Page created: June 28, 2024
Page revised: Oct. 3, 2024
שְׁמַ֖ע יִשְׂרָאֵ֑ל יְהֹוָ֥ה אֱלֹהֵ֖ינוּ יְהֹוָ֥ה אֶחָֽד
Sh’ma Yisra’el Adonai Eloheinu Adonai echad.
Hear, Israel, the Lord is our God, the Lord is One.
(Deut.6:4)
See the same articles in German on this page: Jesus ist nicht Gott
The aim of this page is to help Christians suffering from cognitive dissonance, and this is more than 95% of all Christians. It is recommended to look at the relevant biblical passages with a therapist who has renounced the Whore of Babylon. The Whore of Babylon is the Catholic Church, and its children include the Reformed, Protestant and Evangelical churches, as well as the vast majority of (especially in Europe) the so called “free evangelical” churches, including the Jewish-Messianic community. In addition, the therapist should interpret the New Testament from a Judeo-Hebraic point of view, rather than the Greek-Hellenistic view commonly found among pastors.
Page Overview
- #05 The Gospel of John (3-OCT-2024)
- #04 The Word Made Flesh: A Jewish Understanding (28-SEP-2024)
- #03 The One and Only True G-d (27-SEP-2024)
- #02 Unitarism vs. Trinity (28-JUN-2024)
- #01 Good Master (27-JUN-2024)
#05 The Gospel of John
Source: Rey Luque on Facebook: The Gospel of John
Key point: Many believe that John presents a different perspective, a deified Jesus that goes beyond the human Jesus of the Synoptic Gospels and Hebrew Bible Scriptures.
However, when John’s statements are read in their literary and cultural context, they fully align with the historical and religious context. John’s gospel is not telling us anything different from what has been said in the previous gospels.
Trinitarians assume a divine person—” God the Son,” who is incarnate in Jesus, is introduced in John’s prologue and further expounded on in his Gospel text. However, this assumption needs to be challenged, because…
1. There is no precedence or grammatical necessity to capitalize the “Word” of John 1: 1 or to view it as a preexistent, deified Jesus. See John 1 – 13 Petals
2. Other verses or passages used in John’s Gospel to support a deified Jesus are also highly interpretative and one must know that in John’s day there was no established Christian theology as became known way later. The passages must be read within Torah Judaism of the first century.
3. Throughout his Gospel, John makes it clear that it is the Father alive and at work in Jesus, which explains his inspired words, miraculous works, and clear revelation of God:
• The Father is “the only true God” (17: 3).
• Jesus’ works are the Father’s works. These works were done by the Father (10: 32; 10: 37; 14: 10; cf. Acts 2: 22).
• Jesus’ words are the Father’s words (8: 48; 12: 49-50; 14: 10; cf. Deut. 18: 18).
• Jesus’ glory is from the Father (1: 14; 8: 54; 17: 5).
• Jesus has declared or made known the Father (1: 18; 14: 10-11).
• If people knew Jesus, they would know the Father (8: 19; 12: 45; 14: 7-11).
4. Because Jesus spoke the Father’s words and performed the Father’s miraculous works, people could “know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father” (10: 38; see also John 12: 49; 14: 10). Yeshua was a shaliach (a sent one) of God. A shaliah (Hebrew: shelihim) or sheliah in Halakha is a Jewish legal emissary or agent. Accordingly, a shaliah performs an act of legal significance for the benefit of the sender, as opposed to him or herself. It is a comparable Hebrew term of the Greek word поотоЛс (apostolos, whence the
English “apostle”).
The Encyclopedia of the Jewish Religion, R.J.Z. Werblowsky, G. Wigoder, 1986, p. 15.
“Agent (Heb. Shaliah):
“The main point of the Jewish law of agency is expressed in the dictum, “a person’s agent is regarded as the person himself” (Ned. 72B; Kidd, 41b). Therefore any act committed by a duly appointed agent is regarded as having been committed by the principal, who therefore bears full responsibility for it with consequent complete absence of liability on the part of the agent.”
The IVP Bible Background Commentary New Testament, Craig S. Keener on John 5:30.
“Jesus is thus a faithful shaliach, or agent; Jewish law taught that the man’s agent was as a man himself (backed by his full authority), to the extent that the agent faithfully represented him. Moses and the Old Testament prophets were sometimes viewed as God’s agents.”
5. Nothing in John’s stated purpose for his Gospel would suggest he is trying to portray Jesus as God: Jesus performed many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name (John 20: 30-31).
The concept of “son of God” means a few things within Judaism, like:
– like Adam and his progeny.
– The angels of God.
– The righteous
– The Kings of Israel, who are Meshichim (Messiahs).
But what it doesn’t mean is that the individual (no matter who it is) – including the Messiah, IS NOT GOD. In no way, shape or form.
6. The statements of faith included in John’s narrative do not present a deified Jesus:
“Then Nathanael declared, “Rabbi, you are the son of God; you are the king of Israel.” (1: 49)
“Yes, Lord,” [Martha] replied, “I believe that you are the Messiah, the son of God, who is to come into the world.” (11: 27)
Such statements align with John’s own, that “Jesus is the Messiah, the son of God” (20: 31).
7. If John were seeking to portray Jesus as somehow beyond what the Synoptic Gospels declare of him, not only does he not make this intention clear, but he includes statements that positively work against it – statements that emphasize both Jesus’ humanity and the supremacy of the Father over him:
Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in the Spirit and in truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks. God is spirit, and his worshippers must worship in the Spirit and in truth. (4: 23-24)
Jesus gave them this answer: “Very truly I tell you, the son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the son also does.” (5: 19)
By myself I can do nothing; I judge only as I hear, and my judgment is just, for I seek not to please myself but him who sent me. (5: 30)
…you are looking for a way to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God. (8: 40)
…for the Father is greater than I. (14: 28)
Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Messiah, whom you have sent. (17: 3)
Jesus said, “Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.’” (20: 17)
With such statements, John stresses the humanity of Jesus even more than the Synoptic Gospels. Fourteen times in John’s Gospel, Jesus is called a man (anthropos) without qualification (1: 30; 4: 29; 5: 12; 7: 46, 51; 8: 40; 9: 11, 16; 10: 33; 11: 47, 50; 18: 14, 17, 29; 19: 15), which is more than all of the Synoptic Gospels combined. If John had Trinitarian inclinations, it is highly unlikely that he would have been content for these humanity statements about Jesus to remain unqualified in some way.”
B”H
#04 The Word Made Flesh: A Jewish Understanding
Source: Rey Luque on Facebook: The Word Made Flesh: A Jewish Understanding
The concept of “the Word becoming flesh” often evokes theological interpretations that diverge between Jewish and Christian understandings. In Christian theology, this phrase from the Gospel of John is taken to mean that the Logos, the divine Word of G-d, literally became a person—Jesus. However, this is not in line with Jewish thinking or teachings on the relationship between G-d, His Word, and humanity. In Judaism, G-d’s “Word” does not take on a physical, ontological form in a human being, for G-d is beyond the limits of physicality. Instead, the concept of the Word made flesh has a deeper spiritual meaning, tied to the Jewish understanding of how human beings—particularly the tzadikim (righteous ones)—can embody the divine will through their actions, becoming a living testament to G-d’s Torah.
G-d, the Torah, and Israel are One
The Jewish mystical tradition, particularly through the Kabbalistic and Hasidic teachings, places a strong emphasis on the unity of G-d, the Torah, and the people of Israel. This is epitomized in the famous Zoharic phrase: “G-d, Torah, and Israel are one” (Zohar II: 73b). This statement means that there is an inseparable connection between the Creator, His wisdom as expressed in the Torah, and the Jewish people who live by its teachings.
Rabbi Moshe Chaim Ephraim of Sudilkov, the grandson of the Baal Shem Tov, expounded on this idea in his work Degel Mahane Ephraim. He elucidates the connection between G-d, Torah, and Israel by emphasizing that the very essence of Israel’s life force is drawn from the essence of G-d, as it is written in Genesis 2:27, “And He breathed into his nostrils the breath of life.” In this teaching, Ephraim highlights that just as G-d’s breath gave life to Adam, the Torah is essentially the life force of Israel.
In Degel Mahane Ephraim, Moshe Hayyim connects the embodiment of the Torah in man, stating that the Torah’s 248 positive commandments and 365 prohibitions correspond to the limbs and sinews of the human body. This means that the Torah itself is intertwined with the physical and spiritual makeup of the Jewish people. Therefore, the Torah does not just dwell in the abstract; it is “flesh” in the sense that it becomes part of the human being through the observance of the mitzvot (commandments). The Torah manifests in the actions, thoughts, and speech of a Jew who follows the divine will. This is how one embodies the Torah—through living it.
The Embodiment of Torah
One of the most profound aspects of Jewish spirituality is the concept of the tzadik—a righteous person who serves as a living example of G-d’s will in the world. The tzadik has refined his will to such an extent that he nullifies his ego and personal desires, making him a chariot for G-d’s will. The great Hasidic masters describe this state as one where the tzadik becomes so aligned with the divine purpose that his very existence becomes an extension of the Torah itself.
In Deuteronomy 30:11-14, the Torah is described as being “not too difficult” and “not far off… but very near you, in your mouth and in your heart, so that you may do it.” This emphasizes that the Torah is accessible and capable of being internalized by every individual. For the tzadik, this internalization reaches a point where his life becomes a living Torah. He embodies the divine word, not in the sense that he “becomes” the Torah in a physical or ontological sense, but in the sense that every action, word, and thought reflects the divine will.
This is not an unattainable ideal reserved for some supernatural being, but rather, a level that righteous individuals can achieve through devotion, humility, and the observance of the mitzvot. This is why the Torah teaches that human beings can “walk in the ways of G-d” (Deuteronomy 28:9) and why the sages say that one should emulate G-d by performing acts of kindness and justice (Talmud Bavli, Sotah 14a). The tzadik is an example of this, embodying the Torah in his daily life.
The Word Made Flesh: A Jewish Interpretation
The Christian interpretation of “the Word made flesh” in the Gospel of John focuses on the idea of the divine Logos, or Word, becoming a literal human being. In Jewish thought, however, this idea of G-d’s word does not imply any form of incarnation or divine-human fusion. The notion that G-d would become flesh in an ontological sense is foreign to Judaism, as G-d is beyond any form of physicality.
As the Sages teach, the Torah speaks in the language of man (dibrah Torah b’lashon bnei adam), meaning that anthropomorphic descriptions of G-d are not to be understood literally. G-d does not have a physical mouth or tongue to issue words. Instead, these descriptions are metaphors used to make abstract concepts more accessible to human understanding.
The concept of the “Word becoming flesh” is better understood through the Jewish idea of becoming a vehicle or conduit for the divine will. The Torah is not something distant or unattainable but is inherently close to each person, as expressed in Deuteronomy. A person, particularly the tzadik, can embody the Torah’s teachings to such a degree that his life becomes a living testament to G-d’s wisdom. This is the true sense of the “Word made flesh”—not that G-d’s word literally becomes a person, but that a person can become so aligned with the divine will that his actions reflect the living Torah.
Torah, Mitzvot, and the Messianic Vision
In Hasidic thought, the connection between G-d, Torah, and Israel reaches its fullest expression in the Messianic era. The tzadik serves as a prototype for what all people can achieve in the time of the Messiah, when the knowledge of G-d will fill the earth as waters cover the sea (Isaiah 11:9). In the Messianic age, humanity will collectively embody the Torah, living in harmony with the divine will, and the barriers between heaven and earth will be removed.
The Messianic era is not merely a future event; it is the goal of creation, a time when the divine word will be fully manifest in the world. Through the observance of mitzvot and the study of Torah, each individual plays a part in bringing this vision closer to reality. In this sense, the tzadik serves as a living example of what the Messianic age will look like—an era when the “Word made flesh” will be realized through the actions of all people who live in accordance with G-d’s will.
B”H
(AI created image, R.Luque)
#03 The One and Only True G-d
Source: Rey Luque on Facebook: The One and Only True G-d
The most basic belief underlying our observance of Torah is that Hashem is the Creator of the world and the ongoing Director of all that transpires. He does not delegate authority to anyone or anything else, and we are to pray only to Him.
Is Idol worship the same as Avodah Zarah?
Are idol worship and Avodah Zarah the same thing? The question, as phrased, is almost meaningless, since it does not define what is meant by idol worship. Truthfully, most people do not understand the extent of the prohibition of Avodah Zarah. They think that Avodah Zarah is limited to believing that some force other than Hashem decides our destiny. However, the prohibition of Avodah Zarah is far more encompassing. To quote the Rambam: “In the days of Enosh, mankind committed a major mistake…. This was their error: They said that, since G-d created the stars and the other cosmic forces with which to run the world, placed them in the heavens, gave them honor and they serve Him, it is appropriate to honor and praise them. They said that this is G-d’s Will – to honor that which honors Him” (Rambam, Hilchos Avodah Zarah 1:1). The Rambam proceeds to describe that this was the primary form of Avodah Zarah — not that any of those who worshipped the sun, moon or stars ascribed power to these celestial creations.
“With time, false prophets arose who claimed that G-d had commanded the people to worship specific stars or forces” (Rambam, Hilchos Avodah Zarah 1:2). The Rambam explains that this developed into extensive cults. “The primary commandment of Avodah Zarah is to not worship anything that was created, not an angel, not an extraterrestrial force, not a star, or as some believe a human… even when the worshipper knows that Hashem is the only G-d” (Rambam, Hilchos Avodah Zarah 2:1). We see that worshipping or performing any act of reverence to a force other than Hashem is included in Avodah Zarah, even when one accepts that all decisions are made by Him.
Shituf
In most contexts, the word shituf is translated as “partnership.” When applied to the prohibition of Avodah Zarah, the term is used to mean worshipping something other than Hashem, even though the individual believes in one G-d Who created the universe. As we just read, the Rambam describes this mode of worship as the primary violation of Avodah Zarah.
There are several ways that one could violate Avodah Zarah through shituf. Above, we described one way: there is nothing wrong with the belief system, but the object being worshipped makes it into an act of Avodah Zarah.
Another form of shituf is the mistaken belief that, although Hashem is indeed the Creator of all, He authorized some other force to make decisions. This constitutes Avodah Zarah. Many religions believe that Hashem created the world, but believe that He delegated authority on some matters to angels or others whom He created. Some religions even believe that He passed authority to humans or to former humans. Any belief that G-d allowed some other entity or force to have a decision in helping or saving mankind is pure Avodah Zarah. Practicing or believing in any of these religions is Avodah Zarah.
Christianity and the trinity and god man dogma
300 to 400 years after the lives of Rabbi Yeshua of Nazareth and his Jewish disciples, within the Gentile camp of followers it was debated what was the core belief of the figures of the Nt, especially the core belief in One G-d. Was G-d One unlike anything else, or was He a unity in being, 3 persons in one? At these councils, like Nicae it was established by a majority that the God of Bible which includes Jesus is the one God. Even though at one point the majority belief and opinion was that God was indeed One and there was no plurality in His essence. Jesus was seen as a highly exalted human, even the most righteous but not G-d… he was a created being. Once the council of Nicaea was over, all other forms of belief (like strict unitarianism) was outlawed. Anyone holding contrary beliefs was persecuted to the death. No Jewish believers in Yeshua were invited to these councils, nor were any traditional Jews within Judaism ever consulted. This belief in a triune god, in a divine god man is pure and without a doubt a Gentile imagination. One that is not new, but very old, going back to the days before and after the flood. Nimrod believed himself to be a god in the flesh, and Abraham fought him and all of his idolatrous beliefs. For the descendants of Christians, the Greeks and Romans – ALL OF THEIR HEROES, emperors etc were viewed as god men. This was the norm. It would make sense that Jesus would follow in the line of their cult worship. The imperial cult as it is known. This cult regarded emperors and members of their families as gods.
On his death, Julius Caesar was officially recognised as a god, the Divine (‘Divus’) Julius, by the Roman state. And in 29 BC Caesar’s adopted son, the first Roman emperor Augustus, allowed the culturally Greek cities of Asia Minor to set up temples to him. This was really the first manifestation of Roman emperor-worship.
Emperor-worship was a unifying factor in the Roman world, practiced not only by army units spread throughout the empire but also by individuals in the provinces, where there were collective imperial cult centres at places such as Lyons (Gaul), Pergamon (Asia) and (probably) Colchester (Britain). The imperial cult helped to focus the loyalty of provincials on the emperor at the centre of the empire, and in some regions (such as Gaul), there is evidence that Roman authorities took the initiative in setting it up, presumably for that very reason.
“Throughout recorded history we find the accounts of men who pretended at godhood and used it as a political device. They often claimed for themselves a unique anointing, the status of superman, or the ability to create supreme law, and in their delusions they became false messiahs.” ~ (David Hume) [1]
Praying
Another way of violating the prohibition of Avodah Zarah through shituf is by directing one’s prayers to something other than Hashem. Even asking an angel to convey my prayers to Hashem qualifies as a very serious prohibition of Avodah Zarah. To quote the Rambam, “Only to G-d is it appropriate to serve, to praise, and to promulgate His greatness and His directives. One may not pray to anything beneath Him, not His angels, not the stars, not the celestial creations, not the elements of creation, nor anything developed from them. All of them are fixed in their deeds and have neither control nor independent free choice, with the exception of G-d. One may not make them intermediaries to use them to contact G-d. All our thoughts must be directed only to G-d, and one should ignore anything else. All this is included under the prohibition of Avodah Zarah. Most of the Torah’s purpose is to command us concerning this” ~ (Rambam, introduction to his commentary on the tenth chapter of Sanhedrin, fifth principle).
This belief comprises the fifth of the thirteen basic beliefs of Torah Judaism, formulated by the Rambam, that Klal Yisroel has accepted as the core belief system of Torah. In the words of the unknown author of the 13 ani maamins, it is structured as: Ani maamin be’emunah sheleimah, shehaborei yisborach shemo lo levado ra’ui lehispallel, ve’ein ra’ui lehispallel lezulaso, “I believe with complete faith that it is appropriate to pray only to the Creator, blessed is He, and that it is inappropriate to pray to anything else.” * Many believe that this was a phenomenon that began with the Ramban, it is not, these beliefs were already established and fundamental to Torah before him. The issue that many took with Ramban is that he made it sound as if Torah has statements of faith.
Some well-meaning people may be making a serious mistake when they pray at a graveside. To avoid the possibility of inadvertently transgressing the prohibition of Avodah Zarah when visiting a gravesite, one should be careful that all one’s prayers are only to Hashem. (See, for example, Gesher Hachayim, Volume 1, Chapter 29, Section 9.)
One of the 613 mitzvos of the Torah is a prohibition against causing an oath to be expressed that includes the name of an idol. The Torah says, “you may not mention the name of an idol, nor may your mouth allow it to be expressed” (Shemos 23:13).
Chazal understand that this includes a prohibition of swearing an oath mentioning the name of Avodah Zarah. They also understand that this prohibition includes causing an idol worshipper to take an oath, in which he uses the name of his idol. Again, to quote the Rambam, “It is prohibited to include something else together with Hashem’s Name in an oath. Someone who includes something else with Hashem’s Name in an oath is uprooted from the world. There is nothing else in the world that should be given honor” (Hilchos Shavuos 11:2).
Because of this mitzvah, until the modern era, Jews were excluded from holding office in most European countries, because assuming such a position required an oath of office that included a reference to what halacha recognizes as idolatry.
Gentiles – Non-Jews
Although it may seem strange for a non-Jew to ask a rav a shaylah, it should actually be commonplace. After all, there are thousands of gentiles for every Jew in the world, and each one of them should be concerned about his or her halachic responsibility. Many non-Jews are indeed concerned about their future place in Olam Haba (the World to Come) and, had the nations not been deceived by spurious religions (like Christianity), thousands and perhaps millions more would observe the commandments of Bnei Noach that they are commanded. It is tragic that they have been misled into false beliefs and practices.
The prohibition of Avodah Zarah applies not only to Jews, but to any human being walking the face of the earth. One of the mitzvos that bnei Noach are required to observe is a prohibition against worshipping Avodah Zarah. What is included in this prohibition?
On an obvious level, there should be no difference between the prohibition of Avodah Zarah as it applies to gentiles and as it applies to Jews, and this is the understanding of most halachic authorities. This approach is certainly implied by the Rambam, when he introduces the prohibition of Avodah Zarah by saying, “in the days of Enosh, mankind committed a major mistake,” which happened over a thousand years before the Torah was given to Klal Yisroel. ( Rabbi Kaganof’s site )
The First followers, disciples, apostles of Yeshua
The Ebionym/Nazarenes movement was made up of Jewish followers in Yochanan (John) the Immerser and later Yeshua, who were concentrated in Israel and surrounding regions and led by “Yaakov haTzaddik” (brother of Yeshua), and flourished between the years 30- to much later 4th, 5th, and even the 10th century in Arab lands and Jewish communities. They were zealous for the Torah and continued to observe the mitzvot as enlightened by their Rabbi and teacher. The non-Jews in their midst were expected to follow some version of the Noahide laws (Acts.15:28,29).
The Roman Catholic Church historians began to refer to the Ebionym and Nazarenes as two separate groups – and indeed by the late 2nd century there might have been a different designation to these Jewish believers in Yeshua. The distinction the church fathers make remembering that the same universally despise the “Jewish believers” and call them all sorts of names like “Judaizers,” because the Ebionym reject Paul and the doctrine of the virgin birth and the divinity of Yeshua, they also only use the Hebrew gospel of Matthew and are more extreme in their Judaism (being very scrupulous in their observance). The church fathers describe (some) the Nazarenes as those who accept Paul (with caution), some believed in the virgin birth – viewing him as the “adopted” son of G-d at his immersion. * But to a god man.
As far as beliefs of the Ebionym, the documents of the apostolic writings, evaluated carefully are our best source, including some of the fragmentary traditions still embedded in Acts (7:37-53). There are also fragments and quotations surviving from the Hebrew gospel tradition (see A.F.J. Klijn, “Jewish-Christian Gospel Tradition, E.J. Brill, 1992), the so-called Pseudo-Clementine materials, as well as some of the traditions reflected in texts such as the “Hebrew Matthew” preserved by Ibn Shaprut, and now published in a critical edition by George Howard (The Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, Mercer University Press, 1995). The The Ebionym movement could be distinguished by the following way:
1) Yeshua as a human being with a father (Yosef) and mother (Mariam).
2) Dedication to the whole Torah per 1st century Judaism.
3) The Ebionym rejected the virgin birth and the divinity of Yeshua. [While certain groups of Nazarenes also rejected the doctrine of divinity but accepted the virgin birth on some level].
In Irenaeus, Haer. 1.26.2 we read the following summary on the Ebionym:
“Those who are called Ebionites, then, agree that the world was made by G-d; but their opinions with regard to the lord are [not] similar to those of Cerinthus and Carpocrates. They use the Gospel according to Matthew only and repudiate the apostle Paul, saying that he was an apostate from the Law. As to the Prophetical writings, they do their best to expound them diligently; they practice circumcision, persevere in the customs which are according to the Law and practice a Jewish way of life, even adoring Jerusalem as if were the House of G-d.”
Messiahship according to the Ebionym
The Ebionym did not find the Messiahship of Yeshua on his virginal conception and birth but on his descent from Yosef and baptism. They favored the reading “young woman” in Isaiah 7:14 and said explicitly that Yosef was Yeshua’s father (Haer. 3.21.1). This made them emphasize all the more the significance of Yeshua baptism. In this the doctrine of the Ebionym resembled the teachings of the Cerinthus and other gnostics. Irenaeus describes Cerinthus’s doctrine concerning this:
“He suggested that Jesus was not born of a virgin… but that he was the son of Joseph and Mary in the same way as all other men but he was more versed in righteousness, prudence and wisdom than other men. After his baptism, Christ (Mashiach’s soul) descended upon him from that Principality that is above all in the form of of a dove. And then he proclaimed the unknown Father and performed miracles…” (Haer. 1:26.1, Klijn and Reinink, Patristic Evidence, 103-5)
Indeed Judaism believes such an interpretation saying that at some point in the Messianic candidates life, Mashiach’s soul would descend upon him, making him the Mashiach.
Righteousness as a criteria and characteristic of the candidate for Messiah could be such a feature. Let us compare this with two passages in Justin Martyr. In Dial . 49:1 he has Trypho the Jew say:
“It appears to me that they who assert that he [Jesus] was of human origin, and was anointed as the Messiah by election, propose a doctrine much more credible than yours (the trinitarian view). We [Jews] all expect that the Messiah will be a man of merely human origin, and that Elijah will come to anoint him.” (Falls, 74)
In Dial. 67.2 Trypho follows this up by saying:
“You Christians should be ashamed of yourselves … to repeat the same kind of stories [as the Greeks in their myths or virginal births]… and you should… acknowledge this Jesus to be a man of mere human origin. If you can prove from the Scriptures that he is the Messiah, confess that he was considered worthy to be chosen as such because of his perfect observance of the Law (Torah)…” (Falls, 103)
Here Trypho affirms three important things: 1) that Jews expected a human-only Messiah, who would become the Messiah by election, based on his perfect obedience towards the Torah; 2) that the Jews expected him to be anointed as the Messiah by the-prophet-like Elijah; and 3) that there were believers in Yeshua who had the same [Jewish] ideas about Yeshua as Messiah. The third point is also made by Justin himself in Dial. 48:4: “There are some of your race, who acknowledge that Jesus is the Messiah, but claim that he has a merely human origin.”
The Dead Sea Scrolls, the Teacher of Righteousness, Benjamin Sommer’s Two Power heresy etc.
Contrary to some popular opinions espoused by scholars like Benjamin Sommer and Daniel Boyarin, the Dead Sea Scroll does not believe in a god man doctrine, neither is the teacher of righteousness found within a god man. The heresy of the two powers of heaven found in the Talmud and other sources is just that, a heresy. Jews have always had some heretics within too but to say that this was a popular or dominant belief is a wild and baseless assertion. They read these ancient documents like the Dead Sea Scrolls and New Testament literature as would Christians, with preconceived ideas.
They misunderstand the religious outlook and views of ancient Jews. The Torah speaks in anthropomorphic language, uses allegory and symbolism. The Sages explain that the Torah was written in the language of men so that we can understand. The Creator spoke to the Prophet’s in visions and dreams. So the language of G-d having a body, flying, hair etc is all part of this allegorical language. In reality the Creator is not physical, doesn’t have a body as that pertains to the created reality, and He is eternal. Even concepts like male and female do not really apply to the Creator at His essence. These are terms of character, male = masculine and female = feminine attributes. They are both applied to the Creator but G-d is not a man.
* Furthermore, the Messiah is a concept which applies to humans. To the Jewish descendants of David – the kings. Ultimately there would be a descendant of David (a human being) who would fulfill the Jewish prophecies and lead us to the Messianic era. THE ONLY WAY for the Messiah to be the Messiah is if he could trace his lineage to King David through Solomon. IT MUST BE UNDERSTOOD, THAT TRIBAL AFFILIATION IS ONLY VIA THE FATHER. The tribes were passed down through the fathers, especially as it applies to the kings and priests of Israel. Jewishness is via the mother only.
And contrary to popular opinion, the genealogies of Matthew and Luke are NOT Miriam’s but Yosef – Yeshua’s father. It doesn’t matter what you believe concerning the virgin birth, if you end up believing that Yeshua has no human father then you disqualify him from the messianic office. Case closed. There is no getting around this no matter how many theologies you come up with, nor how much gymnastics you try. This belief in a virgin birth is only supposedly mentioned in two gospels within 2 verses! That’s it, no one else ever even hints to such a belief in all of the NT! Why is that? Especially as huge as a dogma that it has become within Christianity.
A Messiah who does miracles, is righteous, sinless, fulfills prophecies ONLY because he is God is not a big deal! I mean isn’t that what gods are supposed to do? If he couldn’t do miracles and do it all then he wouldn’t be that much of a god? But what merit is that? And all of his followers – the only thing they must do is know that they are good for nothing and they put it all on him. That’s the epidote of idolatry.
But a messiah who is like us, human, and must strive with all of his hearth, might and soul to serve the Creator, his G-d and our G-d, that he must be righteous like Moses etc. This is something to be amazed at. This is something to want to emulate, to follow, to learn from. This is a true Messiah.
B”H
Notes:
1. Then toward the end of his rule the debauched Roman emperor Nero (54–68 C.E.) opposed the building of a temple to himself as a divine being, he seemed to contradict the prevailing social order. Emperor worship had become part of everyday Roman life, and his own progress toward such exaltation seemed to be accelerating. Was Nero’s refusal a sign that humility had at last come to the pompous and cruel ruler?
It seems not, on several counts. Nero’s stated reason for declining the honor was the belief that only dead emperors could achieve divinity. But already 10 years earlier, he had allowed the Senate to erect his statue—alongside and equal in size to that of the god of war—in the temple of the Avenging Mars. Further, coins from his reign depict him with the radiate crown of a deified emperor and as Apollo, the sun god.
If that were not enough to demonstrate the emperor’s fascination with divinity (whether he really thought he was divine or just pretended at it), events surrounding the visit to Rome of Tiridates, king of Armenia, should convince the skeptic. Tiridates was also a Parthian magus, a priest of Mithra. His surrender to Roman forces had allowed him to retain his throne as a vassal king, but it was as a magus, or magician, that Tiridates intrigued Nero. To add to the fascination, Mithra was the god of light and was often identified with the sun. When the Armenian king visited Nero in the year 66, he knelt and addressed the emperor as “master” and “god.” At that point, apparently, Nero indeed viewed himself in terms approaching divinity. According to third-century Roman senator and historian Dio Cassius, Nero told the king, “You have done well to come here in person, so that by meeting me face-to-face you might enjoy my grace. . . . I have the power to take away kingdoms and to bestow them” (Roman History 63.5.3). Soon after, in a lavish and carefully orchestrated public ceremony, the priest of the god of light repeated his words of homage as the rising sun shone on Nero’s face and made him appear as a new manifestation of the sun.
(AI created image, R.Luque)
#02 Unitarism vs. Trinity (by R.Luque)
Source: Rey Luque on Facebook: Unitarism vs. Trinity
“Whoever knows the development of the history of dogma knows that the image of God in the primitive church was unitary, and only in the second century did it gradually, against the doctrine of subordinationism, become binary. For the church fathers such as Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and Tertullian, Jesus is subordinated to the Father in everything, and Origen hesitated still to direct his prayer to Christ, for, as he wrote, that should properly be to the Father alone. At this point he referred to the words of Jesus in the Gospel of John: “The Father who has sent me is greater than I.”
The total picture which arises from history is almost like an arithmetic progression: In the first century God is still monotheistic in good Jewish fashion. In the second century God becomes two-in-one; from the third century on God gradually becomes threefold. Only in the fourth century, however, does the elevation of the Holy Spirit to a special hypostasis with its own value take place. Moving from the “Binity” of the primitive church, in the year 381 at the Second Council of Constantinople, against the heavy resistance of a whole series of church fathers, the divine triunity of the full doctrine of the Trinity is canonized.”
~ (Pinchas Lapide, “Jewish Monotheism and Christian Trinitarian Doctrine” (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1981), pp. 39-40.)
B”H
(AI created image, R.Luque)
#01 Good Master
Source: Rey Luque on Facebook: Good Master
“That Yeshua (Jesus) never regarded himself as God is most obvious from his reply when hailed as “good master”: “Why do you call me good? There is none good but one, God” (Mk.10:18; Lk.18:19). When the disciples would know the exact time of the coming of the Kingdom of Heaven, he tells them: ‘That day and that hour no man knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the son (Messiah), but the Father (God) only’ (Mt.24:36). Yeshua is thus not omniscient: he and the Father are not equal in knowledge. When we remember that, in the Garden of Gethsemane, he begs the Father to let the cup pass from him; and that, during the crucifixion, he cries out, ‘My God, my God, why has You forsaken me!’ – it is prefectly manifest that in no sense did he look upon himself as God. Like every Pharisaic Jew he believed in the absolute unity of God, and he turned to God in time of trouble.”
~ (Joseph Klausner, “Jesus of Nazareth”, pg.377)
B”H
(AI created image, R.Luque)
Please report broken links to TMRelay (@) gmx.ch. Thank you.
Bitte ungültige Links an TMRelay (@) gmx.ch melden. Danke.
.
.