The Truth About Jesus, The ONLY True Messiah

Sunday, April 5, 2009

The Holy Trinity

Taken from Nakdimon’s page. Nakdimon, who is a Dutch Messianic Jew is the original author of this article.

Here are the actual link:

http://www.geocities.com/nakdimonspage/trinitypt1rts.html

http://www.geocities.com/nakdimonspage/trinitypt2rts.html

The Trinity
Part One
The first to present his case seems right, till another comes forward and questions him. (Proverbs 18:17)


Now it’s time to deal with the concept of the Trinity. This concept is one of the foundations of the Messianic Jewish faith, that is based on the clear revelation in the New Testament (NT). This section will be about the Divine nature of Yeshua, our Messiah, since rabbi Singer has primarily focussed on that subject. Rabbi Singer has charged that the concept of the Trinity is nowhere to be found in the Tenach and not even in the New Testament. What’s funny about this is that rabbi Tovia Singer, with this statement, once more contradicts other statements in another lecture. He says one thing in one lecture because it suits the purpose of that lecture and then turns around to say the exact opposite in another lecture, because it serves the message in that lecture. In the lecture “How do missionaries paint Jesus into the Jewish Scriptures”, at the end of that lecture he plays the “pagan-card” and tries to link the NT-faith to the pagan religions of that day, because he knows that this will scare off sincere Jewish seekers of truth more than anything else. (That’s why this tactic is used so much) And what does he say at 01:15:16? That the author of John “opens up with a whole new idea… the Trinity”. But now he wants proof against that concept and uses this same author to prove that “primitive Christianity” didn’t know anything about that concept. Why? Because obviously it serves the entire purpose of this lecture. The truth is that, many times rabbi Singer has admitted that John 1:1 is a fatal teaching of the New Testament. But here he doesn’t even touch John 1:1. Why? Well, what is this lecture about? Denial of the Trinity. So one doesn’t have to be a rocket scientist to figure out why rabbi Singer doesn’t even go there.

Of course we do not find that word “trinity” anywhere in the Bible. Not in the Tenach and not in the NT. This word was created by Tertulian. But does that mean that the concept is completely foreign to the Bible? Of course not! Just as the word “oral law” is nowhere to be found in the Bible as well. If rabbi Singer is consistent, he would reject the notion that there was an oral law given to Moses at Sinai outright. But there is one important difference between the concept of the oral law and that of the Trinity: while the concept of the oral law is based on extremely vague allusions from Scripture, the Bible is much clearer about the concept of the Trinity. Although we understand the quotes from the Tenach rabbi Singer comes up with to be true, there is something else that rabbi Singer doesn’t touch in this lecture, perhaps something that he isn’t familiar with. Something I always bring up when discussing this concept with the detractors of the divinity of Yeshua. We will look at the passage from the Tenach that rabbi Singer brings up and will look at the passages that support the concept of the Trinity in part two of this rebuttal.

Trinity a later invention? (12:13)

Rabbi Singer then claims that the Trinity was invented at the council of Nicea in 325 AD and that emperor Constantine practically forced that concept down the Church’s throat. Also the claim is that there the New Testament was finalized and there it was decided which books are Scripture and which books are not.

Obviously, rabbi Singer is totally ignorant of Church history. This myth has long been refuted. In no way, shape or form did Constantine have such an impact on the doctrines of the Church, and certainly not regarding the canonization of the New Testament. The very fact that rabbi Singer asks who decided that the book of Hebrews should be part of the New Testament and the gospel of Thomas should not be part of it, simply shows how much rabbi Singer knows about this entire matter. The simple fact that the “gospel of Thomas“ was a later Egyptian writing dating from late second to early third century completely excludes that writing from being Scripture. Whatever Thomas that was, it wasn’t the apostle Thomas we know from the Gospels.

Rabbi Singer should know, since he portrays himself as an expert in Church history, that the canon of the New Testament and the concept of the Trinity were established long before that council of Nicea in 325 AD. We have an abundance of letters from the “Church fathers” and direct students of the disciples of Yeshua, who quoted New Testament scriptures frequently in their letters. So much so, that it is said that just from the quotes from their letters alone, we can reconstruct the entire New Testament, except for 11 verses that have no impact on theological matters. Since there was no quote from “the gospel of Thomas” in any of the earliest letters (because that gospel was simply too late) logic dictates that that gospel cannot be part of the Canon. And as far as the Deity of the Messiah is concerned, let’s look at a letter from, lets say, Ignatius, who was a student of the apostle John. Ignatius died around 108 AD, so his letters can’t be from around the time of Constantine. One of them is his letter to Ephesus, where he writes in chapter 7 (emphasis all mine):

There is one Physician who is possessed both of flesh and spirit; both made and not made; God existing in flesh; true life in death; both of Mary and of God; first passible and then impassible, This clause is wanting in the Greek, and has been supplied from the ancient Latin version. even Jesus Christ our Lord… But our Physician is the only true God, the unbegotten and unapproachable, the Lord of all, the Father and Begetter of the only-begotten Son. We have also as a Physician the Lord our God, Jesus the Christ, the only-begotten Son and Word, before time began, but who afterwards became also man, of Mary the virgin. For “the Word was made flesh.”

In chapter 9:

From his power Jesus Christ will deliver you, who has founded you upon the rock, as being chosen stones, well fitted for the divine edifice of the Father, and who are raised up on high by Christ, who was crucified for you, making use of the Holy Spirit as a rope, and being borne up by faith, while exalted by love from earth to heaven, walking in company with those that are undefiled.

In chapter 15:

Our Lord and God, Jesus Christ, the Son of the living God, first did and then taught, as Luke testifies, “whose praise is in the Gospel through all the Churches.” There is nothing which is hid from the Lord, but our very secrets are near to Him. Let us therefore do all things as those who have Him dwelling in us, that we may be His temples, and He may be in us as God. Let Christ speak in us, even as He did in Paul. Let the Holy Spirit teach us to speak the things of Christ in like manner as He did.

And I could go on, but I believe that my point has been well made. So, no, “Moishe Rosen wasn’t there”, but neither was emperor Constantine! Rabbi Singer’s claims are totally unfounded. He would do well to actually study these matters before making claims that are totally incongruent with historical facts.

Dealing with rabbi Singer’s claim that Tertulian didn’t believe that the Father and the Son were not of the same substance in the beginning of this lecture, at about thirty seconds into this lecture. Here is what Tertulian wrote in his letter Anti Praxeas, chapter two:

“But keeping this prescriptive rule inviolate, still some opportunity must be given for reviewing (the statements of heretics), with a view to the instruction and protection of divers persons; were it only that it may not seem that each perversion of the truth is condemned without examination, and simply prejudged; especially in the case of this heresy, which supposes itself to possess the pure truth, in thinking that one cannot believe in One Only God in any other way than by saying that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are the very selfsame Person. As if in this way also one were not All, in that All are of One, by unity (that is) of substance; while the mystery of the dispensation is still guarded, which distributes the Unity into a Trinity, placing in their order the three Persons—the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost: three, however, not in condition, but in degree; not in substance, but in form; not in power, but in aspect; yet of one substance, and of one condition, and of one power, inasmuch as He is one God, from whom these degrees and forms and aspects are reckoned, under the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. How they are susceptible of number without division, will be shown as our treatise proceeds.“

Then Tertulian goes on to explain how the Father, the Son and the Spirit are distinct, yet unseparable and of the same substance and that they are not “three gods”, which he considers a heretical teaching. Again, one might seriously wonder how rabbi Singer came up with that idea. Had rabbi Singer actually done his homework and looked into the matter, he would have known that Tertulian did believe that they were of the same substance. Again one might wonder why rabbi Singer makes these things up out of thin air or does he just blatantly choose to tell falsehoods because it so happens to suit the purpose of his lectures?

Rabbi Singer’s case from the Tenach (16:10)

Numbers 23:19

Earlier, at 8:20 into the lecture, rabbi Singer quoted from the Tenach to demonstrate that God is alone and there is no other. Again, we have no problem at all with the quotes and fully understand the meaning of the verses rabbi Singer quoted. However, as you will see in part two of this rebuttal, different characters in the Tenach, who also fully agree with the quotes, would not agree with how rabbi Tovia Singer interprets verses such as Numbers 23:19. According to rabbi Singer this verse tells us that God anticipated the possibility that people would teach that He would come down in the form of a man. And this verse tells us that God can’t appear in human form. But that is actually not what the verse says at all. The verse says that, unlike man, God is faithful because He doesn’t lie or changes His mind when He gives His word. He, unlike man, is trustworthy and does as He promises. That’s what it says:

God is not a man, that He should lie; neither the son of man, that He should repent:

when He hath said, will He not do it? or when He hath spoken, will He not make it good?

The entire point of this verse is obvious. It is not how rabbi Singer wants it. The verse is about Gods trustworthiness compared to man and nothing more.

Genesis 1:26

Rabbi Singer says that this is a verse that lacks foundation and is not even considered as proof by Christians for a Tri-unity of God. Well, I beg to differ. This verse is still seen as an allusion to the plurality of God. This is what it says.

Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.

This is said to be God speaking to His host, His council and other verses are cited. But the parallel verses don’t even say the same thing as Genesis 1:26. First of all, God made man in HIS image and likeness, not in the image and likeness of Him and His angels, so the “our” in Genesis 1 can’t be about the hosts. Second, while Isaiah 6, the parallel passage rabbi Singer cited, shows clearly that God is speaking to His hosts and He is actually the active force, this is not the case in Genesis 1. There the “us” is the active force:

Genesis 1
Na’asah adam…
Let US MAKE man…

Isaiah 6
Et-mi eshlach…
Whom SHALL I SEND…


The difference is major! Genesis 1 cannot be about the hosts, since God made everything alone, as rabbi Singer himself quoted in Isaiah 44:24. If Genesis is referring to the hosts, then Isaiah 44:24 is not true and God had help with His creation. So although there is a reference made in Isaiah 6 to explain how God sometimes addresses His council, this couldn’t possibly be the case in the creation account.

New Testament quotes

Then rabbi Singer goes on to selectively quote the New Testament, claiming that Yeshua denied his status as Deity. There is one thing I don’t agree with when it comes to today’s majority claim that Yeshua was fully God and fully man when he came to die for our sins. Philippians 2:7 makes that impossible. Yeshua made himself of no reputation to become a man to die for our sins. God cannot die, therefore, had Yeshua been fully God there was no way he could have laid down his life for us and there is no way he could have been of “no reputation”. He laid aside his divine nature to become flesh. So, no, Yeshua wasn’t fully God and fully man, but he instead made himself a mere man.

Rabbi Singer goes on to quote the following passages:

Mark 10:17-22

The good teacher: rabbi Singer claimed that Yeshua didn’t want to be called good, because “no one is good but God alone”. Yet Yeshua calls himself the good Shepherd in John 10. Of course, in Mark 10, Yeshua only cautioned the man not to call everyone “good”. The man didn’t even know him and called him “good”. Yeshua points him to the only one that can be called “good”, that is God. Rabbi Singer claimed that the rebuke of Yeshua means that Yeshua denied himself that title. But then what does the absence of rebuke in John 20:28-29 tell us? Rabbi Singer merely misses the entire point of the episode.

Mark 13

The Son doesn’t know the day of Judgement: As a human being, the Son only knew what was revealed to him by the Father. What is really interesting is the distinguishing of the Son from all creation: of that day and that hour knows no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father. The Son exists apart from everything that is created. What mere creature could say this? Then rabbi Singer asks why the Holy Spirit wasn’t mentioned. Why should he have been? To say that the Spirit of God doesn’t know what is “in God” is simply preposterous. As Paul explains:

The Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God. For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the man’s spirit within him? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. (1 Cor 2:10-11)

The answer to rabbi Singer’s question is self evident.

Jesus praying to God/calling to God for legions of angels:

As I heard Dr. James R. White say once (paraphrase): If God would chose to enter into His creation in the form of a man, would we expect Him to be an atheist? Or would we expect Him to be the greatest example of worship and reverence to God?

This is an excellent question that has only accurate one answer. Of course we would expect him to be the epitome of human obedience to, human subservience to and human dependence on God. Yeshua came to set such an example for us. How can he go around and telling us what to do, yet himself not doing it? So, yes, he asks for angels, showing his example of dependence on God. As he said in John 11:42: he doesn’t need to do so. He only does these things to demonstrate that he isn’t just making claims. His claims are backed up by the signs God does through him.

My father is greater than I:

There is no Christian that will deny the truth of this text. Does this mean that the Son is less Deity? Of course not. The Father IS greater than the Son, just like any father is greater than his son. But it a father more humanity than his son? NO! Therefore, this text says nothing about the divinity of Yeshua.

John 17:3:

The only true God: Again, no one denies the truth of this text. I would point you to Dr. Whites question again. Does acknowledging the Father as the only true God, detract anything from the divinity of the Son? In no way whatsoever. However, the question has to be raised: What mere creature can say of himself that you have to believe in him and honour him just as you believe in and honour the Father? What does that say about the one that makes this claim? That he is either a lunatic or he is worthy of our praise and worship as our God. Anything less makes his claims idolatrous.

John 10:30:

I and my Father are one: rabbi Singer tries to show that the reaction of the Jews hearing this claim of Yeshua doesn’t mean that they really thought that He was God. He uses Yeshua’s reaction to build his case. But before he does so, he tries to blame John for calling a spade a spade. Because John says that “the Jews” tried to stone the Messiah, rabbi Singer tries to play the “anti-Semitism card”. But is it really? First of all, weren’t these people Jews? I bet that if John would have called them “the children of Israel”, he would been criticised for that too. Furthermore, John was probably talking about “Judeans”, i.e. people of the district of Judea, instead of “Jews” in general. The word for Jew and Judean is the same. Lastly, the Tenach does far more Jew bashing than the New Testament. John, being a Jew himself, could not have been an anti-Semite. That would be like a pious Muslim, criticising his fellow Muslims because of their behaviour, being called an Islamophobe. What sense does that make?

But rabbi Singer goes on to say that Yeshua, by his referring to Psalm 82, Yeshua denies divine status. Let’s look at the text:


I and the Father are one.” Again the Jews picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus said to them, “I have shown you many great miracles from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?” “We are not stoning you for any of these,” replied the Jews, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.” Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I have said you are gods’? If he called them ‘gods,’ to whom the word of God came—and the Scripture cannot be broken— what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’? Do not believe me unless I do what my Father does. But if I do it, even though you do not believe me, believe the miracles, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father.” Again they tried to seize him, but he escaped their grasp. (30-34)

If you read carefully, Yeshua indeed claimed to be God. The Judeans didn’t misunderstand him at all. They knew the implications of the claim he made. But at the charge of blasphemy, Yeshua puts the ball in their court, by pointing them to the Psalms. They were mad because he claimed to be Elohim, but Yeshua pointed them to their own Psalms, that calls them elohim as well. So he is basically saying “What are you mad at me for? The books that you read and revere call you elohim as well! If that applies to you, then how much more would that apply to me? So why is what I’m saying blasphemy?” He dids not take back what he said, but he re-inforced it instead, which is apparent by the second response of the Judeans.
He had a ready answer for everything and who could resist that answer he gave them?

Isaiah 9:5-6 (49:50)

Rabbi Singer’s ultimate argument against the divinity of Yeshua is found in Isaiah 9. For the majority of the time, rabbi Singer addresses the issue and difficulties of the Messianic interpretation of this section. According to rabbi Singer, this passage is about Hezekiah (Heb. Chizkiyahu), about his time of distress and the deliverance from the siege of Jerusalem by Sancheriv, the king of Assyria. We are going to examine this claim and look at the part that is considered Messianic and look at how Chizkiyahu fits this description.

Calling this an “exotic reconstruction”, rabbi Singer objects to the fact that the Christian translators use the future tense because it’s “a little annoying” to have it in the past tense. However, rabbi Singer makes one principle mistake. Just because something is written in past tense, doesn’t mean that it is actually talking about a past event. There are passages in the Bible that are in the past tense and are actual prophecies. One excellent example is Isaiah 53. Although the passage is written almost entirely in the past tense, surely no orthodox Jew will deny that Isaiah 53 is a prophecy rather than a description of a past event? In essence, this passage is so obviously messianic, that it has to be stripped of it’s messianic status in order to get the focus off of Yeshua and divert it to anyone else, in this case that would be Chizkuyahu. So if this is actually speaking of an event that happened in the past then it cannot in any way shape or form be messianic. So all the words that are in the past tense must and shall be understood to be about a past event. But if this entire passage is about an event that happened in the past, then why on earth are there sentences in the future tense? Yes, you are reading it correctly: rabbi Singer left all the future references completely untouched and focussed entirely on the past tenses:

8:21 And they shall pass this way that are sore bestead and hungry; and it shall come to pass that, when they shall be hungry, they shall fret themselves, and curse by their king and by their God, and, whether they turn their faces upward, 22 or look unto the earth, behold distress and darkness, the gloom of anguish, and outspread thick darkness. 23 For is there no gloom to her that was stedfast? Now the former has lightly afflicted the land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali, but the latter has dealt a more grievous blow by the way of the sea, beyond the Jordan, in the district of the nations. 9:1 The people that walked in darkness have seen a great light; they that dwelt in the land of the shadow of death, upon them hath the light shined. 2 You have multiplied the nation, you have increased their joy; they joy before you according to the joy in harvest, as men rejoice when they divide the spoil. 3 For the yoke of his burden, and the staff of his shoulder, the rod of his oppressor, you have broken as in the day of Midian. 4 For every boot stamped with fierceness, and every cloak rolled in blood, shall even be for burning, for fuel of fire. 5 For a child is born unto us, a son is given unto us; and the government is upon his shoulder; and his name is called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace; 6 That the government may be increased, and of peace there be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to establish it, and to uphold it through justice and through righteousness from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts shall perform this.

Future events can be described in past tense, but past events cannot be described in future tense, unless it is a recap of a dialogue. Furthermore, rabbi Singer calls to witness Isaiah 10 and 37 to support his case, that these chapters are an elaboration of the events described in Isaiah 9, a past events that speaks of Chizkiyahu. Yet the text of Isaiah 10 is entirely written in the future tense:

20 And it shall come to pass in that day, that the remnant of Israel, and they that are escaped of the house of Jacob, shall no more again stay upon him that smote them; but shall stay upon the LORD, the Holy One of Israel, in truth. 21 A remnant shall return, even the remnant of Jacob, unto El Gibbor. 22 For though thy people, O Israel, be as the sand of the sea, only a remnant of them shall return; an extermination is determined, overflowing with righteousness. 23 For an extermination wholly determined shall the Lord, the GOD of hosts, make in the midst of all the earth. 24 Therefore thus says the Lord, the GOD of hosts: O My people that dwell in Zion, be not afraid of Asshur, though he smite you with the rod, and lift up his staff against thee, after the manner of Egypt. 25 For yet a very little while, and the indignation shall be accomplished, and My anger shall be to their destruction. 26 And the LORD of hosts shall stir up against him a scourge, as in the slaughter of Midian at the Rock of Oreb; and as His rod was over the sea, so shall He lift it up after the manner of Egypt. 27 And it shall come to pass in that day, that his burden shall depart from off your shoulder, and his yoke from off your neck, and the yoke shall be destroyed by reason of fatness.

This is a chapter later. What past event is this talking about? Although I believe that Isaiah 37 is an entire recap of the events unfolding in 2 Kings 19, Isaiah 9 and 10 are not! Isaiah chapters 7-12 are soaked with allusions to the messianic age. God simply uses past events to describe the future redemption of the Jewish people. In Isaiah 9, 10 and 11 God simply uses the events of Egypt, Midian and Assyria as a parallel to the events when the redemption comes through the Messiah. How the Jewish people were first carried away and oppressed, but when Messiah comes to establish the throne of David forever, Israel will be restored. God will send Messiah to redeem his people, which will result in the praises of Israel to their God in Isaiah 12.

With all this taken into consideration, let’s look at chapter 9 once again. How does Hezekiah meet the standards of this prophecy:

For a child is born unto us, a son is given unto us; and the government is upon his shoulder;

and his name is called Pele Yo’ets, El Gibbor, Avi-Ad, Sar-Shalom;

Let’s look at these names:

Pele Yo’ets / Wonderful Counselor:
The word פֶּלֶאappears 13 times in the Tenach and in all 12 other instances the word is related to divine acts. Since the name of the Child is Pele Yo’ets this points to a divine attribute: The Divine Council will be his. Is this really fulfilled in Chizkuyahu?

El Gibbor / Mighty God:

What is interesting it that rabbi Singer doesn’t mention the name given in Isaiah 9 in Hebrew. All he says is “mighty God” and claims that this is what Chizkiyahu means, giving his audience the impression that the name in Isaiah 9 is actually “Chizkiyahu” rather than “El Gibbor”. But if he actually had mentioned the name in Hebrew, that would be devastating to his case: Chizkiyahu and El Gibbor, are two entirely different names. And it is the latter that appears in Isaiah 9. Rabbi Singer claimed that the name “El-Gibbor” points to Chizkiyahu since the name Chizkiyahu would mean Mighty God. This is just not true! The word “chizki” means my strength. It consists of the word “chazak”, which means “strong” and the possessive first person singular suffix “i”. And the suffix “yahu” is an allusion to God’s divine Name and NOT to the word “God”. Thus, the name Chizkiyahu literally means “Yahweh is my strength”. That is something totally different than “Mighty God”. The name “El Gibbor” points to none else than God, as is evident in the very next chapter. (10:21)

Avi-Ad / Everlasting Father:

This name is applied to Hezekiah. But in what way? The name can also be read as Father of eternity as meaning Owner of eternity. And this name points to the child. How does this point to Hezekiah?

Sar-Shalom / Prince of Peace:

This name says it all. Peace will be abundant in the times of this child’s reign. Chizkiyahu, on the other hand, was besieged by Sancheriv, the king of Assyria. Terror struck every inhabitant of Jerusalem in this period. Shalom there was not. Again, if this name is applied to Hezekiah, then in what way can it be applied to him?

So if rabbi Singer is going to claim that “Jesus was never called” El Gibbor (In his lecture “how do missionaries paint Jesus into the Jewish scriptures”, rabbi Singer makes the same claim when addressing the Immanuel prophecy), he will have to be consistent in his argumentation and admit that Chizkiyahu was never called that either and therefore Isaiah 9:5 does not speak about him. But rabbi Singer will not be consistent, because doing so will destroy his own case. Now, if you have to be inconsistent and use arguments that refute your own case, then what does that tell us about the strength of your argument? Obviously this is not about Chizkiyahu, but about the Messiah. Now if we are going to claim that these names of the Messiah are nothing but names and have nothing to do with the Messiah himself, then either he will have an awful lot of names or these names point us to what the Messiah will be, what his substance is:

Shilo (Gen 49:10)

Yinnon ((Ps 72:17)

Immanuel (Is 7:14)

Pele Yo’ets (Is 9:5)

El Gibbor (Is 9:5)

Avi Ad (Is 9:5)

Sar Shalom (Is 9:5)

YHWH-Tsiduqenu (Jer 23:5)

Tsemach (Zech 6:12)

Certainly these names in Isaiah 9 point to who the child will be and not merely what his name will be. But it doesn’t end there. The next verse goes on to say:

That the government may be increased, and of peace there be no end, upon the throne of David,

and upon his kingdom, to establish it, and to uphold it through justice and through righteousness

from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of Yahweh of hosts doth perform this.

The reign of the child would be great and there would be no end to the peace from his time on until forever. Although Chizkiyahu was a great king, rabbi Singer and other anti-missionaries tend to blow the greatness of his reign out of proportion. In time and scope, his reign was no greater than any of the other kings. His reign lasted 29 years. Contrast that with other kings of Judah:

Asa reigned for 41 years

Yeho’ash reigned for 40 years

Amatsyah reigned 29 years

Azarjah reigned 52 years

Menashe reigned 55 years

Yoshiyahu reigned 31 years

I ask again, how does the phrase “to establish it, and to uphold it […] from henceforth even forever” fit the reign of Chizkiyahu? These are very strong words and logic dictates that this was in no way fulfilled by Hezekiah. Also consider his words in 2 Kings 20:16-19. There may have been periods of peace in his days, he had no problems with his children living in troubled times. And so they did. Where was the never ending peace then? David’s throne and kingdom would be established from then on until eternity on justice and righteousness, yet Chizkiyahu’s son Menashe was one of the most evil kings Judah ever had.

So it’s not that the Christian translators had to go to trouble to change the words of the prophet. They simply sought to communicate the obvious Messianic nature of the passage. Attributing the fulfilment of this prophecy to Chizkiyahu simply makes Isaiah a false prophet And if this is really about a past event, then this would at least be an inaccurate historical account.

Nakdimon


Email me!
Back to Part I
Back to the main page

Who is the Messiah?

Taken from Nakdimon’s page. Nakdimon, who is a Dutch Messianic Jew is the original author of this article.

Here is the actual link:

http://www.geocities.com/nakdimonspage/whoisthemessiahrts.html

Who is the Messiah?


Jews of the Devil? (11:30)

This lecture actually should have been called “slandering of Messianic Jews” or something like that, because that’s exactly what rabbi Tovia Singer is doing for the vast majority of this lecture. I am not even going to address the points about the slander of rabbi Singer against Messianic Jews. I do want to address the claim of rabbi Singer that “only Satan can” reject the truth when knowing the truth. (We actually don’t believe that Jews “know” that Yeshua is the Messiah, but we say that because they don’t believe he is the Messiah they want to get rid of all possible allusions to him, be it by removing Isaiah 53 from the haphtarah [which I’m not sure of] or making another interpretation than the Messianic interpretation prominent. As I have shown before, the rabbi keeps essential information from his audience time and time again and only tells the part that support his claims) What’s funny is that this is what has been the testimony of the Tenach about Israel, yet rabbi Singer points his audience to the New Testament to make it seem that the New Testament says that Jews reject the truth when it’s right there in front of them. Notice that the New Testament is written by Jews, but still is called anti-Semitic by the anti-missionaries. Well, then if you speak bad about Yeshua then, as a Jew, you can still be called anti-Semitic as well. This, then, also goes for the Tenach. So let’s look at some amazing “anti-Semitic” statements of the prophets in the Tenach that show us Jews rejecting the truth. And I say Jews instead of Israel because that’s the terminology that rabbi Singer uses himself. Remember, we are only being consistent and want to avoid the use of double standards. We will see that even when knowing that God has just acted or a true prophet spoke, they rejecting him anyway. I will replace the word “Israel” with “the Jews” for shock-value, to increase the “anti-Semitic” tone of the prophet and see what happens if rabbi Singer holds the Tenach to the same standards as he does with the New Testament:

Ezekiel 3:4-7:
This is what the prophet says that God told him about the Jews: 4 And He said unto me: ‘Son of man, go, get thee unto the Jews, and speak with My words unto them. 5 For thou art not sent to a people of an unintelligible speech and of a slow tongue, but to the Jews; 6 not to many peoples of an unintelligible speech and of a slow tongue, whose words thou canst not understand. Surely, if I sent thee to them, they would hearken unto thee. 7 But the Jews will not consent to hearken unto thee; for they consent not to hearken unto Me; for all the Jews are of a hard forehead and of a stiff heart.

Excuse me? This known prophet Ezekiel is sent to the Jews and God says that they will reject his words nonetheless. Even when they know he is Gods true prophet! But God doesn’t stop there, He even goes beyond that. He says that had He sent Ezekiel to the Gentiles, they would have listened to him and received the words of God, even though they didn’t speak the language. But the Jews? Now way! Talking about anti-Semitic statements! Knowing that Ezekiel is a true prophet and understanding every word he says, God says that they will reject whatever he says anyway. Can you imagine what the anti-missionaries would have said if this testimony would have been found in the New Testament?


Now the next anti-Semitic statement; 1Kings 18-19.
Eliyahu (Elijah) on Mount Carmel with everyone present taking on the prophets of Baäl and defeating them hands down, showing without any doubt that he is the true prophet of the one true God. Yet in spite of that incredibly miraculous event that took place and people witnessing the glory of the God of Israel, they still went with Baäl and rejected God and His prophet! Now the New Testament is often criticized for being anti-Semitic because of it’s testimony that although the people saw all the miraculous deeds of Yeshua, they still rejected him? Herewith implying that they didn’t take place, because had they taken place as the New Testament witnesses, they wouldn’t have rejected him as they did. But what are we then to make of this account in 1 Kings 18-19? By anti-missionary standards it couldn’t have occurred.

Well, how about the testimony of the Torah about the Exodus? The testimony of Israel, after seeing the miraculous works God did through Moshe (Moses) and the glorious victory over Egypt, which they saw with their own eyes, an entire dynasty wiped away without one man lifting up a sword, totally demolishing that country and still the people spoke about going back to Egypt to live there as slaves because they thought they would be better off, continuously mumbling against God and Moses to the point that they even wanted to stone Aharon and Moshe (read Numbers 14), constantly rebelling after almost constantly being witnesses of God’s miracles. Building the golden calf, where “all the people” brought their gold to make the statue. (even though anti-missionaries will claim that only 3000 people participated in this event, but the reality is that the entire nation participated and only 3000 failed to repent and didn’t choose for God and were therefore slain) “Only the Devil can do that”? No, that’s not what the Tenach tells us! The Tenach, not Christians, tells us that the Jews are capable of knowing and still rejecting. So where is rabbi Singer’s outrage now?

Have you noticed, by the way, how highly rabbi Singer speaks about the prophets in his lectures? This is all after the fact. In the time of the prophets they weren’t esteemed so highly by the religious leaders of our people as they are now. It all started in Egypt, Moses came to the people and they rebelled against him in the wilderness, in the time of the prophets some were ignored, some were rejected, some were persecuted, some were killed. Then the people went into exile and they eventually came back to the land, where they, completely in harmony with the behaviour of the previous generations, rejected and killed the Messiah. Of course, we are all to blame for him being slain because we have all sinned, Jew and Gentile alike. So this is no lashing out to the beloved Jewish people. But notice the pattern all the way back to Moses: when prophets didn’t live up to their expectations and asked too much from them (i.e. let go of their wicked ways and start to obey their words) they rebelled and rejected the message of the prophets. When the Messiah came and did exactly the same, not living up to their expectations and obey his words, they rebelled again and rejected him altogether as well. So what I am trying to say is that it shouldn’t come as a surprise that the Messiah wasn’t recognised by his people when he came to them.



“You don’t understand!…” 16:00

Then rabbi Singer says that we can’t tell Jews what their books say. According to the rabbi this would be like the Chinese telling an American that he doesn’t know his own constitution. But this is comparing sticks to stones, because for starters, the gentiles didn’t come to the Jews by themselves to tell them that they have figured it all out. They learned it from the Messiah Himself and His followers, who were all Jews. This would be similar to Chinese people who got their information from the likes of Abraham Lincoln and the founding fathers and then came to the American and tell him what certain constitutional laws really meant to say. They don’t need to know how to read the language, since they got their information in Chinese and still got the right interpretation from the founding fathers. As shown before Ezekiel 3:4-7 bears witness to this fact. So Gentile don’t make their case based on their own knowledge, but based on what Messiah has said.



Difference between Messianic Judaism and Pentecostals Evangelicals 29:30

Rabbi Tovia Singer claims that the only difference between Messianic Judaism and Pentecostals Evangelicals is rabbinic Jewish customs. This is partially true. Although there are religious expressions that are in conformity with rabbinic Judaism, because it has a lot of beauty in it, this is not the only thing that separates us from Gentile Pentecostals congregations. That the rabbi comes to this conclusion maybe because the traditions are all outward expressions of the faith. But these traditions are in no way binding! So the expression may be in agreement with traditional Jewish way, but the experience is anything but conform traditional Judaism. If you go into a Messianic Congregation that observes Torah you immediately notice the difference between that and a traditional Jewish meeting. As rabbi Singer correctly points out in his lecture on “Sin and atonement” at 01:06:20-01:08:55. The main thing we and Gentile congregations disagree on is the centrality of the Torah, which, according to mainstream Pentecostals, was abolished by Yeshua. However, there are more and more Gentiles that see the importance of the Torah and observance of the Shabbat and feasts and kosher laws (i.e. biblical kosher, NOT halachic kosher!), (and in some cases) teachings of cleanliness due to the message Messianic Jews are spreading. Other than that, there are hardly differences. That we make kiddush and wear kippah does not “define” our Judaism! Also, we use the Hebrew names, not necessarily for Jewish people, but to remind the gentile believers that Yeshua and his disciples were all Jews, which is something the gentile believers tend to forget and instead see them first and foremost as Christians. The Messiah is part of Israel and the faith of the gentile believers is the inheritance of Israel, which they share in. Not as the heirs, but as co-heirs to the promise God made to Abraham, that through him, all the nations would be blessed. So it’s not a ploy “to lure Jews into Christianity”, but rather to set the record straight with our gentile brothers in Lord Yeshua. Furthermore, I want to use the analogy rabbi Singer uses in another setting: If you would step into a time machine and go back to those days, I would bet that if you would ask someone where Jesus, the son of Joseph was, people would ask you what you were talking about. They didn’t know any Jesus, or Mary, or James, or John, or Matthew, or Peter. But if you would ask for Yeshua ben Yosef, people would know whom you were asking about. People were familiar with the names Yeshua, Miryam, Ya’aqov, Yochanan, Mattityahu, Kefa. So it has nothing to do with “trying to sound Jewish” because IT WAS JEWISH!

As for all the other
slander of Messianic Judaism, I urge you to go and see for yourself and meet Messianic Jews to see that
if rabbi Tovia Singer’s allegations are correct or not. By now you should
know better than just to take rabbi Singer at his word. But rabbinic
tradition is hardly considered “keeping the commandments”. Furthermore,
we have nothing against rabbinic tradition. On the contrary: we find a lot
of wisdom and beauty in the traditions. What we do reject is the teaching
that these traditions are Torah, given from God. That is simply untrue. Even
the New Testament makes the distinction between the Torah and the
“tradition of the Elders”. So either it’s from God and it’s not
tradition or either it’s tradition and it is not from God. Therefore, we
see the beauty of the traditions and apply these traditions and don’t see
them as a bad thing, we absolutely do NOT see them as Torah
and therefore, religiously binding, since that claim can’t be
substantiated from the Tenach. God is not interested in the Jewish ness of a
religion but in the truthfulness of people to his word. So if I must set
aside my Jewish pride to gain what I know to be true, the resurrected
Messiah, then I will follow the example of the apostle Sha’ul in
Philippians 3:7-8 and do just that.



Yet more lies! Why? (40:10)

Then rabbi Tovia Singer expands on Gen. 49:10 and tells his audience about a Christian that interpreted it in a certain way. But then rabbi Tovia Singer goes on to do something remarkable. He presents that interpretation as “the” Christian position. If this is “the” Christian position, then I wonder why this is the first time I have ever heard of it. This interpretation is one I have never heard of! So instead of this being “the” Christian interpretation, this is just one individual that understood the text as such.



Check your theology! (41:33)

Then rabbi Tovia Singer points us to Hoshea 3 to show that Jews aren’t supposed to have a king. But, again, as I pointed out in the “Rabbi Singer Answers Questions” section, these things don’t just happen “because the prophet says so”. There had to be something that caused this. And because Israel, as a majority, rejected Yeshua’s sacrifice for their sins, his role as mediator and High Priest, his role as their king, they don’t have these things. It is only when they accept him in the latter days, these things will be restored. When they “turn to Yahweh, their God, and David, their king” in the latter days. By the way, also notice that the text also speaks about Israel not having idols. So what does that tell us? How many secular Jews are into idolatry, séances and all that stuff? I thought that “Jews are not gonna have it”.


He then goes on to say
that according to Christianity it all comes down to the sacrifice on Calvary
and that it teaches that you can be a lousy person, but if you believe in
Yeshua, you’re saved. Where does the New Testament teach this? I dare
rabbi Singer to come up with the quote where the New Testament says that any
lousy person is saved by just “believing”. What the New Testament DOES
teach is that belief with repentance is
essential for salvation and that without repentance that changes the
lifestyle into God-fearing obedience, your belief is worthless. Yet another
misrepresentation of Messianic Jewish faith.


Ecclesiastes (49:50)

Rabbi Tovia Singer tries to demonstrate that sacrifices have no meaning to king Solomon. The only problem is that he is using the wrong text to demonstrate this. What is Ecclesiastes all about? It’s about things in life, how people live their lives in vain. What does it say about atonement? NOTHING in any way, shape or form! So why use something that has nothing to do with atonement to prove that it doesn’t say anything about Messiah’s atonement? What king Solomon says, and who could disagree with him on that, is that as far as the way of life is concerned, keeping Gods commandments is the best thing man can do, because all the rest has no profit whatsoever. We can again, put the shoe on the other foot and say that king Solomon says nothing about prayer, repentance and charity as well. What does that tell us about these three important aspects of life? Nothing, because we understand that he isn’t making a case about atonement, he is trying to explain that the best man can do in life is not to pursue the things of his own heart, but to keep God’s commandments. That’s the conclusion of a man that had it all, but saw no profit in them. One should ask, why rabbi Singer feels compelled to make these baseless allegations time and time again?



No accounts of blood sacrifices in the Tenach (52:30)

Rabbi Tovia Singer then gives his audience something to think about. He asks his audience that if sacrifices were so important, then why isn’t there one case of someone bringing sacrifices for sins in the entire Tenach? This should make you wonder, right? Here is the answer: because the Tenach emphasizes Gods mercy rather than the way to get atonement. The Torah has already laid out the atonement system. Think about it: the Tenach deals with just a few cases where people sinned. In those instances, when people are forgiven the authors show God’s love for His people Israel and His compassion for them. Does this mean that no one ever brought sacrifices for their sins? If the Bible kept count of every single sin in Temple times and every single goat or lamb that was offered, the authors would still be writing to this day, trying to keep track of sin sacrifices. However, the point the authors wanted to make is to show the grace of God towards His people. But to say that no one ever brought sacrifices when they sinned is to say that every one disregarded the Torah that explicitly commands sacrifices to atone for sins. And if we are to believe the anti-missionaries (rabbi Singer in particular), the Torah was too caught up with blood and the prophets, seeing this, repudiated Torah-sacrifices, therewith rectifying the error that was made in the Torah. Sure!



The New Testament teaches reliance on man (1:01:30)

Again, I would advise you to read the New Testament and talk to Christians and see if they “look horizontally” and not “up” instead of taking rabbi Singer at his word. Look at some of the following references in the New Testament itself:

Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven…But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust… Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect. (Mat 5:16,44-45,48)

Take heed that ye do
not your alms before men, to be seen of them: otherwise ye have no reward of
your Father which is in heaven…After this manner therefore
pray ye: Our
Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. (Mat 6:1,
9)

Insomuch that the multitude wondered, when they saw the dumb to speak, the maimed to be whole, the lame to walk, and the blind to see: and they glorified the God of Israel. (Mat 15:31)

And immediately he rose
up before them, and took up that whereon he lay, and departed to his own
house, glorifying God. (Luke 5:25)

So when they had further threatened them, they let them go, finding nothing how they might punish them, because of the people: for all [men] glorified God for that which was done… And when they heard that, they lifted up their voice to God with one accord, and said, Lord, thou [art] God, which hast made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all that in them is: (Acts 4:21, 24)

Virtually all epistles in the New Testament start with words like: “I thank my God always on your behalf, for the grace of God which is given you by Jesus [the Messiah].”

So take my advice and look for yourself. Only then you will know if there is any truth to rabbi Singer’s allegations.



Celibacy (1:06:57)

Rabbi Singer then gives his audience the impression that the New Testament teaches that celibacy is the way to go and that being married is something one should only consider when one “burns”. He does so to demonstrate that “the biggest knackers” of the New Testament were all bachelors in contrast to prophets in the Tenach. He then lists prophets who were married with children, to prove how the teachings of the New Testament is anti-Tenach. But, as is the custom of this rabbi, what he does again is not telling his audience the whole story and conveniently leaves some of “the biggest knackers” in the Tenach out of his line-up. Why? Because they don’t support the story he wants his audience to hear. What about Jeremiah? What about Elijah? What about Elisha? It’s obvious why he doesn’t mention them! So what does Paul mean? He is saying that all people, who give themselves to God in ministry, would do good to stay single for the purpose of being able to completely give themselves to God without having to consider (read: compromise), for example, how to feed their family, etc. What is so wrong about that?


Then the rabbi acts as if Messianic Judaism has anything against physical pleasure. This is absolutely erroneous. What Messianic Judaism DOES teach, is that the lure of having too much physical pleasure is always there and can overtake a person. And one should be careful not to get too carried away in the process. And what is wrong about being worried about having sex and afterwards going to a religious meeting? Notice that the question from “dear Abby” is not just about having sex. It’s about having sex “on Sunday morning” (i.e. before the meeting) and then going to the meeting right after. Doesn’t Torah teach us that after having sex, we are physically unclean and remain unclean until the evening? Then why is this being ridiculed by the rabbi? First we are ridiculed for NOT keeping the Torah and now we are ridiculed for asking questions that are derived from the Torah. Rabbi Singer’s entire analysis is totally irrelevant.

Again you need to ask yourself the important question: Why does rabbi Singer use these arguments and does he make claims that are just untrue and why does he have to be inconsistent in his approach in order to make his story stick? I’ll let you decide for yourself.
In closing I would like to point you to an interesting lecture of a Jewish man called Mariano Grinbank, who gives an interesting insight about the messianic teachings according to traditional Jewish sources. You can find his lecture called “rabbinic Judaism” here: http://calvarysantafe.org/player.php?ServiceID=90

See how
you will find the traits of the Messiah in those sources. Rabbi Singer can say
all he wants about the Christian Messiah being foreign to Judaism, but his
sources say otherwise.

Nakdimon

Email me!

Back to the main page

Rebuttals To Tovia Singer

Taken from Nakdimon’s page. Nakdimon, who is a Dutch Messianic Jew is the original author of this article.

Here is the actual link:

http://www.geocities.com/nakdimonspage/rabbisingerquestionsrts.html

Tovia Singer Answers Questions

According to rabbi Singer Paul is not to be taken seriously when he says that he is a Pharisee, because he gives away his cards for two reasons; 1 he was involved in killing a Christian and 2 he worked for the Sadducees when he went after the Christians. To answer the first allegation we need only to point out that Paul was never involved with the killing of a Christian. It is said in the story of Stephen that the people that killed Stephen threw their coats at Paul’s feet and he agreed with what they did. Does this mean that he is “involved” in the killing of Christians? Also he went from house to house persecuting followers of Yeshua only to throw them in jail! But does that condone the charge of murder? Of course not. The second is also very easy. He didn’t “work for the Sadducees” when he went to Damascus. He went to the high priest and asked for written permission to go to synagogues outside the Land with the authority of the Temple to imprison the followers of the Messiah. What is so bad about that? Do you really think that Paul would be able to go to synagogues outside Israel in his own authority? Who was he? The only way he could do that was on the authority of the high priest since Jews all over the world recognized the authority of the high priest and the Temple. And if Paul wanted to “present himself as someone significant”, as far as politics went, the Sadducees had more power than the Pharisees. So if Paul really wanted to be someone of importance, he would have presented himself as a Sadducee. Which he couldn’t be anyway, since he was jailed by the Sadducees for his teachings, that were, obviously, not according to theirs. And the Pharisees stood up for him, because of his teaching, which was according to theirs. (See Acts 23:1-10) So why would Pharisees jump to the defence of a “friend of the Sadducees”? So Paul didn’t “give away his cards” and there is no doubt that Paul wasn’t a Sadducee, but a Pharisee, just as he said! But, of course, it is convenient for rabbi Singer to deny this.

Jeremiah 31:31 raped? (22:15)

Rabbi Tovia Singer then accuses the writer of Hebrews of changing the text in chapter 8:9 to do away with Israel, claiming that this is the agenda of the writer of Hebrews. Rabbi Singer says that the writer of Hebrews “had to literally rape” the text of Jeremiah 31:31 to get rid of Israel. What an accusation! A lot of untrue accusations too, if I may. First of all, the writer of Hebrews didn’t have to “get rid of Israel”, because he himself, as a Jew, was part of that very same Israel. Second, and I hate to remind you again, the writer didn’t change a thing in the text, since he was quoting from the Greek text of the LXX (Septuagint), which was the dominant Greek text in Jewish circles in that time. You simply don’t accuse someone of changing the text when he quotes from a translation, in this case, the dominant Jewish translation of the day. And third, look at the preceding verse that doesn’t make any sense if he wanted to “get rid of Israel”: “For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:”

Since the New Testament gets accused of changing texts to fit it’s agenda all the time, why didn’t the author of Hebrews come up with the idea of just chopping the verse in half and leaving out all the offending references? The authors could have easily done that, but he didn’t because there was no “offensive part”.

And of course I am aware of the stories that the LXX has been manipulated by the church. This is something rabbi Singer claims in a few lectures. But it would be hard to believe that the authors of the New Testament would have quoted from a LXX that didn’t say what they claimed it said. It doesn’t make sense to claim that the LXX says something that it doesn’t, especially when people could verify it. Most Jews spoke Greek so therefore it would be really silly to think that you would deceive those people you wanted to reach by manipulating a text they were familiar with. And the story that it was only the Torah that was translated by the 72 rabbis and not the Prophets and the Writings, so, therefore, only the translation of the Torah is to be considered valid. Again, we need to ask; why would people not only read from the Torah translation of the LXX in the synagogues, but also from the Prophets and Writings if those translations were considered inaccurate and misleading? Obviously people recognized the entire Tenach translation in those days as an accurate and authoritative Greek translation. This actually shows us the exact opposite of what the anti-missionaries claim.

Sins of the fathers… (29:15)

Then rabbi Singer goes on to Exodus 20 where verse 4 speaks of God visiting the iniquities of the fathers up to 3 and 4 generations of those that hate Him. Rabbi Singer uses this to prove that there is no such thing as vicarious atonement. Although I agree with the fact that this text doesn’t speak of vicarious atonement, I still wanted to address something that the rabbi said. He speaks of “three OR four generations of those that continue to sin” and continues his analysis based on this reading. Notice the rabbi emphasizes the words in bold? They are nowhere to be found in the text and since rabbi Singer argues about the smallest detail when it comes to Christian translations, allow me to return the favour. The text speaks of “al-sh’lishe’im w’al-ribe’im”, which means “third AND fourth”. Also the words “that continue to sin” are completely absent from the text. What we do see is the word “leson’ai” which means “to those that hate me”. So therefore, rabbi Singer’s whole analysis to disprove vicarious atonement is not only based on a wrong text but also on a wrong translation of the text, which makes this entire analysis completely baseless. What the text is simply saying is that God is slow in His anger and abundant in His mercy. (Hence the contrast “3 and 4 generations of haters” and “1000 generations of lovers”)

Luke written after the fact (58:40)

Then rabbi Singer has a ball with the prophecy in the New Testament that the Messiah made and was written by Luke. He first claims that Yeshua’s prophecy isn’t accurate, because he said that not one stone would be left on top of another, and points his audience to the fact that the Western Wall is still standing. But if we want to nitpick as far as the New Testament is concerned, then we can’t be liberal when it comes to the Tenach, because that would be judging by double standards. If we want to press rabbi Singer’s point that the prophecy is incorrect because of the Western Wall still stands (although the Temple itself is completely gone to the point that you can’t see where it used to be, which happens to be the whole point of Yeshua’s prophecy in the first place) then how many false prophets do we have in the Tenach, if we are to examine every minor detail of a prophecy? Even God Himself can’t prophesise when we apply rabbi Singer’s criteria! So let’s get nitpicky: In 1 Kings 19 God tells Elijah that he [i.e. Elijah] will go to Aram to anoint Haza’el as king of Aram then to Yehu to anoint him as king of Israel and then anoint Elisha as a prophet in his stead. But Elijah first gets to Elisha (1 Kings 19), then is taken away (2 Kings 2) and Yehu is anointed by neither Elijah nor Elisha, but by another prophet (2 Kings 9). Yet the initial prophecy is that this would all be done by Elijah. We can go on and point out that Jeremiah is also a false prophet by the standards of rabbi Singer. Obviously this is all about understanding the prophetic language. But rabbi Singer wants to cherry-pick when it comes to the New Testament, but when it comes to the Tenach, he uses other standards. If you have to use one standard for one source to disprove it, yet go out of your way to use another standard for another source you try to endorse, what does that say about the strength of your argument?

Then he goes on to ridicule the New Testament that the accounts of the destruction of the Temple were written after the fact. Well, if we use that strict criterion as a measuring rod for the New Testament, then we can throw out a good portion of the Tenach as well. A lot in the Tenach is written after the fact. How, then, is it possible that rabbi Singer makes these claims of invalidity in regard to the New Testament, but on the same note he ignores these same invalidities in the Tenach? And if Luke was written after the fact and wanted Yeshua to look good then he wouldn’t have made the claim that Yeshua said that not one stone would be upon another. He would have written the prophecy and adjusted it to fit the destruction to the tiniest detail, so that at some point in time, someone called, let’s say, rabbi Tovia Singer, wouldn’t be able to make the claim that Yeshua is a false prophet because the Western Wall still stands! But I know for a fact that if, of all the stones, only two would be on each other and all the others would have been scattered, rabbi Singer would still make the ridiculous claim that the prophecy wasn’t fulfilled. Obviously the message was that the destruction of the Temple would be enormous, a horrendous event and a devastating experience for the Jewish people. As someone once said:

“It seems a little petty to admit that Jesus predicted the destruction of the temple in the lifetime of his hearers, and for the temple to be destroyed forty years later, and then to claim Jesus was a false prophet because a few stones remained on top of each other. I can imagine a Jewish survivor standing amidst the rubble of the temple, having lost his whole family to the sword or the flame, witnessing one of the most horrific events that has ever happened to the Jewish people, and bellowing, “False prophet! Jesus was a false prophet! Part of one wall remains standing.” How petty is that? The point of the prophecy, not its technical accuracy to the letter, determines the validity of the prophet.”

And nothing more needs to be said.

Nakdimon

Email me!

Questionable rabbinic interpretations of Scripture

Taken from Nakdimon’s page. Nakdimon, who is a Dutch Messianic Jew is the original author of this article.

Here is the actual link:

http://www.geocities.com/nakdimonspage/questionablerts.html

Questionable rabbinic

interpretations of Scripture
In this section we will look at some amazing rabbinic interpretations. Let me demonstrate to you some classical examples of anti-missionary double standards. They are willing to swallow whatever sources such as the Talmud teaches, even if the Talmudic conclusion is totally contrary to the conclusion of the Tenach. Even then the words of the Talmud are seen as a display of the brilliance and incredible wisdom of the Sages by the anti-missionaries. Now bear in mind that these are only interpretations that I am aware of! Interpretations that I have learned from anti-missionary sources, that have really startled me. Yet for much less the authors of the New Testament are allotted every imaginable certificate of incompetence and ignorance one can think of. Here are the examples.


Daniel 7 vs Zacharya 9


There are 2 places in scripture that are both understood by Rabbinic Jews as well as Messianic Jews to be Messianic texts about how Messiah will appear to his people. One being Daniel 7:13 and the other being Zecharya 9:9. The former says that Messiah will come with the clouds of heaven and the latter says he will come lowly and riding upon a donkey. Well, this posed some difficulties for the sages, because how will Moshiach come? He can’t come in both ways. So the Talmud comes with one conclusive answer: it merges the two and changes it into a conditional prophecy!

Namely: If we are worthy (meaning if we are righteous) he will come on the clouds of heaven and if we’re not worthy (meaning if we are sinful) he will come lowly riding on a donkey.

So, problem solved, right? Not exactly! For starters, there is no indication whatsoever that these prophecies have any relation to one another let alone are dependent to one another for their fulfilment. In saying so, using the same standards with which the anti-missionaries judge the New Testament authors and Yeshua, one of these prophets, be it Daniel or Zechariah, will be a false prophet, since they both proclaimed their prophecies in the Name of Yahweh and one will not come true!
Also, since there were Messianic expectations during the second Temple times and the Messiah didn’t come (according to rabbinic Judaism) the excuse is been made that because of our sins he (Messiah) didn’t come. This, however, is not what we are told by the Talmud in relation to Daniel 7:13 and Zechariah 9:9! According to the Talmudic reading Messiah would come on the clouds of heaven if we were righteous, and lowly on a donkey if we were sinful. He would not “stay away because of our sins”. So, since we were wicked and therefore “not worthy”, he should have come riding on a donkey per their own view and not just stay away! Yet if we say that the Messiah came on a donkey (Zech 9:9), died and rose from the dead (Is 53:9-10, 12), ascended to the right hand of God (Ps 110:1), will remain there for many days (Hos 3:4-5) and come with the clouds of heaven (Dan 7:13), then this is said not to be in conformity with the Tenach but merely a “Christian fabrication”. But because the rabbis say this there are no questions asked and the anti-missionaries take their statements to be the absolute truth. You go figure!


David and Uriah (2 Samuel 11-12)

How about the Talmudic element rabbi Singer was referring to in his “Sin and Atonement” lecture? Now when reading the account of David and Uriah in 2 Samuel 11 and 12 we will see that:

 God thinks David had no right to kill Uriah
 God thinks David had no right to take Batsheva
 David committed murder and adultery
 According to Torah, David had to die (compare Deut 22:22 – 2 Sam 12:13)
 There is nothing in the text that indicates that Uriah and Batsheva were either illegally married or divorced at that time.
 Uriah was loyal to David. (see the list of David’s heroes in 1 Chron 11:41. In a discussion with an anti-missionary on the Messiah Truth forum one guy actually basically told me that maybe the author of Chronicles erred by putting Uriah in this list! No one corrected him! So the Tenach is wrong but the Sages are correct!)

Yet despite these clear testimonies that the Tenach gives us, the anti-missionaries, based on the Talmudic reading, come to the exact opposite conclusion! Their position is:

 David had every right to kill Uriah
 David had every right to take Batsheva
 David committed no murder and adultery
 David had done nothing wrong except give people the wrong impression in his actions concerning Batsheva
 Uriah and Batsheva were illegally married at best, divorced at worst
 Uriah committed high treason


Isn’t this amazing? Now this is either entirely the Talmudic reading or the anti-missionary position based on the Talmudic reading. Whatever the case, it is obvious to what length the anti-missionaries go to accept an interpretation diametrically opposed to that of the Tenach and fail to be the least bit critical. Now I have to be honest and mention that of all the anti-missionaries on that forum there was only one person (who apparently wasn’t aware of the Talmudic reading) that tried to correct the others and said that it was obvious that the Tenach said something else than they were saying and even went so far to say that they were all acting “like the Christians” by avoiding the obvious. That coming from an anti-missionary says a lot!

The Talmud manages to acquit the guilty and accuse the innocent! How does the Talmud come to this conclusion? This is what I’ve been told on the Messiah Truth website by the moderators: (1) The Talmud claims that since Uriah was a Hittite and since Torah prohibits intermarriage, the marriage was to be considered illegal. (2) In the time of war, the men of war would give his wife a “get”, which was a letter of divorce in case the man had gone missing, which permitted the woman to remarry. (3) When David had ordered Uriah to go home to sleep with his wife and Uriah didn’t do that, he committed high treason (!), since he failed to follow a direct order of the king in time of war and was disloyal to David by calling Joab his lord instead of acknowledging David as his lord. (4) He was considered a threat to the king since he swore by the kings life that he would not go home and for this reason David had the right to kill him. (5) The fact that Uriah didn’t go home to sleep with his wife is to be considered evidence that they weren’t married. (6) since David, being a man of great responsibility, gave people the occasion to misunderstand his actions, he had to be punished harshly. I have even been told that it was actually Batsheva who seduced David!

Now, who would believe this story? But let’s look at the claims one by one:
(1) The Bible obviously doesn’t share the view that the marriage was illegal. When God rebukes David, He asks why David took Uriah’s wife (ishto – his wife) to be his own in verse 9 and calls Batsheva “eshet Uriah” (the wife of Uriah) in verse 10. Especially notice 2 Sam 11:26 where it says that “she made lamentation for her husband” (Heb. watispod al-ba’alah), clearly showing the obvious husband-wife relationship between the two. (the anti-missionary mod Sophiee1 actually accused me of not knowing any Hebrew and then refused to admit that the word “ishah” here means “wife”, but instead claimed that it meant “woman”, no mattter how elaborate my explanation of the Hebrew text was! Although that word can mean woman, in this context it doesn’t matter if we talk about “the wife of Uriah” or “the woman of Uriah”. The point is that she belonged to him and he was her “ba’al” – husband - and was therefore off limits for David.)

(2) Again, based on point no. 1, there is no reason whatsoever to either think that Uriah and Batsheva were either illegally married or divorced.

(3) The charge of high treason is absolutely ridiculous. High treason is to collaborate with the enemy in times of war or disloyalty towards a nation (or the head of the nation) to the point of endangering that nation. Did Uriah do these things? Not at all! His loyalty towards Israel was very profound as shown in 2 Samuel 11, when it says:
11 And Uriah said unto David: ‘The ark, and Israel, and Judah, abide in booths; and my lord Joab, and the servants of my lord, are encamped in the open field; shall I then go into my house, to eat and to drink, and to lie with my wife? as thou livest, and as thy soul liveth, I will not do this thing.’
Does this sound like a traitor to you? He showed great loyalty towards the God of Israel (by mentioning the ark), Israel’s king and Israel’s army! Not going home to “get busy” with your wife when the king tells you to is not what one would call (high) treason. Especially when you clarify to the king why you didn’t go: because of the ark, because of Israel and Judah, because of his commander Joab and the his fellow soldiers serving in the Israeli army (if that isn’t loyalty, then what is?). Not because he didn’t acknowledge David as his lord by calling Joab his lord (which he was, he was the highest ranked officer!), but because of the obvious reasons given above.

(4) It was common in that day to swear by something or someone higher than yourself. David also did this in 2 Sam 12:5: “…‘As the LORD lives, the man that hath done this deserves to die;”. Here he swears by God’s life. Using the line of reasoning of the anti-missionaries, David sought God’s life. How are we to believe that?

(5) On the contrary: the fact that David sent Uriah home to go sleep with his wife should be considered conclusive evidence that they were legally married! Why would David even consider to send him to Batsheva if they weren’t married, especially when she was already carrying David’s child! What logic is that based on?

(6) An anti-missionary moderator called Sophiee1 on the Messiah Truth website told me that the word “la’asot” in 12:9 indicates that David “appeared” to have sinned, but didn’t really sin. His only sin was that he rushed into things instead of waiting for God to get rid of Uriah and to make Batsheva his wife. It should be mentioned that no one rebuked her for it! This desperate attempt to try to acquit David was easy to refute by pointing her to Gen 2:23 where the same word “la’asot” is used, saying that God created heaven and earth. Yet no one would even think of claiming that God didn’t actually create heaven and earth but only “appeared” to create it. So I asked her to provide one example where the word “la’asot” is used to describe an “appearance” of something rather than an actual act or event. Of course, I am still waiting for her to come up with it. (btw, she is also a mod at the forum “Kosher Judaism” where she also portrays herself as a great scholar on Judaism, but when you actually challenge her claims, she can’t substantiate them and you will end up being banned because of disrespectful behaviour, as happened to me twice on the Messiah Truth forum and once on the Kosher Judaism forum.)


So all these arguments are clearly nothing but desperate attempts to try to acquit David and pin it on his victims. But after having read the account in the Bible, what unbiased reader on the face of this earth would even consider to believe the story of the Talmud? There is not a stitch of evidence whatsoever to support any point the Talmud raises. Yet this is considered a display of great scholarship and wisdom in the eyes of rabbinic Jews! Imagine if the New Testament would come up with such a story? All rabbi Singer would do is “leave skid marks”, wouldn’t he? Or ask questions like “how dare they play with my Bible”? But because the rabbis say this there are no questions asked and the anti-missionaries take their statements to be the absolute truth.



Counting of the Omer:

Traditional Judaism teaches that the counting of the Omer must start the day after the Sabbath of Pesach, i.e. on the 16^th of Nisan, irrespective of what day of the week this is. And this is how our people have been taught for many centuries. But let’s see what the bible says about the start of the counting of the Omer:

You shall count for yourselves — from the day after the Shabbat, from the day when you bring the Omer of the waving — seven Shabbats, they shall be complete. Until the day after the seventh sabbath you shall count, fifty days… -Leviticus 23:15-16

So the rabbinic Jewish position says to start to counting from the 16^th and after seven full weeks we have Shavu’ot, irrespective of what day the week it is, right? However, the text above clearly says seven full weeks “Until the day after the seventh sabbath”! Which means that Shavu’ot is always preceded by a Yom Shabbat (Sabbath day). Which in turn means that this can only be the case if that Yom Shabbat would be the weekly Shabbat and therefore starting on the 16^th of Nisan (on any given day) is erroneous. For example: If you would start on a Tuesday, 16^th Nisan, you will and up on a Tuesday after seven full weeks. The day before that day is a Monday or Yom Sheni, which is not a Yom Shabbat, as the Bible requires. Yet if you start counting on Yom Echad (Sunday), taking the phrase “from the day after the Shabbat” to be referring to the day after the ordinary Shabbat in the Pesach week, you will automatically end up on Sunday after seven full weeks and, exactly as required, the day after the seventh Shabbat, the 50^th day! So obviously the rabbinic reading of this text is erroneous, since it fails to meet the requirements of the Torah and the counting of the Omer is to start on the day after the weekly Shabbat of the Pesach week and not on the 16^th of Nisan, irrespective of what day of the week. So they will build Scripture around the statements of the rabbis, instead of building their statements around Scripture. But because the rabbis say differently there are no questions asked and the anti-missionaries take their statements to be the absolute truth.



Isaiah 9:5-6

For more on these verses, see my essay on the Trinity. But the question raises: who does this refer to? An immediate response, and logical one, would be Messiah, because what we learn about him is that he will be given the throne of David and rule on it forever and to his kingdom will be no end, have peace throughout his reign and his works will be marvellous. Yet, instead of this obvious conclusion, the Talmud says that this is not about Messiah, but about Chizki’yahu (Hezekiah). Read the story about Hezekiah in 2 Kings 18-20 and honestly tell me how this prophecy is fulfilled. With statements like “God wanted to make Hezekiah Messiah but Hezekiah wasn’t worthy” (My paraphrase) the rabbis win the hearts of the anti-missionaries. But looking at the prophecy, we can safely conclude that this was nowhere near fulfilled by Hezekiah, since Hezekiah’s reign was not what we would call (increasingly) peaceful and his reign did end (the words “ein kets” has the meaning “which can hardly be counted”). He only reigned for 29 years, much shorter than a lot of kings. For example, his son Menashe ruled for 55 years and is regarded to be the most wicked king in Judah’s history. Furthermore, he was called none of the names listed in the verse either contemporarily or after and a couple of generations later Judah was carried off to exile! So considering all this, Hezekiah does not fit the bill at all and this prophecy remains unfulfilled! So either Isaiah is a false prophet and this prophecy was never fulfilled, or this prophecy is Messianic, as is the Messianic Jewish position, and therefore is yet to be fulfilled. An in-depth response to the rabbinic position can be found at the “Trinity” section. But because the rabbis say differently there are no questions asked and the anti-missionaries take their statements to be the absolute truth.



Pronunciation of Gods Name

This might be the most sensitive subject of all of the points I have raised in this section. And therefore I have done my best to choose my words carefully. The rabbis claim that it is forbidden to pronounce The Name (haShem) of God, even with the most sincere intentions. Pronunciation of the Name is therefore unthinkable for the religious Jew. The Divine Name can only be pronounced by the High Priest, once a year during Yom Kippur. Of course there is an upside to this interpretation of the rabbis, namely, that this keeps the Name from being used in vein. But on the other hand, this view is built on the assumption that people will go on and use the Name in vein. However, what does the Bible say? If you read the Bible, especially the Torah, God actually says the exact opposite that the Tradition says. Namely, that His Name is the only name among any and all other gods that we are allowed to utter. It is actually the name of other gods that are not to be found in our mouths. With this, God thinks of the good in man, particularly of his people and trusts that we will not use His Name in vein, as He warns us subsequently. But the overall testimony of the Bible is very different from that of rabbinic Judaism. While Rabbinic Judaism has problems to pronounce the Divine Name of the God of Israel, it has no problem pronouncing the names of other gods, it is unthinkable that they would say the Name of the Almighty, thereby doing and teaching the exact opposite of the Torah, Prophets and Writings. Although there is absolutely nothing wrong with calling God “HaShem”, “Adonai” or “Lord”, there is also no scriptural basis for the prohibition of calling God by His Name; YaHWeH. But because the rabbis say differently… you finish the sentence.

Importance of the oral law: Exodus 34:27



27. The Lord said to Moses: “Inscribe these words for yourself, for according to these words I have formed a covenant with you and with Israel.”


In my rebuttal on rabbi Tovia Singer on the oral law I referred to this verse and said that this verse, although being a clear declaration to the fact that the Written Torah is the entire basis for the Covenant on Mt Sinai, the Talmud manages to use this very verse as proof that God made His Covenant based on the oral law. Now the entire basis for this is the words that I’ve made red in the Hebrew text and the translation. The words “al pi” literally mean “on the mouth” but make no sense whatsoever when translated as such in this verse. The link is also made with the “Torah Sheba’al Peh” (Torah that is owned by mouth; oral law), which looks like this:



If we read the text, however, and we use the interpretation of the Talmud, the verse would say

Inscribe these words for yourself, for on the mouth of these words
I have formed a covenant with you and with Israel

How absurd this reading is! God is saying nothing else than that, according to these words Moses is told to write down, He has made a Covenant with Israel. This is all about the words Moses was to write down and how on earth should this be seen as solid proof that the oral law is the basis of the Covenant at Sinai. And, since rabbi Singer is strongly opposed to the New Testament not quoting entire verses and accused it of being deceitful for doing so, only half of this verse was quoted here, namely the part “for according to these words I have formed a covenant with you“. And by doing so, the Talmud tries to PROVE it’s point and is used to do so to support major doctrinal issues. Can you immagine rabbi Singer stumbling upon something like this in the New Testament? The words “skid marks” come to mind. Yet we have nothing of that about the Talmud, do we? Remember: double standards! Now this is THE verse in all of scripture that proves that there not only is an oral law, but that the oral law is the foundation of the covenant God made with Israel. And we find another astonishing statement in the Talmud:

“the Holy One, Blessed be He, did not make His covenant with Israel except by virtue of the Oral Law” (Gittin 60b)

Notice that there is NOTHING in the entire Tenach that supports this claim. In fact, every time the people mention the covenant that was made on Sinai they always refer to the BOOK of Moses. So we have here a word in Hebrew, al-pi, that means “in accordance” which is totally distorted to make it say that it refers to the oral law just to be able to endorse it. But the rabbis say it, so no ifs ands or buts, that’s what you do because it’s the absolute truth!