Dr. Brown Dismantles Zakir's Claims of Muhammad in the Bible!

October 21, 2024 - 20 Tishrei 5785

At approximately minute 5:20 of a debate between Dr. Brown and Zakir Hussein, Brown says that the prophet who is like Moses means another who prophet who spoke with God face to face. However, because the text gives no indication what "like me" means, Dr. Brown inserts his own assumption as to what it means so that he can redirect it to Jesus. What is more likely is that "like me" is simply a reiteration of "from your brothers".

See the verse (Deuteronomy 18:15):

A prophet from among you, from your brothers, like me, the Lord, your God will set up for you; you shall hearken to him.

In addition, it's possible that like a responsible leader about to forfeit his position (in this case through his upcoming death), Moses said "like me" to assure the Jews that his position wouldn't be left vacant. This is in line with much of the book of Deuteronomy in which Moses prepares the Jews for their entrance into the Land of Israel without him. In Exodus their anxiety about his absence led them to an act of idolatry.

What Brown omits is the pronoun shift in verse 18, which is central to its meaning:

I will set up a prophet for them from among their brothers like you, and I will put My words into his mouth, and he will speak to them all that I command him.

While in verse 15 Moses speaks about what God will do, in verse 18 God Himself speaks about what He will do. If this prophet is the perfect and infallible Jesus, being God, the words "like you" are certainly inappropriate given that no man is like him. To my knowledge Christians don't count this verse among the plethora of Tanakh passages they consider as foreshadowing of Jesus' coming or of God's Trinitarian nature. Free of all Trinitarian presuppositions, this verse seems very clearly to be pointing to the natural human state of the person who will be sent, completely omitting any Divine or miraculous properties that he is to have. It is therefore reasonable to assume this verse to be a naturalistic one insofar as prophecy is natural, pointing to Moses' successor, who we know is Joshua.

Theologically speaking, for the First Person of the Trinity to put words into the mouth of the Second Person is difficult as well, but beyond the scope of this argument. One would assume "the Son's" words to emanate from within him.

Likewise, Peter's citation of this verse in Acts 3:22 is not only inappropriate, it is confusing. Against the backdrop of the assumption of Jesus' Divinity, a verse stating the establishment of a prophet is insufficient an appellation for such a figure. The Jews this message is directed to would be right in rejecting it based on the incongruity of expectations set forth between Deuteronomy 18:15 and Acts 3:22.

Further, "like you" read naturally in the verse intuitively implies a prophet who, like Moses, said and did everything that God told him. This would make sense as Moses was the Jews' first prophetic leader, and they were still becoming accustomed to what it meant to be led by such an individual. It seems sensible that God didn't want them to think that Moses was a one-off and that they would never have a leader like him again, so He assured them that the next leader in line, Yehoshua, would be "like Moses," i.e., a genuine prophet.

What Makes God Great?

April 1, 2021 - Nisan 19, 5781

How Can There Be a Trinity?

This question was posed to Frank Turek during one of his live question and answer sessions: how can there be a Trinity if God is infinite? See below for his answer.



Response

God and the Trinity are both incomprehensible, but for different reasons. The human mind can't comprehend God because He is great beyond measure (like the ocean), but it can't comprehend the Trinity because it's logically invalid and undefined.

This is like the difference between thinking about infinity (God) and thinking about dividing a number by zero (the Trinity). We can define infinity (as an endless set of numbers) even while being completely unable to apprehend it any real way. However, while we cannot define an undefined logical contradiction, in addition we are incapable of apprehending it.

You can actually ponder infinity, but you cannot ponder dividing a number by zero. This is because your mind can grasp the idea of adding another number forever, but it cannot grasp the idea of dividing a number by zero. For example, ten divided by five equals two, so the answer (two) multiplied by five must equal ten. However, this operation doesn't work with zero; if ten divided by zero is some number, that number times zero must be ten, which is impossible. Because this operation cannot be replicated when dividing by zero, mathematicians say that dividing something by zero is undefined. You cannot place your faith in something that is undefined.

Being a mystery is not what makes God great; being great while being apprehensible is what makes God great.

If God Is Three, Why Am I Not?

March 31, 2021 - Nisan 18, 5781

What Does It Mean to Be Made in God's Image?

If God is Triune, and we are made in the image of God, why are we not triune? Why are we not one being made up of three distinct elements?

Many Christians will immediately respond by pointing out that human beings are made up of three distinct elements: body, spirit, and soul, or body, emotions, and intellect. Judaism agrees that a human being is composed of three distinct elements; nefesh, ruach, and neshama.

However, if we use Dr. William Lane Craig's description of the Persons of the Trinity as "three centers of self-consciousness," are we able to say that every human being is also made up of three distinct centers of self-consciousness?

When you think about the experience of your own existence, do you relate to yourself as one center of consciousness, or three? What would life be like if you were composed of three simultaneously and perpetually activated centers of consciousness? Would you be able to function normally?

What may be alarming to realize for Trinitarians is that your sense of being is intricately synchronized with one center of consciousness, that is, simply speaking, "you." In fact, Christianity is careful to define the Trinity as "one Being with three Persons," (with Person meaning "center of consciousness"), but if we are made in the image of God, and we are one being with one center of consciousness, it seems sensible that God is also one Being with one center of consciousness.

Now it is true that you may identify three distinct and natural elements of your being, but you do not experience them as three separate centers of consciousness. It's true that your body, emotions, and intellect filter information to you in three different ways, but they filter that information to one center of consciousness, to "you."

In other words, it is as if you are surrounded by a screen with three different openings, and stimulus from the environment reaches you from each of those openings. You are not in fact identical to those openings, but interact with them.

In fact, if you were to experience within yourself three centers of consciousness you may be described as suffering from split personality disorder, which is "a mental disorder where a person has two or more distinct personalities." It's disturbing to think that you cannot assume a likeness to a Triune God without becoming mentally ill.

To Be Like God, Think Like God

During Pesach we say the Hallel prayer every morning (Psalms 115:3-9):

But our God is in heaven; whatever He wishes, He does.

Their idols are silver and gold, the handiwork of man.

They have a mouth but they do not speak; they have eyes but they do not see.

They have ears but they do not hear; they have a nose but they do not smell.

Their hands-but they do not feel; their feet-but they do not walk; they do not murmur with their throat.

Like them shall be those who make them, all who trust in them.

וֵֽאלֹקינוּ בַשָּׁמָ֑יִם כֹּ֖ל אֲשֶׁר־חָפֵ֣ץ עָשָֽׂה:

עֲצַבֵּיהֶם כֶּ֣סֶף וְזָהָ֑ב מַֽ֜עֲשֵׂ֗ה יְדֵ֣י אָדָֽם:

פֶּ֣ה לָ֖הֶם וְלֹ֣א יְדַבֵּ֑רוּ עֵינַ֥יִם לָ֜הֶ֗ם וְלֹ֣א יִרְאֽוּ:

אָזְנַ֣יִם לָ֖הֶם וְלֹ֣א יִשְׁמָ֑עוּ אַ֥ף לָ֜הֶ֗ם וְלֹ֣א יְרִיחֽוּן:

יְדֵיהֶ֚ם | וְלֹ֬א יְמִישׁ֗וּן רַ֖גְלֵיהֶם וְלֹ֣א יְהַלֵּ֑כוּ לֹֽא־יֶ֜הְגּ֗וּ בִּגְרוֹנָֽם:

כְּמוֹהֶם יִֽהְי֣וּ עֹשֵׂיהֶ֑ם כֹּ֖ל אֲשֶׁר־בֹּטֵ֣חַ בָּהֶֽם:

Pesach Kasher Ve'Sameach!

---

Did Jacob Really Wrestle With God?

March 25, 2021 - Nisan 12, 5781

Who Was That Man?

Genesis 32 tells us that Jacob encountered and wrestled with "a man" on the return home from Lavan. What was the identity of this man?

Genesis 32:25: And Jacob was left alone, and a man (אִישׁ֙ - ish) wrestled with him until the break of dawn.

Rashi explains that "this was the prince (guardian angel) of Esau." (Genesis Rabbah 77:3, 78:3).

However, Christians maintain that this being was actually God Himself having taken the physical form of a man, known as a "theophany."

Genesis 32:29-31 says:

And he said, "Your name shall no longer be called Jacob, but Israel, because you have commanding power with [an angel of] God (עִם־אֱלֹהִ֛ים) and with men, and you have prevailed." And Jacob asked and said, "Now tell me your name," and he said, "Why is it that you ask for my name?" And he blessed him there. And Jacob named the place Peniel, for [he said,] "I saw an angel (אֱלֹהִים֙) face to face, and my soul was saved."

Notice that the words marked in orange above are the Hebrew words used in the Torah, which in English are translated as "angel," but which in fact say "elohim." Christians who are aware of this translation, typically Messianic Jews, often use it to claim that the Jews are nervously trying to conceal the fact that God can and did materialize in human form in the Tanakh. They claim that the rabbis have tried to hide this fact, because if the Torah says that God takes physical form then more Jews will believe that Jesus was God.

A Hint in Hosea

However, the book of Hosea gives us a clear proof that the being with whom Jacob wrestled was indeed an angel beyond any reasonable doubt.

Hosea 12:3-5 says:

Now the Lord has a contention with Judah, and to visit upon Jacob according to his ways; according to his deeds He shall recompense him.

In the womb, he seized his brother's heel, and with his strength he strove with an angel (אֱלֹהִֽים - elohim).

He strove with an angel (מַלְאָךְ֙ - malach) and prevailed; he wept and beseeched him; In Bethel he shall find Him, and there He shall speak with us.

.רִ֥יב לַֽיהֹוָ֖ה עִם־יְהוּדָ֑ה וְלִפְקֹ֚ד עַל־יַֽעֲקֹב֙ כִּדְרָכָ֔יו כְּמַֽעֲלָלָ֖יו יָשִׁ֥יב לֽוֹ

.בַּבֶּ֖טֶן עָקַ֣ב אֶת־אָחִ֑יו וּבְאוֹנ֖וֹ שָׂרָ֥ה אֶת־אֱלֹהִֽים

.וַיָּ֚שַׂר אֶל־מַלְאָךְ֙ וַיֻּכָ֔ל בָּכָ֖ה וַיִּתְחַנֶּן־ל֑וֹ בֵּֽית־אֵל֙ יִמְצָאֶ֔נּוּ וְשָׁ֖ם יְדַבֵּ֥ר עִמָּֽנוּ

In verse 4 above, the word elohim is once against used to describe the identity of this being that wrestled with Jacob. However, verse 5 explicitly refers to this same being as a malach, an angel. Now come, let us reason; in its generic context as a spiritual being, the word elohim can be used to refer to an angel, but the word "angel" (malach) cannot be used to refer to God (Elokim).

To conclude, the ambiguity present in Genesis 32:29 is not present in Hosea 12:5, and we can be sure that Jacob indeed wrestled with an actual angel and not with anything else.

Jacob, Commander over Angels

There is, however, another proof that Jacob wrestled with an angel and did not encounter a theophany. Genesis 32:4 tells us: Jacob sent angels (מַלְאָכִים֙ - malachim) ahead of him to his brother Esau, to the land of Seir, the field of Edom.

Did he send angels ahead of him, or did he send theophanies ahead of him? Rashi says that Jacob sent literal angels, i.e., that he had commanding power over angels. This is confirmed by what "the man" tells Jacob: "...because you have commanding power with [an angel of] God (עִם־אֱלֹהִ֛ים) and with men, and you have prevailed."

What seems relatively clear is that Jacob's angels went to Esav, and Esav's angel went to Jacob, i.e., they encountered each other's angels. This culminates in Jacob's defeat of Esav's angel, indicating that he finally gained the upper-hand over him in the spiritual realm.

To contrast, what purpose would have there been in Jacob wrestling with God? And if Jacob did wrestle with God, how is it possible for him to have beat Him? Did God let him win like a father lets his son beat him at arm-wrestling? 

Two MAJOR Misconceptions About Judaism

January 6, 2021 - 22 Tevet, 5781

Introduction

This post addresses two major misconceptions about Judaism.

However, to limit the scope of this content, I’ll be addressing only these Christian misconceptions about Judaism and not in general. The reason for that is that the great majority of misconceptions about Judaism are basically the same as those that exist about Christianity, and Islam, in general. For that reason I have chosen to limit the scope only to the major misconceptions about Judaism from the Christian perspective.

Jesus was a Jew Means that He Could Have been the Messiah

While Jesus' being a Jew means that he could have been the Messiah, studying Jewish sources indicates that this alone is an insufficient qualification. This claim is often advanced to disarm Jews who may be strongly resistant even to hearing the name “Jesus,” which they register as signifying fundamental opposition to their Jewish identity.

The main purpose of relating this fact is to try to put Jesus back into a Jewish context. Missionaries understand that the long Christian tradition of depicting Jesus as being "un-Jewish" has repelled many Jews from thinking about him positively. While true, seeing Jesus in a Jewish context is insufficient for qualifying him as the Messiah. However, the purpose of this argument is not to convince, but to overcome the emotional barrier that most Jews have to Jesus.

However, this approach inadvertently treats us as simpletons unable to think or understand why we believe what we do. It's similar to manipulating a young child to take his medicine by convincing him that it's candy.

To directly address the points in the video above, a Jew qualifies as the Messiah when the Tanakh’s Messianic prophecies are fulfilled in his lifetime. This is a necessary condition because the Messiah ushers in the era described in these Messianic prophecies, which the Torah never splits into two phases. The premature death of Jesus forced the early Church to grapple with the Messianic prophecies that he left unfulfilled. This led to the creation of the doctrine of the Second Coming, which states that Jesus will fulfill the remainder of the prophecies when he returns at the End of Days.

Further, the Church created its own Messianic re-interpretation of a large number of verses in the Tanakh. Read plainly, it is clear that Jews never considered the majority of these verses to be Messianic. In other words, it invented an alternative Messianic tradition to bolster the claim that Jesus was the Messiah.

How do Jews Atone With No Temple Or Sacrifices?

This is one of the most common challenge presented to Jews by Christians.

The answer to the gentleman's question is found in Hosea 14:2-3, which says, “Return, O Israel, to the Lord your God, for you have stumbled in your iniquity. Take words with yourselves and return to the Lord. Say, "You shall forgive all iniquity and teach us [the] good [way], and let us render [for] bulls [the offering of] our lips.”

The meaning of these verses is that God accepts prayer as a substitute for sacrifices as long as there is no Temple. It should be noted that prayer was a required component of repentance even when the Temples were standing. In their absence, it was accepted as the sole substitute for sacrifices. It is strange to consider that this gentleman has never come across these verses while studying the Bible.

According to the NIV translation of the book of Hebrews 9:22 written by Paul, "In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness." This seems to be directly contradicted by Hosea 14:2-3.

The gentleman in the video above makes two very big mistakes.

The first mistake is to assume that for nearly 2,000 years that Jews have somehow failed to realize that there was no Temple and no sacrifices. The First Temple was destroyed in 586 BCE and rebuilt in 515 BCE, meaning that there were no sacrifices for 71 years. The Second Temple was destroyed around 1,950 years ago. How did they reconcile the destruction of the Temple with their apparent inability to bring sacrifices, and therefore to atone, and how do we reconcile it today?

The second mistake is that assumes that God left them and us with no way to atone for both periods of time. It also brings up an interesting question: why did God allow for the Temple to be rebuilt if His goal was to replace sacrifices?

It should also be noted that the Second Temple was destroyed in 70 CE. If Jesus died in 33 (or 37) CE, the Second Temple served no purpose for 37 years until its destruction. This is related to the prophecy found in Daniel 9:24.

Is Belief In The Antichrist Monotheistic?

March 11, 2021 - Adar 27, 5781

What Is The Antichrist?

According to Christianity.com:

The word, "Antichrist," is only found in the Bible in 1 and 2 John and occurs both in singular and plural forms. It represents all that is hostile to God. In 2 Thessalonians 2, Paul refers to this person as the Man of Lawlessness. He puts himself in place of God’s law. That’s why he’s the Man of Lawlessness. And he’s a figure who the Bible repeatedly points to arising in the end times. There have been many, clearly, who are anti-Christ in one way or another, but here is the person who will be the distillation of opposition to our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

This is basically identical to the Muslim view of the Antichrist (Dajjal), who is the "false messiah (al-maseeh al-dajjaal). According to Islamqa, he is:

...a man created by Allaah, who will appear at the end of time because of something that makes Allaah angry. He will spread corruption on earth and will claim divinity, calling on people to worship him. They will be tested by the extraordinary powers that Allaah will grant him, such as causing rain to fall, reviving the earth with vegetation and extracting the treasures of the earth. He will be a young man with a ruddy complexion, short of stature, with curly hair. He will be one-eyed; his right eye will be flat and his other eye will have a thick piece of flesh over it. Written between his eyes will be the word “Kaafir” (disbeliever). Most of those who follow him will be Jews. He will meet his end at the hands of ‘Eesa ibn Maryam (Jesus the son of Mary) who will kill him with a spear in Lod, which is in Palestine.

Why Is Belief In The Antichrist Not Monotheistic?

The problem is that belief in the Antichrist is rooted in a theologically dualistic understanding of God. Theological dualism is the "concept that the world is ruled by the antagonistic forces of good and evil." In our terms these antagonistic forces are God and Satan. In this worldview Satan is disobedient to God and seeks to overthrow Him. The Antichrist facilitates Satan's will and leads this battle against God at the end of times.

Judaism and Christianity differ in their view of Satan's relationship with sin. The Jewish view is that even sin falls under the domain of God's sovereignty, with Satan being the angel programmed to tempt humanity, and with angels having no free will. The Christian view is that Satan was the most supreme and beautiful angel who became proud and rebelled against God. Sin, therefore, is not a function falling under the domain of God's sovereignty, but is the attempt of a prideful free-willed angel to overthrow God's dominion.

If Satan rebelled against God and was cast out of Heaven, why does he have to follow particular rules? Either he rebelled and no rules apply to him, or he didn't and he has to follow all of the rules, but both cannot be true.

Islam differs slightly from Christianity and offers a description more similar to Judaism in which Satan's job is to tempt humanity. According to Islamqa's article Shaytaan’s Enmity Towards Man:

(Allaah) said: "Go, and whosoever of them follows you, surely, Hell will be the recompense of you (all) an ample recompense.

And befool them gradually those whom you can among them with your voice (i.e. songs, music, and any other call for Allaah’s disobedience), make assaults on them with your cavalry and your infantry, share with them wealth and children (by tempting them to earn money by illegal ways usury, or by committing illegal sexual intercourse), and make promises to them." But Satan promises them nothing but deceit. (al-Israa’ 17:62-64 – interpretation of the meaning)

Conclusion - If God Is Sovereign, Satan Cannot Be Disobedient

Even though Islam satisfactorily rejects certain theological errors in Christianity, such as the Trinity and the incarnation of God, its belief in the Antichrist commits the same theologically dualistic error as Christianity, although perhaps less dramatically. In Islam the Dajjal's job is to advance the goal of evil, but it isn't entirely clear that he is doing this on behalf of God's Will, but rather as a form of rebellion against Him. Anything that puts Satan's activity on earth outside of God's sovereignty falls outside the domain of monotheistic thought.

If Satan's job is to deceive Man, he is under God's control. But if he is disobedient to God, then he is not under God's control, which are mutually exclusive postulates. He cannot do his job properly while being disobedient to God any more than a rogue program can function correctly while inaccessible to the developer. Only God knows how to precisely oversee the process through which Man is tempted.

Therefore Satan's task of tempting Man needs to be performed without question to ensure that Man is tempted properly and to bring about the best good. Angels were therefore created without free will, including Satan. If they don't do their job properly, the system crashes, which can't happen as long as God is the Developer.

Progressive Revelation

February 15, 2021 - 2 Adar 5781

What Is Progressive Revelation?

According to Blue Letter Bible, "The things that God revealed to humanity were not all given at once. His revelation was given in stages." This essay addresses four issues with the concept of progressive revelation. The first is that there are no indications of progressive revelation occurring within the Torah. The second is that progressive relation prevents people from knowing the truth in the present. The third is that the Trinity, a product of progressive revelation, is too similar to polytheism for comfort. The fourth is that once such a claim is made, it is repeatedly claimed by subsequent religions.

Issue 1 - One Does Not Observe Progressive Revelation In The Tanakh

It's easy to believe that progressive relation occurs as one crosses over from the Jewish Scriptures to the Christian Scriptures; this is exactly the argument you would expect somebody to make to authenticate their own scriptures. But progressive revelation indicates that it occurred either gradually or at certain intervals, with the Christian Scriptures being the final stage. That would mean that one would be able to identify progressive revelation occurring within the Tanakh, of which there are no genuinely satisfying examples.

The Blue Letter Bible says that the Tanakh is incomplete because it contains prophecies that remain unfulfilled: "In addition, the Old Testament records predictions that were still to be fulfilled. For example, the Old Testament ends with the promise of the coming of Elijah who will prepare the way for the promised deliverer - the Messiah." The unfulfilled status of the Tanakh's prophecies does not mean that it is flawed, it just means that those events have not occurred yet, and that their occurrence will not be canonized in the Tanakh. This is like saying that a teenager isn't perfect because they haven't reached maturity yet.

Out of a genuine respect for the Jewish Scriptures, the Blue Letter Bible assures us that being incomplete is not synonymous with being less true: "Progressive revelation does not mean to say that the Old Testament is somehow less true than the New Testament. The progress was not from untruth to truth - it was from less information to more full information." While this is a gracious nod to the Tanakh, equating "more" with "more correct" is nevertheless not always true. Sometimes less is more: "Do not add to the word which I command you..." (Deuteronomy 4:2)

Back to Top.

Issue 2 - It Prevents People From Knowing God In The Present

If God seeks people to know Him, why would He keep His true nature from His people and from the entire human race until a relatively late point in history? One explanation provided by Catholic.com relates the advice given to the author by a college professor: "A college professor of mine once said to be leery of someone who tells you everything about himself in the first five minutes you know him. Jesus did not do this, and neither has the Father."

While this may be true of strangers that you meet on the street or in the doctor's office, it isn't true of people with which you have a serious and intimate relationship. Nominally speaking, it's critical to discover the most important aspects of a person before, say, getting married to them. Insofar as the relationship between God and the Jews is like a marriage, it would be critical to have an accurate conception of God's Nature before going to the chuppah, which was Mount Sinai. It would be highly unfortunate to discover ten years into the marriage that your spouse was schizophrenic. Isaiah 55:8 says, "'For My thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways My ways,' says the Lord." The way human beings do things is not necessarily the way that God does them.

Back to Top.

Issue 3 - The Trinity Is Too Similar to Polytheism

Perhaps God withheld the Trinity from the Jews due to the concern that they would confuse it with polytheism. This is another explanation advanced by Catholic.com: "In the Old Testament God needed to establish monotheism for the Jews to make them stand apart from all the polytheistic religions that abounded. Monotheism was almost unheard of, and if Yahweh had tried announcing that he is three Persons the people of the day might have misunderstood it as Tritheism, which is a heresy."

It does not evince much confidence in the Trinity to suggest that the Jews (or anybody else) would have mistaken it for polytheism. Surely the Jews had enough experience with said transgression, both from observing it all around them in a variety of forms, and from experiencing it first hand, to know the difference between polytheism and genuine monotheism. It is patronizing and insults peoples' intelligence to suggest that "God needed to establish monotheism for the Jews to make them stand apart from all the polytheistic religions" only to invite them into a relationship that was almost just as scandalous. If polytheism is prostitution, the Trinity is an escort service.

This site also argues that today "we have enough trouble trying to get people to believe in the one true God, let alone many. Thus the New Testament was a better time for God to have revealed his true nature, now that the danger of a polytheistic misunderstanding had been eliminated." What this ignores is that while polytheism is arguably not in fashion today, it was abundant in the era in which the New Testament was written and in the places that the Roman Empire occupied. The Trinity found itself in good company during that era and region and didn't overtly conflict with polytheism as Judaism did.

Back to Top.

Issue 4 - When Does Progressive Revelation Stop?

How do we know that progressive revelation has stopped on the Christian Scriptures? While Jews contend with Christians over the impossibility and error of progressive revelation into Christianity, Christians contend with more than one group, namely Muslims and Mormons. While the Muslim claim precedes Mormonism, Mormonism claims to be the correct understanding of Christianity. Each of these groups advances the notion that progressive revelation continued after the Christian Scriptures into their own scriptures; the Book of Mormon or the Q'uran. There is an old joke that Jews like to tell; Why did God create Mormons? So Christians would know how Jews feel.

According to the Mormon site The Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints, "'The Book of Mormon is another witness of Jesus Christ and confirms the truths found in the Holy Bible. Far from undermining the Bible, the Book of Mormon supports its testimony of Jesus Christ. One passage says that the Book of Mormon “shall establish the truth” of the Bible “and shall make known to all kindreds, tongues, and people, that the Lamb of God is the Son of the Eternal Father, and the Savior of the world; and that all men must come unto him, or they cannot be saved' (1 Nephi 13:40)."

According to Islamweb.net, "Allah, The Almighty, revealed the Quran to be His last, all-embracing Scripture containing the final manifestation of the Divine Law. This necessitates that it has to be safeguarded from the mischievous hands of men and from all corruption. This protection has been a reality from the time the Quran was revealed until today and will remain so forever." It also says that the "'Islamic Law is lasting, remaining suitable for every place and time, and embracing the goodness of the previous manifestations of the Law. Allah Says (what means): “And We have revealed to you, [O Muhammad], the Book in truth, confirming that which preceded it of the Scripture and as a criterion over it.' [Quran 5:48]"

The above explanations sound structurally similar to Christianity's description of the relationship between the Jewish and Christian Scriptures. According to Christianity.com: "The religion of the Old Testament is the embryo of Christianity. The Old Testament is the gospel in the bud. The New Testament is the gospel in full flower. The saints in the Old Testament saw many things through a glass darkly. But they all looked by faith to the same Savior and were led by the same Spirit as ourselves." It also says, "The relation between our Lord's teaching and that of the Old Testament is cleared up by our Lord in one striking sentence. He says, 'Don't think that I came to destroy the law, or the prophets. I didn't come to destroy, but to fulfill' (Matthew 5:17)."

What does the Torah say about this matter? Deuteronomy 4:2 says, "Do not add to the word which I command you, nor diminish from it, to observe the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you." While Christians, Muslims, and Mormons all understand this verse as a prohibition of adding to their own own scriptures, Jews see it in its original context of not adding anything to the Torah.

Back to Top.

Conclusion

A religion claiming to have received an updated vision will by definition reject all of its predecessor's objections. It rejects their objections on the grounds they were not the recipients of the new revelation. If they had received the new revelation then they would have no objections to it. This is a circular argument designed to prevent people from analyzing the contents of a prophecy critically.

There is therefore no good way to prevent new religions from forever claiming that they have received a new revelation, but there is a good way to prevent people from believing them. God explicitly inoculated the Jews against this form of deceit in two verses: Deuteronomy 13:1 through 6 and Deuteronomy 18:20: "Now if you say to yourself, 'How will we know the word that the Lord did not speak?' If the prophet speaks in the name of the Lord, and the thing does not occur and does not come about, that is the thing the Lord did not speak. The prophet has spoken it wantonly; you shall not be afraid of him."

In the latter verse, God legitimizes the Jews' suspicion that a prophet may be lying. This is demonstrated by the fact that He provides them with the criteria for distinguishing between true and false prophets. Claiming to have received prophecy to substantiate prophecy is considered to be an illegitimate means of verification. The only legitimate means of verification is empirical. In contrast to the Jews' complaining and rebelling against God in the desert, He does not see this question as a sign of stubbornness or rebellion, but as a sign of their willingness to follow Him.

Back to Top.

Do I Need Jesus To Talk to God?

A common argument among Christian apologists is that Jesus did not come to destroy the Law (the Torah), but to fulfill it. Their goal with this assertion is to answer a particular Jewish objection, which is that the Torah is eternal. The Christian response is to agree and to emphasize that Jesus didn't do away with the Torah, but that he fulfilled it:

Do not think that I came to do away with or undo the Law [of Moses] or the [writings of the] Prophets; I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. (Matthew 5:17)

Aside from the fact that instructions are followed and not fulfilled, this statement implies an idea that the Torah considers to be incorrect, namely that the Torah is impossible to keep. However, the Torah itself seems to preempt this erroneous conclusion thousands of years in advance by addressing this concern directly:

It is not in heaven, that you should say, "Who will go up to heaven for us and fetch it for us, to tell [it] to us, so that we can fulfill it?" Nor is it beyond the sea, that you should say, "Who will cross to the other side of the sea for us and fetch it for us, to tell [it] to us, so that we can fulfill it?" Rather,[this] thing is very close to you; it is in your mouth and in your heart, so that you can fulfill it. (Devarim 30:12-14)

In direct contrast to Jesus' statement that he came "to fulfill" the Torah, God says above that "you," the Jews, "can fulfill it." Their concern seemed to be that receiving and fulfilling the Torah was too distant for them, and therefore impossible. If so, then an intermediary would have been required to do it for them. God assures and consoles them that "[this] thing is very close to you... so that you can fulfill it!"

In other words, the text is saying something that Christians would consider to be utterly radical: God is saying that no intermediary is required to forge a relationship with Him, which would turn Christianity completely on its head. Apparently I can fulfill it, and nobody needs to go up to the heavens or across the sea to get it for me. The Christian Scriptures unequivocally say “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me,” (John 14:6) which is the literal description of an intermediary. Ultimately, God says that the correct and expected way to relate to Him is with no intermediary, made possible by the fact that I have a direct connection to Him.

To this end Tehillim 145:18 says, "The Lord is near to all who call Him, to all who call Him with sincerity."

Can I Be Punished for Original Sin?

January 18 2021 - 5 Shevat 5781

In an article that I recently read at the Steve Schramm website titled, Does the Punishment for Original Sin Fit the Crime, the author noted the following, "There was nothing poisonous about the fruit, and there was nothing inherently wrong at all with the fruit. The problem was not that they ate fruit; the problem was that they disobeyed the command of a Holy, Righteous, and Perfect God."

However, there was something "poisonous" about the fruit, which we can discern by how God refers to it; He refers to it as the "Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil," as we all know, and its title indicates something about it. Knowing the difference between good and evil is considered an improvement to somebody that knows nothing, but it is a deterioration in contrast to someone who previously had a superior perspective. It is called by this name because before eating it, Adam and Eve saw everything from the perspective of true and false. When they ate from the tree, "true" and "false" were replaced with "good" and "evil." The reason that this is a step down is because true and false are objective realities (which is why they had no desire to sin before eating it), while good and evil are subjective realities; what is good for me may be bad for you, and so on and so on... Eating the fruit plunged them into a world of subjectivity where everything is judged in contrast to other things and not according to its actual, objective value.

Woe to those who say of the evil that it is good and of the good that it is evil; who present darkness as light and light as darkness, who present bitter as sweet and sweet as bitter. (Isaiah 5:20)

Interestingly, all three elements named above were present in the beginning of Genesis: good versus evil (our discussion), darkness versus light (Day One of Creation), and sweet versus bitter (the taste of the fruit).

But this also illustrates that the change took place within their very nature and that it was not simply a punishment for disobedience. This means that there was indeed something "poisonous" about this fruit, in addition to the fact that eating it was an act of disobedience. In another part of the article Schramm said, "Adam and Eve sinned, and therefore, that sinful nature is passed on from generation to generation." It is true that it was passed on, but a mere penalty cannot be passed on; it being passed on indicates pretty clearly that it was, as he said, a "sinful nature." A person can only inherit a state, but cannot inherit a penalty, as it says in Ezekiel 18:20, "The soul that sins, it shall die; a son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, and a father shall not bear the iniquity of the son; the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself." The above verse is saying that one person cannot inherit the penalty of another.

Further, the verse above also proves that the vicarious atonement of Jesus cannot be true, as it says, "...the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself." This means that the wicked alone, i.e., the person responsible for the sin, and nobody else, must deal with his own sin.

Even if God does punish the children for the sins of their father(s), it at most can only be temporary, as it says in Deuteronomy 5:9, "...for I, the Lord your God, am a zealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the sons, upon the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me...." From here it seems that inter-generational penalty cannot exceed a certain number of generations, in this case, three or four. In perspective, Kenan lived in the third generation after Adam, and Mahalalel in the fourth. Further, penalty is only extended to later generations "of those who hate Me," which may exclude many later generations. If true, human beings as a whole today cannot be penalized for Adam's sin.

Further, a punishment is not designed to incapacitate somebody, it is designed to help him do teshuva. Punishing Adam and Eve by changing their perspective from true and false to good and evil would in no way facilitate their repentance; in fact, by making clarity of truth more inaccessible to them it would make repentance more difficult for them. "Do I desire the death of the wicked? says the Lord God. Is it not rather in his repenting of his ways that he may live?" (Ezekiel 18:23)

It's therefore more sensible to hold that the result of eating the fruit was not a punishment, but a devastating shift in their nature.

The reasons above are why the doctrine of Original Sin as currently understood by Christians seems to be out of accord with the Word of God in the Jewish Scriptures, which we posit is unchanging and perfect.