Previous Next Home Title Page Index Contents

26 Religions

The ancient religions and philosophies have mystical traditions, some similar to Judaism. These reveal similar patterns of thought. Here is a description of early religions that shared the same temporal space during the development of Judaism.

26.1 Apocalyptic, Apocrypha, Essenes

Those books not canonized showed the influence of Greek and Persian influences to too great an extent to be canonized. Some of them like the Book of Zerubabel have created powers in the darkness where before stood only dark servants of Hashem.[2013] Here, the Satan wages war against the Messiah. There is also discussion of the power of the Messianic mother vs. the Mother of Stone of the Satan’s child. Some of these books show the transition to Christian ideology, so they are included here.

The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs exhibits the pattern of seven angels, which may have been seven demigods in the Manichean system of Iran.[2014]

26.1.1 Dead Sea Scrolls

They tend to point to three messiahs. The Moreh Tzedek is the Teacher of Righteousness. The Tzemah Tzedek or Tzemah David is the Shoot of Righteousness or the Shoot of David respectively. The Malchi-Tzedek is a spiritual or angelic being not unlike Adam Kadmon who will come from the clouds of heaven.

26.1.1.1 11Q13 Melchizedek

This is the Melchizedek scroll:[2015]
Text 26-1: 11Q13 Melchizedek
Note: The ellipses brackets [...] indicate breaks in the original scroll fragments. All Bible references were added by García-Martínez. The document line (not verse) numbers follow the original Hebrew manuscripts.

Column 2
1 [... ] ? [...]


2 [...] And as for what he said: Lev 25:13 "In this year of jubilee, [you shall return, each one, to his respective property," as is written: Dt 15:2 "This is]

3 the manner (of effecting) the [release: every creditor shall release what he lent [to his neighbor. He shall not coerce his neighbour or his brother when] the release for El [has been proclaimed]."

4 [Its inter]pretation for the last days refers to the captives, about whom he said: Isa 61:1 "To proclaim liberty to the captives." And he will make

5 their rebels prisoners [...] and of the inheritance of Melchizedek, for [...] and they are the inheri[tance of Melchi]zedek, who

6 will make them return. He will proclaim liberty for them, to free them from [the debt] of all their iniquities. And this will [happen]

7 in the first week of the jubilee which follows the ni[ne] jubilees. And the day [of atonem[ent is the end of the tenth jubilee

8 in which atonement will be made for all the sons of [Light] and for the men of the lot of Melchizedek. [And on the heights] he will decla[re in their] favour according to their lots; for

9 it is the time of the "year of grace" for Melchizedek,[2016] to exa[lt in the tri]al the holy ones of El through the rule of judgment, as is written

10 about him in the songs of David, who said: Ps 82:1 "Elohim will stand up in the assem[bly of El,] in the midst of the gods he judges." And about him he said: Ps 7:8-9 "Above it

11 return to the heights, El will judge the peoples." As for what he sa[id: Ps 82:2 "How long will yo[u judge unjustly and show partiality to the wicked? Selah."

12 Its interpretation concerns Belial and the spirits of his lot, who were rebels [all of them] turning aside from the commandments of El [to commit evil].

13 But, Melchizedek will carry out the vengeance of El's judgments[2017] [on this day, and they shall be freed from the hands] of Belial and from the hands of all the sp[irits of his lot].

14 To his aid (shall come) all "the gods of [justice"; he] is the one [who will prevail on this day over] all the sons of El, and he pre[side over] this [assembly].

15 This is the day of [peace about which God] spoke [of old through the words of Isa]iah the prophet, who said: Isa 52:7 "How beautiful

16 upon the mountains are the feet of the messenger who announces peace, of the mess[enger of good who announces salvation], saying to Zion: 'your Elohim [reigns'"].

17 Its interpetation: The mountains are the pro[phets ...]

18 And the messenger is [the ano]inted of the spirit [mashiach haruach] about whom Dan[iel] spoke ["...until the time of (the/an) Anointed Prince [mashiach nagid] there will be seven weeks ... after sixty-two weeks, (the/an) Anointed shall be cut off" Dan 9:25, 26 . ... and the messenger of]

19 good who announces salv[ation] is the one about whom it is written that [he will send him Isa 61:2-3 "to comfo[rt the afflicted, to watch over the afflicted ones of Zion"].

20 "To comfo[rt the afflicted," its interpretation:] to instruct them in all the ages of the worl[d...]

21 in truth. [...]

22 [...] it has been turned away from Belial and it [...]

23 [...] in the judgments of El, as is written about him: Isa 52:7 "Saying to Zion: 'your Elohim rules'." ["Zi]on" is

24 [the congregation of all the sons of justice, those] who establish the covenant, those who avoid walking [on the pa]th of the people and your God is HaVaEH[2018],[2019]
Text 26-2: Dead Sea Scrolls Melchizedek 11Q13: 24-25 Hebrew
24 [עדת כול בני הצדק המה] מקימ[י] הברית הסרים מלכת [בד]רך העם ואל[ו]היך הואה
25 [... מלכי צדק אשר יצי]ל[מה מי]ד בליעל ואבר אמר והעברתמה שו[פר ב]כול [א]רץ

25 [Melchizedek, who will resc]ue [them] from the hand of Belial. And as for what he said: Lev 25:9 "You shall blow the hor[n in every] land."

Column 3 (only small pieces)
1 [Its interpretation ...]
2 and you know [...]
3 God [...]
4 and many [...]
5 [...] Melchizedek [...]
6 the law for them [...] the hand [...] and he will announce [...]
7 they shall devour Belial with fire [...] Belial, and they shall rebel [...]
8 the desires of their hearts [...]
9 the ramparts of Judah [...] the ramparts of Je[rusalem...]

26.2 Arianism

Christianity identifies Arianism amongst its heretical groups, which also includes the Cathari, Gnostics, and follows of Manichaeism. The Alexandrian presbyter Arius introduced Arianism in the 4th century:[2020]

Text 26-3: Arian Principle on the non-Divinity of Jesus

It affirmed that Christ is not truly divine but a created being. Arius' basic premise was the uniqueness of God, who is alone self-existent and immutable; the Son, who is not self-existent, cannot be God. Because the Godhead is unique, it cannot be shared or communicated, so the Son cannot be God. Because the Godhead is immutable, the Son, who is mutable, being represented in the Gospels as subject to growth and change, cannot be God. The Son must, therefore, be deemed a creature who has been called into existence out of nothing and has had a beginning. Moreover, the Son can have no direct knowledge of the Father since the Son is finite and of a different order of existence. (see also Index: Christ, two natures of)
According to its opponents, especially the bishop Athanasius, Arius' teaching reduced the Son to a demigod, reintroduced polytheism (since worship of the Son was not abandoned), and undermined the Christian concept of redemption since only he who was truly God could be deemed to have reconciled man to the Godhead.

26.3 Canaanite Religion

Deities had names corresponding to Hebrew words. Most of these are Canaanite with the last Egyptian:
  1. Sun – Shemesh
  2. River – Nahar
  3. Sea – Yam
  4. Rahab – Egyptian monster
  5. Taninam – Sea monster – תנינם
  6. Leviathon – Lotan
  7. El Elyon – Highest of the gods
  8. Amen or Amon – Egyptian deity personification of air or breath represented as either a ram or a goose, revered as king of the gods in Egypt.[2021]
  9. Tzedek – Sun god or Righteousness

“Amon's name meant The Hidden One, and his image was painted blue to denote invisibility. This attribute of invisibility led to a popular belief during the New Kingdom (1539-c. 1075 BC) in the knowledge and impartiality of Amon, making him a god for those who felt oppressed.”[2022]

In Jewish prayer, one says amen in response to hearing a blessing. Amen may mean that G-d sees our needs and will bestow blessings upon us fairly. L’havdil, the literal Hebrew of amen deals more with training, trust, entrustment, education, practice, and belief. The noun form refers to art.[2023]

El Elyon continues to refer to G-d in Judaism. Shemesh – שמש seems to have some power to defeat evil beings by reciting the last two letters in reverse order, which by the ‘Name’ of G-d melts ones enemies.[2024] Emet – אמת destroys golems by erasing the aleph on the body leaving only death.

26.4 Catharism

Some Catharists may have interacted with kabbalists around the 12th century in Southern France, i.e. the time and the location where the Bahir first went public. Their doctrines included:[2025]

Text 26-4: Catharism on the Illusion of the Material World
Although the various groups emphasized different doctrines, they all agreed that matter was evil. Man was an alien and a sojourner in an evil world; his aim must be to free his spirit, which was in its nature good, and restore it to communion with God. There were strict rules for fasting, including the total prohibition of meat. Sexual intercourse was forbidden; complete ascetic renunciation of the world was called for.
The Cathar doctrines of creation led them to rewrite the biblical story; they devised an elaborate mythology to replace it. They viewed much of the Old Testament with reserve; some of them rejected it altogether. The orthodox doctrine of the Incarnation was rejected. Jesus was merely an angel; his human sufferings and death were an illusion. They also severely criticized the worldliness and corruption of the Catholic Church.

Though the Catharists lived in the same location as the Bahir’s discovery, there is no evidence of historical connection in thought. Catharism is a gnosticism.

26.5 Christianity

Christianity is one of the most successful religions in producing generous people in the world. Synthesizing an ethical code from Judaism and a gift-giving spirit from Saturnalia[2026], the religion has turned a large number of people into beneficent individuals.[2027] What is the secret of Christianity’s success in transforming the world?

For the Christian, generosity is born out of recognition of the suffering of ‘Jesus the Christ’[2028] for atonement. The principle of intrinsic or original sin in humanity is the foundation of Christianity. Yet, humility is born out of this guilt.[2029] By degrading the human condition, Christianity breaks the yolk of self-importance liberating a generous spirit that often lies dormant in mankind.

Asceticism, self-deprecation, glorification of a “Savior”, and to believe in the greater importance of the afterlife serves to remove selfishness from the individual and create good will towards all mankind. Theological ideas like the ‘Virgin Birth’[2030] are the basis of the greatest sacrifice that man could ever imagine, setting the cornerstone of this religion.

Could this religion have been created without bashing the Pharisees and their religion? The self-improving-self-deprecating ideology of Christianity derives from the experiences of Jesus with his fellow Jews. While Jesus’ and Paul’s insinuations of the arrogance of Jews is a misconception or mistranslation, the stories serve to breakdown resistance of future gentiles to Christian conversion. While Christianity’s sacrifice of a deity to break down conceit is a great tool, the incarnation of a deity is not a biblical expectation or necessity.[2031]

Text 26-5: Numbers 23:19
God is not a man – לא איש אל, that he should lie – ויכזב; nor the son of man, that he should repent – ובן-אדם ויתנחם ההוא. Has He said, and shall He not do it or has He spoken, and shall He not make it good?

26.5.1 Blood atonement


Leviticus 17:11 is often misunderstood according to the following article:[2032]

Text 26-6: Rabbi Michael Skobac on Leviticus 17:11
One of the cornerstones of Christian theology is that the only way to achieve atonement for sins is through the offering of a sacrifice whose blood is shed in our place. The Greek Testament makes this very clear in Hebrews 9:22 "...without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness." Is this idea consistent with the teachings of the Tanach, or do the Jewish and Christian bibles diverge on this issue? Christians generally insist that the absolute need for a vicarious blood sacrifice is rooted in the Torah, and cite as proof Leviticus 17:11 "For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that makes an atonement for the soul."

If you are a Christian, or are a Jew who has been approached by Christian missionaries, you have probably heard many sermons on the topic of atonement, and have undoubtedly read many studies which support the contention that there is no atonement without blood. Of course you are also aware that this is a teaching which is not shared by traditional Jews. Have you ever wondered how they could reject what to others seems so clear? This study has been prepared to give you the opportunity to consider a different perspective on the vital issue of atonement.

ANOTHER LOOK AT LEVITICUS 17:11
You might remember that in junior high school, we were often given an assignment to write the title for a story; what is the central idea of a passage. Let's look at Leviticus 17:11 in context:

"And whatever man of the house of Israel, or of the strangers who sojourn among you, who consumes any blood, I will set My face against that person who consumes blood, and will cut him off from among his people. For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that makes an atonement for the soul. Therefore, I say to the children of Israel, `No one among you shall consume blood, nor shall any stranger who sojourns among you consume blood.'"

What should immediately be apparent is that the topic of this passage is not how to secure atonement from sins, but the prohibition against consuming blood. We are told parenthetically that the reason for this prohibition is that the blood contains the vitality of the animal (cf. Genesis 9:4, Deuteronomy 12:23) and consequently, when we bring an animal sacrifice, its blood serves as the atoning agent, and not another part of its body. Since Leviticus 17 doesn't come to teach us about the principles of atonement, we will have to look elsewhere for the Bible's most important teaching on how to repair our relationships with G-d.

Before proceeding, let's consider another point about what is, and what is not being said in Leviticus 17:11. The passage does say that since blood symbolizes the life of the animal, G-d has given it to us as a means of atoning for our sins. But does the verse clearly teach that it is the only means G-d has provided to make atonement? As with any other Biblical study, we will have to examine this question in light of the Bible as a whole. But for now, we should note that our verse merely says that blood can serve as an atonement. It is an effective means of atonement, but by no means the only form of atonement.

In the Torah, blood sacrifices were not the only path to atonement; there were other ways to achieve forgiveness. For example, incense served to atone for the people in Numbers 16:46-47, and giving charity is described in Exodus 30:15-16 and Numbers 31:50 as `making atonement for your souls' - the same expression as in Leviticus 17:11. In reality, blood sacrifices were the least effective of all the means of atonement mentioned in the Bible. One important limitation to the effectiveness of sacrifices is that they were only brought for unintentional sins (i.e. someone didn't know that kindling a fire was prohibited on the Sabbath, or they were aware of this, but thought it was Sunday when kindling the fire). Sacrifices did not help to atone for sins that were done intentionally (Leviticus 4, and Numbers 15:22-31).

Examining the Christian interpretation of Leviticus 17:11 generates some serious problems. What happens if someone can't afford to purchase an animal for his sin offering? Is it possible that G-d would institute a system of atonement that could only be used by the wealthy? The Torah took this into account and allowed the poor person to bring two turtledoves or two young pigeons if he couldn't afford a lamb (Leviticus 5:7). However, what if someone was so destitute, that he couldn't afford even these small birds?

"But if his means are insufficient for two turtledoves or two young pigeons, then for his offering for that which he has sinned, he shall bring the tenth of an ephah of fine flour for a sin offering; he shall not put oil on it or place incense on it, for it is a sin offering." (Leviticus 5:11)

Since flour could be used for a sin offering, it is clear that blood was not a prerequisite for atonement. Another example will drive home the point. The proposition that only blood sacrifices could secure atonement creates a dilemma. Could it be that G-d would set up a system of atonement that wouldn't be available to all people at all times? While the Temple stood, sacrifices did serve as part of the atonement process. But what is the fate of Jewish people who don't have access to the Temple? What were the Jewish people supposed to do after 586 BCE when the first Temple was destroyed and they were exiled to Babylon? What did the Jewish people do in the times of the Macabees when the Syrian-Greeks were in control of the Temple and didn't allow sacrifices?

Christians erroneously claim that Rabbinic Judaism came up with novel, non-Biblical measures to deal with atonement after the destruction of the Temple by the Romans in 70 CE. Actually, it wasn't Talmudic innovation at all- the Bible anticipated the possibility of the cessation of sacrifices. When King Solomon finally laid the finishing touches on the Holy Temple in Jerusalem, he inaugurated it with a moving dedication speech (I Kings 8; II Chronicles 6). In this lengthy speech of almost 50 verses, you will notice that Solomon doesn't speak about sacrifices at all! This omission would be strange if the most crucial part of the Temple were the sacrifices. Actually, the central focus of the Temple was the Holy Ark (Exodus 25) containing the Torah. The Temple was first and foremost a symbol of G-d's presence and revelation to the Jewish people (I Kings 8:13, Exodus 25:8).

Towards the end of his speech, Solomon deals with the possibility of the Jewish people being denied access to the Temple in the eventuality that they are exiled from the land of Israel.

"If they return to You with all their heart and with all their soul in the land of their enemies who have taken them captive, and pray to You toward their land which You have given to their fathers, the city which You have chosen, and the house which I have built for Your name; then hear their prayer and their supplication in heaven Your dwelling place, and maintain their cause, and forgive Your people who have sinned against You and all their transgressions which they have transgressed against You..." (I Kings 8:46-50).

This seminal passage puts the spotlight on the Christian misunderstanding of Leviticus 17:11. The Bible is clearly teaching that sacrifices weren't necessary in order to atone for sins. Prayer and repentance are cited here as effective means for securing atonement. Certainly, when the Temple stood, and one could afford an animal, a sacrifice was brought as part of the atonement process for unintentional sins. Leviticus 17:11 teaches that when we bring such an animal as a sacrifice, we aren't allowed to consume its blood, because as the life force, it is the part of the animal that affects our atonement.

Christian dogma holds that the crucifixion of Jesus at Calvary served as the final atoning sacrifice for the sins of the world. Christianity insists that this is not just a Pauline innovation, but reflects the requirements of the Jewish Bible, and tries to establish this by pointing to Leviticus 17:11 as the key to atonement in the Tanach. However, if this passage is examined, it will be clear that Jesus could never serve as an atoning sacrifice. Obviously, the shedding of blood by pricking my finger or killing my cat won't fulfill the Biblical requirements for atonement. The Torah delineates how sacrifices are to be brought.

"For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls..."

Clearly, not any spilled blood is accepted by the Torah as a sacrifice. Jesus' crucifixion may qualify as an atonement according to the Greek Testament, but since his blood was not offered on the altar, it is not in line with what the Torah mandates.

There are actually several other factors which would render the crucifixion of Jesus an unacceptable sacrifice. According to the Biblical rules in Leviticus, all sacrifices had to be offered by a Priest who descends from Aaron. This was not the case in the death of Jesus, who was crucified by Roman soldiers. Additionally, Biblical law prohibited any sacrifice which was blemished or maimed (Leviticus 22:19-21). However, prior to his crucifixion, Jesus was whipped and beaten (Matthew 27:26, Mark 15:19, John 19:3) which would render him unfit. Furthermore, Jesus was circumcised in the flesh, which according to Philippians 3:2 and Galatians 5:12 is considered mutilation.

Frequently, Christians react to this line of reasoning by protesting that it is improper to be so literal, and that Jesus' death was more of a symbolic or spiritual sacrifice. This would be fine if the Bible provided for such ethereal offerings, but such is not the case. The Greek Testament, however, does insist that Jesus was a real sacrifice, literally fulfilling the Biblical requirements of such:

"But coming to Jesus, when they saw that he was already dead, they did not break his legs...in order that the Scripture might be fulfilled: `Not a bone of him shall be broken.'" (John 19:33-36)

The Gospel of John portrays Jesus as the Paschal lamb which was not supposed to have any of its bones broken (Exodus 12:46, Numbers 9:12). Since the author of John insists that Jesus was a real sacrifice to the extent that the Biblical rules of the Passover were fulfilled in him, we can't dismiss the problems cited above as legalistic nit-picking.

One wonders why the Greek Testament chose to type Jesus as a Paschal lamb rather than the sacrifice for the Day of Atonement. We know from Exodus 12 that the Passover sacrifice did not serve as an atonement for sins, it commemorates the exodus from Egypt. (Even when the lamb was slaughtered in Egypt and its blood smeared on the doorposts, it did not serve to atone for the sins of anyone. It was a sign for the angel of death to pass over Jewish homes during the plague of the first born. The only people in danger were first born males, the blood wasn't a help to other people in the family, and didn't serve as an atonement for the first born). A more fitting prototype for Jesus would have been the Yom Kippur sacrifice, which was an atonement for the sins of all the people. It is interesting that according to Leviticus 16:10,21-22, the animal which effectuated the atonement for the sins of the nation was not killed, but sent live out into the desert. Again, the shedding of blood is not a sine qua non for atonement.

The Greek Testament went to some great lengths to demonstrate that the atoning death of Jesus was predicated upon the Jewish Bible. In the book of Hebrews, a verse from the book of Psalms is quoted as evidence that the sacrifice of Jesus was part of G-d's original plan for the world.

"Sacrifice and offering You have not desired, but a body You have prepared for me" (Hebrews 10:5 referring to Psalms 40:6).

In verse 10 of our passage from Hebrews, we are told that the body spoken of refers to the body of Jesus. However, the Greek Testament took some great liberties in quoting from the book of Psalms, which never mentions a body being prepared:

"Sacrifice and meal offering You have not desired; my ears You have opened; Burnt offerings and sin offerings You have not required" (Psalm 40:6).

The author of Romans asserts that the Jewish scriptures spoke about the Messiah coming in order to eradicate sin from Israel:

"And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written,`The deliverer will come from Zion and remove ungodliness from Jacob'." (Romans 11:26 citing Isaiah 59:20)

However, checking the original source in Isaiah reveals the flawed foundation of the claim made in the book of Romans.

"And a redeemer will come to Zion, to those in Jacob who turn from transgression, says the L-rd."

Isaiah didn't teach that the Messiah's purpose is to remove sin; rather, he will come to the Jewish people when they show themselves worthy by turning away from sin.

WHAT DOES THE BIBLE SAY ABOUT VICARIOUS ATONEMENT?
One wonders why throughout the four Gospels, Jesus never speaks about his death serving as a sacrifice to atone for the sins of the world. Is the idea that an innocent person can be killed instead of those who are guilty consistent with what the Bible teaches? After the sin of the Golden Calf, G-d expressed His intention to destroy the Jewish people. Moses intercedes, and offers to die in their place. In response, G-d says "Whoever has sinned against Me, I will blot him out of My book!" (Exodus 32:32-33). Throughout the Bible, G-d says that one person cannot die for the sins of another:

"Fathers shall not be put to death for their sons, nor shall sons be put to death for their fathers; everyone shall be put to death for his own sin" (Deuteronomy 24:16, II Kings 14:6).

"But everyone will die for his own sin; each man who eats sour grapes, his teeth will be set on edge" (Jeremiah 31:30).

"The person who sins will die. The son will not bear the punishment for the father's iniquity, nor will the father bear the punishment for the son's iniquity; the righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself" (Ezekiel 18:20).

"No man can by any means redeem his brother, or give to G-d a ransom for him" (Psalms 49:7).

"So you shall not pollute the land in which you are; for blood pollutes the land and no expiation can be made for the land for the blood that is shed on it, except by the blood of him who has shed it!" (Numbers 35:33).

Although Romans 4:5 says that Jesus justifies the ungodly, the Tanach teaches that "He who justifies the wicked, and he who condemns the righteous, both of them are an abomination to theL-rd" (Proverbs 17:15).

If indeed, Jesus came as the final sacrifice to atone for the sins of the world, why does the Tanach predict that the Temple will be rebuilt and sacrifices resumed?

"Even those I will bring to My holy mountain, and make them joyful in My house of prayer. Their burnt offerings and their sacrifices will be acceptable on My altar; for My house will be called a house of prayer for all the peoples." (Isaiah 56:7). "From beyond the rivers of Ethiopia My worshipers, My dispersed ones will bring My offerings." (Zephaniah 3:10)

"All the flocks of Kedar will be gathered together to you, the rams of Nebaioth will minister to you; they will go up with acceptance on My altar, and I shall glorify My glorious house." (Isaiah 60:7)

"And I will make a covenant of peace with them; it will be an everlasting covenant with them. And I will place them and multiply them, and will set My sanctuary in their midst forever." (Ezekiel 37:26)

"And He will sit as a smelter and purifier of silver, and He will purify the sons of Levi and refine them like gold and silver, so that they may present to the L-rd offerings in righteousness. Then the offering of Judah and Jerusalem will be pleasant to the L-rd, as in the days of old and as in former years." (Malachi 3:3-4)

"And every cooking pot in Jerusalem and in Judah will be holy to the L-rd of hosts; and all who sacrifice will come and take of them and boil in them." (Zechariah 14:21) "And it shall be the princes part to provide the burnt offerings, the grain offerings, and the libations...to make atonement for the house of Israel." (Ezekiel 45:17)

The Christian claim that our sins can only be forgiven if blood is shed on our behalf also seems to limit the power of G-d. It's ludicrous to say that G-d`s ability to forgive us is dependent on anything. One of the most basic teachings in the Bible is that since G-d is merciful, He often forgives us simply because He is merciful. "Who is a G-d like You, who pardons iniquity and passes over the rebellious act of the remnant of His possession? He does not retain His anger forever, because He delights in unchanging love." (Micah 7:18; cf. Psalm 103:7-18). Even when we don't seek G-d appropriately, He has the ability to reach out to us with love and forgive us:

"Their heart was not steadfast toward Him, nor were they faithful in His covenant. But He, being compassionate, forgave their iniquity...remembering that they were but flesh." (Psalms 78:36-39)

"You have not brought Me the sheep of your burnt offerings...or the fat of your sacrifices, but you have burdened Me with your sins...Nevertheless, I will wipe out your transgressions for My own sake, and I will not remember your sins." (Isaiah 43:23-25)

THE BIBLICAL VIEW OF ATONEMENT
One of the clearest indications that Christianity is off base in its insistence on the centrality of blood sacrifices is that none of the prophets speaks about it. There isn't one instance in the prophetic books where the Jewish people are told that in order to get right with G-d they need to get covered by the blood. If that's the case, what is the fundamental teaching of the Tanach on the issue of atonement? What theme is reiterated time and again by the holy prophets in the Jewish Bible?

"That every man will turn from his evil way, then I will forgive their iniquity and their sin." (Jeremiah 36:3).

"Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts, and let him return to the L-rd, and He will have compassion on him; and to our G-d, for He will abundantly pardon." (Isaiah 55:7).

"I acknowledged my sin to You, and my iniquity I did not hide; I said, `I will confess my transgressions to the L-rd', and You did forgive the guilt of my sin." (Psalm 32:5).

"And if My people who are called by My name humble themselves and pray, and seek My face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, will forgive their sin, and will heal their land." (II Chronicles 7:14). "But if the wicked man turns from all his sins which he has committed and observes all My statutes and practices justice and righteousness, he shall surely live; he shall not die. All his transgressions which he has committed will not be remembered against him; because of the righteousness which he has practiced he shall live...When a wicked man turns away from his wickedness which he has committed and practices justice and righteousness, he will save his life...Repent and turn away from all your transgressions, so that iniquity may not become a stumbling block to you (Ezekiel 18:21- 22,27,30).

"By loving-kindness and truth iniquity is atoned for..." (Proverbs 16:6).

"If you return to G-d you will be restored; if you remove unrighteousness far from your tent...then you will delight in G-d..." (Job 22:23-27).

"Depart from evil, and do good, so you will abide forever." (Psalm 37:27, cf. Ezekiel 33, Zechariah 1:3, Jeremiah 26:13).

The central teaching of the Bible is that only a break with our past and a sincere turning in repentance can restore our relationships with G-d. If I go off the path, I have to put myself back on track, and G-d will forgive me. Even when sacrifices were offered, they in and of themselves didn't effect atonement. The sacrifice was part of the process, it helped bring us to the core of atonement which is achieved by TESHUVAH, returning to G-d by forsaking our evil ways and praying for forgiveness. One of the main teachings of the prophets was to chide Jewish people who thought that sacrifices were the essential element of atonement:

"What are your multiplied sacrifices to Me? says the L-rd. I have had enough of burnt offerings of rams, and the fat of fed cattle. And I take no pleasure in the blood of bulls, lambs, or goats...Wash yourselves, make yourselves clean; remove the evil of your deeds from My sight. Cease to do evil, Learn to do good; seek justice, reprove the ruthless, defend the orphan, plead for the widow. Come let us reason together says the L-rd, `Though your sins are as scarlet, they will be white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they will be like wool, if you consent and obey..." (Isaiah 1:11-18).

"The sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination to the L-rd." (Proverbs 15:8).

"To do righteousness and justice is more acceptable to the L-rd than sacrifice." (Proverbs 21:3). "For I delight in loyalty rather than sacrifice, and in the knowledge of G-d rather than burnt offerings." (Hoseah 6:6).

"Has the L-rd as great a delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices as in obeying the voice of the L-rd? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken more than the fat of rams." (I Samuel 15:22).

"With what shall I come to the L-rd, and bow myself before the G-d on high? Shall I come to Him with burnt offerings, with yearling calves? Does the L-rd take delight in thousands of rams, in ten thousand rivers of oil? Shall I present my firstborn for my rebellious acts, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul? He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the L-rd require of you but to do justice, to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your G-d." (Micah 6:6-8,cf. Amos 5:22- 24, Jeremiah 7, Psalm 69:31-32).

Since repentance, and not blood is the Biblical form of atonement, we now understand how in I Kings 8, Solomon explained that even if the Jewish people don't have access to the Temple, they still have access to G-d. This will illuminate a famous story found in the book of Jonah. G-d sends Jonah to the evil city of Ninveh to warn them of their impending destruction. Jonah doesn't come into the city and tell the people that unless they begin offering sacrifices they are doomed. Their response to his warnings is to repent: they fast, pray, and turn from their evil. What is G-d's response?

"When G-d saw their deeds that they turned from their wicked way, then G-d relented concerning the calamity which He had declared He would bring upon them, and He did not do it." (Jonah 3:10).

In similar fashion, Daniel advised king Nebuchadnezzar on how to atone for his transgressions:

"Therefore, O king, may my advice be pleasing to you: Redeem your sins by doing righteousness, and your iniquities by showing mercy to the poor." (Daniel 4:27).

This principle will also help explain a passage in the book of Hoseah. Hoseah was a prophet to the 10 northern tribes in the kingdom of Israel during a time when there was a civil war going on between them and the two tribes of the kingdom of Judah in the south. Because of the strife, the tribes up north couldn't get to the Temple in Jerusalem to offer sacrifices. Did this leave them with no way of atoning for their sins? The prophet advises:

"Return, O Israel, to the L-rd your G-d, For you have stumbled because of your iniquity. Take words with you and return to the L-rd. Say to Him, `Take away all iniquity, and receive us graciously, for we will render as bullocks the offerings of our lips'." (Hoseah 14:1-2).

We are able to approach G-d directly with prayer, which is possible at all times; and G-d assures us that sincere prayer can achieve forgiveness for our sins:

"Deliver me from blood guiltiness, O L-rd, the G-d of my salvation. And my tongue shall sing aloud of Your righteousness. O L-rd, open my lips, and my mouth shall show forth Your praise. For You do not delight in burnt offerings. The sacrifices of G-d are a broken spirit, a broken and contrite heart. These, O G-d, You will not despise." (Psalms 51:14-17, re:II Samuel 12:13).

"I will praise the name of G-d with a song, and will magnify Him with thanksgiving. This shall please the L-rd better than an ox or bullock that has horns and hoofs." (Psalm 69:30-31).

"For You, L-rd, are good, and ready to forgive, and abundant in lovingkindness to all who call upon You. Give ear, O L-rd to my prayer, and give heed to the voice of my supplications." (Psalm 86:5-6).

"And listen to the supplications of Your servant and of Your people Israel, when they pray toward this place; hear from heaven Your dwelling place, hear and forgive." (II Chronicles 6:21).

Are Christians consistent with the Jewish Bible when they claim that atonement is only possible with a blood sacrifice? Did the Rabbis just make up the idea that we can restore our relationship with G-d through prayer and repentance? YOU DECIDE!

Disregard the analogy of the body of Jesus with a sacrifice in red above, and the article presents the fine valiant principles of the Torah on this subject.

26.5.2 Divorce

We know from Mark 10 that Jesus did not agree with Deuteronomy 24 on divorce, which he called the Law of Moses not God, Has vShalom. Tradition holds that Adam haRishon, the first man was married to a demon wife before Eve. Hence, the place of divorce is secured from the beginning of mankind.

Text 26-7: Mark 10 on Divorce
2 Some Pharisees came and tested him by asking, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?"
3 "What did Moses command you?" he replied.
4 They said, "Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce and send her away."
5 "It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law," Jesus replied. 6"But at the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female.' 7 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, 8 and the two will become one flesh.' So they are no longer two, but one. 9 Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."
10 When they were in the house again, the disciples asked Jesus about this. 11 He answered, "Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her. 12 And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery."

The Essenes opposed polygamy as prostitution – Zenut CD 7:1 of the Damascus scroll found in 4Q265-73, 5Q12, and 6Q15.
Text 26-8: Essenes on polygamy
"The builders of the wall ... shall be caught in fornication twice by taking a second wife while the first is alive, whereas the principle of creation is, Male and female created he them [Genesis 1:27]. Also, those who entered the Ark went in two by two. And concerning the prince it is written, He shall not multiply wives to himself [Deuteronomy 17:17]; but David had not read the sealed book of the law which was in the ark for it was not opened in Israel from the death of Eleazar and Joshua, and the elders who worshipped Ashtoreth."
- Damascus Document CD 4.20-5.1 (G. Vermez' translation)[2033]

Only one comment of divorce is preserved in the Dead Sea Scrolls.[2034] The text implies they accepted the law of divorce as a law of G-d:[2035]

Text 26-9: 4Q159
8 In the case where a man slanders a maiden of Israel, if he says it at the [moment] of taking her, they
shall examine her 9 regarding (her) trustworthiness. If he has not lied about her, she shall be put to death; but if he has testified [false] ly against her, they are to fine him two minas [and he is not] 10 to divorce her for all the days (of his life).

From Leviticus, we know that a Cohen Gadol (high priest) is forbidden to marry a divorcee. Hence we know that divorce was known earlier even in Leviticus!

Text 26-10: Leviticus 14:10-14 and 22:13
10. And he who is the high priest among his brothers, upon whose head the anointing oil was poured, and who is consecrated to put on the garments, shall not uncover his head, nor tear his clothes;
11. Neither shall he go to any dead body, nor defile himself for his father, or for his mother;
12. Neither shall he go out of the sanctuary, nor profane the sanctuary of his God; for the crown of the anointing oil of his God is upon him; I am the Lord.
13. And he shall take a wife in her virginity.
14: 14. A widow, or a divorced woman – גרושה, or defiled, or a harlot, these shall he not take; but he shall take a virgin of his own people to wife.
...
22: 13. But if the priest’s daughter is a widow, or divorced, and has no child, and has returned to her father’s house, as in her youth, she shall eat of her father’s bread; but there shall no stranger eat it.

Divorced from the word Gerush – גרש means to drive away or banish. The principle of divorce existed before Deuteronomy presented the laws. Perhaps Hagar, Abraham’s wife was a divorcee when he banished her. But, since she did not sleep with another man, he was permitted to take her back to be his wife at the end of his life with her name Keturah.

“The grounds for divorce were strife between Abraham's two wives and strife between their children. God approved of the divorce on those grounds (Genesis 21:12-13). There is no suggestion of adultery or other sexual misconduct by Hagar. So this, the Bible's first reference to divorce, refutes the concept that the only biblical basis for divorce is adultery.”[2036]

26.5.3 Ebionites

The Ebionites (poor people) trace themselves to the original followers of Jesus (Joshua ben Joseph). They do not follow the deification of a messiah. They consider Jesus a prophet instead.[2037]

26.5.4 Messianic

While the original believers in Jesus were Jews, the messianic religion would one day be transformed into a new religion. There are three principles if excluded from Christianity that would provide some claim to Judaism. One is the removal of the divinity of Jesus and the trinity. The second is the removal of the virgin birth and Immaculate Conception. Lastly is the removal of sin transference, human sacrifice, blood atonement, and the Eucharist.[2038] Yet, can one who denies a Torah law such as the permissibility of divorce be a true prophet?

26.5.5 Forgiveness

Forgiveness of sin is possible with repentance, reparation, and returning to G-d.[2039]

A fringe Jewish view exists today in some Hasidic sects who believe by attachment to a true tzaddik, one can become righteous. Early Christianity followed this approach. Modern Christianity apostatized it. Some Talmudic academies have believed in their rabbi as the messiah.[2040] Hasidim attach to their tzaddik and believe that the True Tzaddik, the Tzaddik Emet can lift them out of sin. Rabbi Nachman of Breslov taught, “He who will visit my grave, I will reach down and pull him out of Gehinnom by his peahs.”[2041] Nevertheless, no Jewish group or sect has ever posited the transference of the authority to forgive sin to a human being. Such an idea is not to be found in the entire Tanach.

26.5.6 Pascal Lamb

John refers to Jesus as the Pascal Lamb. The Pascal Lamb that is eaten on Passover was never a sacrifice. The words for sacrifice, zevach or Karban never occur within the Exodus 12 text describing the Lamb. The lamb was not taken to a high priest, but each family slaughtered their own to mark their doorposts and to eat for dinner with herbs to provide strength for the journey of their redemption that would begin the next day. The Pascal Lamb symbolized redemption not from sin, but from slavery. Atonement sacrifices were goats, because of their symbolic affinity for getting into trouble. The messiah’s association with a lamb is not that he must die, but that he will mark the way for our redemption.

In Egypt the lamb and ram were worshiped and they were symbols of the deity of the month of Nissan. The slaughter of the lamb also symbolized the slaughter of the gods of Egypt.

26.5.7 Scapegoat

The Christian association of the Leviticus scapegoat with Isaiah 53 was not a Jewish interpretation at the time of Jesus.[2042] Literal interpretations often lead to strange ideas:[2043]

Text 26-11: Christian Theologies on the Scapegoat
The goat died for the sins of the people. In other words, the goat paid for the wrong deeds of the people. Jesus, in this death for our sins, did away with the animal offering; and, in dying for us; he did away with sin and death [Heb. 7:26-28]. [2044]

While the Old Testament clearly has symbolic gestures of sin transference such as animal sacrifices (detailed in the first and third chapters of Leviticus and numerous other references) and the infamous "scapegoat" (Leviticus 16:9-10), Paul is the one who seems to have adapted this to a literal transference with a human sacrifice. While Jesus' ransom for sin and forgiveness for sin are mentioned throughout the New Testament, only Paul addresses the concept of sin transference.[2045]

I really do not think that many in the Church fully grasp what happened on the dark altar of Calvary. On that altar the Lamb of God was made to be sin on our behalf (2 Corinthians 5:21). He did not simply die for our sins. He died with our sins. He was not merely cursed for our sins. He became a curse for us (Galatians 3:13). He did not simply close his eyes in death and sleep in Joseph’s tomb. He was “numbered with the transgressors” (Isaiah 53:12). He was led into the ultimate wilderness called Hell wherein He paid the wages of sin.[2046]

The departure of the Spirit left Christ in a wilderness of mind and soul that no other human being has ever experienced. A portent of this can be seen in one of the sacrificial rituals of ancient Israel in which the high priest would take a goat, lay his hands upon its head, and, in figurative ordinance, pronounce upon the head of the animal all of the transgressions and sins of the people. After this, the goat-now a scapegoat, one vicariously bearing the guilt of others-would be led away into the wilderness: "And the goat shall bear upon him all their iniquities unto a land not inhabited" (Leviticus 16:22; emphasis added; see also v. 10). In like manner, Christ in Gethsemane was exiled into a spiritual wilderness never before inhabited. No man had ever experienced what he would experience. At some point in the tribulation of the night, the withdrawal of the Spirit was complete: "And he saw that there was no man, and wondered that there was no intercessor" (Isaiah 59:16). The Lord was alone in a spiritual void, stripped of all sources of solace, cut off from the presence of the Father, bearing in soul and body by virtue of his own strength alone the collective guilt of all mankind. How long the weight of our sins crushed upon him we do not know; how unrelenting his anguish we cannot comprehend.[2047]

Christ's Atonement was a descent into the seemingly "bottomless pit" of human agony. He took upon himself the sins of the most wretched of all sinners; he descended beneath the crudest tortures devised by man. His downward journey encompassed that quantum of suffering unrelated to spiritual error, but nonetheless viably acute in stinging proportions—the agony of loneliness, the pain of inadequacy, the suffering of infirmities and sickness. In the course of his divine descent he was assaulted with every temptation inflicted on the human race. After our futile attempts to explain the awesome depths of this "terrible trip," we come back again to those simple but expressive words of the scriptures, "He descended below all things" (D&C 88:6). There need be no equivocation, no back-pedaling, no apologizing—the Atonement is infinite in its depth.[2048]

I think Elder Porter did not mean to imply that the Lord taking the sins was figurative.  I think he was speaking of the ordinance of the scapegoat being figurative.  As a General Authority, Br. Porter would not make an error of that magnitude.  We firmly hold that the Savior took upon Himself our sins and that act was not figurative but was very literal.  Where the condition lies is in our willingness to do what he has asked us to do so that we might avail ourselves of this great blessing.  While the atonement is free, we believe we must be obedient to his commandments.[2049]

‘Sin transference’ is a very real idea in all modern forms of Christianity. While there is a literal line from the Torah that is the basis of this concept, ‘sin transference’ is not a part of mainstream Judaism. In addition, Judaism has always stood in opposition to human sacrifice. We cannot pay for our sins with the life of our brethren. While the suffering servant is a symbol of G-d’s punishment of Israel, he does not possess the sins of Israel.[2050]

Text 26-12: Isaiah 53:4-5

4. Certainly (אכן) our sickness (הלינו – we were sick) he carried (נשא),
and our pains he bore them (סבלם), and we thought him stricken, defeated by G-d and afflicted.

5. And he was wounded (מחלל – pierced) from our transgressions (careless errors),
broken (מדכא – crushed, break) from our iniquities (evil ways), our whole (שלומנו – our peace) chastisement (מוסר – reprimand, devotion) is upon him and in his friendship we are healed.


He turns the people back to G-d by not accusing them. He lifts the sins off of them by lifting their spirits, giving them hope, and they turn back to G-d. Isaiah 53 is about returning to G-d through Tshuvah, repentance, and guilt after seeing a victim for ones own sins. This is not the payment of sin by someone else’s blood. Isaiah 53 does not mention atonement by payment – Kippur – כפר.

While the death of righteous Jews under duress may speak of the injustices of other nations and bring G-d’s mercy once again on the house of Israel, the martyr does not possess, take upon himself, or die with the sins of the people. There is a concept of two messiahs in mystical Judaism, where the first, Messiah ben Yosef will prepare the way for the second messiah, Messiah ben Judah.[2051] These ideas represent the karmic reconciliation between the House of Joseph and the House of Judah from their early conflicts in Israel. These two messiahs must be alive at the same time so they may become reconciled. The tradition holds that the First will die in the battle of Armageddon so that the Second may survive to establishes G-d’s kingdom.

26.5.8 Messiah

26.5.8.1 Cyrus is His Messiah

Isaiah 45, the chapter that clearly states beyond any doubt explicitly that Cyrus is the Messiah is the same chapter that says that God is not Jesus. I capitalize Messiah here to emphasize the fact that the prophet’s understanding of the term is completely different than the Christian understanding and even Jewish sectarian understanding. For Isaiah the Messiah does not have to be a Jew and in fact is Cyrus.

Now a lot of people are confused, because they say, “Well what do we do now if Cyrus is the Messiah?” Since Cyrus clearly is the Messiah, we either have to be focusing all our hope on his return or we need to reevaluate our understanding of the Messiah. We should also be clear that Cyrus is not some kind of model of the Messiah. The Hebrew could not be more explicit, “Cyrus is His Messiah.”

OK now what does Isaiah 45:20 say about Jesus? It says literally, “God is not Jesus” – אל לא יושיע – El Lo Yoshua. Yoshua is Yeshua that is Jesus. I quote this verse not because I believe Isaiah could have known anything about Jesus having lived seven and half centuries before his time, but Christians themselves considered this verse a condemnation of their Savior Deity! Hence look up the commentary on this verse in the Artscroll Siddur and you will find under the Alenu prayer that a Jewish convert to Christianity informed the church on this verse and the church forced the Jews to remove it from their prayer book, i.e. they forced a quote from Isaiah to be stricken!

I would agree with the interpretation, “And for me, the sentence clearly is saying that the nations that have made a god by selecting an image to attribute to it for them, have prayed to that god, thinking that that particular god is G-d, but that the god they are praying to is not G-d, and thereby cannot save, or be even called salvation.” Nevertheless, since Christians believe Isaiah knew Jesus than they should be in a complete quandary, knowing that Isaiah rejects Jesus and proclaims loyalty to Cyrus all in the same chapter of Isaiah 45.

Getting back to reality, we must seriously reevaluate our understanding of the concept of messiah before we blindly accept a Christian or even a Jewish sectarian interpretation.

On the subject of the attributes and names of G-d, I refer you to the book Kuzari. This is a must read IMHO for anyone who is considering conversion to Judaism. It is a true story of how the King of the Khazars arranged a debate between scholars of Christianity, Islam, and Judaism to select a religion for his nation. In any case, the names of G-d are explained ad infinitum. We know for certain that all the names we have for G-d are a mere creation below His Infiniteness or Nothingness. At the highest level is the name “I will be that which I will be.” Below this is the ineffable Name, which we refer to as Hashem. There is nothing wrong by calling G-d according to one of his attributes, “Av Rachamim” – Father of mercy for example. But we NEVER PRAY TO ATTRIBUTES, THEY ARE NOT DIETIES, THEY ARE NOT SAINTS, THEY ARE NOT gods. L’havdil, the Trinity idea is anathema to suggest 3 are 1. That Jesus would be considered the same as god is anathema too. Kabbalists who describe 10 sefirot or attributes NEVER CONSIDER THESE TO BE SEPARATE POWERS OR DIETIES! Ultimately 3 are not 1, 10 are not 1, all are limitations on our ability to grasp G-d and are instead OUR ATTEMPT TO RELATE TO HIM/HER! AND I EMPHASIZE HIM/HER, because God is no MORE a HIM THAN A HER. G-D DOES NOT HAVE A WIFE who is ISRAEL ANY MORE THAN ISRAEL IS A BRIDEGROOM TO G-D as a WIFE!

All of these ideas are metaphors to help us relate to G-d, NOT TO BE TAKEN LITERALLY. Nevertheless, we can discard the Trinity idea, which does not seek to describe attributes, but is instead PURE IDOLATRY in dividing the godhead into parts.

On the other hand WE SHOULD KEEP THE METAPHORS OF G-D AS WIFE, HUSBAND, the TEN SEFIROT of WILL, WISDOM, UNDERSTANDING, KINDNESS, RIGOR, TRUTH, VICTORY, GRATITUDE, RIGHTEOUSNESS, AND KINGSHIP. These are ways to relate to G-d and we need to understand what it means to be created in the Image of G-d that is according to these attributes, which are also His creation. One may ask when is G-d a Wife? I ask you the question back, ‘When is G-d a Wife’?[2052]

So I mostly agree with the statement, “We can offer Him praise and honor by saying He is gracious, or He is my salvation, but He is clearly NOT those things.” I would not include the word salvation, because of the confusion of this term between Hebrew and English.[2053] You are correct to say, "He is clearly NOT those things" literally.

26.5.8.2 Nazarene Messiah


Meditation 26-1: The Nazarene Messiah
G-d said to Samuel listen to the people and make them a king, but Samuel knew that the people betrayed G-d in their request. Instead, G-d provided a messiah who would represent His will to the people so that they could receive Him.” The messiah is the righteous Jew who is “a light unto the nations.”

After G-d relented, permitting mortal kingship in Israel, He manifested a new structure where a king may arise in each generation to lead His people. In this perspective what is a dead messiah? There are many dead messiahs. yehoshua son of joseph the carpenter, perhaps the most successful brought the light of the Bible to the greatest number of people. Though he no longer lives he is more alive today then when he walked the earth. A tzaddik is more alive in the world after death. The gematria ‘katz hai’ - ‘alive in the end’ reveals the hidden essence in the tzaddik. Isaac Avinu exemplified this quality. Though a quiet man in his life, in death he is forever alive and a merit to the living.

qyddx = yh {q = qjxy = 208

In Judaism, we are prohibited from worshipping a messiah. This would be idolatry. Instead the true messiah points the way back to G-d Who Alone is to be worshipped.

26.5.8.3 Messiah and Snake

The gematria of Messiah and Snake are the same in Hebrew. The major value is 358, with minor value 3+5+8=16, with reduced value 7. The major value denotes an enchantment and prosperous quality, the minor value denotes a fall,[2054] and the reduced value implies a spiritual nature. Here is a list of words or phrases with gematria 358. Those items in the gray font do not have the same gematria, but are etymologically related.

Table 26-1: The Gematria of the Messiah and the Serpent
Messiah Qualities
(English)
Messiah Qualities
(Hebrew)
Serpent Qualities
(English)
Serpent Qualities
(Hebrew)
Messiah
משיח
Snake
נחש
We had returned
שבנו
Divines
נשח
Goshen
גשנה
Armed
חשים
And lightnings
וברכים
Enchantment
נשח
Anointing
משחה
In hatred
בשנאה
A breast plate
חשן
Destroyer
משחית
His offering
כרבנו
Adversary[2055]
שטן
Shall be anointed
ימשח

And shall come near
ונכרב

And we dwelt
ונשב


The qualities of the serpent are also qualities of messiah and as one conquers these traits one applies this energy for the good. This is the meaning of turning ones sins into merit on Yom Kippur. Similarly, Esau had a greater potential than Jacob for doing good if he would have conquered his evil desires. The messiah has conquered his hatred and applied his skills of enchantment for the good.

Nahash – snake, also means copper, brass, or even silver or gold as in a goblet. It refers to divination or sorcery. Joseph referred to his missing “divining” goblet with this word. Moses placed a snake on top of a pole so those that looked upon it would be cured of the poison from the desert serpents. Nahooshah was the name of the brass serpent during the reign of Hezekiah. Hezekiah destroyed the brass serpent because of idolatry. Nehoshet refers to the censers upon which incense was offered. Those of Korach and his followers were beat into plates for the tabernacle. This teaches that though G-d places snakes in our path as obstacles these are ultimately for out benefit. Nahash was an Ammonite leader to oppressed Israel.

G-d commanded Moses to place a seraph on the top of the pole and not a ‘nahash’ not a snake. G-d’s commandment is missing the word for snake. Instead, G-d was telling Moses to place the image of an angel on the pole that would cause the people to look upward to G-d. G-d works through angels. Before G-d inflicts a punishment, He has already prepared the remedy. While, fiery snakes are a corrective force, removing the word snakes leaves us with the fiery angel of healing. Perhaps, misinterpreting G-d’s words and placing a snake on the pole led to the later idolatry for which the bronze serpent was destroyed.

Text 26-13: Number 21:8-9
And the Lord said to Moses, Make a venomous serpent (seraph), and set it upon a pole; and it shall come to pass, that everyone who is bitten, when he looks upon it, shall live.
And Moses made a serpent (seraph) of shining (nahash), and put it upon a pole, and it came to pass, that if a serpent had bitten any man, when he looked at the serpent of shining, he lived.

Why are healing properties associated with venom? Perhaps small amounts of snake poison have homeopathic medical benefits. A small amount would stimulate the immune system to fight off a greater illness. Similarly, the looking at the snake on the pole would stimulate an immune response. Seraph refers to a serpent or snake that ‘burns’ with poison. Burning is analogous to fire and hence the angelic seraph is a fiery angel.

The healing property of snake poison is an instance where a small amount of harm causes the person’s body to strengthen its resistance. Similarly a person who recognizes sin may achieve greater repentance. For this reason G-d permits evil to exist.

Greek philosophers recognized the healing quality of sunlight. This is an example of a positive remedy. Light is messiah healing as opposed to snake oil. The warmth of the Sun strengthens the body and improves the immune system. In Greek the word for Sun is Helios. From this word we get the words ‘health’ and ‘healing’.

Christian theologians have sought to explain the serpent on Moses’s pole in the following way.[2056] The process begins with the English word ‘heal’ and then steps back into Hebrew to get the word hilah – hlyh which means ‘shining’ from the word for bright morning star, hailel – llyh. Another step back is to take the word ‘light’ for kindling to get lahat – fhl. Lahat also means flaming or fiery.[2057] This type of ‘light’ connects to ‘heal’ through a letter reversal taking light -> IE licht -> lyj -> heal. Another word related to ‘light’ is Dolak – qld that means to burn, light, or kindle. The confusions between burn and seraph, light and flaming, heal and shining have led Christian theologians to believe that the Serpent in the Garden of Eden was a fallen angel seraph who attracted Eve by shining and was of similar rank to Messiah in heaven.

Overall, the messiah represents the positive approach to healing. The serpent represents the negative approach to healing. Both are a remedy in their own way with the same gematria, 358. The Sanskrit word deva means “shining one.” Deva refers to angelic beings or demigods in Eastern religions. Related words that found their way into English include “divine” and “devotion.”

26.5.8.4 Suffering messiah

Meditation 26-2: Suffering Messiah Tours Israel
I viewed myself amongst a choir of angels in the blue heavens. God heard the prayers and formed worlds for their families.[2058] As man requests so God decrees and each religion has its reward.

After encountering the Messiah he brought me to a tunnel where I beheld a light at the end like the Sun. It was Helios, the healing light and I beheld it rising over Jerusalem.

The Messiah said that he could not journey with me to the Holy Land. I insisted but there was a dread sadness in his eyes. He told me that until the time of the redemption, he must continue to suffer to help lift[2059] the sin of others away. Until this is all fulfilled, he cannot reenter Israel. I took his hand and told him that my lead will exempt him.[2060]

I took him to the Dead Sea and than up the dry riverbed of Nahal Zelem – נחל צלים. There were no people around and he filled himself with the enjoyment of Israel. I then took him to the Negev and down into the canyons of the Makhtesh during the floods.[2061] The walls were beautiful to behold and he touched their swirling geological patterns as we descended into the heart.

We rose again and found a donkey on the plains during the rainstorms and the Messiah wanted to ride upon the donkey. He told me to lead him to Jerusalem, through Hebron and Bethlehem. As we proceeded, a crowd of people followed us until we reached Bethlehem where he wished to stop to behold his birthplace.

Eventually, we reached the Holy City and he wished to enter through the Armenian gate. He said in the final redemption, he will enter through the Western Wall gate. As we approached the overlook of the Temple, he asked me to enter him through his eyes. As my mind became his, my mental dialogue ceased and I beheld all people in an equal light above petty judgment.

I asked whether he was God and he said no, there is only God in heaven. He said he was the Son of God.[2062] I asked whether he is a divine being. He said no! I took his hands and we soared above the Temple mount and beheld the area. He showed me that a new Temple would be built completely encapsulating the Dome of the Rock.

I saw myself as Messiah ben Joseph serving Messiah ben David in a castle in the area. There were angels with me that followed me when I brought visitors into his audience chamber. The Jews will be first in this day as servants to the King Messiah. He held my hands and the angels gathered around us and I willed that all the gates of the Palace be opened. The host of people entered and gathered with us under the wings of God, the light of angels all about. The Messiah told me to call the Angel of Gehenom and then all of the Dark Angels. They all arrived and became part of our unity in the light of God, high on his Mountain, before his service. There is only one God and his Name is One.[2063]


There is some debate on whether the correct Hebrew name for Jesus is Yeshua – ישוע or Yehoshua – יהושע or יהושוע? The gematria of Yeshua is 386 while the gematria of Yehoshua is 391 or 397 with the uncommon spelling. The first form is a blessing since moshiach = 358 with Hashem = 26 and the letter Bet for blessing = 2, equals 384. The second includes the 5 books of Moses. The third includes the 6 tractates of Mishnah.

Text 26-14: Yeshua vs. Yehoshua

The Names Yeshua and Yehoshua
by Dr. James Price, professor of Hebrew
Yehoshua in the Septuagint

Two things indicate that Yehoshua is the proper Hebrew name for Jesus:
(1) In the Greek Translation of the OT known as the Septuagint (LXX), the name Joshua is rendered *Iasous* = Jesus.
(2) In the NT, Joshua is mentioned twice (Acts 7:45; Heb 4:8), and in both places the Greek NT spells the name *Iasous* = Jesus.

Thus the Greek *Iasous* is the equivalent of Hebrew *Yehoshua*

Yehoshua in the Hebrew Bible

As far as the Hebrew Bible is concerned, it is important to note that in the early books, the name Joshua is spelled as (yod-hey-waw-shin-ayin) or on rare occasions as (yod-hey-waw-shin-waw-ayin). However, in the books of Ezra and Nehemiah, the high priest is named Jeshua the son of Jozadak ( yod-shin-waw-ayin); whereas in the contemporary books of Haggai and Zechariah, the same high priest is named Joshua the son of Jehozadak ( yod-hey-waw-shin-ayin beth-nun). Thus, it can be concluded that in post-exilic times of the Biblical era, the names Yeshua and Yehoshua were regarded as equivalent.[2064]

26.5.8.5 Essene Tradition of Twelve Disciples


Sanhedren 43a refers to someone by the name of Yeshu – ישו. This does not seem likely to be Jesus. He had five disciples:

Text 26-15: Sanhedren 43a
Our Rabbis taught: Yeshu had five disciples, Matthai, Nakai, Nezer, Buni and Todah. When Matthai was brought [before the court] he said to them [the judges], Shall Matthai be executed? Is it not written, Matthai [when] “shall I come and appear before God?” Thereupon they retorted; Yes, Matthai shall be executed, since it is written, “When Matthai [when] shall [he] die and his name perish.” When Nakai was brought in he said to them; Shall Nakai be executed? It is not written, “Naki [the innocent] and the righteous slay thou not?” Yes, was the answer, Nakai shall be executed, since it is written, in secret places does Naki, [the innocent] slay. When Nezer was brought in, he said; Shall Nezer be executed? Is it not written, “And Nezer [a twig] shall grow forth out of his roots.” Yes, they said, Nezer shall be executed, since it is written, But thou art cast forth away from thy grave like Nezer [an abhorred offshoot]. When Buni was brought in, he said: Shall Buni be executed? Is it not written, Beni [my son], my first born? Yes, they said, Buni shall be executed, since it is written, Behold I will slay Bine-ka [thy son] thy first born. And when Todah was brought in, he said to them; Shall Todah be executed? Is it not written, A psalm for Todah [thanksgiving]? Yes, they answered, Todah shall be executed, since it is written, Whoso offereth the sacrifice of Todah [thanksgiving] honoured me.

The Essene tradition portrays the Teacher with twelve disciples.

26.5.8.6 Primordial Man

The concept of primordial man, Adam Kadmon in Judaism has been suggested to be associated with the idea of messiah. There is some basis in the Midrash that G-d created the Name of the Messiah before the world. Also, the principle that Adam contained all the souls of mankind exists. In fact there is the idea that the messiah is the nexus or representation of Adam Kadmon in some Hasidic writings. Yet, Adam Kadmon existed before all other souls so the messiah today would be co-existent with souls in other humans, which means he would not contain them all in the same sense.

A major difference from Christianity is that in Judaism G-d created Adam Kadmon—he was not “born” of a deity. Albright’s attempts to back annotate a savior literal son of god into the Jewish Aramaic tradition in order to justify Christianity’s expectation of a divine messiah is weak.[2065]

26.5.9 Later Day Saints

Later day saints and prophets are real to God.

Meditation 26-3: Responsa to LDS
“You may always call upon me directly. There is only one God and ultimately I am unknowable. Those who would say that God is a person refer to a creation or manifestation of myself in their world. While my presence has been on the earth as when I walked in the Garden of Eden to find Adam, I know all, and would never have to live a life as man to know the life of a man. Those who insist on this or that there are three gods of one mind have created a fairy tale. Still they are a good people and if they are happy I am happy for them. They will improve with your prophecy. Over time their ideas will purify.

The angels were made on the second day and they are distinct from man. They do not have free will. Man’s souls rest under the Throne of God waiting to be born. The angels are my messengers. All angels are my servants. In each generation there are those with potential to lead and to help turn my people back to God. This is the role of messiah.”

Scholarship, Service, and Spirituality – three pillars to life. “I looked for myself but I could not find me. I looked for God, but He alluded me. I looked for my brother and found all three.”[2066]

Text 26-16: Typical LDS Blessing
O heavenly Father, we are thankful for the careful preparation of our teacher and all of the wisdom she imparted to us, as well as all of the students that were able to attend here today.

O heavenly Father, open our hearts to your love that we may always have a ‘soft answer to turn away wrath.’ Give us a love like Solomon had for you in his youth so that we may follow all of your statutes.

Give us a ‘heart that hears’ that we may always understand the plight others and help them.
...
Here is one of the great insights of the LDS religion[2067], which is also that of Judaism:[2068]

Text 26-17: Honorable Marriage
Do not be caught up in materialism, one of the real plagues of our generation—that is, acquiring things, fast-paced living, and securing career success in the single state.[2069] Honorable marriage is more important than wealth, position, and status.

Revered LDS scholar Hugh Nibley’s great grandfather was Alexander Neibaur who was a contemporary of Joseph Smith. Neibaur was a Jew and scholar of kabbalah. He was from Poland and moved to Preston England and converted to Christianity and then LDS. It is possible that Joseph Smith’s ideas of multiple worlds of existence stems from the Jewish idea of Gilgul based on his discussions with Neibaur. The LDS’s genealogical search engine is at http://www.familysearch.org.

LDS theology has canonized statements similar to the New Testament on criticism of Jews.
Text 26-18: Second Nephi 10:1-8
Jews shall crucify their God—They shall be scattered until they begin to believe in him—America shall be a land of liberty where no king shall rule—Be reconciled to God and gain salvation through his grace. Between 559 and 545 B.C.
  1 AND now I, Jacob, speak unto you again, my beloved brethren, concerning this righteous abranch of which I have spoken.
  2 For behold, the apromises which we have obtained are promises unto us according to the flesh; wherefore, as it has been shown unto me that many of our children shall perish in the flesh because of bunbelief, nevertheless, God will be merciful unto many; and our children shall be crestored, that they may come to that which will give them the true knowledge of their Redeemer.
  3 Wherefore, as I said unto you, it must needs be expedient that Christ—for in the last night the aangel spake unto me that this should be his name—should bcome among the cJews, among those who are the more wicked part of the world; and they shall dcrucify him—for thus it behooveth our God, and there is none other nation on earth that would ecrucify their fGod.
  4 For should the mighty amiracles be wrought among other nations they would repent, and know that he be their God.
  5 But because of apriestcrafts and iniquities, they at Jerusalem will bstiffen their necks against him, that he be ccrucified.
  6 Wherefore, because of their iniquities, destructions, famines, apestilences, and bloodshed shall come upon them; and they who shall not be destroyed shall be bscattered among all nations.
  7 But behold, thus saith the aLord God: bWhen the day cometh that they shall believe in me, that I am Christ, then have I covenanted with their fathers that they shall be crestored in the flesh, upon the earth, unto the dlands of their inheritance.
  8 And it shall come to pass that they shall be agathered in from their long dispersion, from the bisles of the sea, and from the four parts of the earth; and the nations of the Gentiles shall be great in the eyes of me, saith God, in ccarrying them forth to the lands of their inheritance.
Orson Hyde, an LDS apostle, to his great merit, made it to the Land of Israel in 1841.[2070]

Text 26-19: Orson Hyde in Israel
Along his travels he faced many hardships. He fought danger, disease and hunger all along the way. Some of Hyde’s greatest trials came on his voyage from Smyrna to Beirut. As he traveled with a group of Arabs under the hire of a few Englishman they were blown off course into the small isles that litter the easternmost cost of the Mediterranean. This journey of four days turned into nineteen. They had not taken food stores for this happenstance and began to suffer from lack of nutrition. He managed to survive by gathering snails from the rocks of the isles, which they passed. Eventually they found the mainland, and he continued his journey by land through Beirut.

Hyde obviously had little love for the "Arabs" in the area. He called them "land pirates"...

Hyde debarked at Jaffa, and traveled onward to Jerusalem. At this time Jerusalem had a population of approximately 20,000 in habitants. Among these, 7000 were Jews. The majority of the population consisted of Turks and Arabs. He traveled the city viewing and meditated among the spiritually historic sights that he emotionally witnessed. He attempted to contact other Christian missionaries and prominent men of the city, but he did not meet with much success. So he again resolved to complete the purpose of his mission alone.

One year and six months had passed since he embarked on his journey from Nauvoo, Illinois. On Sunday morning, October 24, 1841, just before dawn, Elder Orson Hyde walked out of Jerusalem, up the Mount of Olives, and viewed the beautiful sight of Jerusalem at as sunlight spread across the city of the Messiah. Here he wrote and delivered the dedicatory prayer, consecrating the land for the gathering of Judah’s scattered remnants and for the eventual building of a temple. In the dedicatory prayer, Elder Hyde referred to the prophecies of God’s servants in relation to the Jews and Jerusalem, and asked that all might be fulfilled. He called for the richest blessings of heaven upon the Jews; he blessed, by virtue of his priesthood, and by his special calling as an apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ, the city, the land, and the elements, to the end that Judah might be gathered, Jerusalem rebuilt, and become a ‘Holy City," that the Lord’s name might be glorified in all the earth. After the prayer, in accordance with a vision given him before he left Nauvoo, he erected a pile of stones as a witness. He later erected a similar pile or altar upon Mount Zion.

Hyde noted that many Jews listened to his prayer with great interest. To this day his prayer is well known in Jerusalem among the Jews for the wonderful blessings and promises which it proclaims upon Jerusalem and the "the Lords chosen people." Soon after this he boarded a ship and sail back to England by way of Egypt, Trieste, and Regensburg. On the way he wrote a letter to the editor of the church’s British newspaper the Millennial Star, describing the event of his journey and predicting England role in bringing the results that he had worked and prayed for.

It was by political power and influence that the Jewish nation was broken down, and her subjects dispersed abroad; and I will here hazard the opinion; that by political power and influence they will be gathered and built up; and, further, that England is destined, in the wisdom of economy of Heaven, to stretch forth the arm of political power, and advance in the front ranks of this glorious enterprise.

26.5.10 Church

The Christian word, Church, is from the Hebrew word, Knesset, which means assembly as in Bet Knesset, assembly house. James, the brother of Jesus, ran the ‘church’ at the beginning of the Common Era. James may have died by accident or murder; his death is a tragedy.[2071]

Text 26-20: James the Lesser
After the crucifixion of Jesus, his brother, James, led the small community of Judeo-Christians in Jerusalem. Under his leadership, the Jerusalem "church" tried to preserve the Jewishness of the group, and opposed attempts to bring in non-Jews who had not been circumcised. Researcher Oded Ir-Shai, in his article "The Jerusalem Church - From a Church of the Circumcised to a Church of non-Jews" (published in a Hebrew book entitled "The Jerusalem Book - The Roman and Byzantine Period," Yad Ben Tzvi, 1999), analyzes the few sources that mention James and his period. The time of his appointment as first bishop of Jerusalem is not known, but "his term ended tragically in the year 62, after the death of the Roman governor Festus, and on the eve of the arrival of his successor Albinus to Judea."

According to the description by Josephus Flavius in his book "Antiquities of the Jews," the high priest, Hanan Ben Hanan, took advantage of the opportunity that Judea was left without a Roman governor, "and called a sanhedrin [high court] of judges, and brought before it the brother of Jesus who is called the Messiah - his name is James - and other people, and accused them of having broken a law, and handed them over for stoning."

Ir-Shai believes that the source of the hostility toward James was his social outlook, "which was based mainly on zealous concern for the poor and the oppressed, and hostility not only toward wealth, but toward the wealthy as well," as the situation is depicted in the "Iggeret" ["Letter"] attributed to him in the New Testament.

The social ferment in Jerusalem increased greatly during that time and erupted after four years, at the same time as the Great Revolt of the Jews against the Romans.

In the later Christian tradition, there is a somewhat different version of the circumstances of his death: "James the Just" is described as a holy man who "didn't drink wine and strong drink, didn't eat meat, and never used a razor on his head." Since he managed to attract many to believe in Jesus, the "scribes and the Pharisees" demanded that he restrain the people, and for this purpose, stood him on the wall of the Temple Mount. But James refused to deny the gospel of his brother, and therefore he was thrown off the wall. When it turned out that he hadn't been killed by the fall, "they started to stone him," it is said, and one person among the masses, a washerman by trade, beat James on the head with a cudgel.

James the Lesser was a righteous man. The Book of James in the New Testament testifies to his hopes and values. What is not said above is that many Jews respected James even amongst the religious. Nevertheless, G-d used the Romans to destroy the Second Temple because of the sin of senseless hatred. The reference to Minim, spies, in the 19th blessing of the Amidah meant Christians at one time.[2072] This is a sad commentary on the conflict that grew out of early Christian history.

26.5.11 Catholicism

Pope John Paul XX from Poland has come out with apologies to the Jewish people for the Catholic Church during WWII. John Cornwell discovered that Pope Pius XII made a deal with Adolf Hitler to look the other way in terms of the Holocaust in exchange for authority over the German Catholic Church. The Reform Jewish movement pursued this further and the Vatican was forced to acknowledge its anti-Semitic history and cover-up during WWII. Unfortunately, the New Testament trains anti-Semitism into each new generation by stereotyping Jewish leaders and individuals with negative parables and accusations.[2073]

Text 26-21: Complicity of Pope Pius XII in the Holocaust
Long-buried Vatican files reveal a new and shocking indictment of World War II's Pope Pius XII: that in pursuit of absolute power he helped Adolf Hitler destroy German Catholic political opposition, betrayed the Jews of Europe, and sealed a deeply cynical pact with a 20th-century devil.

One evening several years ago when I was having dinner with a group of students, the topic of the
papacy was broached, and the discussion quickly boiled over. A young woman asserted that Eugenio Pacelli, Pope Pius XII, the Pope during World War II, had brought lasting shame on the Catholic Church by failing to denounce the Final Solution. A young man, a practicing Catholic, insisted that the case had never been proved.

Raised as a Catholic during the papacy of Pius Xll – his picture gazed down from the wall of every
classroom during my childhood – I was only too familiar with the allegation. It started in 1963 with a play by a young German author named Rolf Hochhuth, Der Stellvertreter (The Deputy) which was staged on Broadway in 1964. It depicted Pacelli as a ruthless cynic, interested more in the Vatican's stockholdings than in the fate of the Jews. Most Catholics dismissed Hochhuth's thesis as implausible, but the play sparked a controversy which has raged to this day. Disturbed by the anger brought out in that dinner altercation, and convinced, as I had always been,of Pius XII's innocence, I decided to write a new defense of his reputation for a younger generation. I believed that Pacelli's evident holiness was proof of his good faith. How could such a saintly pope have betrayed the Jews? But was it possible to find a new and conclusive approach to the issue? The arguments had so far focused mainly on his wartime conduct; however, Pacelli's Vatican career had started 40 years earlier. It seemed to me that a proper investigation into Pacelli's record would require a more extensive chronicle than any attempted in the past. So I applied for access to archival material in the Vatican, reassuring those who had charge of crucial documents that I was on the side of my subject.

Six years earlier, in a book entitled A Thief in the Night, I had defended the Vatican against charges that Pope John Paul I had been murdered by his own aides. Two key officials granted me access to secret material: depositions under oath gathered 30 years ago to support the process for Pacelli's canonization, and the archive of the Vatican Secretariat of State, the foreign office of the Holy See. I also drew on German sources relating to Pacelli's activities in Germany during the 1920s and 1930s, including his dealings with AdoIf Hitler in 1933. For months on end I ransacked Pacelli's files, which dated back to 1912, in a windowless dungeon beneath the Borgia Tower in Vatican City. Later I sat for several weeks in a dusty office in the Jesuit headquarters, close to St. Peter's Square in Rome, mulling over a thousand pages of transcribed testimony given under oath by those who had known Pacelli well during his lifetime, including his critics.

By the middle of 1997, 1 was in a state of moral shock. The material I had gathered amounted not to an exoneration but to an indictment more scandalous than Hochhuth's. The evidence was explosive. It showed for the first time that PaceIli was patently, and by the proof of his own words, anti-Jewish. It revealed that he had helped Hitler to power and at the same time undermined
potential Catholic resistance in Germany. It showed that he had implicitly denied and trivialized the Holocaust,despite having reliable knowledge of its true extent. And, worse, that he was a hypocrite, for after the war he had retrospectively taken undue credit for speaking out boldly against the Nazi persecution of the Jews.

In the "Holy Year" of 1950, a year in which many millions of pilgrims flocked to Rome to
catch a glimpse of Pacelli, he was at the zenith of his papacy. This was the Pius people now in their mid-50s and older remember from newsreels and newspaper photographs. He was 74 years old and still vigorous. Six feet tall, stick thin at 125 pounds, light on his feet, regular in habits, he had hardly altered physically from the day of his coronation 11 years earlier. He had beautiful tapering hands, a plaintive voice, large dark eyes and an aura of holiness. It was his extreme pallor that first arrested those who met him. His skin "had surprisingly transparent effect," observed the writer Gerrado Pallenberg, "as if reflecting from the inside a cold, white flame." His charisma was stunning. "His presence radiated a benignity, calm and sanctity that I have certainly never before sensed in any human being." recorded the English writer James Lees-Milne. "I immediately fell head over heels in love with him. I was so affected I could scarcely speak without tears and was conscious that my legs were trembling."

But there was another side to his character, little known to the faithful. Although he was a man of selfless, monklike habits of prayer and simplicity, he was a believer in the absolute leadership principle. More than any other Vatican official of the century, he had promoted the modern ideology of autocratic papal control, the highly centralized, dictatoria1 authority he himself assumed on March 2, 1939, and maintained until his death in October 1958. There was a time before the advent of modern communications when Catholic authority was widely distributed, in the collective decisions of the church's councils and in collegial power-sharing between the Pope and the bishops. The absolutism of the modern papacy is largely an invention of the late 19th century It developed rapidly in the first decades of this century in response to the perception of the centrifugal breakup of the church under an array of contemporary pressures: materialism, increasing sexual freedom, religious skepticism, and social and political liberties.

From his young manhood on, Pacelli played a leading role in shaping the conditions and scope of modern papal power. Eugenio Pacelli was born in Rome in 1876, into a family of church lawyers who served the Vatican. He had an older sister and brother and a younger sister. His parents, devout Catholics, shared an apartment in central Rome with his grandfather, who had been a legal adviser to Pius IX, the longest-serving Pope in history. There was only one small brazier to supply heat for the whole family, even in the depths of winter. Eugenio was a modest youth, who never appeared before his siblings unless he was fully dressed in a jacket and tie. He would always come to the table with a book, which he would read after having asked the family's permission.

From an early age he acted out the ritual of the Mass, dressed in robes supplied by his mother. He had a gift for languages and a prodigious memory. He was spindly and suffered from a "fastidious stomach." He retained a youthful piety all his life. Politically and legally, however, he was capable of great subtlety and cunning. The Pacelli's were fiercely loyal to the injured merit of the papacy. From 1848, the Popes had progressively lost to the emerging nation-state of Italy their dominions, which had formed, since time immemorial, the midriff of the Italian peninsula. Six years before Eugenio's birth, the city of Rome itself had been seized, leaving the papacy in crisis. How could the Popes regard themselves as independent now that they were mere citizens of an upstart kingdom? Eugenio's grandfather and father believed passionately that the Popes could once again exert a powerful unifying authority over the church by the application of ecclesiastical and international law.

In 1870, at a gathering in Rome of a preponderance of the world's bishops, known as the First Vatican Council, the Pope was dogmatically declared infallible in matters of faith and morals. He was also declared the unchallenged primate of the faithful. The Pope may have lost his temporal dominion, but spiritually he was solely in charge of his universal church. During the first two decades of this century, papal primacy and infallibility began to creep even beyond the ample boundaries set by the First Vatican Council. A powerful legal instrument transformed the 1870 primacy dogma into an unprecedented principle of papal power. Eugenio Pacelli, by then a brilliant young Vatican lawyer, had a major part in the drafting of that instrument, which was known as the Code of Canon Law.

Pacelli had been recruited into the Vatican in 1901, at the age of 24, to specialize in international affairs and church law. Pious, slender, with dark luminous eyes, he was an instant favorite. He was invited to collaborate on the reformulation of church law with his immediate superior, Pietro Gaspam, a world-famous canon lawyer. Packaged in a single manual, the Code of Canon Law was distributed in 1917 to Catholic bishops and clergy throughout the world. According to this code, in the future all bishops would be nominated by the Pope; doctrinal error would be tantamount to heresy; priests would be subjected to strict censorship in their writings; papal letters to the faithful would be regarded as infallible (in practice if not in principle}: and an oath would be taken by all candidates for the priesthood to submit to the sense as well as the strict wording of doctrine as laid down by the Pope.

But there was a problem. The church had historically granted the dioceses in the provincial states of Germany a large measure of local discretion and independence from Rome. Germany had one of the largest Catholic populations in the world, and its congregation was well educated and sophisticated, with hundreds of Catholic associations and newspapers and many Catholic universities and publishing houses. The historic autonomy of Germany's Catholic Church was enshrined in ancient church-state treaties known as concordats.

Aged 41 and already an archbishop, PaceIli was dispatched to Munich as papal nuncio, or ambassador, to start the process of eliminating all existing legal challenges to the new papal autocracy. At the same time ,he was to pursue a Reich Concordat, a treaty between the papacy and Germany as a whole which would supersede all local agreements and become a model of Catholic church-state relations. A Reich Concordat would mean formal recognition by the German government of the Pope's right to impose the new Code of Canon Law on Germany's Catholics. Such an arrangement was fraught with significance for a largely Protestant Germany. Nearly 400 years earlier, in Wittenberg, Martin Luther had publicly burned a copy of Canon Law in defiance of the centralized authority of the church. It was one of the defining moments of the Reformation, which was to divide Western Christendom into Catholics and Protestants. In May 1917, Pacelli set off for Germany via Switzerland in a private railway compartment, with an additional wagon containing 60 cases of special foods for his delicate stomach. The Pope at that time, Benedict XV, was shocked at this extravagance, but PaceIli had favored status as the Vatican's best diplomat. Shortly after he settled in Munich, he acquired a reputation as a vigorous relief worker. He traveled through war-weary Germany extending charity to people of all religions and none.

In an early letter to the Vatican, however he revealed himself to be less than enamored of Germany's Jews. On September 4, 1917. PaceIli informed Pietro Gaspam, who had become cardinal secretary of state in the Vatican -- the equivalent of foreign minister and prime minister -- that a Dr. Werner, the chief rabbi of Munich, had approached the nunciature begging a favor. In order to celebrate the festival of Tabernacles, beginning on October 1, the Jews needed palm fronds, which normally came from Italy. But the Italian government had forbidden the exportation, via Switzerland, of a stock of palms which the Jews had purchased and which were being held up in Como. "The Israelite Community," continued Pacelli, "are seeking the intervention of the Pope in the hope that he will plead on behalf of the thousands of German Jews." The favor in question was no more problematic than the transportation of Pacelli's 60 cases of food-stuffs had been a few months earlier. Pacelli informed Gaspam that he had warned the rabbi that "wartime delays in communication" would make things difficult. He also told Gaspam that he did not think it appropriate for the Vatican "to assist them in the exercise of their Jewish cult." His letter went by the slow route overland in the diplomatic bag. Gaspatti replied by telegram on September 18 that he entirely trusted Pacelli's "shrewdness," agreeing that it would not be appropriate to help Rabbi Werner. PaceIli wrote back on September 28, 1917, informing Gasparri that he had again seen the Rabbi, who "was perfectly convinced of the reasons I had given him and thanked me warmly for all that I had done on his behalf." Pacelli had done nothing except thwart the rabbi's request. The episode, small in itself, belies subsequent claims that Pacelli had a great love of the Jewish religion and was always motivated by its best interests.

Eighteen months later he revealed his antipathy toward the Jews in a more blatantly anti-Semitic fashion when he found himself at the center of a local revolution as Bolshevik groups struggled to take advantage of the chaos in postwar Munich. Writing to Gasparri, Pacelli described the revolutionaries and their chief, Eugen Levien in their headquarters in the former royal palace. The letter has lain in the Vatican secret archive like a time bomb until now: "The scene that presented itself at the palace was indescribable. The confusion totally chaotic, the filth completely nauseating; soldiers and armed workers coming and going; the building, once the home of a king, resounding with screams, vile language, profanities. Absolute hell. An army of employees were dashing to and fro, giving out orders, waving bits of paper, and in the midst of all this, a gang of young women, of dubious appearance, Jews like all the rest of them, hanging around in all the offices with provocative demeanor and suggestive smiles. The boss of this female gang was Levien's mistress, a young Russian woman, a Jew and a divorcee, who was in charge. And it was to her that the nunciature was obliged to pay homage in order to proceed. This Levien is a young man, about 30 or 35, also Russian and a Jew. Pale, dirty, with vacant eyes, hoarse voice, vulgar, repulsive, with a face that is both intelligent and sly." This association of Jewishness with Bolshevism confirms that Pacelli, from his early 40s, nourished a suspicion of and contempt for the Jews for political reasons. But the repeated references to the Jewishness of these individuals, along with the catalogue of stereotypical epithets deploring their physical and moral repulsiveness, betray a scorn and revulsion consistent with anti-Semitism. Not long after this, Pacelli campaigned to have black French troops removed from the Rhineland, convinced that they were raping women and abusing children – even though an independent inquiry sponsored by the U.S. Congress, of which Pacelli was aware, proved this allegation false. Twenty-three years later, when the Allies were about to enter Rome, he asked the British envoy to the Vatican to request of the British Foreign Office that no Allied colored troops would be among the small number that might be garrisoned in Rome after the occupation.

Pacelli spent 13 years in Germany attempting to rewrite the state Concordats one by one in favor of the power of the Holy See and routinely employing diplomatic blackmail. Germany was caught up in many territorial disputes following the redrawing of the map of Central Europe after the First World War. Pacelli repeatedly traded promises of Vatican support for German control of disputed regions in return for obtaining terms advantageous to the Vatican in Concordats. The German government's official in charge of Vatican affairs at one point recorded the "ill feeling" prompted by Pacelli's "excessive demands." Both Catholics and Protestants in Germany resisted reaching an agreement with Pacelli on a Reich Concordat because the nuncio's concept of a church-state relationship was too authoritarian. In his negotiations, Pacelli was not concerned about the fate of non-Catholic religious communities or institutions, or about human rights. He was principally preoccupied with the interests of the Holy See. Nothing could have been better designed to deliver Pacelli into the hands of Hitler later, when the future dictator made his move in 1933.

In June 1920, Pacelli became nuncio to all of Germany, with headquarters in Berlin as well as in Munich, and immediately acquired a glittering reputation in diplomatic circles. He was a favorite at dinner parties and receptions, and he was known to ride horses on the estate of a wealthy German family. His household was run by a pretty young nun from southern Germany named Sister Pasqualina Lehnert. Pacelli's sister Elisabetta, who battled with the nun for Pacelli's affections, described Pasqualina as "scaltrissima"-- extremely cunning. In Munich it had been rumored that he cast more than priestly eyes on this religious housekeeper. Pacelli insisted that a Vatican investigation into this "horrible calumny" be conducted at the highest level, and his reputation emerged unbesmirched.

Meanwhile, he had formed a close relationship with an individual named Ludwig Kaas. Kaas was a representative of the solidly Catholic German Center Party, one of the largest and most powerful democratic parties in Germany. Though it was unusual for a full-time politician, he was also a Roman Catholic priest. Five years Pacelli's junior, dapper, bespectacled, and invariably carrying a smart walking stick, Kaas, known as "the prelate," became an intimate collaborator of Pacelli's on every aspect of Vatican diplomacy in Germany. With Pacelli's encouragement, Kaas eventually became the chairman of the Center Party, the first priest to do so in the party's 60-year history. Yet while Kaas was officially a representative of a major democratic party, he was increasingly devoted to Pacelli to the point of becoming his alter ego. Sister Pasqualina stated after Pacelli's death that Kaas, who "regularly accompanied Pacelli on holiday" was linked to him in "adoration, honest love and unconditional loyalty." There were stories of acute jealousy and high emotion when Kaas became conscious of a rival affection in Pacelli's secretary, the Jesuit Robert Leiber, who was also German.