A Dialogue

With permission from the other person in the dialogue, I am putting this on the website in edited form as a matter of interest.  In my exchange with this person, I learned some interesting things that I had not known about before, and it also helped me to more fully appreciate the importance of one’s perception concerning Dt 13; 18:15-22; Acts 8:3; 9:1-2; Phlpn 3:6; 1Tim 1:12-17.  This is what we are still dealing with today with the haredim (religious ultra-orthodox): some of them do actually fear God and think they are doing His will; others are simply bnei belial — children of Belial, under no authority — and willing to stir up and be involved in troubling the believers who believe in Yeshua.

Please keep the apple of God’s eye in your prayers for His glory to be revealed to them and in them.

(I apologize for the sometimes confusing chronological disorder!)

From: T
To: Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2006 7:29 PM
Subject: Dear Mr. Bass
As an Orthodox Jew, a convert FROM Christianity, and the editor of , I’d like to share a few thoughts with you, and perhaps open a dialogue. It’s my hope that this dialogue will remain strictly confidential until and unless we both agree that it be otherwise. It seems incredible to me that you are so unaware of God’s Law as to be surprised at the vehement objection voiced by observant Jews. It’s not whether or not you believe Jesus is the Messiah that matters. After all, many famous Jews (Rabbi Akiva for example) similarly believed in a “false” Messiah without losing their stature as kosher Jews. Rather, it is your violation of two of God’s eternal Laws: the first prohibiting idolatry (ie. you are perceived to be worshipping a man as God) and the second prohibiting the [public] flouting of a majority Sanhedrin ruling. Both sins carry the death sentence. Just as a US citizen, for example, is not permitted to take the law into his own hands just because he disagrees with a Supreme Court ruling, so it is forbidden for any God-fearing/loving Jew to publicly flout a majority Sanhedrin ruling. Yes, the Sanhedrin members were mere mortals, and in recognition of their fallibility, God provided four distinct legal (ie. God-approved) ways of overturning a Sanhedrin ruling… one that presupposes the existence of the Temple and three which can be exercised today. But my point is that, unless and until one of those ways is invoked, and the erring decision overturned, it MUST stand, and MUST be [publicly] honored by all His people… on pain of death. That is the Law.

From: Howard
Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2006 21:06:23 +0200
To: t
Subject: Re: Dear Mr.Bass
I suppose I will not open this with a proper greeting of ‘shalom’, since that would violate clear instructions believers in Yeshua have received for someone who has abandoned the faith and denies the Son of God (as you are probably aware from your former religion). As for your two points, I AGREE with you on both. You are being presumptuous to assume that I am not aware of those two laws, as Jesus certainly was, too. Interestingly, when we read the book of Esther, we also see that Persian (Iranian) law is also permanently binding, and there the king proclaimed the supremacy of the God of Israel as the true God, as did others, like Nebuchadnezzar of the Babylonians, and Cyrus of Persia. Growing up as a Jew, I, too, thought that the Christians had made a man into a God. Any Jew who thinks seriously about these things will not accept that Jews and Christians are worshipping the same God (and neither are the Muslims). Yet according to the Tanach, the Son of God is God, the Son of Man is a man, and in Yeshua these two are joined together in a perfect unity to be the Messiah promised by God to the House of Israel firstly, and then to all the nations, being that there is only one true living God and Savior. In other words, Adonai God of Israel clothed Himself in flesh and blood to be the Redeemer of us human beings created in His image and likeness. With all due respect, Howard Bass

At 10:11 AM 1/23/2006 -0500, you wrote:
Hello again, Mr. Bass: First, please be careful about ascribing intentions (mine or the company’s). Also, please read my initial note again. I am trying to be VERY precise in my choice of words. Now, to continue (assuming you are still willing): Of COURSE Jesus was well aware of both laws… he had spent the years between 12 and 30 being groomed for a seat on the Sanhedrin, after all… but wasn’t it he that said “until heaven and earth pass away, not one jot or tittle of the Law shall pass away” ? As I said, it’s not your belief in his Messiah-hood that disturbs knowledgeable Jews; it is your violation of those two laws. I drew a comparison earlier to the US Supreme Court. I’d like to repeat my observation/hint that there are LEGAL means of accomplishing your goals, and compelling reasons for invoking them. Now that the Sanhedrin has been reconvened, what is stopping you from employing one of those means? t

From: Howard Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2006 18:06:25 +0200 To:
T Subject: A Dialogue
And hello to you, Mr. T: I do not know where you get the idea that Jesus was being groomed for the Sanhedrin. Certainly this does not come from the New Testament, or from anything from the first covenant under Moses in anticipation of the one coming greater than Moses. Since the LORD is our Judge, our Lawmaker, our King, and our Savior, He is the ultimate one to settle a matter, rather than leaving it to fallible human beings, however law-abiding or otherwise. We can err; He can not. Since His word, which abides forever, incorporates into it the promises of the new covenant and of forgiveness of sins and of Messiah’s death and resurrection and of the Holy Spirit being given to those who repent and believe in the LORD and in His Anointed One, then God has Himself overturned the judgment of mortals under His sovereignty, and He has vindicated Yeshua and all that He is! We have the choice to either believe God or believe the lie, from whatever source. A reconvened Sanhedrin will be able to do nothing to overturn God’s own testimony. It would certainly be wonderful if there were someone like Nicodemus on it! To be continued, Howard

At 10:10 AM 1/24/2006 -0500, you wrote: Israel had, not only one of the first systems of national education, but also one of the first “streamed” systems. All (conventionally educated) boys, when they reached bar-mitzvah age, would be examined by a sitting Sanhedrin member or one of their understudies. Boys considered “exceptional” would be taken into the special educational program that could lead to Sanhedrin membership. Evidently, Jesus impressed his questioners (as told in the NT) and was thus allowed into the “bright” stream — over the objections of many, who had doubts about his (possibly mamzer) status. His Sanhedrin mentor/teacher was Joseph of Arimethea. Jesus excelled in school, and was nearing the time of graduation when pornography was found in his room (this story is all told in the Talmud)… no doubt planted there by one of those who simply couldn’t abide the thought that this “mamzer” [illegitimate child] might become a Sanhedrin judge. As the Law required, Jesus could only say “I didn’t do it” — after which he rushed to see his mentor. Joseph, however, was in the midst of prayer when Jesus burst into his chamber, and therefore made a simple, brusque hand gesture, which the distraught young man took to mean that his mentor also believed the lie and was rejecting him. So he took what he had learned “on the road” — and the rest is history. Joseph, however, kept a close eye on what his former student was up to, and remained one of his few “friends in high places” throughout Jesus’s subsequent ministry. Interestingly, when the Sanhedrin voted in Jesus’s case , Joseph, knowing of their intention to see him dead, did the only thing he could think of to save Jesus’s life — he voted against him, thus making the vote to condemn unanimous. His motivation? Well, according to the Sanhedrin’s own by-laws, any vote to condemn that was unanimous was to be taken as automatic grounds for acquittal! Sadly, Joseph didn’t anticipate the depth of the hatred against his former protege, and so the Sanhedrin violated its own procedural guidelines (thus offering just one of several excellent grounds to call for a re-opening of the case) by condemning Jesus in spite of the unanimous vote. By way of demonstrating where his heart lay, and his motivation for voting against Jesus, Joseph made a point of offering his own tomb for Jesus’s burial place. To address another of your points: God did indeed entrust the Sanhedrin (and the Sanhedrin alone) with such decisions as to who is or is not a true prophet. This is made clear in the Torah itself, which describes the establishment and empowerment of the Sanhedrin shortly after Sinai. After all, free will is free will; God didn’t interfere to prevent Adam from sinning, did He? But yes, there were limits; God retained the right to “step in” should the whole judicial shebang go off the rails. So it was that the Sanhedrin was commanded (like all Jews before or since… a commandment so fundamental that it isn’t even included among the 613 mitzvot) to “hear my [God’s] voice” … on pain of exile (as taught, and demonstrated, in the time of Jeremiah). And this is why, when 70 of the 71 Sanhedrin members (excepting only Eliezer ben Hyrcanus) deliberately chose to ignore His voice (as foreseen by Moses — “yeshurun will grow fat and kick” — and Ezekiel 8:16 and onward) in about 135 CE, the current exile began.

From: Howard Date:Wed, 25 Jan 2006 01:17:43 +0200 To:
T Subject: Re: A Dialogue
I would be interested in knowing more about you and your background, Mr. T.


At 11:51 AM 1/25/2006 -0500, you wrote: Sorry, I see no textual support (other than that squeezed out by tautological reasoning) for the notion that he “died for my sins” — preferring to believe God and His prophets, who clearly taught/teach that we are each responsible for our own sins.  

From: Howard Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2006 12:35:23 +0200 To:
T Subject: Re: A Dialogue
We are each personally responsible, and the whole sacrificial system given to Israel required each of us personally and all of us as a people to accept that responsibility and to give account to God, who, in His lovingkindness and mercy, provided the substitute offerings in HIS holy love and righteousness. We NEED the Savior! “Trust in the LORD (YHVH) with all your heart, and lean not on your own understanding”, Mr. T. Perhaps because of your great intelligence, which I can see from your internet sites you referred me to, and your accomplishments, you find the simplicity (I also try to choose my words carefully) of the truth and the wonderfulness of our Father in Heaven to be “a stone that causes [you] to stumble and a rock that makes [you] fall.”


At 12:43 PM 1/25/2006 -0500, you wrote: With my time constraints today, the best I can do by way of reply is to edit your posting thus: We are each personally responsible, and the whole sacrificial system given to Israel required each of us personally and all of us as a people to accept that responsibility and to give account to God, without whose grace and mercy none of us would stand a chance. We NEED the Savior! “Trust in the LORD (YHVH) with all your heart, and lean not on your own understanding.” Perhaps you find the simplicity of the fact that we were given the Law so that we might live, and commanded to “choose life” to be “a stone that causes [you] to stumble and a rock that makes [you] fall.
From:H Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2006 13:08:17 +0200 To: T Subject:
Re: A Dialogue
Your editing would not convey accurately what I wrote. The textual support for what I wrote can be found in the Tanach (Isaiah 8:11-20; Proverbs 3:5). The God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob does not change; therefore what He spoke then about moral responsibility and relationship to Him remains true, and the Law and the testimony anticipate a new and better covenant to cleanse and heal us of all our transgressions, sins, and iniquity with all their dreadful consequences, both personally and corporately. I will not agree to our dialogue being made public if you distort what I say to fit your filter. Even as God’s own word can be distorted and misunderstood, yet what is written can not be altered, so let our own careful wording remain, even at the risk of others’ misrepresentations. That, at least, allows for honest exchange, especially for a controversy, if you want people to respond and react intelligently.

At 01:31 PM 1/25/2006 -0500, you wrote: I’m sorry… poor word choice on my part. By “editing” I meant nothing more than using selected excerpts to make my (admittedly very different) point. I wasn’t trying to “improve” or “convey” your argument, but merely to refute it, in as few words as possible. In my opinion that Isaiah passage echoes the one that goes: “don’t follow the majority to do evil” — and I relate it directly to the 70-1 Sanhedrin rebellion detailed earlier. The proverb you cite is, to me, another way of saying “Beware of any interpretation; stick with the clear meaning of a text.” The textual supports for my own statements would be found in Deuteronomy 4 and 30. Apologies, but time really is at a premium here. Please forgive me if I don’t respond again until tomorrow.  

At 04:43 PM 1/30/2006 -0500, you wrote: The matter is indeed settled… until and unless the case is reopened and the original ruling overturned. There are ample grounds (I can give you some, if you like). You want to bring change? You want all Jews to accept Jesus as Messiah (never as God)? Then invoke your right as a born Jew to demand of the reconstituted Sanhedrin that it re-open the trial of Jesus. When asked (as you will be) “what new evidence do you have to offer?” you can answer “2,000 years of history.” As to your opening question… it’s not up to us as individuals to believe or not believe someone’s claims of prophecy (let alone Messianic claims). And the old testament instructs us specifically not to accept miracles as “proof” of such claims. Also, try a more careful reading of the new testament. You will see that (a) Jesus never claimed to be the Messiah, though he evidently believed himself to be. Indeed, would-be Messiahs are to be asked “are you the messiah” three times [by the Sanhedrin, that is]. The first time they are to say ‘no’. The second time they are to remain silent, and the third time, they are to say “if you [the Sanhedrin] say I am.” and (b) he never claimed to be God. On the contrary. Also keep in mind that Saul/Paul remains a little-known Jewish hero to this day (there is even a semi-secret annual fast day in his honor), and consider the implications of that. 

At 12:44 31/01/2006 -0500, you wrote: They are largely my own extrapolations, but not a great stretch. After all, the fast day is a fact, and we know from the Bible the mission he was given by the Sanhedrin, that in the end he succeeded, and history shows us that his influence is what caused proto-Christianity to become something other than just another (illegal) Jewish sect.
From: Howard Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2006 16:07:10 +0200 To:
T Subject: Re: A Dialogue
Thank-you, Mr. T, for these exchanges. I don’t see any usefulness to continue them at this time, but if you should choose to use them, please let me know. I appreciate your sharing with me some insights into your life.
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that is made. In Him [is] life, and the life [is] the light of men. And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness [does] not comprehend it. . . .He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him. He came to His own, and His own did not receive Him. But as many as [receive] Him, to them He [gives] the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name: who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. . . . .” (John 1:… New Testament) For the sake of my people and the
Name of our God and Savior,
Howard Bass



At 11:50 AM 2/15/2006 -0500, you wrote:
You believe we are living under the new covenant spoken of by the prophets?? Then where are the lions laying down with lambs? World peace? The nations beating swords into plowshares and learning war no more? The lost tribes re-gathered? Does every man have the Law written on his heart? Is the Temple rebuilt? Are the nations streaming there to worship with God’s people?
Only AFTER such things come to pass can the Messianic Age be said to have begun.

From: Howard Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 17:13:42 +0200
To: T Subject: A Dialogue
For individual believers, the Messianic Age has begun in that God’s Kingdom is within us. For Israel and the rest of the nations and the creation, the return of the Lord Jesus Christ will bring the Kingdom of God — the Messianic Age — to Earth. You mis-read the Scriptures, both Old and New Testaments.

At 02:15 PM 2/16/2006 -0500, you wrote:
But is God’s Kingdom truly “within” you if, by the very act of declaring such a conviction regarding the Messiah, you make yourself liable to death under God’s eternal Law?

From: Howard Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 16:00:57 +0200
To: T Subject: Re: A Dialogue
God’s redemption and salvation give eternal life according to His eternal law, and this redemption, salvation, resurrection and life are in Messiah, God’s only-begotten Son, who is Himself God, according to the Bible. Jesus Himself came under the Law in order to die according to it as a sacrifice for your and my sin, T, and to rise from among the dead because He is who He is. The fear of the LORD has a humbling and sanctifying effect on a person.

At 04:42 PM 2/16/2006-0500, you wrote:
One doesn’t have to be a Christian to fear the Lord, or to be humble before Him and before his fellow man. I’m afraid you remind me of someone who, after being shown ample evidence that the Earth is round, continues to shout about sailing off the edge.
You are in clear violation of God’s eternal Law on at least two counts… both capital offences. You’ve been told there are legal alternatives… legal ways to correct what you feel to have been a mistaken Sanhedrin ruling… yet you refuse to avail yourself of them, preferring to cling to your sinful pride /personal belief.
If you honestly want to be close to God and honor His will, you would admit your mistake… first to yourself and then to your fellow group members. You would all then do the right thing, and refrain from publicly flouting the Sanhedrin ruling or God’s Law any further, and instead begin the legal proceedings that will “untie the bundled sins” and set things right… for yourselves and for all your fellow Jews.

From: Howard Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 17:46:40 +0200
To: T Subject: A Dialogue
I didn’t say nor intend that one had to be a Christian to fear the Lord, or to be humble before Him and before his fellow man.
I believe that this dialogue has run its course. Again, I thank you for sharing your insights.

Yes, I agree that it has, and thank you for it. But I must urge you once again not to let it end here. You now know what must be done, and the reward that waits.

shalom u’vracha

From: T
Date: Thursday, July 6, 2006 10:21 pm
Subject: Re: A Dialogue
Try to get to see “The Exodus Decoded” — an explosive feature-length documentary. . . .

From: Howard  Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2006 16:20:40 +0200
To: T Subject: Re: The Exodus Decoded
Thanks, T, for the advancenotice.
From The Exodus Decoded website, they believe that something actually happened, but they do not believe in what we would call ‘miracles’, which by definition have no ‘natural’ explanation, since they come from God Himself who wants us to know that. It took the Egyptian magicians and priests of their gods until the 5th plague (if memory serves me here) before they were willing to acknowledge that truth. Actually, not all of the plagues were in themselves ‘miracles’, but rather a specified series of divine judgments designed to strengthen the faith and hope of the Israelis in YHVH God, the one true God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob as both Creator and Redeemer; and on the other hand, as He Himself declared, to make Himself known to all the gentiles that He is the Sovereign God. The premise of the Exodus Decoded is not new. I remember reading years ago (before I was a believer in Yeshua) books by Immanuel Velikovsky, called Worlds in Collision and Ages In Chaos, where he also brings in the account of Santorini and the Hyksos, etc. Very interesting reading both, also attesting to the actual facts of the cosmic events described in the Bible, without crediting them to the intervention of the LORD God, which, of course, the Bible does.

At 16:38 31/01/2006 -0500, you wrote: Note that my most recent reply was only in response to your most recent posting; the earlier “explanations” given are all firmly supported by the Torah and Talmud.

From: Howard Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2006 17:35:51 +0200 To:
T Subject: Re: A Dialogue
Duly noted. I would be interested to know more about this winter fast connected to Paul.
Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2006 11:23:31 +0200
To: T
Subject: Re: A Dialogue
The WORD OF GOD abides forever — and every jot and tittle of the Law and the Prophets, and of Messiah Himself and of His apostles — will be fulfilled. All who repent and believe the gospel (good news) will be justified and saved.
From: Howard
Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2006 17:32:55 +0200
To: T
Subject: Re: A Dialogue
God’s notice of the new covenant, and Jesus being the Messiah, to whom all points, brings in what the Lord had already built in and taken account of.

At 22:51 05/02/2006 +0200, you wrote:
This from my friend in NY:
Ninth of Teves. The Tur and the Shulchan Aruch are very strange in their comments about that date. I’ll supply more details as I get them.
From: Howard Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2006 08:06:53 +0200 To:T Subject: Re: A Dialogue
What makes Saul/Paul a Jewish hero, and when is the fast? It’s usually only said that he is the one who started the new religion, claiming that Jesus is indeed the LORD God Himself.

From: Howard Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2006 13:48:51 +0200 To:T Subject: Re: A Dialogue
You are forgiven. This has been a very unusual day for me as well to be at the computer and checking e-mail over such a long period. Thank-you for your indulgence.

At 05:32 PM 1/26/2006 -0500, you wrote: I’ll be away now until
Monday. Have a pleasant weekend.

From: Howard Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2006 18:23:50 +0200 To:T Subject: Re: A Dialogue
I hope that you had a good Shabbat and the long “weekend”, T. I only got home about 1/2 hour ago (1800 Thurs.) and am checking my e-mails. Yes, I did receive this morning before I left your file from last night, and read your account, for which I thank you for sharing it with me. In what way, given your experience and your testimony of your religious faith, is Jesus your “personal savior” that led you ‘[to convert]’ to Judaism?
At 10:13 AM 1/25/2006 +0200, you wrote: That’s (most of) my resume. For some other things I’ve been up to, simply search Google for — with the quotes.From: Howard Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2006 11:46:47 +0200 To:
T Subject: Re: A Dialogue
Thank-you for that very brief testimony, Mr. T. Yet to read your letter on the 24th , the Jesus you are speaking about gives no indication of Him being your “personal savior”, and the whole-hearted love and honor in the fear of the LORD that would be due to the man who was willing to be crucified for your sins so that you could receive God’s incredibly gracious provision for your atonement and justification to enable a repentant believer to go through the door (and the veil) to eternal LIFE (as opposed to mere existence).

T Subject: Re: A Dialogue
Thank-you for the references. I’m truly sorry about your accident and its obviously difficult consequences. I’m interested in knowing more about your religious upbringing and your decision to convert to Judaism, which doesn’t show up on the Google search (I didn’t look through all the almost 500 search results).

At 11:29 AM 1/25/2006 -0500, you wrote: well, in very brief: I don’t know who my mother is (religiously speaking). She was born in Warsaw and spent time in Buchenvald and Ravensbruk (“for helping the Jews,” she tells me).  I was born and raised an Anglican (my dad was from Nova Scotia, and that was his affiliation). Like most christians, my piety barely outlasted my confirmation, so I was a “devout agnostic” by the age of 21, when a very-near-death experience about three months after the car accident brought an encounter with The Supreme Being. Kind of hard to “keep the [agnostic] faith” after that! So, having been brought up to believe that God could be found in church, for several years I became an extraordinarily pious christian…. committing much of the NT to memory, for example. It was to my growing horror that I realized the essentially idolatrous underpinning of most christianity as practiced. This eventually led me to seek out the “root” of the faith — the place/institution on this earth that bore the clearest ‘fingerprints’ of the being I had encountered. Orthodox Judaism was clearly “it”. The Beit Din, on investigating my background, concluded that I didn’t need to be converted, but I insisted… so they put me through the whole nine yards; the process took about five years. As you might imagine, my answer to the Beit Din’s question “what is Jesus to you” was central. I told them he was my personal savior, explaining that were it not for him, I would never have seen (let alone chosen to pass through) “the door [to conversion] that is open so that none may close.” They said “we can live with that”.

From: Howard
Date: Sun, 05 Feb 2006 23:28:00 +0200
To: T
Subject: Re: A Dialogue
It seems that this fast may have been connected to Jesus, rather than to Paul, according to what I found on the net.
Date: Mon, 06 Feb 2006 08:36:04 -0500
From: T
Subject: Re: A Dialogue
To: Howard
In the book Toldos Yeshu, the ninth of Teves is Saul’s yartzheit.

At 10:25 AM 2/13/2006 -0500, you wrote:
So, what conclusions have you arrived at?
At 09:15 31/01/2006 -0500, you wrote: Well, he’s a hero (it’s a winter fast, though I’d need a couple of days to get you the Hebrew date) because he fulfilled his Sanhedrin mission even though doing so put his own soul at risk. Consider: He was charged with stopping his fellow Jews from joining the new cult — a sin which carried the death penalty, in light of the recent Sanhedrin ruling. When he realized that the brushfire nature of the new movement had made the conventional approach (arresting Jesus’s followers for trial in Jerusalem) unworkable, he went to “Plan B” — infiltrating the group (via the vision on the road to Damascus) and then, once inside, introducing such flagrantly non-Jewish “innovations” — regarding kashrut and circumcision — that even the (sadly ignorant) common Jews of his day stopped joining up, as detailed in the NT.  Not for nothing did Saul call himself “the chief among sinners.
At 13:39 30/01/2006 -0500, you wrote: Because, were it not for him, I would never have become aware of — let alone pass through — “the door [to conversion] which is open so that none may close…” I once listened as an extraordinarily learned and observant rabbi declared, in public and on the record: “We Jews can say what we like, but the truth is that that man [Jesus] has brought more people close to the One God than any other human being, before or since.”
From: Howard Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2006 16:28:52 +0200 To:
T Subject: Re: A Dialogue
Given the things that Jesus Himself said about Himself, why don’t you believe in Him for who He actually is, and why did you convert to Judaism, who despite the good words spoken by the rabbi, rejects the truth of Jesus being the Messiah, the Son of God? You are also aware of the Supreme Court decision on Christmas day in 1989, which declared that no Jew — even in the case of that couple who denied the deity of Jesus — who believes in Jesus is accepted as a Jew for the purposes of the Law of Return, i.e., we owe you nothing, and you are entitled to nothing as Jews from the State of Israel. As you said so starkly in your opening letter, the Sanhedrin has ruled, and that settles the matter.

At 01:26 PM 2/13/2006 -0500, you wrote:
Yes, and His Law (like His Word) is also eternal, not “until further notice.”
So a death-penalty offence (such as idolatry, or flouting a majority Sanhedrin ruling) remains an offence, and something to be avoided, don’t you agree?

From:Howard Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2006 12:24:28 +0200 To:
T Subject: Re: A Dialogue
Your explanations are certainly fascinating! What are the sources?