Did Dr Michael Brown Misapply Malachi 3 & Haggai 2?

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

35 Responses to Did Dr Michael Brown Misapply Malachi 3 & Haggai 2?

  1. CP says:

    R’B, I listened to your video twice, the second time with a couple Bibles, stopping at every Bible verse you quoted to read them first hand. I can’t speak to Dr Browns view and don’t necessarily disagree with your view except in my opinion it is slightly incomplete. Rather than machine gunning bible verses, I’ll just give a short explanation.

    I find it interesting David did Not build the Temple, but purchased, gathered and set things up so Solomon could build the Temple. David did the preliminary work, Solomon put it all together into a Temple. This fits perfectly with a two advent model of Messiah. The first to do the preliminary work, the second to bring it to completion.

    The work of setting things up, turning the hearts of the children back to their ancestors, back to Israel, to the commandments, to a future Messiah and a future hope; all accomplished by Yeshua. Things will be ready to start building when Messiah comes to put all the pieces together.

    Even the present physical realm testifies to this reality as both Christians and and Jews donate and support the Temple Foundation who is gathering and preparing, awaiting a future time when construction will begin.

    Yes, Messiah will be Temple builder, like David AND Solomon.

  2. Dina says:

    Rabbi B., I think some commenters here should read Jim’s excellent article, Horace’s Tree, of which the first comment on this video is a prime example.

    • CP says:

      Dina, being the only commentator, I assumed you must be referring to me : )
      Therefore I read “Horace’s Tree” with interest. However my interest waned upon realizing your suggestion was non sequitur.

      Naturally assuming you’d be aware of the finer details of the Golden Calf incident, I’m at a loss to why you’d suggest I read this? Therefore I feel inclined to point out to you it was not an Egyptian god the Israelites were worshiping, rather an image they made to represent the God who delivered them from Egypt. This is the same type of worship “Horace’s Tree” is describing which God instructed as forbidden.

      R’B’s Blog and my comment is about Messiah being a Temple builder, having nothing to do with the elements contained in “Horace’s Tree”. Therefore I can’t help but ask; my “comment on this video is a prime example.” of what?

      • Jim says:


        Was Dina’s suggestion a non sequitur? Though you do not worship Jesus as a god, perhaps you share some quality with Horace. If you reflect, you may see how “Horace’s Tree” relates to what you wrote here. Perhaps your reading of Tanach and his share some common principle.


        • Dina says:

          Jim, one thing I have found in talking to Christians: they are quickly able to spot what is wrong with Horace’s reading of Scripture, but they lack the self-awareness to see it in themselves.

        • CP says:

          Jim & Dina,
          How does speaking in vague generalities answer my question? I’m guessing you are implying I misread Scripture? Specifically how so?

          • TRM says:

            I CP, I would only guess that your link between David and Solomon and the two coming of messiah is extremely week. It’s a bit like saying that Joseph similarities with Jesus are prophecies instead of mere similarities.

            Now I have a question for you and Jim and Dina. My wife argue that I am not neutral when checking the claims of Yeshua. First of all, can we be neutral, and should we be neutral when looking at Yeshua’s claims that he is the messiah. I told her that we should not be neutral as his claims are so great and he actually replace G-d in so many aspect. I am not looking at Jesus the triune god, but just about the fact that he claimed to be the messiah. I would like to have your opinion and Dina and Jim’s opinions as well.

          • Jim says:


            You know what a non sequitur is. Your initial response to R’ Blumenthal is a non sequitur. Worse, you do exactly what I have been writing of for the past two weeks or so. You use scripture as a license for your belief. Like Horace, you begin with your conclusions and then you employ random passages to support your preconceptions.

            Not only do David and Solomon have nothing to do with two advents of the Messiah, they do not even support your argument. Your argument is that the Messiah is one man that comes twice. David and Solomon are two men, two different messiahs. The fact that you cannot point to a passage that says the Messiah will come twice with two different missions but have to rely upon ‘hints and shadows,’ that you have to push your agenda into the text carries with it an admission that no open proof exists for your belief.

            The trinitarian reads the scripture to find Jesus in the godhead. You do not do this. You just read it to find Jesus as the Messiah. But you both begin with your preconception and read Tanach and the rabbis to find support for you belief. You push your agenda into the text. You read it to give license to your beliefs, ignoring points of direct contradiction.

            Just a few weeks ago, in your zeal to support your theories about the holy spirit, you minimized the sin of worshiping a man. You wrote that it is not a fundament of Torah that one should worship God alone, treating this as just one interpretation of monotheism. Yet, of course, the Torah defines the limits on Whom one is to worship. Among the Ten Statements is the command not to worship any besides God. This is not a peculiar interpretation. Indeed, the defense you brought displayed that your reading of the text was in service to your agenda.

            As long as you continue to ignore contrary evidence to your positions and rely upon forced interpretations; as long as you come to the text with an agenda; as long as the object of your study is the hunt for Jesus, the object of your devotion; you will be unable to understand Torah or the rabbis. You will be reading like Horace. Certainly, you have a different goal, but the methodology is the same.


          • CP says:

            Jim, if you are going to accuse another of something inflammatory as:

            “You wrote that it is not a fundament of Torah that one should worship God alone, treating this as just one interpretation of monotheism.”

            The proper thing would be to copy and paste the quote, obviously to prove your accusation, but also so I’d know what in the world you were talking about!

            Jim, I am the one following a logical progression from R’B’s video, that was until you and Dina derailed it with “Horace’s Tree” and now accusations of reading into Scripture. Why can’t we have a friendly discussion.

            Allow me to give you a chance to get back on topic, along with your topic of reading into Scripture and with with R’B’s video. All you have to do answer a few questions:

            Did David actually build the Temple?
            If yes, provide proof.
            If no, then would you agree any statement implying Messiah will be a Temple builder like David is a product of reading into Scripture?
            Therefore, would it be proper to discover David’s involvement in the construction of the Temple and apply it to Messiah?
            Awaiting your drash.

          • CP says:

            “I CP, I would only guess that your link between David and Solomon and the two coming of messiah is extremely week. It’s a bit like saying that Joseph similarities with Jesus are prophecies instead of mere similarities.”

            It is not meant to stand alone, therefore by itself it is weak. However I was only expanding connections already made by the Video.

            Your wife has good intentions asking you to be neutral, but I think it is a near impossibility. Anything past a simple literal meaning of verse requires a ‘perspective’. From a neutral perspective you’re apt to see nothing. The best way is to slip on that other indian’s moccasins, walk over where he stands and take a look. Record what you see and save it. Then walk back to where you stand, put back your own moccasins and take a look, again record and save what you see. Do this enough and you’ll start to get a “feel” for the bigger picture. That’s where you can see best. -And pray for the Truth-
            Just my two cent answer to your question.

          • Jim says:


            It is difficult for a husband and wife to be on two different pages on issues like these. I have real sympathy for your situation, and I hope that your differences do not bring too great a tension between the two of you.

            You ask if it is possible to be neutral when considering the claims of Jesus. Two difficulties present themselves to the mind that desires to be neutral. The first is emotional, and the emotions can make it almost impossible to impartially consider the claims of Jesus. If one is attached to Jesus from youth, the idea of investigating the claims made either by Jesus or on his behalf is a difficult one. Because Christianity tells the story of a man rejected by others, it puts one in a position where he feels that he might be rejecting Jesus as well, a feeling which makes one extremely uncomfortable. He feels as if he might be hurting an innocent man, a man that cared about him. In this way, it can seem impossible to impartially consider the claims of Jesus. And similar emotional factors exist for some that do not believe in him, making it difficult for them to remain neutral as well.

            The second difficulty in remaining neutral is that the Western World is saturated with Christian ideas. One has trouble reading Tanach without carrying preconceived notions into the text. Of some of these, he may not even be aware. When reading the prophets, for example, he may find himself injecting into the text a Christological interpretation, only because it is in the zeitgeist. It is my opinion that this is what happens with Isaiah 53. When it is presented to people who are unfamiliar with Isaiah, it sounds like Jesus them because of the past 2,000 years of history. Generally, it does not come about because of the familiarity with Isaiah; indeed, readers are often quite ignorant of the rest of Isaiah.

            Each of these biases is difficult to overcome, but I believe it can be done to a sufficient degree. Moreover, I believe that in one’s initial inquiry into the claims of Jesus, it must be done. Each task carries its own difficulties. The person with emotional resistance must make up his mind that the truth is more important than his currently held opinions and attachments. He must recognize that if he does not yet know the truth of Jesus’ claims, he does not know what his emotional reaction to Jesus should be. Since he knows that truth is a good and he does not know yet if belief in Jesus is a good, he must attach his emotions to the pursuit of truth. This is a great difficulty, but the second difficulty may be the harder because he may not know what preconceived notions he brings to the text. Therefore, when he reads a text, he must not accept too readily the first idea that comes to his mind, but he must settle down to understanding exactly what the text is talking about. He must take nothing for granted. I believe that these steps can be done and that, though perfect neutrality is probably not possible, one can create for himself enough neutrality to investigate the claims of Jesus.

            As to whether one should be neutral in examining Jesus’ claims, I have already written that I think it is important during the initial investigation. Before I explain why, let me define what neutrality is and how the neutral investigator conducts himself.

            Neutrality begins with the statement, “I do not know.” Therefore, the first step of the investigator is to educate himself. The impartial investigator must first determine the definition of the Messiah. And, because the definition of the Messiah predates Jesus and the NT, he must ask what was the definition of the Messiah before Christianity. And then he will compare Jesus to that definition. As a neutral party, he will also be forced to consider certain prophecies from Tanach, because part of the Christian proof relies upon such proofs. Therefore, he will need to read those prophecies and the books from which they come. He must review whether or not they mean what the Christian says they mean. And he must ask whether or not he can know Jesus fulfilled them.

            The neutral investigator must be cautious not to fall into a trap, however. What happens sometimes is that the investigator does not realize he has dropped his neutrality. He comes to a prophecy and asks: “Does this sound like Jesus?” This is not a proper question. He has already tainted his reading by putting a lens before his eyes, so to speak. He must first just understand the passage, whatever it is talking about. Once he knows the subject matter of a passage and what is taught about that subject matter, then he can make comparisons if necessary.

            He must similarly avoid using indefinite passages to impose a reading on the text. He must not take a vague phrase and ‘interpret’ it by inventing a meaning for that phrase. This puts one in the unfortunate position of writing his own Torah. Therefore, he must be willing to admit that he does not know what a phrase means.

            After studying and reaching conclusions, the once impartial investigator need not remain emotionally neutral. On the contrary, his emotions should align with his understanding. But he will have to be careful about expressing these emotions to family members that disagree. These matters can be real points of contention. Discussions should be dispassionate, though one cannot be truly neutral anymore.


          • TRM says:

            Thank you CP and Jim, your explanations makes lot of sense. You are right that it is right to be neutral, but I doubt I can achieve neutrality. I was once a messianic (gentile) and used to believe for 5 years in Yeshua. I had doubts and went to look at counter messianic information and came to the conclusion Yeshua could not be the messiah. I don’t know if I could have been neutral with all my congregation trying to convince me I was wrong, taking bible verses out of context and play the “satan” card. After 2 or 3 years, I guess I could try again to be neutral. My wife has doubt now and we could look at them together. Now that I see both size, I feel it hard to return and be neutral. Christians will tell me that I only have to pray, but honestly, I don’t see the text fitting Jesus if I look into them in context. I would probably just give up all hope and search regarding Yeshua if my wife would not be there. I’d rather finish in hell knowing that I did not worship another god. I know that Judaism has weakness as well, but to be justified by a messiah that I do not see in scriptures does inspire me. I may have a lot of flaws and be a sinner, but I’d rather trust in a Holy G-d, than Jesus. Even if I know he has all the reason to do whatever he want of me, for all my short coming.

          • CP says:

            TRM, a lot of us go through what you are. In the midst of a Church congregation you can feel like the only one, but you’re not. We are just scattered out and almost the only ones, lol.
            Here is a site I think you’d enjoy, which may give you some additional insight:


          • Jim says:


            Is there any greater comfort than knowing that one can put his trust in HaShem rather than in a man? I cannot imagine one. Because we know that HaShem is without need and because we know that God created the world for our good, we can be certain that HaShem does not seek our destruction. Nor does he seek the destruction of another on our behalf.

            The Church imagines a god with a foreshortened arm, a god with no strength. He is a god bound in rules and either unable or unwilling to forgive unless suffering is inflicted upon someone, even the innocent. In Ezekiel 33:10, the people have said: “Our transgressions and our sins weigh upon us, and we waste away because of them; how then can we live?” The Church echoes this question. It is the question on the lips of every missionary. But the answer of the Church does not match that of Ezekiel. The answer of the Church does not match that of HaShem. Ezekiel continues: “Say to them, ‘As I live,’ says the Lord God, ‘I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn back from their ways and live.’” The Church might acknowledge that HaShem has no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but then it responds that He takes pleasure in the death of the righteous. But this is not what Ezekiel says. Ezekiel says that HaShem wishes that we would turn away from our ways. HaShem says of those that turn back to Him: “None of the sins that they have committed shall be remembered against them; they have done what is lawful and right, they shall surely live” (Ez. 33:16). No one need die for the sins of another; one need only turn back to HaShem.

            The Church will say that this is to make light of God’s righteousness. They will say that someone must pay the penalty for sin, if not the sinner then someone. In this, they echo what the people say in Ezekiel: “The way of the Lord is not just…” (Ezekiel 33:17). It does not seem right to them that HaShem would ‘just’ forgive a person. But HaShem’s response is that “it is their own way that is not just” (Ezekiel 33:17). And He reiterates that He desires the wicked to repent: “And when the wicked turn from their wickedness, and do what is lawful and right, they shall live by it” (Ez. 33:19).

            Sadly, the Church often portrays this teaching as trusting in one’s own righteousness. But this is not the case at all. Indeed, this is trust in the promise of HaShem, trust in His love and in His goodness and in His mercy. This is the God that assured Moses of His mercy: “…a God merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness, keeping steadfast love for the thousandth generation” (Ex. 34:7). We can be assured of His kindness extended toward us. So assured can we be that we know that if he punishes us, it is for our good, an act of kindness: “My child, do not despise the Lord’s discipline or be weary of his reproof, for the Lord reproves the one he loves, as a father the son in whom he delights” (Prov. 3:11-12). Such punishments are a call to return to Him, where we are assured of His forgiveness, mercy, and generosity.

            One of the blessings of God is the conscience. It serves to motivate one to review his actions, to see if he has not violated God’s precepts, to see if he has not ill-used another. Guilt, when used properly, is a blessing, urging the sinner to return to HaShem. But guilt can be a burden to those that do not properly heed it. The guilty can become hopeless, feeling he may never be right with God, as those in Ezekiel. The Church compounds this guilt by telling its adherents that they are so bad that God could never forgive them. Not only that, an innocent man needed to be terribly shamed, beaten, and murdered on their behalf. This can create in incredibly over-powering guilt in people, creating in them the sense that they are worthless.

            All this leads to the mistake of putting their trust in a man rather than in HaShem. Because they have been told that HaShem could never tolerate them, He feels forever far away. Moreover, He is an object of fear, because He would destroy them. Jesus on the other hand, rather than wanting to destroy them, was willing to suffer and die for them. His love appears to the Christian to be so much greater than the love of God. God was willing to send someone else to die. Jesus was willing to actually do the dying.

            And so his trust and affection is given to a man.

            All the while, he does not know that HaShem did not need someone to die for Him. He does not know that HaShem loves him enough to forgive him if he will but make amends and return to HaShem. He does not know that his trust in a man is misplaced, but trust in HaShem can never be misplaced. HaShem does not wish his destruction. Nor is HaShem powerless to forgive those that have violated His Torah.

            You are right to put your trust in HaShem.


  3. Dina says:

    Oops, I forgot to follow.

  4. Jim says:


    In response to your questions:

    “Did David actually build the Temple?
    If yes, provide proof.
    If no, then would you agree any statement implying Messiah will be a Temple builder like David is a product of reading into Scripture?
    Therefore, would it be proper to discover David’s involvement in the construction of the Temple and apply it to Messiah?
    Awaiting your drash.”

    When you ask if David “actually” built the temple, I understand you to mean “literally”. To this I answer “no”.

    However, David can be said to be a builder of the temple in that he assembled much of what was needed for the temple—iron, bronze, and cedar as well as cut stone (1 Chronicles 22.) Moreover, he wrote the psalms that would be sung there. Indeed, he charged Solomon to build the temple.

    Therefore, no, it is not reading into scripture to liken the Messiah to a “Temple builder like David”.

    Moreover, because a comparison can be drawn does not mean that just any comparison can be drawn. Indeed, it tells us why David could not be responsible for the actual building, because David was a warrior (1 Chr. 22:8-10). Reading a Messiah that comes twice is an imposition on the text.


    • CP says:

      Jim, since “David……assembled much of what was needed for the temple—iron, bronze, and cedar as well as cut stone ….. Moreover, he wrote the psalms that would be sung there. Indeed, he charged Solomon to build the temple.”

      Wouldn’t it be more of an imposition on the Text to say Messiah will literally build the Temple as David did, when David didn’t literally build it? The two advent model is actually much less an imposition on the Text. One advent preparing as David did, one advent literally building as Solomon did.

      • Jim says:


        Nothing in the text demands a two advent model. This is demanded by your need to find Jesus in the text, as Horace looks to find his tree. You have brought your prejudice to the text and then looked for a support for it. But nothing about David and Solomon asks for such a reading.


        • CP says:

          Jim, I’m not sure what you don’t understand about David not building the Temple, or like you’d like say completing it. If one is going to draw a analogy, the analogy must be drawn from accurate facts. You can’t change the facts to suit your analogy.

  5. Jim says:


    I am sorry that I did not quote your inflammatory statements directly. I did not realize that you would not remember something from a few weeks ago. You wrote:

    “Ahh, Jim,
    Great analogy! But not conducive to your argument, for it is you who error on the basics by defining as a ‘basic’ your one particular distinct perspective on the doctrine of Monotheism. When rather the real ‘basic’ is to love the one God with all your heart, mind and soul and love your neighbor as yourself.”

    This comment can be found here: https://yourphariseefriend.wordpress.com/2014/06/23/%EF%BB%BFclaiming-originality-excerpt-from-supplement/#comment-32274 .

    That comment was in answer to what I wrote here:

    https://yourphariseefriend.wordpress.com/2014/06/23/%EF%BB%BFclaiming-originality-excerpt-from-supplement/#comment-32272 .

    My comment can be summed up thusly, one who cannot understand a basic of Torah, that God is not a man, then he has no claim to being endowed with a spirit of truth. It is to this that you respond that I have defined ‘basic’ badly.

    I do agree with you that your words are rather inflammatory. You create a false dichotomy and diminish one of the fundaments of Torah in order to support your views on the spirit of truth. This is no way to approach Torah, with your agenda ever guiding your efforts to interpret it.


    P.S. Thanks to the little birdie that found the link for me.

    • CP says:

      Jim, thank the little birdie for me also. Now I know you didn’t understand a word of what I said, therefore you misunderstood it. However in light of the numerous times I’ve affirmed the Shema, I’m at a loss how you could misconstrue my words so terribly.

      • Jim says:


        I did not say that you do not believe that God is one; nor did I say that you believe that Jesus is God. I wrote that you minimized worshiping a man as God. In declaring this not to be a basic, this is exactly what you have done.

        If I misconstrued your words, you should show me how. It is easy to just tell someone they did not understand without showing them their error. But anyone can read the thread of our conversation and see that I did not misconstrue your words.


        • CP says:

          Jim, the basic is; ‘God is One and we are to Love Him alone as our God’
          —That’s considered Basic—
          Anything more than that, such as any particular brand of ‘oneness’ is Not considered a “Basic” but rather, something which builds on the “Basic”.

    • Dina says:

      Jim, I don’t think you misconstrued anything. I think someone has a problem admitting he got caught in a contradiction. Why can’t people just admit when they misspeak? I read this thread and I understood it the same way you did.

      I plan to post a comment why debating with liars is a fruitless proposition. Coming soon…

      • CP says:

        Dina, it is proper etiquette when accusing another not to use vague generalities, rather, be specific. Not only is it proper etiquette, it will make your accusations more believable.

  6. Jim says:


    You ask: “Why can’t we have a friendly discussion.”

    This is a good question. I would say it largely has to do with your lack of civility.

    You are constantly insulting to Dina. Your comments to her are sarcastic, marked by unnecessary sighing (which you take the time to type) and other comments meant to show your impatience.

    When Concerned Reader disagreed with you, you could not civilly offer a counter-argument. Instead you told him that you thought an inferior mind had taken over his account. When he showed offense, you only continued the insult. Meanwhile, you had the tenacity to tell him that he was distracting from the topic by taking offense to your rudeness and that he should have been flattered by a comment that implied you expected better of him.

    You have insulted me at various points, telling me for example that I like the sound of my own voice. Yesterday, you compared me to the U.N. and yourself to Israel. While I tend not to be offended by insults to myself, they certainly do not promote friendly discussion.

    (If you need links and quotes, I will find them for you.)

    At the same time that you offer petty insults and disparaging comments, you are rather thin-skinned. In my case, I know that where I offered you no insult, you invented one, attributing to me things that I never said. Funnily enough, when I asked you how I insulted you, you purported to quote me, but for whatever reason, the space for the quote remained blank.

    Just as you look to take offense, you look for trouble. You go to another forum and then boast about how you do not expect to last long there. You joke about beginning a pool for how long before you are banned. Then you proudly announce that it has happened.

    All of these marks of incivility are not conducive to “friendly discussion”. If you would care for friendly discussion, refrain from insulting your opponents. Stop looking for insult where none was offered. These things would be a start.


  7. Dina says:

    An Open Letter to CP: Why I Have Disengaged

    CP, I write this letter to explain why I have disengaged from you.

    In these pages, I have argued that Jesus gave signs that failed to come to pass. One sign is the sign of Jonah that Jesus gave to the Pharisees. I contended that since Jesus failed to appear to them after his resurrection, this sign fails. In response, you said that Jesus never promised the Pharisees that he would appear to them in resurrected form.

    If someone twists things to support his argument, what are you supposed to do? Matthew says right here: “Then some of the Pharisees and teachers of the law said to him, ‘Teacher, we want to see a sign from you.’ He answered, ‘A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a sign! But none will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth’ ” (Matthew 12:38-40, NIV, my emphasis) and then again in Chapter 16:1-4: “The Pharisees and Sadducees came to Jesus and tested him by asking him to show them a sign from heaven. He replied…A wicked and adulterous generation looks for a sign, but none will be given it except the sign of Jonah” (NIV, my emphasis).

    As you can see, the Pharisees specifically asked for a sign to be shown to them, a sign that they could see. Jesus promised them this sign, reluctantly, grudgingly, angrily–but still he promised them this sign. That means that, yes, he owed them a personal visitation. There’s no point in promising a sign to an audience when you have no intention of showing its fulfillment. It is clear as day that when a prophet gives a sign, the people asking for it expect to see the fulfillment; it is clear as day in this instance as well.

    Jesus promised the Pharisees the sign of Jonah, but failed to deliver. How can you expect anyone to argue with you when you brush off their arguments with what comes across as a lie? Do you realize it comes across this way?

    I also argued that Jesus promised his disciples that before they died they would see him coming on the clouds to gather all the elect. In response, you said that if Jesus did not make this promise then it is intellectually dishonest of me to say he did. But he did! See here:

    Matthew 24:34: “Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened” (NIV). Jesus gives a list of “these things” in the preceding verses, which include this: “And then all the peoples of the earth will mourn when they see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven, with power and great glory. And he will send his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other” (ibid 30-31, NIV).

    How can I argue about Jesus’s statements if you brush them off by saying Jesus never said that? (Or if I never know when you’ll brush them off as a later redaction?)

    You also argued at one point that Jesus had to spread Torah to the gentiles because the Jews had failed to teach Torah to the nations as the Torah instructs them to do. Do you realize this is a lie? Do you not know that the Torah does not instruct us to teach Torah to the nations of the world? If you use falsehoods to support your position, how can you expect our dialogue to produce fruit?

    I offer an argument, and you says it’s not true when it clearly is; I make a statement and you use false statements to defend your position; I state a position and you “rebut” it with fake rabbinic quotations and fake Talmudic quotations. Under these circumstances, how can a fruitful and honest discussion proceed?

    I do not wish to call you a liar because it is a terrible accusation to make, terrible because a liar is someone who lies habitually. The conscience of liars does not prick them when they lie. Do you realize that you come across this way? When I point out to you that you posted fake quotes, why does this not trouble you? Why do you go on to repeat the offense? When I point out that you cut and pasted others’ work without attribution, why do you scoff at me, as if I am the one with the problem, because, hey, it’s the twenty-first century and everyone does it?

    Do you not know that not everyone does it, and most if not all colleges would fire a professor who commits plagiarism? Do you realize how it looks to us when you laugh off such a serious breach of ethics as if it were nothing? Can you see how one might view with horror the advantage you take of the cover of a screen name to plagiarize with impunity?

    Can you see why all these offenses and your lack of compunction might make people think that engaging in debate with you is futile?

    Do you realize that you come across as a person who will never be convinced by any amount of evidence because it seems as though the only great sin in your mind is the sin of rejecting Jesus? When it seems that the only dishonesty you see is disagreement with your views? Can you see why some of us might think that you view lies and even idolatry (a mere imperfection, you say) as nothing in the service of Jesus, that you sacrifice your honor and integrity on the altar to Jesus?

    • CP says:

      Dina, I’ve made you a promise of teshuva concerning you which I intend to keep. This does not prevent me from correcting errors in your representation of me.
      1) Yeshua never promised the Pharisees a personal visit after resurrection.
      2) I NEVER said Yeshua spread Torah BECAUSE the Jews failed to do so.
      3) Seeing the “coming on the clouds” is promised to the latter generation that sees ‘these things’ start to happen. There is also a drash for this statement beyond the scope of his text.
      4) I’ve trusted other sites for Talmudic quotes. When corrected I asked for help in being able to discover what is legit and recieved none, rather just told they are wrong. Since then I’ve begun a personal study in this field.
      5) Copying and pasting Scripture lists without commentary is not plagiarism.

      • Dina says:

        CP, instead of getting defensive, I ask you to open your mind and open your heart and read my words again. You are missing the point.

        This is why debating with you is so difficult. Jesus did promise the Pharisees that they would see his resurrected form. Yet you keep saying he didn’t, just because he didn’t use those exact words. It’s just plain wrong, and it makes you come across as someone who is not searching for truth but who is searching for a way, any way, to shore up his pre-existing belief.

        Right, you didn’t exactly say that Jesus spread Torah because the Jews failed to do so, but you said this, and the implication is clear: “What you fail to realize; Israel was instructed to share Torah with the nations. Did they do it?…Do you not realize Yeshua did what God commanded Israel to do; to be a light to the nations?” (from https://yourphariseefriend.wordpress.com/2016/11/30/christian-anti-semitism-is-it-still-relevant-by-jim/#comment-31727).

        My point here was that Israel was not instructed to share the Torah with the nations. That is a lie. That is the point that you missed.

        If you post fake quotes, what else is there to say? They’re wrong, what more do you want? We’re supposed to explain why? The thing that was troubling here was your lack of concern over the false quotes. Why were you not horrified to have been so deceived and why did you keep going to those deceitful sites? Again, you missed the point.

        Copying and pasting anything is plagiarism. Calling a list comparing two characters in scripture a “scripture list” does not make it less so. If someone were writing an essay comparing two characters in The Merchant of Venice and cut and pasted a list from a website, would it be okay if he called it a “literature list”? Do you realize that’s what you sound like? Do you realize that you sound like truth and honesty are just not important to you?

        • CP says:

          1) If I am wrong, yet able to honestly shore up a pre-existing belief, you haven’t presented the appropriate truth to knock it over.
          2) You write: “My point here was that Israel was not instructed to share the Torah with the nations. That is a lie. That is the point that you missed.” .
          I consider this a provable theory considering Israel is to be a “light to the Gentiles”. Which btw I qualified in what you quoted above. “…God commanded Israel to do; to be a light to the nations…”
          3) “fake quotes”. Even if you can read the Talmud in Aramaic we are just taking your word for it they are “fake”. I need to research this still.
          4) If you insist on accusing me of plagiarism for copying/pasting a Scripture list of what OTHERS believe about Moses/Jesus after you expressed bewilderment at how THEY could believe such a thing; this at most proves me lazy for not posting a source. I never implied credit nor took it, they weren’t my beliefs. However the repeated accusations of plagerism over this ONE thing, giving no benefit of doubt, says much about where you are coming from, and it saddens me.

          • Dina says:

            CP, this is going to be my final word on the matter, as I have nothing more to add to what I previously wrote. It gave me no joy to write it, and it pains me to see your inability to accept my words, just as you do not see the impossibility of honestly shoring up a pre-existing belief (it simply cannot be done), just as you would not accept Jim’s rebuke to you concerning your incivility, seeing yourself only as unjustly wronged.

            It is painfully clear that at this point you cannot or will not hear me. Perhaps one day my words will sink in. I have no hard feelings and wish you well.

            Henceforth, I will continue to address my comments to the audience.

  8. Pingback: The Real Jewish Messiah – part 3; Notes | 1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources

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 )

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.