Unanswered: Did Dr. Brown Address Deuteronomy 30?

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Response to Dr. Brown Line of Fire, Videos. Bookmark the permalink.

139 Responses to Unanswered: Did Dr. Brown Address Deuteronomy 30?

  1. CP says:

    Thank you R’B for the challenging us to re-read Deuteronomy 30.
    I do take one exception to something you said in the video. It had to do with contrasting Moses and Yeshua. When reading Deuteronomy 30, Moses is never mentioned even once. I read Deuteronomy 30 a few times looking for a predominate common theme. I agree there is a theme of deliverance through repentance running throughout the entire chapter. But repentance (turning) to what? Turning to Moses is never mentioned, turning to Torah is mentioned once, turning to obey mitzvot is mentioned 4 times, turning to listen to the voice of HASHEM is mentioned 4 time and turning to HASHEM is mentioned 5 times. I see verse 20 as a summary statement;
    “To love HASHEM, your God, to listen to his voice and to cleave to Him, for He is your life and the length of your days…”
    Or as Stern translates it; “loving ADONAI your God, paying attention to what he says and clinging to him —- for that is the purpose of your life!”

    My point is Deuteronomy 30 is neither about Moses or Yeshua, it is about returning to HASHEM in love, listening to HIS voice, keeping HIS mitsvot, being “written” Torah observant. Both Moses and Yeshua taught repentance, keeping mitsvot, Torah observance and loving Hashem with all your heart. Therefore what is the difference between these men? Moses was accepted by most but not by all, those who rejected Moses suffered the consequences. Yeshua was accepted by some but not by all and Christians will point out the consequences of rejecting him. It is not the man that counts, its who HASHEM has chosen to lead. Both these men had the same message, although slightly different in that one was at the beginning of “corporate” Israel and the other at a time of a great pivotal change in circumstances. There is still to come a promised Messiah inaugurating the biggest pivotal change yet, but the message will be the same as Moses and Yeshua taught. The same message Deuteronomy 30 teaches.

    Many yearn for this day, but the Prophets tell us this is unwise. We forget what happened to the Egyptians and others who rejected Moses. We forget what happened to the Sadduces, the Temple and eventually all Jerusalem after Yeshua was rejected. There will be many who will reject the coming Messiah and their fate will be no different than those who rejected Moses and Yeshua, except this time instead of judgement coming only to a nation, it will come to the entire earth, no nation will be exempt.

    • CP Deuteronomy 30:2 reads – you will return to the Lord your God and hearken to His voice according to all that I command you today – the “I” is Moses – this is repeated in verse 8

      – and the consequences for rejecting Jesus were nothing compared with the consequences of accepting him – those who rejected him suffered 2000 years of persecution – those who accepted him perpetrated 2000 years of persecution

      1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >

      • CP says:

        R’B,
        As you already know Repentance is a U-turn. Although Moses may be doing the commanding (as an agent of God) nevertheless the command isn’t to turn to Moses but to ADONAI. Is this just semantics, or is there more going on? I dont understand how this can be interpreted as turning to Moses when the same kind of thing said of Yeshua is considered idol worship?

        • CP Of course its not about Moses – its about turning to God – but obedience to God is described as listening to God “according to all that I (Moses) commands you today” – clearly implying that Moses remains the primary agent of God to bring us His law. Moses keeps on pointing to God – Jesus points to himself – just look at how often Jews think of Moses and how often Christians think of Jesus

          1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >

        • “Although Moses may be doing the commanding (as an agent of God) nevertheless the command isn’t to turn to Moses but to ADONAI.”

          cp, is moses just a delivery boy to you? your god does not see him as an important person? if moses said to you do x, y and z, will you ask what your god wants instead?

          just curious to know . if god told you to listen to moses, then moses isn’t a delivery boy, is he?

          • CP says:

            mr.heathcliff,
            Thank you for exemplifying a picture which is starting to come into focus. Quite frankly, but with respect it is a picture of a ‘double standard’. Judaism is able to honor Moses for his God given leadership role and great sacrifice made in exercising that role. Yet when the Christian honors Yeshua for his God given leadership role and the great sacrifice made in exercising that role they are called idol worshipers.

            You must know when Moses says; “I command you” he is commanding with the commands God gave, not his own. Yet Judaism is quick to condemn Yeshua for using any similar phases of speech. This is especially unwarranted in that Yeshua takes considerable effort to assure he “only speaks the words God gives him to speak”. Moses draws attention to himself when he says; “I command you” but if Yeshua says anything to draw attention to himself, he is condemned as a false prophet for eliciting worship.

            Equally disheartening are those who accuse Yeshua of disenfranchising Moses when over and over and over again Yeshua affirms Moses. The picture being painted here is one of Moses being elevated to a position so high that any other appointee by God to do a similar work is seen as a threat and therefore purposely denigrated and accused of evil. This is a telltale sign some people have elevated Moses has to an improper position.

            Moses and Yeshua have the same God. Moses and Yeshua both pointed to the same God. Moses and Yeshua affirmed the same Torah of God. Moses and Yeshua both taught the same laws of God. Most importantly Yeshua affirms Moses, a fact Judaism denies, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

            I have never once argued there are none who elevate Yeshua to an improper position in relation to God. However the picture coming into focus is that there are some who elevate Moses to an improper position in relation to God and stand armed ready for war to attack any whom God might appoint to do a work similar to Moses. For they have declared Moses to be superior to any man who will every exist. I’m not sure where this puts Messiah on their radar, but if God has decreed Messiah to be equal or greater than Moses; it is a sure thing the long awaited Messiah will be attacked by the very ones waiting for him.

          • Concerned Reader says:

            CP, its not about Jesus’ or Moses’ turn of phrase. When reading scripture, human beings are extremely capable of giving allegorical or deep meaning to any phrases they choose.

            Moses is clearly designated as an agent of G-d. Off the bat, this means to the Jew that he is distinct from G-d. When Moses says in the Torah “as I have commanded you,” or “I will give you grass in your fields,” its obvious that he is speaking only as an agent. We also know that Moses is only an agent when he expresses doubts about his mission to G-d at the burning bush.

            Jesus is another ball game. Jesus expresses anger and frustration at those who do not see the significance of his life and death. According to your own words, G-d must be the one to open people’s eyes to the truths of Jesus so that they can be seen, an independent reader might not see it. So, why is Jesus angry at Peter (and telling him to “get behind me Satan,”) when Peter doesn’t understand?

            Its because to the gospel writers, Jesus was more than a man, more than an agent. Its because the people who transmitted (and continue to believe the New Testament,) believe that Jesus is the deity incarnate. Only in that instance, could some agent demand the kind of acceptance, the kind of reverence that Jesus called for. I know that you don’t personally believe that Jesus is G-d, but its evident that at least one gospel author believed he was.

            No agent could claim, “only through me can you reach G-d.” No agent can claim to be “the express image of his being.” That is not something that an agent would say. The gospel writers view Jesus’ shed blood, (and acceptance of that shed blood) as the only means of forgiveness.

            One key difference in Jesus’ covenant and In Moses’ covenant, is that there is a place for foreigners who are not part of G-d’s covenant with Israel within Moses’ covenant. There is hope for they who have no formal membership.

            IE gentiles who are not affiliated with biblical culture can reside in the land with the people, as long as they learn basics of G-d fearing. Naamaan the Syrian grabbed bags of earth from Israel, knew hashem was the true G-d, and then went home to his own land, He was not formally a Jew.

            Jesus’ message is clear and explicit that there is no salvation outside of his understanding of hashem, outside of personal acceptance of his significance, or outside of his blood shed on the cross once a person has reached the age of reason. This is a change, a foreign element in Israel’s understanding of the relationship between man and G-d. That is why it is called Avodah zara.

          • CP says:

            Concerned Reader,
            As you know, the Gospels are not untouched by the hands of men, namely Gentiles. Therefore if one reads them with this in mind most all your contentions evaporate into thin air. The ones you are left with are not contentions at all if Yeshua is truly the first advent of Messiah.

            Btw; “the express image of His being” are not the words of Yeshua, but of an unknown author of Hebrews. I do concede Yeshua said something similar, but nothing that would be misunderstood coming from the mouth of Moses.

          • “Moses is clearly designated as an agent of G-d. Off the bat, this means to the Jew that he is distinct from G-d.

            or “I will give you grass in your fields,” its obvious that he is speaking only as an agent. We also know that Moses is only an agent when he expresses doubts about his mission to G-d at the burning bush.”

            is god seeing moses as a doubter or as a person who is respected in gods eyes?
            does god give moses the authority to explain the revelation ?

            my jewish friends in the uk say that christian apologists have disrespected the representative of god by making them mere delivery boys.

            “it is not the messenger who is important but the message”

            but the messenger is given authority to explain the message. why is that?

          • “No agent could claim, “only through me can you reach G-d.” No agent can claim to be “the express image of his being.” That is not something that an agent would say. The gospel writers view Jesus’ shed blood, (and acceptance of that shed blood) as the only means of forgiveness.”

            this is not what i had in mind when i was asking my question.

  2. CP says:

    R’B,
    Thanks again for taking the time to make the video. It seems I’m going have to eventually order Dr Brown’s books so I can know first hand the things you address. I can attest to one thing about Dr.Brown after hearing his testimony. Although he hold to doctrines I disagree with, he will never deny Yeshua, because he has experienced him first hand through the deliverance from his old life into a new life. It would be like trying to convince someone their own mother doesn’t exist. Even if you could prove it on paper they would never deny the existence of the mother they know. That doesn’t mean they might not have some wrong ideas about her, but still they know what they know through experience and therefore see in the text a basis for that experience. I admit some see things that aren’t there, but I do think there is enough there to legitimately consider.

    R’B,
    The real reason I’m writing is this morning before sunrise I noticed this might be the last day of the moon. Do you mind me asking how to celebrate the new moon? I have a Shofar, and obviously the Scriptures, but I feel like I’m kinda winging it since I have no one around I can look at to compare and say “yeah I’m doing this right” or ” I should change this or that”.

    I hope you don’t mind, but may I ask EXACTLY how you celebrate the new moon?

    • CP I’ve seen people abandon Jesus even after “experience” – they come to recognize that Mormons have experiences as do Moslems and Jews – experience is not an indicator of truth

      The Trumpets are not associated with the New Moon except in the Temple setting – in fact the entire celebration of the New Moon is limited to the Temple in the Torah – the one place where you get something more is in 1Samuel 20 – if you notice there are two consecutive days of the new moon in that book – something you won’t find in the Torah explicitly In our community we have additional prayers and it is a day where certain activities of sadness are avoided and is in some circles marked by a bit of festivity – difficult to describe without experiencing it

      1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >

      • CP says:

        R’B,
        Thank you. I’ve been following the moon for some time and everything works like clock work except at the new moons, most being a day and some two days. I originally kept Shabbat by the moon phases, but eventually deferred to the Witness Nation. Did you know every single Shabbat mentioned in Tanach falls only on the 8th,15th, 22nd and 29th highly suggesting Shabbats were kept at 1st quarter, full moon, 3rd quarter and a day before conjunction?

        • CP If Sabbath would be according to the moon – things won’t add up – you won’t have a cycle of 6 days followed by a Sabbath 1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >

          • CP says:

            R’B, they add up if the new moon resets the Sabbath. From new moon to the first quarter is 7 days. Day one is new moon, so its not counted as a day therefore the first Sabbath of the month falls on the eighth at the first quarter of the moon. 7 days later is full moon always on the 15th. 7 days later is the last quarter always on the 29th. Then one or two days of new moon and the Sabbath cycle resets for the new new month.

            You may find it ironic the reason I deferred to the Witness Nation and switched to the Saturday Sabbath was because I concluded this was the same Sabbath Yeshua observed. It has been many years, so the information is no longer at my finger tips, but I remember tracing this back to Babylon and reading in the Talmud of a Rabbi confessing the change from a lunar based Sabbath to a Saturday Sabbath and declaring when Messiah comes he will straighten it out.

            Therefore it may surprise you I have deferred to the authority of the Tradition of the Elders and the Witness Nation in spite of knowledge of the lunar Sabbath. It may also surprise you I see Yeshua deferring to the Tradition of the Elders and teaching his Talmudim to do the same. (however I also recognize the fact Yeshua puts more emphasis on the Written Torah where there is a conflict between the two)

          • CP the Yom Kippurim Shabbat falls on the 10th of the month 1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >

          • CP says:

            R’B,
            You know as well as I do Yom Kippur ALWAYS on the 10th day of the 7th month. And even though it is referred to as “The Sabbth of Sabbaths” it is NOT the Sabbath we are discussing, we are discussing the 7th day Sabbath.

            However, unwittingly your statement paints you into a corner. Again, as you already know, all Jewish Feasts dates are completely Lunar dependent. But Israel’s original calendar was an observable calendar based on Torah instructions from HASHEM, nowadays Oral law ignores HASHEM’S Torah in favor of a metonic cycle — a mathematically calculated calendar. Sure, I understand why they did it, (for the diaspora) but they’ve been back in the land for almost 70 years and religiously still keep the Greek calendar!

            Yom Kippur is TOTALLY lunar dependent as are ALL other Feasts in Torah. I contend this includes the Sabbath since the only difference being; Sabbath is a weekly Feast as opposed to an annual Feast. But lunar dependency was changed by the Babylonian Rabbis. Every Sabbath identified in Tanach without exception falls on the 8th, 15th, 22nd and 29th day of the MOON.

            The easiest and most conclusive way to prove my contention wrong is to show me a Sabbath in Tanach specifically identifying a Sabbath on any day other than the 8th, 15th 22nd, 29th.

          • cflat7 says:

            CP, one big problem with your theory is that Hashem commanded to work six days and keep Sabbath on the seventh. Your approach would have the Israelites and their descendants working 7 or 8 days between Sabbaths in some cases. I don’t think you can resolve that without ignoring or messing with a direct command from Hashem. Second, I don’t think there is any historical evidence for what you are proposing.

          • CP says:

            eflat7,
            Yes, you bring up a common objection and a good one. The answer is since the moon was the common monthly calendar for everyone, (do you think Abraham had a calendar from the corner bagel shop hanging on the wall of his tent?). The cycle of the Sabbath was a monthly cycle resetting every month rather than a continuous 7 day cycle attached to nothing.

            God gave us a calendar in the sky that no man can change or touch;

            “Then God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night, and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years;”
            (Genesis 1:14)

            But; I can prove my theory:
            Let’s say two Jews set out from Israel keeping the continuous 7 day cycle. One heads east and one heads west. They both end up in California six months later. The one who headed east went against the sun and therefore he has lost a day. The one who headed east went with the sun and therefore gained a day. Had they kept the 7 day cycle sundown to sundown their Sabbaths would be two days different from each other! But had they kept the Sabbath by the moon upon arriving in California they would both be keeping Sabbath on the same day.

          • CP
            There are many foundational errors here – I hope to get to them later (either today or next week) – in short – counting from the new moon will cause more problems than they solve as the new moon is visible at different times in different locations
            Furthermore – the Scriptural calendar cannot be only lunar because the holidays need to fit with the agricultural cycle

            – for the foundational stuff – what does it mean to stand in a covenantal relationship with God as a Jew?

          • CP It is difficult to disprove your theory because the Scripture says nothing on it just as it says nothing on the color of our hats – go disprove on a Scriptural basis the theory that we are to wear green hats on Tuesdays But Haggai 1 has the people doing melacha on the first of the month

            1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >

          • CP says:

            eflat7, Sorry for the mistake, allow me to correct;

            But; I can prove my theory:
            Let’s say two Jews set out from Israel keeping the continuous 7 day cycle. One heads east and one heads west. They both end up in California six months later. The one who headed east went against the sun and therefore he has lost a day. The one who headed west went with the sun and therefore gained a day. Had they kept the 7 day cycle sundown to sundown their Sabbaths would be two days different from each other! But had they kept the Sabbath by the moon upon arriving in California they would both be keeping Sabbath on the same day.

          • cflat7 says:

            CP,
            “Yes, you bring up a common objection and a good one.”

            It is good objection which you haven’t properly responded to. You don’t need a calendar, lunar or otherwise, to count every 7th day. Also you only need to look at the manna that was given for the starting point. Hashem provided a double portion on the 6th day. There is no indication in Tanach that the determining of “work six days then the Sabbath” is reset with Rosh Chodesh and no evidence of it being understood this way in history that I know of. I don’t even think you really fully accept this odd idea.

            BTW my id is cFlat7, not eflat7.

          • CP says:

            eflat7
            Sure I don’t know for sure, it was 3500 years ago and some things being common knowledge weren’t written down, like how a calendar works. But I bring enough information to the table to make it a valid consideration. But to answer your objection; the theory is New Moon days were not counted and were a type of Sabbath in the sense of having a New Moon celebration and refraining from certain types of work. Although Torah does not go into great detail, it IS addressed.

            You failed to answer my proof; two Jews leaving Israel going to California, one goes east one goes west, both counting 7 days of sunsets. When they get to California they are observing Sabbath on different days. —- Unless they followed a lunar Sabbath.

          • cflat7 says:

            “…New Moon days were not counted and were a type of Sabbath…”

            Perhaps, but it is not THE Sabbath. The Lunar sabbath idea still either has less than 6 working days or more than 7 working days between Sabbaths. I can’t see how that can clearly be worked around and leads to a violation of working 6 days and then observing the sabbath. It is difficult to imagine the Jewish people in antiquity risking violating a fundamental commandment.

            Also I think there is only one Sabbath in Tanach that is associated with one of the dates you mention. All the many mentionings of the Sabbath could just as easily be associated other dates in the lunar calendar, so citing those dates is meaningless.

            The idea of two Jews travelling to California is an international date line issue, is in not? I don’t see how your around-the-world story proves anything. The present day Jews follow the weekly cycle. If it was changed at some point it is hard to imagine how it could have come about (and there is no historical evidence that I know of for it).

            I’m beginning to think this is leading to some arguments that have already been hammered out among Messianics and Christians. Apparently this is a non-issue within the Jewish community, for obvious reasons. Perhaps this blog is not the place for these arguments to be re-hashed.

          • cflat7 says:

            CP,

            I don’t know if this is new information for you but here is a Chabad response to the change in international date line issue:

            http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/1736567/jewish/The-Sabbath-the-International-Date-Line-and-Jewish-Law.htm

            What I don’t think you have properly resolved is that the commandment to work 6 days gets violated with the lunar sabbath idea. Even if we grant that the first day of Rosh Chodesh is a type of sabbath, i.e. no work is done on that day, there is still a problem when the month has 30 days. That is, the 29th would be a Sabbath, the next day would be a work day, and then Rosh Chodesh. That is, only 1 day of work between “sabbaths”, a violation of the letter and spirit of a commandment of Hashem. If you say the 30th is also a non-work day, then where is support for that from Torah and history?

          • CP says:

            yourphariseefriend says:
            December 30, 2016 at 8:49 am
            CP
            “There are many foundational errors here – I hope to get to them later (either today or next week) – in short – counting from the new moon will cause more problems than they solve as the new moon is visible at different times in different locations
            Furthermore – the Scriptural calendar cannot be only lunar because the holidays need to fit with the agricultural cycle”

            R’B,
            Thank you, I would be interested in foundational errors on this matter. And just so you know my position; I shouldn’t of called it a theory, but more of a hypothesis. Although I do watch the moon because Torah instructs me to, for Sabbath I keep the tradition of the Witness Nation 7 day continuous cycle, although I don’t think it was always so.

            Your right the original Calendar was not strictly Lunar, here’s a quote for convenience:

            “The Biblical year begins with the first New Moon after the barley in Israel reaches the stage in its ripeness called Aviv. The period between one year and the next is either 12 or 13 lunar months. Because of this, it is important to check the state of the Barley crops at the end of the 12th month. If the barley is Aviv at this time, then the following New Moon is Hodesh Ha-Aviv (“New Moon of the Aviv”). If the barley is still immature, we must wait another month and then check the barley again at the end of the 13th month.

            By convention, a 12-month year is referred to as a Regular Year while a 13th month year is referred to as a Leap Year. This should not be confused with Leap Years in the Gregorian (Christian) Calendar, which involve the “intercalation” (addition) of a single day (Feb. 29). In contrast, the Biblical Leap Year involves the intercalation of an entire lunar month (“Thirteenth Month”, also called “Adar Bet”). In general, it can only be determined whether a year is a Leap Year a few days before the end of the 12th Month.”

          • CP
            In order to get to the foundational errors – please try to answer my question – what does it mean to be standing in a covenantal relationship with God as a Jew?

          • CP says:

            R’B, — what does it mean to be standing in a covenantal relationship with God as a Jew?
            I used to innocently/ingnorantly think it was a Jewish person who practiced the requirements of the covenant given at Sinai. But now I’m beginning to think one has to be an unbroken link in a chain of unbroken links clear back to Sinai. So if ones great-grandparents fell away and were assimilated even if they kept the requirements of Sinai they are not considered by the covenant community to a part of them.
            Therefore my struggle, is this between God and I? Or between the covenant community and I?
            Sorry for answering poorły.

          • CP
            Standing in a covenantal relationship with God as a Jew means seeing yourself as part of that national entity that is married to God. “Married” means that this community pledged itself to God as did no other and God pledged Himself to this community as to no other – it means loving God together with the community – you don’t have to be part of a broken chain – converts are welcome – but the community has to be the continuous community because that is God’s bride

        • CP says:

          cflat7,
          I’m not anxious to hash this issue out as I’ve already done it years ago. And not to be rude, but I don’t care what any one thinks about it —unless they have new information I don’t already know. As to the international date line, no that is not the issue, the date line is a man made device to resolve such issues. In fact as a matter of history, the date line was moved once, resulting in a change of Sabbath day to those who arbitrarily ended up on the opposite side of the date line than previously. The Seven Day Adventists were beside themselves! As you could well imagine.

          Think about it: set your watch, as you travel east the sun sets earlier and earlier each day. By the time you get to California the sun is setting (approx) 12 hours earlier. For your buddy traveling west the sun is setting later and later each day according to his watch. By the time he gets to California the sun is setting (approx) 12 hours later. Now you and your buddy are now exactly 24 hours different from each other. Which day is the Sabbath?

          Btw, here is just a sampling, there is much more.
          Ezekiel 45:17
          “It shall be the prince’s part to provide the burnt offerings, the grain offerings and the drink offerings, at the feasts, on the new moons and on the sabbaths, at all the appointed feasts of the house of Israel; he shall provide the sin offering, the grain offering, the burnt offering and the peace offerings, to make atonement for the house of Israel.”

          Ezekiel 46:1
          ‘Thus says the Lord GOD, “The gate of the inner court facing east shall be shut the six working days; but it shall be opened on the sabbath day and opened on the day of the new moon.

          1 Samuel 20:5
          So David said to Jonathan, “Behold, tomorrow is the new moon, and I ought to sit down to eat with the king But let me go, that I may hide myself in the field until the third evening.

          2 Kings 4:23
          He said, “Why will you go to him today? It is neither new moon nor sabbath.” And she said, “It will be well.”

          Amos 8:5
          saying, “When will the new moon be over, So that we may sell grain, And the sabbath, that we may open the wheat market, To make the bushel smaller and the shekel bigger, And to cheat with dishonest scales,

  3. Concerned Reader says:

    https://yourphariseefriend.wordpress.com/2015/09/01/why-i-left-jesus-by-concerned-reader/

    CP, give this a read. Also read the article called starting points.

    • CP says:

      Concerned Reader,
      Thanks for the links, I’d read one before but read it again and also “Starting Points”
      May I say the NT in no way tries to hide the fact everyone but Yeshua seemed not to make OT connections and it was only through God ‘opening their eyes’ could they see such connections. In fact it states these things were hidden from the learned and revealed to children. Therefore I don’t see this as a criteria for dismissal just because everyone understood the texts in a different way prior to Yeshua. Just because it seen different doesn’t prove who is right and who is wrong. You’ve made the assumption that because the Jewish religious leaders are the protectors of the Tanach their interpretation is the only correct interpretation. Granted they should have the upper hand in this endeavor but not necessarily 100% of the time. We also have a tendency to forget Yeshua was Jewish and that many ancient Rabbis espoused opinions not shared by modern Judaism.

      As for the Starting Points blog, I think your reasons for why people believe is right on. I think only a fool would follow a religion that is not somewhat experiential. (Not to be confused with 100% experiential religions)

      • Concerned Reader says:

        CP, the points you make are very subjective. I can see the parallels and alleged fulfillments that Christians see, I wrote both of those links after all, and Rabbi B was nice enough to post them.

        You mentioned that the New Testament message is hidden from the wise and given to babes. Does this not defeat the purpose of delivering the Torah to the witness nation that had a designated leadership and national structure?

        “the NT in no way tries to hide the fact everyone but Yeshua seemed not to make OT connections and it was only through God ‘opening their eyes’ could they see such connections.”

        This would mean that by definition the faith you have in jesus could only be a subjective one based on your personal experiences, and whether G-d chose to reveal something to you or not, not primarily based on Jesus’ fulfillment of the big picture. It would seem to defeat the purpose of having a nation that you promised redemption to in the 1st place.

        If G-d gives the Torah and he claims that the messiah is to be known by the prophecies he fulfills, how can people be held liable for failing to recognize Jesus when he has so much left to do? The Torah was addressed to the witness nation, and many prophecies revolve uniquely around the redemption of that nation. Jesus came and the nation remains in exile, prophecies left untouched.

        With all you have written, it seems to me your acceptance of Jesus is enough for you, but it would be improper to request that others accept your subjective personal experiences, especially since we can agree that there are many many prophecies Jesus has not fulfilled.

        “many ancient Rabbis espoused opinions not shared by modern Judaism.”

        Its a typical Christian apologetic tactic to claim that ancient rabbis believed in X while modern rabbis reject it. (I’m not saying you are doing this maliciously.) The thing that I’m not sure you realize is, all the examples you have brought (and the ones I have brought,) are from rabbinic literature. IE written by rabbis from the rabbinic movement and period (2nd 3rd centuries) who lived well after Jesus.

        So, for example, when you claim the rabbis expected a suffering messiah, and you bring a source, its surprising that it doesn’t seem to raise questions for you that it was rabbinic Jews, (not second temple Jews) who wrote the sources you are bringing.

        IE When you bring the midrash, or a rabbi said this, or that, these were people who were acquainted with Christianity and still rejected its messiah, even though their tradition had a messiah ben Joseph concept. That should tell you that these rabbis saw Jesus’ claims to fulfillment as weak even in spite of the parallels.

        He’s not accepted for the myriad reasons I’ve already mentioned, even when parallel is accounted for.

        • CP says:

          Concerned Reader;

          You write;
          “You mentioned that the New Testament message is hidden from the wise and given to babes. Does this not defeat the purpose of delivering the Torah to the witness nation that had a designated leadership and national structure?”

          Comment;
          This depends on what you define as the purpose. Israel had the Torah for close to 1500 years at the time of Yeshua and Tanach records many failures by the designated leadership, by which God responds through a sifting out of evil. The last sifting left only two sects of Judaism standing amosgest the ruins; Rabbinical Judaism and Christainity. Therefore if the purpose was to sift out corrupt leadership, it appears to have been a success. Of course just as times in the past after corruption has been weeded out, the weeds of man in due time take over the previously cleared ground.

          You quote then write;
          “the NT in no way tries to hide the fact everyone but Yeshua seemed not to make OT connections and it was only through God ‘opening their eyes’ could they see such connections.”

          This would mean that by definition the faith you have in jesus could only be a subjective one based on your personal experiences, and whether G-d chose to reveal something to you or not, not primarily based on Jesus’ fulfillment of the big picture. It would seem to defeat the purpose of having a nation that you promised redemption to in the 1st place.

          Comment;
          Yeshua has not fulfilled the big picture, I think most Chistians however deluded, would at least admit this much since they also await Messiah.

          You write;
          If G-d gives the Torah and he claims that the messiah is to be known by the prophecies he fulfills, how can people be held liable for failing to recognize Jesus when he has so much left to do? The Torah was addressed to the witness nation, and many prophecies revolve uniquely around the redemption of that nation. Jesus came and the nation remains in exile, prophecies left untouched.

          Comment;
          Just because the fat lady hasn’t sung yet doesn’t mean some don’t know the identity of the fat lady. We all with differing opinions are waiting to see. God judges the heart of men, not doctrine.

          I think you miss a couple of things; When the rich young ruler came to Yeshua asking what to do to receive eternal life, Yeshua’s answer was “keep the commandments”. However I’m sure you would be quick to point me instead to these words of Yeshua; “Unless you believe who I say I am you will die in your sins” and declare theses words blasphemous without ever considering if Moses had said to those in Egypt; “Unless you believe who I say I am you will die in Egypt” they would be perfectly understood.

          The other thing sooooo many overlook is Judah is not Israel. The sons of Joseph must be brought back as promised. Torah is clear on this, but is silent as to the excat method of return Messiah will use to reunite Judah and Joseph. However the older brother seems to have positioned itself to decide this rather than letting our Father decide.

          • Concerned Reader says:

            “This depends on what you define as the purpose. Israel had the Torah for close to 1500 years at the time of Yeshua and Tanach records many failures by the designated leadership, by which God responds through a sifting out of evil. The last sifting left only two sects of Judaism standing amosgest the ruins; Rabbinical Judaism and Christainity.”

            I think you are completely oversimplifying historical complexity here, but in fairness, only one sect of recognizeable Judaism actually survived the destruction and the last Jewish Roman war. The Jewish Christians were all but marginal by the year 135 CE, and were persecuted out of existence. They had no influence in the Church by as early as the second century. So, its disingenuous to say that Christianity survived as a truly distinctively Jewish sect. It did not.

            Pauline grace without works where Jewish identity does not matter is the Christian message that survived. A form of Ger Toshav movement where the relevance of the Torah and its observance was completely marginalized is what survived and spread among nations. As early as John, followed by Polycarp, anti Jewish polemic was thoroughly a part of the Christian hermeneutic.

            According to Justin, Torah ovservance was not holy, but was a punishment G-d imposed on Israel after the sin of the golden calf.

            We can speculate on Jesus’ judaism all we like, but we have to be honest in noting that his Judaism (whatever it was) did not survive, it did not thrive.

          • Concerned Reader says:

            You will not find any descendants of the Torah observant Jerusalem Church members around today. Their Jewish Jesus messianism died with them.

            They did not survive to preserve the living testimony of the Torah teachings of their master Yeshua.

            According to you, Jesus’ Jewish message must be painstakingly sifted and reconstructed by consulting scholarly works, with a hefty dose of divine providence thrown in.

            We know from the Torah that G-d promised to preserve the Jewish people as a living witness to Sinai.

            (Even Church fathers like Augustine only grudgingly admitted this.)

            Further, this preservation must be such that the greatest to the least can recieve G-d’s Torah message through the witness.

          • Concerned Reader says:

            CP, inperfection in the witness is not grounds for a dismissal of the witness nation.

            The nation only survived the Greek period because of the work of deeply human, deeply imperfect men.

            The Torah doesnt seek perfection, it seeks a soul that offers itself as an offering of guilt. (A repentant soul that offers contrition at the sins it has commited.)

          • CP says:

            Concerned Reader,
            Allow us to cut to the chase, shall we?

            Most of this here is smoke and mirrors. Let’s discuss the REAL issue in four words — “Authority of Oral torah”

            The difference between myself and others here isn’t so much my belief in Yeshua but my refusal to submit to Modern Rabbinical Oral torah. My goal was to return to the Written Torah given by God as taught by Moses, the Prophets and Yeshua. I thought Judaism offered such a path, but instead pointed me to another Oral torah. What makes anyone think I would submit to another Oral torah after throwing off the Christian Oral torah?

            Both Judaism and Christianity error in placing their personal man made torahs before the Written Torah given by God. In my flight from the Christian Oral torah I fled into the arms of Judaism. They embraced me with open arms until they learned my Rabbis name, then they dropped me like a hot rock! For years I’ve searched for the cause of this phenomenon and heard of Hitler, the Crusades and the like. But knowing the teachings of my Rabbi first hand, knowing such people are Not affiliated with my Rabbi and therefore the reasoning this represents the real Yeshua of the New Testament is based on ignorance and misinformation.

            Jews are not stupid people, but being human have a tendency like all humans to believe what they want. After ridding myself of the Christian Oral torah and all things in conflict with Written Torah I innocently although ignorantly assumed to be accepted by Judaism. Talking with R’ Skobac on the phone for over three hours it came down to one thing; I’m not allowed to pass go and collect 200 dollars unless I deny Yeshua. He was empathic on this point! Again I thought to myself why is this one thing so important?

            For awhile I considered perhaps it is an emotional response to the Christian assertion of God’s judgement on Judaism for the rejection of Yeshua as Messiah. This seemed to be a plausible reason and indeed is part of the equation. But I sensed something deeper afoot, like walking through the woods and getting a whiff every now and then of something foul, something dead. This kind of smell doesn’t originate from a response to a charge leveled by Christians, no there was something else, something sinister.

            This something began to come into clear view though unexpected arenas polar opposite to one another: My affiliation with a Jewish Reform Community and trying to reconcile the writings of Paul with the teachings of Yeshua and of Torah. This whole issue isn’t about Yeshua, its about who has authority to say. By claiming Oral torah was handed down orally from Moses takes authority away from the Written Torah and gives it to the Rabbis.

            This has been much easier and quicker to get though than in the past as I’ve already fought through the same issues with the Roman Catholic Church who claimed they had the authority to say, claiming to be given to them through apostolic succession. Many people unwittingly trade one system for another. Given the errors in romanized/hellenized Christianity it is fairly easy to pluck one from such a system who is looking deeper into their roots. The Christian realizing error after error begins a down hill slide picking up speed as they go, giving less time and attention to detail as they freefall from Christianity. This is where Orthodox Judaism sits waiting with open arms, easily scooping them up.

            In summary, we are called to be lovers of Hashem and of our fellow man. The Torah simply instructs us how to do this. The Prophets, Writings and Yeshua expand and affirm Torah teachings, often correcting poor interpretation and implementation of Torah. It’s all very simple if you let it. But one must beware of man made systems, Christian, Jewish or otherwise who would seek to usurp the authority of the WrittenTorah given by God, either though claiming apostolic succession, being the witness nation or through special revelation.

            Whether the adversary be an evil inclination or a real entity, his method is to counterfeit that which is real. Perhaps this is why he is portrayed as a serpent; because he is subtle, you can’t hear his footsteps as he approaches. These systems of man sneak up on people by holding up the Scriptures but hiding the fact they claim to be the sole interpreter of the Scriptures. This is what I appreciate about my Rabbi; he warned me of this, warned me of Christians “coming in his name”, warned me of the “leaven” of Jewish religious leaders, warned me of special reveltion. He steadfastly always affirming and teaching written Torah, pointing to God alone.

            In conclusion: its all about ‘Who gets to say’ God or the traditions of man; this is the fight, this is the battle.

  4. Concerned Reader says:

    CP, I’m going to respond to this with the time it requires. Be patient with me, I’m working on responding.

    • Dina says:

      CP writes that “his rabbi” warned him of special revelation. Well, he has special revelation, because he alone knows the truth, while the Jews and the Christians have got it wrong. By his own reasoning we should reject his words.

      • Dina says:

        Con, CP says he wants to “cut to the chase” and talk about the real issue, the Oral Torah. That is called changing the subject so he doesn’t have to answer your arguments.

      • CP says:

        Dina, give it a break. Don’t be offended if I don’t bow down before you as the sole provider of truth. I may be struggling, clawing my way inch by inch, but with the help of God I’m making progress so please quit stomping my fingers.

        • Dina says:

          Did I say something that isn’t true?

        • Dina says:

          That’s the only important question.

        • Dina says:

          Did I say I was the sole provider of truth? If I didn’t, will you take that back?

        • CP says:

          Dina,
          Have you read the Haftarah portion for this week?

          • Dina says:

            For Parshas Vayigash?

          • Dina says:

            Yes, so what’s your point?

          • CP says:

            Because – It’s the reason Yeshua came; to do the needed preliminary work for Joseph to come home when Messiah comes.

            Btw, don’t know if you read any on my recent comments on the date and the 6th millennium. There is a great possibility we are on the cusp of events immediately preceding Messiah.

          • Dina says:

            CP, does it say anywhere in that passage that God will send Jesus to do some preliminary work? Also, where today do you see Joseph coming home? Who are Joseph, and how do you identify them? How do you know that Jesus is the one appointed to this task? Why on earth do you think God would bring the Ten Tribes to Christianity to unite them with Israel, rather than to Judaism?

            All this is based on complete and utter speculation without a shred of evidence–or do you have special revelation? And by the way, it’s another change of the subject.

          • Dina says:

            “There is a great possibility we are on the cusp of events immediately preceding Messiah.”

            Maybe we are, maybe we aren’t. Frankly, it makes no difference to the way I live my life. It’s useless speculation and a waste of time.

          • CP says:

            Btw, I think Maimonides agrees.

          • Dina says:

            Ha, no he doesn’t.

          • Dina says:

            Maimonides held that both Islam and Christianity are preparing the world for the idea that the Jews held the truth all along, since both acknowledge that the Jews at least at first were the repository of the truth.

            This was a man who was familiar with Christian persecution of the Jews and who lived in terror of the Almohads in his childhood, hiding out in caves with his family. There is no question that he did not have a very favorable opinion of either religion.

            But if you want to use him to support Christianity, then you also have to say that he supported Islam. Both are false, but at least you’d be consistent.

          • CP says:

            Dina, you’d be much more fun to discuss with if you weren’t constantly straining at a gnats while missing the camels? But you are good tool, exploring all my chinks, cracks and weaknesses, helping me to know what I believe and why I believe it.
            – I think Maimonides agrees in concept. Not that he agrees specifically about Yeshua.-

          • Dina says:

            CP, you’d be more fun if you responded directly to arguments, stopped changing the subject, and provided evidence for your assertions. However, this is not about having fun but about seeking the truth. I’m not here to give you a good time; neither are you here to entertain me.

            By the way, I’m not straining gnats, I’m shooting all your camels dead. I can’t wait for you to realize that.

          • cflat7 says:

            CP,

            “But you are good tool, exploring all my chinks, cracks and weaknesses, helping me to know what I believe and why I believe it.”

            They are more like gaping chasms from our perspective. 🙂 I don’t think I’ve met anyone that so tenatiously clings to devotion of Jesus than you (especially in the face of so much evidence that Jesus isn’t the Messiah).. I’m sure Jesus isn’t the Messiah as described in the Tanach, but you are certainly a very devoted disciple of his! 🙂

          • CP says:

            cflat7,
            Hahaha! I laugh because I just joined a Christian Forum a few days ago. In the last two days I’ve been called: a heretic, judaizer, legalist, preaching a false gospel, prompting false teachings, had people writing posts warning others not to listen to me, repeatedly reported the the administration, and about 5 minutes ago was banned…..and I come over here and read your post, LOL!!!

            Seems they don’t want to tolerate Yeshau as an agent (shaliah) of God calling for repentance and a return to Torah.

            Btw, if anyone joined the (the date I get banned from a Christian forum) pool, the winning date is January 3rd 2017 at about 2:00 pm.

          • CP says:

            Dina, be straight to the point:
            “CP, you’d be more fun if you responded directly to arguments”
            What have I not responded to. Post it (but please nothing I’ve already repeatedly responded to) and ill directly respond.

          • Dina says:

            CP, I’ve posted multiple times my complaint that you do not respond directly to my challenges or that you ignore them completely, I listed those points for you, and you ignored them each time. Well, let’s hope this time is different.

            Wow, I hardly know where to begin.

            Let’s start with things Jesus taught that are not in the Torah, using your standard that if something is not in the Torah it need not be taken seriously, as in your statement: “Where does it say in Torah you can’t tie a knot on Shabbat? Seriously, need I say more?”

            1. Jesus is the way the truth and the life, and no one comes to the Father but through him.

            Your response tries to make me into a thick-headed nincompoop for not getting that this statement means that the Torah is the way, the truth, and the life and that no one comes to the Father but through the Torah. The problem with your response is that Jesus clearly said what he said. He clearly did not say what he did not say. Why are you not getting this?

            Then you hilariously accuse me of making this about Jesus to create grounds for rejecting him. Newsflash: Jesus made this about Jesus. No one held a gun to his head and told him to use the pronouns “I” and “me” instead of the Torah.

            You also argue that we operate a double standard because if Moses had said it we would be okay with it. Newsflash: Moses never said anything remotely resembling such a statement, and if he had we would’ve kicked him down the mountain.

            The question that you still hugely did not answer remains: does the Torah teach that you need a man to get to God?

            2. You must believe in the Messiah.

            You responded by saying that if the Jews had not believed in Moses we would all be little Muslims today (that “little” is disparaging toward Muslims, by the way. Newsflash: They are also created in God’s image and deserve respect. Oh, and if we had remained in Egypt and not received the Torah, we would not be Muslims).

            This does not answer the question: where does the Torah teach that you must believe in the messiah?

            It’s also lame. As in, um, really lame.

            That’s because at first the Hebrews believed Moses and Aaron. But when Pharaoh squeezes them even harder, read what happens when their leaders meet Moses and Aaron: They met Moses and Aaron standing before them when they came out from Pharaoh’s presence. And they said to them, “May the Lord look upon you and judge, for you have brought us into foul odor in the eyes of Pharaoh and in the eyes of his servants, to place a sword into their hand[s] to kill us” (Exodus 5:20-21). Them’s fightin’ words!

            And how does Moses respond? By shooting venomous words at them for not believing him? No, he goes directly to God and practically scolds God! Listen: So Moses returned to the Lord and said, “O Lord! Why have You harmed this people? Why have You sent me? Since I have come to Pharaoh to speak in Your name, he has harmed this people, and You have not saved Your people” (Exodus 5:22-23).

            Do you know when the Hebrews started believing Moses? When he started seriously kicking Egyptian butt. As in, the Ten Plagues. Newsflash: if Jesus struck the whole Roman Empire with some cool plagues, the Jews would have rallied to him.

            So answer the question! Where does the Torah say you must believe in the messiah?

            3. Where does the Torah say that you must “submit” to the messiah or be “destroyed”? When I pointed out that the words in quotes were yours, you said they were not yours but the prophets’, and do I need you to cite the sources? When I said, yes, please, you responded with deafening silence. I have since pressed you repeatedly to provide a source; you have since repeatedly ignored me.

            So let’s see, what else have you ignored:

            1. The significance of the survival of the Pharisees over all other Jewish groups, including the early Christians.
            2. Your charge that I condemn all Christians for tying knots on Shabbos and not keeping the Oral Torah (still waiting for a retraction).
            3. Your contention that Isaiah 59:21 is a prophecy about the future although I pointed out that this verse switches to the present tense following three verses in the future tense. Your contention that the redeemer must first come, although I pointed out that you believe he has already come. (You want to have it both ways and also to get to decide which prophecies were fulfilled.)
            4. A retraction of your statement that the Torah instructs us to teach Torah the nations of the world, unless you can cite such a teaching from the Torah.
            5. Related to the challenge to cite support for the notion that you need a man to get to God, you responded that you don’t hold that everyone needs Jesus. When I asked you what the word “nobody” as in “Nobody comes to the Father but through me” means to you, you responded with silence.

            Obviously, there are many more, but I do not have time to go back and review all of our threads. I wrote just what I can remember. If anything else occurs to me, you can be sure I will let you know.

          • cflat7 says:

            CP,

            Haha… sounds like they think you are a dangerous and subversive dude. They certainly can’t accuse you of not “holding on” to Jesus.

          • CP says:

            Dina says:
            January 4, 2017 at 10:34 am
            “CP, I’ve posted multiple times my complaint that you do not respond directly to my challenges or that you ignore them completely, I listed those points for you, and you ignored them each time. Well, let’s hope this time is different.”
            ——-Dina, I am either not seeing your challenges or your not seeing my replies. To say that I “ignore” your points paints a dishonest picture. This is a comment section of a blog, not a forum, it is very easy to miss posts especially since you have a tendency to insert your posts midstream.

            “Wow, I hardly know where to begin.”
            ——- Dina if you don’t know where to begin, there’s to much. I’ve suggested multiple times it would be much simpler to discuss one point at a time. As I see below, a suggestion unheeded. It appears you insist on taking the ‘long short road rather than the short long road’.

            “Let’s start with things Jesus taught that are not in the Torah, using your standard that if something is not in the Torah it need not be taken seriously, as in your statement: “Where does it say in Torah you can’t tie a knot on Shabbat? Seriously, need I say more?””
            ——- Dina, as you should know from our previous discussion, Coming to the realization that Yeshua observed and taught Rabbinic traditions has caused me to change my position on this. Also understanding what it means to utilize “fences” in observing and navigating the law is just a few days old in me, I’m as a infant.

            “1. Jesus is the way the truth and the life, and no one comes to the Father but through him.
            Your response tries to make me into a thick-headed nincompoop for not getting that this statement means that the Torah is the way, the truth, and the life and that no one comes to the Father but through the Torah. The problem with your response is that Jesus clearly said what he said. He clearly did not say what he did not say. Why are you not getting this?
            Then you hilariously accuse me of making this about Jesus to create grounds for rejecting him. Newsflash: Jesus made this about Jesus. No one held a gun to his head and told him to use the pronouns “I” and “me” instead of the Torah.
            You also argue that we operate a double standard because if Moses had said it we would be okay with it. Newsflash: Moses never said anything remotely resembling such a statement, and if he had we would’ve kicked him down the mountain.”
            ——-Dina, you either underestimate or do not realize the level of complexity inherent in comparing redacted texts from different eras, cultures in different languages which have been translated into another language. To dismiss simply because the use of pronouns without knowing all the facts is presumptuous.
            As for the way/truth/life statement; I’ve explained this in detail twice. This is supposed to be about challenges I’ve “ignored”, not about answers I’ve given you don’t like. However, I am rather expecting to come across a Rabbinic interpretation of this statement, when I do, I’ll share it with you.

            “The question that you still hugely did not answer remains: does the Torah teach that you need a man to get to God?”
            Look at the history of failures of our people, we need something! That something is Messiah. Is this not in full agreement with Torah and Talmud?

            2. You must believe in the Messiah.
            ——-Dina; “All the prophets prophesied not but of the days of the Messiah.” “The world was not created but only for the Messiah”
            ( Berakoth 34,b, San. 99a, San 98b.)

            “You responded by saying that if the Jews had not believed in Moses we would all be little Muslims today (that “little” is disparaging toward Muslims, by the way. Newsflash: They are also created in God’s image and deserve respect. Oh, and if we had remained in Egypt and not received the Torah, we would not be Muslims).”
            ——-Dina, this is a prime example of my irritation and frustration with you. Always looking for the negative in something for a opportunity to disparage. When I used the word “little” it was in the context of children. I’m done for now, I can’t believe I’m wasting my time defending such idiotic accusation, I really have more pressing issues at hand. I’ll get to the rest of your “ignored” challenges later, I’ve lost the mood for it.

          • Dina says:

            CP, you waste way too much emotional energy complaining about me, my character, and how irritating I am. I don’t say anything objectively irritating. I tell the truth as I see it, I do the best that I know how, and I irritate you because I keep smashing your flimsy arguments to smithereens.

            It’s unsporting of you to sulk. Really now!

            You can’t use the redaction argument about the “I am the way” statement and call others here, like me, intellectually dishonest. Sorry, that is just shameful. It’s way too convenient. Whenever something in the gospels shakes your faith, you shove it aside by using the redaction argument. And by the way, if the redaction theory is so complex that I can’t comprehend it, how do you expect God would expect the common man to ever find the truth? God did not make it so hard for us. See for example Deuteronomy 30:11 and 14.

            I asked where the Torah teaches that you need a man to get to God, and you say that the Torah failed us? That we need something more? The Torah is inadequate? Where does the Torah teach that, I ask you? (See Deuteronomy 30: 1-10).

            Do you realize this concept is avodah zarah? This is a new type of worship unknown to our fathers. Can you not see that?

            Well, I’m glad you at least concede that nowhere does the Torah teach this.

            I asked you where the Torah teaches you must believe in the messiah. And you quote the Talmud! (What did I tell you about “quoting” from the Talmud, CP? Every single time, you get burned! I’ll let Rabbi B. deal with the Talmud quotes.) Bottom line, can you answer the question, yes or no, does the Torah teach that you must believe in the messiah?

            I wrote a devastating argument on your position that the Jews had to believe in Moses to be saved, and you flipped out on a parenthetical comment. Can you answer the argument?

            This is what I mean when I say you don’t answer arguments directly.

            In this half answer, you have not shown that the Torah teaches you need a man to get to God, you must believe in the messiah, and if you don’t submit you will be destroyed.

            You sidestepped the “I am the way” statement by claiming it’s a redaction (although previously you argued as if Jesus did say these very words, explaining what he meant by them).

            You promised to answer the rest of my arguments when you get over your sulk. I look forward to it.

          • CP says:

            Dina, posting so you won’t feel I ignored your post.

            “I don’t say anything objectively irritating………..I irritate you because I keep smashing your flimsy arguments to smithereens.”

            Really? And that’s not the least bit objectively irritating? Good grief!

            Tell you what, if you want to debate, I’ll address any SINGLE point you want addressed. In case you misunderstood: ONE point at a time. You can even include all your ‘fluff’, not that I imagine I could ever stop you, but just one thing at a time.

          • Dina says:

            Excuse me, you asked me for examples of arguments and points that you either did not address directly or did not address at all. I provided you with a list. You want to discuss one at a time? Fine. In this thread, let’s talk about the topics in order. On the other thread, where you asked me what my problem is with converting people to Judaism who follow Jesus, we are already discussing one at a time.

            So, I await your response.

    • CP says:

      Don’t unless you want to. Recently coming to realization Yeshua also taught a proto Talumd has given me great pause. However this in no way denies “some” utilized oral Torah deceitfully.

      • Eleazar says:

        ” However this in no way denies “some” utilized oral Torah deceitfully.”

        Of course have…and continue to. We’re only human.

        • CP says:

          Thank you, most people think they’re getting singled out for being human and get defensive. I’m glad your able to see past this!

  5. Dina says:

    Rabbi B., I just listened to this today while finally cleaning and polishing the menorahs before putting them away for next year. It was great! Today during lunch I will catch up on the comments, and no doubt I will add my two cents!

    • Eleazar says:

      My menorah broke. *sigh* It is glass with metal candle holders bonded on. Two of them broke off while cleaning the wax out. Getting a new one next year. All metal.

  6. Dina says:

    CP, I cannot understand why you keep saying that everyone was destroyed at the destruction of the Temple because of the rejection of Jesus when the only group to survive, the Pharisees, rejected Jesus. Why does this make sense to you?

    I also cannot understand why you would say that when the overwhelming majority of Jews lived in Babylon (where there were great centers of Torah learning headed by great Pharisee leaders) and elsewhere and never heard of Jesus. Why does this make sense to you?

    • Dina says:

      Not to mention the fact that Jesus was a non-entity in his lifetime, given the virtual silence on his existence in the writings of his contemporaries (such as Jewish and Roman historians of the time period).

      • Dina says:

        So how is it just to punish the entire Jewish people for something they didn’t even know about?

        • CP says:

          Dina,
          Forgive me if I come across wrong, but you’re not looking at the big picture. What happened to Yeshua was the result of a Judaism being high jacked by some corrupt religious leaders in league with Rome. Tanach exhibits this phenomenon repeatedly and even the righteous remnant are affected. This is not something new under the sun. Yeshua was a result, not a cause. Although he may of been the proverbial straw that broke the camels back. If he was, it should be noted God allowed a 40 year opportunity for repentance.

          Btw, in my opinion, the people who stayed in Babylon were in sin (missing the mark) for not returning home.

          • Dina says:

            Please reread my comment and answer my points, which I wrote in response to your previous argument. You did not address a single one.

            Also, what is your evidence that the rejection of Jesus is the reason for the destruction? Do you have special revelation from God on that point? (By the way, the Torah predicts it and gives reasons.)

            And what is your evidence that the Babylonian Jews were wrong for staying? And why were they then spared all the turmoil that affect the Jews in the Holy Land?

          • CP says:

            Dina, you are so focused on arguing you don’t even notice when we agree. Is there something that says its a sin to agree with me?

          • Dina says:

            I would be delighted to agree with you. What did you say that I agree with?

          • CP says:

            The destruction of the Temple/Jerusalem was not a direct result of Yeshua’s mistreatment but both were a result of something else. It is specially addressed in the Talmud and can be taken a implied to Yeshua. I already posted it here somewhere.

          • CP says:

            Dina,
            I’ve been thinking about you and the bank comment. I feel a strong urge to earn you; don’t put all your money in the bank.

            Ecc 11:2
            Divide your portion to seven, or even to eight, for you do not know what misfortune may occur on the earth.

            Ecc 11:6
            Sow your seed in the morning and do not be idle in the evening, for you do not know whether morning or evening sowing will succeed, or whether both of them alike will be good.

          • Southern Noahide says:

            CP,

            Why do you constantly refuse to answer Dina’s points??? Since you so freely give your opinion all the time, I’ll give you my opinion as to why I think you don’t answer her.

            You know how a smoker smells like smoke even when they are not smoking? Well you “smell” like pauline doctrine even while professing to reject Paul and his teachings. Paul had a problem with women, he told them to remain silent and if they had a question to ask their husbands at home.

            Sniff, sniff, do I smell something foul???

            Prove me wrong, answer her questions….if you can. If you don’t have an answer then just say so. Dina spends a lot of time on her comments and the least you can do is acknowledge her questions instead of ignoring her by changing the subject.

          • Dina says:

            CP, very insightful. A man who follows this blog had the same thought! I have written several posts to CP listing all the points he has ignored. I will be charitable and assume he missed them. So I will post some more later.

          • Dina says:

            Oops, I addressed the above comment to CP but I meant Southern Noahide.

          • CP says:

            Southern Noahide,
            Very unproductive post. As far as I know I’ve answered everything put in front of me. Now if you’d want to be productive post what YOU think I haven’t answered. How’s that for a step in the right direction?

  7. Eleazar says:

    >>>>>I laugh because I just joined a Christian Forum a few days ago. In the last two days I’ve been called: a heretic, judaizer, legalist, preaching a false gospel, prompting false teachings, had people writing posts warning others not to listen to me, repeatedly reported the the administration, and about 5 minutes ago was banned…..and I come over here and read your post, LOL!!!<<<<

    There is a good reason for that. One either accepts the entire New Testament as the inspired word of God or they don't. One either accepts Tanakh or they don't ( there are exceptions in terms of historical interpretation and application of Mitzvot, but you get the idea). Christianity accepts NT and rejects Tanakh ( even though they deny it and call the law "fulfilled).You reject both in claiming to only accept some of both. But I give you credit for one thing here: Everyone knows the NT is inconsistent and contradictory; that Paul directly contradicts some of what Jesus and his disciples said and taught. Any educated person who denies it is lying. Christianity claims to accept it all while turning a blind eye to the flagrant contradictions….and especially to the sanctification half of the gospel ( because it has proven to not work). They do that because if they do not, they will be like you- lost in a sea of theological discord, adrift without an anchor.

    If Jesus is Lord then serve him, but if Adonai is Lord then serve him.

    • CP says:

      Thank you Eleazar for taking the time to answer. Your last sentence is simple yet profound, cutting right through through the maze (If Jesus is Lord then serve him, but if Adonai is Lord then serve him.)
      Hashem is the most high God, we agree there. However I believe He appointed Yeshua as a Messiah to be listened to as Moses and to serve as a atonement for those who previously turned their back on Torah, it is for this I am rejected and no other reason (that I know of). However the Christians reject me for a multitude of reasons.

      • Eleazar says:

        I was Christian for a long time, brought up in several denominations. It takes only one difference of opinion, on ANY issue, to be labeled “heretic”. I lost my job as a SDA High school teacher for disbelieving the trinity….which the original SDAs did not believe in, either.

        • CP says:

          Yes, that trinity doctrine is a bit bizarre in that they make a doctrine which no one really understands and is not explict anywhere in any scripture a prerequisite for salvation. Maybe since its now illegal to hunt witches or burn people at the stake this is the next best thing?

        • CP says:

          I was thinking about why the trinity thing is made to be so important. Perhaps it’s being used as a psychological tool by creating a them and us mentality. Creating a common enemy to produce solidarity? Idk, just thinking aloud.

          • Eleazar says:

            The trinity thing is extremely important to Christianity because if Jesus is not God then he is a blasphemous sinner, if the NT is to be believed. Some of Jesus’ most grievous offenses would be considered deadly sins for you and I, but if the trinity is true then he cannot err, nor can he sin.

            Whipping merchants and name-calling? He was “establishing his authority as deity”.
            “I am the way, the truth and the life”? If he is not God, then that was the very height of blasphemy. Same with “Before Abraham was, I AM” and “I am the light of the world”.
            Jesus’ supposed deity is what gave him the right to do evil and still remain sinless. It is also what made the crucifixion valid. Unless Jesus is God and the trinity true, then it was only an unclean human sacrifice on Calvary. Could just as well have been John the Baptist, who according to Jesus was “the greatest man ever born”. If Jesus is not God and the trinity untrue, then millions of Christians are, by their own admission, worshiping a mere man and are guilty of idolatry. The most learned Christian minds in history would tell you that if Jesus is not God and the trinity untrue then he had no value whatsoever as anything but another independent Jewish teacher who breathed, ate and slept…. at best.
            You’re on a Christian forum as well, so expect to eventually get to this point ( as well as being told you do not have the holy spirit). In the end, it will come down to C.S. Lewis’ challenge of “Liar, Lunatic or Lord”. Christians know that these are their choices if one is to accept the New Testament as an inspired word of God.

          • CP says:

            Eleazar,
            You wrote: “If he is not God, then that was the very height of blasphemy. Same with ……. “I am the light of the world”.

            Since a personal realization a few days ago that Yeshua was incredibly seeped in Rabbnic thought and teachings I started trying to look at things along the same lines. Obviously not being a Rabbi or trained along these lines, I’m at a disadvantage, however trying to correct it. I just started reading this book and am finding things Yeshua did and said are terribly misunderstood today, especially amongst christians, but they weren’t misunderstood amongst first century Rabbis. Yeshua wasn’t saying he was God, he was saying he was Messiah. For example “I am the light of the world” is addressed below copied from the book I’m reading.

            “God’s first words in the Bible are:

            ” ‘Let there be light!’ And there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good.”
            When we study the creation account closely we notice that it was not until the fourth day that God created the “two great lights”, the sun and the moon. The Sages understood this too to be a Messianic allusion, and so the Midrash known as Pesikhta Rabbah, which was read from the 9th century on in connection with feast days, asks, “Whose is this light which falls upon the congregation of the Lord?” and answers, “It is the light of the Messiah”5. The Yalqut Shimoni, comprising catenae of Talmudic and Midrashic passages drawn up in the 12th and 13th centuries, adds this thought to the exposition of the verse: “This is the light of the Messiah, as is written in Psalm 36:10,’In your light, we see light’ “. 6
            The Rabbis considered the Aramaic word Nehora, ‘light’, to be one of the secret names of the Messiah, since we read in the Aramaic part of the book of Daniel that, “He knows what dwells in darkness, and light dwells with him” (2.22). Furthermore, on the strength of the prophecies of Is.42:6 and 60:1–3 the Messiah is seen as “the light of the Gentiles”. Did not Jesus announce that he was himself the “light of the world”, and that, “Whosoever follows me will never walk in darkness”? The Midrash understands the words of Daniel chapter 2 Messianically:

            ” ‘And Nehora dwells with him.’ This is the Messiah-King, for it is written: ‘Arise, shine, for your light has come’ ” (Is.60:1).
            We can see from the above that the associative Jewish method finds Messianic allusions in places where Christians have not seen them. The Apostle Paul says that this Christ-mystery “has been kept hidden for ages and generations” (Col.1:26). Could it be possible that with these words Paul was referring to Jewish tradition? Not improbable, since we find similar expressions in the Dead Sea Scrolls.7

          • CP What is the source or these quotations? – it sounds like Tzachi Shapira – but it is more articulate and less innacurate

            1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >

          • Dina says:

            CP, what did I tell you about “quoting” from the Talmud?

          • CP says:

            R’B This is from a book I’m reading; THE MESSIAH IN THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE LIGHT OF RABBINICAL WRITINGS
            Copyright © Risto Santala

            R’B, I like to have hard copies of reference materials to cross reference with the things I read online. Would you please advise me? What is the preferred English translation of the Talmud(s). Where can I purchase a set of hard copies? Is there any thing else you would recommend?
            Thanks

          • CP says:

            R’B, is this for real?
            Talmud: Sanhedrin 97b

            “The Son of David will come only in a generation which is either altogether righteous or altogether wicked. ‘In a generation which is altogether righteous;’ as it is written: ‘Then will your people be righteous and they will possess the land for ever’ (Is 60:21). Or ‘altogether wicked;’ as it is written: ‘He saw that there was no-one, and he was appalled that there was no-one to intercede’ (Is 59:16)… ‘And behold, one like a son of man, coming in the clouds’ (Dan.7:13). It is also written, ‘gentle and riding on a donkey’ (Zech 9:9): if they are righteous he will come in the clouds. If not, he will come humbly and riding on a donkey.”

      • Jim says:

        CP,

        You reiterate that you have been rejected by The Jewish people for accepting Yeshu as Messiah. I do not like to repost, but I make an exception:

        CP,

        I understand that it hurts to be rejected. And, it is lonely to be without a community. However, you may look at your situation in another way. It is not the Jewish community rejecting you; rather, you are rejecting them.

        Consider how readily you have accepted the malicious slanders against the Jewish leaders, though they have appeared in books that you acknowledge are full of falsehood. This act, which sets you up to be the judge over the Jewish community, is an act of rejection of that community. That you accept the words of liars and criminals as testimony against your own people puts you outside of communion with them.

        You say that you wish to be among your people and to be acknowledged by them. Yet, you deny their knowledge of their laws and their stories. You deny their knowledge of their history. You deny their knowledge of how to fulfill their obligations as a people, knowledge handed down generation to generation, faithfully preserved. Against their knowledge, you establish your own intuition. Though separated from the community, you assert the superiority of your knowledge of a way of life denied you. You reject the ways of your people in favor of your own intuition.

        In rejecting the Oral Torah, you reject your people. You reject their way of life and the authority they have to interpret their texts. Against the Oral Torah, you have asserted the existence of another, this one authored by Jesus. You make him to be the sole legitimate rabbi, the only judge. It is clear, however, that his personal oral Torah did not come from God through Moses and was not a part of Jewish tradition. It was not a part of the people. Embracing his invention over Jewish tradition is to reject them. It may feel like you are being rejected, but in reality you have rejected them.

        The Jewish people have a mission in the world. They are a priestly nation, keeping alive the knowledge of God and of His Torah. For 2,000 years the Church has posited a false god and a false reading of the Torah. Now you would bring into the Jewish community your own private interpretation of Jesus. Surely you can see the confusion you would bring. If the Jewish community welcomes those that embrace your version of Jesus, many will not understand that other teachings regarding him are to be rejected. This is particularly true if your version is accepted, because you minimize the sin of idolatry and maximize the sin of not listening to a prophet, not listening to Jesus. The priestly nation will be more susceptible to an increase in those that worship a man rather than God. By demanding that your personal understanding be accepted, you reject the Jewish mission.

        In demanding that your own private views be accepted by the Jewish people, you do not set yourself up for rejection. On the contrary, you have rejected them. This may not hurt any less, but if you consider this, you may see that the situation is not how you thought. The Jewish people have a Torah that predates you and an understanding of it that predates you. In asserting your own private interpretation, you have turned your back on their knowledge and understanding. You are lonely because you have rejected them and gone your own way.

        Jim

      • Concerned Reader says:

        However I believe He appointed Yeshua as a Messiah to be listened to as Moses and to serve as a atonement for those who previously turned their back on Torah,

        CP, You don’t need a person who died on a cross to bring you back to the Torah, it isn’t far away. Like the Messianics, you are trying to fit Yeshua in via some idea that the death of the righteous atones.

        This idea does not mean that someone’s death actually does anything real, or has any power whatever. Rather, the concept only wishes to teach that you think about the life that was lost, and it motivates you to reexamine your priorities and repent.

        Jesus’ death was unnecessary. He didn’t need to die. Just come back to Torah.

        If Jesus were Moses, you don’t need Jesus, just Moses.

        • Jim says:

          Concerned Reader,

          This is beautiful and concise: “Jesus’ death was unnecessary. He didn’t need to die. Just come back to Torah.” Thank you.

          Jim

        • CP says:

          Concerned Reader,
          I find it extremely interesting Yeshua said he was only sent to the lost and sick. Moses had already failed them, or in reality they failed Moses. The point is it wasn’t working for them and they needed another chance. They find that second chance in the atonement of Yeshua. The reality is it is hard for people to jump through a bunch of religious hoops for a religion that they feel they already failed. It appears to me by looking at the conversion processes, in Judaism works proceed faith and for Yeshua faith proceeds works. Christianity’s downfall is not insisting works but exalting faith out of balance. Have you ever thought if a religous Jew became a Hindu they couldn’t come back except thorough Yeshua? It’s all about being part of the covenant people, for some this is the only way. Judaism may have the final say, but God holds the veto power.

          Concerned Reader, you said; “CP, You don’t need a person who died on a cross to bring you back to the Torah”
          -But that’s what happened-

  8. CP says:

    Haven’t I been saying this all along; are you guys sand bagging?

    “Rabbi Hanin said that Israel will not require the teaching of the Messiah-King, because in Is. 11:10 it is written; ‘In that day the Gentiles will rally to the root of Jesse’, but not Israel. If this is so, why will the Messiah-King come, and what will he do? He will bring Israel back from their dispersion and give them 30 [new] precepts.”
    (30. Midrash Bereshith Rabbah par 98. )

  9. Dina says:

    CP,

    Regarding my comment listing unanswered challenges (here: https://yourphariseefriend.wordpress.com/2016/12/27/unanswered-did-dr-brown-address-deuteronomy-30/#comment-32520), you suggested picking one topic at a time.

    I said, okay, let’s do one at a time, starting with the first. I haven’t heard back from you, so let’s review.

    The first challenge addresses a comment you made way back when: “Where does it say in Torah you can’t tie a knot on Shabbat? Seriously, need I say more?”

    I challenged you therefore to show where the Torah teaches that you need a man to get to God, you must believe in the messiah, and you must “submit” to the messiah or be “destroyed.”

    You have since changed your position. You now believe that Jesus did not teach, “I am the way, the truth, and the life and no one comes to the Father but through me.” You now say that this was added later. You also now believe that Jesus taught Oral Torah, so you are not sure about its validity.

    Therefore, do you concede that these three ideas are not taught anywhere in the Torah?

    Also, if you believe that these three ideas are in some sort of Oral Torah, do you retract your statement about tying knots on the Sabbath?

    To be consistent, either jettison the Oral Torah and concede that these three ideas are foreign to the Torah, or accept the Oral Torah and respect our version of it (even if you disagree with it).

  10. CP says:

    —Knot tying/Messiah submission, I agree, neither are P’shat readings of Torah.

    Dina you stated: “You now believe that Jesus did not teach, “I am the way, the truth, and the life and no one comes to the Father but through me.” You now say that this was added later.”

    —Dina, you’ve misunderstood me. I do believe Yeshua taught this and I think you misunderstand it and what I say about it.

    You wrote: “Also, if you believe that these three ideas are in some sort of Oral Torah, do you retract your statement about tying knots on the Sabbath?”

    —I don’t see your third idea. I am barely learning about Oral Torah in a positive light and am but an infant, I feel this is an improper request at this time.

    Dina you’ve challenged with this: “To be consistent, either jettison the Oral Torah and concede that these three ideas are foreign to the Torah, or accept the Oral Torah and respect our version of it (even if you disagree with it).

    — Although I respect the Oral Torah, I must respectfully decline your offer to be confined by a box of your making.

  11. CP says:

    Dina,

    I know I haven’t answered to your your satisfaction “I am the way, the truth and the life” contention. I had some free time so I answered it more fully here:

    In Genesis 29:30 Jacob tells us he wrestled with God face to face. Since no one can see God face to face and live, Targum Onqelos states that actually Jacob saw the “Angel of the LORD”.

    Isaiah 63:9 says; “And the angel of His presence saved them;
    In His love and in His mercy He redeemed them”

    The Rabbis say that this “angel of his presence” means the “Angel of the Covenant and the Prince of the Countenance”. In Hebrew the phrase is Sar ha-Panim, literally ‘the Prince of the faces’ or ‘countenance’.

    Commenting on Malachi 3:1, Rabbi David Qimhi says; the Lord who will “suddenly come to his temple”, that “this Lord is the Messiah-King, and he is the Lord of the Covenant”

    A Jewish prayer “Sidûr ha-Shalem” says some pretty amazing things;
    “May it be Thy will that the blast from this horn should carry to the tabernacle of God by the instrumentality of our delegate Tartiel, whose name Elias — may his memory be blessed — has given to him, and through Jesus the Prince of the Countenance and the Prince Metatron, and may grace be our part. Be Thou blessed, Lord of grace.”

    Who are these?
    *delegate Tartiel
    *Jesus the Prince of the Countenance
    *Prince Metatron

    *Tartiel is not known, but one conjecture suggests that it is derived from the words tartei El, or “God’s other form” in which he reveals himself.

    *Metatron’ comes from the Greek meta thronon, that is, ‘the one who sits on the throne’. Targum Jonathan, on Gen. 5:24 (Enoch walked with God and then was no more) says that “He ascended to heaven and God called him by the name Metatron, the Great Scribe”.

    Stockholm’s chief Rabbi, Professor Gottlieb Klein says;
    “Metatron is the nearest person to God, serving him; on the one hand his confident and delegate, on the other hand the representative of Israel before God… Metatron is also known as Sar ha-Panîm, the ‘Prince of the Countenance’ or just as ‘the Prince’, and he sits in God’s innermost chamber (penim). The numeric value of ‘Metatron’ is the same as that of Shaddai, ‘the Almighty’. He is therefore the delegate of the Almighty. Shaddai (10+4+300) = 314 and Metatron (50+6+200+9+9+40) = 314.”
    He also writes in Judaism Metatron is often identified with the Word or Logos, and he shows that there are five such intermediaries in the Talmud: “1. Metatron, 2. The Word of Yahweh, Mimra, 3. God’s hovering glory, the Shechina, 4. God’s Holy Spirit, Rûah ha-Qôdesh, and 5. the Voice from Heaven, Bath Qôl.(lit. ‘daughter of a voice’)”.

    In Judges ch. 6 we read the angel of the LORD appeared to Gideon. And Gideon says;? “Ah, Sovereign LORD! I have seen the angel of the LORD face to face!”

    RaSHI comments on Exodus 23:20–21:
    “See, I am sending an angel ahead of you to guard you along the way… Pay attention to him and listen to what he says. Do not rebel against him… since my name is in him.”
    “And our Rabbis have said,”…”that this is Metatron, whose name is the same as the name of the LORD. The numeric value of ‘Metatron’ corresponds to that of ‘Shaddai’, the name of the Almighty.”

    Moses said in Ex. 33:15: “If your presence (Heb.’face’) does not go with us do not send us up from here.”
    RaMBaN in Hagigah 13 sees Metatron and the angel of the covenant.

    Dina, clearly if a Yeshua is Messiah with a soul from ancient times, according to the Rabbis; begotten before all else (Genesis 1:3), then your objection to his vernacular is completely unfounded. You might as well object to vernacular of the angel who appeared to Gideon.

    • Dina says:

      This is disgraceful.

      Rabbi B., Jim, Con, Larry, cflat7, Eleazar, and anyone else I left out: do any of you care to help CP sort through this drivel mixed with lies? I’m done.

      CP has posted fake Talmudic quote after fake Talmudic quote, fake rabbinic quote after fake rabbinic quote. He is unperturbed by this and continues to traffic in these lies and misinformation. I cannot argue with someone who doesn’t use truth to support his positions and simply doesn’t care when you point that out to him.

      I will not tolerate this. It breaks my heart to see that CP is so far gone that he is willing to sacrifice his integrity to justify his blind devotion to his false hero. He is so far gone that I do not think I will succeed in bringing him to his senses.

      CP, I wish you well. This has been an interesting and enlightening journey, for both of us, I believe. I am certain that in every other respect you are a fine, upstanding gentleman. I hope we can part with no hard feelings. Henceforth, I will address my comments to the audience to set right any misperceptions that I feel need to be corrected.

      May God our Father lead us in the light of His truth.

      • CP says:

        Dina, I cry foul! You ask me to sort through your stuff, and I do. If what I posted is wrong, please point it out and correct it. It took a long time for me to put that together to answer your question. You can’t quit on me now!

        :puppy dog eyes:

        • Concerned Reader says:

          CP, nowhere is the angel of the lord designated as a being to be served, or as a being that is the “only way to G-d.” In fact, nowhere in the 5 books of Moses will you ever find that angel ever given a name to be addressed by in his own right beside the father. He is simply Malach Hashem. He is not designated the right hand, the son, or anything else. Moreso, the angel was not brought up during Deuteronomy 4:15.

          When Gideon and Joshua meet the angel, he is simply designated as a man. Are they serving this man?

          As far as Joshua knew in chapter 5, he was a man. This explains Joshua asking curtly, “who are you and are you with us or against us?” This is hardly the only way to G-d speaking to Joshua.

          They bow to the ground in respect, they receive a message from the person’s lips, but he is not designated as anyone special to be recognized by name. They do not say, for example, “praised be Metatron.”

          The angel is like a mouthpiece/ a shadow. To place trust in the angel, would be like worshiping or placing trust of salvation on the burning bush, or the pillar of cloud. The words of the Torah out of their mouth is important, not them.

          Jesus claimed nobody comes to the father but through me, IE Jesus. According to the New Testament, those who do not personally know this specific “son of G-d,” and accept his blood once shed for them, are designated for eternal damnation.

          No amount of agency doctrine expressed in the Torah or rabbinic literature could account for that devotion that Jesus or the Christian scripture is requesting. IE you will find no personal relationship with the angel of the lord in the Hebrew Bible, whereas the New Testament makes explicit the requirement for a personal relationship with Jesus over and over again.

          Not even Philo of Alexandria (who was the 1st Jewish writer to thoroughly discuss the Logos concept,) believed that the Logos was worthy of service, devotion, or his own name. To Philo, the Logos was a created power of G-d with many names, and only the imperfect person would serve the Logos instead of going directly to G-d according to Philo.

          As for the siddur reference, the Yeshua mentioned therein is the Yeshua from Zechariah (the priest,) not Jesus of Nazareth.

          Also, consider the verse that says, “put not your trust in princes, nor in the son of man in whom there is no help.” Psalm 146

          If Yeshua had a “special soul,” a soul is automatically a creation. According to Genesis, all humans have a soul that is the very breath of G-d, from Adam to today. This does not mean that I should put my trust in some “special soul,” be it that of Adam, a Hindu Yogi, or of Moshiach.

          you wrote/quoted: “And our Rabbis have said,”…”that this is Metatron, whose name is the same as the name of the LORD. The numeric value of ‘Metatron’ corresponds to that of ‘Shaddai’, the name of the Almighty.”

          Exodus 6:3 I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac and to Jacob as God Almighty (shaddai), but by my name the LORD (hashem) I did not make myself FULLY KNOWN to them.

          Even if this angel speaks a message from G-d, it is only a messenger. G-d says right there in Exodus 6:3 that he did not make himself personally known to the patriarchs through the agent, IE Metatron, according to this source you brought.

          Moses recognized this in Exodus 33. He sees the angel as merely an errand boy. He says unless you go with us, we will not go up.

          G-d even says explicitly not to worship the whole host of heaven, that includes the captain of the host. A literal reading of “do not have any other gods before me,” would be “put no other gods on my face.”

          So, The angel of the presence is immaterial to this question of Jesus, because the angel is never separately identified in its own right as its own person in relation to the father in a way that signifies a personal relationship with it.

          • CP says:

            Concerned Reader,
            Thank you for a thoughtful, intelligent response.
            However I am not advocating worship to any other entity other than God. That is not to say other entities are not deserving of respect because of their relationship with God.
            For example;
            Your tax dollars go to the government of the United States. But who do you pay your taxes to? The IRS or the United States? Why? Because that’s how the United States set it up.
            Therefore our differences are not about who to worship, worship goes to God alone. Our differences are in what has God set up? From what I’ve posted there are spiritual heavy hitters doing God’s work. In my opinion Yeshua fits this bill. I’m just trying to get a proper perspective on Yeshua. Here says thrown him in the trash and don’t look back. Over there, make him God and worship him. Currently I’ve rejected both options believing the Truth is in the middle somewhere.

      • Eleazar says:

        Frankly, I don’t get this, nor can I answer to it. Yes, it appears to be a stew of various cherry picked out of context quotes, probably taken from a Christian/messianic website. As far as what “the rabbis” ever said concerning “metatron” ( a Greek word), or whatever CP called it, the end point is the same: Jesus’ birth and life did not accompany or bring in the New Covenant because the New Covenant has not come. Again, we go back to Hebrews, John 14 and 2John3:9 and the claim of being the fulfillment of Jeremiah 31. History and reality speak clearly that the claim of Jesus and/or Christianity being the bringer or proclaimer of the NC is patently false.
        But as far as what tidbits can be gleaned from thousands of pages of rabbinical thoughts and putting that up to the plain words of Tanakh; not my forte’. So I don’t have an opinion.

        • CP says:

          Eleazar, I hear and understand your contention. But I’ve never claimed the New Covenant has been ushered in. Rather I think Yeshua has accomplished a preliminary work for the ingathering of the diaspora and God fearers which will happen when Messiah comes and ushers in the New Covenant. We’ve only been given a taste of what is to come.

      • LarryB says:

        Dina
        you can read the original article that CP posted here
        https://www.worthychristianforums.com/topic/204228-greatest-schism-of-history/

        • CP says:

          LarryB, I posted them at the same time, just being efficient by maximizing my hard work by getting comments from both sides learning what i can from others. yeap, they lifted the ban, but apparently I have now have a strike, its only a matter of time.

    • LarryB says:

      This comment was originally posted here:
      https://www.worthychristianforums.com/topic/204228-greatest-schism-of-history/
      nice cut and paste there

        • CP says:

          LarryB, thought you might like my reply to this post:

          Posted Wednesday at 07:43 PM · Report post

          On June 18, 2016 at 5:39 PM, Ezra said:
          What Jews must come to terms with is that they must repent and be converted and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ. Which would mean the end of Judaism.

          On June 19, 2016 at 11:04 AM, Ezra said:
          It’s more than that. It means “the religion of the Jewish people WITHOUT THE LORD JESUS CHRIST”.
          _____________________________
          Me:
          This is veiled antisemitic hate speech promoting spiritual genocide. Mainstream anti-Torah Greek/Roman Evangelical Christians are going to piss themselves when Messiah comes.

          “Thus says the LORD of hosts, ‘In those days ten men from all the nations will grasp the garment of a Jew, saying, “Let us go with you, for we have heard that God is with you.”‘”
          (Zechariah 8:23)
          ___________________________

          On January 4, 2017 at 7:51 PM, Ezra said:
          I had to have a good laugh at that remark.

          _________________________________
          Me:
          It’s sad you are so unaware of the Jewish position that you’d think this was funny.

          Sadder yet you justify it with Scripture as did Martin Luther and Adolf Hitler.

          • LarryB says:

            For the record I have no interest in CP’s post either here nor somewhere else. I post comments to him out of disagreement or anger. I lost my christianity after a number of events, mostly painful ones, which I have never explained here, and later realized if I had only read what my christians bros taught me and pointed to I would have disagreed with even as a child. Unlike gods true firstborn, Jesus was conceived in secret and born in secret, a god, a man, an angel, the messiah, who knows. Unlike Jesus, Gods true first born was a public event. “And you shall say to Pharaoh, ‘Thus said the Lord, “Israel is my son, my firstborn. And I say to you, Let my son go, that he may serve me; and if you refuse to let him go, behold, I will slay your son, your firstborn.”‘” (Exodus 4:21-23)
            Gods first born is alive and thriving, Jesus died, only the decieved are alive and thriving.

          • Dina says:

            From the MAS, applause.

        • Southern Noahide says:

          CP,

          Are you saying that you are the poster on that forum named Zach? The same Zach that made the following claim over there:

          “I will present a perspective of Messiah from a Rabbinic perspective.”

          Is that you, yes or no???

          • CP says:

            Southern Noahide,
            Yes, and since you bring it up that was probably a poor choice of words. Something like ‘a perspective of Messiah using Rabbinic quotations’ would of been much better. But I’ll be the first to admit; I’m no writer. I’m just digging for truth. I’ve noticed in the past if I study in isolation I’ve no one to challenge views that form in isolation. I find the Internet forums helpful in keeping me honest and balanced as there is always someone to challenge what views are forming, forcing me to put into words why I believe what I believe. It is an invaluable resource for me.

          • cflat7 says:

            Haha… so we are here to clean up your messes? 🙂

          • CP says:

            cflat7, I was hoping for others who believe we as humanity should help each other to know God and serve Him.

    • CP I addressed all of these in The School of Matthew – I also addressed some of them in The Council of My Nation

      1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >

      • CP says:

        R’B, I’ve read both. To sum them both up in one sentence is; ‘The Traditions of the Witness Nation has been given the authority to decide how Scripture is interpreted’ However in my readings I’m coming across traditions of the Witness Nation which are not reflected in modern Judaism. If they were, Yeshua could be understood in the light of Rabbinic thought rather than being hijacked by a Greek/Roman pagan influenced Church.

        • CP You missed the boat on The School of Matthew – its not a matter of authority – Tzachi Shapira simply misrepresents the texts he quotes- mistranslates, reads out of context misunderstands and fabricates – much like Matthew’s treatment of the Jewish Scriptures

          1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >

  12. Jim says:

    CP,

    Though I understand your attachment to Jesus, the method by which you attempt to establish his credentials is illegitimate.

    First, as Dina pointed out, you continue to quote from untrustworthy sources. When the sources are proven to be false, it is not appropriate to continue quoting from them. Just as the Church altered and misrepresented the words of Tanach, so they do with the words of the rabbis. Often, they just do not understand the words of the rabbis and assume that they do. This is because they read the Talmud as a Christian reads Tanach, hunting for Jesus. When they come across a passage that sounds like either something Jesus taught or that sounds like their theology regarding his role as Messiah, they perk up. They have found that for which they have been looking. And they discard all that contradicts their views. They also tend to work from other sources that share their viewpoint but have mistranslations and misrepresentations in them, recapitulating errors. It is unsound to continue studying such untrustworthy sources, especially when they have been proven unreliable. It is untenable that one should continue quoting from them.

    And this was the point of R’ Blumenthal’s “School of Matthew”. It is not just that the Jewish people are the ones to whom the Torah, both written and oral are given, although that is an important and legitimate point. It is that the people that are interpreting Talmud already proved themselves incompetent at interpreting Tanach. One does not continue to submit himself to an incompetent doctor. If one will not trust his body to the incompetent, shall he trust his more precious soul to the incompetent interpreter? Time after time, it is shown that these interpreters of Talmud do not even understand it. They translate it badly. They do not understand the context. Such incompetence should not be heeded.

    Secondly, you are yourself reading these texts with an agenda, just like your sources. Rather than study the oral Torah to know what it says and what one’s obligations are, you read it for it says about Jesus. You read it with a prejudiced eye, and such an eye sees nothing clearly. You do not understand the questions being asked or the answers given. Nor do you try to do so. You seek only one thing, a way to bolster your belief in Jesus. This is not a legitimate way to read any text.

    And when a passage is shown to have been misrepresented, you do not acknowledge it. You just move on to another passage. It is as if you believe that if you can find enough false proofs, they will equal a true and irrefutable proof only by their quantity. This is unsound.

    The learning you wish to accomplish cannot be done as long as you employ your current methodology. You cannot trust the words of people that misrepresent Torah, who do not even understand it. You cannot trust those whose focus of study is finding Jesus within the Jewish tradition. Nor can you make that your own practice. It will be impossible to understand Torah, written and oral, as long as you read it looking to justify your faith. The rabbis’ words will remain equally opaque as long as you read them, not for what they say, but what you can make them say.

    Jim

    • Dina says:

      More applause from the MAS.

    • CP says:

      Jim, I appreciate your post, I really do, and hear what you are saying. But there is one problem:
      “And when a passage is shown to have been misrepresented, you do not acknowledge it.”

      I’ve merely been told I was wrong. I haven’t been shown. When I’m asked a question about Scripture, I usually will quote it and break it down to its meaning. (stone on another prophecy for example), yet who does that here for me when I’m trying to understand your texts?

      • Jim says:

        CP,

        You quoted a website that claimed Radak wrote a particular point about Genesis 3:15. Dina quoted the actual Radak, showing how he’d been misrepresented. The other points the site made on Genesis 3:15, R’ Blumenthal informed you of the misrepresentations, one being a comment on a different verse and the other being a a misquote. Yet you continue to quote from these sources and similarly unreliable sources without even acknowledging that first quotes were false.

        Even if no one had quoted the Radak, you are already aware that these men come to the Talmud with an agenda. That alone would be good reason to leave them on the shelf. But since they are known to actually misrepresent the sources, you have all the more reason to shun them rather than study them.

        Jim

        • CP says:

          Yes, in all fairness I did ask R’B for a recommendation for a English set of Talmud hardcopies. I’ve been to the Artscroll website and made it through a couple of pages. Digital could be had for a decent price, I wonder if it comes with a search engine? A set of hardcopies would be quite expensive, so il like to by the right ones the first time.

          Haha I’ll probably be told the get the Hebrew ones. While I don’t disagree, but even if I doubled down on my Hebrew classes it be a long time before I could actually use them. But on the other hand it would certainly reinforce my classes trying to read them, but I’d still need the English to double check myself. Ahhh…..life is so short to do everything!

          • Jim says:

            CP,

            I doubt you’ll be told to get the Hebrew Talmud (and not just because it is written in Aramaic.) The oral Torah is studied with a teacher. It is written in a difficult fashion. You will likely not understand the questions being discussed, let alone the answers.

            Moreover, while I would speak for nobody else, especially a learned Jew, I would not recommend you purchase even one volume of the Talmud until you have the correct reason to study it. As long as you look to relate the Talmud to the NT, you are unprepared to study it.

            Jim

          • Dina says:

            Jim, you are right on the money.

          • CP The first item on my listing of Shapira’s of errors comes with a click-on link – check it out And by teh way – if you can’t read the originals and you know what Christians (Matthew) does with Jewish Scripture then just stay away from Christian’s who quote sources you can’t verify

            1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >

          • CP says:

            R’B,
            Thanks for the link. I followed it and your right, the sentence has been changed. I’m going to have to reread this article. The thing is though; the whole Messiah idea was much more popular in the past than it is now. Interest seemed to wane after Simon Bar Kochba. And now with the popularity of Christianity it is understandable Messiahism would wane.

            Doesn’t the Talmud say something to the effect; ‘all the prophets prohiesed Messiah’ ? Therefore it is my opinion Christianity has not only robbed Judaism of the daily hope of Messiah, but they have redefined the Messiah into a Messiah unacceptable to Judaism.

          • CP Belief and hope in the Messiah rises and sinks in the Jewish community – generally along the lines of trouble and plenty

            1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >

  13. Jim says:

    CP,

    On another thread, you have quoted the Rambam, using him to support your idea of Jesus. I wonder: Do you study the Mishneh Torah generally? Do you study even all of the Laws of Kings, from which you quote? Or do you only hunt for those portions that might be of use in supporting your love of Jesus?

    I suspect that you only read him for what you can find in support of Jesus.

    If so, this is not a sound practice. Imagine that someone took up another messiah as his object of affection, David perhaps. And he reads Torah looking for hints about David. And he looks through the words of the rabbis to find all that he can about David. Perhaps, like you, any time he finds David to have said or done something wrong, he declares that David could never have done anything of the sort, because God looked at his heart and found it good. This means that David could not have been a sinner. So those passages are dismissed as untrue. Regardless, the focus of all his study is devoted to God’s messiah, David, and proving the kingship of David. Would you not recognize that something had gone wrong?

    The Torah is much bigger than David. He is not the focus of Torah. The office of the king is not the focus of Torah. Nor do the words of the rabbis, generally, focus themselves exclusively on David or his kingship. They write about all sorts of Torah matters. And it is the same with Messiah. He is not the focus of the Torah or the words of the rabbis. Reading these texts hunting for those passages that relate to the object of one’s affection is to distort Torah and the rabbis.

    In fact, one will have difficulty understanding the words of Torah if read this way. And the rabbis words will be equally obscure or even more so. The overall context is not understood by the reader. His every thought is for supporting his viewpoint, and so he does not understand the definitions used by either the Torah or the rabbis. He recognizes terms and believes he knows what they mean, but because he does not know the scope of the work, he really has little idea. He may have found justification for his adoration, but he will not have found knowledge, wisdom, or understanding. The truth will always be elusive to him.

    As long as you read Maimonides with an eye to finding Jesus, you will not understand Maimonides. If you read passages from the Talmud this way, you will not understand the Talmud, or even those passages. And if you read Torah this way, you will not even understand the fundaments of Torah.

    Jim

    • Dina says:

      Jim, the rabbis warned about spending too much time obsessing about the messianic age and the messiah himself. The Torah does not focus on these matters, and we should spend time on useful things, not useless conjecture.

      • CP says:

        Dina, I can quote Talmudic writings saying all the Prophets prophecy Messiah. I can quote Yesuha saying the same thing. I have noticed when I do this people get upset, therefore in this matter I will quote on request. However I’m curious what quotations you might give to support your statement?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s