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.
Rabbi Blumenthal,
With all respect to your learning, you are quite mistaken in your statement about early Christian beliefs in God’s tri-unity, in particular about their beliefs in Messiah’s divine nature (in this case, both you and Chuck are seriously in error), and, as a student interested in learning, I suggest you throw out these myths (just as there are many myths about rabbinic literature that so frustrate you to see and hear and read and see quoted) and find out what the the disciples of the apostles actually taught and believed. I would be more than happy to recommend some good reading for you on the subject.
In short, this statement of your is more mythological than truthful: “the concept of a trinity was invented by Gentile Christians long after the original Jewish followers of Jesus were sidelined by the Pauline Church.” Nonsense.
Dr Brown
I didn’t know asking questions was tantamount to proselytizing. So what exactly am I allowed to say on here? And how exactly do I interact with others without breaking with some of your rules?
Chuck,
Ask the Rabbis if they believe anything else you have to say–other than what you say about the unitarian doctrine. That’s what I’d like to hear presented. How do you witness to them? How do you get them from God as One and then to Jesus as their Messiah?
Your creed is idolatry–not mine.
God as yachid and then to Jesus as sitting at the right hand of His Father?
Can you describe your line of reasoning for the purpose of their salvation? Because you do believe they need to be saved by the blood of Jesus don’t you?
Sheila
So as not to waste space and time stop directing any comments at me since it seems I am not allowed to interact with you or anyone else who is not a Jew regarding these matters.
Chuck,
I would think one of our purposes on this forum is to help the Rabbis and all others who may be following the conversation to better see that it is Jesus who is their Messiah. We use Scripture and reasoning to show them that that is true.
So, your witness to them is very important and pertinent and it would give them ample food to digest and reason with you about why it’s not true.
Of course Dr. Brown does have the last say and he can direct it however he sees fit.
So, I’ll abide by what he determines as pertinent. I think it was just all of it being directed to other Christians who are already saved!
Daniel- in #649 I outlined the problem. I can expand on it by quoting John 1:14…The Word became flesh. That means that before Jesus he was not flesh, then became flesh.
That is a change in “God” . And actually, if you are to assert that Gen 18 was a “man”, then that implies that there was another virgin birth, another “Jesus” or that Jesus was born more than once, lived and then died. The author of John should have said…became flesh AGAIN.
The moment that “God” is becoming flesh, he is taking on human nature. That means there has been more than one hypostatic union. etc…it opens a can of worms really. Since G-ds nature is unchanging, that is a problem.
Blasater,
1. You didn’t present another candidate for a Quadrinity.
2. The Word Tabernacled among us; He PUT ON flesh. God created a Body for Himself to do some work on earth (which He had given only to men), and indwelt it; what is the problem? All flesh that exists proceeded from God; for Him to “become flesh” adds nothing to Him, for FROM HIM all flesh proceeded. He took some of HIMSELF, and made a Body HE walked in — how is it adding to God, then?
3. He can ‘appear’ to man as a ‘man’ — that IS His Appearance and Likeness [Gen 1:26, 27] anyways — without becoming flesh; when the Word put on Flesh, it was so that He could spill Blood, as an offering.
Blasater
More interesting points but…what if “the word” was/is not a Person? As it never seems to be in the OT. As most of us know, personification is not a person, is it? In fact, personification means that IT is not a person, otherwise why waste your time personnifying an already existing person?! Take for example Isa 55.11 where “the word of YHWH” is said to go out.
So, with this in mind, what if we read the prologue to John as ALL English translations from the Greek before the KJV had it. Where they translated logos as an “IT” and not a “HE”. This is reinforced by the fact that that is how autos has been translated every other place the logos is found to be with a pronoun in the WHOLE of Scripture.
Hence, what if in the prologue John is simply painting a picture for us of how God’s creative/prophetic word has now been physicially manifested and brought to fulfillment in His uniquely created Son? This might also explain why Moses is mentioned in the prologue since he was believed to have been the physical embodiment of Torah ITself.
Daniel-
1) I did. Jesus the man has a different nature than Jesus “God”. The second nature must be counted since it must be in harmony with the Father and the HS.
2)You Said:He took some of HIMSELF, and made a Body HE walked in — how is it adding to God, then?
Simple. Humanity has a different nature than G-d. G-d nature. Human nature. Two completely seperate things. Otherwise what you sound to be saying is Pantheism. For him to become flesh means a joining of two natures. That is adding to G-d human nature. Have you not studied the hypostatic union and The Communicatio Idiomatum?
3)You are saying G-d fakes it and tricks us, not “really” a man? If it “appears” to be but isnt a man…it isnt a “man” then is it. A man is a human being with a soul, flesh and blood, so I dont think so. Either a man is a man or is an angelic messenger. G-d doesnt fake it or trick us.
If Gen 18 is a man. It is a real human being or a angel. Pick one knowing that if it is a real man…that opens a huge can of worms.
Blasater,
1. That isn’t adding another person; that is an existing Person merely condescending, taking on another Form.
The argument was that if someone said there was something in TNK that could qualify to be a Quadrinity outside of what was proposed, would we accept it. My answer was that we would search Scripture to see if there were a candidate; You have not presented one. We believe the Word, the Spirit and the Father are the Echad.
Will you please present another candidate?
2. Yeshua came “in the form of sinful flesh”; His flesh wasn’t sinful — as the bronze snake’s constitution was not that of the actual snakes, when Moses made it; it merely had the same form.
3. You can spin Scripture however you want to; if you want the Truth you’ll find it — if you want to muddy the waters with bigotry, you can do that, too: it’s up to you.
Gen 18:33 And the LORD went his way, when he had finished speaking to Abraham, and Abraham returned to his place.
Daniel-
1) The 4th person addition was a thought experiment of R Blumenthals, not mine. I will leave that to him to explain.
You seem to be missing my point however. Jesus is two natures. “God” and “Man” they both must be reconciled in the godhead. It is not enough to reconcile just the personages.
2)Jesus coming “in the form of” sinful flesh? Why even bother? Jesus could not sin. It seems to me a futile execise to have Jesus being “God” in the flesh. He cant sin. Of course he will do the Torah perfectly…he is “God”. So what does that mean to man? Nothing. Torah was authored by G-d of course he can do it. He does not have to become “God” in flesh to prove it! That is not what Torah is about anyway. You are straying from the point that Jesus is binatured ergo “God is bi-natured”…taht is a problem.
3)Bigotry? Are you now bearing false witness Daniel? Where did I show hatred to your faith? This is a polemic. So is this when you will go ad hominem for a lack of argument? Shame on you.
Chuck- Thanks for the kind word. I’ll think about that. It sounds more like an in-house discussion among the Christian community than a Christian Jewish polemic. And it seems like Dr Brown does not want that on this thread? I dont know…??
Blasater
If I’m right, I think Dr Brown wants people like me to talk to people like you only.
I guess your a practicing Jew? If so what type?
Chuck–
“If I’m right, I think Dr Brown wants people like me to talk to people like you only.”
Aaaah I see. Yes, I am Jewish. Traditional-Orthodox with a heart for Lubavitchers and Breslovers. If that makes sense…lol
Blasater,
Since it is really important, let me just say quickly that I meant “bigotry” in the sense of being “narrow-mindedly cleaving to a line of reasoning, without respect of or examination of evidence”.
Blasater
No it doesn’t. Well I see your familiar with traditional Christian Orthodoxy. A branch of which tries to split Pauline theology from that of Jesus. But how versed are you with the NT?
Also, correct me if I’m wrong but is the Shema trinitarian? And does “the word of YHWH” ever appear as a seperate, distinct Person in your Hebrew scriptures?
Blasater,
From WordWeb dictionary (the definition I am operating off of — having looked it up a while back to make sure I knew the meaning of it), which can be sought for and downloaded at http://www.download.com
—————————–
Bigot:
1. A prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from his own
Prejudice:
1. A partiality that prevents objective consideration of an issue or situation
2. An adverse judgement or opinion formed beforehand without good justification
Emanating from a person’s emotions and prejudices
Blasater,
Do you mind women sitting at the front of the bus?
Sheila- No I dont mind. I believe that is the Haredi in Israel that have an issue with that. I do like the Mechitza though. Gender seperated worship.
Blasater,
Thank you for answering. I pray it gets resolved without any violence. Are the Haredi those who wear their side hair longer and the black colored clothes then?
Hi DrBrown
based on the previous discussion, i’m now lost by your belief in the Trinity, incarnation and worship of Jesus Christ.
i’m truly lost.
would you be so kind to clarify my confusion?
http://messiahtruth.yuku.com/sreply/50308/The-debate-targets-idolatry-the-worship-of-a-man-as-G-d
thx
Joseph D.
ps i have your books and value your writings. i’m just confused by some (not all) your writings. Trinity and worship of J.Christ is one of them. thx
Dr Brown,
You wrote “In short, this statement of your is more mythological than truthful: “the concept of a trinity was invented by Gentile Christians long after the original Jewish followers of Jesus were sidelined by the Pauline Church.” Nonsense.”
I’d be very interested to find the earliest evidence of a clear, direct and comprehensive teaching on the Trinity being taught by the Jewish believers in Yeshua. (something similar to a creed)
In other words, if you know a source off hand or you can find the earliest evidence, I’d appreciated you either giving me the quote or the reference.
Thanks
Eli,
The key thing is that it can be clearly established that the earliest Jewish believers, who were also strict monotheists, worshiped Yeshua as Lord, with the first “creed” being found already in 1 Cor 8:5-6. To read more on this, I would recommend these two important works: Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the God of Israel; and Larry Hurtado, Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity. They are serious, scholarly works but of course, you’ll be able to digest their contents.
All the later councils did (like Nicea — which, of course, said some very good things and some very bad things) was settle matters of heresy or clarify areas of dispute, rather than create new doctrine.
Blasater,
I just wanted to make sure we are clear on what “bigot” meant — and what it did not mean: can you please tell me whether it is all clear?
To all the Rabbis and any unbelieving Jews
Most of the Orthodox understanding regarding the Trinity comes from a misunderstanding, I think, of the Lordship of Jesus. With that in mind, those of us who study the NT know that the most used OT quote is Ps 110.1, where 2 Lords are in view. So my question is this…where in Rabbinic literature [Targums-commentaries, etc.] was the 2nd lord of that Psalm believed to have been YHWH/Adonai? As the Orthodoxs claim.
Furthermore, there is also a proposed theory that the Masorites were biased in their vowel pointings when it comes to this Psalm. For example, Dr James White over at Alpha Omega Ministries proposes that they changed the meaning that was originally there in the unpointed Hebrew text from Adonai to adoni. Is there any evidence for this? And is this how the translators of the LXX understood it? If so, how can we know?
To Chuck and all rabbi and non-Messianic Jews,
The second “lord” of Ps 110 is Yeshua the Messiah. Yahweh did not say to Yahweh “Sit at My right hand.” It appears you are misunderstanding the position you are trying to differ with, and so your question is completely irrelevant to the rabbis interacting here.
What is significant, of course, is that the LXX used kurios and kurios, and that’s how the text is quoted in the NT.
Dr Brown
ummm…am I allowed to interact with you or..?
Psa 22:27 All the ends of the earth will remember and turn to the LORD, and all the families of the nations will bow down before him,
Psa 22:28 for dominion belongs to the LORD and he rules over the nations.
Psa 22:29 All the rich of the earth will feast and worship; all who go down to the dust will kneel before him–those who cannot keep themselves alive.
Psa 22:30 Posterity will serve him; future generations will be told about the Lord.
Psa 22:31 They will proclaim his righteousness to a people yet unborn–for he has done it.
Dr. Brown,
I’ve read of Ewald, Hebrew Grammar, pg. 299, from Gesenius’ Lexicon, who says of Psa. 22:30 that it should properly be read “my Lord.” Do you find that to be true? Or the inference in the change from LORD to Lord is self explanatory?
As far as the LORD having dominion, He gives it to Messiah for the Millennium until God is once more “all in all” into eternity.
Messiah’s exultation to the right hand of the Father after His resurrection appears in the book of Daniel.
Dan 7:14 He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all peoples, nations and men of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed
Of course, though, Scripture says He is not coming back until all kingdoms are subdued under Him. He comes with the clouds of heaven just as He left. He comes to the Mount of Olives and it splits in two when His feet touch down.
He comes from Edom with His garments dyed red.
Zec 14:3 Then the LORD will go out and fight against those nations, as he fights in the day of battle.
Zec 14:4 On that day his feet will stand on the Mount of Olives, east of Jerusalem, and the Mount of Olives will be split in two from east to west, forming a great valley, with half of the mountain moving north and half moving south.
Act 1:6 So when they met together, they asked him, “Lord, are you at this time going to restore the kingdom to Israel?”
Act 1:7 He said to them: “It is not for you to know the times or dates the Father has set by his own authority.
Act 1:8 But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.”
Act 1:9 After he said this, he was taken up before their very eyes, and a cloud hid him from their sight.
Act 1:10 They were looking intently up into the sky as he was going, when suddenly two men dressed in white stood beside them.
Act 1:11 “Men of Galilee,” they said, “why do you stand here looking into the sky? This same Jesus, who has been taken from you into heaven, will come back in the same way you have seen him go into heaven.”
Act 1:12 Then they returned to Jerusalem from the hill called the Mount of Olives, a Sabbath day’s walk [fn] from the city.
Chuck,
As long as this doesn’t turn into an attempt to argue with Christians about their belief in the deity of the Son, feel free to clarify your points for the rabbis. Sure thing!
Dr Brown
What is significant is that the LXX does make a distinction, since it has kurios & kurios mou. Thus, confirming the Masoretic pointing.
Also of significance is that James White has cast doubt on this text implying that it should read: “YHWH said to Adonai”. So again I ask the rabbis on here, is there ANY precedent for such a view within Judaism both prior to and after Jesus?
Chuck,
I never disputed the Masoretic pointing, so that’s not the issue I raised. Obviously, you’re missing the point about the LXX usage, with kurios and kurios as opposed to Yahweh and ‘adoni, so even with the “mou” there’s a blurring of the distinction between Yahweh and ‘adoni in the LXX, as is commonly recognized on any reading of the text. Again, you seem to have missed the point I was making.
More importantly, you’re missing the point of my post as well as my response to you. Your question is a non-question to the rabbis,since it has nothing to do with what I believe. No one is arguing that “Yahweh said to Yahweh” in Ps 110:1; we’re saying Yahweh spoke David’s lord, the Messiah.
Rabbi Blumenthal,
According to your tradition, what is Messiah going to do that brings Him such honor and exaltation?
Dr Brown
Didn’t know you disagreed with James White on his premise since you didn’t mention it in the debate.
I simply pointed to the fact that the LXX does not read “kurios and kurios” as you propose but “ho kurios and kurios mou”. How is this “blurred” in any way? If so, hence my question to the others.
I raised the question in light of your belief that Jesus is YHWH and the fact that some of your colleagues use the verse to support this. In any case I am very interested to see what the others say about this.
Chuck,
No disrepect intended, but when will you start debating whether Jesus is Messiah or not? Can you bring any evidence to convince them that Jesus is their only hope for salvation no matter your thoughts about His divinity? Why should they follow Him from your point of view?
There are many reading this exchange who don’t see Jesus as Messiah and you’re only interested in trying to win a debate rather than souls for His Kingdom?
And if the Rabbis agree with you–then what? You can feel that you upstaged Dr. Brown in a major coup while they remain lost!
I think I’ll go pull my hair out.
Chuck,
It was not a major issue in the debate, but again, you made an incorrect assumption.
With regard to kurios-kurios, what I wrote is exactly correct. I wasn’t citing the entire verse but simply that Yahweh and adon both were rendered kurios in the LXX. It that doesn’t blur things, then you’re really missing something here.
There is one God, whose name is Yahweh, and there are Yahweh passages in the Tanakh that are referred directly to Jesus in the NT. (I assume you know where they are.) At the same time, the pre-existent Son enters this world and empties Himself and takes on the form of a servant (see Phil 2:6-11) and is even called Yahweh’s servant.
In any case, let’s not interact on this here — the very reason I didn’t want to go here in the first place in this thread — and if you want to debate the issue of Yeshua’d deity, go ahead and see if anyone will join you at one of the other threads.
Sheila,
Of course, the greater problem is that there’s no “coup” or upstaging in anything Chuck posts. But you’re quite right. It does distract from the issue at hand, namely, sharing the good news of Yeshua the Messiah with rabbis and other Jews here who do not yet believe in Him.
Dr. Brown,
I apologize if my words were to harsh. I didn’t honestly expect any coup. When I think of those who will be eternally separated from God because I didn’t do enough, because I wasted precious time, it really bothers me sometimes with all the effort we spend debating this and that with others in the Church who you would think are working for the same end — and I engage in it myself–I just feel greatly burdened with the year coming to a close and that time is precious and it is of the utmost importance to work and be the messengers while it is called “today.” I apologize to you and Chuck.
Sheila,
All clear, and I’m sure that Chuck wants to say to these rabbis, “You can’t accept Yeshua because you’re told that you have to believe he is God, which you can’t do as Jews. But I’m here to tell you that he’s not God and he is the Messiah” — as if that would change their view.
So, I know where Chuck is coming from, but as one rabbi told me on the phone the other day, he finds Chuck’s position to be far more idolatrous because Chuck just believes that Jesus is a glorified man.
Dr. B.,
Exactly.
Happy New Year–and next year–let’s really dig in and win some souls!
🙂
Amen!
Hey folks, with the new year upon us, I need to return to my normal custom of very selective interaction here on the blog, since, first of all, it is mainly for all of you to post your views (within the guidelines, of course) and, second of all, because of time and commitments don’t allow me to post more. So, if you address me directly and don’t get a response, it’s either because I didn’t see the post or because I wasn’t able to respond. I made an exception to my normal schedule because of my esteemed friend Yisroel Blumenthal posting here, and I still owe him some interaction on major posts, periodically, but beyond that, with rare exception, I will be back to my normal limited posting — and I’m sure all of you will do just fine without me here a lot. And keep listening to the shows each day, since I’ll surely address lots of relevant issues all the time.
Blessings on your new year in Yeshua our Messiah and Lord!
Dr Brown
Agreed, but in Ps 110.1 it is “YHWH said to adoni“. The distinction in vowel pointing is reflected in the LXX as “kurios & kurios mou. I do not see any blur here.
But thank you for clarifying your views that “There is one God, whose name is Yahweh” made up of YHWH, YHWH, YHWH. Giving you 1 Who in 3 Whos, a formulation that many of your colleagues, based on their creedal statements, would not accept since they render it as 1 What in 3 Whos.
In any case, I have made my point and asked the question. Hope to get an answer or comments from the others.
I think it is important to define who our Messiah is first before we go on preaching Jesus, since we want to get the right Jesus from the Bible. As Paul warns in 2Cor 11:
Sheila
Again, I cannot answer you due to the restrictions already cited but thank you for your efforts.
Chuck,
As I said, I won’t be posting replies here, due to time and schedule constraints, but it’s clear that you haven’t the foggiest conception of what I believe — otherwise you would never express it as you do — and I do hope that your misrepresentation of the biblical evidence does not distract these precious Jewish souls, some of whom I have interacted with regularly for more than a decade, from their pursuit of God and His truth. And I do pray that you too will come to know who our Messiah is in the fullness of His divine glory.
Dr. Brown
I find your debating style quite interesting. We are having a debate here – it is obvious that we disagree over fundamental issues. I could easily append words like “nonsense” to any statement that you make, but I try to reserve them for those where I feel it is so clear that you made a mistake – that you yourself could recognize the mistake – even through the lens of your bias.
You presented your defense to the accusation that the Jewish followers of Jesus did not believe in Pauline Christianity in your 4th volume. Your treatment of the subject – let us put it this way – leaves much to be desired. Your appending of the word “nonsense” to a statement that you spent 13 pages on attempting to refute – only reinforces the perception that one comes away with after reading your arguments on the subject.
That having been said – I would be interested to read some books on the subject but please do not bother recommending them if they avoid the questions that I brought up in my response to your arguments that you presented in volume 4 (point # 11 in my critique of your work).
Furthermore – perhaps you can explain why in your 1992 critique of Judaism appropriately entitled – Yeshau who is he? you state –
“Traditional Judaism as we know it today is the religion of those who rejected Yeshua. It is a decided reaction against faith in Him. It is a system which has been reconstructed to negate and counteract Messiah’s real claims. That’s why traditional Jews throughout the ages have stumbled over the person of Yeshua”.
While at the same time – Dan Gruber (a follower of Yeshua) in his book “Copernicus and the Jews” affirms what convential historians see as axiomatic – that Christianity developed as counteraction to Judaism.
Chuck Sheila and Daniel
I was offline for a while – I see that you addressed me several times in your posts – I plan to get to your posts in the near future – don’t give up on me.
I’m still with you.