The Real Jewish Messiah – Debate

1000 Verses - a project of Judaism Resources

The Real Jewish Messiah: Rabbi Blumenthal Debates Dr. Brown

Over the last year, Dr. Michael Brown and Rabbi Yisroel Blumenthal have engaged in a series of back and forth video presentations on YouTube.
These discussions have led to Dr. Brown and Rabbi Blumenthal to agree to a simultaneous online 3-Part “Virtual Debate.”

Dr. Brown and Rabbi Blumenthal will each release their own first 20-minute YouTube video on “The Real Jewish Messiah” at noon on May 15 2017.

At noon on June 19 2017  they will release a simultaneous “Rebuttal” of each other’s “Real Jewish Messiah” and at noon on July 24 2017, they will similarly post their 20-minute response to each other’s rebuttals.

If the viewing audience enjoys this unique debate approach, Dr. Brown and Rabbi Blumenthal may consider doing other Virtual Debates on the issues that stand between them.

View original post

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

7 Responses to The Real Jewish Messiah – Debate

  1. CP says:

    Yisroel C Blumenthal ;
    Used only those Tanach passages supporting a narrow definition of Messiah as a conquering Davidic King bringing world peace. Yisroel Blumenthal is absolutely correct in his definition of Messiah. However his defination is as one standing close to a panorama view of Messiah painted by Tanach and looking through a cardboard paper towel roll.

    Michael Brown;
    Used a broad range of Tanach passages, passages assumed by many to be contradictory, yet was able to harmoniously piece them together showing the big picture of Messiah and how these passages do not contradict but are all parts of of the same Messianic panoramic view through time.

    Personal Note;
    Not sure of Michael Browns view on when Yeshua became Messiah, however from my personal understanding of Scripture; Yeshua was born as a man, becoming the future Messiah through the Holy Spirit and obedience to Hashem unto death. For this Hashem raised him from the dead and seated him at his right hand to come as the Davidic King when the time is right.

    This view is compatible with Judaism yet is still rejected. Why? Perhaps because if it is admitted Yeshua was even at the very least a righteous Pharisaic Rabbi then the current generation would have to repent from supporting the decision made by the Sanhedrin and every generation for the last 2000 years? For the last 70 years Christians have been apologizing for the antisemitism of their forefathers, seeking forgiveness, making re-compensation and holding out the olive branch. There has been small successes of peace and unity, but as a whole, modern Orthodox Judaism appears fearful of even saying the name of Yeshua let alone do a serious unbiased study of their most well known son.

    One thing is for certain for both Jews and Christians; we ALL have to wait and see together. Therefore the million dollar question becomes; Since we all have to wait and see together, why is Orthodox Judaism so fearful to even admit the possibility Yeshua has been made Messiah making a future appearance? – this answer, I think, would reveal much.

    • Eleazar says:

      Michael Brown is a full trinitarian who believes Jesus was God and that Pauline doctrine is sound. Michael Brown is essentially a Baptist with a tallit who puts on his “Jewishness” as a front, but his views are completely orthodox Evangelical Christianity.
      The problem with those who debate him is that they allow Brown to set the agenda and respond to that which plays into Brown’s hand. The argument should not be ” can we interpret the Tanakh in such a way as to fit Jesus in as the messiah?”. This is almost always the topic of debate between Jewish rabbis and Christian ministers.

      The real question is “What is Christianity, how did it evolve over time and does it deliver on its promises?”. To which the factual answers are:

      1- Christianity, as it currently exists and as Dr. Brown teaches it, is a religion that was established mostly by the apostle Paul of Rome, based loosely on some of the teachings of Jesus.
      2- The story of Jesus (and his biblical evolution from man, to prophet, to messiah, to God in the flesh over a period of about 200 years) evolved by religious and theological necessity, as plainly seen in the chronology of the gospels and epistles.
      3- Christianity was promised to be a “superior covenant” based on “better promises”, the main promise being that rather than sacrifice an animal every year ( because animal sacrifices cannot make you perfect or make you stop sinning), Jesus’ blood and indwelling spirit made it so no other sacrifice will ever be needed, due to the new covenant perfectly sanctifying the converted believers who stop purposely sinning entirely. According to Hebrews, Christianity was supposed to be the fulfillment, literally, of Ezekiel and Jeremiah’s prophesied New Covenant. History and plain reality has proven this to be false. People still say “Know the Lord” and there is no universal knowledge of Hashem. This prophecy cannot be moved to the 2nd Coming because Jesus claimed he was inaugurating it at the last supper. Peter claimed it was fulfilled completely at Pentecost. Yet, Christians still choose to sin, people still say “know the Lord” and there is no universal knowledge of Hashem. Case closed.

      Dr. Brown will always win ( at least in the eyes of his fan base) if he is allowed to set the agenda, the topic and the questions.

      I do not have the wisdom of a man like Rav B, but I feel strongly that Jewish debaters Christians to slant the field in their own favor at these debates.

    • CP You’ve been asked not to comment – not because we “fear” you but because you have demonstrated that you do not believe in a two way conversation. You have demonstrated your lack of belief in a two way conversation yet again. Every point that Dr. Brown raised has been refuted in writing – on this blog – several times over. If you were interested in hearing the testimony of God’s witness – it is here for you to read. But since you have no interest in interacting – only one way preaching – I ask you again – keep out. 1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >

      • CP says:

        “CP You’ve been asked not to comment”
        = R’B, I was asked to apologize for difficult truths even you agreed with, yet upset the less educated reader, or not comment further. I’ve apologized and promised to be more discreet. Yet if words were stones; your fellow Orthodox surely stoned me as others stoned Steven to death in the NT. Would you have me post all the hateful mean spirited words I never responded to in like fashion? (really no need to, its all still there as a witness for anyone to read).

        “not because we “fear” you”
        = What does fearing me or not have to do with anything? Most Jews I know run away from Yeshua and the NT as grammar school children being chased by dog poo on a stick. Admittedly there are exceptions, I always thought you were one of the exceptions. Perhaps I thought wrong?

        “but because you have demonstrated that you do not believe in a two way conversation. You have demonstrated your lack of belief in a two way conversation yet again.”
        = R’B, I have thoroughly interacted, engaging in “two way conversation” for 9 months – (even amidst hate speech, which btw some guests have praised me for overlooking such in order to stay with the conversation) .

        “Every point that Dr. Brown raised has been refuted in writing – on this blog – several times over.”
        = I wasn’t commenting on the Blog, only on this one Debate. I assumed you would value constructive criticism more than shallow pats on the back – especially when you are up against the the number one guy in his field. As for everything being refuted in writing on this Blog; admittedly you have refuted many common Fundy Christian positions. However when it comes to deeper things, you’ve only offered valid alternative interpretations to the Text, this can hardly be considered refutation.

        “If you were interested in hearing the testimony of God’s witness – it is here for you to read. But since you have no interest in interacting – only one way preaching”
        = I’m very interested in hearing and discussing, however when things don’t go as some here would like they whip out the antisemitism card even against a fellow (non-halakhic) shul attending Jew who just so happens to believe Hashem made Yeshua Messiah. As I said; “I came here to learn”, but everyone assumed it meant only one thing, in reality I came here to learn four things.

        “I ask you again – keep out.”
        = R’B, I used to post approximately 10 to 20 times a day six days a week for nine months discussing many topics. I’ve posted maybe 4 times in the last two weeks including this post. Basically I’ve been keeping out of discussions and only commenting once on the Original Blog, Id love to engage Eleazar’s and Jim’s comments here towards me, but I’m trying to stay out of discussions who some here find offensive. Frankly I think not discussing the realities with Jews,Christians and the real Yeshua is odd protocol for a “Anti-missionary” Blog site.

        I’ll be happy to email you privately if you like, or not.
        Be blessed either way.

        • CP Feel free to e-mail me privately to – and by the way – I repeat – every point that Dr. Brown brought up has been thoroughly refuted in writing – most of them several times over. But if you want to here my specific response – wait till June 19 when the two of us will be posting our respective rebuttals 1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >

  2. Jim says:

    The idea that Jews define the Messiah too narrowly is without foundation. The language may have a certain flair, an emotional appeal, but it is empty of content.

    Imagine this scenario. An untutored child sees a picture of a square. He proudly announces to his father: “Look! A circle!” The father says: “No, son. That is a square. A circle has no straight edges. Every point on the circle is equidistant from a point in the center.” The child responds: “That’s not right. You are using the narrow geometrician’s definition of a circle.”


  3. Dina says:


Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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