1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources

Excerpt from a Written Debate with Dr. Brown

This debate took place on the comment section of Dr. Brown’s Line of Fire radio website – November 3 2011.

 

431.        yisroel blumenthal

December 22nd, 2011 @ 11:07 am

Sheila and Dr. Brown

I am jumping ahead now to posts # 426, 427 and 428 because you are telling me that they touch the heart of the matter.

Exodus 24:10 was NOT part of the Sinai revelation in the sense of teaching Israel who it is that they are to worship.

In response to your next point – of-course the God of Sinai is the same as the God of Genesis 18, Exodus 24 and the God of the rest of the Tanach – there is only one God. When God appears to His prophets – however it is that He chooses to appear to them – they know that they are talking with the Master of all creation – that is what we call prophecy – when one KNOWS that he or she is talking with the Master of all creation. They did not need to run to their Bibles and try to figure out who they are talking to.

When people saw Jesus – they just saw a man (see your own comments in post #264)

The key here is that we learned at Sinai – what our fathers Abraham Isaac and Jacob knew before us that everything that happens here on earth is a gift from the all-powerful God who is above every form of existence that we can fathom – to point to the qualities (in this case the spiritual qualities of selflessness) of an inhabitant of this earth as emanating directly from God is to confuse the Ultimate Giver with one of His beneficiaries.

432.        yisroel blumenthal

December 22nd, 2011 @ 11:25 am

To all of you who are seeking to reach clarity through this discussion on the issue of idolatry.

– I see the Christian veneration of Jesus as the very act of idolatry prohibited by our covenant with God. Some of you differ with my conclusion. I am getting very mixed messages as to WHY you differ with my conclusion.

To clarify – let me break the act of worship into its two component parts:

There is a verb –

“worship”

there is a noun –

“object of worship”

In order to tell me that veneration of Jesus is not idolatry – you can say – the verb doesn’t apply here – in other words – what Christians do towards Jesus doesn’t qualify as worship.

You could argue that the noun doesn’t apply here – in other words – the object of worship – is not the object that is prohibited by our covenant with God.

There is a third argument that could be used and that is – that although the verb and the noun both apply – for some reason – worship of Jesus is an exception to the rule.

To clarify further. If God would have said – don’t press any button – and I think that you are encouraging me to press a button. You could tell me that what you are asking me to do is not “pressing” – you could tell me that the thing you are asking me to press is not a “button” – or you could tell me that although this does qualify as “pressing a button” – but this button is wired differently so it is OK to press this particular button.

Now

Since I think you all acknowledge – that if the veneration that Christians direct toward Jesus would be directed to any other human being – you would all acknowledge that that would qualify as an act of idolatry.

This being the case (and please correct me if I am wrong) – then we can move the discussion away from the verb and the noun. In other words – this is an act of worship and this is an object that is prohibited. The only answer that you are left with – is the third one – that this particular man was wired differently than all the rest of them so the prohibition doesn’t apply.

The problem with your answer is that at Sinai – God gave us a tour of the wiring of creation – and all of it is wired just the same. Deuteronomy 4:35 doesn’t just say that we were shown who God is – it also says that we were shown who God isn’t “there is NONE else”

I hope this makes things clear – I look forward to your responses.

433.        yisroel blumenthal

December 22nd, 2011 @ 11:27 am

One more attempt at reaching clarity

At Sinai we were taught to differentiate between Master and subject – between Giver and recipients.

We were taught that God is the ultimate Master and Giver (thus deserving of worship)- while everything else is subject and recipient (thus not deserving of worship).

When we see a man – and that is what we saw when we saw Jesus – we saw subject and recipient – did you see anything different?

435.        Dr Michael L Brown

December 22nd, 2011 @ 11:30 am

Rabbi Blumenthal, you wrote, “When people saw Jesus – they just saw a man (see your own comments in post #264).” Absolutely not. When did I ever say that people (meaning his followers in particular) saw “just a man”?

454.        yisroel blumenthal

December 23rd, 2011 @ 10:06 am

Dr. Brown

In response to #435 – In post # 364 (I mistakenly wrote 264 before – the first digit is cut off from the screen so I had to guess which hundred we were holding in) you wrote “there was not a full revelation of Yeshua’s deity to his followers until after His resurrection”

So what did they see before his resurrection – if it was not “just a man”? – and don’t you believe that he was “fully human”?

456.        yisroel blumenthal

December 23rd, 2011 @ 10:18 am

To all of you – some more clarification

A repeated refrain is that I don’t understand what you believe. (I happen to disagree with that assessment – but I will not take it up here).

Worship is not a “belief”. Worship is something you do – not something you believe. Beliefs explain worship and attempt to justify it – but that is not worship.

I know what you do. You will acknowledge that whatever it is that you do towards Yeshua – if it were to be done towards anyone else would qualify as idolatry.

You now present your beliefs to justify this particular worship.

According to what we were taught at Sinai – no “belief” can justify this worship.

457.        yisroel blumenthal

December 23rd, 2011 @ 10:25 am

Some more clarification

Allow me to explain the position of Tanach in relation to Sinai.

At Sinai God sealed a covenant with us – we were married to Him there. This was open and direct between us and God. Those who witnessed it did not need to know how to read in order to understand it neither did they have to be Bible scholars – everyone understood it and God went out of His way so to speak so that we can KNOW. The Tanach was given to us in the context of this covenant.

If you point to a passage in Tanach or even to many passages in Tanach – to support an argument that we violate the covenant as we understood it at Sinai – you have thus removed the Tanach from its covenantal context. I don’t need to examine the passage to see that you are making a mistake. The very context of the book tells me that.

458.        yisroel blumenthal

December 23rd, 2011 @ 10:29 am

One more clarification

I don’t see Tanach encouraging me to try to understand the theologies of those who worship idols. The prophets ridicule the worship of idols in the most crude way. I know that idol worshipers (who we both identify as idol worshipers) had very sophisticated beliefs about their worship – “the statue is representing…” – but that is the point – if it could be represented by a statue – and anything between heaven and earth could be represented by a statue – then it is idolatry – giving to the subject and taker that which only the Master and the Ultimate Giver deserve.

460.        Dr Michael L Brown

December 23rd, 2011 @ 11:11 am

Rabbi Blumenthal,

Thanks for your attempts at clarification. I certainly understand what you believe (and am convinced it is wrong, based on the Tanakh itself), and I reiterate that you still don’t understand what we believe and that until you do, we will be like ships passing in the night. Since I genuinely believe you want true dialogue, I urge you to do what I have repeatedly encouraged you to do. Understand our point of view to the point that you could argue it yourself, then critique it (if you still feel the need to).

Otherwise, to say it once more, we will be like ships passing in the night, although I still believe that our prayers for you and the patient sharing of the truth here by Sheila and Dan1el and others will open your heart.

462.        Dr Michael L Brown

December 23rd, 2011 @ 11:20 am

Rabbi Blumenthal,

Because of the many posts here, I’ll quote yours in full first:

“In response to #435 – In post # 364 (I mistakenly wrote 264 before – the first digit is cut off from the screen so I had to guess which hundred we were holding in) you wrote ‘there was not a full revelation of Yeshua’s deity to his followers until after His resurrection.’

So what did they see before his resurrection – if it was not ‘just a man’? – and don’t you believe that he was ‘fully human’?”

Again, this illustrates clearly that you’re still missing our points here. Yeshua’s disciples absolutely recognized Him to be the Son of God and professed it on several occasions, and they certainly believed Him to be a human being as well, hence the Son of God here in the flesh. But the dimensions of what it meant to be Son of God were not fully revealed to them until after His resurrection.

And I remind you that the New Testament is very careful about the language used. It is “the Word” who became flesh, not “God” who became flesh, since the latter could readily be misunderstood. And this Word was God and yet was with God.

You constantly make reference to Sinai, and I concur. I worship the God of Sinai — and the God of the entire Bible, of course — and what did God say at Sinai? Don’t make a graven image of Him. Don’t make any earthly likeness of Him, since we saw no form when He spoke at Sinai. Amen and amen, a thousand times over. We agree!

So, what then is the problem? It’s that you don’t accept aspects of God’s revelation in His Messiah and we do, and you know that I believe the Tanakh supports the teaching that the Messiah will be divine.

The one and only God, who sits enthroned in heaven, whose glory fills the universe, whose Spirit works among us even now, whose unity is complex, at times visits us here on earth in bodily form through His Word/Son, and He did it most permanently in Yeshua. The Tanakh prepares the way for this, and I will not sin against God and reject Him and His witness. Sinai affirms this to me.

466.        yisroel blumenthal

December 23rd, 2011 @ 1:58 pm

Dr. Brown, Dan1el and Sheila

I want to preface my words with my deep appreciation for your efforts and your patience in this dialogue – thank you.

I will try to respond to the last few points you raised.

Isaiah 53:1 reads “upon whom is the arm of the Lord revealed” – the arm of the Lord is revealed on behalf of the servant – the arm of the Lord is not the servant himself.

Micah 5:1 refers to God’s plan to bring the Messiah – which preceded the creation of the world. the origin of the Messiah is God’s plan and purpose concerning the redemption of the world.

What God said at Sinai – I should say what He showed us at Siani was that He alone is God. Teh prohibition against making an image is the natural result of that teaching.

When you say “fully divine and fully human” (I got that from the FIRE statement of faith) – in light of Sinai what you are saying is that he is fully worthy of all worship and fully not worthy of any worship – I should word that more strongly – One who intrinsically all worship is owed to – and one who, by very definition, owes worship with every fiber of his existence.

In order to say that one can be human and still worthy of worship – you have to mitigate the fact that – by definition – a human owes worship and cannot be worthy of worship.

The lesson of Sinai is that everything – everything between heaven and earth owes worship to the One above and beyond heaven and earth. And “everything” includes Jesus.

Do you not believe that when Jesus was on earth – that he owed worship to God the Father?

And if you deny that he did – then you are saying that the fact that someone walks on God’s earth under God’s heaven doesn’t intrinsically owe worship to the Creator of heaven and earth – you might as well make a statue.

469.        Dr Michael L Brown

December 23rd, 2011 @ 3:07 pm

Rabbi Blumenthal,

Thanks for your patience and perseverance as well.

You ask, “Do you not believe that when Jesus was on earth – that he owed worship to God the Father?”

Yes I do, which is part of the mystery of the Incarnation and part of the reality of the divine Word pitching His tent among us.

It is the eternal Son, God Himself, we worship.

501.        yisroel blumenthal

December 25th, 2011 @ 9:02 am

Dr. Brown

You say you are worshiping the eternal son – God himself.

You are confusing worship and belief.

The worship you are encouraging is the worship of the central character in the Gospel stories – worship of a man.

You believe that this man is “eternal son God Himself” – that is a belief you have which you append on to your worship. This belief could technically be appended on to any of God’s creations. At Sinai we were taught that worship of any of His creations is idolatry – no matter what the belief.

Your appeal to “mystery” is anti-Scriptural. When it comes to idolatry and who it is that we are to worship; God appeals to our logic and even to our sense of humor to help us see the futility of worshiping one who walked God’s earth and breathed God’s air.

502.        yisroel blumenthal

December 25th, 2011 @ 9:10 am

Dr. Brown

To clarify further.

You don’t encourage worship of half of Jesus’ personality.

Furthermore – your points about “we don’t worship the flesh” are irrelevant. Allow me to remind you of a commentary that you gave to Isaiah 40:6 in volume 5 – when the prophet points out that all flesh is ephemeral you comment – “this includes the most favored and exalted human beings” – I understand that you were not limiting your comment to the flesh of the people – but to their personality as well. The prophet calls a personality that is tied to flesh – by the term “flesh” – without distinction. – this includes the most favored and exalted human beings – including Jesus.

504.        Dr Michael L Brown

December 25th, 2011 @ 9:29 am

Rabbi Blumenthal,

I find this interaction truly remarkable, and the more you post, the more it proves my point: You fail to understand my beliefs and we continue to be like ships passing in the night. Again, I do not resist nor will I avoid ongoing interaction, as time permits, but this is ultimately a spiritual issue.

To simplify:

1) The God of the Scriptures is complex in His unity, sitting enthroned in heaven, filling the universe, touching us by His Spirit, and sometimes appearing in our midst. We speak of this as God’s tri-unity, and this is the God we worship.

2) This glorious God — the one and only God — commanded us not to make any graven image of Him, and we affirm this to the core of our being.

3) When He spoke to us at Sinai, He did not appear in any form (although in Scripture others saw His form), and that underscored the command not to make a graven image or worship Him in any form. Again, we totally affirm this.

4) In the person of Yeshua — who was not a mere mortal — God’s Word/Son pitched His tent among us, while the Father remained enthroned in heaven. (Think in terms of the sephirot and at least you will get in the right direction, although the truth is far more glorious.) As He had appeared in the Tanakh (as in Gen 18, to Abraham, in human flesh), so He appeared now in the person of Yeshua, except in a totally unique and glorious way. But we say emphatically that God is not a man!

5) Just as there are many aspects of God’s nature that are beyond us — because He is God, not man — His manifestation in our midst through Yeshua is beyond us, but we fully accept it as true, scriptural, and glorious, without the slightest possibility of anything idolatrous in any way, shape, size, or form. Again, with each new post you add, as sincerely as you are trying to prove a point, you underscore the fact that you do not understand what we believe. You could easily say I don’t understand what you believe — although I differ, I accept you saying this — but the more you accuse us of idolatry, the more you shout to us, “I don’t see and I don’t understand what the Scriptures really say!” (Again, you might say the same thing to me, which is fine. It just underscores that this is more a spiritual battle than an intellectual one.)

I leave you with this quote from the midrash to Psalm 91 it is written, “At [the moment that Moses finished building the Tabernacle], a great question arose: How could a Tabernacle with walls and curtains contain the Presence of the Almighty? The Master of the Universe Himself explained, ‘The entire world cannot contain My glory, yet when I wish, I can concentrate My entire essence into one small spot. Indeed, I am Most High, yet I sit in a [limited, constricted] refuge – in the shadow of the Tabernacle.’” Amen!

508.        Dr Michael L Brown

December 25th, 2011 @ 9:51 am

Rabbi Blumenthal,

With regard to “flesh,” even there, Yeshua was different in that he did not have sinful flesh, but even to address this point of yours in any depth is to once again, get us completely off topic, since you continue to miss the point. My question remains what it has been for years: When God makes His truth known to you, will you have the courage to follow Him?

513.        yisroel blumenthal

December 25th, 2011 @ 10:33 am

Dr. Brown

You keep on reiterating that I do not understand what you believe.

First of all – you acknowledge that YOU don’t understand what you believe – to use your words “His manifestation in our midst through Yeshua is beyond us”. If it is beyond you – what do you want from me?

I may not understand your belief – but I understand your worship. After all – you are encouraging people to worship as yourself – so this is not some personal mystery between you and yourself – this is out in the public. You are encouraging people to bend their hearts towards the central character in the Gospel stories. Did I get it wrong? Is that not what you are encouraging?

In order to justify this worship – you present a certain theology – a belief. We were taught at Sinai that this worship is prohibited – and that no “belief” can justify it.

Furthermore – your magnet analogy fails. If all worship of Yeshua is a just a means to achieve a greater good and not an end in and of itself – you would not attempt to influence people who already worship the One Creator of heaven and earth. The fact that you try to influence people who already worship the One Creator of heaven and earth testifies most loudly that worship of Yeshua is NOT merely a path to lead one to worship of God.

514.        yisroel blumenthal

December 25th, 2011 @ 10:39 am

Dr. Brown

How would you know that I do not understand your belief? Is it because I disagree with you? Do you notice that I am not commenting on your belief but on your worship?

I personally believe that if the truth of God’s sovereignty would be more clear to me – then my words would reflect that clarity and you would see the light. If my words do not convey that clarity – I see it as an indication that I need to get greater clarity and submit myself more deeply to the absolute sovereignty of God. My prayer is that my inadequacy not stand in the way of articulating His truth with which we – the Jewish people – were entrusted (Deuteronomy 4:35, Isaiah 43:10)

515.        Dr Michael L Brown

December 25th, 2011 @ 10:41 am

Rabbi Blumenthal,

Do you understand what you believe? You would say Yes. Is God greater than anything you can understand? You would say Yes again. The same with me.

I honestly don’t know if you’re trying to score a polemical point here (ill conceived, and, I would think, beneath you), or if you’re simply unwilling to hear me when I state that you don’t understand our beliefs and our worship. Either way, posts like this are utterly futile — except for reminding us of the need to pray for you more.

With all my heart, I want you to recognize Yeshua as our Messiah and King. When you do, your life will be radically transformed to the glory of God.

518.        Dr Michael L Brown

December 25th, 2011 @ 10:50 am

Rabbi Blumenthal,

As we bring this part of our discussion to a close, you ask, “How would you know that I do not understand your belief? Is it because I disagree with you? Do you notice that I am not commenting on your belief but on your worship?”

I would know that you understand my belief/worship by asking questions that applied to my belief/worship and not asking questions that do not apply to my belief/worship. I am not faulting you for failing to do so; I am simply saying it underscores a point I have made repeatedly here, namely, that this is a spiritual battle more than an intellectual one.

Please also notice that in hundreds of other posts and emails that we have exchanged — even in this thread — I do not commonly say to you, “You don’t understand what I believe.” That should say something to you as well.

519.        yisroel blumenthal

December 25th, 2011 @ 10:53 am

Dr. Brown

The point I was trying to make is that beliefs about God by very definition are mysterious. I labor to understand as much of your belief as you do – and your statements to the effect that I don’t understand you don’t convince me that I don’t understand you. The fact that you quote the words of men (midrash) who considered your worship the deepest violation of Israel’s covenant with God – is an indication to me that you do not understand what I believe – but this is NOT a discussion about belief. It is a discussion about worship. Do you not see the difference between the two? Do you think that I don’t understand your worship?

520.        Dr Michael L Brown

December 25th, 2011 @ 11:00 am

Rabbi Blumenthal, yes, absolutely, I think you don’t understand my worship, otherwise you would not be raising the questions you do or even arguing that anything spoken at Sinai contradicts my worship of God in any way. Once more, I don’t fault you for this, but I must reply honestly.

521.        yisroel blumenthal

December 25th, 2011 @ 11:04 am

Dr. Brown

So my question as to whether Jesus is or isn’t a subject of God – is irrelevant?

My question (which you haven’t answered) asking if you acknowledge the distinction between belief and worship is irrelevant?

My question from Isaiah 40:6 is that also irrelevant?

What questions do you want me to ask?

What questions would YOU ask if someone were to point to a person – not Jesus but someone else – and try to convince you to worship that person because he is the Eternal son of God who is not mere mortal and is sinless and is the Word come in the flesh. Would you not ask the very same questions I am asking you?

522.        Dr Michael L Brown

December 25th, 2011 @ 11:15 am

Rabbi Blumenthal,

Start with God being a tri-unity and we proceed from there, and start with taking all the evidence of the Tanakh seriously, including prophecies of a divine Messiah. (Of course, you differ with me here, but at least start with these presuppositions on my part, based on Tanakh.) That alone changes the whole nature of your question to me, namely, “What questions would YOU ask if someone were to point to a person – not Jesus but someone else – and try to convince you to worship that person because he is the Eternal son of God who is not mere mortal and is sinless and is the Word come in the flesh. Would you not ask the very same questions I am asking you?”

Certainly not. We have the Tanakh in common and we debate that. That would not apply in your other scenario.

In any case, how does re-posting the same questions (that missed the point the first time around) prove that you understand my worship?

Yes, there is a difference between worship and belief. What have I not answered there?

I have no problem with others here continuing to interact with you on these points, but again, this has taken the thread far off topic for scores of posts here, and, as I stated over and again, we are like ships passing in the night on this issue, and time (and wisdom) does not permit me to go around and around on this point here.

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

The Veil

The ongoing missionary effort to direct the heart of the Jew towards Jesus in worship has generated many discussions between proponents of Jesus and those who do not accept his claims. Many of these discussions focus on the Jewish Scriptures with each side of the debate coming in to the conversation with the firm belief that they are following the plain meaning of Scripture.

Some people recognize that this conversation cannot get off the ground without the belief that this discussion can lead to the truth. Indeed; it is my firm belief that a civil and respectful discussion, where both parties are willing to put all of their preconceived notions on the table, will only lead both parties closer to the truth.

I have encountered some people who engage in this discussion without any belief in the power of such a discussion to move people closer to what they see as the truth. These people believe that their spiritual adversaries should listen to their preaching but they are not willing to hear what their opponents have to say. They only put up a facade of a “two way discussion” in order to lure their victims into the range of their one way proselytization campaign. But when their opponents put up any arguments beyond the superficial these proselytizers dismiss their opponents as people who are incapable of participating in the spiritual discussion.

A typical argument of these “one way propagandists” is the argument of spiritual blindness. They contend that their opponents are stricken by spiritual blindness so there is no point in engaging in a two way discussion with them.

The following e-mail exchange took place between myself and one of these propagandists.

After I presented a Scriptural interpretation to this missionary; he responded with the following:

Your email confirms to me exactly what Paul wrote in 2 Cor 3. The veil is over your heart when you read Torah.

I responded with the following note:

So it goes back to the veil – the blindness.

1) God says that the veil is over the eyes of the nations – Isaiah 25:7. God gave the Torah to the Jewish people and to them alone – (Psalm 147:19) – but it is the gentiles who know how to read it?! – You know my friend, when it is Paul vs. God, who it is that we ought to be listening to.

2) You claim that you are reading it without a veil – so you should be able to explain where I went wrong – which verse I missed or misinterpreted.

3) Yes, I do get dogmatic at times, but I thank the God of truth who guides me on the path – He shows me the verses, He gives me the understanding to articulate so that I never have to resort to an argument like Paul’s – “their eyes are clouded over by a veil”.

Yes; we all approach these issues with our personal bias. But we can move closer to the truth through civil and respectful discussion. It may take time and demand patience, but eventually such a discussion will bear fruit.

Dismissing your opponent’s ability to process information is the first step in dehumanizing your fellow man.

Don’t go there.

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

Dear Chanan

Brother! Let us return, Father is waiting for us.

Please allow me to elaborate.

Brother? Yes, we are brothers. It was with our father, Abraham, that the Creator of all made an everlasting covenant. Your genes and my genes were there on the altar when Isaac was offered to God. When people want to make reference to the One Creator of all, they use our father’s name and they say – “the God of Israel”. When the Jewish people were enslaved in Egypt we were there together, and had God not intervened, we would both still be there. We share the glorious memory of God manifesting His might with the greatest miracles in the history of mankind, all for our sake and the sake of our ancestors. Both you and I are repositories for the record of the revelation at Sinai – the revelation which stands out in its uniqueness as the only claim for a national revelation. The greatest prophet that ever lived, the trustworthy one of God’s household, taught us for forty years while we lived under God’s embrace. During that time God showed us His love with the clouds of glory, the manna, and the well of Miriam. His presence was manifest in the midst of our nation in the Tabernacle and then in the Jerusalem temple. Then the dark times came, but God’s love did not waver. His love was manifest in the courage He poured into our hearts that gave us the strength to overcome the Greeks, to outlive the mighty Roman empire, and to survive the most torturous persecutions. This is our heritage, and as brothers, we share this glorious inheritance.

But now we walk different paths. We are both convinced that the paths we respectively walk are the true continuity of our great history. But only one of us can be in the right. Our paths are mutually exclusive. Indeed there are some similarities that our divergent paths share, but these parallels are only superficial. At the very root, our paths are polar opposites. We both believe in the truth of the Jewish Bible, but the contexts from within which we each read the Bible are so disparate that we might as well be reading two different books. We both believe in an afterlife, but our understanding of the afterlife, and our conception of the road to the afterlife, are so different, that the path that leads to your heaven goes to my hell. We both believe in the coming of the Messiah, but our respective visions of the messianic era have very little in common. We both accept that the purpose of life is developing a relationship with God, but the word God means one thing for me and something else for you.

The fact that as brothers we still walk different paths disturbs both of us. Perhaps you’ve been more diligent than I have been in expressing your pain in a concrete way. Together with the members of your community, you are involved in an ongoing energetic effort to persuade the members of my community to join your path. As difficult as it is for my community to appreciate your efforts in this regard, I could acknowledge that many of you are motivated by a love for your fellow Jews.

By now you have probably come to realize that as a community we are far from convinced. All of your methods of persuasion, be they quotations from scripture or personal testimonies, have failed to convince us to join you in your faith. Perhaps you are beginning to believe the myth propounded by some members of your community which claims that the Jewish people are stricken by a spiritual blindness – and it is this supernatural defect which prevents the members of my community from appreciating the power of your arguments.

If my community has not been as diligent as yours in reaching out to our brothers, please see in this letter a step towards rectifying that imbalance. Please read my words as you would want me to read yours – as an expression of my concern for your welfare. Before I get into the details of my presentation I would like to ask you to step back and consider the following. Both you and I accept the dictum that we only do unto others as we would have done unto ourselves. When you present your arguments to members of my community in an effort to persuade them to abandon their path in favor of yours – in essence you are asking them to go through an extremely difficult process. You are asking them to seriously consider the possibility that much of what they hold precious and holy – is downright wrong. You are asking them to draw the courage to look at themselves in the mirror and say – I’ve been wrong all these years. If you ask this of us, please be willing to do the same yourself.

You can read the rest of the letter here

https://yourphariseefriend.wordpress.com/the-council-of-my-nation/

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

 

 

Post # 429

This post was put up on the comment section on Dr. Brown’s Line of Fire website. I present it here because it demonstrates the benefit of discussing these matters in writing. Incidentally; I am still awaiting Dr. Brown’s response.   

429.yisroel blumenthal

December 22nd, 2011 @ 10:31 am

Dr. Brown

Here is my response to your post # 258

I believe that with this response of yours – a great breakthrough was achieved in our interaction – vindicating the usefulness of such interaction. I will explain this statement as I proceed to respond to your points one by one.

In my previous post (on this topic) I put our disagreements into two categories: Messianic expectations and interpretation of Isaiah 53.

On the issue of Messianic expectation

I demonstrated how you apply a double standard in your interpretation of Messianic prophecy. When it comes to the Jewish expectation of a rebuilt Temple and restored sacrifices you measure them by the number of times these concepts are mentioned in Scripture (according to your count, they are few), You measure them by the fact that in some of these prophecies, no Messianic figure is mentioned, and you measure them by the fact that there seems to be a problem with the timing of some of the prophecies (the context would indicate a fulfillment at a time that does not coincide with the Jewish interpretation).

On the basis of these measuring sticks – you downplay these prophecies and conclude that they could perhaps be fulfilled in a symbolic sense and not necessarily in a literal sense.

I pointed out that had you applied these same “measuring sticks” to the prophecies which are interpreted by Christians as prediction for Messiah’s miracles – then we could even more quickly conclude that the Messiah does not necessarily need to preform miracles in a literal sense.

But you insist that the miracles must be literal. You go on to pass judgment against Maimonides who insists on a literal fulfillment of theTempleprophecies while maintaining that the miracle prophecies need not be understood literally.

But using your own standards of interpretation – Maimonides is right.

How do you explain this? You say – Well Jesus already told us that this is the interpretation!

This then is the breakthrough. We have come to an agreement, it seems, that without FIRST accepting Jesus as an authority – the Jewish Bible does NOT encourage belief in Jesus.

If you need Jesus to tell you that your biblical interpretation is correct – then you should have said so in your book. You open your five volumes setting the standard for this discussion: “What does the Bible say?” But now you are admitting that according to that standard – Jesus is NOT the Messiah. The only way you can come to the conclusion that Jesus is the Messiah – is by first accepting him as the Messiah and then accepting his Biblical interpretations.

It is my position that the moral position for someone who does not believe in Jesus is to examine his claims in light of the Biblical texts. Until his claims are vindicated –– it would be going against God to accept his claims. We must therefore first read the Jewish Bible – without belief in Jesus – and then examine his claims in light of the truth we have learned from God’s word. The fact that you need to quote Jesus to defend your position underscores the fact that your position is not rooted in the words of the Jewish Bible.

You claim that the reason you pointed out the relatively small number of passages predicting the future Temple is because traditional Judaism puts the future Temple on the same plane as world peace as a Messianic requirement. You conclude that Scripture does not bear this out.

I suggest that you turn to page 178 of your volume 3 and you will see that you were not contrasting the hope for the Temple with the hope for peace (which you yourself minimize on page 70 of volume 1) – but you were contrasting the hope for a future Temple with the alleged miracles of the Messiah. This being the case – my citation of the number of passages is completely relevant.

In another paragraph you accuse me of creating a strawman (you generously add – “probably unintentional”) by presenting it as an issue of “either or”. With this accusation you have created a strawman of your own (probably unintentionally). In my opening statements which you yourself copied in the beginning of your own response – I presented the two opposing positions – not as “either or”, but rather with the one requiring miracles as an absolute necessity while relegating the temple to a possibility – as opposed to the other which has the Temple as the absolute requirement and the miracles remain a possibility.

You skip over some of my points because you see no relevance to them. I am sure that the readers of this conversation (including myself) will want to know your response to two of my questions that you seem to deem “irrelevant”.

1) Do you believe that the number of verses supporting a specific doctrinal position is a valid standard by which to judge the Scriptural basis of a given position? And if yes, then why, throughout your five volumes, do you never apply this standard to the arguments of the Church? (i.e the virgin birth etc)

2) How is it that in your interview with Stroebel Zechariah 6 is magnified as “the most overt passage in the Bible where a human being is identified with a Messianic figure” – and on page 172 of volume 3 you downplay this very same prophecy because it appears in only one book of the Bible. Isn’t that being inconsistent in your own line of reasoning?

I countered your argument concerning the timing of the predictions concerning theTemple– by pointing out that the predictions of Messiah’s miracles are also tied in by the prophets to a specific time – which precludes applying these predictions to Jesus.

You respond with the argument that “Messiah” (and I presume you mean “Jesus”) came working these very miracles.

This response is completely circular. You are in effect saying – believe in Jesus because he fulfilled this prophecy – but when I point out that according to a contextual reading of the prophecy he did not fulfill the prophecy – you tell me – but Jesus said he did! – so why should I accept his interpretation?

Your next argument is “that there is nothing in the context of, say, Isaiah 61 that precludes the Messianic interpretation” – I assume that you mean to assert that there is nothing in the context of Isaiah 61 that precludes your application of this passage to Jesus. I may have misunderstood you and if I did please clarify – but if I understood you correctly then your assertion is patently false. Isaiah 61 speaks of a “day of revenge” – which you acknowledge was not yet fulfilled. If a 2000 year interlude in middle of a sentence, without any textual justification, is “sound Biblical interpretation” for you – I guess I will have to be the one to inform you – that others will not be satisfied.

When I present my question about your double standard (asking the question if a given prophecy is symbolic or literal) – you go back to “the Messiah has already come”. Are you saying that it is OK for you to use a double standard because you “know” you are right?

The point I made about symbolic language was that as far as I could see, Scripture never uses a specific type of sheep as a metaphor. I did not say that it is not theoretically possible – my point was that this would be unusual – weakening the symbolic interpretation. You response does not address my point.

In response to my summary which asks a simple question – if we are going to apply a certain standard for the Jewish expectations of the Messiah – that we should do the same for the Christian expectations – you respond with:

“Of course we should, and that’s why we look at David as the proto-type (priestly King) and that’’s why we pay attention to the time line (expected before the destruction of the Second Temple), and that’s why we then allow the Messiah’s first coming to shed light on the meaning of the passages. All very clear, thank God!”

How is this clear? You take a Jewish argument and (mis)apply a certain standard of interpretation. You do this with one Jewish argument – ignoring the sum total of the Jewish arguments. So why are you reluctant to apply this same standard to the Christian arguments? Is it because you have other arguments to support your position? But when I will point to the inherent weaknesses of those arguments – you will run back to this one! What kind of response is that?

In any case – here is the response to the two arguments that you present. – Looking to David as a prototype is the last thing you want to do. It is hard to imagine a character that is more thoroughly antithetical to David than Jesus. David consistently stresses his own utter dependance on God – highlighting his sins – opening his heart to all of mankind expressing his complete humility towards God. How does this compare to a “mystery-man” who claims to be sinless and deserving of worship himself?

In response to your second argument – about the timing (Messiah had to come before the destruction of the Second Temple) – which you refer to Haggai 2, Malachi 3 and Daniel 9. I don’t see how you can apply these prophecies to Jesus. How could a prediction for a glorification of the Temple (predicted by Haggai) be fulfilled by one who claimed to be a replacement of theTemple? How could a prediction of the restoration of the Levitical priesthood (predicted by Malachi) be fulfilled by one who claimed to do away with the Levitical priesthood? And how could a prediction (by Daniel) about an anointed one cut off with the destruction of the city claim to be fulfilled by someone who died more than five weeks of years (in Daniel’s terms) before the destruction of the city?

Interpretation of Isaiah 53

I asked you if 53:9 could apply to Israel– you respond with a question “why in the world am I limiting the discussion to one verse when we have the whole chapter”. The answer to your question is because chapters are made up of verses – one verse at a time. If you refuse to discuss “one verse” – because you claim that the rest of the chapter bears out your position – then we will have a hard time discussing the matter. When I point to any one verse – you will run to the “rest of the chapter” – and when I point out that your arguments in those other verses don’t pan out – you will always be able to say – “ah! but look at the rest of the chapter”.

The fact of the matter is that there is no individual in the history of mankind that is more thoroughly eliminated from being a possible subject of this passage (Isaiah 53) as is Jesus from Nazareth. The entire thrust of the passage is that when the arm of the Lord is revealed upon the servant – the world will be shocked. If there is anyone that this cannot be – it is Jesus. So there is the “rest of the chapter” for you.

Getting back to this one verse – 53:9 – you are saying that it cannot be corporate Israel. So are you saying that the Jews when the Jews were butchered because of the accusations that they murdered Christian children and because they had stolen the world’s wealth through deception – that they were indeed guilty of these charges?

You claim that when I speak of Israel’s guilt compared to the guilt of the nations I have introduced a “new category”. I gave you 9 Scriptural references – and you call this a “new category”!? Let us take the first one on the list – Isaiah 26:2; where Israel is praised as the righteous nation who kept her faithfulness. It is obvious that Israel is singled out from amongst the nations for this praise. They are being praised not for something new that is given to them but for the faithfulness towards God that they maintained throughout the exile. (Contrast this with the exaltation of the Messiah described in chapter 11 which will be for new qualities that will be granted to him at that time – not for qualities that he possessed before then.)

In 49:23 Israel is rewarded for having hoped to God – from the context it is obvious that the nations do not share in this reward. The concept is reiterated again and again throughout the book of Isaiah – all those who worship idols will be shamed when everyone sees that the God who Israel trusted in is the true God. Israe lwill be exalted to the eyes of the nations for maintaining this trust in God throughout the exile – something that no nation will share with them.

When the nations will see the exaltation of God (and Jesus will have no part in this exaltation) they will realize that their worship of Jesus was idolatry. They will realize that Israel’s rejection of Jesus was her greatest virtue. They will realize that all the material blessing that they were blessed with came about because the Jewish people prayed to God for the prosperity of the countries they inhabited – and not because of their own prayers to Jesus.

This brings us to your arguments against my interpretation as to how Israel brought healing to the nations. You quote Jeremiah 51:9 which actually proves my point – the healing of the nation is not some spiritual gift – but material blessing here on earth. History vindicates my interpretation because countries that allowed the Jews to live amongst them – prospered – while those that expelled them – declined. As forBabylon; Jeremiah wasn’t making a joke in 29:7. The Jewish prayers helped the Babylonians until their time came. No one said the healing was permanent.

You argue that my interpretation which has the servant render the many righteous – as a future prophecy, contradicts my interpretation which has the servant’s healing of the nation to be past. I would urge you to pay attention to the words of the prophet. The healing is described as something that happened in the past (nirpah) while the servant rendering the many righteous is presented as a future prediction (yatzdik).

You created a new category when you decided that the servant had to be sinless on the basis of your symbolic interpretation of the requirement that the animal guilt offering be free of physical blemish. I responded that the servant being human and not animal has no such requirement. I presented an example from the guilt offering of the Philistines.

You respond that the requirement for the Philistines would be different than the requirements for Israel. It seems that you forgot another Scriptural passage – Leviticus 22:25 – which explicitly applies the requirements of presenting non-blemished animals for the Gentiles as well as the Israelites. – By the way – do you believe the servant only suffers for Israel– or do you believe he suffers for all of mankind?

You discount my interpretation which has the servant guilty of his own sins – because then the assessment of his enemies would have been accurate – he was suffering for his own sins, while the prophet makes it clear that he was suffering for the sins of others.

You have misunderstood the thrust of Isaiah 53. Those who had denigrated the servant had been looking at the fact that the servant is the only one suffering as an indication that they themselves are more righteous then the servant – or that the servant is more evil than themselves (I see this fulfilled in the consistent Christian assertion that the holocaust “proves” that Israel’s rejection of Jesus is the greatest sin.) When the servant is vindicated – they will see that he had been bearing the burden for everybody – as described in Psalm 88, and that actually the servant had been the one who was fulfilling God’s mission on earth for the benefit of all mankind.

When that great day comes – and everyone sees that God alone is King – then those who trusted in Him will be vindicated to the eyes of all the nations who placed their trust in other entities. Everything will pale into insignificance when the nations realize how the worship that they considered the highest virtue – was actually the greatest abomination before God. All ofIsrael’s sins are between her and God. As for the nations – they will call Israel“the righteous nation” – and they will realize that Israel’s loyalty to God was the most precious thing that God had on this earth (26:2). They will realize that God’s purpose here on earth was accomplished through those loyal to Him – and that those who hoped to God bore the burden for everyone else. I imagine also – that when God’s glory is revealed and the mask of confusion is removed from the face of the nations – then Christians will realize that nations who revere books that slander their theological opponents have something to learn from a nation that reveres a book that highlights their own faults (Zechariah 8:23).

I look forward to your response.

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