Es el creyente Cristiano, quien tiene que justificar su Fe

Es el creyente Cristiano, quien tiene que justificar su Fe

Los Diez mandamientos, fueron escritos por el dedo de י ה ו ה ; En cambio, los Evangelios no fueron escritos por el dedo de י ה ו ה. Así que, son los hermanos Cristianos [y no los creyentes Hebreos], quienes tienen que dar cuenta de su fe, y justificar la razó n por la cual rehú san obedecer lo escrito por el dedo de י ה ו ה [los Diez mandamientos], para obedecer en cambio lo que no fue escrito por el dedo del hombre (los Evangelios, que niegan la necesidad de comprometerse con la obediencia a los mandamientos Divinos)

Jesus (peace be upon him) failure to appoint a clear successor, is proof that he lacked the wisdom required to be considered more than just a powerful (yet flawed) messenger of God

Most practising Hebrew believers have an ample knowledge of the Tanak (the Hebrew Scriptures). And this first hand knowledge allows them to detect many of the inconsistencies often plaguing other monotheistic religions. For example, the Torah states that, before departing from this world, prophet Moses (peace be upon him) bore witness of the divine wisdom [and power] that rested upon his own person. How? Simply by blessing each tribe of Israel, and also by publicly appointing Joshua, as the leader who would replace him at the helm of the believers community.
But, the keen observer, notes that the power to bless Israel, and the wisdom to clearly appoint a successor, is missing from both the Muslim as well as the Christian holy scriptures. In other words, prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) failed to appoint a successor, and that lack of wisdom caused Islam to split into two opposing camps (Sunni and Shiah Islam); two antagonistic sects that keep shedding each others blood up to our present time.
By the same token, something similar (though to a lesser degree) happened with Christianity. In other words, Jesus never publicly appointed a living successor. And, this grave lack of wisdom, allowed Saul of Tarsus [someone who didn't personally walked with Jesus, nor had a first hand knowledge of Jesus teachings] to fill the ensuing void of leadership. In fact, Paul was so efficient at exploiting this lack of wisdom, that he ended up becoming the author of a disproportionate amount of the books comprising the New Testament.
And, since “the many words” coming out of Paul's mouth are given the same Divine authority as “the few words” coming out of Jesus mouth, it followed that Jesus own theology eventually had to be interpreted under the light of Paul's own theology [and not the other way around! ].
Thus, it is sound to say that, just as it happened with Islam, Jesus failure to appointing a living successor destroyed the integrity of original Christianity. Why? Because, in the end, Paul's words became more influential than Jesus words. Therefore, it was Paul [and not any of Jesus apostles] who ended up at the helm of the new movement, thereby becoming the theological father of modern day Christianity. But we have to wonder, why would Jesus make such a grave mistake?
Why wouldn't he appoint a leader to replace him? Maybe because it would have been viewed by his followers as a sign of defeat [and thus would have become a source of doubt in their hearts]. Why? Because a man who is in charge of building a lofty tower will only appoint a replacement when he thinks that he won't be able to finish it! In other words, the Jewish background of Jesus original disciples didn't allow them to expect a Messiah that wouldn't finish [at once] his mission of liberating and restoring the nation of Israel. And that's why the gospel quotes Jesus disciples asking him the following question:
«... “LORD, WILT THOU AT THIS TIME RESTORE THE KINGDOM TO ISRAEL”»- Acts 1: 6). In order to understand what's going on, we must keep in mind that, although Christianity claims that old testament people got saved by their belief in a future Messiah [one that would die for their sins], the idea itself is absurd, as the gospels attest to the fact that Jesus own [Jewish] disciples never expected him to die for their sins, nor to leave this world before first accomplishing all of the messianic promises.
And that's why the disciples didn't understand what Jesus meant, when he claimed that he had to die, in order to be raised from the dead («And as they were coming down from the mountain he cautioned them to tell no one what they had seen, except when the son of man should have risen from the dead. AND THEY KEPT WHAT HE SAID TO THEMSELVES, DISCUSSING WITH ONE ANOTHER WHAT THE WORDS “WHEN HE SHALL HAVE RISEN FROM THE DEAD” MIGHT MEAN»- Mark 9: 8-9).
In fact, the gospel hints at the idea that Jesus seems to have believed that, before leaving this world, he would have been able to single handedly fulfill all of his disciples messianic expectations. And from whence do we know it? We know it from the gospel verses where Jesus scolds the man who starts to build a tower [in other words, a great and lofty enterprise] but then is unable to finish it.
As it is written: «For which of you, intending to build a tower, sitteth not down first, and counteth the cost, whether he have sufficient to finish it? LEST HAPLY, AFTER HE HATH LAID THE FOUNDATION, AND IS NOT ABLE TO FINISH IT, ALL THAT BEHOLD IT BEGIN TO MOCK HIM; SAYING, “THIS MAN BEGAN TO BUILD, AND WAS NOT ABLE TO FINISH! ”»- Luke 14: 28-30. After listening to the former statement, there's no doubt that Jesus disciples felt themselves assured that their master would be wiser than the laughable man he had made reference to, and would have indeed complete [at once] “the towering mission” of fulfilling the messianic promises made by the Hebrew scriptures [something Jesus in the end failed to complete, as he never restored back the kingdom to Israel].
In short, Jesus behaviour was that of the person who earns your trust by giving you a bunch of noble and wonderful advises; but then goes on to do the exact opposite! For example, Jesus would encourage his disciples not to resist evil doers, but instead “offer them the other cheek” (Luke 6: 29). But, when confronted with the same situation, Jesus himself would resist the evildoer, and would abstain from offering him the other cheek (John 18: 22-23).
And something similar happened with prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him); who would encourage his followers to control their sexual appetites [by not having more than four wives], but would himself proceed to marry up to nine different wives. Muhammad would ask his followers to write their last will; but he himself would die without ever writing his own last will.
What was the goal of this contradictory [but shrewd] behaviour? It was none other than to “emotionally paralyze” their audience; as the humble believer is often unable to separate a glorious shining message, from it's faulty and shady messenger. And, even if he is smart enough to do the latter, he often finds himself unable to rally the emotional strength required to effectively oppose the messenger's questionable behaviour, without the guilt of feeling that, by so doing, he's also opposing the glorious message he has come to cherish (and admire).
The former emotional trick, is the one displayed when a venerated [male] school teacher touches the private parts of a young [and naive] female student, in order to teach her “what parts of her body no one should be able to touch”. As the teacher has giving her a good piece of advice; the girl feels unable to challenge the teacher's questionable behaviour, so that she ends up dismissing it, and finding a means to rationalize the otherwise improper behaviour [thereby clearing the teacher from any perceived fault].
And this is how Islam explains away prophet Muhammad's multiple faults: by claiming that they were no faults at all, but were rather “special privileges” conferred to him by God (the “special privilege” of having more than four wives; the “special privilege” of not having to write a last will; the “special privilege” to marry his son's former wife, etc). Does this means that Islam and Christianity are false religions? Not at all! It simply means that, although the holy ark used in God's temple was made out of pure gold [and was therefore nonperishable], it's inner core was made out of wood [and was therefore perishable and corruptible].
It means that, although we are expected to drink the sweet wine of God's holy message, the Creator doesn't expects us to swallow the clay cup from which the wine is being poured. In conclusion, a wise believer is he who isn't limited to a " black and white" [all or nothing] view of God's revelation. It is he who learns from everybody; accepting all that is holy, just, merciful, and humble [no matter if the latter comes from Judaism, from Islam, or from Christianity], and rejecting all that is morally shady, unjust, cruel, envious, selfish, or boastful [no matter if the latter comes from Judaism, from Christianity, or from Islam].

El creyente debe tener mucho cuidado de no hacer un fetiche de la tierra de Israel. Es que Jerusalé n es una ciudad Santa solamente cuando sus habitantes viven en santidad. De lo contrario, es una Sodoma espiritual, llena de injusticia y opresió n. Como bien dicen los escritos cristianos: " Y sus cadá veres estará n en la plaza de la grande ciudad (Jerusalé n), que en sentido espiritual se llama Sodoma y Egipto, donde tambié n nuestro Señ or fue crucificado" - Apocalipsis 11: 8