The Real Jewish Messiah, Rabbi Blumenthal Debates Dr. Brown – Part 3
We have arrived at the third and final segment in the debate about the real Jewish Messiah. Where do we stand? What have we learned thus far?
Dr. Brown has shared a narrative, a portrait of what he believes about the Messiah. His narrative has a sinless Messiah dying for the sins of the world, rejected by the Jews and accepted by the gentiles. Dr. Brown encourages his audience to put their trust in this Messiah of his. From the standpoint of a Jew who trusts in God Dr. Brown is telling us that until we put our trust in his Messiah, our trust in God remains inadequate and incomplete. As part of his Messianic narrative, Dr. Brown looks forward to a day when those who do not trust in his Messiah will be put to shame, despite the fact that these people do trust in God.
In an effort to establish a Scriptural basis for his narrative Dr. Brown quoted many passages from the Jewish Bible and he accuses me of ignoring and overlooking these passages. My response to this accusation is that I have actually read these passages and it is these passages that tell me to reject Dr. Brown’s Messianic narrative; these very Scriptures testify clearly and unequivocally that Dr. Brown’s narrative is false.
For the purpose of illustration let us look at Dr. Brown’s citation of Psalm 22.
Dr. Brown points to Psalm 22 in his effort to establish a Scriptural basis for his Messianic narrative. Again, Dr. Brown’s narrative tells us that the Jewish trust in God is empty and insufficient until this trust is supplemented with trust in his Messiah. But the underlying spirit of Psalm 22 points us to the Jewish trust in God. In the beginning of the Psalm David identifies God as the One who sits enthroned upon the praises of the Israel (verse 4). And you know Whom it is that Israel praises and whom they don’t praise. David then addresses God and says; “It was in You that our fathers trusted and You delivered them. It was to You that they cried out, they trusted and were not put to shame” (Verses 5,6). The Psalmist is looking up to the trust of the Jewish people as an ideal to emulate, as a goal to strive for. The Psalm ends with all of Israel coming to the knowledge that God hears the outcry of the poor. The song of this Psalm is a song of the power of Israel’s trust in God and Dr. Brown wants his audience to read it as a teaching on the weakness of Israel’s trust in God. That is like quoting the Declaration of Independence as if it exalted despotism and tyranny. It is like quoting a song about love and loyalty as if it were a song of hate and treachery.
Dr. Brown’s narrative violates the very heart of our Scriptures.
In my presentation I shared the Jewish narrative that sees the Messiah as King of the Jews and as one who sits on the throne of David. As King of the Jews the Messiah will lead Israel to its destiny. This is the destiny promised to Abraham, that his children be a blessing for all the nations. As one who sits on the throne of David, the Messiah will continue and uphold the legacy of David.
Dr. Brown did not dispute my understanding of the Scriptures. Dr. Brown acknowledges that the Messiah is King of the Jews and that he sits on the throne of David. Dr. Brown recognizes that the Messiah will validate Israel’s message and continue the legacy of David. Dr. Brown accepts that I read the Scriptures correctly concerning these foundational Biblical teachings.
So where does Dr. Brown disagree with me? How does he respond to my narrative?
Let’s break this apart. There are 3 areas where Dr. Brown disagrees with me.
The first of these is not directly related to the concept of the Messiah. I mentioned in passing that even before the final redemption, Israel fulfills its destiny, in a minor way, to be a blessing to the nations. As a priestly nation Israel is the guardian of God’s truth, we bear God’s message through the corridors of history. And by carrying God’s message we bring blessing to those around us who hear our message and are inspired to serve God.
Dr. Brown spent a lot of time in his rebuttal arguing against this aspect of our role in God’s plan. Dr. Brown argues that Israel did not bring blessing to her gentile neighbors. Dr. Brown quoted Scripture after Scripture which records God’s rebuke to us and which describe how we profane God’s name. Instead, Dr. Brown claims that it is his Messiah that brought blessing to the nations.
I don’t understand how these Scriptures are a response to what I have said. I never said that it is our behavior that brings blessing to the nations. I said that it is our message that inspires and uplifts the people around us. Our message is bigger than us because it is not our message, it is God’s message. Dr. Brown did not present one passage that says that we no longer bear God’s testimony. Throughout history the Jewish people carried a message of trust in One God who is the Father of all creation. And our message did uplift and did inspire.
But once Dr. Brown has brought our behavior into the discussion I will take the time to respond. The fact of the matter is, wherever Jews go, like their ancestor Joseph before them, they elevate the economy of their host country. They raise the standard of justice, of education, of medicine, of innovation and they encourage the rights of the individual and respect for human life. John Adams wrote about the Jewish people that they have done more to civilize men than has any other nation. Even if you want to think that this is a generous exaggeration let’s contrast the blessing of our nation with the impact of Dr. Brown’s Messiah.
The foundational texts from which Dr. Brown draws his Messianic narrative tell us that the Christian Messiah defined the Jew as a child of the devil, as a murderer, as an enemy of God and as a liar. These same texts describe the religion of the Jews as legalistic, cruel, arrogant and hypocritical. Those who trusted in Dr. Brown’s Messiah have been teaching these murderous lies to their children for the past 2000 years. The result of this ceaseless slander was the tragic history of the Jewish people in Europe. But as tragic as our history was, the far greater tragedy was the fact that so many people were persuaded to hate and to persecute. Yes, there were many righteous Christians who did not participate in these crimes, but so many more people were moved by this slander to kill and to hate. What “blessing” is Dr. Brown talking about?
The second area of disagreement relates to the message of Israel. Dr. Brown accepts my understanding of Scripture when I say that the Messiah is King of the Jews. If the Messiah is King of the Jews it would follow that the Messiah ought to validate the message of the Jewish people, not contradict it. And Dr. Brown agrees with this principle. However, Dr. Brown makes the outrageous claim that the Messiah of Christianity confirms and validates Israel’s message.
For 2000 years the Jewish people have been forcefully declaring that the message of the Church is NOT our message. With our very lifeblood we have testified that the worship that the Church is demanding is idolatry, the deepest violation of the covenant that we share with God. And Dr. Brown nonchalantly reassures his audience that the message of the Church is the message of Israel. In essence, Dr. Brown is telling you to ignore what the Jewish people are saying, and instead let the Church tell you what the Jewish people ought to be saying.
This behavior is nothing new. This goes back to the very foundations of Christianity. The foundational texts of Christianity provide a narrative not only about what Christians believe, but also what the Jewish people believe. The Christian Scriptures tell the world why it is that the Jewish people do not accept the claims of the Church. Instead of telling the truth, that the Jewish people do not accept their claims because they love God and they believe that every iota of trust that exists in the human heart belongs to God alone, the Church tells the world that the Jews reject their claims because the Jews are children of darkness who hate God.
But despite all of the Church efforts to silence us, the Jewish people are alive and well. We can speak for ourselves. And if God established His testimony in Jacob, as Psalm 78 declares, then you go to Jacob to hear that testimony, not to Jacob’s opponents. And if God called us His witnesses, as Isaiah 43 teaches, then you go to the Jewish people to hear God’s message, not to a book that was canonized by those who would silence us and who reject our message.
The third disagreement that Dr. Brown has with my narrative has to do with the Messiah sitting on the throne of David. Dr. Brown acknowledges that the Messiah does indeed sit on the throne of David, and as such, the Messiah will uphold and continue the legacy of David. Dr. Brown agrees with my understanding that if we want to understand what it is that the throne of David stands for we need to look into the Book of Psalms, the book in which David opened his heart. However, Dr. Brown tells us that the Book of Psalms point to the Christian narrative.
The entire thrust of the Book of Psalms is trust in God. The Psalms have been guiding the Jewish people since they have been written nearly 3000 years ago. The Psalms gave us the fortitude, the strength and the calmness of spirit to withstand the ridicule and the persecution of the Church and Dr. Brown would have us believe that the Psalms confirm the Christian message that the God of David is inadequate!? That you cannot approach God without first bending your heart to the Messiah of Christianity!? Where does Dr. Brown see these concepts in the songs that loudly declare the very opposite message?
Dr. Brown tells us that I forgot Psalm 110 and Psalm 22. It is in these two Psalms that Dr. Brown sees this Christian message. What part of Psalm 110 is Dr. Brown talking about? It is not verse 3 which speaks of Israel gladly following their king. No, Dr. Brown is looking for a narrative of Israel rejecting its Messiah. Perhaps he is referring to verses 5 and 6? But they refer to the destruction of the nations, not something that fits Dr. Brown’s narrative. So what is Dr. Brown talking about?
Dr. Brown is talking about 1 word in the Psalm, the word “priest.” He invests that word with a Christological meaning that has nothing to do with Scripture. The Scriptures clearly indicate that the Messiah is a guardian of God’s truth and in this sense he fulfills a priestly function. But Dr. Brown insists that the Messiah needs to effect atonement, a function assigned by Scripture to the Levitical priests and to them alone. When Dr. Brown accuses me of “forgetting Psalm 110” he means that I forgot the theology that he imposes upon one word in that Psalm. It is he who forgot what the Psalmist took the pains to spell out explicitly and clearly, but for Dr. Brown, Psalm 110 is not about what the Psalmist actually says, but rather it is about the Church theology that is imposed upon the words of the Psalmist.
Dr. Brown accuses me of forgetting Psalm 22. What is so significant about Psalm 22? Dr. Brown tells us that this Psalm speaks of a righteous sufferer who is saved. And the salvation of this righteous sufferer brings the entire world to turn to God. Who could this be but the Christian Messiah, argues Dr. Brown.
Let us remember, the Christian narrative has the Messianic age move from the Messiah as an individual to the gentiles and then and only then to the Jews. But the Psalm speaks of the Jews being moved by the salvation of the individual sufferer (verses 23-27) before it speaks of the nations coming to serve God (verses 28 and 29). The Psalm confirms the Jewish narrative that has the nations coming to God only after the Jewish people fulfill their calling to serve and to praise God.
Psalm 69 describes the same sequence of events; an individual sufferer, the salvation of this individual, the salvation of Israel and it is only when Zion is built and only because Zion is built that the nations are inspired to serve God (Psalm 69:36).
Furthermore, Psalm 69 reveals to us that this suffering individual is not perfectly sinless as required by the Christian narrative. In verse 6 of that Psalm our righteous sufferer speaks of his sins before God. The righteous sufferer that triggers off the salvation of the world has nothing to do with the Christian narrative.
The individual of Psalm 22 and Psalm 69 is our King, David. His own experience has inspired Israel for the past 3000 years. The prophet is promising us that ultimately our loyalty to David and his message will lead us to our destiny, to be a blessing to the all the nations.
This debate was about the real Jewish Messiah. What does the Scripture teach us about the real Jewish Messiah? The most important word that the Scriptures gave us to describe the Messiah is “David.” The Scriptures called the Messiah by David’s name 6 times (Jeremiah 30:9, Ezekiel 34:23,24, 37:24,35; Hosea 3:5). The prophet describes our yearning for the Messiah as yearning for our King David (Hosea 3:5). There is no person in all of Scripture that we know as well as David. David’s heart is the most open heart in all of Scripture. His heart is bare for all of us to read in the Book of Psalms.
Everyone agrees that if you want to know what the Messiah is all about then you need to read the Book of Psalms. But I encourage you, don’t read the Psalms like Dr. Brown, searching for a word or a phrase that you could exploit to support what the Church would have you believe. Instead read the Psalms as the followers of David have been reading them for 3000 years, feeling David’s heart. Open your heart to the song and to the spirit of the Book of Psalms.
When you open your heart to the Book of Psalms you will discover the personality of the Messiah. You will see a king who leads with humility, emphasizing his own utter helplessness before God and his total dependence upon God. You will not see a king who emphasizes his supposed superiority over other people. You will see a king who recognizes that every breath of air that God grants him is an expression of God’s love and he encourages you to look at your existence the same way. You will find a king who brings every fear, every worry, every problem and every sin directly to God and to God alone and he directs you to do the same. In the Psalms you will see a king who directs all of mankind’s devotion and worship towards God and he doesn’t divert an iota of that devotion towards himself. And you will see a king who does not stand apart from other men, emphasizing the differences that separate him from others. Instead, you will find a king who stands shoulder to shoulder with mankind inviting all of humanity to sing God’s praises together with him.
The Messiah will sing David’s song. He will take that same song and bring it home to all of humanity. The Messiah will make David’s song resonate in every heart. The Messiah will take the same message of David and make it the message of all mankind.
Psalm 148 gives us a taste of the Messiah. In that Psalm David invites all of creation to sing the praises of God together with him, the heavens, the earth and all of mankind. And when the Messiah comes he will bring all of mankind to join in David’s song of praise to the God of Israel.
1. A Note on Additional Notes
This exchange of videos between Dr. Brown and myself has a long history. Back in 2007, I wrote “Contra Brown,” a critique of Dr. Brown’s “Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus,” which, at the time, consisted of 4 volumes. On that occasion Dr. Brown declared that he would refute my arguments with an article of his own. He told the public that the name of his response will be “Correcting Contra Brown.”
In 2010, when Dr. Brown completed his series of Answering Jewish Objections with a fifth volume, I wrote a general critique of all 5 volumes entitled “The Elephant and the Suit.” Again, Dr. Brown announced that he would be responding to my critique with an article entitled “The Stained and Dirty Window.” Dr. Brown repeated his assurances to provide a written response to my articles for some time until he told me in a personal communication that he will not be responding anytime soon.
About a year ago I began putting my writings in video format. I launched a series of videos entitled “Unanswered,” focusing on the challenges that Dr. Brown had not responded to. My videos did elicit a public response from Dr. Brown (in video format) and one of the primary points that he repeated in his presentations was that he challenges me to engage him in a live debate.
I responded to this challenge with the explanation that my responsibility is to educate and not to entertain. I feel that in a format of a live debate I do not have the time to arrange my thoughts in a way that conveys my intention accurately. I need time to formulate my thoughts in a way that communicates effectively and with clarity.
Dr. Brown acknowledged this concern and he proposed a debate with time allowed between the segments so that each party can gather and arrange their thoughts. My counter-proposal was this video debate which you have just watched. Each of us would make an original presentation of 20 minutes followed by a rebuttal, followed by closing statements, each of these separated by a month of space. Dr. Brown accepted this counter-proposal and here it is, this 6 segment video debate about the real Jewish Messiah.
Dr. Brown’s opening presentation contained many quotations from Scripture, all of which I have already addressed in my writings. Furthermore, his presentation contained statements that are refuted by open Scripture. It was clear to me that I could not expose all of the errors that he crammed into his presentation in the short space of 20 minutes that were allotted for my rebuttal. So I chose to expose the flaws in the general approach to Scripture employed by Dr. Brown in my rebuttal and to share the refutation to the rest of his errors in the notes appended to the transcript.
As soon as Dr. Brown became aware of my plans, he sent me a message accusing me of violating the spirit of the debate. He demanded that I not share the notes with the public and he demanded that I remove the reference to my notes from my video presentation.
I did not agree with the basis of Dr. Brown’s demands (as I shall soon explain) but for the sake of going forward with this video debate, I agreed not to share the additional notes with the public until the debate is over. I refused to remove the reference to the notes from my video presentation and that reference went up together with the rest of my presentation as scheduled.
My question to Dr. Brown is simply this; what is the “spirit” of this debate? Is this debate a sports event? Or is the spirit of this debate the education of our combined audiences? How do my notes violate the spirit of the debate?
My understanding is that the spirit of this debate is to educate our viewing audience. By preventing me from telling the audience where they can find answers to the questions he posed, Dr. Brown is violating the spirit of this debate.
Furthermore, I feel that for the sake of the audience it is my responsibility to consider any counter-arguments that Dr. Brown’s has presented before I share my own arguments. If the audience were to hear Dr. Brown’s counter-argument and consider my argument refuted, or even weakened, then it would be dishonest for me to present my original argument as if it were flawless.
Despite the fact that I have presented counter-arguments to almost every argument that Dr. Brown has raised, he continues to repeat the same arguments without modifying them or telling his audience why he disregards my counter-arguments. This being the case, we are left with two options. Either Dr. Brown considers my arguments so ridiculous that he assumes that the audience will see right through them and it would simply waste the audience’s time if he were to share my counter-arguments with them. The other option is that Dr. Brown is trying to hide my arguments from the audience.
If the first option is true and Dr. Brown believes that my arguments are so transparently ridiculous then why does he have a problem with me sharing my notes with the audience?
2. The Plain Teachings of the Jewish Scriptures
In my opening presentation I put forth the argument that every student of the Jewish Bible, be they atheist, Jewish, Hindu or Christian, acknowledges that the Messiah is to be a king of the Jews and is to sit on the throne of David. The Author of the Bible made these teachings so clear that no one could doubt His intention.
Dr. Brown responded with the claim that the Christological teaching which requires the Jews to reject the Messiah while the gentiles receive him is equally clear and plain in the Bible.
This claim has no basis in reality. Dr. Brown himself acknowledges ( https://judaismresources.net/2011/06/13/response-to-th-line-of-fire-9/ ) that the disciples of Jesus identified Jesus as the Messiah without expecting him to die, be rejected by the Jewish people, be accepted by the gentiles or resurrected. They read the Bible and saw none of these teachings there. They only understood these teachings when their eyes were “opened” healing them of their “supernatural blindness.”
The teachings that the Messiah is to be king of the Jews and to sit on the throne of David can be discerned in the Bible by all readers, supernaturally blinded or not. Dr. Brown’s Christian doctrine can only be seen by people who have been “healed” of their blindness. The two sets of teachings are not equally clear in the Bible.
Dr. Brown further demonstrates his lack of regard for the clear teachings of the Bible when he complains to his audience that I tied the mission of the Messiah to the people of Israel and that I put too much emphasis on David and on Israel.
His complaint should be directed against the Author of the Jewish Scriptures. It is He who tied the mission of the Messiah to the people of Israel (Isaiah 60:1-3) and it is He that emphasizes Israel and David. Search the Bible and see how much space is devoted to describing Israel and David and contrast that with the amount of words devoted to describing the Messiah.
3. The Joseph Narrative
Dr. Brown invokes the Biblical narrative of Joseph in his effort to create a Biblical basis for his Messianic argument. The book of Genesis (chapters 37 thru 45) describes how Joseph, one of Jacob’s younger sons, told his older brothers about his dreams. In these dreams Joseph saw how he would rule over his brothers. His brothers were provoked to jealousy and they sold Joseph into slavery. Joseph is carried to Egypt where he is enslaved, accused of a crime, thrown into prison and ultimately appointed as viceroy of Egypt. Eventually Joseph meets his brothers and they acknowledge their sin towards him.
Dr. Brown sees this as a parallel to the historical career of Jesus. Jesus, like Joseph, is rejected by the Jews, represented in the Joseph story by Jacob’s sons. Jesus, like Joseph, is accepted by the gentiles, represented by Egypt’s appointment of Joseph as viceroy. And only afterward will Jesus be accepted by the Jews, or so claims Dr. Brown, just as Joseph’s brothers only accepted his status as ruler after the gentiles.
The most significant problem with Dr. Brown’s argument is that the Bible never tells us that the Joseph story teaches us anything about the Messiah. That is Dr. Brown’s own invention and it has no basis in the text of the Bible.
If we will insist on finding a parallel to the Joseph story in the stage of world history, we would not look to Jesus. We would see the experience of Joseph reflected in the history of the Jewish people.
The Jewish people come to the world with a message that places them at the center of God’s plan for the salvation of mankind. The people who should most readily appreciate this message, namely, those who have dedicated their lives to seek religious truth, are the ones who decry Israel’s message and vilify the bearers of the message. This slander sells the Jewish people into centuries of degradation and persecution. This is parallel to the older sons of Jacob, the insiders, who should most readily understand Joseph’s message, vilifying Joseph, rejecting his message and selling him off into slavery.
Israel suffers in pain for years and years, still bringing economic blessing to those who have the good sense to work with them. This parallels Joseph’s experience as a slave in Potiphar’s house (Genesis 39:1-13). Throughout our history we were accused of crimes we did not commit, reflecting Joseph’s experience (Genesis 39:14-19). Eventually, the secular powers of the world recognize our capabilities and harness our trust in God’s goodness to build their economies just as Joseph is recognized by Pharaoh who employs Joseph for the benefit of Egypt’s financial success (Genesis 41:38-49).
It is only after the secular powers flourish on the basis of the Jewish nation’s trust in God’s goodness that the religious authorities are slowly coming to recognize the beauty and the strength of Israel’s message.
4. Scriptures that Dr. Brown Claims I have Overlooked
Dr. Brown claims that I have ignored many passages from the Scriptures. I wonder how Dr. Brown can make this accusation. He is well aware that I have addressed these passages with lengthy articles. Perhaps he disagrees with my understanding of these verses, but I haven’t ignored or overlooked them. And if Dr. Brown does disagree with my interpretation of these verses, he never shared his arguments with the public.
For the record; the article entitled Contra Brown addresses: Psalms 22, 110; Isaiah 53; Haggai 2; Zechariah 6; Malachi 3; Daniel 7; 9; and the article entitled Armor Bearers addresses Isaiah 42; 49 and 53. Zechariah 12 is addressed in an article of that name. Here are the relevant links:
Additional Relevant articles:
5. How Do the Rabbis Understand the Servant of Isaiah? And Why didn’t they Expunge the Messianic Interpretation?
Dr. Brown argues that there are rabbinic interpretations that read Isaiah 53 as a reference to the Messiah. There is a tradition within Judaism about the suffering of Messiah. Dr. Brown points to these teachings in his effort to demonstrate how this doctrine is so deeply imbedded within Judaism. Otherwise, Dr. Brown argues, the rabbis would have expunged this teaching so as not to provide support to the arguments of the Church.
I have addressed the rabbinic teaching about a suffering Messiah in Contra Brown. I explained that the national and Messianic interpretations of Isaiah 53 are not mutually exclusive. The Messiah will emerge from the community of Israel which is despised and loathed. And when the Messiah is exalted, the nations will be surprised because they had seen the suffering of his community as an indication that the true message of the Messiah, which was carried by Israel, cannot be true.
Dr. Brown’s surprise at the rabbi’s failure to expunge these references from their literature is built on three false premises. First, Dr. Brown assumes that the rabbis have the same moral compass that Paul advocates, namely, that it is right to lie to spread his message (Romans 3:7; Philippians 1:18). Second, he assumes that the rabbinic teaching on a suffering Messiah supports the Christian narrative. And third, Dr. Brown assumes that the Christian arguments posed a threat to the world-view of the Jewish thinkers.
Each of these premises is false. The Jewish teachers valued truth and would not lie to their students in order to propagate their message. The Jewish teaching on the suffering Messiah never advocates worship of or devotion to that Messiah, thus it has no relation to the Christian Messianic narrative. And finally, no Jewish thinker felt threatened by the arguments of the Church. The counter-missionary activities of the Jewish thinkers consisted in exposing the Christian manipulation of the Jewish Scripture to the masses. The overall message of the Christian missionary is so obviously contrary to everything the Scriptures stand for that there was never a need to engage in drastic, panic mode tactics to counter the persuasions of the Church.
The only weapon the Jew needed to use to counter the missionary threat is the truth.
If you found this article helpful please consider making a donation to Judaism Resources by clicking on the link below.
Judaism Resources is a recognized 501(c) 3 public charity and your donation is tax exempt.
Yisroel C. Blumenthal
Even if the Deity of Jesus and the Virgin Birth were true
When the New Testament portrays people’s reactions to Jesus, it shows that some people regarded him with favor as a prophet and healer,(Mathew 16;14) while others regarded him as a sinner and a drunkard who consorts with sinners and as one who leads others to sin. (John 8)
The gospel of Luke informs us that the virgin birth of Jesus was something that Mary stored up in her heart, (Luke 2) and that the people generally assumed Jesus was the natural son of Joseph. (Luke 3:23)
So, without a doubt, we know that some people viewed Jesus as a mortal man with two parents when he walked the earth. (even if this was just an assumption by people, it was an assumption we know that most people considered to be true, especially because some people accused Jesus of being born of fornication. (John 8:41) They did not know of his miraculous conception, so illegitimacy was the best explanation they could come up with.)
In classical trinitarian theology one thing is exceptionally clear among all orthodox thinkers. The New Testament is alleged to teach that the eternal second person of the trinity voluntarily took off his glory to take on human likeness, to die a death of obedience on the cross. (Philippians 2:8)
Thinkers like James White have acknowledged in kind that texts like Mathew 24:36 portray Jesus’ deity as something veiled to the masses, to the point that it can be said that the son does not know what the father knows. This is Because, In becoming incarnate, all trinitarians acknowledge that the son took off his omniscience for a time, or voluntarily restricted his humanity’s access to it.
To most Christian thinkers, the human nature of Jesus is like the temple in Jerusalem. Jesus is the temple in whom G-d dwelt, and the full glory of the father and his logos were veiled within the temple of Jesus’ humanity. (Christians always say “just as I wouldn’t worship the leaves of the burning bush, I do not worship the humanity of Jesus.)
In Luke 5 and John 6:15 Jesus upon doing many miracles is getting very popular with the crowds to the point that they want to make him king by force, and do not want to give him time to himself.
Jesus does not like people wanting to give him so much glory, so he withdraws himself on multiple occasions. It seems Jesus does not want to take away his father’s thunder, but be the ideal servant who glorifies G-d, not someone who takes the credit.
If we understand that the Logos was veiled when he became Jesus, if we understand that people had wildly divergent views of Jesus’ powers/role/motives/nature when interacting with him, and if we understand that Jesus himself withdrew when he received undue attention for undue reasons, we should not be at all surprised by Rabbinic Judaism’s refusal to worship Jesus as G-d incarnate or to sing songs of praise about his blood. Why?
Imagine if someone saw the risen Jesus who had initially thought Jesus was just a powerful human magician? Such a person might say “I now worship Jesus because he was a powerful magician who gained life.” Such a person might eventually become a follower of Simon Magus.
Imagine those who view Jesus as a faithful human prophet. If they worshiped him, Jesus would withdraw himself as he did with those who saw him do miracles, and sought to give him too much honor.
For the final inner circle who actually believes he is the eternal Logos incarnate, there is the problem that the Logos took off his eternity and omniscience when he came to earth.
IE even if you believe Jesus is G-d, it would be wrong to worship him while incarnate, because even the trinitarian acknowledges that the Logos has “become for a little while lower than angels. (Hebrews 2:9) and the New Testament says not to worship angels (Revelation 19:10 Deuteronomy 4)
IE the incarnate Logos has restricted access to his own eternal knowledge, and appears to everyone he interacts with to be on some kind of spectrum of servitude as either Prophet or sinner depending on the person’s encounter.
IE the Logos in his veiled state still resembles a member of the host of heaven, (even if he is not but is actually G-d,) and so should not be worshiped on the grounds that to do so would create misunderstandings.
Thank you for you continuing efforts to educate those that are interested in the truth. I do not have the words to properly express my appreciation of your work. I know that what you do takes a lot of time, patience, and energy. My gratitude and admiration cannot amount to a fraction of the effort you expend to perform a difficult task.
I hope you do not mind if I point out one of the ironies of the online debate between you and Dr. Brown. I have heard Dr. Brown claim that one of the reasons he prefers debates is because afterward, especially during a long day, people can ask questions. Points can be clarified. When the opposing parties are present, any confusion can be cleared up on the spot. Therefore, he argues, it is to the benefit of both speakers and the audience to hold a debate in person, particularly for an extended period of time.
How disappointing it is then, that he should protest you posting notes after the lecture. Those notes would obviously have served to add clarification to your arguments. Because he has argued for extended debates, I would have thought he could understand why 20-minute lectures could use some supplement. He already knows that people will have questions. Giving them passages in support of your argument gives them the opportunity to investigate. It requires work on their part. But I cannot imagine he would say that he is opposed to the audience actually being engaged in research and reflection.
One thing is clear: Dr. Brown is out to persuade and not educate. If he cared about education, he would not protest your posting of supplemental material, particularly in the form of Biblical passages. He would have welcomed this as a way to better clarify your arguments and leave the reader with no confusion regarding your meaning. If truth were the concern, rather than scoring points, he would have welcomed the presentation of Tanach, knowing that learning takes time, even if persuasion can happen in moments.
Jim Thanks – I actually found his closing arguments very illuminating – not on the substance of his presentation – because – to use his measuring stick – if you spend “less than two minutes on a point” then you have dealt with it “backhandedly” – but rather the style of his debate and the reason he wants debates with rules aside from the truth. If you read Contra Brown and you watched the full hour of Dr. Brown’s 3 presentations – the only new argument he presented which I didn’t address in Contra Brown is the argument that I didn’t answer all his questions in the 20 minute time frame. It is only in the framework of a live debate that he has this argument hence the need for a live debate. This debate will be followed, God willing, with an analysis of his 3rd presentation. 1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >
Jim and Rabbi, Amen to each of your last respective comments. On a comical note there is something about some the way Dr. Brown used these 20 minute segments that reminds me of watching videos of a hot dog eating contest i.e. how much can I stuff in within the allotted time-frame. Dr. Brown – as I mentioned in another comment – has no problem with regurgitating a litany of verse references with no justification as to the implied merit of the arguments. Rabbi B. perhaps your “offense” was your desire to post references to your other writings only in the form of notes to the segments. Perhaps if you had simply made verbal reference to your other writings and where to find them in the actual segment then you would have complied with Dr. Brown’s notion of the spirit of the debate, because then it would have been something that actually came out of your mouth during the segment. Alternatively, in response to Dr. Brown simply reciting a list of verses that he claims make a point e.g. “and this is further clarified in Isaiah 31:12, 27:4, 56:9, and Tzephania 1:4” (I just made those up) you could have simply chosen to use 20 seconds of one of your segments to say something like “Oh, regarding Dr. Browns claim that Isaiah 31:12, 27:4, 56:9, and Tzephania 1:4, clarify this point? Look them up and you’ll see they don’t”. I believe you would the have squarely within his parameters.
I agree that his presentation is unintentionally humorous due to the hurried delivery, like he’s holding an auction. I like the comparison to a hot dog eating contest. Hilarious and true.
Good reading from you again.
Yehuda I am preparing a rebuttal for Dr. Brown’s third video and an analysis of the dynamic of the debate in general – It was very revealing – hopefully some time next week 1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >
Looking forward! Good Shabbos, everyone!
Pingback: The Real Jewish Messiah – Full Debate | 1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources
Reblogged this on 1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources.
Isaiah 49 is a better place to start, it clearly isn’t referring only to Israel as a nation, but someone who identifies with and cares for Israel and yet is rejected by it temporarily, like Moses or David or Joseph. ‘It is a light thing that thou shouldest be my servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob, and to restore the preserved of Israel: I will also give thee for a light to the Gentiles, that thou mayest be my salvation unto the end of the earth.’
cpsoper Who is this servant?
At first glance, we would say that this is Isaiah. The prophet is described as one who is called from the womb (Jeremiah 1:4). The mouth of the prophet is the implement that God uses to accomplish His purpose (Jeremiah 1:9,10). Isaiah was first called to restore Israel to God (when he spoke to the Jews of his own generation), but ultimately, it is Isaiah who is the primary prophet called to bring the message of the Messianic era to all of mankind. It is Isaiah’s words that are written on the side of the U.N. building expressing man’s hope for a future of peace. And it is Isaiah’s metaphor of the wolf lying with lamb that is most often used to describe the glorious plan that God has for all of humanity. Furthermore; the servant in this passage speaks for himself in the first person without being introduced in any way, which also leads us to believe that it is Isaiah who is talking.
However; the servant is identified as “Israel” (verse 3). Israel is also called from the time of their formation (43:21; 44:2, 21, 24; 46:3). The servant of this passage is described as a “sword” and an “arrow” just as Israel is called the “arms-bearers of the Lord” (52:11) and they are set by God to be a “threshing board of many blades” (41:15). Just as this servant is sheltered in the shade of God’s hand so is Israel likewise sheltered (51:16). Just as the servant fears that his toil has been in vain so does Israel fear that their toil has been in vain (40:27). Just as the servant will bring light to the nations so will Israel bring light to the nations (60:3). And this passage is placed in the midst of a series of prophecies which are spoken for the encouragement of Israel (48:20; 49:14).
The lines between the prophet and the nation are intentionally blurred. The encouragement to Israel is that in a certain sense they are the prophet of God. Just as the prophet carries God’s word so does Israel carry God’s word and just as the prophet is granted the strength of God’s word so is Israel granted the strength, the power and the eternal nature of God’s word (40:8).
1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >