Echad vs Yachid – Excerpt from Supplement to Contra Brown

Posted on December 12, 2016 by yourphariseefriend

yourphariseefriend's avatar1000 Verses - a project of Judaism Resources

1. Page 4

Brown addresses Maimonides’ statement that Jews must believe in God as
an “only one (- absolute unity): “There is no doubt that this reaction was
due to exaggerated, unbiblical, “Christian” beliefs that gave Jews the
impression Christians worshipped three gods.”

Brown would have his readers believe that Maimonides’ statement is a
“reaction. He would have his readers believe that this “reaction” was due to an incorrect understanding of Christianity.

I have a difficult time imagining a statement that would be more
offensive and insulting to Jews and to Judaism. Brown has “no doubt”
that the core belief of Judaism is a “reaction” to another belief
system. That would be like saying that there is no doubt that Christians revere Jesus as a “reaction” to the Moslem reverence of Mohammed. Or that the reason two people got married to each other was to avoid marrying someone else.

View original post 865 more words

Posted in General | Leave a comment

Christianity vs. The Sabbath – excerpt from Supplement

Posted on December 7, 2016 by yourphariseefriend

Throughout Brown’s attack on the Rabbinic understanding of the Sabbath the recurring refrain is: “is this what the Lord intended?” Brown expects his readers to come to the conclusion that the Rabbinic observance of the Sabbath is not the observance that God intended when He presented this commandment to His people.

If one’s understanding of spirituality in general and of the Sabbath in particular has been acquired from the literature and the general milieu of the modern Western world, then Brown’s argument will find a listening ear. But if one’s understanding of spirituality and of Sabbath is rooted in the Jewish Bible and in the environment of ancient Israel, then Brown’s argument is meaningless.

The Western world does not consider a procedure, in which people follow a detailed set of physical instructions, to be a rich spiritual experience. But the Jewish Scriptures teach us otherwise. Some of the pivotal narratives in Scripture teach us that man’s obedience to a series of detailed physical instructions bring man into a closer relationship with God. This is a feature in the episode of Noah’s ark. One of the central lessons integral to that account is the fact that God chose to renew life on this planet through Noah’s ark; an ark that was built according to a specific set of instructions. The entire Tabernacle narrative has the Jewish nation obediently following a detailed set of instructions and that this obedience was favored by God to the degree that He came to dwell amongst this nation. Scripture makes it clear that man’s obedience to intricate instructions is an important feature of the relationship between man and His Creator.

The historical record clearly indicates that every community of Jews in ancient Israel understood that the work that God prohibited on the Sabbath consists of a set of prohibitions that proscribe many minor physical activities. Some of these communities (such as the Qumran community represented in the Dead Sea Scroll literature) actually took a stricter view than Rabbinical Judaism in this area. The concept of Sabbath espoused by Protestant Christians, which is limited and confined to an indistinct “spiritual rest”, was unknown in ancient Israel. In ancient Israel the Sabbath was understood to be a spiritual rest that is amplified and supported by a defined set of rules prohibiting certain actions.

The Christian Scriptures themselves confirm the truth that the Biblical prohibition from work on the Sabbath applies to minor physical activities. Brown himself half-heartedly acknowledges this point when he tells us: “Now, it is more than likely, that Yeshua himself lived within the framework of SOME of these laws…” (page 226). In other words, Brown recognizes that Jesus himself observed the Sabbath according to the Rabbinic understanding of God’s holy day. Brown attempts to modify his admission with the argument that it was only “some” of the laws that Jesus observed, and with the myth the Rabbinic understanding of the Sabbath was not yet fully developed. But after everything is said and done, Brown is admitting that Jesus observed the Sabbath by refraining from minor physical activities.

The authors of the Christian Scripture clearly acknowledge this. In all of the Sabbath controversies that Jesus has with his opponents, not once does he disagree with the definition of “prohibited work” that his opponents espoused. His argument with them is that for the purpose of healing the Law of Sabbath is moved aside. But never does he argue that his opponent’s understanding of the Sabbath law is erroneous.

This means that mixing dirt and spittle is prohibited on the Sabbath (John 9:14), carrying a mat is prohibited in the Sabbath (John 5:10), and picking kernels of grain is prohibited on the Sabbath (Matthew 12:1). These minor physical activities would hardly constitute a violation of the Sabbath according to the philosophy espoused by Brown. Yet Jesus never denies that these activities ought to be prohibited on the Sabbath, barring extenuating circumstances.

The Christian Scriptures actually take this one step further. They have Jesus quoting a detail of Rabbinic Sabbath law to prove a point. In John 7:22 Jesus bases his argument on the Rabbinic law which would generally prohibit an incision to the flesh on the Sabbath, yet permits it in the situation of circumcision. According to Brown’s understanding, why should a cut to the flesh be prohibited to begin with? And once it is determined that it is indeed prohibited, how can we know that for the sake of circumcision it is permitted?

It is clear from the Christian Scriptures that the Rabbinic understanding of the Sabbath was common knowledge in Jesus’ days, and that Jesus never disputed this conception of the Sabbath. Brown’s attack on the Rabbinical Sabbath is but a poor attempt to rewrite history.

If you found this article helpful please consider making a donation to Judaism Resources by clicking on the link below.

https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=FEAQ55Y7MR3E6

Judaism Resources is a recognized 501(c) 3 public charity and your donation is tax exempt.

Thank You

Yisroel C. Blumenthal

Posted in General | 22 Comments

Claiming Originality – Excerpt from Supplement

Posted on December 2, 2016 by yourphariseefriend

yourphariseefriend's avatar1000 Verses - a project of Judaism Resources

Claiming Originality – Excerpt from Supplement

IV. 25. Page 216

In this section Brown takes a page out of Jesus’ book, and besmirches Judaism and her teachers.

When Jesus presented his moral teachings to his audience, it was not enough for him to encourage his followers to aim for a higher moral standard. It was important for him to claim that his teaching was original, and that the teachers who preceded him failed to understand some basic moral insights. By doing so, Matthew’s Jesus set the stage for the subsequent teaching of John’s Jesus that the Jews are children of the devil. Eventually, the European people came to believe that the Jewish people are so intimately connected with evil that they fail to appreciate some of the most basic principles of morality.

Brown too is not satisfied to present Jesus’ moral teachings. He finds the need to paint a fictitious…

View original post 806 more words

Posted in General | Leave a comment

Christian Anti-Semitism – Is It Still Relevant? – by Jim

Posted on November 30, 2016 by yourphariseefriend

Christian Anti-Semitism – Is It Still Relevant? – by Jim

 

The question of Christian Jew-hatred comes up semi-frequently in discussions about Christianity. The Christian wonders how this topic relates to the conversation about whether or not one should accept Jesus or not. The Christian may acknowledge that the Church did persecute the Jewish people, but does not see why this is pertinent. He may even adopt a wounded attitude: “Geez Louise, we said we’re sorry already. Get over it, willya?” One poster on this thread summed up this attitude by calling the Jew (i.e. the victim of 2,000 years of persecution) that brings up the history of persecution one who stirs up hatred, adding that “[t]he rest of us are moving on.” The Christian sees himself as taking the high road by avoiding the discussion of Christian Jew-hatred, while the Jew that mentions it is hateful. It is too bad that the irony is lost on him and is likely to remain so. But the question is not whether Christian Jew-hatred exists or has existed; the question is why talking about Christian Jew-hatred is relevant to discussions about Jesus. At least a few reasons can be given why this topic is relevant.

Perhaps the most obvious reason that the topic is relevant is that Christians claim that Jesus has greatly improved the moral quality of the lives of millions of people throughout history. One of the ways in which this grandiose claim can be examined is to review the history of the Church. Of course, it is a bloody history. The Church has perpetrated great crimes against the Jewish people. They have evicted them from their homes, creating the wandering Jew. They have burned their works. They have killed them in large numbers. It is reasonable that a Jew—or anybody really—should answer that this does not seem to be much of an improvement in the moral quality of these people’s lives. The faith of these Christians did not keep them from being murderers, oppressors, thieves, or destroyers. Moreover, it is the Jew who carries the scars that serve as proof that belief in Jesus failed to improve millions.

The Christian answer to this is rather Orwellian. All of those people do not count; those were not real Christians. Their history is not the history of the true believers. Etc. But even if the Christian had a good answer, that would not mean that the topic would be irrelevant. Because the Christian claims that Jesus has improved the lives of so many people, it is relevant to examine the history of believers.

It is also relevant because Christians frequently mischaracterize Jews as having a phobia of Jesus. Often this is attributed to spiritual blindness. Also, Christians will make it sound that the rabbis fear that if people really knew about Jesus, then they would turn in large numbers to Jesus, so the rabbis to preserve their power have created a stigma around him. In this context, it is relevant to point out that the Jewish people wish little to do with Jesus because in his name terrible crimes were perpetrated against the Jewish people. The aversion comes not from a fear of losing control but from 2,000 years of Jewish suffering at the hands of the Church. In this case, the Jew is answering a charge from the Christian. Unfortunately, too frequently the Christian attempts to bind the hands of the Jew, telling him that this answer is off limits.

Nevertheless many Christians will argue that because Jew-hatred has been greatly diminished in the past 80 years, it is unfair to bring it up. But the crimes of the Church against the Jewish people continue. The Church still continues to make itself the interpreter of the meaning of the Jewish scriptures. Not only that, it borrows from the rabbis what it can make use of to prop up its theology and castigate the rabbis with whom they disagree. They redefine the Jewish scriptures and the words of its interpreters, a great cultural theft and continue to malign the Jew. Too often, the modern acceptance of the Jew is not motivated from justice or kindness but a grab at legitimacy. That Jesus was a Jew is put forward as a reason to cease oppressing the Jew, yes, but it is not left there. It is also a weapon to show the Jew that Christianity is Jewish, the true Judaism. It is a tool to legitimize Christian interpretation of the Jewish scriptures.

So, one will read that Jesus was a student of Hillel. This makes Jesus a rabbi, a legitimate interpreter of the Jewish religion. And the Christian will praise Hillel as one of the good rabbis, making a pretense to knowledge of the rabbis that they do not actually have. What the Christian does not note is that the Jewish community preserved the words of Hillel. They did not preserve the words of Jesus. He does not notice it, because it does not matter to him. He never cared to read Hillel anyway. Hillel was just a tool to establish the bona fides of Jesus and Christianity. He wants to borrow Hillel’s authority, not learn at his feet.

Christian Jew-hatred may have largely ceased, but Christian aggression against the Jewish people has not. The Christian continues to insist that the Jew hear the Christian. He insists that he understands the Jewish tradition better than the Jew. He knows the Jewish scriptures better than the Jew. He is more Jewish than the Jew.

For these reasons, and perhaps more, Christian persecution of the Jew remains relevant. The Christian cannot claim moral superiority by ignoring the moral failures of the Church. It cannot pretend that the aversion to Jesus is rooted in a fear of the Church and not the bloody history of Jewish suffering in the name of Jesus. Nor can it ignore that, while physical persecution has ceased, Christian aggression against the Jew has continued. Missionary efforts continue. Christians misrepresent the Jewish scriptures and the rabbis. Jew-hatred may have lessened, but Christian aggression has taken another form.

Jim

P.S. For more on Orwell Christian talk see here:
https://yourphariseefriend.wordpress.com/2014/06/08/a-memo-from-the-church-in-the-year-1984-by-jim/ 

If you found this article helpful please consider making a donation to Judaism Resources by clicking on the link below.

https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=FEAQ55Y7MR3E6

Judaism Resources is a recognized 501(c) 3 public charity and your donation is tax exempt.

Thank You

Yisroel C. Blumenthal

Posted in General, Jim | 49 Comments

Did Dr. Brown Answer? Let’s Evaluate!

Posted on November 26, 2016 by yourphariseefriend

Posted in Response to Dr. Brown Line of Fire, Videos | 88 Comments

Shallow Similarities, Deep Differences – by Annelise

Posted on November 24, 2016 by yourphariseefriend

yourphariseefriend's avatar1000 Verses - a project of Judaism Resources

Shallow Similarities, Deep Differences – by Annelise

In Proverbs 8 we hear a speech in the voice of Wisdom, who is portrayed as a desirable and life-bringing woman. Wisdom speaks here about how she was created before the universe; how creation was made through her, and the way she delights in its order and beauty. She is seen all through creation as the path of good things for those who choose her.

This character of Wisdom has frequent parallels in other ancient Jewish sources, besides Proverbs. These describe wisdom and, with a similar image, the ‘word of God’ as a tool through which He upholds and interacts with created beings. The people who developed this picture had a careful sense of respect for God, wanting their followers to know that although He holds creation close, and is known within it, He is not to be mistaken for a created thing…

View original post 572 more words

Posted in General | Leave a comment

Song of Solomon 5:16 vs. Three Masters of Persuasion

Posted on November 21, 2016 by yourphariseefriend

yourphariseefriend's avatar1000 Verses - a project of Judaism Resources

Song of Solomon 5:16 vs. Three Masters of Persuasion

The heart of Israel is bound up in a covenant relationship with the One Creator of heaven and earth. Throughout the Scripture this relationship is compared to a marriage. How can I explain love? How can I put Israel’s yearning for God into words? David said: “Whom do I have in heaven? And aside from You I desire none on earth” (Psalm 73:25). Solomon wrote on behalf of Israel: “This is my Beloved and my partner” (Song of Solomon 5:16). There is no room in Israel’s heart for another. And the fire of this love is seared onto every page of Israel’s history with her very life blood.

Israel’s refusal to consider the attempt of the Church to divert their heart towards Jesus is rooted in this love. The story of Israel’s rejection of Jesus is a story of loyalty to…

View original post 834 more words

Posted in General | 1 Comment

Foundation of Worship II

Posted on November 13, 2016 by yourphariseefriend

yourphariseefriend's avatar1000 Verses - a project of Judaism Resources

Foundation of Worship II

The Jewish scriptures together with the sense of justice that God breathed into each one of us makes it clear that the foundation of our worship is the fact that we are completely dependent upon our Creator who is the Author of all existence.

Once this fact is established, it becomes obvious why the Christian claim for the incarnation of Jesus is actually an attempt to redefine the very basis of worship. The scenario proposed by the theology of Christianity, in which Creator takes on the form of created – and demands worship in that form – is in effect claiming that worship is not rooted in our dependence upon the Author of all existence. “Creator”, by definition means the one to whom worship is due, while “created” means the one who owes the worship. By saying that Creator became created that is like saying that…

View original post 884 more words

Posted in General | 16 Comments

Intercession

Posted on November 3, 2016 by yourphariseefriend

Intercession

Abraham’s intercession for the people of Sodom (Genesis 18:23-33) must rank as one of the more enigmatic passages in Scripture. The people of Sodom were the epitome of cruelty and wickedness while Abraham was kind and righteous. Why would he pray for the preservation of such wickedness?

Our sages compounded the enigma when they taught that God chose Abraham precisely because of this prayer. The rabbis expounded on Psalm 45:8. “You love righteousness and hate wickedness; therefore has God, your God, anointed you with oil of joy from among your peers.” The Sages of Israel read these words as if God were addressing Abraham; “You have loved to justify my creations and you have hated to render them guilty it is for this reason that from all the generations since Noah that I chose to speak to you.” According to this reading, it was Abraham’s prayer on behalf of the Sodomites that set him apart from his peers.

The Torah itself leads us in the direction of this rabbinic teaching. The Torah introduces Abraham’s intercession for the people of Sodom with a reminder of the fact that Abraham was chosen by God (Genesis 18:17-19). The Torah is telling us that God’s blessing to Abraham is somehow related to the episode of Abraham praying on behalf of the wicked. How are these two concepts related to each other? And why did Abraham pray for the preservation of these cruel and unrighteous people?

It is clear and obvious that Abraham was not looking forward to the perpetuation of Sodom’s evil way of life. If Abraham was praying for the survival of the people of Sodom then he must have been thinking of their repentance. When Abraham appeals to God to spare Sodom for the sake of ten righteous people Abraham is arguing that these ten righteous people will eventually turn Sodom around. Abraham’s prayer is a belief in the power of good to prevail over evil. And Abraham’s prayer reflects a deep faith in the essential goodness of man that was created in God’s image.

This is not to say that Abraham was naïve. This is not to say that Abraham did not appreciate the depth of the Sodomite evil. The Torah teaches us that Abraham could not even tolerate possessing a shoelace from Sodom (Genesis 14:22,23). Abraham’s righteous soul recoiled from the wickedness of the Sodomites but this did not prevent Abraham from seeing them as God’s creations.

When Abraham saw the wickedness of the people of Sodom he saw people who were not being true to themselves. Since these people were God’s creations Abraham believed that God’s goodness must be an inherent part of them. And if they are exposed to ten righteous people then there is hope for their return to God.

Abraham’s belief in the inherent goodness of God’s creations and his belief that righteousness will ultimately prevail over evil is what made him the father of God’s chosen nation. God’s plan for His nation is that they carry the torch of righteousness through the corridors of history and in this way, bring the hearts of men back to God. When God was looking for a man to father this nation He was looking for someone who believed in His plan. And it was Abraham’s prayer on behalf of the people of Sodom that showed God that this was His man.

If you found this article helpful please consider making a donation to Judaism Resources by clicking on the link below.

https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=FEAQ55Y7MR3E6

Judaism Resources is a recognized 501(c) 3 public charity and your donation is tax exempt.

Thank You

Yisroel C. Blumenthal

Posted in General | 14 Comments

Yisroel Blumenthal’s response to Dr. Brown’s response

Posted on October 26, 2016 by yourphariseefriend

In response to Dr. Brown’s response ( https://yourphariseefriend.wordpress.com/2016/10/23/dr-bros-response-to-comment-429/  )

 

Dr. Brown

The purpose of this dialogue is that we put our respective arguments out in the open, so the public can see them and judge for themselves. After all these years you have finally supplied some answers to questions that I had asked you so long ago. Now that you put the answers on the table we (meaning the public, myself included) can judge for ourselves and see what it is that your faith stands on.

I have responded to the majority of your arguments below. I have not responded to every one simply because I believe that the reader can see through them without my help and because I have already responded to your arguments in previous writings. So please do not accept my silence on any one point as agreement. (My responses proceed in the order of your responses.)

I demonstrated that you contradicted yourself on the subject of messianic prophecy. You had this opportunity to show why this is no contradiction. So what did you say in your defense?

You start out by saying that my words are a “gross oversimplification.” Why? Because there are “other factors” that need to be considered. And what are they? That the timing of the “Branch” building the Temple would seem to apply to Second Temple as opposed to third.

So how are my words a “gross oversimplification”? I said exactly that when I wrote that there seems to be a problem with the timing of some of the prophecies.

You have no problem throwing out empty rhetoric, at the same time, when I state that I demonstrated something, after I took the pains to do so, you take me to task for making such statements. Do I need your permission to use the word “hypocrite”?

You bring up the Temple prophecies in Ezekiel. I wasn’t building my case on that prophecy (I explicitly said that I will put those prophecies aside for argument’s sake), so this is another distraction of yours.

You make the statement that the alleged prophecies of Messiah’s miracles are not fraught with interpretative difficulties as are the Temple building prophecies.

Here too, you just say what you want completely disregarding what I have written. You might as well sing the Polish national anthem and tell your audience that you “answered” my questions.

The three prophecies that you quote to support the claim that the Messiah must perform miracles are fraught with all of the difficulties that the Temple prophecies are fraught with plus more. The three passages that you quoted (Isaiah 35:1-6; 42:6-7; 61:1-3) are all tied in with events that have nothing to do with Jesus’ career. All of these are contextually explained with the understanding that the miracles are not literal. And the prophecy of chapter 61 is predicting the precise opposite of what Christianity stands for. Christianity is looking for the further shame of Zion’s mourner’s, not their comfort.

You state that you have an exegetical basis for your arguments and you claim that Rambam (Maimonides) is “lacking. Well you had an opportunity to prove your point and you didn’t. So we know now that you have NO exegetical basis for your arguments.

You justify your pointing to the actions of Jesus as a valid Scriptural interpretative tool by telling me that when my Messiah comes I will do the same. My Messiah won’t need armies of lawyers working for 2000 years to try to make a case for his Messiah-ship. You won’t have any questions.

You accuse me of playing a polemical game. I simply pointed to the fact that you need to point to Jesus’ actions as an interpretative Scriptural tool, that Tanach in and of itself is insufficient for you. You now tell me that you could make a case on the basis of Tanach without pointing to Jesus’ actions. Go ahead and do so.

You tell me (and the audience) that I cannot separate my tradition from my understanding of God and Israel. You do not substantiate this accusation, you just threw it out without any supporting evidence. I did not quote my traditions in my arguments, you quoted Jesus.

You claim that you do not minimize the hope for future peace. Of-course you do. If I tell you that I am expecting a delivery of apples from a certain shipping service and you tell me that the apples will only come after 2000 years of deliveries of oranges, then you have drowned (and minimized) the delivery of apples.

The prophets made it abundantly clear that the Messiah is associated with peace. They did not say anything about a new election, a virgin birth, a new faith and a 2000 year interlude between “two acts” of the Messiah. By adding all of these on to the Messianic portrait painted by God’s prophets you have minimized what they actually did say.

I asked you if the number of verses supporting a specific doctrine is a valid standard by which to measure the Scriptural basis of a given position. What is your answer?

I pointed out how you take the same prophecy and make it important and unimportant at the same time. How do you answer this? Is the prophet trying to highlight this passage by associating a human being with the Messiah or is he not? How could the same passage be “the most overt” and “fringe at best”?

You say that the out of say 10 Messianic prophecies that were expected to be fulfilled at the rebuilding of the Second Temple, only 5 were fulfilled at the time while the rest await fulfillment in the future. This is inaccurate. All of them were fulfilled on a miniature scale at the time of the return and the full fulfillment will come in the future.

You claim that the day of vengeance described in Isaiah 61:2 refers to the destruction of the Second Temple. I find this horrifying. Don’t you realize that this day of vengeance is the same as the one described 34:8; 35:4 and 63:4? This is God’s revenge against Israel’s enemies and NOT God’s punishment of the sinful Jews. Your Scriptural interpretation is exactly the opposite of what the prophet intended.

You tell me that my argument about David being the antithesis of Jesus is inaccurate (you speak of the “folly” of my argument). So do you believe that you and only you are authorized to tell us what the prophets meant when they compared the Messiah to David? I would suggest that we all step back and look at the big picture of David’s life, his primary accomplishments before God and for his nation and I trust that we will get a picture of the real Messiah. And indeed, it is difficult to think of a person more antithetical to God’s David than is Christianity’s Jesus.

You claim that Jesus brought glory to the Temple with his “divine” presence, his miracles and the spirit he sent to his people after his “ascension.” Pray tell, did anyone ever associate these events with the Temple? No, the followers of Jesus (yourself included) tell us that they came into a richer spiritual experience with the destruction of the Temple. Jesus taught that the Temple is superfluous. If this is honor then what is shame?

You claim that Jesus purified the Levitical priesthood in fulfillment of Malachi’s prophecy (3:3) by raising up Levitical priests who followed him. So were the sacrificial offerings of Israel and Judah pleasing to God as they were in days gone by? Was Malachi speaking of a limited number of priests? Or was he speaking of the priesthood as a whole? Didn’t you write that with the advent of Jesus the Levitical high-priesthood and the sacrificial system are set aside because it is weak and useless (vol. 4 pg. 263)? Whose leg are you trying to pull? You might as well sing the Polish national anthem.

And your explanation of Daniel 9 also fails miserably. I pointed out that according to Daniel, the cutting off of the anointed one happens at the same time as the destruction of the city and sanctuary. Your response is that there may be a short hiatus between the 69th and 70th week. But where does the prophet say that the one (cutting off of the anointed) is to occur after 69 weeks while the other (destruction of Temple and city) occurs after the 70th week? The prophet tells us that they happen together (Daniel 9:26). Polish national anthem?

Let’s move on to your responses on the passage of Isaiah 53.

You say that Isaiah 53:9 cannot refer to the nation of Israel. So I ask you my question again; was Israel guilty of the crimes that her persecutors accused her of?

You say that people would be shocked if Jesus turns out to be God’s servant. Indeed they will, but not for the reason that the servant of Isaiah 53 arouses shock. The servant of Isaiah is considered subhuman, while Jesus is not considered subhuman. Jesus is rejected because we do not believe that he is divine, not because we think that he is not human. And when you speak of the Moslem, Hindu, and nominal Christian being shocked – their shock has nothing to do with the identity of the servant at all. They would find the concept of God’s salvation shocking in and of itself. The identity of the servant will play no role in their shock. In fact, these people all consider Jesus to be a positive figure, not a negative one.

You tell me that Isaiah 26:2 is irrelevant because it is an end-time prophecy and does not speak of Israel’s righteousness in exile. Did you read what I wrote? I acknowledge that it is an end-time prophecy but I pointed out that Israel is being praised for a quality that they maintained in exile; guarding their loyalty to God. This concept is reflected in Micah 7 verses 8 and 9 where Israel, while sitting in darkness suffering for her sins still enjoys God’s light.

You completely ignore the Scriptural references that demonstrate that Israel maintains a certain loyalty to God even in exile and even while sinning. Your video presentation on Isaiah 53 ignores this Scriptural truth.

https://yourphariseefriend.wordpress.com/2015/08/10/good-bad-and-both/

In your video presentation you tell us that the references to Israel and Jacob in chapters 49 through 53 of Isaiah are proportionately less than the references to Israel and Jacob in the preceding chapters. You say this to give your audience the impression that the prophet shifts his focus from the nation to the righteous individual in the chapters leading up to Isaiah 53. But you don’t tell your audience that the prophet has other ways of referring to Israel. “Zion”, “Jerusalem”, “the nation with My Law in their hearts”, are just a sampling of references to Israel in these chapters. There are well over 100 nouns and pronouns clearly referring to Israel in these 5 chapters (49-53). How can you claim that the prophet shifted his focus? Have you no shame?

You tell us that the last reference (before Isaiah 53) to Israel as God’s servant appears in 48:20. You are technically correct if you limit your focus to the word “servant.” But wouldn’t you agree that the description “armor bearers of the Lord” describes a special servant? Don’t you realize that this reference to the nation appears just 2 verses before the passage in question (52:11)?

You claim that Isaiah 49 says that the nations will accept the Messiah while Israel will reject him. This concept is to be found nowhere in that chapter or in any other part of Tanach. It is about as anti-Scriptural as you can get. I take the liberty of quoting myself (I sent this to you a few years ago).

“At one point in his presentation Dr. Brown makes the preposterous assertion that the Messiah is FIRST to be a light to the Gentiles and only AFTERWARD is he going to be recognized by the Jewish people. This statement is patently false and is roundly contradicted by the prophets of Scripture

The scriptures clearly tell us exactly how the conversion of the world will be achieved. The message is repeated quite a number of times in an open and unambiguous manner. Isaiah compares the error of the nations to a veil that covers their faces (25:7), and to a thick cloud of darkness (60:2). The prophets teach that God will use the physical salvation of the Jewish people to dispel this dark error. When the downtrodden and persecuted nation is exalted, and their enemies are destroyed, the nations will see the light and be converted to the service of God. Israel’s deliverance is the catalyst for the conversion of the nations. This lesson is repeated by the prophets again and again (Isaiah 17:12 – 18:7, 25:1 – 8, 30:26, 34:1 – 35:10, 40:1 – 11, 41:17 – 20, 49:8 – 13, 52:7 – 10, Zephaniah 3:8 – 20, Psalm 9:8 – 13, 40, 66, 69, 98, 102, 117 ). Any faith that the nations are coming to before the light of God is openly revealed upon Israel, can only be a part of the darkness that the prophets yearned to see dispelled (Isaiah 60:1 – 3).”

Your quote from Ezekiel 39:23-24 has the word “only” in it. You realize of-course that the word appears nowhere in the Hebrew. You must have spent time looking for a translation with this word because even the corrupt NIV didn’t put that word in there.

Furthermore, don’t you realize that Ezekiel 39:23,24 actually confirms the Jewish interpretation of Isaiah 53 (even if you leave the word “only” in there). What were the nations thinking before they realized that the exile was caused by Israel’s sins? According to the prophets the nations think that Israel is loyal to a powerless God and that is the cause of their suffering. Ezekiel is teaching us that the nations will realize that Israel was loyal to the true God and it was their sins that caused the exile. It clearly follows that the nations will realize that they had been following the wrong god as Isaiah 49:23 so clearly testifies. This is the “going astray” described in Isaiah 53 of which Israel is NOT guilty (as per Isaiah 26:13 which you choose to ignore).

You deny having written that the holocaust came upon us for rejecting Jesus. Please read what you wrote in volume 1 page 107; “because we rejected the Messiah when he came (the rejection of no other person could cause such suffering for us as a people), we forfeited the blessings of God and inherited his curses instead.”

I will conclude by thanking you for taking the time and effort to write your response. Now that you put some more of your cards on the table we can more easily demonstrate that your faith has nothing to do with God’s truth.

If you found this article helpful please consider making a donation to Judaism Resources by clicking on the link below.

https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=FEAQ55Y7MR3E6

Judaism Resources is a recognized 501(c) 3 public charity and your donation is tax exempt.

Thank You

Yisroel C. Blumenthal

Posted in Debate Forum, Response to Dr. Brown Line of Fire | 10 Comments