Disputation I Abstract:

Halachah:

The Disputations

© 2005 Maggid ben Yoseif

Disputation Series, Part  I

Halachah -- Judah's perspective

Orthodox rabbonim view themselves above all else, as "defenders of Halachah,” or as this is phrased biblically, “doers and guarders” of the Torah. Y’shua challenged his disciples to also “do” and “shomer” (guard or keep safe) the Torah and gave the authority to interpret Halachah to the Pharisees of his generation who sit in the seat of Moses.

From the perspective of Orthodox rabbonim, the House of Joseph is found wanting re: its observance of Halachah. Primarily this is due to its sh’tuf (association of an entity other than the God of Israel with the God of Israel), which it learned from Christianity. Secondarily, through the influence of “messianic Jewish doctrine,” a vast number of the House of Joseph uses and/or claims to know the proper pronunciation of the Name of God. This Most Holy – meaning most set-apart – name was historically pronounced only by the priests only when singing the Bircat Kohenim (the priestly blessing) and the high priest only on the Day of Atonement. Joseph-Ephraim therefore comes across to the rabbonim as both idolatrous and arrogant beyond belief. Until that changes, the doors to the return of the House of Joseph are not only closed, they are sealed by Heaven. Hosea was told, "So long as Ephraim clings to idols, leave him alone." And the chastisements of Ephraim for his arrogance are well documented in the Scripture.

Halachah taught in Orthodox yeshivot  in Jerusalem is traced to Moses, who had to explain how to do things like lay t'fillin, tie tzitziyot, sh'kitah an animal so all of its blood was removed, observe the Passover, New Moon and Shabbat. Moses also obviously taught the meaning of the Sh'ma professing the belief that the God of Israel is One. These beliefs are solidified only with their observances as instructed via oral tradition associated with Moshe rabbeinu  “our teacher, Moses.”  But Moses taught all  of Israel and his oral traditions were held in common by the House of Judah and the House of Joseph before the split of the Kingdom and their separate exiles 136 years apart.

The Torah together with its oral traditions is called “Torah according to Halachah.” It is logically today the document of covenant and faith for the Jewish people, who unlike the House of Joseph, returned from their exile. But the Jewish return has yet to invite the return of the descendants of those Joes with whom the House of Judah fought a Civil War, claiming mostly that they are impossible to identify.

Consequently, Joes have languished in exile awaiting some spark that will ignite them spiritually and speak to the inner yearnings of their souls the answer to the “unexplainable Israel thing.” Among the few dozens of Josephite groups that have been our experience, a single truth emerges that solidifies the foundation of this search:  Torah.

Torah according to Halachah has become the foundation upon which the later teachings of the Prophets and Writings had to stand or fall and similarly the recalled standard by which the later teachings in the reNewed Testament  must be judged.

This puts Joes at odds with Christianity’s pet dogma, because p’shat interpretations of Torah and the oral traditions strictly forbid idolatry in any form, including sh’tuf. And in messianic Jewish circles, Joes are being forced to pray only in the name of "Yahweh," which is one of more than about a dozen permutations of the unutterable Divine Name.

The Scriptures say a man speaks from the abundance of his heart. When words are written down, they are important enough to consider them heartfelt, as well.  Since no such belief about the "second person of a deity" ever existed within the Torah or was ever practiced by the Torah faithful and was never observed anywhere in the record of oral traditions, the only authority for this belief would be arguments one might propose from the Brit Chadashah (reNewed Testament) alone.  And Y'shua spoke well that when those blind to the Torah try to lead those blind in the Torah, both will fall into a ditch. To choose a guide who is not blind, you must choose someone who knows and understands Torah with Halachah.

Why the adamancy about the authority of the Torah? Simply because of the Halachah, which states how a Torah scroll must be written to ensure its accurate transmission. No such system to guarantee accuracy existed with the transcriptions and translations of the New Testament, which is a compilation of fragments from more than 3,600 different Greek manuscripts, most dating from the Byzantine period. (The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption and Restoration by Bruce M. Metzger, Oxford Press, 1992).  We would add that many Semitic concepts thought and stated and written in First Century Aramaic do not translate well into Greek.

It is difficult to argue the "inerrancy" of the New Testament at all. For instance the redactor (editor) of Matthew apparently inserted a paranthetical note in a later copy that states the death of the children at Bethlehem was foretold by the prophet Jeremiah with Rachel weeping for her children. But Rachel's children could not have lived in Bethlehem which was in Judah, because Rachel's children are not Jewish; they are Joes who at the time of Y'shua's ministry were scattering across the globe. Jeremiah 31:15-18 which explains the context of Rachel's weeping, also has nothing to do with Jewish children; rather Rachel is told that her own children, who are in a state of exile and often do not even know their identity, will return to their own territories.

In the same chapter of Matthew, four other glosses disagree with earlier references in the Torah, Prophets and Writings to which they refer. It appears that this particular Byzantine monk was ignorant of the Torah and Tanach or was caught up in the error of "proof texting" with texts taken out of context (a popular teaching style in many Bible colleges today).

Joes and Jews must agree on an authority by which the return, reconciliation and reunion must be judged and that authority must be the Torah. The same Torah context should be considered for every word of teaching in the New Testament. But when you resort to the Torah to find justification for a "dual personage deity" you are hard pressed to find it.

The argument usually raised is that the name Elokim, (God) appears to be a plural noun. But the rule of Hebrew grammatical exegesis is that nouns receive their number by the verb used with the noun. And from the earliest mentions of the Hebrew name, Elokim, the verb is singular. Therefore Elokim is a singular noun.

Because of the indoctrination of 2000 years of Christianity, including 1600 years of Deism since Constantine declared all in his domain to be Christians and the Roman church was forced to accommodate their pagan idolatry, the church and the synagogue have not seen “eye to eye." Church and synagogue have not shared the same presuppositions and therefore have arrived at different beliefs.

The synagogue has always chosen the Torah as a foundation upon which to add the Prophets and the Writings and atop that the oral traditions codified in the Mishnah and Gemara that comprise the Talmud. Rather than add the New Testament somewhere between the oral traditions and their codification, which is its historical order, Christianity has substituted this foundation for that of a brand new, “New” Testament, stripping it of its continuity with the Old Testament and distorting even its name, Brit Chadashah (renewed, restored or repaired covenant). In placing the cart before the horse, Christianity has invented a faith that deifies Y’shua, which is precisely what Constantine needed and the early Roman church delivered.

Without the same standard that ensures accuracy in transmission  virtually every statement in the reNewed Testament could be disputed and especially if those words conformed to the theological presuppositions crafted by the Byzantines who redacted the text.

All of that is a moot point, except for Joes to somehow resolve among themselves. The rabbonim in Jerusalem could care less about the Scripture and its unfulfilled prophecies. The only arguments that will not fall on deaf ears are those made from some precedent in Halachah or which clarify Halachah or challenge interpretations of Halachah and not the Halachah itself.

Observance of the Halachah is believed to be the "most perfect expression of love for the God of Israel and His Torah." Still, there are other expressions perhaps, just not as perfect. Similarly, when one sees things on one level, that does not mean that the things seen with the eyes above or below when two people do not see "eye to eye" are incorrect for the one seeing them. They are only problematic when they are espoused dogmatically ... and then they also reek of arrogance.

The "sacred name" theology, for instance, espouses that the God of Israel does not answer your prayers unless you use the right name to call upon Him and that name is, to these adherents, Yahweh, Yahveh, Jehovah, Y and K and W and H (without the ands) and other permutations. However, nobody is sure of the correct pronunciation. For those who think they are certain, consider the writing of James Adair. His book, "The History of the American Indian" published in 1775 records his finding among five tribes of Native Americans, (including the Cherokee and Choctaw) that the name by which they and their ancestors called upon the Creator was “YO-HEE-WAH.” This is a documented  oral tradition that predates most other oral traditions except the Mishnah and Gemara of the Talmud. The fact that Hebrew writings were found in proximity with Cherokee burials – buried in the manner of Hebrews -- at Bat Creek, Tennessee, indicates some assimilation among the Hebrews and these Native Americans hundreds of years before the arrival of Europeans. It is also in accord with the mystical tradition that the name was pronounced by its letters.

To engage in a debate on the deity of Y'shua assuming a foundation of the New Testament is therefore, futile . But to do so from the foundation of the Torah is to arrive at the Truth and most importantly ... to arrive at the Truth in a context that agrees with Halachah.

The Halachic understanding of the role of the shaliah (the sent one) and the tzadik (the righteous one) and the moshiah (the anointed one) is the basis for Y’shua’s calling, identity and mission in his own words. “I am sent only unto the Lost Sheep of the House of Israel,” he said.   He called himself “son of man” (mortal) even when referred to as “son of God.” The moshiah (Gr. Christ) deified by the church is simply one who is anointed.  It is the trinity of the shaliah-tzadik-moshiah which made Y’shua unique. Only the Torah with Halachah codifying the Talmud is the dictionary that defines the anointed tzadik sent by the God of Israel to recovenant with the Assimilation of the Northern Kingdom and in the process make a way for Gentiles to be “saved.”

Would that the Christian fathers understood the first order of business associated with the Gospel in Isaiah 49:5-6:  to raise up the tribes of Jacob and restore the preserved of Israel. It may now finally be the time when the Gospel of the Kingdom restored to Israel is preached throughout the world. But this focus on the tribes and preserved of Israel appears to be the single witness Y’shua himself challenged his followers to perpetuate in Acts 1:6-8 when they asked him, “Will you at this time restore the Kingdom to Israel?” This single question also defines the role and expectation of the anointed tzadik sent after Israel.  Dare we wonder whether this was the primary aim of the Gospel from its onset? Isaiah goes on to describe this as “the keyl (light or easy) thing” compared to the servant also being a light to the Gentiles to spread the salvation of the God of Israel abroad. Had the early church remained part of the synagogue and not departed from the Torah, we wonder whether the Roman church could have taken it into idolatry.

Martin Luther's reformation began to deal with these pagan incursions into the faith, but for some reason the '95 Thesis Luther nailed on the doors of the church in 1595 and the Protestant Reformation it launched, did not address the prevalent belief that the Christian savior was "deity” or the origin of that belief at the time of Constantine. Rome had a pantheon of gods and for Y’shua to be greater than them, he had to be made into a god himself. And that is what the redactors of the Brit Chadashah have done by inserting phrases like "Father, Son and Holy Ghost," which are not in all of the earliest manuscripts.  

The New Testament is filled with errors and some of them are clearly aimed at persuading one's doctrine. To criticize it, you have to take it apart but when we do that, we don't intend any less respect for it; plus the truth it contains should not be shaken by an honest and thorough examination of the text and what it says. If there is any practical application to the challenge by the God of Israel that we should "reason with him," it is in seeking the truth contained in the New Testament.

This Disputation proposes simply that Y'shua is unnecessarily portrayed as deity. In other words, the God of Israel could accomplish all that was/is necessary through Y'shua as his agent and shaliah (one who is sent) in the person of "the anointed tzadik" (literally, “righteous messiah”). And it is not necessary to capitalize messiah.

The duality of Elokim is contrary to the most basic and fundamental and most ingrained teachings of Israel since the time of Moses. That the God of Israel is indivisible and cannot be more than one entity nor can more than one entity be Him. The latter is called sh'tuf, which must be renounced when rejoining the family of Israel but is allowed for Gentiles. These “duality of deity” doctrines have no solid exegetical foundation and are usually based on some mystical interpretation related to "Lesser Deities" in the arrangement of the Ten Sefirot.

Any practicing kabbalist (not to be confused with a theoretical kabbalist), can suggest that the error in promoting a dual deity or two-in-one deity comes from not understanding the hard and fast rule of sodot (mystical interpretations). Moses himself is believed to have clarified that a sod  may never contradict a p'shat (the simplest level of interpretation). The p'shat of the Torah is simply that the God of Israel is One and His name is One. In other words, He cannot be divided into two entities and two entities with different names cannot comprise Him.

As a "shaliah" (one who is sent) Y'shua speaks with the same authority and status as the One who sent him. Those who deny his word, deny the word of the God of Israel. Those who deny his authority, deny the authority of the God of Israel.

The Jews of the First Century understood full well the claims Y'shua was making as a "shaliah" but their question was whether he truly represented the God of Israel.

Y'shua himself never claimed to be "God." Had he ever done so, he would immediately have been stoned or branded meshuganah (crazy). It is obvious that since he was crucified, he was not meshuganah. Halachah forbids capital punishment for those who are deranged. No, he never claimed to be God because he wasn't. Son of God is another matter altogether, which we suggest in a later Disputation, appears to relate to an Halachic means for a son to consummate a marriage contracted by his father, when the father is unable to consummate the marriage because his wife-to-be was unfaithful after her betrothal. As will be seen, the parallels are between the God of Israel, Y’shua and Israel, the “bride of the anointed one.”

Back           Next

Note: Ordinarily, we do not copyright our writings. The Disputation text may be disseminated with permission via email from the author. They must be disseminated in their entirety with no editing or changes permitted. This is being done to ensure that this highly controversial material is not taken out of context.