 |
Web Hosting by Netfirms | Free Domain Names by Netfirms |
|
|
|
I choose to start this article with the listing of the many references in the New Testament that refer to Jeremiah's "new covenant". Without a doubt such wording in the New Testament leads an unthinking reader to conclude that the "new covenant" has already started.
Answer for yourself: Has it really?
Don't underestimate the importance of such an issue…for if you are wrong in this belief, then your life, which is filled with conducts and behaviors based upon a erroneous religious belief system, will cause you to sin in many areas where you might think otherwise. It is with this knowledge that I am constrained to reach out to my fellow Gentile believers with the facts of my study and research into these areas as a warning to them.
It is our contention at Bet Emet Ministries that nothing could be further from the truth. Study of the Hebrew language alone concerning the Jeremiah 31 passage will confirm that there is no such thing as a “new” Covenant; only the same Covenant of Laws and Commandments which is to be “reiterated”…not replaced as Gentile Christianity has done for 1700 years. If you have been reading our articles in the past, then you are becoming well aware and familiar with the misquotations, mistranslations, and the abundant use of the Jewish Scriptures which are taken completely out of context by the writers of the New Testament. Hundreds of examples are for your inspection on our second web site. You hopefully are becoming critical readers of the New Testament whereby you are now more equipped to read the New Testament and spot the abundant errors within it which has contributed to you believing many lies over truth during your church life.
My friends…either it has or it has not. Now let us examine the evidence used by most Christians for believing that the "new covenant" of Jeremiah has already started as presented in the New Testament. After reading this you can see for yourself how you have been misled and deceived in believing lies.
Matt 26:28
28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. (KJV)
Mark 14:24
24 And he said unto them, This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many. (KJV)
Luke 22:20
20 Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament (covenant) in my blood, which is shed for you. (KJV)
1 Cor 11:25
25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. (KJV)
2 Cor 3:6
6 Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life. (KJV)
Heb 7:22
22 By so much was Yeshua made a surety of a better testament. (KJV)
Heb 8:6
6 But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises. (KJV)
Heb 8:7
7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second. (KJV)
Heb 8:8
8 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah: (KJV)
Heb 8:9
9 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord. (KJV)
Heb 8:10
10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people: (KJV)
Heb 8:13
13 In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away. (KJV)
Heb 9:1
1 Then verily the first covenant had also ordinances of divine service, and a worldly sanctuary. (KJV)
Heb 9:15
15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance. (KJV)
Heb 9:16
16 For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. (KJV)
Heb 9:17
17 For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth. (KJV)
Heb 9:18
18 Whereupon neither the first testament was dedicated without blood. (KJV)
Heb 9:20
20 Saying, This is the blood of the testament which God hath enjoined unto you. (KJV)
Heb 10:16
16 This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them; (KJV)
Heb 10:29
29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace? (KJV)
Heb 12:24
24 And to Yeshua the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel. (KJV)
Heb 13:20
20 Now the God of peace, that brought again from the dead our Lord Yeshua, that great shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant, (KJV)
As if that was not proof enough, we have Paul explaining why the Jewish people do not accept this "new" theology:
2 Cor 3:14
14 But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same veil untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which vail is done away in Christ. (KJV)
Answer for yourself: Now what did we just see that the New Testament affirms?
So you can see that without a doubt the New Testament believes and testifies that the New Covenant had already begun.
Now for a real shake up. As many of you know we at Bet Emet have for years now tried to exposed the New Testament for what it really is; a Roman propagandist document filled with both truth and error. To the uninitiated reader one cannot pick the “meat from the bones”. But with study you can.
According to Martin A. Larson, a recognized Essene scholar, on page 173 of The Essene Heritage, the “epistles now attributed to James, Peter, John, and Jude, stem directly from the Essene tradition.” Also, he states, that “Jude quotes directly from Enoch; and that all express a bitter opposition to Pauline teachings, and emphasize the priority of works over faith as well as proclaim the imminent Parousia.” Notice also that they all “declare that the New Covenant is a continuation of the Old.”
Dear ones it is this same Essene “theology” we read in the New Testament. The New Testament is highly apocalyptic in itself and is highly “Essenic” in many places. The writes of the New Testament expressed a belief in the imminent apocalyptic eschaton in their life times; and along with that expected Divine intervention would be the establishment not of a “New” Covenant to replace the Old whereby the Laws of Moses and Noah would be replaced, but “Re-Newed” as Jeremiah had prophesied they would be. This must be your understanding which you read the New Testament and the passages quoted above. Failure to do so will guarantee you will misinterpret every passage your read. We simply cannot read the 21st century into these documents as if they were referring to our day and time. To complicate matter worse the redactors of the New Testament has added repeatedly “words” to the passages of the Greek manuscripts such as “testament” and “covenant” to brainwash you into thinking that the “Old” Covenant with its Laws and Commandments from Noah and Moses were obsolete. This is tampering with the Word of God as spoken by Jeremiah the prophet and this should outrage you…if you only knew. Lastly, Lawrence Schiffman, another recognized scholar in Dead Sea Scroll studies, states on page 81 of Reclaiming The Dead Sea Scrolls, that “the Essenes and the Dead Sea sect were physically decimated,” referring to the Roman siege of 70 C.E., as well as stating that the “extreme apocalypticism of the Essenes and their theology has been discredited”.
Let me also inject into this study a very important fact of Biblical history. The Essenes, an apocalyptic monastic movement in the first century, often connected with the Dead Sea and the Dead Sea Scrolls, were know to be called “the new covenanteers”. These people considered themselves the fulfillment of the “New Covenant” and they were WRONG! But unlike the Gentile Church of today, they never entertained the idea that the Laws of the Covenant were obsolete and would be replaced with “grace”. When reading the ideas in the New Testament, referring to a time period prior to 70 C.E., and the hopes of Divine intervention when God would write His Laws on the hearts of both Jew and non-Jew, we must recall that it was these who wrote not of a replacement Covenant as Christians mistakenly believe they have today, but a continuation of the “Old” Covenant as shown above. Gentile Christianity is simply wrong in this issue. The hopes of the Jewish people were that in the eschaton that they believed was imminent, that the Torah would go from the Temple into all the world and that their Gentile captors would become the righteous of the nations as God’s Laws would be written upon the hearts of these people as well. The world would be at peace and Eden would be endemic. So when reading the New Testament with the hope of apocalyptic Divine intervention in the hearts and minds of these “new covenanteers” we must realize that the events transpiring after 70 C.E. render their whole ideas about the “New Covenant” as expressed in their writings as being, as L. Schiffman states, “totally discredited”!
If one would just look outside his window it is evident that the Laws of God are not written in the hearts of the majority of people in the world. Just look at the headlines of you newspaper in the morning for confirmation.
Now let us continue to investigate for ourselves if the testimony of the New Testament can be trusted in light of other facts which state otherwise.
1. Jeremiah 31:31-34—Here are the relevant quotes: "Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, which my covenant they broke. . .But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts, and will be their God, and they shall be my people. And they shall no more teach every man his neighbor, saying, Know the Lord, for they shall all know me. . .for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more. "
From this, Christians deduce that God told Jeremiah that He would make a new set of laws, a new contract with man. They even call the New Testament the "Bris Chadosha," which is the Hebrew for "a new covenant." It never ceases to amaze me that many Messianic Christians use the Hebrew for the New Testament “Bris Chadosha” in their terminology never understanding what the Covenant stipulations for such a Covenant as stated by Jeremiah truly are; especially in light of their contradiction of these Covenant stipulations in their life-style. Such irony is literally blasphemy of the Name of the Lord and constitutes profanation of His Name. This verse, as taken from Jeremiah, is what ostensibly legitimized the text and the concepts of the New Testament, and therefore we will begin our discussion with this passage. Understand this, if you look to Jeremiah for your authority for the “New Covenant” then you must be willing to accept and submit to all that Jeremiah states about such a Covenant. To do otherwise is a lie to the truth of Jeremiah and a deception to your own integrity as a child of God who professes to love HaShem.
The failure of the typical Christian to recognize the multiple forgeries within the New Testament is primarily due to their failure to know their own Old Testament Jewish Scriptures. If the typical Christian was not a "New Testament" Christian so much but was an "Old Testament" Christian, then when reading the New Testament they would be better equipped to spot the misquotations or the verses removed out of their original context by skillful Gentiles who were writing this document to fulfill their own religious agenda over 1800 years ago. And make no mistake about it, when I say the Jewish Scriptures I mean the Jewish Tanakh or the JPS Tanakh, and not the equally forged and corrupted Christian mistranslations of the Tanakh as contained in the Christian Bibles. I really dislike saying "Old" in referencing the Jewish Scriptures, but for the sake of recognition I will call the Holy Jewish Scriptures by this name since most recognize the title.
If we begin with the Jeremiah quote we find in chapter 31 verse 34 the first problem for the Christian to deal with if he wants to believe this "New Covenant" has already begun. Verse 34 states: And they shall teach no more every man his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know Me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD…".
Answer for yourself: Did you catch that?
If the birth of the Christian religion really did introduce the new covenant, then there should no longer be any need for anyone to teach the word of God, ":for they shall all know Me." Since, as everyone with eyes can see, the whole world does not yet recognize God, and the Christians are still trying to teach religion to the world, as are others, it is quite clear that the verse, "they shall teach no more every man, saying, Know the Lord"does not yet apply. In other words, the new covenant has not yet taken place. No matter what another document might say, even the New Testament or its supposed apostolic writers, such testimony contradicts the prophet Jeremiah and is totally invalid. The New Testament is supposed to be the climax of Biblical Judaism not the repudiation of it. If the New Testament contradicts the Old Testament then there is no truth in it. For the life of me I cannot understand how a document so full of theological holes is held to be a higher truth than the Bible Yeshua used (Tanakh) or the Prophets he quoted. Yeshua did not have a problem with Jeremiah, but the clever writers and redactors of the New Testament before the canonization of the New Testament so altered the words of Yeshua and literally put into his mouth "sayings" which were totally foreign to what the real Yeshua both believed and professed. You need to be aware of this! Comparison of New Testament manuscripts reveal such things if you would only look. But you don't know of such because of your lack of study in these areas. I bring you the news that it happened and challenge your study in these areas to see these things for yourself.
If you take the context of Jeremiah 31 where the "first" mention of this "New Covenant" is mentioned, and compare it to the experience of those who are professing that the "New Covenant" has already started, and started with the death of Yeshua, then it is quite contradictory for the Christians to spend millions of dollars in their attempt to convert the world to Christianity, and to then claim that we already live under the terms of the new covenant. The evangelism of the Christian Church absolute invalidates their stance that a New Covenant has already begun. This is something few have ever considered. No, I am not against the world-wide witness to truth by the church, but such witness to Jeremiah’s truth only testifies that Jeremiah is right and that the New Covenant promised by God has not begun yet. To say otherwise is again to wrestle the Jewish Scriptures to the destruction of truth. Christianity has got the cart before the horse again, and is totally wrong is this regard.
However, the Christians claim that they have an answer to this problem. They say that verse 34 ("And they shall teach no more. . . ") refers to the second coming of Yeshua. Verse 34, they say, will be fulfilled when Yeshua returns once again to visit mankind.
Since we will have to do it eventually, this is an opportune place to thoroughly analyze the doctrine of the second coming. Since space is at a premium, let me encourage all readers to e-mail for the articles on the "second coming" and the creation of such a doctrine by the early church to try to explain away the lack of Yeshua coming again after 70 C.E. as well as 135 C.E. as he said he would and as the majority of the people hoped for and expected. Necessity is the mother of invention. You will discover that whenever any really strong question, such as the one above, is asked, the standard answer is that it refers to the second coming. It therefore becomes extremely important to ascertain the validity of this claim. The success of the Christian claim or its failure rests to a very large extent on the theory of the second coming.
First of all, the Christian explanation above that verses from Jeremiah, verses 31, 32, and 33 refer to the time of around 29 A. D., and verse 34 applies 2,000 or more years later seems very forced, if not absurd. There is no indication whatsoever that this interpretation was intended. It is clearly an answer born of desperation by those having to explain the failure of fulfillment of Messianic predictions by Yeshua and others as written in the New Testament.
In addition, there is a major historical dilemma which seems to explain why the doctrine of the second coming was invented. H.M. Waddams, who was the Residentiary Canon of Canterbury Cathedral in 1968, wrote a book explaining why it took so many years for the Church to get organized into a formal, organized group. His answer is that even though verses such as Matthew 24:34 may mean that Yeshua is referring to a future generation (i.e., substitute " that" for " this," which of course is very forced) nonetheless most of the early Christians thought that the simple interpretation was correct. It corroborated the impressions that they had of the message of Yeshua, and so they thought that Yeshua would return within their own lifetime. After all, Yeshua did say, in Matthew 16:28, "Verily I say unto you, there be some standing here which shall not taste of death, till they see the son of man coming in his kingdom." However, after many years went by, and the generation that lived in Yeshua’s generation had all died, it became rather apparent that Yeshua would not reappear in the near future. In the absence of Yeshua’s return, the doctrine of the "immanent return in that generation" was therefore changed so that his reappearance was not necessarily going to be in the near future. It is sad to say but my experience in my study testifies that much of the Christian religion is merely a reaction to beliefs, customs, and unexpected developments that were accepted by or occurred to the people that lived near the early Christians. For example, many Christian holidays are revisions of early pagan holidays.
Thus, the doctrine of the second coming most likely arose out of a historical dilemma, and not because of the Christian claim that there is a theological dilemma which justified it.
Matthew 24 discusses the end of the world, and then, in verse 34, after describing all sorts of unusual prophecies, Yeshua says, "Verily I say unto you, "This" generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled." Notice if you will the text says "THIS" and not "THAT"! The natural reading of that sentence is that the generation to whom Yeshua was talking to would not pass. That is what "this generation" seems to mean—this very generation that Yeshua lived among. However, the events did not occur during that generation. Look at history. In order to bolster their claims that a New Covenant had already begun Gentile Christians would later therefore claim that Yeshua meant that when the prophecies begin to be fulfilled, then the generation that begins to see those events shall not pass away until they are all fulfilled. Thus, according to Christian theology, the sentence really should read, "that generation shall not pass away," which is why the Christian interpretation is forced, and was not really accepted at first. Now a new millennium has begun and no Yeshua on the scene. In Biblical years, a generation has come and gone since Israel became a nation in 1948. I guess it is time for Hal Lindsey to write a new book to explain away what he already has written once again that was in error. Again necessity is the mother of invention. Either Yeshua meant what he is reported to have said (speaking to "that" generation) or else he lied. I choose not to believe that Yeshua is a liar. But if you will be honest the only other rational understanding is the creation of such a doctrine; and it was this new doctrine which was put into the mouth of Yeshua by the early church in order to give validity to their replacement doctrines which literally are "new". But this is a far cry from a "New Covenant". Again understand when confronted with the misapplication of the Jeremiah 31 passage in order to give validity to this new doctrine which opposed Biblical Judaism, it was necessary to create a second coming and postpone it in order to allow validity for this unique Christian interpretation of the beginning of a "New Covenant". Some of the earlier followers of Yeshua, both the Essenes as well as the Gentile followers who were influenced by Paul, needed to justify their religious stances which conflicted with the Torah, Moses, and the Prophets, and give validity and prophetic authority to their contradicting positions by incorrectly quoting Prophetic Jewish passages completely out of context. This was done by misapplication of Jewish Scriptures which were used completely out of context as I am showing you on the second website as well as adding words in the New Testament to passages such as “testament” and “covenant”. If you were not quite well familiar with the Jewish Old Testament (Tanakh) then it would very easy to read a passage in the New Testament and feel it sounded "right" but in reality was completely wrong since it misquoted, mistranslated, and misused Jewish Scripture. As you can see competence in the Jewish Old Testament as taken from the Tanakh is a required necessity for correctly understanding the New Testament for what it really is.
But we are not through yet. There are other problems.
Let us now turn to the supposed theological dilemma. There are verses which indicate that the Messiah will appear in a weak and inglorious fashion, such as Zechariah 9:9, where the Messiah is described coming into Jerusalem "lowly, and riding on a donkey. " There are, on the other hand, other verses which indicate that he will appear in a mighty, glorious, and ruling fashion, such as Daniel 7:13 and 14, which describe the Messiah coming in on clouds, and "there was given him dominion, and glory, and kingdom. . . " etc. These two verses seem to be the source of the contradiction, and the Christians claim that the Jewish answer is very poor. Let us therefore compare the Jewish with the Christian answer.
The Christians quote two basic Jewish answers, and, in fact, I have not found any more than those two. One answer, mentioned by the Ibn Ezra on Zechariah 9:9, is that Zechariah refers to the Messiah that will be from the house of Joseph (who according to Jewish tradition, will introduce the Messianic Age) and Daniel refers to the Messiah from the house of David. Since the first one will be killed, according to the Talmud, as they explain Zechariah 12:10 (see Talmud Succah 52a), it makes sense to say that both verses of Zechariah refer to the same person. Since his end will be in death, his beginning will be lowly and meek. The other answer is given by the Talmud in Sanhedrin 98a. If the Jews are worthy (i.e., righteous), then the verses of Daniel will apply; if they are not worthy, then the verse of Zechariah 9:9 will apply.
Let us now look at the Christian answer. As you probably have already guessed, Zechariah 9:9 refers to the first coming of Yeshua, as does Zechariah 12:10; whereas Daniel 7:13 and 14 refer to the second coming of Yeshua. Necessity is the mother of invention once more.
There are, however, some very major difficulties with Christianity’s answer concerning the two comings of Messiah. First, if you look at Zechariah 12:10, 11, 12, 13, and 14, it becomes extremely obvious that it does not refer to Yeshua, because it says that "I will pour upon the house of David and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and supplications, and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced (Christians claim that this refers to Yeshua, who was stabbed) and they shall mourn for him, as one mourns for his only son (which Christians again point to Yeshua, the supposed son of God). . . In that day shall there be a great mourning in Jerusalem. . .and the land shall mourn, every family apart. . . all the families that remain. . . " But Zechariah never said this! The Christian Old Testament and the Christian New Testament quote of it is a LIE! God said we are not to take away or add to His Word…remember? Well someone did! Let us see.
First of all the above quote as taken from a Christian Bible is a PURPOSEFUL gross mistranslation of Zech. 12:10-14 from the Hebrew Tanakh. The Christian Bible rends it completely different from what the Prophet Zechariah intended. Space does not permit a full disclosure on such a mistranslation in this article so request it. Let me say in passing the Christian translation concerns only two parties, the Jews looking upon the one pierced…..who else but Yeshua, right? But the Hebrew concerns 3 parties; the Jews looking to God concerning those of their own who were pierced and killed in the end-time battle with the Gentile powers of the world. Let us not forget that our Christian Bibles need to be accurate translations and not forgeries to make self-fulfilling prophecies. I challenge anyone to get a copy of the Jewish Scriptures and prove me wrong on this! It simply cannot be done. The Christian New Testament and the Christian Old Testament are not faithful translations. If an accurate translation is not important to you, then there is no hope for you so quit reading our articles. But if you want to know the truth continue on. Understand that is such errors as this, when rehearsed you whole life in the Christian Church, which leads you to false beliefs, sin, and literally idolatry.
Now for the sake of proving my point I will assume that the Christian translation is correct. For after all, you would most likely never had known of this until you read my article. According to the Christian mistranslation, yet a big question comes to mind.
Answer for yourself: If this refers to the first coming of Yeshua, then what was the spirit of grace and supplication?
Answer for yourself: Where in Biblical history do we find such a spirit of grace and supplication being poured out upon the Jewish people in the wake of Yeshua’s death?
It never seems to have occurred! In addition, there certainly was no great mourning in Jerusalem and throughout the land by all of the Jewish families after the death of Yeshua. On the contrary, since many Jews, according to the Gospels and the New Testament, encouraged the crucifixion, if anything there was a great rejoicing, rather than mourning. Does not the Gospel of John say that Yeshua came unto his own people and they rejected him? Does not the New Testament imply that the Jewish people wanted Barrabas instead of Yeshua? Thus, without any doubt, Zechariah 12:10 does not refer to Yeshua because instead grace being poured upon the Jewish people after his death, only destruction and Roman anti-Semitism was seen. Look at the subsequent history of the Jewish people and then tell me about their “prosperity” and “grace” in the wake of the Roman war.
Another problem is seen in the Zechariah 9:9 passage; it clearly also does not refer to Yeshua: "Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion. . . behold your King is coming to you, he is just and having salvation; lowly, and riding on a donkey. . .and he shall speak peace unto the heathen, and dominion shall be from sea to sea, and from the river to the ends of the earth. . ." First of all, Yeshua was not the King of the Jews, even if it is true that such a label was placed over his head by the Romans who crucified Yeshua. According to Matthew 27:1, all of the chief priests and elders of the people wanted to kill Yeshua, and the multitude (27:20) felt the same way about Yeshua, according to the --- New Testament. Thus, if Matthew is correct, the Jews did not feel that Yeshua was their king. If Matthew is not correct, then the New Testament is false, and the theory of the second coming and the entire Christian religion is also false. Even Josephus, who wrote his history very shortly after Yeshua was supposed to have been crucified, barely makes mention of Yeshua. Such is not to be expected if Yeshua was a "King." In his Antiquities of the Jews, Book XVIII, III, 3, there is one small, lonely paragraph about Yeshua, and even that does not seem to belong there. That is why many scholars, even Christian, consider this passage in Josephus to be an interpolation (forgery) by some Christian, at a later date. In the Antiquities, Book XX, IX, 1, Josephus does mention that "the brother of Yeshua, who was called Christ, whose name was James" was accused of breaking the law; this is a very meager comment to make regarding a "King" of Israel. If you desire to read more about this I suggest H.M. Waddams, The Struggle for Christian Unity, Walker & Co., PLY., 1968 p. 10. Along with Emil Schurer, A History of the Jewish People in the Time of Yeshua, New York, 1961, page 211. You might also want to read The Quest for the Historical Yeshua by Albert Schweitzer and the foreword by Wm. LaSor to Whiston's translation of Josephus.
Thus, the New Testament's claim regarding the existence and kingship of Yeshua seems to be contradicted by itself as well as by other sources.
In addition, Yeshua did not "speak peace to the heathens." If you look at the end of Acts 10 and the beginning of Acts 11, it is clear that the apostles themselves were shocked that Peter preached to the Gentiles. Now, this makes sense only if they were taught this by Yeshua himself. Apparently, Yeshua made it quite clear that the message was to go to the Jews only. In fact, Paul said this explicitly in Acts 13:46. (See also Matthew 14:24.) So it is clear that Yeshua himself never preached to the Gentiles, which therefore excludes Yeshua from being the subject of Zechariah 9:10.
Lastly, the subject of the prophecy of Zechariah would have "dominion from sea to sea, to the ends of the earth. " This, of course was not true then, nor is it true now. At last census, Christianity boasts only 1/3 of the world’s population and this a far cry from “dominion from sea to sea”. The only possible answer the Christians could give is to say that Zechariah 9:9 refers to the first coming, and 9:10 refers to the second, but this is so obviously forced that it need not be discussed. In addition, it makes the entire proof of the second coming fall due to circular reasoning.
It is therefore quite clear that the Christian answer to the apparent contradiction between Zechariah and Daniel cannot be true. I stress this because you will find it difficult to believe that they could have accepted it in the first place. If the Christian answer is clearly untrue, then, consequently, the doctrine of the “second coming” must similarly be considered to be untrue. It is simply an answer born of desperation due to the inability to answer the strong questions against Christian Biblical interpretations. Understand that I personally believe in the coming of a Messiah but reject the traditional “second” coming teachings of Gentile Christianity.
Thus, the Christian answer to Jeremiah 31, which is what started this entire discussion, must also be rejected. The new covenant has not occurred yet, and verse 34 does not refer to a "second coming."
In addition, the Christian approach to Jeremiah 31 rests upon one premise, and that premise must be examined. The Christian premise is that a "bris,” a covenant, would include a new set of laws. However, if you look throughout the Old Testament, you will find that "bris'' does not mean a set of laws, but rather, a creation of a bond, a creation of a closer relationship. Thus, the Christian interpretation, which justifies a new set of laws (Christians do not keep kosher, observe the Sabbath, tithe correctly, or observe Biblical Festivals like Yom Kippur, etc.), is built on a false premise in the first place. One only need look at Genesis 9:12; God is not commanding the animals; He is creating a relationship with them. Again look at Genesis 15: 18; there is no set of laws being commanded to Abraham or changed. Again if one only look at Deut. 7:2 God is telling His Jewish people to not create a close relationship with the pagans who lived near them. If we look to Jeremiah himself, in 22:9 we see how Israel broke their close relationship with God and worshipped other Gods instead. If it meant, because they broke the laws, then why specify that they also worshipped other Gods? It would be as if one would say that not only did you murder, but you also robbed! Look at these verses and you will see that a "brie"—a covenant, never refers to a set of laws, and so most Christians are really misinterpreting this issue.
Before we move on to another "proof," there is another important point to be made. It seems clear from the entire Torah that something essential is missing, because if you carefully examine it, it is not very precise at all. For example, look at the Ten Commandments in Exodus, chapter 20. It says that one should not do any work on the Sabbath—but it does not define work, and nowhere in the Torah does it explicitly define what constitutes "work."
Answer for yourself: How then does one know how to obey this law? It says "honor your father and mother"—but how does one do that?
Answer for yourself: Must a person obey his parents' wishes that he marry someone who he hates but his parents like?
Answer for yourself: Must he or she reject a job that his or her parents dislike but he or she desires it?
Answer for yourself: Must a child stand up every time a parent walks into the room?
You see, there is no real guideline here. If you say, use common sense, that does not help. Many people have a different feeling for what is "common" sense, and therefore you cannot really know if your conclusion is, in fact, the will of God. It does not make sense to claim that God commanded such vague and obscure guidelines. Even the next few laws are unclear. "Thou shall not murder".
Answer for yourself: How do you define murder?
If the state allows a type of killing, such as ancient Greece allowing defective children to be left to die on a mountain, is that no longer murder?
Answer for yourself: Is it murder to kill an unborn child, or is it murder only if the child is born? Should 10 seconds determine if it is permissible to kill a child within a mother’s birth canal or not to kill it once it exits?
This analysis can be done with virtually every law in the Torah, and so one is faced with the following choice: either God commanded obscure guidelines (and that does not seem quite God-like, since even we mortals are sure to give very precise commands to our own children), or else He defined each law, but did not put it down on paper. Jewish tradition says that the second choice is, in fact, what happened. God defined each law, and taught his definition to Noah and Moses, who in turn taught the rest of world and the Jews. This oral definition of the Torah (written law) became known as the Oral Law. In Deuteronomy 17:8-1 3, the Jews were also commanded that if a doubt were to arise in any area of Jewish Law, they should go to the Sanhedrin, the high court, and what the Sanhedrin interprets the law to be, will become, in fact, the will of God. (That is how the Oral Law understands those verses.
This is actually, historically, how the Jews functioned in classical times. Even the New Testament agrees that that is how the Jewish society was run; i.e., under the Sanhedrin. So now we have a basic question which is extremely basic and crucial.
Answer for yourself: If, as history and the New Testament agree, the vast majority of Jews, and the Sanhedrin, rejected Yeshua as the real Messiah due to failure to fulfill necessary Old Testament prophecies, and the Sanhedrin thought that Yeshua did not fit the qualifications for being a bona-fide Messiah, according to its interpretation of the Bible, then should we follow the opinion of the Sanhedrin?
This is merely a matter of interpreting Jeremiah 31 or Isaiah 53, etc., and when it comes to Biblical interpretation, we are commanded by God to follow the Sanhedrin. Once your study of the New Testament reveals to you “fulfilled” New Testament prophecies are nothing more than purposeful mistranslations, misquotations, and misapplication of Jewish Scriptures wrestled out of context to create “fulfilled contexts” will you then see for yourself why the Jews yet wait for their Messiah. I have see this for myself and no longer can say definitely that Yeshua “was” the Messiah. He simply did not fulfill the necessary prophecies according to the Jewish Scriptures. Fulfillment of “misquotations” and “mistranslation” does not make for a Messiah! If you continue your study you will see this and our web sties details these things for all to see.
Both the Sanhedrin as well as the majority of Jews who lived at the time of Yeshua rejected him, according to Paul in Acts 13:46, and they rejected the Christian interpretations of the Bible. Without serious study you will never see these things for yourself because the “flawed” document you carry, the New Testament, only rehearses error over and over.
Answer for yourself: How, then, is any Jew permitted to accept Christian interpretation today? He simply cannot.
Answer for yourself: How, then, is any non-Jew permitted to accept Christian interpretation today? He should not as well but cannot without serious study to prove to himself the deceptions of what I speak.
Answer for yourself: Could a person also accept Christian interpretations of how to honor one's parents? Not if he knew the Hebrew interpretation.
Answer for yourself: Would it also be permitted to accept the Christian interpretation of "do not murder?" Again, not if he knew the Jewish interpretation as well as the Rabbis who consider failure to feed the poor “murder” as well.
Always remember that the Church initiated the Crusades, during which thousands of Jews were killed in the name of Yeshua. In addition, remember that the Church was against the shedding of blood because of the command, "Thou shalt not murder." Therefore, during the Inquisition, the Church killed thousands of Jews who had been forced to convert by burning them, sometimes alive, so that no blood would be spilled! The Christian interpretation was that it was wrong to spill or shed blood, but strangling or burning was permitted. That is one of the reasons why they burned people at the stake.
Answer for yourself: Thus, that is the choice—who is to interpret the Bible, and that is the question—why did almost all of the Jews reject Yeshua as the Messiah and the Christian interpretations of the Bible as well? For the same reasons you now see concerning the “New Covenant”. Except for a small fringe movement within Judaism who considered themselves the fulfillment of the “New Covenant”, the Jews in mass knew better. The world had not changed. The Essenes and their apocalyptic theology was totally discredited! Their theology lives on in the New Testament.
Answer for yourself: Should this Essene theology in the New Testament be totally discredited as well?
You should be getting the answer to that by now.
One of the reasons for your agreement is that you are coming to see that many of the Christian interpretations of the Bible are forced, if not ludicrous, but you can decide that for yourself, so continue to read. Over time Bet Emet Ministries will analyze many more interpretations and translations from the New Testament which are not only taken out of context, but distorted on purpose. The Jews never had the concept of a second coming for their Messiah, and since it was the Jews themselves who first taught the notion of a Messiah, via the Jewish prophets, it seems quite reasonable to respect their opinion more than anyone else's. It was the Christians who were changing the status quo, and so they ought to have very substantial reasons for doing so as shared in this article. As you will see, their reasons and proofs are not substantial at all, and they therefore have yet to justify their change of the status quo. It is time someone told you the truth. But few have studied deeply enough to find such mistakes. To God be the glory for showing His remnant the truth. Repentance from a false religious belief system is in order.
The answer to the above question I hope will startle you. If, as I have labored to show you, that there is not yet this "New Covenant," then we are under the "Old Covenant". To believe you are under a “non-existent” New Covenant and reject the Old Covenant (containing the covenants of Noah and Moses which contained the stipulations of maintaining good standing within them), and the Laws of Noah within it which were given to the non-Jews of the world, means you are standing out side the Covenant with God! You as a Christian have no Covenant with God at all since you reject the only one given to you by God. Thanks Paul!
For a Jew they are responsible for 613 Commands or Laws. For the non-Jew he is responsible for 66 of them under the heading of the Laws of Noah. Of course Isaiah 58 teaches the non-Jew to "choose those things pleasing to God and to take hold of His Sabbaths." These are opportunities for the non-Jew to rise above the minimum in his relationship with God. The bottom line is that we get to, don't have to. Such is an expression of our love for God.
Within these commands are laws regulating the worship of God in certain ways which the Christian Church as rejected. Within these commands are laws regulating how you are to give your money and tithes which are also a form of worship of God; by in large Christianity rejects these today. Within these commands are laws regulating sanctifying the Name of the Lord which every Christian breaks without knowing daily. Literally Christianity profanes the Name of the Lord day after day. Breaking this pattern of worship means we worship in vain since you don't follow the commandments of God for worship within the Covenant He gave you. As Christians you do your own thing outside the Covenant God gave you just like Nadab and Abihu did. God killed them in their first “church” service…remember? Under the only covenant there is no license to worship some "new" way. Such is sin. Thanks Constantine!
Within these commands are laws requiring the Tithe to be given a certain way and the money spent only in certain ways on certain things. Today no church follows such laws. That means if you give you Tithe to the church and they don't obey the commands of the only Covenant in existence then you are robbing God and don't know it since you really don't have a license to do it any other "new" way. Such is sin.
Within these commands are laws requiring certain Holy Days be observed and kept by non-Jews and the Christian Church not only has labeled them as "passed-away" but tragically replaced them with pagan holidays to which Yeshua’s name has been affixed. To adhere to a Christianized paganism is sin. Thanks Rome.
Within these commands are laws forbidding the worship of anything or anyone other than Yahweh. The Christian Church made Yeshua a God in the 4th century and those who worship him are idolaters. Remember they changed the text of the New Testament documents to agree with their developing theology as charted from Catholic Church Council to Council. This is a fact. Prove it wrong…you cannot if you look. Such is sin.
Answer for yourself: One last question. Have you ever read Jer. 31 closely for yourself and seen that when this "New Covenant" (RENEWED IN HEBREW) occurs that God says in Jer. 31:33: But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be My people.
Answer for yourself: As a typical Christian, under "grace and not under the Law according to Paul's gospel" are you perplexed how Paul could say such a thing or feel comfortable being in a "NEW" covenant which rejects wholeheartedly the Laws of God which is the context of the original Jeremiah quote?
Answer for yourself: How comfortable can you be knowing this now and that Christianity follows Paul more than Yeshua?
Answer for yourself: Do you again see how Jeremiah is again misquoted in the New Testament over and over again, from the Gospels to Hebrews by omitting the conditions for such a Renewed Covenant or New Covenant (the adherence to the Laws of God)?
Answer for yourself: Do you realize that acceptance of Christianity's New Covenant and New Testament means in reality that you have removed yourself out from under the ONLY Covenant God made with mankind and literally makes you not one of His people?
Answer for yourself: How comfortable are you now once this information sets in and you understand the gravity of the situation? Want to go to your Gentile Church and hear more lies? I never knew any of this either until I studied my blessed assurance off! And you should know it too!
I could go on but you get the point. It is way past time you recognize that the only thing "new" under the sun is the false religious belief system which supports Christianity today. Shalom.
More to follow!