Christian Misojudaized N^әviyim

"Thus, Y^әhoshua took the entire land, according to all that ha-Sheim had said to Moshëh. Y^әhoshua gave it to Yisrâ·eil as a לנחלה…"

While this documents the ownership, by Yisrâ·eil, of the land of Yisrâ·eil, there is no expiration or transfer date. Rather, the land is described as a נחלה. This is essentially the same argument, and for which the same commentaries apply, at D^әvârim 1.10.

The documented case is that the land is the נחלה of Yisrâ·eil. Logic always requires anyone who claims a divergence from the known case to demonstrate proof. No such proof of legitimate transfer of ownership of the land of Yisrâ·eil has ever been cited.

This is the same argument for which see commentaries (with links) at Y^әhoshua 11.23.

This is the linchpin of misojudaic arguments that all promises to Yisrâ·eil were fulfilled, therefore there are no more valid and outstanding promises to Yisrâ·eil, permitting the arguments of Displacement Theologies (first Christianity, later Islam). Yet, this is the same argument for which see commentaries (with links) at Y^әhoshua 11.23 and only proves that ha-Sheim keeps His eternal and unchanging promises to Yisrâ·eil.

In addition to the commentary at Y^әhoshua 11.23 (and related links), Torâh documents that the land not only is to remain eternally the possession of Yisrâ·eil, but, as long as distinct tribes of Yisrâ·eil remained (see the prophecy, fulfilled after B.C.E. 722, of the merger into the tribe of Y^әhudâh, Y^әkhëzqeil 37.16-20), ownership of the land of Yisrâ·eil wasn't even permitted to change from one tribe to another (see b^ә-Midbar 27.1-11 & 36.1-13), much less to goyim.

See also commentaries (with related links) at b^ә-Reishit 12.1-3,7.

This is yet another of Y^әhoshua's testimony of how ha-Sheim kept His promises that misojudaic Displacement Theologies distort into the end of all promises to Yisrâ·eil by ha-Sheim, perverting eternal promises of an unchanging Ëlohim of Yisrâ·eil into temporal promises, claiming that Y^әhoshua, rather than declaring that ha-Sheim had kept His promises to establish Yisrâ·eil as an everlasting b^әrit, was, instead, announcing the end of those promises. Displacement Theologies – both Christianity and Islam – are entirely dependent upon invalidating Torâh for their own validity since Torâh precludes any Displacement Theology (inter alia, D^әvârim 13.1-6).

Subsequent centuries of Yisrâ·eil and N^әviyim, which included Dâwid ha-Mëlëkh and Sh^әlomoh ha-Melekh proves the lie of the Displacement Theologies' claim.

This is identical to misojudaic claims based on D^әvârim 28-29 (see also commentaries at b^ә-Reishit12.1-7, 18, D^әvârim 28.15-69 D^әvârim 29.23-28 and D^әvârim 30.1-10.

This Scripture is sometimes perverted to suggest that, because Avrâhâm's seed was multiplied, this promise was "fulfilled" and ended, allowing other Displacement Theologies to supersede Yisrâ·eil "of the flesh." This logical fallacy is dealt with in commentaries at b^ә-Reishit 17.1-14 (with related links) as well as b^ә-Reishit 17.18-25, b^ә-Reishit 25.23.

See also other commentary concerning "seed" at b^ә-Reishit 3.15, b^ә-Reishit 15.18-21 and D^әvârim 34.4.

Some Displacement Theologies have argued that ha-Sheim never wanted an earthly mëlëkh Yisrâ·eil. Therefore, they argue, when the Jews crowned an earthly mëlëkh they violated the b^әrit, making way for Christianity (or, later, Islam) to displace Yisrâ·eil (who later became known as Jews) as the people of "G*od."

In addition to the many other Scriptures setting forth the promises of the b^әrit (cf., with links, b^ә-Reishit 17.1-14 and b^ә-Reishit 17.18-25, b^әb^ә-Reishit 25.23), this particular line of argument collides with the whole concept of the Mâshiakh descending from Dâwid ha-Mëlëkh!

Ignoring their own contradictions (arguing an earthly king nullified the b^әrit, cf. Sh^әmueil Âlëph 8.7, 20), Christians argue non sequitur (see below) that this passage, because it specifies several eternal aspects of an eternal kingdom, therefore implies their Yësh"u.

Notice, however, that not only is the intended person specified as the future son of Dâwid ha-Mëlëkh, Sh^әlomoh ha-Melekh, but Sh^әlomoh ha-Melekh is explicitly specified: "והוא יהיה-לי לבן." No one is more the son of ha-Sheim than Sh^әlomoh ha-Melekh! This is the way it was understood for a millennium before Christianity was ever conceived; in other words, this is the known. Logic demands that the known be assumed. Any change from the known must be proven from the known (in this case, Torâh, not, l^ә-havdil, the NT) – not baselessly asserted, insinuated, inferred or some possibility shown.

The non sequitur is found in the erroneous inference that messianic implications refer to Yësh"u because of the unfounded assumption that it is the "Messiah." D^әvârim 13.1-6 absolutely precludes such a man-g*od idol being, l^ә-havdil, the Mâshiakh. Therefore, while it is true that this passage has messianic implications (Talmud corroborates that), it is absolutely impossible that it refers to the Christian Yësh"u.

Eliminating the logical fallacies of non sequitur and petitio principi (begging the question – assuming the change instead of proving the change from the known), this passage explicitly declares (7.16) that:

"ונאמן ביתך וממלכתך, עד-עולם לפניך; כסאך, יהיה נכון עד-עולם."

— this kingdom will forever be the inheritance of the seed of Dâwid ha-Mëlëkh, a subset within Yisrâ·eil, never a kingdom of the goyim.

Christians misread this pâsuq to interpret that the victory of Dâwid ha-Mëlëkh over Hadad-ëz′ ër was realized as Dâwid ha-Mëlëkh was enroute to להשיב his hand over the Euphrates River.

However, the grammar implies that, unless the context clarifies otherwise (and it doesn't in this case), the term "בלכתו" modifies Hadad-ëz′ ër, not Dâwid ha-Mëlëkh; i.e., "as Hadad-ëz′ ër, not Dâwid ha-Mëlëkh, was enroute to restore his hand over the Euphrates River."

Furthermore, Dâwid ha-Mëlëkh had never previously controlled the Euphrates River. Therefore, it is impossible that the pâsuq could describe Dâwid ha-Mëlëkh as "להשיב his hand over the Euphrates River."

This is yet another facet of the Christian argument that the promises have been fulfilled leaving no unfulfilled promises outstanding to Israel, opening the way for their Displacement Theology; for which see commentary (with links) at b^ә-Reishit 12.1-3,7.

This is yet another facet of the Christian argument that the promise of a "great nation" was realized, therefore fulfilled, satisfied, ended and no longer in force, thereby opening the door to their Displacement Theology. See commentary (with links) at b^ә-Reishit 12.1-3,7

This is yet another facet of the Christian argument that the promise of Israel's borders was realized, therefore fulfilled, satisfied, ended and no longer in force, thereby opening the door to their Displacement Theology. See commentary (with links) at b^ә-Reishit 15.18-21

This is one of the keystone Scriptures perverted into the Christian argument that the promise of a "great nation" was realized, therefore fulfilled, satisfied, ended and no longer in force, thereby opening the door to their Displacement Theology.

Except for one phrase (that follows), the Stone Edition English is reasonably accurate. Though it has little affect on the meaning, instead of "not one word has gone unfilled" is more accurately לא-נפל דבר אחד.

Yet, this is the same argument, with the identical fallacies, reviewed in the commentary (with links) at b^ә-Reishit 12.1-3,7

Based on this pâsuq, Christians claim that only a small Remnant of Yisrâ·eil will be "saved," by which they mean "believers" in their man-g*od.

One of the first fallacies encountered is that, while Christians struggle to pronounce so many eternal promises fulfilled, here's one that the context clearly shows (v. 20) Y^әshayâhu was prophesying to Khiz·qi·yâh′ u ha-mëlëkh concerning San·khei·riv′ , mëlëkh of Syria – in his own time.

Nevertheless, other passages corroborate that this theme is consistent with the messianic era (see, for example, commentary at Y^әshayâhu).

When one applies secondary allusions of this prophecy to the messianic era, the English is inaccurate.

ויספה פליטת בית-יהודה, הנשארה שרש למטה; ועשה פרי למעלה‮:

Thus, noting also the punctuation indicated by the cantillation, this pâsuq is more accurately rendered "Then the deliverance of the House of Y^әhudâh will increase, the Remnant [will be] the root below; and it shall have made fruit above."

Does it stipulate that the expelled of the goyim will increase, or their Remnant become the root? If applied to the messianic era, this prophecy militates against any Displacement Theology of the goyim!

Further, it is Beit-Y^әhudâh – Jews – not goyim or apostates preaching a goyim Displacement Theology who will be producing this fruit.

It is true that this verse suggests that only a tiny Remnant of Beit-Y^әhudâh will survive with Torâh intact. But this compares with no goyim being spared! That the brunt of apostatized "Jews" (secular, hedonist, Christian and non-Orthodox) are lost should register soberly on Jews who have assimilated away from Torâh. How much more so goyim must abandon their idolatry and learn to keep Torâh.

Masëkët Rosh ha-Shânâh 33b – "Âmar Rabbi Yokhânân, Great is the power of t^әshuvâh that it tears up a man's final sentence, as it says:

השמן לב-העם הזה, ואזניו הכבד ועיניו השע; פן יראה בעיניו ובאזניו ישמע, ולבבו יבין ושב ורפא לו‮:

"Âmar R. Papa to Abaye, Perhaps this was before the final sentence? He replied: It is written, "and he be healed." What is that which requires healing? You must say, the final sentence."

"An objection was raised: If one makes t^әshuvâh in the interval, he is forgiven; if he does not make t^әshuvâh in the interval, should he even offer all the rams of Nebayot, he is not forgiven! There is no contradiction – the latter refers to an individual whereas the former to the community."

It's essential to understand that this passage was originally interpreted in its historical setting. That understanding remained unchanged for nearly a millennium and Scripture informs us that ha-Sheim is Immutable; He doesn't change (Malâkhi 3.6; T^әhilim 89.35). Therefore, the original meaning is the only possible true understanding. Any implications drawn from this passage can only be compatible with, not contradictory to, this p^әshut meaning.

Y^әshayâhu ha-Nâvi wrote this passage ca. BCE 720, more than 8 centuries before the birth of the 1^st-century CE historical Torâh-teacher whose teachings and image Christians have perverted. For these first 8+ centuries, even historically aware Christians would have to agree that there was no Mâshiakh to which this passage could have referred!!! During this entire period, the only thing that this passage could possibly have referred to as being ignored and neglected by Yisrâ·eil was Torâh!!!

"Fattening her heart, making her ears heavy and השע (hâsha; besmearing) her eyes" clearly – and could only – have referred to Yisrâ·eil refusing to heed Torâh, as has always been true and as repeatedly documented in Tana"kh.

Y^әshayâhu documented that Yisrâ·eil leaned her heart, lightened her ears and cleared her eyes in the days of Khizqiyâh ha-mëlëkh (see documentation in comments on Y^әshayâhu 9.5 via the "Messianic Issues" link in the Mâshiakh room of our History Museum). Ha-Sheim is Immutable; He doesn't change (Malâkhi 3.6; T^әhilim 89.35). Therefore, the meaning of the Scripture cannot have changed. Any inferences drawn from the passage must be compatible with the p^әshut meaning. Therefore, contrary to such misojudaic Christian perversions (documented in the "Apostasy" room of our History Museum) of Scripture, Y^әshayâhu 6.10 still admonishes Yisrâ·eil to keep our heart lean, our ears light and our eyes clear – to keep the b^әrit of Torâh!

Redirecting the Scripture from Y^әshayâhu's admonishment for Yisrâ·eil to keep Torâh to the Christian misojudaic Displacement Theology of rejecting Torâh to follow a 'divine son savior' concept derived from Egyptian-Greek-Roman idol is perverse; and a perversion of Scripture.

Moreover, the Christians' claim that the "Jews of the flesh" had been "lost and rejected by G*od," "enemies of the Church" and, therefore, "servants of Satan" (documented in the "Apostasy" room of our History Museum) contradict the eternal [cf 'the age' be-Reishit 17.8] promises of the b^әrit of the Immutable Ëlohim of Yisrâ·eil (Malâkhi 3.6; T^әhilim 89.35). Thus, the Christian idol is proven to be intractably self-contradicting – a deception and a lie.

Preceding the description (11.1) of the Neitzër from the root of Yish·âi′  – which is widely acknowledged by the Sages to be the "Davidic Messiah" – suggests that this prophecy (10.20-23) has applications in the Messianic Era paralleling the similar prophecy that follows the description of the Neitzër (11.11 – 12.6), beyond the immediate application in Y^әshayâhu's time (ca. B.C.E. 720).

²⁰ "It shall be on that day, there will be no more increase of the שאר Yisrâ·eil or of the פליטת Beit-Ya·aqov, who rely on [the forbearance of] its attacker; but will rely on ha-Sheim, Qâdosh Yisrâ·eil in ëmët."

Christians argue that "although the people of Judah had been delivered [physically], they had not yet been delivered from their captivity to sin." In other words, Christians charge that Yisrâ·eil had not changed to satisfy the Torâh criterion of the שאר Yisrâ·eil or פליטת Beit-Ya·aqov who would "rely on ha-Sheim, Qâdosh Yisrâ·eil in ëmët." "The very condition that had caused [Ëlohim] to allow them to be conquered and exiled," Christians argue, "had not yet been corrected. The people who returned to Judah were no better than the ones who had lived in Jerusalem before the captivity. [Ëlohim]'s people were still in captivity to sin" (www.campuslutheran.org/sermons). Therefore, they argue, Israel/Jews failed Torâh's "deliverance from sin" test, remain "in captivity to sin" and therefore, they argue, because "Jews rejected Christ who frees from sin," gentile Christians "saved (delivered from captivity to sin) by Christ" have displaced (!) Jews as "the true Remnant."

Christians find this inherent "captivity to sin" in their idea of "original sin"; that, since the "fall of Adam," every person is "born in sin." By contrast, Torâh stipulates that sons are not held responsible for the sins of their fathers (e.g., Y^әkhëzqeil 18.17-20), precluding the Christian doctrine.

Further, the Christian assertion that their goyim-Remnant-saving – Displacement Theology – Yësh"u was the, l^ә-havdil, Mâshiakh is precluded by D^әvârim 13.1-6, eviscerating their entire, and related, arguments. There is no "original sin" or "captivity to sin" connected with any Torâh criterion or test. While it is true that the שאר Yisrâ·eil or פליטת Beit-Ya·aqov are defined by "rel[iance] on ha-Sheim, Qâdosh Yisrâ·eil in ëmët," connecting this to "captivity to sin" and Displacement Theology are Christian doctrines, not (l^ә-havdil) Torâh, tests.

As with all of the Hellenized perversions of Scripture, logic requires that the known be assumed and any divergence from that known is what must be proven (not merely asserted, shown possible, assumed, etc.) from the known – Torâh. The known religious and doctrinal authority for Yisrâ·eil and Y^әhudim prior to Christianity was Torâh, exclusively. If one disallows the validity of NT (Quran, Book of Mormons, Watchtower, etc.) until it has been proven from the known, Torâh, all arguments of Displacement Theology collapse.

Consider, too, how arrogant of the goyim (Christians), who can't even read Torâh, to judge Israel relative to keeping Torâh as "no better than the ones who had lived in Jerusalem before the captivity." In fact, the only basis goyim have for such a misojudaic statement can only be the 4^th-century Christian charges that Jews were lost, servants of Sâtân and enemies of the Church because they rejected Christ. As shown earlier, this argument has nothing to do with Torâh, is based on invalid sources and is entirely fallacious.

This is essentially the same argument, and for which the same commentaries apply, at M^әlâkhim Beit 19.30-31.

Y^әshayâhu 53 is already covered in the Mâshiakh section of our History Museum. Click on the "Messianic Issues" link there.

"המלו, and remove the ערלות of your hearts, man of Y^әhudâh and inhabitants of Y^әrushâlayim…"

Christians point to this passage to substantiate their claim that, since it was necessary to command "the Jews" to circumcise their hearts, the physically circumcised Jews are clearly "uncircumcised in heart" and, therefore (?), the real circumcised in the heart (Christians, of course) have displaced Jews as "the people of G*od."

One of the most abused logical fallacies is generalization, which is an inductive non sequitur. Generalization takes the form:

• I've known two Jews (often unstated, increasing the deception).
  
  
• Every Jew I've known supports abortion and votes Democrat.
  
  
• Therefore, Jews support abortion and vote Democrat.
  
  

While it would be correct from this syllogism to conclude that "Some Jews support abortion and vote Democrat, it is a falsification to state that "Jews support abortion and vote Democrat." These two statements are not equivalent. The first is accurate and the second is false, misleading and deceptive.

There is little indication of what proportion of Israel was uncircumcised in heart other than, at that moment, it was a significant proportion. Certainly, it could not have been all Jews of the time since the admonisher here, Yirm^әyâhu, was a Jew himself!!!

That there was still an Israel in Yirm^әyâhu's day proves that, even at the incident of the Gold Calf-mask, ha-Sheim didn't forsake Yisrâ·eil and displace them with goyim.

For Christians to define "Jews" as a people who are "uncircumcised in heart" is pure misojudaism. From time to time, newspapers and TV news report a criminal who, in diametric contradiction of all of the physical evidence proving his guilt beyond any doubt, claims that his actions were justified and that his heart was pure – that it was his victims who were unpurified in heart. Few would dispute that such delusional predators are self-contradicting and criminally insane.

Yet, how are Christians different? In direct contradiction of all of the physical evidence – Christians' willful and deliberate rejection of physical halakhic circumcision and the physical practice of Torâh – these physical "anti-circumciseds" claim that they are "circumcised in heart"!!! Nothing could be more blatantly self-contradicting and hypocritical!!!

Based on [א] generalization built on [ב] a false premise, Christians consider "Pharisee" to be a synonym for "hypocrite." Yet, the hypocrisy of the apostate (Hellenist) Sadducees and a miniscule element of apostate (Hellenist) "Pharisees" didn't hold a candle to this self-contradictory Hellenist-Christian hypocrisy. Worse than apostate Jews – who are at least halakhically circumcised physically, Christian hearts are the product of their uncircumcised physical body and practice: Christians are (halakhically) uncircumcised physically and in the heart! Christians have twice as far to go to satisfy Torâh criteria.

"Behold, days are coming declares ha-Sheim; ופקדתי over everyone מול בערלה."

Christians prefer to ignore pâsuq 24 and begin with pâsuq 25, which continues pâsuq 24: "over Mitzrayim, over Y^әhudâh, Ëdom, over the B^әnei-Amon, over Mo·âv and over all of the קצוצי of the פאה, the inhabitants b^ә-Midbar; because all of the goyim are ערלים and all of Beit-Yisrâ·eil are ערלי לב."

מול, in pâsuq 24, is key to understanding this passage. It is in the passive (being acted upon) participle (gerund, "ing" ending). The ongoing, participle, nature of proselytizing was crushed by the Church under pain of death and, thereafter, subsequent rabbis internalized the attitude of shunning proselytizing, in direct contravention of Torâh (not only of this passage, but the whole vision of Yisrâ·eil as the Light to the goyim) as "tradition." Contradicting Torâh, rabbinic discouraging of proselytization is medieval-oriented and cannot be valid Halâkhâh. Such opposition is nothing more than the residual response to centuries of persecution by the Church and under Muslim rule.

Pâsuq 24 describes [some from] a list – including Y^әhudâh and intimating representatives from "all of the goyim [who are] ערלים – undergoing circumcision; i.e. conversion to Orthodox Judaism! Beit-Yisrâ·eil, by contrast, will be urged to make t^әshuvâh, since they are ערלים only in the heart but not in entirety like the goyim.

The distinction between the way Y^әhudâh is handled and the way Beit-Yisrâ·eil is handled in this pâsuq is intriguing. It seems to foreknow and prophesy today's situation – in which there are many Russian Y^әhudim regathered who aren't circumcised and are in the process of being converted and circumcised; while Beit-Yisrâ·eil, defined by the b^әrit and keeping much of the mitzwot, remain in need of making t^әshuvâh because, after their millennia of Gâlut and persecution, they are still in a state of ערלי לב.

All of the commentary from Yirm^әyâhu 4.4 regarding Christian claims also applies.

"Many רעים have been demolishing My vineyard, they've been trampling My portion; נתנו the portion of My desire to become a desolate midbâr." (See also "רעי האליל" Z^әkharyâh 11.17.)

In a textbook case of non sequitur, Christians generalize "many רעים…" to "all רעים…" From this logical fallacy it's a short step to speculate that, since "all" of the herdsmen (shepherds) of Israel trample and demolish ha-Sheim's vineyard, there has to be a "Good Shepherd" and that must be Yësh"u.

Logically, by contrast, stipulating "many רעים…" rather than "all רעים…" implies that not all of the herdsmen were tramplers and demolishers of ha-Sheim's vineyard or Torâh would have stipulated "all."

That there were, other, "good" רעים not only rules out Yësh"u being the "true Good Shepherd" instead, this preclusion also poses a wrench in the gears of Christian Displacement Theology. Because Christians maintain that Yësh"u is divine, their position requires defending the implication: that would mean that Yësh"u was always the "true Good Shepherd," which means that Israel – the Jews – was never the real Israel. This further implies that, since ha-Sheim is Immutable (Malâkhi 3.6; T^әhilim 89.35), that means that there had to have always been "true believers [in blood-sacrifice "salvation" of the divine Christ]," Christians, from the time of Avrâhâm – which is preposterous. Yet, Christians maintain this is so: that Yësh"u has always been the true Vine while physical Israel has always been a mere, temporary, physical symbol. Torâh nowhere knows any such thing – see D^әvârim 13.1-6.

From this chaos of logical fallacies, Christians rely entirely on citing their NT to conclude that everyone, goyim no different than Y^әhudim, has always had to "believe in the Lord Yësh"u Christ"; that "a true Biblical Jew is one who is born-again because only in Christ is the law kept and fulfilled."

This last phrase ("only in Christ is the law kept and fulfilled") poses no problem for the Torâh-keeper who remembers to require the Christian to logically demonstrate the validity of their NT before citing it as a source. The logical principle is that the known is assumed until divergence from the known is proven (not asserted, etc.) from the known. The known is that Yisrâ·eil accepted Torâh as authority for millennia before Christianity came along. Therefore, the NT is invalid until Christians demonstrate it from Torâh.

Aside from the illegitimacy of the NT, another contradiction is intrinsic to the faulty generalization above: that there were other "good רעים" means that keeping and fulfilling Torâh couldn't have been restricted to "only" the conjectured Yësh"u. Absent the ability to cite their NT, Christians cannot claim that the "good shepherds" were "believers" (in Yësh"u), an unfounded departure from the known. Moreover, one person keeping Torâh vicariously for another contradicts Torâh's requirements that [a] vicarious keeping of Torâh is explicitly ruled out (Y^әkhëzqeil 18.20) and [b] each person is explicitly required to do their utmost to keep Torâh.

The Christian assertion is predicated upon their misconception that a person must be perfect in keeping Torâh. Since perfection is impossible for human beings, it seems, therefore, that a vicarious perfect "Savior" is inevitable and should be obvious. In fact, however, Christians are ignorant that Torâh doesn't require perfection but, instead, Torâh requires one do his or her utmost and kipur is available as a product of t^әshuvâh; not through a Hellenist counterfeit but, rather, through the khein directly from ha-Sheim.

As a result, Christians conclude – rightly – why bother with the "law" since Yësh"u forgives anyway? In direct contrast, Torâh requires one do their utmost to live as ha-Sheim instructed in His Instruction Manual (the accurate meaning of Torâh) as a condition to receive kipur for shortcomings.

Christians make a fundamental error in equating Torâh to "law" (Din). Beyond that, dilemma thinking, in a "black or white" mentality, Christians further generalize, non sequitur, that Jews, because we reject "belief" in their Hellenist Yësh"u, expect to "earn our own" place in "heaven" "through our works alone." Without the khein of ha-Sheim, there is no kipur. No well-informed Orthodox Jew believes that works alone (i.e., without kipur) are enough. But neither is belief alone enough without doing one's utmost to live according to the Instruction Manual of ha-Sheim – Torâh. (How much more ridiculous is blind-faith belief – ignorant of and contrary to history – in a Hellenist counterfeit!) Reliance upon belief alone is also the underlying mentality that informs the overwhelming avoidance, in the Christian world, of personal responsibility. Since one can do as one wants with no obligation to keep the "law," believing he or she will be forgiven and "saved" anyway, why should one feel responsible or accountable? Without Torâh to define "sin" (which is transgression of Torâh), the Christian perception of "sin" reduces to disbelief in Yësh"u and whatever an individual or cleric capriciously decides to label "sin."

Keeping in mind (always) that the NT isn't a valid authority, Christians have no logically defensible basis for any principle of one Jew keeping Torâh for everyone. Exactly the opposite, Torâh requires each person to do their utmost to live according to Torâh; t^әshuvâh for shortcomings being a prerequisite for kipur. Following one's own eyes and heart as opposed to the interpretations of the Beit-Din, as all Christians do, is specifically defined as a transgression in itself (e.g., b^ә-Midbar 15.39)!

‏⁴ "ונשחת הכלי, אשר הוא עשה, בחמר ביד היוצר; ושב, ויעשהו כלי אחר, כאשר ישר בעיני היוצר לעשות‮:"‬

There is a Christian hymn:

♫ Have Thine own way, Lord! Have Thine own way!
Thou art the Potter, I am the clay.
Cast me away, Lord. Displace me today,
While I am waiting, throw me away. ♪

What? The verse doesn't say anything about throwing away the original clay, you say? The same clay is simply remolded, you say? You quote the Christian hymn that actually reads:

♫ Have Thine own way, Lord! Have Thine own way!
Thou art the Potter, I am the clay.
Mold me and make me after Thy will,
While I am waiting, yielded and still. ♪

The Christian hymn interprets this verse as remolding the same clay?!? So… why do Christians contradict themselves by claiming this verse describes Israel, the "original old clay," being rejected and displaced by the "new clay" of Christianity???

Pâsuq 6 explicitly stipulates that the חמר – not merely the כלי – is Israel. Thus, the goyim may be represented as sand, pebbles or gravel; but not חמר, which, in the analogy of this passage, is explicitly Israel alone. The potter did not throw out the חמר, Israel, to make a new כלי from sand, pebbles or gravel. The whole idea of using a potter as the analogy is that, just as the potter remolds a defective כלי by reforming the same lump of חמר, similarly ha-Sheim reforms – not displaces – Israel into a more perfect and serviceable כלי by applying various testings, punishments and pressures.

As is the case in all passages of Scripture cited by Christians as supporting Christian Displacement Theology (e.g. NT and Christian supersession), Torâh here confirms exactly the opposite of the Christian Displacement Theology, demonstrating yet again that Christian Displacement Theology is false.

While Christians increasingly renounce Displacement Theology, they fail to comprehend the implications: that Torâh remains valid, which requires them to educate themselves to the 1^st-2^nd century history of Hellenist Roman (gentile) divergences from Judaism (cf. the eminent late Oxford historian, James Parkes, The Conflict of the Church and the Synagogue). Christians will learn to ask why no source documents of their NT predate 135 C.E. (because the Hellenist Romans destroyed the Judaic manuscripts of Hebrew Matityâhu – there was no Judaic NT – along with the Torâh scrolls and Judaic genealogical registers). They will also discover that historical documentation, particularly as bolstered by 4Q MMT, inescapably documents that the 1^st-2^nd century Christian divergence from Jews and Judaism derives from idolatrous Hellenist Romans who – after 135 C.E. – compiled distorted stories from Hellenist ("Reform") Jews (proto-Christians like Paul) to fabricate their own Hellenized counterfeit of Ribi Y^әhoshua (and, later, fabricated a nonexistent papacy). Thus, they concocted their Hellenized, gentile-saving (displacement and superseding) Yësh"u (the antichrist = 666, cf. Who Are the Netzarim? Live-Link (WAN Live-Link))! Christians must learn to reject the perverted, Hellenist-Roman (idolatrous) counterfeit to follow the authentic Ribi Y^әhoshua – who taught Torâh!!!

Christians point to this passage to support their claim that Israel's apostasy caused her to be "rejected by G*od."

Because ha-Sheim is Immutable (Malâkhi 3.6; T^әhilim 89.35), His eternal b^әrit with Yisrâ·eil cannot be broken. Therefore, one can safely predict that this passage cannot imply that ha-Sheim rejected Yisrâ·eil. Let's look at the passage.

Yirm^әyâhu ha-Nâvi made this prophecy toward the end of his career, which spanned ca. B.C.E. 627-585. What a coincidence that N^әvu-khad-netzar (king of what is today Iraq) conquered Y^әrushâlayim in B.C.E. 586 – fulfilling the prophecy!

That N^әvu-khad-netzar fulfilled the prophecy doesn't mean that there cannot be lessons learned. Certainly, the consequences of straying from Torâh are emphasized in this account. However, this teaches not to stray from Torâh into, l^ә-havdil, Christianity!

The other lesson that is certain is that, millennia after the fulfillment of this prophecy, ha-Sheim has regathered Israel from the four corners of the earth, reestablished Israel as a nation, etc. – still remembering His promise to Avrâhâm, Yitzkhâq and Ya·aqov; His eternal b^әrit with Yisrâ·eil. There has been no Displacement Theology.

This is generally a passage cited by poorly-informed or unethical and deliberately-deceptive "anti-missionary" Jews (for the response, see Y^әkhanyâh).

However, some Christians argue that there is a distinction between the Royal Davidic Line (Davidic lineage), from which the Mâshiakh would be born, and the Royal Davidic Throne (Davidic Dynasty). Since צדקיה (also known as מתניה; reigned ca. B.C.E. 596-586) was the last mëlëkh Y^әhudâh, these Christians argue that, although the Royal Davidic Line remained intact (thus, the Davidic Mâshiakh is valid), the Royal Dynasty / Throne (succession) terminated in Y^әhudâh.

Baselessly ruling out that the Davidic Throne was transferred to the eternal non-dimensional Realm, these Christians (and one or two fringe Jews) argue that, "since the Davidic Throne couldn't have ended," therefore (in classic non sequitur fashion, the only possibility is that…) the Davidic Realm continued (in some vague and undefined way) – in a nutshell – through "the great world empires: Persia, Greece, the Seleucids (a later division of the Greek Empire), followed by Rome" (because each of these "reigned over" the Y^әhudim) – into England and America!!!

From this illogical chaos, coupled with the baseless assumption that European royalty's false claims of divine ordainment somehow imbues the goyim of Europe and America making them Jews, Christians argue that European royalty is divinely ordained and that it corroborates their claim that Christians, especially European and American Christians, are, as a result, the "true Jews" while "Jews of the flesh" ended with צדקיה in B.C.E. 586. (These arguments are particularly lame concerning the lapse from "termination" in B.C.E. 586 until "Christ," and some explanation to restore the connection – while precluding an even later, future restoration – unexplained.)

The Sages agree that this passage describes the Mâshiakh. Because "christ" is the English translation of χριστος (khristos), the Hellenized counterpart of Mâshiakh, Christians argue that the difference between "Christ" and Mâshiakh is merely a matter of language and translation. When Christians assert that this passage refers to "Christ," however, they are deceptively and insidiously seducing their listeners into assuming the equivalence of Christ with Yësh"u. Thus, this is the logical fallacy of petitio principi – begging the question.

This passage does, indeed, refer to the Mâshiakh, but that necessarily implies Torâh criteria, for example, D^әvârim 13.1-6 – which intractably rules out "Christ," which is a post-135 C.E. anti-Torâh, Displacement Theology (supersessionist) product of Hellenist Roman gentiles.

Yirm^әyâhu prophesies the Mâshiakh, which cannot be Christ.

Nothing is more effective in teaching than to examine Christians arguments exactly as they are presented. By this time, if the student has been studying these commentaries in order, the answers will be obvious. The following is from a Church of Christ website (christistheway.com), links and emphasis added:

Jeremiah was the prophet of DOOM. He called Judah to repent (3.1; 7.4-7), but they refused (6.16-17; 20.1-2; 32.2-5; 37.11-21; 38.1-13; 43.1-7). Thus, Jeremiah foretold their destruction (5.9-10,14-18,29; 6.22-26; 7.16,32-34; 14.15-16; 25.8-10). Israel was to be so destroyed as a nation that they could never be made whole again (19.10-11). This forever answers the premillennial claim that national Israel will someday be restored.

But Jeremiah was also the messenger of HOPE. He preached that Israel should place their trust in the Lord (9.23-24). A faithful Remnant would be restored (23.3; 31.7-9). Ezra's record of the fulfillment of the restoration promise means this prophecy has been fulfilled, and one should not look for a future restoration of Israel to the land of Canaan. Jeremiah also prophesied salvation in Christ (23.5-6; 33.15-16).

In the relatively few instances in which Christians cite Scripture (usually depending, instead, on their NT), they innately depend upon making faith-inspired assertions and citing one or more Scriptures that – (tellingly) without full explanation – are expected to be accepted as general support of their beliefs. Invariably, when citing Scripture, their citations do not prove their claims. For millennia, Jewish apologists have been unaware that logic requires any divergence from the known – which was Torâh before Christianity was ever conceived – be proven from the known, not merely asserted. As the student can easily see from the supplied links above, Scripture does not prove the Christian assertions. Therefore, the Christian claims are non sequitur and, because they contradict Scripture, false.

"For thus said ha-Sheim:

כי לפי מלאת לבבל, שבעים שנה אפקד אתכם; והקמתי עליכם את-דברי הטוב, להשית אתכם אל-המקום הזה‮:

Christians quote the phrase "I will fulfill, concerning you, My good saying," point to its fulfillment ca. B.C.E. 516 and then ask the reader to accept the non sequitur that, since this particular prophecy was fulfilled there are, therefore (?!?), no other outstanding and unfulfilled future parallels or implications concerning this particular prophecy and, ever futher, no other outstanding and unfulfilled promises concerning the regathering of Israel to the land of Israel, which is patently false.

Christians further argue a premise that is charitable to describe merely as foolish: the promised return to the land of Israel was dependent on keeping the 'Law of Moses' (by which Christians imply the non-existent and misconceived requirement to keep it "perfectly") which ended at the cross. Therefore, no promise that depends on keeping the "Law of Moses" remains valid or applicable."

This, of course, is Displacement Theology in its purest form. Response reverts to requiring Christians to recognize that logic dictates proving from the known any divergence from the known. In other words, Christians must prove these claims from Torâh, which cannot be done (since Displacement Theology contradicts Torâh – e.g., inter alia, Malâkhi 3.6; T^әhilim 89.35 & D^әvârim 13.1-6).

³⁰ Behold, days are coming, declares ha-Sheim,

וכרתי את-בית ישראל, ואת-בית יהודה ברית חדשה‮:
‪³¹ ‬ לא כברית אשר כרתי

with their fathers in the day I grasped their hand, להוציאם from the land of Egypt; when they הפרו My ברית.

³² Because this is the ברית, which אכרת with בית-ישראל after those days declares י--ה,

נתתי את-תורתי בקרבם, ועל-לבם אכתבנה; והייתי להם לאלהים, והמה יהיו-לי לעם‮:

What does it mean "לא כברית אשר כרתי"? The original b^әrit given following the Y^әtziâh were the two tablets that Moshëh threw down and broke upon discovering the straying of the gold calf-mask (Sh^әmot 32.15-19). Although Beit-Yisrâ·eil breached this b^әrit, Torâh remained constant and was almost immediately reinstated in a second set of tablets (Sh^әmot 31.1-4, 28-29).

Contrary to Christian assertions of Displacement Theology, Yirm^әyâhu goes on to explicitly specify that: "נתתי את-תורתי בקרבם, ועל-לבם אכתבנה."

Further, not only is the ברית חדשה the internalization of תורתי and not, l^ә-havdil, a NT or its Hellenist Displacement Theology or idolatrous counterfeit man-g*od, the ברית חדשה is explicitly specified to be "with בית-ישראל"; not, l^ә-havdil, with goyim.

It's also interesting that, in pâsuq 30, the b^әrit is prophesied with both Beit-Yisrâ·eil and Beit-Y^әhudâh while, in pâsuq 32 – internalizing Torâh, only Beit-Yisrâ·eil is mentioned.

See also The N^әtzârim Reconstruction of Hebrew Matityâhu (NHM) note 26.28.1.

¹⁴ "Behold, days are coming, declares ha-Sheim, והקמתי the good הדבר that דברתי ‭ ‬ אל Beit-Yisrâ·eil ‭ ‬ ועל Beit-Y^әhudâh. ¹⁵ In those days and in that season, אצמיח לדוד צמח צדקה; and he will make משפט and צדקה in the land."

Christians claim that the promise of return to the land was fulfilled by כורש, thereby ending the promise of land. For the responses to this argument, see the commentaries for b^ә-Reishit 12.7, b^ә-Reishit 15.18-21, b^ә-Reishit 17.8 and related links.

Consider how to respond to the Christian reasoning from a Lutheran website:

"And so, after seventy years of captivity, more than forty thousand Jewish people in the first group, and several thousand in addition to follow, returned to Judah and Jerusalem, and began rebuilding the land and city. After a long, hard struggle, Jerusalem once again regained some prominence in the world.

"But, as I mentioned earlier, that return to Jerusalem from exile was only part of the fulfillment of Jeremiah's prophecy. A king from the line of David had yet to ascend to the throne in Jerusalem. And, although the people of Judah had been delivered from their captivity in Babylon, they had not yet been delivered from their captivity to sin. The very condition that had caused G*od to allow them to be conquered and exiled had not yet been corrected. The people who returned to Judah were no better than the ones who had lived in Jerusalem before the captivity. G*od's people were still in captivity to sin" (www.campuslutheran.org/sermons/The Lord Our Righteousness.pdf).

In fact, the return began in B.C.E. 516 while the Hellenization of the K^әhunâh didn't occur until ca. B.C.E. 175, which initiated the downward spiral that culminated in the loss of the Beit ha-Miqdâsh ha-Sheini in 70 C.E. and the loss of the nation and expulsion of 135 C.E. The Christian assertion that "The people who returned to Judah were no better than the ones who had lived in Jerusalem before the captivity" is nothing less than baseless Christian misojudaism and it is based in the Christian misconception of "original sin," from which, Christians assert, only their Christ can extricate one "born in sin" (see commentary).

Christians claim that because Israel breached the b^әrit, ha-Sheim has, likewise, breached the b^әrit, invalidating it. Since ha-Sheim is Immutable (Malâkhi 3.6; T^әhilim 89.35), they argue that, therefore, the b^әrit is is no longer valid.

There is a variance between the k^әtiv, which is written "ועשית," and q^әrei, which is recited "ועשיתי."

This changes the reading from the k^әtiv, "ועשית to you[rself] when עשית; when you despised an imprecation to breach the ברית" to the q^әrei, "ועשיתי to you when עשית; when you despised an imprecation to breach the ברית"

Note that the k^әtiv places blame solely on Y^әrushâlayim (pâsuq 1) while the rabbinic q^әrei impugns ha-Sheim as despising His imprecation – which would contradict Torâh's instruction that ha-Sheim is Perfect and no âwël in Him (T^әhilim 92.16; Tz^әphanyâh 3.5; b^ә-Reishit 18.31 D^әvârim 17.1; Sh^әmueil Beit 22.31).

Further, in the very next pâsuq, ha-Sheim reassures "Then I will remember My b^әrit with you [made] in the days of your youth, and I will establish it with you, a b^әrit olâm." (See also through pâsuq 63.)

Christian claims, of "original sin" (i.e. "born in sin") are invalidated by this passage, which clarifies the difference between pâqad (checking, monitoring) the sons of those who have committed âwon (Sh^әmot 20.5; 34.7; b^ә-Midbar 14.18; D^әvârim 5.9) as contrasted with those same sons who do not נשא the âwon of their fathers (although the Mâshiakh is prophesied to do so; Y^әshayâhu 53.4, 12).

‏ ²⁰ הנפש החטאת היא תמות; בן לא-ישא בעון האב, ואב לא ישא בעון הבן, צדקת הצדיק עליו תהיה, ורשעת רשע עליו תהיה‮:

‪ ²¹‬ והרשע, כי ישוב מכל-חטאתו אשר עשה, ושמר את-כל-חקותי, ועשה משפט וצדקה חיה יחיה לא ימות‮:

‪ ²²‬ כל- פשעיו אשר אשה, לא יזכרו לו; בצדקתו אשר-עשה, יחיה‮:

‪ ²³‬ החפץ אחפץ מות רשע, נאם אדוני י--ה; הלוא בשובו מדרכיו וחיה‮:

‪ ²⁴‬ ובשוב צדיק מצדקתו, ועשה עול, ככל התועבות אשר-עשה, הרשע, יעשה וחי; כל-צדקתו אשר-עשה, לא תזכרנה, במעלו אשר-מעל ובחטאתו אשר-חטא בם ימות‮:

Christians argue that the "Dry Bones" prophesies that "physical Israel" will completely die, leaving nothing but "dry bones." The refleshing-out, they then argue, a priori, refers to the advent of Yësh"u and Christianity. Therefore, they continue, the b^әrit (pâsuq 26ff) refers to their NT. They particularly point, as proof, to NHM 27.51-54, which recounts sepulchers being broken-open and many dead enlivened, and the enlivening of Ribi Y^әhoshua.

While some rabbis feel compelled to dismiss these accounts of enlivening in NHM out of fear that acknowledging such enlivening by the Mâshiakh confirms Christian claims of their divine man-g*od, the Editors of Artscroll Yechezkel (sic) here confirm that the Sages have acknowledged even Y^әkhëzqeil as holding the "key" to resurrection. "[Y^әkhëzqeil] is to be the instrument through which the bones will be infused with life. Because he was a צדיק, and the times required it, he was given the 'key' to תחית המתים." (p. 566). Since Y^әkhëzqeil is so empowered, how much more so the Mâshiakh! The rabbis err in failing to recognize that the Christian man-g*od, Yësh"u, cannot be the Mâshiakh because of D^әvârim 13.1-6, which rules out Yësh"u.

The first item to clear up, then, is that sepulchers being broken-open and many dead enlivened, including Ribi Y^әhoshua, can only demonstrate that the Torâh-teaching Ribi P^әrushi is the Mâshiakh… which would, therefore, simultaneously prove that his post-135 C.E. Hellenist Roman anti-Torâh polar opposite counterfeit and, therefore, "antichrist" – Yësh"u – cannot be the Mâshiakh! This is confirmed in D^әvârim 13.1-6!

Further, Christians gloss over the inconsistency that all passages in the Bible, including this passage, as well as before and after this passage, were understood for millennia, long before Christianity was ever conceived, by the authors of these passages and their audience, Yisrâ·eil, to apply to Yisrâ·eil. Logic always begins with the known, leaving the burden of proof, therefore, on Christians to prove (not assert, suggest a possibility, etc.) otherwise. This, of course, contradicts the facts (D^әvârim 13.1-6) and is, therefore, impossible.

The "dry bones" vision is a graphic description of the Shoâh, followed by the regathering (refleshing of the bones) from the four corners of the earth (pâsuq 9) to flesh-out Yisrâ·eil. P^әsuqim 5-6 clarify that this raising up of the "dry bones," followed by creation of the national structure (sinews) and fleshing-out (regathering) precedes the infusion of His Ruakh ha-Qodësh. We have seen the raising up of the "dry bones," the attaching of sinews and the fleshing-out. All that remains now, with nothing stopping it from being in process already, is the infusion of His Ruakh ha-Qodësh. This confirms that the vision describes Jews and Israel and that Christians have no part in this vision whatsoever.

That this passage refers to Yisrâ·eil (not Christians) is explicitly confirmed in pâsuq 11: "These bones – they are all of Beit-Yisrâ·eil."

The Sages agree that this ushers in the "Messianic Age," and the chronological order in which p^әsuqim 12-14, following the Shoâh, demonstrates that the enlivening remains a future event. Thus, NHM 27.51-54 represents a foretaste of the enlivening described by Y^әkhëzqeil that compares and contrasts the events of the Mâshiakh Bën-Yoseiph (but not, l^ә-havdil, Yësh"u – D^әvârim 13.1-6) with the Mâshiakh Bën-Dâvid.

A few Christians argue from this the non sequitur that taking away the king from Yisrâ·eil or the Y^әhudim means taking away the kingdom from Yisrâ·eil or the Y^әhudim. It is an obvious non sequitur, which is a fatal flaw in logic.

This pâsuq was recognized for centuries before Christianity was ever conceived, by its authors and audience, as referring either to Shâ·ul′  ha-mëlëkh (B.C.E. 1045), or Ho·shei′ a Bën-Eil·âh (the last mëlëkh Yisrâ·eil, B.C.E. 729-722) or Ma·tan·yâh′ , who changed his name to Tzid·qi·yâh′ u (the last mëlëkh Y^әhudâh, B.C.E. 596-586).

In any case, before demonstrably misojudaic Roman Hellenist gentile Christians asserted it subsequent to their expulsion of Jews from Israel in 135 C.E., no one "interpreted" this passage as transferring a kingdom from Yisrâ·eil to goyim.

How much more preposterous to suggest transferal to an anti-Torâh man-g*od Yësh"u contradicting D^әvârim 13.1-6!

Christians mistakenly refer to this passage, in their Hellenized version, as 2.32.

This scene takes place after ha-Sheim has poured out His Ruakh "upon all flesh" (pâsuq 1), still in the future. ובשרידים, however, are already evident today, in the present and out of our recent past – the Shoâh.

Christians argue that they call on the Name of ha-Sheim and, therefore, are the "all who call on the Name of ha-Sheim," the product of the pouring out of His Ruakh "on all flesh" (pâsuq 1) – in contrast to a miniscule שרידים of Jews – whom, they again assert with no other basis than their previously insinuated majority and predominance, have converted to their religion.

If you accept the Christian assertion, that Christians are the ones described in this pâsuq as "all who call on the Name of ha-Sheim," then you have forfeited, assuring an inexorable victory for this Christian argument.

There will indeed be a pouring out of His Ruakh on [some from] all flesh, but, since many goyim are destroyed and lost, this obviously cannot mean everyone of "all flesh"; particularly not in contradiction of His Torâh (D^әvârim 13.1-6); only pouring out His Ruakh upon those who flock to keep His Torâh. That, a priori implies geirim; and rules out Christians (and Muslims).

Notice, too, that this is in harmony with the logical dictate that the known is taken to be true until proven otherwise. For centuries after this pâsuq was written, long before Christianity was ever conceived, both the writers and audience referred exclusively to Yisrâ·eil. The fate of the goyim is often described in Tana"kh… and always in terms of their destruction and loss.

Thus, the שרידים preceding the regathering, which has already occurred, are conclusively identified as those from the Shoâh – and they are not Christians or gentiles!

Pâsuq 7 is yet another passage that Christians cite to argue that only a small Remnant of Israel will be saved. They then claim, without basis, that they are the predominant segment of the "saved." To reiterate yet again, logic dictates that the known be accepted until divergence from the known is proven. The burden of proof is upon whomever claims divergene from the known – never upon the proponent of the known to prove it's still valid.

P^әsuqim 1-4 set the context as באחרית הימים, when גוים רבים will go up אל-הר-י--ה, ואל-בית-אלהי יעקב – and He (אלהי יעקב) will teach us because from Tziyon shall go forth the Torâh and the dâvâr [Oral, Halâkhâh] ha-Sheim from Y^әrushâlayim.

Thus, as Tz^әphanyâh clarified roughly 75 years later (cf. Tz^әphanyah 3.8-20), pâsuq 2 informs explicitly that the teaching is Torâh, including Halâkhâh, the taught (not the teachers) are the גוים רבים while the teachers of Torâh and Halâkhâh – "we" in pâsuq 5 – are, unsurprisingly, specifically from Yisrâ·eil and Y^әhudim – not Christians, Christianity or gentiles.

Then (pâsuq 6) the passage describes how Yisrâ·eil and these Y^әhudim are the survivors of the exile of 135 C.E., millennia of pogroms and the Shoâh: the lame and the banished. These lame are the ones who (pâsuq 7) ha-Sheim declares He will place לשארית and the banished לגוי עצום.

See also comments for this pâsuq under שארית.

Christians argue that, in sending Y^әhoshua Bën-Y^әhotzâdâq and Z^әru-Bavël to build the Beit ha-Miqdâsh ha-Sheini, Ko′ rësh completely fulfilled ha-Sheim's promise to return Yisrâ·eil to the land and, therefore, there is no further outstanding Biblical prophecy to return Y^әhudim to Ërëtz Yisrâ·eil. For the response to this argument, see b^ә-Reishit 12.1-3,7 with related links and commentaries.

See also comments for this pâsuq under שארית.

The Christian argument that "only a remnant of physical Israel will be saved" is true. What is false is when Christians apply Displacement Theology to interject the Church in place of, l^ә-havdil, Yisrâ·eil. Again, it's always back to the standard logic, which places all of the burden of proof on Christians to prove their claimed supersession of their NT and its J*esus from Tana"kh (despite being contrary to D^әvârim 13.1-6).

Like Y^әshayâhu 53 (covered in the Mâshiakh section of our History Museum; click on the "Messianic Issues" link there), the perversion is when Christians apply Displacement Theology to interject the Church or Yësh"u in place of, l^ә-havdil, Yisrâ·eil or a Torâh-faithful Mâshiakh, respectively. These fallacies always come back to the standard logic, which places all of the burden of proof on Christians to prove their claimed supersession of their NT and its J*esus from Tana"kh (despite being contrary to D^әvârim 13.1-6 – which absolutely rules out their Hellenist and idolatrous, Torâh-rejecting (superseding) Yësh"u).

⁹ "It shall be that on that day I will request להשמיד all of the goyim that are coming upon Y^әrushâlayim. ¹⁰ Then they shall gaze toward Me, את אשר דקרו, and they shall mourn bitterly עליו as one mourns bitterly for היחיד, for הבכור…" (See also and The N^әtzârim Reconstruction of Hebrew Matityâhu (NHM) 24.31 with notes.)

The biggest perversion that Christians make with this Scripture is their anthropomorphic equating of "Me" (ha-Sheim) with "Whom they pierced" (the Mâshiakh Bën-Yoseiph). Christians argue this as a basis to equate their Yësh"u with, l^ә-havdil, ha-Sheim.

Like Y^әshayâhu 53 (covered in the Mâshiakh section of our History Museum; click on the "Messianic Issues" link there), the perversion is when Christians apply Displacement Theology to interject the Church or Yësh"u in place of, l^ә-havdil, Yisrâ·eil or a Torâh-faithful Mâshiakh, respectively. These fallacies always come back to the standard logic, which places all of the burden of proof on Christians to prove their claimed supersession of their NT and its J*esus from Tana"kh (despite being contrary to D^әvârim 13.1-6 – which absolutely rules out their Hellenist and idolatrous, Torâh-rejecting (superseding) Yësh"u).

Stuck in the same error of contradicting both Scripture and Sages (i.e. Talmud) as with Y^әshayâhu 53 (see five links for Y^әshayâhu 53 at Messianic Issues), Jews sabotage themselves by refusing to educate themselves in Torâh, denying the indisputable, and arguing the unwinnable.

First, as with Y^әshayâhu 53, the problem is a contra-Torâh Christ, not whether a historical first-century Torâh-teaching Y^әhudi born in Beit-Lëkhëm was the Mâshiakh. Arguing against the latter is unwinnable. Arguing logically against the former is unlosable. Make your choice and live with the consequences.