Israel’s May 14, 1948, Declaration of Independence provides for “complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race or sex” and urges “the Arab inhabitants of the State of Israel to preserve peace and participate in the upbuilding of the State on the basis of full and equal citizenship.”
Why isn’t it, though? Why, also, should it be “giving legal standing”? Doesn’t it have that already? Doesn’t the signature of Former PM ben-Gurion (z”l) count more than his infamous and namesake mistake? His, after all, was the Yisra’eli equivalent of the Anglo-American signature of John Hancock or Thomas Jefferson∗.
As far as the “Declaration” itself, wasn’t it given legal standing like its American equivalent was from the moment that it was announced and implemented?
The same went for its American equivalent and its English equivalent. Interestingly enough, the “Magna Carta” (the English equivalent) was amended, revised, and edited throughout time. Its main principles nonetheless apply to this. As for the “Declaration of Independence” (the American equivalent), that was enough even when the American states functioned as separate states (as EU states function, as opposed to the province-like states that the United States states became). The United States Constitution came only after the Shays Rebellion of 1787.
By the way, please understand that I am not giving (or at least trying to give) PM Netanyahu and Agudat Yisra’el ideas; and I’m not encouraging a revolution (See Mishlei 24:21-22.). All I’m saying is that the “Declaration of Establishment” should suffice for Medinat Yisra’el as much as, and even moreso than, the “Declaration of Independence” did for the United States of America and the “Magna Carta” has for England (The “even moreso than” part means that the “Declaration of Establishment” is fine as it is, unamended, unrevised, and unedited.).
“It is a document in proof that I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus, very different from the Platonists, who call me infidel and themselves Christians.” In a separate letter, he asserted again the authenticity of his faith: “I am a Christian, in the only sense he wished any one to be; sincerely attached to his doctrines, in preference to all others; ascribing to himself every human excellence; & believing he never claimed any other.”
“So Jefferson set out to create a Bible as he thought Jesus would have wanted it. This meant pulling “diamonds” (the wisdom of Jesus) from the “dunghill” (the conglomeration of lies and fiction that made up the rest of the bible). Poor Jesus, he said, has for centuries “been inveloped by Jugglers to make money of him” who have “dressed up in the rags of an Imposter.” Jefferson’s task was to remove the artifice to reveal that “a more precious morsel of ethics was never seen.” In 1803, Jefferson created a “syllabus” outlining the key points about Jesus’ story and teachings.
In other words, Thomas Jefferson probably held a view that could basically be articulated as “I’m Jewish; thus, I can’t believe in Jesus on Paul’s terms if I’m going to believe in Jesus at all.”
This is actually (as I have to point out for especially gentiles who don’t know that Thomas Jefferson’s view is in fact) a common Jewish view. For instance, the view that Jesus was “inveloped by Jugglers to make money of him” and “dressed up in the rags of an Imposter” is held in both Normative and Pseudo-Nazarene Jewish circles. One articulation of that view reads as follows:
Paul’s shrewdness was to retain the parts of Judaism that appealed to the Roman World and the close connection to the Bible, while dropping the “objectionable” components.
Paul preached that belief in Jesus replaced the laws of the Torah ― that is, all the commandments that the Romans who were attracted to Judaism found so cumbersome. By converting to Christianity, a Roman was able to subscribe to the Jewish view of one loving God, as well as to the Torah’s moral vision of peace, justice, and love of one’s neighbor. A Roman could subscribe to these ideas without having to become “different” in the way Jews were “different.”
Thus Paul removed the barriers and opened the floodgates…
Needless to say, observant Jews objected to Paul, a Jew whom they saw as the worst kind of heretic. Indeed, because of Jewish complaints against him, Paul was arrested by the Roman authorities, held for a time under house arrest, and finally executed in or around 67 CE (the year of the start of the Great Revolt against Rome in Israel.)….
After the death of Paul, Christianity continued to evolve and grow. Many controversies arose as the new religion struggled to develop its core theology….
Suffice it to say that it took some 300 years for the early Christian Church to get down its core dogma, which turned out to be a synthesis of Jewish ideas, Greek ideas and other pagan ideas. With the growth of Christianity came stiff resistance from official Rome ― the new religion was catching on too well and threatening the state religion and therefore stability of the state. Christianity was outlawed in Rome and those who were caught practicing it were regularly crucified or fed to the lions in the Coliseum.
A student who spends years with a teacher can NEVER be like someone who only met the teacher once.
True students would know the spirit of the message and not add personal ideas into the teachings.
Paul added much and Constantine added even more polytheistic ideas into what we now call Christianity.
I myself wonder what they make of Paul’s defense. They must call Paul a liar, I guess. So, how do the Pseudo Nazarenes believe that the New Testament is inerrant and infallible if they don’t believe what Paul wrote down? At least Normative Non-Nazarene (Non-Messianic) Jews claim to not belief in Jesus and can honestly believe that “Paul’s shrewdness was to retain the parts of Judaism that appealed to the Roman World and the close connection to the Bible, while dropping the “objectionable” components.”