There are objections raised that are good and airtight, bad ones with no substance and flat out strange and seem to be only made by people for the sake of it.
As most know, Christians believe that Christ came to fulfill the Law that we couldn't and that he was the only one to carry it out perfectly.
However, one of the weirdest objections that has been asked of me by two Jews was "If Jesus fulfilled the Law, How did he fulfill the Laws pertaining to women?".
Well firstly, Christians sometimes throw the statement out without realising what they are saying.
Secondly, In Rabbinic Judaism, a man who keeps the Torah is considered tzadik or righteous, even though he doesn't keep the laws pertaining to women. He still fulfills the requirements given to him even if he doesn't do the ones that are specific to the woman and likewise with a woman not doing commands only given to men. The Torah as we know contains 613 laws, but there are specific Laws given to a specific gender, such as a woman cleansing herself of menstrual bleeding after childbirth or a man who needs to wash himself after being rendered unclean as a result of nocturnal emission.
Thirdly, Christ would have fulfilled the Laws pertaining to his gender i.e. male, thus he would be righteous and eligible in scripture to fulfill the Law on our behalf, EVEN IF HE DIDN'T CARRY OUT THE LAWS APPLICABLE ONLY TO WOMEN. I am not shouting here, I am simply emphasising a point.
To be honest, there are some objections that are just strange but nevertheless need putting down.
Thanks for reading.