​
"God loves you," is a statement that's often-used in modern American evangelism when we speak to the yet-unconverted. Yet In every instance in the New Testament regarding Gospel preaching, there's no record of any of the apostles or evangelists ever using such a statement when speaking to the yet-unconverted. You have to wonder why. They spoke of the broken moral law, they spoke of impending judgment, they spoke of the sin of man, but the statement "God loves you"? There's no record of their using that.
 
Here's how the apostles shared the Gospel with people: 
 
Acts 2: 22-24 and 29-38

Peter confronts the men of Judaea with their sin against Christ, declares that God raised him from the dead, tells them that He fulfilled prophesy and that God made Him the Messiah. They respond by being "pricked in their heart" and asking "What shall we do?" Peter tells them to repent and be baptized in His name. No mention made that "God loves you." 

Acts 3: 12-26

Peter speaks to the elders of Israel, mentions their sins against Christ, states that God raised Him from the dead, refers to Scriptural prophesy about Him, and enjoins them to repent so that God will forgive their sins. Peter states that God sent Jesus to bless them. No mention made that "God loves you." 

Acts 10: 34-43

Peter declares that he witnessed the resurrection of Jesus, that Christ is the coming Judge of the living and the dead, that He was prophesied to come by the prophets, and that whoever believes in him shall receive forgiveness of their sins. No mention made that "God loves you." 

Acts 16:30-31

God puts the "fear of God" into a Roman jailer through a frightening act of providence. He asks Paul and Silas "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?" Their answer is well-known, and  "God loves you" is not mentioned at all in the text. 

Acts 17:22-31

Paul witnesses to the pagan Greeks on Mars Hill. The whole evangelistic thrust of Paul's message is that God commands repentance, that He does not excuse an ignorance of Him any longer, that He  has appointed a day when Christ will judge the world, and that this same Christ rose from the dead. No mention  is made that "God loves you." 

Acts 24:25

The Roman governor Felix hears the gospel from Paul. Notice the way Paul reasoned with him: " ... and he reasoned of righteousness, temperance [self-control], and judgment to come, [and] Felix trembled ..." No mention  is made that "God loves you." 
 
One problem with the way evangelism is done in the United States is that it's so very influenced by the way we're used to having products sold to us. People hear the Gospel the way they hear advertising pitched to them. 
 
Now in all fairness, God "loves" people whether they come to Him through Christ or not, IF we understand that love as His general kindness and mercy for his Creation, even in their rebellion. For example, consider Matthew 5:44,48: 

In this passage we are told that we as Christians are to love our enemies. And then we're told why: " ... THAT you may be sons of your Father which is in heaven; for He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and the unjust." Here, the word "THAT" means "SO that"/"in ORDER that" you may be like God. In other words, because GOD loves His enemies, so must you. And the proof of that love? He provides for them by gracious acts of providence: sunshine and rain, which, according to this text, is a testimony of His love. The same truth is also expressed in Acts 14:17. Also, when God's ministers present the Gospel to people, that offer of mercy is an act of love, whether they receive it or not. 
 
But as we share the Gospel with others, we really must qualify what kind of "love" this is, lest the practicing sinner get the idea that he's not in serious trouble with a God who is equally one of vengeance as He is of love. 
 
The Bible speaks of God's love in more than one way. God's redemptive and saving love that He has for his covenant children is not the kind of love that we're to assure the unconverted sinner with. If we leave the unconverted with a false assurance and a false notion of his present spiritual condition; that of a natural enemy of God, we do him wrong, and misrepresent the Gospel. The way we share the Gospel to the unconverted must reflect this reality. 
 
Scripture calls the unconverted sinner God's "enemy" [Romans 5:10, Ephesians 2:3]. 

John 3:36 says: "He who believes in the Son has everlasting life; and he who does not believe the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him." 
 
Romans 5:9 says: "Much more then, having now been justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through Him." 
 
Ephesians 2:3 calls the unconverted "children of wrath". The question has to be asked: "who's wrath"? It's God's wrath. God is angry at people who continue to live in  sin. His love has to be explained to them in terms of offering them terms of peace, but that He is angry with them otherwise. No amount of modern, "altar call", "feel good" evangelism can erase the reality of this. If we leave the unconverted with "God loves you" without the warning of the Judgment to come, we do him wrong.
 
I have a Gospel tract from a reputable missionary organization that assures the yet-unconverted sinner that God loves him, by quoting Jeremiah 31:3  out of context, which says "I have loved thee with an everlasting love.". The tract's intent seems to be that of assuring the yet- unconverted sinner (who may very well reject Christ)  that God has loved him from all eternity, in just the same way as He did with Jeremiah. It's simply not true for anyone and everyone. God loved Jeremiah with a special electing love, and He doesn't have that love for every person who comes into the world. 
 
This is an example of what's wrong with modern American evangelism: an over-emphasis on the love of God at the expense of His wrath towards uncoverted sinners. In essence: telling people the "Good News", when they're either ignorant or unconcerned about the bad news. The "Good News" is only good, if we pre-suppose that they're aware of the Bad News.

Continue reading other blogs? Click http://www.scripturesdramatized.com/radio-blogs

​ 
The Landing of the Pilgrim Fathers In New England
by Felicia Dorothea Dorothea Hemans (1793-1835)

THE breaking waves dash'd high
 On a stern and rock-bound coast,
And the woods against a stormy sky
 Their giant branches toss'd;

And the heavy night hung dark,
 The hills and waters o'er,
When a band of exiles moor'd their bark
 On the wild New-England shore.

Not as the conqueror comes,
 They, the true-hearted came;
Not with the roll of the stirring drums,
 And the trumpet that sings of fame:

Not as the flying come,
 In silence and in fear;–
They shook the depths of the desert gloom
 With their hymns of lofty cheer.

Amidst the storm they sang,
 And the stars heard and the sea!
And the sounding aisles of the dim woods rang
 To the anthem of the free.

The ocean-eagle soar'd
 From his nest by the white wave's foam;
And the rocking pines of the forest roar'd–
 This was their welcome home!

There were men with hoary hair,
 Amidst that pilgrim band;–
Why had they come to wither there,
 Away from their childhood's land?

There was woman's fearless eye,
 Lit by her deep love's truth;
There was manhood's brow serenely high,
 And the fiery heart of youth.

What sought they thus afar?
 Bright jewels of the mine?
The wealth of seas, the spoils of war?–
 They sought a faith's pure shrine!

Ay, call it holy ground,
 The soil where first they trod!
They have left unstain'd what there they found–
 Freedom to worship God.

​[featured: Sebastiano del Plombo's portrait of Chrisopher Columbus]

[Addendum to original blog below: In the same month and year that Columbus sailed to the new world, King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella of Spain, at the insistence of  the churchman Torquemada head of the Spanish Inquisition, insisted that all Jews be expelled from Spain. And he purposely chose Tisha B'Av, the date of the two previous destructions of the Jerusalem Temple, as the date for this. Torquemada was enraged that many Jews were pretending to convert to Roman Catholicism in order to gain social advancement, yet secretly continuing as practicing Jews. Torquemada maintained that once Jews were baptized as Catholic, regardless of their motives, they then became property of the Church and could therefore be punished for heresy. There is credible speculation that Columbus was one of these "conversos", which the clergy also called "maranos" ("swine"). More about this in a future blog, perhaps.] 
  
Columbus landed in the New World on October 12th, 1492. (1)  Every grade school student knows that he sailed west because he wanted to find an easier trade route to the Indies. After all, weren't we all taught that? (2) Yet, according to the obscure and recently translated Voyages of Christopher Columbus, written by Bartolome de Las Casas, Columbus sailed west in 1492 primarily out of missionary zeal, and not because of economic considerations. De Las Casas, who accompanied Admiral Columbus to the New World, quotes a driven and deeply religious man who felt isolated from the society of his time.(3) 

"It was the Lord who put into my mind ... the fact that it would be possible to sail from here to the Indies. For the execution of the journey ... I did not make use of intelligence, mathematics or maps. It is simply the fulfillment of what Isaiah prophesied. All who heard of my project rejected it with laughter, ridiculing me ..." 
 
Indeed, for eight years prior to his voyage, the mapmaker Columbus was a laughingstock and a byword among the crowned heads of Europe.The man's scheme was itself more than enough for any monarch to bear, and Columbus' personality didn't make his ideas any more palatable. He was often overbearing, insistent and altogether too proud, even in the presence of kings. 
 
With his idea ever in his mouth, and with a detailed balance sheet of the costs and requirements of such a voyage , Columbus in 1484 approached King John II of Portugal, seeking sponsorship for the voyage. A commission of the King's scholars studied his idea at length and made their recommendation: The scheme was outrageous and impossible. Columbus then sent his brother to the court of England to make the same request; and Henry VII replied in turn, and after a much briefer deliberation, that Columbus was insane.
 
Even Ferdinand and Isabella of Spain turned him down, though they admired the mapmaker's religious fervor. After four and a half years of deliberation, Columbus was told that his scheme "rested on weak foundations," that its success was "uncertain and impossible to any educated person." Columbus was nearly devastated. He was especially counting on Their Spanish Majesties, because all Europe regarded them as staunch defenders of the Christian faith. 
 
In the spring of the fateful year 1492, as Columbus was preparing to present himself to the King of France in yet another attempt at sponsorship, he happened to stop by La Rabida, a Franciscan monastery where his son was staying. Here he spoke to Father Juan Perez, the prior of the monastery. Fr. Perez was a man of insight and compassion. He was also the former confessor to Queen Isabella and the man who changed Columbus' life. Though we have no record of the conversation that passed between these two, we do know the outcome. Fr. Perez became convinced that Columbus had divine guidance. He immediately sent a messenger to the Queen herself, urging her to reconsider the mapmaker's proposal. Just as immediately came the reply: Columbus was to return to the Spanish court to have an audience with Ferdinand and Isabella. With the letter of reply came a gift of money. 
 
Never could Fr. Perez's messenger have arrived at a more fortuitous time. The Moslem army occupying Grenada was about to surrender. The forces of Islam were being swept from Catholic Spain once and for all, and the court of Their Spanish Majesties was ready to grant almost any favor that a religious visionary could have asked. But in the presence of the King and Queen, and flushed with his own victory, Columbus forgot himself. Proudly, foolishly, the mapmaker stipulated the following demands: a tenth of the riches found in any new lands he might discover, the positions of governor and viceroy of those lands, and the unheard-of title: "Admiral of the Ocean Sea". At this, Isabella became very grave. Who was this man who dared dictate terms to her? But hastily, Luis de Santangel, a member of the Spanish court and also a friend of Columbus, intervened. Skilled diplomat that he was, de Santangel managed to apologize for his friend and reassure Isabella. Columbus,who had been dismissed from the court for his impudence, was called back and granted all that he had asked, along with the Queen's own offer of her personal jewelry as collateral for the expense of the voyage! 
 
Outfitted with three small ships and a crew of 90, Columbus set sail on the morning of August 3rd, 1492 with fair weather and promising winds. Sailing at first south by southwest to catch the northeasterly tailwinds blowing from the tropics, the journey could not have gone more smoothly -- if the sea and the weather were the only considerations. A following sea, and day upon day of clear skies graced the way of the three small sailing ships. 
 
But with increasing distance came the crews increasing discontent with the length of the voyage. None of the men, nor any mariner in Europe had been more than 300 miles from land. (4) Rumors of sea monsters and bottomless chasms in the midst of the ocean fueled the fear that gripped the tiny vessels. Despite the Admiral's encouragements and promises of reward, the crew began to murmur against him. Finally, Martin and Vincent Pinzon, captains of the Nina and the Pinta, demanded an emergency meeting with the Admiral on the Santa Maria. The crew, Columbus was informed, wanted no more promises. If the Admiral did not turn the ships around, there would be mutiny. In a grim session with his captains that was purposely omitted from the ship's log, Columbus agreed to turn back and give up ... in three more days ... unless land was sighted. Now the crew members began to openly challenge the Admiral. In one such confrontation, Columbus, according to de Las Casas: 
 
"... reassured them as best he could, holding out to them bright hopes of the gains they would make, and adding that it was useless to complain, since he was going to the Indies and must pursue his course until, with the help of the Lord, he found them." 
 
In those last days Columbus stood alone against practically the entire crew. 
 
Scrawled in his diary is his own name it etymological divisions: "Christo-ferrens", which literally means "Christ-bearer". Included also is this passage from Isaiah the Prophet:
 
"Listen to me, O coastlands, and hearken, you people from afar. The Lord called me from the womb, from the body of my mother he named my name ... I will give you as a light to the nations, that my salvation may reach to the end of the earth." 
 
Now we have a more complete picture of the man. And, just as we were all taught, land was sighted on the 12th of October, the day before  the day he had agreed with his crew that he'd turn back. So began the endless convoys of galleon and conquistador, of missionary and mercenary, of the good and the evil, and of every facet of the Old World in quest of the New. 
 
 
Continue reading other blogs? Click http://www.scripturesdramatized.com/radio-blogs
 
 
(1) This article was originally written by this writer and published in 1986 by Catholic Twin Circle magazine. 
(2) His featured portrait is by Sebastiano del Plombo (1519) but with the background map added to the original painting later.
(3) The reader is encouraged to view Liz Wheeler's video on Columbus. She debunks "politically correct" revisionist history about his supposed role in the deaths and abuse of the indigenous peoples of the New World. 
https://www.facebook.com/OfficialLizWheeler/videos/575969132860781/UzpfSTU4NjM5Mzc5ODoxMDE 1NjgyMzM5MzU1Mzc5OQ/
(4) This excludes the much earlier Vikings. The news of their journeys was kept obscure for hundreds of years. 
https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/destination-the-new-world/

​ [Featured: members of Iran's Council of Guardians, responsible for enforcing Sharia Law .]

                                             The Apostles of Islam/The Apostles of Christ
 
 
Muslim militants and terrorists threatening violence against the US are not the only threat from Islam. A "slow-burning fuse" is the deceptive way Islam ITSELF has been "sold" to Americans by the intellectuals and elites of Academia.
 
Most US Muslims are peaceful and tolerant of others DESPITE the teachings of Islam, not BECAUSE of them.
 
Typical of this are imams in local mosques and Muslim scholars in America's universities who insist that though the "crazies" overseas are doing evil things, the basic religion itself is peaceful and tolerant. Nonsense. The faith of the Qu'ran has never been so. Though there have been historical lapses of violence in the past, the history of Islam is the history of violent and coercive spreading of this faith. 
 
The next time someone tells you that Christianity and Islam use the same methods and have the same violent history, point them to the lives and deaths of the Christian apostles. All but one: John of Patmos, died the death of a martyr. And most importantly to this comparison, they did not take the lives of others. Compare that with the lives and deaths of the apostles of Islam. Though cruel excesses were certainly done by false followers of Jesus, the apostles gave examples of how to live and teach peaceably in this world.. And "The servant is not greater than the master." (Jn. 15:20) If the masters gave an example, then their followers can be expected to do the same.
 
The same holds true with the apostles of Islam, but in the reverse direction. Now to some specifics .
 
1) Mohammad dies in 632, leaving no plan to succeed him. Among his lieutenants and their followers, three civil wars fought are fought.
 

2) Abu-Bakr, Mohammad's father-in-law was the first caliph. He killed or forcibly eliminated all rivals.
 
3) Omar (also known as Oman) killed Abu-Bakr in 634 (a rival Abu-Bakr forgot to kill).
Omar reigns for 10 years; and kills or forcibly eliminates all of his rivals.
 
4) A rival Omar forgot about cuts his throat in 644. As Omar dies, he appoints Ufman as caliph. Ufman reigns for 21 years. With help from uncles and aunts, Ufman kills or forcibly eliminates all of his rivals.
 
5) Ufman is beheaded by Aisha, wife of Mohammad in 655 with the help of  Aisha's lover Ali, as well as Zuber, a Muslim general. (As a side note, the 53 year-old Mohammad married Aisha when she was 7 years old, then consummated the marriage when she was 9, according to both the Hadith and authoritative Muslim tradition.) The Hadith is the companion commentary to the Qu'ran. The Muslim explanation for this? She was very precocious, so it was lawful.) 
 
6) After General Zuber kills Ufman, he himself is executed 3 days later.
 
7) Aisha then has her lover Ali executed in 661 because he was sleeping with a young concubine.

All this, of course, can be substantiated by either the Qu'ran, the Hadith, or authoritative Muslim tradition, just as the lives and deaths of the Christian apostles can be substantiated by the writings of the post-Apostolic Fathers of the Church.
 
"And the angel of the Lord said to her: 'Behold, you are with child, and you shall bear a son. And you shall call his name Ishmael. He shall be a wild man; His hand shall be against every man; And every man's hand against him." (Genesis 16:12)
 
The next time someone tells you that Christianity and Islam have used the same methods and have the same violent history, you'll know what to say. 
 
 
Continue reading? Click http://www.scripturesdramatized.com/radio-blogs

[Featured: Livius' Bust of King Herod Agrippa]
​
                                                                         Rabbi Rashi's Jewish "Messiah"
 
 Aside from the cultural argument of "I don't believe in Jesus because Jews aren't supposed to believe in Jesus, and I'm a Jew", one of the strongest Jewish arguments against faith in Jesus as Savior and Messiah is what's known as the "Messianic Kingdom" argument. It goes something like this: "If Jesus were really the Messiah, he would have ushered in the Messianic Age, a time of universal peace. But since his time, the world has seen more blood, more violence and more persecution than ever before, and often by the very religion that presumes to speak in his name!" So? How would you answer that objection?

A lot of Jewish tradition is good, but not all. Tevye, in "Fiddler on the Roof", would disagree of course. And the Jews aren't entirely wrong about the Messianic Kingdom either. Since the days of Christ on earth, Judaism's view centers upon the glories of the Kingdom, most especially in its final form: glorious, peaceful, and presiding over the whole earth with the promised son of David on a throne in Jerusalem. For most of Jewish post-biblical history, that was the prevailing view. Since the Age of Enlightenment in the late 17th Century, many Jews have become less "doctrinaire" about this, and about their theology in general: "Perhaps," they have said, " ... all this is only a pipe-dream. Perhaps there is no coming Messiah, or age of the Messiah. And who can say if the Hebrew Scriptures themselves are anything more than just pious legend anyway," is what many Jews believe today. But the main Jewish argument remains, and it's based on the view that if there is a Messianic Age, it's not here yet: and so Jesus failed to start it. Therefore he cannot be the Messiah. Strong argument? Yet here's the response:

Just as Judaism has had an historic "disconnect" with Scriptures' two portrayals of the Messiah (the suffering servant of Isaiah 53 and the conquering king of Psalm 110), so also has it had a "disconnect" with the Messianic Age at its beginning, vs. the Messianic Age at its completion. Jews have seized upon the choicest portrayal of the Messiah and His Kingdom to suit a preconceived theology: of the Messiah as a glorious ruler in an age of sinless perfection and universal peace. But the argument's circular: it pre-supposes its conclusion before it proves it.  Their argument really isn't: "Jesus failed to set up the Messianic Kingdom," but it's: "Jesus failed to set up that Kingdom according to our understanding of it." So what's Judaism's understanding? Unhappily, it's like the Christian  Dispensationalists' understanding, only without the "Jesus" part! In other words, the Kingdom in its glorious final form only, and the Kingdom as in "not here yet."

The Hebrew prophets spoke extensively of the glories of that Kingdom: There will be "peace to her like a river" (Isaiah 66:12); "the wolf also shall dwell with the lamb" (Isaiah 11:6), "they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war anymore." (Isaiah 2:4). But the prophets also spoke of that Kingdom as coming progressively; growing, even in the midst of conflict, and contending with evil before its final glorious conquest. Consider Daniel 2:35 & 2:44, for example. Indeed, the whole of chapter 2, and it's "mirror-image" chapter, chapter 7 (particularly 7:13-18) speaks of that Kingdom in this way. The Messiah comes in His Kingdom during the reign of the fourth world empire from Daniel's time. Daniel's time was Babylon, the one afterwards was Media-Persia's time, the third was Greece (Dan. 8:20,21). The fourth could only be Rome.

Yes, Christians believe it was Rome, but Jews don't care what Christians believe. However they would care what Rashi (1040-1105 AD) believes, (one of the greatest of rabbis), and Rashi believed it was Rome. How he got around the conclusion that the Messiah was anyone but Jesus is an exercise in theological contortionism. Strangely, he believed the Messiah was (of all people!) Herod Agrippa, the last Jewish king before the destruction of the Temple by the Romans. : Rashi comments: " 'And in the days of these kings'; in the days of these kings, when the kingdom of Rome is still in existence, the God of heaven will set up a kingdom, The Kingdom of the Holy One, blessed be He, which will never be destroyed, is the Kingdom of the Messiah." [Talmud tractate "Avoda Zara 2b", as quoted by Dr. Michael J. Brown, Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, Vol. III, Baker Books.] Not Jesus, he says, but Herod Agrippa, the insignificant Roman puppet ruler mentioned in the New Testament! Bizarre, indeed! 

Here's the point: the Hebrew Bible states that the Messiah's Kingdom came in the days of Rome, and that its origin was that of progression and growth, even in the midst of conflict and evil. This is not the commonly accepted Jewish portrayal, but it is the biblical portrayal.
​
Clearly, John the Baptist and Christ spoke repeatedly of God's Kingdom as being "at hand" (Matt. 3:2, Mk. 1:15). "At hand" does not mean "separated by 2000 years of post-biblical history from the time that he announced it.  He spoke of those alive at His first coming, "standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of Man coming in His Kingdom." (Matt. 16:28) He spoke of the Kingdom as a farmer's field of wheat with tares [weeds] in it, when at the time of the harvest [the Final Judgment], those impurities and "bad seeds" get removed. (Matt. 13:24 ff). Clearly, that was the Kingdom all right, but not in its final form.

Share Daniel 2 with your Jewish friend. You can even use a Jewish Publication Society Bible when you do it. See what kind of reaction you get. And share Matt. 16:28 ff with your "Dispy" Christian friends as well.
 
Continue reading other blogs? Click http://www.scripturesdramatized.com/radio-blogs

​
 
The Jewish new year is September 6th this year, and so begins the so-called "High Holidays", a.k.a. the Ten Days of Awe, ending with Yom Kippur on the 16th, when Jews traditionally believe that the heavenly court of God is in session, and that God decides who will live and will will die in the coming year. 
 
1) The traditional synagogue greeting "May you be inscribed in the Book of Life") to Jews means "May you live another year." Yet the Bible treats this with eternal consequence.
 
"L'Shanah Tovah Tikateyvu" is how you say it in Hebrew, and it's popularly said during this time of year. The concepts of a Book of Life and a Day of Judgment, both strong themes in the Judaism of Scripture, are obscure and inconsistently taught in most modern synagogues today. Orthodox and Chasidic Jews, similar to the ancient Pharisees, take these themes more seriously. But they only comprise 12% of the Jewish population. Most modern Jews look upon born-again Christians as being obsessed with eternal life; Jews are more concerned with this life, and believe that the next life (if it exists at all), will take care of itself. 
 
What Moses only briefly alluded to in Exodus 32, the New Testament majors on. Moses prayed that God would not strike the Israelites dead for their rebellion, and prayed " 'Yet now, if you will forgive their sin -- and if not, I pray, blot me out of Your book which you have written.' And the Lord said to Moses, 'Whoever has sinned against Me, I will blot him out of My book.' "
 
St. Paul spoke of such a book to the Greeks at Philippi, and said that their "names were in the Book of Life". 
 
Jesus spoke of such a book: "He who overcomes shall be clothed in white garments, and I will not blot out his name from the Book of Life" (Rev. 4:3)  Also Rev. 13:8, 17:8, 20:12-15. 
 
Clearly then, faith in the Messiah as our Atonement (lit: our "Kippura") is key to "L'Shanah Tovah Tikateyvu"!  
 
2)  Jews have been unable, for 2000 years,  to keep these High Holy Days holidays in the way required by the Torah 

 
Post-Biblical Jewish practices have had to "make due" and adapt to the destruction of their religious system by the Romans 2000 years ago. Scripture required a sacrificial system, an atoning sacrifice, a High Priest, an altar, a Holy of Holies, and the Temple: all of which were necessary at Rosh Hashana (lit: "Head of the Year"; i.e. "New Year") and Yom Kippur (lit: "Day of Atonement"). The Jewish religion underwent a massive change since the destruction of the Temple and its service in AD 70. 
 
Today, Jews attend synagogue services, pray for God's yearly blessing upon their lives, listen to the blowing of the shofar, and fast on Yom Kippur. But they have no atoning sacrifice, as their Scriptures require.
 
3) The Talmud teaches that at Yom Kippur,  40 years before the Temple's destruction, God stopped forgiving Israel of sins.
 
The Jewish Talmud is the authoritative rabbinic commentary on the Hebrew Scriptures (The Hebrew Scriptures don't include the New Testament).  In "Seder Mo'ed Rosh Hashana: 31b", as well as in The Soncino Talmud, tractate ‘Yoma,’ 39b, mention is made of a yearly miracle that occurred on the door of the Temple court over 2000 years ago. It was customary to fasten a thick scarlet thread on that door. After the High Priest performed his Yom Kippur service, the thread would turn white, which the rabbis interpreted as a sign that the High Priest had correctly performed his duties and that the sins of the nation were forgiven for that year. On or about the year AD 30, the scarlet thread never turned white again. This caused the rabbis great concern, but they refused to connect that with the life and death of Jesus. Read Christian Witness to Israel's website inclusion  http://www.cwi.org.uk/library/articles/HAMOYK.htm
 
4) The commonly-used term "scapegoat" is taken from Rosh Hashana and Yom Kippur.

 
People today use the term "scapegoat" often. It's become part of common speech. But just as with the phrase "handwriting on the wall", they rarely connect it with the Bible. A "scapegoat" was used at Yom Kippur in a detailed ceremony where the High Priest laid his hands upon a male goat, transferred the sins of Israel to the animal victim, and had it led out into the wilderness, far away from the community of Israel to fend for itself, presumably to die. This symbolized the separation of Israel from its sin, and the vicarious "blaming" of the innocent goat for the guilt of the people.  Leviticus 16:8-26 details this ceremony. Hebrews 13:10-14 applies it to Jesus.
 
5) The N.T.'s Letter to the Hebrews devotes three entire chapters and 85 verses to "Yom Kippur" themes.
 
Yom Kippur is a major theme of Hebrews. We can't understand a large portion of the Bible without knowing something of this holy day. Hebrews 8 speaks of Jesus being a heavenly High Priest for Christians now; far better than the temporary high priests of the now-defunct Temple, whose priests had to yearly offer animal atonements for the nation's sins. Hebrews 9 and 10 details this intricate Temple service, emphasizing the once-and-final single sacrifice of Christ. Aside from Jews, this has ramifications for Roman Catholics, who are taught that the Mass is a repeatedly  needed re-sacrifice of Christ. Hebrews 9 refutes this. 
 

 6) The three holidays: Feast of Tabernacles, Rosh Hashana & Yom Kippur are all connected to "end of the world" events.
 
 According to Jewish tradition, during the High Holy Days (which include the entire ten days of Rosh Hashana/Yom Kippur, as well as the days in between) the Court of God is in session: when God decides the fate of all Jews. Four series of blasts from the shofar (the ram's horn) are sounded in the synagogues, culminating with the "Tekiah Gedolah" (lit: the "Great Blast") which is the final trumpet sounding, when God renders His judgment. 

The sounding of the final trumpet figures heavily in the New Testament, which uses the language of the High Holy Days to speak of events at the end of the world. Notice: 
 
"For the Lord Himself will descend from Heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trumpet of God. and the dead in Christ will rise first. Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And thus we shall always be with the Lord. Therefore comfort one another with these words." (I Thess. 4:16-18) 
 
"Behold, I tell you a mystery: We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed -- in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised incorruptible. and we shall be changed." (I Cor. 15:51,52) 
 
 
Continue reading other blogs? Click http://www.scripturesdramatized.com/radio-blogs

[Featured: ancient mosaic of what the Apostle Paul probably looked like]

​"For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes, for the Jew first, and also for the Greek." (NKJV transl.)
 
We at CHAIM Ministry are sometimes asked: how relevant this verse is for today? Clearly 2000 years ago St. Paul taught that the gospel of salvation should be offered to Jews first, as a priority. Then at some point in his ministry, he switched his emphasis. When they as a people largely rejected Jesus, he then went to the Gentiles; (i.e., "the nations"). [Acts 18:6]. The NIV translation says "Gentiles" in place of "Greeks" because throughout most of the Roman Empire if you weren't Jewish, you were either Greek or were so influenced by the Greeks in culture and language that you were Greek in everything but ethnicity.
 
So at some point, Paul changed his missionary tactics when his own people proved unresponsive. In a particularly nasty confrontation in Macedonia, "Paul was compelled by the Spirit and testified to the Jews that Jesus is the Christ. But when they opposed him and blasphemed, he shook his garments and said to them, 'Your blood be upon your own heads; I am clean. From now on I will go to the Gentiles.' (Acts 18:6)
 
The amazing thing about evangelism to Jews is that for each clear statement Scripture makes about this, a multitude of additional questions arise. Reminds me of that quote attributed to Albert Einstein: "For every new thing I discover about the universe, it only creates more questions." No doubt, God's word on this is exceedingly rich, and thus there are many implications to everything it says. But Christian ministry to Jews is complex; probably more complex than to other peoples.  But just because it's complex doesn't mean it shouldn't be done. Because even after Paul went to the Gentiles in Macedonia, he still made a habit, in the regions and towns he visited, to try first to speak to his own countrymen. Some believed, most did not. You could say the same about most any people. So what else is new?
 
So then why is gospel ministry to Jews complex? And the corollary to that question is, "Why should it still should be done?"
 
 Jews resist the gospel, yet Scripture promises a blessing to the Church for Jewish missions work.
 
Read Romans 11: 11 and 15. Regardless of what you think this text is saying, and granted, the text creates more questions than it answers, notice at least this: it's saying that if their rejection of Christ meant blessing for the nations, then their conversion to Him will yield blessings more abundant. Verse 15 is a parallel passage to verse 11. (It's saying the same thing.) And Paul wrote this after he had been commissioned as an apostle to the Gentles! He was saying that though the Jews were no longer his primary mission field, that nonetheless the blessing on their inclusion into the fold of Christ still remains. Why? Christians can debate this question endlessly, yet the statement still stands as true. Go figure.
 
Jews define themselves AS Jews by (among other things) NOT believing in Jesus.
 
There is no Jewish world consensus as to what a Jew actually is. The State of Israel has one definition. Reform ("liberal") Judaism has another. Orthodox Judaism has a third. There are those within each group who think of it as a culture, or a race, or a religion, or a mixture of all. The closest thing to a statement of faith they have is Maimonides's Thirteen Points, and not even all agree to that. There are atheistic, communistic, and religious Jews. But the one thing that they're in consensus about is that a Jew cannot be a Christian. For a Jew to call upon Jesus as Savior, Lord or Messiah, makes him a non-Jew in all the major Jewish communities. "Messianic" Judaism is not accepted as an alternate form of the faith. Consequently, for a Jew to believe in Jesus is a major cultural, social and religious hurdle. At the time when the N.T. Epistles and Gospels were written, this was not the problem that it is today. But in AD 90 the synagogues, at the Council of Jamnia (or "Jabneh") in Roman Palestine, declared all Jews who believed in Christ as heretics and "non-Jews". And this prejudice has remained until today. Yet if you read the rest of Romans 11, the text anticipates this Jewish rejection of Jesus, yet still priorities Jewish mission work. Go figure!
 
Any comments or question? Then let me hear from you. At www.chaim.org, or www.scripturesdramatized.com

​[Bas Relief on the Arch of Titus in Rome: "IUDAEA CAPTA" ("Judea is Vanquished"): Roman Emperor Titus's commemoration of the plundering of the Temple.]

​This year, 2021, beginning at sun-down July 17th and ending sun-down July 18th, is Tisha B'Av, the saddest day on the Jewish calendar of holidays.
 
On this day in 586 BC Nebuchadnezzar King of Babylon destroyed the city of Jerusalem and her temple. Then 656 years later, the Romans destroyed it again; and on the very same day. What should we make of this? Why did this happen?
 
The Jewish community in Israel will have "Never Again" rallies to commemorate this day, as if to say "never again" will we let these disasters happen to us. But a glance at the writings of Jeremiah tell us that they had an equally determined and militant attitude the FIRST time around. And a glance at the prophetic words of Christ in Luke 21 and Matthew 24 tell us pretty much the same thing: despite the fact that they were determined  this would not happen again under the Roman siege. Clearly, some other attitude was needed to forestall the national disasters of providence that have afflicted the Jewish people historically.
 
Jeremiah recommended national repentance. So did Christ. If military prowess and personal determination were all it took in those days, the Hebrew prophets wouldn't have spoken so much about national (and personal!) repentance.
 
Modern synagogues offer a special commemorative service on Tisha B'Av. "Tisha B'Av"  means "ninth day of the month Av". They read from the Bible's Book of Lamentations, penned by Jeremiah, who gives credit to God for its verbal inspiration. Religious Jews will fast for 24 hours on this date..  A coincidence of dates: 586 BC and 70 AD? Yes, but there's even more of a coincidence:

On this same date in 1492, Spain, the greatest most prosperous nation on earth, ejected all its Jews and banished them, permanently ending a centuries-old flourishing civilization of great wealth and learning. and subjecting these 300,000 refugees to piracy, shipwreck, starvation and enslavement in their forced haste to leave. This was done under the instigation of Torquemada, head of the Spanish Inquisition and the priestly confessor to Ferdinand and Isabella of Spain, the same royals who financed Columbus' voyage to the New World that same year. Ironically, it was the Muslim nations that welcomed these exiles. The Sultan of Turkey asked the refugees: "Do you call Ferdinand a wise king, who has impoverished his country to enrich mine?" [History of the Jews, Heinrich Graetz, vol 4 p.396, as quoted in The Anguish of the Jews, Edw. H. Flannery, Paulist Press]

So Jews mourn that day. But Jesus also mourned that day. Christ mourned over the "Tisha B'Av" destruction of Jerusalem and its temple [John 19:41]. In fact, He actually wept, but not after it happened, but before it happened!
 
"Now as He drew near, He saw the City and wept over it, saying 'If you had known, even you, especially in this your day, the things that make for your peace! But now they are hidden from your eyes. For days will come upon you when your enemies will build an embankment around you, surround you and close you in on every side,  and level you and your children within you to the ground. And they will not leave in you one stone upon another, because you did not know the time of your visitation. ' " (Luke 19:44)

 
So Christ was a prophet that day, of things to come. But even today, the Jewish community continues in its refusal to give him any more credibility than simply saying He was a local rabbi who created a great controversy but added very little to Judaism. That's been their stated position for 2000 years. "He was a popular local rabbi. Beyond that, he wasn't the messiah and we didn't kill him." has been their repeated claim. 

Yet it is this very view, that got me curious enough to investigate further the biblical claims of this man. Here's exactly what I mean: I seriously considered the Isaiah chapter 53 in the Jewish Bible.

 
Continue reading? Click https://chaim.org/isaiah-53

 

[Actor Anthony Quinn in Franco Zeffirelli's "Jesus of Nazareth"]

The Hebrew Roots movement is not a monolithic set of beliefs, but it does have certain errors of doctrine in common within the movement.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebrew_Roots
​
I know church elder whose sister (non-Jewish, attended church all her life), now attends a Messianic fellowship. She believes it's improper to say "Jesus". She calls Him "Yeshua". Her fellowship worships God using words and phrases that I remember from my youth in synagogue which I attended with my parents as a Jew. Instead of "blessing", she says "b-racha". Instead of "Old Testament" she says "Tenach". Instead of "Christ" she says "Moshiach". What's really different is that though she believes Jesus is Savior and Lord, she thinks it's not proper to use traditional Christian terminology.

Another example: I know a minister (very conservative) whose brother (not ethnically Jewish) is the same way. He keeps kosher, and think that eating pork and shellfish is actually sinful for Jews who believe in Jesus. He attends "church" (He doesn't call it church) on Saturdays and think that Sunday is the wrong day to celebrate the Sabbath. Their pastor wears a traditional Jewish "tallis" (prayer shawl), and he's called "Rabbi" by the congregation. Another minister I've known for years (born and raised nominally Jewish, who hardly ever attended synagogue as a youth) now officiates in a Messianic synagogue that resembles the real ones I attended for worship before I became a Christian. He teaches that it's obligatory to keep all the Jewish holidays, But he adds Jesus to this variation of Judaism. I don't know the detailed particulars of his views, but I do know that, typical of these movements are: belief in the rebuilding of the third stone temple in Jerusalem, the return of all Jews to Israel, the removal of the Arabs from an expanded "Holy Land" stretching from the River Euphrates to the border of Egypt, which would include all of Lebanon, all of Jordan, most of Syria, and half of Iraq, And why? Because this was the land promised to Abraham's descendants (Gen 15:18) And who are they, according to "Hebrew Roots" ? The Jews. Not Christian gentiles, but Jews, regardless of their faith affiliation with Jesus of Nazareth. Other affiliated organizations contribute money to relocate Jews to Israel to help further things along so that Messiah Jesus will set up His kingdom in Jerusalem and the Jews will en mass, accept Jesus as their Messiah and then be seen by all the world to be the Chosen People once again, in a kind of "most-favored nation" status with God. "Hebrew Roots" believes that God is angry with America because of its flagging support of the current state of Israel. In essence, support for Israel is one big "metric" for God's favor upon a given nation.

Now admittedly, Jewish-Christians (or Christian Jews or Messianic Jews, whatever they prefer to call themselves) do not all believe the same things. But there is a range of Judaistic beliefs prevalent among certain professing born-again Christians. And while there are variations within this range, it's definitely a spiritual movement, carrying with it various hybrid movements and mutations in its wake: Here are a few more"symptoms" of this spiritual malaise:

1) Insistence on Hebrew terms as being more spiritual/more correct than the historically-used Greek terms of the New Testament.

2) Insistence on keeping a kosher diet as being more spiritual than obeying the liberty to eat all foods, as allowed in Acts 10:15 3)

3) Elevating the customs and ceremonies of the Jewish people as still mandatory for Jewish believers in Jesus.

4) Gaging one's support or opposition to the current State of Israel as a metric for genuine spirituality.
Here's the point: if you have relatives or friends involved in this, we can help. We've had a lot of experience. Put www.chaim.org into your browser, then go to "Resources", then "Articles Online", then make your selections.

Hope this helps someone.
​
Continue reading other blogs? Click http://www.scripturesdramatized.com/radio-blogs

Currently, Jewish synagogues are "Counting the Omer". An omer is a sheaf of grain. Since Bible days, Jews would count the days from Passover to Pentecost (a.k.a "Feast of Weeks", a.k.a. "Shavuot") in anticipation of the first spring harvest, when two bread loaves were presented to God in the Temple, the "fruit" of that harvest and that waiting. This idea is spiritually fulfilled in the New Testament.
 
Leviticus 23:15/Deuteronomy 16:9 The original context for the daily counting of "omers", or measures of wheat. After the death of the Passover lamb, 49 days would be counted until the harvest. In the O.T, a harvest of grain; in the N.T. a harvest of souls! 
 
John 12:24: Christ speak of Himself as a grain of wheat that falls into the ground and dies, in order to reap a harvest of much grain: the language of Firstfruits.

Romans 8:23: The Holy Spirit in believers is spoken of as a "Firstfruits" of what is yet to come: the renewal and glorification of the saints' mortal bodies.
 
I Corinthians 15:23: "Christ the Firstfruits" is compared to the single sheaf of spring grain waved before God in the Temple the day after Passover
 
Ephesians 1:13, 14: The Holy Spirit in believers is spoken of as an "earnest" (i.e. "earnest money"); God's pledge & guarantee to complete His saving work in them.
 
II Corinthians 5:5: "who also hath given unto us the EARNEST [Greek: "arrabon"] of the Spirit"; the HS spoken of as a "down-payment" and pledge of future things: (KJV)
 
Acts 2:1-4: "When the day of Pentecost had fully come ..." The agricultural 49 'countdown' days (7 weeks + 1 day) concluded by a Firstfruits harvest of new saints.
 
Acts 2:5-11: Jews from all over the known world, from all the major language groups, assemble in Jerusalem for Firstfruits as the Law of Moses required. While there, some believe in Christ, receive the HS, then return back to spread the gospel.
 
Acts 1:3: " ... being seen by them during 40 days ..."  From the time of His resurrection to His ascension into Heaven, it was 40 days. Ten days later, on the "Pentecost" (Greek: "Fiftieth"), the Spirit descended & reaped a harvest of souls.
 
Acts 1:3-5: "Wait for the promise of the Father": the NT's fulfillment of the OT's command: to count the seven weeks of 49 days plus 1 day: from the waving of the first sheaf before God in the Temple until the spring harvest of barley sheaves.
 
Leviticus 23:15-17: The agricultural counting of the days until the spring harvest: grains and sheaves represented Christ and the firstfruits harvest of souls in Acts 2.
 
Luke 24:49: "But tarry in the City of Jerusalem": Christ's command for the disciples to wait (in essence, to "count the 50 days" of Lev. 23:15) until the Spirit comes. 

Isaiah 2:3 " for out Zion shall go forth the Law, and the Word of the Lord from Jerusalem .." The historical fulfillment of the Acts 2 event prophesied  by Isaiah 700 years before it happened.
 
Ruth 1:22: The biblical context for Ruth is the spring barley harvest of Firstfruits. Ruth the Moabitess was joined to God's family because of her faith not her race. Non-Hebrew, she was Christ's ancestor. She heralds the make-up of the Church.
 
John 12:23: "Unless a grain of wheat falls into the ground and dies, it remains alone. But if it dies it produces much grain." More "Firstfruits" language. Christ speaks of his death as producing a harvest, using common-understood words.
 
I Corinthians 10:17: "For we, though many, are one bread and one body; for we all partake of that one bread."  Actually, this is Passover language, but it's relevant. Because both holidays connect. The proof of that? The "Counting of the Omer"!
 
St. Paul tells the early church how to prepare themselves to receive the Lord's Supper by reminding them that they are, in a spiritual sense, like the bread they are about to eat. Two loaves of bread for the Feast of Weeks (Hebrew: "Shavuot") were presented to God in the Temple as the end-result of the waiting and counting period of the 49 previous days. That bread was made by first, crushing the individual grain husks (symbolic of physical death as well as "dying to self": I Cor. 15:35,36; Col. 3:3); second, by adding oil to the mix (symbolic of the Holy Spirit: Matt. 25:3,4,8), third, by the combination of crushing the husks, adding the oil and applying heat, individual grains began to function as a homogeneous single batch of dough, and bread is produced. The ideal for this? Acts 2:1 and Pentecost fulfilled: "they were all with one accord in one place."
 
Hope you see the connection! 
 
Continue reading other blogs? Click http://www.scripturesdramatized.com/radio-blogs

​
[Featured above: Masjid Al-Madinah Mosque, greater Philadelphia's most prominent Muslim mosque. Two blocks away, we're doing regular street evangelism in this heavily-Muslim neighborhood.]
 
Philadelphia, PA has one of the fastest growing Muslim populations of any metropolitan city in America. The great majority of Philadelphia Muslims are African-Americans whose parents and grandparents left the Church. If you have a heart for local church evangelism, you should probably know something about your Muslim neighbors and what they really believe.
 
Two things every American Christian needs to know about what Islam actually teaches, whether it be the kind that beheads people or the kind that says "let's all just get along": Muslims believe in the need to institute Sharia Law world-wide; preferably by peaceful means (if possible). That's the first thing. But the second thing is that under Sharia Law, the teaching and propagation of "associationism" becomes a crime against the state; it is "shirk" according to Islamic law, and to Muslims the Trinity doctrine is "shirk".
 
Now it's important for American Christians to understand that most Muslims in this country just want to "get along" and live decent, moral lives and raise their families here.. Their understanding of their faith is that it is a code of ethics by which to live, and not a call to arms against the infidel. The problem, however, is that this view is a popular and convenient  "Americanized" interpretation of what the Qu'ran's teaches. But the Qu'ran itself is much more militant than this relatively benign interpretation. The Qu'ran has much to say about (for example), the Muslim sin of "shirk". 
 
Shirk, or associationism is associating "partners" to Allah. It's the equivalence of polytheism (i.e. idolatry) to them. And to them, it is the unforgivable sin. In Islam, God (as in Judaism) is an indivisible unity of one, But the New Testament teaching of God as Father, Son and the Holy Ghost comes under the category of "shirk". One of the big problems that Islam has historically had with Christianity is a problem that started with Mohammad himself. 

It's unlikely Islam's founder even HEARD a biblical explanation of the Trinity, or for that matter, the Gospel itself. For example, the Qu'ran's condemnation of both the Trinity doctrine and the sonship relation of Jesus to His Father ... condemns not the orthodox [i.e. "correct"] doctrine found in the early creeds of Christendom, but rather the distorted views of the Christian heresies circulating in Arabia in the 6th Century AD. What the Qur'an condemns, is actually  something called "Tri-theism" which the early creeds of Christendom also condemned: it's the view that the three Persons of the Godhead are in fact three distinct Gods, each with an independent center of consciousness and will. Aside from that, many Muslims believe that the what Christians call the "Trinity" includes Mary as part of the Godhead, due in part to her overly-prominent rule in Roman Catholic doctrine as it developed later, near the time of Mohammad's birth, in doctrine, paintings and statuary.  Tritheism was an early heresy whose practitioners were banished to Arabia earlier on in history by the Roman Catholic bishops of the Christian Roman Empire. What Islamic scholars have tended to do historically was to read back into the Qur'an the Christian-Islamic controversies that came later, including that of the Trinity.
 
However, many Muslims in America have never had a clear presentation of the Gospel presented to them personally. All they have heard is rumor and here-say. This time and this place, in 21st Century America is a rare window of opportunity where this can be done with hardly any restrictions and in a cordial atmosphere. Some of us, at greater Philadelphia's 69th Street Station, are seizing that opportunity every week! 
 
Continue reading other blogs? Click http://www.scripturesdramatized.com/radio-blogs

​ 
CHAIM Ministry to the Jewish People is launching its Spring Feasts Program selection. This year, we offer hosting churches a choice of three Spring Feasts programs. 
 
"The Feast of Esther” (Purim)

• 30/45 minute expository teaching (or sermon)
• explains Purim’s background and its relevance for the Church.
• features traditional Jewish holiday items.
• explains modern Jewish practices and how we
  can share our faith with Jewish people through
  this holiday

“Messiah in the Passover"

• ideal for inviting Jewish friends!
• a three hour "Seder" (the sit-down ritual meal);
  interspersed with the ancient "hagaddah" (the
  "telling" of the Exodus)
• includes "read along" service booklets that may be taken home for personal reference
• allows audience participation in the service
• a sampling of ritual foods used at Last Supper
• shows the origin of Christian Communion
• shows Jewish view of events of Last Supper
• special simplified recipes provided for kitchen
  staff preparation
• (the "modified" program is a 75 minute "show & tell" teaching and doesn't feature the meal)

"Pentecost Fulfilled”

• 30/45 minute expository teaching (can be presented as sermon)
• shows relevance of the agricultural feast for better New Testament understanding
• features ancient and traditional Jewish holiday
  items and their New Testament relevance.
• explains modern Jewish holiday practices and how we can share our faith with Jewish people through this holiday

​
 
 1. Jews have a hard time agreeing about who they are, but the one thing they agree about is that they, AS Jews, must not believe in Jesus.
 
There is no Jewish world consensus as to what a Jew actually is. The State of Israel has one definition. Reform ("liberal") Judaism has another. Orthodox Judaism has a third. There are those within each group who think of their Judaism as a culture, or a race, or a religion, or a mixture of all. The closest thing to a statement of faith they have is Maimonides' Thirteen Points, and not even all agree to that. There are agnostic, communistic, and religious Jews. It's even permissible to not believe in God at all, but the one thing that they're in consensus about is that a Jew cannot be a Christian. For a Jew to call upon Jesus as Savior, Lord or Messiah, makes him a non-Jew in all the major Jewish communities and branches. "Messianic" Judaism is not accepted as an alternative form of their faith. At the time when the N.T. was written, this was not the problem that it is today. But in AD 90 the synagogues at the Council of Jamnia (or "Jabneh") in Roman Palestine declared all Jews who believed in Christ as heretics and "non-Jews". And this prejudice has remained until today. Yet if you read the rest of Romans 11 and Romans 1:16, the text anticipates this Jewish rejection of Jesus, yet it still puts a priority on Jewish mission work.
 
2. The rabbis teach that no Jew who accepts Christ has truly understood his own religion. Yet the history of Jewish conversions will refute this.
 
The facts of history negate it. Take Rabbi Isaac Lichtenstein for example: a Hungarian Orthodox rabbi of the 19th Century who one day found a New Testament, took it home, read it in anger, and left it alone on his shelf for 30 years. But one day during a pogrom in his district (a government or church-organized riot against Jews), he wondered why Christians were so angry at his people. So then he read it. "I looked for thorns, and gathered roses," he said later. "The half has not been told to me of the greatness, power and glory of this book, which was sealed to me at one time." Gradually he began to use New Testament material in his pulpit preaching until one day he confessed his belief that Jesus was the Jewish messiah and astounded the Jews of Hungary. When called before the Chief Rabbi of Budapest to recant, he refused to do so. His fellow-rabbis demanded that he resign, but his own congregation allowed him to stay as their rabbi until he himself finally resigned. Yet he continued his writing and visitation gospel ministry across Europe.
 
And there were others: very knowledgeable in the faith of their birth: Joseph Wolff for example: his father a rabbi, born in Bavaria in 1795, ordained as an Anglican missionary, he preached the gospel in Palestine and throughout the Middle-East. And Samuel Schereschewski: one of the greatest Orientalist linguists of the 19th Century, Episcopal bishop to China, he translated the Hebrew Scriptures into two separate Chinese languages. And August Neander, called the "Father of Modern Church History", born in Germany in 1789, studied at the University of Halle and was encouraged by classmates to examine the messianic claims of Jesus including Isaiah 53, a student of Friedrich Schleiermacher (a.k.a. "The Father of Theological Modernism"), who refuted his former professor and showed the validity of Scripture against the tide of Schleiermacher's Higher Criticism.
 
3. Jewish religious schools teach their children an aspect of church history that Christian religious schools never teach their children.
 
By the time most Jewish boys and girls reach the age of Bar-Mitzvah (or Bat-Mitzvah) they know about the pogroms, the Crusader massacres of Jewish communities, the blood libels, the Spanish Inquisition, the Church-sponsored expulsions of Jews from almost every country in Europe, and the Holocaust. And in each case, aside from the Holocaust, they're taught that the major persecutor was the Church. The irony is ... they're correct: The organized, visible Church with all its problems and bigotries, indeed did those things. But what they're not taught is that those same churches were persecutors of true Christians too. But while the persecuted continued to worship God more fervently, the Jews used that persecution as their excuse to continue to reject to Gospel.
 
Continue reading? Click http://www.scripturesdramatized.com/radio-blogs
 

​ Chag Same'ach!  Happy [Passover] Holiday! Passover starts March 28th this year. 

So much of the Bible is written in "Passover language" If you don't know something about how Jews celebrated it in Bible times, as well as today, you're missing something! 

Check out these passages. If you want a Passover Seder for your church that will elaborate on these connections, contact me either through www.scripturesdramatized.com, or send me an e-mail.
 
Passover Scripture Verses
 
 
Exodus 12:12 - Establishment of Passover, importance of Lamb's blood, reason for the name "Passover".

 
Exodus 12:38 - The "mixed multitude" who left Egypt (not just ethnic Hebrews), heralding the nature of God's acceptance: not by ethnicity, but by adoption.
 
I Corinthians 5:6-8 - Paul's use of Passover language to illustrate the nature of New Testament fellowship.
 
Matthew 26:26,27/Luke 22:20 - "This is My body". Christ's fulfillment of the Seder's ritual eating of the matzoth and the drinking of the four wine-glasses.
 
John 13 through 17 - The "Passover Discourse": Christ's fulfilling of the Seder's "hagaddah" [the "telling"] when the master of the feast applied the Exodus lesson for all in attendance.
 
John 11:55 - The first century rabbinical schools with their pilgrims arrive in Jerusalem for the holiday.
 
Psalms 120 through 124 - The "Psalms of Ascents" [as in "to ascend"/to go up] sung by first century pilgrims during their climb up Mt. Zion to sacrifice the lambs in the Temple.
 
Matthew 26:18 - The Passover purification, including the removal of leaven from each dwelling.
 
Luke 12:1 - "Beware the leaven of the Pharisees": Christ's use of the earthly purification ritual to illustrate its ultimate spiritual significance.
 
Exodus 12:8/Numbers 9:11 - The Torah's requirement that the lamb be eaten with bitter herbs.
 
Acts 5:35/Acts 22:3 - NT reference to Paul's teacher Gamaliel, the rabbi who is quoted each year during the Seder meal. 
 
John 13:21 & 26 - Jesus and Judas mostly likely "dipped the sop" in bitter herbs at this time. This is a ritual dipping ceremony illustrating the bitterness of slavery.

John 6:32-35 - Jesus declared Himself to be "bread", a fulfillment of the liturgical "This is the bread of affliction" statement made by the master of the feast.
 
Exodus 12:39 - The reason why matzoth [unleavened bread] was eaten - it was "the bread of haste". They were fleeing the Egyptian army, and they needed to hurry.
 
I Corinthians 11:35 - The "cup after supper", most likely the drinking of the third of the four cups of wine. 
 
Matthew 28:29 - The cup Jesus did not drink, most likely the fourth of the four cups.
 
Matthew 24:1,2/Luke 21:24 - The reason why Jews cannot sacrifice animals anymore: because of the Temple's destruction and their world-wide dispersion.
 
John 13:3-5 - The foot-washing at Passover, an application of the ceremonial washing ritual.
 
Mark 7:3 - a reference as to why Jews historically have had so many needless ritual washings: because of a defiled conscience due to the Law's effect on their hearts.
 
Matthew 15:3 - confrontation between the "traditions of the elders" and the pure Word of God as Christ argues with the Pharisees: grace over legalism
 
John 21:20 - the "reclining at table" custom, reflected in the post-biblical Seder seating
 
Deuteronomy 28:58 - the plagues on the Egyptians as a warning to the Covenant People, whether Jew or Gentile.
 
Deuteronomy 28 - a world-wide Jewish dispersion for covenant disobedience, fulfilled in post-Biblical history. The Jews have been cast out of nearly every nation in Europe, as predicted.
 
Leviticus 26:44,45/Romans 11:12 & 15 - a promise by God to regather the Israelite remnant despite their former rebellion.
 
Matthew 26:30 - the singing of the Great Hallel (Psalm 136) at the end of the Passover Seder.
 
Matthew 11:7-11 - the Chair of Elijah, a Seder chair setting of post-Biblical origin due to the fact that the Jews did not recognize the coming of Elijah as John the Baptist. 
 
Ephesians 2:20/I Peter 2:5 - the building of the Final Temple of redeemed people, not stones. The Seder's liturgy mentions the hope of another stone temple in Jerusalem in its final song.
 
 
 
 
Continue reading other blogs? Click http://www.scripturesdramatized.com/radio-blogs

Fact #1: The Book of Esther presented problems for the Protestant Reformers, and even the Jewish rabbis at one time. And for the same reasons for both groups!
 
Neither God nor prayer is mentioned at all in the book, at least not specifically. The book's very existence presented problems to Martin Luther (to name just one), at least for a while. He complained: "It hath too much of Judaism, and a great deal of heathenish naughtiness." [Luther's Works, Vol 3]. The book is written in a way unlike any other Bible text. There's a strong strain of patriotism and Jewish nationalism.  It also has a distinct element of humor. That's not humorous levity, however. It's still Word of God and it deals with serious topics as it depicts events that occurred in Persia about 475 years before Christ. But since Bible times it has been regarded as canonical by the rabbis. And, according to Maimonides (Judaism's most famous scholar), second only to the Torah in importance.
 
Fact #2: Esther's husband was likely the same king who fought the Greeks at Marathon, from which we get the Marathon foot-race.
 
This would've been during the reign of Xerxes the Great, (a.k.a "Ahashuerus" in the KJV translation). Xerxes ruled an enormous empire of 127 provinces "from India to Ethiopia" as Esther 1:1 says. He was intent on humbling the Greeks, but was defeated on the plains of Marathon by a combined force of Greek city-states in 490 BC. According to legend, the messenger Pheidippides ran the approximate 26 miles to announce the defeat of the Persians to the Athenians. Then he dropped dead from exhaustion.

 Fact #3: Either Xerxes or his father Darius is the same king that Nehemiah received permission from to rebuild the walls of Jerusalem during the Babylonian Captivity. This king was Esther's husband.
 
This was likely due to how impressed they were by the amazing acts of the Hebrew God that the Persians heard about during the events of the Babylonian Exile, even as far back as the humbling of Nebuchadnezzar and his conversion to faith in the God he thought his god had conquered. The Jews in Xerxes' time were slaves and exiles in Persia, "hold-overs" from their former slavery to the previous empire of Babylon, and its king, Nebuchadnezzar.

 
Fact #4: Though God is not mentioned in "Esther", it's evident that Esther's uncle Mordecai had faith in Him, and that Esther herself prayed to Him.

Why? Because of these two statements: the first by Mordecai, the second by Esther:

"For if you remain completely silent at this time, relief and deliverance will arise for the Jews from another place, but you and your father's house will perish. Yet who knows whether you have come to the kingdom for such a time as this?" [Esth. 4:14]

Here it's evident that Mordecai had complete faith that God would deliver the Jews from certain genocide, either with Esther's help, or without her help.

"Go, gather all the Jews who are present in Shushan, and fast for me; neither eat nor drink for three days, night or day. My maids and I will fast likewise. And so I will go to the king, which is against the law; and if I perish, I perish!" [Esth. 4:16]

Here it's evident that Esther and her maidens also prayed. The Bible prescribes fasting for two purposes, and they almost always go together: a) as a sign of deep grief and mourning, and b) as an aid to effective, importunate prayer: the kind of prayer reserved for extraordinary circumstances. When you are "importuning" God, when you are pleading with Him to intervene in a situation that's critical, you fast. The point? Both God and prayer are present in this book that mentions neither one specifically.

 
Fact #5: The Haman-Mordecai animosity began with a blood feud 500 years before either one was born!
 
The Book of Esther makes a point of emphasizing the forebears of both Haman and Mordecai. Mordecai was a descendant of King Saul's father Kish. [I Sam. 9:1] [Esth. 2:5]. Haman was a descendant of Agag, King of the Amalekites. [Esth. 3:1]. 500 years before in Israel, King Saul was told by God to exterminate the race of Amalek for their great wickedness. This he refused to do. So 500 years later, Haman attempted to do this very same thing with the Jews! The national moral to the story? Obey God in history, or "history" will take its revenge on YOU.".

Fact #6: Haman's death, which originally was planned for Mordecai, was by "hanging upon gallows" [Esth. 5:14, Esth. 7:10], but the execution wasn't by rope or strangulation. It was by impalement on a stake. 
 
That's right, Gentle Reader. Not "Western" style, but "Vlad the Impailer" style. The Persians were cruel, and the Romans equally so. Neither people practiced the kind of execution we're familiar with in the West. Death by dropping from a platform or even being strung up with a rope noose and asphyxiated is quick and comparatively merciful. But the pagans of antiquity preferred their lowest criminals to die by slow torture. That's what Haman had in mind for Mordecai. Both Persians and Romans also used more merciful methods but impalement upon a stake was reserved for the worst criminals. When the Bible speaks of Christ "hung upon a tree", what's in view here is piercing and slow death on a cross-tee. If Haman had succeeded in executing Mordecai, and then all the Jews of the known world [Esth. 3:13-15], then he would've wiped out the family line of Jesus, and prevented the only "impalement" that could've saved humanity! 
 
Continue reading other blogs? Click http://www.scripturesdramatized.com/radio-blogs
 lick http://www.scripturesdramatized.com/radio-blogs

Aside from the cultural argument of "I don't believe in Jesus because Jews aren't supposed to believe in Jesus, and I'm a Jew", one of the strongest Jewish arguments against faith in Jesus as Savior and Messiah is what's known as the "Messianic Kingdom" argument. It goes something like this: "If Jesus were really the Messiah, he would have ushered in the Messianic Age, a time of universal peace. But since his time, the world has seen more blood, more violence and more persecution than ever before, and often by the very religion that presumes to speak in his name!" So? How would you answer that objection?

The reason it's such a strong argument is not because it can't be refuted but because it's so persuasive to Jews. But what's worse, it's also persuasive to many Christians! My partner in ministry Rev. Fred Klett of CHAIM ministry to the Jewish People tells the story of how he attended a lecture years ago at a Bible college in PA

The featured speaker was Tovia Singer  of "Outreach Judaism", a well-known "anti-missionary" who opposes Christian arguments for Jesus with Jewish arguments. None of the faculty in attendance could successfully refute Singer's argument that Jesus did not bring in the Messianic Age. The faculty gave Singer the utmost deference, and he dominated the discussion. Fred was confident he could have refuted Singer's argument with a Covenantal and Reformed rebuttal, but he never got the chance. In essence, the faculty agreed with Singer, because they subscribe to a theology called "Premillenial Dispensationalism". The "Left Behind" concept of the Secret Rapture, a future literal thousand year reign of Christ, three separate resurrections, a future re-built Jerusalem temple, reinstitution of animal sacrifice, a future Jewish rule over all of Palestine, parts of Syria, parts of Iraq and Lebanon; from "The River of Egypt the River Euphrates" (Gen. 15:18, Josh. 15.47) and most especially, a Messianic Kingdom that Christ failed to set up at His first coming ... is all part of this view. It's hard to refute a Jewish apologist if you agree with his basic premise to begin with.The opposite view to this is "Covenant Theology", which maintains the Kingdom has arrived,  and that most evangelical Christians in American are wrong. So then, how do Jews envision this Kingdom? The short answer is: "in its final form only, and according to Jewish tradition's selective choice of scriptural passages."

A lot of Jewish tradition is good, but not all. Tevye, in "Fiddler on the Roof", would disagree of course. And the Jews aren't entirely wrong about the Messianic Kingdom either. Since the days of Christ on earth, Judaism's view centers upon the glories of the Kingdom, most especially in its final form: glorious, peaceful, and presiding over the whole earth with the promised son of David on a throne in Jerusalem. For most of Jewish post-biblical history, that was the prevailing view. Since the Age of Enlightenment in the late 17th Century, many Jews have become less "doctrinaire" about this, and about their theology in general: "Perhaps," they have said, " ... all this is only a pipe-dream. Perhaps there is no coming Messiah, or "age" for the Messiah. And who can say if the Hebrew Scriptures themselves are anything more than just pious legend anyway," is what many Jews believe today. But the main Jewish argument remains, and it's based on Scripture (albeit wrongly understood): that if there is a Messianic Age, it's not here yet: and so Jesus failed to start it. Therefore he cannot be the Messiah. Strong argument? Yet here's the response:

Just as Judaism has had an historic "disconnect" with Scriptures' two portrayals of the Messiah (the suffering servant of Isaiah 53 and the conquering king of Psalm 110), so also has it had a "disconnect" with the Messianic Age at its beginning, vs. the Messianic Age at its completion. Jews have seized upon the choicest portrayal of the Messiah and His Kingdom to suit a preconceived theology: of the Messiah as glorious ruler in an age of sinless perfection and universal peace. But the argument's circular: it pre-supposes its conclusion before it proves it.  Their argument really isn't: "Jesus failed to set up the Messianic Kingdom," but it's: "Jesus failed to set up that Kingdom according to our understanding of it." So what's Judaism's understanding? Unhappily, it's like the Christian Dispensationalists' understanding, only without the "Jesus" part! In other words, the Kingdom in its glorious final form only, and the Kingdom as in "not here yet."

The Hebrew prophets spoke extensively of the glories of that Kingdom: There will be "peace to her like a river" (Isaiah 66:12); "the wolf also shall dwell with the lamb" (Isaiah 11:6), "they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war anymore." (Isaiah 2:4). But the prophets also spoke of that Kingdom as coming progressively; growing, even in the midst of conflict, and contending with evil before its final glorious conquest. Consider Daniel 2:35 & 2:44, for example. Indeed, the whole of chapter 2, and it's "mirror-image" chapter, chapter 7 (particularly 7:13-18) speaks of that Kingdom in this way. The Messiah comes in His Kingdom during the reign of the fourth world empire from Daniel's time. Daniel's time was Babylon, the one afterwards was Media-Persia's time, the third was Greece (Dan. 8:20,21). The fourth could only be Rome.

Yes, Christians believe it was Rome, but Jews don't care what Christians believe. However they would care what Rashi (1040-1105 AD) believes, (one of the greatest of rabbis), and Rashi believed it was Rome. How he got around the conclusion that the Messiah was anyone but Jesus is an exercise in theological contortionism. Strangely, he believed the Messiah was (of all people!) Herod Agrippa, the last Jewish king before the destruction of the Temple by the Romans. : Rashi comments: " 'And in the days of these kings'; in the days of these kings, when the kingdom of Rome is still in existence, the God of heaven will set up a kingdom, The Kingdom of the Holy One, blessed be He, which will never be destroyed, is the Kingdom of the Messiah." [Talmud tractate "Avoda Zara 2b", as quoted by Dr. Michael J. Brown, Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, Vol. III, Baker Books.] Not Jesus, he says, but Herod Agrippa, the insignificant Roman puppet ruler mentioned in the New Testament! Bizarre, indeed! 

Here's the point: the Hebrew Bible states that the Messiah's Kingdom came in the days of Rome, and that its origin was that of progression and growth, even in the midst of conflict and evil. This is not the commonly accepted Jewish portrayal, but it is the biblical portrayal.

Now, if only all Dispensationalists would see it that way. But they don't. They see it the Jewish way: to them, the Kingdom isn't here now, it awaits the coming of the Messiah. And they take that Daniel 2 passage and split it up to make Rome's empire a "revived" Roman Empire of 10 modern industrialized nations that has yet to find its final form and be ruled by the future "Beast" of Revelation. That way, Jesus can come in His Kingdom (which isn't supposed to be here yet!)

Clearly, John the Baptist and Christ spoke repeatedly of God's Kingdom as being "at hand" (Matt. 3:2, Mk. 1:15). "At hand" does not mean "separated by 2000 years of post-biblical history from the time that he announced it!  He spoke of those alive at His first coming, "standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of Man coming in His Kingdom." (Matt. 16:28) He spoke of the Kingdom as a farmer's field of wheat with tares [weeds] in it, when at the time of the harvest [the Final Judgment], those impurities and "bad seeds" get removed. (Matt. 13:24 ff). Clearly, that was the Kingdom all right, but not in its final form.

Share Daniel 2 with your Jewish friend. You can even use a Jewish Publication Society Bible when you do it. See what kind of reaction you get. And share Matt. 16:28 ff with your "Dispy" Christian friends as well.
 
Continue reading other blogs? Click http://www.scripturesdramatized.com/radio-blogs
 

​(by Felicia Dorothea Dorothea Hemans: 1793-1835)

THE breaking waves dash'd high
 On a stern and rock-bound coast,
And the woods against a stormy sky
 Their giant branches toss'd;

And the heavy night hung dark,
 The hills and waters o'er,
When a band of exiles moor'd their bark
 On the wild New-England shore.

Not as the conqueror comes,
 They, the true-hearted came;
Not with the roll of the stirring drums,
 And the trumpet that sings of fame:

Not as the flying come,
 In silence and in fear;–
They shook the depths of the desert gloom
 With their hymns of lofty cheer.

Amidst the storm they sang,
 And the stars heard and the sea!
And the sounding aisles of the dim woods rang
 To the anthem of the free.

The ocean-eagle soar'd
 From his nest by the white wave's foam;
And the rocking pines of the forest roar'd–
 This was their welcome home!

There were men with hoary hair,
 Amidst that pilgrim band;–
Why had they come to wither there,
 Away from their childhood's land?

There was woman's fearless eye,
 Lit by her deep love's truth;
There was manhood's brow serenely high,
 And the fiery heart of youth.

What sought they thus afar?
 Bright jewels of the mine?
The wealth of seas, the spoils of war?–
 They sought a faith's pure shrine!

Ay, call it holy ground,
 The soil where first they trod!
They have left unstain'd what there they found–
 Freedom to worship God.

​
 
The Hebrew Roots movement is not a monolithic set of beliefs, but it does have certain errors of doctrine in common within the movement.  This movement is a Jewish-Christian hybrid that fails to do justice to either Judaism or Christianity. 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebrew_Roots
 
I know church elder whose sister (non-Jewish, attended church all her life), now attends a Messianic fellowship.  She believes it's improper to say "Jesus". She calls Him "Yeshua". Her fellowship worships God using words and phrases that I remember from my youth in synagogue which I attended with my parents as a Jew. Instead of "blessing", she says "b-racha". Instead of "Old Testament" she says "Tenach". Instead of "Christ" she says "Moshiach". Not really a problem so far, but what's really different is that though she believes Jesus is Savior and Lord, she thinks it's actually wrong to use traditional Christian terminology.
 
Another example: I know a minister (very conservative when it comes to theology) whose brother (not ethnically Jewish) is the same way as that sister of the church elder. He keeps kosher, and think that eating pork and shellfish is actually sinful for Jews who believe in Jesus. He attends "church" (He doesn't call it "church", though) on Saturdays and think that Sunday is the wrong day to celebrate the Sabbath. Their pastor wears a traditional Jewish "tallis" (prayer shawl), and he's called "Rabbi" by the congregation. Another minister I've known for years (born and raised nominally Jewish, but who hardly ever attended synagogue as a youth) now officiates in a Messianic synagogue that resembles the traditional synagogues I remember attending before I became a Christian. He teaches that it's obligatory to keep all the Jewish holidays, But he adds Jesus to this variation of Judaism, and his congregation looks forward to the rebuilding of the third stone temple in Jerusalem, the return of all Jews to Israel, the removal of the Arabs from an expanded "Holy Land" stretching from the River Euphrates to the border of Egypt. This would include all of Lebanon, all of Jordan, most of Syria, and half of Iraq, And why? Because this was the land promised to Abraham's descendants (Gen 15:18) And who are they according to him? The Jews. Not Christian gentiles, but Jews, regardless of their faith affiliation with Jesus of Nazareth. Their church contributes money to relocate Jews to Israel to help further things along so that Messiah Jesus will set up His kingdom in Jerusalem and the Jews will en masse, accept Jesus as their Messiah and then be seen by all the world to be the Chosen People once again, in a kind of "most-favored nation" status with God. This particular minister  is concerned that God is angry with America because of its flagging support of the current state of Israel.

Now admittedly, Jewish-Christians (or Christian Jews or Messianic Jews, whatever they prefer to call themselves) do not all believe the same things. But there is a range of Judaistic beliefs prevalent among them. And while there are variations within this range, it's definitely a problematic spiritual movement, carrying with it various hybrid movements and mutations in its wake. Here are things that most of them have in common: 
 

1) Insistence on Hebrew terms as being more spiritual/more correct than the historically-used Greek terms of the New Testament.
 
2) Insistence on keeping a kosher diet as being more spiritual than obeying the liberty to eat all foods, as allowed in Acts 10:15 3
 
3) Elevating the customs and ceremonies of the Jewish people as still mandatory for Jewish believers in Jesus.
 
4) Gaging one's support or opposition to the current State of Israel as a metric for genuine spirituality.
 
And if this movement ever wanted to have a "poster boy", it could easily be John Hagee, the founder and chairman of the Christian-Zionist organization called "Christians United for Israel". 
 
Hagee is a Premillennial Dispensationalist, but he's one that even other "Dispy" groups have a problem with. In his controversial book In Defense of Israel, Hagee says:
 
. Christ did not come to earth to be the Messiah
. Christ by His words and deeds refused to be the Messiah
. Jews can't be blamed for rejecting Jesus, since He was never offered to them. 
 
CUFI is well-funded, and is seeking a college campus presence to counter the growing anti-Semitic and anti-Israel sentiments at universities.
 
Bravo for that, at least. But just because a ministry says that it's "pro-Israel" doesn't mean it really is. There's nothing more "anti-Israel" than teaching Israelis that now is not the time to come to Christ as Lord and Messiah. This is what Hagee has taught in the past. 
 
Even other "Dispy" groups have a problem with CUFI and its founder. Take the organization "One For Israel" as an example, which has an impressive social networking presence and often features Jews who came to gospel faith in the Messiah. Eitan Bar, an Israeli Messianic, recently wrote a public plea to John Hagee to stop teaching heresy. It's called "Let My People Know".
 
Here's the point: if you have relatives or friends involved in this, we can help. We've had a lot of experience. Put www.chaim.org into your browser, then go to "About Us", then page down through "FAQ" (Frequently Asked Questions). Or ... shoot me an e-mail with a question. 
 
Hope this helps someone ...
 
Continue reading other blogs? Click http://www.scripturesdramatized.com/radio-blogs
 
 
The Hebrew Roots movement is not a monolithic set of beliefs, but it does have certain errors of doctrine in common within the movement. 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebrew_Roots
 

I know church elder whose sister (non-Jewish, attended church all her life), now attends a Messianic fellowship.  She believes it's improper to say "Jesus". She calls Him "Yeshua". Her fellowship worships God using words and phrases that I remember from my youth in synagogue which I attended with my parents as a Jew. Instead of "blessing", she says "b-racha". Instead of "Old Testament" she says "Tenach". Instead of "Christ" she says "Moshiach". Not really a problem so far, but what's really different is that though she believes Jesus is Savior and Lord, she thinks it's actually wrong to use traditional Christian terminology.
 
Another example: I know a minister (very conservative when it comes to theology) whose brother (not ethnically Jewish) is the same way as that sister of the church elder. He keeps kosher, and think that eating pork and shellfish is actually sinful for Jews who believe in Jesus. He attends "church" (He doesn't call it "church", though) on Saturdays and think that Sunday is the wrong day to celebrate the Sabbath. Their pastor wears a traditional Jewish "tallis" (prayer shawl), and he's called "Rabbi" by the congregation. Another minister I've known for years (born and raised nominally Jewish, but who hardly ever attended synagogue as a youth) now officiates in a Messianic synagogue that resembles the traditional synagogues I remember attending before I became a Christian. He teaches that it's obligatory to keep all the Jewish holidays, But he adds Jesus to this variation of Judaism, and his congregation looks forward to the rebuilding of the third stone temple in Jerusalem, the return of all Jews to Israel, the removal of the Arabs from an expanded "Holy Land" stretching from the River Euphrates to the border of Egypt. This would include all of Lebanon, all of Jordan, most of Syria, and half of Iraq, And why? Because this was the land promised to Abraham's descendants (Gen 15:18) And who are they according to him? The Jews. Not Christian gentiles, but Jews, regardless of their faith affiliation with Jesus of Nazareth. Their church contributes money to relocate Jews to Israel to help further things along so that Messiah Jesus will set up His kingdom in Jerusalem and the Jews will en masse, accept Jesus as their Messiah and then be seen by all the world to be the Chosen People once again, in a kind of "most-favored nation" status with God. This particular minister  is concerned that God is angry with America because of its flagging support of the current state of Israel.

Now admittedly, Jewish-Christians (or Christian Jews or Messianic Jews, whatever they prefer to call themselves) do not all believe the same things. But there is a range of Judaistic beliefs prevalent among them. And while there are variations within this range, it's definitely a problematic spiritual movement, carrying with it various hybrid movements and mutations in its wake. Here are things that most of them have in common: 
 

1) Insistence on Hebrew terms as being more spiritual/more correct than the historically-used Greek terms of the New Testament.
 
2) Insistence on keeping a kosher diet as being more spiritual than obeying the liberty to eat all foods, as allowed in Acts 10:15 3
 
3) Elevating the customs and ceremonies of the Jewish people as still mandatory for Jewish believers in Jesus.
 
4) Gaging one's support or opposition to the current State of Israel as a metric for genuine spirituality.
 
And if this movement ever wanted to have a "poster boy", it could easily be John Hagee, the founder and chairman of the Christian-Zionist organization called "Christians United for Israel". 
 
Hagee is a Premillennial Dispensationalist, but he's one that even other "Dispy" groups have a problem with. In his controversial book In Defense of Israel, Hagee says:
 
. Christ did not come to earth to be the Messiah
. Christ by His words and deeds refused to be the Messiah
. Jews can't be blamed for rejecting Jesus, since He was never offered to them. 
 
CUFI is well-funded, and is seeking a college campus presence to counter the growing anti-Semitic and anti-Israel sentiments at universities.
 
Bravo for that, at least. But just because a ministry says that it's "pro-Israel" doesn't mean it really is. There's nothing more "anti-Israel" than teaching Israelis that now is not the time to come to Christ as Lord and Messiah. This is what Hagee has taught in the past. 
 
Even other "Dispy" groups have a problem with CUFI and its founder. Take the organization "One For Israel" as an example, which has an impressive social networking presence and often features Jews who came to gospel faith in the Messiah. Eitan Bar, an Israeli Messianic, recently wrote a public plea to John Hagee to stop teaching heresy. It's called "Let My People Know".
 
Here's the point: if you have relatives or friends involved in this, we can help. We've had a lot of experience. Put www.chaim.org into your browser, then go to "About Us", then page down through "FAQ" (Frequently Asked Questions). Or ... shoot me an e-mail with a question. 
 
Hope this helps someone ...
 
Continue reading other blogs? Click http://www.scripturesdramatized.com/radio-blogs
 

Here's an Interesting development at the U. of Penn campus. Apparently, Isaiah 53 inspires fear in certain Orthodox Jews. On Rosh Hashana eve, I went to the U. of Penn campus to do tracting and evangelism with a CHAIM brochure relevant to Rosh Hashana and Yom Kippur, called "Whoever Heard of a Jewish Priest". It has a drawing of two "Live Long and Prosper" Mr. Spock hands, joined together with index and middle fingers extended in the way the Aaronic priests used to do it in the Temple long ago. (And also the way rabbis do it in synagogues today.) And as I was passing these out, an Orthodox Jew took issue with my use of that drawing. "That's illegal, according to Jewish law, to have that drawing." He said. I told him I was a Jew who believed in Jesus, and asked him if he had ever read Isaiah 53. "It's in the Tenach. (The Jewish Scriptures). It's not in the New Testament, it's in your Bible," I said. He answered with,  "Oh no. I don't go near that." I said, "But why? It's in your Bible?" He stared at me with a look of fright, and walked away. And yet, at the same time, some Jews claim Isaiah 53 has changed their lives and changed their view of the Messiah. It happened to me, for example.

On a positive note, I was able to share the complete gospel with "M", a Drexel student who recently converted to Roman Catholicism. In answer to my E.E. question of "Why should God let you into His heaven?" He answered "Because I do many good things." I explained Ephesians 2:8  to him and the difference between grace vs. works. "M" was receptive and thankful for that, and he took my information.      

On Thursday the 24th, I joined with other members of the Evangelism Explosion Steering Committee for street outreach near 69th Street Station, within sight of the landmark Tower Theater, famous world-wide for its excellent acoustical properties. Many nationally-known music groups started here. There were six of us. Working with Steering Committee Chairman Wali Ahmad, I spoke with "R", a Mexican, and "E", a young man (US), both of whom made new professions of faith in Christ. I think there were other salvations as well. During our outreach, certain stores along 69th St. began boarding up their windows and glass doors, as a group of BLM protesters/rioters gathered at the Transportation Hub. But the police arrived and blocked off the street and there was no riot or vandalism. Several months ago, there were attacks on businesses and looting here, inspired by Antifa and "Black Lives Matter" trained provocateurs and student-age compensated brick-throwers and window-breakers.  Please regularly pray safety for Mark and Karen Grasso's group. They do outreach there on Fridays at the Transportation Hub, as part of Christ Church of Yeadon's street evangelism team.

Continue reading other blogs? Click http://www.scripturesdramatized.com/radio/blogs