In the early 1990’s Dr. Michael Brown and Rabbi Tovia Singer debated on the radio. The debate didn’t end well for Rabbi Singer and therefore he never mentions it. You can’t find it anywhere on his website. Now, Dr. Brown makes the debate available on his website. This is a clear testimony to who won the debate. Why would you try to hide it if you had won? Rabbi Singer makes all of his other debates available.
A while back I made a post on why Jews for Judaism needs to shut down. I said that all they do is take donor money and repeat talking points. They don’t produce any new content and live in an echo chamber. At least Rabbi Singer is doing something with his apologetics. He appears regularly on the show Tenak Talk where he answers questions. He does that a few times a month as he lives in Indonesia and presides over this mysterious Jewish community that has questionable origins.
A while back he was asked about his debate with Dr. Michael Brown. He said a bunch of ridiculous stuff and Dr. Brown went online and tore his video to shreds. Make some popcorn and watch.
After this video, Singer’s credibility was close to zero in the eyes of most Christian apologists. He claimed that if Dr. Brown really wanted to debate, why hadn’t he contacted him. Of course, Brown has been trying to do this for two decades. His friends have been trying to contact him over social media but the rabbi won’t have any of it. Rabbi Singer knows very well that he’s simply dodging Brown.
Recently I found on Facebook that Singer just had a debate in Jerusalem. He doesn’t even live in Jerusalem. What is he doing? Also, the debate is with a very minor name in the apologetics community. The debate was with Carlton McDonald. I didn’t even know who that was. I had to look him up. He’s done a bit but he’s not a major player in the slightest. To my knowledge, he has never debated a Jew before.
I think this is the last straw for Rabbi Singer. His last ounce of credibility is gone. He could debate Michael Brown anytime he wants but he doesn’t. Singer is like a schoolyard bully. He goes around picking fights with people he knows he can beat, but when he’s challenged by someone who may pose a threat to him, he runs away, while covering his retreat with a smokescreen of lies. I honestly think that he’s worse than Ahmed Deedat in this regard. After all, they both picked their debate opponents very carefully.
I’ve never been impressed with his arguments. Everything that he says can be refuted in Michael Brown’s five volume series. He hasn’t come any further since the early 90’s. There is a good reason why he hasn’t debated Brown again. He is slick and articulate though like Mohammed Hijab and that’s why he appears to be convincing.
Either way, no credibility remains. I recommend that Muslims halt their obsession with him, especially YouTubers like MuslimByChoice and Yahya Snow since they upload a lot of his videos. It’s their choice I guess but I honestly wonder what they admire in this individual.
One last thing. I mentioned how the other big arm of Jewish apologetics, Jews for Judaism just lives off donations from others while only repeating talking points. I got this in my email late last night:
We find a lot of cross-pollination between the various critics of Christianity.
The anecdote you share of Tovia Singer debating a no-name is reminiscent of the second time that Shabir Ally showed up to a debate where he was advertised as Abu Saffiyah – first-timer Mark Pickering had specifically requested a similarly new Muslim debate opponent but recognized it was Shabir Ally (he wisely refused to continue). FYI the first time this trick was used was against Jay Smith, who was at least an equal level debator. https://www.answering-islam.org/Responses/Shabir-Ally/unfair.htm
Tovia Singer’s avoidance of Michael Brown is reminiscent of the ‘famed debator’ Zakir Naik carefully dodging every challenge and invitation to face an actual seasoned debator. Like the above case, he will only take on inxperienced opponents so he can ‘crush’ them.
Hi Scott,
Interesting, I didn’t know about that thing with Shabir Ally. I’m actually shocked that he would do something like that.
Zakir Naik is a student of Ahmed Deedat so it’s no mystery that he’s doing things like this. Tovia Singer is now on that list. Even Deedat allowed himself to debate Josh McDowell once. That was like the Singer blunder with Brown. Both of them were entertaining to watch. It was nice seeing these two apologists being put in their place. I just wish it would happen again.
God bless,
Allan
Ah yes, the Deedat-McDowell debate was my first introduction to ignorant/sneaky attempts to take a single portion of Scripture (Deedat citing Mark 14:50) as a brickbat… Which is easily refuted by just reading slightly before or after the section (McDowell responding with Mark 14:54).
Debators must be on alert always, as if not addressed, such points will be taken as valid by an unwary or uneducated audience!
If Rabbi Singer is angry, it is at Missionaries who infiltrate the Jewish people to evangelize Jews. I’m angry about it to! Dr. Brown is motivated by his desire to see Jews become apostates. He can’t be wrong and Michael Brown is constantly pushing the limits.
You are right, there are verses in the Tanakh that define the parameters and you’re missing the two most obvious: must be of the seed of David and must be of the Tribe of Judah. For a provable fact, JC was not either one! If these two are not true, none of them are true.
@Leah
“For a provable fact, JC was not either one!”
If you are referring to Yeshua of Nazareth, he most certainly was (and is) a physical descendant of King David. Our Jewish records from the 1st century make this explicitly clear.
Karazuta Mattai (“Matthew”) traces Yeshua’s lineage on his mother, Miriam’s, side all the way back through Shlomo and David Ha’Melek. So let me make this very clear to you: Yeshua of Nazareth is a physical descendant of David (and Solomon) through his mother, Miriam.
But lineage in ancient times also takes into account unusual situations, such a Yibum (levirate marriage). Don’t pretend every family unit was a cookie cutter scenario. Just look at Yehudah and Tamar, Ruth and Boaz. So, Yeshua didn’t have an earthly father, but Yoseph, his step father, was also descended from David (Luqa ch. 3).
I say that Yeshua was a *physical* descendant of David Ha’Melek because, in fact, Mattai ch. 1 makes that explicitly clear, through his mother Miriam. Luqa ch. 3 makes it clear that his stepfather, Yoseph, was also a descendant of David, through Natan.
Now, I have sympathy for you dear Leah because not only do most Jews not understand this, but sadly, most Christians don’t even understand this. But those of us Jews who were privileged to stay in touch with the ancient Jewish version of Yeshua’s writings understand this.
So, on one hand, I’m sorry to have to tell you that you’re wrong again. (Still waiting for that response regarding Dr. Brown and leshon hara. I guess I was right when I predicted that you wouldn’t have an answer).
But on the other hand, I’m happy and excited to share with you great news: I’m not your enemy. I’m all for you. I just think you need to do some homework and reconsider what branch of Judaism to belong to. Hashem is the G-d of truth. He loves you very much, and He wants you to know His Son, Yeshua.
Yehudah
@Paul
Thanks for the response, but with all due respect, you didn’t correct anything. Have a closer look please (and for the sake of others reading, seeking the truth):
#1) The narrative written by the Jew named Mattai (“Matthew”) is in fact a 1st century CE Jewish record which provides Yeshua from Natzeret’s genealogy. It was (and still is) Jewish before Christianity got a hold of it. (You wouldn’t say that the Tanakh isn’t Jewish anymore just because Christians and Muslims, and maybe even other religions also lay claim to it, would you? No, but you wouldn’t read their versions maybe, if you are a Jew.)
It’s the same for me: I’m a Jew, and we still have Jewish (Aramaic) versions of the writings of Yeshua’s followers, and those are what I read. *Jewish* There’s even an Aramaic manuscript of the four Yeshua accounts (“gospels”) dated firmly to 78 CE in the Vatican Library, written by some of his first Jewish disciples. By the way, that alone single-handedly destroys any argument that the four Yeshua accounts weren’t written in the 1st century. Any questions?
#2) According to the most ancient Aramaic version we currently have extant (Pe-shita version), which, just in case you are interested, is hundreds of years earlier than the earliest Talmud manuscripts (and yes, I study Talmud t00), Mattai undoubtedly gives Miriam’s genealogy, and not her husband, Yoseph’s. Here’s a couple points, and you can ask questions if you want.
A) There’s good reason to believe that Mattai wrote his account to Jews, which would have motivated him to demonstrate that Yeshua was the physical seed (“offspring”) of David HaMelek. Mattai’s genealogy mentions David in the very first verse (Mat 1:1), traces the genealogy through Shlomo Ha’Melek (also important), and contains gematria for “14” (the value of David’s name) in Mat 1:17. In short, Mattai was all about showing that Yeshua was a physical descendant of David, which would obviously only be through his mother, Miriam, and not through Yoseph.
Luqa, on the other hand, directly indicates that he is giving Yoseph’s genealogy (Luk 3:23). There is no mistaking this. Luqa traces it through Natan and David (not Shlomo, so the two genealogies *must* be for different people, no questions asked), all the way back to Adam. Luqa isn’t trying to prove that Yeshua is a physical descendant through David, because he is giving Yoseph’s genealogy. But nevertheless, we see that Yoseph was also a descendant of David–not surprising since they were from Natzeret, the city of David.
B) Back to Mattai’s account. In Aramaic Mattai describes the “Yoseph” in Mat 1:16 as Miriam’s גברה, which means “man” (cf. גבר in Hebrew). The word “man” could imply father, husband, or anyone else, and the context of the passage must dictate which one is intended. However, the Yoseph in Mat 1:19 is called בעלה, which (for those who know Hebrew, being similar to Aramaic in this case) means “her husband.”
To repeat: the Yoseph in Mat 1:16 is called Miriam’s “man,” while the Yoseph in Mat 1:19 is “her husband.” They are two different Yoseph’s. The one in Mat 1:16 is her father, or perhaps a yibum / levirate guardian. There are different opinions on this (as in anything in Judaism), but we know for sure that it isn’t her husband because 1) the specific term for husband is used only three verses later in Mat 1:19, and 2) my next point below…
C) Mattai tells us that his genealogy contains three sets of fourteen generations (Mat 1:17). The only way that the names given total three sets of fourteen (and keep in mind, fourteen is the gematria of דוד (David), which I mentioned earlier, showing that Mattai is specifically focused on showing that Yeshua is indeed a physical descendant of David Ha’Melek) is for the Yoseph in Mat 1:16 to be counted as a separate generation from Maryam.
So this is where you are specifically wrong, Paul, when you said “Mary is mentioned there as only being Joseph’s wife, who gave birth to Jesus.” No, she was the descendant of the “Joseph” in Mat 1:16. Count the names and it becomes clear: the only way to count to fourteen, as Mattai says in Mat 1:17, is for Miriam to be a descendant of the Yoseph there. And once again, the Yoseph in Mat 1:19 is called her “husband” in Aramaic, using a different word.
Let’s recap: Mattai wrote to Jews and had a particular motive of showing that Yeshua is a physical descendant of David. That, of course, could only happen through his mother, since there was no human husband. Luqa, on the other hand, plainly indicates in Luk 3:23 that is was giving Yoseph’s genealogy, and since the genealogies are clear for different people, the process of elimination by itself proves that Mattai was giving Miriam’s genealogy.
The Pe-shita version makes this explicitly clear by distinguishing the two different “Yoseph’s.” The Yoseph in Mat 1:16 is Miriam’s father, or again, perhaps there was a situation of yibum, or some reason that Mattai didn’t use the term אולד (“fathered”) there; but bottom line, he was her father / guardian / previous generation, and she *is* being counted as one of the fourteen generations in Mat 1:17.
So there you have it. Mattai gives Miriam’s genealogy. Luqa gives Yoseph’s genealogy. Pretty easy if you are reading the correct (Jewish) version, and you know Hebrew and Aramaic. Now, I know that most Jews have no idea about this, which is why I invited you to ask questions before Paul. If you are also a Jew, I sincerely invite you have a real look at these things.
Oh, and let me chip this in for extra, since I’m getting tired of hearing this same old trope. The claim that Yeshua can’t be a physical descendant of David because he didn’t have a human father is the height of (bad). So, G-d chose to do a miracle and create a human without a physical father. Is that so hard to believe? He already did it before! His name was “Adam.” Even the midrash gives the Messiah some divine, pre-existent attributes (but that’s another point). Are you going to try and tell me that Yeshua was a non-person who literally had no genealogy / lineage just because he didn’t have a human father? Come on. You have to do better than that. I already told you above,
“The Tanakh reveals in D’H (2Chronicles) 2:34-41. There, you have a Jewish man who has no sons, but only a daughter, and yet his genealogy passes through the daughter to the next generation, even though she marries an Egyptian servant, “Jarha.” (And in case you want to quote Rashi to me there, it is a case of “special pleading” with no support whatsoever on Rashi’s part.)”
So guess what: special circumstances *do* happen. Genealogies *can* pass through the mother in certain situations, and Yeshua’s was certainly a special situation. Were you there? Can you disprove the 1st century record of Mattai? (I already know the answer). I’ll take a 1st century record (and actually, 9 writers from the 1st century) over the Talmud, Toldot Yeshu, or whatever Middle Ages stuff you want to pull up. I said earlier, I’m a Jew, and I study the Talmud, but the Talmud can’t even get its story right about Yeshua or when he lived. Figure that one out, Paul (since you asked about rabbinic sources before).
Let’s deal with another point, shall we? For those who claim that “women don’t have ‘seed'” so Yeshua can’t be the “seed” of David. Haven’t you read the Tanakh? Women *do* have seed, if you can read Hebrew. See Gen 3:15 and Gen 24:60.
Shalom,
Yehudah
@Yehudah Oh my, there are some serious problems with you genealogy here. The genealogy of Mary’s husband is not counted because he did not impregnate Mary with her son. The prophecy is clear that he Messiah will be of the biological seed of David through his father. It never happened. You spent a lot of time writing your excessively long post which proves you needed to create a complex narrative to weave it all into the story. It’s a smokescreen to detract from the real narrative. No human daddy means no tribe.
@Leah
Much nicer tone from you here. Thanks for that; but you cited no passage or Hebrew to support your claims. You addressed no challenge posted by me. You simply repeated the same errors as though repeating the same lie over and over makes it true.
Or perhaps, I wonder if someone here thinks they are craftily obscuring the previously unanswered challenges by quickly flinging up content-poor responses, as though internet users aren’t smart enough to go back to the previous posts.
And the “long post = you must be wrong” idea: that’s desperation at its finest. We’ll just see if you bother to get back to me on *one* of the challenges I gave you. But again, I wrote them for others too.
Shalom,
Yehudah
Thanks for your reply, which however is mistaken. First, there is no evidence of any Aramaic “Yeshua accounts or gospels dated firmly to 78 CE” either in the Vatican or anywhere else. The Aramaic versions we do have are translations from the Greek Gospel texts, which are the earliest versions according to scholarly consensus. There is no serious NT scholar who puts the Aramaic Gospels earlier than the Greek ones, or who regards them as being independent of the Greek. Since you admit that the Aramaic accounts of “Yeshua” are concealed in the Vatican and not available to the outside, you have no evidence that they date to 78 CE, because they have not been indpendently researched.
Btw, why do you call Jesus “Yeshua”, rather than say “Joshua”? Does “Joshua” sound too mundane to you?
The NT only knows him as “Iesous”,which transliterates well enoguh to “Jesus”. There is no 1st century evidence of any “Yeshua” messiah. No one bothered to preserve his Hebrew name. In the same way, there is no evidence that anyone preserved his words. All we have is a Greek translation of them – from unknown translator(s). So the greatest man who ever lived doesn’t have a real name and his spoken words are unknown. He left us nothing in writing.
Note also that we do not know who authored the Gospel “according to Matthew”. The Gospel is of course anonymous and almost certainly not written by the apostle Matthew, and there is no documentation from the early Church fathers claiming that apostle Matthew wrote the eponymous Gospel. It would indeed by strange if an apostle did write it, since Matthew copies extensively from Mark (who was not an apostle and not an eyewitness to most of Jesus’ ministry), often verbatim. One would expect a non-eyewitness (Mark) to copy from the eyewitness. Scholarly consensus, including Roman Catholic, is that Mark was the earliest Gospel written.
You wrote: “the Yoseph in Mat 1:16 is called Miriam’s “man,” while the Yoseph in Mat 1:19 is “her husband.” They are two different Yoseph’s. The one in Mat 1:16 is her father, or perhaps a yibum / levirate guardian. ”
No! Matt. 1:16 very clearly has Joseph as the husband of Mary. He is NOT her father. The Greek word for husband there is “aner”, which means husband. It can also mean man, but is never used in the NT or outside it, as far as I know) to mean father. FYI, I provide here a link to Strong’s Concordance, which gives the meaning of “aner” and shows how that Greek word is used throughout the NT (the reference number is G435):
https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/Lexicon/Lexicon.cfm?strongs=G435&t=KJV
“Aner” cannot mean father in that context. If it did, then we would have to conclude that Matthew is very poorly and confusingly written. It certainly isn’t a poorly written or slipshod work. Is it written to stoke confusion, do you think?
You added that Mary is counted as one of the fourteen generations in Mat 1:17. I disagree! I would say that “Christ” in Matt. 1:16 is counted as the 14th generation (so that his father or guardian, Joseph, is the 13th generation from Jeconiah in verse 12). This would follow the same counting procedure as Matt. 1:2-6, where David (the last generation mentioned in that section) is likewise the 14th. And Matt. 1:17 corroborates my analysis by stating that there are fourteen generations from the Exile to the Christ. So Christ is the 14th, making Joseph his father (or guardian and step father) and Mary’s husband.
There’s another problem for claiming that Jesus is of the seed of David, and that is that we DO NOT KNOW Mary’s tribal affiliation. There is no evidence from the NT that she comes from the line of David. So the Gospels present no evidence that Jesus is of the royal line of David.
Yes, women do have “seed” in the Bible, for example (as you said) Genesis 24:60: “And they blessed Rebekah and said to her: “Our sister, may you increase to thousands upon thousands, may your SEED possess the gates of their enemies.”
This confirms that there’s nothing implied that is remarkable, miraculous or messianic in Gen. 3:15: “And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel.”
It’s what we observe every day. Nothing messianic there. Just ordinary.
For the record, I am not a Jew. However, I don’t think my religious background is relevant here.
Excellent post Paul! I’m saving it off to the side in my notes for future reference.
@ Paul Sandberg says: March 16, 2021 at 2:29 pm
PAUL: “First, there is no evidence of any Aramaic “Yeshua accounts or gospels dated firmly to 78 CE” either in the Vatican or anywhere else.”
You mean, “no evidence that I (Paul) know of,” which would have saved you potential embarrassment when I showed you the actual documentation. (It’s never smart to make blanket claims as though you have all knowledge in the universe. It would have been smarter to just demand the evidence, and go from there).
PAUL: “The Aramaic versions we do have are translations from the Greek Gospel texts”
I already told you this isn’t true across the board. But prove it if you have the skills and ability. We’ll deal with the Pe-shita version. Just show me the verse that is translated from any Greek source, and give your explanation.
You speak with such authority, I assume you can actually read Greek and Aramaic?
PAUL: “which are the earliest versions according to scholarly consensus”
“Scholarly consensus” is a relative term. Everybody is entitled to their opinion, of course; but you’re arguing with someone who has actually studied the matter. Just because the Septuagint manuscript(s) are far earlier than any complete Hebrew Tanakh we have (prior, especially, to the discovery of DSS), doesn’t mean that Jews preferred the Septuagint, since we know it is a translation from Hebrew. Same with the Yeshua narratives. They were written in Aramaic first–almost certainly–as the evidence I’ve studied for years shows. Your proof to the contrary, sir?
PAUL: “There is no serious NT scholar who puts the Aramaic Gospels earlier than the Greek ones”
That’s another foot-in-your-mouth statement. But I’m not here to “cast my pearls.” Again, better to demand proof than make a sweeping claim of omniscience.
PAUL: “because they have not been indpendently researched.”
Strike three on this. What if you found out that I not only know of a team of scholars that have the documentation and are in direct communication with the Vatican to “independently research this,” but what if you found out that I’m part of that team? Another foot-in-the-mouth moment.
PAUL: “Btw, why do you call Jesus “Yeshua”, rather than say “Joshua”? Does “Joshua” sound too mundane to you?”
First, his name truly was ישוע (Yeshua). Easy to prove. Mat 1:21 in all versions reads akin to, “And she will give birth to a son, and she will call his name Yeshua, FOR HE WILL SAVE his people from their sins.” That tells you his name was “Yeshua,” since the Hebrew root ישע means “to save.” The purpose of his life was built directly into his name, just as with many other Jews. But in Greek, Ἰησοῦς means absolutely nothing. Besides all the other literary, cultural, and potentially even archaeological evidence that proves his name was “Yeshua.”
As for calling him “Joshua,” why would I do that, given that I know his real name (and again, there is literary and archaeological evidence going back very early). Just *slightly* earlier than 1970, as someone else claimed 🙂 We as Jews know that the G-d of Israel’s name wasn’t really “Je-ho-vah,” so we don’t use that either. And I wouldn’t appreciate someone morphing my name into “Judas.” And I could go on. But yes, I’m glad to see you caught onto the fact that “Jesus” isn’t even a proper translation anyway.
PAUL: “The NT only knows him as “Iesous”
You stand corrected, per the point above. Not to mention that the Pe-shita preserves his original name as ישוע going back to the 300’s or 400’s in earliest extant manuscripts, as I already told someone else who had the nerve to claim that the name didn’t even exist before 1970. At least I got a laugh out of it.
PAUL: “So the greatest man who ever lived”
Glad you think highly of him too 🙂
PAUL: “Note also that we do not know who authored the Gospel “according to Matthew””
True, but so what? I accept the Tanakh, and roughly 20% to 30% of its books don’t tell us who authored them. Not a big deal.
PAUL: “No! Matt. 1:16 very clearly has Joseph as the husband of Mary. He is NOT her father. The Greek word for husband there is “aner”, which means husband.”
Wrong, look it up. The Greek word ἀνήρ simply means “man.” The context then dictates what particular *role/relation* that “man” has. But here again, and no offense, if you bring Christian sources and arguments, I’m not beholden to them, because I’m not a Christian (literally, I don’t practice Christianity).
I’m not putting Christians down, but I’m a practicing Jew in every way. I thus respect Jewish sources, which the Pe-shita fits among, even if it later went into the hands of Christians. If you don’t know the history of it, or have never studied it legitimately, then you are merely puppeting other people’s opinions. That’s fine if you like, but don’t be surprised when someone with firsthand knowledge comes along and disproves you.
PAUL: “I disagree! I would say that “Christ” in Matt. 1:16 is counted as the 14th generation”
Yes, he is the 14th generation, but I don’t know how you’re counting, or what you are counting from. Let me make this clear: from the Pe-shita, here is how we count it, with no double counting or any acrobatics involved.
Set #1 in Mat 1:17 — 1) Avraham 2) Yitzchak 3) Yakov 4) Yehudah 5) Peretz 6) Chetzron 7) Aram 8) Amminadav 9) Nachson 10) Salmon 11) Boaz 12) Oved 13) Yishai 14) David
Set #2 in Mat 1:17 — 15) Shlomo 16) Rechavoam 17) Aviyah 18) Asa 19) Yehoshaphat 20) Yoram 21) Uziyah 22) Yotam 23) Achaz 24) Chizkiyahu 25) Manasheh 26) Amon 27) Yoshiyahu 28) Yeconiyahu
Set #3 in Mat 1:17 — 29) Shealtiel 30) Zerubavel 31) Aviud 32) Eliachim 33) Azor 34) Tzadok 35) Achim 36) Eliud 37) Elazar 38) Mattan 39) Yakov 40) Yoseph 41) Miriam 42) Yeshua
So there you have it, Paul. 42 generations just as Mattai promised in Mat 1:17. And unless you want to argue that Mattai can’t count, or didn’t bother to proofread his narrative (which you obviously can’t prove), then the “40) Yoseph” is the previous generation from Miriam, while Miriam herself is 41), and Yeshua is 42).
Why Mattai chose to use the Aramaic word גברה for this Yoseph in Mat 1:16 is, like countless things throughout Scripture, a matter of conjecture. There are some legitimate ideas about his word choice, but again, I’m not here to try and convince you.
But again, Mattai used בעלה in Mat 1:19, which *always* and *only* means “her husband” (unlike the Greek ἀνήρ, as I corrected you above). The “Yoseph” in Mat 1:16 was the previous generation (father, legal guardian, etc.), while the “Yoseph” in Mat 1:19 was explicitly described as “her husband.” Again, as I just showed above, they can’t be the same person if Mattai is capable of counting to 42. Case closed.
But as I also posted a day ago, Luqa most certainly gives Yoseph (the step father’s) genealogy, and since the two genealogies absolutely positively cannot be for the same person, we could have deduced from the process of elimination alone (besides all this other evidence I’ve shared) that Mattai was giving *Miriam’s* genealogy. Case closed: Yeshua is a physical descendant of both David and Shlomo. Period.
PAUL: “we DO NOT KNOW Mary’s tribal affiliation”
We do now 🙂 See above. Miriam, just like Sheshan’s daughter in DH/1Ch 2:34 ff. passed a legitimate tribal lineage down to the next generation, even though there was no (Israelite -> 1Ch 2:34) husband involved. It can and does happen. (And again, this is an *analogy*. I’m not trying to prove that Sheshan was a son of David.)
PAUL: “This confirms that there’s nothing implied that is remarkable, miraculous or messianic in Gen. 3:15”
Who ever said anything about Ber/Gen 3:15 being messianic? Not me. This does reveal your bias, however, and what you are out to do here.
PAUL: “I don’t think my religious background is relevant here.”
In one sense true, but on the other hand, it does matter what a person considers authoritative, or what their presuppositions are when making claims / arguments. Thanks for being kind to answer me though. Now the next elusive mystery I have to uncover is if “Paul” and “Paul Sandberg” are the same person 🙂
Peace,
Yehudah
@Yehudah:
You have obviously taken a lot of trouble to reply to my reply of 16th March, so I thank you for that. Mesanwhile, I took a little time to research further the Aramaic Peshitta.
It is important to establish whether the Greek Gospels do indeed predate the Peshitta. It remains the scholarly or academic consensus that the Greek manuscripts are the primary source we have, and that the Peshitta is a translation from them (possibly also including Jerome’s Latin vulgate to some extent as a source). I think that Peschitta primacy is very unlikely because its earliest manuscripts appear to date from the 4th or 5th century. By contrast, there are many NT Greek manuscripts (mostly fragmentary Gospels) dating from the 3rd and late 2nd century. Moreover, the form, appearance and idiom of the Peshitta writings are believed to date from several centuries after the 1st century. Interestingly too, there are apparently abundant Greek words maintained in the Peshitta, which are suggestive of a Greek origin.
On writing there was no evidence of NT Aramaic primacy, I meant there was no robust evidence, or evidence beyond conjecture (as far as I know). Good evidence would be expected to start from peer-reviewed journals, so that critics have the opportunity to respond to them. You replied: “You mean, “no evidence that I (Paul) know of,” which would have saved you potential embarrassment when I showed you the actual documentation. (It’s never smart to make blanket claims as though you have all knowledge in the universe. It would have been smarter to just demand the evidence, and go from there).”
I think it would be more prudent that you withhold your insinuation of “embarrassment” unless you can support with robust evidence your EXTRAORDINARY claim that “Yeshua accounts or gospels have been dated firmly to 78 CE”. In the event that you can, then I will be happy to retract openly my counterclaim. Since you made the positive, claim, then it would be normal to put the onus on you to support it. Certainly, I would like to be provided a reference to your evidence. I will be very surprised to find it upheld in academia. But admittedly, I can’t yet be sure.
I want to move on to your analysis of the “fourteen generations” given in Matthew chapter 1. I continue to dismiss your opinion as insubstantial that Mary/Miriam is counted as a generation in Matt.1:16. The Greek text certainly doesn’t support your view that Joseph (Matt. 1: 16) is her father. He is her husband. First, I want to remind you that I wrote that the Greek “aner” (ἀνήρ) can mean husband or man (depending on context), as can the word “man” in some European languages, such as German. Although I don’t have a knowledge of Greek (or Aramaic), I do consult Strong’s Concordance, and can verify how the term is used throughout the NT. IT NEVER MEANS FATHER (in its approximately 44 NT occurrences). I DOUBT IT EVER MEANS FATHER OUTSIDE THE NT EITHER. In Matt. 1:19, the Greek word for husband is “aner”, just as in verse 16 (even though the Aramaic uses different word for “aner” in those verses).
Even if the Aramaic is the primary source (and the Greek merely a translation from it), you would still be far from proving your conjecture. I understand that you rest the strength of your case for Joseph being Mary’s father mainly upon the count of “the 42 generations”. But still with this detail, your case is not clinched and certainly not “closed”. It remains flimsy.
Let’s start with the Aramaic word for “aner” in Matt. 1:16. As you said, it is “גברה”. My research shows that it can mean a male guardian or protector, not specifically a father. Your conjecture is weakened by the fact that the format in verse 16 is different from the format of the preceding verses, which clearly have a particular man as the father of (or having begotten) a particular child. But in the case of Mary in verse 16, that use of words does not recur, so the verbal constancy is broken at that point. It becomes a huge stretch to maintain that Mary is the daughter (the one begotten) of Joseph, in the theme of the preceding verses. Why would the Aramaic imply that Joseph is the “guardian” of Mary if he is actually her father? The answer is simple to me: the author is referring to the time preceding Joseph’s formal marriage to her, when he was engaged and acting as her guardian (not forgetting being the guardian of her developing baby). Verse 18 then contines it to describe the completion of their marriage.
My question to you is: if Joseph is implied as the father of Mary, then why doesn’t the text use the Aramaic “Aba” for him, which is commonly used elsewhere in the Peshitta? Is Mathew really so sloppy as a writer? Why should a basic fact be controversial?
Now about the three sections in Matthew chapter 1 detailing the 14 generations:
You wrote: “so there you have it, Paul. 42 generations just as Mattai promised in Mat 1:17. And unless you want to argue that Mattai can’t count, or didn’t bother to proofread his narrative….”
Your claim about “42 generations” is factually incorrect. Verse 17 has:
“Therefore, there were fourteen generations in all from Abraham to David, fourteen from David to the exile in Babylon, and fourteen from the exile to the Christ”.
Of course, additively they come to 42. But you have a problem right from the start: THERE ARE NOT FOURTEEN GENERATIONS HISTORICALLY BETWEEN THOSE EVENTS, as can easily be verified from the Chronicles and Kings. For example, between David and the exile there are no fewer that SEVENTEEN kings. Matthew misses out Joash, Ahaziah and Amaziah, and there is no rational explanation for the omissions. After the exile to Christ, Matthew missies out at least one generation (e.g. Shealtiel was the grandfather – not the father – of Zerubbabel). Matthew is not producing an accurate (or honest) count of the generations, but indulging in a religious propagandist agenda, intent on achieving a Geratria of 14 by whatever means possible. It is sheer manipulation of historicity, undermining the credibility and reliability of the entire chapter (if not the book). With such looseness and lack of accuracy, it is not clear how to count his given generations from the exile to the Christ, which is the section we are focusing upon. It appears that in this section, double counting cannot be discounted. Matthew writes: that “there were fourteen generations from David to the exile in Babylon.” Now if you take this literally, then David and the Christ are counted as two generations, and this would total 14 generations without counting Mary (I accept that in the previous section of 14 generations, comprising verses 6-11, such double counting is not needed or implied). But Matthew plays so fast and loose with biblical texts, that we cannot be sure if this section is to be counted in precisely the same way as the previous one, particularly if you examine the wording of verse 17 (which I repeat makes no mention of 42 generations). His aim is to achieve 14.
The text of Matthew 1:12-16 does not imply that Mary is a separate generation. It is far more likely that she is named just as the wife of Joseph, and that Matthew is attempting to record Joseph’s genealogy, and not hers (yes, it would contradict Luke, but that does not prove your claim. The Gospels do contradict elsewhere, e.g on the day of Jesus’ crucifixion, which is on Passover eve in John – so that he can be slaughtered like a Passover lamb – and Passover day in the synoptics.
I agree that exceptionally in the Bible the record of generations can pass through the mother, but you will note that in the interesting case of 1 Chron. 2;35 (which you cited) Sheshan’s daughter is not even named, and she bore a son to her Egyptian husband, Jarrha (who was the slave of Sheshan) So the slave husband is named, but the daughter is not, and the son is born to HIM. I mention this to highlight that it would be unusual for Matthew to record Mary’s lineage. If he intended this to be the case, then he would surely indicate it. There is no other way to understand the Greek text except as being Joseph’s genealogy.We must allow the text to speak for itself! If it is about Mary’s, then Matthew is inadequate as a writer. Good writers aren’t so sloppy and imprecise.
I conclude that given Matthew’s religious propagandist agenda, which is evidentially farcical (mildly put), we have no record anywhere that Mary is from the line of David. If any legal authority examined Matthew’s generational claims, they would be rejected as unfounded and not reliable (and not because of a virgin birth), but because he is not recounting history.
Finally, you countered that many of the books of the Tenakh are anonymous (just as Matthew is).
I fully accept this. BUT Jews are not going to tell you that if you don’t have faith in them or in a particular man, you are headed for eternal damnation! The Christian/messianic claim is enormous and exclusive. It is that our eternal destiny – consignment either to heaven or to hell – depends on faith in Jesus and his redeeming blood (nowhere upheld in the Tenakh), as per John 14;6 and 3:16. The evidence should match or be in keeping with the magnitude of the claim.
Yeshua/Joshua/Iesous: There is no substantiated evidence from the first three to four centuries that the Gospel Jesus was called “Yeshua”. His actual name was not preserved by his followers or their descendants. You are basing your claim on Peshitta primacy and on an Aramaic document kept in the Vatican, which you assert dates from the 70s CE.
The root word of “Joshua” is equally “salvation”, so Jesus should no more be called “Yeshua” than “Joshua” or Yehoshua” or any number of other variants. Without a historical record, there is no evidence that he was called by ANY of those. The greatest man is nameless!
In any case, if early Aramaic is like Hebrew, then vowels are not included. I must admit, I’m not sure on that point. As for my name, it is is Paul and Paul Sandberg – the same being.
I thank you for your time, and do not doubt your scholarship. I doubt your conjectures and your impartiality.
Paul Sandberg says:
March 18, 2021 at 5:11 pm
Thanks, Paul. Please see responses below.
***** PAUL *****: “It is important to establish whether the Greek Gospels do indeed predate the Peshitta. It remains the scholarly or academic consensus that the Greek manuscripts are the primary source we have, and that the Peshitta is a translation from them”
***** YEHUDAH *****: You wouldn’t be surprised that I already knew of the “scholarly / academic consensus” before writing my posts here, but as I stated before to you (or let me reiterate here), 1) the majority is often wrong; 2) after studying the matter for years, I’ve yet to see the first real evidence of this “consensus” (though I’ll get to some of your other statements momentarily); 3) we aren’t necessarily dealing with *manuscripts* so much as the source text, or original text. Hopefully I will make this clearer in a moment… 4) You remain invited to disprove me yourself.
***** PAUL *****: “I think that Peschitta primacy is very unlikely because its earliest manuscripts appear to date from the 4th or 5th century. By contrast, there are many NT Greek manuscripts (mostly fragmentary Gospels) dating from the 3rd and late 2nd century.”
***** YEHUDAH *****: First, I never used the phrase “Pe-shitta primacy.” There are subtle distinctions that need to be understood when dealing with this topic, and I’m not a “Pe-shitta primacist.” I gather that you just looked this term up on the internet. I do believe, on the other hand, that the Pe-shitta preserves the most accurate and original witness of Yeshua’s Jewish followers, and that isn’t contradicted by the date of the manuscripts.
The earliest manuscripts that we currently have (but even this is potentially changing soon) of the Pe-shitta are indeed from the 4th or 5th century CE, and the earliest Greek ones are indeed a couple centuries earlier. That’s irrelevant to my point. As I’ll repeat down below, we do have a record of an Aramaic manuscript from 78 CE, and besides, most other factors dictate that at least some portion of the writings would have been in Aramaic first. There’s actually quite a bit of scholarly “consensus” on that.
Again, the date of a particular manuscript is irrelevant. We as Jews read Torah manuscripts that are thousands of years later than when the Torah was originally written; and for the longest time surviving Greek manuscripts were much older than any Hebrew manuscripts in use. And while the Greek versions (primarily the Septuagint) is indeed value for textual criticism, Jews almost universally read the Hebrew and consider it more authoritative (in general). The exact same paradigm applies for the Pe-shitta Aramaic version of Yeshua’s followers’ writings.
Several historical factors indicate that much of it was originally written in Aramaic, and there’s a good contingency of scholars that recognize it. In fact, as I’ll get to momentarily, the Greek manuscripts actually *tell you* that they’re translating from an Aramaic original. The Pe-shitta, while its current manuscripts were recollated in the 3rd or 4th century (big deal, the Torah has been recollated also; read about Ezra), preserves the original Aramaic language, idiom, and so forth remarkably well. The Greek betrays itself as a translation of Aramaic in many areas.
***** PAUL *****: “Moreover, the form, appearance and idiom of the Peshitta writings are believed to date from several centuries after the 1st century.”
***** YEHUDAH *****: I think I addressed this above. Our current manuscripts were indeed recollated, with minor updates to the script (the Torah script has been updated also, ironically into *Aramaic* letters; go read about ‘k’tav Asshuri’), and the 3rd imperfect masculine prefix changed from a “y” to an “n”–a one-letter difference. Other than this, there are some minor updates, but compared to other Jewish literature, this is nothing unusual whatsoever, and it doesn’t imply in the slightest bit that the Pe-shitta was translated from Greek. I’ve still yet to see any evidence for that.
For the third time, I invite you to prove it. I’ve never seen it proven in any book, academic paper, or anything. What you keep repeating here Paul is simply a general *assumption* in the West, but without any good proof. I’ve studied this for years, and have never found any proof for it. And by the way, the scholarly “consensus” you are reading of is very segmented, and not universal anyway. The majority is often wrong. But here, I’ll give you something even more to think about directly below.
***** PAUL *****: “Interestingly too, there are apparently abundant Greek words maintained in the Peshitta, which are suggestive of a Greek origin.”
No, Greek loanwords don’t suggest a Greek origin for the Pe-shitta. Loanwords occur in all languages whenever there is a crossover or mixture of languages. The Greek versions contain many Aramaic words (and *phrases,* which I’ll get to momentarily). The Torah itself contains dozens of Egyptian words, but nobody claims the Torah was translated from Egyptian. Later parts of the Tanakh have Aramaic and Persian loanwords (see Daniel, Ezra, and Esther). The Talmud contains many loanwords also, Greek, Persian, etc. And by the way, where do you think the name “Alexander” become so popular in Judaism, or the words “synagogue,” “Diaspora,” and “Sanhedrin”? This means nothing for the topic of this discussion.
But to the contrary, the Pe-shitta contains no transliterated Greek *phrases*, while the Greek versions contain several transliterated Aramaic phrases (which are preserved intact in the Pe-shitta version). We know from historical factors that Yeshua (and yes, that was his name) and his followers primarily spoke Aramaic, and that his writings originally went out (primarily) to Jews. There’s much that can be said for all of this, and there are indeed nuances.
Additionally, the Greek manuscripts actually tell you that they are translating from Aramaic in numerous places. The Greek manuscripts do this “translating” nearly twice as often as the Pe-shitta version. Why would that be? Probably because the message was originally written in Aramaic, and nobody had to explain in the Pe-shitta what the “meshikha / mashiyach” means, as the Greek versions do (Yoch/Joh 1:41).
And besides all this, Paul, we return to the primary passage at hand: Mat 1:16-19. The very fact that the Pe-shitta uses two different words there, as we’ve been discussion, tells you that it wasn’t following a Greek manuscript. Think it through. I could gives hundreds of examples like this. So again, your “scholarly consensus” with no real support means very little to someone who has researched the matter carefully for himself. I could give numerous more demonstrations that the Pe-shitta wasn’t translated from any Greek known source, but what is the point if you don’t have any evidence to the contrary?
***** PAUL *****: “I think it would be more prudent that you withhold your insinuation of “embarrassment” unless you can support with robust evidence your EXTRAORDINARY claim that “Yeshua accounts or gospels have been dated firmly to 78 CE”.
***** YEHUDAH *****: No; my assertion about your error of being a know-it-all remains totally valid. You should never claim all knowledge when you don’t have it. That’s just good common sense all by itself, with no other factors taken into consideration. And in this particular case, you are indeed wrong about the assertion you made. So my insinuation remains valid.
***** PAUL *****: “In the event that you can, then I will be happy to retract openly my counterclaim. Since you made the positive, claim, then it would be normal to put the onus on you to support it.”
***** YEHUDAH *****: And as I already stated in that previous post, you would have been best to simply demand the evidence–not to claim that no evidence exists anywhere. Maybe you forget that I already acknowledged that I was making big claims, and you would have done well to simply demand the proof?
***** PAUL *****: “Certainly, I would like to be provided a reference to your evidence. I will be very surprised to find it upheld in academia. But admittedly, I can’t yet be sure.”
***** YEHUDAH *****: Start with this reference from Wikipedia: “Although physical evidence has yet to be found, J.S. Assemane[7] in his Bibliotheca stated that a Syriac Gospel dated 78 A.D. was found in Mesopotamia” That simply gives you the main headline, but the references included there are already 100-200 years old. (This record of the 78 CE Aramaic manuscript goes back 250 years, and isn’t something secret; just not well known.)
A research team has built on those references over the last 25 years with updated research, and have since found that there was more than just one eyewitness. That isn’t mentioned in the article. Again, I send you there for the headline. There’s actual correspondence with the Vatican to locate the manuscript going all the way up to late 2020. They acknowledge that it really existed. So I repeat my original assertion: the earliest known manuscript of the Yeshua’s followers’ writings is in Aramaic, and dated all the way back to 78 CE. Pretty awesome. Hopefully we will have it in our hands soon, along with a bunch of other “goodies” the Vatican managed to snatch from us Jews over the ages.
***** PAUL *****: “First, I want to remind you that I wrote that the Greek “aner” (ἀνήρ) can mean husband or man (depending on context), as can the word “man” in some European languages, such as German.
***** YEHUDAH *****: Don’t change your story. I had to correct you when you wrote “‘aner’, which means husband.” That is *incorrect*. “Aner” just means man, and as I said, the context of the passage then dictates the role / relations. But let’s not waste time anymore on this. You are fixated on the Greek text. I’m reading from the Aramaic text, which again, wasn’t translated from Greek, and I believe in general provides the most authoritative, Jewish witness to the writings of Yeshua’s followers. (I’m not suggesting that Greek isn’t Jewish also, as it surely is, but here again there are nuances I don’t need to belabor with you).
You can keep arguing about “aner” all day long. At least get your facts right. If you don’t want to believe me about the Pe-shitta, that’s your choice. I’m simply proclaiming (and you’ve utterly failed to disprove me) that the Pe-shitta reveals quite soundly that Mattai ch. 1 gives Miriam’s genealogy, showing that Yeshua of Nazareth is a physical descendant of both David the King and Shlomo / Solomon.
And as I’ll get to in a moment below, both genealogies show that he is a descendant of David, and even other passages (Gil.(Rev 22:16) make it plain that he is a “descendant of David.” Everything here (Greek-Christian errors or confusion aside) supports what I’ve been proclaiming as a Jewish follower of Yeshua: he is in fact a right descendant of David, and the King Messiah. Fight it all you want, Paul (Leah, and whoever else) but the truth will keep coming through, because Hashem wants His people to know the truth.
***** PAUL *****: “Even if the Aramaic is the primary source (and the Greek merely a translation from it), you would still be far from proving your conjecture… Your conjecture is weakened by the fact that the format in verse 16 is different from the format of the preceding verses, which clearly have a particular man as the father of (or having begotten) a particular child. But in the case of Mary in verse 16, that use of words does not recur, so the verbal constancy is broken at that point.”
***** YEHUDAH *****: It is true that the verbal repetition is broken, but that could be for multiple reasons other than what you assert. I alluded to this earlier when I wrote previously, “… some reason that Mattai didn’t use the term אולד (“fathered”) there.”
The reasons could include that Miriam was the only woman to be counted in the list of generations; and it is very uncommon for women (by name) to be described as “fathered / begotten” in the Tanakh. That by itself could have prompted the change in format, as she is the only woman listed as a generation. As to why Yoseph wasn’t called her “abba,” this is indeed a matter of conjecture (but as I said before, as are *many* things in Judaism). “Gabra” (used in Mat 1:16) can indeed allude to “father” via context (see Mat 7:9). Now, let’s get to the primary evidence for my assertion.
#1) Mattai’s use of גברה (gabrah) in Mat 1:16 only means “her man,” and the context must dictate that relationship. The switch in terminology to בעלה (balah)–“her husband”–in Mat 1:19, when dealing with matters of legality / genealogy, shouldn’t be thought of as a mere synonym variant. While you accuse Mattai of being “sloppy” (I’ll deal with this in a moment), I see Mattai as deliberate; and he thus deliberately referred to Miriam’s father / guardian as גברה (gabrah) while referring to her “husband” with the unmistakable term בעלה (balah).
Incidentally, if you can find the Pe-shitta Aramaic translation of Ruth 2:1, the Pe-shitta version there uses the same word גברא (gabra) as in Mat 1:16 to refer to Boaz as a Naomi’s “kinsman” (redeemer), while Naomi’s husband Elimelech is immediately after called בעלה (balah)–“her husband”–precisely like the “Yoseph” in the Pe-shitta of Mat 1:19. This is just another example of the terms in question being used in close proximity (and for different people), with one referring to “kinsman” and the other to “her husband.”
Again, גברא (gabra) simply means “man,” but can be used in the context of “father” (Mat 7:9), “kinsman” (redeemer) (Ruth 2:1), etc. But בעלה (balah) in Mat 1:19 can *absolutely only* mean “her husband.” I take Mattai’s distinction within the space of these three verses as deliberate, and thus the Yoseph in Mat 1:16 is different than the Yoseph in Mat 1:19; and Mattai thus gives Miriam’s genealogy. (I’ll address your other arguments against this in a moment.) But there’s even stronger evidence for this being the case…
#2) The Yoseph in Mat 1:16 absolutely positively cannot be Miriam’s husband (Yeshua’s “stepfather”) because the Yoseph which was “thought to be Yeshua’s father” (i.e. his “stepfather”) is described in Luq(Luk 3:23) as the son of Heli, Mat’tat, Levi, Melchi, etc. Meanwhile, the Yoseph back in Mat 1:16 is the son of Yakov, Mattan, Elazar, Eliud, etc. The names are literally different all the way back to David, meaning that the Yoseph in Mat 1:16 and the Yoseph in Luq(Luk 3:23) are absolutely, positively two different people. This is a simple logical syllogism.
Premise A): Mattai and Luqa provide genealogies for different people.
Premise B): Luqa provides the genealogy for Yoseph, the stepfather of Yeshua.
Conclusion: Mattai’s genealogy can’t be for Yoseph, the stepfather of Yeshua. (Instead, it is for Yeshua’s mother, Miriam. And hark! Her name is actually mentioned in it, while it’s not mentioned in Luqa’s genealogy.)
Can we beat this dead horse any more? Let’s read: “Now Yeshua was about thirty years old, and he was thought to be the son of Yoseph, the son of Heli” (Luq 3:23). All versions agree on this reading. What other Yoseph could Yeshua be “thought to be the son of”? There is none. Read Mat 1:19-24, Luq(Luk 1:27), Luq(Luk 2:4), Yoch.(Joh 1:45), Yoch.(Joh 6:42). So Luqa is most certainly, undoubtedly (despite much Christian confusion, I grant you) giving the genealogy of Yoseph, the stepfather of Yeshua, and husband of Miriam. There is no Miriam anywhere in that genealogy, plain and simple. And according to simple logic, as I just demonstrated above, that means that Mattai ch. 1 must be giving Miriam’s genealogy.
Add to that the fact that (hark) Miriam’s name is actually mentioned there in Mat 1:16, and add to that the Pe-shitta’s reading of גברא (gabra) in Mat 1:16 versus בעלה (balah) in Mat 1:19, and add to that the fact that Mattai’s counting only works when the Yoseph in Mat 1:16 is the previous generation, and not Miriam’s husband, and you’ve got a very sound conclusion: viz., Mattai gives Miriam’s genealogy, while Luqa gives Yoseph’s (stepfather) genealogy. Let’s get back to that point about counting generations though.
#3) Mattai promises totals of 14, 14, 14 in Mat 1:17. Don’t complicate it. There is no double-counting, and I’m not aware of any other ancient Jewish source which would lend credence to the notion that Mattai was double-counting. No, in order for gematria to work, numbers must actually have set values. “14” doesn’t mean “13” or “15.” It can only mean “14.” There’s no reason to suppose that Mattai, a Jew, was counting any other way.
Besides, if you want to claim that he may have been counting certain generations twice, here’s how you would have to do it (going from the Pe-shitta’s list). Remember what Mattai concludes in Mat 1:17: “from Abraham until David… from David until the exile of Babylon… from the exile of Babylon until the Messiah.” So if you would double-count, then both “David” and “exile of Babylon” must be double-counted. And here’s what that looks like from the Pe-shitta:
1) Avraham 2) Yitzchak 3) Yakov 4) Yehudah 5) Peretz 6) Chetzron 7) Aram 8) Amminadav 9) Nachson 10) Salmon 11) Boaz 12) Oved 13) Yishai 14) David
= 14 TOTAL NAMES IN THIS SET (cf. Mat 1:17)
15) David (DOUBLED) 16) Shlomo 17) Rechavoam 18) Aviyah 19) Asa 20) Yehoshaphat 21) Yoram 22) Uziyah 23) Yotam 24) Achaz 25) Chizkiyahu 26) Manasheh 27) Amon 28) Yoshiyahu 29) Yeconiyahu
= 15 TOTAL NAMES IN THIS SET (cf. Mat 1:17)
30) Yeconiyahu (DOUBLED) 31) Shealtiel 32) Zerubavel 33) Aviud 34) Eliachim 35) Azor 36) Tzadok 37) Achim 38) Eliud 39) Elazar 40) Mattan 41) Yakov 42) Yoseph 43) Miriam 44) Yeshua
= 15 TOTAL NAMES (If Yoseph in Mat 1:16 *isn’t* the husband of Miriam)
= 14 TOTAL NAMES (If Yoseph in Mat 1:16 *is* the husband of Miriam).
So you see, Paul, even if the Yoseph in Mat 1:16 was the husband of Miriam, then you still end up with 14, 15, 14, which contradicts a plain reading of Mat 1:17. Double-counting doesn’t work. And again, while omitting generations (which I’ll get to in a moment) is common in Judaism / Tanakh, counting names twice in a genealogy doesn’t occur in Jewish sources (that I’m aware of).
There’s a principle called Occam’s Razor, and it suggests that the simplest explanation is usually the right one. What is simple and straightforward to a Jewish reader is to count each name only once. And hark: it works perfectly: we get 14, 14, 14 when the Yoseph in Mat 1:16 *isn’t* the husband of Miriam. I therefore refer you to the correct counting in Mattai ch. 1, which I will post here again below for others to see.
1) Avraham 2) Yitzchak 3) Yakov 4) Yehudah 5) Peretz 6) Chetzron 7) Aram 8) Amminadav 9) Nachson 10) Salmon 11) Boaz 12) Oved 13) Yishai 14) David
= 14 TOTAL NAMES IN THIS SET (cf. Mat 1:17)
15) Shlomo 16) Rechavoam 17) Aviyah 18) Asa 19) Yehoshaphat 20) Yoram 21) Uziyah 22) Yotam 23) Achaz 24) Chizkiyahu 25) Manasheh 26) Amon 27) Yoshiyahu 28) Yeconiyahu
= 14 TOTAL NAMES IN THIS SET (cf. Mat 1:17)
29) Shealtiel 30) Zerubavel 31) Aviud 32) Eliachim 33) Azor 34) Tzadok 35) Achim 36) Eliud 37) Elazar 38) Mattan 39) Yakov 40) Yoseph 41) Miriam 42) Yeshua
= 14 TOTAL NAMES IN THIS SET (cf. Mat 1:17)
So I suggest let גברא (gabra) and ἀνὴρ (aner) be the flexible terms that they inherently are. That they don’t explicitly mean “father” is ultimately irrelevant when all these factors above are properly taken into account. A complete non-issue. What isn’t flexible is point #2 above. There’s no getting around that. Mattai is most certainly giving Miriam’s genealogy, if for no other reason, because Luqa is most certainly giving Yoseph’s (stepfather) genealogy. Point #1 and #3 then corroborate this perfectly. Sorry that you and many Christians have been confused. Let the truth now come forth. Abide in the truth and have everlasting life.
#4) Besides the matter of the genealogies in Mattai and Luqa, other passages refer to Yeshua as a descendant of David (and not just “son of David,” which is also common (e.g. ****************), but doesn’t necessarily speak genealogically). I could point you to Luq(Luk 1:32), but primarily let’s talk about Gil.(Rev 22:16). In the latter, Yeshua himself says, “I am the root and the offspring of David, the bright Morning Star.”
The Greek reads there γένος Δαυίδ (“descendant of David”). “Genas” sounds a lot like the word “genealogy” doesn’t it (hint, hint)? The Aramaic concurs on this reading too. So, the resurrected Yeshua, who has been given all authority in heaven and on earth (Mat 28:18), plainly states that he is a “descendant of David.” I’ll take his words, frankly. But for the sake of exhaustiveness, let’s move on to some of your other objections, Paul.
***** PAUL *****: “the author is referring [in Mat 1:16] to the time preceding Joseph’s formal marriage to her, when he was engaged and acting as her guardian (not forgetting being the guardian of her developing baby). Verse 18 then contines it to describe the completion of their marriage.
***** YEHUDAH *****:
Completely wrong. Mat 1:16-23 is *all* prior to the completion of their marriage, and only in Mat 1:24-25 does Yoseph finally “take his wife to himself.” To repeat: everything before Mat 1:24 is the “betrothal” state. Read it again carefully.
***** PAUL *****: “My question to you is: if Joseph is implied as the father of Mary, then why doesn’t the text use the Aramaic “Aba” for him, which is commonly used elsewhere in the Peshitta?”
***** YEHUDAH *****
Already addressed up above (in this same post). There are multiple possibilities for why this may be. In the end analysis, it is really a non-issue. The evidence is conclusive (as I presented it above). Mattai gives Miriam’s genealogy, and Yeshua is thus a physical descendant of both David Ha’Melek and Shlomo.
***** PAUL *****: “Is Mathew really so sloppy as a writer?”
***** YEHUDAH *****: Obviously, that may be your opinion, but it is both subjective and unqualified. When compared to the Tanakh and other Jewish literature, Mattai is not only legitimate and accurate, but frankly, absolutely brilliant. By the way, *many* Jews throughout history have recognized this, from the most highly educated doctors, lawyers, judges, and yes, no less, rabbis of all stripes. Many, when the blinding biases have been removed, recognize Mattai (and the rest of Yeshua’s followers) as what they truly are: inspired writers of Hashem’s Word.
***** PAUL *****: “But you have a problem right from the start: THERE ARE NOT FOURTEEN GENERATIONS HISTORICALLY BETWEEN THOSE EVENTS, as can easily be verified from the Chronicles and Kings. For example, between David and the exile there are no fewer that SEVENTEEN kings. Matthew misses out Joash, Ahaziah and Amaziah…”
***** YEHUDAH *****: Mattai likely omitted them to give us the gematria of 14, 14, 14 (= “David,” “David,” “David”) in Mat 1:17, which is both brilliant from a Jewish perspective, and (in terms of omission of names) quite typical of Tanakh genealogies (which I’ll demonstrate below). But first of all, Mattai technically omitted 13 generations right in the very first verse (Mat 1:1), didn’t you see? “Yeshua the son of Avraham, the son of David” Why not accuse him for jumping from Avraham all the way to David?
No, this is simple “telescoping” to make a point (e.g. Bamid.(Num 13:8) cf. D’H(1Ch 7:20-27)), which as I’ve said multiple times now, is that Yeshua is legitimately the “son / descendant of David.” And as to the omission of specific names, Ezra does the same thing (Ezr 7:1-15 cf. D’H(1Ch 6:3-14)), omitting about six names from the Chronicles list. Nothing unusual about it. There are many things that can be said further from the Tanakh. Can you count the 33 sons and daughters mentioned in Ber/Gen 46:15?
Can you explain the 430 years of Exo 12:40? Can you explain the ages given from Terach to Avraham between Ber/Gen 11:26-32 and Ber/Gen 12:4? Mattai is perfectly at home as a Jew among Jewish literature–viz., the Tanakh itself here.
***** PAUL *****: “religious propagandist agenda, intent on achieving a Geratria of 14 by whatever means possible.”
***** YEHUDAH *****: Make him sound so ruthless, why don’t you. But again, Judaism 101. See answer above.
***** PAUL *****: “But Matthew plays so fast and loose with biblical texts, that we cannot be sure if this section is to be counted in precisely the same way as the previous one, particularly if you examine the wording of verse 17 (which I repeat makes no mention of 42 generations). His aim is to achieve 14.”
***** YEHUDAH *****: I addressed this above. There is no “fast and loose.” The omission of generations is not only found in the Tanakh, but the purpose of doing so in Mattai ch. 1 is quite obvious for any Jew to see. The beautiful gematria speaks for itself. By the way, it’s not as though Mattai was trying to erase or rewrite the Tanakh itself. The Jews still had that, and would have known Yoash, Amatsyahu, Uzziyah, etc. from the genealogy there. I repeat: genealogies (in the Tanakh also) were often written with theological messaging, with only the most important people in mind (or deliberately omitting others). This is called “reading Scripture in its original context”–not buying into anti-missionary hype.
***** PAUL *****: “The text of Matthew 1:12-16 does not imply that Mary is a separate generation. It is far more likely that she is named just as the wife of Joseph, and that Matthew is attempting to record Joseph’s genealogy, and not hers”
***** YEHUDAH *****: You’re going in circles here, Paul. Start from the beginning of this post, and read carefully, unless you’ve finally seen the truth of what I’ve demonstrated. (I’m just addressing your post in chronological order, which is why I’m dealing with you going in circles.)
***** PAUL *****: “Yes, it would contradict Luke, but that does not prove your claim.”
***** YEHUDAH *****: I fully disagree, especially when all the evidence is carefully weighed together. Please return to those points above. They are quite sound.
***** PAUL*****: “The Gospels do contradict elsewhere, e.g on the day of Jesus’ crucifixion, which is on Passover eve in John – so that he can be slaughtered like a Passover lamb – and Passover day in the synoptics.”
***** YEHUDAH *****: No. The four narratives all agree perfectly (if you read them properly) that Yeshua was crucified on the 15th of Abib. There’s no contradiction whatsoever. You seem to be citing a common Christian misunderstanding of Yochanan’s account (specifically Yoch.(Joh 18:28), if I had to guess). The issue is quite simple. The word “Passover” can mean multiple things. Christians (and subsequently anti-missionaries looking for anything to accuse) simply misunderstood/stand the meaning of “Passover” there.
All four narratives (“gospels”) agree perfectly that Yeshua was crucified on the 15th of Abib.
***** PAUL *****: “I agree that exceptionally in the Bible the record of generations can pass through the mother, but you will note that in the interesting case of 1 Chron. 2;35 (which you cited) Sheshan’s daughter is not even named, and she bore a son to her Egyptian husband, Jarrha (who was the slave of Sheshan) So the slave husband is named, but the daughter is not, and the son is born to HIM. I mention this to highlight that it would be unusual for Matthew to record Mary’s lineage. If he intended this to be the case, then he would surely indicate it.”
***** YEHUDAH *****: It’s good that you finally recognize the simple, straightforward implications of 1Ch 2:34 ff., thus refuting once and for all (superfluously, I might add) the “straw man” / “red herring” anti-missionary trope, “But Yeshua can’t be a descendant of David without having a human father!!!”
But your conclusion–“I mention this to highlight that it would be unusual for Matthew to record Mary’s lineage…”–is a complete non sequitur (invalid argument). Don’t miss the forest for the trees. In exceptional circumstances, an Israelite genealogy can indeed pass down to the next generation without a cookie-cutter-everything-nice-and-neat scenario. After all, look at Yehudah (Judah) and Tamar. He had sex with his daughter-in-law, which is totally non-kosher, and that’s where King David (and the Messiah) came from! Stop stumbling over the virgin birth, and accept the reality that it was and is.
***** PAUL *****: “If any legal authority examined Matthew’s generational claims, they would be rejected as unfounded and not reliable (and not because of a virgin birth), but because he is not recounting history.”
***** YEHUDAH *****: Produce said-legal-authority, if you can. I know of *many* legal authorities (both Jewish and Gentile) who recognize Mattai’s genealogy as sterlingly true and legitimate. These kinds of blanket unsupportable claims of yours are getting old.
***** PAUL *****: “Jews are not going to tell you that if you don’t have faith in them or in a particular man, you are headed for eternal damnation!”
***** YEHUDAH *****: You know Judaism so well, I see. These same Jews you speak of, did they happen to tell you that m. Sanhedrin 10a, Rosh Hashanah 17a, Rambam, and other sources condemn Jews to *eternal damnation* for not *believing* in certain doctrines (among other things)?
גון ירבעם בן נבט וחביריו יורדין לגיהנם ונידונין בה לדורי דורות שנאמר (ישעיהו סו, כד) ויצאו וראו בפגרי האנשים הפושעים בי וגו’ גיהנם כלה והן אינן כלין
***** PAUL *****: “The Christian/messianic claim is enormous and exclusive. It is that our…”
***** YEHUDAH *****: With all due respect, Paul, after all the errors you’ve compounded in these posts (just this one alone even), and you’re obvious “religious propagandist agenda” (using your own terms), I kindly request that you abstain from trying to tell us Jews what the Jewish writings of Yeshua’s followers teach. You claim to know (Rabbinic) Judaism (point directly above), and yet you don’t even get that right. (You are clearly just puppeting anti-missionary nonsense, and I dare say that the next point is the bottom of the barrel of it all.)
***** PAUL *****:” Yeshua/Joshua/Iesous: There is no substantiated evidence from the first three to four centuries that the Gospel Jesus was called “Yeshua”.
***** YEHUDAH *****: Wrong. The (currently) oldest explicit mention of Yeshua of Nazareth is in Greek manuscripts from the 200’s to 300’s, with the name “Iesoun/s”. All scholarly sources agree that this was a transliteration of Hebrew/Aramaic ישוע (Yeshua/Yeshoshua/Yeshu) in the Tanakh. That’s airtight. No dispute. No UFO theories. And that right there refutes you, Paul. Oh, but you asked about “Yeshua” specifically?
Mat 1:21 tells us why he received his name: “call his name _______; for he shall save his people from their sins.” That tells us what *language* his name was in: *Hebrew* (and Aramaic spells it the same way). So his given name absolutely / positively wasn’t in Greek, since “Iesoun/s” has no inherent meaning of its own. It is simply a t-r-a-n-s-l-i-t-e-r-a-t-i-o-n from the Hebrew/Aramaic ישוע (Yeshua/Yeshoshua/Yeshu), which means “G-d will save.”
So if you can do something as simple as plug an electric cord into a socket (“Iesoun/s” = ישוע (Yeshua/Yeshoshua/Yeshu)), you’ve now got proof from manuscripts dated 200’s to 300’s that his name was “Yeshua.” And the Aramaic manuscripts we currently have in our hands (again, remember that one that is dated firmly to 78CE; it’s coming soon) are dated not much later. So much for tabloid / UFO theories that the name “Yeshua” was invented in the 1800’s or 1900’s.
Both the Hebrew/Aramaic form and the Greek form, by the way, are inscribed in ossuaries dated to the 1st century (even before 70 CE). Do some real homework before posting nonsense, why don’t you.
Finally, let’s bring this “religious propagandist agenda” of yours into a balanced perspective from a Jewish standpoint, Paul. Tell me, how do you know how to pronounce “Y-*V-*” from the Tanakh? Or what about the name משה (if you can even read that)? Say, what is the oldest historical attestation of his name (hint = “Moses”) compared to when he actually lived (ca. 1,440 BCE)? I’d dare say its faaaaaaar further apart than Yeshua’s name and the earliest sources we currently have.
Don’t you know that the original ancient Hebrew didn’t have vowels. How then do we know how to pronounce any of it? Answer: when you put things in light from a proper, unbiased (= no “religious propagandist agenda”) perspective, you’d see that we have all the certainty in the world regarding the *Messiah’s* name compared to most names / words in the Hebrew Tanakh. (Not, however, that any of this matters, or that I’m speaking negatively about *our* Hebrew Tanakh. It’s just to show you how asinine your claims are here.)
Yehudah
What you “as a Jew” are challenging me (another Jew) to is to find something he said that is lashon hara as you would define it I’m guessing. Making a video to insult a Rabbi doesn’t seem like lashon hara to you? How low does someone need to go before you call it lashon hara? It was 30 years ago, get over it! Enough has been said and it’s not yours to decide! Now go to the myjewishlearning site and read up on lashon hara.
@Leah: You said, “find something he said that is lashon hara as you would define it”
Yes, can you do that? I quoted his opening words verbatim to you in my last post. So, are you able to quote what he said that is lashon hara? (I think I know the answer). And no, go ahead and quote what *you* define as lashon hara. (More on this in a moment).
” Making a video to insult a Rabbi”
Now you yourself have gone beyond the simplest definition of lashon hara because not only does Dr. Brown nowhere claim that his intention is to insult Rabbi Singer, but I’m quite sure (knowing Dr. Brown) that he would disagree with your assessment altogether.
“It was 30 years ago, get over it!”
Are you talking to Dr. Brown here? You can reach him directly. If you understand lashon hara properly, there is potential room for you to express your negative remarks for the sake of a corrective purpose. But as I’m sure you understand, that wouldn’t be what you are doing here.
“it’s not yours to decide!”
Agreed, but interestingly enough it is you who gave your verdict on the matter (and on Dr. Brown’s character, too). I said nothing of the video with Rabbi Singer until responding to your post.
“Now go to the myjewishlearning site and read up on lashon hara.”
I just did, and thank you sincerely for this suggestion. I do enjoy this website from time to time, but usually get my information on halakhic matters from elsewhere. Speaking of which, may I recommend that you read up on hotza’at shem ra and rechilut?
Now Leah, I’m enjoying the opportunity to write to you. I know you probably won’t ever respond with any of Dr. Brown’s actual words here, as I requested above; but I just made the suggestion in the first place because, as a Jew who understands the concept of arevut, I want to give you the opportunity to consider the words you’ve written above, and in your previous posts.
It’s a special relationship we have as klal Yisrael. And if you are interested to learn more about Mashiyach, it would be my privilege to discuss with you. You don’t have to worry about hurting my feelings.
Don’t make me laugh!
His Greek name is “Iesous” and that’s the only name ever recorded in the New Testament. All historians through the ages record his name as Jesus. Why? For two thousand years it is the only name he was known by and now, since 1970, it’s now Yeshua?
The name yeshua is an invention of Hineni Ministries at the World Council of Churches in 1970 as a way to missionize Jews. They held a meeting about how to target us and convert us! They had a big world meeting in Switzerland to “plot” against Jews so they could convert us. The plan they came up was to appeal to us by making “Jesus” less goy and more Jewish by giving him a Hebrew name.
He was born in a city that didn’t exist and given a name that didn’t exist. You keep changing the game to get us in your lair.
Clearly you don’t know the Messianic prophecies. His lineage goes through the father.
2 Sam 7:12 – 16
And when thy days be fulfilled, and thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, I will set up thy seed after thee, which shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish his kingdom. – hint: men have seed, women do not.
Psalm 132:11
The LORD has sworn in truth to David; he will not turn from it; Of the fruit of your body will I set on your throne.
Even if you manipulate it to be the mother, you can’t make him be from the Tribe of Judah through his mother. If you’re Jewish, which I doubt because of your fake Jewish name (who does that?), you know tribe only goes through the father.
Do you really think after 2,000 years we’re going to suddenly change our mind about him? Not after all the Jews who were slain in his name! Not after all the Jews who were forced to convert during the Crusades, Spanish Inquisition, Pogroms and Reformation. Do you you really think our identity means so little that we would not preserve it only to tell you goyim that we realized you’re right about us?
Were you right all those years we endured suffering at your hands? Do you know what Kol Nidre is?
You have a lot to live down.
@Leah: “Do you know what Kol Nidre is?”
Yes, that’s what follows the 40 days of repenting you will need for all that you’ve written on this blog.
Leah, I think it’s time I wrap up this conversation with you, lest you continue to multiply avon / asham to yourself (et supra).
I gladly forgive you for all your slander, Leah; and I do more than that. I bless you in the name of the Messiah of Israel, Yeshua of Nazareth.
I do hope that I’ll have the opportunity to meet you again when you are ready to know Hashem as He really is.
דִּרְשׁוּ יְהוָה בְּהִמָּצְאוֹ קְרָאֻהוּ בִּהְיוֹתוֹ קָרוֹב
Yehudah
Hi Yehudah, the genealogy of Jesus provided in Matthew’s Gospel is from his father’s (presumably, step father’s side, which would be that of Joseph).
There is no indication that Matthew’s is matrilinear. Even if it were matrilinear, then it would be irrelevant, since tribal and royal affiliation are patrilinear.
To be of the seed of David in any relevant sense, patrilinear succession is the only important one.
@Paul
Sorry, Paul, for such a late reply, as I just happened to check back on this website for the first time in 6 months. Obviously, Paul may not read this, but I will post it for the benefit of others. Here are my responses, in line-by-line format for clarity.
PAUL: “… the genealogy of Jesus provided in Matthew’s Gospel is from his father’s (presumably, step father’s side, which would be that of Joseph).”
YEHUDAH: This is incorrect, as I already wrote in this blog months before. Simply search this blog for the phrase “Karazuta Mattai” and you will see my comment where I correct the popular misconception. The good news, Paul, is that if you are a Jew, I will be happy to take you to the earliest Jewish (Aramaic) version that we currently have of Mattai (“Matthew”) and show you why it provides Miriam’s lineage. Bottom line, Mattai ch. 1 records Miriam’s genealogy (not Yoseph’s), and Yeshua is a physical descendant of King David and Solomon through his mother.
PAUL: “Even if it were matrilinear, then it would be irrelevant, since tribal and royal affiliation are patrilinear. To be of the seed of David in any relevant sense, patrilinear succession is the only important one.”
YEHUDAH: Not entirely true, as the Tanakh reveals in D’H (2Chronicles) 2:34-41. There, you have a Jewish man who has no sons, but only a daughter, and yet his genealogy passes through the daughter to the next generation, even though she marries an Egyptian servant, “Jarha.” (And in case you want to quote Rashi to me there, it is a case of “special pleading” with no support whatsoever on Rashi’s part.)
While I agree with you about patrilineal descent from the Tanakh, it only holds true in the vast majority of cases, but there are always exceptions, as a careful study of 2Ch 2:34-41 easily shows. And obviously, the case with Yeshua is unique, since he had no physical father anyway. Very weak argument here, but I invite you to take my challenge and study all I’ve said up above. Feel free to contact me. (I might poke my head back in just to see if you respond.)
PAUL: “Can you please reference and quote a rabbinic source that implies that the “servant” of Isaiah 53 could be Jesus/Yeshua or even a future messiah? I believe you cannot.
Btw, I’m not expecting that you can find in that rabbinic source the name “Yeshua”. That would be asking too much of you.”
YEHUDAH: Paul, let me ask: are you a Jew? I’m just curious. I would be glad to show you rabbinic sources regarding the Messiah in Isa 52-53 (and not only there, but in many other places). But many rabbinic sources ascribe messianic significance to this passage. (The rabbi actually lost a bet to Dr. Michael Brown over that very issue, and technically agreed to become a believer in Yeshua. But Dr. Brown respectfully and understandingly didn’t hold him to his word there.) (This is available in a video online, and it is just one of many places the rabbi has been refuted. And I’ll gladly take any objection to Yeshua you can find, B”H.)
Now, the question of how Yeshua’s name appears in rabbinic sources is a more complex discussion. It really means nothing of importance, because any Rabbinite / rabbinic source that would agree that Yeshua is the Messiah would immediately be expunged from Rabbinite sources. Just ask the thousands of Jews who have recognized him as the Messiah, including chief rabbis and leading Jewish scholars.
There is a post someone wrote here on this blog providing several assumed / presumed allusions to Yeshua in the Talmud. They certainly exist, but the most direct references spell it as “Yeshu” (leaving off the final ayin), whereas many other references use code words, as is common in the Talmud. At any rate, I want to encourage you to give sincere study and consideration to what I’m telling you. If you are a Jew, then B”H, you *stay a Jew,* but Hashem wants you to recognize that He sent the Messiah for you 2,000 years ago, and there are very important considerations with that. It’s good news my brother!
Yehudah (11-22-20)
Yehuda, sorry, but once again I correct you on your alleged lineage of Jesus:
1) There are no Jewish records of the 1st century indicating that he was a physsical descendant of David.
2) Matthew does NOT trace Jesus’s lineage from Mary. The lineage attempted is from Joseph, as Matt. 1:16 makes quite clear (Mary is mentioned there as only being Joseph’s wife, who gave birth to Jesus).
“Our Jewish records from the 1st century make this explicitly clear.”? What records would those be? Is this another conspiracy you Christians have cooked up claiming to have some secret, hidden proof? Wait, don’t tell me, don’t tell me – it’s Rabbi kaduri! ding ding ding!
The Messianic prophecies are clear – the Messiah will be of the biological seed of David from his human, biological father. Tribe only goes through father. This includes the priesthood! Go ask a Rabbi – by this, I mean a “real” Rabbi, not your fake messianic rabbis who don’t have a semikhah.
Are you seriously going to try to pawn off the levirate marriage on me as a way of making Yoske a legitimate messiah? Who do you think you’re fooling, you a Christian, telling me, a Jew, that you have our laws all figured out?
Surely by now you have studied the messianic prophecies. You cannot prove that Jesus fulfilled even one!
@Leah:
“Our Jewish records from the 1st century”:
Yes, Mattai (Levi) the Jew, ca. 60-70 CE. See what I just posted above by searching the phrase “The narrative written by the Jew named Mattai” and that will take you directly there. Ask questions if you are sincere, but in the spirit of Lev 19:17 and the concept of arevut I should tell you again to stop the leshon hara and rechilut. If you are indeed a Jew, then that is my responsibility as a Jew.
Now, (and this is for others who genuinely want to learn or debate–not just Leah), I was to address this interesting claim:
“Don’t make me laugh! His Greek name is “Iesous” and that’s the only name ever recorded in the New Testament… All historians through the ages record his name as Jesus. Why? For two thousand years it is the only name he was known by and now, since 1970, it’s now Yeshua? The name yeshua is an invention of Hineni Ministries at the World Council of Churches in 1970 as a way to missionize Jews.”
Actually, the name “Yeshua” (ישוע) is mentioned 30 times the Tanakh (D’H1 24:11, Ezr 2:2, Nech 3:19, just a few.) Even Yehoshua bin Nun is called “Yeshua” in Nech 8:17. Jews know this of course, since we can read Hebrew… in the Tanakh, which was written a couple years before that Christian council in 1970. But if you were referring to Yeshua of Nazareth in particular, we have his name spelled the exact same way–“Yeshua” (ישוע)–in manuscripts of our Jewish-Aramaic version dating to 300’s and 400’s. There is also archaeological evidence, and other manuscripts we are in the process of obtaining, but not to bore you.
Oh, and can I mention that even 400 CE for a Jewish-Aramaic manuscript (copied from manuscripts in the 1st century, of course) is about 1,000 years earlier than the earliest complete manuscript of the Talmud (Munich). Yes, I read the Talmud too, of course, but just thought I’d share that little tidbit to put things in perspective. And how many complete manuscripts do we have of Yeshua’s disciples versus the Talmud? You don’t want to go there with me.
Next: “The Messianic prophecies are clear”
Do share please. Lay out those “clear” prophecies right here, if you will. Then explain why the rabbis in the Talmud (and other ancient Jewish writings, like hitzunim, DSS, etc.) had numerous ideas and opinions about the Messiah, if the “Messianic prophecies are clear.” So, let’s see those passages from the Tanakh you’re referring to.
Next: “the Messiah will be of the biological seed of David from his human, biological father”
Tell me that verse which speaks of “biological seed” and “biological father”? Or, remind me the Hebrew word for that, if you can. Most Jews (and certainly me) agree that the Messiah would be a “descendant” (זרע) of King David. No argument there, but the word (זרע) simply means “descendant” in that context. It obviously doesn’t mean “sperm” denoting his direct descendant, because–hello–the Messiah wasn’t David’s literal, direct son. So it has to mean “descendant,” and women happen to have a very tiny role in producing “descendants,” the last time I checked. Besides all that, women also have (זרע) “seed” according to the Tanakh. See Ber. 3:15 and 24:60 if you can read the Hebrew.
Next: “Tribe only goes through father.”
Sure, when there *is* a father who bears offspring. What about when there is no (Jewish) father to bear offspring? I already said before on this blog, “D’H (2Chronicles) 2:34-41. There, you have a Jewish man who has no sons, but only a daughter, and yet his genealogy passes through the daughter to the next generation, even though she marries an Egyptian servant, “Jarha.”)
It’s called extenuating circumstances, and it happens quite frequently in real life. There: the Tanakh proves that a genealogy can be passed through the *mother*. Go and study it well. Besides, since Yeshua had no human father, his genealogy would obviously be traced through the mother. Think about it: this whole anti-missionary trope is the height of absurdity (and really hypocrisy, but I’ll save that angle for later).
Are you claiming that Yeshua wouldn’t have had to pay taxes, enroll in a census, or do anything else involving his genealogy / lineage just because he didn’t have a human father. He had to have been enrolled somehow. He had to pay somehow. He had to inherit somehow. His mother Miriam was a physical descendant of David and Shlomo (I covered that in the post before; go and study it carefully). So also was Yeshua. Yeshua said it best about these kinds of nonsensical claims when he said “You strain at a gnat, but swallow a camel.” You make a mountain out of thin air. It’s not rocket science. Just wait until I start asking *you* the real questions, and let’s see just what you really know. (Again, I’m bothering to answer you more for the sake of others, who actually care about knowing the truth.)
Next: “You cannot prove that Jesus fulfilled even one!”
Let’s see you get through what I just responded with above first. Then, if you admit your errors (and tame that tongue), we’ll see about going forward. In the meantime, I hope and pray to G-d that He will open the eyes of some of my Jewish brothers and sisters around here. (Again, I must disclaim that I have no affiliation with this website / blog, and I absolutely do not approve of or support leshon hara, rechilut, and some of the other meshugaas here).
Shalom,
Yehudah
@Yehudah
1) THE Messiah must be a direct descendant of David and Solomon, in the tribe of Judah, in the kingly line through his human biological father Gen 49:10, Num 1:18, II Samuel 7:12-16, I Chronicles 17:11-14, 22:9-10, 28:4-6; 2 Chronicles 13:5, Jeremiah 23:5, 33:17, Jeremiah 22:30,36:30, Psalm 89:35-37.
2) THE Messiah must trace his lineage through his human biological father, back to King David (Isaiah 11:1,10; Jeremiah 23:5; Ezekiel 34:23-24; 37:21-28; Jeremiah 30:7-10; 33:14-16; Hosea 3:4-5). According to Christian theology, Jesus’s father was G-d. Therefore, Jesus’ lineage does not go through his human ‘father’ — Joseph, the husband of Mary.
(Isa 11:1) And there shall come forth a shoot out of the stock of Jesse, and a twig shall grow forth out of his roots.
(Isa 11:10) And in that day there shall be a root of Jesse, which shall stand for an ensign of the people; to it shall the Gentiles seek: and his rest shall be glorious.
(Jer 23:5) Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will raise unto David a righteous Branch, and a King shall reign and prosper, and shall execute judgment and justice in the earth.
2 Sam 7:12 – 16
And when thy days be fulfilled, and thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, I will set up thy seed after thee, which shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish his kingdom.
Psalm 132:11
The LORD has sworn in truth to David; he will not turn from it; Of the fruit of your body will I set on your throne.
Re: one of the challenges. Do you expect me to go back and dig through all of these post to figure out what your one challenge was? I only ever respond to the most current response. No one has time to dig through all of these. If you have a challenge, I must have missed it. You can repeat it here or move on.
I believe the old testament but not necessarily verbatim.
Catholics are creators of a false narrative. They had no right rewriting the old testament and then creating a false ending. Nobody died for you and Jesus is not God. God is a spirit. The midst that is among us. Numbers 11:25, Hosea 9:11. To worship Jesus, you are worshiping the creation, not the creator. It would be like worshiping Adam instead of God.
@ Leah says: March 16, 2021 at 2:18 pm
Before responding to your latest post, let’s catch up on what has already been said. Here is what I’ve refuted from you, Leah, in just the last 48 hours (since you say you don’t have time to go back and read yourself. This should help).
#1) YEHUDAH: “Our Jewish records from the 1st century make this explicitly clear.”? LEAH: What records would those be? Is this another conspiracy…”
No, we Jewish followers of Yeshua really *do* have records that were originally written in the 1st century, though what we read from today are manuscripts from a few centuries later (same as the Talmud, and any other ancient work). So nope, no conspiracy. It’s actually pretty straightforward history, although people with a negative bias against Yeshua will do everything in their power (like sling mud and call names, hint, hint) to avoid recognizing it.
#2) LEAH “The Messianic prophecies are clear – the Messiah will be of the biological seed of David from his human, biological father.”
Wrong; there is no such passage anywhere in the Tanakh which says “the Messiah will be of the biological seed of David from his human, biological father.” And by the way, none of the passages you (finally) posted here say this. Did you even bother to read them? I did. Every single one of them, and very gladly. Maybe you should. No such language as you assert appears in any of them. The closest thing in Tanakh to “biological seed” is the phrase “from your loins,” and that simply describes Solomon being the immediate son of David. It has nothing to do with who the Messiah is, since quite obviously the Messiah wasn’t the immediate son of either David or Solomon. He is a distant descendant, many generations away.
#3) LEAH “Tribe only goes through father. This includes the priesthood!”
Yes, and all Yeshua of Nazareth’s fathers (male ancestors) are direct descendants of David and Solomon, as Mattai ch. 1 makes explicitly clear–27 generations of men including David himself, culminating in Yeshua’s mother Miriam (the 28th generation). Now, simply search the phrase “The narrative written by the Jew named Mattai” on this blog and go see why this is. If you are going to be lazy, why bother posting anything else.
#4) LEAH “…“Iesous” and that’s the only name ever recorded in the New Testament… All historians through the ages record his name as Jesus. Why? For two thousand years it is the only name he was known by…”
I nipped that one in the bud real quick. Besides, let’s take a look at just how flimsy your claim (or the anti-missionaries you quoted) is that the name “Yeshua” was invented in 1970? All I’d have to do is ask my own *parents* who had his name written as “Yeshua” (ישוע) long before 1970. You could have at least “tried” to push it back an extra couple hundred years to obscure the reference. But no, I told you the name “Yeshua” (ישוע) is in the *Hebrew Tanakh* almost 30 times. Yikes.
#5) LEAH ““The Messianic prophecies are clear””
Wrong again, according to the following empirical fact: 1) The word “Messiah” (that is, in the specific sense of what we mean by “Messiah” here) doesn’t appear *anywhere* in the Tanakh. Thus, Messianic prophecies are–by this very demonstrable fact I just stated–a matter of *interpretation*. Yes, there are common threads of interpretation in various groups of Jews, but “clear”–you’d have to define and then prove that.
**** NOW LEAH WE CAN BEGIN WITH YOUR NEWEST POST FROM 03-16-21 ****
#1) LEAH: “1) THE Messiah must be a direct descendant of David and Solomon… Gen 49:10, Num 1:18, II Samuel 7:12-16…”
Yep, we agree.
#2) LEAH: “2) THE Messiah must trace his lineage through his human biological father,”
Again, no verse says “human biological father.” But yes, Yeshua of Nazareth, per Mattai ch. 1, traces his lineage through *27 direct male descendants from David Ha’Melek.* G-d chose to have him born from a virgin. So what. That doesn’t change anything. I’ve already proven (superfluously, by the way, as this isn’t rocket science) that tribal genealogy / identification / inheritance can go through the mother when there is no Israelite male (go study DH1 1Ch 2:34 ff.). By the way; *many* important births in the Tanakh were supernatural.
A) Adam HaRishon didn’t have a “human biological father” and yet Israelite genealogy ultimately goes back to him.
B) Avraham and Sarah gave birth supernaturally at 90-100 years old, and one midrash even says Sarah didn’t even have a *womb* before G-d supernaturally gave her one.
C) Yitzchak had to pray for his wife Rivka because she was barren.
D) One tradition from Parshas Shemot says that every Israelite woman in Egypt gave birth to six children at a time, and that they were all healthy, having no miscarriages.
E) One midrash says that Yocheved (Jochebed) was 130 years old when she gave birth to Moses, and that this was an even bigger miracle than Sarah giving birth at 90 years old.
F) Shimson’s mother was barren until G-d supernaturally opened her womb (Shof/Jdg 13:2).
G) And then, you guessed it: Isa 7:14 has (at least) a secondary application to a supernatural birth (Rashi even mentioned the possibility of a supernatural birth from Isa 7:14; see his commentary there). Even though the passage plainly applies in Achaz’ time (Isa 7:16), it also has a secondary application to Yeshua’s virgin birth (Mat 1:23)). That’s seven (7) examples from the Tanakh or at least rabbinic midrash on the Tanakh, showing that G-d often uses a supernatural birth for major figures.
#3) LEAH: “According to Christian theology…”
Non-starter there, since I’m not a Christian. I only practice Judaism, and give preference to Jewish texts. Quite ironic though that you, who in your previous posts claimed authority to slander me, are now playing the expert in Christianity. And so also with other detractors of Yeshua whose names I will not mention here.
#4) LEAH: “Do you expect me to go back and dig through all of these post to figure out what your one challenge was?”
Read carefully: “one OF THE challenges” (as you even reposted it above)–not “one challenge.” In other words, I wasn’t sending you on some needle-in-a-haystack expedition. I was simply asking you to answer just “one of the challenges” I posed. And for the record… you’ve failed to do it up to this very moment.
Shalom,
Yehudah
Thanks Leah. But you may want to eliminate my copious typos! I often forget to edit before posting.
I also replied yesterday to Yehudah’s question/challenge on Isaiah chapter 53, when he asked me the following: “Then explain why G-d would punish these righteous Jews because of the nations. Can you provide a Torah precedent for that? When Jews are obedient, G-d says that He will bless them.”
To summarise:
If you read Isaiah 53 and Ezekiel chapter 37, you can see that both authors are writing about the same subject – namely the return of the remnant. E.g. compare “cut off” in Is. 53:8 with “we are all cut off” (same Hebrew words also) in Ez. 37:11, and of course the imagery of graves in both passages.
Also note, if you haven’t already, the wording in Zephaniah 13:3 (…” no deceit in his mouth…”) and compare with Isaiah 53: 9 (..”neither was any deceit in his mouth”). Zephaniah is clearly writing about the remnant – and so is Isaiah metaphorically.
This is something that you shouldn’t be posting, it is pure lashon hara. It’s wrong, and brown knows that. This should be dropped.
Why should it be dropped?
People need to know what kind of a weasel this rabbi is.
Here are a few problems with your genealogy.
Matthew does not trace the lineage of Mary. It traces the lineage of Joseph who does not actually count since he did not make Mary pregnant.(Mat 1:16) And 1:16 Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.
In fact, none of the gospels trace Mary’s lineage.
The Levirate marriage only counts if the brother of a deceased man is obliged to marry his brother’s widow. We know this did not happen according to this account.
No cookie cutters were used in the making of this marriage. The narrative is very direct on the account of the pregnancy and marriage.
She was made pregnant before she was married but not her husband.
Mary’s genealogy is not in the birth narrative of the gospels.
Wow, how special you are to be the only one who privileged enough to know the ancient Jewish version of “Yeshua’s writing” which is an amazing feat considering he didn’t write anything!
At the same time you claim to be so privileged as to be privy to this information, you insult all Jews for being too stupid to know it! – You’re pretty good at the lashon hara game.
Lashon Hara is any damaging statement, rumors, harmful facts against a person with the intent of causing embarrassment or degrading them.
Read up on gossip? It’s already happened and it is a type of lashon hara.
Now you can stop playing the “I’m a better Jew than you” game with me. The lines are drawn in the sand: Jews on the right side/messianic Jewish Christians on the left.
@Leah: First, I recommend using the “Reply” button when replying to posts, because your posts have been scattered all over this blog without any connection to the intended recipient.
You might also want to address the person you are responding to, as I have been doing with you. That way, people can follow the conversation. Now, my response to your last email.
“Here are a few problems with your genealogy. Matthew does not trace the lineage of Mary. It traces the lineage of Joseph who does not actually count since he did not make Mary pregnant.(Mat 1:16)”
No; this is what I alluded to in my last post, when I wrote: “Now, I have sympathy for you dear Leah because not only do most Jews not understand this, but sadly, most Christians don’t even understand this [i.e. what I explained in my last post, which contradicts what you wrote above, Leah.]
Leah, you’ve just quoted a Christian Bible. I already told you that most Christians have it wrong, so why did you go and quote a Christian Bible, making the same old mistake?
Now, are you just here to shout at Christianity, or are you actually seeking the truth as Hashem sees it? (Yeshua taught that by the fruit of one’s mouth, you will know their heart, so I’m afraid that I already know the answer based on your posts).
Leah, I have a detailed exposition on Mat 1:16-19 (and the whole chapter), showing that the oldest Jewish version indicates exactly what I wrote in the last post: Mat 1 gives Miriam’s genealogy, and Yeshua is a physical descendant of both King David and Solomon. I actually wrote the response out, but I’m deleting it, because I don’t want to waste good teaching on someone who’s not really interested. If you have a change of heart, I’m more than happy to explain, but it seems that you aren’t interested in the truth.
You accuse me of lashon hara, Leah. So, place here the words that I wrote which are lashon hara. Or are you too busy still looking for Dr. Brown’s words that are lashon hara, as I challenged you to do 4 posts ago? (Still waiting).
By the way, I have a suggestion for all who engage in such debates as this. My idea is that once a person has been refuted on a particular point, the person who has been refuted *must* recognize the refutation and do teshuva (repentance, for those reading here). Otherwise, he / she should not be allowed to continue making claims. Isn’t that a good idea?
Leah, on that note, I want to share an interesting story with you. Did you know that one particular anti-missionary (whose name I will not mention) once challenged Dr. Brown (on live, recorded radio broadcast, which happens to now be available on YouTube); and that Orthodox rabbi (whose name I won’t mention) challenged that if Dr. Brown couldn’t find a rabbinic source which applies Isaiah 53 to Messiah, son of David, that Dr. Brown would have to reject his faith in Yeshua, and become an Orthodox Jew…
Dr. Brown instantly accepted that challenge, and said in return to the rabbi, “But you _____, if I *can* find a rabbinic source showing that Isaiah 53 refers to Messiah, son of David, will you be willing to leave Orthodox Judaism and become a follower of Yeshua?” And the rabbi answered “Yes!”
Guess what happened, Leah? At the end of that broadcast, Dr. Brown brought *four* rabbinic sources to the rabbi who challenged him, showing that several rabbinic interpreters held that Isaiah 53 refers to Messiah, son of David. Not just one, but *four*. But… guess who backed out of that deal when confronted with the undeniable evidence? I’m sure you can guess, Leah.
Now, Dr. Brown never intended, and never would have held this Orthodox rabbi to his misguided words / challenge. Dr. Brown, and the radio host with him, graciously released that rabbi from his own oath. But does that rabbi ever mention that? Hmm…
Now Leah, how about those words of mine that you claim are lashon hara? Or, Dr. Brown’s words? But for anyone else who really wants to know what the oldest Jewish version of Mat 1 reads with regards to Yeshua’s genealogy, it isn’t some secret. My ancestors wrote this 2,000 years ago, and it is well-known within our sect of Judaism.
Anyone who knows history understands that the Gentile Church far overshadowed the Jewish believers in Yeshua with regards to numbers. Also, Rabbinic Judaism became the predominant expression of Judaism (though clearly not correct, at least with regards to the identity of the Messiah).
So against Leah’s slanderous words above, I never claimed to be “the only one privileged…” and so on. But the proper understanding of Mat ch 1 and Yeshua’s genealogy just isn’t well-known in Christianity.
Now, one last response to you, Leah. You said, “The lines are drawn in the sand”
Your lines (and likewise most anti-missionaries) are simply the product of your shooting an arrow at a tree, and then drawing the target around it afterwards. I agree that there are lines between Christianity and Judaism. No doubt. But if you know history (go and study), you will find out that my ancestors remained 100% Jewish (and nothing else), yet followed Yeshua as the Messiah up into the (documented) 400’s CE.
We never disappeared entirely, as some sources from even 1,000 or 1,100 arguably refer to the Nazarenes, but we have clearly always been in the minority. So Leah, your “lines” about Christianity / “Messianic Judaism” have nothing to do with me. I am a Jew, and only a Jew. But I still challenge you to take a deep breath, and search for the truth with all your heart.
Again, it is my job as a Jew to make sure that no Jew misses the proper mark. Are you willing to be a minority (even more than you already are) if it makes Hashem happy? Are you willing to be like Yehoshua and Calev, who stood up against the masses, even when the masses were wrong? Only then will you enter the Promised Land, Leah.
Shalom,
Yehudah
I agree. This was 20 years ago????? Move on.
Re: “what kind of a weasel this rabbi is”
My guess is you say that about every Rabbi and every Jew.
Hi Yehudah,
Can you please reference and quote a rabbinic source that implies that the “servant” of Isaiah 53 could be Jesus/Yeshua or even a future messiah? I believe you cannot.
Btw, I’m not expecting that you can find in that rabbinic source the name “Yeshua”. That would be asking too much of you.
I reiterate that Jesus’genealogy given in both Matthew and Luke is from his father’s (step father’s) side, not his mother’s. The fact that they are self-refuting genelalogies is a problem for Christians. Btw, most Christians claim that _Luke’s_ genealogy is from Mary and Matthew’s from Joseph. You claim the reverse. But it doesn’t matter, since both are supposed to be from the line of Joseph.
Let’s revisit Matthew 2:16: “And Jacob was the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus..” So this clearly indicates that Joseph’s antecedents are being traced, not Mary’s (she is mentioned as his wife). It’s about Joseph, and his father is given as Jacob (whose father was Matthan) – see verses 15 and 16.
YEHUDAH, YOU SAY: Not entirely true, as the Tanakh reveals in D’H (2Chronicles) 2:34-41. There, you have a Jewish man who has no sons, but only a daughter, and yet his genealogy passes through the daughter to the next generation, even though she marries an Egyptian servant, “Jarha.”
Actually, you meant 1 Chronicles 2:34-41.
But it is not relevant, because Jarha (the Egyptian) and his Jewish wife were NOT of the line of David, so they were not of royal lineage. The royal line must pass through David. Their offspring can be regarded as belonging to the tribe of Juda on account of his wife’s father (Sheshan). The father of David was Jesse, whose father was Obed, and of course these names are not associated with the descendants of Jarha and his wife.
We don’t know what tribe Mary hailed from. So we can’t say that Jesus was of the seed of David. Probably he wasn’t. If he had been, I would expect the Gospel to state that Mary was of the Davidic lineage or of the seed of David, so that her virgin birth son could belong to it.
In summary, only Jospeh is given as of the seed of David, but since he had no part in Jesus’ birth, Jesus does not partake of that seed. Mary’s lineage is not documented, and snce the royal seed is patrilinear it wouldn’t be important, which is why the Gospel gives it a miss.
So how can we conclude?
If Matthew traces Mary’s ancestry, as you claim, then the genealogy is a dog’s dinner of confusion and is incoherent, because that is not how it is written. If it is a mess, then it should be thrown out with the garbage as useless, since it doesn’t prove anything.
YEHUDAH: The good news, Paul, is that if you are a Jew, I will be happy to take you to the earliest Jewish (Aramaic) version that we currently have of Mattai (“Matthew”) and show you why it provides Miriam’s lineage.
An Aramaic version of any of the Gospels is just a translation from the Greek. The Greek manuscripts are the earliest we know. So your going to the Aramaic will not be helpful.
Finally, rabbinic sources do not say that the servant in Isaiah 53 is messiah. Are you an expert in the Talmud, or do you just copy and paste out of context quoatations (translations) from rabbinic literature posted by messianics?
Rabbinic literature is MIDRASHIC, not exegetical. The rabbis did not refute the primary meaning of the servant, which is clearly and invariably stated many times in the book of Isaiah as being the nation of Israel, or the righteous remnant of Jews saved from exile and returned to Israel, so always a plurality of people (Jews). Isaiah chapter 53 focuses on the obedient servant, which is the remant of Jews redeemed by God, brought back to Israel, where they will have “seed” (children), and be blessed with long life – neither of which did Jesus have (Isaiah 53: 9). The entire book of Isaiah focuses on this remnant – it the major theme of the book. It is not about a messiah, and the terms “messiah” and “servant” are not associated let alone juxtapossed.
What the rabbis did was to use their imagination to expand on the Talmud and elaborate on meaning. But even then with their midrash, the interpretation still doesn’t get you even close to Jesus as messiah. The rabbis refer IN JEST and IN IRONY to a sinful CONTEMPORARY LEPER as being messiah, and ironically use a verse from Isaiah 53 as pointing to him!
Btw, the servant in Isaiah chapter 53 does not literally die. Verse 8 (“For he was cut off from the land of the living; because of the transgression of my people he was punished.”) is figurative language. “Cut off from the land of the living” is a METAPHOR for Israel’s exile in Assyria or Babylon, i.e. exiled from their lifeline, Israel. It is exactly the same wording used in Ez. 37:11-14, in which the Israelites are described as “cut off” from their land, and God promises to open the “graves” and bring Israel back into its own land (Isaiah refers to those graves in verse 9). Ezekiel and Isaiah are describing the same event, using similar metaphors or figures of speech with the same wording.
If Isaiah had meant that the servant physically died, then he would have stated it in plain language and not imagery. He would have said the servant “died” or was killed/slain, but Isaiah uses poetic imagery to express a metaphoric death, from which the servant recovers on returning to Israel, as prophesied in Ezekiel and all the prophetic books. The same theme of Israel’s salvation/rescue from her enemies and return from exile is picked up in Micah 7:8-10. Micah is talking about the same remnant as isaiah – the remnant that God will save and bring back home. Isaiah is nearly all poetry.
@Paul Sandberg says: December 13, 2020 at 6:22 pm
Hi there Paul, I just responded to your other post a few minutes ago. I hope you will have a look at that when you are able, as I ask you some specific things. I enjoy your discussion, but I’ll let you know I get a bit passionate by the end of this post below. I’m not aware of anything I said wrong, but I do get passionate, so forgive me if I owe it to you.
PAUL SANDBERG
Finally, rabbinic sources do not say that the servant in Isaiah 53 is messiah. Are you an expert in the Talmud, or do you just copy and paste out of context quoatations (translations) from rabbinic literature posted by messianics?
Actually, who are you writing this to, Paul? I (Yehudah) didn’t repost anything here, and I don’t think I even discussed Isaiah 53 on this blog. Maybe you are responding to someone else. Nevertheless, let me say a few things if you don’t mind.
PAUL SANDBERG
Rabbinic literature is MIDRASHIC, not exegetical.
Midrash *is* a form or exegesis. The word “exegesis” means to draw meaning out of a text, and rabbinic literature does this through several middot (rules), methods, and so forth. Midrash is one (or technically, it can be subdivided different ways) of these methods of exegeting a text.
PAUL SANDBERG
The rabbis did not refute the primary meaning of the servant, which is clearly and invariably stated many times in the book of Isaiah as being the nation of Israel,
This is irrelevant. Texts often have multiple meanings. The rabbis also *don’t* refute that many of these texts refer to *the Messiah*, even if they had immediate application to someone else. Look, the whole issue of interpretation and application is a complex one. There are *plenty* of rabbinic sources which apply Isaiah 53 (or some parts of it) to the Messiah, whether they think it *only* applies to the Messiah, *partially* applies to the Messiah, or so forth. At the end of the day, all that really matters is who G-d wants the passage to apply to, and I firmly assert that G-d wants you to understand that it legitimately applies to Yeshua of Nazareth, even if it does apply to someone else also.
PAUL SANDBERG
Isaiah chapter 53 focuses on the obedient servant, which is the remant of Jews redeemed by God
Then explain why G-d would punish these righteous Jews because of the nations. Can you provide a Torah precedent for that? When Jews are obedient, G-d says that He will bless them.
PAUL SANDBERG
The entire book of Isaiah focuses on this remnant… It is not about a messiah
Who on earth are you to say so? I just told you above that *plenty* of rabbinic sources apply Isaiah 53 (or parts of it) to the Messiah in some way, and that doesn’t even take into account the rest of the book! Messianic interpretation is all throughout much of the book of Isaiah. You, sir, claim to know rabbinic literature and what the rabbis think (apparently not understanding what the words “midrash” and “exegesis” mean (see above), and then you claim that the book of Isaiah has nothing to do with the Messiah, when dozens of rabbinic sources say the total opposite.
PAUL SANDBERG
What the rabbis did was to use their imagination to expand on the Talmud
I suggest be careful teaching on “what the rabbis did.” I already pointed out above that you apparently don’t know what “midrash” and “exegesis” mean.
PAUL SANDBERG
But even then with their midrash, the interpretation still doesn’t get you even close to Jesus as messiah.
News flash: I don’t need the talmudic rabbis to “get me close to Yeshua.” I have writings from *9* Jews in the 1st century who were (several of them) eyewitnesses of Yeshua’s life, death, and the aftermath (reality) of his resurrection. You tell me, sir: who does it make more sense to listen to? 9 Jews from the 1st century who walked, talked, watched, listened, and risked their lives to proclaim his resurrection (and many did give their lives for the truth of that reality), or people writing hundreds of years later whose stories about Yeshua can’t even get right when he lived, or who he was.
PAUL SANDBERG
The rabbis refer IN JEST and IN IRONY to a sinful CONTEMPORARY LEPER as being messiah, and ironically use a verse from Isaiah 53 as pointing to him!
You wrote earlier, “or do you just copy and paste out of context quoatations (translations) from rabbinic literature posted by messianics?” (You weren’t writing to me apparently, but I’ll take this opportunity to ask *you*, are *you* just copying and pasting anti-missionary tropes? How about this, let’s read Sanhedrin 98a-99b together in Hebrew / Aramaic, and let’s see you prove this claim above to me.
PAUL SANDBERG
Btw, the servant in Isaiah chapter 53 does not literally die. Verse 8 (“For he was cut off from the land of the living… Isaiah is nearly all poetry.
There you have it; you answered your own dilemna. Isaiah speaks *in poetic terms* of death.
PAUL SANDBERG
Btw, the servant in Isaiah chapter 53 does not literally die. Verse 8 (“For he was cut off from the land of the living; because of the transgression of my people he was punished.”) is figurative language. “Cut off from the land of the living” is a METAPHOR… If Isaiah had meant that the servant physically died, then he would have stated it in plain language and not imagery. He would have said the servant “died” or was killed/slain,”
Try the very next verse (Isa 53:9): ויתן את־רשעים קברו ואת־עשיר במתיו “And he let his *grave* be made with the wicked, and with the [godless] rich at *his death*” (Leeser) There’s your word “death.” But even without this additional clarity, you are wrong to say what Isaiah *should* have said such-and-such. He indeed speaks in poetic terms, as do other biblical writers (and Yeshua himself; see Yoh/Joh 11:11-13), so he can say whatever he wants however he wants. You don’t get to dictate that. The best you can is provide your sources with various interpretations. At the end of the day, the legitimate application to Yeshua is affirmed by the signs, miracles, and wonders he performed, which Hashem performed through him–not the least, of course, was his being raised from the dead, after which he walked, ate, drank, talked, taught, among 500 people for 40 days. Oh, and he then later appeared on the Damascus road to Shaul of Tarsus–a chief persecutor of his followers. Go figure that one out. No one “fooled” Shaul by misquoting a missionary tract to him to get him to believe in Yeshua.
Shalom,
Yehudah
@ Paul Sandberg says: March 16, 2021 at 8:04 pm
Thanks, Paul, for the clarification regarding your name, and thanks for the civil debate. May Hashem lead us all to a perfect understanding of the truth. Now, if you don’t mind, I’d like to disagree with you on some things 🙂
***** PAUL *****: “Finally, rabbinic sources do not say that the servant in Isaiah 53 is messiah.”
***** YEHUDAH *****: In short, very wrong; and interestingly enough, this is the exact claim that caused one particular Orthodox Jewish Rabbi (whose name will remain anonymous here) to have to stick his foot in his mouth when debating a Jewish believer in Yeshua. First Paul, realizing that there are many opinions in Jewish sources, there are unquestionably several rabbinic sources which apply Isaiah 53 (or parts of it) to the Messiah. (I’ll get to your specific claim about Sanhedrin 98b in the next point below).
The targum, Ramban, Abarbanel, Talmud (Sanh. 98b; again see down below), Zohar, Moshe Alshich, and modern sources like Chabad (to name a few) all apply, interpret, or at least *cite* interpretations of the Messiah from Isaiah 53. This is, of course, for the sake of this discussion, outside the *Jewish* writings of Yeshua’s followers, which apply the passage to him in numerous citations. It’s actually possible that the messianic interpretation was the most popular before Rashi’s time, but I make no firm claim on this.
At any rate, you’re starting way behind the game if you would make such a blanket claim as you did above. At least try to dispute the individual source (as you did with Sanhedrin 98b), instead of making a foot-in-the-mouth statement. (By the way, that particular Orthodox Rabbi I mentioned above, actually promised on his own accord (not pressured by anyone else) to become a Jewish believer in Yeshua if someone couldn’t produce any rabbinic sources which applied Isaiah 53 to Davidic Messiah. He had to eat those words big time. Now for your Sanhedrin 98b claim…
***** PAUL *****: … “The rabbis refer IN JEST and IN IRONY to a sinful CONTEMPORARY LEPER as being messiah, and ironically use a verse from Isaiah 53 as pointing to him!”
***** YEHUDAH *****: This is an unsupportable interpretation of b. Sanhedrin 98b, although it’s apparently popular among anti-missionaries / countermissionaries for obvious reasons. Reading the whole sugya (section) in proper context bears the conclusion that the rabbis did indeed apply Isa 53:4 to the Messiah with some degree of serious intent here. Here’s why:
Immediately before the “leper scholar” / Isa 53:4 remark in Sanhedrin 98b, the rabbis were applying various names to the Messiah (“Shiloh,” “Yinnon,” “Haninah,” “Menachem”), and then “leper scholar,” and then later, R. Nachman to follow. While each of these messianic names is clearly a pun (wordplay) on the name of each rabbinic school (R. Shilah -> “Shiloh”; R. Yannai -> “Yinnon”), it is important to understand that the names are *also* based on passages given serious messianic interpretation in various rabbinic sources. Let’s have a look.
“Shiloh” in Ber/Gen 49:10 is messianic (targums and Rashi)
“Yinnon” is messianic Teh/Psa 72:17 (Yalkut Shimoni, repeated in Ein Yaakov and Eicha Rabbah)
“Haninah” is messianic in Yirm.(Jer 16:13) (Eicha Rabbah; same as above)
“Menachem” is messianic in Eich/Lam 1:16 (y. Berachot 2).
So these names above are *not* merely a joke or jest, much less mocking. They are all applied to the Messiah elsewhere with at least some serious interpretive value. That brings us to the next name in the list–“leper scholar”–which is directly connected to Isa 53:4. Unless it could be proven that the entire demeanor of the discussion suddenly changed betwen the former names and this one, then it is simply untenable to claim that “leper scholar” was some mocking joke.
Just as the former names (and by the way, “David” and “Daniel” also follow afterwards in the sugya–clearly not mocking jokes) had serious interpretive value, based on the passages they derived from, so also “leper scholar” -> Isa 53:4 must have some serious interpretive value. That’s what you get when you read the passage in proper context, and without a pre-existing bias.
Besides all this, I already said up above that there are other Jewish sources which also apply Isa 53:4 to the Messiah (in at least some sense, not here debating the messianological implications, which is a separate issue) having nothing to do with the phrase “leper scholar.” For just one example, the Zohar states the following for Shemot 212a:
“In the Garden of Eden there is a palace called “The Palace of the Sons of Sickness.” The Messiah enters this palace and summons every pain and chastisement of Israel. They all come and rest upon him; and had he not taken them upon himself, no man would have been able to bear Israel’s chastisements for the transgressions of the Torah; as it is written [(Yesh/Isaiah 53)], “Surely he has carried our sicknesses.””
Granting that the context of the Zohar pertains primarily to the “pains” and “chastisements” of national exile (but even this could be debated) my point is that the Zohar undoubtedly ascribes Isa 53:4 to the Messiah (not the nation of Israel, or even a remnant) in Zohar Shemot 212a. And again, I briefly named several other rabbinic sources up above, following the fact that the *earlier* Jewish writings–those of Yeshua’s 1st century followers–applied Isaiah 53 to him.
***** PAUL *****: “the servant in Isaiah chapter 53 does not literally die. Verse 8 (“For he was cut off from the land of the living; because of the transgression of my people he was punished.”) is figurative language. “Cut off from the land of the living” is a METAPHOR for Israel’s exile in Assyria or Babylon, i.e. exiled from their lifeline, Israel.”
***** YEHUDAH *****: Perhaps per the targum and Rashi, but without any legitimate exegetical support. The phrase “land of the living” only occurs again in Isa 38:11 in the book of Isaiah, where it most certainly refers to being *killed / dead*. Although the targum (which is totally expansive in these places, and not a true translation) applies it to “Jerusalem, the holy city” in Isa 38:11, every primary ancient textual witness on Isa 38:11 (Masoretic Text, Dead Sea Scrolls, LXX, Peshitta Tanakh) seem to indicate that physical death is referred to. Here’s the JPS 1917: “I said: I shall not see the LORD, even the LORD in the land of the living; I shall behold man no more with the inhabitants of the world.”
See that “in the land of the living” is paralleled with “no more with the inhabitants of the world.” The latter can’t mean merely exiled from Israel / Jerusalem. It must mean *death*. And ironically with regards to the “lamb led to the slaughter” language in Isaiah 53, I find it interesting that the prophet Yirmeyahu refers to himself as a “gentle lamb” whom the wicked Jews wanted to “cut off from the land of living” (Jer 11:19). What can that mean, except *kill*?
Furthermore, Paul, I disagree with your claim that Ezekiel 37 doesn’t describe literal physical death / resurrection, but only uses metaphors for a return from exile. I don’t think so. The chapter begins, “The hand of the Lord came upon me, and carried me out in the spirit of the Lord, and set me down in the midst of the valley, and that was full of bones.” (Yech/Eze 37:1).
Even some rabbinic commentators seem to recognize that “full of bones” refers to literal physical death, and not exile from the Land. Rashi explains, “Our Rabbis said (Sanh. 92b) that they were of the tribe of Ephraim, who left Egypt before the end [of the exile], and the people of Gath who were born in the land slew them, as is stated in (I) Ch (7:20ff.)” And the later commentary, Metzudat David, says the same thing.
They are referring to a midrash which says the Ephraimites were able to escape Egypt before the exodus because they had a high standing in Egypt and special status due to being Yoseph’s descendants. I don’t personally believe this midrash really happened, but it at least shows that Rashi / Metzudat David (or at least citing one interpretation within them) that “full of bones” in Eze 37:1 means *literal physical death*–not mere exile. That would then seem to imply that the resurrection imagery was literal in this chapter also.
On top of this, Radak also cited at least one interpretation here saying that the language in the verse is connected to the “gevurot” blessing in Shemonei Esrei, which we pray regularly. And this blessing speaks about physical resurrection from the dead–not mere exile (which incidentally, is the subject of another blessing in Shemonei Esrei). So there are some rabbinic sources which would seem to disagree–at least regarding the meaning of “full of bones” in Eze 37:1. But this is superfluous anyway, because of the next point…
Ezekiel speaks explicitly/ literally of the regathering of exiles in Eze 11:16-17, Eze 20:41-42, Eze 28:25-26, Eze 34:13-14, Eze 36:24, Eze 37:12(b), Eze 37:21, so why should the language “dry bones,” “graves,” “you shall live” be needed as a metaphor for regathering? It’s not. That’s totally unnecessary and redundant. Sure, I’m aware that some of this language occurs elsewhere in Tanakh as a metaphor for something other than literal, physical resurrection (e.g. Ber/Gen 45:27), but that wouldn’t help you here, as I just demonstrated above.
@Yehudim:
You wrote: “First Paul, realizing that there are many opinions in Jewish sources, there are unquestionably several rabbinic sources which apply Isaiah 53 (or parts of it) to the Messiah. (I’ll get to your specific claim about Sanhedrin 98b in the next point below).”
There are indeed a few rabbinic sources which apply Isaiah chapter 53 IN MIDRASH to messiah. The rabbis do not deny the primary or foundational meaning of Isaiah chapter 53, but look for a secondary significance. The servant in the book of Isaiah refers to the Jewish nation (which is the only interpretation given by Isaiah). We must allow the author’s own definition to be the primary application, and anything outside his explanation is conjectural or midrashic. I stand by my earlier premise that MIDRASH and EXEGESIS have two different roles and functions. Isaiah 53 focuses on a faithful and righteous servant. A careful reading of the whole book leads to the understanding that, in context, the servant in chapter 53 is the righteous remnant of Jews saved from perdition in exile, and brought back to Israel. Most of the prophetic writings in the Tenakh relate to this remnant. it is central to all of them, for example, Zeph. 3:13: “The remnant of Israel will do no wrong, they will speak no lies, nor will deceit be found in their mouths.” Note the parallel with Isaiah 53:9.
Obviously, the servant will show parallels with ANY man of God, including messiah, because the metaphor is about a righteous people who are prepared to endure suffering for God’s purpose, just as any man of God does. A man of God will be opposed by the world’s systems. In searching for signs of the messiah to come in the scriptures, the rabbis perceived some such inevitably in Isaiah chapter 53. We can find layered meanings in the books of the Prophets, but we need to be wary of accepting an agenda-driven application. You drew citations from the Talmud, but really this doesn’t present a good case for you, bearing in mind that you don’t put those writings on the same level as scripture, so you are reduced to cherry picking only what serves your agenda. But even then, they are out of context to your argument, and don’t guide us to “Yeshua”. Let’s look at your best example. You wrote:
“the Zohar states the following for Shemot 212a: “In the Garden of Eden there is a palace called “The Palace of the Sons of Sickness. The Messiah enters this palace and summons every pain and chastisement of Israel. They all come and rest upon him; and had he not taken them upon himself, no man would have been able to bear Israel’s chastisements for the transgressions of the Torah; as it is written [(Yesh/Isaiah 53)], “Surely he has carried our sicknesses.””
Granted that the passage seems to speak of vicarious suffering (whereas my argument is that the servant’s described suffering in Isaiah chapter 53 is not substitutionary or vicarious. Rather, the servant suffers BECAUSE OF or FROM the sinfulness of others, without removing their sin).
But your understanding of the Zohar runs into several christological problems:
1) The passage relates the messiah’s suffering to the sins of Israel alone (transgressions of the Torah), not to the world. Yet John 1:29 says that Jesus takes away the sin of the world.
2) The passage does not say that the messiah removes or atones for SIN. He suffers the CONSEQUENCES of the sin of Israel, so that their suffering can be attenuated.
3) The messiah is not a blood or atoning sacrifice. Without this key implication, it fails to be christological. Where is that implied?
4) The sinfulness of Israel includes ALL breaches of the Torah, whereas according to the NT, the Law is now nailed to the cross, and the 613 mitzvot do not require full compliance. For example, Christians or followers of Jesus/Yeshua don’t have to submit to Torah dietary laws, nor are they expected to keep the Sabbath meticulously (Paul says that one day is now equal to another, and it’s futile to think differently, as the Jews do), and they don’t care about wearing clothes made from two or more different fabrics, etc. Christians and messianics don’t circumcise either, or certainly don’t need to (would messianics employ a mohel to do this? Maybe some do, but Paul says circumcision has no value – Galatians). In fact, he mocks it. Btw, as a European, I wouldn’t have any child of mine circumcised. I think that the fact that Christians don’t circumcise their boys (except Americans) is thanks to Paul. But I digress! I am not a Jew.
The Zohar sees the accumulation of the Jews’ Torah transgressions as overdue debt, until it reaches breaking level, and the consequences demand settlement An analogy is parents’ paying the price for their children’s transgressions. The children are not thereby exonerated, and their guilt remains (unless they can put it right and are forgiven). The parents pay for what their children cannot, e.g. a fine.
CAN YOU SHOW ME WHERE RABBINIC LITERATURE DESCRIBES MESSIAH AS A BLOOD SACRIFICE OR ATONING SACRIFICE (KEYWORD: SACRIFICE)? AN ATONING SACRIFICE IMPLIES DEATH.
Note also that the SUFFERING of a blood sacrifice in the Tenakh does NOT atone for sin in any way, or make it more efficacious. Jesus’ agonising death and torture (such as his scourging) does not relate to a blood sacrifice, but breaches biblical protocol on every level. They RULE HIM OUT as a blood sacrifice! The sacrificial victim/animal had to be presented without physical blemish. In any case, his suffering would not serve a purpose as a blood sacrifice or add to its efficacy. Moreover, Roman soldiers cannot offer up a blood sacrifice! Jesus as a blood sacrifice breaches biblical protocol on EVERY LEVEL!
You wrote: “The phrase “land of the living” only occurs again in Isa 38:11 in the book of Isaiah, where it most certainly refers to being *killed / dead*.”
Agreed (it refers to Hezekiah’s near death experience), but the context is completely different in chapter 38 compared to 53. Obviously being cut off from the land of the living could mean dying; otherwise it could have no useful metaphoric meaning either. Its precise meaning may vary according to context.
The fact that the expression is so poetic in a highly poetic passage (Isaiah 53) means we should look for an expansive meaning. And we are given just that in Ez. chapter 37, as I showed. Also consider from the same verse: “Yet it was the Lord’s will to crush him and cause him to suffer, and though the Lord makes his life [or soul] an offering for sin….”
So the servant’s LIFE or SOUL is the offering, NOT his death! There is no atoning/blood sacrifice implied! Being led “like a lamb to the slaughter” is just an expression, and does not mean death. We use it as frequently in English, e.g. “I went before the committee like a lamb to the slaughter”. That doesn’t mean I literally die! And was Jesus SHEARED like a lamb too (Is. 53:7)?! It’s all metaphor or metonymy. It’s all poetry.
Souls don’t die, and they don’t have blood. In other words, the servant is a LIVING SACRIFICE to God by the way he lives his life (Is. 53: 10). He doesn’t die as a sacrifice. His sacrifice is his offering of his life or soul in obedient service to God.
You may offer your life in the same way to God, but without dying for it. It may be harder to live your life as a sacrifice than dying as one.
@Paul Sandberg says: December 13, 2020 at 5:50 pm
Sorry I’m just now seeing this, or I would have (B”H) already responded. By the way, are you the same as the posts from “Paul”? Just would be nice to know if I’m addressing the same person. Here are my responses:
PAUL SANDBERG: I reiterate that Jesus’genealogy given in both Matthew and Luke is from his father’s (step father’s) side, not his mother’s.
No, I just responded to “Paul” about this an hour ago. Kindly search the phrase “The narrative written by the Jew named Mattai” and you should be taken directly to that post. And the fact that Christians are confused or believe something–no disrespect intended to Christians–has nothing to do with me as a Jew who has no part in Christianity, Christian doctrine, Christian versions, Christian translations, etc.
PAUL SANDBERG: “Let’s revisit Matthew 2:16: “And Jacob was the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus..” So this clearly indicates…” Thank you for engaging me on this, by the way, in a sincere and respectful way. But again, please search the phrase “The narrative written by the Jew named Mattai” and you should be taken directly to my most recent post where I correct this misunderstanding from the most ancient Jewish-Aramaic version (Pe-shita–not translated from Greek, contrary to what many Christians have said; but if you want to try and prove it, be my guest.).
PAUL SANDBERG: “Actually, you meant 1 Chronicles 2:34-41.” You are correct, and thanks for clarifying my typo. (Like “Let’s revisit Matthew 2:16” should really have been Mat 1:16).
PAUL SANDBERG: “But it is not relevant, because Jarha (the Egyptian) and his Jewish wife were NOT of the line of David, so they were not of royal lineage.”
You seem to miss the point entirely. I’m not trying to prove that the people in 1Ch 2:34-41 were David’s descendants. I’m simply demonstrating that tribal genealogy and inheritance *can* pass down through a woman in extenuating circumstances, such as this. The analogy is simple: Yeshua of Nazareth had extenuating circumstances in that he had no physical father (a pretty rare thing), and so he received his physical Davidic lineage through his mother. (I mean this really really isn’t rocket science).
So also, Sheshan’s tribal lineage passed down through his daughter (a *woman*) who married a non-Jew (putting Rashi’s interpretation aside as a case of special pleading, in my opinion). So yes, Paul, when you carefully consider my points posted an hour ago about why Mattai (“Matthew) gives *Miriam’s* genealogy and not Yoseph’s, you should understand that Yeshua of Nazareth was indeed a physical descendant of both David and Shlomo through his mother Miriam.
You Paul, and everyone else are pardoned for the misunderstandings because it was served to you from Christians who were confused. Sorry about that, but I have no part in that. I’m here to set the record straight. Jewish believers (and I’m not referring here to the “Messianic Jewish” movement of late, although I won’t to be perfectly clear that I’m not slandering, only making a necessary distinction, as the latter is indeed largely a mixture of Christian elements with Jewish elements) have indeed understood what I’ve explained for 2,000 years.
Yeshua is indeed a physical descendant of David (and Shlomo also) through his mother’s side, according to Mattai ch. 1. I’m happy to answer questions regarding what I posted earlier about this, because I know most people aren’t aware of this. By the way, other passages that proclaim Yeshua of Nazareth is a descendant of David–outside everything we’ve even discussed so far–include Luq 1:32 and Gil/Rev 22:16.
PAUL SANDBERG: “I would expect the Gospel to state that Mary was of the Davidic lineage or of the seed of David, so that her virgin birth son could belong to it.” Your expectation is spot on. Now you have the explanation from me showing that this is precisely the case. Mattai ch. 1 does exactly this thing. (I know I’m being redundant, but the repetition on this point is good.)
PAUL SANDBERG: “If it is a mess, then it should be thrown out with the garbage as useless, since it doesn’t prove anything.” So I’ve now shown that there is no mess at all, although plenty of confusion among Christians–again, not my issue. But I’d like to ask where you are coming from personally. Are you a Jew yourself? I ask for this reason: there are plenty of “messes” that are in the Tanakh (“Old Testament” to Christians). For instance, could you explain the genealogy in Ber./Gen 46:15 to me? This passage says “All the souls of his sons and daughters were thirty three,” but if you count them, there are only 32. In Judaism we don’t just thrown “messy” things out automatically. Have you ever heard the story of the rabbi who reconciled the discrepancies in the book of Ezekiel, and saved it from being excluded from the canon.
PAUL SANDBERG: “An Aramaic version of any of the Gospels is just a translation from the Greek.” Not true at all, although I’m well that this is a popular trope in Western Christian scholarship. I respect Christians, but they can’t tell me the Pe-shita was translated from Greek. (There are some Aramaic versions translated from Greek, and I’m fully aware of that). The Pe-shita shows no signs of this (although Greek language influence is another topic). Happily demonstrate otherwise if you can.
PAUL SANDBERG: “The Greek manuscripts are the earliest we know.” Not entirely true. We have a specific record from the Vatican Library that there is a copy of the four narratives (“gospels” for you if you like) dated firmly to 78 CE. They are in Aramaic, not surprisingly. But you are indeed correct that the earliest extant manuscripts that we’ve been able to get our hands on and study are in Greek. That’s fine. It makes no real difference. It would be like saying that the Targum Ha’shivim (“Septuagint”) is more authoritative than the Masoretic Hebrew text because we have manuscripts of the former from 300 CE while the earliest of the latter are from hundreds of years later. Every Jew knows however that the Hebrew came first, and they don’t flock to the Greek (even though some of us Jews do appreciate Greek). Same with the case of Yeshua’s accounts. We know they were written in Aramaic first, and the earliest known manuscript *is*–as of today–in Aramaic. We just haven’t been able to yank it out of the Vatican yet, but we’re working on it.
Hey Paul, good thoughtful dialogue on your part (unlike some others here, sadly). Really enjoyed this. I’m open for questions. There are indeed nuances to some of the things I’m saying which would require a longer story, but thought it would be good to say this much. Get back to me on that “Paul Sandberg” vs. “Paul” thing, and if you are a Jew, so I know who I’m talking to.
Shalom!
Yehudah
@Yehudah, sorry I usually forget to address you personally. I’m used to Youtube, in which the addressee spontaneously appears. For the record, I am the same person appearing under “Paul” and “Paul Sandberg”.
You asked: “Then explain why G-d would punish these righteous Jews because of the nations. Can you provide a Torah precedent for that? When Jews are obedient, G-d says that He will bless them.”
God punished the Jews for their disobedience. The whole nation came under God’s wrath and punishment. Nevertheless, in keeping with His promise, He saved a remnant from perdition in exile by returning them to their homeland and lifeline, Israel. Isaiah 53 is full of the same deathly imagey we see in Ezekiel chapter 37 (e.g. “I will open your graves, and bring you up from them; I will bring you back to the land of Israel.”).
The subject of Isaiah chapter 53 is a faithful servant, who is a metaphor for the righteous remnant, mentioned in Isaiah 10:20 (and implied earlier in 1:9), and throughout the book of Isaiah – the remnant is a major theme, if not THE major theme of the book of Isaiah:
“In that day, the remnant of Israel, the survivors of the house of Jacob, will no longer rely on him [the king of Asssyria] who struck them down, but will rely truly on the LORD.”
Isaiah 53:11 tells us that the Gentiles will be justified through the knowledge of God brought to them by the servant [the righteous remnant]. Note that their justification does NOT come through faith in the servant or through the redeeming blood of the servant, but through the knowledge that he brings, so there is nothing christological in that verse, or anywhere in Isaiah. The question remains as to how the suffering of the servant fulfils God’s plan to bring divine knowledge to the Gentiles, so that “by his stripes we [the Gentiles] are healed”?
The answer is that the servant’s suffering serves to bring the Gentiles to repentance after acknowledging the unjustifiable harm that they inflicted on the Jews (or the remnant of Jews). Initially, the Gentile kings considered the Jewish nation to be forsaken by God as it collapsed under their assault and persecution. The Gentiles viewed the Jews to be like a plant growing out of “dry ground” (Is.53:1), i.e. with little or no prospects of survival as a people. But when the Gentiles witness the amazing return of the Jews to Israel – against all the odds – then this demonstrates to them that the Jews are blessed by the true God, and the Gentiles were therefore in the wrong and opposing God’s plan as they struck down God’s people, the Jews. This acknowledgement leads the Gentiles to repentance, opening the door for their justification before the true God. So in Isaiah 53:1, it is the Gentile kings (introduced a few lines earlier in chapter 52) who are speaking and acknowledging the name of the LORD. So this is the fulfilment of Is. 53:11: the servant,”who by his knowledge did justify the Righteous One to the many [Gentiles], and their iniquities he did bear [by enduring them]. In summary, the servant does NOT remove or atone for anyone’s inquities, but suffers BECAUSE OF the Gentiles’ sinfulness. In the same way, if I strike you, then you suffer from (or because of) my cruelty/wickedness. But you don’t suffer to atone for it. You don’t suffer vicariously for me. The servant is not an atoning sacrifice but suffers without complaint for God’s purpose, as I tried to explain above. The servant does NOT die in Isaiah chapter 53. On the contrary, he is blesssed with “seed” and long life (Is. 53:10).
The servant is not Jesus, but the remnant.
@ Paul says:
March 21, 2021 at 8:31 am (looks like this is getting posted in the wrong place. I hope you see it though)
Thanks Paul for taking the time to respond. I consider it a privilege to have a discussion with you / others here, and I try to do so respectfully for the sake of Heaven. Hopefully we can all gain something of value from this interchange. That being said, you frustrate me with many errors of various kinds, and baseless know-it-all statements. Let’s see if I can get through this without ruffling any feathers.
***** PAUL *****: “There are indeed a few rabbinic sources which apply Isaiah chapter 53 IN MIDRASH to messiah. The rabbis do not deny the primary or foundational meaning of Isaiah chapter 53, but look for a secondary significance.”
***** YEHUDAH *****: When you make statements like this, claiming to know what the rabbis were thinking and doing, and misusing terminology (see points down below, and my previous response), and yet you yourself admit, Paul, that you don’t have training in the original languages and sources, then I ask myself what the point is of even arguing these statements with you. But on the other hand, I just hate for people to hear lies and falsehood, and so I proceed.
Please 1) learn the meaning of the terms you are using, and use them properly; 2) don’t make blanket statements (which keeps getting you in trouble); 3) don’t claim to know what people were thinking and doing. Simply cite your sources and make logical arguments from them. I grant that you have indeed done the latter on *some* points, but you continue to make many mistakes related to #1, #2, and #3. The readers can discern who has the better arguments.
That being said, your attempted distinction between “primary,” “foundational,” “secondary” meaning(s), is really just a red herring–a non-issue. The concept of the Messiah is inherently one of *interpretation* because the word “Messiah” never even appears in the Tanakh (in this context, I mean). Therefore, by its very nature, all manner of interpretation will be, and have been applied to understand this concept. At the end of the day, what really matters is who has the authority to apply Scripture to certain things.
The rabbinic sages, in at least one passage (b. Bava Metzia 59b / y. Moed Qatan 3), claim that they have more authority than G-d Himself to make decisions, and that they don’t have to listen to His voice from heaven. (Please, I beg you, don’t just go reading anti-missionary websites on this, and regurgitating their attempted defense. I’ve already been through this before. There’s no getting around the implications of this.)
The writings of Yeshua’s followers, and specifically Yeshua himself, on the other hand, support citations from the Tanakh through G-d’s own authority, demonstrated through dozens of miracles, signs, and wonders, including the very same voice of God from heaven which the rabbis rejected in the Talmud (b. Bava Metzia 59b / y. Moed Qatan 3), even when they were confronted with signs and wonders to show them that they were wrong.
Yeshua of Nazareth, on the other hand, performed *countless* miracles, signs, and wonders of all kinds, showing that G-d’s authority and approval was totally with him (just as Moses had done in the Tanakh, by the way–a perfect parallel). And not the least of them was that G-d raised him from the dead, and now he sits at the right hand of God, having all authority in heaven and on earth. (I think I’ll listen to him 🙂
But I digress. I return to your attempted distinction between “primary,” “foundational,” “secondary” meaning(s) of Scripture. It is misguided, misinformed, and unimportant. Since you seem to have a penchant for rabbinic anti-missionary sources, I’ll also point out to you that Rabbinite Judaism adduces support for some of its key doctrines and halachos (laws) from “secondary” meanings of Scripture. Let me give you an example of just how “secondary” I mean.
Support for the Oral Law (and I mean “doctrine of the Oral Law”)… where is this found in the Tanakh? The phrase “Oral Law” never appears explicitly anywhere in the Tanakh. Not once. How then do the rabbis support the doctrine of the Oral Law? Here’s one place: Shem./Exo 34:27 — “And the LORD said to Moses: Write down these commandments, for in accordance with these commandments I make a covenant with you and with Israel.” (JPS 1985).
There it is Paul. Crystal clear. Did you catch that? Maybe I need to explain a little more. In Gittin 60b of the Talmud, Rabbi Yochanan claimed, “God made a covenant with Israel only for the sake of that which was transmitted orally, as it says, For by the mouth of these words I have made a covenant with thee and with Israel” (Soncino).
Catch that? “By the mouth of these words.” The Talmud takes the phrase עַל־פִּי (an figurative expression meaning “according to,” and so translated by virtually all Jewish translations; but literally translates “on the mouth”), and R. Yochanan adduces the concept of “oral” from the word which literally means “mouth.” Then he claims that G-d’s covenant with Israel (a pretty important topic, no?) was based *only on the Oral Law*. Yet the verse, in proper context, plainly states that the covenant with Israel was based on what was *written*.
How’s that for supporting a major doctrine / issue by a “secondary” meaning? And I could give several more examples of this Paul. I’ll give just one more related specifically to halacha right now.
Rabbinite Judaism requires a man to say 100 blessings per day. This is a serious halacha, not just a cute little idea. And where does the scriptural support come from for this law? According to Menachot 43b, Rabbi Meir says that the word מָה (“what”) in Dev(Deu 10:12) looks similar to the word מאה (“hundred”). So one Hebrew word *looks similar* to another Hebrew word, so the rabbis essentially pretended that the verse contained the other word that isn’t even there.
Then, even though Dev(Deu 10:12) says nothing whatsoever about saying blessings, the rabbis nevertheless decided to make it a major prooftext for the need to say 100 blessings per day–again, even though neither the context of blessings, nor the word for “hundred” is anywhere in the verse. Again Paul, I could give you more. On that note, did you know that many scholars who have compared the writings of Yeshua’s followers with the Talmud conclude that the former cite the Tanakh in a far more conservative, logical way than the latter.
So the point is that your attempted distinctions above (“primary,” “foundational,” “secondary”) are both misguided and irrelevant. Again, since the word “Messiah” never appears in the Tanakh, it is inherently a matter of *interpretation*. Ultimately, it doesn’t matter in what sense the Messiah is referred to in the Tanakh, because it will always be at some non-explicit manner. That’s an indisputable fact.
Again, what matters at the end of the day is who has the authority to interpret Scripture. I choose to believe the interpretation / application of nine (9) 1st-century Jews who (several of them) witnessed firsthand the awesome life, wisdom, power, love, teaching, miracles, etc. of Yeshua of Nazareth, and who confirmed G-d’s authority behind their interpretation of Tanakh passages by signs, miracles, and wonders (again, just as Moses and other in the Tanakh had done). And so I assert that the message of Yeshua and his followers is completely true and trustworthy. Let’s go on to the next point.
***** PAUL *****: “The servant in the book of Isaiah refers to the Jewish nation (which is the only interpretation given by Isaiah).”
***** YEHUDAH *****: First, you are misusing terminology (see point above), because Isaiah doesn’t “interpret” his book. Isaiah gives no “interpretation” of his book. But let’s presume that what you really meant is “The only proper interpretation is that the “servant” in the book of Isaiah is the Jewish nation.” You are wrong. There are multiple servants in the book of Isaiah–not just the Jewish nation. Here: Yesh./Isa 20:3: עַבְדִּי יְשַׁעְיָהוּ (“my servant Isaiah”); Yesh./Isa 22:20: עַבְדִּי לְאֶלְיָקִים (“my servant Eliakim”); דָּוִד עַבְדִּי (“David my servant”).
So as a matter of fact, you are wrong to say that the “servant” in Isaiah is always the Jewish nation. And while I grant that the “servant” in Isaiah 41-48 is the nation of Israel, I explained to you that this can’t imply the *entire nation* in Isa 49:3-6, based on a plain reading of the text there. [Please take the time to read it carefully.] And I already showed you (go back and read the post) that two Jewish sources interpret the “servant” there in Isa 49:3-6 as 1) individual Jews, and 2) the Messiah. Let’s review quickly.
1) Shaul / Paulaus, Yeshua’s emissary, applied Isa 49:6 to himself as an individual in Ma’asim/Act 13:47 (ca. 50 CE) as he proclaimed the good news of Yeshua to Gentiles, and not only to Jews. But of course, should you, or some other anti-missionary accuse me of citing my own source (the writings of Yeshua’s followers), that’s no problem. I’ll gladly give you another from rabbinic sources.
2) Rabbi Moshe Chaim Luzzatto explicitly applied Isa 49:3-6 to the Messiah. ועדיין נשאר לי לפרש סוד, והוא עיקר גדול, וזה נרמז בפסוק (ישעיה מט ג): “ויאמר לי עבדי אתה ישראל אשר בך אתפאר”. והלא נראה”
כי “בן” היה לו ליקרא, ונודע שזה הפסוק מדבר על המשיח, וכבר נאמר במקום אחר (תהלים ב ז): “ה’ אמר אלי בני אתה”? אבל
האמת הוא, שהתיקון הגדול שיתוקן בימות המשיח במהרה בימינו הוא תיקון הגוף מלבד תיקון הנשמה, וזה
“,עיקר גדול כי באמת בזה תלוי הרבה תיקון העולם
(Sorry if the Hebrew doesn’t display properly.) So Rabbi Chaim Luzzatto explicitly applied Isa 49:3 (same subject as v. 6) to the Messiah. And really, I could find many more sources. So you’re wrong, Paul. The “servant” in the book of Isaiah *isn’t* always the Jewish nation. Sometimes it is Isaiah himself, sometimes Eliakim, sometimes David, sometimes individuals like Shaul / Paulaus, or even the Messiah.
Your exegesis isn’t looking too good with regards to Isaiah, and we haven’t even gotten to Isaiah 53. Hang in there though 🙂
***** PAUL *****:” I stand by my earlier premise that MIDRASH and EXEGESIS have two different roles and functions.”
***** YEHUDAH *****: I remind you that you are misusing terms, and apparently don’t even know what they mean. As I already told you, midrash is a *form of exegesis.* The word “exegesis” means to draw meaning out of a text. The word “midrash” has many meanings and applications, but within the context you are (attempting to) use it, midrash is simply one of many exegetical methods. (Technically this is more complex, but I don’t need to explain. Just do some basic study on the terms and try not to misuse them repeatedly.)
***** PAUL *****: Isaiah 53… in context, the servant in chapter 53 is the righteous remnant of Jews saved from perdition in exile, and brought back to Israel.”
***** YEHUDAH *****: The so-called “righteous remnant” interpretation of Isaiah 53 is both weak, and the minority view before about 1100 CE (I believe, but this is somewhat superfluous, because I will give exegesis on the passage myself below). It is in my opinion a forced interpretation due to religious considerations, while the most natural, straightforward reading of Isaiah 53 suggests that it is speaking of an *individual* (and hence, it fits the Messiah perfectly, as numerous rabbinic sources also agree, and which I already before in a previous post).
Let me start my demonstration here with one of the earliest historical interpretations / applications of Isaiah 53, taken from about 45 CE (way before rabbinic literature ever had anything to say about it). Note my own emphasis below in ALL CAPS.
Philippas ran to him, and heard him reading Yeshayahu the prophet, and said, “Do you understand what you are reading?” He said, “How can I, unless someone explains it to me?” Then he begged Philippas to come up and sit with him. Now the passage of the Tanach which he was reading was this, “He was led as a lamb to the slaughter. As a ewe before his shearer is silent, so he does not open his mouth. In his humiliation he was led from prison and from judgment and from his generation. Who will declare, because his life is taken from the earth?” The eunuch said to Philippas, “WHO IS THE PROPHET TALKING ABOUT? ABOUT HIMSELF, OR ABOUT SOMEONE ELSE?” Then Philippas opened his mouth, and began announcing to him from that passage regarding our master, Yeshua.” (Ma’asim/Act 8:30-35)
This conversation took place between an Ethiopian eunuch who was coming to Jerusalem to worship (ca. 40-50 CE), and he encountered one of Yeshua’s disciples, named Philippas. The eunuch just happened to be reading a copy of Isaiah ch. 53, but he didn’t understand who the “servant” was. But notice what he asked: “Who is the prophet talking about? About himself, or about someone else?” The key is that his natural, unbiased (i.e. long before so-called “missionaries” and “anti-missionaries” had influenced him) reading of the passage caused him to assume that it was describing *an individual*–not a group of people, much less a “righteous remnant.”
We’ve already covered Paul that numerous Jewish sources (outside the writings of Yeshua’s followers, thus meaning largely rabbinic sources) interpreted the servant as the Messiah on at least some interpretive level. That right there tells you that it *can* be interpreted / applied to the Messiah; and at the end of the day, that’s all that matters. No rule of proper scriptural exegesis is being broken by applying Isaiah 53 to the Messiah, and therefore, there’s really nothing to argue over.
As I discussed up above (previous points within this same post), Hashem is ultimately the One who decides how the Tanakh can be interpreted. Your previous accusations Paul of “sloppy” and “fast and loose” have to be quantified or compared to other Jewish sources, and guess what: I just demonstrated to you up above that rabbinic writings do *far* more “fast and loose” (to use your words) things with the Tanakh. Interpreting a text as though a word were actually a totally different word, just because it *looks similar*? And this forms the basis for a halacha (law) that applies to virtually *every single Jewish man on a daily basis* (or so the Rabbinites claim)?
I asserted to you Paul in the previous points (up above this one) that your distinctions of “primary,” “foundational,” “secondary” are irrelevant for this discussion. Unless someone (maybe a Christian, I suppose) was specifically claiming that Isaiah 53 *only* applies to the Messiah, and every other possible interpretation is dead wrong (which is *not* my claim, and I have no interest in arguing over Christian stuff), then there’s no reason to squabble over “primary,” “foundational,” “secondary” meanings. The bottom line is that, if it *can* apply to the Messiah within the bounds of valid exegesis, then there’s no problem with Yeshua and his followers applying it to Yeshua as the Messiah.
And as I asserted earlier Paul, I take their word over yours and the anti-missionaries, because the Netsari Jews’ witness is 1) more ancient, 2) more abundant / better documented, 3) accompanied by G-d’s repeated affirmation through various means (signs, miracles, wonders, the ‘bat kol’, etc.), which by the way, continues to this very day through those of us who proclaim Yeshua’s name. The witness literally *never ended*. It continues on to this day. I could personally recount to you dozens of miracles that I’ve seen Hashem do in the name of Yeshua, but that’s a whole other matter, and one I won’t bring to bear here.
Now, back to Isaiah 53 itself. What I will do here briefly is provide my own exegesis on why the “righteous remnant” interpretation doesn’t work, or at the very least, it is a much weaker interpretation of the chapter. Let’s start Paul with this concept of the “righteous remnant” which you keep bringing up. You made the claim, and I quote…
***** PAUL *****: “The entire book of Isaiah focuses on this remnant – it the major theme of the book.”
***** YEHUDAH *****: No; incorrect by a long shot. Let’s start with these facts:
1) The phrase “righteous remnant” appears nowhere explicitly in the Tanakh, in any of the several Jewish translations I have.
2) The words “remnant / remainder” do indeed appear in the following places in Yesh/Isaiah with regards to Israel: Yesh./Isa 1:9, Isa 10:19-23, Isa 11:10-13, Isa 11:16, Isa 37:3-6, Isa 37:30-33, Isa 46:3. However, not only is the remnant never explicitly called “righteous” (point #1 above), but the remnant is never even *described* as righteous. Not once. And to the contrary, the last and closest mention of “remnant” to Isaiah ch. 53 actually describes the remnant as idolatrous (Isa 46:5-8) and (quite ironically) “far from righteousness” (Isa 46:12). (Cf. Ezr 9:14-15.)
In fact, the “servant” as the nation of Israel is called “blind” and “deaf” in Isa 42:19. The Israelites are described as sinful throughout the book of Isaiah (Yesh./Isa 1:1-17, Isa 10:1-6, Isa 29:13, Isa 48:1-5, Isa 58:1-4, Isa 59:12-16). Really, Hashem has nothing good to say about them (their conduct) throughout the book.
The reason there even is a remnant is only because Hashem *spared* them, and this for His own reasons. But I repeat: the remnant is never once described as righteous throughout the entire book of Isaiah–never. It’s true that the later chapters of Isaiah, which deal with the future kingdom and new heavens and new earth speak of the people after being recreated (cleaned up) by Hashem, but that is far outside the context of this discussion.
Now, I don’t deny that there were righteous individuals in every generation. In fact, it has usually been the minority that were right in Hashem’s eyes throughout our history (and so it is now, with the Netsari Jews (see Roh/Rom 11:1-15) who properly understand Hashem’s divine-oneness and His Messiah, since we are in the vast minority of Jews); but the notion of a “righteous remnant” with regards to Isaiah 53 suggests something more; and that just doesn’t fit the passage.
My point, Paul, is that Rabbinite Judaism has apparently made a big use out of this hypothetical “righteous remnant,” when it is at most a minor concept floating in the background of the book of Isaiah. It most certainly isn’t “the major theme of the book” that you claimed. I listed for you what I think some of the major themes of the book are, after having just gone back through the entire book last week (thanks for inspiring me). So again, the “righteous remnant” isn’t a major theme. It’s apparently become popular around Rashi’s time, and probably in reaction to Christianity. Look up all the debates and everything else going on in the Middle Ages. There is a very long history to this debate.
But I bring you back to a plain reading of the Hebrew / English text of Isaiah. And I tell you affirmatively that the “righteous remnant” doesn’t exist–at least not in the magnitude and focus that you (and others) claim. I really don’t think anybody would naturally arrive at the conclusion that Isaiah 53 is describing a remnant or group of any kind. I showed that (just for starters) from Ma’asim/Act 8:30-35 above, which showed that the Ethiopian eunuch thought Isaiah was talking about himself, or another individual. That’s 40-50 CE.
Let me now give you other exegetical factors which make the “righteous remnant” intepretation of Isaiah 53 unlikely. First, here’s the entire passage from JPS 1917, starting at Isa 52:13 and going to Isa 53:12.
Is. 52:13 Behold, My servant shall prosper, he shall be exalted and lifted up, and shall be very high.
Is. 52:14 According as many were appalled at thee – so marred was his visage unlike that of a man, and his form unlike that of the sons of men –
Is. 52:15 So shall he startle many nations, kings shall shut their mouths because of him; for that which had not been told them shall they see, and that which they had not heard shall they perceive.
Is. 53:1 ‘Who would have believed our report? And to whom hath the arm of the LORD been revealed?
Is. 53:2 For he shot up right forth as a sapling, and as a root out of a dry ground; he had no form nor comeliness, that we should look upon him, nor beauty that we should delight in him.
Is. 53:3 He was despised, and forsaken of men, a man of pains, and acquainted with disease, and as one from whom men hide their face: he was despised, and we esteemed him not.
Is. 53:4 Surely our diseases he did bear, and our pains he carried; whereas we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.
Is. 53:5 But he was wounded because of our transgressions, he was crushed because of our iniquities: the chastisement of our welfare was upon him, and with his stripes we were healed.
Is. 53:6 All we like sheep did go astray, we turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath made to light on him the iniquity of us all.
Is. 53:7 He was oppressed, though he humbled himself and opened not his mouth; as a lamb that is led to the slaughter, and as a sheep that before her shearers is dumb; yea, he opened not his mouth.
Is. 53:8 By oppression and judgment he was taken away, and with his generation who did reason? for he was cut off out of the land of the living, for the transgression of my people to whom the stroke was due.
Is. 53:9 And they made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich his tomb; although he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth.’
Is. 53:10 Yet it pleased the LORD to crush him by disease; to see if his soul would offer itself in restitution, that he might see his seed, prolong his days, and that the purpose of the LORD might prosper by his hand:
Is. 53:11 Of the travail of his soul he shall see to the full, even My servant, who by his knowledge did justify the Righteous One to the many, and their iniquities he did bear.
Is. 53:12 Therefore will I divide him a portion among the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the mighty; because he bared his soul unto death, and was numbered with the transgressors; yet he bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.
Again Paul, I will now give you other exegetical factors which make the “righteous remnant” intepretation of Isaiah 53 unlikely.
1) The servant is described throughout Isaiah 53 in the 3rd person masculine singular (“he / him”); and the servant is also explicitly called “a man” in Yesh./Isa 52:14, 53:3. The remnant, referring to the explicit mentions of “remnant” in Yesh./Isa 1:9, Isa 10:19-23, Isa 11:10-13, Isa 11:16, Isa 37:3-6, Isa 37:30-33, Isa 46:3, by way of contrast, is never described in either of these ways. I don’t say that it is 100% impossible that such could be done, but it is very unnatural and unlikely. I don’t think Tanakh ever describes a remnant as a “man.”
2) The (hypothetical) “righteous remnant” (and I put it into quotation marks because again, I’ve now demonstrated that such a thing doesn’t actually exist in Isaiah–at least not explicitly) would have had no distinct history or identification, which seems to be required by the language in Yesh./Isa 53:2. “For he shot up right forth as a sapling, and as a root out of a dry ground; he had no form nor comeliness, that we should look upon him, nor beauty that we should delight in him.” (JPS 1917)
This best applies to an individual. Actually, it could also potentially apply to the entire nation of Israel, given that passages like Yesh./Isa 41:8-9, 44:2, poss. Isa 41:2 describe the nation of Israel with a distinct formation/history. But the servant in Isaiah 53 can’t be the entire nation of Israel for other reasons. Thus, the language in Yesh./Isa 53:2 most naturally applies to an individual, not a group of non-distinct people.
3) “Surely our diseases he did bear, and our pains he carried; whereas we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. But he was wounded because of our transgressions, he was crushed because of our iniquities: the chastisement of our welfare was upon him, and with his stripes we were healed. All we like sheep did go astray, we turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath made to light on him the iniquity of us all. (Yesh./Isa 53:4-6 – JPS 1917)
These verses repeatedly describe substitutionary exchange of some kind. I would think “atonement” is a legitimate description because “transgressions” and “iniquities” are mentioned multiple times. But there is no precedent in the Tanakh for righteous individuals (i.e. so-called “righteous remnant”) to be punished on behalf of sinners, thus bringing healing / atonement for sinners.
Righteous people sometimes suffer *along with* the wicked because of corporate punishment (e.g. the case of Achan in Yeho./Josh ch. 7). And the righteous often *intercede* for the wicked, as Avraham, Moshe, Daniel, Ezra, all did. But I’m not aware of any place where the righteous are specifically punished *in exchange for* the wicked. To the contrary, the Torah promises blessings / rewards to the righteous; and often, Hashem spares the righteous from the punishments of the wicked. It’s true that Moshe tried to make an exchange on behalf of Israel, but Hashem essentially rejected it (Shem./Exo 32:31-33). (Moshe had sins of his own, remember.)
But guess where we *do* see substitutionary exchange / atonement all throughout the Torah? In animal sacrifices. There you have a perfectly innocent animal (no sin of its own) being exchanged for (taking the punishment/death) for a sinner. Interestingly, not only does the servant in Isaiah 53 die (or a great case can be made for this in Yesh./Isa 53:8-9, Isa 53:12), but he is called an אָשָׁם (“offering for guilt” (JPS 1985) in Isa 53:10, possibly harkening back to the אשם (“guilt offering”) animal sacrifice in Vay./Lev 5:6 ff.
Pair this all together with the fact that Yeshua of Nazareth is called “the lamb of G-d who takes away the sins of the world” (Yoch./Joh 1:29, 36), and you’ve got an exciting match (along with several other wonderful passages in his followers’ writings (e.g. 1Keef/1Pe 2:21-25).
Let me pause and say that I haven’t claimed here that this is the *absolute only possible way* to interpret these verses. I haven’t said that. But I get frustrated when people dream up all sorts of flimsy nonsense to try and avoid the reality of the fitting application to Yeshua of Nazareth. (I do recognize that you, Paul, make some further objections below. We’ll see if I have time for them.) But my hope is that it’s becoming clearer that all this can’t very well apply to a hypothetical “righteous remnant” in Isaiah, much less the whole nation of Israel. An individual best fits the description. (And a truly remarkable individual indeed.)
4) The “we all” / “us all” versus “he” (3rd masc. singular) is striking in Yesh./Isa 53:6 — “All we like sheep did go astray, we turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath made to light on him the iniquity of us all.” This to me speaks in universal, and yet, utterly unique proportions. Who is the “all we” / “us all” in this passage. Is the prophet Isaiah including himself. As I said in point #1 above, the “remnant” in Isaiah is never described in the 3rd person masculine singular (“he / him”) like what we see here in this chapter. In this verse, it is the preposition בּוֹ (“on him”). But my primary point here is that this verse speaks in a universality that only the Messiah–an utterly unique *individual*–fits. That’s my opinion. Let’s move on now to other claims…
***** PAUL *****: “Most of the prophetic writings in the Tenakh relate to this remnant. it is central to all of them,”
***** YEHUDAH *****: No; I think I killed this one good and dead. Review points above if needed.
***** PAUL *****: “for example, Zeph. 3:13: “The remnant of Israel will do no wrong, they will speak no lies, nor will deceit be found in their mouths.” Note the parallel with Isaiah 53:9.”
***** YEHUDAH *****: There’s no parallel whatsoever, and you’ve taken Zeph 3:13 completely out of context. Read the preceding verses carefully. This passage doesn’t describe the remnant of Israel as righteous or free of deceit. It describes the final product of the survivors whom Hashem spares from destruction because of all their wickedness (Zeph 3:10-13). It does not describe the remnant of Israel in the *present tense*, but in the future tense, after Hashem winnows them and purifies them.
Meanwhile, the servant in Yesh./Isa 53:9 is described as sinless throughout the entire passage–totally righteous only–not as one who was wicked formerly (cf. Zeph 3:10-13), and then finally reached a purified state due to Hashem’s dealings with him. Again, there is no parallel between these passages, and you’re notion of a “righteous remnant” is badly mistaken, as I covered up above.
***** PAUL *****: “but we need to be wary of accepting an agenda-driven application.”
***** YEHUDAH *****: Agreed, well said. But I thought I might have detected a *slight* tinge of bias / agenda coming from your end 🙂 Let’s face it: nobody talks about Isaiah 53 without an agenda. Oh….. except for that Ethiopian eunuch in Ma’asim/Act 8:34. And he thought the servant was an *individual*–not a righteous remnant. But I guess he just didn’t know how to read Rashi’s commentary–maybe because of its French influence 🙂
***** PAUL *****:”You drew citations from the Talmud, but really this doesn’t present a good case for you, bearing in mind that you don’t put those writings on the same level as scripture, so you are reduced to cherry picking only what serves your agenda.” But even then, they are out of context to your argument, and don’t guide us to “Yeshua”.
***** YEHUDAH *****: Statements like “doesn’t present a good case for you” and ” don’t guide us to ‘Yeshua'” show me just how little you understand me and my agendas. I thought I tried to correct this, but maybe I was wrong. Honestly, getting to late to deal with things like this.
***** PAUL *****: “the servant’s described suffering in Isaiah chapter 53 is not substitutionary or vicarious. Rather, the servant suffers BECAUSE OF or FROM the sinfulness of others, without removing their sin).”
***** YEHUDAH *****: I addressed this up above. “the chastisement of our welfare was upon him, and with his stripes we were healed” (Yesh/Isa 53:5). That’s clearly substitutionary / exchange. Look at it this way:
Chastisement upon him -> our peace
By his stripes -> we were healed
To paraphrase:
His chastisement -> our peace
His stripes -> our healing
That’s exchange. All day long.
***** PAUL *****: “But your understanding of the Zohar”
***** YEHUDAH *****: You don’t know my understanding of the Zohar, and apparently you don’t know my purpose for citing it. Hate to have to tell you, but all this writing you did below is completely irrelevant, because you misunderstand the most basic thing, which was why I cited the Zohar. I *only* cited it to show that an application to the Messiah. I didn’t say in what *way* or to what *effect* that citation may or may not have anything to do with Yeshua.
***** PAUL *****: “CAN YOU SHOW ME WHERE RABBINIC LITERATURE DESCRIBES MESSIAH AS A BLOOD SACRIFICE OR ATONING SACRIFICE (KEYWORD: SACRIFICE)? AN ATONING SACRIFICE IMPLIES DEATH.”
***** YEHUDAH *****: First, I’m not sure why you are asking (because it’s completely irrelevant to my faith in Hashem and Yeshua); second, I’m afraid that if I gave you a citation you would botch it up (accuse me of wrongdoing) like you did above with the Zohar. But…. I’ll be nice and try to answer. Maybe we can have some fun.
Rabbinic literature would NE-E-E-E-V-V-V-E-E-E-RR suggest that a human’s blood could make atonement for other people. Never ever ever, that is, *except* in the case of that one time in the Torah when Avraham sacrificed his son, Yitzchak (Isaac) on the altar. Do you remember that story? Where Yitzchak’s blood poured out after Avraham cut his throat with the knife, thus making substitutionary atonement for Israel’s sins thereafter? Did you read that? If you can’t find it, I’ll copy it here below for you.
“Yitzchak felt a pang. He turned to Avraham. “My father, my father,” he cried. “Here are both fire and wood but where is the lamb for the sacrifice?” “Hashem Himself will choose the lamb for the sacrifice, my son, and if not, you will be the lamb!” Yitzchak put his face between his hands and wept. “Is this the Bais Hamidrash about which you spoke to my mother?” he sobbed. When Avraham heard this, he wept also. But Yitzchak controlled himself and comforted him, “Do not feel distressed, father. Fulfill your Creator’s will through me! May my blood be an atonement for the future Jewish people!” They both walked further together, one to slaughter and one to be slaughtered, equally happy in their hearts to do Hashem’s bidding.” (Weissman, Moshe. The Midrash Says, Vol. 1: The Book of Beraishis, 197. Brooklyn: Bnay Yakov Publications, 1980.)
This is rabbinic midrash from the Middle Ages. Taken it seems from Be’reshit Rabbah 56 and Midrash Agada 20 according to the citations therein. By the way, Paul, did you know, that the “Akeidah” (binding of Isaac, as we call it) in Ber./Gen 22 is read daily (customs vary) in many Orthodox synagogues during morning prayers. It’s in our siddur as well, but for some reason another name that starts with a “Y” (other than “Yitzchak) always come to my mind whenever I think of perpetual blood atonement. I’ll see if you can figure that one out 🙂
***** PAUL *****: “Jesus’ agonising death and torture (such as his scourging) does not relate to a blood sacrifice, but breaches biblical protocol on every level. They RULE HIM OUT as a blood sacrifice!”
***** YEHUDAH *****: Yeshua has nothing to do with human sacrifice, and all this stuff you’re talking about. He wasn’t a literal Torah sacrifice. The kind where they dash the blood against the altar, pour it out at the base, burn the skin, dung, etc. outside the camp. It’s *typological*. The animal sacrifices themselves, while serving a real immediate purpose, were always typological from the very beginning. Rabbinic sources (and I’m serious this time) recognize that something spiritual / typological taking place over and above just killing an animal.
Why should innocent animals have to die–literally *constantly*? Does that *really* (in itself) make Hashem happy? The whole system “wreaks” (probably not the best word) of spiritual metaphors and typology. Much of Rabbinic Judaism (at least Chassidus, I know) recognizes this. Where do you think the idea of making a midrash about Yitzchak (Isaac) literally being sacrificed by his father so that his blood atones for us throughout the ages comes from?
The writings of Yeshua’s followers never equate him (literally) to a Torah sacrifice. They equate him typologically as the “lamb of G-d who takes away the sin of the world,” and to the Pesach offering. But again Paul, this type of spiritualized application is rampant in at least some rabbinic literature. The whole “human sacrifice” objection is just another one of these made-up anti-missionary tropes. (Okay, maybe Christianity came up with some kooky idea which the rabbis were right to take up arms against, but let that be Christianity. I’m not a Christian or part of Christianity.)
Bottom line, the (Jewish) writings of Yeshua’s followers say nothing about human sacrifice and all that nonsense. (But, just curious: what *did* you think about that midrash about Yitzchak actually being sacrificed, and his blood atoning for all future generations of Israel? Just kidding; that’s a joke. Don’t answer.)
***** PAUL *****: “You wrote: “The phrase “land of the living” only occurs again in Isa 38:11 in the book of Isaiah, where it most certainly refers to being *killed / dead*.”
Agreed (it refers to Hezekiah’s near death experience), but the context is completely different in chapter 38 compared to 53. Obviously being cut off from the land of the living could mean dying; otherwise it could have no useful metaphoric meaning either. Its precise meaning may vary according to context. The fact that the expression is so poetic in a highly poetic passage (Isaiah 53) means we should look for an expansive meaning. And we are given just that in Ez. chapter 37, as I showed.”
***** YEHUDAH *****: I disagree with your conclusion, *but* I’ve got to say that I at least appreciate you giving me some real exegetical arguments / debate, instead of all the former hype. Mazel tov. Keep up the good work.
***** PAUL *****: “Also consider from the same verse: “Yet it was the Lord’s will to crush him and cause him to suffer, and though the Lord makes his life [or soul] an offering for sin….”
So the servant’s LIFE or SOUL is the offering, NOT his death!”
***** YEHUDAH ****: The Hebrew here is extremely rare and difficult, hence the myriad of different translations. However, I find the notion that the servant dies more compelling from Yesh./Isa 53:12 — הֶעֱרָה לַמָּוֶת נַפְשׁוֹ (“he poured out his soul unto death” – Leeser). Again, keeping in mind that it’s poetic / prophetic, that would seem like a great way to say “he died.” This is also somewhat rare language, but a parallel may be found in Teh./Psa 141:8 — אַל־תְּעַר נַפְשִׁי (“pour not out my life” – Leeser). The context there (141:7-9) seems to imply death.
***** PAUL *****: “It may be harder to live your life as a sacrifice than dying as one.”
***** YEHUDAH *****: Good maxim, but not relevant to this discussion. I think the servant dies, based on the point above. But one thing I’ll say: you sure seem to be trying a lot harder to get me (and others) to believe that this should not / cannot / must not refer to Yeshua of Nazareth than I am working to get you to believe that it *must* refer to Yeshua of Nazareth. I’d just recommend, Paul, take a good deep breath; try to read the whole passage without bias, and see what you come up with. Consider it a “dare” from your friend, Yehudah.
Okay, it’s been a blessing. I may check back in a week or two after Passover. At least give this thing a careful read and examination. All the best,
Yehudah
I’m absolutely stunned by this posting, and it really shows the character of the poster, rather than the target.
While I, too, am disappointed that R. Singer will not debate Dr. Brown, I don’t think resulting to spreading a bad name about either reflects the values Christianity says it holds. On the other hand, it does reflect the hate filled rhetoric of the preacher from Nazareth and his illiterate followers (Acts 4:11) that supposedly wrote the Christian Bible.
Honestly, I just printed Dr. Brown’s Chapter Two from _The Gospel According to Isaiah 53_ and went through it, and after critiquing it, found it very short on substance. Each of his arguments were easy to refute.
In short, we don’t appeal to a historically disputed text as the only source material to prove a new revelation of God (contrary to Deut 13), a concept of child sacrifice that is openly rebuked by God (Deut 12:31, Ezek 18:20, and Prov 17:15 among others), thus overturning the entire revelation of God.
The only way people come to believe in Jesus is through ignorance of Hebrew Scriptures, and with an a priori assumption requiring a circular argument.
Hi David,
“On the other hand, it does reflect the hate filled rhetoric of the preacher from Nazareth and his illiterate followers (Acts 4:11) that supposedly wrote the Christian Bible.”
Seriously? Yes, they were illiterate in 33 AD but the documents that have their name on them were written decades later. I speak a language almost fluently I didn’t know a single word from six years ago. I write it as well.
You found Brown’s work short on substance? I find Singer to be short on substance and he’s the one dodging Brown which you admit.
“In short, we don’t appeal to a historically disputed text as the only source material to prove a new revelation of God (contrary to Deut 13), a concept of child sacrifice that is openly rebuked by God (Deut 12:31, Ezek 18:20, and Prov 17:15 among others), thus overturning the entire revelation of God.”
You’ve exposed your ignorance of the NT, Christian theology, and Old Testament theology. I won’t call it Judaism since Judaism doesn’t exist until after Christ. The religion of Christ and previous prophets was the Mosaic covenant, not Judaism.
“The only way people come to believe in Jesus is through ignorance of Hebrew Scriptures, and with an a priori assumption requiring a circular argument.”
No, it’s the ones who look at Scripture and chuck Rabbinic tradition.
Merry Christmas and God bless,
Allan Ruhl
“Seriously? Yes, they were illiterate in 33 AD but the documents that have their name on them were written decades later. I speak a language almost fluently I didn’t know a single word from six years ago. I write it as well.”
By far, most scholars hold today that Peter was not the author. You come from a literate background, and build upon that literacy to learn. Peter could not read Aramaic much less Greek. To write in the highly proficient rhetorical Greek found in the Petrine epistles would take a boat load of money and time, neither of which the fishermen from Galilee had.
“You found Brown’s work short on substance? I find Singer to be short on substance and he’s the one dodging Brown which you admit.”
No one knows Singer’s motives. For you to impute a motive without facts is shameful.
David wrote, “In short, we don’t appeal to a historically disputed text as the only source material to prove a new revelation of God (contrary to Deut 13), a concept of child sacrifice that is openly rebuked by God (Deut 12:31, Ezek 18:20, and Prov 17:15 among others), thus overturning the entire revelation of God.”
Allan wrote, “You’ve exposed your ignorance of the NT, Christian theology, and Old Testament theology. I won’t call it Judaism since Judaism doesn’t exist until after Christ. The religion of Christ and previous prophets was the Mosaic covenant, not Judaism.”
Making an assertion that I do not understand Christian or Jewish theology continues your bad habit of making assertions without facts. Maybe you would consider getting some before making more baseless accusations.
David wrote, “The only way people come to believe in Jesus is through ignorance of Hebrew Scriptures, and with an a priori assumption requiring a circular argument.”
Allan wrote, “No, it’s the ones who look at Scripture and chuck Rabbinic tradition.”
I chuck the Christian Scripture because it conflicts in every way with the Tanakh. The authors of the Christian Scripture distort what is said in the Tanakh repeatedly in order to justify their worship of their demigod, a belief that evolved over hundreds of years.
The truth of the matter is you couldn’t have a messiah to worship if it weren’t for Rabbinic tradition. For example, please show me a single verse in the Tanakh that prophesies of the The Messiah. You couldn’t read the Hebrew text without the Oral Law because the vowel pointing that enables you to read it come from the Oral Law. The Tanakh stands on its own. The Christian Scripture NEEDS and utterly relies on both the Tanakh and Oral Law for its most fundamental belief, that of The Messiah.
As soon as you said: “By far, most scholars hold today…” my instincts were proven correct.
By your response you clearly don’t know anything about the Hebrew or Christians Scriptures. A demigod? You don’t know Christian theology or even what a demigod is.
I’ll take the Old and New Testaments. You can have your Rabbis and Oral Law.
“The Christian Scripture NEEDS and utterly relies on both the Tanakh and Oral Law for its most fundamental belief, that of The Messiah.”
This was the most clever thing you’ve said in your two posts but it’s only half true. The NT needs the OT, just like the Prophets need the Torah. Obviously the NT didn’t come out of nowhere. How about this, I’ll give you the verse on the Messiah after you give me an OT verse saying there is an Oral Law, deal?
Btw, you might be interested in a few other posts that I’ve written:
http://allanruhl.com/the-real-story-of-hanukkah/
http://allanruhl.com/an-open-letter-to-ana-rodrigues/
John Eliott, Graham Stanton, Bart Ehrman, among others have written extensively in favor of both 1 & 2 Peter being pseudopigrapha (forgeries). You can assert all you want that I know nothing of the Tanakh or Christian writings, but your repetitive assertions are just as foolish the third time as the first.
Ok, you point out the word המשיח in Tanakh as applying to the Davidic King without using the Oral Law that tells you what a ה מ ש י or ח is (my desktop scrambled the letters, but you get my gist), or the vowel points on how to pronounce it. Everything you know about Hebrew, it pronunciation, it’s meaning, comes from the Oral Law.
Let me explain it another way. Would you allow a brain surgeon to operate on you who ordered all his medical school books from Amazon and learned at home, even if he passed his Boards? Or, would you want him to demonstrate some practical experience, experience that isn’t just found in the textbook. The same is true with the Oral Law. s Similarly judges don’t learn the law from reading the textbooks, but sitting in class arguing with instructors and classmates, writing papers, practicing law in a courtroom, clerking for a judge, and then becoming a judge. The same is true with the Tanakh and Oral Law.
I’ll wait for that verse about המשיח referring to the son of David.
I’m well aware of what those liberals say. I would trust Pope Damasus and the Fathers of the Council of Trent over any of them. Btw many Jewish liberals believe in the JEPD theory, Isaiah had multiple authors, Daniel was written 200 years before Jesus and all of this other nonsense.
“Ok, you point out the word המשיח in Tanakh as applying to the Davidic King without using the Oral Law that tells you what a ה מ ש י or ח is (my desktop scrambled the letters, but you get my gist), or the vowel points on how to pronounce it. Everything you know about Hebrew, it pronunciation, it’s meaning, comes from the Oral Law.”
There were no Hebrew lessons or lexicons given on Sinai, unless you can prove otherwise.
” Similarly judges don’t learn the law from reading the textbooks, but sitting in class arguing with instructors and classmates, writing papers, practicing law in a courtroom, clerking for a judge, and then becoming a judge. ”
100% True.
” The same is true with the Tanakh and Oral Law.”
Yes, but it doesn’t mean that this Oral Law comes from God. It’s an invention sometime between Jochanan ben Zakkkai and Judah the Prince. Maybe you can tell me where Josephus talks about the Oral Law. It was Christians who preserved the writings of Josephus, not Jews. I think there is a reason why.
“I’ll wait for that verse about המשיח referring to the son of David.”
As I said, right after you give me the verse from Tanakh saying that there is an oral law.
God bless,
Allan
So, you agree that a majority of the most highly regarded scholars reject Peter’s epistles as being authored by an illiterate Galilean. This is progress. The others are biased trying to preserve their theological foundation. Understood. The arguments that these scholars make against an illiterate Galilean writing advanced Greek, that only a few privilidged in Greek and Roman aristocracy could afford is difficult to refute, which is why it is the prevailing view, liberal or not.
Allan wrote, “There were no Hebrew lessons or lexicons given on Sinai, unless you can prove otherwise.”
This is an excellent point. The Torah itself, while preserved in writing, was delivered orally, every 7 years at Sukkot. Those who speak the language pass the language down orally, just as your offspring learn language orally before learning to write. Evidence of an oral law: When God commanded not to eat milk and meat together, he used the word חלב. Now, this word, without vowel points can mean milk or fat, chelev or chalav. So, which was meant? Maybe he meant milk fat, like cream? The fact is, you don’t know. Without and Oral Law, you have absolutely no idea.
The Oral Law records what GOD meant by this word when he gave this command, just as it records what God meant by the command itself. There are hundreds of examples, one of which is the one you promised to deliver on, but can’t because it too is an Oral Law. You have no concept of THE MESSIAH without the Oral Law, and you know it. Stop being disingenuous and concede the point because the Tanakh contains no such word. Your grandstanding my impress your normal followers here, but it’s simply foolishness. Maybe this is why you find the arguments of Rabbi Singer unconvincing but find Michael Brown’s taking his “proofs” and “historical references” out of context so persuasive.
Yes, most highly regarded scholars in 2018 believe that, just as they believe in the JEPD theory of the Torah, Isaiah had multiple authors, Daniel was written in the time of Hannukah, the books of Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles are full of errors and anachronisms, etc. But we both know that’s not true.
Btw, God never said that you couldn’t eat milk and meat together. Unless you can prove otherwise. I’ve read Exodus 23:19 and it doesn’t say that. That’s rabbis torturing the text. The same rabbis that have changed every single holiday in the Torah. Consult the Torah if you don’t believe me.
Also, if this meaning of one word is the best evidence you can present for the Oral law(on a verse where the rabbis collapse in interpretation), please don’t be surprised that I’m not convinced.
God bless,
Allan
I wasn’t intending to branch out of 1 & 2 Peter to other topics, but the real reason to reject the Christian Scriptures has to do with the author of Matthew’s “that the Scripture might be fulfilled” passages that clearly are simply proof texted, Paul’s misrepresenting Scripture to prove his new religion, and the evolutionary development of the divinity of the man from Galilee which contradicts the entirely of the revelation of Tanakh.
As to the Oral Law, I’ve given you numerous proofs, not just one. I gave you that you can’t read Hebrew without it, that you don’t know if God is forbidding boiling a kid in milk, fat ((no deep frying?), or cream, or eating meat and milk together. I gave you the example that your concept of THE Messiah comes from the Oral Law, something you cannot find in Tanakh. I could talk about what birds are forbidden to eat? What constitutes work, since the normative work for work is avodah, but the Torah use melachah. What’s the difference? Where the does the Torah tell us? Is the calendar solar or lunar? How is it intercalated? On and on and on….
None of these will suffice you because your god condemns the Jews and their Oral Law, which his very existence is dependent on. המשיח referring to the son of David comes only from the Talmud, and you chose not to acknowledge that fact. That’s disappointing.
So you disagree with Matthew, Paul and how other parts of the NT use the OT. Okay, fine. We can disagree, but unlike Muslims, we didn’t chuck previous scripture that didn’t agree with us, because it does agree with us. We’ve been reading it for 2,000 years side by side with the NT and there is no problem for us. The NT was been read side by side with OT longer than the Oral Law has.
Do you believe it’s okay for your rabbis to change every Holiday in the Torah? I’m assuming that you do. The religion described in the OT is found nowhere on this Earth. It’s gone. I’m guessing that you went to a Yom Kippur service this year? Did Leviticus 16:32-33 take place? No it didn’t. The religion of the Torah is gone.
Well, the Bible doesn’t say that you can’t boil a kid in milk, only its mothers milk. It doesn’t prohibit eating milk and meat either. Also, people couldn’t read Hebrew before Sinai? I doubt it.
Btw, if the Christian concept of the Messiah is found in the Talmud why do the rabbis keep saying that our concept of the Messiah wrong? You can’t have it both ways.
If you want to prove an Oral Law exists, show me one verse. One. That’s all I ask. I’m waiting.
God bless,
Allan
There are two points I want to address. First, there are many things in the Christian Bible that agree with the Tanakh. Great. We don’t need those parts of the Christian Bible because we already have that in Tanakh. Much of the Christian Bible contradicts the Tanakh and twists the Tanakh in order to create a lie. The virgin birth is a perfect example. Go read Isa 7:14 in context. Jesus isn’t God’s firstborn son. Israel is (Ex 4:21). There is no prophecy of a Nazarene anywhere in Tanakh. And that just the opening of Matthew. We certainly don’t need those distortions. In both cases, we don’t need it.
As to the offerings made in the Temple, these commandments are conditional upon the Temple, so there is no change. It simply that we don’t do what we aren’t permitted to do. Some things don’t apply due to circumstances. The things that we can do, we carry out.
I’ve already addressed the milk and meat thing. You need the oral law to understand what chet-lamed-vet is. Similarly, you need the Oral Law to understand what the passage means.
Allan wrote, “Btw, if the Christian concept of the Messiah is found in the Talmud why do the rabbis keep saying that our concept of the Messiah wrong? You can’t have it both ways.”
I didn’t say “the Christian concept of the messiah is found in the Talmud.” I said the term “The Messiah” is found ONLY in the Talmud. There is NO “The Messiah” in the Tanakh. So, even though Christians pervert the concept of Messiah, as they do with passages from the Tanakh, the Messiah is entirely Jewish and entirely based ONLY upon Oral Law. Here again you are entirely dependent upon that which you despise.
Allan wrote, “If you want to prove an Oral Law exists, show me one verse. One. That’s all I ask. I’m waiting.” I’ve shown you many Allan. You cannot understand the Scripture without the Oral Law. You have a brain. Use it. God said do not work on the Sabbath. If you know what Do-Not-Work-on-the-Sabbath means, then it’s a straight forward command. The problem is, you don’t know what melacha (work) means without the Oral Law, just as you don’t know what chet, lamed, vet means. Be open minded and search for “Proofs of the Oral Law” and see what comes up. You’ll be shocked at how much your understanding is dependent upon the Oral Law.
The conversation has stalled, so unless there is something new (we could look at Matthew’s ‘that it be fulfilled’ nonsense, if you like, or Pauline distortions), then this will be my last post. Distortions like those found in the NT would never be admissible in Court because they would be seen as false witnesses and fraud. How can you or anyone believe in forged books with fraudulent claims? Mind boggling.
First of all, I’ve read the entire book of Isaiah multiple times with Christian and Jewish commentaries. I find nothing inconsistent about Isaiah 7 and the virgin birth. I’d invite you to read what Dr. Brown writes on this. The term Son of God is used many different ways in both testaments. Obviously it’s used in a way that’s unique in regards to Jesus. Also, it’s verse 22, not 21 though that’s not a big deal. I’ve actually written in defense Nazarene prophecy on this website. Look it up.
“As to the offerings made in the Temple, these commandments are conditional upon the Temple, so there is no change. It simply that we don’t do what we aren’t permitted to do. Some things don’t apply due to circumstances. The things that we can do, we carry out.”
I will do a post on this tomorrow. It’s much more problematic than you think. Stay tuned.
“I’ve already addressed the milk and meat thing. You need the oral law to understand what chet-lamed-vet is. Similarly, you need the Oral Law to understand what the passage means.”
I’ve shredded this claim.
Okay, I understand what you’re trying to say about the Talmud. The word Messiah is all over the Bible. I would say that Daniel 9:26 is a reference to the Messiah. I know you’re going to say that ha is not there but I don’t see how that matters.
Regarding the Sabbath, I think the Torah and the Sabbath give the ultimate proof that there isn’t an Oral Law. Read Numbers 15:32-36. This would be entirely different if there was an Oral Law regarding the Sabbath.
“Distortions like those found in the NT would never be admissible in Court because they would be seen as false witnesses and fraud. How can you or anyone believe in forged books with fraudulent claims? Mind boggling.”
Why do people always use a court analogy? If courts were 100% accurate then this might carry some weight. Btw would you apply that court standard to the Oral Law?
As I mentioned, I’ll be doing a post tomorrow. I would like to hear your input on that one. So I hope this isn’t your last post.
God bless,
Allan
Allan, I’ve been going thru this collaborative effort and highly recommend it (I chose the Paypal-get-PDF option).
The number of passages in the OT alluding to a multi-personal, physical-manifestation-capable God is astounding! As is the very real history of pre-AD Jews believing in a multi-personal God.
‘Christian’ beliefs such as a Triune God, Memra of God, incarnate Saviour and death of the righteous atoning. This is why for the first century, Christianity was more like a competing sect of Jewish religion than a wholly separate one.
I definitely plan to read it. The authors of it are top notch!
Allan wrote:
“I’ve shredding this claim.”
LOL, clearly we have different opinions about what constitutes “shredded.” Somehow, you’ll admit you need the Oral Law to know what the letters are named, sound like, how the words are pronounced, how the grammar works, and the meaning of the words themselves, but not the meaning of the sentence.
Isa 7 is about Jesus? In what context? The pregnant woman, as modern translators acknowledge (NRSV), is a virgin there in Isa 7? So, we have two immaculate conceptions? I guess both the Isa 7 child and Jesus failed in their first and second comings and we’re waiting for a 3rd? With the Christian “dual fulfillment” or “second coming” teachings, we could have endless iterations. Maybe Jesus will be successful on his 18th coming (if he is, he still can’t be Messiah because according to Num 2:18, tribal identity is established by the father. Is the HaShem a son of David?). So many, many problems. Jesus does not and cannot meet the legal requirement to be the Messiah no matter how many attempts you want to allow him.
Allan, if you want to email me the .pdf you and Scott were discussing, I’d read it. If not, no big deal.
You don’t know what an immaculate conception is. Google immaculate conception. It’s not the same thing as the Virgin birth. The Virgin Mary had the Immaculate conception, not Jesus. You are ignorant of Christian theology. I don’t subscribe to any dual fulfillment.
I don’t have the PDF. I plan on ordering the physical copy. You’ll have to ask Scott.
In the meantime, check out my newest article.
God bless,
Allan
QUESTION: In Deut 12:21 God tells the Jews to slaughter animals “as I have commanded you,” yet this command is not in the Bible. Does this imply that the Jews had additional, unwritten laws?
Hi Shane,
No, there are no unwritten laws. The instructions to slaughter animals are in Leviticus 17.
God bless,
Allan
Ecclesiastes 7:20 “Surely there is not a righteous man on earth who does good and never sins.” This would certainly show problems with Oral Tradition. Exodus 34:27 The LORD also said to Moses, “Write down these words, for in accordance with these words I have made a covenant with you and with Israel.” – The covenant is made by what is written, not what is verbally passed down.
Hi David,
Rabbi Tovia singer did debate Dr. Brown in 1999, with messianic Sid Roth hosting. I remember listening to it. The debate went poorly for Dr. Brown, to the extent that Sid Roth continued the discussion on the side of Dr. Brown IN THE ABSENCE OF TOVIA SINGER, just after the actual debate had terminated. I was shocked by the obvious bias that Sid Roth took at excluding Mr. Singer, and I recall posting such criticism of Sid Roth in the Youtube commentary.
Where I come from (England), debates are virtually always performed on a level playing field without host bias or intrusion. Regrettably, Americans don’t always share our sense of fair play. In England, that format would come under huge criticism.
“Honestly, I just printed Dr. Brown’s Chapter Two from _The Gospel According to Isaiah 53_ and went through it, and after critiquing it, found it very short on substance. Each of his arguments were easy to refute.”
Then refute it, big shot. Just don’t copy and paste from Aish or JFJ, please.
It’s almost unbelievable, reading this.
Go and read your Kol HaTor 5, by R’ Yechiel bar Lev, on page 122.
Your own writings there say that even YOUR scholars are ‘struck with blindness’.
Richard,
Obviously, I’m not going to write a book on a blog in response to Brown’s book.
Let me just say this, in as simple and small words as I can. One of the rules for pronouns is that they must have a clear antecedent.
Similarly, the phrase “My Servant” in order to be meaningful must have a clear and unambiguous reference. Reading into the text something we want to see is simply not appropriate. Of course there are no clear and unambiguous references to “My Servant” being a messiah figure. The Prophet never makes that connection. The clear and unambiguous connection that is made is to Jacob and to Israel.
Of course, we can each argue context, we can opine about who we respectively believe fits the reference, which is why there must be a clear and unambiguous identification of who the Servant is. This is precisely why HaShem through the prophet provides such unambiguous and clear identification.
Christian diversion from these clear statements amount to nothing other than circular reasoning.
Allan wrote, “You don’t know what an immaculate conception is. Google immaculate conception. It’s not the same thing as the Virgin birth. The Virgin Mary had the Immaculate conception, not Jesus.”
LOL, sounds like I know exactly what immaculate conception is. I never said Jesus had the immaculate conception. Isa 7 is about a pregnant woman whose son would be a sign to the house of Achaz that he need not fear Syria and Israel. Christians want to read “virgin” into this text because without it, Jesus can’t be god. This creates two immaculate conceptions, since virgins don’t conceive.
“You are ignorant of Christian theology.”
Not at all. I’ve well versed in Christian theology.
“I don’t subscribe to any dual fulfillment.”
No? So, how does Isa 7 work without dual fulfillment? Isaiah was telling Achaz, hey don’t worry about these two kings because in 600 years I’ll make a virgin conceive? For someone who has read Isaiah multiple times, I’m not sure you understand what Isaiah was telling Achaz?
“I don’t have the PDF. I plan on ordering the physical copy. You’ll have to ask Scott.”
I don’t think Scott has my email since it’s not published and I really don’t want to put it in to the body of this message.
Be blessed in your studies,
David
David,
The Immaculate conception has nothing to do with the birth of Jesus. The Immaculate conception is that fact when Mary was conceived by a special act of God, she was made sinless and therefore didn’t have Original Sin. It has absolutely nothing to do with the birth of Jesus in any way. Please learn these things before you say that you’re “well versed in Christian theology”
Read the first sentence of the wiki aticle.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immaculate_Conception
Maybe contact Scott on Twitter?
Allan
Allan, I was simply responding to your statement, “The Virgin Mary had the Immaculate conception, not Jesus.” I assumed you believed in this by this statement.
“This creates two immaculate conceptions, since virgins don’t conceive.”
What does Immaculate conception have to do with a virgin conceiving? Those are two separate events.
You’re using a semantics to try to “win” without addressing the issue, and I’m sure everyone can see this.
If you force Isa 7:14 to mean a virgin conception (which isn’t supported by the text), then you have two occasions of God being the father of another demigod, since virgin’s don’t conceive. (yes, I just gave you ammo for another semantic sidebar, which I won’t even address since you know a demigod is a child of a divine being and a human).
If you don’t hold that Isa 7:14 means a virgin conception, which again the Hebrew doesn’t support (the woman was already pregnant), then it cannot be used this way in Matthew. You either have two demigods or none (the answer is none). At least be consistent.
God cannot lawfully impregnate another man’s wife, nor can she give her consent to have someone other than her husband impregnate her, nor would the child be any tribe of Israelite since tribal affiliation is given by the father (Num 1:18), and God isn’t a son of Israel, thus making such a being disqualified from being a king of Israel.
Semantics? Just admit you’re not an expert in Christian theology like you claimed.
Now that you know that the Virgin Birth and the Immaculate Conception are two completely unrelated things, I’ll address the text.
Now, on Isaiah 7, there is a youtuber who did a two part video on this. He’s a member of the Orthodox Church. Here are his videos.
I didn’t realize that we were discussing by proxy. There are a ton of videos I could post showing Isa 7:14 is not virgin, but I thought I’d post one from “your own team.” Btw, this is the only time I will discuss by proxy. http://www.crivoice.org/isa7-14.html?fbclid=IwAR2WF0GIquG_zNQL_ZkEt9zRyGl3VDSEu__3i-iTDJqGcWl2qj2elkuFJfc
I’m still confused about the two virgin births. Can you elaborate?
Allan, read Isa 7. Who is Isaiah speaking to? What is he speaking about? What is the sign given?
I honestly don’t want to play these Perry Mason games. What are the two virgin births?
I’m not play Perry Mason games. Christianity’s explanation of Isa 7:14 is nowhere near standardized. So, I had to watch the video (at least part of it) to get an idea of what angle you take.
So, here’s the deal with Isa 7. Achaz is king of Judah. He is worried because Pekah and Rezin have allied themselves to conquer Judah and Jerusalem. Isaiah is dispatched from HaShem to reassure Achaz that he need not fear these kings, and to ask a sign. Achaz, an evil king, feigned piety and refuses to ask for a sign. Isaiah gives him the sign anyway. The sign is that the child who 1) either Isaiah and his wife will have; or 2) Achaz’s wife will bear; or 3) some other woman standing there who is pregnant will be the sign to Achaz. How? Before he is of age to discern right from wrong, the two kinds Achaz fear (smoldering firebrands) will be gone. There is no virgin birth here, nor is there an immaculate conception, either now or in the future. It doesn’t point 700 years to the future because the threat is immediate, and prophets are held to a very high standard. If what they say doesn’t come to pass, they are to be executed (Deut 13). Additonally, it wouldn’t in anyway be a sign to Achaz that Pekah and Rezin would fail if this is a prophecy about 700 years from then, nor would the reference to the two smoldering firebrands make any sense. Your video guy runs to the absurd to avoid the obvious.
As to two virgin births, this is only the case if you hold that the word here to Achaz from Isaiah means virgin. Clearly, almah does not mean that, and it appears that you do not hold this view. If you do, we can talk about the two virgin births, since the sign Isaiah gave to Achaz was about an immediate threat to the king of Judah.
Well, thanks for offering an exegesis but I have to go with Kabane on this one.
“As to two virgin births, this is only the case if you hold that the word here to Achaz from Isaiah means virgin. Clearly, almah does not mean that, and it appears that you do not hold this view. If you do, we can talk about the two virgin births, since the sign Isaiah gave to Achaz was about an immediate threat to the king of Judah.”
Let me be clear. I believe in one virgin birth. I suppose us Christians aren’t clear enough on that. I also believe in one Immaculate Conception which hopefully you won’t get mixed up going forward. Anyway, one. One.
God bless.
Allan wrote, “Well, thanks for offering an exegesis but I have to go with Kabane on this one.”
Of course, you do. Because you begin with the assumption that the gospels are true, so you must make Isaiah absurd. It’s the traditional Christian method. Other Christians offer other absurdities, such as that the woman in Isaiah was a virgin. But anyone who can read (absent Christian bias induced blindness) can see what Isa 7 is about.
Shall we talk about how Luke has Joseph and Mary having to return to their tribal homeland (from a 1000 years previously when David reigned – could you image such a thing today), only to have them return to Nazareth after the 40 days of purification, while Matthew records them staying in Bethlehem for 2 years only to flee to Egypt because Hos 11:1 says Jesus is God’s firstborn (when clearly HOs 11:1 is about Israel). So many conflicts, so many cooptings of Scripture, so little time.
This is why these conversations are pointless. We read OUR scriptures that apply to our nation, and the mercy of OUR God to uphold the covenant He made with OUR people. You Christians try to co-opt OUR Scriptures to justify your god committing adultery with a married woman to bring about a demigod sacrifice so that you can annul the Torah, and then try to make OUR God a liar to reject the ETERNAL covenant made with US. It’s sad, and to bring it about full circle, when the kings of the earth stand with mouths gaped wide that God has elevated US (Isa 53), and causes you to grab ahold of us because we got it right (Zech 8:23), let’s talk again at that time.
You know, for someone who “wasn’t intending to branch out of 1 & 2 Peter to other topics” you’re bringing up quite a bit.
It appears that you understand Christian theology as well as you understand the Immaculate Conception, which you thought was the same thing as the virgin birth.
Let me be frank. They’re not your scriptures because you have no covenant with God. The OT religion exists nowhere on this Earth. Remember that the next time you’re celebrating one of the Rabbinically modified holidays. Also, most people who identify as Jews today are not descendants of Israelites but of Khazars as Arthur Koestler has shown. This might explain why Israel is one of the whitest countries on the planet in an area where most people have dark skin. Obviously the ancestors of most modern Israelis isn’t where they’re living now.
Isaiah 53? Well, I know what you believe about this verse but its an undeniable fact that this verse has converted more Jews to Christianity than any other verse.
Zechariah 8:23? People aren’t going to grab onto a bunch of Khazars following an anti-Torah religion. They’re going to grab onto the 144,000 Jews in the book of Revelation.
Fine, we’ll talk at the end of the world I guess. Shalom.
So, Allan finally reveals himself as an anti-Semite to accompany his continuing ad hominem attacks. Very Christ like of you!
We, Jews, are the only one’s with a covenant with God. There is no example of Gentiles having a covenant with God. The New Covenant spoken of by Jeremiah is made ONLY with the House of Israel and the House of Judah. The resurrection spoken of by Ezekiel 37 is ONLY with the House of Israel and the House of Judah. As a Gentile, you have no covenant, which is why you are desperate to co-opt our Scriptures, which contain our eternal promises.
Genesis 17:19 But God said, “No, but Sarah your wife will bear you a son, and you shall call his name Isaac; and I will establish My covenant with him for an everlasting covenant for his descendants after him.” (1 Chronicles 16:17; Psalm 105:8; Psalm 111:5)
Ezekiel 16:60 “Nevertheless, I will remember My covenant with you in the days of your youth, and I will establish an everlasting covenant with you.”
This is important because it shows that the same people who made a covenant with God in the beginning are the same who make covenant with God in the end. To what other nation did God make a covenant with?
Back to the virgin birth discussion:
As Christians continue to struggle with the absurdity of Matthew’s virgin birth claim, they typically take a multi-pronged approach. They either claim the prophecy is dual, because they realize that the prophecy Isaiah spoke to Achaz was about the immediate threat from Israel and Syria, but must also make it apply to Jesus 700 years in the future; or they claim that it applies only to the future. Dualists (of which all Christians are to some degree demanding a dual fulfillment to the unambiguous messianic prophecies that Christians maintain Jesus will fulfill at his “second” coming (or third, or fourth…) create a very problematic situation in which we now have two virgin births, for if the prophecy Isaiah decreed to Achaz was about his immediate circumstances, and of course, it is, then the so-called virgin conception would occur twice, once at Achaz’s time, and once with Jesus. In fact, we could not restrict such a prophecy to a dual fulfillment because there is no restriction placed to two, three, or endless iterations of fulfillment. Christians, realizing this, but still desperate to justify Matthew’s absurd claim, assert that no, it wasn’t a prophecy to Achaz about Rezin and Pekah, the immediate threat that is contextually obvious. No, rather, the “virigin birth” is a sign that will not be shown for 700 years. Of course, the absurdity of this “sign” is that you cannot see such a sign, and it is not relevant to the discussion to Achaz about the immediate threat, thus creating it’s own imaginary context and fulfillment. Could imagine a warning sign of a road being out being placed after the chasm where the bridge was out? The absurdity of such a sign is only comparable to the sign that Jesus gave that he would in the grave 3 days and three nights and then resurrected, when one can’t get three days and nights between Friday afternoon and Sunday morning. Obviously, to be a sign to the generation, the generation would have to see this sign. Yet, Jesus is recorded as appearing to these critics who asked for the sign exactly never. This kind of nonsensical sign is exactly what Christians demand we adhere to by faith rather than by evidence, when a sign is precisely the evidence offered to support the claim.
Additionally, both dualists and those who push the sign off 700 years, attempt to redefine the word almah to virgin. Modern scholarship largely rightly rejects this because almah is simply the feminine for of alem, young man. No indication of sexual status is implied. Often Christians will appeal to the LXX which uses the word parenthenos, but this appeal fails on two points: namely, parthenos is used of Dina after she was raped (obviously not a virgin), and the fact that Isaiah is the worst translated book into the LXX as noted by Sir Brenton himself.
Returning to the ridiculousness of a “virgin birth” being a sign, who could see such a thing as a “sign”? Did someone give the woman in Isaiah’s day or Mary a pelvic exam to see if the hymen was in place? Obviously, giving birth to a child destroys the tokens of virginity, the hymen, at birth, although certainly before. So, there can be no evidence of virginity, even to her husband (thus the immaculate conception mythology). Lies to cover lies. Secondarily, when anyone sees a pregnant woman, does anyone say, “Oh, look at that virgin who conceived?” Obviously, we all know that the 100% certain assumption is that this woman is precisely NOT a virgin! So, without some sort of evidence, a virgin birth is a sign to nobody. And this is exactly why the Jewish people rightly alleged Jesus was conceived in sin, either by someone other than her husband, or by her betrothed husband before they were actually married.
Is it the end of the world already?
Btw Koestler was a Jew so this theory is not antisemitic. If you want to prove to me that you have a covenant, prove to me you’re the OT religion.
It’s funny that you call me an antisemite. I worship a Jew. How can I be an antisemite? You guys call Christians idolaters for worshipping a Jew yet I’m an antisemite? You can’t have it both ways. I don’t hate Jews or Khazars. I just respect the facts.
Communist atheist Arthur Koestler? 🙂 Seriously? Might as well have cited judenrat George Soros. Looks like I hit the nail on the head.
He eventually rejected communism. The theory which he articulates well has quite a bit of explanatory scope. It helps explain why people like Bibi Netanyahu and Bar Rafaeli look Scandinavian and not Middle Eastern.
Allan alleges, “The OT religion exists nowhere on this Earth.” presumably because there are no sacrifices today. He further alleges that the Jews today are not actually Jews. Maybe he could respond to this:
Deut 30: 1-5 “And when all these things come upon you, the blessing and the curse, which I have set before you, and you call them to mind among all the nations where the LORD your God has driven you, 2 and return to the LORD your God, you and your children, and obey his voice in all that I command you today, with all your heart and with all your soul, 3 then the LORD your God will restore your fortunes and have mercy on you, and he will gather you again from all the peoples where the LORD your God has scattered you. 4 If your outcasts are in the uttermost parts of heaven, from there the LORD your God will gather you, and from there he will take you. 5 And the LORD your God will bring you into the land that your fathers possessed, that you may possess it. And he will make you more prosperous and numerous than your fathers.”
You see, HaShem makes it clear that making sacrifices are not part of the requirement of keeping faithfulness to God. Of course, we Jews don’t consider obeying HaShem a “religion,” but its who we are. It’s ingrained in us; it’s part of the very essence of what being a Torah faithful Jew is. HaShem knows that if even in the “uttermost parts of heaven” far away from the Temple, if we are obedient to His word and obey Him, he will regather us, even from there.
Allan would have you believe that such obedience is impossible, and yet here, in Deut 30:11-14, HaShem tells us directly that it is not impossible,
“For this commandment that I command you today is not too hard for you, neither is it far off. 12 It is not in heaven, that you should say, ‘Who will ascend to heaven for us and bring it to us, that we may hear it and do it?’ 13 Neither is it beyond the sea, that you should say, ‘Who will go over the sea for us and bring it to us, that we may hear it and do it?’ 14 But the word is very near you. It is in your mouth and in your heart, so that you can do it.”
So, you can believe Allan that obeying HaShem is impossible, that Torah faithfulness is not being practiced, that there is no longer any covenant, and that the descendants of the those who heard Moses speak these words of HaShem to them are not actually their descendants, or you can look up and see that the Torah faithful Jewish descendants described in the this passage are returning from the “uttermost parts of heaven,” that the Covenant God made to us is ETERNAL, and that HaShem is fulfilling his promise to US, His eternal covenant people. 2000 years of persecution by those who say they worship a man who cannot even be Jewish (if the myths are correct), and attempting to stomp the life out of HaShem’s covenant and beloved people has utterly failed because the words of HaShem and the ETERNAL covenant He promised to the descendants of Jacob are unfailing, and we see the evidence right before our eyes as the nation is born in a day (Isa 66;8).
So, who will you believe? Will you believe Allan or the chosen and faithful prophets? Will you believe the unequivocal promises in the Tanakh, or the Christian religion who has murdered the Jewish people by the millions for close to two millenia and claimed the eternal promises given only to Israel? Stop believing a lie.
Why are you putting arguments in my mouth? presumably….
Of course I believe the prophets over the rabbis.
“Will you believe the unequivocal promises in the Tanakh, or the Christian religion who has murdered the Jewish people by the millions for close to two millenia and claimed the eternal promises given only to Israel? Stop believing a lie.”
Honestly, if you’re going to start lying like that then you obviously can’t carry on a rational conversation. Keep believing your lie that the “Christian religion” has murdered Jewish people by the millions. What a joke.
The only one lying is the one saying that the Rabbinical religion is that of the Tanakh. The holidays outlined in the Torah haven’t been celebrated for almost 2,000 years. You’ve claimed to celebrate them but you know that each one has been modified by the rabbis. When you start celebrating Biblical holidays, then you can make that claim. Until you do, your religion is anti-Torah.
Christian persecution, forced debates, inquisitions, pograms against so-called “Christ killers” is not even debatable. If you deny this, you need to come to grips with reality. Maybe check out history.com or some other extremely biased site like that: https://www.history.com/topics/holocaust/anti-semitism
Torah observant Jews keep all the commandments that can be kept. Obviously, when a commandment doesn’t apply, we don’t keep it. Simple as that.
In what way, Allan, do you allege that we aren’t keeping the commandments?
Here’s another source where you can read the common knowledge of persecution of Jewish people and communities from Christians through the centuries, from the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum:
https://www.ushmm.org/research/the-center-for-advanced-holocaust-studies/programs-ethics-religion-the-holocaust/articles-and-resources/christian-persecution-of-jews-over-the-centuries/christian-persecution-of-jews-over-the-centuries
This isn’t the main topic, nor really of interest, except Allan can get a grip on the crimes of his own faith against Jews. I’d much rather discuss his false allegations that the Jews don’t keep Torah commands so I can at least enlighten the readers here. Remember, King Solomon prayed in 1 Kings 8:
46 “When they sin against you—for there is no one who does not sin—and you become angry with them and give them over to their enemies, who take them captive to their own lands, far away or near; 47 and if they have a change of heart in the land where they are held captive, and repent and plead with you in the land of their captors and say, ‘We have sinned, we have done wrong, we have acted wickedly’; 48 and if they turn back to you with all their heart and soul in the land of their enemies who took them captive, and pray to you toward the land you gave their ancestors, toward the city you have chosen and the temple I have built for your Name; 49 then from heaven, your dwelling place, hear their prayer and their plea, and uphold their cause. 50 And forgive your people, who have sinned against you; forgive all the offenses they have committed against you, and cause their captors to show them mercy; 51 for they are your people and your inheritance, whom you brought out of Egypt, out of that iron-smelting furnace.
HaShem hears our prayers when we repent, even in the exile, just as he said in Deut 30, which I already quoted. Why? Because the HaShem’s covenant with US is unbreakable and eternal, not because of OUR sake, but because He spoke it, and unlike the human demigod you worship who changes loyalty and is not a god of his word, OUR God IS NOT A MAN THAT HE SHOULD LIE OR CHANGE HIS MIND (emphasis, not yelling)!
For someone who said: “Btw, this is the only time I will discuss by proxy.” It’s a bit ironic that you’ve given me two links. I don’t know why you’re trying to argue something I didn’t argue. Btw, 1 Kings 8 only works if the Temple is standing. See verse 48.
Now, to the persecution. I can’t go through everything but I could debunk it all if I wanted to. I could prove that it’s either grossly exaggerated or wasn’t really a big deal. I’ll deal with one. You said inquisitions.
The only inquisition that involved the Jews was the one in Spain. It wasn’t because they didn’t believe in Jesus. It was because they pretended to believe in Jesus when they didn’t. If you were a Jew who didn’t receive baptism, the Inquisition had zero power over you. In fact, Jews that weren’t baptized liked the inquisition because in the inquisition you could testify anonymously. Non-baptized Jews used that to get revenge on conversos that they saw as traitors. There are accounts of this. Only about 3,000 conversos were killed between 1478 and 1530 and by then the problem was over. Since these Jews had willingly accepted baptism, are they still Jews? Orthodox, Reform, and the State of Israel all have a definition of what a Jew is. They wouldn’t be Jews according to the State of Israel or the Reform. They’d be Jews but traitors in the eyes of the Orthodox. Still, we’re quite a bit off from millions as you said.
Regarding the main point, is your religion that of Torah or anti-Torah?
Just name me one Biblical holiday you’ve kept all your life. In fact, I’ll make it easier for you. Name one Jew since 200 AD who has kept a Biblical holiday. I say 200 AD and not 70 AD because there are accounts of some Jews continuing to slaughter passover lambs after the Temple but the rabbis got to them. So 200 AD is a safe bet.
This can be anyone claiming to be a Jew, whether they be a Khazar or a black Hebrew Israelite.
One Jew in over 1800 years. Shouldn’t be too hard. Name the Jew and the Biblical holiday he celebrated.
Possibly, you don’t understand a proxy argument, which is what you did by posting your videos. I, on the other hand, made an argument, which you never addressed, and referred to other sources that fill in more information (not an argument by proxy).
I am noticing a common approach you take, when confronted with an argument, respond with an ad hominem attack. It’s very consistent.
As you referenced Passover lambs, my presumption that your objection was about sacrifices, which you characterized as putting words in your mouth, turned out to be exactly on point. 🙂
Of course, you avoided Deut 30 because here HaShem tells us that we will keep his commandments in the exile, and then He will bring us back to the land. Thus, your objection against not slaughtering the Passover lambs, reveals your lack on understanding that Passover lambs can only be slaughtered at the temple.
For those that don’t understand, commandments are conditional upon circumstance. Re: Passover, if you’re not in the land, you don’t keep the Passover, and because the Torah assumes an obedient nation, it says to keep the Passover in the second month (assuming one’s return to the land). But it’s not limited to Passover. The commandments are specific to whether you’re a man/woman, Israelite or righteous Gentile or foreigner, Israelite or Levite/Priest, or Levite or Priest. or King, married or unmarried, etc. When the law doesn’t apply due to circumstance, you don’t assume it’s applicable. It’s not not a one size fits all.
All Torah observant Jews keep all the laws that apply to them in their circumstances. Myself included.
“The Immaculate conception is that fact when Mary was conceived by a special act of God, she was made sinless and therefore didn’t have Original Sin.”
Sir, there is no biblical basis for this. And it doesn’t exactly add to your ‘punch’ if you plan to debate these blind guides here.
I agree, pray for them.
Hello Allan
As mentioned my mother was a nominal Roman Catholic but would not have had a clue about what the immaculate conception was not probably even ever heard of it. I must admit that I have a problem with understanding that Mary was without sin. I thought Mary being just human warts and all made the fact that God chose to be born into a human vessel even more profound and Amazing and could not understand the rc hang up that He had to be born of a sinless womb. What difference does it make?
My wife very late in life decided to become a nurse and did a nursing degree at the age of 55. In all her course works she was not allowed to use Wikipedia as a reference source in her bibliographies. I think that is a short sighted view and am sure that over time it will out of necessity have to be changed as it is these days the go to on line resource but I thought I would mention it as you referred to the Wikipedia entry for the immaculate conception.
Hi Richard,
I did that because the guy who was arguing with it didn’t know what it was. I use wikipedia all the time. You have to make sure whether its general or specific information or something and a bunch of other factors. Wikipedia is a good website, though you have to check its sources. When I was in uni I wasn’t allowed to quote from it either.
God bless
Allan
Reading your discussions with Allan, I’m not really sure whether the reasoning put forward in the book will fall on deaf ears.
Nonetheless, by faith I will send a copy of the PDF to you – fully paid to the authors for a second time, as is only fair and right!
You can email me at scottthongblog at yahoo dot com, I’ll be able to see your email address and make the necessary arrangements.
At the very least, the book’s references might enlighten you (as it did me) about the pre-AD Jewish sectarian roots of the ‘Christian’ doctrines of theophanies, incarnation, and multi-personhood.
I’ve tried on Twitter taking to your Mr. Brown. He escaped. I gave him standard arguments same as Tobia gives. I have made even graphics for him to make it nice to read. So i know from expirience that’s his knowladge is weak.
Let’s put it this way. He has never backed down from debating a rabbi or counter-missionary. Just because he won’t respond to your tweets doesn’t mean he can’t refute you. He has not responded to my tweets on other subjects where I disagree with him.
Have you listened to the dialogue with Brown and Singer? Singer got owned and he knows it. That’s why he had to lie about the debate.
>So i know from expirience that’s his knowladge is weak.
I’d say this is a faulty conclusion.
The guy is a prolific author, runs a call-in radio show, does debates, writes articles for Stream.org… You expect him to have the time to respond to every challenge on Twitter?
If you really do have expirience (sic) about Dr Brown from his huge numbers of books, debates on Youtube, The Line of Fire radio show etc, then I’d be very interested to know why you still say his knowladge (sic) is weak.
If you haven’t actually read or listened to him much, then I suggest to start with what Allan suggested – the one and only Singer-Brown debate: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0XQmbeGEZ8 or https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=35ABfM2RvTI
I’ve personally gone thru that, and also all of the following debates about the Messiahhood of Yeshua or the Triune nature of God:
Rabbi Daniel Freitag – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w0IThMUEiO4&t=7919s
Rabbi Barry Silver – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QuyvLgzBNZA&t=5461s
Rabbi Jonathan Romain – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yfbkTnKi3Cc
Rabbi Shmuley Boteach – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XIEgef7WmAs&t=6s and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gtXlkmg9ONM
Rabbi Asher Meza – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-TTnNYgRyrw
Dr Dale Tuggy – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oi300_FvFz0
With Dr James White vs Sir Anthony Buzzard & Joseph Good – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yn-grOfPDi0&t=3138s and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M38rQXLq29g
So no, from my expirience (sic) I don’t agree that Dr Brown’s knowladge (sic) is weak
Oh, for crying out loud, Dr. Brown needs to stop whining and let this go. He keeps harping on this, and arguing against Rabbi Singer, all by himself, with really only his statements as evidence. Where is the debate where Rabbi Singer admits he was wrong about Isaiah 51 (or 53)? And, so what if Rabbi Singer doesn’t want another debate? I agree with Rabbi Singer that the debate stands on its own, and as an aside, I was more convinced by him than I was by Dr. Brown.
Well, Singer pretends that this doesn’t exist. Dr. Brown is fully open on it. Also, why doesn’t Singer let him release the audio of the first debate that they had? Rabbi Singer is a liar and a fraud. It’s best to avoid him.
After reading the above debate I will stick with Rabbi Singer!
Allan, you said you want proof of Josephus mentioning the Oral Torah? Easy, I can supply it. In the mean time, I find it all too entertaining that you don’t seem to care about answering David’s challenges. Oh well.
I’m not Allan but I’d be interested in a mention of the Oral Law by Josephus.
Jonathan, thank you for showing interest in my assessment. I’m sorry I couldn’t respond to you sooner, please understand that I had to keep Shabbos. Now, to cut to the chase, we will examine a few places (not just one!) where Josephus mentions the Oral Law as if he were simply reciting his kaddish. Many of them will no doubt surprise you. Keep in mind that we, in the modern world, fail to appreciate the knowledge of the ancients. It is proven beyond doubt now that our Oral Torah existed far before Second Temple times; it was never mere fabrication by the rabbis to “trick” us from believing Jesus. Nothing could be more anti-Semitic. The Oral Law was recorded in the Bible, the Apocrypha, Essenian tradition, it can be found all over in the archaeological world, but today, we focus in on one person: Josephus.
As you’ll recall, Josephus called the Pharisees/Perushim (the word means “interpreter”) the most “skillful” in hermeneutics [1]. With the said, he pointed out the fact that they introduced many “observances” that wasn’t known to the generation of Moses. By these “observances,” he simply means the legal safeguards (mitzvot d’rabbanan), as implemented by the rabbis to safeguard G-d’s Torah. This was commanded by the children of Israel, and Moses personally instituted the first Sanhedrin. The evidence for all this is irrefutable. I can quote many biblical passage, but to cut to the point, I’ll leave you with the highlights: Exodus 18:13-22, Leviticus 18:30, Numbers 11:24-25, and Deuteronomy 17:8-12.
Now, I present you with Exhibit A. The Essenes. What do the Essenes and Josephus have in common? Both recited oral tradition. The Essense commanded their people to place “bread and wine before the Priest, for it is he who shall bless the first-fruits of bread and wine and shall be the first to extend his hand over the bread” [2]. Josephus added to that: “It is unlawful for any one to taste food before grace is said” [3]. Note now that the Written Torah never commands such a blessing prior to consumption.
And it just get’s more interesting from here! When reading his large body of work, one cannot be but in awe of his amazing capability to almost recite oral tradition from memory, and to prescribe it all to Moses!
Logically, we’ll start with the giving of the Torah. Josephus tells us that Moses “Appointed such laws [orally] and afterwards informed them in what manner they should act in all cases” [4].
This is very similar to the opening of Pirkei Avot, “Moses received the Torah from Sinai and gave it over to Joshua. Joshua gave it over to the Elders, the Elders to the Prophets, and the Prophets gave it over to the Men of the Great Assembly. They [the Men of the Great Assembly] would always say these three things: be cautious in judgement, establish many pupils, and make a safety fence [legal safeguard[ around the Torah” [5].
This really tosses a blow to the detractors of Rabbinic Judaism. It proves that the Pharisees were indeed right! Let me offer some more proofs.
In the Written Torah, we don’t know which months were meant for which holidays, let alone which came first. Josephus makes it easy – he writes that these months were all lunar, and that the first one is Nisan [6]. Of course, this is exactly what the Oral Law says.
On Sukkot, Josephus maintains the four species, saying, “That we should then carry in our hands a branch of myrtle, and willow, and a bough of the palm tree, with the addition of the pomecitron” [7]. Weirdly enough, you wouldn’t expect his description to fit that of the Talmud’s! This shows you that Jews have been practicing this “oral” tradition for well over 2,000 years.
Deuteronomy 25:3 says, “Forty stripes he may give him, he shall not exceed, lest, if he should exceed and beat him above these with many stripes then your brother should be dishonored before your eyes.”
It is obvious, the person is to be given 40 strips. However, our oral tradition says no. It says in the Mishnah, “How many stripes do you give him? Forty minus one” [8]. Strangely enough, Josephus records the same, he nails the contradiction on the head by claiming Moses taught the following, “Let him be punished by receiving forty stripes save one” [9]. It’s all too canny – Moses used the same law our rabbis supposedly thought up around the Second Temple period!
On laws for marriages, the priest, in Leviticus 21:7 must not, “Take a harlot, or one profaned, neither shall they take a women put away from her husband, for he is holy unto his G-d” for a wife.
The Oral Law goes on to add slaves [10] and women who’ve been held captive [11].
This is the record of Josephus, Moses “Also forbade them (the priests) to marry a slave or a captive” [12].
In Deuteronomy 19:17, we find: “And the two men, between whom there is a controversy, shall stand before HaShem, before the priest, and the judges….”
The Oral Law requires two witnesses before a judge, and it can only use men, “The oath of witnesses is given to men and not women” [13]. Josephus said that Moses commanded, “Let not the testimony of women be admitted” [14].
The Written Torah says that false witnesses will be punished for their sins (Deuteronomy 19:19). The Oral Law takes it a step further by stating that if a verdict has been carried out, and later, it is proven to be false, the accused (the person who once gave testimony for unjust gain), was let free. He wouldn’t be executed. The Sadducees, however, thought he should be executed, after all, didn’t he lie and – in a sense – have blood on his hands? The Pharisees said no. They said, “Doesn’t the Torah say, `You should do to him as he wanted to do to his brother’ (quoting Deuteronomy 19:19)?” Meaning, the accused should be punished for their evil intent, not having been a false witness. But the Sadducees would assert the claim that the Torah speaks a “life for a life.” The response? The Pharisees said, “You would think that they are punished from the time that they have first witnessed (before the conviction was carried out), therefore, the verse says `a life for a life,’ they are not killed until the case is finished” [15].
Out of all people comes Josephus, and of course he sided with the Pharisees. He mentioned Moses’ law, “But if anyone be believed to have borne false witness, let him, when he is convicted, suffer all the very same punishments which he against whom he bore witness was to have suffered” [16].
Deuteronomy 24:1 on divorce: “If she finds no favor in his eyes, because he has found some unseemly thing in her, that he write for her a bill of divorce.”
Pretty much, the Written Torah is implying that there should be a darn good reason for divorce. The Oral Law explains, “The house of Hillel says `Even if she burns his food as it says ‘if he finds in her an unseemly thing,’ Rabbi Akiva says, `Even if he finds someone prettier than her, as it says ‘If she finds no favor in his eyes'” [17]. Josephus writes that, “He that desires to be divorced from his wife [can] for any cause whatsoever” [18].
Of course, I could go on and on about this, as both Josephus and the Oral Law agreed on saying the Shema twice a day [19], about placing a Mezuza on your door post [20], and how to correctly wear tefillin [21]. Josephus didn’t just cite oral tradition, he taught that it came directly from the mouth of the law-giver himself, Moses, and that he “Represented G-d as unbegotten, and immutable, through all eternity, superior to all mortal conceptions in pulchritude (beauty), and, though known to us by his power yet unknown to us as to His essence” [22].
One last thing. Was Josephus a Pharisee by birth? No. For a long time, he actually loathed them (for example, he was a big supporter of Hyracanus and wasn’t too happy how the Pharisees rebuked him), and spent three years researching all sects. In the end, to no surprise, he chose the Pharisees. Remember what he said about them? That they possessed knowledge from “our forefathers.” What did Deuteronomy 32:7 command us to do? To listen to “our forefathers.” This slams it. We cannot refuse these words!
In closing my short assessment, I will again point out that I merely used a handful of examples to prove to you that our Mesorah indeed comes from Sinai. Therefore, the hypocrisy of Christians “pretending” that Josephus didn’t have a clue of our oral traditions, is pure nonsense.
_______
Footnotes:
1. Josephus, Jewish Wars, Book II, 8.14; 10.6
2. Geza Vermes, The Dead Sea Scrolls (England: Penguin, 1987) p.102
3. Josephus, op. cit. 8.5
4. Josephus, Antiquities, Book III, 5.6
5. Pirkei Avot, 1.
6. Antiquities, Book III, 10.2,3,4,5
7. Ibid. 10.4
8. Mishnah, Makkos 3.10
9. Josephus, op. cit. Book IV 8.21
10. Mishnah, Kiddushin 4.1
11. Mishnah, Kesubas 2.5
12. Josephus, op. cit. Book III 12.2
13. Mishnah, Shevous 4.1
14. Josephus, op. cit. Book IV 8.15
15. Mishnah, Makkos 1.6
16. Josephus, op. cit.
17. Mishnah, Gittin 9.10
18. Josephus, op. cit. 8.23
19. Ibid. 8.13
20. Ibid.
21. Ibid.
22. Josephus, Contra Apion, II 17
Dear Allan, Go and read Deuternomy 4 verse 13 (written Law) and vers 14 (oral Law) in which orral commands and statutes were given to Israel. I trust this will open your eyes.
I’m not convinced. Verse 13 talks about a small portion of the written law, namely the ten commandments(technically words) which were written on tablets. There were many many laws given to the Israelites that weren’t part of those specific ten. Kosher Laws for example. See Leviticus 11. That’s not part of verse 13 but verse 14.
@ Justin & Pieter van Rooyen:
First to disclaim: I don’t take part in any lashon hara taking place on this site. I have nothing to do with it. I am a Jew who recognizes Yeshua as the Messiah, and I feel compelled to correct some serious errors here.
@ Justin: I’m a Jew who personally values the Oral Law, and hopes to study in it much more B”H. But I assure you with total confidence that it doesn’t go all the way back to Sinai–that is, not in its entirety, the way Orthodox Judaism claims. If you were intending to show that it goes back to Sinai, then I think you shot yourself in the foot when you said,
“With the (sic) said, he [Josephus] pointed out the fact that they introduced many “observances” that wasn’t known to the generation of Moses.”
Key phrase: “wasn’t known to the generation of Moses.” I don’t know precisely when the oral traditions began to come about, but some Jewish scholars place it around the time of the Great Assembly (ca. 500 BCE), and that seems feasible to me. But not back to Sinai, and I could give several proofs for that.
In regards to your citing Josephus, Apocrypha, etc. to show that *oral traditions* (though not the entire Oral Law, or concept of it that Orthodoxy makes), you could have also cited the Ketuvim Netzarim (a.k.a. “New Testament” to the Christians), since there are references to the same therein (Mar 7:3).
Justin, yours was a masterful presentation above, and I really enjoyed it; but again, there isn’t the slightest evidence that the Orthodox Jewish claim / doctrine regarding the Oral Law going back to Sinai is true. All evidence points completely to the contrary.
@ Pieter van Rooyen: In reality, Deu 4:14 refers to what was ultimately *written* in the Torah–not some separate set of oral instructions that were to remain oral *only* for generations. A plain reading of Tanakh makes it quite evident that God’s covenant with Israel was entirely based on what was *written* in Scripture (see Exo_24:4, Exo_34:27, Deu_17:18, Deu_28:58-61, Deu_29:20-27, Deu_30:10, Deu_31:9, Jos_1:8, Jos_8:31-34, 2Ki_23:3, Neh_13:1), contrary to the rabbinic twisting and contorting of “al piy” in Exo 34:27 (Git. 60b).
On a sidenote, I find all the debate over Isaiah 7:14 and Mat. 1:23 quite humorous and wasteful (at least, for me as a Jew), when the rabbinic interpretation of Scripture is often (not always, but often) *far* more suspicious than anything you’ll ever see in the Ketuvim Netzarim (“NT”). I’ll leave the whole Isa 7:14 / Mat 1:23 alone for now, but just have a look at how Gittin 60b turns the plain reading of Exo 34:27 *completely* on its head. Supposedly, the covenant with Israel was *only* based on the Oral Law. Really???
Again, I exhort my Jewish brothers to come to reality. The Oral Law is very valuable to me, and again, I hope to learn far more in it, B”H. But the Tanakh and Ketuvim Netzarim are what Hashem expects all Jews to recognize as Scripture, and the Orthodox doctrine of the Oral Law is false.
Shalom,
Yehudah
Allan, I’m very sorry that you have to steep to such low levels by calling Rabbi Singer a “liar” and a “fraud.” What about you say it to his face? Do you have the guts? Of course not. We Jews don’t have to waste our time pleasing you, we do it out of love. But if you’re going to treat our teachers in such harsh ways, why bother? Didn’t your parents ever teach you that if you have nothing nice to say, better not say it?
I await an apology on his behalf.
Justin,
This is the only response I’ll give to you. If I ran into Rabbi Singer, I’d have no problem calling him a liar and a fraud to his face.
God bless,
Allan
Though Justin gave a masterful response, your reply, Allan, reveals exactly why it’s a waste of time for we Jews to discuss things with you Christians. This is something R. Singer knows full well. Though you like to ask rhetorical, argument from silence, loaded questions that impugn R. Singer’s reputation and make false accusations toward him based on these fallacies, the wisest of all likens you to a dog licking up your own vomit. Who are we to try to stop you?
Justin
You approve of David who called the Virgin Mary an adultress with zero evidence : he didn’t see her commiting it, nor can he even quote one eyewitness that saw her commiting it.
Unsurprisingly, David didn’t name the Talmud where he got all this filth from. He prefers to hide behind “modern scholarship”.
I guess your Oral Law allows you to override the condemnation of false reports in the Torah.
Didn’t your parents ever teach you that if you have nothing nice to say, better not say it?
I await for an apology on the Virgin’s behalf.
Richard, the burden of proof is yours. A woman who is legally married to a man is found pregnant and the man says it isn’t his because he hasn’t had intercourse with her, by definition, is an adulteress.
Could a married woman legally give consent to any other to impreganate her? No. Again, that’s the definition of adultery.
There is no evidence that anyone knew of such a tale in the book of Mark, the original gospel account. Even in Luke, we see an adoptionist position in view, with Jesus becoming the son of God at his baptism.
So, no, there will not be an apology for what your gentile bible reveals about your savior.
One further thing about the writer of Matthew, in choosing a “virgin conception” as a sign, he created a major problem. As you noted Richard, I didn’t see her conceive, and neither did her husband. In fact, a conception cannot be seen, and therefore is not a “sign” at all. Think about any sign, even a stop sign if you will, it must be seen. Thus, the sign in Isaiah’s prophecy is not the ceonception, which occurs in the normal way, but that the Achaz fears will be gone before the boy can say Father and Mother, and he will be eating curds, a food of freedom (no one spends the time to change milk into curd when surrounded by an army). These two things, speaking and eating, are very visible, as is the absence of any army surrounding Jerusalem.
What “sign” is there of a “virgin conception?” None.
Of course you can always do that at your leisure, by calling lets say , Dr. Brown a liar and a fraud ! Didn’t Christ teach you that Hypocricy is a grave sin and a trait of the Pharisees ?
I agree with Therese. In the debate between Singer and Brown on the Sid Roth show, Dr Brown did not come across as convincing or persuasive, so I’m not sure how Allan Ruhl seems to think that it implied the end of of Tovia Singer. I found Tovia Singer to be much more convincing – in spite of the disgraceful intervention of Sid Roth after the debate had ended, in which he and Michael Brown sought to continue it in the absence of rabbi Singer.
There is no basis for the ad hominem that Singer is a liar and fraud. That is clearly “lashon hara”, and to be avoided.
Therese, as I recall, Rabbi Singer said Rashi said that the Messiah could possibly be spoken about in Isaiah 53, but this isn’t a problem, as such passages speak of the whole Jewish nation, along with the Messiah. This is at least the way we interpret things.
Of course, because when Israel is elevated and the nations stand open mouthed in shock and awe, it will be the Messiah who is at that time leading the nation. This is why Chazal insert the Messiah into this text, to show when it will occur, not who it’s about.
David, I agree with you wholeheartedly regarding Isaiah 53 and this piece of work known as Allan Ruhl. Thank you also for the kind words.
I just want to point out how Christians have their hands tied. Allan, I’m sure you’ve noticed, has never answered a single point you mentioned regarding Isaiah 7:14, and for me, all he says is: “this is the only response I’ll give you.” What does all this prove? That Christians DON’T have answers. We Jews expect this, after all, we KNOW Hebrew and they don’t, and so when they try to pull a fast one, well, good luck!
And these ad hominem attacks on Rabbi Singer’s character really gets tiring. Allan, is this really the best you can do? I challenge you to call Singer’s show *and say it to him*. Anyone can say, “Well, I would if I met him in the street.” That’s not guts, that’s an excuse. Show yourself a man!
And then we’d just be laughing in tears, because R. Singer would just ignore you, knowing full well that this is the BEST offering from the Christian community, the BEST argument, and then you really wonder why we’re all not worshiping Jesus? At least Dr. Brown puts thought, you’re just lazy.
Until you take my challenge, this conversation, at least regarding me and my work, is closed.
A bit late I know , but regarding Prophet Isaiah , the Messianic HEBREW Yehuda guy above , found the whole debate quite humourous
Why should it come as a surprise to you that Rabbi Singer would be in Jerusalem? Are you saying if a Jew doesn’t live in Jerusalem, he has no business being there? What a stupid thing to say! He has a radio program that broadcasts out of Jerusalem!
I don’t care how many volumes Michael Brown has written, he still cannot prove Jesuz was the Messiah. He was not of the seed of David and he was not of the tribe of Judah.
David
1. You don’t know what a definition is kiddo. Look it up in a dictionary
2. You’re being disingenious and pretending that the content of the prophecy announced at the beginning of Isaiah 7:14 should not be sought in the rest of 7:14, but rather in the following verse, 7:15. Nice try.
I don’t understand. Isaiah 7:14-15 go together. They’re both the same prophecy. A child is born, that’s technically the road to the fulfillment, so it counts as something. Later, when that child is old enough to distinguish good and evil, that’s the fulfillment.
@ George
Just to clarify, I didn’t intend that the subject of the debate is “humourous,” as it is certainly an important subject. I meant that the *way* it was being debated is somewhat “humourous.” But even then, you have to keep my comment in context. I went on to say,
“when the rabbinic interpretation of Scripture is often (not always, but often) *far* more suspicious than anything you’ll ever see in the Ketuvim Netzarim (“NT”).”
It’s the hypocrisy, or unequal standards being used that make the debate humourous and wasteful.
I would just add that David, Richard, is not getting his arguments from “that filthy Talmud” as you’ve noted. No. He got it by logical reasoning. Note now, Richard, not the Talmud has nothing to say about Jesus OR Marry. Those passages from the Talmud are speaking of a Jesus (Yeshu) who lived a hundred years EARLIER than the Jesus you worship as G-d in the flesh. How am I so sure of this? Yehoshua ben Perachya was Yeshu’s teacher; these guys lived 110 years before your Jesus (see Sotah, 47a, B.T.). Also, don’t be fooled thinking there was just one Jesus in the world, there were plenty! Josephus alone lists 22 important guys named Yeshu/Jesus during his lifetime. Moreover, other authorities agreed, such as the Seder Hadoros and Rabbi Yechiel of Paris. Therefore, there is just no comparison here. Oh, and by the way, please, PLEASE, show some respect and not call it “filthy,” ok? Then we can leave behind Jerkish passion for critical scholarship. Toda raba.
Justin
So, you ‘re demanding the right to insult other people at will while you should be treated with respect ? Here come hutzpah and assymetric warfare in all their glory !
I know you won’t listen to me, but let me tell you, hutzpah from Jews is the one major source of anti-semitism.
And no, liberalism (“logical reason” as you call it) is not an excuse for insulting the Virgin. Most liberals, unlike you, are not interested in asking whether Mary was an adultress (they usually don’t think adultery is a bad thing anyway) or in insulting her. They just don’t believe in the miracle, period.
“the Talmud has nothing to say about Jesus OR Marry”
Such an omission would be very surprising indeed. It would also be staggeringly surprising that so many people in history have thought it does.
Richard, who’s insulting Mary? Point out where I’ve done so. I didn’t notice that in my work. I don’t think any chutzpah caused Jews to perish in the Shoah. It was the perverted mind of Germans of that age – not modern Germans, hopefully not much of them – that thought Jews were an inferior race. Of course we’re not a race. There are some good books which talk about the Nazi character of the time being Hitler’s “willing executioner.” In other words, the research shows that the Germans just wanted to kill Jews, nobody was pressured into doing his job. One other thing, do you think you’re free of arrogance? This isn’t an attack, but we all have our faults, but is it then permissible for me to say that we should hate Whites because of their arrogance? This is not an excuse.
Regarding the Talmud, you are so mistaken. We need to discuss some basic facts here. Was Mary Magdalene the mother of Jesus? No. Was she a hairdresser, a “megadla nashaia”? No. Was Jesus’ step-father Joseph? Yes. It wasn’t Pappos Ben Yehudah. Regardless, this man was a contemporary of Rav Akiva, they pondered on halacha together, and died together (Mechilta Beshalach, Vayehi ch. 6; Berachot 61b, B.T.). This was also true for the teacher of Ben Stada, Yehoshua ben Perachya (Sotah 47a, B.T.). Who was Ben Stada? Some say Jesus. But all these men lived at least a half century after Jesus. Moreover, Ben Stada died in Lud, of stoning. He wasn’t crucified. Even though he was convicted by the Sanhedrin and died in the eve of Passover, this can’t be Jesus, as only John 19:14 says something similar. Well, it’s free against one, sorry John (Matthew 26:18-20; Mark 14:16-18; Luke 22:13-15).
Can we review now? Shabbat 104b and Sanhedrin 67a say he was born around the year 100 CE. That he was sometimes called Ben Pandira; that he brought with him witchcraft from Egypt; that his mother was named Miriam, a hairdresser, and that his father was Pandira (his step-father being Pappos Ben Yehudah). Sanhedrin 67a ends his story with execution in Lud for idolatry. How is this similar in any way to Jesus again? Let’s not spill anymore ink over this.
But with all that said, by all means, show me these “people of history” who’ve said otherwise. Let’s see their evidence. I bet you it’s going to be along the lines of this: “Jesus is in the Talmud. The rabbis weren’t experts at chronology or getting their facts right about him because they didn’t care to, or perhaps because they purposefully wanted to mock him.” Strong evidence. Yep. What this really is is just (1) lazy research, and (2) pure anti-Semitism. Or we can add a third category: (3), uneducated. You want a list of first-rate historians who agree with me? Try Morris Goldstein in “Jesus in Jewish Tradition.” Try Joseph Klausner in “Jesus of Nazareth.” Try Louis Ginzberh in “Some Observations on the Attitude of the Synagogue Towards the Apocalyptic-Eschatological Writings,” Journal of Biblical Literature (1922). Try Johann Maier in “Jesus von Nazareth in der talmudischen Uberlieferung.” John P. Meier, a Catholic priest in “A Marginal Jew.” After all, as Meier points out, why should early Rabbinic Judaism have concerned itself with Jesus? It was trying to “survive” itself!
I think that about cleans you out.
David, here are a few remarks about your attack on Isaiah 7:14 :
1) I repeat to you the challenge that Saint Jerome made to all and any Jews : show me one passage in the Torah where almah means “young woman” and not “virgin”.
2) The strong similarity between Isaiah 7:16 and 8:4 suggests that they are talking about the same thing (you yourself seem to admit as much).
3) The text says THE virgin, not just “a virgin”, which is 100% consistent with the unique status of Mary in Christianity (and also explains why there could not be a dual fulfillment in Achaz’ time).
4) Regarding the difficulty that there is no obvious connection between the fulfillment of the prophecy some 700 years later and the situation Achaz was in, several solutions have been proposed by the scholars. My favorite is that God, seeing that Achaz is hard to convince (see the preceding verses), starts by making a Messianic prophecy about a very extraordinary event, which then makes the lesser miracle of destroying Achaz’ enemies very credible in comparison.
5) The Hebrew tenses in the text suggest coexistence (the Virgin at the same time conceiving, at the same time giving birth) are 100% consistent with the Christian dogma that Mary stayed virgin during and after the conception or birth.
6) Regarding “signs”, what you say is the opposite of the truth. Obviously, a sign should be at least a little unusual, else how could anyone notice it ? Your suggestion that that the content of the prophecy was “a woman will give birth” is most desperate and most ridiculous, and clearly shows who is trying here to nullify the Torah while pretending to follow it.
Richard, do you really think any Jew is going to take you seriously? I doubt it. Your questions are so weak. Allow me to respond, if I may.
1) “Ha’almah” (הָעַלְמָה) means what? Anyone speak Hebrew here, except for me and David? What does it mean? You know what it means! It means “young woman.” It was the Greek Septuagint which erroneously translated it as “parthenos” (Παρθένου) in Isaiah 7:14. But let me cut to the chase here, you ask for a single verse. Just one verse! I can provide more than one. Are you ready?
In Proverbs 30:18-20, we find King Solomon comparing four things: “There are three things which are too wonderful for me, for which I do not understand: the way of an eagle in the sky, the way of a serpent on a rock, the way of a ship in the middle of the sea, and the way of a man with a young woman [b’almah]. This is the way of an adulterous woman: She eats and wipes her mouth, and says, ‘I have done no wrong.’”
What do they all have in common? There is no trace. After an eagle flies in the air, no one could possibly know if it ever happened, the same with a snake (slithering on rocks), ship, or a young woman (if she were a virgin, the trace would be the discharge of blood after the breaking of the hymen, Deuteronomy 22:15 recognizes this evidence).
In the next verse (Proverbs 30:20), we find Solomon reciting a metaphor of this adulterous woman as “eating” (in fornication of infidelity) “wipes away her mouth, and says, ‘I have done no wrong.'” Since “alma” does not prove sexual status, it only gives us an inkling to her age and gender; Isaiah did not implement this word in the text (Isaiah 7:14), but had he wished to convey such a notion that this woman, about to give birth, was indeed a virgin, he should have used the familiar Hebrew word betulah (בְּתוּלָה), WHICH APPEARS FIVE TIMES IN HIS WORK, so Isaiah KNEW what he was doing (23:4; 23:12; 37:22; 47:1; 62:5)! This word, in biblical times as well as today, is the only Hebrew word in our lexicon which proves the state of a female’s sexual purity.
You asked for examples, here’s more!
Genesis 24:16, “The girl was very beautiful, a virgin (בְּתּוּלָה), and no man had had any relations with her.”
Deuteronomy 22:14, “I took the woman, but when I came near her, I did not find her a virgin (בְּתּוּלָה).”
Judges 21:12, “And they found among the inhabitants of Jabesh 400 young virgins that had known no man.”
While the male version of the noun (alma) is עֶלֶם (elem), meaning, of course, “young man.” We see this in 1 Samuel 17:56 and 20:22, the only time it ever appears in the Hebrew Scriptures. As you can clearly see, age doesn’t matter, she or he could be 50 years old and still be a virgin.
The Christians saw no problem with this in their translation process, so they left it alone. But oh boy, when it came to Isaiah 7:14!
Thankfully today, many Christian Bibles have now fixed Matthew’s careless mistake of Isaiah 7:14; they no longer reads “virgin,” but correctly as “the young woman.” Here’s a short list of them:
Revised Standard Version
New English Bible
Revised English Bible
New Revised Standard Version
The Message of the Bible
The Layman’s Bible Commentary
The Bible: A New Translation
The Bible: An American Translation
The New Jerusalem Bible (Catholic)
International Critical Commentary
Good News Bible
World Biblical Commentary
The Bible in Basic English
So just remember, if I’m wrong about this, then why did these Christian Bibles change their translation?
However, you have a big problem. If “parthenos” does mean virgin, then how come your Greek version of OUR Bible – note here that this version was not produced by Jewish hands – translates Dinah as a virgin… after her rape (Genesis 34:2-4)! Can a victim still be a virgin after having been rapped? Of course not. End of argument. Let’s move on….
2) Isaiah 7:16 reads: “For, when the lad does not yet know to reject bad and choose good, the land whose two kings you dread, shall be abandoned.”
Isaiah 8:4 reads: “For, when the lad does not yet know to call, ‘Father’ and ‘mother,’ the wealth of Damascus and the plunder of Samaria shall be carried off before the king of Assyria.”
What’s your point? How does this prove Jesus? What help would Jesus be 700 years later to King Ahaz!!!
3) You write: “The text says THE virgin, not just “a virgin”, which is 100% consistent with the unique status of Mary in Christianity (and also explains why there could not be a dual fulfillment in Achaz’ time).” And guess what, you’re partly right! We find that Isaiah used the definite article (Ha-ה), as if to say the woman was alive in his day. Matthew, however, cheats his audiences by erasing it and replacing “the” with “a virgin.” By doing this, Matthew cleverly deleted any context from his proof-text. On what basis did I say you were only partly right? Reread Matthew’s text, he doesn’t say “the.” Anyhow, that wouldn’t have made Marry “unique,” even if so, you have to somehow proof that Isaiah was talking about a virgin birth some 700 years later, and yet, somehow, this birth would still destroy the Syro-Ephraimite coalition. Good luck. Those empires weren’t around when Jesus was alive. I’m waiting to see how you pull yourself out of this one!
4) To say that G-d made two miracles, one in Ahaz’s lifetime, and another 700 years from now (which is meaningless to him), is actually disingenuous. You have to literally pull that one from nowhere, nothing like this exists in the text, you’re actually completely relying on the New Testament at this point. Mazal Tov. After all, again, HOW WILL A VIRGIN BIRTH, 700 YEARS FROM NOW, DESTROY THE ENEMIES OF ISRAEL? UH? i thought so.
5) Agreed. But you could also apply that to Isaiah’s wife and leave out Marry. Not an argument from you at all, moving on….
6) I don’t understand your argument here. Perhaps David is merely following Rambam here? Put three Jews in a room, come out with four opinions, haha! I personally believe in miracles, we Jews need everything, from rationalists to mystics. Regardless, not an argument here.
Why the need for Genesis 24:16 and Judges 21:12 to clarify that no man had known them, if bethulah always means virgin? If bethulah means young woman without regard to sexual status, the inclusion of the disclaimer makes sense.
Again in Joel 1:8, the bethulah laments for the bridegroom of her youth – if she is a virgin at that point, then he must have died in the very narrow window of time after marriage but before consumnation!
OTOH, Deuteronomy 22:14 does seem to equivocate bethulah with virgin. So perhaps the most that can be concluded is that bethulah can – but does not always – specify virginity.
With regards to ‘two miracles’… Well that’s kind of a recurring theme in the New Testament. At various points, an Old Testament verse that had a clear application onto Old Testament events is clarified (‘repurposed’, if one feels uncharitable) to be about Messiah. Examples are ‘Out of Egypt I called my son’ and
If the Gospel account is an accurate rendition of events, then this is by no means unprecedented outside of Christian beliefs – Jesus cites Psalm 110:1 to the scribes and applies it to both David and Messiah, and no one objected to that dual application.
Scott,
Why the need? Let me explain it again:
Genesis 24:16, “The girl was very beautiful, a virgin (בְּתּוּלָה), and no man had had any relations with her.”
Judges 21:12, “And they found among the inhabitants of Jabesh 400 young virgins that had known no man.”
These are all virgins. They’re not women who’ve slept with others before. The word is, after all, בְּתוּלָה. It’d be like writing in English, to go by your logic: “These’s women are ___, but they haven’t slept with anyone.”
What are you saying by that? Are they virgins? Are they big fans of Chinese restaurants? Where’s the clarification here?
It’s the other way around, בְּתוּלָה always points to sexual status. הָעַלְמָה doesn’t; did you confuse these two? Why did these verses go on to say no man had touched them? Because everything needs an explanation. Would you find it more convincing if I just said, “chocolate,” or, “chocolate is very sweet.” If I just said the former, would you assume chocolate wasn’t sweet? See? Imagine a world without adjectives?
You cannot take the liberty to say a given prophecy has two parts to it. This is never stated so in Tanakh. And where do you draw the line? Can it not also be speaking of the Buddha? This sort of argument is akin to saying “If we consider the Old Testament in isolation (which is the Jewish perspective), we shall not likely ‘prove’ that Jesus Christ was man, God, Messiah, and Savior; although the indicators are all there.”
So what do I make of all this? Great, you’ve just lost the debate. Nice going. This is where the whole Christian faith stands or falls, you won’t prove to me Muhammed was right by quoting me the Quran, or Buddha by the Sutras, you need to do it through the Jewish Scriptures alone. Therefore, you are just one of many Christians I’ve met in the past admitting that Jesus is absent in the Hebrew Scriptures.
Regarding Psalm 110:1. If you have an English Bible, yes, it will say “The Lord said to my Lord.” In Hebrew, this means nothing. There are no capital letters to begin with. Moreover, the first lord in Hebrew is יהוה, you know who that signifies. The second one, however, is לַאדֹנִי (pronounced as “ladonee”). What does לַאדֹנִי mean? A master, or a lord, but not in any heavenly sense. לַאדֹנִי is never used once in all of Scripture when referencing G-d, the Most high. Can I prove this with a Christian Bible? Yes! Open your KJV to Genesis 24:54 and 32:4. Note there that the KJV correctly translated it as לַאדֹנִי and not יהוה. So why did they manipulate Psalm 110:1? Because it is cited as a “proof-text” in Matthew 22:41-44. So what is the meaning of Psalm 110 then if it’s not talking about Jesus? The verse opens with מִזְמוֹר לְדָוִד. The Greek for that is ψαλμός. What does it mean? It means a “song.” But why did David write a song? He was upset that HaShem prohibited him from building the First Temple. David was expecting to be at G-d’s “right hand,” His most trusted servant, but that lofty position was taken from him. This song signifies his urge to get right with G-d again. He also wrote them, via hindsight, to be sung by the future Levitical choir. If this is the true meaning of the psalm, then how can it be Jesus? The answer is obvious.
I want you to note one last thing. Originally, Jesus said κύριος only once, but later editions changed that, adding κύριοω to signify the second “lord.” In other words, a different syntax.
–Therefore, you are just one of many Christians I’ve met in the past admitting that Jesus is absent in the Hebrew Scriptures.–
Jesus of Nazareth – the human being born from Mary in the First Century, considered by His followers to be the incarnation of the divine Son of God – is not in the Old Testament? I’ll admit that much.
But as someone who introduced ‘Our God is Triune’ and ‘The Preeminence of Christ Part Two’ to Allan, he probably can tell you offhand that I’m not one of those Christians who thinks the preincarnate Son – the second person of God – is absent from the Hebrew Scriptures.
Hello Scott,
On second thoughts I (slightly) disagree with your first point about betulah. The pairing of two synonymous or nearly-synonymous words is a well-known feature of Biblical Hebrew, and is visible even in the translations of Old Testament or the New Testament (for example, when Jesus says “I am meek, and humble of heart”). Thus, there is nothing strange about phrases like “the virgin had known no man” in Hebrew. It’s just that Hebrew speakers enjoyed repeating themselves this way.
The real reason why almah is used instead of betulah in Isiah 7,14 is because betulah means a virgin of any age while almah means a young virgin. The prophecy is more specific this way.
Richard, talk to a Hebrew speaker other than me. Please. I beg you. Please call someone. Ask a friend. Do anything! Because I can’t stress it enough. Almah NEVER means a young virgin. Never. Jews for Jesus agree with me, rabbis agree with me, other native Hebrew speakers agree with me. Why don’t you? The real reason why “almah” is used is because Isaiah was making a point, as Rashi does: this women can’t conceive. She’s tried, and failed. She’s no virgin for sure. But she’s trying. Finally, a miracle (if you believe it), she conceives.
It is always amazing to me to see Christians desperation to justify their theology by resorting to changing the clear meaning of language. Alem means young man; not young virgin man. Almah is the feminized form of alem. It is as simple as that. But this plain linguistic fact destroys Chrsitianity’s reliance upon Isa 7:14 to justify their demigod’s conception myth, despite it not even appearing in the earliest gospel.
–The pairing of two synonymous or nearly-synonymous words is a well-known feature of Biblical Hebrew–
I did later on think of that… Since the usage of ‘same thing, said differently’ appears so many times especially in songs. (Monty Python and the Quest For the Holy Grail portrayed it aptly in the Holy Hand Grenade scene.)
I’m not dogmatic about the meanings of Hebrew words, since I haven’t seriously studied the language. Hence my comment was a query, not a statement.
Justin
A) Scott has already refuted you on betulah – I thank him for that.
B) Regarding S. Jerome’s challenge, you have thrown in a lot of quotes but of course, none of them have almah except Prov. 30:19, so let’s look at it. Deut. 22 nowhere says that the cloth method described therein is infallible or is the only accepted of proof of virginity. In fact, rabbinical law also accepts the parent’s testimony as alternative evidence. But we don’t need rabbinical law to understand that any young woman can easily erase the traces of the loss of her virginity, so your argument around Prov 30:19 is baseless.
I therefore thank you for having added yourself to the long list of Jews who tried to meet S. Jerome’s challenge and failed.
C) Your understanding is so weak that you can’t make up your mind whether “parthenos is a wrong translation for almah” (as you say at the beginning of 1)) or “parthenos does not necessarily mean a virgin” (as you say at the end of 1)).
D) “To say that G-d made two miracles, one in Ahaz’s lifetime, and another 700 years from now (which is meaningless to him)”
Any Messianic prophecy would have been important to Ahaz or his correligionaries. Messianism was at the core of the old Hebrew religion just like it is at the core of modern Judaism (although in a different way of course).
Richard,
A) I debunked his refutation.
B) Because עלמה doesn’t mean davka virgin. Just young woman. For the last time, בתולה means a virgin. Moreover, guess what genius, if it’s a method prescribe by Torah, chances are, it’s infallible. Also, please explain to me how exactly we’re supposed to be able to erase the evidence?
C) Not at all! Parthenos, Christians try to say, means virgin when it comes to Isaiah 7:14, but when it comes to Genesis 34:2-4, it suddenly doesn’t. This isn’t my mistake, it’s the mistake of Christian translators who obviously used some manipulation.
D) Again, how would a virgin birth, 700 years later, help Ahaz? And no, Isaiah 7:14 says nothing about the Messiah, so I doubt Ahaz would have interpreted it as such. Rather, you’re the one saying that, not the navi.
Richard, again, the woman would want to show that she *was* a virgin. If she were faking anything, she would add blood, not take it away.
With all that said, I’ll just add that lots of people don’t bleed enough to leave anything behind (if they bleed at all). Also, the hymen can open without ever having sex. They of course would still be considered a besulah with all the pertinent halachos.
Understand now that even guys like Jews for Jesus admit what I’m saying about Isaiah 7:14 is true!
After all, the text says that “b’tulim” must be brought, which you could argue is just about any evidence of virginity, but it says a garment must be spread in front of the elders to be seen as evidence (the Gemara, in the beginning of Kesuvos, disagrees with this because the rabbis were sophisticated enough to know that blood was not a proof of virginity, as was lack of blood proof that she was not a virgin). So, no, the text doesn’t say other evidence can’t be used, but the first chapter of B’reishis also doesn’t say the moon isn’t made of cheese. Still, in the context of Devarim 22:14, there are ‘signs’ for virginity.
Scott, then show me one place in Tanakh which mentions the triune G-d. At least Dr. Craig Evans was honest enough to admit it’s nowhere.
It would come down to a matter of understanding or interpretation. Dr. Craig Evans might be honest enough to admit it’s nowhere in the Tanakh AS HE SEES IT, but I would be dishonest to pretend I do not see it.
In any case I would begin with the Angel of YHWH who:
– Appears in physical form looking like a man (Zechariah 1:10-11; Genesis 18:1-2 & 8; Joshua 5:13-15 and compare with Exo 3:5)
– Whom seeing is equated with seeing YHWH Himself (Exodus 3:2-4; Genesis 16:13)
– Yet does not cause the death of those who see Him, in apparent cotradiction to Exodus 33:20 (Exodus 24:9-11; Judges 6:22-23 & 13:21-22; also compare the Angel’s name in Judges 13:17-18 with Isa 9:6)
– But yet who speaks to YHWH, or acts as if he and YHWH were distinct individuals (Zechariah 1:12-13 & 3:1-2; Genesis 19:24)
This is just what I can blurt out offhand in ten minutes, and this is retricted to only the Angel of YHWH – I haven’t started yet on YHWH’s bouncing between plurals and singulars, or the divinity of the Servant that YHWH sends out.
So when I take the Angel of YHWH, who is YHWH yet a separate individual, who takes physical form and even eat, and who forgives sin (Zechariah 3:4), and who mysteriously is not mentioned in the New Testament (while the Father and the Holy Spirit are)…
Can you blame a Trinitarian for equating this Angel of YHWH to the second person of the Trinity, before the incarnation around the First Century? The incarnated Jesus who makes these same claims about Himself?
Or people like Martin Luther or the Council of Sirmium for noting what Dr. Craig Evans apparently did not?
Or even the Jews for coming up with the Two Powers in Heaven? The Memra that John adopted for his gospel (compare Genesis 1:1 in the Targum) – even going as far as replacing mentions of the Angel of YHWH with the Memra of YHWH? Or what Midrash Rabbah has Moses lamenting to God about Genesis 1’s plurals giving sectarians an excuse?
My rabbi and I were just talking about this topic a few weeks ago. His comment was, “Anyone can make the Tanakh day anything, but the idea of a plurality of persons in a singular God is antithetical to Judaism.” In other words Scott, the only way you “see” a triune god in the Tanakh is because you begin with an apriori assumption which is also your conclusion. This is the textbook definition of circular reasoning. This is why scholars like theist Dr. Evans and and atheist Dr. Ehrman reject that a triune god was even included in the gospels, much less the Tanakh, and see the Trinity as a 4th century development of the the church. By the middle of the 2nd century, virtually all of Christianity viewed Jesus as a deity, but how was he a deity? They began scouring the pages of the Tanakh to look for evidence. This prooftexting is a clear case of circular reasoning again. One doesn’t start in the Tanakh and come to believe in a divine messiah.
By the way , ” Παρθένος ” *always * means a virgin .
Regarding the occurrence of “parthenos” in the Septuagint translation of Genesis 34:3 : I have just finished reading an article (in French) by a M. Christophe Rico who is Professor at the French Biblical and Archeological University of Jerusalem. The article is available at https://www.academia.edu/394556/almah_et_parthenos_dans_lunivers_de_la_Bible_le_point_de_vue_dun_linguiste
Among other things, the article describes the evolution of the word “parthenos” from archaic Greek to classical Greek to koine Greek, where it acquired the exclusive meaning of “virgin”. To the scholar’s best knowledge, this verse 34:3 in the Septuagint is among the very latest known occurrences of “parthenos” in the archaic sense of “non-virgin woman” in all of known history.
It must remembered that Genesis is of course the very first book of the OT, and that the Septuagint translators were a little bit unexperienced and unsure about how to translate certain nuances. The article provides statistical evidence on certain words showing how the terminology gradually stabilized.
We also learn that Philo of Alexandria, the famous 1st-century Jewish philosopher, was also puzzled and surprised by the parthenos in Genesis 34:3. The only explanation he could find was by claiming an allegory, that Dina is a symbol for eternal justice and that justice “eternally stays a virgin”.
You can spin this web that Philo called her a virgin of justice, and that the term with this or that. It won’t help you. The fact is, once she was rapped, she wasn’t a virgin in the slightest sense of the word. If that can’t explain it, I don’t know what will. This is basic logic. Philo didn’t trust your Christian Greek text anymore than he could toss it. No Jew would rely on some Greek text to explain our Bible. Gosh, we even read in Hebrew, why would we need a Greek text to explain anything. You think G-d forgot Hebrew? That He one day woke up and went, “Aha! I meant virgin all along! Let me fix that.” Where are we, grade school?
Justin, you wrote : “Isaiah 7:14 says nothing about the Messiah (…) Rather, you’re the one saying that, not the navi.”
Well, it was the navi that put the “hinnēh” at the beginning of Isaiah 7:14, not me. In biblical Hebrew, “hinnēh” means “Hey! Listen carefully ! This is very important!”.
It’s the same navi that speaks to the House of David and not Ahaz, because Ahaz declined the offer God made him to ask for a sign.
But of course, you and David pretend that it’s all about Ahaz only, even though Ahaz said he didn’t want no sign.
It’s the same navi, again, that makes the prophecy in mysterious terms (not naming any of Emmanuel’s parents for example, or saying only vague and seemingly unrelated things about “Emmanuel” in the rest of the chapter).
If you don’t want mysterious prophecies, blame Isaiah, not Christians.
Let me break the ice. The child in question, was the child of Isaiah. Am I still suppose to be mystified? Who was that child? Can you guess?…
Here. The Hebrew verb “conceived” is “harah.” “Will give birth” in Isaiah 7:14 equals in Hebrew to “yoledet.” Isaiah is pointing us to a woman he personally knows, not someone living centuries later. There is a lot of debate as to who she is, but all agree there’s a clue in 8:4.
“He [Isaiah] approached the prophetess and she conceived (tahar) and bore (taled) a son and G-d said to me: Name the child “Maher-shalal-hash-baz” which means (the spoil speeds the prey hastens). For before the child shall know how to cry my father my mother the riches of Damascus and the spoil of Sammaria will be carried away before the king of Assyria.”
The woman in 7:14 was his wife, and Isaiah’s children are referred to by G-d as “signs” (Isaiah 8:18). It is for this very reason that the prophet’s children are enemies to the Christian faith.
But what about Isaiah 9:6? “For a child has been born (yulad – יֻלַּד־) to us, a son given (ni-tan – וַיִּקְרָ֨א) to us, and the authority is upon (וַתְּהִ֥י) his shoulder, and the wondrous adviser, the mighty G-d, the everlasting Father, called his name, ‘the prince of peace.'”
Was Jesus ever called Immanu El [G-d is with us], in the New Testament? Of course not.
Notice how the original Hebrew uses the conjugated past tense. Anything else is simply a gross mistranslation on the part of Christians in order to extend their agenda to Jews.
So. . . if the child isn’t Jesus, then whom?
There’s only one man in the whole Hebrew Bible whose name means, “The Mighty G-d.” Can you guess who it is? Do Christians know their “Old Testament” well enough?
. . . You got it! It’s Hezekiah.
You see, Isaiah 9:6 never mentioned the Messiah, nor that he would be Jesus, or will be G-d in the flesh. It doesn’t even make sense to claim it’s Jesus, a son born of a virgin.
Just to show you how bad this is, the KJV purposefully mistranslated “son” only in Isaiah 7:14; they had absolutely no problem. whatsoever, when it came to translating other verses in Tanakh perfectly. Here’s a small list below:
“A son was born ( יֻלַּד־); and he called (וַיִּקְרָ֨א). . . .” – Genesis 4:26
“These are the sons of Jacob, which were born (יֻלַּד־). . . .” – Genesis 35:26
“Which was given (נִתַּן־) him in the hill country. . . .” – Joshua 24:33
“After the name Dan their father, who was born (יֻלַּד־). . . .” – Judges 18:29
“And the Arameans became (וַתְּהִ֥י) servants. . . .” – 2 Samuel 8:6
“Then Abimelech called (וַיִּקְרָ֨א) Isaac and said. . . .” – Genesis 26:9
One last thing. Remember, your Zondervan Septuagint nicely states how bad Christian translators were: “The Pentateuch [within it] is considered to be the best executed, while the book of Isaiah appears to be the worst.” Remember that this Greek Bible wasn’t preserved by Jewish hands. Note that the נ״ך were later translated by anonymous translators after the חומש was translated by the 72 חכמים who were commissioned by Ptlomey of Egypt. That’s what Ben Sira was referring to. It’s simple as that.
The defects in Justin’s arguments should make us pause and think as to where they come from. Even before the manipulations of the Masorites, there was author of their modern rabbinical scripture we know as Akiva, and his disgruntled, angry pagan, Aquila. Rejected by the early Christians for his unwillingness to give up his horoscopes, he sits down with Akiva and begins to play word games in translating the Tanak.
Your argument as I understand it is that the word almah does not always mean virgin. Right? We know there is a Hebrew word for virgin: bethulah. Didn’t the Hebrew scholars translate the word’ almah’ into the Greek word ‘parthenos’ in the LXX? If Isaiah 7:14 was meant to mean ‘virgin’ instead of ‘young maiden’, then why wasn’t the word used in the LXX? In the LXX they translated the word ‘almah’ into the Greek word ‘parthenos’. If you check your Greek-English Lexicon you see ‘parthenos’ means virgin. And that’s word is used in the New Testament of the Virgin Mary (Matt. 1:23; Luke 1:27) and of the ten virgins in the parable (Matt. 25:1, 7, 11).
If those Jews translated the Hebrew word ‘almah’ into the Greek word for ‘virgin’, then they understood what the Hebrew text meant here, sir.
Isaiah probably chose to use the word ‘almah’ and (not bethulah) because he wanted to demonstrate that the virgin would ALSO be a young woman.
Isn’t this logical?
True, Singer has the gift of gab and some charisma, along with his Jewish humor.
I think he is rabbinical Judaism’s most outspoken and popular apologist, but take what he says with a pinch of salt. For example, he claims there is no ‘anti-messiah’ figure at all outside of Christianity or in all of Jewish writings and literature. Oh yea? Not one video about the ‘Armilus’ character. Is he ignorant of this? Or is he hiding it?
One can find the debate between Singer and Brown (1992) on YouTube. Listen to it. I did. Brown does not lose! And he did challenge Singer in the debate regarding a Davidic passage. Brown, by the way, did very well against Rabbi Schochet back in 1996. Again, viewable on YouTube.
If you want to really know what Singer and his fellows think, read up on Michael Hoffman’s books.
The following links contain information not even found in Dr. Michael Brown’s arguments. Enough to blow the anti-missionaries’ stuff out of the water for good:
http://www.ramsheadpress.com/messiah/ch23.html (various chapters)
https://vridar.org/2015/08/26/suffering-messiah-is-a-very-jewish-idea/
https://ahavatammi.org/
http://www.refinersfire.org
https://ladderofjacob.com/
messiahmatters (YouTube)
Michael Heiser – ditto
You mean Michael Hoffman, the anti-Semite? Think I’ll pass. Armilus is from Sefer Zerubbabel, but it’s not considered a reliable or respected Midrash – it
was discovered recently and has not been in the hands of our nation for many years, so I wouldn’t rely on it, and neither does R. Singer.
Oh, and by the way, I don’t think R. Singer lost that debate. Both men did a great job.
Listen Richard, this isn’t hard. I will just explain it just once more. Almah NEVER means virgin. Never. Bethulah always means virgin. Always. Still not getting it?
“Didn’t the Greek scholars translate the word Hebrew ‘almah’ into the Greek word ‘parthenos’ in the LXX?”
Yes. That is because no Hebrew scholars took part in the LXX. None. Zip. Nothin’. Isaiah wanted to demonstrate that his wife was young, that’s why he named her a “almah.”
In the tenth century, there was a family called Ben Asher who claimed
to have had knowledge handed down from Moses. Now for Jews and
Christians alike (though I should say unbeknownst to the latter), they
solved a great complexity. What is that complexity? If the
vocalization of a single Hebrew word is changed, even slightly, then
you wind up with a completely different interpretation of a given
verse; and I do not say this lightly. In the Hebrew language, there
are twenty-two consonants in total. No vowels whatsoever were given to
Moses.
That’s the problem, that’s the complexity!
Before this exegesis in the tenth century, one would have to had been
personally trained by a rabbi in order to understand what the Torah
was saying. In fact, Moses knew a Torah without spaces,
thetextwouldhavebeenkindalikethis?canyoucomprehendwhati’mconveyinghere?
How did the children of Israel know how to read such a Torah? Moses
taught it orally. Today, every Torah scroll that is written in
parchment and kept inside the ark of a Shul, is written in this manner
out of respect for the one Moses received.
As an example, let us use Exodus 23:19. The text is, at first, a
discarded enigma, because it reads, “Do not cook a calf in its
mother’s milk” – חלב. The problem is, one could vocalize חלב in two
ways, either milk (chalav – חָלָב) or fat (chelev – חֵלֶב), so how do
we know what G-d is commanding? It’s not simply about the look of
“fat,” its the definitions of polar opposite terminology!
Without an Oral Law, let alone the correct diacritical pronunciation
of Hebrew without vowel points (nekudot), what does G-d mean? Moses
sure knew, so why can’t we? It is then on this basis alone that we
must accept the validity of an oral tradition.
Please remember, this system is entirely based orally. It was the
Masoretes who first introduced vowel points into the text in written
form (The Aleppo codex, 920 CE), before that, the Torah was
practically unreadable because to an outsider, nobody knew when a
sentence would end, and a new one began. Such a text is invalid.
Christians and Karaites should literally thank the rabbis for both
canonizing (the 23 books) and adding imprinting marks and dividing
words, otherwise, the Hebrew Bible would’ve been caught aimlessly adrift and the probability of it being lost to time, very likely!
So for those who plan on rejecting the oral tradition, they should
also reject their Tanakh, too. Theyshouldkeepitpureandnotcomplain.
The point is, all people of the Abrahamic faith, save for Muslims,
accept the Masoretic text to be the true word of G-d (note that 60% of
the Dead Sea Scrolls follow a prototype to the Masoretic text). It is
the one with the least mistakes and have been rectified by Jews for
centuries. This is the text Martin Luther adopted as authoritative
when he revolted against the Church of Rome. For those who doubt this,
just look at Isaiah 63:9.
The verse that is under scrutiny is read one way, but interpreted
another way. Tradition reads it as, “In their afflictions He was
afflicted,” but the original texts reads like this: “In their
afflictions that were not afflictions.” This proves that the Oral Law
must have existed at some point, it is not a modern invention by the
rabbis.
Just one last thing of note. Nekudot is just the system; there were competing systems. Any thing could have been adopted; the rabbis just liked this one. We Jews always knew how to read our Bible, but we needed a system. Therefore, there is no “manipulation” going on here. You’re just ignorant and uneducated regarding this issue.
One can see this concept easily. There is no word for male virgin (בתול) in the Tanakh. The reason is simple, males are not considered virgins. If they were, what is the male “tokens of virginity” that could be shown?
Conversely, both young woman (אלמה) and young man (אלמ), almah and alem, are present in the Tanakh.
But the really important part of Justin’s point was that you couldn’t ready a letter, much less a word, phrase, sentence or paragraph of Hebrew with the Rabbis who provide this information. A gentile arguing that they know Hebrew better than the Rabbis is therefore beyond absurd since there is 100% reliance upon them to even read a letter.
David, did you see my point on Rambam in the other thread?
Actually, I did not until you just mentioned it. We can dialog off blog. Davidnmari927 at gm**l dot com.
Your reply to my comment has no Reply button, so I’ll just put my follow up here.
–“Anyone can make the Tanakh day anything, but the idea of a plurality of persons in a singular God is antithetical to Judaism.”–
I agree completely, since Judaism was a post-First Century reaction to the rise of Christianity and the destruction of the Second Temple. I reject that Judaism was the religion of Moses or even the First Century Pharisees (despite Judaism being descended from Pharisaic teaching).
–In other words Scott, the only way you “see” a triune god in the Tanakh is because you begin with an apriori assumption which is also your conclusion. This is the textbook definition of circular reasoning.–
It wasn’t already-Trinitarian Christians who delved into the Tanakh and derived the ideas of the Two Powers in Heaven or the dying Messiah ben Joseph or the Memra, it was Jews like the Qumran community or Philo.
It wasn’t just Christians who noticed the plural words used in Genesis for a supposedly unitarian God, it was also Jewish rabbis.
It wasn’t a priest or monk who replaced ‘echad’ with ‘yachid’ in the Shema because he realized the implications of the word choice, it was Maimonides.
Heck, it isn’t Christians who up to this day celebrate Seder with three matzo: one which is hidden in the bag, one which is eaten into the body, and one which is broken in half – half placed back in the bag, half covered in linen and hidden to be found and held as ransom!
Like Midrash Rabbah has Moses complaining to the Master of the Universe: “Why do you give herewith an excuse to the sectarians?” Indeed, there are OH SO MANY ‘excuses’ given to us sectarians!
All you’ve done is dismiss my notes with a handwave and appeals to authority. Hence I reject your insinuation that a Trinitarian eye finding Trinitarian evidence in the Old Testament automatically invalidates the findings.
An extreme example to demonstrate the fallacy of that assumption: A cop looks for a suspect at the latter’s home address. He finds the suspect there. Will the cop’s discovery now be invalid simply because he found what he set out to look for?
Just contrast a ‘competitor’. Muslims will scour the Old Testament for mentions of Muhammad – the most they can come up with is maybe four possible passages, all of which are a terrible stretch.
Meanwhile, it’s not even an exaggeration to say that Christians can find prooftexts everywhere in the Old Testament.
How many ‘coincidences’ before it ain’t a coincidence? “Why do you give herewith an excuse to the sectarians?
Scott,
Rabbinic Judaism was an outgrowth of Pharisees, but is self-aggrandizing and false to say it was a response to Christianity. Christianity is barely referred to in the entirety of the Talmud; its founder entirely absent.
You write:
“It wasn’t already-Trinitarian Christians who delved into the Tanakh and derived the ideas of the Two Powers in Heaven or the dying Messiah ben Joseph or the Memra, it was Jews like the Qumran community or Philo.
“It wasn’t just Christians who noticed the plural words used in Genesis for a supposedly unitarian God, it was also Jewish rabbis.
“It wasn’t a priest or monk who replaced ‘echad’ with ‘yachid’ in the Shema because he realized the implications of the word choice, it was Maimonides.”
This is so typical of Christian writers who take Jewish concept that sound like “Jesus,” but have absolutely nothing to do with Jesus.
The first century was filled with dualism and apolalyptic Jewish teachcers. The apocryphal book of Enoch is the centerpiece of this thought, which as you noted, was highly regarded and probably written by someone in the Qumran community. So what? Just because hellenism had infiltrated the philosophical worldview of Judea doesn’t give it any credibility whatsoever.
You wrongly accuse me of a false appeal to authority fallacy for citing renown and universally accredited scholars and authorities, while appealing the Philo and the Qumran community?
The plural words in Genesis are again clearly understood in context. Of course you can find minority views and speculations in Judaism, but the fact is contextually, elohim is always used in the singular, and the “we” or “us” don’t refer to a plural godhead, but to a partnership between God and Earth, of whom man obtains his image. Again, there is no plurality, except when you are attempting to bring in a plurality of deities from theologies influenced by polytheistic cultures.
This, in fact, forms the reason the Rambam wrote yachid rather than echad. He was emphasizing the point that HaShem is an absolute single God in response to the distortion of the word echad by Christian apologist. Of the 943 times (by my count) echad is translated “one,” it is translated to indicate a single character 901 times. In the remaining instances when it is involved in describing a group effort, it still means one. I’d be more than happy to go over the 42 examples to show why the word echad mean one and only one.
–You wrongly accuse me of a false appeal to authority fallacy for citing renown and universally accredited scholars and authorities, while appealing the Philo and the Qumran community?–
I don’t appeal to them as authorities; I merely cite them as examples of nonChristians who somehow derived Christian-like beliefs from reading the Tanakh.
Your statement ‘At least Dr. Craig Evans was honest enough to admit it’s nowhere.’ struck me as upholding him as an authority, and simultaneously implying that anyone who doesn’t reach the same conclusion is dishonest.
(This same kind of process of elimination/exclusion makes traditional churches bristle at LGBT-affirming churches – when the latter portray themself as ‘a church that loves’, the implication is that other churches are unloving.)
My apologies if my assumption was wrong, but perhaps you can see how it would come across.
— In the remaining instances when it is involved in describing a group effort, it still means one.–
Isn’t this basically what the Trinity describes though.
My point in sharing what I did (specifically about the Angel of YHWH) is less to win a debate or a convert. I have enough experience to know that it’s not how things roll.
It is mainly to share information which you or others may not have come across before. In that respect, I thank you for you similar sharing of information.
Tbis item is full of halfd-truths and outright lies. You should be ashamed of yourself.
Rabbi Singer debates with Christian ministers on a regular basis, on TV and at public meetings.
Your readers should go on UTube and watch many of Rabbit Singer’s many problems, including quite a few debates he’s had with Christian ministers and others. I have watch a number of his programs over recent months and one of them is broadcast live. Anyone who watches his debates on-line will quickly conclude that the rabbi wins 99% of every debate and perhaps even 100%
You are using the Nazi use of :If you tell a lie often enough, some people will beging to believe it is true.
Best Regards
I never said Singer won’t debate Christian ministers. I said that he won’t debate Dr. Brown(since 1992) and has lied about it.
“You are using the Nazi use of :If you tell a lie often enough, some people will beging to believe it is true.”
I guess you’ve discovered my secret, I’m a Nazi. I’d love to give you a longer response but I must be off. I’m a chaperone at a local Hitler youth meet up.
Auf Wiedersehen
Tovia looks like the classic Female to Make transgender creature.
I don’t think so.
So, here is yet another Rabbi Singer fan who feels angry about Alan’s post but can’t explain why rationally. Yawn.
I don’t need to listen to michael brown because he believes that G-d is a man and a son of man. This, even though the Torah declares plainly the G-d is not a man…neither is he a son of man. Numbers 19:23.
Call into his show. He’s very kind with all callers.
I think you protest too much. Tovia knows his stuff and doesn’t need to respond to critics like you. Obviously he bothers you for some reasonn
The Torah also says that Moses spoke to YHWH face to face (Exodus 33:11) and not even ten verses later, says that no one can see YHWH’s face and live, not even Moses (Exodus 33:20).
Similarly, in apparent contradiction to Numbers 19:23, YHWH has no problem being a man in Genesis 18:1-2 (compare how many individuals reach Sodom in Genesis 19:1); in Genesis 32:25&30 (while simultaneously being a messenger of Himself according to the recounting in Hosea 12:2-4); in Joshua 5:13 & 6:2 (compare 5:15 with Exodus 3:5).
You need to think deeper and challenge your presuppositions to understand what is really being said and hinted at. None of the above are actual contradictions if you just disregard the presuppositions imposed by post-Second Temple Judaism.
You are a Christian apparently thats why no matter what evidence Tovia Singer is no longer acceptable and reasonable for you. Your intelligence is veiled by your blind faith. My sincere advise to you is THINK OUT OF THE BOX.
abe san : Your intelligence is veiled by your blind faith in Tovia Singer no matter what evidence. My sincere advice to you is THINK OUT OF THE BOX.
I never have liked the old Knock em Down Brown and his Holy Spirit show. Also he has been refuted by Blumenthal completely in my opinion. As with all debates though, we must judge for ourselves. Here are two post that do a good job by the person who greatly influenced me to leave Christianity.
https://judaismresources.net/supplement-to-contra-brown/
https://judaismresources.net/contra-brown/
I am a total expert in my field. I cannot debate about it …period. Sometimes people just don’t do well in debates – even in subjects in which they excel.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4qHFgLJw0Dw
The Jewish Bible proves that Jesus is the Messiah.
Tovia Singer is hiding out in Indonesia to avoid scandals that have come to light over last 15 years. Just google his name and you’ll see why!
I am aware of the scandals, though I don’t think that’s why he’s out in Indonesia. I honestly think he’s a very troubled individual. I feel bad for him in a way.
i am a 65 year old Brit i became a Christian 12 years ago after being a non beleiver in anything except the world up until then.
I got baptised and became very evangelical .
I live very near the jewish community in London and have worked for Jewish bosses most of my working life. I have started listening to Rabbis teachings over the last few weeks and my Christian faith has taken a real beating. My problem is that what passes for Christian teaching here in the west is really shallow and i find the acceptance by tens of thousands of believers in such people as Todd Bentley, Shawn Bolz , Todd White, Benny Hinn and all the other people in the NAR, and i include Michael Brown in that title, one of the main reasons that i am now questioning my beliefs. In my 12 years of my Christian walk i have heard no one who comes close to even the lowest Rabbi. I am not a roman catholic but i suppose if anyone would be able to have a good debate with a well read Rabbi it would be a roman catholic scholar. Michael Brown came out of a very heavy duty drug abuse problem that included injecting LSD in massive amounts and for me that shows in his behavior and his cognitive functions.
Hello Richard,
Let me tell you a little story. In 1263 in Barcelona a famous Rabbi named Nachmanides debated a Catholic named Pablo Christiani. The rabbi won hands down and it was a humiliating defeat for the Christians which caused riots and pogroms against the Jews. A very shameful act.
In 1414 there was another debate in Tortosa between Rabbi Yosef Albo and Geronimo de Santa Fe. Santa Fe was a Jewish convert to Christianity and he won the debate hands down. It was in the presence of Pope Benedict XIII(actually an antipope) and a thousand Jews were baptized after the debate. Jewish historian and rabbi Berel Wein says that the Tortosa debate “ended in disaster for the Jewish cause.”
What was the difference between 1263 and 1414? The Christians buckled down, studied the Talmud, studied Judaism and when the Tortosa debate happened, they were ready and won. This is largely thanks to Dominican scholars.
Right now, very few Christians are prepared to debate Jewish scholars. I’d be prepared but I need to get my name out there. Brown is good on this stuff but if you go outside his Jewish apologetics he says some weird stuff. If you have any specific objections, feel free to send me an email. My email can be found under Contact.
As for learning about Christianity, you have to go to past centuries. The year 2019 isn’t a great time for the faith. We could also discuss this over email.
God bless,
Allan
Hello Allan,
Thanks for the reply i will e mail over the next couple of days when i can get to grips a little with where you are coming from because at the moment i am a bit confused ( nothing new there ) . What you say is a good illustration of the past. I have been listening a lot to Rabbi Manis Friedman over the last week I find his views fascinating and very useful in the real world. I have never found any Christian teachings particularly useful over the last 12 years. Most of it i find indistinguishable from most new age practices ( something my wife was heavily involved in for years before my conversion ). Anyhow will try and reply in greater detail over the next few days all the best. God bless
Sir, IMHO you’ve been getting the best of what Judaism can offer and probably average or below-average of what Christianity can offer. Perhaps exposure to Christian speakers of more equal footing would be eye-opening.
If you want scholarly and highly intellectual Christians, I can recommend James White (just pick any debate or lecture on Youtube, he’s the bald guy).
If you want someone who puts more focus on life application, personally the ones who have most pushed me out of my comfort zone are Francis Chan (another bald guy) and John Piper.
With regards to Michael Brown, yes he had a history of wild living as a youth – but that actually lends credibility to his conversion experience. Listen to any of his many debates with Jewish rabbis – whatever damage drugs may have done, they clearly did not impact his ability to think and speak. I’d agree with Allan that as far as discussions on Judaism goes, Michael Brown is top-notch in his knowledge. I honestly have not found any rabbi able to strongly refute his points (NB: probably because Brown is arguing from the correct side).
I’ve personally gone thru all of the following debates about the Messiahhood of Yeshua or the Triune nature of God:
The one and only Tovia Singer vs Michael Brown debate – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0XQmbeGEZ8 or https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=35ABfM2RvTI
Rabbi Daniel Freitag – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w0IThMUEiO4&t=7919s
Rabbi Barry Silver – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QuyvLgzBNZA&t=5461s
Rabbi Jonathan Romain – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yfbkTnKi3Cc
Rabbi Shmuley Boteach – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XIEgef7WmAs&t=6s and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gtXlkmg9ONM
Rabbi Asher Meza – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-TTnNYgRyrw
Hello Scott, thank you for your comment. I am familiar with all the people you mentioned and the pick of the bunch for me was John Piper. However that said i find him pretty week on theology compared again to even the most modest Rabbi. I find him rich in emotion though and that is the problem with most of the Christian theologians they get over excited . For me and a fellow brit, Leonard Ravenhill stands way ahead of the pack and he lived as he died full of belief and good works and he was a moral man ( unlike people like todd bentley, benny hin etc etc etc ).
I am putting all my confusion down to my short time as a Christian , although i am 65 years old i am only 12 years a believer. That said i have seen mature Christians who are issue from any generations of Christians falling for things that even a child would see cannot be right such as todd bentley etc. It has made me believe that the majority of the people whom call themselves Christians are seed that has fallen on stony ground and there is no depth to their knowledge of whom God is.
As for dr browns past i came out of a lifestyle very similar to his and whilst i have told everyone who would listen that i have been saved cleaned up and healed by Jesus i know what lasting damage it has done to my psyche and body and soul and my cogitative faculties and whilst I believe God can and does heal when He wants i am always skeptical of total healing. Sin has profound medical consequences.
That aside i am glad that dr brown was able to escape the hell of drug addiction and make a good life for himself.
I have just scratched the surface of jewish teaching and i think i have found a pot of Gold that is worth exploring a little deeper and if i can find a similar vein of Christian teachings in the interim i would be happy.
Just a side note, my mother was Austrian and was a leader in the ladies version of the Hitler Youth. This was irrelevant to me growing up and when i was an adult unbeliever. On coming to understanding of God this has been a source of anxiety to me for obvious reasons ( particularly with the current Christian fad of “generational curses ” and the need to break them off ). That said my mother was had no idea whom God was or Jesus but i was able to care for her in her last years and it was at the height of my evangelicalism and would spend days sitting by her bedside praying and reading the Gospels and the psalms to her and was at her bedside when she died. I will always be greatful to God for those months and moments and if it turned out that Jesus was not God and the messiah,
Well then, at this point I think you have to learn, contemplate and decide for yourself – not follow what any teacher or thinker decides.
The key question being: Is what you decide to believe true?
Related to that are the factors of whether that belief is logical, coherent, backed by physical evidence such as history, texts and archaeology (where possible), and morally compatible.
Hello Scott thanks for your reply and what you say is correct and I beleive that I have started on that journey now late in my life and whilst I am tempted to throw the baby out with the bath water I am not going to do so just yet. Sadly for me people like james White who has always come across to me as someone who thinks he is much more clever than he actually is and Francis chan who has hitched his wagon to the NAR movement and considers people such as todd White as great men of God are one of the reasons that I am tempted to throw the Baby out.
I just don’t think this current crop of “teachers” can hold a light to the real Chrstian hero’s who displayed real moral and spiritual courage during the past century Roman catholic and Protestants who were persecuted by tyrants and killed such as those who died under the nazi regime in the 40’s . most of the current crop just see the cross as a passport to a cushy life and wealth and the sale of never ending books.
Hi Richard, this is a quote from an orhodox Jew.
„Although the official rabbinic theology suppressed all talk of the Memra or Logos by naming it the heresy of ‘Two Powers in heaven,’ both before the Rabbis and contemporaneously with them there was a mutitude of Jews, in both Palestine and the Diaspora, who held onto this version of monotheistic theology.“ – Daniel Boyarin, „The Gospel of the Memra: Jewish Binitarianism and the Prologue to John“
And I recommend to watch this video.
Dr. Michael Heiser: The Jewish Trinity
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hz8J4DTIkEg
I too got briefly involved in the charismatic movement and consicer it a satanic deception. The guys from the NAR I consider as:
2.Cor. 11.13 For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into apostles of Christ. 14 And no wonder! For Satan himself transforms himself into an angel of light. 15 Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also transform themselves into ministers of righteousness, whose end will be according to their works.
And please, by all means do pray to JHWH to show it to you directly from the scriptures.
May God bless you and show it to you from His Word.
It would be interesting to hear whether Rabbi Tovia would be prepared to explain to Christians the credibility of Moses and the many miraculous events in the Jewish Bible so more Christians could respond more positively to Judaism. After all, if the Christian faith is based on sandy grounds and their “Messiah” a liar, then how should Non-Jews take seriously the ground on which Judaism is built and exemplified?
Raised as a Christian, I had to decide in my adult years whether the Christian faith is trustworthy, I couldn’t just take it over without clarifying it for me. And so I started to read the Tanach and the New Testament – hundred of times!!!!! My question: Why are Jews not allowed to read the NT so they, too can verify Rabbi Tovias slaughter of the Christian faith?
–Why are Jews not allowed to read the NT so they, too can verify Rabbi Tovias slaughter of the Christian faith?–
This is an excellent suggestion.
Perhaps the danger is that Jews who examine the claims of Jesus might end up (gasp!) actually believing that He is the Messiah, like these rabbis:
http://www.messianicjudaism.me/yinon/2011/11/02/rabbis-who-thought-for-themselves/
http://www.messianicjudaism.me/yinon/2011/12/01/rabbis-who-thought-for-themselves-part-ii/
“Among the hundreds of great rabbis who have become believers in Yeshua, many of these were great gedolim and halachic authorities, including a number of Chief Rabbis.”
They believed that Jesus was God?
Apologies but i dont know why you are so hostile to Mr Singer he is always very polite and all he is is a Jewish apologist. Are you perhaps worried by some of his arguments? Much of what he says is very very hard to refute. As he says for us to believe the New Testament we have to understand and accept the Old and that really is where most Christian Apologists fall down because they do not speak Hebrew or have a really deep understanding of the OT.
–Apologies but i dont know why you are so hostile to Mr Singer he is always very polite and all he is is a Jewish apologist.–
I don’t think I’ve been hostile to him at all. I am very neutral on him actually, since I barely know about him. Maybe you are thinking of someone else’s comments.
— Much of what he says is very very hard to refute.–
I haven’t listened to him much outside of his one single published debate with Michael Brown. In that debate I found his points quite well refuted.
–As he says for us to believe the New Testament we have to understand and accept the Old and that really is where most Christian Apologists fall down because they do not speak Hebrew or have a really deep understanding of the OT.–
Which is where Michael Brown excels as a scholar of Biblical Hebrew and multiple ancient near Eastern languages.
Let me give you a counter-challenge regarding the Old Testament: Does it show a Unitarian, absolute one God who does not take human form?
Hello Scott the reasons the Jews by and large do not believe that Jesus was the messiah is because none of the things that are meant to happen when the messiah appears have not happened most notably peace in the world. Of course since Jesus lived the pogroms against the Jewish people really picked up speed so they can be forgiven for that view. As for the notion of One Male God yes i suppose you could say that is a stumbling block for them because of the Shema. I dont like the term Unitarian because that has unhelpful connotations for Christian believers .
–Hello Scott the reasons the Jews by and large do not believe that Jesus was the messiah is because none of the things that are meant to happen when the messiah appears have not happened most notably peace in the world.–
Well as Michael Brown points out, if not Jesus then what other candidate could you possibly have? The Temple is destroyed, how will any other candidate for Messiah visit it, as per Daniel 9:24-27 (especially v26)?
Even First Century Jews believed in a Messiah who dies (ben Joseph) before the Messiah who conquers and brings peace (ben David) comes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messiah_ben_Joseph
So the idea that Jesus must immediately bring peace on earth to prove He is Messiah is mistaken.
————-
————-
–As for the notion of One Male God yes i suppose you could say that is a stumbling block for them because of the Shema.–
The Shema’s word for One is echad. This word means ‘one, but can be composed of many parts’. It is used for evening+morning=echad (Genesis 1:5), man+woman=echad (Genesis 2:24), many grapes=echad (Numbers 13:23).
If God wanted to make known that He is solely One being, why didn’t He use the word yachid? Maimonides the great Jewish thinker realized this, and his version of the Shema used yachid to replace echad!
So the Old Testament does not exclude One God, composed of Three Persons = echad.
—————
—————
From your response I take it you are unfamiliar with The Angel of YHWH in the Old Testament – one who is fully God, yet speaks to God face to face… And both can appear as a man!
The Angel of YHWH is God: Genesis 48:3,15-16 / Hosea 12:2-4 / Genesis 16 (especially v7,13) / Exodus 3:2-4 / Judges 6 (especially v11,22) / Judges 13 (especially v3,9,22)
The Angel of YHWH speaks to God: Zechariah 1:12-13 / Zechariah 3:1-2
The Angel of YHWH appears as a man: Genesis 32:24,27-28,30
YHWH appears as a man: Genesis 18:1-8
Wow, that SURE sounds like the Christian concept of Jesus being God, yet being able to talk to God the Father!
(This is why some First Century Jews were Binitarian! And this was NOT condemned as heresy by the Jewish priests, until AFTER Christianity became popular with its Trinitarian beliefs.)
But the above are 100% Old Testament passages! Take that to your smart, learned Rabbi and ask him to intepret it for you. See if he will even entertain your request.
Hello Scott you seem to know your stuff which is good and I will look at the scriptures you have mentioned over the next couple of days .
He is not my learned Rabbi by the way I am not Jewish and if you dont mind me saying your attitude is not helpful. From what I can gather he is just a passionate Jewish apologist just like Brown is a Christian one.
Since listening to a number of obviously very learned Rabbis i must admit my Christian faith has been tested like never before.
i hope that the scriptures you have mentioned will get me back on track.
Hello again , off the bat i would say on the face of it your explanation of the use of Echad is a bit of a stretch. Perhaps they used the word because they were trying to describe God as all encompassing. It would be strange to use a word that had limits in it for a limitless God. I suppose your logic is correct in a weak sense in that because it was a word that can include plurals ie morning and evening then it could also include a God made up of 3 persons. Why in the old testament which is pretty clear on most issues be not so clear on such an important issue as the nature of God being made up of 3 persons and leave it to weak logic? What is the reason for it being a mystery until the revelation of Jesus 2000 years later?
–Why in the old testament which is pretty clear on most issues be not so clear on such an important issue as the nature of God being made up of 3 persons and leave it to weak logic? What is the reason for it being a mystery until the revelation of Jesus 2000 years later?–
How do you define ‘clear’ though? Leaving aside the Trinity which modern (but not ancient) Jews have disregarded entirely, take something like Messiah.
Is Messiah a person? Is it two people? Is it a few righteous people? Is it the nation of Israel? Is it just the righteous remnant of Israel?
Jews from ancient times up to followers of Judaism today still debate over this crucial concept from the Old Testament.
“Why in the old testament which is pretty clear on most issues be not so clear on such an important issue as the nature of Messiah and leave it to weak logic?”
My point being, there are many concepts in the Old Testament that need thinking over. The nature of God is just one of them.
Hello Scott , I must admit that i thought the general consensus of jewish opinion was that the messiah was an individual particularly among the religious jews who believe that there is one person living in each generation who can be the messiah if certain things in the world have been fulfilled. The jews have been studying the Torah for thousands of years so their understanding of it is pretty deep so many passages must be reasonably clear cut or as clean cut as humanly possible. That there has not been an inkling of a trinitarian God in all those studies is surprising. That said i am at a stage of life and in such poor health that i am going to cling onto my faith in Christ as to turn back now is too drastic to contemplate. There is fear of death involved. I find religion to not have any answer or succor for me however God has been so faithful and kind and merciful to me that even if i never receive another blessing from Him , what He has done for me already will help me run my race and finish it well
Hello scott i must admit that it thought that most relgious jews thought that the messiah was a single man and that in each generation there was a man living who qualified for this role provided certain criteria had been achieved by the jewish people.
That said i am now in such poor health i will cling onto Christ as to do otherwise so late in life does not bear thinking about. God has been so kind and merciful to me that even if He never blesses me again I hope that what He has already done will carry me over the finishing line .
I’ll say a prayer for your health.
–That there has not been an inkling of a trinitarian God in all those studies is surprising.–
If you have the interest, Alan Segal (a follower of Judaism) wrote a book about Second Temple Jewish beliefs, where they clearly understood from the Old Testament that YHWH exists as more than one Person.
https://www.amazon.com/Two-Powers-Heaven-Christianity-Christology/dp/1602585490
[[In his now classic Two Powers in Heaven, Alan Segal examines rabbinic evidence about early manifestations of the “two powers” heresy within Judaism. Segal sheds light upon the development of and relationships among early Christianity, Gnosticism, and Merkabah mysticism and demonstrates that belief in the “two powers in heaven” was widespread by the first century, and may have been a catalyst for the Jewish rejection of early Christianity.]]
Being a good Jew, Segal dismisses it as heretical – but he does show that such a belief was common among the Jews.
What modern Judaism teaches is not what the Jews in times past understood. Modern Judaism is in large part a reaction against Christianity, and furthermore heavily influenced by Islam through Maimonedes – who was physician to Saladin and exposed to many Islamic thinkers.
Hello Scott thank you very much for both your prayers gratefully accepted and the info on the Rambam which i was unaware of. I have shifted my position back to the Lord somewhat over the last few days i am not quite sure why and think there are a number of factors one of which is the blog of which you have been a contributor and other reasons. I am quite aware of the Lords warning of being swayed too and fro and tossed about by various doctrines and have tried very hard to be single minded. That said i am 65 years old and vacillating between things and the inability to make decisions and when made not sticking to them has been a constant in my life up until now. Oh well keep on keeping on i suppose. All the best
My Bible tells me why jesus can’t be the Messiah. It doesn’t matter if Tovia didn’t do well in a debate.
You’d have to specify why you think your Bible preempts Jesus being the Messiah.
Tovia Singer gave his own reasons from the Hebrew Bible, are any of them the same as yours?
They agreed but its not about tearing people apart. This is why we have problems reaching people now we can agree but it must be done in love. I t seem that most people have forgot that. There are a lot of holes in the so called new testament that has been proven. But I really think these kind of things lead people away from our creator
steven
“There are a lot of holes in the so called new testament that has been proven.”
Steven,
That is a mighty assertion. It cannot be simply accepted or passed over on these pages. You obviously have a strong opinion on this matter. Please could you expand on it?
Christopher
The debate between Singer and Brown was moderated by a guy named Roth, a messianic. Roth was totally on Brown’s side and manipulated the debate to aid Brown and stifle Singer. Had the moderator been impartial Singer would most likely have won as he always does. Ruhl is clearly an anti-semite. He doesn’t even try to hide it.
You can’t stand that your boy Singer got smashed. I’m an antisemite? I worship a Jew. I must be the worst antisemite on the planet.
My family fell under this rabbis teachings and left Christianity. Can you tell me where I can find browns 5 vol series you mention
You can order Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus Vol 1 – 5 on Amazon. It’s all available. Best of luck bringing your family back.
Merry Christmas and God bless,
Allan
Jonathan Race i really would save your money it will cost you over $60 . Take your family out for a lovely meal and buy them each a lovely King James Bible and read it together that would be a much better use of your resources.
The only thing you would get from reading these tomes would be a diminution of your eyesight and a headache and an empty wallet , overall , a bad deal i would say.
I saw Rabbi Singer’s most recent event in Jerusalem. What a scam. He said there were thousands of evangelical missionaries trying to convert Jews to the Messiah; so he picks on a woman and works her into a corner in the middle of a busy and noisy street and makes it look like he is the winner. He says that Messiah is not found in Isaiah…and yes, he is living off of donations from Jews who reject the Messiah.
I am Jew with many Christian relatives and I heard the debate on line between Michael Brown (Who I always enjoy his great knowledge ) and Rabbi Singer. I really don’t see them in conflict . Rabbi Singer gives us the Classic Orthodox Jewish views. Michael Brown proves well that the belief Jesus is the Messiah is not outside the Jewish religion practiced by many other Jews in Jewish history.
The shortcoming of Michael Brown is that the Gospels , having been written by Jews , knew very well how to fashion the Gospel stories so they would
conform in some manner to the Jewish beliefs , and the Church added and embellished stories to add to their view of Jesus.
Where the Rabbi is wrong is that the Oral tradition did the same thing over the years.
And there were endless stories about Moses and Abraham over the centuries and the Jews had their
own additions and subtractions.
Conclusion: Jesus is certainly not excluded from being the Jewish Messiah , but you must decide if he is or isn’t yourself.
My personal conclusion is he is the Messiah to those whom he moves. And the Gospels tell us the Jews will not be totally converted to the second coming so the fact you cannot convert the Jews actually proves the Gospels is true , it does not disprove it.
Interesting comment. Thank you Irene.
God bless,
Allan
Irene: you wrote very thoughtfully and delicately, which is a virtue. It was very enjoyable to read. I, also a Jew, feel compelled to respond, and to address some of the things you said.
“The shortcoming of Michael Brown is that the Gospels , having been written by Jews , knew very well how to fashion the Gospel stories so they would conform in some manner to the Jewish beliefs.”
That statement makes no sense to me. The “Gospels” were indeed written by Jews, about a Jew (Yeshua), and every single thing in them is Jewish. Therefore, there wasn’t any “conforming… to Jewish beliefs” in them. They *were* presenting Jewish beliefs–albeit, at that time in history, were certainly varied.
Forget completely about the Church, which I as a Jew have nothing to do with. We still have copies of the “Gospels” (not my term) written by Jews in a version dated to roughly 150 CE, without all the Christian interpolations and mishandling in them. I can explain more if it would help. The point here is that the writings of Yeshua’s followers are as trustworthy and authentically Jewish as the Tanakh. Yes, Christians made their own versions in Greek and Latin, but we still have a very ancient Aramaic version–a Jewish version. That’s point #1.
Next statement: “the Rabbi is wrong is that the Oral tradition did the same thing over the years”
That’s a very gentle understatement. Religious Jews who detract against Yeshua (I avoid terms like “missionaries” and “anti-missionaries”) suddenly put on a front of being “biblical,” when as Dr. Michael Brown correctly asserts, if they applied *equal weights and balances* (i.e. an equal, un-hypocritical analysis) to their arguments, they would all completely fall apart. In other words, any accusation or claim against the writings of Yeshua’s followers can be made against the Tanakh, and 10 times more against the Talmud and rabbinic literature. (I’m speaking in broad terms here, but the essential point is correct).
Next statement: “Jesus is certainly not excluded from being the Jewish Messiah , but you must decide if he is or isn’t yourself. My personal conclusion is he is the Messiah to those whom he moves.”
I fully agree with “you must decide if he is or isn’t yourself,” but the reality is he either is or isn’t the Messiah. There’s no in between. Reality isn’t dictated by personal opinion. “Belief,” or opinion is dictated by personal opinion. Yeshua explicitly claimed to be the Messiah in the writings of the Nazarenes (a.k.a. “NT”), which I hold to be authentic, authoritative Jewish writings. So either he is, or he isn’t the Messiah. Again, the truth isn’t dictated by one’s opinion.
G-d sent Moshe as the first redeemer for Israel, and many didn’t believe in him–both among the Jews (Israelites) and among the Gentiles (Egyptians). They all died, being judged by G-d for refusing to believe in His appointed messenger.
The claim regarding Yeshua is equally weighty: G-d affirmed Yeshua as the Messiah, and the son of G-d. Those who reject that message will suffer. It’s not my will, nor G-d’s will that any should suffer. He desires that all would repent and be saved. But back to the main point: Yeshua being the Messiah or not being the Messiah is not a matter of someone’s opinion. It is a vital claim confronting all of humanity.
I hope those reading this will be willing to sincerely pray to G-d and search the Scriptures to find the truth about the Messiah. This has been my journey, and so I can confidently and lovingly proclaim to every Jew and Gentile that Yeshua is the Messiah and son of G-d. It is my belief, but it is more than that. I proclaim it as the irrevocable truth, which Hashem wants His people to accept.
Yehuda…
Shabbat Shalom…
I will cut to the chase it sure is the Jewish Messiah Camacho Rhea proof set 20 years ago I studied Hebrew Gematria then I transitioned over to Greek Latin and then eventually I wondered if I could do it in English and I found that I could the proof is in the pudding.
—————————-
A=1 B=2 C=3 D=4 X=24 Y=25 Z=26
ENGLISH=74 GEMATRIA=74 IDENTIFIES THE
JEWISH=74 MESSIAH=74 IS
JESUS=74
WHO WAS
NAILED ON=74
CROSS=74
HIS DEATH=74
ATONES=74
JEWISH=74 PREACHER=74
JOSHUA=74
A REDEEMER=74
HE DIED FOR=74
ALL OF MAN=74
THE KING=74 RULER=74 FOREVER=74
HE TEACHES=74
PARABLES=74
GOSPEL=74
SONGS=74
A SERVANT=74
——————————
JESUS CHRIST =151
I AM LORD YESHUA =151
I AM THE SON OF GOD=151
THE ONE SAVIOR=151
GOD’S GRACE REVEALED =151
MY BELOVED SON =151
SHED BLOOD FOR MAN=151
THE LORD JEHOVAH =151
JESUS SACRIFICED=151
HEAVEN’S GREAT GOD=151
THE HOLY FATHER=151
HEAVEN’S GLORY=151
OUR GOD HA’MASHIACH =151
YESHUA OF GALILEE =151
JESUS IS LORD=151
MY SALVATION=151
HOLY SPIRIT=151
BEHOLD YOUR GOD=151
JESUS IS ALIVE =151
MIGHTY JEHOVAH =151
IMAGE OF JEHOVAH GOD =151
FATHER GOD’S SON =151
MASHIACH FOREVER =151
YESHUA IS ADONAI=151
YAHWEH’S MASHIACH =151
ADONAI’S IMMANU-EL =151
GREAT GOD JESUS =151
GOD OF JERUSALEM =151
YESHUA REVEALED =151
LORD OF HOSTS=151
CHRIST THE KING=151
YESHUA’S SABBATH =151
IS REJECTED OF MEN=151 SACRIFICE CRUCIFIED =151
HIS PASSOVER =151
REDEEMER CRUCIFIED =74
HEAVEN’S GLORY=151
GRACE OF GOD REJECTED =151
SALVATION HATED=151
THE SON REJECTED =151
THE BLOOD REJECTED =151
THE NAME OF GOD HATED=151
BARUCH HASHEM ADONAI =151
JESUS GLORY =151
THE LAMB OF JEHOVAH =151
HALLELUJAH THE LAMB=151
GOD, THE HOLY RABBI=151
KODESH HA’KODASHIM =151
THE MESSIAH ADONAI=151
GOD OF MANKIND HATED =151
JEHOVAH DETESTED =151
GOD OF THE TEMPLE =151
ISRAEL’S SHALOM =151
LORD GOD OF HEAVEN =151
SON ENTHRONED =151
BEHOLD I AM THE LORD=151
HIS NAME IS LOVE=151
I AM LOVE!!! JESUS =151
Yehuda, I am a servant of HASHEM.
ADONAI is connecting with His Chosen people thru my ministry. It is an honor to connect with you on Shabbat. On my website BELOW there are 100’s more incredible revelations like the ones above. A Jewish person becomes a kol yehudi, a completed Jew once he or she spiritually connects with the Jewish MESSIAH, Who happens to be very kosher. In fact, pork, Christmas, Easter, Halloween and Sunday sabbath is not Biblical, nor is it kosher!!!
Questions or need for prayer??? Call me at 770-374-5705
Art Ellison
Isaiah 58:1
Thywordistruthministries.com
Arthurellison172@gmail.com
Shabbat Shalom
Michael Brown is a curious individual to champion he preaches another Gospel not the Gospel that saves us gentiles the Gospel of the mystery 1 Corinthians 15 v 1-4 and Ephesians 1 v 13 as given to our apostle Paul by the risen ascended Christ.
Michael Browns theology is all over the place
This is embarrassing.
Me thinks thos doest protest too much!
Why should this matter so much to you, so much so that you have to publish this video?
It just goes to show the gap between Jews and Christians. It’s called l’shon H’ra. It’s so easy for Christians to insult Jews, to bad mouth us for not believing in Jesus and then publicly embarrass us.
I’ll bet you didn’t have to think twice before posting this video!
but..b.b..bu…but…but… I’VE BEEN TRYING! REALLY I HAVE! I SWEAR, I’M TRYING…..
He doesn’t trust you Michael Brown!
Hello Leah, it would be interesting to get a literal translation of what L’shon h’ra means please?
Me thinks thou doest protest too much! Why do you make a 20 minute video defending yourself? Why should I believe you? You’re a former drug addict who got high and saw Jesus! I have seen this behavior before in former druggies. Get help!
Why should this matter so much to you, so much so that you have to publish this video?
but..b.b..bu…but…but… I’VE BEEN TRYING! REALLY I HAVE! I SWEAR, I’M TRYING…..
Oh stop, please!
If you’re so sure you’re right then let the debate stand on its own merit!
Geesh…. I’m here, I want to debate him, I really do, I’ve been BEGGING HIM to debate me! I swear, really, but..but.. really I’m not lying, I swear I’m not! …
He doesn’t trust you!
I don’t trust you either! Get therapy and deal with your own issues. Jesus is just another drug for you. I see this all the time in former addicts who need the “fix”. Jesus is your fix.
@ LLG: In response to your post above, the opening words in Dr. Brown’s video are “For many years now, I’ve been asked how come I don’t debate Rabbi Tovia Singer.”
So, to answer your question of why he made a 20-minute video, he is telling your right up front that (probably hundreds if not thousands) of people have been asking him for an answer. And guess what, I fully trust his answer, as I’ve met Dr. Brown, and read enough of his literature to know that he has very high moral standards, and doesn’t commit leshon hara. (I’m not saying that this blog article above is free from leshon hara though).
Now, what I, as a Jew, would like to challenge you on, personally, is to find one single instance of leshon hara in Dr. Brown’s words in that video. Go ahead, watch that video, and report back here the words that are false or slanderous. You won’t find any, because I watched that video, and all that Dr. Brown does is share the history between him and Rabbi Singer.
I personally wouldn’t dare (B”H) impute motive to Rabbi Singer’s actions, unless he himself states his motivations, but if he makes false claims against Dr. Brown, then Dr. Brown is free to answer him. Now, let’s change the subject for a moment. Speaking of leshon hara, I find it curious that you wrote the following:
“You’re a former drug addict who got high and saw Jesus! I have seen this behavior before in former druggies. Get help!”
Please explain: what “help” does this former druggy (Dr. Brown) need? I’m just curious to know what you mean, given that G-d, through Yeshua the Messiah, helped him get free of drugs ***40 years ago.*** So please do explain: exactly what “help” does Dr. Brown need, since you’ve seen this behavior before?
Just for fun, your comment above reminds me of a very twisted, rude comment a police officer made to me once, when she pulled me over just for the sake of trying to find drugs on me.
She asked me where I was going, and I told her “To do Bible study at a drug treatment facility for teenage addicts.” (I volunteered for several years to do Bible study with teens her were struggling with drugs, at a state-run facility).
When the police officer heard my reply, guess what she had the nerve to say back to me (again, in her desperate pursuit of finding drugs on an innocent man). She said,
“Oh, I’ve heard that many people who do that kind of volunteer work were former drug users.” (While she was technically correct, I never was a drug user. She just couldn’t abide the thought that I actually never did drugs in my life. She even confessed herself to doing drugs(!) in the past, thinking that it would get me to confess.
At any rate, your correlation of Dr. Brown’s testimony of drug use (again, from 40 years ago) and his faith in Yeshua is not only obviously erroneous, but it reminds of that perverse, twisted tactic of the police officer.
Thank you for your considered reply. I myself was a drug addict for over 35 years here in London UK many decades of those as an injecting heroin addict. I am 66 years old now and was taken to my first Christian conference about 13 years ago and although i was in recovery at that time ( having been in na for about 2 years and was white knuckling it ) . I was encouraged to go to the front of the stage at this conference and “give my life to Jesus” which i did . I was told that i had become ” born again” and i accepted that on the strength of what i had been told and i even started talking a sort of gibberish which i was encouraged to do and which everyone seemed to be pleased with. I then dutifully hunted around for a church and found a pentacostal church where i became a member ( which i am still a member of ) and for the next 10 years i cleaned the church, played in the worship team handed out thousands of tracts and bibles on the street worked in soup kitchens and went into prisons doing the alpha course, painted churches had deliverance because of the demons i was filled with according to my pastor, gave most of my money away to Christian organisations and the poor, got water baptised tithed till i bled etc etc and through it all i never had one moment of peace or assurance that i would go to heaven when dead. I read the bible voraciously and still do and this was to be my salvation. 2 Years ago i got tired of the religious treadmill and got off and started trying to rightly divide the word of truth .
You know what i discovered there are 5 Gospels the first 4 are for the Jews and mine was the Gospel of the mystery Romans 16 v 25 given to my Apostle Paul and is found in 1 Corinthians 15 v 1-4 and Ephesians 1 v13. This is the only Gospel that saves now.
My church never preached that they preached a strange amalgamation of all 5 Gospels which 99.9% of churches preach and that is the same Gospel that Mr Brown teaches.
I have no doubt that he is an intelligent man BUT as an ex drug addict myself I do not believe that he was radically cleaned up by Christ I believe that he may have had some sort of religious experience that helped him on his way. I also believe that people such as mr Brown and myself who have plumbed the depths of selfishness, which drug addiction is, have no place teaching or preaching in front line places and people such as Todd Bentley and Katie souza spring to mind. Whatever you may think I know that injecting the sort of drugs that mr Brown did ie LSD leaves permanent cognitive damage and if mr Brown was honest he would admit this.
I believe this may account for the reason his theology is skew wiff that and that he does not rightly divide the word of truth.
Listen to truthtimeradio pod casts for drug free, sound rightly divided teaching that will change your life and it has great music too .
Look up “The God Drug: When Religion Becomes an Addiction” about recovery from drug addiction to religion.
I’ve witnessed the mood-altering experience of his religion.
It’s the weekly Jesus fix. You go, jump up and down, sing, cry out praises, raise your arms, some babble in tongues, dance…….
When I went to Mount Carmel and saw the statue of Elijah, it came with the story of how the pagans kept shouting to bring the fire down from heaven. They jumped up and down, made a lot of grunts and noises, cried out for the fire to come down…. One day I was at the Messianic church. If you’ve ever been, you’ll know there’s a band…yep, churches have bands now, electric guitars, drums, keyboard…. They were singing a Paul Wilbur song about bringing fire down from heaven and I went home and read the story of Elijah and wondered about the paganism in the church. It’s all part of the euphoria needed to sustain the God fix.
Yup evangelical Christianity is pretty unattractive and all denominations of Christianity have got it wrong. There is only one truth in the Christian bible and that is the Gospel given to the pharasee Paul to for the gentiles the Gospel of the mystery Romans 16 v 25. It is the only Gospel that saved gentiles today and is found in 1 Cortinthians 15 v 1-4 and Ephesians 1 v 13. Israel have fallen for this dispensation but they will be saved in the tribulation during Christs second coming. All denominations get it wrong thinking they are Israel and the Roman Catholic church is the worst offender.
A fantastic resource is the dispensational bible institute in the USA all free and 100% truth.
L’ShonHara is evil speech but is taken to it’s broadest definition as any speech about or against someone, especially with the intent to defame, hurt, bring damage to their reputation, et. al. The evil tongue.
@David: David wrote the following things.
“…Oral Law, which his very existence is dependent on. המשיח referring to the son of David comes only from the Talmud, and you chose not to acknowledge that fact.” And again,
“I said the term “The Messiah” is found ONLY in the Talmud… the Messiah is… entirely based ONLY upon Oral Law.”
No. It is true that the Tanakh doesn’t explicitly speak of “HaMashiyach” in the sense that we are discussing “Messiah,” but you overstated your case with your statements above.
First, the explicit phrase “Mashiyach ben David” (or Aramaic equiv.) is found in some of the targums (e.g. Cairo Genizah on Ber/Gen. 49:18; Targum Neofiti on Est. 1:1). Although you were pressing your point from the Hebrew word “ha’mashiyach,” I confidently assume that you would accept the Aramaic equivalent, as mentioned above.
Secondly, “ha’mashiyach” is only one title, and the same person also goes by other titles (according to multiple sources–*not* just the Oral Law), such as “redeemer,” “latter redeemer,” “son of man,” “son of God,” etc. So even if you are *technically* correct about a particular term (although I just disproved that above), the *concept* that we are discussing is broader than just “ha’mashiyach.”
And with that being said, other Jewish sources–older than the Oral Law (or at least, writing of it)–also describe these concepts to some degree. I won’t belabor a full list now, but the Qumran / Judean corpus literature, Apocrypha, pseudepigraphical works–all Jewish in origin, speak about the concept we are discussing. And in some places they parallel the descriptions and theology of the writings of the Jewish followers of Yeshua (a.k.a. “NT”).
It is therefore not only the Talmud, or even the Oral Law, that describes who we as followers of Yeshua understand. Besides, I should remind you that the writings of Yeshua’s followers predate the writing of the Oral Law, and most statements regarding the Messiah come even later, in the Gemarot. So to your point about the Talmud / Oral Law, we as Nazarene Jews said it *first* (and got it right, with regards to Mashiyach).
Finally, if you haven’t given an honest, unbiased look at the writings of Yeshua’s followers, may I suggest that you actually do this? If you are a Jew too, then Messiah came first for us. Don’t miss out on the blessing of Hashem. He is the “prophet like Moshe” (Deu 18:15-19) and we are required to listen to his words.
Just goes to show how long our words follow us and how long we can keep an insult going.
You have to ask yourself why Michael Brown can’t get over this and why he keeps a lifelong grudge against a Rabbi going endlessly!
As I said, me thinks thou doest protest too much.
Why do you have to go back so far to dig up “dirt” on Rabbi Singer? It’s laughable! Michael Brown, grow up!
Shabbat Shalom…
A=1 B=2 C=3 D=4 X=24 Y=25 Z=26
—————————-
ENGLISH=74 GEMATRIA=74 IDENTIFIES JESUS=74,
JEWISH=74 MESSIAH=74
NAILED ON=74 CROSS=74…
HE DIED FOR=74
ALL OF MAN=74 THE KING=74
FOREVER=74
HIS DEATH=74 ATONES=74
A SERVANT=74
JOSHUA=74
A JOSEPH=74
BIBLE FAITH=74
BIBLE HOPE=74
GOSPEL=74 SONGS=74
4th of July…7-4
AMERICA =50
(STATES)
A MIRACLE
A MERICA
COINCIDENCE???
What do you think?
Hundreds more like these in my website BELOW…
Thywordistruthministries.com
Shalom Shalom
You need to calm down. Trying to convert Jews is making you highly agitated! Regardless, let me be perfectly clear, once and for all, since apparently no one has ever has been perfectly clear with you. You can keep your false religion to yourself. Why would I be interested in something false, a bastardization, and the #1 reason and source of slaughters of Jews and persecutions for over 2,000 years? The answer is, I am not interested. And yeah, I get it that this is your bread and butter, and how you make your money, so enjoy dinner. I don’t want any. Keep it! Sarita
“and the #1 reason and source of slaughters of Jews and persecutions for over 2,000 years? ”
That’s a lie. A blood libel. Your rabbis and community leaders have told you that but they’ve lied to you. It’s not the reason for persecution. Unless you can back that up of course. Back it up Sarita.
Shalom Sarita…greetings from Atlanta!!! The Tanakh speaks of the RULER=74 from eternity who would be born in Bethlehem, and He would be THE KING=74
MESSIAH =74 FOREVER=74 over Israel as JESUS=74.
A=1 B=2 C=3 D=4 X=24 Y=25 Z=26 ENGLISH=74
GEMATRIA=74
100’S MORE LIKE THESE IN
MY WEBSITE BELOW…
thywordistruthministries.com
Shabbat Shalom Sarita!!!
Recently , I have watched Rabbi Singer on youtube. He seems be angry and hateful. There are at lease 44 Old Testament verses which mention the parameters of the Messiah, our Lord Jesus Christ. Also, Old Testament verses mention God the Father saying ” we “. I am not a theological scholar but it it clear that God states in the Old Testament his ” triune ” nature. His attack on the Messiah is exactly how atheists attack God in general. We must remember that belief in Judaism is that the Messiah will only be a man and not divine, a political figure. I can now understand Luther’s antisemitism.
Hello Larry…YESHUA spoke correctly when He called out the scribes, pharisees and sadducees for what they were lacking—No love of GOD in their hearts. Nor did they belong to GOD.
John 5:42 / 8:47
So, we pray that the veils be lifted and hearts softened.
Some however, have blasphemed the HOLY SPIRIT, and will never be forgiven, and will be in danger of eternal damnation, as
MESSIAH YESHUA has already declared. Mark 3:29
ENGLISH=74 GEMATRIA=74
IDENTIFIES JESUS=74 AS THE… JEWISH=74 MESSIAH=74
THE KING=74 AND RULER=74 FOREVER=74
NAILED ON=74
CROSS=74 HIS DEATH=74
ATONES=74
HE DIED FOR=74
ALL OF MAN=74
THE DAMNED=74
KILL HIM=74
——————————
JESUS CHRIST =151 SACRIFICE CRUCIFIED =151
ON THE THIRD DAY=151
JESUS IS ALIVE =151
JESUS IS LORD =151
I AM LORD YESHUA =151
I AM THE SON OF GOD=151
THE ONE SAVIOR=151
GOD’S GRACE REVEALED =151
MY BELOVED SON =151
SHED BLOOD FOR MAN-151
REDEEMER CRUCIFIED =151
THE LORD JEHOVAH =151
JESUS SACRIFICED=151
HEAVEN’S GREAT GOD=151
HEAVEN’S GLORY=151
THE HOLY FATHER=151
OUR GOD HA’MASHIACH =151
YESHUA OF GALILEE =151
MY SALVATION =151
HOLY SPIRIT=151
BEHOLD YOUR GOD=151
MIGHTY JEHOVAH =151
FATHER GOD’S SON =151
YESHUA IS ADONAI=151
100’S MORE LIKE THESE IN MY WEBSITE BELOW…
Thywordistruthministries.com
Arthurellison172@gmail.com
Be blessed brother…
Shalom
Great comments regarding Tovia.
One day soon, all Israel will be saved!!!
Come quickly, MESSIAH YESHUA…
you are a idolater
Re: “One day soon, all Israel will be saved!!”
How completely arrogant of you! Just who do you think you are telling us our destiny, telling us we’ll become Christians?! Are you going to force us like you have done so many times in the past at the end of a sword, or the torture you devised for us during the Spanish inquisition in your chamber of horrors? Make us suffer and bring us to our knees, that will make us cry out to your mutilated, bloodied demigod hanging on a cross! Are you going to plead innocent on the grounds that those who did that to us weren’t “real” Christians? I beg to differ! That’s your history and you continue to persist in bringing an end to HaShem’s chosen.
I know your plans for us. You think your plans are such a noble cause but your plans always mean destruction of our people.
I cant believe you would support someone like Michael Brown who in reality uses lies to convert the vulnerable. Why do missionaries like him use their scholarship to deceive people? After all what is at stake? Anyone can refute things and twist words to win an argument or debate if they choose. Is it just about winning? This just tells me your beloved Dr Brown does not really care about people, only winning because he a selfish idolater.
Well, it’s obviously not the end of rabbi Tovia! When I last looked on Youtube, he’s growing from strength to strength. And Christians don’t seem to be able to refute him.
i wouldnot buy a used car off brown. he is slick and has practiced his well worn replies and proof texts but he knows that he is delusional. jesus is a myth as real as zeus! why would rabbi singer wast his time on such a scoundrel.
The tribal lineage is not through the mother. It’s through the father. Wether someone is Jewish or not is through the mother, but tribal affiliation only through the father.
Can you prove that from scripture?
@ Marilyn Samaniego & Allan Ruhl
“The tribal lineage…”
Just FYI, I answered this issue above, as a Jewish believer in Yeshua. Search this blog for “Yehudah says: November 22, 2020 at 1:14 am” to see my explanation. Yeshua is indeed a legitimate descendant of David. His genealogy has been largely misunderstood and misrepresented in Christianity (I’m not a part), which has carried over into “missionary / anti-missionary debates,” which is why most rabbis who reject Yeshua are only doing so on the basis of Christian errors in the first place. You need to go back to the most ancient Jewish version *and* interpretation of the writings of Yeshua’s followers.
P.S. (I take no part whatsoever in the leshon hara (evil speech) on this website. It is very displeasing. You can debate issues without slandering individuals.)
Chanukah Sameach,
Yehudah
Really? Have you been in a church lately? Pass the plate, pass the plate, pass the plate and pass it for the “special” giving too. Dig deep, dig deeper and then give it all and trust that jesus is going to give you back ten times what you give. Give ten percent, give ten percent of everything you have. Trust and give all…
What a bunch of BS! The tithe is ONLY ON the land and ONLY IN the Land! What a big racket you churches have going.
Giving Tuesday has become a national event that follows black Friday (shopping day), cyber Monday(online shopping day), giving Tuesday – donation giving day. I’m inundated with emails every year for giving Tuesday.
In all, the church Sunday collection plate is the biggest rip off that preys on the poor who think they’ll get financial blessings if they keep giving. Liar liar liar church.
I remember watching the debate hosted by messianic Sid Roth between Singer and Brown in the early 2000s. In my opinion, Rabbi Tovia Singer came off the winner. Dr. Brown wasn’t able to meet the burden of proof for Jesus in scriptural prophecy. It didn’t go well for Dr. Brown, and to such an extent that Sid Roth seemed to feel the need to BRING BACK Dr. Brown to the show immediately after the debate’s conclusion, now in the absence of Rabbi Singer, to give Dr. Brown free reign to clarify and expand upon his position. I remember commenting below the video that I considered it unethical of Sid Roth to intervene in this way, and permit Brown to continue the discussion without giving Singer equal opportunity. I commented that in England, at least, such bias would be viewed in a very dim light.
Rabbi Singer’s credibility continues intact. Allan Ruhl’s claim is not.Btw, I am not a Jew.
Pay attention to detail. Ok. Matthew 26:60 KJV said Caiphus’s men found 2 false witnesses. Why did all the churches miss this? After they found the false witnesses, these liars claimed that Jesus “said” he would tear down the temple and rebuild it in 3 days. Jesus never said that.
CLAIM: Jesus did not tear down the temple and build it back up in 3 days. The temple was destroyed 40 years after Jesus died in 70 AD. Jews are rebuilding one now. Clearly that was a total lie. This is more than 1900 years later. Most of the New testament is full of lies.
Jesus did not die for your sins. Caiphus ordere his death. There was NO MENTION of sacrifice until decades latee when Romabs wanted to cover their tracks for shedding Jesus’s blood which is what God warned Noah’s family never to do or God will require your bloodshed. Genesis 9:4-6, Matthew 9:13.
Do you understand? The liars put words in Jesus’ mouth. The new testament is mostly lies. Why so many contradictions? Why didnt Jesus write his own book?
Hello,
“Why did all the churches miss this? After they found the false witnesses, these liars claimed that Jesus “said” he would tear down the temple and rebuild it in 3 days. Jesus never said that.”
He did say that. It’s just recorded elsewhere. Look at John 2:19, it gives the statement. Refuted.
“CLAIM: Jesus did not tear down the temple and build it back up in 3 days. The temple was destroyed 40 years after Jesus died in 70 AD. Jews are rebuilding one now. Clearly that was a total lie. This is more than 1900 years later. Most of the New testament is full of lies.”
John 2:21-22 explains that he’s speaking metaphorically. Refuted.
“Jesus did not die for your sins. Caiphus ordere his death. There was NO MENTION of sacrifice until decades latee when Romabs wanted to cover their tracks for shedding Jesus’s blood which is what God warned Noah’s family never to do or God will require your bloodshed. Genesis 9:4-6, Matthew 9:13.”
Mark 10:45 and John 10:11. Refuted.
“The liars put words in Jesus’ mouth.”
If you look carefully, those weren’t the false witnesses. They were the true ones and Jesus made the statement in John 2. Refuted.
“The new testament is mostly lies. Why so many contradictions?”
It’s only your misunderstanding.
“Why didnt Jesus write his own book?”
I don’t know. Why didn’t Elijah write his own book?
@ Sandy Bouchard
I kindly suggest that you read the Jewish writings that we are speaking of (i.e. the “New Testament” as Christians put it). At least read the four accounts (“gospels”) of Yeshua’s life, work, death, and resurrection? That wouldn’t actually take that long. Do so with a sincere heart to know the truth from G-d, and I think you will really be blessed 🙂
Yehudah
Here’s what I don’t understand about Michael Brown. He claims Rabbi Singer is lying, but then admits to everything the Rabbi said. Sure, he qualifies it with an explanation, but he admits that it’s true. So why say he’s lying?
I’ve listened to the debate on his site, and I feel like Rabbi Singer makes the better case. But that’s not about skill. Michael Brown is at a natural disadvantage because he’s working with a text that twists the original prophecies.
That said, I don’t think Brown is a particularly skilled debater. He’s a much better writer. I just bought his new book on Christian Antisemitism and it’s a good read.
Even thecdead sea scrolls were altered on the hellenisticic era by Essences. Not sure if that is the spelling but how do we know what Moses wrote in the Torah is 100% legitimate? How would he know Cain’s descendants names when Cain was banished far away from Adam Ans Eve’s other desendants? Genesis 4. I do not even know all my great aunts and uncles names. Give me a break! They did not do genealogy 6000 years ago. There is no way for Moses to find that out. So I learned to take all written material about God with a grain of salt. We have our own private testimonies that proves God is a spirit only. He enters our soul when we pray earnestly. Nothing else matters and we do not have to have priests in our family. Adam through Noah never had temples, writings, priests, assemblies, etc. Those things were created 2000 years after Adam was created.
@ Sandy Bouchard
For what it’s worth, some thoughts in response to your post above. (I do appreciate your rational approach, but suggest some modifications here.)
1) At least some of the Dead Sea Scrolls (for instance, 1QIsa, or “Great Isaiah scroll”), evince remarkable agreement with the Masoretic Text that was finalized about 1,200 years later. (See Emanuel Tov on this if you are really interested). In general, it may be safe to say that the Dead Sea Scrolls demonstrate that the Hebrew text is quite reliable, and that is remarkable compared to most ancient literature.
2) How do we know what Moses wrote is 100% legitimate? What do you mean by “100% legitimate”? I prefer to think in terms of degrees, given that anything that comes through man’s hands picks up errors. But I choose to believe that this process of transmitting the Bible was God’s sovereign choice, and that He is able to preserve the message reliably, overall. Just like I can whisper in your ear a message, and then you turn around and whisper it into someone else’s ear. It might change slightly, but I’m trusting that the main point gets across.
Obviously, faith is involved to some degree. Nobody was there, and we have no photocopies, video / audio recordings from 3,000 years ago. Evidence can only take us so far, in one direction or the other, and so faith in involved. But it isn’t a “blind faith.” As I said in my post before, I recommend you read the text with a sincere desire to know the truth; pray and ask God to reveal the truth to you. The Bible teaches that if you really want to know the truth, you will find it. Most people don’t really want to know though.
3) “How would he know Cain’s descendants names when Cain was banished far away from Adam Ans Eve’s other desendants? Genesis 4. I do not even know all my great aunts and uncles names…”
Contrary to your experience, people cared a lot more about genealogies back then. The Bible demonstrates this quite plainly in multiple places by the extensive genealogies. Inserting your own (American?) life’s experience into the Bible is called eisegesis, and it is a no-no. Assuming that people thought the way you think, cared about the thinks you care about (or not) is a wrong way to approach ancient literature like the Bible.
First of all, people lived for nearly 1,000 years from Adam to Noah, so even though there were many generations, there was enormous overlap between them. There were at times 12 generations alive at the same time. Noah’s son, Shem, who was on the ark during the Flood, was still alive when Jacob was born, so Jacob (the father of the 12 tribes of Israel) could have learned about the Flood firsthand from Shem. And there were only 3 generational “gaps” between firsthand transmission from Adam and Jacob. That means that a ton of information could have been transmitted firsthand.
Besides, if God wanted Moses to have the information about Cain’s descendants, God could have given it to Moses directly. (He was a prophet, after all.)
4) Adam through Noah never had temples, writings, priests, assemblies, etc. Those things were created 2000 years after Adam was created.”
How do you know? And what do you even mean? Sacrifices were being brought by (at least) Genesis ch. 4 (Cain and Abel). And you don’t think people assembled together? What do you call the Tower of Babel (Genesis 11)? Probably a ziggurat, which was–guess what–a temple (which would then have priests).
Like I said Sandy, give the book a read with an open heart. Search the truth and don’t just throw specious, unstudied opinions in the air. If you want to promote doubt and unbelief, at least do a bit more study first. My thoughts anyway.
Yehudah
So far no one has seen or heard from dr. brownie boys fake rabbis that
Isaiah 53 the whole chapter is about a messiah. So Rabbi Singer didn’t lose
anything all xtians are lying devils Christians claim without blood
you cant obtain atonement where all over the Torah it says you can.
Ezekiel Chapter 33:14 Again, when I say unto the wicked: Thou shalt surely die; if he turn from his sin, and do that which
is lawful and right; 15 if the wicked restore the pledge, give back that which he
had taken by robbery, walk in the statutes of life, committing no iniquity; he shall surely live, he shall not die.
16 None of his sins that he hath committed shall be remembered against him; he
hath done that which is lawful and right; he shall surely live
email me for hundreds of more verses like this
Who can believe anything coming from the pagan Christian church? Just go ahead and celebrate your pagan holidays, then go ahead tell Jews they are wrong. Christians have manipulated people long enough. Your hell is pagan. Your beliefs are pagan in origin. Your Christ is definitely pagan. Total bs! Stop lying to people and worship the one true g_d.