Dr. Brown Answers the Rabbis (including a recent video by Rabbi Asher Meza)

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

[Download MP3]

It’s time again for Dr. Brown to answer the challenges raised by Jewish Rabbis to Jesus as the Messiah of Israel!  Join Dr. Brown as he sifts through some of the questions raised by Rabbi Asher Meza and others.

Hour 1:

Dr. Brown’s Bottom Line: Jesus the Messiah can withstand the criticisms and questions of the honest searching of heart and mind and soul.  Don’t be afraid to ask the questions: for the truth will set you free.

Hour 2:

Dr. Brown’s Bottom Line: Our God, the great God, said to Moses, “I will be who I will be, I am who I am, I will do what I will do.”  Let’s bow down and worship at His feet, and say,  “God, be all that You can be, in me and through me, for Your glory.”

Featured Resources:

60 Questions Christians Ask About Jewish Beliefs and Practices and Jesus: Messiah or Not? (DVD Debate with Rabbi Gold)

Other Resources:

Dr Brown Debates Rabbi Tovia Singer on Sid Roth’s Radio show “Time is running short”.

Dr Brown and Rabbi Tovia Singer debate on a variety of topics, from the Messianic fulfillments of Yeshua to the core foundations of Christianity and Judaism.

This fascinating debate has a surprise ending!

Dr. Brown Answers the Rabbis (Part 1)

Dr. Brown Answers the Rabbis (Part 2)

Dr. Brown Answers the Rabbis (Part 3) (and an interview with David Brickner of Jews for Jesus)

Dr. Brown Answers the Rabbis (Part 4)

Stand With Israel [mp3 Series]

INCLUDES: 1.) Israel Shall Be Saved    2.) Intercession, Israel, & Miracles    3.) A Baptism of Tears for Israel    4.) Israel and the Last Days    5.) The Rising Tide of Anti-Semitism    6.) Are the Rabbis Right?   (Brown vs. Singer Debate)    7.) Who is Jesus? Part 1    8.) Who is Jesus? Part 2

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.

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.

889 Comments
  1. YB

    Moses was speaking to finite human beings – and telling them that in their language God is one

    AMEN!!

    As much as the Apostles fought, suffered and died for the faith they at least did not have the added confusion and numerous Christian denominations to deal with.

    I mean, where in the NT are they arguing such questions as these…’How many is God?’ & ‘Is Jesus the one true God Almighty?’

    What a con job “the god of this present evil age” has pulled!! I look forward, along with the Jewish prophets, to that day when…

    The LORD/YHWH will be king over the whole earth. On that day there will be one LORD/YHWH, and His name the only name. Zech 14.9

  2. Dr Brown

    So then this rabbi is the authority in Judaism?

    What is meant by “Abraham was one” (Ezek) How is he compound?

    ONE can of course modify any noun you choose, but it still means one and not two!
    It is profoundly misleading to say that one implies a “compound one”.

    One tripod does not tell us anything about a plurality in the word ONE.

    One can modify a collective noun, as we all know.
    But where in Brown Driver and Briggs will you find any hint that ONE itself requires us to think of the noun it modifies as compound or plural in some way?

    One means “one single” as in one single YHVH.
    Do you agree with Dr. Morey that there are “TWO YHVHs’”

    Please do tell us clearly, on this point.
    Thanks,
    Anthony

  3. I don’t really understand then, why God even had to say He was One. If the gods of the nations were one, why did YHWH go out of His way to say He was not at all like them, but that He also is just One?

    Moses was speaking with God, “face to face” not just to finite human being. Moses was the intermediary between two worlds. Jesus was the intermediary between the two worlds also. Moses was of the earth, Jesus was of Heaven.

    There is something more to our God being One and it is something very difficult for our finite minds to wrap themselves around, yes, but YHWH God is Father, Son and Holy Spirit. I do not believe in three God’s, I believe in One God.

    It’s no more difficult to think of then is eternity. From our linear existence can any of us really wrap our minds around eternity?

  4. Sheila

    It’s no more difficult to think of then is eternity. From our linear existence can any of us really wrap our minds around eternity?

    If I may jump in.

    I agree that eternity is a very difficult concept to imagine. But the difference is that I am told that I am going to receive eternal life/immortality. But I am NEVER told that God is a Trinity.

    Isn’t God, the creator of language, capable of communicating to us in language we can understand? If the Bible tells me to believe something I will. But I do not see the Trinity there.

    I am not suggesting that I understand EVERYTHING about God! But I do understand that He is “One LORD”, i.e., One Self!

  5. Sir Anthony,

    To repeat yet again (ad nauseam), I won’t be engaging you here further. You’ve had opportunities with me on the radio, on TV, and on this blog to attempt to make your points, but the Word remains against your exaltation of a glorified man. And how ironic that you affirm the words of Rabbi Blumenthal but reject the words of Rebbe Schneerson. In any case, all the lexicons are quite clear: echad simply means “one.” Nothing more and nothing less.

  6. Rabbi Blumenthal,

    You wrote (speaking of Jesus and the Father), “In your finite mind you are still thinking of two entities” is actually besides the point (whether accurate or not). God commanded us to have and to worship no gods outside of Him, and I do not.

  7. Hear, O Israel: The LORD is our God, the LORD is a compound unity??? I don’t understand how any serious Hebrew scholars could understand that verse that way. I mean, if אחד means that, how would we count?

    Compound unity, 2, 3, 4, 5.

    3 – 2 = compound unity?

    Compound unity + compound unity = 2?

    I don’t think the Tanakh could be more clearer about ה׳ being one and לבדו.

  8. David,

    As translated by the NJV, and as interpreted by some leading rabbinic commentators, the verse should best be rendered, “Hear, O Israel! The LORD is our God, the LORD alone.” In any case, who ever suggested translating it the way you suggested?

  9. Rabbi Blumenthal,

    1. Can you please answer with numbers, so I can see if you’ve answered each?

    2. So, what do think of Jesus saying that I quoted?

    3. “Do you realize that in the book of Acts (15) it describes some Jewish Christians as Pharisees” (from the Pharisee party) – they are identified by the fact that they wanted Gentiles to keep the Law.”
    -Yes, I do; I have no problems with “Pharisees” — only a Pharisee (or Gentile, for that matter) who promotes false doctrine.
    It was from these zealots Paul had to rescue the Galatian congregation.

    4. “If you read Galatians 2 – where Paul rebukes Peter for wanting the Gentiles to keep the Law
    -Peter was being a hypocrite, acting one way in front of the Jewish believers, and another way when they were not physically present with him.

    5.– you realize that Peter himself was a Pharisee
    -not necessarily

    6.- no follower of Jesus is ever identified as a Sadducee
    -That doesn’t mean no Sadducee ever repented

    7. these Jewish followers of Jesus accepted Jesus’ injunction to obey the Pharisees quite literally
    -Exactly which Jewish believers?

    8. don’t you think that you should at least find out what the Pharisees taught?
    Jesus can tell me what ever He wants

    9. As for my quote from Deuteronomy – all the verse says is that the Jewish people were granted an understanding – a knowledge that had been imparted to them by God Himself – don’t you think that such a teaching is important? Don’t you think that a direct teaching from God would shed light on our discussion – or do you believe that God can’t over-rule YOUR interpretation of the Bible?
    -They were supposed to have been “taught” by the miracles and signs by which God had brought them out of Egypt that God was the only God — never does it mention that these signs taught them there was an Imageless God, which contradicts many Scriptures.

  10. Dr Brown

    the verse should best be rendered, “Hear, O Israel! The LORD is our God, the LORD alone.”

    As someone wrote here, God is the creator of language so are you suggesting that God used the wrong word to describe Himself? Or that Moses was somehow not inspired enough to choose the word that some of you believe best fits the understanding of how many God is?

    In any case, who ever suggested translating it the way you suggested?

    You! When you keep saying that God is complex in His unity. Whatever that means!

  11. I tried this last night and it helped me understand it better. I inserted different proclamations of what He has told us in place of God’s Name and this is what I got.

    “Hear, O Israel, the “Name of our God” our God, the “Name of our God” is One.” (not a very good one)

    Or, “Hear, O Israel, “The Name of YHWH” is our God”, “The Name of YHWH” alone.”

    Or, “Hear, O Israel, ‘The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob’, “the ‘I AM’, the YHWH, is our God, ‘The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob’, the ‘I AM’, the YHWH alone [is our God.]”

    God must be saying something very similar to that. Because if He’s “not” meaning to convey that message, then what in the world became of the “God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob?” And what became of the “I AM”? His Name must encompass all those He was previously “known” as too!

    I like that one the best as God said to Moses that His Name was “The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob–forever!” “Tell the Israelites, ‘I AM’ sent you.”

    Does that tell us exactly what His Name means? No, it doesn’t. But it does tell me that the God of Israel, who has a Name, is the same God who ate lunch with Abraham!! It tells me that God is very complex and He doesn’t change so His Name must encompass all of the previous “Names” as well.

  12. To someone–

    I think Dr. Brown has been more than gracious by allowing those with differing opinions to be able to voice those opinions, but when they’ve been voiced to death, I think it becomes a grievance for him to repeatedly be made to bear the insults and maligning that comes with it.

    Of course, though, he can speak for himself.

  13. Sheila

    I think it becomes a grievance for him to repeatedly be made to bear the insults and maligning that comes with it.

    I think I am allowed to interact with you as long as I am not spreading heresy or disagreeing with the good Doctor. So let me just say that whatever “insults and maligning” you think have been made, they certainly have not come from me.

    And if the restrictions that have been set upon me are not telling you something, I do not know what will.

    Remember, truth has nothing to fear.

    For we cannot do ANYTHING against the truth, but only FOR the truth. 1Cor 13.8

  14. Sheila
    In response to your argument to Chuck in #843. You seem to have a problem with the idea that the “real” Jesus has not been preached for a long time – So do you believe that all teh Jew-hating – replacement theology believing Christians who flourished for many centuies – were preaching the “real” Jesus?

  15. Dr. Brown
    You accuse Sir Anthony of “rejecting” the Lubavitcher Rebbe’s “interpretation. Not that he is bound by it in any way – but do you believe for a second that teh lubavitcher Rebbe did not identify the deification of a human (or of any entity aside from the One God of Israel) as idolatry? His comments are obviously not meant to justify the deification of nature
    By teh way – as a scholar of Hebrew – does “yachid” indicate an absolute unity any more than the word “Echad”? If it would say yachid – couldn’t you also argue that we are talking of a compound unity?

  16. Sheila
    It is very nice of you to offer interpretations on the Shema – let me tell you something – Moses was speaking to my people – my people have understood this phrase to exclude the deification of anyone or anything – they went to the stake with these words on their lips to express their loyalty to the One God who revealed Himself to their ancestors
    If – as you argue – that the intended audience completely misunderstood the words that were addressed to them – that were given to them as an expressionof tehir faith in God – then God is the worst communicator that ever existed – how are you confident that YOUR intepretation of anything this God communicated is accurate – if His own intended audience so completely misunderstood His words?

  17. Dan1el
    In response to post # 858
    You request that I respond by number – I gladly comply
    2 – You ask me what I think of Jesus’ critique of the Pharisee’s hypocrisy
    a) Jesus certainly did NOT mean that because they were hypocrites that their teaching was false – to say that Jesu meant that sarcastically is ridiculous – how do you know Jesus didn’t mean everything sarcastically? (see further in points #3,4,5)
    b) Maligning the Pharisees with such general terms gives a false impression of the Pharisees. the Pharisees were holy people who left us writings that – until today inspire people to love God – to care for the widow and the orphan – and these men lived examples of lives devoted to God’s kindness justice and humility. The name “Pharisee” is a much more noble name to carry in light of the past 2000 years of history – than is the name “Christian”
    # 3 # 4 #5
    There were a group of followers of Jesus who are called “Pharisees” – Acts 15, They advocated that Gentiles need to observe the Law of Moses. When Paul confronts Peter – he tell him “how do you expect gentiles to follow the law when you don’t follow it yourself” – this tells us that Peter expected gentiles to follow the Law – this puts him as a member of the group described in Acts 15 – do you follow?
    #6 – My point about no Christians being identified as Sadducees is that the doctrine of the Sadducees – which would be the closest to Luther’s “sola scriptura’ (stil a far cry – but still the closest) was never an option for followers of Jesus – Jesus was obviously much closer to the Oral law of teh Pharisees than he was to the literal approach of the Lutherans
    #7 – the ones described in Acts 15 – including Peter
    #8 – If Jesus says to obey them – wouldn’t obeying them be obedience to Jesus?
    #9 – It was not only the miracles (although they too preclude the claims for Jesus’ divinity)- it was also national revelation – do you not recognize that national revelation was involved in imparting the truth of Deuteronomy 4:35 to the Jewish people?

  18. Sir Anthony
    I am not qualified to debate you on the meaning of Paul’s words – but if he truly advocated an abrogation of the Law of Moses for the Jewish people – then he would have been a false prophet – God clearly indicated that the Law of Moses would be relevant for all generations – Numbers 15:37-41 – Deuteronomy 30:1-10

  19. Rabbi Blumenthal,

    The meaning of yachid is different than the meaning of echad. Those wanting my further exposition of the usage of echad, which is quite straightforward, can find it in vol. 2 of my series.

    Sorry I don’t have time to write more.

  20. Folks,

    Once we seem to be endlessly rehashing the same points — which is becoming the case now — we generally shut down a thread.

    So, issues about God’s unity and the Messiah’s deity and the binding nature of the law should be taken up with Rabbi Blumenthal on his blog, http://yourphariseefriend.wordpress.com/.

    I owe Rabbi Blumenthal a response to a previous lengthy post, which is also a deviation from where our thread started (alleged misquotations of the Tanakh in my writings), but hopefully he and I can start to close out the larger discussion we were having as well.

    Thanks!

  21. YB

    So do you believe that all teh Jew-hating – replacement theology believing Christians who flourished for many centuies – were preaching the “real” Jesus?

    You know its interesting you touch on this Rabbi since history testifies to the fact that Catholic-Protestant Christians are responsible for most of the history of violence. With the exception of those of the Radical Reformists like the Anabaptists, Socinians, etc. And it just so happens that the first Act of Religious Tolerance and Freedom of Conscious law [Diet at Torda, 1568] passed ANYWHERE in history by a head of state, King John Sigismund, was very much in favor of the Polish Brethren. A unitarian group which harked back to Socinians.

    And as we know, this precedence was later adapted into the US Constitution by un-Orthodox men like Jefferson, et al., as the separation of Church & State. For which most of us like-minded believers are very much thankful for. 😉

  22. Rabbi Blumenthal,

    Yes, I do take issue with Chuck and Sir Buzzard’s greatly diminished interpretation of Jesus that is presented as much more palatible for some. I certainly don’t affirm that their interpretation is the “real” Jesus. I would have hoped that you could see by now that I am not in the Replacement Theology camp. I affirm what Scripture says. We are “one new man” in Messiah, Jesus, as I’ve spoken from the beginning. We don’t replace anyone, we both become a new creation in Messiah who “frankly forgave us both.” When I quote Scripture that is the LORD speaking through His prophets, I wasn’t expecting your quarrel to be directed solely at me. That I resisted, in that instance, to sugar-coat what is written because it might offend others, well, I don’t want to do that either. I am not offended that Jesus called me a dog on several occasions and I’m not offended that anti-missionaries despise Christians. I am not offended by other appelates that you have used to describe the Lord Jesus. I’m not offended that you are not worried about my eternal soul, although you believe I am in gross error in my devotion to God. What offends me is that you would suggest that the Christian message of the New Testament is anti-semitic and that that’s the natural progression of all who preach the Gospel, thereby keeping any interested parties from fully investigating it. I don’t affirm anything that was ever written because of the hardness of the hearts of those who went before me and I’ve never repeated their writings, nor have I ever given a second thought to their doctrine. Scripture clearly speaks against Replacement Theology while it upholds going into all the world taking the Gospel to all people–“to the Jew first”–and so do I.

    I present to other Christians the very message of working and praying for the salvation of the Jews who have never even encountered the writings of the New Covenant and therefore they can’t possibly make an informed choice concerning whether or not Jesus is their Messiah. There is much the Church as a whole needs to repent of and there is much in my own life that I have repented of and I’m sure there will be even more things to come that I will need to repent of also. Our website is devoted to a call to repentance and solidarity for all the Church and it is designed to educate my brothers and sisters in Christ to the error of Replacement Theology and the sins of the past perpetrated by professing Christians. It is also a call to become that “one new man” in Messiah. That any can partake of the blessings is the whole message of the New Covenant.

    I would not be a very good servant of our Lord if I did not do all I could to bring you and His people to the knowledge of Him as the only way to eternal salvation, forgiveness of sins and reconciliation with God. I’ve tried reasoning with you and I’ve brought heartfelt, desperate pleas to bear, (together with personal prayers and tears) and I’ve presented Scripture from both Testaments to back up what I firmly believe is the truth. When I saw that was fruitless, I thought perhaps the fear of God’s own words might be the right formula. I see that didn’t work either. Dr. Brown pointed out to me that you were a highly-seasoned veteran in the anti-missionary field and I don’t want to get discouraged because I’ve made no headway this time. I am relatively new to this debate format and I am a much better teacher than I am a debater–as is obvious to everyone! We don’t become expert in anything overnight and I’m living proof to that, having demonstrated it for all to see… Perhaps you made some mistakes yourself when you first began. I sincerely hope and pray that you don’t let my personal inexperience and blundering endeavors prevent us from continuing our dialog in the future. I can assure you that my heart is focused solely on your salvation. I accept your admonition with humility and I ask for your forgiveness. Because I whole heartedly believe that nothing less than your eternal salvation is at stake, I am somewhat overly passionate at times. Please accept my prayer for forgiveness.

  23. Chuck
    Indeed – it is not a coincidence that those who didn’t believe in the deity of Jesus had such a positive contribution in this area – to explain it in short. there is a difference between a God centered world-view and any other. the God centered world view encompasses everyone – because God gives life to all. The Jesus centered world-view doesn’t see non-believers as part of the universe –

  24. Sheila
    You completely misunderstood my point – I fully understadn that you don’t endorse replacement theology or the anti-semitic teachings of the church. My entire point was that since you do NOT endorse these eachings – you will surely recognize that the churches who have been preaching these false teachings were preaching a “false” Jesus – this being the case – your argument against Chuck about the “real” Jesus not being around for the past 2000 years applies to you as well
    For your information – anti-missionaries don’t “despise” Christians and it is also wrong for you to accuse me of not caring for your soul – why do you think I am spending so much time here?

  25. Thanks Rabbi Blumenthal, for clarifying those things I misunderstood.

    Thanks for hosting this discussion, Dr. Brown, and thank you Rabbi Blumenthal and Rabbi Cohen for joining with us!

    Baruch Haba B’Shem Adonai!

  26. Rabbi Yisroel Blumenthal,

    Aren’t you glad we do not disrespect you or bash you on this forum? I wish the other forums would have that same respect for Dr. Brown!

    Anyway I’ll be happy to join you guys over there some time.

    Thanks for the invitation!

  27. I apologize… Perhaps that comment was a bit inappropriate. I just had to get it off my chest. I was not only talking about your website but JewsForJudaism websites/forums in general. But, in all sincerity I would like to join you on your forum someday.

  28. Although this post is a few months old, it was brought to my attention that my comments, above, in #31, could give a misleading impression. I wrote there: “Rabbi Blumenthal, re: #25, where is there a miquotation of Scripture here? As for your other points, have you forgotten the fact that I responded to all of them many times over in writing and orally?”

    I was referring only to the points that he had just mentioned, feeling confident that I had refuted Rabbi Blumenthal’s assertions in my books (or, that my arguments stood unassailed despite his criticisms), or that we had covered some of these issues in email exchanges between us, or, on some occasions, orally. I did not mean to imply that I had yet responded to the many challenges to my positions that he has presented in writing. I certainly apologize if any wrong impression was created, since that was never my intent, and I’m happy to let the actual interaction here in this thread stand on its own.

  29. I wanted to thank the Line of Fire team for the integrity and rectitude that your moderators consistently maintain. It would be impossible to enjoy any productive exchanges of differing viewpoints without your committment to upholding your posting quidelines. It makes a world of difference to enter a domain where mutual respect is the standard and personal attacks on others are quickly squelched.

    It’s obvious in some supposed religiously based blogs that the Holy Spirit is conspicuously absent, not to mention the moderators!

    You’ve fostered a positive blogging experience for a bunch of us.

    Thanks! 🙂

  30. Hmm is anyone else encountering problems with the images on this blog loading?

    I’m trying to figure out if its a problem on my end or if it’s the blog.
    Any feed-back would be greatly appreciated.

  31. Greetings! This is Clay with AskDrBrown Communications. We’ve looked into the issue and are unsure if we notice the problem. We’d love to help in any way that we can so if you could, can you please give a little more detail as to what the problem is that you’re encountering? Thank you and God Bless!

Leave Your Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


*