Many of you probably are startled at the at the title of these articles but let me assure you that when you are finished reading just these three presentations, you will begin to see deeper into the deceptions and the "message" of the New Testament than ever before. You may not be aware of it but there are "two" conflicting messages or gospels contained in the New Testament; one of which agrees 100% with Biblical Judaism and the religion of Yeshua the Jew and one totally alien to it which is patterned after Gentile pagan religions. With such new perspectives made plain for you then you will come to personally recognize that there are two completely conflicting messages and doctrines in the New Testament which are presented as the "ONLY" way to inherit Eternal Life. One of them is therefore wrong; the problem for the New Testament believer today is to not only recognize that "conflicting gospels" exist within the teachings of the New Testament, but arriving at an intelligent decision regarding which "gospel" to accept and which "gospel" to shun. Often I hear some who write us or call us at the Ministry try to respond that "there is no contradiction" within the New Testament. Such shallow perspective by good-hearted people will be shown to be foolish let alone critically flawed in these next three articles. I would hope you muster up the courage to deal with what will be shown to you in the following pages as often the material will be "heavy" and one's "heroes" often exposed for what they really were: false teachers and Apostles who opposed the real message of Yeshua the Jew. Now let us seriously sanctify the Name of the LORD by studying in earnest the revelation of HaShem as it has come down to us; all the while picking the "meat" from the "bones" as we find it in the New Testament.
Answer for yourself: We have all heard of the "Good Samaritan" but have we all understood the real message of this parable?
This is the question before us as the implications from such in-depth study challenge the validity of the New Testament and Gentile Christianity's teachings regarding inheriting Eternal Life in many places.
I will begin with what is known as the Parable of the Good Samaritan, but will rename it " The Parable of the Priest, the Levite and the Samaritan."
The parable is chiefly remembered by most for what it is taught as in Bible classes: as a lesson to be kind to your neighbors and to alleviate suffering. But these lessons are incidental only, and of quite secondary in importance to the main issue which the parable teaches; the main issue in the parable escapes the awareness of most readers and in reality concerns the very foundation of the religion of Yeshua and is not concerned with just "loving" others. True, the parable is the gem of the narrative; but its value, nevertheless, is in the setting of it, and not in the lesson of kindliness which it incidentally inculcates. We must go beyond the surface and its elementary meanings understood by most to grasp the real intent Yeshua meant when he taught it.
The Gentile Christian Church desperately needs to hear this message and repent of many of their doctrinal positions which oppose the real meaning of this parable.
To understand the real and full significance of this parable we must note what has led up to it. A lawyer came to heckle Yeshua. Like every great reformer, Yeshua had his opponents, great and small. There were those who were uncompromisingly hostile either from a mental bias or from personal motives. There were the sectarians who opposed the new and deeper teachings of Yeshua on doctrinal grounds. And there were those who claimed to be liberal-minded, but who regarded the doctrines preached by Yeshua as far-fetched, utopian and altogether impracticable.
To this latter class belonged, evidently, the lawyer who stood up and " tempted " Yeshua, saying, "Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life ? "
Answer for yourself: What was the core issue addressed in the previous questions poised to Yeshua?
Every believer desires to inherit Eternal Life. This is beyond question. But you will be amazed to find out that it is not as easy as you have been taught. Read on please.
We are talking about "eternal life" and Yeshua's understanding of God's salvation. We must not loose sight of this for the parable of the Good Samaritan is really about how to obtain "salvation" and inherit "eternal life". You will better understand as we delve further into the parable and Yeshua's message within it.
Notice up front, that the lawyer who asked Yeshua the question about "eternal life" did not ask the question as one desiring to be instructed, but"temptingly." It was a challenge, as from one knowing what answer he would get and who is prepared to oppose Yeshua if he were to answer the question incorrectly; as if Yeshua had some strange doctrine considering "salvation". But in this he was mistaken. In answering Yeshua simply referred him to the Law the same Law that Gentile Christianity today teaches has "passed away": "What is written in the law ? How readest thou?"
Answer for yourself: Dont you find that somewhat surprising; that Yeshua would teach a vital relationship between receiving Eternal Life and the keeping of the Law; something the Gentile Christian Church prides itself in having been abolished according to Paul and his writings?
Answer for yourself: Did Yeshua really connect "eternal life" with the "Law" and what does that mean to the Christian who believes he is under grace and not under Law?
Answer for yourself: Don't you find it rather odd that obtaining "eternal life" for Yeshua involved the "Law" when the Christian Church today, which considers themselves followers of Yeshua and "ambassadors for Christ," pride themselves as not being "under the Law" and even call the Law a "curse"?
Answer for yourself: The most serious question is: "Has the Gentile Christian Church" of today inherited the "traditions" of Rome for their salvation message and completely rejected the true "salvation message of God" which involves man's responsibilities to the "Law" of the Old Testament [the Laws of Noah and the Laws of Moses]? The answer is yes. Let us read on.
The lawyer rattled off: "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbor as thyself."
Answer for yourself: Is your understanding of Christianity's "salvation" as you have been taught by the Gentile Church the same as we read in the above discourse? Is your understanding of Christianity's "salvation" the same as Yeshua both understood and taught it? Before you rush to say "yes" I would suggest you wait till the following articles have been read and digested before you answer in the affirmative as we will address each word of the above answer in the Hebrew to make sure we understand completely what Yeshua was saying.
And Yeshua said to him: Thou hast answered right: this do and thou shalt live" (Luke 10:27-28).
The narrative goes on to say that the lawyer, willing to justify himself, said unto Yeshua, " And who is my neighbor "
Here let us pause for a moment to analyze the situation. It will be noticed as we examine the parable that the lawyer's question, "And who is my neighbor?" will culminate in Yeshua referring to the Commandments within the Second Tablet of the Law only, whereas the reply of Yeshua, "this do," made no such discrimination but referred to both tablets of the law. This might seem rather strange at present but I assure you that you will quickly come to understand Yeshua's intentions and answer as we let "his mind be in us". This is done only by studying the Jewish Roots of Gentile Christianity. To appreciate the meaning of the lawyer's question as to "who was neighbor" we must understand the issue about which the lawyer intended to heckle Yeshua.
Yeshua next said something very interesting; he said that the "second" was "LIKE" the "first". Let me explain further. Man was created in the image of Ha Shem and when we relate to mankind we are in reality relating to God at the same time for mankind carries the Divine Image. Thus the relationship between the "Two Tablets of the Law".
There were two "laws" or "commandments" which were fundamental in Jewish philosophy. These were "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God" and "Love thy neighbor as thyself." Again this is the picture for us in the "Two Tablets of the Law". In both ways, when we are observing and obeying the commandments in both Tablets of the Law, we are loving God. It has been said that our "worst relationship with man" is a direct picture of our "best relationship with God". Many but not all of the Sadducees, Scribes and the Pharisees that is, the religious ruling classeslaid all the emphasis on the "FIRST" tablet of the Law and Yeshua laid all the emphasis on the "SECOND" tablet of the Law and its commandments.
This is the secret to the whole parable and has momentous importance in ones understanding of inheriting Eternal Life.
The "Pharisees" interpreted the "love of God" to mean prayer, adulation, sacrifice and worship. These religious leaders glorified God in a manner that would gratify a human despot. As for the second commandment, it was entirely subordinate and its fulfillment consisted at best in almsgiving. Yeshua, on the other hand, regarded the second commandment as arising out of the first, and, therefore, as its corollary. There was no way of loving God except by taking care of his children (mankind). God was the Father of us all. We must hallow him in His fatherhood: "Our Father . . . hallowed be thy Name." This can only be done by a full recognition of our brotherhood. "One is your Master and all ye are brethren." This idea of the Fatherhood of God of all mankind is the foundation of all Yeshua's precepts and teachings. It was the will of "our Father which is in heaven" that none of his children should suffer at the hands of each other. "Inasmuch as ye have done it to one of these, ye have done it unto me." "If any offend one of these little ones, better a millstone were hung round his neck, and that he were drowned at the bottom of the sea." Or again, " If thou bring thy sacrifice to the altar and there rememberest that thy brother hath aught against thee, leave there thy gift before the altar and be reconciled first to thy brother." Thus, and thus only, can you glorify your "Father which is in heaven. Therefore THE FIRST COMMANDMENT CAN BE FULFILLED ONLY BY THE OBSERVANCE OF THE SECOND. This is the pivot of all Yeshua's teaching, and it is on this point that Yeshua met with the strongest opposition.
This led to quibblings as to the relative importance of the two commandments, the first, on which the scribes and Pharisees" relied; or the second, on which centered the teaching of Yeshua and which he contended was " like unto the first."
When, therefore, Yeshua simply referred the lawyer to "the law," he made no distinction as between the first and second commandment, for to Yeshua the two meant one and the same thing.
Not so, however, with the lawyer. Not having received the answer in the form in which he had expected it, and " willing to justify himself," be said to Yeshua, " And who is my neighbor? That is, he took up Yeshua on the second commandment, evidently trying to show the impracticability of his teaching.
And now came for answer the illuminating parable, which I will quote in full:
Reluctantly and evasively the lawyer admitted, " He that showed mercy on him." Again he was made to answer his own question.
But the chief significance of the parable he evaded, as do most of our Bible expositors of to-day. Nor, had it been the object of Yeshua merely to teach the lawyer that "he that showed mercy was neighbor," Yeshua could have chosen any three men for his parable, whereas he selected on purpose a priest, a Levite, and a Samaritan.
It is just in the selection of the characters that the importance of the lesson is comprised. For the first man whom Yeshua made to pass by on the other side was a priest, a man of prayer and fasting, of rites and ceremonials, looked upon as holy by his people. The second man was a patrician, equally punctilious in all the rituals of the synagogue. And the third ? A despised alien, a Gentile, an unbeliever, a pariah, loathed by every self-respecting Jew in those days as is a minority to-day in Christian America.
Among these Yeshua bade the lawyer to choose:
"Which now of these three, thinkest thou, was neighbor to him that fell among thieves?"
The lawyer cleverly evaded the main issue by ignoring the status of the three persons named, and according his verdict to " him that showed mercy." To say outright, "The Samaritan, was perhaps too much to expect. He could not so debase priest and patrician, co-religionists and compatriots, as to prefer a Samaritan to them by name.
But, the lawyer had to admit more than he was probably aware of at the time, and that is, that religion of deed comes before profession of creed. And that is the lesson of the "Parable of the Priest, the Levite and Samaritan." To speak of it as the "Parable of the Good Samaritan" only is to ignore its chief lesson.
Yeshua explained to the lawyer, and to us, what his religion was: Creed, mental assent to religious dogmas and doctrines, prayer and fasting; patriotism, race, nationality, clanship; wealth and social position; were all brushed aside so as to accord place of honor to a good deed, even though performed by one of the least of the sons of " our Father which is in heaven."
In the view of Yeshua conventional piety, unsupported by good conduct, counted for nothing; whilst a good deed did not lose anything of its merits because performed by a person not belonging to a particular or to any sect.
We shall see further on that the absence of creed and ascent to denominational belief systems was an essential feature of the religion of Yeshua, as in true religion it is bound to be. Such reliance on creed by Gentile Christianity, is the very heart of Gentile Christianity today and it should not be. You have to admit that you are either in or out, accepted or rejected in Christianity by what you believe more than what you do. At altar after altar, Sunday after Sunday, multitudes of people seeking God are led to accept the current theology of this church or that church and reassured that if they believe they shall be saved. The problem is what one is taught to believe changes between churches. Literally the Christian Church, due to the misunderstanding of Pauls epistles, rely on acceptance of creed over deed for salvation. Yeshua did not agree with them. Think!
This narrative is by no means an isolated passage, but one out of many, all to the same purpose. As our investigation proceeds it will be seen that Yeshua never uttered a word that is ever so remotely inconsistent with the spirit displayed in this brief but telling narrative. That there are many sayings in the Gospels attributed to Yeshua which are diametrically opposed to it is, of course, admitted and problematic to the discriminating reader. But too few study to this level to see such things. But we shall not find it difficult to show that all such passages are doubtful as todays scholars teach us. Dear one, we have two conflicting messages in the Gospels concerning obtaining Eternal Life and if you have not seen such conflicting dogmas then either you have not looked deep enough or you dont study enough Superficial reading of the Bible profits little.
In this parable we have the key to the religion of Yeshua. Traditional Gentile Christian theology extracts nothing more from this parable than an exhortation to be kind and to succour the weak. Blinded by its own dogmas, it never noticed the two leading principles that inspired it, that are the essence of it, and that must be the basis of true religion, if a true religion is possible at all. These are its universalism and its tendency to unity, concord and fellowship, in sharp contrast to the discordant and disruptive tendencies of the creeds which theology has evolved.
We will but briefly note these at present, for we shall see these two principles permeating the philosophy of Yeshua.
Take, for instance, the lesson just noticed which Yeshua imparted to an antagonist. The lawyer asked, Who is my neighbor ?" Yeshua made him answer his own question and in a way he neither anticipated nor intended.
In this instance a bigoted Jew had to answer his own question contrary to his prejudices. We might submit the same problem, thus clearly stated, to Brahmin, Buddhist, Mohammedan or Freethinker with the same result. Its catholicity is clearly due to the total absence of any suggestion of theology, creed or dogma.
Even the name of the author might be eliminated without weakening the force of the lesson; for the fact that Yeshua was the propounder of it clearly could not weigh in its favor with the heckling antagonist. It is characteristic of all the precepts of Yeshua that they intrinsically make for unity, peace and concord, without needing any other support.
Obviously there can be but one true religion, and therefore such a religionif possible at allmust tend to unite mankind. Indeed, this is the test whereby to distinguish true religion from its counterfeits: "By their fruits ye shall know them."
Answer for yourself: What are the fruits of the pseudo-religions with which we are acquaintednot excepting any ?
They are known to history as religions dissensions, religious feuds, religious wars, religious frauds, and even as religious crimes. Surely no sadder commentary is possible on the general conception of religion than the linking of the word with ideas which stand for its opposite, without anybody being shocked by the incongruity of the combinations, or the paradoxes which they suggest. Such blindness affects the Christian Church yet today.
On a certain other occasion another lawyer asked Yeshuaalso " temptingly "" Teacher, which is the great commandment in the law ?"
Except for the purpose of challenging a statement or an argument, there would be no sense in asking this question of a Jew; as well ask him whether he knows his own name.
Nor was Yeshua an ordinary Jew, or considered such by the heckling lawyer, who addressed him as rabbi," i.e. " teacher." To assume, therefore, that the lawyer merely wanted to find out whether Yeshua knew the commandment is too absurd for even a moment's consideration. Moreover, the narrator plainly says that the question was asked " temptingly," which in itself indicates that an argument was at issue between the lawyer and Yeshua. The context not only shows this to have been the case, but from the answer of Yeshua, as well as the conversation that followed it, we are able to gather the nature of the argument.
As I have already been pointed out, Yeshua laid great stress on the second commandment" Love thy neighbor as thyself;" whereas the " scribes and Pharisees" held the first to be the supreme law. Hence the challenge of the lawyer, as if saying, "In your concern for mankind you are forgetting God. Do you not know the great commandment in the law ?"
In answering Yeshua recited the law and then added: "This is the first and great commandment. By the second is like unto it: Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself."
This makes sense of a narrative which, in the form in which it is presented in the English Version, is meaningless. There Yeshua is made to say, "And the second is like unto it"rendering the Greek particle de" by the conjunction "and" instead of the argumentative particle "but"which robs the passage of its meaning. For it is not likely that Yeshua would have thought it necessary to inform an exponent of the law what the wording of the second commandment was.
Yeshua said the second commandment is like the first. Let us see his thought by examining the word like in the Greek:
3664 homoios- like, similar, resembling:
You can see for yourself that to Yeshua the second commandment corresponds and resembles the first.
31 And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these. (KJV)
This, or a similar incident, is also recorded in Mark, the wording being slightly different. Yeshua is there said to have added, " There is none other commandment greater than these two."
There is no contradiction in the two accounts, but rather corroboration. Very probably both versions are correct, the different wordings having been used on different occasions. The accusation that Yeshua was ignoring the great law, and that he was teaching heretical and revolutionary doctrines, could not have been an isolated occurrence, but must have followed him to the cross. As constant must have been his reiterations that "the second law was like unto the first." Had the incident occurred once only, it would scarcely have survived or been handed down to us. Common to all these accounts we find Yeshua emphasizing deed over creed and let us not forget that the religious leaders of his time had influenced just the opposite (creed over deed just the way Christianity does today!).
According to Mark: there was a dramatic sequel to this episode. The lawyer was struck by the answer and the interpretation Yeshua gave to the two commandments. " And the scribe said unto him, Well, Teacher, thou hast said the truth: for there is one God and there is none other but he: and to love him with all the heart, and with all the understanding, and with all the soul, and with all the strength, and to love his neighbor as himself, is more than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices. And when Yeshua saw that he answered discreetly, he said unto him, Thou art not far from the kingdom of God (Mark: 12: 32-34).
Note the consistency with his reply given to the other lawyer: ''Thou hast said right, this do and thou shalt live." That is, obey the two commandments and live.
And now again when this lawyer says that the observance of these two laws "is more than all the burnt offerings and sacrifices," Yeshua said to him, Thou art not far from the kingdom of God"; "On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets"; and "There is none greater than these two commandments." True, indeed, that he had not come to destroy the law or the prophets, but to fulfill.
But now we must digress in order to restore to the phrase "kingdom of God" its original meaning and to correct a grave blunder committed by the early Christians, that has been perpetuated to this day in the Christian Church. The Greek word " basileia," here and elsewhere translated "kingdom," has two meanings. Like the English word " dominion " it may refer to the role of a king (which is the original meaning of the word) or, metaphorically, to the territory ruled over.
Yeshua never used the phrase in any other sense than "the rule of God " or "reign of God," as is clear in each case from the context. When, for instance, he said to the lawyer "Thou art not far from the kingdom of God," the phrase can have meaning only if Yeshua meant-as evidently he did meanthat the lawyer was not far removed from the rule " or "law " of God.
Dear Christian believer, if you have understood what I have shown you so far as to what Yeshua believed and taught as opposed to the "accepted" religious theology of his day, then this has vital importance for you although you might not have realized it. If your standing in your faith and your "salvation" is founded on your mental belief concerning "this" theology or "that" theology about Yeshua which was created by Paul and the Roman church through successive centuries and successive Catholic Church Councils, if it is founded on your mental belief that your "salvation is based on your belief in the doctrine that Yeshua "died for your sins" and "rose from the dead" then understand that your "mental assertion to such religious dogmas is not "deed" but "creed". And within Christianity this is rampant to the neglect of the real message of Yeshua regarding Eternal Life where "deed" is more important than "creed" or "mental belief". It is obvious from the teachings of Yeshua that merely by agreeing, accepting, or assenting to a proposition or a "religious belief or dogma" that one (the lawyer in the story) could not be any nearer to a locality. This is a false salvation if you trust the teachings of Yeshua and not the teachings of others. Compare also "Thy kingdom (i.e. 'rule' or 'reign) come: Thy will be done on earth," etc.
The Gospels are full of such blundering errors of translation and misinterpretationsometimes due to the ignorance of the scribes and sometimes on purpose because of Gentile theological bias which were carried over from their past pagan religious beliefs which were transferred and attached to the figure of Yeshua as he was "transformed" into the image of their past gods and godmen. This might be news to you but serious study into these difficult areas, areas which makes the students task often very tedious, will result in such an undeniable conclusion. Right now many will disagree but they have not evaluated the vast amount of existing evidence for themselves. I have and so have hundreds of Christian and Jewish scholars who will tell you the truth on the matter. You might not find such materials in Joshua's Christian Book Stores or at Zondervans, but this does not mean such overwhelingly convincing evidence does not exist. Bet Emet Ministries stands in the gap to instruct in sound doctrine, reprove, rebuke, and exhort in order that you might find yourself in the true faith of Yeshua and not in a counterfeit faith that has apostasized from the truth.
16 And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? (KJV)
A certain ruler came saying, "Good Teacher, what good thing shall I do that I may have eternal life?'
Not temptingly this time, but with desire for information.
Three of the Gospels record this incident- Matthew, Mark, and Luke; and, barring verbal differences, their agreement as to everything that is essential leaves little to be desired. He was not a heckler. According to all the accounts this man was genuinely desirous of knowing what he should do to inherit eternal life. Notice that he knew what most Christians today do not know; that there are things to "do" for Eternal Life. Read the passage again and try to convince yourself that "do" should have been " believe" as Paul would have it. It says "do" in all three Synoptic Gospels. He was a true disciple, for we are told that Yeshua, beholding him, " loved him." Therefore, if ever there was an occasion or an opportunity in the whole career of Yeshua to declare his scheme of salvation, if there was even a time in the ministry of Yeshua to teach Pauline doctrine that only those who will come to trust in his soon coming death and resurrection for the payment of their sins and thereby inherit Eternal Life by "believing" in what he was soon to accomplish, surely this was the supreme moment. Yeshua does not say such; in fact he says just the OPPOSITE! And for myself I have not the least doubt that he did do so, and that his answer is correctly reported as his answer cuts to the very core of his faith. Yeshua's answer is the very heart of what Judaism had taught for thousands of years concerning "salvation" and "obtaining Eternal Life". Dear one consistency is proof of this as the three Synoptic Gospels stand in complete unity about this as opposed to the Hellenistic Gospel of John which has hundreds of Gentile "footprints" to which the uninformed reader misses when he reads it. In the first place Yeshua rebuked the disciple for giving him a distinctive predicate: "Why callest thou me good ? there is none good but one, that is God." If you were a Jew then you would know that "good" was a euphemism for YHVH and there is only One God and Only One Good .YHVH. This is a "key" that Gentile readers of the Gospel of John, uninitiated with the facts of the Jewish faith fail to catch. Then he gave him this simple direction: " Keep the commandments." Again the consistency with all I have shown you so far from the various teachings of Yeshua concerning obtaining Eternal Life.
"Which?" asked the disciple, and the answer was explicit: " Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Honor thy father and mother, anti Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself'' (Mat. 14:16-21).
Answer for yourself: Did you notice anything in Yeshua's answer that was missing from what you have been taught by Gentile Christianity today regarding how to obtain Eternal Life?
There is not one word about believing any religious dogma or belief for obtaining Eternal Life! No hint about the necessity of baptism for inheriting Eternal Life. There is not even an intimation about attendance at the synagogue or about going to "Church" for receiving Eternal Life. There is not one hint about burnt offerings, blood sacrifices, fastings, or believing in the forthcoming resurrection or death on the cross that is connected by Yeshua with obtaining and inheriting Eternal Life. One would think that if these issues were integral and necessary for Eternal Life then Yeshua would have taught so. To any less is incriminating to the character of one believed by many to be Messiah or God no less. Surely Yeshua did not have amnesia.
Answer for yourself: Was Yeshua out to mislead us? Why did he not refer to the Pauline doctrines of salvation that would be developed later and later connected with his death if they would be "necessary" for obtaining Eternal Life as the Gentile Church teaches us today?
Answer for yourself: Could it be possible that Yeshua knew that such doctrines that would be later espoused later by the Gentile Church and taught in his "name" as necessary for salvation and Eternal Life were pagan to the core and pre-existed him by thousands of years and had absolutely no place within Biblical faith, Sinai, Israel, or the saving God of Israel? You bet he did. That is why you don't find such things as taught by Yeshua in the Synoptic Gospels when he was asked of Eternal Life.
Dear ones this is the problem that most Christians today are confronted with when they study. If you study long enough you will encounter the truth about Yeshua. You have believed in a book handed down to you by Rome which is a propagandist mixture of pagan religious doctrines and Gnosticism blended with a little truth from Biblical Judaism. Anti-Semitic Roman theology has created a hybrid Yeshua whereby he is pictured in the New Testament both as a Zeus and an anointed Jewish Rabbi positioned to be the Messiah of Israel. Well-intentioned people have put their whole faith into what the New Testament teaches never noticing the many outstanding contradictions concerning doctrine after doctrine. Dear one it is these "doctrines" which when "believed" lead to "doing". We either do it right or we do it wrong. If we do it wrong because we are led astray by much in the New Testament then we sin. By declaring the New Testament "inspired, infallible, and inerrant" we have taken from most the initiative to study thereby falsely assuring its readers that it is "truth" from page to page. No one ever approaches the New Testament desiring to prove it wrong. I did not. It was only after consistent study over the years that these things surfaced to my understanding. Like most I wanted to "believe" and accepted everything in the New Testament as "true". I was "saved". The more I studied Yeshua the Jew and his faith did I begin to see the irregularities and contradictions within it concerning Eternal Life. Over time I began to see that Paul and Yeshua disagreed on their "salvation" messages. Over time I began to see that the New Testament pitted "creed" against "deed" as connected with Eternal Life. Over time I began to see how the Gospel of John was a total denial and contradictions of the Synoptic Gospels regarding obtaining Eternal Life which stressed "deed" over "creed". As I later began in-depth study in comparative religions I was horrified to find the "Christ story" repeated over and over again in almost every Gentile pagan religion that existed prior to the time of Yeshua's life. Everywhere I turned and looked at pre-existing pagan religions I found scattered over the world, in almost every country and in every time period, Pauline New Testament doctrines which I had grown up in Christianity accepting as "Gospel truth" for my salvation. I soon came to realize I was a "creedal Christian" which held dear to himself hundreds of pagan beliefs that had nothing to do with the Jewish Yeshua. I was a follower of a Roman Yeshua. Such a "Yeshua" never existed. I had been deceived. Fifteen years of intense study had paid off for me; but what about you?
You can either read this article and discount it completely or you can open you mind that you need to begin serious study in order to prove you yourself what I have shown you to be true in time for your repentance before you die and meet the God you love who never gave you such "beliefs" in the first place. The choice is yours.
Again, not a word was mentioned by Yeshua about "believing" this or that for Eternal Life.
Answer for yourself: Or shall we suppose that such instruction had been given, but had been lost in the transmission?
Answer for yourself: Is the account as it has reached us perhaps incomplete ? Not so. The narrative does not leave us in any doubt for we have two other Gospels in complete agreement on the issue. Besides that, it goes on to say that the young man, wishing to be certain about his duties, said: " All these I do already, what lack I yet?"
Yeshua said that if he wanted to he perfect, all he could do was to sell what he had, give it to the poor, and help him to preach the SAME gospel to the rest of mankind.
Answer for yourself: Now do you think you have been taught the "same" Gospel Yeshua taught or a substitute one?
There is not only agreement between these scattered narratives, in sharp contrast to the tenor of the rest of the Gospels, but a most remarkable consistency of aim and purpose--not merely as between the three incidents we have noticed, but also with the exhortations of the Sermon on the Mount, whichby universal admission constitute the essence of the teachings of Yeshua.
Here as elsewherethat is, in those portions of the Gospels which in style and diction no less than in doctrine are so easily distinguishable from the restYeshua is laying emphasis on what he himself calls " the greatest of all commandments": " Love thy neighbor as thyself." In so doing, that is, in loving our " neighbors," whosoever they may be, we are hallowing the Fatherhood of God.
Rites and ceremonials were of no account at all. This is what the Catholic Church is all about "creed" for salvation. Before you begin to bash Catholics understand Protestantism is little better. Understand that rites and ceremonies were not condemned, but at the same time were admissible only after clue observance of the Law. Every trespass against a fellow-man, even the slightest, was an error which no amount of prayer or sacrifice could condone.
All his precepts and all his arguments are centered around this principle. Our ideal was to be God, the Father which is in heaven: "For he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and unjust."
Contrast now with these pure and sublime teachings the following words which are put into the mouth of Yeshua by the Gentile redactors of the Gospel of Mark:
"And he [Yeshua] said unto tract, Go ye into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall he saved, and he that believeth not shall be damned." I may point out that it is known to me that it has been questioned whether Mark wrote the verses in which this passage occurs. But if he did not, some other scribe did; and the words summarize well the basic doctrine of Christianity.
Compare this illogical, incomprehensible and brutal decree with the reasoned, humane and gentle exhortation: "Love your enemies, bless them that curse yolk, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them that despitefully use you and persecute you; that you may be the children of your Father which its in heaven."
"Love your enemies, bless them that curse yolk, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them that despitefully use you and persecute you; that you may be the children of your Father which its in heaven."
Answer for yourself: Is it possible to believe that the same teacher, so consistent, so clear and logical, and so meticulously just and gentle as is the author of the Sermon on the Mount could have pronounced so unutterably absurd a decree ?
Answer for yourself: What, if we accept this as genuine, are we to make of the other injunction which bids us to be "like our leather which is in heaven" ["deed" again remember?]? The proposition is too absurd for serious argument.
Dear one take this to heart and understand that Gentile Christianity today follows a religious beliefs system that in most parts is totally alien to what the true historical Yeshua actually believed and taught men were to do to inherit Eternal Life. Decide today to come to know the historical Yeshua the Jew; follow him and expose the lies taught in the name of the Roman Zeus. Shalom.