Monday, 20 January 2014

Deuteronomy 13: A question of vindication.

One of the things that Jews and Christians can agree on with respect to miracles is they do not necessarily prove someone to be a true prophet and not necessarily a vindication of their prophethood. One such section in the Torah is this:

"13 [a]If a prophet, or one who foretells by dreams, appears among you and announces to you a sign or wonder, 2 and if the sign or wonder spoken of takes place, and the prophet says, “Let us follow other gods” (gods you have not known) “and let us worship them,” 3 you must not listen to the words of that prophet or dreamer. The Lord your God is testing you to find out whether you love him with all your heart and with all your soul. 4 It is the Lord your God you must follow, and him you must revere. Keep his commands and obey him; serve him and hold fast to him. 5 That prophet or dreamer must be put to death for inciting rebellion against the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt and redeemed you from the land of slavery. That prophet or dreamer tried to turn you from the way the Lord your God commanded you to follow. You must purge the evil from among you."

There is no question that Christians will agree with Jews that someone is not to be accepted as a prophet immediately and must take a look as to whether or not they pass the test and are not guilty of idolatry. However, The question is regarding Yeshua, if he was a deceiver, why would God raise a deceiver from the dead. What we know from history is that God would not tolerate false prophecy in the TANAKH and those guilty of false prophecy would not raised up to deceive the people ever again.

What if resurrection of Jesus is actually a vindication of him and that he has God's stamp of approval. We know Muhammad is dead, as is Hare Krishna, Joseph Smith, Charles Taze Russell and of course eventually the Kansas City "Prophets" will eventually die, If they were true prophets, God would bring them back to vindicate them. However I don't see that happening.

I know there is a final resurrection at the end of days, but that doesn't speak of a prophet's vindication. Prophet or not, man will rise either to everlasting life, or everlasting death.

So again the question is, Why would Jesus be risen from the dead if he was a false prophet? If you consider the resurrection to count as something that is no value to prove Christ to you, there isn't anything else I can say.

I leave you to decide.

Answering Judaism.

13 comments:

  1. This is Yehuda Yisrael. For some reason it only lets me post "Unknown." Whatever...

    If I were to believe that the resurrection happened, (which I don't) I could easily dismiss jesus as being a legitimate prophet based off of this verse:

    Deut 13:3 you must not listen to the words of that prophet or dreamer. The Lord your God is **TESTING YOU** to find out whether you love him with all your heart and with all your soul.

    Like I always say, when it says "sign or wonder," G-d doesn't qualify it with "but resurrections are a special sign that qualify someone as your messiah/god because only I have the ability to raise the dead, so if someone raises themselves from the dead, that means they are your god."

    This is what christianity wants us to believe about Deut 13:1-6 and quite frankly, it's reading into the text something that isn't there!

    This is why Deut 13 flies in the face of any chance that the supposed historical validity of the resurrection could verify jesus as Messiah...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So you assume that God would allow a false prophet to be raised from the dead to test someone's loyalty to him? That is never done within the TANAKH. Yes I'll agree that a sign isn't a necessary proof of someone's authenticity, but if Jesus was a false prophet even after rising from the dead, you are pretty much presenting the Christians with a damned if you damned if you don't situation.

      Delete
  2. For a unitarian christian who does not acknowledge jesus as divine, this wouldn't be so much a problem. But for those who believe that jesus is divine, this conflicts with the fact that G-d warns against signs or wonders from prophets who convince Israel to worship other gods. Since no prophet in the Tanach ever acknowledged jesus as a deity, it essentially is a "damned if you do damned if you don't," situation.

    I'm not the one presenting the situation...G-d is!

    -Yehuda Yisrael

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No problem for me as a Trinitarian, I already wrote on the Strange Gods thing. There is no violation.

      Delete
  3. your argument presupposes the resurrection as being factual. The fact that contemporary historians and writers never mention this event speaks volumes. According to the NT Jesus was extremely popular and had many followers. Do you not think that if someone as well known as this had truly risen from the dead that just one writer of that era would have mentioned one of the greatest miracles of all time?

    Additionally, the accounts of the event in the NT are so riven with contradictions it is obvious that these accounts were concocted many years after the supposed events took place not by any true witnesses. Could you provide an answer to this question, AJ. When Mary met Jesus for the first time after the resurrection, had the angel or angels already informed her that Jesus had risen from the dead?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What we know about Jesus comes from the NT, to disregard it in historical study is irresponsible. If you want historians, Josephus does tell you about Jesus and the manner he died. He doesn't mention the resurrection (obviously he didn't believe in it) but does acknowledge Christ existed. A historian only records what is relevant to his audience.

      If you want to talk about contradictions, I could take the same attitude with the TANAKH, I should know because Muslims and atheists make a mountain out of a molehill out of it despite the contradictions being reconciled easily.

      About your question, I need to look into that point.

      Delete
  4. Even if the resurrection was a verification for a true prophet , no prophet can change the eternal law we received on mount sinai by moses and suppose to forever keep (deu 29:29). The prophets came to strengthen moses law throughout the bible not to alter and change the message and commandments . Not to abolish the laws of circumcision shabbes diet laws etc.. like yeshua did eventually!

    ReplyDelete
  5. You're right. The problem is that Christians have a poor understanding of what Jesus said or did. Many of them think He did away with the Law, and that He did indeed turn Jews and Gentiles away from the way God commanded Israel. The problem is that it's based on false witnesses who were set up by the Pharisees (Acts 7:13-15) and distortion a of Paul's letters (2 Peter 3:15-17). Jesus even said you shouldn't even think He came to do away with the Law, and that not a joy or tittle would disappear from it until Heaven and Earth have disappeared (Matthew 5:17-20). What happened was that a faith headed by Jews became headed by Gentiles around 66 AD, when James was killed, and after the fall of the second temple, antisemitism picked up, to the point that people who knew the Apostles disregarded the things they were told by them and despised Jewish people and anything ostensibly Jewish in the Bible, the Law especially. Through their commentaries, they invented a Jesus who says eating pork is fine, who dies to do away with the law given by God through Moses, who does away with Israel and creates this new thing called the Church. God wouldn't give ressurection followed by ascension to a prophet sent to test you, but His Holy one would not see corruption (Psalm 16:8-11). God foreknew that the Gentiles who came into the faith would try to make things easier, so He gave Steven, James, Peter, and even Paul, to do and say things that would affirm the Law in its entirety still standing. The good news for you, as a Jew, is that contrary to what the establishment says, the Moshiach came right on schedule, during the Second Temple period, and fulfilled Psalm 22 and Isaiah 53, becoming a valid sacrifice for sins, so that you don't need the temple to atone, or to make up a mitzvah-based salvation scheme God never gave, but all you must do is trust in God with all your heart, soul, and resources, through the blood of God Himself, and you will be saved, and your sins atoned for. The lot of Yom Kippur came up in the left hand for 40 consecutive years, starting on 30 AD, the very year Yeshua died and was ressurected. Statistically speaking, the chances of that are less than 1 in a trillion. It's like filling up the Grand Canyon with pennies, and pick one penny I selected earlier and mixed in the rest completely at random. Rabbis have long known that there must be some significance to that, that it meant God no longer accepted their sacrifice, but they could never figure out or admit why. I'm telling you today that the reason why is that there now stands an infinitely more valid sacrifice, a high priest in the order of Melchizedek, who has put His own blood on the ark in the tabernacle of God in Heaven, and that in doing so, there is no more need for daily continual sacrifices, even though when He reigns the world from Jerusalem, He will reinstate them under the Law, and give the true Zadokite priesthood back what was stolen from them by the Hasmoneans. He never did away with the Law, and there are plenty of verses from His own mouth affirming this, which most Christians try their best to explain away. Here are some verses showing the Law stands today. I hope you look at these, share them with your Jewish friends, ponder them, and rejoice when you realize the meaning of this:Matthew 7:15-23, Matthew 5:17-20, Revelation 21:1, Deuteronomy 30:19, Deuteronomy 17:6, Romans 8:2, 1 John 5:2, Romans 3:31, Romans 8:7, Jeremiah 31:31-34, 2 Peter 3:15-17, 2 Timothy 3:16-17, Deuteronomy 30:11-14, Romans 10:6-7, John 1:1, John 1:14, John 6:53, Acts 6:8-15, Matthew 23:1-3, Acts 15:21, Acts 15:5, Acts 16:3, Acts 21:20-26, Romans 8:7, 1 John 2:4-6, John 14:15, John 1:14 (do you think that anyone would call Jesus the Word if Jesus turned people from it?), 1 John 3:4-10, Revelation 12:17, John 3:19-20, John 8:34, Luke 6:46-49, James 2, James 1:25, Matthew 19:3-9, Luke 1:6

    ReplyDelete
  6. For clarity, I am a trinitarian believer of the Way which they call a sect, a grafted-in Nazarene, who's only wish is to serve God as much as I can, mimicking Christ to the T, even if I must drink of the same cup He has, and be baptized with the same baptism.

    ReplyDelete
  7. In reading these, you will find it self evident that the first Christians, indeed Christ Himself, held to, observed, practiced, and taught the Law as a whole. Gentiles were held to the same standard, not some meager 'Noahide' standard, as the Jews, but instead of being forced to do everything before they converted, they were eased in with the rules of not eating blood, eating animals that weren't slaughtered, not practicing sexual relations forbidden by Torah, and refusing the pollutions of idols as the only hard and fast non-obvious rules (since things like not murdering and not stealing were obvious) (Acts 15:20), with the assption that they would learn the Law at synagogues every Sabbath (Acts 15:21). I'm telling you that Jews and Gentiles alike have lied about Yeshua, each to their own differing levels of destruction (least in the kingdom and not in the kingdom), but it's fine because today you have been enlightened in your reading of this that there is more to the picture than you thought at first, that Yeshua is not only a real candidate for Messiah, but that He is Messiah, and He's the only true candidate for Messiah across all time, since God does not lie about when He schedules these things to pass. You know well that Haggai claimed the glory of the Second Temple would be greater than that of the first, yet rabbis deny this because of the missing Ark and Shekina Glory. What they missed was that instead of dwelling there in a cloud, God walked there in the flesh as a man named Jesus, just as He appeared to Abraham as a man and wrestled with Jacob as a man, and God did as great as to preach at his own Temple a number of times, even driving out people who were buying and selling there on what may have been a Sabbath! Furthermore, the concept of eternal torment in Hell is not a Biblical one, but God makes it plain that all will be made alive in Christ, and His steadfast love endures forever. In other words, even if you refuse Him now, and suffer ages upon ages of pain in Gehenna for your disobedience, He will still hold out the Olive Branch of Salvation for you to grab onto as soon as you're ready, and the wicked can be made righteous even then by truly having faith in Him, so that they will do no more wrong. If you made it this far, you are a true seeker of God and the truth. I hope that you are blessed in your ways, that you find salvation by faith in Yeshuah Messiah, and that you spread the true Gospel that has been hidden in a library almost everyone has, that few actually have searched honestly and diligently to learn from. Shalom

    ReplyDelete
  8. Jesus didn't do away with a sliver of the Law. Jesus didn't even do away with circumcision. Paul didn't either for that matter, but most people who read his writings get confused (2 Peter 3:15-17), think he did, and then project that back on Jesus to find any sort of rationalization to say He did. The love of God is keeping His commandments (1 John 5:2-3). Since many Gentiles don't really like God, with all His rules and the destruction of the Caananites and various peoples in the Torah (erroneously called genocide by even some Christians), they find ways to do away with His commandments. I can guarantee you that if Judaism, with just the Tanakh alone, and no New Testament, was predominantly gentile, we would be looking at the same situation, with most gentile converts claiming the Law to be done away with, based on Isaiah or some other real prophet, who never said any such thing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Trevor, if the Lord Wills, I'll take a look at your points and respond.

      Delete
    2. Cool. The fact is, God did vindicate Jesus, but not because He broke Deuteronomy 13. He vindicated Jesus because He was innocent of breaking Deuteronomy 13, and His accusations of blasphemy were false because He was indeed God, and God wanted everyone to know He was the real deal. God would not give resurrection to a man claiming to be God if that man wasn't God, and God would not break His own rules (like Deuteronomy 4:2 or Deuteronomy 12:32). Jesus rebuked the Pharisees for adding extra rules to the Torah and for ignoring the rules of the Torah(Mark 7, Matthew 23). They made extra rules about washing hands before eating, and they ignored honoring one's mother and father, justice, and other weighty matters of the Law. Contrary to popular belief, Jesus did not declare all animals clean, but anecdotally mentioned all food (and only vegetables and the meat of clean animals which are properly prepared are considered food- look up the definition of broma) being cleaned by the digestive system, as if one eats with unclean hands, the uncleanliness gets digested and expelled, and does not enter the heart, but evil words come from the heart, as does all sin. The context had nothing to do with unclean animals. Eating unclean animals goes directly against the Torah, and is thus sin, and an action from the heart, which says to God, "I don't care about this rule." It's similar to eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, because it's eating something God deemed forbidden. The doctrine of the serpent, from the very beginning, has been "has God said" (Genesis 3:1) and "you will not surely die"(Genesis 3:4). Today, it's "God didn't mean that for you" and "it's not sin anymore". We see homosexuals who don't repent using the same rhetoric used by those who choose to eat unclean animals to justify themselves. The New Testament tells us "touch not the unclean thing" (2 Corinthians 6:17) and to not practice sexual immorality, but did not do much to clarify either matter, as it assumes we will go back to the Law to see what those are, but people who do either find ways to redefine the terms, and justify themselves. Interestingly, God used the same word (towebah, translated as abomination) in Deuteronomy 14:3, Leviticus 18:22, and Leviticus 20:13 to describe both the act of homosexuality and unclean meat (thus the act of eating or touching it). Today the church struggles with both, with hard antinomians supporting homosexuality and soft antinomians supporting eating unclean things. I sincerely hope we can go back to the way of Christ, which has neither, but lovingly offers salvation and fellowship to those who do both, on the condition that they accept Christ and put their faith in Him to free themselves of sin (thus repent and turn away from the acts), and put their faith in His blood and grace to save them from the penalty of sin.

      Delete