How could veneration of Jesus be considered idolatry?

“So do you think that those who reject Jesus are supernaturally blinded – how about those who accept him? How did their eyes “get opened”? And how about people who accept Jesus – but then come to the recognition that they were hoodwinked – and leave him – what “blinded” them?”

Isaiah 2:22

Many Christians have a difficult time understanding why it is that Jews view their faith in Jesus as idolatrous. Christians assert that Jesus is “one and the same” as the God of Israel. How could veneration of Jesus be considered idolatry?

It may come as a surprise to some Christians if they were to realize that many Jews have a difficult time understanding Christians. After everything is said and done, Christianity is pointing to a man, and calling him “god”. What else is there to discuss?

This article is written in an effort to help Christians see things from a Jewish perspective.

Imagine the following scenario.

The Messianic era is here. God is revealed to all mankind. Every human being clearly sees that the One Creator of heaven and earth is the only true power. Everyone understands that every facet of existence is just an expression of His will and His love. All the nations recognize that every bit of adoration that the human heart can generate belongs only to the Almighty God who called the universe into existence.

And Jesus is not there. The man from Nazareth is nowhere to be seen.

What will the Christian then feel about the relationship he shared with this man? How will they view all the adoration that they were persuaded to pour out towards that individual?

The fact that you could imagine this scenario, should tell you that Jesus is NOT one and the same with the Creator of heaven and earth. The fact that this scenario is hypothetically possible should help you separate between Jesus on the one hand and the God of Israel on the other.

This scenario is not just a hypothetical possibility. If you believe those God fearing Jews whose words are immortalized in the Jewish Scriptures, you will realize that this scenario was at the heart of their vision for the future.

I will provide a list of Scriptural references for you to study. Please bear in mind that when these words were originally written, no one had heard of Jesus. When the Jewish prophets penned their words, the concept: “trinity” – was not yet invented. Please realize that for a Jew who would have read these words before the advent of Christianity, the words “God”, “Lord”, and “Almighty” would mean one thing and one thing only – The One Creator of heaven and earth.

Deuteronomy 32:39, Ezekiel 37:28, 38:1-48:35, Isaiah 2:17, 24:23, 40:9, 52:7,10, 60:19,  Joel 4:16-17, Micah 7:15-18, Zephaniah 3:9, Zechariah 14:9, Psalm 47:3, 83:19, 86:10, 97:6-9, 102:16, 148:13,

View original

http://yourphariseefriend.wordpress.com/2011/05/26/isaiah-222/

"Has it occured to you that:

A) Nowhere in the Tanach does it say to believe in mashiach “or else”

B) Nowhere in the Tanach does it say that mashiach will be a hybrid god-man.

C) Nowhere in the Tanach does it say that mashiach will fulfill the law and replace it with a law of messiah.

D) Nowhere in Tanach does it say the mashiach will sacrifice himself for the sins of the world for all time.

E) Nowhere in Tanach does it say that a human sacrifice is permitted.

F) Nowhere in Tanach does it say that human vicarious atonement is permitted.

G) Nowhere in Tanach does it say that it is permissable to crown king mashiach prior to his fulfillment of ALL the messianic duties.

H) Nowhere in Tanach does it ever say that G-d has three personages or “Triune”

Had G-d chose to teach such things, He would have EXPLICTLY and plainly said so. Just as He explictly gave us details on what is a kosher animal, how to sacrifice an animal, matters of family purity etc…When Hashem gave the law at Sinai, he was silent on all matters that Christians claim, such as G-d’s nature, form and the personage of messiah.

Hashem isnt going to then, 1500 years into the future say, I told you could do the law (Deut 30) but you CANT! I told you I was alone….but I’m NOT! I actually have a son….and he is Me! and even though I told you NOT to sacrifice your sons and daughters, like the baal worhsipers….I am going to sacrifice my human son….who is really me.

I will kill him (myself) on a wooden stick by suffocation. He will not be required to be slaughtered per the Torah, his blood not sprinkled on the altar, his fat not burned and in fact, he will be placed in a tomb, alone and I will raise him (myself)…even though I never taught you any of this…you must accept it or be thrown into the pits of hell.

These are obviously BIG, HUGE concepts that had they been part of Hashems revelation to mankind, would have been given at Sinai. Otherwise, as Christians have done, they have made G-d a liar (G-d forbid) who decieves His people and who changes the paradigm midstream.

This is not the G-d of the Tanach. The Christian paradigm in the god of Rome….everyone of the new aspects of the Gospel can be found in Grecco-Roman paganism but NOT in Jewish doctrine.

Eating a god-man’s flesh and drinking his blood…pagan.

A hybrid god-man….pagan.

A virgin birth….pagan.

A resurrected savior…pagan.

Miracles by the god-man…pagan.

Only through eisegesis can you shoe-horn this paganism into the Tanach." ~

yitro

Origin of the New Testament

Origin of the New Testament

The Church makes extraordinary admissions about its New Testament. For example, when discussing the origin of those writings, "the most distinguished body of academic opinion ever assembled" (Catholic Encyclopedias, Preface) admits that the Gospels "do not go back to the first century of the Christian era" (Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. vi, p. 137, pp. 655-6). This statement conflicts with priesthood assertions that the earliest Gospels were progressively written during the decades following the death of the Gospel Jesus Christ. In a remarkable aside, the Church further admits that "the earliest of the extant manuscripts [of the New Testament], it is true, do not date back beyond the middle of the fourth century AD" (Catholic Encyclopedia, op. cit., pp. 656-7). That is some 350 years after the time the Church claims that a Jesus Christ walked the sands of Palestine, and here the true story of Christian origins slips into one of the biggest black holes in history. There is, however, a reason why there were no New Testaments until the fourth century: they were not written until then, and here we find evidence of the greatest misrepresentation of all time.

It was British-born Flavius Constantinus (Constantine, originally Custennyn or Custennin) (272-337) who authorized the compilation of the writings now called the New Testament. After the death of his father in 306, Constantine became King of Britain, Gaul and Spain, and then, after a series of victorious battles, Emperor of the Roman Empire. Christian historians give little or no hint of the turmoil of the times and suspend Constantine in the air, free of all human events happening around him. In truth, one of Constantine's main problems was the uncontrollable disorder amongst presbyters and their belief in numerous gods.

The majority of modern-day Christian writers suppress the truth about the development of their religion and conceal Constantine's efforts to curb the disreputable character of the presbyters who are now called "Church Fathers" (Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. xiv, pp. 370-1). They were "maddened", he said (Life of Constantine, attributed to Eusebius Pamphilius of Caesarea, c. 335, vol. iii, p. 171; The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, cited as N&PNF, attributed to St Ambrose, Rev. Prof. Roberts, DD, and Principal James Donaldson, LLD, editors, 1891, vol. iv, p. 467). The "peculiar type of oratory" expounded by them was a challenge to a settled religious order (The Dictionary of Classical Mythology, Religion, Literature and Art, Oskar Seyffert, Gramercy, New York, 1995, pp. 544-5). Ancient records reveal the true nature of the presbyters, and the low regard in which they were held has been subtly suppressed by modern Church historians. 

ABODAH ZARAH ("Idolatrous Worship")

The Challenge: 

Simply & honestly answer these questions: WITHOUT taking anything out of context,(full context) mistranslating, or imposing a pre-conceived notion. (All chapter and verse numbers are according to Christian bibles.)

To Evangelical Christians, Messianic Jews and Hebrew-Christians to all…

Why does the subject of 2 Sam. 7.14 “commit iniquity,” if, according to Hebrews 1.5, this is Jesus?

Why does the speaker in Psalms 41.4 say, “I have sinned against Thee,” if, according to John 13.18, this is Jesus?

Why does the speaker in Psalms 69.5 mention his “folly” and his “wrongs” if, according to John 15.25, John 2.17, Romans 15.3, and John 19.28, this is Jesus?

Why is the speaker in Psalms 69.31 (who we have already established is Jesus) declaring that praise and thanksgiving will please God better than a sacrifice??????? Of all places for Jesus to bring this up (which would be strange enough in any event), isn’t this the strangest, right when he’s on the cross??????

Why does God, in Jer. 31:29-30, make a point of stressing that “everyone will die for his own iniquity” – immediately before introducing the new covenant, whereby Jesus will die for everyone else’s iniquity? Isn’t that a rather strange way for the “tutor to lead us to Christ?”

When does the new covenant of Jer. 31:31 come into effect? If it was 2,000 years ago, why hasn’t the first 3/4 of verse 34 happened yet?

Why will there be sin sacrifices when the messiah comes, when the New Testament is adamant that there won’t be? (Hebrews 9:28; Heb. 10:10,12,14,18; Ezekiel 3:18,19,21,22,25; Ezek.44: 27, 29; Ezek. 45:17,20,22,23,25)

Why is Torah law going forth from Zion in the messianic age, in the sight of all the nations of the world, instead of Jesus, if the law is a curse and Jesus has fulfilled and replaced it? (Isaiah 2.3, Micah 4.2)

Why are the Jews keeping (DOING) the Torah law in the messianic age, if it is a curse and Jesus has fulfilled and replaced it? (Ezek. 37.24)

Why is no one who is uncircumcised IN THE FLESH allowed to enter the temple in the messianic age, if “neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything,” according to Paul? (Gal.5.6, Ezek. 44.7) Whose opinion should I trust, Paul’s or God’s?

Why does “forever” have an expiration date in Christianity? (Romans 10.4; Ps. 119: 44, 111, 152, 160, 172, 142; Deut. 29.29)

How can Jesus be qualified to be the messiah through Davidic lineage if he did not have a human father? Can the “Holy Spirit” be of the seed of David?

How can Jesus be qualified to be the messiah through Davidic lineage, even through Joseph, if Joseph came through the cursed line of Jeconiah? (Jer. 22:28-30, Matt. 1.11,12)

How can Jesus be qualified to be the messiah through Davidic lineage, even through Mary, if she came from Nathan, the wrong son of David, as well as from the cursed line? (Luke 3:31, 1 Chron. 22:9,10, Luke 3:27)

How could both Matthew’s and Luke’s genealogies be correct, and divinely inspired, even if they are of two different people, if they diverge (at Nathan and Solomon) and then come back together (at Shealtiel)? How can two brothers have the same grandchildren???

Why don’t the genealogies in the New Testament agree with each other, or with 1 Chronicles 3, which came first and CANNOT be incorrect?

Why is Paul so anxious for you to not study the genealogies? (1 Tim.1:4, Titus 3:9-11)

Why is Hebrews 8.9 wrong about what God said in Jer. 31.32?

Why is Hebrews 10.5 wrong about what God said in Psalm 40.6?

Why is 2 Corinthians 3 wrong about what God said in Exodus 34.29-35?

Why is John 19.37 wrong about what God said in Zech 12.10?

Why are Romans 9.33 and 2 Pet. 2.8 wrong about what God said in Isaiah 28.16?

Why is Romans 10.6-8 wrong about what God said in Deut. 30.12-14? Why does it leave out Deut. 30.11, and the last half of verses 12, 13, and 14???

Why is Romans 11:26-27 wrong about what God said in Isaiah 59:20-21?

Why is Matt. 12.21 wrong about what God said in Isaiah 42.4? Why does he leave out what it really says – “He will not be disheartened or crushed until he has established justice in the earth”?

Why is Matt. 1.12 wrong about what God said in 1 Chron. 3.19?

Why is Matt. 2.6 wrong about what God said in Micah 5.2?

Why is Luke 4:18-19 wrong about what God said in Isaiah 61:1-2?

In Romans 9:24-26, why does Paul leave out the first part of Hosea 1.10, which tells us that the verses he is quoting (the second half of Hosea 1.10, and Hosea 2.23), refer to the sons of Israel?

Why does Matt. 2.15 leave out the first half of Hosea 11.1, which says that Israel is God’s son?

Where in the Hebrew scriptures is the verse, “And he shall be called a Nazarene,” quoted in Matthew 2.23?

How can it be possible that the holy and inspired men of the New Testament were so ignorant of the Hebrew scriptures?

Why doesn’t Jesus himself know his own scripture, if he’s God and he wrote it? (Math. 23.35; Zech 1.1,2; 2 Chron 24.20,21)

Why is Jesus wrong in Math. 5.43 about what God said in Lev. 19.18?

Why does Jesus change God’s law (Math. 5.32, Luke 16.18 – declaring every legally divorced woman an adulteress, and every man married to a legally divorced woman an adulterer), if “I did not come to abolish the law,” and “whoever annuls one of the least of these commandments, and so teaches others, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven?” (Math. 5.17,19)

Why do most Christian translators lie about what God said in Hosea 14.2, and change His words, “take away all iniquity… that we may present our lips as bulls” (demonstrating that prayer substitutes for sacrifice) to “… the fruit of our lips?”

Why do Christians never mention verses like Hosea 14.2 or 1 Kings 8:44-52 or 2 Sam 12:13 or Lev. 5:11-13 or Ps. 32.5 or Isaiah 6.6-7 which demonstrate that one does not need a blood sacrifice to have their sins forgiven, or verses like Proverbs 21.3 or Psalms 40.6 or Hosea 6.6 or Psalms 69:30-31 or 1 Sam. 15.22 which say clearly that God actually PREFERS other methods of atonement to blood sacrifice, or Jeremiah 7:22-23 which goes so far as to say that God NEVER EVEN COMMANDED US ABOUT SACRIFICES???

Why are there numerous stories in the torah of people who sinned, and were forgiven through prayer and repentance – WITHOUT A SACRIFICE, such as David in 2 Sam 12:13, or the city of Nineveh in Jonah – and not a single story, ever, of someone who sinned and gave a sacrifice in order to be forgiven?

How can Jesus be both the high priest (per Paul in Hebrews), who comes from the tribe of Levi, and the messiah, who comes from the tribe of Judah?

How can Jesus be the Passover lamb for the gentiles, especially the uncircumcised, if outsiders were forbidden to partake of it? (Ex. 12:43,45,48)

Why is the New Testament so concerned about the laws of the paschal lamb when it comes to the 2nd half of Ex. 12.46 (see Jn. 19.36), but not at all concerned with these laws when it comes to Ex. 12: 3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,44, the first half of 46, or 48?

What good is Jesus as a sin sacrifice to the intentional sinner, since (with one exception, Lev. 6.2,3) the sin sacrifices were only for the unintentional sinner? (Lev. 4: 2,13,22,27; 5:15,18)

How can Zech. 12.10 be referring to Jesus’ crucifixion, as John 19.37 says it is, when Zechariah is clearly describing an end-time apocalyptic war that has not yet taken place?

How can Zechariah be making a “dual” prophecy, when according to the Christians, this passage refers to God being pierced? Is he going to be pierced again when he returns in glory?  

WE BLOW AWAY THE COMPETITION!

Pathways Radio offers the cheapest Plan of Salvation™ and Assurance of Eternal Security, ANYWHERE on the internet!  We dare you to find someone offering this package for a lower price WITHOUT ANY STRINGS ATTACHED! 


Read more at http://natzrim.blogspot.com/2013/03/update-your-salvation-obey-acts-238.html#iZ4R2bOemWX9olyX.99