What Did The Jews Really Look Like?

 

History is a lie 🤔. pic.twitter.com/mP20R5VYcS

— mrredpillz jokaqarmy (@JOKAQARMY1) October 15, 2025

Roman Historians Description of Jews

 

Receipt 🧾: Check ✔️ pic.twitter.com/VuIbANQgJN

— 𐤒𐤃𐤔 מירקו (@MyrkoSaint) February 19, 2025

DEBUNKING a FAMOUS "Hebrew Israelite" Meme (Jews left black, returned wh...

Below is a video refuting the meme on the left that tries to argue that the white Jews are not real Jews.  Not true. It's a good video

Answering Muslims: Richard Butrick: The Golden Age of Islam - A Second Look

David Wood has pointed out an interesting article about the history of the Islamic World.

Richard Butrick has written an excellent article on the so-called "Golden Age of Islam," i.e. the mythical period in history when the Muslim world led humanity in science and mathematics, and Christians and Jews lived in an interfaith paradise under Muslim rule.

Read more at the following link!

Answering Muslims: Richard Butrick: The Golden Age of Islam - A Second Look

Related articles

• Egypt: Muslim child preacher lovingly recalls genocidal Jew-hating hadith (atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com)
• Ron Paul Booed for Advocating the 'Golden Rule' (ibtimes.com)
• The Problem with Muslims.... (passthepeaceplease.com)
• MKA RA at the Golden Age of Islam (thebeerevelation.wordpress.com)
• | Western Imperialism and the Unspoken Tyranny of Colonization! (truthaholics.wordpress.com)

Why was Adolf Hitler wrong? - National Messianic Jewish | Examiner.com

Mariano Grinbank has written a response to an article on the ISU Atheist and Agnostic Society website written by Dave who writes:

Some atheists do believe in ethical absolutes, some don’t. My answer is a bit more complicated — I don’t believe that there are any axiological claims which are absolutely true, except within the context of one person’s opinion.
That is, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and so are ethics. So, why is Adolf Hitler wrong? Because he murdered millions, and his only justification, even if it were valid, was based on things which he should have known were factually wrong. Why is it wrong to do that? Because I said so. Unless you actually disagree with me — unless you want to say that Adolf Hitler was right — I’m not sure I have more to say.

This is shocking to me. I don't believe that there is anything else any atheist who is sane and yet consistent to his/her worldview could possible say. It's terrible but unavoidable. One of Mariano's arguments was:

Now, what the atheist said is not true anyhow. Why not? Because, by his very own definition, there are no axiological claims which are absolutely true, except within the context of one person’s opinion. Thus, since we are considering his claims from outside of his opinion, we can determine that his statements are not absolutely true. In fact, claims which are made within the context of one person’s opinion are not absolutely true as, by definition, truth is absolute or else it is not truth.

Brilliant.  Mariano wrote an amazing answer that totally points out one of the glaring flaws in Atheism. Check out his article. I have never heard a good answer from an atheist to the challenge of this line of reasoning.


Why was Adolf Hitler wrong? - National Messianic Jewish | Examiner.com

Related articles

• Adolf Hitler (egrejeen.wordpress.com)
• What are the differences between adolf Hitler and fdr (wiki.answers.com)
• Who protected Adolf Hitler (wiki.answers.com)
• Is Adolf Hitler good or bad and why (wiki.answers.com)
• Why did Japan ally itself with Germany (wiki.answers.com)

Greek Language Knowledge in the Holy Land | Bible.org Blogs

Dr. Darrel Bock has posted a follow up to the discussion he had with Bart Ehrman about the knowledge Jews of the Holy Land had of Greek. Was it enough to write the New Testament? Read his short article at the following link.

Greek Language Knowledge in the Holy Land | Bible.org Blogs

“Him that Pisseth against the Wall” | Dr. Claude Mariottini – Professor of Old Testament

Dr Claude Mariottini is beginning an interesting article regarding a phrase that appears 6 times in the Hebrew Bible: "Him that Pisseth against the Wall." Read part 1 at the following link.

“Him that Pisseth against the Wall” | Dr. Claude Mariottini – Professor of Old Testament

And here is another article on the subject

1 Kings 21:21 … him that pisseth against the wall.

Related articles

• Stop Mistranslating The Hebrew Bible (socyberty.com)
• Studying the Old Testament - the joys and pains (cesarsalad.wordpress.com)
• How do the Apocrypha and Septuagint affect the Bible (wiki.answers.com)

The Saddest Day on the Jewish Calendar | Dr. Claude Mariottini – Professor of Old Testament

Dr Claude Mariottini has called attention to one of the important days on the Jewish Calendar. He writes:

The fast of Tisha B’Av begins this Monday evening at sundown and ends on Tuesday night. The fast of Tisha B’Av is known as the “saddest” day on the Jewish calendar.
Tisha B’Av is the ninth day of the Jewish month of Av, a day when the Jewish people remember some of the great tragedies suffered by the Jewish People. Tisha B’Av is a day set apart to lament the anniversaries of the destruction of the First Temple by the Babylonians and of the Second Temple by Romans.

Read the entire article to learn what events are remembered on this day.

The Saddest Day on the Jewish Calendar | Dr. Claude Mariottini – Professor of Old Testament

Related articles

• Tisha B'av Begins Monday Night (israelnationalnews.com)
• Plans for Tisha B'Av (returnofbenjamin.wordpress.com)
• Tisha b'Av Events Through History: 9th of Av (dawnmarie4.wordpress.com)
• Guilt and Grieving (foryourhonor.wordpress.com)
• The 9TH of AV - a VERY SIGNIFICANT DATE (graftedinelena.wordpress.com)

FacePalm of the Day - #103 - Debunking Christianity: Personified Myth or Mythologized Person?

Tommy G Baker has written a post on Debunking Christianity in which he attempts to explain why Christians today believe Jesus is the divine Son of God when he claims that Jesus' first followers did not. I'd argue that Paul's teachings did not differ from the teachings of Jesusl or the Apostles.

Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Cephas and stayed with him fifteen days. I saw none of the other apostles—only James, the Lord's brother. I assure you before God that what I am writing you is no lie. (Galatians 1:18-20)

What writings of the New Testament are actually from Paul? I know of no serious scholars that deny that Paul wrote Galatians. In fact you will read in any search or book that is of any reputable scholar that Galatians is authentic. Paul claims in these verses to have met James, the brother of the Lord.

Okay, finally, a point of consensus and agreement.

The mythicist position is one in which there is a claim that no historical person exists behind the myth of the Christian Christ. A mythicist must therefore go against all of scholarship and state that Galatians is a forgery. Or she must make another statement that is even harder to demonstrate. Paul is lying!!!

Just like the no rational and informed person would argue that Paul did not write Galatians, they would not argue that Jesus was not a historical person. Let's see if Paul is lying.

Now certainly we can show how wrong Paul is about claims such as a resurrection or the idea that there is a god that requires a human sacrifice. But these are his real beliefs. They are not intentional deception. If he is deluded about such things could he be deluded about something like visiting actual flesh and blood people? Kidding aside these are different categories of knowledge. We are left with whether Paul is telling the truth or he is lying.

Baker states that we can show that Paul is wrong about the Resurrection and that his sacrifice was necessary. He doesn't elaborate his point but I'll let him skate because it's not the point of his article and Paul more than ably destroys this silly notion. Instead let us focus on whether Paul was telling the truth about meeting James and at least some of the original apostles.

If he is lying we are required to prove that Paul is taking a mythological pattern found in the Mystery Cults and attempting to create a historical Jewish figure. He would also have to be lying about persecuting previous followers of the Jesus movement. But if he was making up this account then many could have challenged him. Much of his work presupposes that the recipients know some of what he claims and what has transpired.

I think we can agree with this above paragraph. We don't see such challenges made against Paul and the recipients of the epistles he wrote would have indeed been knowledgeable of what he claimed. Paul's story is also validated in external Jewish sources.

Let us assume that this passage is an interpolation as a few scholars have hypothesised[sic].

And here comes the first facepalm. There is no need to make such assumption. If you do, then you claim Paul lied without proving that he did.

Then we are still confronted with Paul's claim in another passage to have spoken to James, the Brother of Jesus, Peter and John who were disciples and knew Jesus:

Galatians 2.... Then after fourteen years, I went up again to Jerusalem, this time with Barnabas. I took Titus along also. ² I went in response to a revelation and, meeting privately with those esteemed as leaders, I presented to them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles. I wanted to be sure I was not running and had not been running my race in vain. ³ Yet not even Titus, who was with me, was compelled to be circumcised, even though he was a Greek. ⁴ This matter arose because some false believers had infiltrated our ranks to spy on the freedom we have in Christ Jesus and to make us slaves. ⁵ We did not give in to them for a moment, so that the truth of the gospel might be preserved for you. ⁶ As for those who were held in high esteem—whatever they were makes no difference to me; God does not show favouritism—they added nothing to my message. ⁷ On the contrary, they recognised that I had been entrusted with the task of preaching the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been to the circumcised.^{[ 8} For God, who was at work in Peter as an apostle to the circumcised, was also at work in me as an apostle to the Gentiles. ⁹ James, Cephas^[ and John, those esteemed as pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship when they recognised the grace given to me. They agreed that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the circumcised. ¹⁰ All they asked was that we should continue to remember the poor, the very thing I had been eager to do all along.

Galatians 2:1-10

We can see that he speaks again of a historical encounter with people who supposedly knew Jesus or were in fact related to him. Finally we have Paul stating that he opposed Peter in Antioch, an event that was apparently known or at least verifiable to the recipients of Paul's letter:

¹¹ When Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. ¹² For before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. ¹³ The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray.
¹⁴ When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in front of them all, “You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?"

Galatians 2:11-14

We are left with one more possibility that Paul did meet with James who claimed to be the brother of Jesus but James made it up and the fact that he had a brother. Peter and John went along with it and perhaps much of Jerusalem.

And here comes another facepalm! Why would that even be a possibility and why would Peter, John, and anyone in Jerusalem back up such a story about Jesus having siblings if it were not so? We know emphatically that Jesus had siblings and his brothers did not believe in Him and were in fact embarrassed by him.

³⁰ He said this because they were saying, “He has an impure spirit.”
³¹ Then Jesus’ mother and brothers arrived. Standing outside, they sent someone in to call him. ³² A crowd was sitting around him, and they told him, “Your mother and brothers are outside looking for you.”
³³ “Who are my mother and my brothers?” he asked.

³⁴ Then he looked at those seated in a circle around him and said, “Here are my mother and my brothers! ³⁵ Whoever does God’s will is my brother and sister and mother.” - Mark3:30-35

⁵⁴ Coming to his hometown, he began teaching the people in their synagogue, and they were amazed. “Where did this man get this wisdom and these miraculous powers?” they asked. ⁵⁵ “Isn’t this the carpenter’s son? Isn’t his mother’s name Mary, and aren’t his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas? ⁵⁶ Aren’t all his sisters with us? Where then did this man get all these things? - Matthew 13:54-56

¹ After this, Jesus went around in Galilee. He did not want^[a] to go about in Judea because the Jewish leaders there were looking for a way to kill him. ² But when the Jewish Festival of Tabernacles was near, ³ Jesus’ brothers said to him, “Leave Galilee and go to Judea, so that your disciples there may see the works you do. ⁴ No one who wants to become a public figure acts in secret. Since you are doing these things, show yourself to the world.” ⁵ For even his own brothers did not believe in him.
⁶ Therefore Jesus told them, “My time is not yet here; for you any time will do. - John 7:1-6

These arguments of Paul are to a historical situation. The followers of Jesus were Jewish and had no teachings from Jesus that they were to stop following the Jewish Law. Why because Jesus was Jewish. He was a human brother of James. They thought that he was a great teacher ( as refelcted[sic] in Q) and a blameless man that would return soon at the end of the ages as Messiah and in the general resurrection.

First the existence of a "Q" source is conjecture at best. You have to do better than that. The Gospel according to Mark clears expresses that Jesus taught that he would be killed and resurrected. He applies the divine name to himself and does things that only God can do like claiming the authority to forgive sin. Ever read Mark 1? Doesn't look like it if you think Mark conflicts with Paul.

How do we know this? Because there are two major movements from the first century that cause many more by the second century. There is the movement in Jerusalem as pointed to by Paul and headed by the original followers of Jesus. And there is Paul who opposes their understanding of the very person they followed.

Hmmm...references? None? If Baker is still speaking of Galatians and referring to the Judaizers, then he must have forgotten about all the Gentiles who became Christians through the ministries of Philip and Peter before Paul's own conversion! The Apostles were not in their camp but they agreed with Paul!

The beliefs that we find Paul complaining about that James, John and Peter hold are the same claims that the Ebionites held until the early second century. This view was followed by Theodotus and much of the Roman Church authority until suppressed by the mythically oriented movements that viewed Jesus as God. We find this movement in Paul and the Gospel of John.

There is no proof of James, Peter, or John holding the same claims as the Ebionites. They however did agree with Paul. Here Baker seems to be making the same claims Muslims make against Paul. Do you really think Peter and James, who allowed themselves to be martyred would just stand by and let Paul misrepresent them? IF you think that, I have some swamp land on Tatooine I could sell you with George Lucas' signature on the deed!

In Paul Jesus is not yet God he is the son of God. In the Gospel of John Jesus is viewed as a god or divine in the sense of pre-existence. These late first century beliefs became even more diverse by the second century when docetism ( Christ is God but not human ) became popular and a competition in Rome against the views as expressed by Theodotus. Gnosticism also was on the rise where Jesus only appeared to be a human but was a Spirit. Another form of Gnosticsm saw Jesus as a human in which the God or Spirit of Christ came down into until the crucifixion. At that time Jesus was abandoned. Finally the Trinitarians showed up to try and account for both a human and God in one person. This occurred late second or early third century.

Let's see what Paul wrote about who Jesus is in Galatians

¹ It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery. - Galatians 5:1

There is no way that Paul is suggesting that Jesus is ontologically less than God because as a Jew he wold not give glory of emancipation from slavery to anyone less that the Almighty God who brought his people out of Egypt. If one thinks that "son of God" mean "not God" they need to do more research. Might I suggest you read the work of Dr Darryl Bock for help. Clearly neither Docetism nor Gnosticism were in anyway part of what Paul and the other Apostles taught .

As we can see the easiest and most logical explanation for the information that we have is the typical and traditional critical historical view. There was a historical person that shows up in the source called Q in sayings. He is made Gentile by Mark.

Where? Major FacePalm.

Some of the competing movements have a resolution. The Gospel of Matthew is written for the Jewish Churches while the Gospel of Luke and Acts are written for the Gentile Churches ( for example James M. Robinson, The Gospel of Jesus ).

Um Matthew, Luke, and Acts do not conflict.

Both allow for the acceptance of Gentiles into the Church. But Matthew requires all of the Law to be followed. Jesus states that he has not come to do away with the law but to fulfill it. Not one iota of it will ever change. For Luke and Paul, Jesus complete s and replaces the law.

Matthew does not reject Gentiles. In Matthew Jesus interacts with and heals gentiles remember?

⁵ When Jesus had entered Capernaum, a centurion came to him, asking for help. ⁶ “Lord,” he said, “my servant lies at home paralyzed, suffering terribly.”
⁷ Jesus said to him, “Shall I come and heal him?”
⁸ The centurion replied, “Lord, I do not deserve to have you come under my roof. But just say the word, and my servant will be healed. ⁹ For I myself am a man under authority, with soldiers under me. I tell this one, ‘Go,’ and he goes; and that one, ‘Come,’ and he comes. I say to my servant, ‘Do this,’ and he does it.”
¹⁰ When Jesus heard this, he was amazed and said to those following him, “Truly I tell you, I have not found anyone in Israel with such great faith. ¹¹ I say to you that many will come from the east and the west, and will take their places at the feast with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven. ¹² But the subjects of the kingdom will be thrown outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” ¹³ Then Jesus said to the centurion, “Go! Let it be done just as you believed it would.” And his servant was healed at that moment.- Matthew 8:5-12

For all the New Testament, Jesus is an "and" not a "but" To think that Paul is making up something new, means a complete and sad misunderstanding of what he wrote. He quotes from the Old Testament constantly and uses them to show Jesus is Messiah, Lord, and salvation is but through Jesus.


The Jerusalem Church produced nothing in writing because they were expecting an immediate return of Jesus. And supposedly James, John and Peter were illiterate peasants. It is after the fall of Jerusalem that any thing other than the Saying of Jesus as in Q are written about him. Mark reflects a time right after the fall of the Temple. Matthew and Luke are decades later reflecting apologetics as to why Jesus had not returned though the Temple had fallen.

That sure is a lot of hand-waving. Too bad there isn't a shred of proof offered to show that these conclusions are valid.

As the return of Jesus was delayed and delayed he became portrayed as more and more divine with salvation occurring in believing in "Him" rather than his message. His resurrection was into a Trinitarian dogma instead of a historical event. A failed Jewish teacher who had some good ideas became a mythological God whose following has caused 2000 years of superstition and bloodshed in the name of the Prince of Peace and Christian love.

Last I checked, Jesus far from failed. His Resurrection and promised forgiveness of sin through Him was preached from the beginning. And I don't mean just Mark, try Genesis. In addition the problems of 2000 years superstition and blood shed is at the feet of people not obeying what is in the Word of God not because of it.

Written by Tommy G. Baker

If Baker is wrong about Jesus not having brothers and sisters, why should anyone take any of his conclusions seriously? They should be dismissed due to their failure but not lack of imagination.



Debunking Christianity: Personified Myth or Mythologized Person?

Related articles

• Reading Galatians (womenembracingfaith.wordpress.com)
• Have The "Christian" Zionists Accused You Of Preaching A "Replacement Theology" Concerning Israel? (soulrefuge.org)

Jewish Festivals | Dr. Claude Mariottini – Professor of Old Testament

Dr Mariottini has posted a great summary of Jewish festivals and their scriptural references.

Jewish Festivals | Dr. Claude Mariottini – Professor of Old Testament

Related articles

• SHAVUOT (or PENTECOST) (graftedinelena.wordpress.com)
• 'Never Better' in Krakow? (jta.org)
• Pentecost (frstephensmuts.wordpress.com)
• Fourfold gospels and the resurrection (snapjordan64.wordpress.com)

Free Will - Comparison; Will A Man Rob God?

 

This graphic shows considerable ignorance as to what the Bible teaches us about God's character and how God relates to people. Equating a robber robing someone of material wealth that the robber does not deserve or own to God demanding worship is simply stupid. When we are commanded to worship God, it's a matter of God getting from us what He deserves and owed from us. When we worship God we fulfill the purpose for which we were brought into existence. There are as many different ways to worship God as there are people.

I think "Free Will"  is confused here with "Free Choice". They are not synonymous. While we can and do choose to obey God or disobey, we cannot choose to submit ourselves to God on our own. We are enslaved to sin. No matter how much you try you are unable to be sinless on your own without the Holy Spirit empowering you and even then its still a struggle. Without God, there is no struggle because we have no reason struggle against our natures.

⁵ Those who live according to the flesh have their minds set on what the flesh desires; but those who live in accordance with the Spirit have their minds set on what the Spirit desires. ⁶ The mind governed by the flesh is death, but the mind governed by the Spirit is life and peace. ⁷ The mind governed by the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so. ⁸ Those who are in the realm of the flesh cannot please God.- Romans 8:5-8

God doesn't send people to hell because we all go to hell by default. It is a gift of God  to submit to His will and repent of our sins. We are unable to do it for ourselves.All you have to do is respond to the offer God is offering us and you will be saved. No one gets saved without making a conscious choice.

⁴⁰ For my Father’s will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.”
 ⁴¹ At this the Jews there began to grumble about him because he said, “I am the bread that came down from heaven.” ⁴² They said, “Is this not Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How can he now say, ‘I came down from heaven’?”
   ⁴³ “Stop grumbling among yourselves,” Jesus answered. ⁴⁴ “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them, and I will raise them up at the last day. ⁴⁵ It is written in the Prophets: ‘They will all be taught by God.’ Everyone who has heard the Father and learned from him comes to me. ⁴⁶ No one has seen the Father except the one who is from God; only he has seen the Father. - John 6:40-46

 ⁸ For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— ⁹ not by works, so that no one can boast. ¹⁰ For we are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.- Ephesians 2:8-10

irReligion.org » Free Will

Related articles

• Jesus, The Wisdom Of God (pastorht.wordpress.com)
• YES their ARE Apostolic MOTHERS By Apostle Ricardo Butler (reasondisciple.wordpress.com)
• A Few Thoughts on Free Will (richicc.wordpress.com)
• First contact (pastorayres.wordpress.com)

Islam and Christianity A Common Word: Rabbi Singer takes Evangelical Radio Host to Task.

Thegrandverbalizer has posted an article regarding an exchange from Rabbi Singer and "The Way of the Master" Radio host. Thegrandverbalizer believes that Rabbi Singer was able fend off the host's attempts to convert him. And after listening to the exchange myself I decided to add my comments which are in Red.

This is a deeply interesting exchange between Rabbi Singer of outreachjudaism.org and 'The Way of the Master' Evangelical Radio Host.

The Creator says in the Qur'an:

The Jews say, "The Christians have nothing to stand on," and the Christians say, 'The Jews have nothing to stand on" Yet they (all) quote from the [same] Book. Likewise those who do not know make a statement similar to theirs. God will judge between them on Resurrection Day concerning how they have been differing." (Holy Qur'an 2:113)

I don't think a single Bible believing Christian or Religious Jew would disagree with that statement. However I would have to ask, do we know what criteria and standard God will use on Judgment Day? How do you know if when weighed, counted, and measured that you will not be found wanting?

So this is deeply interesting. Because they both claim that they are taking from the TNCH (Torah, Prophets and Writings) yet they are coming to radically different conclusions.

The Christian approach the TNCH with their various Christian presuppositions. Some times their philosophy also helps to guide their views of scripture.

Thegrandverbalizer here seems to suggest that the reason why Christians understand the Torah and the Prophets differently than today's Jews is because of our presuppositions. As if Jews, or anyone else for that matter, don't have presuppositions.

²¹ For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. ²² Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom, ²³ but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, ²⁴ but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. - 1 Corinthians 1:21-24

Outreach Judaism-Way of The Master

This is a link to the exchange in question. I've embedded it here.

Some times I do not understand why talk show host have to be smug with their comments.

I'm not sure how Todd Frielwas smug. What is it that Thegrandverbalizer is seeing?

However, the Rabbi made a good point that Christians have more hostility towards Islam than they do towards Buddhism and other faiths.

Did Thegrandverbalizer not hear the Rabbi refer to Islam being a threat to Israel, all Jews, and Christians? Why does Thegrandverbalixer only focus on Christian "hostility".

Notice that the Radio Host did not contest that point. The Rabbi was talking about the suffering that the people of Israel have suffered at the hands of Christians (Catholic, Protestant, Evangelical) you name it through the years.

Why should Friel contest the point? It's true that some Christians persecuted Jews and that is stupid. I don't understand why would  Christians hates Jews. It's stupid. Jesus was a Jew. All of his first followers were Jews. Just because someone claims to be "Christian" doesn't make them a Christian. antisemitism is a sure sign that one is not a Christian.

Of course that struck a cord with the radio host and he tried to say 'well that's different'.

I think you can't conflate things all willy-nilly. In the New Testament, it was Jews who hunted down and killed Christians in the beginning.  Both were wrong. Even today the first century Rabbi, Gamaeli said something worth repeating regarding his contemporaries who were Christians. 

³³ When they heard this, they were furious and wanted to put them to death. ³⁴ But a Pharisee named Gamaliel, a teacher of the law, who was honored by all the people, stood up in the Sanhedrin and ordered that the men be put outside for a little while. ³⁵ Then he addressed the Sanhedrin: “Men of Israel, consider carefully what you intend to do to these men. ³⁶ Some time ago Theudas appeared, claiming to be somebody, and about four hundred men rallied to him. He was killed, all his followers were dispersed, and it all came to nothing. ³⁷ After him, Judas the Galilean appeared in the days of the census and led a band of people in revolt. He too was killed, and all his followers were scattered. ³⁸ Therefore, in the present case I advise you: Leave these men alone! Let them go! For if their purpose or activity is of human origin, it will fail. ³⁹ But if it is from God, you will not be able to stop these men; you will only find yourselves fighting against God.”- Acts 5:33-39

The Rabbi counters mentioning the fact that Martin Luther (A Christ filled Christian) said many hateful and evil things about Jewish people.

He mentions that Calvin and other (Christ filled Christians) have gone on record to say hateful things about Jewish people.

Thegrandverbalizer seems to imply that if a person was truly sprit-filled they would be unable to make the mistakes and judgments that Luther and Calvin did against Jews, but he seems to forget the Peter made a similar error and Paul called him on it,.

Was Peter wrong? Yup. Does that mean that he was not Holy Spirit filled? No.

For those interested I did a blog entry about Martin Luther's notorious book "The Jews and their Lies"

You can find that link here: http://www.acommonword.net/2010/04/jews-and-their-lies-by-martin-luther.html

I also had to call out a Protestant blog that specializes in Martin Luther's literature to condemn Anti Jewish Hate Literature! Ken Temple and James Swan (major contributors to a blog that holds Martin Luther in high esteem) to their credit did condemn Martin Luther for his vile and hate filled statements and distanced themselves from it.

http://www.acommonword.net/2010/04/call-upon-beggars-all-to-condemn-anti.html

You can find the comments at the bottom of the entry above where Ken Temple says,

"So, yes, we condemn Luther’s Anti-Semitism and course language. Many believe he was not being racially hateful, but he was speaking theologically. But that is no excuse for the sin of that kind of language.

Ken"

You know I am glad that they did that. Just as I as a Muslim condemn any hate filled rhetoric by Hamas, Hezbollah or political organization that takes issue with occupation of Palestine.

Me too. And I've got to admit I have read thegrandverbalizer make such repudiations to his credit.

However, what is deeply troubling for me as a Muslim is how Martin Luther was still held in such high esteem by Christians. Was Martin Luther 'Christ filled' when he made those statements?

Was Martin Luther "filled with the Holy Spirit of God" when he made those hateful and ugly statements?

It's worth looking at how Paul corrected  Peter

¹¹ When Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. ¹²¹³ The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray. For before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group.
 ¹⁴ When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in front of them all, “You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?
 ¹⁵ “We who are Jews by birth and not sinful Gentiles ¹⁶ know that a person is not justified by the works of the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in^[d] Christ and not by the works of the law, because by the works of the law no one will be justified.
 ¹⁷ “But if, in seeking to be justified in Christ, we Jews find ourselves also among the sinners, doesn’t that mean that Christ promotes sin? Absolutely not! ¹⁸ If I rebuild what I destroyed, then I really would be a lawbreaker.
 ¹⁹ “For through the law I died to the law so that I might live for God. ²⁰ I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I now live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. ²¹ I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!”- Galations 2:11-21 

It's also worth pointing out that Peter repented of his sin. I don't know if Luther repented of his sin against Jews (I hope so) but as the original articles on Beggar's All blog site show it's a lot more complicated than thegrandverbalizer tries to make it out to be.

Think of the following passage from the New Testament and think of Martin Luther (a saved Christian one of the elect of God)

5 And ye know that he was manifested to take away our sins; and in him is no sin.
6 Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him.
7 Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous.
8 He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.
9 Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.
10 In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother.
11 For this is the message that ye heard from the beginning, that we should love one another.
12 Not as Cain, who was of that wicked one, and slew his brother. And wherefore slew he him? Because his own works were evil, and his brother's righteous. (1 John 3:5-12)

Now think of a man filled with the Holy Spirit filled over flowing with the cup of Christ compassion and warmth saying the following things about the Jewish people. If I didn't know better I could have sworn the following came from Adolf Hitler at a speech in Berlin in the 1930s.

" They are full of the "devil's feces ... which they wallow in like swine." The synagogue was a "defiled bride, yes, an incorrigible whore and an evil slut ..." He argues that their synagogues and schools be set on fire, their prayer books destroyed, rabbis forbidden to preach, homes razed, and property and money confiscated. They should be shown no mercy or kindness, afforded no legal protection, and these "poisonous envenomed worms" should be drafted into forced labor or expelled for all time. He also seems to advocate their murder, writing "[w]e are at fault in not slaying them."

My sincere apologies to the reader has I have digressed. However, I feel it was necessary to give some substance to what the Rabbi said concerning Protestant Christianity's reformers.

Yes, Luther was wrong, but thegrandverbalizer makes misuse of 1st John 3:5-12. John is not saying that a person who is filled by the Spirit never sins and never makes a mistake again. Sinless perfection is not a reality of any living person, no matter you religious persuasion, knows anything about. Neither did Paul (See Romans 7). We are not righteous or obtain salvation for what we do, but by what Jesus did for us.  John is talking about sinful unrepentance.

The Radio Show Host said that Luther did not write books condemning Jews? Either he is a) ignorant or he is b) not being honest.

Christians are allowed to be dishonest because Robert Morey said so! You will also see that the Christian does indeed lie because he doesn't keep to his promise to the Rabbi (very typical).

Who cares what Robert Morey says if the Bible says the opposite? The Bible tells us not to lie and that God hates lying. The Bible clearly says God hates lying more than he hates homosexuality.. What I want to know what does thegrandverabalizer have to say about the Qur'an that says it's okay for Muslims to lie to non-Muslims?

The Qur'an:
Qur'an (16:106) - Establishes that there are circumstances that can “compel” a Muslim to tell a lie.
Qur'an (3:28) - This verse tells Muslims not to take those outside the faith as friends, unless it is to “guard themselves.” 
Qur'an (9:3) - “…Allah and His Messenger are free from liability to the idolaters…”  The dissolution of oaths with the pagans who remained at Mecca following its capture.  They did nothing wrong, but were evicted anyway.
Qur'an (2:225) - “Allah will not call you to account for thoughtlessness in your oaths, but for the intention in your hearts”
Qur'an (66:2) - “Allah has already ordained for you, (O men), the dissolution of your oaths”
Qur'an (3:54) - “And they (the disbelievers) schemed, and Allah schemed (against them): and Allah is the best of schemers.”  The Arabic word used here for scheme (or plot) is makara, which literally means deceit.  If Allah is deceitful toward unbelievers, then there is little basis for denying that Muslims are allowed to do the same. (See also
8:30 and 10:21)
Taken collectively these verses are interpreted to mean that there are circumstances when a Muslim may be “compelled” to deceive others for a greater purpose.


Islam Permits Lying to Deceive Unbelievers and Bring World Domination!

The Christian promised to the Rabbi after the commercial break that he would try and convert the Rabbi to a belief of three beings living in community as one god, and the Rabbi would try and bring him back to the God of Israel.

Than the Rabbi had to correct the Radio Host who was trying to play the role of God.

The Christian Radio host says the following:

"I try to convert you and you try to convert me"

I admit I wish Friel wouldn't have tried to go toe-to-toe like that. I don't think there was enough time and some key points were missed.

The Rabbi had to correct him that it is God who converts (not we human beings) So the Christian once again says,

"You try and make me a Jew and I will try and make you a Christian of course God doing it"

Now of course the Christian could have let the Rabbi go first after the break, but he decided to take the first shot. (Note) The Christian did not give the Rabbi a chance to convert him.

I'd like to know what recording thegrandverbalizer listened to because I heard the rabbi give a clear argument for why and how a person should become a Jew instead of a Christian. . 

So the Christian gives his spill about has the Rabbi walked perfect before God keeping all the commandments etc (basically is he perfect). The Rabbi quoted scripture showing what the JEWISH definition of Righteousness is as given in the scripture.

If you asked Gamaliel the same question, I don't think he would have given the same answer as  Rabbi Singer. It's important to keep in mind that Rabbi Singer said in the beginning that the Bible is not his source of authority  but that its the  Prophets of Israel.

The Christian only gave Philosophical arguments (how can you stand before a Holy God) note this is the Christian presupposition superimposed upon the Rabbi.

The Rabbi brought up the points that you can Repent (turn back) to God.

No Bible-believing Christian would disagree. The issue is how does your debt get paid? 

  ³ “As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign LORD, you will no longer quote this proverb in Israel. ⁴ For everyone belongs to me, the parent as well as the child—both alike belong to me. The one who sins is the one who will die.- Ezekiel 18:3-4

The Christian makes the mistake of saying that a sin completely cuts you off from God unless there is some offering of blood. The Rabbi shows this is not the case. No Sacrifice to God!

So the Christian prefaces his statement with the following:

"Very quickly than we will let you scoot" -Basically the Christian is realizing that this discussion is not going the way they want so we will 'let you scoot'.

Um...how does thegrandverbalizer know that?

You can see during the exchange the Christian starts to grumble, and mumble, yeah well mmm alright. You can see that the Christian is the one who is not happy with what the scripture says.

Where is that? A lot of scripture was not brought out that should have been. 

The Rabbi brought him scripture and irrefutable example that his Christian presupposition that he gets from Paul that he starts to superimpose upon Judaism is absolutely untenable!

How is that?

¹⁰ “‘I will set my face against any Israelite or any foreigner residing among them who eats blood, and I will cut them off from the people. ¹¹ For the life of a creature is in the blood, and I have given it to you to make atonement for yourselves on the altar; it is the blood that makes atonement for one’s life. ¹² Therefore I say to the Israelites, “None of you may eat blood, nor may any foreigner residing among you eat blood.”- Leviticus 17:10-12

No one who reads the Bible would say that repentance is not  necessary to restore your relationship with God, but the Bible also clearly shows that there must be something sacrificed to propitiate the debts we have incurred to God. Jesus is the fulfillment of the Atonement. The ancient sacrificial system was symbolic of what Jesus did for us.

So the Christian tries to take one last shot by saying within the Mosaic covenant was a system of sacrifice and 'Let us just leave it as that because you and I have a different hermeneutic"

Obviously, Jews, Christians, and Muslims use differing hermeneutics!

Interesting! Note as well the Christian didn't give the Rabbi a chance to convert him! Ha! ha! Typical!

I think the grandverbalizer missed it. All of the Rabbi's arguments were apologetic in nature.

So this brings me back to what the Creator said about this on going feud between the Jews and Christians here:

The Jews say, "The Christians have nothing to stand on," and the Christians say, 'The Jews have nothing to stand on" Yet they (all) quote from the [same] Book. Likewise those who do not know make a statement similar to theirs. God will judge between them on Resurrection Day concerning how they have been differing." (Holy Qur'an 2:113)

You maybe interested in seeing the link: http://www.acommonword.net/2010/11/rabbi-declares-islam-mankinds-original.html

I don't think that the Qur'an correctly expresses what Christians and Jews believe. No one knows what we believe if they use the Qur'an alone as a source.

The Rabbi's final words were "BLESS YOU"

The Christian's final words were "GOOD BYE"

WHICH HAD MORE GRACE AND LOVE ???

I don't think either Friel or Rabbi Singer were mean, rude, or ingracious. I'd really like to see what thegrandverbalizer thinks that Friel said that was loveless or graceless.

Marcus McElhaney (A Christian gentleman who is still searching for the truth) is very fond of coming over to my blog and lifting material from me from time to time I don't think he will want to publish this over at his blog.

Than again who knows?

Well, I think what is even more interesting question is will thegrandverbalizer answer these questions and explain what exactly Todd Friel said that was out of pocket.  I appreciated Rabbi Singer. He gave some great information about Jewish history and culture, I just found some disagreement with the Rabbi's theological conclusions.

Islam and Christianity A Common Word: Rabbi Singer takes Evangelical Radio Host to Task.

Related articles

• Rabbi Tovia Singer to Debate Christian Minister Sunday (israelnationalnews.com)
• Pentecost And The Vatican II Tree (mundabor.wordpress.com)
• Religion In Brief (bendbulletin.com)
• Christian Support for Israel (via Rabbi Pruzansky's Blog) (hidf1.wordpress.com)
• Rabbi: Stop Cooperating with Christians (israelnationalnews.com)

Beggars All: Reformation And Apologetics: Which Writings of Luther Did Hitler Use?

Image via Wikipedia
                            Image via Wikipedia
James Swan has posted an interesting article responding to the charge that Hitler was inspired to exterminate Jews because of the work of Martin Luther. Yeah, I laughed too, but there are people who really think that is a worthy argument to understand what happened in Nazi Germany and why it happened.

Beggars All: Reformation And Apologetics: Which Writings of Luther Did Hitler Use?

 

 

 Related articles

• Martin Luther: On the Folly of 'Apologetics' and the Misery of the Gospel's Opponents (zwingliusredivivus.wordpress.com)
• What were the effects for Hitler to become the leader if the Nazi party (wiki.answers.com)
• Was Adolf Hitler a Roman Catholic? (socyberty.com)

FacePalm #47 - Debunking Christianity: Why Should Anyone Believe?

John Loftus posted the following statement

I maintain there is no way to conclude Jesus bodily arose from the grave even if he did. I can even grant you for the sake of your argument the existence of Yahweh and that he does miracles, but this changes very little. For the evidence shows us that an overwhelming large percentage of the Jews in Jesus' day did not believe even though they knew their Scriptures and even though they were there. So why should I believe? Why should anyone?

Totally silly. He states this as if no one has ever raised this objection and that there has never been an answer given. The Bible itself not only raises the objection but answers it.

³⁰ What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; ³¹ but the people of Israel, who pursued the law as the way of righteousness, have not attained their goal. ³² Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works. They stumbled over the stumbling stone. ³³ As it is written: “See, I lay in Zion a stone that causes people to stumble
and a rock that makes them fall,
and the one who believes in him will never be put to shame.” - Romans 9: 31-33

And

¹ Brothers and sisters, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for the Israelites is that they may be saved. ² For I can testify about them that they are zealous for God, but their zeal is not based on knowledge. ³ Since they did not know the righteousness of God and sought to establish their own, they did not submit to God’s righteousness. ⁴ Christ is the culmination of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes. - Romans 10:1-4

Debunking Christianity: Why Should Anyone Believe?

Dr. Claude Mariottini - Professor of Old Testament: The Tomb of Esther and Mordecai

Dr Mariottini posted a link to a news article that describes plans some people have in Iran to destroy the tomb of Queen Esther and her cousin Mordecai in response to “alleged Israeli plans to damage the Al Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem.” Dr Mariottini further quoted:

Iranians believe that Esther and Mordecai were responsible for the massacre of 75 thousand Iranians in a single day, an event which the Jews celebrate at Purim. According to Iranians “the annual Jewish festival of Purim is celebrated by Jews to commemorate this ‘Iranian Holocaust.’”

This is the most interesting part of the post to me because I didn't know that there was even such a viewpoint in Iran existed regarding Purim. According to the book of Esther, those 75,000 citizens of the Persian Empire dided because the Jews defended themselves the day that it was decreed that all Jews were supposed to be killed. This was in the Persian Empire and both the attempted extermination and the Jews' defending themselves were decreed by King Xerxes - emperor of the Persian Empire. Goes to show that people can view the same incident 100% opposite.

Dr. Claude Mariottini - Professor of Old Testament: The Tomb of Esther and Mordecai

Who Wrote Isaiah? Part 1

Image via Wikipedia
In a recent post, I critiqued a post from John Loftus in which a book by Jonathon Pearce is promoted. The book is called  Free Will?: An investigation into whether we have free will, or whether I was always going to write this book. There was a quote from the book suggesting that God only care about Israel and never intervened in the lives of anyone other people in the Old Testament. I gave several examples of how the Bible does not support this.

Ryan Anderson seems to be very interested in commenting and trying to "debunk" the things I write. I thank God for that because at least he reads what I write. Amazingly, his problem with the post isn't with my point...it's with one of the texts I referenced Isaiah 45:13. What I wrote was:

It's a bold statement to say that God did not intervene in any of the rest of the world outside of Israel during antiquity. How would you know that? God plainly says He is in control of everything - not just with what concerns Israel. A simple example: God claims that Cyrus is his agent centuries before Cyrus is even born.

"I will raise up Cyrus in my righteousness: I will make all his ways straight. He will rebuild my city and set my exiles free, but not for a price or reward, says the LORD Almighty.” - Isaiah 45:13

Cyrus was the emperor of the Persian Empire who ended the 70 year exile of the Jews after the destruction of Jerusalem and the first Temple in 586 BC. Isaiah was written in the 8th Century BC.

Ryan Anderson Wrote:

Two points on Isaiah, 1) since the earliest manuscript of Isaiah is from the 1st century BCE, that "prophecy" is less than amazing... and 2) we have three different Isaiah authors, one for 1-39, another for 40-55 and another for 56-66. You can't use the date for chapters 1-39 for the other sections and claim "prophecy".

The ensuing exchange culminated in his asking me to explain why do I reject multiple authorship theories for the book of Isaiah. I am going to reference a few outside references. I do not see any reason to believe that the prophet and priest known as Isaiah did not write all 66 Chapters of Isaiah.

What are the reasons why people advance the ideas of multiple authors of Isaiah?

The critical schools deny that Isaiah wrote the latter chapters of 40-66 for basically three reasons. First the name of Isaiah is not mentioned in these chapters, second the material does not seem to fit the time period of Isaiah and third the style of Hebrew is different from the rest of Isaiah.^a

From another source.

Advocates of this theory attempt to demonstrate that the style, theology and background of Isaiah 1–39 are unlike those of either 40–55 or 56–66.Second Isaiah—but not First—they argue, depicts God in purely monotheistic terms. Also, First Isaiah is seen as a prophet of judgment, who placed his hopes on the Davidic king, and Second Isaiah a prophet of comfort who pinned his expectations on the Lord’s suffering servant.

More substantial are the arguments focusing on the backgrounds of the respective chapters.The Old Testament prophets in general are widely understood to have written from their own unique historical situations.Even if one acknowledges that Isaiah could have predicted the Babylonian captivity, it is argued, it is unlikely that he wrote chapters 40–55,since those texts were written from within the context of captivity. Also, the Persian king Cyrus (c.539 B.C.) is mentioned by name in 44:28 and 45:1, 13, suggesting that Cyrus was a contemporary of the author of chapters 40–55.The background of Third Isaiah is posited to be different again. By this point Jerusalem had been rebuilt, its citizens no longer under threat from either Assyria or Babylon.^b

Who were the First to Advance these Ideas?

I. Period Before Modern Critical Scholarship

1. The first person to question Isaiah's authorship of chapters 40-66 was Moses ibn Gekatilla (2nd century A.D.)
   1. His views were preserved and adopted by a prominent medieval Jewish scholar, Ibn Ezra.

II. Period of Modern Scholarship

1. The German Johann Doederlein (lived in the 1700s)
   1. In 1789 he argued that chapters 40-66 were written during the exile
   2. He made this assertion because he couldn't believe that an eighth century writer could have predicted the fall of Jerusalem (587 B.C.), much less the rise of Cyrus the Great, who restored the exiles in 538 B.C.
2. Ernst Rosenmueller from Leipzig (1768-1835)
   1. He expressed doubts about chapters 13 and 14.
   2. His reasoning was, "If Isaiah could not have written chapters 40-66 because it predicts things he never saw, how could he have written a similar set of predictions in these chapters?"
      1. Rosenmueller began the process of denying Isaiah's authorship of much of chapters 1-39.
3. Bernard Duhm and K. Marti - Rise of Trito-Isaiah Theory

1. Around the turn of the last century--from 1892 to 1900) Bernard Duhm and K. Marti claimed that they had found evidence--from the text of Isaiah itself--that chapters 56-66 were written by Trito-Isaiah (and should be separated from chapters 40-55).
   1. They argued that Trito-Isaiah wrote his material in Jerusalem around the time of Ezra (450 B.C.)
   2. Duhm argued that Jewish writers inserted their own writings throughout the book of Isaiah (as late as the first century B.C.).
   3. In this view the book of Isaiah--far from being the work of one man, was a patchwork quilt of helter-skelter insertions and editings by anonymous Jews.

(See Reference c)

My Take

As I stated in my arguments in my comments in the other thread there is no reason at all to add more than one author. A change in subject from chapters 1-39, 40-55, and 56-66 do not at all mean that someone else is writing. From the first century, Jews understood that the Messiah was coming through David. There is no change in subject matter...it is all about God. Isaiah contains not just the promise of the Messiah but also the punishment and exile of Judah, and it's restoration!!! The return from Babylon and the future restoration of the world to true peace.

He will judge between the nations and will settle disputes for many peoples. They will beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks. Nation will not take up sword against nation, nor will they train for war anymore. - Isaiah 2:4

Added to the fact that people supposed multiple authors because they could not understand how a man could give such details to things that he did not see or experience. I don't understand the confusion. It's simple: That is what one would expect from a true prophet of the true and living God.

For prophecy never had its origin in the human will, but prophets, though human, spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.- 2 Peter 1:21

I also came across this detailed well-crafted essay:
Authorship Analysis of the Book of Isaiah

Further references:
a. Isaiah
b. Multiple Authorship Theories of Isaiah
c.Multiple Authorship Theories of Isaiah
d. Authorship Analysis of the Book of Isaiah