Topic: Should Jews be thanked for rejecting Jesus? (Read 8871 times)

shalom · « **on:** March 20, 2006, 08:19:35 AM »

According to the Christian story, G-d incarnated as the man Jesus, had to die in-order to satisfy G-d's requirement for blood. By his death Jesus redeemed the world from the sin, did away with what Paul called the law of sin and death, and brought peace between G-d and mankind.

Paul wrote "there is no remission of sin without the shedding of blood." That is not what Judaism teaches, or ever taught for that matter. I take it Paul was strongly influenced by Roman and Greek ideals and perhaps mythology(?). Don't know - but he didn't get that idea from Gamiliel. And since Paul became all things to all men..... I wouldn't rule out he peppered some of his sermons with Roman and Greek thought, in order to win a few over to his religion. Just a guess. But nevertheless, shouldn't those Christians who blame us for the death of Jesus, really be thanking us? Thanking us for not only birthing their Mesiah, but killing him in order that they might be saved from the wrath of G-d?

Shalom.

Bdean · « **Reply #1 on:** May 02, 2006, 06:45:53 PM »

First, it is imperative to note that, in 30+ years of attendance in Christian churches I have never heard it taught in my church that all Jews killed or were responsible for the death of the Messiah, Jesus. I am aware that the ignorance and hate of some has led them to state such absurdities, but to attribute that to Christians in general is, at least, inaccurate. The Christian Scriptures do note that some Jewish leaders of the day were active in arranging for the arrest of Jesus, and involved in speaking against him on trial. In addition, there was a crowd that shouted

shalom · « **Reply #2 on:** May 02, 2006, 08:57:55 PM »

Quote from: Bdean

So, the only that would agree with your premise in the first place is a very small group of individuals. I doubt that this smal group of individuals who use the label Christian and a distorted version of the Passion week to spew and justify hatred would be open to such musings in the first place.

Your comment about the shedding of blood is definitely worth further dialogue, but perhaps that is for another thread and another time.

My comment wasn't so much about the netorious "Blood Libel" charge against Jews, rather I'm posing the possibility that the actions of the Jews was positive, not negative. Sort of like the recent news about the Gospel of Judas. True or not, there were obviously some followers of Jesus who thought Judas helped Jesus complete what Jesus thought was his mission in life. But what if neither Judas nor the Jews took notice of Jesus? If it was necessary according to the Christian faith, for Jesus to die, then Judas and Jews were simply fulfilling their role in the plan. If Jesus had to die, then someone (other than himself I assume) had to make it happen.

Another puzzle for me is this: Crucifixion is not the proper method of execution for blasphemy - much less any capital offense according to Jewish Law. It is stonning. There are two accounts of Jews stonning that I'm aware of: The woman caught in adultry and Stephen. Those two stories raise even mor equestions- for Jews could not execute by their own authority while under Roman rule. So how is it that these two events occurred, yet when it came to Jesus, Jews didn't dare take him into their own hands? Clearly the Gospel writers were not reporting facts from a historical perspective - rather they had an agenda, a message behind the words. I offer this only to say I find it very interesting how it is played out in the text.

Jesus was condemed as a political criminal - not a religious criminal. Rome clearly did not agree Jesus was a 'religious threat'. So Crucifixtion was the only recourse. If you ask me, the turning over the the tables at the temple was a calculated move - guaranteed to bring negative political attention and gain support for criminal execution. The Temple cult at the time was corrupt and very political, with strong ties to a corrupt king and an even less potent High Priest. That act by Jesus was a sure way of getting noticed. As an outsider looking in, it seems Jesus had a death wish. Had it not been the Jews, I'm sure he would have found other ways to draw attention and bring things to a head.

Shalom

Zagzagel · « **Reply #3 on:** May 02, 2006, 09:43:12 PM »

Quote

According to the Christian story, G-d incarnated as the man Jesus, had to die in-order to satisfy G-d's requirement for blood. By his death Jesus redeemed the world from the sin, did away with what Paul called the law of sin and death, and brought peace between G-d and mankind.

I would readily agree with the incarnation and peace thing but am reluctant to accept the other ideas in between. That depends how once understands and explains those concepts.

I for one, even though G-d called for animal blood in ages past, am not too quick to view G-d as being satisfied with blood for redeeming purposes.

Concerning the Apostle Paul, he certianly highlights the importance of law with its effects, and points to the law of life which is the point of his many words.

Just to note, there is also a body of "christians" who do not accept Paul or his teachings.

Quote

Paul wrote "there is no remission of sin without the shedding of blood."

This idea was certianly not originated by Paul. He taught it, yes.

Now, touching on who we should thank for the death of Messiah, I thank G-d. I certianly did not put Jesus to death. All Jews did not put Jesus to death. All Romans did not put Jesus to death, etc. Jesus said it himself.."I lay down my life" - "no one takes it from me.." - "Father, if possible, remove this cup from me, neverthless, not my will but YOURS", etc.

G

nojc4me · « **Reply #4 on:** May 03, 2006, 06:56:49 AM »

Shalom said:

Quote:
Paul wrote "there is no remission of sin without the shedding of blood."

Which prompted Zagzagel to say:

This idea was certianly not originated by Paul. He taught it, yes.

I don't think it matters if he originated the idea or not. What's important is that, as you agree, Paul taught it, and that's what makes him a heretic.
There IS remission of sin without blood. [See Leviticus 5 11, Isaiah 1:11, Micah 6:6-8, Hosea 14:1-2, Psalms 50:7-15, for a just few examples.]
Money (Exodus 30:15-16), jewelry (Numbers 31:50) or putting fire from the altar in a censure (Numbers 17:11) are also listed as means to forgiveness.
God demands that each person ask for his own forgiveness and gain his own atonement as we see from Exodus 32:3.
That's the short answer, A more detailed answer is:
*In Leviticus 5:11-13 God accepts meal offerings.
*Numbers 21:7 & 17:12 God accepts incense & jewelry.
*1 Samuel 15:22, 1 Kings 8: 26-54 Hosea 14:2-3, Psalms 32:5 & 69:31-32 all show (or) prove God's want for prayer vs. sacrifice as does Jeremiah 29:12-13 36:3, & Daniel 6:11-12.
*2 Samuel 12:13 tells of King David being forgiven without any mention of blood.
*Psalms 51:16-17 declares that God does not want a sacrifice or burnt offering
*Ezekiel 18:30-32 asks for repentance and a change of heart and spirit only a broken spirit and a contrite heart.
*Isaiah 55:7 tells us to "forsake our evil ways and God will abundantly pardon." Jonah 3:19 tells of forgiveness through fasting and repenting.
*Micah 6:8 exhorts us to "do justly love mercy and walk humbly."
*Zechariah 1:3 "Return unto me and I will return unto you."
Not one of these verses asks for a blood offering yet all offer forgiveness.
Paul was lying when he said "there is no remission of sin without the shedding of blood."
There's no reason to accept Paul's words over God's Word.

Now, touching on who we should thank for the death of Messiah,

The messiah has not died. He hasn't even been introduced to the world yet, if he is even alive yet.

I certianly did not put Jesus to death.

So you only decided to capitalize on the sinner's death afterwards, sort of like the by-stander who gets on the bus after the crash, so he can file for insurance claim against the bus company?

All Jews did not put Jesus to death.

More correctly stated, "NO Jews put that sinner to death -- because he never lived in the first place."

All Romans did not put Jesus to death, etc.

Because they had never heard of him until a hundred years after he supposedly lived, and even then, very, very few Romans had heard of jesus.

Jesus said it himself.."I lay down my life" - "no one takes it from me.." - "Father, if possible, remove this cup from me, neverthless, not my will but YOURS", etc.

That's all nice sounding and altruistic and whatnot, but it's folly. There was nothing to be gained by jesus getting himself nailed to a couple of boards.
Well, except that the world was thereby rid of a sinner and false prophet. That was a benefit.
God does not require nor desire the death of a sinner. So God did not need to substitute one person't death for another's. [Ezekiel 33:11]
Not only that, it wouldn't help anyway, because there is no "vicarious atonement." "The soul that sins, he shall die." [Exodus 32:32-33, Deuteronomy 24:16, Jeremiah 31:29-30, Ezek. 18:4, 20.]
As shalom said, "it seems Jesus had a death wish."

shalom · « **Reply #5 on:** May 03, 2006, 06:57:52 AM »

[quote = "Shalom"]

Quote

Paul wrote "there is no remission of sin without the shedding of blood."

[quote = "Zagzagel"]

Quote

This idea was certianly not originated by Paul. He taught it, yes.

Where do you find in the Hebrew Scriptures, it written that forgiveness only comes by shedding of blood?

If you can find but one example where blood was not required, then the words of Paul are wrong.

Shalom

Bdean · « **Reply #6 on:** May 03, 2006, 07:31:20 AM »

Wow! There is room for a good ten or fifteen threads here.

Quote

True or not, there were obviously some followers of Jesus who thought Judas helped Jesus complete what Jesus thought was his mission in life. But what if neither Judas nor the Jews took notice of Jesus? If it was necessary according to the Christian faith, for Jesus to die, then Judas and Jews were simply fulfilling their role in the plan. If Jesus had to die, then someone (other than himself I assume) had to make it happen.

The Gospel of Judas and this notion has been rejected in writing by historic orthodox Christianity since the 2nd or 3rd century.

Quote

Clearly the Gospel writers were not reporting facts from a historical perspective - rather they had an agenda, a message behind the words. I offer this only to say I find it very interesting how it is played out in the text.

Quote

Jesus was condemned as a political criminal - not a religious criminal.

The Jewish leaders were threatened by the teachings of Jesus along with the following that he was getting, so they sought a way to get rid of him. Why would it matter if they did it via blasphemy or having the Roman rulers do it for another reason? Their goal was simply to get rid of him.

Quote

If you ask me, the turning over the tables at the temple was a calculated move - guaranteed to bring negative political attention and gain support for criminal execution.

Quote

That act by Jesus was a sure way of getting noticed.

Or it was a result of "zeal for" his "Father's house." People can speculate about "the real reasons" behind every action of Jesus as recorded in the Scriptures, but it does seem prudent to first acknowledge and work through the reasons stated in the documents that provide one with the record of events in the first place.

Quote

As an outsider looking in, it seems Jesus had a death wish. Had it not been the Jews, I'm sure he would have found other ways to draw attention and bring things to a head.

I understand that this is an "outsider looking in" perspective and will try to be sensitive to that. However, I must again note that this contradicts the sentiment of Jesus as recorded in the documents from which you learn of the account in the first place. We find that he was aware of the fact that it was the Father's will that he be the sacrificial lamb for the sins of the world, and that he was obedient to that will. But, we do not get the idea that every action was a calculated action to get noticed or manipulate people into killing him. Instead, we get the picture that he did not look forward to crucifixion (Father, take this cup away from me...but not will, but yours be done) and that his actions were taken in response to the acts and teachings that he considered be in opposition to a proper interpretation of the Scriptures.

I also don't think the prophets had a death wish and acted or spoke specifically to get killed simply because they had been commanded to share an unpopular message with Israel. But it seems like a logic or interpretation like the one used above for the motives of Jesus would suggest differently.

shalom · « **Reply #7 on:** May 03, 2006, 09:24:23 AM »

Quote from: Bdean

Wow! There is room for a good ten or fifteen threads here.

True - I'm breaking my own rules - ok, I'm a bit tired what with all the travel and moving into a new house etc. etc.

Quote

The Jewish leaders were threatened by the teachings of Jesus along with the following that he was getting, so they sought a way to get rid of him. Why would it matter if they did it via blasphemy or having the Roman rulers do it for another reason? Their goal was simply to get rid of him.

That is the common opinion. But others (including myself) don't believe that Jesus' teachings were all that different than from others who were educated in Beit Hillel. It takes some investigation into Jewish writings outside of what you might have available to you, but a bit of time spent researching Pirki Avot (for example), will show that there was a great battle waging between the two major educational centers in Israel at the time. The two centers were called Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel. Both men had died by the time of Jesus, but their "schools of thought" were still being discussed. At times, quite heatedly. Based upon what Jesus was to have said, he was clearly siding with Beit Hillel. I've not yet done this study - maybe you can help. Find out where Jesus was, when he criticized the Pharisees. Was it during one of his trips to Jerusalem or was he in the Galilee? Hillel's followers tended to be in the Galilee, while Shammai's followers were centered in Jerusalem.

Shalom

PS: The word Pharisee gets a bad rap. Hillel was a very loving individual who focused on the Love of G-d, not the letter of the Law. Shammai was all about imposing more and more laws. Both were Pharisees. I hope by understanding that bit of information, you'll read the Gospels a bit differently.

nojc4me · « **Reply #8 on:** May 03, 2006, 01:08:02 PM »

bdean said:

Or it was a result of "zeal for" his "Father's house." People can speculate about "the real reasons" behind every action of Jesus as recorded in the Scriptures, but it does seem prudent to first acknowledge and work through the reasons stated in the documents that provide one with the record of events in the first place.

You didn't ask, but I'm a fan of excuses. I wouldn't care if the driver of the bus drove off the cliff because she was asleep or because she was drunk, or because she was on the cell phone. The bus still ran off the cliff.

"Why" jesus did it [1] isn't as important as "was it a good thing for jesus to do?" According to how I understand the facts, the answer to that question would be a big, fat
"No!"
It was Passover, and Jerusalem was crouded, and Jesus engaged in actions that likely could have started a riot. That's why the idea that Rome killed him as a result of a charge of "insurrection" against jesus is so attractive.
The "money changing" going on in the Temple area was required by the Torah, by the way, so jesus' opposition to money changing shows he was ignorant of his Torah.
_____

[1] No historian, including Jewish ones, seem to have recorded the "cleansing of the Temple," as the event is sometimes called, and some were very interested in events in Judea in those days. Therefore, there's a good reason to doubt it ever really happened.

shalom · « **Reply #9 on:** May 03, 2006, 05:54:37 PM »

Quote from: nojc4me

bdean The "money changing" going on in the Temple area was required by the Torah, by the way, so jesus' opposition to money changing shows he was ignorant of his Torah.

Those that were managing the Temple were under political rule - not religious. So I can understand why Jesus and many others outside Jerusalem would be upset. Jesus (my opinion) was a Pharisee who followed Hillel and opposed the evil that had befallen the Temple Cult.

Still the fact remains, making a ruckus at the Temple was a calculated move. Jesus was (my opinion) on a death wish. He needed to fulfill his self imposed mission. And I'd like to think of him as a very sincere individual - however misguided.

Josh McDowell (sp?) wrote a book titled "Lord Liar or Lunatic." I say none of the three. I consider Jesus a passionate Jew who really belived in himself. What great person didn't believe in themselves. Were they fools? No. Where they always correct? Absolutly not. To me, Jesus was a Louis Farakan of his day.

Christianity survived by way of corrupt western power. My exposure to Asia was a blessing. No one gave a rip that I was a Jew. Why? Because the didn't know anything about Rome, about Western power, about forced faith of the west. I was not only free, but supported to observe Passover in Bangkok - a Buddhist country. How I wish the west would not stand on our graves to support their various interpretations of the Christian religion!

Shalom

Apollo5600 · « **Reply #10 on:** May 03, 2006, 06:47:44 PM »

Quote

My comment wasn't so much about the netorious "Blood Libel" charge against Jews, rather I'm posing the possibility that the actions of the Jews was positive, not negative. Sort of like the recent news about the Gospel of Judas. True or not, there were obviously some followers of Jesus who thought Judas helped Jesus complete what Jesus thought was his mission in life. But what if neither Judas nor the Jews took notice of Jesus?

So you disbelieve the Gospels written by those who were actually disciples, and believe a Gospel written by a Second Century Gnostic Cult? Have you ever read those Heretic Gospels? How about the Gospel of Thomas? From the same people... It has quotes from the original 4 gospels stringed together out of context, and then argues that women can't make it to heaven unless they become men! You think that Gospel is a legitimate Gospel because it is named Gospel of Thomas?

Give us all a break...

Quote

I take it Paul was strongly influenced by Roman and Greek ideals and perhaps mythology(?). Don't know - but he didn't get that idea from Gamiliel.

Nope, he was reading the Bible:

Isaiah 9:6
For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

Isaiah 53
5But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.
6All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.
7He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth. 8He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken. 9And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth. 10Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand. 11He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities. 12Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.

Daniel 9:22And he informed me, and talked with me, and said, O Daniel, I am now come forth to give thee skill and understanding. 23At the beginning of thy supplications the commandment came forth, and I am come to shew thee; for thou art greatly beloved: therefore understand the matter, and consider the vision. 24Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy. 25Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times. 26And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined. 27And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

And on and on...

Quote

Thanking us for not only birthing their Mesiah, but killing him in order that they might be saved from the wrath of G-d?

Obviously, Christ died for the sin of the world, not because the Romans or Jews murdered Him. A silly accusation against Christians, we are not so foolish to blame anyone except ourselves for Christ's death.

Quote

Another puzzle for me is this: Crucifixion is not the proper method of execution for blasphemy - much less any capital offense according to Jewish Law. It is stonning. There are two accounts of Jews stonning that I'm aware of: The woman caught in adultry and Stephen.

Just goes to show you don't know our scriptures. They attempted to stone Jesus on several occasions, probably more then what is mentioned. Ever since Jesus came healing, and preaching, they wanted to Kill Him. BTW, Paul was involved in the murder of Stephen also.

As for crucfixion, it is the most terrible execution one can think of, not only is it painful, but whosoever hangs on a tree is cursed.:

Deuteronomy 21:20And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard.
21And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear. 22And if a man have committed a sin worthy of death, and he be to be put to death, and thou hang him on a tree: 23His body shall not remain all night upon the tree, but thou shalt in any wise bury him that day; (for he that is hanged is accursed of God;) that thy land be not defiled, which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance.

I would think their reasoning would be that to kill Him in such a manner would prove once and for all that that He was not the promised Messiah. However, without His crucifixion He could never have been the promised Messiah.

Apollo5600 · « **Reply #11 on:** May 03, 2006, 09:41:02 PM »

Quote

I don't think it matters if he originated the idea or not. What's important is that, as you agree, Paul taught it, and that's what makes him a heretic.
There IS remission of sin without blood. [See Leviticus 5 11, Isaiah 1:11, Micah 6:6-8, Hosea 14:1-2, Psalms 50:7-15, for a just few examples.]

Leviticus 5:11But if he be not able to bring two turtledoves, or two young pigeons, then he that sinned shall bring for his offering the tenth part of an ephah of fine flour for a sin offering; he shall put no oil upon it, neither shall he put any frankincense thereon: for it is a sin offering.

In other words, there was an exception in the law for those unable to bring a proper offering. That does not make the Sacrificial system void, As we see from the beginning with Adam and Eve, Abel's sacrifice He took, Cain's He rejected, etc. It shows only that God is fair and mindful of our limitations.

Next one: Isaiah 1:11 To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices unto me? saith the LORD: I am full of the burnt offerings of rams, and the fat of fed beasts; and I delight not in the blood of bullocks, or of lambs, or of he goats.

Now, as one of you reminded a Christian in another thread, one should atleast read the entire chapter to get the proper context. From the same chapter:

Hear, O heavens, and give ear, O earth: for the LORD hath spoken, I have nourished and brought up children, and they have rebelled against me. The ox knoweth his owner, and the ass his master's crib: but Israel doth not know, my people doth not consider. Ah sinful nation, a people laden with iniquity, a seed of evildoers, children that are corrupters: they have forsaken the LORD, they have provoked the Holy One of Israel unto anger, they are gone away backward. Why should ye be stricken any more? ye will revolt more and more: the whole head is sick, and the whole heart faint. From the sole of the foot even unto the head there is no soundness in it; but wounds, and bruises, and putrifying sores: they have not been closed, neither bound up, neither mollified with ointment. Your country is desolate, your cities are burned with fire: your land, strangers devour it in your presence, and it is desolate, as overthrown by strangers. And the daughter of Zion is left as a cottage in a vineyard, as a lodge in a garden of cucumbers, as a besieged city. Except the LORD of hosts had left unto us a very small remnant, we should have been as Sodom, and we should have been like unto Gomorrah. Hear the word of the LORD, ye rulers of Sodom; give ear unto the law of our God, ye people of Gomorrah.

The subject here is the sacrifices from those who are wicked, which are done in unbelief, in vain ritual. If their heart is not in it, if they are not truly repentful, then they do give the "oblation in vain", therefore they are not following the Law of God, they are in fact insulting it. Read here:

Proverbs 15:8
The sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination to the LORD: but the prayer of the upright is his delight.

Proverbs 21:27
The sacrifice of the wicked is abomination: how much more, when he bringeth it with a wicked mind?

In other words, to believe is necessary to Sacrifice. Without Faith in God, without loving Him, it is not possible for you to repent or to follow the Law. If you have Faith, if you come to God with the right heart, your sacrifice will be accepted, and only then. God seeks men to worship Him in Spirit and in Truth, not with vain ritual.

That is not to say that Faith made void the laws of God. Otherwise, there would be no reason for the LORD to command: "And thou shalt offer every day a bullock for a sin offering for atonement," rather it is more proper to say, Faith Completes the Law. Faith without Obeying the Law of God is dead, being alone, while obeying the law without Faith (faith: Love, devotion, belief, the word Faith alone does not explain it all) is dead, as we read from the scriptures.

So repentance alone cannot make a man forgiven, one must go to God who forgives sins. "Who can forgive sins but God alone?" For Moses, it was necessary to believe, and to Obey, and the same it is for you. Believe, repent, return to the LORD your God, and offer thine sacrifice for a sin offering. There was no true repentful soul at that time, who did not do so, and when the sacrifice ceased, the Jewish people experienced great anguish. When it is said, "Return to the Lord thy God", that includes His commandments also.

For a convert to Judaism, you abolish the Law of Moses more than you claim Christians do. You have no regard for it, probably because you do not obey it.

Now, concerning the teachings of Paul which you object to. You do so, not knowing our scriptures. Indeed, without the shedding of blood is there no remission of sin. However, the blood of bulls and goats could never satisfy the Justice of God in the first place:

Hebrews 10:1For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.
2For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins.
3But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year. 4For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.

In the begining, it was a Man who sinned, and a Man who was sentenced to death.

Hebrews 9:27
And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:

Not the pigeons, not the bulls, not the goats, not the lambs. It was man who sinned, and it is man who must surely die. The sacrifices of those times could never complete the Law, they could never make a man perfect in the sight of the Law, they could only serve as a imperfect substitute to appease the Law of God. The only thing that can satisfy God's Justice, is the death of a man, the shedding of the blood of a man. So then, if sin and death entered the world by the disobediance of one man, it is possible that Righteousness and eternal life can enter the world by the Obediance of another man. As it is written:

Isaiah 53
9And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth.
10Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.
11He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities. 12Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.

Galatians 3:13
Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:

So God placed on Christ (one who had no sins of His own) the sin of the world, and offered Him as a perfect sacrifice to satisfy once and for all the Justice of God. Because without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins.

Hebrews 9:19For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and of goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book, and all the people,
20Saying, This is the blood of the testament which God hath enjoined unto you. 21Moreover he sprinkled with blood both the tabernacle, and all the vessels of the ministry. 22And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission. 23It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. 24For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us: 25Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others; 26For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. 27And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment: 28So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.

Apollo5600 · « **Reply #12 on:** May 03, 2006, 09:47:09 PM »

Quote

If you can find but one example where blood was not required, then the words of Paul are wrong.

Shalom

Not at all, Don't you know that the High Priest entered every year into the Holy of Holies to make atonement for the people of Israel with blood? Did that ever change? God Forbid.

Oh how times have changed... Once, the Priests would have liked to die around the altar rather than stopping even the daily sacrifice. Now, the children of Israel do not regard the Sacrificial system at all!

shalom · « **Reply #13 on:** May 04, 2006, 06:44:23 AM »

Quote from: Apollo5600

Quote
So you disbelieve the Gospels written by those who were actually disciples, and believe a Gospel written by a Second Century Gnostic Cult? Give us all a break...

Well, in fact I have read most of the Gnostic Gospels, but I never said I believed them. I don't accept any of the Christian Scriptures - those in the canon and those excluded, as being "G-d's Word" - so please don't put thoughts into my words. And as for a break - we can end our dialogue anytime you want. I don't wish to get personal, and I don't enjoy emotionally charged personal comments. As I said in another post the "You" word can be a real thorn to a good relationship in this medium.

Back to the topic: Any bit of research into the origins of Christianity, will demonstrate it started out as a mixed bag of thoughts and opinions about who Jesus was. My point of mentioned the Gospel of Judas was simply to state that the notion Jesus planned his own demise is not a novel idea. It existed from the start. The question was how to go about getting it accomplished. The Judas story is a valid option. So was tearing up the Temple to draw attention to himself.

Quote
Just goes to show you don't know our scriptures. They attempted to stone Jesus on several occasions, probably more then what is mentioned.

I am well aware that it was written they tried to stone Jesus - but the fact remains Jesus died the death of a political criminal - not a blasphemer. That is the core of my message. And I highly doubt the stonning stories were true. Jews were forbidden to execute - that is also written in your scriptures. And I don't think Jesus was that significant in his day to warrant Jews risking execution themselves by taking him out with a rock.

Quote
As for crucfixion, it is the most terrible execution one can think of, not only is it painful, but whosoever hangs on a tree is cursed.:

Well, I suppose the most terrible execution is a matter of taste. Being flayed alive and dragged through sand is high on my list of being the most terrible. That' what happend to one of our Sages - Rabbi Akiva. He believed Bar Kochbah was the Messiah and Rome had him flayed alive after they sacked the city in 70 C.E. Dying for one's faith does not prove the truth. Yet we still hold Akiva as one of our great sages. He and Bar Kochbah are both dead, but both remembered as great men in our history. One for his political strength, and one for his religious instructions.

Shalom

Apollo5600 · « **Reply #14 on:** May 04, 2006, 02:21:23 PM »

Quote

Well, in fact I have read most of the Gnostic Gospels, but I never said I believed them. I don't accept any of the Christian Scriptures - those in the canon and those excluded, as being "G-d's Word" - so please don't put thoughts into my words. And as for a break - we can end our dialogue anytime you want. I don't wish to get personal, and I don't enjoy emotionally charged personal comments. As I said in another post the "You" word can be a real thorn to a good relationship in this medium.

I meant nothing personal about it, only that what you were saying was ridiculous. But if you disbelieve all, then you have no justification to be making any accusations against Christ. You neither believe the Yay, or the Nay, so why accept one or the other? If all are false, being written by false people, you know nothing of Jesus, and can know nothing.

Quote

Back to the topic: Any bit of research into the origins of Christianity, will demonstrate it started out as a mixed bag of thoughts and opinions about who Jesus was. My point of mentioned the Gospel of Judas was simply to state that the notion Jesus planned his own demise is not a novel idea. It existed from the start.

I have done a "bit" of research and the only place I could possibly get those sorts of ideas is reading the Da'Vinci Code. So, our research is different, which is the most I can say.

Quote

And I highly doubt the stonning stories were true. Jews were forbidden to execute - that is also written in your scriptures. And I don't think Jesus was that significant in his day to warrant Jews risking execution themselves by taking him out with a rock.

The Jews accused Him of political crimes as you say, of treason against "their king Ceaser". Thus, if you wanted a man killed, this would be the safest and most legal way. They feared the people, especially after His entrance to Jerusalem as a king, they were afraid Christ's supporters would raise an uproar, so if the Romans were the ones to put Him to death, it would be less, and the sin would not be totally at their charge.

However, the fact that the Jews could no longer execute according to the Law would be a shame for them. They did not like their present situation under the Romans, and no doubt wished to be under the government of a Messiah who would rid them of the Roman yoke. So, to say that they would not dare stone a person seems odd to me, since I doubt they would respect the Roman Laws unless the Romans were right nearby waiting to kill them all, which no doubt would cause the Jews to rise up against the Romans. As for the execution by crucifixion, that is not the way Jews put men to death for blasphemy. They stone, burn, strangle, or behead, but not crucifixtion. Though it is not unheard of to put a dead man on a tree, as a sign to the people. Under the Law, he who hanged on a tree was accursed, which I think would be the objective of the ruling powers. So, the way things are depicted in the Gospels are not as strange as you say.

Quote

Yet we still hold Akiva as one of our great sages. He and Bar Kochbah are both dead, but both remembered as great men in our history. One for his political strength, and one for his religious instructions.

One would think a false Messiah would be looked down upon as a Curse, not as a great man of Jewish History.

Zagzagel · « **Reply #15 on:** May 05, 2006, 09:20:34 PM »

Quote

Shalom said:

Quote:
Paul wrote "there is no remission of sin without the shedding of blood."

Which prompted Zagzagel to say:

This idea was certianly not originated by Paul. He taught it, yes.

I don't think it matters if he originated the idea or not. What's important is that, as you agree, Paul taught it, and that's what makes him a heretic.

What does heretic have to do with this? Harry is Harry and Paul is Paul - just joking

But seriously, would a Jew call another Jew a "heretic" if said heretic(s) spoused something taught but taught it with a different understanding and application? Especially when said heretic's followed their rabbis teaching and believed their rabbi's claim?

Quote

There IS remission of sin without blood. [See Leviticus 5 11, Isaiah 1:11, Micah 6:6-8, Hosea 14:1-2, Psalms 50:7-15, for a just few examples.]

Yup.

Quote

That's the short answer, A more detailed answer is:
*In Leviticus 5:11-13 God accepts meal offerings.
*Numbers 21:7 & 17:12 God accepts incense & jewelry...
..[snip]

Yup.

Quote

The messiah has not died. He hasn't even been introduced to the world yet, if he is even alive yet.

Maybe the first Jewish christians came across this kind of opposition too? Yup, they probably did.

Quote

So you only decided to capitalize on the sinner's death afterwards, sort of like the by-stander who gets on the bus after the crash, so he can file for insurance claim against the bus company?

I guess, only because it was offered!

Nojc - blahblahblah
Zag - blahyablahya

Quote

That's all nice sounding and altruistic and whatnot, but it's folly. There was nothing to be gained by jesus getting himself nailed to a couple of boards.
Well, except that the world was thereby rid of a sinner and false prophet. That was a benefit.

Yeah, it does sound nice and altruistic doesn't it? Folly? Hmmm..to many, this is true, yes. But no, I believe (imo) Jesus was nailed to a beam as oppossed to the common belief that he suffered on a beam with a crossbeam...but I could be wrong.

Nojc, you are so quick to call some a sinner and vice versa. Anyways, I think it would be hard to prove Jesus was a false prophet.

Quote

God does not require nor desire the death of a sinner. So God did not need to substitute one person't death for another's. [Ezekiel 33:11]
Not only that, it wouldn't help anyway, because there is no "vicarious atonement." "The soul that sins, he shall die." [Exodus 32:32-33, Deuteronomy 24:16, Jeremiah 31:29-30, Ezek. 18:4, 20.]
As shalom said, "it seems Jesus had a death wish."

Okay, now this might fit in with what Shalom asked...

Where do you find in the Hebrew Scriptures, it written that forgiveness only comes by shedding of blood?

Quote

If you can find but one example where blood was not required, then the words of Paul are wrong.

I could think of many examples. Just to point out two from the NT - Jesus forgave a man with palsy (Luke 5:18-26) - Jesus forgave a woman (Luke 7:16-50)

But do these examples necessarily make Paul wrong in his soteriology? No, not really. Here is one scripture that speaks of blood and remission:

And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission. (Hebrews 9:22)

Context reveals that this has to do with the ceremonial death of an animal and taking its blood and applying it as per G-d's instructions. What is in view here (imo) is the work of the High Priest in his ministy for the people. He is drawing a relation between what Christ did and what the High Priest did.

But back to the original question. After more thinking, I would like to add that Israel certianly should be recognized as the nation whom God promised should come the Messiah. In that regard all peoples should be thankful to a nation whom God chosen as His vessel through whom the saviour of the world did come.

G

nojc4me · « **Reply #16 on:** May 07, 2006, 09:54:23 AM »

I wanted to respond to former posts, but haven't finished it. Here's what I do have done.

Apollo said:

Isaiah 9:6
For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

The false messiah jesus was never given the job of ruling any government as a burdon.
his name was never called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty G-d, The everlasting Father, nor The Prince of Peace.
At least once, jesus hotly denied he was "G-d".
jesus was supposedly the son, not the father.
jesus denied he had come to bring peace; in fact he came to bring a sword and to light fires, and he wished he could hasten them.
So Isaiah 9:6 doesn't refer to jesus.
And some Rabbis will dispute the very translation you use. One variant translation I heard was, "the Wonderful Counsellor, the mighty
G-d, the everlasting Father, shall call his name the prince of peace."

Isaiah 53
5 But he was wounded for our transgressions,

The "he" is identified by Isaiah in the previous chapter. The "suffering servant" is Israel, G-d's son, His firstborn.

he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.

The "our" is also identified by Isaiah in the previous chapter: that's us, the Gentiles.
So Isaiah is saying that the Jews suffer for (because of) our sins!
They were supposed to be telling the Gentiles thst they (the Gentiles) have a covenant with G-d and that they should be living under G-d's Laws for Gentiles. This was perhaps one of the most important parts of their duties as a Priestly Nation. All Israel, including the Jews, were to act as Priests of G-d to the Gentiles just as the Levites were Priests for G-d among Israel. They were supposed to be teaching us about the Seven Laws of Noah just as the Rabbis were teaching Jews Torah. They weren't doing that so well, and so pagan myths took hold of the Gentiles in the vacuum, myths such as Mithraism and its later incarnation as christianity.

6All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.

Yes, we - the Gentiles - have gone astray from the Covenant our Fathers made with God at Mt. Ararat; we have turned every one his own way - and there are as many religions as there are national identities; and have laid our iniquities upon Israel - especially as represented by the Jews - by blaming the Jews for all evil in the world.

7He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth:

This was the case in the darkest days of the Shoah, when Jews went to their deaths mum.
OTOH, jesus had quite a lot to say, including continuing with his judgemental rebukes and condemnations.

... he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth.

One reason christians like misusing this chapter to promote belief in jesus is the association with a lamb, as in "the lamb of G-d" and "Paschal Lamb."
But the Paschal lamb was not a sacrifice for sins, so if jesus was the Passover sacrifice, his death was not for remission of sins.
And jesus apparently had verbal diarrhea; he seemed to never to close his mouth.

8He was taken from prison

When was jesus ever imprisoned, so that he could be taken out of prison? However, thousands of Jews were released from imprisonment in concentration camps of WWII.

... and from judgment:and who shall declare his generation?

When did jesus ever father a generation? Who are his spawn?

... for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken.

Israel, G-d's son, was/is put to death for the sins of my people, the Gentiles.

9And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death;

Yet jesus died, not with the rich, but between two thieves (or in the company of one or more murderers, depending on which "absolutely true eye-witness" account you're reading), while jesus didn't make his grave with the wicked, but in the tomb of the "godly" Joseph of Aramathea.

... because he had done no violence,

Yet jesus DID do violence, even to the extent of fashioning a whip by his own hands with which to strike people and animal alike, and overturning tables.
That's beside the fact that he spoke violence, and advocated violence.
The so-called "christ" certainly was no "prince of peace," nor did he fulfill this verse of Isaiah 53.

... neither was any deceit in his mouth.

Yet jesus spoke deceitfully more than once. For just one, and perhaps the clearest, example, let's look at John 7:8-10
Jo 7:8 "'Go ye up unto this feast: I go not up yet unto this feast; for my time is not yet full come.' [7:9] When he had said these words unto them, he abode still in Galilee. [7:10] But when his brethren were gone up, then went he also up unto the feast, not openly, but as it were in secret.."
These verses prove J.C. lied, at least to his own disciples. He could have simple uttered a self-fulfilling "prophecy," ("I'm not going to this feast") AND THEN NOT GO! Or he could have said, "I'm not going with you, but will catch you up later there."
In stead, he lied, and said he wasn't going, and then went anyhow!
Yes, jesus spoke deceitfully. He wasn't Isaiah 53's suffering servant.

10Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed,

The Hebrew word used for "seed" is zayra, which means literal offspring. Whan did jesus father any children?

... he shall prolong his days,

The days of a man's life are somewhere between 70 and 120 years. Yet jesus died "in the midst of his days," or at about 30 years of age, according to the n.t.
Jer 17:11 "As the partridge sitteth on eggs, and hatcheth them not; so he that getteth riches, and not by right, he shall leave them in the midst of his days, and at his end shall be a fool."
His days were not prolonged; his followers, according to Paul, are fools (See Corinthians) .

... and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.

There was no prosperity in the hand(s) of jesus; he died penniless, if having to borrow J of A's tomb is any indication of (lack of) wealth.

... by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many;

By the knowledge of the Jews to the understanding of the Torah, and their teachings of the Covenant of the Rainbow, many have been led to justification - defined as being just and righteous. The way the n.t. uses the word, "justification", it must mean "making excuses for or explaining away a person's misdeeds."

... for he shall bear their iniquities.

See above.

12Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong;

The false messiah, jesus did not divide any spoil with anybody. In fact, that which was his was divided among the strong at his expense.

... because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.

There were sacrifices offered in the Temple on behalf of the transgressors among the Gentiles.
So, again, this applies to Israel (the Jews) but not so much to jesus.

Daniel 9:22- 27

That's the subject of another thread (and it's been beaten to death there) so it's pointless (unless Shalom wants to) to also discuss it here.
Suffice it for not to say that in order to make that passage apply to jesus, the advocate intentionally picks a point in time that will agree with his presupposition that it does refers to jesus, and he has to play fast and loose with the text and the calendar. In short, the christian picks the starting point based on the desired end-point, and then re-defines time periods to suit his ends.

Quote [Shalom]:
"Thanking us for not only birthing their Mesiah, but killing him in order that they might be saved from the wrath of G-d?"
replied:
Obviously, Christ died for the sin of the world, not because the Romans or Jews murdered Him.

Obviously, since the sinner dies for his own sins, and since there is no such thing as vicarious atonement (that is, that one person unjustly suffers the punishment due another) then in reality, jesus must have died for his own sins.
And he committed many, if the new testament is to be taken at its word.

A silly accusation against Christians,

False, and blatently patronizing.
History is replete with the words of church "saints" and "apostles" blaming the Jews for killing "christ". That's how the Jews got saddled with the foul, baseless and inflamitory reputation as "christ killers."
Shmuel Golding wrote:
Origen: "Their rejection of Jesus has resulted in their present calamity and exile. We say with confidence that they will never be restored to their former condition. For they have committed a crime of the most unhallowed kind, in conspiring against the saviour".
St. Gregory: " Jews are slayers of the Lord, murderers of the prophets, enemies of God, haters of God, adversaries of grace, enemies of their fathers' faith, advocates of the devil, brood of vipers, slanderers, scoffers, men of darkened minds, leaven of the Pharisees, congregation of demons, sinners, wicked men, stoners and haters of goodness".
St. Augustine: "Judaism is a corruption. Indeed Judas is the image of the Jewish people. Their understanding of the Scriptures is carnal. They bear the guilt for the death of the saviour, for through their fathers they have killed the Christ".

These and other anti-semitic words uttered by popes, priests, pastors and laymen, were put into action by unruly Christian mobs and later by Hitler's followers.
Adolf Hitler: "I believe that I am today acting according to the purposes of the Almighty Creator. In resisting the Jew, I am fighting the Lord's battle."

So you see, the accusation that christians have blsamed the Jews for the death of the man-god of the christians is by no means "silly," as you called it. Not only has it happened, it's been going on since the foundation of the religion of hate, christianity, that is to say, for 1800 years.
In fact, christians are still doing it; read this and weep. Notice please that the author claims to be a "bible believer," which means "christian."

"Zionists are annoyed when they are blamed for the death of Jesus. (I am referring here to the Jewish American organisations' reaction to Mel Gibson's "The Passion of Christ." Many people around the world regarded the Israeli siege of the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem as an attempt to kill Jesus 'again').
"I would suggest that perhaps we should face it once and for all: the Jews were responsible for the killing of Jesus who, by the way, was Himself a Palestinian Jew." [Zionists and Christ Killers, by Gilad Atzmon.]
http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/nl305.htm

... we are not so foolish to blame anyone except ourselves for Christ's death.

Care to try that again?

As for crucfixion, it is the most terrible execution one can think of, not only is it painful, but whosoever hangs on a tree is cursed.:

Okay, so he was acurs

Bdean · « **Reply #17 on:** May 07, 2006, 06:06:52 PM »

Quote

If your god is too weak to forgive sin without blood, that's your problem.
The G-d of Israel certainly can forgive sin without blood.

And yet, as a Christian, I worship the God of Israel. As I recall, Shalom noted in another post that there are no formal dogmas in Judaism that are binding upon any individual Jew. Is that accurate? If that is the case, is there room among Jews for a variety of perceived beliefs about the character and nature of God? How far does this go if there are indeed no formal dogmas in Judaism?

I attended an interfaith study for a number of months. The reformed Rabbi stated that he believed in a progressive faith, one that is dynamic over time. He also noted that this does bring up a predicament for himself and other reformed Jews when it comes to Christianity...given that Christianity is a newer expression of Judaism. These were his words (paraphrased), not mine.

shalom · « **Reply #18 on:** May 08, 2006, 06:20:02 AM »

Quote from: Bdean

Quote
And yet, as a Christian, I worship the God of Israel. As I recall, Shalom noted in another post that there are no formal dogmas in Judaism that are binding upon any individual Jew. Is that accurate?

Jews are not required to 'believe', rather we consider our commandments as 'action items' if you will. There is no commandment that says "Believe x, y or z' in the Hebrew Scriptures. That said, many times in history there have been those who have attempted to summarize the basics of the Jewish 'religion' (I put the name in quotes for a reason). Here is a link that will help explain more:

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/articles_of_faith.html

Quote

If that is the case, is there room among Jews for a variety of perceived beliefs about the character and nature of God? How far does this go if there are indeed no formal dogmas in Judaism?

I'm certain that individuals of all faiths have their individual impression about the character and nature of G-d. And I appreciate first hand how difficult it is NOT to personify G-d, make images, give personal qualities, as do many religions (Buddism excluded - for it has no G-d - believe it or not!). Judaism is forbidden to think of G-d in parts, or as corporeal. But over time certain groups within Judaism have developed some rather
etremly difficult concepts regarding the nature of G-d. Kabbalah (Jewish Mysticism) speaks of the 10 Sepiroth or eminations of G-d. The best way I can explain this idea is to reference the old child's game "light-briht". When G-d eminates into creation it is like a coloured peg being stuck into the blackness of the light-brite. The same is true each time someone performs a Mitzvot (commandment), and sanctifies themselves, the moment, all of Israel, and all of the world. So who brings about the emination? Israel or G-d? I think both depending upon the circumstances. But for sure I believe I can bring an emination of G-d into our reality, by my actions.

Quote

I attended an interfaith study for a number of months. The reformed Rabbi stated that he believed in a progressive faith, one that is dynamic over time. He also noted that this does bring up a predicament for himself and other reformed Jews when it comes to Christianity...given that Christianity is a newer expression of Judaism. These were his words (paraphrased), not mine.

Would you mind sharing the Rabbi's name? Maybe he's published and I can read about his ideas. I understand why he would say what he did - that 'faith' for a Jew (especially Reform) is progressive. Reform 'officially' reject the idea that Torah is divinely inspired. They don't' reject the principles - just how it came about. That does not mean all Reform Jews and Reform Rabbi's reject the divity of authoriship of our Scriptures. But such a notion is certainly a progression away from traditional lJudaism. Likewise Conservative insist that Torah must be relevent which means we don't stay stuck in the dark ages with our observance. But I have no problem with a Reform Jew or Rabbi saying Torah was not divinely inspirerd. Rather, I continually support them in observance of Torah according to their Minhag (local practice). I think I'm getting off track.

Back to belief. The notion that G-d violated His own Torah, took the form of a man, accepted human sacrifice - death of one for another, is not possible in Judaism. Once a Jew accepts such an idea, they are considered idolotrous by the community and cut off from the people. Are they still Jews? A bird in a cage is still a bird no?

Shalom

Bdean · « **Reply #19 on:** May 08, 2006, 07:37:14 AM »

Quote

When G-d eminates into creation it is like a coloured peg being stuck into the blackness of the light-brite. The same is true each time someone performs a Mitzvot (commandment), and sanctifies themselves, the moment, all of Israel, and all of the world. So who brings about the emination? Israel or G-d? I think both depending upon the circumstances. But for sure I believe I can bring an emination of G-d into our reality, by my actions.

Related to our converstaion elsewhere - Yes, I do see several strong parallels with Buddhism and various sutras in this!

Regarding the name of the Rabbi, I do not recall. I don't live in that city any longer and I looked up the synagogue on the web only to find that there is now a different Rabbi there. However, the Rabbi was formerly at Temple Beth-El in Rockford, IL.

I know that I am getting increasingly off topic here so, I will stop after one more comment. :) While visiting the Temple Beth-El web site, I was struck by the Rabbi's message on the web site. As I stated, this is not the same Rabbi as mentioned before, but some of you might be interested in her brief message: http://il008.urj.net/ Is it worthy of a new thread perhaps?

Author Topic: Should Jews be thanked for rejecting Jesus? (Read 8871 times)