 |
| Pâ•qidꞋ Yi•rᵊmᵊyâhꞋu |
2004.04.21, Time Magazine cover story, 2004.04.12 – Like Easter, every Christian view of the significance of the crucifixion, blood and resurrection of Christ was developed many centuries after the fact. Any widely recognized encyclopedia will confirm for the reader that, prior to its adoption by the Church in 196 C.E., Easter was a idolatrous festival commemorating the idol-GoddessIshtar (i.e., Ashtoret). Christmas, the birthday of the Roman sun-God, was adopted several centuries after that and Christian doctrines of crucifixion and salvation not until the Middle Ages. This leaves entirely unanswered what the Biblical Mâ•shiꞋakh, the Pᵊrush•iꞋ RibꞋi called Yᵊho•shuꞋa of Nâ•tzᵊr•atꞋ, taught and how his original disciples – the Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ, who were Pᵊrush•imꞋ Jews like their RibꞋi – viewed their significance.
One result of the Gibson movie, the Time Magazine article notes, may be that Christians "all may be more inclined to ponder a question… [that] in fact has divided theologians and clergy for centuries, with no end in sight, Why – really – was [RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa] crucified? … what was the cosmic reason for his agony? What is its purpose, its divine calculus? How precisely does his death, usually referred to in this context as the atonement, lead to the salvation of humanity? … Without at least an intuitive comprehension of atonement, a believer stands little chance of making sense of the faith's promises of redemption and eternal life" (Time Magazine, loc. cit.). Stated more succinctly, if Christian atonement isn't logically compatible with the Immutable Almighty of Israel in His úÌåÉøÈä, the Jewish Bible (Ma•lâkh•iꞋ 3.6), then it cannot flow from the Omniscient of the úÌåÉøÈä – and if not from the Omniscient of the úÌåÉøÈä then from whom – or what??? 
Few have given serious thought to these questions, to ask why, for centuries, Christians had no answer to them, and saw none of today's Christian significance, in the suffering and death of the first century Jew and Pᵊrush•iꞋ RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa. Nor does it seem to bother Christians that, before the development of these theories "correcting" Christianity, the Church, the pope and Christianity were previously, therefore, wrong. (In fact, the enterprising seeker who carefully checks out the facts will also discover that the list of all of the popes before 135 C.E. was "fabricated" by Hegesippus after 135 C.E. and that there is no reliable record of any of them.) Since Christianity was, until the Middle Ages "corrections," wrong, what possible reason was there to follow Christianity before the development of these Middle Ages theories? How could Middle Ages corrections fix a "divinely inspired" imperfect – self-contradicting – God and religion? Beyond that, why do Christians follow Middle Ages men, who teach the exact opposite of what RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa taught, who were gentiles unable to even read the Hebrew Bible they claimed to fulfill; instead of following the first century Jew they claim to follow and the Jewish Bible he proclaimed to be the authority and identifying with his people – the Jews – instead of hating and persecuting them? (The Διαθηκη Καινη (NT) didn't come along until centuries later and, the earliest Christian historian – Eusebius – recorded, was rejected by the original Jewish followers of RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa as apostasy.)
Until the gentile Christians in later centuries developed their new theories, the original Judaic perspectives remained not only authoritative but "the only game in town."
Let's examine some of the implications of the Christian reasoning raised by the Time Magazine cover story (loc. cit.). Pondering what he had seen in Gibson's movie, David Gray of the men's Bible study group of the Episcopal Church in Geneva, Illinois asked why, in the Almighty's plan, did Christ have to suffer like this? Another in the group suggested that the Almighty needed to give the life of Christ a dramatic ending, which was promptly seconded. The Almighty needed something?!? 
The Almighty is Perfect, needing nothing. The implication of their speculation? The capricious (contrary to Einstein) Christian God is so unjust that he commits divine child abuse in the extreme – torture – for no other reason than the capricious wish to provide a dramatic ending? By definition, that God isn't the Almighty of Israel and the Jewish Bible! In fact, such a perverse and unjust figure is no better than the idolatrous God and even inferior to humans, the epitomy of the very opposite of the Just Almighty of Israel!
A second answer offered by the group is "obedience." The implication, then of Christ's life? If you are obedient the reward is torture and death! By definition, that God isn't the Almighty of Israel and the Jewish Bible!
In the most conspicuous of non-sequiturs, Mr. Gray then "concludes" that "it physically had to happen. I'm not sure I would have said that before I saw the movie. But now it's much clearer to me. I can't say why he had to suffer the way he did. But Christ had to die." He has no idea why and that's "clear" to him! 
Indeed, Gibson's movie seems to be about the Christian institution of the inmates, made by the inmates, and for the inmates.
The implication of this theory? The Διαθηκη Καινη (NT) (e.g. Jn. 14.12) requires that his authentic followers not only be like him in obedience, but do even greater things that he did!!! So, to be saved, a Christian must be obedient in dying a more torturous martyrdom… than the crucifixion or, for example, mere Muslim martyrs. Or are Muslim martyrs following a more true religion than Christians? Here is the wellspring of primitive savage religious terrorism, blood-thirst and barbarism. Indeed, both religions are cynical manipulations of ignorant pawns by self-obsessed clerics and religious institutions.
The 'substitutionary atonement' (scapegoat) theory suffers some of the same contradictions. As stated by an anonymous observer, "The problems with the classic Christian theology [of substitutionary atonement] are the glorification of death and suffering, the encouragement of scapegoating and making forgiveness the burden of the victim." We see this evidenced every day in the global media coverage of Israeli victims blamed for Muslim Arab atrocities and war crimes. Constant reminders emulating suffering on the cross is a cynical, calculating and manipulative deception to control and take money from ignorant and gullible suckers.
The most quoted verse in Christian evangelism is Jn. 3.16: "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten son that whoseover believes in him shall have everlasting life." But how is one scapegoat any different from others – soldiers and the like – who give their lives for others? There is a tendency to answer that, granted, it makes no sense but it's Bible "so I believe it." But neither the Hellenist (i.e., idolatrous) Greek Gospels nor the remainder of the Διαθηκη Καινη (NT) reflects the teachings of RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa nor his original Jewish followers, the Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ. The authoritative Interpreter's Dictionary of the New Testament notes that the Διαθηκη Καινη (NT) is corrupted by thousands of redactions subsequent to 135 C.E. at the hands of gentile Hellenist Roman idolaters, all reworking and molding the text to morph and conform to harmonize with their native, gentile, Hellenist-Christian doctrines emerging in the idolatrous Roman empire, doctrines of the same Jewish Hellenist-Tzᵊdoq•imꞋ "Wicked Priests" (ko•han•imꞋ hâ-RëshꞋa) and gentile Hellenist Roman occupiers who tortured and crucified RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa. Look at what you're following!!!
The theme of Jn. 3.16 is child sacrifice. The text doesn't say that Christ sacrificed himself, committed suicide, as if that was somehow more acceptable, but that "He gave His only begotten son…" There is no precedent among first century Jews, and that includes RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa as a Pᵊrush•iꞋ RibꞋi, as well as his original Pᵊrush•imꞋ disciples, for child sacrifice. According to the úÌåÉøÈä that RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa and his disciples taught, child sacrifice was idolatry to Moloch (wa-Yi•qᵊr•âꞋ 18.21).
Precedents in úÌåÉøÈä, by contrast, are Yi•tzᵊkhâqꞋ, whom Av•râ•hâmꞋ was inspired to spare rather than offer as child sacrifice, and Yo•seiphꞋ, who, spared from death at the hands of some of his brothers, is later discovered to be alive and vizier of Egypt. Yi•tzᵊkhâqꞋ and Yo•seiphꞋ, despite not experiencing actual death, are spoken of in Judaic literature as thereafter living an after-life, after their "resurrection".
The practice of checking sepulchers on the third day, probably universal in the first century Jewish community, attests that death in ancient times – as certified by lack of discernible movement or condensation of breath on a bronze mirror – wasn't always final. There were no modern medical instruments to ascertain brain death in ancient times. If someone looked dead and no breath or pulse could be observed with the naked eye, the person was pronounced dead and entombed in a sepulcher. But there had been enough instances where, in subsequent burials in the same sepulcher, there was evidence that a "corpse" had desperately tried to get out of the sepulcher, and the practice of checking the sepulcher three days proved, over time, either to release the mistakenly buried or confirm the finality of death. The same is almost certainly true of RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa, who likely passed out on the cross and appeared dead, only to be revive and leave his sepulcher (opened by someone unidentified) so that it was empty when the women checked it three days later.
When viewed faithfully to the descriptions in úÌåÉøÈä, however, the principle of 'Substitutionary ëÌÄôÌåÌø' is acknowledged, and even given precedent, in the Yom ha-Ki•pur•imꞋ scapegoat – the provision for Israel's national ëÌÄôÌåÌø as an am.
Many Christian hymns focus on "power in the blood," assuming, blindly, with no understanding of why or Biblical justification, that bodily fluids ("water" from his side) and blood from RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa at the crucifixion are "of sin the double cure."
Blood sacrifice is certainly a precept of the Jewish Bible. But how does blood produce reconciliation and how, if at all, does the blood of the Mâ•shiꞋakh apply? (And, if so, which Mâ•shiꞋakh: Mâ•shiꞋakh Bën-Yo•seiphꞋ? Or Mâ•shiꞋakh Bën-Dâ•widꞋ?) Does the Almighty simply demand blood in exchange for sin? What kind of exchange is that and how does that work? Is the Almighty simply a simplistic vindictive and mean God like the other Gods of the Egyptian, Greek and Roman pantheons? How is substitution, a scapegoat, just? Or justified? That's like taking it out on your spouse or kicking your dog because you're angry at your boss. What makes you think it does work? Is your eternal life worth no more to you than a blind assumption relying on what 4th century, Dark Ages, idolatrous gentile Roman Hellenists and European gentiles of the Middle Ages taught? Even aside from the Catholic fixation on the crucifix, a Christian hymn proclaims that on "an old rugged cross… the dearest and best for a world of lost sinners was slain." The song is sung unquestioningly and its doctrine blindly assumed; without understanding, without even a thought. Answering the central question of the working of blood sacrifice, atonement, crucifixion, resurrection and salvation – rather than blindly following gentile idolaters of Dark through Middle Ages Europe – is absolutely essential to a true and real atonement that rises above false pretense that are blindly assumed.
Christians go to great lengths to explain "at-one-ment," as if an English word were the operative term. Truth is – for those rare individuals who insist on digging-out and following truth – not even the idolatrous gentile Hellenist Greek καταλλαγή of the Διαθηκη Καινη (NT) is the operative term. The classic Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words describes at-one-ment as "entirely fanciful." The operative term is the original Hebrew term, which the Hellenist Greek καταλλαγή corrupted. The Hebrew term in, lᵊ‑ha•vᵊdilꞋ, the Judaic Bible (Ta•na"khꞋ) is ëÌÄôÌåÌø.
"Sin" is an amorphous Christian term. Since Christians have "freedom from the law of sin and death," meaning – in true miso-Judaic tradition – the Christian doctrine of supersession of úÌåÉøÈä, "sin" means only whatever the given Christian doesn't like, and doesn't include anything that given Christian doesn't want it to include. In other words, "sin" is a Christian term, defined and confined exclusively within Christianity, that is meaningless even within Christianity.
In the úÌåÉøÈä that RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa and his Pᵊrush•imꞋ Jewish disciples practiced and taught, however, there were three terms, each of which described a certain degree of severity in transgressing the mi•tzᵊw•otꞋ úÌåÉøÈä. Each had its own set of sacrifices and stipulations for ëÌÄôÌåÌø. From least severe to most serious they are:
Kheit is an accidental "misstep," which is a misdemeanor transgression of úÌåÉøÈä.
•wonꞋ is a conscious, knowing, transgression of úÌåÉøÈä, a second-degree felony in severity.
PëshꞋa is a rebellious transgression of úÌåÉøÈä, a first-degree felony in severity.
There was no provision of ëÌÄôÌåÌø for any transgression of úÌåÉøÈä without tᵊshuv•âhꞋ – the prior genuine contrition demonstrated by abandoning the transgressing behavior and commensurate return to keeping the mi•tzᵊw•otꞋ úÌåÉøÈä.
Another term begs explanation before further discussion can be meaningful: salvation. Far worse than the case of "at-one-ment," the Hellenist Greek σωτηρία is actually mis-instructive and misleading. In the Judaic – original – Bible (Ta•na"khꞋ), the closest corresponding Hebrew term is éÀùÑåÌòÈä – military or national salvation, which is not usually applied to a personal situation (if ever), and never of a "spiritual salvation."
Glaringly unlike Christianity's emphasis on "personal salvation" (σωτηρία) as a prerequisite for "eternal life" – not paralleling Christian "salvation" at all, lᵊ‑ha•vᵊdilꞋ, the focus in Ta•na"khꞋ makes no connection between éÀùÑåÌòÈä and one's personal right-relationshiop with é‑‑ä.
Rather, Ta•na"khꞋ teaches that ëÌÄôÌåÌø is the only key to a right relationship with é‑‑ä – both national for Israel and personal. Moreover, ëÌÄôÌåÌø is strictly and exclusively limited, by úÌåÉøÈä, to those who do their utmost to keep the teachings of úÌåÉøÈä (not only Jews, but also non-Jews recognized by Jewish religious courts as geir•imꞋ – resident-aliens in the mainstream Jewish community).
It is úÌåÉøÈä-defined ki•purꞋ – only – that provides reconciliation with the Almighty of Israel
only through the graciousness of the Almighty of Israel (no agent, intermediary or representative; particularly not a man-God idol) and
only to those who do their utmost to keep His úÌåÉøÈä.
Christianity got rid of "b", which left a hole they had to fill, resulting in their formulation of the Christian doctrine of "salvation."
As Chicago Theological Seminary's Theodore Jennings Jr. states, "The New Testament is just "all over the map" on the question of why Christ died. The Time Magazine reporter notes that "The book book of Hebrews, for instance, directly appropriates the Jewish sacrificial metaphor, except this time, Jesus is both priest and sacrifice, spilling 'not the blood of goats and calves but his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption'" but unable to explain how or why. "The Gospel of Mark favors Roman legal language for the freeing of slaves: 'the Son of Man came … to give his life as a ransom for many.' The First Epistle of Peter, meanwhile, takes a radically different tack, posing Jesus' trials as occasion for imitation: 'because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you as an example, that you should follow in his steps.' And Paul's letter to the Colossians pauses only briefly at the Cross on its way to the triumphal image of the risen Christ parading demonic enemies in chains: 'He disarmed the principalities and powers and made a public example of them, triumphing over them in him.'
"It was this last model that first caught on. For roughly a thousand years, the church fathers seem to have viewed Christ's suffering and dying less as salvation's all-important tragic fulcrum than as one more necessary step in God's triumphant campaign into the human world and, eventually, the devil's precincts." (Time Magazine, loc. cit.).
Once again, when viewed within the descriptions of úÌåÉøÈä, there is precedent for a washing away in the "Red Heiffer." But this "washing away" was of uncleanness caused by unseen contact with death (i.e. proximity to a cemetery or corpse). However, this is neither a washing away of sin nor by the operation of blood. Rather, the operative agent was a synthetic, completely symbolic, fake "blood" made up of red-dyed water mixed with the ashes of a chestnut-colored cow. This mixture was known as Mei Nid•âhꞋ (waters of a menstruant) because menstruation was the only known natural cleansing for the monthly "death" (loss of an egg) that issued from a woman.
The sacrificial theory was based on the úÌåÉøÈä example of blood sacrifices. The agent of blood was associated by the ancient perspective of its relationship to the life-force. Atonement, as explained above, is a misleading translation of the Hebrew term (ëÌÄôÌåÌø; covering, expiation). Explications based on the English inaccuracy (e.g. "at-one-ment") are as illogical and invalid as explications based on the false Christ-image perversion of RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa, fabricated by 4th century gentile Roman Hellenists.
There is no English counterpart that encapsulates the concept of ëÌÄôÌåÌø. Translations carry the unacceptable baggage of a úÌåÉøÈä-alien – idolatrous – frame of reference inextricably attached to the alien's life experience, alien culture, alien values and alien belief system, dictated by the alien language; an alien context within which the alien must try to interpret the language-, cultural- and religion-corrupted concepts.
Consequently, the meaning has been approximated in English by a variety of synonyms: expiate, blot, expunge, cover, wipe away, etc. To understand the term, as well as its meaning is known, requires familiarization with the scholars' best-guess etymology of the term. This derives from its cognate in Akkadian, found in magical texts in which dirt – kupirtu or takpirty
– was made to disappear by blotting it up with a lump of dough (leaven?), perhaps concealed in the palm of the hand like a magician. Thus, ëÌÄôÌåÌø conveys the idea of blotting-up (sticky-pulling blemishes away) with leaven/dough in the same way that one might use the sticky side of tape to remove lint from a suit or sweater. Similarly, dirt stuck to the lump of dough and "disappeared." This was the most likely meaning of ëÌÄôÌåÌø, for which any English term is entirely inadequate and misleading.
In this way, ëÌÄôÌåÌø, like the lump of dough, which was discarded by the magician, unnoticed by the audience, acquired the connotation of a transferring agent that blotted up and took away ("stuck-and-pulled away"?) the dirt. Another probable offshoot of this concept is Khag ha-Matz•otꞋ, a week during which Jews are required to rid their entire properties of all leaven (which referred, in ancient times, to starter dough). The concept of ëÌÄôÌåÌø as a transferring agent evolved the concept of "blotting up" and taking away spiritual-dirt (transgression of úÌåÉøÈä), primarily embodied in the scapegoat of Yom ha-Ki•pur•imꞋ and the cow whose neck was broken.
Contrary to the rabbinic denial based, on a demonstrably false premise and non sequitur conclusion described, inter alia, in the Encyclopedia Judaica, wa-Yi•qᵊr•âꞋ 17.11 makes perfectly clear that blood was one major – but not exclusive – agent of ëÌÄôÌåÌø.
 |
| Hellenist Decapolis, showing Hellenist cities (along with Pella) Gadara & Gerasa (modern Jordanian cities of Jerash and Umm Qais). |
These concepts, however, still don't explain the superstitious mechanism believed by ancients that, short of exchanging blood, the essence of transgressions against úÌåÉøÈä – associated in ancient times with evil forces (spirits) commonly referred to in modern times as demons – could be transferred from human to an animal sacrifice.
The episode of RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa (The Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ Reconstruction of Hebrew Ma•ti•tᵊyâhꞋu (NHM) 8.28-34) commanding the demonic-forces to leave two Gadarenes demonstrates the ancient belief that [a] demons could be transferred from human-to-animal (as well as human-to-human and animal-to-human) and [b] religious authorities were deemed to have the power to effect such transfers.
It was within this perspective that the animal sacrifice system was operated under the authority of the ko•han•imꞋ of Yi•sᵊr•â•eilꞋ in the Beit ha-Mi•qᵊdâshꞋ (eventually Hellenized to "Temple"). Further, an aura of good or evil, respectively, was thought to surround people, animals, corpses, carcases and cemeteries. While transfer was believed to be effected via the ko•han•imꞋ and and ancient RibꞋis, the closer the proximity between repentant and scapegoat, the more confidence was placed in the transfer, the ideal being firm contact that eliminated any distance between the two. Thus, to effect transference – sᵊmikh•âhꞋ (applied also to transference of ruꞋakh / ordination) – repentants who offered animal sacrifices in the Beit ha-Mi•qᵊdâshꞋ placed both hands between the horns of the sacrifice animal and leaned heavily upon the animal's head to make firm contact.
So how did blood sacrifices provide ëÌÄôÌåÌø, and does blood sacrifice validly symbolize the mission of the Mâ•shiꞋakh?
To understand the ancient perspective one must relate to ancient reasoning. When a soldier was wounded in battle, the wound usually didn't kill the victim. Sometimes it did, but there were exceptions. The wounded soldier could talk, moan and bleed. But when he ran out of blood, he was dead; no exceptions. Therefore (!), however mysteriously, they concluded that life was absorbed in the blood. This is the perspective of wa-Yi•qᵊr•âꞋ 17.11. The ancients probably confused the symptom with the cause – the logical fallacy of post hoc ergo propter hoc, reasoning that the heart stopped pumping because the blood – with the life somewhere therein – was gone, rather than the modern, opposite, understanding. (Corroboratively, this might also explain why ka•shᵊr•utꞋ requires that animals may only be slaughtered by draining the blood until after the heart stops rather than permitting the animal to be stunned, stopping the heart, and then allowing the blood to drain.)
Viewing life as "absorbed" in the blood, and ëÌÄôÌåÌø as capable of "blotting up" spiritual dirt, made the combining of blood with ëÌÄôÌåÌø an obvious conclusion. This may explain why ancient rituals often called upon devotees to gash themselves, as some Muslims still do. But, the ancients must have reasoned, complete cleaning is essential, and that requires all of the blood, leading first to human sacrifice, e.g. the firstborn, which later became more "civilized," following the paradigm of Av•râ•hâmꞋ and Yi•tzᵊkhâqꞋ at the A•qeid•âhꞋ, in substituting animal sacrifices.
But life was a gift of the Almighty and its essence must return to the Almighty. Hence, the blood was required to be respected as sacred. If spiritual dirt were transferred to it then it must be burned so that its essence, that is its smoke, "went up in smoke"; ascended (as in ascendance offerings) to the heavens, returning to the Almighty, while the spiritual dirt was destroyed by the fire, harmless ashes. As sacrifice offerings became more specialized, differences in handling the blood evolved.
It is only within the ancient perspective of the ancient writers that one may understand Yᵊsha•yâhꞋu 53 and the concept of the "Suffering Messiah" (Mâ•shiꞋakh Bën-Yo•seiphꞋ).
The 'Good versus Evil' Theory for substitutionary atonement was concocted by Anselm, Archbishop of Canterbury, in 1098 C.E. and adopted by Church only in the 16th century C.E. – "Christ sacrificed himself – committed suicide – to make amends for sins against God." This should prompt Christians to wonder why this doctrine did not exist among earlier Christians – for 15 centuries. Clearly, this contra-úÌåÉøÈä innovation couldn't exist in Yi•sᵊr•â•eilꞋ even before that.
RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa didn't commit suicide; he didn't sacrifice himself. Suicide is prohibited by úÌåÉøÈä, which would have rendered a Christ who sacrificed an imperfect – invalid and unacceptable – sacrifice on two counts: both human sacrifice and suicide are particularly odious transgressions of úÌåÉøÈä.
Sacrifices by the long-corrupt (Hellenized "Wicked Priests") and genealogically invalidated Tzᵊdoq•imꞋ priests, the only priests even remotely involved in the crucifixion, were invalid. The Christian concept of Christ's divinity further exacerbates the transgression, rendering Christ's Father-God the unparalleled Child Abuser of infinite proportions, a true Sâ•tânꞋ; not only no better than the other gentile (idolatrous) Gods but inferior to many decent humans, and even most animals. Christ as a sacrifice is self-invalidating on a number of accounts.
The significance of RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa as the Mâ•shiꞋakh of Yᵊsha•yâhꞋu 53 (Mâ•shiꞋakh Bën-Yo•seiphꞋ) was his resolve to remain faithful to the teachings of úÌåÉøÈä, despite the most horrific torture and certain death at the hands of the Hellenist Tzᵊdoq•imꞋ Jewish pseudo-priests and their Hellenist, gentile, Roman occupier-patrons.
The mission and purpose of RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa's life and teachings was to provide the ultimate paradigm of the Jew who, despite the most horrific torture and clear and certain death, demonstrated the ultimate human achievement in courage and resolve to remain faithful to the teachings of úÌåÉøÈä, without compromise – "with all his heart and with all of his soul and with his utmost" (Shᵊm•aꞋ, dᵊvâr•imꞋ 6.5). He, thereby, demonstrated, by example, how to obtain the ki•purꞋ promised in úÌåÉøÈä through the graciousness of the Almighty of Israel. Thus, the Mâ•shiꞋakh Bën-Yo•seiphꞋ became the paradigm and source of hope, love, tending the needs of one's fellows, courage, commitment, resolve and the path to ki•purꞋ and reconciliation with the Father in the heavens.
This same path to ki•purꞋ and reconciliation with the Almighty of Israel, however, proclaims that He Who, as a result of His granting to me of ki•purꞋ and reconciliation in exchange for my tᵊshuv•âhꞋ, walks and talks with me in my heart, and sympathizes with my pains and troubles, is the Almighty of Yi•sᵊr•â•eilꞋ. Far transcending the human paradigm, the Almighty is not the human paradigm (the Jew who pleases the Father by doing his utmost to walk according to the precepts of úÌåÉøÈä).
This is the real, the lived-proven reality, of ki•purꞋ; not the pretend "salvation" deriving from a Middle Ages gentile who rejected, and couldn't even read, úÌåÉøÈä.
That RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa arose from the sepulcher, like Yo•seiphꞋ rose from the pit before him, confirmed that RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa achieved victory over the Hellenist Tzᵊdoq•imꞋ pseudo-priests (principalities") and their gentile Hellenist Roman occupier-patrons ("powers") just as Yo•seiphꞋ rose from the evils of some of his brother Jews and succeeded over the Egyptian middle management to rule under the authority of Par•ohꞋ.
Therefore, the Pᵊrush•imꞋ Jew, RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa, not the gentile Hellenist-morphed Christian Christ, is the Mâ•shiꞋakh "who truly identifies with us and goes with us in suffering and can provide us an example of how to live our lives."
Because the life of RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa is such an example, permitting Christians to define their own Christ, patterned after their idol Ζεύς, perverts the example they follow. How dangerous the potential of perverting that example can be was embodied in Hitler and the Nazis when Christian Germany and Christian Europe perpetrated and cooperated in the Sho•âhꞋ. When Christians pervert the historical Jewish Pᵊrush•imꞋ RibꞋi into their own notion of a Hellenized man-God there is no limit to the perversion that ensues. While RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa condemned rampant hypocrisy among many (not all) of his fellow religions leaders, he taught úÌåÉøÈä and stood uncompromisingly for the tenets of úÌåÉøÈä.
Let t be any transgression of úÌåÉøÈä. Think of the worst possible transgression of úÌåÉøÈä you can think of and let that be one example of t. One who fancies Christ as lovingly forgiving and accepting those who practice t, by contrast, can then claim that Christ's example embraces t – exactly the polar opposite of RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa. The examples of this actually happening in Christianity and the Church are countless.
What was RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa – a Pᵊrush•iꞋ RibꞋi (hel-lo-o) – like? Look at the description of Pᵊrush•imꞋ in Dead Sea Scroll (4Q) MMT. Their counterparts today are Orthodox Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ, Tei•mân•imꞋ and other moderate Orthodox Jews in the mainstream Jewish community around the world – not gentile Christians entirely alien and opposite to úÌåÉøÈä!!!
"From early on, critics of the exemplary model have held that it had no particular use for Christ's divinity. Any virtuous martyr might do" (Time Magazine, loc. cit.).
This is [a] informative, in that it implies the early non-existence of the Christian innovation of a "divine Christ", perverted by [b] patently fallacious reasoning, since only a martyr making an uncompromising stand for the teachings of úÌåÉøÈä – the polar opposite of the "divine Christ" supposedly superseding and doing away with úÌåÉøÈä – could serve as the paradigm described in úÌåÉøÈä.
The most blasphemous railing against the Almighty's úÌåÉøÈä plan of messianic redemption is by Albert Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Convention Southern Seminary: pure exemplary theory "is just an account of one human trying to impress other humans with the moral of self-sacrifice…" This from a man who preaches the Διαθηκη Καινη (NT) doctrine not to judge another's heart?!? The mission of RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa as Mâ•shiꞋakh was surely a work in the "Holy Spirit". Albert Mohler, then, has clearly blasphemed the "Holy Spirit" (see NHM 12.30-32). Such perversion of the exemplary úÌåÉøÈä-observance of a Jewish RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa recalls the earliest miso-Judaic vilifications of the Jews: dismissals by the gentile Christian Church of observance of "the law of sin and death" by the "Judaizers" (Galatians 2:14) who are "servants of Sâ•tânꞋ" and "enemies of God and the Church" (Lu 19.27; Jn 8.44; 8.47; 14.6; Rom. 8.1-7; 1 Corinthians 16:22; I Thes. 2.15-16; I Jn 2.22).
"Others note," Time Magazine continues in abject ignorance of the teachings of úÌåÉøÈä concerning sin and evil for which RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa died so agonizingly, "that the theory shortchanges sin and evil, giving the impression that there is nothing wrong that can't be cured by human endeavor." Contrary to Christian beliefs, however, úÌåÉøÈä never taught that ëÌÄôÌåÌø is earned by human endeavor. úÌåÉøÈä requires every person to do his or her utmost – no more and no less – to keep the mi•tzᵊw•otꞋ úÌåÉøÈä as interpreted by Jewish Bât•eiꞋ-Din. In return, the Almighty of Israel promised, out of His (not another's) khësꞋëd, to grant ëÌÄôÌåÌø. It isn't enough for the person who transgresses úÌåÉøÈä to express regret or do penitance. Forgiveness and ëÌÄôÌåÌø are absolutely dependent upon the person's abandonment of the transgression and return – tᵊshuv•âhꞋ – to doing his or her utmost (perfection has never been required) to practice úÌåÉøÈä.
 |
|
 |