Debate with Rabbi Shmuley Boteach
May 9, 2008 | 1,138 Comments
5/10/08: Debate with Rabbi Shmuley Boteach
Today’s show is comprised of clips from a debate between Dr. Brown and Rabbi Shmuley Boteach concerning “Did Jesus Die for Our Sins?” and “Is Jesus the Prophesied Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53?”. To order a copy of the entire debate on DVD with free shipping, click here: AskDrBrown Bookstore
Category:
Israel
Comments
1,138 Responses to “Debate with Rabbi Shmuley Boteach”
Leave a Reply
Listen Live 2-4
E-Newsletter Signup
Ask Dr. Brown
Subscribe to the Podcast
Station List
May 14th, 2008 @ 7:53 pm
I really appreciated hearing this. The Rabbi did not seem to respond to the claims that were made on Isaiah 42-53 as far as the suffering servant being in the singular, and he claimed the suffering servant was the Jews and that may sound good to a non-Christian,. I think any Jews present had to have been provoked to look into the matter a bit further.
I am kind of amazed at the lack of attention on this posting, and on the posting “why the Jews”. I mean, there has been less that a dozen responses to both while there are so many responses to the others. I gotta ask the question, with all our God chasing and zeal for revival, have we really been seeking the heart of God, or are we pursuing spiritual bells and whistles? I grieve at the blindness of Jacob, but it’s not just them it’s we, the church, who are blind. The issue of Jewish salvation is not a peripheral/ tangent issue.
WAKE UP!!
May 15th, 2008 @ 10:07 am
Dear Dr. Brown,
It surprised me to hear Shmuley say that Isaiah 53 applies to anyone who suffered for the cause of justice like Abraham Lincoln, Martin Luther King Jr., etc but not Yeshua. Then he argues that the same chapter applies to the nation of Israel as a whole. Doesn’t it sound ciontradictory.
Also, Shmuley was a student of the late Lubavitcher Rebbe. Doesn’t he know that when the Rebbe had a stroke and then later when he died most of the ultra orthodox Jews thought it was Isaiah 53 coming to life and some still believe that he will come back.
Infact, in the book ‘Jesus was a Jew’ by Arnold Fruchtenbaum, he clearly shows that it was not until Rashi that the view of the Rabbi’s changed regarding Isaiah 53. In other words, almost all the rabbis agreed that Isaiah 53 applied only to the Mashiach and not Israel as a whole.
I might be wrong, but what I learnt was that Rashi invented this theory only to refute the Christians of his time since Isaiah 53 accurately depicted suffering of Yeshua.
God bless you and your ministry.
Bijoy Thomas.
May 17th, 2008 @ 12:09 am
Bijoy,
Actually, Rashi did not create this view out of whole cloth. See vol. 3 of my series on Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus for more on this.
Joshua,
Right now, the subject of revival is red hot because of Lakeland, but the subject of Israel and the Jewish people is of perennial interest and will get plenty of attention in the coming days. Fear not!
May 18th, 2008 @ 2:40 pm
Mike,
thanks for the corrective nudge.
May 18th, 2008 @ 4:21 pm
Yes I agree the church is blind and will continue to be blind until they become a “House of Prayer” like the Messiah strongly revealed to us in His New Covenant! My Prayers that the Lord would send a Holy Word Revival that would expose Sins, Dead Works and False Teachings a.k.a Traditions, personal/Humanistic Interpretations.
The Lord promised that He will bless us (the Church) in order to make Israel
envies to turn and see their Messiah!
Thank you Dr Brown for your teachings, books, etc. May the Lord continue to prosper all of your work and service for His Glory among Israel and the Nations!
May 21st, 2008 @ 12:54 pm
Dr. Brown, Thank you so much for posting this. I am eager to purchase all of your debates with Shmuley.
I first heard about you while visiting Pensecola in 1996. God forever changed my life through what He was doing at that place. Moreover, your preaching and writing has been of great blessing in my walk with God.
blessings
May 21st, 2008 @ 6:14 pm
Bless you, William. Thanks! The Lord is faithful, and the best is yet to come!
May 22nd, 2008 @ 11:03 am
Dr. Brown,
I listened to the debate today and have listened to you two debating in the past. I have wondered about Schmuley…in private has he ever acknowledged that you do have some good points about your views on scripture regarding Jesus or does he always keep up his traditonal line??
Second, he does come across as a debater who likes to use emotion and not as many hard facts… does he use emotion on purpose?
May 22nd, 2008 @ 4:39 pm
Lord, save Schmuley radically, bless him in giving him eyes to see, ears to hear and a heart that understands. In Your mercy turn his heart to you, do this for the honor of your great Name. In Jesus Name, amen.
May 22nd, 2008 @ 11:41 pm
Asha,
On a personal level, Shmuley speaks very highly of me, both privately and publicly, so he’s very gracious there, and we are friends, and he certainly knows how to turn on the rhetoric and push the emotional buttons when he debates. But the rhetoric does reflect his actual convictions as a traditional Jew, so things might be amped up during the debate, but only in keeping with his beliefs.
June 25th, 2008 @ 6:53 pm
Dr. Brown,
I hate to admit it but every single time you debate a member of the Orthodox community I cringe. It seems “almost unsporting” to quote Drazin. It’s like a title fight between Muhammad Ali (in his heyday) and Sammy Davis Jr. While a few others have at least made your debates interesting, Shmuley seems to be particularly poor at answering your contentions in any serious way. Being raised in the Messianic Movement, I have heard virtually all of your debates…..this one has got to be the worst of all in terms of lop sidedness. Shmuley seems to be working to make you look good! Tell me, what sort of response do you get at these debates from Shmuley’s supporters?
Ant
June 26th, 2008 @ 1:52 pm
Just to clarify the above statement….what nI mean is that I feel sorry for the anti-missionaries who debate Dr. Brown. They barely stand a chance at winning. All glory goes to GOD. May the day come swiftly when there is no need for debate! May the day come when they join Dr Brown in praise to Messiah! So be it in our lifetime!
June 26th, 2008 @ 2:38 pm
Amen!
June 29th, 2008 @ 9:36 pm
Anthony,
Regarding the response from Shmuley’s supporters, it’s really not appropriate for me to say, but you might get some perspective by reading this article published a couple of months back in a Jewish newspaper in England.
http://www.thejc.com/home.aspx?ParentId=m11&SecId=11&AId=59240&ATypeId=1
June 30th, 2008 @ 8:51 pm
Shmuley just needs a big hug!
In listening to the debates on YouTube, I got the sense that he is trapped, talking about Abraham Lincoln freeing the slaves, Lincoln could have cared less, the civil war was not about slavery in the first place. But, I think that Shmuley is stuck, and I feel for him.
If he finally accepts Yeshua as being his perfect atoning sacrifice, he has so much earthly treasure and stature to lose. He would lose Shalom in the Home, his book sales would diminish, I think that would be his biggest fear.
BUT, he could write another book, and he would not have to convert of quit his rituals all that much, which I think is good to have, he could dress the same, cause there is no law stating that he has to keep that attire, which means there is no law condemning that attire. All he would have to do is add Yeshua and recognize his significance in all that he already practices, his birhday around the Jewish New Year, his parallel significance during the passover seder (which bridges moshe with yeshua), and then with shavout, his wedding anniversary as the bride/groom of yeshua!
I know you would like for him to see the light, and come out of the wilderness, but I think that even if he did want to come, he has a shackle that is his family and ancestors that might not follow…or could not follow because they are deceased.
I pray for him, but if his heart is hardened; only the Father can bring him to the light, so Michael, ask Ruah ha Kodesh to touch his heart and his soul…
July 16th, 2008 @ 2:28 am
“Where there is hatred, let me sow love; confusion, peace, etc….Oh Divine Master, Not so much that I be understood, but to understand; be loved, but to love; be consoled, but to console, etc.”
Words of debate are always relevant to establishing the Kingdom’s truth. I wonder also where communities like Revive Israel, on the line in that Nation, living out a faith community’s radical commitment to Yeshua as Messiah, may live the Way and Life to affect conversion of the soul?
September 10th, 2009 @ 11:30 pm
The simple way to disprove christianity would be as follows; 1.In isaiah 59 verse 21 it says that the torah will never change.2.In the new testement it says that jakob came to eygept with 75 people,and in the torah it says he came with 70.3.mathew 24-do not beleive me based on magic,yet luke 7 and john 4 say-believe me because of my magic.4. Almah means young lady not virgin.5.the 2 different genealogies of king david. To answer that it is from his mother would be one of the most foolish ways to resolve the issue because according to the torah the fact that ones mother is from a certain tribe or kingdom or even a preist it means nothing ,any 10 year old orthodox jew can tell you that. 6. the book of acts says that jakob was laid to rest in shchem in the plot that abraham bought from the son of chamor shchem yet the torah says in genisis that he was buried in CHEVRON and that abraham bought it from EFRON not chamor.
September 11th, 2009 @ 4:42 pm
I actually got a laugh out of that post Zvi. Did you even listen to the debate? I can tell by your questions that you haven’t even researched the subject yet. I’ll answer a few and let Dr. Brown or someone else help you out with the others.
1. The Torah does not change Zvi, but it does promise a new covenant, a one not like the previous ones.
4. We know almah means young woman, that isn’t dispute. Almah means young woman! The Lord was willing to give Ahaz a sign but Ahaz rejected this. Now see how God addresses Ahaz in the verses. “Listen oh house of David.”
Ahaz was being addressed as the representative of the Davidic line.
We then come to the verse in question. Isaiah 7:14. Without going into the debate with ‘almah’ I move onto verses 15 through 17. For room’s sake I don’t want to post scripture, we can all open a Bible at home correct?
So who is this Immanuel? I looked through the rest of Isaiah and did not find mentio nof him once more, except fore verses 15-17 as I stated before. What we know is that the birth of this child would be a sign for the future of the house of David, that it would be successful. We move on to some fantastic prophecies from Isaiah 9 and 11. In context, we see a trend here…
My main point however, is that Immanuel is not spoken of after verse 7. In verse 8 we find a new child on the scene, Maher-shalal-hash-baz. While this child birth is recorded, and the same promise is with this child, Immanuel’s birth is not recorded, and the new child seems to take his place. This new child virtually took the place of Immanuel. Matthew saw the Messianic overtones in the passages in Isaiah, from chapter 7 to chapter 12, and saw this. Might be continued in another post but I think I made my point.
September 12th, 2009 @ 11:37 pm
It says many times in the torah that its laws are to be forever,which includes modification. As far as the story in Isaiah,it cannot be referring to jesus because he lived 700 years later so what kind of proof would that be to the jews of that time? I can spend hours disproving christianity logically,but lets first deal with the basic basic mistakes that I mentioned in the last post. Because even one mistake can prove that the book is not divine.
September 12th, 2009 @ 11:57 pm
First of all you ignored all the points I made above. Second I state again that the Torah is indeed forever. You have ignored all I posted on Isaiah 7:14.
I can spend hours disproving Judaism by pointing out that the oral law is nothing more than a myth, and point out the dozens of contradictions in the Old Testament. By your caliber I can dismantle the Old Testament in minutes and the Talmud in seconds. I guess the Old Testament isn’t divine either! You should listen to thew most recent debate between Dr. Brown and Rabbi Silver. Even that Rabbi says that there are contradictions in the Old Testament! So much for being divinely inspired!
I don’t think you even read my post or went to see if what I posted stood up. I would recommend buying Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus Volume 4, I bought it and it talks about these contradictions. If you are serious about following God, I recommend buying these books. They changed my life Zvi.
If you insist on debating further please take it the Jews for Jesus forums where we can post easier and have more input from others.
September 13th, 2009 @ 1:08 am
It doesnt realy matter to me what Rabbi Silver said. I can repeat many things that pastors have said regarding christianity,but as i mentioned before, you havent got past first base because I have asked you to resolve BLATANT condradictions and you dismissed it just like that by cosidering it low caliber. If you claim that you have a book that can answer this,then why dont you provide it? Ill be more than happy to clarify everything in Isaiah once we deal with the basics. If you got questions on judaism, bring it on. however I would apreciate if you can give me an axact adress so that we can debate
September 13th, 2009 @ 1:21 am
Zvi,
I suggest you go through the material assembled at the Real Messiah website. All the major objections to Jesus being the Jewish Messiah have been answered many times over. If you haven’t worked your way through my four volumes devoted to Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, that would also be a good starting point for you. Regarding the issue of alleged contradictions, you should read this: http://realmessiah.askdrbrown.org/Read/Entries/2008/11/29_UNEQUAL_WEIGHTS_AND_MEASURES.html
September 13th, 2009 @ 1:40 am
I read your your article, however my contradictions are EXPLICIT where is Jakob buried in chevron or shchem ?who did abraham buy it from shchem or efron? Lets hear how YOU can interpert it .dont run away from the question
September 13th, 2009 @ 2:09 am
Zvi, first please explain the many apparent, explicit contradictions in the Tanakh — surely you must know about them! — and then, once you’ve provided adequate answers, I’d be happy to point you to the sources that answer your questions. You wouldn’t run away from questions like about the Tanakh, would you?
Also, if Stephen was simply giving a speech and Luke recorded it accurately, does the speech have to be free from error? Please tell me your basis for your view.
So, shall I list for you 5 or 10 apparent (but explicit) contradictions in the Tanakh — e.g., comparing Samuel and Kings and Chronicles — so we can first establish the honesty of your methodology? If you have intellectual integrity before God, perhaps we can have a fruitful dialog. If you simply desire to attack without integrity, there’s no point in responding to you. But all seekers of truth are very welcome to post and interact!
September 13th, 2009 @ 8:20 am
What about the 2 different geneaoligies and the other contractions? Theres no point in me responding to your questions on tanach because we both agree to its authenticity and we can each resolve it. But if you cannot answer my basic questions ,that shows that you arent interested in the truth.
September 13th, 2009 @ 8:32 am
“Theres no point in me responding to your questions on tanach because we both agree to its authenticity and we can each resolve it.”
Again, I point out the weights and measures. The same way you resolve issues in the Old Testament, the issues in the New can be solved as well.
Your last comment made me laugh! Dr. Micheal Brown not interested in the truth?! Read his testimony and start listening to his radio show!
September 13th, 2009 @ 8:36 am
For the two genealogies, I’d recommend Dr. Micheal’s book Answering Jewish objections to JeEsus volume 4, pages 76 and on.
I’m not typing dozens of pages out, so if you are interested, I’d buy it.
I’d also like agree with what Dr. Brown said, why would they preserve two contradictory genealogies? Many anti missionaries state that the New Testament isn’t reliable and has interpolation, yet they attack so called contradictions! You cannot have it both ways!
September 13th, 2009 @ 10:20 am
I was asked by my friend Kyle to join this debate. Fitrst I must emphasize this is a debate of reasoning, as I have found the people of Israel, the Rabbi’s, and the believers in the ;G-d of Israel, with a great heart, and were very open to discuss Judaism. I believe every part of the Torah , and the prophets to be true to the context of thier understanding. I died once , and the Lord brought me back to life,;an agnostic believing in no religion, but believed when I was filled with His Holy Spirit. , and after 30 years of study, The Lord[ Yehoshua] spoke again to me ,[Hayah=2 words] and had me debate Jewish Orthodox websites. The first response I recieved waas; How can Jesus be the Messiah ? Look at Isaiah 53! I knew then I had opened up a can of worms , but throughout the years ; my understanding has only made me understand the Hebrew , and Greek translation re-enforce the truth that Yehoshua is the ;Son of man, and the KJV translations faltered in enough parts to vail Yeshua’s word’s to Israel! My father ; the IQ of Einstein was healed of a brain anerysm 1 month ago, after 30 years of debate about a man who claimed yo be sent from G-d; speaking the very essence of G-d. My biological father;A scientist, an evolutionist,agnostic, a mathematician, and astronormer;engineer said ;It does not make logic! I need 100% proof before I believe! [though it seems thier must be a Divine Creator]To many mathematical odds our life was per by chance created! He asked me to pray on his death bed, saying : I an the doubting Thomas,and that night ;he was healed! He now believes. How can we use only words too prove what is shown only of the Holy Spirit. I have found we all are right; or should I say Jews, and Christians; Believing in the ;G-d of Israel.One light speaks of the world events , and one Light speaks of the Spirit;1rst. Covenant of the freedom from the bondae of Egypt, and One Covenant from sin and death. It would take 40 years to say all I have to say; Go to JFJ Forums if you want more on the subject. Indeed Israel sufferred,but it is not works, but the works, and the heart of the Sovereignty of G-d that chooses our destiny; whom He chooses or not! There are words spoken that can only be read in the Light of the Holy Spirit. A Light that unvails the words of the Torah, [read from the Mennorahs light of this world,and prophets from Old to Everlasting, not changing , but fulfilling Israel![ Deuteronomy 18:18] Not Joshua; He did not see the face of G-d; It is Yehoshua. 50 similarities of Moses, and 362 prohesies. We cannot unvail the Jews [ anymore than my father] [only the Holy Spirit will open our eyes , and most Jews ; like Thomas by grace; not until the gentiles are removed, and G-d sets His Spirit upon the eyes of the 144,000. For more ;JFJ Forums ; Thanks Kyle! Go where G-d leads you, in the knowledge of Faith! Shalom, Robert
September 13th, 2009 @ 11:33 am
Zvi,
Thanks for your response. I thought you might have been serious about an honest dialog, but it appears that you are not. Simply stated, if you’re not willing to hold the Tanahk up to the same standards that you hold for the NT, then you are being guilty of unequal weights and measures, and if you don’t understand that the same methodology that resolves the apparent contradictions in the Tanakh resolves the apparent contradictions in the NT, then you’re missing the whole point of my posts here. We will pray for God’s light and truth to flood your life!
September 13th, 2009 @ 12:14 pm
There can not be mistakes and condridictions in a bible that is divine.The entire new testiment is filled with obvious mistakes. I have the exact standards for both but if we both have ways to resolve the apparent cotridictions,then why argue about it. If the torah is authentic then obviously in reality there are ways to reconcile the passages.Whether its rashi,talmud,or other commentaries but again,either way we both agree that there are answers so why bother debating it at this point if we BOTH agree to its authenticity,so one way or another we got answers. However your response is just a way of shifting the topic to tanach as long as you cannot resolve my contradiction. SO since I disagree with claims of the new bible,there is no way out for you other than to provide me with answers on the contradictions I had,but you havent even come remotely cose to doing so.
September 13th, 2009 @ 1:37 pm
Zvi,
I dealt with these issues many years ago, and if you’re willing to read the resources we have provided, you’ll see the objections you raise have been answered. Make the investment of time and energy, and you’ll find out the truth. I’m disappointed, however, that you’re not willing to explain how you deal with apparent contradictions in the Tanakh. If you ever change your mind and want to demonstrate to our readers here how your methodology works, please let us know. Also, feel free to call me on my radio show one day to raise your objections to the NT, and I’d be happy to answer you there.
Time does not permit me, however, to interact online with those who are not willing to read the resources we’ve provided that answer all the major traditional objections to Jesus at length and in detail.
September 13th, 2009 @ 2:11 pm
I think I have been quite clear. There is no one particular WAY to deal with contradictions anywhere. Each passage that contradicts another will have its OWN answer. However Dr. Brown do you have any issues with the old testemement. I would gather that you dont for if you do, the entire christianity would be in question because you guys believe in the ot. So why are you upset? How many times do I have to tell you I am not debating an athiest. I have debated them ,I can answer your contradictions .BUT YOU HAVE ALRADY DEALT WITH THEM ON YOUR OWN AND SO HAVE I!!!! So why are we wasting our time with the ot. This isnt an atheist forum. If you do in fact doubt the ot, we can gladly help you out. SO GIVEN THAT WE BOTH AGREE THAT THE OLD TESTEMENT IS AUTHENTIC, ZVI and DR Brown believe in it so lets move on to the nt. But you dont want to because you have no answers.
September 13th, 2009 @ 2:16 pm
To kyle, Mathew 1,verse 27 he clearly uses the word virgin in the verse incorrectly.
September 13th, 2009 @ 4:29 pm
Zvi,
Were the atheists you debated satisfied with the answers you provided regarding the alleged contradictions in the Tenakh? Probably not unless they were open to the possibility that the position you were coming from was true. Zvi, there are sound answers to each contradiction you mentioned . Just to briefly address two of these: Stephen possibly mentions 75 descendents of Jacob in Acts 7:14 because the Septuagint mentions 75 in both Gen 46:27 and Ex 1:5. As a Greek speaking Jewish man, it is natural that he would refer to this widely used translation. Alternatively, see Dr. Brown’s comment above on this issue. And regarding Acts 7:16, it is likely that Stephen is telescoping the events he is describing in a quick and pressurized review. More information is involved with both of these answers (which is easily accessible) but what I shared is representative of the point: we have solid answers to these questions. Zvi, have you ever read the New Testament? Not just select verses you found via Tovia Singer, Jews for Judaism, or Messiah Truth. I’m talking about sitting down and reading it straight through?
September 13th, 2009 @ 9:15 pm
If youre telling me that your holy bible is not divine and was written based on the authors false interpertation of the torah and that false information was written because of pressure,then are you telling me you are investing your time with such a book? And you call this solid answers? If a torah has one letter that changes the meaning of a word it is invalid. WOW!!
September 13th, 2009 @ 10:35 pm
Again Zvi you’ve ignored most of what I’ve posted for a while now. I quote Dr. Brown…
“the same methodology that resolves the apparent contradictions in the Tanakh resolves the apparent contradictions in the NT”
If you aren’t willing to look honestly I’m not going to bother talking with you anymore. It seems to me that you’re only here to lash out and criticize. I also want to point out again, that the Torah has dozens of contradictions and by your own weights and measures, it is not divine and therefore must be rejected. Do you understand?
Ryan was simply stating that the author recorded exactly what he heard and Steven being human and fallible may have slipped in the moment. That does not disqualify it from being divine. I could quote quite a few references of this in the talmud where the rabbis slip up and misquote scripture. I guess we have to throw that out too eh? Of course this could be simply bypassed because Steven may have been quoting from the LXX. Finally there may have been a scribal error along the way up to today. These are the same methodologies that are used to fix the apparent contradictions in the Torah. If you are only interested in arguing I won’t talk with you any longer.
September 13th, 2009 @ 10:47 pm
My final post concerning weights and measures.
Dr. Brown is not trying to shift our attention or run away, he is trying to demonstrate the system of weights and measures. I’ll spell it out for you.
He wants you to solve the contradictions in the Old Testament so you can see that the same methods are used in solving the apparent contradictions in the New Testament. If the same methods are used, then it would be unfair to disqualify the New Testament. Yes we agree that the Old is divinely inspired but we are trying to illustrate a point…. Let’s be honest and fair Zvi. I’m not trying to hide or manipulate anything, I’m trying to help.
God bless and good night
September 14th, 2009 @ 9:23 am
As I have already mentioned THERE IS NO WAY ONE WAY OF RESOLVING CONTRADICTIONS!!! Each contradiction has to to be dealt with independently. Imagine Mr. Obama being questioned as to his 2 statements that contradict each other and his response being ,refer to the CONTRADICTIONS GUIDE, how silly.Not only that but your responses seem not to be consistent with the “contradictions guide” because you claim there are in fact errors,precisely UNLIKE the old testement.Because any jew that claims that there is one mistake not 2, is to be executed. There are no contadictions in the ot,and the apparent ones have all been soundly resolved.BUT WE BOTHE AGREE ABOUT THE OT SO WHY ARGUE????????? How ridiculous is to say that due to pressure chevron became shchem and efron became shchem the son of chamor. In tanach you will never hear a jewish commentary saying that the prophet slipped up because he is human. NEVER!!!! because its divine. And to say that the contradictions in the torah were resolved due to scribal errors is a blatantly false allegation because when torah scrolls from here were compared to the ones in yemen who we were unable to contact in years due to technology for a couple thousand years,the torahs were found to be IDENTICAL!!!! Unlike the nt even TODAY. The talmud doesnt either have slip ups they arent even claiming to be prophets so to some research before you attack.
September 14th, 2009 @ 9:23 am
As I have already mentioned THERE IS NO WAY ONE WAY OF RESOLVING CONTRADICTIONS!!! Each contradiction has to to be dealt with independently. Imagine Mr. Obama being questioned as to his 2 statements that contradict each other and his response being ,refer to the CONTRADICTIONS GUIDE, how silly.Not only that but your responses seem not to be consistent with the “contradictions guide” because you claim there are in fact errors,precisely UNLIKE the old testement.Because any jew that claims that there is one mistake not 2, is to be executed. There are no contadictions in the ot,and the apparent ones have all been soundly resolved.BUT WE BOTHE AGREE ABOUT THE OT SO WHY ARGUE????????? How ridiculous is to say that due to pressure chevron became shchem and efron became shchem the son of chamor. In tanach you will never hear a jewish commentary saying that the prophet slipped up because he is human. NEVER!!!! because its divine. And to say that the contradictions in the torah were resolved due to scribal errors is a blatantly false allegation because when torah scrolls from here were compared to the ones in yemen who we were unable to contact in years due to technology for a couple thousand years,the torahs were found to be IDENTICAL!!!! Unlike the nt even TODAY. The talmud doesnt either have slip ups they arent even claiming to be prophets so to some research before you attack.
September 14th, 2009 @ 2:14 pm
Calm down buddy, again you miss the point.
He wants you to solve the contradictions in the Old Testament so you can see that the same methods are used in solving the apparent contradictions in the New Testament. If the same methods are used, then it would be unfair to disqualify the New Testament. Yes we agree that the Old is divinely inspired but we are trying to illustrate a point….
There are no contradictions in the OT? Oh yeah there are, I can list quite a few. The New Testament contradictions are resolved in the same way these ones are. You can either have both Testaments be false or both be true. Double standards again…..
Oh and who here is attacking? Who came to this Christian radio site boasting about how he could disprove Christianity?, which hasn’t gone well…
This may be my final response. I see that you came here looking only to argue. If you wish to debate more people, go to JewsforJesus’ website and debate on their forum.
God bless you,
Kyle
September 14th, 2009 @ 2:20 pm
Oh I forgot about your statement about the Talmud and it’s numerous errors. Indeed they did not claim to be prophets but neither did Steven. He was merely speaking out against the Sanhedrin with power. He was not a prophet, he was a normal Jew.
If you wish to debate me or Robert or other believers please go to Jews for Jesus. It is a website…join their forum and post away.
I would however like to see you go on the air with Dr. Brown. You could even ‘humiliate’ him on live air! Go ahead and try…..
But I’m done talking Zvi, you are not getting the point and I’m done trying to help you see. God bless and may God reveal himself to you like he did me.
September 14th, 2009 @ 7:01 pm
As have stated many times the contradictions in the ot and the new one are not at all related, not only that but the seemingly contradictive passages within the ot itself are also not related. So analyzing the resulution of one cotradiction will in no way shape or form enlighten us on another contradiction in the ot,never mind the new one. Therfore its a waste of time to debate the issue of the ot,because we both agree to it and it doesnt shed light on other contradiction. Why is this so hard to comprehend as you keep responding with the same request to analyze the ots issues? Now, the talmud as we have it has no errors. If you think it does thats fine with me. We are debating christianity,so whether the talmud is authentic or not is irrelevant in this debate. The bottom line is that you havent answered the questions i had in my first post.All you did was attack the ot and faslely claimed that all contradictions in a bible can be resolved in the sane way.The only question you tried resolving was the question regarding where jakob was buried ,with a weak response agreeing to the error. The point is that if a book has false information it cannot under any terms be divine if the ot says 70 and you say 75 you lose no matter what your excuse is. If the ot says young woman and you say virgin -once again WRONG, A BIBLE CANNOT HAVE FALSE INFORMATION if it does,it must be discarded. Mathew and all of them were IGNORANT you can see it right in front of yor eyes. It boggles the mind how one can follow such a book. Would you even bother reading a book that says that the twin towers collapsed in queens?Also the issue with the 2 conflicting genealogies where Dr.Brown attempts to resolve one of its issues by stating that on of them is from his mother. Now as I said any 10 year old orthodox jew can tell you that the lineage through a mother is MEANINGLESS when it comes to kinghood or priesthood so I dont have to read a book to refute his claims ,since it can be strongly refuted at this point. Furthermore, I state with authority that the torah and tanach both say that the torah WILL NOT BE FORGOTTEN AND WILL NOT CHANGE. According to you the torah SHOULD be forgotten at this point .A new covenant cannot replace the old one because if a new one replaces the old one this would have to imply that the old one is irrlelevant and if that would be the case it would be in DIRECT contrast to what the torah says That it shall NEVER be forgotten. 1+1=2. Furthermore lets assume that you want to believe the nonsence that an infinite being decided to confine himself to a human being,and lets also assume you believe the silly notion that blessed is he had relations with a woman. The question is are there ANY witnesses of a divine revelation the torah requires 2 male jewish male witnesses. There is no record of that.Also if a torah that was given to just one nation was given in front of 600000 people dont you think that if god changed his mind he would reveal himself in front of at least that many wittnesses??? By the way Im winning this debate by leaps and bounds.
September 14th, 2009 @ 7:31 pm
Zvi….speaking of contradictions dear friend….. You are hardly winning…I can tell by your replies that you are SO ANXIOUS to respond that you simply SKIM OVER your opponents contentions.
Here is a tip in debate:
Read, carefully, your opponent’s arguments and try as honestly as you can to take in and understand your opponent’s points of contention so that you can deal with them in intellectual honesty.
Your response to seeming contradictions in Tenach are weak at best….you simply dismiss them while seeking to magnify seeming contradictions in Brit Hadasha….. Deal with Tenach contradictions with honesty before you magnify problems in BH.
Could you imagine a Muslem knocking the Tenach saying that the G-d of Israel was unjust for endorsing war? Would that be an honest and fair critique for believers of allah? So what are we to do with your critique?
And THIS is why deabters from the rabbinic community are usually embarrassed in debate with Dr. Brown. Intellectual dishonesty, emotionalism and flippant dismissal of their opponent’s viable contentions.
September 14th, 2009 @ 7:41 pm
I think Zvi is missing the point. He argues that, if the “NT” is divinely inspired, it should have no appearant discrepancies. We then say “well, what about appearant discrepancies in the Tenach?”……He then turns around and asks “well….don’t you belive in Tenach as divinely inspired?” We then say “well yes, but we deal with “NT” contradictions the way we deal with OT contradictions. How do you deal with Tenach discrepancies Zvi?”…..then Zvi responds (In typical “I read it somewhere” fashion) “What about contradictions in the NT”….
WE CANT WIN! IT’S A CIRCULAR ARGUEMENT!
September 14th, 2009 @ 8:04 pm
Wow, you are acting like a child. “By the way I’m winning….” Wow…
I think the readers here know who stated what and if it is valid.
For the sixth time, you still do not understand nor do you want to. You are here only to argue, not to debate. I am done speaking with you. You may debate me and other on Jews for Jesus forums. If you are so confident that you are winning the debate, I recommend you go on the air with Dr. Brown when he is on air. He will gladly take up your questions. As I said before, you could expose him on air. That is, if you are confident enough. But I’m babbling. If you want to debate Dr. Brown on air, just call in to this radio show and he may even schedule a whole hour for you. As for me, I’m going back to Jews for Jesus. I’ve stated on several occasions that if you are serious about finding out the truth, check out realmessiah.com or read the Bible yourself. God bless Zvi, I’ll be praying for you
September 14th, 2009 @ 8:49 pm
I was only responding to the the fact that you claimed that my debates “havent gone well”
September 14th, 2009 @ 10:44 pm
“Therefore, the Master Himself shall give you a sign [oth]; Behold, a VIRGIN [alma] shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel {trans. as ‘G-D with us”}.”
As we know, in the tanakh, the word “alma” appears 7 times. In Gematria, we are made aware of this, as it teaches us about the character of G-D, whose “being” is comprised also of 7 spirits (Zechariah 4:10) seen as ehad (Zechariah 4:2). This tells us that we are to approach this textual criticism with caution.
The primary contention of the Hasidim to alma being taken as “virgin” in the Tenach, deals primarily with the usage in Proverbs 30:18-20. The way of a man with a young woman or “b’alma” is compared to three things: an eagle in the heavens, the path of a serpent upon the rock, and the course of a ship in the middle of the ocean. In each case, the “way” is the wide course of “derek”, which is subject to the whims of the wind and the eagle, the serpent and the slope of the rock, and the ship’s master and the motion of the wind and the sea. However, this subject is merely smoke and mirrors for the novice, is it not?
The crux of the matter of Proverbs 30 rests in verse 20, in which the woman performs a “Monica Lewinski” with her mouth, and because her hymen is intact and never violated, she says…”I have done no wickedness”, as she wipes the “seed” from her mouth. This is the harshness of the text. Therefore, those doctors of the Law who are called to examine the girl, find her hymen intact, and rule, “SHE IS STILL A VIRGIN.”
Therefore, we must again ask ourselves, what activity violates a girl or young woman, so that she is no longer a virgin; and was that act (respecting alma) performed in Proverbs 30:20 or any where else in Scripture? The answer is “no”. If we were to argue that “parthenos” is used in the Septuagint in relation to Genesis 32:4, we find that we are discussing a translation of na’arah, not alma.
I find it hypocritical that in order to refute the virgin intent of Almah, that counter-missionaries call Rebekkah a 3 or 13 year old slut (depending on receiving Rashi’s lacunae age) as well as Moses’ own 12 year old sister, Miriam. So Israel’s matrons were sluts so they can refute Yeshua? Pork baloney.
In regards to this “alma”, we find that the one who shall be born of her is an “oth”. He is a signal, a banner, a miracle that is to come in the distant future. This “oth” is attached upon the lineage of Ahaz (Achaz in Matthew 1:9 in the KJV), and in Isaiah 7:14, v’qarath Shemo Imanu El – “she will call out and address His name [by the familiar -- which means] with rest, home, and pasture (to all who believe), G-D (dwells).”
Rashi expounds that the “almah” teaches of the Shekinah resting upon her, and that our “rock” or “eben” [ the Alef- BeN / trans. as "G-D's Son" in Gematriac analysis] will be with us. Who is our “rock” but HASHEM Himself, I ask? Now if the Hebraic “alma” is true as “virgin” in the Tenach, each and every time, even if the Greek word “parthenos” isn’t; there is still no contention for anyone to dispute that in Isaiah 7:14 that the intent of that passage is that of a virgin.
I suggest that you look to another prophetical passage for the answer to Isaiah 7:14, in Jeremiah 22:29-30.
“O eretz, eretz, eretz! Hear and obey the Word of HASHEM! This, is what HASHEM commands: inscribe (in you) this man as a watcher*of*the*irrigation*water*that*slakes*the*thirst*; the Mistress (shall) not push forward to come in the heat of his days. A burning brand which shall not be pushed forward from his posterity, a (First) Man who sits down (to Judge) on the throne of David, and rules with dominion, and rules and rules from Judah.” (fully amplified translation from Hebrew, mine)
The three eretz uses focus from Heaven to all the earth, then to the dominion of Abraham, then to the borders of Israel west of the Jordan; and is used as a response to why Jehoichin’s rejection (cf. Jeremiah 22:28).
Instead of going back to Deuteronomy 28, and Jeremiah’s citation of the worship and incense to “the queen of Heaven”, (to which some hasidim sing to at or around Pesach in America) as if G-D had a harlot mistress named Asherah — instead, the mercy of G-D says that the focus is to be on the posterity of David.
That is, for David’s sake, and for HASHEM’s own Name’s sake, Jehoichin might live to bring forth a descendant who is NOT Messhaich, but a watcher over “he who possesses the aoinios or life-force of eternity” as “living waters”…i.e., HASHEM [cf. Jeremiah 2:13, 17:13; Ezekiel 47:1].
This “watcher”, who comes into being after Jehoichin is long dead and buried, is Joseph, the husband of the “alma” called Miriam (Matthew 1:12-16), in 14 generations.
In Micah 5:2, we read that the “comings forth” as umootsata(y)v” is as the source going forth, as though referring to a well spring which origin is unseen, and practically unknowable except in generality. (Cf. Isaiah 12:3-4 in Hebrew, His name is Yeshua, and you will praise his name and works among the peoples).
That origin is M’Qedem memey olam…from before the days of eternity, from before the days of the world.
In Isaiah 7:14, we have “The Virgin” or Ha Almah that is given “to you” in the plural. That is, if “to You” was in the singular, we might concede that it could mean Ahaz…but since Ahaz was not beside himself as a set of twins or triplets to rule the throne as one man, the pluralized “to you” which immediately precedes HaAlmah, is addressing all of the House of Judah in the the prophecy.
G-D will spring forth like a stream or a well-spring which is drawn from the midst of the virgin (again, Isaiah 12:2,3 names Him as Yeshua), and be born among men by the power of the Holy Spirit by a source and means hidden from the understanding of man… except in generalities.
For this reason, Almah, which speaks of a “hiddenness”, was chosen. Lest perhaps, someone would say of Deuteronomy 22:19 that in Moses’ Torah, it speaks of a Bethulah as one having already had intercourse, and that this would have been the hidden meaning of Isaiah 7:14 if Bethulah would have been handed down to us in the prophecy, instead of Almah.
And if G-D raised Isaac from the dead, after that his heart was pierced by the knife of Abraham and stopped its beating upon the wood…as Paul indicates through Luke in Hebrews 11:17-19…from where did the well-spring of resurrection life come forth, but from within, because of a trusting faith into G-D upon His promises when G-D himself called for it? Isaac, therefore, was a type of the Christ who was to come…innocent, sacrificed, and who rose from the dead after paying the obligations of another.
In Esther 2:17 and Joel 1:8, it cannot be categorically stated that Bethulah means a virgin, and appears to show cause to believe “almah” is the better translation regarding Biblical use in the OT texts.
Cyrus. Gordon in Journal of Bible and Religion’s 21:240-241 argued that the origins of Bethulah in the near eastern languages does not meet the virgo intacta demands the anti-Almah contenders say that Bethulah would have carried.
In the Akkadian, the related Bethulah cognate will only translate to virginity when applied to the very youthful;
{the Assyrian Dictionary Volume 2, University of Chicago, 1965, pp. 173-174 regarding “batultu” (pp. 192-193 on pdf. scroll)
http://oi.uchicago.edu/pdf/cad_b.pdf }
while in the Ugaritic, the possible root “btlt” is a oft a reference to the wife of Baal, who indeed has an active sex life in the mythology regarding Baal and Anat. Had bethulah been used, the prophecy could not have definitively meant a “virgin” while Almah could so be used.
September 15th, 2009 @ 12:24 am
Zvi Erblich writes: The simple way to disprove Christianity would be as follows;
1. In Isaiah 59 verse 21 it says that the torah will never change.
Actually, it simply states that the words of the Torah shall not depart from the mouth of those of the seed of Israel. It will be a testimony for them as part of the Covenant obligations they have with HASHEM. It does not say a New Covenant cannot be offered and also entered into by the 13 tribes of Israel, or of the Gentiles themselves. You have erred. Reread the Hebrew, please.
Zvi Erblich writes:
2. In the New Testament it says that Jacob came to Egypt with 75 people, and in the torah it says he came with 70.
In the New Testament, Acts 7:14 states 75. The LXX states 75 in Exodus 1:5 and previously in Genesis 46:27.
Genesis 46:26 states the number at 66 in the Masoretic text. In verse 27, the number of those coming into Egypt were 70. In Exodus 1:5 of the Masoretic the number is 70. See also Deuteronomy 10:22 in the Hebrew.
That is a jump of 4 in the Hebrew or O (zero) in the Greek. What might be missed is a doubling of the two souls of the sons of Joseph from Genesis 46:26-27, plus their prior count in Genesis 46:20. Were Manassah and Benjamin now counted thrice (3 times)?
The discrepancy between the LXX and the Masoretic, and the Masoretic from itself appears to be a a matter of reckoning. It may be that in the third century BC, and certainly before Herod I came to power when all the LXX was finalized by, the scribes may or may not have altered this number after other information, such as counting children over age two, instead of just those over age three, for example. That LXX information of 75 was entered and finalized well prior to Hillel restoring the lost Hebraic Torah to Israel some 30 years after Herod I came to power. Because the anti-Christian Sanhedrin of Jerusalem sought to catch Christians in every word, it is very unlikely that Stephen, attempting to convince a Sanhedrin Katan wishing to destroy him, would have made the number 75 up. That mistake would have been pounded against Christianity to successfully disperse it if it were so. Hence, we ned to look further, and elsewhere.
When the Hillel Torah was translated in the then modern Hebrew script, it likely did so first using vastly differing letter forms just 400-500 years earlier (several letters even trading with one another), so that number was also entered in the Hebraic Script; but , we just don’t “absolutely” know. But it is possible that the Hillel Copy had 70, because Josephus (who took his reckoning in Antiquities 2.7.4,) reckoned 70 without Jacob, and 71 with him. This disagrees then with the Massorete Exodus 1:5 and Deuteronmy 10:22. What happened?
There is some unaccountability in Torah manuscript transmission. That lacking finds litle solace in being dependant on sparse Mishna to Talmudic quotations, compared to the NT manuscript fragments dating well back to within a couple generations of the disciples themselves, and having a completeness by the age of Jerome, some 50 years prior to the Leningrad Codex.
We do know that in the Second Century, about 250 years before Jerome, a war of words went up when Jewish zealots redacted out this or that word or phrase in order to deny Yeshua, and the Christians chewed them up for it. Perhaps this happened also with the text, using a new counting of souls after thus an age rather than the prior thus an age. If the family of Hebraic manuscripts became small, it made small changes more possible.
Jerome in ca. 392 A.D. probably held copies of the New Testament that were almost exclusively from the first century A.D. sources as well, being only 350 or less years removed from the 47 -57 A.D. compositions of those works (an NT author dating I can reasonably prove).
It is known (Jerome, Against Rufinius, 2.34) that where the Apostolic texts differ from the much later Masoretes in quoting the Hebraic Old Testament texts, the Apostles appear to have followed a manuscript tree that was more closer to Aramaic (if we follow the second century quotations in translation to Latin and Greek by Irenaeus) and first sources, such as the Ezra era translation of Hebrew Scriptures scribed by Hillel — if I understand correctly — that was brought to Rome, and cited by Josephus.
Those same copies of that master copy of the Temple, which would have included the Psalms and the prophets like Isaiah and Jeremiah (etc.), made available to all Israel by 6 A.D. to 66/67 A.D. in copy form from that master copy.
Jerome, himself, handled some of these same pre-LXX manuscripts, pre-dating the LXX’s completion prior to the ascension of Herod the Great.
By his own testimony, Jerome says that his Hebrew copies that he was handling, were those that pre-dated even our extant Dead Sea Isaiah Scroll now on display in Israel, dating to at least 150 B.C. and possibly as old as 250 B.C.
For him to say this there would have been a clear distinction in the difference of the Hebrew epigraphy. For which aid, he sought out the best Hebrew expert of his day to learn more than just an expanded version of what he would have called “modern Hebrew” in the 4th century A.D….but an “ancient Hebrew” of the 4th to 5th century B.C. as well. The only Ante-Nicene (pre-Nicene) mention I have found is from about 190-20 A.D., in which Clement repeats the number of 75, citing Genesis 46:27 (Clement of Alexandria, Stromata 1.21) and comparing Euphorus and the 75 nations he mentions (having 72 languages and 3 dialects blending two or three of the 72 together).
So we arrive back at the Massoretes, and find that 134 texts have been tampered with by the Massoretes, who changed the name YHVH into ADNY…4 letters for 4 letters. Therefore, I presume, based on the preponderance of my research that the redaction of the original 75 to 70 was made sometime in the Second Century and retained that way in the Hebrew, and based most likely on whether or not to reckon newborns or one year or two year or three years olds…something along those lines.
I have found no Dead Sea Scroll Texts or anything of an antiquity prior to the ascension of Judah ha-nasi (ca. 190 A.D.) to demonstrate otherwise.
September 15th, 2009 @ 12:32 am
Hazakim,youre completely missing the point. I do indeed have answers to the contradictions in the ot.Im sure you have as well. Given that we both have resolved that issue,there is no point in debating them.The only arguement you have is that you deal with the contradictions in the nt the same way you deal with the issues in the ot. Now stop right there, can you please explain me what you mean when you say “the same way” . Lets assume for arguements sake that there are 5 conradictions in the ot,which we both agree must be resolved. Is there a “way” to resolve all 5 of them, or are there 5 independent answers? I think you know the answer.So the way we resolve the ot has absolutely no bearing on how to resolve the nt each contradiction has to be dealt with independenty. So again me resolving the ot WILL NOT HELP YOU UNDERSTAND THE NT. AGAIN, lets assume the answer to the contradictions in the ot are X,Y, and Z, and you also agree to it because you must also resolve it, X, Y, and Z will not help you resolve the issues with the new testament because the nt has an entire new set of problems that cannot be resolved by X,Y, and Z because X, Y, and Z do not encompass a machine that resolves any issue that comes its way. Therefore I conclude that it would be a waste of time to discuss the content of X,Y, and Z,because you must also agree that the ot must be solved bt X,Y, and Z,or A,B and C youve got to have some answer, But whether its XYZ OR ABC,none of that will help you for the NT. So theres no point in discussing it. If you do in fact doubt the authenticity of the ot I can gladly help you,but not in this forum.
September 15th, 2009 @ 2:00 am
Zvi,
I noticed that you didn’t respond to Ryan’s post. I would encourage you to do so. And remember: I’ve already addressed the issues you raise in print (and they’ve been addressed in other books too), and since I’m not able to engage in much online debate here, I encourage you to call in to my show one day and we’ll have a respectful and honest discussion. This way we can go back and forth live and thousands of people can hear our interaction for themselves.
September 15th, 2009 @ 4:41 am
Zvi,
If you want an honest and respectful debate, if you feel you have the truth and see the light, why not share your opinion to the thousands of listeners on Dr. Browns radio.
September 15th, 2009 @ 12:32 pm
Brianroy, The word almah cannot mean virgin because the root of the word almah is elem same hebrew letters and in shmuel 1,chapter 17,verse 56 and shmuel1 chapter 20 verse 52 it clearly means a young man so just look it up.Furthermore,proverbs 30 cannot mean through the mouth because according to jewish law it is NOT considered adultary, and the mouth according to rashi means the mouth down there, just like eating isnt literal the torah spoke in a clean language. The word almah does not have to mean somone that had relations but rather it includes all young women whether or not they had relations. So miriam and rivkah fit that criteria and naarah is the hebrew word for the aramaic word almah.(this answers the issue with esther). Isais 12-2,3 =salvation not the name yishua. in 7.4 the ois can be right now like tefillin is an ois according to the torah,and the plural form was for the jews of that time.Otherwise the ois would be futile.The word besulah cannot mean what you said because if so it would be impossible to understand deuteronnomy 22 otherwise.The verse in joel can be explained, because in judaism you can be married without living together. In fact the well documented costum then was to be betrothed for 12 months without living together.See the the commentary metsudas dovid for an alterative approach. In any case almah does not EVER indicate virgin,on the contray as I proved before it means young woman. The verse regarding the torah not changing,you are correct, it means the torah will not be removed or forgotten if you will.It also says countless times in the torah that “chock olam” EVERLASTING LAW. But according to the nt, the ot laws are not everlasting and should be forgotten. Also 70 people came 66+ joseph + 2 sons plus yocheved see rashi. The torah we have today was compared to the ones in yemen that were perserved and isolated from all other jews going back well before jesus and they were found to be identical.So that would suggest that the correct version is in fact 70. This is my response to ryan as I have said many times a bible cannot have false info. based on fasle interpertation.
September 15th, 2009 @ 12:58 pm
Dr.Brown ,I apreciate your invatation to join you on the air,however i feel that I need alot more time than that to answer all the question as you can clearly see from all the posts. It would only be a disadvantage for me. By the Dr. Brown do you ever sleep?
September 15th, 2009 @ 1:40 pm
Brianroy,abraham did not actually slaughter issac just read the verses. It was just a test to see if abraham would go against his nature.It was by no means somethind that is condoned throughout jewish history.
September 15th, 2009 @ 2:20 pm
Zvi,
Thank God, He sustains and strengthens me. Call the show when you’re ready. In the mean time, I remind that I already answered all your questions in my books — at length — so you should save time and start reading them!
September 15th, 2009 @ 2:27 pm
I meant that airtime does not suffice, thanx.
September 15th, 2009 @ 2:27 pm
I meant that airtime does not suffice, thanx.
September 15th, 2009 @ 4:45 pm
Zvi Erblich you wrote September 10, 2009 at 11:30 pm
The simple way to disprove christianity would be as follows; 1.In isaiah 59 verse 21 it says that the torah will never change.2.In the new testement it says that jakob came to eygept with 75 people,and in the torah it says he came with 70.
———————————–
My reply is this. Please read carefully the scriptures!
FIRST THIS IS THE WRITTEN WORD explaining who came to Egypt.
Ex:1:5: And all the souls that came out of the loins of Jacob were seventy souls: for Joseph was in Egypt already.
SECONDLY Stephen was speaking of Hebrew History not reading written Torah quoting Moses. He was telling who was finally present in Egypt together, the whole family.
Ac:7:12: But when Jacob heard that there was corn in Egypt, he sent out our fathers first.
Ac:7:14: Then sent Joseph, and called his father Jacob to him, and all his kindred, threescore and fifteen souls.
Are not Joseph’s children to be included in to be sent to Joseph for that special gathering.
No contradiction Stephen(as taught 2k years ago) includes all the kindred which includes Manasseh the elder of the two sons of Joseph. He and his brother Ephraim were afterwards adopted by Jacob as his own sons. Stephen did not say that 75 souls came to Egypt. It does say the 75 were united together with Jacob in Egypt at he Joseph’s calling. Exodus is the count that came into Egypt. Stephen was not saying that. He was speaking the the total united Family of Jacob at his calling “to him”.
Nothing to do with any JEWISH Messianic error. It is correct.
September 15th, 2009 @ 5:38 pm
As I have demonsrated here long and detailed answers can have many holes.
September 15th, 2009 @ 6:42 pm
Zvi,
If you want to continue to debate, go the Jews for Jesus debate forum. If you are here to get a response from Dr. Brown, you can go to his radio and call or purchase his materials.
If you are here to feel better about yourself because you might feel you are “winning” the debate on this site, then you are here for the wrong reasons.
If you want an honest and respectful dialog with Dr. Brown, you should honor Dr. Browns’ recommendation he has laid out for you. But if you do not want to honor Dr. Browns full recommendation (not partial) and continue to do whatever you want, then you are wasting your time here.
September 15th, 2009 @ 7:48 pm
The Vail is rent. No matter what you say, or even G-d would split the Red sea ,Zvi would not believe ,because G-d has blinded his eyes. I pray one day, though I am not edifing myself ; for I have many faults, Zvi will see the truth. It is in G-d’s hands not ours. It will only become argumetative. G-d choses who He will , and who He will not to be Vessels of Honor , and Mercy . We cannot stop the wind from blowing. Shalom.
September 15th, 2009 @ 8:39 pm
Dear Craig,if you take a look at genesis chapter 46 verses 26-27 you will see the torah originally had the count at 66 the torah says that due to Yosefs 2 children the count went up to 70 as rashi explains yosef + 2 chidren +yocheved that was born “bein hachomos” which equals 70. So it is clear as day that Joseph and his children were accounted for as part of the 70. As far as the verse in exodus rashi adresses your question that if yosef was counted as part of the 70 then why discuss Yosef? Rashi answers the torah was trying to tell us that Yosef remained a tzadik even amongst egyptians. So I stand with my previous arguement that the nt has recorded false information.
September 15th, 2009 @ 10:16 pm
Zvi….I assure you bro…..your contentions have been answered 1,000 times over. if you honestly think you are coming on here with amazing ,brand new, unearthed, fire proof contentions against the Brit Hadasha scriptures, you are seriously mistaken. Brilliant rabbinic minds, with more years of study and knowledge than you, have attempted to tear down the Messianic faith (even in debate) to no avail. The bottom line is this:
Messiah was prophecied to come before the destruction of the 2nd Temple and certain things had to take place. (Wanna debate this indisputable fact? Take Dr Brown up on the challenge bro!)
According to ancient Rabbinic literature & discussion, the Messiah was suppose to come 2,000 years ago. (Talmud,Sanhedrin 97A)
If the Messiah did not come before the destruction of the second temple – completing what Daniel promised he would do (again, you can debate this with Dr. Brown) and did not come according to the time expected by the ancient Sages who predated the tannaim – then THERE IS NO MESSIAH COMING!
(“It was taught in the School of Elijah, the world will endure 6,000 years – 2,000 years in chaos, 2,000 with Torah, and 2,000 years will be the days of the Messiah. but through our many iniquities all these years have been lost.” Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin b.San. 96a-97b)
September 15th, 2009 @ 10:42 pm
Hazakim,Any proof that you have from the talmud must be rejected even before you display the content(as Nachmanidies said when he trounced his christian opponent in a debate) because the talmud does not believe in jesus.The fulfillment would have had to include peace and returning to Jerusalem,etc. and that didnt occur by a long stretch.
September 15th, 2009 @ 11:18 pm
Zvi,
Rather than copy paste please go to
http://www.scribd.com/doc/17677678/Seventy-or-SeventyFive
Stephen knew what he was saying. We just got to figure it out.
September 16th, 2009 @ 9:16 am
Zvi….you’re missing my point. And BTW, maybe the rabbinic community could benefit from a Nachmanides in 2009….because lately, your sect has not been doing very well in debate (to the point that takers of the challenge are far & few between)…so Nachmanides, as great as he was, is irrelevant to the ability of your position to hold up under the weight of the evidence. Case in point: Tovia Singer sells a debate he had with a Baptist preacher on his web-site. Why doesnt he sell the debate between him and Dr. Brown? Let’s just say it is not in his best interest to do so. It doesnt matter that the writers of Talmud, CE, did not believe in YESHUA (get it right bro)……IT IS RECORDED IN THE TALMUD that the Messiah was suppose to come 2,000 years ago. Furthermore, Daniel laid out, in Tenach, a list of things that HAD TO BE ACCOMPLISHED before the destruction of the 2nd Temple. Rather than dismissing my points out of hand, try this:
1) Explain how you reconcile the “2,000 years of Messiah” tradition with the fact that did not come on schedule.
2) Explain how the prophecy of Daniel was fulfilled. Your other option is to say Daniel was a false prophet. (see Daniel 9:24)
Thanks
September 16th, 2009 @ 10:07 am
Craig, thanks for refering me to that site. The crux of his arguement is that the additional 5 members counted were the 5 sons of menashe and Efraim. The problem with that is,that they werent born yet. his conter arguement is that benjamins sons were included in the count although they werent born yet. The basis for his assumption is a rather weak one, he claims that benjamin could not have “handled” 10 children crossing the border. The problem with that theory is that we all know that all the brothers were physically blesed as we saw shimon and Levi destroyed an entire city,etc. Also why werent the other great grandchildren included?
September 16th, 2009 @ 10:46 am
Hazkim,let me answer your questions. But I ask you,even though Ill answer you this time, to please not cite from sources you dont believe in. The talmud is saying that tha last 2000 years which have begun after the time of Jesus,because the world according to the talmud is 5769 so year 4000 would be the begining of the 2000 “years of messiah”,Jesus lived before that. But in any case g-d set aside theese 2000 years that if the jews would at any point be worthy, Moshiach would be sent but since as the talmud says we sinned we lost the opportunity. As for the the verse in daniel it says in seventy, sevens, meaning 70 times 7=490 years which as we know there are 70 years of Babalonion exile plus 420 years of the second temple which had “annointed “vessels” in the kodesh kodoshim which was in the temple. So the verse is explicitly refering to the second temple, not to the moshiach as we know.
September 16th, 2009 @ 12:10 pm
Zvi,
Stephen wasn’t saying what you implied. All Stephen said was there were 75 in Egypt. This would include the other 5 of his. It is not wrong, it is a different way of counting.
September 16th, 2009 @ 12:29 pm
Zvi,
Moses gave different counts for differrent reasons. You don’t want Gentiles to think the Hebrew people can’t count do you?
September 16th, 2009 @ 12:42 pm
Crig , The” way” of counting has to be consistent if hes counting people that werent born or people from one tribe, then all tribes have to be included , because otherwise I can give you an infinite amount of diffrent count totals. Moses did not give different counts.
September 16th, 2009 @ 12:57 pm
These men had a Testimony by the Spirit so until the Spirit shows you than you can not judge it.
The Torah is a Testimony of those that heard the Spirit and those who were against, not hearing the Spirit.
Becoming an adversary of God because they did not behave as children and seek first, Don’t judge and believe men who have never heard. Do you know Zvi of one man in your aquaintance that was brought to their knees by the Voice of God like our forefathers. I as a believer know some.
66, 70 and Stephen 75 all for different reasons. But all correct.
September 16th, 2009 @ 1:01 pm
The 5 of his,which is the other answer he was trying to give cannot be true because as I have stated earlier they were part of the 70 count.
September 16th, 2009 @ 1:58 pm
Zvi….I never even argued that the “annointed” spoken of was Mashiach. What I said is that certain things had to take place before the destruction of the Temple…..what do you say of “Seventy ‘sevens’ are decreed for your people and your holy city to finish transgression, to put an end to sin, to atone for wickedness, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy and to anoint the most holy”? How was this accomplished before the destruction of the 2nd Temple?
And just as an FYI, while I dont believe that the Talmud is part of an unbroken chain of oral law from Sinai (for which there is NO evidence whatsoever) I do realize that it has preserves some ancient understandings and, the rabbis being men who studied Torah, has some interesting & valuable perspectives….so I guess you can no longer quote NT since you dont believe in it either.
Either way, YOU believe in Talmud, no? And according to Talmud, the epoch of Messiah began 2,000 years ago. And,as you probably know, there is a widely understood error in the Jewish dating system by about 240 years…. What strikes me is the inconsistency of your argument. The 2,000 years of Torah BEGAN WITH Torah …..not ended with Torah….the 2,000 years of tohu BEGAN with chaos……not ended….now all of a sudden, the 2,000 years of Messiah are suppose to END with Messiah’s coming? Why the inconsistency?
Sonds like a change of plans…
September 16th, 2009 @ 4:03 pm
Hazakim,Danial told the jews at that time that they will suffer in exile and while the temple will be standing (because jews around the world were still suffering and there were no prophets etc.) and he is giving them a chance to repent and get rid of their sins so that if they are worthy because their sins are annuled,then by the end of the 490 years which are the end of the the time the temple stood, the complete redemption which includes everything all the prophets have predicted about the final redemption, would a occur. Remember this was before the “”2000 years of mossiah” period. So this was a special opportunity for the jews. However, they blew it because they sinned. As you can see for yourself the promises were not fulfilled not by jesus or by anyone else. You cannot pick and choose which passages to believe of the talmud and which of them not to believe. The evidence for the talmuds authenticity deuteronomy chapter17 verse 8-11,the torah says to follow the sages of your time,so the tamud were the sages of that time and it got passed down for us to interpert,just like the authers of the talmud interperted the law of moses, but this isnt what the debate is about. There is no change of plan in the talmud because there was a FULL 2000 years of opportunity to bring moshiach. By the way I along with many others disagree with the 240 time differece but its irrelevant for now.
September 16th, 2009 @ 5:04 pm
I RETRACT WHAT I SAID TODAY AT 10:46 REGARDING DANIAL,IT IS INDEED SPEAKING OF MOSHIACH HOWEVER YOU CAN READ MY LAST POST FOR A SIMPLE EXPLANATION. THANK YOU!
September 16th, 2009 @ 5:14 pm
Deuteronomy 17 only states that the court rule should be followed…
No mention of sages or rabbis or wisdom…only the Judicial system. It’s in the context of the court rule… I don’t see any mention of a written law or anything there. I think it would be beneficial for you to listen to Dr. Browns, “are the rabbis right” audio program where he debunks the Talmud.
About Jesus not fulfilling the promises…are you serious? I don’t understand how they could be fulfilled without him! The final transgression against God was committed when they killed Jesus, Jesus makes mention of it when he states that the cup of wrath that has been being filled was about to be poured out. An end to sin was accomplished because it’s sting had been taken away, sin was defeated under the blood of the Prince, the Messiah, just like in Ezekiel 37. Everlasting righteousness was brought in on a personal level. We can be righteous for eternity because again, Jesus defeated sin. Prophecy and vision was sealed and fulfilled because all the Messianic prophecies were being fulfilled. The most holy was anointed when Jesus started his ministry.
Either the Messianic age came and is here, or Daniel was a false prophet. And I can indeed quote the talmud, I don’t believe in it’s divinity, but I like to see how rabbis of the old interpreted specific passages. And according to them, Messiah should have come. I might also point out that if I cannot use the Talmud, you cannot use the Old Testament, double standards…….again. The contradiction has sound answers, just like in the Old Testament. Although if I attack with the same level of criticism I can also reject the resolutions of the Old Testament contradictions. But that is beside the point. God bless
September 16th, 2009 @ 8:26 pm
Kyle, you have gone completel astray.The talmud is not at all like the bible. The talmud is not cosidered written law. In fact the primary objective of the talmud is to clarify the Mishnah, and even the mishnah isnt considered written law. The only written law is the torah and the tanach. The rest is oral law. The oral law,up until the mishnah was not written down,it was instead passed down from generation to generation. When the sages saw that the oral law might get forgotten,they began writng things down,namely; the mishnah. The oral law is not an entity on its own,but rather everything in the oral law can be found in the torah. The oral law is integral because without it you would not have any idea what even one of the 613 commandments mean for example, what does shabbos mean? what are tefillin? what is the orlah? I can go on and on.Now,if the the verses in deuteronomy command every generation to follow the judges of each generation,then let me ask you,who do think the judges in the times of the talmud were if not they? The torah could not have been refering to anyone other than them, so the talmud is not an entity on its own like you claim the nt is,but rather they are only judges that were interperting the law at that time. Ezekiel would be the easiest source to demonstrate that the promises did not come true.Is there peace in the world? No. Did the all the jews return to the promised land with eveyone keeping the commandments? NO. Is there still sin? you bet! Moshiach will be here by the year 6000. There are no double standards here at all. You CANNOT bring proof to jesus from the talmud,because doing so would indicate that the talmud believed in jesus, and that is NOT the case. All I was doing was finding contradictions in the nt. NO DOUBLE STANDARDS HERE AT ALL. Please, let us get back on track with the debate and not discuss the talmud because that is NOT what this forum is all about.I have explained yhe passage in Daniel very well 2 posts ago i believe.
September 16th, 2009 @ 9:52 pm
My final post concerning the Talmud…
I understand what the Talumd is, I don’t think I came across very well in my approach though, I’m sorry for that. My point is that we can look in the Talmud about how the rabbis interpreted scripture. Like Daniel 9 for example. I know they did not believe in Jesus but they did interpret in reference to Messiah which is of significance.
I conclude on the Talmud discussion by saying that if we cannot draw conclusions from the Talmud because they did not believe in Jesus, then you cannot use the New Testament against us. That is what I meant by double standards. God bless
September 16th, 2009 @ 10:08 pm
I have a question about your interpretation of Daniel, where in scripture does it indicate that this was a conditional prophecy? It seems to me like it was definite.
Second, If you claim that this is referring to the Messianic age, why then is this anointed one cut off? If you believe that one is Messiah…
And, why is there turmoil after Messiah comes? I thought there would be world peace. But it seems like the prophecy describes a lot of destruction.
I see the promises referring to individual’s lives, an end to sin, everlasting righteousness ect… all acomplished by the death of this anointed one, the prince of peace mentioned in Ezekiel, the Messiah. The Servant, David.
September 16th, 2009 @ 10:11 pm
Thanks for all the blessings Kile. The equivlent of me violating the” Double standards law” would be for me to bring to quote a verse in the the nt that would seem to indicate that the position of the nt regarding jesus is of no significance. I would never try that. I am merely pointing out contradictions in the nt that would prove that its not divine. I hope this helps.
September 16th, 2009 @ 10:14 pm
Ah, thank you. Alright then
September 16th, 2009 @ 10:40 pm
Here is a site I found on contradiction, It’s pretty long winded, but I want to bring it up for the audience
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/baduseot.html
September 16th, 2009 @ 11:20 pm
Kile,great question on my interpretation on Danial. I was waiting for you to ask it. 1.I did not explain myself well enough,the prophecy is indeed a definite one. It is saying that the jews will be exiled, however during that period the jews will be given a window of opportunity to get rid of their sins. So the window of opportunity is definite. 2.The moshiach that will fall does not mean the literal translation of Moshiach, but rather an important person namely egrifas the king of yehudah as rashi says. We find egrifas to mean”‘important” in Isaiah 1:46 3.Danial predicts that the jews will not use the window of opporunity to get rid of the sins-thus; distruction. 4. there must be peace,all jews following the law in the holy land,that didnt happen yet.
September 16th, 2009 @ 11:22 pm
Correction, we find MOSHIACH to mean important in issaiah 45:1
September 17th, 2009 @ 9:01 am
Zvi, but Cyrus was not called Immanuel. Baseing anointed as Messiah does not make Cyrus the Messiah that is promised(the Branch).
14. Therefore, the Lord, of His own, shall give you a sign; behold, the young woman is with child, and she shall bear a son, and she shall call his name Immanuel.
September 17th, 2009 @ 11:50 am
Craig, as I said the word moshiach means important person. Koreh was not the moshiach. Now for all of you talmud bashers how about this. The talmud in rosh hashanah 25a. The jews felt that they were witnessing the renewel of the month,so rav Gamliel told them “this is what I have learned and accepted from my fathers house the renewl of the month is not less than 29.5 days,2thirds of an hour and 73 parts. Now the jews used to split up the hour into 1080 “parts” so 2 thirds of an hour=720 parts,720+73=793.. 1080 divided by 793=.734259 hours=.03059 days, 29.5+.03059=29.53059. Carl sagan came up with a report that the moon renews itself 29.530588. A report out of Berlin=29.530589 still one decimal short of the precision that our sages had, and for all those who doubt the authenticity of the oral law. The zohar in parshas vayikrah page ten written about 1900 years ago writes with absolute certainty 1. the earth is round 2.keeps spinning 3.there are people living all around the globe all walking even though the people on the bottom of the globe should have to fall into the sky4.there are places on the earth that it is light while other places are dark 5.there is a place on earth that only has light for one hour.
September 17th, 2009 @ 12:09 pm
The zohar also mentions that not all people look alike,in other words chinese amerians and those from europe all have a certain look remember it was written way before columbos this was about 1900 years ago.
September 17th, 2009 @ 12:37 pm
Zvi,
But as Moses spoke the words from God so did Yeshua. Can you tell me what word or deed from Yeshua that you do not like. I remind you a Prophet is sent to reprove not just please everyone as there was sin and unbelief in Israel. As Shmuley Boteach said Pharisee’s believed Yeshua and wanted to protect him.
Indeed moshiach means important person. A great light came to Israel and many believed but others chose darkness.
M’t:4:16: The people which sat in darkness saw great light; and to them which sat in the region and shadow of death light is sprung up.
You certainly you know that the Hebrew people were expecting a one Messiah who was above all others who were deemed important. It is Torah and the forefathers who taught this!
Immanuel, Yeshua so close to God His Father in His fullness, given the task of His God to speak His Father’s words to Israel. Thus Yeshua Messiah said He is One with His Father. As Moses said in Deut 18:18 you must listen to Him.
De:18:18: I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him.
De:18:19: And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him.
Not Joshua as some Othodox teach, Joshua only recieved a portion(some of thine honour upon him) of what Moses had.
Nu:27:20: And thou shalt put some of thine honour upon him, that all the congregation of the children of Israel may be obedient.
De:34:10: And there arose not a prophet since in Israel like unto Moses, whom the LORD knew face to face,
September 17th, 2009 @ 12:53 pm
Zvi,
I might add that Shmuley is very kind at times when he speaks of Yeshua but he has an aweful lot to lose if he were to believe Yeshua was Messiah. A decision to follow the Prophets can get you into big trouble with Israel. History is the witness to this. If only it was understood there is much to gain, knowing God personally as many have come to know and died in great inner peace.
September 17th, 2009 @ 1:23 pm
“”"”Kile,great question on my interpretation on Danial. I was waiting for you to ask it. 1.I did not explain myself well enough,the prophecy is indeed a definite one. It is saying that the jews will be exiled, however during that period the jews will be given a window of opportunity to get rid of their sins.
So the window of opportunity is definite. ”"”
Yes the exile was defnite but where does it mention anything concerning a window of opportunity? The text says that the messianic age would be definite. I see no room for a conditional prophecy. Where is there any hint of a window of opportunity?
”"”2.The moshiach that will fall does not mean the literal translation of Moshiach, but rather an important person namely egrifas the king of yehudah as rashi says. “”"
Can you back this up with the hebrew? And with scripture?
“”"We find egrifas to mean”‘important” in Isaiah 1:46 3.Danial predicts that the jews will not use the window of opporunity to get rid of the sins-thus; distruction. 4. there must be peace,all jews following the law in the holy land,that didnt happen yet.”‘”
Where does Daniel say that they won’t use this supposed opportunity?
About the rabbis in the talmud, I agree Zvi! They were brilliant! Some of the greatest thinkers of their day! I have a question for you though Zvi, if you find evidence for Jesus, will you follow him? If so, ask God to work in you.
September 17th, 2009 @ 1:34 pm
Zvi, Messiah means “anointed one” or anointed. I don’t see important in any lexicon I search
September 17th, 2009 @ 1:35 pm
Craig,there true prophets and false ones Jesus was a false one because he claimed claimed that jews can abandon the law of moses and in Deuteronomy it says that such a prophet must be excecuted.
September 17th, 2009 @ 1:56 pm
Kyle 1.Danial gave 490 right? to do what? to get rid of sins. Thats all it doesnt have to say window of opportunity.It simply means that daniel is saying here are 490 year ya got of exile and to get rid of sins thats all I dont call that condional and the way of getting rid of sins is to repent. 2.I corrected my error in the next post by saying that MOSHIACH =important see Isaiah 45: 1. 3.Daniel predicted destruction if there is destruction of the temple,that would indicate Moshiach hasnt arrived becase part of the benefit of moshiachs arrival is the presence of the temple so daniel is predicting that the jews wont repent thus-no temple -no moshiach. Had Jesus been the moshiach, the temple would not have been destroyed.as daniel CLEARLY states that the 2 are related. 4.The sages were very bright,however you missed the point Rabon Gamliel didnt think of it on his own but rather he heard it from his father who heard it from his all the way up from g-d at sinai That means that the INFORMATION in the talmud is authentic NOT their brains.
September 17th, 2009 @ 2:07 pm
Zvi,
Jesus fullfilled the Law in righteousness. Mercy and Grace is part of Torah. OR David would have to be killed.
He was persecuted because He said He was God’s Son not because of prophesy.
You are guilty no? Deut:18:18-19
Is that why the Baptist was killed? Or did evil slay another of God’s Prophets!
September 17th, 2009 @ 2:24 pm
Kyle 1.Danial gave 490 right? to do what? to get rid of sins. Thats all it doesnt have to say window of opportunity.It simply means that daniel is saying here are 490 year ya got of exile and to get rid of sins thats all I dont call that condional and the way of getting rid of sins is to repent
Daniel declared that in 490 years these things would happen. It did not have a condition on it Zvi, these things were going to happen.
. 2.I corrected my error in the next post by saying that MOSHIACH =important see Isaiah 45: 1.
Messiah means anointed in every lexicon I search.
3.Daniel predicted destruction if there is destruction of the temple,that would indicate Moshiach hasnt arrived because part of the benefit of moshiachs arrival is the presence of the temple so daniel is predicting that the jews wont repent thus-no temple -no moshiach. Had Jesus been the moshiach, the temple would not have been destroyed.
But Jesus did come when the temple was here, and the destruction of the temple was due to the Jews rejecting him! Jesus himself prophesied it. The Jews of Jesus day could have theoretically accepted him, and he would have reigned, but they did not and he was rejected. And therefore the temple was destroyed because of it. Can you give me the verses where Daniel predicts that they would not repent?
September 17th, 2009 @ 2:35 pm
An interesting look at Daniel 9, this is my interpretation… the way I think most plausible.
http://www.danielsseventyweeks.com/Daniels_70_Weeks_Web_html.html
It is again, a long read but worth it.
September 17th, 2009 @ 2:39 pm
Zvi,
You muffed it.
You wrote:
Daniel predicted destruction if there is destruction of the temple,that would indicate Moshiach hasnt arrived becase part of the benefit of moshiachs arrival is the presence of the temple so daniel is predicting that the jews wont repent thus-no temple -no moshiach.
——————
The temple was there when Yeshua went to Jerusalem. He spoke at the Temple.
26. And after the sixty-two weeks, the anointed one will be cut off, and he will be no more, and the people of the coming monarch will destroy the city and the Sanctuary, and his end will come about by inundation, and until the end of the war, it will be cut off into desolation.
The above say’s the Sancuary must be destroyed AFTER the anointed one is cut off. PROPHECY FULLFILLED!
A) the temple was destroyed
B) the city was destroyed
Daniel’s book is not Prophesy according to http://www.chabad.org?????
September 17th, 2009 @ 2:59 pm
Jesus was not a Torah observant Jew? He himself would be surprised to hear that! He only spoke out against the hypocrisy of his time. Have you ever read the New Testament in full Zvi?
Jesus himself said in Matthew 5:17 that he did not come to abolish the law. He also said that nothing will leave the law until everything is accomplished. He even taught his disciples. Look at Peter, even after being with Jesus for years he still would not eat from the sheet that was lowered out of heaven that had non kosher animals on it. If you object to the passage where Jesus taught that food did not defile you it is likely that he was pointing out a deeper truth, namely that the Jews of his day should not be concerned over being defiled by being near Gentiles, which was a problem in the early church. Bottom line, Jesus himself was a rabbi, and he was even more than that…
September 17th, 2009 @ 3:17 pm
1. There is no definitive statement regarding moshiach it DOES NOT say tzedek olamim will happen, it says I will give you 490 years of suffering TO get get rid of sin and to bring moshiach,the only definite part here is that 1.there will 490 years of suffering 2.the PURPOSE of these years are to get rid of sins 3.getting rid of sins leads to moshiach,ztedeck olamim. 3 definite statements. none cotradict the fact that there is a possibility that mohiach will not come. For example, I can say” you will eat ice cream, or I can say,” I will give you money “”TO” buy ice cream. If the guy doesnt end up eating ice cream, in contradicts statement one but NOT # 2. The verse in Isaiah is similar to statement # 2. Also KORESH was NOT moshiach so the traslation cannot be literal rather it means important person like rashi says. According to you that the prophecy of daniel was definite REGARDLESS of sin then why was the temple destroyed is Jesus contradicting daniel? You wont accept when I that the jews blew it because of sin, for the prophesy is DEFINITE?Yet when Jesus says it its OK al; of a sudden the prophesy is NOT definite. Regarding your last question, Daniel predicts that the temple will be distroyed, so the reason has got to be due to sin.
September 17th, 2009 @ 3:29 pm
Craig, according to jesus do jews have to keep shabbos? that is whats wrong with jesus.
September 17th, 2009 @ 3:41 pm
Zvi,
Gabriel the Angel that stands before God said the Temple would be destroyed after the anointed one is cut off. Not a maybe but a definite. It was going to happen, prophecy!
Daniel was getting a clear understanding by Gabriel.
Jesus was not wrong He also said destruction of the Temple was coming. That the Temple would be destroyed. Jesus is not contradicting Daniel. Even the foundations of the Temple were dug up because of the melted gold… Josephus, an historian wrote about the destruction.
Matthew 24:1-2
1 Jesus left the temple and was walking away when his disciples came up to him to call his attention to its buildings.
2 “Do you see all these things?” he asked. “I tell you the truth, not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down.”
Why did all this happen?
Because the Law of Moses was broken that brought Judgment on death on Jerusalem.
De:18:18: I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him.
De:18:19: And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him.
Judgment is that unbelievers die in this sin. Just as if they rebelled against Moses.
September 17th, 2009 @ 3:42 pm
Crig, he was at the temple and it got destroyed afterwards. and kyle, Jesus told his students to whea on shabbos, also christians claim that jews dont have to keep the torah why not?
September 17th, 2009 @ 3:53 pm
Zvi,
You won’t understand this, maybe Dr. Brown or Kyle can answer you best. Yeshua becomes our shabbos.
Jesus didn’t break the Sabboth, He healed on the Sabbath. Sabboth is a gift of rest and healing given to Israel.
September 17th, 2009 @ 4:28 pm
Zvi,
To give you a little insght from our perspective:
We do NOT believe (neither can you deduce from Brit Hadasha) that Yeshua nullified Torah. He upheld the heart of it TO THE POINT that he claimed breaking it, even if merely by desire, was like breaking it in deed/action.
Having said that, even you do not keep the Torah completely, and cannot, since the bulk of Torah law pre-supposes a standing Temple and being in the Land. Much of what the “oral law” seeks to do is create a situation in which Jews out of the land, without a Temple, are able to keep some semblance of Torah observance.
For one who holds to the mishnah, how can you say Brit Hadasha nullifies or breaks Torah? Isnt that like the pot calling the kettle hot? Must I list the many references in which oral torah seems to contradict the clear menaing and message of Torah? Understand bro, I do not wish to degrade your sacred texts, but the words of Yeshua are completely in harmony with Torah compared to the mishnah, gemara.
September 17th, 2009 @ 4:29 pm
Zvi,
I will say if you every have to face total darkness even on the Sabbath and Messiah rescues you than He will become your everlasting Sabboth. Lord of the Sabboth, Son of Man and Son of God.
Do some reserch on the Lord of the Sabboth.
September 17th, 2009 @ 4:30 pm
Once we can say “I became the shabbos”,then all logic has gone haywire. Discussion is closed.
September 17th, 2009 @ 4:33 pm
Christians claim that Jews do not have to follow the Torah? I don’t think so, I’m a Christian and we simply believe that the “sting” of the law has been taken away by our ‘asham’ our guilt offering. It is because of him that we are not declared guilty. This doesn’t mean we can sin, it means we can live again. Jesus himself says we must follow and do his Father’s will. I myself believe that Jewish believers in Jesus should observe the sabbath on Saturdays.
September 17th, 2009 @ 4:34 pm
Hazakim, christians dont believe the jews have to keep ANYTHING from the mishnah. Give me a break!!!
September 17th, 2009 @ 4:36 pm
Jesus as the Messiah, coming to die for our sins, came as our prince of peace, our shalom. He in himself is our peace. He as Messiah, with his knowledge of Torah, did become our sabbath, not that we do not observe it!
September 17th, 2009 @ 4:36 pm
Does Dr. Brown keep SHabbos?
September 17th, 2009 @ 4:39 pm
Indeed, the Mishnah was not given at Sinai, only the written code. I recommend listening to this here.
http://realmessiah.askdrbrown.org/Listen/Entries/2008/12/11_Are_the_Rabbis_right.html
September 17th, 2009 @ 4:52 pm
The oral law was given in sinai othereise 1. what are tefilin? 2.what is the orlah? what is asucka? How do you keep shabbos, etc. and which written laws do the chr. think we should keep. Either way I am the shabos??????????????????????????????????????????????? I flew to the moon.
September 17th, 2009 @ 5:12 pm
About Daniel 9, the Weeks were decreed, the word decreed is , chatack, and means, divided, determined, settled or marked out.
http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H2852&t=ESV
It was going to happen, it was decreed, determined, and it shall go forth. Just like Craig said, the anointed one, the messiah, the prince of peace would be cut off, and the temple would be destroyed most definitely. The decision by God stated that in those weeks sin would end ect….
September 17th, 2009 @ 5:18 pm
My previous posts answered everything in daniel. However we cannot continue an honest debate when logic is being defied.
September 17th, 2009 @ 6:48 pm
“Hazakim, christians dont believe the jews have to keep ANYTHING from the mishnah.”
This was in response to……..??????
I never said anyone had to keep anything from the “oral torah” because such a thing does not exist.
September 17th, 2009 @ 8:33 pm
Oh Zvi, while I was praying about Daniel 9 I realized something. I actually kind of agree with your interpretation. The way you presented it, I didn’t know it was the way I framed it in my own mind. You see as you said, Messiah was expected, but because of Israel’s sin, Messiah did not come.
I see it like this in light of Jesus’ words… If Israel would have been righteous when Jesus arrived, he would have set up his Kingdom and ruled, but when Jesus came, Israel was in sin, and he took the roll of the suffering servant. Israel’s sin of rejecting the Messiah was their “final transgression,” filling God’s cup of wrath. The result was the destruction of the temple.
So in a way, I agree, but I wanted to clear that up.
September 17th, 2009 @ 9:29 pm
Zvi,
http://askdrbrown.org/ask-dr-brown/35-ask-dr-brown/76-should-christians-observe-the-seventh-day-sabbath
September 18th, 2009 @ 9:57 am
Kyle, thanks for being honest.However I do want to note that the “Jesus” part of you interpretation of Daniel is something that you believe and not something that is explicit or even implicit in the text. So to sum it all up,Christians cannot use the verses in Daniel as a “basis” to the belief that Jesus was the moshiach.I would like to challenge Hazakim,regarding your statement that the oral torah does not exsist. According to you the only authentic part is the scripture. So let me ask you Hazakim,when the torah says that one must put on tefilin, what are they? what color does it have to be? How often should it be worn? The torah also says to wear tzitzis. Whats that? what is a mezuah? what is a lulav? an esrog? How does one go about keeping shaboss? I can go on and on.Without the oral torah we are LOST. In addition to the questions I asked, I would also like to know how is it possible that the mathew in 1;47 define the word almah as “virgin”when in reality it means “young woman”? I would also like a response to my previous post regarding “renewal of the month” how could rav Gamliel have known that information? He claimed that he heard it from his father that heard it from his all the way up from sinai.They didnt have the technology then the way way we have it today.So the only way he could have known this information had to be from sinai the way he claimed he knew it. Doesnt that prove the authenticity of the talmud?If it is in fact authentic, then we must follow what they say with regards to jesus.
September 18th, 2009 @ 11:05 am
Sorry,I will be unable to respond until after the Rosh hashanah. Have a happy new year, guys.
September 18th, 2009 @ 11:20 am
“So let me ask you Hazakim,when the torah says that one must put on tefilin, what are they? what color does it have to be? How often should it be worn?”
The answer is simple: The scriptures never command the wearing of tefilin. “You shall bind them for a sign on your hand, and they shall be for symbols between your eyes.” Elsewhere it says, “”Therefore shall ye lay up these my words in your heart and in your soul, and bind them for a sign upon your hand, that they may be as frontlets between your eyes.”
I do not take this to mean having the Torah surgically planted in the heart any more than I believe literal tefilin was meant here. AND, Zvi, and this is a archeological fact, the construction of tefilin in the ancient world varied from sect to sect (some had 5 compartements, some had 4)…so there was no fixed law from Sinai about such a thing. This is an issue of the sages majoring on the minors and getting technical….so the “oral torah” (which is really just ancient TRADITIONS passed on) filled the gaps. I am not saying, however, that there is anything wrong with traditions and putting on tefilin…but the passage in question is not hyper-literal.
Even if we took this literally, why would color or style matter to G-d. When He gave commands concerning the construction of the Tabernacle, He gave SPECIFIC instructions concerning color, shape, size etc….in the WRITTEN WORD. If he made a big deal about the Tabernacle but not “tefilin”, what does that tell us about tefilin? So let us put the Law between our eyes (our focus, our minds) and in our hearts (our reflection, our passion)….I do, however, think that tefilin is a great way to stay reminded about G-d’s Law ….and I know Messianic Jews who find beauty and meaning in this tradition….but it was not a command!
“The torah also says to wear tzitzis. Whats that? what is a mezuah? what is a lulav? an esrog? How does one go about keeping shaboss?”
As for keeping Shaboss……didn’t the Torah give explicit enough instructions for us? And arent there PLENTY of examples in it’s pages concerning how to keep and not keep Shabbos (even examples of punishment)? As for Mezuzah….it’s the same as the frontlets….the point was devotion, not hyper-literal. All your other examples don’t apply….those within the sound of Moses’s voice, knew what he was talking about. No need to give explicit detail as he did with the Tabernacle.
Think about it Zvi….the G-d of Israel spared NO DETAILS concerning Tabernacle and Temple worship….atonement and blood sacrifice…pages upon pages…..paragraph upon paragraph….yet gave no details concerning tefilin. Yet, strangely, the part of Torah that the rabbinic community downplays the most is……….BLOOD ATONEMENT…while they focus on the “correct way to wear tefilin”…..something G-d did not even explain in detail.
As for “almah” into “parthenos” (greek for virgin)…..that is the way it was translated into the Jewish translation called the Septuagint.
And followers of Jesus do not own the monopoly on theologically biased translations of scripture….many normative Rabbinic Jewish transaltions (esp. the Stones) has plenty of inconsistencies in it’s translation of Hebrew words when the relevant passage could be interpreted in a messianic way or pointing to Yeshua. Want examples?
September 18th, 2009 @ 11:24 am
L’shana tova to you Zvi…..
September 18th, 2009 @ 12:49 pm
Zvi writes: The word almah cannot mean virgin because the root of the word almah is elem same hebrew letters and in shmuel 1,chapter 17,verse 56 and shmuel1 chapter 20 verse 52 it clearly means a young man (etc.).
So, let’s follow your reasoning, Zvi. In your analysis, holding to the same standards, since elem has the exact same spelling as OLaM, eternity, (Ayin-Lamed-Mem), the angels who live forever and are as young men. But according to YOUR resoning, they do nothing but fornicate with each other in Heaven…that is, according to that illogical reasoning you force-fit upon “the same letters” principle. Seems to me, HASHEM destroyed Sodom for that kind of immoral behavior.
Yeshua said that the angels have NO sexual relations in Heaven, they do not marry. Nor will people in the Resurrection marry, or have any sexual relations…they just won’t.
As for Proverbs, now you must declare there is a “mouth down there” . Is it in the front or the back, and when is it a “mouth” or “chasm” of any kind other than in childbirth? To then debate this aspect further is to delve into what are expressions of vulgar profanity, and how these expressions must have come about using the illogic you atempt to use and justify your position. So we won’t go there to XXX.
So, in the rated G or PG version, explain to me how you are going to take OLaM, the same letters of ELeM, and NOT make HASHEM, the Great Eternal Being, and somehow not characterize and malign HASHEM’s reputaion into the Great Fornicator like you would claim for the young man of 1 Samuel 17:56? Don’t forget to include the young man of I Samuel 20:22, also .
The Muslims did essentially that, taking from the same arguments that you are using, used by the Rabbis that debated Early Christians in the post-Roman era that they were in, and look what kind of religion they ended up with.
In fact, in order to sexualize ALMaH, rabbis (Rashi included) have called one or both the matrons Rebekkah and Miriam as sexually promiscuous from childhood for years, their acges of sexual activity claimed to range sometime from age 3 to 13. Preceding them, the Talmud makes allowances for sexual relations that betwen men and girls; it does not simply cite situations in case of alien invaders commiting rape, but it takes in voluntary Jewish adult male to involuntary Jewish child sexual relations (be it incest, marriage to the child, or child rape) as well…it is all covered. But in modern times, these are only still “acceptably” practiced by Muslims who adopted them from Mohammed, who adopted it from the anti-Christian rabinical Jews and the Talmud.
And it all goes back to an intentional attempt by Judah ha Nasi and others to deny Yeshua as Messhiach, and the virgin birth through the word “ALMaH”, which is OLaM with a letter “He” on the end of it, signifying, “a revelation of the Spirit by the word of promise”, or a Gematriac interpretation to this effect. In other words, something akin to the virgin birth promise made in Isaiah 7:14 by the prophecy of the Holy Spirit of G-D.
September 18th, 2009 @ 12:56 pm
Have a good Rosh Hashanah Zvi, may God bless you and your family!
September 20th, 2009 @ 11:39 pm
Hazakim,thank you. I would like to know what are” frontlets”? also what is supposed to be worn on your hand?If you’ll responnd by saying nothing,then I’d like to know where the hand comes in here. Nobody had 5 compartments in their tefilin.In the book of numbers somone got punished for collecting woods.Where does it say in the torah that that is prohibited?You dismissed a good part of my questions by saying that the jews figured it out from moses’ voice. The problem with that theory is that how would they figure out what type of fruits to take or what tzitziz are from a voice? If you’ll tell me that there is a possibility to understand what moses meant just by listening to him, then SO BE IT, THATS WHAT I CALL ORAL LAW.Also the fact that g-d doesnt speak of something very often does not at all indicate the level of importance it is to him. How often does g-d talk about murder?It warrants the death penalty, not bringing a korban doesnt. Furthermore,the torah never discusses a human offering,on the contrary,its looked down upon. Finally, if your claiming that the torah wasnt literal in many instances, then each person will decide whats good for him. For example the torah says to sit in a succah,each person will decide for himself what the word succah means and g-d only meant one thing . Besides the torah says to follow the judges of your days,well there are no jewish torah observing judges telling me to do otherwise. The bottom line is that without the oral law, things are a big mess. as far as the word almah, if the nt is divine it cannot have false definitions,no matter how good the excuse is, no matter where the traslation came from a bible=word of g-d= perfection.
September 20th, 2009 @ 11:56 pm
Brianroy,you misunderstood what I wrote,or perhaps I wasnt explicit enough. The reason why olem means young women is simply because in the hebrew language, when the last letter is a “hei” it usually (not always) refers to the female in that word. For example omar=he said omrah (the same word, with a hei at the end)=she ate. ocal=he hate, ochlah= she ate. i can give you dozens of examples, so therefore elem=young man almah=young women. HOWEVER,olam is a completely different word its spelled ayin,vav,lamid,mem. There is an extra vav inserted in middle of the word, so that COMPLETELY changes the meaning of the word. also the rashi you quoted DOESNT EXIST.
September 21st, 2009 @ 1:12 pm
Zvi Erblich wote: Craig,there true prophets and false ones Jesus was a false one because he claimed claimed that jews can abandon the law of moses and in Deuteronomy it says that such a prophet must be excecuted.
———–
Yeshua did not. Healing on the Sabboth only God can do.
Picking grain to eat as the Lord’s place was the outdoors and His table was the fields of grain that His father grew that day. It does not say you must not eat on the Sabboth. Yeshua is greater than the Sabboth.
There will be no rest (Sabbath) for Israel until the return of the Prince of Peace, the Lord of the Sabboth. 6 days is 6000 years to God.
You call David’s Lord a false prophet! God has taken the Law of Moses from you. You are not worthy of it.
September 21st, 2009 @ 2:11 pm
Why do I say you have not the Law Israel?
M’t:22:37: Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
You call the Lord a false prophet! For this you have not the Lord’s Precious.
September 21st, 2009 @ 4:33 pm
Zvi,
I’m glad you’re continuing to interact with folks on the blog here, and I’d be happy to jump in, except that I’ve answered your main points in writing many times before. So, just a reminder, if you’re really looking for answers, the sources are waiting for you.
Also, you should really call me on the Line of Fire program one day. If you can make your case well — choose any one point, no matter how small — and I’ll devote most of the broadcast to it.
September 21st, 2009 @ 8:45 pm
Dr.Brown, I thank you for the offer once again. However I feel that the most honest method of debating the issue, would be on the blog,so this way I have the time to answer all the questions that come my way.
September 21st, 2009 @ 9:36 pm
The core issue with christianity, aside from the fact that the old testament never CLEARLY according to all of us,(we believe it isnt even implicit) states that g-d has a son never mind it being Jesus, and aside from the fact that I have demonstrated that there are strong contradictions in the nt, that I havent heard even a single reasonable response, and aside from the fact that I have proven that the talmud is authentic just from the fact that rabon Gamliel knew how often the moon renews itself each month to 4 decimal places in the times of the talmud,without technology,and the zohar who knew everything about earth 1900 years ago,and aside fromthe fact that ive demonstrated that the verses in daniel and in issaih are not reffering to jesus, putting all that aside the main problem with christianity is this;Deuteronomy chapter 17 verse 8-13 Clearly states that all jews are obligated to follow the rulings of the scholarly judges of that time. What did the judges of the time have to say regarding Jesus? We all know the answer to that one. So therefore Jesus has to be considered a false prophet case closed. The only way a christian can get out of this would be to say that heaven forbid the one above retracted his statements and laws from the old testament,the problem with that would be twofold 1.The torah said it will never change 2. In order to say that g-d changed his mind which would would be the single most earth shattering event in history, THERE ARE NO WITTNESSES. THERE WOULD HAVE TO BE A MASS MASS DIVINE REVELATION, AT LEAST A BIG AS THE FIRST TIME WHICH HAD 600,ooo jews present. If G-d is changing his mind and jesus is ia god for all nations then g-d should have revealed himself in front of 90 times that amount. Instead there was NONE of that no witnesses,therefore the word of g-d stands as it always has been, that we must follow the judges and reject jesus.
September 21st, 2009 @ 11:56 pm
Zvi,
I a curious where you reside? And if you are open to a face to face discussion of the matters you have raised? Please answer when your own reflection in this present season has been completed.
September 22nd, 2009 @ 12:18 am
If G-d is changing his mind and jesus is ia god for all nations then g-d should have revealed himself in front of 90 times that amount. Instead there was NONE of that no witnesses,therefore the word of g-d stands as it always has been, that we must follow the judges and reject jesus.
Rabbi Jesus did not do anything contrary to what G-d did for the nations, here: Isa 49:6 “And he said, it is a light thing that thou shouldest be my servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob, and to restore the preserved of Israel: I will also give thee for a light to the Gentiles, that thou mayest be my salvation unto the end of the earth”
September 22nd, 2009 @ 3:04 am
Echad, (or Echod?)
Perhaps one difficulty of the notion that the Good News of Yeshua bringing the New Covenant to us–of Jeremiah’s reference being not extended into the nations by his Apostles’ second Temple period engagement with them–is the view that light can be hidden from anyone by rigid gat4keeping of its switch. Consider the plans G-d has for the living as stated as extended to the Nations written in the Hebrew prophets. How would these plans have come to pass otherwise?
Our challenge is to read of the Life testimony sent into the Nations from Jerusalem recorded by Levi in Matthew, or by John and then respond with a regard of righteousness as to the indivisiblity represented of the Dance recorded there with the clearly signaled Dancer.
I recall a night in 1972 when I inquired of the Lord, after reading these two accounts of the Life: “if you are really real, show me.” This answer was sought with my whole heart in my Grandmother’s back windowless bedroom. Immediately an invisible finger touched and warmed my heart with a reality not prior known, or shown through engagement alone with the Tenach or Torah. The touch was larger than my own existence, or days, and began to transform, enlarge, and challenge all that I thought was real.
I was in Illinois, in Rockford, my home town, and the hand of the Ruach Ha Kodesh echoed those words read thereafter into depths of being I had not known of, as written by witnesses to anyone who would read, and open one’s inquiry, well over a thousand years prior. There is more than the New Testament, as Brit as it has proven to be over centuries, established as true witness.
There are those over centuries who chose to die for that witness, those who protected Jews during the European death sweep of the Holocaust, those who will not renounce its hold on their conscience this day. There are the eyewitness and historical accounts, the midrash prophetic fulfillments written of the Life,
and the obvious fact that the disciples and Yeshua converged in then Palistime in the timeframe spoken of by Daniel, Malichai, and Isaiah. There is the profound proactive effect of the principles of the Messiah on what was once called Western Civilization.
Jesus was called a rabbi by some, and was recognized as Rabboni Messiah by those everyday souls he called and chose to disciple, who then shook the whole wide world with their own witness, lives, and testimony. Who else could affect those till then meager lives, to rise up and shake the Nations, and Israel? Thousands of Jews and God fearers were added to the first congregation daily after the events of the Life. They worshiped openly in the Temple Courts.
Why were those who hid after the Crucifixion suddenly empowered to alter and change the whole wide world? Why is a permanancy of atonement ascribed by millions to a Jew who grew up in Galilee? What has He to do with us, and the chosen Nation?
September 22nd, 2009 @ 4:34 am
My first paragraph, I was quoting Zvi, and my second paragraph was my response to the point he was trying to bring up.
You said: “Why are those who hid after the Crucifixion suddenly empowered to alter and change the whole wide world?”
Well, first off, it was not a ‘suddenly’ type situation; they hid from the romans and anyone who would turn them in for their convictions/associations with Him. Even when He came back they still had to wait to get the power from the Spirit. And then to go further, they who hid did not go to change the whole world, that was Shaoul’s burden. To answer your second question, it is because G-d gave us all freewill. We are all his creation. His whole ministry is to show his creation how greatly he wants to commune with us as individuals that he go through great lengths to illustrate his point. He came thru his people, that bloodline because of Abraham, He finally found a creation of His that pleased him. He has always hoped that Israel would be His ambassadors and proselytize the globe with the knowledge and understanding of Him.
So I hoped that help to answer your queries…
September 22nd, 2009 @ 10:57 am
Zvi,
Fair enough, but the door remains open to you.
On my end, the moment I spot a serious question that you raise here that I have not already fully and clearly answered, I’ll try to jump in (or, someone else from our organization will respond). Otherwise, be assured (to repeat once again), that all your questions have been answered and your concerns totally refuted many times over, and if you want to know the truth, it’s there waiting for you to find it and discover it.
If, however, you simply enjoy getting into arguments, be my guest. The blog is open here for all who abide by the rules.
September 22nd, 2009 @ 7:58 pm
Another area where christians go wrong is when they quote verses from Jerimiah 31 to support their claim that the new testament is divine. The only way it would be possible to use this as a source would be if” bris chadasah” would mean the new testament. This however cannot be. The word covenant means a pact, a deal. A covenant is merely an agreement made by the jews to accept and obey the torah,in return for the promises made by g-d. The word bris can by no means be defined as a torah or bible. To claim that the new bris replaced the old one cannot be (even if it would mean the torah) because in leviticus chapter 26 verse 44 clearly says that the bris will NEVER be anulled,psalms 105:10 says the bris is eternal. In deuteronomy 29;28 the torah is eternal,and in many other places. So, it is absolutely CRYSTAL clear that the torah will NEVER be replaced nor will the bris. Now getting back to Jerimiah, bris chadashah means a new deal NOT a new torah, NOT a deal any different than the first one,for g-d said otherwise. It is merely a reinforcement of the old deal where g-d says he will inscribe the torah in our hearts and we will not sin.What does g-d say he will insert into this “bris chadash”? The torah. If g-d would have wanted a new torah he would have made it clear by saying “new torah” not “new bris”. Furthermore,it cannot be reffering to the nt, because in verse 32 it says that the new bris is for the house of israel NOT the gentiles. Also the navi writes here in verse 33 that the entire world will know g-d, and millions of people dont believe in jesus.
September 22nd, 2009 @ 11:13 pm
Zvi,
Once more, you can save yourself a lot of time with posting all these arguments, since they have already been answered. Before God, do you want to know the truth, or do you just want to argue?
September 22nd, 2009 @ 11:55 pm
Dr. Brown, here’s the deal, this is a debate forum and I’m doing just that and whoever feels they can respond to my arguements can do so free of charge. I feel that I have the truth and the christians are the ones “arguing” not the other way around. Thank you for the opportunity!
September 23rd, 2009 @ 12:53 am
Zvi,
You should call Dr. Browns radio show. Its obvious you may not get to cover everything in one session but at least you can focus on some areas. Like I mentioned before, thousands of people are listening. This would be a good strategy to present your side to THOUSANDS compared to a few readers online you interact with. If one day is not enough, I assume Dr. Brown may arrange something for another day and have part 2, part 3, etc…
Here’s another suggestions, how about a public debate. You or someone else you know can arrange the time and place that can hold a large audience.
Hopefully there is nothing to be scared of on your part. If you feel you have the truth, then go public, go on Dr. Brown’s radio show or set up a public debate.
BTW, I don’t work for Dr. Brown. I am only suggesting.
September 23rd, 2009 @ 2:37 am
Echad, thanks for the clarifications of what it was you were writing. Zvi, truth is written in the stars, in the Word, and on the heart for those who seek to know it. What was given, in my own sincere inquiry, was the Son, whom many of us have chosen to embrace because of our own inherent inquisitive place within, found needful of a holy occupancy we could not make happen.
September 23rd, 2009 @ 5:33 am
Hey guys I’m back! Zvi, this is not a debating forum or blog, it’s a radio show website. Dr. Brown can arrange as many shows as you need for a debate. In all honesty, only a few to a dozen people read this page seeing as it’s very old and back there. If you were on radio however, there would be thousands present.
September 23rd, 2009 @ 10:05 am
Zvi,
I would take you seriously if: 1) You read all the detailed refutations of your objections before posting arguments here that have already been totally refuted; 2) You raised one single argument of real substance; 3) You took the initiative to debate me on the subject rather than trying to turn a discussion for my radio broadcasts into a debating website (which it is not, and which is why I don’t do any debating here.)
From my point of view, it’s fine for you to post here, because it reveals the bankruptcy of your position and your willful ignoring of the previously published answers to your position. That being said, I’ll not interact any further with you here, since you’ve made it clear that you’re not interested in serious debate. When you are, the phone lines are open to my radio show!
September 23rd, 2009 @ 10:12 am
Zvi,
Abraham believed, walked with God and pleased Him, that is the Covenant that still stands and a new one was made replacing the Old that was made when the Hebrew people were taken out of Egypt. If we walk with Messiah than we walk with God in the New Covenant(Jer:31:31) redeemed by His blood!Re:5:9: And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation;
You call it a lie and have never heard from God. Jer:31:34: And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD; for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.
You can not say you know the Lord, we can.
There is your Testamony and proof.
It has always been that the Prophets Words were rejected.
If Abraham was a law breaker(against God’s ways) he would not of walked with God.
Abel to Abraham to Moses, blood was required. You offer grain like Cain.
September 23rd, 2009 @ 10:27 am
Zvi:
I have one question for you, do you have experienced the secret (counsel) of the Lord that King David wrote in Psalm 25:14 and the Lord himself told in Jeremiah 23:18,22. You can argue all you want but you know in your heart that you know about G-d but you don’t know him. If you want to know him I invite you to pray with a humbled heart that he show you the Truth, and his Spirit will lead you to the Messiah and you will have a really fear of Him and will experienced his counsel.
with love from a gentile that the God of Israel has have mercy with and washed my sins and brought me into his counsel through Yeshua the Messiah.
September 23rd, 2009 @ 11:34 am
Echad, In John 20:22 , when Yeshsua suddenly appeared in the midst of those hidden disciples, He breathed upon them to receive Holy Spirit (and the Son 6:69). The significant result was to have a disciple’s heart warmed to forgive. A week later, even a skeptical Thomas became convinced and suddenly altered by the impartation of peace and grace. This was indeed a transformation which was life changing in scope as to not remaining within the limits of his or the other disciple’s prior human limited understanding. “My Lord and my God” was the Thomas statement of a transformed heart and mind.
JN 21:1 Afterward Jesus appeared again to his disciples, by the Sea of Tiberias. It happened this way: 2 Simon Peter, Thomas (called Didymus), Nathanael from Cana in Galilee, the sons of Zebedee, and two other disciples were together. 3 “I’m going out to fish,” Simon Peter told them, and they said, “We’ll go with you.” So they went out and got into the boat, but that night they caught nothing.
JN 21:4 Early in the morning, Jesus stood on the shore, but the disciples did not realize that it was Jesus.
JN 21:5 He called out to them, “Friends, haven’t you any fish?”
“No,” they answered.
JN 21:6 He said, “Throw your net on the right side of the boat and you will find some.” When they did, they were unable to haul the net in because of the large number of fish.
JN 21:7 Then the disciple whom Jesus loved said to Peter, “It is the Lord!”
Not only then did they eat together, after the crucifixion, but too were transformed to “feed my sheep,” something a natural response to life and living past the crucifixion had held back. The disciples indeed then were empowered to follow him, to Pentecost, and beyond into the Nations.
September 23rd, 2009 @ 1:12 pm
Another area where you go wrong Zvi is to say that we believe that the Old Testament is anulled. No where do we say that. The new Covanent is a revision of the old. It’s like upgrading your computer with more RAM. Merely an improvement. And what do you not understand about the verse that says that the New covanent will not be like the old one… It is explicit!
You mention that it was made with Israel. Well it was supposed to but Israel rejected her Messiah so he offered it to the gentiles. Jesus makes mention of this several times. For an exhaustive treatment on this subject, please see this website.
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/finaltorah.html
September 23rd, 2009 @ 1:21 pm
From this point on, I’m dropping out of this debate for the very reasons Dr.Brown stated. This is a blogging site. If, however, you want to go on air with Dr. Brown for as long as you want, I will post on the page of the debate reviewing it. This page is between Dr. Brown and schumely. It’s just an hour of on air time Zvi.
September 23rd, 2009 @ 1:33 pm
“There are a number of difficulties as to chronological sequence, historical numbers, and the use of biblical quotations in Stephen’s address that have led to the most strenuous exercise of ingenuity on the part of commentators in their attempts to reconcile them. Four of these difficulties appear in vv. 2-8. Verse 3 quotes the words of God to Abraham given in Genesis 12:1 and implies by its juxtaposition with v. 2 that this message came to Abraham “while he was still in Mesopotamia, before he lived in Haran,” whereas the context of Genesis 12:1 suggests that it came to him in Haran. Verse 4 says that he left Haran after the death of his father, whereas the chronological data of Genesis 11:26-12:4 suggests that Terah’s death took place after Abraham’s departure from Haran. Verse 5 uses the words of Deuteronomy 2:5 as a suitable description of Abraham’s situation in Palestine, whereas their OT context relates to God’s prohibition to Israel not to dwell in Mount Seir because it had been given to Esau. And v. 6 speaks of 400 years of slavery in Egypt, whereas Exodus 12:40 says 430.
“We need not, however, get so disturbed over such things as, on the one hand, to pounce on them to disprove a “high view” of biblical inspiration or, on the other hand, to attempt to harmonize them so as to support such a view. These matters relate to the conflations and inexactitude of popular Judaism, not necessarily to some then-existing scholastic tradition or to variant textual traditions. In large measure they can be paralleled in other popular writings of the day, whether overtly Hellenistic or simply more nonconformist in the broadest sense of that term. Philo, for example, also explained Abraham’s departure from Ur of the Chaldees by reference to Genesis 12:1 (De Abrahamo 62-67), even though he knew that Genesis 12:1-5 is in the context of leaving Haran (cf. De Migratione Abrahami 176). Josephus spoke of Abraham’s being seventy-five years old when he left Chaldea (contra Gen 12:4, which says he was seventy-five when he left Haran) and of leaving Chaldea because God bade him go to Canaan, with evident allusion to Genesis 12:1 (cf. Antiq. I, 154 [vii.1]). Likewise, Philo also placed the departure of Abraham from Haran after his father’s death (De Migratione Abrahami 177). And undoubtedly the round figure of four hundred years for Israel’s slavery in Egypt–a figure that stems from the statement credited to God in Genesis 15:13–was often used in popular expressions of religious piety in Late Judaism, as were also the transpositions of meaningful and usable phrases from one context to another.
And, relative to the burial location, the same phenomena can be seen in the LXX and in the Dead Sea Scrolls (Longenecker again): “…the confusion in v. 16 between Abraham’s tomb at Hebron, in the cave of Machpelah, which Abraham bought from Ephron the Hittite (cf. Gen 23:3-20) and wherein Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were buried (cf. Gen 49:29-33; 50:13), and the burial plot purchased by Jacob at Shechem from the sons of Hamor, wherein Joseph and his descendants were buried (cf. Josh 24:32). Again, these are but further examples of the conflations and inexactitudes of Jewish popular religion, which, it seems, Luke simply recorded from his sources in his attempt to be faithful to what Stephen actually said in his portrayal. And again, they can in large measure be paralleled elsewhere. Genesis 46:27 in the LXX, for example, does not include Jacob and Joseph but does include nine sons of Joseph in the reckoning, thereby arriving at “seventy-five souls” all together who went down to Egypt. And with this number both Exodus 1:5 (LXX) and 4QExoda at 1:5 agree.So, Stephen’s inexactitude seems to fall in line with at least some of the more obvious contemporary Jewish practices, as evidenced by the LXX, Qumran, Josephus and Philo. [Note also: (1) that the Hebrew MS at Qumran called 4QExod(a) gives 75 as the correct number--in agreement with the LXX, over against the Hebrew MT!; and (2) Stephen was a Hellenist and spoke Greek anyway--the LXX would be his choice NOT because he was a "Christian" but because he was a Hellenistic Jew]
September 23rd, 2009 @ 1:33 pm
“There are a number of difficulties as to chronological sequence, historical numbers, and the use of biblical quotations in Stephen’s address that have led to the most strenuous exercise of ingenuity on the part of commentators in their attempts to reconcile them. Four of these difficulties appear in vv. 2-8. Verse 3 quotes the words of God to Abraham given in Genesis 12:1 and implies by its juxtaposition with v. 2 that this message came to Abraham “while he was still in Mesopotamia, before he lived in Haran,” whereas the context of Genesis 12:1 suggests that it came to him in Haran. Verse 4 says that he left Haran after the death of his father, whereas the chronological data of Genesis 11:26-12:4 suggests that Terah’s death took place after Abraham’s departure from Haran. Verse 5 uses the words of Deuteronomy 2:5 as a suitable description of Abraham’s situation in Palestine, whereas their OT context relates to God’s prohibition to Israel not to dwell in Mount Seir because it had been given to Esau. And v. 6 speaks of 400 years of slavery in Egypt, whereas Exodus 12:40 says 430.
“We need not, however, get so disturbed over such things as, on the one hand, to pounce on them to disprove a “high view” of biblical inspiration or, on the other hand, to attempt to harmonize them so as to support such a view. These matters relate to the conflations and inexactitude of popular Judaism, not necessarily to some then-existing scholastic tradition or to variant textual traditions. In large measure they can be paralleled in other popular writings of the day, whether overtly Hellenistic or simply more nonconformist in the broadest sense of that term. Philo, for example, also explained Abraham’s departure from Ur of the Chaldees by reference to Genesis 12:1 (De Abrahamo 62-67), even though he knew that Genesis 12:1-5 is in the context of leaving Haran (cf. De Migratione Abrahami 176). Josephus spoke of Abraham’s being seventy-five years old when he left Chaldea (contra Gen 12:4, which says he was seventy-five when he left Haran) and of leaving Chaldea because God bade him go to Canaan, with evident allusion to Genesis 12:1 (cf. Antiq. I, 154 [vii.1]). Likewise, Philo also placed the departure of Abraham from Haran after his father’s death (De Migratione Abrahami 177). And undoubtedly the round figure of four hundred years for Israel’s slavery in Egypt–a figure that stems from the statement credited to God in Genesis 15:13–was often used in popular expressions of religious piety in Late Judaism, as were also the transpositions of meaningful and usable phrases from one context to another.
And, relative to the burial location, the same phenomena can be seen in the LXX and in the Dead Sea Scrolls (Longenecker again): “…the confusion in v. 16 between Abraham’s tomb at Hebron, in the cave of Machpelah, which Abraham bought from Ephron the Hittite (cf. Gen 23:3-20) and wherein Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were buried (cf. Gen 49:29-33; 50:13), and the burial plot purchased by Jacob at Shechem from the sons of Hamor, wherein Joseph and his descendants were buried (cf. Josh 24:32). Again, these are but further examples of the conflations and inexactitudes of Jewish popular religion, which, it seems, Luke simply recorded from his sources in his attempt to be faithful to what Stephen actually said in his portrayal. And again, they can in large measure be paralleled elsewhere. Genesis 46:27 in the LXX, for example, does not include Jacob and Joseph but does include nine sons of Joseph in the reckoning, thereby arriving at “seventy-five souls” all together who went down to Egypt. And with this number both Exodus 1:5 (LXX) and 4QExoda at 1:5 agree.So, Stephen’s inexactitude seems to fall in line with at least some of the more obvious contemporary Jewish practices, as evidenced by the LXX, Qumran, Josephus and Philo. [Note also: (1) that the Hebrew MS at Qumran called 4QExod(a) gives 75 as the correct number--in agreement with the LXX, over against the Hebrew MT!; and (2) Stephen was a Hellenist and spoke Greek anyway--the LXX would be his choice NOT because he was a "Christian" but because he was a Hellenistic Jew]
September 23rd, 2009 @ 3:48 pm
Kyle, I havent gone wrong at all. The word “bris” means a DEAL, it does NOT mean a new torah you can look up the definition of the word covenant if you’d like. The old bris CANNOT under any circumstance be replacing the previous bris since G-d promised in levitcus as I’ve mentioned previously, that tha old bris will NEVER be anulled. So therefore the navi MUST be saying that the old bris is NOT being replaced by a new bris,but rather G-d is reinforcing the old bris. The verse is saying that the new bris will not be like the old one in regard to the fact that the old one was BROKEN and the new will never be broken. According to you,what was the content of the the the new deal?? It cannot be the nt 1.because the nt is clearly not a deal it is a bible if g-d would have wanted to give us a new bible he would said “torah chadashah”.2. There are to options to go according to you, 1.the old testament is irrelevant to jews at this point. To this I answer 1. The torah states on many occasions that the torah is ETERNAL. 2.most christians (including jews for jesus who do not observe any of the 613 commandments) believe that the jews are not obligated to obey the torah. The other option that you can try is to claim that the ot must be obeyed even today however in addition one must follow the nt and Jesus. The answer that I give to that is;1. there is no indication whatsoever from the text that we were given a new torah, for the verse only talks about a new covenant which is a pact,not a bible as I have explained earlier. 2. In what way is g-d helping us not brake the covenant by giving us laws in addition to the previous ones? It would only make matters worse for us to have to deal with the belief in jesus in ADDITION to the old laws. We havent even even kept the fist torah.2. The navi says that the bris is for the jews only. Kyle, you attempted to resolve this by saying that because the jews didnt believe in jesus. however do you foget the standards you set when we were debating verses in daniel? Do you forget you questioning me “where is a “CONDITIONAL statement apparent in the text? Well so I say to you “where do you find that the promise of “brit chadash” is conditional.
September 23rd, 2009 @ 10:51 pm
Zvi, you didn’t answer my question.
September 23rd, 2009 @ 10:58 pm
This is my question,
Do you have experienced the secret (counsel) of the Lord that King David wrote in Psalm 25:14 and the Lord himself told in Jeremiah 23:18,22?
I pray that the Lord change your heart of stone for one of flesh.
September 24th, 2009 @ 12:07 am
Zvi, Truth, according to the Messiah, is to have the Ruach Ha Kodesh dwelling in one, in order to confirm and conform a yielding soul all righteousness. The First Cause of truth is to confirm the power that was present in Creation is present with one’s own own regeneration through such a power. To receive the truth by a mental affirmation alone is impossible, perhaps futile.
A heavenly power created and creates according to His own ways, as higher in thought than our understanding. He who was, is, and preserves, develops, and completes His revelation of the nature of G-d. In only two scriptutes in the Tenach is G-d referred to as Father (one for Judah, and one for Israel). The Messiah came and opened the heart to the heart of G-d for all who received him, to address personally the Creator and Father of all life. The historical Messiah now dwells in light and in heaven, and in the hearts of all who receive Him.
This is an openly revealed mystery of godliness given to anyone who begins to recognize that one’s own finite mind cannot contain all written, and all shared by the Father. Those in association with the Messiah have an advocate for their own adoption by the Father unto eternal life.
So, I ask you, is their life after death offered in all you have alluded to? What is the comfort and counsel of what you hold as important? What does the notion of extending reality or truth in good faith to people mean to you personally in your understanding?
September 24th, 2009 @ 12:23 am
Zvi, Truth, according to the Messiah, is to have the Ruach Ha Kodesh dwelling in one, in order to confirm election and conform a yielding soul to all righteousness. The First Cause of truth is to confirm that the power that was present in Creation is also present with and for one’s own own regeneration through yielding to such a power. To receive the truth by a mental affirmation alone is impossible, perhaps futile. So. the Messiah came to His own, who received Him. The yielding involved is not to a religion, as such, but to deep calling to deep–the eternal calling to what is possible.
A heavenly power created and creates according to His own ways, as higher in thought than our understanding. He who was, is, and preserves, develops, and completes His revelation of the nature of G-d to seeking hearts. In only two scriptutes in the Tenach is G-d referred to as Father (one for Judah, and one for Israel). The Messiah came and opened the heart to the heart of G-d for all who received him, to address personally the Creator and Father of all life. The historical Messiah now dwells in light and in heaven, and in the hearts of all who receive Him.
This is an openly revealed mystery of godliness given to anyone who begins to recognize that one’s own finite mind cannot contain all written, and all shared by the Father. Those in association with the Messiah have an advocate for their own adoption by the Father unto eternal life. According to Jeremiah G-d has plans for a receiving and obediently yielding soul, plans to prosper, plans for good.
So, I ask you, is their life after death offered in all you have alluded to? What is the comfort and counsel of what you hold as important as to a growing and expanding realization of life? What does the notion of extending reality or truth in good faith to people mean to you personally in your understanding? And, as such, to what end?
I apologize for posting the premature expresion above of these matters as to the issues of life, Zvi.
September 24th, 2009 @ 12:43 am
So, ZVI, I’ve extended a revealed secret given to many to you, one. What are the issues of life, Zvi?
September 24th, 2009 @ 11:12 am
Jabez, I have no problem answering your questions,however must get passed first base,and that is that jesus is not the messiah. Once we establish that, we can move on.
September 24th, 2009 @ 11:33 am
Dr. Brown, in your last post you let me know that you’ll only take my question seriously if it is a substantial one, thereby implying that my questions are of no substance, yet you claim in several earlier posts that all my arguements can be found in your book. Would that suggest that your book contains unsubstantial material?! You also wanted this blog to be used to discuss your debate with shmuley. Shmuly asks you in a debate about he 2 different genealogies from king david, and you respond by saying that he is a descendant from king david through his mother (without getting into the fact that it doesnt answer the cotradiction because they claim jesus had no father so one of the geneaoligies cannot be from his father even though the verse mentions his father) the problem with that is that jewish law doesnt recognize the lineage of the mother when it comes to priesthood and kinghood. so you realy expect me to waste my time reading a book with similar content?
September 24th, 2009 @ 11:37 am
Zvi, you still without an answer to my question?
September 24th, 2009 @ 11:44 am
Joel, I try my best.
September 24th, 2009 @ 11:57 am
This is my question,
Do you have experienced the secret (counsel) of the Lord that King David wrote in Psalm 25:14 and the Lord himself told in Jeremiah 23:18,22?
Check if all you know is not “a commandment of men learned by rote” like Isaiah state in Isa 29:13:
“And the Lord said: Forasmuch as this people draw near, and with their mouth and with their lips do honour Me, but have removed their heart far from Me, and their fear of Me is a commandment of men learned by rote; “
September 24th, 2009 @ 12:02 pm
Think if your heart is close to him that you can hear his voice, ’cause you can learned from the tanach that our G-d talk, think if your God is the tradition or the Living One. That’s all I have to say, may the Lord open your eyes and ears so you can recognize your Messiah
September 24th, 2009 @ 12:35 pm
ZVI,
Since Jesus did not have a earthly father than His Jewish Inheritance could only be passed through his mother. Thus He has the title Son of David through Nathan. A human descendant of David.
A descendant of David by birth. Your problem seems to be that He must have an earthy father through David to qualify as Messiah.
“LOSING THE NAME OF HER FATHER FOR NEXT GENERATIONS” IS WHAT THE NEXT PASSAGE IS ABOUT!
Nu:27:4: Why should the name of our father be done away from among his family, because he hath no son? Give unto us therefore a possession among the brethren of our father.
THus in Mary’s case her son is indeed a son of David.
If that isn’t good enough for you then:
Nu:36:8: And every daughter, that possesseth an inheritance in any tribe of the children of Israel, shall be wife unto one of the family of the tribe of her father, that the children of Israel may enjoy every man the inheritance of his fathers.
Mary married Joseph who also was a descendant of David.
It is complete under the Law, FULL INHERITANCE!.
Yeshua is a Priest, not a Levite Priest.
Psalms:110:4: The LORD hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek.
Lord gives dominion to the King
Psalms:110:1: The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.
Psalms:110:2: The LORD shall send the rod of thy strength out of Zion: rule thou in the midst of thine enemies.
Psalms:110:3: Thy people shall be willing in the day of thy power, in the beauties of holiness from the womb of the morning: thou hast the dew of thy youth.
Psalms:110:4: The LORD hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek.
Psalms:110:5: The Lord at thy right hand shall strike through kings in the day of his wrath.
Psalms:110:6: He shall judge among the heathen, he shall fill the places with the dead bodies; he shall wound the heads over many countries.
Psalms:110:7: He shall drink of the brook in the way: therefore shall he lift up the head.
September 24th, 2009 @ 1:07 pm
“Dr. Brown, in your last post you let me know that you’ll only take my question seriously if it is a substantial one, thereby implying that my questions are of no substance, yet you claim in several earlier posts that all my arguements can be found in your book. Would that suggest that your book contains unsubstantial material?!” Said Zvi.
Really Zvi? He means that your objections have no substance and that they are clearly answered in his books. He answers these unsubstiantial arguments in his book.
September 24th, 2009 @ 1:10 pm
“Jabez, I have no problem answering your questions,however must get passed first base,and that is that jesus is not the messiah. Once we establish that, we can move on.”
Those who have trusted in the Lord’s Messiah have had these personal relationships with God. Seeing miracles and watching God’s wonderful hand move. I’ve heard prophecy, and seen healings. God has spoken to my heart just like Jabez said.
September 24th, 2009 @ 1:17 pm
Craig, I am fully aware that jesus was not a REAL priest, for he wasnt from the house of Levi. I agree with you that one can be a a priest in a different cotex just like yisro was. My point was however that just as a REAL priest must come through the father and Kinghood from david must also come through the father, so too any quality that jesus had, this case being kinghood can only be attained through a father. The verses you quoted are only a proof to my position. The torah is clearly saying that the ONLY way to continue the legacy of the father would be for that woman to marry somone from that tribe to RETAIN the legacy of the father, without that the legacy is LOST.
September 24th, 2009 @ 1:20 pm
Kyle dr.brown claims he only DEALS with substantial questions, he wont even “bother” with others. according to you he was “bothered “enough to erite an entire book.
September 24th, 2009 @ 1:30 pm
As for he accomplishments of the rabbis in the talmud, they are not the only ones with amazing facts and knowledge. Look at Egyptian math and astronomy! Were the Egyptians right? No.
http://www.answers.com/topic/rhind-mathematical-papyrus
http://www.answers.com/topic/egyptian-mathematics
September 24th, 2009 @ 1:46 pm
So Zvi you have judged that Mary’s dad has lost his name for future generations.
Actually is not Yeshua a son of his grand dad, Mary’s Father a son of David. Did not Mary wed a Son of David, Joseph to fullfill ALL THE LAW. Both Inheritance and Marriage within the tribe.
How did David become a real Priest Zvi.
I’m getting tradition and not Written Torah from you.
Kinghood was given to Him by His God, the Almighty God. By birthright according to Written Torah not Oral tradition.
Since your a student and a believer of Zohar HOW IS IT THEY TEACH a son of Joseph is Messiah.
September 24th, 2009 @ 1:57 pm
2 messiah’s
Slice and dice WRITTEN TORAH(One Great Messiah) with Zohar and blot out YESHUA’S Name (SALVATION) for many Generations using the Talmud.
September 24th, 2009 @ 2:22 pm
About the authenticity of the talmud. You mentioned the amazing mathematical skills and achievements of the rabbis in the talmud, an therefore claimed they had divine help in finding these answers. I find it hard to believe first of all that God would juts go out and say, there is 29.284726 in a month…. Second of all, almost all ancient civilizations had amazing feats in math and astronomy, without the aid of technology. Are they divine as well? Obviously not. Here are a few sites showing the same kind of achievements that you mentioned that the rabbis themselves did.
http://www.math.buffalo.edu/mad/Ancient-Africa/mad_ancient_egypt.html
http://www.gap-system.org/~history/HistTopics/Egyptian_mathematics.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptian_mathematics
I can go on and on
September 24th, 2009 @ 5:35 pm
mary as far as her own merits could NOT inherit the “house of David” . The only way to inherit it to her son would be if she would marry a man from the house of David. When she marries the person from the house of David, the reason why their children are cosidered from the house of david, is because of their FATHERS merit, NOT because of the mothers merit, for she has already lost it. The torah is simply saying that the way to restore the property to its original tribe is by getting the father of your children to be from that tribe. By no means is it because of the mother. So how can there be 2 geneaoligies to king David, first of all jesus had no father and mary had no husband from David becase you claim it was g-d, BUT EVEN IF MARYS HUSBAND AND JESUS FATHER WAS FROM DAVID, WHY DID THE NT MENTION THE LINEAGE FROM THE MOTHER IF IT IS MEANINGLESS? As I explained the mothers had no merits because even if she wasnt from king david she would be able to have kids that are considered from the house of daviv so why mention mary at all? Also David was NOT a real priest. Moshiach ben yosef comes from a verse in OVadia which we can discuss when we are done.
there are 2 moshiachs no contradiction. But you guys claim that jesus is the ben dovid one and that cannot be
September 24th, 2009 @ 8:51 pm
Well, Zvi, simply because one was not present in Israel at the right place and right time to see the dedication of Yeshua at the Temple, as a child, nor has encountered the truth and grace of His extension into the present in his own via the Ruach Ha Kodesh, nor has extended the time and energy into the question of his lineage legitamacy does not disqualify one from making these matters both of scholarly inquiry and prayerful inquiry in order to comprehend Ha Meshiach being Yeshua.
If you are wrong in your first base remark, then you are missing something vital as to all of life and its and your own future. Even Gershom Soloman, of the Temple Mount and Israel Faithful Movement, has declared an open attitude as to seeing if a Returning Yeshua–per promises made in the Hebrew Prophets of Old–will accompany the Restoration of All Things promised of Old. He is not so fixed in his declarations that he would verbally stand against such a probability, if future history of redemption, Davidic promised throne occupancy, and Messianic promise is, in fact, about a Returning Yeshua.
I’d suggest shucking the preconceived Jesus God of the Goys notion and remaining open to truth interpreting itself in the realm of actual history, unless, of course, my own heart was wooden.
September 24th, 2009 @ 8:54 pm
Now I ask you, where do you reside so that we may consider a face to face discussion of these matters? I live in three locations, so that is a possibility of appointed opportunity.
September 24th, 2009 @ 9:00 pm
Zvi wrote:
mary as far as her own merits could NOT inherit the “house of David” . The only way to inherit it to her son would be if she would marry a man from the house of David.
—————–
1) Mary was from the house of David through Nathan
2) She married Joseph who was born in Bethlehem, the City of David and a descendant of David.
3)Yeshua was also born in Bethlehem a prophesy fullfilled.
4) Nowhere is it stated in Torah that a male descendant would lose his inheritance through the daughter of a descendant of David who marries within her tribe. Mary married Joseph.
Lets also look at the Laws of Relations which shows the NAME being of GREATER IMPORTANCE than the family goat, land etc. To protect a name from being lost.
De:25:5: If brethren dwell together, and one of them die, and have no child, the wife of the dead shall not marry without unto a stranger: her husband’s brother shall go in unto her, and take her to him to wife, and perform the duty of an husband’s brother unto her.
THE ABOVE PASSAGE “AND HAVE NO CHILD” it does not say male nor female does it. Just firstborn!
De:25:6: And it shall be, that the firstborn which she beareth shall succeed in the name of his brother which is dead, that his name be not put out of Israel.
IT DOES SAY “…the firstborn which she beareth shall succeed in the name of his brother…….that his name be not put out of Israel.”
Nu:27:4: Why should THE NAME OF OUR FATHER be done away from among his family, because he hath no son? Give unto us therefore a possession among the brethren of our father.
Only a child is needed to keep the name, male or female. The concern is FOR THE NAME OF THERE FATHER BECOMING EXTINCT as well as possessions. No name or possessions = a castaway begger woman. Plenty of those in Israel today.
Inheritance fullfilled as Mary and Joseph married within there own Tribe of Judah.
Nu:36:8: And every daughter, that possesseth an inheritance in any tribe of the children of Israel, shall be wife unto one of the family of the tribe of her father, that the children of Israel may enjoy every man the inheritance of his fathers.
THUS YESHUA is a Son of David!
ZVI wrote:
The torah is simply saying that the way to restore the property to its original tribe is by getting the father of your children to be from that tribe.
—————-
WRONG AS FOR GOD HIMSELF SAID:
Nu:27:8: And thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a man die, and have no son, then ye shall cause his inheritance to pass unto his daughter.
The geneologies in the 2 Gospels show Joseph as a son of David in his own(his dad was Jacob a descendant of Solomon) and a son in law of Mary’s dad Heli who was a descendant of Nathan. It was only proper to say that when Joseph married he became a son to Heli. That is Jewish! Through to Solomon is the Signet of
Hag:2:23: In that day, saith the LORD of hosts, will I take thee, O Zerubbabel, my servant, the son of Shealtiel, saith the LORD, and will make thee as a signet: for I have chosen thee, saith the LORD of hosts.
Zvi wrote
explained the mothers had no merits because even if she wasnt from king david she would be able to have kids that are considered from the house of daviv
——————
So Ruth had no merits? God had another plan lad!
Zvi wrote:
Also David was NOT a real priest.
——————-
David was not a Temple Priest, a Levite I agree. David offered sacrifice for Israel, David entered the Temple. David ate the showbread. David interceeded for Israel.
David was not the one spoken of in Psalm 110, it was spoken of David’s Lord.
Psalms:110:1: The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.
……
Psalms:110:4: The LORD hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek.
Yeshua said:
M’t:22:42: Saying, What think ye of Christ? whose son is he? They say unto him, The Son of David.
M’t:22:43: He saith unto them, How then doth David in spirit call him Lord, saying,
M’t:22:44: The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool?
M’t:22:45: If David then call him Lord, how is he his son?
M’t:22:46: And no man was able to answer him a word, neither durst any man from that day forth ask him any more questions.
Finally I know a lot of Messiah ben Joseph and Messiah ben David, I know it as Yeshua who was sold by his brothers and the Prophecy in Zec:11 for 30 pieces of silver(Prophecy fullfilled)
Zec:11:12: And I said unto them, If ye think good, give me my price; and if not, forbear. So they weighed for my price thirty pieces of silver.
Zec:11:13: And the LORD said unto me, Cast it unto the potter: a goodly price that I was prised at of them. And I took the thirty pieces of silver, and cast them to the potter in the house of the LORD.
M’t:26:14: Then one of the twelve, called Judas Iscariot, went unto the chief priests,
M’t:26:15: And said unto them, What will ye give me, and I will deliver him unto you? And they covenanted with him for thirty pieces of silver.
M’t:26:16: And from that time he sought opportunity to betray him.
God used Joseph to save the Gentiles(Egypt and those around) Then His own familly not knowing Him came and begged for bread and mercy.
So shall Israel once the time of the Gentiles be fullfilled, They must first recognize Him as Messiah ben Joseph(come asking for help) and He will return as Messiah ben David and open the storehouse from above for Israel. They grumbled and laughed at bowing down to Joseph and Yeshua was laughed at and mocked while hanging on the cross.
Joseph
Ge:37:8: And his brethren said to him, Shalt thou indeed reign over us? or shalt thou indeed have dominion over us? And they hated him yet the more for his dreams, and for his words.
YESHUA as MESSIAH BEN JOSEPH
M’t:27:39: And they that passed by reviled him, wagging their heads,
M’t:27:40: And saying, Thou that destroyest the temple, and buildest it in three days, save thyself. If thou be the Son of God, come down from the cross.
M’t:27:41: Likewise also the chief priests mocking him, with the scribes and elders, said,
M’t:27:42: He saved others; himself he cannot save. If he be the King of Israel, let him now come down from the cross, and we will believe him.
GOD KNOW HIS PLAN FROM THE BEGINNING LITTLE ISRAEL. Too bring you to your knee’s before His King the Son of GOD!
Ph’p:2:10: That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;
September 24th, 2009 @ 9:15 pm
ZVI,
I also might add the NAME passed for a male or female Hebrew (Messianic or not) is far more important than having a material possesion passed on. If you deem material more important than ancestory than so be it.
NO one is going to take a Name away from a inheritance when Torah provides a way.
September 24th, 2009 @ 9:19 pm
What is perhaps most challenging is considering Yeshua’s own responses to debaters in his own visitation timeframe, who questioned his legitamacy: “Before Abraham was, I AM.”
September 24th, 2009 @ 9:27 pm
Craig, Thank You, Toda Rabba. For Matthew Levi’s words of Yeshua; he must have considered Him a greater Priest than even of his own lineage namesake!
September 24th, 2009 @ 11:28 pm
Craig, The undisputed fact of jewish law is very clear we do not follow the lineage of a mother to determine what tribe the child belongs to nor do we go according to her when in comes to priesthood(even though we arent dealing with the real priesthood) .The kinghood was given to the TRIBE of yehudah, David is from the tribe of yehudah,moshiach must come from david which in effect means that we are dealing with a tribal matter,where the lineage of the mother is irrelevant. Therefore the fact that Mary was a descendant of David means absolutely nothing. To qualify as a moshiach your father must come from david not your mom. This law is clear in the torah in the book of numbers. You challenged me from nu:27:4. The answer is that there is no dobt that leaving over a daughter is a memorial to the family, the only thing is that a son carries the name in greater way, as we clearly see in nu36:8 that it does not suffice for her to inherit her father, she must still go ahead and marry somone from her fathers tribe. why is that? when a son inherits his father he can go ahead any marry a girl from any tribe why is that? the answer is that a son carries the name of his father completely unlike a daughter, so when this girl marries the guy from her fathers tribe, the property gets returned to the fathers tribe NOTHING TO DO WITH HER. But however you learn these verses one thing is CLEAR that when it comes to tribe matters,the mothers lineage means nil.
September 24th, 2009 @ 11:49 pm
Kile, regarding the talmud my point is that there was no technology, therefore it wasnt a known fact to everyone yet Rabon gamliel who wasnt an astronomist all he did was sit and study torah all day. He claims that he got it from his fathers fathers father all the way up from sinai. If he thought of it on his own, then he would have taken credit for it. So there is no way that he could have known the information other then from sinai. G-d had an excellent reason to want to share this information, because one of the commandments of the torah is to renew the month each month, so its very important for g-d to give him this information, not to renew the month before that time.Besdes how did the zohar know all this information about earth,all he did his whole life was sit in a cave and learned torah, and he didnt either take any credit for it.
September 25th, 2009 @ 2:51 am
Zvi, You gave no answer to my question, are you a control freak?
Now repeated for you. Now I ask you, where do you reside so that we may consider a face to face discussion of these matters? I live in three locations, so that is a possibility of appointed opportunity. When and where can we meet?
September 25th, 2009 @ 2:57 am
Zvi, You state that “when it comes to tribe matters…”. Present tense is represented in your remarks, yet, few Jews today know their own tribal ancestry. Do you? Does this mean then that those Jews are not of a lineage which can conform to your interpretation of the law in the instance you cited? Yeshua’s disciples were able to trace his ancestry through both active parents, including his mother, Miriam, marrying and being a direct descendant of David. And, even if unimportant by your stance, wouldn’t she and her husbanc then know and be of proper tribe lineage? What’s up with all this dysfunctional interpretation, which few of today’s Jews could apply? Doesn’t this tell you something about the guidelines not working today?
September 25th, 2009 @ 3:04 am
Zvi, I cannot help but understand you not as a representative of the G-d of Israel at all, just reading over your past logic, and the many answers specifically made to its positions here, which have contradicted your assertions altogether. What I read over here, stated from your person, as clearly answered over and over tells me that something futile regarding your own state of heart is being pursued here. And so by ignoring the clear answers given you. It soon will be that this season of reflection for repentance is passing for another year; why not take this situation of ignorant disregard of the careful responses given you to G-d while you still may.
September 29th, 2009 @ 9:38 pm
Jabez, no thanks regarding the one on one debate. I apoligize for not getting back to you earlier, as you can see I was busy responding to all the arguements i have faced. The issue of tribal affairs was more prevalent in those days when we had a temple, whereas today since the temple was destroyed it no longer matters. However, any jew (orthodox that is) that is a decsendant of the tribe of levi, is WELL aware of that since there are services that can only be performed by them even today. Either way, I’m not making this stuff up, its EXPLICIT in the torah.
September 29th, 2009 @ 9:54 pm
Another belief that many people share is that jesus died for our sins. The problem with that is as follows; 1.besides for the fact that he didnt offer himself to be killed (which several of you believe), according to jewish law it is strictly prohibited. 2. We dont find anywhere in the torah the idea of a human sacrifice. 3. even the animals that were offered as a sacrifice, only served as an atonement for sins in the PAST, not for future sins. And if you would agree that he was killed against his will, that would be hypocritical for a g-d not to have the ability to prevent his own death.Furthermore if he’s a g-d then how can death fall upon him? If the death wasn’t real then how can it atone for any sins.
September 29th, 2009 @ 10:26 pm
Zvi, Who agrees that going to the cross was against the will of Meshiac Yeshua? Read the account in Matthew Levi. Your examples lack the perspective of Lev. 16 as to there being a “Day of Atonement” set as centered on two goats, one as a sin offering, and one as to the blood secretly spread on the mercy seat…yet, as initially secret, later appointed as a public ceremony as to what had been effected by the blood on the the mercy seat. It characterizes the notion of substitutionary sacrifice. Certainly the only precendent for the actions of the suffering servant Meshiac were about the transference of sin from the guilty to the innocent, the Lamb of God. These goats becamer the sin-bearer, as did the Meshiac’s sacrifice atone to finally and irrevesibly put sin away, where the sin bearer goes away. As a solitary, “cut off” from the actual sinner. Remind you of anything as to the seventy weeks of Daniel? Wasn’t Yeshua an Azazel, driven off by the angry religious leaders? Why did Yeshua move from statements on the Cross, “Father, why have you forsaken me,” to “Father forgive them for they don’t know what they do?” Any why were his legs not broken like the others crucified with him?
September 29th, 2009 @ 11:01 pm
Zvi, I recall for decades after having my heart circumsized by G-d (see Jeremiah 31:31-35), after the inquiry that night in my Grandmother’s back bedroom (where I was touched within by the Ruach Ha Kodesh) wondering “why the Cross?” It made no sense to me at all even though Yeshua’s words and his graceful and truthful nature actually leaped alive from the pages of Matthew and John’s accounts. Why would G-d send his own representative declaratively as the Son of Man first to the chosen Nation, and then to a Roman cross? What was hidden and what was revealed by this?
Then the condition of my own heart slowly came into focus, over years of my life: the pride of life and the vanity of it, and the need for G-d to take that which was sin between He and I and cleanse my own inner person. In order to achieve some value of nature for His use, with the sin-bearer he had provided the Nation: “as many as received Him, He gave the right to be children of G-d.”
Read Matthew (Levi) 18 and note the heart of the Shepherd, leaving the whole flock to rescue one Lost Sheep. Read there the notion of forgiveness instructed to be practiced between followers of the Way of the Meshiac. This was revolutionary. It started on His initiative and work, not on my proving something other than a heart open to know the truth and the Spirit of truth.
This was indeed a substitutionary life transaction 1:1 approach to me, then to others so advocated before publicly bringing up another’s obvious problems before others; thus the instruction and example of the Meshiac of Matthew 18 offered a quiet approach in the Way over the usual Jewish in one’s face pursuit of inevitable conflicts. The Way of Yeshua was set in a new and living manner of forbearance as first priority became winning one’s brother, not winning over one’s brother.
There was no condemnation for the fault of one, or the other, when working through conflicts in His Way: where the heart of G-d was valued first, as was revealed by the solitary life and work of Yeshua. Salvation is more assurred where one died for all, who, after a Resurrection, appeared in the midst of his Disciples to “breathe on them” and grant a way of ongoing forgiveness (as a permanent possiblity over a secret and scapegoat offering sent away for the individual’s sin-bearing from the community, Yeshua rose and returned for enlarging the community).
How can sinful man ever be accepted by a holy God? Yeshua knows.
This is the kind of Meshiac I could approach, safely self disclose securing atonement for his people, among, and between them because of a life intentionally laid down to death. If death were the final result of His sacrifice I would agree with your first statement, but the Resurrection composes a Divine Yes, not a death wish at all! A yes that G-d can get past one’s own selfish and self absorbed nature. Is. 53 lept too from its page when one apprehended the
September 29th, 2009 @ 11:12 pm
Continued-
reality of the Prophet’s words, “who has believed our report, and to whom has the strength of the Lord been revealed? He”….the life and manner of Yeshua.
The night I requested of G-d to know if He, the one of the Matthew and John accounts, was really real, it was the 53rd chapter of Isaiah’s completion for my own heart:
ISA 53:11 After the suffering of his soul,
he will see the light of life and be satisfied;
by his knowledge my righteous servant will justify many,
and he will bear their iniquities.
ISA 53:12 Therefore I will give him a portion among the great,
and he will divide the spoils with the strong,
because he poured out his life unto death,
and was numbered with the transgressors.
For he bore the sin of many,
and made intercession for the transgressors.
It was the inquiry of my soul meeting with He who chose the Cross to complete its righteousness and care.
September 29th, 2009 @ 11:31 pm
Zvi,
Also the challenge is to look beyond one’s looking, at the Prophets own interpretations of the Law in reference to He who was sent to the chosen Nation.
September 29th, 2009 @ 11:57 pm
therefore, ir Yeshua’s death on the cross really accomplishes something, it is about the love of God, sin bearing, and atonement as foundations for Adoption of a receiving heart.
September 30th, 2009 @ 12:13 am
Lev. 16 is NOT refering to future sins. They needed a new ceremony each year for the renewed trasgressions. Issaiah 53 cannot be describing jesus, for he didn’t live long nor did he have any children.
September 30th, 2009 @ 12:17 am
Zvi, Did you know that Moriah used to extend to the place of the Skull, where the Meshiac was crucified> and, that his blood fell upon that Mountain secretly, apart from the rituals and rites of the Nation? Outside the gates, and yet on, for, and above its Holy Mountain? Did you know that the Mystery of Godliness, in the Meshiac has now been publicly and openly revealed to anyone who receives Him, the He of Is. 53? The truth is in the knowing, when a soul goes before the Lord and asks the truth of Him, He.
September 30th, 2009 @ 12:28 am
Zvi, You did not read what I wrote, adopted children Zvi, those children adopted as justified by the Meshiac’s sacrifice….it is written, as the very Children of G-d. You are missing the point with your very literal jot and tittle approach, for sure. It is not Mishna, it is Midrash. Go and read Matthew Levi and John’s accounts. Yeshua lived what he preached, died what he preached, and lived once more to Adopt offspring for his Kingdom. His Kingdom first is about a Ruach Ha Kodesh adoption, then–and it will come to pass as is written–about a throne like unto David’s. As promised us, for our Nation, Zvi
September 30th, 2009 @ 12:30 am
Oh, Zvi, and I forgot to add. He Lives! Millions have testified of this, as well as His own disciples, who were eyewitnesses of the fact, that He Lives!
September 30th, 2009 @ 12:34 am
Zvi, Here is what I mean by a jot and tittle approach to the scriptures. The Day of Atonement, with the sacrifice offered year by year for those who could afford its path, is a typology, a template, for what the Messiah would later offer as a permanent reality–where received, by faith, as so justified, and Adopted into His Kingdom.
There is no one else on the horizon of past, present , or future history who completes what Daniel laid out for us. No one else who can come and have his feet land upon the Mt. of Olives opposite the Holy Mountain. No one else who has jealously lived overlooking the regathering of the people of the Book into the chosen Nation.
September 30th, 2009 @ 12:41 am
And, Zvi, yes the Temple was destroyed, not one stone was left on another. We still have these massive stones as a witness that what Yeshua foretold, in Mt. Levi 24 and 25 about the Temple, and the dispersion of Yehudim into all nations, east and west, north, and south, happened exactly as He foretold it. And he commented too about the future of Jerusalem, and Israel, as has Zech., Isaiah, and Daniel so foretold. Look at the shrine of the Book, in Yarushaliem, it is a testimony to the Nation of the promises of G-d in the Prophets of Old of the future of Jerusalem and the nation. Restoration for a purpose, Zvi.
September 30th, 2009 @ 12:43 am
Metaphorical answers will not get you to see the truth. I can also translate “thou shall not kill” in a metaphorical way.
September 30th, 2009 @ 12:43 am
As Yeshua quoted in his visitation, my House is to be a House of prayer for all nations. Look at what Zech. 8-14 promises about the Holy Mountain, the House of David, and for Judah, Joseph’s and Israel’s own households. Amazing that some of this has already happened, Zvi
September 30th, 2009 @ 12:50 am
Zvi, Type and metaphore differ. One is given as a model, which is later used as a foundation for another’s replication, and, synthesis of greater application, where so. A Metaphore is a literary device. Read Matthew Levi and John, inquire of the Lord, test and prove all truth.
September 30th, 2009 @ 12:52 am
Zvi, I am not like Dr. Michael Brown, for, I do not have answers to your objections about Yeshua. This is not about an application of the scriptures applied to the template of the Mishna, law, or Talmud. This is about inquiry of the heart and mind, openness to receive based upon direct inquiry of G-d, and looking beyond one’s looking. It is not about a jot and tittle approach to what Yeshua did, was, and is.
September 30th, 2009 @ 12:56 am
You did not answer my question as to where you live. And, if never answered, how one lives becomes a greater question of life.
Ever read the Sermon on the Mount? Or Yeshua’s own debates with the Jerusalem Yeshiva students? Ever read of Him walking on water?
September 30th, 2009 @ 12:59 am
Its either all or nothing.1. there is no peace in the land 2.the jews didn’t all return to the promised land. 2.there is still sin. 3.the knowlage of g-d is not universal. 4.jesus is dead.
September 30th, 2009 @ 1:03 am
Or of his disciples, after the crucifixon, cowering in a room, “for fear of the Jews?” How did that change to become a courageous world shaking witness of the Life of He, the Meshiach, carried from Jerusalem into the Nations? How was slavery as once a matter of commerce, later foresaken? Where did capitalism as a notion of building infrastructure from concepts come from? How did representative government come to replace less inclusive forms of government and jurisprudence? How were child labor laws changed over time? Many of the founders of such movements of change gave credence for their own inspiration to carry change into this world to faith in Jesus, the Christ.
September 30th, 2009 @ 1:07 am
Zvi, You lost me on “all or nothing.” Inch by inch life is tested and proven. Yard by yard life can be hard. How is what you wrote all or nothing, as, according to scripture we live in a fallen world. Also, according to scripture, G-d holds promises of a cooperative effort for those who do not foresake his ways.
You seem to be saying this is either the best of all possible worlds, or it is not. Yet scriputre says this is the proving ground of faith, hope, and love, and that one cannot conduct life in such a manner alone. Do you feel alone, Zvi?
September 30th, 2009 @ 1:08 am
Yeshua promises that anyone does not have to abide alone in this world. He lives, Zvi, he lives!
September 30th, 2009 @ 1:15 am
All or nothing seems also naive, at best. Throughout the history of the Jews they have been challenged to civilization on the Lord’s terms, or little or no civilization. This too is a lesson of history. This is not the best of all possible worlds, but it is the one in which G-d has placed us. The chosen nation still has a purpose, Zvi. What are our lifetimes but a candle needing constant attention for proper application, Zvi?
If the G-d who gave the Law ignores his own responsibility to care for those holding its very oracles, then He is not involved in the history of the Jews, nor the Land, the City, nor the Book. If he is, on the other hand, like the King who liberates, as promised in the Trilogy, the Lord of the Rings, in some manner, then the battle between good and evil, here, has a preordained purpose. This would include all written as promised in the Prophets of old to his people, and the Household of Israel.
It is not “all or nothing,” it is trust and obey, look up and be strengthened, and fight the good fight, Zvi
September 30th, 2009 @ 1:23 am
Faith is founded on a divine yes, not a nay to life and living.
September 30th, 2009 @ 1:25 am
To live only for comfort would be to turn to mush, to live with the challenges involved in regard of effort is to strengthen one’s need for an abiding hope.
September 30th, 2009 @ 1:35 am
According to me knowledge of G-d is almost universal because 90 percent of the world believe in g-d. Jews believe that if a gentile believes in jesus or mohamad, although they are mistaken,they will not get punished for believing in them,as long as they believe in the g-d of the jews. That explains why in the near death experience according to dr.raymond moody, people from different faiths all return sticking to their old religion. Why is that? If each religion believes in their own exclusively, then there should only be one true religion, so lets assume christianity is the correct religion, why dont muslims that return from a nde convert? You might argue that there are sevseral christians that do claim to have met jesus, to this I say that Dr. moody let me know that people merely describe the beings they meet as jesus or mohamad. From the bulk of his intreviews he has seen that people do NOT have a person IDENTIFY themselves as jesus. I return to my question, shouldnt nde experiencers ALL convert to one religion? this is a solid question,as the near death experience is well documented. The answer is simple, there is one G-d who created the heaven and earth he is everyones g-d, all experiencers see this g-d during the experience,as the “light”, it makes no difference which prophet you believe in for even if it is a false one, you will not get punished,the reason why muslims and christians do not have someone identifying themselves as jesus is because he is 1. not a prophet 2. not a g-d 3. not moshiach. christians do not get punished for believing in him therefore there is no mention of it during the experience. The same is with other religions g-d doesnt care which religion you belong to, as long as you believe in him and keep the 7 noahide laws which consist of basically living a moral life. A jew however that doesnt keep the torah gets GRILLED up there for not obeying the torah. There are many jews who were not religious prior to the experience,and were questioned about their torah observance, and repented upon return. However you will never find a devout muslim converting to christianity based on a near death experinece why?
September 30th, 2009 @ 2:00 am
G-d Zvi, is proven and shown by his nature. The 90% notion of believing in G-d is questioned by the fruits shown here, not by NDEs, of such belief. I’ve had a NDE, and it proves little of what you assert above.
Does Jihad represent G-d? Does healing, driving out evil spirits, testifying of the humility of G-d, upholding marriage, family and household, raising the dead, creating eyes from dirt and spittle, and bolstering the poor in Spirit reveal a different nature to G-d than those following a God of Jihad? Yeshua focused on the attributes of G-d being just, good, faithful, and kind. He lived these attributes, taught them, alluded to them in the Hebrew Scriptures, and upheld that loving God with all of one’s heart, mind, and soul was the Way. He also upheld loving one’s neighbor as oneself as the other tenet of his representation of God’s nature. These are found in the Torah.
Jihad, on the other hand, roasts thousands in the twin towers, here and now. And, as to the other belief stated as to it being a belief in God, how now brown cow?
For all the defense of the rules of Torah you have striven to address, it seems, in “God according to me [you]” there is no guarantor of redemption for being a Jew at all. My own NDE, validated nor invalidated your view of God according to you, as some final analysis or denominator of it all. Yeshua’s provision of the Ruach Ha Kodesh for each believer validates, and changed lives in the here and now validate, as well as those upholding the principles of true community life–as founded with the ten commandments for civilization and the Jews–validate.
Eternal life escapes anyone who abides alone.
September 30th, 2009 @ 2:22 am
So, as to 90% having a “knowledge of God”, by their fruits here, and as so identified by the references I made above to the balanced values of the God of Israel, this is not only doubtful, it is escapest. How so? From the responsibilities associated with the gift of life in the here and now, from community responsibility (where we remain our brother’s keeper), and especially so as to Noahide law.
As such, this world is a proving ground for something, and it is not to validate testimony after the fact of NDEs as indicative of having met with G-d, the creator and sustainer of life, or revealer of His own standards, where so. NDE as a measurement of a connection to God is not established by your logic or Moody at all! Assurrance is lacking by an elusive measurement of being with God you or Moody apply.
What does God require of thee, oh Man? How is God known, and promised to be in the equation of life after death? Who holds the keys to life after death, judgment, and final dwelling placement?
September 30th, 2009 @ 2:33 am
HaShem so loved the world that He sent his only begotten son, that whosoever would believe in Him would inherit eternal life. How is belief validated and revealed in this world, in “the G-d of Israel”, not in a universal “knowledge” of a God?
September 30th, 2009 @ 2:44 am
Shalom, Zvi, I must rest until another day.
September 30th, 2009 @ 12:21 pm
Zvi, Think of it not as a speculative inquiry of the hereafter, but as a statement of Assurance, that HaShem sent Yeshua to the chosen Nation. Read of his dedication at the Temple as a Child, and of his witness there at the Temple to children in the mornings prior to his arrest. Who would risk such confrontation with angry Zfadim, turn over the money changers tables, and proclaim zealousy for the true nature of the House of G-d? –where they knew they would be arrested, rejected, and crucified by threatened gatekeepers of thought? What was going on there, Zvi?
Now that you know that the “offspring” of “He” of Is. 53 are adopted as confirmed by the Ruach Ha Kodesh, read once more what the Prophet says of the life there. Who else can complete it? You too can be irrevocably a Child of G-d. Make the direct inquiry in a hearfelt manner, Zvi.
He came to convict any in this world of sin, righteousness, and the judgment to come. You can have assurrance of a new standing with G-d that Moody you cited has apparently no clue about. The Spirit of adoption produces in one the assurance of sonship. I recall in 1972 when I first heard the voice of the Father calling me his son. I wept, I could not understand why He would so select this person for such a relationship. All y past gave me no understanding of the apprehension of the future, simply risking trust of His presence and His provision began to change one who had abided alone.
Another beauty of the New Covenant transformation is that one who is called is chosen, justified by the blood of the Lamb of G-d who takes away the sin of this world, and will share in the Glorious future plan Yeshua has for the chosen City and Nation. My House will be called a House of Prayer for the Nations, so Yeshua quoted Isaiah. Read Acts 3:21 as to what is ahead for the Nation. The realities you thought need be all or nothing are addressed by the Ruach Ha Kodesh, the Spirit of Adoption.
After the transaction between the Ruach and the soul happens nothing can separate one from the love of G-d. One then does not abide alone, Zvi.
September 30th, 2009 @ 12:22 pm
Zvi, Speculate on having a full assurrance of faith, a full assurrance of hope, a full assurrance of love. Then, know that speculation is unnecessary to such knowledge.
September 30th, 2009 @ 1:50 pm
To base the autheticity of a religion on the premise of faith alone is absurd. Without evidence,one can believe in ANYTHING under the sun with the notion of faith. But certainly when the evidence points in our direction,it is certainly ridiculous to believe in christ.
October 1st, 2009 @ 12:41 am
Go ask Abram; how did he become Abraham. And, I agree with your statement. The evidence, if sought, actually read, and contemplated and prayed about is overwhelming for Yeshua’s regard. More books have been written on that evidence than on any other topic in human history.
The beauty of connection with He who was, is, and is to come is that faith is liniked in lives with hope, and love. Of this world’s wolflike principles, and by NDEs a knowledge of love is elusive indeed.
So, Zvi, you are left with “According to me, G-d” based on reports of Near Death Experiences, and that is….?
October 1st, 2009 @ 7:47 am
The jews have been around for thousands of years before Jesus was born. they received a torah about 3300 years ago. Along came jesus about 2000 years ago, claiming to be the moshiach. The torah in deu. unequivocally states that the jews must follow the judges of their time, and not to budge right or left from their rulings. What did the the judges of jesus’ time have to say about him? We all know the answer to that. therefore according to torah law we MUST reject Jesus. There is no way out.
October 1st, 2009 @ 11:49 am
Ask Joseph and Nicodemus, of the Sanhedren at the time of Yeshua your question, or the “Temple Priests” who were added to the number of the thousands of believers found in the Temple Courts daily, after the Resurrection, worshiping because of hearts converted by the emboldened witness of the chosen Apostles, or, read the Tenach Prophets. “Who has believed our report”? Zvi believes in reports from NDEs, still ignoring the evidence because of an obvious prejudice. Such prejudice offers “no way out,” or an eternity apart from the presence of G-d.
October 1st, 2009 @ 11:59 am
Or read of John the Nation’s repentance emerser’s father, a Temple Preist who had a vision of an Angel while doing his rotational service and was rendered dumb until his son was born, or the two prophets who spoke over the child at the Temple when he was dedicated, or those thousands of Jews today who have come to faith in Yeshua Ha Meshiac….or, simply die in one’s sin.
October 1st, 2009 @ 12:24 pm
Or read the 2001 Gold Medallion Award Finalist book, “ZVI : The Miraculous Story of Triumph Over the Holocaust” (Paperback)
by Elwood McQuaid. The story of a ten year old Jewish boy from Warsaw who lost parents to the Holocaust, lived through Hitlers madness, to survive through thick and thin, and came to know the hand of Yeshua Ha Meshiac on his story and life….or thousands of other such testimonies throughout eons since Yeshua visited us.
October 1st, 2009 @ 12:37 pm
Or, if you do not appreciate a reporter’s account, read “The Best of Zvi : 50 Years of Telling the Story on the Highways & Byways of Israel” (Paperback) by Zvi Kalisher. He is a veteran of four of Modern Israel’s wars, and is convinced of Yeshua Ha Meshiac.
October 1st, 2009 @ 12:40 pm
I know Dr. Brown could weigh in here with tens of titles of Testimonies of Jews who judged Yeshua as Meshiac, including his own. His knowledge of the subject of “who has believed our report?” validates, the New Testament accounts validates, Josephus, the Historian of the Titus Ceasar wars validates, the conversion of Gola Mier on her deathbed validated….on an on.
October 1st, 2009 @ 12:43 pm
One again my sloppy editing shows, pardon to the memor of Golda Mier.
October 1st, 2009 @ 12:45 pm
memory
October 1st, 2009 @ 12:46 pm
Once. Yeshua came once, and he will come again.
October 1st, 2009 @ 12:52 pm
It is an amazing account, the California Jewish Doctor who was in an automobile accident, and lost his Physician’s license there because of the results of the accident. He met Yeshua Ha Meshiac and had his faculties restored. He then went to practice at the hospital where Golda passed on, in Jerusalem. His account of visiting her those last days, of leading her to faith in Yeshua is wonderous indeed. Imagine, Golda full of faith in Yeshua!
October 1st, 2009 @ 2:14 pm
One cannot dispute a historical fact. Any historian can tell you that the sanhedrin did not approve of jesus, threfore he cannot under any circumstance be the moshiach.
October 1st, 2009 @ 11:53 pm
Cute Zvi, an ignorant and ill mannored buried ostrich head in the sand response, for sure. This represents an outstanding use of guile as to calling good evil and evil good, It ignores altogether how Nicodemus and Joseph of the Herod supported sanhedren acted as to the matter, and so, as with this debate, ignores altogether the nature of the trial of Yeshua, its illegality, and the contrived use of false witness in it to reframe reality for the cause of malice. Lets forget altogether about the laws not followed which were to govern its jurisprudence.
I completely disassociate my own Yehuda person from the pursuit of ignorance, false witness, and historical disregard recorded of the trial of Yeshua. There is an association to what Netanyahu said to the United Nations a little while ago, on defending the Nation from years of rocket attacks, and being blamed for the contempt of Hammas and the antiSemetism of the wide world: “Have you no shame?”
Ignore altogether the historical accounts of Yeshua’s response to the matter of his arrest, incarceration, harsh beatings stripping flesh from his body, prophetic fulfillments, miracles, and life purposes and clear records of such (as you have been so ignoring any such recorded responses to date by a negligent manner as to honoring any pursuit of truth) . Ignore the nature of Yeshua’s ongoing friendships, including a family at Bethel, recorded actions including raising of the dead prior to the illegal trial he submitted to; and above all, ignore the manner of his responses to those who held and judged him.
Don’t forget to continue to malign, assign, ascribe, use the psychological defenses of displacement, transference, and scapegoating to ignore the recorded history while declaring a statement of “historical fact”.
It is truly boorish that you allude to “a historical fact” while ignoring all other historical facts given you including on the trial of Yeshua by those who have most patiently responded to you here. Go back to the stuff of tradition while ignoring what was illegal and hatefilled in that season of the Messiah going to the Cross. I can hear your voice among others now shouting “crucify him, crucify him.”
Although obviously illread on the actual accounts of the Life of He of Isaiah 53′s report, what He said would fall at the End, on the generation of Jewish leaders who so conducted and embraced the injustice, merciless contempt, and hard hearted ignorance involved in rejecting the Messiah is not to be taken lightly. This is written in historical record for your ponderance, far more definitely than NDE collected reports in significance, for, multiple eyewitnesses are involved of the historical records of testimony and factual reportage. The fact of his crucifixion is a very narrow window of evidence as to its established meaning, all disputed and disregarded by your argumentation. Have You no shame?
Yeshua’s sanhedren critics, it is recorded, were angry, upset, and lakced impartial objectivity in presupposing a death sentence; and, as with this debate, the fact that a desired death sentence based on ignoring altogether the evidence of divine Messianic power, humble instruction, and purposed righteous fullfillments. Psalm 22, and Isaiah 53 frame what occurred, your reframing of the intentions involved, with ascription and displacement, speaks volumes on how a heart wants. How a heart cries Ariel and Shoul in its own preoccupations.
October 2nd, 2009 @ 12:09 am
A heart shouts crucify “Lion King” while looking to the 11th CBCE Saul as its own King. Vanity of vanities. The House of David will be established on the Holy Mountain.
October 2nd, 2009 @ 1:04 am
(Sung to the upbeat tune of a Broadway play):
Oh History! Zvi reframe thee, reframe thee.
And Iran only pursues the peaceful use of Nuclear en-er-gy ,
Zvi reframe thee, reframe thee.
Ahmadinejad won fair and square, lets go there, lets go there.
Jews are to blame for all the ills of so-ci-et-ty,
so let Iran be, let Iran be, the champion of Hist-o-ry, of Hist-o-ry,
let Iran be.
As with Lennon and McCartney, say, let it be, let it be,
lets just reframe Hist-o-ry, Hist-o-ry!
Isaiah 53 has no He, has no He,
lets reframe hist-o-ry, hist-o-ry,
for Hitler had a misundersttod childhood,
and his final solution gave flowers to all those women and children getting showered , what a nice guy,
what a nice guy, let it be, let it be,
lets just reframe history, let it be.
oh
October 2nd, 2009 @ 9:23 am
I firmly repeat the sanhedrin despised jesus UNDISPUTED historical fact. Mathew claims there were false witnesses. The jews deny that. The torah commands us to follow the rulings of the judges, included in that package is that we must assume that sanhedin used valid witnesses for if that werent the case,how would the torah allow us to follow their decision. So it boils down to the sanhedrin vs. mathew, who wins? well g-d says sanhedrin. By the way Ive proven my point many times over, and you even admit that you have no answres,well if thats the case why dont you try and find answers if you believe you have the truth? thr reason is obvious: you dont care for the truth, you believe,cause you believe cause you believe cause you believe, the end result is its all based on falsehood and thin air.
October 2nd, 2009 @ 9:41 am
ZVI,
I can backup all this with passages.
Your debating that the Great Messiah must be whom?
Just a Jewish man, no, He is more than that as the scriptures show.
A descendant of King David with tribal lineage through a human father so that He may rule over Israel?
The scriptures only indicate that He will be a descendant of David.
He is more than a son of David, He is God’s ONLY BEGOTTEN SON. That makes it even a greater blessing for creation.
When asked by Pilate if He was a King, Jesus replied that His kingdom was not of this world.
He also had prayed in the garden that He desired the life He had with His Father before the world was created. He made no claim as the King of Israel but He did say that He was the Anointed One spoken of by the Prophets, the Messiah.
This King from above was whom God promised King David that He would be from his body and would reign, but would reign not just over who Judah. A kingship appointed by God like His Priesthood!
To grasp this you have to understand what was said:
1 )that Jesus said He came down from Heaven and was speaking what His Father(GOD) told Him to say.
2) that to do so He was first a Spirit from God’s Home, not flesh and blood but took on himself flesh and blood, becoming a human by the power of God. These miracles are not difficult for God. I can list some ot miracles if you wish.
3) that Jesus said He was King David’s Lord, that He said David called this Anointed One his Lord. That David’s Lord was told to sit at the right side of God and wait until God dealt with His enemies!
4) that Jesus is a Priest after the Order of Melchizedek and not a Levitical Priest
Ge:14:18: And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine: and he was the priest of the most high God.
Psalms:110:4: The LORD hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek.
5) that Jesus had and has a Kingdom in Heaven, which makes Him a King in Heaven.
the Kingdom of Heaven is prophesied as one day coming to Earth. Until then earth will not know the Kingship of Jesus.
6) that Jesus prophesied which makes Him a Prophet i.e rejectiing Him would bring destruction on everyyone who does including Israel.
7) This Anointed One was to be the Lord who was to visit the Temple as prophesied after someone who lived in the wilderness (the Baptist) under God’s anointing introduced Him
October 2nd, 2009 @ 9:53 am
You havent been even remotely close to backing anything up with passages. There are NO verses in the ot that suggest,that moshiach will NOT be aregular human being. Jesus can say all he wants the bottom line is, even if he did in fact perform miracles, its useless miracles do not prove divinity. Guys, I want EVIDENCE, without evidence we are just wasting time.
October 2nd, 2009 @ 11:22 am
Zvi,
Jer:23:5: Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will raise unto David a righteous Branch, and a King shall reign and prosper, and shall execute judgment and justice in the earth.
Jer:23:6: In his days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely: and this is his name whereby he shall be called, THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS.
MESSIAH IS CALLED THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS.
Isa:40:3: The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the LORD, make straight in the desert a highway for our God.
Isa:9:1
Psalms:110:1
Isa:9:6
There are many!
Jesus said who he was.
Seek a sign
If I told you the God of Moses speaks to me in an audible voice would you require a miracle?
No, you would require that I don’t believe that Yeshua is of God!
IT IS TRUE ZVI, the Father of Jesus I know. He is very, very close to me. He visits me. I have had the Host of Heaven visit me, even appearing, holding my hand and praying together.
I have seen God’s Holy Throne in Heaven.
Legion of Angels bowing before the Lord
Many things I have seen and heard because I became as a little child before My God.
Re:22:12: And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be.
Re:22:13: I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.
THIS IS GOD’S SON speaking to Isaiah
Isa:48:12: Hearken unto me, O Jacob and Israel, my called; I am he; I am the first, I also am the last.
….
Isa:48:16: Come ye near unto me, hear ye this; I have not spoken in secret from the beginning; from the time that it was, there am I: and now the Lord GOD, and his Spirit, hath sent me.
HIS FATHER AND THE HOLY SPIRIT sent HIM Yeshua to Israel.
Trinity!
October 2nd, 2009 @ 1:10 pm
What is the witness of the Covenant at Mount Sinai, the Written Torah or the oral law?
24 And it came to pass, when Moses had made an end of writing the words of this law in a book, until they were finished, 25 that Moses commanded the Levites, that bore the ark of the covenant of the LORD, saying: 26 ‘Take this book of the law, and put it by the side of the ark of the covenant of the LORD your God, that it may be there for a witness against thee.
The witness of the Covenant made at Sinai, according to the Talmud, is the oral law. How does that fit in the above text from Deuteronomy 31? Let’s proceed.
7 And he took the book of the covenant, and read in the hearing of the people; and they said: ‘All that the LORD hath spoken will we do, and obey.’ 8 And Moses took the blood, and sprinkled it on the people, and said: ‘Behold the blood of the covenant, which the LORD hath made with you in agreement with all these words.’ (Exodus 24)
Again, abundantly clear! NO oral law! Moses took THE BOOK of the Covenant and said that God made the Covenant based on those words in the BOOK. Not by virtue of any oral law. It simply didn’t exist then. Let’s move on.
What about Exodus 34:27? This text is used in an extraordinary way by the Talmud. This is what the Torah says in Exodus 34:27:
27. The Lord said to Moses: “Inscribe these words for yourself, for according to these words I have formed a covenant with you and with Israel.”
Did you get that? God tells Moses to “write down these words” and that He has made a Covenant with Israel based on these words. So the whole basis for the Covenant at Mount Sinai is the WRITTEN Torah!
The next piece of evidence comes from 1 Kings 2. David is about to die and wants to give his son, Solomon, some last words which he will need to be a successful king. Now these last words are the most precious words you can give your child. This is what king David says:
2. “I go the way of all the earth; you shall be strong, therefore, and show yourself a man;
3. And keep the charge of the Lord your God to walk in His ways, to keep His statutes, and His commandments, and His judgments, and His testimonies, as it is written in the law of Moses, that you may prosper in all that you do, and wherever you turn;
4. That the Lord may continue His word which He spoke concerning me, saying, ‘If your children take heed to their way, to walk before Me in truth with all their heart and with all their soul, there shall not fail you,’ said He, ‘a man on the throne of Israel.’
Look at that! David tells his son that he should keep Gods statutes, commandments, etc. as is WRITTEN in the Law of Moses! NO oral law, no nothing. If it’s such an important piece of information for the kings successor, then why doesn’t he tell him to keep that as well?
David doesn’t say “follow the written and the oral law”. He says walk in Gods ways as is written in the book of Moses.
No such thing, no oral law
October 2nd, 2009 @ 1:12 pm
And if you want to know more about the calander issue, read up here.
http://individual.utoronto.ca/kalendis/hebrew/index.html
October 2nd, 2009 @ 1:14 pm
Any reference being made to violating the Word of God and being unfaithful to His Covenant is ONLY made to the Written Torah, which is the foundation of God’s Covenant with the Jewish people.
The bible doesn’t only forget to mention any oral law, but it testifies that there is nothing besides the written and that there was not a word said that was not written down.
Also consider that every time the Torah mentions sin or transgression of Gods Torah, it always makes reference to the Written Torah and never to the oral law. If an oral law was already given at Mount Sinai and if the oral law was an equally important (or even MORE important) norm to determine sin, then how come it’s completely ignored in crucial parts throughout the Scriptures?
Because it wasn’t there!
Something to really ponder is that words are written down so that they can be reviewed to make sure they aren’t forgotten. And if they are forgotten they can be looked up and remembered. That’s why we make notes. But we are to believe that God gave us a Written Torah to remind us of the testimony and the Covenant with Him, but told Moses not to write the part that is many a times larger, more exhaustive, and more important than the Written Torah? Alright!
October 2nd, 2009 @ 1:31 pm
Deuteronomy 17:8
8 “If any CASE arises requiring decision between one kind of homicide and another, one kind of LEGAL RIGHT and another, or one kind of assault and another, any CASE within your towns that is too difficult for you, then you shall arise and go up to the place that the Lord your God will choose.
9 uAnd you shall come to the Levitical priests and to the judge who is in OFFICE in those days, and you shall consult them, and vthey shall declare to you the DECISION.
10 Then you shall do according to what they declare to you from that place that the Lord will choose. And you shall be careful to do according to all that they DIRECT you.
11 According to the instructions that they give you, and according to the DECISION which they pronounce to you, you shall do. You shall not turn aside from the VERDICT that they declare to you, either to the right hand or to the left.
12 The man who wacts presumptuously by not obeying the priest who stands to minister there before the Lord your God, or the judge, that man shall die. So you shall PURGE the EVIL from Israel.
13 And all the people yshall hear and fear and not act presumptuously again.
What is this speaking of? Let the reader decide…. This passage is speaking about legal rulings and how Israel is to follow the legal authority of the Judicial system of their time. Nothing about intepretation of scripture. But you may object,
“it still says to follow their court rulings.”
This is assuming the priests and judges were pure and not corrupt. What we know is that the Sanhedrin of Jesus’ day was vile….
October 2nd, 2009 @ 1:34 pm
Going on in Deuteronomy,
And when he sits on the throne of his kingdom, he shall WRITE for himself in a BOOK a copy of this LAW, iapproved by the Levitical priests. 19 And it shall be with him, and he shall READ in it all the days of his life, that he may learn to fear the Lord his God by keeping all the words of this LAW and these statutes, and doing them, 20 that his heart may not be lifted up above his brothers, and that he lmay not turn aside from the commandment, either to the right hand or to the left, mso that he may continue long in his kingdom, he and his children, in Israel.
According to this scripture, the written law is all you need. No mention of any ORal law. Again
October 3rd, 2009 @ 1:14 am
“You have no answers.” More Zvi reframing. In addition to what is given by others, above, and over and over as recorded in this debate earlier than my own responses and answers, the answers given you seem to be on terms other than those you wish to accept: including historical accounts, or, as you might call them, facts. You consider NDEs as indicative of a conclusion, while ignoring the eyewitness and many historical accounts not established, as such, by your mention of the unquoted Sanhedren.
What Yeshua stated about Jerusalem being “trodden down by the Gentiles, unitl the time of the Gentiles is fulfilled” (Luke 21:24) is directly related to his other statement given before his arrest about “not one stone will be left upon another” (see Matthew Levi, Luke, Mark) as to the final disposition of the embellished second Temple, this obvious undoing of the relationship of the Sanhedren and its continuity, and the words of Daniel as to the annointed one being “cut off”, already abundantly discussed by others in the past in this debate.
It is clear that Titus came with armies which sent any surviving remainder of a Sanhedren, which rejected Yeshua, into exhile. Not only was no stone of the related religious system infrastructure left in its place on the Mount, but the prophetic words of Yeshua spoken over Jerusalem prevailed over its miscalculation and rejection of the Messiah (Mt. 24 & 25). According to Josephus, the Roman Jewish Wars historian, (as predicted by Daniel, and Yeshua) the Temple was left desolate, with stones cast into the valleys, and any remaining of your cited judges were either killed, captured, or went into hiding. The Testimony of Jesus Christ however, flourished.
The Messiah’s words then were of a larger Judgement framework and consequence than the Sanhedren that tried him. Judaism has been altered to this day as a result of what came upon Jerusalem, according to the two Prophets cited, and Josephus, the Jewish Roman Wars historian, who also calls Yeshua the Messiah in its context of historical facts.
The informal hearing of Yeshua before Annas, a more formal trial before Caiaphas and the Sanhedren after dark, and a brief early morning meeting perhaps to compensate for the lack of legality the prior evening were Sanhedren realted actions. Jesus told Annas that his own personal actions were not hidden, but accomplished in the open. He was slapped for thus responding, an illegal action.
It is John’s gospel which grants insight. Even though Yeshua is on trail before Roman and Jewish authorities, it becomes clear that they were on trial before him.
The Sanhedren had no legitamate charge against Yeshua, and could not even get the false witnesses to agree (Mark 14:56). The obsfucated charge they brought was that Yeshua was assigned a statement that He would destroy the Temple (perhaps a reference back to his prophecy mentioned, or his statement about his own body, and its coming Resurrection–
made in advance of the fact. Neither represents a cause for a death sentence, in any event).
Caiaphais asks Yeshua if he is the Messiah (Mark 14:61). “I am” states Yeshua (vs. 62a). “And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven”
is also stated (vs 62b). This reply includes allusions to Daniel 7:13 and Psalm 101:1. These references are about authority and power over all humanity, leading to universal worship and everlasting dominion (Dan. 7:13-14). Sitting at the right hand comes from Psalm 101:1, which confirmed his previous teaching at the Temple (Luke 22:67-68). Here, as I began this reply with, is a source Zvi is not considering, nor examining. Jerusalem fell, as predicted, in 70 AD to Pagans (via the statements of Daniel, and Yeshua).
“A comparison of Mishna law on capital trials (in the tractate Sandedrin) discloses many irregularities with the procedures”…undertaken. (C. Blomberg). A trial on the eve of Shabat, on a feast day at night, without witnesses on behalf of the accused, and with the high Priest speaking with those of lesser authority was ismply illegal. Was the Beth Din accurate about Sanhedren legal procedures?
In the morning the He of Is. 53 and Psalm 22 is taken away to Pilate, who attempted to free him and move on his behalf before the Jews (John 18: 28-19:16). He then sent him to Herod. Scapegoating was the name of the game. It was the Passover. Pilate set Yeshua against Barabbas for another opportunity to free He who his own wife called an innocent man (Mat 27:19; Mark 15:7; Pesahim 8:6a). The crowd, it is recorded stated, “Let his blood be on us and our children” (Matt. Levi, 27:25). He was so judged indeed by the crowd present along with the Sanhedren as to consequence, though the Sanhedren was often depicted much earlier as so diposed (excepting Nicodemus and Joseph).
He was beaten, scorged, mocked with a crown of thorns, a robe, and scepter (Mark 15:17-20a), and, along with a crucifixion nailing beam then placed at Golgatha (an extension of Moriah, outside the city gates), and crucified.
The Gospels record three hours of Yeshua alive on the Cross. Those who saw him and his final remarks view him as noble. John 19:24 fulfills, as cited, Psalm 22:18. You can find the references, as some of the overarching Lord Judge’s answers, Zvi.
He taught, lived, and gave up his spirit of a love unfathomable (Luke 23:34). From noon to 3PM supernatural darkness fell over the Land, the Temple, and the Nation’s Sanhedren. The thick Temple veil over the inner sanctuary was torn in two from top to bottom during an earthquake thereafter.
Luke records that Joseph, a member of the Sanhedren, had not consented to the council’s verdict (Luke 23:50-51). Matthew and John call him a disciple of Yeshua (Matt. 27:57, and John 19:38, as a Sanhedren member). Nicodemus accompanies Joseph in John’s account.
There is the unprecedented record too of Jewish leaders getting Pilate’s permission to seal and guard the Tomb (Matt. 27: 62-66). Matthew records the same leaders tried afterwards to use the story of a stolen body for their explaination of the Empty Tomb
(28: 11-15). This fits with a trial by false witness, illegally so at night, mockery, flogging, and crucifixion. It shows too later Sanhedren jealousy and bewilderment of the authority of Peter, James, and John at the Temple Courts, after the Resurrection and Ascension, when charging these miracle workers not to share the Name of Yeshua. It is recorded in Acts that “Temple Priests” in numbers were added to the gathering of believers at that location in Yeshua. So too others went and–made disciples–of the Nations.
Signs followed the sharing of the Name with those who heared the Message of the Kingdom of the Messiah.
October 3rd, 2009 @ 1:21 am
Heard. Answers, His answers.
October 3rd, 2009 @ 11:56 am
Craig, The only angel ever seen by me was in Northern Israel, Upper Gaillee, in a grove of Ancient Olive Trees, by a stream, on his knees, wings higher than his head. Intercessing, I think. Gershom Soloman, of the Temple Mount Faithful movement, reported seeing many Angels during his service in the Golan in the War of Independence. He helped too, a little later, liberate Jerusalem. Today, with two other groups, he stands ready to equip a Temple. The Third Temple, it is written, will usher in the Messiah’s return. And, even if not possible, His feet will land on the Mt. of Olives, ushering in the expected restorative Hope of Israel! Let it be so.
October 3rd, 2009 @ 11:58 am
Zvi< Think about the evidence given you by many to date. All the effort and prayer just for you, Zvi. One does not have to abide alone. He lives!
October 4th, 2009 @ 6:28 am
Zvi says:
October 2, 2009 at 9:53 am
You havent been even remotely close to backing anything up with passages. There are NO verses in the ot that suggest,that moshiach will NOT be aregular human being. Jesus can say all he wants the bottom line is, even if he did in fact perform miracles, its useless miracles do not prove divinity. Guys, I want EVIDENCE, without evidence we are just wasting time.
Robert replies; Kyle and Craig are very accurate. It seems the Sanhedrens decision brought upon themselves [Deuteronomy 18:22] as the prophesy of Yehoshua came true of the Temples destruction [Matthew 24:2]. Have you read about the Marriage feast [Matthew 22:1-14] You shall have your evidence when you see the Son of man come with the glory of His Father with the angels, and then He shall reward every man according to His works!, and judge according to the Garment they have on! [Matthew 16:27]
October 4th, 2009 @ 2:43 pm
ZVI,
There was a great rebellion in Israel’s past as it is now before God and His Messiah.
They were famous, and renown.
250 of the assembly, famous in the congregation, men of renown who calling themselves Holy before the Lord, not wanting Moses as a prince over them and saying it hasn’t happened that they be brought to the promised land.
You say Jesus can’t be the Messiah, the promised Kingdom never arrived!
The Bible said the Messiah must first be cut off before the Second Temple is destroyed. It happened.
Then the Millennium Kingdom at the end of 6 thousand years where the Messiah will Reign.
If is obvious these 2 events are to have a time gap.
It is now 6000 years, who is coming Zvi who’s feet will touch the Mount?
Can a mere Jewish man do such a thing and live Zvi. The passage say’s the mount of Olives will split!
Zec:14:4: And his feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives, which is before Jerusalem on the east, and the mount of Olives shall cleave in the midst thereof toward the east and toward the west, and there shall be a very great valley; and half of the mountain shall remove toward the north, and half of it toward the south.
Call youselves Holy as in Num:, so did they.
Murmered against the Lord, the one spoken of in Deut 18:18
As passages in Num::
“Is it a small thing that thou hast brought us up out of a land that floweth with milk and honey, to kill us in the wilderness, except thou make thyself altogether a prince over us?”
M’t:27:41: Likewise also the chief priests mocking him, with the scribes and elders, said,
Were they calling Moses a false prophet because they hadn’t entered the promised? The same they did to Yeshua!
“Moreover thou hast not brought us into a land that floweth with milk and honey, or given us inheritance of fields and vineyards: wilt thou put out the eyes of these men? we will not come up.”
Ro:11:25: For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.
“So they gat up from the tabernacle of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram, on every side: and Dathan and Abiram came out, and stood in the door of their tents, and their wives, and their sons, and their little children.”
…
“They, and all that appertained to them, went down alive into the pit, and the earth closed upon them: and they perished from among the congregation.”
…
“And there came out a fire from the LORD, and consumed the two hundred and fifty men that offered incense.”
THE PLOT AGAINST DEUT 18:18
M’t:26:3: Then assembled together the chief priests, and the scribes, and the elders of the people, unto the palace of the high priest, who was called Caiaphas,
M’t:26:4: And consulted that they might take Jesus by subtilty, and kill him.
THEY DEMANDED PROPHESY!
M’t:26:68: Saying, Prophesy unto us, thou Christ, Who is he that smote thee?
SO THEN THEY GOT A PROPHESY GIVEN to them by Jesus!
M’t:23:38: Behold, your house is left unto you desolate.
A MESSAGE FOR ISRAEL
M’t:23:39: For I say unto you, Ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord.
FOR 2k YEARS MURMERING AGAINST THE ANOINTED ONE, OFFERING INCENSE.
Israel it isn’t accepted!
YOU WILL SAY WELL GOD DID NOT OPEN THE PIT FOR US, NOR WERE WE COSUMED BY FIRE.
WELL BY SWORD ISRAEL! AS FOR AFTERLIFE WHETHER IT IS A PIT OR OUTERDARKNESS A SECOND JUDGMENT WAIT FOR ALL THOSE WHO NEVER ENTERED HIS PROMISE.
BLESSED IS YESHUA, THE SON OF THE MOST HIGH, WHO COMES IN THE NAME OF HIS FATHER, THE ALMIGHTY GOD
A New Covenant was made with Blood, not as the Mosaic Old Covenant which has been broken and has ended.
Jer:31:32: Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD:
As for those who try the OLD, both staff beauty and bands have been broken, it is finished!
Zec:11:10: And I took my staff, even Beauty, and cut it assunder, that I might break my covenant which I had made with all the people.
…
Zec:11:14: Then I cut asunder mine other staff, even Bands, that I might break the brotherhood between Judah and Israel.
You then had your own shepherds Israel, not like Yeshua who Healed the sick, spoke His Father’s Words, Taught, Reproved and Fed the hungry,
You have and will have:
Zec:11:16: For, lo, I will raise up a shepherd in the land, which shall not visit those that be cut off, neither shall seek the young one, nor heal that that is broken, nor feed that that standeth still: but he shall eat the flesh of the fat, and tear their claws in pieces.
Zec:11:17: Woe to the idol shepherd that leaveth the flock! the sword shall be upon his arm, and upon his right eye: his arm shall be clean dried up, and his right eye shall be utterly darkened.
AS THE PASSAGE ABOVE SAY’S ISRAEL GOT A SHEPHERD THAT WAS NOT THE LORD!
But! THE LORD IS MY SHEPHERD.
A New Covenant not for them but for those who believe God, Jew and Gentile.
M’t:26:28: For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
Grace and mercy for believers.
October 4th, 2009 @ 7:18 pm
What is a passage but a reflection of the mind of the Lord for a given reference, differing indeed from Oral tradition. “Seek the Lord while He may be found; Call upon Him while He is near. Let the wicked forsake his way, And the unrigteous man his thoughts,; and let him return to the Lord, and He will have compassion on him; And to our God, For He will abudantly pardon. For My thoughts are not your thoughts, Neither are your ways My ways,” delares the Lord.
“for, as the heavens are higher than the earth, So are My ways higher than your ways, And My thoughts than your thoughts.” Is 55: 6-9. This says that G-d’s own understanding is greater than any mishna, greater than any “dispising” of the judges. The embellished second Temple had a construct attached to it for the Sanhedren. That Temple, as foretold, has fallen. The City, The Nation, the practices and observations were altered from the time the Messiah was cut off.
It is His heart which seeks to find the lost sheep, seeks to draw that soul to Him and His way. “Who has believed our report?” Certainly not the soul who has to have every jot and tittle recorded and commented on for his own sense of control, of superiority to that which was meekly asserted by the Messiah.
Even the Sanhedren was undone when the unplanned actions of the Roman legions leveled the structures above the Temple Mount after the fires consumed what was erected and consummable there. A reality greater than the Sanhedren and Temple had touched what seemed to be cast in stone, but was temporary and fleeting, at best.
October 5th, 2009 @ 1:43 pm
Zvi, I have not met nor corresponded with the other witnesses of Yeshua giving you “ot” passages you requested. Yet our harmony of agreement, from the Ruach Ha Kodesh, stands until That Day. When Yeshua returns the promises for believers in Israel are wonderous. We open our arms to you, read and receive.
October 6th, 2009 @ 8:59 pm
To all of the above: I repeat, the oral law is NOT by any means a new set of laws,it’s merely a description and an inrepretation of the ot, for the ot CANNOT be understood without the help of oral law as I have proven many times over. When the torah commands us Kyle, to follow the written word torah is written in PRULAR form, to include the oral law, which again is essentially the same body of law. NOT even ONE law of the torah can be understood without the oral law. deu. 17 describes in detail all the aspects of law no just LEGAL rights, that are to be decided by the judges of that time at whatever time they might be or whether or not YOU think they are vile. AFTER all who else would be the to decide such a pressing matter of a “g-d” landing on earth,if not the sanhedrin, this would be one of the most important issues for jews to know. So this certainly fits the criteria of something the judges must decide, not Craig, Kyle, or Jabez.
October 6th, 2009 @ 9:14 pm
Craig, look at Rashi’s interpretation of the verses you quoted regarding Mesiah being G-d they are not literal. Just as we find many times in the ot as g-d as not literal. deu.33:1 gen:32;29 Gen 33: 20 etc.
October 6th, 2009 @ 10:27 pm
For an excellent refutation of many of Dr. Brown’s counter-counter-missionary work see:
http://www.jewsforjudaism.org/library/document-library/func-startdown/11/
October 6th, 2009 @ 11:08 pm
Matt,
Actually, the long article you cite was written by a dear friend of mine, Rabbi Yisroel Blumenthal, who sent it to me before posting it. I very much appreciate Rabbi Blumenthal’s sincerity and learning — in fact, for the most part, we talk by phone every week — but I do not believe any substantial arguments have been raised against my position in his article.
As soon as I have time, I plan to finish writing an article that sets the record straight entitled, “Correcting ‘Contra Brown.’” (For others reading this post, Contra Brown is the name of Rabbi Blumenthal’s article.)
That being said, I am delighted to see the attention his article has received, indicating that people are very much aware of the material that I presented in the Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus series. This is good news and confirms what we have known for years now, namely, that Jewish people are coming to faith because of the truthful arguments set forth in these books.
October 7th, 2009 @ 12:39 am
Dr. Brown:
I find it hard to believe that you actually feel that no substantial arguments have been raised against your position. His article severely comprises most of your basic theses of which I am familiar. But for the readers of this forum, do not take what I am saying for granted, read Rabbi Blumenthal’s article and see if he has indeed refuted Dr. Brown’s major point. I think you will find that he has.
In any case Dr. Brown, I do look forward to you “setting the record straight” in your upcoming article.
I don’t see how attention to his article confirms that “people are coming to faith.” That is an incredibly silly conclusion to make, isn’t it? It could be that every individual who ever read the article and considered becoming Chrisitan decided not to.
Anyhow, to counter, I know of many people who left the Christian faith becuase they felt its claims were untenable. Many of these individuals were pastors and senior leaders of evangelical churches. On the other hand, I don’t know of a single Orthodox rabbi who ever left traditional rabbinic Judaism to become Christian.
Sincerely, Matt
October 7th, 2009 @ 6:01 am
To be honest, when I was still unsure about my faith, I visited this “contra Brown” thing. It didn’t really bring anything new to the table, the rabbi really just stated his own views without touching on Dr. Brown’s books.
If you are so confident Matt, why not try your hand and debate Dr. Brown on air? Or do you have an excuse like Zvi?
October 7th, 2009 @ 6:31 am
Kyle:
What do you mean that he didn’t touch on Dr. Brown’s books? He has refuted on all of Dr. Brown’s major arguments especially vis-a-vis the purported requirement that the messiah come before 70 AD.
I think it is the other way around. Dr. Brown’s arguments are just a statement of the Christian position and the Christian interpretation of scripture.
Perhaps you should read contra Brown again.
Matt
October 7th, 2009 @ 8:53 am
Matt,
God and you know that you do not have a personal walk with God. Why? We do.
He walks with me, and He talks with me, And He tells me I am His own.
Yisroel Blumenthal’s work is trying to prove the word is flat.
Psalms:22:18: They part my garments among them, and cast lots upon my vesture.
Do you want to know God or just a lover of debate?
October 7th, 2009 @ 9:22 am
Craig:
I don’t know what you are talking about in terms of my knowing that I do not have a “personal walk with God” that supposedly you do. Are you able to look into my heart. Further, are you so pompous to say that you know what G-d knows? Come now.
Actually, I feel that my relationship with G-d is quite strong and improves as I strive to learn his Torah and perform.
And have you actually read Rabbi Blumenthal’s work, or do you just automatically assume that his work is trying to “prove the world is flat.” If you read it carefully, discerfully, objectfully, and prayerfully, you will have to come to the conclusion that Dr. Brown’s arguments are severely compromised.
In truth (despite your little Christian ditty) it is you who relies on a relationship with a godman, and believes in the myth of the trinity and therefore whose relationship with the Almighty is severely compromised.
Matt
October 7th, 2009 @ 12:15 pm
Zevi, and now Matt,
Evidence was by inquiry sought as to questions extended in this debate. Through the efforts of many, evidence was given. In order to proceed on to other facts and details toward a conclusion that evidence must be read and considered. There is no indication whatsoever that that respectful extension of your inquiry has now occurred. Is it so difficult to pick up a New Testament and read what was quoted for you, or a Tenach, to review what was cited for you?
This forum exists for honest, open, and considered inquiry and interchange.
October 7th, 2009 @ 12:25 pm
Zvi, I am curious what the Rashi interpretation you cling to has to say about
GE 49:10 The scepter will not depart from Judah,
nor the ruler’s staff from between his feet,
until he comes to whom it belongs
and the obedience of the nations is his.
October 7th, 2009 @ 12:39 pm
If you are so confident, why not debate Dr. Brown on air, you avoided my question. Or do you have an excuse like Zvi? If you feel you have the truth, then debate Dr. Brown on air for all to hear. Theres a reason why your anti missionary leaders don’t put their debates with him on their sites.
October 7th, 2009 @ 12:41 pm
Oh and have you even read Dr. Brown’s books? Thje contra Brown only touched on what was in Lee Strobels book I believe. I did read it again Matt, and it is a very weak rebuttle in my opinion. I recommend you watch the debates between Dr. Brown and the leading anti missionaries. You’ll see why the anti missionaries are afraid to debate him on air.
October 7th, 2009 @ 12:44 pm
I have all of Dr. Browns books and contra brown only touched on a few minor points. Please visit Dr. Browns website to see all that is in his books. I would have followed the path wherever it went Matt, I looked unbiasedly and weighed the evidence. I found myself at the Messiah’s feet. I’ll be praying for you.
October 7th, 2009 @ 12:46 pm
This isn’t even a debate blog, if you two want to debate, do it on air, and we can discuss it on that show’s page. This is not the place to post, no one see’s this page except for the usual few. If you want tyo do real debate, talk to Dr. Brown or go to the Jews for Jesus forums.
October 7th, 2009 @ 12:59 pm
I weigh in too as to what has not been addressed or reflected in regard as to the evidence given Zvi, or his own evasive answers. To gain any credibility as to your procedures undertaken and recorded in the blog at all here, where blatantly ignoring the answers given you: you must debate Dr. Brown on the air, or all your words fall to the ground. Words to be trodden under the feet of men.
October 7th, 2009 @ 1:11 pm
Jabez H. says:
October 7, 2009 at 1:09 pm
Matt, As for discovering “A Christian Ditty,” I’d suggest going back and reviewing my entry in this blog, listed as of Oct 2nd at 1:04
AM. Truth does not need defending, it stands in its own regard. It can be commented upon, for certain, but does not require constant reinterpretation by oral tradition to be, in fact, truth.
The beauty of the Messiah’s truth is that it is tempered by grace, until That Day.
October 7th, 2009 @ 1:12 pm
Matt,
Let me first preface that while there are more, below are just several passages of Scripture from the Tanakh that mention certain instances of God as having the presence of a man and communicating as such with other people. Since God is God, He has the ability to represent Himself as a man when He so chooses. It is apparent that in any of these Biblical instances, the person witnessing God as a man notices something supernatural about Him and thus the reverential recognition. From the New Testament, we know that Jesus says when we have seen Jesus, we have seen the Father, and we also know that Colossians 1:15 says Jesus is the image of the invisible God. Jesus is known as the Son of God, meaning that in one sense of this title, he is God the visible Representative to humanity. The fullness of God’s glory is so great that no one may look upon Him in such a state and live, but He makes Himself tangible to us through Jesus. While God may appear as a man at certain instances in the Tanakh, He is not fully man during this time as He would later cause Himself to be fully man being born among us. He only APPEARS as a man at certain instances in the Tanakh, and cannot be harmed as He allowed Himself to be when He came as fully human Jesus. Him later being born among us would serve as a different purpose. But the point of these following passages of Scripture are meant to point out that God and the Son of God are One in Unity and have always existed, along with the Holy Spirit who is included in this Unity, and is another way God has made Himself known among us. But for the purpose of this discussion, references insinuating the Son of God will only be addressed. I will put some of the text in all caps to highlight the points I am making.
Genesis 3
8 Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the LORD God as he was WALKING IN THE GARDEN in the cool of the day, and they hid from the LORD God among the trees of the garden.
Genesis 18
1 The LORD appeared to Abraham near the great trees of Mamre while he was sitting at the entrance to his tent in the heat of the day. 2 Abraham looked up and saw THREE MEN standing nearby. When he saw them, he hurried from the entrance of his tent to meet them and BOWED LOW TO THE GROUND.
3 He said, “If I have found favor in your eyes, my lord, do not pass your servant by. 4 Let a little water be brought, and then you may all wash your feet and rest under this tree. 5 Let me get you something to eat, so you can be refreshed and then go on your way—now that you have come to your servant.”
“Very well,” they answered, “do as you say.”
6 So Abraham hurried into the tent to Sarah. “Quick,” he said, “get three seahs of fine flour and knead it and bake some bread.”
7 Then he ran to the herd and selected a choice, tender calf and gave it to a servant, who hurried to prepare it. 8 He then brought some curds and milk and the calf that had been prepared, and set these before them. While they ate, he stood near them under a tree.
9 “Where is your wife Sarah?” they asked him.
“There, in the tent,” he said.
10 Then the LORD said, “I will surely return to you about this time next year, and Sarah your wife will have a son.”
Now Sarah was listening at the entrance to the tent, which was behind him. 11 Abraham and Sarah were already old and well advanced in years, and Sarah was past the age of childbearing. 12 So Sarah laughed to herself as she thought, “After I am worn out and my master is old, will I now have this pleasure?”
13 Then the LORD said to Abraham, “Why did Sarah laugh and say, ‘Will I really have a child, now that I am old?’ 14 Is anything too hard for the LORD ? I will return to you at the appointed time next year and Sarah will have a son.”
15 Sarah was afraid, so she lied and said, “I did not laugh.”
But he said, “Yes, you did laugh.”
16 When the MEN got up to leave, they looked down toward Sodom, and ABRAHAM WALKED ALONG WITH THEM to see them on their way. 17 Then the LORD said, “Shall I hide from Abraham what I am about to do? 18 Abraham will surely become a great and powerful nation, and all nations on earth will be blessed through him. 19 For I have chosen him, so that he will direct his children and his household after him to keep the way of the LORD by doing what is right and just, so that the LORD will bring about for Abraham what he has promised him.”
20 Then the LORD said, “The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great and their sin so grievous 21 that I will go down and see if what they have done is as bad as the outcry that has reached me. If not, I will know.”
22 The men turned away and went toward Sodom, but ABRAHAM REMAINED STANDING BEFORE THE LORD. 23 Then ABRAHAM APPROACHED HIM and said: “Will you sweep away the righteous with the wicked? 24 What if there are fifty righteous people in the city? Will you really sweep it away and not spare the place for the sake of the fifty righteous people in it? 25 Far be it from you to do such a thing—to kill the righteous with the wicked, treating the righteous and the wicked alike. Far be it from you! Will not the Judge of all the earth do right?”
26 The LORD said, “If I find fifty righteous people in the city of Sodom, I will spare the whole place for their sake.”
27 Then Abraham spoke up again: “Now that I have been so bold as to speak to the Lord, though I am nothing but dust and ashes, 28 what if the number of the righteous is five less than fifty? Will you destroy the whole city because of five people?”
“If I find forty-five there,” he said, “I will not destroy it.”
29 Once again he spoke to him, “What if only forty are found there?”
He said, “For the sake of forty, I will not do it.”
30 Then he said, “May the Lord not be angry, but let me speak. What if only thirty can be found there?”
He answered, “I will not do it if I find thirty there.”
31 Abraham said, “Now that I have been so bold as to speak to the Lord, what if only twenty can be found there?”
He said, “For the sake of twenty, I will not destroy it.”
32 Then he said, “May the Lord not be angry, but let me speak just once more. What if only ten can be found there?”
He answered, “For the sake of ten, I will not destroy it.”
33 WHEN THE LORD HAD FINISHED SPEAKING WITH ABRAHAM, HE LEFT, and Abraham returned home.
***Note: Keep in mind that the men who left to go to Sodom mentioned in verse 22 were actually 2 angels as mentioned in Chapter 19. This means that the 3rd man Abraham saw was the Lord who stayed with him, also mentioned in verse 22.
Genesis 32
22 That night Jacob got up and took his two wives, his two maidservants and his eleven sons and crossed the ford of the Jabbok. 23 After he had sent them across the stream, he sent over all his possessions. 24 So Jacob was left alone, and a MAN wrestled with him till daybreak. 25 When the man saw that he could not overpower him, he touched the socket of Jacob’s hip so that his hip was wrenched as he wrestled with the man. 26 Then the man said, “Let me go, for it is daybreak.”
But Jacob replied, “I will not let you go unless you bless me.”
27 The man asked him, “What is your name?”
“Jacob,” he answered.
28 Then the man said, “Your name will no longer be Jacob, but Israel, because you have STRUGGLED WITH GOD and with men and have overcome.”
29 Jacob said, “Please tell me your name.”
But he replied, “Why do you ask my name?” Then he blessed him there.
30 So Jacob called the place Peniel, saying, “It is because I SAW GOD FACE TO FACE, and yet MY LIFE WAS SPARED.”
Joshua 5
13 Now when Joshua was near Jericho, he looked up and saw a MAN standing in front of him with a drawn sword in his hand. Joshua went up to him and asked, “Are you for us or for our enemies?”
14 “Neither,” he replied, “but as COMMANDER OF THE ARMY OF THE LORD I have now come.” Then Joshua FELL FACEDOWN TO THE GROUND IN REVERENCE, and asked him, “What message does my Lord have for his servant?”
15 The commander of the LORD’s army replied, “TAKE OFF YOUR SANDALS, FOR THE PLACE WHERE YOU ARE STANDING IS HOLY.” And Joshua did so.
Daniel 3
23 and these three men, firmly tied, fell into the blazing furnace.
24 Then King Nebuchadnezzar leaped to his feet in amazement and asked his advisers, “Weren’t there three men that we tied up and threw into the fire?”
They replied, “Certainly, O king.”
25 He said, “Look! I see FOUR MEN walking around in the fire, unbound and unharmed, and THE FOURTH LOOKS LIKE A SON OF THE GODS.”
Proverbs 30
4 Who has GONE UP TO HEAVEN AND COME DOWN?
Who has gathered up the wind in the hollow of his hands?
Who has wrapped up the waters in his cloak?
Who has established all the ends of the earth?
What is his name, and THE NAME OF HIS SON?
Tell me if you know!
October 7th, 2009 @ 1:13 pm
Matt, one more thing, I just read through all of Contra Brown one more time and I honestly see that what is addressed in Contra Brown is only the tip of the iceburg. I recommend that you buy Dr.Brown’s books. I now am reassured that this contra brown article was only reflecting on what was in Lee Strobels book where Dr. Brown makes a quick statement or two. Have you read his books Matt?
But I’m blabbering on, the article gave me a good laugh and I was talking back tothe computer refuting the points he made one by one.
If you want to debate, you debate Dr. Brown. Go on air and stop avoiding it.
October 7th, 2009 @ 1:25 pm
Kyle:
If you are so confident, why don’t you just respond to my points on your own. If you are so confident in the points. Or is Dr. Brown your messiah such that you can’t defend your faith without him? (And I love the fact that you are inviting me to debate him on air.)
As for Contra Brown only responding to just a few of Dr. Brown’s points, this is absolutely riddiculous. If this is true, just name three of Dr. Brown’s major points that Contra Brown did not address. I doubt you will be able to do so. As for viewing Michael Brown’s website, I am quite familiar with his work, and I do agree that he is the best counter-counter-missionary, but the fact that his arguments crumble so easily under the weight of the evidence as presented by Rabbi Blumenthal just shows how far short the Christian position falls short.
As for you unbiasedly taking the evidence wherever it went, I can’t probe into your heart to see if this is the case. But I do know of many Jews in the messianic and Hebrew Christian movement who were already firmly entrenched in their Christian beliefs who later found them to be untenable and returned to Torah Judaism. So this is certainly greater that you who at most came from a neutral position.
I will gladly debate you either at the Jews for J forum or Messiah Truth (and if you were a real man, you’d pick Messiah Truth).
Matt
October 7th, 2009 @ 1:35 pm
I’m only 17 and I am not a good debater, I have limited knowledge.
Three points not addressed?
-Oral Law
-New Covanent
-Psalm 22 was virtually ignored.
Again, I repeat, Dr. Brown will accept anyone who wants to debate him. This is not the place to debate.
October 7th, 2009 @ 2:05 pm
My whole point Matt, is that you can debate Dr. Brown on the air, which he will let you do! If you are confident, you can ‘prove him wrong’ on air in front of everyone. Not many people have this opportunity.
October 7th, 2009 @ 2:09 pm
Hi Michael:
I’m glad that you, as opposed to some of the other people in this forum, actually are attempting to present evidence for your point of view.
In all of these cases, the beings referred to with the name of G-d are actually angels which are sometimes referred to in scripture by G-d’s name. They may represent G-d, and fully express G-d’s Divine Will such that to our human senses they may seem to us to be G-d in the flesh. However, they remain created beings and it is forbidden to worship them. Devotion belongs
However, even if these beings were G-d in the flesh (which is a horrific thought, even if it were possible), none of these verses even begins to justify the blasphemous doctrine of the trinity, in which G-d is no longer One, but actually composed of three separate indivisible beings, each which has a relationship to one another. Such an idea is completely alien to, and unjustifiable by the Tenach and Judaism but is a required belief of Christianity. I don’t know how anyone, and especially any Jew could ever believe the horrible idolotrous doctrine of the Trinity.
Matt
October 7th, 2009 @ 2:09 pm
The line is 866-34-TRUTH
3-5pm
Go for it
October 7th, 2009 @ 2:30 pm
Hi Kyle:
You did not have to tell me that you were young and not a good debater, these facts are abundantly clear by your posts. But hopefully you will gain maturity and wisdom as you get older. (By the way, why are you not in school now?)
It is amusing that you justify your desire not to debate me because you are young and not a good debater. I am also younger than Dr. Brown, and I doubt that I am as good a debater as him, but you feel that I should debate him? Is this an example of unequal weights and measures?
As for the points not being addressed:
1) Oral Law. Rabbi Blumenthal has concentrated on material in Dr. Brown’s book. Dr Brown has not yet published his book on this topic yet. I am sure when it is published, Rabbi Blumenthal will respond as effectively as he did in contra-Brown.
2) New Covenant. Judaisms main contention with Christianity has nothing to do with the New Testament, and defense of the New Testament is certainly not one of Dr. Brown’s main arguments. In fact, in Volume 4 Brown is mostly on the defensive regarding the New Testament. However, Rav Blumenthal makes some very powerful irrefutable arguments against the Virgin Birth (see page 14)
3) Psalm 22: This shows you didn’t read Contra Brown very carefully. See page 15
Matt
October 7th, 2009 @ 2:45 pm
Psalm 22 was mentioned, but it did not deal with anything in particular. It went off on a tangeant and did not deal with Dr. Brown’s points in volume 3.
By the way, thank you for bashing me for my age, that was very appropriate.
I was in school, study hall. I use my spare time reading up on apologetics.
My point is, that no one from the anti missionary side will debate Dr. Brown. Not Tovia, not Schmueley, not Blumoffe. No one. The most recent was Silver, but he was a reform rabbi, and I think we can agree that his points were based on a liberal interpretation. Finally something we can agree on! But I digress, my point, which I will state one more time, is that you have a unique opportunity.
Dr. Brown is willing to debate anyone on air, and he has invited Zvi, and Zvi had an excuse, and now you have a chance. You could be the one to prove him wrong on air. There’s a reason the anti missionary sites don’t have Dr. Brown’s debates on their sites. At this point, I’m not going to be debating here anymore, that is what forums, or Dr. Brown’s radio show, are for.
866-34-Truth
God bless you
October 7th, 2009 @ 3:02 pm
Kyle:
I didn’t bash you for your age. It’s not your fault you’re young and there are certain advantages to youth. I just said that it was abundantly clear by your post that you were young.
I don’t know what you mean by nobody willing to debate Brown. “Shmuelly” has debated him several times and I am sure he will debate him in the future. I do wish that Tovia Singer would debate Brown. I did speak with him once and he said that he feels that he would have to debate him sometime in the future. I think that Blumoffe has been out of the countermissionary circuit for some time now.
But to be honest with you, I feel that written forums are excellent opportunities for debate, and Dr. Brown has engaged in online debate before (see http://www.ljpoisk.com/archive/4882489.html). I think that oral debates focus more on the oratory skills and rhetoric of the debator, and not the actual substance of the debate. I may be willing to call Dr. Browns show, but certainly not today (I have my daughter’s Simchat Bat), and I can’t promise that I would even “win” the debate. But I am not afraid to debate these ideas openly and honestly.
Matt
October 7th, 2009 @ 3:18 pm
Matt,
I agree angels are forbidden to be worshipped. In fact, in the New Testament in Revelation 22:8-9, the apostle John mistakenly tried to worship an angel, but the angel refused his worship and told him not to do this and to worship God only. In some of the references I cited earlier from the Tanakh, the person being bowed to did not refuse worship. This person was much more than an angel, he was God the Son. We know God has a Son from Proverbs 30:4 and that He Himself is the image of the invisible God. Isaiah 9:6 says:
“For to us a child is born,
to us a son is given,
and the government will be on his shoulders.
And he will be called
Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.”
The idea that Christians worship 3 Gods is a great misunderstanding. There is only 1 God. A triangle may have 3 corners but it is still only one triangle. God is self sufficient. God is love, and He loves Himself. He is the author of love, He receives it from Himself, and administers it by His Spirit. The Father part of God is the love giver, the Son part of God is the love receiver, and the Spirit part of God is the Spirit of love. Again, he is self sufficient. Everything God is and has done is a reflection of the things that are today. The intended unity of families are a clear example of the unity God has with Himself. If you truly follow God, you obey Him because He is moving your heart through His Spirit. Abraham attempting to sacrifice his son was a foreshadow of what God did by sacrificing His Son. As unblemished animals were sacrificed by priests to temporarily atone for the sins of the people, the unblemished Son of God was sacrificed to permanently atone for the sins of His people. God has made many things in the past to be a shadow of the things to come. When no animal sacrifice was made to atone for sin, the people remained in their sin. The fulfillment of this was the Son of God being sacrificed, sinless human sacrifice for human sin, and those who do not accept this sacrifice remain in their sin and shall perish.
October 7th, 2009 @ 4:05 pm
Kyle and others,
The interesting thing is that some of the people who challenge my views haven’t even taken the time to read my writings, where I’ve now put more than 1,500 pages of material together.
But as you stated, the counter-missionaries don’t have my debates on their websites, while I put theirs on mine. Why? Because we have the truth on our side and we have nothing to hide.
And as you stated correctly, I’m open to have in-depth, public debates with any worthy Jewish opponent, and anyone is also free to call in to my show any time and debate the issues with me. How odd it is that everyone has a reason not to do it.
Let’s keep praying for the salvation of our Jewish friends. Thankfully, every day, God is drawing them to faith in Yeshua the Messiah and King. Romans 11:26 will surely come to pass!
October 7th, 2009 @ 6:34 pm
Hi Michael (not Brown):
There is no evidence that bowing is tantamount to worship. People bow to kings often and I’m sure the practice was more common in ancient times. Check out Genesis 33:3. I’m sure Jacob wasn’t worshiping Esau. Anyhow, there is no evidence that the manifestations you presented were of “G-d the son.” This is just Christian theology.
I agree that G-d has a son, just like he has an arm (Exodus 6:6), and an eye (Deut 11:12). His son is Israel (Exodus 4:22). There is simply no evidence in the Tenach that G-d has a “Son” as Christians envision and imagine. That idea is riddiculous, idolotrous, and completely foreign to Judaism and the Hebrew scriptures and Proverbs 30:4 does not lend credence to this horrible idea.
As for G-d being likened to a triangle, the problem with Christianity that it is not the triangle that is being worshiped but rather the triangle’s corners. I hope that that suffices to explain why a Jew could never rightfully worship Jesus.
As for the idea of Jesus’s sacrifice, I have never been too impressed since he was raised three days later. It doesn’t seem to be to be too much a sacrifice to me. The idea of a human being or godman for that matter being sacrificed is also alien to the Hebrew scriptures. There just simply is not a role for it or a benefit.
Sincerely,
Matt
October 7th, 2009 @ 7:00 pm
Dr. Brown:
You are correct that I would rather not debate you. I think that in particular that I am not a very good debater (in high school I lost all four of my debates at the debating finals. Especially on your show where you would be judge, jury and executioner. That said, I am not sure that I am that “worthy opponent” you seek. But I think that I could definitely hold my own against you in a written dialog forum where I would be able to contemplate my answers and respond in turn.
As for not reading your books: Full disclosure. I have not read a single book of yours other than sample pages in Amazon because frankly, I don’t want to give financial support to your ministry which may have the potential to damage the spirtual lives of Jews. However, I have listened to every debate and lecture you have ever given in a counter-counter-missionary context, sometimes even twice and I feel I am reasonable aquainted with your views and arguments. On that note, I believe that it would be in your interest (perhaps not financial interest, but interest nonetheless to have your “Answering Jewish Objections” books available in PDF format for free on the internet.
As for countermissionaries not putting debates on their websites, this is simply not true. Rabbi Tovia singer has three debates on his website and Rabbi Boteach has many debates on his website. How can you state this?
As for excuses, come now, don’t you think my newborn daughter’s simcha takes precedence over calling into your show
.
And I will keep praying that Jews will not become ensared by missionaries. And Amen to Romans 11:26 (when taken out of context from the rest of the book), we read this exact statement in our prayers everyday and at the end of the sabbath as it parrots Isaiah 45:17.
Matt
October 7th, 2009 @ 9:37 pm
Matt,
God is performing His purposes on the earth, even when you pray against those very purposes. And there is nothing you can do to stop His love from being poured out on the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
When you yourself are serious about studying the issues in depth, let us know and we will gladly send you a copy of my books as a gift. As for putting them online for free as PDF, I am not permitted to do so by the publisher. (BTW, until you read my books in depth, you’ll be missing a large part of my argumentation and scriptural and rabbinic discussion, so there’s no use in my refuting here what I’ve already refuted in depth.)
In any case, surely there must be some counter-missionary out there who would gladly come on my radio show or join me in public for a debate. Surely there must be a good debater among them who is confident in his views and would be willing to put the issues on the table in public. I eagerly await the opportunity to put the issues on the table before the Jewish public with a qualified counter-missionary. Perhaps you can find someone worthy of standing up for your cause.
Lastly, congratulations on your new daughter!
October 7th, 2009 @ 9:38 pm
Matt,
One more point of clarification: Tovia Singer does not have my debate with him on his website, and another one we did at a private house has not been made available to the public at his request. As for my friend Shmuley, he is not a counter-missionary.
October 7th, 2009 @ 10:11 pm
Dr. Brown:
I believe that G-d’s redemptive
I have always been serious about studying these issues in depth and of course would gladly accept your books as a gift.
I don’t know why you do not consider Rabbi Boteach to be a countermissionary. Surely when he debates you, is he not fulfilling the role of a countermissionary?
As for Rabbi Singer, I understand that he may have underperformed in these two debates against you (I only heard one of them), but does that take away from the fact that he has performed
October 7th, 2009 @ 10:13 pm
Well in these debates against other missionaries.
Matt
October 7th, 2009 @ 10:18 pm
Regarding: “God is performing His purposes on the earth, even when you pray against those very purposes. And there is nothing you can do to stop His love from being poured out on the lost sheep of the house of Israel.”
Of course you are begging the question, that G-d’s redemptive plan involves converting Jews to Christianity. I believe the opposite is true, and will continue to pray against any poor Jewish soul that falls into the trap of Chrisitianity.
Matt
October 7th, 2009 @ 10:23 pm
Other websites refuting Dr. Browns work:
http://www.anti-missionary.com/files/CanMichaelBrown.html
http://www.anti-missionary.com/files/VirginBirth.html
http://judaismsanswer.com/ResponseDrBrown.htm
Matt
October 8th, 2009 @ 2:10 am
Is Zvi blog history?
October 8th, 2009 @ 2:11 am
No one asked has responded to Gen 49:10, as to your take on that scripture.
October 8th, 2009 @ 2:12 am
Who or what is the author referring to? What is being stated, and why?
October 8th, 2009 @ 2:28 am
Why is an empty seat left at the traditional Passover meal for Elijah if no Messiah is expected by Hebrew tradition, according to ZvI?
October 8th, 2009 @ 10:02 am
Matt wrote:
There is simply no evidence in the Tenach that G-d has a “Son” as Christians envision and imagine. That idea is riddiculous, idolotrous, and completely foreign to Judaism and the Hebrew scriptures and Proverbs 30:4 does not lend credence to this horrible idea.
——————
You reject written Torah, Tanach and man’s testimony. What is evidence if you reject evidence.
Nebuchadnezzar got it right!
Daniel didn’t write no oh King Nebuchadnessar that fourth person is definately not God’s Son.
Da:3:25: He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God.
Abraham got it right! There are 2 Persons with the title that Moses recorded!
3068 Yhovah yeh-ho-vaw’
from 1961; (the) self-Existent or Eternal; Jehovah, Jewish national name of God:–Jehovah, the Lord.
Ge:19:24: Then the LORD rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven;
The Psalmist certainly didn’t write kiss Israel! The Psalm is Messianic,
Psalms:2:1: Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing?
HEATHEN(gentile nations) and the PEOPLE(Israel) imagine a vain thing. They make war against the Lamb of God and His saints.
…
Psalms:2:6: Yet have I set my king upon my holy hill of Zion.
ZION in GOD’S HOME!
He did declare, it is written in the Gospels for all humanity to read.
Psalms:2:7: I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.
Psalms:2:8: Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession.
…..
Psalms:2:12: Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in him.
Matt wrote:
I hope that that suffices to explain why a Jew could never rightfully worship Jesus.
————————
Many do and as I have seen and heard, so do the Host of Heaven.
Matt you can not know the Son unless the Father reveal Him.
He is the the Son of God. 1 Chronicles 17:13-14 John 12:28-30
1Ch:17:13: I will be his father, and he shall be my son: and I will not take my mercy away from him, as I took it from him that was before thee:
1Ch:17:14: But I will settle him in mine house and in my kingdom for ever: and his throne shall be established for evermore.
John:12:28: Father, glorify thy name. Then came there a voice from heaven, saying, I have both glorified it, and will glorify it again.
John:12:29: The people therefore, that stood by, and heard it, said that it thundered: others said, An angel spake to him.
Joh:12:30: Jesus answered and said, This voice came not because of me, but for your sakes.
The First and the Last was sent! How can this be?
This person who was sent laid the foundation of the earth
This person’s right hand spanned the heavens
When He calls those in those in the Heavens stand up together
This person has spoken from the beginning for which you Matt deny that He didn’t!
HE DELCARES THAT THE (1)LORD AND HIS (2)SPIRIT SENT HIM
1) The Lord Father 2) The Holy Spirit 3) The Son of God (sent)
Isa:48:12: Hearken unto me, O Jacob and Israel, my called; I am he; I am the first, I also am the last.
Isa:48:13: Mine hand also hath laid the foundation of the earth, and my right hand hath spanned the heavens: when I call unto them, they stand up together.
Isa:48:14: All ye, assemble yourselves, and hear; which among them hath declared these things? The LORD hath loved him: he will do his pleasure on Babylon, and his arm shall be on the Chaldeans.
Isa:48:15: I, even I, have spoken; yea, I have called him: I have brought him, and he shall make his way prosperous.
Isa:48:16: Come ye near unto me, hear ye this; I have not spoken in secret from the beginning; from the time that it was, there am I: and now the Lord GOD, and his Spirit, hath sent me.
October 8th, 2009 @ 10:33 am
Elusive Zvi, misread Matt.
October 8th, 2009 @ 12:51 pm
Matt,
True that bowing does not always equate to worship, but if you look at the context of the person being bowed to in the references I cited, you can see that this person has the power that can only be attributed to God. In Genesis 18, only God has the right to decide how many people he will spare in Sodom, and we know that Abraham is speaking to Him, the one who was earlier described as a man. In Joshua 5, the man who Joshua bows to, tells Joshua to take his sandals off because he was standing on holy ground, which would have been the same ground this man was standing on. Only God can tell someone to do this, just like He did to Moses on Mount Sinai. In none of these references I cite, does the person say “the Lord told me to say this”, but speaks as God Himself.
True that Israel is referred to as a ‘son’ of God, but Proverbs 30:4 is of a totally different context. The writer of this Scripture is asking for the name of the Almighty’s son. We have a similar case in Genesis 32:29 where Jacob is also curious to know his name. He shows up numerous times throughout the Tanakh. There is a recurring theme here if you can see it. God had been intervening this way all throughout Israelite history. When Israel wasn’t satisfied to have God alone as their King, they wanted a human king like the other nations had, so He gave them Saul and then things continued to spiral downhill from there as the people increasingly distanced themselves from God. And after numerous warnings for His people to change their ways and give themselves back to Him completely, they still disobeyed and God left them to fend for themselves for hundreds of years as punishment. Even during the Babylonian captivity after Israel had turned its back on God, Isaiah and other prophets were given revelation by God that He would remain faithful and eventually save His people. Once again physically coming to save His people, the Son of God came to be born among us, except this time, He had to atone for them first, before they could be presented holy to God again. The past Israelite practice of holy priests slaughtering animals to atone for sin was no longer acceptable to God. Even the priests themselves were corrupt, so God would not accept their sacrifices. It just became a ritual to the people with no real meaning as they continued to live in unrepentant sin. To top that off, the Temple was even destroyed, making it impossible for priests to enter the Holy of Holies to present sacrifices. The fact that the veil for the Holy of Holies in the Temple was torn and made public at the exact time that the Son of God was crucified says everything. There would no longer be a need to have representative priests appear to God on behalf of the people. Now that the veil had been torn, everyone who trusted the Son of God as the new High Priest could have direct access in relationship with God and confessing our sins to Him. No other priest would ever be needed to represent people for their sins before God. The prophet Isaiah discusses this thoroughly. The theme is still continuing, the Son of God appeared before us again as a man, this time, fully human to permanently atone for the sins of those who trust in Him and save us from ourselves. He is the Messiah who has saved us. He first came to make atonement for us through His death, and He will come again (recurring theme) when we all and Israel has finally recognized Him as the Lord. And all will be well, as our hearts have been cleansed and the Lord will be our rightful King on earth as He once was. Just as the blood of an unblemished lamb covered the doorposts of the Israelites to save them when the angel of death who passed over them in Egypt, the Son of God fulfilled this foreshadow event by saving those who are covered with His unblemished blood through faith. He is also referred to as the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the earth. This concept will not be foreign to you if you open your heart to the words of the prophets.
As for the triangle analogy, you do not understand it properly. The concept is to worship God alone while recognizing His three primary roles He has made known to us through Tanakh. The Son of God is God’s mediator function (our High Priest and Savior). No other priest or savior will do, except God Himself. The Holy Spirit is God’s strength giver and sin convictor function. For example, we know that the Spirit of the Lord came upon Samson, David and others, and we know that God physically appears to us in the recurring theme I’ve been mentioning as a man in the previous references I cited.
As for the Son of God dying and being raised to life 3 days later, what difference does it make if it is 3 days or 300 days? Is someone going to discredit Jonah’s story because he stayed 3 days in the belly of a fish and lived, or Joshua taking 7 days for marching around Jericho, etc.?
Please do not get caught up in the term “Christianity”. I know there have been many horrendous things done in history in the name of “Christianity”, but if nothing else, just forget this term, and lend your heart to the New Testament Scriptures alone. From them, you’ll see quite a difference from some of the actions of professed “Christians” who give Jesus a bad name. And you won’t feel biased so you can see for yourself the amazing fluidity of fulfillment the Tanakh speaks of.
October 8th, 2009 @ 6:50 pm
Michael:
You are begging the question. (This is a a logical fallacy you should learn about if you want to debate.) You are saying since the angel that came to visit Abraham was clearly G-d in the flesh, Abrahams actions were tantamount to worship. However, you were trying to use those actions to prove that the angel was in fact G-d in the flesh. You can’t have it both ways (think about it).
I see no evidence that Proversbs 30:4 is talking about anyone else but Israel. You have to accept the fact that two people can read the bible and come to the different conclusions. The difference between me and you is that it is the bible of my people.
Again, there is not one shred of evidence in Tanach for the Christian concept of “Son” of G-d. It makes as much sense as G-d’s Dog, or G-d’s Car.
As for your types and shadows argument, I agree that many of these concepts are symbolic and represenative, but you cannot use them to prove Christianity. We have our own concepts of what the Passover Sacrifice represents. By the way did you even know that the Passover sacrifice was not a sin sacrifice?
I understand the Triangle concept very well. And I also understand that Chrisitianity has a concept of a Trinity which is a complex unity godhead, i.e. a group of independent entities comprising the father, son, and holy spriit. In practical terms you worship Jesus as a separate entity from G-d. That is why I rightly say that you make the egregious error of worshiping the corners of the triangle and not the triange. This is completely blasphemous to the Jew.
You don’t understand my criticism of the idea of crucifixion and ressurection. I understand that in Christianity that crucifixion is Jesus’ sacrifice for the sins of mankind while the resurrection represents his triumphant victory over death and the sin. My problem with these two concepts are that they contradict one another, if he was resurrected, it wasn’t really much of a sacrifice (even if was 300 days or even 300 years). What was his loss? Jonah and Jericho are completely irrelevant.
Vis a vis the argument, I don’t really care about the terrible history of Christianity against my people. Even if Christians had always been wonderful to us, we would still rightfully reject it. And I hate to say this but even if Christians were always horrible to the Jews but they were right, we would have to accept it. Fortunately, it is so obvious that Christianity is wrong.
That said, I will admit that evangelical christianity have been kind to the Jewish people lately especially with regards to Israel. I have to wonder sometimes however whether this is chesed sh’talui al dvar (kindness that depends on Jewish people accepting Jesus). However, if you were to look at the entire timeline of Jewish Christian relations, this kindness represents such a thin sliver, you would not be able to see it on a piece of paper.
Matt
October 9th, 2009 @ 1:14 pm
Matt,
It never says that the person Abraham spoke with was an angel. That is your assumption. Here are a few words from Jesus in the book of John 8.
Begins by the Jews saying:
53Are you greater than our father Abraham? He died, and so did the prophets. Who do you think you are?”
54Jesus replied, “If I glorify myself, my glory means nothing. My Father, whom you claim as your God, is the one who glorifies me. 55Though you do not know him, I know him. If I said I did not, I would be a liar like you, but I do know him and keep his word. 56Your father Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing my day; HE SAW IT AND WAS GLAD.”
57″You are not yet fifty years old,” the Jews said to him, “and you have seen Abraham!”
58″I tell you the truth,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I AM!”
***Note: Who else but God refers to himself as I AM. Moses was told the same thing from God.
Also, do you honestly think the author of Proverbs 30:4 doesn’t know who Israel is? So why would he ask the name of Israel if he already knew? Regardless, Israel does not fit in the context of that Scripture as ‘son’.
Also, you are right, the Bible does come from the Hebrew people, and I am extremely grateful for my Jewish brothers and sisters. Without the Scriptures God provided to them, I would have nothing. In fact, my Lord was born of the Jews from lineage of King David. If anyone can accept it, Jesus IS the Word of God as the Scriptures say. You ask what was his loss to be sacrificed? The short of it was his life, which was done to atone for the sins of humanity to those who would believe in him. He subjected himself to the worst humility as a human, so I’d say that is quite a sacrifice to the King of Kings. His resurrection proved that he was God who took on flesh and reigns forever. Isaiah speaks of this quite often.
Also, check out Isaiah 6 for Isaiah seeing the Lord.
Isaiah 6
1 In the year that King Uzziah died, I SAW THE LORD SEATED ON THE THRONE, HIGH AND EXALTED, AND THE TRAIN OF HIS ROBE FILLED THE TEMPLE. 2 Above him were seraphs, each with six wings: With two wings they covered their faces, with two they covered their feet, and with two they were flying. 3 And they were calling to one another:
“Holy, holy, holy is the LORD Almighty;
the whole earth is full of his glory.”
4 At the sound of their voices the doorposts and thresholds shook and the temple was filled with smoke.
5 “Woe to me!” I cried. “I am ruined! For I am a man of unclean lips, and I live among a people of unclean lips, and MY EYES HAVE SEEN THE KING, THE LORD ALMIGHTY.”
6 Then one of the seraphs flew to me with a live coal in his hand, which he had taken with tongs from the altar. 7 With it he touched my mouth and said, “See, this has touched your lips; your guilt is taken away and your sin atoned for.”
8 Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, “Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?”
And I said, “Here am I. Send me!”
9 He said, “Go and tell this people:
” ‘Be ever hearing, but never understanding;
be ever seeing, but never perceiving.’
10 Make the heart of this people calloused;
make their ears dull
and close their eyes.
Otherwise they might see with their eyes,
hear with their ears,
understand with their hearts,
and turn and be healed.”
11 Then I said, “For how long, O Lord?”
And he answered:
“Until the cities lie ruined
and without inhabitant,
until the houses are left deserted
and the fields ruined and ravaged,
12 until the LORD has sent everyone far away
and the land is utterly forsaken.
13 And though a tenth remains in the land,
it will again be laid waste.
But as the terebinth and oak
leave stumps when they are cut down,
so the holy seed will be the stump in the land.”
***Note: It appears that Isaiah has seen a physical manifestation of the Lord seated on His throne. If you still do not believe, verses 9-13 explain the reason you do not. God’s Word is true and is still being fulfilled.
Please know that I sincerely appreciate your dialogue with me whether we agree or not. Blessings to you my friend.
October 9th, 2009 @ 3:44 pm
Dr. Brown is the following true?
From http://jewbiquitous.blogspot.com/2007/06/i-missed-it.html
Anonymous said…
“To Anonymous: You may be interested to know that there is a Rabbi named Yisroel Blumenthal who has been in communication for many years with Dr. Brown. Rabbi Blumenthal & Brown have communicated by e-mail, and Blumenthal has said he’s happy to release the content. Brown will not.
Also, Blumenthal (you can see his work at jewsforjudaism.org) has said he’s happy to debate Brown. Brown, however, is yet to oblige.”
Perhaps you can debate Rabbi Blumenthal.
For anyone interested in Rav Blumenthal, he has some short lectures on youtube see:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G6uTrri3X7w
Matt
October 9th, 2009 @ 4:11 pm
Michael:
See Gen 19:1.
I don’t care what the NT quotes Jesus as saying. Who can really be sure he said such things. Why do the gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, which were written earlier not attribute divinity to Jesus? And even in John he speaks in mysteries, enough for people who believed he was G-d to use the texts to prove so, but perhaps not enough to truly be convicted of this heinous act in a court of law.
What are you talking about in terms of Proverbs 30:4. Lets just say it was speaking about Jesus. Now let me ask that question back to you:
“Also, do you honestly think the author of Proverbs 30:4 wouldn’t know who Jesus is? So why would he ask the name of Jesus if he already knew? Regardless, Jesus does not fit in the context of that Scripture as ’son’.”
Isaiah 6 describes a divine projection, like an angel. A created being. It could not be Isaiah seeing G-d. That is impossible. Even so, let me repeat. Even if it were to be proved that G-d had a physical or finite manifestation, this could not be used to justify the Christian concept of trinity which consists of three separate and independent beings comprsing a godhead.
I probably won’t be able to post again today, as a Jewish holiday starts in an hour. And then I have to go back to work on Monday. But I do appreciate the dialog also, and I hope you will understand why Jews do not, and cannot believe in Jesus. And that we are sincere, and not spiritually blind or calloused.
Maatt
October 9th, 2009 @ 5:28 pm
Matt,
Genesis 19:1 shows Abraham speaking to 2 angels. These were the two beings who left to go to Sodom mentioned in Genesis 18:22. If you notice, the third person Abraham saw in Genesis 18 was not with the two beings mentioned in Genesis 19:1. That’s because Genesis 18:22 also mentions this third person (the Lord God) stayed with Abraham while the other two beings left for Sodom. Notice the difference in uppercase Lord who Abraham speaks to in Genesis 18, versus the lower case ‘lords’ (who were angels) mentioned in Genesis 19.
Also, there’s no way you can read Matthew, Mark, and Luke and not attribute divinity to Jesus. By you saying that makes me highly question if you’ve read them. If you don’t want to trust the words of these Scriptures, there are other resources outside the Scriptures written by Jewish historians and others near that time in history, whose writtings well agree with the New Testament Scriptures.
As for Proverbs 30:4, the Son of God’s name was not known at that time, that’s why the question was asked in this verse. God revealed his name when the fulfillment of the prophets about him came to pass and he was born. The angel appeared to the virgin Mary and told her that the Holy Spirit would come upon her and she would give birth to a son and his name would be called Yeshua. He is also called Immanuel as Isaiah prophesized.
As for Isaiah 6, there is no indication whatsoever that this image of the Lord God is an angel. That is changing the text to say such a thing. In fact, the Scripture itself has said that Isaiah saw God, so I don’t see how you can refute what the Scripture has clearly said.
You said that Jews do not and cannot believe in Jesus (Yeshua). What a denial of truth to say such a thing. How do you explain Dr. Brown, Ron Cantor, Jews for Jesus, etc, etc, not to mention the Jews who followed Jesus in His day?
And lastly, going back to Isaiah 6:13, just who do you think would be “the holy seed who will be the stump in the land” to the Jews who would be “ever hearing, but never understanding”? Think about it!
Have a blessed Sukkot!
October 11th, 2009 @ 4:45 am
The accounts of those seeking to know the truth in the early Acts of the Apostles include this statement:
AC 6:7 So the word of God spread. The number of disciples in Jerusalem increased rapidly, and a large number of priests became obedient to the faith.
The vast majority of the New Testament was written by Jews. Even Jacob (James), Yeshua’s half brother, relates his only letter in the New Testament:
“to the twelve tribes scattered among the nations,” obviously refering to Jewish believers in what he wrote, and as to the precious law of liberty taught by Yeshua to his disciples and followers.
October 11th, 2009 @ 10:56 pm
“Did not open his mouth?” ——> This means that Jesus will not speak up, against God, by refusing his mission. Jesus yelling out “why have u forsaken me” is not opening his mouth against God but a climactic declaration of the fulfillment of his mission. Shmly, it’s not “impossible” that Jesus is not the suffering servant on that basis
Xian doctrine persecuting Jews for killing Jesus?! Shmuley, what a load of rot. Show us where it says Jews should be crucified for killing Jesus in our scriptures etc. You’re misrepresenting/borderline lying here.
October 11th, 2009 @ 11:42 pm
In addition to the other points I have raised I repeat, what did the opinion of the sanhedrin regarding Jesus? they clearly rejected him, and the torah in deu. declares that one must follow the judges of the day. CASE CLOSED.
October 12th, 2009 @ 10:19 am
Zvi,
Are you sure you want to give the sanhedrin such credit? They twist the Scriptures to suit their own needs, not to mention, their forefathers killed off many of God’s prophets. If something got in the way of their praise and respect from the people, the sanhedrin felt their social status was threatened and their responses could turn lethal as result. They sought the praise of men more than God. It was only fitting they wanted to destroy Yeshua Ha Maschiach who captured the people’s undivided attention at all times.
October 12th, 2009 @ 11:40 am
Zvi Wrote
October 11, 2009 at 11:42 pm
In addition to the other points I have raised I repeat, what did the opinion of the sanhedrin regarding Jesus? they clearly rejected him, and the torah in deu. declares that one must follow the judges of the day. CASE CLOSED.
===========
They all died in there sin.
Rejection of the Messiah would cause God to remove His protection from Israel. Zechariah 11:4-6 Luke 19:41-44
Zec:11:4: Thus saith the LORD my God; Feed the flock of the slaughter;
Zec:11:5: Whose possessors slay them, and hold themselves not guilty: and they that sell them say, Blessed be the LORD; for I am rich: and their own shepherds pity them not.
Zec:11:6: For I will no more pity the inhabitants of the land, saith the LORD: but, lo, I will deliver the men every one into his neighbour’s hand, and into the hand of his king: and they shall smite the land, and out of their hand I will not deliver them.
Lu:19:41: And when he was come near, he beheld the city, and wept over it,
Lu:19:42: Saying, If thou hadst known, even thou, at least in this thy day, the things which belong unto thy peace! but now they are hid from thine eyes.
Lu:19:43: For the days shall come upon thee, that thine enemies shall cast a trench about thee, and compass thee round, and keep thee in on every side,
Lu:19:44: And shall lay thee even with the ground, and thy children within thee; and they shall not leave in thee one stone upon another; because thou knewest not the time of thy visitation.
Zec:11:10: And I took my staff, even Beauty, and cut it assunder, that I might break my covenant which I had made with all the people.
Zec:11:11: And it was broken in that day: and so the poor of the flock that waited upon me knew that it was the word of the LORD.
Lu:21:20: And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh.
Lu:21:21: Then let them which are in Judaea flee to the mountains; and let them which are in the midst of it depart out; and let not them that are in the countries enter thereinto.
Lu:21:22: For these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled.
Lu:21:23: But woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck, in those days! for there shall be great distress in the land, and wrath upon this people.
Lu:21:24: And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.
IT HAPPENED ZVI!
REJECTED!
Isa:49:4: Then I said, I have laboured in vain, I have spent my strength for nought, and in vain: yet surely my judgment is with the LORD, and my work with my God.
Zec:11:12: And I said unto them, If ye think good, give me my price; and if not, forbear. So they weighed for my price thirty pieces of silver.
Zec:11:13: And the LORD said unto me, Cast it unto the potter: a goodly price that I was prised at of them. And I took the thirty pieces of silver, and cast them to the potter in the house of the LORD.
Zec:12:10: And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn.
October 12th, 2009 @ 12:27 pm
Instead of all this vague information, please provide for me a verse CLEARLY stating that the SANHEDRIN (not the people of Israel) will mistakenly reject JESUS CHRIST.Untill we find a verse that contains the name Jesus in such a context, we must follow the book of moses that states explicitly that one must follow the judges of that time which in our case would be the sanhedrin.
October 12th, 2009 @ 12:54 pm
Zvi,
Every so often, I’ve been able to check some of your objections here, and as I’ve said many times before, you would save yourself a lot of time and trouble if you read the answers to your objections that have already been written. But have it your way, if you insist.
October 12th, 2009 @ 8:27 pm
Dr.Brown, you havent even answered one of my questions. If youre so confident about your position then why are you so afraid to respond? If its easier for you, then lets debate only ONE of the many arguements that I have presented, for example tracing the lineage through a mother.
October 12th, 2009 @ 11:34 pm
Zvi,
After reading your last response to Dr. Brown and your other responses, I would recommend you to change the tone. I’m not questioning your intentions, but the tone of how your write can come off a bit insensitive to others.
You mentioned that Dr. Brown hasn’t answered you question but did you not read what Dr. Brown just wrote to you? “… you would save yourself a lot of time and trouble if you read the answers to your objections that have already been written.” Due to time, he cannot go in depth online to answer your question. Its all written on his book.
Just because Dr. Brown did not answer your question, you accuse him of being scared? Just remember, you are on his web site so please show some respect.
October 12th, 2009 @ 11:38 pm
Zvi,
You mentioned “If its easier for you, then lets debate only ONE of the many arguements that I have presented, for example tracing the lineage through a mother.”
The phone lines are always open to you to call his radio show. Dr. Brown will be gracious enough to talk with you and possibly provide an in depth answer. That is the best time to get a response from him.
October 12th, 2009 @ 11:52 pm
Zvi,
When you raise one serious question that I have not already addressed in print or through a previous debate, I’d be happy to respond to you, time permitting. To date, you’ve not raised anything that merits a response.
Somehow, Zvi, it appears that you’re failing to understand that I’ve devoted decades of work to researching and refuting the objections you and many others have raised — including learned rabbis and active counter-missionaries — and every day, there are people wanting to get into internet arguments with me. THE REASON I PUT THE MATERIAL IN PRINT IS TO PROVIDE THE ANSWERS ONCE AND FOR ALL. When you refuse even to read what I’ve already written, you instantly disqualify yourself (and, little do you realize, the more you argue your points here, the more you disqualify yourself, since you keep raising points that are easily answered and refuted).
That being said, as Ben mentioned, my phone lines remain open for you and anyone else to call my radio show, so be my guest and call in if you really feel you have a solid argument to raise.
October 13th, 2009 @ 1:59 am
On 10-11-2009 Zvi again raised the issue of the sanhedrin’s judicial outcome, and again totally ignored all past answers given to him regarding:
1) gross illegal procedure followed at the trial
2) the testimony of many about the trail actually being
overridden indeed by the prophetic outcomes of the words
Jesus (Yeshua) spoke over the then standing Temple, as
to the then coming 70AD demise of its structure
3) whereas that structure included an attached sanhedrin
complex, which also had not one stone left upon another ,
according to the words of Yeshua as to its continuity
after illegally trying him
4) to quote Ziv on the matter, “CASE CLOSED”, when literally
a mind’s capacity to engage in dialogue and view and
address the evidence given in this forum to him on the
matter would lead to the conclusion, sadly, as to Zvi’s
own participation here being, “MIND CLOSED”
5) In addition to the fact that immediately after the death of
the Messiah on the Cross, the innermost sanctuary or
“Holy of Holies” of the embellished second Temple’s thick
veil was torn in two from the top to the bottom, an
earthquake rattled the very foundations of the sanhedrin
complex, as is recorded by historians
6) Zvi has limited his comprehension of G-d to something he
has read, without considering any other evidence, of
any other nature including the sovereignty of HaShem
over the earth, sky, and natural elements speaking
about the death of the Messiah, Yeshua. It seems as
though, as to your debate, that if the angel Michael
stood in front of Zvi and outlined the facts to you,
touched your sight and temporarily interrupted its
ability, that that would be usurped in your case by
following “the judges of the day,” and so, whether they
proved due to prophetic events–cited and outlined for
you–to be blind guides, or not so
7) So Zvi, I ask once more, is a heart connected to the
insistent dogma you have embraced? Does this
position result in it being Shalom with Elohim for you?
October 13th, 2009 @ 9:42 am
Jabez apparently you havent read my previous posts. Dr.Brown, lets debate the lineage issue, Im only asking if you can answer 1 question not more.
October 13th, 2009 @ 10:38 am
Zvi, Apparently you have not read those by many others as well as my own. If you can speculate about NDEs, you can read what all wrote and take the time to read the source material cited.
October 13th, 2009 @ 10:50 am
Zvi, On Oct 7th and 8th I asked questions of you, which you totally ignored, as you have many other replies and questions of others here. Just so you do not have to look back here is a repeat for you.
Zvi, I am curious what the Rashi interpretation you cling to has to say about
GE 49:10 The scepter will not depart from Judah,
nor the ruler’s staff from between his feet,
until he comes to whom it belongs
and the obedience of the nations is his
October 13th, 2009 @ 10:52 am
If any one of you were to pose a question in my direction, would it be fair for me to direct you to a book that I wrote? Im not attacking anyone personally all Im doing is questioning the christian religion. So just because one claims that he has a book that deals with all the questions doesnt at all justify their opinion.The arguements that Dr.Brown gives on his debates, are extremelly weak in content. While Dr. Brown may be a gifted debator does not at all indicate that he is representing the truth. The fact that some of us decline his offer to debate him in public can be for a number of reasons 1. He is in control of the debate since it his his show 2. Dr. Brown has lots of experience 3. Not everyone is comfortable to perform in public. 4. There is not enough time to answer all the questions that are posed. it is merely a superficial debate without getting to deep which is where Dr. Brown excells.5. Dr. Brown is a talented orator and has good debating skills. I happen to be familiar with almost every debate that Dr. Brown has taken part in of those which can be viewed online. The debates never get to deep, they always shift from on issue to another, therefore debating right here would result in the truth coming forth. On this blog we can can take each issue and analyze it in depth untill we arrive at the truth. for example the issue of lineage through a mother which Dr. Brown claimed has signifigance in jewish law, can be refuted relentlesly. Rabbi Blumenthal quoted a response from the “book” which was refuted in no time. So given that the response to this particular arguement given in the book has been refuted, and the torah states multitudes of times that we follow the fathers lineage, I would like to see how Dr. Brown can get out of this one when the “book” can no longer be of aid regarding this issue.
October 13th, 2009 @ 10:58 am
Zvi, It would be intellectually dishonest for Dr. Brown to limit the scope of his reponse to a consideration of “one question” without bringing up other questions and evidence that that question would entail. To debate Dr. Brown is to encounter a heart and mind that reflects the gentle and heartfelt kindness of He who was, is, and will be Lord of history, to which the Ruach Ha Kodesh attaches Dr. Brown’s mind and words. Are you willing to encounter that Lord?
October 13th, 2009 @ 11:06 am
Zvi, So, following your logic, lets get to the truth on Gen. 49:10, with the opening of your own response here to the question now twice asked of you.
Also, you misunderstand “the Christian religion,” where so. I’ve never met Dr. Brown, nor Kyle, and others here, nor corresponded with them, yet, have discovered a bond and common understanding which a mere comradery cannot explain by a religion. A religion is a response by humans to the existence of God; the message of the King of the Kingdom, his cross, and our connection with it transcends religion. The source of truth is the concern here, Zvi.
October 13th, 2009 @ 11:11 am
The entire christianity hinges on my question, if Jesus is not linked through his father to king david. then he CANNOT be moshiach. During all of Dr. browns debates many questions are brought up from both sides,the problem is however that when look at each question individually we can see that there is only one or 2 back and forthes thats all, so how can the truth about any matter come out with this method, obviously the one with greater debating skills will come out on top. Why cant any of you come up with an answer to such a basic question?
October 13th, 2009 @ 11:13 am
And, all said, have you written such a book which has already spent time in its framing to actually address the questions coincidentially posed to you here? If so, please direct me to that book so I can consider its thoughts, or, at the very least, respond to others direct postings to your inquiries and statements made here to achieve actual dialogue not yet achieved. You know, with reflective listening, at the very least acknowledging what the other party to a dialogue actually says before changing the subject, repeating a dogmatic position, or ignoring responses altogether. Does it seem threatening in some way to so actually engage the thoughts others raised for you here, one by one, as they have?
October 13th, 2009 @ 11:14 am
Zvi,
There are hundreds of people who want to debate me and talk with me, and I wish I had time to engage them all. Those who are serious in pursuing the truth can first study what I have written in depth. Then, if there are further questions, I have a co-worker who will gladly dialog with you in private, if, in fact, you are sincere. Unfortunately, I’m not able to help you discover the truth when you refuse to use the means offered to you — my books or direct contact through the radio program. Thankfully, I can pray for you that God will open your eyes to the truth.
October 13th, 2009 @ 11:25 am
Jabez, I have no problem responding to your question from gen. if I would know what your question is,also I would apreciate if we deal with the lineage issue first since after all Ive have brought this matter up for weeks already.
October 13th, 2009 @ 11:27 am
As for the Father, G-d, Ha Shem, being directly connected to King David, the promise extended him as to his throne’s longevity, the outlook of King David in a Psalm on the Lord connecting him to “my Lord” [where, "the Lord said to My Lord..."], and Yeshua coming as the One Promised throughout allusions of the Tenach, read Dr. Brown’s books, gotten inexpensively on Amazon or Book finder. Certainly these are well worth the purchase, if nothing more, to understand the relevant matters, issues, and any truth involved. G-d is not limited to written commentary, Dr. Brown’s or anyone elses. In fact, G-d is not limited by time, space, language, religious response to his existence, nor by you or me.
October 13th, 2009 @ 11:30 am
Dr Brown. as I have stated your response in the book has been refuted by Rabbi Blunenthal regarding this question. So the defense mechanism of “the book” must be rejected regarding this question.
October 13th, 2009 @ 11:32 am
Jabez the nt has 2 versions of the geneaoligy from king David none of the similar to yours.
October 13th, 2009 @ 11:35 am
Zvi, Gen 49:10 essentially deals with the lineage issue, perhaps being the first such remark in the Tenach. If you will address it from the source I cited that you cited that would be appropriate to the question already posed to you.
October 13th, 2009 @ 11:41 am
Zvi, I did not understand how your response as to the two NT verisons, of Yeshua’s placement family on earth parenting lineage, from his resulting observant household, or earthly family of origin, answered the question posed to you. Help me out here.
October 13th, 2009 @ 11:42 am
If you feel you can answer my question based on that passage feel free to enlighten us.
October 13th, 2009 @ 11:52 am
Oh, I see, you want my inquiry of you, quoted below from the 7th, actually put in question form, where an inquiry is insufficient for a mind’s response:
Zvi, I am curious what the Rashi interpretation you cling to has to say about
GE 49:10 The scepter will not depart from Judah,
nor the ruler’s staff from between his feet,
until he comes to whom it belongs
and the obedience of the nations is his
Here it is, Zvi: what does the Rashi interpretation you cling to have to say about Ge. 49:10 [where, in the past, you had quoted its citing of other Ge. scripture]?
October 13th, 2009 @ 11:53 am
Jabez Im not quite sure what your question is. If this helps; The nt is trying to trace jesus’ roots to king david withou that it would disqualify him as moshiach. The problem is that there are 2 versions of it so 1. there is a contradiction in a bible. Dr. brown attempts to resolve the issue by saying that one of the geneaoligies stem from the mother.
October 13th, 2009 @ 11:56 am
Zvi, I have an appointment, and will return here, hopefully to find your answer, after it. Then, perhaps, we may achieve dialogue?
October 13th, 2009 @ 11:58 am
Just saw your post. My question was on an inquiry past made of you, not on a new inquiry you made of me. Protocol, Zvi. Answer me, and I’ll answer you.
October 13th, 2009 @ 11:59 am
As I said lets deal with my question and once we are done with that I will gladjy answer yours. I promise.
October 13th, 2009 @ 12:13 pm
To me each question is exremely important if I cannot find an answer that would put my religion in jeopardy, for the word of g-d is perfect I also forsee a back and forth on any question posed rightfully so, therefore since I have brought up this issue many times,I feel that the fairest way of debating would be to address the question I have raised and once we get over that, we can move on thank you.
October 13th, 2009 @ 12:22 pm
Zvi,
You haven’t read what I wrote in full, so you can’t know if the alleged “refutation” carries any weight. (I can assure you in advance that it does not.)
In any case, for the last time on this thread, if you’re interested in finding the truth, read what I have written and call my radio show with your questions. I can also refer you to Ryan Lambert in our ministry who will be happy to dialog with you privately if you’re interested in the truth.
To repeat yet again: Hundreds of people want to argue with me and present the same old worn-out, long-ago-refuted arguments, and I have neither the time nor interest to get into meaningless arguments (especially when, to repeat yet again, the arguments are not substantial and have been refuted time and again). So, if you want to know the truth, the door is open; if you want to argue, I can’t help you.
I have tried to be courteous and acknowledge some of your posts, since as a fellow-Jew, I have great love for my brothers who are yet in spiritual darkness, but please do understand that there is a limit to my time as well, so you can write to me directly through the website if you’d like to contact me, since I won’t be replying to you here any further. May God’s mercy and grace prevail in your life!
October 13th, 2009 @ 12:36 pm
Dr brown you have barely responded to any of my questions. The fact that nobody can answer my simple questions is a strong proof that they have no answers. Anyhow, thanks for throwing in the towel.
October 13th, 2009 @ 6:05 pm
Zvi,
Going with your logic, maybe you might be the one whos throwing in the towel for not calling Dr. Browns radio show? Maybe youre the one whos afraid? If I were to play Dr. Phil, maybe you are the one who is insecure?
Dr Brown has provided his reason but you still continue to attack him for not answering your question the way you want it. You should loosen up, stop acting like Mr. Grumpy and call Dr. Brown show. Its not a one time call. You can multiple times and discuss respectfully.
October 13th, 2009 @ 9:35 pm
Zvi, Twice you were asked a simple question, which you have not answered:
My question was on an inquiry past made of you, about the comment published of a source you past cited on Gen .; it was in this case asking what it said on Gen. 49:10. This was not on a new inquiry you made of me, but on an outstanding inquiry made twice, now thrice, of you. How can anyone on this forum continue to attempt to be here with you if you are not offering dialogue, but monologue? My postion to achieve dialogue has not changed.
“Protocol, Zvi. Answer me, and I’ll answer you.” If you won’t then we have nothing to dialogue on about. It feels like you wish to be in control at all costs, including disrespect of a simple question asked of you as to a normal order of conversation. I may not be of your persuasion, but have made a request for reasonable conversational protocol dialogue. These represent normal personal boundaries of normal interpersonal pursuit FYI.
If you cannot do this here, you may wish to find an altogether different forum, which you can dominate, or phone up Dr. Brown and debate.
October 13th, 2009 @ 9:42 pm
Ben, as I have explained earlier the most accurate method of debate in my opinion would be on a blog where no oratory or debating skills are necessary. The Christian belief system starts of with 2 strikes against it. Jews have been observing the torah with a rich heritage for 4000 years untill Jesus came along. Imagine somone in the 21 century would come and claim that he is g-d, how would you react to that statement? The odds are stocked against you, wouldnt something like that need evidence? the torah was given in front of 600,ooo people, if g-d changed his mind and rejected the jews and said that they no longer must keep the torah, shouldnt g-d let us us know in front of at least as many witnesses as the first time? If jesus is g-d shouldnt there be at least one verse in the ot suggesting clearly “Jesus is the son of g-d? Lets think rationally, does it make sence that g-d was nailed to a cross and couldnt even help himself? Does it make sence that G-d an infinite being decides after 4000 years that he needs a wife and kids? Does it make sence that Jesus dies for all the sins of all future people, and his death is only for a short while, and there is no evidence of his ressurection? Do we ever find even once that a human being that gets killed can forgive sins that were done in the future is there ANY animal offering in the ot with such charactoristics? Does it make sence that a g-d dies? these are logical questions that even a 8 year old can ask. If there isnt any BOOMING evidence to such an idea then there is BOOMING evidence against it. So when I pose arguement after arguement after the fact that there is booming evidence against it and I get 0 response to ANY arguement, I call it throwing in the towel.
October 13th, 2009 @ 9:52 pm
Jabez, the very first post of mine contained this very question regarding King david which preceeded your question by weeks, so I will gladly answer it I PROMISE as soon as we deal with the question at hand Jabez, please explain me your position? Why do think I should deal with your question first?
October 13th, 2009 @ 9:55 pm
Jabez, how about this? If I answer you will you then agree to respond to my question?
October 13th, 2009 @ 10:56 pm
Am I making sense?
October 13th, 2009 @ 11:54 pm
Zvi, I have stated what I have stated. As for “your very first post….King David….etc.” This was apparently not a communication with my person, but with someone else. It is my person who asked you a question, not “Christianity,” or someone else. By the time Orwell wrote his responses to arising European trends in totalitarianism, he coined the term “doublespeak.” This is how I am experiencing you here.
I would be OK with your suggestion, and can address the geneological matter, but you may not appreciate my answers due to your own prejudice.
October 14th, 2009 @ 12:02 am
My own testimony of acceptance in the beloved offer of Yeshua has been past stated for you. It is my experience, in him, involving a transaction of my heart and the Ruach. So, this would be a case of Messianic acceptance, rather than “Christianity” for your information. I will only engage in dialogue with you accordingly. I am not interested in defending the history of Christianity, but in the King and his Kingdom, as well may fit with some representations of Christianity. Like it or not there remain Jews who are convinced of Yeshua, and his lineage, which may challenge some of your preconceptions after you answer my question.
October 14th, 2009 @ 9:24 am
Jabez, Good morning to you. The verse is telling us that rulers will not depart from yehudah, meaning that kinghood which will begin by David who is from the tribe of yehudah will never be moved to another tribe, untill Moshiach who is from the tribe of yehudah will come and there will be a gathering of all the nations so moshiach will be the king of all nations at that point.
October 14th, 2009 @ 10:48 am
Zvi,
Maybe this will help answer your question about the genealogy of Jesus:
http://www.thedevineevidence.com/bible_contradictions_jesus_genealogy.html
If this is not sufficient and you want Dr. Brown to answer your question himself, call into the show. It doesn’t have to be a debate. Just ask the question, hang up, and he will answer. Or I’m sure one of us would be glad to call him for you on the show if you feel uncomfortable.
October 14th, 2009 @ 11:28 am
Michael, Im indeed unhappy with that explanation because it doesnt deal with my question. I REPEAT, there is no point in calling in and getting a quick response, there is no quick response, if there is in fact a valid explanation it would take time to explain and debate. There is overwhelming proof from the torah that we follow the geneaoligy of the father NOT the mother. Even if there would be a response that can somhow refute that, it would take a long while to explain. If anyone has the answers, I have the patience.
October 14th, 2009 @ 11:38 am
Zvi,
How do you explain all the genealogies of women mentioned in 1 Chronicles? Do you not accept those?
October 14th, 2009 @ 11:42 am
Michael, the site you sent me to doesnt even address my issue. Also, the idea of calling in to the show and letting Dr.brown deal with the issue would not help us at all, because that would just be a one sided debate so how would that help us attain the truth? The option of me staying on the line would also not suffice do to the resons Ive mentioned earlier. Dont forget; the question I am asking is backed by many many verses in the torah. Even if somehow he would be able to climb out of that hole,it would take rigorous debaiting to acheive it, not just a simple one sided phone call.
October 14th, 2009 @ 11:47 am
Zvi,
How do you explain all the genealogies of women mentioned in 1 Chronicles? Do you not accept those?
October 14th, 2009 @ 11:56 am
Michael,please provide a verse and we can discuss it.
October 14th, 2009 @ 12:32 pm
Zvi,
Here you go:
1 Chronicles 2
34 Sheshan had no sons—only daughters.
He had an Egyptian servant named Jarha.
35 Sheshan gave his daughter in marriage to his servant Jarha,
and she bore him Attai.
36 Attai was the father of Nathan,
Nathan the father of Zabad,
37 Zabad the father of Ephlal,
Ephlal the father of Obed,
38 Obed the father of Jehu,
Jehu the father of Azariah,……..
October 14th, 2009 @ 12:41 pm
Zvi,
You have not answered my question at all. I asked what Rashi commented on the verse, not what you think. Still waiting for your answer in order to dialogue here, that is, if you want my response to your own question.
October 14th, 2009 @ 12:41 pm
Zvi,
You have not answered my question at all. I asked what Rashi commented on the verse, not what you think. Still waiting for your answer in order to dialogue here, that is, if you want my response to your own question.
October 14th, 2009 @ 12:55 pm
Michael, not only is this verse not a support to your theory, it only reinforces mine. Let us analyze for a moment;verse 25:these are the sons of yirachmiel, it continues to verse 33, and ENDS the heritage of yirachmiel right before the discussion of sheishon, to indicate that shieshons descendants were NOT part of the yirachmiel dynasty even though they were his gradchildren because he had no sons. so the verses begin a New dynasty from that point on.
October 14th, 2009 @ 12:56 pm
Jabez since we all have rashi available, if you have a particular rashi that bothers you, please let me know.
October 14th, 2009 @ 1:27 pm
Nothing “bothers” me, except dishonesty, frankly. You have not answered my question.
October 14th, 2009 @ 1:40 pm
This is a perfect example of what I was trying to explain in the previos posts. Had somone called up Dr. brown with my question, it would easily have been dismissed with this verse from chr. as it was already brought down in his book. But if you think about it for more than a minute, you can easily see that this verse is yet a proof to the other side.
October 14th, 2009 @ 1:42 pm
Jabez, there are a few rashis on that verse, and im not a machine that is willing to type them all for you when you can look it up yourself. If however you can tell me which one of those rashis you have difficulty with I can gladly help you.
October 14th, 2009 @ 1:48 pm
Zvi, Again you have reframed and ascribed my intention as “having a problem with” a statement by once again not answering the question put to you as a simple question which even a little child could understand and reflect. I am not asking you to help me, but to state what Rashi stated on the scripture cited, from the Rashi you past cited. Then we can move on to your past question, as agreed.
October 14th, 2009 @ 1:50 pm
What I simply requested does take the kind of intellectual honesty Dr. Brown is esteemed for, you know, as to actually addressing what in the past was requested of him. Are you up to the task, Zvi?
October 14th, 2009 @ 1:54 pm
Jabez, in short kinghood wont be removed from yehudah begining with david also including the later leaders during the exile periods and the priests of Israel untill moshiach comes when there will be a gathering of nations thats all rashi says.
October 14th, 2009 @ 1:55 pm
Well, I’ll wait to tomorrow,Zvi. Think of all the people here, Zvi, who have jumped through your hoops of citing by typing out verses for you, as you past requested, then ignored altogether, or put down with a simple assessment statement. It is your opportunity to do what you agreed to do.
October 14th, 2009 @ 2:01 pm
You can cut and paste these into this forum, Zvi. Until tomorrow, Jabez
October 14th, 2009 @ 2:07 pm
Zvi,
Your point holds no water. Can you tell me why everyone mentioned after verse 35 to the end of the chapter was directly linked to Sheishon’s daughter? This shows that the lineage can continue through a woman. There was no other way that lineage could have been addressed.
October 14th, 2009 @ 7:24 pm
Michael, there are 3 different levels when it comes to linking lineage, Level 1-tribal matters-when an individual has a father from tribe A and a mother from tribe B, then the child automatically belongs to tribe A and has 0 connection to tribe B in any matters. The source for this law can be found in many many verses in the book of numbers. Level 2-Family name- when an individual has a father with a certain family name and a mother with another, again the child goes according to the fathers family name, this to can be found in the book of numbers. level 3-the verses can at times mention the mother when it is discussing the lineage however, this usually does not happen as you can clearly see, and when it does happen there is usually a reason for it,and even when the female is mentioned it never gets to level 2- meaning that the child that is born will NOT have the family name of that womans parents, never mind the same tribe. In the verses that you mentioned, one thing is clear that the children of sheishan were not even included in level 2- meaning the children of sheishan were not included in the family of yirachmiel as you can see as i said before the verse before the discussion of sheishan clearly says that the yirachmiel family has ended. So the children of sheishan do not get to level 2 and definitly not level 1.The only thing you have is level 3 that they merely mention the mother,we find the same concept in Ruth 4:14 that there is mention of a mother- namely level 3, the reason there is because g-d was giving her the merit of King David coming out of her, yet which tribe does David cme from? yehudah, not the tribe of ruth. again level 3 not level 1 and no mention of level 2. Here in Chr. we can see clearly no level 2 but yes level 3, and there is a reason for that, because the jewish sages explain that the navi wants to show us that if a jew has an egyptian slave and an eligible daughter, he should free and convert the slave and marry her off to him. The reason is not important. What is important is the fact that in order for Jesus to be the Moshiach he needs to come from david The TRIBE of yehudah level 1, and a mother doesnt give you that quality.
October 14th, 2009 @ 9:20 pm
Zvi,
What makes you think that both of Jesus’ parents didn’t come from the tribe of Yehudah? Even by your reasoning that Moshiach can’t take the name of his mother, he did by his adopted father who was of the tribe of Yehudah. Remember that Isaiah says Moshiach will be born of a virgin. If that is true, his adopted human father would have to be from the tribe of Yehudah to continue the lineage of the name. Isaiah has clearly described Moshiach as equal with God, so no two humans could produce such a person, that’s why He was born of a virgin.
October 14th, 2009 @ 9:36 pm
Michael 1.according to jewish law adoption does not qualify you as a true son in ANY regard. 2.Isaih does not say that moshiach will be born from a virgin 3.Isaiah does not describe mosiach=g-d. 4. why are there 2 geeaoligies from king david if the one from the mother doesnt count?
October 14th, 2009 @ 10:20 pm
Zvi,
Jesus was a true son of David’s descendent Mary, so the bloodline is there. By your explanation that Moshiach has to come from tribe of Yehudah from the father’s side, Jesus fits this because his adopted father Joseph was also David’s descendent. There’s no escaping that both of Jesus’ parents were David’s descendents. That’s why there are 2 genealogies mentioned, so that any way you look at it, mother or father, Jesus was unmistakably from David’s lineage. Showing both genealogies from mother and father also helps confirm that the lineage of David can’t be missed even with the complex issue of a virgin birth being involved.
Who else have you ever heard of that was born of a virgin that fulfilled the roles that Isaiah described of this person? There is no mistake. Jesus knew he was Moshiach and so did others. Speaking of the virgin birth, Isaiah says:
Isaiah 7
13 Then Isaiah said, “Hear now, you house of David! Is it not enough to try the patience of men? Will you try the patience of my God also? 14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel.
As you know, Immanuel means “God with us”.
Speaking of Moshiach = God, Isaiah says,
Isaiah 9
6 For to us a child is born,
to us a son is given,
and the government will be on his shoulders.
And he will be called
Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
7 Of the increase of his government and peace
there will be no end.
He will reign on David’s throne
and over his kingdom,
establishing and upholding it
with justice and righteousness
from that time on and forever.
The zeal of the LORD Almighty
will accomplish this.
What kind of son can be referred to as ‘Mighty God’, unless he is equal with God?
The life of Jesus fits this perfectly.
October 14th, 2009 @ 10:54 pm
Michael, again if your blood father is not from king david, it is meaningless, and the mothers lineage doesnt count. Also the word “almah “does not mean virgin but rather young woman so it is not reffering to jesus or a virgin birth. Besides jesus was born 700 years later.
October 15th, 2009 @ 9:43 am
Zvi,
Every translation I have ever read, translates Isaiah 7 as “virgin”. Your interpretation of Isaiah 7 is fitting the words of Scripture to suit your own point, or the point of whatever rabbi’s you’re getting your info from. Think about it, if this verse says “The Lord will give you a sign….”, wouldn’t it make more sense that a virgin giving birth is definitely a mighty sign from God. And not only that, the child born would be called “Immanuel”.
Also, you’re caught up in tradition and not seeing the overall picture of the Scriptures, regarding Moshiach coming from a father from King David’s lineage. I tell you again, unless Moshiach comes directly from God, he cannot be Moshiach and he cannot be sinless. Jesus never sinned because he was the Son of God. Had he been born of 2 human parents, he would have been born into sin like the rest of us, but he wasn’t because he was perfect and sinless. If you fail to see this, this argument will not go any further and you’ll just have to remain unsatisfied with your traditional thinking. You might as well be like someone continuing to believe the earth is flat. Again, in Isaiah 9, this mentioned son to be born would be called “Mighty God”. Someone mentioned as such would have to be equal with God. At the same time, God was faithful to His Word that Moshiach would also have a bloodline from King David, which was through the mother (the only way it could have happened if she was a virgin giving birth). If your mom and your uncle were children of King David, that would mean that you and your cousins from your uncle shared the same bloodline from King David. It’s not complicated to understand. You think that coming from the father from King David’s lineage gives the person the right to be Moshiach? How much more would this person have the right to be Moshiach if the father was God Almighty?
October 15th, 2009 @ 10:31 am
Michael. You are not having an honest debate. I have clearly proven with evidence from an untold amount of passages that the link to king david or to any tribe must come from the father exclusively. Your feelings are telling you otherwise, therefore you are twisting the definitions of verses just to suit your belief. Even according to my beliefs, our g-d CANNOT be moshiach because he isnt the son of david, I dont care if he is greater than david and all that because if scripture tells us that he will originate from king David than so it must be. Also yor belief that moshiach will come from a virgin based on scripture is fallacious, because I can back up my position that “almah” means young woman from scripture, namely-proverbs 30:19 and samuel 1 – 17:56.
October 15th, 2009 @ 10:52 am
Also, the sign is 1. that it will be a boy not a girl. 2.verse 15 explains exactly what the sign is in detail that he will eat milk and honey in a time that there was hunger, which jesus never had,besides think with a drop of logic wasnt jesus born 700 years later??? I have proven many times over in my last and earlier posts that almah means-young woman.
October 15th, 2009 @ 10:55 am
Zvi,
I really have nothing left to say, except that I strongly disagree with your interpretation of Scripture regarding Moshiach. As much as I want you to see the Truth for the sake of your salvation (even though you don’t think you need this), I know I cannot change your mind….only God can do that. I’m not here to have a debate about who’s right for the sake of winning a debate, but only here to help point you in the right direction, even though you think you are right. To end, here’s an interesting story you may or may not find interesting. I found it very interesting myself. http://www.remnant.net/allen.htm
October 15th, 2009 @ 11:07 am
The word elem, ayin, lamed, mem, is the male term for the word almah the only difference is the letter hei, which indicates that we are discussing a female, for anyone that knows basis level 1- hebrew, omar= he said omrah-she said holach-he went holchah=she went ochal=he ate ochlah= she ate, etc. I can give you hundreds if not thousands of examples of this. The word elem=young man, see samuel 1, 17:56. This is undisputable evidence!! If the navi would have wanted to discuss a virgin it would have used besulah, which can be found all over deu. as virgin.
October 15th, 2009 @ 3:37 pm
Hi Zvi. I haven’t been in the ring here for a bit but would like to jump in. First, wow, I admire your endurance. You have hung in here for a while! I agree with you that “almah” has more to do with youthfulness than sexual chastity. However it is not accuarate that “betulah” clearly means “virgin” in the Tanakh. In fact, the New Jewish Publication Society Version of the Tanakh translates “betulah” as maiden 31/50 times. Also, the Stone Edition of the Tanakh frequently translates “betulah” as “maiden.” Check out Gen 24:16 – if “betulah” clearly meant “virgin,” it is fair to ask why there was a need to explain that this betulah had never had intercourse with a man. Note also Joel 1:8 where “betulah” seems to refer to a married woman.
October 15th, 2009 @ 4:47 pm
Hello Ryan,deu. 22 cannot be understood if besulah meant anything other than virgin. I can also only account for the jewish traslations as they are the only ones that I believe in. According to jewish law premarital relations is forbidden,hence the importance of note. As for Joel 1, the jewish custom back then was to get betrothed 12 prior to marriage, hence the possibility of a married woman being a virgin, because the 12 month period has the same status of marriage according to jewish law.
October 15th, 2009 @ 8:37 pm
Also Ryan, If you agree that the word almah,means you young woman than1. how can you justify the book of mathew as divine if in chapter 1:27 he traslates “almah” as ”virgin” how can there be such an eror in a divine book?2. One of the main christian claims that jesus is the moshiach comes from the fact that moshiach has to come from a virgin birth, using this verse as a source. 3. how do you justify the fact that jesus did not link to david through his father? so far I have havent received any answers for any of my questions that havent been refuted, when I am only one person vs. all of you including dr. brown, which brings me to this: I feel that all of you believe in jesus for reasons other than logic, or evidence, it may make you feel better,but you have to understand that many people from other religions also feel happy about theirs so that wouldnt be a factor in determining the true religion. Additionally, evidence and proof will stand up in a court of law over feelings or belief in an event of whether it occured or not, for obvious reasons. any non biased bystander reading through these posts should be able to determine that I have provided strong evidence to disprove christianity. for all of you that are gentiles, the debate is just mental excersize, because according to jewish law, agentile will not get punished for believing in Jesus just as he wont get punished for believing in the sun. However according to jewish law a jew is absolutely forbidden to believe in jesus, and therefore I hope that at least one jew will return to the true path after reading through my arguements.
October 15th, 2009 @ 8:45 pm
exercize, my bad
October 16th, 2009 @ 9:32 am
Zvi,
The Torah clearly states the Law of Inheritance is there to protect the Name of the Father in this case Heli(Mary’s dad Luke 3:23) for future generations. Heli was a Son of David through Nathan. Look back on my post. It is Torah not commentary of sages.
Show me where it says the Great MEssiah cannot be Immanuel.
That He must have an earthy Father to be Messiah. Torah say’s otherwise.
Nu:27:4: Why should the name of our father be done away from among his family, because he hath no son? …
October 16th, 2009 @ 9:47 am
Psalms:2:1: Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing?
Psalms:2:2: The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD, and against his anointed, saying,
Psalms:2:3: Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us.
Psalms:2:4: He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision.
Psalms:2:5: Then shall he speak unto them in his wrath, and vex them in his sore displeasure.
Psalms:2:6: Yet have I set my king upon my holy hill of Zion.
Psalms:2:7: I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.
Psalms:2:8: Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession.
Psalms:2:9: Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron; thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter’s vessel.
Psalms:2:10: Be wise now therefore, O ye kings: be instructed, ye judges of the earth.
Psalms:2:11: Serve the LORD with fear, and rejoice with trembling.
Psalms:2:12: Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in him.
October 16th, 2009 @ 9:59 am
Craig, In the case of jesus or in any case even if there is one female namely marry that interrupts the chain of fathers it invalidates the genealogy in regards to the fathers tribe. Emanuel cannot be jesus 1.there is no implication of a virgin birth 2. jesus did not live in a time of famine that would result in a sign needed by eating honey 3. Jesus lived 700 year later. It also is not reffering to moshiach in general even if he is not Moshiach for many reasons that are irrelevant to our discussion. also i have described in great detail in previous posts that num 27:4 would indicate that I am correct, because later verse state that in the event that a woman does inherit, she must mary somone from her fathers tribe so that the plot continues under her fathers tribe name, so even when the mother marries into her fathers tribe, the plot retains the same tribal status due to the new husband but not in her merit.
October 16th, 2009 @ 10:24 am
It boggles the mind how people can use Isaiah 7 as a proof to Jesus when the verse states to achaz that behold this woman is pregnant, and she will have a son, yet jesus was born hundreds of years later. Ist just SO obvious we are not discussing jesus.
October 16th, 2009 @ 10:30 am
Zvi,
I don’t see why you keep making the point that Jesus was born 700 years later. Haven’t you ever heard of fulfilled prophecy? After all, Ezekiel prophesied that Israel would one day become a nation again, which we can see has been fulfilled, and that prophecy was roughly 2,500 years ago.
October 16th, 2009 @ 10:47 am
Michael just read through the story of Isaih 7, there was as sign given to achaz that they would WIN the battle that was being waged THEN, the sign was that a young woman not a virgin will bear a child and… and that would be a sign that they would win the war. so please explain to me why would a child that would be born 700 years later to a women living 700 years later(which the verses clearly indicate that the woman was alive at that point) be an indication to a war being waged now??? Besides for the fact that we are not speaking of a virgin birth as I have proven.
October 16th, 2009 @ 11:51 am
Zvi,
Verse 16 says the kings of Israel and Aram will both be dead before the son knows right from wrong, which could also mean before he was born. God’s sign didn’t have to be at that current time. In these verses, He never said when the sign would occur. You need to ask yourself why there is nothing more said here about this virgin (or young woman as you say) and her son who is called Immanuel. What is her name, why isn’t her husband mentioned, what’s the significance of this child called Immanuel, what will he accomplish? Do you just ignore this and think nothing of this son called Immanuel? There’s a reason he is mentioned. In fact, he’s mentioned all over the Tanakh if you’ll just open your eyes.
October 16th, 2009 @ 12:26 pm
the husband is achaz see chapter 8 verse 3. But regardless of that fact. It says behold she is pregnant which means right now!!!Does an infant know right from wrong?? What kind of sign would it be to a war happening right now, if something happens 700 year later. LOGIC!! Jesus is NOT imanuel, the navi IMANUEL NOT JESUS you are twisting things there is no reference to Jessus at all 1.not the name 2.not the virgin 3.700 years off. The signifigance is that the child is a sign that g-d is with us jews and allowed us to win the war.what is so difficult about that. you havent answered EVEN ONE of my questions. ALMAH=youn woman= fact not virgin. 700 hundred years later is NOT a sign for heavens sake. What does that have to do with todays war. Think about that for just a minute.
October 16th, 2009 @ 12:42 pm
correction: chapter 8 verse 3 supports the fact that it was isaiah. other jewish commentaries say it was achaz, but in any event, just because you think that the verse omits who the husband was does the only conclusion you can come to have to be that its g-d?? Dont you think if it was g=d, the navi would mention something so drastic?!!!!! since there is no mention of virgin???
October 16th, 2009 @ 12:53 pm
The verse is discussing a pregnant woman who is she? is it marry?1.marry wasnt born yet. 2. why doesnt it say marry. 3.if it was speaking of a future pregnancy(which the verse clearly indicates wasnt the case) why discuus pregnancy at all simply discuss the birth?4. what kind of sign would it be 700 years later?
October 16th, 2009 @ 12:54 pm
Be back after shabbos.
October 16th, 2009 @ 5:42 pm
Zvi,
After reading Isaiah a little more, I won’t argue against your point that a child was born as a sign at that time, and yes, I’ve read where it is considered among some scholars that the prophetess mentioned could have been Isaiah’s wife, although that is not clear. I believe that in order for the ‘sign’ to be of supernatural significance, the child was born of a virgin. I’d be interested to hear Dr. Brown’s take on that. Regardless, there can be no question that this is also a reference foreshadowing Jesus because of what we know of Jesus. Same way Abraham’s attempt to sacrifice Isaac was a foreshadow of what God would do to His son Jesus. Proverbs 30:4 makes mention of God’s son. As this verse asks the name of God’s son, Jacob had the same question when he wrestled with God.
I’m curious to know your interpretation of Isaiah 9:6
“For to us a child is born,
to us a son is given,
and the government will be on his shoulders.
And he will be called
Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.”
October 16th, 2009 @ 7:59 pm
Michael,
You can get my take on Isaiah 7:14 — along with clear answers to the many old arguments Zvi raises here — in vol. 3 of my series on Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus. I trust the information will help!
October 17th, 2009 @ 7:58 am
BUTTER AND HONEY!
Isaiah 7 v14 is about the Messiah
Isaiah 7 v15-16 is not about the Messiah
This scripture is in the midst of scripture pertaining to the coming Assyrian Invasion Isa:7:10 7:25
God’ prophetical rebuke:sign of the Virgin Birth(Mt.1:18)
M’t:1:18: Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.
Isa:7:13: And he said, Hear ye now, O house of David; Is it a small thing for you to weary men, but will ye weary my God also?
Isa:7:14: Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
The above could only mean what it says.
The next verse is about Isaiah’s son
Isa:7:15: Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good.
Verse 15 Butter and honey were the usual food for childrem. The infant was first nourished with honey, and then with milk. Hence, the prophecy about the child Isaiah had with him when he gave this message to Ahaz in (v 3), that he would not be weaned or old enough to discern between good and evil before the 2 kings would be destroyed (v 15-16)
Virgin birth (Isa 7:14):
Heb. ha-almah the virgin- the only one that ever was, or ever will be a mother in this way.
Almah means a lass; damsel; maid; virgin. Trans. virgin of Rebekah, meaning a pure unmarried young woman (Gen. 24-43); virgins, or unwedded young women (Song 1:3; 6:8);
maid of the young, unmarried virgin sister of Moses who was 14 years of age (Ex. 2:8), and of one who goes with man for the first time(Pr. 30:19);
damsels as used of young ladies playing timbrels(Ps.68:25-26); and virgin as, meaning the mother of the Messiah who was to be born in Israel of one who, as later confirmed, knew no man until after He (Jesus) was born (v14; Mt. 1:18-25;Lk. 8:19 Mary had other children)
The argument that almah could mean a young married woman is not supported in scripture; and in view of the plain record of Mary being a pure virgin who had not known man and one who conceived by the Holy Spirit, it only shows unbelief. We cannot convince them by the Bible alone as the scripture says:
M’t:11:27: All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him.
Lu:10:22: All things are delivered to me of my Father: and no man knoweth who the Son is, but the Father; and who the Father is, but the Son, and he to whom the Son will reveal him.
Joh:12:38: That the saying of Esaias the prophet might be fulfilled, which he spake, Lord, who hath believed our report? and to whom hath the arm of the Lord been revealed?
God must reveal Himself to an individual.
The Heb. bethulah, is trans. virgin 24 times (23:12;37:22;47:1;62:5; Gen. 24:16; lev. 21:3, 14; Dt. 22:19, 23, 28; 32:25; 2Sam. 13:2; 1Ki. 1:2; 2Ki. 19:21; Jer.14:17;18:13; 31:4, 21; 46:11; Lam. 1:15;2:13; Joel 1:8; Amos 5:2);
virgins 14 times (23:4;Ex.22:17; Judg. 21:12; 2Sam. 13:18; Esther 2:2-3, 17, 19; Ps. 45:14; Lam. 1:4, 18; 2:10, 21; Amos 8:13);
maids 3 times (Lam. 5-11; Ezek. 9:6; Zech. 9:17;);
maiden 2 times(judg.19:24), 2 Chr. 36:17); and maidens 3 times (Ps. 78:63; 148:12; Ezek.44:22).
Almah denotes a girl of marriageable age, but not married, and therefore a true virgin. Bethulah refers to an unmarried girl and expresses virginity of a bride or one betrothed (62:5; Joel 1:8)
Immanual (Isa 7:14):
God with us (v 14; 18:8)
Isa:8:8: And he shall pass through Judah; he shall overflow and go over, he shall reach even to the neck; and the stretching out of his wings shall fill the breadth of thy land, O Immanuel.
The prophecy concerns the land of the Messiah, the land where He was to be born and where He will reign over all nations forever (v 8:9: 6:7; Dan. 7:13-14; Zech. 14;)
And if I go to the Christian New Testament
Re:11:15: And the seventh angel sounded; and there were great voices in heaven, saying, The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ; and he shall reign for ever and ever.
7 Points to cover all corners
1 That v 14 has nothing to do with an immediate fulfillment of some virgin having a child before Rezin and Pekah would be destroyed. Nothing in the verse speaks of a double fulfillment, a virgin in Isaiah’s day and another one later; so this theory need used not be considered.
2 That v 14 refers exclusively to only one virgin and one virgin-born child; and this is the way it was fullfilled (v 14 with Mt. 1:18-25; Lk 1:34-35; Jn.1:14; 1 Tim. 3:16; Heb. 1:5-7; 2:9-18)
3 The above facts do not do away with the required immediate sign to Ahaz regarding the protection of the house of David by the 2 Kings being killed as in v 15-16, for Isaiah’s son, a mere suckling of a child, who was then present, could have served, and no doubt did serve as the immediate sign. The virgin-born child who was yet to come was to be a sign to the house of David regarding eternal protection from all enemies.
4 Isaiah’s son’s are definitely stated to be for signs and wonders in Israel (8:18); the first son was a sign in connection with the predictions of 7:15-16 wheras, the second was a sign in connection with 8:14 .
5 We have another definite instance of the protection of the coming Messiah child into these prophecies in 9:6-7, it being suddenly inserted into the picture of prophecy, foreign to the idea of the virgin birth as in 7:14. There can be no misunderstanding in either case about the coming virgin-born Son of God being referred to, so if we allow 9:6-7 to refer to the Messiah without forcing the idea of 2 virgins and 2 children, then the same can be true of 7:14, which cannot be applied to Isaiah’s sons any more than 9:6-7. Both are Messianic and rise or fall to one virgin and one virgin-born child.
6 The purpose in 7:14 is to give Ahaz assurance of future and eternal protection to the house of David before showing him that God would also give immediate protection to the house of David as signified by Isaiah’s son. The assuance that the Messiah would come would be double blessing of assurance and the greatest of all to the house of David.
7 It is definate that v14 applies to the virgin born Messiah who was yet to come(M’t 1:18-25) and since v15-16 refer to Isaiah’s son as a sign to Ahaz regarding both kings being destroyed in a short time. It is only proper that we make the two prophesies of distinct coming events, one immediate and the other remote.
This is a clear example of the law of prophetic perspective-seeing more than one event at the same time, like one standing on a high mountain would see the many peeks in the distance without seeing the valleys between them. If one will recognize this when reading many prophetic passages a more clear understanding of them will be the result.
October 17th, 2009 @ 8:05 am
Zvi wrote:
Craig, In the case of jesus or in any case even if there is one female namely marry that interrupts the chain of fathers it invalidates the genealogy in regards to the fathers tribe. ….
—————-
One law FOR THOSE who aren’t married and another law, an enhanced law for those who later choose to get married.
1) This Law of inheritance HAS NO MENTION OF MARRIAGE as Num 36:1 is a different Law using the daughters of Zelophehad as an example if they WERE to get Married.
They were concerned about the Name of their Father in this Law.as in De:25:6: “… that his name be not put out of Israel.” even though it is different PROBLEM.
Nu:27:1:- Nu:27:7:
2)This Law of Female inheritance applied to Marriage where they are to marry within there own Tribe in order to keep the inheritance of the tribe of our fathers.
Nu:36:1: – Nu:36:4:
The daughters did marry within their tribe Nu:36:5 – Nu:36:13 and there inheritance stayed with them.
So from the above we gather 2 Laws. One for daughters who are yet unmarried and may chose to stay unmarried. Everything is covered. They retain their fathers name and possessions.
Secondly as stated later on in a different time and curcumstance if they marry than it should be within their fathers Trib or the inheritance will go to the Tribe they marry into.
IN SUMMARY Mary retained the inheritance of HELI which is both NAME and POSSESSIONS.
When she got married the NAME AND INHERITANCE was kept as they both were of the TRIBE OF JUDAH.
As the GENEALOGY shows it was also CUSTOMARY that the husband be shown as the son of the father-in-law.
So Mary married within her Tribe, JUDAH! Joseph her husband was of the tribe of Judah.
God’s promise to David was that the seed of his loins would be King of Israel. There is nothing there to say The Great Messiah had to have an earthly father. So whether you acknowledge it as inheritance or not it still remains that Yeshua’s ancestory goes back to David. From his loins.
In fact lets go back to Genesis but first the last words of David.
2Sa:23:1: – 2Sa:23:7:
David was speaking of the son’s of wickedness, you may dispute it wasn’t about Satan and his son’s so let’s go back to Genesis.
Ge:3:15: And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.
There is no mention of a man’s seed. God made it clear “her seed” her male child would take on the serpent Belial and bringing HIS(MESSIAH’s) heel down so hard on satan’s head He the Messiah would bruise His Heel. Yeshua conquered Belial, Satan, the liar, the murder and the thief, the fallen Cherub!
ONLY can Genesis 3:15 be accomplished through a virgin birth, a woman’s seed only!
In keeping with HIS promise to David, God sent His Son, God with us Immanuel, Yeshua, God’s Son is able to rule the earth.
The serpent in Genesis did not actually tempt Eve, the fallen Cherub the father of sin laid himself on it and spoke through it in the tree.
In parallel man’s sin’s were laid on the Messiah who was nailed on the cross(tree) who had no sin and those who were bitten (sinners, everyone) looked upon Him(believed Him) would live. Those that disobeyed God, those that refused would die.
Nu:21:9: And Moses made a serpent of brass, and put it upon a pole, and it came to pass, that if a serpent had bitten any man, when he beheld the serpent of brass, he lived.
October 17th, 2009 @ 3:28 pm
Zvi,
An observation. You want these hard working and well studied believers in Yeshua to jump through your hoops, and conform to your and some others understanding of what those hoops are. Could it be that their own scholarship offers equally well considered, scripturally respectful, G-d honoring, and well structured as to forming commentary, hoops?
When I last wrote you I asked you about what Rashi said about Gen. 49:10. You choose to give a summary response, rather than a literal response, where your second summary was more intellectually regardful and honest than your first one.
Rashi certainly understood from his interpretation of the language in this passage that the Messiah was a person, promised through Judah, and would come into this world in future time. This very notion you take to task in responding to those responded to after I last wrote you. In another such passage, in Daniel, Rashi also understood as written Daniel’s literal Messianic promises; Rashi embraced a prophetic teleological Messianic ideal accordingly. Those who have responded to you since I stopped doing so (because you did not literally answer my question put to you, as you agreed to, as was given you like the hoops requirements you constantly give others to take charge of their communication process extended to you) have taken considerable time, effort, and well studied and demonstrated ability to respect your questions and your responses with their answers. Questions and answers are the stuff of Yeshiva language and intention studies endlessly pursued throughout an orthodox lifetime (as to internalizing the very methodology of such–to the point that even those contemporaries and those Rabbinical scholars of earlier and later comment on these passages do so, and quite differently as to interpretation than does Rashi on these passages).
You seem to be asking your responders to conform to your own beliefs, or faith, in the various comments advanced by various Torah and Tenach scholars of traditional and especially post embellished second Temple Talmud scholarship. Yet they have demonstrated at least an equally valid post Messianic Visitation scholarship, with perhaps even greater resources due to the vast scope of the evidence they have presented to you.
Reading over past postings from these dedicated ones, and yourself and Matt from the past here, it is clear that you have not responded honestly or with intellectual integrity and validity to most questions put to you, or answered adequately the lingering doubt over your hoops and insistencies constantly reframed as to what the real standard is for determining who is the Messiah. This does not hang on one passage, but on one solitary Life, and its multiple fulfillments–which, taken in sum, show that He visited His people, to do his duty to G-d, the Book, and Country as is written all over the map of Biblical prophecy.
Your responses, Zvi, fall hard on unfallow soil. Work the soil Zvi, open a crack Zvi, receive seeds, Zvi.
October 18th, 2009 @ 9:18 pm
Shmuel 1-17-56, clearly indicates that elem means young man, so Craig that refutes your post. And I have explained that when a woman from a certain tribe married somone from her fathers tribe, she is not retaining her own merits but rather her children will inherit the plot because of their father, the woman getting married is just a means to an end. And Michael, if Dr. Brown feels he has answers, I invite somone to provide them right here so that we can debate it.
October 19th, 2009 @ 2:33 am
Zvi, Debate has a format of addressing actual facts and perspectives brought to it by another–in this case, others. Dominance has the habit of reframing and ignoring all such.
October 19th, 2009 @ 4:23 am
Zvi,
and “almah” is never used in the Tenach of a married woman, and yet does refer to a sexually mature woman. No texts in the Tenah exist where almah clearly means one who is sexually active, however. It seems then that almah normally is one reference to a fertile virgin. Almah is used in Is. 7:14 of a young woman of marital age. And the Hebrew term comes closest to being a term about a young virgin who has reached maturity and can have a child. This would differ from other Hebrew references regarding virginity and a younger, unavailable to be bethrothed, or less fertile female.
The Hebrew texts speak of “the young woman”, where the prophet has some particular person in mind by his outlook on the matter, as he is oft referred to as the Messianic Age reference prophet, though most often so in his final segments of authorship. By the time one reads the first two chapters of Mt. Levi, one is aware that something is indeed being claimed of Yeshua as being Ha Meshiach: as to Davidic origins, male associations, a virgin conception, and supernatural affirmation. You are right in saying it is vital for a Jewish Messiah to have the right fatherhood and tribe claimed in his background. In this case it is of an everlasting family tree of light and of heaven, not simply so fleshly literally as you have asserted it is of necessity to be (yet these conditions are also met by Yeshua).
Both genealogical accounts, in Matthew and Luke, record a reinforcement of a direct action of the Ruach–though both were written independently. In Mark 6:3 Yeshua is refered to as a carpenter, “the son of Mary,” without giving a geneology, nor exclsively so–for his geneology is cited as of the ancient of Days. In Matthew Levi, Yeshua is called “the carpenter’s son,” the point being how He was then and there commonly understood to be (while growing up as “a young plant” hidden in plain sight as to what He would accomplish).
In Lk 4:22, He is thought of as Joesph’s son (to become Messiah Ben Joesph?) in common reference, not as to genealogical understanding given there at all; yet a geneology is made by the same author to say something else again altogether. Are these inconsistencies, or testimonies of some greater reality that swallows all known by the observant up to that point had known? The details are therein established and capture the investigator’s scrutiny in any person.
So, Yeshua was identifed tribally as the son of Joesph, who was first going to quietly divorce Miriam because of her pregnancy, as so informed while betrothed to her and not having had sexual relations with her–fertile though she was. Yet the actions of a dream given him by the Ruach changed his mind. FYI, one simply cannot only apply the fleshly measures or tests without running again and again into supernatural measures or tests of Messianic enablement.
These nuances among many so recorded expand the understanding given directly to Miriam of her pregnancy by the messenger Gabriel, the same Gabriel who conversed with Daniel: that He who was conceived in her was sent directly by G-d, for the rising and falling of many of the Israel of G-d. It becomes important then to the mission of He who was sent from the dwelling place of G-d to his own to fulfill righteousness, and usher in justice with mercy, that–in order to be understood indeed–where any measures of natural limitations could not apply to His true origins.
There is a controversy in John 8 which you may wish to read simply for Yeshua’s response to religious Jews at the time doubting his legitamacy, as you have said you do. The tension in that account is particulary telling of the dispute between His understanding of His claims, as were confirmed by signs and wonders, and the questions of the then Jewish religiously preoccupied about direct linkage to their own ongoing instruction, politics, and way of life.
I feel it is most important for you to read this account, in order to find the answer you stated you were seeking, for therein it is not a devoted group of belivers addressing this matter’s key scriptural passages disputes, but He Himself addressing observant Jews’ prejudicial ideals. And this is not a publicity stunt or reality TV, it is a solitary LIFE GIVEN. The question of whether Yeshua was born with the Chosen King’s honor has been a question among religious Jews since the time of His visitation; it is one you yourself can examine by reading that thosands of years old debate fo John 8. It really directly answers your key questions you have already presented and as have been answered too by other forum contributors. Listen to what He addresses there, and has to say about His purposes and responsible intentions.
It becomes then the debate of whether He was born primarily of flesh and bood, or with some greater carrage of birth in an appointed place and time from the will of G-d, affirmed by G-d himself, so to be a light to the Nations and a savior sent to those of Judah, Israel, Galilee, etc. Is Messiah Ben Joesph to be Messiah Ben David in a future realization of such promise?
So, apparenlty with the question of origins and normal birth lineage vs. appointed origin and Kingdom of heaven birth lineage we have a basic conflict which cannot be simply addressed by words, langage, custom, and tradition. There is a reality even more literal at play and yet too more circumspect of the literal. What we have here then is challenging of your responders, and of you and me.
Who has believed our report?
October 19th, 2009 @ 9:23 am
Michael, I apreciate your honesty, Isaiah 9:6 is to be read exactly as you defined i.e. literal traslation, however, it is refering to chizkiyahu the son of achaz, and the verse is stating that g-d’s word will be on his shoulder (the torah) and g-d who is the great……. will call him prince of peace for there will be peace during his lifetime.
October 19th, 2009 @ 9:46 am
Michael, the verse in proverbs is speaking of moses, not g-d, who went up to heaven and came down g-d or moses?It cznnot be jesus 1. Jesus was not born at that point 2. it says who is he? and who is his son? so the he was the one that went up to heaven and then came down, not the son! Jakob defeated the being that he was fighting so it could not have been g-d.
October 19th, 2009 @ 10:09 am
Zvi it is quite clear with the law and shows you that you were incorrect.
The Law of inheritance which was shown to you HAS NO MENTION OF MARRIAGE it deals with the NAME of the father of the daughter. Nu:27:1:- Nu:27:7 “… that his name be not put out of Israel.”
Many have tried to put away the Name of Yeshua Son of David and they could not. It is still known today by both Jew and Gentile.
When a man dies who has no son dies than his daughter retains his name(TRIBE) and possessions.
If she does not marry and when she eventually dies than the possessions would go back to her tribe.
Mary would recieve the inheritance (Name and possesions) of her father Heli if he died before she married Joseph. Anyhow she and Joseph who was also of the Tribe of Judah married.
HERE IS WHERE THEY RETAINED THE NAME
Jos:17:3: But Zelophehad, the son of Hepher, the son of Gilead, the son of Machir, the son of Manasseh, had no sons, but daughters: and these are the names of his daughters, Mahlah, and Noah, Hoglah, Milcah, and Tirzah.
Jos:17:4: And they came near before Eleazar the priest, and before Joshua the son of Nun, and before the princes, saying, The LORD commanded Moses to give us an inheritance among our brethren. Therefore according to the commandment of the LORD he gave them an inheritance among the brethren of their father.
Jos:17:5: And there fell ten portions to Manasseh, beside the land of Gilead and Bashan, which were on the other side Jordan;
Jos:17:6: Because the daughters of Manasseh had an inheritance among his sons: and the rest of Manasseh’s sons had the land of Gilead.
Which was what? JOSHUA SAYS THEY HAD THERE fathers NAME(Jos:17:6) “…the daughters of Manasseh…”
Special legislation in regard to the inheritance of #Nu 27:1-11; 36; Jos 17:3,4|
Obviously “the LORD he gave them an inheritance among the brethren of their father” his name and land was carried.
Obviously Mary can be called the Daughter of Judah, the Mother of the Son of David.
Anyhow since Jesus had not an earthly father but his mom was from the Tribe of Judah he is legallly called the Son of David because He was born a human child from Mary.
Since His Father is God the Almighty He is called the Son of God and has HIS NAME which is YAHWEH!
He Yeshua as He said is both GOD and human as written by the Prophets. When were the Prophets not believed and not persecuted.
Psalms:2:7: I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.
Isa:9:6: For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counseller, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.
All Yeshua’s prophecies have been fullfilled in the times that were to be appointed for them.
His return will fullfill the remaining ones.
HERE IS ONE THAT WAS FULLFILLED AMONG MANY as written by the Prophets.
Lu:9:22: Saying, The Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be slain, and be raised the third day.
HERE IS ONE PROPHECY FOR WHICH A TIME IS APPOINTED as written by the Prophets.
Lu:9:26: For whosoever shall be ashamed of me and of my words, of him shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he shall come in his own glory, and in his Father’s, and of the holy angels.
Jesus said:
M’t:8:20: And Jesus saith unto him, The foxes have holes, and the birds of the air have nests; but the Son of man hath not where to lay his head.
He Jesus as the Son of Man took no possesions of Joseph but did the will of His Father.
October 19th, 2009 @ 10:39 am
Craig, you keep making the same mistake, the fact that a women who marries into her fathers tribe keeps the plot under her fathers name HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE MOTHERS LINEAGE, it is only because the grand children now have a father that is from the grandfathers tribe. that allows the plot to retain the old tribal name. A MEANS TO AN END. in the verses in Jos. the mention of the grandfather of the daughters does not REMOTELY suggest that a person foolows the lineage of the mother as opposed to the father.
October 19th, 2009 @ 10:50 am
Hello again Zvi. For some reason, my most recent response did not appear after you posted your comments on Oct 15th. I have several thoughts for you to consider:
1. The translations I cited on October 15th (New JPSV and Stone Edition) are widely accepted Jewish translations. I hope you will reconsider the points I made utilizing these versions.
2. There is no Biblical support for the view that Joel 1:8 refers to a bethroted virgin. “Betulah” there clearly has the idea of “young woman” as opposed to a virgin – which this betulah could clearly not have been.
3. Matthew was justified in seeing Is 7:14 as being “fulfilled” in Yeshua for the following reasons:
a. Yeshua was literally “Immanuel” (God with us).
b. The Immanuel prophecy was clearly directed to the house of David.
c. Miriam, Yeshua’s mother, was an almah who had never known a man.
d. The surrounding context in Isaiah was loaded with Messianic significance.
Since Matthew was certain that Yeshua was the Messiah and born of a virgin, was he wrong to quote Is 7:14 in reference to Yeshua’s miraculous birth? Isn’t it natural that he would see the account in Is 7 as a prophetic parallel and link in the chain of promises and prophecies given to David and his line? As Matthew recorded the events before him, he clearly heard a loud echo from the past. To quote a piece from Derek Leman, “At a scary time in Israel’s history [Ahaz is afraid that Judah is about to be destroyed], a special messenger made an announcement about a special child whose birth would signify salvation for Israel. And what happens in Yeshua’s birth story? A special messenger, this time an angel, gives a message that a special child, this time the Messiah, will be born and save Israel. Yeshua’s story is a sort of replay and even an enlargement of one of the story’s from Israel’s past. In Yeshua’s story the messenger and the child are even greater than in Isaiah’s. Yeshua’s story fills up the earlier Isaiah story.” And if you find Matthew’s method problematic, keep in mind that Matthew was employing interpretive devices that were standard in his day. As Dr. Brown says, “Matthew’s interpretive method, throughout his writings, is quite typical of the best of ancient Jewish interpretation, reflecting literal interpretations, allegorical interpretations, plays on words, and midrashic illusions.”
The info I shared above (minus the Leman quote) can be found in volume three of Dr. Brown’s Objections series. I truly hope you will interact with his work there at some point.
October 19th, 2009 @ 11:00 am
The fact that the questions that I raise are old ones and not new, as the arguements of dr, brown are, just prove that the religios jews are consistent. For example when the question regarding the geneaoligies was posed to the high church, they had no answers, yet dr. brown claims he does. the questions that we raise will be asked by all orthodox jews alike for all generations since jesus because we speak the truth. I bet you that if you challenge the pope, priest or any pastor, with any of my questions, you will get a different answers, none of which will match dr.browns because they are new ideas that were only recently invented, whereas us, we stick to old arguements since back then that are all solid and understood by all. Isnt the bible old? the older it is the more authentic it is.
October 19th, 2009 @ 11:16 am
Ryan, the word betuah, has one meaning not 2, just like the word virgin has one meaning if you say that it means young woman, then the verses in deu. cannot be understood. the verse in joel is trying to describe a young woman, so it uses the betulah, virgin because during the 12 month period she is still a virgin, so again there is only one traslation per word. as for Isaih ill say it again jesus lived 700 years later, we are describing a pregnant women NOW, not later
October 19th, 2009 @ 11:26 am
Zvi,
I think you need to take another look at Isaiah 9:6. Don’t forget that this son, in addition to other names given to him in this verse, would also be called “Mighty God”. Explain that.
As for Proverbs 30:4, you assume that Moses is the person being referred to as God’s son, saying that he went up to Heaven and came down. By your reasoning, this could have been any of God’s prophets, especially someone like Elijah. Honestly, consider the number of times God showed Himself throughout Tanakh in human form. For several examples, go back and see what I wrote to Matt on October 7th. As for Jacob, he says he saw God “face to face”. Jacob even asks Him what His name is. If he is seeing God face to face, it can only be God in human form, but not fully human as he would later come to be in the person of Yeshua. Later coming as fully human would serve for the purpose of sin atonement for mankind, that those who put their trust in Him would be saved. But in short, God has been coming to us in human form at different times in history since the beginning. Genesis 3 even says God was “ walking in the garden”. And back to Jacob, he did not defeat the “being” who was God. Jacob even acknowledges that God spared his life. The “being” even simply touched his hip and wounded him. God simply limited Himself as Jacob struggled with Him. God could not allow Himself to overpower Jacob because of His own purposes for Jacob. And back to Proverbs, the author of Proverbs 30:4 is asking the question that I’m sure many people God appeared to in human form wanted to know, including Jacob….what is His son’s name?
October 19th, 2009 @ 11:47 am
Ryan, apparently you havent carefully read what I wrote, I never said that moses was the son of g-d look at verse 4, who gathered water,during the splitting of the sea etc. he is describing things that this person did nobody knew of jesus at that point. Anyway we are describing a human not g-d. He is speaking of moses who received the torah that is why the next verse describes the authenticity of g-ds word namely ,the torah. As for jakob, it cannot be reffering to g-d because 1. Why in the world would g-d start up with jakob?verse 29: jackob defeats him. How can g-d lose. Oh I get it, he lost for our sins. He met up with an angel face to face as unkulus and rashi explain. he was the angel that represented eisav.
October 19th, 2009 @ 11:55 am
Zvi,
In your response to me on Oct 15th, you said that these exchanges are just “mental exercises” for Gentiles. Basically, I understood your words to mean that it is okay for Gentiles to believe in Yeshua but it is not okay for Jews. Let me share something with you mentsh to mentsh (“good guy” to “good guy” – for non-Jewish readers!) which is related but somewhat apart from the question of the identity of Yeshua.
Your comment, while reflecting the perspective of many Jewish people, reveals a massive misunderstanding of your responsibility and calling as a part of am Yisrael (the people of Israel). Zvi, if Yeshua isn’ for us (Jews) then He isn’t for the goyim (Gentiles) either. Certainly, I believe Yeshua is for Jews and Gentiles but I am specifically wanting to address your attitude towards your calling as a Jew.
We are called to be a “kingdom of priests and a holy nation” (Ex 19:6). God called us to “announce His salvation from day to day and to tell of His glory among the nations” (see Psalm 67:2-3; 96:2-3). God called us to be a light to the nations (Is 42 and 49). I could go on and on… Zvi, our role is similar to that as a father in a household. We are called as a nation to lead, protect, and sacrifice for the nations. We are called to be the vehicle that God uses to deliver His truth to the world. God ordained it that through us, blessing would come to all the families of the earth (Gen 12:1-3). Clearly, God has used us despite our unfaithfulness and reluctance to fulfilll our calling.
Part of my reason for believing in Yeshua is that it is consistent with and fulfills our calling as Jews. God’s plan was for His salvation to go to the ends of the earth (Is 49:6). The mission of Yeshua and His followers is to bring God’s message and means of reconciliation, healing, and salvation to all nations. In following Yeshua and making Him known to the nations, I am fulfilling my destiny as a Jew. Gentiles who believe in Yeshua have now joined us in our mission of making God’s salvation known. But if anyone should be leading the way in this cause, it should be us since it was stamped on our DNA from our inception.
Compare this to what has been the focus of the most devoted of our people for the past two thousand years since Yeshua. Our focus has been inward and our goal has been seclusion. The ones from our people who have had world touching influence have been those who have had impact in areas unrelated to God and His truth – which should be our most important contribution. For the few Jewish groups that do reach out (Chabad is the only one that some Jews know of), it is limited to getting Jews to become more Jewish. Trust me, I am well aware that some would respond by saying, “How could we reach out to Gentiles when we were contantly on the run in the diaspora for the past two thousand years?” Grace granted. But where do the sages and scholars express this heart for our calling to reach Gentiles anywhere in any source that is widely known or followed?
On the other hand, the New Testament unfolds and lays out the pattern of what Jews should be all about: namely, living holy lives for the glory of God and passionately spreading God’s fame and glory to the ends of the earth.
You were made for this Zvi – to shout and tell of His glory from the rooftops to anyone who will listen. The truth is that you will only be encouraged and equipped in this direction as a follower of Yeshua. I hope you will reconsider the nature of your calling as a Jew Zvi. Yeshua has made it clear for us. I hope you will taste and see. Sincerely, Ryan
October 19th, 2009 @ 11:57 am
Zvi,
Of course no one knew Jesus’ (Yeshua’s) name at that time. Why do you think they were asking his name?
I want you to quote for me Genesis 32:28 in your next reply.
Also, I want you to explain why Isaiah 9:6 says the son is called “Mighty God”.
October 19th, 2009 @ 12:01 pm
Michael Isaiah 9:6 means G_D the great……. was the one that called him prince of peace, but NOT that the name he was called was g-d, but rather g-d was the name giver.
October 19th, 2009 @ 12:07 pm
Michael,in proverbs point in time they didnt know of jesus according to you there was no response from jesus, so how can proverbs discuss him?
October 19th, 2009 @ 12:11 pm
RYan, jews believe that a gentile will not got punished for believing that g-d has a partner, whether its the sun, moon or jesus, although they wont get punished for it it doesnt mean that we believe that he is Moshiach for gentiles just like we dont believe the sun is. We do believe that gentiles are definitly wasting time by praying to jesus instead of g-d.
October 19th, 2009 @ 12:22 pm
another difference between us and christians: we have a timetable for the coming of moshiach year 6000 if he doest arrive , we will be proven wrong but we are not afraid of that. Give me timetable for the return of christ?
October 19th, 2009 @ 12:25 pm
Her we go again, jumping from topic to topic, the geneaoligy question, and the almah were not answered so we are going in circles.
October 19th, 2009 @ 12:47 pm
Zvi,
It makes sense that the author of Proverbs asks what is God’s son’s name. Just like Jacob, they wanted to know then what we know now….his name is Yeshua! Mystery now solved thousands of years later, just as other prophecies concerning him have been fulfilled now.
Wow, that’s quite a stretch you’re pulling from Isaiah 9:6! You know, this is the Holy Scriptures and it’s 100% reliable. There’s no need to try and re-invite what it is clearly saying….that the son is “Mighty God”.
Zvi, I need you to quote for me Genesis 32:28 please. Thanks.
October 19th, 2009 @ 12:54 pm
Michael,proverbs is clearly not reffering to g-d because g-d did not go up to heaven and then return. the verse is refering to “him” and his son and “him” doesnt match what the verse says. you were merely convinced by christians to interpret the verses that way.The angel asked him what is your name? he replied jackob.
October 19th, 2009 @ 12:56 pm
Ibelieve you are misinterpreting Isaiah 9, so lets have proof, and let us return to the unanswered questions that havent been answered.
October 19th, 2009 @ 1:20 pm
Isaiah 9, he called him…….. WHO? according to me; g-d according to you; ambiguous. very strange.
October 19th, 2009 @ 1:24 pm
Zvi,
Let me help you out with Genesis 32:28. If you feel this verse has been mistranslated, please let me know.
Genesis 32
28 Then the man said, “Your name will no longer be Jacob, but Israel, because you have struggled with God and with men and have overcome.”
I ask you this question, do you take that to mean that Jacob defeated God? What’s your interpretation?
October 19th, 2009 @ 1:29 pm
Zvi,
Regarding your post on Oct 19th at 11:16AM:
Any dictionary reveals that words can have more than one meaning and have different meanings in different contexts. Just examine the verses in the Jewish translations that I mentioned previously and it will become very clear that the word betulah, in and of itself, does not equate virgin in Biblical Hebrew.
Regarding your objection that Is 7:14 refers to a pregnant woman now, not later: It is fair and right to expect that something must have happened in Isaiah’s day relative to the birth of an Immanuel figure (though the details are not revealed in the text) – but it’s greater promise – elaborated more fully in chapters 9 and 11 – did not reach fulfillment in any sense.
It is fair to ask if any figure in that day fulfilled the scope of the promises outlined in these chapters? Hezekiah perhaps fulfilled the promises of Is 9 in a very limited sense – but clearly his reign did not match the splendor of what was expected there. Do you remember how things ended for him? But this is not only true of Is 7, 9, and 11. This is also true of other Messianic prophecies that were originally spoken regarding the birth or reign of Davidic kings who lived at those times – in other words, contemporaries of the prophets who were delivering the messages. It was only decades or even centuries later, when the writings were recognized as Scripture, that these promises were understood to be unfulfilled Messianic prophecies.
There is a very simple, yet key principle when it comes to Davidic kings and Messianic prophecy: As it was with David (or by extension – Davidic kings), so it is with the Messiah! In other words, there are striking parallels between the life of David and the kings who sat on his throne and the life of King Messiah. It is these parallels that are often highlighted in the New Testament. An example of this would be Psalm 2. Note how Rashi sees this Psalm of David as an encounter between the nations and the Messiah. Again, as it goes with David…so it goes with the Messiah. Promises in Scripture can be fulfilled in a limted sense in the day of their origin, only to be fulfilled in their full scope later. God’s plan often unfolds in stages, like the light at dawn (see Is 58:8).
A parallel concept would be the return from exile. Look at the grand promises of the glorious return that was promised to the exiles in Babylon. Remember, those promises were given before the return from Babylon (to Jeremiah, Isaiah, Ezekiel, etc). Did the exiles return? Yes. Did they return in accord with the glory promised by the prophets? Clearly not. The first return from exile was a step in the process of the massive, glorious return that will occur in the future. And look, we have even been privleged in our day to see more steps of the return (1948 onward). To sum it up, God’s plans often unfold in stages. It is not surprising then that something lmited in scope in Isaiah’s day would point to something greater in a future time.
Again, all of the above, plus so much more can be found in Dr. Brown’s series.
October 19th, 2009 @ 1:29 pm
Also jesus lived hundreds of years after isaaih 9, so whats going on here???? ill be back later. sorry.
October 19th, 2009 @ 3:35 pm
Ryan, the word besulah= virgin until proven otherwise the verses you brought to support your claim have been refuted. In any case “almah” means young woman so whats the use? The promises were fulfiiled in the time of chizkiyahu, but chapter 11 is refering to the days of moshiach,there are no stages at all in the redemption it will all come at once! But even you agree that the child had to have been born in the days of achaz who was that child? Not jesus, besides there is no mention of a virgin birth, much less a repeat of one 700 years later. Do you even realize what you are doing? Youre pulling a religion out of a hat. 1. There is no mention of Jesus 2. The child born was born 700 years before him. 3.There is no mention of a virgin birth. 4.eating honey doesnt even match with jesus. So your religion is based a self assumed repeat of a non virgin birth. MIND BOGGLING.
October 19th, 2009 @ 3:37 pm
Michael, The verse is reffering to an angel I encourage you to read my posts.
October 19th, 2009 @ 3:40 pm
Ryan, please provide the verses of promises that were not completely fulfilled,so we can debate them.
October 19th, 2009 @ 3:43 pm
What is unfair about this debate is that everyone is jumping all over the place and not responding to the question of the geneaoligy if none of you can answer it, then the debate is over.
October 19th, 2009 @ 4:04 pm
Hey folks,
Just a note to let you know that within the next two months, I’ll be doing a “Debate Dr. Brown” forum for 4-6 weeks on the Real Messiah website on a subject yet to be determined. At that point, Zvi and others of his ilk will be free to post their views, and I’ll be responding directly. I’m actually quite eager to do so, since every point he has raised here is quite easily refuted — especially when he relies on the rabbinic interpretation of certain biblical passages — and as soon as I have time to devote to the debate forum, I’ll be glad to set the record straight. For now, I can only smile when I read Zvi’s statements, since he actually feels he has made a good point here and there. How sad! Anyway, we’ll be announcing the debate forum shortly; until then, I hope you folks continue to enjoy this one.
October 19th, 2009 @ 4:30 pm
Zvi,
I rely only on what Scripture tells me. In Genesis 32, you don’t have to substitute the idea that Jacob wrestled with an angel for the sake of protecting God from looking like a failure in this verse. Your understanding of the context of this story is inaccurate. If you look at what’s going on here, Jacob is wrestling with God, and he tells God that he will not let Him go until He blesses him. For reasons that only God knows, God did not allow Himself to overpower Jacob. To say that Jacob wrestled with anyone other than God would be to call Jacob a liar because he said he “saw God face to face and yet my life was spared”.
In addition, I don’t know how you’re coming up with your interpretation of Proverbs 30:4. You say that an angel asks for his name, and the person replies ‘Jacob’? Are you sure we’re talking about the same verse because that makes no sense whatsoever.
Also, your interpretation for Isaiah 9:6-7 was hardly explained. Need you to go into some greater depth here to back up your argument. Almost seems like you hesitate to say much about this verse.
October 19th, 2009 @ 4:55 pm
Just saw your post Dr. Brown. Thanks so much for taking the time to do this and everything you do! As a brother in the Lord, I love you so much! You have greatly impacted my life for the Lord since I first learned of you a few years back! Thanks everybody else for the lively discussion, especially my brothers in Jesus for communicating your rich Scriptural understanding!
October 19th, 2009 @ 10:14 pm
Michael, we find in scripture that elokim is not meant literaly when it is in conjunction with another person or object for example:deu:33: when mentioned with moses and gen 33:20. Please explain me why in the world would g-d start up with jakob?And why wouldnt g-d overcome him if he did in fact decide to fight him? Also dont you think if g-d had a son he would let jakob know about him since Jakob was in direct contact with g-d? There was a mistake in the previous post, but you can read my earlier posts regarding proverbs. As far as Isaiah 9- verse 5-and he called his name….. mighty g-d, I ask you who called his name? The verse is ambiguous as to who named him according to you, also did you ever see such a long name in scripture? The way I see it is that you read-that g-d the mighty one called him, “prince of peace”. According to you that it is refering to jesus, it was 700 years to early.
October 19th, 2009 @ 11:27 pm
So Zvi, you are truly the champion of ignoring posts and their challenges altogether. You are right in not responding to my person, for I am still waiting for your person to do what you stated you would do as to posting Rashi’s comment on Gen 49:10, as well as now looking at Rashi’s comment on Isiah 7:14. He has said something entirely differnet than you on these passages, yet, in the past, you quoted him.
Ignoring my Oct 19th posting to you, does not make its challenges receed from you.
October 19th, 2009 @ 11:30 pm
Zvi, Do you see G-d as a lover or a fighter? Do his challenges recede when we do not respond to his existence, or, does he, in fact and deed still involve himself with creation at all?
I informed you I would answer your questions on the geneology issue, which I have.
October 19th, 2009 @ 11:39 pm
Jabez I have answered all your questions, and must I always quote the opinion of rashi?
October 19th, 2009 @ 11:42 pm
I want evidence. quoting vauge verses withot mentioning Jesus at all and the very fact that we are debating clearly indicates that there is no “evidence” for jesus.
October 20th, 2009 @ 12:06 am
Numbers 23:19 G-d is not a man, WHAT MORE DO YOU NEED?????
October 20th, 2009 @ 12:08 am
Hosea 11:9 G-d is not a man.
October 20th, 2009 @ 12:09 am
Well Zvi, It might be so if Tenach prophecy were not prophetic by nature, and with multiple fulfillments by realized intention. It might be so if you only read Rabbinical interpretation and venture not forth to reading John 8 beacuse of blind prejudice, which tells me something about “the older it is the more authentic it is,” as a test of truth.
You did not answer if G-d a fighter or a lover? Would you aspire to read a real debate, with your “Jesus” Christianized hollow idol figure, and my Yeshua? Let us cut off the middle men, well studied or not so. Even the oldest of enscriptions on the oldest of scrolls. Go directly to John 8, read the debate, and relate your thoughts on the matter, then you will have answered the two questions already put to you as yet unanswered.
October 20th, 2009 @ 12:13 am
Here is a third. Does G-d, having made hair, respect a black hat put upon it; is a black hat being placed upon the possibility of G-d’s word having multiple meaning?
October 20th, 2009 @ 12:21 am
Zvi, If G-d was a potter, and made a pot, then occupied it in part and parcel for a season would that make a pot not, a pot? Not pot, pot not, knotty not.
October 20th, 2009 @ 9:19 am
Zvi,
With Millions upon Millions of Gentiles which started with your Jewish ancestors having testimony of an encounter with the God of Israel because of Jesus it is a lot for you too not believe.
The Messiah was to provide divine interpretation to Torah
The Messiah would be a prophet like Moses (Deuteronomy 18:18-19)
To offer Himself as the final Sin Sacrifice for Israel and all humankind.(Daniel 9:24)
The Messiah would be a descendant of the house of David,
He would be born of a virgin (Isaiah 7:14) in the town of Bethlehem (Micah 5:2)
He would be preceded by a forerunner (Malachi 3:1)
He would arrive before the destruction of the Temple – which occurred in the year 70 C.E. (Daniel 9:24-26).
Israel’s King would enter Jerusalem riding a donkey.(Zech 9:9)
Rejected by his own people (Isaiah 53:3)
Betrayed by a friend (Psalm 41:9)
Sold for thirty pieces of silver (Zechariah 11:12)
Smitten, spat upon and mocked (Psalm 22:7-8)
Crucified (Psalm 22)
Would not remain dead (Psalm 16:10, Jonah 1:17). No longer than three days and three nights.
Messiah would be a light to the nations so that God’s salvation may reach to the end of the earth (Isaiah 49:6).
Just a few points. All Yeshua did was Love, Heal, Teach and Reprove Israel but faced opposition just as others who were sent by God.
You need to walk out into the desert alone.
October 20th, 2009 @ 10:01 am
Criaig, Deu.18- If you claim that there would be a prophet “exactly like moses, 1:where does it say that it had to be Jesus? 2. Moses was not g-d. So this verse is in fact a proof that a prophet “must”be human, thus diqualifying jesus. Danial- I went to great lenghths to disprove your definition of it in previous posts.Isaiah 7-does not discuss a virgin. Malachi- forrunner is an angel not Jesus. Also, make up your mind is he moshiach or a forerunner.Michah-King david was from beis lechem.Zicharyah 9- it says that he will rule over the entire world. Isaiah-refering to the jews, did jesus see seed? did he have children? NO. Psalms is speaking of the jews or King david not jesus.
October 20th, 2009 @ 10:26 am
You, guys claim to be jewish, yet at least some of you dont keep the commandments of the torah, please explain.
October 20th, 2009 @ 10:52 am
Zvi,
(1)
The forerunner is neither Jesus or and angel. It was John the Baptist. THe LORD who was to come to the temple IS YESHUA THE LORD! David’s LORD! YESHUA IS THE LORD who was preceded by a forerunner (Malachi 3:1) THE BAPTIST, the one crying in the wilderness to repent for the Lord is coming.
I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me. Malachi 3:1 Matthew 11:10-15
Mal:3:1: Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me: and the Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his temple, even the messenger of the covenant, whom ye delight in: behold, he shall come, saith the LORD of hosts.
M’t:11:10: For this is he, of whom it is written, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee.
M’t:11:11: Verily I say unto you, Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist: notwithstanding he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.
M’t:11:12: And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force.
M’t:11:13: For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John.
M’t:11:14: And if ye will receive it, this is Elias, which was for to come.
M’t:11:15: He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.
(2)
JESUS is both God and human who spoke wonderful things from His Father and did great miracles.
1Tm:3:16: And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.
(3) Israel’s young woman was Mary who had a child who was not yet married, the child was conceived in her by God. Thus was a Virgin.
4) Scriptures say Messiah must suffered first and than returns to rule.
A remnant will be saved.
October 20th, 2009 @ 11:24 am
you havent backed up yor position. Jesus was a bastard. you need proof to say otherwise either from scripture or from science or math. You got none of that.
October 20th, 2009 @ 11:26 am
Zvi,
Have you read John 8 yet? Here is your answer.
JN 8:1 But Yeshua went to the Mount of Olives. 2 At dawn he appeared again in the temple courts, where all the people gathered around him, and he sat down to teach them. 3 The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group 4 and said to Yeshua, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. 5 In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?” 6 They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him.
But Yeshua bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. 7 When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her.” 8 Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.
JN 8:9 At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Yeshua was left, with the woman still standing there. 10 Jesus straightened up and asked her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?”
JN 8:11 “No one, sir,” she said.
“Then neither do I condemn you,” Yeshua declared. “Go now and leave your life of sin.”
JN 8:12 When Yeshua spoke again to the people, he said, “I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life.”
JN 8:13 The Pharisees challenged him, “Here you are, appearing as your own witness; your testimony is not valid.”
JN 8:14 Yeshua answered, “Even if I testify on my own behalf, my testimony is valid, for I know where I came from and where I am going. But you have no idea where I come from or where I am going. 15 You judge by human standards; I pass judgment on no one. 16 But if I do judge, my decisions are right, because I am not alone. I stand with the Father, who sent me. 17 In your own Law it is written that the testimony of two men is valid. 18 I am one who testifies for myself; my other witness is the Father, who sent me.”
JN 8:19 Then they asked him, “Where is your father?”
“You do not know me or my Father,” Yeshua replied. “If you knew me, you would know my Father also.” 20 He spoke these words while teaching in the temple area near the place where the offerings were put. Yet no one seized him, because his time had not yet come.
JN 8:21 Once more Yeshua said to them, “I am going away, and you will look for me, and you will die in your sin. Where I go, you cannot come.”
JN 8:22 This made the Jews ask, “Will he kill himself? Is that why he says, `Where I go, you cannot come’?”
JN 8:23 But he continued, “You are from below; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world. 24 I told you that you would die in your sins; if you do not believe that I am the one I claim to be, you will indeed die in your sins.”
JN 8:25 “Who are you?” they asked.
“Just what I have been claiming all along,” Yeshua replied. 26 “I have much to say in judgment of you. But he who sent me is reliable, and what I have heard from him I tell the world.”
JN 8:27 They did not understand that he was telling them about his Father. 28 So Yeshua said, “When you have lifted up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am the one I claim to be and that I do nothing on my own but speak just what the Father has taught me. 29 The one who sent me is with me; he has not left me alone, for I always do what pleases him.” 30 Even as he spoke, many put their faith in him.
JN 8:31 To the Jews who had believed him, Yeshua said, “If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. 32 Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”
JN 8:33 They answered him, “We are Abraham’s descendants and have never been slaves of anyone. How can you say that we shall be set free?”
JN 8:34 Yeshua replied, “I tell you the truth, everyone who sins is a slave to sin. 35 Now a slave has no permanent place in the family, but a son belongs to it forever. 36 So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed. 37 I know you are Abraham’s descendants. Yet you are ready to kill me, because you have no room for my word. 38 I am telling you what I have seen in the Father’s presence, and you do what you have heard from your father. ”
JN 8:39 “Abraham is our father,” they answered.
“If you were Abraham’s children,” said Yeshua, “then you would do the things Abraham did. 40 As it is, you are determined to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God. Abraham did not do such things. 41 You are doing the things your own father does.”
“We are not illegitimate children,” they protested. “The only Father we have is God himself.”
JN 8:42 Yeshua said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and now am here. I have not come on my own; but he sent me. 43 Why is my language not clear to you? Because you are unable to hear what I say. 44 You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desire. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies. 45 Yet because I tell the truth, you do not believe me! 46 Can any of you prove me guilty of sin? If I am telling the truth, why don’t you believe me? 47 He who belongs to God hears what God says. The reason you do not hear is that you do not belong to God.”
JN 8:48 The Jews answered him, “Aren’t we right in saying that you are a Samaritan and demon-possessed?”
JN 8:49 “I am not possessed by a demon,” said Yeshua, “but I honor my Father and you dishonor me. 50 I am not seeking glory for myself; but there is one who seeks it, and he is the judge. 51 I tell you the truth, if anyone keeps my word, he will never see death.”
JN 8:52 At this the Jews exclaimed, “Now we know that you are demon-possessed! Abraham died and so did the prophets, yet you say that if anyone keeps your word, he will never taste death. 53 Are you greater than our father Abraham? He died, and so did the prophets. Who do you think you are?”
JN 8:54 Yeshua replied, “If I glorify myself, my glory means nothing. My Father, whom you claim as your God, is the one who glorifies me. 55 Though you do not know him, I know him. If I said I did not, I would be a liar like you, but I do know him and keep his word. 56 Your father Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing my day; he saw it and was glad.”
JN 8:57 “You are not yet fifty years old,” the Jews said to him, “and you have seen Abraham!”
JN 8:58 “I tell you the truth,” Yeshua answered, “before Abraham was born, I am!”
October 20th, 2009 @ 11:49 am
Jesus sounds like a lunatic
October 20th, 2009 @ 11:53 am
can I walk into a court of law and claim that somone owes me money the witnesses=myself+g-d?? the guy is insane.
October 20th, 2009 @ 11:56 am
Zvi,
You are like your father
October 20th, 2009 @ 11:58 am
Such a sickly absurd interpretation of the verse that requires 2 witnesses is a proof that needs no other to regard the man as fool and completely ignorant of jewish law thus disqualifying himself as even religious,never mind moshiach.
October 20th, 2009 @ 12:07 pm
He doesnt claim that he doesnt need witnesses he agrees that witnesses are needed, and 2 of them but who are they hiself and his father. 2 people, remember jesus and his father are 2 separate people. not one even though g-d says that he is one.
October 20th, 2009 @ 12:18 pm
Zvi,
Would you care to correct Yeshua on his misinterpretation of jewish law since you are the expert? Also would you tell me what qualifies him as a lunatic?
Hopefully you’ll still be around when Yeshua does return and then you can look upon the one whom you have pierced (Zechariah 12:10), and have the scales removed from your eyes.
October 20th, 2009 @ 1:09 pm
Michel if a guy today walks into a jewish court and claims that everyone must believe him, and when qyestiones as to provide witnesses he responds by saying indeed 2 wwitnesses are needed and they are myself and father g-d, would you cosider this person sane? An honest answer please.
October 20th, 2009 @ 2:16 pm
Zvi, certainly I’d believe him if I noticed all the prophecies he had fulfilled and was fulfilling, not to mention miracles he was performing. Plenty of jews believed him. Didn’t you read this in John 8?
October 20th, 2009 @ 3:34 pm
Zvi, Your reaction is predictable. Nevertheless it is the mind of Yeshua, taken from a complete reading of its nuances, claims, reported supernatural actions, miracles, Lordship over the laws of nature, etc. that distinguish his uniqueness. So, if his life is indeed a revelation of G-d, as millions claim and have claimed, linked to the Ruach, you may have some changes to go through to indeed understand G-d. If he is indeed the Messiah, as millions claim, due to not only his words, but due to his actions (which speak louder for anyone than words), you may have some reckoning to due over what the other side of this posted debate miscomprehends about Yeshua. Obviously, trying to assess such a Life from a human, or Rabbinical scholarship Yeshiva study point of view is not going to work.
How to process the phenomena of Yeshua? If you are wrong, and he is not a “lunatic,” and is who he claims to be, I’d be squrming under your hat.
October 20th, 2009 @ 3:41 pm
Zvi says:
if a guy today walks into a jewish court and claims that everyone must believe him, and when qyestiones as to provide witnesses he responds by saying indeed 2 wwitnesses are needed and they are myself and father g-d, would you cosider this person sane? An honest answer please.
I would Zvi, I would. But that is not what Yeshua did, nor was that his venue. The scene and location where his Life occurred was quite detached from what you stated was your perception of a chapter of a more complete account of the phenomena of Yeshua. Your reacting speaks of the limits of exploration on the subject of Yeshua. Think about it, there are more websites on Jesus Christ and Yeshua as Messiah than on any other subject on the net. Does this mean that all these are of the lunatic fringe? Or does it mean something else.
Calm your soul, and do a reread, then paraphrase and consider the total implications. Math, science, and Torah scholarship are some frameworks for some reality; what is the framework of the entire account of John?
October 20th, 2009 @ 3:58 pm
Why would I consider your hypothetical scenario character sane? First of all, he is not Yeshua; he is a man in a jewish court. Secondly, being apparently human, who would enter and appear in a jewish court for a hearing? Thirdly, being likely a jew, he would have some testimony that would be relevant to the proceedings of a jewish court so entered as to his participation there. He may, in fact, be the sanest party in the room claiming to know what he knows in reference to hearing his case. He may be, in fact, a truthteller.
I think of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, once considered a lunatic from the point of view of what once was an entire cultural framework of alike speaking Russan communists. We all know that story, over time.
October 20th, 2009 @ 5:51 pm
He did not fulfill even one prophecy. and miracles do not turn you into a prophet and certainly not a g-d. and where were the 2 witnesses that were lacking?
October 20th, 2009 @ 6:37 pm
Two faces of Dr. Brown:
#1:
“Not surprisingly, Christian understanding of Jewish objections to Jesus has often been marked by superficiality, insensitivity, and triumphalism.”
#2
“At that point, Zvi and others of his ilk will be free to post their views, and I’ll be responding directly. I’m actually quite eager to do so, since every point he has raised here is quite easily refuted — especially when he relies on the rabbinic interpretation of certain biblical passages — and as soon as I have time to devote to the debate forum, I’ll be glad to set the record straight. For now, I can only smile when I read Zvi’s statements, since he actually feels he has made a good point here and there. How sad!”
October 20th, 2009 @ 10:04 pm
Matt,
Would you be kind enough to explain where you see two faces here?
October 20th, 2009 @ 10:22 pm
It is called reaction. Period. Zvi, you are prejudice, and prejudiced, admit it. Pot not, knotty Pot. Vessel not. Containing G-d is impossible, as He fills the Universe, and by Him and through Him are all things. Believers here would say by Him and through Him we have our being. Yet you want the prophets of Old to name a name written in the stars, where their foretelling would contain no hidden or mysterious element.
It is like a cross court netted ball game. We, launch a ball your way (to catch it), then it is always hit back. So, the aggression is about competition, with something believed necessary to prove. This proves to be futile where the goal is actually to catch the ball and look at it, and handle and know it, as to how it is put together and works, Zvi. Mass, angle, tajectory, velocity, target. Molecules are disturbed, move around, then settle back to everyday patterns. Go your way “into the desert,” as another put it here.
To you Yeshua equals Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, viewed from the absolutes of communism. A lunatic indeed. Soon the wall will come down Zvi.
It has been a very cold ball game, Zvi. What does G-d want from you, oh man?
Becoming the object of considered prayer, what challenges will present, not here, but in the days ahead, Zvi?.
October 20th, 2009 @ 11:57 pm
check out-you tube video-labled-”isaiah 53 led me out of christianity” it should help you see the truth.
October 21st, 2009 @ 8:15 am
Avi,
Check out the star map, established long ago and coincidental with what is written in the Prophets of Old. Reread my personal account of how I met Yeshua in scripture, then went on my knees to ask if it was so. Read how he supernaturally verified the truth. Sorry, I can’t jump through your hoops. I know your “lunatic” to be the chosen One.
Let the wall fall, Zvi, test and prove all things, not simply Rabbinical commentary. It is a matter of the heart. He willhelp anyone discover He is the sent One.
October 21st, 2009 @ 8:27 am
Avi, Avi,
It is this, that the at times empty feeling all have known as an unsurmountable barrier of life’s pressures, comparisons, lack, pretense, cares and troubles keep one from knowing His presence. There is no greater love to be known, or affirmation for one’s completion. The lamb slain before the foundation of the world, when looked upon, eye to eye, melts the hardness always known. Barriers to being unravel before this gaze, where even the highest wall’s foundations dissipate.
Your mind is simply not as solid as you wish, or as invincible as believed.
Who has believed our report?
October 21st, 2009 @ 8:29 am
Zvi = Avi, when a soul comes to stand before our Father, and hears a small inner voice. “Kill the pride, permit me to sit, walk, and stand before you.”
October 21st, 2009 @ 10:21 am
Dr. Browns, whole arguement to defend the obvious fact that the mesianic prophecies were’nt fulfilled is-”Do you excpect peace and tranqility to all occur at once that all of a sudden everyone will believe in g-d at once? somone listening and agreeing to such an arguement would ask, ok, so how long should it take? a year? ten years? a century? 2 centuries? not yet? The answer is no! First we need the crusades to torture and kill us pogroms a few world wars that kills tens of millions of people, and then…… whats next? I believe it will happen all at once for g-d will get rid of the evil inclination. But Dr. Brown keep going, your reasoning is superb.
October 21st, 2009 @ 10:38 am
Zvi, go ahead and blame Babylon, Rome and whoever for the scattering of Israel. We know the real reason why Israel was taken from the land.
Dr. Brown,
Possibly , you as a believer lack understanding of the Gentile Church(who are they) in your apologies.
A Church free to worship in holyness.
Some, I myself have been offended by you when you wrote.
“Not surprisingly, Christian understanding of Jewish objections to Jesus has often been marked by superficiality, insensitivity, and triumphalism.”
We are all ignorant in many things, even you.
Objections by Jews is just plain foolishness to those that have had there eyes and ears opened to the Prophets. You can take man off the planet and show them a round earth but they will deny you unless God the Father Himself bonks them!
If you can not see than hearing will not help.
The same if you can see but do not hear than you will not believe.
The proof is the rejection of Jesus.
The Father reveals the Son as the Son revealed His Father. They will not know God without knowing both the Son and the Father together. A Spritual seeing and hearing is needed.
Question is just who is a part of the Gentile Church and should they be grouped with those who say they are believers even though they persecuted those who actually walk with Jesus, even today.
Please do not say that the Gentile Church has to appoligize to the Jewish people for the suffering of the past 2000 years. It wasn’t the Gentile Church that did those things. It was not the Lord’s Church!
Not being raised by todays Judaism I have learned nothing from them but grief.
Not actually knowing much about a seen governmental Christianity I gained very little from them also.
When the Lord got a hold of me than that is when I began to learn of Him.
The Christianity I know and love is the one that has to sometimes hide from the persecution of those who claim they are Christ’s. The same for those who call themselves Messianic but than their sect has not had time to have a strong clear false Messianic opposition which persecutes them with laws.
I am free in Jesus to literally HEAR HIM and OBEY HIM FIRST. I rest in HIM my SABBATH.
One thing for sure and that is as a Christian some Messianics as well as Christians have mocked us who have testimony and beliefs as Christ taught us in Spirit.You know this! Sid Roth is a champion!
It is to my understanding that one should not try to entertain those who Blaspheme God’s Son and continue debating them.
As the Lord and His Father have shown me their end is like worms in the earth who are scorched by the sun.
As the waters came down and covered Pharoah’s army so has it covered each chief rabbi’s army for 2k years!
John the Baptist than Yeshua the Almighty God gave them a warning and then He Jesus avoided them.
If they first do not want to become as little children, just human(not gods) first before God than they will never make it.
I have had a wonderful time reading the posts of the believers here. The Lord is their God.
October 21st, 2009 @ 10:53 am
Zvi,
Nebuchadnezzar who subdued the whole of Palestine, and
took Jerusalem, carrying away captive a great multitude of the
Jews , GOD became his GOD and Daniel the Son of David a Prophet became Nebuchadnezzar’s friend.
Should he have rotted in hell ZVI?
October 21st, 2009 @ 10:56 am
Zvi,
It appears that your arguments are committed to rabbinic commentary rather than the actual Word of God. Why don’t you read the Scriptures unbiasedly and find the answers for yourself rather than some other rabbis who refuse to be open-minded. If you don’t believe Jesus is who he claims to be according to New Testament Scriptures, go check out all the other non-Scriptural sources written from that time that make reference of him. You can google plenty of information on that, or go to your local library. Do the research yourself unbiasedly, rather than taking other rabbis’ word for it. Your arguments are extremely narrow-minded and appear to have hardly any knowledge of Jesus. So you can’t just say, “I’m right, you’re wrong”, because you have nothing to base that on. Do the reseach with an open mind rather than just sit here and argue for some rabbi’s commentary.
Jabez,
Tell me a little more about this star map if you get the chance, or where I can go look for that. I’m wondering if it’s what I’ve read in the past on a website about the Star of Bethlehem, which was also very interesting.
October 21st, 2009 @ 11:18 am
Michael, lets be honest here. I have provided you with dozens and dozens of questions of which I received no reasonable responses. So to brush away everything with one big swoop, by claiming that I am relying on rabinic traslations without being specific abut even one claim, is exteremly unfair with regards to debates. I have NEVER relied on the rabinic traslations without backing it up from scripture. If you feel otherwise, then please provide me those verses and I will prove it. but dont forget about the all the unanswered questions I have asked. Dont just cop out by claiming that I’m relying on jewish interpretation, that is utterly unfair.
October 21st, 2009 @ 11:35 am
Can anyone please tell me any NATURAL characterstic of jesus that are similar to that of a g-d? Dont tell me that he died for our sins or that he is the saviour, etc…., for those are things that you believe, not natural facts, I’ll only believe them once you prove the natural characteristics. Dont tell me that he performed miracles, because many true and false prophets, that performed them were not g-d,so performing miracles dont prove anything at all. And dont tell me that he had a virgin birth because there is no proof from the scripture, nor is there scientific proof or witnesses. Dont tell me-ressurection= again no proof.
October 21st, 2009 @ 11:50 am
Another question, if he couldnt help himself than how can he save others? To which Dr.Brown counters that he gave up his life.There are several problems with that; 1. According to jewish law it is forbidden to put your life in danger. 2.Dr.Brown keeps comparing jesus’ offering to the animals offerings in the temple to which I ask was he an animal? Is the animal the one that gives himself up or does the sinner force the animal to its death? 3. We never find the concept of a human offering AS A COMMANDMENT that must be kept. 4.If blood atonement was needed for the future when there is no temple, then why did it have to be human? Where did Jesus find it in the old testemant? The sages of that time didnt agree with him. 5. We never ever find that even an animal can forgive on sins that were comitted in the future.
October 21st, 2009 @ 12:07 pm
Dr. Brown responds to the arguement on Isaiah 53 regarding the word zerah=seed, by saying that seed can be reffering to future generations. The problem is however, that those future generations come directly from his seed,namely:biological children, NEVER do we find in tanach that seed can be understood in a non literal sense. These are just some of many examples of the obscure verse that Dr.Brown uses to support his beliefs.
October 21st, 2009 @ 12:08 pm
Zvi,
You keep claiming that no one has answered your questions. Sorry if our attempts to do so weren’t sufficient for you, but that will just have to do. We’ve answered to the best of our abilities, according to what Scripture says. The fact that you don’t accept our answers doesn’t mean we didn’t answer your questions. You can have more of your fun with this little debate game when Dr. Brown answers jewish questions as he said he would do in a few weeks on the RealMessiah website, although I sincerely doubt you will take ANYTHING into consideration, as has been continually apparent in your replies.
With regard to your last question, what do you mean by NATURAL? And what characteristics of God do you regard as NATURAL? It doesn’t really matter what we say because you won’t believe us. If you want answers to your questions, once again, it would be best if you read the New Testament for yourself. Why take our word for it?
October 21st, 2009 @ 12:26 pm
Besides, each individual had to bring his own animal, by spending money to provide an atonement for each and every sin, and although there were some yearly sacrifices and public sacrifices, thats fine, but that doesnt take away from the fact that there is a componenet of sin that each person must sacrifice at the time that the sin is comitted, so how did jesus take care of that in addition to previous list of questions. also the talmud writes that jews will bring atonements for their sins when moshiach comes. By the way dr. Brown admits that the talmud is not worse than a history book and in sanhedrin 43.a…………
October 21st, 2009 @ 12:30 pm
Michael, answering to the best of your ability doesnt constitute an acceptable answer.
October 21st, 2009 @ 12:32 pm
answering to the best of your ability does not costitute an acceptable answer.
October 21st, 2009 @ 12:59 pm
Zvi,
Don’t you mean our answers do not constitute an acceptable answer to YOU. And besides, you misquoted me. I said: “We’ve answered to the best of our abilities, ACCORDING TO WHAT SCRIPTURE SAYS”. What you do not find acceptable doesn’t mean it’s not true.
Regardless, I repeat my question to your question:
“With regard to your last question, what do you mean by NATURAL? And what characteristics of God do you regard as NATURAL?”
October 21st, 2009 @ 2:19 pm
AS an example:where in scripture do you find that a geneaoligy can be through a mother, once we get through this, we’ll continue with other questions.
October 21st, 2009 @ 2:46 pm
Zvi,
We’ve already been through all of that over and over again. If you don’t like our answers, then you can just sit there and believe we’re wrong, so take it or leave it. The answers won’t change.
I don’t see what this has to do with your question about the NATURAL characteristics of God your asking about. If you had a deeper intent to that question, which was trying to point back to the genealogy of Jesus, you could have saved yourself time by not beating around the bush and clearly asking about his genealogy, but as I said, we’ve already gone that route in detail, to your dissatisfaction, so just accept what you see as our ignorance. If I misunderstand your NATURAL question, please restate it in a way that is more clear, but if it’s going back to this geneaology thing, then you’ve already got your answer.
October 21st, 2009 @ 3:26 pm
Zvi, As noted and computed indeed by others here, your defense and assertion is about commentaries, not the word. I already addressed the faulty basis of your commentary based understanding of the the Hebrew word for “young woman” in the pivotal prophetic reference in Isaiah. Completely unaddressed and ignored by your usual style of moving on to other matters, and reframing.
As for Mikael Brown, PhD remarking, “Not surprisingly, Christian understanding of Jewish objections to Jesus has often been marked by superficiality, insensitivity, and triumphalism.” I agree with him, for, one simply has to read a comprehenisve Gentile Church history to agree. The beauty is G-ds tolerance of the slow sanctification process and conformity to the true image of the Messiah process all believers undertake: where G-d is their overseeing and discipling Father.
As for the matter queried of “written in the stars,” the Revelation of John’s references and their relations are found in the astrological mapping of the stars, done eons ago. It is a faith builder, when apprehended, for sure. Secondly, but not less importantly, we have the revelation of the creator in the creation, including the induplicable stars. There are many other affirmations of the existence of God, and his design within all matters of how the physics of stars, light, and universe indication of stellar objects.
Many years ago, my then two and one half year old son, David, turned to me from his child seat next to me in our van, and asked me: “where is Yeshua’s body now?”, literally out of the blue. My response was “ask Him.” I watched him close his eyes, smile, then look into my eyes. “In light and in heaven, Dad” was his received and exclaimed ressponse.
Our father will always allow direct inquiry from thsoe who have turned and become like children in their state of heart inquiry before Him and the chosen One.
October 21st, 2009 @ 3:29 pm
Correction. Last sentence of the Third from the bottom paragraph of the above post.
Should read
There are many other affirmations of the existence of God, and His design within all matters of how the physics of stars, light, and the universe’s indication of stellar objects.
October 21st, 2009 @ 3:34 pm
That is corrected, if the word “how” is removed, pray for me, brethren.
October 21st, 2009 @ 3:43 pm
Michael,I didnt respond to your arguements during debates by saying “I don’t like what your’e saying” but rather I put forth the arguement, and at that point you didnt respond you just went on to other arguements,for if you had responded-we would still be going at it without interruptions from other posts.
October 21st, 2009 @ 3:58 pm
Zvi,
It is apparent that your arguement continues to remain on the subject of Jesus’ genealogy. Me nor anyone else has anything else to add to this subject on top of the gobs of information we’ve already supplied to you. No need to beat a dead horse. So as far as that goes, cased closed, take it or leave it. You might join in the debate with Dr. Brown on the RealMessiah website in a few weeks to hear directly from him.
You continue to say we’re not answering your questions. Which questions would that be? Maybe we did respond to your questions and you weren’t satisified, so you took it as if we didn’t respond (according to your liking). Feel free to reiterate questions you feel were not answered.
Before you ask any other questions, I encourage you to read the book of “Hebrews” in the New Testament. Go to BibleGateway.com and read it there. This will probably answer a lot of your questions.
October 21st, 2009 @ 5:21 pm
Craig,
I have read most of Michael Brown’s writings, and heard his comments on the matter which stimulated many personal feelings and responses in you. It seems that some personal pain and lack of inclusion among certain questionable fellowship experiences is in your own story. It may save you some years of “working out your own salvation with fear and trembling,” which only appears once in the NT, to discuss these issues and matters with a trusted elder, mentor, or counselor. As these are matters of experience, some of it apparently isolating ideed, and hurtful, as well as the matter of theological perspective, it would be good to talk out these perspectives shared on this forum 1:1 with such a person.
It helps too to have read “Our hands are stained with blood,” by Michael Brown in order to gain perspective on the matter. The history of the Gentile church includes the references Zvi made to its culturally seated prejudicial persecutions and violence set against Jewish settlements and persons within related cutlures.
One key to undertanding the issues and injustices involved–many done in the name of Jesus Christ–is to look up and apprehend the thematic notion of “replacement theology.” When some so-called believers of the Gentiles have misunderstood that it is believers “grafted into” the commonwealth of Israel, rather than Yeshua’s coming creating the opposite condition for Jews, the statements Michael Brown advanced were indeed so. Granted, we may not wish to own all supposed church history as our own, but too it is formed of human religious responses to the existence of God and his chosen one–and without the perspective of the hindsight on history we hold at this juncture of its impostions.
It is critical to go back to the chosen and sent Apostles’ teaching, e.g. in early Ephesians, and in Romans 9-12 as to understanding the redemptive intentions of G-d toward both Gentile “grafted in” believers and those holding the oracles of G-d, the Yehudim. These are matters set clear by the Apostles’ instruction and witness, not by the history of the Gentile Church thereafter. It is critical to go to those chosen as to doctrinal and theological foundations.
Just as G-d tolerated much in the Tenach histories of the Yehudim, where not faithful to him in their own cultural references to appointed Godlly revelation, so too the history of the Church is quite tainted as to irs own holiness. It will really not be reconciled in the history of redemption until the Meshiac Ben David reigning period in Israel by the chosen Messiah.
It is beautiful to know that some Yehudim, who advocate constructing a third temple (even as problematic as to actual Kingdom establishment as that may prove to be) are open minded enough to permit He who comes suddenly into His Temple to be a returning Yeshua–where the proof is in the pudding, so to speak. They Kingdom come, They will be done. See Acts 3:21 where Peter addresses the chosen Nation, why Yeshua is still in heaven, and what must come to pass for the Return to happen.
It is hard to comprehend the statement you quoted without a more complete read of his theological positions on the “two faces,” or sides of Dr. Brown’s ministry mentioned by another forum contributor. Dr. Brown has a unique story and history which permits him to mitigate between Jew and Gentile, as to belief in the chosen One, and place some well seasoned perspective on religious practice, the observation of holiness by Gentile and Messianic believers in Jesus/Yeshua, and the present redemptive plan of G-d in the Age of the Gentiles, and in the coming Messianic Age. His heart is seasoned too by religious perspective, gained over his persoanl history, religious schools’ involvments and tempering realities, revival structures of grace, truth, and human interpretations of Ruach visitations to believing communities, and considerable time and scholarship spent with the nuances of establishing a Messianic interface with Judaism in its classical, modern, and post modern evolutions.
Zvi has failed to look into what the words of Yeshua as to the future of the Temple system, its Sanhedrin, and official rejection of Yeshua meant for a long season to the chosen people, the Nation, Jerusalem, and a prophetic past and future. Peter sums it up well in the speech he gave the nation around the fulcrum reality spoken of by him in Acts 3:21.
I ask all believers here now to join with me in daily prayer for Zvi’s heart to become indeed circumcised. In the Messiah, Jabez
October 21st, 2009 @ 5:47 pm
Zvi, As to Yeshua’s “natural characteristics” equating him with a God: already shared, his words in John 8. And his power over what indeed is natural, or nature. 1) forming eyes out of mud and spittle, and prayer for a man who apparently had the birth defect of lacking eyes, 2) instantly calming a storm on Lake Kinneset, 3) walking on water to a boatload of frighened disciples, 4) raising at least three dead people from conditions of death, one a Gentile’s child, another a Jewish mother’s child, and an adult friend living once with his sister’s at Bethany, 5) the changing of water to the best of wines, 6) feeling power go out from him when a woman touched the fringes of his prayer shawl when walking past her, which also healed her in a scenario of non show and tell, and, 7) touching a nonproductive fig tree which instantly withered.
So, all this may or may not be demonstrations of “natural characteristics” of a G-d, or chosen Messiah, depending on how one defines what is natural of a G-d. A wave of the hand remark of dismissing “miracles” as so indicative simply does not apply, like it or not, Zvi-Avi.
October 21st, 2009 @ 6:28 pm
Michael, the only way to get to the truth would be to take each issue at a time and analyze it thoroughly, unlike public debates. I have indeed presented you guys with many arguements against christianity. The one issue which we have somewhat analyzed was the geneaoligy issue, although my other questions arre of the same magnitude, I figured that since we have “dug in” to the geneaoligy it would only be fitting to get to the bottom of it. If we continue what we were doing till now, we wont get anywhere, because up untill this point we have been jumping (myself included). It all began on oct.14-where you challenged me from Chronicles, to which I responded that the yirachmiel dynasty ended before the children of sheishan. You challenged me again, and I responded that there are 3 types of….. you didnt disagree, you only claimed that since there was a virgin birth therefore, different standards apply, you also threw in that adoption is also considered a child. To which I countered that according to jewish law adoption doesnt count. Also that there was no virgin birth. So you didnt fight me on the adoption part, you claimed that “almah” means virgin. So at this point your answer to the geneaoligy question hinges on the fact that he was born from a virgin (which will not help anyway) but I brought you verses to prove that almah means young woman, to which you have NOT responded. So at this point you and I moved on to Isaiah, so untill you answer the geneaoligy question there is no point in opening a new discussion since we reached the point that you had no answer to in another.
October 21st, 2009 @ 10:04 pm
“Two faces of Dr. Brown:
#1:
‘Not surprisingly, Christian understanding of Jewish objections to Jesus has often been marked by superficiality, insensitivity, and triumphalism.’
#2
‘At that point, Zvi and others of his ilk will be free to post their views, and I’ll be responding directly. I’m actually quite eager to do so, since every point he has raised here is quite easily refuted — especially when he relies on the rabbinic interpretation of certain biblical passages — and as soon as I have time to devote to the debate forum, I’ll be glad to set the record straight. For now, I can only smile when I read Zvi’s statements, since he actually feels he has made a good point here and there. How sad!’”
“Would you be kind enough to explain where you see two faces here?”
If Dr. Brown #1 cannot see how Dr. Brown #1′s comment did not smack of superficiality, insensitivity, and triumphalism (especially [premature] triumphalism), then am I am curious who what Dr. Brown #2 was referring to in terms of Christians whose understanding of Jewish objections being marked by superficiality, insensitivity, and triumphalism. (I hope this was kind enough)
“It is hard to comprehend the statement you quoted without a more complete read of his theological positions on the ‘two faces,’ or sides of Dr. Brown’s ministry mentioned by another forum contributor.’”
You can find it here:
http://www.realmessiah.com/Read/Entries/2008/12/11_Jewish_Apologetics_-_Christianitys_ongoing_and_Unique_challenge_.html
But Michael, I’m glad you see the two sides too.
Matt
October 21st, 2009 @ 11:30 pm
All, Notice my 3:26 PM and 5:27 PM postings. Notice that these directly answered Zvi’s questions, and that, as usual, Zvi ignored this altogether and went on changing and reframing! Yet this is a person who wants to arrive at “the truth”, give me a break, shut down this blog altogether. Purge it.
October 21st, 2009 @ 11:36 pm
3:26 PM takes care of the geneology issue altogether, ignored.
5:47 completely answers “characteristics of a G-d” question, completely ignored.
Notice and note that this is a person claiming to want “truth”.
October 21st, 2009 @ 11:50 pm
Jabez, First of all, the reason I dont respond to your posts are because you COMPLETELY ignore mine, for example at 3:26 you didnt mention a thing regarding the geneaoligy the only fallacious arguement you have is that there was a virgin birth. But you have ignored the fact that I have provided solid evidence from scripture that almah=young woman.As for 5:47 again-you ignored my proof that miracles do not prove divinity.
October 21st, 2009 @ 11:55 pm
1KI 17:24 Then the woman said to Elijah, “Now I know that you are a man of God and that the word of the LORD from your mouth is the truth.”
Well, sorry to say, Zvi, the opposite also holds.
1KI 22:16 The king said to him, “How many times must I make you swear to tell me nothing but the truth in the name of the LORD?”
1KI 22:17 Then Micaiah answered, “I saw all Israel scattered on the hills like sheep without a shepherd, and the LORD said, `These people have no master. Let each one go home in peace.’ ”
PS 15:1 LORD, who may dwell in your sanctuary?
Who may live on your holy hill?
PS 15:2 He whose walk is blameless
and who does what is righteous,
who speaks the truth from his heart
JER 5:1 “Go up and down the streets of Jerusalem,
look around and consider,
search through her squares.
If you can find but one person
who deals honestly and seeks the truth,
I will forgive this city.
JER 5:2 Although they say, `As surely as the LORD lives,’
still they are swearing falsely.”
JER 5:3 O LORD, do not your eyes look for truth?
You struck them, but they felt no pain;
you crushed them, but they refused correction.
They made their faces harder than stone
and refused to repent.
JER 5:4 I thought, “These are only the poor;
they are foolish,
for they do not know the way of the LORD,
the requirements of their God.
JER 5:5 So I will go to the leaders
and speak to them;
surely they know the way of the LORD,
the requirements of their God.”
But with one accord they too had broken off the yoke
and torn off the bonds.
JER 7:27 “When you tell them all this, they will not listen to you; when you call to them, they will not answer. 28 Therefore say to them, `This is the nation that has not obeyed the LORD its God or responded to correction. Truth has perished; it has vanished from their lips. 29 Cut off your hair and throw it away; take up a lament on the barren heights, for the LORD has rejected and abandoned this generation that is under his wrath.
JER 9:3 “They make ready their tongue
like a bow, to shoot lies;
it is not by truth
that they triumph in the land.
They go from one sin to another;
they do not acknowledge me,”
declares the LORD.
JER 9:4 “Beware of your friends;
do not trust your brothers.
For every brother is a deceiver,
and every friend a slanderer.
JER 9:5 Friend deceives friend,
and no one speaks the truth.
They have taught their tongues to lie;
they weary themselves with sinning.
JER 9:6 You live in the midst of deception;
in their deceit they refuse to acknowledge me,”
declares the LORD.
JER 9:7 Therefore this is what the LORD Almighty says:
“See, I will refine and test them,
for what else can I do
because of the sin of my people?
JER 9:8 Their tongue is a deadly arrow;
it speaks with deceit.
With his mouth each speaks cordially to his neighbor,
but in his heart he sets a trap for him.
JER 9:9 Should I not punish them for this?”
declares the LORD.
“Should I not avenge myself
on such a nation as this?”
DA 8:9 Out of one of them came another horn, which started small but grew in power to the south and to the east and toward the Beautiful Land. 10 It grew until it reached the host of the heavens, and it threw some of the starry host down to the earth and trampled on them. 11 It set itself up to be as great as the Prince of the host; it took away the daily sacrifice from him, and the place of his sanctuary was brought low. 12 Because of rebellion, the host of the saints and the daily sacrifice were given over to it. It prospered in everything it did, and truth was thrown to the ground.
DA 8:13 Then I heard a holy one speaking, and another holy one said to him, “How long will it take for the vision to be fulfilled–the vision concerning the daily sacrifice, the rebellion that causes desolation, and the surrender of the sanctuary and of the host that will be trampled underfoot?”
DA 8:14 He said to me, “It will take 2,300 evenings and mornings; then the sanctuary will be reconsecrated.”
DA 8:15 While I, Daniel, was watching the vision and trying to understand it, there before me stood one who looked like a man. 16 And I heard a man’s voice from the Ulai calling, “Gabriel, tell this man the meaning of the vision.”
DA 8:17 As he came near the place where I was standing, I was terrified and fell prostrate. “Son of man,” he said to me, “understand that the vision concerns the time of the end.”
DA 9:7 “Lord, you are righteous, but this day we are covered with shame–the men of Judah and people of Jerusalem and all Israel, both near and far, in all the countries where you have scattered us because of our unfaithfulness to you. 8 O LORD, we and our kings, our princes and our fathers are covered with shame because we have sinned against you. 9 The Lord our God is merciful and forgiving, even though we have rebelled against him; 10 we have not obeyed the LORD our God or kept the laws he gave us through his servants the prophets. 11 All Israel has transgressed your law and turned away, refusing to obey you.
“Therefore the curses and sworn judgments written in the Law of Moses, the servant of God, have been poured out on us, because we have sinned against you. 12 You have fulfilled the words spoken against us and against our rulers by bringing upon us great disaster. Under the whole heaven nothing has ever been done like what has been done to Jerusalem. 13 Just as it is written in the Law of Moses, all this disaster has come upon us, yet we have not sought the favor of the LORD our God by turning from our sins and giving attention to your truth. 14 The LORD did not hesitate to bring the disaster upon us, for the LORD our God is righteous in everything he does; yet we have not obeyed him.
ZEC 8:3 This is what the LORD says: “I will return to Zion and dwell in Jerusalem. Then Jerusalem will be called the City of Truth, and the mountain of the LORD Almighty will be called the Holy Mountain.”
MT 5:17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19 Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.
Zvi, it seems the lunatic fringe starts in the Prophets and extends its notions into the New Testament of Yeshua
October 21st, 2009 @ 11:58 pm
MT 10:11 “Whatever town or village you enter, search for some worthy person there and stay at his house until you leave. 12 As you enter the home, give it your greeting. 13 If the home is deserving, let your peace rest on it; if it is not, let your peace return to you. 14 If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, shake the dust off your feet when you leave that home or town. 15 I tell you the truth, it will be more bearable for Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town. 16 I am sending you out like sheep among wolves. Therefore be as shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves.
MT 10:17 “Be on your guard against men; they will hand you over to the local councils and flog you in their synagogues. 18 On my account you will be brought before governors and kings as witnesses to them and to the Gentiles. 19 But when they arrest you, do not worry about what to say or how to say it. At that time you will be given what to say, 20 for it will not be you speaking, but the Spirit of your Father speaking through you.
MT 10:21 “Brother will betray brother to death, and a father his child; children will rebel against their parents and have them put to death. 22 All men will hate you because of me, but he who stands firm to the end will be saved. 23 When you are persecuted in one place, flee to another. I tell you the truth, you will not finish going through the cities of Israel before the Son of Man comes.
MT 10:24 “A student is not above his teacher, nor a servant above his master. 25 It is enough for the student to be like his teacher, and the servant like his master. If the head of the house has been called Beelzebub, how much more the members of his household!
MT 10:26 “So do not be afraid of them. There is nothing concealed that will not be disclosed, or hidden that will not be made known. 27 What I tell you in the dark, speak in the daylight; what is whispered in your ear, proclaim from the roofs. 28 Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell. 29 Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? Yet not one of them will fall to the ground apart from the will of your Father. 30 And even the very hairs of your head are all numbered. 31 So don’t be afraid; you are worth more than many sparrows.
MT 10:32 “Whoever acknowledges me before men, I will also acknowledge him before my Father in heaven. 33 But whoever disowns me before men, I will disown him before my Father in heaven.
October 22nd, 2009 @ 12:01 am
MT 13:11 He replied, “The knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them. 12 Whoever has will be given more, and he will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken from him. 13 This is why I speak to them in parables:
“Though seeing, they do not see;
though hearing, they do not hear or understand.
MT 13:14 In them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah:
” `You will be ever hearing but never understanding;
you will be ever seeing but never perceiving.
MT 13:15 For this people’s heart has become calloused;
they hardly hear with their ears,
and they have closed their eyes.
Otherwise they might see with their eyes,
hear with their ears,
understand with their hearts
and turn, and I would heal them.’
MT 13:16 But blessed are your eyes because they see, and your ears because they hear. 17 For I tell you the truth, many prophets and righteous men longed to see what you see but did not see it, and to hear what you hear but did not hear it.
October 22nd, 2009 @ 12:04 am
MT 23:29 “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You build tombs for the prophets and decorate the graves of the righteous. 30 And you say, `If we had lived in the days of our forefathers, we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.’ 31 So you testify against yourselves that you are the descendants of those who murdered the prophets. 32 Fill up, then, the measure of the sin of your forefathers!
MT 23:33 “You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell? 34 Therefore I am sending you prophets and wise men and teachers. Some of them you will kill and crucify; others you will flog in your synagogues and pursue from town to town. 35 And so upon you will come all the righteous blood that has been shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah son of Berekiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar. 36 I tell you the truth, all this will come upon this generation.
MT 23:37 “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing. 38 Look, your house is left to you desolate. 39 For I tell you, you will not see me again until you say, `Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.’ ”
MT 24:1 Jesus left the temple and was walking away when his disciples came up to him to call his attention to its buildings. 2 “Do you see all these things?” he asked. “I tell you the truth, not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down.”
October 22nd, 2009 @ 12:07 am
MT 26:1 When Jesus had finished saying all these things, he said to his disciples, 2 “As you know, the Passover is two days away–and the Son of Man will be handed over to be crucified.”
MT 26:3 Then the chief priests and the elders of the people assembled in the palace of the high priest, whose name was Caiaphas, 4 and they plotted to arrest Jesus in some sly way and kill him. 5 “But not during the Feast,” they said, “or there may be a riot among the people.”
October 22nd, 2009 @ 12:10 am
14 They came to him and said, “Teacher, we know you are a man of integrity. You aren’t swayed by men, because you pay no attention to who they are; but you teach the way of God in accordance with the truth. Is it right to pay taxes to Caesar or not? 15 Should we pay or shouldn’t we?”
But Jesus knew their hypocrisy. “Why are you trying to trap me?” he asked. “Bring me a denarius and let me look at it.” 16 They brought the coin, and he asked them, “Whose portrait is this? And whose inscription?”
“Caesar’s,” they replied.
MK 12:17 Then Jesus said to them, “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s.”
And they were amazed at him.
MK 12:18 Then the Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection, came to him with a question. 19 “Teacher,” they said, “Moses wrote for us that if a man’s brother dies and leaves a wife but no children, the man must marry the widow and have children for his brother. 20 Now there were seven brothers. The first one married and died without leaving any children. 21 The second one married the widow, but he also died, leaving no child. It was the same with the third. 22 In fact, none of the seven left any children. Last of all, the woman died too. 23 At the resurrection whose wife will she be, since the seven were married to her?”
MK 12:24 Jesus replied, “Are you not in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God? 25 When the dead rise, they will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven. 26 Now about the dead rising–have you not read in the book of Moses, in the account of the bush, how God said to him, `I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’ ? 27 He is not the God of the dead, but of the living. You are badly mistaken!”
MK 12:28 One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating. Noticing that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked him, “Of all the commandments, which is the most important?”
MK 12:29 “The most important one,” answered Jesus, “is this: `Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. 30 Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ 31 The second is this: `Love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no commandment greater than these.”
MK 12:41 Jesus sat down opposite the place where the offerings were put and watched the crowd putting their money into the temple treasury. Many rich people threw in large amounts. 42 But a poor widow came and put in two very small copper coins, worth only a fraction of a penny.
MK 12:43 Calling his disciples to him, Jesus said, “I tell you the truth, this poor widow has put more into the treasury than all the others. 44 They all gave out of their wealth; but she, out of her poverty, put in everything–all she had to live on.”
MK 13:1 As he was leaving the temple, one of his disciples said to him, “Look, Teacher! What massive stones! What magnificent buildings!”
MK 13:2 “Do you see all these great buildings?” replied Jesus. “Not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down.”
October 22nd, 2009 @ 12:10 am
This included the Sanhedrin complex.
October 22nd, 2009 @ 12:13 am
LK 4:18 “The Spirit of the Lord is on me,
because he has anointed me
to preach good news to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners
and recovery of sight for the blind,
to release the oppressed,
LK 4:19 to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.”
LK 4:20 Then he rolled up the scroll, gave it back to the attendant and sat down. The eyes of everyone in the synagogue were fastened on him, 21 and he began by saying to them, “Today this scripture is fulfilled in your hearing.”
LK 4:22 All spoke well of him and were amazed at the gracious words that came from his lips. “Isn’t this Joseph’s son?” they asked.
LK 4:23 Jesus said to them, “Surely you will quote this proverb to me: `Physician, heal yourself! Do here in your hometown what we have heard that you did in Capernaum.’ ”
LK 4:24 “I tell you the truth,” he continued, “no prophet is accepted in his hometown. 25 I assure you that there were many widows in Israel in Elijah’s time, when the sky was shut for three and a half years and there was a severe famine throughout the land. 26 Yet Elijah was not sent to any of them, but to a widow in Zarephath in the region of Sidon. 27 And there were many in Israel with leprosy in the time of Elisha the prophet, yet not one of them was cleansed–only Naaman the Syrian.”
LK 4:28 All the people in the synagogue were furious when they heard this. 29 They got up, drove him out of the town, and took him to the brow of the hill on which the town was built, in order to throw him down the cliff. 30 But he walked right through the crowd and went on his way.
More “natural….like a G-d” stuff, Zvi.
October 22nd, 2009 @ 12:15 am
JN 3:1 Now there was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a member of the Jewish ruling council. 2 He came to Jesus at night and said, “Rabbi, we know you are a teacher who has come from God. For no one could perform the miraculous signs you are doing if God were not with him.”
JN 3:3 In reply Jesus declared, “I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again. ”
JN 3:4 “How can a man be born when he is old?” Nicodemus asked. “Surely he cannot enter a second time into his mother’s womb to be born!”
JN 3:5 Jesus answered, “I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit. 6 Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit. 7 You should not be surprised at my saying, `You must be born again.’ 8 The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit.”
JN 3:9 “How can this be?” Nicodemus asked.
JN 3:10 “You are Israel’s teacher,” said Jesus, “and do you not understand these things? 11 I tell you the truth, we speak of what we know, and we testify to what we have seen, but still you people do not accept our testimony. 12 I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things? 13 No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven–the Son of Man. 14 Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the desert, so the Son of Man must be lifted up, 15 that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life.
October 22nd, 2009 @ 12:20 am
Dr. brown also uses gen. 18 as a “proof” to jesus. The problem is as follows: Dr. Brown has stated in you tube debates that when g-d represents himself on this world he uses Jesus. Problem1.All 3 came down to this world namely the trinity, I thought only jesus does it? 2. verse 3 is in singular form and for 4 is in plular form, if we are speaking of the same people was it one or were there more? 3. how can we refer to g-d in plural form? 4. What was the purpose of the visit? If it was to inform them of their why did they have to come as a threesome what was wrong with the alternate methods that abraham used to contact g-d all the other occasions? 5. If g-d comes to visit you what what would you do Dr.brown, offer him a coffee?
October 22nd, 2009 @ 12:55 am
Zvi, As for your young woman vs. virgin mistranslation, I answered you on Eoct 19 at 4:23AM, eastern time. Once again bypassed, ignored, etc. for your own notion of “truth,” discussed in scriptures posted above.
These are generally older prophetic texts, the age of which was stated in the past to be one of your own tests of truth and of the “judges of the Jews,” being in some undiscernable manner the holders of truth. Yet what do these texts above actually attest to as to such being indeed blind guides.
Admit it, Zvi, you’ve not read the prophets on the leaders of the Nation. Samples of which are posted for you above. Perhaps you can work at retranslating all the words therein too, in order that your notion of “truth” replace the notion upheld by these texts?
If you were interested in truth, you’d have to put down your racket, and remove the net in the middle of the process you have erected to avoid catching the ball coming your way of truth.
Who has believed our report?
October 22nd, 2009 @ 12:59 am
Toward the end of these completely ignored postings, is mentioned that after Yeshua’s prophecy about the embellished second Temple compex, the Sanhedrin was undone, the religious system was undone, the Nation’s focus on the law was undone by what the Romans permitted thereafter: the Talmudic pursuit starting near Galilee, of the area named after the pagan leader whose armies tore down the Temple complex, fulfilling the words of Yeshua.
Give it a read, Zvi. Give it a rest, Avi.
October 22nd, 2009 @ 1:10 am
Zvi, “Plural form?”
Give it a read, Zvi. Give it a rest, Avi.
MT 3:11 “I baptize you with water for repentance. But after me will come one who is more powerful than I, whose sandals I am not fit to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire. 12 His winnowing fork is in his hand, and he will clear his threshing floor, gathering his wheat into the barn and burning up the chaff with unquenchable fire.”
MT 3:13 Then Jesus came from Galilee to the Jordan to be baptized by John. 14 But John tried to deter him, saying, “I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?”
MT 3:15 Jesus replied, “Let it be so now; it is proper for us to do this to fulfill all righteousness.” Then John consented.
MT 3:16 As soon as Jesus was baptized, he went up out of the water. At that moment heaven was opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and lighting on him. 17 And a voice from heaven said, “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.”
October 22nd, 2009 @ 9:39 am
Jabez proverbs 30:19 is the reason I ignore you for there we find clearly an “almah” who is not a virgin, for she leaves no trace after the act and she is also married as she tells her husband ” I did no wrong”. You keep quoting the nt, well guess what? I DONT BELIEVE IN IT. So please stop quoting it our focus should be on the ot. Regardless, I dont want to movr on to other matters untill we all realize that the “geneaoligy from King david” component is missing. Jabez, in the next post I ask you if you can respond to the proof that I have brought from proverbs.
October 22nd, 2009 @ 10:03 am
Zvi,
There was no need for me to follow up on my genealogy discussion with you because that was answered for me by Ryan L, Craig, and Jabez, and I agree with all of them. I won’t waste time trying to explain what they already have. Your disapproval of what they have written has been explained over and over to you, but you continue to be unsatisified. You’re just going to have to be unhappy with their answers, so deal with it, because our minds are made up. Next issue please, if you have anything else. I don’t know why you even bother to argue with us if you are not even open to the New Testament Scriptures. How can you even argue when you haven’t even read the New Testament for yourself? It’s like trying to tell Adam and Eve that they didn’t speak to a serpent because serpent’s don’t talk, or trying to tell Jonah he wasn’t in the belly of a fish for 3 days because no could live after that. Which raises the question, why do you believe those stories, and not believe the New Testament? If you’d just look for yourself, they flow together perfectly.
October 22nd, 2009 @ 10:29 am
Jabez H. says:
October 21, 2009 at 5:21 pm
Craig,
I have read most of Michael Brown’s writings, and heard his comments on the matter which stimulated many personal feelings and responses in you. It seems that some personal pain and lack of inclusion among certain questionable fellowship experiences is in your own story. It may save you some years of “working out your own salvation with fear and trembling,” which only appears once in the NT, to discuss these issues and matters with a trusted elder, mentor, or counselor. As these are matters of experience, some of it apparently isolating ideed, and hurtful, as well as the matter of theological perspective, it would be good to talk out these perspectives shared on this forum 1:1 with such a person.
——————————————————
Jabez,
I better clear this up with you.
I have had Dr. Brown’s CD collection for a number of years and a Book of Jewish Objections for which I thank God for.
As for inclusion most Church’s have been spiritually dead for many years. They would not let the SPIRIT of God in. Outside the Church’s is a different story where they are led by the Lord but inside they have been oppressed, and would be mocked if they revealed their secret pearls from above.
As for “working out your own salvation with fear and trembling,” my walk with Jesus is real. I have trembled and feared for sure.
The Lord’s Father spoke to me 30 years ago as He showed me in a Vision in GREAT DARKNESS His Son being Crucified.
He said don’t crucify my Son Again! What did He mean! I know, don’t doubt my salvation and pick up my cross and follow the Saviour. Another time in that place while sitting up, the adjacent wall had become completly covered with Tongues of FIRE as if you could only see a 1000 flames of candles. The Host was standing in front of me in the SPIRIT of GOD. I would share more but won’t.
Is only believing in Jesus enough to be known in History as a Christian.
Christians whether Jew or Gentile are a new creation.
Those of the race of Hebrews who died in God’s care waited for the day of there captivity to end where the Messiah would set them free. Not all Jews entered.
Anyone can say they are a Christian but they aren’t if they aren’t born again, born of water and of the Spirit.
A Jew is a Jew by natural birth, a Christian is a Jew or Gentile who is Born from Above.
As a 3 year old baby I had even seen an Angel of God who I remember quit clearly wearing a white robe while flying away. I was delivered of fear that night but strayed as I got older. As a little boy I was christened, I have spent nealy 60 years in all Trinitarian Church’s. A young child in Presb., United. Spent time in Baptist, Lutheren, Methodist, Anglican, Pentacostal, non-Denom., served in Missionary Alliance.
Even was married in a Catholic Church. Baptised in water by a lovely Evangelist.
I have met many lovely people from all denominations whom I believe did or will enter God’s Kingdom.
When asked as a young man what my religion was I would reply Christian. I believed in Jesus. I was lost in a big world doing my own thing. I did not have a walk with the Saviour. As a teenager I was a father, I had been to jail a few times. I can go on and on yet If someone asked me if I was a Christian I would tell them Yes!
But I was not Born Again. When I was 26 years old I got on my knees, repented and the Spirit of God Baptized me literally in Fire. I’m a Christian whom the Father and the Son speak to daily. I have no need to apoligize to anyone as a Christian but as a human I had done many a wrongs in my past. Those that murder Jews and Christian’s who call themselves Christian are not the Christian Church. The Jewish people need to understand that! The Christian Church is without walls. If there are walls than it is a building and a building can have anyone who wishes enter it.
Both my parents fought Nazi’s, one a young man in his teens in Northern Africa for 6 years against Rommel and my mom in England making equipment for aircraft. Both fatherless and teens fighting against evil. They both believed in Jesus but it took them almost 40 years later to accept Jesus into their hearts where they than confessed they knew they belonged to Jesus.
As for our Hands are stained with Blood some may take an approach that only a few have those hands OR as I do Everone’s Hands are stained with Blood. Not saying anyone here is doing that but some do. Both Hebrew and Gentile hands are stained.
Many Romans saw or heard the miracles Yeshua did too! Some believed!
Sure the Jewish leader plotted to kill and had Him arrested but the Gentile’s had a part as well. They beat Him till His flesh was torn and than dove nails in His hands and feet and hung Him high to be mocked by both Jew and Gentile(HUMANS and if God shows you spiritual wicked ones too). He is still being MOCKED THIS VERY DAY by both Jew and Gentile!
Man mean’t it for evil but God mean’t it for good! As Joseph so the King suffered. Joseph forgived his brothers. So did Yeshua while hanging on that tree. The Father saw His Son’s Love for man and the Son completed His Fathers Love for Man.
Joh:3:1: There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews:
Joh:3:2: The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him.
Joh:3:3: Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
Joh:3:4: Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother’s womb, and be born?
Joh:3:5: Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
Joh:3:6: That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
Joh:3:7: Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.
Joh:3:8: The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.
Joh:3:9: Nicodemus answered and said unto him, How can these things be?
Joh:3:10: Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things?
Joh:3:11: Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen; and ye receive not our witness.
Joh:3:12: If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?
Joh:3:13: And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.
Joh:3:14: And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:
Joh:3:15: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.
October 22nd, 2009 @ 10:38 am
Zvi, The maid, or Almah of Pvbs 30:19 is, in context, not the one who commits adultery, but the man taking advantage of her virginity who is married. Further, if it were a reference to her sin, it is a Proverb, an insightful word of wisdom on the four examples explored as given, not a prophetic or literal reference to a young sexually mature and feritile virgin in its context at all: other than as a moral teaching about male llust, and young virgin vulnerability. So, your interpretation of example falls to the ground to be trodden under the feet of even the unschooled.
In its reference the vile adulterer debauches “a moid,” or sexually desireable virgin. This reference you must have had to search hard for, then it does not uphold your interpretation at all.
October 22nd, 2009 @ 10:46 am
Michael, all the names you mentioned have been disproven, if you will will notice nobody has responded to the verse in proverbs. The only one that had a fair discussion, twice was Brianroy, but you can read the posts for yourself. There is NO point in me us moving on to othe questions because you’ll just respond the same way you did here. You say “we made up our minds” meaning we know that we are right regarding Jesus so lets move on. I have put in hours and hours into this particular question, its very easy to say “well thats your opinion”, that can be said when we are debating stuff that depend on opinion, religion is based on scripture not on opinion, 95 percent of my arguements (generously speaking) are backed by scripture. NOT opinion. The geneaoligy question was posed, Moshiach, comes from king david through the father, your “opinion was (not backed by scripture) that there is no need to follow the scripture, for in the case of a virgin even scripture would agree. The problem is 1. you got no proof to that. 2.the word almah does not=virgin, so your theory can take a hike. almah=virgin backed by 2 verses, the response-”you dont have to like our answers”. The bottom line is-if there is no answer to this question, down goes the religion.
October 22nd, 2009 @ 10:50 am
Zvi,
My fatherles parents not even being adults were not saved by righteous works , even fighting Hitler. Not even my Mom’s heritage!
I wasn’t saved because of my parents. So it is with those who came from Abraham’s loins.
Jesus of Nazareth SAVED them and me.
Ge:22:8: And Abraham said, My son, God will provide himself a lamb for a burnt offering: so they went both of them together.
John:1:29: The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.
Israel feared the Baptist! Who was he Zvi?
Rev:22:3: And there shall be no more curse: but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it; and his servants shall serve him:
October 22nd, 2009 @ 10:53 am
Jabez, The verse clearly refers to a woman in the context of sin, the verse says “SHE” eats and wipes HER mouth and SHE says I did no wrong.
October 22nd, 2009 @ 10:57 am
Matt,
For you to say that Dr. Brown has 2 faces shows how little you actually know about him. You take 2 quotes totally unrelated and try to make it appear as if he’s using a double standard. Give me a break! And you meant to use Craig’s name on your last comment, saying that Craig can see 2 faces of Dr. Brown, based on his prior comment asking Dr. Brown what he meant by those quotes you used. As a gentile believer in Yeshua, it is quite easy to see what Dr. Brown was saying regarding the Christian’s often superficial, insensitive, and triumphal understanding of Jewish objections. If you’d read “Our Hands Are Stained With Blood”, it’s easy to see what he’s talking about. Many Jews have objected to anything that has to do with Christianity because of many historical instances of so-called Christians persecuting Jews as a result of not accepting their message, which is completely contrary to the teachings of Yeshua. True Christians need to have their eyes opened to this history as they share the Good News of Yeshua with Jews. It will help Christians better understand one reason some Jews reject the Gospel so much.
October 22nd, 2009 @ 10:59 am
Zvi the young women who bears a child whos name is Immanuel is Mary. Obviously a young woman who bears a child must have some reason to be a Sign from the Lord. Stiffnecked!
Question, why do the Prophets say the Lord shall suddenly come to his temple. Wasn’t God already there!
Mal:3:1: Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me: and the Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his temple, even the messenger of the covenant, whom ye delight in: behold, he shall come, saith the LORD of hosts.
M’t:12:6: But I say unto you, That in this place is one greater than the temple.
October 22nd, 2009 @ 11:08 am
So, Craig, I think your points are well taken, except we really cannot say what “most” Christian groups are or are not, for we have not had the opportunity to visit all such within and without of the walls you mentioned. I am older than you and have experienced both positive and negative teaching and fellowship among similar groups.
I agree that all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of G-d.
And, your insight that: Man mean’t it for evil but God mean’t it for good! must then apply to work all experiences for good over time in anyone seeking to be connected to the Lord.
Even so, what your detailed statements as made proclaimed did in fact unveil some struggle, some need for further peace, and an apparent need to heed what you described by someone somewhere acknowledging what you wrote, as to its reality, and its impact.
You seem to have a wide and varied background of religious experience, not self regarded for the most part as progressive. What helps me in such instances is to know that any and all religion is merely a human response to the existence of G-d, or to social cultural assumptions. It is not necessarly reflective of the image of G-d at all. What is reflective indeed is to find the status gquo and cause and effect of the Lord and his gifts sent into this world both within and without.
Most of us need some measure of validation to enjoy fellowship at all. Even Michael Brown is compelled to express his personal vision by the condepts and communication he pursues, leading to connectivity and its challenges. He has organized the various outreaches around the web portal bearing his name. I think he was speaking as an observer-scholar of Church history–where the Church represents an unqualified presence of the namesake of Yeshua./Jesus throughout world history–when he gave the sentence(s) you cited. I agree with that sentence in that regard.
What the statement could not and was not meant to account for was the kind of pesonal struggle, and existential realities you shared. It was an altogether different analysis. Triumphalism in particular can be associated with certain history where church and state were cojoinly pursued in recorded history, which led to “Christianization,” gross intolerance, and the social-cultural references involved over asserting their own assumptions of order. Self government has often been the agent of revival and the bane of corruption and boundaryless crushing of the liberty you speak of associated with the Spirit of the Messiah.
It still seems to me that you may have unresolved outlooks and issues in your first post discussed here. This brings up one of my own convictions about “the church.” It cannot and will not mature into the “full stature” of the Messiah without understanding and pursuing unequivicably the instruction given the Churhes, or Ecclesias, in Mt. 18 by the Lord King Messiah. I admire your open and self referencing reality mentioned, it takes such stuff not to play religious or personality cultish games while attempting to gather together in the Name on this earth in this Age.
October 22nd, 2009 @ 11:12 am
As usual, Zvi has ignored and has blinders on as to what he stated about Almah:
“if you will will notice nobody has responded to the verse in proverbs.”
Zvi, I do not appreciate being called a nobody. And. last time I looked, felt, and walked, my body worked just fine. It was the thoughts and assumptions I addressed, not the body at all.
October 22nd, 2009 @ 11:17 am
Zvi,
I don’t doubt you’ve put in plenty of hours on the topic of genealogy since it’s all you want to talk about. I don’t foresee you wanting to talk about anything else since you’re so invested in this. I guess that’s one area that makes you feel so good about yourself even though you’ve been shot down by others, especially Ryan L. That’s all you know how to argue about, and no one’s buying it. There’s nothing else to discuss on this. I know this kills you because want to keep talking about it and you’re addicted to debating this. We having nothing left to say. If you want, to keep up your debate streak on genealogy, you can go print out all the arguments made against you, and pretend you are arguing with someone, and do this over and over. We have nothing left to say. Or, if it makes you feel better, we can go buy you an ice cream and pat you on the back, and tell you “okay, we’ll just say you won”.
October 22nd, 2009 @ 11:35 am
Zvi,
Of course the maid so beguiled would have to deal with it in her own way, after the fact. This does not mean she was not a young sexually mature virgin to begin with, as was the case. Let it go, Zvi, it is totally not in keeping with the literal and prophetic references, being a moral teaching example about a Man debauching a maid, and her own reality thereafter.
October 22nd, 2009 @ 11:38 am
As addressed then an Almah is a reference to a young virgin at a certain state of fertility, as is proven by all its uses in the Tenach.
Zvi would apparently like to have its considered reference meaning something else altogether. Alas, attempting to conform language to a preconceived idea, rather than learning from the actual references the considered intention of the word no longer in question.
October 22nd, 2009 @ 11:49 am
Jabez I have have been to God’s hospital more than once and I’m pretty sure I’ll will have to go again some time!
We all get hurt.
October 22nd, 2009 @ 1:12 pm
Craig, We may get hurt, and eventually go to Messiah in us for motivation and real connection. Where one does not fit the PR mode that this culture holds so dear, one learns to work though their stuff, and return to one’s “first love” for handling the challenges involved.
Think about it, acceptance in the beloved is the basis of our being.
October 22nd, 2009 @ 1:54 pm
And, Zvi, the next proverb of the list given in the 30th proverb is about Hisah, not Almah. The 20th verse about an adulterous is clearly not connected to the 19th verse where a man has his way with a maiden virgin. Look at what follows thereafter and prior, other different proverbal thoughts. Why would the author not expand on the other three of four items listed from 19, if the 20th verse were about the 19th verse ending? Think about it, look at the 30th’s listing, proverb by proverb.
October 22nd, 2009 @ 3:27 pm
jabez the verse in 20 is a continuation of verse 19 for it says “SO” is the way…….. the word so connects it to the previous verse, lets be reaslistic here.
October 22nd, 2009 @ 3:37 pm
II’ll post the Hebrew for you, where it is not so. I’d suggest you read it first on your own.
October 22nd, 2009 @ 3:38 pm
It will be a few hours away, plus, the author is not on par with the law, and the prophets.
October 22nd, 2009 @ 3:40 pm
Craig I explained what the sign was in previous posts, just take a peek.
October 22nd, 2009 @ 4:23 pm
I’m happy to hear that Michael isn’t jewish.
October 23rd, 2009 @ 1:51 am
I was blessed to find, when working from the Hebrew, that most modern and medieval Tenach scholars see 30:20 as a completely contrasting verse to 30:19, where context grants the listed vs. 19 “four….ways” meaning of author/sage intention as contrary to the manner which is characterized as to what follows of adultery, vs. 20; in making translations of these thematically different two verses. First the four phenomena’s mysterious guiding and animated ways are natural components only G-d can comprehend and design into creation, and are, as such, listed before that of an unnatural and deceitful adulterer’s way.
Yes, the Heb. “Ken”, leading the 20th vs., which has become modern Hebrew’s “Yes”, could mean thus or so, as an adjective; however, it does not flow from the prior text, and so it has most often been translated as “This [is]” or “Whereas” [where a contrarily occurring worldly phenomena is the insensitivity of the unnatural adulterer to sin, not part of the plan of G-d’s natural creation phenomena ways]. Where either of these vs. 20 translation renderings translates “Ken” as composing a subject, not an adjective (or, if an adjective, of a contrasting intent) such are because, in this case, it is viewed as a “much the lesser fact” not as a “result of” condition.
A man attracted to and being with a maden does not equate as an adulterous with a sin problem. This is how families come into existence. This is why a larger reading of what was stated prior, in vs. 19, and in virtually all other Tenach uses of Almah about a young fertile virgin woman would contrast in character and listing with the seasoned adulterous woman of vs. 20 (not in Heb. Almah at all); she being she who has no conscience due to her calloused detachment from the natural attraction created way.
It is the natural attraction and anticipation of a woman who was recently a child, and is now an inexperienced but naturally attracted young woman, who as a virgin is approached as a “maiden” by a suitor for the first time. It is the first infatuation draw of courtship and “chemistry”, as to the ways of the natural processes of attraction, which leads the maiden to eventually become one with her suitor. This is not the stuff of the adulterous woman, whose heart is far separated from the natural “ways” the sage has given as such by illustrations of these as found in creation’s given pursuits cited above this verse.
Thanks to a good read of the various scholars and the Ruach Ha Kodesh as to the above information.
October 23rd, 2009 @ 2:05 am
My usual typos. A correction. A man attracted to and being with a maiden does not equate as an adulteress with a sin problem. A Jewish sage figured this out for us and wrote these two verses.
October 23rd, 2009 @ 10:21 am
Jabez, the verse is listing examples of events that leave no trace, one of them being a man with an almah, why doesnt a male with an almah leave a trace if we are discussing a virgin??? Obviouly we arent discussing a virgin! Besides for the fact that ken- is a continuation and you traslation of ken wont even fit into cotext never mind the translation of the word. Lets start with verse 19 itself WHY DOES SHE LEAVE NO TRACE?
October 23rd, 2009 @ 10:27 am
It is interesting to me, whether someone attempting to assualt and invalidate the truth of Messianic prophecy, my person as a disciple of Yeshua, other disciples, or in the case of a well studied and degreed Mikael Brown, PhD, how inquisitive human nature is when belief coupled with conviction is in the mix. As Zvi past stated “we all have Rashi,” meaning Rashi’s commentaries written down in various reference materials. Whether the “all” therein referred to are those inquirers of one side of a debate, as those opposing the Yeahua Ben David foundations, or are those of both sides of a debate I do not know without asking Zvi. But it is clear that those of conviction will go to great lengths to bolster their beliefs.
What we need to avoid is no self disclosure where we go to the references, as I did on the material above after reading it in two languages, and discover what is our predisposition or the emphatic treatment of a passage, and say it is so as though we were its author in the first place. Those who like intellectual pursuits are boarderline know-it-alls who will sometimes offend someone, somewhere. We cannot please all the people all the time on supporting or reversing well entrenched ideas.
This is why it becomes important to do a good read of material as to its own intention prior to publishing the common reference meaning, or our own preferred meaning.
It is clear to me after looking over and over at the uses of Almah–young fertile virgin woman–in Hebrew Tenach textsual context, that this is a unique reference most often dilineated from other less mature “virgin” Hebrew references. In fact, it holds a qunique meaning in describing such a woman at a particular state of a female person’s bodily development and potential for pregnancy.
October 23rd, 2009 @ 10:57 am
Zvi, I do not follow you on “leave no trace.” Can you be more descriptive as to what you are holding is the common thread, apparently, of the four things on which the sage is offering his two cents worth? It is Almah vs, Hisa, not rabbit tracks vs. naturally progressing ways.
October 23rd, 2009 @ 10:57 am
Zvi, I like to glean (cut and paste) from the Internet!
Shows that there wasn’t a plot by followers in Christ time or afterwards to alter the meaning of ‘alma’ and that Jewish scholars understood before Christ it’s meaning.
Shows also that Jewish scholars believed it was a virgin, a woman.
The Septuagint renders ‘almâ in Isaiah 7:14 as parthenos, which means “a female of marriageable age with focus on virginity” (Danker, 2000, p. 777). Concerning the Septuagint translation of the Hebrew, Dohmen noted:
It is unlikely that the LXX [Septuagint] tried to import the concept of a virgin birth, a familiar idea in many religious traditions, into Isa. 7:14. It is also possible that the unusual translation of the LXX is an attempt to accommodate the meaning of the text as altered by both the redaction and the reception of the original prophetic oracle (2001, 10:160, emp. added).
The translators of the Greek Septuagint rendered ‘almâ as parthenos, which generally means “virgin,” instead of neanis, which generally means “young woman” (Danker, p. 667). Jerome, in his translation of the Bible into Latin, rendered parthenos as virgo, which usually means “virgin” (Dohmen, 10:160). It is interesting that the translators of the Septuagint took the thought of the Hebrew passage and translated it into a Greek word for “virgin.” Since they worked about two hundred years before Christ was born, then the translators of the Septuagint could not have been trying to “fit” scripture to a Christian viewpoint, but instead were merely giving the correct translation for the passage. Of the passage in Isaiah 7:14, H.D.M. Spence and Joseph Exell made the following observations:
The rendering “virgin” has the support of the best modern Hebraists, as Lowth, Gesenius, Ewald, Delitzsch, Kay. It is observed with reason that unless ’almah is translated “virgin,” there is no announcement made worth of the grand prelude: “The Lord himself shall give you a sign—Behold!” The Hebrew, however, has not “a virgin” but “the virgin” (and so the Septuagint, h parthenos), which points to some special virgin, preeminent above all others (1962, 10:128, emp. in orig., italicized Greek words transliterated from Greek characters in orig.).
The point is well made that Isaiah was emphasizing a special birth, worthy of being considered a sign from God. With that in mind, the logical translation for ‘almâ is “virgin.”
Besides Isaiah 7:14, ‘almâ is used in Genesis 24:43, Exodus 2:8, Psalm 68:25, Proverbs 30:19, Song of Solomon 1:3 and 6:8. In an examination of the passages using the word ‘almâ, H.C. Leupold concluded that it “cannot be denied that such a one is to be classified as a virgin” (1988, 1:156). James Coffman drew an identical conclusion in his Commentary on Isaiah, citing Homer Hailey’s conclusion that the word ‘almâ , as used in the Old Testament, must be referring to a virgin (1990, p. 75). J. Gresham Machen, in his classic book, The Virgin Birth of Christ, indicated that “there is no place among the seven occurrences of ‘almah in the Old Testament where the word is clearly used of a woman who was not a virgin” (1980, p. 288).
October 23rd, 2009 @ 11:05 am
Dr Cooper shows the principle of the law of double reference within the Tanach.
A great controversy has raged for years concerning the significance of the word ‘almah in the original text of Isaiah. Some scholars insist that it means a young married woman, whereas others contend that it means simply what the English word virgin connotes–an unmarried, virtuous woman of marriageable age. There is but one way to determine its significance, which is to examine every occurrence of this word in the Hebrew Bible and study it in the light of the facts of each context. By such a method one can find its exact meaning. It occurs seven times in the Hebrew Scriptures. In my book Messiah: His Nature and Person, I examine microscopically the facts of each context in which this word occurs. In the six other places in which it is found, the facts show that the writers, without exception, had a pure, unmarried virgin in mind. The assumption, therefore, is that it has the same signification in Isaiah 7:14 as it does in the other occurrences, unless there are facts in the context which show positively that it has a different meaning.
What are the facts of this context? The occasion of Isaiah’s uttering this prophecy was as follows: The kings of the Northern Kingdom of Israel and of Syria had entered into an alliance to fight against Judah, to overthrow Ahaz, the reigning monarch, and to place their own appointee on the throne. In anticipation of the coming war, Ahaz was inspecting the water supply of the city. The Lord sent Isaiah the Prophet to the young king and offered to perform a miracle either in the heavens above or in the deep beneath–wherever Ahaz designated–in order to strengthen his faith. It is clear that the word sign here indicates supernatural activity. Ahaz was simply to tell where he wished the Lord to perform this miracle. Though a descendant of David, Ahaz was an impious hypocrite who was determined to have his own way. When the Lord offered to perform this miracle, he made a pious dodge, saying, “I will not ask, neither will I tempt Jehovah.” Suddenly he became very pious and godly–judged by his words. He had already made his plans to enlist Tiglath-pileser III, ruler of the great Assyrian Empire, in his struggle against his enemies. He, therefore, did not want to change his plans. When he spurned truth and divine help, Isaiah turned from him and addressed the house of David of the future saying: “Hear ye now, 0 House of David, Is it a small thing for you to weary men, that ye will weary my God also? Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.” The word sign meant a miracle when it was addressed to Ahaz. It had the same connotation when it was addressed to the house of David of the future. Thus in Isaiah 7:14 it means a miracle; namely, that there is to be an extraordinary birth of a child–”behold a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel” [God with us]. Thus verses 13 and 14 of chapter 7 foretell the miraculous conception and virgin birth of a person, who is to be God in human form.
Verses 10-12 are addressed to Ahaz, as proved by the use of the personal pronouns in the singular number. Another important fact to note in this connection is that in verses 13 and 14 the plural pronouns are used in reference to the house of David: “13 … Hear ye [plural] now, 0 house of David: Is it a small thing for you to weary men, that ye will weary my God also? 14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you [plural] a sign: behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.” Thus in verses 13 and 14 Isaiah was speaking to the house of David of the future.
In verses 15-17 the number of the pronoun has been changed again–this time, back to the singular. These verses were spoken directly to Ahaz since the child whose birth is foretold in them was to be born in the very near future. Thus one sees in verses 13 and 14 the birth of the child who is Immanuel; but, in verses 15-17, the birth of the child of the immediate future.
In verses 15-17 Isaiah speaks thus: “15 Butter and honey shall he eat, when he knoweth to refuse the evil, and choose the good. 16 For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land whose two kings thou abhorrest shall be forsaken. 17 Jehovah will bring upon thee and upon thy people, and upon thy father’s house, days that have not come, from the day that Ephraim departed from Judah–even the king of Assyria.”
Because of the pronoun he in verse 15, some scholars insist that only one child is mentioned in verses 14-17. Of these, some declare that the reference is to the child born of an ‘almah, mentioned in verse 14, and that, therefore, this child is the one referred to throughout the prophecy. In verses 15-17, however, Isaiah states that, before the child to be born “shall know to refuse the evil and to choose the good,” the lands whose two kings Ahaz abhors–the land of Israel and the land of Syria–will be forsaken, and that Jehovah will bring upon Ahaz and Judah days that they have not experienced since “Ephraim departed from Judah–even the king of Assyria.” Since this king of Assyria is the one who overran Syria in 734 B.C., and who in 721 B.C. overran Israel, the child mentioned in verses 15-17 was to be born in the very near future. Some scholars who insist that only one child is mentioned in the prophecy declare, therefore, that the child who was to be born in the near future is the one referred to throughout verses 14-17. This method of handling the facts is a superficial way of looking at the situation. One must note carefully all the facts of the context. The number of the pronouns of the second person is singular in verses 11 and 15-17, because they refer to Ahaz, and plural in verses 13 and 14, because they refer to the house of David of the future. In each instance, the birth of a child is foretold: to the house of David of the future is given the prophecy concerning the child to be born of an ‘almah, a virgin; to Ahaz, that pertaining to the child to be born in the immediate future.
How can this situation be explained? All thorough students of the Bible know that there is a principle which obtains throughout the prophetic word, and which may be illustrated thus: A picture is thrown upon the screen. Then as it begins to dim, the faint outline of another appears. By the time the first one has faded from the screen, the second is in full view. This illustration adequately sets forth the principle of the law of double reference. An excellent example of this law is found in Ezekiel, chapter 26. In verses 7-11, one finds a definite oracle concerning Nebuchadnezzar, King of Babylon, who fought against Tyre for thirteen years, as history shows; but he did not capture the city. The pronouns he, him and the possessive adjective his, referring to Nebuchadnezzar, occur a number of times in this block of Scripture; but in verse 12 these terms cease. Instead, the pronoun they is used. In verses 7-11, which are devoted to the oracle regarding Nebuchadnezzar, there is no word that can be the antecedent of the pronoun they of verse 12. To what word does this pronoun refer? The answer is to be found in the content of this prophecy and in a knowledge of Greek history which one gets from profane records. As suggested above, after a hard war of thirteen years, Nebuchadnezzar gave up the seige of Tyre as a failure and abandoned the conflict. The Tyrians did not want to undergo another such siege. They, therefore, built a new city on the island, which was about a half mile from the mainland. They strongly fortified this new position. Approximately three hundred years after Nebuchadnezzar, Alexander the Great came upon the scene, sweeping everything before him. In order to capture this island fortress, he made a causeway from the mainland to it. The material which he used for this purpose was the ruins of continental Tyre, that had been forsaken. Over this causeway he sent his battering rams to the city and soon captured it. Thus Alexander fulfilled the prophecy in Ezekiel 26:12.
This prophecy of Ezekiel then is a case of double reference. Figuratively speaking, continental Tyre is thrown upon the screen in verses 7-11. Then it begins to fade, and at the same time the dim outlines of another siege, that of insular Tyre 500 years later, by Alexander the Great is thrown upon the screen. No other way of interpreting the passage can be found if one is willing to let the words stand as they appear in the text. The passage in Isaiah 7:10-17 is fashioned after the same pattern of the law of double reference. Thus in verses 13 and 14 is the prediction of the miraculous conception and virgin birth of Him who is called Immanuel, God in human form, the Messiah of Israel; but in verses 15-17 there is another prophecy of an altogether different child. The birth of this child was in the very near future from Isaiah’s day, but centuries intervened between the fulfillment of these two predictions.
October 23rd, 2009 @ 11:06 am
Continued….
According to this same pattern, the prophets frequently spoke of the first coming of the Messiah and blended their predictions with oracles concerning His second advent. In such predictions the entire Christian Dispensation is passed over in silence, the two pictures blending one into the other. Isaiah 11:1,2, for example, foretells the first coming of the Messiah; verses 3-5, the second. Another illustration of the same law of double reference is found in Zechariah 9: 9,10. Verse 9 undoubtedly is speaking of the first coming of the Messiah; verse 10 is devoted entirely to the second advent; but the entire Christian Dispensation separating the two advents is passed over in silence. Thus the prophecy presenting the first coming and blending with the prediction concerning the Second Coming is in a way analogous to that foretelling the births of the two boys in Isaiah, chapter 7.
October 23rd, 2009 @ 11:12 am
Craig, send me your telephone number (Jaych.1@juno.com), I’ll call you sometime soon.
October 23rd, 2009 @ 11:13 am
The verse discusses 4 things that leave no trace in verse 19, an eagle, a snake, a ship, and a man with an almah, all leave no trace, why no trace? for she is no virgin.
October 23rd, 2009 @ 11:20 am
Craig and Jabez, Samuel 1-17-56 Elem ayin. lamid,mem=young man, the root of the female almah the same word as na’ar in the previous verse. and again samuel-1-20-22 elem again as youg man=na’ar. So while you looked up every time the word almah is used you forgot to look up the ROOT of the word.
October 23rd, 2009 @ 9:32 pm
Cute Logic on the 23rd at 11:13, Zvi! It is what you do not say which speaks volumes. Sure, one can say there are 4 things which leave no trace, or ten thousand other possibilities as to what the 4 ways indicate (such as what I said earlier about these being natural occurances in G-d’s creation). You would be more than arrogant to assume your suggestion is somehow the right one. I am sure I could give you at least a half dozen other logical explainations. Or theories, as more accurately put.
You have not established that the Almah maiden attracted to the suitor is the Hisa of verse 20 at all; back to the interpretation drawing board, Zvi.
No Zvi, I did not fail to look up the root of Almah, for I did. Then I and the others mentioned by Craig, and other Biblical scholars went to the next logical exegetical indication of meaning (and it is not “no trace” at all). It is called induction of meaning determination by context or as to textual literary criticism. Once one looks at such a minor minor sage as wrote these proverbs, one is compelled to look at the foundation literature of the Law and the Prophets to establish actual meaning. How many thousands of years have transpired since all this was written down, Zvi?
The best induction possible starts with an actual passage, looks at the significant words, their arrangements and linkages, then goes slightly bigger in context usage, then bigger, then bigger to other such useage throughout the Tenach.
Nowhere do we find indication 0f the absolutie and therefore erroneous conclusion you have advanced as the only possiblility Zvi. And this contributes too to a perception of your analysis by readers here as quite myoptic, at best. There is myopic inference of meaning, but not scholarly induction, textual literal or literary ciriticism, nor wider use reference established. Your words continue to fall to the ground.
Zvi, I would venture to guess that you are quite nearsighted!
October 23rd, 2009 @ 10:49 pm
I understand it can get tense here occasionally, but as an encouragement, lets continue to discuss / debate with the heart of Matt 5:
3″Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. 4Blessed are those who mourn, for they will be comforted. 5Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth. 6Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be filled. 7Blessed are the merciful, for they will be shown mercy. 8Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God. 9Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God. 10Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
October 24th, 2009 @ 12:24 am
OK Ben, but looking to Yeshua, in his debates with his critics, e.g. the woe to the scribes and pharisees chapter appearing thereafter, it is not a tnesion about peacemaking at all, but about truthtelling, which Yeshua took to task. So Ben, we have to look to Yeshua’s entire contexts of debates and truth being seated in reality before becoming persecuted for righteousness, as did Yeshua. Your apparent concern is not founded by the Lion of the trive of Judah, but by a partial selection of a partial representation of one “sermon” or treatise of the Messiah. This treatise was given to the crowd which appeared before Him, which was characterized by Him quite differently than Zvi has represented himself and his argumentation herein.
October 24th, 2009 @ 12:34 am
If believers in Yeshua do not embrace his essential character in given applications they will uphold a different Yeshua than the scriptures represent in given challenges and contexts. It is very helpful for believers who cannot so perceive Yeshua to read the 18th cahpater of Matthew as to the heart and Way of Yeshua, when pursuing the lost sheep, and leaving the frame of reference of the sheepfold in the process.
He goes on to advocate a direct approach to anyone of the Ecclesia who offends, with the notion in mind of permitting the hearer of an issue to reconcile with the direct communicator of offense. In this case pointing out the fallacy of Zvi, or any I may bring into the forum, is not inappropriate, but is regardful of truth and grace’s cotempering reality of the fullness of the Messiah in relational application. It is time that the churches realize the Way of Yeshua in our own dispute and conflict resolution processes, and not shrink from a pursuit of truth’s cutting edge to pursue grace at its expense. Grace so pursued becomes mush, not euqipping a sword of truth when taken to extreme at all.
I do not find the tension you refer to in the frank discussion and confrontational modeling of Yeshua Ha Meshiac, Messiah Ben David. We must remember why he is returning, how so, and what will happen on that Day, in order to mitigate other possibliites for reconciliation in the meantime.
The Lion of the tribe of Judah is seen in the C.S. Lewis Wlden Media/Disney releases of the Chronicles of Narnia not holding back his alliance with truth, so as to submit to evil without a righteous administration of Justice, Mercy, Lovingkindness, and cutting edge fire from heaven.
October 24th, 2009 @ 12:51 am
In contemplation, in good report, in gentleness and service, we will experience persecution primarily because of the Way of Yeshua differing than the ways of cunning denial entertained the Messiah not being He, the chosen one.
It is when life is at its most demanding, not about armchairdiscussions of scriptural word nuance possibilities, that the light of the Lord is proven, tested, and holds. Yeshua was Holocausted before the holocaust because he had the character of the living G-d. Sadly, He came to his own, and His own received Him not.
October 24th, 2009 @ 1:01 am
Who has believed our report?
October 24th, 2009 @ 2:01 am
And the wise will understand.
October 24th, 2009 @ 3:41 am
Jabez,
My comment above was just an encouragement for all of us have the heart of Matt 5 as we continue to debate. It was not a correction to anyone specific.
About tense debates, it is fine as long as it’s done with respect. I have seen, read and heard tense debates that were handled well by Dr. Browns and others.
My concern is what I have seen in previous online debates where it has gotten out of hand. People can do say things in the name of Truth, expose error, shed the light, etc… but carry the wrong heart / attitude which we have all done sometime in our life. It results in degrading someone such as name calling, bullying, bashing “truth” over their heads, “I am better than you” attitude, “go to hell” comments, etc… There are a few comments (I think) that could have been said better, but I consider this debate to be on the moderate side compared to what has been done in other sites.
Overall, whether we agree or disagree, let continue keep up the good work in our respect for one another.
“… the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23gentleness and self-control.” Gal 5:22, 23
“8For you were once darkness, but now you are light in the Lord. Live as children of light 9(for the fruit of the light consists in all goodness, righteousness and truth) 10and find out what pleases the Lord.” Eph 5:8-10
October 24th, 2009 @ 12:55 pm
Ben, and love is not insistent on its own way.
And the wisdom that comes from above is not overconcerned,
but is, according to the Lord’s brother, Yakov,
JAS 3:17 But the wisdom that comes from heaven is first of all pure; then peace-loving, considerate, submissive, full of mercy and good fruit, impartial and sincere. 18 Peacemakers who sow in peace raise a harvest of righteousness.
Sometimes to loosen the beast, one must rattle the cage, and open the door, then the beast may look into one’s eyes, be convinced of lovingkindness, receive, and change to a peaceful sort.
October 24th, 2009 @ 1:13 pm
And Ben, I remind you of my admonition on peacemaking and truthtelling, and the message advocated of the whole of Ecclesias by the Lord in his carefully continuously linked instruction of Mt. 18. See also Mt. 13:52 for his heart on the old and new instruction. Both have value to stimulate to godliness and good works. This was written as recorded before any of his Jewish listeners, closest disciples having come into the house there at the end of more public instruction, were converted to apprehend the love of G-d shed abroad in their hearts.
I have not written or shared anything here with a lesser intention or motive. We must rattle the cage and open the door for the beast to come out, gain eye contact, and risk being devoured in the process. Or, share the joy of disarming the defenses of the beast. Yeshua Ha Meshiac reveals G-d’s love to anyone who will accept its terms, which are simply that G-d so loved the world, that he sent his only begotten son, that whosoever would believe in Him would not perish, but receive everlasting life.
To attempt to reduce the God element of the Son of Man/Son of God to some naturally reducable argument is literally impossible. Hoops of insistences, for Yeshua to meet some natural imposition of naming his literal name or literal moments in time prior to his unveiling is really a bizzare insistence, stuck on a formula of futile thingking, which G-d did not create.
Faith is established by spiritual “eye contact” with the gaze of the Master Rabboni, which is not reducable to prejudiced and insistent expectations at all. It is the expectation of a pure heart, made so by G-d’s unique capacities to interact in a life as to its own preparation, which discovers G-d revealed in the life and Way of Yeshua.
October 24th, 2009 @ 1:22 pm
Jews for Judaism then may discover, in time, that the old and the new, the Mosaic Covenant, and the New Covenant of Jeremiah intend their inheritance of the Kingdom of heaven, and its Messiah. There is an appendage at the end of the Ezekiel section on the biblical borders, which states that those left in the Land, after the Messianic Temple is constructed, will be grafted in to the 12 tribes of Israel at that juncture. Imagine, former Moslems having viewed the Return, then submitting to such, and those of the tribes, having beheld His return, accepting such a solution to peace in the holyland. Such an expectation, as Ezekiel shares, can only be established of Him, the chosen One.
Who has believed our report?
October 24th, 2009 @ 7:01 pm
Jabez, your interpretation of the verses keep getting worse and worse! You take one word without looking at the concept. you speak of ridiculious cocepts like vulnerability that cannot be found even by somone with the wildest imagination. Verse 18- discusses things that are hidden and UNKNOWN, what is unkown? The next verse states 4 things of that nature an eagle flies away, a snake that travels away, a ship leaves no trail, and a woman with an Almah is UNKNOWN, the theme of unknown continues into the next verse regarding the man with the “Almah”, saying So, is a woman who denies the relations…… Fthe context is clear!! Further, the ROOT of the word is olem, which clearly means youn man in the book of samuel which you have completely ignored.
October 24th, 2009 @ 7:59 pm
Zvi, Cite the date on vulnerablity. Cite the data on unknown. Cite the almah of samuel. Talk about wild imagination! We are discussing young feritle virgin, not these other rabbit trails.
October 24th, 2009 @ 8:19 pm
Zvi, You went away for the sabbath. Other conversation occurred in your absence. Our last conversation was on Almah FYI.
October 24th, 2009 @ 8:53 pm
Zvi, Craig addressed the scholarship upholding the Virgin etymology as to what you have brought up once again, seemingly like a broken record, as to one interpretation of hundreds also using empiracle and language evidence. It seems that discussions with others, in your absence, has stimulated something for you.
I last responded to you on the 23rd after 9PM EDT. The reference reading on this passage stresses its context. It is a proverb of a cited author, not the Torah or Prophets; it is among collected writings. These writings are interpreted less precisely than the other two areas of scripture, for, we have less corraborating information and evidence on such writings.
Is the proverb the last word or a contradictory word on other Tenach Almah usages? Hardly, due to what others have determined on the matter, including Hebrew scholars and many others since medieval times, when manuscript availability for referencing became more widely available to a wider number of scholars. We are looking at an ancient proberb on which little about almah usage hinges. Each Tehach author has certain characteristics of expression, and the collected proverbs were not written by the same author.
However one understands what is being stated, it is not a revelation of God’s instruction, it is a collected proverb.
I appreciate that you study the Tenach, however you must recognize that there are many others who have done so, in devotional lifetimes on such study. As you have discovered some root word development concepts of language intention, these scholars use exegesis and other contextual development methods, including etymology.
Even as someone who uses post second Temple post Sanhedrin era Jewish commentaries, even so, even these do not agree in many cases. A reader then uses the best evidence possible and draws conclusions which include thematic subject development throughout the authoritative Tenach.
The LXX, certainly used virgin for Almah, interesting enough, as have some other early preservation translations and compilations.
I think we can say that we disagree, and your word is just that, not being G-d’s word or clear determination, as such.
October 24th, 2009 @ 9:08 pm
Zvi, on the passage, not the root word, you last wrote “why no trace? for she is no virgin”. The logic escapes me. A sutor being with a young woman, as so attracted, until married, leaves no trace.
October 24th, 2009 @ 9:11 pm
We simply cannot assume that Almah is Hisa in this passage, and, even if we did, somehow make the stretch, it does not infer that all virgins become adulteresses, or that this one has. The Hisah is described quite differently than the eagle, boat, snake, and virgin, all briefly described in their natural settings and ways. Adultery is not a natural setting or way.
October 24th, 2009 @ 9:15 pm
Oh, and a young fertile man in early Hebrew culture would also likely be a virgin, as established by that root as well.
October 24th, 2009 @ 9:29 pm
“For you to say that Dr. Brown has 2 faces shows how little you actually know about him. You take 2 quotes totally unrelated and try to make it appear as if he’s using a double standard. Give me a break! And you meant to use Craig’s name on your last comment, saying that Craig can see 2 faces of Dr. Brown, based on his prior comment asking Dr. Brown what he meant by those quotes you used. As a gentile believer in Yeshua, it is quite easy to see what Dr. Brown was saying regarding the Christian’s often superficial, insensitive, and triumphal understanding of Jewish objections.”
Michael, did you read the link I posted? Explain what you mean by “it is quite easy to see what Dr. Brown was saying regarding the Christian’s often superficial, insensitive, and triumphal understanding of Jewish objections.”
October 24th, 2009 @ 9:38 pm
Let us attempt another context, of love, betrothal, and marriage, according to the law of Moshie, which play significantly in All Almah implications and usages in scripture. Then we can see the proverb in a different light than a microscopic view on rooting “Elem”, etc. can permit.
October 24th, 2009 @ 10:11 pm
Matt,
Again, I ask if you would be kind enough to explain how the two quotes you posted indicated that I had “two faces.”
Before I set the record straight (just to expose the vacuous nature of the post), I offer you the opportunity to explain yourself again.
Also, just for the record, we don’t allow personal attacks on the blog here, but since it’s me you’re attacking, we’ll let the post stand, provided you explain how the words you quote in any way substantiate your charge.
October 24th, 2009 @ 10:45 pm
Jabez, When a man has relations with a virgin does it leave a trace yes or no? so almah cannot =virgin its very simple. Also the verses I quoted in Samuel clearly refer to the word “na’ar” in the previous verse, a duplication of that word in fact just read the context and you will see.The word na’ar CLEARLY doesnt mean virgin!! You also(aside from the fact that I have provided clear proof from scripture as to the definition of the word almah) keep making the same mistake namely; you havent yet found a verse that CLEARLY defines Almah as virgin, the only argument you make is that you never see anywher that we are NOT speaking of a virgin. Let me ask you does that in any way prove that almah means a virgin? To illustrate- we dont either find that there are NO helicopters present when the word almah is discussed, does that mean that helicopters were present during those occasions? My point is, that the context we find when the word almah is used,is that of a young woman,the definition of that word=young woman, the fact that you havent found a case where we know for certain that she wasnt a virgin doesnt at all prove that almah=virgin, for maybe these specific occasions that we find the world almah, did not find it important to discuss whether or not she was a virgin, because it wont impact the story just like discussing a helicopter.And even if the story was about a virgin it still does not help us determine that the word almah. Also, why in the world would the navi use the word almah and not “besulah”? The word besulah cannot mean anything other than virgin. Deu:22 CANNOT be understood if the word besulah does not mean virgin,its as clear as ever. Some of you cling to a verse in joel, that might sound like the word besulah does not =virgin. First of all you have SO many verse where it clearly does=virgin so it would be alot easier if the prophrt would have used the word besulah instead of almah where there is no clear indication anywhere that it =virgin, but either way the verse from joel simply means that a woman is grieving over her husband that she lost during the 12 month period while she was betrothed to him yet considered married without relations aa was the jewish custom. Not only that this verse is a proof that the word besulah=virgin, because if it means young woman, then why does the verse say that the “young woman” grieves the husband of her younger years if SHE IS YOUNG NOW AS WELL?? The answer is that we are discussing an OLDER woman yet a virgin that is grieving her husband of her younger years. But either way I have proven without a doubt that almah=young woman from proverbs, and the book of samuel.
October 24th, 2009 @ 11:31 pm
Also psalms 68:26 alomos in plural form= young woman, no indication of virgin,there is no reson for the discussion to be of a virgin whatsoever, rather it is speaking of young woman.
October 24th, 2009 @ 11:37 pm
Hey folks, I guess Zvi really enjoys posting here, since he could have saved himself dozens of posts re: almah if he had simply read vol. 3 of my series. Of course, he would have also learned there that his argument re: betulah was misinformed.
October 24th, 2009 @ 11:42 pm
Dr. Brown, you are welcome to bring it on.
October 25th, 2009 @ 12:18 am
Zvi, for the 1000th time, I brought it on in 1,500 pages of writing and you have not raised a single argument of substance in your scores of posts that I haven’t already refuted elsewhere. And you are free to call my show if you’d like to get into a serious discussion. But if you’d like to play games, feel free to continue to post here; you are completely free to do so. Plenty of people try to bait me into arguments, but the few who are serious seekers of truth make an effort to study and learn and interact. I invited you to do the same. Your life will never be the same — if, in fact, you really desire to know God’s truth.
October 25th, 2009 @ 12:18 am
gen. 24-16 is where Dr. Brown tries to prove his case, in his desperate attempt to twist the meaning of the word, by asking why would the verse act redundantly, not realizing that rashi thought of this question well before he did and explained that the verse is informig us that she did not have any sort of relations with a man “leave it to your imagination. Not only that but this must be the case, because if betulah would mean, young women, then the verse is surely redundant FOR THE FIRST WORD OF THE VERSE is “young woman”!!!! Another attempt is from Isaiah 47 verse one, not realizing that the land is not considered a virgin because there were no children because that has nothing to do with the land but rather it means that she was never conquered by another land just like a virgin was not taken by a husband.
October 25th, 2009 @ 12:40 am
Read the books, Zvi, and then do some scholarly research as well in the major Semitic lexicons.
October 25th, 2009 @ 1:10 am
Zvi, Usually a man begins relations with an Almah due to the steps taken toward drawing together for betrothal and marriage, not as outside of marriage in the Tenach. This is especially the case under the laws of Moses, and includes the infatuation stage the of Proverb 30:19 as a first animation of approved coupling while the attraction is established.
Recall that I did not either defend or negate what is the statement of some translators of the passage on first reading, but thought outloud about the passages. My view as to the case of the man/woman relations of the proverb list, because it was not clear to me, became by reading and comparing language rendering to be that of most of the translators: that vs. 20 refers to another person, of another way than of the ways of the animations of the earlier verse. This is supported where “Ken” becomes of different usage than the “so” adjective it can be used for in some instances in some other passages of scripture, otherwise most often becoming a subject, as translators used for vs. 20.
You want to lead me somewhere the passage does not go, by your own support of a theory of what the author is saying. Yet Vs. 19 and 20 are not really interchangeable as to cast, character, animated actions, and relationships to life and living.
It is natural for an eagle to fly, a snake to slither, and a boat to plot and travel a course, it is not natural in a cuture under complex laws of marriage and bethrothal for a man in such a Jewish cultural context to have an out of wedlock way with a “maid,” and does not fit with the other three examples as to natural animation in life and such pursuit. These four ways are a mystery because the animation is something G-d intented, not something he directed toward sin as some kind of natural next step. This is not a Shakespearian verse. The author remarks on animated ways within G-d’s creation being not the stuff of his own understanding (being that of the creator).
You would have a reader suddenly shift the man and virgin maid young woman to a relationship different in boundaries and permissions than the other three examples the author uses as G-d permits of life’s four ways illustration.
I am not discounting the thought you have embraced as to an argument being developed–if it could be substantiated that that was so by other indicators of the Tenach, as stated. For example, in Soloman’s early proverbs he contrasts the female casted character of wisdom, sophia, with the nonlawful ways of a rebellious youth, and rebellious adulteress woman in the streets ready to afflict a young man with a character impact of sin. In Tenach Hebrew culture too what adultery leads to is excommunication from the synagogue and camp, so to speak, which is far more understandable than the mysteries of mutual attraction beyond puberty.
This is not pilgesh nor a mamzer for a different animation in life outside of G-d’s boundaries and acceptable life ways of the animated realities of vs. 19.
Virginity is naturally honored in Jewish scriptures, from Rebekah forward. Sex within marriage is a desirable “commandment”, a mitzvah. Outside of marriage it is something else again. Torah contains mitzvah governing betrothal, marriage, and divorce, and, thoughts as to virginity (e.g., in Deut. 22) are held as a protected status for young women as to preparations and provisions for honorable marriage.
Sex will be and is part of life within these boundaries. An eagle, a ship, a snake have their boundaries and normal ways of being these subjects too, as literally so within Torah created world understanding. We get to the “Ken” subject of an adulteress, in vs. 20, and, as you pointed out to me early on, the verse not being an adulterer. I first took the verse to be about an adulterer having his way with a loose woman, certainly not a protected by family virgin, in the manner of embracing a Hisah as is contrasted to the Almah, and its natural way as with 3 other animated subjects, as given. On your urging, I looked at this more closely, along with the many translators of the passage.
It does not follow that a natural attraction that leads to a man and woman becoming a household, or a union, would differ from the other examples of life in passage which the author gives.
Sex in marriage would be the later union outcome of a lawful and natural attraction’s drawing together, along with the lawful processes of betrothal, waiting for marriage, etc.–just like the other animations spoken of by the author, which involve some family alamot protection processes of step by step engagement, not adultery.
An Almah is a girl who has entered pubery and can animate toward marriage, not an adulteress by natural consequences at all. Almah is likely connected to Alma, or the concealing or protecting verb, which would derive its root for an Almah in the protection of the betrothal family process of the laws of Moses, as one who was not uncovered, as would occur sexually with being with a man (where, unless a man were married, could be fornication, not adultery, if and where so).
Nine passages in the Tenach use the term Almah. These grant its etymological, cultural, and textual definition. And they grant usage implications, none of which carries to this vs. 19 vs. 20 list values conflict. There is nowhere where an almah is portrayed as a Hisah, so we have to work it differently than your considered labor, above. In the Shir Hashirim 1:3 we have a similar natural attraction and animation, as in our passage of vs. 19, where there is an attraction to marriage age virgins which is presented within the boundaries of the law, not of a logic which promotes a next naturally animated step being sin, which would differ from the other permissions of Prvb. 30, vs. 19 for G-d established permissions of 4 ways animation. In the S.H. 6:8 the numberless alamot are neither wives nor concubines of the king, and have their natural attractiveness, past puberty.
This same sense of marriageability does not parallel with the masculine elem even though they also have entered puberty, but it does apply to “bachur” or “young warrior”, when boys have matured to the point of being able to support a new household. You have to look at that fact of life in the cultural context, in the passage context, and in the literary context of the Tenach.
In the Tenach, in every instance where a girl is an almah, she is a woman who has never known a man in the Bilbical sense (of marriage or of the sins of Lvt. 18) or had intercourse. Moreover, the word bethulah, sometimes rendered as virgin, is sometimes used to describe women who are arguably not virgins (Joel 1.8 and Esther 2:8-17), and in at least two cases (Genesis 24: 16 and Judges 21: 12), another phrase in the text states that the bethulah has “not known a man.” Thus almah refers to virgins more consistently than does bethulah. Most clearly, the Jewish scholars who translated the Hebrew scriptures (the Torah first and later the Prophets and the Writings) into an early Greek version of the Tenach, translated almah in Isaiah 7:14 as parthenos, which almost always means “virgin”, and as to the passage usage of Almah in our discussion.
October 25th, 2009 @ 1:39 am
Jabez, we are discussing an act, not a relationship, the act is between a woman who is married because she is not a virgin NOT during the 12 month period of betrothment,you keep bringing up relationships, enough with that we are simply describing an act that leaves no trace which CANNOT be reffering to a virgin!!!!! The verse is simply discussing the relations that ANY married man has with his wife AFTER he is married and the next verse explains that “so, is the way of a woman that sins…. in other words the same way the 4 things discussed in the previous verse are unknown….. one of them which happens to be a REGULAR relationship between man and wife….so too this womens act cannot be traced. NOTHING TO DO with nature. You completely ignored the verses from samuel, and again, there is NOWHERE where the word is used exclusively as virgin, yet betulah in deu. MUST=virgin and the verses in genese and judges are both answered in the same way see my previous post to Dr. Brown.
October 25th, 2009 @ 1:48 am
psalms 68:26 was also not responded to.
October 25th, 2009 @ 2:57 am
Gosh Zvi, What does all this have to do with the lineage of the Messiah is the forum’s overarching context? You have read a lot into the text by asserting your take on a sinful “relationship,” as you see it to be. Gosh.
What is “unknown” in the previously cited “4 ways” in contrast to the way of vs 20 is consistent with what the prophet told Job, and G-d directly told Job. That is that which naturally occurs as is animated in the creation in different places on the planet, which only G-d can behold in the same timeframe, or as HE KNOWS indeed uniquely from vastly separated or environmentally separated places.
This knowledge is not possibly known by the author of the Proverb, or you or I, and is then stated as UNKNOWN by he or we. Like the other events occurring all over the planet in wilderness, as remarked in the dialogues and monologues given in Job [as read of Elihu and God]: who are we to know and behold these predetermined ways animated of four various subjects within his creation in different times, places, and motions?
Only G-d can KNOW and BEHOLD such happenings and ways, He being the Creator, and all knowing and all seeing ONE who intended these animations of life to be so.
He being too the author and finisher of Messianic intentions, were you aware that in John it is written that Yeshua is the “Word” of G-d that helped frame creation, and then chose to come and dwell among us [John being of the Jewish nation of visitation]? Eternal and heavenly transcendental reality and ability for Knowing Proverbs 30:18 & 19′s four ways is uniquely G-d’s. Yeshua being the One who, LIKE HIS FATHER, could KNOW, see, and appreciate these 4 animations ways by His unique sight, the author of the Proverb has asked G-d’s question, requested of Job.
Gosh, Zvi. –Jabez
October 25th, 2009 @ 3:25 am
Zvi,
Would you like someone to purchase Dr. Brown’s book and mail it to you?
October 25th, 2009 @ 3:40 am
And Zvi, I simply do not have the ego strength to KNOW what G-d knows. The author is respectful of this in his own instance. Are you?
October 25th, 2009 @ 3:41 am
As for Samuel and the Psalms details, I defer to Dr. Brown’s published commentaries.
October 25th, 2009 @ 9:40 am
The verse is describing Unknown to mankind, and mankind cannot trace these 4 things, and the next verse is NOT a contrast but rather a continuation.
October 25th, 2009 @ 11:01 am
The next verse indeed may or may not be a continuation, according to the divisions of the translators, this may be so. In the event of that being the regarded, I defer to Dr. Brown.
This seems to be the way it now is, Zvi. One holds to one interpretation based on evidence, another to another, based on understanding. Again, it is a minor minor posting by an author not often cited from the Tenach. Have a good day.
October 25th, 2009 @ 11:04 am
So, all being said, and with division among translators, only God KNOWS.
October 25th, 2009 @ 11:10 am
The Lord of the starfields, knows.
My son asked me, as I past shared, when a very small child, out of the blue. “where is Yeshua’s body now?” My response was, “ask Him.” He closed his eyes, opened them, looked into mine, and replied, “In light, and in heaven.”
October 25th, 2009 @ 12:24 pm
You defer your entire religion to Dr.Brown, rather than coming to conclusions based on you own logic. There are no 2 ways to tranlate the word ken it NEVER means in contrast! Also, even if there is no link the previous verse is describing 4 hidden things that leave no trace which CANNOT be incuding a virgin. Besides, I have proven you with verses in psalms and in Samuel, that it in conjunction with the word na’ar. Also, we never find almah in an area that the word must mean virgin NEVER!!!! The word betulah ALWAYS means virgin and it many places it MUST=virgin, for example deu.22-it cannot =anything else.Also, why doesnt the torah use the word almah in deu.22??? Any rational thinking person can conclude that almah does not=virgin, why would the verse in Isaiah use the word besulah?? There are clear indications as to its translations, in contrast to the almah=virgin. But either way the geneaoligy question still looms.This discussion came about when the geneaoligy question was raised, some attempted to resolve the issue by saying that Jesus was obsolved from the lineage issue because he had no father. Which 1. must have proof!!!!!! 2. Is simply not true, hence we return to the geneaoligy question.
October 25th, 2009 @ 1:23 pm
Well Zvi, we disagree, for faith in the life of Yeshua’s provisions differs from religion–man’s interpretations and observances centered around his professions of convictions. My entire faith is defered to Yeshua alone. As to matters of interpretation of Hebrew passages scholarship, I do defer to Dr. Brown as the greater, and I as the lesser. And, the translators of the passage we have surveyed, scholars all, have stated that Ken can be used as an adjective or a noun, and have drawn a different conclusion than the one you insist upon.
It is the noun usage of Ken that makes vs. 20 a separate and contrasting statement from the 4 ways ending of the virgin and suitor’s natural attraction (in keeping with the prior three).
Where in the 4 unknown to mankind ways does the phrase “leave no trace” that you are insistent upon occur? Nowhere, Zvi! There are hundreds of possible informed interpretations for the Proverbs available for our scrutiny. You have preferred one interpretation, I have chosen the majority of translators interpretation.
In addition, I already alluded to Deu. 22, in my prior discussions of Almah and other virgin Hebrew word uses, over which, again, I defer to Dr. Brown’s 30 years of enlightened as blessed from above Hebrew scholarship. He is a more reliable source of authority than I on the matter, though I’ve given it my best.
I informed you I do not have the ego strength to be G-d on the matter for you, though I am assurred of my connection through adoption, connection by family tree, and engrafting to an intimate path to G-d.
Your logic above does not flow to your conclusion. “Any rational thinking person can conclude that almah does not=virgin.” In my research almost one hundred lifetime Biblical scholars read did come to the conclusion that Almah equals virgin, as prior shown in my and Craig’s, and earlier others, prior responses.
I agree that the lineage research is where all this discussion opened. I disagree that that has not been adequately covered. Matthew in particular deals with the Royal lineage question, of Meshiac Ben David. The focus there, is going to be different than in Luke, for placement of Yeshua in the chosen household, where the head of that household, as underlord over it, through his relatives was traceable to King David. Luke deals with the other more obvious tribal blood line, and, in fact, includes the less royally viewed literal humanness of Messianic compassionate descent. Mary will naturally have a different relative family tree up to a point than did Joseph, like it or not.
We then find the New Testament authors dealing with the different orthodox requirements regarding tribal lineage and whether it is the head of household or the mother that determines a Yehuda child.
Again, for a better write up on that reality, I defer to the publications of Dr. Brown. I am but a minor shepherd interested in flocks of sheep, within the sheepfolds of Yeshua in this world. Dr. Brown is the language expert, not I. Though I am well aware of the customs of my family and its origins. Part of my family is Jewish, and part is Norwegian, where my wife is a Norsk citizen, with G-d created blond hair and features. I recall seeing a blond Jewess in the IDF uniform hitchhiking, who I picked up and gave a lift, on the roads of Israel in 1971. G-d created and peopled the world with many featured souls, including blond women of Jewish and Gentile descent.
The fatherhood over the Messiah is in particular established from before the foundations of this world, according to a plan of redemption seated from the throne of heaven. This can be discussed from scripture, but is not naturally reducable to a literal word borne description which might apparently suffice alone as such, and stand alone as such without embracing the total milieu of other multiple proofs of such a reality, as already quite outlined by many such proofs cited and remarked in this forum for you.
It has come to this, Zvi, to continue to beat the bushes for further birds to fly into your sites, you must now go to the radio program open line and risk coming out of your wilderness blind, and meet those of these wilds face to face, word by word, precept upon precept. We are finished here.
October 25th, 2009 @ 3:22 pm
leaving no trace is the only way to go because otherwise what do these 4 items have in common in regards to being hidden?? there is no other rational way of defining it. As with the word ken it never =contrast. B ut either way by your own admission you dont believe because you know, you only believe based on Dr.Brown, which is how you respond when you are stuck, that is the root of the problem-you believe because of what you are told NOT because of what you see as truth. This is what I have been driving at, the fact that I have proven my case to you with dozens of question will not budge you for your faith is not based on reason but on thin air.
October 25th, 2009 @ 3:40 pm
Ben, no thanks, I have the answers to all my questions.
October 25th, 2009 @ 3:49 pm
Hey folks, due to schedule constraints, I’ll probably be checking out of here for a while, but Zvi has just made things perfectly clear: He has no desire to read detailed arguments that answer every argument he has made, since he already has the answers! So, not only does he pay little or no attention to the good arguments that many of you have raised here, but he refuses to read full refutations of his points. And yet he claims that you are the ones who are not open to the truth. How remarkable! (This is what I assumed all along, but it’s still good of him to openly state his lack of openness here.)
And, of course, he refuses to lift a finger to call the radio show for fear that he won’t have a chance to raise his arguments clearly. I would actually devote a whole radio show to his arguments should he ever call, just for the education of the listening audience, but I imagine he’ll find an excuse for this too. I would therefore encourage all of you interacting here on the site to pray for our Jewish friend, that God would open his eyes to the truth and that he would have the courage to follow that truth regardless of cost or consequence. Recognizing the deep error of his beliefs will not be easy for him, but by God’s grace, all things are possible!
When I have time to do the “Debate Dr. Brown” forum on the Real Messiah website, I’ll let all of you know here.
October 25th, 2009 @ 5:02 pm
Dr. M.B.
We look forward to your forum.
Changes happen when the heart waits.
October 25th, 2009 @ 10:26 pm
“Also, just for the record, we don’t allow personal attacks on the blog here, but since it’s me you’re attacking, we’ll let the post stand, provided you explain how the words you quote in any way substantiate your charge.”
Dr. Brown:
I was not attacking you personally and I hope that my comment was not interpreted as such.
But it is funny that you are asking me to explain how the two quotes are inconsistent. I think it is obvious that they are.
Matt
October 25th, 2009 @ 10:42 pm
Matt,
Maybe you had good intentions but most of us would probably agree that your post came off as an attack to Dr Brown.
October 26th, 2009 @ 1:18 am
Matt,
Both of the quotes are from my pen, and they are not contradictory in the least, especially given the context of each quote. In any case, if you feel they expose something “two faced” in me (how is not that a personal attack, by the way?), please do explain how that is so.
As I mentioned in an earlier post, my upcoming schedule will not allow me much time to follow the comments here, so if you care to explain yourself, please do so now. Otherwise, your erroneous statement will simply be dismissed.
October 26th, 2009 @ 11:09 am
Matt,
If it is so obvious to you where you see Dr. Brown as inconsistent, why don’t you spell it out for us who have no idea what you claim is “obvious”. Sorry if we’re all so ignorant, but it would help us understand what you mean if you had substance to your argument. I thought my previous response to you would have cleared things up, but you apparently see something we do not. Please explain in detail.
October 26th, 2009 @ 11:26 am
Zvi,
Why are you afraid to read Dr. Brown’s books? How in the world do you get your arguments against him if you haven’t even read his books? How do you even know if the people you get your arguments from about him, are making fair arguments if you haven’t read him yourself? From what I’m hearing, there are people here willing to send you his books for free! How could you pass that up? Then you could check it out for yourself and have true grounds for basing your arguments against him, and you’d be prepared for the upcoming debate forum by using his own quotes against him. If what Dr. Brown has to say is true, what’s the big deal if you were wrong? At least you’ll know the truth now. If you still think he’s wrong after reading his books, then so be it. At least you’ll know for yourself. Think about it, free books! You can even burn them later if you wish.
October 26th, 2009 @ 3:34 pm
Well, lets not encourage burning books here
October 26th, 2009 @ 3:53 pm
Yes, agreed, Ben. Once someone reads my books, even if he or she doesn’t like them, there’s something better they could do than burn them.
October 26th, 2009 @ 7:24 pm
“Both of the quotes are from my pen, and they are not contradictory in the least, especially given the context of each quote. In any case, if you feel they expose something ‘two faced’ in me (how is not that a personal attack, by the way?), please do explain how that is so.
As I mentioned in an earlier post, my upcoming schedule will not allow me much time to follow the comments here, so if you care to explain yourself, please do so now. Otherwise, your erroneous statement will simply be dismissed.”
I never used the expression “two faced” which has specific connotations of deliberate deceitfulness. Rather I wanted to suggest that the triumphal attitude that you are expressing on this forum, contradicts the sentiment you expressed in the article I posted. As I posted the source of the second quote, my desire was clearly not bring a quote out-of-context to manipulate the quotes to a contrast that does not exist, but to merely suggest that you have become of a victim of that same “triumphal attitude” you were exhorting others to avoid.
Matt
October 26th, 2009 @ 7:26 pm
“Maybe you had good intentions but most of us would probably agree that your post came off as an attack to Dr Brown.”
No I was not trying to attack Dr. Brown, and I certainly wasn’t trying to attack him personally. However, I was trying to point out the inconsistency behind the setiments of the two statement.
Matt
October 26th, 2009 @ 7:53 pm
“I thought my previous response to you would have cleared things up”
Michael:
How could your last response possibly have cleared things up?
You said:
“As a gentile believer in Yeshua, it is quite easy to see what Dr. Brown was saying regarding the Christian’s often superficial, insensitive, and triumphal understanding of Jewish objections.”
And that was all you said. You did not explain what you thought those attitudes and sentiments were. You did not give examples. But you thought that it would clear things up?
So I want you to close your eyes, and imagine that a bearded-sidelocked chassidic Jesus-hater was using the following expressions:
“you have not raised a single argument of substance … that I haven’t already refuted elsewhere”
“expose the vacuous nature of the post”
“Timothy and others of his ilk … For now, I can only smile when I read Timothy’s statements, since he actually feels he has made a good point here and there. How sad!’”
Matt
October 26th, 2009 @ 7:54 pm
Since all of you have read the book, Im sure you all have the answers based on the book. So, with that being the case, when I raise a question you guys should be able to answer me based on that information, but since I wasn’t satisfied with the answers, why would reading the book change anything?
October 26th, 2009 @ 8:16 pm
“From what I’m hearing, there are people here willing to send you his books for free! How could you pass that up?”
If anyone on this board would be willing to send me any of Dr. Browns “answering Jewish Objections” books, I would gladly accept and read them.
I saw that you can get some of them for $3 on amazon.
Matt
October 26th, 2009 @ 8:40 pm
Matt, as a torah jew you should should understand what daas torah would have to say about bringing such a book into one’s home.
October 26th, 2009 @ 8:47 pm
However, I definitely apreciate the gesture.
October 26th, 2009 @ 9:09 pm
Zvi:
I hear you. And my wife would also be furious to have such books in the house. But you probably realize that there are probably issues us just being here (bittul zman amongst other problems).
As a related note, I once heard that Rav Avigdor Miller Z”KTzL once asked Rav Moshe Feinstein Z”KTzL for a heiter to read the New Testament (so that he could more effectively participate in countermissionary work), and Rav Feinstein told him that it was still assur (and I don’t think that Rav Feinstein had even the slightest hava amina that Rav Miller would be influenced).
Matt
October 26th, 2009 @ 9:43 pm
I agree that there may be issues with being here, however I feel that 2 wrongs dont make a right.
October 26th, 2009 @ 9:49 pm
Matt,
If you would like complimentary copies of the volumes, write to our website at the “Contact” link and we will gladly send them to you, provided that you will read them. (I am curious, however, as to why you would be willing to have the books in your house based on everything you’ve posted here, but that’s another matter entirely and one that I definitely don’t have time to pursue.)
As for the alleged contradictory statements, there is no contradiction. The first comment had to do with lots of past Christian responses to Jewish objections; by God’s grace, the standards have been raised in recent years by many in the Messianic Jewish movement, and the arguments Zvi raised here reflected his ignorance of those answers. It’s unfortunate you tried to make something out of nothing, especially wasting the time of others here in this blog too.
I will be praying for you and Zvi to have the integrity to study the issues seriously and to ask God about them earnestly. Hopefully, you will both be able to join in when we open up Real Messiah to a Debate Dr. Brown forum that will run for a few weeks straight.
This should be my last post here for some time. I planned to check out yesterday but wanted to give you the opportunity to respond.
October 26th, 2009 @ 9:57 pm
Dr. Brown:
I already wrote to the contact link requesting copies. I thought you didn’t want to send them to me.
Matt
October 26th, 2009 @ 10:02 pm
Matt, What do you think of my question regarding the blood offering, that we never find a korben to be michaper on future aveiros?
October 26th, 2009 @ 10:13 pm
Matt,
My explanation against your argument of Dr. Brown’s quotes referred to instances of extremely terrible history of the so-called “Christian” church persecuting Jews. Dr. Brown is correct that these “Christians” had an extremely ignorant perspective of following Jesus and obeying him. They were even forceful trying to convert Jews through torture methods and death threats. What gave them the right to do this? They were completely wrong for this! Many of the Christians today are unaware of this history, which causes them to be unknowingly “insensitive” when sharing their faith with Jews, and the Christian’s attitude appears “triumphal”, especially those who believe in the garbage theory of replacement theology, which does no good for the Jew who bitterly holds to that history. Unless these Jews understand from the Christians sharing their faith that those “Christians” who did this were wrong and that we sincerely know this and apologize for their actions, they most likely will not be open to the good news of Yeshua and the truth about him. So this is what I was trying to explain to you. You can’t use Dr. Brown’s quote against him, of which was a totally different context, to try and prove your faulty point. When he replies to you or Zvi in a way that seems prideful in your opinion, you need to understand these responses are to counter the prideful responses that come from you guys. How is he supposed to respond when you guys constantly suggest he knows nothing without even reading his books, especially with this being his area of expertise through the many years of study he devoted himself to, acheiving his doctorates degree? Do you not realize how humorous this looks to him when you appear like know-it-alls, and he’s seen all these arguments long ago? Just read his books as he’s been suggesting for the longest time.
And Zvi, what gives you the right to tell Matt he can’t read Dr. Brown’s books according to the Torah? Just as you have the right to read rabbinic commentary, you also have the right to read how Dr. Brown answers questions raised by Jews about Yeshua. If you’re so comfortable with what you believe, you should have no fear of what he says in his books. Nothing restricts you from this. If anything, I would think you’d be interested to see all the objections your jewish brothers are making in these books. Not all of us have read Dr. Brown’s books, so you can’t assume that. Dr. Brown has even said that we made “some” good points, but it’s obvious from what he also said that he goes into much greater detail in his books. Think about how long he’s studied this. Can you imagine him trying to put all that on here? It’s easier if you just read the books, which are free to you if you will only accept. Your arguments against him are more justified when you’ve done the reading yourself, instead of relying on someone else’s arguments.
October 26th, 2009 @ 10:29 pm
Matt,
They should have been sent out weeks ago. I’ll check to see what happened.
October 26th, 2009 @ 10:34 pm
Michael, I came here to disprove christianity, I posed questions, and received weak responses. If you want to rely on Dr. Brown then thats ok, however my points and my points only is what I have come to discuss. It is not the individual that Im attacking but rather the religion. Most of my questions had nothing to do with Dr. Brown, and when I did mention him, it was based on his debates and other sources that can be found online. The very fact that you guys keep deferring to Dr.brown demonstrates that the religion is based on belief rather than on knowlage.
October 26th, 2009 @ 10:37 pm
In judaism knowledge is what counts.
October 26th, 2009 @ 10:41 pm
Michael, reading about jewish interpretation that fall under the catagory of torah is not only allowed, but condoned,however reading material that contains and supports idolatry is strictly forbidden.
October 26th, 2009 @ 11:10 pm
Michael, I wanted to respond to a question you raised a few days ago. You wanted to know why I dont dismiss the stories found in the ot, while I reject the stories found in the nt.The answer is as follows; we know for a fact that the ot is divine, how do we know this? Well the jews have been observing Passover for thousands of years, they have also been observing the holiday called Shavuous. It is well documented that these holidays have been observed for thousands of years. To claim that someone by the name of moses convinced the jews that he received the torah,when in fact he didnt would not be possible. Why is that? Lets assume for arguments sake that 2500 years ago a guy by the name of Moses claims that g-d revealed himself to him and gave them the torah how do you think the jews would have responded? They would take a look a what is written inside. What does the torah say? it states that g-d took the jews out of egypt and gave them the torah in front of 600,000 people. Dont you think the jews would have challenged him and said, hey, my parents never left egypt? they never received a torah? So it is impossible to claim that the event never happened 600,000 people testified to it. So anything written there must be divine and ultimate truth whether I like the stories or not. The nt on the other hand has no proof to its authenticity, therefore I reject it.
October 26th, 2009 @ 11:28 pm
Zvi wrote:
“It is not the individual that Im attacking but rather the religion.”
Then Zvi wrote:
“The very fact that you guys keep deferring to Dr.brown demonstrates that the religion is based on belief rather than on knowlage.”
The first quote says hes not attacking us but the second quote sounds like he contradicting himself?
October 26th, 2009 @ 11:46 pm
Ben, I said that I’m not attacking individuals meaning-the point is not that individual x is wrong in other words to defeat Dr.Brown, the fair way would be to read the book, but to defeat christianity, which consists of many individuals deferring to their “rabbi’ on the most basic of questions, indicates a flawed belief.
October 26th, 2009 @ 11:56 pm
There are 2 choices 1. Knowledge, which is based on solid proof like I explained in the previous post, or proof from the ot. 2.belief,because thats what you were told, based on no evidence.Christianity, sounds like the latter.
October 27th, 2009 @ 12:06 am
Dont you think if jesus was g-d and whoever doesnt believe in him will go to hell, should be mentioned in the torah clearly at least once? Dont you think the torah should say “yihshua is g-d just once? think about it.
October 27th, 2009 @ 12:09 am
Zvi,
What an unbelievable thing to say that our faith is based on someone else’s beliefs rather than actual truth! Why don’t you apply that statement to yourself when you quote Rashi? When you say things like that, you only lose more credibility due to your double-standard thinking. The only reason you say our responses are weak is because you refuse to be open to the truth we speak. I’m sure most of us here believe your responses have been weak, so it’s not sobering for us to hear Zvi say such things about our responses, other than the fact that you’re not open to truth. Your only area of discussion has been geneaolgy, which you have demonstrated you only partly understand. You refuse to consider the understanding of jewish believers in Yeshua that have participated here. You claim you are here to disprove Christianity. The fact that you are doing so on Dr. Brown’s site, of all sites, and watching all his debates, clearly shows you intend to disprove Dr. Brown, which you have every right to try and do. I’m sure you have a favorite person to learn difficult topics of Scripture from. What’s wrong with us respecting Dr. Brown’s well-researched perspectives? If you want to be more challenged than what has already been presented to you here, go read Dr. Brown’s books regarding Jewish Objections to Jesus. No one else has written such books, so it’s only right for us to give Dr. Brown such high respect on providing the generous amount of invaluable information most people don’t realize. And to think, he having been raised as an observant jew, is providing this information. Only the power of God could open the eyes of an observant jew about Yeshua. If you will only open your mind, God will show you the truth, and the truth will set you free. I don’t say this arrogantly, but out of genuine concern for you. Your salvation is extremely important! Don’t miss the significance of Yeshua the Messiah. Just read the arguments Dr. Brown makes in his books. You don’t have to believe him, but at least consider what he’s written about before you jump to conclusions about issues you don’t feel can be explained otherwise. His books can cover things in detail you wouldn’t have known from the debates you saw.
October 27th, 2009 @ 12:34 am
Zvi,
What do you base your comment on, saying the nt has no proof of its authenticity? Do you say that because you were taught to believer that? Please share your arguments about nt authenticity. I’m sure me and anyone here would be glad to respond.
You said: “Dont you think if jesus was g-d and whoever doesnt believe in him will go to hell, should be mentioned in the torah clearly at least once? Dont you think the torah should say “yihshua is g-d just once? think about it.”
First of all, you should try reading Isaiah 53 regarding exclusive salvation in Messiah. Read it all! And Zechariah 6:11-13 is a partial preview of the Yeshua to come, if you will accept this.
October 27th, 2009 @ 9:47 am
Michael, first of all if you would brave enough you can check out MANY questions I have posed on the blog not just the geneaoligy one. Secondly,I ask for proof simply because the nt has no proof, if you claim that you do, I’m all ears.
October 27th, 2009 @ 10:04 am
Michael, I dont blame you for believing in Jesus,since you are a gentile and thats what you were taught,however dont prove it from the fact that michael Brown is jewish yet still believes in jesus because 95% of jews do not believe in him. In fact, why do you think 95% dont believe in him? Arent they the ones that accepted the torah not the gentiles? Dont you think that the jews are more familiar with the will of the torah than the gentiles. The jews have been studying and observing the torah for 1300 years before Jesus, and they understood the torah without having to believe in Jesus, so all of a sudden jesus comes on the scene, and the gentiles all of a sudden understand the torah better than all the jews??
October 27th, 2009 @ 10:49 am
Zvi,
Matt, What do you think of my question regarding the blood offering, that we never find a korben to be michaper on future aveiros?
—————
Human blood offering was way before Moses ZVI, IT IS TO BE CALLED unconditional LOVE.
Every time the armies of Israel went into battle each soul offered his own blood so that others could live.
Abraham and his servants were willing to die themselves to rescue Lot Ge:14:13-16
Another example is the allied troops, WWI and II.
God knew every Israelite who was going to die in battle the only difference was that others were not told beforehand.
As the Messiah, King above all Kings He Yeshua went to Jerusalem and did the same. He landed on the beaches and was slain.
Defended His Father’s House which by the way is foretold by the Prophets. He rescued many from the oppression of the shepherds of Israel. Their hearts were set free.
ZVI are you on the side of the High Priest who allowed God’s HOLY TEMPLE to become a marketplace. I think not! He scorned the High Priest but what they didn’t know was that HE JESUS IS THE VERY HIGHEST PRIEST!
Do you have that kind of love? A love knowing before hand that your going to be torn to shreds doing as God directs you to stand against, as a Prophet of God. The Father saw His Love and so do we.
You want to enter God’s home but would you let someine in you home to live who rejects your son. Not only rejecting His Son but also rejecting the owner of the house as He God gave the Son the words to speak as foretold by Moses Deut 18:18 and other Prophets.
Difference being between a jew who fights for Israel and God’s ONLY BEGOTTEN was :
1)That He is VERY, VERY HOLY, the Son of God who came down from Heaven to offer HIMSELF for those who would believe. Not a temporary offering so that the flesh could live as with Moses but an eternal one which brings all who believe into eternal home with God.The most Holy. Daniel 9:24 Luke 1:35
2)That He knew He was going to die because it was foretold.Isa:53:4,Isa:53:8,Isa:53:11-12,Psalms:22,Ho:13:14,Da:9:24,Da:9:26
3)That His offering was so much GREATER than any others because He is EMMANUAL.Isaiah 40:3,Isa:7:14,Jer:23:5-6,Psalms:45:6-7,Zec:11:10:-11,Isa:53:5
4)Offered to all but only a remnant of Israel will be saved.Joel:2:32
A remnant is a few of many!
John:14:7: If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him.
Messiah is Lord of all. Isaiah 49:1 1 Timothy 2:4-6
Isa:49:1: Listen, O isles, unto me; and hearken, ye people, from far; The LORD hath called me from the womb; from the bowels of my mother hath he made mention of my name.
1Tm:2:4: Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.
1Tm:2:5: For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
1Tm:2:6: Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.
You have no idea of the blessing’s the Lord God of Israel has shown some of us.
You have no idea of the horror’s of death that the Lord has shown me for those who reject HIM.
Psalms:118:22: The stone which the builders refused is become the head stone of the corner.
WHO ARE THE BUILDERS Zvi?
AGAIN ZVI, YESHUA is very very HOLY, I testify HE IS HOLY. Psalms:2:12
I confess that I can be a little insensitive to many of those who clain they follow Torah. Those that listen to a 99 year old rabbi and others who makes it a Law that you may not press an elevator button, nor even use a special Sabbath elevator on the Sabbath for it is work. In doing so a father of five children has to do plenty of work carrying the baby, the stroller and the other 4 children up I don’t how many stairs, His option is to stay home on the Sabbath. In doing so brings a little less Sabbath rest, definately more work.
Just a smidge of what goes on.
Lu:11:46: And he said, Woe unto you also, ye lawyers! for ye lade men with burdens grievous to be borne, and ye yourselves touch not the burdens with one of your fingers.
Psalms:106:10: And he saved them from the hand of him that hated them, and redeemed them from the hand of the enemy.
………..
Psalms:106:13: They soon forgat his works; they waited not for his counsel:
Testimony is they forgot His and sought there own council of men.
Who’s counsel certainly man’s and not God’s.
Not only do we remember His works but we are still seeing His works. Abraham saw His works.
As for Matt I understand him and as for Dr Brown I understand what he is saying.I feel for both sides.
Hopefully no judgment from me here for both of you. I’m just a wretch trying to take in everything.
I read nowhere that I should appoligize for the sins of some else. I from my past will keep me busy when I one day face those whom I hurt.
Should a gentile say he is sorry for someone he never knew who murdered those who opposed their beliefs.
The same should a believing jew say he is sorry for Jerusalem’s unbelief. Many have not believed because of behaviour on both sides of the coin. We have to give an account of ourselves. We are all human first.
Let’s get along for we as gentiles and jews both have hurts from history. If we had to face some other inteligent being other than God Himself would we apologize for humanities behaviour. Maybe.
Let’s not throw stones at the descendants of either side but reveal Yeshua.
People have to know that it was not Jesus who taught unbelief or murder.
He did know that the unbelief of His Words would cause tribulation and much suffering in the world.
He also knew that those who obeyed Him would also bring suffering upon themselves.
Zvi wrote:
Dont you think if jesus was g-d and whoever doesnt believe in him will go to hell, should be mentioned in the torah clearly at least once? Dont you think the torah should say “yihshua is g-d just once? think about it.
—–
You will probably want to argue this but God’s Son’s Name is mentioned all through the Tanach. Some of old even knowing this i.e King David.
Another copy paste:
In Psalm 9:14 David bursts forth, “I will rejoice in thy salvation!” What he actually did say and mean was, “I will rejoice in (with) thy YESHUA (Jesus).” In Psalm 91:14-16 God says “Because he hath set his love upon me, therefore will I deliver him: I will set him on high [raise him above circumstances], because he hath known my name. He shall call upon me, and I will answer him: I will be with him in trouble; I will deliver him and honor him. With long life (eternal life) will I satisfy him, and show him my [YESHUA (Jesus)] salvation.” … That promise is realized in Revelation 22:3-4: “And there shall be no more curse: but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it: and his servants shall serve him: And they shall see His face.” In Isaiah 12:2-3 … SALVATION is mentioned three times … let me give them as they actually read in the original Hebrew with Jesus as the embodiment and personification of the word SALVATION: “Behold, mighty (or, God the mighty One) is my YESHUA (Jesus — in His pre-incarnation and eternal existence); I will trust and not be afraid; for JAH-JAHOVAH is my strength and my song; He is also become my YESHUA (Jesus).” “And the WORD (Jesus incarnate) became flesh, and dwelt among us.” (John 1:14). “Therefore with joy shall ye draw water out of the wells of YESHUA (Jesus crucified — waters of salvation flowing forth from Golgotha).”
As for hell. It is not just a deep pit where it is hot at the bottom. Death is being with eveyone who ever lived whether it be on the earth, hiding in the earth, walking on the earth but without God. One thing is for certain some know and learn the truth when death comes.
There is a great White Judgment when these people will give an account and be judged, I will not pretend or set myself above God to say or do judgment on them.
If you were to think that in the second death they are already judged than why would it yet to be a Judgment. I will have to wait and see.
That is the second death. Whether some make it that day I don’t know. That is God’s business.
Every knee shall bow and confess Jesus is Lord.
One thing is for certain those that receive a mark from the beast are Judged and will be tormented forever. It is coming.
As for Genealogy I showed you written Torah is opposed to your rabinnical teachings.
Jabez when I get my own phone and things get better I would love to speak with you.
October 27th, 2009 @ 11:49 am
Zvi,
Would you be kind enough to remind me the questions you have regarding the authenticity of the nt? Don’t forget because I’d be glad to answer any questions you have.
Also, I don’t argue that God gave the Torah to the jews, and yes on the average, jews are easily more familiar with it than gentiles. The fact that Jesus came does not mean that gentiles understand the Torah better than jews. Most gentiles know hardly anything of Torah details. You have to understand that Torah is not God’s stand-alone purpose for you. You should know that you cannot perfectly keep Torah, nor can anyone. If there is one thing you fail to keep in Torah, you are unclean to God because of your sins. God loves you so much and understands that you cannot make yourself perfectly clean and acceptable to Him, therefore He has graciously offered you salvation through the Messiah’s perfect blood. Without the shedding of blood, there is no forgiveness of sin, and by not putting your faith in the Messiah who was slain, you remain in your sins.
Hebrews 9
1Now the first covenant had regulations for worship and also an earthly sanctuary. 2A tabernacle was set up. In its first room were the lampstand, the table and the consecrated bread; this was called the Holy Place. 3Behind the second curtain was a room called the Most Holy Place, 4which had the golden altar of incense and the gold-covered ark of the covenant. This ark contained the gold jar of manna, Aaron’s staff that had budded, and the stone tablets of the covenant. 5Above the ark were the cherubim of the Glory, overshadowing the atonement cover. But we cannot discuss these things in detail now.
6When everything had been arranged like this, the priests entered regularly into the outer room to carry on their ministry. 7But only the high priest entered the inner room, and that only once a year, and never without blood, which he offered for himself and for the sins the people had committed in ignorance. 8The Holy Spirit was showing by this that the way into the Most Holy Place had not yet been disclosed as long as the first tabernacle was still standing. 9This is an illustration for the present time, indicating that the gifts and sacrifices being offered were not able to clear the conscience of the worshiper. 10They are only a matter of food and drink and various ceremonial washings—external regulations applying until the time of the new order.
11When Christ came as high priest of the good things that are already here, he went through the greater and more perfect tabernacle that is not man-made, that is to say, not a part of this creation. 12He did not enter by means of the blood of goats and calves; but he entered the Most Holy Place once for all by his own blood, having obtained eternal redemption. 13The blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkled on those who are ceremonially unclean sanctify them so that they are outwardly clean. 14How much more, then, will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from acts that lead to death, so that we may serve the living God!
15For this reason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance—now that he has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant.
16In the case of a will, it is necessary to prove the death of the one who made it, 17because a will is in force only when somebody has died; it never takes effect while the one who made it is living. 18This is why even the first covenant was not put into effect without blood. 19When Moses had proclaimed every commandment of the law to all the people, he took the blood of calves, together with water, scarlet wool and branches of hyssop, and sprinkled the scroll and all the people. 20He said, “This is the blood of the covenant, which God has commanded you to keep.” 21In the same way, he sprinkled with the blood both the tabernacle and everything used in its ceremonies. 22In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.
23It was necessary, then, for the copies of the heavenly things to be purified with these sacrifices, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. 24For Christ did not enter a man-made sanctuary that was only a copy of the true one; he entered heaven itself, now to appear for us in God’s presence. 25Nor did he enter heaven to offer himself again and again, the way the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood that is not his own. 26Then Christ would have had to suffer many times since the creation of the world. But now he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself. 27Just as man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment, 28so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many people; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him.
October 27th, 2009 @ 12:12 pm
Isaiah 53, and Zicharya 6 are not reffering to jesus.
October 27th, 2009 @ 12:26 pm
Michael, you claim that repentence alone is not enogh to get rid of sin so I ask you,why did the jews during the time of the second temple need to come on to Jesus if they were able to bring their own sacrifices?
October 27th, 2009 @ 12:30 pm
Zvi,
Who is Isaiah 53 referring to? And where are your questions about nt authenticity?
October 27th, 2009 @ 12:31 pm
Also,where do we find that a sacrifice can be brought for future sins? and why didnt the jews believe in him if he was biblically correct?
October 27th, 2009 @ 12:33 pm
Michael all I’m asking is for proof that the nt is divine.
October 27th, 2009 @ 12:37 pm
Isaiah 53 is reffering to the jews, the word “avdy” refers to the jews throughout Isaiah you can see for yourself, and it cannot be reffering to jesus because it says he will see “seed” and the word “seed” always means chidren in the literal sense, and jesus had no children.
October 27th, 2009 @ 12:39 pm
My questions were about christianity in general and cotradictions in the nt can be found in my first post.
October 27th, 2009 @ 12:46 pm
Dr.Brown questions me as to why I wont read his book,yet he doesnt understand why Matt wants to read it, how interesting!
October 27th, 2009 @ 12:51 pm
Craig,the word can=salvation, youre just twisting the simple meaning of the word to=yihosuah as jesus to suit your need, I want clear verses that cannot be understood any other way.
October 27th, 2009 @ 1:01 pm
Craig, the Rabbi that prohibited the elevator has been studying the law day and night and I think he has a better Idea of what the definition of resting is, than we do, so if you can disprove,by all means but first please define what you think rest is and we will see how consistent you are.
October 27th, 2009 @ 1:01 pm
Zvi,
In Isaiah 53:12, who bore the sin of many and made intercession for the transgressors?
In verse 5, who was crushed for our inequities, and by whose wounds are we healed?
Verse 1: “Who has believed our message
and to whom has the arm of the LORD been revealed?”
Why don’t you believe Isaiah? You do not believe his message.
October 27th, 2009 @ 1:21 pm
Zvi,
You misinterpret verse 8. It says
“By oppression and judgment he was taken away. And who can speak of his descendants? For he was cut off from the land of the living; for the transgression of my people he was stricken.”
You are correct that Jesus had no children, that’s why Isaiah says “who can speak of his descendants?”
October 27th, 2009 @ 1:48 pm
Michael,as I have said “avdi” means the jews as reffered to in several other instances in Isaiah,the jews were crushed and bore the sin. Who would believe that the jews can go from sucha high to such a low. verse 8-the jews were cut off from the land of the living, it cannot mean Jesus 1.there cannot be a contradiction in scripture, if scriptue says that he will have seed,then so it must be. 2. Why cant it be that he will be killed yet he will have children? The verse means who can speak of his GENERATION that he was living in. If it was reffering to future generations it would say DOROSOV as proper hebrew.
October 27th, 2009 @ 2:15 pm
It does not make sense that “he” means jews. Nor would it make sense that by the wounds of jews, we are healed. Only through God can we be healed. And since Jesus is God who came in the flesh, we are healed by his wounds because without the shedding of blood, there is no forgiveness of sin. Jesus was cut off from the land of the living meaning that he died, but as we also know, he was raised to life after 3 days proving he was God in the flesh, our savior and Messiah.
October 27th, 2009 @ 3:51 pm
Michael,the jews have been fully aware of the verse well before jesus was born,why dou think the jews-knowing Isaiah rejected him? Dont you think that the jews and jewish leaders were well aware of these verses yet still chose to reject him. So as an outsider who would you believe, the jews, or the gentiles who all of a sudden started traslating verses to fit their needs? And dont forget the jews up untill this point never worshiped a son of g-d, why iw that? A better question why didnt gentiles worship thr trinity up untill that point if the ot is consistent with jesus?
October 27th, 2009 @ 3:54 pm
Michael,the torah states an untold amount of times that the torah will not change it is eternal, why dont mesianic jews follow the law of moses?
October 27th, 2009 @ 4:10 pm
Michael, again,the verses of Isaiah are reffering to the jews because the word “avdy”-my slave-is reffered to the jews many times in Isaiah, so untill you can prove that this time it means jesus you have no case. verse 8 is speaking of his generation not his children,but you completely ignored what I wrote. If the verse says that he will have children-then so it must be. Are you suggesting that the prophet lied? And why cant it be that jesus died yet he had children? And of course the suffering of jews brings atonement to the jews of that time.
October 27th, 2009 @ 5:15 pm
Zvi,
If you’re referring to Isaiah 53:10, this reference to “offspring” means that after the Messiah has given himself up to death as a guilt offering, his spiritual children ( his followers) would result and begin their work on earth in His name. Also, to say that the suffering of jews brings atonement to the jews of that time, you are undermining the Word of God as it pertains to Messiah’s purposes. We can’t atone for each other because we are all sinful, so only a clean offering to God is acceptable, and that offering was the sinless Lamb of God, Messiah himself.
You said:
“Dont you think that the jews and jewish leaders were well aware of these verses yet still chose to reject him. So as an outsider who would you believe, the jews, or the gentiles who all of a sudden started traslating verses to fit their needs?”
Yes, many jews were aware of these verses and still rejected him because they were looking for a different type of Messiah. They were looking for a Messiah to restore the Kingdom to Israel right then and there. They didn’t expect that the Messiah would first come to atone for their sins through his death so they could be made righteous before God. Don’t forget though that while many rejected him, many jews also believed and followed him. If you knew anything about the nt, you would know that it is overwhelmingly written by jews. So you have eyewitness jews who wrote this, not gentiles. Please do yourself a favor and get informed before you make such comments.
You said:
“A better question why didnt gentiles worship thr trinity up untill that point if the ot is consistent with jesus?”
This really is a big misunderstanding on your part. You should know that the majority of gentiles worshipped pagan gods before Jesus came. It was through Jesus’ ministry to the jews that the gentiles learned of him.
You said:
“the torah states an untold amount of times that the torah will not change it is eternal, why dont mesianic jews follow the law of moses?”
No one is saying that the Torah has changed, only that salvation does not occur through it alone, because as I mentioned earlier, no one can perfectly keep Torah and be counted righteous, so God established a new covenant as described in Jeremiah 31:31-34, and Jeremiah 33:14-16. It was through this covenant that Messiah would make Israel right with God. Here he is referred to as the righteous Branch, and we know pure ‘righteousness’ can only be attributed to God. Oh, and many messianic jews do follow the law of Moses, while at the same time recognizing Jesus as the fulfillment of the law.
October 27th, 2009 @ 5:31 pm
Michael, the word “Zerah” always means literal seed biological children, it never means students throughout the entire Tanach. The vast majority of jews including the sanhedrin rejected Jesus,yes of course there were a few ignorant students of his that were jewish,so what? why did the majority of jews and the sanhedrin reject him? As for the gentiles, if jesus can be found in the ot, then why didnt they believe in the trinity the way the christians describe it? Lastly, the word covenant=pact-deal not a torah, in fact g-d said he will put the torah in the covenant.
October 27th, 2009 @ 5:48 pm
Michael,lets focus on the word “zerah” if it must be literal like I claim then we can reject the entire theory, please find me another time that the word zerah does not refer to biological children.
October 27th, 2009 @ 6:31 pm
“It’s unfortunate you tried to make something out of nothing, especially wasting the time of others here in this blog too.”
I do not apologize for this at all. If people wish to ignore me, they can. Furtheremore, judging from the long winded, sometimes multiple posts from many of the contributors, I see that people here are not averse to wasting their time.
And I still believe that you are adopting a triumphal attitude, perhaps not so much insofar as expressing the idea that since the Western world is Christian it is the true religion, but it is a bit over the top claiming victory of in a debate you have not even engaged in yet.
October 27th, 2009 @ 6:36 pm
“My explanation against your argument of Dr. Brown’s quotes referred to instances of extremely terrible history of the so-called ‘Christian’ church persecuting Jews. Dr. Brown is correct that these ‘Christians’ had an extremely ignorant perspective of following Jesus and obeying him.”
I believe he was speaking about “real” (i.e. evangelical or fundamentalist) Christians and in more recent history and answers to Jewish objections he felt were less than satisfactory i.e. superficial (since he did refer to them as “Christian” and not Catholic). I’m still not sure why he thought they were insensitive and/or triumphal.
October 27th, 2009 @ 7:24 pm
“And Zvi, what gives you the right to tell Matt he can’t read Dr. Brown’s books according to the Torah? Just as you have the right to read rabbinic commentary, you also have the right to read how Dr. Brown answers questions raised by Jews about Yeshua. If you’re so comfortable with what you believe, you should have no fear of what he says in his books.”
Michael:
It’s not Zvi but rather halacha (jewish law) which prohibits Kfira (loosely translated as heresy). And it’s not necessarily because the Torah feels that we will become led astray, but rather because the heretic material will lower our souls.
October 27th, 2009 @ 7:29 pm
“Matt, What do you think of my question regarding the blood offering, that we never find a korben to be michaper on future aveiros?”
Zvi, I think it is a good argument. However, I don’t think it is convincing to Christians because they believe that J-sus is superior in all aspects to the sacrificial system.
In fact, I once was checking out an interesting evangelist named Chuck Missler who had a list of 5 ways J-sus was superior to the sacrificial system, and sure enough, one of them was the fact that J-sus could be m’chaper on future aveiros.
Matt
October 27th, 2009 @ 9:01 pm
Michael, is it permitted to cut wheat on shabbos? well, jesus instructed his students to do just that.
October 27th, 2009 @ 9:04 pm
Matt, I agree that it wont convince them,but that is the root of the problem; they assume that jesus can do it all without any evidence.
October 27th, 2009 @ 9:08 pm
Another issue with isaiah 53 is that it says that he will live long, and Jesus didnt.
October 27th, 2009 @ 9:25 pm
I encourage the audience to see a you tube video labeled “Isaiah 53 led me out of christianity”.
October 27th, 2009 @ 11:17 pm
Zvi or Matt,
Since your goal here is to disprove Christianity, if you feel we are wrong, where do you think Christians end up after they die.
October 27th, 2009 @ 11:32 pm
Ben, it is a good question that you ask, the answer is-it depends on whether or not one is jewish. According to judaism, if a jew believes in Jesus, he will suffer the cosequences in the next world,however a gentile will not get punished for believing in jesus as long as he believes in g-d.The reason being that although a gentile is wasting his time, he is not violating any of the 7 Noahide laws by believing in him. The prohibition of believing in other g-d’s was only given to the jews,in other words,the fact that one must believe that there is a g-d that created the world……etc. is universal and whoever doesnt believe in him will get punished, however if a gentile worships the sun or the moon along with g-d will not be held accountable, as long as they observe the 7 noahide laws.
October 27th, 2009 @ 11:47 pm
Ben, up untill a while ago,this question always bothered me. I was always under the impression that gentiles would get punished for believing in jesus,because it is included in the prohibition of idolatry the same jews are liable for it, and I wondered how can g-d put so many millions of people who live such righteous lives all end up in hell? But, I got my answer when I came across the writings one of the leading jewish scholars that wrote that gentiles are not included under this particular sort of idolatry. According to Dr.Brown all jews that follow the 613 commandments faithfully and that were gassed to death because they were jewish are all going to hell because they dont believe in jesus.
October 28th, 2009 @ 1:16 am
The Seven Laws of Noah (Hebrew: שבע מצוות בני נח Sheva mitzvot B’nei Noach):
1. Prohibition of Idolatry: You shall not have any idols before God.
2. Prohibition of Murder: You shall not murder. (Genesis 9:6)
3. Prohibition of Theft: You shall not steal.
4. Prohibition of Sexual Promiscuity: You shall not commit any of a series of sexual prohibitions, which include adultery, incest, bestiality and male homosexual intercourse.
5. Prohibition of Blasphemy: You shall not blaspheme God’s name.
6. Dietary Law: Do not eat flesh taken from an animal while it is still alive. (Genesis 9:4)
7. Requirement to have just Laws: Set up a governing body of law (eg Courts)
Question for Zvi:
1) Let say there’s a gentile who acknowledges the existence of G-d but doesn’t know anything about religion. He doesn’t know anything about the 7 laws of Noah, but doesn’t break any of these laws. Is he still accepted by G-d?
2) Law number four says committing immoral physical acts is wrong. Let say a married person commits adultery in their heart only, do you consider that equal to someone who commits adultery physically? If it is not equal, would watching pornography or going to a strip club be acceptable since the act is only done in the heart.
October 28th, 2009 @ 1:25 am
Let me clarify question number 2:
2) Law number four says committing immoral physical acts is wrong. Let say a married person enjoys the fornication he commits with another woman that’s done only in his heart, based on the law, do you consider that equal to someone who commits adultery physically? If it is not equal, would watching pornography or going to a strip club be acceptable since the act is only done in the heart.
October 28th, 2009 @ 9:44 am
Ben,the answer to your first question is,that a gentile must keep the 7 laws because g-d commanded him. The answer to question number 2 is-anything other than the act itself is permited including watching….etc.
October 28th, 2009 @ 9:45 am
Zvi,
Regarding Isaiah 53.
Below proves your wrong, it is not Israel but the Messiah Son of God.
The rewards of the Messiah for suffering.
He will be exalted above all. 52:13
HOW CAN ISRAEL BE EXALTED ABOVE ALL, A SINFUL PEOPLE,
Isa:1:4: Ah sinful nation, a people laden with iniquity, a seed of evildoers, children that are corrupters: they have forsaken the LORD, they have provoked the Holy One of Israel unto anger, they are gone away backward.
Yeshua is the LORD whom you despise.
Become the Saviour of many nations 52:15
ISRAEL CANNOT BE A SAVIOUR ONLY GOD IS THE TRUE SAVIOUR.
2Sa:22:3: The God of my rock; in him will I trust: he is my shield, and the horn of my salvation, my high tower, and my refuge, my saviour; thou savest me from violence.
Become the wonder of Kings
KINGS do not WONDER ABOUT ISRAEL, THEY CERTAINLY DO FOR YESHUA
The One that arouses awe, astonishment, surprise, or admiration; a marvel.
Become the healer of all 53:4-5
ISRAEL HASN’T HEALED ANYONE BUT YESUA HAS. Our spirit is healed and sometimes as I myself have testimony of my flesh being healed.
Become an example to all 52:9
ISRAEL IS NOT AN EXAMPLE OF RIGHTEOUSNESS BUT YESHUA IS.
Ec:7:20: For there is not a just man upon earth, that doeth good, and sinneth not.
He will produce a spiritual and an eternal seed 53:10
zeh’-rah – from 2232; seed; figuratively, fruit, plant, sowing-time, posterity:–X carnally, child, fruitful, seed(-time), sowing- time.
We are Born Again and belong to Him. It is the spirit that continues after the flesh dies. We are His children.
Joh:13:33: Little children, yet a little while I am with you. Ye shall seek me: and as I said unto the Jews, Whither I go, ye cannot come; so now I say to you.
Prolonged eternal days, death could not hold Him. Yeshua rose from the grave in the flesh and many saw Him.
INDIVIDUALLY ISRAEL HAS gone to the grave but the NT records those that waited on Him were seen leaving the captivity of the grave after His sacrifice.
Prosperity of God’s pleasure in seeing all creation redeemed
AGAIN ONLY GOD IS THE REDEEMER not ISRAEL. Job knew of the coming Messiah.
Job:19:25: For I know that my redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth:
The satisfaction of seeing the travail of His soul in the restoration of all things to God 53:11
Justification of many 53:11
God’s act of declaring or making a sinner righteous before God. ISRAEL CAN NOT declare anyone not even themselves as righteous before a Holy God.
Justification is by faith. True faith is God’s work (John 6:28-29), granted by God (John 1:29), and is concurrent with regeneration (2 Cor. 5:17), which God works in us by his will (John 1:13). This result of this justification and regeneration is that the sinner turns from his sin and towards doing good works. But it is not these works that earn our place with God nor sustain it. Jesus accomplished all that we need to be saved and stay saved on the cross. All that we need, we have in Jesus. All we need to do to be saved, to be justified, is to truly believe in what God has done for us in Jesus on the cross; this is why the Bible says we are justified by faith (Rom. 5:1). This true belief with justification before God and regeneration in the new believer, results in good works.
Greatness above others 53:12
ISRAEL IS NOT GREAT ABOVE OTHERS and if you wish than go ahead and tell people they are. As great in the OT the Nation had God with them. Israel rejected the Messiah who spoke His Father’s words. This should humble Israel as a nation one day.
Psalms:135:10: Who smote great nations, and slew mighty kings;
A portion with the great and conquest of the strong 53:12
GREAT and STRONG is GOD ALONE! The Father shares HIS THRONE WITH HIS SON! Shown in the Psalms and NT.
Every knee bows before Yeshua, even the knee’s of Moses.
Psalms:145:3: Great is the LORD, and greatly to be praised; and his greatness is unsearchable.
Isa:12:2: Behold, God is my salvation; I will trust, and not be afraid: for the LORD JEHOVAH is my strength and my song; he also is become my salvation.
With your theory of Isaiah 53,
If 10 percent of Israel believe they are Saviours, Righteous, Greater than others, justified before the Holy one not as Abraham was by faith, that they can Redeem gentiles than they believe they are gods. God the Almighty will deal with all gods.
THAT IS IDOLATRY ZVI!
October 28th, 2009 @ 10:10 am
Craig, you’ve got it all wrong.The verse are simply stating that the jews will have prosperity at some point and then they will end up suffering because of their sin and in the end they will be forgiven due to their suffering. We are not discussing a saviour,the only saviour is g-d that will rectify our sins,it has nothing to do. It cannot be reffering to jesus 1. because jesus had no zerah-seed. I state again, the word zerah is ALWAYS used in the literal sense,namely-biological children,NEVER will you find otherwise. 2.The verse says that this “individual” will live long yet jesus died at a young age.
October 28th, 2009 @ 10:20 am
Also,where does the verse say that it is reffering to moshiach? All you have,even if you claim that we are speaking of an individual(which would need proof since the word “avdy” refers to jews throughout the book of Isaiah) why does it have to be jesus, there are plenty of others that fit the bill alot better than Jesus. According to Gospel Jesus tried to talk his way out of getting excecuted, he also screamed out to g-d “why di you forsake me” when he misquoted the verse, so he didnt die as the verse predicted “like a lamb to the slaughter”. Dont you think that Rabbi Akivah who accepted his death sentence upon himself should be a better canadate than jesus? Or perhaps it is somone that died in the holocaust there are so many others that it can be reffering to other than Jesus even if we are speaking of an individual.
October 28th, 2009 @ 10:47 am
Zvi,
We are Born Again, from His sowing we are His fruit.
You are the fruit of sowing from dust(man) that returns to dust but the seed that we speak of is from above, God.
zeh’-rah – from 2232; seed; figuratively, fruit, plant, sowing-time, posterity:–X carnally, child, fruitful, seed(-time), sowing- time.
You too will reap what you sow.
Jesus lives and many haved lived and continue this day to tell about it. Go ahead and tell me I have not seen and heard from the God of Abraham and His Son Jesus.
Isa:9:6: For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counseller, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.
As for those who reject Yeshua who spoke His Fathers words. Deut 18:18
M’t:8:12: But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
M’t:22:13: Then said the king to the servants, Bind him hand and foot, and take him away, and cast him into outer darkness; there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
M’t:25:30: And cast ye the unprofitable servant into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
Joh:3:3: Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
Joh:3:7: Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.
1Pe:1:23: Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.
October 28th, 2009 @ 10:49 am
Zvi why would it(Isaiah) NOT be Jesus? Have you been taught that?
October 28th, 2009 @ 10:58 am
Zvi is the God of Moses a prince? I think not, He is the King of the Universe and Peace. His Son is the Prince of Peace.
Isa:9:6: For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counseller, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.
October 28th, 2009 @ 12:14 pm
Craig, you can read all my previous posts.
October 28th, 2009 @ 12:33 pm
Craig,”why would he not be jesus” is what your’e religion is based on. You just assume it is jesus because “why not” instead of providing evidence.
October 28th, 2009 @ 1:04 pm
Zvi claims that we will not find ONE instance where ‘zerah’ maens metaphorical or spiritual children.
Well Zvi conveniently forgot to mention that in just 4 chapters later, Isaiah does indeed use ‘zerah’ in a spiritual/metaphotrical sense.
`anag rachab peh ‘arak lashown yeled pesha`ZERA` sheqer
What does that say Zvi? I’ll make it easy for you.
Against whom do ye sport yourselves? against whom make ye a wide mouth, [and] draw out the tongue? [are] ye not children of transgression, A SEED of FALSEHOOD, Isaiah 57:4
How can a quality have physical children Zvi? It cannot and we see here that it is used in the metaphorical/spiritual intent.
What a blatent lie! Any child familiar with a concordance could see that a metaphorical/spiritual usage is found several times in Isaiah alone! Yet Zvi claimed we could not find it once.Yet what amazes me more is that he is argueing with the the Talmud where it states that the subject of Isaiah 53 is Jeremiah, and he had no physical seed! I thought ‘zera’ ALWAYS meant physical seed. Scripture claims otherwise.
October 28th, 2009 @ 1:08 pm
More found here.
http://messiahtruth.wordpress.com/2009/03/14/isaiah53/
October 28th, 2009 @ 3:02 pm
Zvi,
To answer you first post,
1.In isaiah 59 verse 21 it says that the torah will never change
As I said before, “No one is saying that the Torah has changed, only that salvation does not occur through it alone, because as I mentioned earlier, no one can perfectly keep Torah and be counted righteous, so God established a new covenant as described in Jeremiah 31:31-34, and Jeremiah 33:14-16. It was through this covenant that Messiah would make Israel right with God. Here he is referred to as the righteous Branch, and we know pure ‘righteousness’ can only be attributed to God.”
2.In the new testement it says that jakob came to eygept with 75 people,and in the torah it says he came with 70
http://www.tektonics.org/lp/peopletoegypt.html
3.mathew 24-do not beleive me based on magic,yet luke 7 and john 4 say-believe me because of my magic
I’ll just throw that argument in the garbage. In none of these verses you mentioned is magic addressed. Jesus has never said anything like that. So obvious you didn’t read this.
4.Almah means young lady not virgin.
Already answered to you in great detail by many here, to your unsatisfaction
5.2 different genealogies of king david. To answer that it is from his mother would be one of the most foolish ways to resolve the issue because according to the torah the fact that ones mother is from a certain tribe or kingdom or even a preist it means nothing ,any 10 year old orthodox jew can tell you that.
See previous answer on #4
6.the book of acts says that jakob was laid to rest in shchem in the plot that abraham bought from the son of chamor shchem yet the torah says in genisis that he was buried in CHEVRON and that abraham bought it from EFRON not chamor.
http://www.kingdavid8.com/Contradictions/Genesis/60JacobBuried.html
In addition to answering these questions you had from your first post,
You said: “Michael, is it permitted to cut wheat on shabbos? well, jesus instructed his students to do just that.”
I want you to show me where Jesus instructed his disciples to do this. Where do you get such information?
You said: “Another issue with isaiah 53 is that it says that he will live long, and Jesus didnt.”
Wrong again Zvi, Jesus IS alive. Plenty of eyewitnesses saw him after he rose from the dead. His death was the atonement for the sins of the world to those would believe in him, and his life from the dead proves that He was who he claimed to be and that we can have life with him in the life to come. He is coming again as he said!
You told Ben: “The answer to question number 2 is-anything other than the act itself is permited including watching….etc.”
Jesus says in Matthew 5, beginning in verse 17:
17″Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.
21″You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘Do not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.’ 22But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, ‘Raca, ‘ is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell.
23″Therefore, if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you, 24leave your gift there in front of the altar. First go and be reconciled to your brother; then come and offer your gift.
25″Settle matters quickly with your adversary who is taking you to court. Do it while you are still with him on the way, or he may hand you over to the judge, and the judge may hand you over to the officer, and you may be thrown into prison. 26I tell you the truth, you will not get out until you have paid the last penny.
27″You have heard that it was said, ‘Do not commit adultery.’28But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. 29If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. 30And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell.
31″It has been said, ‘Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.’32But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery.
33″Again, you have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘Do not break your oath, but keep the oaths you have made to the Lord.’ 34But I tell you, Do not swear at all: either by heaven, for it is God’s throne; 35or by the earth, for it is his footstool; or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King. 36And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make even one hair white or black. 37Simply let your ‘Yes’ be ‘Yes,’ and your ‘No,’ ‘No’; anything beyond this comes from the evil one.
38″You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’39But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. 41If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. 42Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.
43″You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.
Verses 27-30 ought to make you think again about how you answered Ben. Our holy God never says it’s acceptable to look upon women lustfully as you have said it’s okay. God wants your best and that includes your best intentions and thoughts. He doesn’t want your leftovers. Jesus made this clear. With that said, it is obvious that no one can perfectly keep the law, and that’s what Jesus was pointing out. We need his perfect and holy blood to cleanse us, nothing else will do. Your good deeds alone mean nothing to God, because they are as filthy rags to Him. Only His grace through our faith in Jesus saves us, it is the gift of God, not of good works so that man may boast.
October 28th, 2009 @ 3:54 pm
Correction, last sentence was supposed to say it is by God’s grace through our faith in Jesus that we are saved, it is the gift of God, and not of good works so that NO MAN may boast. See Ephesians 2:8-9.
October 28th, 2009 @ 3:55 pm
Zvi,
This is Eric McCoy, Dr. Brown’s assistant. I wanted to make you aware that Dr. Brown talked about you on his radio broadcast yesterday at the end of the first hour, “Why Israel Matters.” If you would like to hear the show it can be heard at the link below.
http://lineoffireradio.askdrbrown.org/2009/10/27/october-27-2009/.
October 28th, 2009 @ 4:26 pm
Kyle, Big mistake!! the word zerah is reffereing to dhildren real biological children of falsehood the word falsehood is the metaphorical word as the previous verse states children of “minaef” the same way abraham had “BANIM” namely eliezer but no” Zerah” before Issac was born because zerah is physical. Also the talmud does not say that isaiah 53 is reffering to jerimiah but rather rav sadiah gaon, and it doesnt say anywhere that he never had children, in chapter 57 it is only speaking of children in that particular place.
October 28th, 2009 @ 4:30 pm
Zvi,
Didn’t God command Jeremiah not to marry or have children in Jeremiah 16? How then could Rav Saadia apply Isaiah 53 to him if zera had to mean physical offspring? Jeremiah had none.
October 28th, 2009 @ 4:55 pm
Zvi responded:
“Ben,the answer to your first question is,that a gentile must keep the 7 laws because g-d commanded him. The answer to question number 2 is-anything other than the act itself is permited including watching….etc.”
Zvi,
Are you confirming to my first question that a gentile who believes there is a g-d out there, doesnt follow a particular religion, doesnt break the 7 laws, will be accepted by g-d?
About your answer to my second question, so you confirm it is ok for a married gentile or jew to watch online pornography, online bestiality, attend strip club shows, as long as he or she doesn’t commit the physical act? Here is another question to add to this, can someone like a rabbi work as a stripper as long as he doesn’t engage in any physical contact.
October 28th, 2009 @ 5:07 pm
And? Even if that is true, zera is still being used metaphorically, something you said was impossible. “real biological children of falsehood?” Really Zvi? A moral quality does not have physical children. Anyone who reads that verse sees it is used metaphorically!
October 28th, 2009 @ 5:12 pm
Kyle the word zerah is literal the word falsehood is metaphorical as you can see from the last verse, reread my previous post.
October 28th, 2009 @ 5:14 pm
Your explanation requires quite a stretch Zvi! By mineaf I assume you are talking about the “sorceress?” That too is metaphorical Zvi, the prophet is saying that they are marked by that moral quality, that they themselves are evil and that they had evil origins. Second, recently, The Rebbe has had this applied to him, and he did not have children either! Either way, wesee a metaphorical usage of zerah!
October 28th, 2009 @ 5:16 pm
Ben,the answer to the first question is that you must not only keep the 7 noahide laws,you must also observe them because g-d said so,nothing to do with religion. Answer to question 2 ONLY GENTILES can attend clubs….etc, but NOT jews.
October 28th, 2009 @ 5:16 pm
No, the zerah is metaphorical, it’s describing a moral quality! Look! The Zerah of falsehood, a moral quality! Moral qualities do not have children!
October 28th, 2009 @ 5:18 pm
The last verse, the one before it? That too disproves your position!
But draw near hither, ye sons of the sorceress, the seed of the adulterer and the whore. Isaiah 57:3
Isaiah is not saying that Israel are LITERAL descendants from some random adulterers! Common sense now Zvi!
October 28th, 2009 @ 5:20 pm
The verses are about the unrighteous in general, and we see that God says they, this populous, are descendants of those two evil people. Obviously ALL unrighteous people don’t come from a harlot and a adulterer!
October 28th, 2009 @ 5:31 pm
Michae, I have refuted your arguments on my first few questions on my first post many times over,just take a look. And the word is not magic, it should be miracles.
October 28th, 2009 @ 5:31 pm
21 Be assured, fan evil person will not go unpunished,
but the offspring of the righteous will be delivered.
Proverbs 11:21
This too is metaphorical, If you take Proverbs 11:21 as strictly meaning “literal descendants” that would mean that the literal descendants of a wicked person are doomed to punishment even if they live a Godly life. Why? Because they are not the children of a righteous man. You would be forced to interpret Proverbs 11:21 as teaching that your punishment or deliverance is decided by your forbears, no matter what your personal righteousness happens to be. Of course that is a ridiculous interpretation that is totally nullified by the lives of righteous individuals whose forbears were wicked. Godly King Hezekiah, the direct descendent of wicked King Ahaz comes to mind, as does Ezekiel 18:20
October 28th, 2009 @ 5:48 pm
kyLE, FIRST OF ALL regarding the isaiah argument there were definitly jews that did sin,and regarding your last argument, exodus chapter 20 verse 5 says otherwise.
October 28th, 2009 @ 5:54 pm
There were Jews that sinned, when did I claim otherwise? Regarding proverbs, you have not only completely ignored that zerah is metaphorical there, as even a 5th grader in English could identify, you have also given me a chapter that doesn’t point to anything!
God will punish children for their Fathers sins. AND? King Hezekiah disagrees with you!
October 28th, 2009 @ 5:56 pm
Ezekiel 18:20, I take it you did not read it?
The person who sins, he alone shall die. A child shall not share the burden of a parent’s guilt, nor shall a parent share the burden of a child’s guilt; the righteousness of the righteous shall be accounted to him alone, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be accounted to him alone.
October 28th, 2009 @ 5:57 pm
More information regarding zera:
http://hadavar.org/Isaiah_53_10.html
October 28th, 2009 @ 5:59 pm
Zvi,
Besides the 7 laws applied for the gentiles, can you explain why jews cannot perform some of the acts that I mentioned.
October 28th, 2009 @ 6:00 pm
And don’t try to avoid the verse in Isaiah, that is what we are discussing.
October 28th, 2009 @ 6:35 pm
You all can argue Isaiah 53 and Isaiah 57 and debate “almahs” and “betulahs” and “zerahs” even though none of you speak Hebrew (assumption) and you can go back and forth spending hours and days writing 660+ responses . Let’s look at things outside the box:
(1) Our temple is destroyed, and our fathers were brutally slaughtered. God gave them no warning and no opportunity to repent? I wonder why?
(2) No prophet has appeared in Israel for the last 2000 years. I wonder why?
(3) All atoning sacrifices were rejected EVERY SINGLE YEAR after a certain individual “died”, till the temple was itself destroyed. I wonder why?
(4) Look around you: nigh the whole world professes to follow the law of Moses, the law of God, as taught by a certain individual. Wondrous, isn’t it?
(5) A group of madmen/liars went to their deaths proclaiming a fictional account 2000 years ago just for the hell of it. I wonder why?
You don’t even need to look at scriptures. If you have eyes, all the answers point to Yashua.
JESUS IS LORD
October 28th, 2009 @ 8:45 pm
Kyle, you completely missed the boat, you have 2 choices either the word zerah means a seed of falsehood,then the word zerah is not in the cotext of having children, the same way the word zerah can mean seed of a tree that I dont deny or sperm,my point is obviously that given the context of a person having zerah,the term is always literal. However, that is not the definition regardless, rather the verse is discussing literal children of sinners just like the previous verse, but either way you have no proof like I said. Now,getting to the verse in exodus, clearly in chapter 20 verse 5, states that future generations will suffer for the forefathers sin. Although the verse in yichezkel,seems to contradict it, the sages explain that if the son is sinfull as well as the father, in that case the son will suffer for his fathers sin. But the ironic part about all this is that you believe that Jesus who was sinless will bear the sins of sinners, when he himself was clean!
October 28th, 2009 @ 8:50 pm
According to jewish law these acts that you mention are forbidden at least one reason would be because it can cause one to emit seed.
October 28th, 2009 @ 9:17 pm
The last post was supossed to be addressed to Ben.
October 28th, 2009 @ 9:52 pm
Took you a while to get a response from your rabbi huh?
Missed the boat? You keep denying the plain text! A seed of falsehood. You told me there was not one instance where it is metaphorical and yet there it is! Falsehood is the person being addressed and it’s “seed” are the unrighteous. It’s the same instance in Isaiah 53. And for the record, Isaiah 53 doesn’t say the seed is his or that he is having the seed. It just says that he will “see seed.” The seed may not even be his! The usage of zera in Isaiah 53 is “marked of a moral quality,”: just like the seed of falsehood. You can’t argue against it! It’s there!
Do all sinners have adulterers for parents? Think logically Zvi! Come on now! You have no proof! It’s right there! Wow….
I don’t care what the sages say. How about you come up with your own opinion? Honestly, I think that explanation is pushing the limits of reality but that’s another story!
You are ignoring what the text says once again Zvi? Why can’t you see?! “The righteous” is not a set of people but a moral quality! Isaiah 53′s seed is a moral quality of people who follow the servant! Proverbs is clear, “the righteous” are not REAL PHYSICAL PEOPLE, but an example.
In all honesty, the theology of “father son sins” don’t even matter. Look at the text Zvi.
21 Be assured, fan evil person will not go unpunished,
but the offspring of the righteous will be delivered.
It’s not referring to physical children, it’s merely a marking of a moral quality, which is what Isaiah 53 entails.
October 28th, 2009 @ 10:00 pm
As you demanded to stay on topic, so will I. We are going to stay on Isaiah. You would not let the other posters switch so neither can you. As I’ve shown above, you have been refuted. (Just talking the same way you do.)
A seed of falsehood. You say this is a metaphor from the last verse. Problem is Zvi is that the previous verse uses metaphor too! I realized this when I first read through Isaiah!
But draw near hither, ye sons of the sorceress, the seed of the adulterer and the whore.
They are not LITERAL sons of a sorceress, rather, the text compares the “children” with a morally corrupt figure. It’s like calling someone a “son of a ……” It works the same way. The same applies with the adulterer and the whore. Isaiah is addressing a group of people, now, unless you believe that every single one of them was born out of wedlock, then it looks metaphorical to me! It’s right there….
October 28th, 2009 @ 10:08 pm
Isaiah 53 says just that Zvi, that when God makes his soul an offering for sin, the servant, the Messiah will see those whom he has brought up. Those who are marked with his moral qualities. Those who are called “children of Messiah,” marked with his qualities, just like the other passages.
yir’eh zera, this is what is in Isaiah 53
NOT yir’eh zero….
October 28th, 2009 @ 10:09 pm
To recap on Isaiah,
Unless one is going to argue that all the parents of the ones being addressed here are truly considered harlots and evildoers, you are going to have to concede that it’s implied here to refer to people who follow the evil works and the ways of adultery like the generations before them, regardless if they are their physical children or not. For all we know most of the parents of those being addressed here have been righteous while they wandered off. This clearly refers to the works of their predecessors rather than their origins.
October 28th, 2009 @ 10:13 pm
I’ll be popping in from time to time, so if you want to argue against what the Bible says, feel free to go on air with Dr. Brown, (Who mentioned you on air by the way.) Continue this discussion with him, I have collage work to do.
October 28th, 2009 @ 10:18 pm
One more thing to drill in the point since you don’t seem to get it.
Here are some modern examples of what is being done in the passage, both in Isaiah 53, and in Isaiah 57
“You are the child of a viper!”
(Obviously this child isn’t the LITERAL child of a viper, but he is marked with the same moral character.”
“You son of a b—-”
(Still not a LITERAL child of a dog, rather the person is identified with the dog due to his character traits.
“Son’s of God”
(Obviously not LITERAL SEED, but they are identified with God’s holiness.)
Again, I won’t be arguing with you all day, I have work to get done.
October 28th, 2009 @ 10:28 pm
Kyle,the difference between me and you is that I have my own brain to figure things out, so I dont have to copy other web sites word for word as you do. The ridiculous thing about your argument is that you believe that the verse is saying seed of falsehood, in other words the seed is reffering to the falsehood,and from there you are trying to prove that seed can be non literal, I have said, that when seed is not reffering to a human it doesnt have to be literal for inthat case seed takes on a new meaning,so for that price you could have proved it from the “seed of the field” where there it doesnt mean children. But either way here the word seed is reffering to children and the words sheker are reffering to the sins as this and the previous verse indicates the child of a “minaef” and it DOESNT have to mean that all jews are like that. and yes there was group of people that sinned in that way. As for the verse in proverbs, is literal,as I explained alsoexodus 34: clear like a bell!
October 28th, 2009 @ 10:34 pm
You make me laugh, I don’t have a brain? You are the one saying “Follow the sages!” “The sages say!” “My rabbi says” Come on now… I have only copied one of my objections, namely, Oct. 28 10:09 PM. Amazinggly enough, you sound just like Tovia Singer in his audio series! Can’t think for myself? You mouthed the same words as Tovia.
Again you have ignored virtually all of my posts. What is ridiculous babout you is that you deny that Zerah is being used metaphorically.
“”"that when seed is not reffering to a human it doesnt have to be literal for in that case seed takes on a new meaning”"”
It is being used of humans in the passages I quoted. The seed of the adulterer and whore ect….. Metaphor right there. Second, the text in Isaiah 53 says that he will “see seed,” not “have seed.”
October 28th, 2009 @ 10:35 pm
kyle the word ben doesnt always have a literal translation. If a verse says that one see seed and in no other cotext similar to that do we find that the definition is not literal,then you got a problem.
October 28th, 2009 @ 10:38 pm
“see seed” is found once in the Bible, namely Isaiah 53. He will see zerah, not zero.
The seed is marked of his moral character, as I’ve stated. I encourage you to go on air with Brown to keep this up as I’m getting quite tired of this charade
October 28th, 2009 @ 10:43 pm
I never looked at Rabbi singers works to date,the only time I did was when you mentioned it and at that point I saw that you quoted arguments from the post word for word. I only quote the rabbis say when I can back it up unlike you, that has zero proof that the verse is reffering to jesus when millions of canidates can fit the bill, did jesus go like a lamb….NO,he tried to fight his death,he tried to talk his wya out of it, he said, “g-d why have you forsaken me? There are millions of jews that can fit the profile just as easily if not more accuratly,so if your religion is based on these verses you are in pretty bad shape!
October 28th, 2009 @ 10:44 pm
A HUMAN IN RELATION TO HIS SEED IS ALWAYS DEFINED AS LITERAL.
October 28th, 2009 @ 10:45 pm
Also, I did not mention ben, we are talking of zera. And we see that Zerah can mean metaphorical children. As in Isaiah 57, 4 chapters after 53! Just as these children were marked with the moral quality of “Falsehood,” so can the followers of Messiah be marked with the qualities of the servant, the Messiah. Just as “children” can be marked with the moral quality of being from the adultress and the adulterer, so can “children” be marked with the moral quality of coming from the Messiah.
October 28th, 2009 @ 10:50 pm
Danial,see my post today at 4:26 that should answer your question.
October 28th, 2009 @ 10:53 pm
Kyle,you are living in denial, you have no proof that these verses refer to jesus whatsoever (besides for the fact that zerah is always literal).
October 28th, 2009 @ 10:54 pm
I quoted the verses, and I quoted a section of the article, which I already stated above. You have yet to back yourself up but only have tried to argue with what Isaiah has to say! It has zero proof? Is that why Jews are flocking to Christianity? That’s why all this started after all. If you are still stuck on Jesus quoting psalm 22, why not listen to the debate that is recorded above? Not to mention that you think the Jews went like lambs to the slaughter? What of the Maccabees? What about the Warsaw ghetto uprisings? Not too lamb like. Emotional arguments carry no weight, but only the weakness of the one pitching them. I’m done discussing this with you
“A HUMAN IN RELATION TO HIS SEED IS ALWAYS DEFINED AS LITERAL.”
Because yelling makes it true… I’ve refuted that above.
October 28th, 2009 @ 10:56 pm
Zvi you are living in denial. Your temple is destroyed, your God has not shown himself in 2000 years, there has been no prophets, no sacrifice, nothing. Just empty tradition. You have no proof. Refuted.
I’m done playing here, I got work to do.
October 28th, 2009 @ 10:56 pm
Kyle says that the word can mean “metaphorical children” the problem is that according to the way he is defining the verse the seed is refering to falsehood, so it is not discussing children at all!!!
October 28th, 2009 @ 11:03 pm
Rebbi Akivah gave up his life without a fight,so you can yell all you want the fact is that jesus did not go like a lamb….this is not an emotional argument,rather the verse claims that he was led like a lamb, so you can stand on your head a nd spit wooden nickles,jesus did not go like a lamb, hence we are not reffering to Jesus here. The fact that the temple is destroyed and we are still suffering is the biggest proof that moshiach has not arrived yet you said it.
October 28th, 2009 @ 11:13 pm
3 But draw near hither, ye sons of the sorceress, the seed of the adulterer and the whore. 4 Against whom do ye sport yourselves? against whom make ye a wide mouth, and draw out the tongue? are ye not children of transgression, a seed of falsehood
These REAL people were not literally sons of the sorceress and LITERAL descendants of the adulterer and whore. They are being compared in a way, by their moral quality, to a parent.
In the same way the “seed” of the servant, are REAL people, but they are compared in a way, marked by their moral quality as “children” of the servant. They are not LITERAL, but rather metaphorical. End of Story.
I quote myself, Not to mention that you think the Jews went like lambs to the slaughter? What of the Maccabees? What about the Warsaw ghetto uprisings? Not too lamb like. Israel is disqualified.
October 28th, 2009 @ 11:15 pm
As for Jesus quoting psalm 22, I recommend listening to the debate between Schmuely and Dr. Brown.
October 28th, 2009 @ 11:16 pm
If you want to argue with the clear word of the Bible, do it with Dr. Brown on the air. I have applications to fill out and it’s getting rather late.
October 28th, 2009 @ 11:21 pm
The jews have been persecuted throughout jewish history,so dont shrug evrything off with a silly warsaw uprising give me a break. And where do you see anything about a parent in “seed of falsehood”? Also writing the words”end of story” doesnt end it.
October 29th, 2009 @ 1:59 am
Apparently, there is 2 Ben’s. To avoid confusion, Ill will try to add KC next to my name.
Zvi, I am the one asking about the 7 laws for the gentiles.
To the other Ben, see if you can add something to your name to avoid confusion. Thanks.
October 29th, 2009 @ 9:30 am
Zvi,
Jesus never fought back. He rebuked Peter for that.
In the Garden where He was arrested He showed them that He had Power over them. They all fell backwards to the ground. God didn’t keep them on there feet.
That would never have happened to those who were with Moses if they went to arrest someone would it Zvi!
John:18:6: As soon then as he had said unto them, I am he, they went backward, and fell to the ground.
ALL OF THEM Zvi, He even healed the High priest’s servant who’s right ear was cut off by Peter’s sword! All Jesus did was touch the ear and it was made whole!
As for others during His arrest He Jesus only answered them with a few words, He could as God’s Son turned them into a pile of smoldering muck!
Hanging on the cross He had enough. Nails in His hands and feet, felt like a Lions teeth biteing to the bone, back whipped to shreds, face punched, and slapped, thorns driven into His scalp, mocked by people below Him, cold and naked.
As the Word of God He spoke it. He knew what He was saying as He had told His disciples earlier that He was to die for them.
Jesus hanging on the tree was for the first time from the eternal past alone without HIS FATHER.
HE HAD TOO DIE ALONE!
The OT prophesy was fullfilled Psalm 22:1
Jesus in His dying hour quoted prophecy, expressed faith in it, and fullfilled it.
Why was He forsaken Zvi? He took the punishment on Himself that I deserved. Jesus spoke the Word so we could answer it.
Speaking of seed, unless a seed fall to the ground and die it will not bear fruit.
That is what Jesus did.
You speak of not having a brain, what about the HEART? Does God suffer, God saw His Son get crucified by His fallen creation! Can you not feel or see His Love? The very act of God showed and turned many humans towards Him forever. God suffers with His creation. We as believers, Jews and Gentiles hate our sins and love the God of Abraham.
You and yours haved grabbed the purpose of Israel’s existance and changed it for yourselves. Trying to remove Yeshua, Salvation from the scriptures. God raised up Israel as a Nation, a people to be Holy under God, to bring His Son into this world for a purpose. The rabbi’s have stolen the purpose and have set themselves high over the poor. They will be brought low!
From the very beginning of Genesis it has been the coming Messiah and continues too the very last book of Revelation, the Lamb of God.
Hear what God has to say about those whom you believe.
M’t:21:33: Hear another parable: There was a certain householder, which planted a vineyard, and hedged it round about, and digged a winepress in it, and built a tower, and let it out to husbandmen, and went into a far country:
M’t:21:34: And when the time of the fruit drew near, he sent his servants to the husbandmen, that they might receive the fruits of it.
M’t:21:35: And the husbandmen took his servants, and beat one, and killed another, and stoned another.
M’t:21:36: Again, he sent other servants more than the first: and they did unto them likewise.
M’t:21:37: But last of all he sent unto them his son, saying, They will reverence my son.
M’t:21:38: But when the husbandmen saw the son, they said among themselves, This is the heir; come, let us kill him, and let us seize on his inheritance.
M’t:21:39: And they caught him, and cast him out of the vineyard, and slew him.
M’t:21:40: When the lord therefore of the vineyard cometh, what will he do unto those husbandmen?
M’t:21:41: They say unto him, He will miserably destroy those wicked men, and will let out his vineyard unto other husbandmen, which shall render him the fruits in their seasons.
M’t:21:42: Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord’s doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes?
M’t:21:43: Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.
M’t:21:44: And whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder.
M’t:21:45: And when the chief priests and Pharisees had heard his parables, they perceived that he spake of them.
M’t:21:46: But when they sought to lay hands on him, they feared the multitude, because they took him for a prophet.
October 29th, 2009 @ 9:48 am
Israel
10% say our fathers walked with God that is good enough for us.
79% say who cares.
1% say I must find and know the Lord and are persecuted.
The Samaritan women said:
Joh:4:25: The woman saith unto him, I know that Messias cometh, which is called Christ: when he is come, he will tell us all things.
JESUS replied:
Joh:4:26: Jesus saith unto her, I that speak unto thee am he.
HE was and is Loved if not by you!
Joh:4:40: So when the Samaritans were come unto him, they besought him that he would tarry with them: and he abode there two days.
Joh:4:41: And many more believed because of his own word;
Joh:4:42: And said unto the woman, Now we believe, not because of thy saying: for we have heard him ourselves, and know that this is indeed the Christ, the Saviour of the world.
October 29th, 2009 @ 9:58 am
Zvi who do you know would say they would have stood with Joseph, Moses, King David, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Elijah, Zechariah etc.
None of you would! You are all against them as you are against Messiah Yeshua to blot out His Name from Israel.
October 29th, 2009 @ 10:39 am
Zvi, Did not Rashi’s daughters marry right? Don’t descendants then carry a spiritual legacy on to others?, and through the mother? –Jabez
October 29th, 2009 @ 8:30 pm
Jabez, rashi’s grandchildren from his daughter followed the lineage of their father,not of their mother.
October 29th, 2009 @ 9:05 pm
Dr.Brown’s whole argument is that jesus is our saviour is because he died for our sins. Lets think about it for a second, during the biblical era if somone murdered, raped or stole, how do you think he would be able to get rid of the sin? he would have to repent or if he committed a sin unintentionally he would repent and bring an animal sacrifice,one thing is clear,repentance is needed for any type of sin,without repentance,the sacrifice is worthless,another thing is clear that g-d knew,at the point of giving the torah that there would be a period of time that jews will not have a temple,for example;between the first and second temple. How dou think the jews were able to anull their sins? obviously,g-d will forgive us without the sacrifices since we are unable to bring them. How do you think Noach was able to repent?Now,dont tell me that he brought animal sacrifices without a temple,because if thats the case we can do the same today. So lets see what jesus did for us. As far as sin he did not abolish it at all because,if one commits a sin and doesnt repent,he’s wasting his time, it would be the equivalent of saying that the ox that was slaughtered, is our saviour. So,basically Jesus is just a hassle,because not only do you have to repent, you also must believe in jesus, so it turns out that jesus is just making life more miserable. The other problem with this theory is, where does it say that one must believe in the sacrifice,must one believe in the ox? Additionaly where do find that the the animal sacrifices himself,doesnt the sinner have to bring the sacrifice,why does each individual bring a an additional animal for each sin,why isnt one animal good enough for everyone? how can a sacrifice work for a sin that was not yet commited? isnt the whole point of a sacrifice to spend the money to buy the animal and to cosider as if he was getting slaughtred? where do you find in scripture that a human sacrifices himself? What kind of sacrifice was it if he was ressurected 3 days later? lastly the jews have had many periods without a temple yet they managed withot jesus.
October 29th, 2009 @ 9:32 pm
Besides,even if all that did make sense,where does one get a right to go ahead and claim that this is the way to go without clear evidence from the torah? besides who said that this person had to be jesus?
October 29th, 2009 @ 9:39 pm
So, the descendants of Rashi, broke his lineage because he only had daughters, yet you now claim that the grandchildren carried it forward. I feel confused by your answer. How would this differ from the lineage given in Luke of Mary?
October 29th, 2009 @ 9:42 pm
I recently did a study of Isaiah’s idea of immanuel and shared it with Kyle, who I first heard from a few days ago; he may share with you then some jointly developed thoughts as a result of the challenges you had past presented on that matter, indeed, a matter of prophetic lineage of the seed of David.
October 29th, 2009 @ 9:44 pm
Zvi, Indeed Yeshua’s message of fulfillment of the requirements of the King to lead others to the Messianic Kingdom was a message of repentance, which he defined as an absolute 180 degree change of mind, prior to an acceptance of his Kipper.
October 29th, 2009 @ 9:47 pm
Does anybody know why Dr.Brown says that gets dizzy when he reads the talmud? He says it himself “because it deals with too much logic” and Dr.Brown does not usually analyze things too deeply. dr. Brown doesnt believe in oral law because there is no “evidence” yet he’ll believe a bastard who comes along and claims that he was born from a virgin birth is g-d without a morcel of evidence. He claims that the only thing that was handed doen was the script without an explanation, Dr.Brown is afraid to ask himself 1.how on earth would the jews figure out any of the 613 commands,what does resting on shabbos constitute? what do we cut on the 8th day? what happens if it falls out on shabbos? what are tzitzis? what are tefilin? what is a sucah? We are lost without it, but Dr. Brown wont go there because it makes him dizzy. At what point could the jews have “fabricated”oral law? jews were scattered across the entire earth yet shared the same traditionBut again it causes dizziness.
October 29th, 2009 @ 9:52 pm
Jabez.who says that Rashis lineage continues in a tribal sence? His teachings have nothing to do with his tribal lineage.
October 29th, 2009 @ 9:52 pm
Also, Zvi, if you are going to refuse to read the Brit Hadasha, then, for goodness sake get it right. Yeshua was led like a lamb to slaughter. What you quoted was one of seven utterances from the cross, all with prophetic fulfillment significance. Had he not uttered what you quoted, the other six may have no related significance for the Kipper of Yeshua.
October 29th, 2009 @ 9:53 pm
Get it right, Zvi. Right knowledge, Zvi. Right conduct, Avi.
October 29th, 2009 @ 9:57 pm
We cannot have Tzvi be Kozvi due to a lack of research accuracy.
October 29th, 2009 @ 10:07 pm
Jabez you are preaching while I am speaking,lets get down to evidece,mathamatical proof is what I’m looking for, without logic and evidence we can preach non stop,but thats not what it’s all about.
October 29th, 2009 @ 10:08 pm
Also, my name is not Avi.
October 29th, 2009 @ 10:08 pm
So, if his teachings have nothing to do with his lineage, what is the value of a studied linkage with him?
October 29th, 2009 @ 10:10 pm
It was a poor attempt to eventually link you with Avi Mariah, my hope for Tzvi.
October 29th, 2009 @ 10:13 pm
Zvi, What are the three greatest commandments of Torah?
October 29th, 2009 @ 10:14 pm
In addition, I trust Avi for right conduct. I have not yet trusted in Zvi for right conduct.
October 29th, 2009 @ 10:17 pm
Why do I not trust you, Zvi, yet deeply trust Yeshua? What conduct have you conducted which would lead me to that conclusion? It could be said you have offered no Kipper, where Yeshua has acted to do so.
October 29th, 2009 @ 10:21 pm
jabez,what I can do for you is to save your destiny in the world to come if you are jewish.
October 29th, 2009 @ 10:22 pm
What are the three greatest commandments of Torah?
October 29th, 2009 @ 10:24 pm
What world to come are you writing of, Zvi?
October 29th, 2009 @ 10:27 pm
Religious jews that observe all the commandments faithfully and dont believe in jesus will enjoy the the eternal bliss of the next world.
October 29th, 2009 @ 10:28 pm
Also, you did not read or respond accurately to the question first put to you:
Zvi, Did not Rashi’s daughters marry right? Don’t descendants then carry a spiritual legacy on to others?, and through the mother? –Jabez
It was a question on spiritual legacy and descendants, not lineage. You have not answered it at all.
October 29th, 2009 @ 10:30 pm
Also, you did not read or respond accurately to the question put to you:
What world to come are your writing of, Zvi?
I did not ask what anyone would enjoy
October 29th, 2009 @ 10:31 pm
So far at least three questions were not responded to, or responses were not communcated about, at all. This tells me that there is a basic disrespect of other hearts and minds, as to granting a respectful dialogue, not a monologue. Why don’t I trust you, Zvi?
October 29th, 2009 @ 10:32 pm
Spiritual legacy always continues even to non relatives it is not related to tribal lineage.
October 29th, 2009 @ 10:33 pm
Zvi, How can you “save [my] destiny in the world to come?” if you cannot define it according to Torah?
October 29th, 2009 @ 10:34 pm
Does this mean you offer a Kipper, Zvi?
October 29th, 2009 @ 10:38 pm
Zvi said,
“Spiritual legacy always continues even to non relatives it is not related to tribal lineage”. So, even as Yeshua’s tribal lineage has been established, it is “not related” to it, so its continuum or prodigy may be of another type of lineage?
October 29th, 2009 @ 10:39 pm
Jabez,according to the torah every jew must follow the 613 mitzvot,including not commiting idolatry.
October 29th, 2009 @ 10:40 pm
So, thusly, what is Yeshua’s spiritual legacy, leaving aside the lineage matter, which Kyle will write you about soon?
October 29th, 2009 @ 10:42 pm
Zvi, 10:39 PM, 613 mitzot, great, interesting, impossible.
You once more did not answer my question:
What are the three greatest mitzot of the Torah of Moshie?
October 29th, 2009 @ 10:44 pm
Spiritual legacy does not suffice,he must come from the tribe of yehudah.
October 29th, 2009 @ 10:46 pm
OK, so, the 613, is this an accurate picture or description of your “world to come,” which I asked you to define from the Torah? How would this differ from the present requirements of this world?, where you can 1) define the world to come, 2) describe the “bliss” thereof, and 3) show me in Torah where such a promise exists. “If you cannot show me in Torah,” it is “irrelevant” (Zvi, days back).
October 29th, 2009 @ 10:49 pm
Zvi, you have not answered my question; it was not about what sufficed, it was about a spiritual legacy of Yeshua you have not reflected at all, you know, according to the recorded history of Yeshua, past, present, and future.
Where does it say in Torah what suffices, or what are the three greatest commandments of Torah is another inquiry still not responded to. Have you noticed that you respect what thoughts come from your head, not from others here?
October 29th, 2009 @ 10:50 pm
oral tradition speaks of this.
October 29th, 2009 @ 10:51 pm
3 gravest sins 1. idolatry 2.adultary 3.murder
October 29th, 2009 @ 10:53 pm
Moshiach must come from the house of david,if he doesnt he is disqualified, no matter how holy or how great he is.
October 29th, 2009 @ 11:11 pm
And, Zvi, show me in Torah the world to come, its promise, and insurance for passage to it. Show me, so I can learn to trust the flight of the Gazelle from direct responses to direct questions, according to his own terms of acceptance.
October 29th, 2009 @ 11:13 pm
So, the three greatest commandments of Torah are a Nay, not a Yea? Is that right, Zvi? Why don’t I trust you yet?
October 29th, 2009 @ 11:14 pm
A Lo, not a Ken, if you please, Zvi? What does this hold in promise over and above the clear instruction of Yeshua?
October 29th, 2009 @ 11:19 pm
the 3 gravest sins are those,and as far as the positive comm. who says there has to be a greatest?
October 29th, 2009 @ 11:22 pm
Likely it is because you have shown your own preferences, not the three greatest affirmative commandments of the Torah at all. This reminds me of a librarian among ancient stacks of old books, with her scowl, glaring eyes, and pointed finger hissing disapproval at making a sound, let alone a direct inquiry of G-d.
What then, if you cannot or will not reply to my question, are three positive affirmations of being a Jew who can reference Torah and Oral Traditions, Zvi (I am giving you a break, because you have not answered my Torah question, Zvi!)?
October 29th, 2009 @ 11:25 pm
So, at 11.19, offering a focus on a Nay, not a Yea, why should I trust you, Zvi? After all the years of study, what promise can you offer of life, Zvi, in the here and now, or an undefined from the Torah picture of the “world to come?”
October 29th, 2009 @ 11:29 pm
It seems, like the Federal Budget, bankrupt, Zvi. Offer us more, you know, from the Torah, of life, goodness, godliness, care, mutually positive regard, how your contribution adds to healing the world (not to come), even as to rites of passage, hope, and expectation, not yet described from Torah. So far you offer a scowl.
October 29th, 2009 @ 11:38 pm
If you keep all the commandments then you will enjoy the next world its very simple.
October 29th, 2009 @ 11:38 pm
You know, a Kingdom of Peace for all peoples, which Isaiah spoke of. A restoration according to the Prophets of Old. A life of fulfilled promises, a warm regard, and well considered life focus, from a culture of life, hope of involvement, and shared experience of a focus where we can trust what we behold is who we want to be.
October 29th, 2009 @ 11:41 pm
So, like a yoked Oxen, “if” I pull along according to the commanded role I am to take up, pie in the sky by and by? Is that right>what of this world, and life together beginning here and now?
October 29th, 2009 @ 11:43 pm
And, regarding Israel, what does it mean to say, “bring to flower the shoot of your servant, David?” Is there redemption in focus in your interpretation of simple Torah?
October 29th, 2009 @ 11:45 pm
Any opportunity to heal a broken world, not simply for me in your world to come?
October 29th, 2009 @ 11:51 pm
Show me your world to come in the Torah, that is “all that is relevant,” according to your own confession. I am waiting for this formula to be completed, Zvi.
October 29th, 2009 @ 11:51 pm
Dr. Brown doesnt understand how the understanding of the sages can overide the word of g-d, what he fails to realize due to his lack of interest of delving into things too deeply,is that it is not the word of g-d vs. the sages,but rather oral tradition has it that g-d himself told moses that the torah is given to the jews to decide even in the event that I happen to disagree with the interpretation because the torah is not in heaven,so the only question becomes is does oral law exsist, not “are the sages more important than g=d” and the answer is that of course the oral law is also divine as I have proven in the previous post.
October 29th, 2009 @ 11:52 pm
jabez oral law.
October 29th, 2009 @ 11:55 pm
Again, Show me your world to come in the Torah, that is “all that is relevant,” according to your own confession. I am waiting for this formula to be completed, Zvi. Help me to trust your word.
October 29th, 2009 @ 11:56 pm
Be the Gazelle leading the way, not running away.
October 29th, 2009 @ 11:57 pm
Jabez,I need to know are you being serious or are you just playing?
October 30th, 2009 @ 12:01 am
Again, Show me your world to come in the Torah, that is “all that is relevant,” according to your own confession. I am waiting for this formula to be completed, Zvi. Help me to trust your word.
October 30th, 2009 @ 12:04 am
Jabez,I have no problem helping you but you need to tell me first will you consider dropping christianity?
October 30th, 2009 @ 12:06 am
It is simple enough, Show me your world to come in the Torah, that is “all that is relevant,” according to your own confession. I am waiting for this formula to be completed, Zvi. Help me to trust your word.
October 30th, 2009 @ 12:09 am
You have not answered my question and created adequate trust, Zvi.
October 30th, 2009 @ 12:09 am
The torah never discusses heaven and hell in a clear passage however oral torah speaks of it, which suffices since oral law is divine.
October 30th, 2009 @ 12:14 am
You lost my trust, for, you have often written to others here to show you such and such from Torah. Now you are changing the standard?
October 30th, 2009 @ 12:15 am
Simply put, according to a legion of your posts, uphold your own word, Show me your world to come in the Torah, that is “all that is relevant,” according to your own confession. I am waiting for this formula to be completed, Zvi. Help me to trust your word.
October 30th, 2009 @ 12:16 am
Jabez, that is a false accusation because if you would prove that jesus is moshiach from the oral law I would gladly accept it.
October 30th, 2009 @ 12:16 am
Your word then does not hold truth.
October 30th, 2009 @ 12:17 am
You seem to have a zeal for knowledge, not for truth.
October 30th, 2009 @ 12:17 am
I simply believe in the ot and the oral law, not in the nt thats all there is to it.
October 30th, 2009 @ 12:20 am
Jabez take it or leave it I have not cotradicted myself in the slightest the nt is false and the oral law is truth.
October 30th, 2009 @ 12:21 am
You have not answered my questions nor created adequate trust, Zvi. You hold your words over the scriptures, and your lack of answers as sufficient. And you want me to trust what you have offered, a nay as the path to what?
October 30th, 2009 @ 12:22 am
If you want to solicit Yeshiva students this is not the appropriate place.
October 30th, 2009 @ 12:22 am
Are you intersted in the truth?
October 30th, 2009 @ 12:27 am
I have come here to debate,so if you want to particpate,then thats fine,but if your’e here to bother me,then I’m not interested,if you are considering dropping christianity I can help, but otherwise please dont waste my time.
October 30th, 2009 @ 12:38 am
Aion is the sphere in which truth is actualized, your word has proven not to be true, for, you do not hold to your own standard placed on the many participants here. You have offered nothing for the here and now, for healing the world, and for a plan of redemption which anyone may access of divine determination, not human deliberation. In short you have offered excessive dysfunctions of time and eternity.
October 30th, 2009 @ 12:47 am
Jabez, you want everything to look and sound rosy,you need a preacher like dr.Brown that lets you know that all is fine and dandy,you are not looking for the truth,where yhings are not so rosy,believing in jesus will not cause you to be exempt from all sin I’m not here to sweet talk anyone into believing what I have to say, as far as contradictions Ive been very clear from the onset that oral law exists and is true, whereas the nt is not worth the paper its written on,so its your life not mine. if you have interst in returning you can let me know otherwise lets return to debating.
October 30th, 2009 @ 12:54 am
Debating to what end, according to what standard, Zvi? Dysfunctions of time and eternity? The Torah? Rashi? A medieval business suit becoming my own? If you cannot answer according to your own standards this is simply helter skelter, not discussion on truth at all. I suggest you give it a rest, and move over in a couple of weeks to the Messiah debate blog Dr. Brown is graciously extending. You will not have the long record of dysfunction stareing you in the face there, Zvi. I hesitate to reframe your real identity at this juncture, and give it a name, Zvi.
October 30th, 2009 @ 12:56 am
You owe all here an apology, Zvi.
October 30th, 2009 @ 12:59 am
Jabez you owe me an apoligy for wasting my time.
October 30th, 2009 @ 1:03 am
You get turned off when I believe in the oral law and not the nt the nt has no proof to its authenticity it is loaded with falsehood, idolatry and mistakes and corruption,
October 30th, 2009 @ 1:05 am
You dont like my position, so you call it a cotradiction a charge without teeth.
October 30th, 2009 @ 1:15 am
Cute Zvi, look up ascription in an English dictionary. You were compared to your own standards, hypocrisy indeed.
October 30th, 2009 @ 9:41 am
Another area where dr. Brown goes wrong,he quotes a verse in exodus chapter 23 verse 2 that seems out of context according to the talmud,but little does he know that one of the tools of defining verse that were given at sinai includes,reading the words as is,in other words in middle of this verse “lo saneh al rav” not ‘riv’ for there is no letter yud,in there therefore this comes to teach use not to argue with the ‘rav”of beis din. So according to this there is a break in the verse,which allows the next words to tell us to follow the majority,and although it does not read well when reading it simply,part of the oral law tells us that in suh an instance where the words spelling doesnt match with the message that the verse seems to be implying,we still must follow what the spelling tells us,and although this is not always the case many times this rule must be applied.
October 30th, 2009 @ 10:15 am
Zvi,
You wrote:
You get turned off when I believe in the oral law and not the nt the nt has no proof to its authenticity it is loaded with falsehood, idolatry and mistakes and corruption,
—————-
You have also said prove it with mathematics.
The Talmud say’s Isaac was conceived in Tishri and it also say’s Isaac was born at the Passover.
Isaac was born premature?
How’s your math Zvi, prove it!
You must also prove it with Written Torah!
The entire Old Testament is about the Messiah according to the Talmud, Sanhedrin 99 AD – The world was not created, but only for the Messiah. John 1; The world was created for Jesus, through Him, by Him.
Rabbi Leopold Cohen, a very senior, ultra-orthodox rabbi, sought to understand the meaning of Daniel chapter 9. He found two things in the Rabbinic literature of the ancient sages. One is that the Messiah was supposed to have come already. The other is that there is a curse on anybody who reads Daniel chapter 9. So Rabbi Leopold Cohen did the only honourable thing he could. He became a Baptist minister.
We read in the TALMUD (Sanhedrin 97b): That the Sanhedrin wept and said, “Woe to us! Where is the Messiah? He had to have come by now.” Even the Holy leaders of Israel realized the fact that, according to the Tanakh, they had missed their Messiah! To cover up their error, they banned Jews forever from reading or interpreting Daniel 9 – because Daniel 9 gives the date, to the day, that the Messiah was supposed to have come. According to Judaism (the midrash Bereshith on page 243 of the Warsaw edition), the Messiah was to exit in 33AD.
Daniel 9:24-27
“Seventy ‘sevens’ are decreed for your people and your holy city to finish transgression, to put an end to sin, to atone for wickedness, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy and to anoint the most holy. “Know and understand this: From the issuing of the decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until the Anointed One, the ruler, comes, there will be seven ‘sevens,’ and sixty-two ‘sevens.’ It will be rebuilt with streets and a trench, but in times of trouble. After the sixty-two ‘sevens,’ the Anointed One will be cut off and will have nothing. The people of the ruler who will come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end will come like a flood: War will continue until the end, and desolations have been decreed. He will confirm a covenant with many for one ‘seven.’ In the middle of the ‘seven’ he will put an end to sacrifice and offering. And on a wing [of the temple] he will set up an abomination that causes desolation, until the end that is decreed is poured out on him.”
NOW THIS IS MATHEMATICS!
YET FURTHER PROOF THAT CHRIST IS THE MESSIAH
70 sevens represents 490 years.
there will be seven ‘sevens,’ [49 years] and sixty-two ‘sevens.’[434 years]. 49 + 434 = 483 years.
Jesus Christ came riding into Jerusalem on a donkey EXACTLY 483 years after the commandment to rebuild Jerusalem. It is not feasible to have “planned” His birth so perfectly and according to scripture. It even predicts His death EXACTLY.
October 30th, 2009 @ 10:25 am
Zvi Daniel 9 say’s your cursed!
October 30th, 2009 @ 10:44 am
You can read my prevoius post on danial 9
October 30th, 2009 @ 10:45 am
Are the natzis an end to sin? open your eyes!
October 30th, 2009 @ 11:03 am
he rode a donkey wow! he must have been the moshiach.
October 30th, 2009 @ 11:51 am
Good word Craig!
Zvi, if you don’t believe that, something is seriously wrong! Just do the math. The evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of Jesus all through Tanakh! And by the way, your arguments against Jesus in Matthew, Luke, and John with regard to “magic” or as you now say “miracles” are still ridiculous. Just read it for yourself, and you’ll see the argument you assumed from someone else’s lie you used is completely bogus.
October 30th, 2009 @ 11:59 am
No Zvi read my post again your cursed for not believing.
No Zvi the end to your Sin is when of if you repent and believe
No Zvi All this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying,
Tell ye the daughter of Sion, Behold, thy King cometh unto thee, meek, and sitting upon an ass, and a colt the foal of an ass.
And a very great multitude spread their garments in the way; others cut down branches from the trees, and strawed them in the way.
And the multitudes that went before, and that followed, cried, saying, Hosanna to the Son of David: Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord; Hosanna in the highest.
Multitudes OF WHO Zvi? JEWISH PEOPLE!
IF YOU REFUSE IT THAN
Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:
Zvi Daniel 9 say’s your cursed!
Death and Hell will one day be cast into the Lake of Fire!
October 30th, 2009 @ 12:03 pm
Hi Michael,
I certainly would ‘THINK FOR MYSELF’ and not follow others to the Lake of Fire
October 30th, 2009 @ 12:04 pm
First hypocrisy, now credibility. Tzvi is spelled Kozvi in either case.
October 30th, 2009 @ 12:14 pm
Jabez,
Have you seen this? http://www.bethlehemstar.net/
There’s a lot of interesting reading on this site and will certainly hold your attention. Let me know what you think.
October 30th, 2009 @ 12:58 pm
I have refuted your rediculous interpretation of Danial 9 in my earlier posts at great lenghth and detail.
October 30th, 2009 @ 1:05 pm
sep 16 and 17
October 30th, 2009 @ 2:33 pm
Please listen to September 30th, I went on air with Dr. Brown to play devil’s advocate and give him one of Zvi’s counter arguments! God bless you guys, I won’t be posting for a while!
October 30th, 2009 @ 5:15 pm
OK Kyle, hoped you would deal with the material sent you.
October 30th, 2009 @ 5:37 pm
Zvi,
I checked out the September 16 and 17 posts regarding Daniel 9. Is that what you call a refute? What exactly are you saying you refuted? And please tell me who the “annointed one” is in Daniel 9:25. It also mentions him as a prince, which is very consistent with Isaiah 9:6.
October 30th, 2009 @ 8:06 pm
You know Zvi, go to the source, not the commentaries, and read and reflect on the source material.
October 30th, 2009 @ 8:48 pm
Michael, There is much research into the star, and its presentation by our Lord, over the child of choice sent into the world. It becomes apparent that this was no ordinary birth accordingly. One of many amazing proofs from the universe. He holds the universe in his hands.
October 30th, 2009 @ 8:49 pm
The eye has not seen, nor the ear heard what amazement He has for the adopted children of G-d. Lord of the starfields, for sure.
October 31st, 2009 @ 1:06 am
Kyle meant to say that he is on the Oct. 30th program with Dr. Brown. I look forward to hearing it.
October 31st, 2009 @ 7:42 pm
Michael,I’m not about to rewrite everything that I posted then,however the bottom line is that the prophecies that had to be fulfilled according to you were not.Tell me was there an end to sin?was there everlasting righteoutness? lets be realistic here.Do you call the natzis righteous?
October 31st, 2009 @ 7:55 pm
Besides,even if we assume that the blood of jesus was needed for atonement the theory (which I have absolutely dimolished in previous posts) what would you say happens to an individual that commited 30 sins throughout his lifetime and never repented,however most of his deeds were g-dly,where do think this guy endes up in the next world? Not to mention,he also believes in jesus. The obvious answer is that whether or not he will suffer for those sins is debateable since he didnt repent,but one thing is certain,he will ultimately end up in heaven. So why would a guy that doesnt believe in jesus that commited the same 30 sins, WITH repenting end up in hell? Is it only because he has no atonement on those 30 sins? Well person # 1 doesnt either yet he is admitted into heaven?
October 31st, 2009 @ 11:53 pm
You are on the wrong side of the looking glass. It is not that people stop sinning, it is that there is a solution to the problem of sin.
November 1st, 2009 @ 12:45 am
He speaks, and, listening to His voice,
new life, the dead receive.
November 1st, 2009 @ 4:51 am
Zvi,
Good topic you have brought up. So you mentioned:
Person #1 believe Jesus but doesnt repent of 30 sins and goes to heaven.
Person #2 doesn’t believe in Jesus, repents of 30 sins and goes to hell.
I have some questions for your scenario.
1) What is your definition of repentance.
2) What types of sins are you talking about. The NT shows there are sins that lead to death (Heb 9:14) and other sins that do not lead to death (1 Jn 5). If you are talking about the sins that lead to death, then this person is not a Christian. For example, if someone who claims to be a follower of Christ, commits murder 30 times and dies immediately without repentance was not a follower of Christ.
3) About this scenario, are you saying Christianity gives us a license to sin? Meaning, believe in Jesus, live however you want and still go to heaven? If your answer is yes, then you are talking about the liberal view. This view is usually labelled as “cheap grace”, “greasy salvation” or “license to sin”. The conservative view supports holiness and salvation goes hand to hand. Conservatives teach salvation forgives and changes the sinner while the liberals teach salvation only forgives.
4) What is your definition salvation? Christianity doesnt support that good works will lead to salvation. No matter how good man lives his life on earth, it will not open the doors to salvation. If Bill Gates had all the money to feed the poor, provide medical care, build schools, etc… his good works will not lead to salvation. I can continue on but I will wait for your answer to define salvation.
November 1st, 2009 @ 5:16 am
Zvi,
Since you mentioned prophecy, Im going to go off on a bunny trail if you dont mind. Are you familiar with Christian eschatology or End time teaching? Are you familiar on how we view Daniel 9 through 12?
Heres a summary:
Daniel 9: Daniel records his prayer for the deliverance of the Jewish people from foreign captivity. This prayer will be used again by the remnant of Israel in the End Times. The angel Gabriel responded to Daniel’s prayer by reassuring him that the Jews would soon be released from Babylonian captivity. He then gives the prophetic message about seventy years that will complete God’s purposes for the Jewish people. In this prophecy, the word “week” refers to a period of seven years (rather than seven days). Thus, seventy weeks equals 490 years. After the initial sixty-nine weeks or 483 years, a “pause” was put on God’s calendar when Jesus the Messiah was to be “cut off”. In the seventieth week or the final seven years of natural history as we know it, the Antichrist or “the prince who is to come” will make a peace treaty with Israel and many nations (v. 27). The first sixty-nine weeks (483 years) was possibly fulfilled from 445 BC to 32 AD.
Daniel 11: This is the most detailed chapter of prophecy in the Bible. It describes the ascent of Alexander the Great and the four subsequent kingdoms that emerge from his empire. Beginning in verse 21, Daniel describes Antiochus Epiphanes IV, who is a type of the end-time Antichrist. There are many parallels between Antiochus Epiphanes and his attack on Israel, and the Antichrist. Daniel 11:36-45 describes the Antichrist in a very precise and direct way without comparing him to Antiochus Epiphanes.
Daniel 12: This describes Israel’s greatest trouble in history. This trouble will last for three and a half years (a time, times, and half a time).
If you are not familiar with our view, let me share a short version. The end time is a 7 year event before the Messiah returns to earth. The 7 year event will start when the Anti-Christ or you can political leader will sign a “peace treaty” with Israel. After 3.5 year down the road, this political leader will break the treaty. This leader will claim that he is g-d. He will torture and kill those who refuse. After another 3.5 years the Messiah returns. There are more details into it but this is just the short version of the signs / events that will happen before the return of the Messiah.
Question for you Zvi, are you familiar that in the near future, there is going to be a Jewish temple built in Israel? Daniel 9 through 12 confirms this temple.
Anyways, I would like to hear your view on the End Time events before the Messiah returns.
November 1st, 2009 @ 5:39 am
Just to clarify and avoid any confusion about my short summary on the end time events, even though I bring up Dan 9-12, there are other Scriptual support that I didnt mention such as the book of Revelation in the NT.
November 1st, 2009 @ 10:36 am
What is your view of taking in strangers, treating all with respect, and a necessity of love to your world view?
November 1st, 2009 @ 1:30 pm
Ramadin says:
What is your view of taking in strangers, treating all with respect, and a necessity of love to your world view?
————-
If your the stranger than welcome we are talking about Jesus,
As for respect:
Psalms:40:4: Blessed is that man that maketh the LORD his trust, and respecteth not the proud, nor such as turn aside to lies.
The Believers here believe this:
As for Love we align ourselves with the Son of God’s Words given to Him from His Father for us to believe and understand.
November 1st, 2009 @ 4:07 pm
Zvi,
Ramadin raises some good points, and I will add that person #1 who you say believes in Jesus but is unrepentant raises a lot of scenarios. The short answer is that person #1, if they truly know Jesus, will go to heaven. There are plenty of posers who claim to be Christians, but don’t really know Jesus. Their fate is the same for any unbeliever. Person #2 who repents but rejects Jesus will not be saved. They must be covered by the blood of Jesus. Same way the jews were saved in Egypt at that time. Their door frames had to be covered by the blood of the lamb or they would perish like everyone else. And obviously, out of all the jews then, there were some who would have had some unrepentant sin, yet if they listened to God, they would be saved by the blood of the lamb.
Craig, I agree with you. I have a hunch that Ramadin was hoping for Zvi’s input as well.
November 1st, 2009 @ 9:22 pm
To all of you, If an individual leads a moral life,but is not 100% perfect and he believes in jesus, I’m assuming he will end up in heaven although he is not perfect. If that is the case,what about the guy that leads the same life style, and even repents, however doesnt believe in jesus,so all his missing is the bood atonement,in which case he is no worse off then the first guy because the first guy didnt repent on those few small sins,so why does guy #2 end up in hell if jesus=blood repentence,then all he is missing repentence on those few sins,which is=to the first guy.
November 1st, 2009 @ 9:33 pm
How to come to terms with sin?
November 1st, 2009 @ 9:35 pm
Centering on a price, we’re bought?
November 1st, 2009 @ 9:40 pm
What’s nought, what’s wrought, by the notion of savation?
November 1st, 2009 @ 9:41 pm
Salvation.
November 1st, 2009 @ 9:48 pm
I wanted to discuss the issues that were brought up on the air regarding my respones to isaiah 53, 1.psalms 22,and many other verses apply the word zerah in reference to future generations that wasnt the argument at all,as I’ve mentioned this point in previous posts,the future generations must come from his biological children in every case that future generations is reffered to in terms of zerah. Also any self respecting scholar can see that in Isaaih, the word is not seed of falsehood,for that makes no sense and it doesnt fit into the theme or the context of the verses before hand,as all the commenaries there interpret unlike what dr.brown was claiming that the jewish commentaries disagree. Another point that was brought up was that Jerimiah was told not to marry-false statement-for it was only in that place as the verse clearly states! as far as lubavitch,most jews do not believe that he was moshiach,so give me a break. Lastly,Dr. Brown wants to know why its ok for gentiles to believe in jesus and not jews,I have already explained that altough gentiles are WASTING their time, they wont get punished for gentiles do not have the same guidelines of Idolatry as jews have.
November 1st, 2009 @ 9:56 pm
Dr.Brown,please do me this favor,when you mention my arguments on the air, please dont misquote me. Thank you.
November 1st, 2009 @ 10:32 pm
So, your hypothetical leaves the sin question up to some kind of reasoned formula? Isn’t there a difference between sin and sins, in the sight of the Lord?
November 1st, 2009 @ 10:35 pm
Who has the greater sin, one who withholds their heart from a personally representative transaction, or one who cheats in a transaction?
November 1st, 2009 @ 11:41 pm
I was asking all, but Zvi brought up his hypothetical, so, he was then inquired of.
November 2nd, 2009 @ 12:08 am
Ben kc, what did or does jesus do for you you or your salvation?
November 2nd, 2009 @ 12:09 am
Ramadin, in short,what does or did jesus do for you?
November 2nd, 2009 @ 12:15 am
If you would come home and find your virgin fiancee,pregnant and when you question her,she responds,that it was an act of g-d,in fulfillment of Isaiah how would you respond?
November 2nd, 2009 @ 12:17 am
when I say virgin I mean supposedly so.
November 2nd, 2009 @ 12:20 am
Zvi, I am uncertain what you are asking. About a hypothetical situation, about Jesus, about another hypothetical situation, or what? I thought I asked you, now you’re asking me?
November 2nd, 2009 @ 12:22 am
What do you mean by “he believes in Jesus?”
November 2nd, 2009 @ 12:22 am
Lets start all over: what does jesus do for you, in short?
November 2nd, 2009 @ 12:29 am
Jabez, I feel that you will return to the right path one day,its just a feeling I get.
November 2nd, 2009 @ 12:42 am
Jesus, for me? He seems to deal with sin.
November 2nd, 2009 @ 12:45 am
Whats bothering Zvi?
November 2nd, 2009 @ 12:49 am
Ramadin what is a sin?
November 2nd, 2009 @ 2:14 am
I did not write of a sin but of sin.
November 2nd, 2009 @ 2:18 am
Now you want someone else to answer our past dispute?
November 2nd, 2009 @ 2:45 am
A want of faith and trust. A state of heart and mind and the expression of it. A condtion ripe for conviction showing a way of unbelief, as to twisting rigtheousness, revealed in and beyond time. A practical issue of disobedience in deviating from the goal of life, by missing the mark set before a circumsized heart (the given promise of the New Covenant).
A state of being which Moshie nudged Hashem to overcome for the People entering the land of Promise–in respect to His permitting a next generation to inherit that clouded by their forefathers. With reference to Israel’s own secession from the house of David (1 Kings 12:19).
Arrogance upholding Sagah (Ezk. 34:6). which leads to death.
Inherent inability, without divine intervention. Ultimate liability without substitution.
November 2nd, 2009 @ 9:11 am
zvi says:
November 2, 2009 at 12:15 am
If you would come home and find your virgin fiancee,pregnant and when you question her,she responds,that it was an act of g-d,in fulfillment of Isaiah how would you respond?
——————–
What would you do if the Angel Gabriel came too both you and your fiancee plus Zechariah the Priest and gave you the answers! The answer to Joseph’s trouble was given.
Lu:1:11And there appeared unto him an angel of the Lord standing on the right side of the altar of incense
Zechariah the dad of the Baptist had trouble believing at first and for that he lost his voice for a time.
THE BAPTIST
Lu:1:17: And he shall go before him in the spirit and power of Elias, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just; to make ready a people prepared for the Lord.
Zechariah’s prophecy Lu:1:67 – Lu:1:80 and his child John was to:
Lu:1:76: And thou, child, shalt be called the prophet of the Highest: for thou shalt go before the face of the Lord to prepare his ways;
Lu:1:77: To give knowledge of salvation unto his people by the remission of their sins,
To believe Zechariah is to believe the Priest of God, the Prophets of God and the Angel of the Lord Gabriel.
The above Testimony of the Hebrew people.
November 2nd, 2009 @ 9:27 am
Zvi, like many cults little children are raised by parents and the community to believe them above the scriptures. Pretty tough to walk away from family and friends for God. But it it has to be done! God is first or your not His.
M’t:16:25: For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it.
You would have much to lose if you chose the Tanach over rabinnical commentaries.
November 2nd, 2009 @ 9:55 am
Zvi, A sin is something which separates one from God.
November 2nd, 2009 @ 10:04 am
ramadin can you give me an example of a sin?
November 2nd, 2009 @ 10:21 am
I can, as you know.
November 2nd, 2009 @ 10:26 am
Is murder a sin?
November 2nd, 2009 @ 10:35 am
Zvi,
You said:
“To all of you, If an individual leads a moral life,but is not 100% perfect and he believes in jesus, I’m assuming he will end up in heaven although he is not perfect. If that is the case,what about the guy that leads the same life style, and even repents, however doesnt believe in jesus,so all his missing is the bood atonement,in which case he is no worse off then the first guy because the first guy didnt repent on those few small sins,so why does guy #2 end up in hell if jesus=blood repentence,then all he is missing repentence on those few sins,which is=to the first guy.”
Your understanding is a bit faulty. True that the person who is not 100% perfect yet follows Jesus will go to heaven. It should be noted that no one is 100% perfect except Jesus. What you’re not seeing is that person #2 who may live a good life yet reject Jesus is still dead in his sins and cannot receive salvation because he is rejecting God’s annointed one from the new covenant Jeremiah speaks of. The whole point is that none of us can save ourselves, and what we think of as being righteous enough before God is actually nothing. There are also accidental sins we may commit and not know we have sinned and therefore we didnt’ think to repent. Regardless of how harmless those ignorant sins might seem, we are still sinning against God. We can only be saved through the new covenant through Jesus the annointed One, which God has given us out of His mercy for the sake of His holy name. If God didn’t come to save us, we would remain dead in our sins. We can never be good enough for God on our own merit. That’s why He has offered us His mercy through the new covenant. God knew the old covenant was difficult for His people, especially since so many gave up on the difficult requirements and were lead astray. Therefore, he offered a new and better covenant through Yeshua the Annointed, spoken of by Jeremiah. The law of Moses given him at Sinai still applies but does not save us. Yeshua pointed out things like even if you don’t think you have commited adultery, you are mistaken if you have looked lustfully at a woman because you have committed adultery in your heart, or if you hate your brother, you have committed murder in your heart, etc. Yeshua made it clear that no one can perfectly keep the law of Moses according to the higher standards he pointed out and that we need Yeshua’s (the Lamb of God) perfect blood to cover us for salvation from our sins. It’s the only way! As followers of Yeshua, we desire to obey all he has taught and make his name known to the world for the salvation of lost people to the glory of YHWH. Praise God for His mercy and grace through the new covenant! He knows we can never be good enough by trying to keep His laws. He has provided us a better way through Messiah, and we can be perfectly refined through him, making us acceptable to God. He loves us so much, and the salvation of those who trust Him through the new covenant in Israel and the world will be accomplished for the sake of His name, according to His promises!
November 2nd, 2009 @ 10:48 am
Michael, lets deal with the argument that you claim that a person isnt perfect and therefore needs jesus’ blood if a person commits a sin and then repets you clai that he’s missing the blood atonement, so if a person does 99 good deeds and one bad deed and he repents,shouldnt he end up in heaven? if all hes missing is an atonement then so be it,he still has 99 god deeds.
November 2nd, 2009 @ 11:11 am
Michael, to be clear.I understand that you believe that there is a new covenant,however I disagree with your interpretation as I have explained in other posts,and I can discuss it again,so if one must believe in him based on that is something that we can discuss again,and under those terms it would be understandable that not believing in him should result in going to hell,however right now I would like to focus on the atonement part of jesus,in other words Dr.Brown claims that the shedding of the blood was absolutely necessary for the sacrificial system was no longer in place,so on that I ask what about the guy that is 99% perfect……
November 2nd, 2009 @ 11:28 am
Zvi,
I will answer your question with a question. What would happen to a 99% perfect firstborn jewish son living in Egypt at the time of pharaoh who did not put the blood of the lamb on his door frame after God had warned this was the only way to save him? Same principle. God does not show partiality.
November 2nd, 2009 @ 11:42 am
Again, as far as the verse in jerimiah I disagree to its interpretation,and we can discuss that if you would like. But my question is regarding the atonement part only do you agree that the argument that since the sacrificial system ended,jesus is needed? In other words aside from the fact that jesus said that you must believe in him,does the argument regarding the sacrificial system coming to a close in itself warrant a proof that jesus must be believed in?
November 2nd, 2009 @ 12:33 pm
Zvi,
The OLD sacrificial system has ended. God even meant for this to happen by allowing the temple to be destroyed. He purposedly made this happen because the jews were no longer offering acceptable sacrifices and their hearts were far from Him, and He knew this would happen all along so that the understanding of God’s love for them and the purpose of His name’s sake could come to fulfillment, in that HE would be the one offering the sacrifice that would give them eternal life and make them acceptable to Him. They could not save themselves by their unacceptable sacrifices. In fact, he would not let them be able to save themselves through their sacrifices. He wanted them to realize they could only be saved by accepting HIS sacrifice for them through Messiah. He would be the cause of their salvation, not by any good deeds or sacrifices they have done. He is to receive all credit, all honor, and all glory. Only through Yeshua the annointed one’s sacrifice can we be saved.
November 2nd, 2009 @ 2:15 pm
Michael,again as for the sacrafice issue if an individual did in fact lead a righteos life while jesus was (and again only dealing with the sacrifice issue and NOT dealing with whether jesus commanded him or not)alive 99% righteous would he too need to come on to jessus for a SACRIFICE? wouldnt his own sacrifice suffice? and even if the sacrifice system changed isnt he 99% righteous? (aside from this that you claim that jesus said one must believe in him,we are dealing with the atonement issue alone).
November 2nd, 2009 @ 2:54 pm
Michael,my point is that Dr.brown claims that the sacrifice was absolutetly necassary for otherwise,repentance couldnt happen for the sacrificial system was down,so who would be the sacrifice now? In other words he proves the fact that jesus died from our sins from this particular question. My counter argument is; the worst case scenario would be equivalent to somenone 500 years prior to the time of jesus commiting a sin without bringing a sacrifice,and in that case he would certainly not end up in eternal hell for that particular sin.
November 2nd, 2009 @ 2:59 pm
This is all without me even asking how the jews managed between the first and second temple and during the times of noah without the sacraficial system in place.
November 2nd, 2009 @ 3:08 pm
As far as this question is concerned we must look at jesus as = a bunch of animals that were sacrificed in the times of the temple and we must ask ourselvs what would be without those animal offerings. This would be the worst possible scenario as far as the atonement is concerned according to christians,and based on this we can analyze how severe not believing in jesus would be regarding atonement (ONLY). well,if an individual has only a handfull of sins lets assume without any repentance never mind a sacrificial offering would he end up in hell? NO so how can not believing in jesus (as far as atonement) be worse than that?
November 2nd, 2009 @ 3:25 pm
Zvi,
I’m not sure I’m following your inquiries properly. Let me try again. It doesn’t matter if the person is 99.9999% righteous. It’s all or nothing. This seemingly almost perfect person MUST accept Yeshua’s sacrifice and follow him. There’s no other way of salvation for anyone! The Scriptures say “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God”. A person’s own sacrifice will not suffice because they are unclean. The only clean sacrifice acceptable to God has to be perfect and can only come from God, not from us because we are always unclean.
Consider these verses from the book of Luke, chapter 18. There was a certain young ruler who came to Jesus and he asked Jesus what he must do to inherit eternal life. This is Jesus’ response:
20You know the commandments: ‘Do not commit adultery, do not murder, do not steal, do not give false testimony, honor your father and mother.’”
21″All these I have kept since I was a boy,” he said.
22When Jesus heard this, he said to him, “You still lack one thing. Sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”
23When he heard this, he became very sad, because he was a man of great wealth. 24Jesus looked at him and said, “How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God! 25Indeed, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.”
26Those who heard this asked, “Who then can be saved?”
27Jesus replied, “What is impossible with men is possible with God.”
28Peter said to him, “We have left all we had to follow you!”
29″I tell you the truth,” Jesus said to them, “no one who has left home or wife or brothers or parents or children for the sake of the kingdom of God 30will fail to receive many times as much in this age and, in the age to come, eternal life.”
It doesn’t matter how righteous one seems, they still need Jesus to inherit eternal life, and they must be willing to forsake everything for him, even riches for him. He is all we need, the annointed one of God, the one true treasure! He fills our hearts with joy and God’s love shines through us to others because he lives in us! What a glorious day it will be when we are reunited with him and he restores his kingdom on earth!
November 2nd, 2009 @ 3:48 pm
Zvi,
Prior to the establishment of the new covenant when Jesus was sacrificed, salvation was still based on faith in the one true God of Israel. So the people who lived long before Jesus came were saved by faith in following the God of Israel. Their salvation was not based simply on the sacrifices they made, but through trusting in God by FAITH. It was a matter of their heart condition towards God, not by habitual practices of law keeping that lost meaning to them over the course of time. Between the first and second temple, Jeremiah wrote of the new covenant that was to be made, where God would offer atonement for His hopeless people, and through faith in this new covenant, we would all be saved.
November 2nd, 2009 @ 6:13 pm
Michael,apparently you misunderstood my question.
November 2nd, 2009 @ 8:27 pm
Michael,but either way if I can prove to you that Jerimiah was not reffering to the nt would you agree that he was a false prophet?
November 2nd, 2009 @ 9:24 pm
Zvi,
You are free to try and prove anything any time, but it seems you have already gone this route so it is doubtful anything new will be added by you. The problem with this dialogue is that your arguments are being made without having read the nt for yourself, and you are doubtful of its authenticity based on your trust of other people’s arguments. I suggest you do an unbiased research on the authenticity of the nt. I would be happy to offer you some sources to be found online that offer plenty of information. Its not like we’re talking about Islam, which is extremely contrary to Tanakh. While good to be educated on this religion, it is obviously false and contrary to God’s purposes mentioned in Tanakh. You might even empty your mind of anything you know from the Scriptures, and start first by reading the nt without any biases or preconceived notions. Then go back and read Tanakh. Let me know if I can refer you to any secular sources on nt authenticity relating to historical records and whatnot. You can’t genuinely make arguments without doing this. It’s like you being taught from childhood that Santa Claus flies through the skies and shows up every Christmas, yet you refuse to listen to the other side because your mind is made up and your parents keep telling you not to believe others. Even those we might respect and trust can be wrong.
November 2nd, 2009 @ 10:06 pm
michael,its a nice speech and all but your’e simply way off the mark. The word bris=covenant=deal,pact. A new pact,not a new torah! The torah states on many ocassions that it is eternal! Furthermore,the verse in Jerimiah clearly says that g-d will put the torah into the new deal the torah is clearly not the nt.It will differ than the first deal, for the first one the jews broke but not the second deal,furthermore it says that it will be given to the jews not to the gentiles. You have to be drunk to uderstand otherwise.
November 2nd, 2009 @ 11:28 pm
Furthermore,the next verse states that there will be universal Knowledge of g-d at that time did that happen? NO!
November 3rd, 2009 @ 1:43 am
Zvi, Yes, murder is a sin. Why ask, you know.
November 3rd, 2009 @ 1:49 am
Z, You are saying that Jeremiah is a “false prophet”? Next it will be that the children of Israel sinned not.
November 3rd, 2009 @ 1:50 am
Icabod.
November 3rd, 2009 @ 10:14 am
Michael wants me to read the nt. Well the nt says that Jakob is buried in shchem,should I still continue reading it?Wake up and smell the coffee! A book that is mixed with human error cannot be divine!! Is that so hard to understand? I dont care how great the excuse for the mistake is g-d doesnt make mistakes so the book cannot be divine!
November 3rd, 2009 @ 10:34 am
Zvi,
Ill let the experts answer about your response to Jakob. Ill bring something something else up. I believe the OT is divine but do you believe the OT is chronologically (time, age, etc…) perfect in all areas?
November 3rd, 2009 @ 11:07 am
Zvi,
The Mosiac Covenant, God said it ended because Israel broke the Covenant. They didn’t obey but you say you obey. It was a conditional Covenant. A blessing or a cursing.
Israel has suffered greatly! They as individuals will continue to suffer until they are freed.
The New Covenant will set them free when they confess the Law has showed them that they are sinners and Yeshua is the Lord.
The Davidic Covenant is an unconditional Covenant.
The Abrahamic Covenant is an unconditional Covenant which
is literally fullfiled when Israel repents and receive the forgiveness of God in the future (Zechariah 12:10–14).
“LOOK ON ME WHOM THEY HAVE PIERCED;…”
Zec:12:10: And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn.
Zec:12:11: In that day shall there be a great mourning in Jerusalem, as the mourning of Hadadrimmon in the valley of Megiddon.
Zec:12:12: …
Zec:12:13: …
Zec:12:14: …
The Abrahamic Covenant finds its ultimate fulfillment in connection with the return of Messiah to rescue and bless His people Israel. It is through the nation Israel that God promised in Genesis 12:1–3 to bless the nations of the world. That ultimate blessing will issue in the forgiveness of sins and Messiah’s glorious kingdom reign on earth.
The New Covenant was made at the Last Supper. This is when the Old ended.
It was sealed at Pentacost with God in their Hearts.
It is made with whom the Father gives to His Son. Not everone!
A man must first hear the Word.
He or She must believe it.
They must repent. Conviction comes by the Law!
Sodom and G. was judged because expected more from His creation.
They must wait for their Pentacost, obey Christ.
“‘The day will come,’ says the Lord, ‘when I will make a new covenant with the people of Israel and Judah. . . . But this is the new covenant I will make with the people of Israel on that day,’ says the Lord. ‘I will put my law in their minds, and I will write them on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people’” (Jeremiah 31:31, 33). Jesus Christ came to fulfill the law of Moses (Matthew 5:17) and create a new covenant between God and His people. The old covenant was written in stone, but the new covenant is written on our hearts, made possible only by faith in Christ, who shed His own blood to atone for the sins of the world. Luke 22:20 says, “After supper, [Jesus] took another cup of wine and said, ‘This wine is the token of God’s new covenant to save you – an agreement sealed with the blood I will pour out for you.’”
This New Covenant is for whosoever receives it, first offered to the Jew and than to the Gentile. As a gift you must open your heart to take it.
To recieve it you must believe the written Tanach. To walk in the Spirit obeying Christ is having the LAW(God’s way) in our hearts.
We have Christ in our Hearts, God speaks to us.
We can now share in the inheritance of Christ and enjoy a permanent, unbroken relationship with God. Hebrews 9:15 declares, “For this reason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance—now that He has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant.”
Zvi we have had a Pentacost, the God of Israel is with us both Jew and Gentile, LITERALLY. He speaks to us in our hearts.
You can not know God unless He calls you and you recieve Him.
In summary Abraham’s covenant is unconditional for Abraham not anyone else. Nothing can stop it from happenning. It is not a covenant made to anyone else but Abraham. By Faith.
Davidic Covenant is unconditional for David not anyone else. Nothing would stop it for David. But for other’s being a part of it is another matter!
i.e Solomon didn’t want any part of it and lost the lineage to the coming Messiah King who would reign forever.
The Mosaic Covenant was conditional and broken. Blessings or a curse.
The New Covenant is a free gift to those who believe.
Israel could only be obedient in bringing the sacrifce.
They never provided it. It was God who is the Provider.
Israel was used to bring in Yeshua to the World, was born a Jew who’s descendants were of the House of King David as promised but it was God who provided Him. His Son Yeshua the Messiah.
So Zvi if the Old Covenant has ended than you and yours has made one with the rabbi’s and NOT God! If it were not so than who among you has heard the Voice of God.
You are not willing to make one with God! Unbelief and more Love for family than Messiah!
November 3rd, 2009 @ 11:35 am
Notice that Zvi simply does not reply to challenges here at all.
“g-d doesnt make mistakes so the book cannot be divine!”
And, according to Zvi, Jeremiah is a “false prophet,” so he has it all figured out.
Ichabod!
For forty years Israel as a nation had wandered in the wilderness because of the People’s refusal to trust G-d. (Numbers 14:33).
Against that background G-d’s Son Yeshua comes to meet a test that G-d’s son Israel failed (Deut. 8:5). The Satan began the temptation Yeshua passed with the words…”Since you are the Son of God…”. The temptations were both personal and vocational, over which Yeshua did not get hooked.
Now Zvi wants to reinvent the New Testament to be errant according to his comprehension capacity. We should risk to embrace Zvi’s logic without waiting for the Father’s direction and the Spirit’s guidance, from the example of the wilderness people to which Zvi clings?
‘The Son cannot do anything by himselfl he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does.” Trust my word, says Zvi, trust the sages, says Zvi, trust the oral interpretations, says Zvi.
Trust the Father, says Yeshua.
November 3rd, 2009 @ 11:43 am
Zvi just to show you your perversive thinking I read your post saying it was ok for Gentiles to visit strip joints, to commit adultry in there hearts, sexual perversions etc.
What do you think God would have done too you if you walking toward Sodom with Abraham said those things.
You probably would have been turned into a pillar of salt at the rising of light!
What about David’s Grandma, would she slap you in the mouth and not want to go and live with the Hebrews for fear of perversions. Your pretty scary for many gentile women Zvi.
You as Israel represented God, His people but profane His Holy name amoungst the Gentiles. Many would be offended by you and what you believe is acceptable of the God of the Universe.
Yours is a terrible sin against God.
November 3rd, 2009 @ 11:52 am
Zvi,
Read To the Angel of the church in Pergamos in Revelation.
And Unto the Angel of the church in Thyatira
Hear is a smidge
Re:2:21: And I gave her space to repent of her fornication; and she repented not.
Re:2:22: Behold, I will cast her into a bed, and them that commit adultery with her into great tribulation, except they repent of their deeds.
Re:2:23: And I will kill her children with death; and all the churches shall know that I am he which searcheth the reins and hearts: and I will give unto every one of you according to your works.
November 3rd, 2009 @ 12:10 pm
Zvi,
I already sent you a link explaining what you feel is a contradiction where Jacob is buried according to the nt.
WHERE WAS JACOB BURIED?
Genesis 50:13 For his sons carried him (Jacob) into the land of Canaan, and buried him in the cave of the field of Machpelah, which Abraham bought with the field for a possession of a buryingplace of Ephron the Hittite, before Mamre.
——————————————————————————–
Acts 7:15-16 So Jacob went down into Egypt, and died, he, and our fathers, And were carried over into Sychem, and laid in the sepulchre that Abraham bought for a sum of money of the sons of Emmor the father of Sychem.
Sychem is an area within Canaan. In fact, Jesus’ conversation with the Canaanite woman in John 4 was in this area. As for whether it was a cave or a sepulchre, anyone familiar with the Bible would know that caves were frequently used at sepulchres. Not a contradiction.
November 3rd, 2009 @ 1:40 pm
Michael, if it would say that the twin towers collapsed in new jersey would you say that the book is authentic because they are both in the tri state area? to say that he was buried in shchem-is a FALSE statement! Besides the book of acts as you quote states clearly that it was bought from the sons of chamor yet in genesis we find that it was gought from efron!Open your eyes!
November 3rd, 2009 @ 1:45 pm
Michael,gen.23:19 CHEVRON not shchem,wake up!
November 3rd, 2009 @ 1:51 pm
Ben kc, perfect without a single flaw!!
November 3rd, 2009 @ 3:20 pm
Zvi,
What translation are you reading?
You said: “Michael,gen.23:19 CHEVRON not shchem,wake up!”
Yet when I look at Gen 23:19, it says “after this, Abraham buried Sarah his wife in the cave of the field of Machpelah east of Mamre (that is, Hebron) in the land of Canaan.” You mention Chevron? Is that supposed to be the same as Hebron?
Anyhow, according to my translation, I know that Machpelah is the region that became Shechem. From Genesis 23:6-9, we see that Abraham bought the cave of Machpelah from the sons of Hamor, specifically from Ephron who lived among them and had the field with the sepulchre. When Jacob returned to his ancestral homeland (Genesis 33:17-19) he found that children of Hamor had conquered and inhabited the region. He repurchased the field from the sons of Hamor, Shechem’s father.
What’s your argument with this?
November 3rd, 2009 @ 4:10 pm
Michael,Chevron=Hebron ok? Hebron and shchem are 2 distinct places just as new york and new jersey! Torah-buried in Hebron Nt-buried in shchem=massive error! As far as your repurchasing comment-the book of act says ABRAHAM bought it from the children of Hamor no Jakob, so why are you making up stories?
November 3rd, 2009 @ 8:26 pm
Zvi,
If you read the overall context and know the history of the patriarchs, it makes sense what the author is trying to represent Stephen saying here, because previously, he was speaking of Joseph and then he jumped to speaking of Jacob, and where each were buried, and the text appears mixed between the two stories, but it’s a quick summary. He says “our fathers were carried back to Shechem AND laid in the tomb Abraham bought”. So Genesis 50 shows Abraham did buy the tomb where Jacob was buried, and Joshua 24 shows Joseph was buried at Shechem purchased by Jacob from the Sons of Hamor. These were the fathers that Acts is speaking of.
Genesis 50:13 says “For his sons carried him (Jacob) into the land of Canaan, and buried him in the cave of the field of Machpelah, which Abraham bought with the field for a possession of a buryingplace of Ephron the Hittite, before Mamre.” So it looks like Acts was correct that Abraham owned the land where Jacob was buried.
Joshua 24:32 says ” And Joseph’s bones, which the Israelites had brought up from Egypt, were buried at Shechem in the tract of land that Jacob bought for a hundred pieces of silver from the sons of Hamor, the father of Shechem. This became the inheritance of Joseph’s descendants.”
I can understand if you’re still unsatisfied with that verse. While it makes sense to me given the context, I don’t see this as detrimental. Plenty of people have tried to point out many errors in Tanakh as well, but it doesnt’ affect me because I know the full context.
November 3rd, 2009 @ 10:10 pm
Michael,this is a typical example of somone that is brainwashed. The fact are staring you on the face,there is a blatant error! You can see it with your own eyes,I dont care about the context or the reason for the error, I dont care if somone forced him to write this false information,the fact is an error is an error! A divine book does not contain errors. Imagine if the tables were turned and I were to respond in the same fashion you did. You would let me have it! You would admonish me for listening to my parents! If a torah is missing one letter-it is invalid. Any book in Barnes and nobles is more reliable than the nt,for you will not find such an obvious error there. It doesnt affect you because of the context? What kind of statement is that? I have shown you BLACK ON WHITE that the nt is worthless and contains false information,never mind it being divine! So why in the world would I bother proving what the definition of the word almah or betulah is, when you’ll deny facts that lie in front of you,that doesnt even require one drop of common sense, so certainly arguments with a tad of common sense would be a waste of time with you. I have disproven you wit other arguments that you just dismissed by saying “you dont like what we answered” or “your’e relying on rabbinic interpretations”. I hope by now you all realize how this nt is not even worth the paper its printed on.
November 3rd, 2009 @ 11:56 pm
Having been to Abraham and Sarah’s burial site, and having read there and discussed what is known there of their burial, the fact remains that many historians of the period state that they could have been moved from one site, to the other over time. It is juxtaposed to Hebron currently, and has a revered typical holyland “site appearance” at this time. However, there is no way to prove that their resting place has always been where it now is. It meets descriptive details, but, so too could other close by areas, including some as near as New York is to New Jersey.
The minute we attempt to fully align antiquities with a Biblical template, we may or may not get it right, have all the facts of historical relevance, archeology, changes, etc.
Look at the present controversy over the location of the Holy of Holies and the exact Mariah Temple Mount, judging from where it is today. There is evidence of such under the Dome of the Rock, North of the Dome in another slightly exposed area of the Rock of Moriah, and other evidence of a shift to the city of David, south, as to where the second embellished Temple stood. No theory is definitive indeed, for all have ample evidence to draw a conclusion.
Once again, Zvi has asked us to trust him alone as to the facts, historical details, present location of the Patriarchs being where they have always been, with there being no tweaking of the site over many many centuries, etc., or other logical explanation for any differences in recorded details from thousands of years ago.
It simply does not wash. We do not have the eyewitnesses accounts of correlative benchmark determinations that far back in time in ancient Canaan. We do have some written records, without a great deal of relevant detail from the time of Abraham’s death forward.
We cannot trust Zvi’s understanding as being somehow sacrosanct, and somehow negating a supposed contradiction of a New Testament record, when and where so: where the written history and records of the current site are not continuously determined with continuously monitored, recorded, and verifiable evidence.
There is even a current controversy over whether or not the First Promised Land Temple construction was in Jerusalem or nearer the cross over area of the Jordan, by the Priests and the People of the chosen Nation. This controversy is not weighed totally by what is written in scripture, in the Pentateuch, or by present Jerusalem archeology–but by Archeological discoveries and explorations, which indicate establishment of such an extant relic construction not being first in Jerusalem.
Looking back, it is wonderful that we have much evidence verifying the Bible Pentateuch accounts, and, it is also apparent that reconstructing details after thousands of years leaves much to the imagination.
We have trustworthy eyewitnesses of the accounts of Yeshua’s life and purpose, which we would ignore or negate only at risk of personal long term peril.
Trust can be both extended and earned, in the case of the righteous work of Yeshua Ha Meshiach, it is true in both cases.
We really know nothing of Zvi, his past, his present, his claims, his authenticity, his being who he claims to be, or verifiably so.
Dr. Brown, on the other hand, has a traceable history, life story which is verifiable, is consistent in record as to his conversion, Ruach Ha Kodesh experience, radical change in lifestyle and life orientation, alignment with communities of faith, pursuit of Biblical and lingusitic etymolocial scholarship, awards of proficency, and positive regard by other leaders of integrity and witness of Yeshua and Jesus. He has walked his talk, built trust, has discipled and presently disciples, and is sought by accredited and nonaccredited institutions of learning for his expertise.
Can we trust the word of the New Testament? is a central question to present dispute with Zvi. The greatest number of books ever written on a subject, of Jesus the Christ, say so. The great “cloud of witnesses” since he walked the earth say so. The changed lives of millions say so. The devotions to new life values consistent with Jeremiah’s descriptors of th New Covenant as an inner change agent say so, etc., etc.
This is why it is appalling to continue to devote energy and time to a source over which trust is such a lingering issue. If Zvi were trustworthy would he not go to the source of his dispute for direct discussion, rather than avoid that source? Zvi also has stated that he has won present arguements and disputes, where he is the only one saying so. Does this not indicate some type of meglomania in outlook, rather than balanced understanding of the real issues and matters at hand?
November 4th, 2009 @ 12:08 am
Notice too that since Zvi “felt” that I would “return to the path” of Judaism, as he understands it to be, he has completely avoided my own blog forum correspondence. Since I did not agree with this statement, I took on issues and matters he raised, like the rest of you here. Yet, once again, avoidance is the descriptive behavior of he who writes a good yarn here.
Learning to take the time to reflect upon and read on the matters of dispute which Zvi’s detractors have raised here, is the least such a party to endless restatements of oral traditions could do.
Even G-d, in all his wisdom, when sending his messengers, Angels from above, to various writers of the Tenach and the New Testament, permitted those messengers a respect of other spiritual forces and lives enough to consider the resting of the body of Moshie, and the Temptations overcome for establishing compensation for the disobediance and rebellion of Israel, Judah, and Ephriam by the chosen One.
Who has believed our report?
November 4th, 2009 @ 12:08 am
Zvi wrote:
“… the nt is worthless… Any book in Barnes and nobles is more reliable than the nt…. I hope by now you all realize how this nt is not even worth the paper its printed on.”
Its one thing to disagree, but its another to disrespect someone’s faith and intellect by speaking slanderously about the NT.
November 4th, 2009 @ 12:13 am
Jabez, your logic is twisted! Where is meoras hamachpeila in chevron or shchem? the torah says-chevron the nt says-shchem! WERE IS IT? Who did abraham buy it from efron or shchem? Should I believe the nt over the ot? Jabez,wake up from your slumber!! I have shown you as clear as day that the nt is a waste of time! There is no way to crawl out of this.
November 4th, 2009 @ 12:36 am
Perhaps an even more exploratory life question would be Who has fulfilled most of the statements Isaiah, Jeremiah, Zechariah, Daniel, Amos, Malachi, etc. have written about the character of the suffering Servant, Israel Son, and Son of He who lives evermore?
What is and was his intention? If it was to become an idol–where we know actual idols are hollow powerless representatives of nonliving reality–why was He more concerned about the Ruach Ha Kodesh coming to each and every one of His disciples, than preserving any lost images of His personal appearance or lifestory touch points on the planet? Why was His message about doing unto others, rather than doing unto Him> where, it is written, greater love has anyone than His?
A life that endures, a love that lasts, a focus on serving others to the point of laying down His life, is not the legacy of an idol, or an idolater.
November 4th, 2009 @ 12:37 am
Zvi,
I haven’t studied this particular argument such as other scholars have, but usually when such arguments come up there is a pretty good explanation. Consider the following:
On occasion, when the English text seems unclear or appears to contradict itself, it often is beneficial to be able to examine the original language in which the passage was written. This is one such instance. One of the leading biblical scholars (some have suggested he was the leading biblical scholar) of his day was J.W. McGarvey, whose knowledge of both the languages and the customs of the biblical lands was without peer. His 1881 volume, Lands of the Bible, was considered a classic, even in its day, and remains so today. In his commentary on the New Testament book of Acts, McGarvey provided an excursion into the Greek text that helps immensely in explaining the “contradiction” posed by Stephen’s statement.
As the two clauses stand in our version, “he died, himself, and our fathers; and they were carried over into Shecham,” there can be no doubt that “himself ” and “fathers” are common subjects of one verb “died,” and that the pronoun “they” before “were carried” refers to both alike. But it is not so in the original. The construction is different. The verb rendered died is in the singular number, eteleutasen, and it agrees only with autos, himself. The plural substantive “fathers” is not the subject of that verb, but of the plural eteleutasan understood. The construction having been changed with the introduction of the plural subject, it follows that the plural verb metetéthasan, “were carried,” belongs to fathers, and not to Jacob. The two clauses, properly punctuated, and with the ellipsis supplied, read thus: “and he died; and our fathers died, and were carried over into Shechem.” With this rendering and punctuation, which are certainly admissible, the contradiction totally disappears; and if the passage had been thus rendered at first into English, a contradiction would not have been thought of (1892, p. 121, emp. added, italics in orig.).
McGarvey’s point was this. If Jacob was buried at Machpelah in Hebron (and of that there is no doubt, since Genesis 49:29-30 so states), then Stephen must have been saying that it was the fathers alone who were buried in Shechem, not Jacob. This is quite possible. We know that at least one of the fathers—Joseph—was buried in Shechem (Joshua 24:32). And while the Old Testament does not record the burial places for many of the other patriarchs, we can glean some information from secular history on the subject. In his discussion on Acts 7, the well-known commentator Albert Barnes mentioned that some Jewish historians (e.g., Kuinoel) held to the view that the fathers were buried at Shechem (1949, p. 124). In addition, Jerome, a fourth-century writer from Palestine, stated: “The twelve patriarchs were buried not in Arbes [Hebron—AB/KB], but in Shechem” (as quoted in Barnes, p. 124).
The idea that the patriarchs were buried in Shechem, however, was neither popular nor representative of the common Jewish thought of the day. In fact, Josephus and other Jewish historians suggested that the fathers were buried at Hebron. And there is a very good reason why they would say such a thing. The Samaritans—the Jews’ bitterest rivals—had seized Shechem. The proud Jews, therefore, would have done anything—perhaps even going so far as to falsify history—to keep from having to admit that their ancestors were buried in their enemy’s land. This actually lends credibility to Stephen’s statement. Given the choice of two answers, one popular but untrue, the other true but unpopular, Stephen doubtlessly would have chosen the latter.
But what may be said regarding the second mistake that Stephen is supposed to have made—that Abraham bought the tomb in Shechem, whereas the Old Testament states that it was Jacob who did the buying? The possibility exists that this is a case which falls into the second category mentioned above—i.e., that Stephen’s statements themselves were accurate, but subsequently were recorded or copied incorrectly. Various scholars (Adam Clarke, J.W. McGarvey, Albert Barnes, et al.) have presented a good case for the idea that the mistake should not be attributed to Stephen, but rather to a copyist’s error.
However, there are other possibilities that are equally plausible. McGarvey correctly observed: “Two statements are contradictory not when they differ, but when they cannot both be true” (1886, 2:31). Here we have just such an instance. These two accounts do not conflict; rather, they only differ. Consider all the facts as we know them: (1) Abraham bought a field and a cave in Hebron (Genesis 23:17); (2) Abraham bought a sepulcher in Shechem (Acts 7:16); (3) Later, Jacob bought a parcel of ground or a field (Joshua 24:32) also in Shechem (Genesis 33:19). It could be that Jacob merely bought the land whereupon the sepulcher of his grandfather stood. This explanation certainly is feasible.
Yet there is still another prospect. We know that Abraham lived for a time in the land of Shechem, even building an altar there (Genesis 12:5-6). We also know that Jacob went to Shechem and set up his tent there about 185 years later (Genesis 33:18). Perhaps in the intervening time period, the native people had taken back the land, and, rather than fighting to reclaim what already was his, Jacob simply bought the land back peaceably. Thus, the land would have been purchased twice—first by Abraham, and then, almost two centuries later, by Jacob. This, too, appears to be a logical reconciliation of the facts.
November 4th, 2009 @ 12:41 am
Forgive my usual typographical errors, for, where, is it written, has anyone a greater love than His?
Consider each created person’s hand, which neither grasps, nor is unprepared to grasp in its resting position, as given from the Designer of human life itself.
Yeshua is most like that hand, ready and willing, as created in the image of G-d.
November 4th, 2009 @ 1:10 am
Michael, First of all the second mistake was that the OT says that abraham bought it from Efron and the nt says that it was the sonsof chamor, so you can erase this whole idea of jakob rebuying it. Also its highly unlikely that it was a copyist error because the the mistake is of the whole idea not just one letter. To get from jacob to Joseph and from chevron to chamor and from efron to the sons of chamor doesnt seem like a copyist error to me. And even if it was a copyist error it wont help you because if such mistakes can be found and you dont know whats true and whats not then you cannot trust the book,it cannot be considered divine. Even jesus himself said that everyone must follow each small letter of the torah. So I ask you, If complete sentences are of false information then ow can one go about following the nt properly the way jesus wanted it? But either way it is simply impossible that such obvious differences were copyist errors. So if you are looking for the truth you will find it the way every jew who has been studying the torah for over a thousand years before jesus and understood him not to be the moshiach. Or you can side with all those who did not receive the torah and who did not have the knowledge that the jews had,and continue to fight and ignore simple,not complicated proofs that the nt is not a divine document.
November 4th, 2009 @ 1:15 am
Zvi wrote:
“Should I believe the nt over the ot?”
Both but of course you have much doubt about the NT and that is understandable where you are coming from. You may be limited to get a in depth response by debating online. It would be best to read books from well respected Christian scholars who have studied the NT on the areas you currently have disagreements with. Its one thing to hear and read from one side, but its another to read from the other side. To avoid reading other scholarly material, it reflects the cult behaviors such as the Jehovah’s Witness who discourages their followers not to read other material except for theirs. Im not sure how much study you have committed yourself to read other material by well respect Christians scholars but there are many Christian scholars that have read materials from non-Christian scholars to understand their point of view. More excuses not to purse this path of study will leave one in ignorance such as some of the other cult movements.
There are some options that were offered to you previously. You still have the option to call Dr. Browns radio show. Someone will be willing to purchase some books for you for free. There are some web site that are recommended such as:
http://realmessiah.askdrbrown.org/Answers_to_Objections.html
There is much study to be done. I am not the expert in all areas but I do my study in certain areas to reach out to other groups that come from a different background of faith. I would encourage you to continue (if you have done so) to research more into the work of Christian scholars.
November 4th, 2009 @ 2:12 am
Well Zvi, it is good to have been added to your list of dismissals, you being you and all. I like being numbered in the company of Yeshua as such. Your meglomania symptoms seem to have disclosed some schizoid tendencies to date. For all we know, you may be a team of folks working to establish your disclosed prejudice.
Now you write “every jew who has been studying the torah for over a thousand years before jesus and understood him not to be the moshiach”. Now you speak for “every jew”? We do not have any establishment of you actually being Jewish to date. Yes, you have alluded to Jewish ideas, notions, and argumentation on occasion, and to other argumentation as well. But now every Jew?
Including the Temple “Priests” who increasingly became believers in Yeshua on a daily basis (Acts 6); the two members of the Sanhedrin present to claim the body of Yeshua after death; the student of Gamaliel who was a Pharisee, Saul of Tarsus; the actual half brother of Yeshua, Yakov; the Rabbi who became a Baptist minister someone wrote of here; Zvi, who survived the Holocaust, author, Israeli, already alluded to, on, and on, and on?
Failure to represent all Jews who studied Torah remains your state of being, for, we still do not know who you are, where you live, your story, or its relationship to this forum.
We know you are concerned about what is legal in some Jewish circles. We know you have no notion whatsoever about seeking and discovery of evidence in regard to a personal verdict, rather than some traditional outlooks. We know that you regard your mind as the only mind employing logic, due to your past ranting about dismissals. We know what you hate, not what you love.
November 4th, 2009 @ 2:16 am
In fact, it could be said that you regard out of body experiences as more reliable than eyewitness testimony about Yeshua. And, holding to such a mind, who would not want to ally with your point of view, it being the only right one.
November 4th, 2009 @ 9:55 am
Ben kc, Imagine I come out with a new book,and I try to sell it to you;you open up the book and in it it says: The twin towers that were bought from the canadians collapsed in queens, tell me would you buy the book? Why not? Dont be biased! First read the rest of the book and you will see that it realy isnt an error,big scholars have went through my book dont be so closed minded.
November 4th, 2009 @ 9:58 am
ben kc, I forgot! there is also a book called “answering objections to zvi’s book” read it, and you will see the light!
November 4th, 2009 @ 10:44 am
Zvi,
You said: “Also its highly unlikely that it was a copyist error because the the mistake is of the whole idea not just one letter.”
“The whole idea”? I thought I just explained to you that the “whole idea” or context fits fine. You would see this if you read the entire chapter of Acts 7. A copyist error from the original Greek could have easily happened. Did you know that the book of James in the nt should have actually been translated to be the book of Jacob from the original Greek but the translation got jumbled up when Greek was translated to Latin and then Latin to English? Regardless, the context of its message is unhindered.
How do you respond to people when they say we can’t trust the old testament because of verses like 1 Kings 4:26 and 2 Chronicles 9:25?
1 Kings 4:26 – “And Solomon had 40,000 stalls of horses for his chariots, and 12,000 horsemen.”
2 Chronicles 9:25 – “And Solomon had 4,000 stalls for horses and chariots, and 12,000 horsemen; whom he bestowed in the chariot cities, and with the king at Jerusalem.”
40,000 vs 4,000
November 4th, 2009 @ 11:11 am
So, there is occasional probability of entry error, or entry information differences, which could be for several possible reasons. People here are working to reason together, Zvi, not declare themselves as the inerrant spokesperson for all jews of all time.
Calm yourself, and consider the possibilities. A need to always be right when we live in an imperfect world, tainted by corruption, time, and space, laws of physics, differences in perspective, human capacity and ability, etc. is simply unrealistic. Considering evidence in its broadest and most finite sense is vital to drawing informed conclusions. Ignoring ample evidence in order to have blinders on so as to accept only what is prejudiced is best left to the more extreme diagnoses of the DSM-V.
What is desired here is heartfelt and honest interchange, in order to get beyond oneself to the evidence.
November 4th, 2009 @ 11:14 am
I have read many forum entries now for weeks on this matter. Those who engage for the long run begin to reveal interrelationships with their convictions and their own stories and lives. They have certain matters too which stimulate responses owned as based on these realities. Very few remain anonymous, Zvi.
November 4th, 2009 @ 11:18 am
Michael, your explanation does not help us at all! For even if you want to try and twist the verses with you theory, that would only tell you that the book of acts is telling us that Joseph was buried in shchem, ok,excellent, but the problem still remains, for you claim,and so is implied,that the nt says that the MACHPELAH is what the nt is describing,correct? Where does the nt say that it is located? in shchem! where does the ot say it is located? in CHEVRON,not shchem!! WHO did abraham buy it from? nt= sons of chamor, who did the ot say abraham bought it from? EFRON,so we have 2 different places and 2 confliting people here, couple that with an unlikely theory of yours, it doesnt make sense that all that information was an error. And as I said,even if there was a copyist error you can rerad my last post. So the bottom line is-you are scrambling to try and justify an open and nassive error in the nt,just so that it should fit with your religion that you believe in no matter how strong the evidence against you is. If you wont agree now, youll just keep on twisting more and more non stop whether it makes sense or not because you have up your mind. As far as the contradictions in the ot that you presented, I have no problem reponding, but before I do that I want to to agree that if I will respond to the contradiction and give you an answer,you will agree that the nt is false. For otherwise why should even bother responding ? In other words if even in the event that I give you an answer,you will still not agree that the nt is false,so then what would I gain by answering you?
November 4th, 2009 @ 11:22 am
Even fewer rely on arrogance as a source of reliability, Zvi.
November 4th, 2009 @ 11:27 am
Zvi,
I’m all ears. Go for it: 40,000 vs 4,000.
November 4th, 2009 @ 11:31 am
Zvi this might be too deep for you,
ALL IS BOUGHT WITH ABRAHAMS OBEDIENCE TO GOD!
Acts 7 15 is saying Jacob and our fathers died. It say’s fathers were buried at SHECHEM which by the way was bought with the Spiritual inheritance given to Abraham from God, not really money but God’s Will. It doesn’t say Stephen didn’t know some were buried in Hebron.
Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were buried in the cave of Machpelah near Hebron, a plot Abraham had purchased from Ephron the Hittite (Genesis 23:1-20; 49:29-32; 50:13)
Joseph, on the other hand, was buried at Shechem (Joshua 24:32) in a plot Jacob had purchased from the sons of Hamor (Genesis 33:18-20 with Joshua 24:32).
Shows Jacob has a heart for Hamor! Israel doesn’t but Jesus does! That poor man suffered!
You buy and sell land but who really bought it.
El-elohe-Isreal was a Holy place where an altar was built to God.
“…our fathers,
Ac:7:16: And were carried over into Sychem” say’s our fathers. It does not say Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Ac:7:14 is speaking of Joseph and this is whom Stephen is refering to as a father buried in Sychem. The one who was loved by the Gentiles, became a ruler over them. Joseph hated by his brethern, buried in the land despised by the leaders of Israel.
Yeshua is also buried in the Hearts of the Gentiles and rises in their Hearts as Lord. Not just the Land of Israel, the hearts of many Jews.
If the children of Abraham have an inheritance belonging to Abraham first than does Abraham not also purchase and own it. It is called ONENESS with his real children!
If David’s kids have an Inheritance does that mean David now has nothing. In his name did he not purchase. Did he gain it or lose it to children. Stephen was very Spiritual, you can not grasp it.
You buy and sell land but who really bought it.
If Jacob bought a burial land did not Abraham. Did Abraham lose it all when His body died or does He live here on earth through those called his children. The leaders have stolen from Abraham! I think NOT but they want it for themselves! No Abraham, just us they say! No to knowing God, Just us they say!
What Stephen was saying in front of the leaders was that not all of our fathers where buried in the land so highly esteemed by the Jews but some are buried in a place that is despised by you. But not despised by the fathers! Certainly they are against Jacob for wanting that land and being against Jacob they are also against Abraham. Thus since Abraham loves Jacob he would defend Jacob and say he bought it as what I gave Jacob is also mine forever! Jacob would say what He purchased was purchased by Abraham!
The patriarchs allowed themselves to be buried in Shechem but you despise what God has allowed!
So are those that LOVE the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob called the children of Abraham.
The Samaritans despised but Yeshua went to them. The pride of these Jews would not want God to go to the Gentiles to give them His Word and Understanding. God did His will not yours!
Thus if Stephen said “…that Abraham bought for a sum of money of the sons of Emmor the father of Sychem.” than Abraham did just that with his grandson’s hands.
……………
Ac:7:18: Till another king arose, which knew not Joseph.
I write this!
Till another king arose and knew not Yeshua, Son of God. That is you Israel. Your rabbi’s are king.
November 4th, 2009 @ 11:39 am
Michael,if you dont mind can you make sure that the verse in kings is the correct one because in my version 1 kings 4 ends with verse 20, thanks.
November 4th, 2009 @ 11:53 am
So, informed evidence gleaned from a distant past is like an archeological dig, it takes breaking up hardened ground, or prejudicial assumption’s gumption, to get at the facts, the details, and the possibilities. Craig, Michael, Ben, Jabez have permitted and discovered other perspectives than Zvi. Why, when Zvi’s mind is the only right mind?
And, if we continued on the matter, including the moving of bones from one place to another for reburial and relocation with relatives, what is being established, (from Egypt, or even Bersheva, where Abraham also had an investment) it all works out in the wash. What was a seeming contradiction becomes more detail and more soil turned over, dug into, excavated, and discovered.
Read Dr. Brown’s books in their entirety and what have we? Evidence which demands a verdict.
November 4th, 2009 @ 12:01 pm
Gumption does not suffice, arrogance is viewed as paper thin after its inital frontal appearance presented as being invincible, and a lack of personal linkage by an opposing blogger with his own convictions–established through self disclosure–ALL add up to something. And that something is not reliability, integrity, or verifiability. All data comes from somewhere and need bear up in season through these tests of time: to become truthtelling.
One could make columns on the issues, and the material offered to question and resolve these from this total forum, and come to informed conclusions on the matters. Or, one could yield to the meglomania.
November 4th, 2009 @ 12:09 pm
Craig, Thank you for your continued devotion to Truth. Michael, thank you for your ability to think it through. Ben, thank you for your obvious benevolence. Kyle, thank you for your perseverance. Zvi, thank you for your human tendency to react, assign, and ascribe, it helps one to find you human.
November 4th, 2009 @ 12:48 pm
Zvi,
Yes, that is the correct verse (1 Kings 4:26). There are actually 34 verses total in 1 Kings, chapter 4 in every translation I’ve seen.
November 4th, 2009 @ 1:01 pm
Zvi,
I checked out the Tanakh from the Jewish Virtual Library, and the numbering system is a bit different. So in your version, it would be 1 Kings 5:6.
November 4th, 2009 @ 1:13 pm
Michael,there are various approaches taken to resolve this contradiction. I will offer 2 of them. #1 the verse in chronicles is discussing the glory of king solomon and for glorious purposes he didnt use all the horses, the 40,000 horses were used for military purposes as you can see,the verse in kings says that the horses were for “his riders”- meaning for military purposes.Wheresa ther ewe are merely discussing his glory. Another answer that is given is that there were different sizes of stalls in other words there were ten small compartments in each large stall, so in essense each large stall contained 10 small ones within it. And to back this up you can see that the hebrew word for stalls differ in both places, check it out.
November 4th, 2009 @ 1:22 pm
Michael the letters in the word differ.
November 4th, 2009 @ 1:45 pm
Zvi,
I hope you see that you are having to go to great lengths to explain that, no easy chore, and questionable analysis obviously. Regardless, this seeming contradiction does not cause me to hold the Tanakh to a lower standard. I realize there can be a copy error but that does not take away the message of the Tanakh. And this case of Solomon is just one of many examples I could point. I’m not going to sit here and try to point out all the errors, but I just want you to see where I’m coming from, trying to explain Acts 7 to you. You can see for yourself what it’s like as you had to explain Solomon’s 4,000 vs. 40,000.
Here’s just one other of many examples from Tanakh, but it does not change my mind as to the authority of Scripture:
2 Chronicles 36:9 – “Jehoiachin was eight years old when he began to reign; and he reigned three months and ten days in Jerusalem; and he did that which was evil in the sight of HaShem.”
2 Kings 24:8 – “Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he began to reign; and he reigned in Jerusalem three months; and his mother’s name was Nehushta the daughter of Elnathan of Jerusalem.”
8 years old vs 18 years old. You can attempt to explain if you wish, but I’m just trying to give you a mirror to see how your accusations look against the nt, when the ot has the same problems. I still believe it’s all divine, both ot and nt.
November 4th, 2009 @ 2:01 pm
Michael, here’s the point,while there might be things that need to be explained, at the end of the day there are answers and the answers must be provided. Dont forget that the talmud is loaded with such questions but there are always answers,now not everyone will like the answers all the time,as long as the answers are #1.possible #2. not refuted. I have given you a chanse to respond you gave me one answer which may or may not be true regarding if the verse means Jakob or his son. But thats fine because I didnt refute it yet at this point, but the fact of where meoras hamachpelah is shchem or chevron MUST be responded to in a way that cannot be refuted. And the fact that Abraham bought it from efron and not the sons of Chamor MUST be addressed, it CANNOT go unanswered,there must be an answer that cannot be refuted and if there is none we must assume that it is untrue.
November 4th, 2009 @ 2:43 pm
Zvi, Craig, and Mikael both answered in detail your objections to a section of Stephen’s speech in Acts. Man enough to acknowledge it?
November 4th, 2009 @ 2:44 pm
Zvi, I cannot speak for Christianity, for, I am enamored with the Chosen One.
November 4th, 2009 @ 3:28 pm
Zvi,
I want you to apply what you just said to the ot verses I have shown you. I didn’t even tip the scale bringing up the many various ot errors, and if I did, trust me, you wouldn’t like trying to explain some of these even more difficult verses. How can you use your logic on me saying the nt is absolutely untrue because of minor copy errors, when the same thing happens many times in the ot? Would it greatly help you trust the nt if the person recording Acts 7 simply rearranged his already recorded words to what they should be if it was a copy error, assuming that’s what happened? It looks like an honest accident, just like what happens in the ot.
Consider Acts 7:15-16 again:
15Then Jacob went down to Egypt, where he and our fathers died. 16Their bodies were brought back to Shechem and placed in the tomb that Abraham had bought from the sons of Hamor at Shechem for a certain sum of money.
Point #1 – There is nothing questionable in verse 15 so we can leave this alone.
Point #2 – Who is “Their bodies” referring to? Verse 15 has already said it was Jacob AND our fathers.
Point #3 – Whose bodies were brought to Shechem? This is referring to SOME (not ALL) of the fathers being mentioned from verse 15. The author assumes his audience knows which fathers were buried in Shechem such as Joseph.
Point #4 – Who was brought to the tomb that Abraham bought? This is referring to Jacob as one of the fathers previously mentioned in verse 15.
Point #5 – Who bought from the sons of Hamor at Shechem? According to the ot, it was Jacob. Acts 16 says it was Abraham, so it looks like a copy error has occurred. And there could be other reasons it is shown this way, such as maybe Abraham had previously owned this land that Jacob later bought from the Sons of Hamor. Who knows for sure?
What if Acts 7:15-16 read this way: “15Then Jacob went down to Egypt, where he and our fathers died. 16Their bodies were brought back to Shechem and placed in the tomb that JACOB had bought from the sons of Hamor at Shechem for a certain sum of money.”
This would be much clearer, but the audience gets the point he is making regardless. The recorder could have easily had his mind on Abraham as he was thinking of the various burial ground purchased. And then he could have lost his train of thought having previously spoken of Jacob and now trying to discuss the land that Jacob bought from the Sons of Hamor, accidentally mentioning Abraham. I can see how an error might accidentally occur here, just like what happens in the ot.
You really should drop this argument because I can keep coming back to other ot errors. It doesn’t change my mind that the ot is divine, and because I still consider the ot divine regardless of errors, this doesn’t mean me or you is brainwashed. Brainwashing occurs based on interpretation not simple copy errors.
November 4th, 2009 @ 4:07 pm
Zvi said:
“Ben kc, Imagine I come out with a new book,and I try to sell it to you;you open up the book and in it it says: The twin towers that were bought from the canadians collapsed in queens, tell me would you buy the book? Why not? Dont be biased! First read the rest of the book and you will see that it realy isnt an error,big scholars have went through my book dont be so closed minded.”
Yes, your book would be bought even if the title speaks for itself. Even when Dan Brown wrote The Da Vinci Code, Christians bought the book even though they disagree with him. They read it and decide how they want to respond to it. There are many atheist scholars who have written books/articles and Christians research through it. A blind eye is not given.
November 4th, 2009 @ 10:08 pm
Michael, First of all, Acts speaks of ‘they” plural, so that means that more than one were buried! I know that YOU HAVE PREVIOUSLY written that more than one of the fathers were buried in shchem,that is however a FALSE statement because joseph spoke to his brothers and made them swear that they or their children will bring “his”bones up. And the verse describe that the jews brought his bones with them and buried them in shchem,the brothers were clearly not included for the verse mentions NOTHING of it! So thats another mistake that is NOT a copyist error. You also make a HUGE mistake regarding the ot there are NO mistakes in the ot if there is even one error the book loses its holiness! A book that G-d gave CANNOT have even the slightest mistake, you claim that there were indeed errors well, if thats the case then it is clearly not divine abook that was recorded with errors CANNOT be called a bible!! But either way it was more than a copyist error as I have proven. I have answered the first contradiction you asked in the ot,I am not about to respond to the others since you wont change your mind either way, but make no mistake: I have answers for those questions because a divine book is flawless!
November 4th, 2009 @ 10:53 pm
There are an ENORMOUS amount of contradictions in the nt!!
November 4th, 2009 @ 11:01 pm
101 contradictions in the Old Testament
1. Man was created equal, male and female. Gen.1:27.
Woman was created as a companion to the man only after he rejected the animals. Gen.2:18-24.
2. Man was created after the plants. Gen.1:12, 26.
Man was created before the plants. Gen.2:5-9.
3. The birds were created out of the water. Gen.1:20.
The birds were created out of the land. Gen.2:19.
4. The animals were created before man. Gen.1:24-26.
The animals were created after man. Gen.2:19.
5. On the first day, God created and separated light and darkness. Gen.1:3-5.
On the fourth day, God again created and separated light and darkness. Gen.1:14-18.
6. God encouraged reproduction. Gen.1:28.
He said it was an unclean process. Lev.12:1-8 (Note that bearing a daughter is more unclean than bearing a son).
7. God was pleased with his creation. Gen.1:31.
God was not pleased with his creation. Gen.6:6.
8. Adam was to die the day he ate the forbidden fruit. Gen.2:17.
Adam lived 930 years. Gen.5:5.
9. The name of “The Lord” was known in the beginning. Gen.4:26; Gen.12:8; Gen.22:14; Gen.26:25.
The name of “The Lord” was not known in the beginning. Ex.6:3.
10. God preferred Abel’s offering to Cain’s. Gen.4:4, 5.
God shows no partiality. 2 Chr.19:7; 2 Sam.14:14.
11. God asks Cain the whereabouts of his brother. Gen.4:9.
God goes to see what is happening. Gen.18:20, 21.
God is everywhere and sees everything. Prov.15:3; Jer.16:17; Jer.23:24.
12. It rained on the earth. Gen.7:4.
There was rain from above and below. Gen.8:2.
13. Two pairs of each kind were to be taken aboard Noah’s ark. Gen.6:19, 20; Gen.7:9, 14-16.
Two pairs and seven pairs of some kinds were to be taken aboard. Gen.7:2, 3.
14. Noah entered the ark during the Flood. Gen.7:7.
Noah entered the ark after the Flood. Gen.7:12, 13.
15. There were many languages before the tower at Babel. Gen.10:5, 20, 31.
There was only one language before the tower at Babel. Gen.11:1.
16. Abraham married his half-sister and was blessed. Gen.11:29; Gen.17:15,16; Gen.20:11,12.
Incest is wrong. Deut.27:22; Lev. 18:9; Lev. 20:17.
17. Abraham made a covenant with Abimelech and Phichol. Gen.21:22, 27, 32.
It was Isaac who made the covenant with Abimelech and Phichol. Gen.26:26-28.
18. Hebron was the name at the time of Abraham. Gen.23:2.
Hebron was named differently. Josh.14:15.
19. Jacob’s name was changed at Peniel. Gen.32:28-30.
Jacob’s name was changed at Padanaram. Gen.35:9,10.
20. Isaac’s servants dug a well at Beer-shebah. Gen.26:32, 33.
Abraham dug a well at Beer-shebah. Gen.21:29-31.
21. Esau married two Hittite women. Gen.26:34.
Esau married three Canaanite women. Gen.36:2, 3.
22. Bashemath was a daughter of Elon the Hittite. Gen.26:34.
Bashemath was a daughter of Ishmael. Gen.36:3.
23. Luz was renamed Beth-el. Gen.28:19.
Luz was a different place than Beth-el. Josh.16:2.
24. God renamed Jacob and called him Israel. Gen.35:10.
God forgot the new name. Gen.46:2.
25. Eliphaz had six sons. Gen.36:11,12.
Eliphaz had seven sons. Gen.36:15,16. Eliphaz had seven different sons. 1 Chr.1:36.
26. Dan had one son. Gen.46:23.
Amazingly, this one son produced over 62,000 military-age males by the first census. Num.1:38,39.
27. Moses married a Midianite. Ex.3:1.
Moses married an Ethiopian. Num.12:1.
28. All the beasts died in plague number six. Ex.9:6.
All the beasts received boils in plague number seven. Ex.9:10.
All the beasts were hit with hail and fire in plague number eight. Ex.9:25.
All the beasts lost their firstborn in plague number ten. Ex.12:29.
29. All the plant life was destroyed by hail. Ex.9:25.
All the plant life was destroyed by locusts. Ex.10:15.
30. God instructs the Israelites to spoil the Egyptians and plunder their enemies. Ex.3:22; Deut.20:13-17.
God prohibits stealing or defrauding a neighbor. Lev.19:11,13.
31. Moses’ father-in-law proposed the idea of judges for the people. Ex.18:17, 24.
Moses proposed the idea of judges for the people. Deut.1:9-18.
32. Jethro was the name of Moses’ father-in-law. Ex.3:1.
Ruel was the name of Moses’ father-in-law. Ex.2:18.
Raguel was the name of Moses’ father-in-law. Num.10:29.
Hobab was the name of Moses’ father-in-law. Jud.4:11.
33. The priests were with Moses at Mount Sinai. Ex.19:22, 24.
Moses appointed the first priests later in the wilderness. Ex.28:1.
34. Moses was great. Ex.11:3.
Moses was meek. Numbers 12:3.
35. Moses was the only allowed near God. Ex.24:2.
Moses was not the only one allowed. Ex.24:9-11.
36. Moses condemned the making of an idol. Ex.32:19, 20.
Moses made an idol. Num.21:9; 2 Ki.18:4.
37. The commandments were memorably given at the beginning of the wilderness trek. Ex. 19 and 20.
The people appeared not to remember later in the wilderness. Lev.24:12; Num.15:34.
38. Moses told the people they would pass over the Jordan that day. Deut.9:1.
It was Joshua who took them over much later. Josh.1:1, 2.
39. The number of Israelites, excluding children, was 600,000. Ex.12:37.
The number of Israelites, including children, was only 7000. 1 Ki.20:15.
40. Manna tasted like coriander seed and honey. Ex.16:31.
Manna tasted like fresh oil. Num.11:8.
41. The Sabbath Day was to remember creation. Ex.20:11; Ex. 31:17.
The Sabbath Day was to remember the sojourn in Egypt. Deut.5:15.
42. God details sacrificial offerings. Ex.20:24; Ex.29:10-42; Lev.1:1-17; Num.28:1-31.
God says he did not order sacrifices. Jer.7:22.
43. The Book of Jasher was written at the time of Joshua. Josh.10:13.
The Book of Jasher was written at the time of David. 2 Sam.1:17,18.
44. The Israelites were a numerous and mighty people. Ex.1:8, 9.
The Israelites were few in number. Deut.7:7.
45. The Israelites had plenty of water to wash their clothes for purification. Ex.19:10.
The Israelites had no water and rioted for a drink. Ex.15:22-24.
46. God was with the people. Ex.3:12.
God was not with the people. Ex.33:3.
47. Aaron died on Mt. Hor. Num.20:27, 28; 33:38,39.
Aaron died at Mosera. Deut.10:6.
48. After Aaron’s death, the people journeyed from Mt. Hor to Zalmonah to Punon etc. Num.33:41, 42.
After Aaron’s death, the people journeyed from Mosera to Gudgodah to Jotbath. Deut.10:6, 7.
49. The Canaanites were utterly destroyed. Num.21:3.
The Canaanites were left to trouble the Israelites for years. Jud.3:1,2.
50. Stones were taken out of the Jordan River. Josh.4:3.
Stones were placed in the Jordan River. Josh.4:9.
51. The Nazarite vow is broken if one goes near a dead body. Numb.6:6-9.
Sampson, a Nazarite, apparently did not break this vow. Jud.13:5; 15:8,15,16; 16:17.
52. Samuel ministered to the “Lord”. 1 Sam.3:1.
Samuel did not know the “Lord”. 1 Sam.3:7.
53. David killed Goliath. 1 Sam.17:49,50.
Elhanan killed Goliath. 2 Sam.21:19-21. (Notice that the phrase “the brother of” has been added).
54. “God” caused David to number the people. 2 Sam.24:1.
“Satan” caused David to number the people. 1 Chr.21:1.
55. Saul utterly destroyed the Amalekites. 1 Sam.15:20.
David utterly destroyed the Amalekites. 1 Sam.27:8, 9.
David destroyed the Amalekites – again – almost. 1 Sam.30:1,17,18.
56. God chose Saul to save the people from the Philistines. 1 Sam.9:15-17.
Saul dies and the Philistines overrun the Israelites. 1 Sam.31:6, 7.
57. God chose Saul. 1 Sam.9:16.
God repents for choosing Saul. 1 Sam.15:35.
God doesn’t need to repent. Num. 23:19.
58. Saul inquired of God but received no answer. 1 Sam.28:6.
Saul died for not inquiring. 1 Chr.10:13, 14.
59. Saul killed himself. 1 Sam.31:4; 1 Chr. 10:4, 5.
Someone killed Saul. 2 Sam.1:5-10.
The Philistines killed Saul. 2 Sam.21:12.
God killed Saul. 1 Chr.10:13,14.
60. Jesse had eight sons. 1 Sam.16:10, 11; 1 Sam.17:12.
Jesse had seven sons. 1 Chr.2:13-15.
61. Saul knew David before the encounter with Goliath. 1 Sam.16:19.
Saul did not know David until after the encounter with Goliath. 1 Sam.17:55-58.
62. Michal was childless. 2 Sam.6:23.
Michal had five sons. 2 Sam.21:8.
63. David sinned in taking the census. 2 Sam.24:10,25.
David’s only sin, ever, was another matter. 1 Ki.15:5.
64. David paid 50 pieces of silver for the property. 2 Sam.24:24.
David paid 600 pieces of gold for the property. 1 Chr.21:25.
65. His name was Solomon. 2 Sam.12:24; 1 Chr.22:9.
His name was Jedidiah. 2 Sam.12:25.
66. Solomon had 40,000 stalls of horses. 1 Ki.4:26.
Solomon had 4,000 stalls of horses. 2 Chr.9:25.
67. Solomon had 3300 supervisors. 1 Ki.5:16.
Solomon had 3600 supervisors. 2 Chr.2:2.
68. Solomon’s “molten sea” held 2000 “baths”. 1 Ki.7:26.
Solomon’s “molten sea” held 3000 “baths”. 2 Chr.4:5.
69. Solomon had thousands of horses. 1 Ki.4:26.
A King must not multiply horses to himself. Deut.17:15,16.
70. Solomon had hundreds of wives. 1 Ki.11:1-3.
A King must not multiply wives to himself. Deut.17:17.
71. There was no greater king before or after Hezekiah. 2 Ki.18:1, 5.
There was no greater king before or after Josiah. 2 Ki.23:24, 25.
72. Ahaziah was twenty-two years old when he began to reign. 2 Ki.8:26.
Ahaziah succeeded his father, who was thirty-two years old when he became king and who ruled for eight years. 2 Chr.21;20.
He was forty-two years old when he began to reign. 2 Chr.22:2. (Note that some versions have caught the error and corrected it.)
73. God prohibits the making of idols. Ex.20:4; Deut.5:8, 9.
God commands idols to be made. Ex.25:18; Num.21:8, 9.
74. Children are to suffer for their parent’s sins. Ex.20:5; Ex.34:7; Num.14:18; Deut.5:9; Is.14:21.
Children are not to suffer for their parent’s sins. Deut.24:16; Ezek.18:19,20.
75. God prohibits the killing of the innocent. Ex.23:7.
God approves the killing of the innocent. Num.31:17; Josh.6:21; Josh.7:24-26; Josh.8:22-25; Josh.10:20, 40; Josh.11:15; 1 Sam.15:3.
76. God inflicts sickness. Num.11:33; 2 Chr.21:14, 15.
Satan inflicts sickness. Job 2:7.
77. Death to a false prophet. Deut.18:20.
Death also to a real prophet deceived by “God”. Ezek.14:9.
78. God remembers sin even when it has been forgiven. Ex.34:7.
God does not remember sin after it has been forgiven. Jer.31:34.
79. God promised the land to the people. Ex.12:25.
God broke his promise. Num.14:30, 31.
80. Sisera was sleeping when Jael killed him. Jud.4:21.
Sisera was standing and apparently, allowed Jael to kill him. Jud.5:25-27.
81. Joshua captured Debir. Josh.10:38,39.
Othniel captured Debir. Jud.1:11-13.
82. God sows discord. Gen.11:7-9.
God hates those who cause discord. Prov.6:16-19.
83. The census count was: Israel 800,000 and Judah 500,000. 2 Sam.24:9.
The census count was: Israel 1,100,000 and Judah 470,000. 1 Chr.21:5.
84. The two pillars were 18 cubits high. 1 Ki.7:15.
The two pillars were 35 cubits high. 2 Chr.3:15.
85. 420 talents of gold were brought back from Ophir. 1 Ki.9:28.
450 talents of gold were brought back from Ophir. 2 Chr.8:18.
86. Asa removed the high places. 2 Chr.14:2, 3.
Asa did not remove the high places. 1 Ki.15:14.
87. Baasha died in the 26tth year of King Asa’s reign. 1 Ki.16:6-8.
Baasha built a city in the 36th year of King Asa’s reign. 2 Chr.16:1.
88. Jehoshaphat did not remove the high places. 1 Ki.22:42, 43.
Jehoshaphat did remove the high places. 2 Chr.17:5, 6.
89. Jehu’s massacre was acceptable to God. 2 Ki.10:30.
Jehu’s massacre was not acceptable to God. Hos.1:4.
90. Jehu shot Ahaziah near Ibleam. Ahaziah then fled to Meggido and died there. 2 Ki.9:27.
Ahaziah was found hiding in Samaria, brought to Jehu, and was then put to death. 2 Chr.22:9.
91. Ahaz was not conquered. 2 Ki.165.
Ahaz was conquered. 2 Chr.28:5.
92. Jehoiachin was 18 years old when he began to reign. 2 Ki.24:8.
Jehoiachin was 8 years old when he began to reign. 2 Chr.36:9. (Some versions have corrected this)
93. Jehoiachin reigned 3 months. 2 Ki.24:8.
Jehoiachin reigned 3 months and 10 days. 2 Chr.36:9.
94. Jehoiachin was succeeded by his uncle. 2 Ki.24:17.
Jehoiachin was succeeded by his brother. 2 Chr.36:10.
95. The father of Zerubbabel was Pedaiah. 1 Chr.3:19.
The father of Zerubbabel was Shealtiel. Ezr.3:2.
96. God is near to all who call on him. Ps.145:18.
God is far away and cannot be found in times of need. Ps.10:1.
97. God sometimes forsakes his children. Ps.22:1, 2.
God is always a present help. Ps.46:1.
98. The righteous shall rejoice when he sees vengeance. Ps.58:10, 11.
Do not rejoice when your enemy falls or stumbles. Prov.24:17.
99. God stands to judge. Is.3:13.
God sits to judge. Joel 3:12.
100. Zedekiah watched his sons be put to death, then he had his eyes put out, and was left to die in prison. Jer.52:10, 11.
God promised Zedekiah a peaceful death. Jer.34:4, 5.
101. Omri reigned 12 years beginning in the 31st year of Asa’s reign. 1 Ki.16:23.
Omri died and his son began his reign in the 38th year of Asa’s reign, making Omri’s reign only 7-years. 1 Ki.16:28, 29.
Solve please.
November 4th, 2009 @ 11:06 pm
Michael, I’ll make you a deal you can surf the net and ask me 10 ot contradictions and I will ask you to resolve 10 questions that can be found at http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/paul carlson/nt cotradictions.html
November 4th, 2009 @ 11:10 pm
Try 1 Chronicles 3:19, where Zerubabel is called the son of Pedaiah. However according to Ezra 3:2 Zerubabel was the son of Shealtiel. Did Zerubabel have two daddies?
How about when the light came to be according to Genesis 1:3. But the sun was not created till day 4.
What about First Chronicles 21:1 it states that [satan] inspired David to number Israel and yet in Second Samuel 24:1 it was YHWH who moved David.
Or how about the different and contradicting genealogies in First Chronicles, and Ezra, where Caleb’s parents are different?
Still more amazing is that there are several key contradictions between the commandments as given at Mount Sinai (according to Exod. 20:1-17) and the repetition of the commandments as given by Moses (according to Deut. 5:6-21).
Most noteworthy are the numerous differences in the wording of the Sabbath commandment, beginning with the first word: Did God say remember (zakhor) the Sabbath, or did He say keep (shamor) the Sabbath?
In Exod. 34:10-26, a completely different decalogue seems to be given, even stating in v. 28 that it was apparently Moses — not the Lord — who inscribed the words in the stone tablets.
And let’s not get started on Genesis! But I will anyway because I’m having fun.
In Genesis 1:11-12, trees are created before man is created. In Genesis 2:4-9, man is created before trees are created.
In Genesis 1:20-21, 26-27, birds are created before man. In Genesis 2:7, 19, man is created before birds.
In Genesis 1:31, G-d is pleased with His creation. In Genesis 6:5,6, G-d is not pleased with His creation.
In Genesis 4:9, G-d asks Abel where Cain his brother is. Elsewhere, in many places (for example, Proverbs 15:3, Jeremiah 16:17, 23:24,25), it is stated that G-d sees everything; nothing is hidden from His view.
In Genesis 35:10, G-d says Jacob is no longer to be called Jacob; he is to be known as Israel. In Genesis 46:2, G-d Himself is calling him Jacob again.
Wow…That’s pretty bad huh Zvi?
November 4th, 2009 @ 11:11 pm
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/paul carlson/nt contradiction.html
November 4th, 2009 @ 11:15 pm
Don’t even get me started with the Talmud! Lol
November 5th, 2009 @ 12:09 am
This debate evidences our total and utter confusion.
Isaiah 53 is for Jesus. No it’s not it can’t be. It is, it fits perfectly. but Jesus had no Zerah. No, that’s metaphorical. No it’s not. Yes it is. no it’s not. yes it is – other verses suggest it is metaphorical. no no you’re taking out fo context/misinterpreting. no no YOU”RE taking out of context. Isaiah 53 means Israel. no because Israel is not righteous. It means a righteous minority. But they are still not righteous. Yes they are. No they’re not. Yes they are. No one is righteous but God. yes there are righteous – wasn’t noah a righteous man? No he wasn’t. yes he was. no he was more righteous than others but he still was a sinner.
Jesus was a liar. no he wasn’t b/c he did miracles. no he didn’t, prove it. the gospels prove it. no they don’t. yes they do. the gospels were a bunch of lies. no they weren’t. yes they were. why were they lies? they have inconsistencies. but the “inconsistencies” are not critical. No they’re not. Yes they are. jesus can’t atone. yes he can. no he can’t. etc. etc. ad naseum etc. etc. blah, blah, blah blah blah……….
Meanwhile Satan is sitting by laughing at our utter confusion.
As the saying goes: “when fools fight, knaves win”..
November 5th, 2009 @ 12:13 am
Zvi, After answering your 11/2/2009 question on murder I am concerned for you, going off on this and that and leaving off your own correspondence here. I guess these goings on or offs are like computer games for you?, addictive to the point of rudeness?
November 5th, 2009 @ 12:55 am
Ramadin,my point was that it is a sin that must be forgiven by repentance and it musnt have a blood offering as the jews have practiced such traditionbetween the first and second temple. I apoligize for not responding right away,the reason I didnt was because you were simply taking a while to respond, plus I had many posts to respond to.
November 5th, 2009 @ 1:14 am
Ben,there was no confusion at all on my part.
November 5th, 2009 @ 1:28 am
Michael, also the fathers “always refer to abraham,Issac,and Jakob,the 12 sons are reffered to as shvatim. Not only that but the ten lost tribes were not around so its not even our fathers and joseph was one of the ten lost tribes so the jews that were being addressed there were not speaking of the sons of Jakob namely the tribes because all jews that we know of today come from the tribe of yehudah and levi, so fathers cannot be reffering to even joseph,and eitherway the verse is clearly in context and in wording discussing them in PLURAL form and we know that Joseph was the only one buried there,but you guys wont budge because you believe because thats what you were told,not because of logical reasons for I have just disproven the nt black on white!
November 5th, 2009 @ 2:07 am
I still do not understand what you meant as to my own inquiry and hope. What to “the Jews” have to do with it?
November 5th, 2009 @ 10:10 am
Zvi,
You said: “but you guys wont budge because you believe because thats what you were told,not because of logical reasons….”
“….I have just disproven the nt black on white!”
Once again, please apply these comments to yourself before you go trying to say this to others. You act as if you’ve disproven the ENTIRE nt by finding one possible copyist error, haha. The truth is, whether the Acts 7 verses had never been written or the fact that they actually are written, the nt message does not change. I’ve already explained enough on this verse, yet you keep trying to make something out of nothing in your desperate attempt to disprove the nt. If you want to get into errors from Scripture, go have fun responding to Challenger’s posts. He’s thrown over 100 at you, and you have 1. You think you can cut out the whole debate about Yeshua being Messiah by pointing out one unrelated confusing verse from the nt? And in the meantime, you are completely oblivious to the many ot errors, and you refuse to consider them. If you’re not careful, you’ll be opening up a whole other can of worms you won’t like, and then who will be shown as the one believing for illogical reasons based on what you feel makes a divine book flawless? Don’t go that route Zvi. You are just setting yourself up. And we’re not here to discuss unrelated verses that might have an error, but to discuss Yeshua as Messiah. If you think you can ignore the entire nt because of that unrelated Acts 7 verse, you might as well ignore the entire ot because of its many conflicting verses.
November 5th, 2009 @ 10:33 am
Zvi,
Again science and mathematics you asked for proof.
Ge:1:16: And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
Rashi’s Commentary
the two great luminaries: They were created equal, but the moon was made smaller because it brought charges and said, “It is impossible for two kings to use the same crown.” – [from Chullin 60b] Rashi (ad loc.) explains that this derash is based on the discrepancy of the two expressions, “the two great luminaries,” which intimates that the moon was a great luminary, and“the lesser luminary,” which intimates that the moon was smaller than the sun. To reconcile this difference, the Rabbis asserted that the moon was originally created equal to the sun, but, because of its complaint that the sun wielded the same power that it wielded, it was forced to relinquish that power.
and the stars: Because He diminished the moon, He increased its hosts, to appease it. – [from Gen. Rabbah 46:4 and Chullin 60b] i.e., The stars serve as the entourage of the moon. When it comes out, they accompany it, and when it sets, they too set. [Gen. Rabbah ad loc.]
———————-
Actually I have never been to the moon but I have been told and saw pictures of it.
I also have a brother in the Lord who has since died whom I talked too that had walked on the moon and told me about it. Astronaut James Irwin confirmed to me that what I see in the night is a ball of dirt and rocks.
What I gathered from what I had seen is the moon was never the same as the sun.
The moon was never a sun.
The moon is dark and cold.
The moon is a mirror for the light to shine on the earth.
What power did the moon relinquish?
The sun is hot and has light,
The sun can’t talk.
The moon can’t talk.
It can’t bring charges.
What way were they equal?
Who told Rashi they were created equal?
Who said the moon had hosts, that the moon which is a ball of dirt needs appeasing thus more stars needed to be created?
Can you prove the moon was created before all the stars?
This is why God get’s angry!
Personally I believe Saul who met Yeshua on the road to Damascus and became Paul. He had proof!
So have we!
November 5th, 2009 @ 10:55 am
I think of Cat Stevens, moondance, written prior to becoming a Moslem. It does not quite compare with you guys dancing to Zvi’s bullets, and him, all along, not dancing to yours–for–ignoring any such argumentation is bliss if you are Zvi, tuning out the human race.
I vote that all ignore Zvi until he answers all the contradicitons and challenges on this blog page, i.e. give it a rest. In the meantime look up Meglomania in a reference book and realize that this group is enabling someone’s illness.
November 5th, 2009 @ 11:19 am
Still waiting for some answers. There are hundreds if not thousands of contradictions in the Old Testament! Looks like I have disproven the Old Testament black on white!
“but you [Zvi] wont budge because you believe because thats what you were told, not because of logical reasons for I have just disproven the Old Testament black on white!”
Aren’t you the one who believes the rabbis are always right? What ever happened to thinking for ones self? Is that allowed in Rabbinical Judaism anymore?
November 5th, 2009 @ 11:20 am
I mean seriously now… you won’t accept free books that will answer your questions? You won’t even read the New Testament? What are Rabbis hiding from you?
November 5th, 2009 @ 11:32 am
At this point I say we all stop posting. That means Me, Micheal, Jabez, Craig and Kyle. We can all see that Zvi is only making a fool of himself. If you want to keep argueing go on air with Brown like Kyle did. Put up or shut up.
Let’s all get out of here, we have families to look after…
November 5th, 2009 @ 12:00 pm
challenger, You think youre so bright? lets see you respond to my question come on dont be a COWARD and respond to the cotradictions in the nt that I have presented,by saying there are contradictions in the ot!! I can answer every single one of those questions, but let me see you answer my question first BIG BOY! You cant do you know why? because there is FALSE information there!! Thats what cowards do they ask a question and then run.
November 5th, 2009 @ 12:18 pm
Michael, Quite frankly I am fed up with your statments I asked you to respond to a massive contradiction regarding where he was buried, you tried to say it was joseph and “others” namely his brother I refuted that in my last post that that cannot be and that fathers dont make sense the way you read! You didnt respond! do you know why, because there are no answers!! This is the best route to take because all you need is one error that is NOT responded to and the book is history!! Just because he copied off the net 101 contradictions does that mean that there are no answers?? of course not!! Could I copy and paste an untold amount of cotradictions in the nt? Of course I can!! Did I do it? NO! Because just because the internet posted contradictions doesnt mean that there are no answers GET IT? You yourselvs must have answers to them,otherwise why in the world would you believe in a divine book that has 101 errors?? So all youre doing is avoiding the question and shifting it to the ot! But this particular contradiction has had a dialouge regarding it and HAS BEEN DISPROVEN. Dont tell me that you answered me!! I refuted you in the last post!! Wheres your respect for honesty? I’m sick and tired of you telling me “you dont like what we answered you” when that is FALSE I disproved you in the last post!! You did not respond and thats what you do with every argument!
November 5th, 2009 @ 12:31 pm
JUst to prove! the very first question out of the 101 is based on a false assumption becuse no verse says that man and women were created equally, it was made up just like the fact that a bastard became g-d was made up!!
November 5th, 2009 @ 1:02 pm
Zvi,
Take it easy man, ha. You said I haven’t respond to EVERY argument of yours. A reponse is a response whether you like it or not. Your very claim that I haven’t responded is a typical falsity of yours refusing to see my point of view and claiming it as nonresponsive.
My answer to you regarding your supposed refutation of my previous explanation is that your explanation is your interpretation, one which I disagree with. That’s it, that’s my answer, sorry. I could explain why I believe Joseph is one of the patriarchs of old, but I already know you disagree. You do not accept Joseph as a patriarch, fine. However, it is interesting to note that Joshua sees the need to record that Joseph’s bones were carried out of Egpyt by the Israelites and buried at the land Jacob bought. I’m sure many Israelites held Joseph to be a patriarch, the jew whom much is written about in Tanakh and ruled Egypt because of his favor with God, saved Jacob’s family, and a direct descendent of Jacob, not to mention Jacob’s favorite son. Not a patriarch? Hmmm…. You don’t like my interpretation, and I don’t agree with yours. Regardless, have I not responded, despite you don’t like my answer?
November 5th, 2009 @ 1:14 pm
michael,forget about whether he was a patriarch or not? You said that they are the ‘fathers” so I asked you,no they werent becuse there were 10 lost tribes at the point of jesus’ lifetime so they were not around so joseph could NOT be their father! and also it says that they were buried who is “they” josephs brothers were not brought along with them otherwise the torah would have mentioned it. The torah goes into detail at the end of genesis explaining that joseph made his brothers promise him that they would bring his bones up when they leave,so he was the only one of the brothers,thae the torah goes on and says that josephs bones were brought up!
November 5th, 2009 @ 1:20 pm
So its not that I “dotnt like your interpretation” but rather I have proof that he wasnt a biological father of the prople in jesus’ time.Because the 10 tribes were not around and the torah speaks only of joseph being buried there and no mention at all about the others,so this is not a matter of liking interpretations,but rather its a natter of responding to facys.
November 5th, 2009 @ 1:39 pm
typos and I, MEGALOMAINA, lets give it a rest.
November 5th, 2009 @ 1:42 pm
Megalomania…a form of obsession about control.
November 5th, 2009 @ 1:57 pm
If the Line of Fire staff is watching this I personally feel offended by Zvi’s comment.
“like the fact that a bastard became g-d was made up!!”
Can you just end this by banning him or something? HE’s already been throwing insults at everyone here so I think it’s time to put this megalomaniac down. Just a reminder to Micheal and Jabez, stop casting pearls to swine. Let it be over… this has gone on for far too long
November 5th, 2009 @ 1:57 pm
Zvi,
The fact that the 10 tribes may not have been around to be identified as such doesn’t mean there weren’t descendants in Jesus’ time who knew where they came from.
But regardless of that point, “fathers” from Acts 7 doesn’t mean it had to be literal fathers. “Fathers” can also be interpreted as forefathers. Just like here in America, we claim people like George Washington and Abraham Lincoln as our founding fathers, even though I may have no known ancestry linked to them.
November 5th, 2009 @ 2:15 pm
michael,find me one time in the ot that father is used in such fashion,for you claim the nt is part 2! Also I have shown yuou that only yosef was buried there not the other brothers,
November 5th, 2009 @ 2:17 pm
Challenger, I’m not a fan of that either, but just remember:
Matthew 12:32
“Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.”
Zvi doesn’t understand that Jesus never became God. Jesus has always been God, His visible image. By Zvi claiming Jesus as the b-word, he doesn’t realize that God Himself is the Father, so he needs to be careful who he is insulting. God have mercy on Zvi! As You know, he is blinded.
November 5th, 2009 @ 2:18 pm
Even if you do Micheal, he’ll go into denial and claim he refuted you. If Zvi wants to be arrogant let him go on air. Be the bigger “boy” and quit casting pearls tro swine.
November 5th, 2009 @ 2:26 pm
Indeed Zvi is blinded by his own misconceptions. Even if a Christian tells him we do follow the law, he claims we don’t. If we tell him Jesus did not become God, but is merely the word of God, he doesn’t believe us. Who is Zvi to tell us what we believe? This all points to his symptoms of megalomania which Jabez has mentioned. But as I said Micheal, we should leave Zvi to his own arrogance and denial. Pearls should not be cast to swine, especially when they trample them without regard. Let this thing die….
November 5th, 2009 @ 2:28 pm
How is he supposed to even KNOW what we believe when he himself is afraid of reading the New Testament for himself? Same with Brown’s books. That seems like cult behavior, sheilding yourself in your own bubble where the mean nasty world can’t get you. But as I said, let’s let this die. If Zvi wishes to continue embarrasing himself he can go on air with Brown like Kyle did.
November 5th, 2009 @ 2:33 pm
Zvi,
Give it up. You’re going nowhere with this. Who says it has anthing to do with Joseph’s brothers? According to Joshua 24:32, Joseph’s descendents inherited the land at Shechem, so those descendents could easily be referred to as fathers who were most likely buried there as well.
November 5th, 2009 @ 2:36 pm
Just saw your posts Challenger. I’ll try.
November 5th, 2009 @ 2:44 pm
Michael,it says “THEIR” bodies were brought back to shchem,WHOS? and my last post, where in the ot do we find…..?
November 5th, 2009 @ 2:49 pm
Zvi,
You win.
November 5th, 2009 @ 2:54 pm
All,
You will need to abide by the commenting rules outlined here: http://lineoffireradio.askdrbrown.org/simple-rules-to-abide-by-when-commenting/
LOF Admin
November 5th, 2009 @ 3:14 pm
Megalomania…a form of obsession about control, which includes disregarding and tuning out other people’s valid experiences.
November 5th, 2009 @ 3:15 pm
Thank you for guidelines, lofradio.
November 5th, 2009 @ 7:31 pm
They haven’t seen Jesus rise from the dead.
But then neither did they see Moses lift up a snake.
They didn’t hear the voice of God proclaiming that Jesus was God’s son.
But they did hear the voice of God on Sinai.
They don’t know for sure whether Jesus was from God.
But they know for sure that Abraham was acting for God.
They don’t know for sure whether any of the NT is true.
But then again they claim with certainty that the OT is true.
They are quick to point out errors in the NT (saying A-HA!) But are quick to rationalise similar errors in their own scriptures.
They are quick to accuse us of mental and spiritual obtuseness.
When in reality they may have been fooled by a mirror all along.
November 6th, 2009 @ 12:21 am
So, establishing genuine dialogue does consider a different approach than was fixated upon here by someone.
November 6th, 2009 @ 12:29 am
One of the many reasons I look to Yeshua is the way he was open to reasonable discussion, and a simple interchange when dealing with open hearts, though being the greater and all other souls lesser. I like the very character of Yeshua, his truth and grace approach to problem solving, in addition to confidence for eternal matters. In fact, he held back a purely negative response when confronted with lack, arrogance, vanity, and hegemony.
There is something noble, excellent in virtue, and yet quite different than other leaders of record in that His Ways were most often sobering of others’ excesses and self absorbed manner.
Even with all the contention he faced, his inner person stared it down to a lesser existential reality than His own.
What do others here most admire about Yeshua?
November 6th, 2009 @ 10:21 am
Jabez,
I could literally go on and on about what I love about Yeshua. His words are so powerful and his love is unmatched! His teachings get to the heart of every issue we face, and his life perfectly matched what he taught. So much of what he taught was for us to be selfless. He reminded us that the greatest commandment was to love the Lord our God with all our heart, mind, soul, and strength, and also to love our neighbors as we love ourselves. He even took it a step further to love our enemies and pray for them, instead of against them. When he was dying on the cross, he told God the Father to forgive those who had done this to him because they did not know what they were doing or who it was they were doing this to. Can you imagine what this world would be like if we perfectly imitated Yeshua? There would be perfect harmony and love, and the world would be as God had intended, where we would recognize and give Him glory in all things.
I was just dwelling on this Scripture this morning in John 10. Here Jesus says:
14″I am the good shepherd; I know my sheep and my sheep know me— 15just as the Father knows me and I know the Father—and I lay down my life for the sheep. 16I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd. 17The reason my Father loves me is that I lay down my life—only to take it up again. 18No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father.”
No one takes his life, but he lays it down on his own accord!
And then in Matthew 26:
47While he was still speaking, Judas, one of the Twelve, arrived. With him was a large crowd armed with swords and clubs, sent from the chief priests and the elders of the people. 48Now the betrayer had arranged a signal with them: “The one I kiss is the man; arrest him.” 49Going at once to Jesus, Judas said, “Greetings, Rabbi!” and kissed him.
50Jesus replied, “Friend, do what you came for.”
Then the men stepped forward, seized Jesus and arrested him. 51With that, one of Jesus’ companions reached for his sword, drew it out and struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his ear.
52″Put your sword back in its place,” Jesus said to him, “for all who draw the sword will die by the sword. 53Do you think I cannot call on my Father, and he will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels? 54But how then would the Scriptures be fulfilled that say it must happen in this way?”
55At that time Jesus said to the crowd, “Am I leading a rebellion, that you have come out with swords and clubs to capture me? Every day I sat in the temple courts teaching, and you did not arrest me. 56But this has all taken place that the writings of the prophets might be fulfilled.” Then all the disciples deserted him and fled.
Jesus could have easily not allowed this to happen to him and could have called on 12 legions of angels if he wanted, but he knew why he had come so that the Scriptures might be fulfilled.
In addition to the character of Jesus, the history recorded about him from the many old sources should easily raise eyebrows about whether he was the promised Messiah mentioned throughout the old testament for those who are familiar with the Scriptures. And besides his perfectly virtuous character, what about his miracles? Raising the dead, healing the blind, deaf, diseased, possessed, walking on water, calming a chaotic storm with the words ‘peace, be still’, feeding 5,000 people with only a few pieces of bread and fish, etc, etc. If Jesus was raised from the dead like he said he would be, he could easily perform all these miracles. And he never lied about anything, so his word is always trusted. He is perfect, and is so because he is God, the visible image of Him, and the one who physically appeared to the patriarchs. He has always existed and we are honored to know him personally and live for him as he intended through the power of the Holy Spirit living in us! Yeshua is Lord of all! May we all know him deeply and imitate him in all things!
November 6th, 2009 @ 10:51 am
I LOVE GOD
Then said the lord of the vineyard, What shall I do? I will send my beloved son: it may be they will reverence him when they see him.
November 6th, 2009 @ 11:31 am
I will love to face Dr. Brown and whoever afterwards one day after I make my reply which is in a scholars eyes maybe not there way.
Zvi with your comment about Jesus being a B…. which implicates others in HIS family as liers and harlots.
Zvi the dragon swallowed you and you just it’s pooh Those that follow you and your stink will find the Dragon.
It is no wonder all Israel suffered when a few ignorant macho’s speak like you.
Profaned God’s Son. Your a bum kisser like your father satan.
November 6th, 2009 @ 11:43 am
Easy Craig, I understand your frustration, but let’s not let the anger of the flesh get the best of us. Let’s forgive him, for he knows not what he does, and let’s pray for him. May we exercise the fruits of the Spirit in all circumstances – love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self control.
November 6th, 2009 @ 11:47 am
Please please keep it above the belt. Let’s not abuse our privilege of being able to post with little/no moderation by writing what will only cause trouble.
November 6th, 2009 @ 11:54 am
It is not the flesh Michael or even Elijah, the Baptist and Stephen would have been judged as being carnal. I’m in total peace with The Father and Messiah Jesus. THese people bring harm to the poor of Israel. Anyhow to save the posters I will leave.
November 6th, 2009 @ 12:15 pm
Bless you Craig! I understand where you are coming from.
November 6th, 2009 @ 4:16 pm
“Tested and tried one comes to wonder, what are the reasons, and before God, please tell me why?” So goes the old song verse. I may be overly sensitive, but I doubt it. I can literally feel forces in my body push and pull, stress and not, when engaged in such discussions as have occurred here. There is the turning over to the Father of each and ever written expression shared and risked in His Name. There is the bond of the Spirit, the honing of the mind, and the presence of God before whom I rest my own striving and struggling through the exchange and interchange processes of writing here.
We are not contending over the body of Moses without a similar heart of the Angel of G-d.
November 6th, 2009 @ 4:29 pm
Who has believed our report.
November 7th, 2009 @ 9:18 pm
All,
971 comments thus far! Great dialogue going on here. We’ll be opening up a Real Messiah Debate blog soon, so we’ll be closing the comments on this thread in one week. The Real Messiah debate blog will be dedicated to topics like this, so hopefully we can see interaction like this when we open that up.
Line of Fire Admin
January 23rd, 2010 @ 9:34 pm
Ben,there is a HUGE difference between the belief in the ot vs. the nt. The ot had 600000 witnesse besides woman and children and older men. Whereas the nt have 0 witnesses.
January 24th, 2010 @ 8:39 am
Adam, all the laws that go back go all the way back to moses.In Daniel 1 what possible issue can there be with bread or wine? I would like to know? Where does it say in the torah not in the nt that one must pray daily? If it doesnt say it in the torah then why did Daniel have to obey it? Where does it say not to carry on shabbos?
January 24th, 2010 @ 8:11 pm
Another proof against christianity is: Will there be a temple to offer sacrifices when the third temple is rebuilt? Absolutely,scripture is very clear about that,which begs the obvious question,why is that necessary, didnt jesus take care of all our sins?
January 24th, 2010 @ 8:45 pm
Dearest Zvi,
If you would just read my books you would realize there are answers to all the objections you raise. You could really save yourself some time and trouble. But since you seem determined not to read them, feel free to keep posting objections that have already been refuted. Be my guest.
January 24th, 2010 @ 8:54 pm
Dr.brown,why cant you give me just one answer? there are alImost 1000 posts here, if you truly have the answer, then let’s see the response! why is it it so difficult,do you spend your whole book on each question alone?
January 24th, 2010 @ 9:21 pm
Zvi,
I’ll explain one last time (although it surprises me that you genuinely can’t understand this): There are scores of websites challenging me on numerous questions and many articles and videos and lectures challenging me on many subjects. That is one of the reasons I worked so hard on putting solid material in writing, not in short posts but in serious, full-length answers, with reference to the sources in detail. Those seriously wanting answers can find them there. Those who are not serious can just post and not avail themselves of the resources that I have compiled.
If you’re serious about getting answers , you’ll study the material; if you’re not, you can keep up what you’re doing here. Your choice.
I also remind you that there are five new topics posted here each week, and I rarely get into in-depth discussion on any of the threads, as you can see.
Anyway, if you want answers, they’re available. If you want to play games, by my guest.
January 24th, 2010 @ 9:46 pm
In Zicharia 8:23-In the end of days 10 gentiles will grab the shirt of a jew and proclaim “we will go along with you for we heard that g-d is with you! Let’s be honest with ourselvs could scriptures possibly have been any clearer?
January 24th, 2010 @ 10:01 pm
Although there is no additional proof needed after my previous post,we can deduce from here that whenever the prophets use the word “yihudi” it is referring to the biological jew and not the alleged “new christian jew”, how do I know this? Simple, the getiles speak of people that speak ten different languages,the jews dont,the language of a jew is hebrew,and the verse speaks of ten different nations,and the jews are one nation,besides it seems that the jews are the minority in this verse -not the majority 1 jew per 10 gentiles so we cannot be discussing christians.
January 24th, 2010 @ 10:50 pm
It seems that you may here have an advocate in Paul: “I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin… For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in. And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob: For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.” (Romans 11)
January 24th, 2010 @ 11:27 pm
John,so why do you believe that Jesus is moshiach if the verse clearly says that at the end of days the entire world will see that the jews have the correct g-d?
January 25th, 2010 @ 7:09 am
Zvi, so what’s your comment on Zechariah 12:10 ?
” I will pour on the house of David, and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplication; and they will look to me whom they have pierced; and they shall mourn for him, as one mourns for his only son, and will grieve bitterly for him, as one grieves for his firstborn.”
Why is it necessary to have a spirit of grace and of supplication in order to mourn for YHWH as for the only son that was pierced?
And why didn’t the children of Israel have this spirit of grace and of supplication before?
Who is the only son that was pierced? Obvoisly NOT the children of Israel, since in verse 8 we see that YHWH protects them although the nations are gathered against Jerusalem.
This is what I mentioned before as the similarity between Israel and Yeshua – but the real suffering servant is not Israel but Yeshua.
This event in Zechariah 12:10 is the turning point in history that will bring back the Jewish people into their destiny that they had missed before. Only after that will “10 gentiles grab the shirt of a Jew and proclaim “we will go along with you for we heard that God is with you!”
Now where is the obvoius reward of the suffering servant in Isaiah 53? If Isaiah 53 pertains only to Israel then Israel either never has suffered yet or Isaiah 53 is not true – if I continue with your logic that the reward should be seen immediately.
Israel has suffered terribly up until now, but the biggest war against Jerusalem is still ahead. Is that the reward? You see Zvi, your logic doesn’t apply here.
But Yeshua’s reward is very obvious today – even though it is still far aways from its peak – even today He has millions of followers! And again – the REAL sense of the Hebrew term “zerah” – seed – is the seed of YHWH’s kingdom – as described in Malachi 2:15, not just a physical seed! Shalom!
January 25th, 2010 @ 8:58 am
Zvi, Unfortunately I do not have a great deal of time to interact here but since you’ve asked, just let me provide a brief answer to your question regarding how Jesus can still be (and must be) the Messiah when Paul and others clearly indicate that there is still to be what might be called an “end of end times” redemption for the Jews.
I don’t mean this disparagingly, but the New Testament vision of the Messiah and His redeeming work is not as limited as that reflected in Rabbinic thought and belief, and it includes a redemptive plan for the Gentiles, which means that the Messiah (who fulfills the Law and Prophets) is for the Gentile as well as for the Jew. There are 3 primary messianic offices: 1) priestly 2) prophetic 3) royal/political. All these are foreshadowed in the OT, where the title “mashiach” is applied to priest, prophet and king. Jesus came roughly 2000 years ago to fulfill things pertaining to temple, priesthood, sacrifice and atonement before the 2nd temple’s destruction in 70 AD. (If you would like to raise objections based on a future reconstruction of the temple there are answers, though they may not satisfy you; there are very interesting answers as well to the objection that Jesus cannot be a priest because of tribal affiliation). Thus He is regarded as “mashiach” in the priestly sense. Jesus also came at that time as a prophet to teach, preach, predict and warn. Thus He is “mashiach” in his prophetic office. Finally, still in capacity of prophet, He predicted that at some point after His message had gone around the world to the Gentiles, and that at some point after the Jewish people had been restored to the land (note that He predicted the 2nd temple’s destruction and an extended exile of the Jews from the land) then the Jews would turn to Him and He would return to assume his hereditary place on David’s throne in Jerusalem, at which point will begin his reign as “Mashiach” in the royal/political sense, when He will reign over a worldwide kingdom of WILLING Jews and Gentiles (a king needs subjects, and that’s why the Gospel has gone forth to the ends of the earth leading up to his return as king). The NT reflects a belief that the OT indicates two messianic visitations which differ in character: one where the Messiah comes “meek and lowly”; and another where the Messiah comes gloriously “on the clouds of heaven.” The meek and lowly entrance points to what is called the “first coming,” and the glorious entrance “on the clouds of heaven” points to “the second coming.”
There are citations–biblical and scholarly–to all of the above. Best place to look is Dr. Brown’s series. Sorry I will not have time to debate the implications and validity of these points here and now. Nevertheless, thought I’d provide this brief answer. God bless
January 25th, 2010 @ 9:08 am
Zvi, if you think that those passages about the third temple will be a problem for our position, which is it not, then you have a similar problem as well. Because if the time of the Third Temple, i.e. the Messianic Age, will be this period of perfect righteousness and complete obedience, what are those sacrifices still being brought for?
As for an answer to your question about those sacrifices, these sacrifices could very well be memorial. Just like we commemorate the Exodus from Egypt with the sacrifice of a lamb every Pesach, likewise those sacrifices will be brought in memory of the ultimate sacrifice of Yeshua the Messiah. Just as you slaughter a rooster every Yom Kippur, thereby acknowledging the fact that you NEED the atonement through blood on the most holy day on the Biblical Calendar, likewise I can see us bringing the sacrifices before God through animal sacrifices in commemoration of Yeshua the Messiah’s atoning sacrifice. You slaughter chickens on Yom Kippur in memory of the Temple sacrifice that our ancestors used to bring, something you were never ever told to do by the Prophets .
Another point that can be made is that the description of the sacrifices in the Third Temple, largely, if not, solely based on Ezekiel’s prophecies, may well be symbolic because of the fact that they differ substantially from the prescribed sacrifices in the Torah.
As you see, options galore.
May YHWH bring you to the light of Yeshua, your promised Messiah,
Nakdimon
January 25th, 2010 @ 9:17 am
Dr Brown, when is Volume 5 from your series coming out btw?
January 25th, 2010 @ 9:50 am
To,all,none of you have responded to my question, regarding the verse that says that in the end of days ten gentiles will grab the shirt of a jew and say “g-d is with you” why??? Jews dont believe in jesus?!
January 25th, 2010 @ 9:56 am
Nakdimon,although there will be no intentional sins there still may be unintentional sins that must be atoned for even in the mesianic era,and sacrifices are for those sins only. They cannot be symbolic because it is forbidden for a jew to bring an offering into the temple unless one is required! On erev yom kippur it is brought outside the temple.
January 25th, 2010 @ 10:08 am
Erica,big mistake, if Jesus was a sacrifice,then nobody should mourn him-after all he brought atonement!! Besides it says that the entire house of Levi will mourn him and that never happened!It never said that NO jews will die on the contrary in the days of moshiach MANY jews wiil die before the emerge victorious.
January 25th, 2010 @ 10:51 am
John,according to your’e explanation why does the verse say g-d is witth you-jews? Isn’t Jesus for all? Why does the gentile need to grab the shirt of a jew let him grab Jesus’ shirt?
January 25th, 2010 @ 10:52 am
Erica,the verse in Malchi is not speaking of the seed of a human as I have explained earlier.
January 25th, 2010 @ 10:55 am
All, another reason why Zacharia cannot be referring to Jesus,because verse 9 speaks of a time when all the nations of the world gather for war against Jerusalem.
January 25th, 2010 @ 11:17 am
10 reasons why Jesus cannot be our saviour.
1.An offering must be slaughtered with a knife,and it cannot have a blemish before the slaughtering,Jesus was tortured and at the time of death he was full of wounds.
2.The blood of the sacrifice must be sprayed on the alter.
3. Human sacrifice is forbidden.
4.He did not sacrifice himself, he yelled “my g-d,why have you forsaken me”
5. A sacrifice can only atone for passed sins but not for future sins.
6.A sacrifice must be brought for each and every sin.
7.A sacrifice can only help atone for sins that were comitted unintentionally.
8.The sinner must be present and must repent at the time of the offering.
9.An atonement works whether or not you believe in it.
10.I must sacrifice by bringing an animal or by bringing flower or money,but the animal does not sacrifice himself for me.
January 25th, 2010 @ 11:19 am
#5 should say past sins
January 25th, 2010 @ 11:26 am
Also what was the big punishment that g-d destroyed the temple why did they need it if jesus was around? But dont answer me because they didn’t believe in Jesus because they didnt need to if they had the temple standing.
January 25th, 2010 @ 11:34 am
Also,question for the audience,why do christians that believe in jesus ever suffer? what did they do wrong? All their sins were taken care of by jesus? So all they have are good deeds remaining so why suffer?
January 25th, 2010 @ 2:18 pm
zvi,
Adam, all the laws that go back go all the way back to moses.
Then demonstrate that the Qorban rule goes back to Moses.
In Daniel 1 what possible issue can there be with bread or wine? I would like to know?
The issue in involves the meaning of patbag in Daniel 1:8. You translated it as “bread.” I don’t think that is the best translation; I would translate it as “food.” It is not the bread specifically that he is refusing, but all the king’s food altogether. HALOT takes this understanding [Vol 2, p.984], as well as the critical commentary of J. John Collins [p.127]. Hence, it is not just a matter of bread, but food in general. That is why I said that what he is doing is avoiding anything eaten at the king’s table so as to be absolutely sure that he does not defile himself. The fact that the Torah did not forbid it is actually the point. He was so concerned to obey the law of God that he did not want to even make it a possibility that he would disobey.
Where does it say in the torah not in the nt that one must pray daily? If it doesnt say it in the torah then why did Daniel have to obey it? Where does it say not to carry on shabbos?
Where does it say in the book of Daniel that Daniel was being obedient to a specific command by saying daily prayers? Put another way, would Daniel have been disobedient if he had and accident, and had been in a coma for a week, and thus was not able to pray? No, Daniel was being obedient to no law at all here, other than the law that prayer must be a part of our walk with God.
Zvi, again, you don’t understand the problem before you. I will continue to simply understand every passage you bring up as having a logic that leads us straight to the New Testament, and thus be able to answer any passage you bring up. By you taking interpretations that lead to Rabbinic tradition, you are simply begging the question. The question is, “Does the logic of these texts lead to rabbinic tradition?” I say no, you say yes. That is the issue.
Another proof against christianity is: Will there be a temple to offer sacrifices when the third temple is rebuilt? Absolutely,scripture is very clear about that,which begs the obvious question,why is that necessary, didnt jesus take care of all our sins?
Which begs the question as to whether or not there will be a third temple. Some do believe that, especially the dispensationalists, but I am a Postmillenialist, and we don’t believe in a third temple. Interestingly, this is not a proof against Christianity, as much as it is a proof of your ignorance as to the diversity of Christianity.
Although there is no additional proof needed after my previous post,we can deduce from here that whenever the prophets use the word “yihudi” it is referring to the biological jew and not the alleged “new christian jew”, how do I know this? Simple, the getiles speak of people that speak ten different languages,the jews dont,the language of a jew is hebrew,and the verse speaks of ten different nations,and the jews are one nation,besides it seems that the jews are the minority in this verse -not the majority 1 jew per 10 gentiles so we cannot be discussing christians.
Actually, receiving the promises of God has nothing to do with biology. Even in Genesis 17 where the promises are given to Abraham, they are conditioned upon his walking before God and being blameless [Genesis 17:1-2]. The whole point of the historical books is that those who were outside of the land of Canaan, and even gentiles such as Ruth and Rahab were far more faithful to God than those of biological seed.
Thus a true Jew has nothing to do with biology. Even a woman such as Ruth could say to her mother in law, “Your people shall be my people,” because she was more faithful than those who called themselves “Hebrews” in the book of Judges. I would argue that you are not truly a Jew, since you are in rebellion against God for rejecting his son. It is only if you obey God and keep his covenant that you will have his promises [Exodus 19:5-6], and only if you circumcise the foreskin of your heart, and stop being stiff-necked [Deuteronomy 10:16] that you will ever hold the promises that God has for his people.
10 reasons why Jesus cannot be our saviour.
1.An offering must be slaughtered with a knife,and it cannot have a blemish before the slaughtering,Jesus was tortured and at the time of death he was full of wounds.
2.The blood of the sacrifice must be sprayed on the alter.
3. Human sacrifice is forbidden.
4.He did not sacrifice himself, he yelled “my g-d,why have you forsaken me”
5. A sacrifice can only atone for passed sins but not for future sins.
6.A sacrifice must be brought for each and every sin.
7.A sacrifice can only help atone for sins that were comitted unintentionally.
8.The sinner must be present and must repent at the time of the offering.
9.An atonement works whether or not you believe in it.
10.I must sacrifice by bringing an animal or by bringing flower or money,but the animal does not sacrifice himself for me.10 reasons why Jesus cannot be our saviour.
The simple answer to all of this is that the sacrifices of the Pentateuch were meant to be a looking forward to the sacrifice of Christ. Those sacrifices could never take away sin, precisely because they had to be repeated. It was only by doing those sacrifices, and looking forward to the time when the son of God would come that anyone would ever be atoned.
However, what is worse is that, in Judaism, you have no blood at all for your sins. There is no punishment for one’s sins in Judaism; God just winks at sin, and says “That’s ok.” While the offenses in a judicial court are much different than the offenses to an infinite God, if a judge in a judicial court started saying “It’s okay” to convicted criminals, thus merely winking at sin, that judge would be the greatest ally to organized crime of any of the criminals.
There is a classic problem that taking away any and all sacrifice cannot answer. The Hebrew Bible speaks of God’s retributive justice. All good is rewarded, and all evil is punished. Yet, at the same time, God shows his hesed to certain people. How can God be just, and thus punish sin, and yet, still show his mercy on certain individuals? Without a perfect, sinless sacrifice taking that sin upon himself, it is a logical contradiction. At least, if you have sacrifices, you still have some form of atonement, even if it is only looking forward. Remove the sacrifices, and you remove God’s justice.
God Bless,
Adam
January 25th, 2010 @ 2:21 pm
Zvi,
One quick response:
Also,question for the audience,why do christians that believe in jesus ever suffer? what did they do wrong? All their sins were taken care of by jesus? So all they have are good deeds remaining so why suffer?
Because we are sharing in the suffering of Christ. Also, because it is through this suffering that God applies to us that already completed work of Christ, conforming us to the image of his son day by day.
God Bless,
Adam
January 25th, 2010 @ 2:44 pm
Adam,be so brave as to read the chapter in Dniel that they were being tested because for them it was forbidden to have the bread and wine, what can be wrong for drinking non jewish wine.I’m also surprised that you havent even bothered reading through chapter 6 when they were trying to decree that it is forbidden to pray……so that he will disobey them,dont just read one verse. A jew in the ot has meant biological in the ot at every instance,the word “yihudi” means from the tribe of yehudah. In fact the contrast is 10 other nations with ten different languages if it si purely a faith issue then language plays absolutely no role. Besides for not responding to the 10 points,you are also mistaken because the torah cosiders many many people holy,righteous,and pure without Jesus’ help. Lastly, g-d does not wink at all,repentance is mentioned dozens and dozens,so your’e merely demonstrating great ignorance with regards to our religion.
January 25th, 2010 @ 2:47 pm
Adam,daniel 6:6
January 25th, 2010 @ 2:51 pm
Yes Zvi – it is a honor to suffer for Yeshua – that’s why Isaiah 53 pertains first of all to Yeshua – but then also to the Jews and third also to the non-Jews who identify with Yeshua.
Why all the lamenting in Zechariah 12:10 ?
Very simple: The rejection of an only son hurts those who finally recognize Him as what He actually is. Lamenting because of a former lack of identification with Yeshua. Will you be happy when you finally realize that you rejected your Messiah? But be of good cheer – Messiah still loves you!!
January 25th, 2010 @ 2:54 pm
Erica,the verse is referring to a different time period a time that all of the world gathers to fight israel,sorry.
January 25th, 2010 @ 2:56 pm
Of course Zvi – this is talking about the future and the great battle against Jerusalem – what else??
January 25th, 2010 @ 3:00 pm
Adam,youre the one quoting the nt the whole time,I never brought a traditional jewish translation. being a jew is a fact,fearing g-d is another-one has nothing to do with the other, the book of numbers describes who a jew is,only jews stood at the foot of mount sinai-there is nobody else there,there is no verse in the nt that suggests otherwise. The gentiles have no part in the ot whatsover the laws unless specified clearly were not for them,your whole proof is from the nt which cannot be used as testimony in this debate!
January 25th, 2010 @ 3:01 pm
I meant there is no verse in the ot that suggests otherwise.
January 25th, 2010 @ 3:03 pm
Erica,you dont mourn the death of somone thousands of years later, certainly not whan he died for your sins and returned 3 days later and brought you salvation and is again ther at the present moment! It makes no sense at all.
January 25th, 2010 @ 3:10 pm
It only makes sense in the case of Yeshua, when Israel will see Him for the second time (they will look at Him whom they have pierced) – that will still happen. So you have something to look forward to
January 25th, 2010 @ 3:13 pm
erica,your ignoring the question.
January 25th, 2010 @ 3:15 pm
The question?? Which one??
January 25th, 2010 @ 3:21 pm
why the mourning thousands of years later for somone that died for your sins and returned 3 days later?
January 25th, 2010 @ 3:26 pm
I answered this already on the top of this page.
I wrote:
“Lamenting because of a former lack of identification with Yeshua. Will you be happy when you finally realize that you rejected your Messiah? But be of good cheer – Messiah still loves you!!”
Guess what, Yeshua IS the King of the Jews who IS rejected by His own people. Would you be happy to marter your OWN SON ??? Well me not.
January 25th, 2010 @ 3:32 pm
And only after the recognition of Yeshua as the ONLY true son of Israel, Israel will finally be ready for its role as the Cohen to the nations – under Yeshua the Cohen Gadol. This will be a surprise to everybody, to the Jews and also to the Christians (who apparently somtimes forgot that Yeshua indeed is a Jew).
January 25th, 2010 @ 3:33 pm
the verse says mouring which refers to a death plus the verse says because of the piercing specifically not the belief of him,in fact the piercing was a good thing it got rid of our sins.
January 25th, 2010 @ 3:37 pm
Zvi, have you ever read the New Testament / Brit Hadasha? Because you say exactly what is written there!
January 25th, 2010 @ 3:46 pm
Erica nice try!
January 25th, 2010 @ 3:48 pm
Honestly – I’m referring to your post at 3:33 pm!
January 25th, 2010 @ 3:52 pm
What I was saying was that people were mourning a death not a lack of belief of an individual,and according to christians they shouldn’t be mourning the death if THEY believe that it atoned for their sins. But g-d forbid was I suggesting that I too believe that he died for our sins.
January 25th, 2010 @ 3:59 pm
Zvi,
Adam,be so brave as to read the chapter in Dniel that they were being tested because for them it was forbidden to have the bread and wine, what can be wrong for drinking non jewish wine.
I am not going to keep repeating myself. You keep on insisting that we are talking about bread here. I have already demonstrated from scholarly sources that we are not. The reason they are being tested is because the Babylonians thought nothing of eating foods that God had said were unclean. The reason Daniel passes with flying colors is because he doesn’t just test every food to see if it is unclean, but he asks for a diet that would make it absolutely impossible for him to sin.
I’m also surprised that you havent even bothered reading through chapter 6 when they were trying to decree that it is forbidden to pray……so that he will disobey them,dont just read one verse.
I haven’t read it? Even though I had it as one of my texts for my final in Biblical Aramaic? No, you are reading something into the text, namely, that Daniel was following some divine command by praying three times each day. That is nowhere in the text. All it is telling us is that Daniel was committed to regular prayer before God. To read into that prayer some divine injunction about a particular number of times to pray is pure eisegesis.
A jew in the ot has meant biological in the ot at every instance,the word “yihudi” means from the tribe of yehudah. In fact the contrast is 10 other nations with ten different languages if it si purely a faith issue then language plays absolutely no role.
First of all, that is way to narrow a meaning for yehudi. It is true that, especially in preexilic texts, one could find it used in the way you describe. However, in postexilic contexts, it seems to take on a more general meaning, meaning something such as “the Jewish people” because it was mostly the people from Judah who had came back from exile.
Secondly, you are completely ignoring everything that I wrote. A true Jew is not a Jew simply on the basis of biology. Hosea was called to name one of his children “lo’ ami” and when God gives the reason it is, “For you are not my people, and I will not be yours.” These were biological seed, and, according to your logic, they should have been called the people of God, but the text specifically says that specific biological seed were not his people.
As far as the passage from Zachariah goes, it is dealing with those Jews who prophecy in Zachariah 8 has already been fulfilled, and is in a sense being fulfilled right now every time a gentile turns to believe in Christ.
Besides for not responding to the 10 points,you are also mistaken because the torah cosiders many many people holy,righteous,and pure without Jesus’ help. Lastly, g-d does not wink at all,repentance is mentioned dozens and dozens,so your’e merely demonstrating great ignorance with regards to our religion.
First of all, righteous in what sense? In the sense that they have some sense of morality, or in a sense that they do things that are pleasing to God? A person can be “righteous” in the context of a legal case, and that only means that he didn’t commit the crime.
However, if you mean “righteous” in the sense of a right standing before God, and that through repentance, then I would disagree as I don’t believe anyone can do what is right, because he is dead in sin. As Genesis 6:5 says, “all the formations of the thoughts of his [man's] heart are only evil all the time,” and again in 8:21, “I will not again curse the ground on behalf of man, for the formations of the heart of man are evil from his youth.” Also, Jeremiah 13:23 says, “Can an Ethiopian change his skin, or a leopard his spots? So are you able to do who are accustomed to doing evil.” No man can do anything to justify himself, because all men cannot do good unless God effectually changes his heart.
Finally, you say that repentance is enough. However, is it? We are dealing with infinite crimes against and infinite God, and you are trying to tell me that just a simple, “I’m sorry, I’ll never do it again” will suffice? Even if that person never does anything wrong again, evil has been done, and the evil must be punished.
We don’t even accept this understanding in our smaller courts where we have the breaking of the laws of the state. Imagine if a someone commits a murder, and is found guilty, and he says that he will never do it again. Do we just let him get off with no punishment, simply because he said that? No. How much more can we say that when we are dealing with infinite sins against an infinite God?
So, no, I understand your religion. However, the fact that I understand it doesn’t mean that I think you are taking sin seriously in your answers. It is entirely glib to think that repentance alone can take away infinite sin against an infinite God.
BTW, remember that, from my perspective as an Orthodox Presbyterian, the New Testament teaches that no one was ever granted repentance outside of the sacrifice of Christ. The New Testament teaches that the reason why anyone repents is because it is granted to them on behalf of Christ [Philippians 1:29].
God Bless,
Adam
January 25th, 2010 @ 4:02 pm
But it is not the Christians that mourn – it is the Jews!!! Since Yeshua is the firstborn of Israel – the ONLY true son and Messiah!!
Why do the Christians not mourn? – Well, because they are not Jews and they only profited from Yeshua’s death – the atonement for their sins.
But atonement will also come for the Jews as we see in chapter 13, when Yeshua is the Cohen Gadol – again in the midst of His own people – the Jews. And He – Yeshua – as the right arm of YHWH – will deliver the Jews out of every tribulation, see chapter 14:4 – when He comes back to the mount of Olives.
January 25th, 2010 @ 4:07 pm
Adam I disagree about the bread,but let’s focus on wine they was clearly refraining because it was forbidden,again just read it. In chapter 6 you make the same mistake read the verse that I sent you in the next clip you COMPLETELY ignored the cotext. Again my nation is one thing Yihudi is another and always means biological truth your faith taught you otherwise,and saying I’m sorry and sincerely planning to change your ways makes alot more sense then you relaxing in an armchair because somone died for you 2000 years ago!
January 25th, 2010 @ 4:11 pm
also Daniel 1:10
January 25th, 2010 @ 4:14 pm
Erica it is not speaking of a christian that suffers it is speaking of moshiash ben yosef but either way why in the world would we mourn the piercing if according to you it fogave sins?
January 25th, 2010 @ 4:15 pm
adam dan 6:6
January 25th, 2010 @ 4:23 pm
Yes, it is speaking of Moshiash Ben Yosef – and a mouring takes place because of Him – so WHY??
You yourself said at 3:33
“in fact the piercing was a good thing it got rid of our sins”.
Yes, the piercing took away our sins – so why the mourning??
Very simple: Because Moshiash Ben Yosef (= Yeshua) is a JEW and not anything else! That’s why the JEWS mourn, not the Christians. Would you not mourn if your son was martyred??
So again: Why the mourning?? Because the one who was martyred was the firstborn of Israel – not any other nation!
January 25th, 2010 @ 4:25 pm
Erica,I was just saying what you believe. you dont mourn 2000 years later sorry it makes no sense!
January 25th, 2010 @ 4:29 pm
Zvi, you said at 3:33
“the verse says mouring which refers to a death plus the verse says because of the piercing specifically not the belief of him,in fact the piercing was a good thing it got rid of our sins”.
Are you afraid of the reality?
January 25th, 2010 @ 5:04 pm
lofradio,
When is the RealMessiah debate blog going to happen? Since this particular forum has over 1,000 responses, it seems best to have responses switched over there so recent comments for other shows get attention and this particular show doesn’t continue to get hogged by Zvi as he’s done so much in the past here. Maybe this thread can be copied over to RealMessiah while closing it on Line of Fire as was intended in the past. An announcement or Line of Fire site alert pointing to the Real Messiah debate blog might be a good idea.
January 25th, 2010 @ 5:14 pm
Hi Zvi,
Shalom and be well – I don’t know how much time I’ll have to respond in the future – but all the best to you.
Erika
January 25th, 2010 @ 11:04 pm
Michael,nobody stopped you from posting go ahead and hog away!
January 25th, 2010 @ 11:13 pm
Michael,
My schedule has been extremely intense for some time now, but as soon as possible, I’m going to post a subject for debate on Real Messiah and then everyone can have it for a few weeks (which will be the limit of time for my own involvement). The goal is to raise different subjects then have targeted debate on them, one at a time, but for a limited time, so we can move on to others.
I’m quite eager to do it and will probably start with something related to the myth of an authoritative Oral Law going back to Moses on Sinai (since that’s the subject of vol. 5). I’ll get word out before it starts, and I’m looking forward to interacting with Zvi and others in a focused way.
Thanks for your interest.
January 26th, 2010 @ 3:52 am
Zvi, you claimed that in the days of the Messiah people would still sin? Can you back that position up with references to scripture? You said that there will be no “intentional” sins but only “unintentional” sins. Zvi, the problem of “unintentional sin” was what caused all the problems we face today in the first place. I really cannot understand the low view of traditional Judaism on sin. Let’s take the worship of the Golden Calf. Was that en intentional sin or was that an unintentional sin? Did the children of Israel deliberately build the Calf to mock God or did they build it with the intention to worship God and stumble in the process? Since Aaron proclaimed “chag l’YHWH machar” in Exodus 32:5. Although this is clearly a sin by which YHWH was unintentionally grieved, no one will dare to question the severity of this sin. Do you really think unintentional sins are okay in the Messianic Age? Not to mention that the unintentional sin of Adam and Eve was what got us kicked out of Gan Eden in the first place. What makes you think that people will be permitted into Gan Eden committing unintentional sins, when just one unintentional sin was enough to deny each and every individual after Adam any access to Gan Eden? So, my dear Zvi, I’m afraid your problem remains. So I will repeat the question: If the time of the Third Temple, i.e. the Messianic Age, will be this period of perfect righteousness and complete obedience, what are those sacrifices still being brought for?
As for the reference to symbolic sacrifices I was talking about the description of the rituals in Ezekiel, not that the offerings brought would be symbolic. Like I said, if they are not to be a symbolic description, how do you reconcile those offerings brought in the Messianic Age differing from the prescribed sacrifices in the Torah?
Nakdimon
January 26th, 2010 @ 11:14 am
Nakdimon, The common mistake that christians make is that one has to be absolutely perfect to acheive eternal reward. It does not say anywhere that unless every single act a person commited throughout his life is in line with g-d,he will go to heaven. When the moshiach comes the verses tell us there will be universal knowledge of g-d,which therefore will cause peace in the world and therefore there will be no sin. It all follows a common theme. These are not separate,unrelated events.Therefore,even when moshiach comes,we will not all of a sudden turn into angels. Of course there will be no intentional sins,since the knowledge of g-d will be so powerfull and obvious,however this doesn’t mean that a person will not make a mistake. An example would be:If a person forgot that today is shabbos and he turned on his light or his car,or smoked a cigarette,he must bring an animal atonement,but that in no way clashes with the theme that g-d is with us and we don’t desire to sin. As far as,Adam and eve,thier sin was as intentional as it gets,they may have done so due to being overcome by desire,but that does not in any way consider it an accident they were fully aware of what they were doing. The same goes for the golden calfyou dont just bow down to a golden calf by accident,they were fully aware of what they were doing,Aron tried to push it off to the next day hoping that moses would return before that. The proof that it was on purpose is because g-d wanted to annihilate all of them which is the punishment for idolatry.You see a person can sin with the intention of going against g-d’s word and one can sin because he is tempted to do so BOTH are considerd intentional. The only time it is considered unintentional is if a person is unaware that he has sinned and in that case he must bring a sacrifice. This is the purpose of the sin sacrifices in the temple. There are plenty of other reasons why us jews use the temple if you just read through the verses in Leviticus you will see that most offerings were not for sin at all,rather they are required to be brought on holidays, and each morning and afternoon. The problem with this is that christian have this absurd idea that Jesus fulfilled the law,well if that’s the case then there is absolutely no point at all for the temple to be rebuilt because as far as the sins are concerned,he has already taken care of it,and as far as the other required offerings he has also fulfilled the law therefore there is no point for any offerings! Another huge problem with the idea of saviour is,how did Jesus get rid of intentional sins,the torah is as clear as day that many many sins deserve either lashes or death an offering is not enough?
January 26th, 2010 @ 12:47 pm
Zvi,
You are right. You don’t realize how wicked and heinous your sins really are. Do you agree with Genesis 6:5 that the desire of man’s heart is only evil all of the time? Do you agree with Isaiah 64:6 that all of your righteous deeds are like a filthy garment? There no one who is righteous, even in your unusual understanding of righteousness. Zvi, I would argue that the problem is precisely that you see yourself as a basically good person who makes a few mistakes. Until you see yourself as Genesis 6:5 sees you, and as Jeremiah 13:23 sees you, you will never be able to truly understand your need for a savior.
God Bless,
Adam
January 26th, 2010 @ 2:06 pm
Adam, all these verses are speaking of people that sinned all the time,how do you think in Genesis the next verse describes that Noah found favor in g-d eyes why? Isn’t he also human what about Moses and all the prophets? How did they merit that? Christianity had a bid problem becacause they claimed that he was moshiach,and then all of a sudden he dies.What now?So they had to create a problem with humans,that never existed. The had to say that man is intrisically evil in ordes to make him a saviour. So why is he better than thou? So they said he id g-d, so he is perfect. One problem he ain’t G-d- No problem Virgin birth! Big problem no evidence? No problem=twist the word “Almah” to mean virgin. Another problem there is only one g-d- No problem -complex unity.
January 26th, 2010 @ 2:19 pm
Adam,king Solomon tell us “there is no righteous man that doesnt sin”,well how can he be righteous if he sins according to you?
January 26th, 2010 @ 3:09 pm
Zvi,
Adam, all these verses are speaking of people that sinned all the time,how do you think in Genesis the next verse describes that Noah found favor in g-d eyes why?
The text says; purely because of God’s chen, his favor. You also neglect that this is repeated again in 8:21 when Noah and his family were the only ones on the earth, and man is still said to be evil from his youth!
Isn’t he also human what about Moses and all the prophets? How did they merit that?
The answer is that they didn’t merit it. It was totally by God’s grace and mercy in Christ Jesus.
Christianity had a bid problem becacause they claimed that he was moshiach,and then all of a sudden he dies.What now?So they had to create a problem with humans,that never existed. The had to say that man is intrisically evil in ordes to make him a saviour. So why is he better than thou? So they said he id g-d, so he is perfect. One problem he ain’t G-d- No problem Virgin birth! Big problem no evidence? No problem=twist the word “Almah” to mean virgin. Another problem there is only one g-d- No problem -complex unity.
This is a gross oversimplification. First of all, even David said he was wicked from his birth [Psalm 51:7], and yet God calls him a man after God’s own heart. If even David can acknowledge what I am saying about himself, then it should not be hard for us to acknowledge it about ourselves.
Secondly, the word ‘alma was not “twisted” to mean “virgin,” by “Christians” as the Septuagint translated ‘alma with parthenos which clearly means “virgin” in Greek, and did so long before the Christians came along. It is not really even a matter of dispute anymore. It is only a matter of dispute if you believe that words can have only one phrase of meaning, and cannot have several shades of meaning.
My pastor gave an excellent example of this, namely, the term “maiden” in Shakespearean English. If you look “maiden” up in a dictionary of Shakespearean English, you will find it to mean “young woman.” However, it meant young woman with the connotation of “virgin.” Shakespeare plays off of this and creates some rather humerus scenes where two people are dialoguing, and one person is using the word with that connotation, and the other person is not.
Also, the fact that the Septuagint has it is the strongest evidence for my position. Why would anyone translate the word ‘alma as parthenos if there was absolutely no possibility that “virgin” could ever be derived from ‘alma? The fact that the Septuagint was done before the rise of Christianity precludes that possibility. In fact, HALOT is even willing to accept the idea that ‘alma is related to childbirth.
Also, what kind of a sign would it be for a young woman to conceive and bear a son? Young women do that all of the time. Such a reading would totally strip the text of any supernatural element to it at all.
Another problem there is only one g-d- No problem -complex unity.
Actually, what Christians say is that there is one God who exists in three persons. The issue is not how many “gods” there are, but whether the one God is uni-personal or tri-personal.
Again, Zvi, you are not showing a clear understanding of the differences between us. All your are showing here by this rant is that you have not studied the historical issues, and are completely unaware of the differences in our understanding of the Hebrew Bible altogether.
Adam,king Solomon tell us “there is no righteous man that doesnt sin”,well how can he be righteous if he sins according to you?
Because of the grace and mercy that they found by looking ahead to Christ and his death on the cross, and by having his sins imputed to Christ, while his righteousness is imputed to us. David even speaks of this:
Psalm 32:1-2 Blessed is he whose transgressions are forgiven, whose sins are covered. Blessed is the man whose sin the Lord does not count against him and in whose spirit is no deceit.
I pray that you would see the need for Jesus to “bear your griefs” and to be “bruised for your transgressions, and crushed for your iniquities.” However, until you stop seeing yourself as a basically good person, instead of what Genesis 6:5 and Jeremiah 13:23 say about you, and what David was even willing to admit to himself, you will never see yourself in the way the Bible sees you.
God Bless,
Adam
January 26th, 2010 @ 10:35 pm
Adam, the verse about noach actually says that noach found favor in g-d’s eyes and not the other way around. In Genesis 26 verses 4 and 5, why does g-d reward abraham because he kept all his laws, not because he believed in Jesus,but rather action is what counts,because belief in Jesus anyone can have. The laughable part about this silly idea is not a WORD is mentioned about believing in Jesus here! Before I prove from the hebrew bible that the word almah=virgin,I would first like to refute your proof from the septuagint. If you know the septuagint is the book that the jews translated the torah into. This septuagint that you see today is not the one that was translated bce, because 1. The jews only translated the 5 books of moses into greeck 2.the 72 elders that translated the torah all deleted certain information that is recorded in the talmud,you musn’t believe in the laws of the talmud but this is our history,and if you look at the version we have today,the information is all there. 3. You claim that the word parthenos was used. Well if you look at the story of when dinah was raped how do you think the septuagint refers to dinah in genesis AFTER the rape? PARTHENOS, therefore your “strongest” evience must be dismissed!! If you look at the story in Isaiah,one thing is very interesting it only bothers you, how can a non virgin story be a sign,but it doesn’t bother you at all how Jesus who is born 700 years after the war began and ended would be considered a sign,it just boggles the mind! Not only that, a virgin wouldn’t be cosidered a sign,because it is something hidden how would anyone know whether or not she was a virgin? The sign was that nobody knew she was pregnant,never mind it being a boy,and that he will eat milk and honey which they were not doing at that time of war and that before the child knows right from wrong, the war will be over that looks like a sign to me! not a baby born 700 years later. Besides the verse says HALMAH-the almah in other words they were speaking of a young woman at that time.If you look at scriptue instead of just relying on your pastor you will see in proverbs 30:19 we are speaking of an act with an almah that leaves no trace and that she can claim that she did not sin and it speaks of an almah. Doesn’t relations with an almah leave a trace? How can she deny sin if is clear,for she is no longer a virgin? Also the root of the word is “elem” which clearly means young man as we see in samuel 1 17:56 and 20:22,besides the word besulah should have been used as Deu. 18 cannot be understood otherwise!
January 27th, 2010 @ 12:54 am
I meant before I prove that almah=young woman.
February 4th, 2010 @ 11:58 pm
I am writing the following proof for the authenticity of the oral law ONLY for those that are seeking the truth and are still undecided as to the truth of this matter. For all of you that have made your decision, I see no point in you reading this. In deu. 17 verse 8 the verse discusses a person that has information that is unknown…..between blood and blood….between law and law….go to verse 11,according to the “torah” that they will teach you. Some skeptics say that this verse is referring to a court system,but in no way refers to the oral law. So let me ask you,what does the verse mean between “blood and blood” also what does the verse mean according to the “teachings”? Does a court teach you law? The answer is ,yes,the oral law!
February 5th, 2010 @ 8:09 am
Another proof for the audience-in the samw chapter in verse 6 “accorrding to the word of 2 witnesses or 3 witnesses…”he should not die with only one witness. 2 questions 1.Do we need 2 winesses or 3 was g-d unable to make up his mind as to how mant witnesses are needed? 2.Why did g-d find it necessary to write that “he should not die according to one witness” isn’t it quite redundant-if the verse just got finished telling us that 2 or 3 are needed? The answer to all this can be found in the oral law!! Without the oral law we can have NO understanding of the torah.
February 5th, 2010 @ 8:39 am
Zvi and others,
For anyone with questions about the alleged Oral Law going back to Moses on Mt. Sinai, I strongly recommend that you read vol. 5 of my series that has just been released. It will provide evidence that there was NO unbroken, authoritative, Oral Torah going back to Moses.
February 5th, 2010 @ 9:41 am
Hi Zvi – I’m back again
Zvi – I’d rather say that without YESHUA we can have NO understanding of the Torah. In Matthew 5:17-48 Yeshua explains very well the difference between the Torah and the oral law.
I also like traditions sometimes – but they should not replace YHWH’s Word.
I did not take the time to read through all the posts above – but in one point you are right Zvi – with the arrival of the Messiah sin will not be blotted out immediately, as we can see in Zechariah 14:18 and 19. But we will have a chance like never before to restore all things!!! Concerning this matter I would like to recommend this teaching: http://www.streamsministries.com/store/product_info.php?cPath=65&products_id=862&utm_source=MailingList&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=prodannouncement_matters_2-1-10
Shalom to everyone!!
February 5th, 2010 @ 9:50 am
Dr. brown,I noticed that you have responded to so many comments over the last few days,so the fact that you cannot answer my arguments,leaves me with no other choice but to conclude that you have NO answers to these questions.
February 5th, 2010 @ 10:15 am
Zvi – does he have to write his books here for the second time?? And by the way, Dr. Brown loves to engage in discussions about Calvinism and Armenianism (which I personally find rather boring – sorry Dr. Brown) – so give him the freedom to do that.
February 5th, 2010 @ 10:21 am
Erica, I’m not asking him to rewrite the book all saying is that if Dr.Brown cannot even respond to even ONE question,then the reason has got to be quite obvious. But again the point of my posts is only here to help out people that are sincerely looking for the truth and to where the evidence points.
February 5th, 2010 @ 10:28 am
I encourage all those that are in doubt, to read Dr.Browns book,and present any evidence that he gives,on this blog so that I can respond,and at that point you can all examine the evidence for yourselves.
February 5th, 2010 @ 10:33 am
Zvi you mentioned,
“Dr. brown,I noticed that you have responded to so many comments over the last few days,so the fact that you cannot answer my arguments,leaves me with no other choice but to conclude that you have NO answers to these questions.”
What if I accused you that you dont have the answers because you will not call Dr. Browns radio show? You would deny that because you already provided you reasons in the previous posts. Dr. Brown has also provided his answer to you why he will not answer all your questions. Zvi, please rexamine your logic and stop the indirect insults.
February 5th, 2010 @ 10:44 am
Ben ks, I advise you to rexamine the reasons. Giving reasons doesn’t necessarily a valid reason. But again, if you think that Dr. Brown has a valid reason,that’s ok! But my point is to help out those that are seeking for the truth. So what I suggest they do is-take a look at the questions I ask,take a look at his book-present the arguments and based on all that the decision is yours.
February 5th, 2010 @ 10:55 am
Zvi,
If you are desperate for Dr. Brown to answer you questions, you might as well call his radio show. I know you dont want to but you will not get your answer this way on this forum. You either read his book or call his radio show. He has many reason why he will not answer your questions here. If you want to use the same logic and accuse him, then there is no point in answering your questions. He has offered you two options, call his radio show and/or read his books. I believe he has even offered to send you his book (correct me if I am wrong Dr Brown). I can see a third option is where you debate him publically at a Jewish congregation.
February 5th, 2010 @ 11:02 am
Zvi,
One reason why I think Dr. Brown will not answer some or all of your questions because most of the answer will have to come with a very long response. Also one question will open a can of worms of other questions which means he will have to give a lengthy response to the other. Overall, he will have rewrite his book if he were to answer your questions. To save the time, he recommends you to read his book and/or call his radio show.
February 5th, 2010 @ 11:03 am
BTW, I do not work for Dr. Brown. I am just giving my observation.
February 5th, 2010 @ 11:31 am
Come on Zvi! Give it a rest! Don’t you have other things to do? You put your comments to rest when people start getting tired of them, and then you think that after a month or two when people have maybe forgotten about you, that you can come back and just start debating again with new people. You keep making the same old arguments in this forum back from many months ago, trying to make yourself feel proud of them as if you think you are being brought closer to God because of fun little theological arguments for you with other people.
Line of Fire Radio, shouldn’t we close this thread as you had mentioned doing a while back because of the number of comments on it? Zvi has probably taken over half the comments on this thread. Dr. Brown has constantly told Zvi that all of his questions can be answered if he would just get Dr. Brown’s series of Jewish Objections about Jesus. That series has even been offered to Zvi for free, but he refuses and insists on debate for the sake of debate, not really looking for truth since he feels he knows it all and purposely makes other people’s responses to him go in one ear and out the other. Zvi is hogging up all the recent comments from the most current broadcasts, as he has done so much in the past. Last time I mentioned he was doing this, he addressed me with an odd response of saying that I also had the right to hog up the recent comments, completely missing the point. Honestly, what regular contributor here wants to go check out recent comments only to see that Zvi is back again making the same old comments and responses from a show that happened many months ago? It gets so old!
To those who keep responding to Zvi, I encourage you to go back and check out all the previous arguments from him and responses to him, so you won’t have to waste your time with him. He keeps raising the same arguments from long ago. Don’t think you are making a good point to him because he’s not listening to you even if he makes you think he is. The principle of not casting your pearls before swine is certainly at hand here, just so you know.
February 5th, 2010 @ 11:33 am
BTW – me not too.
But I’d like to give a strong recommendation to Zvi here:
Please Zvi, if you would read through the New Testament / Brit Hadasha only ONCE you would at least know what you are talking against. You have NO CLUE what is written there – so HOW can you talk against it ??? (These are three question marks btw., if that is hard to recognize).
I admit that also Christians in general don’t have a clue how Yeshua distinguishes between the Torah and the oral law, because they don’t even know the difference between them…. so how can I accuse you Zvi – but at least give it a try!!
February 5th, 2010 @ 11:53 am
You know Zvi, its like if I came to you with my new little dog and said: “Look, I’ve got a new little dog” and you kept responding to me “but this is not a cat – but this is not a cat”.
It is good to know what one is talking about. If you don’t have a clue about the Brit Hadasha – get it and read it before responding to it!
February 5th, 2010 @ 12:29 pm
If anyone will read the interaction I had with Michael we debated a huge contradiction where the nt discusses where Jakob was buried and it was in direct contrast with the account in the ot. He had a chance to explain it-I went along with a theory that he had,and at the end refuted that as well! Therefore at this point I’m not asking people that believe they have the truth at ANY cost,but rather trying to have a discussion with those that are seeking the truth of the matter.
February 5th, 2010 @ 3:16 pm
Everyone,
Also note that in my interaction with Zvi, he completely ignores the contradictions of the Old Testament which I and others pointed out to him. His argument was that we are not talking about the Old Testament. He had no good answer for us, but insisted on pointing out one mistranslation of New Testament while ignoring hundreds of contradictions from the Old Testament. Same old arguments from him. He can’t figure out how to better use his time. He seems a bit lazy to read Dr. Brown’s books which would address all of his concerns. He just likes to debate and is not interested in your responses, so just ignore him.
February 5th, 2010 @ 3:54 pm
Zvi – it does not help if you pick your knowledge about the New Testament / Brit Hadasha from some anti-missionary website commentaries – you yourself should know what you are talking about! What sense makes a debate otherwise?
February 6th, 2010 @ 12:12 pm
For Zvi and everyone else: Why Yeshua indeed is the Jewish Messiah (and not Santa Claus):
http://www.waytozion.org/video/Rico/glc/RicoGLC.htm
Shalom!
February 6th, 2010 @ 10:25 pm
Michael,you seem to be the one to not have answers,so that when your’e stuck,the only response you can do is point to the ot which we both believe in!! So basically the response is,”I don’t have an answer” so I will therefore download 100 ot cotradictions from other websites. What we end up with is sort of “contradictions don’t bother us” we have faith! In other words we don’t realy care about evidence. And since Zvi, won’t bother to respond to the 100″alleged” contradictions-we can escape,the questioning! the reasoning of challenging the ot contradictions have zero implications as to the explanation of the nt obvious errors. Do you excpect me to answer all 100 contradiction when you and I know very well that there are answers but time doesn’t allow to respond to all 100? All did was bring you one MASSIVE ERROR and you could’t explain it! When the response to question that is posed to a BELIEVER in the ot about an apparent cotradiction in the nt-that “what about you”? We know he is throwing in the towel. Even if the response was to a muslim,saying “what about contradictions in the koran”,even then it would be considered a weak response if you in fact had an answer. At least respond to the question before attacking the opponents own bible. But certainly in the case when all your’e doing is attacking YOUR OWN BIBLE! Well, if your point would be that COTRADICTION don’t affect the truth of the Bible,then you would at least begin having somewhat of a response (a fallacious one of course), but the truth is that a TRUE DIVINE bible cannot have under any circumstance contain any errors! You wrote “while ignoring hundreds of cotradictions of the ot”. Michael-Am I ignoring them? Or perhaps you are ignoring them as well? Did I write the ot?Do you possibly believe in them despite all the errors? Well I know that Iv’e gone through all those seemingly cotradictory passages (some of which are based on false assumtions) I sure hope you went through them yourself! So do expect me to type up answers to those questions that you yourself have answers for?Instead I thik you should focus at the question at hand and realize that the authenticicty of the nt is being severely challenged! As for me being lazy, you are absolutely correct in the fact that Iv’e got answers. I am not looking for answers that will be be consistent with jesus being Moshiach,since I know for a fact that he isn’t, based on all the research I have done. The same way you aren’t looking for my answers!!You claim that you have the truth,and that’s ok. But the point is that many who post on all these blogs are NOT here to ask, but rather to insert their opinion, so I’m doing the very same by posting arguments that prove my point to help all those that are seeking the true way. In fact Iv’e seen parts of Dr.browns books,all his debates that are available,so I am quite familiar with his arguments. Not only that,but I would venture to say that I’m more familiar with his arguments than 90 percent of the audience.
February 6th, 2010 @ 10:46 pm
In addition to what I just wrote, the question about the 100 contradictions in the ot happens to be another proof to the truth of the oral law since they that deals with them all,and thats why all skeptics in the oral law are at loss about what to do with those contradictions. So the same way you want me to read Dr.brown’s book, I suggest you read the oral law. But of course I understand if you don’t wasnt to ,but at least don’t challenge me from the ot cont. since the oral law deals with it. So now I turn around and ask you-What is the answer to the 100 contradictions in the ot? My answer can be found in the oral law,what about yours?
February 6th, 2010 @ 11:13 pm
The funny thing here is that after more than 1,000 posts, we’re right back to where we started and where Zvi dug a hole for himself by pointing to the Oral Law as the alleged explanation for the OT, whereas the Oral Law has countless contradictions and cannot possibly go back to Moses on Sinai. Oh well!
February 6th, 2010 @ 11:27 pm
Dr.Brown, I’m ready for the challenge whenever you are. As you know,I always try to be specific in the arguments,not just general.
February 6th, 2010 @ 11:50 pm
Zvi,
Let’s just agree to disagree and let us all discontinue responding to this thread. It’s not going anywhere, and it should be obvious by now that it won’t.
February 7th, 2010 @ 12:07 am
Michael, I agree to disagree with you,however I think everone is capabale of making their own decision about whether or not they should continue to post.
February 7th, 2010 @ 1:29 am
Zvi, when you’re ready for the challenge, then read my books. We’ll start there, since I’ve thrown the gauntlet down over 1,500 pages. Or if you still refuse to do that — an increasingly bizarre position with all your posting here — then let’s devote a radio show to your claims about the Oral Law. Let’s debate it for the world to here.
As always, I have been ready and willing from the start. Are you?
February 7th, 2010 @ 7:26 am
Zvi, Rico actually deals with the Oral Law and Yeshua in the link I gave above – and as I said before – the Oral Law can be of great help for us sometimes, but of course it is the Rabbinical commentary on the Torah and not the Torah itself.
Rico shows here that even the Oral Law (the Rabbinical commentary on the Torah) is absolutely in favor of Yeshua!!
Now also as I said before, the origin of the story of “Yeshu” (and “Yeshu” is the acronym for “may his name be blotted out” – just for all the well-meaning Christians here around) is found in Matthew 28:11-15. Take the time and read it Zvi. You will find more truth there than in any other account of that story.
All the activities of anti-missionaries go back to this event that is described in Matthew 28:11-15. So it seems that you have a looong tradition Zvi
If you seek the HONEST Rabbinical commentaries on the Torah you will finally find rest for your soul.
I think it would be a great idea btw. to have a live radio discussion between Zvi and Rico! But in that context it would also be helpful if the listeners would have learned the difference between the Oral Law and the written Torah of Moses, which was given by Yeshua.
Isaiah 33:22
” For YHWH is our judge.
YHWH is our lawgiver.
YHWH is our king.
He will save us.”
But of course you also can resort to the offer of Dr. Brown, as he said: “then let’s devote a radio show to your claims about the Oral Law. Let’s debate it for the world to here.”
February 7th, 2010 @ 8:42 am
Dr. brown,if I read your books will you then agree to respond to my arguments right here on the blog? As for the radio debate I’ve explained my reasons in earlier posts for declining.
February 7th, 2010 @ 1:44 pm
Zvi,
If you read my books then, when we schedule debate times on the Real Messiah website, I and/or my co-workers will absolutely respond to your arguments on that website, with joy, as long as they are legitimate arguments based on actually reading the material. To repeat: with joy! If you raise the same arguments without dealing with how they are refuted in my books, then obviously, you’re just out to waste time or make a point, but if you seriously interact with my material, again, in the spirit of Isa 1:18a, we will do it.
February 7th, 2010 @ 2:53 pm
Dr. brown,we’re on! However please allow me to post my arguments based on the book on this blog until the other website opens up(or between debate sessions). Is the free book offer still on the table?
February 7th, 2010 @ 4:44 pm
Zvi.
Wonderful! What in the world took you so long?
And yes, if you’ve read the books before we open the debate site on Real Messiah, of course you can post arguments here.
I assume you want to start with vol. 1? Due to your tireless energy in posting here, yes, the free offer still stands. Write to drbrown@askdrbrown.org to give us your mailing address privately.
February 7th, 2010 @ 9:50 pm
Dr.Brown,
Thanks for the offer! I think we can begin with volume one,and I’ll soon get you the mailing address.
February 7th, 2010 @ 10:15 pm
Zvi,
Sounds good. You will have more things to think about in vols. 2-5 (perhaps vol. 5 the most), but since so many of your previous posts deal with issues I’ve already addressed in my other vols., we’ll send them out one at a time, and when you’re ready for the next one, just let us know.
I’m still curious to know, however, why the sudden change of heart? For whatever the reason, I’m please to hear it. This will lend so much more substance to the interaction that will follow, God willing.
February 7th, 2010 @ 11:24 pm
Dr Brown,
To be honest, our belief is that these books contain complete heresy,so to bring these books into my home wouldn’t exactly be my first choice. I grew up as a orthodox jew and recieved my degree in math and talmudic studies. Just for all you out there,being called a Rabbi does not necessarily make you in any way superior to a non-rabbi. In fact,on average in the orthodox community there are tens of thousands of them that study the talmud day and night and are alot more learned than the average Rabbi. So,getting back to what I was saying,as a math major I always enjoyed the “proof” so I began to question myself as to how I can prove to myself and others that I am practicing the right religion.So over the last few years I studied first and foremost that there is in fact a g-d and that he gave the jews the torah,and from there began studying the christian and Muslim claims,and I came to the conclusion that I was in fact correct at the start. Over time I have come to enjoy the topic, which led me to this webite. I simply enjoy the truth for the sake of the truth itself more than the fact that it affect our eternity (which is not something to brag about). As far as the book I was hoping that at this point those who are not 100 percent sure about where they stand or those that are willing to see the truth will see that I went through the arguments of both sides and presented them in my debate session. Hopefully they will realize that I am truly sincere.
February 7th, 2010 @ 11:53 pm
Zvi,
Thanks for sharing your background, and I very much appreciate the honesty of your search. I have embarked on similar searches through the years and have come to the even more conclusion that Yeshua is our promised Messiah.
Regarding my books, they have made it into the homes of many frum Jews and counter-missionaries, so your home will not be the first. Also, I’ll send you all of them at once since I often cross-reference between the volumes.
And be sure to be signed up for my mailing list on AskDrBrown.org so you’ll know when we’ll having our first debate on the Real Messiah website.
I wish you well on your continued studies! To the extent that you are sincere — and I have no reason to doubt you — to that extent God will guide you into all the truth.
February 8th, 2010 @ 12:04 am
zvi,
Thank you for your honesty.
February 8th, 2010 @ 1:35 pm
I just wanted to make one correction regarding the method of jesus’ execution to “john” I believe it was who asked,that the jews stoned Jesus and then hung him after his death for a short period according to the talmud.
February 16th, 2010 @ 11:47 pm
All those that do not believe in the trinity and yet believe that he is moshiach face a big problem! The only reason christians believe that Jesus was able to die for their sins is because he was perfect. They also believe that a human cannot ever be perfect,therefore the only one that could have died for their sins in g-d. But if you deny the diety of Jesus-you run into a serious problem since if he is only human then he is susceptible to sin thus being ineligible to die for anyone’s sin since he wasn’t perfect.
February 18th, 2010 @ 10:57 pm
The obvious question that must be addressed is,that if Jesus was killed because he was g-d and therefore perfect,then g-d could have have just as easily sent down an angel incarnated as a human just as easily!
February 18th, 2010 @ 11:42 pm
The essence of a person is his soul. The body is just a covering,so when g-d commands me not to sin-he is not addressing my body but rather Zvi which is my soul. So if Jesus was a reincarnation of g-d then it is impossible to CREDIT him for not sinning,because g-d is not obligated not to sin,therefore he is not sinless, the idea of sin does not apply to him. For the same price why can’t any baby that dies who NEVER sinned atone for all our sins?
February 23rd, 2010 @ 1:18 pm
Dr.brown,
In vol.5 page 166 you compare the prayers of Danial to the tradition of the chasidic garb. Question:It is clearr from Danial 6:5 and from the rest of the story there that they were trying to get Daniel to go against his religion knowing that the only way to get him to go against the king would be to ban prayer. if it’s simply tradition,then Daniel certainly did not HAVE to pray? It would be like telling a chasid to remove his fur hat and if he disobeys,he’ll get thrown into the lions den,would he be obligated not to remove it? Of course not!
February 23rd, 2010 @ 1:20 pm
Also,
Prhaps I missed it,but is there anywhere that you explain how Jesus can atone for future sins?
February 23rd, 2010 @ 2:24 pm
I also saw where you try to explain how one can keep shabbos,but you hardly explain it! Maybe “guard the shabbos” or keep the shabbos,maybe it means-write the word shabos down and protect it with guards?
February 23rd, 2010 @ 2:41 pm
Zvi,
Just curious, according to Tanakh, after someone dies and they don’t make it to Heaven, where do they go? And can you explain what that place will be like?
February 23rd, 2010 @ 2:48 pm
Zvi,
1) Daniel was praying to God, which was part of biblical devotion and followed the pattern laid out in 1 Kings 8. Simple.
2) Yes, I do deal with the future sin issue in vol. 2, with reference to the claims of Simeon ben Yochai.
3) Your last point re: shabbos is too ridiculous to merit a response. If you don’t realize that, it only indicates how much traditional thinking has blinded you.
February 23rd, 2010 @ 2:55 pm
Dr.Brown,
I agree there is a concept of prayer,but where does it say that he was obligated to pray?
February 23rd, 2010 @ 3:06 pm
Dr Brown,
You agreed that the root of the word almah=elem=young man,yet you ignore the root of the word “betulah” in Deut. 22 verse 20 that clearly means virgin!
February 23rd, 2010 @ 3:19 pm
Also,can you please briefly fill me in on the Reb simon ben yochi future sin as I cannot spot it?
February 23rd, 2010 @ 3:51 pm
Dr. Brown,
You give ZERO explanation as to how we are to figure out what shabbos is,what a bris is,how we know what an esrog lolav suchah,…..etc..
February 23rd, 2010 @ 4:11 pm
It is zero to you because you are assuming there were millions of requirements, whereas the Torah does not give us millions of requirements.
As for your other points:
1) For Shimon ben (bar) Yohai, look towards the end of 3.15. It is there!
2) I accept that in legal contexts, betulah often means virgin. I say that very thing in the book.
3) All religious people prayed to their various gods; 1 Kings 8 directs Jews in exile to pray towards the Temple; 2 Chr 7:14 calls for repentance and prayer. Daniel was being obedient and God-fearing. An edict not to pray to any other god was, of course, meant to snare godly Daniel. It is amazing to me that you can’t see this.
Anyway, I’m not planning to debate every line of the books with you right now, but feel free to continue to ask questions if you’re not clear on things, and then when I announce a specific debate topic, you and many others will join in.
May God open your eyes to His truth as you study!
February 23rd, 2010 @ 4:34 pm
Dr. Brown,
You need not respond,however Reb shimon was not speaking of death at all!!He was discussing his merits. Secondly,it’s absolutely ridiculous to base your entire “death of Ttadikim” theory to explain the death of Jesus from the Rabbis that you don’t believe.
Also,you have not responded where does it say that one MUST pray,let alone 3 times a day.
And the virgin issuse,come on there are maybe one or 2 times that it may refer to a young woman which even those verses are debateable and the others I have disproven previously,plus I have shown you what the root of the verse is. Besides,in your book you say that there were 2 prophecies regarding the child in achaz’ day. There is no mention of it at all. Secondly it would come out that Jesus was not the first virgin birth after all.
As far as shabbos,you have not even scratched the surface of how we should have any sort of inkling what it means.
February 23rd, 2010 @ 4:41 pm
Zvi,
Wow. You are more caught up in traditional thinking than you even realize! For you, George Washington is quoting Ronald Reagan!
Your posts are incredibly enlightening in this regard.
As for seriously studying other viewpoints, based on your comments here: Isaiah 7, you’re either incapable of grasping the arguments or simply reading the books to attack them.
Either way, I’m happy to send them to you, knowing that the truth will set you free, but frankly, I thought you would at least be able to understand the other person’s POV, which then makes you able to respond. Sadly, traditional thinking has robbed you of the ability to do so.
I will pray for you!
February 23rd, 2010 @ 4:49 pm
One thing is clear there had to be a prophecy to achaz in his days to provr that the war would end and it was a virgin,you have not refuted that. so if there was avirgin birth back then,as the verse clearly indicates by saying “the” almah,then jesus was not the first one,sorry.
February 23rd, 2010 @ 4:52 pm
virgin,according to your view of course.
February 23rd, 2010 @ 5:17 pm
Wow. You really are missing the whole point of my discussion of Isaiah 7. This is almost fascinating.
BTW, re: future atonement, I also talk about the implications of the Akedah in rabbinic thought, which are quite a clear parallel.
February 23rd, 2010 @ 5:28 pm
The akeda is only a merit not an atonement the akeida cannot rid us of our sins as you see that jews today still have to repent according to the Rabbis,and again you are using the rabbis!
As for Isaiah-I will make a point to reread it whan I get a chance!
February 23rd, 2010 @ 7:38 pm
Zvi, I don’t in any way want to be demeaning to you in my posts, I am just genuinely surprised by your replies. So, please forgive me if anything I post here sounds insulting.
First, unless we repent of our sins, the blood of Jesus the Messiah does us no good. I lay that out clearly in vol. 1.
Second, when rabbis tell me that something is foreign to rabbinic thought, then I use rabbinic answers to show them that is not true, as in the case of the akedah and future atonement.
I wish you well in you reading!
February 23rd, 2010 @ 9:43 pm
Dr.brown,
I think you’re missing my point. My point is not that it is foreign to rabbinc teachings,but rather you as somone that does not believe in rabbinical cannot use this as a support to the blood atonement theory. In fact without this rabbinic theory there is absolutely no way that future sins can be forgiven. And even according to the source you cited, we were clearly not discussing the death of the righteous but rather that their good deeds can be used as a merit for future generations. There is no discussion of death at all in that talmudic passage. Also,as I wrote in my last post this view of the talmud did not hold up since us jews believe that repentance ALONE will save us not the DEEDS of reb shimon. The same goes for the akedah,the good deeds of issac can be used as a MERIT,but it certainly is not being used as a “death of tzadikim” idea since he never died.
You also never answered where does it say that a jew must pray let alone 3 times a day?
February 23rd, 2010 @ 10:42 pm
Zvi,
I understand your point and I reject it. I am using parallels to help you recognize certain truths, not to buy into a system completely. As for Isaac — wow, what can I say? I cited the rabbinic traditions indicating that it was reckoned as if he died, even with reference to his blood being spilled. Are you actually reading the books or scanning through select pages here and there? It would save a lot of time if you read them carefully before posting.
Re: Daniel, you’re still missing the point. He was not commanded to pray three times a day. That was his personal custom (see Dan 6:10), not something he was commanded to do, and so he continued to do what he had always done, despite the king’s decree. That’s the point of the story! The rabbis learned this from Daniel, not the reverse. You really need to step back and recognize just how much you’re seeing things through the lens of what you were taught, not through the lens of Scripture and truth.
February 23rd, 2010 @ 11:23 pm
Dr. Brown,
You are missing the simple simple meaning of the text. The fact is that they were trying to get Daniel to go against the word of the king,yes or no? The way they tried to do it was to find something that would be against the law of g-d yes or no?(verse 6) so they they banned prayer!! Because that is the LAW OF G-D!!! There is no way out. if it was just a PERSONAL custom that he was not obligated to do,then 1.the verse wouldn’t call it the “law of g-d, and they wouldn’t expect him to disobey them if it was only a custom.
As for the sin offerings if you don’t have your own proof from scripture that it works then it must be rejected since you have no source that tells you so. You CANNOT use our sources. Besides according to us future sins can never (even the akeidah) ATONE for future sins it can only be used as a MERIT later on.
February 24th, 2010 @ 12:07 am
Zvi,
Dr Brown said “He was not commanded to pray three times a day. That was his personal custom (see Dan 6:10), not something he was commanded to do, and so he continued to do what he had always done, despite the king’s decree. ”
You said “The way they tried to do it was to find something that would be against the law of g-d yes or no?(verse 6) so they they banned prayer!! Because that is the LAW OF G-D!!!”
Do you think Dr. Brown was talking about prayer in general or praying 3 times a day?
February 24th, 2010 @ 12:13 am
Zvi,
It looks like we’ve already hit an impasse. You are creating something out of nothing with Daniel 6, and there’s no way under the sun that you can prove that Washington is quoting Reagan here. Accept it or reject it, but you certainly cannot prove your point out of thin air. And again, the verses I gave you from 1 Kings 8 and 2 Chr 7 explain why Daniel would be expected to pray to God and turn to Jerusalem when he prayed. Feel free to reject God’s Holy Word for the sake of your traditions, but you do so to your own detriment.
As for using sources, please don’t tell me what I can or can’t use. And you miss the point of redemptive analogies I laid out in 3.15. Really, Zvi, you’re going to have to do much better than this if there will ever be any kind of “debate.”
One thing, however, will help me a lot here. May I ask how old you are? Feel free to email me privately with this info if you prefer.
One more thing about atoning for future sins: The Messiah’s atoning death, according to Isaiah 53, has that very purpose. Our people — hopefully, including you one day too! — look back at his suffering and realize it was on their behalf. Again, the text is quite clear!
So, I ask you before God: Are you trying to argue with me to prove me wrong or are you genuinely seeking the truth, even if it means changing your views? If it’s the latter, I can help you; if it’s the former, feel free to argue, but don’t expect much of a response, since it will only be a massive waste of time.
Based on your comments thus far, it appears that truth is not the issue but rather arguing points is. I hope you can prove to be a real seeker of truth!
February 24th, 2010 @ 12:34 am
Dr.brown,
You asked that I read the book, and then respond so that I should avoid having to make you repeat yourself. I went ahead and read your argument about Daniel,and you said that it was a custom. So I refuted that by the simple words of the text that describe the servants of the king trying to get Daniel to disobey the king and the only way would be to make him go against the law of g-d. They banned prayer for 30 days. Why? Because that is the law of g-d,there is simply no way out. You’re response-thin air!the verses that you quoted do not at all state that one must pray!! (And even if it did it certainly wasn’t 3 times a day).
As future sins it’s absolutely ridiculous to base your entire foreign idea of blood atoning for future sins from the Rabbis which you reject.It makes no sense at all. Since you only believe in the written law,your evidence and support must (in regards to proving the issue) only come from there.
February 24th, 2010 @ 12:39 am
Ben kc,
I’m unsure.
February 24th, 2010 @ 12:53 am
Zvi,
You said: “So I refuted that by the simple words of the text that describe the servants of the king trying to get Daniel to disobey the king and the only way would be to make him go against the law of g-d. They banned prayer for 30 days. Why? Because that is the law of g-d,there is simply no way out.”
Dr Brown said previously: “the verses I gave you from 1 Kings 8 and 2 Chr 7 explain why Daniel would be expected to pray to God and turn to Jerusalem when he prayed.”
I believe Dr. Brown was indicating that Daniel not commanded to pray three time a day. Meaning, there was no commandment saying you have to pray such and such times per day. Also Dr. Brown was confirming that Daniel was expected to pray to God and gives you 1 Kings 8 and 2 Chr 7.
Do you think you might have misread Dr. Brown? If not, please find a quote from Dr. Brown. Or am I misreading you?
February 24th, 2010 @ 1:01 am
Ben kc,
I’m not quite sure what you’re trying to imply. I think we all agree that the verses in chron. and Kings do NOT obligate us to pray. However the verses here in Daniel are crystal clear that There is in fact a commandment to pray, which is what we believe the oral law demands of us.
February 24th, 2010 @ 1:07 am
Oh, now I see. Sorry about that. But my point still stands that we all agree about the intent of the verses in Kings. As far as the 3 times daily,my point is that one thing is clear: We must pray. Also why would Daniel volunteer a pogrom if he wasn’t obligated to do it 3 times a day. But either way,there was clearly a law that one must pray, which is not recorded in the ot.
February 24th, 2010 @ 1:11 am
Zvi,
Can you highlight the quote that you disagree with Dr. Brown on Daniel. I still think you might be misreading him but please clarify.
February 24th, 2010 @ 1:12 am
Ok. So I assume we got that cleared?
February 24th, 2010 @ 1:14 am
Ben Kc,
There is no quote for me to highlight since Dr. Brown never proves from scripture that one is obligated to pray.
February 24th, 2010 @ 1:48 am
Zvi,
I think Dr. Brown was highlighting to you “1 Kings 8 and 2 Chr 7 explain why Daniel would be expected to pray to God and turn to Jerusalem when he prayed.”
“10 Now when Daniel learned that the decree had been published, he went home to his upstairs room where the windows opened toward Jerusalem. Three times a day he got down on his knees and prayed, giving thanks to his God, just as he had done before.” Daniel 6:10
I think Dr. Brown refering to 1 King 8:44-45
“… when they pray to the LORD toward the city you have chosen and the temple I have built for your Name, then hear from heaven their prayer and their plea, and uphold their cause.”
I also think Dr. Brown highlighted 2 Chron 7 to indicate the importance of the temple.
Dr. Brown did not use the word “obligated”. He used the word “expected”.
February 24th, 2010 @ 3:12 am
Zvi,
Before I proceed with correcting your arguments and mistatements (which is quite easy to do, although I have no idea whether you will accept the truth when presented), would you be kind enough to answer the direct questions I asked in terms of your intentions in posting? I really don’t have time to waste arguing with someone who is only here to convince me and others they we are wrong about Yeshua — quite a hopeless effort — but if, indeed, you are a seeker of truth and really want to see if he could be our Messiah, then I will do my best to make time for you.
February 24th, 2010 @ 9:57 am
Ben kc,
I keep repeating myself,but I’ll try again. one thing is clear:There was a decree on Daniel not to pray.The reason for it was to get him to disobey the king and the only way to get Daniel to do so would be to issue a decree that is in contrast with the LAW OF G-D. So the verses are clear that PRAYER is a LAW,not just acustom! So the question arises:where does it say in the ot that one MUST pray? In other words how did the servsants of the king and Daniel Know that a jew MUST pray? The answer is, The oral law!
Dr. Brown,
We made up that if I read your book,then I can post arguments based on the books. Therefore,this is my intent,to put the arguments down for all truth seekers to see the real truth.
February 24th, 2010 @ 10:14 am
Zvi,
I am glad you are zealous for prayer and we all would love everyone to pray. We are grateful to live in a country that allows us to pray where as some countries do not give freedom to pray to the God of the OT/NT.
The question is, is Prayer a law? I do not see it as a law because the OT doesnt confirm. Based on Dan 6, it shows Daniel performing his daily spiritual routine; “just as he had done before.” verse 10.
I can only present to you what the OT speaks. I would like to know if you can confirm that the OT supports this view.
February 24th, 2010 @ 10:21 am
I could put a different spin to it and say “God only made it a law for Daniel” or “God commanded Daniel to pray in this manner three times a day” but I cannot support it because the OT doesn’t indicate it. Those two examples are speculations or assumptions but there is no way to prove it unless the OT highlights it.
February 24th, 2010 @ 10:23 am
Ben kc,
You again missed the point! I just proved from the previous verses that they were trying to get Daniel to go against the King by making a decree that would not allow him to pray which is LAW OF G-D. YOU COMLETELY IGNORED IT. verse ten “just has he has done before” shows NO implication at all that it was merely a custom,on the contrary the reason why he has done so before was because of the obligation of the oral law!!!!!
February 24th, 2010 @ 10:30 am
Zvi,
Just on a personal note, you may not have to agree with this advice but from how I see it, when interacting with Dr. Brown, if you approach the debate in an “hostile” manner, I think this is where Dr. Brown draws the line of interaction. I don’t think its the content of what you believe but its about how its presented. Anyways, thats just my 2 cent advice. Hope it helps.
February 24th, 2010 @ 10:32 am
Ben,
It makes no sense that g-d told him and nobody else. GIVE ME A BREAK. How would they even know that G-d commanded him? BEsides that is my point you cannot understand the ot without help because without an explanation tHIS LAW does not exist.
February 24th, 2010 @ 10:34 am
Ben,
I see nothing hostile at all. I never got personal with him once. Once the contrary,I was the one that got heat. Besides there you go again intervening for Dr. Brown. Please stay out of this.
February 24th, 2010 @ 10:34 am
Zvi,
I agree they were trying to find a way to get Daniel to break the law of the king. We are both on the same page on that part.
I cannot agree that prayer is the law of God unless the OT confirms it. I can understand that this is your interpretation but I will differ.
February 24th, 2010 @ 10:38 am
“It makes no sense that g-d told him and nobody else. GIVE ME A BREAK. How would they even know that G-d commanded him?”
The example I gave you were just an assumption that cannot be supported by the OT. Its not my personal view. I was just making a point.
February 24th, 2010 @ 10:39 am
Ben,
This is not a matter of interpretation,this a matter of proof. The verse calls it the LAW OF g-d.!! The question is how can it be called the lAW if it cannot be found in the ot? The answer is oral law,that is a proof untill you can provide another answer.
February 24th, 2010 @ 10:40 am
Ill just post it again. I think you might have skimmed my comment:
“I could put a different spin to it and say “God only made it a law for Daniel” or “God commanded Daniel to pray in this manner three times a day” but I cannot support it because the OT doesn’t indicate it. Those two examples are speculations or assumptions but there is no way to prove it unless the OT highlights it.”
February 24th, 2010 @ 10:42 am
Im sorry that Im not seeing your point. Please paste the verse from Daniel 6 that says this is the law of God.
February 24th, 2010 @ 10:45 am
Ben kc,
It makes no sense that g-d only commanded Daniel. This is merely a desperate attempt to resolve the obvious. Also,do you see how without the oral law you’re like a blind man scrambling to find the right way.
February 24th, 2010 @ 10:47 am
Zvi,
Ill remind you again. I do not support that “g-d only commanded Daniel.” It was only making a point. As I mentioned before “Those two examples are speculations or assumptions but there is no way to prove it unless the OT highlights it.”
February 24th, 2010 @ 10:49 am
Ben,
By you it might be verse 5. “they said to one another we will not find…….. so let’s find…through the law of g-d. Also if g-d commanded only him,then it would not be “the law of g-d” but rather a personal commandment to him.
February 24th, 2010 @ 10:56 am
I see your point. You need the oral law to understand that prayer in Dan 6 is the law. That is where I will differ because I only depend on the OT and NT. I understand to a degree where you are coming from and respect you and your view. In the mean time, I cannot go on further to debate about the Oral law if that is what you want. I will leave that to the experts like Dr. Brown.
February 24th, 2010 @ 11:00 am
Ben,
You have the right as we live in a democratic country to disagree with me. However,the proof that I brought is still intact,in other words,ifnthe verse tells us that it’s the law,the question becomes WHERE? The answer I give is -oral law. As long as there is no other sound answers,this can be used as a proof!
February 24th, 2010 @ 11:23 pm
Zvi,
Sure, post all you want. Be my guest! But don’t expect responses from me unless you are actually seeking the truth.
I do thank you, however, for at least making yourself clear that you have absolutely no desire to see if you could be wrong but instead, you are here only to try to disprove the truth about Yeshua. Unfortunately for you, Matthew 24:35 is eternally true.
Hopefully, you’ll be enough of a mensch to at least try to understand what I wrote in the books before posting, even though your mind is totally closed, but I can’t force you to do that.
One of these days, however, I hope you’ll figure out what’s happening in Daniel 6! Thus far, out of 100′s of posts you’ve made, not a one has proved a single point against Yeshua or for the Oral Law, otherwise I would have responded for truth’s sake, even if your own mind is closed. But since you haven’t demonstrated anything yet, you haven’t merited a response even for the sake of others.
Should you ever choose to answer the personal question I asked you — namely, about your age, since I had (perhaps falsely) assumed that I was dealing with a grown, family man rather than a young yeshiva grad — please do contact me. Otherwise, I wish you the best.
And Ben KC, I know that you enjoy interacting, but I’d suggest you let Zvi sing solo for a while. We’ll be able to use his posts as another good teaching tool for students wanting to see how religious Jews think. For that, I’m appreciative to our friend!
March 5th, 2010 @ 12:47 pm
One other point I read before I stopped reading since I haven’t received answers was as follows. The proof that one must believe in the Moshiach comes from none other than miamonidies. One of the 13 principles of faith is to believe in the coming of Moshiach. The obvious refutation of this is that the Rambam never says that one MUST believe that X is moshiach but rather-one must believe in the CONCEPT of Moshiach,one must believe that at some point there will be a moshiach,but the issue of his identity was not a discussion by the Rambam at all! The rambam wasspeaking of 13 PRESENT principles of faith and since the Rambam held moshiach had not yet arrived, the only issue could be the fact that moshiach will come but not that a particular person is moshiach there is no such obligation at all by the Rambam! So this proof must be rejected. Also,for a christian to base his proof on the rambam(since there is no scriptural support for it)would be similar to richard Dawkins proving evolution from the talmud!
April 29th, 2010 @ 10:21 pm
When I was questioned by an atheist on how I can prove there was a g-d in this world,the way I responded to him was not by bringing up the old philsophical arguments about who created the world but rather my method of proof was to prove that there was a giving of the torah at Sinai. Once I can prove that, then by default there must be a g-d. The way I proved that the torah was truly given is as follows: It is a well documented fact that the jews were observing the torah like passover and all that at least shortly before or around the time of jesus. In order for us to assume that the torah was fabricated it would have had to occur within 1300 years before the time of jesus. So let’s try and play it out; a man named moses living 500 years before jesus and says “I just received a torah from heaven that all you jews must follow”. And as the story went all the jews just accepted that. The problem with this theory is that upon reception of this “torah”,it would have been rejected. Why? For the simple reason 1.it says in the torah that we just left egypt and received the torah in front of 2 million people. what a joke! if this never actually happened how in the world would an entire nation accept such a false document? 2. Why would the jewish nation blindly keep and accept more laws than they already had unless they were certain it was true? The same proof must be applied to the oral law, can you imagine somone trying to convince the jews that besides for the written law,there is also the oral law that was GIVEN at sinai? They would have laughed it off so quickly by responding “how can you tell me that theese rabinic laws were given at sinai, when our parents and grand parents never observed these laws!? so if the Rabbis would have decided to impose “new rabinic laws” we would NEVER have accepted it since they would have refuted the Rabbis by saying” how can you claim this was all given at sinai if our parents didnt wear tefilin our parents didnt observe shabbos this way? Our parents didnt wash their hands before eating etc…. so how can you tell us that this was given at Sinai? And to say that the Rabbis tried to “invent these laws on the basis of their own ideas and not based on the oral law,then the jews would have certainly rejected it since it wasn’t part of the divine word. Imagine a Rabbi claiming that you must follow him WITHOUT the instruction of g-d,who in the world would have accepted such complicated new rules? Besides, the laws were clearly presented as being part of the oral law. not only that , but the torah FORBIDS adding any mitzvot!So without the oral law (which is only an explanation to the torah) the jews who were also very stiff necked people would never ever have accepted the words of Rabbis if they were going against the word of g-d. So obviously and also factually these laws that skeptics claim were given at Yavne MUST have been presented as oral law given at Sinai,and if that the case,the every jew would have rejected it at hand by saying “get lost”! THIS IS NOT THE ORAL LAW OUR PARENTS NEVER KNEW OF SUCH THINGS? So obviously there was a chain sraight from Sinai.
April 29th, 2010 @ 11:47 pm
Zvi, Chain of remembrance=chain of acceptance? People have always talked, while factually the Tabernacle was the carefully reconstructed center of the traveling community of the Sinai Covenant, with its observances, and requirements, for those going both in and out of the “camp.” I doubt the so-called oral law was kept pure and unadulterated by the discussions of the people outside of the priesthood and its ongoing actions. It is the written law’s immediate applications that then delt with the kind of assumptions, talk, sin, and misapplications of pure obedience to the precepts of Moshe for those of the community. It was a community of immediate reference to the sacrificial system, and various requirements stemming from the precepts of observances so related to the awe of HaShem’s presence with the cultic nation.
Your logic is OK, but the “chain” is by the unique relationship of G-d to the community, not vice-versa.
April 30th, 2010 @ 9:25 am
Jabez, Yes, thank you! The logic is rock solid! If an individual tried to present to me a pair of tefilin while claiming that this was instructed to us at mount sinai, in the event that my father and garadnfather nor anybody else’s parents knew or even heard of such a concept, they would have vehemently rejected it. The fact that the jews accepted it proves beyond any shadow of a doubt that the jews well before Yavne or any other time for that matter, wore the tefilin and that goes for evey single law that we consider to be from the oral law a lone.
April 30th, 2010 @ 12:07 pm
Zvi,
As you know well, I find this “logic” totally unpersuasive and, in fact, contrary to the history of religion. In fact, it is contrary to what we know about the history of the Jewish religion, as most of the Jewish groups in the first century did NOT accept the traditions of the Pharisees and there were, in fact, different forms of tefillin that existed 2,000 years ago, as well as Jewish groups that did not believe in literal tefillin. I discuss all this, as you know, in vol. 5 of my series.
April 30th, 2010 @ 12:33 pm
The fact is that the main truly religious group were the pharisees,and that is why NO other group remains!Let me see,where are those tefilin today?In fact we found our tefilin which was dated to bce. And just like there are are different groups today that don’t believe in g-d at all,does not at all refute the LOGICAL proofthat I brough which was “WHY ON EARTH WOULD SO MANY JEWS ACCEPT THAT ALL THESE “RABINIC” LAWS WERE GIVEN AT SINAI IF THEIR PARENTS NEVER EVER EVEN HEARD OF IT??? Until you disprove that,without just a mere wave of the hand for lack of better refutation, the truth is clear. the fact that there are other groups who don’t believe,does not matter,numbers dont matter,logic is what matters! It’s much more convenient not to believe in the oral law!
April 30th, 2010 @ 12:56 pm
Also, if you check out the history there were way more pharisees than sadduicees! The saudduicees made some noise because of thier wealth so they were more influential but in numbers the pail in comparison. But either way that isn’t the point. The fact that a group of people don’t believe in the oral law does not disprove it,the same way the fact the muslim’s don’t agree with you doesn’t change your view. My proof is from people that did believe,because not to believe is very simple! How on earth would all those pharisees believe the rabbis that you claim took it out of a hat,while at the same time claiming that it traced back to Sinai,when they all knew according to you theory that thier parents never practiced these laws??????
April 30th, 2010 @ 1:43 pm
Zvi,
As I’ve stated before, the moment I hear a single argument from you that requires biblical, historical, or logical refutation, I will respond. Anyone with sincere questions will find massive refutation for your arguments throughout volume 5 — or better still, just by reading the Tanakh.
November 19th, 2010 @ 5:25 am
I apologize in advance to all scholars however I have to recognize that blindness is not only found in the eyes of man, true knowledge can only come from within us when we are in peace, and this is the gift of prayer which is God speaking in us, it is the way to correlate and in this way become infinite, united, complete. In this place we are both human and divine as well, as was Jesus of Nazareth, in this figure God was able to be born as was Adam when He created the first man, this was the reopening of the possibility of complete unification between man and the eternal and it did happen for the firs time among the Jewish Nation so in this way God has kept his promise and has freed man from sin through the life of his Son, our brother and brother of humanity, so the only wrong doing I would say and what true Judaism will not and should not accept is to put any man before the source of his perfection, resurrection has not happened and the Messiah has not come, all of this will happen until HE can truly once again be reflected in completeness within every nation trough every human being when man surrenders all, including and maybe most importantly what we think we know, we are not far from this.