Dr. Brown Answers the Rabbis (Part 2)
June 9, 2011 | 343 Comments
Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.
Dr. Brown responds to objections from Rabbi Michael Skobac and Rabbi Eli Cohen from Jews for Judaism. (Listen to part 1, responding to Rabbi Blumenthal’s objections, here.)
Hour 1:
Dr. Brown’s Bottom Line: We have certainty, based on careful study of the scriptures, that the Messiah who will rule and reign at the end of the age, and establish God’s perfect kingdom on this earth, is the one who came and suffered, who died, and was rejected and misunderstood. As surely as He came, He will come again, our Jewish people will turn and recognize Him, and we will see the day when all Israel will be saved.
Hour 2:
Dr. Brown’s Bottom Line: I’ve studied the scriptures for many, many years. I’ve learned that rather than Matthew and the authors of the New Testament being deceptive, shallow, or mishandling the scriptures, I discovered the depths of wisdom, knowledge, and insight and truths of the Messiah in their writings.
Featured Resources:
Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus Volume 3: This third installment of Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus looks specifically at questions raised about messianic prophecies in Isaiah, Daniel, Psalms, Haggai, and Zechariah.
and Volume 4: In this volume of the Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus series, Dr. Brown counters the arguments that the New Testament mistranslates, misuses, and misunderstands the Hebrew Scriptures, also addressing the objections that Jesus or Paul abolished the Law.
Jesus: Messiah or Not [DVD Debate]: A question asked and debated for centuries. Can we know for sure? Featuring Dr. Michael L. Brown and Rabbi Michael Gold.
Other Resources:
Dr. Brown Answers the Rabbis (Part 1)
[Download MP3]
Dr. Brown answers challenges given him by traditional rabbis as to why Jesus is not the Jewish Messiah, focusing today on challenges from his friend, Rabbi Yisroel Blumenthal. Rabbi Blumenthal’s blog is: http://yourphariseefriend.wordpress.com/. Dr. Brown is currently working on written refutations of Rabbi Blumenthal’s major articles.
Countering the Counter-Missionaries [22 mp3 set] : An important resource will be a great faith builder for those who are struggling, a great outreach tool for those who are seeking, and a great source of edification and enrichment for those who are involved in Jewish evangelism.
Comments
343 Responses to “Dr. Brown Answers the Rabbis (Part 2)”
Leave a Reply
Listen Live 2-4
E-Newsletter Signup
Ask Dr. Brown
Subscribe to the Podcast
Station List
June 9th, 2011 @ 1:31 pm
After the tomb was removed and the 2 Marys and the Roman soldiers(guards) saw that Jesus was not there. Both parties “flipped out.” The Marys flipped out in joy and the Roman soldiers flipped out in fear.
The Roman soldiers(guards) knew Jesus was dead and now is alive. They told this news to the high priest and the elders. How did the high priest and the elders react to the good news about the risen Jesus? Read what “your” bible says
Matthew 28: 11-15
11 While the women were on their way, some of the guards went into the city and reported to the chief priests everything that had happened. 12 When the chief priests had met with the elders and devised a plan, they gave the soldiers a large sum of money, 13 telling them, “You are to say, ‘His disciples came during the night and stole him away while we were asleep.’ 14 If this report gets to the governor, we will satisfy him and keep you out of trouble.” 15 So the soldiers took the money and did as they were instructed. And this story has been widely circulated among the Jews to this very day.
The Jewish High Priest knew the truth about Jesus being risen. They had witnesses, liable witnesses that claimed Jesus has risen. But yet they would not acknowledge the truth. They still do not acknowledge this truth today. Question is….Why? They were looking for their Messiah, then He appeared, but the Jews said NO, No, No that is not Him.
O
K
Praise the Lord some Jews get it.
June 9th, 2011 @ 3:07 pm
I wasn’t able to get to Rabbi Eli Cohen’s audio clips today. Hopefully, next time!
June 9th, 2011 @ 7:57 pm
What of the objection (think the Naked Arheologist) that James kept the Torah and law and thought of Jesus as a mortal, not God and Paul or the Roman empire changed it all?
June 9th, 2011 @ 11:31 pm
It’s a shame the audio quality is so bad today. This is my favorite subject to hear Dr Brown expound on. I’ll keep listening, maybe it clears up?
June 9th, 2011 @ 11:32 pm
Hmmm.. must have been something with my browser… it’s fine now. Puzzling!
June 10th, 2011 @ 12:50 am
There was an audio problem right at the beginning.
June 11th, 2011 @ 11:43 am
John 17:24
“Father, I want those you have given me to be with me where I am, and to see my glory,
the glory you have given me because you loved me before the creation of the world.
Jesus said to the Heavenly Father…”you loved me before the creation of the world.”.
More proof that Jesus was with the Father before the beginning of Creation of the world.
June 11th, 2011 @ 10:29 pm
I just read I Thess 5:19.
In the Pilgrim’s Progress, Christian was shown a fire burning near a wall, and how there was an individual standing there who was continually throwing water on it. It was the Devil. But the fire kept burning higher and hotter.
Christian wondered what it meant and asked about it. There was one reason and one reason only for that and Christian was shown why.
He was taken to the other side of the wall. There he saw a man with a jar of oil in his hand and he was secretly pouring oil upon the fire continually.
There is quite a bit about this, but it was the Lord who kept pouring on the Oil of His Grace. It was about Christ who continues to maintain the work of grace in the heart of his people, and so their souls remain full of grace in spite of what the Devil tries to do.
Christian was shown how it isn’t easy to see this happening during the troubles God’s people go through when they are tempted.
June 12th, 2011 @ 6:25 am
Horrible audio…can you somehow repost?
June 12th, 2011 @ 8:07 am
Chuck, the beginning of the show itself had horrible audio — a line was down in our building and the backup wasn’t working — and it improves after 5 minutes (but still not up to normal quality). We regret this!
June 13th, 2011 @ 6:25 pm
I posted a response to this show on my blog
http://wp.me/p13c8v-58
June 13th, 2011 @ 9:41 pm
Rabbi Blumenthal, thanks for posting your response to the show. Unfortunately, in the entirety of your lengthy response, you failed to address some of the key points made, beginning with the issue of spiritual blindness being the state of all those — Jew and Gentile — who do not believe in Yeshua. That being said, if Rabbi Skobac and others aren’t able or inclined to interact, I’m glad you’re taking the time to present traditional Jewish responses.
June 13th, 2011 @ 10:03 pm
Dr. Brown
You are welcome – By the way – I don’t see how the point of everyone being spiritually blinded is a “key point” – I guess I’m just spiritually blind
June 13th, 2011 @ 10:31 pm
Perhaps you are spiritually blind or perhaps you need to listen to the show again.
June 14th, 2011 @ 4:43 am
It seems that everyone ( Non believing Jews and Gentiles) being blinded is a key point since Dr Brown is trying to point out that Rabbi Skobac doesn’t really understand how Christians (or the NT) applies the concept of spiritual blindness.
What Dr Brown fails to understand is what Rabbi Skobac was addressing to begin with.
Rabbi Skobac was simply saying that Christians have been perplexed from very early on and throughout history at the fact that Jews (who supposedly study the Scriptures and are well versed in it) don’t see Jesus as the Messiah. The rationalisation given for this phenomena (the learned Jew who doesn’t “see the truth of the Gospel”) is spiritual blindness (specifically 2 Cor 3:14-15)
Rabbi Skobac was NOT saying that spiritual blindness is applied in the NT ONLY to Jews.
So Dr Brown’s key point is based on his misunderstanding.
June 14th, 2011 @ 5:56 am
Eli, so, why do you think Paul speaks of the blinding of all people just a few verses later in the very same letter (2 Cor 4)? And why do you think I made a point of it on the show? It appears that until you grasp this, you won’t be able to respond properly. Again, if someone doesn’t understand the objection, they won’t be able to interact with it.
June 14th, 2011 @ 6:06 am
Dr. Brown
I understand that by extending the blindness to the gentiles – you deflect the charge of racism and anti-semitism (I recognize that you sincerely believe in the universal blindness theory I am NOT saying that you are only saying this in order to deflect that charge)
My point is that after everything is said and done – most Christians are not wondering why it is that the aborigines of Australia or the Moslems of Saudi Arabia don’t see Jesus in the Jewish Scriptures – they DO wonder about the Jewish people specifically people who study the Jewish Scriptrues and claim to obey what it says – so the theory of universal blindness still emphasizes the Jew on a practical level – and this theory stands in the way of mutual understanding – is my appeal at the end of the article irrational or unfair? Is it too much to ask that Christians attempt to see the OT from the eyes of the Jew?
June 14th, 2011 @ 7:40 am
Dear Yisroel,
If I may quote part of your article, you said:
“The myth of the “blindness of the Jew” is an ugly stain in the history of mankind. Dr. Brown, instead of working to perpetuate this myth, I appeal to you to educate Christians of the fallacies of this myth. Explain to your audience that as long as the Jew sees the teachings of Christianity as a contradiction to the Scriptures with which we were entrusted by God – it is the moral duty of the Jew to REJECT those teachings. Encourage your audience to try to read the Jewish Scriptures as a Jew would have read them before the advent of Jesus. Encourage your listeners to attempt to acquire a complete world-view on the basis of the Jewish Scriptures alone – and ask them – how would they view the doctrines of Christianity in the light of the Jewish Scriptures.”
I am sure you believe atheistic Jews, Jewbus, reform Jews, conservative Jews, even some orthodox circles who differ from your particular group, etc etc, I am sure you would agree to SOME extent they are blinded. Otherwise they would not be in their “camp”, they would be side by side with you. So, I hope you would at least admit in your own world view you believe some people are blinded. So, I don’t see what the big “problem” is.
I’m a big shocked at the latter part of the paragraph. I think Dr. Brown has gone out of his way to show that the foundations for everything which the New Testament teaches is in fact found in the Jewish scriptures. Really shocked about that one. Maybe there is some “blindness” on my part, if you could please explain this for me.
Thanks,
Eric.
June 14th, 2011 @ 7:43 am
Sorry typo..
“I’m a big shocked” should be: I’m a bit shocked…
June 14th, 2011 @ 8:15 am
Rabbi Blumenthal, actually, I’m totally unconcerned with the charge of racism and anti-semitism in terms of the issue of spiritual blindness, since it is 100% untrue as far as the NT authors are concerned. My concern had to do with understanding Paul’s point in 2 Cor 3, which cannot be understood separated from 2 Cor 4, and, as all of us who follow Yeshua can understand, we need God to open our eyes to spiritual reality, otherwise all of us — Jew and Gentile alike — are blind. This is not insignificant, and one can think immediately of biblical heroes like Job and Isaiah who had an encounter with God, out of which they saw things about Him and about themselves they had never seen before.
With regard to the unique situation of the Jewish people, what you seem to be missing is this: Messiah came in accordance with the Scriptures and in the glory and power of God and yet was rejected by most of our leadership — you really have no idea what this would have been like without being there — and when Paul asks how this could have happened, he sees a similar pattern of sinning against revealed light in our history, with only the remnant being saved in most generations. Where you stand today reflects centuries of rejection of the Messiah on the behalf of our people, to the point that there is the hostile presupposition against faith in Yeshua from the earliest days you have heard about him, not to mention a distorted picture through Church history of who he is and was, not to mention a whole detailed system of oral traditions, most of which would have been unknown to our forefathers 2000 years ago.
So, when you ask me today to read the Tanakh through the eyes of a Jew, what that means to you vs. what that would have meant 2,000 years ago is quite different.
June 14th, 2011 @ 8:17 am
Eli, are the nations of the world spiritually blind in terms of who Israel is? In particular, would you see this spiritual blindness based on your reading of Isaiah 52:13-53:12, which you claim speaks of the nations being shocked to see that God’s righteous servant was Israel?
June 14th, 2011 @ 3:45 pm
YB
On your blog you wrote…
Correct me if I am wrong but Christianity was founded by Jews was it not? If so, what is the moral equivalency your trying to push here? I do not see what this has got anything to do with it. It is a simple matter of choice, is it not?
June 14th, 2011 @ 6:00 pm
Chuck
According to Protestant Christianity – each of us has the moral duty to follow the Bible – when Christianity presnetd its claims – the “Bible” was the OT – thus if a Jew sees the claims of Christianity as a contradiction to the BIble – that individual Jew has teh moral duty to reject the claims of Christianity – does this add up?
June 14th, 2011 @ 6:08 pm
Eric
I sincerely appreciate your tone
My point is that the word “blindness” has two connotations – one – a natural bias #2 – supernatural blindness to teh degree that if you tell this person explicit words – he or she will not hear them – Dr. Brown means the latter when he says “blindness” (listen to his May 20 radio show) – those who are encouraged to believe that they are spiritually enlightened while people who do not see things their way are spiritually blinded in teh sense of being unable to react appropriately to open and explicit communication -will have to look at those who disagree with them as – a different class of people then themselves
As for my appeal to Dr. Brown – let me explain – my whole point is don’t start with the NT – you have to understand – the Jewish people possessed the OT long before the NT was introduced – they developed a world-view beased on the OT – and in light of that world-view they found themselves duty bound to reject the claims of the NT – please read my article 1000 verses – and you will see what I am talking about
June 14th, 2011 @ 6:14 pm
Dr. Brown
Is my appeal then irrational? – let us try to reconstruct what the Jewish people should have learned from the OT before the NT was introduced – I laid out what I believe they should have believed and why they should have believed it in my article “1000 verses” – I encourage you to put down some type of world-view that differs with the one I presented based on OT alone
why is it so difficult for you to encourage your listeners to go back and read the OT without the NT and ask themselves what the Jewish people should have believed before the advent of Christianity?
June 14th, 2011 @ 6:15 pm
for those who are interested here is the link to 1000 verses
http://yourphariseefriend.wordpress.com/2010/08/31/1000-verses/
June 14th, 2011 @ 6:23 pm
Dr. Brown
one more comment
You accuse Judaism of developing and promoting a “distorted view” of who Jesus was.
Did it perhaps occur to you that Christianity has developed and promoted a distorted view of Judaism?
just compare how much percentage of Christian writings deal with “educating” thie audience about Judaism – starting in the NT itself – versus how much text space is spent in the traditional Jewish writings educating the audience about Jesus or Christianity
June 14th, 2011 @ 7:47 pm
Yisroel,
I read of a Christian who seemed to say that he used to be Graceless, describing himself as being a descendant from the race of Japheth whom God persuaded to dwell in the tents of Shem.
It seemed to me when I read it, that such a one was truly an heir of salvation.
What about one that claims to be related to Paul the Apostle by the same blood?
June 14th, 2011 @ 9:22 pm
Rabbi Blumenthal, based on the Scriptures, the Jewish people would have a very strong emphasis on the importance of blood atonement and a very strong emphasis on priestly ministry and a very strong emphasis on the prophetic word. Jewish tradition downplays the need for all three of these elements compared to the NT emphasis that rightly continues the emphasis of the Tanakh.
June 14th, 2011 @ 9:24 pm
Rabbi Blumenthal, you had best use your arguments about the prophets of Israel, who were constantly critiquing the leaders of our people. Yeshua, as Prophet, continues in that tradition, exposing hypocrisy and sin. You should embrace his critique rather than reject it.
June 15th, 2011 @ 6:02 am
Dr. Brown
Do you mean blood atonement and priestly ministry – divorced from the Temple? where are your Scriptures?
As for the prophetic word – we were taught by Moses how to evaluate prophets – and we take that responsibility very seriously
As for your advice about accepting the rebuke of Yeshua – inasmuch as he advocates obedience to the Law of Moses and to the teachers that sit on the seat of Moses – I have no problem with it.
Do you feel that you “embrace” Yeshua’s critique because you wrote volume 5?
Back to my proposal -why don’t you encourage your listeners to try to erase the NT from their minds for a little bit and approach the OT the way a Jew would have approached it before the advent of Yeshua – and encourage them to develop a OT based world-view in order to help them understand where the Jews are coming from – or where the Jews went wrong – is this proposal irrational or unfair?
June 15th, 2011 @ 6:03 am
Ray
No one in God’s creation is “graceless” – the fact that we are created is an act of undeserved grace and love – no one should ever lose sight of that
June 15th, 2011 @ 6:20 am
YB
I was focusing on the NT Jewish writings left to us by a group of Jews who had no moral qualms in accepting what they wrote as part of the divienly inspired scriptures on par with their own Hebrew Scriptures [2Pe 3.16].
So no, it does not “add up” what your trying to inject here in terms of a moral obligation by modern-day Jews to reject the NT for the Hebrew scriptures.
June 15th, 2011 @ 6:51 am
Dear ישראל,
Thank you for all the dialogue, I am really learning from this interaction here. As far as supernatural blinding goes, I would agree that to whatever power we believe satan (in ref. to the “god of this world”, in the NT) has, he may be able to blind someone. Or we can blind ourselves to some understandings because we are so set in our way that we cannot see any other interpretation, but the latter would not be supernatural. I believe and hold to that no matter what blindness we have whether it be from the supernatural or natural, if we humbly seek God then He will reveal the truth to us. (Psa. 119:18, Rom. 11:23)
Thank you for explaining your other point to me, I believe that as a Christian I can find a foundation for anything taught in the New Testament in the Tanakh. Even if it’s just hinted at in the Tanakh it is brought to light in the NT, such as the Trinity for example. I understand what you are saying though, which is, do not try to find justification for what you believe in the NT, but simply read the Tanakh and see if you think the NT specifically Jesus, fits the description. As well as the other things mentioned in your article such as “atonement” and “law of Moses”, etc.
May I throw a hypothetical out there? And it’s a very real situation, for many people.. What if someone did grow up reading the Tanakh and did grow up with Jewish understanding and it did create a world-view in their life. And then when they read the NT it did fit the bill, and Jesus, Yeshua did fit the Messianic expectations, all that and more. What do you tell this person?
Thanks my friend, waiting to hear back from you.
Eric
June 15th, 2011 @ 7:13 am
Also if I may add one more thing, in your article 1000 verses, you said:
“By pointing to one created being and elevating him to the status of divine, Christianity has blurred the distinction between Creator and created. The arguments presented by Christendom to justify their devotion could just as easily be used to justify devotion to any created being such as a cat, a rock, a statue, or another person. The unequivocal message of scripture is that every last inhabitant of heaven and earth is but a subject of the One Creator.”
We do not worship Yeshua as a created man, but as the eternal Son of God, who took on flesh. We do not worship the tent, but the God dwelling in the tabernacle. Please understand this, it is one of your crucial points to Christianity. We believe the flesh was simply that, a tent, a dwelling place for God. We do not worship anything created.
John 1
1-3: In the beginning was the Word (logos/memra), and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.
14: And the Word (The Memra/logos) became flesh and dwelt (tabernacled) among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.
Can you see the God of Israel doing this, has He done it before? Does this suggest we worship a created being that is somehow elevated to a divine being?
(BTW, I hope people understand I did not add any words in the parentheses, but simply synonyms that may be helpful to Jewish people.)
Thanks again,
Eric.
June 15th, 2011 @ 7:48 am
Here are my thoughts of why the Jewish people reject Jesus as Messiah. I believe the Jews were looking and expecting a political Messiah, instead Jesus came as a spiritual Messiah, representing love, peace, joy, kindness, etc. of the fruits of the Spirit.
Jesus warned us in the ends times many false Messiahs would come, but not to believe their claim as being the Messiah.
Mark 13:21-22
21 And then if anyone says to you, ‘Behold, here is the Christ’; or, ‘Behold, He is there’; do not believe him; 22 for false Christs and false prophets will arise, and will show signs and wonders, in order to lead astray, if possible, the elect.
If the Jews believe the NT is wrong, then why would it be in the bible as the OT being correct and the NT as being wrong? If you believe the OT you must believe the NT too. The bible is a book of truth not half truths.
Personnely speaking no one can take away what Jesus did in my life. I experienced life before Jesus and now I live life with Jesus. I will never ever turn from Jesus.
Lord I pray you will reveal yourself to those Jews who are hungry for the truth. Bless them Lord. I speak a testimony in the making. Thanks Lord you are AWESOME!!!!
June 15th, 2011 @ 8:25 am
Debbie
June 15th, 2011 @ 9:32 am
Chuck,
Let me ask you.
Who do you say Jesus is?
June 15th, 2011 @ 9:34 am
Revelation 12:11
1And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony; and they loved not their lives unto the death.
The word of our testimony does give weight.
June 15th, 2011 @ 9:38 am
I don’t know what Preterism means.
June 15th, 2011 @ 9:46 am
Debbie
“The Messiah, the Son of the Living God, the King of Israel” [Mat 16.16; John 1.49].
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preterism
June 15th, 2011 @ 10:11 am
Alright Chuck,
You get a gold star.
June 15th, 2011 @ 10:16 am
Don’t forget our Savior too.
June 15th, 2011 @ 10:31 am
Rabbi Blumenthal, to be sure I’m following your proposal, you are also willing to discard all Jewish tradition from your thinking — as much as possible — and look at the Tanakh alone to ask: What should the Jewish people been expecting 2,000 years ago, even though, from your own testimony, you ultimately know the Tanakh to be God’s Word because of that very tradition, and without that tradition you cannot rightly understand the Torah? Is that correct?
Also, we don’t have to speculate about what Jewish people were expecting 2,000 years ago, since we have numerous writings from different Jewish groups — the Pharisees being one of them — indicating a wide-range of beliefs (including eschatology as well as how to understand Torah). More importantly, our people often strayed from the path and God had to send prophets to bring us back to truth. Yeshua came in that respect as Prophet as well.
I could write much more (time escapes me again), but I don’t see the rationality of your proposal as you see it. Furthermore, for Christians here, they know the Tanakh is true because of Yeshua. If your arguments against him were true and he was neither Messiah nor Savior nor Son of God, they would have no reason to continue to believe in the Tanakh either. They have come to know the God of Israel through him, they have received forgiveness of sins through him, their lives have been transformed through him, and if he was not who he claimed to be, then for them, the Tanakh would be another book of myths and fairy tales. I might as well tell you, “The Torah is true but there is no God, so follow the Torah.”
Yes, we have the Tanakh in common, both you and I believing it to be God’s Word, but I ultimately recognize it as God’s Word because of Yeshua — the one who saved me from my sin and rebellion and darkness — not because of other important, but ultimately secondary reasons. (This is parallel to a counter-missionary rabbi telling me that he is ultimately sure that God exists because of the Jewish people.)
June 15th, 2011 @ 10:56 am
Debbie
I am glad I finally agree on something with someone on here.
Now if I can throw a question your way. Seeing as how you and many others on here believe Jesus to be fully God (100% participating in the being of God) in his earthly life how do you interpret Mark 13.32, which clearly states that Jesus was not omniscient?
June 15th, 2011 @ 11:16 am
Dr. Brown,
I agree wholeheartedly, praise God. Thank you very much for your words. I would be nothing Yeshua. Nothing.
Thanks,
Eric
June 15th, 2011 @ 11:16 am
I would be nothing without Yeshua*, sorry!
June 15th, 2011 @ 11:35 am
Great question Chuck.
Mark 13.32 “No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.
At the time Jesus was on earth He was a human, He emptied himself. Whatever privileges and powers there might have been were stripped from him.
Philippians 2:5-8
5 Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, 6 who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, 7 but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross.
June 15th, 2011 @ 11:43 am
At the time while He was on Earth He did not know the time or hour of His return. However, I do believe now Jesus knows the time and hour of His 2ND Coming It is not kept or hidden from Him now that He is up in Heaven.
Careful Chuck,
We may get in trouble for sneaking this topic in.
June 15th, 2011 @ 11:44 am
: )
June 15th, 2011 @ 12:18 pm
“Furthermore, for Christians here, they know the Tanakh is true because of Yeshua. If your arguments against him were true and he was neither Messiah nor Savior nor Son of God, they would have no reason to continue to believe in the Tanakh either. They have come to know the God of Israel through him, they have received forgiveness of sins through him, their lives have been transformed through him, and if he was not who he claimed to be, then for them, the Tanakh would be another book of myths and fairy tales. I might as well tell you, ‘The Torah is true but there is no God, so follow the Torah.’”
This quote from Dr. Brown crystalizes the inherent problem in the debate between the Christian fundamentalist and countermissionary. i.e., the assumption that we can use the Old Testament as an area of debate is not really true because we both believe Tanach for very different reasons.
You are 100% correct Dr. Brown that if belief in the Old Testament is inherently hinged on belief in the truth of the New Testament, there is no debate between the Jew and Christian because it is already axiomatic for you that there could be no conflict between the two.
But you have to understand at the same time that this idea automatically disposes of every single missionary argument against the Jewish faith that uses the Old Testament, because our belief in Tanach is based on Mesorah. There can be no conflict between Torah sh’baal peh and Torah sh’b'ksav. In fact, it is a process of normative scholarly activity to find contradictions, and then attempt to explain them. (Kasheh and Terutz).
“I ultimately recognize it as God’s Word because of Yeshua — the one who saved me from my sin and rebellion and darkness — not because of other important, but ultimately secondary reasons.”
But what you are saying is that your faith is based on personal reasons. Plenty of people have had changed lives and followed different religious faiths for all sorts of different reasons. I believe that my life has been radically changed by G-d and the Torah. There are approximately 1.5 million believing observant Jews who you feel are incorrect. To convince someone else that they are incorrect, you have to appeal to a shared system of beliefs. I once thought that shared system was Tanach and logic. I then thought that that system might just be logic. Now, I am not sure if we do share any overiding system of belief.
June 15th, 2011 @ 12:19 pm
Debbie
So God ceased to be God for a time?
June 15th, 2011 @ 12:40 pm
Funny Chuck.
“So God ceased to be God for a time?”
Jesus on Earth did cease to exercise His divinity. Jesus was being obedient to everything the Father directed Him including healings were taken place through Jesus by the power of the Holy Spirit.
So, Chuck to answer your question… Yes, I believe so. But it doesn’t matter because it was only temporary.
June 15th, 2011 @ 12:48 pm
Hi Dr. Brown.
Let me make clear up front that I am an Orthodox Jew. Not that there will be any doubt.
I think that your last response to Rabbi Blumenthal seriously blurs the basic ground rules of what these dialogues are all about. With that said I’d like to take a step back and reestablish for your readers what I believe to some of the axioms of these discussions
1)Countermissionaries, like Rabbi Blumenthal, exist ONLY because there are missionaries like yourself. Jews do not believe in a compelling need to undo the belief systems of non-Jews. It is only because Christian missionaries engage in what they believe to be their sacred responsibility to persuade Jews to embrace Jesus that countermissionaries engage in their efforts to “counter” that activity. Fair is fair. Put more simply – and it is extremely important that your readers understand this – if there was no one engaged in any effort to convert Jews to Christianity, the likelihood is that almost all of the countermissionary works that we are discussing and that your readers find so puzzling, if not offensive, would never have been written. While Jews obviously don’t believe Christianity to be truth, they also don’t believe Islam, or Hinduism to be truth. One need ask then, why is there so little – if any – counter-islam and counter-hindu Jewish literature out there, despite the fact that the two faiths together outnumber Christians. To be honest, I find the title of your series “Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus” to be itself misleading and a tad offensive. (As if Jews, by their nature, walk around muttering the objections to Jesus. How medieval.) Jews don’t walk around “objecting to Jesus”. The more honest, if not market-friendly, title should have been “Answering Jewish Objections to Christian Evangelical Overtures” You know very well that it is almost exclusively in this context that Jews “Object to Jesus”. I received 17 years of Yeshiva education and I’m not sure I can recall a single instance of any teacher devoting any time to a serious discussion of Jesus. It’s a non-issue – untill the missionary raises it.
2)Sophisticated missionaries, like yourself, know very well that the theology of Judaism is based on the scriptures as defined by the OT canon. Moreover, sophisticated missionaries – like yourself – acknowledge that this belief system of the Jew is valid which is why sophisticated missionaries – like yourself – have written so many thousands of pages of material with the intended to demonstrate that belief in Jesus is not only justified but inescapable, purely on the basis of the OT on its own terms.
3) Therefore:
a. This is a fight picked by the Christian not by the Jew.
b. The burden of proof is therefore on the Christian not the Jew.
c. If the proof is there in the OT as you believe it is, then
d. You must concede that Rabbi Blumenthal’s challenge to those who would engage in this debate, to read the OT purely on its own terms and then and only then consider the case for Jesus, is not only a resonable challenge but a necessary precondition, or there is really no point to the discussion.
4) If however, the real point is, as you so eloquently put it in comment number 44 above is that “…we have the Tanakh in common, both you and I believing it to be God’s Word, but I ultimately recognize it as God’s Word because of Yeshua – the one who saved me from my sin and rebellion and darkness – not because of other important, but ultimately secondary reasons…”, then my response to you is, I am happy that you found a basis for cleaning up your life and living meaningfully.
So have I.
Have a nice day.
June 15th, 2011 @ 12:51 pm
Debbie
More troubling than funny. :/
June 15th, 2011 @ 1:06 pm
Matt, my point was to expose the wrongness of Rabbi Blumenthal’s proposal, since tradition for him (and for you?) has the same role as faith in Yeshua for me. Yes, I will always appeal to Tanakh when pointing to Yeshua, and yes, we have Tanakh in common as Jews. And yes, there is a role in logic, but ultimately, what seems logical to me might strike you as illogical, and vice versa.
I am committed to using the Tanakh as our basis of common truth, but I also realize that God must help us to see and understand, otherwise, we will never come to the truth. Was it a revelation of God at Sinai or logic that revealed God to our people? Was it Elijah calling down fire from heaven or a logical discourse that brought our people to repentance on Mt. Carmel?
For me, then, when I quote Tanakh to you, I’m also believing that God will speak through His Word and that the Spirit working upon the heart of true seekers will reveal the truth to them.
What do you think? Are you in harmony with my thinking here?
June 15th, 2011 @ 1:06 pm
Chuck and Debbie, one more reminder to keep the thread where it needs to be, namely interacting with rabbis about these issues, not arguing doctrine with each other here. Thanks!
June 15th, 2011 @ 2:46 pm
Dr Brown
Since I am slow maybe you can clear something for me.
You seem to throw out warnings my way whenever I discuss Trinity questions with others on here, except the Rabbi. Is that right?
If so, perhaps you can tell me what I am allowed to do and not to do.
June 15th, 2011 @ 3:00 pm
Chuck, with all respect, I addressed you and Debbie in my last post, correct? This is NOT the place to argue Trinity with other followers of Jesus; there are other threads for that, and you’re free to continue the discussion there. This is the place to interact with rabbis and other Jews who do not believe and to interact directly with the subject matter presented on the show. I do think we’ve been clear on this already.
June 15th, 2011 @ 3:03 pm
Dr Brown
So its okay to talk Trinity with non-believers but not those who actually believe in the Trinity? Where is the point in that?
June 15th, 2011 @ 3:53 pm
Sorry Dr Brown.
I promise you won’t need to warn me a 3rd time.
By the way, noticed your cough is gone. Praise God.
June 15th, 2011 @ 4:05 pm
Chuck, seriously. *sigh*
June 15th, 2011 @ 4:35 pm
To all
I hope to try to answer the questions posed to me by tomorrow – but one SERIOUS note and this is to Debbie
Why do you find the need to “think” why the Jewish people reject Jesus as the Messiah? why don’t you ask them? Can’t we talk?
June 15th, 2011 @ 4:40 pm
Chuck,
So its okay to talk Trinity with non-believers but not those who actually believe in the Trinity? Where is the point in that?
Chuck, it is simply because you and our Jewish friends are coming at the issue from different presuppositions. When you are dealing with a Jew, as my professor, Dr. VanGemeren said, you are dealing with whether the logic of the Hebrew Bible leads to the New Testament or to the Rabbinic traditions.
However, when you are dealing with a Socinian such as yourself or Anthony Buzzard, you are dealing with someone who already accepts that the logic of the Hebrew Bible leads to the New Testament. Where we would disagree is exactly what that system of thought [Hebrew Bible+New Testament] entails.
Hence, we are dealing with two different sets of presuppositions. That is why I did not continue to post on the last thread, because it was very confusing to have to deal with two differing sets of presuppositions all at once.
The clearest case I can make to a Socinian for the deity of Christ is how the New Testament takes passages of the Hebrew Bible, and statements about God from the Hebrew Bible, and applies them directly to Christ in the New Testament. To say the things that the New Testament says about Christ in the context of the Hebrew Bible is to equate Jesus Christ with God. However, if we have a dispute with the Jewish person on whether or not these are the correct interpretations of the Hebrew Bible in the first place, then that is different. With you I can say that this *is* the correct interpretation of the Hebrew Bible, because the New Testament, which you believe to be the word of God, tells you so. I cannot do that with a Jew.
Hence, it becomes very confusing to have to deal with the issue of how the New Testament is to be understood in the context of the Hebrew Bible on the one hand, and whether the Hebrew Bible is to be understood that way at all on the other.
God Bless,
Adam
June 15th, 2011 @ 5:07 pm
I’m sure apologizing a lot on this forum today.
Sorry yisroel for not asking you directly why the Jewish people reject Jesus as Messiah.
We can talk about it. Forgive me for “going behind your back” and not being more direct to you.
You’ll properly direct me to a website or one of your blogs to show me the answers of why the Jewish people reject Jesus as Messiah.
That is fine. You decide.
Thanks for confirming the question I had that Canaan was rename to Israel.
June 15th, 2011 @ 5:43 pm
Adam
I am only trying to deal with the clear Hebreaic-unitarian presupposition of the Jewish NT writers. To work from other presuppositions, as you have rightly suggested, leads to disagreement. And a parting of the ways between Judaism and Christianity.
What is wrong with working from Jesus’ own “presuppositons” as expressed in Mar 12.28-32?
June 15th, 2011 @ 6:13 pm
Do Jewish people have a word for what we can learn from Psalm 110:1, about the Spirit,the Lord who spoke to David’s Lord, and the One who received “Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.”?
Is there a word for Godhead in Hebrew?
Christians will usually refer to what they see by such verses as either the Trinity, or as the Godhead, though I think there are some Bibles that use another word other than Godhead in such verses as Romans 1:20, Acts 17:29,and Col 2:9.
June 15th, 2011 @ 6:46 pm
Chuck,
The problem is that I don’t agree that the NT writers were unitarians. And, yes, there is going to be a parting of ways between Rabbinic Judaism and Christianity because they are different systems of thought. I believe as a Christian that Christianity is the true continuation of the faith of the Hebrew scriptures, while Rabbinic Judaism denies this.
Also, I would ask if your view really is consistent with Jesus’ view when only one chapter earlier than the text you cite, Jesus accepts praise from the people on Palm Sunday! This is the whole point. I can ask you to be consistent with how Mark is using the Hebrew Bible. You believe that the NT gives the correct interpretation of the Hebrew Bible. Hence, I can say that you are inconsistent when you don’t accept the conclusion of the NT. However, how can I use that argument with a Jew who doesn’t accept Mark’s [or Matthew's or Luke's, or John's] canonicity in the first place?!
That is why I said that the discussion gets very confusing if you allow both on the same thread. You accept the canonicity of the NT. Therefore, you are inconsistent to reject its view of the Hebrew scriptures. However, if a Jew does not accept this, then I must go back to the Hebrew Bible, and show them from the Hebrew Bible that the logic of the Hebrew Bible leads to the NT. These are *not* the same arguments.
God Bless,
Adam
June 15th, 2011 @ 8:05 pm
Chuck, you are an intelligent man and it’s difficult for me to believe that you don’t understand the guidelines here. So, if before God, you genuinely are baffled by the instructions to stay within the parameters of the subject matter of the particular thread, then you can ask for clarification. If, on the other hand, you are simply being argumentative, you need to do some soul searching. So, which is it?
June 16th, 2011 @ 4:57 am
YB, REC, listeners: first of all ty for taking the time to come on this forum. its appreciated by everyone i’m sure.
YB:
>why is it so difficult for you (i.e. Dr brown) to encourage your listeners to go back and read the OT without the NT and ask themselves what the Jewish people should have believed before the advent of Christianity?
my CONTENTIon: nothign wrong with looking at OT through NT
I don’t know if you folks have seen the movie sixth sense. i have. there’s a spoiler alert here so watch out. the whole time we think that the doctor is a real person, and at the very end, we find out that he was a ghost all along! so when we look back at the preceeding events in the film, we see things in a slightly different light to what we saw them initially. and then we realise: OMG! It’s true! He was a ghost all along! there were overt clues in the movie the whole time, but we didn’t pick up on them. and now that we know he was a ghost it all makes sense! it makes sense why it was cold! why the kid was scared. it all falls into place
What is so wrong at looking at the OT with the NT testament in view? Looking at the OT with the new testament is like putting on glasses that brings everything into clear focus, it gives us answers to mysteries that were foreshadowed in the old. everything comes neatly into place.
EXAMPLES:
e.g. things like matthew saying that jesus was a nazerene as mentioned by the prophets in the old testament. we cannot discern from the old testament itself that the messiah would be a nazarene, because it never mentions this explicitly. but looking back on it we see it and say: AHA! now it makes sense. and we see the deepness and beauty of the OT in foreshadowing Jesus.
e.g. another one: how did YHWH (tetragrammation) appear to abraham?
____________________
CONTENTION: NT must be consistent with OT
But having said that, if the NT, which predicates itself on the old, is somehow inconsistent with the old, then these inconsistencies need to be addressed and ironed out. if they can’t be ironed out legitimately then we have a problem: the NT needs to be rejected.
So i agree with you. Old must be absolutely consistent with the new.
But we can by all means look at the old with the aid of the new, especially in light of the testimony of the miracles which jesus did himself.
June 16th, 2011 @ 6:07 am
Chuck
What I did not mean by “according to Protestant Christianity” – was all of the theology that comes along with Protestant Christianity
what I did mean by using that phrase was the template of the faith structure – sola-scriptura – the Bible as the complete guide from God – at the time of Jesus the “Bible” was the OT – according to the faith structure of Protestant Christianity – the Jewish people have the moral duty to examine the claims of the NT in light of the light granted by the OT – and accept OR REJECT accordingly
June 16th, 2011 @ 6:10 am
Eric
You ask – what if someone does follow my exercise (studying the OT alone) and comes to the conclusion that the NT is to be accepted
I will say that this person has at least followed the honest path to Christianity – I have yet to meet such a person – if you know of one please introduce him to me
as for your comment that you only worship the one who dwelled in the tent but not the tent – who was crucified? who died for three days?
June 16th, 2011 @ 6:16 am
Debbie
I wasn’t personally offended by yuor comments about “why the Jews reject…” – My point was that too many Christians speak of the Jew like a specimen in a museum – we are here – if you want a reference for why we reject the Messianic claims of Jesus – I suggest you read my blog
here is a good place to start
http://yourphariseefriend.wordpress.com/2010/12/21/letter-to-sy-about-messiah/
as for your statement about your own experience -
I suggest you listen to Dr. Brown’s radio show again (June 9) – in his opening remarks he warns taht experiences cannot serve as a basis for one’s faith – they can be demonic – only scripture can establish faith
June 16th, 2011 @ 6:17 am
Ray
There is no word in the Hebrew Scriptures for “godhead”
Psalm 110 speaks either of the Messiah or about David – or both
June 16th, 2011 @ 6:18 am
Ben
You say there is nothingwrong looking at the OT through the lens of the NT
- But if by looking at the NT through the lens of the OT – you would come to the conclusion that the NT is to be rejected – then it would be terribly wrong to look at the OT through the lens of the NT
June 16th, 2011 @ 6:31 am
Dr. Brown
1) You ask if i am willing to look at the OT without my traditions – I find the question strange to say the least – what am I doing with all my articles? For the sake of communicating with you I am exerting myself to do just that – I understand that I am biased – so I may be doing this exercise wrong – but that is why I show the results of my efforts to you – who should be able to point out where I went wrong. When you spend so much time speaking about spiritual blindness and about my bias – I find it frustrating – why can’t we discuss the text? why can’t we try to put our biases and presuppositions aside for the sake of communicating and understanding each other?
2) You say we don’t have to speculate about expectations because we know what the people expected from their writings – who cares?
According to your faith template (sola-scriptura) the morally correct thing to do was to examine the claims of the NT in light of the OT alone – why do you so strenuously try to avoid this exercise?
3) You say that Christians can’t see the OT outside of Jesus – I don’t believe you – I believe that if a Christian utilizes the sensitivity to truth that God planted in every human heart – he or she could put Jesus aside – after all – experiences could be demonic – and try his or her best to read the OT without Jesus – I know many Christians that have done so
4) In your response to Mat you ask if the Sinai revelation was logical – of-course it was – The Sinai revelation together with teh miracles of the Exodus and the wilderness was a demonstration that God is the ultimate power as explained in Deuteronomy 4 – this is the logical basis of the OT faith – Mt. Carmel was a reminder to the basic logic of Judaism
June 16th, 2011 @ 6:37 am
Dr. Brown
So your bottom line is – and correct me if I am wrong – that it is impossible to follow teh exercise I have suggested – namely – to try to read the OT as a Jew should have read it before the advent of Jesus – and then judge the claims of the NT in light of the world-view granted by the OT
In other words – acording to you – it is impossible for us today to go through the correct moral procedure of accepting or rejecting Jesus
- it then follows that our moral duty is to reject him
Its like someone coming to the bank and saying you can give me the million dollars – i had someone co-sign for the loan – I just lost the papers on the way here
If God wants us to accept a prophet – he gives us a way of knowing that it is His will that we accept the prophet – according to you – Jesus lost his papers
June 16th, 2011 @ 6:40 am
Adam
So the Jewish creed of the Shema is not a unitarian one? How is Judaism & Christianity “different systems of thought” then?
Its not a matter what you or I believe, Adam. It comes down to what I wrote above. Jesus agrees with a Jewish rabbi/teacher on the fundamental creed of Israel, which had always, until hundreds of years later in Nicea, been taken as a purely monotheistic/unitarian creed. How is this inconsistent?
Again, I do not understand the allegation here. I am incosistent when I show that Jesus was unitarian due to his quoting of the Shema?
Dr Brown
I feel I am having a respectful and thought-provoking dialogue with the Rabbi and others who have something to say. It is hard for me not to answer them. But if your initial idea was to create a thread whereupon everyone is supposed to just interact with the one person and not amongs themseleves, that is what I do not understand.
June 16th, 2011 @ 6:41 am
Goldberg
Well said – can you please get in touch with me at iblumenthal@yehsivanet.com – I want to quote you on my blog
June 16th, 2011 @ 6:52 am
Chuck, whether you understand the logic or not, simply abide by the guidelines as I have explained them to you, otherwise your comments will be blocked in the future.
June 16th, 2011 @ 7:04 am
Rabbi Blumenthal, a few responses:
1) Your claim that the Sinai revelation is “logical” hardly addresses my point. The people who saw God’s power that day didn’t say, “Well, I guess it’s logical to believe in one God.” Rather, they were devastated by His reality in a face to face encounter, and that’s what they were reminded of time and time again in the Torah: Remember what you saw and heard!
2) Of course, every day of my life I try to study God’s Word (including the Tanakh) as it was intended to be read and studied, always wanting to know what was intended in the original and initial context. And in the books that I have written and the debates that I have had, I have always sought to exegete the text rather than perform eisegesis. In that sense, of course I agree with your proposed exercise. I simply claim that it is virtually impossible to do this without some degree of subjectivity from this distance and that we must be dependent on God to help us understand His Word. So, you claim in your articles to be faithfully reading the text as a first century Jew would have, and I see subjectivity on your part. We both engage in your exercise, and we come to different conclusions. This leads to the next comment.
3) Jesus the Messiah did come into the world, and this is an event of massive proportions that cannot be denied. His coming set many things straight in our understanding of the Tanakh, since we had strayed in many ways, and it is foolhardy to ignore the implications of his coming into the world. In light of the magnitude of his coming — something that has radically affected my own life for the last 40 years — I look back to the Tanakh and now it all makes sense. I see God’s plan unfolding. I see a deeper and more profound meaning of many Scriptures. I see where the Tanakh was going in terms of God’s goals and plans. Perhaps you can better understand my points now.
4) As for your desire to understand, please note that for the most part, I don’t engage in extended comments in the blog here (time simply doesn’t allow it, and this blog is primarily not for me but for others), but since this is your first extended time here, I’ve been trying to interact. But the fact is that we have had hundreds of hours of dialog over the years by phone and in other settings in which I’ve tried to explain my viewpoint to you and you to me, so indeed, I’ve tried to help you understand and I’m committed to do so, but it will happen minimally on this blog as compared to in our personal interaction.
June 16th, 2011 @ 7:12 am
Goldberg, I just spotted your post now. Thanks for joining in the discussion.
Based on 40 years of interacting with my Jewish community, I find the title of my book series to be quite accurate and, in fact, I have no problem with the existence and activity of counter-missionaries. Let them have it! The more the arguments are put on the table, the more the truth of Yeshua will ultimately shine through, which is why I always invite public dialog and discussion.
As for your statement that the theology of Judaism is based on the OT canon, I categorically disagree. It is based on the later traditions of the Pharisees and rabbis and the false claim that God have an Oral Torah to Moses on Mt. Sinai. (What, after all, did you study day and night in yeshiva if not for these very traditions?) If you have not read vol. 5 of my series, I strongly encourage you to do so.
Thanks, though, for your kind wishes, and I wish you the fullness of the blessing of God in your life.
June 16th, 2011 @ 7:14 am
Dr Brown
Okay just to get it clear one last time as to what I am allowed to do on this thread or not to do, like I said I am slow.
So I am not allowed to dialogue with others apart from the Rabbi yet, others can dialogue amongst tnemseleves?
June 16th, 2011 @ 7:20 am
Chuck, one further explanation to genuinely try to help you (but my last comments stand). You have challenged Rabbi Blumenthal to consider Jesus as the Messiah based on your non-Trinitarian views, which brings the subject up in these two threads (which, otherwise, are not devoted to that subject), then you begin to challenge other Trinitarian believers, which gets us completely off track and brings us back to virtually the only subject you post on here. So, you can feel free to interact with the rabbi (and other non-Messianic Jews — there are at least 4 Orthodox Jews now posting here) or you can drop out of the blog, but you cannot get into side arguments with other Trinitarian believers about the subject. Adam also made excellent points in explaining the resulting confusion.
So, do NOT reply to this post, and this really is the last time I’ll address this with you. We expect more of those who post here, and if you really can’t abide by the guidelines, you’ll have to stay out (or, your posts will be universally blocked rather than moderated). Those wanting to engage you on your subject of choice have other threads in which to do so, and you can invite them to continue the discussion there.
June 16th, 2011 @ 7:33 am
Fair enough.
Anyone interested in further dialogue on these matters email me.
Morning.
June 16th, 2011 @ 7:35 am
Dear Yisroel,
Why do you get to set up the criteria for why Christians should be Christians? (Jew or Gentile)I find it stunning that you say you’ve never met someone who has never followed, in your words, the “honest path to Christianity”, in other words we are not being honest? I just don’t see why you get to set up the criteria for “honest” Christianity and make it, in your eyes, impossible to pass the test. Why do you get to set the standard? That is really offensive, I hope I took that the wrong way. I don’t mind, but, I would never say you are not being honest as to why you hold to the beliefs you do.
Anyway, as for your question about the tent, I am not dodging the question, because, I just want to ask do you find any theological flaws with John 1:1-3,14? Please let me know so I can answer your question more sufficiently.
Thanks again for the interesting dialogue!
Eric
June 16th, 2011 @ 7:52 am
Dr. Brown,
Thank you for your kind wishes as well.
There is a tendency for these discussions to degenrate into people talking past each other with mutual accusations of being non-responsive to or missing each other’s points.
I really don’t want to start yet another “does not, does too” exchange with you. The only place that will lead is to your reiteration of your unshakable confidence in your position and your ability to easily refute any countermissionary argument given the adequate time. Your followers, will thus remain greatly heartened by your unflappable tone in the face of the feeble countermissionaries.
Save yourself the effort. I know you are confident in that ability and this thread is cluttered enough already.
But I would like to invite your readers here to reread my post (# 54 above) and comment honestly about whether or not you responded to my assertion that:
1) the place of the burden of proof on the missionary, and
2) that the ONLY plausible common assumption set that can serve as a basis for a christian missionary overture is limited to OT scripture
force one to accept Rabbi Blumenthal’s challenge as a precondition.
One can argue that it doesn’t, if one likes. But then the door to the dialogue has been closed, and the missionary challenge has not earned a hearing. What then remains is the christian insiting that his experience with Jesus is a critical part of his understanding of the OT and the Jew insisting that the OT forms a complete picture unto itself and provides no reason to even consider Jesus any more than to consider Mohammed and Vishnu.
And the Jew quite frankly, is perfectly content with that outcome, which would leave us again with Jesus being a no more an issue to the jew, than Mohammed or Vishnu, which is where this all begins.
June 16th, 2011 @ 7:58 am
Dr. Brown.
Oh, and you say that in your 40 years of experience, you find your book series title to be accurate.
Are you actually claiming that Jewish Objection to Jesus is a vibrant pehnomenon outside of the world of reacting to missionaries? That would be, in a word, “stunning”. I’d like to know how many conversations you’ve had with Jews in your 40 years where the jew brought up the topic of Jesus before you did.
June 16th, 2011 @ 8:04 am
yisroel and all who are interesting in my thoughts.
I totally disagree whole heartedly, 100% that our experiences cannot serve as a basis for one’s faith.
I accepted Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior without reading one bit of scripture. It was the Holy Spirit that opened my eyes to who Jesus was through people to tell me about Jesus.
Why would Satan lead me to Jesus??? Seriously now.
Like I stated to Chuck, in the book of
Revelation 12:11
“And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony; and they loved not their lives unto the death.”
“And they over came him” who is him? It is Satan. We over came Satan my the blood of the Lamb(who is Jesus) and by the word of our testimony.
What is our testimony??? Hello, it is our experience. What Christian has not experience Jesus in their life?
Jesus Christ has changed my life. He did that to me before I ever opened up a bible. So, once I received Jesus, I then opened up the word to know more about Him. Til this every day I continue to want to know more and more about Him.
Thank you yisroel for giving me that website. I will check it out later on today.
Sorry if you felt like I was treating the Jewish people like a specimen. To me we are all created beings by the Lord. No one is better, to me we are all equal. I am not a snob. I try to keep very humble.
June 16th, 2011 @ 8:26 am
Rabbi Blumenthal,
As for quoting me. Kol Hakovod.
June 16th, 2011 @ 8:33 am
Dear Goldberg,
If I may respond to your two points:
“1) the place of the burden of proof on the missionary, and
2) that the ONLY plausible common assumption set that can serve as a basis for a christian missionary overture is limited to OT scripture
force one to accept Rabbi Blumenthal’s challenge as a precondition.”
1) We all have an epistemic responsibility. So, whether it’s true or not that Yeshua is the Messiah, if you believe that or not, you have to give proof for why you do or do not believe. I hope I understood your point.
2) We agree that the tanakh is the word of God. We can show you why we believe Yeshua is the Messiah based on the tanakh, as for your proposal to Yisroel’s challenge,I’ll ask you the same question I asked to Yisroel, which was; “What if someone did grow up reading the Tanakh and did grow up with Jewish understanding and it did create a world-view in their life. And then when they read the NT it did fit the bill, and Jesus, Yeshua did fit the Messianic expectations, all that and more. What do you tell this person?”
Where is Muhammad in our tanakh, where is Vishnu in our tanakh? I couldn’t find either of them. But I could find Yeshua.
Thanks Goldberg,
Eric.
June 16th, 2011 @ 8:44 am
Thank you Lord,
See how the Lord can speak through us? The Lord has just put in me the reminder of the apostle Paul. Paul’s experience with Jesus brought him to the revelation and faith in Jesus.
He met Jesus on the road to Damascus. In Acts 9.
June 16th, 2011 @ 9:11 am
Debbie
Dr. Brown disagrees with you – I guess you should “have it out” with him
June 16th, 2011 @ 9:14 am
Goldberg,
First, I’m happy to engage in discussion and debate using the Tanakh alone. I’ve had many such discussions and debates over the years.
Second, I’m not concerned about who has the burden of proof. I could easily argue that Judaism has the burden of proof to reject Yeshua as Messiah, but it’s really not material to me either way. I present the truth of the good news about the Messiah and pray that Jews and Gentiles will receive the message.
Third, as to the title of my book, yes, I’ve had Jews bring up Jesus to me (I was brought to rabbis as a teenager, and they wanted to tell me why I shouldn’t believe in him), but that’s not the issue ultimately. The fact is that Jews DO have objections to Jesus, and I respond to those objections in my books. This is hardly worthy of a debate here.
June 16th, 2011 @ 9:19 am
Eric
I didn’t set up any criteria. Protestant Christianity set up the criteria. According to Protestant Christianity – the only guide to truth is the Bible. This then follows that when a new claim is presented – it be examined in light of that which is already established truth. At the time that the founders of Christianity presented their claims – the “Bible” consisted of the OT. So – according to Protestant Christianity – the only correct way to approach the claims of the NT is by evaluating them in light of a world-view that is rooted solely in the OT. If someone arrives at Protestant Christianity without having followed this path – then according to the Christianity that they claim to believe in – they have not followed the honest path
Do you disagree with the mathematics?
Now I never said that Christianity will fail the test – I encourage you to try it out for yourself – and please do not hesitate to share your studies with me – I can be reached at iblumenthal@yeshivanet.com
As for your comment to Goldberg – The burden of proof is on the missionary – and I will explain – when someone claims to be a prophet sent by God – what should our reaction be? should we immediately accept his or her claim?
June 16th, 2011 @ 9:25 am
Dr. Brown
So you WILL encourage your listeners to try to read the OT alone – without the NT – and develop a world-view on the basis of the OT alone – and explain to them that if the NT doesn’t match up that they have the moral duty to REJECT the claims of the NT?
Will you encourage them or will you not?
June 16th, 2011 @ 9:30 am
Dr. Brown
This is what I wrote: “For the sake of communicating with you I am exerting myself to do just that – I understand that I am biased – so I may be doing this exercise wrong – but that is why I show the results of my efforts to you – who should be able to point out where I went wrong.”
This is what you accuse me of:”you claim in your articles to be faithfully reading the text as a first century Jew would have”
Despite this – I still believe that if you put aside your experiences – as you yourself suggest in the beginning of this radio show – we could get to the truth
June 16th, 2011 @ 9:33 am
Dr. Brown
Deuteronomy 4:30-35 is appealing to logic
June 16th, 2011 @ 9:49 am
To the Rabbin in the discussion:
Can anyone alive today trace their lineage back to the line of Jesse?
How would you recognize Messiah today?
June 16th, 2011 @ 9:56 am
I don’t think it is possible to ignore the role presuppositions play in this discussion.
I think the clip Dr. Brown played at the beginning of this broadcast is very telling. There are many Jews who will say that they reject Jesus on the basis of the fact that it is “not the Jewish thing” to believe in Jesus. The problem is that people don’t realize that this can take a much more intellectual form. In other words, you can view the entire Hebrew Bible through this lens, and your interpretation can reflect this very statement. I respect Jews that are honest enough to tell me that, yes, their background, training, and upbringing have played a role in forming their views of the Hebrew Bible.
The point is not the fact that we each have different presuppositions. I am not criticizing Jews for that. The issue is which presuppositions make sense out of the Hebrew Bible. My point would be that only the presuppositions given to us by the NT can make sense out of what you find in the Hebrew Bible.
For example, Dr. Brown has already pointed out the fact that this argument, “We are the Jews; we have had the scriptures; and, therefore, we could not be wrong” is disproven by the text of the Hebrew Bible itself, as the Jews persecuted Jeremiah for simply prophecying that God was going to overthrow Jerusalem.
Not only that, but, yes, there are places in the Hebrew Bible where Israel is called God’s anointed. The problem is that, in all of those instances, Israel failed. That is the whole point of the Psalms [especially Psalm 89], that is the whole point of the historical books [which detail Israel's decline], and that is the whole point of the Prophets as well. Trusting in the fact that you are a Jew, whether for the faith that you are right, or for the faith that you are the anointed, is shown over and over again to ultimately fail.
Hence, I am *not* perplexed as to why Jews don’t see Jesus in the Hebrew Scriptures. Given the approach that they take, the Hebrew Bible tells us they will continue to fail to see the truth. In fact, the notion of blinding, in this context, can even be found in Isaiah 6:9ff. In fact, the idea of the blindness of the Jews due to this approach is all over the prophets.
What is needed is not some knock down-drag ‘um out argument either. As a Calvinist, I believe that what is needed is the grace of God to come in and take out the heart of stone, and give the heart of flesh. I answer the arguments to show the consistency of Christianity, and the inconsistency of Judaism in how they approach the Hebrew Bible. However, persuasion and submission to the truth is a moral issue, not an intellectual one. That is why it requires a supernatural work of the Holy Spirit.
God Bless,
Adam
June 16th, 2011 @ 10:12 am
Sheila
There are people alive today who trace their ancestry back to David
We will identify the Messiah when he fulfills the Messianic prophecies
June 16th, 2011 @ 10:16 am
Adam
Do you acknoledge that the Bible was given to us by God in order to guide us in life?
If you do accept that premise – then you have to acknowledge that it is the moral duty of the Jew (who was given the Bible) to examine the claims of the NT in light of a world-view that is rooted in the OT – and if they don’t match up that the NT is to be rejected
Do you get it?
If you want to claim – as Dr. Brown does (or does he) – that it is completely impossible to study the OT standing by itself – then you have in effect said that there is no way to examine the claims of the NT – is that what you are saying?
June 16th, 2011 @ 10:16 am
And would you have to admit that, indeed, the “scepter” has long ago departed from Judah, and you have had no ruler in thousands of years? So, then, have these verses already come to pass?
“Gen 49:10 The scepter shall not depart from Judah, nor the ruler’s staff from between his feet, until Shiloh comes and to him shall be the obedience of the peoples.
Gen 49:11 Binding his foal to the vine and his donkey’s colt to the choice vine, he has washed his garments in wine and his vesture in the blood of grapes.
Gen 49:12 His eyes are darker than wine, and his teeth whiter than milk.”
What does it mean to “wash his garments in the blood of grapes.”?
Honestly, those uneducated Disciples must have truly been “geniuses” to spy out the things they did from the Scriptures and apply them to Yeshua of Nazareth! Really, they pulled off the greatest hoax and conspiracy in the history of mankind!
And, if the majority of true Israelites (who became the Pharisees and later the Talmudic Rabbin)rejected what you say is a “false Messiah” why has the LORD been silent for 2000 years? Surely He would have taken the “majority” and praised them and exhalted them immediately following those “false” claims by the Disciples of that “false” Messiah. Wouldn’t He?
It just seems to be a truism in the OT, that it was always only a small remnant who remained faithful, whereas the majority usually went after what was false. And 2000 years ago you had a “minority” following what you say is false. So, the pattern was broken? The majority remained faithful, yet the LORD still scattered you? Is that the workings of a Just Judge? In the past He destroyed those who went astray, yet here we have those country bumpkins perpetrating their fantasies which have endured for millenia.
How do you explain such a lengthy exile?
June 16th, 2011 @ 10:25 am
Rabbi Blumenthal,
1) There is a logical deduction to be made from Sinai, reflected in Deut 4:30-35, but the Sinai theophany (following all the miracles wrought in Egypt) was a display of divine power, and that, not logic, lies at the heart of our faith and our history. You exalt logic way beyond what the Scriptures do; the latter put a great emphasis on experiencing the reality of the living God.
2) You ask, “So you WILL encourage your listeners to try to read the OT alone – without the NT – and develop a world-view on the basis of the OT alone – and explain to them that if the NT doesn’t match up that they have the moral duty to REJECT the claims of the NT? Will you encourage them or will you not?” I will encourage my listeners to study the entire Bible and to see if the NT indeed is the fulfillment of the OT and if Jesus indeed is the prophesied Messiah. However, if you would like to engage in a challenge, I will find 10 committed Christians who will study the Tanakh only for three months without studying NT at all during that time if you will find 10 Orthodox Jews who will study the Tanakh only and not study ANY Jewish traditions for six months, with the question coming to both of them at the end: Is your current faith in harmony with what you have been studying, or has what you have been studying challenged your faith structure? Will you accept the challenge personally? I will if you will, and we can start with the two of us and find 9 more on each side. Otherwise, if we are constantly reaffirming our current faith structures through our daily study, we might not read the OT through unbiased eyes. Do you and I have a deal on this?
June 16th, 2011 @ 10:27 am
Dear Yisroel,
I understand your point but you are missing the fact that we can show you Yeshua all over the tanakh. I don’t mean to make such general statements, but the problem is not read the tanakh and come to some conclusion whether the NT is true or not. The problem the interpretation of the tanakh. If I take on the challenge and come to the conclusion, yes, I believe Yeshua is the Messiah of Israel, based on the tanakh! I don’t want to speak on your behalf, but without making too much of an assumption, you will probably ask me “where in the tanakh, specifically?” I would give many passages and my interpretations and you would give me your interpretations, we would most likely disagree and I can assure you we wouldn’t be able to say “eli ve’eilu divrey elohim chayim” after giving both of our interpretations. So it leads us back to the same place we are at now. Let’s discuss Messianic prophecy in the tanakh.
As for the burden of proof issue, once again if you believe something is true you must base it on some reason, you also must have reasons for not believing something is true, like the belief that the Messiah has not come yet or more specifically, why you believe Yeshua is not the Messiah. As for your question about the so-called prophet, we could test their claims on Deuteronomy 18:21-22 and also if they are contradicitng something God has said in the past, we can be confident they are not speaking on behalf of God.
Thanks,
Eric
June 16th, 2011 @ 10:33 am
Dr. Brown
Why are you so frightened of my proposal? why do you have to couple it with soemthing that is practically impossible for me or for you to do – I teach the texts of the oral traditions for a living – I can’t stay away from them for six months – I don’t believe that in your currecnt position as a dean of a school and with your preaching schedule taht you could stay away from teh NT for 3 months
What is so difficult in my proposal? – let me spell it out again – explain to your listeners – that before Jeus came the only Bible was the OT -according to YOUR faith template – the Jewish people should have developed a complete world-view based on the OT alone – encourage yor listeners to try to reconstruct that world-view – and then explain to them – that if the OT based world-view is incompatible with the claims of the NT – then we are obligated before God to rejct those claims
what am I asking for? why are you so frightened?
June 16th, 2011 @ 10:34 am
You already have one in me, Dr. Brown. I studied the OT for several years, everyday, usually at least 6 hours a day. I made it my “job” when my back callapsed. I didn’t move into the NT until I had thoroughly digested the Old. I figured if God was real, I should be able to spy Him out just from reading the Scripture. And I should be able to discern “exactly” how He intended to save mankind (all of us) from the curse that befell Adam and Eve. After all, we are “all” the work of His Hands. And we are “all” decended from those two ancesters.
I found God, the Father, and then I found His Messiah and Son. And it all made perfect sense to me and it was all spelled out in the OT!
June 16th, 2011 @ 10:34 am
Dr. Brown
as for Deuteronomy 4:29-35 being logical or not – let the readers read and judge
June 16th, 2011 @ 10:34 am
Excuse my typo please, “eli” should be “eilu”.
June 16th, 2011 @ 10:36 am
Eric
I am talking of a world-view – not search for yeshua in Tanach – what kind of Messiah should we be expecting to begin with? WHY should we be waiting for teeh Messiah? how much emphasis should be placed on waiting for teh Messiah – amongst other questions
June 16th, 2011 @ 10:39 am
Sheila
Fantastic! Finally – a Christian who went through the process!
Can you share with me – how by going through the OT alone – you came to Jesus? I would sincerely be interested in seeing your thought process.
June 16th, 2011 @ 10:40 am
Dear Yisroel,
Would it be fair to say that Christians “cling to” the NT just as Orthodox Jews “cling to” traditional Jewish literature? As far as it being inspired by God and making it apart of your life?
June 16th, 2011 @ 10:44 am
Granted there were many things very hard to understand and they didn’t all make perfect sense, but I didn’t limit God to my understanding of things. He Alone is God and He works His “strange work” and who are we to question it?
Go back to the Garden of Eden, and explain to me why He didn’t spin cotton to clothe them with? Why shed the blood of an innocent to cover the quilty. And how in the world can the blood of bulls and goats every atone for the sins of Mankind? It makes no sense unless it was a metaphor for something much greater to come. Why the story of Abraham and Isaac? Why the promise of Messiah coming from “everlasting”? Why the promise of a Deliverer except He save us from the curse of Adam of Eve?
Shouldn’t God save “all of His creation” from the sins of their first ancestors? I would think He would find a way to do that.
June 16th, 2011 @ 10:46 am
Eric,
Ask a muslim cleric where Mohamed is in the Tanakh. He will be happily to point you to at least Deut:18:15, and possibly other verses.
To which you will say, “You call that evidence of Mohamed!? What clearly, and unequivocally ties that to Mohamed?”
Well, that’s basically how Jews feels when you point to vague forshadowings of Jesus in the tanakh. And if you feel we need to prove that your references are not to Jesus, well, then you need to PROVE that Deut:18:15 is not a reference to Mohamed.
Again, contrary to Dr. Brown’s assertion, it IS about burden of proof from the texts that set the foundation of the belief system. When you consider how many verses in Deuteronomy are dedicated to warnings about the dangers of following false prophets and the consequences for failure in this regard, the burden falls on those who would have an entire people turn away from the form of worship that was universally understood as Jewish, in favor of a worship utterly unknowen to their ancestors.
If you examine this closely and honestly, you may be surprised to find, that much more of your faith system is based on your faith in the numerical size of christianity, than in genuine scriptural support. 2 billion christians can’t be wrong, right?
June 16th, 2011 @ 10:49 am
Sheila
I believe I could answer all these questions from a purely OT perspective – my question to you is – did you try to answer these questions from an OT perspective? Did the OT perspective teach you that these are the most important questions?
June 16th, 2011 @ 10:57 am
Eric
I have no problem with Christians clinging to whatever they want to – my problems start when Christians like Dr. Brown claim that Jesus is staring us (the Jews) in the face out of the OT and that it is only “supernatural spiritual blindness” that prevents us from “getting it” – and perpetuating this myth under the umbrella of “scholarship” – but when challenged to explain to his listeners the honest thought process that would have to be followed in order to get a Jew to accept the claims of the NT – he dodges – twists and turns
Eric are YOU comfortable with that?
June 16th, 2011 @ 11:03 am
Yisroel,
Adam
Do you acknoledge that the Bible was given to us by God in order to guide us in life? If you do accept that premise – then you have to acknowledge that it is the moral duty of the Jew (who was given the Bible) to examine the claims of the NT in light of a world-view that is rooted in the OT – and if they don’t match up that the NT is to be rejected
Do you get it?
Actually, I would say that it was not given to ethnic Jews per se. It was given to those who are the people of God, i.e., those who have repented of sin, and turned to trust in Christ, whether to look forward to his coming, or, now, to look back at his coming. Even Ruth and Rahab were not ethnic Jews, and yet, would anyone seriously suggest that the word of God wasn’t given to them?
Do you get it?
If you want to claim – as Dr. Brown does (or does he) – that it is completely impossible to study the OT standing by itself – then you have in effect said that there is no way to examine the claims of the NT – is that what you are saying?
No, my point is that it is impossible to study the Hebrew Bible without presuppositions. You cannot reason without presuppositions; all arguments stand on some foundation, some assumptions about the Hebrew Bible and its meaning. Now, those presuppositions can change as we read and study, but whether or not they do is a moral and ethical issue, not an intellectual issue.
As a Calvinist, I believe that the real cause of blindness is sin. I know you deny original sin, and that is one of the issues we would have to get into. However, given that foundation, the reason why it is not as simple as just simply “test the NT against the OT” is because, if you have sin in your heart, you will never be able to accept the conclusions. The power of the blinding nature of sin is something that is spoken of over and over again in the Hebrew Bible [Isaiah 6:9ff, Jeremiah 13:23, Genesis 6:5, etc.].
That being said, I don’t know why you would disagree with the notion that it is impossible to study the OT standing by itself. If it is true that it is possible to study the OT standing by itself, then why do you, as a Jew, need the Rabbinic traditions? Are you willing, as a Jew, to say that you completely reject the Rabbinic traditions? The Hebrew Bible is a notoriously incomplete book. It raises expectations, and shatters them, and then never fulfills them. How those expectations are going to be realized is the heart of the dispute between Christianity and Judaism.
Finally, I don’t think that this leaves us with no ability to test the NT or the Rabbinic traditions. The Hebrew Bible presents a form of logic that leads to either the conclusions of the Rabbinic traditions or the NT. That is the issue. As I have said, given the heavy emphasis on the Jewish people in Jewish tradition, one has to wonder why it is that the Jewish people are constantly failing as God’s anointed in the Hebrew Bible. That and a host of other issues-The issue of sin that I have raised, the issue of blood sacrifice, as well as other issues, are what we can use to discuss whether we should accept Rabbinic or NT presuppositions. Does the Hebrew Bible lead to the logic of the NT, or to the logic of the Rabbinic traditions? That really is the issue.
God Bless,
Adam
June 16th, 2011 @ 11:13 am
Sheila,
Wouldn’t it have much easier, if God had somewhere in the OT have actually said something like “Don’t take anything you’ve heard here to literally. It’s all really mataphor and forshadowing of something much greater to come”.
But he didn’t, he reiterates over and over and over again:
1) To stick to the God you met at sinai,
2) To not engage in alien forms of worship
3) That the types and shadows of worship that you may find among the other nations are of no value to you.
4) That if your ancestors did not know of such a God, then it is not a God you should follow.
5) That keeping the commandments is the key to life
etc, etc, etc.
But, no. The important questions are things like, why did God clothe Adam and Eve in skin and not cotton? Becasue skin means a dead animal, and a dead animal (not mentioned) means spilled blood (not mentioned) and spilled blood is how Adam and Eve were attoned (not mentioned).
Rabi Blumenthal’s challenge is indeed an extremely difficult exercise for the Christian, but valid nonethesless.
June 16th, 2011 @ 11:26 am
Goldberg and Yisroel,
I saw both of your questions and in time I will answer them. I just thought, you know, today is Thursday and Dr. Brown speaks about Jewish/Israel topics on Thursday. The PERFECT day to call in and discuss your objections over the air.
The reason why I am asking either of you (or both of you?) to call is because I believe if will greatly benefit the countless of thousands of listeners (traditional Jews AND Christians) who listen through the radio who do not necessarily come on the forums here.
I hope I am not being too redolent to Dr. Brown OR to either Goldberg and/or Yisroel. Please excuse me if this is out of line to ask.
Eric.
June 16th, 2011 @ 11:34 am
Do you deny that anyone could find God just from reading the Scriptures? “Is it not to know Him” that He had your ancestors write it all down? Would He be just if He only made a way for a certain people to know Him?
Oh yeah, the “Seven Noahide Laws”, which are sorely lacking in my mind. The righteous Gentiles that don’t need to “Love the Lord with all of our hearts, souls and minds”, just be somewhat righteous and you’ll be ok. We don’t need a Messiah is the message I get from them.
How does that work anyway?
June 16th, 2011 @ 11:39 am
Rav Yisroel and Goldberg: Shaul, Kepha, Matisyahu, Yaakov, Yochanan, etc., were they not as close as you can get to looking only in the Tanach. But then you might argue that they were biased too, because they had dead sea scroll type writings, maybe normative midrashim, and the oral torah of their personal rabbis. Bah, what caused these Jewish people that did miracles in the name of Y’shua, cast out demons baShem Y’shua, hum, there was no Brit Chadashah written, hum, I guess the Tanach led them to their faith, could it be, is that even possible, or you might argue that they were blinded by the ongoing miracles, signs and wonders and the manifestation of the Ruach HaKodesh Holy Spirit that they deceived themselves into believing a lie, hum, you might argue that Shaul only believed because he had a miraculous experience of a blinding light and hearing bat Kol, voice from heaven, with this voice identifying himself as Y’shua, you might argue that watching Y’shua ascend into the sky, yes, they were so certain from all the wonders, miracles, signs, that they hastely read the Tanach with prejudism, not correctly interpreting, hum, I know I seek only the very truth Emet, for me I agree wholely that the Tanach must be seen without personal biasm and personal urgings, I seek to do this everyday, I will never change that, I do think that it greatly is awkward for us, Jews that studies in the Yeshivas, to forget all the Mishnah, Midrash, Talmud, rabbinic commentaries, but instead of making a super big deal about this, why not let us study together. If you want to look at the Tanach like the Karites and say we will not be influenced by commentaries from the last two thousand years, we will read everything with an open eyes and see where it leads us, I always do this, because the Truth is where I seek, the true religion of Hashem is what I seek. Shalom LeKulam.
June 16th, 2011 @ 11:44 am
Yisroel who said….
“Debbie
Dr. Brown disagrees with you – I guess you should “have it out” with him”
I say LOL to that one. I do not need to have it out with no one. It is my experience, my testimony and no one can take it away from me. No need to prove anything to no one about this.
Jesus Christ is more then His written word in the Bible.
June 16th, 2011 @ 11:55 am
Here is the test for a prophet that the LORD did “NOT” send:
“If the thing does not come true–I did not send that prophet.”
Did the thing come true? That’s the test.
Nowhere did I say it was “All” metaphor–that’s nonsense to even imply. You, yourselves, work on mostly metaphor from what I’ve read of the Talmud. As if the entire Bible is one big secret. So, then, you are the ones saying that it’s not clear in the plain text–not me. It sounds very ‘supranatural’ to me. It reads as if the entire Canon of OT Scriptures is veiled to only the Rabbi’s who study it. And if that’s the case, why do you need a Messiah at all if everything you need can be found in the Torah? It seems you don’t.
So, are the OT Scriptures something that only the learned can spy out? Doesn’t God take the foolish things and confound the wise?
June 16th, 2011 @ 12:15 pm
What could be greater than to be “ransomed from Sheol” and have your sins completely blotted out? How can the blood of a bull or goat, or a lamb do that? What power is there in the blood of a sacrificial animal? Can they raise the dead? Where is your High Priest? Where is the one who would enter the Holy of Holies to atone for his people? You’ve not had one for 2000 years. Why? It is your personal biases and understanding (and those of the Talmudic tradition) who “limits the Holy One of Israel.” You want me to believe that the Lord cannot do anything new when He says “over and over” again things like–”Behold, I’m about to do something new!” Believe me, I had a lot of trouble with the exact things that you are pointing out. It was with much stretching of my understanding to try to join the seeming contradictions that I found when I finally moved into the NT. But, in reading the Gospel of John, I found the answers. Perhaps you should read it again–without limiting the Holy One of Israel to your understanding of things.
June 16th, 2011 @ 12:20 pm
Sheila
try Luke 19:44 versus the Western Wall for size
you might also find this article helpful
http://yourphariseefriend.wordpress.com/2011/05/17/non-prophet/
As for your statements about the Talmud – all the basics of our belief system are spelled out and repeated again and again in the OT – it is only in the details of practical observance of the Law where the Talmud gets Talmudical
June 16th, 2011 @ 12:28 pm
Sheila,
Questions about HOW God’s intructions work, are valid and have there place theological place.
However, before we address those, don’t we first need to grapple with the more fundamental question of WHAT God’s instructions are.
You asked about the temple, the sacrifices, and the preisthood and what happened to them.
Fair question: Now let’s remember, we are looking for answers WITHIN the OT on it’s own terms. OK, the OT itself makes clear that God may oneday destroy the temple, suspend the sacrificial order, and disband the priesthood. It never says that attonement will thus be unattainable and that Judaism will then be redefined. It does say that ultimately after an indefinite time, God will restore these things when the Jewish people are ultimatley found worthy of such redemption. That’s what happended to them. I’ve stayed squarely within the OT.
Now I have a question for you. God said “Keep the sabbath on the seventh day” – several times. Where in the OT did imply that this would ever change?
June 16th, 2011 @ 12:31 pm
Eric
I see how Dr. Brown took some clips from Rabbi Skobac’s presentation – and turned it in to his own presentation – I am not saying he did this consciously to be deceptive – but that is the end result. He actually put words into Rabbi Skobac’s mouth – that Rabbi Skobac takes the pains later in his presentation to explain that he does not mean (that Matthew was “deliberately tricking” his readers”).
Look at post #97 above – where Dr. Brown misquotes me – again I don’t believe he is doing this deliberately to deceive people – but this is the end result
all I need is that after I speak – Dr. Brown should “explain” to his listeners what I meant
These things would perhaps happen the other way as well – if I’d be running a radio show and Dr. Brown would call in – that somehow he would be not happy with the end result.
All I ask is that Dr. Brown explain to his listeners that the OT has the authority to tell a Jew to reject the NT – and that they can only accept the accusation that the Jews are blinded – if tehy try the exercise I suggested – absorb the message of the OT by itself and then examine the NT – is that so hard?
June 16th, 2011 @ 12:34 pm
Sheila
Gentiles could know God from reading Scripture – tehy could come to a deep and meaningful relationship with the Creator of all
June 16th, 2011 @ 12:40 pm
Rabbi Blumenthal, I’m not “frightened” in the least by your proposal, but would you challenge all the students in the Lakewood yeshiva to spend months examining the Tanakh to see if Yeshua could be the Messiah — even if they continued to learn Talmud? Of course not. In the same way, out of the multiplied tens of thousands of listeners we have through the radio broadcast, the great majority would be Gentiles, and their whole connection to God and the Scriptures comes through Jesus. For what reason would I propose your challenge to them?
As for my proposal to you, you see how your biases and whole lifestyle make it impossible to separate from your traditions even for an hour of the day, yet you claim you can read the Tanakh in an unbiased way just as the way a Jew would have read it 2,000 years ago. Hardly!
And my proposal had to do with our personal study time, not our teaching time. Will you accept it even for one month?
As for the blindness issue, if you recognize that all of us are in a state of blindness unless God opens our eyes to see — a point I made explicitly on the air, following 2 Cor 3-4 — then you will realize that this is not simply a matter of rationality and logic, since all of us are blinded by biases or upbringing or sin, but a matter of the mercy of the Lord enabling us to see. And I can tell you that for the religious Jews I know personally who came to faith in Yeshua, it was as if a light went on and they saw things they had never seen before, but now it was as clear as day to them.
In any case, since you constantly ask folks here not to interpret your thoughts for you, I’ll ask you not to put non-existent feelings or emotions into my heart or mind. To repeat: I’m not in the least bit “frightened” by your proposal, but I have responded to it clearly here and offered you a personal challenge for the two of us and 9 more people on our side that we can engage, but you decline.
June 16th, 2011 @ 12:48 pm
[...] You can view all the comments on Dr. Brown’s blog here – http://www.lineoffireradio.com/2011/06/09/dr-brown-answers-the-rabbis-part-2/#comments [...]
June 16th, 2011 @ 12:57 pm
Dr Brown, you asked Rabbi B.
“…would you challenge all the students in the Lakewood yeshiva to spend months examining the Tanakh to see if Yeshua COULD be the MESSIAH” (emphasis mine)
I would have no problem with the project. While while they’re at it they could consider whether Shabbatai Tzvi, or the Lubavitcher rebbe could be the Messiah.
But alas, your posing the wrong question…again.
The important question is: Would we challenge all the students in the Lakwood Yeshivah to spend months examining the Tanakh to see if they should stop trying to get driectly close to GOD because there is proof that they have an OBLIGATION to WORSHIP Jesus.
Sure. I’m not in a position to initiate such a project, but I don’t see the problem.
June 16th, 2011 @ 12:59 pm
Then, the “one” stone trips you up? Just as the LORD said He would.
Why do we not take literally the curse in Jer. 22?
NKJV – Jer 22:30 – Thus says the LORD: ‘Write this man down as childless, A man who shall not prosper in his days; For none of his descendants shall prosper, Sitting on the throne of David, And ruling anymore in Judah.’ ”
We know he was not “utterly” childless. Did someone forget to “write it down?”
And what of Ephraim, “For as often as I speak against him, I do love him still.”
June 16th, 2011 @ 1:04 pm
Rav Yisroel,
Καὶ ὡς ἤγγισεν ἰδὼν τὴν πόλιν ἔκλαυσεν ἐπ’ αὐτὴν. (Luke 19:41)
And as he approached, seeing the city, he (Y’shua) wept over it (Yerushalayim). Y’shua started tisha B’Av early (in that he began to mourn and weep for the future destruction of the Beit haMkdash), because he foresaw through true Ruach HaKodesh binah insight Nevuah. The one (Y’shua) that loved Yerushalayim so much that he wept over its futuristic destruction, is being dammed daily with statements such as yemach shemo, asking Hashem to forever make his name erased, Hashem is not listening I guess, Y’shua’s name appears to be very precious to Hashem, with all the miracles, signs and wonders seen, witnessed, proven and testified when praying to Hashem in Y’shua’s name. If Hashem wanted to yemach shemo, why all the Kavod world wide being given to Y’shua v’Shemo. It seems that Hashem does not want to Yemach shemo, destroy the name of Y’shua. From my point of view, at bare minimum all this hatred of Y’shua is at bare minimum absolute Lashon Hara, evil gossip. The universe would be a better place if everyone loved and wept over Yerushalayim as Y’shua of the Brit Chadashah did. Shalom LeKulam.
June 16th, 2011 @ 1:04 pm
Breaking for Dr. Brown’s show..
June 16th, 2011 @ 1:06 pm
Goldberg, thanks for your perspective. I’m eager to hear Rabbi Blumenthal’s response.
June 16th, 2011 @ 1:30 pm
I’m working on answering this, but, I don’t type very fast:
115.yisroel blumenthal
June 16th, 2011 @ 10:49 am
Sheila
I believe I could answer all these questions from a purely OT perspective – my question to you is – did you try to answer these questions from an OT perspective? Did the OT perspective teach you that these are the most important questions?
June 16th, 2011 @ 2:06 pm
What the OT did was to have me looking high and low for Salvation. I wanted to find it more than anything–and I wanted this promised One to be my Savior as well. I honestly felt like chopped liver compared to “God’s people”. Really. I felt very insignificant, as if my salvation was not accounted for. How was I, a Gentile, going to be reconciled to God? How did God intend to save all of mankind, or did He only have it in mind to save the Israelites? I just couldn’t believe that He would only save a certain people when I had come to know Him as real. These were the questions that I was looking to answer. Where was my “reconciliation”? It wasn’t in the OT. Therefore–I kept reading! And, there it was. It wasn’t until “after” the Lord had fed His sheep (the Children of Israel) that Salvation was extended to the Gentiles. This, I believe, is clearly stated in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Not until the children were fed, was Salvation offered to “all” of mankind. I said to God–”fair enough”! I don’t mind being second, as long as I’m included! Praise God for His Mercy!
That was my honest to God experience.
June 16th, 2011 @ 2:27 pm
Before the word was written Abraham formed a relationship with God. He had an “experience” with the Creator of Heaven and Earth. The Lord spoke to Abraham before the word was written. He went through testing and great friendship with the Creator. Again the word was not written yet. Yet Abraham was called a friend of God.
Abraham’s faith was tested with the close encounter sacrifice of his son Isaac.
So, don’t tell me that experience does not matter. Tell that to Abraham who is the Father Of Faith that his experience with God doesn’t matte
Do not cut God off, do not put Him in a box. God is a BIG GOD. He will move in your life. Then you will “experience” His Heart, His Compassion, His Love, His Favor, His Power.
All the Prophets of old experienced a relationship with God.
June 16th, 2011 @ 2:50 pm
To Rabbi Blumenthal and other guests here, I’ve had something on my heart for a few days now, so I want to express it clearly.
For ten years now, off and on, I’ve had the pleasure of having serious dialog with Rabbi Blumenthal (among others), and our interaction has always been mutually respectful and gracious. I understand that once he began to take issue with my writings in his own published writings, he would need to be very clear in his disagreements with me, sometimes expressing himself in strong terms, but always, our ongoing personal interaction has been gracious.
Here on this blog (and Facebook too), I’ve found our tone towards each other to be much more confrontational than I’m used to, at times almost sounding like some kind of one-ups-manship.
I am NOT being critical of Rabbi Blumenthal here at all, but for my part, I want to be sure that my tone is not disrespectful in any way. I feel that his responses to my writings are very well done and far better than the vast majority of counter-missionary material I have read. And I believe he raises very serious and important issues that need to be addressed. I personally find none of his arguments compelling at all and I really do intend to complete my refutations of his major articles. So, in the midst of the give and take here, I wanted to state these things clearly lest it seem that there was any disrespect towards Rabbi Blumenthal or others here.
I know everyone wants to present their views plainly and with confidence — I would die rather than deny the truth of God — but for my part, I don’t want to sound like a personal battle in any way.
June 16th, 2011 @ 2:57 pm
June 16th, 2011 @ 2:58 pm
Dr Brown,
That was so nice of you to write what you just did. What you just showed us was the heart and compassion of our Lord Jesus.
June 16th, 2011 @ 3:08 pm
I suppose I was in a somewhat “sour” mood today myself.
I do apologize if I was disrespectful, to you Rabbi Blumenthal and Rabbi Goldberg. I think the Jersey girl came out in me today.
June 16th, 2011 @ 3:10 pm
I guess it’s more than difficult to be called upon to defend your position without becoming somewhat “defensive” in our tone of voice. I’ll do better, because I “am” ready to defend it.
June 16th, 2011 @ 4:22 pm
Sheila,
I’m not a Rabbi. Just Goldberg.
But I appreciate the intended gesture of respect. And Dr. Brown, I appreciate your thoughts above as well.
June 16th, 2011 @ 4:38 pm
Good then, thank you.
Do you understand my queries as a Gentile?
June 16th, 2011 @ 5:13 pm
Sheila, you began with: “What the OT did was to have me looking high and low for Salvation”
Don’t you see, that right there you began your read through the OT with a purely christological orientation? Are you aware that the christian concept of salvation is non-existent in Jewish Thought.
The exercise Rabbi Blumenthal is suggesting is the one that a visiting alien would engage in if he (or it) was handed the the OT and started reading from Genesis 1:1…”In the begninning, God created…” through and including the last verses of the OT Canon.)
That’s the question. What would this alien think about the religion he had just studied.
Do you believe he would think that it’s adherents were waiting for a savior who was actually God in the flesh and for that savior to be be worshipped as God? And if you belive that this alien would be thinking that, I’d like you to point me to the verses that in the overall context of everything he had read, would have brought him to this conclusion. And if this alien would not have arived at that understanding do you think that he might instead have arrived at the conclusion that the adherents of this religion would never worship a man for fear of trangressing the sin of idolatry. Might there be anything in the OT that might lead him to this other conclusion?
June 16th, 2011 @ 5:50 pm
Dr. Brown
I will take this opportunity to likewise state that in no way is this personal. On the contrary – the fact that we are all spending precious time on this dialogue is the strongets statement that we care for each other. If I sometimes come across with sharpness – it is never meant as an attack on teh person – only on the position.
Thank you Dr. Brown for making that clear – and I don’t think any apologies are necessary on anyone’s part – just lets try to keep it as cordial as such a discussion could be – after all we are all only out for the truth
June 16th, 2011 @ 5:50 pm
To Goldberg,
When the Genesis account says that “God finished His work” in six days and “rested on the seventh” day, it appears to say that everything that would ever need to be done was in place by the sixth day. Is that how you read it?
That “there remains a sabbath rest for the people of God” makes sense to me because part of the curse that Adam incurred was that he would labor continually to bring forth his bread, “by the sweat of his brow” until the renewal of all things takes place. This is only explained sufficiently in the NT. The Sabbath rest is best explained in these verses:
Hbr 4:1 Therefore, while the promise of entering his rest still stands, let us fear lest any of you should seem to have failed to reach it.
Hbr 4:2 For good news came to us just as to them, but the message they heard did not benefit them, because they were not united by faith with those who listened. [fn]
Hbr 4:3 For we who have believed enter that rest, as he has said, “As I swore in my wrath, ‘They shall not enter my rest,’” although his works were finished from the foundation of the world.
Hbr 4:4 For he has somewhere spoken of the seventh day in this way: “And God rested on the seventh day from all his works.”
Hbr 4:5 And again in this passage he said, “They shall not enter my rest.”
Hbr 4:6 Since therefore it remains for some to enter it, and those who formerly received the good news failed to enter because of disobedience,
Hbr 4:7 again he appoints a certain day, “Today,” saying through David so long afterward, in the words already quoted, “Today, if you hear his voice, do not harden your hearts.”
Hbr 4:8 For if Joshua had given them rest, God [fn] would not have spoken of another day later on.
Hbr 4:9 So then, there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God,
Hbr 4:10 for whoever has entered God’s rest has also rested from his works as God did from his.
Hbr 4:11 Let us therefore strive to enter that rest, so that no one may fall by the same sort of disobedience.
Hbr 4:12 For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart.
Hbr 4:13 And no creature is hidden from his sight, but all are naked and exposed to the eyes of him to whom we must give account.
When Jonah was sent to the Ninevites, there is no mention of them “keeping the Law of Moses” as part of their repentance. It says they repented in dust and ashes. And God turned and did not destroy them. I had a problem with the Sabbath commandment too, until it was fully explained in the NT. That the Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath, and also that there remains a sabbath rest for the people of God. “And that we who have believed have entered that rest.” I keep the Sabbath Day of the Lord Holy–the Day He rested in the grave until He rose again for my justification.
Should not every day be “Holy to the Lord?”
What of the taking of the city of Jericho? The priests were commanded to march around it seven times on the seventh day blowing trumpets. Was this not considered breaking the Sabbath? How are we to reconcile that?
June 16th, 2011 @ 5:52 pm
I think this alien would be looking for God in the Garden. How do we get back there from here?
June 16th, 2011 @ 6:02 pm
I’ll tell you what else threw me off. The LORD kept saying, “I am your King, I am your Savior, there is no one else.” But, then, He kept making reference to “bringing someone else.” Bringing a Messiah. So, which was it? Was God contradicting Himself, or was there something I was missing? Who was this mystery “star out of Jacob” and “Shiloh” and “the light to the Gentiles and His people Israel?” Too many verses of God seeming to contradict Himself didn’t add up–something was amiss. By the end of the OT, Messiah still had not shown up. Why did God stop talking about Him?
Could it be that inbetween the two Testaments something radically changed? What was it? The prophet Daniel says he’s coming and here is the time frame, and low and behold only one Son of man foots the bill.
God is not trying to pull the wool over our eyes. He’s accomplished what He said He would, it’s up to each of us personally to search and see if it’s true.
June 16th, 2011 @ 6:08 pm
Dr. Brown
You ask me if I would challenge the students in the Lakewood Yeshiva to consider Jesus – of-course not – I am not lecturing to them about why Christians do not see the wrongness of their beliefs in the OT – you Dr. Brown ARE lecturing to Christians about what non-Christians do or do not believe and why – all I am asking for is – if you are doing it – do it right – explain clearly to your audience the necessary thought process that one would have to follow to go from Judiasm to Christianity
Until you do that – your radio show is spreading misinformation about the Jewish people.
As for my interpereting your thoughts about being frightened by my proposal – I beg your forgiveness – but why do you not accept my proposal? Is it not fair? If you are teaching your audience about why people don’t see Jesus in the OT – don’t you think you should explain what many on this blog don’t seem to begin to understand – and I take it that the segment of your audience that is writing and reading this blog represents those with a better understanding of teh nuances of the debate than your average listener. (just look at posts #18, 36, 70)
I also find it interesting that you launched the same accusation against me – ” yet you claim you can read the Tanakh in an unbiased way just as the way a Jew would have read it 2,000 years ago”
When did I make that claim?
As for your proposal – you didn’t originally distinguish between personal study and teaching – I haveno problem setting aside time during the day to read the OT alone without the oral traditionos – in fact I’ve been doing this for years – the Tanach I use on a regular basis has no commentaries. Bt why does this have to be teh counter-challenge to my challenge? My point is that until you explain my challenge to your audience – you are passing on misinformation – you always have the choice of doing what they do in Lakewood Yeshiva – let members of other faiths speak for themselves – andkeep away from teaching your audience what non-Christians believe and why
June 16th, 2011 @ 6:11 pm
Debbie
I am also encouraging an experience of relationship with teh same One that Abraham shared his relationship with
you may enjoy this post
http://wp.me/p13c8v-4Y
June 16th, 2011 @ 6:16 pm
To either one of you,
How are Gentiles reconciled to God using only the OT?
We have one set of parents, that’s the working premise.
Can you show me the chapters and verses that clearly state this concept or are we left out to dry?
June 16th, 2011 @ 6:18 pm
Adam
That was a very insightful post – “no-one could read without presuppositions” – which is ultimately true – teh obvious question to ask is then with which set of presuppositions did God expect us to approach the OT
But what we could do for the sake of communication – and that is my proposal to Dr. Brown – is that we TRY OUR BEST to read it without our presuppositions – which is what Protestanet Christianity would have advocated before Jesus was born – (correct me if I am wrong) – and see where that will lead us to
By teh way – did you read “1000 Verses” – http://wp.me/p13c8v-3
June 16th, 2011 @ 6:20 pm
Sheila,
I’m afraid, you are not sticking to the rules of this challenge. The idea was to explain the sabbath and how it’s observance on the seventh day was permanently abrogated within the context of the OT only. I answered YOUR question with OT scripture. You answered mine with nothing but NT scipture. You are, I’m afraid, demonstrating the inability of the christian to stick to the terms of Rabbi Blumenthal’s challenge.
Don’t get me wrong. You are entited to your undertanding of the sabbath. But do you really think your quotes from Hebrews are supposed to comprise a compelling argument to the Jew who prefers to observe the the commandment to “rest on the seventh day” by actually resting on the seventh day?
The closest you came to formulating an OT argument was your question about Jericho.
Interesting question.
What makes you so sure that blowing trumpets (rams horns actually) violates the Sabbath? In fact how do you define “work” in general in the context of work forbidden on the sabbath?
June 16th, 2011 @ 6:22 pm
Sheila,
Yes God said there is me and no one else. Why do you see mention of the messiah as a contradiction? Did God ever say to worship the messiah?
June 16th, 2011 @ 6:25 pm
“And if this alien would not have arived at that understanding do you think that he might instead have arrived at the conclusion that the adherents of this religion would never worship a man for fear of trangressing the sin of idolatry. Might there be anything in the OT that might lead him to this other conclusion?”
Except that we didn’t fashion this God by the work of our hands. We make no likeness of Messiah to worship–we worship the Father through Him in Spirit and in the commandments which embody the entire law and the prophets, namely the first two.
I confess–I love God! And I’ve come to love Him more than I would have ever believed possible! That is quite an accomplish for a false prophet to pull off. To point His believers to God!
June 16th, 2011 @ 6:28 pm
Sheila,
Oh, and as for the Ninevites. The reason it doesn’t mention then keeping the Law of Moses, is becasue they weren’t Jews. But while we’re on the topic, you should note what is DOES say, which is that God saw their actions and forgave them on the basis of their works.
June 16th, 2011 @ 6:40 pm
Sheila,
You said “Except that we didn’t fashion this God by the work of our hands. We make no likeness of Messiah to worship”
I’m afraid I’m going to have to send you back to reread the ten commandments again. The sin loosley translated as idolatry actually consists of a twofold commandment:
1) Thou shalt have no other gods before me
2) Don’t make and worship images.
The word idolatry has a tendency to focus people on number 2 to the exclusion of number 1.
You may see Jesus as a manifestation of the God who spoke at sinai. I say, God never ever gave the slighest hint that he would manifest in flesh and demand worship of that manifestation. So I’m much more comfortable assuming the simple meaning of his words at sinai to have no “other” gods before him.
The Hebrew phrase often poorly translated as idolatry is “Avodah Zara”. Literally it means alien worship which better captures its spirirt. It means any form of worship alien to the teachings of the Torah. And to any Jew prior to Jesus arriving on the scene, there was nothing more alien than the notion that we could only find God’s favor if we belived in and worshipped his human incarnation.
June 16th, 2011 @ 6:47 pm
Just think for a moment. Does God, the Father need to exalt Himself? Really. I mean He’s already God. What is it to Him to exalt His Son and His Name above every name in Heaven and in earth?
Just supposing that you had a son who died to save a million, trillion, trillion souls from Hades, would you take his glory for yurself, or would you exalt him way above yourself? I’m thinking you would exalt him. The same and more for God, the Father. If you left a mansion to go live in a wilderness (metaphor) and later you gave up your life to save a million, trillion, trillion souls, would you be considered by God worthy of praise and honor? I think you would. I don’t particularly see God, the Father, as an egomaniac. I believe the Son was always a part of the Father. He was “from everlasting” which according to my lexicon, means eternity.
Let me ask you do you study the Kabbalah? Because they divide God up into many pieces. It certainly is no stretch of blasphemy that there are times in the Bible when God appears as a person–Abraham and the two angels, and then as an “Angel” and in the case of the Seventy two elders and Moses and Aaron, He appears as a man who dines with them. He talks to Joshua as a man. This is not contradictory, yet, you consider the triune nature of God blasphemy. I don’t see it, I really don’t. God can call the universe into existence, but, He cannot enter His own creation for the purpose of redeeming us, thereby making every word He spoke true with no contradiction whatsoever?
June 16th, 2011 @ 6:47 pm
yisroel,
I read your blog on Abraham. That was really beautiful. Thanks for sharing it with me. God wants to be our friend.
Blessings upon you and all of us here.
June 16th, 2011 @ 6:48 pm
I have no other ‘elohim’ before Him. “You are gods, all of you.”
Psa 82:6 I have said, Ye [are] gods; and all of you [are] children of the most High.
June 16th, 2011 @ 7:03 pm
Sheila,
I have no reason to doubt that you are the genuinley nice person you seem to be.
But it is also clear to me that you will not or can not stick to the terms of what we are supposed to be doing here, in terms of finding any real evidence for christotlogy in the OT. You insist on approaching the OT with your chrisology already firmly in hand.
You have every right to do that.
But I’m inclined to end our exchange here if you can answer one question for me. Do you respect the Jewish right to understand the OT today as they understood it before Jesus – that is without any reerence to Jesus. If yes, then we have no real quarrel, and I wish you well. Becasue as I said in my first post, if there is no missionary, there is no countermissionary.
Be well
G.
June 16th, 2011 @ 7:07 pm
I respect the right of all people to believe or not, as they see fit. I am only now “Christ-centered”, having found the Jewish Messiah and by extention my Messiah.
June 16th, 2011 @ 7:18 pm
I’ve given my testimony that I did not encounter salvation for the Gentiles in the OT. If you can give me some verses and chapters I would certainly consider them.
June 16th, 2011 @ 8:15 pm
Yisroel achi, Jew to Jew, Yehudi le’Yehudi, you claim “For someone to claim he is sinless – that is bad – God tells us that no man is sinless”, I find you very hard to figure out, with a statement like that, I find it hard for you to be Chabad, the Tanya explains a true Tzadik to be sinless, but I do not blame you for not trusting the Tanya, I do not, I am just surprized that you would disagree with it. Not sure what Jews for Judaism, Eli Kohen, would say on that issue since he is Chabad, from what I have heard. Second, to my astonishment, again, I see you saying something to Christians, in this case the quote above, that very well may be true but the Talmud disagrees with, (Talmud Shabat 55b) we both know (you should know) that the Talmud teaches of some humans that were completely sinless, four are mentioned in the source above, the Talmud concluding that a human being can live his or her life without sinning and still die on account of Adam’s sin (original sin? Aha, Christians did not event this insane idea). Here is why problem, you fight so hard for the oral Torah (which I love by the way) (Mishnah/Talmud/Midrash/Halachah and Rabbinic writings) but then contradict these writings on these posts. This is my Rashi (what bothers Rashi) moment with you, this makes it really hard to figure out what you believe, I just ask that you be either aware of your own oral Torah, be more well learned in Talmud, or if you know about these Talmudic writings, then why do you contradict your own oral Torah. I am a person of logic, I need your logic to be consistent, you chose to make the Talmud your absolute truth, then I only please ask you to stick to it, and not flipity flopity go back and forth. To me it is like you don’t really believe in the Talmud. Aval zocher sh’ani ohev otcha, and if I have misunderstood you, then please explain your logic to me reconciling the Talmud’s sinless human beings and your claim that no human being can be sinless. Shalom lecha Yisroel.
June 16th, 2011 @ 10:10 pm
Goldberg,
R. Eleasar further stated: “What is meant by the Scripture text, ‘This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh?’ This teaches that Adam had intercourse with every beast and animal but found no satisfaction until he cohabited with Eve (Talmud, Yebamoth, 63a).”
Wow, the oral Torah came and clarified that for us, we would have never known that important information from the written Torah. Thankyou oral Torah. O.k. so the this oral Torah was passed down from Moshe Rabeinu to Yoshua to the Zakanim, to the Rabanim to us, Adam was having sexual intercourse with every animal, pigs, dogs, cats, cows, monkeys, wow, thankyou oral Torah, for this important information that I would have never guessed in my wildest most absurd imagination. I am a Jew, and you want me to believe this as Torah. No, onus is on you to prove to me that the Talmud is worthy of being even called Oral Torah, as if it is equal to written Torah. To many inconsistencies, absurdities, crazyness. I can not believe this nonsense as a logical coherent Yehudi, neither can the Reform, Conservative, Karites. I love the Talmud, but I do not hold it as Torah equal to Torah (written). The onus is on you to prove to me why teaching that Adam committing beastiality with all the cows, pigs, etc is not pure false teaching, and then you falsely claim that Moshe Rabeinu taught this all along through your theory of Oral Torah. The onus is on you to prove your Talmud worthy of such a holy name as Ketuveh Hashem, the writing of Hashem through the Ruach HaKodesh. The oral Torah appears to written by men not Hashem, why would Hashem ever declare Adam to being doing bestiality, sex with every animal in Gan Eden, and Hashem does not kick him out for that but for eating a forbidden fruit, since when does Hashem ever eternally in the past or in the future, condone or permit beastiality, which by written Torah was penalized with death after two witnessess. Just saying, as I Jew, I can not logically call Talmud the Kadosh ketuvim of Hashem, I can not, if you want to save me from my supposed error, than the onus is on you to prove to be that the Talmud is Kadosh mShamayim, Emet M’Hashem. Shalom v Chatzlacha.
June 17th, 2011 @ 5:38 am
Eliyahu,
I’m trying to figure out why you addresed that particular rant (comment 167) to me.
June 17th, 2011 @ 5:39 am
Eliyahu,
To make a comment on your 1st paragraph to Goldberg. Wow!! Never looked at it that way. In the book of Genesis, the word does confirm what you said. KEY POINT…The Lord made animals before the women to see if the animals were suitable for man. Talk about dysfunctional families huh, where did the root of dysfunctional take place? HMMM.
Genesis 2:18-22
18 The LORD God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.”
19 Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds in the sky. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. 20 So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds in the sky and all the wild animals.
But for Adam no suitable helper was found. 21 So the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man’s ribs and then closed up the place with flesh. 22 Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib[h] he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.
Jesus came to give us an abundant life. Pure, clean, Holy, righteous, and sanctified.
June 17th, 2011 @ 5:49 am
Eliyahu
Instead of saying “the Talmud disagrees with it” – why don’t you say – “how can you reconcile this with the Talmud?” – Your approach to the agadot of the Talmud is incorrect – and by bringing these agadot to this forum you are defaming God’s firstborn son – in the path of those you chose to follow – I don’t see kedusha there only…
June 17th, 2011 @ 5:53 am
Sheila
You ask how a gentile can have a relationship with God based on the OT
The book of Psalms. perhaps some of it applies only to the Jewish people – but a large portion of it is universal. Here is another thought that might help you
http://yourphariseefriend.wordpress.com/2011/01/20/breath/
June 17th, 2011 @ 6:34 am
For some reason – Dr. Brown responded to my post (#151) on the May 19 blog – for the benefit of teh readers of this blog – I copied and pasted my response
Dr. Brown
I find it interesting that you respond to my post from the June 9 blog on this one.
You ask me how you misrepresent what others believe on your radio show – here is your answer – On your May 20th radio show – you say that Jesus taught his disciples “explicitly, plainly…as plain as the nose on their faces – and they just didn’t get it” – you then go on to say concerning the “blindness of the Jewish people” (btw – in that context you don’t mention the universal blindness) – “its the same principle exactly … its written plainly…pray that the veil be removed from the eyes of the Jewish people”.
This is misinformation
If you don’t explain to your audience that the Jew is morally obligated to approach the NT only after absorbing the totality of the OT – and that the Jew would be duty bound before God to reject the NT if it does not match the world-view presented in the OT – and instead you teach this same audience – many of whom don’t seem to understand the basic concept that the OT has the authority to invalidate the NT – you are passing on misinformation
Also how can you say that I don’t do the same with my constituency – I provide the same link to your radio show that you provide to my blog – As for the people in Lakewood – I don’t talk to them about Christianity and what Christians believe – simply because they are not interested – which is I think a healthy attitude – the Torah does not encourage us to dig into the minds of other people and explain to ourselves what they are thinking
On those rare occasions when I do speak to a Lakewood person about Christianity – I take the pains to explain why to the Christian – Christianity appears to be the honest path – Part of what I tell them is that many Christian leaders throughout history have given Christians a false portrait about Jews and Judaism – do you want to be counted as one of those leaders?
June 17th, 2011 @ 6:55 am
Thanks, Rabbi Blumenthal, I’ve already read that piece.
I was speaking of being “redeemed” from the curse that all mankind is under.
It seems to me that the Messiah who was/is to come was the one that God was “bringing” for that purpose.
Anyone reading the Bible would have paused in Genesis for quite some time and even the little alien would have considered that the key was in the other tree. We were cut off from communing with God in a very profound way and that little alien would be looking for a way to get back.
So, I was specifically speaking of “salvation” as I said. I was holdig out for the “light of the Nations and (specifically) His people, Israel”
The redemption I saught was a spiritual one, not a physical one.
Yes, I too, love the Psalms!
June 17th, 2011 @ 8:30 am
Eric,
Back in post 91 you posed the following to me:
“We agree that the tanakh is the word of God. We can show you why we believe Yeshua is the Messiah based on the tanakh, as for your proposal to Yisroel’s challenge,I’ll ask you the same question I asked to Yisroel, which was; “What if someone did grow up reading the Tanakh and did grow up with Jewish understanding and it did create a world-view in their life. And then when they read the NT it did fit the bill, and Jesus, Yeshua did fit the Messianic expectations, all that and more. What do you tell this person?”
I’d like to answer your question.
Well, my conviction is that the person who engaged in this exercise would not come to that conclusion. If someone did, well, I would be interested in hearing his/her scriptural reasoning for his/her conclusion. I would expect it to be a reasoning that could be coherently articulated based on scriptural consistency rather than emotion. If he did so, I would be confident that I could present a comprehensive refutation, and if he remained insistent, I would say to him, “I think it is unfortunate that you are abandoning the God of Israel”. However, I would not judge him because only God can know exactly what the motivations, challenges, and frailties of any individual are, and therefore only God can determine such a person’s fate. I would wish him well, and express my hope that he eventually corrects his mistake.
June 17th, 2011 @ 8:46 am
To yisroel or Goldberg,
I’m sure you both heard of the Resurrection of Jesus. What is your belief or opinion on that? How do you explain how a dead man can come back to life and wander around the earth for 40 days?
When a person dies their body is buried. But yet there is no evidence or proof of Jesus’s dead body found anywhere til this every day.
Thanks.
June 17th, 2011 @ 9:48 am
Dear Goldberg,
Thanks for the honest answer. I appreciate both your answer and Yisroel’s answer to my question.
Thanks,
Eric.
June 17th, 2011 @ 10:00 am
Rabbi Blumenthal,
You wrote: “I find it interesting that you respond to my post from the June 9 blog on this one.”
Nothing intentional. Apparently I lost track between the two blogs.
You wrote: “You ask me how you misrepresent what others believe on your radio show – here is your answer – On your May 20th radio show – you say that Jesus taught his disciples “explicitly, plainly…as plain as the nose on their faces – and they just didn’t get it” – you then go on to say concerning the “blindness of the Jewish people” (btw – in that context you don’t mention the universal blindness) – “its the same principle exactly … its written plainly…pray that the veil be removed from the eyes of the Jewish people”.
This is misinformation.”
Again, there’s no misinformation here. Jesus taught his disciples plainly that he would die and rise, and they didn’t understand it. God gave us passages like Isaiah 53, which at the first glance of every person I have ever had read it for the first time, is understood to be an individual rather than a nation, yet you and others don’t see it.
You wrote:
“If you don’t explain to your audience that the Jew is morally obligated to approach the NT only after absorbing the totality of the OT – and that the Jew would be duty bound before God to reject the NT if it does not match the world-view presented in the OT – and instead you teach this same audience – many of whom don’t seem to understand the basic concept that the OT has the authority to invalidate the NT – you are passing on misinformation.”
I’ve shared this very thing many times on the air and in writing and speaking, even in other contexts (like yesterday’s show about Christians and the law, where I mentioned if Jesus abolished the law then Jews would have to reject him as Messiah). The fact that I didn’t do it in this particular show is not misinformation.
June 17th, 2011 @ 10:40 am
Eric,
You are very welcome.
BTW, I asked you a couple of questions about burden of proof in comment 114.
1) If I think that the Tanakh is being deadly serious (which it is) about not being swayed by “prophets” preaching previously unknown forms of worship – even if they perform miracles as evidence – while you think that some verses in the tanakh could be seen as referring to Jesus, which of us has the burden of proof?
2) Why don’t you have to prove that Deut:18:15 is not about Mohammed? And if you do have that burden, let me hear your proof.
June 17th, 2011 @ 11:03 am
Dear Golderg אחי
Sorry about that, I meant to get back to your question. 1) I believe you are correct in that we do have a burden of proof in that we must show you where Yeshua is in the tanakh. But, on the flip side. I believe you CAN disprove a negative and therefore if you do not believe Yeshua is the Messiah, you would need reasons for that as well. Therefore the burden of proof is on you for that claim.
2) I love speaking to Muslims, whether they are just simply copying arguments from a website or they are educated, mullahs. I have dear friends who are former Muslims and friends who are just into apologetics in general. I like to study the Muslim arguments about why they believe Muhammad is in the tanakh and not only that but the NT!
So when I am speaking to Muslims I can show them why those passages are not talking about Muhammad. Of course, I don’t refute strawman arguments. I wait for them to bring them up.
As for “And if you do have that burden, let me hear your proof.” I would much rather discuss Yeshua in the tanakh than Muhamad NOT being in the tanakh.. Unless you meant the first part and I misunderstood you. Please let me know!
God bless you my friend,
Eric.
June 17th, 2011 @ 11:04 am
But, I have proof why Muhammad is NOT from God.
June 17th, 2011 @ 11:10 am
I am curious to hear your proof why Yeshua is not from God.
June 17th, 2011 @ 11:50 am
Speaking about Muslims. There are many, many Muslims who come to faith in Jesus Christ. How you may ask???
Because Jesus has revealed Himself to them in a dream. How about that for an experience?
Saudi Arabia Muslims are hearing from Jesus in their dreams. They they weep because they found peace and love and a relationship with the God of Israel. They have come to love Israel instead of hating Israel. Jesus brought these particular Muslims from hate to love.
Why would the devil bring the Muslims to receive the true Jesus? Seriously now?
Sounds like my “experience” is valid and more understanding now.
Food for thought.
Get ready our Jewish friends, Jesus is gong to come knocking on your hearts next.
June 17th, 2011 @ 12:03 pm
Yisroel,
Why is it that so many of Jews have a hard time with the notion that your theory, that everything in the Talmud,etc (oral Torah) was taught by Hashem to Moshe all the way to being recorded in the Talmud, etc,? Why do think the Karites started? Why do think the reform started? We do not see logical evidence to support your notion the written oral Torah, ie. Talmud, you are a minority of minority opinion and do not speak for all Yehudim but only speak for those in your small circle in the world. Once again you did not respond my question, the rabbis certainly came to the conclusion that Talmud Shabbat 55b, teaches that there were four sinless humans, without personal sin, yet through the sin of Adam they had to still die, thus teaching that it is possible to die not on account of sin but on account of Adam’s sin. Your response is that “your reproach to agadot is incorrect”, ok, my approach is that the rabbis were not making this up and that they believed what they were claiming, what is your approach to this (this is very halachic as well, not very hagadah), second: why do you think the Saducees rejected this notion of oral Torah, why are so many people rejecting this notion, and now we have this oral Torah in writing, in the Talmud etc, I asked you why you believe something the Talmud teaches contrary and you respond with no answer again, no explanation of your logic, no mental processes to arrive to your conclusions, not even a link to read that explains your theory. Is every time the Talmud disagrees with you, you are just going to call it agadot, as for accusing me of defaming Hashem’s first born, this is precisely why we as Jews find it so hard to believe in Talmud, we ask a simple question of concern, and get hijacked with accusations, dare anyone so even think so even to ask a question , a good one, if Gentiles are in the room, the Gentiles in this room all would die for you, pray for you. Plus, you brought the subject up, when you claimed that no man can be sinless. And in your elephant suit writings you claim the Talmud as essential Writings formerly oral Torah taught by Moshe Rabeinu, I think the onus is on you to prove your theory correct, in the face of all us Yehudim, the Saducees, Karites, Reform, intelligent Jewish Yehudim who have a hard time accepting the Talmud as being taught from Moshe Rabeinu.
Goldberg,
When I study the Tanach I do not come to same conclusion that the oral Torah did, I do not see in Bereshit, Adam having beastiality sex with all the pigs, monkeys etc., it is hard for me to trust the writings of the Talmud and claim them as being taught by Moshe Rabeinu, is this not what you believe? Is this agada, a fairy tail, why would Moshe teach this, I find this to be defaiming Moshe HaNavi. Why would Moshe even use bestiality sex with animals (even if you claim this is just a parable type teaching) to teach something, and in the Garden
of Eden? My take on the Talmud is that it is not from Moshe HaNavi, but is a collection of thoughts and rulings from some of the smartest Bible scholars from those centuries, there is a lot of good but ultimately it is not the teachings of Moshe, some parts are, but many parts aren’t. Shalom L’kulam.
June 17th, 2011 @ 12:57 pm
Dear Eliyahu,
I just read your post you made a while ago, on Dr Brown answers the Rabbis part 1, well, this is part 2 so it’s not really off topic. You said
“The Rav I quoted was Yosi bar Hanina, an Amora, he was quoted from Parashat Nitzavim. All my library is in Israel, around 1000 Torah books or more, without my Masechet Sheviit Yerushalmi, I can not check your Tana. You might as well just tell me, unless I can find a way to get Yerushalmi online. Shalom v Chatzlacha.”
Here you go my friend, your online library:
http://kodesh.snunit.k12.il/b/r/r0.htm
June 17th, 2011 @ 1:16 pm
Eliyahu,
I take it the Talmud is not to be discussed among Gentiles, is that correct? And if so, then how are we ever to understand the Law of Moses and the Bible if it is only revealed to a select few?
Are there any parts of it that are direct quotes from Moses? Something like, “And Moses said that the LORD said, such and such about this and that?”
June 17th, 2011 @ 1:24 pm
Goldberg
June 16th, 2011 @ 6:28 pm
“Sheila,
Oh, and as for the Ninevites. The reason it doesn’t mention then keeping the Law of Moses, is becasue they weren’t Jews.”
Which is why I don’t worry about it. I take the first two commandments and apply them to every situation and it keeps me on track as best as I can on this side of eternity.
June 17th, 2011 @ 1:32 pm
Eric,
I think you were asking me for my proof that yeshua is not from G-d.
Before I do the traditional Jewish thing of answering a question with a question. I have a preliminary question.
Why do christians, even when directly engaged in religious polemics with jews have so much trouble saying it like it is. Shouldn’t you have asked me for my proof that yeshua is NOT god, as opposed to asking for my proof that he is not FROM God.
Let’s stick to the truth, christians don’t just belive that Jesus is FROM God, or OF God, or WITH GOD, or whatever other preposition you like. You belive he IS God. You belive that the man from Nazareth is the entity that spoke the words “I am the Lord thy God, etc…..” at Sinai.
Now, as to your question.
I know a person who is utterly convinced that his pet cat is God. It’s not that he worships that actual feline anatomy, that is simply the vessel, in which He has become flesh. He simply believes that God’s spirit has become manifest in this particular tabby. (God can do that can’t he?) He sees in this cat a strength of spirit, humility, and oneness with the world, from which he derives great comfort and from which he is motivated to be the best person he can be.
So great is his conviction that he prays using the following formulation “Our Lord “whiskers” in whom we have found the true meaning of our existence”.
Is this man an idolator based on the Tanakh?
If so why?
June 17th, 2011 @ 2:06 pm
Goldberg, you are actually greatly simplifying and even mistating what Christians believe about how Jesus is. Have you read John 1:1-18?
June 17th, 2011 @ 2:10 pm
Sheila,
The Talmud is very complicated, full of wonderful comments and a love for the Tanach, I love to study it, it is wonderful looking into the thoughts and opinions of some of the greatest Jewish thinkers, scholars. Should the Talmud be learned by Gentiles, um, the Talmud says that neither Gentile nor Jew should learn Talmud until they have first mastered the Torah, the Prophets and the Writings (Tanach), once that has happened, the next step is to master the Mishnah, once that has happen, then one can begin to master the Talmud Jerusalem and Talmud Babylonian, both Talmuds are around an equivalent to about 30,000-35,000 pages in a normal book, and then there is 1500 years of the leading Rabbis making personal commentaries. So yes, most Gentiles according to the Talmud are not ready yet, most Jews are not ready yet, even (according to the Talmud). Problem number two, out of the six billion human beings in this world, how many can rightly understand the conversations in the Talmud, and how many are completely saturated with blind unexplainable hate for Jews, it is important that I do not in anyway on purpose or by accident cause anyone to hate Jews, the Talmud has writings that are hard to understand for Gentiles of this generation, so I hope no one that reads my writings of questions on these blog to in no way lead to any type of hatred but only love and even more compasion for the orthodox Jewish community, a small community within the Jewish community. I felt that the Christians on this site are far too loving and caring for Jewish people that I could bring up these important questions, Jewish to Jewish questions, I still do.
The rabbinical answer is that you do not need to understand all the Jewish law as a Gentile. What Yisroel is saying here, if you agree, would then lead you to be a good Gentile and learn the Noachide law, if you wanted to convert to Judaism then you would after learning Tanach and Mishnah would start your Talmud studies, but usually women do not learn these things, but if you wanted to then you can, there is a famous woman named Berurah in the Talmud who was very smart and could win her debates with other rabbis concerning different issues of the Law. The Talmud claims that prophecy has ended and that through debating and voting with majority opinion winning, that they would come to the closest conclusion of the truth, as a Sanhedrin. I know the Talmud, and I love it, I agree with almost everything but I do disagree with much as well, I do not think that Moses would agree with everything written in it either, but that does not give anyone the right to look down upon, hate or kill orthodox Jews. I have never met any Jewish person that did not want with all their heart to be faithful and obedient to one and only G-d of Israel. All the teachings in the Talmud aim for this aim, the motive is good, maybe the Book of Mormon authors were sincere as well, maybe the Muslim writers of the Koran and Hadit (I think thats what its called) were trully sincere as well, and the Talmud has sencered many things to avoid being hated and killed by Gentiles. I love the Talmud beacuse like the writers of the Talmud, and the voices therein, they share the same faith, passion, and ernest desire for truth, and loving all out obedience to the Creator of the universe, just as I do, I know what the Talmud says about me though, about Y’shua, about some of the disciples of Y’shua, these are decoded and sensored, but I am not mad, it is understandable why the Talmud speaks of me and Y’shua the way they do, in their logic, from their opinions, Y’shua and I have no eternal life and our dammed to hell, so I disagree with those parts but agree with alot of other parts, these were the greatest Jewish theologians of their day, and they portray their theologies, some times differeing, but like we here, all with a common aim at truth being revealed so that we may all see it, through our discussions. Third, if Satan exists, as I believe, and G-d has given Satan power to deceive or kill, then it would be my guess that Satan would try to deceive the Gentiles into killing every last Jew so as to prove G-d incompetent to be faithful to His own promise that the Jewish people will always exist. Just my opinion, I have no idea what Satan strategizes, just a guess, on my part. Thus it is important that we, Gentile or Jew, stand up against this possible strategy of Satan and do not allow anyone any reason to hate and kill Jews, we need to be very careful even when innocently quoting or discussiong Jewish things, because we do not know who may try to take us out of context. And yes in the Talmud it states many times that a ruling goes back all the way to Moses. As far as direct quotations of Moses, yes but some of these are more story times such as Moses sees a vision of Akiva and is amazed at his Torah knowlegde, there might be a direct quote of Moses but I can not remember one right now off at hand, the Talmud (both the Babylon and Jerusalem) is alot of pages, remember, around 35,000 pages, if put into a normal book in english. Peace and blessings and success to you.
June 17th, 2011 @ 3:21 pm
Dr. Brown
What you said on May 20th is not misinformation because Isaiah 53 – “at first glance” is talking about an individual?!
So do you advocate reading Scriptures “at first glance”? That makes it – “as plain as the nose on their faces”?
You claim that you shared many times that if the claims of the NT contradict the OT then we are morally obligated to reject the NT – So my challenge to you to stop passing on misinformation should not be that much further than you are already teaching – explain the concept of developing a complete world-view based on OT alone – and tell your audience to try it – after all – they already have the spiritual blinders removed – so they wouldn’t get “lost” – would they? perhaps you can offer something parallel to my 1000 Verses article
June 17th, 2011 @ 3:35 pm
Eliyahu
I have a hard time responding to you because you make assumptions – and argue according to them – many assumptions I would not make
for example – the Talmud claiming four men were sinless – no – the Talmud is claiming that these men added nothing to what the snake imputed into all of us – do you get it?
Most students of the Talmud could tell you that the story with Adam and the beasts is not to be taken literally
And where exactly do I say what you quote from me in the Elephant and the Suit?
If yuo would keep your posts shorter – I would try to respond to you more often
June 17th, 2011 @ 3:37 pm
Sheila
When you say the “other tree” – do you mean the tree of life? – is Messiah ever compared to the tree of life in the OT
in any case – don’t you see that the key is obedience – not “looking for a way out”? the key is trusting in and obeying God – and not calculating as to what would or wouldn’t work?
Did you ever write up a coherent synopsis of your OT study?
June 17th, 2011 @ 3:42 pm
Debbie
You ask about the resurrection – according to the OT – it is irrleavent. If Jesus was a false prophet then no miracle – not a resurrection and not stopping the sun in the sky – could validate him – Deuteronomy 13:2-6
The question is – is he a false prophet or not according to the criteria set forth in the OT – the miracles are irelevant – the following article might help – http://wp.me/p13c8v-3E
June 17th, 2011 @ 3:45 pm
Sheila
One more thing – I was talking about a deep spiritual relationship that a Gentile could have with the One Creator of all – not a “physical redemption” – in any case the following might help you – http://wp.me/p13c8v-2u
June 17th, 2011 @ 3:56 pm
yisroel,
Thanks for responding to me. May the Lord bless you for your kindness.
Just to let you know. There is nothing false about Jesus. He is a God of miracles. He does not stop working miracles today.
The Lord healed me in a physical way. It was shockingly amazing.
June 17th, 2011 @ 4:32 pm
Yisroel,
The Gemara concludes that “Yesh Misah b’Lo Chet” -there is death without a person having committed a sin.
It seems that we both agree that the four men spoken by Hazal were born, lived their entire lives without sinning, not even one time. This is the same claim I make of (Y’shua). We both agree that this is what many of our current rabbis are teaching today as well, not a foreign thought at all, this is perhaps where our dear Chabad friends get their sinless Tzadik, concepts. Do you agree? The question of why they died then was answered – because the nahash serpent in the Garden put into us all death.(referring to the serpent that caused Adam to fail in obedience). Through Adam’s sin, the Nahash serpent has imputed everyone with death, even on humans that never once sinned before Hashem in their own personal lives. If Yishai Jesse, one of the four claimed, or Hashem claimed, or the Hazal claimed that Yishai was perfectly sinless, never sinning one time in his (Yishai’s) entire human existence, would you agree with that statement, I believe Y’shua was sinless in his personal life, the Hazal believe Yishai Jesse was sinless in his personal life, both Y’shua and Yishai died, but Y’shua, I believe came back to life, and I believe asccended to heaven, and I believe is now our Judge at the right hand of Hashem and will soon save us from our galut. I believe I have conquered the death of the Nahash, I believe that Hashem will give me a new body, one that is eternal without the Nahash serpent imputation. Why is it ok for the Talmud, the Hazal to say Yishai “lo chet”, no sin, but wrong for me to say Y’shua “lo chet”, no sin. Shalom v Chatzlacha.
June 17th, 2011 @ 4:55 pm
Shabat Shalom vMenucha
June 17th, 2011 @ 7:10 pm
Speaking of the one Creator of all, Let’s consider that God the Father and Jesus together
isn’t two Gods, but rather is one God, similar to two churhes that would be (if in fact they would really be the way they could be, if there were no sin among them, nor any evil thing) of one heart and mind on all things, at all times. They would not really be two churches but rather one church even if one church had 50 members and the other 100 members, or if one church had rich people and the other church had poor people.
Angels have fallen, people have fallen, but God the Father, Jesus his Son, and the Holy Spirit have remained holy and true, steadfast and faithful, honest and just, righteous and pure.
The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit have a place above all the rest of creation, all the rest of all that is. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit shall always be holy.
The Father, Son, and Spirit of God are found in the Old Testament writings.
Everyone that’s ever lived has had some kind of heart dealings with God. Sometimes we have but didn’t seem to know what was going on for we have all been in darkness before.
Because we are clay and God is the potter, as well as the Father of spirits, we are formed by him in ways we don’t always comprehend.
I believe these things that men go through have been experienced by Old Testament people as well as those written about in the New Testament, and even all of us who have been living after both of those were written.
In many things we have more in common than we may realize. I suppose we have more in common than we
have differences.
June 17th, 2011 @ 8:10 pm
Rabbi Blumenthal, the readers of whom I speak who read Isaiah 53 and who understood it at first glance to point to an individual, not the nation, felt the same after careful, further study. I thought that point was self-evident.
As for your challenge, I responded to it earlier, but I’ll repeat it again: My radio audience is primarily Gentile Christian, and they know that the OT is the Word of God because they know Jesus is Lord and the NT is God’s Word. They are not first century Jews and so your challenge, which is relevant for a Jewish person, is not relevant to them. Do your best to understand why I’m stating this before continuing to push your challenge. Thanks!
June 18th, 2011 @ 5:16 am
Yisroel,
Deuteronomy 13:2-6 is not referring about Jesus.
What this reminds me of is of all the false Christian Religions who twist scripture up to justify how they want “God to be” or “not to be”.
Yisroel,
Just a heads up. You should be extremely careful about how you talk about Jesus, calling Him a false prophet is not to wise. You are truly disappointing the God of Israel by saying and believing what you do about Jesus.
Just to note when I write my post, I do not do it to argue with people as Dr Brown once commented that I was arguing with Chuck once before. I am not arguing. I am just simply trying to educate the truth to theses people.
yaz know??!!
June 18th, 2011 @ 9:14 pm
Thank you, Eliyahu, for your considerate and thorough response.
I’ve run into the exact things that you alluded to. It is a hardened heart that perpetuates a hatred based on those things. I harbor none of those feelings.
You live what you learn, I suppose. Sometimes we have to break the mold that we were born into and stand for the truth wherever we find it. It’s more than difficult for some to do.
“The Lord is not slack concerning His promises, not willing that any should perish, but that all may come to repentance and the knowledge of the truth.”
Rabbi Blumenthal and Mr. Goldberg, I’m still working on my other responses. I was hoping, though, that you might have answered some of my questions. Perhaps I threw out to many at one time.
June 18th, 2011 @ 9:50 pm
Sheila,
I sort of thought I ended our little chat a while back because from my perspective you were not sticking to the rules.
I don’t recall that you addressed any questions directly to me that I did not answer.
And if they were based on the NT, as I have said before, they are outside of the parameters of what thuoght we were doing and since I don’t consider the NT to be scripture, I have no interest in addressing them any more than you would have interest in addressing questions I might pose to you from the book of mormon.
June 18th, 2011 @ 10:32 pm
Very well then, I’ll save my strength.
June 18th, 2011 @ 10:43 pm
Although, the rules for Dr. Brown’s forum is that we stick to the topic as he presented it on his radio show. That’s what I was engaged in. And then we answer direct questions that others ask and that usually leads to further discussion surrounding that topic. I must have thoroughly missed something concerning some new rules.
No worries, no further comments.
June 18th, 2011 @ 11:27 pm
Goldberg, why would using the NT be contrary to the “rules” of this forum, where it is understood and recognized that the NT is as much as the Word of God as is the Tanakh? You’re free to raise questions or to choose not to respond, but certainly not to expect that people posting here will not use the NT in their discussion with you.
June 19th, 2011 @ 2:28 am
Shalom,
I have enjoyed reading everyone’s comments very much and I also appreciate the sincerity and love that is being shown. I have one thing that I wanted to add…
With regards to reading just the Tanakh, that is a wonderful thing to do and there is much to be learnt from that exercise, but no matter how much it has been studied through the ages and commented on by wise and learned men, there do remain unanswered questions which leads to certain theories or assumptions being made. The prime example that comes to mind is the sacrifice of the Red Heifer, which the Talmud says is the only commandment that King Solomon could not understand. It is a paradox. Yes, there are explanations which we can learn from, such as that it shows us that we need to obey G-d even when we don’t understand, however when the Brit Chadashah is read, those lessons remain but the full revelation of what God is doing becomes clear and all of the “mysteries” are solved. Yes, there is much to be gained from reading through the Tanakh, but you do not get the complete picture because the same story, G-d’s story, History, is continued in the Brit Chadashah. I may as well propose that we try to work out Abraham’s world view by only reading the first 25 chapters of Bereshit. We would be looking at the world without the full revelation of G-d.
As Dr. Brown said, we cannot ignore the birth, life, death and the resurrection of Yeshua because they are as much historical events as the Exodus from Egypt and the giving of the Torah on Sinai. Parashat Chukat is one of my favorite Torah portions… it is so rich and with the greatest respect to everyone here, I look forward to reading it with G-d’s full revelation.
Shalom shalom,
Michael
June 19th, 2011 @ 4:15 am
Dear Rabbi Blumenthal,
You asked Dr. Brown to “explain clearly to your audience the necessary thought process that one would have to follow to go from Judiasm to Christianity”
I was saddened when I read your comment, because it highlights the terrible misunderstandings that have been built up over the last 2,000 years, mainly through the teachings of Replacement Theology, which is not biblical. Not one of the disciples converted from Judaism to Christianity. The thought process (in a nutshell) is very simple… one would need to accept Yeshua as the Mashiach prophesied in the Tanakh, just as Shaul did. There is no conversion process and “Christianity” is not a new religion that began with Yeshua.
I am in no way criticizing you; you are simply espousing a “world view” that has been shaped by 2,000 years of history. The idea of moving away from Judaism and “converting” to a new “religion” would have horrified the disciples.
I appreciate your comments and the fact that you have been in dialogue with Dr. Brown for many years. We need to break down the wall of misunderstanding that has been built up between Christians and Jews over the past 2,000 years.
Shalom,
Michael
June 19th, 2011 @ 6:31 am
Dr. Brown,
I never said that using the NT was against the rules of the foruum. However, if you reread the comment thread you will see that I thought I had made clear to Sheila that the two of us in particular were engaged in an effort along the lines of Rabbi Blimenthal’s challenge to stick to the OT. I posed questions to Sheila with an expectation of using the OT only which she insisted on answering with the NT. The few references to the OT hat she DID use I responded to, (in some instances rhetorically, with here not responding to me.)
So, of course , this is your forum with your rules, but if Sheila wants a response from ME to NT based questions, they will not be forthcoming.
June 19th, 2011 @ 7:28 am
I was, in fact, working on preparing my responses, as I said. I started a word pad document and was preparing OT Scriptures to include. However, I’ve decided to “wait on the Lord” and to step back and preserve my strength. I’m not being facetious, I’m really struggling with some health issues right now.
I wanted to go back to the tree of life question, but, it can wait. I’ll work on it, for myself if nothing else, as I’m able.
I’ll submit what I was working on so far.
In answer to this:
Goldberg
June 16th,
“Sheila, you began with: “What the OT did was to have me looking high and low for Salvation”
“Don’t you see, that right there you began your read through the OT with a purely christological orientation? Are you aware that the christian concept of salvation is non-existent in Jewish Thought.”
First of all, your assumption is wrong. You’re going to tell me what I had in mind when I started reading? The story of mankind’s beginning (before there was Jew and Gentile) is where I began. Is God not “the rewarder of those who diligently seek Him?” I had no idea, until you just told me, that the Jews did not look to God alone for salvation. Now I know. You don’t look to be saved from your sins because you feel you can accomplish that yourself? How are you perfected once you go to your grave having lived and died wearing sinful flesh? Anyway, I was asked to give “my” interpretation of where the reading of the OT led me, so, this is my reasoning:
Gen 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
God created.
God saw that it was good.
God (and someone else?) created man in (their?) image, after (their?) likeness.
God rested.
I honestly put the plural thing about God in the back of my mind until much, much later. I’ll pick up with “God rested.”
This leads me to deduce that everything was finished, as it says, before He rested. The Bible says that God “tells the end from the beginning.” After I encountered that verse in the Bible I then went back to the beginning and I read it over and over and over again. I meditated on it for months on end. There is something very profound to be uncovered “in the beginning” is what I reasoned to be true. So, it seemed to me that our ancestors, yours and mine, were communing with God in the Garden when something went terribly wrong. I reasoned that Adam and Eve “saw God face to face” as Moses did and yet lived. Exd 33:11 “And the LORD spoke to Moses face to face, as a man speaks to his friend.” Major contradiction to: ESV – Exd 33:20 – But,” he said, “you cannot see my face, for man shall not see me and live.” (As I discovered there were many more like that to come–seeming contradictions.)
The next logical deduction was that God created us with free will, or, we wouldn’t have had the capacity to reach out our hand and take of the fruit of the tree that led to death otherwise. Why would a kind, benevolent God create us for death and misery? I had to assume He didn’t. So, next comes the question of “Why did He give us free will then?” And why put the tree of life together with the tree that led to the way of destruction? I would think anyone reading it for the first time would have asked themselves the same questions. But, that’s assuming that the reader was inclined to believe what was written in the first place. “The fool in his heart says, ‘There is no God.’” After all, it seemed like there was no remedy to the “set up” that this God put us in. Why did He do it? Why not just fashion us without disobedience in the first place? And, so, began the mystery that is God. There entered into my thinking at that point on the “spiritual” aspect of good and evil. After all, we can’t see this satan, but, we will forever, it seemed at that point, be reaping the effects of his temptation of us, by which I mean, what passed, thereby, upon all of mankind, that we gained the knowledge of “knowing” that we are now to impure to dwell in God’s presense. The satan (the serpent) tempted us away from our perfect peace and communion with God. Well, that led me to believe that there was a whole lot more to this “free will” component than I could understand at first. I came to what I believe is the logical conclusion; that God wanted us to come to Him in love and obedience of our own free will. Otherwise, He would have only manufactured love that was artifical, hollow and empty. We will, all of us, (Jew and Gentile) die clothed in sinful flesh because of the free will choice that He gave us. What I couldn’t figure out was “how” God intended to counter the satan’s entrapment of us. It was the free will component that got us into this mess, so to speak, and it seemed logical that free will would also bring us out of it.
Then, I had to consider what was meant by Him “keeping the way to the tree of life” with flaming swords and angelic beings guarding it. Why keep it from us? I was wondering why He didn’t just let us eat of it immediately and we wouldn’t die. Well, I know now that He was being more than gracious to us by not allowing us to eat of it right then and there! He did not want us to live forever in our sins, separated from Him because sinful flesh cannot dwell in His presense. There could only be one reason that He gave us free will. It had to be so that He might know if we truly love Him or not. That was the only thing that made any sense to this alien. Ok, so back to the Garden I went again, this time to spy out the tree of life more throroughly.
Gen 3:22 Then the LORD God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of us in knowing good and evil. Now, lest he reach out his hand and take also of the tree of life and eat, and live forever–”
Gen 3:23 therefore the LORD God sent him out from the garden of Eden to work the ground from which he was taken.
Gen 3:24 He drove out the man, and at the east of the garden of Eden he placed the cherubim and a flaming sword that turned every way to guard the way to the tree of life.
Isa 30:18 Therefore the LORD waits to be gracious to you, and therefore he exalts himself to show mercy to you. For the LORD is a God of justice; blessed are all those who wait for him.
Isa 30:19 For a people shall dwell in Zion, in Jerusalem; you shall weep no more. He will surely be gracious to you at the sound of your cry. As soon as he hears it, he answers you.
Isa 30:20 And though the Lord give you the bread of adversity and the water of affliction, yet your Teacher will not hide himself anymore, but your eyes shall see your Teacher.
Isa 30:21 And your ears shall hear a word behind you, saying, “This is the way, walk in it,” when you turn to the right or when you turn to the left.
That’s all I’ll submit at this point. The rest is still a rough draft.
June 19th, 2011 @ 8:39 am
Sheila,
First, my best wishes to you in dealing with your health issues.
Many of the issues you deal with are indeed the subject of much jewish thought historically. But these issues evade a simple fundamental question I asked you at the outset after responding on point to your question about what happended to the temple sacrifices.
I asked you where in the OT did God ever so much as hint that the obligation of the Jew to observe the sabbath on the seventh day would be abrogated. Or for that matter the prohibition on eating pork.
Yes there are many many deep theoligical discussions that can be initiated based on the creation story and the the story of Adam and Eve as far as what happended to Adam and where did human history go from there.
However, the OT itself tells us where human history went from there. It ultimately led to a Jewish nation was given a set of laws at Sinai. So I am again, asking you to pause for a moment on your ruminations about the Tree of Life and tell me where in the OT is it suggested that the Jewish people were ever to be relieved of these obligations, at least those that they retain the ability to observe. You can start with the pork thing.
I’m also just letting you know, that if your next response to me does not direct me to the OT verses on point to my question, I will again end our disucssion. That’s not a threat
just an explanation as to why you will not see any further response from me in that event.
Bu
June 19th, 2011 @ 8:47 am
Michael
When I say going from Judaism to Christianity – I mean going from an OT based world-view to a OT/NT based world-view however you want to interpret that
June 19th, 2011 @ 8:51 am
Dr. Brown
Is there a difference to you in the level of clarity between – Jesus’ declaration that he is going to suffer and die as opposed to Isaiah 53 as a Messinaic prediction?
If you believe they are the same – then can you explain why it is that today – even the “spiritually blind” understand what Jesus was saying but do not “understand” what Isaiah was saying?
And if they are not the same – then please don’t package the two together when you are educating your Gentile Christian audience
June 19th, 2011 @ 8:52 am
Debbie
You state that Deuteronomy 13:2 is not talking of Jesus – do you realize that I cannot take your word for it – God wants me to check it out myself? – could you explain on a Scriptural level (OT) why it is not talking of Jesus?
June 19th, 2011 @ 8:57 am
I should have qualified the tree thing as that was directed to Rabbi Blumenthal. I didn’t go back in and define my response well enough.
So, you would pause in the OT without hearing “the rest of the story?” You don’t really want to know “why” I believe that it was “suspended” then.
You don’t realize that I believe the “law will go forth from Jerusalem” in the Millennium. Therefore, it is forever. No contradiction there. I reasoned this point with Amillennialists on the forum about end time escatology.
June 19th, 2011 @ 9:05 am
I had already prepared the Isaiah 53 chapter with the supposed changes.
Isaiah 53
I’ve edited Isaiah 53 to have Isaiah, who is already speaking to the Jewish people [we, our, read: the Israelites], insert the Jewish people [the nation of Israel] in place of any reference to Messiah. This is what it says when I do that:
Isa 53:1 Who has believed our [the Israelites] report? and to whom is the arm of the LORD revealed?
For [the nation of Israel] shall grow up before Him as a tender plant, And as a root out of dry ground. [the nation of Israel] has no form or comeliness; And when [the Israelites] see [the nation of Israel], There is no beauty that [the Israelites] should desire [the nation of Israel].
[The nation of Israel] was despised and rejected by men; a [nation?] of sorrows, and acquainted with grief; and as one [read: many] from whom men hide their faces, [the nation of Israel] was despised, and [the Israelites] esteemed [the nation of Israel] not.
Surely [the nation of Israel] has borne [the Israelites] griefs and carried [the Israelites] sorrows; yet [the Israelites] esteemed [the nation of Israel] stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted.
But [the nation of Israel] was wounded for [the Israelites] transgressions; [the nation of Israel] was crushed for [the Israelites] iniquities; upon [the nation of Israel] was the chastisement that brought [the Israelites] peace, and with [the nation of Israel's] stripes [the Israelites] are healed.
All [the Israelites] like sheep have gone astray; [the Israelites] have turned–every one–to his own way; and the LORD has laid on [the nation of Israel] the iniquity of [all of Israel].
[The nation of Israel] was oppressed, and [the nation of Israel] was afflicted, yet [the nation of Israel] opened not [the nation of Israel's] mouth; like a lamb that is led to the slaughter, and like a sheep that before its shearers is silent, so [the nation of Israel] opened not [the nation of Israel's] mouth.
By oppression and judgment [the nation of Israel] was taken away; and as for [the nation of Israel's] generation, who considered that [the nation of Israel] was cut off out of the land of the living, stricken for the transgression of my people [Israel]?
And they made [the nation of Israel's] grave with the wicked and with a rich man in [the nation of Israel's] death, although [the nation of Israel] had done no violence, and there was no deceit in [the nation of Israel's] mouth.
Yet it was the will of the LORD to crush [the nation of Israel]; he has put [the nation of Israel] to grief; when [the nation of Israel's] soul makes an offering for guilt, [the nation of Israel] shall see [the nation of Israel's] offspring; he shall prolong [the nation of Israel's] days; the will of the LORD shall prosper in [the nation of Israel's] hand.
Out of the anguish of [the nation of Israel's] soul [the nation of Israel] shall see and be satisfied; by [the nation of Israel's] knowledge shall the righteous one [although singular read: many], my servant, make many to be accounted righteous, and [the nation of Israel] shall bear their [OWN?] iniquities.
Therefore I will divide [the nation of Israel] a portion with the many, and [the nation of Israel] shall divide the spoil with the strong, because [the nation of Israel] poured out [the nation of Israel's] soul to death and was numbered with the transgressors; yet [the nation of Israel] bore the sin of many, and makes intercession for the transgressors.
Perhaps Dr. Brown can answer how we can displace a masculine, singular noun with a plural (feminine) noun and still have it say the exact same thing.
June 19th, 2011 @ 9:28 am
yisroel,
With all due respect. I can not convince you. We both have such huge, huge faith in our beliefs. I can not make you believe in Jesus as Lord, as Savior and as Messiah.
I wrote what I did to you because I believe the bible is to be real and unflawed. I “NOW” know your religion doesn’t believe in the NT.
What I learned from our conversations were this. I did at least learn why you reject Jesus as Lord. Thanks for making me understand where you are coming from.
Thank you again for allowing me to share my faith with you. Thanks for not snubbing me.
Again I can not convince you. I guess my faith in Jesus isn’t enough for you to make you follow Him too.
yisroel, How about if I can think of anything else to ask or say to you in the future I’ll always know that door is opened.
Blessings upon you. I do believe you are very kind.
What else can I say???
June 19th, 2011 @ 9:35 am
“I honestly put the plural thing about God in the back of my mind until much, much later.” – Sheila
Seeing “us” in the text doesn’t seem to prove whether God has duplicated Himself or not. For all I can tell He may have had cherubims involved – they are potential candidates with explicit mention (in proximity) afterall.
June 19th, 2011 @ 10:00 am
Yes, I thought of that as well, Juan. I basically came at it from many different angles and I discovered that many others stumbled on the same thing that I did.
Is there anything to back up that cherubim were involved in the creation of man? Maybe something else that I missed?
I did see a similarity of sorts in Ezekiel and the vision of the cherubim. I’ll admit I’m still working on an OT answer. It’s like starting a race at point A, but, then running and running, but, never coming to the finish line. Do you know what I mean?
June 19th, 2011 @ 10:12 am
Debbie
The door is always open – you can contact me through my blog or at iblumenthal@yeshivanet.com
June 19th, 2011 @ 10:22 am
“It’s like starting a race at point A, but, then running and running, but, never coming to the finish line. Do you know what I mean?” – Sheila
A little perhaps, since I’ve wanted to do a complete summary and study of the Bible, but the ocean is so vast I’ve hardly started sailing…in fact I can still see the shore.
June 19th, 2011 @ 10:27 am
Keep rowing, Juan!
June 19th, 2011 @ 10:29 am
Oh, you’re trying to “sail” through it. Wrong analogy. Well, then, hoist your sails higher!
June 19th, 2011 @ 10:34 am
Really, that’s what I love about it–you can dig and dig and barely find out even a smidgeon of what is there.
June 20th, 2011 @ 5:58 am
Sheila
Your rendition of Isaiah 53 is not what is meant by the national interpretation – I suggest you read contra-brown
June 20th, 2011 @ 7:16 am
Rabbi Blumenthal,
I read Isaiah 53 as it was written. I deliberately skewed it so others could see the implication of removing any reference to Messiah and what He suffered for you and your people. What was more than clear to me the very first time I read it was that “one” particular individual would (or already did) suffer the things written.
I’ve read Contra Brown. You see our evidence as weak and I feel the same about yours, with the added element of heartbreak for you. I’ve decided to ask as many Christians as are willing, to join the Jews on the National Day of Repentance this year and every year after. I thought we would use the model of Daniel who poured out his heart to God for the sins of his people. Lord knows that Christians, in general, have them heaped up to Heaven! I see that one of the greatest obstacles to acceptance of Yeshua is the anti-Semitism that was birthed in ages past. Well, even in the silence of the holocaust we stand accused, although I wasn’t even born yet, and rightly so. Silence in the face of gross injustice and genocide is equal to complicity.
If I may ask you one question that has weighed on me for many years. And I don’t mean it as an afront in any way, but, do you see the hand of God in having allowed it to happen? Because I’m still trying to reconcile it. I’m thinking that in the heavenly realm, He caused Michael to stand still and not to fight for you. And then I recall the verse about “except the Lord had sold you to your enemies.” It’s more than difficult to contemplate. I sincerly hope that you are not offended by my question. I’ve never asked it before. (and depending, I may never ask it again!)
Thanks.
I’ll just succinctly sum up the rest of my previous post. I was going to lead up to “the way” to the tree of life. And, I can imagine that you know who it was that said, “I am the way.” Unfortunately I’ll have to chill a good bit after later today.
Thanks for your patience with me–it’s greatly appreciated!
June 20th, 2011 @ 7:23 am
“The Time of Jacob’s Trouble”, perhaps?
June 20th, 2011 @ 9:34 am
Rabbi Blumenthal,
You ask, “Dr. Brown Is there a difference to you in the level of clarity between – Jesus’ declaration that he is going to suffer and die as opposed to Isaiah 53 as a Messinaic prediction?
If you believe they are the same – then can you explain why it is that today – even the “spiritually blind” understand what Jesus was saying but do not “understand” what Isaiah was saying? And if they are not the same – then please don’t package the two together when you are educating your Gentile Christian audience.”
Actually, given the presuppositions of the disciples, before Yeshua died and rose from the dead, yes, the two would be quite the same: Both Isaiah 53 and the statements of Yeshua about his death and resurrection were and are quite plain, but before he actually died and rose, it was difficult for his disciples to grasp the meaning of his words.
As to the obvious offense you take towards the “spiritual blindness” concept, let’s say one year from now, you are a fervent follower of Yeshua the Messiah. Would you tell me then, “Dr. Brown, I must confess that the whole time, it was totally clear to me who he was, but out of wickedness and a sinful heart, I refused to acknowledge that until just now”? Or would you tell me, “Dr. Brown, I’m telling you the truth. I studied and prayed and examined the relevant issues and verses for years, but I didn’t see the truth until just now. It’s as if scales fell from eyes and now for the first time I can see”?
So, for a Gentile Christian audience to understand that there is a veil over your eyes when you look at Yeshua the Messiah is NOT a cause for anti-Jewish sentiments. It is a cause for sentiments of mercy and compassion with a call to pray.
Finally, you claim that I am an idol worshiper and a follower of a false messiah, yet you treat me differently than you would treat someone who raised in an ultra-Orthodox Jewish home, as you were, and then embraced my beliefs. Why? You would point to the principle of me allegedly being a tinnok shenishbeh, a child who was born in captivity and thus not raised in the traditional faith. None of this offends me in the least — calling me an idol worshiper, viewing me as a dangerous missionary, and then claiming that I’m less culpable because of ignorance — and to me, it’s very similar to my understanding that there is a veil of your eyes when you look at Yeshua, and thus God needs to open your eyes for you to truly see him in his glory and majesty. Why oppose this view so vehemently? How does it differ so radically from your view of me?
I pray for you that God would open your eyes as you study His Word and that He would bring you to the truth. Have you ever prayed such prayers for me?
June 20th, 2011 @ 10:17 am
Yisroel and or Goldberg,
If the (the traditions of the fathers) was so well communicated throughout the ages to be as binding as the Written Torah, why? Did the Saducees reject these oral traditions? Why did they claim similar to protestants sola scriptura?
Josephus, in Antiquities, describes “the Pharisees have delivered to the people a great many observances by succession from their father. which are not written in the law of Moses, and for that reason it is that the Sadducees reject them and say that we are to esteem those observance to be obligatory which are in the written word, but are not to observe what are derived from the tradition of our forefathers.”
Here we have Saducee leadership who have rejected the traditions of the Pharisees, and their claim that those traditions are as authoritative as the written Torah itself. In the face of the Torah mitzvah not to add or subtract anything from the Torah, I trully believe the onus of proof is on all Pharisees everywhere who hold their traditions so high as to be equal to the Written Torah, thus adding to the Torah?, breaking the Torah command not to add?, the Pharisee leadership obviously was not able to make their case and convince the Saducee leadership. The Saducees were unmoved by this notion, maybe through their fear of Elokim, to not add to the Torah. If you are wrong about your traditions, can you admit that this is exactly what you have done, the whole Pharisee movement has done, you have added to the Torah in violation to the Torah, Yirat Shamayim, the Saducees needed evidence and no one could prove it them. Maybe you can better defend your traditions as being equal to written Torah. I will take the side of Yirat Elokim, and until you can prove to me that you are not adding to the Torah with calling your traditions Torah, then I will stick with the Saducees on this topic, Yirat Shamayim, I fear Hashem’s Scripture too much to play around it. Shalom.
June 20th, 2011 @ 10:44 am
Dr. Michael Brown,
You put the NT on par with OT Scripture??? The two are nowhere near equal; OT is truly Scripture; NT is some tacked-together notes. The Spirit is truly upon OT Scripture; there is a grace so powerful (a grace mostly absent on the NT Scripture) so as to make me wonder…
“…men OF OLD wrote, as they were moved upon…”
The OT is impeccable; but, the New Testament is not faultless.
Why does Jesus tell the disciples to take up swords in Luke?
Luke is the ONLY record of the criminal repenting on the cross (in the other two, he is recorded as blaspheming Jesus)
Luke has the order of end-time events totally jumbled (as compared to Mark and Matthew)
Luke also wrote Acts, where a statement attributed to Peter (in Acts) is word-for-word what Paul says somewhere else; it has mixed-up accounts of Paul’s conversion.
In 1 Cor 14:22, it appears Paul (or his writer) got tongue-twisted:
“22Tongues, then, are a sign, NOT for BELIEVERS, but for unbelievers; prophecy, however, is for BELIEVERS, not for UNBELIEVERS.”
23So if the whole church comes together and everyone speaks in tongues, and some who do not understanding or some unbelievers come in, will they not say that you are out of your mind?
24But if an unbeliever or someone who does not understand comes in while everybody is prophesying, he will be convinced by all that he is a sinner and will be judged by all,
25and the secrets of his heart will be laid bare. So he will fall down and worship God, exclaiming, “God is really among you!”
First, he says that tongues was a sign for unbelievers, but AFTERWARDS, he says, in essence “What use would it be if an unbeliever walks in and you’re all speaking in tongues? Wouldn’t he say you were crazy? BUT IF YOU’RE ALL PROPHESYING, and an unbeliever walks in, it will definitely aide in his salvation,”
thus disproving himself, since “speaking in other languages”, he said (at first) was a sign to UNBELIEVERS – but, when you put the word “BUT” in verse 24, it shows an opposite value on the next statement, juxtaposed against the previous idea.
The New Testament has many such problems; it isn’t anywhere near equal to the OT.
June 20th, 2011 @ 11:07 am
2 Timothy 3:16
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
The word of God is correct from the book of Genesis to the book of Revelation. You should have peace with this.
Then you wonder why confusion enters into many.
June 20th, 2011 @ 11:10 am
Scripture, at the time, was OT; NT didn’t exist.
You can quote the Scripture that treats Paul’s writings as Scripture, but
#1 NT includes more than Paul’s writings
#2 Do we even know whether it was added later by the RCC, or some other church?
#3 It doesn’t change the fact that it was CLEARLY not talking about any NT document, but OT literature. There is no refuting this. Paul wouldn’t be calling his own writings Scripture.
June 20th, 2011 @ 11:23 am
Yisroel,
Karaites do not accept the existence of an Oral Law because:
1.The Mishnah quotes many conflicting opinions.
2.The Mishnah does not go on to say in which opinion the truth lies. Rather, the Mishnah sometimes agrees with neither one nor the other, contradicting both.
3.They argue that the truth of the oral law given to Moses could only be in one opinion, not many opinions.
4.They question why the Mishnah does not solely speak in the name of Moses.
5.The Oral Law is not mentioned once in the entire Tanakh.
6.When God told Moses to come up to Mount Sinai to receive the Torah He said, “Come up to me into the mountain, and be there: and I will give you tablets of stone, and a law, and commandments that I have written”; (Ex 24,12). The text states the commands are written, and no mention is made of an Oral Law.
7.The Tanakh reports that the written Torah was both lost and completely forgotten for over 50 years and only rediscovered by the Temple priests (2Ki 22,8; 2Chr 34,15). It is inconceivable that an Oral Law could have been remembered when even the written Law was forgotten.
8.The words of the Mishnah and Talmud are clearly the words of people living in the 2nd–5th centuries, CE, stating “Rabbi Eli‘ezer says this… while Rabbi ‘Aqiva says that…” in contrast to the Torah, which states “YHWH spoke to Moses saying, speak to the Children of Israel that I command them saying…”
9.The Torah states, “You shall not add to the word that I am commanding you, nor take away from it, that you may keep the commandments of YHWH, your God, which I command you.” (Deut 4:2) It is forbidden to add an Oral Law to the Torah, since it is the opinions of rabbis, not commands from God.
10.Joshua 8, 34–8, 35 states:
וְאַחֲרֵי-כֵן, קָרָא אֶת-כָּל-דִּבְרֵי הַתּוֹרָה, הַבְּרָכָה, וְהַקְּלָלָה—כְּכָל-הַכָּתוּב, בְּסֵפֶר הַתּוֹרָה.לֹא-הָיָה דָבָר, מִכֹּל אֲשֶׁר-צִוָּה מֹשֶׁה—אֲשֶׁר לֹא-קָרָא יְהוֹשֻׁעַ, נֶגֶד כָּל-קְהַל יִשְׂרָאֵל וְהַנָּשִׁים וְהַטַּף, וְהַגֵּר, הַהֹלֵךְ בְּקִרְבָּם.
After that, he [Joshua] read all the words of the Torah, the Blessing and the Curse, according to all that is written in the Torah scroll. There was not a word of all that Moses had commanded that Joshua failed to read in the presence of the entire assembly of Israel, and the women, and the little ones, and the strangers that walked among them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karaites
There are 50,000 Karaite Jews alive today, 40,000 are living in Israel. They only do your challenge of reading only Tanach and they can not call the traditions equal to Moses’ Torah. Shalom
June 20th, 2011 @ 11:49 am
Dan1el,
Are you a follower of Jesus? If so, then the NT is every bit as much the Word of God to you as the OT (in fact, it should be even easier for you to relate the NT as Scripture than the OT). If you’re not a follower of Jesus, then the conversation and assumptions change.
June 20th, 2011 @ 11:53 am
Dan1el,
One more comment to your post (which, frankly, is quite shocking to me). There are far, far more difficulties and problems in treating the OT as infallible than in treating the NT as such, which is why skeptics and critics attack the OT more than the NT. We can only understand the Bible to be God’s perfect Word when we come in humility and openness, willing to hear explanations and insights. If we come critically, we will have much to challenge. Please read this carefully: http://realmessiah.askdrbrown.org/read/unequal-weights-and-measures.
June 20th, 2011 @ 12:00 pm
Ofcourse I believe in Jesus! I just don’t trust ANY THING or ANY ONE !! 1 Th 5:21 says “test ALL things; keep the good.”
June 20th, 2011 @ 12:03 pm
(any thing or any one beyond what can be ESTABLISHED as fact — i.e. God’s Word)
June 20th, 2011 @ 12:08 pm
(reading)…
June 20th, 2011 @ 12:12 pm
You talk about problems with the IDEAS in Scripture; not the trustworthiness of the text and its writers!! These are 2 different problems.
June 20th, 2011 @ 12:15 pm
In its problems are found hidden secrets and depths: in the NT problems are found contradiction, and cause it to be untrustworthy.
The Apostles ALWAYS pointed men back to the (true) Scriptures (OT). ALWAYS. (except a few times, about wanting a certain letter to be read at churches)
June 20th, 2011 @ 12:16 pm
Daniel,
you said…”Paul wouldn’t be calling his own writings Scripture.”
Remember that Paul had spent 3 years alone with the Lord before he started preaching.
Galatians 1:11-18
For I would have you know, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ. For you have heard of my former manner of life in Judaism, how I used to persecute the church of God beyond measure, and tried to destroy it; and I was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my contemporaries among my countrymen, being more extremely zealous for my ancestral traditions. But when He who had set me apart, even from my mother’s womb, and called me through His grace, was pleased to reveal His Son in me, that I might preach Him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately consult with flesh and blood, nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me; but I went away to Arabia, and returned once more to Damascus. Then three years later I went up to Jerusalem to become acquainted with Cephas, and stayed with him fifteen days.
June 20th, 2011 @ 12:24 pm
Dr. Brown,
I’m a follower of Jesus, but I have to say that He has called me a “straggler”, to put things in perspective…
June 20th, 2011 @ 12:27 pm
Daniel,
And it came to pass, when Joshua was by Jericho, that he lifted his eyes and looked, and behold, a Man stood opposite him with His sword drawn in His hand. And Joshua went to Him and said to Him, “Are You for us or for our adversaries?” So He said, “No, but as Commander of the army of the LORD I have now come.” And Joshua fell on his face to the earth and worshiped, and said to Him, “What does my Lord say to His servant?” Then the Commander of the LORD’S army said to Joshua, “Take your sandal off your foot, for the place where you stand is holy.” And Joshua did so. Now Jericho was securely shut up because of the children of Israel; none went out, and none came in. And the LORD said to Joshua: “See! I have given Jericho into your hand, its king, and the mighty men of valor. -Joshua 5:13-6:2
Some speculate that this Man is Y’shua, if this be true Y’shua is holding a sword, drawn out. What is my point, if it was Y’shua notice how it says “the Lord said to Joshua’. So which is it, the commander of the Lord’s army or the Lord, or if it is Y’shua who is commander of the Lord’s army and also the Lord Himself. or is it an angel lets say Michael the leader of angels, that is plausible too, how do we explain the Lord talking then, maybe the Lord was speaking and using the angel has His mouthpiece. My point is that if this is Y’shua before human birth than he is holding a sword.
Now for your concern on verse in Luke:
And He said to them, “When I sent you without money bag, knapsack, and sandals, did you lack anything?” So they said, “Nothing.” Then He said to them, “But now, he who has a money bag, let him take it, and likewise a knapsack; and he who has no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one. For I say to you that this which is written must still be accomplished in Me: ‘And He was numbered with the transgressors.’ For the things concerning Me have an end.” So they said, “Lord, look, here are two swords.” And He said to them, “It is enough.” -Luke 22:35-38
The Jewish army is called the Israel Defense Forces. Contrary to some passafist Christianity claims, I see no evidence to support a man’s holy right as a father and husband, brother or son to guard his family and loved ones, protecting his daughters, his home, his family – when Y’shua taught things of peaceful conuct, do not Shaolin monks of Kung Fu teach the same, that one must avoid at all cost hurting someone, but I see Y’shua in the verse above, saying soon I will be gone, soon I will be counted with the transgressors, soon I will die, resurrect and ascend and you all will have to do things without me here on this earth with you, before I send you with nothing, no money, no nothing, but now after I leave, you will go but this time with money, with as sackbag and with a sword, to defend yourselves and your family. Almost all Jewish fathers in Israel and in the Zionist yeshivas carry guns, because at any moment the lunatic Muslim Ji Had’s may attack, no father to be helpless as his children get murdered in from of him by a semi automatic, no, Y’shua does not preach in my opinion, that if someone tries to hurt our children or wives that we just sit there idlely and peacefully. No, Y’shua, just as he possibly had a sword in the Tanach when Joshua bowed down to him, now if giving permision for Dads and Husbands to be the protector of their families. I see nothing wrong with this teaching of Y’shua, nothing at all. Peace Danile, I hope I can give you confidence in these writings of the disciples of Y’shua. The Tanach was inspired by the Ruach HaKodesh, Holy Spirit, written by prophets, in the same way the Paul, Peter, Jacob (James), John, etc, are prophets of the same Ruach HaKodesh Holy Spirit. They accompanied there writings with great miracles signs and wonders that demonstrated that the true G-d of Israel through the Holy Spirit was speaking through them. Peace and blesssing and success to you all.
June 20th, 2011 @ 12:30 pm
All the “misunderstandings” in OT only lead to greater understanding of the Truth it espouses; by and large, NT contradictions are JUST THAT: empty contradictions.
June 20th, 2011 @ 12:34 pm
Eliyahu
I address most of your concerns in the Council of My Nation http://yourphariseefriend.wordpress.com/the-council-of-my-nation/
June 20th, 2011 @ 12:35 pm
(Not that I believe in Rabbinic trash, either; the Karaites are much closer to the Truth than they are: how dare they add to the Words?)
June 20th, 2011 @ 12:37 pm
Daniel, even the passafist have no problem with that verse. They claim that because they are Jewish, every Jew needs a knife, the greek word here refers to a short blade type knife sword, which would be needed for Pesach, Passover when they roast the Lamb and need to cut it up and eat together, therefore two of these blades was sufficient for the Passover Lamb, to cut it up and eat. Another plausible interpretation. Peace and success to you Daniel in your journey for truth. Peace.
June 20th, 2011 @ 12:41 pm
Eliyahu,
Don’t tell me yuo actually believe what you just wrote; take it IN CONTEXT: He was giving them the NEW COMMISSION TO THE NATIONS, as opposed to their FIRST COMMISSIONING TO ISRAEL. Don’t defend your pretty little book; it isn’t perfect, and it isn’t Divinity. Test all things; keep what is good.
June 20th, 2011 @ 12:45 pm
Dr. Brown
If indeed they are the same (Yeshua’s statements and Isaiah 53)then why is it that TODAY yeshua’s statements are understood by everyone while Isaiah 53 is not “understood” by everyone?
As for your question concerning the difference between my view of you and your view of me – I think it would be the difference between the way you describe people coming to Yeshua (you provide 2 options – either I was sinful and refused to see – or the scales came off my eyes)as opposed to the way people who leave Yeshua desribe their journey – they speak of their previous ignorance (I’ve heard “I studied my way right out of Christianity), their natural bias (I’ve heard one person explain taht when his income was from the ministry – the same questions had less of an appeal to him as opposed to when after he left), and overcoming a fear of thinking in certain directions – I haven’t heard anyone describe the journey to Judaism with the metaphor “it was as if scales came off my eyes”
June 20th, 2011 @ 12:54 pm
Dan1el,
The God who inspired the writings in the OT is the same God who inspired the writings in the NT.
Why are you so confused? What are you really after or questioning? Why you doubting?
June 20th, 2011 @ 1:04 pm
Debbie,
I don’t want to believe in a lie, and get in trouble; but, rather, the Truth and be safe.
The NT is utterly imperfect, and is devoid of the grace of the OT (since it was written by “men of old” who spoke as the Spirit moved upon them).
Let me just tell you by experience that the
OT feels like a surgeon addressing my faith needs (even needs I forgot I had) as I read the OT Scriptures, but the NT has an entirely different feel to it.
For instance, Deut 24:10-15 taught me the precept that “the HIGH GOD is LISTENING, HE HEARS, HE CONSIDERS, HE METES OUT JUSTICE and ANSWERS PRAYERS – DO NOT THINK HE IS FAR OFF OR CANNOT HEAR” … that isn’t to say that I don’t forget that at times, but it is UNCANNY the POWER and GRACE that accompanies those Scriptures so as to teach you things IN PASSING that it wasn’t even MEANING to teach; I’m being taught from the OVERFLOW and the RAFTERS, BEYOND what is more succinctly being taught. The words in the NT just have a hollow ring too many times, but these words are alive.
June 20th, 2011 @ 1:06 pm
Daniel, I guess you have already, it seems, decided that the writings we have today, NT, are not inspired by the Holy Spirit, you gave your first evidence to support your claim, why would Y’shua give permission to his disciples to carry a moneysack, sandals and a knife. Your claim is that this is evidence for people to come to the conclusion, similar to Muslims, that some parts in the NT you can trust and some parts you can not. What I am trying to figure out is why is it wrong for Y’shua, or what is it about Y’shua that is so wrong – to explicity confirm to his disciples that carrying a knife is o.k, Y’shua says that it is fine, (Y’shua is not telling his disciples to go murder people, like the Crusades) Y’shua’s disciples are only going to use a knife only with righteous intentions, the Torah writes, the OT, that you value so much, which is good, that one is allowed to carry a knife, so I just don’t see evidence here to support claim to call this verse bad or evidence of lies or untruth and the Torah writes that one is allowed to injure with his knife in defence of his life or his families, I just do not see what is wrong with Y’shua teaching according to the Torah that you so greatly trust. Peace.
June 20th, 2011 @ 1:06 pm
Dan1el, if you claim that alleged NT contradictions are empty contradictions, you are certainly not a follower of Jesus, since you reject His word and witness. We’re happy to help you see the truth, but at least we have a context in which to reach out to you. Did you read my article?
June 20th, 2011 @ 1:08 pm
Although I believe the NT lacks the supernatural “benefits” of the OT (meaning, that not every single word can be counted on, and benefited from), I still do believe the BASIC IDEAS that the NT espouses.
June 20th, 2011 @ 1:11 pm
Dr. Brown,
#1 Yes, I read it, and I posted back to you.
#2 What?? Like I said, the Lord called me a “straggler”, so I’m not a class-A (like you), though I wish I were; but I know what I am talking about. If you come to a place where NO ANSWER can be offered for the contradiction OTHER THAN it being a CONTRADICTION, what am I supposed to say? Yes, there are SOME contradictions that are NOT contradictions; I don’t mean those!!! (Saved by faith not by works, etc.,)
June 20th, 2011 @ 1:14 pm
Eliyahu,
Brother, I never said that; I only said that I cannot LEAN on the NT as much as I can on the OT. I believe SOME of the writings to be infallible and inspired by the Holy Ghost (though the exact END to which they were written were entirely different than those of the OT, perhaps why the anointing on it is different); but not ALL, WHOLESALE. I’m not stupid, and I won’t be deceived by this book that men have created. Why do they quote from Enoch’s book, but leave it out? Let’s get real: what is the establishment? The TRUTH; and when the TRUTH GUTS out a lie, LET IT BE GUTTED OUT; let it go.
June 20th, 2011 @ 1:18 pm
However, Dr. Brown is right; I do lack patience and humility some times in approaching Scripture (and NT “Scripture”).
June 20th, 2011 @ 1:18 pm
Daniel,
Do you think we want to get into trouble too? No.
You definitely seem to go through periods of confusions since I met you on this forum. You need to trust in someone. It is impossible to please God without faith. That means faith in His word.
We are here for you Daniel.
June 20th, 2011 @ 1:27 pm
Debbie,
Yeah, definitely; I wonder how many have fasted and prayed for me?
I want to trust God’s Word; but I find that some of what is CALLED “God’s Word” is NOT His Word, AT ALL. Especially, this writer, Luke – his writings are full of mistakes.
You call the Bible “His Word” because you were told that; but have you tested it? Have you questioned it? No; you trust it wholesale, as if it were God (forgive any irreverence or disrespect): WAKE UP! How can you entrust your eternal soul to a book which has FLAWS in it? This is ridiculous!
June 20th, 2011 @ 1:34 pm
Daniel I never fasted in my life. I prayed for you plenty of times before in the past w/o your knowledge.
I wasn’t told it. I read it. I believed it.
Daniel,
The bible has zero flaws. Who is filling your mind with all these lies? That is scary stuff coming out of you, what the heck.
Lord I pray your truth and wisdom will fall upon Daniel. I pray peace. In Jesus name.
June 20th, 2011 @ 1:44 pm
Deb,
Sometimes, the Truth is scary. Honestly, though, its easier to fuss about these inconsistencies in this book, than it is to deal with the inconsistencies in my own life; so… yeah, please pray for me…
June 20th, 2011 @ 1:46 pm
my “unjust balances”
June 20th, 2011 @ 1:47 pm
Dan1el,
You wrote:
“The OT is impeccable; but, the New Testament is not faultless.” And: “The New Testament has many such problems; it isn’t anywhere near equal to the OT.”
If you are looking for things that appear to be discrepancies, the OT has it’s fair share. Have you noticed the fact that Exodus seems to say that the patriarchs did not know YHWH’s name, but we find Abraham naming a place YHWH Yireh and many other instances of YHWH’s name being used. (Ex. 6:3; Ge. 22:14) We have a seeming discrepancy in sizes of the molten sea in Solomon’s temple. (1 Ki. 7:26; 2 Ch. 4:5) Etc., Etc., Etc. I have a book called Alleged Discrepancies of the Bible by John W. Haley. It contains 436 pages of supposed problems with the scripture, both old and new, and answers as to why they are not real problems with the infallibility of scripture. There are approximately twice as many OT problems than NT problems that he discusses.
You wrote:
“Luke is the ONLY record of the criminal repenting on the cross (in the other two, he is recorded as blaspheming Jesus)”
Did it occur to you that different writers include different things in their accounts to bring out what they thought was important or because they remember a different part of the story? If all the gospel writers said the exact same thing, would that not prove that their testimony was doctored up by someone? You and I would not tell a story the exact same way. You or I would likely tell different versions of the same event to different audiences. We might even leave out certain specifics in different cases, depending on our purpose for telling the story. I have, just recently, produced a chronology of the Gospels where I have the different accounts of the same events side by side. I have been going through this with my family, and we have discussed the differences. We have not found any of the statements to be falsified by an other’s account. We have a much greater understanding and appreciation of the stories that are related in the gospels than we did before.
You wrote:
“In 1 Cor 14:22, it appears Paul (or his writer) got tongue-twisted:
22Tongues, then, are a sign, NOT for BELIEVERS, but for unbelievers; prophecy, however, is for BELIEVERS, not for UNBELIEVERS.”
23So if the whole church comes together and everyone speaks in tongues, and some who do not understanding or some unbelievers come in, will they not say that you are out of your mind?
24But if an unbeliever or someone who does not understand comes in while everybody is prophesying, he will be convinced by all that he is a sinner and will be judged by all,
25and the secrets of his heart will be laid bare. So he will fall down and worship God, exclaiming, “God is really among you!”
First, he says that tongues was a sign for unbelievers, but AFTERWARDS, he says, in essence “What use would it be if an unbeliever walks in and you’re all speaking in tongues? Wouldn’t he say you were crazy? BUT IF YOU’RE ALL PROPHESYING, and an unbeliever walks in, it will definitely aide in his salvation,”
thus disproving himself, since “speaking in other languages”, he said (at first) was a sign to UNBELIEVERS – but, when you put the word “BUT” in verse 24, it shows an opposite value on the next statement, juxtaposed against the previous idea.”
You are missing the point of what Paul says. A sign is not necessarily a good thing. Paul even quotes Isaiah to show this. (1 Cor. 14:20)
Isaiah 28
11 For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people.
12 To whom he said, This is the rest wherewith ye may cause the weary to rest; and this is the refreshing: yet they would not hear.
13 But the word of the LORD was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little; that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken.
14 Wherefore hear the word of the LORD, ye scornful men, that rule this people which is in Jerusalem.
15 Because ye have said, We have made a covenant with death, and with hell are we at agreement; when the overflowing scourge shall pass through, it shall not come unto us: for we have made lies our refuge, and under falsehood have we hid ourselves:
16 Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD, Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner stone, a sure foundation: he that believeth shall not make haste.
This is exactly what happened in Acts 2. The scornful/mockers did not understand the tongues and thought that the people speaking were drunk. The devout Jews from the surrounding countries were given the gift of interpretation. The tongues were a sign to the unbelievers/mockers that caused them to fall backwards, to be snared and taken. They stumbled over the Corner Stone just as Paul indicates. (Rom. 9:32)
Prophesying is the equivalent with tongues and interpretation. It serves those that believe/the devout. But since we are to either prophesy or only speak in tongues if there is an interpretation during an assembly, a nonbeliever will obviously understand the message if he happens to be at one of our gatherings. Paul’s point is to be sure to do things that edify one another, and he does not want us to cause one another to stumble. An unbeliever would benefit from our loving concern that we bless and edify each other in our assemblies.
Romans 14
13 Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in his brother’s way.
There is no discrepancy if we understand that a sign is not a good thing.
Matthew 16
4 A wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given unto it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas. And he left them, and departed.
Shalom
June 20th, 2011 @ 2:01 pm
Daniel, either your message is true and you come as a messenger of G-d, and I must repent and others here as well, for not seeing flaws as you see. My friend, she has dedicated her life to Greek, and she honestly feels that there is no reason at all from her expertise to see any contradiction in the NT, and this is her life, her career, her proffesion, but I am giving you the benefit of the doubt, you first mentioned the sword thing, I can not see how that is contrary to Torah, but in the opposite, proves how Torah teaching Y’shua was. You raised the question of the NT quoting the book of Enoch, you appear to be saying that if NT quotes it, should it not be apart of the Protestant Bible books? Is not the Book of Enoch also writings of true utterances maybe even prophetic like the Tanach.
There were many early church leaders that agreed with you.
Enoch is considered as Scripture in the Epistle of Barnabas (16:4)and by many of the early Church Fathers as Athenagoras, Clement of Alexandria, Irenaeus and Tertullian who wrote c. 200 that the Book of Enoch had been rejected by the Jews because it contained prophecies pertaining to Christ.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Enoch
The Ethiopic Orthodox Church even today, claims and holds this same view – Enoch to be prophetic and Holy Spirit annointed, part of their Scriptures. Now Daniel, if you feel that Enoch is prophetic or annointed by G-d, by His Spirit, then maybe you should consider the Ethiopic Orthodox Church. But you do not see them say, “since we believe in the 1 Enoch, we will now accuse Eliyahu of defending a pretty little book, full of flaws”. I can not see how proving that 1Enoch is written with true prophetic annointing, with the same Spirit of Truth as the NT (Protestant NT or Catholic NT), in no way proves to me that the NT has a flaw. On the contrary, if the book of Enoch which may be truth, annointed by the Holy Spirit as true prophet messenger type writings from Elokim – than would not the NT be even the more so. Do you see my point. The Ethiopic Orthodox Church continues to believe that the books in the NT are inspired by the Holy Spirit, truth, testimonies; remember, by the Blood of the Lamb and by the Word of their testimonies (Revelations). I just have not found evidence from you yet to repent from my faith and logic. Peace.
June 20th, 2011 @ 2:02 pm
Eliyahu,
#1 The stumbling stone was NOT tongues; it was the double-edged Law that can be a blessing or a curse, depending on whether one uses it “lawfully” or not.
#2 If there is a discrepancy in the size of the sea, (which wasn’t even ordained of God), I don’t care that much; I haven’t researched it, though this book you speak of sounds interesting.
#3 Abraham not knowing YHWH by His Name could be easily understood – only GOD reveals Himself (and does so IN MEASURES, whensover He pleases). We don’t know whether the emphasis which Abraham had on that name was on the JIREH part or not. There were priests of YHWH on earth BEFORE the Levites (Melchizedek was one; the Chinese were monotheistic for at least a couple thousand years, if I’m not mistaken, before General Chin unified the warring clans, and they introduced polytheism [which idea shocked the minds of the monothestic elders], burning and destroying all information having to do with there being a single God).
YHWH reveals His Name to MOSES in the mount; this never happened for Abraham (at least it wasn’t recorded). There are many dimensions to what this
“Name” means (and what it means for it to be revealed); so, let’s just bask in the depth of this Law and Word, and enjoy it.
#4 No; the religious Jews were not given any interpretation by the Spirit; they were actually FROM those areas, and therefore, they understood – since the grace to speak in other langauges was given SPECIFICALLY FOR THEM.
The problem stands: he misspoke, putting into question everything written, once again.
I think you need to look at the question again, and see that he mis-addresses it.
Eliyahu, signs are given as a gift of the Spirit for those who do not believe, they were part of Paul’s ministry, etc., etc., etc., …
June 20th, 2011 @ 2:06 pm
Eli,
Please, do not call me any title… Dr. Brown deserves more respect and follow-ship than I; I’m just a brother bringing up a point…
June 20th, 2011 @ 2:08 pm
(The point I was making about Abraham not knowing YHWH by His Name, and yet naming it YHWH JIREH, was this: since it was KNOWN that there was a YHWH at the time, people could say His Name without TRULY knowing it – just like I can use words without knowing their true meaning.)
June 20th, 2011 @ 2:32 pm
Dan1el
You had me mixed up with Bo. I do not see discrepencies in the Tanach either. Bo does not either, he was merely trying to say that the NT evidence you gave to prove the NT, espeacially in Luke, unrealible can be easily understood logically and grammatically. Bo answered (paraphrazing) with, “to me this does not faze me”, Bo sees no contradiction here – speaking in tongues is a gift that is a sign but speaking in prophecy edifies the unbelievers and believers far greater. Why? Paul Shaul says he speaks in tongues more than anyone, yet condemns the practice of speaking in tongues in community gathering services (church) unless there be interpretation, why?, because the teachings of Paul are that it (toungues of the Holy Spirit) are at times angelic tongues, at times human languages but they edify the one speaking it. How is it a sign to unbelievers? It is just that a sign. You have miracles, signs and wonders, Paul calls it a sign, now, it especially was a useful and beneficial sign on Pentecost Shavuot when Peter and his disciples began to speak in tongues of other people’s languages, what a miracle! How many thousands unbelievers became beleivers that day? Quite a few, but nonetheless, when speaking in tongues, the Holy Spirit is speaking and edifying your own spirit and soul, it is not very useful for unbelievers or believers unless there is an interpretation. Prophecy is for others – believers and believers – and tongues is for one’s personal self, but it is a sign of Holy Spirit’s empowering. Peace.
June 20th, 2011 @ 2:33 pm
Eliyahu,
I’ll give you permission you can say my name…Deb or Debbie, just don’t call me Debra.
The show I do. Well, its all volunteer. I work for the Lord without getting paid.
Thanks for calling me friend. Daniel is our friend too.
June 20th, 2011 @ 2:39 pm
Eli & Bo,
Sorry for the mix-up!
All I said was that the Book is FLAWED, so you have to test it, and see which books are trustworthy and which are not, since it is a patchwork; I never said that it contained NO inspired text, but I will say that I’ve had completely different experiences with the OT and NT, and prefer the ones frmo the OT.
June 20th, 2011 @ 2:42 pm
Dan1el,
You are answering the wrong person. You are also not paying close attention to what is written in Acts 2 and 1 Cor. 14. It does not say that they spoke different languages, but that they heard them in their own languages. Paul confirms this in 1 Cor 14:2 when he says that no man understands someone that speaks in tongues. I want to know why only the mockers did not understand. Do you really think that mockers only live in Jerusalem and that none of them were from the other places? Do you really think that there were no devout men that spoke Hebrew/Aramaic?
I have studied the Bible for over 30 years and have found no true discrepancies in the OT or NT or between the two. Translations into English have real discrepancies with each other though. The Greek and Hebrew solve many supposed problems.
I have spoken to a Hebrew scholar that thinks that the passage in Exodus is a question not a statement. “By my name YWHH, have they not know me?” But even that does not matter, as you have proven that you are willing to give the benefit of the doubt to the OT writers while holding the NT writers to a stricter standard. This is shown by you posts 264 and 266. Try to find logical or textual reasons for the continuity of the NT, and I think you will be just as good at solving the apparent problems. Or you could be as critical of the OT as you are of the NT and become an atheist.
Shalom
June 20th, 2011 @ 2:50 pm
Bo,
Just because I admit to making a mistake, you’re going to throw that in my face? “Not only did you not pay attention here and now, but also you did not pay attention closely to Acts” – wow, thanks!
#1 You are definitely correct that I give the benefit of the doubt to the OT, since all the Apostles (including the Great Apostle, Jesus) leaned on the OT Scriptures; and the NT “Scriptures” didn’t exist then.
#2 The men were speaking in various languages, and there were men from various places to whom those languages belonged, glorifying God in their native languages.
#3 About it being a question: if what this Hebrew scholar is saying is absolute Truth, I’m glad we have a definite answer for that apparent contradiction; the few contradictions we have for the NT, however, won’t go away.
#4 I never go about to prove a book or writing to be true, only the TRUTH ABOUT THAT BOOK OR WRITING, FIRST (unless it gives no reason to be put in question like that). IF the book cuts the muster, then
June 20th, 2011 @ 2:50 pm
Debbie,
I do call you friend, and I often do not do a professional style of academic writing which does lead to my writings to be hard to decipher, especially when I am spelling everything wrong and leaving out words. Now to the friend that I was reffering to – she is a professor of Greek, a highly known Greek scholar – who is a scholar in every sense of the word, she had dedicated her life, she is a grandmother now, to the study of Greek, New Testament Greek, and with full confidence, from her perspective, she has seen no reason to disbelieve the NT or see any contradictions, and remember, this is her career, her profession, her expertise, her life’s passion, she has all the variations of NT and sees no contradictions, no reason to disbelieve the NT as a reliable source of Truth, accurate testimonies and sources. That was my point, she is fluent in Greek, she reads NT in its original form we have today of Greek – no contradictions she says. But Debbie, I do call you friend, and I do call Dan1el as friend too. Peace and blessings
June 20th, 2011 @ 2:56 pm
Eliyahu,
Many “theologians” stood idly by while Hitler imposed his beliefs, even in the Name of God, on the Jews; Martin Luther, the scholar and theologian, who said “Sola Scriptura” IGNORED Scripture that was EASILY available (and not some coded hidden mystery) in Chapter 11 of Romans when he spewed vitriolic words against the Jews. Just because someone (even if the person is a scholar), has an opinion doesn’t make it fact.
Need we be reminded of the SCORES of theologian in the Catholic camp who hold dogmatically to Marian doctrines, blasphemous as they are?
June 20th, 2011 @ 3:00 pm
Daniel
You are absolutely correct. The fact that she is a well known scholar in her field does not make her the all deciding factor. That is correct, but her testimony in my life has of somewhat importance, but that is why I also learned Greek, because I like you, want so much to not be deceived and to believe only what is true. Peace to you Dan1el.
June 20th, 2011 @ 3:03 pm
Rabbi Blumenthal,
You ask, “If indeed they are the same [Yeshua’s statements and Isaiah 53] then why is it that TODAY yeshua’s statements are understood by everyone while Isaiah 53 is not ‘understood’ by everyone?”
The answer is simple: The disciples were there to see Yeshua die and rise and then experienced the empowering of the Spirit, so his words became indisputably clear to those who heard them. Those who have also witnessed the reality of his death and resurrection see Isaiah 53 just as clearly. In contrast, a traditional Jew denies the authority and accuracy of the NT and denies that Yeshua died for our sins or rose from the dead, so, of course, Isaiah 53 is not understood to speak of him.
You say, “I haven’t heard anyone describe the journey to Judaism with the metaphor ‘it was as if scales came off my eyes’,” in which case, I’m assuming that you do NOT pray for me the way I pray for you, namely, that God would open your eyes to see the truth? I don’t mean that my prayer is better than yours, but I’m simply trying to understand your perspective. And if after decades of my interacting intensively with the rabbinic community – including thousands of hours of reading and listening and studying and dialoging and debating – I am now as committed as ever to seeing my fellow Jews come to faith and probably seeing more fruit now than at any time in my life, what does that mean from your perspective?
From my perspective, looking at your life (or Eli Cohen or other counter-missionaries), I don’t doubt your sincerity and zeal and I hope you’re not sinning against revealed light, and I pray that God would open your eyes. From your perspective, looking at me, do you feel I just haven’t been logical enough? Honest enough? Humble enough? I know you don’t judge my heart, but what’s your perspective?
June 20th, 2011 @ 3:08 pm
Eli,
Even someone’s life and testimony doesn’t mean their doctrines are true: it was either Finney or Spurgeon (you probably know which I am talking about, and I’m sure Dr. Brown would) who was a dominionist. Was their life full of good fruits? They were men of God; but men of God with incorrect beliefs, nonetheless.
Like I said, its easier to see the inconsistencies in the Bible than to deal with the ones in my life; I’d rather fix the ones in my life – and as for the Bible’s errance, it is a settled issue for me.
June 20th, 2011 @ 3:09 pm
Dr. Brown
I reflected a bit more on your question: what is the difference between my view of you and your view of me?; some more clarity came to me.
First – the time you spend teaching about it.
Second and more important – is the upshot. Your aproach discourages open and honest dialogue – if we are spiritually blinded then our conversation is essentialy fruitless – you can believe that you put down as much clarity as possible – but we still don’t get it. My approach on the other hand encourages our conversation – I sincerely believe that with more clarity – you will understand – your not understanding encourages me to dig deeper and discover more clarity.
in short – your approach discourages open honest dialogue while mine encourages it.
June 20th, 2011 @ 3:14 pm
Eliyahu,
Forgive me for misunderstanding your post. I do agree with your friend who studied the NT. I also see no flaw in it too.
Thanks for clearing things up my friend.
June 20th, 2011 @ 3:16 pm
Dr. Brown
To answer the last question in your most recent post – my most common prayer is that God grant me and my community the clarity to be able to help you. My perspective on you is that at this point in your life the questions that you have against my belief system are stronger to you than the ones against your belief system. I beleive that with honest open discussion – we could alter that balance. When you bring up the “blindness” I feel that it closes the discussion – how many Christians have I began to interact with (some on this blog)- who pull out of the conversation early on – because they don’t seem to believe in the effectiveness of the conversation – and they haven’t gotten to square one of understanding Judaism.
June 20th, 2011 @ 3:22 pm
Sheila
I am not offended by your question about the holocaust – I do believe that our suffering is because of our sins – but I do find it incredible that people suggest that it is the “sin” of rejecting Jesus that was at fault over here – as I said in the past – if that sin brought the holocaust upon us – I thank my heavenly Father that it effectively prevented us from being the perpetrators.
One more point – the guilt of the Churches was not limited to “silence” – many denominations of Christianity preached the guilt of the Jew in corrupting the world – the innate inhumanity of the Jew, replacement theology and much more – the guilt of most Churches goes far beyond “silence”
June 20th, 2011 @ 3:59 pm
Dr. Brown & Others,
You can tell me I am not a follower of Jesus because of what I said; but that isn’t an answer to my contest at all: where is the answer to my questions on Luke, etc.,?
You’re defending the “Bible”, as if it was the establishment; the only thing that is established, and unmovable, and what I want to defend, is Truth, period.
However, feel free to keep believing as you wish, and I will go on with my life. I don’t need a response from any of you, as it will just be more drama like I’ve already seen. Thanks, and I love you guys.
June 20th, 2011 @ 4:30 pm
I know that my lack of mercy and love is actually an argument AGAINST the Truth (of God’s NAME and dealings with me), but God is merciful to me, a sinner; and I am laboring, together with the grace of God, to change… that is why I say that I must fight the discrepancies in my own life, rather than the easy job of tearing apart the NT, revealing its illegitimacy (which ever parts are).
June 20th, 2011 @ 4:49 pm
Dan1el,
There are actually simple and clear answers to all of these so-called discrepancies and contradictions, but this is not the thread or forum to discuss them. Your greatest need is for a solid circle of disciples who can help you grow in your relationship with God and solid local leaders who can speak into your life.
June 20th, 2011 @ 4:50 pm
Dan1el,
You have misunderstood my intent. I meant no insult or throwing anything in your face. My post was composed before you recognized the mistake and before Eliyahu posted. When I hit submit, all of the posts between yours and mine became apparent. I should have included a
, I guess.
Do you see that the actual reading of 1 Cor 14 and Acts 2 and Isaiah 28 all harmonize? Do you see that the discrepancy is not one of fact, but of perception?
I will not call you a nonbeliever if you have problems with the NT or the OT. I think that you will be in danger of being misled if you start throwing things out, though. I agree with you in part that the NT should be read with a solid background in the OT, otherwise some statements in the NT appear at face value to be in contradiction to the OT.
If we reject parts of the gospel accounts, how do we know what is true in them and what is not? By what standard do know if the one thief repented or not? Is it possible that he began to revile and ended as a believer? Is that not what happened to Paul and me for that matter?
That one writer did not include something does not make it false. We would have to throw out most all of John or most of all the other gospels, for they have very little in common except at the end. Even then, there are those that want to prove that they are in contradiction, when in fact they are not. We might nullify most of Torah because Moses did not say the exact same thing in each of His books. The different books of Moses were for different reasons, and thus contain different versions of the same time frames.
Exodus 20
10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:
11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
Deuteronomy 5
14 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, nor thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thine ox, nor thine ass, nor any of thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates; that thy manservant and thy maidservant may rest as well as thou.
15 And remember that thou wast a servant in the land of Egypt, and that the LORD thy God brought thee out thence through a mighty hand and by a stretched out arm: therefore the LORD thy God commanded thee to keep the sabbath day.
So was it because YHWH rested the seventh day or because YHWH delivered Israel from Egypt? Or both? The same person gave two different reasons. Is he like Paul contradicting himself? Or did neither contradict himself, but are they simply adding other information?
As you probably know, I reject both Christian and Jewish doctrines of men, and attempt to hold to the scripture alone as the basis for belief and practice.
Please point me to the exact parts of Luke’s accounts that you find so messed up. I will attempt a reconciliation. I am sure that someone has already seen it and answered it though. There is a reason that the NT and the OT have stood the test of time.
Shalom
June 20th, 2011 @ 4:51 pm
Dan1el
Mark 15:32
“Let this Christ, the King of Israel, now come down from the cross, so that we may see and believe!” Those who were crucified with Him were also insulting Him.
ὁ χριστὸς ὁ βασιλεὺς Ἰσραὴλ καταβάτω νῦν ἀπὸ τοῦ σταυροῦ, ἵνα ἴδωμεν καὶ πιστεύσωμεν. καὶ οἱ συνεσταυρωμένοι σὺν αὐτῷ ὠνείδιζον αὐτόν.
οἱ συνεσταυρωμένοι = hoi sunestauromenoi = the ones with having been crucified
hoi= the (plural form) (ho would have been the singular form)
sun = with stauromenoi = is a verb, called a perfect passive participle =
If he would of have said ho sunstauromenoi= the one with having been crucified = then people would be claiming that one Mark says one and Luke says two. So no if I was Mark, I too would have written it, as [hoi sunstauromenoi]
I am telling you right now from Greek that this can easily mean just one criminal even though it is in the plural, it is how both Greek and Hebrew work sometimes. Now, lets suppose, that the testimony here is referring to a two or more, (but doing that is making quite an assumption) since Mark has only briefly mentioned it, could it not be also very plausible that the testimony of Mark (not saying Mark was there) remembers in the plural one’s that died insulting him. This is very plausible, the crowd is insulting Y’shua, the ones having been crucified insulting him, this is plausible, it takes awhile to crucify someone, after even a couple minutes of insulting Y’shua, even after an hour, you start to see the disciples of Y’shua weeping, Miriam Mary weeping, Mary Magdelene weeping, this one then, (according to Luke) then has enough and rebukes the other one insulting Y’shua and says what he says and asks for Y’shua to have mercy and compassion on him. Imagine dying on the cross with two other people, when the crowd starts to insult Y’shua, what if you joined it and made fun of Y’shua too, but after a few hours or even minutes the insults of the other other guy get repulsive, you see Y’shua eyes, you see that he is the Mashiach, you ask him for his mercy in the afterlife. This is completely plausible, so is my first explanation. There is one other possible truth too, we can not assume that only two people crucified that day along side Y’shua, there could have been more, however, I personally assume not. Peace.
June 20th, 2011 @ 5:01 pm
Bo & Eliyahu,
According to Dr. Michael Brown, this is “neither the thread nor forum” (we shouldn’t speak about this on ANY thread), so, thanks a lot; but I want to respect Dr. Brown’s wishes (since it is his page and he is authority here).
June 20th, 2011 @ 9:20 pm
Dan1el, where there is an appropriate thread that deals with the authority of Scripture or alleged contradictions, feel free to raise your questions for others to interact with, but as stated (and I do appreciate your complying) not in this thread. May the certainty of God’s truth flood your life!
June 20th, 2011 @ 9:27 pm
Rabbi Blumenthal,
Thanks again for your posts. Although I’m not sure I’ll be able to respond to each of your comments to me, I will continue to do my best, recognizing that this is a sacrifice of your time too.
You wrote, “I reflected a bit more on your question: what is the difference between my view of you and your view of me?; some more clarity came to me.
First – the time you spend teaching about it.”
If you mean the time I spend teaching apologetics or Jewish evangelism, I’m not sure I follow you, since you could well spend more time working on counter-missionary material than I spend on outreach material. If you mean the time I spend teaching God’s Word as compared to the time you spend teaching Jewish traditions and Scripture, then again, I’m not sure I follow you, since you spend hours each day teaching rabbinic Jewish texts. So, I’m not arguing with you here. I simply don’t follow your comment.
You wrote, “Second and more important – is the upshot. Your approach discourages open and honest dialogue – if we are spiritually blinded then our conversation is essentially fruitless – you can believe that you put down as much clarity as possible – but we still don’t get it. My approach on the other hand encourages our conversation – I sincerely believe that with more clarity – you will understand – you’re not understanding encourages me to dig deeper and discover more clarity.
in short – your approach discourages open honest dialogue while mine encourages it.”
It would appear, then, that you misunderstand my approach. The reason I have engaged in endless hours of dialog and interaction is, first, because I believe in the power of God’s Word to touch hearts and minds; second, because I believe that we are whole human beings who think and reason and seek and pray, and therefore the way to the heart is often through the mind, and getting someone to become open to the truths I’m presenting can take place through serious intellectual interaction. That being said, at some point, God’s Spirit must open the understanding, but that is often happening in the midst of dialog, and the more a person opens himself or herself to God, the easier it is for them to receive insight from God’s Spirit.
The fact is that I’ve engaged in dialogs like this for decades, fully believing that this is part of the process God uses to bring a person to Himself.
In any case, the proof of the pudding is in the eating, as the saying goes, and you’ve known me for years now. Have I at any point discouraged our interaction? Have I not rather encouraged and welcomed it?
June 20th, 2011 @ 9:37 pm
Rabbi Blumenthal,
You wrote, “To answer the last question in your most recent post – my most common prayer is that God grant me and my community the clarity to be able to help you.”
Really, you would do better to pray that God would open my eyes to the truth — since you’re convinced I am outside of the truth in these key areas — since the thing you and your community do that would most drive me away (in the hypothetical event — God forbid! — that I ever questioned Yeshua as our Messiah and King) is hold on to thousands of man-made traditions that, as beautiful as many of them might be, are certainly not from above and are contrary to life in the Spirit.
You wrote, “My perspective on you is that at this point in your life the questions that you have against my belief system are stronger to you than the ones against your belief system.”
Perhaps a better way to say this would be that my certainty I have in my belief system based on walking with God and experiencing His goodness and reality these last forty years, coupled with the foundation of truth in His Word, allow me no possible reason to question Him for a moment, in contrast with the many reasons I have not to believe in rabbinic Judaism.
You wrote, “I beleive that with honest open discussion – we could alter that balance.”
First, our hundreds of hours of discussion have not altered my beliefs or thinking in the least; second, honest open discussion cannot diminish the reality of my experience in God through Yeshua, nor has a single scriptural argument been raised to me that has caused me to reconsider my beliefs.
You wrote, “When you bring up the ‘blindness’ I feel that it closes the discussion – how many Christians have I began to interact with (some on this blog)- who pull out of the conversation early on – because they don’t seem to believe in the effectiveness of the conversation – and they haven’t gotten to square one of understanding Judaism.”
Please correct me if I’m wrong, but I brought up the “blindness” issue in response to one of your video clips, then we pursued the discussion here. Am I wrong in my recollection? In any case, if someone told me I was blind, I would pray that God would open their eyes, and I would say to them, “Show me where I’m blind,” much as you have said here as well. But you must remember: With rare exception, you’re interacting with Gentile Christians here, attacking the one they love who saved them from sin and judgment, and who is more real to them than the air they breathe. And if they feel after some interaction that they will not be able to convince you of your error, they will probably pray for you, that God would be merciful to you and speak to your heart and mind, and they would see no reason to continue interacting, since you would have nothing to offer them by attacking their Savior.
June 20th, 2011 @ 10:26 pm
Dr. Brown,
Thank you for your counsel.
June 20th, 2011 @ 10:37 pm
Rabbi Blumenthal,
One minor clarification. When I wrote, “First, our hundreds of hours of discussion have not altered my beliefs or thinking in the least,” I meant in terms of you have any negative impact on my faith in Yeshua as our Messiah or causing me to question in any way before God the rightness of my faith as a Jew, not in terms of giving me further insight into traditional Judaism or helping me see where I was guilty of an oversight or imprecision in something I had previously said or written.
June 21st, 2011 @ 7:10 am
Dr.Brown
When I said “the time spent” – it was in response to your question about what is the difference between the way I think about your not understanding my position as opposed to your way of thinking about my not understanding your position
- “the time spent” – I meant the time spent teaching about this very subject – why it is that the other one doesn’t understand. I don’t spend time teaching my audience why it is that you don’t understand me – you do spend time teaching your audience why it is that I don’t understadn you.
You point to the endless hours spent in this discussion – my point is that these hours would be more fruitful if you would put aside the “blindess” teaching. This teaching discourages discussion. It discourages your audience to dig further. and between us – it sidetracks the discussion – and blocks it to a certain degree – it takes away from the appreciation of the logical argument – the appeal to truth.
June 21st, 2011 @ 8:05 am
Rabbi Blumenthal,
Thanks for the clarification. Since you’ve read every page of my five volume series, may I ask you how many times (if ever) I bring up the subject of spiritual blindness there? Also check out my 22 hour DVD/CD series on Countering the Counter-missionaries and see how many times (if ever) I bring up the subject of the spiritual blindness of Jewish people.
As far as I can recall, this present discussion (prompted, again, by a response to your video and to Michael Skobac’s video, then continued here in interaction with you) represents the most I have ever talked about this issue in my entire life and ministry, so I am simply responding to you and other counter-missionaries. Otherwise, it’s not something I spend time teaching Christians about. As for abandoning the teaching, that I won’t do, since it is taught in the NT, but again, in the larger context of the universal blindness of the human race without God’s intervening grace.
That being said, I’m happy to move on to other subjects unless you want to continue to press the blindness issue.
June 21st, 2011 @ 9:08 am
Dr. Brown
I want to make one more comment on the blindness issue – and I want to respond to the question in your last post. I’m not keeping track how many times you brought up the blindness issue – but I can say this – in our 300 page correspondence – you brought it up several times – which I found quite frustrating.
Here is that “one more comment” – as a leader – I would imagine that you see it as your responsibility to cultivate and develop a love for truth amongst your following. I imagine that this responsibility weighs extra heavy on your shoulders since you acknowledge that your community has accepted falsehood for truth for many centuries (I refer here to the teaching of replacement theology) – I am sure that you recognize that it is not enough to repent of the error alone (by exposing the error of replacement theology) – but a man of your calibre surely recognizes that repentance means going to the root of the sin. If a society could be preaching such an obvious falsehood for so long – something serious must be lacking in this society’s appreciation for truth. As a leader in this society – I imagine that you are looking for ways to enhance your community’s sensitivity to truth. Teaching about the concept of the universal blindness of all who don’t believe as you do – is NOT a positive step towards enhancing your community’s appreciation for truth.
If you want to move on to other subjects – please – I am anxiously waiting for a response on many questions – pick any one – or feel free to pose one of your own.
June 21st, 2011 @ 12:04 pm
Rabbi Blumenthal,
I wasn’t aware that the references to “blindness” hindered our interaction at any point over the years, but I’m happy to see any such references in our private email correspondence. Feel free to send them to me when you can.
As for what helps and doesn’t help my community to better understand and pursue truth, perhaps you perspective from the outside is not accurate?
In any case, I’m quite happy to move on from here to other subjects, but since I don’t generally get involved in the blogs here (for lack of time and because of the many potential discussion), I’d prefer to use my time to try to get back to working on my refutations to your articles, unless there’s something pressing that you raised here to me that you feel I didn’t respond to. If that’s the case, please bring my attention to it and I will try to respond ASAP.
June 21st, 2011 @ 3:21 pm
Dr. Brown
Perhaps my perspective from the outside is not accurate – perhaps
But perhaps your perspective from the inside is not accurate?
June 21st, 2011 @ 3:23 pm
Dr. Brown
I am just curious – do Christian teachers speak of a community-wide repentance in the realm of sensitivity to truth – in light of the fact that false doctrine (replacement theology) has been preached for so many years? If they do – could you please direct me to where I could find such teachings published or otherwise promulgated?
June 21st, 2011 @ 4:03 pm
Mr. Blumenthal,
With all due respect, you’re as likely to find a “community-wide” any-thing with “Christians” as you are to find a “community-wide” any-thing among (all) “Jews”.
Do you know how variegated the Jews are? (Of course, you do!)
Okay; the same thing goes with Christians: you can’t get all of them to do one thing, even if there are good intentions behind it (because we are imperfect, and disagree on doctrines, etc.,).
Correct me if I’m wrong, but it would appear as though (to me) you might be holding “Christians” up to your (arbitrarily-created) measure, which will “prove / show” whether “we” are really sorry; “whether or not we care”:
“If the Christian Community doesn’t do this thing that I say, then ALL Christians really don’t care” – am I misunderstanding you?
How could I ask all Jews, everywhere (secular, orthodox, etc., etc., etc.,), to do something comparable to what you’re asking? It wouldn’t be possible for (all) “Jews” to be put in the same position you’re putting (all) “Christians” with a different outcome than you’re finding with us, currently.
Sin is horrendous, and “uncalled for”; that is what the “extermination” of the Jewish people was – but, even more so is any single Christian who would attempt to use Biblical context to justify their hatred for a Jew, since our texts clearly delineate a “return” (of sorts) of the Jews into God’s favor; “…all Israel will be saved.” (that is, all who are left in Israel will be of the saved).
More than that, it attaches our very hope (the resurrection) with your (Jews’) acceptance of Messiah – “if their rejection of Him meant life for the world, what will their acceptance of Him be, but life from the dead (the resurrection).”
For one, those “Christians” who are anti-semitic are anti-semitic without a cause; and are most likely not going to listen to reason (if they don’t even listen to Scripture), either. They don’t even obey the teachings of the Apostles; I wonder how “saved” they really are… anyone who loves Jesus has a supernatural love for the Jews… no matter how much you hate us. (Netanyahu: “…they’re idiots (evangelicals); but they’re useful idiots.”)
June 21st, 2011 @ 7:08 pm
Yisroel,
She’Koach. I read your writings “Council of the Nation”. I thought you did a good job representing your view. I thought you used good logic. That is really all I ask anyone.
The Brit Chadashah and the Talmud can not both be from Moshe HaNavi. My Rabbi Y’shua and the Talmud rabbis can not both be speaking for Hashem. This is my evidence against the Talmud being from Hashem at least not the parts that condemn my Rabbi. Point blank, quite simple. The Talmud can not be from Hashem because it renounces the Brit Chadashah writings and my Rabbi Y’shua. I will choose my Rabbi Y’shua any day, any time, any place, my loyalty is with Y’shua HaMoshiach.
But you did a great job in your writings, seriously. Mazal Tov. Chatzlacha v Shalom.
June 21st, 2011 @ 7:30 pm
Yisroel,
You chose Talmud. R. Hillel in the Talmud teaches that you should stop waiting for a Mashiach. Why do you wait for a Mashiach if R. Hillel, says that it is pointless too, why do you believe in a Mashiach if R. Hillel says the only Mashiach is Hezekiah. If you admit to R. Hillel being wrong than you have to admit to other places being wrong too. Or do you think he could be right, no Mashiach ever again? Shalom Lecha.
I choose Brit Chadashah.
June 21st, 2011 @ 8:34 pm
Rabbi Blumenthal,
Re: post #296, perhaps, then, I have more insight into the yeshiva world than you do? I imagine you would have to say perhaps.
Re: post #297, I’m not aware of any time in history when the entire professing Church held to replacement theology, but I’m certain that statements have been made of repentance for this theological error, along with other errors. Is that specifically what you’re asking for?
June 22nd, 2011 @ 6:51 am
Dan1el
I wasn’t writing to condemn Christianity – I was asking out of curiousity as to how the repentance process works
June 22nd, 2011 @ 7:05 am
Dr. Brown
re. # 296 Not only would I say perhaps – but I would admit that in a certain sense for sure – at least to the degree that we should hear the criticism – besides – wouldn’t you acknowledge that after interacting with Christians for so many years – that I should be in a position to assess their sensitivity to truth? (- to some degree of-course)
re. # 297 – my question was regarding those churches that did teach it and now repent of their error – do they go to teh root of teh error?
Besides – I thought replacement theology camepretty early on in Church history – lets say in teh year 500 – is tehre any group that explcitly did not hold to replacement theology?
June 22nd, 2011 @ 7:44 am
Yisroel,
Ah, ok; I hope you remember that I wrote “– am I misunderstanding you?”: I was thinking maybe I read what you wrote wrongly. Thanks.
June 23rd, 2011 @ 12:19 pm
Yisroel,
The Talmud says that the Noachide Laws include abortion and homosexuality. What is your stance on Gentiles in the Unites States with all their abortion clinics? And what is your stance with all the Gentiles that are doing homosexual sexual acts? There are 1.3 million legal abortions per year in the United States. One of the Noachide Laws is to set up courts of Justice that will put into effect the other Noachide Laws (in Gentile lands). What do you feel is the American Jewish responsibility, whom, as being also children of Noah, would be in establishing true courts of Justice demanded by Hashem. In this case the United States courts and laws are in direct vioalation to the Talmud and thus to the Noachide Laws. The Gentile United States is supposed to abide by the Noachide Laws.
What are your thoughts on Shmuley Boteach, when he supports a Jewish gay relationship, as opposed to telling them that they should repent of homosexuality? (Let me further explain below)
Would you also support two Jewish men in their gay marriage (sexual relationship) or would you tell them that they should repent?
Shmuley’s argument is that no man should be alone (without a sexual partner), therefore, if they are gay and thus not attractive to woman then it would be better that they would not be alone (without a sexual partner) and thus, therefore be doing a Torah prohibition than to be alone and not be doing a Torah prohibition. Your thoughts, do you agree, disagree, kinda of do, kinda of don’t?
If the Talmud says that Gentiles should not do abortions of their children, should not also Jews not do abortions as the Noachide Laws are binding on the whole human race. Your thoughts on abortions when especially it is not life or death? As we know that one is allowed to break the Torah if it is life or death scenario.
What about a bisexual? Would you tell them they should repent, since, they will not be alone? Your thoughts? Shalom Lecha chaver.
June 23rd, 2011 @ 6:06 pm
Sorry I haven’t been able to keep up with a lot of the conversation on here and if I missed anything I apologize.
Dear Yisroel,
I was just listening to Dr. Brown’s lecture “Are the Rabbis right” on his RealMessiah website. (http://realmessiah.askdrbrown.org/listen/are-rabbis-right) I was really shocked at some of the things I was heard. I am sure you’ve heard this lecture before, what is your response? If you want, we can talk about one point at a time, but I am curious if you’ve made a response to this specific lecture. If so, you could just provide me with a link, if not, I’d love to talk about it with you.
Very interested to hear back from you my friend.
God bless you!
Eric.
June 23rd, 2011 @ 7:34 pm
Typo..
“I was really shocked at some of the things I was heard. ”
Should read: “I was really shocked at some of the things I heard.”
June 24th, 2011 @ 7:33 am
Eric
I understand that this lecture is what Dr. Brown addresses in his fifth volume – I am currently writing a comprehensive refutation to that volume – I can send you the unfinished document if you think it would help you – contact me at iblumenthal@yeshivanet.com
June 24th, 2011 @ 8:14 am
Dr. Brown,
Remember you told me that I needed to be a part of a local body? I tried that out last night, and went to a bible study which a brother was holding – we talked for almost 6 hours. I don’t really think it was for me, though: what do you do when you’re looking at all of these people, and you can’t see God? What is that worth?
June 25th, 2011 @ 9:22 am
Eliyahu, and/or Dr, Brown (time permitting),
I’d like to ask some very frank questions and I pray that you might have some answers.
1. First of all, do the Jews believe (the Orthodox as a whole) that the Gentiles would ever be brought under the Law of Moses? I’m asking this for the sake of some others.
2. Secondly, do they believe that God ever intended to include us in Israel’s salvation?
3. Do you think that, perhaps, they view Christianity as false because Messiah has delivered us from our sins too? That He came to redeem “all” of mankind as opposed to just the Jews?
Because, forgive me for coming right out and saying it, but, I get the feeling that they think we are ignorant of God because we don’t have the Talmud to explain the Scriptures to us. Sort of like, “Those who don’t know the law are cursed.”
4. Do you see that the failure of Israel before Messiah came to “declare His Name to the ends of the earth” was part of the LORD’s “own arm bringing Him the victory”? Instead of winning converts to the true God, they took up the worship of the pagan nations and so the Lord brought the knowledge of the true God to the ends of the earth by way of Messiah, Yeshua, because God so loved the whole world that much. Those “who were never thought of as ‘beloved’ are now called beloved too.”
5. Another thing is, the Talmud was written down hundreds of years after the earliest copies of the NT writings and I was wondering why if it was “passed down” by oral tradition is there not the mention of those priests who go all the way back to the time of Moses and after? Is there any mention anywhere in it of those priests who presided in the First Temple or the Second Temple period?
6. Another question. If the Talmud is true, why is there anything to even be debated at all? It seems it should have been settled when Moses first gave it, don’t you think? It should just say, “The LORD said to Moses…”, and then just list everything! Forgive me, but, it seems to me that they are forever looking for something that “was hidden” from the very beginning when it should have been perfectly plain for all of them (the priests and the Israelites) in the first place.
The Jewish identity, as the Rabbin say, was the “Revelation at Sinai” which they rightly claim was “given to all of Israel” by the mouth of God, correct? So, how in the world did the “direct” revelation give way to something “hidden” and not at all revealed at Sinai?! The revelation sort of disappears in a smoke screen.
7. Is it possible, that the Talmud arose in direct response to the Gospel and the New Testament Scriptures, as it first appears hundreds of years later than the Gospel age? It doesn’t seem to have Moses specifically stating anything as solidly from the LORD’s mouth to his ears and then from Moses mouth to the Priests ears. If it was part of Torah, why wasn’t it written down at the same time as the Scriptures were? What’s their reason for that? I would think it was only because it (the oral tradition) wasn’t meant to be given to the whole world, is that correct reasoning?
8. Do you believe that the Orthodox Rabbis “strive for debate and the pointing of the finger” to such an extent that the Talmud has, in a way, become an idolatrous obsession? It seems that the laws have become to them “precept upon precept, line upon line, until they have gone and fallen backwards.”
Honestly, it seems to me that they have taken the clear, written words of Scripture and turned them upside down and thoroughly added to them to the point where no one even recognizes the original text anymore. Just my personal observation. I’m wondering if the LORD who gave them would even recognize them.
If the Talmud’s origin was from Mt. Sinai, why does it never end? If it was an original revelation given with the Torah, it should have been settled, what, 4000 years ago. As you said a while back–how can anyone get away with adding to it?
Sorry, I know it’s a good many questions, but I’ve been hoping to find someone who began in that tradition and is, therefore, knowledgable enough to answer them. And Dr, Brown has also researched these things extensively, not that he has the time to engage with us here very often.
Thanks.
June 25th, 2011 @ 9:32 am
Daniel,
I pray that you are not chasing an “abstract” ideal. Jesus came to teach us plainly of the Father, “He and the Father are One,” and “whoever has seen Me has seen the Father.” You may be taking your eyes off of Him and chasing after another absolute that you won’t find anywhere else. I’m only trying to help you as I see you struggling with the weaknesses you see in all of us, who are, after all, only human.
In striving to find perfection, look to Jesus as your guide and keep your eye singular. Humankind is wrought with imperfections on this side of eternity.
I pray you find peace in Him.
June 25th, 2011 @ 9:47 am
Me–1. “First of all, do the Jews believe (the Orthodox as a whole) that the Gentiles would ever be brought under the Law of Moses? I’m asking this for the sake of some others.”
I see this as a reasonable interpretation of the Millennial Reign of Messiah, when “the law shall go forth from Jerusalem” and the Lord will “rule them with a rod of iron.”
Wanted to clarify that as I really put my foot in my mouth yesterday! Oh, but, “to err is human.”
June 25th, 2011 @ 10:22 am
I’m always amazed at how Jesus handled people. It was always according to God and his ways, no matter what we want to call them, whether it be laws, statutes, judgments, or whatever.
To call upon God but not recognize Christ Jesus, is completely contrary. Such a thing could never make any sense at all to those who have come to Christ because he is the way, the truth, and the life.
If a man really does call upon God, I can only trust that when Jesus is revealed, does appear, makes himself known in the heart of a man, no matter how that may happen, that he will be recognized as everything that God is, and everything that God produces in the life of a man.
Here in my English dictionary, under the first definition of the word recognize, it says, “to be aware of as something or someone known before, or as the same as that known. (to recognize an old friend after many years)”
Isn’t Jesus the clear, sharp outline of God himself, making the Father known in definite, explicit, and clear terms?
I trust that if a man really does follow God, he could not possibly miss Jesus when he does appear to him, and if a man really does seek to follow God, he will also really seek to follow Jesus when he appears to him.
And don’t we have the scripture making this promise to Israel? (Rom 11:26)
The scripture does tell us that Christ Jesus was in the world (in the Spirit) and that men like David really did connect with him.
David connected with him in Zion.
Whether a man goes to Zion or Zion comes to earth, there will be an interaction made, a connection, an experience.
June 25th, 2011 @ 9:47 pm
Hi Sheila,
I was just perusing your questions above about Orthodox jews and the Talmud.
I’m not sure I have any inclination to engage you in a dialogue about this but I do have 3 questions for you.
1) How many of the 2700+ pages of the standard edition of the Babylonian Talmud did you read before you formulated the opinions (specifically items 5,6,7, and
you articulated about the talmud in your comment above?
2) In your point 8, where you said, “Honestly, it seems to me that they have taken the clear, written words of Scripture and turned them upside down and thoroughly added to them to the point where no one even recognizes the original text anymore. Just my personal observation” I’m also curious as to how many Orthodox talmud-oriented Jews you have interacted with, in coming to this opinion.
2) If you would really like to know what Orthodox Jews believe about something, why don’t you pose your questions to an Orthodox Jew? If I was really interested in knowing what, say, fundamentalist christians think about something, I wouldn’t ask my Rabbi. I’d ask a fundamentalist christian.
June 25th, 2011 @ 9:47 pm
That smiley should have been an “8″.
June 25th, 2011 @ 10:15 pm
Yeah, the smiley guy really threw me off. Back with my thoughts tomorrow.
June 26th, 2011 @ 8:35 am
Goldberg–1) How many of the 2700+ pages of the standard edition of the Babylonian Talmud did you read before you formulated the opinions you articulated about the talmud in your comment above?
As I said it was only my observation of it, as in my first impression, perhaps much like your reading of the NT for the first time. (?) It’s all foreign to me in that it reads nothing like the OT does. I’d only been previously acquainted with particular paragraphs that others had pointed out and sent to me. Keep in mind, if you would, that every aspect of my theological reasoning is only a little more than three years old now. I came to faith about six years now. I wasn’t even familiar with the Christian Doctrine(s) before then. I’ve come a long way in a short amount of time only to realize I’m eons behind everyone else.
Don’t be offended by my personal observations, because I understand you know the Talmud as well as I know Botanical Latin, and I wouldn’t expect you to be as patient with my ignorant questions as Dr. Brown would. Every bit of this discussion is new to me. I would imagine that you don’t take in many inexperienced female goyim to teach Torah and the Talmud to. I do hope you have a sense of humor–as I already know the answer to that statement.
If you would like to comment, by all means do. I posed it earlier knowing you wouldn’t participate until after the Sabbath, but, as it was, no one else was attending either. Please jump in wherever you would like. I asked Eliyahu because he comes from that tradition and I wanted to garner a forthright opinion. Really I’d like to get absolutely as many opinions and answers as possible.
I don’t see where the number of pages in a book would qualify it as necessarily true, or worthy of my indepth study. Error can comprise anywhere from 1 sentence to a million. In the same respect, truth can be found in the most unlikely places. Many times from the mouth of babes. I don’t hear a lot of praise of God in it. There is the “Blessed be He”, but, I’m thinking about really getting down and shouting of “Thank You, Lord–you are awesome!” Do you know what I mean? Just lacking the pouring of the heart out to God for His manifest blessings. It just seems very sterile to me.
But in answer to your question, I have only read about 100 pages and even then I skipped around here and there. Very tedious. There are more than a few supernatural occurences going on in it. I thought one reason that the Rabbis rejected the NT was because of all of the supernatural elements to do with Jesus. Whereas the Talmud has past Rabbis mouths mumbling from their graves and people dropping dead over words spoken by men with shades talking to the living. I thought we weren’t to commune with familiar spirits (ghosts). Anyway, there seems to be too much reasoning going on if that makes any sense to you. I haven’t encountered, yet, very much heartfelt adoration of the Lord. Perhaps you can point me to it.
I do wish Moses had included in the Torah the part about Adam’s skin shining like our buffed fingernails before the fall. That is pretty interesting, reminds me of the transfiguration almost. I have also, since, read Christian commentaries that agree that Jesus was alluding to the teaching of the Talmud and possibly, the statement about Jesus “having never learned letters” could likely be an allusion to studying the Scriptures as the Pharisees did. As in, their traditions. That would have been question number 7.
So, I am now interested in those writings that speak to Messiah and in them having been written before Jesus and after. Those are the ones I am now looking into in my search of the Talmud. It would take a thousand lifetimes to learn all I would like, so, I was hoping to draw on others knowledge so I wouldn’t get way-laid from my own studies.
The rest are my “first impressions.” The Rabbis are asking questions about one thing to each other in the Talmud and then they will pull a verse out of another part of Scripture and apply it to their discussion. That can work at times but, if we started doing that with every verse, the original meaning becomes more than obscured. I understand that man “shall live by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of the Lord” and we should all meditate on our Lord’s words as He is the Word of God and all things in heaven and in earth are given into His hands by our Father. All judgment, too, is His to dispense. There is, however, no condemnation to those who are in Messiah, Yeshua.
June 26th, 2011 @ 10:03 am
Sheila,
Thank you for your resposne.
a couple of thoughts:
1) I never suggested that the length of the work in any way attests to its truth. I was simply trying to ascertain whetehr you were sufficently familiar with it to form a credible opinion.
2) You say you’ve read abot 100 pages. I assume you are referring to an English translation. May I ask what translation you’ve been using.
To be honest, I’m am not especially inclined to engage in a discussion about this with you.
I will leave you, though, with a repitition of a prior thought. You’bve asked some reasonable questions about the Talmud, it’s structure and the role it plays in Judaism. I have no doubt you will get a throrugh response from Dr. Browm. However, if you are truly interested in genuionely Jewish answers to your questions, temper the christian polemical answers you will get from Dr. brown with geuine Jewish perspectives from orthodox Jews. Their are many Jewish educational websites you can tap into for this.
Be well.
G.
June 26th, 2011 @ 12:12 pm
Goldberg,
Thank you for your considerate response. I looked into one online translation, but, it was so vulgar that I left it immediately and found another. I’ve been looking into this one: Bablyonian Talmud, by Michael L. Rodkinson, [1918], at sacred-texts.com If you recommend a better translation, I will certainly move over to it.
Thanks.
June 26th, 2011 @ 3:59 pm
Sheila,
“1. First of all, do the Jews believe (the Orthodox as a whole) that the Gentiles would ever be brought under the Law of Moses? I’m asking this for the sake of some others.”
The Law of Moses has laws for Gentiles, Jews, Jewish slaves, Gentile slaves, women, men, hermaphrodites, descendants of Aaron (priests) and Levites. The Noachide Law found in the Torah abides over non slave Gentiles outside and inside of Israel. A Gentile may be brought under the Law of Moses (613 commandments) if the Gentile first becomes Jewish. If they are still Gentile, then, they would never be under the entirety of Moses’ Law intended for Jews. Any prophetic futuristic Scripture verses, pointing to worldwide Torah observance would be why some teach that at some point in the future; most of the Gentiles will convert to Judaism.
“2. Secondly, do they believe that God ever intended to include us in Israel’s salvation?”
Salvation for a Gentile is being just and righteous as a Gentile, obeying the commands Hashem gave to Gentiles.
“3. Do you think that, perhaps, they view Christianity as false because Messiah has delivered us from our sins too? That He came to redeem “all” of mankind as opposed to just the Jews? “
No I do not. Judaism loves Gentiles.
“Because, forgive me for coming right out and saying it, but, I get the feeling that they think we are ignorant of God because we don’t have the Talmud to explain the Scriptures to us. Sort of like, “Those who don’t know the law are cursed.”
Many if not most Gentiles are ignorant (just my opinion). Most Christians, even, do not know how to read Hebrew or Greek. There is far too much ignorance. The Christians used to have it forbidden to read the Bible themselves as only the Priests were allowed to read it, and thus only they could teach it, everyone else had to take their interpretation and follow it. This is how the atrocities of the Crusades happened. Today, I see the majority of Christians, having never even read the entire Tanach or Brit Chadashah. The argument above, needing the Talmud to understand the Law, is better directed towards the Karites but not the Christians who do not even follow any Law of Moses, and are not required to, besides the Noachide Laws. With exception to the Jewish followers of Y’shua, only to them would this really be relevant.
“4. Do you see that the failure of Israel before Messiah came to “declare His Name to the ends of the earth” was part of the LORD’s “own arm bringing Him the victory”? Instead of winning converts to the true God, they took up the worship of the pagan nations and so the Lord brought the knowledge of the true God to the ends of the earth by way of Messiah, Yeshua, because God so loved the whole world that much. Those “who were never thought of as ‘beloved’ are now called beloved too.”
Yes sure, I do. Jewish Rabbis have often seen how Hashem used both Christianity and Islam to spread the Tanach to all the world.
“5. Another thing is, the Talmud was written down hundreds of years after the earliest copies of the NT writings and I was wondering why if it was “passed down” by oral tradition is there not the mention of those priests who go all the way back to the time of Moses and after? Is there any mention anywhere in it of those priests who presided in the First Temple or the Second Temple period?”
Yes, many names of Kohanim (priests) were recorded in the Talmud, Tanach, Brit Chadashah, even Josephus. The Mishna in the beginning of Avot and (in more detail) Maimonides in his Introduction to Mishneh Torah records a chain of tradition from Moses at Mount Sinai down to R’ Ashi, redactor of the Talmud and last of the Amoraim.
“6. Another question. If the Talmud is true, why is there anything to even be debated at all? It seems it should have been settled when Moses first gave it, don’t you think? It should just say, “The LORD said to Moses…”, and then just list everything! Forgive me, but, it seems to me that they are forever looking for something that “was hidden” from the very beginning when it should have been perfectly plain for all of them (the priests and the Israelites) in the first place.”
There is the Doraita (Torah commands) and there is De’Rabanan (Rabbinic commands). The parts being argued are from the De’Rabanan. Ezra instituted that the Torah have a fence around it. So the DeRabanan commandments can change because it is only a fence. The arguments are usually only De’Rabanan commands.
“The Jewish identity, as the Rabbin say, was the “Revelation at Sinai” which they rightly claim was “given to all of Israel” by the mouth of God, correct? So, how in the world did the “direct” revelation give way to something “hidden” and not at all revealed at Sinai?! The revelation sort of disappears in a smoke screen.”
The Torah was given to Moses and the people as a Trigonometry math book is given to students. Likewise the Oral Torah is the math teacher explaining the written Torah.
“7. Is it possible, that the Talmud arose in direct response to the Gospel and the New Testament Scriptures, as it first appears hundreds of years later than the Gospel age? It doesn’t seem to have Moses specifically stating anything as solidly from the LORD’s mouth to his ears and then from Moses mouth to the Priests ears. If it was part of Torah, why wasn’t it written down at the same time as the Scriptures were? What’s their reason for that? I would think it was only because it (the oral tradition) wasn’t meant to be given to the whole world, is that correct reasoning?”
Talmud Babylonian Temurah 14b, and, Talmud Babylonian Gittin 60b. Jerusalem Talmud Meggila 4:1, all point to the Talmud being forbidden to be written down. Halakha LeMoshe MiSinai, the rule from Moses from Sinai, is often said. The Talmud never mentions that it was written down as a reaction to the Brit Chadashah writings. But it does say that it was written down out of fear that the Torah would be forgotten in exile.
“8. Do you believe that the Orthodox Rabbis “strive for debate and the pointing of the finger” to such an extent that the Talmud has, in a way, become an idolatrous obsession? It seems that the laws have become to them “precept upon precept, line upon line, until they have gone and fallen backwards.”
I do not think that idolatry is the correct term. There is no worship of Talmud. The Karite Jews appreciate the Talmud commentaries yet do not hold to it as anything other than a commentary. It is a good source of historical insight into those past days.
“Honestly, it seems to me that they have taken the clear, written words of Scripture and turned them upside down and thoroughly added to them to the point where no one even recognizes the original text anymore. Just my personal observation. I’m wondering if the LORD who gave them would even recognize them.”
Only Hashem knows what Hashem thinks. The Karite Jews would have a similar inquiry.
“If the Talmud’s origin was from Mt. Sinai, why does it never end? If it was an original revelation given with the Torah, it should have been settled, what, 4000 years ago. As you said a while back–how can anyone get away with adding to it?”
Jeremiah 14:14, “”The prophets are prophesying falsehood in My name. I have neither sent them nor commanded them nor spoken to them; they are prophesying to you a false vision, divination, futility and the deception of their own minds.” Because the Talmud claims to be the true teaching of Hashem and the Brit Chadashah claims to be the true teachings of Hashem, I cannot claim both to be the true teachings of Hashem. Therefore, either the Talmud, is similar to the above verse from Jeremiah or the Brit Chadashah is similar to the above verse. “The deception from their own minds” is either referring to the Brit Chadashah or the Talmud. I am not claiming that that Jeremiah is literally prophesying about either the Brit Chadashah or the Talmud. I am saying that in likewise form, this is what has happened to either the Talmud or Brit Chadashah. I, like the Karites, have a hard time accepting the Talmud. Peace.
June 26th, 2011 @ 6:48 pm
M. Brown’s “Answers to Jewish Questions about Jesus” gives such insights in broad terms of Jewish community understanding, impact, and prejudice, where so. His long and short publications on these matters are most useful.
June 26th, 2011 @ 7:36 pm
Thanks again, Eliyahu. I very much appreciate your taking the time to answer all of my inquiries. There’s no other way to get an answer to some things except to come right out and ask. Personally I love studying the Word of God more than any other subject. There is always something to be discovered with the next reading. Thankfully there is a place for all of us in the Kingdom–I can’t wait to talk to Abraham and Sarah!
ESV – Isa 28:9 – “To whom will he teach knowledge, and to whom will he explain the message? Those who are weaned from the milk, those taken from the breast?
“From the mouth of babes, you have perfected praise.”
June 26th, 2011 @ 7:42 pm
Hi Jabez,
I’m just starting on Volume 5 of that series. Never delved into it before now.
I pray you are well.
June 27th, 2011 @ 6:21 am
Jabez
Are you aware that I wrote a critique of volumes 1 3 and 4 of Dr. Brown’s Answering Jewish Objections?
http://yourphariseefriend.wordpress.com/category/critique/
June 27th, 2011 @ 9:59 am
Sheila
I began writing a critique of volume 5 – it is not yet finished – but I can share parts of it with you – if you are interested you can contact me at iblumenthal@yeshivanet.com
June 30th, 2011 @ 8:58 am
Dear Goldberg,
You said: “I know a person who is utterly convinced that his pet cat is God. It’s not that he worships that actual feline anatomy, that is simply the vessel, in which He has become flesh. He simply believes that God’s spirit has become manifest in this particular tabby. (God can do that can’t he?) He sees in this cat a strength of spirit, humility, and oneness with the world, from which he derives great comfort and from which he is motivated to be the best person he can be.
So great is his conviction that he prays using the following formulation “Our Lord “whiskers” in whom we have found the true meaning of our existence”.
Is this man an idolator based on the Tanakh?
If so why?”
Could you tell me how this is relevant to Christianity, at all? I just don’t see the parallels. Perhaps we could zero in on your misunderstanding of the incarnation or the divine Messiah.
Blessings,
Eric.
June 30th, 2011 @ 9:10 am
Well, answer my question. And we’ll take it from there.
And keep in mind two points
1) I wrote this in reposne to your asking me wy I don’t think yeshua is from God (read IS GOD)
2) I am not asking whether you would consider this man’s belief system compelling. You would clearly consider him delusional. But this man does believe in the OT. So I am simply asking whether within the context of HIS own delusion, you would charge him with idolatry, and if so, on the basis of what OT verse?
June 30th, 2011 @ 9:19 am
Dear Goldberg,
To reiterate my last post, I don’t see the relevance of your question.
If you would like to discuss why I believe Yeshua is God or why you believe Yeshua is not God. (or cannot be God) I’d be more than happy to partake in that discussion with you.
Blessings,
Eric.
August 1st, 2011 @ 2:37 am
It is a paradox, the mystery of godliness shrouded in the words of the Hebrew Prophets of old. Every one from Moshe forward tells of the Prophet like unto Moshe, the eternal One placed on the throne of David, the one ‘cut off’ of Daniel, the Kingdom which will overtake all others, the one coming to speak out of the wilderness, the law coming forth from Zion, the nations coming to be taught with “G-d” in the land of the People of the Book, on and on.
This came from the chosen Land’s rural area to the chosen city, by way of the season of righteous repute. What Jeremiah declared started, and went out from the People to the world–out of compassion. Out of compassion. Out of compassion. Like a pearl thrown into the center of an pond thereafter: it rippled out from Jerusalem to the whole wide world. And, for every first visitation event, more will complete what is written. A voice was heard over the Land, spoken to the People. Let it be so.
August 1st, 2011 @ 2:58 pm
Based on the teachings of the Lubavitcher Rebbe.
Source:
http://www.chabad.org/parshah/article_cdo/aid/2741/jewish/The-Numerology-of-Redemption.htm
Can I get some thoughts on this please? Thanks.
Blessings to you all.
August 2nd, 2011 @ 11:48 am
*Based on the teachings of the Lubavitcher Rebbe.
Source:
http://www.chabad.org/parshah/article_cdo/aid/2741/jewish/The-Numerology-of-Redemption.htm
Does anyone have any comments on this?
(By the way – Dr. Brown, LOFradio, I had to change my e-mail address because for some reason whenever I posted anything on here (using my other e-mail) it would just delete what I said and brought me to the top of the page. Hopefully everything’s OK.)
August 2nd, 2011 @ 6:29 pm
Hello.
August 2nd, 2011 @ 11:14 pm
Strange, 13 is the number of depravity according to Illuminists, who have divided the American Calendar into 13′s — it is 6 (man) placed above God (7) — according to a former Illuminist (Doc Marquis), in his expose, “America’s Occult Holidays” (http://www.youtube.com/user/1156511?feature=mhee#p/u/38/DeK-O2FkRbI).
August 2nd, 2011 @ 11:15 pm
http://www.youtube.com/user/1156511?feature=mhee#p/u/38/DeK-O2FkRbI
*****
August 3rd, 2011 @ 3:11 am
12, 7, and 8 are numbers of completion in the Tenach. Once the altar is reestablished, who goes over its flames with the power of the air, and by what number?
August 3rd, 2011 @ 9:35 am
I guess the major point I was trying to point out was not the gematria, but the fact that these chassidic Rabbis taught (based on what the Lubavitcher Rebbe taught) that: “Yachid is a oneness that cannot tolerate plurality — if another being or element is introduced into the equation, the yachid is no longer yachid. Echad, on the other hand, represents the fusion of diverse elements into an harmonious whole. The oneness of echad is not undermined by plurality; indeed, it employs plurality as the ingredients of unity.”
I believe that opens the door to a complex unity within God/trinity, discussion. Strictly from a Jewish perspective. (as these Chassidic Rabbis are not secret Christians)
Blessings.
August 3rd, 2011 @ 10:59 am
So in Deuteronomy 6:4, the shema “Shema Yisrael Adonai Eloheinu Adonai Echad” – Hear o Israel, the Lord is our God, the Lord is one (echad)”…
Obviously, the rabbis are NOT teaching that there is more than one God. Nor do we (Christians) believe that there is more than one eternal God. But what they are pointing out is that there is a PLURALITY within the ONENESS of God.
I just found this amazing, sorry to repeat it so many times. I just want everyone to understand this point. So, we could quote Dr. Benjamin Sommer and the orthodox Rabbis could write him off as being a liberal, but could you say the same about these Chassidic Rabbis, or the Lubavitcher Rebbe?
I wonder.
August 3rd, 2011 @ 11:08 am
Just to restate the point here, in Deuteronomy 6:4, “Shema Yisrael Adonai Eloheinu Adonai Echad”, “Hear o’Israel, the Lord is our God, the Lord is one (echad)”
The Rabbis here are not saying that there is a plurality of “gods”. Nor do Christians believe this about God. What the Rabbis are saying here is that “echad” in this particular verse speaks of a plurality WITHIN the ONENESS of God. A plurality within the UNITY of God.
We could quote Dr. Benjamin Sommer, and the orthodox Rabbis can write him off as being a liberal. Sure… But, can we say that these Chassidic Rabbis or the Lubavitcher Rebbe ware all liberals? I wonder.
Sorry for posting this so many times, I was just very excited to find this and I would really like some interaction, or understanding from the traditional Jewish side of how they interpret the words of these Chassidic Rabbis teaching’ which was based off of what the Lubavitcher Rebbe taught.
August 4th, 2011 @ 5:20 pm
Whoa, I apologize for all the duplicates. I see my e-mail got fixed and everything I tried to type a few says ago finally came through.
Thanks for fixing my e-mail! I appreciate it!
November 5th, 2011 @ 11:29 am
Chuck,
I read your post about Jesus ceasing to be God for some time. The bible said that Jesus gave up his heavenly privileges for a little while being on earth and humbled himself submitting to the Father doing the will of God the Father. Jesus being one with the Father is part of the Trinity. Coming as a human being is to come in a position lower than God, what Jesus did to offer himself as a sacrifice. Note that a human is inclusive of the body with the soul and the spirit. When the body was sacrificed and blood was shed it is that Jesus died, as human beings die. Note the spiritual aspect of the person is eternal. God is not a man, the body Jesus came in died! God was still very present in the spiritual form when departed from the body like any of us will when we die. Jesus not only died but rose from the dead on the 3rd day. This new body is the kindof body that believers followers in Jesus the truth if God will have when we are resurrected from the dead. Jesus conquered death on the cross.
God bless you
November 5th, 2011 @ 11:39 am
Chuck,
Just to be very clear. Jesus is God, Jesus is the Son of God. The Father is God, The yHoly Spirit is God. They are 3 distinct persons being ONE. They are ONE God: Father, Son (Jesus) & Holy Spirit. Thus the term trinity.
November 5th, 2011 @ 11:49 am
and also to add to the above. Our sins lead to spiritual death. spiritual death does not lead to having the soul cease to exist but the soul is eternal and dying eternally. (not to forget when God made man he breathed His own breath). Jesus who is God who came in the flesh died physically and rose from the dead. There is life after physically dying to those who believe in Jesus. none of us is exempt from physically dying. What is born of flesh has to die. From dust we are made to dust we shall return. Thats the physical aspect of things. Jesus came to die to save our souls from the eternal death to come which all men deserve without the Grace of God. This Grace comes from Jesus who became the sacrifice and the Chief Priest.. Which means repentance and turning away from ones sins and living a live in Jesus.
February 7th, 2012 @ 1:09 am
[...] (You could read all of this in context – http://www.lineoffireradio.com/2011/06/09/dr-brown-answers-the-rabbis-part-2/#comments) [...]