The Doctoral Candidate – a parable by Jim

The Christian claim is that the resurrection is proof of Jesus’ messiahship. However, it cannot be a proof in any sense, because there is no proof of the resurrection itself, as an event. To help illustrate how hollow the claim that the resurrection proves that Jesus was the Messiah, whatever that means to the believer, please allow me to present the following analogy.

Let us imagine a man, a doctoral candidate, who must take an exam to earn his degree and title. He receives his exam, and he sits writing for some time. Once time is up, he confidently gives the exam to the qualifying board to review. But, they stare at the paper, mouths agape. They say to the candidate, “You have not answered even one question! You are clearly not qualifed to become a certified doctor.”

“No! No!” the man exclaims. “You have it all wrong! I wrote my answers in invisible ink. Rest assured, I do know everything there is to know about the field.”

Do you think that the certifying board will just take his word for it?

Yet this is what the Christian demands. He claims to have proof that Jesus is the Messiah, but his ‘proof’ is nothing of the kind. It is a mere assertion. It is an event to which virtually no one had any direct knowledge. It is like invisible ink. At first the Christian claims to have proof, but then he says that one must just take his word for it; he must just have faith. He holds simultaneously the contradictory views that Jesus proved that he was the Messiah and that no proof need be given. He claims that Jesus has passed the test of the prophet, while invalidating the test.

Now the missionary will bring other proofs for the messiahship of Jesus, as well. He will point to various prophecies within Tanach, prophecies of the Messiah, prophecies that Jesus fulfilled. Strangely, many of the fulfillments of these prophecies also were unverified. They also must be believed without any evidence. As such, they also cannot serve as proofs. The evidence meant to induce faith cannot itself rely upon faith.

One of these prophecies, the fulfillment of which was never verified, is the supposed virgin birth. One cannot know that Mary was a virgin when she conceived and bore Jesus; it has to be taken on faith. This means that, not only is it not a sign, it is not a proof. Similarly, Jesus’ birthplace and lineage was unknown to people, even in his lifetime (see John 7:40-42). Yet the missionary will proclaim that Jesus fulfilled prophecies relating to the Messiah and that this is proof that he is the Messiah. He claims that these prophecies were fulfilled in secret, where no one could see or investigate, and at the same time declares them to be irrefutable evidences of Jesus’ credentials as Messiah.

These are more answers written in invisible ink. Let us return to that exam. One of the certifying board says that, though this is highly inconvenient, he knows a way to read invisible ink. He has a special lamp that will warm the paper and will make the answers written thereon to present themselves. While he is gone to fetch the lamp, a fellow member of the board notices a further irregularity on the test. He does not remember all of these questions being part of the exam. Indeed, the questions betray a shocking lack of knowledge on the part of the one that wrote the question. He wonders aloud which of the board members might have added these questions, but they are all as puzzled as he is. Perhaps it was the fellow who went for the lamp.

After some time, their fellow returns with the lamp. He sets it up and begins waving the paper slowly back and forth under its specially calibrated heat. To the surprise of the entire certifying board, some of the questions begin to disappear. They notice that these are those with which they had no familiarity. They expected to see more, not less. The strange light of the lamp was erasing questions, while the answers remained invisible.
Shocked, they accused the doctoral candidate of fraud. It was obvious, they said, that he added questions to the test. He agreed that he did add the questions, but he denied any fraud. Instead, he claimed that the board did not know the proper questions to ask, and that he, in fact, knew better than they what the questions were.

This is what has happened with many of the so-called prophecies that are meant to prove Jesus is the Messiah. Not only are the fulfillments unverified and unverifiable, the prophecies are not legitimately prophecies regarding the Messiah. For the sake of brevity, I will not rehash all of these; they have been discussed at length. But it is clear, for example, that Isaiah 7:14 is not a prophecy regarding the Messiah. Hosea 11:1, which Matthew makes out to be a prophecy about the Messiah being called out Egypt, is about Israel. Moreover, it is not predictive, but refers to the past. Likewise, John 13:18 makes the betrayal of Jesus out to be a fulfillment of Ps. 41:9, which is also not about the Messiah. Missionaries make long lists of prophecies of which Jesus is supposed to have fulfilled. However, the great majority of them are not Messianic prophecies.
And if a prophecy when read is not clearly referring to the Messiah, and if it was not verifiably fulfilled by Jesus, then it is not a proof of his Messiahship at all; nor can it be.
It is at this point that the missionary will be like our doctoral candidate. He will argue that he has a special insight into the material and is best suited to declare what is a Messianic prophecy and what is not. He will argue that those judging his claims just do not understand the prophecies the way that he does, but that they are indeed proofs of the highest magnitude. The missionary becomes the apologist, no longer trying to give evidence of the Messiahship of Jesus, but evidence that his reading of scripture is the superior one.

But wait! One of the certifying board notices that one of the questions has been scribbled out. This question is partially faded. It is one of those added to the exam by the candidate. The whole experience has been rather irregular, and this attempted erasure is only more bizarre. The member of the board inquires why this question was first added and then subtracted from the exam questions. In response, the candidate begins sweating and stammering. He says that they should not even review this question, because he had obviously not intended them to see it. It would not be fair for them to review the question.

This has been the response of some missionaries to the refutation of Zechariah 13:6. Missionaries, such as Sid Roth, once used this passage as proof that Zechariah prophecied about Jesus. The verse, quoted alone, sounded rather Christological to the missionary, particularly: “What are these wounds in your hands?” After it was pointed out to them that this was written about false prophets, they stopped employing the passage, of course. They tried to sweep the whole thing under the rug. They tried to erase that exam question.
But the question must be asked: On what principle did they at first accept and then reject this as a prophecy about Jesus? The answers are obvious and need little explanation. They thought it was about Jesus, because superficially it sounded like him. Wounds in hands? That sounds like the nails that pinned Jesus to the cross! Afterward, they changed their tune, because the context of the passage would make Jesus to be a false prophet. It is the context of the passage that told them that the verse they quoted was not about the Messiah and would make the missionary wish to no longer associate the passage with Jesus.

Yet the missionary ignores the context of the verse in question in those other questionable passages. Hosea 11:1 is about Israel, not the Messiah. He applies it to Jesus anyway. Psalm 41 is about a man that has sinned, but the missionary applies v. 9 to a Jesus he holds to be sinless. Isaiah 7:14 is about a child born hundreds of years before Jesus, but the missionary applies it to Jesus anyway. In these cases, and many others, the context of the ‘fulfilled prophecies’ shows them not to be Messianic altogether. Based on the same principle that turned the missionary away from Zechariah 13:6, these others cannot be proofs used to substantiate Jesus. It is apparent that the missionary is playing a game. He is perpetrating a fraud. He knows that context matters to understanding a verse, but he only applies this principle when it suits him.

The next question that one must ask is: If Jesus was the Messiah, why must a fraud be perpetrated to establish his credentials? This answer, too, is obvious. The missionary abuses scripture to establish Jesus credential because insufficient evidence exists. Invisible proofs are not proofs at all. A secondary method to establish Jesus’ credentials was desired. They would declare him to fulfill prophecy. However, Jesus did not fulfill any Messianic prophecies, things like building the third temple. New prophecies must therefore be manufactured. To do so, verses would need to be taken out of context. The Church would need to fake Jesus credentials.

The fact that the Church needed to perpetrate such a fraud tells one all he needs to know. He can rest assured that Jesus is not the Messiah. If he had been, no need to misrepresent Tanach would exist. A little scrutiny of the Christian case for Jesus shows the proofs to be all hollow, mere nothingness. Some of the supposed proofs must be accepted on faith, denying their ability to prove anything, like the resurrection. Other proofs were based on fraud, which are easily exposed with a little study. All those things meant to establish Jesus as the Messiah, when exposed to the bright light of truth, evaporate as the dew evaporates under the warm sun.

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.
Thank You
Yisroel C. Blumenthal

This entry was posted in Jim. Bookmark the permalink.

173 Responses to The Doctoral Candidate – a parable by Jim

  1. Dina says:

    This is exactly right. Bravo, Jim!

  2. LarryB says:

    “A little scrutiny of the Christian case for Jesus shows the proofs to be all hollow, mere nothingness.”
    It’s embarrassing to admit but it was during my mid to late 20’s before I was ever concerned about the christian proofs. I still remember the first time I took the time to see what the christian proofs were about and if my memory serves me well the first one was -Is 7:14- my reaction was “But that’s not what it says”. Needless to say it was all down hill from there. Thanks for taking the time to write this.

    • Alan says:

      “Needless to say it was all down hill from there.” – yes, for falsehood and vanity; but uphill for truth, integrity, and Hashem being very proud of you.

  3. Storm says:

    Proverbs 30:4 – Who has gone up to heaven and come down. Who has cupped the wind in the palms of his hands? Who has wrapped up the waters in his cloak? Who established all the ends of the earth? What is his name, and what is his son’s name? Surely you know!

    Is it really so hard to grasp the fact that the same God who is powerful enough to have created the entire universe, is also capable of sending an aspect of Himself down to earth in the form of a human male, so that man could both better understand and relate to Him? (After all, He appeared to Moses as a Burning Bush and God was with the Jews in the form of “a pillar of cloud by day to lead them on the way, and in a pillar of fire by night” (Exodus 13:21, 22; Numbers 14:14; Nehemiah 9:12, 19).

    The New Covenant equates Yeshua with the Torah and the Tree of Life, stating that He was behind the creation of the heavens and earth: Colossians 1:16 – “For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him”. John further states that Yeshua is the Torah, present with God and therefore “part of” God: John 1:1 – “In the beginning was the Torah, and the Torah was with God, and the Torah was God”. There is no question in the context of the passage that the Torah is Yeshua, the Torah is God, and Yeshua is God.

    In John 8:58, Yeshua actually declared not only His pre-existence but also took upon Himself the name of God as revealed to Moses in the burning bush: “Amen, amen I tell you, before Abraham was born, I am.”

    And further, in Matthew 26:63-64, the High Priest directly confronted Yeshua, saying to Him, “I charge You under oath by the living God, tell us if You are Messiah Ben-Elohim!” (the Messiah Son of God). Yeshua responded: “as you have said,” thus affirming under oath that He is the Messiah, the Son of the Living God.

    When Christ was crucified, the inner veil of the temple was torn asunder… this refers to the masach (screen) and the ohr pnimi (inner light). The Messiah is a light that corrects the 32 parts of the Heart upon Gmar Tikkun (the end of correction) He is a pulling force from above. Messiah is a flesh and blood man who assumed human nature in order to unite man with divinity, so that we can have a sensation of the Creator through the love of him as being Incarnated upon the Earth and having sacrificed himself, so that our sense of shame and sin is corrected in our hearts. How can we have equivalence of Form with a Creator we cannot approach in the flesh?

    The Bible tells us that Yeshua’s work is not finished. According to Matthew 23:39, Yeshua must return, and this won’t happen until the Jews recognize Him as King, Messiah of Israel, saying, “Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord!” When Yeshua returns the second time as mashiach ben David as He said He would (Luke 12:40) He will bring about the political and spiritual redemption of the Jewish people by bringing them back to Israel and restoring Jerusalem (Isaiah 11:11-12; Jeremiah 23:8; 30:3; Hosea 3:4-5). He will establish a government in Israel that will be the center of all world government, both for Jews and gentiles (Isaiah 2:2-4; 11:10; 42:1). He will rebuild the Temple and re-establish its worship (Jeremiah 33:18). He will restore the religious court system of Israel and establish Jewish law as the law of the land (Jeremiah 33:15).

    So did Yeshua claim to be the Messiah? Yes, and more! He claimed to be the Messiah, the Lord, the Anointed One, and the unique Divine Son of the Living God, pre-existent, and one with the Father who will come again to judge the living and the dead!

    • RT says:

      Storm, before we arrive at any conclusion on who Yeshua was, we first you have to determine if G-d can become a man. G-d can do anything, but you probably agree that it is not in His nature for Him to lie. The same holds true for the incarnation of G-d, if G-d told us that He won’t become a man, then we can conclude without doubts that Yeshua was not G-d. Do you agree with that logic?

      • Alan says:

        God is already “in” everything and everywhere; His very existence is the existence of everything. So everything is already an expression of Him – some things to a greater degree and others to a lesser degree. But because we and our minds are finite, it is impossible for us to perceive the Infinite. So from God’s point of view, He is everywhere equally but from our point of view His true infinite self is impossible for us to perceive directly. The most we finite beings can grasp is an awareness that He exists through finite manifestations be the physical (burning bush) or spiritual (prophecy). Hashem can manifest Himself in anything because he’s already there. So He wasn’t any more or any less present in Jesus than He is in me or in a mosquito or in a rock or in the Satan. From our point of view it’s a matter of how much He will let us become aware of His existence through any particulae phenomenon. But in truth. His existence is everywhere equally – not any more or less in Jesus.

        • RT says:

          Alan, maybe I did not explain properly what I meant. Could G-d become a man, (as Jesus being fully G-d)? I am not saying that G-d was not in Jesus, but could Jesus be G-d in the flesh?

          • Alan says:

            God is in your flesh and soul just as much as He was in Jesus’ flesh and soul. He IS your flesh and soul. He is everything everywhere. The Infinite includes the finite but anything finite (the only kind of phenomena we can relate to) is not the Infinite. We are incapable of perceiving the Infinite in any way. If someone says he is both Kavi and God, this is impossible because Kavi has his own mind and will that is able to relate to God as separate from himself. So we see that Kavi can’t be God. But if we have a person who says that he is not really Kavi but God then this person would have to prove to us that he is telling the truth. We’d have to test him. Jesus didn’t even claim that he was only God.

          • RT says:

            Thanks Alan, very thoughtful and deep… My point was if G-d said in Deuteronomy 7 that he had no form and not to worship any form, that would nullify the claim of Storm that Jesus was G-D. I thought it was a starting point to the conversation… Storm, what do you think of Deuteronomy 7, shouldn’t be enough for any follower of HaShem to think “Wait a minute, G-d said he did not show any body, and not to worship any form of Himself, so Jesus is NOT G-d.” Why shouldn’t we arrive to that conclusion when G-d warned us explicitly not to do what you are doing (worshiping Jesus as G-d)?

          • Alan says:

            I do think that Deut. 7 is the best starting point and I would like to know how Storm deals with it.
            And since God is One, how could God have more than one mind and will? As soon as there are two or more minds or wills that are both God, then we no longer have one God. And we see Jesus talking and praying to God and even admitting that his will is subject to God’s will.

          • Dina says:

            Also, it’s not something that can be proved. The people who actually encountered Jesus did not see God. They saw a man just like themselves. Why should anyone believe anyone who points to a man that is obviously a man and nothing more and claims he is God?

          • Alan says:

            Egberta comes to us and says she is Hashem. She says her name is actually Hashem even though her social security card says her name is Egberta Morris. As RT said, the Torah is very clear that we are forbidden to worship any forms – anything up above (spiritual forms) or down below (physical forms) – except for the formless God. Let’s say a Christian thinks this Torah prohibition has been nullified but he still believes that God is one. How would Egberta who claims to actualy be Hashem prove it beyond a reasonable doubt to this Christian?

          • Dina says:

            Egberta? Love it!

          • Alan says:

            Did you mean Deut. 4, not 7?

          • RT says:

            Yes, I meant Deut 4…

      • Storm says:

        It’s important to base your study’s on the scriptures as a whole not one verse that stands alone lest it become a stumbling block. Study the Metatron aka angel that visited Abrahams tent before destroying Sodom.

        I believe this: For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved. “He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God ~ John‬ ‭3:16-18‬.

        Did Yeshua Fulfill the Messianic Expectation as Prophesied in the Hebrew Scriptures?
        It is important to begin by saying that for one who has already made up his or her mind that Jesus is not the Messiah, no amount of evidence will be convincing. But for those who are honest in asking, the evidence speaks for itself. When sincerely asked, this question is a good one. After all, there have been false Messiahs in Jewish history. Among the most prominent were Bar Kochba and Shabbetai Zevi. Bar Kochba led a revolt against Rome in the years 132-135 C.E.

        During this revolt, one of the most famous figures in Jewish history, Rabbi Akiva, proclaimed him to be “King Messiah.” Unfortunately, Bar Kochba, Akiva and thousands of Jews were killed in 135 C.E. when the Romans stormed the stronghold of Betar. Shabbetai Zevi, on the other hand, was a self-proclaimed Messiah. Flourishing in 17th-century Europe, the Shabbatean movement spread among both the common people and the rabbis. But when Shabbetai Zevi was arrested in 1666 by the Sultan of Turkey, he converted to Islam rather than face death. We have been tragically wrong before, so it is not surprising that hard evidence should be sought for believing in Jesus.

        The chance of one single man fulfilling only 48 Messianic prophecies found in the Tanakh (Old Testament) would be 1 in 10^157*—to understand, that would be like the chance of finding, on the very first attempt, one specific electron out of all of the electrons in all the known mass of the entire universe! *1 followed by 157 zeros.

        Yeshua however, fulfilled not just 48 Messianic prophecies—He fulfilled more than 324 individual prophecies that the Prophets wrote concerning the Messiah!

        The Messiah has been prophesied in Scripture with great specificity.

        List of Messianic Prophecies:
        1. Messiah is to be born in Bethlehem
        Micah 5:2; fulfilled in Matt. 2:1-7; John 7:42; Luke 2:4-7

        2. Messiah is to be preceded by a Messenger 

        Isaiah 40:3; Malachi 3:1; fulfilled in Matthew 3:1-3; 11:10; John 1:23; Luke 1:17

        3. Messiah is to enter Jerusalem on a donkey 

        Zechariah 9:9; fulfilled in Luke 35-37; Matthew 21:6-11

        4. Messiah is to be betrayed by a friend 

        Psalms 41:9; 55:12-14; fulfilled in Matthew 10:4; 26:49-50; John 13:21

        5. Messiah is to be sold for 30 pieces of silver 

        Zechariah 11:12; fulfilled in Matthew 26:15; 27:3

        6. The money for which Messiah is sold is to be thrown “to the potter” in God’s house

        Zechariah 11:13; fulfilled in Matthew 27:5-7

        7. Messiah is to be born of a virgin 

        Isaiah 7:14; fulfilled in Matthew 1:18-2:1; Luke 1:26-35

        8. Messiah is to be hated without cause

        Isaiah 49:7; Psalm 69:5; fulfilled in John 15:24-25

        9. Messiah is to be silent before His accusers 

        Isaiah 53:7; fulfilled in Matthew 27:12

        10. Messiah is to be executed by crucifixion, by having His hands and feet pierced 

        Psalm 22:16; fulfilled in John 19:28

        11. Messiah is to be given vinegar to quench His thirst Psalm 69:22; fulfilled in Matthew 27:34

        12. Messiah is to be executed without having a bone broken Exodus 12:46; Psalm 34:21; fulfilled in John 19:33-36

        13. Messiah is to be buried with the rich when dead Isaiah 53:9; fulfilled in Matthew 27:57-60

        14. Messiah is to be raised from the dead
        Isaiah 53:9-10; Psalm 2:7; 16:10; fulfilled in Matthew 28:1-20; Acts 2:23-36;13;33-37; 1 Corinthians 11:4-6

        15. Messiah is to be executed by crucifixion as a thief Psalm 22:16; Zechariah 12:10; Isaiah 53:5, 12; fulfilled in Luke 23:33; John 20:25; Matthew 27:38; Mark 5:27, 28

        We find that the chance that any man might have lived to the present time and fulfilled all eight prophecies is 1 in 10^17.” That would be one in 100,000,000,000,000,000. In order to comprehend this staggering probability, Stoner illustrates:

        “ . . . we take 10^17 silver dollars and lay them on the face of Texas. They will cover the state two feet deep. Now mark one of these silver dollars and stir the whole mass thoroughly. Blindfold a man and tell him that he must pick up one silver dollar and say that this is the right one. What chance would he have of getting the right one? Just the same chance that the prophets would have had of writing just eight prophecies and having them all come true in any one man, from their day to the present time, providing they wrote in their own wisdom.

        “Now these prophecies were either given by inspiration of God or the prophets just wrote them as they thought they should be. In such a case the prophets had just one chance in 10^17 of having them come true in any man, but they all came true in Christ [Mashiach].

“This means that the fulfillment of just eight prophecies alone proves that God inspired the writing of those [eight] prophecies to a definiteness which lacks only one chance in 10^17 of being absolute.”

        Why didn’t most Jewish people believe in Jesus, and why were they so taken in by false Messiahs like Bar Kochba and Shabbetai Zevi?

        To understand this, one must realize that by the time of Jesus, the Messianic hope had become greatly politicized in the minds of the people. They were seeking deliverance from the tyranny of Rome. Although the Scripture spoke both of the sufferings and of the victories of the Messiah, the victorious aspect had become uppermost in the minds of the common people because of the Roman domination. This “lopsided” view of the Messiah has stuck with Jewish people, and the politicization of the Messianic hope has continued. Thus the hope of a political rather than a spiritual Messiah contributes to both the acceptance of people such as Bar Kochba, and the rejection of Jesus in his role as a Messiah.

        although the Talmudic rabbis concurred that Isaiah 53 was a prediction of the Messiah, by medieval times the pressure from those who applied this prophecy to Jesus was so great that Rashi, that greatest medieval Biblical scholar, reinterpreted the chapter and said it referred to the nation of Israel. This interpretation is maintained today by many Jewish scholars, though it only dates back to the Middle Ages.

        Study the prophecies yourself and ponder the mathematical probability of just one person fulfilling even a few of these specific prophecies. Even more importantly, be intellectually honest and open to truth. Pray. Ask the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob if Yeshua is the Messiah of Israel. He will answer you and lead you into all truth.

        • RT says:

          “Study the prophecies yourself and ponder the mathematical probability of just one person fulfilling even a few of these specific prophecies.”

          I will convert to Christianity if only ONE prophecy fits reasonably Jesus… Are you willing to check at them? You may pick the one of your choice that Jesus “fulfilled”. The power of the Christians is in the number, but as Rabbi Skobac said “365 times 0 equals still 0!”

          P.S. some of the 365 prophecies were deleted from the list, as they did not fit Jesus at all!

        • Dina says:

          Storm says, “It is important to begin by saying that for one who has already made up his or her mind that Jesus is not the Messiah, no amount of evidence will be convincing.”

          And I say, “It is important to begin by saying that for one who has already made up his or her mind that Jesus is the Messiah, no amount of evidence will be convincing.”

          I also say: please back up with evidence your slander of the rabbis, claiming they interpreted Isaiah 53 as being about the messiah but then bowed to pressure and changed their interpretation. If you cannot find the evidence, please apologize to the rabbis and the Jewish people for this despicable slander.

          You also wrote that, “During this revolt, one of the most famous figures in Jewish history, Rabbi Akiva, proclaimed him to be “King Messiah.” Unfortunately, Bar Kochba, Akiva and thousands of Jews were killed in 135 C.E. when the Romans stormed the stronghold of Betar.”

          So how do you know Bar Kochba wasn’t the real messiah? Because he was killed? By the Romans, no less? Ahem, ahem….

          Your list of prophecies is absurd. You clearly haven’t read what Tanach has to say for itself, in context. If you search this website for them you will see how easily they are refuted.

          One last point: you claim that the Messiah is supposed to be spiritual rather than political. By spiritual I assume you mean saved from our sins and by political I assume you mean saved from oppression by our enemies. Correct me if I’m wrong. If not, please provide clear proof from the Hebrew Bible that the job of the Messiah is to save us from our sins. No hints, please.

          • RT says:

            I choose Bar Kochba! He might still come back from the dead… AND he did not ask to be worshiped as a god (That’s a nice plus as I have not to commit idolatry worshipping a messiah/god)

        • Jim says:


          I am delighted to find that we have an area of agreement. I believed that this would be more difficult for us to find than it was. However, you have affirmed an idea that you will find in my article. You write: “It’s important to base your study’s on the scriptures as a whole not one verse that stands alone lest it become a stumbling block.” This is an important principle, and it is this principle that shows that Jesus did not fulfill the long list of Messianic prophecies that the Church has strung together.

          You can see this in my article. Strangely, though you admit that context is important, you quote passages that clearly are not Messianic and treat them as if they were. Even stranger, I mentioned some of these in my article. For the sake of brevity, I am not going to explain every “Messianic prophecy” you listed. Other places have gone into these at great length. I second the recommendation of listening to Rabbi Skobac on this. You can find his work on this matter on He goes over 365 prophecies.

          Allow me to touch on the so-called virgin birth prophecy, because I already touched on it in the article. I can only wonder at your posting this as a prophecy fulfilled by Jesus considering it does appear in my article. It is clear that Isaiah 7:14 is not about the Messiah. It is about a child born during the time of Isaiah and King Ahaz. This is clear from the chapter and the verses following 7:14. “[The child] shall eat curds and honey by the time he knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good. For before the child knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land before whose two kings you are in dread will be deserted” (Is. 7:15-16). This has nothing to do with Jesus, nor anything to do with the Messiah. This lone verse has indeed become a stumbling block to the Church, because it does not read the scriptures as a whole.

          Regarding the birthplace of the Messiah: Micah 5:2 is not about the birthplace of the Messiah. Indeed, it is not talking about a little town, but a little clan. It is talking about the Messiah being descended from the house of David. If you read Matthew carefully, you will see he misquotes it. But even if it were about the birthplace of the Messiah, virtually nobody knew he was born there, as I mentioned in the article. And it is not as if Jesus had a birth certificate.

          A major point of my article is that the supposed fulfillments of prophecy by Jesus were unobserved. He is supposed to have been born of a virgin. No one verified that Mary was a virgin, and therefore this is not a sign and cannot establish Jesus as the Messiah. He is supposed to have been born in Bethlehem. Yet the people of his time did not know that he had been born in Bethlehem. Claiming to have fulfilled prophecy in secret is not proof of anything.

          Storm, do you not see that there is a serious problem with the prophecies Jesus is supposed to have fulfilled. You have to take his word for it that these things happened at all.

          Imagine the following scenario, if you please. You are driving to the store one day. You stop at a light and a man runs up to your car and opens the door. He shouts that he is a police officer, and that he must commandeer your vehicle. Smartly, you ask to see his badge. He tells you that it is in his pocket, but you can take his word for it that he is a police officer. And he is not trying to steal your car. Really. No, really. Would you give him your car? I doubt it.

          But this is what the Church has done. It has told you that Jesus is the Messiah. But there are no evidences of this. Oh, he fulfilled umpteen prophecies (that do not relate to the Messiah.) Certainly, he fulfilled them where you could not see them, “but,” the Church says, “you can trust us.” Also, he rose from the dead like he promised… just, in secret… “but, believe us, it happened.” And he was transfigured… also in secret.

          If you would not yield your automobile to a police officer that will not show you his badge, will you yield your devotion to a Messiah that will offer no proofs.

          And, of course, you say that you have many proofs. But, please, take your own words to heart and see that reading a verse in isolation will only serve as a stumbling block. The thirty pieces of silver in Zechariah had nothing to do with the Messiah. Psalm 22 is not about the Messiah; it is about David. (And it actually says nothing about hands or feet being pierced. That is a mistranslation.) Isaiah 53 does not say that the servant would be buried with the rich. It says he would be buried with criminals. (It says that he would die with the rich. Jesus does this backward, and clearly does not fulfill it.) When John quotes Ps. 41 in regard to Jesus being betrayed, it is obvious that that the psalmist is not writing about the Christian Jesus. Earlier in the psalm, the figure confesses his sin. Christians hold that Jesus never sinned. (This also appeared in my article, and it is a bit flabbergasting that you would ignore that these passages have already been addressed.) All of these passages serve as a good reminder that taking a portion of the prophets’ words will turn that passage into a stumbling block. It will leave the mind of the reader confused and prevent him from knowing the truth.


          • Jim says:

            Rabbi Blumenthal,

            Thank you for posting this link. Please forgive my own omission of it.


    • Alan says:


      Did you start learning Tanakh in depth after you became a believer in Jesus or did you already have a solid knowledge of Tanakh before you became a believer in Jesus?

    • Dina says:

      Storm asks:

      “Is it really so hard to grasp the fact that the same God who is powerful enough to have created the entire universe, is also capable of sending an aspect of Himself down to earth in the form of a human male, so that man could both better understand and relate to Him?”

      Is it really so hard to grasp that God is powerful enough to be able to forgive without the need for a sinless human sacrifice (Genesis 4:7, Deuteronomy 30, Ezekiel 18 and 33, 1 Kings 8:46-53)?

      Is it so hard to grasp that God is powerful enough to hear the prayers of those who call to Him sincerely without the need for an intermediary (Psalm 145:18)?

      Is it so hard to grasp that God is fair enough and reasonable enough not to demand the impossible of the humans whom He created with built-in weaknesses–namely, perfect obedience to the law or eternal condemnation?

      Is it so hard to grasp that God is so merciful and so compassionate that when He judges us He will account for the frailties that He Himself created us with (Psalm 78:38-39)?

      • RT says:

        Amen! Well said Dina!

      • Eleazar says:

        Storm wrote:

        “Is it really so hard to grasp the fact that the same God who is powerful enough to have created the entire universe, is also capable of sending an aspect of Himself down to earth in the form of a human male, so that man could both better understand and relate to Him?”

        So Storm you are admitting what no orthodox Christian admits, that you believe God has “parts”. You admit as much when you say ” is also capable of sending an aspect of Himself down to earth…” . An “aspect” is a part. You are saying there is one God but many “parts” of God. Also in saying that, you are saying Jesus was “part God and part man”. This are things that fly directly in the face of trinitarian apologetics; indeed against the Athanasian Creed itself ( “not dividing the substance”). The Athanasian Creed being the most basic defining doctrinal statement of the Christian faith.

        In other words, like most who come here you are not really a Christian in the generally accepted meaning of the word. Just as any potential convert to Judaism who would boldly deny any of the Ten Commandments would not be accepted by a Beit Din as a genuine convert.

    • Dina says:

      Storm says that Jesus won’t return until the Jews accept him as king.

      Not. Going. To. Happen.

      Christians have failed for the last 2000 years to convert the Jewish people, and that is not for lack of trying.

      Christians need to own up to the following uncomfortable problems:

      1. God promised that He would always preserve a remnant of the Jewish people. The original movement of Jesus followers did not survive as a Jewish movement. To the contrary, the much-maligned Pharisees constituted the only group of Jews to survive the destruction of the Second Temple and to form a continuous chain of biological descent connected with strong Torah observance. Every single group that strayed from this “rabbinic” Judaism has fallen by the wayside, including converts to Christianity whose descendants without exception assimilate into the general population. (We see this happening now with groups like Reform Judaism which do not accept Divine authorship of the Torah and who are assimilating at a rate of 80% according to the Pew Research Center.)

      2. God selected the Jewish people to be His witnesses (Isaiah 43:10,12; Ibid. 44:8), and last I checked there was no expiration date on that status. Furthermore, God promised that His covenant with the people of Israel means that He has placed His spirit upon us and His words in our mouths from now and forever (Isaiah 59:21). And last I checked, forever means, well, forever.

      3. Christianity was imposed by force upon the entire European continent, and despite some holdouts for a little while, eventually every single other culture succumbed, from the Norsemen to the Druids to the Picts. The only people to resist the message of Christianity was a scattered and weakened small group of people with no central leadership. Christians need to ask themselves how this is possible. It should not have been possible for such a small, weakened scattered group to resist the enormous pressure exerted by Christendom to make its religion extinct when other, larger, stronger religions could not.

      • Storm says:

        It will happen just as the prophet spoke:

        See, a day shall come for יהוה, and your spoil shall be divided in your midst. And I shall gather all the gentiles to battle against Yerushalayim. And the city shall be taken, the houses plundered, and the women ravished. Half of the city shall go into exile, but the remnant of the people shall not be cut off from the city. And יהוה shall go forth, and He shall fight against those gentiles, as He fights in the day of battle ~ Zeḵaryah ‭14:1-3‬.

        You should all stop hiding behind this verse: Ěl is not a man, to lie; nor a son of man, to repent! Has He said, and would He not do it; or spoken, and would not confirm it?~ Bemiḏbar ‭23:19‬. As an excuse to reject Gods only atonement for your sin as it’s talking about HaShems character not being fickle like mans it’s not stating that He would never become a man. Read context!!

        Here’s a website for you all to reeducate yourself in a proper manner pleasing to God:

        And don’t forget: Anyone who has disregarded the Torah of Mosheh dies without compassion on the witness of two or three witnesses. How much worse punishment do you think shall he deserve who has trampled the Son of Elohim underfoot, counted the blood of the covenant by which he was set apart as common, and insulted the Spirit of favour?~ Iḇ`rim ‭10:28-29‬.

        • Alan says:

          Sorry but the verse doesn’t say He is not LIKE a man, it says He IS NOT a man – in what way? – He is not fickle and doesn’t lie.

          Also Hoshea 11:

          9 I will not execute the fierceness of Mine anger, I will not return to destroy Ephraim; for I AM GOD AND NOT A MAN, the Holy One in the midst of thee; and I will not come in fury.

          Again, it could have said “I A GOD WHO IS NOT LIKE A MAN.”

          • Alan says:


            You have admitted that God is not a man. You also said that “He became a man in the body of Yeshua”. This is confusing. Do you mean that before Jesus, God wasn’t a man but since Jesus until today He is a man? Or do you mean that even today He is not a man? This is very confusing. In what way, then, is Jesus worthy of being worshipped as divine if you agree that God is not a man?

          • Alan says:

            Those missionaries in that video know they can only dupe Jews, like themselves, who have only superficial or no knowledge of Tanakh. Even many Orthodox Jews have little knowledge of the books of the Prophets such as Isaiah. Everybody on this blog knows that missionaries only have a chance of fooling people who don’t know you can’t learn verses in Tanakh out of context.

          • LarryB says:

            I find your video so offensive. –Those ‘expleative’ lying Rabbis hiding the truth, and forbidding the portion of Torah from being read in the synagogue, that would save us all–.
            Is this all you got? Insults? A video? I have a question for you, who does Isaiah tell us the servant is? Remember servant is only mentioned once in Isaiah 53 and messiah is mentioned Zero times. You would probably object and point to John 8:44 here but we need to focus on Isaiah since he has the hidden truth you desire. Here’s one of many references Isaiah makes to who the servant is, Is:44-21. “Remember these things, Jacob and Israel, for you are my servant: I fashioned you to be my servant. Israel do not forget me.” Because you Storm are not one of the servants are you allowed to forget? Re-read Jhn 8:44 and tell me who is the liar and refuses to uphold the truth.

          • Alan says:

            Thanks Larry!!!! The video is saying that the rabbis know that Jesus is the messiah and are purposely hiding it from the people –


          • Dina says:


            Please explain in your own words the Jewish position on Jesus from the Jewish perspective.


          • robster2016 says:

            That’s correct G-d is not a man He’s spirit but He become a man in the body of Yeshua to atone for your sin. Without Him you will die in your sin

            kind of confused with what any of this means. the spirit became meat/flesh which would mean god became meat.

            how much of spirit became meat? 10 % 50 % or 100 %

            if only some, then you mean “without some of him you will die…”


          • Alan says:


            Storm is either saying the meat is god or god is meat or jesus is meat or meat is jesus or meat is spirit or spirit is meat. I want to become a vegetarian.

        • Alan says:

          And please help me understand why I should believe that Jesus is Hashem? My fathers taught me that if anyone who looks like a human says he’s God, I should think he’s a liar and run away from him and his followers. So I’m asking you – how can I be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that Jesus is Hashem?

        • Dina says:

          Storm, I would like you to put aside for one moment your eagerness to see us all “die without compassion” (a sure sign of Christian love) and consider for one moment the following question:

          Are you hear to debate with us, a process which requires both sides hearing each other out, attempting to understand each other’s arguments, and responding directly to those arguments in a process that leads to greater clarity? Or are you hear to preach at us?

          I ask this because you have not responded to a single argument I made.

          I look forward to your reply.

          • Dina says:

            Storm, I can’t watch videos at the moment. If you would summarize for me an answer to my question that the video is purportedly saying, I will be grateful.

          • Alan says:

            I watched the video. The whole point of the 6 minute video is to prove that Jesus is God and not just the Son of God.

          • Dina says:

            In that case, I would like Storm to answer the question: is he here to engage with us in honest debate or just to preach at us?

            I think I can speak for everyone here: we are not interested in being preached at, but we would be delighted to debate with you Storm, if you are open to that.

            There was a time in history when Christians forced Jews to listen to sermons by sending a preacher to our synagogues. Do you really want to perpetuate this ugly practice?

          • LarryB says:

            This in Monte Judah of lion and lamb ministries. He has his own version of Messianic Judaism complete with his own recipe for anointing oil. Maybe he gave it to Colonel Sanders for his chicken and liked it so much he grew a beard to.

    • LB says:

      Can the creator become the created? Can God make a rock so big he cannot lift?
      Can God make square circles? If the creator can become the created the other two questions don’t seem so difficult.

      • robster2016 says:

        yes, it seems like storms god can also stop being god. it seems like he can make the flesh bit back into god by doing reverse engineering. so a christian should really be worshipping the flesh

    • LarryB says:

      Just for clarity, what do you believe? You start with the question “Was Jesus ‘Yeshua’ God?” Then it kind of looks like you believe he is God, but you end with another question, So, did Yeshua claim to be the Messiah. Which is it? Do you believe him to be God, the son of God, or the messiah? Maybe you believe this is a different trinity?

    • KAVI says:

      Dear Storm,
      You started off fairly well even though not everything said was entirely on the mark…

      Could I offer a friendly suggestion?

      From examining the videos you presented, you really do need to find better Messianic teachers…

      And although I candidly say that I do not think any single teacher in our time has all truth… still, by spending more time learning from better “orthodox” messianic leaders and reading Tanakh/BC– you will be far better set on the solid foundation of L-RD Yeshua.

      Now then… what you could have addressed is Jim’s parable named “The Doctoral Candidate”.

      Like many, if not all, of Jim’s lengthy writings that I am aware of, his essays invariably contain a false premise… and this one is no exception.

      Jim: “The Christian claim is that the resurrection is proof of Jesus’ messiahship.”

      Kavi: What nonsense!

      Another classic case of creating a “straw man argument”…

      From the very first words in Tanakh,
      “In the beginning G-d created the heavens and the earth”
      …G-d did not bother to “prove” Himself…
      …Yes, His Words and Deed can be a powerful testimony… but neither are in any way indisputable “proofs” to the skeptic.

      Likewise, L-RD Yeshua never said He came to “prove” anything to mankind…

      …Instead, Yeshua came fulfill the Truth of G-d as testified by Moses and the Prophets.

      “You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me,
      “yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life.” [John 5]

      Both the Tanakh and BC/NT contain testimony concerning L-RD Messiah Redeemer Yeshua…
      …and like both, mankind can either believe the testimony or not.


      BTW> Since Tanakh is a testimony… any skeptic could apply Jim’s own standards of “proof” to “disprove” or “discredit” so many matters in Tanakh that we would dangerously risk running out of internet ink… it’s simply too easy a task…

      … but skeptics there will always be until the final judgment… and then there will be no more skepticism in front of the Almighty Judge.

      So, Storm… unless both Jew and Gentile “hear” the testimony about The Messiah Redeemer and “see” the Light of L-RD Yeshua dawn in their uncircumcised hearts, they will never find forgiveness and future hope to be with G-d forever…

      [Jeremiah 9:25-26, Ezekiel 20, Psalm 23, Isaiah 1, Isaiah 6, Isaiah 9, Isaiah 49, Isaiah 65, Isaiah 66]

      • RT says:

        Without “proof” of Jesus resurrection, there is no reason whatsoever to believe he came up from the grave, or that he fulfilled Isaiah 53. Without Jesus coming out of the grave, there is no reason to believe in Jesus more than in bar Kokhba.

        Jeremiah 9:25-26: In context it already happened, and it was because they worship other gods. This is exactly why Jews refuse to accept Jesus and in truth, by refusing Jesus, they embrace G-d.

        Ezekiel 20: Each of you, get rid of the vile images you have set your eyes on, and do not defile yourselves with the idols of Egypt. I am the Lord your God.”

        As the vile image is a created thing, so Jesus also was create. You defile yourself with your idol. A MAN!

        Psalm 23: The Lord is my shepherd, I lack nothing
        David trusted in YVHV, not in Jesus or the messiah. You trust in a non-god, The Jews trust in G-d!

        Isaiah 1: “You will be ashamed because of the sacred oaks
        in which you have delighted;
        you will be disgraced because of the gardens
        that you have chosen.

        Yes, Israel was discarded because of its idolatry, and that’s exactly why the Jews refuse your idol Jesus, and even died before accepting it. Those who accepted your idol Yeshu are no more Israel by the way!

        Isaiah 6: So the holy seed shall be its stump.”
        That does not talk about Jesus, but about Israel’s remnant who will follow G-d, not any gods…

        Isaiah 9: Please do yourself a favor and read that in context… Jesus DID not leave in the time of Rezin! (You probably don’t even know who he is!)

        • Alan says:

          I like and appreciate everything you wrote. Just one thing I’m not sure what you meant – ” Israel was discarded because of its idolatry,” I’m not sure how you’re using the word discarded.

      • RT says:

        By ““orthodox” messianic leaders “, do you mean “Christian with a Kippah”? They must believe in the Trinity and by faith alone without the work of the Torah…. Where does the Trinity come from Kavi? Nicea… and who decided that it was the truth? Your dear Catholic friend.

        “…Instead, Yeshua came fulfill the Truth of G-d as testified by Moses and the Prophets.”

        Still preaching Kavi? You have 0 testimony from the prophet, and we have shown you. Those prophecies are not prophecies, twisted prophecies, taken out-of-context prophecies, or simply will become a prophecy when Jesus actually comes back and fulfill his first prophecy!

        “…and like both, mankind can either believe the testimony or not.”

        I also can believe that Leprechaun are true! You must believe in the Leprechaun Kavi to have eternal life, because I said so!

        “Jim’s own standards of “proof” to “disprove” or “discredit” so many matters in Tanakh ”

        Mont Sianai: ALL Israel, men, women, children (Millions of people) heard G-d speaking to them.

        Jesus resurrection: was seen by his twelve follower (including Judas of course 1 Cor 15).

        ” unless both Jew and Gentile” believe in Jesus they will never find forgiveness and burn in hell forever” = Replacement theology in disguise, but you call yourself a dispensationalist!

        • KAVI says:

          As you can see, no one has argued that Jim’s “straw man” argument is nothing more than just a “straw man” argument….


          So, let’s go on to examine a couple statements that were made…

          RT: “Mount Sinai: ALL Israel, men, women, children (Millions of people) heard G-d speaking to them.”

          Kavi: …and the Atheists and Skeptics have field days with such statements.

          Facts are,
          [a] Nearly all those Millions rejected what was heard and were put to death in the desert wilderness…

          “You have been rebellious against the L-RD ever since I have known you.” [Deuteronomy 9]

          “Therefore I swore in my wrath, ‘They shall not enter my rest.'” [Psalm 95]

          [b] By comparison, a far smaller crowd witnessed L-RD Yeshua ascend back to the Ancient of Days– yet, untold millions of Gentiles have accepted the testimony of G-d as written by Moses and the Prophets.

          …just as prophet Isaiah foretold [Isaiah 28 & 49 & 65, Genesis 12 & 15]

          …and, just as Yeshua foretold [Mark 4]


          RT: “I also can believe that Leprechaun are true!”

          Kavi: …thus saith Atheists and Skeptics regarding Orthodox Jewish Theology.


          RT: “You have 0 testimony from the prophet, and we have shown you.”

          Kavi: On the contrary, no one has provided “proofs” of anything… interpretative arguments, yes… “proofs”, no…

          Facts are,
          Tanakh is a massive testimony of G-d– and Israel has a poor record of interpreting anything correctly as prophesied over and over (and over) again by the Prophets… it’s a living testimony to the blindness and deafness of G-d’s servant Israel.
          [Isaiah 28 & 42, etc]

          And it’s a blindness and deafness that will continue until the exiles are forced to come back by G-d where only then does He glean out the few righteous remnant from among the unrighteous many.
          [Ezekiel 36 & 20, Isaiah 1 & 6 & 8, Jeremiah 3:14, etc]


          RT: “” unless both Jew and Gentile” believe in Jesus they will never find forgiveness and burn in hell forever””

          Kavi: RT, let’s correct your misquotation…

          “…unless both Jew and Gentile “hear” the testimony about The Messiah Redeemer and “see” the Light of L-RD Yeshua dawn in their uncircumcised hearts, they will never find forgiveness and future hope to be with G-d forever…”

          Facts are,
          When G-d calls the exiles back for the sake of His own Holy Name, most of the exiles will be found in rebellion and meet a terrible end of eternal condemnation….
          [Ezekiel 20 & 36, Zechariah 12 and 14, Daniel 12, Isaiah 66]

          Yes… only a tiny remnant of exhiles will be saved because, just like the days of Noah, Abram, Moses, and the Prophets, only a paltry number actually believe in G-d’s L-RD Messianic Kinsman Redeemer
          [Genesis 3 & 15, Exodus 33 & 34, Isaiah 1 & 6 & 8, Jeremiah 3:14, etc]

          …As such, G-d Himself, through Ezekiel and Isaiah, dispels the Orthodox Rabbinic “remnant” theory…

          As to the Gentiles? They have by then already come to faith in L-RD Yeshua and will return to earth as holy ones with the Holy One leading them [Zechariah 14]…

          “I permitted Myself to be sought by those who did not ask for Me; I permitted Myself to be found by those who did not seek Me.
          “I said, ‘Here am I, here am I,’ To a nation which did not call on My name. “I have spread out My hands all day long to a rebellious people, Who walk in the way which is not good, following their own thoughts…” [Isaiah 65]

          “The L-RD says, “It is too small a thing for you to be my servant to restore the tribes of Jacob and bring back those of Israel I have kept. I will also make you a light for the Gentiles, that my salvation may reach to the ends of the earth.” [Isaiah 49]


          BTW> I’ve already heard the Orthodox “arguments” which, when taken as a whole, fail the test of a consistent hermeneutic from Genesis throughout.

          “To whom would He teach knowledge,
          And to whom would He interpret the message?
          Those just weaned from milk?
          Those just taken from the breast?

          “For He says,
          ‘Order on order, order on order,
          Line on line, line on line,
          A little here, a little there.’”

          Indeed, He will speak to this people
          Through stammering lips and a foreign tongue,

          He who said to them, “Here is rest, give rest to the weary,”
          And, “Here is repose,” but they would not listen. [Isaiah 28]


          • Nikola says:

            KAVI, nothing better than when you catch yourself in a web of lies. So now Psalm 95 is about Land of Israel, and not Shabbat?
            Typical Christian deception. Use the verses as they suit your current narrative. But God makes you stumble. That’s why your whole “New Testament” is full of contradictions and nonsense. Of course it could have been refined over centuries, but God made sure to leave it in disarray so that it’s clear it teaches false doctrine.
            Like, for instance, Paul’s testimony that 12 apostles saw Jesus after resurrection, although there were only 11 left. And, oh by the way, the twelveth guy, Judas, died both by hanging and bursting open in the field. Seriously, how can you truly believe these schizophrenic texts? Don’t even dare comparing that nonsense to Tanakh, let alone Torah.

          • LarryB says:

            “but God made sure to leave it in disarray so that it’s clear it teaches false doctrine.”
            If you don’t believe that just look at Kavis writing style. For me it takes disarray to a whole new level. I can’t understand anything he says.

          • KAVI says:

            You only “think” I erred because you apparently could not perceive the line of logic…

            …a logic which addressed the utter rebelliousness of millions of Israel who,
            [a] G-d did not grant the rebels entrance into Canaan,
            [b] G-d will not grant the rebels entrance into the eternal land.

            …as to the latter point, it is quite clear these rebels are eternally condemned [Psalm 95 and Daniel 12 and Isaiah 66]


            However… now that you mention the subject,

            Let’s further compare the rebellious house of Israel who,
            [a] rejected the voice of G-d
            [b] did not enter the land of promise during their lives
            [c] are eternally rejected from entering the land of promise

            In contrast to the True house of Israel [both Jew and Gentile] who,
            [a] accept the voice of G-d
            [b] enter into True Shabbat Shalom with G-d during their lives
            [c] will eternally share in G-d’s gifted inheritance

            …just as the prophets foretold [Isaiah 49 & 65, etc]

            …and, just as Yeshua foretold [Mark 4]

            …again, very straightforward and reasonable to both Jew and Gentile seeking G-d’s forgiveness of sin by the original and most ancient path… through L-RD Yeshua, G-d’s Anointed Redeemer.


          • RT says:

            Kavi, believe whatever you want, I don’t care and won’t argue with your “proven” way… Jesus is the messiah for you and nobody will make you change your mind. It does not change the fact that you are on a JEWISH website and that you are quite annoying!

          • RT says:

            Kavi’s facts: Jews are wicked and rebellious while those who follow Jesus are all saints. Those who are not were not “true” followers of Jesus, so they don’t count…

            Kavi’s Fact 2: The tiny Jewsih remnant that will be saved are the convert to Christianity, but will deny that I believe in replacement theology.

            Kavi’s fact number 3: I say I love the JEWS but in fact I want to convert them to my religion. I say “rabbinic” her and there as some pejorative word, but light the Sabbath candles, pronounce the blessings and wear a Yarmulke (all RABBINIC traditions!) just to look Jewish!

            Kavi’s fact number 4: Each time I read the Old testament, I don’t try to apply it to myself, I only want to see how bad the Jews were…

      • Jim says:

        A note on a recent deception:

        Kavi wrote to Storm: “BTW>Since Tanakh is a testimony…any skeptic could apply Jim’s own standards of “proof” to “disprove” or “discredit” so many matters in Tanakh that we would dangerously risk running out of internet ink…it’s simply too easy a task…”

        This is a lie.

        As can be seen in my essay, one of the standards that I employ in critiquing Christian claims is that when it quotes the Tanach, it should not alter the meaning of Tanach by ignoring the context or exchanging one word for another. For example, Isaiah 7:14 is clearly not about a child to be born hundreds of years in the future. It is not a Messianic prophecy. To make this a prophecy about Jesus, one has to ignore the rest of the passage. This is not some impossible standard that I have erected against which Tanach would also fail.

        Indeed, as my essay illustrates, the Christian also recognizes this standard. At one point, Christians applied a passage to Jesus, believing it to be Messianic. It sounded a lot like Jesus. But then, they realized that the passage was referring to false prophets. Once they realized this, many stopped applying it to Jesus. The reason they stopped is because the context defined the figure for them in a way they did not like. So, the Christian recognizes that the context of a passage is important.

        What is duplicitous is to then still apply all the other non-Messianic passages to Jesus, ignoring the context in those passages.

        And, of course, Christians agree with this standard. They attempt to employ it whenever it suits their purpose. Obviously, they will defend the words of Jesus from such abuse, frequently appealing to context when his words are in question. And they do the same thing with Tanach. Christians appeal to the context of Tanach, whenever they believe it suits their purposes. Whenever it does not, however, they ignore it.

        The standard I apply is not a dubious one whereby Tanach would also fall. The double-standard is not mine; it is Kavi’s. And it is a lie to imply otherwise.

        Regarding the matter of the resurrection, there is no double standard. One can read my work here to see that I have a standard that is applied to the Sinai event and the annunciation of the resurrection: That is to say, Tanach passes my standards of criticism and the NT fails. It is important to note, too, that I judge the NT by what it says and not by outside sources. I test its credibility.

        It is easy for Kavi to make these claims, because he does not actually identify what standard I employ and how it would sink Tanach under the weight of an impossible standard of proof. But in saying them, he has misrepresented my argument, likely in order to avoid answering it. Kavi has attempted to peddle a deception.


  4. dneff613 says:

    Reblogged this on Daily Musar and commented:
    The fact that the Church needed to perpetrate such a fraud tells one all he needs to know. He can rest assured that Jesus is not the Messiah. If he had been, no need to misrepresent Tanach would exist. A little scrutiny of the Christian case for Jesus shows the proofs to be all hollow, mere nothingness. Some of the supposed proofs must be accepted on faith, denying their ability to prove anything, like the resurrection. Other proofs were based on fraud, which are easily exposed with a little study. All those things meant to establish Jesus as the Messiah, when exposed to the bright light of truth, evaporate as the dew evaporates under the warm sun.

  5. Jim says:


    In answer to your post here: .

    Thank you for your response to my article. It is difficult to read the work of someone who disagrees with your faith. It can leave one feeling quite uncomfortable, so I would like to commend you on the act of bravery involved in reading the work of someone that so strongly opposes your faith. And I appreciate you taking the time to formulate a response. However, I would like to respond to your comment. Respectfully, I would like to show why most of what you wrote does not address the argument of my article and hopefully bring a little clarity to the topic.

    You begin your response by asking whether or not Yeshu was God (but I think you mean “is”?) And you go on to quote Prov. 30. Immediately, you have diverted from the topic. The topic is not “What did Jesus claim?” The topic is “Were Jesus’ claims verified?” Granted, it is an important to discuss why Jesus was not God and why one ought not to worship him. But in this article, that was not the subject.

    So, when you ask if it is “so hard to grasp the fact that the same God who is powerful enough to have created the entire universe, is also capable of sending an aspect of Himself down to earth in the form of a human male, etc.?” the question is not relevant. Whether or not such a thing can be imagined is not the question. The question is whether or not this is a mere claim, unsubstantiated, or if some proof can be brought in favor of the claim.

    Listing instances in the NT where it is claimed that Jesus was God is of no answer. My article did not argue that the NT never makes any such claim. My argument is that Jesus’ claim to Messiahship, whatever that means to the believer, is unsubstantiated.

    Please feel free to reread the article to understand my meaning. It may also help to read “Pentecost vs. Shavuot” to which this article was meant to add further elucidation. You can find that article here:

    And please look through R’ Blumenthal’s articles. This is his site, and he has written many wonderful things on this topic and others, showing why one need not and ought not put his trust in a human being but ought rather to rely upon HaShem.


  6. robster2016 says:

    “Is it really so hard to grasp the fact that the same God who is powerful enough to have created the entire universe, is also capable of sending an aspect of Himself down to earth in the form of a human male, so that man could both better understand and relate to Him?”

    so you want to have relationship with CREATED aspect of god? okay, now tell me, WHAT was the POINT for your god to tell ppl that they took for god

    a human who needed air to breath (Isaiah 2:22)

    you are telling me THAT you want to do spiritual adultery with created aspect of god and your god is telling that people took a human who breaths, as god.

    • robster2016 says:

      “Is it really so hard to grasp the fact that the same God who is powerful enough to have created the entire universe, is also capable of sending an aspect of Himself down to earth in the form of a human male, so that man could both better understand and relate to Him?”

      your christian brethren say that that which “makes up god” and that which makes up human DOES not mix. God brings things into existences which did not exist, LIKE tomorrow and the day after. if God does NOT mix even according to the christian argument, then he is a SEPARATE being which does not get penetrated by finite. and he definitely cannot mix into creation otherwise he done idolatry with himself. i ask , if God is all powerful and according to the christian argument 2 natures DON’T mix, what does it even mean ” down to earth in the form of a human male” ???? you will always have a separate THING in existence.

  7. Concerned Reader says:

    Storm, I can’t watch videos at the moment. If you would summarize for me an answer to my question that the video is purportedly saying, I will be grateful.

    Dina, I watched the video. It is the most absurd use of language I have seen.

    Mr. Monte uses the hebrew word for “stone” and says that it means “Av-Ben” IE the names father and son are one in the word “stone” and do not imply separation, IE even though Jesus is called “son” he is still G-d. Its linguistic acrobatics where words don’t mean what they say and they don’t say what they mean.

    Its a weaved web meant to save an internally inconsistent doctrine.

    LarryB speaking of Colonel Sanders. Once a buddy and I were in a restaurant, talking about JC.

    My buddy was wondering whether Jesus could have just “got up” after being in the tomb for 3 days.

    I was telling him that “not really because he would have been wrapped in a burial shroud (hundreds of pounds of material) and anointed with oils, herbs, and spices so his body wouldn’t be disturbed, sort of like a kind of mummification.” He says “herbs and spices? Is that original recipe or extra crispy?”

  8. Dina says:

    Can this Storm dude make a single argument on his own?

    • Alan says:

      And how would he like it if we dropped anti-Jesus videos on his messianic blog.

      I watched this video – it is foolish beyond belief. Just like the other videos he’s dropped on this site the only people who would be attracted to this are those who don’t have a strong background in Torah and Hebrew. Hashem + Miriam = Yeshu (not Yeshua, but Yeshu). And the first letters of 4 words of a verse of 7 words rearranged spells Yeshua and the last 3 letters of three words in the verse spell Moshiach. Even if this verse had something to do with Moshiach this would mean nothing, but the verse has nothing to do with Moshiach. The whole psalm is all about Hashem alone. Torah law says that gematria and letter patterns cannot be used to generate halacha or theology. They can only be used as a midrashic support for already kosher concepts. It is not kosher for just anyone to find their own gematria and claim that it proves what he wants it to prove. If a prophet or a holy person teaches a gematria then it is probably true if he is using it to reveal a deeper aspect of something that we already know is kosher and only as long as it doesn’t contradict Torah principles. These guys are trying to prove Jesus is Moshiach and the son of God from gematria and letter games! Not kosher Storm!

    • LarryB says:

      I think this is a girl. Storm is a name from X-Men characters. Famous for conjuring up a lot of hot air, tornadoes, hurricanes, and whatever needed to save the planet.

  9. Storm Please read the comment policy before posting

    1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >

  10. Jim says:


    A first answer to your comment here:

    You wrote that I erected a straw man when I wrote: “The Christian claim is that the resurrection is proof of Jesus’ messiahship.” I can hardly imagine that you have comforted Storm in any way with this claim. You have admitted that the resurrection proves nothing. I find this fascinating, and for the moment, I would like to accept your premise as true. I will agree with you that the resurrection proves nothing and accept for the sake of argument that no Christian ever claimed it did. Does this destroy my argument?

    For the moment, I am willing to leave aside whether or not Jesus had a responsibility to prove his claims. You argue that he had no such responsibility and that he did not “come to ‘prove’ anything to mankind…” If so, then we must ask why anyone should believe him, but for the moment, let us ignore that issue.

    “…Instead,” you argue, “Yeshua came to fulfill the Truth of G-d as testified by Moses and the Prophets.”

    You write this argument as if my parable did not address this point at all. In fact, I argued that it is only Christian abuse that allows him to read Jesus into Tanach. I gave a few well-known examples, even one that Christians have largely dropped, because it was damaging to their cause. And I pointed out that the method they used to determine that the passage that fell out of favor could not apply to Jesus disproved the other scriptures used by the Christian as well. This, you did not counter. You claim, but you do not demonstrate, that Jesus is found in Tanach. Your mere assertion does not establish it as fact.

    So, even if we accept that I erected a straw man, the conclusion remains the same: no proof for the Messiahship of Jesus has been produced. You have agreed that the resurrection is no proof at all, only disputing that Christians consider it proof. Then you pretended that I had not addressed what you consider the real proof, the testimony of Tanach. However, I had addressed that point in this article, to which you brought no counter-argument. You have not established the legitimacy of reading Jesus into the Tanach. Moreover, it is dishonest of you to pretend that this claim has not been answered, either in this article or elsewhere. R’ Blumenthal has given 1000 Verses that prove the opposite: . In the end, the claim that I have blown down a straw man is irrelevant, because the other so-called proofs, the references to Jesus in Tanach, are nothing more than scriptural abuse, proofs that disappear under scrutiny.


    • KAVI says:

      Jim: “In the end, the claim that I have blown down a straw man is irrelevant, because the other so-called proofs, the references to Jesus in Tanach, are nothing more than scriptural abuse, proofs that disappear under scrutiny.”

      Kavi: Well, at least we agree that your essay is a “straw man” argument.

      So, let’s address just a few items you mention,

      [a] “So-called proofs”- Orthodox Theology can claim no proofs for their own theology just as much as Messianics can claim no “proofs” for their theology.

      Both Faiths are based on testimony… not “proofs”

      Nonetheless, when it comes to a more rational and objective and consistent interpretation of Tanakh, Messianics (Jew and Gentile) can easily claim a stronger, more truthful understanding of G-d’s witness than Orthodox Judaism.

      [b] “Scriptural abuse”– such words form an “assertion”– they are neither “fact” nor “proof” of anything.

      [c] “Proofs that disappear under scrutiny”– Although I must credit your persistence, I cannot give credit to your desire to “resurrect” a dead essay which is based on a false premise.

      …so, it’s time to bury this dead essay and move on.


      BTW> As to the Orthodox “1000 verses”– G-d has provided His own truthful counter-arguments that can be found by anyone who seeks out G-d.

      So, if one really wants to know the legitimate Messianic truth about Isaiah 53, Isaiah 7, Psalm 16, Daniel 9, and so, so many other passages of Scripture… it is strongly recommended one look beyond the Orthodox who G-d plainly describes as callous of heart, blind, and deaf. [Isaiah 6 & 28 & 42, etc]

      However, to both Jew and Gentile, who do true teshuva away from seeking self-righteousness and turn toward the Light of G-d’s Truth found in L-RD Yeshua… salvation has indeed reached to the ends of the earth in our lifetime:
      … just as G-d fortold to the Gentile Abram [Genesis 12 & 15]
      … just as G-d fortold through Isaiah [Isaiah 49 & 65]
      … just as L-RD Yeshua foretold [Mark 5]


      • RT says:

        … the Orthodox who G-d plainly describes as callous of heart, blind, and deaf.

        KAVI, I can see that the tone of the follower of your blessed Messiah has not changed since the early church fathers. Are you trying to fool yourself that you love the Jewish people?

        • KAVI says:

          Isaiah wrote harsh words from G-d Himself… so why pretend I am the one who condemns?

          And I heard the voice of the L-rd saying,
          “Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?”

          Then I said, “Here I am! Send me.”
          And He said, “Go, and say to this people:

          “‘Keep on hearing, but do not understand;
          keep on seeing, but do not perceive.’
          Make the heart of this people dull,
          and their ears heavy,
          and blind their eyes;
          lest they see with their eyes,
          and hear with their ears,
          and understand with their hearts,
          and turn and be healed.”

          Then I said, “How long, O L-rd?”

          And He said:
          “Until cities lie waste without inhabitant,
          and houses without people,
          and the land is a desolate waste,
          and the Lord removes people far away,
          and the forsaken places are many in the midst of the land.
          And though a tenth remain in it,
          it will be burned again,
          like a terebinth or an oak,
          whose stump remains
          when it is felled.”
          The holy seed is its stump.

          [Isaiah 6]

          Clearly, the vast majority of Israel will be condemned
          whereas G-d will reserve for Himself a small remnant.

          …and since you obviously don’t like G-d’s words, your beliefs not only fulfill the words of the Prophet, but also show contempt toward the Prophet as well…. shouldn’t it give you just the slightest pause about your open rebellion with G-d and His Messiah, L-RD Yeshua?

          BTW> Israel’s desire to rebel against G-d and persecute His Prophets is well reflected in Tanakh– it was the majority of Israel who wanted to stone Moses to death.

          Only the minority of Israel who believe in G-d’s Redeemer for salvation are the True Witnesses, the True Holy Seed, The True Servant Israel that G-d speaks about in the book of Isaiah… NOT the majority of Israel– that is, those who are described as the blind and deaf “servant” [Isaiah 42]

          • RT says:

            Any time a gentile try to curse G-d in the Bible, G-d forbids them!

            But God said to Balaam, “Do not go with them. You must not put a curse on those people, because they are blessed.”

            G-d can chastise anybody, you have no rights to curse people! Shame on you Kavi!

      • Jim says:


        It is no surprise that you would misrepresent my words. I never agreed that I created a straw man, a term that I do not think you even understand. I only accepted it as a premise for the sake of argument. I will be answering that claim in a future comment, if God is willing. I have only put it off, because it is the least important and least interesting of your claims. This is because it is so obviously false, that it hardly needs to be answered. I cannot imagine anyone was fooled by such an empty claim. That you distort my words to show yourself triumphant is ugly. However, as I say, I am not surprised. If you have no compunctions about misrepresenting the words of HaShem, then obviously mine will be equally fair game.


        • KAVI says:

          Jim: “I never agreed that I created a straw man.”

          Kavi: Very well, I accept that you did not agree– my mistake was in thinking you had disavowed your primary assertion as “irrelevant” in comparison to the other issues you raised.


          … but do allow me to mention that, after I proved your fundamental premise quite false based on the testimony of Tanakh, you seem to be quite alone in asserting you still have a valid argument.


      • Jim says:


        Your constant denigration of the Jewish people does not help your case. I do not mean rhetorically, but logically. I mean that it does not substantiate your arguments. To the contrary, it reveals their paucity.

        Too frequently, you are unable to demonstrate the legitimacy of your scriptural interpretations. This is because those interpretations are not supported by the text. They are mere assertions, which is why you are unable to support them. Many of the ideas you would like to find in the text just do not appear. When you are challenged on this, then you appeal to the spiritual blindness of the Jew. This, you seem to think, settles the matter.

        This is not sound. Let us assume for the sake of argument, that the Jewish people are blind and unable to understand Tanach whatsoever, as you assert. (When I write, “let us assume for the sake of argument,” I do not mean that it is so. Do not go saying that I agree with you.) Because the Jew does not understand a passage does not mean that you do. You will still have not demonstrated the truth of your position.

        You have made a logical error. You have assumed only two interpretations exist, the Jewish one and yours. Then, since the Jew is, according to you, always in error, your interpretation must be correct. But obviously, more than two interpretations might exist for a passage. Indeed, more than one Christian interpretation often exists for a passage. Therefore, when you argue that the Jewish position cannot be true, you have done nothing to establish your own position. The only way to prove your position will be through demonstration.

        To illustrate: consider the prophet like Moses. The Jew might say that this is referring to the office of prophecy, to prophets in general, rather than one particular prophet. You might say that this refers to Jesus. You will then declare that the Jew cannot be right, because of various scriptures (you do not understand). Therefore, the only remaining interpretation is that this prophet is Jesus. You win!

        Except, not really.

        Other interpretations appear. The Muslim says it is Muhammad. It could be a person in the future. It might be Joseph Smith. Your position is not proven just for having given yourself an excuse not to listen to the Jewish position. You will still have to demonstrate the truth of your position.

        The logic is faulty. You assume dichotomous interpretations, where there may be many. Ruling one out does not establish your interpretation as true. It does nothing for your case to call the Jewish people spiritually blind. Even if they are, you may be too. You can only prove your case through sound argument and legitimate usage of the text. Perhaps the reason you have to rely on maligning your interlocutors is because the text does not justify your abuse.


        • RT says:

          “To illustrate: consider the prophet like Moses. ”

          Kavi, have you ever realized that the messenger of Exodus 23 would be the perfect Jesus if we omitted only a few words:

          See, I am sending an angel ahead of you to guard you along the way… Pay attention to him and listen to what he says. Do not rebel against him; he will not forgive your rebellion, since my Name is in him. If you listen carefully to what he says and do all that I say, I will be an enemy to your enemies and will oppose those who oppose you. My angel will go ahead of you …

          It pretty much repeats the same as the “Prophet” of Deuteronomy. The only thing, it refers to an angel that was sent in the wilderness and thus could not fit Jesus. The prophet of Deut does not have such clarification, and that lack of clarification is used by you to prove your point. In other word, because the passage is ambiguous, then you can say it refers to Jesus. This is unfortunately the case of most Christians proof texts. I can say the same with Isaiah 53, because it is ambiguous who the servant is, you use that as a proof. Jim as a good point, even if Deut 30 does not speak of all the prophets, it still could be someone else. The same holds with Isaiah 53, which is a future prophecy (as no servant was ever exalted and very high)… I think it would be better to wait until the fulfillment of those prophecies, unless you put your trust in a lie!

          • KAVI says:

            RT: “To illustrate: consider the prophet like Moses.” Kavi, have you ever realized that the messenger of Exodus 23 would be the perfect Jesus if we omitted only a few words

            Kavi: RT, either you are learning from Jim’s mastery of “straw man” argumentation OR, you don’t realize I said nothing about a “prophet like Moses.”

            …I choose to give you the benefit of the doubt and pick the latter.

            Moses and the Prophets have provided more than enough TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE that G-d’s Anointed Kinsman Redeemer is L-RD Yeshua– and if you do not accept their testimony then,

            L-RD Yeshua said,
            “Do not think that I will accuse you before the Father.
            Your accuser is Moses, in whom you have put your hope.
            If you had believed Moses, you would believe Me,
            because he wrote about Me.
            But since you do not believe what he wrote,
            how will you believe what I say?” [John 5]


            BTW> Again, I will repeat what we all know– i.e., Tanakh is a Testimony… not an indisputable “proof” to the vast majority of mankind.

            “In the beginning G-d created the heavens and the earth” [Genesis 1]

            …although G-d did not bother to “prove” Himself…yet, G-d’s Words and Deeds can be powerful testimonial evidence.
            … but neither G-d’s Words or Deeds can in any way provide indisputable “proofs” to the skeptic.


          • RT says:

            Kavi you got me tire! Because Jesus said so, that must be true? Have you forgotten common sense, or you just forgot any logic left in you? Have you become like to idol worshiper of Psalm 115? If the world was made out only of people like you, we would have never realize that the earth is round and they would have said that the electricity is from the devil!

        • KAVI says:

          Jim: “Your constant denigration of the Jewish people does not help your case.”

          Kavi: Out of curiousity, when I repeat the words of G-d in Tanakh, how is that “denigration”?

          G-d calls Israel “whores” by the word of Ezekiel– no doubt you would accuse Ezekiel and condemn him as an anti-semite!


          Jim: “Let us assume for the sake of argument, that the Jewish people are blind and unable to understand Tanach whatsoever, as you assert. […] Because the Jew does not understand a passage does not mean that you do. You will still have not demonstrated the truth of your position. You have made a logical error.”

          Kavi: I have not made a “logical error” because only YOU created that line of argument… I did not.

          …do you not realize you eggregiously created another classic textbook example of a “straw man” argument?

          If you “blindly” fail to realize it… well, so be it.


          Jim: “You have assumed only two interpretations exist, the Jewish one and yours.”

          Kavi: Well of all amazing things… another classic textbook example of a “straw man” argument!!

          Jim, let Will Rogers give you a bit of advice,

          “When you find yourself in a hole… stop digging!”


          BTW> Your “clear” example of Isaiah 7 is not even close to being as clear as you presume… all you have is an “interpretative argument”… not a “proof”

          If one desires simpleton answers to Isaiah 7 and other Messianic texts, then stick with Orthodox Judaism…

          However, if one desires to educate themselves, find the most persuasive argument contrary to your own and see if your interpretation withstands the heat…

          …I can assure you that I am not sweating.

          • RT says:

            Kavi, do you know what a “straw man argument is”?

            A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent’s argument, while actually refuting an argument which was not advanced by that opponent.

            By saying that Jim made a straw man argument by saying you have not proposed any prove for your frivolous theories and interpretation does not make it a straw man argument. Remember that the Jewish interpretation is NOT in play her (as Jim mentioned). It is your interpretation that Jesus is the fulfillment of all those amazing prophecies that are at play. Jewish interpretations can still be wrong. By saying that Jim has another classic “straw man argument”, you first LIED, and on top of that you YOURSELF throw a straw man argument.

            Could you please stop diverting the subject. I asked you several times to check any prophecies in the Tanakh. And that dated back since 2015. You argued with many people over the years, but not once you stopped and look at any passages. You always arrive with your own conclusion and don’t even care to look at passages in context. You arrive with your acclamations that Yeshua is the messiah and that we are blinded, but who acts like the fool who is blinded and unwilling to listen to the other? You are Kavi!

          • Jim says:


            I begin to think you are here to amuse us, and if so, I must say: “Bravo!”

            Is anything funnier than you arguing that you are not creating a false dichotomy between the Jewish position and yours and then you going on to declare the Jewish position on Isaiah 7 to the “the simpleton answer” of “Orthodox Judaism” while never substantiating yours? Surely, you wrote this post only to give us all a good bout of laughter with which to start our day. Quite wonderful, really. Even now, I can barely stifle the aftershock giggles that follow an unconstrained moment of hilarity. Good show!


          • RT says:

            Kavi, please educate me on the real meaning of Isaiah 7. Surely you can show us light on why this text talks about Jesus.:

            13.And he said, “Listen now, O House of David, is it little for you to weary men, that you weary my God as well? יג.וַיֹּ֕אמֶר שִׁמְעוּ־נָ֖א בֵּ֣ית דָּוִ֑ד הַמְעַ֚ט מִכֶּם֙ הַלְא֣וֹת אֲנָשִׁ֔ים כִּ֥י תַלְא֖וּ גַּ֥ם אֶת־אֱלֹהָֽי:

            14.Therefore, the Lord, of His own, shall give you a sign; behold, the young woman is with child, and she shall bear a son, and she shall call his name Immanuel. יד.לָ֠כֵן יִתֵּ֨ן אֲדֹנָ֥י ה֛וּא לָכֶ֖ם א֑וֹת הִנֵּ֣ה הָֽעַלְמָ֗ה הָרָה֙ וְיֹלֶ֣דֶת בֵּ֔ן וְקָרָ֥את שְׁמ֖וֹ עִמָּ֥נוּ אֵֽל:

            15.Cream and honey he shall eat when he knows to reject bad and choose good. טו.חֶמְאָ֥ה וּדְבַ֖שׁ יֹאכֵ֑ל לְדַעְתּ֛וֹ מָא֥וֹס בָּרָ֖ע וּבָח֥וֹר בַּטּֽוֹב:

            16.For, when the lad does not yet know to reject bad and choose good, the land whose two kings you dread, shall be abandoned.” טז.כִּ֠י בְּטֶ֨רֶם יֵדַ֥ע הַנַּ֛עַר מָא֥וֹס בָּרָ֖ע וּבָח֣וֹר בַּטּ֑וֹב תֵּֽעָזֵ֚ב הָֽאֲדָמָה֙ אֲשֶׁ֣ר אַתָּ֣ה קָ֔ץ מִפְּנֵ֖י שְׁנֵ֥י מְלָכֶֽיהָ:

            17.The Lord shall bring upon you and upon your people and upon your father’s house, days which have not come, since the day that Ephraim turned away from Judah, namely, the king of Assyria. יז.יָבִ֨יא יְהֹוָ֜ה עָלֶ֗יךָ וְעַֽל־עַמְּךָ֘ וְעַל־בֵּ֣ית אָבִיךָ֒ יָמִים֙ אֲשֶׁ֣ר לֹֽא־בָ֔אוּ לְמִיּ֥וֹם סוּר־אֶפְרַ֖יִם מֵעַ֣ל יְהוּדָ֑ה אֵ֖ת מֶ֥לֶךְ אַשּֽׁוּר:

            18.And it shall be on that day, that the Lord shall whistle to the “fly” that is at the edge of the canals of Egypt, and to the “bee” that is in the land of Assyria.

          • RT says:

            Just to help Kavi, those are Christians commentaries on Isaiah 7:14:

            Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
            It would appear, therefore, that the idea of a miraculous conception was not present to Isaiah’s mind at this time, since a prediction of such astounding import must surely have been clothed in unambiguous language.

            Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers
            Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son . . .—Better, behold, the young woman, or perhaps the bride, shall conceive.

            Matthew Henry’s Concise Commentary
            Before this child, so it may be read; this child which I have now in my arms, (Shear-jashub, the prophet’s own son, ver. 3,) shall be three or four years older, these enemies’ forces shall be forsaken of both their kings.

            Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
            within the time when a young woman, then a virgin, should conceive and bring forth a child, and that child should grow old enough to distinguish between good and evils – the calamity which Ahaz feared would be entirely removed.

            Shall give you – Primarily to the house of David; the king and royal family of Judah. It was especially designed to assure the government that the kingdom would be safe.

            A sign – The word does not, of necessity, denote a miracle

            A virgin – This word properly means a girl, maiden, virgin, a young woman who is unmarried, and who is of marriageable age. The word עלמה ‛almâh, is derived from the verb עלם ‛âlam, “to conceal, to hide, to cover.” The word עלם ‛elem, from the same verb, is applied to a “young man,”

            And shall call his name – It was usual for “mothers” to give names to their children; Genesis 4:1; Genesis 19:37; Genesis 29:32; Genesis 30:18. There is, therefore, no reason to suppose, as many of the older interpreters did, that the fact that it is said the mother should give the name, was a proof that the child should have no human father. Such arguments are unworthy of notice; and only show to what means people have resorted in defending the doctrines, and in interpreting the pages of the Bible.

            Immanuel – Hebrew ‘God with us’ – The name is designed to denote that God would be with the nation as its protector.

            It may be quite true, that no argument can be founded on the bare name, Immanuel

            Matthew Poole’s Commentary
            A sign, to wit, of your deliverance.

          • RT says:

            I guess Kavi will dodge my comment because he has no sustainable reason to believe Isaiah 7 talks about Jesus. Instead of acknowledging that, he will just ignore the comment and will soon find another excuse to preach on us and blast the Jewish people…

          • KAVI says:

            RT: “I guess Kavi will dodge my comment because he has no sustainable reason to believe Isaiah 7 talks about Jesus.”

            Kavi: Since you followed my postings on the Daily Minyan years ago, you know I already began commenting on Isaiah 7 and no one was able to (or wanted to) reasonably respond.


            For example, here is just a brief snippet from that site regarding the word “almah”,

            Jim D.“…I invite you [Kavi] to go back and read the story of the defiling of Dinah. The Torah refers to her as “almah” after she was raped and no longer a virgin. Your astounding display of self-confidence is unsupported — in this case and in many others.”

            Kavi: …my response?

            You are mistaken regarding the word Almah:
            — Only the Greek Septuagint records Dinah as a virgin after being raped, not the Hebrew text [ הַֽנַּעֲרָ֔ ].”


            So RT, you’ve thrown down the gauntlet– which I do not mind picking it up, but you [and potentially Jim] will need to answer some very tough questions…

            … and, being late in the day, we will need to take a pass on further discussion for the time being re-visit the issue after Shabbos.


          • RT says:

            You are still elusive Kavi and won’t explain why Isaiah 7 talks about Jesus. For the sake of the argument, you may use “almah” as virgin. Explain me now in context why it fits only Jesus and why anybody in the time of Ahab would have understood this as a messianic prophecy of a virgin birth!

  11. Jim says:


    A second answer to your comment here:

    You wrote that Jesus did not come to prove anything to humanity. Indeed, you seem to suggest that he was under no responsibility to do so. This notion of yours violates both reason and Torah. In answer to this idea, I will divide my response into two comments. This, the first, will address the violation of reason. The second will address the violation of Torah.

    Even though you imply that Jesus need offer no proof to substantiate his claims, clearly you do not actually believe this. In reality you know what everyone knows, that any prophet, guru, or self-proclaimed messiah has a responsibility to offer proof of his claims. If he does not, one is not obligated to believe him. It is unreasonable to demand belief without the presentation of evidence. And you apply this standard to prophets other than Jesus.

    Indeed, you would apply this standard to Jesus, in all likelihood, if Christian doctrine were just a little different. Imagine that Christian doctrine ran thus: Jesus rose from the dead, and those that believe in his resurrection will be raised from the dead at the end of the world into perfect bodies and live with him in eternal bliss. And to prove one’s faith in the resurrection, one need merely drink a poison that kills one over the course of three days, three very painful days. Somehow, I think you will demand proof before you take this rather extreme measure. Then, you will very likely ask: “How do I know that Jesus came back from the dead? How do I know that those who believe in his resurrection will come back from the dead?”

    I could be wrong, of course. Perhaps you would gladly drink the poison. I have little doubt that some people would. But would you really urge people to lay aside their minds and drink poison based on a promise with no evidence? Would you urge your mother or child to do so? Perhaps you would give them a version of Pascal’s Wager, three days of terrible pain against the hope of eternal bliss—risk it! Or will you perhaps accept the role of the skeptic?

    Let us change the name of the prophet. Now, his name is Joseph Smith. Does that change anything? If it were Jesus, you would put all your faith in him without evidence. If it were Joseph Smith you would not.

    One of the problems with your argument that Jesus did not have to prove himself is that it denies any way to measure competing claims. Imagine two men, Paul and Peter, each claiming to be a prophet from God. Each says that you must sell all your goods and give the proceeds to him. They each claim the other to be a false prophet. Each claims also that he need give you no proof; nor did he come to offer any. You have no means of establishing the credibility of either. The only reasonable thing to do is to follow neither man. You can recognize that one of them may have heard from God, but, because you have no means of determining who that is, you have insufficient reason to follow either. If you follow one and not the other, your decision will be wholly arbitrary.

    But this is precisely what you have done. You do not follow Buddha. You do not follow Joseph Smith. You do not follow Muhammad. Yet, if their claims are challenged, any one of them and all of them can just say that they are not obligated to bring any proof. Since you have already accepted this standard, you have no reason to reject one of them and accept Jesus. Your decision is arbitrary and, in fact, meaningless. It violates reason.

    Nor will you be able to appeal to the testimony of Tanach. You implied that there is no proof that the Torah is true, and that the Torah does not even attempt to authenticate itself. Therefore, your belief in the Torah over the Bhagavad Gita or the Book of Mormon or the Quran is also arbitrary. Your adherence to any particular religious system might as well have been made by throwing dice.

    Moreover, some of those other prophets argued that they were substantiated by the testimony of Tanach, just as Jesus is supposed to have done. And they use the very same method for finding their teachers and doctrines in the Torah that you do. They ignore the plain meaning of a passage and put in their own meaning. They take passages out of context. And you cannot object, because this is the same way you find Jesus in Tanach, both Jesus and Christian doctrine. You will say that you are practicing Midrash. So, the Mormon will say that same. Terminology aside, the practice is exactly alike. Neither of you has a better claim than the other. And you have no means of choosing one over the other. Your decision is not reasoned and not reasonable. It is entirely arbitrary. If you grant that Tanach testifies to Jesus, you have no reason to say that it does not testify to Muhammad.

    Your conclusion that “mankind can believe… or not” is true as far as that goes. But the way you wish them to believe is by flipping a coin. You do not want them to look for truth. You deny them the means to examine it. You urge them to believe despite a lack of proof. Sure, they can believe mindlessly the way you would like them to do. However, this is a denial of reason. And they might as well believe in any other prophet. He has as much claim to them as Jesus, at least, according to your argument.


  12. Jim says:


    A third answer to your comment here:

    I would like to continue to examine your claim that Jesus did not come to prove anything, and the implication in your writing that he had no responsibility to offer proof of his claims. In my previous comment, I wrote that this notion of yours violates reason. But, of course, it also violates the Torah. Indeed, you have attempted to void certain Torah laws.

    To put forth your argument, you appeal to the beginning of Torah, which begins with creation. You write: “…G-d did not bother to ‘prove’ Himself…”. Unfortunately, you do not explain well what you mean, so I shall have to make inference. (And I should point out, much of what you write is unclear, as Larry mentioned.) It appears to me that you mean that the Torah does not begin by giving its credentials. One either accepts it or not, without any proof. And, you seem to imply, that if God did not feel it necessary to prove that this Torah was authentic, then neither should Jesus have to do so.

    This argument, to be blunt, is incompetent.

    You treat the Torah as if it were found in a library somewhere, that no one knew the origin of it. It is as if someone opened the pages and found this account of God and just had to decide for himself whether or not he believed this to be an accurate account of the creation of the Jewish people. But, of course, this was not the case. The Jewish people received the Torah from Moses, Moses whose role as prophet had been verified before the entire nation in a mass prophecy. In Exodus 19:9 we read: “Then the Lord said to Moses, ‘I am going to come to you in a dense cloud, in order that the people may hear when I speak with you and so trust you ever after.” The event at Sinai is exactly the proof that the Jewish people, those to whom the Torah was given, was a reliable document. Though the book was not given to them at that time, they received it from the only publicly verified prophet. So, indeed, God did give proof that the Torah was true. The Torah does not take pains to authenticate itself at the beginning, because its authentication comes from the Jewish people.

    Moreover, it is incompetent to argue that Jesus did not need to offer any proof of himself, as this is a violation of Torah. Deut. 13 and 18 both discuss the means and necessity of testing a prophet. It is a prophet’s duty to, in fact, substantiate his claims. The Torah does not permit him to demand belief without evidence. If you say that Jesus does not need to prove himself, then you nullify the Torah. It is impermissible for you to establish your own standard for the acceptance of a prophet.

    When I write that your arguments are incompetent, I do not mean that as an unkindness. Indeed, I feel that this is kinder than what is more likely true. I find it more likely true that you are being intentionally deceptive. You have been posting here and other places for a long time, and you are almost assuredly not ignorant of a prophet’s responsibility to prove himself. It seems quite likely that you already know that the Torah prescribes how to test a prophet and that the Torah does not demand blind obedience to all who say, “Thus saith the Lord.” And yet, you put forth this argument, as if to deceive Storm.

    I would not like to think that you are so shamelessly deceptive. I certainly cannot know that you are. But if you are not, then you are most assuredly far too ignorant to instruct others in the way of Torah. Your arguments are so mind-bogglingly incompetent, that I can hardly believe you would put them forward. If this is intended deception on your part, you certainly owe Storm an apology. Moreover, you owe HaShem an apology for your constant abuse of His words, substituting His Torah with your own empty notions.


    • KAVI says:

      Jim: “It appears to me that you mean that the Torah does not begin by giving its credentials. One either accepts it or not, without any proof. ”

      Kavi: Patently false… I wrote the following on September 7, 2017 at 3:00 am.

      “BTW> Again, I will repeat what we all know– i.e., Tanakh is a Testimony… not an indisputable “proof” to the vast majority of mankind.

      “In the beginning G-d created the heavens and the earth” [Genesis 1]

      …although G-d did not bother to “prove” Himself… yet, G-d’s Words and Deeds can be powerful testimonial evidence.

      … but neither G-d’s Words or Deeds can in any way provide indisputable “proofs” to the skeptic.”

      Did you not read my witness that Tanakh forms powerful testimonial evidence.?

      …of course you did not read– you’re still trying to “save” your dead essay.


      Jim: And, you seem to imply, that if God did not feel it necessary to prove that this Torah was authentic, then neither should Jesus have to do so. This argument, to be blunt, is incompetent.”

      Kavi: I have already written about the Tanakh’s powerful evidential testimony of G-d… hence, you are putting words into my mouth and creating another “straw man” argument…

      …To those who have been following this conversation, does Jim have anything to present other than “straw man” arguments?

      …If any of the readership is a Professor who teaches a course in logic, could someone have mercy on Jim and privately give him a few lessons?

      …Better yet, could such a Professor copy this material and hand it out to the class so that they may gain insight?

      …and if there is not a Professor, perhaps there is a “doctoral candidate”?


  13. Jim says:


    A fourth answer to your comment here:

    One of the disorders of the age is facilitated by the improper employment of the names of fallacies. The purpose of knowing the types of fallacies is to help analyze the truth or falsity of arguments. Unfortunately, people do not employ them this way. Rather, the modern man, looking always to uphold his current opinion, uses them to dismiss the arguments of others. He learns the names of fallacies, so that he need not analyze an argument—indeed, so that he need not even face the argument. So, one now reads constantly on the internet Latin terms clearly not understood by the writer, and about straw men, and hordes of true Scotmen. Usually these are just tools to circumvent an argument, which is what you have done in identifying a straw man premise in my essay. Your own employment of the term is clearly just to dismiss the rest of my “lengthy writing”—and by “lengthy” you mean, a few pages—without due consideration. You attempt to dismiss the/a premise in order to ignore the rest of the paper. But clearly, I have not presented a straw man, and your use of the term suggests you do not even know what one is.

    A straw man argument is one put into the mouth of an opponent, because it is easily knocked down. It is either a false argument or an argument made exceedingly simplistic to make the opponent’s position appear weaker. But I have not presented such an argument. Indeed, Christians do claim that the resurrection is proof of Jesus’ messiahship.

    One argument that I have seen is that the nature of the resurrection is different than any other kind of miracle. This proves that Jesus is not just like any other kind of prophet. Even those that could bring someone back from the dead, they argue, could not do it while dead themselves. This miracle is of an entirely different nature and proves that Jesus was something more than other prophets, according to these Christians.

    For Josh McDowell, the resurrection is a proof that Jesus is divine. The ninth chapter of his “The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict” is titled: “Support of Deity: The Resurrection—Hoax or History?” The title itself tells you that McDowell believes the resurrection proves that Jesus is God. The introduction to the chapter gives three credentials for Jesus, the third of which is the resurrection. Of the resurrection, he writes: “The resurrection of Jesus Christ and Christianity stand or fall together.” In that same chapter, the quotes William Lane Craig: “Even had [the disciples] continued to remember Jesus as their beloved teacher, his crucifixion would have forever silenced any hopes of his being the Messiah.” That is to say, according to Craig, it is the resurrection that proves that Jesus is the Messiah.

    Campus Crusaders for Christ similarly finds proof of Jesus’ claims in his resurrection: “The validity of Jesus’ claims about Himself rests on the Resurrection — whether He rose from the dead or stayed in the grave.” Also: “The Resurrection confirms that Jesus is who He claimed to be.” Here they give four reasons why this proves Jesus was “who He claimed to be”. First, it showed him to be divine. Second, it showed him to be able to forgive sin. Third, it showed that he had power over death. And finally, it showed that he had defeated God’s enemy. (Quotes can be found here: .)

    Now, Kavi, please let us recall my quote, which you considered a straw man argument: “The Christian claim is that the resurrection is proof of Jesus’ messiahship.” When one compares these sources to what I wrote, it certainly does not appear that I have invented an argument for the Christian world. Of course, I can pull up other quotes, but it is hardly necessary. Not only would that become tedious as part of a comment on a blog, but most assuredly, even before I began, nearly everyone who read what you wrote knew that it was hopelessly incorrect.

    If you did demand further evidence that Christians claim that the resurrection is proof of Jesus’ Messiahship, I would turn to the NT. You like to employ Paul quite a bit without making direct reference to him. Perhaps you are familiar with Romans 1. In verse 4, Paul writes that Jesus “was declared to be the Son of God with power… by resurrection of the dead.” Paul is saying that the resurrection is what shows Jesus to be the Son of God.

    And though you have argued that Jesus did not come to give any proof, he did, in fact, offer the resurrection as a sign to substantiate his claims. In Matthew 12, when some scribes and Pharisees ask for a sign, he offers them the sign of Jonah, declaring that he would be dead and buried for three days (vv. 38-42). So, when Jesus was asked to substantiate his claims, the proof he offered was the resurrection.

    It is obvious, then, that I did not erect a straw man. Christians do indeed claim that the resurrection is proof that Jesus is the Messiah. Jesus even appealed to this standard himself.

    And yet, I suppose that I can see one way in which you might consider it a straw man. A straw man is, of course, called such, because it is an argument easily defeated, easily knocked down. And you, yourself, have admitted that the resurrection proves nothing. It is an incredibly weak argument. From the NT, one can see that no evidence of the resurrection was presented. For all the bluster from some apologists that resurrection is the best attested event in history, it is actually an incredibly weak claim. Jesus did not show himself to those scribes and Pharisees. The resurrection was not announced until 47 days after the predicted timeframe, and at that time no Jesus was to be found. The story lacks all credibility.

    It is like a straw man, easily knocked down, but I did not erect it. Its first appearance is in the NT. Modern Christian apologists still argue that the resurrection proves true Jesus’ claim of Messiahship. These are not words I put into the mouth of the Church in order to knock down their empty position. This straw man was erected by the Church in the hopes that it would have the strength to stand. But it does not.


    • KAVI says:

      Jim: “A straw man argument is one put into the mouth of an opponent, because it is easily knocked down. It is either a false argument or an argument made exceedingly simplistic to make the opponent’s position appear weaker. But I have not presented such an argument. Indeed, Christians do claim that the resurrection is proof of Jesus’ messiahship.”

      Kavi: Okay… are you now committing (or about to commit) another logic error known as “Fallacy of Composition”

      For although there are christians who find the evidence so overwhelming that, to them, such evidence constitutes “proof”… there are just as many who find the “evidence” strong enough to constitute a reasonable Faith in through L-RD Yeshua despite the fact that such strong evidence would not technically be considered “proof”.

      …again, do you intend to add “fallacy of composition” to your exponentially growing list of “straw man” arguments?


      Jim: “Perhaps you are familiar with Romans 1. In verse 4, Paul writes that Jesus “was declared to be the Son of God with power… by resurrection of the dead.” Paul is saying that the resurrection is what shows Jesus to be the Son of God.”

      Kavi: “Declared?”

      G-d “declared” many things in Tanakh that would not be considered “proofs”… everyone is free to attribute matters to a Living G-d or form a counter argument… people do so all the time.

      As such, Paul makes no “proof” statement here at all.


      BTW> Your essay represents a corpse which cannot be resuscitated despite all your emergency room efforts.

      If you had written,
      “Some” Christians claim the resurrection is proof of Jesus’ messiahship,”


      “A number of” Christians claim the resurrection is proof of Jesus’ messiahship”

      …then at least you would be more accurate.

      As it is, this essay is DOA and now infected with MANY of your “straw man” arguments instead of just one…


  14. KAVI says:

    RT: “Kavi, please educate me on the real meaning of Isaiah 7. Surely you can show us light on why this text talks about Jesus.”

    Kavi: Isaiah was frequently blessed to testify of the Messiah [Chapters Isaiah 7, 9, 11, 49, 53, 65, etc]

    As to shedding some light on the Messianic texts, Isaiah already did and the vast majority of Israel has not accepted G-d’s words… which thus fulfills the prophecy,

    And I heard the voice of the L-rd saying,
    “Whom shall I send, and who will go for Us?”

    Then I said, “Here I am! Send me.”
    And He said, “Go, and say to this people:

    “Keep on hearing, but do not understand;
    keep on seeing, but do not perceive.’

    Make the heart of this people dull,
    and their ears heavy,
    and blind their eyes;

    Lest they see with their eyes,
    and hear with their ears,
    and understand with their hearts,
    and turn and be healed.”
    [Isaiah 6]

    Yet despite the seemingly fruitless mission, Isaiah still spoke G-d’s Word to the blind servant Israel even though he knew only the true servant Israel [the Remnant] would respond.

    And since G-d Himself has closed blind Israel’s eyes, ears, and hearts to the truth of redemption in the Messiah L-RD Yeshua… nothing I can do will open what G-d has shut.

    Only G-d Himself enlightens mankind… that is true for the Jewish Remnant just as much as for the Gentiles.

    So, with that understanding, I will continue on at a later time…


    Jim: “Ruling one [interpretation] out does not establish your interpretation as true.”

    Kavi: Jim is absolutely correct on this point…

    And as to interpretations found in commentaries– they can be helpful as well as not… which is why Rabbi Blumenthal and Dr. Brown agree that everyone should study Tanakh for themselves.


    • KAVI What do you say to a former Christian who studied Tanach for himself and studied his way right out of Christianity. He tells people that the most powerful counter-missionary book ever published is the Tanach. What would you say in response to this statement? By the way, this is a person who had literally put his life on the line for Jesus.

      1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >

      • Concerned Reader says:

        Rabbi B, just playing Devil’s advocate here, but couldn’t anyone study their way out of various ideas/doctrines using just Tanakh?

        For example, ressurection does not seem clear using just Tanakh unless you already accept a traditional interpretation that says “the dead in the earth awaking is literal life from death, and not merely a metaphor for national reconstitution alone.”

        Or, as you say Jews as the target audience of Torah.

        What if someone makes the argument that the Torah is speaking to the righteous of all nations and not just 1 identifiable people group as scripture bears out that “Israel” properly so called, was always a reconstituting body of the faithful born Jews, but converts too. IE the message of Abraham has always been universal not showing favorites based on genes?

        As an example, both Moses and Korah were priests, and Moses had a midianite wife (which itself would be legally problrlematic) and yet if we were to ask “who counts as Israel in this example?” Would it not be Moses and his Midianite wife, and not Korah?

        Ie just because Korah was a priest and observant, it doesn’t mean he was faithful Israel?

        Or consider that scripture shows that the majority of the generation of Sinai did not live to enter the promised land, which is why Joshua had to circumcise Israelites again at Gilgal. The descendants appear to have needed a refresher on their obligations.

        • Concerned Reader I was telling KAVI to be consistent – I never said that Tanach by itself supports every Jewish belief About the target audience – study Tanach – it is clear enough on the subject As for the generation of the wilderness – the people who entered the land were OK – but they didn’t circumcise their kids either – the language of teh text in Joshua gives us to understand that the reason they didn’t circumcise was because of the wilderness conditions – not because they were rebelling against God 1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >

          • Concerned Reader says:

            In reference to rebelliousness, I was reffering to the generation that died in the wilderness and Korah’s rebellion, not the uncircumcised who were recommited to Torah at Gilgal.

          • Concerned Reader My point was that teh generation who entered the land was loyal and they too did not circumcise their children in the desert – the generation that entered the land included anyone who was not 20 years old at the time of the incident with the spies. They could have been 59 when entering the land – marrying and bearing children in the desert. 1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >

      • KAVI says:

        R’B: “KAVI What do you say to a former Christian who studied Tanach for himself and studied his way right out of Christianity. He tells people that the most powerful counter-missionary book ever published is the Tanach. What would you say in response to this statement?”

        Kavi: Since that person is settled on redemption through self-righteousness, Orthodox theology is certainly one alternative of many…

        However, about 2,000 years ago, Tanakh didn’t dissuade a small remnant of Jewish faithful in G-d’s promised Messiah Redeemer from enlightening both Jews and Gentiles to the Truth of G-d’s salvation which presently reaches to the ends of the earth.

        …just as Isaiah foretold [Isaiah 49 & 65]
        …just as L-RD Yeshua foretold [Mark 4]


        • KAVI This is not directly for you – this is for those who are following the conversation. Its the slander that is destroying Kavi’s ability to hear. 1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >

    • RT says:

      That’s your explanation of Isaiah 7? Really? REALLY?

      No, seriously! REALLLY!!!???

      Is that your explanation of Isaiah 7? The JEWS are blind and it was told by Isaiah, so that’s why you won’t see Isaiah 7 as talking about Jesus? You must be kidding me! You cannot come up with a verse by verse understanding of Isaiah 7 showing why Isaiah 7:14 refers to Jesus, so you come up with your typical excuse of the Jews are blind?

      I will give you a second chance to come up with a proper Exegesis or Critical explanation or interpretation of a text, especially of scripture.

      • RT says:

        Kavi, still waiting for your exegesis of Isaiah 7! Did the HS mysteriously depart from you? Are you not able to show us that this chapter talks about Jesus and the blessed virgin Mary?

        • Dina says:

          RT, it’s very obvious, you’re just too blind to see it.

        • Jim says:


          We do not know but that Kavi may be busy right now. It is difficult to demand an answer immediately from someone when we do not know what other matters occupy him. The best thing we can do, I think, is answer the arguments when they come.

          We can point out that Kavi’s methodology on this page has been to attempt to discredit his opponents rather than present an argument. He has done that with me, misrepresenting my arguments and then dismissing them through the charge of “straw men”. He has done that by calling the Jewish position that of the simpleton. Perhaps most bizarrely, he has done that by pointing out an error from someone on another board that does not post here as far as I know. Instead of presenting his argument, he claims victory over Jim D., though the error Jim D. made does nothing to substantiate Kavi’s argument.

          It is rather strange that he begins his exposition of Isaiah 7 with the claim that the Jews are blind. He seems to consider that the foundation from which to work. And yet, the claim is entirely irrelevant to proving his case.

          These things, I think we can point out. But I do not see how we can demand that he operate according to our timetable.


          • RT says:

            Hi Jim, Kavi has been ignoring any interpretation of text and any difficult questions ever since. He prefers to accuse other or preach to other. He says general statement like we are blind and cannot see it, and that gives him an excuse to avoid answering any hard questions. This has been going on forever! You can see that through his answer down. He has not explained why the “miraculous” birth of Isaiah 7 relates to Jesus. He keeps on preaching and avoiding the answer. He also keeps on throwing random verses that fits his Theology in the mix, so he does not need to ever evaluate his belief. Instead of looking at Isaiah 7, he will say something like:
            All sinned (psalm 14, Isa 66)
            we need a redeemer (Isaiah 48)
            We need a sinless person through virigin birth (Isaiah 7).

            Then we get caught on answer his misassumption, and never go back to the original question we asked. This time, I will not stop bugging him until he answer why Isaiah 7 equals Jesus. If he wants to be part of that blog, he has to answer others too!

          • Jim says:


            I apologize if I offended. I know that Kavi gets under your skin, and I understand why. Please forgive my offense.


          • RT says:

            I was not offended, don’t worry. You said nothing rude 🙂

      • KAVI says:

        Kavi: Proper Exegesis? Critical Explanation?

        Does G-d desire His Salvation to be so complex that only theologians find understanding?

        …No, forgiveness through Messiah Redeemer is graciously accessible to all.


        So, continuing with what blind Israel is blind to… Isaiah speaks of,

        [] G-d’s existence in unified plurality [Isaiah 6 & 48]
        [] A Divine Messiah’s descent from heaven and birth [Is 7 & 9]
        [] A Divine Messiah’s redemptive mission [Is 42 & 61]
        [] A Divine Messiah’s suffering and execution and resurrection [Is 52 & 53]
        [] A Divine Messiah’s future reign [Is 9 & 11]

        Just looking briefly at a couple testimonies of G-d’s unified plurality…

        [a] “Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.” [Genesis 1]
        [b] The L-RD came down and ate a meal of meat and dairy with Abraham [Genesis 18]
        [c] The L-RD [Yeshua] came down at Mt. Sinai and stood by Moses while the L-RD [Ancient of Days] passed by [Exodus 34]
        [d] “Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, “Whom shall I send? And who will go for Us?” [Isaiah 6]

        …if one cannot accept these extraordinarily plain Scriptures and other passages which G-d testifies of His existence in unified [Echad] plurality…. will the truth of Isaiah 7 all of a sudden seem coherent?


        So, Isaiah’s narrative syncs with G-d’s firstpromise of Messiah Redeemer,

        “I will put enmity between you and the woman,
        and between your offspring and her offspring;
        He shall bruise your head,
        and you shall bruise his heel.” [Genesis 3]

        And ever since that time until the day of L-RD Yeshua, the true faithful [Gentile and Jew] anticipated the day when the Divine Messiah Redeemer would be birthed.

        … and what of those living specifically in Isaiah’s time? The L-RD G-d speaks His Word of hope to the True Servants and Witnesses of Israel who are likewise anticipating the day of Divine Messiah Redeemer.

        BTW> …next time, I hope to move on to Isaiah 7 directly.


        • RT says:

          Does G-d desire His Salvation to be so complex that only theologians find understanding?

          You are avoiding the question Kavi! The text of Isaiah 7 is clear, and clearly Jesus is not there! You know it and won’t admit it! Matthew made a blunder by claiming that it was about Jesus. I am not looking at Genesis 3, or other irrelevant text, I am looking at Isaiah 7. Clearly a new theme starts at Isaiah 7 until Isaiah 9. If you read it in context, you would see that Israel and Syria are about to attack Ahaz. This menace for those two kingdom will be felt until Ezekiah is born. Now Isaiah went to talk to Ahaz in relation to that threat!. What on earth a virgin birth of a son a few hundreds of year later would be helpful to the house of David? And why did those two kingdom would stop being a treat before the child is old if it refers to Jesus?

          • KAVI says:

            Kavi: R. Skobac poorly paints the context of Isaiah 7 as merely a “political crisis” for the Kingdom of Judah.

            Quite a massive understatement… The kingdoms of Israel and Aram planned to murder all those in the House of David.

            …and, if the line of David perished, there would be no Messianic descendant according to what G-d had promised to David.


            Therefore, the panoramic context of Isaiah 7 is the threat to the Messianic Hope that first began in Genesis 3.

            And so, in Isaiah 7, G-d provides continuing assurance to the faithful remnant that “The Seed” Messiah would indeed be born into the world as a child despite any and all threats.


            BTW> …to be continued

          • RT says:

            You keep on explaining your theory, but not Isaiah7.

            Where does Isaiah 7 talks about the messiah, and why do you conclude it is about the messiah? You are not putting forth any explanation! Look at the Verses in context and explain me why Isaiah 7 is related to Genesis 3? You are putting forth your argument out of thin air! Of course if Judah is wiped out, then there is no messiah, but I could really said that about any single verse of the bible! I will help you out:


            Who is this child?
            Can two children be born from the same prophecy? Why not three? How can you split the two part of the prophecies to fit both Isaiah’s son and Jesus? Wouldn’t that make two incomplete prophecies anyway?

            Why would Isaiah be considered a prophet if Jesus was the fulfillment of that prophecy? If the child was born before the two kingdom was destroyed, then that would have make Isaiah a false prophet Jesus was the fulfillment of that prophecy…

            Why would Jesus be a reassurance for Ahaz concerning the present conflict that they are facing?

            In context, do you have any more reason to believe it was Jesus, more that Matthew said so?

          • KAVI says:

            RT: “Can two children be born from the same prophecy?”

            Kavi: G-d gave two “signs”… one future and one present.

            As to the first, R. Skobac practically portrays G-d’s future miraculous sign as piffle.

            Yet, to the contrary, the wonderous sign was to be at least as powerful as those of the plagues on Egypt…

            …a sign as deep as sheol or as high as heaven. [Isaiah 7:11]


            G-d already knew that wicked Ahaz would reject Him and His word,


            … G-d Himself gave a future supernatural sign to the whole House of David.


            … G-d also gave a current natural sign to the whole House of David.


            Two “signs”…
            [a] one powerfully miraculous future sign that spoke of Messiah Redeemer,

            “Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, a virgin will be with child and bear a son, and she will call His name Immanuel. He will eat curds and honey at the time He knows enough to refuse evil and choose good.” [Isaiah 7:14-15]


            [b] one immediately tangible sign that spoke of Ephraim’s and Aram’s near-term destruction,

            “However, before this boy [Shear-Jashub] knows enough to reject what is wrong and choose what is right, the land whose two kings you dread will be devastated.” [Isaiah 7:16]


            BTW> G-d demanded that Isaiah bring his toddler, perhaps even baby, son Shear-Jashub for a reason,
            “Then the L-RD said to Isaiah, “Go out now to meet Ahaz, you and your son Shear-Jashub…” [Isaiah 7:3]

            “Behold, I and the children whom the L-RD has given me are for signs and wonders in Israel from the L-RD of hosts, who dwells on Mount Zion.” [Isaiah 8:18]

          • RT says:

            Kavi: G-d gave two “signs”… one future and one present.

            NO! NO, and NO! It does not work like that. Or the prophecy is 100% completed, or Isaiah was a false prophet!

            By the way, any reason to believe there was 2 signs on that prophecy? You hang on one word, one wrongly translated word to fit your theory! The truth is, you take a word and take it 100% out of context, you use that word that is wrongly translated (and hang on it like HELL) and you just forget about anything else. This is NOT how you should interpret the Bible! You can arrive with any theory by doing that. Your friends the Mormons like doing that too!

            I have one question to ask you: Why should I add the virgin Mary in Isaiah 7, when actually 100% of that prophecy fits Isaiah’s son? Even if it would be “Virgin” on the passage (which is not by the way), still Isaiah wife could have gotten pregnant after Isaiah spoke with Ahaz. The Virgin (Ahaz knew who it was because of the “HaAlmah”). The Virgin, that you are looking right now, she is going to have a boy (she is going to be pregnant and have a son (not a girl) and you know what, she will decide herself to name him Emanuel. 100% of humanity are virgins until they are not! And when that specific son (name Emanuel, not Jesus) is about 4, the 2 kingdom who want to arm you not be a threat anymore! No need for Jesus. And if 2 prophecies, when not three, or four? Why would I need to add to it, when actually it is a 100% completed prophecy?

          • KAVI says:

            RT: “NO! NO, and NO! It does not work like that. Or the prophecy is 100% completed, or Isaiah was a false prophet!”

            Kavi: On the contrary, there is nothing I wrote that R.Skobac can “disprove”…


            …R.Skobac knows that the Biblical Hebrew in Isaiah 7:14 is obscure, so he chooses an interpretation that suits his purposes.

            Fine enough… Yet R.Skobac’s interpretation is just one of a number of competing arguments– with each having its own counter-arguments against one another.

            And if you are as pleased as a pea in a pod in living with R.Skobac’s words– then so be it…

            …but just be warned that R.Skobac’s interpretation keeps you blind and in the dark… just like he is blind and in the dark [Isaiah 6 & 28]


            BTW> R.Skobac is guilty of straining at gnats and swallowing camels when he ignores and downplays the weighty matters which he cannot possibly reconcile… to name a few examples,

            [] Context [Isaiah 6 – G-d’s existence in unified plurality + Israel’s blindness ]
            [] Context [Isaiah 7 – Threat to Messiah’s lineage]
            [] Requirement of a miraculous Sign […as deep as sheol and high as heaven]
            [] G-d’s demand to bring Shear-Jashub [the second sign – Isaiah 7:16 & 8:18]
            [] Isaiah’s words directed to the Whole House of David [VS words to Ahaz]
            [] Obscure Hebrew grammar [which actually cannot prove or disprove any interpretation]
            [] Judgment on Ahaz [Assyria]

            As such, you have been given the best interpretation which takes all these matters into account– an interpretation that syncs with Isaiah’s other writings as well as the writings of Moses and the Prophets…


          • KAVI talking about straining at gnats and swallowing camels – your list of “issues” are gnats compared to the plain meaning of the text – in Biblical interpretation the gnats have to align with the camels – or else words have no meaning 1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >

          • RT says:

            If Isaiah meant Virgin and the girl was not a virgin Isaiah should have died! He would have been a false prophet, his words were not obscure for Ahaz, not anybody else present! In other case, the Girl was really a virgin, and you cannot bear the fact of have two Virgin births. You have no argument to sustain your “Virgin Birth” theory!

            It is really useless to talk with you Kavi. Even Christians agree that Matthew’s interpretation of the verse was iffy! Be right in your own eye my friend, and stop making us waste our time!

          • KAVI says:

            RT: “The Virgin (Ahaz knew who it was because of the “HaAlmah”)”

            Kavi: R.Skobac created this “false dilemma” by making the unsubstantiated claim that “HaAlmah” is someone alive at that time and known to Ahaz– he then forces an “either/or” conclusion which does not exist.

            In reality, R.Skobac can neither “prove” the assertion grammatically nor “prove” it contextually.

            So, some items to consider…
            [1] Isaiah does not directly address Ahaz, but speaks to the “House of David…” [Isaiah 7:13]

            [2] Isaiah uses the plural “you” in “Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign…” [Isaiah 7:14]

            But because there does exist obscure Hebrew grammar and indistinct concepts within Isaiah 7, R.Skobac, other Rabbis, Messianics, Muslims, secular scholars, etc can assert and defend any number of interpretations.

            …and no interpretation is worth its salt unless it addresses the obvious,

            [] Context: [Isaiah 6 – G-d’s existence in unified plurality + Israel’s blindness ]
            [] Context: [Isaiah 7 – Threat to Messiah’s Davidic lineage]
            [] Context: G-d’s demand to bring Shear-Jashub [the “immediate” sign – Isaiah 7:16 & 8:18]
            [] Context: G-d’s judgment against Ahaz [Assyria]


            [] And Context:

            G-d’s wonderous sign MUST be at least as powerful as those of the plagues on Egypt…

            …a sign as deep as sheol or as high as heaven. [Isaiah 7:11]


          • KAVI Do you have any idea what it is that sets the miracles from Egypt apart from other miracles? 1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >

          • RT says:

            How many words are in Isaiah 7? And you are stock with one word and totally ignore the context of the text. Tell me Kavi, if you would have read Isaiah 7 before Jesus was born, would you have guess that it refers to the future birth of the messiah by a virgin mother? I hope that you will think before answering yes! Do you really think it was clearly messianic for Jews before Jesus was born (and Matthew interpreted it that way?). If so, why nobody ripped Isaiah 7 of context before Jesus was born?

          • KAVI says:

            RT: “…And you are stock with one word and totally ignore the context of the text.”

            Kavi: The panoramic context is Messianic…

            [a] Isaiah 6 set the tone for the remainder of G-d’s Messianic teaching– namely, the blind majority will not accept G-d’s Messiah.

            [b] Isaiah 7 finds Aram and Ephraim threatening to destroy the House of David… and therefore annhilate the Davidic Messianic hope promised by G-d.

            As such, G-d provides continuing assurance to the faithful remnant that Messiah, “The Seed” [Genesis 3] would, without fail, descend from heaven to be born into the world as a child regardless of any threat.


            RT: “Do you really think it was clearly messianic for Jews before Jesus was born.”

            Kavi: To the tiny minority of Righteous Israel– yes, Isaiah’s words were clearly Messianic.


          • Dina says:

            “To the tiny minority of Righteous Israel– yes, Isaiah’s words were clearly Messianic.”

            Prove it.

        • RT says:

          I guess I did not miss anything important since the two months I was absent… Only less headaches non-sense from Kavi.

  15. Steve says:

    Popular Jewish belief expresses that the killing of the Children of Israel by the Gentiles atones for prior generational sins committed by the Jewish people ~ Zohar, Bemidbar 218a.

    It is reasonable to assume that during the Roman period this idea was applied not only to Yeshua, but also to all those who were executed by the authorities. Even Jews who did not accept Yeshua evidently believed that Jesus, like the other martyrs of the Roman authorities, had atoned for the sins of Israel but the scriptures as a whole resemble the death and resurrection of Yeshua having far greater reach and eternal significance then just that of the atonement of the children of Israel for that generation.

    Although Psalm 49:7-8 reveals that: “No man can redeem the life of another or give to God a ransom for him – as the ransom for a life is costly and no payment is ever enough.” The Zohar reveals that: When G-d desires to give healing to the world He smites one righteous man (tzaddik) among them with disease and suffering, and through him gives healing to all, as it is written, “But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities… and by his stripes we are healed” (Isaiah 53:5).

    Yeshua could actually atone for the sins of mankind and make a payment that is “enough” for the following reasons: (1) Yeshua was in a representative position as the Second and last Adam a life-giving spirit. The first Adam was of the dust of the earth, the second Adam (Yeshua) was from heaven (1 Corinthians 15:45). (2) Yeshua was sinless according to torah law and according to biblical gamtria even above the Torah as Isaac (a foreshadow of the Messiah) was above the sticks (Torah) at the Akeda/binding. (3) Mary was impregnated by the Ruach Hakodesh not a human sinful descendant of the bloodline of Adam. (4) God’s plan was to completely redeem man, and cleanse him of all sin and not just cover it once yearly with the blood of animal sacrifices within the temple bounds before it’s destruction around 70 C.E. Isaiah 53:6 states: The LORD laid on him (Yeshua) the iniquity of us all.

    Not even the great Jewish rabbi Rashi, would disagree that while the Temple was standing, blood sacrifice was essential. According to the Talmud, “there is no atonement without the blood” (Yoma 5a, Zebahim 6a, Menahot 93b).

    Blood sacrifices were the heart and soul of biblical atonement. Read Leviticus 16 and try to imagine the Day of Atonement without blood sacrifice. The question of what else besides blood could make atonement really didn’t became a critical issue in Judaism until after 70 C.E, when the Second Temple was destroyed by the Romans.

    Through Yeshua everyone who believes can be set free from both intentional and unintentional sins, a justification that was unattainable under the law of Moses. Old Covenant sacrifices did not cover anything beyond unintentional sins of ignorance which leaves intentional sins unatoned for. The New Testament speaks of Jesus, in Matthew 20:28: “Just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom (as atonement) for many.” In Jesus’ death on the cross, He made the payment that prevented God’s wrath from falling on those who deserved it (namely us).

    The death of the righteous is very powerful. This is a concept that has continued in Judaism to this day, as a way of giving reason to the senseless deaths of “innocent” people like in the Holocaust, that their death (their blood) made atonement for sin of prior generations. And the more righteous the person, like the high priest, the more powerful their death. So, imagine what the death of the Messiah born of the Holy Spirit would bring! That could atone for the sin of the whole world! And that’s exactly what happened when Yeshua ascended back to His Father and made atonement for our sins once and for all. Hebrews 9:11 states: But Christ came as High Priest of the good things to come, with the greater and more perfect tabernacle in heaven not made with hands, with His own blood He entered the Most Holy Place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption.

    1Peter 2:22-24 “He committed no sin, and no deceit was found in his mouth.” When they hurled their insults at him, he did not retaliate; when he suffered, he made no threats. Instead, he entrusted himself to him who judges justly. He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness; by his wounds you have been healed.

    As a believer in Jesus, you can have the assurance that your sins are forgiven and that you will spend eternity with God. Can Judaism say the same? For all the efforts to maintain and preserve Jewish life, at the end of it the rabbis cannot say even that God will be pleased, let alone whether or not they will receive eternal life. To have that, you need to accept Yeshua’s sacrifice by faith for your sins and then the Holy Spirit will impress on you a sin free conscience before God the Father.

    • LarryB says:

      What is Zohar, Bemidbar 218a? Can you paste what your reading?

    • Concerned Reader says:

      Steve, give this a read if you actually came to learn, and not merely to preach.

    • KAVI says:

      Why make reference to the Zohar when Tanakh bears more than enough of G-d’s testimony to both Jews and Gentiles that L-RD Yeshua is His Messiah?

      Isaiah plainly states in Chapter 6 of his writings that Israel is callous of heart, deaf, and blind…

      Isaiah likewise plainly states in Chapter 42 and elsewhere in his writings that the Gentiles are devoid of G-d’s Light and therefore just as blind…

      As such, Isaiah’s words are utter darkness to the mind… minds devoid of understanding.

      Unless G-d graciously grants forgiveness of sins through faith in Him and His Messiah, both Jew and Gentile would hold hands and eternally perish together in mutual blindness.


      • Brother Kavi, you said, “Isaiah plainly states in Chapter 6 of his writings that Israel is callous of heart, deaf, and blind…” but i want to urge you to read the text as it is! I am saying this because this is the most important and the most frequently- quoted- Tanakh verses in the N.T!! It never said, “Israel IS callous of heart, deaf, and blind.” It said in verse 9 and 10, “And he said, Go, and tell this people, Hear ye indeed, but understand not; and see ye indeed, but perceive not. MAKE the heart of this people fat, and MAKE their ears heavy, and SHUT their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and convert, and be healed.” Consider the Hiphil form of the verbs and we will see that God has a secret mission through the blindness of His own people! I believe you know that Yeshua fulfilled this mission by teaching the truth by PARABLE. (Mt 13:14, Mk4:12, Lk8:10, Jn12:40, Acts28:26, Romans11:7,8,25, 2 Cor.3:14) (parabolew in Greek literally means “throw alongside” which means “throw known truth alongside unknown or concealed truth).

        Why did he have to teach by parable not by explicit methods? To conceal the truth- the mission of God’s salvation for the world. Since the majority of the Jewish crowds in Yeshua’s time in Israel could not understand (NT says “the truth was concealed to their eyes or they were not allowed to understand”) the truth in the teachings of Yeshua, they regarded him as a heretic or a false prophet, thus delivered him to crucifixion. So, the most important mission of Yeshua was possible by Jewish blindness. In other words, God used both Israel and Yeshua to bring salvation unto the world. I am not talking about conspiracy theory, I am talking about God’s wisdom and providence. Give ear to what Paul has to say;
        1Co 2:7 ” But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory: Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him”

        I wish gentile Christians church would repent of their pride over the blindness of Jewish people, and come humbly to the Jews and say, “Thank you and thank you so much. Now i understand what Yeshua has said to a samaritan woman, “salvations is of the JEWS.”

        • RT says:

          Are you sure it does not talk about you Kavi: “callous of heart, deaf, and blind…”? Seriously, it seams redundant to try to show colors to blinds and idiotic to try to explain the beauty of a sunset to a blind who is not interested to know. So why do you all see the needs to annoy people?

  16. Concerned Reader says:

    Kavi, please do not be offended by what im about to say.

    If what you say is true of your deity, he is a psychopath who lies to his creatures.

    G-d told cain that he could master his sin. You claim he lied with what you wrote.

    G-d saved Nineveh when people repented. You claim man cant repent without Jesus.

    G-d said that cursed is the man who trusts in princes, and in the son of man in whom there is no help. You claim a prince of peace is required.

    A G-d who is good and gives a righteus law of justice is not going to blind the majority of his creatures whom he chose to give free will in the 1st place.

    You actually believe you have to acknowledge the flesh and blood Jesus from 2,000 years ago for G-d to accept you?

    Dont you realize that this is the same as saying “you need to be Jewish for G-d to save you?”

    You do realize that if you are not judged by your deeds, but rather by recognizing one man, that Jesus’ entire 3 year ministry is meaningless?

    Christians make the whole cosmos stand or fall on the cross. All of creation hinges on 1 man’s several hours of suffering. Just hours?

    What about all the other Jews who died the same day, right next to Yeshua?

    The fate of, and the sins of, all men for all time, wiped out by Jesus in only 1 weekend if you say “I love Jesus?” No sir. Thats injustice par excellance.

    Kavi, have you ever considered that you have made all of Jesus’ ethics that he taught his students for 3 whole years absolutely itrelevant? Not just irrelevant but of no effect in real life?

    All those good things Yeshua taught about how we should treat others go by the wayside because of the Christian obsession with Jesus’ magic blood and cross.

    If you can do no good, if you are spiritually blind without Jesus’ death, you have made the best aspects of Jesus’ ministry utterly useless.

    Can I ask a question?

    If G-d had killed Jesus as a baby, would that have ended sin the same as if he were crucified as an adult?

    Do you need to live like Jesus (emulate his deeds) to be counted as righteous, or just believe he died for you? If the latter, his commands are without meaning.

    If the former, then acknowledging his death and blood are not primary.

  17. Concerned Reader says:

    A Letter To Gean Guk Gean

    Gean Guk Gean, you are right that a person can read the New Testament books in such a way that those books might suggest that Jesus’ being rejected by the people and leaders was “all part of G-d’s plan,” and so ideally nobody should be seen as at fault or blamed for the fact that Jesus died, if that was supposed to happen. As Jesus said “forgive them father for they know not what they do.”

    I, like yourself used to read the New Testament that way, I thought that was the natural reading. I used to see it that way (I still do think that was the intent of at least some of the authors,) until I realized something.

    Kavi’s response unfortunately, (the belief that all Jews are deaf and blind sinners damned for eternity,) is the historic prevailing Christian understanding of the role and fate of the Jewish people as they exist now in Christian salvation history, regardless of the denomination.
    They are blamed and mocked and ridiculed, and were for centuries killed, for holding on to the pre Christian understanding of the Torah.

    Volumes of literature have been written over the course of centuries where Jews are labeled Christ murderers who are guilty of deicide, and they are guilty until the end of time.
    An entire genre of literature exists in all denominations of Christianity where the Jewish people are routunely vilified in this horrific manner.
    Even if the intent of the NT was to say that Jesus dying was part of G-d’s will and it was nobody’s fault, that is not how the Churches ever read or interpret the New Testament. It never has been read or applied the way you are reading it.
    This whole problem explains why the Christian approach to redemption doesn’t work. It cant produce the results that good Christians would like it to.

    What do I mean by a problem? In Christian theology G-d is said to be love itself. The death of Jesus is seen as the ultimate expression of G-d’s love for humans, Jesus is said to be the word of G-d itself, G-d’s essence dying.
    The problem with this picture might not at 1st be apparent to you, but please focus on what I write below.
    If Jesus dying was indeed G-d’s ultimate expression of love, even the essence of love, you cannot escape the fact that real people will be blamed and dehumanized for causing the death of love itself.
    (I realize that the intent of the New Testament authors is to say that Jesus’ death covers the sins of everyone who kneels to him and follows sincerely, and that this is love,) but this has the very real side effect that anyone who has a question, a reservation, or a doubt about Jesus’ claims or qualifications, becomes complicit in the death of love itself. And Christians manifest real hatred of such people, even when the book tells them not to.
    Let that sink in.
    The Church blithely asks Christians to “love your enemy,” IE to love the ones who the New Testament says were complicit in Christ’s death. It doesn’t tell you as a believer in Jesus how to be effectively caring or loving to an enemy well enough or clear enough, it just demands that you do it.
    The Christian narrative demands something that is next to impossible for humans to actually live out, especially when it directly conflicts with a person’s sense of justice or fairness.
    We see this all the time when a Christian asks “what if Hitler Genuinely said he loves Jesus?” “would G-d forgive his life of evil without justice for his victims?”
    Do you see how repugnant that question is? How can a verbal confession of a name absolve Hitler of killing millions of people who did nothing to deserve death? Its disturbing. It inspires outrage not peace.
    Look at the Orthodox Christian history of persecuting its various percieved heretical groups like Seventh Day Adventists or Mormons.
    When was the last time you saw an Evangelical invite a Mormon in for a cup of Coffee, and a chat in brotherhood and peace?
    It doesn’t happen! Why? Because Christians do not want to love a heretic. They see a heretic as deserving of punishment and wrath. Look at the Church’s treatment of Judas iscariot. Read the commentaries. He’s not regarded as saved.
    The one guy who needs Jesus’ forgiveness the most according to Christianity would be Judas Iscariot, and he does not recieve mercy, even if that was the gospel writer’s intention.
    Read literally any Christian commentary. You will find that either he is consigned to hell by the commentators, or they say “I’m not sure what happens to Judas.”

    The Christian Bible sticks its believers into a situation where they always have to wonder, “is so and so truly saved?” “Is he truly partaking of the holy spirit?” “If I have doubts, but I need to love Christ or go to hell, do I have free will?”

    The truth is that nobody knows, but Humans like you and Kavi, are out to make sure that others believe in Jesus “just to be safe.”
    The worst part is that you cannot avoid a terrible reaction like Kavi’s. You cant escape his description of Jews as horrible sinners.
    The New Testament portrays Judaism’s leaders as serpents, white washed hypocrites who do not know G-d, or love him. Its very hard then to get real humans to love someone truly and sincerely when you paint that awful picture of them.

    • Dina says:

      Con, one of the most frustrating comments I hear from Christians is that real Christians never hated or persecuted Jews. What they don’t get is that throughout most of Christian history, the more you loved Jesus the more likely you were to hate Jews. Extreme piety was always linked with extreme Jew hatred. Christians hated Jews because they loved Jesus.

      How could they not? The passion narrative is presented in such a way as to elicit the strongest possible emotions in its readers, especially horror of the people whose actions supposedly led to Jesus’s crucifixion. How could you love such dastardly people? How could you love liars, murderers, and children of the devil? And indeed, wouldn’t it be wrong to love them?

      One of the most eye opening histories of Christian anti-Semitism is Malcolm Haye’s Thy Brother’s Blood. In this book he recounts the actions of a famous pope greatly praised by the Jews of the time period for intervening in the Crusades and preventing a lot of bloodshed. But this pope (sorry, I forget his name), was no Jew lover. He believed that Jews should be kept in a degraded state, but not killed. He therefore intervened to stop a monk by the name of Ralph (or something like that) who was leading mobs on massacres against Jewish communities. The contrast of his mild words of ordering to stop with his harsh words of condemnation that Ralph should be put to death for the murder of one Christian is astounding. He didn’t use any of that passionate language for the thousands of Jewish deaths at Ralph’s hands.

      The fact is that for much of history Jews were not regarded as fellow men but rather as a subhuman species. And that regard was the result of a fervent love of Jesus.

  18. Concerned Reader says:

    In an amazing twist of irony, one of Dr. Brown’s latest videos is an 11 year old boy calling in and asking Dr. Brown “How can I know if I am really saved?”

    At such a young age this young boy wants to know how he can be sure. Thats so sad, but it doesnt suprise me, cause I’ve been where that child was.

    Dr. Brown essentially just asks the boy if he truly trusts the claim that Jesus died for him, and if the boy trusted and knew that he sinned and needed forgiveness? The boy obediently says “Yes sir,” to all of Dr. Brown’s inquiries.

    As I said in my article above, (and this video proves it,) just telling a child “you were a sinner but G-d died for you and loves you,” doesnt offer any sense of calm or assurance, especially since the discussion is slanted from the start against us as humans (declaring us sinners) at such a young age.

    Telling a boy of 8, 9, 10, or in this case 11 that he needs to recognize his sin is utterly fruitless. A child lacks any sense of what Sin is.

    Naturally, the parent is left to explain sin to the Child, and to exclaim G-d’s displeasure with such.

    What many Christians fail to realize is that children cant even process such information properly, and dont often know how to disassociate actions from themselves.

    If you rebuke a child, the child might not know the difference between your rebuke of their actions vs a rebuke by you of THEMSELVES.

    If you tell a boy that G-d is pissed at him just for coming out of the womb, a kid cant process that.

    You can tell that boy he is saved until you are blue in the face, and he will still have doubt. Why?

    1. You inadvertently called the act of him being born a sin, (despite the fact that children know nothing of those matters, you ask babies to contemplate that.)

    2. He will see in his daily life growing up in Church the gossip train, the personal interpretations and opinions of his parents contrasted with the “party line” of whichever congregation he attends, etc.

    2. If the boy lives in a family made up of members within different Christian sects, he will see the latent contradiction between “Jesus loves his folliwers, he loves everyone,” against the backdrop of a Church that says “he doesnt love this or that heretical group.” That situation will naturally produce doubt in the boy’s mind.

  19. 10th man says:

    Some talk of “blindness” above.

    • Genesis: “The scepter shall not depart from Judah nor a law giver from between his feet …. until Shiloh comes.”

    • Sanhedrin: ‘What is the Messiah’s name? …. His Name is Shilo. For it is written “Until Shilo comes”‘

    • Sanhedrin records when they lost the scepter; the power of life and death; capital punishment: ‘Woe to us, for the scepter has departed from Judah and Messiah has not yet come.’

    • When was it recorded the Scepter departed? – Forty years before the Temple destruction.

    • Therefore according to the rabbis and the Sanhedrin; the Messiah had to come before 30AD.

    • Oddly enough this is the same year a Jewish man appears in Israel changing the course of mankind and is known as Messiah throughout the earth even 2000 years later.

    • This man said he came to open the eyes of the blind.

    • Thefore blindness is a choice.

  20. Concerned Reader says:

    So, 10th man. Sanhedrin? Why not cite your sources with a folio number and provide the text of the passages you are quoting? Oh, thats right, those quotes dont say what you claim.

    • 10th man says:

      Concerned Reader;

      Sanhedrin 98b:
      “Rab said: The world was created only on David’s account .24 Samuel said: On Moses account;25 R. Johanan said: For the sake of the Messiah. What is his [the Messiah’s] name? — The School of R. Shila said: His name is Shiloh, for it is written, until Shiloh come.”

      • 10th man But where does it say this – > • Sanhedrin records when they lost the scepter; the power of life and > death; capital punishment: ‘Woe to us, for the scepter has departed > from Judah and Messiah has not yet come.’

        1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >

        • 10th man says:

          Yourphariseefriend; It comes from a commentary on the Talmud. Is your sight – on the source of a sentence, or if the Sanhedrin really lost the scepter in 30AD?

          • 10th man No such commentary and we haven’t lost the scepter 1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >

          • Dina says:

            10th man, if “it comes from a commentary on Tanach,” as you say, why are you shy about citing your sources?

          • Dina says:

            10th man, furthermore, is the Talmud authoritative? Also its commentaries? Is that why you cite it? Just curious.

          • 10th man says:

            Yourphariseefriend; Hashem has given you freedom to view the past as you please, yet viewing the past as you please comes with a price.

            Dina; Talmud is cited for historicity not authority.

          • Dina says:

            Then what is the point of citing it to “prove” that the scepter departed from Judah and the messiah already arrived?

            (I used the ironic quotation marks because you presented fake citations.)

            You wrote, ” Hashem has given you freedom to view the past as you please, yet viewing the past as you please comes with a price.”

            You are free to lie about what the Talmud says to shore up your idolatrous beliefs, but that comes with a price.

            You lose integrity and credibility. And honor.

          • 10th man says:

            Dina, sources were honestly stated. History speaks for itself. I have no desire to engage the behavior you are exhibiting therefore I must respectfully decline further discussion with you.

          • 19th man The sources were NOT honestly stated. You were lied to by those who led you to believe that those statements can be found in the commentaries – they cannot, they are Christian fabrications. And history does have a way of speaking for itself – but if you choose, it could be speaking to you. 1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >

          • Dina says:

            10th man wrote:

            • Sanhedrin records when they lost the scepter; the power of life and death; capital punishment: ‘Woe to us, for the scepter has departed from Judah and Messiah has not yet come.’

            Then he wrote: “sources were honestly stated.”

            10th man cannot produce a source for a statement he presented in quotation marks (one of the uses of quotation marks is to indicate an exact quote). There is no such Jewish source, yet he claims this source is honestly stated.

            Folks, do you see a problem here?

            10th man cannot prove from Scripture alone that Jesus was the messiah, a true prophet, and God.

            10th man, if you are willing to engage with me, may I suggest we stick to just the Tanach? And my challenge to you then is: can you prove from Scripture that the Jewish position on Jesus is wrong?

            Fact is, Jesus was neither the messiah, nor a prophet, nor God.

            Christians have changed the definition of messiah to a suffering, dying, rising figure that atones for all the sins of mankind, an unbiblical definition if there ever was one. Messiah is simply a corruption of the Hebrew word mashiach, which means anointed, and the political figure who will ascend the Davidic throne and usher in an era of world peace and universal knowledge of God, bring back the the exiles, restore the Temple and its sacrificial system, and vindicate Israel in the eyes of the world, is not even identified by the title “The Messiah” in the Hebrew Bible. Jews have taken to calling him “the mashiach” which simply means “the anointed one.”

            According the prophets of the Hebrew Bible, Jesus does not fit the picture of the messiah. He never ruled Israel as king, nor did he fulfill the mission of the messiah as briefly outlined above. Instead, after his death the Temple was destroyed, the Jews were massacred and those remaining scattered throughout the Diaspora, and thus began a dark period of nearly two thousand years of horrific Christian oppression of the Jews. Not exactly messianic quality, that.

            Jesus was also a false prophet for the simple reason that he failed the two prophet tests outlined in Deuteronomy. Test number one: per Deuteronomy 13 any prophet who produces a sign but then leads the people into worship of unknown gods is a false prophet. Christians believe Jesus produced the requisite sign (debatable, but more on that in a moment), but he also introduced a new type of worship heretofore unknown to the Children of Israel: worship of himself.

            Test number two: per Deuteronomy 18, if a prophet fails to produce a sign, he is a false prophet. Jesus predicted that the Temple and all its buildings will be so thoroughly destroyed that not one stone will be left standing on another (Matthew 24:2; Mark 13:2; Luke 21:6). False prophecy: some of the remains of the Temple buildings still contain more than one stone standing on another; furthermore, the outer Western Wall remains standing to this day. Jesus predicted that during this generation he would come in the clouds and sweep up all his believers (Mark 13:26, 30). False prophecy: that did not happen. Jesus (grudgingly) gave the sign of Jonah to the skeptical Pharisees who demanded a sign (which, according to Deuteronomy 18 they are supposed to do). He claimed he would rise again after three days in the earth (Matthew 12:38-40). False prophecy: he failed to present himself to the Pharisees in fulfillment of this sign on the third day after his death–or any other time thereafter, for that matter.

            Jesus is not God per Deuteronomy 4. I suggest you read it. Most instructive.

            The only reason there are Jews today who identify as Jews is that our forbears testified on the pain of death that Jesus was a false prophet, a false messiah, and not God. Had they all succumbed, there would not exist a single identifiable Jew today, just as the Picts, Druids, and others who accepted Christianity’s message did not produce descendants who can identify as Picts and Druids–and just as those Jews who did jump ship and join Christianity assimilated into the general population within a few generations.

            Christians dream of the conversion of Jews en masse, but this event would constitute national suicide.

            I don’t think 10th man intends to advocate the end of the Jewish people, but that would be the result of his missionizing if he were successful.

          • 10th man says:

            Yourphariseefriend, Sanhedrin 98b was quoted, copied and pasted – as posted above, the second source is from a commentary on the Talmud, again as posted above. Therefore how can you say; “The sources were NOT honestly stated” ???
            The vagueness of the second source is irrelevant unless you intend to value commentary on the Talmud over historical fact. The Sanhedrin lost the power to exercise capital punishment is historical fact, making the above a valid midrash, even if you don’t like where it points – since we are discussing “honesty”.

          • 10th man There is no such commentary on the Talmud, there is nothing remotely like it. It is a well known fabrication produced by missionaries to dupe people – so your quote was NOT honest. And the Sanhedrin did not “lose” the power to judge capital crimes they gave it up (if you want to quote the Talmud and its commentaries) – and whose idea was it to associate the judgment of capital crimes with the scepter of Genesis 49:10? Not the Talmud but the missionary forger.

            1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >

      • Eleazar says:

        Thanks for proving CR’s point. Partial sentences, no context. Cherry picking a couple of sentences out of a long testimony. There are m,any references to “his name” (moschiach’s) in Sanhedrin. You picked the one that fit your out of context narrative.

  21. Concerned Reader says:

    10th man (with respect,) Sanhedrin 98b is what is called an aggadic midrash. It only reflects the opinion of any number of rabbis, its not something Jews have to believe. Its like a pastor’s sermon, or a Christian author’s inspirational words. Its not meant to be seen as doctrine.

    If you read the context of Sanhedrin 98b, you will see it is not a prophetic statement of the messiah’s name, the context merely reflects the opinions of students about their rabbinic teachers.

    R. SHELA said that, “the Messiah is called Shilo for it is written, until Shilo comes'” (Genesis 49:10). R. YANNAI said, “It was Yinnon” (Psalm 72:17). R. HANINAH said, “It was Haninah” (Jeremiah 16:1) (San.98b).

    Do you see what’s happening there? A teacher’s name (Yannai) is fitted with a title (like Yinon.)

    Each rav is believed by his students to have potential to be the Messiah.

    In Judaism, it is believed that the king Messiah (a generic king of Israel,) can come in any generation that is worthy of his appearance. So, the rabbis in Sanhedrin 98b are saying that the students of Rav Shelah believe the name of Messiah will be Shilo, which to them indicates that their rabbi Shelah has the potential to be the Messiah. The other titles fit the names of the other rabbis in the text.

    This text isn’t about Yeshua.

  22. Concerned Reader says:

    ‘Woe to us, for the scepter has departed from Judah and Messiah has not yet come.’

    Sanhedrin records no such words. You have taken a miscontextualized passage from an obscure high holiday Machzor (a prayer book,) and whatever messianic site you got this from conflated this prayer with the texts in Sanhedrin. Its an entire fabrication, sorry to say.

  23. Concerned Reader says:

    Con, one of the most frustrating comments I hear from Christians is that real Christians never hated or persecuted Jews.

    The sad truth Dina is that many many Christians do not know their history. The protestant world likes to blame all the violence against Jews against the Catholic Church, as though the Protestant Reformers didn’t carry forward the same disdain for Jews. Many Christians also don’t realize how even if a Jew converted to Christianity, he was still suspected of “Judaizing,” IE of not abandoning his Judaism sufficiently.

  24. Concerned Reader says:

    10th man, will you admit that Talmud does not contain the proof, or more accurately, the allusions you think it contains? I explained to you the way the rabbis might read the midrashim you quoted.

    Think about it logically for a moment. Why would a book compiled by the descendants of Pharisees (a sect the New Testament vilifies all the time,) contain proofs for your messiah?

    That’s like saying that if I read the Samaritan Torah, I will find allusion to Mount Moriah as the chosen place of G-d, as compared to Gerizim. Its like suggesting that if I read the Quran, I would find proof that Jesus died for humanity’s sins.

    Everyone knows that the Samaritans reject Mount Moriah as the site of the temple, so why would I go looking there to prove that?

    Such assertions are just an absurdity when one knows that the Talmud as a corpus rejects major premises of Christian theology. A set of volumes that were compiled after 135 CE (post bar Kochba rebellion) can hardly offer allusions to Jesus as the Messiah.

    I don’t mean that to sound rude, just to let you know that looking to Talmud to bolster your Christian faith is totally anachronistic.

    By consequences do you mean eternal hell fire for having a question about Jesus’ qualifications? Doesn’t your New Testament say “test all things and hold fast to what is good?”

    • 10th man says:

      Concerned Reader; your statement: “Pharisees (a sect the New Testament vilifies all the time,)” is provably false, betraying your bias.
      And the statement posed as a question; “By consequences do you mean eternal hell fire for having a question about Jesus’ qualifications?” betrays stereotypical prejudice.

      • Concerned Reader says:

        I am treating Christians stereotypically? You could have fooled me.

        I was baptized at age 7 and raised in a religuous Christian home. I have a degree in comparitive religions, so I’ve studied the Christian Bible from many different angles, as well as the Church Fathers.

        You dont consider the overall New Testament portrayal of the Pharisees to be a sign of partial internal bias in the New Testament against their sect?

        You dont find it truthful on my part to be pointing out that the New Testament is calling the Pharisees a brood of vipers, white washed walls, hypocrites, or children of the devil who dont know G-d? Do you not think it rational that this portrayal of Jews has led to much harm? Do you deny this portrayal is in the text?

        Do you disagree that there is a genre of literature eclusively dedicated to demeaning the rabbis?

        If you can demy with a straight face the generally negative portrayal of the pharisees as a sect in the NT, then there isnt much reasonable discussion we can have.

        I have Catholic as well as Protestant family, and as I said, a good knowledge of the Church fathers.

        My “Bias” against Christianity is merely that I will not let Christians say “those weren’t real Christians,” when I point out ugly truths about our tradition.

        Paul of Tarsus was a true Christian. The authors of the gospels (who wrote about “the Jews,” and said each of those things above,) were true Christians.

        Perhaps you should read other posts of mine on this blog before saying that I am biased against Christianity.

        Write Concerned Reader in the search bar at the top of the page. You will find posts where I discuss both sides of the issue.

        You will still find my posts from when I was a believer in Jesus on this blog, alongside my current posts.

        I never attack Jesus’ character in my posts. I never say he was evil, or that he was lawless. I look at the New Testament in its historical context.

        The problem is that you have not read enough of my posts on this blog before drawing your conclusions.

        • 10th man says:

          Concerned Reader, ones Christian past nor academic credentials does not necessarily determine ones currrent attitude.

          “You dont consider the overall New Testament portrayal of the Pharisees to be a sign of partial internal bias in the New Testament against their sect?”
          — (No, I do not. I have read the text numerous times never coming to such a conclusion. Granted a biased reading of selected passages could led to such a conclusion) —

          “You dont find it truthful on my part to be pointing out that the New Testament is calling the Pharisees a brood of vipers, white washed walls, hypocrites, or children of the devil who dont know G-d?
          — (I do not find it truthful to pick passages out of context, especially historical context – suggest you research why those exact words were chosen and to whom they were spoken – hint: a religious slaughter by the prior generation) —

          “Do you not think it rational that this portrayal of Jews has led to much harm?”
          — (No, aside from human nature, it is irrational. The problem is not Jews or Christians nor the Greek Scriptures, but human nature) —

          Do you deny this portrayal is in the text?
          — (I do not deny this portrayal of a select group of individuals to whom the words were spoken. Since they were all male, can the words be honestly applied to every man or only to those men?) —

          Do you disagree that there is a genre of literature eclusively dedicated to demeaning the rabbis?
          —(I do not disagree. Do you disagree that there is a genre of literature exclusively dedicated to demeaning Christians?)—

          “If you can demy with a straight face the generally negative portrayal of the pharisees as a sect in the NT, then there isnt much reasonable discussion we can have.”
          —(You have changed your prior post wording from “all the time” to “generally”. Reasonable discussion begins with reasonable portrayal)—

  25. Concerned Reader says:

    Do you disagree that there is a genre of literature exclusively dedicated to demeaning Christians?)—

    I know of only 3 polemical Jewish texts written against Christianity directly. These texts are not written to oppose Christians themselves as people. (Theological opposition to Christians was actually illegal in antiquity and the middle ages for Jews to engage in, as was proselytizing, intermarrying, eating with gentiles, partaking in society, etc.) but there is nothing in Judaism that is even remotely on the level of Christian anti Judaism, and the amount of text written by Churchmen to justify it.

    Not only that, but while Christians decided to do things like burn the Talmud, censor it, burn Synagogues down, decided to pray for the conversion of “perfidious Jews,” (a prayer that was in place until Vatican II,) and while people decided to have “passion plays” that routinely roused up mobs of Christians to go harm Jews, Jews managed to say some relatively benign things about Jesus.

    Rabbi Jacob Emden was writing against another failed messiah called Shabbatai Tzvi. He wrote a letter to the Church saying things like this in paraphrase,

    “it is a habitual saying of mine to say that the Nazarene performed a double kindness in the world, for not one of our sages spoke more majestically about the eternity of the Torah and its validity, but also taught the gentiles the laws that apply to them,” (such as the rules you read in Acts 15.)

    Jewish polemic is written to respond directly to specific Christian theological slanders of Jews that were historically applied to the whole people by the Church even though the New Testament itself speaks to “a select group of individuals.” IE see the doctrine of the erring Jew.

    You saw that I wrote about these issues in my letter to Gen Guk Gean.

    “No, I do not. I have read the text numerous times never coming to such a conclusion. Granted a biased reading of selected passages could led to such a conclusion”

    Exactly. My point is that bias exists and develops internally as the books of the New Testament developed.

    The Synoptics might say on the one hand that the responsibility for Jesus’ death lies in the hands of the leaders. The Synoptics show a few Pharisees who actually helped Jesus and liked Jesus well enough.

    In Acts, Gamaliel defends the right of the apostles to exist, and tells Jews to leave them be. In fact, if I read the synoptic texts charitably, nobody should be typecast because of the death of Jesus, because those books claim it was by G-d’s will that Jesus died.

    We are told that a large group of early Christian believers were from the sect of the Pharisees.

    However, on the other hand, the gospel of John merely relates to “the Jews” in a general sense, and as a whole, as a blind people who did not perceive the one sent to them.

    Where a select group is blamed in earlier texts, the whole people is blamed in the gospel of john, and portrayed as blind.

    Paul of Tarsus himself at 1st does not view the whole nation as blind, but he comes to the conclusion that G-d himself closed their eyes, if temporarily, for providential reasons, and later Christian editors even put this little gem into 1 Thessalonians 2.

    “For you, brothers and sisters, became imitators of God’s churches in Judea, which are in Christ Jesus: You suffered from your own people the same things those churches suffered from THE JEWS who killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets and also drove us out. THEY displease God and are hostile to everyone.”

    I think you missed the entire point of what I wrote earlier. There are texts that make blanket statements about THE JEWS that developed in the New Testament ITSELF (this cant be denied.)

    I agree with you that there was a historical context in which those discussions initially occurred. My point to you is that the historical context in these situations has historically routinely been ignored by the Christians themselves throughout their history.

    As I told Gean, you are commanded to love a hypothetical enemy, but you prove to be incapable of it.

    Its therefore irrelevant if the words of Jesus were spoken to select individuals, if a vast majority of later Christian writers made it common place to apply New Testament stereotypes to all Jews for all time, which the Church Fathers definitely did.

    You say “its not Christians or Jews” its human nature, IE you believe each human being has a sin nature, so they need to be saved, and therefore the evil behavior towards Jews was to be expected? Is that what you feel?

    I’m sure you are aware that Jews do not believe in original sin. Jews do not believe that a human is born morally broken, but that each is made in G-d’s image.

    Jews believe that a man is responsible for mastering his own evil inclination.

    Genesis 4:7 If you do what is right, will you not be accepted? But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but YOU MUST RULE OVER IT.”

    Why would G-d tell Cain he could rule over his sin if its impossible?

    Deuteronomy 30 15-20 Where G-d tells Israel to choose life that they may live.

    Are you not indeed claiming that the parents ate sour grapes and the children’s teeth are set on edge? IE the parents left a bad example and a stain of sin via the fruit for the children, and the children therefore cannot help but follow in the sins of their parents? That is original sin in a nutshell. Ezekiel 18 flatly refutes it.

    Read the end of Ezekiel 22, specifically verse 30. Christians love using Ezekiel 22 and texts like Isaiah to say “see G-d cant find any good in Israel, or in anyone’s deeds, so regards them all as cursed.”

    HOWEVER, G-d regards Israel as cursed in Ezekiel 22 FOR A REASON!

    In Verse 30 its because he hasn’t found one person who will try to avert his wrath upon the people and stand up to him to save the people!

    Nobody wants to follow the example of Avraham who wanted to save ALL of SODOM, so long as he could find only a few righteous people.

    The Torah as a book believes in the free agency of man to make moral choices. Original Sin denies this basic biblical notion.

    • 10th man says:

      Concerned Reader,
      “My point is that bias exists and develops internally as the books of the New Testament developed.”
      —(The same bias applied to the Tanach will result in the same conclusion. If one wants to bolster an attitude of anti-semitism, the Tanach offers more cherry picking opportunities than the Greek scriptures. It could be said that bias exists and develops internally as one leaves the Torah and enters the Prophets, but it is not said, because the writings were not authored by Christians)—

      —(“sin nature” and “evil inclination is six and a half dozen respectively, i.e. human nature. To say otherwise is to confuse biblical doctrine with religious doctrine, the latter being previously stated at the end of prior your post)—

  26. Jim says:

    10th man,

    Your first comment relates itself to the discussion of the blindness of the Jewish people. Please allow me to comment on this as an idea.

    The necessity of the Church’s claim arose because of its abuse of Tanach. And it continues to be necessary for the Church as it abuses the words of the rabbis. The Church has imposed its own redefinitions of Torah concepts upon Tanach. This has been done by cherry-picking verses and taking verses out of context. This created a certain difficulty. The vast majority of Jewish people, and especially those that were familiar with Torah, did not recognize these redefinitions. However, the Church was putting forth the claim that it was teaching Torah. It had then to explain why the Jewish people, those to whom the Torah was entrusted, rejected these ideas, did not even recognize them as Torah. Because the Church could not prove through argumentation the legitimacy of their newly invented theology, they put forward the idea that the Jewish people had been spiritually blinded by God, made unable to see the truth.

    One can see this same move to discredit the Christian’s opponents on this page. Kavi, for example, is not content to explicate his understanding of prophecy. He must first discredit his opponents. He must first say that they have been blinded to the truth. This is why they do not recognize Messianic prophecies as such. This shows that he cannot trust his argument to stand on its own. Because he is going to ignore those parts of a prophecy that are inconvenient and is going to impose a context that does not exist in a straight reading of a passage, he must first explain away the opposition by saying that the reason they do not see it, is because they are bling. He is not content just to make his argument.

    And this is because his argument is empty. He takes up the passage in Isaiah that is supposed to predict the Virgin Birth. His own translation of Isaiah 7:14 shows that this does not refer to Jesus. Moreover, it is well known that Isaiah 7:14 says nothing about a virgin. In order to put the child of 7:14 into a different timeframe, Kavi mistranslates 7:16, so that he can make it refer to Isaiah’s son present at the time of the prophecy. He alters the passage to suit his theology. He has to force a Messianic reading onto the passage. He has to force a virgin birth onto the passage. And because he has had to force these “interpretations” onto the passage, he has to explain away disagreement by asserting Jewish blindness to Torah concepts.

    Kavi operates under the notion that he has been granted insight by God, while the Jewish people have been blinded by God. However, Kavi does not understand even one of the fundaments of Torah, that God is one and alone. This teaching is emphasized in Deut. 4, and it is to this truth that the Jewish people are appointed witness. Kavi teaches that God is three and not alone. Kavi, a self-appointed witness for God, who asserts the blindness of the Jewish people, does not grasp even the basics. It is his denial of the fundaments of Torah that make it necessary for him to claim that the Jewish people have been blinded. Kavi is an illustration of the Church’s claim generally, why it is necessary to claim that the Jewish people are blind. The Church, with its deviant teachings, had to explain away the disagreement of the Jewish people. It had to discredit them from the outset.

    Modern missionary movements continue to malign the Jewish people, even as they claim to return to the roots of Judaism. They take rabbinic teachings and impose their theology on those. Those rabbis that have kept that teaching alive are, of course, blind to the very teachings that they have preserved. The only comfort is that the Jewish people are in good company, inasmuch as the Christian has already distorted the words of the Almighty.

    The missionary is not content to let his arguments stand or fall under scrutiny. The claim that the Jewish people are spiritually blind betrays the weakness of the Christian reading of Torah. The missionary is not out to educate, or else he would restrict his comments to whatever passage may be in question. No, he is practicing the art of persuasion. And so, he must discredit his opponent. He cannot demonstrate the truth of his own reading, so he must claim the blindness of his opponent. The distortions of the Church are apparent to those that study Torah with care rather than an agenda. The light of this Torah has not blinded the Jews but given him the clear vision to see the distortions of the Church for what they are.


    • RT says:

      Nicely said Jim. By doing that the Christian or messianic blinds himself from any teaching or real interpretation of the Bible. Someone like Kavi will never want to acknowledge a passage could have been misrepresented by the early church and Isaiah 7 must speak of a virgin. By saying that the Jews are blind, this makes it impossible to have a fair and reasonable discussion, and as you said, they are not able to look at a passage under scrutiny to determine if what they see is really what the prophet or writers of the Hebrew Bible meant, but only a reflection of the new testament teaching.

  27. Concerned Reader says:

    The same bias applied to the Tanach will result in the same conclusion. If one wants to bolster an attitude of anti-semitism, the Tanach offers more cherry picking opportunities than the Greek scriptures. 

    10th man, I’ve read Pagan polemic against Jews. Its of a different character than Christian polemic.

    A person may be able to take passages about say, the conquest of Canaan to bolster antisemitism, or passages where a prophet calls Israel stiff necked, or where the prophet highlights Israel’s sins ie a polemicist will point out Israel’s immorality, but there is both a qualitative, and quantitative difference in the type of anti semitism, and the reasons given for it.

    The New Testament claims that “the Jews” have been blinded by fiat. Not one or two people, but the whole nation unless G-d acts to open eyes, or unless leaders and laymen embrace Jesus.

    The claim is levelled that G-d hardened Israel so as to bring gentiles in and graft them.

    1 problem with the Christian scripture’s assertion here about the purported reason for the hardening of Israel is that the Jewish faith already had a means of incorporating a G-d fearing non Jew, without requiring a conversion, into the society.

    IE, the New Testament claim that Israel needed to be blinded so that non Jews could be saved is a false and erroneous assertion.

    Paul got his 1st converts from where? From among the G-d fearers, ie Jews were already welcoming non Jews into a relationship in the Synagogue before Christianity was in existence.

    The Torah talks about the resident alien, about how G-d loves the convert, the stranger, and the Jew based on the content of their character.

    As Jim said, the New Testament tells why the claim was made. Paul tried to preach Jesus in the Synagogue but he failed, so he went to the gentiles, and regarded Israel as blind until G-d lifts a veil from them.

    If I read an old pagan polemic against Judaism, there is a massive difference in the tone and rationale of the pre Christian polemicist and his gripes with Jews.

    A pagan chastizes Jews for holding what he sees to be irrational beliefs,

    (IE how can there be only one deity with a plan, when there is so much chaos in the wold?)

    How can you call G-d good when he says he creates evil?

    The pagan polemicist will chastize Jews for their seperateness, (IE why do you not partake of our frstivals or food?)

    The big thing you notice thats very different about pagan polemic though is that the Pagan will, for rhetorical purposes off course, agree with the Torah’s principles of free will,

    will agree with Jewish views about the negative effects of imagery in worship (much like Plato and Aristotle already did,)

    and will tell them things like, “reasonable people already know the wisdom of your laws, and have counterparts to it, so your antagonism to our cultures make no sense.”

    The Pagan argues against the idea that Jews have a moral high ground because they may have common values in their own polytheistic traditions.

    For the Christian polemical author, the very character of the Jew is treated as flawed due to hardness by divine decree, or as a consequence of sin.

    Christianity casts the non Christian Jew and non Christian Gentile as an opposing spiritual force.

    Also, because much of Christianity looks down on deeds (inadvertently,) Jews are not even respected by Christians for the fact that you share ethics with them.

    If you look at just the red letter passages, you get a book of ethics from a Galilean Jew.

    At least a pagan antisemitic polemicist could argue with a Jew without of necessity seeing his person as theologically damaged.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your 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