Responding to Dr. Michael Brown’s Distractions

Posted on September 15, 2016 by yourphariseefriend

Responding to Dr. Michael Brown’s Distractions

In my video response to Dr. Michael Brown’s presentation entitled “Dr. Brown ANSWERS Rabbi Blumenthal” (   https://youtu.be/IUIdgyhUfUE  ) I focus on the subject at hand. I demonstrate how Dr. Brown did not answer the questions that I had raised (

). In this article I will respond to the various arguments that he brought up or to comments that he made that were unrelated to the questions that I had raised.

  1. Dr. Brown asks, if as I say, that his 5 volumes are so incredibly empty and inadequate, so why do I bother responding to them?

The answer is simple. Dr. Brown gives the impression that in his 5 volumes he fairly presents the Jewish position. Innocent readers, who are unfamiliar with the real Jewish position, can walk away from his books with the impression that Christianity is the world-view that is closer to the Biblical text than Judaism.

But his presentation of the Jewish position is completely off the mark. What I have done in my rebuttals is that I have attempted to accurately present the Jewish position. If I were assured that people would actually read through his 5 volumes and read my rebuttals, I would stop right there. I put all the issues on the table and I am satisfied to let these things stand.

So why don’t I ignore his writings? Because most people don’t read. And this fact allows Dr. Brown to use his writings deceptively. He is telling his audience, who will never read 1500 pages, that all the answers are there. They are not.

 

  1. Dr. Brown claims that in his 1500 pages he answered all of the objections that he was made aware of up until that point in time.

It is obvious to the Jewish reader that he missed some of the major objections. Whether this is his fault or not is irrelevant. His book doesn’t talk to the heart or to the intellect of a Jew who knows his or her heritage.

Furthermore, if he has to contradict himself in order to make his presentation, shouldn’t he realize that something is wrong? If he wrote with intellectual integrity then he shouldn’t be contradicting himself and if he did contradict himself he should appreciate that there are serious problems with his work.

But I have my own problems with his assertion. Back in 2001 I challenged Dr. Brown to include 3 objections in his then upcoming third volume (eventually that volume became volume 5). In 2008 I reminded him of this challenge and I sent it to him again. Here is the original challenge:

I will present you with a challenge. You are presently preparing the third volume of your book for publication. I did not see it, but I can tell you what it does not contain. I will list three objections to the Christian belief system which you were not planning to mention. Two of these objections lie at the heart of the Jewish resistance to any belief system aside from their own. Here they are.

1) The medium through which we learned that scripture is authentic is the testimony of our parents. These same people testified to us that there is a body of unwritten Mosaic law which is crucial in understanding how God wants us to live. If they lied about these unwritten traditions then why should we believe their testimony about scripture. (The Ibn Ezra articulates this argument in several places)

2) The one item which the Torah itself is most explicit and clear that we are to follow the testimony of our fathers, is the issue of “who are we to worship”. Scripture tells the witnesses of Sinai, “you should make it known to your children and children’s children”. It is obvious that God considered this a valid medium of transmitting information, that is the chain of parent to child. Once God explicitly designated a medium of transmitting information, we can be sure that He will ensure its preservation. Until today jews testify that God revealed Himself at Sinai as an absolute unity. All those who deviated from this tradition never claimed that with their worship they follow a tradition which goes back to Sinai. (This is the main point of the Jewish insistence on clinging to their belief system)

3) An honest reading of the NT will reveal that Jesus and his followers believed in, and observed the unwritten traditions which the Jews accepted as God given. (I hope to substantiate this at length later in this letter)   

At the time, Dr. Brown responded by accepting my challenge and assuring me that he will address these arguments in his upcoming volume. But he did not. He devotes one paragraph, in an end-note (#131) to the first objection (- see our response in Supplement to Contra Brown, V16). He touches upon one limited aspect of the third of the three Jewish objections in the main body of the book (6.15 – see Supplement to Contra Brown, V69), but he completely ignored the second objection.

He subsequently told me that he couldn’t change the objections because they had already been prepared a decade before. Let us accept this answer. But this still leaves us with a question, when he does address the third objection, why does he skip so much of the evidence that I presented to substantiate that argument? Is he really addressing all the objections that were raised to him?

  1. Dr. Brown tells his audience that he sent me “responses” to my question. He then turns to the audience and tells them that I “know” that he has answers to my questions.

It is very interesting to note that he asked me not to share those “responses” with anyone. His response consists of about 14 pages in response to one question that I raised in Contra Brown. So to speak of this paper as if it contains “responses” in the plural is misleading and false.

Furthermore, the argument contained in this paper that he shared with me completely ignores the other arguments that I put forth in Contra Brown but instead focused on the words that I wrote to explain that one question as if that was all I wrote.

So I have no hesitation to say that I believe that Dr. Brown has no answers to my questions and the paper that he sent me only confirms my belief. If I would have written that paper I would also be embarrassed to share it with the public.

 

  1. Dr. Brown tells his audience about a written debate that he was about to have with 4 counter-missionary activists. He complains that I shut that debate down. He wants to know why I did that, what do I have to hide?

This debate was going to take place after Dr. Brown reneged on his agreement to engage in a written debate with me. It was obvious to one and all that Dr. Brown is willing to have a written debate with these well-meaning, but amateur activists only because of their inexperience. My challenge to engage him in a written debate still stands. It is 15 years old. What does he have to hide?

 

  1. Dr. Brown claims that he responds to the Jewish objection based on Deuteronomy 4. He tells his audience that although Deuteronomy 4 emphasizes that the Jewish people saw no from but Numbers 12 and Exodus 24 teach us that God does have a form.

This is no response to the objection based on Deuteronomy 4. In Supplement to Contra Brown points V 62 thru 65 I demonstrate how Dr. Brown has completely missed the Jewish objection. For the sake of brevity I will share one paragraph from that section of my work:

Brown has missed the point of Sinai, which is actually the central point of the entire Scripture. It’s not about a book, it is about a covenant between two living parties; between the living God, and between His bride, Israel. Just because you are holding a copy of a description of the wedding ceremony doesn’t make you the bride. And if you make it your life’s mission to declare to one and all that the witnesses that God commissioned at Sinai are liars, then how can you turn around and claim the heritage of Sinai for yourself? (Just to remind the readers; in Volume 2, Brown contended that Israel’s rejection of the trinity is not based on what they learned at Sinai, as Israel claims, but is rather: “a gut-level negative reaction to anything Christian” (Page 7).)

I will make the full segment of my writing available in a separate article entitled Post Script to Responding to Distractions – https://yourphariseefriend.wordpress.com/2016/09/18/post-script-for-responding-to-distractions/  .

  1. Dr. Brown tells the audience that he addressed the Jewish objection based on Deuteronomy 30 in volume 5 objection 6.10

Deuteronomy 30 poses several challenges to the Christian position. The point I was making in my video presentation is that Deuteronomy 30 is a foundational text as it relates to Israel repairing her national relationship with God. It clearly precludes the Christian theology that asserts that there is no remission for sin without a blood offering. Dr. Brown does NOT address this challenge to his position in objection 6.10 or anywhere else in his 5 volumes.

He does address the challenge that Deuteronomy 30 poses to his position as it relates to the centrality of Torah observance. I share with you here what I wrote in “The Elephant and the Suit” in response to Dr. Brown’s treatment of Deuteronomy 30 in objection 6.10.

Let us leave no stone unturned. Let us examine the one paragraph that Dr. Brown did devote to this Scriptural passage in 6.10 of vol. 5 (page 223). In this paragraph Dr. Brown tells us that there is a divergence of views amongst followers of Jesus. Some understand that the obedience to the Torah that this passage speaks of is a reference to obedience and faith in Jesus. In endnote # 343 Dr. Brown informs us that other followers of Jesus believe that this Scriptural prophecy will never be fulfilled because of Israel’s failures.

Both of these positions are openly refuted by the text. Moses told the people that they will return to obey God, “according to all that I (Moses) command you (Eternal Israel) today”. These words were spoken by Moses more than 1000 years before Jesus was born. Moses made it clear that he expected the last generation of Jews to look back to him (Moses) as their ultimate teacher, and that he expected them to follow his commandments as they were understood on the day he presented them to Israel. These words of Moses clearly preclude the Christian belief that Jesus is the ultimate teacher, and that the teachings of Jesus are somehow superior to the teachings of Moses.      

The second position that Dr. Brown attributes to followers of Jesus is also invalidated by the Biblical text. The passage opens with words: “And it shall be that all these things come upon you, the blessing and the curse…” The curse that Moses is referring to is the curse that God warned would befall Israel should they fail to obey His voice. How then can one make the claim that on account of Israel’s failure to obey God, this Scriptural prophecy will never be fulfilled? This same prophecy clearly predicts Israel’s failure to obey and tells us how, after our failure, we will ultimately return to God. It is clear that God took our failures into consideration when He encouraged us with these words, and God’s promises are irrevocable.

The two Christian explanations that Dr. Brown offers his readers are clearly refuted by the words of this passage. Dr. Brown does not even begin to provide a textual justification for the Christian interpretation of Deuteronomy 30.  

According to Dr. Brown’s own standard, the real question is: What do the Hebrew Scriptures teach? This passage in Deuteronomy clearly teaches that Israel’s repentance is the precursor of the Messianic age, this passage teaches that repentance is efficacious while Israel is still in exile, and this passage clearly teaches that the Law of Moses, as Moses taught it, is going to be observed in the Messianic era. Each of these issues is central to the debate between Judaism and Christianity. Why then does Dr. Brown fail to address this key passage in his comprehensive work?

  1. Dr. Brown takes issue with my assertion that he deals with Ezekiel 33 in a backhanded way. He claims that he deals with this passage “head on.”

I will take the liberty to explain what I meant when I said that he deals with this Scriptural passage in a backhanded way and I will again do this by quoting what I have written on this subject in Supplement to Contra Brown:

Brown tries to repudiate the message of Ezekiel 18, and 33. The prophet clearly speaks of atonement for sin through repentance and repentance alone. The first technique that Brown uses to nullify God’s word is that he puts the Jewish argument into a straightjacket. He has the Jews arguing that Ezekiel was only referring to a situation where the Temple is destroyed.

Once the Jewish argument is safely locked up, Brown launches his counter-attack. He argues that once the Temple was rebuilt the prophet’s words would be meaningless. He makes the point that Ezekiel’s contemporaries looked forward to the restoration of the sacrificial system. He also informs us that Ezekiel himself prophetically predicted a restoration of the sacrificial system. Brown argues that according to the Jewish reading of Ezekiel, which posits that all one needs is repentance then all of the other commandments such as Sabbath and Passover would be of no importance.

Finally, Brown argues, that the interpretation of Ezekiel 18 and 33 which teaches that repentance is all that is necessary for atonement from sin was unknown to the Talmudic and medieval Jewish Rabbis. It is only an argument created under polemical pressure from Christianity. He “proves” this preposterous premise by pointing out that this text was not used in the Jewish-Christian debate for the last 1900 years.

Every one of Brown’s arguments is fallacious. The prophet clearly says that with repentance all sins are forgiven. Repentance means a change of attitude. Repentance means returning to obedience from rebellion. Someone who repents, by definition, accepts upon himself or herself all that God has commanded. This includes the Sabbath as well as the blood offerings spoken of by Moses. As long as one has sincerely accepted all that God has commanded, he has repented. If for whatever reason, it was impossible for the person to fulfill the Law practically, the repentance still stands. A long as the person accepted upon himself or herself to be obedient to God he or she has repented and is forgiven. For example; a man repents on Sunday. The Sabbath is still 6 days away. He has not fulfilled the Sabbath yet. Will God forgive? Similarly, if one accepts the validity of every word in the Torah, including the commandments about the sacrifices, he has repented. The fact that he cannot practically fulfill the sacrificial offerings does not nullify his repentance and he will be forgiven. On the other hand if one refuses to accept the validity of Moses’ words, and claims that the sacrifices were replaced, then he or she has not repented. God’s words through Ezekiel retain their eternal meaning. Repentance alone effects atonement. The fact that the people were looking forward to the Temple does not mean that repentance does not work. Repentance means yearning to fulfill every one of God’s commandments, even those commandments which we cannot practically fulfill.

The fact that the Rabbis did not use these passages in the polemical debates of the middle ages is because the Catholics who they debated did not bring up the issue of atonement. But in non-polemical settings the Rabbis certainly did quote Ezekiel 18 and 33 to prove that repentance works. These include the Talmud (Yoma 82b, Kiddushin 40b), the Midrash (Tanchuma Vayeitzei 22) and the Yom Kippur liturgy.

Does Dr. Brown’s response to Ezekiel 33 deserve the title “backhanded”? You be the judge.

 

  1. Dr. Brown argues that I contradict myself. At times I say that a working knowledge of the Bible will help a person see through the arguments of the Christian missionary. Dr. Brown sees this as a contradiction to what I state in my video presentation where I tell the audience that one does not need to be educated to see through the missionary arguments, you just need to love God.

This is no contradiction. You could be an atheist, but if you have studied the Bible you will see right through the arguments of people like Dr. Brown. And you could be an ignoramus, but if you love God with all your heart, then a Christian missionary who is trying to get you to direct devotion to Jesus cannot begin a conversation with you. It would be like trying to propose a prospective mate to a person who is happily married. It is not either intellect or love. You could use both to refute the arguments of the missionary. Each one of them standing on its own is more than enough negate the claims of the Church.

  1. Dr. Brown claims that at the end of volume 3 he sets forth a logical and systematic way of identifying Messianic prophecies.

Really? Let me again share my critique of his appendix to volume 3 (from Supplement to Contra Brown). The first statement that Dr. Brown makes in this “logical and systematic” study guide is that; “Messianic prophecies are not clearly identified as such.”

This is amazing. Brown believes that the main purpose of the Jewish Bible is to predict the advent of the Messiah, yet the prophecies are not clearly identified?! And on what basis can he make such a preposterous statement? The prophets gave us a clear hope for Israel’s future. There are many prophecies in the Jewish Bible which clearly talk of the Messianic era, and of the Messiah. These include but are not limited to Numbers 24:14-19, Deuteronomy 4:30, 30:1-10, 32:43, Jeremiah 3:14-18, 16:14,15,19, 23:3-5, 30:3,7-11,16-25, 31:1-39, 32:37-44, 33:6-26, 46:27,28,50:4,5,19,20, Ezekiel 11;17-20, 17:22-24, 20:40-44, 28:24-26, 34:9-16,22-31, 36:6-16,22-38,37:1-28,38:1-48:35, Isaiah 1:26, 2:2-4, 4:2-6, 10:33-12:6, 24:21-25:9, 30:26, 34:1, 40:1-11,41:10-20, 43:5-10, 44:1-5 49:8-26, 51:11,22-52:12, 54:1-55:5, 56:7, 60:1-63:9, 65:17-25, 66:10-24, Hosea 2:1-3,16-25, Joel 3;1-5, 4:1-21, Amos 9:11-15, Obadiah 1;17-21, Micah 4:1-7, 5:1-13, 7:8-20, Zephaniah 3;9-20, Zechariah 2:9, 8:2-8, 14:3-21, Malachi 3:4,16-24, Psalms 51:20,21, 69:36,37, 98:1-3, 102:14-23, 126:1-6, Daniel 2;44, 7:18,22,27, 12:2,3, 

Can anyone question the fact that these prophecies are the hope and promise of Israel’s glorious future? How can Brown say that messianic prophecies are not clearly identified? More important is the question; Why does Brown say that the messianic prophecies are not clearly identified? The obvious answer to this question is that Brown never seems to have approached scripture with an open mind. It seems that he never asked himself; What would a Jew before Jesus’ times have believed about the Messianic era? What would scripture have taught him about the Messiah? Who and what does God encourage us to hope for? Had Brown asked himself these basic questions, he would have realized that the scriptures are very clear on these issues. The problem is that Brown started the other way. He first came to believe in Jesus. He then looked back into the Jewish scriptures and tried to understand Jesus’ claim that the prophets predicted his coming. Things tend to get quite murky if you read the book that way. When Brown tells us that Messianic prophecies are not clearly identified as such, he is admitting that the preconceived notions of Christianity cannot be readily seen in the Bible.

  1. Dr. Brown ends his video with an invitation to debate me. He says that this will put “the issues on the table.

This is a distraction. If my critique of his book is valid, let him address it. If it is not, let him ignore it. To tell us that my critique is valid but he won’t share his answers with the public unless I engage him in a public debate for the sake of “putting issues on the table” is simply ridiculous.

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, Response to Dr. Brown Line of Fire | 10 Comments

The Great Debate

Posted on September 15, 2016 by yourphariseefriend

Posted in Response to Dr. Brown Line of Fire, Videos | 1 Comment

This is my Beloved

Posted on September 13, 2016 by yourphariseefriend

yourphariseefriend's avatar1000 Verses - a project of Judaism Resources

This is my Beloved

 

“I shall take you to Me for a nation and I shall be to you for a God.” (Exodus 6:7)

 

Entering into a covenantal relationship with God changes you. You become a different nation. What is beautiful to other nations is not beautiful to you and what is happiness for other nations is not happiness for you. Not only does your outlook change but your heart and soul need to change.

 

Other nations exert themselves in a never ending effort to achieve security and prosperity. You are different. You learn to disregard that which others fear and feel secure in God’s embrace. You find joy and happiness in bringing God’s commandments to fruition and that is your entire focus.

 

As a nation that is bound to God in a covenantal relationship you have a different responsibility than do other nations. You are…

View original post 595 more words

Posted in General | Leave a comment

Questions for a Christian – a letter to “D”

Posted on September 8, 2016 by yourphariseefriend

Dear D…..

As a Jew – I am in a covenantal relationship with the Creator of heaven and earth. He calls Himself the “God of Israel” and he calls us “My nation”. The most foundational element of my relationship with God demands that I do not submit myself to anyone in the way I submit myself to Him. When God sealed this covenant with us, He made it very clear to us that such an act of submission/worship of any other entity aside from Himself would be the deepest violation of our covenant with Him. He also made it clear to us – how we are to identify Him in worship – and how we are not to identify Him in worship. He did all this before He gave us the first page of Scripture.

Let us stop right there for a minute – after Sinai, and before we read the first page of Scripture.

How would we look at a claim such as the one you present about Yeshua? There is no question we would identify the worship/submission that you are encouraging as the very act that God defined as the deepest violation of our covenantal relationship. There would be no way that we could look at it any differently.

Now let us take the book. But before we open it – let us remember that it was given to us in the context of the covenantal relationship that already tied us to God. It was given to us AFTER God already made clear to us who and how He wants us to worship. Let us now jump ahead to the “ancient of days” mentioned in Daniel 7. Let us note that this passage is not being presented as a teaching on the nature of God (as is Isaiah 40:18) and it is not being presented as a teaching on how we are to direct our worship (as was the revelation at Sinai). This being the case – we understand that the physical description of God is being used as a metaphor to help us understand God’s interaction with mankind that is being presented there. The Scriptures use such metaphors for entities other than God. In Psalm 98:8 – the rivers are described as “clapping their hands”. Am I to assume that the rivers have hands? As clearly as I know that the rivers don’t have literal hands – I know just as clearly that the God that I am bound to in a covenantal relationship has no form.

There is no way I can read Daniel 7 (or Genesis 18, Exodus 24, Isaiah 9) as a directive to go and do what God Himself explicitly and directly taught me not to do.

Let me take this one step further. I am advocating that you read the Jewish Bible in the covenantal context that God placed it. If you would read the book in its proper context – you would never dream of justifying the worship you are advocating. But even if we put the Sinai covenant aside (for argument’s sake) – you still would not see your worship in this book unless you approached it with an affinity for Jesus.

Before Jesus came to the world – no one ever claimed that the Jewish Scriptures advocate worship of a divine Messiah. Even the apostles who lived with Jesus and heard him teach for three years didn’t see this concept in the Jewish Scriptures. They saw Jesus’ death as a contradiction to the belief that he was the Jewish Messiah – not as a confirmation.

So let’s recap – God made it clear who it is that we are to worship. Everyone who read the Scriptures before Jesus came along – had no questions about this matter. So are we to overturn the understanding that God made abundantly clear – on the basis of an interpretation that no-one saw in the text until 1) they had already committed their hearts to Jesus, 2) the facts of Jesus’ suffering and death left them with no choice but to reinterpret the Scriptures in a way that they could still maintain their devotion.

Why is it that of all the texts that you use to justify the worship that you are advocating – not one of them has God put His finger on it and say – here – look here in order to learn how to direct your devotion – not one! Yet when we focus on those texts where the Divine Author clearly pointed and said – here is where I present a teaching on worship – the perception that we were taught at Sinai is only confirmed and reconfirmed?

One more question. Again – the perception we were taught at Sinai would have us identify the worship you are advocating as idolatry. You are arguing that we modify our perception of reality that God taught us at Sinai – on the basis of your interpretation of Scripture. Now there are certain passages in Scripture that are very clear and direct. They teach us to keep the Sabbath, to observe the festivals, and to abstain from certain foods. I don’t see you (and I don’t mean you personally – I am talking about the general attitude of followers of Jesus towards God’s holy Law) taking any of these clear and open commandments seriously. So how can I believe that it is your loyalty and submission to this book that has you advocating the worship that you advocate? How do you expect me to take your argument seriously? It should be obvious to you as it is obvious to me that it is your devotion to Jesus that is producing your interpretation of Scripture and that it is not your interpretation of Scripture that is producing your devotion to Jesus.

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 | 15 Comments

Goldberg vs. Brown

Posted on September 1, 2016 by yourphariseefriend

yourphariseefriend's avatar1000 Verses - a project of Judaism Resources

My article entitled ‘Response to the Line of Fire 9″ ended with the following appeal to Dr. Michael L. Brown:

I would like to end this critique with an appeal to Dr. Brown.

The myth of the “blindness of the Jew” is an ugly stain in the history of mankind. Dr. Brown, instead of working to perpetuate this myth, I appeal to you to educate Christians of the fallacies of this myth. Explain to your audience that as long as the Jew sees the teachings of Christianity as a contradiction to the Scriptures with which we were entrusted by God – it is the moral duty of the Jew to REJECT those teachings. Encourage your audience to try to read the Jewish Scriptures as a Jew would have read them before the advent of Jesus. Encourage your listeners to attempt to acquire a complete world-view on the basis of the Jewish Scriptures alone –…

View original post 1,109 more words

Posted in General | Leave a comment

Persuasion vs Education IV – by Jim

Posted on August 30, 2016 by yourphariseefriend

yourphariseefriend's avatar1000 Verses - a project of Judaism Resources

A brief note on missionary tactics:

The missionary is not out to educate. He does not attempt to persuade with reasoned arguments. And he is not interested in an exchange of ideas. He has his viewpoint, and he does not care about yours. Generally speaking, he is not listening to you, while he demands that his own voice be heeded. In this regard, Christian missionaries and atheist missionaries are quite similar.

Both groups of missionaries like to put undue pressure upon their target. The Christian missionary has two main tricks up his sleeve in this regard, guilt and fear. The Christian missionary argues that disbelief in Jesus will place one in eternal torment. It is more reasonable to accept his propositions, however dubious, than to risk eternal punishment. He uses this fear to coerce belief.

Similarly he plays on one’s sense of guilt. Because of your wrongdoing, Jesus had to…

View original post 664 more words

Posted in General, Jim | 1 Comment

Video – Unanswered

Posted on August 25, 2016 by yourphariseefriend

https://yourphariseefriend.wordpress.com/2016/08/18/unanswered/

https://yourphariseefriend.wordpress.com/?s=study+notes

Posted in Response to Dr. Brown Line of Fire, Videos | 6 Comments

“Conversation” – a note from Jim

Posted on August 21, 2016 by yourphariseefriend

Dina,

I know you are right that June comments here only infrequently. I hope that you are incorrect regarding her response. I do hope that she was not just venting her spleen, pronouncing her judgments without reason, accusing without evidence. Hopefully she has just been too busy to respond to my inquiry, and she will explain to us why what I wrote is “disgraceful” and “non biblical”. When she has a chance, perhaps she will explain why she does not merely disagree with my reasoning but why it is “disgraceful”.

Sadly, too often the Christian refuses to make honest arguments. Too often he levels accusations at his opponents. It is much easier to make pronouncements than bring proofs. Even a Christian that begins by bringing evidence, quickly retreats to mere declarations of his special insight. The holy spirit has shown him the truth, but the Jew is ‘blind’.

Familiarity makes it no less distressing when a Christian portrays devotion to God as rejection of Jesus and, therefore, rejection of God. If one seeks to fulfill the law of God, he is portrayed as faithless. Obedience is termed “legalism”. It is assumed that if one practices the law, he only keeps the letter of the law. Somehow the Christian knows the heart of every Jew and ben Noach. Being so qualified, they make it their business to sit in judgment, abandoning fair discussion of the issues in favor of issuing pronouncements.

While the Jew must bear up under every kind of accusation, the Christian will brook not so much as illustrating an imperfection in Jesus. The Christian is to be heard; the Jew is to be silent. When a Christian pronounces the Jew to be blind, this is love. When the Jew shows from Torah that a man is not God (nor is God a man), then this is anti-Biblical. When Jesus rails at his opponents as vipers, sons of the devil, murderers at heart, and the like, this is love. When the Jew points out that Jesus broke the law, this is unreasoning hatred, inherited from their fathers. The conversation is one-sided, with the Jew being made the villain at every turn, while every distortion of the Christian is treated as holy writ.

And yet the problem goes beyond the disrespect the Christian gives to the Jewish people (and the hatred that sometimes follows). The pronouncements of the Christian obscure the truth. By writing off one side of the debate, it is impossible to give fair analysis to the arguments. The Christian does himself a grave disservice. By assuming from the start the blindness of the Jew, the Christian cuts himself off from expert testimony. In effect, the Christian blinds himself by refusing to look at the opposing evidence. Having thus blinded himself, he then goes about attempting to blind others by maligning the Jewish people, so that their response will never be considered honestly.

All this said, I do hope that June was doing more than just making a pronouncement. I am more than willing to discuss wherein I may have made an error. She may have only typed the first comment in a rush, hoping to return to it later. I certainly understand how the business of life can limit our typing time. However, if she is unwilling to back up her accusations, then it would have been better for her not to type at all. It adds nothing to the conversation than vitriol.

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 Jim | 1,063 Comments

Unanswered

Posted on August 18, 2016 by yourphariseefriend
Unanswered; Questions that Dr. Brown Has Failed to Address
Introduction

Who is Dr. Brown? And why is it important to know that he has failed to address certain questions? Who cares and why should it make a difference? Why am I taking up your time to tell you about it?

You see, Dr. Brown has written a 5 volume series entitled “Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus.” In this series he lays out the argument that the Jewish Bible points to the alleged Messiah-ship of Jesus. Dr. Brown knows that in order to convince a Jew to join him in devotion to Jesus, it won’t be enough to tell him about the vast number of people that believe in Jesus. Dr. Brown knows that he won’t convince a Jew to give his heart to Jesus by telling the Jew about miracles performed in Jesus’ name. And Dr. Brown won’t persuade a Jew to turn to Jesus on the basis of the spiritual experience of Jesus’ followers.

The Jew has the word of God, the Jewish Bible, which was here before Jesus walked this earth. This book is God’s guidance to the Jewish people and if this book tells the Jew to reject Jesus then the Jew is morally obligated to ignore the numbers, ignore the miracles and ignore the spiritual experiences and reject Jesus. The word of our God stands forever (Isaiah 40:8) and no miracle, experience or any number of “believers” can overturn one word of Scripture.

Fact of the matter is that Jews read the Bible and hear God directing them to reject the claims of the Church. Dr. Brown recognizes this and that is why he wrote his massive work attempting to make a case for Jesus on the basis of the Jewish Bible. Because Dr. Brown knows that if the Bible is not on Jesus’ side, then Jesus is not the Messiah.

I have read Dr. Brown’s work and I have found to be incredibly empty. He fails to address some of the foundational Jewish objections, his reasoning is flawed and his arguments are riddled with self-contradiction. I don’t expect you to take my word for this. I have laid out all of my arguments in writing. My articles have been brought to the attention of Dr. Brown and he has failed to respond.

So now you know why this is important. If my questions are indeed valid then the Church has no case for Jesus on the basis of the Jewish Bible. You see, Dr. Brown is certainly motivated to convince the Jewish people that Jesus is who the Church claims he is. I have done him the service of articulating why a Jew who has a working knowledge of the Jewish Bible sees right through all of his arguments. Why would he fail to respond? I don’t believe that Dr. Brown has the answers to my questions and he is withholding them from the public. It makes no sense.

I am not here to persuade you or to convince you. I don’t want you to believe me. I want to empower you. I encourage you to study, analyze and educate yourself. Don’t rely on the Christian to give you the Jewish position. I have provided you with a written articulation of the Jewish perspective, take advantage of it.

But perhaps all this reading is too much for you. It is for this reason that I am talking to you now. I want to share 3 of the many questions that I have posed to Dr. Brown. These are but a fraction of my critique of his work, but I trust that they will whet your appetite. I hope that when you consider these questions you will be encouraged to study the matter with greater depth and more fully.

Reader’s Guide to the Bible; Dr. Brown vs. God

In my own life I find that the more I study the Bible the more I am able to articulate why it is that Jesus is not who the Church claims he is. The Bible gives me the clarity and the strength to see right through the arguments of the missionary.

Dr. Brown points to the same Jewish Bible and he arrives at the opposite conclusion. How does he do this? How does he get a book which so clearly directs the Jew to reject the claims of the Church to be seen as supportive of those very claims?

If you read Dr. Brown’s work you will see that he simply omits some of the foundational Scriptural passages when he presents “Scripture’s position” on a given subject. He misinterprets other passages in his effort to support the claims of the Church but these are not his main tools. The main tool that Dr. Brown uses to get the Bible to point to Jesus is that he invents his own reader’s guide to the Bible. What do I mean when I say “reader’s guide to the Bible”?

You see, in order to build a world-view on the basis of the Jewish Bible you need some guidance. The Jewish Bible is a big book, about 30,000 verses. It is very easy to get lost out there. Someone has to tell you where to find a teaching on a given subject and someone has to tell you what is central and foundational and what is peripheral. It is only if you have this information that you can see the Bible as a cohesive whole.

Thankfully, the Author of the Bible provided us with a reader’s guide to His book. God used various literary devices to accentuate and to emphasize certain passages and concepts. Certain ideas are repeated again and again. Sometimes the narrative builds to a climax demonstrating what the Author sees as the pinnacle of a given event. The Author uses strong and commanding language to show that a given teaching is central and important.

If you follow the Author’s cues you will realize that the prohibition against worshiping idols is central. The practice of justice and mercy is foundational. The election of Israel, observance of the Law of Moses, the power of repentance and the Temple in Jerusalem are all pillars of the Scriptural worldview.

The Scriptures introduce Deuteronomy 4 as the definitive teaching on the subject of idolatry and Ezekiel 33 is presented as a teaching on the subject of dealing with guilt and sin. This is the guidance that the Divine Writer of Scripture provided for the readers of His book.

When I follow the guidance of God I see the theology of Judaism in the pages of Scripture. I find all of the foundational teachings of Judaism spelled out clearly and explicitly in the pages of the Jewish Bible.

I now turn to the books of Dr. Brown. Dr. Brown is encouraging his readers to find the theological underpinnings of Christianity in the same Jewish Bible. How is he going to do this?

He takes various passages and misinterprets them so that they support the theology of Christianity. But before he does this he discards the reader’s guide provided by God and he puts forth his own “reader’s guide” to the Bible. Instead of pointing his readers to Deuteronomy 4 for a teaching on devotion he tells his audience that Genesis 18 is the central teaching on worship and devotion. God, the Author of Scripture doesn’t place this passage at the center of this discussion, but Dr. Brown does.

When it comes to the subject of sin and guilt, Dr. Brown also ignores the Author’s guidance. The Author points to Deuteronomy 30 as a teaching on how the nation can repair its relationship with God and to Ezekiel 33 as a teaching on how an individual deals with the burden of sin. The Ezekiel passage is introduced with the question; “our sins and our transgressions are upon us and we melt away in them, how then shall we live?” Deuteronomy 30 did not make it into Dr. Brown’s discussion of this subject and Ezekiel 33 is relegated to the back pages of the discussion and is not given the weight that God gives it.

Instead Dr. Brown points to Leviticus 17:11 as the focal point on dealing with guilt and sin. But God doesn’t put His finger on this passage as a teaching on this subject. Leviticus 17:11 is introduced by the Author as a teaching against drinking blood.

So here we have it. Dr. Brown puts aside God’s reader’s guide to the Bible and presents us with his own. Are we to take this seriously? In case you answered yes to this question then please consider the following. Dr. Brown doesn’t take his own reader’s guide to the Bible seriously.

On page 199 of “The Real Case for Jesus” Dr. Brown excitedly declares that Zechariah 6 is the “most overt passage in the Jewish Bible where a human being is identified with a Messianic figure.” He tells us this to highlight the point which he incorrectly gathered from between the lines of the narrative that the Messiah is some sort of priest. So when it comes to a point that the prophet only refers to in a backhanded way (according to Dr. Brown’s faulty interpretation) this prophecy in Zechariah is prominent and significant. But when the prophet tells us explicitly that this Messianic figure is to build the Temple, Dr. Brown tells us that this prophecy only appears once and in only one book of the Bible and is therefore of little significance (page 172 of Volume 3 “Answering Jewish Objections”).

How then can I abandon God’s guidance concerning the centrality of various Scriptural passages and accept the guidance of a man who doesn’t take his own words seriously?

Here is the first of the three questions that I will be sharing with you. God gives us clear direction concerning His book. He highlights certain points and He tells us that certain passages are teachings on particular subjects. How can I be expected to abandon the guidance provided by God and accept the guidance of a man who doesn’t take his own words seriously? How could I follow the direction of the Church when the Author of Scripture is pointing the other way?

Do you understand my question? Do you not recognize that this is an important question? Is this something I am not supposed to notice? If Dr. Brown would have a good answer for this question, would he withhold it from you?

The Church had 2000 years to work on this question and they have failed to address it. Can you understand why a Jew has the moral responsibility to disregard the claims of the Church if they cannot address this foundational question?

That was a question about the Bible which is the book upon which Dr. Brown attempts to build his case. Let us move on to a question related to idolatry, which from a Jewish perspective is the most important issue in this conflict.

Idolatry, the Violation of a Relationship

What is the real reason that Jews don’t accept Jesus? And please don’t take this question lightly. Jews have submitted themselves to tremendous suffering for centuries upon centuries in order to maintain their distance from Jesus. They were locked in ghettoes, barred from interaction with the citizenry of their host countries, subject to ridicule, pain and suffering. On various occasions throughout history Jews have been given the grim choice of accepting Jesus or dying and they chose to die. Tens of thousands of Jews were willing to die gruesome deaths rather than accept Jesus. Why?

The reason that the Jews chose to suffer rather than to accept Jesus is because they considered the worship of Jesus that is encouraged by the Church to be idolatrous.

In light of this serious charge against Christianity, Dr. Brown devotes many pages in his book to defend the Christian worship of Jesus. Dr. Brown gives us arguments from Scripture, philosophical arguments and theological arguments. The gist of Dr. Brown’s reasoning is that in some mysterious way, Jesus is one and the same with God.

Dr. Brown fails to address some of the foundational Scriptural challenges to his position and his reasoning is seriously flawed. I encourage you to read what I have written on this subject. But that is not what I am going to talk about here and now. I want to draw your attention to the fact that Dr. Brown never addresses the issue on the level of a relationship. You see, those Jews who chose death over Jesus were not scholars, philosophers or theologians. Some of them may have been learned but the vast majority of them were simple people. Carpenters, blacksmiths, butchers, bakers, shoemakers and tailors. Housewives and their children, teenagers and seniors all chose suffering rather than bend their hearts to Jesus.

This is not about philosophy or theology. This is about a relationship. Idolatry is a sin of the heart, it is a violation of the worshiper’s relationship with God. Idolatry is not something that you believe, it is something that you do. You don’t necessarily do it with your hands, you do it with your heart. If you are talking philosophy or theology, you can point to the mysterious realms and present an argument that may confuse some people. But idolatry takes place in the very familiar realm of the human heart and it is something that anyone can understand.

In order to have devotion towards someone, there needs to be an attraction, a magnetism. Something has to draw my heart toward that entity that I worship and there needs to be an experience of satisfaction, a thirst that is quenched in that relationship. If you are not talking about an attraction and a joy then you are not talking about a relationship.

So what is the magnetism that exists in the human heart towards God? What is the joy and satisfaction that is inherent in a relationship with the Creator of heaven and earth? Read the Psalms of David and you will discover that yearning, that joy, that security and that satisfaction. And when our martyrs went to die they did so with this love in their hearts.

These men and women didn’t understand philosophy and they were not sophisticated theologians but they knew their own hearts. They knew that the God that they loved was everything. They found every satisfaction and joy in their love for God. They were lacking nothing in this relationship.

The Christian missionary is not satisfied with a heart that finds joy and satisfaction in a relationship with the One Creator of heaven and earth. The missionary is not satisfied with a heart that is flooded with a yearning and a love for God as articulated by David in the Psalms. The missionary finds it necessary to move such a heart toward Jesus.

So here is the second question that Dr. Brown fails to address and it is not my question, it is God’s question. In Jeremiah’s days there were Jews who strayed after idols and God asked them; “what flaw did you find in Me?” (Jeremiah 2:5). God asks Israel; what were you missing in your worship of Me? What joy did you not find in your relationship with Me? And this is the question that the Jew asks the Church. Why do we need Jesus? What does Jesus have to offer to us that God didn’t already give us? What will we find in Jesus that we don’t have in God? What are we missing when we love God as David did before us? What can we be missing? Can you add anything on to God?

Dr. Brown does not address this question in his five volumes. From the standpoint of a Jew who loves God he wrote nothing.

Idolatry is the important question for a Jew. For a Christian the central issue is the claim that Jesus is somehow the Messiah predicted by the Jewish prophets.

Messianic Prophecies, Dr. Brown vs. Dr. Brown

The Messianic prophecies of the Jewish Bible ought to be the heart and soul of Dr. Brown’s presentation. After all, he encouraged his audience to read the Jewish Bible and he hopes that on the basis of this reading they come to the conclusion that Jesus is the Messiah. It would then follow that the prophecies that allegedly speak of Jesus are the centerpiece of Dr. Brown’s 5 volume work.

On page 153 of volume 3 Dr. Brown provides a list of the “main” Messianic prophecies that Jesus supposedly fulfilled. A few pages later (pg. 159) Dr. Brown narrows this list and he presents those prophecies that Jesus “provably” fulfilled. This final list contains those prophecies that Dr. Brown believes Jesus fulfilled in a way that can be proven to the impartial bystander. So this list is the crux of his argument. In a certain sense, the rest of his 5 volume series is just filler.

I encourage you to examine this list of prophecies and I have provided the resources for this study on my blog, but before we do so it is important to ask another question. Is this all that the prophets had to say about the Messiah and his times? No! Not at all! There are many prophecies that Jesus did not and will not fulfill. These include peace on earth, a Temple in Jerusalem, the restoration of the sacrificial system, universal knowledge of God, the vindication of the people of Israel, the restoration of the people of Israel to the land of Israel, the destruction of Israel’s enemies, and national observance of the Law of Moses. But in order for us to focus on his little list of prophecies Dr. Brown needs to downplay these prophecies which do not conform to the picture he is trying to paint. Dr. Brown employs a three step strategy in his attempt to direct your attention away from the Messianic vision of the Jewish prophets.

The first step in Dr. Brown’s strategy is evasion. He simply does not speak of the universal knowledge of God, the vindication of the people of Israel, the destruction of Israel’s enemies, Israel’s restoration to their ancestral homeland or of the observance of the Law of Moses that the prophets foretold as important aspects of the Messianic hope. These features of the Messianic hope did not merit any serious discussion in the 1500 pages that Dr. Brown devoted to educating his audience about the same Messianic hope.

Dr. Brown is willing to speak about three of the Messianic prophecies that Jesus did not fulfill. These are peace, Temple, and restoration of the sacrificial system. At this point we come to the second step in Dr. Brown’s strategy, separation. Dr. Brown separates these prophecies from one another. Instead of seeing them as one panoramic whole, Dr. Brown would have us judge each of these concepts as if they stood apart from one another. The fact that these various aspects of the redemption are woven together by the prophets in one Scriptural passage after another is ignored by Dr. Brown.

The third and final step in Dr. Brown’s strategy is that he creates an artificial dichotomy. According to Dr. Brown, some prophecies are “significant” while the others are “fringe at best” (February 7 2013 Line of Fire). The “significant” prophecies will be fulfilled literally and practically while the “fringe” prophecies are to be interpreted on a symbolic level and we should not expect them to be fulfilled in a literal practical way.

On what basis does Dr. Brown minimize the significance of these prophecies that stand at the heart of the Jewish Messianic hope? He tells us that they appear too few times in the Bible, they appear in too few books of the Bible, some of these prophecies fail to mention a Messianic figure and some of them seem to be associated with a different time-frame than the one allowed for by the Jewish understanding.

Let us put aside the fact that in order to arrive at his count of the prophecies that he is attempting to minimize, he conveniently forgot a number of prophecies. Let us also put aside the fact that some of the very same prophecies that Dr. Brown claims are significant, because he believes Jesus fulfills one aspect of those prophecies, also speak of these concepts that Dr. Brown is trying to marginalize. Instead we will ask a more obvious question. What happens to Dr. Brown’s list of prophecies when we analyze them according to his own standards? How many times do they appear in the Bible? In how many books of Scripture do these prophecies appear? Do they all mention a Messianic figure? Are some of them tied in to a time-frame other than the one that Christian eschatology allows for?

They all fail miserably. They appear less times in the Jewish Bible and they are mentioned in fewer books than are the prophecies that Dr. Brown is trying to minimize. Some of the prophecies that Dr. Brown is attempting to highlight do not mention a Messianic figure and many of them are tied into a time-frame that does not allow for the Christian Jesus. Dr. Brown never bothered to apply his own standards to his own little list of prophecies. By Dr. Brown’s own standard of Scriptural interpretation his list of prophecies ought not to be considered significant and they could be interpreted on a symbolic level.

So the heart of Dr. Brown’s argument is an exercise in hypocrisy and self-contradiction. He creates this false contrast between significant and insignificant prophecies. He goes on to tell you how he defines “insignificant” prophecies. But he never tells you why the prophecies he favors are any more significant than the ones he dismissed. This contradiction has been brought to Dr. Brown’s attention and he has not provided any explanation.

Should a Jew just ignore this? You need to realize that the Messianic prophecies of Scripture gave the Jew the strength and the fortitude to survive the darkest hell. When the Jews were locked in ghettoes and were ridiculed by the world around them they needed strength, they needed comfort and they needed a rock to stand on. And the rock they stood on was God’s word through His prophets, this was their strength and this was their comfort.

And this is what the Church is asking us to throw out, the very rock that carried our nation through this painful exile. And on what basis? On the basis of arguments that don’t add up! Can you expect the Jew to “overlook” this problem with the Christian argument? Is this an argument that deserves no answer?

Conclusion

I gave you three questions to think about. I will remind you that these questions are only a fraction of what Dr. Brown has not responded to, but these questions should encourage you to study and to learn. Why does the Author of the Bible lead you in a different direction than the direction that Dr. Brown and the Church would have you march? What are the Jewish people missing in their relationship with God? What could they be missing in that relationship? And why does Dr. Brown contradict his own presentation of the Messianic prophecies?

Are these questions so irrelevant? You see, Dr. Brown had 1500 blank pieces of paper upon which to make his case. He had 10 years of time. And it is not just Dr. Brown, in this digital age he had 2000 years of Church writings open before him. And he couldn’t find the space or the time to answer these foundational questions. Since he wrote his 5 volumes, he has been made aware of these questions and he hasn’t answered them. Why should the Jew take his arguments seriously?

And this is not only about the Jew. The way that I see it is that this proves that Jesus is not the Messiah for anyone. Millions of man-hours were invested in the effort to make the case for Jesus and this is the pathetic result. An argument tied in the knot of self-contradiction and one which avoids the foundational challenges. What more could the Church do to tell you that Jesus is not the Messiah? If 1500 pages could not do the trick, 15 million won’t do it either.

That’s how I see it, but this video is not about me, it’s about you. Please consider the questions that I have presented, think about them and study. I encourage you to read the articles that I wrote on this subject. I provided some study notes which I hope you find helpful. But again, this is not about me, it is not about Dr. Brown. It is between you and God. Please study and learn. You decide, but let your decision be an educated one.

https://yourphariseefriend.wordpress.com/2016/04/19/study-notes/

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 Critique, General, Response to Dr. Brown Line of Fire | 1 Comment

Invisible Perfect – by Jim

Posted on August 18, 2016 by yourphariseefriend

Undoubtedly, one of the most important doctrines of Christianity is the moral purity of Jesus.  The missionary would have one believe that Jesus lived a perfectly sinless life, which makes him the spotless Passover lamb.  This doctrine must be taken on faith, of course, because none of the witnesses to Jesus saw the entirety of his life.  Moreover, only God knows a person’s heart, wherein Jesus may not have been pure.  If Jesus were morally perfect, he certainly would have been a remarkable man, worthy of respect and admiration, though not worship.  But, perhaps he was not perfect; perhaps he was a man just like any other with his own temptations and human frailty.  How can one know?  One way to scrutinize this claim of the missionary is to analyze how Jesus’ hometown received him.  In so doing, one will see that it is highly unlikely that Jesus was morally perfect or even as wise as the missionary would have one to believe.

In two of the gospels, Jesus returns to Nazareth, his hometown, some time after his ministry has already begun.  It appears his mother and brothers may have brought him home, because they approach him a little before his trip to Nazareth.  The people of Nazareth are nonplussed after hearing Jesus teach in the synagogue.  They wonder from where he gets his wisdom and power.  They identify him as a carpenter’s son, the son of Mary; they know his family.  They cannot understand from where Jesus gets the ability to teach with such authority or perform miracles.  And because of the disbelief of Jesus’ townsfolk, he is unable to do great works, only minor ones.  (Matthew 13:54-58 and Mark 6:1-6)

A similar story is told in Luke, but his version comes earlier in Jesus’ career.  He has Jesus begin teaching at home before he leaves Nazareth.  In Luke’s version, he reads an Isaiah scroll and says it has been fulfilled.  They marvel at “Joseph’s son”.  He angers them, and they become so enraged that they are prepared to throw him off a cliff.  Of course, he escapes, and then he begins his ministry outside Nazareth.  This seems to be the same incident only moved in time.  It is not impossible that they were two separate events, but it is hard to believe that Jesus went back home to Nazareth to try again after they already wanted to pitch him off a cliff.  Also, in Luke, Jesus’ mother and brothers come to see him, but he does not go to Nazareth afterward as in Mark and Matthew.  (Luke 4:16-30)

In all three stories, Jesus has an explanation for why the townsfolk do not accept him: “Prophets are not without honor, except in their hometown, and among their own kin, and in their own house” (Mark 6:4).  Jesus’ explanation appears totally reasonable.  The people closest to one see all his faults and weaknesses. He does not appear special.  He is ‘one of us’.  The Nazarenes’ familiarity with Jesus has bred contempt.

But this explanation only appears to be reasonable; let the reader consider:

If Jesus was a morally perfect human being, he must have been anything but too familiar to the people.  Rather he must have always seemed otherworldly.  He would be known for his tremendous integrity and honesty, his patience and forbearance.  Jesus is to have never committed even a minor infraction.  He is to have been eminently loving, always concerned with the well being of others.  Even as a child, he is assumed to have been morally perfect, not even exhibiting the selfishness and self-centeredness usual for a child.  His speech was never coarse.  And, if he lived according to the standard he later preached, as is reasonable to suppose, he always did more than was asked of him.  Such a person would be noted for his goodness.

One can understand that not everyone would love such a person.  Standing next to a morally perfect person, it would be quite understandable if some people felt uncomfortable around him.  His perfection would draw attention to their own imperfection.  In some people, this might even inspire hate, resenting all the time this man who never made the slightest moral miscalculation, who was never petty, never selfish.

Others would have loved him.  Moved by his goodness, they might seek to be around him.  Or they might wish to do kind deeds out of their love for him.  Rather than resentful of his perfection, some would admire him.  They might come to him for comfort or aid, knowing they would receive it.  He would inspire gratitude in people.  Some would bear him great affection, wanting to perform acts of kindness for this good man.

It is unfeasible, however, that they thought of him as nothing more than the carpenter’s son.  Though among them, he would never exactly be one of them.  He would never be just another Nazarene.  It is beyond belief that such a figure would be scorned for his background.  The Nazarenes should have known better than anyone just how different he was.  To no one more than they should Jesus’ calling have made sense.

When one considers that Jesus was supposed to have been astoundingly wise as well, their reaction makes even less sense.  They ask from where Jesus got his teaching as if they had never before noticed how perceptive he was.  Remember that at the age of 12, according to Luke, Jesus taught in Jerusalem, asking amazing questions and giving incredible answers to difficult questions.  Surely the people who watched Jesus grow up noticed that he was exceedingly wise, exceedingly insightful.  Surely they noticed his wonderful grasp of Torah.  And surely they noticed the way in which he could see into their own souls.  How is it possible that they thought of Jesus as nothing more than the son of a carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, another Nazarene?

Yet when Jesus begins teaching the people who must have been most aware of his ethereal qualities, his otherworldly goodness, his transcendent wisdom, they show shock, expecting nothing of the sort from a carpenter’s son.  Their confusion reflects no inherent greatness in Jesus but mundanity.  To them, there was nothing special about him.

This suggests that the NT has exaggerated his moral purity and wisdom.  It is unlikely that Jesus was a morally perfect person.  If so, his fellows would have commented on that, not on his parentage.  The fact that they think of him as a carpenter’s son suggests that they did not think of him as a fellow that never sinned, whose kindness excelled that of other human beings, and whose wisdom was beyond compare.  It is reasonable to think that Jesus did sin, just as other men do, that at times he lost his temper or acted selfishly.  It is reasonable to believe that, even if he was a very fine fellow, he was not perfect.  It is reasonable to conclude that he was not ‘spotless’.

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 Jim | 9 Comments