Dr. Brown responds to objections from Rabbi Michael Skobac and Rabbi Eli Cohen from Jews for Judaism. (Listen to part 1, responding to Rabbi Blumenthal’s objections, here.)
Hour 1:
Dr. Brown’s Bottom Line: We have certainty, based on careful study of the scriptures, that the Messiah who will rule and reign at the end of the age, and establish God’s perfect kingdom on this earth, is the one who came and suffered, who died, and was rejected and misunderstood. As surely as He came, He will come again, our Jewish people will turn and recognize Him, and we will see the day when all Israel will be saved.
Hour 2:
Dr. Brown’s Bottom Line: I’ve studied the scriptures for many, many years. I’ve learned that rather than Matthew and the authors of the New Testament being deceptive, shallow, or mishandling the scriptures, I discovered the depths of wisdom, knowledge, and insight and truths of the Messiah in their writings.
Featured Resources:
Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus Volume 3: This third installment of Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus looks specifically at questions raised about messianic prophecies in Isaiah, Daniel, Psalms, Haggai, and Zechariah.
and Volume 4: In this volume of the Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus series, Dr. Brown counters the arguments that the New Testament mistranslates, misuses, and misunderstands the Hebrew Scriptures, also addressing the objections that Jesus or Paul abolished the Law.
Jesus: Messiah or Not [DVD Debate]: A question asked and debated for centuries. Can we know for sure? Featuring Dr. Michael L. Brown and Rabbi Michael Gold.
Other Resources:
Dr. Brown Answers the Rabbis (Part 1)
[Download MP3]
Dr. Brown answers challenges given him by traditional rabbis as to why Jesus is not the Jewish Messiah, focusing today on challenges from his friend, Rabbi Yisroel Blumenthal. Rabbi Blumenthal’s blog is: http://yourphariseefriend.wordpress.com/. Dr. Brown is currently working on written refutations of Rabbi Blumenthal’s major articles.
Countering the Counter-Missionaries [22 mp3 set] : An important resource will be a great faith builder for those who are struggling, a great outreach tool for those who are seeking, and a great source of edification and enrichment for those who are involved in Jewish evangelism.
Daniel, I guess you have already, it seems, decided that the writings we have today, NT, are not inspired by the Holy Spirit, you gave your first evidence to support your claim, why would Y’shua give permission to his disciples to carry a moneysack, sandals and a knife. Your claim is that this is evidence for people to come to the conclusion, similar to Muslims, that some parts in the NT you can trust and some parts you can not. What I am trying to figure out is why is it wrong for Y’shua, or what is it about Y’shua that is so wrong – to explicity confirm to his disciples that carrying a knife is o.k, Y’shua says that it is fine, (Y’shua is not telling his disciples to go murder people, like the Crusades) Y’shua’s disciples are only going to use a knife only with righteous intentions, the Torah writes, the OT, that you value so much, which is good, that one is allowed to carry a knife, so I just don’t see evidence here to support claim to call this verse bad or evidence of lies or untruth and the Torah writes that one is allowed to injure with his knife in defence of his life or his families, I just do not see what is wrong with Y’shua teaching according to the Torah that you so greatly trust. Peace.
Dan1el, if you claim that alleged NT contradictions are empty contradictions, you are certainly not a follower of Jesus, since you reject His word and witness. We’re happy to help you see the truth, but at least we have a context in which to reach out to you. Did you read my article?
Although I believe the NT lacks the supernatural “benefits” of the OT (meaning, that not every single word can be counted on, and benefited from), I still do believe the BASIC IDEAS that the NT espouses.
Dr. Brown,
#1 Yes, I read it, and I posted back to you.
#2 What?? Like I said, the Lord called me a “straggler”, so I’m not a class-A (like you), though I wish I were; but I know what I am talking about. If you come to a place where NO ANSWER can be offered for the contradiction OTHER THAN it being a CONTRADICTION, what am I supposed to say? Yes, there are SOME contradictions that are NOT contradictions; I don’t mean those!!! (Saved by faith not by works, etc.,)
Eliyahu,
Brother, I never said that; I only said that I cannot LEAN on the NT as much as I can on the OT. I believe SOME of the writings to be infallible and inspired by the Holy Ghost (though the exact END to which they were written were entirely different than those of the OT, perhaps why the anointing on it is different); but not ALL, WHOLESALE. I’m not stupid, and I won’t be deceived by this book that men have created. Why do they quote from Enoch’s book, but leave it out? Let’s get real: what is the establishment? The TRUTH; and when the TRUTH GUTS out a lie, LET IT BE GUTTED OUT; let it go.
However, Dr. Brown is right; I do lack patience and humility some times in approaching Scripture (and NT “Scripture”).
Daniel,
Do you think we want to get into trouble too? No.
You definitely seem to go through periods of confusions since I met you on this forum. You need to trust in someone. It is impossible to please God without faith. That means faith in His word.
We are here for you Daniel.
Debbie,
Yeah, definitely; I wonder how many have fasted and prayed for me?
I want to trust God’s Word; but I find that some of what is CALLED “God’s Word” is NOT His Word, AT ALL. Especially, this writer, Luke – his writings are full of mistakes.
You call the Bible “His Word” because you were told that; but have you tested it? Have you questioned it? No; you trust it wholesale, as if it were God (forgive any irreverence or disrespect): WAKE UP! How can you entrust your eternal soul to a book which has FLAWS in it? This is ridiculous!
Daniel I never fasted in my life. I prayed for you plenty of times before in the past w/o your knowledge. 🙂
I wasn’t told it. I read it. I believed it.
Daniel,
The bible has zero flaws. Who is filling your mind with all these lies? That is scary stuff coming out of you, what the heck.
Lord I pray your truth and wisdom will fall upon Daniel. I pray peace. In Jesus name.
Deb,
Sometimes, the Truth is scary. Honestly, though, its easier to fuss about these inconsistencies in this book, than it is to deal with the inconsistencies in my own life; so… yeah, please pray for me…
my “unjust balances”
Dan1el,
You wrote:
“The OT is impeccable; but, the New Testament is not faultless.” And: “The New Testament has many such problems; it isn’t anywhere near equal to the OT.”
If you are looking for things that appear to be discrepancies, the OT has it’s fair share. Have you noticed the fact that Exodus seems to say that the patriarchs did not know YHWH’s name, but we find Abraham naming a place YHWH Yireh and many other instances of YHWH’s name being used. (Ex. 6:3; Ge. 22:14) We have a seeming discrepancy in sizes of the molten sea in Solomon’s temple. (1 Ki. 7:26; 2 Ch. 4:5) Etc., Etc., Etc. I have a book called Alleged Discrepancies of the Bible by John W. Haley. It contains 436 pages of supposed problems with the scripture, both old and new, and answers as to why they are not real problems with the infallibility of scripture. There are approximately twice as many OT problems than NT problems that he discusses.
You wrote:
“Luke is the ONLY record of the criminal repenting on the cross (in the other two, he is recorded as blaspheming Jesus)”
Did it occur to you that different writers include different things in their accounts to bring out what they thought was important or because they remember a different part of the story? If all the gospel writers said the exact same thing, would that not prove that their testimony was doctored up by someone? You and I would not tell a story the exact same way. You or I would likely tell different versions of the same event to different audiences. We might even leave out certain specifics in different cases, depending on our purpose for telling the story. I have, just recently, produced a chronology of the Gospels where I have the different accounts of the same events side by side. I have been going through this with my family, and we have discussed the differences. We have not found any of the statements to be falsified by an other’s account. We have a much greater understanding and appreciation of the stories that are related in the gospels than we did before.
You wrote:
“In 1 Cor 14:22, it appears Paul (or his writer) got tongue-twisted:
22Tongues, then, are a sign, NOT for BELIEVERS, but for unbelievers; prophecy, however, is for BELIEVERS, not for UNBELIEVERS.”
23So if the whole church comes together and everyone speaks in tongues, and some who do not understanding or some unbelievers come in, will they not say that you are out of your mind?
24But if an unbeliever or someone who does not understand comes in while everybody is prophesying, he will be convinced by all that he is a sinner and will be judged by all,
25and the secrets of his heart will be laid bare. So he will fall down and worship God, exclaiming, “God is really among you!”
First, he says that tongues was a sign for unbelievers, but AFTERWARDS, he says, in essence “What use would it be if an unbeliever walks in and you’re all speaking in tongues? Wouldn’t he say you were crazy? BUT IF YOU’RE ALL PROPHESYING, and an unbeliever walks in, it will definitely aide in his salvation,”
thus disproving himself, since “speaking in other languages”, he said (at first) was a sign to UNBELIEVERS – but, when you put the word “BUT” in verse 24, it shows an opposite value on the next statement, juxtaposed against the previous idea.”
You are missing the point of what Paul says. A sign is not necessarily a good thing. Paul even quotes Isaiah to show this. (1 Cor. 14:20)
Isaiah 28
11 For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people.
12 To whom he said, This is the rest wherewith ye may cause the weary to rest; and this is the refreshing: yet they would not hear.
13 But the word of the LORD was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little; that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken.
14 Wherefore hear the word of the LORD, ye scornful men, that rule this people which is in Jerusalem.
15 Because ye have said, We have made a covenant with death, and with hell are we at agreement; when the overflowing scourge shall pass through, it shall not come unto us: for we have made lies our refuge, and under falsehood have we hid ourselves:
16 Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD, Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner stone, a sure foundation: he that believeth shall not make haste.
This is exactly what happened in Acts 2. The scornful/mockers did not understand the tongues and thought that the people speaking were drunk. The devout Jews from the surrounding countries were given the gift of interpretation. The tongues were a sign to the unbelievers/mockers that caused them to fall backwards, to be snared and taken. They stumbled over the Corner Stone just as Paul indicates. (Rom. 9:32)
Prophesying is the equivalent with tongues and interpretation. It serves those that believe/the devout. But since we are to either prophesy or only speak in tongues if there is an interpretation during an assembly, a nonbeliever will obviously understand the message if he happens to be at one of our gatherings. Paul’s point is to be sure to do things that edify one another, and he does not want us to cause one another to stumble. An unbeliever would benefit from our loving concern that we bless and edify each other in our assemblies.
Romans 14
13 Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in his brother’s way.
There is no discrepancy if we understand that a sign is not a good thing.
Matthew 16
4 A wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given unto it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas. And he left them, and departed.
Shalom
Daniel, either your message is true and you come as a messenger of G-d, and I must repent and others here as well, for not seeing flaws as you see. My friend, she has dedicated her life to Greek, and she honestly feels that there is no reason at all from her expertise to see any contradiction in the NT, and this is her life, her career, her proffesion, but I am giving you the benefit of the doubt, you first mentioned the sword thing, I can not see how that is contrary to Torah, but in the opposite, proves how Torah teaching Y’shua was. You raised the question of the NT quoting the book of Enoch, you appear to be saying that if NT quotes it, should it not be apart of the Protestant Bible books? Is not the Book of Enoch also writings of true utterances maybe even prophetic like the Tanach.
There were many early church leaders that agreed with you.
Enoch is considered as Scripture in the Epistle of Barnabas (16:4)and by many of the early Church Fathers as Athenagoras, Clement of Alexandria, Irenaeus and Tertullian who wrote c. 200 that the Book of Enoch had been rejected by the Jews because it contained prophecies pertaining to Christ.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Enoch
The Ethiopic Orthodox Church even today, claims and holds this same view – Enoch to be prophetic and Holy Spirit annointed, part of their Scriptures. Now Daniel, if you feel that Enoch is prophetic or annointed by G-d, by His Spirit, then maybe you should consider the Ethiopic Orthodox Church. But you do not see them say, “since we believe in the 1 Enoch, we will now accuse Eliyahu of defending a pretty little book, full of flaws”. I can not see how proving that 1Enoch is written with true prophetic annointing, with the same Spirit of Truth as the NT (Protestant NT or Catholic NT), in no way proves to me that the NT has a flaw. On the contrary, if the book of Enoch which may be truth, annointed by the Holy Spirit as true prophet messenger type writings from Elokim – than would not the NT be even the more so. Do you see my point. The Ethiopic Orthodox Church continues to believe that the books in the NT are inspired by the Holy Spirit, truth, testimonies; remember, by the Blood of the Lamb and by the Word of their testimonies (Revelations). I just have not found evidence from you yet to repent from my faith and logic. Peace.
Eliyahu,
#1 The stumbling stone was NOT tongues; it was the double-edged Law that can be a blessing or a curse, depending on whether one uses it “lawfully” or not.
#2 If there is a discrepancy in the size of the sea, (which wasn’t even ordained of God), I don’t care that much; I haven’t researched it, though this book you speak of sounds interesting.
#3 Abraham not knowing YHWH by His Name could be easily understood – only GOD reveals Himself (and does so IN MEASURES, whensover He pleases). We don’t know whether the emphasis which Abraham had on that name was on the JIREH part or not. There were priests of YHWH on earth BEFORE the Levites (Melchizedek was one; the Chinese were monotheistic for at least a couple thousand years, if I’m not mistaken, before General Chin unified the warring clans, and they introduced polytheism [which idea shocked the minds of the monothestic elders], burning and destroying all information having to do with there being a single God).
YHWH reveals His Name to MOSES in the mount; this never happened for Abraham (at least it wasn’t recorded). There are many dimensions to what this
“Name” means (and what it means for it to be revealed); so, let’s just bask in the depth of this Law and Word, and enjoy it.
#4 No; the religious Jews were not given any interpretation by the Spirit; they were actually FROM those areas, and therefore, they understood – since the grace to speak in other langauges was given SPECIFICALLY FOR THEM.
The problem stands: he misspoke, putting into question everything written, once again.
I think you need to look at the question again, and see that he mis-addresses it.
Eliyahu, signs are given as a gift of the Spirit for those who do not believe, they were part of Paul’s ministry, etc., etc., etc., …
Eli,
Please, do not call me any title… Dr. Brown deserves more respect and follow-ship than I; I’m just a brother bringing up a point…
(The point I was making about Abraham not knowing YHWH by His Name, and yet naming it YHWH JIREH, was this: since it was KNOWN that there was a YHWH at the time, people could say His Name without TRULY knowing it – just like I can use words without knowing their true meaning.)
Dan1el
You had me mixed up with Bo. I do not see discrepencies in the Tanach either. Bo does not either, he was merely trying to say that the NT evidence you gave to prove the NT, espeacially in Luke, unrealible can be easily understood logically and grammatically. Bo answered (paraphrazing) with, “to me this does not faze me”, Bo sees no contradiction here – speaking in tongues is a gift that is a sign but speaking in prophecy edifies the unbelievers and believers far greater. Why? Paul Shaul says he speaks in tongues more than anyone, yet condemns the practice of speaking in tongues in community gathering services (church) unless there be interpretation, why?, because the teachings of Paul are that it (toungues of the Holy Spirit) are at times angelic tongues, at times human languages but they edify the one speaking it. How is it a sign to unbelievers? It is just that a sign. You have miracles, signs and wonders, Paul calls it a sign, now, it especially was a useful and beneficial sign on Pentecost Shavuot when Peter and his disciples began to speak in tongues of other people’s languages, what a miracle! How many thousands unbelievers became beleivers that day? Quite a few, but nonetheless, when speaking in tongues, the Holy Spirit is speaking and edifying your own spirit and soul, it is not very useful for unbelievers or believers unless there is an interpretation. Prophecy is for others – believers and believers – and tongues is for one’s personal self, but it is a sign of Holy Spirit’s empowering. Peace.
Eliyahu,
I’ll give you permission you can say my name…Deb or Debbie, just don’t call me Debra.
The show I do. Well, its all volunteer. I work for the Lord without getting paid.
Thanks for calling me friend. Daniel is our friend too.
Eli & Bo,
Sorry for the mix-up!
All I said was that the Book is FLAWED, so you have to test it, and see which books are trustworthy and which are not, since it is a patchwork; I never said that it contained NO inspired text, but I will say that I’ve had completely different experiences with the OT and NT, and prefer the ones frmo the OT.
Dan1el,
You are answering the wrong person. You are also not paying close attention to what is written in Acts 2 and 1 Cor. 14. It does not say that they spoke different languages, but that they heard them in their own languages. Paul confirms this in 1 Cor 14:2 when he says that no man understands someone that speaks in tongues. I want to know why only the mockers did not understand. Do you really think that mockers only live in Jerusalem and that none of them were from the other places? Do you really think that there were no devout men that spoke Hebrew/Aramaic?
I have studied the Bible for over 30 years and have found no true discrepancies in the OT or NT or between the two. Translations into English have real discrepancies with each other though. The Greek and Hebrew solve many supposed problems.
I have spoken to a Hebrew scholar that thinks that the passage in Exodus is a question not a statement. “By my name YWHH, have they not know me?” But even that does not matter, as you have proven that you are willing to give the benefit of the doubt to the OT writers while holding the NT writers to a stricter standard. This is shown by you posts 264 and 266. Try to find logical or textual reasons for the continuity of the NT, and I think you will be just as good at solving the apparent problems. Or you could be as critical of the OT as you are of the NT and become an atheist.
Shalom
Bo,
Just because I admit to making a mistake, you’re going to throw that in my face? “Not only did you not pay attention here and now, but also you did not pay attention closely to Acts” – wow, thanks!
#1 You are definitely correct that I give the benefit of the doubt to the OT, since all the Apostles (including the Great Apostle, Jesus) leaned on the OT Scriptures; and the NT “Scriptures” didn’t exist then.
#2 The men were speaking in various languages, and there were men from various places to whom those languages belonged, glorifying God in their native languages.
#3 About it being a question: if what this Hebrew scholar is saying is absolute Truth, I’m glad we have a definite answer for that apparent contradiction; the few contradictions we have for the NT, however, won’t go away.
#4 I never go about to prove a book or writing to be true, only the TRUTH ABOUT THAT BOOK OR WRITING, FIRST (unless it gives no reason to be put in question like that). IF the book cuts the muster, then
Debbie,
I do call you friend, and I often do not do a professional style of academic writing which does lead to my writings to be hard to decipher, especially when I am spelling everything wrong and leaving out words. Now to the friend that I was reffering to – she is a professor of Greek, a highly known Greek scholar – who is a scholar in every sense of the word, she had dedicated her life, she is a grandmother now, to the study of Greek, New Testament Greek, and with full confidence, from her perspective, she has seen no reason to disbelieve the NT or see any contradictions, and remember, this is her career, her profession, her expertise, her life’s passion, she has all the variations of NT and sees no contradictions, no reason to disbelieve the NT as a reliable source of Truth, accurate testimonies and sources. That was my point, she is fluent in Greek, she reads NT in its original form we have today of Greek – no contradictions she says. But Debbie, I do call you friend, and I do call Dan1el as friend too. Peace and blessings 🙂
Eliyahu,
Many “theologians” stood idly by while Hitler imposed his beliefs, even in the Name of God, on the Jews; Martin Luther, the scholar and theologian, who said “Sola Scriptura” IGNORED Scripture that was EASILY available (and not some coded hidden mystery) in Chapter 11 of Romans when he spewed vitriolic words against the Jews. Just because someone (even if the person is a scholar), has an opinion doesn’t make it fact.
Need we be reminded of the SCORES of theologian in the Catholic camp who hold dogmatically to Marian doctrines, blasphemous as they are?
Daniel
You are absolutely correct. The fact that she is a well known scholar in her field does not make her the all deciding factor. That is correct, but her testimony in my life has of somewhat importance, but that is why I also learned Greek, because I like you, want so much to not be deceived and to believe only what is true. Peace to you Dan1el.
Rabbi Blumenthal,
You ask, “If indeed they are the same [Yeshua’s statements and Isaiah 53] then why is it that TODAY yeshua’s statements are understood by everyone while Isaiah 53 is not ‘understood’ by everyone?”
The answer is simple: The disciples were there to see Yeshua die and rise and then experienced the empowering of the Spirit, so his words became indisputably clear to those who heard them. Those who have also witnessed the reality of his death and resurrection see Isaiah 53 just as clearly. In contrast, a traditional Jew denies the authority and accuracy of the NT and denies that Yeshua died for our sins or rose from the dead, so, of course, Isaiah 53 is not understood to speak of him.
You say, “I haven’t heard anyone describe the journey to Judaism with the metaphor ‘it was as if scales came off my eyes’,” in which case, I’m assuming that you do NOT pray for me the way I pray for you, namely, that God would open your eyes to see the truth? I don’t mean that my prayer is better than yours, but I’m simply trying to understand your perspective. And if after decades of my interacting intensively with the rabbinic community – including thousands of hours of reading and listening and studying and dialoging and debating – I am now as committed as ever to seeing my fellow Jews come to faith and probably seeing more fruit now than at any time in my life, what does that mean from your perspective?
From my perspective, looking at your life (or Eli Cohen or other counter-missionaries), I don’t doubt your sincerity and zeal and I hope you’re not sinning against revealed light, and I pray that God would open your eyes. From your perspective, looking at me, do you feel I just haven’t been logical enough? Honest enough? Humble enough? I know you don’t judge my heart, but what’s your perspective?
Eli,
Even someone’s life and testimony doesn’t mean their doctrines are true: it was either Finney or Spurgeon (you probably know which I am talking about, and I’m sure Dr. Brown would) who was a dominionist. Was their life full of good fruits? They were men of God; but men of God with incorrect beliefs, nonetheless.
Like I said, its easier to see the inconsistencies in the Bible than to deal with the ones in my life; I’d rather fix the ones in my life – and as for the Bible’s errance, it is a settled issue for me.
Dr. Brown
I reflected a bit more on your question: what is the difference between my view of you and your view of me?; some more clarity came to me.
First – the time you spend teaching about it.
Second and more important – is the upshot. Your aproach discourages open and honest dialogue – if we are spiritually blinded then our conversation is essentialy fruitless – you can believe that you put down as much clarity as possible – but we still don’t get it. My approach on the other hand encourages our conversation – I sincerely believe that with more clarity – you will understand – your not understanding encourages me to dig deeper and discover more clarity.
in short – your approach discourages open honest dialogue while mine encourages it.
Eliyahu,
Forgive me for misunderstanding your post. I do agree with your friend who studied the NT. I also see no flaw in it too.
Thanks for clearing things up my friend.
Dr. Brown
To answer the last question in your most recent post – my most common prayer is that God grant me and my community the clarity to be able to help you. My perspective on you is that at this point in your life the questions that you have against my belief system are stronger to you than the ones against your belief system. I beleive that with honest open discussion – we could alter that balance. When you bring up the “blindness” I feel that it closes the discussion – how many Christians have I began to interact with (some on this blog)- who pull out of the conversation early on – because they don’t seem to believe in the effectiveness of the conversation – and they haven’t gotten to square one of understanding Judaism.
Sheila
I am not offended by your question about the holocaust – I do believe that our suffering is because of our sins – but I do find it incredible that people suggest that it is the “sin” of rejecting Jesus that was at fault over here – as I said in the past – if that sin brought the holocaust upon us – I thank my heavenly Father that it effectively prevented us from being the perpetrators.
One more point – the guilt of the Churches was not limited to “silence” – many denominations of Christianity preached the guilt of the Jew in corrupting the world – the innate inhumanity of the Jew, replacement theology and much more – the guilt of most Churches goes far beyond “silence”
Dr. Brown & Others,
You can tell me I am not a follower of Jesus because of what I said; but that isn’t an answer to my contest at all: where is the answer to my questions on Luke, etc.,?
You’re defending the “Bible”, as if it was the establishment; the only thing that is established, and unmovable, and what I want to defend, is Truth, period.
However, feel free to keep believing as you wish, and I will go on with my life. I don’t need a response from any of you, as it will just be more drama like I’ve already seen. Thanks, and I love you guys.
I know that my lack of mercy and love is actually an argument AGAINST the Truth (of God’s NAME and dealings with me), but God is merciful to me, a sinner; and I am laboring, together with the grace of God, to change… that is why I say that I must fight the discrepancies in my own life, rather than the easy job of tearing apart the NT, revealing its illegitimacy (which ever parts are).
Dan1el,
There are actually simple and clear answers to all of these so-called discrepancies and contradictions, but this is not the thread or forum to discuss them. Your greatest need is for a solid circle of disciples who can help you grow in your relationship with God and solid local leaders who can speak into your life.
Dan1el,
You have misunderstood my intent. I meant no insult or throwing anything in your face. My post was composed before you recognized the mistake and before Eliyahu posted. When I hit submit, all of the posts between yours and mine became apparent. I should have included a 🙂 , I guess.
Do you see that the actual reading of 1 Cor 14 and Acts 2 and Isaiah 28 all harmonize? Do you see that the discrepancy is not one of fact, but of perception?
I will not call you a nonbeliever if you have problems with the NT or the OT. I think that you will be in danger of being misled if you start throwing things out, though. I agree with you in part that the NT should be read with a solid background in the OT, otherwise some statements in the NT appear at face value to be in contradiction to the OT.
If we reject parts of the gospel accounts, how do we know what is true in them and what is not? By what standard do know if the one thief repented or not? Is it possible that he began to revile and ended as a believer? Is that not what happened to Paul and me for that matter?
That one writer did not include something does not make it false. We would have to throw out most all of John or most of all the other gospels, for they have very little in common except at the end. Even then, there are those that want to prove that they are in contradiction, when in fact they are not. We might nullify most of Torah because Moses did not say the exact same thing in each of His books. The different books of Moses were for different reasons, and thus contain different versions of the same time frames.
Exodus 20
10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:
11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
Deuteronomy 5
14 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, nor thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thine ox, nor thine ass, nor any of thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates; that thy manservant and thy maidservant may rest as well as thou.
15 And remember that thou wast a servant in the land of Egypt, and that the LORD thy God brought thee out thence through a mighty hand and by a stretched out arm: therefore the LORD thy God commanded thee to keep the sabbath day.
So was it because YHWH rested the seventh day or because YHWH delivered Israel from Egypt? Or both? The same person gave two different reasons. Is he like Paul contradicting himself? Or did neither contradict himself, but are they simply adding other information?
As you probably know, I reject both Christian and Jewish doctrines of men, and attempt to hold to the scripture alone as the basis for belief and practice.
Please point me to the exact parts of Luke’s accounts that you find so messed up. I will attempt a reconciliation. I am sure that someone has already seen it and answered it though. There is a reason that the NT and the OT have stood the test of time.
Shalom
Dan1el
Mark 15:32
“Let this Christ, the King of Israel, now come down from the cross, so that we may see and believe!” Those who were crucified with Him were also insulting Him.
ὁ χριστὸς ὁ βασιλεὺς Ἰσραὴλ καταβάτω νῦν ἀπὸ τοῦ σταυροῦ, ἵνα ἴδωμεν καὶ πιστεύσωμεν. καὶ οἱ συνεσταυρωμένοι σὺν αὐτῷ ὠνείδιζον αὐτόν.
οἱ συνεσταυρωμένοι = hoi sunestauromenoi = the ones with having been crucified
hoi= the (plural form) (ho would have been the singular form)
sun = with stauromenoi = is a verb, called a perfect passive participle =
If he would of have said ho sunstauromenoi= the one with having been crucified = then people would be claiming that one Mark says one and Luke says two. So no if I was Mark, I too would have written it, as [hoi sunstauromenoi]
I am telling you right now from Greek that this can easily mean just one criminal even though it is in the plural, it is how both Greek and Hebrew work sometimes. Now, lets suppose, that the testimony here is referring to a two or more, (but doing that is making quite an assumption) since Mark has only briefly mentioned it, could it not be also very plausible that the testimony of Mark (not saying Mark was there) remembers in the plural one’s that died insulting him. This is very plausible, the crowd is insulting Y’shua, the ones having been crucified insulting him, this is plausible, it takes awhile to crucify someone, after even a couple minutes of insulting Y’shua, even after an hour, you start to see the disciples of Y’shua weeping, Miriam Mary weeping, Mary Magdelene weeping, this one then, (according to Luke) then has enough and rebukes the other one insulting Y’shua and says what he says and asks for Y’shua to have mercy and compassion on him. Imagine dying on the cross with two other people, when the crowd starts to insult Y’shua, what if you joined it and made fun of Y’shua too, but after a few hours or even minutes the insults of the other other guy get repulsive, you see Y’shua eyes, you see that he is the Mashiach, you ask him for his mercy in the afterlife. This is completely plausible, so is my first explanation. There is one other possible truth too, we can not assume that only two people crucified that day along side Y’shua, there could have been more, however, I personally assume not. Peace.
Bo & Eliyahu,
According to Dr. Michael Brown, this is “neither the thread nor forum” (we shouldn’t speak about this on ANY thread), so, thanks a lot; but I want to respect Dr. Brown’s wishes (since it is his page and he is authority here).
Dan1el, where there is an appropriate thread that deals with the authority of Scripture or alleged contradictions, feel free to raise your questions for others to interact with, but as stated (and I do appreciate your complying) not in this thread. May the certainty of God’s truth flood your life!
Rabbi Blumenthal,
Thanks again for your posts. Although I’m not sure I’ll be able to respond to each of your comments to me, I will continue to do my best, recognizing that this is a sacrifice of your time too.
You wrote, “I reflected a bit more on your question: what is the difference between my view of you and your view of me?; some more clarity came to me.
First – the time you spend teaching about it.”
If you mean the time I spend teaching apologetics or Jewish evangelism, I’m not sure I follow you, since you could well spend more time working on counter-missionary material than I spend on outreach material. If you mean the time I spend teaching God’s Word as compared to the time you spend teaching Jewish traditions and Scripture, then again, I’m not sure I follow you, since you spend hours each day teaching rabbinic Jewish texts. So, I’m not arguing with you here. I simply don’t follow your comment.
You wrote, “Second and more important – is the upshot. Your approach discourages open and honest dialogue – if we are spiritually blinded then our conversation is essentially fruitless – you can believe that you put down as much clarity as possible – but we still don’t get it. My approach on the other hand encourages our conversation – I sincerely believe that with more clarity – you will understand – you’re not understanding encourages me to dig deeper and discover more clarity.
in short – your approach discourages open honest dialogue while mine encourages it.”
It would appear, then, that you misunderstand my approach. The reason I have engaged in endless hours of dialog and interaction is, first, because I believe in the power of God’s Word to touch hearts and minds; second, because I believe that we are whole human beings who think and reason and seek and pray, and therefore the way to the heart is often through the mind, and getting someone to become open to the truths I’m presenting can take place through serious intellectual interaction. That being said, at some point, God’s Spirit must open the understanding, but that is often happening in the midst of dialog, and the more a person opens himself or herself to God, the easier it is for them to receive insight from God’s Spirit.
The fact is that I’ve engaged in dialogs like this for decades, fully believing that this is part of the process God uses to bring a person to Himself.
In any case, the proof of the pudding is in the eating, as the saying goes, and you’ve known me for years now. Have I at any point discouraged our interaction? Have I not rather encouraged and welcomed it?
Rabbi Blumenthal,
You wrote, “To answer the last question in your most recent post – my most common prayer is that God grant me and my community the clarity to be able to help you.”
Really, you would do better to pray that God would open my eyes to the truth — since you’re convinced I am outside of the truth in these key areas — since the thing you and your community do that would most drive me away (in the hypothetical event — God forbid! — that I ever questioned Yeshua as our Messiah and King) is hold on to thousands of man-made traditions that, as beautiful as many of them might be, are certainly not from above and are contrary to life in the Spirit.
You wrote, “My perspective on you is that at this point in your life the questions that you have against my belief system are stronger to you than the ones against your belief system.”
Perhaps a better way to say this would be that my certainty I have in my belief system based on walking with God and experiencing His goodness and reality these last forty years, coupled with the foundation of truth in His Word, allow me no possible reason to question Him for a moment, in contrast with the many reasons I have not to believe in rabbinic Judaism.
You wrote, “I beleive that with honest open discussion – we could alter that balance.”
First, our hundreds of hours of discussion have not altered my beliefs or thinking in the least; second, honest open discussion cannot diminish the reality of my experience in God through Yeshua, nor has a single scriptural argument been raised to me that has caused me to reconsider my beliefs.
You wrote, “When you bring up the ‘blindness’ I feel that it closes the discussion – how many Christians have I began to interact with (some on this blog)- who pull out of the conversation early on – because they don’t seem to believe in the effectiveness of the conversation – and they haven’t gotten to square one of understanding Judaism.”
Please correct me if I’m wrong, but I brought up the “blindness” issue in response to one of your video clips, then we pursued the discussion here. Am I wrong in my recollection? In any case, if someone told me I was blind, I would pray that God would open their eyes, and I would say to them, “Show me where I’m blind,” much as you have said here as well. But you must remember: With rare exception, you’re interacting with Gentile Christians here, attacking the one they love who saved them from sin and judgment, and who is more real to them than the air they breathe. And if they feel after some interaction that they will not be able to convince you of your error, they will probably pray for you, that God would be merciful to you and speak to your heart and mind, and they would see no reason to continue interacting, since you would have nothing to offer them by attacking their Savior.
Dr. Brown,
Thank you for your counsel.
Rabbi Blumenthal,
One minor clarification. When I wrote, “First, our hundreds of hours of discussion have not altered my beliefs or thinking in the least,” I meant in terms of you have any negative impact on my faith in Yeshua as our Messiah or causing me to question in any way before God the rightness of my faith as a Jew, not in terms of giving me further insight into traditional Judaism or helping me see where I was guilty of an oversight or imprecision in something I had previously said or written.
Dr.Brown
When I said “the time spent” – it was in response to your question about what is the difference between the way I think about your not understanding my position as opposed to your way of thinking about my not understanding your position
– “the time spent” – I meant the time spent teaching about this very subject – why it is that the other one doesn’t understand. I don’t spend time teaching my audience why it is that you don’t understand me – you do spend time teaching your audience why it is that I don’t understadn you.
You point to the endless hours spent in this discussion – my point is that these hours would be more fruitful if you would put aside the “blindess” teaching. This teaching discourages discussion. It discourages your audience to dig further. and between us – it sidetracks the discussion – and blocks it to a certain degree – it takes away from the appreciation of the logical argument – the appeal to truth.
Rabbi Blumenthal,
Thanks for the clarification. Since you’ve read every page of my five volume series, may I ask you how many times (if ever) I bring up the subject of spiritual blindness there? Also check out my 22 hour DVD/CD series on Countering the Counter-missionaries and see how many times (if ever) I bring up the subject of the spiritual blindness of Jewish people.
As far as I can recall, this present discussion (prompted, again, by a response to your video and to Michael Skobac’s video, then continued here in interaction with you) represents the most I have ever talked about this issue in my entire life and ministry, so I am simply responding to you and other counter-missionaries. Otherwise, it’s not something I spend time teaching Christians about. As for abandoning the teaching, that I won’t do, since it is taught in the NT, but again, in the larger context of the universal blindness of the human race without God’s intervening grace.
That being said, I’m happy to move on to other subjects unless you want to continue to press the blindness issue.
Dr. Brown
I want to make one more comment on the blindness issue – and I want to respond to the question in your last post. I’m not keeping track how many times you brought up the blindness issue – but I can say this – in our 300 page correspondence – you brought it up several times – which I found quite frustrating.
Here is that “one more comment” – as a leader – I would imagine that you see it as your responsibility to cultivate and develop a love for truth amongst your following. I imagine that this responsibility weighs extra heavy on your shoulders since you acknowledge that your community has accepted falsehood for truth for many centuries (I refer here to the teaching of replacement theology) – I am sure that you recognize that it is not enough to repent of the error alone (by exposing the error of replacement theology) – but a man of your calibre surely recognizes that repentance means going to the root of the sin. If a society could be preaching such an obvious falsehood for so long – something serious must be lacking in this society’s appreciation for truth. As a leader in this society – I imagine that you are looking for ways to enhance your community’s sensitivity to truth. Teaching about the concept of the universal blindness of all who don’t believe as you do – is NOT a positive step towards enhancing your community’s appreciation for truth.
If you want to move on to other subjects – please – I am anxiously waiting for a response on many questions – pick any one – or feel free to pose one of your own.
Rabbi Blumenthal,
I wasn’t aware that the references to “blindness” hindered our interaction at any point over the years, but I’m happy to see any such references in our private email correspondence. Feel free to send them to me when you can.
As for what helps and doesn’t help my community to better understand and pursue truth, perhaps you perspective from the outside is not accurate?
In any case, I’m quite happy to move on from here to other subjects, but since I don’t generally get involved in the blogs here (for lack of time and because of the many potential discussion), I’d prefer to use my time to try to get back to working on my refutations to your articles, unless there’s something pressing that you raised here to me that you feel I didn’t respond to. If that’s the case, please bring my attention to it and I will try to respond ASAP.
Dr. Brown
Perhaps my perspective from the outside is not accurate – perhaps
But perhaps your perspective from the inside is not accurate?
Dr. Brown
I am just curious – do Christian teachers speak of a community-wide repentance in the realm of sensitivity to truth – in light of the fact that false doctrine (replacement theology) has been preached for so many years? If they do – could you please direct me to where I could find such teachings published or otherwise promulgated?
Mr. Blumenthal,
With all due respect, you’re as likely to find a “community-wide” any-thing with “Christians” as you are to find a “community-wide” any-thing among (all) “Jews”.
Do you know how variegated the Jews are? (Of course, you do!)
Okay; the same thing goes with Christians: you can’t get all of them to do one thing, even if there are good intentions behind it (because we are imperfect, and disagree on doctrines, etc.,).
Correct me if I’m wrong, but it would appear as though (to me) you might be holding “Christians” up to your (arbitrarily-created) measure, which will “prove / show” whether “we” are really sorry; “whether or not we care”:
“If the Christian Community doesn’t do this thing that I say, then ALL Christians really don’t care” – am I misunderstanding you?
How could I ask all Jews, everywhere (secular, orthodox, etc., etc., etc.,), to do something comparable to what you’re asking? It wouldn’t be possible for (all) “Jews” to be put in the same position you’re putting (all) “Christians” with a different outcome than you’re finding with us, currently.
Sin is horrendous, and “uncalled for”; that is what the “extermination” of the Jewish people was – but, even more so is any single Christian who would attempt to use Biblical context to justify their hatred for a Jew, since our texts clearly delineate a “return” (of sorts) of the Jews into God’s favor; “…all Israel will be saved.” (that is, all who are left in Israel will be of the saved).
More than that, it attaches our very hope (the resurrection) with your (Jews’) acceptance of Messiah – “if their rejection of Him meant life for the world, what will their acceptance of Him be, but life from the dead (the resurrection).”
For one, those “Christians” who are anti-semitic are anti-semitic without a cause; and are most likely not going to listen to reason (if they don’t even listen to Scripture), either. They don’t even obey the teachings of the Apostles; I wonder how “saved” they really are… anyone who loves Jesus has a supernatural love for the Jews… no matter how much you hate us. (Netanyahu: “…they’re idiots (evangelicals); but they’re useful idiots.”)
Yisroel,
She’Koach. I read your writings “Council of the Nation”. I thought you did a good job representing your view. I thought you used good logic. That is really all I ask anyone.
The Brit Chadashah and the Talmud can not both be from Moshe HaNavi. My Rabbi Y’shua and the Talmud rabbis can not both be speaking for Hashem. This is my evidence against the Talmud being from Hashem at least not the parts that condemn my Rabbi. Point blank, quite simple. The Talmud can not be from Hashem because it renounces the Brit Chadashah writings and my Rabbi Y’shua. I will choose my Rabbi Y’shua any day, any time, any place, my loyalty is with Y’shua HaMoshiach.
But you did a great job in your writings, seriously. Mazal Tov. Chatzlacha v Shalom.
Yisroel,
You chose Talmud. R. Hillel in the Talmud teaches that you should stop waiting for a Mashiach. Why do you wait for a Mashiach if R. Hillel, says that it is pointless too, why do you believe in a Mashiach if R. Hillel says the only Mashiach is Hezekiah. If you admit to R. Hillel being wrong than you have to admit to other places being wrong too. Or do you think he could be right, no Mashiach ever again? Shalom Lecha.
I choose Brit Chadashah.