They expect another Messiah.

We know that you are sent from God.

Jesus once had to determine that even though He came up with hard evidence for His supernatural power, the hostility of many of His contemporaries did not disappear as they gathered stones more than once to stone Jesus. So He reproached them in John 7:19: “Did not Moses give you the law? And none of you do the law!! What are you trying to kill Me for?” Nothing has changed since then, as evidenced by the hostile behavior of current Jewish scribes who have the law in their mouth but who, like their predecessors in Jesus' days, are full of dead bones inside. Jesus' statement in Matthew 23:27-28, therefore, is still relevant today: “Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead [men’s] bones, and of all uncleanness. Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity.”
The hostility of the Orthodox Jews is still expressed today, for example in the form of funeral rites where Messianic Jews are symbolically killed. This religious death sentence stems directly from occultism and is in fact a form of black magic(!) And is therefore sorcery. In a description of such occult, satanic practices, I read somewhere that these are religious curses in which a person's death is claimed during a ceremony “by calling the angels of death”. This immediately reveals the demonic and thus occult source of the resistance of the modern Orthodox Jews against our Messiah! It was therefore quite right that Jesus said to these enemies of the truth in John 8:44: “You have the devil as a father and want to do the desires of your father.” The problem with those Orthodox Jews, therefore, is that they have skipped a Messiah. Since there is no substitute for that, the messiah they now expect can only be the anti-messiah. Better known as: the antichrist.

But.... there is more. The fact is that in Jesus' days the Jews were certainly not so ignorant of Jesus' parentage and identity, witness the well-known night visit of the Pharisee Nicodemus to Jesus in John 3:1-21. On that occasion Nicodemus confessed: “Rabbi, we (Pharisees and rulers of the Jews) know that you are sent from God as a teacher; for no one can do the signs that You do unless God is with Him.” The Jews of then and now knew and know so well who Jesus is that there exists a “rabbinic curse” in the Talmud, intended for every seeking soul who wants to find out who Jesus is in the book of Daniel. The image on the left/right/above (depending on your screensize) depicts an English translation of this. Here it comes: “May the bones of the hands and the bones of the fingers decay and decompose, of him who turns the pages of the book of Daniel, to find out the time of Daniel 9:24-27, and may his memory rot from off the face of the earth forever.” Nice guys, those Jewish Talmud authors!!

Why this satanic envy? Well, the Jews in question know very well that the Bible texts mentioned accurately foretold the coming of the Messiah and that, according to the timeline in the Bible book concerned, the promised Messiah can only be Jesus Christ. The exact description of who the Messiah is in their cherished Hebrew Old Testament, which has been copied through the centuries very accurately, is a fact they cannot stand that at all. This curse in the Talmud is, as a result of that, another popping proof of their enmity against God. Is it already clear to you, reader, what kind of people are hiding behind that pious mask of “Orthodox Judaism”? Keep that in mind when reading my comments!

Star of David, Zionism and.... Occultism.

What positive do we have to expect at all from today's “Israel”? Anyone who would like to know where that six-pointed “David” star in the flag of modern state of Israel really comes from should read the English explanation of Texe Marrs, from his book Codex Magica! This means, among other things, that already during the Middle Ages this symbol was used during rituals by corrupt rabbis. They were also concerned with the Kabbalah. And who would also use it for their rituals? Because one picture sometimes says more than a thousand words, a single look at this picture can also have a beneficial effect. Because, oops, what do we see there in the background? O yes! The occult Masons also include the six-pointed star in their standard equipment.

For those who still hope that he has seen it wrong, here is a sobering picture of the Maltese cross with the symbol of the heavily occult skull and bones order. Here again we discover the infamous “David's” star.
And now that we have got the taste: here's another eye opener. Because, what do we see there? Exactly. The swastika and the six-pointed star are brotherly together with some other occult symbols. That seems contradictory but.... both Hitler with his swastika and Zionism with its “David” star are inventions of the same (occult) power behind the scenes. This star, believe it or not, has absolutely nothing to do with King David! On the other hand, according to the information I have found about it, this star belongs to the occult inheritance of King Solomon, who became involved in idolatry and occultism in his later years of life. As a result, the occultists around the world are now “honouring” King Solomon. It was this apostate king who ushered in the fall of Israel as God's people. God had already warned King Solomon in 1 Kings 9:6-9. In summary, apostate King Solomon caused God to drop the people of Israel after producing our Savior, but Solomon's “spiritual descendants” created against God's will a new “Israel.” A kind of Israel with which they have completely different plans than that they have told the deceived Christianity, which has been blinded by spiritual blindness.
Swastika and six-pointed star together in the same shield? This may seem contradictory, but this is not the case because Hitler's persecution of Jews was aimed at getting the remaining Jews ready for their new “promised land.” For which they had the flag ready, by the way....

An insider from these circles who had found Jesus in his life once said that these dangerous guys want to found and rule the kingdom of Satan from Jerusalem. They have for years outsourced the promotion of these plans to multitudes of gullible people within “Christianity”. Who with an often demonic fanaticism (I write as an eyewitness) praise the current “Israel” as the “chosen people” of God. A people with whom they think God would still have great plans in the end times. Those plans do exist, except that the god behind them is Satan himself. We are now talking about one of the ways in which the occultists/satanists in this world squeeze misguided Christianity. Just as it was expressed by a New Age author years ago. The evangelical churches, he said, would be the primary instrument for creating a new world order with only one world religion.

A short explanation: the red texts are the original quotes (from a Jewish Orthodox source), the blue texts are (part of) my commentary as they were found on the page “The rejected Messiah”. The green texts are the criticisms expressed from a Jewish Orthodox source. I subsequently added my explanation in brown text. Due to the different text colors, it remains somewhat clear to the reader, I hope.

Original quote: Millions of people followed this event when God spoke from Mount Sinai to the Jewish people. There God gave the Jewish people the Holy Torah, which consists of the first five books of the Bible; Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy.

My response: In Exodus 32 we can read that the people of Israel already turned their backs on this mountain Sinai. The story of the golden calf speaks for itself. Paul's statement he made in 1 Timothy 1:8 and 9 is very clearly confirmed by this incident when he says: “knowing well that the law is not made for the righteous, but for the lawless and the dishonest, for the wicked and sinners....” etc. Isn't it remarkable that a righteous man like Abraham did not receive a book of law from God to keep him on the right track? The law came only when God had to keep a rebellious people on the right path.

The criticism of my response: This response already gives us a glimpse into the amount of Bible knowledge of the Christian writer. He writes, “Is it not remarkable that a righteous man like Abraham did not receive a book of law from God to keep him on the right track?” And why did God make a covenant with Abraham and give him the land of Israel? “Because Abraham listened to Me and obeyed my service, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.” Genesis 26:5. And that is a bit difficult without a law book, don't you think?

My response: Abraham had God's law in his heart and was called a friend of God. You don't have to tell a righteous man how to obey God.

The criticism of my response: So it was obvious he had been told.

My additional explanation: When we study the history of Abraham, we find in Genesis 17 that God made a covenant with Abraham there. Circumcision is instituted as a sign of that covenant, as we read in Genesis 17:10 and 11: “This is my covenant, which you shall keep between Me and you and your offspring, that all that is male shall be circumcised in you; you shall have the flesh circumcised of your foreskin, and that shall be a sign of the covenant between me and you.”
There is no mention here and in the other chapters of Genesis of any other laws, rules, commandments or prohibitions that Abraham would have received from God. Even a code of law is out of the question. The law that the Jewish people received through Moses is therefore of a completely different nature. This is also reported by the former Pharisee Paul. In Acts 22:3 Paul testifies of himself: “I am a Jew, born in Tarsus in Cilicia, but brought up in this city, trained at the feet of Gamaliel with careful observance of the law of our fathers, a zealot for God as well as all of you are today”. Paul spoke here of the time when he was still a servant of Jewish law. This Gamaliel was a widely respected lawyer and, moreover, Paul's teacher.
And as a well-educated knower of the Jewish laws and of the history of the Jewish people, ex-Pharisee Paul wrote years later in Galatians 3:16-18: “Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his seed. He does not say: and to his seeds, in the plural, but in the singular: and to your seed, that is, to Christ. I mean this: the law, which came four hundred and thirty years later, does not invalidate the will, which God had previously given legal power, so that it would make the promise lose its power. After all, if the inheritance of the law depends, then not on the promise; and it is through a promise that God has shown favor to Abraham.”

Paul distinguishes here between the law, which came four hundred thirty years later, and the promise that Abraham received from God. Beside that promise of God was the faith of Abraham, of which the apostle James writes in James 2:22,23: “From this you can see that his faith cooperated with his works, and that this faith was only made perfect by the works; and the scripture was fulfilled, saying, Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him for righteousness, and he was called a friend of God.” This friend of God was justified by his faith and he showed by his faith in God and by his works from that faith that he had a personal relationship with his God. And that personal interaction with man is exactly what God is all about first and foremost. If, on the other hand, a nation has to be teached through a torrent of laws, commandments, rules, and prohibitions, what is and is not pleasing to God, it is a sad and meager substitute for the faith and obedience of Abraham, the friend of God.

And to the disciples of Jesus applies, what Paul wrote in Romans 8:1-4: “So now there is no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. For the law of the Spirit of life has made you free in Christ Jesus, from the law of sin and death. For what the law (of Sinai) could not, because it was weak through the flesh; God, by sending his own Son in a flesh, like that of sin, and that for sin, condemned sin in the flesh, that the requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.” That requirement of the law is found in Galatians 5: 22-24: “But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, long-suffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, meekness, self-control. The law is not against such people. For those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with his passions and desires.” Who in this way has fulfilled the requirement of the law also knows that association with God, of which Abraham, the friend of God, testified through his faith and through which Abraham complied with the (unwritten) laws of His God. After all, God is not happy with a bunch of neat sinners who have memorized the law, but with disciples who can discern the difference between good and evil through their hidden association with Him.
The rebellious people of Israel were reproached by God in Isaiah 29:13-14: “And the Lord said, Because this people draweth near to Me only with words and honors Me with their lips, keeping their heart far from Me, and their awe to Me is a learned commandment of men, Therefore, behold, I continue to deal wonderfully with this people, wonderful and marvelous: the wisdom of his wise men shall perish, and the understanding of his prudent ones shall be hidden.” That does not exactly give me the impression that God was really happy with this always rebellious people.... Those so-called sages will also have their turn. Also those current Jewish sages who reject Jesus with gritted teeth.... When Jesus told the parable of the son who was killed by the tenants of the vineyard (Matthew 21:33-46), the rebellious Jews understood full well that Jesus spoke about them!

Original quote: Later prophets came whose works were added to form the Hebrew Bible.

My response: If we study the Old Testament carefully, the only conclusion we can draw is that the words of Jesus were all too true when he sighed: “Jerusalem, Jerusalem, that slays and stones the prophets, who are sent to you....” (Matthew 23:37). Or as Stephen said in Acts 7:52: “Which of the prophets was not persecuted by your fathers?” It is suggested here that the words of the prophets were a valuable addition to the Torah, but the reality is that the prophets were killed by stubborn and disobedient people who rejected God.

The criticism of my response: The fact remains true, of course, that the prophets were a valuable addition to the Torah. And yes, some of the prophets were killed by wicked Israelites, but the writer's position implying that all of the nation of Israel has resisted God and His laws for the past 3,300 years is nonsense. Had that been the case, Christianity would not have existed now, for then the Hebrew Bible would never have been so accurately transmitted by Judaism. There was always a hard core of the Jewish people who remained faithful to the only true God who is 1. When Elijah complained that Israel had deviated from God, God replied: “But I will leave seven thousand in Israel, all knees that have not bowed to Baal, and every mouth that has not kissed him.”

My additional explanation: Obviously, it is not the case that the entire nation of Israel had deviated from God time and again, as witnessed by the fact that there were always prophets who passed on God's words to the apostate people. But the Old Testament also shows many times that these prophets were unsure of their lives and were even killed by the majority of the rebellious people of Israel for their obedience to God. This minority remained obedient to God's command in Exodus 23:2: “You will not follow the majority in evil, neither testify in legal proceedings with the majority to bend the law.” Because of that small, just minority that I already wrote about in my response, it is nonsense to say that I demonized the entire nation of Israel. Because God remained faithful to His plans, as was also evident in the days of Elijah, there has always been a small remnant that gave the people of Israel as a whole its right to exist. But despite that small nucleus, the great majority were evil and therefore a renegade people.

Original quote: The Torah teaches that there is 1 God, Y-H-W-H, who is a jealous God, who does not allow other gods besides Him. See Exodus 20:3 (The Hebrew word kana, translated as jealous, means jealous in plain English.)

My response: How often this jealous God must have had a hard time in all the centuries that the people of Israel followed other gods as we can read throughout the Old Testament. God himself put it like this: “Will a girl forget her dress, a bride her belt? But My people have forgotten Me for countless days.” (Jeremiah 2:32). If Israel then knew how God felt about this, what inspired these people to turn their backs on God time and time again? In Exodus 19:8 we read: “And all the people answered with one accord, We will do all that the Lord hath spoken.” Apparently they haven't gotten to that yet....

The criticism of my response: It is only the Jews who have held on to the worship of the only true God who is 1. The Roman Catholic Church has been worshiping images for 2,000 years, and the Protestants believe in two gods: The Father and the Son, which is idolatry. Judaism has given monotheism to the world. Unfortunately, Christians think that worshiping two or three gods is monotheism.

My additional explanation: That the Jews have clung to the worship of the only true God, they owe to that small righteous minority. See above. With the “Roman Catholic faith” and “Protestantism” I personally have nothing at all in common. I reckon one and the other among the great Babylon. Jesus already spoke about this to the apostle John in the book of Revelation. What the apostle was told was a description of the apostate false church and looking back over the many centuries of “church history”, with all the atrocities committed against dissenters, we must conclude that the history of the “church” is the history of this Babylon and of this Babylon we read in Revelation 18:2: “And he cried with a loud voice, saying, Fallen, fallen is the great [city] of Babylon, and it is become a dwelling place of demons, a hiding place of all unclean spirits, and a hiding place of all unclean and detested poultry.”

Therefore, the many dogmas and teachings in that Babylon do not represent Jesus' gospel, the gospel of the Kingdom of God. So with this statement I deliberately distance myself from this “Christianity” and will therefore make no effort to defend the teachings of this Babylon. Because I use the Bible as a benchmark myself. And there is plenty to read about that on the other pages of this site. To which I would like to add here the urgent appeal to the upright in that “Babylonian Christianity” from Revelation 18:4: “And I heard another voice from heaven say, Go forth from her, my people, that you may have no fellowship to her sins and does not receive from her plagues ”.

Original quote: .......And then a Jew stands up and claims that he is the Messiah, the king and deliverer announced by the prophets. But he did not do what was expected of him, to free the Jews from their oppressors, the Romans, and usher in an era of rest and peace for the Jewish people and all mankind. Instead, he was killed, and all that remains of him is a collection of writings called the New Testament.

My response: There is nothing new under the sun, just as in Jesus' days on earth the Jews expected the liberation of the Romans, they are still waiting for a deliverance from their enemies while Jesus Himself has clearly said: “My Kingdom is not of this world; if My Kingdom had been of this world, My servants would have fought so that I would not be delivered up to the Jews.” (John 18:36).

The criticism of my response: Some people do not seem to realize that the Messiah must fulfill Messianic prophecies. How do we know that the Messiah is the Messiah? By fulfilling the Messianic prophecies. Therefore, it is not what JC claimed he was doing, it is what God's prophets have said what the Messiah must do. Otherwise, any charlatan can claim to be the Messiah: “Oh yes, the prophets say the Messiah will be a victorious king, but I have a different agenda, so forget what God's prophets said because the Messiah must first come as an eel farmer.” Lou said.

My response: And what did the prophets actually announce? In Isaiah 52:13 to 53: 6 it is said that He had neither form nor glory that we would have seen something important in Him. Not a high-ranking person who had much influence. And what was expected of Him by the Jews?

The criticism of my response: It's not about what the Jews expected, it's not about what someone says who claims to be the Messiah; what matters is what the prophets said the Messiah must do. And those prophecies are not fulfilled by JC. The writer now comes up with Isaiah 53, and pretends that this is a messianic prophecy, despite the fact that there is no messiah to be seen in the distance. Read here what Isaiah 53 is about: www.geocities.com/bergZion/Jesaja53.htm.

My response: That He would establish a visible kingdom for a people who, since the exodus from Egypt, had lived little different from the Gentile nations around them? Would God really be in need of such a people? In Hebrews 3:11, Psalm 95:11 is quoted where God says of the stiff-necked people of Israel: “....so that I swore in My wrath, They shall never enter My rest!” Eternal Sabbath rest is not for a people who deny their God over and over, but for the righteous who have His laws in their hearts.

The criticism of my response: And Psalm 95 is about the generation that came out of Egypt and tested God. That is why God said concerning them that they would not enter the promised land but would roam the desert for 40 years until that entire generation was extinct. So it is not talking here about “eternal Sabbath rest,” but about entering the land of Israel. The writer is not sure what he is talking about.

My additional explanation: Is it really not what the Jews expect? If it is stated here in so many words that the Messiah must fulfill the Messianic prophecies, then it is indeed the expectation of the Jews of today that their “messiah” will fulfill those prophecies. That is therefore definitely and certainly what they expect. It is also striking that so much value is attached by these Jews to what those prophets once prophesied. That is a stark contrast to the way people responded to the words of these prophets at the time of their performance. Anyway, a prophet is not honored until he is dead, isn't it?

Then I read in Psalm 95:8-11: “Do not harden your heart, as with Meriba, as in the day of Massa, in the wilderness, when your fathers tempted me, tested me, though they had seen my work. Forty years I was offended at that generation, I said, It is a people astray in heart, and they know not my ways. Therefore I swore in my anger, They will not come to my resting place! ” It is stated above that according to this Psalm, because of their rebellion, the Israelites had to wait forty years before entering the promised land. But ... that is not there. For God says here: “I have been annoyed with that rebellious people for forty years and therefore they will not enter My resting place.” So first forty years of God's annoyance and sorrow and then God's response to it. Those forty years of extra waiting time in these verses are not the result of their rebellion but they are the cause of God's decision to deny them access to His resting place. The resting place God spoke about has nothing to do with a geographical location (the promised land of Israel). The psalm writer wrote about Gods eternal resting place in Heaven!!

It is also claimed here that Jesus as Messiah cannot meet the conditions set in the Old Testament for the (then) coming Messiah. It will come as no surprise that I am not taking that opinion seriously. Because my knowledge of the Hebrew language is quite lacking, so for more information about the original Hebrew root of the Old Testament I appealed to the knowledge of Messianic Jews who (of course) master Hebrew flawlessly. It has become clear to me that the name Yeshua can be found about a hundred times in the Old Testament. Every time the Old Testament speaks of salvation, with a few exceptions, the same word Yeshua is used for it as we see it in Matthew 1:20-21 where Joseph is convinced of the supernatural origin of Mary's child. Moreover, it is undeniably stated in this text that the name Yeshua is associated with the concept of salvation. For we read in verse 21: “She will give birth to a son and you will give Him the name Jesus. For it is He who will save his people from their sins.” Pay close attention to the word for, because it indicates that the name Jesus (Yeshua) was given in direct connection with the salvation of man from sin (Yeshua / Jesus = Yahweh is salvation).

A fine example from the Old Testament is Isaiah 62:11: “For the Lord makes it hear to the end of the earth: Say unto the daughter of Zion, behold, thy salvation cometh; behold, His wages are with Him, and His retribution is before Him.” The word salvation used in the Dutch translation has certainly not been an ideal choice for the translators. The correct translation, on the other hand, from the Hebrew root text is Yeshua (= Yahweh is salvation). Moreover, it does not indicate a thing or an event but a person, as the words used are His and Him. And that person is Jesus Christ! The correct translation of this text is therefore: “For the Lord makes it hear to the end of the earth: Say unto the daughter of Zion, behold, thy Jeshua cometh; behold, His wages are with Him, and His retribution is before Him.”

I believe these facts should at least remove three legs from under the table on which the Orthodox Jews have displayed their opposition to Jesus Christ as the Messiah. And such a table will certainly not stay upright for a long time!

Furthermore, it is strange that today's Jews have such difficulty recognizing Jesus as their Messiah. The scribes in Jesus' days did a better job, as we can read in Matthew 2:4-6: “And he gathered all the chief priests and scribes of the people together, and tried to find out from them where the Christ would be born. They said to them, In Bethlehem of Judea, for thus it is written by the prophet: And ye, Bethlehem, land of Judah, are by no means least among the leaders of Judah: for out of you shall come a leader who shall feed my people Israel.” Or would they have rewritten the Old Testament in the meantime?

Original quote: Since we have two different genealogies, there should be at least 1 wrong. These problems were already recognized in Paul's time. That is why he wrote to Titus: “but you must avoid foolish questions, genealogies, strife, and battle over the law, for that is without meaning and useless.” Titus 3:9. See also 1 Timothy 1:3-4.

My response: Two texts are cited here that indicate exactly what the authors of this statement are guilty of: hair splits about things that are nothing more than side issues. Paul wrote this because he himself had all too often been arguing with the Jews about all this endless drivel about the law that the Jewish people never wished to keep to. And that is indeed aimless, because God is not in need of a people with the law in hand, but of a people with His laws in their hearts.

The criticism of my response: Here we have the “law in the heart” again. The advantage for a Christian with the “law in the heart” is that he does not have to keep the law. He can do whatever he wants, as long as he occasionally goes to church for an hour and “has received Jesus in his heart” he goes to heaven. That makes sense huh? For Christians are so just and good; they don't need laws at all to live by. They are already beautiful people by nature. That is why Christianity has thrown overboard all of God's laws, despite the fact that JC himself said, “Don't think I came to destroy the law or the prophets; I came not to dissolve, but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, that before heaven and earth pass, there shall not pass an iota or a tittle of the law, before all be done. Whoever then breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches men thus, will be called very little in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” Matthew 5:17-19.

My additional explanation: When I read this kind of reasoning I am surprised that such a confusion about this can arise. Because with that “book of the law in the heart” I don't mean to say much other than that a disciple of Jesus (note: I'm talking about a disciple of Jesus here, not a “Christian”) by associating with the Holy Spirit has come to know the heart of God. And anyone who knows about it does not have to be constantly told by means of wagon loads full of laws and rules how a righteous person should live according to God's principles. With the imagery “law in the heart” I would therefore like to point out that the externally imposed laws of Sinai, which never got further than the head of man, have become superfluous because the heart of man out of conviction and love for God strives to please Him. There is absolutely no question of “writing off God's laws” because those laws are practiced out of love for God. And that is a vast difference from the perfunctory and legalistic frenzy with which to maintain kind of artificial piety. The people of Israel were also blamed for that in Isaiah 29:13-14 where God says: “Because this people draws near to Me and honors Me with their lips, keeping their heart far from Me, and their awe for Me a learned commandment of men, therefore, behold, I continue to deal wonderfully with this people, wonderful and marvelous: the wisdom of his wise men shall perish, and the understanding of his prudent ones shall be hid ”. And it is precisely these “sages” who are still concerned with laws that make the head top-heavy with dead knowledge, but that leave the heart of man untouched, because love for God is lacking.

The apostle Paul (the former disciple of Gamaliel) also utters his thoughts about this in Romans 2:26-29: “If the uncircumcision keeps the requirements of the law, then will his uncircumcision apply to circumcision? Then the uncircumcised by nature, in fulfilling the law, will judge you who, though in possession of letter and circumcision, are a transgressor of the law. For he is not a Jew who is external, and that is not circumcision that is done externally in the flesh, but he is a Jew who is in secret, and true circumcision is that of the heart, according to the Spirit, not the letter. Then his praise does not come from people, but from God.”

It also shows a very ambiguous attitude when one claims that the New Testament proclaims fairy tales (see below) and still thinks that he can use the words of Jesus (from that New Testament) to prove his point.

Original quote: The angel tells Joseph (Matthew 1:22-23) that this has happened to fulfill the word of the prophet: “Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and he shall be called Emmanuel.” This prophecy is found in Isaiah 7:14: “Behold the virgin shall conceive and bear a son; and she will call him Emmanuel.” We see here that Isaiah is talking about a young woman, not a virgin. It is of course much more normal for a young woman to become pregnant than for a virgin to become pregnant. But the prophet Isaiah speaks clearly of a young woman and not a virgin. Therefore, the New Testament misrepresents this prophecy. The King James Version says in Isaiah 7:14 virgin, but this is an erroneous translation. The Hebrew word in Isaiah 7:14 that the King James version translates as virgin is almah. In Hebrew, almah means girl, young woman, that can be a virgin, but it is not necessary. Therefore, the word virgin in Isaiah 7:14 is a mistranslation. The Hebrew word for virgin is betulah, that word is used, for example, when the Holy Torah speaks of Rebekah in Genesis 24:16.

My response: This line of reasoning attempts to explain away the birth of Jesus from the virgin Mary. In order to destroy the divinity of Jesus. Would it be really important that a virgin was mentioned in the Old Testament? It is quite possible that this is indeed not the case because this fact was not yet known to the prophets in the Old Testament. They prophesied of a coming Messiah, and it is likely that Mary herself was the first to hear from the angel how it would happen. That Bible translators later used the word virgin is therefore most likely based on their knowledge of the birth story of Jesus, which shows that there was indeed a virgin involved. It is therefore not inconceivable that the translators have been influenced by this.

Original quote: The Dutch New World Translation translates almah with girl, and the Leidsche Translation and the Prof. dr. Obbink translation translate almah in Isaiah 7:14 with young woman.

My response: This confirms that not all translators have been influenced by this knowledge.

The criticism of my response: This confirms that throughout the OT there is no prophecy that the Messiah would be born of a virgin. But the NT says that it is in the OT, see Matthew 1:22-23: “All this was done, that it might be fulfilled that which YHWH spake through the prophet, when he said, Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall call him Emmanuel, which means: God with us.” This once again confirms that the NT proclaims fairytales.

My additional explanation: I went through the original quote again and suddenly I noticed what I had actually not noticed yet. By that I mean the sentence: “In Hebrew almah means girl, young woman, that can be a virgin, but it is not necessary. That is why the word virgin in Isaiah 7:14 is a wrong translation.” See, if it is first established here that it may well be meant a virgin, and thus keeping open the possibility that the translation with the word “virgin” may be correct, why then is the conclusion drawn from that that the word “virgin” is definitely an incorrect translation? Since these contradictory statements are not really worth our attention, I don't want to waste a word on this.

Original quote: What does this say about the reliability of the New Testament?

My response: Nothing! The possibility that errors have crept into certain parts of the Gospels does not prove that the gospel of Jesus is not true, as it is suggested here. On the other hand, we can say that the Old Testament was carefully copied for centuries by a people who had God's laws in a book. The New Testament was written by people who had God's laws in their hearts. Which of these two groups would be most dear to God?

The criticism of my response: Here we go again with the “laws in the heart.“ What laws exactly have Christianity at its heart? They have thrown overboard all God's laws and replaced them with pagan institutions that have nothing to do with the Bible. And as I said, Christianity assumes that if you have the laws (whatever they may be) in your heart you don't have to obey them. Compare that to JC's statement above about the law, and Romans 2:13: “For not the hearers of the law are righteous with God, but the doers of the law will be justified.”

My additional explanation: About the imagery “laws in the heart” or “law in the heart” I have already given my explanation above. I would also add that the criticism expressed here testifies to the misconception that according to “Christianity” those laws in the heart should not be observed. The fact is, however, that those laws in the heart of the disciple of Jesus are just proof that those laws are being observed. For if God's laws are in the heart of man, that is to say, in the deepest innermost part, it means that his whole doings are influenced by it and that is all that man does and thinks. That is a world apart from the perfunctory study of a multitude of laws and regulations that make of man a “good sinner” at best. As described in Psalms 32: 9: “Do not be like a horse, like a mule without sense, whose pride is restrained with bridle and bit, lest it come upon you.” All those externally imposed laws are only like a bridle and bit with which to restrain an unwilling and proud horse.

Original quote: Let's look at one of the other sayings of Jesus, in Matthew 23:35: “That all the righteous blood shed upon the earth may come upon you, from the blood of Abel the righteous to the blood of Zechariah the son of Berekiah, whom you murdered between the temple house and the altar.” This event is recorded in 2 Chronicles 24:20-21.

My response: Here we want to draw attention to “all the just blood”. It speaks here of the many righteous who were also killed by the Jewish people because these prophets were sent by God. If one wants to use all these philosophies to prove himself right (see above), he only makes it clear that he is defending the principles of a people who kill their God-sent prophets. What kind of leg do you have to stand on if you still want to pass as a righteous people?

The criticism of my response: Like I said: There was always a hard core of God-fearing Jews who carried the torch further. You cannot blame the whole people for what individuals do. What do Christians always say when I explain to them that the Church has tortured 40,000,000 people to death in the last 2,000 years, mostly by burning them alive, mostly Jews and Christian reformers? Then they say, “They weren't real Christians.” Well, the Jews who killed the prophets were not good religious Jews.

My additional explanation: I have already given my opinion about that “church” above. As for those “good religious Jews”, the Old Testament continuously shows us that they were only a minority and that the people of Israel as a whole was rebellious to God. In any case, it is honestly admitted here that it was the bad guys among the Jews who killed the prophets. Pity though there were so many bad guys among the people of Israel!!

Original quote: ....... For a Jewish reader this means that the people of the New Testament did not know their Bible.

My response: That could be. After all, Jesus did not choose His disciples from among the chiefs of the people, the scribes and Pharisees, but he took a few fishermen, a few tax collectors, and some guys without an impressive record. Illiterate people who were scorned by the aforementioned scribes.

The criticism of my response: The reason he chose simple illiterate people is very obvious: in this way one is able to fool someone easily. The Biblical scholars immediately rejected him as a charlatan.

My additional explanation: Well, I am just passing on what Paul (who was anything but illiterate, see above) has to say about these simple and illiterate people in 1 Corinthians 1:26-29: “Just see, brethren, what you were when you were called: not many wise according to the flesh, not many influential, not many great ones. On the contrary, what is foolish to the world, God has chosen to shame the wise, and what is weak to the world, God has chosen to shame what is strong; and what is invisible and despised to the world, God has chosen, that which is nothing, to take away from that which is highborn, so that nobody will get the glory instead of God.” What should I add to that?

Concerning those Bible scholars, I read in John 3:1,2: “And there was one of the Pharisees, whose name was Nicodemus, chief of the Jews; he came to Him by night and said to Him, Rabbi, we know that you came from God as a teacher; for no one can do the signs that you do unless God is with him.”
And in Mark 15:43 we read: “Joseph of Arimathea, a considerable member of the Council, who himself also expected the Kingdom of God; and he dared to go to Pilate and ask the body of Jesus.”
And in John 12:42 we even read, “And yet of the rulers many believed in him, but for the sake of the Pharisees they did not come out, that they should not be banished from the synagogue.”

Did the biblical scholars immediately reject Jesus as a charlatan?? These verses really tell me something completely different!

Original quote: The Torah, the most sacred part of the Hebrew Bible, has been transmitted through time, for a period of approximately 3,300 years.

My response: It is sad that the Jews have handed over their Torah for all these centuries and did not show in their lives that they were aware of the content.

The criticism of my response: It is sad that you say with this comment that you are completely unaware of Jewish history.

My additional explanation: Jewish history is very well known to me, if only for the fact that I have studied the entire Bible and thus also the Old Testament. The fact that this history teaches us that there has always remained a minority that was just and sincere by God's grace does not alter the fact that the Jewish people as a whole showed a completely different mentality. And that was exactly what I wanted to make clear.

Original quote: And there are many more rules for copying Torah scrolls that are still in use today. No other religion had such an extremely precise way of copying their sacred texts. This illustrates the tremendous respect that the Jews have for their sacred text, which is why the text has been passed over the past millennia with an extreme degree of accuracy.

My response: A huge respect? If we study the history of the Jewish people from Sinai to the time of Jesus, we cannot conclude much more than that there was little evidence of respect for God and His commandment among the vast majority of the people of Israel. So what that extremely precise copying was aimed for....

Original quote: Any expert, and anyone with knowledge of biblical texts, agrees that the Old Testament, despite being much older than the New Testament, is much more accurately narrated than the New Testament.

My response: That could be. Only the Old Testament was passed down from one paper to another and not from one heart to another. And the latter was exactly God's intention. In that regard, “the people of the New Testament” have left a better impression, even though they were mostly “ordinary” people and not scribes.

The criticism of my response: “The people of the New Testament have left a better impression.” Surely never studied church history? For 1600 years there was no church other than the image-worshiping RC church, which also slaughtered 40,000,000 people (a conservative estimate). What do you mean, “The people of the New Testament have left a better impression?”

My additional explanation: With those people of the New Testament, I definitely did not mean the executioners of the Pope and all his predecessors, but the disciples who left us the New Testament. I therefore described them as “ordinary people” and not scribes. On the other hand, the fact that in the following centuries spiritual Babylon arose with all its miserable consequences is a completely different story. About this I have already written a few things in the above.

Original quote: When the Jewish people in Exile went to Babylon, the land was filled with pagan tribes. They mingled with the remaining Jews and began to take over large parts of the Jewish religion, and they accepted the Torah. A Jewish priest was sent from Babylon to teach the Gentile tribes now living in Samaria to live by the commandments of God. (2 Kings 17:24-29). When the Jews returned from the Babylonian captivity, these Samaritans wanted to join the Jewish people, but they were rejected because they were still involved in idolatry.

My response: Rejected for idolatry? What was the reason why the Jewish people were taken into exile at all? Didn't that happen to have something to do with idolatry? When we read the story from 2 Kings 17, the question quickly arises why a priest was sent to those Samaritans on behalf of a people who themselves lived in exile because of their idolatry. If one dares to mention this as an example, it does sound (somewhat) hypocritical.

The criticism of my response: And why did the Jews return and the temple was rebuilt? Because they had atoned for their sins and turned back to the only true God who is 1.

My additional explanation: And when that one and only true God as a man entered among His own people, many of them appeared to do exactly what John 1:10-11 teaches us: “He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world knew not Him. He came unto His own, and His own did not receive Him.”

Original quote: This is written in Jeremiah 31:31-34: “Behold, the days are coming, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah. Not as the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt: My covenant which they have broken, though I am Lord over them, saith the Lord.”

My response: We are talking about a new covenant here. That means that the covenant that God once made with an unwilling people no longer has any value to Him. Which means that the new covenant here is not a continuation of the covenant of Sinai.

The criticism of my response: Let's first look with WHO the new covenant is going to be made: Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah. Christians are therefore already excluded in that respect.

And what will that new covenant be? Jeremiah 31:32-33: “Not as the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt: my covenant which they have broken, though I be upon them, saith the Lord. But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after these days, saith the Lord, I will put my law within them, and write them on their hearts, I will be their God, and they will be a people to me.”

So the new covenant will consist of God putting his laws in the heart of the Israelites. So that is not in the heart of the Christians or the Philistines, but in the heart of the house of Israel and the house of Judah. And so that just becomes the laws of God. It is talking about a new covenant. There is no mention of new laws.

My additional explanation: What strikes me first in this criticism is the contradiction to earlier claims that issue the term “God's laws in the heart”. I read above namely: “The advantage for a Christian with the “law in the heart” is that he does not have to keep the law. He can do whatever he wants.....” As I now read the quoted words of the prophet Jeremiah from which it appears that God will put His law within them and write it in their hearts, and the author of this criticism suddenly seems to have no problem with it, as witness his statement. that “God puts His laws in the hearts of the Israelites.” So those laws in the heart of man were not such a bad idea after all....

Then I would like to emphasize that it has never been God's purpose to continue forever a situation in which animal sacrifices should be made time and again for man's sins. For the latter is what the Jewish expectation of the “third everlasting temple” (and the accompanying sacrificial service) actually boils down to. That is a situation in which man's sin would keep asking for new animal sacrifices forever. While we read in Hebrews 10:3-7: “But through those offerings sin was remembered every year; because it is impossible, that the blood of bulls or goats would take away sins. That is why He says (that is Jesus Christ) when He comes into the world: You did not want victim and sacrifice, but You prepared Me a body; You have had no pleasure in burnt offerings and sin offerings. Then I said, Here I am (it is written in the scroll of Mine) to do your will, O God.” And that will of the Father was precisely to establish the Kingdom of God on earth again through Jesus' obedience until His death on the cross. Thanks to that Kingdom, sin will eventually be cast out of creation forever. And not only that: the ruler of this world, Satan, will be expelled for good, as he was told in the garden of Eden!, which will break the curse of sin that has rested on creation since Adam. And that is something for which there is no place in Jewish Orthodox religion! The expectation that “the Jewish wars are going to be fought” is nothing but hope for a fight against blood and flesh and thus against fellow human beings. While the real enemies of this creation, under the leadership of the ruler of this world, are in the spiritual world. The ex-Pharisee Paul had also discovered this, as he shows in Ephesians 6:12: “For we have no wrestling against blood and flesh, but against the authorities, against the powers, against the world rulers of this darkness, against the evil spirits in the heavenly places.” That is where the real threat to humans lies. And that threat will never be removed by continuing to burn multitudes of cadavers for eternity. That is why the Orthodox Jews and their occult religion are enemies of God. Their “enemies” are not the real enemies of this world! As stated before: those real enemies are in the spiritual world.

Note that killing animals for sin offerings is primarily a demonstration that death is still king. By a perpetual sacrifice that is not pleasing to God and will never take away sin, Satan would simply remain prince of this world. A world that would be doomed to endure forever under the curse of sin. And that is certainly not a prospect that makes us happy!! If there are still people who still want to continue to subject us to that curse, in whose service would they be?

Finally, the same chapter 10 of Hebrews in verses 15-18 quotes the words from Jeremiah 31 already used above. We read: “And the Holy Spirit also gives us testimony of this, for after He said, 'This is the covenant with which I will commit myself to them after those days, saith the Lord: I will put my laws in their hearts and write them in their minds, and I will remember their sins and iniquities no more.' Where then there is forgiveness for these things, there is no longer a sin offering needed!!”
By which it is said that the new covenant here is a covenant without the Old Testament sacrificial service and that it is a covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah of the new covenant. That is Israel in which both the converted Jew and the converted Gentile have found their home.

Original quote: Since we have determined that there is only 1 God, and that one God is 1, there is now 1 God too much.

My response: Have we established that there is only one God?

The criticism of my response: Not then? How about these verses? And look what James says in James 2:19: “You believe that God is 1? You do well to that.”

My additional explanation: The writer gave a complete list of texts that should prove his right. I only want to take a closer look at the last one here. And then I find in James 2:19: “You believe that God is one? You do well to that, [but] the evil spirits also believe that and they tremble”. First, James doesn't write here, “You believe there is only one God?” In that case, his question would have been formulated differently, but that is not the case, I cannot conclude this from the original Greek text either.

It also shows some falsification if the last part of this text is omitted by the writer of this criticism, because those last words show exactly what James is talking about. Would those evil spirits really be so scared because there is only one God? You would rather expect them to be much more afraid of two or more gods, but James is not talking about that either. What those evil spirits really tremble at is the fact that the God of truth has no ambiguous or contradictory principles. Yes is yes and no is no and nothing changes because, (in other words): “The truth has only one face, but the lie is hidden behind many masks.” James had of that immutability of God's decisions in the previous chapter, in verse 1:17, already mentioned: “Every gift that is good, and every gift that is perfect, descends from above, from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.” That means that God does not change His plans and purposes. Knowing this, the evil spirits realize only too well that their demise since Calvary is final, there is no turning back and there is no escaping it. We find that again in Revelation 20:11: “And I saw a great white throne and Him who sat on it, before whom the earth and heaven fled, and no hiding place was found for them.” So James was well aware of that unity of God and its consequences for all of God's adversaries.

I also refer to the page: “Who is Yahweh” in which I have extensively discussed some related topics.

Original quote: But his bishop, Alexander, disputed that because the New Testament clearly turns Jesus into a god. This dispute was settled in Synod 325 in Nicaea. First, Jesus and “God the Father” became a duality, and later the Holy Spirit was added to form a trinity.

My response: What has been accepted by Christendom for centuries cannot be deduced from the Bible, so that the Holy Spirit is a third person next to God the Father and God the Son. The bible teaches us that the Holy Spirit is a manifestation of God the Father and His Son. No third person.

The criticism of my response: The writer thus distances himself with 99% of Christianity, because that simply believes in a trinity.

My additional explanation: That's a correct conclusion.

Original quote: We see here, in the first verse of this messianic prophecy, that when the Messiah comes from Bethlehem, he will be a ruler over Israel. That means he will be a king, or perhaps a president, but at least a weighty person who has a lot to crumble in the milk, not an itinerant preacher and wonder doctor. We also see that after the coming of the Messiah, the Jewish wars will be fought and will be won. We see here a Messiah who will bring us physical deliverance from earthly enemies.

My response: Paul writes in Ephesians 6:12 : “For we have no wrestling against blood and flesh, but against the authorities, against the powers, against the world controllers of this darkness, against the evil spirits in the heavenly places.” Jesus did not come to this world to free a stubborn Mediterranean people from their enemies.

The criticism of my response: Then he was not the messiah, because as we see in the above prophecy, the true messiah is going to bring the Jewish people physical deliverance from earthly enemies.

My response: It was promised to Abraham that he would become a father of many peoples and not only of that one people on the Mediterranean.

The criticism of my response: The writer does not seem to know that Abraham had many more sons than just Isaac, eg Ishmael, who were also progenitor of peoples, eg the Arabs, so Abraham is already the progenitor of many peoples, since Christians are therefore not needed.

My additional explanation: I have already paid attention to that “physical redemption of earthly enemies” above.

I am well aware of those other sons of Abraham. For example, I read in Genesis 25:6: “But to the sons of the concubines that Abraham had, Abraham gave gifts, and sent them away from his son Isaac eastward to the Eastland, even in his lifetime.” And in Genesis 21:12 : “But God said to Abraham, Let this not be evil in your eyes for the boy (Ishmael) and for your slave girl; in everything Sarah says to you, you must listen to her, for through Isaac one will speak of your offspring.”
And then also in Genesis 17:18-22: “And Abraham said to God, Oh, that Ishmael may live before you! But God said, No, but Sarah thy wife shall bear thee a son, and thou shalt call him Isaac, and I will establish my covenant with him for an everlasting covenant for his seed. And as for Ishmael, I have heard you; behold, I will bless him, and make him fruitful, and multiply him exceedingly; He will raise up twelve princes, and I will make him a great nation. But I will make my covenant with Isaac, whom Sarah will bear to you at the same time the following year.”
There is a clear division here between Isaac the son of the promise and the other sons of Abraham. Paul also wrote about this in Galatians 4: 22-26: “It is written, after all, that Abraham had two sons, one with the slave and one with the free. But that of the slave girl was begotten of the flesh, but that of the free through promise. This is something in which there is a deeper sense. For these are two dispensations: one of Mount Sinai, who bore slaves, this is Hagar. The word Hagar means Mount Sinai in Arabia. It is on par with modern-day Jerusalem, for that is enslaved with his children. But heavenly Jerusalem is free; and that is our mother”.

Clearly, God had no further message to those other sons of Abraham in the sense that He had no plan for them. This was only the case with Isaac because he was the son who was promised by God to Abraham and to (the barren) Sarah. All that counts in this regard is the plan of God that went through Abraham and his posterity, and that posterity, as we read in Genesis 21:12, would be the posterity of the God-promised son Isaac. The Messiah would come through that line, and then the final result would be the new heavenly Jerusalem. And Abraham was already looking for that new Jerusalem, as we find in Hebrews 11:8-10: “By faith Abraham, when he was called, went obediently to a place which he would receive for an inheritance, and he departed without knowing where he was going. By faith he dwelt in the land of the promise, as in a foreign land, where he dwelt in tents with Isaac and Jacob, who were joint heirs with the same promise; for he expected the city with foundations, of which God is the designer and master builder.” We see here again confirmed that of all Abraham's sons, his son Isaac was the only heir. Then there is talk of the city with foundations, of which God is the designer and master builder. It is a known fact that ancient Jerusalem was then conquered by king David from the Jebusites (2 Samuel 5:6) and that this pagan city was by no means designed and built by God. So another, heavenly Jerusalem was expected by Abraham. We already read about ancient Jerusalem in Galatians 4:25: “The word Hagar means Mount Sinai in Arabia. It is on par with present-day (old) Jerusalem, for that is enslaved with it's children.” And that is the slavery of sin from which the Old Testament sacrifice will never give redemption, as I have already made clear above.

The other sons of Abraham and the nations that have emerged from them have no value at all for the realization of God's plan of redemption, and their presence is therefore not taken into account in that plan of redemption. So when God promised Abraham that he would become a father of many nations, He was referring to the descendants of Abraham through his son Isaac. The progeny from which would come the Messiah who would reestablish the Kingdom of God on earth and who will make the new, heavenly Jerusalem, which Abraham was already looking forward to, a reality. The inhabitants of that new Jerusalem will be the converted Jews and the converted Gentiles. And those Gentiles are indeed many nations!

And that is why I want to conclude this speech with the words of Paul in Romans 4:9-13: “Is this beatitude valid, then, either the circumcised or also the uncircumcised? After all, we say: Faith was counted to Abraham as righteousness. How was it then reckoned? Was he circumcised or uncircumcised then? Not circumcised, but uncircumcised. And he received the sign of circumcision as the seal of the righteousness of that faith which he had in his uncircumcised state. So he could be a father of all uncircumcised believers, that righteousness might be imputed to them, and a father of the circumcised, for them, not only of the circumcision, but also following in the footsteps of faith, that our father Abraham possessed in his uncircumcised state. For it was not by law that Abraham or his descendants had the promise that he would be an heir of the world(!), but by the righteousness of faith.”

Original quote: In order to circumvent this problem, Christianity invented the “second coming”. But nowhere in the Hebrew Bible is it written that the Messiah comes, and then is killed, and then comes again in a second coming thousands of years later.

My response: Nowhere? Yet Isaiah 52:13 to 53:12 clearly speaks of His vicarious suffering and death.

The criticism of my response: No. So. Yet Isaiah 52:13 to 53:12 speaks very clearly about the “servant of the Lord”. And NOWHERE in Isaiah, NOWHERE throughout the OT, the messiah is referred to as “the servant of the LORD”. So this too has totally sprung from the writer's imagination. If you want to know what is missing in Isaiah 53, please read the following article, found here: www.geocies.com/bergZion/Jesaja53.htm.

My additional explanation: I have studied the mentioned webpage but, as expected, it did not impress me. If I continue to explain the Orthodox Jews' explanation of this much-discussed chapter of Isaiah, I will encounter a number of conflicts between their explanation and the Biblical message. For if their reasoning that this servant of the Lord should represent the people of Israel be consistently apprehended, they might point me to the grave in which all this people would have lain. I read in Isaiah 53:8-9: “He was taken out of tribulation and judgment, and who among his contemporaries remembered that he was cut off from the land of the living? The plague was upon him for the transgression of my people. And they put his grave with the wicked; with the rich man he was in his death, because he has done no wrong and no deceit was in his mouth.”
Then an entire people would have been killed and then resurrected from that grave as a whole people, because of the fact that the Jews still exist. I don't know everything, but to my knowledge this has never been seen before!

And then again I read in Isaiah 53:9 that this servant has done no wrong and no deceit has been found in his mouth. This is also expressed in the comparison with an innocent lamb being led to the slaughterhouse (verse 7). That the people of Israel have been punished by God for their sins several times is an absolute fact, but to want to believe that this happened while the people of Israel had done no wrong is an absolute falsification! So if it says in verse 5: “But because of our transgressions He was pierced, crushed for our iniquities ...” this certainly does not apply to the rebellious Jewish people because it was punished only for their own sins.

About the prophecies in the Old Testament, in which I also include those from Isaiah 53, the apostle Peter told the New Testament disciples in 1 Peter 1:10-12: “For this salvation the prophets, who prophesied of the grace intended for you, have searched, as they searched for what or what time the Spirit of Christ was referring to them, when He witnessed beforehand all the suffering that would come upon Christ, and all the glory afterward. It was revealed to them that they did not serve themselves, but with those things which have now been proclaimed to you by means of them, which are sent by the Holy Spirit who is sent from heaven, have brought you the gospel, in which things even angels desire to look.”
Believe it or don't believe it.

Original quote: But unfortunately; there was no salvation for Judah, and Jerusalem did not live safely: 40 years after Jesus' death, in the year 70, Jerusalem was completely destroyed by the Romans, the second Temple burned down, and the Jewish people scattered on the face of the earth. And yet Jeremiah says very clearly that at the time when the Messiah comes, in those days Jerusalem will dwell safely and Judah will be redeemed.

My response: In fact, Jesus was the first to know how this Jerusalem and Judah would turn out. In Matthew 24:2 He himself predicted the destruction of the temple, and thereby that of the Jewish people as people of God.

The criticism of my response: Another example of the writer's flawed knowledge of the Bible: “In fact, Jesus was the first to know how Jerusalem and Judah would turn out.”
This was predicted by Daniel about 400 years earlier. See here: www.geocities.com/bergZion/Daniel9NL.htm.

My response: It was no coincidence that at the time of Jesus' death, the curtain of the temple was torn from top to bottom (Matthew 27:51). God Himself ended the sacrificial period when the final sacrifice was made on the cross at Calvary.

The criticism of my response: What do you mean, “God Himself put an end to the sacrificial period when the final sacrifice was made on the cross at Calvary”? The writer does not seem to know that the animal sacrifices simply continued at that time. He does not seem to know that Paul had animal sacrifices made after the death of JC by the priest in the temple. To understand this, FIRST read Numbers chapter 6 in its entirety (a small chapter), and then read Acts 21:17-24. The animal sacrifices continued as usual until the Romans ended them after the Jewish rebellion in 66.

My response: The Jerusalem that Jeremiah prophesies of is the heavenly Jerusalem that Abraham (as the father of many nations) was already looking for. In Hebrews 11:10 it says: “for he expected the city with foundations, of which God is the designer and master builder.”

My additional explanation: A small misunderstanding: nothing was predicted by Daniel at all. The one who makes predictions about things to come in the book of Daniel is the angel Gabriel and not Daniel. Daniel was allowed to write it all down. What the angel Gabriel had to say as a messenger from Yahweh, he therefore did not have of himself, but he had received it from Yahweh. And as the diligent reader may have noted, on the “Who is Yahweh” page, I made it clear that Yahweh = Yeshua HaMoshieyach = Jesus Christ. So when I write that Jesus was the first to know about the outcome, I am not so far wrong....

Obviously, the prophecies that Daniel heard were primarily related to his own people because the fate of his people preoccupied him, as we read in Daniel 9:3: “And I turned my face to the Lord God to pray and beseech, in fasting and in sack and ashes”. In addition, much of what we find in the Old Testament is by no means limited to the fortunes of an earthly and rebellious people of Israel but, as was told to Satan in Genesis 3:15, it points to the eventual destruction of the ruler of this world and his empire. I have already written about the latter above. There are therefore messages hidden in the Old Testament that remain a mystery to those who are hostile to the message of the Kingdom of God. Jesus made no secret of that in Matthew 13:13-15: “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.” So it is obvious that the message of the book of Daniel extends much further, even to the end times. We read this in Daniel 12:8-10 where the angel closes his speech: “Now I heard it, but did not understand it, and said, My lord, where will these things end? But he said, Go, Daniel, for these things remain hidden and sealed until the time of the end. Many will be cleansed and purified, but the wicked will act wickedly; and none of the wicked will understand, but the wise will understand.” Among those wicked ones we can also count those who rejected Jesus as Messiah. Of them, the ex-Pharisee Paul wrote in 2 Corinthians 3:14-16: “But their minds were hardened. For until now the same covering remains over the reading of the old covenant without being taken away, because it only disappears in Christ. Yes, until now, when Moses is read, there is a covering over their hearts, but every time when someone turns to the Lord, the covering is taken away.”

It was to be expected that various (contradictory) theories circulate within Christianity about the meaning of the book of Daniel (and the book of Revelation) because a Babylonian confusion of tongues takes place within that spiritual Babylon. In particular, end-time predictions and “prophecies” are a hot topic in this Babylon, I have come across the strangest stories over the years. The writer's explanation of this criticism of those “seventy weeks” in Daniel 9, as it can be found on the website mentioned above, I have studied and that explanation seems plausible. Unsurprisingly, however, its author is limited to the fate of the people of Israel. But a few chapters later in the book of Daniel, as just quoted, the angel says, “Go, Daniel, for these things remain hidden and sealed until the end of times.” So this messenger from God in his message to Daniel was by no means limited to the fortunes of Daniel's people. That end time is clearly the time in which we now live and defintely not the period of destruction, by the Romans, of the obsolete temple service. As is often the case in the Old Testament, the book of Daniel also looks forward to what Yahweh already announced in the garden of Eden: the destruction of the power of the ruler of this world (Satan). Only when that has been completed can creation be restored to its old, intact state.

It is certainly true that after Jesus' death and resurrection the sacrificial service continued as usual, but the tearing of the veil in the temple made it clear that the stone temple with it's sacrificial service was a thing of the past as far as He was concerned. Because the ultimate sacrifice of obedience of Jesus had been made to the Father. All those Old Testament sacrifices had pointed to that one sacrifice. The road to the Father was open again after Calvary, and the separation between us and the Father was removed by Jesus' sacrifice. And that was made visible by the radically removed separation from the Holy of Holies.

Paul's experiences in Acts 21 I read through again and the first thing I noticed was: “And when he had greeted them, he recounted in detail what God had done among the Gentiles through his ministry. And they praised God when they heard this, and said to him, You see, brother, how many thousands have become believers among the Jews, and all are zealous for the law.” The latter is exactly what Paul turned against again and again, because the message he had (which was the gospel of Jesus) made clear, among other things, to those who had converted to Christ that from dutifully keeping the law no salvation is to be expected. So there is mention here of “believing Jews” who at the same time still adhered to the observance of the Jewish laws and that is only half a “conversion.” These “converted” Jews had learned that Paul had distanced himself in his preaching from the Old Testament practices rejected by God. In order to keep these “converted” Jews satisfied, an attempt was made to keep peace by applying an Old Testament custom. That Paul, under pressure of the situation, went into it does not really testify of heavenly wisdom and it finally turned out to have no effect at all, witness his captivity not long after.
Paul also made the same compromise in Acts 16:3 where he circumcised Timothy: “Paul wanted him to go with him and he took him and circumcised him for the sake of the Jews in those places, because everyone knew that his father was a Greek.” He also tried to prevent arguing with the (hostile) Jews. In vain by the way. Apart from these two mistakes, the Bible gives absolutely no reason to believe that Paul, against his own New Testament belief, honored the Old Testament sacrificial service!!

In the end Paul had to confess to the rebellious Jews that he had wasted his energy on them, as we read in Acts 28:28, “Be it known therefore unto you, that this salvation of God is sent to the Gentiles; they will also hear!” He would have been better off saving himself these compromises.

Original quote: God is not a man to lie (Numbers 23:19); so we must put our trust in God and not in a man: “Thus says YHWH: Cursed is the man who trusts in a man ... Blessed is the man who trusts in YHWH, whose trust is YHWH.” Jeremiah 17:5 + 7.

My response: The man referred to in this statement is Jesus.

The criticism of my response: A wonderful example of textual explanation from the writer. “The man referred to in this statement is Jesus.” Reread the text: “Thus says YHWH: Cursed is the man who trusts in a man....” So it becomes: “Thus says YHWH: Cursed is the man who trusts in Jesus....”

My response: The question arises what kind of messiah the Orthodox Jews actually expect. It has already been established that they believe that God is one person who cannot function simultaneously as Spirit in the supernatural world and as man on this earth. So the messiah they expect cannot come to us as God in human form. In what form should he come? As an angel? This possibility is rejected because the Orthodox Jews also see angels as messengers or ministering spirits. The last possibility that remains is that their messiah will simply be human. But that too is denied here. With which their entire messiah image is being called into question. This is all the more incomprehensible because the expectation above was expressed that the Messiah who the Jews expect will be an important person who “has a lot of authority”.

The criticism of my response: The Jewish Messiah will be 100% human. Just as Moses was fully human when he led the Jewish people out of Egypt, just as Messianic king David was fully human, so also the ultimate Messiah will be fully human, and not God, not the son of God, not divine, but fully man.

My additional explanation: A beautiful example of text distortion of the writer. By “this assertion” I did not mean the quoted text from Jeremiah 17 but the assertion of the writer of this criticism who, unsurprisingly, insists: that man Jesus is not the Messiah. Because that is the person he wants to undermine by quoting this text from Jeremiah 17. And with that he cuts himself in the fingers because, as I had already established, the Jewish expectation of a Messiah who will be fully human is labeled a curse by the prophet Jeremiah. Furthermore, note that no human being would ever be able to free us from the curse of sin. In that case Satan would remain the prince of this earth forever. What demonic message is that?

Original quote: But some of them wouldn't die until they saw him come in his royal dignity! Are they still alive today? Not even Methuselah lived that long!

My response: That has indeed happened. After His resurrection, His disciples saw Jesus in His glorified resurrection body with which He could appear and disappear everywhere and, if necessary, take on a different form. In John 1:14 it is testified: “The Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.”

The criticism of my response: Read this again: in Matthew 16:27-28 Jesus says: “For the son of man will come in the glory of the father with his angels, and then he will reward each one according to his deeds. Truly I say to you, there are some among those who stand here who will certainly not taste death before they have seen the son of man come in his royal dignity.” See also Mark 9:1.

The Christian writer takes the last sentence out of context and says that it is about the transfiguration on the mountain. But it is quite clear that JC will come WITH HIS ANGELS, and then everyone will be rewarded for his actions.

So JC not only failed to fulfill the Messianic prophecies, but he did not even fulfill his own prophecies.

My additional explanation: The Christian writer is not talking about the transfiguration on the mountain at all. For I wrote: after His resurrection, while the transfiguration on the mountain took place before Jesus' death and resurrection.

Concerning the coming in His Royal dignity: in Revelation 1:10-15 the apostle John tells us what he experienced: “I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s day, and heard behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet, Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and, What thou seest, write in a book, and send [it] unto the seven churches which are in Asia; unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna, and unto Pergamos, and unto Thyatira, and unto Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea. And I turned to see the voice that spake with me. And being turned, I saw seven golden candlesticks; And in the midst of the seven candlesticks [one] like unto the Son of man, clothed with a garment down to the foot, and girt about the paps with a golden girdle. His head and [his] hairs [were] white like wool, as white as snow; and his eyes [were] as a flame of fire; And his feet like unto fine brass, as if they burned in a furnace; and his voice as the sound of many waters.” There you have it!

Original quote: Most people think that Jesus was the creator of highly moralistic teachings such as “You will love your neighbor as yourself” and “If someone slaps you on one cheek, turn the other to him.”

My response: Whether most people think this statement is true is just a wild guess. Anyone who reads his Bible well knows that Jesus himself said about this: “Do not think that I came to destroy the law or the prophets; I came not to dissolve but to fulfill.” (Matthew 5:17) With which He indicated that He did not come to bring a new law but to practice the already existing laws. On the other hand: the Jewish people never succeeded, which by the way cannot be expected from a sinful people.

The criticism of my response: The writer constantly claims that the law has been abolished by JC, and now he brings Matthew 5? Here is the whole quote, verses 17 to 19: “Do not think that I came to destroy the law or the prophets; I came not to dissolve, but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, that before heaven and earth pass, there shall not pass an iota or a tittle of the law, before all be done. Whoever then breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches men thus, will be called very little in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.”

How can any Christian maintain after reading these verses that JC has abolished the law?

My additional explanation: I have never claimed that the laws of God have been abolished by Jesus. The whole discussion is not about that at all. It is about the great contrast between the top-down law of the Old Testament and the law of the New Testament that determines from the inside, that is to say from our heart, our daily walk. The latter law is made clear to us through the gospel of Jesus. The principles of God have never changed and never will. However, the way these principles affect man's life has changed dramatically since Jesus Christ re-established the Kingdom of God on earth. I try to make that clear all the time. The holy God requires that His principles and standards be respected. However, the latter was certainly never the case during most of the history of the people of Israel.

Above I have already shown how the apostle Paul put these things into words. For a good understanding I will just repeat it again. Here it comes: “So now there is no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. For the law of the Spirit of life has made you free in Christ Jesus, from the law of sin and death. For what the law (of Sinai) could not, because it was weak through the flesh; God, by sending his own Son in a flesh, like that of sin, and that for sin, condemned sin in the flesh, that the requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us who walk not after the flesh, but according to the Spirit” (Romans 8:1-4). It is therefore the requirement of the law and that demand is a just life. A sinful person can therefore make an effort to live neatly according to the (possibly memorized) law, but he will never become more than a “neat” sinner. Because that law is in the head and not in the heart.

In the end Jesus showed us how things can be done differently. And that is what Paul summed up in Romans 13:8-10: “Owe no one anything but to love one another; for whoever loves the other has fulfilled the law. For the commandments, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not covet, and whatsoever other commandment be summarized in this word: Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. Love does no harm to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.”

The laws and principles of God have not been abolished, but thanks to Jesus Christ what God wanted to achieve from the beginning has finally been achieved. Clearly??

Original quote: So these doctrines are not from Jesus but from Judaism.

My response: That's partially correct. With this note that these doctrines do not come from Judaism but from God Himself and thus also from Jesus Himself (before He became man).

Original quote: It is a Jewish commandment to love your neighbor, but it is by no means a Jewish commandment to hate your enemies. On the contrary, Judaism says: “If your enemy is hungry, give him bread to eat, if he is thirsty, give him water to drink; for then you hope fiery coals on his head, and YHWH will reward you.” Proverbs 25:21-22.

My response: Did Jesus teach anything else? In Matthew 5:43 He says, “You have heard it said, You shall love your neighbor, and hate your enemy. But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your Father who is in heaven.”

The criticism of my response: Jesus said (Matthew 10:34): “Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth; I came not to bring peace, but the sword.” But this is not the messiah the Jews are waiting for. In the Messianic days the wolf and the lamb must feed together, and the lion will eat straw like the ox, and the serpent will have dust for food (Isaiah 65:25). We already have an abundance of swords, wars and misery on Earth. We don't need a messiah who brings more misery.

In Luke 19:27 Jesus says: “But those enemies of mine, who would not have me become king over them, bring them here and slay them before my eyes.” This is truly a very strange way to love your enemies. This statement motivated the Crusaders to massacre many Jewish communities.

Another bad example of how to love your enemies is John 15:6: “Whoever does not abide in me is cast out as the branch and is withered, and they are gathered and thrown into the fire, and they are burned.” This terrible statement was later used by the Catholic Church to justify their practices of burning Jews at the stake.

My additional explanation: Sometimes I am just blinking if I can hardly believe what I read. And I seem to read here, it is unbelievable that the Jews are not waiting for a messiah who brings the sword. That in itself is a noble endeavor, but.... then they should not write at the same time: “We also see that after the coming of the Messiah, the Jewish wars will be fought and will be won. We see here a Messiah who will bring us physical deliverance from earthly enemies.” This can be read above in the commentary of the Jewish writer. I can well imagine that in that case the (unnecessary) blood will flow again....

What Jesus referred to in Luke 19:27 is exactly what Orthodox Judaism is mocking. For Jesus is talking there about His return and about the subsequent final reckoning with those who hate Jesus. In John I read that Jesus has the power to judge. John 5:22-23: “For the Father also judges no one, but hath given all judgment to the Son, that all may honor the Son as they honor the Father. Whoever does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him.” In case I have not mentioned it above, the Crusaders' practices, and the various gangs of robbers related to it, were nothing but a demonstration of Roman terror.

And with the kind of people who do not honor the Son, He can do nothing in eternity because they are on an equal footing with their father, the devil. Jesus also leaves no room for doubt in John 8:44: “You have the devil as a father and want to do the desires of your father. He was a murderer from the beginning and is not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaks the lie, he speaks according to his nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies.” The same meaning as Luke 19:27 also has Jesus' statement in John 15:6: For whoever does not accept Jesus as Messiah becomes a prey of the demons who will sweep the earth like a world fire and destroy all “spiritual life” that is not connected with Jesus (the vine).

That these statements have been abused by the executioners of spiritual Babylon for their dark practices is and remains criminal. I have already paid sufficient attention to this above.

Original quote: Therefore, we don't need Jesus or Christianity to live by high moral standards.

My response: More than 3000 years of Judaism have shown us something other than those high moral standards that would be involved here. Where does one get the courage to speak of “high moral standards” with such a history?

The criticism of my response: The NT has given us nothing for 1600 years other than the image-worshiping Roman Catholic church, which, as I mentioned earlier, massacred an estimated 40,000,000 dissenters, mostly Jews and Christian reformers. And then there was the Inquisition who preferred torturing their victims on the rack to death. The Crusaders stopped by, who before they left for the holy land, slaughtered just as many flourishing Jewish communities in Europe, men women and children, but the absolute highlight was the murder of one third of the Jewish people during the Holocaust. Christian Europe brutally massacred 6,000,000 innocent civilians, including 1,500,000 children. These are the blessings that Christianity has brought to us. And then a European Christian thinks he can speak of “high moral standards.”

My additional explanation: In response to these allegations, I refer to what I have already written about this above.

Original quote: John 15:6: “He who abides not in me is cast out like the branch, and is withered, and gathered and cast into the fire, and they are burned.” This terrible statement was later used by the Catholic Church to justify their practices of burning Jews at the stake.

My response: The quoted text refers to the stifling fire of legions of demons that will come to Earth in the end times. It is indeed criminal that the Catholic Church has used these and similar texts to justify her murder practices. It is no coincidence that an institution such as the Roman Church and all who join her in the book of Revelation is called the great harlot because she has made a covenant with the antichrist.

The criticism of my response: As I said before: All the beastly things of Christianity are pushed aside under the motto: They weren't real Christians. Only the writer, and those who believe in his ideas, are the real Christians. But since no Protestants turned up before the 16th century, I wonder where the real Christians were for 1600 years.

My additional explanation: I cannot imagine that in the foregoing I would have given the impression that I just put aside the already mentioned “beasties of Christianity”. Furthermore, of course, I long for and strive to meet the conditions Jesus taught His disciples to be a true disciple of Jesus. So to judge myself as someone who belongs to the real Christians, I leave that to God. For, “...not one who recommends himself, but one who receives a recommendation from the Lord has passed the test” (2 Corinthians 10:18). I am surprised, then, that the author of this criticism gives the impression somewhat that he thinks that with the arrival of the Protestants, after 1600 years, the real Christians finally emerged. While he does not care about the phenomenon “Christian” anyway. And then in his view there can be no real Christians at all! That makes his reasoning quite unbelievable.

But to solve the riddle, over the past centuries, which we have tended to label as “church history,” there have been children of God again and again who had nothing to do with the Roman dictatorship, thereby causing various small reformations. And just as was the case during the most famous reformation in the sixteenth century, there have always been people who have also separated themselves from the Roman yoke in the preceding centuries. But by European culture, science and historiography, strongly influenced by the Roman beast, these facts have never received the attention that the most famous reformation (that of Martin Luther) has received. Thanks to this far-reaching and most influential reformation, the Roman grip on historiography, among other things, has also been reduced, so that, much more than before, the anti-Roman achievements have ended up in the history books.
These non-Roman Christians have therefore always been present since the first centuries, but their influence on world affairs was limited by Rome, and the executioners of successive popes did not shun the means of persecution to achieve this. In addition, it is also worth mentioning that these children of God in their time responded to the call of Jesus in Revelation 18:4: “And I heard another voice from heaven say, Come out of her, my people, that you may have no fellowship with her sins, and receive not from her plagues.”

Original quote: The Christmas tree is a remnant of another pagan custom of worshiping trees. The Easter eggs and the Easter bunny are pagan fertility symbols. From here we see that the Christian churches are immersed in pagan customs and idolatry, they follow customs and celebrate feasts that have nothing to do with both the Old and New Testaments.

My response: I completely agree. To which I would like to add that the people of Israel were also guilty of this form of worship and thereby also engaged in pagan customs (see above). In Jeremiah 10:3-4 we read among other things: “For the procedure of the peoples is insignificance: for as a piece of wood it has been chopped out of the forest, labor of workers' hands with the ax; it is decorated with silver and gold, it is fastened with nails and hammers, so that it does not wobble.” Here the people are warned against this pagan custom that served to celebrate the return of the sun after the shortest day. The sun was worshiped as an idol. So the whole Christmas has nothing to do with the birth of Jesus but is taken from the pagan religions. A sad thing.

The criticism of my response: The difference is, as noted above, that a Jew who was guilty of tree worship or some other form of idolatry stepped out of the Jewish religion. But the Christmas tree worship has been ingrained in the Christian church for thousands of years, and it doesn't look like it's going to disappear.

My additional explanation: On the page “The rejected Messiah” I had already commented at the time on the phenomenon “Christian holidays”. For the sake of completeness, I repeat that comment: “And so it can happen that Christianity still celebrates 'Christian' festivals to this day that have nothing to do with the gospel of Jesus. A pagan legacy and once again an indication that wherever these Christianized festivals are still celebrated, one is right in the middle of the great city of “spiritual” Babylon! And that is a very dangerous situation.”

Original quote: The Roman Catholic Church was not very tolerant of dissenters. The Jewish people have suffered immensely under the church. They were discriminated against, trapped in ghettos, deported, tortured, and murdered. Under these circumstances, proclaiming to the world that the Church is wrong is tantamount to suicide. But now the time has come to speak out for the truth.

My response: That time is indeed ripe. What the Roman church has done has been criminal and has nothing to do with the gospel of Jesus.

The criticism of my response: In that case, the gospel of JC has been missing for 1,600 years. But it fits JC's words exactly when he said, “But those enemies of mine, who would not have me become king over them, bring them here and slaughter them before my eyes.” Luke 19:27. So to say: “That has nothing to do with the gospel of Jesus....”

My additional explanation: I have already explained the above concerning Jesus' statement in Luke 19:27.

Original quote: But now God is bringing the Jewish people home, and the Jewish people can now reach all the nations of the world again to learn God's laws.

My response: We are no longer waiting for those laws, as shown in the above.

The criticism of my response: Recovery: YOU are not waiting for those commandments. YOU are already panicking at the thought that God is imposing restrictions on you.

My response: “...Then his praise does not come from people, but from God.” With which he confirmed what Jesus said in John 4:23: “But the hour is coming and is now that the true worshipers will worship the Father in Spirit and in truth; for the Father seeks such worshipers.” Why then should we return to the laws of Mount Sinai (which only bears slaves) and which were given to a people who were forced to be kept on the right path?

The criticism of my response: A non-Jew does not have to return to the laws of Mount Sinai, because they are given and intended for the Jewish people. And they were not given to restrain the people, but to lift the people to a higher level, because the Jewish people are destined to become a people of priests, a holy nation. See Exodus 19:6. Every command we fulfill brings us closer to God, in contrast to Christian lawlessness.

My response: In Galatians 3:24 Paul writes: “So the law hath been a disciplinarian for us until Christ, that we might be justified by faith.” The law is called a disciplinarian here. And a disciplinarian aims to bring and keep the discipled on the right track. Paul makes it clear here that the law was a disciplinarian until Christ came, which means that the period of the law as a disciplinarian has come to an end.
It should also finally become clear to Christians that God does not value a privilege obtained by birth. That is not a choice of man himself. Assigning a special role to a people who reject His Son is therefore nonsensical. The words Paul quotes in Romans 9:27 say: “Even if the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, the surplus shall be saved.” So not a whole nation that relies on the fact that they are descendents of Abraham. The true worshipers themselves have chosen God. Regardless of their origin. They are the true posterity of Abraham as Abraham himself understood when he was told that he would become a father of many nations (Genesis 17:4).

The criticism of my response: As I explained earlier, Abraham does not need Christianity to be a father of many nations. It's the old song: Everyone wants to be a Jew, Christians claim to be the “real Jews”, but they don't want to do anything about it. The only way to become a Jew is to take on the WHOLE covenant of Sinai, not by saying, We are the real Jews, but we have no use for Jewish law.

My additional explanation: After all the effort I have put into explaining the true nature and intentions of God's laws, I accept the criticism that “I am already panicking at the thought of God's limitations on me” but for notice. The reader can make his own judgment about this.

Then I would just like to mention that from my response, which has been taken over by the author of this criticism, has been omitted part of the words of Paul. And so as not to fail Paul, I repeat his words from Romans 2:28 and 29 again: “For he is not a Jew who is external, and that is not circumcision, which is external to the flesh, but he is a Jew who is in secret, and the true circumcision is that of the heart, according to the Spirit, not according to the letter. Then his praise does not come from people, but from God.”
This was the belief of an ex-Pharisee who, by the standards of this world, had reason enough to boast of his ancestry. However, he had distanced himself from this and he expressed this in Philippians 3:4-9: “Although I would have reason to rely on flesh too. If anyone else thinks they can rely on flesh, I even more so: circumcised the eighth day, out of the people of Israel, out of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew out of the Hebrews, according to the law a Pharisee, according to my zeal a persecutor of the congregation, blameless in the righteousness of the law. But what things were gain to me, those I counted loss for Christ. Verily, I even consider everything harm, because the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord is beyond all that. For his sake I have given up all this and hold it for garbage, that I may win Christ, and may prove not in Him to have a righteousness of his own, of the law, but of righteousness by faith in Christ, which is of God on the ground of faith.” I couldn't have written it better myself!

In saying that the laws of Sinai are only given to and intended for the Jewish people, we are in fact told that all other peoples need not or only partially know God's principles. In other words, those other nations are and remain only second-rate children of God. Then I prefer to focus on what Jesus said to His disciples in Matthew 28:19: “Go then, teach all the nations in My Name, and teach them to observe all that I have commanded you” (according to the original Greek text). And in John 4:21 He said to the Samaritan woman: “Believe me, woman, the hour is coming when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father.” Am I glad I don't have to travel to Jerusalem all the time !!
The fact is that the Jewish people themselves did not show much other than that they consisted mainly of second-rate children of God, so I gather from what Yahweh told them in Exodus 33:5: “You are a stiffnecked people. If I would go up for a moment in your midst, I would destroy you.”

I have already written a lot about the promise to Abraham that he would become a father of many nations.

Original quote: Of all what is heard, the final word is: Fear God and keep His commandments, because this applies to all people. For God will bring every deed into judgment on all hidden things, whether good or evil.” Ecclesiastes 12:13-14.

My response: I completely agree.

The criticism of my response: No, you don't agree with that, because you refuse to keep God's commandments. You go to great lengths to try to show that God's law, and thus His commandments, have been abolished.

My additional explanation: If the reader has read the above correctly, the reader may form his own opinion on this false accusation.

My final response to this: It is my hope and expectation that, after reading my additional explanations, this conclusion can be dismissed with the necessary suspicion. What else should I add to this? I think I conclude with what the eyewitness Peter wrote to those who had not seen Jesus himself:

“Whom having not seen, ye love; in whom, though now ye see [him] not, yet believing, ye rejoice with joy unspeakable and full of glory: Receiving the end of your faith, [even] the salvation of [your] souls. Of which salvation the prophets have inquired and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace [that] [should] [come] unto you: Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow. Unto whom it was revealed, that not unto themselves, but unto us they did minister the things, which are now reported unto you by them that have preached the gospel unto you with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven; which things the angels desire to look into.” (1 Peter 1:8-12).