The Truth about Jesus... Part 1 of Series 1
Jesus was not G-d because G-d could never be a human man.
By Rabbi Elkana Ben Avraham
In the Christian's own Bible it plainly states that G-d:
is worshiped (Matt. 2:2, 11, 14:33, 28:9)
is prayed to (Acts 7:59, 1 Cor. 1:1-2)
is called G-d (John 20:28, Heb. 1:8)
is sinless (1 Pet. 2:22, Heb. 4:15
knows all things (John 21:17)
gives eternal life (John 10:28)
And the fullness of deity dwells in Him (Col. 2:9).
Jesus (Yashua, Yeshua, YSHWA, Yashke):
worshipped the Father (John 17)
prayed to the Father (John 17:1)
was called man (Mark 15:39, John 19:5).
was called Son of Man (John 9:35-37)
was tempted (Matt. 4:1)
grew in wisdom (Luke 2:52)
died (Rom. 5:8)
and had a body of flesh and bones (Luke 24:39).
The word ‘son’ cannot be accepted literally because in the Bible, G-d apparently addresses many of his chosen servants as ‘son’ and ‘sons.’ Jews believe that G-d is One, and has neither wife nor children in any literal sense. Therefore, it is obvious the expression ‘son of G-d’ merely means ‘Servant of G-d’; one who, because of faithful service, is close and dear to G-d as a son is to his father.
Christians who came from a Greek or Roman background, later misused this term. In their heritage, ‘son of G-d’ signified an incarnation of a god or someone born of a physical union between male and female gods. This can be seen in Acts 14: 11-13, where we read that when Paul and Barnabas preached in a city of Turkey, pagans claimed they were gods incarnate. They called Barnabas the Roman god Zeus, and Paul the Roman god Hermes.
Furthermore, the New Testament Greek word translated as ‘son’ are ‘pias’ and ‘paida’ which mean ‘servant,’ or ‘son in the sense of servant.’ These are translated to ‘son’ in reference to Jesus and ‘servant’ in reference to all others in some translations of the Bible. So, consistent with other verses, Jesus was merely saying that he is G-d’s servant.
Christians who came from a Greek or Roman background, later misused this term. In their heritage, ‘son of God’ signified an incarnation of a god or someone born of a physical union between male and female gods. This can be seen in Acts 14: 11-13, where we read that when Paul and Barnabas preached in a city of Turkey, pagans claimed they were gods incarnate. They called Barnabas the Roman god Zeus, and Paul the Roman god Hermes.
Furthermore, the New Testament Greek word translated as ‘son’ are ‘pias’ and ‘paida’ which mean ‘servant,’ or ‘son in the sense of servant.’ These are translated to ‘son’ in reference to Jesus and ‘servant’ in reference to all others in some translations of the Bible. So, consistent with other verses, Jesus was merely saying that he is G-d’s servant.
To a Christian, they believe that G-d had to take human form to understand temptation and human suffering, but the concept is not based on any clear words of Jesus. In contrast, G-d does not need to be tempted and suffer in order to be able to understand and forgive man’s sins, for He is the all knowing Creator of man. This is expressed in the verse:
‘And the Lord said: ‘I have surely seen the affliction of My people that are in Egypt, and I have heard their cry because of their taskmasters; for I know their pains.’ (Exodus 3:7)
G-d forgave sin before Jesus’ appearance, and He continues to forgive without any assistance. When a believer sins, he is to repent sincerely in order to receive forgiveness. Indeed, the offer to humble oneself before G-d and be saved is made to all humankind:
‘And there is no G-d else besides Me; a just G-d and a Savior; there is none beside Me. Look to Me, and be saved, all the ends of the earth; for I am God, and there is none else.’ (Isaiah 45:21-22, Jonah 3:5-10)
People can receive forgiveness of sins through sincere repentance sought directly from G-d. This is true at all times and in all places. There has never been a need for the so-called inter-cessionary role Jesus is said to play in attaining atonement. The facts speak for themselves. There is no truth to the Christian belief that Jesus died for our sins and salvation is only through Jesus. What about the salvation of people before Jesus? Jesus’ death brings neither atonement from sin, nor is it in any way a fulfillment of Biblical prophecy.
Christians also claim that in the birth of Jesus, there occurred the miracle of the incarnation of G-d in the form of a human being. To say that G-d became a human invites a number of questions. Let us ask the following about the man-god Jesus:
*What happened to his foreskin after his circumcision (Luke 2:21)? Did it ascend to heaven, or did it decompose as with any other human piece of flesh?
*During his lifetime what happened to his hair, nails, and blood that was shed from his wounds? Did the cells of his body die as ordinary human beings? If his body did not function in a truly human way, he could not be truly human as well as truly G-d. Yet, if his body functioned exactly in a human way, this would nullify any claim to divinity. It would be impossible for any part of G-d, even if incarnate, to decompose in any way and still be considered G-d. The everlasting, one G-d, in whole or in part, does not die, disintegrate, or decompose: ‘For I the Lord do not change.’ (Malachi 3:6)
Did Jesus’ flesh dwell in safety after his death?
Unless Jesus’ body never underwent ‘decay’ during his lifetime he could not be G-d, but if it did not undergo ‘decay’ then he was not truly human.
The TNKH (Jewish Bible) says that G-d is not man:
‘G-d is not a man’ (Numbers 23:19)
‘For I am G-d, and not man’ (Hosea 11:9)
Jesus is called a man many times in the NT:
‘a man who has told you the truth’ (John 8:40)
‘Jesus the Nazarene, a man attested to you by G-d with miracles and wonders and signs which G-d performed through Him in your midst, just as you yourselves know.’ (Acts 2:22)
‘He will judge the world in righteousness through a man whom He has appointed’ (Acts 17:31)
‘the man Christ Jesus’ (Tim. 2:5)
The TNKH (Jewish Bible) says that G-d is not a son of man:
‘G-d is not a man nor a son of man’ (Numbers 23:19)
The NT often calls Jesus ‘a son of man’ or ‘the son of man.’
‘so will the son of man be’ (Matthew 12:40)
‘For the son of man is going to come’ (Matthew 16:27)
‘until they see the son of man coming in His kingdom.’ (Matthew 28)
‘But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority’ (Mark 2:10)
‘because he is the son of man’ (John 5:27)
In the Hebrew scriptures, the ‘son of man’ is also used many times speaking of people (Job 25:6; Psalm 80:17; 144:3; Ezekiel 2:1; 2:3; 2:6-8; 3:1-3).
Since G-d would not contradict Himself by first saying He is not the son of a man, then becoming a human being who was called ‘the son of man’, He would not have done so. Remember, G-d is not the author of confusion. Also, human beings, including Jesus, are called ‘son of man’ specifically to distinguish them from G-d, who is not a ‘son of man’ according to the Jewish Bible.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Rabino Aminadav Hinton
Yashke can never be appreciated, applauded or celebrated as a national Jewish hero even if some of what He may have said seems good, appears almost verbatim with Hillel which is true in many instances He will never be accepted, celebrated because of the atrocities done in his name to begin with. The millions of Jews killed in his name. Even Josephus is despised as a traitor and Yashke even worse as Apikoris for many of the things that He said. I have read the articles of many Rabbis that said He should have been had not Christianity came about and abrogated him into a man savior and killed countless Jews in his name. One of my biggest problems with Yashke is He said if historically accurate we don't know, but if he said in John 14. 7, 9- That if you have known me, you should have known my father also; and if you know him and have seen him (thus in the form of Yashke).
Verse 9. Yaske said unto Philip. Have I been such a long time with you, and yet have you not know me (Thus indicating that Yashke is the father). HE THAT HAS SEEN ME HAS SEEN THE FATHER AND HOW ARE YOU TO ASK TO SHOW US THE FATHER.
Without going any further this is blatant heresy, blasphemy, idolatrous, pagan and antisemitic statement that Yashke said himself! For any man to put himself, to categorize himself in the stead of Hashem Elohim in any instance is damaging and dangerously idolatrous without even adding any Hebrew definitions right now....
So that is, anything else He may have said really doesn't matter. Such a belief is dangerous and to consider that man in any instance is poisoning and in my opinion does nothing for that of Tora, Judaism and the Jewish People!