verses they take out of context and misinterpret

Go to this page and they will link you to the jewish view of these passages
http://members.tripod.com/~GHaas/contents.htm

Prophecies Used by Missionaries and the Jewish Interpretation based on the original Hebrew texts:
Torah:

Prophets:

Writings:
Genesis 3:13-15 Isaiah 7:14 Psalm 2:2, 6-8
Genesis 18-19 Isaiah 9:6-7 Psalm 16:10
Exodus 17:15 Isaiah 11:1-2 Psalm 22
Numbers 9:12 Isaiah 42:1-4 and 42:6 Psalm 40:6-8
Deuteronomy 18:15,18,19 Isaiah 43:3 Psalm 41:9
Deuteronomy 21:23 Isaiah 48:16 Psalm 69:22
Isaiah 49:6 Psalm 88
Isaiah 50:6 Psalm 89:27, 28-30
Isaiah 52:3 Psalm 110:1
Isaiah 52:10 Ezra 3:8
Isaiah 52-53
Isaiah 61:1-2
Jeremiah 31:30-33
Hosea 11:1
Micah 5:2
Zechariah 3:8-10
Zechariah 6:9-13
Zechariah 9:9
Zechariah 12:10
Zecheriah 13:7

eternal brit covenant

The Eternality of the Covenant with the Jewish People
by Gretchen S.

The below is a rebuttle to those who say that the covenent the Jewish people have with G-d has been replaced or is no more

Leviticus 26:44-45 "Yet, even then, when they are in the land of their enemies, I will not reject them or spurn them so as to destroy them, annulling My covenant with them: for I the L-RD am their G-d. I will remember in their favor the covenant with the ancients, whom I freed from the land of Egypt in the sight of the nations to be their G-d: I, the L-RD." He will not reject us, ever. He will never annull the covenant.

Deuteronomy 4:31 "For the L-RD your G-d is a merciful G-d; He will not forsake you, nor destroy you, nor forget the covenant of your fathers which He swore to them." G-d will never destroy us, we are His eternal people, His servant Israel.

Deuteronomy 29:28 "The secret things belong to the L-RD our G-d; but those things which are revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may do all the words of this Torah."

Judges 2:1 "And an angel of the L-RD came up from Gilgal to Bochim, and said,[delivering G-d's messege] I made you go out of Egypt, and have brought you to the land which I swore to your fathers; and I said, I will never break my covenant with you."

Jer 31:36 "Thus says the L-RD; If heaven above can be measured, and the foundations of the earth explored below, then I will also cast off all the seed of Israel for all that they have done, says the L-RD."

The heavens above have not been measured, nor will they ever fully be measured. The foundations of the earth have not been fully searched, either in Jesus' day or our own. Israel decendents are still THE people Israel. The Covenant and the people are eternal.

Not only will G-d not break the covenant, we too are forever bound by it.

Deuteronomy 11:1 "Love [be loyal to], therefore, the L-RD your G-d, and always keep His charge, His laws, His rules, and His commandments."

Malachi 3:22 admonishes us Jews to "Remember the Torah of Moses My servant, which I commanded him in Horeb for all Israel, with the statutes and judgments."

Psalm 119:86 "All Your commandments are enduring..."

Psalm 119:160 "Truth is the essence of Your word;
your just rules are eternal."

Proverb 21:21 "He who strives to do good and kind deeds attains life, success, and honor"

The quotes from the Tanakh come from either Tanakh, The Holy Scriptures. Philadelphia, Jerusalem: Jewish Publication Society, 1985. or The Davka Tanakh on CD-ROM

A Summary of Why Jews Should not be Christians

A Summary of Why Jews Should not be Christians
By Keith Kothe

Jesus said the most important commandment is "Hear O'Israel, The L-rd is G-d, The L-rd is One. Christianity says G-d is three.

The Torah says the messiah will gather the dispersed of Israel, Jesus failed to cause the dispersed to be regathered, in fact shortly later Israel was destroyed.

Torah says the messiah will Rebuild the Temple, Jesus proving that he was not the messiah said the Temple would be ground to dust saying not one stone would be left upon another, it was destroyed, however Jesus also failed as a prophet, the western wall still stands to this day. [G. Haas note: not only is the western wall still standing, so are many other sections of the wall around the Temple Mount, so are the steps leading up to the main entrance, so are many other structures such as arches that once supported walkways]

Torah says the messiah will bring Peace to all mankind. Jesus said that I come to bring a sword, each man shall hate his mother and father. Jesus statments are contrary to Torah and Judiasm.

Jesus said the "pharasies and the scribes, (persons who interpet and teach the Oral Torah) sit in the seat of Moses, follow them and do all they say." Paul says forget that, forget circumcision, forget kosher, forget everything that Jesus did and said to do, now the law is done away with.

The Sabbath is the seventh day of the week, christians say it is the First day of the week, following the pagan customs of the Romans.

Torah says do not follow strange gods that your fathers did not know. The new testament says that Jesus is a god.

Torah says you shall have no other gods beside me. The NT says that Jesus (a god) sits at the right hand of the father. Then there is this holy ghost thing that is also a god.

Human sacrifice is totally against Torah. Further G-d said I am tired of the blood of bulls and goats, I want the sacrifice of the fruit of your lips.

The representation of eating blood and flesh of a human as in the communion act is the very essence of a pagan ritual. Totally repulsive to Torah.

According to Torah the blood sacrifice for sin can only be a goat or a FEMALE lamb. That sacrifice can only pay for unintentional sin, commited by accident. The only means of forgivness for all other sin if for the person who commited the sin to do Teshuva, to repent and do what is right.

G-d said I make an eternal covenant with Israel, the NT says that covenant is past we now have a new covenant.

Christianity departed from all of G-ds festivals, the ones that even Jesus kept, and instead incorporated a host of pagan festivals with pagan rituals such as A supernatural Elf that brings gifts, Yule logs, Christmas trees, Bunny Rabbits, and Eggs etc etc.

I could go on, but you get the general Idea. As Rabbi Tovia Singer said, Every thing good in the NT is from the Torah, Every thing new in the NT is not from Torah.

They quote?

Some things you should ask yourself when dealing with quotes from missionaories are:

* Are the quotes in context?
* Are the translations accurate?
* Is it really a prophecy being that is quoted?
* If it is a prophecy, is it about the messianic era and the messiah?
* Does it point exclusively to one person, or could it point to many people?

other links suggested by www.beingjewish.com

Anti-Missionary Web Sites

(Updated January 31, '06 )

If you are interested in studying more in detail about the differences between Judaism and Christianity, choose from the lists below. It is not organized in any particular order.

Jews For Judaism an international anti-missionary organization. An extensive website.

Derech Emet: The Way of Truth (in Russian and English). Derech Emet is, in their own words, an "all-volunteer effort to save Jewish souls from deceptive missionary cults. A good and trustworthy organization.

Their Hollow Inheritance (almost a complete book for free) A great book, I recommend it. Among other things, this book offers a great deal of evidence for some rather surprising information about the origins of christianity. (Something was wrong with this site when I checked it on 1/31/06, but it seems like a temporary problem, or so I hope.)

The Truth of Judaism Among other things, this website also has loads of links to many websites and articles about the errors of christianity, and how to refute missionaries.

Messiah Truth: A Jewish Response to Missionary Groups. An overview of some of the more important issues, scattered with a gazillion links to very good sites.

Outreach Judaism bringing back Jews from the Church

Torah Life And Living: The Emergency Room for Jewish Souls.
A site by professionals dedicated to anti-cult work and anti-missionary work. They provide help if a family member has been seduced by a cult, and Exit Counseling for those who themselves are or have been in cults.

Pagan Origins of the Christ Myth
How Christianity inherited monotheism, Heaven, Hell, the Holy Ghost, the sacrificed savior son of god, resurrection, baptism and the Eucharist from ancient pagan religions.
Sites I have seen but have looked at only briefly:

Shomrai HaBrit-Keepers of the Covenant

Ask Lazer: Judaism & Christianity, Questions and Answers

The Counter-Missionary Homepage

Project Truth: Response to Christian missionaries.

Some articles at Aish HaTorah about this subject.

Messiahpage

We Are Not Going To Burn in Hell: A Jewish Response to Christianity

Chana Cox's web page

Kersey Graves: The World's Sixteen Crucified Saviors Mostly good, but check out his sources, because some people say he is inaccurate at times.

Meira OnlineThis link to Questions and Answers about My Spiritual Journey to Judaism is apparently also part of it, though I can't find the link to it from her actual website.

Anti-Missionary Study Hall

Ex-Jews for jesus web siteThis is not actually an anti-missionary site. It is a site dedicated to bringing healing for those who have been hurt by spiritually abusive groups such as Jews for Jesus by providing support and resources.

Cultic Studies: Information about Cults and Psychological Manipulation

Why don't Jews Believe in jesus? and many other relevant articles.

Antimissionary.OrgA small site.

Torah Media A series of on-line audio lectures with step-by-step guides for refuting missionaries. This is only one of the lecture series they have available on Jewish topics.

Judaism and why **NOT** Jesus See also their Counter Missionary Resources page

The #1 Counter Missionary Site, or at least that's what they call themselves. I'm not sure this site adds much of use to the mix (and I've already listed here any good links they provide), but they might add something more some time. So it pays to keep an eye on this site.

Virgin birth? from www.beingjewish.com

The Supposed Virgin Birth

The Virgin Birth is a fundamental tenet of most forms of Christianity. Yet it is very odd that none of the earlier Christian books mention it. The book of Mark, probably the first written, makes no mention of it at all. One would think that it would be worth at least one sentence, if not the amount spent on it by the book of Matthew. It is evident that Mark had never heard of the Virgin Birth. The book of John does not mention it either.

The reason that the virgin birth concept was added to Christianity was because the first Christians were very unsuccessful at converting Jews. Most Jews knew they had something better, so they would not leave Judaism for Christianity. Remember: at the beginning it was nothing more than a very small messianic movement within Judaism, and after their "messiah" died, it was rather hard to convert Jews to their movement.

So they began to reach out to the pagans, the non-Jews. But those pagans attracted to Judaism had already joined Judaism, and the new ones would not be very likely to join a tiny fringe group that had lost all real meaning since their false messiah-leader had died. Anyone interested in Judaism would more likely be interested in mainstream Judaism.

So the Christians had to do something different. They had to develop appeal. So, they began to assume beliefs that pagan people found attractive. That was how they came up with the concepts of the trinity, transubstantiation, the need to "save" everyone through the resurrection of a messiah, virgin birth, and all the other wacky ideas of Christianity. All these were lifted straight from other religions, some of which preceded Christianity by 700 years! Pagans just lapped up things like demigods, gods having intercourse with humans, virgins giving birth. Such claims meant something to pagans, and they were already familiar with such beliefs from their own cultures. So leaving a pagan religion to join Christianity was not much of a stretch, especially after Paul declared that the pagans did not need to keep the Commandments of the Torah.

Virgin birth was a popular pagan myth, prevalent in numerous religions of the time. The particular strain that we find in Christianity was probably taken directly from the Greek myth of the divine birth of Perseus from the virgin Danae. It never had any association with Judaism. Furthermore, Attis, a popular Roman and Syrian god around the time Christianity began, was also said to have been born of a virgin. Long before that, Krishna, the Hindu god, dating back to nine centuries before Christianity, was said to be god incarnate born of a virgin, as was Gautama Buddha. So there was rather widespread precedent for Christian beliefs, but none of it came from Judaism.

Your average Jew with any kind of Jewish upbringing is disgusted by these ideas. This was true back then, just as much as it is true today. The virgin birth seems to us rather strange.

A Jew will also ask: "And how do I know she was a virgin?" We don't, of course, so there's really no evidence at all. In fact, no one could ever have known whether or not she was a virgin!

What do I mean by that? In Matthew, Chapter 1, verse 24-25, it says: "Then Joseph awoke and did as the angel of the Lord had instructed him, and married her. He did not have relations with her until after she had given birth to her firstborn son: and he called his name Jesus."

The verse says that Joseph did not have relations with Mary until after jesus was born. In other words, after jesus was born, they did have relations. Not only that, Matthew later says quite explicitly that jesus had three brothers and a few sisters (Matthew 12:46; 13:55-56). Mark (6:3) lists four brothers and says "all his sisters," which might imply more than two sisters, but in any case implies at least two.

There are those who wish to argue that "brothers and sisters" refers to those that jesus considered is true brothers and sisters -- his followers.

But this answer doesn't work. Let's look at the actual verses involved. First, Matthew 12:46-50.

While Jesus was still talking to the crowd, his mother and brothers stood outside, wanting to speak to him. Someone told him, "Your mother and brothers are standing outside, wanting to speak to you." He replied to him, "Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?" Pointing to his disciples, he said, "Here are my mother and my brothers. For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother."

In other words, his biological mother and brothers were waiting outside for him, and he argued that his real mother and brothers were his followers.

So he apparently had real brothers, biological brothers.

Now, it is quite evident that even if a woman could conceive a child and still remain a virgin, the act of giving birth would rupture the hymen anyway. So once jesus was born, Mary would no longer have had a hymen.

Now, if Joseph did not have relations with her until after her hymen was ruptured from jesus' birth, even Joseph could never know whether she had been a virgin when jesus was conceived. By the time Joseph got to her, one way or another she had no hymen, so how could Joseph know whether the hymen was there before jesus was born?

So who in the world could verify that she was a virgin when she conceived jesus? No one, that's who!

Think about it. What sort of proof would it be anyway? I stand up in front of a few people, and I declare: "You see that virgin?" And everyone turns to look at her, and they say, "Well, I see a woman, but how do I know she's a virgin?"

"Never mind about that now," I say. "I'm a prophet, and I tell you she is a virgin. She will give birth, miraculously!"

"What's so miraculous about that?" everyone wants to know. She'll have relations with someone, and she'll get pregnant, and she'll give birth. It happens every day."

"Take my word for it."

No one checks to see if she is a virgin, because that would be in poor taste anyway.

So how is this a proof of anything?

But what is even more amazing is their supposed proof that virgin birth is significant. It all comes from a distorted verse in Isaiah.

Let's examine what Isaiah says there, in plain English.

King Ahaz of Judah was afraid, because the king of Aram and the king of Israel were conspiring to wage war against Judah.

Isaiah prophesied to King Ahaz that within a few years Israel would be taken into exile, and Judah would be left alone. Aram would not bother Judah, and Israel would not be able to.

Isaiah offered King Ahaz a sign that would prove that Isaiah's words were prophecy from G-d. King Ahaz refused, because that would have caused a greater sanctification of G-d's Name. Isaiah got angry, and offered his own sign. He predicted the gender of an unborn child. Isaiah indicated a young woman who was nearby -- some say it was the king's wife, and some say it was Isaiah's wife -- and Isaiah said, "The young woman is pregnant. she will give birth to a son, and his mother will call him Emmanuel. Before he is even old enough to know good from evil, before he is even old enough to enjoy delightful food, the two kings will stop invading your land. And this child will grow up to enjoy good and delightful food, because your land will be in peace."

And it indeed happened that way.

That is what Chapter 7 of Isaiah is about. Now where is there mentioned the Messiah? How does a virgin fit into this?

Even if you can prove that almah means a virgin -- and you can't-- it is STILL not talking about the Messiah. Jesus was born some 700 years later. How would that have answered King Ahaz's problem? None of the words of that chapter fit into any such interpretation.

Let me restate this, to make sure everyone understands.

Chapter 7 of Isaiah tells of a conversation between King Ahaz and Isaiah, sometime around the year 600 B.C.E.

King Ahaz of Judea was worried. The Kings of Aram and Israel were planning a siege and attack against Judea. G-d told the Prophet Isaiah to reassure Ahaz and tell him not to worry, it will not happen. Aram and Israel will not succeed against Judea.

Isaiah offered a sign. He would foretell an event, and when it came true that would prove that he spoke prophetically. Then Ahaz could cease worrying. What sign did he offer? "This young woman here is pregnant. She will give birth to a son. She will call him Emmanuel. Once he is old enough to have intelligence, he will eat rich foods, because there will be peace in the land. This is because even before he attains intelligence, Aram and Israel will be conquered, and their people will be taken away."

This last point is important.

Isaiah showed King Ahaz a sign, to reassure him that during the childhood of the boy Emmanuel the two kings will be rendered harmless. As it says there, in verse 16 of that chapter in Isaiah: "For before the boy will know enough to refuse evil and choose good, the land whose two kings you dread will be forsaken." The prophecy was fulfilled not long after, when Isaiah's wife gave birth to a son. Isaiah 8:4 therefore says: "Even before the child shall know how to cry 'Father and Mother!' the riches of Damascus and Samaria will be taken away by the king of Assyria."

Isaiah makes it absolutely clear that his prophecy will take place very soon. Not 600 or 700 years later.

So the child being referred to was the son of Isaiah, or the son of the king. It has nothing to do with the Messiah. The entire event: the birth of the child Emmanuel and the exile of the two kings, took place over 600 years before Jesus was born. So the verse is not talking about a virgin, and in any case is not talking about the Messiah, but about a child that was born very shortly thereafter.

But this is considered irrelevant to many Christians. They argue that Isaiah was referring overtly to the problem of the time, but was also alluding to the Messiah.

How do they do this? How can you possibly find in these verses a proof that the Messiah will be born of a virgin?

It's quite simple. Change the "young woman" to "virgin." Change "she is pregnant" to "she will become pregnant." Ignore the reference to "Emanuel." If you don't mention it, perhaps no one else will notice it either.

Don't be concerned that Isaiah makes no mention of the Messiah here. Perhaps the Christian apostles honestly believed that the Messiah is mentioned in this verse, despite the glaring absence of any such reference.

Now, ignore the fact that Isaiah was reassuring Ahaz that in his own time he will have peace. Pretend instead that he was referring to an event 600 years in the future. How that would reassure King Ahaz that he would have peace from Aram and Israel I cannot imagine. Maybe the problem is that I don't have enough "faith" to believe in a lie.

Typically, Christians ignore the context of the verses in Isaiah, and focus -- when forced to -- only on the question of what the word almah means.

Any translation that renders almah as "virgin," is absolutely wrong. That is not the definition of the word. You can argue from today until the middle of next year, but the meaning of the word won't change.

Some people argue that the Septuagint uses the word "parthenos" in Isaiah 7:14. (The Septuagint was a Greek translation created by a large group of Rabbis sometime around 300 B.C.E.) That would mean, if this is true, that even the Jews translated almah as "virgin."

Actually, one cannot bring proof from the Septuagint. The only existing copies of the Septuagint are nothing like the original version. Though the Septuagint was created by Rabbis, they did it against their will, because King Ptolemy Philadelphus of Egypt forced them to do it. Ptolemy wanted a Greek version for his library. The Septuagint was never used by religious Jews as a source of study. In pre-Christian times, it was not popular at all, and if it was used at all, it was used almost exclusively by non-Jews, and sometimes by assimilated, non-religious, Hellenized Jews.

Non-Jews did not consider it holy, and so they were not careful about preserving it precisely. The Septuagint was therefore not kept in its original form. It was changed many times. Later, the Christians deliberately introduced many changes in the text, in order to bring it in line with their own doctrines.

Some argue that the christians cannot be blamed for misreading it, because the meaning of the Greek word "parthenos" changed. Originally, it meant "young woman," and later the meaning of the word shifted (as happens in all languages over time) and people began to use it to mean "virgin." Even if that's true, that gives a sorry picture of the "wisdom and divine inspiration" of the people (i.e., the christians) who thought that Isaiah was talking about a virgin. It means that they had no idea what the original Hebrew verse was saying. Why, then, should I learn theology from an ignoramus?

The original translators that created the Septuagint were Rabbis. They translated it according to Jewish Tradition. They certainly knew Hebrew, and they knew that almah means "young woman." They knew it does not mean "virgin." It makes no sense to believe that the Rabbis of the Septuagint translated it as "virgin," when no other Rabbi in all of history has ever translated it that way.

But even if we accept that the Septuagint was originally written with the word "parthenos," and that the Rabbis meant to translate it as "virgin" (which makes no sense), how does that explain what the Christians did to the rest of the passage? Even if it does mean virgin, how did the Messiah get into this prophecy? And how did a prophecy that clearly refers to a contemporary event get applied to an event 600 or 700 years later? There is no logic to this so-called "proof."

You might ask: Christians aren't stupid. Anyone can read Isaiah and figure out these things for themselves. Why haven't they rejected this doctrine on their own?

There are a few reasons.

First of all, you would be amazed at how many missionaries studied my exposition on this matter, and have responded by saying things like: "I am satisfied that Isaiah Chapter 7 is talking about the Messiah." Many missionaries say they have "blind faith" (and for some reason they expect to somehow use that to convince me). In reality, they are blinded by their faith. Their faith does not allow them to accept interpretations that do not match what they have been taught, so they simply edit the contradictions out of their minds. They see what they want to see.

But not all Christians are blinded by faith. Many blind themselves willingly. Take Catholics, for example. Catholics are not taught to study the Bible, and so many of them know only what they have heard the priests teach them in church.

It is certainly significant that for over seventeen hundred years, the Catholic Church forbade Catholics to read the bible! When two people translated the bible into a language so that everyone could understand it, the Catholic Church burned them at the stake! Can you believe this? They did not want people to read their own holy book!!

They knew that if the Catholics read the bible properly, they might start asking questions that the Catholic priests wouldn't be able to answer. People might start to see the contradictions and problems that the Christian bible is full of.

Protestants have another problem. Protestants often rely on the King James' version of the bible, which not only is so terribly distorted and mistranslated, it is also next to impossible for the modern reader to understand.

Years ago, I used to attend weekly meetings at a book store, where people would get together and have some rather fascinating conversations.

One time I got into a discussion with a customer that walked in at the time. She was Protestant (Methodist, I think), and the subject of the supposed virgin birth was brought up. I challenged her to read chapter 7 of Isaiah and find any references to the Messiah.

She asked the owner of the book store for a bible, and she began to read it. After about two or three verses, she gave up. She complained that she could not understand what the Bible was talking about. That was the end of the conversation, as far as she was concerned. There was no way to even discuss the matter, because she was incapable of investigating on her own.

She would not ask for any other bible, because she insisted that the King James Bible is the only divinely inspired translation, and that it is infallibly correct.

Such people fulfill, I suppose, what the Christian bible says, "If your eyes offends you, pluck it out." If you don't like what you see, don't change the wrong thing. Blind yourself! And then you won't see it.

Missionaries with whom I have had any discussion, especially about this, often simply ignore everything I have written. They can't focus on it. (And in addition, missionaries are trained to trick you and snare you with confusing twists in conversation. Missionaries tend not to even answer the questions you ask them.)

One stance taken by some Christian missionaries is that we Jews are all wrong, and that almah actually does mean virgin. We Jews just don't know any Hebrew! After all, where's the proof from the Tanach that almah does not mean "virgin?" This is ridiculous, of course. We Jews have been using Hebrew for the past three thousand, there hundred years, which is more than one thousand years longer than Christianity has even existed. But I will prove they are wrong anyway.

A Christian woman who tried to convert me over the Internet (I'll call her Beulah) once quoted to me six places in Tanach where the term almah is used, and claimed that all of them "could mean virgin." There is no explicit indication anywhere, she said, as to whether it refers to a virgin or not.

There are two problems with that.

In the first place, the fact that they could mean virgin does not prove that they do mean virgin.

Secondly, she omitted the seventh occurrence of the word, the one that is the actual proof.

The proof is in Proverbs 31:18-20.

There are three things that leave no trace after they have passed, and a fourth that one can never know afterwards. The way an eagle has flown in the sky, the way a serpent has crawled on a rock, the way a ship has sailed in deep water, and the way a man has been with a young woman (almah). That's how an adulterous woman acts: she "eats," wipes her mouth, and says "I have committed no sin."

What this means is that when an adulterous woman sins, she relies on the fact that no one can tell. We cannot tell that an eagle has just flown across the sky, or that a serpent has just crawled across this rock, or that a ship sailed by here ten minutes ago, because they leave no permanent sign. So too, when a man sins with a young woman, no one can tell, because there is no mark left behind.

Now, if almah means a virgin, this passage makes no sense. After a virgin has such an experience, there is definitely a difference, there is definitely a sign: she has lost her virginity. That is in no way comparable to the other three examples. Yet the verse says that the fourth leaves no sign afterwards, and you can never tell it happened!

It follows therefore, that almah here cannot mean a virgin. It means a young woman. The word almah means, simply, a young woman. It does not mean "virgin."

In other places in Tanach a "young woman" might be a virgin, and might not. Here in Proverbs, she is definitely not a virgin.

Beulah, the Christian missionary from the Internet whom I mentioned above, objected that the verse simply says "the way of a man with a young woman." She argued that the way of a man is to talk with young women.

I told her that if she thought all a man does with young women is talk, she's been spending too much time inside her church. She should get out of the convent, and go meet some men, and see if all they want to do is talk.

Secondly, if it simply means talk, why need it say a man and woman? It could refer to any two people. Why particularly a man and a young woman? In what way is talking "the way of a man with a young woman?"

She had no answer, so she ignored my question and changed the subject. I wasn't very surprised at that.

Quite a number of missionaries have attempted to prove to me by other means that almah really means virgin. They show me the other places in Tanach that the word almah is used, and say things like "Surely he wanted a virgin, not merely a young woman." As if that proves the definition of the word, somehow.

Invariably, and I mean this absolutely, they never mention the verse in Proverbs. That one they studiously ignore.

For example, they point to Eliezer, the servant of Abraham, who said that he will choose as a bride for Isaac the first almah who offers water to both him and his animals. "Surely he wanted a virgin," they tell me.

What was Eliezer saying? Was he intending to check each woman and see if she was a virgin? "I will accept only a virgin. So if I see a woman who is not a virgin, I will reject her." That's ridiculous. How would he know which young woman was a virgin and which was not? Would he even have asked her such a question? He was not in a position to make any such judgment.

This is not proof that almah means virgin.

Another argument often thrown my way is the interesting, "All young women then were virgins."

Except that it is completely untrue. Most young women were married, and consequently were no longer virgins.

And here is yet another thing to consider: Isaiah was bringing a sign, that is, a proof that he was a prophet. He prophesied that the woman would give birth to a boy, which was something only prophet could have known for sure. If he meant to use the word "virgin" as his proof, why did he use a word whose meaning is ambiguous? He could simply have said "besulah," which means "virgin."

He didn't use the word "besulah," because that was not the sign he was giving. He said 'young woman," because he meant the young woman (who was, by the way, already pregnant).

In short, the word almah means a young woman. That's all. The woman might be a virgin, she might not be. She might be married, she might be single, she might be divorced, she might even have been debauched. It simply means "young woman," whatever her status. But the word almah does not imply virginity or lack thereof. Virginity is irrelevant to the meaning of this word.

As such, it does not constitute PROOF that someone born of a virgin is the Messiah.

which is kinder? from www.beingjewish.com

Was Jesus Merciful?

Many Christian missionaries make the claim that the Jews see G-d as cruel, and that in contrast, Jesus is merciful.

The first statement is a lie. Certainly, anyone who has read the articles on my site knows that Judaism is very emphatic that Hashem is merciful. (Before emailing me about this, read the articles on my home page.)

The second claim, that Jesus was merciful, is certainly not supported by the words of the Christian bible, as we shall see below.

Let us discuss the two claims in order. According to Judaism, no one can be more merciful than G-d. It is impossible. G-d is the most merciful of anything in the universe that exists, all of which G-d created. According to Judaism, it is heresy to claim that anyone or anything is more merciful than G-d.

What do Christian missionaries mean when they say that Jesus is more merciful? They usually don't answer this one directly, because missionaries seldom answer any direct questions. The answer appears to be that supposedly "Jesus accepts repentance, and the Jewish G-d does not."

However, that is also untrue. Hashem most certainly does accept repentance, and sacrifice is not necessary for forgiveness and atonement. (More about that in another article.)

Hashem forgives sins, and it is only Hashem who forgives sins, as it says, "I, I alone, erase your sins, for My sake, and I will not remember your iniquities." (Isaiah 43:25) And also, it says, "I, I alone am G-d, and no one other than I is a savior." (Isaiah 43:11) And it says, "I, I alone, comfort you; how can you, who are worthy, fear a person, who will die, a son of man, who is as short-lived as grass?"

Statements of Hashem's mercy are found all over the Torah.

"For Hashem is a merciful Power...." (Deuteronomy 4:31)

"For he is merciful, He will atone sin, He will not destroy..." (Psalms 78:38)

"And he prayed to Hashem, and he said, Please, Hashem .... for I know that You are a merciful and compassionate Power, difficult to anger, and has much kindness, and forgives evil." (Jonah 4:2)

"The wicked should forsake his ways, and the evil person should forsake his plans, and return to Hashem, Who will have mercy on him, for He forgives abundantly." (Isaiah 55:7)

"Hashem is merciful and compassionate, difficult to anger, and has much kindness." (Psalms 103:8)

"Tear your hearts, and not your clothes, and return to Hashem your G-d, for He is compassionate and merciful, difficult to anger, and has much kindness, and forgives evil." (Joel 2:13)

"Hashem has made memorials of the miracles He performed for us; Hashem is full of compassion and mercy. Hashem is good to all, and His mercy is on all His creations." (Psalms 111:4-5)

And so on, all over the Torah.

And in our prayers, we say three times a day "Blessed are You Hashem, who is compassionate, and forgives abundantly." (Amidah prayer, sixth blessing)

As to sinners, the Torah says, "He who hides his sin will not be successful, but he who confesses to Hashem and forsakes his sin, will receive mercy." (Proverbs 28:13)

Now let's examine some of the things that the Christian bible records Jesus as saying. We will find that Jesus was cruel, very unforgiving, and full of a great deal of unrelenting anger.

Since there are so many examples in the Christian bible of cruel things in the name of Jesus, I will restrict the following quotes to the book of Matthew, the book that is placed at the beginning of the Christian bible, and therefore the first encounter anyone would have of Jesus in the Christian bible. So all quotes not otherwise accredited are from Matthew.

Jesus is quoted as having said: "But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth." (8:13) Why doesn't he just forgive them, and allow them into Heaven? Where is the forgiveness? Where is the mercy?

Jesus is also quoted as saying, "But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven." (10:33) So those who do not believe in Jesus will not go to Heaven. How is that more merciful?

"And you, Capernaum, which art exalted unto heaven, shalt be brought down to hell." (11:23) It is not explained why Capernaum was exalted to Heaven, (meaning that many miracles supposedly took place there), will be brought down to hell. In any case, since they Jesus considered it worse than Sodom, they would be destroyed and sent to hell. Again, where is the mercy in this?

"...but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men." (12:30) Notice that not only is this considered a sin, it won't even be forgiven! This is reiterated again (in verse 32), "whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come."

And here's a beauty; "but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath." (13:12) Of course, that one doesn't even make sense. How can you take away something from someone who has nothing? But what does that matter in the face of strong blind faith? Christians are taught to have blind faith, The actual words written in the Christian bible are not as important as having faith.

It made sense, by the way, in the original Talmudic version that Jesus distorted it from, which was, "Whoever tries to take what does not belong to him, what he seeks he will not get, and what he has shall be taken away from him" (Babylonian Talmud, Sotah 9a).

What Jesus did there is to take part of the words and apply them to something else. What he applies them to shows yet more of his cruelty. The disciples ask him why he speaks in parables. He answers that it is to prevent the masses from understanding him. For the masses have nothing, that is, they do not know the 'mysteries of Heaven." Since they do not know those secrets, they have nothing, and therefore they shall be given nothing, and all their merits -- although they have none -- will be taken away from them.

Well, they have no merits, he says. And you know what, Jesus says that he will not even give them the chance to get any merits at all!

Jesus said that he spoke in parables so that the masses would not understand and perhaps gain heaven, because they had closed their own eyes and it was their fault anyway. "Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand. And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive: For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them." (13:13-15)

In other words, if they would understand the parables, they might repent, and be converted, and he would heal them from their sins. And he does not wish that to happen for them. He cruelly denies them the possibility of repentance and conversion! (Not that he could really have granted it to them anyway, but the Christian belief is that he could have. In that case, he is cruel for refusing to do so!)

He and John the Baptist did a similar thing with the Pharisees. According to Matthew (3:7), the Pharisees came to John the Baptist when he was baptizing people, but he rejected them and refused to baptize them. " But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism, he said unto them, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come?"

Later, Jesus said that the Pharisees were to blame for not going to John the Baptist! "For John came unto you in the way of righteousness, and ye believed him not; but the publicans and the harlots believed him: and ye, when ye had seen it, repented not afterward, that ye might believe him." (21:32) John never even gave them a chance, and Jesus still blames them! This is merciful?

What will happen in the future, asks Matthew? "The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity; And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth." (13:41-42)

He repeats this again: "So shall it be at the end of the world: the angels shall come forth, and sever the wicked from among the just, And shall cast them into the furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth." (13:49-50)

No forgiveness, no mercy, for those he considers evil. But wait! It gets worse!

Who does he consider evil? Get a load of this! "Whosoever shall say, You fool, shall be in danger of hell fire." (5:22) In other words, just for calling someone else a fool, you will go to hell forever. This is being merciful?

"But if you forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses." (6:14) While this seems somewhat logical and fair, it is not particularly merciful. In what way is Jesus merciful?

"That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven." (5:21) In other words, if you are not very righteous, says Jesus, you will not go to Heaven. No mercy, no exceptions.

But it gets worse! Look what Jesus says about the average person:

And Jesus spoke to them again with parables, and said, The kingdom of heaven is like a certain king who made a wedding for his son, And sent out his servants to call the guests to the wedding: but they would not come. Again, he sent our other servants, saying, Tell the guests, Look, I have prepared a large dinner: I have killed my best animals for the meal, and everything is ready: so please come to the wedding. But they didn't take it seriously, and continued whatever they had been doing before: one went back to his farm, another went back to selling his merchandise: And the rest of them took the king's servants, and treated them spitefully, or killed them. When the king heard about this, he was very angry, and he sent out his armies, and destroyed those murderers, and burned up their city. Then he said to his servants, The wedding is ready, but the people who were originally invited were not worthy. Therefore, Go to the highways, and invite to the wedding everyone you find there.

So those servants went to the highways, and gathered together everyone they found, both bad and good people: and the wedding had a lot of guests. And when the king came in to see the guests, he saw there a man who was not wearing a wedding garment: And he said to him, Friend, how can you come her without wearing a wedding garment? And the man was speechless. So the king said to the servants, Tie him up very tightly, and take him away, and throw him into outer darkness; there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth. For many are called, but few are chosen.

This is from Matthew, Chapter 2, verses 1-14

In other words, a simple man from the street, who did not expect to be called to the wedding, was suddenly brought to the wedding. Yet because he was not already wearing wedding clothes, he was punished! Many are called, Jesus says, but this man was NOT called. It is hardly his fault that he was not ready!

This parable reveals the horror of Jesus' teachings. The people in the street had not been invited to the wedding, and they never expected to be there. They had no command, indeed, they had no reason, to be wearing wedding clothes or to get ready for the wedding in any way. Yet they were pulled in suddenly, unexpectedly. And for not being prepared for something they had no reason to attend, this man is punished!

And the meaning of this parable is that when the time comes, and someone is not ready for G-d, he will be punished even though he did not expect to be called! This is cruel in the extreme.

Jesus was not merciful. Jesus condemns everyone who does not believe in him.

"Afterward came also the other virgins, saying, Lord, Lord, open to us. But he answered and said, Verily I say unto you, I know you not. Watch therefore, for ye know neither the day nor the hour wherein the Son of man cometh." (25:11-13) Where is the mercy here? The statement here is that they did not deserve to go to Heaven. If only those who fully deserve it go to Heaven, how is that being merciful?

And then there is Jesus' beliefs about marriage and divorce. How cruel it is to force a man and woman who are incompatible with each other to stay married to each other and not remarry (5:31-32). Moreover, he said that it is better not to marry (19:10-12). But if a man marries, and discovers that it was better not to marry, he must still suffer all his life in the marriage!!! This is kind? No, this is cruel!

Think about it. Jesus said that it is better not to marry. Yet nevertheless, he forbade divorce to everyone, even though not everyone can take it! It is hard to know which is crueler, to force men to stay single, or to force an incompatible couple to stay married. And if the woman leaves the husband, she may not even remarry, because Jesus says that this is adultery (5:32)! Jesus commits numerous cruelties with this ruling.

The very fact that such words were attributed to him by the very people who adopted him as god-messiah and brought him to the rest of the world as god-messiah, means to me that I don't want or need to know anything more about him. His own believers and followers reported him as being cruel, and no amount of whitewashing by later Christians can change that.

By their account, Jesus was cruel, which in itself shows that he was not on Hashem's side. According to his words, it is very difficult to attain Heaven. For he demanded that his followers love him more than their parents and children (Matthew 10:37); that they give up their entire lives and travel with him (ibid, 38-39); that they give away all their possessions and all they call their own (19:21); and that they never get divorced (5:32). His demands were utterly impossible, often abusive, and indeed, few Christians have ever fulfilled them.

As if those are not sufficiently difficult, he also insisted that you allow people to rob you, and even help them hurt you (5:38-41). Of course Christians don't keep that! All of society would collapse if those rules were kept! In point of fact, Christians have been the biggest source of hurt throughout history.

The Christian bible insists that Christians sell everything they own, and give it all to the poor. Is this more merciful than Judaism? Judaism (i.e., the Law of Moses, the Hebrew Bible, Jewish Law, the Torah) in most cases prohibits giving away all your assets, because that would make you destitute and dependant upon charity yourself, forcing others to support you when you are capable of supporting yourself. Therefore, the Law of Moses commands you to give only a tithe, one tenth of your assets. At most you may give one fifth, except in case of certain emergencies. Jesus demands that you give everything away. Giving away everything you own is much harder than giving away only a tenth. Yet Paul claims that the Law of Moses is more difficult to keep than the Laws of Jesus. Not true, obviously. Jesus' laws are cruel, unreasonable and wrong. Of course, very few (if any) Christians keep them, because they know those laws are impossible to keep.

Incidentally, many of today's churches ask for tithes, i.e., a tenth of each member's income, relying on the Law of Moses that they claim is no longer in effect! There is no real consistency in Christianity.

I think, all in all, the Jewish G-d is much more kind and merciful than the Christian "god."