We continue, from part 1, part 2, part 3, part 4, part 5, part 6, part 7, part 8, part 9, part 10, part 11, part 12, considering pop-research on the issue of the historical Jesus and Jesus mythicism with regards to some Atheists who have taken to the utterly radical view that Jesus never even existed. I have been considering Michael Paulkovich and Raphael Lataster and, in this case, I got into a comment section discussion within an article written by YouTube celebrity Atheist AaronRa that was simply titled “Jesus never existed” November 3, 2015 AD.
See my article Historical Jesus – two centuries worth of citations wherein I chronicled 205 texts that reference Jesus dating from pre 70 AD to 200-250 AD.
Note how the Judaism 101 question is likely to be answered by just about any and every Jew which is just as the encyclopedia put it, “born to a Jewish mother or properly converted to Judaism.” I will focus on the “born to a Jewish mother” aspect of it so as to demonstrate just how removed Rabbinic Judaism has become from the Judaism of the Tanakh.
Here is a sample of that which even just chapter one of the Book of Numbers/Bamidbar (quoted from the JPS) has to state on this issue: keep in mind that this book was meant to enumerate who was and who was not Jewish, an Israelite, a Hebrew:
AND THE HaShem spoke unto Moses…saying: ‘Take ye the sum of all the congregation of the children of Israel, by their families, by their fathers’ houses, according to the number of names, every male, by their polls…And with you there shall be a man of every tribe, every one head of his fathers’ house. And these are the names of the men that shall stand with you…These were the elect of the congregation, the princes of the tribes of their fathers; they were the heads of the thousands of Israel…they declared their pedigrees after their families, by their fathers’ houses, according to the number of names, from twenty years old and upward, by their polls…the children of Reuben, Israel’s first-born, their generations, by their families, by their fathers’ houses, according to the number of names…the children of Simeon, their generations, by their families, by their fathers’ houses…the children of Gad, their generations, by their families, by their fathers’ houses…the children of Judah, their generations, by their families, by their fathers’ houses… the children of Issachar, their generations, by their families, by their fathers’ houses…the children of Zebulun, their generations, by their families, by their fathers’ houses…the children of Joseph, namely, of the children of Ephraim, their generations, by their families, by their fathers’ houses…the children of Manasseh, their generations, by their families, by their fathers’ houses…the children of Benjamin, their generations, by their families, by their fathers’ houses…the children of Dan, their generations, by their families, by their fathers’ houses…the children of Asher, their generations, by their families, by their fathers’ houses…the children of Naphtali, their generations, by their families, by their fathers’ houses…These are those that were numbered, which Moses and Aaron numbered, and the princes of Israel, being twelve men; they were each one for his fathers’ houses. And all those that were numbered of the children of Israel by their fathers’ houses…
Thus, the Tanakh reckons who is a Jew by their fathers’ houses but Rabbinic Judaism does so by the mothers’. This means that in the case of a Jew married to a Gentile, Rabbinic Judaism is telling people who are born to a Jewish mother and a Gentile father that they are Jews when according to the Tanakh they are not and telling people who are born to a Jewish father and a Gentile mother that they are not Jews when according to the Tanakh they are. Consider what this does to the issue of who is a Jew?
The next point made by Rabbi Federow was that “the rabbis, when the times required it, were much more strict. Those times are now…it is time now to be strict.” But one can be more strict without manipulating facts, taking only one of many views due to a polemical bias and pretending that other sides of the issue simply do not exist.
Now, he elucidates that “Those times are now. For any Jew who cares about Judaism, who cares about Jews, who cares about maintaining our distinctive Jewish values and faith…” And yet, he complain about, for example, Tuvia Zaretsky who changed his name from Lloyd Carson as an example of those who seek “to make themselves appear to have been Jewish!” But maybe he was Jewish all along (after all, there are born Jews who’s last name is “Smith,” etc.). Some people find out that they are Jews due to genealogical research and do things such as changing their names in order to show care about maintaining distinctive Jewish values and faith. In fact, some Gentile Christians express concern about Jewish Christian Judaizing the church and some Jewish believers do take it too far (such as when they demand adherence to the Law for salvation) and yet, many merely seek to stay connected or reconnect with their, and Christianity’s, Jewish roots.
So, there are Jewish Christians who care about maintaining distinctive Jewish values and faith and Rabbi Federow condemns them for caring about maintaining distinctive Jewish values and faith even whilst calling for Jews to follow his lead in caring about maintaining distinctive Jewish values and faith. Yet, of course, he wrongly claims that Jewish Christians are doing no such thing as they are no longer Jews.
He also references “Paul’s dictum to be deceitful in order to make converts, by their understanding of I Corinthians 9!” Well, if “their understanding” of I Corinthians 9:19-23 is that Paul promulgated a “dictum to be deceitful in order to make converts” then theirs is not an “understanding” but rather a misunderstanding of the text, which states:
For though I be free from all men, yet have I made myself servant unto all, that I might gain the more. And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law; To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law. To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some. And this I do for the gospel’s sake, that I might be partaker thereof with you.
In common parlance we would say, “When in Rome do as the Romans.” This is not meant to say, “If you are in Rome and are not a Roman the pretend to be a Roman so as to deceive Romans into thinking that you are a Roman.” Rather, the New Testament’s overall context is that God created and is calling all sorts, kinds, types, nationalities, colors, etc. of peoples and we need to keep ourselves from any of them just because they are in some or another way different than us. In fact, when Peter withdrew from Gentiles when Jews were around, Paul rebuked him (Galatians 2:11). Peter was to have fellowship with anyone and everyone and not fear man when his mission was of God.