Issue #123-FAITH (Part 2), JUDAISM Vs. CHRISTIANIT

Biblical Errancy Issue #123-FAITH (Part 2), JUDAISM Vs. CHRISTIANITY, JM's Tract Continues: Point 13 on Science, Supporter Writes Newspaper and Uses BE

Nov 10, '08 5:38 AM
by Loren for everyone






Issue No. 123

March 1993

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FAITH (Part 2)--Last month's commentary listed the most important verses having to do with salvation by faith before and after the Cross. This month we will conclude our analysis of this very important subject by noting all those verses that say you are saved by faith in Jesus Christ, but do not automatically exclude other avenues. Key verses in this regard are: •John 3:15-16 ("That whosoever believes in him should not perish, but have eternal life. For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in him should not perish, but have everlasting life"),
•John 5:24 ("He that hears my word, and believes on him who sent me, has everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death into life"),
•John 6:35 ("I am the bread of life: he that comes to me shall never hunger; and he that believes on me shall never thirst"),
•John 6:47 ("I say unto you, He that believes on me has everlasting life"),
•John 10:9 ("I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved...."),
•John 11:25-26 ("Jesus said to her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believes in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: And whosoever lives and believes in me shall never die"),
•Acts 13:39 ("And by him all that believe are justified from all things"),
•Rom. 1:16-17 ("I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one who believes.... The just shall live by faith"),
•Rom. 3:22 ("Even the righteousness of God which is by faith in Jesus Christ unto all them that believe"),
•Rom. 10:9-11 ("...if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God has raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believes unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. For the scripture saith, whosoever believes on him shall not be ashamed"),
•Gal. 3:11 ("...for The just shall live by faith"),
•Gal. 5:6 ("For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which works by love"),
•Heb. 10:38 ("Now the just shall live by faith"),
•Eph. 2:8-9 ("For by grace you are saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: not of works, lest any man should boast"),
•Luke 7:50 ("...he said to the woman, Thy faith has saved thee; go in peace"),
•Luke 8:12 ("...lest they should believe and be saved"),
•John 4:13-14 ("Whosoever drinks of this water shall thirst again: But whosoever drinks of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life"),
•John 6:40 ("And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which sees the Son, and believes on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up the last day"),
•John 8:12 ("I am the light of the world: he that follows me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the gift of life"),
•John 12:46 ("I am come a light into the world, that whosoever believes on me should not abide in darkness"),
•John 20:31 ("...that you might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name"),
•Acts 10:43 ("...that through his name whosoever believes in him shall receive remission of sins"),
•Rom. 3:30 ("Seeing it is one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith"),
•Rom. 5:1-2 ("Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ: By whom also we have access by faith into this grace...."),
•Rom. 9:30-32 ("...the Gentiles, which followed not after righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith. But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, has not attained to the law of righteousness. Why? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law"),
•Rom. 10:4 ("For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believes"),
•Gal. 2:16 ("Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed Jesus, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified"),
•Gal. 3:26 ("For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus"),
•and lastly, 2 Tim. 3:15 ("the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus").
So, clearly a large number of verses say you are saved by faith but do not rule out other means.
The final group of faith-related verses merely imply that faith assists in the attainment of salvation, and for that reason are being listed last. They certainly do not say you are saved by faith only, nor do they say that faith is one of many paths to salvation. They are just too nebulous for that. But they do imply that faith is needed for salvation, and for that reason merit consideration. We are speaking of such verses as:
•Hab. 2:4 ("but the just shall live by his faith"),
•Luke 17:19 (Arise, go thy way: thy faith has made thee whole"),
•John 7:38 ("He that believes on me, as the scripture has said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water"),
•John 12:36 ("While ye have light, believe in the light, that ye may be the children of light"),
•Rom. 3:26 ("...and the justifier of him which believes in Jesus"),
•and 2 Cor. 5:7 ("For we walk by faith, and not by sight").
Other verses relevant to the issue but too imprecise for any kind of definite conclusion are John 1:12, 8:51, Rom. 3:24-25, 3:27-28, and 4:16.
That concludes an extended presentation of those verses which say you are saved by faith only, or faith is a path to salvation. Faith, like works, predestination, universalism, and whim, has more than enough verses available to establish its credentials as a viable option in the on-going debate over paths to salvation, and like the other avenues it, too, frustrates those who seek to prove the viability of one route only.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JUDAISM vs. CHRISTIANITY--Anyone familiar with the history of Judaism and Christianity knows the latter is an off-shoot of the former. All of the founders of Christianity, including Jesus, Peter, and Paul, were Jews, and elements of Judaism permeate Christianity throughout. Indeed, the Old Testament, which Jews refer to as The Bible, is an inseparable part of the Christian Bible. However, what is not so apparent is that Judaism rejects many key concepts in Christianity, and the reasons are more in concert with the words and intent of the Old Testament than Christians would have people believe. What follows is an alphabetical listing from the Jewish perspective, and with a Jewish bias of some basic Christian concepts which Jews repudiate, and a brief explanation of the reasoning behind each rejection. In no sense can this presentation be viewed as an endorsement of Judaism, and we are only presenting these concepts in order to show that BE is by no means alone in its repudiation of many fundamental Christian beliefs.
The Atonement--Judaism feels that it is unjust to sacrifice a perfectly innocent Savior for the transgressions of sinners. "Vicarious atonement" is unacceptable to the Jew. Judaism can't understand why an "innocent sacrifice" is required to atone for the guilt of the sinner. The suggestion that simply forgiving sins is immoral is incomprehensible to the Jew.

Asceticism--Jewish piety does not consist in fasting, celibacy, solitude and other ascetic deprivations contrary to human nature and God's purpose. To the Jew, abstinence of any kind is sinful, for it is the rejection of the good things created by God's bounty. Far from being meritorious, it is sinful to weaken the body by ascetic practices detrimental to health. The care of the body and the preservation of health are required by Jewish law. Judaism supports the Golden Mean. The weakening of the body through fasts impairs also the faculties of the mind. Far from promoting spirituality, therefore, fasting really retards and arrests it.

Celibacy--Christianity disparages the "flesh" as the source of all evil and consequently glorifies celibacy. Judaism has a joyous affirmation of marriage and love.

The Devil--Judaism does not know a power of evil independent from and opposed to God. Jewish battles are with the "evil impulse", not the Devil.

Festivals--Persons are not glorified in the Jewish religion. No Jewish festival is centered in persons, not even Moses. Christian holidays are all centered in persons.

Grace--Christianity places "grace" above conduct and ethical effort in the quest for salvation. Christians are required to believe in Jesus and that he died for mankind's sins. This belief, and nothing else, opens wide the gates of the Christian paradise. Christians regard sin not as a challenge but as the inescapable fate of every human being from which there is only one deliverance: the grace of Jesus' sacrificial death. The Christian attains forgiveness by accepting Jesus Christ. Judaism rejects these concepts.

Images--Catholicism and Protestantism worship persons and images of persons. This violates the 2nd Commandment, which prohibits not only the worship of images but their creation. In addition to Jesus, Catholicism venerates a large and expanding group of saints and their relics, especially the mother of God. Protestantism adores only Jesus in addition to the Father. Judaism totally rejects the worship of any persons. Judaism rejects the offering up of prayers before any object, regardless of what it represents.

Incarnation--God is pure spirit, divorced from the slightest vestige of corporeality. Judaism totally rejects the incarnation.

Interpretation of Judaism--Jews totally reject the Christian belief that all the promises given to the Jews will henceforth apply to Christians only, and all confessors of Christianity are the true Israel of God. The Christian dogma of the "chosenness" of the Church, in place of the "chosen people" of the Old Covenant is central to Christianity and abhorrent to Judaism.

Jesus--
•(a) None of the Prophets of Israel ever taught on his
own responsibility. The "I" of the Prophets is God; the "I" of Jesus, however, is he himself. •(b) Jesus claimed a special nearness to God. Not even Moses ever claimed to be nearer to God than any other man.
•(c) Jesus claimed to have the right to abrogate some OT laws.
•(d) Prophets castigated others for sins but never forgave sins. Jesus, however, arrogated to himself the power to forgive sins, which Judaism reserves for God alone.
•(e) None of the prophets ever did a miracle in his own name. Credit went to God, not their own power and strength.
•(f) Unlike the OT prophets, Jesus did miracles to strengthen belief in himself, not God.













The Law--The laws of the Torah are to Judaism the quintessence of permanent goodness. Christianity, on the other hand, advances its claims on the strength that the "Law" has been superseded and abrogated by Faith. The Law has outlived its usefulness, according to Christians. Jews feel the Law is eternal and can never be superseded. This is the strongest element of dispute between Judaism and Christianity. Without the law, Judaism is nothing; with it, Jesus died for nothing.

Marriage--The NT disparages marriage as a necessary evil for the propagation of the race, and glorifies celibacy as the higher ideal. According to Judaism, marriage is not a necessary evil but a joyful consummation of the human destiny.

Miracles--Judaism has progressively disparaged miracles as props of faith. Judaism does not acknowledge miracles as proof of divine authority. Jews do not feel miracles prove anything. Truth can't be established by magic and wizardry. The Gospels use miracles as proof of Jesus' divine authority.

Monasticism--Jewish ethics are social, not individualistic. Little is gained for the world if one person achieves perfection and holiness. The Messianic ideal is that all nations and all individuals shall know peace, justice, and love. Consequently, the "saint" who withdraws as a hermit does not aid the advent of the messianic age. Jewish piety is not tested away from the turmoil of life, but in the heat of battle. Solitude is contrary to human psychology and detrimental to the realization of ethics. The monastic hermit is a sinner. It violates "Love thy neighbor as thyself." To the Jew, beauty is not the lure of Satan, but the work of God. Although Judaism looks forward to a better world-to-come, it does not disdain this world.

The Old Testament--The Church adopted the Hebrew Bible (The Old Testament) mainly because the Church regarded it as a book of prophecies foretelling Jesus' career. The OT thus became, first and last, the prediction of the Messiahship of Jesus, in whom were supposedly fulfilled all the messianic promises of the Hebrew prophets. Differences in the interpretations of identical texts make the Christian version of the Hebrew Bible an altogether different book.

Original Sin--Christianity, in contrast to Judaism, is predicated on the doctrine of original sin, which implies the belief in ethical predestination. You must commit a positive act, otherwise you are condemned. Judaism rejects this concept, as well as the belief that all should be condemned for the act of one.

Poverty--Poverty is glorified by Christianity as a sacred and desirable state. To Jews, poverty is a stumbling block rather than a stimulus to piety. Jews feel wealth is more conducive to piety and ethics than poverty, for only when one's physical needs are provided for can one concentrate upon the spheres of religion and ethics. Christianity condemns the rich and exalts the poor. Catholics require priests to take a vow of poverty. In the OT there is no statement that houses, fields, and other possessions are in themselves bad and wicked.

Sacraments--There are 7 sacraments in the Catholic Church and 2 in the Protestant. Baptism and the Lord's Supper are recognized by all Christian denominations. Judaism has no sacraments. Judaism makes salvation depend solely upon the free will ethical efforts of the worshipers.

Savior--Judaism has never sanctioned doctrines implying an affirmation of the inequality of men before God. Before God, all men are equal, and there is no need for a mediating Savior. Christians teach that God is eternally distant, and man can enter a relationship with him solely and exclusively through the mediation of Jesus. This, Judaism rejects.

The Trinity--To Jews this concept is equivalent to polytheism. It is an adulteration of the Indivisible God. Unity of God precludes belief in any other creative force, such as Satan. God couldn't possibly be defined or represented in any bodily form.

So, in conclusion, we can clearly see from all of the above that Biblical Errancy is by no means alone in its rejection of many crucial Christian beliefs. Other key concepts could be analyzed, but the point has been made. Judaism, like BE, has major disagreements with Christianity. Much of Christianity is too ridiculous even for other religionists.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


DIALOGUE AND DEBATE
Letter #508 from JM Continues from Last Month (Part t)
[Point #13 in our pamphlet was: We are told that the Bible has no scientific errors, yet it says the bat is a bird (Lev. 11:13,19), hares chew the cud (Lev. 11:5-6), and some fowl (Lev. 11:20-21) and insects (Lev. 11:22-23) have four legs--ED.]
JM's Defense is: Mr. McKinsey faults the Bible because it does not use 20th century terminology. He forgets that the Bible was written centuries before our modern scientific classifications ever came into existence. He refuses to take into consideration the classification of the time.

1. The bat, then, was called a fowl because it had wings and flew. I think that it is interesting to note that even the evolutionists recognize the fact that these classifications were different then, than they are today, but they do not say that those classifications outside the Bible were erroneous. For example the evolutionists talk about the early birds such as the Pteranodon and Quetzalcoatlus which were bird-like creatures that flew. According to Dinosaur Discoveries these creatures were "...like lizards in some ways, but they were also a lot like birds." The Pteranodon according to the World Book was classified as a reptile. Now these things were not birds, but they were bird-like and are often called the forerunners of birds. Even though the bird family and reptile family are two different families, many scientists, because of the similarities between the two, call birds "...feathered reptiles..." Now are scientists in error for calling birds, feathered reptiles? I do not believe that Mr. McKinsey would be so bold as to say that they are.

In early days when a thing had wings it was classified as a fowl, because of the similarities, just like birds are called "feathered reptiles" because of the similarities they hold with reptiles. Why would Mr. McKinsey accept one while rejecting the other? Simply because he needs to find something wrong with the Bible so he can discredit it, even if it is only in his own mind.

Editor's Response to Letter #508 (Part t)
Your explanations tend to ramble incoherently, JM. Half the time I am not sure what point you are trying to make. To begin with, you are trying to manipulate the word "fowl." The text in Leviticus includes the bat in a list of fowl or birds. The word "fowl" refers to birds and has always done so. What difference does it make what century this text of the Bible was written in? Translators of the KJ and many other versions are translating the word "fowl" from a Hebraic word which they equate with fowl, and they know that "fowl" is equivalent to the word "bird". Are you saying they can't translate? Second, you say that, "The bat, then, was called a fowl because it had wings and flew." Don't be ridiculous. Many large insects can fly, but that does not mean they are birds or were so classified. Third, scientific classification is not the issue. We are talking about "fowl", and that is a reference to "birds". Do you have any proof that those who wrote the Bible expanded the term dramatically and looked upon anything that flew as a fowl? Fourth, your attempt to play me off against scientists won't stand the strain. Scientists say the Pteranodon and Quetzalcoatlus were "bird like." They didn't say they were birds or fowl. They said they were "feathered-reptiles". What is wrong with that? I accept one while rejecting the other, because referring to birds as "feathered-reptiles" is scientifically correct. On the other hand, referring to everything that flies as a fowl has never been an accurate observation.

Letter #508 Continues (Part u)
Hares that chew the cud. In the first place, Mr. McKinsey assumes that because we call a hare a rabbit, that hares have always been rabbits. However, Smith's Bible Dictionary says that "hare" was "of the squirrel kind...." Now this dictionary admits that this creature did not chew the cud, according to our standard of what a cud chewer is, but we need to get it right as to what this creature was. This dictionary says that in this area "there are no rabbits."

What is meant by "cheweth the cud"? This creature moved its jaws as though it did chew the cud. Many classifications at this time were based on appearance. The rabbit, had there been any in this part of the world, would have been classified as a "cud chewer" because it appeared to chew the cud....

Editor's Response to Letter #508 (Part u)
Your line of argumentation has become all but incoherent again, JM. Who cares whether rabbits are hares or vice versa? Neither chews the cud, so what difference does it make? In groping out of desperation, you entered the realm of irrelevancy. Your own dictionary, which you cited, admits that even when it was of the "squirrel kind", it did not chew the cud. Are you saying that when it was not of the "squirrel kind" it did chew the cud? Surely you are not that foolish. Remember, we are supposedly dealing with a perfect book, and when that perfect book says hares or rabbits, whichever you prefer, chew the cud, it is just plain wrong.

And what difference does the appearance make? The fact is that the hare or rabbit does not chew the cud, and any source that says they did, whether the Bible or otherwise, is wrong and that is that. Any classification based on appearance rather than reality is erroneous, regardless of the era involved.

Letter #508 Continues (Part v)
Fowls that have four legs. As we have already seen, the bat was classified as a fowl, and a bat does have four legs. There are other flying creatures (such as the Pteranondon, and whether Mr. McKinsey likes it or not, the Bible does speak of dinosaurs; Job 40:15-17) which had four legs that flew, thereby could be classified as a fowl. Even the evolutionists would not deny such....

Now with the preceding three objections Mr. McKinsey, if he is to prove that the Bible is in error, must prove that the Bible was in error with the classifications of the day in which it was written....

Editor's Response to Letter #508 (Part v)
You are wrong on every point, JM. The bat is not classified as a fowl, except in your biblical mythology. And where was it proven the bat has four legs? Or did I miss something? Second, what on earth does Job 40:15-17 have to do with dinosaurs, and where does it say anything about four legged animals? It only refers to a behemoth that eats grass. That's a dinosaur? Are you serious? Your imagination is running wild. Third, could you cite one evolutionist who concedes the existence of 4-legged fowl that flew? Who are you talking about, and what animal are you referring to? And fourth, I don't have to prove the Bible was in error with the classifications of that day. If those classifications were wrong, and they were, then the Bible is in error. Moreover, just because man's classifications are in error does not allow God's to be. We are supposed to be dealing with a perfect book that is beyond time and space. It can't be erroneous. The Bible must be perfect at all times and under all conditions.

Letter #508 Continues (Part w)
Now concerning the insects which have only four legs. Mr. McKinsey, as well as all others of his faith which have made this claim, did not read, very carefully, what the Bible had to say. It says that certain creatures creep going on all fours. Such is the classification of the grasshopper, even today: "Grasshoppers as Food, The Locust is an important food in some parts of the world...the locust and the grasshopper were not included in the law that forbade the eating of flying and creeping creatures going 'on all fours'." (From "Grasshoppers," The World Book, 1963, Volume 7, page 320). Now, if there was error in the Bible concerning this, the World Book surely would have pointed the error out. Instead, it showed that the grasshopper was one of those creatures that, even though it had 6 legs, it only used four for creeping...."

Editor's Response to Letter #508 (Part w)
You keep referring to people not reading the Bible closely enough, JM, when that is precisely a mistake you repeat with remarkable regularity. In essence, your argument appears to be that the Bible does not say these insects only had four feet; it says they creep on 4 while having 6, a position that is without merit. Let me quote Leviticus 11:22-23 verbatim in the RSV. "Of them you may eat: the locust according to its kind, the bald locust according to its kind, the cricket according to its kind, and the grasshopper according to its kind. But all other winged insects which HAVE four feet are an abomination to you." Notice! It says that have 4 feet; it does not say they merely creep around on 4 feet. Moreover, could you cite one species of locust, beetle, or grasshopper that has 6 legs, while only walking on four and using two for hands?
(To Be Continued Next Month)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
Letter #524 from LR of Baker City, Oregon
Dennis
. The State of Oregon has one of the lowest percentages of church membership in the US, but at the same time Oregon has a very militant and dangerous cadre of fundamentalists. A local self-made "minister" recently proclaimed through our newspaper that Secular Humanism is the cause of AIDS throughout the world, and the cause of the disintegration of our American society. In answer to such outrageous, bigoted ideas, I have been able to publish a couple of letters in the same newspaper, which says a lot for the newspaper. I confess that I have plagiarized, or at least borrowed heavily from you. A whole lot of us out here in the trenches depend on you, Dennis. I hope you won't get discouraged.
Editor's Response to Letter #524
Dear LR.
Congratulations on using BE in precisely the manner intended. As I have said so often, if people like you don't correct the vast array of prevarications and propaganda that blankets this country, who will? The other side doesn't lack energy, and it's high time we exhibited some of our own. I depend on you as much as you depend on me. Without people like you, my efforts will ultimately be little more than a ripple in a river. Without people such as yourself, I'd be foolish to carry on a one-man struggle against hundreds of thousands, and seriously consider success a viable possibility. Without the mobilization and determination of thousands like yourself it can't be done. Far from being discouraged, I am more determined than ever, and have several major projects either in the works or being planned.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Correction: On page 3, 2nd column, 10th line from the bottom in last month's issue, the phrase "prejudiced mind" should have been "unprejudiced mind." The error completely altered the meaning of the sentence.