Here are some more arguments by Yisroel Blumenthal that need addressing at this juncture. Let's carry on then.
" IV. 23. Page 215
Brown acknowledges that the written Torah standing on its own is inadequate to sustain the ongoing life of a people. The question that must then be asked is: How then did God, who presented the Law to Israel, expect it to be observed by all generations of Jews? (Numbers 15:37-41). If His Law is perfect, as Scripture attests (Psalm 19:8, then He would have had to provide, as an integral component of the original Law, some method of dealing with the ever-changing life of a nation. The only viable claim to possession of such a method is the claim of Rabbinic Judaism. There is no competing claim."
That begs the question Mr Blumenthal, How does one determine that the orah Torah goes back to Moshe? I find it strange that an oral Torah was codified after the time of Yeshua. I have been informed however that some Jews regard the Prophets (Nevim) and the Writings (Ketuvim) but I am not sure how they are classified as such. But I find it strange that the Talmud, the Orah Torah, was something that was later written down and not codified through the centuries until years after given at Sinai. It's a bit neat for reality. There is no doubt that general principles in the Torah can be carried out, like the principle of restitution after wrong doing, which is indeed biblical. Hmm, this is a tricky issue indeed.
"IV. 24. Page 215
Brown claims that Yeshua presented a “better way”, a method of observing God’s Law that is superior to the method presented by Rabbinic Judaism.
The test of history invalidates Brown’s claim. Yeshua’s way brought the Crusades, Inquisition and the perpetration of the holocaust unto his followers. Is this the “better way”?
Brown argues that “real” Christians love Jews, and I do not doubt that many Christians today sincerely do love the Jewish people. My question is as follows: Do the Christians today love the Jews more than Jesus and his apostles?
Most Christians would argue that Jesus was the epitome of love, and that their own love is only a mirror of Jesus’ love for Israel. If this premise is true (and I highly doubt it) then how can modern Christians be sure that their own grandchildren will not be killing Jews? If Jesus and Paul, who loved Israel more than modern Christians, and presumably who could see into the future with greater prophetic clarity than modern Christians, could not ensure that such atrocities will not be committed in their name – how then could modern day Christians be guaranteed that their own descendants will not commit atrocities in their name? And if you tell me that precautions are being taken that these atrocities not be repeated, then why could Jesus and Paul not take these same precautions?"
Throughout the subject of my writings, I have come across the constant reminder of atrocities in the name of Jesus. Jesus himself predicted that MANY would fall away from him and Paul even said that there are some who have departed from the Faith, found in Matthew 24:10 and 1 Timothy 4:1. Again, the idea that true Christians would dare commit the holocaust and other atrocities against the Jews is nonsense, the New Testament rejects the idea catergorically and I have to keep reminding Blumenthal of this. Revivals do not cause a permanent change, they allow a return to God and then for while apostatize again. It happened with the Jewish People in the TANAKH and it happened with the Church. It is a sad case but also inevitable because we are a fallen race. We don't know what the future holds, all we know is that not every Jew and Christian who has ever lived will be saved. Again I ask Blumenthal, Did those Christians who killed the Jews do what Jesus said? Yes or No?
"III. 26. Page 186
Brown talks of a “rapidly growing underground movement of Orthodox and Hasidic Jews” who believe in Jesus. Of-course since this imaginary movement is “underground”, Brown will not be able to supply us with names and addresses. He expects his readers to take his word for it."
Why should he? There are conversions to many faiths that happen without our knowledge and right under our noses.
"III. 27. Page 189
“Messianic prophecies are not clearly identified as such.”
This is amazing. Brown believes that the main purpose of the Jewish Bible is to predict the advent of the Messiah, yet the prophecies are not clearly identified?! And on what basis can he make such a preposterous statement? The prophets gave us a clear hope for Israel’s future. There are many prophecies in the Jewish Bible which clearly talk of the Messianic era, and of the Messiah. These include but are not limited to Numbers 24:14-19, Deuteronomy 4:30, 30:1-10, 32:43, Jeremiah 3:14-18, 16:14,15,19, 23:3-5, 30:3,7-11,16-25, 31:1-39, 32:37-44, 33:6-26, 46:27,28,50:4,5,19,20, Ezekiel 11;17-20, 17:22-24, 20:40-44, 28:24-26, 34:9-16,22-31, 36:6-16,22-38,37:1-28,38:1-48:35, Isaiah 1:26, 2:2-4, 4:2-6, 10:33-12:6, 24:21-25:9, 30:26, 34:1, 40:1-11,41:10-20, 43:5-10, 44:1-5 49:8-26, 51:11,22-52:12, 54:1-55:5, 56:7, 60:1-63:9, 65:17-25, 66:10-24, Hosea 2:1-3,16-25, Joel 3;1-5, 4:1-21, Amos 9:11-15, Obadiah 1;17-21, Micha 4:1-7, 5:1-13, 7:8-20, Zephaniah 3;9-20, Zechariah 2:9, 8:2-8, 14:3-21, Malachi 3:4,16-24, Psalms 51:20,21, 69:36,37, 98:1-3, 102:14-23, 126:1-6, Daniel 2;44, 7:18,22,27, 12:2,3, Can anyone question the fact that these prophecies are the hope and promise of Israel’s glorious future? How can Brown say that messianic prophecies are not clearly identified? More important is the question; Why does Brown say that the messianic prophecies are not clearly identified? The obvious answer to this question is that Brown never seems to have approached scripture with an open mind. It seems that he never asked himself; What would a Jew before Jesus’ times have believed about the Messianic era? What would scripture have taught him about the Messiah? Who and what does God encourage us to hope for? Had Brown asked himself these basic questions, he would have realized that the scriptures are very clear on these issues. The problem is that Brown started the other way. He first came to believe in Jesus. He then looked back into the Jewish scriptures and tried to understand Jesus’ claim that the prophets predicted his coming. Things tend to get quite murky if you read the book that way. When Brown tells us that Messianic prophecies are not clearly identified as such, he is admitting that the preconceived notions of Christianity cannot be readily seen in the Bible."
How do we know what is and what isn't Messianic? That is what Brown has often said in his debates with late Rabbis David Blumofe and Immanuel Schochet that it comes down to interpretation of the passages to determine what passage is Messianic or not. That is the ultimate question, The nature of the Messiah and what his mission would entail.
"IV. 2. Objection 5.9
Brown addresses the question of the “virgin birth” of Jesus. How could anyone know if this event ever happened? Aside from Mary herself, no one could verify this event. This fundamental of the Christian faith stands of the testimony of one woman who has every reason in the world to lie – if she ever actually claimed a “virgin birth”."
But for what reason would she lie? Also, How does he know ONLY Mary saw it, Joseph witnessed it as well. But certainly I am happy to set up a page where many people can talk this issue out. There are two options, Either the angel who came to her was telling the truth, or he set up a satanic deception. I am inclined to think it was the former.
"IV. 3. Objection 5.11
Brown discusses the Jewish objection that argues that if Joseph was not Jesus’ biological father, then Jesus was not a descendant of David on his father’s side. This tells us that Jesus could not be the Jewish Messiah. According to the Jewish Scriptures, the Messiah must be a descendant of David from his father’s side.
Brown responds on behalf of Christianity: “Obviously, you don’t believe in the virgin birth, otherwise you would not be raising this objection.”
Here Brown tries to obfuscate the issue with irrelevant witticism. Of-course we do not believe in the virgin birth, but how does this relate to the objection at hand? Christians acknowledge that Jesus’ mother did not claim that her son’s father was a descendant of David. This simple fact disqualifies him from being the Jewish Messiah. The fact that Mary gave us a fantastic story concerning her son’s conception does nothing to change this basic fact. Unless a woman points to a man who is a descendant of Judah as her son’s father, then by Torah law, this child does not belong to the tribe of Judah. If no man from the House of David steps forth and claims to be the father of a given child, then this child has no claim to the Davidic throne."
I have written on the subject of the genealogy issue in three articles under the banner of "Rabbinic Dilemma 101". The next point that Blumenthal raises has to do with tribal lineage coming through the woman, which I do disagree with Brown on. However I contend the virgin birth would not disqualify Jesus, which I explain in the following articles:
I leave you all, including Blumenthal to judge my words on these pages.
I'll address more points in the future if the Lord Wills me to do so.