The Real Jewish Messiah: Rabbi Blumenthal Debates Dr. Brown part 3

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

25 Responses to The Real Jewish Messiah: Rabbi Blumenthal Debates Dr. Brown part 3

  1. Dina says:

    I got so annoyed by Dr. Brown’s blatant abuse of scripture and attack’s on Rabbi B.’s character that I stopped halfway through.

    Rabbi B., do you have an upcoming rebuttal, or does Dr. Brown get the last word?

    • Dina says:

      Sorry about the apostrophe in “attacks.” I don’t know what’s got into me!

    • Dina The debate between me and Dr. Brown is over. I hope to present an analysis of his last video which demonstrated clearly that the last thing on his mind is education. Just ask yourself – for someone who has read my critique of his work – what did you learn from his presentation? 1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >

      • Dina says:

        Rabbi B.,

        As someone who has read your critiques of Dr. Brown’s work, listening to Dr. Brown makes it immediately clear that Dr. Brown is more interested in pushing his agenda than addressing your challenges head on.

        In his last video, he attacked your character numerous times. And everyone knows that when you have lost a debate, attack your opponent’s character. If you’re a smooth-talking salesman like Dr. Brown, you just might snare a few ignorant Jews.

        When I heard Dr. Brown try to use Deuteronomy 18 out of context to prove it’s about Jesus, I knew he is just like the rest of them. They don’t read Scripture to learn what God wants from us. They read Scripture to try to find verses that, when isolated and misrepresented, could be made to look like they are about Jesus.

        I do not think Dr. Brown is intentionally insincere. His love for Jesus creates a bias that makes it inevitable that he will see Jesus everywhere. I think for people like Dr. Brown who have had a strong emotional/spiritual experience, it’s extremely difficult (close to, but not, impossible) to disentangle their emotions from their reason.

        That is what I learned from listening to about as much as I could stomach from this video.

        • Alan says:

          Dina,
          I feel the same way. Dr. Brown trained at Paul’s Institute of Sales. I also believe he’s sincere, but the sincerity comes mostly from his emotions and whatever doubts he might have about Jesus get squashed by his emotions.

  2. Concerned Reader says:

    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.
    Reply

    • Dina says:

      The Ramban’s words are highly relevant. He argued that our very own ancestors who actually encountered Jesus were unimpressed by him, so why should we be swayed by the arguments of those who are many generations removed from Jesus, who cannot claim to be descended from anyone who actually met the guy?

      This should trouble Jewish Christians, who learned about Jesus from the gentiles. Since when do Jews go to the gentiles to learn the truth about God?

    • robster2016 says:

      Here is something. If invisible being can become finite in sight , knowledge and hearing, then surely he can make the created human sight, hearing and knowledge he has into how his invisible self sees and hears the world. If trinitarian gave god access to what it feels like to be a human, then this same god can create his human flesh copy into what he has. By this argument the temple/body can become worshippable as god is worshipped. They allowed god access to finity , but they don’t allow finite access to infinity ? Why do they put on the brakes when it comes to the MEAT bit having access to the invisible bit considering the invisible bit BECAME the meat bit?

      Consider trinitarian language

      God became meat

      God walked the earth

      God is simply experiencing for real how it is to be a human in their beliefs.

      If trinitarian worships the meat bit then he has to, for the 1 person is made up of fully meat. OTHERWISE THEY BREAK THE person.

      And trinitarian can always say god HIMSELF is experiencing the meat bit so the meat can be worshipped because god him self is in/involved in what the fully human person is experiencing.

      If Alan understood what I am trying to say, I hope he can give feedback.

      trinis don’t put on the brakes, give your pagan god access to anything and everything.even have him reverse his finity when he is created human

      • Alan says:

        Rob,

        “Why do they put on the brakes when it comes to the MEAT bit having access to the invisible bit considering the invisible bit BECAME the meat bit?”

        Please explain what you mean by “put on the breaks”. How do Trinitarians put on the breaks?

        “And trinitarian can always say god HIMSELF is experiencing the meat bit so the meat can be worshipped because god him self is in/involved in what the fully human person is experiencing.”

        Do any Trinitarians use this argument or other ones to worship Jesus’ body? I think some of them actually do worship his body through the eucharist, right?

        The truth is that the Infinite One, who brought into existence and continuously maintains the existence of every concept and phenomenon, everything physical and spiritual, has 100% access to absolutely every thing and He is the ONLY ONE who knows the absolute nature of every thing all at once. SO THERE’S NO NEED TO BEGIN WITH FOR HIM TO GET INTO A BODY IN ORDER TO KNOW WHAT IT’S LIKE!

        So because Hashem is already “involved” with every thing from beginning to end, and everything’s existence is really just a branch of His existence, then I say that someone who worships Jesus’ soul or body as God shouldn’t stop there. They are actually obligating themselves to worship everything including themselves, because everything is nothing except for Hashem’s existence that keeps it in existence.

        • robster2016 says:

          When I say put on the brakes , they don’t allow their god to become anything else except created human jesus. I think too many incarnations will probably make them realise that they only pay lip service to invisible god.

          if they say the almighty is not only held by a body but actually experiences human body like all humans do, then if they want to diefy the body , they can always say god in his person experiences the body of jesus.

          They are saying god is a body when he becomes one. the invisible becomes visible. all this language is pointing to worship a finite body, but they will deny this.

          This whole “the word” “temple” nonsense is just to take attention away from what they are really doing.

          • Alan says:

            Rob,

            “This whole “the word” “temple” nonsense is just to take attention away from what they are really doing.”

            I agree.

            I’m not sure if I helped in any way. Concerned Reader wrote a fantastic post about how Christian theologians really know that God shouldn’t be worshiped in finite form but that they do it anyway with Jesus. He brought lots of quotes from big Christian theologians. CR, can you please post the link to this?

      • Alan says:

        Rob,
        I replied but I didn’t get an email like I usually do.

  3. Concerned Reader says:

    The only thing I would like to add is that I know Christians are aware of the fact that Jesus can receive undue attention. Their own doctrines explain how someone can be following Jesus in an idolatrous manner. What I really wish for the Christian world is that they could see Judaism (as it is) as a positive thing. I wish they could see Jewish people as their brothers and sisters, and abandon the view that sees Judaism as blind legalism.

    Its not legalism to want to give the father the fullest attention you can. Its not legalism to be worried when we see sects arguing about the nature of G-d, or what his shape might be.

    1 Kings 19:11 The LORD said, “Go out and stand on the mountain in the presence of the LORD, for the LORD is about to pass by.” Then a great and powerful wind tore the mountains apart and shattered the rocks before the LORD, but the LORD WAS NOT IN THE WIND. After the wind there was an earthquake, but the LORD WAS NOT IN THE EARTHQUAKE. After the earthquake came a fire, but the LORD WAS NOT IN THE FIRE. And after the fire came a gentle whisper.

    A word or a whisper has no body, it has no box to contain it. It is a message of a teaching that is within your grasp that you may do it.

    I know Christians who say “I did nothing to save myself,” who then in the next breath question why it is their job to care for others. This shows me that they care more about a man’s blood as a Vaccine than about the words and actions that this person advocated you to live by.

    G-d was not in the man, but speaks gentle whispers through many men.

    • bible819 says:

      Concerned Reader,

      Have you Considered that Israel always had admonishment through many men from God because of the failures to keep the Law?

      Evidence:
      Elijah was taken up to heaven because he couldn’t handle Israel’s persecution.

      But we are promised that:

      Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet Before the coming Of the great and terrible day of the LORD.

      It’s outstanding that you don’t believe that Israel completely fell away from God in which caused God Love to send himself to handle Israel’s disobedience, persecution, and rejection of the truth.

      Elijah couldn’t take the disobedience, persecution, and rejection of the truth. So much so, he wanted to die, went into depression, hid in the mountain.

      Can’t, you see that the Flesh of Elijah was broken but the Spirit of God was not!!!!!!!

      The Same Spirit that was on Elijah, Moses, David, Solomon, Hosea, Ect.

      Is the Same Spirit Jesus the Man came to provide admonishment for Israel’s rebellion.

      Christian see Jesus as God himself, but also Man because of the flesh, your flesh is sinful.

      • bible819 says:

        Remember Lamb’s Blood Was on the Door, to keep Israel from dying. The Person in the house was not the savior.

        The Lamb did nothing to be slain, offered, then be Acceptable to God.

      • Alan says:

        Job 19:26 –
        “And after my skin is destroyed, yet from my flesh shall I see God.”

        Bibs, please tell me why I can’t believe the following:

        Job was teaching us that every human body has God in it, that every human body is actually God. This verse is proof that we should worship the human body as God or at least the body of Job as God. And if the body is divine, then certainly the soul is divine. So from this verse should we just worship Job or every man?

      • RT says:

        “It’s outstanding that you don’t believe that Israel completely fell away from God”

        Many atrocities were done based on that assumption Kavi, Carful on what you say!

  4. Concerned Reader says:

    “It’s outstanding that you don’t believe that Israel completely fell away from God in which caused God Love to send himself to handle Israel’s disobedience, persecution, and rejection of the truth.”

    Bible819, Hashem has already illustrated for us that him intervening personally does not fix sin.

    Hashem flooded the whole world, and that didnt fix sin. Why? Because humans themselves (again) did not exercise free will in a G-dly way. G-d told Cain that he was capable of mastering his evil inclination, and told Cain that if Cain did right G-d would be pleased.

    You believe that G-d became Jesus and died to grant eternal life, but just as Hashem’s flood didnt make humans behave better, accepting Jesus’ death hasnt made people behave better.

    A person can have all the get out of jail free cards he wants, but if he keeps walking into jail, hes still there.

    If G-d needs to bring us righteousness by himself because its beyond our grasp, he openly lied to Israel when he said “nobody had to ascend and bring it down for you.”

  5. Concerned Reader says:

    Here is something. If invisible being can become finite in sight , knowledge and hearing, then surely he can make the created human sight, hearing and knowledge he has into how his invisible self sees and hears the world. If trinitarian gave god access to what it feels like to be a human, then this same god can create his human flesh copy into what he has. By this argument the temple/body can become worshippable as god is worshipped. They allowed god access to finity , but they don’t allow finite access to infinity ? Why do they put on the brakes when it comes to the MEAT bit having access to the invisible bit considering the invisible bit BECAME the meat bit?

    They don’t put the breaks on “the meat bit” in Chalcedonian Christology, that’s why they say both natures receive worship due only to G-d in the Catechism.

  6. Yehuda says:

    I haven’t really followed this exchange as closely as I might have, but I do have a few observations. Regarding the controversy of Rabbi’s B.’s reference to his notes, this derives from the whole reason that Dr. Brown favors live debates. Dr. Brown has this odd idea in his head that the point of a live debate is to restrict the audience to only what they can actually hear verbalized during the debate. (Of course playing to those with the best debating and oratory skills.) Thus Dr. Brown’s extension of this idea, that if this exchange is to best replicate a live debate (who ever said that) it should adhere to the same limitation. Of course as Rabbi B. points out, that is the ultimate confession that the debater favors oratory over education. Had this rule been expressly agreed upon by the participants beforehand, then Dr. Brown would probably have accused Rabbi B. of violating the terms of the debate and not just its spirit. More importantly though, even Dr. Brown seems to subscribe to what I guess he feels is an inherently obvious exclusion to this rule of engagement and that is that you can make reference to as many scriptures as you want without even reading them or elaborating on them. Perhaps he feels that while everyone has a bible they can go check, they may not have Rabbi B’s prior writings. Aside form the inherent absurdity of that meaningless distinction in an exchange that can be viewed only by those with internet access, it’s a load of – excuse my language – manure. If he really wants to adhere to his verbal only doctrine he should limit himself only to scriptures that he is at least willing to put up on screen long enough for the viewer to read, or, preferably, offer some supporting commentary . But alas this would hamper his almost comically fast recitations of scripture listing, most of which is bogus.

    Beyond this, his accusations toward the end that Rabbi B chooses not to elaborate on his interpretation of Isaiah 53 within the timeframe because he can’t, is ludicrous. Rabbi B. in fact offers a number of textual indicators (and he elaborates on each one) showing why the chapter is best understood as referring to Israel. Then, prefaced by the word “besides” Rabbi B throws out – almost an an afterthought – that a chapter that whose “theology of suffering” is admitted by both parties to be a future event, and thus not yet fully understood because as the prophet says it will come as an astonishment to it’s witnesses is probably not the best foundation upon which build the entirety of one’s theology. Dr. Brown is practically apoplectic, claiming that Rabbi B. just admitted that the Jewish people may not understand Isaiah 53. Not exactly. Rabbi B has made clear why the Jewish people have always understood the Isaiah 53 to be referring to Israel. He has admitted that the precise nature of how much of Israel and which of its members including even a messianic interpretation are within scope and thus what is unclear is the precise conduit through which the nations will see the injustice of what they inflicted upon Israel and the vindication of Israel’s ancient faith. However, none of the core tenets of that ancient faith are based in any way on Isaiah 53. By contrast, none of that has to do with even a hint of the christian theology about exclusive salvation-faith in a the atoning death of a god-manifestation messiah. And that foundational piece of christian theology is almost entirely resting on this one obscure passage buried in a large book which as Rabbi B. outlines in Contra-Brown is presented with nothing to suggest that it is foundational. That is Rabbi B.’s point. But misrepresentation has never been off limits to Dr. Brown.

    Ho Hum.

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 )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s