What Do Jews Worship?

One issue with the Judeo-Christian values bit that I’ve always found confusing is that modern Jews do not even practice the Judaism that existed at the time of Christ.  Now, I’m not going to delve into Khazar theory to assert that the people who call themselves Jews today are not the genetic descendants of the tribes of Israel (though that may be true and is an interesting argument). For one thing, the blood doesn’t save so whether they are or aren’t descendants is irrelevant to where they go when they pass away. No, the point of this article is to demonstrate it’s a different religion entirely.  Rabbinical Judaism, in fact, is explicitly not only anti-Christian but anti-Jewish.

Much like how the Catholic Church had a counterreformation after Martin Luther’s Protestant Reformation, the Jews who rejected Christ had their own counter-reformation.  The various beliefs of the Second Temple period (the Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes, and arguably the Zealots) largely disappeared from the historical record and Rabbinical or Talmudic Judaism rose alone. While it is an outgrowth of Judaism, in many ways it is as alien from Judaism as Islam is a different religion from the rest of Abrahamism, or Mormonism is different from Christianity.  

Modern Judaism is extremely different from the Judaism of Moses.  One obvious way it’s different is that Judaism throughout the Old Testament up through the time of Christ was patrilineal.  Modern Rabbinical Judaism is matrilineal (this is also the only example in human history I’ve ever seen where a patrilineal society became matrilineal).  Rabbinical Judaism is not the same as the practice of any of the Jews of the Second Temple period: neither the Pharisees, the Sadducees, the Essenes, or the Zealots.  It is arguably derivative of the Sadducees (as modern Jews seem to disbelieve in an afterlife) mixed with the legalism and emphasis of the Oral Torah of the Pharisees.  Additionally, any Protestants that emphasize Sola Scriptura should gasp when they realize that Rabbinical Jews rely not only on the Old Testament, but the Talmud.  The Talmud is not simply the codification of what was the Oral Torah, but also many writings of the medieval period.  It is placed almost on an equal level with the Old Testament itself. 

The Talmud is of prime importance for Judaism today, but the majority of this was written long after Christ died. The Mishnah was written in 200 AD as a compendium on the Oral Torah, and the Gemara was written in 500 AD as a clarification to the Mishnah and other related writings.  Even without looking at the horrible depiction of Yeshu in the Talmud (who may be meant to be a mockery of Christ) these additional writings make it a clear departure from whatever Moses had worshipped.

Recall what God says in Deuteronomy 4:2: “Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you.”  Rabbinical Judaism does precisely that by its reliance on the Talmud.

Now, while people may want to go “but isn’t the New Testament adding to the Word” that isn’t theologically sound.  For one thing, God is speaking to the Jews through Jesus.  The command against adding to the Word is to “ye” (humans).  God can add to the Word.  That’s what the Gospels are: God adding, or arguably clarifying, the law.  In fact, Jesus affirms this way of thinking by pointing out that he did not come to abolish the law but rather to fulfill it (which also implies he did not come to replace or amend it).  The New Testament is the fulfilment of God’s promises.  Jesus is the descendent of David who rules over Israel and over the world, just in a different manner than Jews of the time period understood this person to rule.

It’s rare when you can really see Jesus adding to the Law.  He points out that to love the Lord with all you have is the greatest commandment and to love your neighbor as yourself is the second and in them, all the others are contained, but this too is a clarification or a summary of the other laws (Matthew 22:37-40).  When he speaks against certain rules of the Old Testament, such as the comparatively easy divorce, he asserts that Moses permitted this “because of the hardness of your hearts.” (Matthew 19:8). Also, as a brief aside, the “your” also indicates that yes, Jesus is speaking to descendants of the ancient Israelites. 

In addition to the new texts of the Rabbinical school and the fact that Mosaic Judaism was patrilineal whereas modern Rabbinical Judaism is matrilineal, Rabbinical Judaism adopted symbols which did not exist before Christ’s birth.  Some argue the Star of David is a symbol of a pagan deity based on Amos 5:26, Acts 7:43, and other verses and that the modern Rabbinical Jews worship a pagan deity (Chiun, Kaiwan, Moloch, or Remphan) rather than God.  There’s certainly scriptural basis for Jews abandoning God for other deities, like the followers of Moses worshipping the Golden Calf.  It’s even more realistic when one considers the significance of numerology to Jews.  There is no positive connection between six and anything in Christianity or Judaism.  Numerology was big for the time and the number of the beast as 666 is one such example.  The star of David is a six-pointed star made up of two equilateral triangles.  This means that each of the angles are 60 degrees. 

There seems to be no scriptural basis for the use of this symbol.  The earliest use of the label of the Star of David I can find is from the 3rd Century AD and the first known use on a synagogue is in the 6th Century. One defense made is that the symbol is connected to the first century AD Messianic Seal of Jerusalem, but it isn’t clear if that symbol was added later.  In any event, that wouldn’t explain why non-Messianic Jews would use the symbol, rather than a symbol more closely connected to the Old Testament. The proposed flag for the State of Judea uses a menorah, an explicitly Jewish symbol (first mentioned Exodus (25:31–40)). There is also the Lion of Judah (inferred from Genesis 49:9 and more explicitly as a symbol found in Revelation 5:5) which would be effectively intimidating as a national flag, but no.  The State of Israel uses a star with either no mention in the Bible or a negative mention connected to a pagan deity.  

Much of the use of the six-pointed star seems to be tied with Kabbalah and other magical practices.  There are also various medieval grimoires, like the keys of Solomon or the myth of Solomon’s ring, all of which are involved in Jewish magic and demonic summoning. 

It’s possible that Solomon did engage in magic. After all, the Bible says that when Solomon grew old, he wasn’t wholeheartedly devoted to God as his father David had been, but even built temples for Chemosh and Molech (Moloch) (1 Kings 11:4-8). Notice the language. Even with David straying from God’s will, particularly with Bathsheba, he had stayed wholeheartedly devoted to God (indicating “wholehearted” does not mean strictly following God’s will, but is a bit broader than that).  In any event, it’s clear that Solomon did stray and possibly engaged in magic.

This is explicitly denounced in the Old and New Testaments, like in 2 Kings 21:6 and possibly, most notably, in Micah 5:12.  Yet, modern Jews not only embrace this magic explicitly denounced by God, but pretend that Solomon dabbled in it.  

Recall Saul enlisting the help of the witch of Endor in 1 Samuel 28?  He disguises himself (which indicates a need for deception) to get a witch to give him a prophecy and the prophet Samuel denounces him for it.  If it is wrong to consult witches who may consult demons, then certainly actually consulting and summoning demons must also be wrong.  This is precisely what is practiced within the grimoires attributed to Solomon from the Middle Ages.  Perhaps the reason why these things are attributed to Solomon is to justify it, as Solomon was known for his wisdom.  Or, perhaps, he did dabble in magic, which is why God broke up the kingdom after his death.

Also, for anyone who wishes to pretend that witchcraft isn’t real or this is all just ancient superstition, recall more recent stories involving witchcraft. We’ve seen battles between supernatural forces with the past attempts of witches to hex Donald Trump, Brett Kavanaugh, and more recently the Taliban. It also doesn’t make sense for God to have been so explicitly anti-something if there is not something to it.

Another way to put this whole argument is as follows: Jews strayed from proper worship of God, so God comes down to earth as Christ.  The Jews then had a choice and some accepted God and spread the Good News to Gentiles.  Some rejected Christ and made massive changes to their worship to more fully demonstrate they rejected Christ. What they are worshiping is not clear, but they are not worshipping our God and are, therefore, not saved.

10 comments

  1. Well done. For further reading one can read, “Jesus in the Talmud.” It is written by an Ivy League Jew.

  2. Clearly Ethan you were going for the Third position here…lol
    You have managed to piss off the Christ hating Atheist WigNat and the Zionist chucked dispensationalist , both of which have no place in a free Dixie.

    No King but Christ!

  3. Moses did not practice judaism. Nowhere in Scripture was Moses ever called a jew.
    And no, jews are NOT true Israelites nor Hebrews; they even admit it themselves in the 1980 jewish Almanac. Feel free to look it up.
    And yes, the AngloSaxon, Celtic, Germanic, Scandinavian and kindred peoples of today ARE the Israelite people of Scripture.
    And “judeo-Christian?!?!?” The epitome of oxymoron.

    1. Jesus, in speaking to Jews (who yes, he calls Jews), refers to their father Abraham (Matthew 3:9) and to the law of Moses/their ancestors (when he speaks of not abolishing “the Law,” this is what he speaks of). This constant refrain from white nationalists that the Jews of Jesus’ time were not actually the same people as the Israelites is an absurd claim that can only be made by people who don’t actually read their Bible. It’s funny that you would rely on something purportedly by Jews in the 1800s, but not on the words of Christ himself.
      Also, of course “Judeo-Christian” is a bad phrase. The purpose of the article was to express why.

      1. Then Sir why wasn’t the word Jew included in the Bible till King James 17 centuries later and then only as a reference to those from Judea.Then the Synagogue of Satan in an attempt to smear our Lord Jesus have used this to promote false teachings.It seems you would know better as you seem very intelligent.Jesus was not a rabbi as Bill O’Reilly(or O’retard)loved to say endlessly.To my best knowledge there were many races in the Near East at that time and Jesus seems to have been of the Philistine grouping which were Germanic blonde tall peoples.Many say the Philistines were Macedonian.But most likely many of our Germanic peoples passed through or stayed for a time in Greece and the Near East.Who can with certainty really say who was there at a time so long ago.We know now that Greeks who built all the great things were fair,blue eyed,light or red haired.The Jews go all out to say the Greeks were these curly dark haired,swarthy people like the Turks.But much evidence shows otherwise.But if we had nothing else to go on but our discernment it would tell us that our beloved Jesus is in NO way related to the demonic wretches now called Jews.Case closed as far as I am concerned.Thank you for your thought provoking efforts and Merry Christmas to you and all here in good faith.Christ is King and the Father is the Master! And remember people God made good things beautiful,wholesome and pleasing to behold.Can one look at Elena Kagan,Ruth Ginsberg,Henry Kissinger,Hugh Hefner et al and say that these are faces created in the image of God?No but one can clearly see those faces as representatives of the demonic wretches of Hell.

        1. Is your problem with the King James Version of the Bible or the idea of translating the Bible at all? If it’s the former, I’m fairly certain you are incorrect. You should be aware that earlier English translations also have Jews in it (albeit spelled slightly differently). You can look at the Geneva Bible and see Jesus called the king of the “Jewes.” https://bolls.life/GNV/41/15/26

  4. For this article and your previous one, you have briefly mentioned the Khazar theory and the idea that modern Jews are not of the same ethnic cloth as Christ. I’m interested to get your opinion on this.

    1. A Turkic people called Khazars did indeed convert en masse to Judaism and many people who are Ashkenazi at the very least have such DNA in them. I do not believe that modern Jews have no descent from the ancient peoples of Israel. However, while I do believe that modern Jews can claim the link to the ancient Jews by blood, it is ultimately irrelevant. As Jesus said in Matthew 3:9 “And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.”
      While we should certainly not take verses out of context and base entire theologies around them, the verse (and the surrounding verses) supports the notion that even if modern Jews are the descendants of the tribes of Israel, that does not benefit them in any way if they refuse to acknowledge Jesus as their Lord and Savior.

Comments are closed.