Friday, 19 September 2014

Importance of learning

It has been some time since I have listened or read what counter missionaries have had to say but I am familar with some but not every counter missionary. Specific ones include Yisroel Blumenthal, Tovia Singer, Eli Cohen, Moshe Shulman, Tzvi Jacobson etc. I don't spend all my time listening to counter missionaries but I have looked at some of their material.

I need to get back into listening to some more if the Lord Wills.

I need to be very clear that if one desires to be an apologist, he needs to listen to the other side. But even then, we need to be grounded in the TANAKH and the NT so that we are not lead astray by falsehood and can hold onto the truth.

I am happy to learn from Jews and get a better understanding of what they believe rather than strawman what they were saying. Speaking even with Jews gets me thinking about what they are saying and to see if that fits with both scriptures

Let us pray that the Father preserves us through his Son via his Spirit. Let the Triune God preserve us forever.

Answering Judaism.


  1. The rabbis have a different view of study than the rest of the world does. Most of us think of study as something to finish so we can get it out of the way. The rabbis think of study as the main thing, and would ideally prefer if they could study Talmudic law 24/7. Of course, life gets in the way of that, but there is a goal of maximizing study time. Any activity that wastes time that could be spent studying is called "bitul Torah" or nullification of Torah. This is why Jewish culture produces so many Nobel prize winners. I hope that Christian apologists can learn something from this paradigm.

    If you need ideas for a series, I have been thinking about all the rabbis who give talks titled: "Why Jews Don't Believe in Jesus." How about a series called "Why Christians Don't Believe in Rabbinic Tradition"

  2. Hey Drew I've been looking for you! This is Yehuda Yisrael. I've been reading your blog for quite some time and I must say, your arguments for jesus are quite weak! I challenge you to refute this argument. Note that it is not a linguistic argument, but a contextual one.

    I will now demonstrate how the "virgin birth" that matthew speaks of is a lie...Isaiah never made such a prophesy!

    The birth of Isaiah’s child was clearly the fulfillment of the sign prophesied in Isaiah 7:14-16. How do I know this? Isaiah tells us himself! Lets look at these verses

    Isaiah 7:14. Therefore, the Lord, of His own, shall give you a sign; behold, the young woman is with child, and she shall bear a son, and she shall call his name Immanuel.

    Isaiah 7:15. Cream and honey he shall eat when he knows to reject bad and choose good.

    Isaiah 7:16. For, when the lad does not yet know to reject bad and choose good, the land whose two kings you dread, shall be abandoned.”

    Keep verse 16 in mind. It is crucial to the context of Isaiah. Now, lets look at the next chapter of Isaiah and see what he has to say:

    Isaiah 8:3. And I was intimate with the prophetess, and she conceived, and she bore a son, and the Lord said to me, “Call his name Maher-shalal-hash-baz.

    Isaiah 8:4. For, when the lad does not yet know to call, ‘Father’ and ‘mother,’ the wealth of Damascus and the plunder of Samaria shall be carried off before the king of Assyria.”

    Well what do you know! Isaiah said a young woman would give birth to a child and in the very next chapter his wife has a son! Prophesy fulfilled! The interesting thing about it is that Isaiah explicitly says he was intimate with her. This means that this "alma" described in Isaiah 7:14 is Isaiah's wife. Morever, she is not a virgin! Thus, the word "alma" does not exclusively refer to women who are virgins! Isaiah says it himself!

    And if you are still not convinced, here's a direct statement from Isaiah saying his sons are signs:

    Isaiah 8:18. Behold, I and the children whom the Lord gave me for signs and for tokens in Israel, from the Lord of Hosts, Who dwells on Mount Zion.

    The natural birth of Isaiah's son was the fulfillment of the sign of Isaiah 7:14, namely that his wife would give birth to a son, and that before he knew the difference between good and evil/father and mother, "the wealth of Damascus and the plunder of Samaria shall be carried off before the king of Assyria."And if you are going to whine that Isaiah's son was not called "Immanuel directly," I will kindly point out to you that your jesus was never called "Immanuel" by his mother either, so you would be setting a double standard, as Isaiah states that the mother of this child will call him "Immanuel."

    If you are going to argue that this is a "dual fulfillment" regarding Matthew's application of this to the supposed virgin birth of jesus, you will have to concede that the word "alma" does not exclusively refer to a virgin, as I have demonstrated above. In any case, this prophesy clearly has nothing to do with jesus...

    Shalom and G-d bless!

  3. Well, that last paragraph contradicts itself. If the prophecy is a double fulfillment, then it clearly does have something to do with Jesus! Regarding the subject of Isaiah 7:14, you forget Isaiah 8:8, which states that the river "will sweep on into Judah, it will overflow and pass on, reaching even to the neck, and its outspread wings will fill the breadth of your land, O Immanuel."

    The land didn't belong to Isaiah or his son Maher-shalal-hash-baz. So whose was it? The oracle was also not addressed to the king. Only God can be the one addressed as Immanuel, and yet God is the one speaking here. So not only do we have evidence that Immanuel is God himself, but of the complex unity of God in a single, short passage.

  4. Drew, you're grasping for straws. My last paragraph doesn't contradict itself. It is stating that if you assume a "dual prophesy," then the whole "alma must refer to a virgin" argument falls flat on its face! This shows lack of exclusivity to the nature of the word "alma" and demystifies the christian obsession with the birth needing to be "miraculous" in order to see fulfillment. You are backed into a corner and you must concede that the word "alma" does not refer to virginity of a woman!

    And wow Drew...You've really taken it to a whole new level of absurdity and double standards. Was the land jesus's land? Did jesus ever rule as king in the land of Israel? Does G-d say that he is synonymous with "Immanuel" anywhere in the passage?

    I think even you realize the absurdity of your argument Drew. I think it's time for you to throw in the towel on this one.

    Shana Tova Umetuka!