McCain's Racism

1) John McCain used the anti-Asian slur 'Gook' publicly for 27 years until he was forced to stop for fear of sabotaging his own presidential ambitions. When asked about his use of the racist term by a news reporter, his response was that 'I hate the gooks.'

2) John McCain voted against declaring Martin Luther King Day a national holiday, and then voted to rescind it.

3) John McCain worked to remove the Navajo Di'neh from their lands in Arizona's Black Mesa (and onto an EPA designated toxic site) for the benefit of powerful mining interests.

4) John McCain endorsed George Wallace, Jr., a favorite speaker among white supremacists.

5) John McCain was a disciple of Arizona senator Barry Goldwater, a man noted as one of only four nonSouthern Republicans to vote against the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

6) John McCain is now for banning affirmative steps to ensure equal opportunity for women and racial minority group after a decade of opposing such measures as unnecessary and divisive. (Of course, McCain is FOR affirmative action to ensure that the U.S. military meets its recruitment goals.)

7) John McCain sought the endorsements of Christian ministers John Hagee and Rod Parsley: Hagee hates Catholics and believes that the Holocaust was ordained by God; Parsley preaches that America's special mission is to destroy Muslims.

8) John McCain fought to keep the Confederate battle flag flying over South Carolina.

9) John McCain kicked off his "Service to America Tour" near Philadephia, Mississippi, the epicenter of the states rights movement and opposition to the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Civil rights workers Schwerner, Goodman, and Chaney were murdered there in '64. And Ronald Reagan kicked off his 1980 presidential campaign from there with a screed to states rights.

10) John McCain employs Richard Quinn, a man who believes that Nelson Mandela is a “terrorist”; Martin Luther King, Jr. lead African Americans into "a terrible bondage of body and soul”; and that David Duke is a maverick.”

11) John McCain's Latin American policies favor rightwing oppressive regimes.

12) John McCain used the racially charged phrase "tar baby" when responding to a question about divorced fathers posed by a African American.

13) John McCain threw Latino immigrants under the bus in his lunge to win the nativist GOP vote.

14) John McCain was introduced in Batavia this way: "You can have your Tiger Woods. We've got Senator McCain."

15) John McCain promised to start wars in North Korea, Libya, and Iraq during his first presidential campaign.

16) John McCain promised 100 years war in Iraq; entertained Republicans at a townhall meeting with “Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran”; and he gave his supporters ‘straight talk’ when he declared, “I'm sorry to tell you, there's going to be other wars.”

17) John McCain sent his own money to the contra guerillas, and even visited their illegal war camp.

18) John McCain keeps race-baiting swiftboaters and lobbyists for dictators on his campaign payroll.

19) John McCain’s Vietnam War buddy, political supporter, virulent Islamophobe, Bud Day, was quoted saying “that the Muslims have said either we kneel, or they’re going to kill us.”

20) John McCain lobbied for an Iraq invasion just days after 9/11, and when it came time to convince the American people, he insisted that the Iraq War would be easily won.

Jewish Halachic Stance on Capital Punishment

While the Torah supports the death penalty in principle, it places formidable obstacles to its implementation--and the Talmud nearly drove the executioner to extinction. Does Judaism condone capital punishment?

Supporters of the death penalty often cite the Bible to bolster their position. "Ye shall take no ransom for the life of a murderer...he shall surely be put to death" (Numbers 35:31). Indeed, the Torah specifies a full litany of offenses for which a person may be put to death, including murder, idolatry, blasphemy, adultery, violating the Sabbath, wizardry, and rebelling against one's parents. The punishments for each transgression are noted as well--stoning, burning, and slaying by the sword.

But the recording of these laws in Scripture may give a false impression about the actual practice of capital punishment in ancient Israel. While the Torah supports the death penalty in principle, it places formidable obstacles to its implementation. Bible Professor Dr. David Sperling has observed that the well-known lex talionus (law of retaliation) "Thou shalt give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe" (Exodus 21:23-25) may appear to endorse capital punishment, but it is actually a formula for restricting the punishment to be meted out. "In contrast to the Code of Hammurabi [an earlier legal code well known in the ancient Near East]," Professor Sperling writes, "biblical law limits the death penalty to the murderer--a family member cannot be executed in his/her place" (Exodus 21). Moreover, the defendant may not be put to death unless two (or in some cases three) eyewitnesses testify against him or her.

Each witness must be so certain of his testimony that he personally would be willing to carry out the execution. Deuteronomy 19:13-21 asserts that a false witness is subject to the same punishment as the defendant--including, presumably, death. The Torah also distinguishes between a premeditated murder and unintentional killing. In the case of an unintentional slaying, the killer is permitted to take refuge in one of six cities on the other side of the Jordan River (Numbers 35:9-15, Deuteronomy 4:41-43, Joshua 20). The pattern of not inflicting the ultimate punishment is established early in the Bible. After Cain kills his brother Abel in a fit of rage, God does not demand Cain's life in retribution; instead, Cain is set free to wander the earth. The mark God places on Cain's forehead is not a sign of punishment, as is commonly assumed, but one of protection; it served as a kind of mobile "city of refuge," warding off anyone seeking to avenge the wrong Cain had committed. Interpretations in the Rabbinic Age

The rabbis who compiled the Talmud in the first centuries of the Common Era interpreted and expanded upon the biblical laws governing capital punishment. They too stipulated transgressions deserving of death, among them idolatry, bestiality, blasphemy, illicit sex, violating the Sabbath, witchcraft, and adultery in certain circumstances. Then, in meticulous detail, they linked each crime with its corresponding method of execution (stoning, burning, strangulation, or slaying by the sword). Grisly punishments all--but it is highly doubtful that the rabbis ever actually imposed the death penalty. After a long, elaborate discussion of the class of capital crime befitting the stubborn and rebellious son and a description of how the execution was to be carried out, the Talmud states: "It never happened and it never will happen."

The passage then explains that the entire matter is presented purely for study: "That you may study [the Torah for its own sake] and receive reward" (San hedrin71a). In other words, the discussion of capital punishment in the Talmud seems to exist only in the realm of theoretical speculation, just as--after the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem--all the laws of sacrifice were retained and studied long after the sacrifices ceased to be offered. The Trial Capital cases were heard by a court of twenty-three judges (Sanhedrin 2A) and, in some cases, seventy-one judges (Sanhedrin 2A, 15A, & 16A), all of the highest character. "Anyone fit to try capital cases could also try monetary cases," the rabbis stated, "but a person fit to try a monetary case may still be unfit to try a capital case" (Nida 49B). According to Rabbi Judah, a person whose disposition is cruel should be excluded from sitting in judgment in such cases (Sanhedrin 36B). Not only should a person's own record be pure and righteous, but his ancestry had to be free of blemish before he could sit on this court (Sanhedrin 36B). The judges sat on three rising semicircular tiers, as in an amphitheater, in order to see one another, and all murder cases were tried in the light of day; in these ways, everything could be open and aboveboard. Two judge's clerks stood before them, one to the right and the other to the left, and wrote down the arguments of those who would acquit and those who would condemn; both clerks were necessary as a precaution against any mistake. Rabbi Judah said that there were three such clerks: one to record arguments for acquittal, a second to record arguments for conviction, and a third to record arguments for both acquittal and conviction. Witnesses stood in front of these tiers of judges. The stringent demands on witnesses in capital cases rendered almost impossible the likelihood that a defendant would be convicted. To ensure that a witness's testimony was not based on conjecture (e.g. circumstantial evidence), hearsay, simple rumor, or the observations of another witness, the court would "fill the witness with fear." Witnesses were asked to establish the day and hour of the crime and explain the circumstances surrounding it (Sanhedrin 2B). They were then warned that they would be subject to rigorous questioning and relentless cross-examination and held personally responsible should the accused be falsely condemned. Bearing false witness in a capital case was in itself a crime punishable by death (Sanhedrin 9B, 32B, 86A, & 89A). A witness in a capital case had to have seen the entire crime as it was being committed; circumstantial evidence was inadmissible. For example, Rabbi Simeon ben Shatach witnessed the following incident: "I saw a man chasing another man into a ruin; I ran after him and saw a sword in his hand dripping with the other's blood, and the murdered man in his death agony...." Even though he was convinced of the man's guilt, the rabbi could not testify against him, because he did not see the actual crime (Sanhedrin 37b). Not only did witnesses have to see the crime take place, they had to have warned the perpetrator prior to the act that he was about to commit a capital offense. According to Rabbi Judah, a warner even had to inform the perpetrator of the type of execution prescribed for his crime (Sanhedrin 8B). The perpetrator was then obliged to have verbally acknowledged this warning by saying something like, "I know I am warned not to do this"; to have admitted his liability to death by adding something like, "even though I shall be punished by such-and-such manner, yet I want to go ahead and commit this crime"; and to have committed the murder within the time needed to make such an utterance (Makkot 6A). The great eleventh-century commentator Rashi explains this last restriction by suggesting that if a murder was delayed longer than the time necessary to make an utterance, the plea might be accepted that the perpetrator had forgotten the warning altogether. Furthermore, two or three witnesses had to have similarly interacted with the accused.

And on the unlikely chance that such witnesses could be found, the Court could convict the accused only if guilt could be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. According to the Talmud, "A doubt in capital charges should always be for the benefit of the accused" (Baba Batra 50B, Sanhedrin 79A). In reaching a verdict, a judge was free to argue in favor of the accused, but not against him. A judge who had argued initially for condemnation could subsequently argue for acquittal, but one who had argued for acquittal could not argue later for condemnation. Acquittal in capital cases required a majority of one vote, condemnation a majority of two.

A verdict could be reversed for acquittal if errors were revealed, but no new evidence was allowed which would reverse a decision from acquittal to condemnation.

Staying the Execution Following a guilty verdict, provisions were made to stay the execution. A herald was dispatched to announce something like: "So-and-so, son of so-and-so, is going forth to be stoned because he committed such-and-such offense, and so-and-so are his witnesses. If anyone has anything to say in his favor, let him come forward and state it."

If someone offered to make a statement in favor of the condemned man, a retrial followed. A person was stationed at the door of the court holding a signaling flag, while a horseman stood at the ready within sight of the signalman.

If one of the judges said he had something further to state in favor of the condemned, the signaler waved his flag, sending the horseman to postpone the execution. Indeed, even if the condemned said he had something further to plead in his own favor, the court was obliged to reconvene (Sanhedrin 42B). Rabbinic attitudes concerning the death penalty are also reflected in statements such as "a Sanhedrin that effects an execution once in seven years is branded a destructive tribunal." Rabbi Elizer Ben Azariah said "once in seventy years." Rabbis Tarfon and Akiba said, "If we were members of a Sanhedrin, nobody would ever be put to death." In that same Gemarra, however, Rabbi Simeon Ben Gamaliel dissented: "If we never condemned anyone to death, we might be considered guilty of promoting violence and bloodshed.... [We] could also multiply shedders of blood in Israel" (all Makkot 7A). Forty years before the fall of Jerusalem in 70 C.E., the rabbis abolished capital punishment altogether (Soncino Talmud, Sanhedrin page 161, footnote 10). Rather than applying the four methods of execution themselves, they ruled that punishment should be carried out by divine agencies (Sanhedrin 37B, Ketubot 30A, & 30B). In other words, a punishment so awesome as the taking of a person's life should not be entrusted to fallible human beings, but only to God.

This ruling does not mean the rabbis dispensed with punishment altogether. On the contrary, they expressed no compunction about decreeing corporal punishment--harsh physical suffering. If the rabbis/judges were convinced of a defendant's guilt in a capital case, but the high standard of evidence did not permit execution, he would be sentenced to prison on a ration of bread and water.

The thrust of Jewish tradition and the historical positions of the Reform Movement… impel us to oppose capital punishment in principle and in practice. A person wrongfully flogged for robbery can heal. A person improperly imprisoned for murder can be exonerated and set free. But someone put to death for a crime he/she did not commit can never be redeemed. If we are true to our faith and our tradition, we must respond to the imperative of its teachings and do everything we can to keep our society from committing the ultimate of injustices: the wrongful execution of an innocent person.

Source: Reform Judaism Magazine, Summer 2002.
Rabbi Daniel Polish, HUC-JIR class of 1968, is director of the Joint Commission on Social Action of Reform Judaism and co-author with Rabbis Daniel Syme and Bernard Zlotowitz of Drugs, Sex and Integrity (UAHC Press).

Jewish Perspective on Abortion

Within Christianity, Judaism, Humanism and other religions and ethical systems, the morality of abortion is grounded in the precise belief of the nature of the fetus. There is a general consensus in North America that when the fetus becomes a human person, then abortions should be severely limited. Most would confine abortions at that stage to situations that threaten the life of the pregnant woman; a very few would eliminate access to abortions totally. The problem that generates so much controversy is that no consensus exists in society over the point, between conception and birth, when personhood begins.

Halacha (Jewish law) does define when a fetus becomes a nefesh (person). "...a baby...becomes a full-fledged human being when the head emerges from the womb. Before then, the fetus is considered a 'partial life.' " 5 In the case of a "feet-first" delivery, it happens when most of the fetal body is outside the mother's body.

Jewish beliefs and practice not neatly match either the "pro-life" nor the "pro-choice" points of view. The general principles of modern-day Judaism are that:

The fetus has great value because it is potentially a human life. It gains "full human status at birth only." 2

Abortions are not permitted on the grounds of genetic imperfections of the fetus.

Abortions are permitted to save the mother's life or health.

With the exception of some Orthodox authorities, Judaism supports abortion access for women.

"...each case must be decided individually by a rabbi well-versed in Jewish law." 5


Historical Christianity has considered "ensoulment," the point at which the soul enters the body) as the time when abortions should normally be prohibited. Belief about the timing of this event has varied from the instant of fertilization of the ovum, to 90 days after conception, or later. There has been no consensus among historical Jewish sources about when ensoulment happens. It is regarded as "one of the 'secrets of God' that will be revealed only when the Messiah comes." 1


Abortion-related passages in the Hebrew Scriptures & Talmud:
The Babylonian Talmud Yevamot 69b states that: "the embryo is considered to be mere water until the fortieth day." Afterwards, it is considered subhuman until it is born.

"Rashi, the great 12th century commentator on the Bible and Talmud, states clearly of the fetus 'lav nefesh hu--it is not a person.' The Talmud contains the expression 'ubar yerech imo--the fetus is as the thigh of its mother,' i.e., the fetus is deemed to be part and parcel of the pregnant woman's body." 1 This is grounded in Exodus 21:22. That biblical passage outlines the Mosaic law in a case where a man is responsible for causing a woman's miscarriage, which kills the fetus If the woman survives, then the perpetrator has to pay a fine to the woman's husband. If the woman dies, then the perpetrator is also killed. This indicates that the fetus has value, but does not have the status of a person.

There are two additional passages in the Talmud which shed some light on the Jewish belief about abortion. They imply that the fetus is considered part of the mother, and not a separate entity:

One section states that if a man purchases a cow that is found to be pregnant, then he is the owner both of the cow and the fetus.

Another section states that if a pregnant woman converts to Judaism, that her conversion applies also to her fetus.


Abortions needed to save the life of the mother:
A passage from the Mishna quotes a Jewish legal text from the second century CE. It describes the situation in which a woman's life is endangered during childbirth. A D&X procedure (often called Partial Birth Abortion in recent years) might be used under these conditions today. However, this technique was unknown in ancient times. The legal text states that the fetus must be dismembered and removed limb by limb. However, if "the greater part" of the fetus had already been delivered, then the fetus could not be killed. This is based on the belief that the fetus only becomes a person after most of its body emerges from the birth canal. Before personhood has been reached, it may be necessary to "sacrifice a potential life in order to save a fully existent human life, i.e. the pregnant woman in labor." 1 After the forehead emerges from the birth canal, the fetus is regarded as a person. Neither the baby nor the mother can be killed to save the life of the other.

A second consideration is the principle of self-defense. Some Jewish authorities have asserted that if the fetus placed its mother's life at risk, then the mother should be permitted to kill the fetus to save herself, even if the "greater portion [of its body] had already emerged" from the birth canal.

Other abortions:
Some Jewish authorities have ruled in specific cases:

One case involved a woman who becomes pregnant while nursing a child. Her milk supply would dry up. If the child is allergic to all other forms of nutrition except for its mother's milk, then it would starve. An abortion would be permitted in this case. An abortion of the fetus, a potential person, would be justified to save the life of the child, an actual person.
An abortion would be permissible if the woman was suicidal because of her pregnancy.
Jewish authorities differed in a case where a continued pregnancy would leave the mother permanently deaf. She obtained permission for an abortion from the Chief Rabbi of Israel.
Many Jewish authorities permit abortion in the case of a pregnancy resulting from a rape, if needed in order save her great mental anguish.
Most authorities do not permit abortion in the event that the fetus is genetically defective or will probably pick up a disease from its mother. The rationale is that even though the child will be malformed, disabled, or diseased, it would still be formed in the image of the creator. Rabbi Eliezar Waldenberg is one authority who believes otherwise. He "allows first trimester abortion of a fetus which would be born with a deformity that would cause it to suffer, and termination of a fetus with a lethal fetal defect such as Tay Sachs up to the end of the second trimester of gestation." 3
An abortion is sometimes permitted if the woman suffers great emotional pain about the birth of a child who will experience health problems.
Abortions are not permitted to avoid career inconveniences, or because the woman is unmarried.
In a very unusual case, a woman in New Jersey was pregnant with a hydroencephalic fetus. Its large head prevented a conventional delivery. The physician recommended a Caesarian section. But the woman asked for a D&X procedure on the grounds that the fetus' life was doomed anyway and a C section would weaken her uterus for her next pregnancy. Her rabbinic authorities agreed.


Political aspects of abortion access:
Conservative, Reconstructionist and Reform Judaism are formally opposed to government regulation of abortion. They feel that the decision should rest with the woman, her husband, doctor and clergyperson. Some Orthodox authorities agree with this stance.

All recognize that the decision to have an abortion is a difficult one, and is not to be undertaken without considerable thought.

The Diabolically Evil Agenda by Evagenlical Christians Against the State of Israel

The tensions between the United States and Iran reached a new level recently. Following a series of announcements regarding its nuclear program and tests of new weapons systems, Tehran announced on Tuesday that it was purchasing the sophisticated Tor M1 anti-aircraft missile system from Russia. On Friday, the IAEA released its highly anticipated report on the Iranian nuclear program and its failure to meet UN Security Council deadline to stop its uranium enrichment efforts. Secretary of State Condi Rice warned Sunday that it was time for Iran and its President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to stop "playing games."

But while the differences between Washington and Tehran are threatening and growing, there are eerie similarities between presidents Bush and Ahmadinejad and their respective fundamentalist followers. For each, the strikingly analogous views regarding religious prophecy, second comings and the end of times for their respective Christian and Shiite eschatologies may be pushing Ahmadinejad and Bush inexorably towards war.

A recent piece by Matthias Kuntzel in the New Republic ("Ahmadinejad's Demons") presents a frightening picture of the Iranian side of the equation. Kuntzel portrays the Ahmadinejad as a "child of the revolution" fostering the cult of martyrdom and mass sacrifice that killed tens of thousands of young Iranians - the Basiji - during the war with Iraq in the 1980's. Just as Ayatollah Khomeini in 1980 called on Iranian children to martyr themselves in battle in the name of Hussein, the third imam and murdered grandson of the Prophet Muhammad, today's Iran of Ahmadinejad and Supreme Leader Ali Khameini have created for a special military unit called "Commando of Voluntary Martyrs." The Martyrs unit now boasts 52,000 members and will soon be in place in every Iranian province.

Central to the ideology of Ahmadinejad and the hard liners in Tehran is the role of the return of the "Twelfth Imam." In Shiite theology, the second coming of this last of the Prophet Muhammad's direct male descendents - the Mahdi - signals the imminent deliverance of the world from evil. As Kuntzel describes:

At the end of this line, there is the "Twelfth Imam," who is named Muhammad. Some call him the Mahdi (the "divinely guided one"), though others say imam Zaman (from sahib-e zaman: "the ruler of time"). He was born in 869, the only son of the eleventh Imam. In 874, he disappeared without a trace, thereby bringing Muhammad's lineage to a close. In Shia mythology, however, the Twelfth Imam survived. The Shia believe that he merely withdrew from public view when he was five and that he will sooner or later emerge from his "occultation" in order to liberate the world from evil.
The killing of Hussein and the return of the Twelfth Imam are essential components of the language - and propaganda - of Ahmadinejad's Iran. He lauded what former Iranian President Hashemi Rafsanjani deemed the "worthwhile" death of martyrdom, "Is there an art that is more beautiful, more divine, more eternal than the art of the martyr's death?" President Ahmadinejad last November declared, "The most important task of our Revolution is to prepare the way for the return of the Twelfth Imam." His government has even funded a research institute to study and if possible hasten the coming of "imam Zaman." And in his September 17, 2005 address to the UN General Assembly, Ahmadinejad implored God for the return of the Mahdi:

"O mighty Lord, I pray to you to hasten the emergence of your last repository, the promised one, that perfect and pure human being, the one that will fill this world with justice and peace."
All of which offers disturbing parallels between the Tehran regime and the worldview of President Bush and his fundamentalist followers in the American religious right. From the use of religious imagery and government funding of non-secular initiatives to the meaning of Israel, Armageddon and the second coming of Christ, Bush and the American Taliban see themselves as fulfilling biblical prophecy in the Middle East. In some important ways, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's mirror image may reside in the White House.

The influence and impact of evangelical thinking and language about the End of Times and divine intervention upon the Bush administration is made clear in books like Kevin Phillips' "American Theocracy" and Michael Lind's "Made in Texas." Phillips concludes that George W. Bush is convinced that "God wanted him to be president", a view backed by Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention, who reported, "Among the things he said to us was: I believe that God wants me to be president." As White House official Tim Goeglein once put it, "I think President Bush is God's man at this hour, and I say this with a great sense of humility."

President Bush himself has not publicly claimed to have a divine mandate. (As Time reported after September 11, however, "privately, Bush even talked of being chosen by the grace of God to lead at that moment.") But Bush is clear in his belief that God's hand is at work in his presidency. Just last week, Bush defended his decision to invade Iraq, declaring:

"I base a lot of my foreign policy decisions on some things that I think are true. One, I believe there's an Almighty. And, secondly, I believe one of the great gifts of the Almighty is the desire in everybody's soul, regardless of what you look like or where you live, to be free."
During a February 2003 National Prayer Breakfast, the President intoned:

"We can be confident in the ways of Providence...Behind all of life and all of history, there's a dedication and purpose, set by the hand of a just and faithful God."
(For more on Bush's use of religious imagery, see "Bush's Religious Language" in The Nation and this commentary by his former speechwriter, Michael Gerson.)

During a March appearance in Cleveland, President Bush brushed aside the question, "Do you believe this, that the war in Iraq and the rise of terrorism are signs of the Apocalypse? And if not, why not?" While Bush may or may not literally believe that Armageddon and the Second Coming of Christ are imminent, his radical right Republican base is another matter altogether. Appearing on CNN's Lou Dobbs Tonight in March, Kevin Phillips noted that while Bush can't publicly state that he literally believes in the biblical prophecy of Armageddon in the Book of Revelations, his conservative Christian allies clearly do:

"A survey by "Newsweek" several years back found that 45 percent of American Christians believed in Armageddon, that it was coming. And about the same percentage thought the anti- Christ was already on Earth. Now, if you were to take the religious Christians, and the Republican coalition includes most of the religious Christians, you probably have about 55 percent of the Republican coalition that believes in this."
By "this," Phillips is referring to the end of times struggle in Israel, the conversion or mass death of Jews with the Second Coming of Christ. As Jerry Falwell put it, "scripture is clear on that." (Falwell also told Newsweek's Howard Fineman that he introduced George W. Bush to Tim LaHaye, author of the "Left Behind" series on the Second Coming and the Rapture.) That future, as Rod Dreher described it in the National Review four years ago:

"To Jews who adhere to ancient tradition, whose number include religious Israeli nationalists, the long-awaited Messiah will return to become the king of Israel and high priest of a rebuilt Temple, which can only be on Temple Mount. For Christian fundamentalists, Jesus Christ's return at the height of the battle of Armageddon, in which forces of the Antichrist clash in Israel with a 200 million-man army from the East, will require a Third Temple from which the Lord will begin a millennial reign."
The result for Bush's amen corner is what Fineman described as "Apocalypse Politics." That entails above all unswerving support for Israel. Israel is seen as ordained by God, a view held by 44% of Americans, according to a 2003 Pew Research survey. But the evangelical Christian Zionist movement goes further, seeing in Israel "a fulfillment of the biblical prophecy about the second coming of Jesus," a belief shared by 36% of Americans in the Pew research. For the Republican religious right, Israel must not only be staunchly supported in its conflict with the Palestinians, but that the conflict itself should be welcomed, even accelerated.

Bush's conservative Christian allies back Israel in both word and deed. Billy Graham and Pat Robertson's Christian Broadcasting Network offer daily prayers for Israel. For one-time presidential candidate Gary Bauer claimed, "America has an obligation to stand by Israel" because "God has promised that land to the Jewish people." Evangelicals organize pilgrimages and tours of Israel and even provide Jewish settlements in the West Bank with financial support. When the President Bush pressured Ariel Sharon in 2002 to pull back its tanks from towns in the West Bank, the White House received a hundred thousand emails from Falwell's followers and faced the Christian Coalition on Mall in Washington. Bush backed off. As the Village Voice reported in 2004, the Bush White House consulted with rapture Christians before finalizing its policy on Sharon's proposed Gaza withdrawal.

But the friends of Bush are not content to wait for the Second Coming of Christ and with it, the slaughter of the mass of Jews with the conversion of the remaining 144,000. As Falwell put it, the arrival of the End of Times should be prodded, advanced and cajoled:

"The danger, if there is a danger in believing in the imminence of the Lord's return - and I do, is to become a fatalist, that certain things are going to happen regardless and there's nothing we can do about them. That isn't true."
Nowhere is this desire to accelerate biblical prophecy more on display than in the ongoing effort to breed the symbolic "red heifer." Since the early 1990's, fundamentalist Christians in the United States have been trying to help breed the perfect calf that will signal the Second Coming. As the NRO's Dreher described the biblical role of the red heifer:

"The ashes of a flawless red heifer - an extremely rare creature - were required by the ancient Hebrews to purify worshipers who went into the Temple to pray. In modern times, rabbinical law forbids Jews from setting foot on the Temple Mount, thus violating the site where the Holy of Holies dwelled, until and unless they are ritually purified. Without a perfect red heifer to sacrifice, the Third Temple cannot be built, and Moshiach - the Messiah - will not come."
It's no wonder Haaretz columnist David Landau deemed the red heifer "a four-legged bomb" with the potential to "set the entire region on fire."

While some wait for the arrival of the biblically mandated bovine, the apocalyptic theocracies of Washington and Tehran seem on a collision course. As President Bush's supporters view themselves as "Israel's only safety belt," Mahmoud Ahmadinejad calls for Israel to be "wiped off the map." While the mullahs in Tehran look to the return of the Twelfth Imam to deliver them from evil, President Bush's allies await the Second Coming of Christ to usher in a millennium of peace. With their research institutes and breeding programs, the devout on both sides seek to accelerate the End of Times. And as their positions over the Iranian nuclear program harden, Presidents Bush and Ahmadinejad have more in common than they know.

Seventy Weeks in Daniel

The following passages in the Book of Daniel are some of Christian’s favorites to prophecy the coming of Jesus. By using a few mistranslations and misplaced punctuation, they end up with a very clever and amazing attempt to place Jesus in the Hebrew Bible.

These are the quotes from the New Testament:

"Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon the holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation of iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy. Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and sixty two weeks; the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troubled times. And after sixty two weeks shall the Messiah be cut off, but not for himself, and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolation’s are determined. And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week, and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even unto the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate." Daniel 9:24-27

The Christian interpretation showing all the mathematics follow:

The Artaxerxes of Nehemiah 2:1 rose to power in 465 BCE, and so, according to Nehemiah 2:1, the commandment to restore Jerusalem began 20 years later, i.e., 445 BCE.

Now, since they claim that a Biblical year had 360 days, they multiply 360 by 483 (69 weeks equals 69 periods of seven years--69 X 7 = 483 years). This equals 173,880 days.

To change from Biblical years to our solar years, they divide 173,880 days by 365 1/4; this equals 476 years. Add 476 years to 445 BCE and you will get 31 CE.

Actually, they add a few days, and it ends up around 32 CE, which is just when they claim that Jesus was crucified. Thus, Daniel 9:25, according to the Christians when discussing the Messiah, is referring to Jesus; saying that he will be "cut off” i.e., crucified.

Sounds reasonable, but is it accurate? There are really many difficulties (errors) with this interpretation, which is why Jews were never impressed with it. The first problem is that the Christians mistranslated the main verse (25). The way Christians read it is that after seven weeks and sixty two weeks, the Messiah will come; i.e., after 69 weeks. The obvious question is why didn't Daniel simply write 69 weeks, instead of writing 7 plus 62. The answer is that they mistranslated the verse. If you translate it correctly, that question disappears. Here is the correct translation.

Know and discern that from the going forth of the word to restore and build Jerusalem unto one anointed, a prince, shall be seven weeks; and for sixty two weeks shall it be built again with streets and moats, but in troublesome times. Note the main difference―not that it will take 69 weeks before the Messiah will come, but rather a mere 7 weeks. If you study this in the original Hebrew, this should be quite clear. Thus, the translation by itself answers the above question of why not simply write 69, instead of 7 plus 62.

According to the correct translation, the anointed one will come after 7 weeks; the city will remain built for 62 weeks, and after the 62 weeks, (verse 26) it will be destroyed. The Christian translation cannot explain why Daniel had to mention the first seven weeks, and in fact, it is a mistranslation. Thus, if they show you their version of the Bible, open the
original and show them the difference.

Another major difficulty is that according to the simple, untwisted translation of verse 26, two events were to occur after the 62 weeks—the anointed one would be cut off, and the city and the sanctuary would be destroyed. As you know, Jerusalem was destroyed in 70 AD, which is 38 years after the death of Jesus―more than five "weeks" off. There is no
acceptable answer for these missing five weeks according to the Christian interpretation.

Another difficulty is that the Jewish year is not really 360 days long. While the months are based on the lunar patterns, the years must coincide with the solar system. Simply study the Jewish calendar. You will see that since the solar year exceeds the lunar year by around 11 days, there will be an extra month added around every three years. Thus 445 BCE plus 483 years (69 X 7) ends up 38 CE, and by then everyone admits that Jesus was already dead.

Another difficulty is that Christians, for lack of a better answer, claim that the 70th week will take place when Jesus returns in his second coming as a king. The problem was caused because Daniel mentioned a total of 70 weeks, and then he specified 7 plus 62, leaving one remaining. The Christians say that the first 69 weeks were consecutive, then there is at least a 1,900 year gap, and sooner or later the 70th week will occur. This is obviously a very forced explanation, born of desperation. Remember, Christian apologetics is a thriving industry.

There is one other important point that should be reviewed. On examining the other books of the Bible, it becomes quite apparent that Daniel is referring to Cyrus, of Persia, and not Jesus. In Jeremiah 25:11-12, the word of God clearly states that the Babylonian exile will last for only 70 years. In Ezra 1: 1, it says that "Now in the first year of Cyrus, king of Persia, that the word of the Lord by the mouth of Jeremiah might be fulfilled, the Lord stirred up the spirit of Cyrus, king of Persia, that he made a proclamation throughout all his kingdom...saying...Whosoever there is among you of all His people, let him go to Jerusalem, and build the house of the Lord..." In Isaiah 45:1, it says, "Thus saith the Lord to his anointed (messiah/moshiach), to Cyrus..." Thus, Isaiah, in the name of God, calls Cyrus an anointed one, and Ezra discusses how Cyrus fulfilled the prophecy of Jeremiah. Since Daniel lived after Isaiah and Jeremiah, but before the period of Ezra, it is most reasonable and probable to affirm that the anointed one that he referred to in Daniel 9:25 is Cyrus, and not Jesus.

The reason why a Christian would have difficulty understanding this is because the compiler of the King James Bible was shrewd and deceptive. In the original Hebrew, both Daniel 9:25 and Isaiah 45:1 use the exact same word―"moshiach." However, in the Christian version of the Old Testament the word," moshiach," is translated in Isaiah 45:1 as "anointed" whereas in Daniel 9:25, the same Hebrew word is translated as "the Messiah." (the correct translation of "Moshiach" is "an anointed one.") This deceptive translating makes it virtually impossible for the innocent reader who does not know Hebrew to discern the truth.

In addition, the compiler of the Christian Bible did another clever maneuver. The Christian Bible arranges the sequence of the various books of the Bible in a peculiar manner: the Pentateuch, Samuel, Chronicles, then Ezra, and then Esther, Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Lamentations, Ezekiel, and then Daniel. (In the Jewish Bible, Ezra follows all of the above.) The reason for placing Ezra in the Christian Bible before Isaiah, and before Psalms, Proverbs, etc., even though Ezra lived long after those books were written is presumably to fool the reader of the Christian Bible. Had the reader read Ezra immediately after Daniel, which is the correct chronological location, the reader would immediately recognize that Ezra 1:1 and Daniel 9:25 refer to Cyrus, and not Jesus

O what a tangled web we weave, When first we practise to deceive! [Sir Walter Scott, Marmion, A Tale of Flodden Field (1855), xvii]

DANIEL AND THE ANOINTED ONE

Hugh Fogelman



FOUR stories come out of Daniel Chapter 9 as told in the Tanakh, the Jewish Bible (which is much different than the King James Version of the Christian Bible:

FIRST ― Daniel was prophesying about the period before the destruction of the Second Temple when he wrote; “Seventy septets have been decreed upon your people and upon your holy city to terminate transgressions (9:24). The Sages say it is a phrase referring to seventy times seven years, or 490 years, referring to the seventy years of exile that passed from the “Destruction of the First Temple” until this vision, and the entire 430-year period of the “Second Temple” (Rashi).

SECOND ― Daniel 9:25-27 reads; “And you should know and comprehend: From the emergence of the word to return and build Jerusalem until an anointed prince will be seven weeks; and for sixty two weeks it will be rebuilt, street and moat, but in troubled times. And after the sixty two weeks an anointed one will be cut off and will be no more, the people of the prince who comes will destroy the city and the Sanctuary, but his end shall come like a flood. Until the end of a war, desolation is decreed! He will strengthen a covenant with the great ones one week; and for half of the week he will abolish the sacrifice and offering, and upon soaring heights will the mute abominations be, until extermination as decreed will pour down upon the abomination.” Please pay particular attention to the semicolon between the 7 weeks and the 62 weeks.

However, in the King James Version of the Hebrew Bible, Daniel 9:25 says:

25 Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times. (NOTICE: there is no semicolon, just a comma – WHY?)

I wonder who tampered with the KJV? The original 1611 edition of the KJV correctly separates the seven weeks from the 62 weeks WITH A SEMICOLON.

The current KJV, however, deceptively compresses these two time periods into one. By revising the KJV and altering the punctuation they completely changed the message of the angel Gabriel’s prophecy. (This is nothing new in Christian writings). By combining “seven weeks” with “62 weeks” into ONE period of 69 weeks, Christian translators advance the idea in the mind of their readers that there is one messiah (anointed ones) spoken, instead of the correct message of TWO. All Jewish kings, priests, judges and anyone who rules were “anointed.”

THIRD ― Isaiah 44:28 & 45:1-3; Ezra 1:1-3 and 11 Chronicles 36:21-23 all tell us how this anointed one is by name ― Cyrus, the messiah, who did indeed start to rebuild the Second Temple. This fact can never be disputed. Until 1885, however, the KJV correctly translated this verse so as to reflect the two anointed ones spoken of by the angel. The first anointed ruler (Cyrus) who arises after “seven weeks” and a second one who is anointed and removed after a subsequent “62 weeks,” or 434 years―the High Priest.

The sages say the “septets” refer to full seven-year periods. The prince of this verse is Cyrus, who gave permission to rebuild Jerusalem and the Temple. He ascended to the throne fifty-two years (seven full septets plus three years) after the exile had begun. From then until the second destruction of Jerusalem was 438 years, or sixty-two septets and four years (Rashi).

FOURTH ― The Talmud and Roman historians say Vitellius, governor of Syria, removed both Pilate and Caiaphas from office in around year 36 CE. Caiaphas was the Jewish High Priest, a Sadducees, the anointed one could have been the one Daniel wrote about, saying, “Then after the sixty-two septets (weeks), the anointed one will be cut off and will exist no longer,”and by him being removed from office, he was indeed “cut off” and his Priesthood “existed no longer.”

The Sages explain that Daniel could also have been talking about “the anointed one” being Agrippa, the last Jewish king, at the end of the Second Temple Era. After his death, the prince of this verse, the Roman Titus, would command the destruction of the Second Temple, which we all know will not be rebuilt until after the War of Gog and Magog, in Messianic times. Daniel 9:26 (Rashi)

FINALLY and most important, Jesus never qualified to be the Jewish messiah according to what the book Christianity holds as being AUTHORITY, the Hebrew Bible. So, whether or not Jesus was the anointed one spoken by Daniel is not important or even the issue. Why not? Because Jesus was NEVER anointed according to Jewish Biblical standards of how a king is anointed, and Jesus never came from the tribe of Judah, and was not from David’s son Solomon, as the prophets claimed from whom the messiah will come. So to Judaism and the Hebrew B ible, this is all irreverent.
Daniel 9:25-27

Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times

And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.’

And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

So, whenever some Christian evangelist claims he can show something from Daniel, ask him why the New Testament KJV translates “moshiach” 37 places in the Jewish bible as "anointed," (that is the proper translation); but in Daniel the KJV does not translate moshiach at all. Instead it transliterates it to messiah, with the “capital M.”

Why does the Christian bible change Daniel’s message from an anointed one to THE MESSIAH (HaMoshiach)? Does Christianity have to change the SOURCE Bible in order for their religion to be true?

Christian "Messianic" Deciet and Lies

Messianic Judaism: A Christian Missionary Movement
Messianic Judaism is a Christian movement that began in the 1970s combining a mixture of Jewish ritual and Christianity. There are a vast and growing numbers of these groups, and they differ in how much Jewish ritual is mixed with conventional Christian belief. One end of the spectrum is represented by Jews For Jesus, who simply target Jews for conversion to Christianity using imitations of Jewish ritual solely as a ruse for attracting the potential Jewish converts. On the other end are those who don't stress the divinity of Jesus, but present him as the "Messiah." They incorporate distorted Jewish ritual on an ongoing basis.
The movement has received criticism from mainstream Christian leaders, for these groups claim to believe in the New Testament and yet gloss over the distinction between the two communities instituted in that work, and for the deceptive tactics used to gain Jewish converts. They are typically very pro-Israel and include an unusually high number of Jewish symbols -- the Magen David, Torah, talleisim, shofars, yarmulkes, mezzuzahs, Shabbat candles, and use of Hebrew and Yiddish language -- to assure prospective converts that they are not renouncing Judaism by accepting Jesus. According to Jewish law and tradition, such an acceptance is indeed a renunciation of Judaism.

Like the Christian Missionary, one of the major roles of the Messianic Jew is to proselytize others. They prey on such vulnerable individuals as the lonely, the elderly, the poor, the emotionally unstable, the naive, or those who are just untutored in Scripture. These unfortunates are lured into accepting missionary doctrines out of emotional need, not intellectual conviction. For even after a superficial reading of the missionaries' textual "proofs" within context, one sees that their doctrines are founded solely upon misquotations and mistranslations of Hebrew Scripture.

The term "completed Jews" is now used by some Messianic Jews and Missionary Christians to describe Jews who have accepted Jesus as their savior. This is offensive because of the implication that a Jew who has not accepted Jesus is not "complete." This term has also recently popped up in Washington, DC during House subcommittee support of President Bush's proposal to channel government money to religious social service programs. Jewish and civil liberties groups note that this testimony clearly documents the President's initiative will result in government-financed proselytizing.

Education: The Best Protection Against Missionary Groups
One of the most significant differences between Judaism and Christianity (or Messianic Judaism) is that the latter rejects the laws that God gave to Moses to teach to the children of Israel. According to the New Testament passage John 3:36: “He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath.” Christian theology firmly believes that if you do not believe in Jesus you are going to "burn in Hell." We Are Not Going to Burn in Hell: a Jewish Response to Christianity demonstrates how to refute Messianic Jews and Christian missionaries by using passages from both the Tanach and the New Testament. It is a definitive source to counter every argument Christian missionaries may make to sway a Jew to their theology. The first chapter is available on-line.
It is truly surprising how many people there are who confess a belief in Jesus as the Messiah, without having first obtained an adequate knowledge and understanding of the New Testament, the main source of information about him. When a person is calmly shown the factual mistakes and absurdities that are in the New Testament, and sees where it misinterpreted and mistranslated the Tanach, it awakens the realization that they were misled by people whom they thought were friends.

One should be aware of the fact that Paul, a founding father of the early church, and the most successful missionary that ever lived, confessed to using deception and lies to make converts:

Corinthians 9:20-22: To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews; to those under the law I became as one under the law -- though not being myself under the law -- that I might win those under the law. To those outside the law I became as one outside the law -- not being without law toward God but under the law of Christ -- that I might win those outside the law. To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak.

Romans 3:7: If through my lies God’s truth abounds to His glory, why am I still being condemned as a sinner?

Philippians 1:18: In every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Jesus is proclaimed, and in that I rejoice.
The veracity of everything that Paul stated and wrote is called into question by the fact that these quotes are found in the books he himself authored. Or, did he?
Jesus of Nazareth: The False Messiah
For almost two thousand years, the Christian Church has taught that Jesus was crucified, died, and was resurrected three days later. This has long been one of the church's foundational beliefs, along with the virgin birth, atonement, and future second coming of Jesus.
In the year 325 CE, Constantine (a non-baptized Pagan) convened the Council of Nicea to settle disputes in the Church. The council changed Jesus from man to God in the flesh, they changed the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday, and the Passover was changed to Easter. Among the nearly 200 Gospels circulating in the first three hundred years of this era, the Catholic Church canonized only four. Origen, the great Catholic father, confirms this fact: "And not four Gospels, but very many, out of which these we have chosen."

A partial list of the different books considered by the Church for inclusion were a gospel written by Jesus’ own hand; letters and other correspondences written by Jesus; letters written by the "virgin" Mary; Pilate’s official report to the emperor of the trial and crucifixion of Jesus, with Pilate’s confession of faith; the reply to this from Tiberius, and the trial of Pilate; official documents of the Roman Senate about Jesus; Gospels, epistles, acts, by every single one of the twelve apostles; and official documents of church law and government, written in Greek by the apostles. In his book, Answering Christianity's Most Puzzling Questions, Christian apologist Richard Sisson states:


"In fact, after the death of Jesus a whole flood of books that claimed to be inspired appeared.... Disputes over which ones were true were so intense that the debate continued for centuries. Finally in the fourth century a group of church leaders called a council and took a vote. The 66 books that comprised our cherished Bible were declared to be Scripture by a vote of 568 to 563."

Paul and the writers of all four canonical Gospels described the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus, as they understood it had happened. There is a acknowledged consensus among academic Christian theologians that:

The Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were not written by Jesus' disciples but by a person or persons whose names are unknown.

Neither Paul nor any of the Gospel writers had been an eyewitness to Jesus' ministry or death.

The Gospels record the beliefs and memories of various Christian groups as they had evolved at the time they were written.
Their Hollow Inheritance: A Comprehensive Refutation of Christian Missionaries cites additional discrepancies. Matthew 1:20 and Luke 1:31 describe "angels" appearing to Jesus’ mother and her husband informing them of her forthcoming "immaculate conception" and "virgin birth" to the "Son of God," the "Messiah." When compared with the way Jesus’ family and neighbors treated him, it is absurd to believe that "angels" really visited them:
Mark 3:21: Upon hearing of it, his family went out to seize him, for they said, "He is beside himself."
To offset the startling fact that Jesus’ family thought that he was insane, some New Testament editions replace "they" with "people," although "they" is in the original Greek text.
John 7:5: For even his brothers did not believe in him.

Luke 4:16: And Jesus came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up, and he went to the synagogue, as his custom was, on the Sabbath day…
There, Jesus hinted to his friends and neighbors that he was the Messiah, however:


Luke 4:28: When they heard this, all in the synagogue were filled with wrath. And they rose up, and put him out of the city, and led him to the brow of the hill on which their city was built, that they might throw him down headlong.
How very strange it is, that during all the years in which Yeshu grew up with them, his brothers, friends, and neighbors did not notice that he was a "divine being." And could it have been that his parents forgot or didn’t tell anyone what they experienced? This stretches one’s imagination.

Origins of the Jesus Mythos
Christianity is based on the unique belief that Jesus was God's Son, born of a virgin, sacrificed for the Salvation of man. In reality, as sacrificed virgin-born Savior Son of God, Jesus was not unique. Not even close. The Jesus mythos simply followed the traditional model of the ancient pagan savior-gods.
At the time of Jesus of Nazareth, as for centuries before, the Mediterranean world roiled with a happy diversity of creeds and rituals. Details varied according to location and culture, but the general outlines of these faiths were astonishingly similar. Roughly speaking the ancients' gods:


Were born on or very near our Christmas Day
Were born of a Virgin-Mother
Were born in a Cave or Underground Chamber
Led a life of toil for Mankind
Were called by the names of Light-bringer, Healer, Mediator, Savior, Deliverer
Were however vanquished by the Powers of Darkness
And descended into Hell or the Underworld
Rose again from the dead, and became the pioneers of mankind to the Heavenly world
Founded Communions of Saints, and Churches into which disciples were received by Baptism
Were commemorated by Eucharistic meals
Krishna was born of the virgin Devaki; the Savior Dionysus was born of the virgin Semele. Buddha too was born of a virgin, as were the Egyptian Horus and Osiris. The old Teutonic goddess Hertha was a virgin impregnated by the heavenly Spirit and bore a son. Scandinavian Frigga was impregnated by the All-Father Odin and bore Balder, the healer and savior of mankind.

Mithras was born in a cave, on December 25th, of a virgin mother. He came from heaven to be born as a man, to redeem men from their sin. He was know as "Savior," "Son of God," "Redeemer," and "Lamb of God." With twelve disciples he traveled far and wide as a teacher and illuminator of men. He was buried in a tomb from which he rose again from the dead -- an event celebrated yearly with much rejoicing. His followers kept the Sabbath holy, holding sacramental feasts in remembrance of Him. The sacred meal of bread and water, or bread and wine, was symbolic of the body and blood of the sacred bull.

The celebration of Christmas on December 25 was originally the pagan birthday of Mithras, the sun god, whose day of the week is still known as "Sunday." The halo of light which is usually shown surrounding the face of Jesus and Christian saints, is another concept taken from the sun god. The theme of temptation by a devil-like creature was also found in pagan mythology. In particular, the story of Jesus's temptation by Satan resembles the temptation of Osiris by the devil-god Set in Egyptian mythology.

The Source of the Original Gospels
Theologians have also observed for many decades that two of the synoptic gospels (Matthew and Luke) have many points of similarity. In fact, the writings have many dozens of phrases and sentences that are identical. This observation led to the theory that both gospels were based largely on an earlier document called "Q" meaning "Quelle," which is German for "source," and is comprised of three distinct documents:
Q1 described Jesus as a Jewish philosopher-teacher, written circa 50 CE.

Q2 viewed Jesus as a Jewish apocalyptic prophet, written circa 60 CE.

Q3 described Jesus as a near-deity who converses directly with God and Satan, written circa 70 CE during a time of great turmoil in Palestine.
The authors of the Gospels of Matthew (circa 80 CE) and Luke (circa 90 CE) wrote their books using text from Q, Mark and their own unique traditions. The author of the Gospel of Thomas also used portions of Q1 and Q2 in his writing, but seems to have been unaware of Q3. This gospel was widely circulated within the early Christian movement but did not make it into the Christian Scriptures.
What is remarkable about Q1 is that the original Christians appeared to be centered totally on concerns about their relationships with God and with other people, and their preparation for the Kingdom of God on earth. Totally absent from their spiritual life are almost all of the factors that we associate with Christianity today. There is absolutely no mention of (in alphabetic order):

adultery
angels
apostles
baptism
church
clergy
confirmation
crucifixion
demons
disciples
divorce
Eucharist
healing
great commission to convert the world
heaven
hell
incarnation
infancy stories
John the Baptist
Last Supper
life after death
Mary and Joseph and the rest of Jesus' family
magi
miracles
Jewish laws concerning behavior
marriage
Messiah
restrictions on sexual behavior
resurrection
roles of men and women
Sabbath
salvation
Satan
second coming
signs of the end of the age
sin
speaking in tongues
temple
tomb
transfiguration
trial of Jesus
trinity
virgin birth

There is no reference to Jesus' death having any redeeming function; in fact, there is no mention of the crucifixion at all. John E. Remsburg's The Christ: A Critical Review and Analysis of the Evidence of His Existence, lists the following writers who lived during the time, or within a century after the time, that Jesus is supposed to have lived:

Josephus
Philo-Judææus
Seneca
Pliny Elder
Arrian
Petronius
Dion Pruseus
Paterculus
Suetonius
Juvenal
Martial
Persius
Plutarch
Pliny Younger
Tacitus
Justus of Tiberius
Apollonius
Quintilian
Lucanus
Epictetus
Hermogones Silius Italicus
Statius
Ptolemy
Appian
Phlegon
Phæædrus
Valerius Maximus
Lucian
Pausanias
Florus Lucius
Quintius Curtius
Aulus Gellius
Dio Chrysostom
Columella
Valerius Flaccus
Damis
Favorinus
Lysias
Pomponius Mela
Appion of Alexandria
Theon of Smyrna

Enough of the writings of the authors named in the foregoing list remains to form a library. Yet in this mass of Jewish and Pagan literature, according to Remsburg, "aside from two forged passages in the works of a Jewish author, and two disputed passages in the works of Roman writers, there is to be found no mention of Jesus Christ." Nor, do any of these authors make note of the Disciples or Apostles -- increasing the embarrassment from the silence of history concerning the foundation of Christianity.


A Jewish Messiah
Judaism, unlike the Christianity, does not believe that the Messiah is Jesus. The noun moshiach (translated as messiah) annotatively means "annointed one;" it does not, however, imply "savior." The notion of an innocent, semi-divine being who will sacrifice himself to save us from the consequences of our own sins is a purely Christian concept that has no basis in Jewish thought or scripture. In Judaic texts, the term messiah was used for all kings, high priests, certain warriors, but never eschatological figures. In the Tanach, moshiach is used 38 times: two patriarchs, six high priests, once for Cyrus, 29 Israelite kings such as Saul and David. Not once is the word moshiach used in reference to the awaited Messiah. Even in the apocalyptic book of Daniel, the only time moshiach is mentioned is in connection to a murdered high priest. The Dead Sea Scrolls, the Pseudepigrapha, and Apocrypha never mention the Messiah.
The man destined to be the Messiah will be a direct descendant of King David (Isaiah 11:1) through the family of Solomon, David's son (1 Chronicles 22:9-l0). He will cause all the world to serve God together (Isaiah 11:2), be wiser than Solomon (Mishnah Torah Repentance 9:2), greater than the patriarchs and prophets (Aggadah Genesis 67), and more honored than kings (Mishnah Sanhedrin 10), for he will reign as king of the world (Pirkei Eliezer).

Amongst the most basic missions that the Messiah will accomplish during his lifetime (Isaiah 42:4) are to:


Oversee the rebuilding of Jerusalem, including the Third Temple, in the event that it has not yet been rebuilt (Michah 4:1 and Ezekiel 40-45)

Gather the Jewish people from all over the world and bring them home to the Land of Israel (Isaiah 11:12; 27:12-13)

Influence every individual of every nation to abandon and be ashamed of their former beliefs (or non-beliefs) and acknowledge and serve only the One True God of Israel (Isaiah 11:9-10; 40:5 and Zephaniah 3:9)

Bring about global peace throughout the world (Isaiah 2:4; 11:5-9 and Michah 4:3-4).
There are over a dozen additional prophecies which the Messiah will also achieve (there is no mention of any “second coming” in the Tanach or the New Testament). In order to avoid identifying the wrong individual as Messiah, the Code of Jewish Law dictates criteria for establishing the Messiah's identity (Mishnah Torah Kings 11:4):


"If a king arises from the House of David who meditates on the Torah, occupies himself with the commandments as did his ancestor King David, observes the commandments of the Written and Oral Law, prevails upon all Israel to walk in the way of the Torah and to follow its direction, and fights the wars of God, it may be assumed that he is the Messiah.

If he does these things and is fully successful, rebuilds the Third Temple on its location, and gathers the exiled Jews, he is beyond doubt the Messiah. But if he is not fully successful, or if he is killed, he is not the Messiah."
Over 1,000 years before the attributed birth of the historical Jesus, it was recorded in the Tanach:

Numbers 23:19: God is not a man, that He should be deceitful, nor the son of man, that He should repent. Would He say and not do, or speak and not confirm?

Psalms 146:3: Do not rely on princes nor in the son of man, for he holds no salvation.
Even the New Testament concurs that Jesus, in fact, is not the Messiah:
Matthew 20:28: Just as the son of man did not come to be served, but to serve.
Counter-Missionary Training
When confronted by a Christian missionary or a member of the Messianic movement, one should remember that the very existence of Jesus, and events surrounding him significant to the Christian mythos, are entirely absent from every historical record. Missionary arguments usually appeal to emotion rather than to reason; they will attempt to make you feel embarrassed about denying the historicity of Jesus. The usual response is something like "Isn't denying the existence of Jesus just as silly as denying the existence of Julius Caesar or denying the Holocaust?" One should then point out that there are ample historical sources confirming the existence of who or whatever else is named, while there exists no corresponding evidence for Jesus.
Christian scholar Rt. Rev. George Arthur Butterick, in The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, a book written by to prove the validity of the New Testament, states:


"A study of 150 Greek [manuscripts] of the Gospel of Luke has revealed more than 30,000 different readings.... It is safe to say that there is not one sentence in the New Testament in which the [manuscript] is wholly uniform."

There are 304,805 letters (approximately 79,000 words) in the Torah. In the over 3,000 years since Moses received the original Scripture from Mt. Sinai and wrote the 13 copies (twelve of which were distributed among the Tribes), spelling variants have emerged on a total of nine words -- with absolutely no effect on their meaning. The Christian Bible, in comparison, has over 200,000 variants and in 400 instances, the variants change the meaning of the text; 50 of these are of great significance.

When countering Christian Missionaries it is important to always base one's arguments on actual Scripture – the original Hebrew text (public domain applications and software are available if your browser is not Hebrew-enabled). Remember that the English translation of the Tanach (which they call the “Old Testament”) in nearly every Christian Bible is taken from the Septuagint, one of many Greek translations that differed considerably from the Masoretic text. It is this Greek Septuagint, not the original Hebrew, that was the main basis for the Old Latin, Coptic, Ethiopic, Armenian, Georgian, Slavonic, and part of the Arabic translations of the Old Testament.

Even the earliest English translation of the JPS Tanach (Jewish Publication Society) was a slightly modified version of the Old Testament found in the King James Bible, instead of a direct translation of the original Hebrew which accompanied it. Christian Missionaries will almost always use the English translation of the JPS Tanach as a "proof text." Far more accurate English translations of the Masoretic text are found in Koren's The Jerusalem Bible and Artscroll's Stone Edition Tanach.

The Messiah Truth Project sponsors weekly on-line Video Conferences in Counter-Missionary and Torah Education six nights a week on VirtualYeshiva.com. Participation is free, and downloadable handouts are provided. Follow-up questions will be answered through our Discussion Forums; you can participate by linking here. You can also access our ever-growing library of original educational material by clicking one of our four topic areas below:




Counter-Missionary Links and Literature
(Additional links and add your own link here)
Outreach Judaism: A national organization that responds directly and positively to the issues raised by missionaries and cults by exploring Judaism in contradistinction to Christianity. The organization's goal is to generate a lasting connection between Jewish families and Judaism through building immediate awareness of the current Hebrew-Christian movement in the USA, Canada and Israel.
The Task Force on Missionaries and Cults: A counter-missionary and counter-cult organization in North America that provides information and assistance to individuals and communities in the U.S., Europe, and Israel.

Australian Anti-Missionary Web Site: A user-friendly, easy-to-navigate presentation of resources, articles, and links designed to aid the navigator in his pursuit of the truth behind missionary activities.

Messianic Verses in Tanach: Missionaries quote Hebrew Scriptures to support their contention that "Jesus fulfilled 300 prophecies from the Old Testament." Here you can read how these quotes are either mistranslated, taken out of context, or both.

The Real Truth About The Talmud: There are many lies circulating the internet about the Jewish Talmud. These allegations are supported by misquotations from the Talmud, frequently wrong or taken out of context. These are the real truths.

Project Truth: Shmuel ben Avraham provides common words and language used by Missionaries, and how to talk to a Missionary with answers to specific verses and concepts commonly used.

Shomrai HaBrit: Keepers of the Covenant homrai HaBrit-Keepers: An organization dedicated to keeping Jewish people true to the eternal covenant with God. Included are prophecies used by Christian Missionaries and their actual interpretation.

The Anti-Missionary Website: This page is dedicated to the resistance of Christian Missionaries. It calls for an official, public opposition to Christian missionary, are describes ways to protest their goal of world conversion.

What Jews Believe: An excellent site explaining Jewish beliefs concerning life, death, sin, forgiveness, and atonement and their difference from Christian beliefs. It shows how missionaries who often claim to be Jews, hold beliefs that are distinctly Christian.

Counter-Missionary Reference: An index to various "proof texts" used by missionaries and discussions on those verses by various counter missionary websites.

Torah Atlanta: Educating Jews on the issues raised by missionaries and the tactics they use.

The Truth of Judaism: A vast resource of links for Judaic terms, Torah and Chumash, news and media, and Jewish references.

Articles on Missionary Groups and Religion
Why Don't Jews believe in Jesus?: For 2,000 years, Jews have rejected the Christian idea of Jesus as messiah; Rabbi Shraga Simmons explains why.
Jews for Jesus: Rabbi Shraga Simmons describes underhanded tactics used to trick unsuspecting Jews into joining a Christian movement.

Evangelizing The Jews (Part 1): To bring about the Second Coming, fundamentalist Christians believe they must convert the Jews. Having failed in the past, they are now armed with a new arsenal of deceptive techniques, detailed by Rabbi Tovia Singer.

Evangelizing The Jews (Part 2): Jews who are lonely and know the least about Judaism are the most susceptible to Christian missionaries. Rabbi Tovia Singer explains why college kids and the elderly are their prime targets.

Jesus Codes: The Real Story: A recent book being used to proselytize Jews to Christianity claims that hidden messages have been found in the Bible proving that Jesus is the Messiah. Rabbi Daniel Mechanic focuses on misuses and misrepresentations of the Codes phenomenon, especially when they are aimed at proselytizing Jews.

The Jesus Puzzle: Was There No Historical Jesus? This article by Earl Doherty appeared in the Journal of Higher Criticism, published by the Institute for Higher Critical Studies based at Drew University in Madison, New Jersey.


Portable Document Format Downloads
(Get your free Adobe PDF reader here)
Messiah Truth: A Jewish response to the Messianic movement and other missionary groups using passages from both Hebrew Scripture and the New Testament. This four-page printable document contains nearly all of the counter-missionary text from this page. Print, copy and share!
The Problem With Matthew: A Guide For Refuting Missionaries: The purpose of this eBook is to empower Jews to protect themselves against Christian missionaries, whether they call themselves Southern Baptists, Jews for Jesus, or any other organization bent on the assimilation of Jews into the Christian religion. There is also an on-line edition available.

How the King James Version (KJV) Bible Originated: A simplified history documenting the KJV as essentially a handful of late and haphazardly collected minuscule manuscripts supported by no known Greek witness.There is also an on-line edition available.

Judaism 101: An encyclopedia of Judaism, covering Jewish beliefs, people, places, things, language, scripture, holidays, practices and customs. It includes a wide variety of basic, general information about Judaism, written from a traditional perspective in plain English. There is also an on-line edition available.

Judaic Glossary: A concise glossary of Hebrew and Yiddish terms and their meanings.

Messianic Glossary: A 250-page expository glossary of terms used in Christian Messianic teaching (a zip of all fonts used may be downloaded here).

Articles of Faith Judaism

Judaism can not be credited with the possession of Articles of Faith. Many attempts have indeed been made at systematizing and reducing to a fixed phraseology and sequence the contents of the Jewish religion. But these have always lacked the one essential element: authoritative sanction on the part of a supreme ecclesiastical body. And for this reason they have not been recognized as final or regarded as of universally binding force. Though to a certain extent incorporated in the liturgy and utilized for purposes of instruction, these formulations of the cardinal tenets of Judaism carried no greater weight than that imparted to them by the fame and scholarship of their respective authors. None of them had a character analogous to that given in the Church to its three great formulas (the so­called Apostles' Creed, the Nicene or Constantopolitan, and the Athanasian), or even to the Kalimat As­Shahadat of the Mohammedans. The recital of this "Kalimah" is the first of the five pillars of practical religion in Islam, and one converted to Islam must repeat it verbatim; so that among the conditions required of every believer with reference to confession is the duty to repeat it aloud at least once in a lifetime. None of the many summaries from the pens of Jewish philosophers and rabbis has been invested with similar importance and prominence. The reasons for this relative absence of official and obligatory creeds are easily ascertained.
No Need for Creeds in Judaism
The remark of Leibnitz, in his preface to the "Essais de Theodicee," that the nations which filled the earth before the establishment of Christianity had ceremonies of devotion, sacrifices, libations, and a priesthood, but that they had no Articles of Faith and no dogmatic theology, applies with slight modification to the Jews. Originally race-or perhaps it is more correct to say nationality-and religion were coextensive. Birth, not profession, admitted to the religio­national fellowship. As long as internal dissension or external attack did not necessitate for purposes of defense the formulation of the peculiar and differentiating doctrines, the thought of paragraphing and fixing the contents of the religious consciousness could not insinuate itself into the mind of even the most faithful. Missionary or­ proselytizing religions are driven to the definite declaration of their teachings. The admission of the neophyte hinges upon the profession and the acceptance of his part of the belief, and that t here may be no uncertainty about what is essential and what non­essential, it is incumbent on the proper authorities to determine and promulgate the cardinal tenets in a form that will facilitate repetition and memorizing. And the same necessity arises wh en the Church or religious fellowship is torn by internal heresies. Under the necessity of combating heresies of various degrees of perilousness and of stubborn insistence, the Church­ and Islam, were forced to define and officially limit their respective theological concepts. Both of these provocations to creed­building were less intense in Judaism. The proselytizing zeal, though during certain periods more active than at others, was, on the whole, neutralized, partly by inherent disinclination and part ly by force of circumstances. Righteousness, according­ to Jewish belief, was not conditioned of the acceptance of the Jewish religion. And the righteous among the nations that carried into practise the seven fundamental laws of the covenant with Noah and his descendants were declared to be participants in the felicity of the hereafter. This interpretation of the status of non­Jews precluded the development of a missionary attitude. Moreover, the regulations for the reception of proselytes, as developed in course of time, prove the eminently practical, that is, the non­creedal character of Judaism. Compliance with certain rites ­­ baptism, circumcision, and sacrifice ­­ is the test of the would­be convert's faith. He is instructed in the details of the legal practise that manifests the Jew's religiosity, while the profession of faith demanded is limited to the acknowledgement of the unity of God and the rejection of idolatry (Yorei De'ah, Germ, 268, 2). Judah ha­Levi ("Cuzari," i. 115) puts the whole mat ter very strikingly when he says:
"We are not putting on an equality with us a person entering our religion through confession alone [Arabic original, bikalamati=by word]. We require deeds, including in that term self­restraint, purity, study of the Law, circumcision, and the performance of other duties demanded by the Torah."
For the preparation of the convert, therefore, no other method of instruction was employed than for the training of one born a Jew. The aim of teaching was to convey a knowledge of the Law, obedience to which manifested the acceptance of the underlying religious principles; namely, the existence of God and the holiness of Israel as the people of his covenant.
The controversy whether Judaism demands belief in dogma or inculcates obedience to practical laws alone, as enlisted many competent scholars. Moses Mendelssohn, in his "Jerusalem," defended the non­dogmatic nature of Judaism, while Low, among others, (see his "Gesammelte Schriften," i. 31­52, 433 et seq. 1871) took the opposite side. Low made it clear that the Mendelssohnian theory had been carried beyond its legitimate bounds. The meaning of the word for faithful and belief in Hebrew [emunah] had undoubtedly been strained too far to substantiate the Mendelssohnian thesis. Underlying the practise of the Law was assuredly the recognition of certain fundamental and decisive religious principles culminating in the belief in God and revelation, and likewise in the doctrine of retributive divine justice.
Evolution of Judaism
The modern critical view of the development of the Pentateuch within the evolution of Israel's monotheism confirms this theory. The controversy of the Prophets hinges on the adoption by the people of Israel of the religion of YHWH, that excluded from the outset idolatry, or certainly the recognition of any other deity than YHWH as the legitimate Lord of Israel; that, in its progressive evolution, associated YHWH the concepts of holiness, justice, and righteousness; and that which culminated in the teaching of God's spirituality and universality. The historical books of the Bible, as recast in accordance with these latter religious ideas evince the force of a strong and clearly apprehended conviction concerning the providential purpose in the destinies of earth's inhabitants, and more especially in the guidance of Israel.
Discussions and Dogmatism Disfavored
The Psalms and Wisdom books manifest the predominance, of definite religious beliefs. To say that Judaism is a barren legalistic convention, as Mendelssohn avers, is an unmistakable exaggeration. The modicum of truth in his theory is that throughout Biblical Judaism, as in fact throughout all later phases of Jewish religious thinking and practise, this doctrinal element remains always in solution. It is not crystallized into fixed phraseology or rigid dogma. And, moreover, the ethical and practical implications of the religion are never obscured. This is evidenced by the Biblical passages that, in the opinion of many, partake of the nature of Articles of Faith, or are of great value as showing what, in the opinion of their respective authors, constitutes the essence of religion. Among these the most noteworthy are Deut. vi. 4; Isa., xlv. 5­7; Micah vi. 8; Ps. xv.; Isa. i. 16, 17; xxxiii. 15.
Whatever controversies may have agitated Israel during the centuries of the Prophets and the earlier postexilic period, they were not of a kind to induce the defining of Articles of Faith counteract the influences of heretical teaching. Dogmatic influences manifest themselves only after the Maccabean struggle for independence. But even these differences were not far­reaching enough to overcome the inherent aversion to dogmatic fixation of principles; for, with the Jews, acceptance of principles was not so much a matter of theoretical assent as of practical conduct. Though Josephus would have the divisions between the Pharisees and the Sadducees hinge on the formal acceptance or rejection of certain points of doctrine ­­ such as Providence, resurrection of the body, which for the Pharisees, was identical with future retribution ­­ it is the consensus of opinion among modern scholars that the differences between these two parties were rooted in their respective political programs, and implied in their respectively national and anti­national attitudes, rather than in their philosophical or religious dogmas.
If the words of Sirach (iii. 20­23) are to be taken as a criterion, the intensely pious of his days did not incline to speculations of what was beyond their powers to comprehend. They were content to perform their, religious duties in simplicity of faith. The Mishnah (Hag. 11. 1) indorsed this view of Sirach, and in some degree, discountenanced theosophy and dogmatism. Among the recorded discussions in the schools of the Rabbis, dogmatic problems commanded only a very inferior degree of attention ('Er. 13b: controversy concerning the, value of human life; Hag. 12a: concerning the order of Creation). Nevertheless, in the earliest Mishnah is found the citation of Abtalion against heresy and unbelief (Ab. i. 11 [12]); and many a Baraita betrays the prevalence of religious differences (Ber. 12b; 'Ab. Zarah 17a). These controversies have left their impress upon the prayer­book and the liturgy. This is shown by the prominence given to the Shema'; to the Messianic predictions in the Shemoneh­Esreh (the "Eighteen Benedictions"), which emphasized the belief in the Resurrection; and, finally, to the prominence given to the Decalogue ­­ though the latter was again omitted in order to counteract the belief that it alone had been revealed (Tamid v. 1; Yer. Ber. 6b; Bab. Ber. 12a). These expressions of belief are held to have originated in the desire to give definite utterance and impressiveness to the corresponding doctrines that were either rejected or attenuated by some of the heretical schools. But while the se portions of the daily liturgy are expressive of the doctrinal contents of the regnant party in the synagogue, they were not cast into the form of catalogued Articles of Faith.
The first to make the attempt to formulate them was Philo of Alexandria. The influence of Greek thought induced among the Jews of Egypt the reflective mood. Discussion was undoubtedly active on the unsettled points of speculative be lief; and such discussion led, as it nearly always does, to a stricter definition of the doctrines. In his work "De Mundi Opificio," lxi., Philo enumerates five articles as embracing the chief tenets of Mosaism:
1. God is and rules;
2. God is one
3. The world was created;
4. Creation is one;
5. God's providence rules Creation.
But among the Tannaim and Amoraim this example of Philo found no followers, though many of their number were drawn into controversies with both Jews and non­Jews, and had to fortify their faith against the attacks of contemporaneous philosophy as well as against rising Christianity. Only in a general way the Mishnah Sanh. xi. 1 excludes from the world to come the Epicureans and those who deny belief in resurrection or in the divine origin of the Torah. R. Akiba would also regard as heretical the readers o f Sefarim Hetsonim-certain extraneous writings (Apocrypha or Gospels)-and such persons that would heal through whispered formulas of magic. Abba Saul designated as under suspicion of infidelity those that pronounce the ineffable name of the Deity. By implication, the contrary doctrine and attitude may thus be regarded as having been proclaimed as orthodox. On the other hand, Akiba himself declares that the command to love one's neighbor the fundamental the principle of the Law; while Ben Asa i assigns this distinction to the Biblical verse, "This is the book of the generations of man " (Gen. v. i.; Gen. R. xxiv). The definition of Hillel the Elder in his interview with a would­be convert (Shab. 31a), embodies in the golden rule the one fundamental article of faith. A teacher of the third Christian century, R. Simlai, traces the development of Jewish religious principles from Moses with his 613 commands of prohibition and injunction, through David, who, according to this rabbi, enumerates eleven; through Isaiah, with six; Micah, with three; to Habakkuk who simply but impressively sums up all religious faith in the single phrase, "The pious lives in his faith" (Mak., toward end). As the Halakhah enjoins that one should prefer death to an act of idolatry, incest, unchastity, or murder, the inference is plain that the corresponding positive principles were held to be fundamental articles of Judaism.
The Decalogue as a Summary
From Philo down to late medieval and even modern writers, the Decalogue has been held to be in some way a summary of both the articles of the true faith and the duties derived from that faith. According to the Alexandrian philosopher the order of the Ten Words is not accidental. They divide readily into two groups: the first five summarizing man's relations to the Deity; the other five specifying man's duties to his fellows. Ibn Ezra virtually adopts this view. He interprets the contents of the Decalogue, not merely in their legal­ritual bearing but as expressive of ethico­religious principles. But this view can be traced to other traditions. In Yer. Ber. 6b the Shema' is declared to be only an epitome of the Decalogue. That in the poetry of the synagogal ritual this thought often dominates is well known. No less a thinker than Saadia Gaon composed a liturgical production of this character (see AZHAROT) and R. Eliezer ben Nathan of Mayence enriched the pray er­book with a piyyut in which the six hundred and thirteen commands are rubricated in the order of and in connection with the Decalogue. The theory that the Decalogue was the foundation of Judaism, its article of faith, was advocated Isaac Abravanel (see his Commentary on Ex. xx. 1); and in recent years by Isaac M. Wise of Cincinnati in his "Catechism" and other writings.
The only confession of faith, however, which, though not so denominated, has found universal acceptance, forms a part of the daily liturgy, contained in all Jewish prayer­books. ln its original form it read somewhat as follows:
"True and established is this word for us forever. True it is that Thou art our God as Thou wast the God of our fathers; our King as [Thou wast] the King of our fathers; our Redeemer and the Redeemer of our fathers; our Creator and the Rock of our salvation; our Deliverer and Savior ­­ from eternity is Thy name, and there is no God besides Thee."
This statement dates probably from the days of the Hasmoneans (see Landshuth, in "Hegyon Leb").
Saadia's, Judah ha­Levi's and Bahya's Creed
In the stricter sense of the term, specifications in connected sequence, and rational analysis of Articles of Faith, did not find favor with the teachers and the faithful before the Arabic period. The polemics with the Karaites on the one hand, and, on the other, the necessity of defending their religion against the attacks of the philosophies current among both Mohammedans and Jews, induced the leading thinkers to define and formulate their beliefs. Saadia's "Emunot we­Deot" is in reality one long ex position of the main tenets of the faithful. The plan of the book discloses a systematization of the different religious doctrines that, in the estimation of the author, constitute the sum total of his faith. They are, in the order of their treatment by him, the following:
1. The world is created;
2. God is one and incorporeal;
3. belief in revelation (including the divine origin of tradition;
4. man is called to righteousness and endowed with all necessary qualities of mind and soul to avoid sin;
5. belief in reward and punishment;
6. the soul is created pure; after death it leaves the body;
7. belief in resurrection;
8. Messianic expectation, retribution, and final judgment.
Judah ha­Levi endeavored, in his "Cuzari," to determine the fundamentals of Judaism on another basis. He rejects all appeal to speculative reason, repudiating the method of the Motekallamin. The miracles and traditions are, in their natural character, both the source and the evidence of the true faith. With them Judaism stands and falls. The book of Bahya ibn Pakuda ("Hobot ha­Lebabot"), while remarkable, as it is, for endeavoring to give religion its true setting as a spiritual force, contributed nothing of note to the exposition of the fundamental articles. It goes without saying that the unity of God, His government of the world, the possibilities of leading a divine life-which were never forfeited by man-are expounded as essentials of Judaism.
Ibn Daud and Hananel ben Hushiel
More interesting on this point is the work of R. Abraham ibn Daud (1120) entitled "Emnah Ramah" (The High Faithful). In the second division of his treatise he discourses on the principles of faith and the Law. These principles are:
The existence of God;
His Unity;
His spirituality;
His other attributes;
His power as manifested in His works;
His providence.
Less well known is the scheme of an African rabbi, Hananel b. Hushiel, about a century earlier, according to whom Judaism's fundamental articles number four:
Belief in God;
belief in prophecy;
belief in a future state;
belief in the advent of the Messiah.
The Thirteen Articles of Maimonides
The most widely spread and popular of all creeds is that of Maimonides, embracing the thirteen articles. Why he chose this particular number has been a subject of much discussion. Some have seen in the number a reference to the thirteen attributes of God. Probably no meaning attaches to the choice of the number. His articles are:
1. The existence of God;
2. His unity;
3. His spirituality;
4. His eternity;
5. God alone the object of worship;
6. Revelation through his prophets;
7. the preeminence of Moses among the Prophets;
8. God's law given on Mount Sinai;
9. the immutability of the Torah as God's Law;
10. God's foreknowledge of men's actions;
11. retribution;
12. the coming of the Messiah;
13. Resurrection.
This creed Maimonides wrote while still a very young man; it forms a part of his Mishnah Commentary, but he never referred to it in his later works (See S/ Adler, "Tenets of Faith and Their Authority in the Talmud," in his "Kobez 'al Yad," p. 92, where Yad ha­Hazakah, Issure Biah, xiv, 2, is referred to as proof that Maimonides in his advanced age regarded as fundamental of the faith only the unity of God and the prohibition of idolatry). It did not meet universal acceptance; but, as its phraseology is succinct, it has passed into the prayer­book, and is therefore familiar to almost all Jews of the Orthodox school. The successors of Maimonides, from the thirteenth to the fifteenth century-Nahmanides , Abba Mari ben Moses, Simon ben Zemah, Duran, Albo, Isaac Arama, and Joseph Jaabez-reduced his thirteen articles to three:
Belief in
God;
in Creation (or revelation); and in
providence (or retribution).
Others, like Crescas and David ben Samuel Estella, spoke of seven fundamental articles, laying stress on free­will. On the other hand, David ben Yom­Tob ibn Bilia, in his "Yesodot ha­ Maskil" (Fundamentals of the Thinking Man), adds to the thirteen of Maimonides thirteen of his own-a number which a contemporary of Albo (see "'Ikkarim," iii.) also chose for his fundamentals; while Jedaiah Penini, in the last chapter of his "Behinat ha­Dat," enumerated no less than thirty­five cardinal principles (see Low, "Judische Dogmen," in his "Gesammelte Werke," i. 156 et seq.; and Schechter, "Dogmas of Judaism," in "Studies of Judaism," pp. 147­181).
In the fourteenth century Asher ben Jehiel of Toledo raised his voice against the Maimonidean Articles of Faith, declaring them to be only temporary, and suggested that another be added to recognize that the Exile is a punishment for the sins of Israel . Isaac Abravanel, his "Rosh Amanah," took the same attitude towards Maimonides' creed. While defending Maimonides against Hasdai and Albo, he refused to accept dogmatic articles for Judaism, holding, with all the cabalists, that the 613 commandments of t he Law are all tantamount to Articles of Faith.
In liturgical poetry the Articles of Faith as evolved by philosophical speculation met with metrical presentation. The most noted of such metrical and rimed elaborations are the "Adon 'Olam," by an anonymous writer ­­ now used as an introduction to the morning services (by the Sephardim as the conclusion of the musaf or "additional" service), and of comparatively recent date; and the other known as the "Yigdal," according to Luzzatto, by R. Daniel b. Judah Dayyan.
Modern Catechisms
The modern catechisms abound in formulated Articles of Faith. These are generally intended to be recited by the candidates for confirmation, or to be used for the reception of proselytes (See Dr. Einhorn's "'Olat Tamid"). The Central Conference of America n Rabbis, in devising a formula for the admission of proselytes, elaborated a set of Articles of Faith. These modern schemes have not met with general favor ­­ their authors being in almost all cases the only ones that have had recourse to them in practise. The points of agreement in these recent productions consist in
the affirmation of the unity of God;
the election of Israel as the priest people;
the Messianic destiny of all humanity.
The declaration of principles by the Pittsburgh Conference (1885) is to be classed, perhaps, with the many attempts to fix in a succinct enumeration the main principles of the modern Jewish religious consciousness.
The Karaites are not behind the Rabbinites in the elaboration of Articles of Faith. The oldest instances of the existence of such articles among them are found in the famous word by Judah ben Elijah Hadassi, "Eshkol ha­Kofer." In the order there given these are the articles of the Karaite:
1. God is the Creator of all created beings;
2. He is premundane and has no peer or associate;
3. the whole universe is created;
4. God called Moses and the other Prophets of the Biblical canon;
5. the Law of Moses alone is true;
6. to know the language of the Bible is a religious duty;
7. the Temple at Jerusalem is the palace of the world's ruler;
8. belief in Resurrection contemporaneous with the advent of the Messiah;
9. final judgment;
10. retribution.
The number ten here is not accidental. It is keeping with the scheme of the Decalogue. Judah Hadassi acknowledges that he had predecessors in this line, and mentions some of the works on which he bases his enumeration. The most succinct cataloguing of the Karaite faith in articles is that by Elijah Bashyatzi (died about 1490). His articles vary but little from those by Hadassi, but they are put with greater philosophical precision (see Jost, "Geschichte des Judenthums," ii. 331).
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Schlesinger, German translation of 'Ikkarim (especially introduction and annotations), xvi­xliii. 620 et seq., 640 et seq.; Low, Gesammelte Werke, i. 31­52, 133­176; Jost, Gesh. des Judenthums und Seiner Sekten; Hamburger, Realencyclopadie, s.v. Dogmen; Rappoport, Biography of Hananel; Schechter, The Dogmas of Judaism, in Studies in Judaism, pp 147­181; J. Aub. Ueber die Glaubens­Symbole der Mosaischen Religion; Frankel's Zeitschrift fur die Religiosen Interessen des Judenthums, 1845, 409, 449; Creizenach, Grundlehren des Israelitischen Glaubens, in Geiger's Wissensch. Zeitschrift fur Jud. Theologie, i. 39 et seq., ii. 6 8, 255