Did Dr. Brown Answer? Let’s Evaluate!

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

88 Responses to Did Dr. Brown Answer? Let’s Evaluate!

  1. Dina says:

    Rabbi B. does it again! Great stuff!

  2. CP says:

    I’ve been patiently waiting for this!!!
    Thank you R’B for all your hard work.
    I’ve watched the above videos, went back and watched Dr Browns, then watched yours again. It seems the differences are minute in that they amount to which portion of a particular Scripture is one is going to place the most emphasis and therefore the interpretation. I’ve been able to side with both of you depending on the subject you are debating. However I am still puzzled by both sides on the issue of atonement.

    It seems everyone focuses on substitutionary blood for the forgiveness of sin to achieve oneness with GOD. While this is well attested to in Scripture, there may be another way to look at the blood:
    It was the blood covenant between Abraham and GOD which was the beginning of Israel. It was the blood around the male organ that every unborn Abrahamic descendent must pass through. It was the blood on Joseph’s coat that began the move into Egypt. It was the blood on the door posts that everyone had to pass through to exit Egypt. It was blood that confirmed those entering into the Mosaic covenant.
    It appears for Israel, blood always subtly points back to the Abrahamic blood covenant. Yet it is not recorded that Abraham walked through the blood of the animals, but it is recorded that GOD did implying GOD would keep both sides of the covenant. So what about the blood of a righteous messanic Tzaddik right before a 2000 year exile? Perhaps in retrospect a reminder to some who will hear; GOD will keep the promises He made to Abraham.

    • CP Zechariah 9:11 tells us that the God will look to the blood of our covenant to send us forth from the pit (a reference to exile – and for some it means punishment of the soul) – God does keep the covenant – with those who keep His commandments – as per Psalm 103:17,18- not perfectly as is obvious from the context -but who still have the blood of circumcision – perhaps this is why Paul rails against circumcision with such passion?

      1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >

      • My pharisee friend! I hope you have had a wonderful Sukkot and will enjoy wonderful Channukah. One thing i want to ask is this. Is Zechariah 9:11 a conditional statement like “God will keep the covenant if you keep his commandment?” Or unconditional statement as “God will keep the covenant because He will look to the blood?” ” אות” which is the “sign” of the Abrahamic covenant in Genesis 17:11 also has meaning of “Letter,” right? The sign has something to do with Letter- logos- Word of God? Thus, not based on the works of the law, but based on the covenant- Word- promise- hesed love of God toward Israel, God will send them forth from the pit?

        As far as i see the context, Zechariah 9:9 prophesies about coming of the Messiah the King riding on a donkey, right? Then, verse 11 is the benefit and result from what the Messiah wiLL have come and done? ( Cyrus didn’t come on a donkey to Zion, it fits to Yeshua who entered Jerusalem on a donkey, right?) Therefore, even though many Israelites, the covenant people disobeyed God in the wilderness and perished and Jews broke the covenant (Jeremiah 31:32), God still remembered their blood of the Abrahamic covenant and send them forth from the pit through the Messiah? Gospel is a good news to the Jews who once perished into pit because of disobedience but now released and set free from the pit by what God has done in the Messiah? Is this what Peter is talking about in 1 Peter 4:6 and Hebrews 4:6-9? The main message of the book of Romans is NOT “justification by faith,” it is the “God’s faithfulness who never abandoned His covenant people no matter what they have done.” In Romans 11:32, Paul says there is HOPE to the prisoners (Zechariah 9:12) because God will have mercy on those prisoners confined in the pit.

        • ….In Romans Paul says …….

          “The prophets prophesied by Baal, following worthless idols.” [Jeremiah 2:8]

        • Gean it is not conditional – it is a promise – therefore it is not conditional on acceptance of a man

          1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >

          • CP says:

            While an unconditional promise from GOD will never fail, I think you’d agree there are many possible paths to it’s fulfillment, some pleasant and some not so pleasant conditional on the obedience of man.

            Israel is the Witness of GOD in all the earth. Many proclaim this proudly, but do these same proud proclaimers realize GOD will be glorified through their disobedience as well as their obedience?

          • CP Even in our disobedience we are still witnesses as long as we don’t give our hearts to another God (Psalm 44:21)

            1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >

      • CP says:

        “Bless the LORD, O my soul,
        And forget none of His benefits;
        Who pardons all your iniquities,
        Who heals all your diseases;
        Who redeems your life from the pit…”
        (Also Psalm 103!)

        Yes Paul the enigma; on one hand wishes he could be cut off for the salvation of his people, then cuts out the two most prominent signs of the Covenant; circumcision and the Shabbat. Then the blood, what does he do with it? Eats it!!!??? If Paul were alive today he would be a great TV Evangelist!

        • CP,
          What would you call a false apostle who claimed about himself, quote:
          “I fill up in MY flesh what is STILL LACKING in regard to Christ’s afflictions, for the sake of his body, which is the church”?
          Answer: Paul ! [Colossians 1:24]
          “I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I MIGHT SAVE SOME”?
          Answer again. Paul ! [1 Corinthians 9:22]

          Paul the false apostle, the arrogant megalomaniac with a “messiah complex” who thought he was the one who “saves” people……

          Parable of the 12 heavenly chalkboards

          What is a common analogy for a permanent decision?
          “Written in stone.”
          What could be more permanent than that?
          How about written in stone in heaven (in other words, for eternity.)
          And what kind of a stone is the most solid, permanent, and unchangeable?
          Perhaps a foundation stone?

          The Book of Revelation written by the Apostle John, chapter 21 verse 14 says… “The wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them were the names of the twelve apostle of the Lamb.”
          Nothing about a “13th Apostle” or an “Apostle of the Gentiles”…. Hmmmm…..

          Parable of the 12 heavenly chalkboards

          Imagine “Wackyjesus” in “Wackyheaven”, built on the foundations of 12 chalkboards:

          “Matthias, you should have developed your skills in writing and public speaking. Your name never appears in the Bible after your appointment as the 12th Apostle in Acts 1. [erase erase erase]

          Actually, the same is true for you Thaddaeus, after you were appointed. You should have hired a PR firm to promote your name and make if famous. [erase erase erase]

          Of course, you both are specifically mentioned in Acts 6:2. “So the Twelve gathered all the disciples together.” And this is before Saul/Paul is even mentioned. But let us not confuse the issue with facts. Paul did a much better job of marketing himself, and he wrote about himself hundreds of times. Share of voice equals share of mind. And most Evangelical pastors who read the Bible spend most of their time listening to the voice of Paul, so they become “like Paul.” But I digress…

          James, we had a good run. I didn’t think King Herod would knock you off so quickly. [erase erase erase]

          Oh well. Wow, they’re dropping like flies. Now I’ve got 3 slots open. I’d better buy a case of chalk and some more erasers. I’ll have to change the names on these 12 chalkboards hundreds of times in the next couple of millennia.

          I guess I had better plan ahead, and save a slot for the last Pope, Francis. And the head Mormon Apostle. And I need to save a throne for my mom, or she’ll be mad. And one for Muhammad too. Who needs truth in relationship, when I can quickly get market share, and totally dominate the market, through mergers and acquisitions?

          • Concerned Reader says:

            What would you call a false apostle who claimed about himself, quote:
            “I fill up in MY flesh what is STILL LACKING in regard to Christ’s afflictions, for the sake of his body, which is the church”?

            Mathew Perri: I’m not arguing that Paul was good, but this verse simply shows that Paul understood the principle of the atoning suffering of the righteous as a corporate, and not just an individual act, as any Jew would understand it.

            The servant in Isaiah 53:9 is said to be “with the wicked in his death.” However, the word death there is in the plural form. So, Paul was actually being more traditionally Jewish by applying the concept of righteous suffering to himself as well as to Jesus, because it hadn’t fully crystallized yet in Christian belief that ONLY JESUS’ SUFFERING mattered.

            You say that Paul is being a megalomaniac because of things he is saying, but he is saying those things because he believes he is “clothed with Christ,” and he is trying to get others to do the same.

            He’s being “arrogant,” because Yeshua was arrogant. He’s speaking like a unique mouthpiece of G-d because that is what Yeshua did.

            Paul’s whole theological message can be summed up by becoming a sock puppet of Jesus’ soul. His doctrine that circumcision avails nobody and makes nobody righteous in and of itself can be seen in the Hebrew Bible in the generation of Israel that wandered in the wilderness before Joshua circumcised the people again in Joshua 5.

            In Paul’s mind Circumcision is the seal of G-d’s covenant, but he works with both Jew and Gentile equally in a kind of meritocracy.

            “Now this is why he did so: All those who came out of Egypt—all the men of military age—died in the wilderness on the way after leaving Egypt. 5 All the people that came out had been circumcised, but all the people born in the wilderness during the journey from Egypt had not. 6 The Israelites had moved about in the wilderness forty years until all the men who were of military age when they left Egypt had died, since they had not obeyed the Lord.”

            In Joshua 5 the generation was a generation of many hitherto uncircumcised Jews, and possibly the descendants of Circumcised Egyptians who had joined themselves to Israel as righteous people of the nations. (REMEMBER THAT ANCIENT EGYPTIANS PRACTICED CIRCUMCISION.

            In that specific instance, the statement of Paul that “circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but obedience to G-d is what counts.” would be completely legitimate. All Paul thought was that if you were a follower of Jesus, you were an equal member, whether you were a Jew or a gentile, and being a Torah observant Jew did not make you better than anyone else.

        • i agree brother CP, Paul seems to regard circumcision ineffective, but also Shabbat? Where?

        • “forget none of His BENEFITS” Amen…

      • Yehuda says:

        Rabbi B,

        Excellent as usual.

        I’m curious though as to why you didn’t address what I understand to be a serious weakness in the Christian position vis-a-vis Zecharia 6. The christian position is generally presented as having Zech 6:13 understood to be referring to a single person who is both the messianic king AND a priest. Of course the simplest reading of “bein shneihem” makes clear that we are talking about two people rather than two aspects of the same person. Isn’t that a threshhold point that needs to be made before one then speculates about why a priest is sitting on a throne. As you say there are any number of roles played by a high priest that could be expressed as him having a throne of his own, e.g. that of spiritual teacher and leader of a generation. But the question that Dr. brown is “shouting at us” from Zech 6 is the message that the “messiah will [himself] be a priestly king”, ie, that zech 6:13 is referring to one person and that, IMHO, is a very weak reading that should be deflated before one proceeds to the secondary arguments.

        Even the NIV which translates offers a primary translation of “V’haya” as “and he will be” is footnoted offering the alternative of “and there will be”. In other words even a Christian translation couldn’t see fit to completely ignore the most obvious meaning of the word which as used here along with “bein shneihem” pretty much inescapably imples that we are talking about two people – a messianic restoration of the Jewish monarchy alongside a virtuous high priest each with there respective roles thus ensuring a fully functioning Jewish people. Honestly, does this shout out as the King himself being a priest as Dr. brown claims it does or doesn’t it?

        Just my two cents.

        • Yehuda
          The reason I don’t take this line of attack is because Dr. Brown is expecting it and I feel that the route I took is shorter – once I wiped out his argument I will set the record straight

          • Yehuda says:

            Thank you Rabbi B. for indulging my questions.

          • Concerned Reader says:

            You guys have to remember also that he could argue that the Hasmoneans were priestly monarchs in a way, and they were accepted by the people, “so why can’t Jesus hold two offices?” Its a very on the spot kind of Christian apologetic that he could use to hand wave your points away on historical rather than scriptural grounds.

          • Yehuda says:


            1. A non scriptural argument should by Dr. Brown’s own standards be irrelevant?

            2. Jewish tradition is highly critical of the Hasmonean assumption of the monarchy as contrary to the requirement that the monarch must be a Davidian descendant of Judah.

            3. If one believed that appeal to the model of the Hasmonean type of “priest-king” was valid, it would undermine his position rather than support it because it would open the door to a possible interpretation of Zechariah 6 as a return of a Hasmonean type dynasty with no need to invoke dying for anyone else’s sins.


          • Blasater says:

            I actually think Brown is very vulnerable on his priest-king association. If the Hasmonean archetype was valid, he would have used it already. Its not valid and he knows it, per Torah.. He really wants to make the Davidic priest-king parallel. The problem for Brown in making that association is that David first had to be anointed as a Mashiach and assume Kingship BEFORE he was able to perform any such “priestly” duties. The Nazarene never was anointed and never assumed the Davidic throne, therefore it is an invalid parallel.

            So for the church to make the claim that first he had to come as a priest to deal with sin and then return as king to rule is invalid. The Hasmoneans,were a disaster in the long run. The priest-king model is how NOT to do it. The Davidic way was the reverse, King-Priest.

        • CP says:

          Nice to meet you. You wrote:
          “The Hasmoneans,were a disaster in the long run. The priest-king model is how NOT to do it.”

          Do you think the real problem could be the Hasmoneans weren’t legitimate priests?

          Would you mind sharing some info on your avatar pic?

      • Asham: Guilt Offering

        A guilt offering is an offering to atone for sins of stealing things from the altar, for when you are not sure whether you have committed a sin or what sin you have committed, or for breach of trust. The Hebrew word for a guilt offering is asham. When there was doubt as to whether a person committed a sin, the person would bring an asham, rather than a chatat, because bringing a chatat would constitute admission of the sin, and the person would have to be punished for it. If a person brought an asham and later discovered that he had in fact committed the sin, he would have to bring a chatat at that time. An asham was eaten by the kohanim.

        rabbi, i didn’t listen to the video again, but if my memory is correct, you said not all GUILT offerings were bloody/required blood? you said even bloodless items could be seen as an asham. can you please clarify.

        • mr. heathcliff Numbers 5:8 says that the “asham” goes to the priest aside from the ram-offering – it is clear from the context that in this case the “asham” is a monetary payment 1Samuel 5:3 has the Philistines sending golden images as an “asham” The word “asham” means simply guilt – or an offering that expresses and acknowledges guilt – it doesn’t have to be a blood offering

          1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >

          • can you help me understanding this verse:

            “….because he committed no violence, and there was no deceit in his mouth”

            i have two commentaries :

            Deceit/lying in general is associated with idolatry as in Zech. 10:2 – The idols speak deceitfully, diviners see visions that lie, similarly, Hab 2:18 – What profit is the idol when its maker has carved it, Or an image, a teacher of falsehood? and the sentiment in Ps 115:8 – Those who make them will be like them

            The text is only stating that the individual is not violent or that he worshiped idols (having deceit in the mouth being a reference to this ), i.e. he’s not corrupt like the people who are persecuting him, and as a result he is buried among them and is given a death sentence for not refuting God.


            so he is not lying and denying like the idolaters ?

  3. Yehuda says:

    Another thought Rabbi B.

    In Dr. Brown’s last video from about 3:05 to 3:40 or so he goes on about how “we don’t have to speculate” because the messiah did what he was supposed to do when he was supposed to do it and so now we can say “Aha, no I see it”. Now we can understand the ambiguities we didn’t see before.

    Now you did dedicate a few precious seconds to this at the end of part 2, but I had hoped that you might have dedicated a bit more emphasis to the chutzpah inherent in the circularity of this pathetic deflection of your appeal to read the Tanach on its own terms and see what you would or wouldn’t expect in the messiah. This was Dr. Brown once again admitting that only now that one KNOWS (I guess he thinks that was an empirically visible phenomenon) that jesus came when he did and died for our sins, can you now say, “Aha, now I see what zechariah 6 MUST have been talking about”. It found it almost cringe worthy listening to that part of Dr. Browns last entry. It basically begs Dr. Brown to explain once and for all, which parts of his christian proof texts are clear and fundamental and which ones come along for the ride after you have your “Aha moment” that sheds light on things that are clearly not there in the simple meaning of the scripture. It’s my observation that he hangs his hat on the arguments that he believes force one to accept that the messiah had to come while the second temple was standing. Deflate that, as you and many others have done, and the rest falls apart, almost by his own admission.

    Anyway, well done.


  4. Concerned Reader says:

    Good points Yehuda.

  5. edward says:

    why isaiah 53:10 cannot have christological lamb in mind .

    Vis-a-vis the translation question in this thread:

    There are lots of scholarly and academic translations which are appropriate. NRSV, which I suspect you used here, is fine much of the time. However, I would agree that it is flawed here in a few ways. The
    Hebrew is as follows:

    וַיהֹוָה חָפֵץ דַּכְּאוֹ הֶחֱלִי אִם תָּשִׂים אָשָׁם נַפְשׁוֹ יִרְאֶה זֶרַע יַאֲרִיךְ יָמִים וְחֵפֶץ יְהֹוָה בְּיָדוֹ יִצְלָח:
    וַיהֹוָה חָפֵץ דַּכְּאוֹ – And God desired to crush him הֶחֱלִי – make him sick. אִם תָּשִׂים אָשָׁם – if you give a guilt offering נַפְשׁוֹ – his soul יִרְאֶה זֶרַע יַאֲרִיךְ יָמִים – he will see seed (children/etc), his days will be made long (long life) וְחֵפֶץ יְהֹוָה בְּיָדוֹ יִצְלָח – And with the will of God in hand, he will prosper

    is the writer saying that the suffering servant is to make his life an offering in the same sense of making animal life as an offering for sins as is found in leviticus ? … whatever the hebrew word is behind “offering” is it meant to be taken literal ?

    אשם can mean guilt or can refer to a guilt offering. It does not refer to making an offering of a person and very importantly does not have a connector between אשם and נפשו.

    The sentence is, in effect, calling for repentance which, by extension, heals the suffering servant – granting him long life and children – rather than him continuing to be in pain due to the problems of society.

    what is the reason behind god crushing him?

    There is a general thread of God wishing to punish the wicked, but held back by the righteous who are compassionate. This is usually part and parcel with God making it particularly difficult for the righteous who, in effect, are defying the order God desires.

    In context I the person is very ill and sick from the beginning. God specifically is making his life harder to create repentance by this individual.

    • CP says:

      The problem I see with this interpretation is the two verses directly prior state three times this person dies.

      • Dina says:

        Whoever you want to argue this passage is about, it cannot possibly be about Jesus.

      • edward says:

        That was a scholars translation, not mines.

      • edward says:

        Do you agree that not as atonement for sins?

      • edward says:

        For he was cut off from the land of the living,
        stricken for the transgression of my people.

        Don’t know how accurate nrsv is here, but “cut off” does not always mean death/slayed

        • Dina says:

          Also the land of the living is in Hebrew a reference to the Land of Israel.

          • CP says:

            Dina & Edward,

            Oh, ya’ll are reeeeeeeeeeach’n!
            Not talking about death?
            Did you forget about the “grave” verse?

            As for “atonement”: even putting Yeshua aside, a righteous Tzaddik CAN make atonement. It could be atonement by their act leading others to repentance therefore atonement. Or perhaps this happened because man is sinful, therefore a judgement on man leading to repentance and then atonement.
            Btw, Yeshua qualifies for any of the three.

          • CP If its talking about a group of people than the death is a non-issue Teh word Asham simply means an offering that acknowledges guilt – as per 1Samuel 6:3 – the word “Asham” does not denote atonement

            1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >

          • CP says:

            I assuming you interpret the servant as a righteous remnant?
            If this is so, what about 53:6
            “All of us like sheep have gone astray,
            Each of us has turned to his own way;
            But the LORD has caused the iniquity of us all
            To encounter him”

            How can it be a righteous remnant when we ALL have gone astray? Is there some where else in Scriptue that speaks of righteous remnant making atonement for all Israel?

          • CP First of all – the speakers here are most likely the kings of the nations – so the “all” is referring to the other nations – not Israel. Even if you want to assume that its talking about the rest of Israel – you have 65:8 where it is because of the servants – plural – that God doesn’t destroy everything

            1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >

          • CP says:

            Last post; strike “atonement” and add guilt offering.

          • CP if we are talking about a guilt-offering then the servant is not sinless

            1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >

          • CP says:

            Maybe I’m being naive, but the issue of absolute sinless-ness doesn’t really concern me. Because Yeshua taught sin can be commited in the heart, who would really know if anyone was sinless? I’ve put this aside in favor of righteousness in spite of minor infractions.
            However; “guilt offering”. I know about kingsmen redeemer, redemption, atonement all of which can be enacted by another. What about a guilt offering? Can this be enacted by another or does this without exception have to be offered by the one who sinned?

          • CP the plainest sense of the word implies an offering that acknowledges guilt

            BTW – why do you need Jesus to believe that God loves you no matter what? Doesn’t the Torah teach that? That existence is an expression of God’s love?

            1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >

        • CP says:

          Thank you
          My personal answer to “why you need Jesus to believe God loves you no matter what?”
          To a Torah Scholar this might be common knowledge, but the average person deals with guilt, shame and rejection. The average person believes they need to be almost perfect so God will love them, but they they don’t have the power to do so. Even if they manage to keep commandments in their own power this often results in a prideful attitude.
          A suffering Messiah offering forgiveness to those undeserving of forgiveness exhibits GOD’s love which results in repentance and a relationship solely based on a realization of GOD’s great unconditional love and willingness to help.
          Bottom line: most people need help, they see supernatural help in the name of Jesus and millions have recieved help.
          Perhaps those raised in Othrodox Judaism already know they are unconditionally loved by GOD and don’t feel they need any supernatural help from GOD. This is why I’ve speculated in the past that Yeshua, (Messiah son of Joseph) may only for those who need him. I don’t know the plans of GOD, but I’m studying, asking and praying GOD would reveal that which is right for me to know.

          • CP Why should people think that they need to be perfect for God? the most popular book in the Bible is the Psalms – the message is very clear – I don’t think that anyone coming away from King David could think that God demands absolute perfection – unless they were taught otherwise by the salesmen of the Church

            1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >

          • CP says:

            Why? “The salesmen of the Church”
            I couldn’t agree with you more. Any time power and money consolidates in one place it attracts the wrong kind of people.
            One assumption you made which really isn’t correct is; Christians read Psalms or anything else of their Bibles and if they do it will be in the NT. I would suppose you deal primarily with those Christians who have read the Scriptures. The same can be said in Reform Judaism, I was surprised how little Scripture they know.
            Back to why Christians think they need to be perfect: Aside from the Scriptures which says; ‘Be perfect as I am perfect’ and ‘failing to keep one part of Torah you’ve broken it all’ I think creating the need for perfection justifies the need for a Savior.
            I can only speak for myself, but I’ve never felt worthy to stand before GOD entirely in my own merit without the mercy, compassion and understanding of GOD. I think that’s a good thing; it makes it about HIM rather than about me.

          • Dina says:

            Hey CP, where are those quotes from? Very curious where it says be perfect as I am perfect. I’m pretty sure my Bible doesn’t have it.

          • CP and where exactly does it say be perfect as I am perfect or if you fail to keep one part of the Torah its as if you’ve broken it all?

            1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >

          • Yehuda says:


            He (She?) is probably referring to bad translation of devarim 18:13. (being a Ba’al Kriah comes in handy sometimes.)

          • Dina says:

            That’s what I figured :).

          • CP says:

            Mat 5:48
            “Therefore you are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

          • CP Matthew was lying 1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >

          • CP says:

            Tools specific to Jas 2:10
            Jas 2:10
            For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles in one point, he has become guilty of all.

          • Dina says:

            You’re kidding, right, CP? You’re not quoting from Tanach, so this is about as circular as it gets.

          • CP says:

            We talked about this already; “reading in context” instead of a preconceived context. These scriptures were quoted in a response to why Christians believe what they do.

            (see what trouble this gets you in? I was really trying to help earlier when I took the time to explain your tendency to embrace the ‘us & them’ paradigm and how it effects what you read)

          • Dina says:

            I’m talking about text, not context. I asked you for Scripture to back up your assertion that God expects perfection, and you did not quote from the Hebrew Bible, which is the only Scripture relevant to Jews.

            You might as well quote from War and Peace or Henry VIII.

          • CP says:

            Dina, really?
            This is what you asked:

            Dina says:
            November 30, 2016 at 9:41 am
            Hey CP, where are those quotes from? Very curious where it says be perfect as I am perfect. I’m pretty sure my Bible doesn’t have it.

          • Dina says:

            CP, I’m pretty sure that “I’m pretty sure my Bible doesn’t have it” provides context for my question. But in case it doesn’t, I should have been more clear. Therefore, for clarity’s sake: where in the Hebrew Bible does it say be perfect as I am perfect or that if someone stumbles in one sin they failed everything?

          • cflat7 says:


            “I can only speak for myself, but I’ve never felt worthy to stand before GOD entirely in my own merit without the mercy, compassion and understanding of GOD”

            Great, but why do you need Jesus for “getting” GOD’s mercy, compassion and understanding? The Tanach as far as I know doesn’t say there is a barrier between us and GOD the requires an intervener… reoentence is all that is required.

    • “All of us like sheep have gone astray,
      Each of us has turned to his own way;
      But the LORD has caused the iniquity of us all
      To encounter him”

      i think that this verse goes on to say “by his wounds we are….”

      maybe they were mockingly saying this? christians are definitely not “healed” through bloodless wounds, but slaying of jesus.

      wonder if ” healed” has anything to do with atonement

      this is the problem when one reads hebrew text in christian english language, one doesn’t know what exactly is going on in the text.

  6. “Did you forget about the “grave” verse?”

    the translator said :

    אשם can mean guilt or can refer to a guilt offering. It does not refer to making an offering of a person and very importantly does not have a connector between אשם and נפשו.

    then he said :

    The sentence is, in effect, calling for repentance which, by extension, heals the suffering servant – granting him long life and children – rather than him continuing to be in pain due to the problems of society.

    question : hold on a second, is the suffering servant repenting? for himself ? oh no christians, suffering servant was definitely not sinless, he was repenting .

  7. edward says:

    hello cp, your thought on this :

    These aren’t typical descriptors which are used to say that someone died, but are quite metaphorical and poetic.

    Being cut off from the land of the living could be speaking of exile which plays into the theme of being removed from judgement.

    Alternatively, you could connect being cut off from the land of the living with the people’s plague (which you could say “kills” the land).

    He was assigned a grave with the wicked
    Better rendition: He gave his grave to the wicked and his deaths to the wealthy.

    • CP says:

      Yes, other interpretations are possible. Some verses have multiple interpretations being fulfilled at different times and ways. This means there can me more than one correct meaning for a passage of Scripture.
      I won’t argue a particular verse cannot be interpreted in more than one way. I ‘might’ debate which is the best interpretation but will usually agree there can be more than one.

      As for Isaiah 53, it is easy to prove this being Yeshua is a good interpretation with some merit. If it wasn’t a good interpretation seemingly to point to Yeshua, it wouldn’t be skipped over in the Parashot readings.

      • Eleazar says:

        CP wrote: As for Isaiah 53, it is easy to prove this being Yeshua is a good interpretation with some merit. If it wasn’t a good interpretation seemingly to point to Yeshua, it wouldn’t be skipped over in the Parashot readings.

        This reference of yours is literally text-book Christian apologetics, word for word. I could have cut and pasted that from McDowell or Strobel. I’ve been involved in religious debate for many years. Seems you just want to be able to say “I took the Jew’s best shot” while retaining your position in order to finally, once and for all, justify what you intended to keep all along. As far as I can see, you are not here to learn anything, but to confirm your private, one-man, Christian church as the “one true faith”.

        Too quote my synagogue’s Rabbi ( who is probably quoting someone else)- “Change will only come when it is more uncomfortable to stay the same than it is to change.”

        • Dina says:

          Eleazar, thank you for saying what I’ve been thinking all along. I’ve long suspected that CP is not here to “learn” anything but rather to convince himself and us of the rightness of his beliefs. I suspected this for the very reason you mentioned–his use of classic Christian apologetics. But also I have noted his dodging of nearly every challenge by changing the subject or seizing on something to be offended by. In my case, he is often offended by my intelligence, character, and motives (which he purports to know) and even my choice of words.

          I’ve been for this very reason thinking today about bowing out of the discussion. But I don’t think I have the self-restraint to remain silent when I see some of the things he writes. I might just respond for the sake of the audience. Still thinking about it.

          If any of you in the audience want me not to keep my mouth shut, send in your votes :)!

          • Eleazar says:

            I vote you keep posting ( sorry). You and Jim post great stuff; intelligent and easy for a guy like me to read.

          • CP says:

            Good grief, what “challenge” have I failed to answer now???
            Post it right here below and I’ll give you the most honest answer I can even if it is idk.

          • Dina says:

            For starters, CP, you haven’t answered the following challenges:

            1. My challenge on the true witnesses of God
            2. My challenge on transmission
            3. My challenge on our Oral Torah versus “yours”
            4. My challenge on your contention that Jesus was sent to the Lost Tribes
            5. Your unreasonable demand for accepting Jesus although you cannot give any good reason to accept him
            6. My challenge on your contention that the commandments are just rituals and not as important as loving God
            7. My challenge that Jesus has nothing to teach you about how to fulfill those commandments which are impossible to understand via a simple textual reading (such as tefilin)
            8. My challenge that following Jesus because he saved your life is non sequitur

            I don’t have the time to comb through all the conversations here to find the remaining unanswered challenges; these are off the top of my head.

            Many of your responses to my Scripturally backed positions have been unsubstantiated assertions, such as countering that the chain of transmission has not been unbroken without showing why or how God broke His promises which I cited.

          • Southern Noahide says:

            Dina asked: “If any of you in the audience want me not to keep my mouth shut, send in your votes :)!”


            This section of the peanut gallery would like to cast 2 votes (my hubby and me) in favor of you NOT keeping your mouth shut.

            We’ve also suspected for some time now, that he’s not here to learn. So post on dear Dina, post on! 🙂

          • Dina says:

            Thank you, Southern Noahide and your hubby, and also thanks to Eleazar, for your votes of confidence! 🙂 🙂 🙂

        • CP says:

          Everyone keeps talking about this cut and paste or textbook etc…. Yes, I’m sure I heard it somewhere, i don’t remember where, but I do a lot of studying both sides of this issue and this is something that stands out. You can go ahead and attempt a huge distraction, question my integrity and my motives, but why not simply discuss the issue? Why is this skipped over in the Haftarot? Was it a coincidence or what?

          • Yehuda says:


            You do a lot of studying, do you? Did you bother to try the Google search I suggested. Had you, you would have found this rather comprehensive treatment of the topic.


            Pay particular attention to the evidence that the Haftara sequence was set pre-christianity. As Rabbi B. pointed out.

            And then there is my counter-example about the fact that Isaiah 9:5 IS included as a haftara.

      • CP the myth of “skipped over” in the parshot reading is easily disproven – the cast majority of teh prophets are “skipped over” and the choice of texts was basically fixed from before the times of Jesus 1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >

  8. Jim says:


    It is difficult to make a measured response to such a vicious and unsubstantiated accusation. According to you, the Jewish people have suppressed the reading of scripture because it pointed to Jesus. This is mere speculation on your part, and it is so malicious that I would think that you would shudder to level the accusation without proof. Of course, many chapters of Tanach are not included in the haftorah. Surely you do not believe that they are all omitted due to some indication of Jesus within them.

    Absurdly you follow the doctrines of a man whose teachings, if they are preserved at all, are only preserved in books obviously manipulated, books that misrepresented the Torah and the Prophets. One would expect you to tremble mightily at the thought of making unfounded accusations of such perfidy while basing your theology upon obviously corrupted scriptures. Nevertheless, you are game to level the basest of accusations against the keepers of the Torah. Your audacity is surely unrivalled.

    God entrusted the Torah and Prophets to the Jewish people, and they have faithfully preserved his words. Meanwhile, the words of your prophet were entrusted to those who attempted to corrupt the Torah and the Prophets. And they did not, by your own account, even preserve his words faithfully. On one side, you have the true witnesses appointed by God and the other side, self-appointed false witnesses. If one wished to listen to the false witnesses, he would have to malign the true witnesses, as you have done. By smearing the true witnesses, he could justify to himself placing his trust in the false witnesses. I can understand why you wrote what you wrote, but it does not make it any less ugly.


  9. Yehuda says:

    Hi Jim,

    I appreciate your indignation, but I wouldn’t take it too seriously. The “They’re afraid of Isaiah 53” accusation is a standard piece of missionary idiocy that you can easily find online if you so much as Google “Haftarah and Isaiah”

    Hey CP, First of all you mean Haftarot, not Parashot. And how about Isaiah 9:5-6? That’s also a pretty prominent bit of Jesus prophecy, is it not? Are you aware that every Ashkenazic Synagogue in the world is going to read it during Sabbath morning services on Saturday February 18th as the climactic conclusion to the day’s Haftara reading. How foolish of us. Remind me then and I’ll let you know if it precipitates any large scale (or even small scale) stampeding to the baptismal fonts. I will have a unique vantage point as my synagogue is just a block away from not one but two churches – lucky me.(It actually works out nicely because the catholic church rings their bells on Saturday morning about 5 minutes before I need to leave for shul, so that comes in handy.)

    I’m surprised you don’t wonder why the entire book of Isaiah wasn’t hidden away by the Rabbi centuries ago given how dripping it is with Jesus prophecies (silly Rabbis).

    Forgive my sarcasm. You seem a decent sort. But when folks on this blog start recycling this kind of nonsense (and I have the time and inclination) I invariably shift into sarcasm mode, since it’s about as much of a response as that stuff deserves.

    Best (seriously).


  10. CP says:

    Jim & Yehuda,
    Wow, apparently I’ve unintentionally struck a nerve. You’ve made malicious what isn’t, If Jewish leaders thought a particular passage lent itself to be (mis)understood, they would be remiss in their duties to include it in the Haftarot. I will concede that I don’t know the thinking of the ones who decided on the readings, nor do I know if anyone knows. This would be worth looking into for curiosity sake.

    Yehuda, your sarcasm was not wasted on me; it was actually quite humorous!

  11. Yehuda says:


    Glad you weren’t offended. However, you said.

    “If Jewish leaders thought a particular passage lent itself to be (mis)understood, they would be remiss in their duties to include it in the Haftarot.”


    Do you even consider the possibility that you might be dead wrong on that presumption?

    You’re looking at a result and imputing a motive. I’ve offered you evidence that the Rabbis couldn’t care less about what Christians think scripture means as long as they don’t bother us – and the evidence I offered was precisely on point as it pertained to a haftara that includes a high usage christian “proof text”. 2000 years of experience have vindicated that decision as I am not aware that the reading in question has ever precipitated baptismal stampedes.

    If the vast body of 2000+ years of Rabbinic literature is notable for anything it’s for its virtual silence on christianity and yet christians are convinced that the Rabbis informed every move they made by looking over their shoulders at the church. If it wasn’t so laughable, it might rise to the level of being insulting.

    If you want to understand how haftaras were chosen, go back to the same google search the provided you with that bit of nonsense to begin with, and you will find it’s antidotes.

    Be well.


    • CP says:


      “….Rabbis couldn’t care less about what Christians think scripture means….”

      (Posted on a Anti-Missionary Blog site)

      You always seem to bring a smile to my face!

      • Yehuda says:


        I know you think that statement to be hypocritically ironic, but do you really think Jewish Counter-christian polemics would exist if missionaries pestering Jews didn’t exist. I notice you conveniently left out the last part of my statement which read” as long as they don’t bother us”

        Rabbi B. has a old post somewhere called Goldberg Vs. Brown which I just searched for. The poster made the following statement:

        “I received 17 years of Yeshiva education and I’m not sure I can recall a single instance of any teacher devoting any time to a serious discussion of Jesus. It’s a non-issue – until the missionary raises it.”

        As a Yeshiva graduate, I second that. Find me a yeshiva graduate who disagrees and then we can discuss how true or untrue my assessment of Rabbinic Judaism is.


        • CP says:

          Respectfully, you not getting it. Reguardless of who’s right and who’s wrong do you really think because your teachers never addressed Christianity’s view of Scripture this means something profound? I growing up Inreceived 10 years of catholic education and 4 of Protestant, guess what? Yep, they never discussed the Jewish Orthodox of Scripture, is this supposed to mean something equally profound?
          All this above is a distraction from Isaiah 53, jumping up and down waving your hands look over here! look over here!
          All I’m saying is Isaiah 53 “CAN” be interpreted as a individual, not that it “HAS” to be interpreted as a individual, that would be you. ‘I think you protest to much’

          • Dina says:

            It can be interpreted as an individual in the midrashic sense, not the plain meaning of the words–but even so that individual cannot be Jesus. I’m not getting into this with you because I spent a year debating a Christian missionary on this topic and I’m weary of it. But if you are interested in the Jewish position, I recommend Rabbi Skobac’s video presentations on the topic. Also check out Professor Uri Yosef’s comprehensive treatment of the subject:

            Here is Part 1:

            Click to access Isa53JP.pdf

            Here is Part 2:

            Click to access Isa53CP.pdf

            There are also quite a few articles on this very website with a good treatment of the subject. If you had studied both sides of the issue you would not bother to raise it, knowing at once how silly the Christian position is to Jews (and to reasonable people whose judgment is not colored by a blind, idolatrous love of a human being).

          • Yehuda says:

            “Respectfully, you not getting it. Regardless of who’s right and who’s wrong do you really think because your teachers never addressed Christianity’s view of Scripture this means something profound? ”

            Yes I do. It demonstrates that a comprehensive Jewish education feels absolutely no need to deal with Christian polemics. It never has and never will which is exceedingly relevant to your assertion that the Rabbis are worried about Isaiah 53 and are trying to hide it.

            “All I’m saying is Isaiah 53 “CAN” be interpreted as a individual, not that it “HAS” to be interpreted as a individual, that would be you. ‘I think you protest to much’”

            No that’s not all you’ve been saying.That may have been the springboard, but it led to your trotting out the silly and tired old claim that the Rabbis are afraid of Isaiah 53 and deliberately excluded it from the Haftara sequence. It was only when you did that, that I entered the fray and it is the only point I have been addressing so I have not been distracting anyone from anything. YOU introduced the distraction by repeating that absurd canard. If you are now tired of that distraction, that’s fine, but let’s not pretend that I introduced it.

            If you want to simply stick to discussing Isaiah 53 on it’s merits be my guest. I am comfortable to let others continue that discussion.

          • CP 10 years of Catholic education and 4 years of Protestant without discussing the Jewish read on Scripture – perhaps not the Jewish read on Scripture but certainly they discussed the Jewish “reasons” for not accepting Jesus unless they skipped large portions of the Christian Bible

            1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >

          • CP says:

            Nope, you are falling for the same thing, only on the other side of the fence.

  12. Yehuda says:

    Oh, and CP, don’t feel too bad about having quoted me and in doing so failing to even bother finishing my sentence much less including the context of the paragraph in which it was contained. It’s a classic christian move.

    Sorry. couldn’t help myself.

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 )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.