The Gospel of Christ

When Paul began his letter to the Romans, “For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ” (1:16), he didn’t mean the gospel about Christ but the gospel Christ Himself preached as evident by how he ended his letter, “the preaching of Jesus Christ” (16:25). The true gospel message, the message that saves, is the message the Savior Himself preached. Paul’s entire letter of Romans is defining and explaining the gospel Christ preached. Salvation or eternal life isn’t according to our beliefs but according to our actions, “Who will render to every man according to his deeds [actions]: To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life” (2:6-7). “I know thy works [actions]” (Rev 2:2,9,13,19,3:1,8,15), “And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work [actions] shall be” (Rev 22:12).

Jesus Christ preached, “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil” (Mat 5:17), “Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets” (Mat 7:12). That “this is” the law and the prophets is that this one commandment of doing good is the satisfying of all that was required in the law and the prophets. With regards to the requirements of the Old Covenant law, there’s a distinction between the moral and the formal, the righteous and the ritualistic. There’s no change in what’s morally and righteously required of God’s people from the Old Covenant to the New—Christ preached the same righteous standard. What changed is the formal and ritualistic from which Christ set us free, “Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free” (Gal 5:1).

In Christ’s Sermon on the Mount, He said nothing of believing but everything of obeying. He began the main portion by declaring, “That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven” (Mat 5:20). If we don’t live righteously according to the standard He taught in this Sermon, then in no case, without exceptions, will we enter His Kingdom. Toward the end of His Sermon, “And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity [anomia 458]” (Mat 7:23), “you lawbreakers!” (NET), “you who practice lawlessness!” (NKJV). The Greek anomia is contempt, transgression, or violation of law. And He ended His Sermon with, “Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them … And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not” (Mat 7:24,26). It’s simple—if we do what He commanded we’ll be saved, but if we don’t we won’t be, “And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say? Whosoever cometh to me, and heareth my sayings, and doeth them … But he that heareth, and doeth not” (Luk 6:46,47,49).

Jesus Christ preached that we must fulfil the righteousness of the law: “I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil” (Mat 5:17); “That except your righteousness” (5:20); “But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness” (6:33); “this is the law and the prophets” (7:12). And this was Paul’s gospel: “Therefore if the uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the law … if it fulfil the law” (Rom 2:26-27); “That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us” (8:4); “for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law … love is the fulfilling of the law” (13:8,10).

Jesus Christ preached faithfulness to Him as Lord: “Who then is a faithful and wise servant” (Mat 24:45); “Well done, thou good and faithful servant: thou hast been faithful over a few things” (Mat 25:21); “Well, thou good servant: because thou hast been faithful in a very little” (Luk 19:17); “He that is faithful in that which is least is faithful also in much” (Luk 16:10). And He preached that unfaithful servants will perish, “The lord of that servant … shall cut him asunder, and appoint him his portion with the hypocrites” (Mat 24:50,51), “And cast ye the unprofitable servant into outer darkness” (Mat 25:30). But to convey a different gospel message, throughout the New Testament the Greek noun [pistis 4102] and verb [pisteuo 4100] have been translated as “faith” and “believe” respectively, rather than “faithfulness” and “trust.” But Abraham isn’t our example of faith but of faithfulness: “because thou hast obeyed my voice” (Gen 22:18); “Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws” (Gen 26:5); “So then they which be of faith [faithfulness] are blessed with faithful Abraham” (Gal 3:9). Furthermore, not even once were the early Christians called “believers,” but translations have been fudged to read that way: “All the believers were together” (Act 2:44 NIV); “All the believers were one in heart and mind” (4:32); “And all the believers used to meet together” (5:12).

The gospel of Christ is obedience to Him: “But they have not all obeyed the gospel” (Rom 10:16); “that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ” (2Th 1:8); “he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him” (Heb 5:9).

22 thoughts on “The Gospel of Christ”

  1. Noise. Must really suck being an exile – waiting for the second coming of Jesus son of Zeus. Over 2000 years of preaching: “Jesus is coming soon”, totally stale. Time to throw this old moldy bread and wine upon the dung heap of history. Like as if the Gods, their existence, depends on what Egocentric fanatics personally believe!

      1. My pleasure. The Torah rejects all forms of theology. Not a single commandment from the Torah requires Jews to believe. The 2nd commandment of the Sinai revelation, which all Goyim to this day have rejected, specifically the Commandment – Do not worship other Gods – the theology known as Monotheism totally violates.

        The 1st p’suk\verse of the kre’a shma: Here Israel HaShem our Judge HaShem is One. One has nothing to do with HaShem. Declaring HaShem as one God – that’s theology which the Torah outright rejects as avoda zara\idolatry. Making declarations about God(s) defines the avoda zara\strange worship of theology. Declaring the unity of God, like the Trinity theology\unity of the God Head/ does not accept the yoke of the kingdom of heaven.

        Acceptance of the Yoke of the kingdom of heaven most necessarily requires acceptance upon ones’ self the obligation of the oaths which each of the 3 Avot\fathers Avraham Yitzak and Yaacov swore wherein they each cut an oath brit\alliance with HaShem as their God. If you read the 2nd paragraph of the kre’a shma, an English translation equally works, you see that HaShem swore an oath unto the Avot concerning the inheritance of the oath sworn lands of Canaan. A Torah brit, if the Greater party to the sworn alliance swears an oath, how much more so the lessor party to this oath alliance\brit — swears a Torah oath.

        The New Testament never once brings the Name of HaShem (the 1st Commandment) in any biblical translation. Translating the Name of HaShem (which means Name), as found in the 1st Commandment of the Sinai revelation into some word, the sin of the Golden Calf wherein Aaron translated the Name\HaShem into the word אלהים\God; the opening of the Creation story narrative, of בראשית, HaShem breathed his Spirit into clay and transformed this clay into living flesh and blood\Adam. The Name lives as Spirit not words. The Gospel of John really missed the boat on this one. LOL.

        The recently past Chag of Rosh HaShanna commemorates the Spirit of the Name by blowing the Shofar. It requires spirits and not words to blow the Shofar. On Yom Kippur the Cohen HaGadol\High Priest pronounces the Name! Obviously the Name does not exist as a word. Translating the Name into words, like as does the Xtian bible and the Muslim koran, violates the 1st Commandment of the revelation of the Torah at Sinai. Hence the Talmud teaches that Goyim never accepted the revelation of the Torah at Sinai and Horev.

        Horev – the same physical location as Sinai – Moshe following the sin of the Golden Calve returned and fasted for another 40 days and nights and he received the “Oral Torah” revelation. Recall that at the sin of the Golden Calf that Israel demanded from Aaron, “Moshe has died, who will teach us the rest of the Torah?” The Oral Torah logic system, revealed orally to Moshe the prophet on Yom Kippur, 40 days after the sin of the Golden Calf, this logic system format — it and this logic alone – does HaShem permit the generations of Israel to interpret the intent of the Framer of the Torah revelation – expressed through Commandments.

        A Torah commandment does not qualify as law. All the new testament writers missed the boat on that mistake. Law comes from Sanhedrin judicial rulings, commonly known as Halacha. Its farcically ludicrous and totally funny that the New Testament writers confused Torah commandments with rabbinic judicial Sanhedrin laws. The Roman\Greek authors of the new testament clearly had but only a shallow understanding of the Torah. For example: How does the Torah define the key term “prophet”? Neither the New Testament nor the Koran ever figured that question out! Rhetoric, a Greek concept upon which stands theology, the Gemara of Baba Kama\First Gate, mocks as “hanging a mountain by a hair”. In 2008 candidate Obama employed the rhetoric of “C H A N G E”. He never defined what change he would bring if elected President. This rhetoric forced the People to fill in the blank by using their ‘fuzzy logic’.

        Obama got elected as a Messiah figure, similar to Jesus son of Zeus and Mohammad the “prophet”. Every 7th to 10th word of the koran employs the rhetoric of “prophet”. LOL. Rhetoric: a Mountain hanging by a hair! To be fair: Trump took the Office of POTUS through the rhetoric of: “Make America Great”; another totally undefined term whereby Trump hung his hopes of becoming the 45th President of the United States.

      2. I appreciate your reply! I’m not quite sure you understand my position. I don’t want to jump to conclusions without hearing you further, but it sounds like you might be pegging me into the mold of all the confusing mess today that is being called Christianity. You mentioned theology, the Trinity, and the Muslim Koran. I’m staunchly against Trinitarianism and Islam. You said: “The Torah rejects all forms of theology. Not a single commandment from the Torah requires Jews to believe.” I agree! I’ve written extensively on my website against theology, faith, and belief. I use the word “theology” in my writings simply to teach against Trinitarianism. I think you’ll be surprised to learn that I agree with you on more things than you realize.

        “The 1st p’suk\verse of the kre’a shma: Here Israel HaShem our Judge HaShem is One. One has nothing to do with HaShem. Declaring HaShem as one God – that’s theology which the Torah outright rejects as avoda zara\idolatry.”
        Jesus quoted from Moses in agreement, “Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD” (Deu 6:4), “Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord” (Mar 12:29). He wasn’t defining God as one God. When He called His Father “the only true God” (Jhn 17:3), He wasn’t “Declaring the unity of God” but declaring Him as “the only true God.” And at three different times called Him “my God” (Mat 27:46; Jhn 20:17; Rev 3:12).

        You said: “Acceptance of the Yoke of the kingdom of heaven most necessarily requires acceptance upon ones’ self the obligation of the oaths which each of the 3 Avot\fathers Avraham Yitzak and Yaacov swore wherein they each cut an oath brit\alliance with HaShem as their God.” Jesus agreed with that and quoted “I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob” (Mat 22:32; Mar 12:26; Luk 20:37). Peter agreed also, “The God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob, the God of our fathers, hath glorified his Son Jesus” (Act 3:13). Stephen agreed as well, “I am the God of thy fathers, the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob” (Act 7:32). And I agree with them. The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob is the God I worship and serve.

        When you said, “The New Testament never once brings the Name of HaShem (the 1st Commandment) in any biblical translation,” I’m not sure I understand what you mean but I want to. Do you mean from Greek into English? And when you said, “Translating the Name of HaShem (which means Name), as found in the 1st Commandment of the Sinai revelation into some word,” again, I’m not quite sure but I think you’re referring to John 1:1, “In the beginning was the Word”? If so, then I would disagree that this is a translation. John using the Greek logos translated into English as “word” was simply a figure of speech. He wasn’t translating “the Name\HaShem” into “word.”

        “Horev – the same physical location as Sinai – Moshe following the sin of the Golden Calve returned and fasted for another 40 days and nights and he received the “Oral Torah” revelation.” When Moses came down from the mountain after that second 40 days, “Moses wist not that the skin of his face shone while he talked with him” (Exo 34:29), “And till Moses had done speaking with them, he put a vail on his face” (Exo 34:33). Paul said that this event was prophetic of what would happen to God’s people, “But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which vail is done away in Christ. But even unto this day, when Moses is read, the vail is upon their heart. Nevertheless when it shall turn to the Lord, the vail shall be taken away.” (2Co 3:13-16).

        Out of genuine care and concern for you, I’m asking you to please evaluate if you’re hearing what your own law is saying, or if the vail is still upon Moses’ face when you read him? “Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law? For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman. But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise. Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.” (Gal 4:21-24). Abraham had two sons from two different women which, figuratively, are the two covenants—the Old Covenant and the New. Abraham wanted Ishmael as his heir, “And Abraham said unto God, O that Ishmael might live before thee!” (Gen 17:18). However, before the day was over, he had changed his hope to Isaac by becoming circumcised, “In the selfsame day was Abraham circumcised, and Ishmael his son” (Gen 17:26). And it’s “in Isaac shall thy seed be called” (Gen 21:12). If you’ll “hear” what’s being said, following the steps of Abraham requires turning from Ishmael to Isaac—from the Old Covenant to the New.

        I mean this with all sincerity, the Jewish people are very dear to my heart. I’m indebted to your people for the spiritual things I’ve been blessed with partaking, “It hath pleased them verily; and their debtors they are. For if the Gentiles have been made partakers of their spiritual things, their duty is also to minister unto them in carnal things” (Rom 15:27). By the way, I’m not following what you said about Obama and Trump. I’m not political at all, so those arguments you made don’t hit home with me. I just love studying and understanding the Scriptures. Thus, the name of my website! Many blessings to you.

      3. Open communications … always a blessing. Since the Torah does not teach theology, then what does it teach? Mussar. This term mussar, it defines the Torah concept known as “prophesy”.

        Rabbi Yechuda the Nasi (Head of the Sanhedrin Court), he taught a mussar (sometimes translated as ethics), in the language of the mitzva of kre’a shma. (Hear Israel HaShem our Judge HaShem is One). In the 1st two paragraphs of acceptance of the yoke of heaven, the Torah employs the language: לבבך … לבבכם. Heart its spelled לב, so why does the Torah misspell heart לבב? (You could never appreciate this subtle distinction if you read limited your reading of the T’NaCH to English translations of the Hebrew language).

        The art of making subtle distinctions separates good scholarship of ancient texts, from B grade inferior scholarship of ancient text. For example, a person who writes a doctorial PHD thesis on Russian romantic poetry written between the years 1850 to 1888. This PHD thesis requires that that scholar have a working understanding of the Russian language.

        True scholarship of the T’NaCH too requires this basic credentials. Anyone with a strong background in Hebrew can easily discern the obvious distinctions between the T’NaCH literature and the Greek New Testament. The latter stands upon theology whereas the former stands upon the יסוד\foundation of commanding mussar.

        This basic and fundamental distinction between the Hebrew T’NaCH and the Greek New Testament, as obvious as the difference between day and night. But to folks who rely strictly and only upon translations of ancient texts into English, whether the translation translates the Hebrew T’NaCH or the Greek New Testament, these subtle distinctions get lost in the translations.

      4. [[[Jesus quoted from Moses in agreement, “Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD” (Deu 6:4), “Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord” (Mar 12:29).]]]

        Only one other verse in all the literature of the T’NaCH do 3 Divine Name occur in succession. (HaShem Elohynu HaShem, like as found in the kre’a shma. Why? What does this teach? The New Testament did not ask this most basic and fundamental question. Xtian theologians would later attempt to justify their trinity unification of the god head theology upon this very point!

        No. The 3 succession of Divine Names, Jewish scholarship teaches that swearing an oath require using the Name of HaShem, (that Name – never once included in the Greek New Testament). Each of the Avot, Avraham, Yitzak, and Yaacov swore a Torah oath by which the cut a Torah ברית (This Hebrew term, brit, refers to an oath sworn alliance. The translated term “covenant”, totally fails to convey this basic meaning.) Hence the Gemara of ברכות\Blessings requires that a Jew wear tallit and tefillen in order to accept upon himself the oaths sworn by the Avot upon himself. The word אחד, translated as ONE, refers to the person who accepts the oaths sworn by the Avot as ONE with himself. To swore a Torah oath requires either a Safer Torah or tefillen! The Greek New Testament authors failed to make this crucial distinction.

      5. [[[Jesus agreed with that and quoted “I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob” (Mat 22:32; Mar 12:26; Luk 20:37).]]] The Greek New Testament failed to respect the 1st Commandment of Sinai. Translating the Name of HaShem into a foreign word, Lord or God for example, violates the 1st commandment of the revelation of the Torah at Sinai. Therefore even though the superficial language of the Greek New Testament validates the G-d of the Sinai revelation; in point of fact it flagrantly violates the first Commandment of Sinai.

        Aaron at the sin of the Golden Calf translated the Name into some other word ie אלהים. The Greek New Testament makes the exact same error.

      6. [[[ Peter agreed also, “The God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob, the God of our fathers, hath glorified his Son Jesus” (Act 3:13). Stephen agreed as well, “I am the God of thy fathers, the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob” (Act 7:32). And I agree with them. The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob is the God I worship and serve.]]]

        No. In all these cases the Greek New Testament translates the Name which defines the 1st Commandment of Sinai into foreign words. The Name revealed at Sinai lives as a unique Spirit and not a word. Translating the Name into a word violates the 1st commandment of Sinai. Just as happened at the sin of the Golden Calf.

      7. [[[ John 1:1, “In the beginning was the Word”?]]] The Name as expressed in the 1st Commandment of Sinai יקוק. I purposely misspelled the Name writing ק in the place of ה. Its absolutely forbidden to spell this Name out according to its letters, lest the reader read the Name as a word. This explains the reason why Jewish writers whenever they employ translations of the Name write G-d, or L-rd, etc.

      8. [[[ “Moses wist not that the skin of his face shone while he talked with him” (Exo 34:29), “And till Moses had done speaking with them, he put a vail on his face” (Exo 34:33). Paul said that this event was prophetic of what would happen to God’s people, “But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which vail is done away in Christ.]]]

        This crude attempt to equate the קרן אור which Michelangelo, in his sculpture of Moshe “translated” as “HORNS”… thereafter one of the slanders Goyim made against Jews: “Jews have horns”! Other translations made by Xtian theologians of קרן אור, they placed Halos above the heads of Xtian saints.

        The comparison made by the apostle Paul, likewise stinks. HaShem has no skin. Had Paul realized the distinction of the Name – that it lives as Spirit and not flesh, he would not have made this utterly gross comparison.

      9. [[[ “Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law? For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman. But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise. Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.” (Gal 4:21-24). ]]]

        Ishmael, as expressed through the language of the koran, does not know what the term ברית means any more than do the New Testament authors.

      10. [[[Abraham had two sons from two different women which, figuratively, are the two covenants—the Old Covenant and the New. Abraham wanted Ishmael as his heir, “And Abraham said unto God, O that Ishmael might live before thee!” (Gen 17:18). However, before the day was over, he had changed his hope to Isaac by becoming circumcised, “In the selfsame day was Abraham circumcised, and Ishmael his son” (Gen 17:26). And it’s “in Isaac shall thy seed be called” (Gen 21:12). If you’ll “hear” what’s being said, following the steps of Abraham requires turning from Ishmael to Isaac—from the Old Covenant to the New.]]]

        The term covenant totally perverts the term ברית\oath alliance. Neither the Muslim koran nor the Greek new testament understood that cutting a Torah brit most essentially entails swearing a Torah oath which by Torah definition requires Name and kingship. The term מלכות\kingship refers to middot דאורייתא or דרבנן. Middot, a complex term very difficult to translate. Physically it refers to “physical measurements”, but the mussar of this term, refers to ethical attributes or qualities.

        Neither the authors of the Greek new testament or the Muslim koran understood these subtle yet most essential distinctions.

      11. [[[By the way, I’m not following what you said about Obama and Trump. I’m not political at all, so those arguments you made don’t hit home with me.]]]

        The Torah – first and foremost functions as the Written Constitution of the Jewish Republic of States. In the 1st Jewish Commonwealth established by Jehoshua, States translated as “Tribes”.

        The New Testament totally fails to see the most essential point — the Torah functions as the basic Constitutional law of the land.

      12. Its my sincere pleasure to communicate with you. Your quotes from the new testament they give me the ability to directly respond and show how these (as in the case of the Apostle Paul, spies\agent provocateur organized their propaganda and religious rhetoric).

        A basic theory in revolutions: If something throws the “ethical containment force”, some call this term “soul” of a society (the essence of culture and tradition which defines and separates one civilization from another) that society falls into anarchy and chaos.

        Consider the French, Russian, Nazi, and Iranian revolutions as examples. The respective revolutionaries not only rejected the religion of the State, but they likewise rejected the forms of Government rule. In all the above mention cases, anarchy and Civil War which expanded to world war or Cold War with nuclear bomb threats defined the history of those countries.

        Paul went to Rome and preached Jesus the son of God and Monotheism. Both theologies caused the ethical containment force of Roman society to collapse over time.

      13. Thanks for your replies. By the way, would you please tell me your name? It’s a great honor to have this dialogue with you, and I really mean that. Also, I want to thank you for one of the first points you made that will be helpful to me in fighting against Trinitarianism. You said: “Not a single commandment from the Torah requires Jews to believe.” Trinitarians teach that people are saved simply by faith or believing but I’ve been arguing with them that that’s not what Jesus Christ taught. We must obey Christ’s commandments. I think your point was on the mark.

        You said: “True scholarship of the T’NaCH too requires this basic credentials.” You’re essentially making the same argument Trinitarian ministers make to keep everyone dependent upon them. They have a system of theology they defend using their credentials, hermeneutics, and scholarship. You also said: “Anyone with a strong background in Hebrew can easily discern the obvious distinctions between the T’NaCH literature and the Greek New Testament. The latter stands upon theology whereas the former stands upon the יסוד\foundation of commanding mussar.” You’re making the same argument Muslims make for their Koran, that anyone who doesn’t know the original language can’t really understand it. Therefore, everyone must depend upon them. I really do respect you and your scholarship. I’m just not sure why you’re using the same arguments as Trinitarians and Muslims? You’re a scholar, but so are they. Are you also a scholar in the Koran and know the language? If not, how can you say the Koran is wrong? Why trust you and not them?

        Trinitarians have done the same to me as you’re now doing; using the “scholarship” and “credentials” tactic to attack their opponent rather than argue their points. Why attack the messenger rather than the message? Why not focus on the message God is actually communicating through the Scriptures?

        Ishmael mocked Isaac: “And Sarah saw the son of Hagar the Egyptian, which she had born unto Abraham, mocking. Wherefore she said unto Abraham, Cast out this bondwoman and her son: for the son of this bondwoman shall not be heir with my son, even with Isaac.” (Gen 21:9-10). And Paul quoted from that passage: “Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise. But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now. Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman. So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free.” (Gal 4:28-31). As Ishmael mocked Isaac, so it came to pass; those clinging to the Old Covenant persecuted those under the New. You mocked the second coming of Christ, “Must really suck being an exile – waiting for the second coming of Jesus son of Zeus. Over 2000 years of preaching: ‘Jesus is coming soon’, totally stale.” Peter said: “Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, And saying, Where is the promise of his coming?” (2Pe 3:3-4). Are you confident you’re not “Ishmael”?

        “I will certainly return unto thee according to the time of life; and, lo, Sarah thy wife shall have a son … At the time appointed I will return unto thee, according to the time of life, and Sarah shall have a son” (Gen 18:10,14). He will return and “Sarah shall have a son.” The “time of life” was the time Isaac was born from Abraham and Sarah’s reproductively dead bodies. And Christ will return “according to the time of life,” the time when God’s children will be raised from death to life. Thus, “Sarah shall have a son.” And where does that leave Ishmael? It’s Sarah that will have a son when He returns but you’ve already mocked His return. Are you confident you’re not “Ishmael”?

      14. Mosc Kerr. Xtian theology does not compare to Jewish Oral Torah logic. Again, NO. Muslims have no more awareness of the Oral Torah logic than do Xtians. Torah scholarship stands upon the revelation of the Oral Torah. Xtians and Muslims do not know this wisdom.

      15. I presented this passage from the Scriptures, “But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which vail is done away in Christ. But even unto this day, when Moses is read, the vail is upon their heart.” (2Co 3:14-15). And your “scholarly” approach was to compare it with Michelangelo, misrepresent what Paul was saying with “HaShem has no skin,” and voice your opinion with the words “stinks” and “gross.”

        According to you: “The Roman\Greek authors of the new testament clearly had but only a shallow understanding of the Torah.” Oh really? According to Paul: “Though I might also have confidence in the flesh. If any other man thinketh that he hath whereof he might trust in the flesh, I more: Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee; Concerning zeal, persecuting the church; touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless.” (Phl 3:4-6). He claimed nobody could boast more of themselves than he could, and he authored about half the writings of the New Testament.

        Paul wasn’t saying any such thing as HaShem having skin. Moses’ face was shining with glory when he came down from mount Sinai. While he was on the mountain he was told, “The feast of unleavened bread shalt thou keep” (Exo 34:18), “And thou shalt observe the feast of weeks, of the firstfruits of wheat harvest, and the feast of ingathering at the year’s end” (Exo 34:22), “Thrice in the year shall all your men children appear before the Lord GOD, the God of Israel” (Exo 34:23), “Thou shalt not offer the blood of my sacrifice with leaven; neither shall the sacrifice of the feast of the passover be left unto the morning” (Exo 34:25). By requiring all Jewish men to be in Jerusalem three times a year, it ensured there would be multitudes there for His Son’s crucifixion on Passover. And by bringing them from all over the Roman Empire 7 weeks later, it ensured there would be multitudes of Jewish men from every nation to witness the gift outpoured by His Son at His right hand—the gift of hearing people become instantly fluent in their own native languages. And there were about 3,000 Jewish men baptized that day. These same men had been there when Christ was crucified, could see His tomb was empty, and could also see that David’s tomb was still occupied.

        The point is that the glory on Moses’ face is the message that God would be glorified and honored by His Son’s death, burial, resurrection, and seating at His right hand. If you don’t “see” that in the Torah, then it must mean the vail is still on Moses’ face. But if you’ll turn to the Lord Jesus Christ, the vail will be taken away, “Nevertheless when it shall turn to the Lord, the vail shall be taken away” (2Co 3:16).

        Is God far wiser than any of us? Of course! Could He hide the understanding of His message about His Son within the Scriptures so that nobody could understand the message without Him revealing it afterwards? Could He even not allow Moses to know there was a message within his own writings, “Moses wist not that the skin of his face shone while he talked with him” (Exo 34:29)? And why hide it? Because if the religious leaders knew what they were doing, they wouldn’t have done it, “But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory: Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.” (1Co 2:7-8). God saved the world through His Son and without anyone knowing what He was doing.

        Also, by hiding His message within the narratives, it allows simple folks like me to hear and understand it without needing to be scholarly and reading the original language. Why should our souls depend on trusting scholars rather than God? Furthermore, it leaves God’s own people without excuse for rejecting the message He was communicating through the Scriptures. Finally, it compels us to be humble rather than boasting in our own wisdom.

      16. “Therefore, behold, I will proceed to do a marvellous work among this people, even a marvellous work and a wonder: for the wisdom of their wise men shall perish, and the understanding of their prudent men shall be hid” (Isa 29:14). Isaiah said that the wisdom of the wise among God’s people would perish and understanding would be hidden from them. Paul quoted from Isaiah: “For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent … But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness; But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God. Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.” (1Co 1:19,23-25). What Jewish scholars call “foolishness” is actually God’s wisdom. Whose wisdom should we trust?

        Was God truly speaking the message of His Son through the Scriptures but hiding it from our understanding? Or, are Jewish scholars really that wise? You’re going to have to search your own heart about these things in your prayer time as I have in mine. It’s your eternal destiny that’s at stake. Are you confident in your own wisdom that you’re “Isaac” and not “Ishmael,” or is God far wiser than you? I simply care enough about you to tell you the truth.

        Speaking of swearing oaths, you said: “The 3 succession of Divine Names, Jewish scholarship teaches that swearing an oath require …” You’re following what “Jewish scholarship teaches,” but I’m following what the Scriptures teach. Abraham told Isaac, “My son, God will provide himself a lamb for a burnt offering” (Gen 22:8). He was about to offer his son when the Messenger of the Lord stopped him, then swore an oath by Himself, “By myself have I sworn, saith the LORD, for because thou hast done this thing, and hast not withheld thy son, thine only son” (Gen 22:16).

        David later wrote that the Lord God said to his (David’s) Lord the Son of God, “The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool … The LORD hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek” (Psa 110:1,4). David’s Lord, the Messenger of the Lord, had sworn by Himself and won’t change it, that He is a Priest “after the order of Melchizedek,” “And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine: and he was the priest of the most high God” (Gen 14:18). That Melchizedek “brought forth bread and wine” foretold of what the Son of God would do before offering Himself as the Lamb that God provided, “And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body. And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; For this is my blood of the new testament [covenant], which is shed for many for the remission of sins” (Mat 26:26-28). He is now the High Priest at God’s right hand, forgiving our sins by His precious shed blood. He swore by Himself and won’t change. If we reject Him, we have no hope. My prayer is that one day you will also turn to Him for the forgiveness of your sins.

        You’ve gone all over the place about “Obama,” “Trump,” “Zeus,” “Russian romantic poetry,” “spies\agent,” “propaganda,” “religious rhetoric,” “French, Russian, Nazi, and Iranian revolutions,” “anarchy and Civil War,” “Cold War with nuclear bomb threats,” and “Michelangelo.” Spies? Revolutions? Anarchy? Did you forget conspiracy theories? Honestly, none of that sounds quite scholarly to me. Why not just talk about the Scriptures? Could it be that the vail is still there, keeping you from seeing God’s glory in the Scriptures?

        Also, you said such things to me as “Noise. Must really suck,” “Egocentric fanatics personally believe,” “Its farcically ludicrous and totally funny.” Now, I truly don’t take any of that personally. I don’t care how you talk to me, but I sure hope you don’t talk to others that way. We’re commanded to love others. Let me ask you something for you to answer for yourself honestly. If you were an outsider reading through this short dialogue between us, who would you be more inclined to think truly knows God? Blessings!

      17. [[[ What Jewish scholars call “foolishness” is actually God’s wisdom. Whose wisdom should we trust?]]] Ya switched Greeks for “Jewish scholars”. This bait and switch negates the validity of your question.

        Your language exemplifies rhetoric. You do not know the distinction between “understanding” and “wisdom”. The new testament quote from Paul, likewise employs the undefined term of “wisdom” with Greek rhetoric; Paul fails to define the term upon which he hinges his theology.

        [[[Was God truly speaking the message of His Son through the Scriptures but hiding it from our understanding?]]] No. The Torah employs the term “firstborn son” in reference to the chosen Cohen nation. So your question does not address a Torah issue of understanding.

        [[[Or, are Jewish scholars really that wise?]]] Jewish scholars failed to prevent the last g’lut\exile which lasted from the destruction and capture of Jerusalem by the armies of Titus to the victory of the Israeli Independence wars of 1948 and 1967. So clearly Jewish wisdom requires a lot of t’shuva.

        [[[It’s your eternal destiny that’s at stake.]]] No. Wisdom has nothing to do with the oath brit faith. The concept of g’lut\exile learns from the expulsion of Adam in the garden!!! Moshe taught a simple Torah which includes Life and Death. Redemption from g’lut — as found in the redemption from Egyptian slavery. And g’lut — as found in the fall of the kingdoms of Israel and Yechuda, the fall of Judea by the Roman. Torah faith recognizes both blessing and curse.

        [[[Are you confident in your own wisdom that you’re “Isaac” and not “Ishmael,” or is God far wiser than you?]]] Neither the new testament nor the koran understand the concept of the brit faith. This brit faith remains unchanged from the Avot to all descendants of the Cohen nation. HaShem does not swear false oaths.

        [[[truth]]]. None sense. The 8th midda of the Oral Torah revelation which for over 2000 years the church has denied. Sorry you have not the slightest clue how the Torah defines this key midda/truth.

        [[[” You’re following what “Jewish scholarship teaches,” but I’m following what the Scriptures teach.]]] No. You confuse the avoda zara of Xtian theology with the Torah and NaCH and Talmud.

        [[[ “My son, God will provide himself a lamb for a burnt offering” (Gen 22:8).]]] Your knowledge of Moshiach Saul, whose dedication as Moshiach HaShem rejected. Obedience has priority over sacrifice. The prophets teach that HaShem never commandment sacrifices. Meaning sacrifices a minor Order of faith.

        [[[The LORD said unto my Lord,]]] This refers to Avraham. LOL The 4th p’suk\verse teaches that HaShem chose the brit seed of Avraham. Brit seed excludes both Yishmael and Esau ever qualifying as having a portion with the oath brit chosen Cohen nation. How did Melchizedek “lose” the Cohen status? This question you have never asked. Big error. When Avram returned Lot from his g’lut\exile, Melchizedek erred in the Order of blessings. He blessed first Avram and thereafter HaShem. The Jewish prayerbook\Siddur — stands upon the verb סדר which means “Order”. Your misreading of T’NaCH texts reveals a lack of Order.

        [[[Why not just talk about the Scriptures?]]] Torah does not teach history but rather spirituality. Spirituality equally applies throughout the annuls of human history. Hence I discussed these diverse historical events to see the spirituality within them.

        [[[ We’re commanded to love others.]]] Alas you do not know how the Torah defines the term “love”. Torah faith rejects Greek theological rhetoric.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s