers refers to himself as a “a godless liberal,” “pointedly unchristian” and is a positive atheist since he positively affirms God’s non-existence (without evidence see here and here).

When you are inconsistent it is difficult to discern which is the real you. Is PZ Myers perceived as malicious but is really not? Is he perceived as not but really is? Is he, which seems to be the case, malicious towards toward those with whom he disagrees but a big teddy bear when meeting the New Humanists or New Scientists who agree with him? Let us consider PZ Myers’ meetings with his choir:

…he’s a softly-spoken and extremely friendly fellow, and nothing like the intolerant hardline atheist his opponents would like to paint him as.

Myers’s inflammatory acts and language would lead one to suspect him of being overtly aggressive, yet in person he is soft spoken and his views seem rather measured.1

PZ Myers himself paints the picture of being an “intolerant hardline atheist” and “overtly aggressive.” Note what may be a very accurate qualifier, “Myers’s inflammatory acts.” Why is he seen as “intolerant hardline atheist” and “overtly aggressive” if he is “softly-spoken and extremely friendly…soft spoken and…rather measured”? Perhaps it is all a self-serving attention getting act.

The title of the interview from which the following is quoted refers to PZ Myers as “Mild-mannered” and notes:

[PZ Myers] drinks his daily coffee at the Common Cup, whose mission is posted in a handwritten sign above its stone fireplace: “The purpose of Common Cup is to provide a Christian environment and a welcoming place for the local and campus communities to come together.” “I write some of my most subversive screeds against religion sitting there,” Myers says.2

Apparently, PZ Myers’ bizzaro world persona, or Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde transformation, turns him from a “Mild-mannered” “softly-spoken and extremely friendly…soft spoken and…rather measured” chap into an “intolerant hardline atheist” and “overtly aggressive”—to say the least.
PZ Myers appears to wake up in a mood as good as any of us may experience. Yet, he purposefully places himself in an atmosphere of gentle loving people which causes conniptions and a transformation.

In Pharyngula, Myers campaigns for evolutionary science, takes aim at creationists and proselytises for atheism while ridiculing religious beliefs with a sharp virtual tongue. In one blog post, for example, he wrote, “There are days when it is agony to read the news, because people are so goddamned stupid… And nothing makes them stupider than religion.”

In person Myers says, “Religion in this country is protected by a wall of silence. You cannot argue with religion. As an atheist I try to teach people that you don’t have to respect religious differences or ideas. This is something that I would like to get across to people: disrespecting ideas is a good thing.”…

While he affirms the right of atheists not to respect religious differences, he adds, “We don’t want that to lead to the point where you can say, ‘You don’t have to respect people being different at all.’ That isn’t true. I think diversity is a great thing. Disrespect for ideas, great. Disrespect for people, not so great.”…

Myers readily admits that being provocative is part of the game…

But for all of his cantankerousness, Myers says the spirit is debate, not malice: “There is this tradition in science that you can argue forcefully for a position and it doesn’t mean that you are going to punch the guy in the nose. Science is a deeper part of my persona than religion or atheism or anything.”

disrespecting ideas is a good thing
Until, that is, you disrespect PZ Myers’ ideas as; Massimo Pigliucci and Michael De Dora found out faster than they could say “Going viral.”

Overall, Myers readily admits that being provocative is part of the game.

Perhaps more evidence of this game is the fact that while he positively affirms God’s non-existence, he consistently—and employing sadly typical ad hominems—refuses to debate the issue. In other words, it seems to be a case of valiance when he is preaching to his choir from the safety of cyberspace and cowardliness when confronted with a real life challenge. In this case, PZ Myers referred to his challenger as “Crazy Pipsqueak…odious…christofascist misogynist…beneficiary of wingnut welfare…prominent freakshow participant…insane babbler” to name a few.

And so…on it goes…

What a sad way for Helen Thomas to end an otherwise momentous career.
Yet, this sadness is utterly nothing in comparison to that which we Jews have endured through the millennia.

It is also interesting how the new cycles, pop-culture and politically correct movement are so very selective. For example, Helen Thomas is rightly criticized for her answer to being asked if she had any comments on Israel,

Tell them to get the hell out of Palestine. Remember, these people are occupied and it’s their land. It’s not Germany, not Poland.

Asked, where they should go, she retorted,

Home. Poland. Germany. America. And everywhere else.

Yet, Sam Harris, the supposed and self-professed champion of reason, stated the following and continues to be a lucrative celebrity:

The gravity of Jewish suffering over the ages, culminating in the Holocaust, makes it almost impossible to entertain any suggestion that Jews might have brought their troubles upon themselves. This is, however, in a rather narrow sense, the truth.

[see The Holocaust and the Blame]

Some, such as Ellen Ratner, have taken the approach of I’m a Jew and I know Hellen and she is no Nazi so “Give her a break,” actually, she wrote, “Helen is three months short of 90 and her brain’s filters might not work as well as a 40-year-old’s. Give her a break.”1

Be that as it may; if being circa 90 causes you to make such remarks—and make such remarks to a Rabbi, David Nesenoff, and make such remarks, make them to a Rabbi and make them during a White House Jewish Heritage Day event and make such remarks, to a Rabbi, during the White House Jewish Heritage Day event just when the world saw video evidence of Israeli commandos being attacked with weapons by “peace” activists while denying the video evidence before their very eyes—then perhaps it is time to retire; and retire she has along with this statement:

I deeply regret my comments I made last week regarding the Israelis and the Palestinians. They do not reflect my heart-felt belief that peace will come to the Middle East only when all parties recognize the need for mutual respect and tolerance. May that day come soon.

This is not just about the private musings of a latter day octogenarian, this is about the mood in the world against Israel and Jews and about the fact that we Jews must, yes indeed must, remain ever vigilant. Some may consider us hyper-vigilant, hyper-sensitive of hyper-paranoid yet, I wonder about my relatives who were murdered in concentration camps. I wonder if they asked themselves, “How did we get here?”

It was not that one day they were free as a bird and the next they were interred. There were incremental steps from the societal to the governmental and it is when we do not do anything about the little steps along the way that we find ourselves asking how we have gotten so very far so very fast.

They came first for the Communists,
and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew.

Then they came for me
and by that time no one was left to speak up

—Martin Niemoller in 1946

The Talmud-Megillah 13a states,
Whoever repudiates idolatry is accounted a Jew.

The Halakah-Jewish Religious Law:
Let us now consider the teaching of the law which the authors quoted in part 1 claim to uphold and live by:

Encyclopedia Judaica 3:211 states:

In Jewish religious law, it is technically impossible for a Jew (born to a Jewish mother or properly converted to Judaism) to change his religion. Even though a Jew undergoes the rites of admission to another religious faith and formally renounces the Jewish religion he remains-as far as the Halakah is concerned-a Jew, albeit a sinner (Sanh. 44a)…For the born Jew, Judaism is not a matter of choice…in the technical halakhic sense, apostasy is impossible.

In the above footnote “Sanh. 44a” refers to the Talmud-Sanhedrin 44a which states,

Israel hath sinned. R. Abba b. Zabda said: Even though [the people] have sinned, they are still [called] “Israel”.(1) R. Abba said: Thus people say, A myrtle, though it stands among reeds, is still a myrtle, and it is so called.

Footnote (1),

“Israel is the name of honor for the people when faithful to God.” Thus, a sinning Jew is still a Jew.

I have no problem being called a sinner by the Jewish community yet, as we saw here, Jewish law has no problem calling me a Jew. The main point is that according to Jewish Law a person born Jewish is always Jewish however, by “cutting us off” individual Jews chose to act and speak against their own Jewish law, which they claim to uphold and admit, is still binding.

Israel’s Deputy Minister of Religious Services, Rabbi Eli Ben-Dahan, stated this of the Karaites (Jews who reject the authority of the Rabinate, the Orthodox, the Talmud, etc.), “They say they are Jews, and according to our religious law they are Jews” (Isabel Kershner, “New Generation of Jewish Sect Takes Up Struggle to Protect Place in Modern Israel,” New York Times, September 4, 2013).

The Universal Jewish Encyclopedia states,

According to the Jewish religious law, every one born of a Jewish mother is and remains a part of Judaism; hence a converted Jew is regarded solely as a transgressor of the Jewish religious law…converts were more energetically disliked and despised by the Jewish consciousness than by the Jewish religious law.1

Again we see an affirmation that a Jew remains a Jew and the interesting admission that it is not Jewish law that proclaims a converted Jew as no longer Jewish, but the Jewish consciousness or psychology. As I can personally attest to, Jews do not hesitate to state that Jewish-Christians are no longer Jewish. Now, note carefully that a convert (away from Judaism, in this discussion a Jewish-Christian) is identified as “a converted Jew is regarded solely as a transgressor of the Jewish religious law.” What is the term for a Jew who, in clear violation of Jewish law, claims that a convert is no longer Jewish?

The New Standard Jewish Encyclopedia reads,

According to Jewish law, the apostate remains a Jew, albeit a sinner, and no formal ceremony is required if he returns to Judaism. Nevertheless, for psychological reasons a ceremony was sometimes considered desirable, prayers for the occasion figuring in some modern rituals.2

A Concise Encyclopedia of Judaism states,

Traditionally an apostate remains a Jew, although he is viewed as a sinner; no formal ceremony is required if such a person returns to the Jewish faith.3

The Encyclopedia of Judaism,

There are halakhic discussions as to whether a Jew who once converted, and who now wishes to return to the fold, need perform any symbolic act-such as immersion in a ritual bath (mikveh) before resuming his former status (although, halakhically , a Jew who converts still remains a Jew).4

A Popular Dictionary of Judaism,

According to Jewish Law, an apostate is still counted among the Jewish community-he can, for example, contract a Jewish marriage. However under the Law of Return, apostate Jews may not become citizens of the state of Israel.5

The Oxford Dictionary of the Jewish Religion,

The status of apostates in religious law was frequently discussed in rabbinic literature; for example, whether a penitent apostate required a ceremony of readmission to Judaism…An apostate (Heb. meshummad or mumar), although a sinner, is still regarded essentially as a Jew; however, that person loses certain rights and privileges of an Israelite and is disqualified from giving testimony or performing ritual slaughter.6

The message is clear and well agreed upon. But is it? Are there any personal opinions to the contrary? Yes there are personal opinions to the contrary.

For example, Rabbi Harry A. Cohen’s,

One ceases to be a Jew when he adopts another religion.(1) Yet he can become a Jew again by renouncing the religion he had adopted and accepting the Jewish faith again. According to Jewish law, no ceremony of conversion is necessary, but there must be a ritual immersion, under the direction of a Jewish court [three persons, at least one of whom is a Rabbi].7

Footnote: (1),

One ceases to be a Jew when he adopts another religion: Rabbi Yosef Dov Soloveichik (Hatzofeh, December 6, 1962), “He has severed himself and his descendants from the Jewish community”; Rabbi Yehezkel Landau (Derushay Hatzelah, Warsaw 1897, p. 37a), “He has left the (Jewish) community and he is not called a Jew.” See “The Law Regarding Apostates” by Rabbi Simon Federbush (Hatzofeh, April 19 and 26, 1963­) citing the Talmud, Maimonides, and other authorities, “A Jew who adopts another religion is not called a Jew.”

Obviously, the above quote contradicts the previous quotes which all alluded to Jewish Law. We have learned from the previous quotes that Jewish law still accepts the apostate as Jewish. Reference has been made to the Talmud which to orthodox Judaism is as authoritative as the written word of God-the Tanakh.

Thus, it appears that the opinions to the contrary are the sorts that are stated do to dislike, consciousness, psychology and view. We must empathize with the emotional response to apostasy, after all orthodox Christianity rightfully does not regard as any longer Christian: Jehovah’s Witnesses, Christian Science, Mormonism and Seventh Day Adventism (arguably some Adventists are more orthodox than others), et al.
Yet, while people are born Jewish, no one is ever born Christian. Christianity is not a people group and thus, can be abandoned. But a born Jew is a Jew is a Jew. As we now know the Talmud states at Sanhedrin 44a that Israel hath sinned and even though the people have sinned, they are still called Israel and that Israel is the name of honor for the people when faithful to God and so a sinning Jew is still a Jew.

Theological Considerations – The Resurrection and the Ascension:
As we have seen, James Cameron stated, “I’m not a theologist [sic.],”1 and Smicha Jacobovici stated, “I am not a theologian.”2
Yet, it is easy to see how theological issues are raised by their assertions. It would also be easy to accuse them of besmirching Christianity. Certainly, they filmed the documentary two decades after the tomb was found, after the success of The Da Vinci Code, and just before Easter.
Personally, I will be disappointed with them if they do not continue corroborating and continue making documentaries that call into question each of the world’s religions. But, and it may be due to the fact that they are not theologians, they appear to be taking a fairly non-confrontational approach. That is to say, let us be fair about what they are actually claiming. Although, let us keep in mind that they tend to take a grain of sand’s worth of evidence and turn it into an edifice of biblical proportions-pun intended.

Regarding the resurrection, Simcha Jacobovici, in a paraphrase of DSC, states:

“‘The Lost Tomb Of Jesus’ does not challenge the Resurrection. It asks viewers to consider the possibility that the Resurrection occurred from a second tomb_Belief in the resurrection is based not on which tomb he was buried in, but on alleged sightings of Jesus that occurred after his burial and that are documented in the Gospels.”3

Granted, they do not prove that Jesus, at least Jesus the Messiah, was in the Talpiot tomb. But they are at least offering the possibility that Jesus the Messiah did resurrect.

Regarding the ascension, Simach Jacobovici states (paraphrase of DSC):

“There is much debate among Christians as to whether this was a spiritual or a physical ascent. Did he leave his body behind or did he take it with him? If Jesus’ mortal remains have indeed been found, this would contradict the idea of a physical ascension. However, it says nothing against the possibility of a spiritual ascension.”4

Be that as it may, it appears that if you can believe in something as magical (see JamesTabor’s comment below) as a resurrection and ascension you might as well believe that they were spiritual and not physical (whatever that may mean). For information about the Judeo-Christian theological position on the physical resurrection and particular that of Jesus please see the post Resurrection.

Examples of Reinterpretations: Professor Gershom Scholem; Professor Emeritus of Jewish Mysticism at the Hebrew University, Jerusalem:

the ‘suffering servant’ passages had occasionally been interpreted as referring to the messiah, but later Haggadists as well as the as well as the medieval commentators preferred different interpretations. In order to undermine Christian exegesis, which identified the suffering servant with Christ, he was interpreted as a figure of Moses, or of Israel, or of the pious in general.
In Jewish-Christian disputations the Jewish spokesman always denied that the passages referred to the messiah. In contrast to this exegetical policy, some late midrashim, particularly the impressive eschatological sections in the Pesiqta Rabbathi, maintained the Tannaitic tradition of a messianic understanding of the servant chapters.1 [emphasis added]

Professor Scholem making reference to Portuguese marrano Solomon Molkho’s

homily ‘On the Messiah and Job,’ Isaiah 53 is unreservedly made to refer to the messiah, albeit with a pointedly anti-Christian polemical turn_Moses Alsheikh, one of [Hayyim] Vital’s teachers, popularized the messianic interpretation of the chapter by his widely read commentary on the Prophets, Mar’Oth ha-Sobe’oth (The Looking Glass).2 [emphasis added]

Professor Scholem:

distortion of intellectual history is quite understandable in terms of the anti-Jewish interests of Christian scholars as well as the anti-Christian interests of Jewish ones_the great Jewish scholars of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, who to a great extent determined the popular image of Judaism.
In view of their concept of a purified and rational Judaism, they could only applaud the attempt to eliminate or liquidate apocalypticism from the realm of Judaism. Without regrets, they left the claim of apocalyptic continuity to a Christianity which, to their minds, gained nothing on that account. Historical truth was the price paid for the prejudices of both camps. Attempts to eliminate apocalypticism completely from the realm of rabbinic Judaism have not been lacking since the Middle Ages.3 [emphasis added]

Professor Scholem, discussing various Jewish messianic positions and their motivations,

The more biblical exegesis could reduce the purely Messianic element, the better it was for the defenses of the Jewish position. But the [Jewish] apocalyptists were not in the least interested in apologetics_they are not concerned with fortifying the frontiers. This is no doubt why the statements of the apocalyptists often appear freer and more genuine than those of their opponents who often enough must take into account the diplomatic necessities of anti-christian polemics. In rare individuals the two tendencies come together. [emphasis added]

Gentile scholar Risto Santala explains,

that whole 53rd chapter [of Isaiah] in our Bible is conspicuous by its absence from the Synagogue’s yearly haphtarr&#b4;t prophetic chapter and all the mediaeval commentaries. In its place there is a statement in brackets to the effect that ‘Some things are missing from here’!4 [emphasis added]

The interesting thing is that even Jewish scholars find the omission of Isaiah 53 odd.Jewish Scholars Claude Joseph Goldsmith Montefiore and Herbert Martin James Loewe,

Because of the christological interpretation given to the chapter [Isaiah 53] by Christians it is omitted from the series of prophetical lessons for the Deuteronomy Sabbaths_the omission is deliberate and striking_.
We know that the daily recitation of the Decalogue was abrogated in the Synagogues (but not in the Temple) because of the ‘cavilling’ of the Minim, here probably Judaeo-Christians (Ber. 12a), who maintained Decalogue, alone of the Mosaic Laws, was still valid.5 [emphasis added]

Rabbi Isaac Abrabanel (1437-1508) on Isaiah 53,

The first question is to ascertain to whom this prophecy refers, for the learned among the Nazarenes expound it of the man who was crucified in Jerusalem at the end of the Second Temple, and, who according to them, was the Son of God and took flesh in the virgin’s womb, as it is stated in their writings. Jonathan ben Uzziel interprets it in the Targum of the future Messiah; and this is also the opinion of our learned men in the majority of their Midrashim. [emphasis added]

Rabbi Abraham Farrissol (1451-1526) on Isaiah 53,

In as much as in this Parashah [section of scripture] there seems to be considerable resemblances and allusions to the work of the Christian Messiah, and the events which as asserted to have to have happened to him-How, e.g., He came and bare the iniquity of the Church-so that no other prophecy is to be found, the gist and subject of which can be so immediately applied to him, it is essential that we should discuss and explain it with care_ [emphasis added]

Midrash Pesikta Rabbati (Soncino Press edition, 1968) introduction to Piska 34,

Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion, shout, O daughter of Jerusalem; behold, thy king cometh unto thee, he is submissive, and yet he promises salvation, afflicted, and he is riding upon an ass,(1) even upon a colt of the foal of an ass (Zech. 9:9).(2)6

Footnotes: (1) JV. He is triumphant and victorious, lowly and riding upon an ass
(2) At one time, according to Friedmann, Zech. 9 was read as the haftarah on the fifth of the seven Sabbaths of Consolation, specifically on the Sabbath Ki tese (Deut. 21:10-25:19). He suggests further that the reading of this haftarah was omitted because of the possibility of Christian umbrage. [emphasis added]

Krishna Consciousness / Hare Krishna: “A preacher of God consciousness is a friend to all living beings. Lord Jesus Christ exemplified this by teaching, ‘Thou shalt not kill.’ But the Christians like to misinterpret this instruction. They think the animals have no soul, and therefore they think they can freely kill billions of innocent animals in the slaughterhouses. So although there are many persons who profess to be Christians, it would be very difficult to find one who strictly follows the instructions of Lord Jesus Christ…Christ can take the sufferings for the previous sins of his devotees… Similarly, when you commit sinful activities, you must suffer—not Jesus Christ. This is God’s law…He wanted to deliver God consciousness…Of course, the message that Christ preached was just according to his particular time, place, and country, and just suited for a particular group of people…He is our guru. He is preaching God consciousness, so he is our spiritual master… Actually, anyone who is preaching God’s glories must be accepted as a guru. Jesus Christ is one such great personality…Christ comes from the Greek word Christos, and Christos is the Greek version of the word Krsna…

So when we address God as ‘Christ,’ ‘Krsta,’ or ‘Krsna,’ we indicate the same all-attractive Supreme Personality of Godhead. When Jesus said, ‘Our father, who art in heaven, hallowed be Thy name,’ that name of God was Krsta or Krsna. ‘Christ’ is simply another way of saying ‘Krsta,’ and ‘Krsta’ is another way of pronouncing Krsna. Therefore, the Christian clergymen should cooperate with the Krsna consciousness movement. They should chant the name Christ or Christos and should stop condoning the slaughter of animals. This is not some philosophy that I have fabricated; it is taught in the Bible. If the Christians follow these principles, the world situation will improve. If they simply stop killing animals and chant the holy name of Christ, everything will be perfect. The Bible also demands this. So the Christians should cooperate with us and chant. Actually, it doesn’t matter—Krsna or Christ—the name is the same. The main point is to chant the name of God. The easiest way is to chant the maha-mantra: Hare Krsna, Hare Krsna, Krsna Krsna, Hare Hare/ Hare Rama, Hare Rama, Rama Rama, Hare Hare.”1

[I wrote a response to this at this link]

Maharishi Mahesh Yogi – Transcendental Meditation:
“Be still and know that you are God.”2
“Our goal is to create Heaven on Earth, and we are taking practical steps to accomplish it.”3

Paramahansa Yogananda – Self-Realization Fellowship: “In the great saints we see combined the ideal masculine and feminine qualities. Jesus was like that; so were all the masters…

[God] manifests Himself in whatever way He pleases. He appears before His saints in the form each of them holds dear: a Christian sees Christ, a Hindu beholds Krishna or the Divine Mother, and so on. Devotees whose worship takes an impersonal turn become conscious of the Lord as an infinite Light or as the wondrous sound of Aum, the primal Word, the Holy Ghost…

Krishna, like Christ, is a title signifying the spiritual magnitude of the avatar—his oneness with God… Christ center: The center of concentration and will in the body, at the point between the eyebrows. Seat of Christ Consciousness and of the spiritual eye…

Christ Consciousness: ‘Christ” or ‘Christ Consciousness’ is the projected consciousness of God immanent in all creation. In Christian scripture it is called the ‘only begotten son,’ the only pure reflection of God the Father; in Hindu scripture it is called Kutastha Chaitanya, the cosmic intelligence of spirit everywhere present in creation. It is the universal consciousness, oneness with God, manifested by Jesus, Krishna and other avatars. Great saints and yogis know it as the state of samadhi meditation wherein their consciousness has become identified with the intelligence in every particle of creation; they feel the entire universe as their own body.”4

Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh:
[Bhagwan Shree means Sir God]
“When you call Jesus, really you have called me. When you call me, really you have called Jesus.” 5

Baba Ram Dass – Hanuman Foundation / Lama Foundation:
“Avatar:—(lit. to come from without) an incarnation of the Supreme Lord in human form, e.g., Christ, Krishna, Rama, Zoroaster, Buddha.”6

Daheshism:
“Jesus Christ is rejected as God Almighty. The underlying essence of all religions is the same. All of God’s Prophets (Jesus Christ, Moses, Mohammed, Gandhi, Buddha, Dahesh, and others) are accepted.”7

Krishnamurti – The Theosophical Society: Krishnamurti stated “that neither Buddha nor Christ had claimed divinity or wished to found a religion; it was their followers who had done so after they were dead.” Asked, “Are you the Christ?” Krishnamurti answered, “If I say I am the Christ, you will create another authority. If I say I am not, you will also create another authority.” Krishnamurti said, “A reporter asked me if I was the Christ and I said, yes, in the true sense but not in the traditional, accepted sense of the word.” The Theosophical Society taught, “Lord Maitreya, the World Teacher—the Christ in the West, the Bodhisattva in the East…The Lord Maitreya, they maintain, had twice taken possession of a human body in order to bring to the world a new teaching at a period of dire need—first that of Sri Krishna in the fourth century B.C. and then that of Jesus. The time would soon ripen when the Lord Maitreya would once again take possession of a human vehicle and give a new religion to the world.”

Krishnamurti “explained what he meant by ‘the World Teacher’: I hold that there is an eternal Life which is the Source and the Goal, the beginning and the end and yet it is without end or beginning. In that Life alone is there fulfillment. And anyone who fulfills that Life has the key to the Truth without limitation. That Life is for all. Into that Life the Buddha, the Christ entered. From my point of view, I have attained, I have entered into that Life. That Life has no form as Truth has no form, no limitation. And to that Life everyone must return.” 8

ECKANKAR: “A very new member of ECK…did the Spiritual Exercises of ECK every day during her first two months of studying the ECK discourses. These are monthly lessons in the spiritual works that the Mahanta, the Living ECK Master usually sends to ECKists for the expansion of consciousness… The Light of God filled her Spiritual Eye, and a few notes of music (the Sound of God) followed. Then came the sound of rushing air or wind. She was moving in her true spiritual form, the Soul body. But suddenly doubt and fear filled her heart. A former Pentecostal, she immediately called out the name of Jesus. Things started to go in reverse. Where once she had moved forward, she was now traveling backward in the spiritual worlds…

[she] told herself that she would put her complete faith and trust in the Mahanta. Again she moved forward. The lesson gained from this Soul Travel experience was that if she placed her trust in anyone other than the Mahanta, she would indeed regress instead of moving forward spiritually.” 9

“Call Him anything you like, Love, the Christ Consciousness, the Nazarene, the Logos, the Bread of Life, but it makes no difference. He is anything that you can think of and more too. However, do not put Him in a Special category, for ALL Saviors and prophets who came to earth to help mankind did their part and passed on the glory of the heavenly kingdom.”10

Elizabeth Clare Prophet – Church Universal And Triumphant:
“Saint Germain, Kuthumi, El Morya, Afra, Mother Mary, Saint Teresa of Avila, Archangel Michael, Moses, Godfre, Lao Tzu, Confucius, Kuan Yin and Jesus…These immortal spiritual beings are known as ascended masters. They won their eternal freedom, the ascension, by embracing the path of love, cultivating their innate divinity, mastering their karma and serving others. They walked the earth as great mystics and were innovators in religion, government, science, art, education and other fields. We knew them in past lifetimes as our friends, family, co-workers and leaders.”11

“Jesus gave a mantra to his disciples when he pronounced the fiat ‘I AM the resurrection and the life.’ This was a formula of the Word given to him by his guru, Lord Maitreya, who holds the focus of the Cosmic Christ. By repeating it, you realize the resurrection and the life of the God flame within you. By this mantra and other sacred formulas of the law, Jesus proved the victory of life over death. He expected his disciples to do likewise. To assist Jesus and the masters of the East in the training of their disciples, the hierarchy of ascended masters who comprise the Great White Brotherhood have set forth their mantras for western chelas on the path of the Christ and the Buddha…Those who pronounce them with devotion to the fiery blueprint of creation merge with the Electronic Presence of the I AM THAT I AM.”12

“Jesus-the Son of God. The Light, the Son, is also known as the Word and the Universal Christ. The Universal Christ is individualized for each one of us as our Higher Self. You can think of your Higher Self as your Inner Christ. Your Higher Self represents your potential to realize God and to become one with him. As the apostle Paul wrote of Jesus, ‘in him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily.’ But there is not one incarnation of Christ. Incarnating the Christ is in reality the goal of the mystics of every religion, whether or not they express it in these terms; for all mystics seek the direct experience of and union with their Higher Self. Most of us cannot yet say that we are ‘the Son of God,’ with an uppercase S. But we can say we are sons and daughters of God, with a lowercase s and d, who are in the process of fully developing our divine potential. The term Son of God is therefore a title that all can earn by merit. None can lay claim to this title on the grounds that he is a born Jew or a reborn Christian. Sonship is not automatic, for it is written: ‘God is no respecter of persons: but in every nation he that feareth him and worketh righteousness is accepted with him.’

Jesus – the Avatar of the Piscean Age. While there are other Sons of God in heaven, we can all claim a special relationship to Jesus Christ because he was and is the archetypal Christ, or avatar, for the 2,150-year period known as the age of Pisces… The age of Aries brought the awareness of God as Father, as Lawgiver… The Piscean age brought the awareness of God as the Son and was marked by the coming of Jesus Christ as the representative of the Son… Today we are entering a new age. It is the age of Aquarius. This age will be marked by a universal awareness of the Holy Spirit and the Divine Mother… Out of all the Sons of heaven, God chose Jesus to incarnate on earth to be the avatar of the Piscean age. In this role, Jesus has borne the weight of the sins, or negative karma, of the world for the past 2,150 years, both prior to and after his birth. He has shielded us from the full consequences of our misdeeds. Nevertheless, we are still responsible to atone for that sin, that karma… By taking upon himself the burden of our sin, Jesus bore the sins of the world so that we could come of age spiritually and bear our own burdens. In effect, he ‘pardoned’ our sin for the duration of the Piscean age. But his pardon did not cancel the debt: it only postponed our payment of it…

Thus Paul taught that ultimately ‘every man shall bear his own burden.’ He warned, ‘Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.’ Paul also taught that each of us must work out our own salvation in fear of the LORD and with humility.

Jesus – the Exemplar of Christhood…He came to demonstrate how to achieve union with the Higher Self so that we too would know how to become one with the Christ and realize our own Christhood after his example. In the Book of John, Jesus promises at the Last Supper: ‘Verily, verily, I say unto you, he that believeth on me [the Christ], the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do, because I go unto my Father.’ Here it is apparent that Jesus intends each of us to do the same works he did and to walk our own path of personal Christhood. Although this is not the portrait of Jesus that orthodox Christians have chosen to paint, there is plenty of evidence to support it. The Book of Matthew records that Jesus urged us to strive for perfection. ‘Be ye therefore perfect,’ Jesus said, ‘even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.’ Paul taught the Galatians, ‘I travail in birth again until Christ be formed in you…. I live, yet not I, but Christ liveth in me.’ Likewise Paul wrote to the Corinthians, ‘We have the mind of Christ,’ and to the Philippians, ‘Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus.’… The Gnostics claimed to possess an advanced teaching that had been secretly handed down to them from Jesus and his close circle of disciples…Because the teachings of the Gnostics threatened the unity of the growing orthodox Church, Church leaders banned, suppressed and almost totally destroyed Gnostic scriptures. The few Gnostic texts that have survived teach that a true disciple imitates his teacher in order to become equal to him or even surpass him. An early collection of wisdom sayings found at Nag Hammadi, called the Sentences of Sextus, instructs: ‘A good man is the good work of God… A man who is worthy of God, he is God among men, and he is the son of God.’ In the Apocryphon (Secret Book) of James, Jesus says, ‘Verily I say unto you, no one will ever enter the kingdom of heaven at my bidding, but only because you yourselves are full…. Become better than I; make yourselves like the son of the Holy Spirit!’ The Gnostic Gospel of Philip describes the follower of Jesus who becomes ‘no longer a Chris-tian but a Christ.’ It says: ‘You saw the spirit, you became spirit. You saw Christ, you became Christ. You saw the Father, you shall become Father.’ In the Gospel of Thomas, which claims to record the secret sayings of Jesus, the Master tells his disciples, ‘Because you have drunk, you have become intoxicated from the bubbling spring which I have measured out….

Whoever drinks from my mouth will become like me. I myself shall become he, and the things that are hidden will be revealed to him.’

The Universal Christ. The bubbling spring that Jesus speaks of is the fount of the Universal Christ. Jesus promises that when with love and gratitude you have drunk and assimilated those waters of everlasting life, ‘You will become like me, like the Christ. I myself, the incarnation of the Christ, shall become you.’
The mystical paths of the world’s religions bear witness to the universal truth that whoever drinks from the fount of the One Source will become one with that Source, whether we hear ‘You can become one with Brahman,’ ‘You can become one with the Tao,’ ‘You can become a Buddha,’ ‘You can cleave to Ein Sof and the sefirot’ or ‘You can become the Son of God.’”13

“‘Come now, and let us reason together,’Says the LORD”-Isaiah 1:18

Let us now carefully dissect the very many statements that Dan Barker packaged together in a bout of elephant hurling. It is not fair to make these kinds of statements in a debate because Dan Barker knows very well that Michael Horner will simply not have the time to answer to the very, very many charges, assertions, presuppositions, non-sequiturs, etc., that Dan Barker unleashed at a spitfire rate.

The freedom to think for myself was what was so seductive about freethinking and atheism…In any event, atheism for me represents the freedom to think. It represents the freedom to search all avenues and follow the path wherever it leads. And if it leads back to Jesus, I’ll go there. I’m not fighting God. If it leads there, I’ll happily go there. I’m not stupid. I’m not dumb. I’m not closing my mind. I don’t hate the whole concept of it.

The entirety of Dan Barker’s comments regarding the freedom that freethinking and atheism bestowed upon him is a charade, his thoughts are held captive by the rigid standards of “Freethought” and by a faith based belief in absolute materialism. I demonstrated this in my essay, Freethought Without Forethought? Here is a taste of why I make this claim; Dan Barker claims that a Freethinker is “A person who forms opinions about religion on the basis of reason, independently of tradition, authority, or established belief.” Ergo, if you were so inclined as to rely on tradition, authority, or established belief you are not allowed to think that way.Incidentally, according to this definition I, and many “religious” people of whom I am aware, are Freethinkers. Although, “established belief” is a tricky term. Does it mean that if a belief has been established on the basis of reason, independently of tradition or authority I cannot hold to the belief and at the same time be a Freethinker? What if atheism is considered an “established belief” would I not be able to be both a Freethinker and an atheist at the same time?

Dan Barker further restricts thought in stating, “No one can be a Freethinker who demands conformity to a bible, creed, or messiah. To the Freethinker, revelation and faith are invalid, and orthodoxy is no guarantee of truth.” Thus, Freethought is thought which is contained within a narrowly defined parameter of assertions, presuppositions and anathemas. Dan Barker also wrote the following with regards to morality, “Individuals are free to choose, within the limits of humanistic morality” [emphasis added]. Therefore, you are free to do as you with as long as you restrict your thinking and actions to the narrow parameters meted out by the pseudo-Freethinking worldview.The bible says we should bring ‘every thought into captivity unto the obedience of Christ.’

As we have seen, Dan Barker’s response to this is to proclaim that we ought to bring every thought into captivity unto the obedience of Freethought. Notice that Dan Barker actually quoted half of a sentence, half of a verse, in this case. Let us consider the text,

“For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal but mighty in God for pulling down strongholds, casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God, bringing every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ” (2nd Corinthians 10:4-5).

Interesting to note that the text refers to debates, “casting down arguments,” and that Paul is urging those who have accepted the Biblical worldview to consider arguments according to it, just as Dan Barker demands that Freethinkers restrict their thought to their worldview. This is simply an encouragement to think, think long and hard, think carefully and do so about everything rather than letting your thoughts be fleeting things that simply enter and leave your mind.The bible says ‘Lean not on your own understanding.’Yes, and so does every teacher since it is every teacher’s job to take the student beyond their own understanding to the next level of fuller understanding.

In the next post we will continue the dissection of Dan Barker’s statements.

Christianity ————-

Atheism

————-

World Religions and Cults

————-

Science

————-

Movies & TV Shows

————-

Fringe-ology

(Transhumanism, Aliens/UFOs, Occult, Conspiracies) ————-

Misc. and Resources

(Nazis, Communism, Crusades, Morality / Ethics, Abortion, Rape, Homosexuality / Trans, Audio, Books, Debates, Videos, etc.)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~