The Blog Has Ended

First of all, thank you to the handful of people that read the blog and made some interesting comments and observations.

The blog has been preserved for "archive" purposes because there are hundreds of resources in links, directory and blog posts pointing to resources. It is hoped these resources will help you in your search for truth.

Restored Israel Website

Restored Israel is one of the few ministries in the Messianic community that does not use the Hebrew calendar to calculate the holy days.

The website doesn't give away much detail about the calendar except that they believe the astronomical new moon is the correct one to use. Their calendar is determined by using the first astronomical new moon after the vernal equinox. This is used to determine the first day of Abib. (See the picture for the moon phases).

For those not familiar with what I am going on about. The astronomical new moon occurs at the conjunction with earth and sun. This is called the dark moon or astronomical new moon. The crescent moon is a thin sliver of light that occurs anything up to two days after the conjunction. This means holy day calculations will vary depending on whether the conjunction or crescent moon is used.

Most Messianic ministries continued to use the Hebrew calendar, or have some variation using the sightings of the visible crescent moons or may sight barley in Jerusalem. The website gives us little information on who they really are, where they are from and what their doctrinal statement of beliefs are.

They write on the new moon:

The first New Moon (black, cannot be seen) after the VERNAL EQUINOX is the beginning of the FIRST MONTH of the year, the new year. Rosh Hashanah, the 'beginning of months' (or 'the head of the year')

Aramaic Language of the Koran?

Gabriel Sawma is an International Law Specialist, mainly the European Union Law, the Middle East Laws and the Islamic Shariaa Law.

He is a professor of Aramaic and a recognised authority on Islam and the Qur'an. He reads, and writes Aramaic, Hebrew, and Arabic. Authored many articles on the Aramaic language and its influence in Biblical Hebrew and the Qur'an. His website is: www.syriacaramaicquran.com.

Some of his articles are published by international newspapers and magazines.

He is author of the book, The Qur'an: Misinterpreted, Mistranslated, and Misread. The Aramaic Language of the Qur'an.

According to the Amazon website, the book "is written to show that the language of the Qur'an is Aramaic, not Arabic. Aramaic renders interpretations that are totally different from those rendered my Muslim commentators in the last fourteen centuries. There are similarities between the Qur'an and the Old Testament, but those similarities were undermined by Muslim commentators by giving erroneous interpretations to their Holy Book."

His website states:

The problem lies in the fact the Muslim commentators do not understand the language in which the Quran was written. The language of the Quran has always been Aramaic. Aramaic renders interpretations that are totally different from those rendered by Muslim commentators throughout the last fourteen centuries.

The Quran states that its language is Arabic, but Arab speaking people have difficulty understanding its language. The difficulty stems from the fact that the language of the Quran has always been and still is Aramaic. In the seventh century, the written language of the Near East was Syriac, a dialect of Aramaic, not Arabic. The classical Arabic is a distorted form of Aramaic. The Palmyrene and Nabataean inscriptions in Syria and Transjordan indicates that these two Arab kingdoms had their literature written in Aramaic, Greek and some Latin. None of these inscriptions were written in the "classical Arabic".

The book can be obtained at Amazon.

Similar ideas are propagated by Christoph Luxenberg. Wikipedia states that he also believes the koran written in Aramaic form:

"... is a trace of the pre-Islamic, Christian past of certain Arab communities, who were amongst the first Christians. It was not meant to start a new religion, but a legacy of an older one.[9] It is accepted by scholars and orientalists internationally that the word "qur'an" (without the article l-) is derived from the Arabic root word "qara'a", which means reading. Luxenbergs Aramaic "qeryan" (without the article -a) is also derived from the same, shared Semitic root Q-R-' "reading", as is obvious from the translation "lectionary", "a text for reading".

Christoph Luxenberg is author of the controversial book, The Syro-Aramaic Reading of the Koran: A Contribution to the Decoding of the Language of the Koran.

Will the ONE TRUE Koran Please Stand UP?

Some fanatical muslims are pretty smug on youtube, they like to point out the errors of Christianity and Judaism claiming their faith is the final revelation of Allah, with the Koran, the infallible word.

Yet, how many are you are aware that there are different versions of the Koran?

Which one is right?

The discovery of an ancient text of the Koran known as "The Sana'a manuscripts, found in Yemen in 1972, are considered by some to be the oldest existent version of the Qur'an.[1] Although the text has been dated to the first two decades of the eighth century carbon 14 tests indicate that some of the parchments in this collection date back to the 7th and 8th centuries." (Source: Wikipedia)


From the article: ANCIENT QUR’ANIC MANUSCRIPTS OF SANA’A AND DIVINE DOWNFALL:

"Muslims often say that both Old Testament and New Testament are corrupted and seriously changed. They say, for a Holy Scripture to be authoritative, it has to be preserved without any changes at all, and point to their Qur’an, which claims to have been revealed word by word and letter by letter to Muhammad by Allah. Qur’an claims, ‘no change there can be in the words of God‘ (10:64) and, ‘there is none that can alter the words (and decrees) of God‘ (6:34).

...The devastating truth is that a large number of ancient Qur’anic manuscripts, dating from first century of Hijra were discovered in the Great Mosque of Sana’a (Yemen) which significantly differs from the present standard one. Carbon dating system confirmed that these Qur’ans are not forged ones by religious rivalries. Moreover these Qur’ans were discovered by Muslims, not infidels.

Probably this is the most embarrassing event in Islamic history of 14 centuries.

The Great Mosque of Sana’a is one of the oldest Mosques in Islamic history. The date of building goes back to 6th year of Hijrah when Muhammad entrusted one of his companions to build a Mosque at Yemen, which was extended and enlarged by Islamic rulers from time to time.

In 1972, during the restoration of this Great Mosque (heavy rain had caused the west wall of the Mosque to collapse), laborers working in a crown space between the structure’s inner and outer roofs, stumbled across a amazing grave site, which they did not realize at that time because of ignorance. Mosques do not accommodate graves, and this site contained no gravestone, no human remains and no funeral relics. It contained nothing more, in fact, apparently looking an unappealing mountain of old parchment and paper documents, damaged books and individual pages of Arabic text, fused together by rain and dampness for over a thousand year.

...In 1984, the House of Manuscripts (Dar al Makhtutat) was founded close to the Great Mosque, as part of a cooperation project between Yemeni and German authorities. An enormous endeavor began to restore the Qur’anic fragments. Between 1983 and 1996, approximately 15,000 out of 40,000 pages were restored, specifically 12,000 fragments on parchment and manuscripts dating back to the seventh and eighth centuries.

...It scattered the orthodox Muslim belief that the Qur’an as it has reached us today is quite simply “the perfect, timeless, and unchanging Word of God”. It means Qur’an has been distorted, perverted, revised, modified and corrected, and textual alterations had taken place over the years purely by Human hands."

Barack O Bama, the Antichrist?

RaptureReady is a site for Christians convinced they will be beamed up into the heavens before the great tribulation and the arrival of the Antichrist.

Life is simple for these folks. They believe in Jesus and in the rapture. What else is there to believe in?

They probably never even heard of the terms "sabbath, tithing, festivals, fasting, authority, family church government, world tomorrow" -- and those terms that drive us all crazy.

Their world is probably endless speculation on who the coming Antichrist will be, thanking Jesus that they are the few chosen ones to be saved out of the coming calamity to hit the earth. Goodness me, sounds, a lot like Armstrongism, but, without the Jesus stuff.

RaptureReady links to the article, Did Jesus actually reveal name of the 'Antichrist'? showing in no uncertain terms, that the Anticrhist is the dark horse, Barack O Bama. The article features a video which incidentally proves the point.

With all the speculation on the christian forums on the coming solar eclipse due to happen July 11, 2010 (1st of Av in the Hebrew calendar), it appears many are bracing themselves for Jesus' return and the great tribulation.

Now, haven't we been here before?

VIRAL VIDEO - INADVERTENTLY CONFIRMED BY RABBI! Did Jesus Reveal The Antichrist?

Book Review: Anti-Judaism in the New Testament

When it comes to the New Testament there are two schools of thought.

Most Messianics accept the New Testament and go to great lengths to prove the authenticity of the apostle Paul as a first century Rabbi, follower of Yeshua that advocated observance of the Torah. This is the majority opinion within Messianic Judaism and the books of the New Testament are accepted as part of God's inspired scriptures but interpreted from a Hebraic perspective.

People identifying themselves as "netzarim" do not endorse fully the contents of the New Testament. They have their own copy of the book of Matthew from Hebraic sources. Some may accept the book of Revelation, others consider it to be part of hellenised Greek culture popularised by Constantine's Christianity. They consider the New Testament for the most part, to be a work of fiction, part of the fraud they consider to be Christianity. They consider the New Testament (except the books they believe in) to be a classic anti Semitic work put together by early church fathers seeking some sort of authority for their new religion.

Within these two perspectives there are going to be degrees of people who may fall into one of these categories, or may accept more of the New Testament but exclude Paul's writings.

One such book that only adds fuel to the fire of the Netzarim (whether officially recognised as netzarim or part of a similar group) is Anti-Judaism in the New Testament by Gerald Sigal. The book may be purchased at Xlibris.

The following is the review of the book, Anti-Judaism in the New Testament from the website which typifies the attitudes of the netzarim very well towards the New Testament:

This volume is a systematic critique of the anti-Jewishness of the New Testament. Its primary purpose is to delineate what the New Testament authors intended to convey to their respective audiences concerning the Jewish people. That is, this volume is concerned with the initial meaning intended by the New Testament authors and how this intended meaning directly and with forethought contributed to Christian anti-Judaic1 thought and action. We will investigate how and why the New Testament authors created this anti-Judaic climate. Analysis of the Gospel stories demonstrates that anti-Judaism is woven into the fabric of a significant part of the New Testament narrative. This narrative has provoked bitter condemnation and persecution of Jews. The Jewish people were cast in the role of a dark satanic force as a systematic denigration and demonization of the Jews took place. It is to its harsh and bitter polemic against the entire Jewish people that one must ascribe the accusations of the Jews being Christ-killers and children of Satan and the later embellishments of Jews as host desecrators, ritual murders, and well-poisoners. Post-New Testament developments of Christian anti-Judaism are not central to this study. In pursuing our investigation we will make a distinction between what was originally intended by the New Testament authors and the usage made of their works to meet the anti-Judaic needs of the subsequent church.

Conclusions reached by later interpreters that have often been attributed to the authors of the Gospels are not our primary concern. It is not a question of how, or to what extent, the New Testament passages concerning Jews and Judaism were misused or misread in later centuries, but of what they were meant to mean in the first place. Thus, our focus will be on what the authors meant to convey to their respective contemporary audiences about the Jews.

What would the New Testament’s audience have understood from the information its various authors provided? What meaning would a reader derive from a particular text? Is the New Testament anti-Jewish or is it merely an accurate report of events as they took place? Answers can only come through an examination of the relevant passages in their specific literary contexts, as well as in the context of the struggles, aspirations, and theologies of the early church. Special attention must be paid to the relationship between the church and the Roman authorities, on the one hand, and the synagogue, on the other hand, at the time the various books of the New Testament were written and to polemics within the early church community.

The New Testament was not written solely to condemn the Jews. But, in the process of developing the several story lines that evolved into the four respective canonical Gospels, the early church adopted a decidedly anti-Judaic stance. Consequently, in its final form, instances of anti-Judaic sentiment are found in much of the New Testament, the Gospels in particular. This animosity has to do as much with politics as with theological doctrine, relations with the Roman imperial authorities as with displacing Jews and Judaism. If pre-Gospel traditions already included anti-Judaic elements, they were now systematically exploited. There was a growing need to explain why Israel, God’s chosen people, had rejected Jesus and the message of his disciples. How could this be reconciled with God’s will? In presenting Jesus as the Messiah and Christianity as superseding Judaism, Paul and the authors of the Gospels and Acts, in particular, indict the Jewish people for the death of Jesus and spread antipathy of Jews and Judaism as part of a program to achieve Christian ascendancy. The historicized core myths that provide the basis for the New Testament missionary program were shaped and reshaped to show that the church possessed full authenticity and validity contra Jews and Judaism.

The New Testament authors strive to obscure the dividing line between fact and fiction. Nevertheless, it is clearly a work broadly touched by the craft of fiction. Besides fabrication ex nihilo, the editorial process of creating the Gospels and other books of the New Testament resulted in modification or transformation of the very meaning of the pre-Gospel materials. Whether or not the New Testament represents the view of Jesus’ earliest followers, or even those of Jesus himself, is not our primary concern. What is important is that whatever the origin of the material comprising its contents this is what was incorporated into the text and this is the literary material with which we must work.

The Gospels encourage their readers to develop a negative view of the Jews. This is accomplished through specific statements made throughout their respective narratives. Examples are found in the description of the alleged plot to kill Jesus (Mark 11:18, Matthew 26:3-4, Luke 20:20, John 11:48-53), the emphasis on the supposed “wicked” nature of the Jews themselves (Matthew 23, John 8), and on the moral responsibility of the Jews for the death of Jesus (Matthew 27:25). Thus, the Jews are identified as being evil, guilty of murder, and unrepentant. In contrast, Jesus is identified as the “Christ” and the “Son of God.” He is depicted as good-hearted, interested only in the welfare of others, and innocent of any wrongdoing.

If we let the New Testament speak for itself, we find two themes dominate the New Testament’s concept of the Jews. The first of these concerns a claim to a common biblical heritage for Jews and for the followers of Jesus. Acknowledging the distinctive status of ancient Israel, the New Testament authors claim continuity for Christianity with that biblical faith of Israel. From this perspective, they postulate that prior to the coming of Jesus, Jews had an exclusive claim to spiritual legitimacy-- that in a sense, Christianity and Judaism were one. The second theme declares the Jewish fall from grace and the resulting Christian spiritual monopoly. It is alleged that Christianity has become the legitimate inheritor of the true faith and of God’s promises to Israel. Essential to this theme is an enumeration of those acts and events through which Jews are shown to have lost their spiritual prerogative. This second perspective disposes of the unique position of the Jews in God’s providence. It provides an image of Jews as renegades from the true faith, cruel persecutors of the faithful, and the very crucifiers of Jesus, God’s anointed son; it leaves Christianity as the only surviving heir to spiritual legitimacy.

The earliest written Christian polemic against the Jews is found in 1 Thessalonians 2:14-15. There, Paul declares that “the Jews, who killed both the Lord Jesus and the prophets, and drove us out; they are not pleasing to God, but hostile to all men.” It is the Jews, as a nation, that Paul condemns as murderers of both Jesus and the prophets, and as his persecutors. Consequently, God rejects them. The underlying bitterness Paul shows toward the Jews in this passage is unparalleled even in Paul’s other writings. It is also the sole reference in Paul’s letters to the allegation that the Jews were guilty of killing Jesus.3 Paul provides the basis for the recurrent New Testament theme that the Jews, as a nation, are alone responsible for the execution of Jesus. In this earliest known “Christ-killer” polemic to be found in Christian literature, Paul identifies the Jewish national rejection and slaying of Jesus as an endemic trait that had earlier precedent in their killing of the prophets. The Jewish people as a nation is characterized as the archetypal persecutor of God’s messengers be they Jesus, the prophets, or the Christian preachers. This was followed in time by the Gospel of Mark, which introduced the anti-Jewish theme that was later adopted by the Gospels of Matthew and Luke. To these was added the Gospel of John, with its intense anti-Jewish viciousness.4

Some readers may feel that this work is overly critical of the New Testament and its authors. Nevertheless, biblical and non-biblical documentation and even the New Testament attest to these facts. One need only investigate the post-New Testament presentation of certain themes—such as the central role of the Jews in the trial of Jesus (Matthew 27:25), the portrayal of the Jews as the devil’s children (John 8:44), the popular meaning attached to the word “Pharisee,”5 and the labeling of Judaism as legalism6--for proof that the New Testament authors achieved their anti-Jewish objectives.

There are some Christians who without examining the question of whether the New Testament itself contains anti-Judaic passages see the anti-Judaic roots of Christianity as stemming, not from that document, but from Christianity’s teachings of its own traditions.7 There are other Christians who, although they know better, would rather keep silent concerning the New Testament’s role in creating the hostile climate in which persecution and degradation of the Jews are perfectly acceptable. They devise stratagems to avoid acknowledging exactly what it is that they know. That is why it is all the more commendable that there are some Christians who admit to the injustice done the Jewish people by the New Testament.8 Nevertheless, there is still great resistance by the majority of Christian theologians, clergymen, and laymen to acknowledging the presence of anti-Jewish passages in the New Testament and the repudiation of those verses.9 It is hoped that with time, honesty will prevail.10

A ray of hope

It should be noted, however, that although the New Testament prepared the way for centuries of persecution of those Jews who did not accept Jesus and church leaders of all denominations of Christendom consistently reiterated its anti-Jewish themes one cannot infer that all Christians hate or persecute Jews. Many are truly embarrassed by the vicious anti-Jewish contents of the New Testament and its results. Many have risked their lives and many have even died protesting against anti-Jewish persecution. It is to their everlasting credit that they were able to resist adherence to the anti-Jewish aspects of the New Testament.

Mystical Kabbalah Influencing Messianic Ministries

For the last few months, it seems, Tim Hegg of Torah Resources.com has been warning of the subtle influence of the mystical teachings of the kabbalah influencing such ministries as Firstfruits of Zion and the reliance on the authority of the "oral" tradition as espoused through the writings of Mark Kinzer who is a scholar involved in Messianic Jewish Theological Institute.

The rebuttals from Hegg come as a result from a recent article written by Mark Kinzer entitled, •Mark Kinzer, Scripture As Inspired, Canonical Tradition. The article is not free, one must subscribe to the one of their packages to read their online material. Far from wanting to pay any money for the privilege of reading the material just for this blog, one can get a sense of the article by reading the criticisms of Tim Hegg in the paper, Are the Scriptures Alone our Sure Foundation or Do We Need Something More?.

According to the Hegg's article: "Mark Kinzer, a major voice in the UMJC, openly denies the sufficiency of Scripture as the means by which we may know God and obey His commandments.1 He boldly affirms that in addition to the Scriptures, we must also rely upon the cumulative teachings of the Rabbis (the Oral Torah) as a necessary partner to the Scriptures."

Tim Hegg objects to Firstfruits of Zion endorsing Paul Philip Levertoff’s Love and the Messianic Age especially when the book attempts to "demonstrate how the mystical approach of Kabbalah is well suited to properly interpret the Scriptures as well to provide a deeper spiritual experience for believers in Yeshua."

We wouldn't need an "oral" tradition if the Bible contained all the answers would we? The Bible gives us the rules but fails on many ocassions to interpret them for us.

Examples:

1. The Bible does not define the term "work"- exactly what is forbidden on the Sabbath? The result no clear consensus on this issue from the thousands of groups who keep the Sabbath.

2. The Bible does not mention the inculated postponement rules in the hebrew calendar or any hebrew calendar for that matter. The result plenty of groups keep their own calendar.

2. The beginning of the new moon is not defined. Does it begin at the young crescent or dark moon or astronomical conjunction? The result a handful of groups calculate the dates based on the astronomical conjunction or dark moon.

3, The scriptures do not define how we are to tie our tassels or the creature used to create the blue dye for the tassels. The result we have different types of tying the tassels.

4. Exactly what words and type of scroll is to be used in the mezuzah? Should the writing on the mezuzah be the SHEMA or the Ten Commandments?

5. The wearing of the kippah is not a mandated rule in the scriptures. The result some groups insist the wearing of the kippah is from babylon.

6. The dimensions of the mikvah are not in the scriptures.

7. Only the beginning of the day of Atonement is legally defined from its beginning and end. The beginning of the Sabbath is not defined causing all types of combinations of observance from lunar sabbaths, sunrise and sunset observance either in 12 hour or 24 hour segments. [Note a careful reading reveals God creating light or morning appeared first (Gen 1:3) then it became dark (Gen 1:5)then it was morning again (Gen 1:5)]. This led two scholars to speculate that the days actually began during sunrise (with the exception of Atonement which is a fasting day), which is backed up by Jewish scholar Solomon Zeitlin, but it should be noted his is a minority opinion.

In the absence of a holy writ that contains all of the answers to our questions, giving precise details on application and interpretation, we have no other choice but to rely on some degree on the "oral" traditions.

In fact we are already relying on the "oral" tradition as a form of interpretation for some of our practices.

The only oral traditions we accept are those rules that are in harmony with the "Law and the Prophets".

Some method has to be used to interpret the scriptures. Whose method should we use? The Bible doesn't exactly say unless we include the verse to do and observe what the Pharisees teach? (Matthew 23:2-3) Then, the argument gets complicated because is Rabbinical Judaism a descendant of yesterday's Pharisees? Plenty believe so. The Bible should interpret the Bible but as my examples clearly show, the interpretation is far from autonomous.