1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources

Fifth Response to Dalton Lifsey – Isaiah 9:5,6 (6,7)

http://thecontroversyofzion.com/2012/02/my-fourth-response-to-yisroel-blumenthal-the-mystery-of-the-godman/

Dalton

I will be using the numbering of the verses from the Hebrew Bible.

Translation

I will first tell you that the verse can be read as follows: “The Mighty God, Father unto eternity and Prince of peace is planning a wonder”. In other words, the name of the child is a complete sentence describing the work of God. Just to help you with the Hebrew, I’ll do this word for word.

Pele – a wonder

Yoetz – He is planning (this is the key – this word can be a verb and is not necessarily a noun)

E – l – God

Gibbor – mighty

Avi – Father

Ad – until (generally translated as: “everlasting”)

Sar – minister

Shalom – Peace

The second thing I will tell you is that the verse does not necessarily say “Mighty God” or “Everlasting Father”. The very same Hebrew phrase that is translated here as: “Mighty God”, is used in Ezekiel to describe Gentile warriors in the plural format (Ezekiel 32:21). The Hebrew word: “Ad” – which is translated as everlasting – can also mean spoils as in Genesis 49:27 and Isaiah 33:23. In other words the verse reads: wonderful counselor, mighty warrior, father of spoils, prince of peace”.

The third thing I will tell you is that the name “Hezekiah” actually means: “Mighty God”.

Finally I will comment on the words: “and he called his name”. The Scriptures use the term: “called a name” in a sense that is not necessarily literal (e.g. Ruth 4:11). In fact, as far as I know, no-one in history was literally called by any of these names. The concept of “calling a name” can mean; making a mark, this child will be remembered for these concepts; in the minds of men these concepts will forever be associated with the memory of this child.

The destruction of the Assyrian army at the gates of Jerusalem was the fulfillment of this prophecy. That event is inextricably tied up with the memory of Hezekiah king of Judah.

Context

The passage in which this verse appears talks of a military threat being miraculously eliminated, namely the threat of the Assyrian king; Sennacherib. Verse 3 (chapter 9) talks of the yoke of his (the nation’s) burden and the rod of her oppressor being broken as on the day of Midian. The “day of Midian” was when God miraculously put an army of multitudes to flight before Gideon’s small band of 300 (Judges 6 and 7). This is a clear parallel to the miraculous annihilation of Sennacherib’s troops (as described in Isaiah 37, 2Kings 19, and 2Chronicles 32). The various phrases in this passage are repeated over and over again in the book of Isaiah as reference to the destruction of Sennacherib’s army. The expressions “yoke” and ‘‘burden” (9:3) are used in 14:25 with a direct reference to Assyria’s army being broken. The expressions “staff” and “rod” (9:3), can be found in 10:5,24,27, and 30:31, clearly talking of this same event. The reference to Midian (9:3) is repeated in 10:26 in relation to Sennacherib’s destruction. The concept of “burning” as a description of this miracle (9:4), is mentioned in 10:16,17 and again in 30:31 and 31:9 as a description of the death of Sennacherib’s soldiers. The concept of “counsel” (9:5) is used in 14:26,27 to speak of this miracle. The words “mighty God” (9:5), are repeated in 10:21 to describe Israel’s return to God after this amazing event. The words “zeal of the Lord of Hosts” is repeated in 37:32 in direct reference to this miraculous event.

Do you think that all of these are mere coincidences?

Timing

Verse 5 tells us that the child HAS been born. In other words when Isaiah spoke these words the child was already born.

Overall Context (Totality of Scripture)

I want to contrast your usage of this passage with Exodus 20:3 and Deuteronomy 4:15.

1) The passages that I quote are COMMANDMENTS – the passage you quote is not.

2) The Divine Author of Scripture put His finger on the passages that I presented – and said – here is where I am teaching you something about who it is that you are to worship and who it is that you are not to worship. It was God who made it clear that He wants us to associate the passages that I quoted with the concept of worship of the divine. The passage that you presented is placed by the Divine Author in a completely different context. It is the Christian theologian who must highlight this passage as a central teaching on the nature of God. The Divine Author of Scripture did NOT highlight this passage in that way.

https://yourphariseefriend.wordpress.com/2012/01/12/forms-of-communication/

3) Comprehensive.

If I needed to formulate a statement that would succinctly describe the Jewish position on the question of who it is that we are to worship – I would say: “we worship the God who revealed Himself to our ancestors at Sinai – as our ancestors preserved that revelation”. This sentence is just a rewording of the passages I quoted – plus a bit from Deuteronomy 4:9. The complete sentence that expresses my world-view on this subject is contained in the passages that I quoted.

Now you go and try to formulate a complete succinct sentence on the basis of the passage that you quoted that would describe your belief.

4) No-one ever presented an alternative explanation for the passages that I quoted that would render them irrelevant to this discussion. Many Jewish and Christian scholars have disputed your interpretation of the passage you presented.

https://yourphariseefriend.wordpress.com/2012/02/07/thomas-on-isaiah-95-6/

5) Who is speaking?

The passages that I quoted describe God Himself presenting a teaching to the entirety of the nation – not through the medium of a prophet or a book – but directly – God to Israel.

Let me explain something to you about communication. The point of communication is NOT to get the idea out of the communicator’s head – but rather to get the idea into the head and heart of the target audience. If a teacher stands in a classroom and lectures – the words that the teacher spoke are not what was taught – it is the ideas that the students carry in their heads as they walk out of the classroom – THAT is what was communicated.

In the case of a human teacher – we can perhaps assume that the teacher did not properly calibrate his or her words – and the students walked away with an understanding different than what the teacher intended. With God we cannot say this. God actually declares that Israel understood His teaching properly – Deuteronomy 4:35.

The passage that you quoted was presented to us through the medium of a prophet. Every Jewish prophet expected their words to be understood in light of the teaching that Israel carried in their hearts since God put it there at Sinai.

My Interpretation

The child that this verse speaks of will be a cause for the salvation of the Jewish people from the oppression of Sennacherib. It was Hezekiah’s prayer that was the catalyst for God’s intervention on behalf of His people (Isaiah 37:21, 2Kings 19:20). Isaiah is comforting his people. Although Ahaz (Hezekiah’s father) was evil, but his child was holy and righteous. In the merit of this holy child, who bore upon his shoulders the government of his people, God will display His wondrous counsel, His might, His mastery over time (Isaiah 38:8), together with a peace that lasted as long as Hezekiah lived (Isaiah 39:7).

Your Problems with the Jewish Interpretation

Please forgive my temerity in assuming that I know what you will ask me – but since this conversation is public – I am sure that someone reading this is asking the following questions.

1) Question: How can you say that the passage is talking of Hezekiah? Doesn’t the passage say that there will be no end to the peace?

Answer: The very same words “en ketz” are used in Isaiah 2:7 as a description of the chariots and treasures of sinful Israel. The words do not necessarily have to be understood in their most literal sense. (See below for some more).

2) Question: Doesn’t the prophet say that the peace and the government will last from now and forevermore? Didn’t Hezekiah’s kingdom go down in smoke only a century and half later with the Babylonian invasion? How can this be talking of Hezekiah?

Answer: The peace and the government that the prophet is referring to, is the peace and government of David’s throne. David is still the king of Israel and will be so forever. Even the Messiah will be sitting on David’s throne – in other words – he will be filling David’s shoes. You may be surprised to learn that David is still the king of Israel – even now. Through the songs of his holy Psalms, David still leads the heart of all who are loyal to God. My loyalty today is to the dynasty of David, the king after God’s heart. And my loyalty to the Messiah will be an expression of the loyalty that is already in my heart now. The Davidic throne is a concept that lives on in the minds and in the hearts of men – Jews and Gentiles. The Davidic throne will forever represent mankind’s submission towards God.

Hezekiah, as a legitimate successor to his ancestor David – made a lasting impact on that concept that already existed. His career added a new layer of meaning to the goal of mankind’s submission towards God. The miraculous destruction of Sennacherib’s army and the salvation of Jerusalem that were done by God in the merit of Hezekiah’s prayer – gave us a completely new understanding of the Davidic throne and what it stands for. These events presented a picture for posterity, and they presented a hope for posterity. It was against the backdrop of these spectacular miracles that the prophecies of Isaiah were pronounced. God chose to articulate the Messianic hope of all man-kind through the words of Isaiah and in the context of the destruction of Sennacherib’s army. It is the words of Isaiah that were chosen to be written on the side of the U.N. building, and it is Isaiah’s metaphor of the lion lying with the lamb that is most often used to describe God’s plan of peace for all humanity.

The miracles that were performed in Hezekiah’s times are still reverberating, and they will continue to do so until the coming of the Messiah and beyond.

Concluding Statements

You may perhaps disagree with what I’ve written here, but let me put our disagreement into context.

There are actually two separate disagreements that we have about the Christian doctrine of the incarnation; we disagree as to whether the concept is even possible, and we disagree as to whether it actually happened. These are two separate disagreements.

My position is that to point to a man, who looks like a man, smells like a man, and does everything else like a man – and say that this man is somehow the God of Israel – is even more impossible and absurd than saying that good is bad, that light is dark and that east is west. This is not a “predisposed assumption”, but a truth that is based on the teaching of God (you could start with Isaiah 44).

That is my position on our first disagreement.

My second disagreement with you (and you seem to believe that this is our only disagreement) is that when you say that the incarnation actually happened, I say it did not. I say this primarily because of my position on our first disagreement, but I say this for other reasons as well. These are two separate disagreements.

You will acknowledge, I assume, that the burden of proof rests entirely on your shoulders. It is not enough for you to raise a question, a doubt in the minds of men, that this could have perhaps happened. You need to bring conclusive evidence that erases any shadow of doubt. The reason I say this, and the reason that I expect you to acknowledge this is simply because if you are wrong, then directing worship towards the man you are pointing to would represent the deepest violation of Israel’s covenant with God, and it would represent the most perfidious rebellion from created towards Creator.

It’s your turn Dalton.

Sincerely yours

Yisroel

P. S. Dalton, you may not be aware, but as part of my “anemic” contribution to this discussion I have already discussed this passage. I would humbly suggest that you find the articles I am referring to on my blog and on the Jews for Judaism website.

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

Fourth Response to Dalton Lifsey

 http://thecontroversyofzion.com/2012/02/my-third-response-to-yisroel-blumenthal-the-hope-of-the-world-and-the-mercy-of-god/

Dalton

Thanks for your post. I’ve responded to one of your comments about a year ago (it seems you still haven’t read my blog). Isaiah responded to another one of your comments several thousand years ago (I still wonder if you have ever read his book in its true context).

Your claim that Jesus is one and the same with the Creator is obviously fallacious as I have demonstrated in this little parable:

https://yourphariseefriend.wordpress.com/2010/11/10/knock-knock/

Your unfounded accusation that my opinion is based on a predisposed assumption tells me how closely you’ve been paying attention to my words.

Your comments about a “distant” God lead me to ask you the following question. So do you believe that before Jesus was born; God was a “distant” God?

It may also help you to read the following posts:

https://yourphariseefriend.wordpress.com/2012/01/04/acknowledgment-and-denial/

https://yourphariseefriend.wordpress.com/2011/08/04/trust-grattitudeand-the-joy-of-obedience/

Isaiah responded to your comments about a “high and lofty” God here:

Isaiah 57:15.

I have a question for you about some of your previous posts.

In your first post (entitled “Anemic”) you castigated me for failing to consider the scholarship of Dr. Brown. You end your second post (entitled “Open Response”) with a quote that exalts foolishness and denigrates scholarship. How do you reconcile these two arguments?

You seem to be interested in the “blindness” argument. You will perhaps appreciate the following:

https://yourphariseefriend.wordpress.com/2011/12/04/a-tale-of-two-schools/

Before we continue this dialogue, I respectfully request that you read what I’ve written on these subjects – then you have a free hand to critique my position.

With appreciation for your willingness to dialogue

Yisroel

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

Third Response to Dalton Lifsey

http://thecontroversyofzion.com/2012/02/my-second-response-to-yisroel-blumenthal-the-judicial-hardening-of-israel/

Dalton

Thanks for your response. I appreciate the opportunity you give me to articulate my position yet again. As I said in my original post, education is a long drawn out and tedious process, but I know of no other process that is more rewarding.

About nasty responses from my fellow counter-missionaries, I can sort of sympathize with them. After all, you did attack me after having read only a fraction of what I’ve written and you presented no substantive arguments to back up your attack. Some of the arguments you have put forth are perceived by some to be anti-semitic. My intention is to respond to your arguments because I think I understand where you are coming from. I appeal to my fellow activists who strive for the honor of Israel’s God to be patient with my patience.

You contend that my message of One God who lovingly called forth all of existence into being is somehow “inferior”, while the message of the Christian Scriptures is the “hope” of both Jew and Gentile.

The message of the Christian Scriptures maligns and denigrates the God of Israel. According to the Christian Scriptures, the Creator of every soul allows no-one to approach Him unless they travel through the “mystery-path” of the trinity. According to the Christian Scriptures The One who lovingly provided you with life even while you were sinning doesn’t have the mercy to forgive your sin without a blood offering. And the Christian Scriptures teach that men and women must direct their devotion to a man who lived and breathed just as themselves.

You call this a message of “hope”?!

The message of the Jewish Scriptures is that God is close to all who call upon Him with sincerity (Psalm 145:18). The message of the Jewish Scriptures is that God forgives the sinner on the basis of sincere repentance (Isaiah 55:7). And our holy prophets proclaimed that every inhabitant of this earth is subservient to no-one but the One who created them all (Zechariah 14:9).

That, my friend, is the hope of the world.

You spend much time preaching about the “blindness of the Jew”. You see this as a major Scriptural theme that, according to you, I ignore.

You may be surprised to learn that I do not ignore this theme at all. I fully recognize that our suffering in exile is a result of our hard-heartedness and our stubborn rebelliousness against God (Micah 7:9). But this has nothing to do with our discussion.

Despite all of our faults, God promised to preserve His truth and His spirit in our midst (Isaiah 59:21). The testimony that God established in Israel at Sinai will be available even to the last generation (Psalm 78:5,6). Nowhere in all of Scripture does it insinuate that we need to turn to the Gentiles to teach us how to read the books which are our own exclusive inheritance (Deuteronomy 33:4, Psalm 147:19,20). And finally, God speaks to the last generation of Jews (Deuteronomy 4:30) and He points to the unique understanding that He granted our nation as the sign of the unbreakable nature of His covenant (Deuteronomy 4:35). The understanding that God granted us is the most precious possession of our nation; it is the deepest sign of God’s love for us. It is our loyalty to this truth that will be vindicated when the mask of blindness is removed from the face of the nations who reject this truth (Micah 7:10, Isaiah 25:7).

You take issue with my interpretation of Isaiah 49:1-7. You contend that Isaiah’s servant cannot be the righteous of Israel because the servant saves Israel. “How could Israel save Israel?” you ask.

If you would have taken the time to read the passage I sent you to, you would have found the answer to your question. Isaiah 51:16 calls upon God’s servant to proclaim to Zion: “You are My nation”. If you read the preceding verses, you will realize that the subject of verse 16 is one who sometimes forgets her Creator, yet this same servant is being called to bring a proclamation to Zion. It is the righteous of the nation who bear God’s message to the rest of the nation. Is this so difficult to understand?

You claim that my respectful request that you cease and desist from your efforts to redefine Judaism is “illegitimate”. You insist that my Judaism is a Judaism of the “flesh” while the Judaism that you proclaim is a “Judaism” of the “spirit”.

It is you who exalt a man of flesh and blood, while it is my Judaism that exalts God alone – so I don’t see how you can justify your comments about “flesh” and “spirit”. But I will put that aside for now. Instead I will try to teach you something.

Judaism is about marriage. A marriage between God and the Jewish people. A marriage is a type of relationship that redefines both parties – not only to themselves – but to the eyes of everyone. In marriage, the two partners agree to forevermore be identified as the spouses of each other. From the point of marriage onward, whenever someone sees the woman in the street, they will think of her as the wife of her husband – and whenever someone sees the man, they identify him as the husband of the woman he married.

The Jewish people are forever identified as the bride of God and God is forever identified as the God of the Jewish people. Not a people who are dead and buried, but a people who live on in every generation. When you see a Jewish man pray, you know who he is praying to, and you know who he is not praying to. The Jew doesn’t have to explain it to you. The explanation is already carved into the pages of history. Try as you may, you will not be able to silence the testimony of God’s witness.

One more thing before I sign off. You know; a groom doesn’t see any faults in his bride. That is how God created us. Now, there are different aspects of God’s relationship with His beloved nation. We are His children, we are His servants and we are also His beloved bride.

I leave you with the words our Groom whispered into our ear (Song of Solomon 4:7).

Sincerely yours

Yisroel

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

Second  Response to Dalton Lifsey

http://thecontroversyofzion.com/2012/02/an-open-response-yisroel-c-blumenthal/

Dalton (I hope its O.K. that I use your first name), I want to thank you for writing. You will find out that many Jewish people reading your words will see in them seeds of hatred, but I will not go there. I sincerely appreciate your writing. By putting your cards on the table, I know where you stand – and we can talk. As long as we can talk, there is hope that we can reach some level of understanding.

I intend to respond to your 3 points and to your challenge.

Point #1

You contend that our message is inadequate and our skills are not up to par.

I will not comment on my skills – I would be the first to agree with you that they are not up to par. I will however disagree with your assessment of the message I bear. It is not my message. It is the message that God Himself imparted to our nation (Deuteronomy 4:35). That message is not inadequate. That message is the hope of all mankind – Jew and Gentile alike (Isaiah 54:5).

Point #2

You contend that our “resistance” to the message of Jesus is part of a long historical continuum of hard-hearted Jews.

We don’t “resist” Jesus. We insist on remaining loyal to the God who loved us first. This is what we were chosen for and it is for this loyalty that we will be vindicated as the prophets promised (Isaiah 26:2).

Point #3

You contend that I had argued that Jews were somehow endowed with superior skills which give them an edge over the Gentiles in evaluating the claims of Jesus.

It is here that you most seriously misunderstood my point, and I thank you for pointing out to me how my point can be misunderstood.

When I say that the only ones qualified to evaluate the claims of Jesus were the Jews, I was NOT referring to superior skills that the Jews may or may not possess. I was referring to a social context – and let me explain:

All of Christendom agrees that before Jesus came on to the scene, God had already imparted truth to the Jewish people. All of Christendom acknowledges that it was the moral duty of the Jew to examine the claims of Jesus in light of the truth that had already been granted to them. All of Christendom agrees that as long as the Jew sees the claims of Jesus as contrary to the truth that God had already granted to them – then it is their holy and moral duty before God and man – to reject those claims.

What were those truths granted by God to the Jewish people before the advent of Jesus? My guess is that you would say: The Jewish Scriptures (and please don’t hesitate to correct me if I am wrong).

Here is my challenge to you. Try to read the Jewish Scriptures as a Jew would have read them before the advent of Jesus. Try to read those holy words as a personal message from a loving Father to His firstborn son – because that is what the Jewish Bible is. Try to develop a complete world-view on the basis of the Jewish Scriptures alone. And then, and only then, evaluate the claims of Jesus in the light of that world-view.

It is not impossible for a Gentile to do this. In fact, I know of many courageous Gentiles who have found the God of Israel by following this basic exercise. I believe that there are many more sincere truth seeking Gentiles that would take this step too.  However, it would help if their teachers would be more willing to help them in this process rather than hinder them.

As part of a response to the June 9, 2011 Line of Fire radio show, I wrote the following 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 – and ask them – how would they view the doctrines of Christianity in the light of the Jewish Scriptures.”

As part of his response, Dr. Brown wrote:

“I don’t see the rationality of your proposal as you see it. Furthermore, for Christians here, they know the Tanakh is true because of Yeshua. If your arguments against him were true and he was neither Messiah nor Savior nor Son of God, they would have no reason to continue to believe in the Tanakh either. They have come to know the God of Israel through him, they have received forgiveness of sins through him, their lives have been transformed through him, and if he was not who he claimed to be, then for them, the Tanakh would be another book of myths and fairy tales. I might as well tell you, “The Torah is true but there is no God, so follow the Torah.””

(You could read all of this in context – http://www.lineoffireradio.com/2011/06/09/dr-brown-answers-the-rabbis-part-2/#comments)

In my humble opinion, it is this attitude of Christian leaders that makes it so difficult for the Gentiles to acquire the proper tools to evaluate the claims of Jesus.

To summarize; my point about Gentiles not possessing the proper tools was a point about the Gentiles failing to read the Jewish Scriptures in its proper context – I was not making any elitist claims about “superior skills” of Jews over Gentiles.

Now for your challenge: You ask me to give you one good reason why the prophecy of Isaiah (49:1-7) cannot be the words of Jesus.

I will give you two reasons.

a)      You may have noticed that the words in 49:2 are directly parallel to the words in 51:16. If you read 51:16 in context (verses 12-16) you will see that God’s servant is the righteous of Israel.

b)      The servant that Isaiah speaks of brings glory to the God of Israel. Jesus brings glory to himself – not to the God of Israel.

You assert that to “love Jesus is to be a true Jew”.

Please; don’t try to redefine Judaism. According to the Jewish Scripture being a true Jew means being loyal to the calling of our nation to bear witness to the world that there is but One God (Deuteronomy 4:35, Isaiah 44:8). Of all the Jews who ever lived, it is Jesus who represents the most extreme antithesis of Israel’s calling before God. There can be no greater conflict with Israel’s calling than to direct the devotion of men towards an entity other than the One that God Himself taught us to worship.

I recognize that you may have a problem understanding some of what I wrote, or perhaps even all of what I wrote. I encourage you to read my blog. Many of the concepts that I touched upon here only briefly are articulated more clearly in various articles.

But most of all, I encourage you to write again. As long as we can still talk, there is hope that we can reach some level of understanding.

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

P.S. Dalton, I almost forgot! You wouldn’t happen to want to put your pen where your mouth is and explain, in writing, why it is that you disagree with my arguments – or would you?

An Open Response to Dalton Lifsey

http://thecontroversyofzion.com/2012/02/dr-michael-brown-and-the-anemic-polemic-of-the-jewish-anti-missionaries/

Dear Dalton.

You seem to have taken exception to my post entitled “Persuasion versus Education – a response to Dr. Brown”. After quoting my post where I assert that the missionary campaign is a campaign of “persuasion”, while the campaign of the Jewish community is one of “education”, you go on to write:

“I find it hard to believe that Blumenthal wrote this without a few dozen gut checks and a wrestling match with his conscience. The degree of intellectual dishonesty required to commit these words to print is astounding. Particularly the assertion that “the conflict between the missionary and the Jewish community is a conflict between the method of persuasion favored by the missionary and the method of education favored by the Jewish community.” This is coming from a man who offered 48 pages of extremely weak argumentation predicated on circular reasoning and shocking exegesis in response to a man who has devoted the majority of his adult life to writing prolifically, methodically, and faithfully to counter the theological, historical, and philosophical objections that his Jewish brothers have leveled against him. Brown is no light-weight when it comes to scholarship (You can browse Brown’s exceptional multi-volume series “Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus”[and other works] here).

The contrast between what Brown has contributed to the debate and what these biased and belligerent Rabbi’s have offered is quite telling.

If I were Mr. Blumenthal, I would delete the preface post about education and persuasion. It only serves to whittle the credibility of an already anemic polemic. And if I were any of these Rabbi’s or Jewish scholars, I would steer clear of a public debate with Brown. Not only does he have the upper hand on substantive argumentation, according to the Rabbi’s he is apparently quite capable of persuasively proclaiming them. But having said that, I pray that the debates continue so that these ultimate issues can be discussed in the public square. Whether these Rabbi’s ever recant and repent or not, their willingness to show up debate after debate only gives more opportunity for the Gospel to be proclaimed to more of the lost sheep of the house of Israel. The Rabbi’s know this (which explains their affirmation of Brown’s effectiveness in the debate forum and their unwillingness to take him on).”

Dalton; I stand by my original statement with a clear and unburdened conscience. The missionary campaign is a campaign of “persuasion” while the campaign of the Jewish community is one of “education”. I say this not only DESPITE Dr. Brown’s five volume work, but primarily BECAUSE I have studied Dr. Brown’s work. I articulated many of my arguments in three separate articles; Contra Brown, The Elephant and the Suit, and Supplement to Contra Brown. This is in addition to many other articles that I have written in an attempt to articulate my position. If you are judging my work by the number of pages written, “48” is not quite the right number. (From your words I get the impression that you did not even read my follow up article: “Persuasion versus Education Part II”.) Perhaps you fail to see the weight of my arguments, and I understand. We approach these issues from two different world-views, so misunderstanding is to be expected. It may enlighten you to know that others view my work differently than you do –

https://yourphariseefriend.wordpress.com/2011/11/01/introducing-thomas/

One more thing before I sign off. I want to put Dr. Brown’s insistence on the venue of a public debate in its historical context.

If the entire disagreement between Judaism and Christianity could be resolved in the superficial arena of “public opinion” – then there is no point in a debate. Christianity has won a long time ago. In the arena of public opinion – the score stands at about 2 billion Christians versus about 15 million Jews.

For 2000 years Jews have insisted that the only way to resolve this issue is through a serious study of the truth – and NOT through a superficial appeal to public opinion. It is not for nothing that for 2000 years, the people that were most qualified to pass judgment on the claims of Christianity; namely the Jewish people, have categorically rejected the claims of Christianity. After all, Jesus did not claim to be the Messiah predicted by the prophets of Gaul, Rome or Greece. He claimed to be the Messiah foretold by the prophets of the Jews as well as an incarnation of their God. The Gauls, the Romans and the Greeks, who did not have the necessary tools to evaluate the truth of these claims in their original Jewish context, were the ones who accepted these claims, while the Jews, who were in possession of the relevant information, have by and large rejected them.

What does Dr. Brown hope to accomplish in a public debate? Is he planning to present new information that he did not already include in his massive 5 volume work? I do not think so.  If Dr. Brown would have come up with any new insight that would impact the Jewish-Christian polemic in favor of his faith, I think that he would have shared it with the world in writing, and not wait for the setting of a public debate. His commitment to his cause tells me that he would not withhold such information for a minute. The purpose of a debate is not to present new information. All of the information that Dr. Brown wants to present on the subject should be contained in his 5 volumes.

The Jewish community has already responded to the information contained in Dr. Brown’s 5 volumes. I have written three articles that systematically expose the fallacies inherent in Dr. Brown’s 5 volumes, but despite his assurances to respond, he has not done so (as of yet). It is Dr. Brown who is refusing the Jewish community’s invitation to respond to their challenge to his work.

Dr. Brown may not appreciate the seriousness of the challenge and he may see no need to respond. He is entitled to his position. I quote the following facebook message so that you may see why I feel that my work is not the “poor joke” that it appears to be from behind your Christian glasses.

This message is thanking Rabbi Eli Cohen for posting my article: “The Elephant and the Suit”

“Rabbi Eli Cohen, I want to thank you SO MUCH for these .pdf files showing the flaws in Dr. Brown’s presentations. You have no idea how you are helping a group of us Jews-by-birth here in **** who, through no fault of our own, were adopted into non-Jewish families right after birth or at very young ages. We were brought up in Xian homes with J-sus taking a very strong place in our lives. Not to be disrespectful, but for us it has been like going through detox for several years, having to get the “noise” of the NT out of our heads to see the beauty and simplicity of TORAH. Our hats are off to you, Rabbi, and to all the great Jewish people on Facebook who have friended us and helped us in ways you will never know.”

Sincerely yours.

Yisroel C. Blumenthal

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

Two Conversations

Conversation I

Jesus loves you!

God loved me first!

What do you mean?

I can see – that means I have retinas and corneas. I can breath – that means that I have lungs, a diaphragm and bronchial tubes. I could digest food – that means that I have a stomach and intestines. All of these are God’s gifts to me – I’ll bet you that Jesus couldn’t spell half of those words – and he certainly didn’t have a clue as to how these various body parts function – how can you expect me to worship him?

Conversation II

You need Jesus!

No I don’t, I’ve got a cold beer, I’m good.

But didn’t you ever sin?

I sure did, I’ve done plenty of stuff that was downright wrong, but there is one thing I’ve never done.

What’s that?

I never claimed to be God, I never claimed to be sinless, and I certainly didn’t tell anyone that they’ll go to hell for refusing to believe that I am sinless.

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

An Open Letter to Rabbi S. Boteach

Dear Rabbi Boteach. You seem to be surprised by the firestorm that erupted around your new book Kosher Jesus”. Your book was not even released and it was already banned. You have found yourself attacked from all quarters and you have valiantly wielded your keyboard against your critics. The upshot of your self-defense is that you are the representative of a fearless and broad-minded Judaism, while all of your opponents belong to the medieval, closed-minded, fanatical Judaism which the authors of the New Testament so vividly portray.

May I humbly introduce a new concept into your vocabulary which may allow you to see this controversy in a new light. It is called: sensitivity.

Symbols come with a lot of baggage. Take a flag as an example. If I were to burn the stars and stripes in front of a crowd of veterans who risked their lives for this great country; that would be insensitive. If I am wearing a uniform of the United States Army as I burn the flag; then my act would be doubly insensitive. If I then get up and explain to the enraged crowd that the stars actually represent communist North Korea, the red stripes represent China, while the white stripes represent the robes of the Afghan Taliban; it would not make my act any more refined.

Whether you like it or not, the word “Jesus” has become a symbol. 2000 years of history have imbued that word with a lot of negative meaning for our people. Aside from the horrors of persecution that have become so inextricably bound up with this name, there is the issue of idolatry. 2000 years of history have infused the word “Jesus” with the connotation of worship of a man – a concept that is the very antithesis of what it means to be a Jew.

The word “Kosher” also comes along with a meaning. “Kosher” doesn’t just mean that something is fine and good; it means that something is fine and good for those Jews whose lives are dedicated to God and to His Torah.

The fact that you are an Orthodox Rabbi and a Chabad Chassid is also accompanied by symbolism. When you talk, you represent something that is larger than yourself. You represent Chassidus Chabad, you represent Orthodox Jews, and you represent all of the Jews throughout history who carried the name “Jew” through fire and water.

Putting the words “Kosher” and “Jesus” on the same line in a public setting, is insensitive. Doing so while wearing the uniform of an Orthodox Rabbi, is doubly insensitive. Your shock at the firestorm that erupted when you trampled on the deepest feelings of the people who your uniform represents, would indicate that the concept: “sensitivity”, is completely foreign to you.

When one of Judaism’s most respected scholars banned your book, you could have used that as an opportunity to share one of Judaism’s most precious teachings with the world, namely; respect for Torah scholars. You could have humbled yourself towards a Torah scholar, and respectfully asked for an explanation. You would have set an example of humility before those who have imbibed more of God’s Torah than ourselves. Instead, you chose the opposite path. You chose to teach the world how to trample on the honor of Torah knowledge.

You were recently criticized by Rabbi M. Skobac, a man who has dedicated his life to the education of our people, specifically in the realm of countering the persuasions of Christian missionaries. Rabbi Skobac echoed Rabbi Schochet’s sentiment by identifying your book as a stumbling block, a work that will cause confusion, rather than encouraging education. Instead of stepping back, and considering the words of people who are both wiser and more experienced than yourself, you went on the attack. You had the incredible arrogance to lecture down to one of the foremost educators of our nation, “advising” him to write more books to educate Jews!

Your article attributes motives to those who criticize your book. You contend that your critics denounce your book because they want us to “fear the Christians”.

Did it perhaps occur to you that men who tower over you in every virtue are not as petty, fanatical and closed-minded as you make them out to be? Is it so hard for you to understand that in your attempt to redefine “Jesus”, you have inadvertently made a statement that redefines Judaism? Is it so difficult for you to see that the two slogans: “Kosher Jesus” and “Jews for Jesus” are synonymous?

Your article goes on to “warn” Rabbi Schochet and Rabbi Skobac that if they don’t come around to seeing things your way that they run the risk of becoming “dinosaurs”.

You may be aware that this “warning” has been the theme-song of all of our spiritual enemies throughout the ages. The Jewish people have always been “warned” that if they don’t join in the society where chutzpah reigns supreme, and Torah knowledge means nothing, then they run the risk of becoming dinosaurs. But the Jewish people are still here. The Jewish values of sensitivity and respect for Torah knowledge are eternal. Those who live by these eternal values will live forever in the memories of our people and in the lives they impact. It is those who trample on these values who run the risk of becoming dinosaurs.

Rabbi Boteach, you could have avoided causing our people so much heartache, by consulting with the wise men of our nation before taking unilateral action. It is too late for that now. But it is still not too late for you to teach the world another Jewish value. You could set an example for repentance. Should you choose the path of repentance, your memory would shine forever as a rare example of courage in retracting a public mistake. However, should you chose to tie your reputation to the crude and confusing slogan: “Kosher Jesus”, then you would be better off being a dinosaur.

Yisroel Chaim Blumenthal

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