VOLUME II

Many of the issues that are discussed in Volume II were already
addressed in “Contra Brown” ( http://jewsforjudaism.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=402&Itemid=354
). The following critique is to be read as a supplement to “Contra Brown”.

1. Page 4

Brown addresses Maimonides’ statement that Jews must believe in God as
an “only one (- absolute unity): “There is no doubt that this reaction was
due to exaggerated, unbiblical, “Christian” beliefs that gave Jews the
impression Christians worshipped three gods.”

Brown would have his readers believe that Maimonides’ statement is a
“reaction. He would have his readers believe that this “reaction” was due to an
incorrect understanding of Christianity.

I have a difficult time imagining a statement that would be more
offensive and insulting to Jews and to Judaism. Brown has “no doubt”
that the core belief of Judaism is a “reaction” to another belief
system. That would be like saying that there is no doubt that Christians revere
Jesus as a “reaction” to the Moslem reverence of Mohammed. Or that the reason
two people got married to each other was to avoid marrying someone else.

The Jewish people are married to their God. They met Him at Sinai and
their hearts are pledged to Him ever since. We know our God and we do not have
to “react” to redefine our God against other belief systems.

Another underlying misconception that needs to be cleared up is the
idea that Maimonides felt threatened in any way by Christianity, as if
Christianity is a belief system that somehow loomed large and threatening on
the horizon of Maimonides’ thought-process. This is false. It is obvious from the
writings of Maimonides that the theology of Christianity in no way intimidated
him. He viewed a belief system that deifies a human as something that hardly
deserves mention. If Maimonides ever felt the need to “react”, it was
not to Christianity.

Finally, a “correct” understanding of Christianity would have done
nothing to change Maimonides’ views on the matter. Every form of Trinitarian
Christianity attributes deity to a person that walked this earth. This concept,
however it is presented, is the very antithesis of Judaism.

2. Page 4

Brown argues against the identification of God as an absolute unity as
if this question would somehow be tied to the distinction between the two
Hebrew words “echad” (- one) versus “yachid” (- unique, alone). Brown accuses
Maimonides of inserting the word “yachid” whereas the word “echad” is the word
that the Bible uses.

This argument is irrelevant. The famous thirteen principles of faith as
they are printed in the popular Hebrew were not formulated by Maimonides.
Maimonides wrote a lengthy essay in Arabic, which was summarized in Hebrew by
an anonymous author. When we read Maimonides’ Hebrew work that addresses these
matters (Yad Hachazaka, Yesodei Hatorah 1:7) we clearly see that Maimonides did
not get confused between “echad” and “yachid”. The fact is that the word
“yachid” could refer to a compound unity just as easily as the word “echad”, so
changing the word would not have helped Maimonides in any case. The point that
Maimonides is making is that unless we are speaking of an absolute unity, then
the word “echad” (- one) is only a relative term. Maimonides understood that
the Shema is not using relative terminology to speak of God.

3. Page 6

Brown argues that the Shema (-Hear O Israel…
Deuteronomy 6:4) only says that God is alone and not that He is absolutely One.
This point is also irrelevant. Which God is the Shema referring to? The One that
the Jews believe in, the One that took them out of Egypt and who revealed
Himself at Sinai, Him alone – and no one else. Who is excluded? If someone were
to take a graven image and claim that this is “one and the same” with
the God of Israel, is that not excluded? When Jeroboam pointed to the calf and
said “this is who took you out of Egypt” (1Kings 12:28), was that not
excluded? When the Buddhists point to a stone statue of Buddha and claim that
this is the incarnation of the Creator of heaven and earth, is that not
excluded by the “one” of Shema? The “one” of Shema points
back to the Sinai revelation. At that revelation God made clear to the Jewish
people who it is that they should be directing their devotion to. It was not
Jesus. Furthermore, at Sinai God gave the Jewish people to understand that
everything in the heaven and earth are but His creations. Any theology that
justifies worship of an inhabitant of this earth is precluded by the Sinai
revelation and by the Shema.

4. Page 7

Brown claims that the Jewish rejection of the trinity is the result of a “gut
level negative reaction to anything Christian”. Where did this negative
reaction start from? According to the Christian scriptures, the Jews rejected
Christianity because it did not fit with their understanding of God, an
understanding that preceded Christianity.

Another point to consider is the fact that the far more likely scenario is that the
Church adopted belief in the trinity as a gut level negative reaction to
anything Jewish.

The same Council of Nicea  that adopted the trinity as a Christian belief, was plagued with a gut level negative reaction to anything Jewish. The same Church Council that ratified the trinity also prohibited celebration of Easter in conjunction with Passover. The basis for
this decision was not some scholarly calculation or an esoteric argument. I
will allow Eusubius, the Church historian who was present at that Council, to
speak for himself: “And these are the words with which the Emperor addressed
the assembly at Nicea; “Why should we follow in the footsteps of these people
who are scorned by God, to celebrate our holy festival together with them? Is
there any greater impertinence than this, that these hated Jews should be able
to say that we cannot celebrate and observe our festival unless we follow their
calculations?” (De Vita Constantini 3:2).

Hatred of Jews and Judaism was reason enough to move this Church Council to change their practices. Is it not likely that the vote against Arius (who opposed belief in
the trinity) was also influenced by this hatred of Jews?

5. Objection 3.2

Brown chose to phrase the Jewish objection with the following words. “You are
guilty of making God into a man.” The wording of the objection is
misleading. No one accuses Christianity of “making God into a man”.
Even unlearned people recognize that Christianity believes in God as God and in
a man as god. We accuse Christianity of making a man into god, and that
objection still stands.

6. Page 15

Brown considers the argument “your god wore diapers”, to be crude. But the
Bible ridicules graven images as those which cannot see, hear, eat, etc. I can
hear a Native American who pays devotion to a totem pole, laugh at this.
“I am not worshiping the wooden pole, I am worshiping the spirit behind
this pole. What a crude argument this book is trying to present, these are
certainly not the words of an all knowing God.” Most idolaters can provide
some sophisticated rationale which seems to justify their worship. The
arguments that Brown uses to justify worship of Jesus can just as easily be
used to justify worship of the spirit of thunder that the totem pole
represents. But God’s words stand forever, despite the derision of misguided
men. If an object of worship can be represented by a physical body, then the
worship is foolish, and ought to be ridiculed by pointing to the deficiencies
inherent in the physical manifestation/representation/incarnation of the object
of worship.

Brown tells us about Sai Baba, a Hindu man-god. What Brown does not tell us is how exactly is Jesus different from Sai Baba? Is it just that one of Jesus’s followers can
come up with a “Biblical justification”, and Sai Baba’s followers did
not? Let one of them come across Brown’s book. They can use most of Brown’s
arguments, and using Brown’s style, they could probably come up with more. The
followers of Sai Baba can also claim that Sai Baba is an incarnation of Jesus,
if they haven’t done so already

7. Page 23

“Jesus is the replacement of the ancient Tabernacle”.

So was the body of the Tabernacle “cosubstantial” with God? Was the Tabernacle
100 percent God and 100 percent human?

8. Page 43

Brown accuses the Jewish Publication Society of producing words out of “thin
air” in their translation of the Bible. Amazingly, Brown does the very
same on this same page. The words “will last” do not appear in the
Hebrew of verse 7 of Psalm 45. Brown just produced them out of “thin
air”.

9. Objection 3.4

Here Brown addresses a basic Jewish objection. According to Deuteronomy 13 Jesus was a false prophet because he advocated worship of himself. Brown responds by informing us
that all of Jesus’ miracles pointed to God, and directed people’s devotion to
God.

These are word games. The worship of the Christian is motivated by an awe and a reverence for the suffering experienced by a human body. The devotion of the Christian is inspired by the righteousness that was allegedly displayed by a man who lived on this earth, breathed the same air that we do, and died. The Christian considers these to be acts of the god to whom he is directing his devotion. This is not the worship of the God of
Israel. This is not devotion to the Creator of heaven and earth. This is
worship of something that is smaller than heaven and earth. Our devotion is due
to God because He is our Creator. To direct the devotion due to God towards a
created being is idolatry.

Another way to approach this would be to ask Brown, if the entire function of Jesus was to
point people to the God of Israel, then why are you trying to convert people
who already worship the God of Israel? The fact that Jesus’ followers encourage
people to direct devotion to Jesus even if their heart already belongs to God,
tells us that Jesus is not pointing people TO the God of Israel. He is pointing
people AWAY from the God of Israel.

Yet another way of formulating this point would be to ask Brown or any Christian: “do you
really believe that devotion to Jesus is only a means through which a higher
goal can be reached?”

10. Objection 3.7

Here Brown puts a crude objection into the mouth of the Jew. Brown has the Jew arguing “We are righteous by what we do.”

No knowledgeable Jew would claim “we are righteous by what we do”. We
do, because we were commanded to do. All of creation obeys God, because He is
the Creator of all. If God wants to impute righteousness to us on the basis of
what we do that is His business, and we consider it an undeserved kindness from
God.

11. Objection 3.9

Here Brown puts another objection into the mouth of the Jew in order to be able to condemn Judaism. Brown has the Jew arguing that the sacrificial system of scripture was
repudiated and replaced.

Judaism never repudiated the sacrificial system. It is Christianity which repudiates
the entire sacrificial system. Jews who are loyal to God and His word believe
in every detail of the sacrificial system as taught by Moses. We study its
intricate laws and we hope and pray for the restoration of the system. It is
Christianity who does not satisfy itself with the anti-scriptural teaching that
the sacrifices were replaced by Jesus. The author of the book of Hebrews takes
this rebellion against God’s word one step further. He tells his readers that
the sacrifices of the Hebrew Scriptures never really atoned at all (Hebrews
10:4)

12. Page 74

“It is unthinkable to us – based on the Torah – that the sacrificial system was
simply discarded and replaced with prayer.”

Indeed. It is likewise unthinkable to us – based on the Torah – that the sacrificial system
was simply discarded and replaced with Jesus.

13. Page 75

Brown’s translation of Micha 6:6-8 left out the Hebrew words “ki im” (in
verse 8 – translated as “but” in the KJV).

Why?

14. Page 94

“All this should give us pause for thought, since it would be highly unlikely – to
put it mildly – that the Lord would hang a major life-critical Torah revising
revelation, on just one verse, especially when that verse in the original
Hebrew is somewhat obscure grammatically…”

These are Brown’s words in criticism of Rabbi Singer. It would do Brown a bit of good to
pay heed to an ancient Jewish proverb which says: “Before you point to the
splinter in the eye of your friend remove the beam from your own eye”. The
theology of Christianity argues that God hung major Torah revising revelation
on solitary verses where the Hebrew is grammatically obscure. The entire
theological principal which posits that atonement can only come through “a
life for a life” is based on a misreading of one solitary verse. The
entire concept of a virgin birth is based on a misreading of one solitary
verse. The entire concept of a second coming is based on a misreading of one
solitary verse. This is not to mention the many Christian doctrines which do
not have even one solitary mistranslated verse to lean on at all. These include
but are not limited to; the idea that the sacrificial system is to be replaced,
the teaching that our devotion ought to be directed to Jesus, the concept that
all men are damned to hell for ever and ever because of Adam’s sin, the
anti-scriptural teaching that contends that repentance alone does not have the
power to atone for sin, the concept that a new election is created on the basis
of devotion to an individual, the concept that devotion to an individual is a
prerequisite for atonement, the teaching that the Aaronic priesthood is to be
abolished – amongst many others.

15. Page 100

“Despite all this, however the Rabbinic view that became normative was that with the Temple’s destruction, prayer replaced sacrifice”

This statement has no basis in reality. Who wrote the “normative” Siddur
which Brown quotes to prove that sacrifices are indeed important? Who prayed
the words of the Siddur with sincerity and love? (Yes! Some Jews are sincere)
When the Talmud says that prayer is in place of sacrifice, they were saying
that within prayer we can still find some of the spiritual concepts inherent in
sacrifice, as well as within charity and Torah study. This was true before the Temple was destroyed as well. Only, with the Temple’s
destruction, prayer took the place of sacrifice as the chief means of
expressing this type of self-negation towards God. But everyone who said this
and everyone who read this statement, was fully aware that it is because of our
sins that we lost the sacrificial system. To portray the Rabbis of the Talmud
as if they were not consciously aware of the spiritual loss we suffered with
the loss of the sacrificial system, and tried to hoodwink themselves into
believing that we are missing nothing now, is not honest. There is not one
Rabbinic statement which says that prayer is stronger now that the Temple is destroyed, or
that we are not missing anything with the sacrifices because we have prayer.

16. Objection 3:10

“-numerous authoritative Rabbinic traditions state that without the shedding of
blood, there is no atonement.”

Another statement with no basis in reality.

17. Page 118

Brown claims that he addressed every Torah reference that speaks of atonement without blood.
Yet another statement with no basis in reality. He did not address Deuteronomy
30:1, 2.

18. Page 148

Brown tries to repudiate the message of Ezekiel 18, and 33. The prophet clearly speaks of
atonement for sin through repentance and repentance alone. The first technique
that Brown uses to nullify God’s word is that he puts the Jewish argument into
a straight-jacket. He has the Jews arguing that Ezekiel was only referring to a
situation where the Temple is destroyed. Once the Jewish argument is safely locked up, Brown launches his counter-attack. He argues that once the Temple
was rebuilt the prophet’s words would be meaningless. He makes the point that
Ezekiel’s contemporaries looked forward to the restoration of the sacrificial
system. He also informs us that Ezekiel himself prophetically predicted a
restoration of the sacrificial system. Brown argues that according to the
Jewish reading of Ezekiel, which posits that all one needs is repentance then
all of the other commandments such as Sabbath and Passover would be of no
importance. Finally, Brown argues, that the interpretation of Ezekiel 18 and 33
which teaches that repentance is all that is necessary for atonement from sin
was unknown to the Talmudic and medieval Jewish Rabbis. It is only an argument
created under polemical pressure from Christianity. He “proves” this
preposterous premise by pointing out that this text was not used in the
Jewish-Christian debate for the last 1900 years.

Every one of Brown’s arguments is fallacious. The prophet clearly says that with repentance all sins are forgiven. Repentance means a change of attitude. Repentance means returning to obedience from rebellion. Someone who repents, by definition,
accepts upon himself or herself all that God has commanded. This includes the
Sabbath as well as the blood offerings spoken of by Moses. As long as one has
sincerely accepted all that God has commanded, he or she has repented. If for
whatever reason, it was impossible for the person to fulfill the Law
practically, the repentance still stands. A long as the person accepted upon
himself or herself to be obedient to God he or she has repented and is
forgiven. For example; a man repents on Sunday. The Sabbath is still 6 days
away. He has not fulfilled the Sabbath yet. Will God forgive? Similarly, if one
accepts the validity of every word in the Torah, including the commandments
about the sacrifices, he has repented. The fact that he cannot practically
fulfill the sacrificial offerings does not nullify his repentance and he will
be forgiven. On the other hand if one refuses to accept the validity of Moses’
words, and claims that the sacrifices were replaced, then he or she has not
repented. God’s words through Ezekiel retain their eternal meaning. Repentance
alone effects atonement. The fact that the people were looking forward to the Temple does not mean that repentance does not work. Repentance means yearning to fulfill every one of God’s commandments, even those commandments which we cannot practically
fulfill.

The fact that the Rabbis did not use these passages in the polemical debates of the
middle ages is simply because the Catholics who they debated did not bring up the
issue of atonement. But in non-polemical settings the Rabbis certainly did
quote Ezekiel 18 and 33 to prove that repentance works. These include the
Talmud (Yoma 82b, Kiddushin 40b), the Midrash (Tanchuma Vayeitzei 22) and the
Yom Kippur liturgy.

19. Page 152

“God has always had one system of atonement and one system alone, namely,
substitutionary atonement.”

In the book of Micha 6: 1-8 the prophet is clearly talks about substitution. “Shall I
give my first born for the sin of my soul?”, and God’s answer is no. ONLY
(“ki im”) to do justice and love kindness, and walking humbly with
your God. Does this mean sacrifice is not necessary? Certainly not. Included in
“walking humbly with God”, is the acceptance of all of His commandments. But
the prophet is clearly telling us that the key is not substitution. The key is
obedience. This is also the message of Jeremiah 7:22 where God says that He
didn’t command us about sacrifices, and that He only demands obedience.
Of-course obedience includes bringing a substitutionary offering where we are
so commanded, but the key remains obedience. There is no way that the Christian
can look at his worship of Jesus as obedience to the God of Micha.

20. Objection 3:15

Brown points to the Talmudic teaching that the death of the righteous has the power to atone for sin. He argues therefore that Christianity’s belief in vicarious atonement
is rooted in the Jewish traditions.

Brown has just destroyed his arguments articulated in objections 3:9 through 3:14. Until now Brown had argued that the only method of atonement is substitutionary atonement. He went on to say that with the Temple’s destruction, substitutionary atonement is no longer available to us so we are lost in our sins. But if the death of the righteous has the power to atone, then we still have substitutionary atonement.

21. Page 154

Brown speaks of the idea of a “redemptive analogy”. He explains how a missionary could not communicate with a tribal people in New Guinea who did not understand some of the
underlying concepts of Christianity. At some point the missionary experienced a
breakthrough. He found that a certain aspect of the tribal culture could serve
as an analogy for the foundational principles of Christianity. By utilizing
this aspect of their culture as an analogy, the missionary was able to
communicate with these primitive people.

Brown compares this situation with the concept that the suffering of the righteous atones
for sin that is found in Judaism. Brown considers this concept a “redemptive
analogy”, an analogy that could facilitate communication between Missionaries
and the Jewish people.

The comparison is invalid. There is no communication barrier between missionaries
and Jews. Jews have no problem UNDERSTANDING the concepts that the missionaries
are preaching. We reject the missionary teaching because we fully understand it
and we recognize it as anti-scriptural.

22. Page 165

Brown points out that the Rabbis taught that a sacrifice has the power to atone for future
sins. He sees in this teaching support for the Christian teaching that Jesus’
death has the power to atone for future sins.

It seems that Brown isn’t satisfied to destroy his own previous arguments, he wants to
bury them as well. If sacrifices have the power to atone for future sin, then
the fact that we don’t have the Temple now does not mean that we are without substitutional offerings. The sacrifices of the Temple
could atone into the future. The binding of Isaac can atone into the future.
The sacrifices of our martyrs can atone into the future.

23. Page 182

Brown addresses the prophecies which tell us that the sacrifices are coming back.
According to Brown the sacrifices were replaced with Jesus, so the prophetic
prediction of their return poses a problem to Brown.

His answer?

First he negates the message of Ezekiel by telling us that even the Rabbis had
difficulty understanding his prophecy. Then he addresses the other prophecies
by telling us that they generally deal with the gentiles bringing offerings,
they do not speak of offerings for atonement, and they only take up a total of
three verses.

First, it is in place to note that Brown seems to be unaware of at least four other
prophecies which speak of the blood offerings in the Messianic era (Isaiah
56:7, 60:7, Ezekiel 20:40,41, Malachi 3:3,4). This is aside from the many prophecies that predict complete observance of the Law, which obviously includes a restoration of the
sacrifices. In addition, Brown seems to have forgotten the many passages which
tells us that the Law is eternal and unchanging, with a special emphasis on the
laws concerning the sacrifices. Furthermore, by claiming that the prophets that
speak of the offerings in the Messianic era do not speak of atonement
offerings, Brown has just buried another one of his arguments. Earlier in this
book (page 98), Brown argues that because God called the Temple a “beit zevach” (2Chronicles 7:12), this proves that the primary function of the Temple
is to atone for sin through the substitutionary offerings. But here Brown
informs us that the Hebrew word “zevach” does not necessarily refer
to sacrifices for the atonement of sin. If that is the case, then the verse in
Chronicles does not say that the primary function of the Temple is for atonement.

Finally, Brown’s argument that the prophecies only take up three verses, implying that they cannot be considered too central to God’s message, deals another fatal blow
to  Brown’s previous arguments. Brown has argued that the central concept of salvation is the idea of a “life for a life”. This “central” concept is only spelled out in one verse
in the Jewish Bible. According to Brown’s own guidelines this should tell us
that the concept of “a life for a life” cannot be too central to God’s message.

24. Objection 3:18

Brown speaks about humanity desperately needing God’s salvation. Brown quotes several
passages from the Jewish scriptures which describe how the prophetic authors
looked forward to God’s salvation. Indeed, we all need God’s salvation in every
aspect of our physical and spiritual lives. But the prophets taught us that God
Himself has the power to save, without the services of a long deceased resident
of the upper Galilee. God is close to all who call upon Him in truth (Psalm 145:18).

In any case, Brown has missed the main point of the Jewish objection. The argument against Christianity is not that we do not need God’s help. Of-course we need God’s
help and without His salvation we are lost. The point of the Jewish objection
is that no one starts out with damnation to eternal hellfire. And even though
we need God’s help to pull ourselves closer to Him, but we are not condemned
before we start as Christianity teaches. This teaching has no basis in scripture.

25. Page 194

Brown points to the shortfalls of our people, and asks; so do we not need salvation? I turn
and point to the shortfalls of people who worship Jesus, and ask; do they not
need salvation? Are they free of all human shortcomings?

26. Objection 3:19

Brown addresses the Jewish objection which argues that Jews don’t need Jesus because
they don’t need a middleman between themselves and God.

Brown responds by pointing out that Jews do need middlemen in the form of priests,
prophets, and rabbis (teachers). It is clear that Brown has not grasped the
point of the objection. When our forefathers loved God, there was no other
entity in their imagination aside from the Creator of heaven and earth. When
our forefathers spoke to God, they spoke directly to the One who holds
everyone’s breath in His hand. The reverence our forefathers felt towards God
was not precipitated by the suffering that took place in a human body. The
reverence that our forefathers felt towards God was the awe one feels in the presence
of the Master of all. This reverence was not mixed with the reverence towards
an inhabitant of a human body. The truth is, that this is not something that is
unique to the Jewish people. Every created being is called upon to approach
their Creator directly. There is no room for anyone or anything else in the
reverence and love that a created being feels towards its Creator.

27. Page 202

“God made Adam in His own, perfect image, but Adam – after his disobedience and fall
– produced offspring in his own, imperfect image. The image of God our Father
has been corrupted through the image of our father Adam to the point that, by
nature, we are more the children of Adam than we are the children of God.”

God called us His children after the fall of Adam (Deuteronomy 14:1). The Bible teaches
that the reason murder is prohibited is because God has created us in His image
(Genesis 9:6). This is also stated after the fall of Adam. If humanity has corrupted the
image of God, as Brown argues, murder would be permitted. Perhaps the teaching
of the Church about the intrinsic evil of man is the factor which lead
Christian Europe to attribute so little value to human life – as a cursory
examination of their history reveals.

28. Page 208

Brown tells his readers that by putting faith in Jesus, they can be free from sin. He then
admits, that “we will not experience total perfection”. My question to Brown is; by what criteria do you measure this? According to Brown, the fact that people struggle with envy, pride and greed, proves how binding the nature of sin is (page 202). Are Christians free from these character faults?

29. Objection 3:24

Brown addresses the Christian doctrine of a “second coming” of the Messiah.
From a Biblical standpoint, the only argument he has presented is the seeming
contradiction between Zechariah 9:9, where the Messiah is to come riding on a
donkey, and Daniel 7:13, which has the Messiah riding on the clouds. Brown’s
solution for this “problem” is that messiah will come twice. Once as
a suffering Messiah, in fulfillment of Zechariah’s prophecy, the second time he
will come on the clouds in fulfillment of Daniel’s prophecy. The problem with
Brown’s “problem” is that Daniel 7:13 says nothing about the Messiah riding on the clouds.
The angel himself told Daniel that this was a symbolic image of Israel
acquiring the kingdom in the Messianic age (Daniel7:18,27).

30. Objection 3.25

Brown claims that Christianity does more than any other religion in humanitarian aid and
charity. Perhaps he is technically right. But when judged proportionately,
Judaism surpasses Christianity in every area. When you throw history on the
balance (before it was fashionable for the Church to help the masses, while the
Jews were always charitable) plus the crimes of Christianity, there is no
contest. Many of the achievements that Brown lists were opposed or suppressed
by the establishment  Church. Why was the world
plunged into the dark ages with the rise of Christianity? Up until the
renaissance, Christian Europe was by and large illiterate – thanks to the
Church’s fear of knowledge. Despite the fact that the Jews had their hands tied
behind their backs (- thanks again to the “compassionate” Church), Jews played
a prominent role in developing civilization. When the Church discouraged the practice
of medicine (such as at the Council of Rheims 1135), it was the Jew who kept
this knowledge alive. A cursory study of history reveals that only when the
power of the Church was tempered with a questioning mind (something the Church
tried very hard to eradicate), did mankind move towards progress.

Brown’s argument that Christians did more for humanity than adherents of all other
religions combined is mitigated by the simple fact that more people were killed
in the name of Christianity than in the name of all other religions combined.

31. Page 240

Brown quotes a book entitled “What if Jesus Had Never Been Born?” I want to answer
that question. On the whole the world would be a much better place. The Jews,
who were always in the forefront of enhancing civilization, would have played a
more prominent role in the development of society. They would not have been
locked into ghettoes, tens of million more of them would be alive today. The
secular sciences would not have been suppressed during the dark ages.

To sum it up: It is only the Judaism within Christianity which brings good to the world.
Anything that is originally Christian is evil. It just so happens to be, that
because humans are created in the image of God, that the Judaism within
Christianity is the part that attracts people to Christianity, and guides
people in their quest for holiness.

32. Page 241

Brown credits Christianity with the abolishment of slavery. If slavery would still be
around, and Brown would consider slavery a virtuous practice, he would be able
to credit Christianity with the same “achievement”.

33. Objection 3.28

Brown addresses a serious objection that is raised against Christianity. Brown words
the objection this way; “But I find it impossible to believe in a
religion that condemns all people to hell – including many moral, good, kind
and sensitive people, not to mention countless millions of religious Jews,
Muslims, Hindus, and Buddhists – simply because they don’t believe in Jesus. I
can’t follow a religion whose God tortures people in flames forever for not
believing in someone they never even heard of.”

Brown does not answer this weighty objection. Brown is not willing to say that God is
fair, and that He will not hold anyone accountable for that which they were not
capable of doing, or for that which they were not capable of knowing. The
Jewish scriptures teach, and Judaism affirms, that God judges every action,
both good and bad (Ecclesiastes 12:14).
Even the idolater’s positive actions are rewarded by God. But according to
Christianity, a person who lived a moral life is condemned to hell if they did
not believe in Jesus.

If you found this article helpful please consider making a donation to Judaism Resources by clicking on the link below.

https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=FEAQ55Y7MR3E6

Judaism Resources is a recognized 501(c) 3 public charity and your donation is tax exempt.

Thank You

Yisroel C. Blumenthal