|
You travel over land and sea to make
one convert, and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a child of hell as you are!
”
(Matthew 23:15, Christian Standard Bible).
Thus, although Jesus didn't completely agree with all that the ancient Samaritan religion had to say about the
place of worship (John 4:22), he obviously followed a modified version of it (a sort of “Reformed
Samaritanism”).
Was Jesus the Jewish Messiah? Was He the God of Israel?
The bible definition of a bastard wasn't meant to insult anyone. Rather, it had the intention of preventing the
Hebrew believer from falling into the trap of worship men [like Hercules] who were [allegedly] the result of
131
the union between a god and a human female.
These men were supposed to have both human and divine attributes, thereby presenting an unavoidable bait
for the weak minded Hebrew believer.
In this sense, Jesus (peace and blessings be always upon him) could not have been the expected Jewish
Messiah. Why? Simply because [unfortunately for him], not being the biological son of Joseph (his mother’s
husband), God’s Law had no other option but to place him under the bastards heading.
And the Law didn’t allow any bastard to be counted as part of Israel’s congregation (let alone be considered
Israel’s King, Messiah, or God). As it is written: “A bastard shall not enter into the congregation of הוהי” -
Deut. 23: 2 (King James Bible).
And this in turn explains why the Gospel records no Israelite ever offering his daughter in marriage to Jesus;
as that would have violated the command given by God on Deuteronomy 23: 2
The Divine Law teaches that God’s name is blasphemed when we let holy things get contaminated by
uncertainty and ambiguity
The Law states that God’s highest representative (the Holy High Priest) had to guard himself from any moral
and physical blemish that could [by association] be imputed to the God he represented.
And that’s why Scripture commanded saying: “And he (the High priest) shall take a wife in her virginity. A
widow, or a divorced woman, or profane, or an harlot, these shall he not take: but he shall take a virgin of his
own people to wife. Neither shall he profane his seed among his people… For whatsoever man he be that
hath a blemish, he shall not approach: a blind man, or a lame, or he that hath a flat nose, or any thing
superfluous, Or a man that is brokenfooted, or brokenhanded, Or crookbackt, or a dwarf, or that hath a
blemish in his eye, or be scurvy, or scabbed, or hath his stones broken; No man that hath a blemish of the
seed of Aaron the priest shall come nigh to offer the offerings of the Lord made by fire: he hath a blemish; he
shall not come nigh to offer the bread of his God. He shall eat the bread of his God, both of the most holy,
and of the holy. Only he shall not go in unto the vail, nor come nigh unto the altar, because he hath a blemish;
that he profane not my sanctuaries: for I the Lord do sanctify them”- Lev. 21:13-15, & 18-23, King James
Version.
Why would marrying a widow [or a divorced woman] be a moral blemish for God’s High priest? Could it be
possible that the God of the Hebrews discriminates against widows and divorcees? Not really. If it was
considered a blemish, it was only because such practice would have [indirectly] encouraged sin, deception,
and even murder. In other words, being the High priest’s wife was an extremely coveted position. Thus, any
exceedingly beautiful [but married] woman living in close proximity to the High Priest would have been
tempted to poisoning her current husband, in order to make herself available to the Priest [sort of like what
happened between David and Bathsheba]. Likewise, a beautiful married woman could have divorced her
former righteous husband just for the sake of enticing the High Priest to make her his new wife.
Worst than that! Not marrying a virgin could have led the High Priest [who was God’s representative] to
unknowingly marry a women already pregnant with child. And since such child could end up becoming High
priests, God’s enemies would have blasphemed the Creator, claiming that just as the High Priest was no more
than a bastard, so was the God he represented.
And this is the reason why no person with a questionable, uncertain, or ambiguous background [symbolically
alluded to by physical defects] could be appointed as God’s High priest, as that would have caused God’s
name to be blasphemed. In fact, this is one of the reasons why Samaritan believers cannot accept the
Christian claim of Jesus being God’s own High Priest. Why? Because by claiming him to be the literal son of
132
God, they make Jesus lineage questionable, and ambiguous [in other words, they make him “defective”].
Why? Because such ambiguity gives way for God’s enemies to blaspheme the Creator, saying: “Was Jesus
really the Son of God, or was he instead the son of an unknown Roman soldier who had raped her mother?
And if Jesus [whom Christians worship as God] was the bastard son of a Roman soldier, then the God of the
Christians is just a glorified bastard”
Do'stlaringiz bilan baham: |
