The Seven Noahide Laws
and the latest anti-Semitism
By Menashe Walsh (Tuesday, March 01, 2011)
Is it possible to make sense of an imminent scenario made presently amongst Messianics and Christians with respect to the seven Noahide Laws and the “New World” order? The imminent scenario would have us take notice that the seven Noahide Laws referred to by the 102nd Congress of the United States of America (March 5, 1991) are just a disguise behind a more sinister plot of the New World Order.
A significant fuss is being made presently amongst Messianics and Christians with respect to the seven Noahide Laws. The seven Noahide Laws being:
- Prohibition of Idolatry
- Prohibition of Murder
- Prohibition of Theft
- Prohibition of Sexual immorality
- Prohibition of Blasphemy
- Prohibition of eating flesh taken from an animal while it is still alive
- Establishment of law courts
The significant fuss comes as a result of the seven Noahide Laws being referenced to the Baylonian Talmud in Sanhedrin 56a with anti-Semitic fervor added in recent times by Elizabeth Dilling Stokes. Elizabeth Dilling Stokes (April 19, 1894 – May 26, 1966) was an American anti-communist and later anti-Semitic social activist, as well as an anti-war campaigner and writer in the 1930s and 1940s. She stood trial for sedition in what is now called the Great Sedition Trial of 1944. Her second husband, Jeremiah Stokes (1877–1954), was a lawyer and author. He published the anti-Semitic; “The Plot Against Christianity” in 1964, which included over 200 pages of photocopies from the Soncino edition of the Talmud, with his wife’s underlines added. Dilling’s assumption is that the Socino’s Sanhedrin 56a refers to Jesus and typically represents a uniform and consistent Rabbinic understanding of Jesus over 2 millenia. Dilling’s confirmed this assumption by her use of the Soncino edition of the Talmud Sanhedrin General Index entry for “Jesus”, where pages 378 of Tractate Sanhedrin, folios 55b-56a, are referenced.
More recently scholar Peter Schaefer concluded that the references in the Talmud WRT Jesus, were not from the early tannaitic period (1st and 2nd centuries) but rather from the 3rd and 4th centuries, during the amoraic period. He asserts that the references in the Babylonian Talmud were “polemical counter narratives that parody the New Testament stories, most notably the story of Jesus’ birth and death” and that the rabbinical authors were familiar with the Gospels (particularly the Gospel of John) in their form as the Diatessaron and the Peshitta, the New Testament of the Syrian Church. Schaefer asserts that the message conveyed by in the Talmud was a “bold and self-confident” assertion of correctness of Judaism, maintaining that “there is no reason to feel ashamed because we rightfully executed a blasphemer and idolater.”. However, not everybody agrees with Schaefer, Jeffrey Rubenstein has argued that the accounts in Chullin and Avodah Zarah reveal an ambivalent relationship between rabbis and Christianity. Scholar Daniel J. Lasker suggests that the Talmudic stories about Jesus are not deliberate, provocative polemics, but instead demonstrate “embryonic” Jewish objections to Christianity which would later “blossom into a full-scale Jewish polemical attack on Christianity [the Toledoth Yeshu]”.
Given the above scholarly background above, is it possible to make sense of an imminent scenario made presently amongst Messianics and Christians with respect to the seven Noahide Laws and the “New World” order? The imminent scenario would have us take notice that the seven Noahide Laws referred to by the 102nd Congress of the United States of America (March 5, 1991) are just a disguise behind a more sinister plot of the New World Order. The disguise is with respect to the moral ethics of the seven Noahide Laws being, “the bedrock of society from the dawn of civilization”– so everybody in the world will go along with the seven Noahide Laws! After all, Murder for example is wrong, right? As such, the seven Noahide Laws when linked with a New Testament eschatology and the anti-Semitic reference to the Talmud above, would at worst have Messianics and Christians being decapitated for keeping the Sabbath, uttering the name of G-d and/ or the name of Jesus/ believing in Jesus. At best, the more compliant Messianics and Christians would receive the ‘mark of the beast’ (Rev 13) in the form of the RFID implantable chip! However, Messianics and Christians who receive the ‘mark of the beast’ along with all the other people who do not follow Jesus are subsequently burnt forever in the lake of fire [Rev 19:20, aka Hell] by G-d!
What is to be made of such sensational and emotive speculation by the Messianics and Christians? An answer may be to read the Jewish Scriptures with an objective in mind which gets back to the essence of what the main issues are before going off on tangent via speculative scenarios. The answer I will leave to you dear reader!!!
Just in case the above has left you wondering what on earth this article is about; it is about a present power struggle between Messianic Judaism and Orthodox Judaisms’ right to interpret and apply these laws. Ultimately it is the slur/ blood libel of some Messianic groups’ insistence that the Jews have teamed up with the Vatican and the New World Order so as to kill/ behead those non-Jews who keep the 7th day sabbath and both non-Jews and Jews who believe in Jesus.
Evil Rabbinic Judaism?
 Peter Schäfer, Jesus in the Talmud, Princeton University Press, 2007. pgs 7-9
 Jeffrey Rubenstein Rabbinic Stories (The Classics of Western Spirituality) New York: The Paulist Press, 2002.
According to Dr. Rubenstein, the account in Sanhedrin 107b recognizes the kinship between Christians and Jews, since Jesus is presented as a disciple of a prominent Rabbi. But it also reflects and speaks to an anxiety fundamental to Rabbinic Judaism. Prior to the destruction of the Temple in 70, Jews were divided into different sects, each promoting different interpretations of the law. Rabbinic Judaism domesticated and internalized conflicts over the law, while vigorously condemning any sectarianism. In other words, rabbis are encouraged to disagree and argue with one another, but these activities must be carefully contained, or else they could lead to a schism. Although this story may not present a historically accurate account of Jesus’ life, it does use a fiction about Jesus to communicate an important truth about the Rabbis. Moreover, Rubenstein sees this story as a rebuke to overly harsh Rabbis. Boyarin suggests that the Rabbis were well aware of Christian views of the Pharisees and that this story acknowledges the Christian belief that Jesus was forgiving and the Pharisees were not (see Mark 2:1-2), while emphasizing forgiveness as a necessary Rabbinic value.
 Lasker, p xxiv: “What does emerge from the material presented by Herford is that even if Christianity was not a fundamental worry of emerging Rabbinic Judaism, basic Jewish objections to this religion, which hundreds of years later would blossom into a full-scale Jewish polemical attack on Christianity [Lasker is referring to the Toledot Yeshu “The History of Jesus”], are already present in embryonic form in Rabbinic literature. Thus, Jesus was the product of adultery between his engaged mother and a man not her husband, not a result of miraculous birth. … God does not have a Son…. One can add to these arguments the Jewish accusations against Christianity and Jesus in the New Testament itself, for instance that if Jesus could not save himself, how could he save others (Matt 27:42).”
by Jim Long author of Riddle of the Exodus
As a Noahide who loves G-d, Torah and the people of Israel, I’m wondering if it isn’t time to stop referring to Judaism as a religion.
Consider how often Judaism is referenced as one of, “the world’s three great religions” and how the words—unchallenged—-promote a kind of relativism that allows true observance of Torah to be lumped into the same category as Christianity and Islam. The West also promotes this idea, they bring the whole of Torah-belief and practice down to their level, especially here here in America where politicians tout the misapplied doctrine of “separation of church and state”. The latter concept reinforces an idea that their is, somehow, a disconnect between the two for any credible nation. In reality, a genuine Torah government would never separate belief and law or faith and everyday life.
Calling Judaism a religion fails to recognize that the Jews constitute a genuine nation, in every sense of the word.
I cannot find any place, in the Torah, where G-d told Avraham Avinu that he would make him the father of a great religion. The promise was always positioned as nationhood. Four-hundred thirty years after that promise was made to the great patriarch, his descendants stood at Mt Sinai and HaShem told the people they would be a nation of priests.
By debating this issue with Christians and engaging in their faulty understanding of what constitutes a Jew, we allow the debate to continue unabated. Their entire argument is couched in spiritual terms that even they don’t understand. They dwell in a world where it’s more important to think and feel a certain way. The Jew has always been taught, in essence, what you do is what you believe. At Har Sinai Israel agreed to first DO and then HEAR.
Saying that one is a Jew should be understood as meaning the exact same thing as saying that one is American, Japanese or any nationality. In fact, when a person converts (another unfortunate term) to Judaism, they become a naturalized citizen of a great and ancient commonwealth still thriving today. The convert is subject to all of the laws of that commonwealth. Just as the children born to a naturalized citizen are automatically considered citizens of their parent’s adopted nation, children born to converts are considered Jewish. Obviously, there are certain things a convert or children of converts cannot do but, again, there are similar statutes in the American constitution. For example, a naturalized American citizen cannot hold certain public offices. This recalls the Torah commandments in respect to the Kohanim.
A Jew can make the same claim as any nation–they have a set of laws covering every aspect of daily life and they have a land in which to practice those laws. However, there is one elegant and amazing difference: Any law that I observe–for example—obeying a traffic sign, does only one thing–it maintains order. But when a Jew keeps a Torah law, even one that might be viewed as the simplest mitzvah—that Jew brings down holiness into the world!
Israel is unique in this way and also unique by virtue of the fact that they are the only nation in history that was created by G-d. What a marvelous thing this is. This idea of nationhood is so elementary, so basic, that it can be seen in the even worst English translations of the Tanakh.
Finally, I would add that being Jew has very little to do with skin color. Keeping in mind that there is a position of leadership firmly established by G-d with the Twelve Tribes and all their attendant rights under Torah Law. On the other hand, there are a myriad of flesh tones and bloodlines who have become a part of this holy nation.
Clearly, there must come a day when, the modern State of Israel will have to grasp the concept of true Jewish nationhood. It will happen only when every Jewish family in the galuth books a ticket and boards a plane for the land that the Creator gave them–eretz Israel.
Most importantly, a genuine Jewish nation will only emerge when the Jews living in eretz Israel demand a Torah government. In the meantime, the debate might take a more instructive turn if the Christian who argues for the merits of becoming a Christian versus being a Jew were simply told, “I’m sorry, you are asking me to betray my nation. I belong to the nation of Israel and what you are asking is treason!”