Q. Was the Last Supper a Passover Seder?

A. This question comes up every so often and it is a good time to discuss it because this is Passover week. I realize Christianity has already celebrated Easter but the reasons why have already been explained in recent articles. The bottom line is Christianity purposely tried to sever any connection with Judaism, the biblical festivals, the Sabbath and God’s commandments in favor of the traditions of men. Well, Rabbinical ( not biblical) Judaism has been just as guilty. The choice in Rabbinical Judaism is whether you will believe Moses or Rabbinical oral Law and tradition and the choice in Christianity is whether you believe Yeshua or the Church Fathers. Passover is to be determined by the ripeness of the Barley in Israel and the New Moon. This year Passover was on April 21st. The Feast of Unleavened Bread started at sundown and goes for seven days , ending on April 28th. The first and seventh day is a Sabbath and no work is to be done. The meanings of these spring festivals have been discussed in past articles so I won’t get into it again here, but these festivals can be found in Leviticus 23 and there is information about their prophetic significance on the Internet. Now, back to the question. I do not believe that the Last Supper was a Passover meal and I’ll give several reasons why. This meal took place on the night of Nisan 13 at sundown as the 14th began. Yeshua fulfilled Passover by being the innocent Lamb of God. In Luke 22.13-23 the basic story of what happened can be seen. Other gospels have it but let’s look at Luke for simplicity. The days of Unleavened Bread were approaching on which the lamb had to killed. In the first century, Passover could refer to the seven days of Unleavened Bread and Unleavened Bread can include Passover, totaling eight days total. It was just a way of thinking. So when it says the Unleavened Bread was coming on which the Passover lamb was killed was just a Hebraic way of saying Passover. The Passover lamb cannot be killed on any day other than Nisan 14 and so neither could Yeshua. Now I have heard many people try to get around that fact and make the Last Supper a Passover meal but it doesn’t work. They will say that the lamb was killed as the sun set on the 13th leading to the 14th of Nisan so Yeshua could be placed on the cross later that day. But the Passover lamb could not be killed that early in the day. The Temple was the only place the lamb could be brought and that didn’t happen till after the morning sacrifice on the 14th and well after 12pm. The worshippers in Jerusalem were divided into three groups of people. Each group would come up to have their lambs slaughtered and when they were done, the next group came in and so on and so you can see that this was very time consuming. They tried to get the lambs killed “between the evenings” and we know this was around 3pm. We know this because the true Lamb of God was killed at 3pm and so God Himself defined what “between the evenings” really meant. So, on Nisan 13 Yeshua sends His men ahead to prepare a room for Passover. Now that is no easy task. You have to “de-leaven” the room first of all, get tables, chairs, cushions, utensils, water and everything needed for the feast. This was done at least a day early. So when Yeshua talks about getting a place ready to eat Passover, that doesn’t mean He will eat it that night. In Luke 22.15 He says that He earnestly desired to eat this Passover with them, but again that doesn’t mean that night. He won’t be able to eat the Passover with them because He will be dead the next day, a fact that the Disciples still didn’t grasp at that time. What He was doing was getting together one last time with His students for one last night of instruction. This meal was known as a “Seudat Mitzvah” or a consecrated meal that accompanied any good work. It was called the Last Supper simply because it was the last supper before Unleavened Bread started. Anybody who keeps the festivals and especially Unleavened bread will telll you when the “last supper” will be after which no leaven can be eaten. The supper itself does not resemble a Passover, the lamb is never mentioned and bread and wine was eaten at many meals, not just Passover, Yeshua gives meaning to the bread and wine and then ties it into the ratification of the New Covenant in His own body and blood in Luke 22.19-20. Messiah Yeshua never broke a commandment of God and so He did not kill a Passover lamb a day early, outside of the Temple and eat a Passover on the night of the 13th going to the 14th. He was killed on Passover, between the evenings as prophesied, and was buried before the sun set on the 14th leading to the 15th of Nisan. It was probable that the Disciples went to the upper room and ate a very somber Passover meal, full of fear and very confused about the day’s events. Even though Yeshua warned them, they did not understand that the Messiah had to suffer on Passover, be buried on the first day of Unleavened Bread and rise from the dead on the 3rd Biblical festival of that week, the Feast of first Fruits. Which means that the true remembrance of the resurrection of Yeshua will be April 27th this year. But, in answer to the question, it is highly unlikely that Yeshua and His disciples were eating a Passover meal in the Gospels.

Q. What does Acts 11.26 mean when it says that the disciples were first

A To answer this question we will have to get into some first century
history and what was going on "behind the scenes" if you will. This verse
does not imply that a new religion was being formed that in any way
resembles what is known as Christianity today. Christianity did not exist in
the Book of Acts and neither did the false teachings that it disseminates.
The believers in the first century were Torah observant Jews and Gentiles
who came under the authority of the synagogues. They did not teach that
Sunday was Lord's Day, they did not eat pork or teach that the food laws
were invalid, they did not celebrate pagan festivals. So what exactly was
going on. Torah observance was expressed in many ways through many
traditions and not everyone did the same thing. But they all agreed about
the Sabbath and the keeping of the biblical festivals, what you could eat
and so on. Anyone who said that the Torah was "not for today" and taught
that one was "free from the Law" would be accused of heresy and rightly
judged and this included the writers of the New Testament who had nothing
good to say about those who taught a gospel without the Torah commandments.
In the first century there were various groups like the Pharisees. There was
not one group of Pharisee's but as many as 3 and four main groups but two
groups are predominant and they were called the School of Shammai and the
School of Hillel and were very eschatological (believed in the coming of the
Messiah).Both Shammai and Hillel lived in the first century. They had a high
regard for oral law but disagreed on how it was observed. The Mishnah and
the Talmud contain many arguments on halakah between the two schools.
Shammai was more strict than Hillel. The Sadducees were more of the priestly
class that opposed the Pharisee's and believed very little. The Boethucians
were rich Sadducee's that were non-eschatological and rejected the oral law
and many High Priest's came from this class. The Sicari (cut-throats) were
the most radical and would assassinate people who helped Rome. The Zealot
party was politically opposed to Rome and were Torah observant. There was
the Chasidim who were from the north and were pious but not like the
Pharisee's. The Essenes were a very zealous group and we are not sure
exactly who they were but they were fed up with what they felt was a corrupt
priesthood and withdrew into the wilderness. They were very eschatological.
There was also the Theraputae, or "healers" and they were related to the
Essenes. The Am ha Eretz or "people of the land" were the common folk who
didn't really care to study much and followed the Pharisee's and liked to be
told what to believe. Most of these groups would be called traditionalists.
The Hellenists (influenced by Greek culture) were those who were not so
"traditional" and this goes back to the time of the Maccabee's. The zealous,
traditional Jews were at odds with the Hellenists and a war was fought over
this 160 years before Yeshua. The traditionalist Jews fought the Greeks and
the Hellenized Jews in what was called the Maccabean War. The
traditionalists won the day but they looked with contempt on anyone who was
influenced by Greek culture and the feeling was mutual with the Hellenists.
This animosity and distrust permeated any interaction between the two
groups. Now the Hellenists were divided into several groups. The Judeans
were not eschatological and not very observant. The Asia Minor Hellenists
were very observant but influenced by Greek culture. The Alexandrian Jews of
the Hellenistic sort were Torah observant but influenced by Greek culture.
The last group I want to mention were the Babylonian Jews and they were very
Torah observant and did not have these other sects to deal with. After Rome
destroyed the Temple and Jerusalem, most of the above mentioned groups
disappeared except the Pharisee's. They formed what is called Rabbinic
Judaism and that is what has been handed down today. Rabbinic Judaism does
not resemble or represent what was being done in the first century and it
relies on rabbinic tradition. Yeshua's disciples were made up of people from
these groups with all the diverse beliefs and practices and He taught things
that could be found already in these groups. His overall beliefs were very
similar to the school of Hillel but his views on divorce agreed with the
school of Shammai. His teachings on hand-washing rituals and carrying a
pallet on the Sabbath agreed with the School of Hillel. His teachings about
the spirit of the Torah agreed with Hillel and "doing unto others" is very
similar to this school of thought. That is a whole study in itself but the
point is there was not one "Judaism" in the first century but "Judaisms" and
what Yeshua and the Apostles taught was very mainstream. Each group had
elders and leaders who set the "halakah" of that group, or how to walk
before God in light of the Torah commandments. Messianic believers had a
council or Sanhedrin where religious controversies could be settled (see
Acts 15). Yeshua's followers differed from the other groups in two main
areas. One, they believed He was the Messiah so they were known as the
"mashiachim" or "messianics" by others. The other area was on how to deal
with Gentile converts. All the groups accepted Gentile converts but some
believed that they had to undergo ritual circumcision to have righteousness
with God, or a place in the Kingdom of Heaven. The Pharisaic school of
Shammai was very adamant about this. The Messianic followers of Yeshua
thought that too in the beginning, but by Acts 10 and Cornelius that
doctrine was dropped for the most part. Now, it was into this world of
traditional versus Hellenistic thought that the disciples were sent into,
not to mention plain old paganism. So, when people from these different
groups began to be saved they brought their theology with them, good and
bad. You see the concept of ritual circumcision of Gentiles cropping up in
Acts 15 because traditionalist Pharisee's from the school of Shammai began
to get saved and brought this concept into their interaction with the
others. Paul, being a traditionalist from the school of Hillel would
naturally oppose this view and it came to a head in Acts 15 and the Book of
Galatians. Galatians has nothing to do with keeping the Torah, it has to do
with the traditionalist, Pharisaic concept as to whether a Gentile has to be
ritually circumcised according to the halakah of the school of Shammai or
not. It was the Lord's plan to educate Paul in Pharisaic Torah from the
school of Hillel and then reveal Messiah to him He was then sent out as a
teacher who wrote most of the New Testament Scriptures. The epistles were
Messianic commentaries on how to observe the Torah in light of the fact that
Yeshua is the Messiah. So, with that back-round let's talk about your
question. Gentiles who believed in God would be taught the Torah and were
called "Yiray Shamayim" or G0d-fearers. There were several other Hebraic
terms they were known by. One was called the "ger t'shav" or stranger in the
land. They were believers who lived in the land of Israel like Ruth and
Cornelius. If you lived outside the land you were called a "ger ha Sha'ar"
or stranger at the gate. This was important because where you lived
determined what commandments applied to you. For instance, if you lived
outside the land you did not tithe. In Greek they were called "phoubemenoi"
(God-fearers) and "sebemenoi" (devout ones) and these terms are used in the
book of Acts. So, you must understand that there was tension between the
traditionalists and the Hellenists in the first century and this had been
going on for over 150 years. Paul was a traditionalist from the school of
Hillel and you can see why he made war on messianic believers who were
Hellenistic by influence. That's why he was going to Damascus. There were
plenty of traditional messianic believers in Judea but he went after the
Hellenists. After Yeshua revealed Himself to him he did not give up the
traditional Judaism he learned but now he could interpret it correctly,
holding on to the good and discarding the bad. I think the Lord had a sense
of humor in sending Paul the traditionalist outside the land to reach
Hellenistic Jews and Gentiles. So, with all that back-round let's get to the
question. Antioch is a Hellenistic city (remember the Maccabean
traditionalists fought the Hellenists who sided with Antiochus) named after
the Greek kings. So, the Greek speakers in Antioch called the "mashiachim"
(Hebrew for messianics) "christianos" which is the same thing, only coming
from a Hellenistic angle. This term eventually was used to insult believers
and that is why Peter said not to be ashamed of being called a "Christian"
(christianos) in 1 Pet 4.14-16, or "messianic" coming from a Hebraic
mindset. This was not the start of a new religion and has nothing to do with
what is called "Christian" today. Peter was talking to Torah observant
believers in Messiah who were Jewish and Gentile and they would have never
accepted Christianity as it is today. Christianity is based on replacement
theology so the term messianic and Christian do not mean the same thing
anymore. Messianic carries the meaning of Torah observant which is seen as
applying only to Jews and Christian means non-Torah observant and is seen as
applying only to Gentiles. This couldn't be further from the truth as
expressed in the Scriptures. That is why Jews who believe are often called
"Hebrew Christians" and not Messianic Jews today. So, what is it supposed to
look like? God saves a Jew or a Gentile and both groups are part of one Body
and both groups were to keep the Torah as it applies. We are all a part of
one Bride, one Olive Tree, one congregation and we are to follow one Torah.
We have one Shepherd, one Prince, one King, one Messiah and we all follow
one God. Messianic is just the Hebrew word for "anointed ones" and if you
said it in Greek it would be "christianos" but both words mean the same
thing. That is what it is supposed to look like but that isn't what is out
there today and that is why there is much confusion about this verse. That
is why we should understand the Scriptures in the way they would have been
understood at the time they were written and not according to the
understanding and definitions of whatever denomination that happens to be
teaching you at the time.

Q. Was there a reason Yeshua made his home in Galilee and taught there, especially around the Sea of Galilee?

A. As mentioned before, names and places mean things in the Scriptures and God is communicating something whenever specific names or places are mentioned. Galilee and the Sea of Galilee are no exception. This “sea” is more like a lake and it is often called Lake Galilee. It is also called the Sea of Tiberias but I want to concentrate on another name that has Scriptural connections. It is also called the Sea of Kinneret in Num. 34.11 and Joshua 13.27. The name Kinneret seems to derive from the Hebrew word “kinnor” which means “harp” because the lake is shaped like a harp. Galilee means “circuit” and comes from the word “gal” which means “circle,circuit “ or “to roll” and the circle carries the meaning of “eternity” and would be related to eternal life. It is related to the word Gilgal where Joshua circumcised Israel after crossing the Jordan and before they entered the promised land. The Tabernacle was placed there and it was the traditional place where the kingdom was renewed in the time of Samuel and David. So Gilgal and Galilee are connected by the concept of the “rolling away” of the reproach of sin. In Isaiah 9.1-2 it talks about Galilee dwelling in darkness and in the shadow of death, but now sees a great light. This area was the first to go into the Assyrian captivity and they are the first to hear the good news that Yeshua was bringing. The New or “renewed “ covenant ( remember the concept of the kingdom being renewed) was first preached in Galilee. So being in Galilee fulfills many prophecies. But there are deeper meanings to these names and places that we will get into. In Psalm 33.2 it talks about praises being sung to God on a harp with ten strings. The harp was synonymous in Hebrew thought with the heart and the ten strings is an allusion to the Ten Commandments. In Proverbs 20.27 it says that the “ spirit (heart) of man is the lamp of the Lord” because the Torah is written on our desires (hearts) and we want to obey His word. The harp is the only known instrument whose strings can be played by the wind/breath or “ruach” in Hebrew. The heart is also aroused and stimulated by the Ruach ha Kodesh in the same way. In Rev. 14.2-3 it says that the 144,000 play “harps” but that is symbolic for being born from above by the Spirit of God who “plucks” their heart to follow God wherever He goes ( Rev 14.4) because the Spirit has written the commandments on the hearts fulfilling the promise of the New Covenant. They sing a “new song” which is alluding back to Psalm 33.2-3 again. So Yeshua teaches in Galilee about the “rolling away” of our reproach by a lake shaped like a harp because the wind of the Holy Spirit will “pluck the heart-strings” of the people to hear His word and obey it. This brings us to another concept. In Mark 3.28-29 it talks about the unpardonable sin. This confrontation takes place in Galilee around the Sea (harp) as mentioned in v 7. Some scribes from Jerusalem have accused Him of casting out demons by the power of the devil. He says that all manner of sin will be forgiven except the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. In Jn. 3.5 Yeshua teaches that a person must be born from above through the Holy Spirit who is likened to the “wind” which blows when and where it pleases. So the Ruach (wind) plucks the heart and man is born from above. Romans 8.29-30 explains the process. God declares us sinners, helpless and dead. He proposes to save us so He reaches for us and the “wind” begins to blow on our hearts (harps) while we were dead. We had no thoughts of God in our hearts before that, no need of salvation (Rom 3.9-12, 5.8, Jn 1.13). Saving faith is planted by the Holy Spirit, plucking our heart-strings, bringing conviction. It looks like we were searching for God when in reality that “seeking” is the first sign eternal life (the circle=Galilee) has been planted already. Then God uses some human agent who comes along bearing the good news and faith is stirred and we are born from above, but this process is entirely the work of God. Blasphemy is simply calling something that is holy unholy, or calling something unholy holy. I know this may offend some but saying that Sunday is the Lord’s day and the Sabbath is blasphemy. Saying December 25th is a “holy night” is blasphemy. Saying a believer can eat pork and catfish is blasphemy. Certain days and certain creatures have been “set apart” (holy) by God and man can’t change it. Well, Yeshua is working miracles through the power of the Holy Spirit . The scribes attribute it to something unholy. As a result the Spirit is blasphemed and He cannot do the saving work on the heart( harp) that is required to be born from above. So, in short, unbelief is the one sin that cannot be forgiven. All of this was taught by Yeshua and being in Galilee and around the Sea of Kinneret were physical allusions to spiritual realities

Q. I was in a discussion this week over where Jesus was crucified. Some said Mt. Sinai while others said Mt. Golgotha. What mountain was he crucified?

A. He was crucified on Mt. Moriah (“mount of the teacher”) just outside the northern gate of the city of Jerusalem at a place called Golgotha meaning “skull.” It was the site of public executions in the city used by Romans and Jewish authorities. It was possibly the site of the stoning of Stephen. He was crucified along the road leading in and out of the city to strike fear into the population about even thinking about rebelling against Rome. He was not up on a hill because the romans usually did it along the road, and the Scriptures say that the people “passing by” hurled insults at Him. Now, I want to get into some history and meanings about all this because nothing happens in the Scriptures by accident, especially if God gives us the name of people and places. All names mean something. The word Golgotha is Aramaic and simply means skull. It would be impossible to determine the true site of the crucifixion but there are two main sites. Directions in the Bible are always from Jerusalem and the Temple site so that is what I will use. The Catholic Church maintains that the site is west of the Temple and it was found by St. Helena, Constantine’s mother. The other site is called Gordon’s Calvary which is north of the Temple site. This site is near a rock formation which resembles a skull and that is what drew Professor Gordon’s attention, among other things. Some think it was here that Jeremiah wrote Lamentations and it is also referred to as Jeremiah’s Grotto. The Torah says that the sin offering is to be slaughtered north of the altar (Lev 1.11) and this site fits that prerequisite, but that site cannot be proven either. But, let’s get into what we do know. He was to be killed on Mt. Moriah and we see a picture of this in Genesis 22 and the Akedah, or the Binding of Isaac. Interestingly enough, this is the most important chapter in the Bible to the Jewish people.We know God told Abraham to goto the land of Moriah, to a certain mountain and to sacrifice Isaac there. Well, God never had Abraham carry out the whole thing but he did “act out” the scenario that the Father and His Son would actually have to do. The word Golgotha has the same root as “Gilgal” which means to “roll away.” It was at Gilgal that Joshua crossed the Jordan and circumcised Israel physically as they entered the land. It was at Gilgal the Kingdom was renewed in the days of Samuel and David, also a picture of the Father (Samuel) and the Son (David). Spiritually, Yeshua (Joshua) crossed over death (Jordan) at Golgotha (Gilgal) and brought in the circumcision of the heart (spiritual) and ratified the New Covenant with His own blood (and the people entered the promised land spiritually). As a result we can become born-again (renewed) and the Torah commandments can now be written on our hearts by the Holy Spirit and He will give us the power to obey Him. North in the Bible is the direction of intelligence and wisdom and that is why He was crucified at the place of” intelligence and wisdom” (the skull) which is related to Gilgal, where the kingdom is renewed ( or born again in us ) and that is what the New Covenant is. It was on the north side of the Temple Sanctuary that there was a table with bread called the “Shulchan shell Lechem ha Pannim” or the Table of Bread of the Faces (plural). The bread symbolizes the knowledge and wisdom gained through the Scriptures and the Menorah (candlestick) on the south side illuminates that Word by the oil of the Holy Spirit.



Now, let’s get into some deeper meanings. Satan has always wanted to sit on “the mount of assembly”, or the appointed festivals to be worshipped ( Isa 14.13 ). The mount of the appointed times is Mt. Moriah of course because that is where the people came to keep the festivals because the Temple was there, now called the Temple Mount. In Hebrew “mount of assembly” is said as “har moed” but it can be said with a slightly soft guttural “g” sound in moed and it would sound like “moe’ghed”. So, Satan wants to sit on “Har Moe’ghed” and how does he try to do it. Now the last part of the verse says that this “har moeghed” is in the sides of the north, the “direction” of intelligence and wisdom. So Satan can sit himself on the mount through intelligence and wisdom, the place of the skull or the “battle for the mind” as some refer to it by replacing God’s festivals with something else. This battle is talked about in Revelation 16.14,16: “For they (the frogs of v13 who speak lies) are the spirits of unclean devils, working miracles, which go forth unto the kings of the earth and of the whole world, to gather them to the battle of that great day of God Almighty” and v16 says “ and he gathered them together to a place called in the Hebrew tongue Armageddon.” Notice he says this is known in the Hebrew tongue because he is not coming from a Greek context. He could have said this in Greek but didn’t because he is alluding to a greater concept here. Many biblical scholars teach that this is a great, physical battle at the mountain of Megiddo, but there is no Mount Megiddo in Israel. The last battle when Yeshua comes is not at Mount Megiddo but at Jerusalem Zech 12-14, Matt 24). Armageddon does not mean Mount Megiddo but “har moeghed” or the “mount of assembly” or the appointed times (festivals). So, let me pull all this together. The battle of Har Moeghed is over whether or not you will follow the Torah . It’s a battle over what Holy days you will keep. Dan 7.25 says that the False Messiah will come and changes the times (festivals of God) and the Torah. This battle is over obedience to the Torah commandments. That is why those who do not follow the Torah are called “lawless” or “anomos” meaning Torah-less. That has always been the battle. It was the battle fought in Eden. Whether there is a literal Battle of Armageddon is debatable and not probable., but there is a battle of “Har moeghedon” spiritually and it’s going on today. God says that only certain people will dwell on “His Holy hill (Psa 15.1, 24.3-4, 43.3). Psa 48.1-3 says that God is to be praised on “His holy mountain” (because the Temple was there and the feasts were celebrated there) and on the “sides of the north” (Wisdom). Isa 2.2-4 says that in the last days the “mountain” of the house of God will be established over all the mountains ( kingdoms…including Satans’s) and raised (“elevated” spiritually-Psa 48.2) above the nations and the Gentiles will come and say “let us go up to the house of the Lord.” Why are they doing that? Because the Torah will go forth from Zion and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem. The context of this is when Yeshua comes back. Now, if the Law has been done away with as some say, why is it being taught again when Yeshua comes? The answer is because it has never been done away with and those who ascend His Holy Hill will be ascending the Mount of Assembly , or the appointed times, because they are Torah observant and have defeated Satan at the battle of “Har-moeghedon” and have not followed the lies of all the “frogs” out there who are trying to deceive the nations into letting Satan sit on the mount of assembly and to come and worship him with replacement festivals and observances. The battle of Har-moeghedon was fought and won at the place of the skull, on Mount Moriah , the mount of the appointed times, just north of the Altar on that Passover nearly 2000 years ago. What it comes down to is who are you going to serve. Is God seated on the recesses of the north on the Mount of the appointed times or have you seated Satan there and you are following his appointed times. The Scriptures will give you the answer and the battle plan on how to defeat Satan at the Battle of Har-moeghedon which is being fought all around us today.

Would Your Church Allow You To Be Like Jesus?

By: Jim Myers


Would Your Church Allow You To Be Like Jesus?



Which religion would a person be a member of if he did the following?

(1) Was circumcised on the eighth day.

(2) Kept Sabbath from Friday sundown to Saturday sundown.

(3) Attended a synagogue regularly.

(4) Kept Passover, Shavuot, Rosh HaShanah, Yom Kippur and Hanukkah.

(5) Was a citizen of Israel.

(6) His Bible only contained the Torah, the Prophets and the Writings.

(7) Quoted passages from the Mishnah.

(8) Taught that Deuteronomy 6:4 was the most important commandment.



I would guess that most of you came up with the same answer -- Judaism. As a friend of mine always says, "You don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure that one out." Now, let's take a look at another person. See if you can identify the religion of this person.



(1) Sabbath was on Sunday.

(2) Attended a church.

(3) Kept Easter and Christmas.

(4) Bible contained an Old Testament and a New Testament.

(5) Stressed a person's beliefs.

(6) Taught that people had to be "saved" in order to go to heaven.

(7) Taught that they were not under the law.

(8) Taught that the church had replaced Israel as God's people.



I bet you got the right answer again -- Christian. Now let's take this discussion one more step by answering this question -- If a Jew wanted to become a member of a Christian religion could he continue practicing Judaism? Probably in the 99.9% of the cases the answer would be - NO!



What about the other side of the coin? If a Christian wanted to become a convert to Judaism could he continue practicing Christianity? Now, the percentage moves upwards, probably in 100% of the cases the answer would be - NO!



It is very apparent that not only are Judaism and Christianity different religions, they are exclusive in many ways. This reveals an amazing fact which can be seen by asking one very simple question -- Which religion did Jesus belong to -- Christianity, Judaism or both?



(1) He was circumcised on the eighth day.

(2) He kept Sabbath from Friday sundown to Saturday sundown.

(3) He attended a synagogue regularly.

(4) He kept Passover, Shavuot, Rosh HaShanah, Yom Kippur and Hanukkah.

(5) He was a citizen of Israel.

(6) His Bible only contained the Torah, the Prophets and the Writings.

(7) He quoted passages from the Mishnah.

(8) He taught that Deuteronomy 6:4 was the most important commandment.



The answer to the above question is a matter of historical record -- Jesus was a Jew, not a Christian and he was certainly not both. It is clear that Jesus was a practicing Jew who lived a very observant lifestyle. An amazing discovery for any Christian is the fact that there is simply no evidence that Jesus ever renounced Judaism and quit being a Jew. Also, his teachings do not indicate that he ever wanted any Jew to renounce their Judaism and join a new religion. How then, did he get credited with the distinct label that he was the person responsible for creating a new religion? Especially a religion which opposed the religion and way of life he continued to live? Can you answer the questions raised by such an assumption:



(1) Would a rabbi prohibit circumcision?

(2) Would a rabbi change the Sabbath to another day?

(3) Would a rabbi create a replacement for the synagogue?

(4) Would a rabbi substitute a pagan feast which was clearly idolatrous, Ishtar (Easter), for Passover?

(5) Would a rabbi want his followers to celebrate the birth of a Roman god (Saturnalia - December 25)?

(6) Would a rabbi teach his students to not keep the biblical commandments?

(7) Would a rabbi teach Gentiles to hate Jews?

(8) Would a rabbi add books to the Torah?

(9) Would a rabbi replace Deuteronomy 6:4 as the most important commandment?



The answer to all the above questions is that a rabbi wouldn't, and that includes a rabbi named Jesus! If Jesus didn't create a new anti-Jewish religion, who did? Was it the men who acquired leadership after Jesus' departure? Did they continue teaching his message or did they change things?



The book of Acts provides us with some very valuable information. Acts 21:17-25 records Paul's return to Jerusalem and his meeting with the leaders of the "church." Keep in mind that these were the men who had been personally taught by and lived with Jesus. Their words provide us with some very enlightening information. The translation given below is based on a cultural and historical methodology. Your translation most probably reflects the doctrines of the Roman church and therefore may differ.



"You see, brother, how many thousands of Jews have become faithful (observant). All of them are zealous for the Torah (Law). They have been informed that you have taught the Jews of the Diaspora to not keep the Torah, that they should not circumcise their children or live according to the Jewish religion.... Take these men and do the following... so that everybody will know that there is no truth in these reports about your teachings, but that you yourself are living an observant lifestyle and keeping the Torah."



A quick summary provides us with some very significant information. Is your church producing the same results?



(1) Jews became more faithful (observant) Jews because of the message.

(2) They became zealous for the Torah (Law).

(3) They kept the Laws of Moses (the Torah).

(4) They circumcised their children.

(5) They lived according to the traditions (Jewish religion).



Notice that Paul did as he was requested - he wasn't teaching the Jews to abandon their religion. Paul was "under the law" and lived an observant lifestyle. How then could he have been the author of a doctrine that advocated rejecting the law?



I don't mean to linger on this point forever, but are you really getting the importance of this message?



(1) The message of the apostles caused Jews to repent and become observant Jews who practiced Judaism faithfully.

(2) The apostles were causing Jews to become eager for the Torah and to pursue it with fervor. It is clear that they were not teaching them that "they were under grace and no longer under the law." This one point is in complete opposition to most fundamental teaching of every modern Christian doctrine.

(3) The Jewish members of the early church continued to circumcise their children. In other words, they continued to see themselves as participant's in the Abrahamic Covenant, just as every practicing Jew does today. Their children were Jews, not members of some new mystical religion that replaced Judaism.

(4) The Jewish members of the early church continued to practice Judaism. They did not switch to a new religion.

(5) When we look at Paul's actions, after being asked to take the men to the Temple to prove that he was an observant Jew, we are faced with two possibilities: (A) Paul intentionally deceived the apostles and the Jews in Jerusalem; or, (B) Paul's image and/or the teachings attributed Paul may have been altered by the Roman Church a hundred or more years later.



Did Paul intentionally deceive the apostles? After all they were the men who lived with and were personally taught by R. Jesus for three years. If Paul did deceive them, could you put much confidence in his teachings? On the other hand, if Paul's words were changed by the Roman Church could we base our foundational beliefs on forged documents?



Christianity, almost universally, requires a Jew to convert to Christianity before he can become a member of the church or be saved. This conversion process forces the Jew to renounce his or her Judaism and terminate or redefine any Jewish practices. Just answer the following questions.



(1) Would your church require a Jew to renounce or stop practicing Judaism if he or she wanted to become a member?

(2) How many circumcisions have you attended for the children of Jewish members of your church?

(3) How many of your church's members are zealous for the Torah and are pursuing it with fervor?

(4) Does your church conduct at least one Torah study per week?

(5) How many of your church's Jewish members are observant Jews?

(6) When was the last time you attended a Rosh HaShanah or Yom Kippur service at your church?

(7) Do you have a rabbi or a minister leading your church? Your answers to the above questions are probably -- Yes, None, None, No, None, Never and Minister.



I want you take some time to think about the next question before you answer it. What would your church require a rabbi to do if he applied for membership?



Would they allow him to continue to be a rabbi, practice Judaism, teach the Torah, wear his prayer shawl, observe all the Jewish festivals and teach the members that they were under the Law?



What if that rabbi was Jesus?



Is the light beginning to come on? Without a great deal of effort it becomes glaringly apparent that neither R. Jesus, the apostles nor the Paul of Acts 21, would be allowed to join a church. On the other hand, it is also clear that R. Jesus would not participate in any religion that not only opposes, but is actively dedicated to destroying his religion! Is it not true that the goal and stated mission of Christianity is to "save the world?" How is this mission to be accomplished? To put it very simply, the goal is to convert every non-Christian to Christianity. The convert must renounce any non-Christian religion, agree to accept the doctrines of Christianity and oppose any religion that opposes Christianity.



Instead of a physical Jihad (holy war), Christianity has engaged in a doctrinal Jihad. As I stated above, Christianity is an exclusive religion. Christians are not allowed to simultaneously practice Islam, Buddhism, Judaism or any other religion. Therefore, if Christianity was to attain its goal of "getting every person on the face of the earth to believe in Jesus," including all the Jews, Judaism would be totally destroyed and cease to exist.



This would accomplish something that the crusaders, the inquisition, Hitler and a number of others have failed to accomplish. How do you think R. Jesus would react to the idea that such a mission was being carried out in his name? This really gets weird when you think about it! Christians base their proof for their ultimate salvation on a Jewish rabbi named Yeshua (Jesus), who was an observant Jew who faithfully practiced Judaism. On the one hand, his religion would most probably not allow him to practice modern Christianity. On the other hand, modern Christianity would not allow him to practice its religion without first renouncing his religion -- Judaism!



This should present a very important challenge to every Christian -- If R. Jesus could not, and would not, practice a religion dedicated to destroying his religion, how can anyone who bases their salvation on R. Jesus participate in and perpetuate it? Would R. Jesus agree with a salvation message being based on such a system? Are you getting the drift of this discussion?



How did the religion that R. Jesus and his followers practice evolve into what it is today? To begin to unravel this problem lets ask how a religion whose foundational position focused on teaching its members "to keep the Law" became a religion whose main message was that "members are no longer under the Law."



Early Christian writers taught that the Law had been fulfilled with the coming of Jesus. Fulfilled, as they defined it, meant that it had been canceled and therefore was of no importance to Christians. However, to R. Jesus, "fulfilled" meant (1) to keep the Law; and (2) to correctly interpret the teachings of the Bible. There is absolutely nothing said by R. Jesus that would support modern Christianity's doctrine of grace.



Next, the Roman Christian leaders focused on the story of God's unconditional and unending support. However, they claimed that this was something new and was created when God made a new covenant of grace. Again, this was unknown to R. Jesus and his apostles. Early Gentile Christian leaders and theologians continued to develop their new doctrines from the mid-second century on through the seventh century. As they refined their arguments they became much more antagonistic toward Judaism.



The anti-Judaic movement spanned almost all of Christianity -- from the Roman African communities represented by Tertullian (160-220 C.E.), to the Iranian monk Aphrahat (300-350 C.E.) of the eastern Syriac Christian tradition, and to Bishop John Chrysostom (349-400 C.E.) in Antioch.



Studies have clearly shown the extent to which leaders of the early church attacked Judaism for its position on the law, calling Jews "slavish adherents to the letter of the law." They claimed that Judaism was allowed to continue to exist primarily as an example of degradation. What do you think that rabbi Jesus would have thought about that position?



Origin, the third-century leader of the Christian community in Caesarea, summed up the difference between Judaism's and Roman Christianity's approaches to Scripture:



"It seems necessary also to explain how certain people by failing to read or understand Scripture correctly have given themselves up to a great many errors, since the way one ought to approach the understanding of divine letters is unknown to a great many people. And so, the Jews, through the hardness of their heart and because they wish to seem wise in themselves, have not believed in our Lord and Savior....



Now the reason that those we have just mentioned [Jews and heretical Christians] have a false understanding of these matters is quite simply that they understand Scripture not according to the spiritual meaning but according to the sound of the letter....


[But] a person ought to describe threefold in his soul the meaning of divine letters, that is, so that the simple may be edified by, so to speak, the body of the Scripture's; for that is what we call the ordinary and narrative meaning. But if any have begun to make some progress and can contemplate something more fully, they should be edified by the soul of Scripture. And those who are perfect... should be edified by that spiritual Law (Rom. 7:14) which has a shadow of the good things to come (Heb. 10:1), edified by the spirit of Scripture. Thus, just as a human being is said to be made up of body, soul, and spirit, so also is sacred Scripture, which has been granted by God's gracious dispensation for man's salvation."



This new scheme for reading Scripture, and the charge that Jews miss all but the literal meaning, made for powerful arguments. Origin's dichotomy between "letter" and "spirit," or in other words, between reading biblical materials either at their face value for norms of behavior and as a more generalized stance toward the world, set the stage throughout history for Christians to increase the fervor of the charge of legalism. Legalism became synonymous with Jewish, and therefore was viewed in a negative light. However, the word "legalism" simply means someone that "lives in accordance with or adheres to a legal system." What would you call someone who "did not adhere to or live in accordance with a legal system"-- a Christian? The products of this anti-Jewish tradition still shapes the thoughts of over 1.6 billion Christians regarding Judaic law.



I am challenging every Christian to make a decision to return to the religion, teachings and lifestyle expounded by R. Jesus. There will be some differences between what the Gentile and the Jewish Christian will need to do. First, let me address the Jew who has converted to Christianity. As I stated above, according to the book of Acts, your conversion experience should have made you zealous for the Torah and brought you back to an observant lifestyle. Has it?



Becoming a member of R. Jesus' movement should have caused you to become a serious student of the Torah. You should be teaching the Torah to others, especially the flood of Gentiles who are coming to you to be taught. Is there any other way for you to be a "light to the Gentiles?"



If you are a Gentile, you will also need to take a very close look at Acts 15. Gentiles who were coming to the movement originated by R. Jesus were given very special instructions. First they were to place themselves under specific laws. For all practical purposes those laws were the Ten Commandments. Of special importance was their keeping the Jewish Sabbath and studying the Torah at the synagogue with the Jews.



Keeping the Jewish Sabbath is something that you can do immediately, however; many of you may find it difficult to locate a synagogue where you will be allowed to study the Torah. For very good reasons, after thousands of years of persecutions, the Jewish community is very cautious. I believe that as Christian Jews return to the synagogue, because of the teachings of R. Jesus, the doors will be opened wider to Gentiles desiring to know the God of R. Jesus.



Two things must be kept in mind as both Jews and Gentile Christians choose to return to the teachings of rabbi Jesus. First, almost two thousand years of conflict between Judaism and Christianity has left many scars. Both religions have developed reactionary doctrines and theologies. A reactionary doctrine created as a reaction to the another religion's actions or doctrines.



An example would be the Jewish position concerning kneeling for prayer. Because Christians knelt for prayer, the Jews took the position that they should no longer kneel but stand for prayers. Judaism altered its form of worship because of this practice of Christianity. There have been many reactionary doctrines created both between and within both religions. This is an area of research that deserves much attention. I would challenge my readers to consider such a research project.



It must be kept in mind that the Judaism of Jesus is not exactly the same as the Judaism of today. Also, the movement attributed to Jesus is not the same as modern Christianity. Obviously, many things have taken place since the time of Jesus which resulted in the separation and numerous differences between the two religions.



It is of the utmost importance for both Christians and Jews to understand these changes. You must know when the changes were made, identify the people who were responsible for making the changes, and discover why they made them? Which changes were motivated by inspiration, which were produced by the hunger for power and wealth and which were the results of human frailties such as anger, rejection, fear and hatred?



As you embark on this journey you will quickly come to realize that you have stumbled upon the greatest cover-ups in history. To compare it to the JFK controversy is like comparing an elephant to an ant! Two very important factors confront everyone who explores this territory:



(1) Leaders, especially scholars, have always been aware of this information and have deliberately chosen to ignore it.

(2) Information itself is virtually within the grasp of every American. In many cases it is as close as an encyclopedia.



Today, there are over 1,600,000,000 Christians on the face of the earth -- a sleeping giant, just waiting for the wake-up call. If they all returned to the teachings and life-style taught in Acts, we would see a moral and ethical revolution that would literally rock the foundations of the world. Would your church allow you to REALLY be like Jesus?



Copyright 2008: Jim Myers http://www.biblicalheritage.org



Printed with permission by: Olive Tree Ministries, Waxahachie, Tx

http://otwaxahachie.blogspot.com