As Christians we honor Judaism and the people who follow Moses. Christians do not replace Jews as God's chosen people; we are only added in. Paul wrote in Romans 11:17-21 says:
If some of the branches have been broken off, and you, though a wild olive shoot, have been grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing sap from the olive root, do not boast over those branches. If you do, consider this: You do not support the root, but the root supports you. You will say then, "Branches were broken off so that I could be grafted in." Granted. But they were broken off because of unbelief, and you stand by faith. Do not be arrogant, but be afraid. For if God did not spare the natural branches, he will not spare you either.
This reminds me that it is antichrist to be antisemitic. On the other extreme because Jews were given with "the oracles of God" and it's through them that we have all that we have, even Jesus, some of us seem to think that if a manuscript is both ancient and written by a Jew then it must be scripture. This is most definitely not true. If you, again, apply 2 Timothy 3:16,17 and 2 Peter 1:16-21 it it clear to see what scripture and what is not. I want to be clear that I am not saying anything against Jews. They have been a continuous culture for thousands of years while many other cultures have died out. Why? Because God preserved the Jews as He promised Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, David, and all the rest. Without question the 39 books of the Old Testament was inspired by the Holy Spirit as described by Peter in 2 Peter 1:16-21. What about the story of Lilith? The Book of the Jubilees? The Talmud? The Zohar? Kabbalah? Why are they not scripture? Judaism has by-and-large managed to stay pure. Most of the sects came from bringing in outside teachings and traditions from their neighbors when they were scattered throughout the world. I think one argument for the authenticity of the Old Testament is how those extraneous ideas were kept out of the Old Testament. God pulled a miracle. Let's take them one at a time.
The legend of
Lilith seems to have entered Judaism from the time they were in exile among the Babylonians. Some Jews took their legends and used them to answer questions that didn't need the infusion of
a first wife for Adam other than Eve. Many people fall into the same trap looking at Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 as two separate stories for creation. Some people even think they contradict one another. They don't. Traditional Jews and Christians interpret Genesis 2 as a detailed account of what happened in Genesis 1, focusing on the sixth day of creation. Genesis 1 is merely a summary of all that happened. However, being influenced by Babylonian/Sumerian creation myths about a female demon named Lilith who seduces men, sucks their blood, and kills babies if they are not ritually clean as prescribed in the Old Testament laws, some rabbis began (and some still do) that in Genesis 1, Adam had a first wife created at the same time and in the same way he was. They said this woman was Lilith and said that she was cursed by God to be a demon because she refused to submit herself to Adam. They cite that she would let Adam lay on top when they had sex because she said that she was equal to Adam why couldn't she be on top (I think this part was added in medieval times) . This lead to the first divorce and that was why Eve was created and taken from Adam's side to show that women came out of men so they are subordinate to men. (Remember, this is the legend - not scripture). See the difference? Scripture tells us God never makes mistakes. If you accept this you think that God gave Adam the wrong woman and then He had to fix it with Eve. There is nothing in Genesis 1 and 2 that can lead you to thinking that the two women are not the same person. If you disagree then why assume that the man is the same person in both chapters. Some scholars also think that this story may be a base for vampire legends. However, I think that it was made up to legitimate the second-class status of women which is also non-scriptural. Does it make sense to call it scripture? No! See the picture on the right and above for a picture of what inspired the myth.
What about the
Book of Jubilees? As I understand it is a summary and commentary on some parts of the book of Genesis. Sometimes it's called
Little Genesis. If we have the whole book, why include a re-telling a part of it? I'm not advocating not reading it, just giving a reason why it's not canonical. As for the Talmud, it has rabbinical sayings, teachings, and commentary on the scriptures. I've actually read a book summarizing much of this information and i think it's worth reading but rabbinical commentary is not something that you can totally base your faith on. For example, due to King David's standing, some rabbis try to mitigate, if not outright deny, his sin of adultery with Bathsheba and then covering it up by murdering her husband. The scriptures say David was wrong. David said he was wrong. Yet these men attempt to justify David's actions.
Another example is a quote another first century Jewish rabbi who said (paraphrasing) "Do nothing to others that you do not want done to yourself. All Else is commentary. Now go learn the commentary. The guy who said this was not Jesus. I can't remember his name. But if you think about what he said it is no where near as binding as what Jesus said. The other statement of the golden rule is passive. As long as you hurt no one, you don't have to go out of your way to help others. What Jesus said was different in Matthew 7:12:
So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.
If you do what Jesus said, you cannot be passive. You not only do no harm to others but you help them, feed them, clothe them, teach them, love them. It's a subtle difference but sets scripture apart. The people of Jesus' day were of course amazed if they were hearing teaching like what the other guy was preaching.
As for the Zohar an
d Kabbalah, I think that they are reactions against Christians telling Jews that we have something they didn't. They are referred by many as part of Jewish mysticism and in no way contemporaneous with any Old Testament writer. They date to the middle ages in written form but are said to date back much further in an oral tradition. The other thing to remember is that Jewish mysticism has a lot in common with Christian mysticism. The thought that we can, by some way other than believing scripture, we can gain secret knowledge and access to God. Many of the ideas are based on the idea that God spoke the universe into existence using Hebrew, and if we knew what God said we can do the things he does. The legend of the
Golem (picture opn the left) is a good example. The thought that if we knew what words God used to take Adam's lifeless body made of dust and put life into it, we could being a body made of mud together to protect us. Or that God has put a secret code hidden in the text of the first five books of the Bible. If we can break the code we can tell the future (today's Christians fall for this one too, I know I did.)
We have the antidote for any heresy or false teaching that rears its ugly head. All we have to do is ask, "Does this fit with what God has already revealed?" If it does, go with it. If not ignore it whenever possible, and stand against it if you have to.
thinking the other day about a bunch of characters I would love to find. Some of them are being developed right now by folks all over the world. I made playlist of videos these creators have created showing the characters that I am interested in. I put the playlist on my other blog: "Favorite Fiction". Every once a while I've been "googling" for these characters to see if they are complete or not. It got me thinking: "it sure would be nice if i had tool where I can take a list of my characters and search for them all with one click." I don't want to just put them all in a seach field but I want to run 10 searches for 10 characters and get 10 different result set. Unfortunately, I could find no such software. So I thought, I'd write one.
