Monday 28 April 2014

Comments on more Rabbinic Objections

While commenting on Eli Cohen's facebook on a point raised by Messiah Truth Administrator Sophiee Saguy, I had a point raised to me by another Jewish person who gave me the following point:
"The NT is addition and subtraction to what was given at Sinai; Heb. 8:13 States the Torah is obsolete & vanishing away; Romans 10:4 States xrist is an end to the Torah; 2nd Cor. 3:13-16 States you are blinded by the mere reading of it; Col. 2:14 States the Torah is contrary to us, and that jezus took it from before us; nailing it to the cross; Gal. 3:23-26 States you cannot obtain righteousness by the Torah; that only b faith in jezus can you be found. Righteous; in stark contrast; G-D States his Torah is forever for all generation's ; in Jer. 31:35 G-D States his Torah shall never depart from before Israel; Psalms 19:8-15 States the Torah is perfect; restoring the soul."

Let's go through these texts one by one and see if they stand up to scrutiny.

Firstly I'll look at Psalm 19.
"Psalm 19:7 The law of the Lord is perfect,
    refreshing the soul.
The statutes of the Lord are trustworthy,
    making wise the simple.
8 The precepts of the Lord are right,
    giving joy to the heart.
The commands of the Lord are radiant,
    giving light to the eyes.
9 The fear of the Lord is pure,
    enduring forever.
The decrees of the Lord are firm,
    and all of them are righteous.
10 They are more precious than gold,
    than much pure gold;
they are sweeter than honey,
    than honey from the honeycomb.
11 By them your servant is warned;
    in keeping them there is great reward.
12 But who can discern their own errors?
    Forgive my hidden faults.
13 Keep your servant also from willful sins;
    may they not rule over me.
Then I will be blameless,
    innocent of great transgression.
14 May these words of my mouth and this meditation of my heart
    be pleasing in your sight,
    Lord, my Rock and my Redeemer."

Psalm 19 doesn't speak of the Torah bringing righteousness, but rather it speaks of living a healthier and happier life in light of keeping Gods commands. If one has a clean conscience, he is bound to be on the whole happier and healthier than those with a guilty conscience.

In terms of saving you from your wretchedness, the Torah cannot do that and points you to Christ, who can make you righteous.

It is one thing to keep the Torah out of gratitude, because you love God and what he has done but its another matter to say that Torah can grant a legal declaration of justification before a holy God.

The next point is Colossians 2:14.
"Colossians 2:3 When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made you[d] alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins, 14 having canceled the charge of our legal indebtedness, which stood against us and condemned us; he has taken it away, nailing it to the cross. 15 And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross.[e]

16 Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. 17 These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ. 18 Do not let anyone who delights in false humility and the worship of angels disqualify you. Such a person also goes into great detail about what they have seen; they are puffed up with idle notions by their unspiritual mind. 19 They have lost connection with the head, from whom the whole body, supported and held together by its ligaments and sinews, grows as God causes it to grow."

The written code is not referring to the law, it is referring to the debt of sin that we owe that has been paid. In the next chapter it talks about what we should abstain from, namely immoral passions. No where does it say the Torah is contrary to us.

I have also written on the issue of whether Gentiles are to observe certain ordinances of the Torah in this article here:

In 2 Corinthians 3:13-16, We read the following:
"2 Corinthians 3:12 Therefore, since we have such a hope, we are very bold. 13 We are not like Moses, who would put a veil over his face to prevent the Israelites from seeing the end of what was passing away. 14 But their minds were made dull, for to this day the same veil remains when the old covenant is read. It has not been removed, because only in Christ is it taken away. 15 Even to this day when Moses is read, a veil covers their hearts. 16 But whenever anyone turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away. 17 Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. 18 And we all, who with unveiled faces contemplate[a] the Lord’s glory, are being transformed into his image with ever-increasing glory, which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit."

Paul is not saying you are blinded by reading the Torah, he is commenting on the spiritual state of Jews who deny Jesus who read the Torah in the synagogue. He is making a point that despite possessing the Torah, they cannot see Jesus in the scripture due to being spiritually blind.

Hebrews 8:13 actually says the OLD COVENANT is passing away or rather fulfilled, it is NOT talking about the Torah. Even if it was speaking about the Torah, it is talking about it's fulfillment and thus has completed it's task.

Romans 10:4 refers to Jesus as the "telos", which depending on context can either refer to END or GOAL.
"10 Brothers and sisters, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for the Israelites is that they may be saved. 2 For I can testify about them that they are zealous for God, but their zeal is not based on knowledge. 3 Since they did not know the righteousness of God and sought to establish their own, they did not submit to God’s righteousness. 4 Christ is the culmination of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes.

5 Moses writes this about the righteousness that is by the law: “The person who does these things will live by them.”[a] 6 But the righteousness that is by faith says: “Do not say in your heart, ‘Who will ascend into heaven?’”[b] (that is, to bring Christ down) 7 “or ‘Who will descend into the deep?’”[c] (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead). 8 But what does it say? “The word is near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart,”[d] that is, the message concerning faith that we proclaim: 9 If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved. 11 As Scripture says, “Anyone who believes in him will never be put to shame.”[e] 12 For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile—the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, 13 for, “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”[f]"

Christ is referred to as the goal that the Torah was pointing to and that he has brought about righteousness to those who would believe on him.

I am not sure what is being said about Jeremiah 31:35, unless verse 36 is being referred to:
"36 “Only if these decrees vanish from my sight,”
    declares the Lord,
“will Israel ever cease
    being a nation before me.”"

The decrees mentioned refer to what YHWH states in Jeremiah 31 as a whole, including the promise of the New Covenant. What YHWH says goes and he doesn't go back on his word. He is saying his decrees stand forever and that as a result, Israel will never vanish off the face of the earth. He is faithful to his promises and decrees, even if Israel is not faithful. If his decrees are false, then Israel would cease to exist and the fact the Jews still exist to this day, is a testimony to the fact that YHWH doesn't lie. He is not speaking on the Torah in this particular verse. Though the law is mentioned in passing, it's the decrees of God that aren't vanishing in the context.

Hope this helps.

Answering Judaism.

Sunday 27 April 2014

Comments on anissueof ursincerity and droptozro's points

I had done a video on the Shema based on two articles I had written:
droptozro had commented on another video I did and he and I engaged in a discussion about the Shema and he responded to the video and then I responded back to his points here:

I found it amazing the assumption on the part of Unitarians regarding the Shema that they believe it refutes the Trinity, when as a matter of fact, it does NO such thing and doesn't speak on the nature of God to begin with.

Another Unitarian idolater by the name of anissueof ursincerity who has commented in the past, had raised some points, but unfortunately doesn't address my arguments.

The trinity affirms that God is three, trinity, three.
However, the Bible, as in the Shema, affirms God one.
That satisfies me.  Fortunately not being Trinitarian I don't have to twist myself into a pretzel to place a bizarre theory ahead of the plain text.
Hide replies

Trinitarians believe that God is one, you missed the entire point of my video and straw manned the Trinitarian position.
You assume the Shema is unitarian, when it doesn't speak of God's nature, but how many Gods there are i.e "Hear o Israel the LORD our God is ONE".

The Shema doesn't prove your position, nor mine.
Show less

Trinitarians assert God is one, they also assert God is Trinity; a trinity is three.
The Bible never states God is three,
However, it does, notably in the Shema,
state God is one.
I have no trouble accepting that.
My attitude epitomizes the absence of assumption.  You are making note of what it says then barreling on beyond it to arrive where you wanted to regardless.
Show less

+anissueof ursincerity One what? The Shema doesn't speak on persons and how many there are, that's merely conjecture and assumption on your part. If you have no problem with the statement God is one, what does the statement actually mean? Does it pertain to how many persons of God there are? Or does it simply emphasise that YHWH is the only God? It's the latter in light of the context of the TANAKH and the NT.

If you want to assert it refers to how many persons there are, It leaves us at a standstill, because of the debatable meaning of the word Echad. Both sides can quivel about whether it is singular or plural, but that doesn't go anywhere.
Show less

This is what I have:
I have the Bible/the Shema/Jesus (to the scribe) affirming God is one.
This is what I do not have:
The Bible/the Shema/Jesus/Tanakh/NT
affirming God is three.
I only have "one" ascribed to God.
I do not have "three" ascribed to God.
I am moved by Jesus words to the scribe,
and I choose to worship the God whom Jesus worshipped.
You are invited to do the same.
Show less

+anissueof ursincerity Trinitarians, again, say God is one and subscribe to the Shema. Again, you haven't addressed my points and interacted with them, you have tap-danced around them.
My point is simple regarding the Shema. In it's context, it only talks about how many Gods there are, not how many persons make up the one God.

Here is the Shema in context:
"6 These are the commands, decrees and laws the Lord your God directed me to teach you to observe in the land that you are crossing the Jordan to possess, 2 so that you, your children and their children after them may fear the Lord your God as long as you live by keeping all his decrees and commands that I give you, and so that you may enjoy long life. 3 Hear, Israel, and be careful to obey so that it may go well with you and that you may increase greatly in a land flowing with milk and honey, just as the Lord, the God of your ancestors, promised you.

4 Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one.[a] 5 Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength. 6 These commandments that I give you today are to be on your hearts. 7 Impress them on your children. Talk about them when you sit at home and when you walk along the road, when you lie down and when you get up. 8 Tie them as symbols on your hands and bind them on your foreheads. 9 Write them on the doorframes of your houses and on your gates.

10 When the Lord your God brings you into the land he swore to your fathers, to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, to give you—a land with large, flourishing cities you did not build, 11 houses filled with all kinds of good things you did not provide, wells you did not dig, and vineyards and olive groves you did not plant—then when you eat and are satisfied, 12 be careful that you do not forget the Lord, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery.

13 Fear the Lord your God, serve him only and take your oaths in his name. 14 Do not follow other gods, the gods of the peoples around you; 15 for the Lord your God, who is among you, is a jealous God and his anger will burn against you, and he will destroy you from the face of the land. 16 Do not put the Lord your God to the test as you did at Massah. 17 Be sure to keep the commands of the Lord your God and the stipulations and decrees he has given you. 18 Do what is right and good in the Lord’s sight, so that it may go well with you and you may go in and take over the good land the Lord promised on oath to your ancestors, 19 thrusting out all your enemies before you, as the Lord said."

Trinitarians DO affirm that God is one, and there is no other but he. Any time a Unitarian says "Oh you guys believe God is three but the Bible says God is one thus the Trinity is false" do the two following points:
1. Strawman the Trinity
2. Miss the entire point of the Shema completely

Also, Unitarians have to deal with John 1:1*, Philippians 2:5-11, Revelation 1:17-18, Revelation 2:8-11, Revelation 22:12-17 and other passages demonstrating Christ's deity.

I can only see Unitarian Christians as pagans and idolaters masquerading as Christians. If you want to argue Jesus only worshipped the Father (which he did) disproves the Trinity, then you NO understanding of the Trinity at all. Jesus worshipping the Father doesn't falsify the Trinity, quite to the contrary it is part and parcel of the Trinity. You have one member of the Godhead worshipping and glorying the other.

To also respond to a point made a while back by droptozro which can be found here as well as the entire conversation that transpired:

"Last.. you are completely illogical in claiming you don't have to face whether or not you or Jesus is an idolator.  You must not actually be reading my comments, because you denied the "false" dilemma and then fell right back into it when you said my "unitarianism" is idolatrous.  

See this is the humorous part you haven't seemed to face.  Jesus... is a unitarian(if we use that word to mean a 'one-person God').  Jesus is not and was not a trinitarian.  His God was not a 3 person God.  So as you rather humorously call me an idolator--you are calling Jesus an idolator.  So you've clearly made your choice.  I hope you repent and face that fact---you've got to call Jesus an idolator if the trinity is true.  This is completely consistent because I have the same God as Jesus, the Father alone."

If the Trinity is true, I don't have to call Jesus an idolater, here's why.

Jesus worshipping the Father is RIGHT and proper. The Trinitarian position takes this into consideration, but also recognises that Jesus demands such devotion of his own followers, plus there are also the texts from John, Philippians and Revelation which I have mentioned where Jesus is identified as God AND NOT in the sense of how Moses was called God in Exodus 7. The possible exceptions being Psalm 45 and possibly Isaiah 9:6.

In what sense Jesus would be not a Trinitarian? If one means in the sense he doesn't worship One God in Three Persons, then that is understandable, but that wouldn't logically cause Jesus to be idolatrous.

For the Christian however this is different, considering the points I have stated above, Christians have no choice to acknowledge Christ as a member of the Trinity and acknowledge there is One God in Three Persons, with Jesus being the Second Person of the Trinity. Furthermore, Jesus does call for prayer to himself:

"John 14:9 Jesus answered: “Don’t you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? 10 Don’t you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you I do not speak on my own authority. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work. 11 Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the works themselves. 12 Very truly I tell you, whoever believes in me will do the works I have been doing, and they will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father. 13 And I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. 14 You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it."

This doesn't mean you bring a request to Jesus and he simply goes to the Father with your request, though that is possible. Jesus actually asserts that if you ASK HIM in his name, HE WILL DO IT. He could only answer prayers if he is omnipresent, an attribute that belongs to God alone and certainly is not a trait that a mere man or angel or divine creature who is less than God possesses. Even though the word me is a later addition, it is inferred that Jesus still honours the request presented..

So again, I can safely condemn droptozro, anissueof ursincerity and other Unitarians without condemning Jesus. It is a false dilemma from droptozro that is being presented and all it does show is that he is guilty of the very thing he accuses Trintarians of, namely idolatry.

Answering Judaism.

10th of February 2020. See the following information on John 1:1: It is very important regarding the Jehovah's Witnesses arguments regarding John 1:1.

Did Jesus forgive without a sacrifice?

Sami Zaatari, the writer of Muslim has in the past tried to imply by misrepresenting Sam Shamoun (Shamoun corrects that misrepresentation of his words here: and even Rabbinic Jews have tried to say that due to Jesus forgiving people, such as the paralysed man and the woman caught in adultery, it stands to reason that Hebrews 9:22 is refuted by Jesus and that blood isn't required.

This is to be honest a dishonest and a blatantly deceptive assertion to make.

Those who make this argument fail to mention the following facts whenever they raise this objection.

Considering the Mosaic Law was in effect when Jesus was on earth, when he forgave someone, it should be noted that the person would have made an offering at the temple for their guilt. Although adultery was a capital offence, it should also be taken into consideration that the woman was let off with a warning and also note the Pharisees did not bring the adulterer as well which is required in Deuteronomy 22:22
"22 If a man is found sleeping with another man’s wife, both the man who slept with her and the woman must die. You must purge the evil from Israel."

The offerings that were made at the temple in the time of Jesus and were effective until his death on the cross, which is when he ultimately pays for the persons iniquities and then "by his stripes we are healed" (Isaiah 53:5). These points are often overlooked when this objection is presented and is a deceptive mishandling of the NT text.

Also, in my response to Rabbi Eli Cohen on Blood Atonement I have said the following:
"Next, Cohen goes on to speak about the first temple's destruction and what to do if temple sacrifices are not able to be carried out due to exile. What are they to do he asks? Also, he asked "How did Daniel have his sins forgiven". Well, the NT provides the answer that the lamb was SLAIN BEFORE THE FOUNDATION OF THE WORD (Revelation 13:8), not to mention when you Read Romans 4, Abraham was saved as a result of his faith, it was credited to him as rightousness. 

Hebrews 11 comments on the faith of the OT saints that they were commended for and that they had not recieved the promise since something else had been planned, Namely our redemption in the Messiah. Daniel was saved by his faith in the coming of the Messiah. William Lane Craig provided a response to Tovia Singer regarding how the OT saints were saved without knowledge of the Trinity (which does tie in with Daniel being covered by Christ's atonement). Lane Craig said:
"They're saved by responding to the revelation that God had given to them, and if they respond in an appropriate way, Then according to the NT, God applies to them the benefits of Christ's atoning death, so they are saved through Christ even though they have no conscious knowledge of Christ,because they respond to the revelation that God has given to them".
So the point about Daniel having no atonement and only had prayer in the context of Daniel 9, is a moot point. 

Don't forget also Daniel recieves a vision of the 70 weeks found in Daniel 9:24-27 about the anointed one who is cut off and as Christians will assert refers to Jesus being cut off at Mt Golgotha or Calvary. I won't be speaking on the nature of Daniel 9:24-27 since that isn't the focus."

Hopefully this article has been a blessing to you.

Answering Judaism.

Friday 25 April 2014

Comments on Deuteronomy 30:1-14

There are some comments in this article that I want to articulate and bring to the table with respect to this passage.

"30 When all these blessings and curses I have set before you come on you and you take them to heart wherever the Lord your God disperses you among the nations, 2 and when you and your children return to the Lord your God and obey him with all your heart and with all your soul according to everything I command you today, 3 then the Lord your God will restore your fortunes[a] and have compassion on you and gather you again from all the nations where he scattered you. 4 Even if you have been banished to the most distant land under the heavens, from there the Lord your God will gather you and bring you back. 5 He will bring you to the land that belonged to your ancestors, and you will take possession of it. He will make you more prosperous and numerous than your ancestors. 6 The Lord your God will circumcise your hearts and the hearts of your descendants, so that you may love him with all your heart and with all your soul, and live. 7 The Lord your God will put all these curses on your enemies who hate and persecute you. 8 You will again obey the Lord and follow all his commands I am giving you today. 9 Then the Lord your God will make you most prosperous in all the work of your hands and in the fruit of your womb, the young of your livestock and the crops of your land. The Lord will again delight in you and make you prosperous, just as he delighted in your ancestors, 10 if you obey the Lord your God and keep his commands and decrees that are written in this Book of the Law and turn to the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul.

11 Now what I am commanding you today is not too difficult for you or beyond your reach. 12 It is not up in heaven, so that you have to ask, “Who will ascend into heaven to get it and proclaim it to us so we may obey it?” 13 Nor is it beyond the sea, so that you have to ask, “Who will cross the sea to get it and proclaim it to us so we may obey it?” 14 No, the word is very near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart so you may obey it."

It had come to my attention that this passage is seen as a Messianic passage by the some of the counter-missionaries and of course even by some of the Jews who are more of the lay apologist. I say lay apologist in the sense that they aren't counter missionaries, but nevertheless will not hesitate to tackle Christian objections.

To the best of my knowledge, I was informed that Deuteronomy 30 in question speaks of the circumcision of the heart, much like Jeremiah and takes place after the exile.

Yisroel Blumenthal in the Elephant and the Suit articulates what Deuteronomy 30:1-10 refers to with respect to the New Covenant. Here is part of what he said:
"This passage in Deuteronomy clearly teaches that Israel’s repentance is the precursor of the Messianic age, this passage teaches that repentance is efficacious while Israel is still in exile, and this passage clearly teaches that the Law of Moses, as Moses taught it, is going to be observed in the Messianic era. Each of these issues is central to the debate between Judaism and Christianity." (Yisroel Blumenthal: My apologies if I misunderstood your points Rabbi Blumenthal.

Yehuda Yisrael also believes Ezekiel 36 refers to the New Covenant in the following video he made in response to Michael Brown ( This is relevant because it ties in with the timing of the New Covenant inauguration and connects back to the inauguration in Deuteronomy 30.

I also later enquired as to what Yehuda's position was on the subject of Deuteronomy 30 and Ezekiel 36 on the video in the comments. This is what was said:

So I get clarification Yehuda, Are you saying that Deuteronomy 30 and Ezekiel 36 refer to the Messianic era? I remember you and I spoke on this with each other on Paltalk about that briefly and you mentioned when the circumcision would take place.

Yes they refer to the Messianic Era. Neither passage says anything about "the circumcision of the heart" aka the New Covenant, occurring before the ingathering of the exiles. This flies in the face of Dr. Brown's false assertion that the New Covenant/the Messiah had to be made before the destruction of the of the Holy Temple. Clearly, it's the other way around!

+Yehuda Yisrael I see, thanks for the clarification.

There is also Christian exegesis that Deuteronomy 30 does refer to the New Covenant, with obvious differences to the points made by Rabbinic Jews.Such an example can be found in Adam Clarke's own commentary on this text:
"Verse 6
God will circumcise thine heart - This promise remains yet to be fulfilled. Their heart, as a people, has never yet been circumcised; nor have the various promises in this chapter been ever yet fulfilled. There remaineth, therefore, a rest for this people of God. Now, as the law, properly speaking, made no provision for the circumcision of the heart, which implies the remission of sins, and purification of the soul from all unrighteousness; and as circumcision itself was only a sign of spiritual good, consequently the promise here refers to the days of the Messiah, and to this all the prophets and all the apostles give witness: “for circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter,” Romans 2:29; and the genuine followers of God are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands - by the circumcision of Christ,” Colossians 2:11, Colossians 2:12. Hence we see these promises cannot be fulfilled to the Jews but in their embracing the Gospel of Christ. To look, therefore, for their restoration is idle and nugatory, while their obstinacy and unbelief remain." (

There are other points he makes on the passage, but I leave you guys to look at his words and judge them, as you are to judge mine.

A point I propose on Deuteronomy 30. There are two exiles which ended with the ingathering of the people themselves, Which exile does this New Covenent take place before or after? The return before the first exile after Solomon's apostasy, or the second exile from Jerusalem in AD70?  The circumcision of the heart and the New Covenant wasn't instigated immediately after the first exile had taken place when the Jews returned to the land of Israel but certainly they were gathered in the Land before the destruction of the second temple and the second exile had taken place some 40 years after the time of Jesus.

Ezekiel 36 mentions the following:
"24 “‘For I will take you out of the nations; I will gather you from all the countries and bring you back into your own land. 25 I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your impurities and from all your idols. 26 I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. 27 And I will put my Spirit in you and move you to follow my decrees and be careful to keep my laws. 28 Then you will live in the land I gave your ancestors; you will be my people, and I will be your God. 29 I will save you from all your uncleanness. I will call for the grain and make it plentiful and will not bring famine upon you. 30 I will increase the fruit of the trees and the crops of the field, so that you will no longer suffer disgrace among the nations because of famine. 31 Then you will remember your evil ways and wicked deeds, and you will loathe yourselves for your sins and detestable practices. 32 I want you to know that I am not doing this for your sake, declares the Sovereign Lord. Be ashamed and disgraced for your conduct, people of Israel!"

The Jews were in Babylon at this point after being banished from the Land of Israel and their restoration is promised to them, not because of anything they have done, but to have YHWH show his glory to the nations. Sure enough the Jews themselves were brought back to the Land and were allowed to dwell there and build the temple under Zerubabbel's direction, when he was anointed by God to build it.

Now the question is, When did the circumcision of the heart take place? Well in the mid 30s of the first century, The Lord's Supper is the first step, then along comes Jesus' atonement and then there is the taking out the heart of stone and being given a heart of flesh as found in Jeremiah 31:31-34. I have also spoken on Jeremiah 31:31-34 in my response to Asher Meza on a video he did on the New Covenant which can be found here:

I have also written on the subject of what will transpire in the Messianic era with respect to the New Testament and what will happen in the end times. This can be found in Contra Blumenthal here:

Read the section "Role of the Temple in the Messianic era" where I articulate my position.

Another point raised by Rabbinic Jews is the claim that Deuteronomy 30:10-14 refutes the notion that only Jesus could fulfill the Law.

One article I thoroughly recommend on this issue is this article done by Society of Evangelical Arminians, which has an interesting perspective on this particular passage, as Paul quotes part of Deuteronomy 9 and 30 in Romans 10. This is some of what they have said:
"Paul’s quotation of Deuteronomy 30 is on point, because Deuteronomy 30 is not about earning life through the law, but rather God’s promise to give Israel the land and His graciously enabling them to obey and remain in the land.  Theologically, the law brings frustration and fear to unbelievers who cannot obey, but to believers it reminds us of God’s grace and promises.  If we obey, we gain assurance of eternal life.  If we disobey, it points us to Christ, to whom all true believers will turn. " (

Hope this article helps.

Answering Judaism.

17th of Feburary 2015 edit. PS. Lay apologist refers to Jews I have encountered on Facebook. Some have their own YouTube accounts.

Some Jews I have spoken to are not apologists in the sense that they go out and do apologetics, but their foundation in Judaism is strong so they could have the potential to be in the apologetics field, in light of the fact their Rabbis have prepared them to answer Christians like me and our points we make.

Does Micah 6 refute Jesus?

I want to take a look at what Micah 6:1-8 and examine it:
"6 Listen to what the Lord says:

“Stand up, plead my case before the mountains;
    let the hills hear what you have to say.
2 “Hear, you mountains, the Lord’s accusation;
    listen, you everlasting foundations of the earth.
For the Lord has a case against his people;
    he is lodging a charge against Israel.
3 “My people, what have I done to you?
    How have I burdened you? Answer me.
4 I brought you up out of Egypt
    and redeemed you from the land of slavery.
I sent Moses to lead you,
    also Aaron and Miriam.
5 My people, remember
    what Balak king of Moab plotted
    and what Balaam son of Beor answered.
Remember your journey from Shittim to Gilgal,
    that you may know the righteous acts of the Lord.”
6 With what shall I come before the Lord
    and bow down before the exalted God?
Shall I come before him with burnt offerings,
    with calves a year old?
7 Will the Lord be pleased with thousands of rams,
    with ten thousand rivers of olive oil?
Shall I offer my firstborn for my transgression,
    the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul?
8 He has shown you, O mortal, what is good.
    And what does the Lord require of you?
To act justly and to love mercy
    and to walk humbly[a] with your God."

As mentioned in a previous article that I have written, the reason the Lord was displeased with the sacrifices was because the people were delibrately abusing the sacrificial system so they could live in sin. The sacrifices were rendered unacceptable because there was no repentance accompanying them. Without repentance, a sacrifice is useless, which even the New Testament and the Talmud affirm.

Secondly, Micah asks if HE shall offer his firstborn for his transgression and the answer is that he will not do so. However, what most fail to mention is that the text doesn't refute the notion of God the Father sending his Son to atone for the sins of Israel. Micah is simply pointing out "What makes you think that God is pleased with the sacrifices you offer? You live in sin, Your sacrifices are pointless because you are not taking God seriously and you are deliberately abusing his mercy."

What astonishes me is when this passage is quoted and most fail to mention who is actually speaking in the passage itself. YHWH speaks from verse 1-5 and then Micah speaks from 6-8. Nothing in the passages suggests Jesus cannot be sent as a means of atoning for us, which is what he came to do in such places as Isaiah 53.

Answering Judaism.

Thursday 24 April 2014

Response to droptozro

More arguments have been presented to me by droptzro and I hope to address them adequately and biblically.

"Sorry, your entire argument went down the tube when you claimed "echad" can mean plural oneness in context.  That's patently false, and you need to check your Lexicons.

This is just bad grammar.  Adam and Eve being united as one, doesn't mean "one" is now "two."  One is still one, this is the semantic domain of the word.  You're not understanding the point of an adjective or in this context, a metaphorical use of one.  That would actually destroy the trinity because you're not claiming the 3 are metaphorically one, or you'd not really have "one God."  The one temple having many parts doesn't make "one" into "many" either.  I submit you need to go learn your basic grammar again.

"one temple"

"one" is an adjective describing how many TEMPLES there are....nothing more, nothing less.   If there were 5,000 pieces to the temple, "one" does not now mean "5000."  This is horridly bad grammar.   It's akin to exactly what Buzzard says, if I have "one Zebra," I don't have now a "one" that means "black and white" or a "one" that means 4 because Zebra's have 4 legs.  You're bleeding the meaning of the words which the adjective "one" modifies INTO the word "one."  Take your argument to an actual seasoned linguist if you still cannot understand this... it's actually quite simple, but you've made it difficult for yourself with the rambling.

Thanks for mentioning me, but you are denying some very serious problems."

Though I said echad can be used in plural or singular depending on context, my argument was not echad is plural in the Shema, my argument was that echad is singular and only talks about how many Gods there are, not how many persons make up the one God. My point is the Shema cannot be used as a proof text for the Trinity or against it. The direction to the Lexicon doesn't shoot me in the foot in light of what I have said regarding Echad being singular in the Shema.

"One, Jesus is a Jew, under the Jewish Levitical Law at that time.  You're denying historical context.  It's well known that Jews are unitarians, and at that time were definitely unitarians.  Jesus is not just quoting Deut 6:4, he's required to KEEP that command.  That YHWH is his God also, you just want to fight to deny it because he's quoting the OT.  Jesus used the same exact type of quote when he rebuked satan, since he would not worship and serve satan, but would only worship and serve YHWH(his God)."

If you even actually understood what Trinitarians believe, you wouldn't make this argument. Yes he is a Jew, that's not disputed. Because Jesus is a man, he would relate to the Father as his God, which he does numerous times. But also made claims about himself which only God is able to claim.

"The Jews knew who they worshiped, Mal 2:10, John 4:22. You're affirming they did not know who they worshiped.  I'm not saying they had to have a personal relationship like we now claim through the Messiah with God, but they knew who their one God was and is... and it's the Father both according to Jesus and all the Jews, John 8:41, John 20:17."
No Trinitarian would dispute that the Father is God, the only point of contention with unitarians such as you is the nature of the Son.

"It's not a faulty assertion to say you're not a monotheist.  You can keep claiming that all you'd like... you're stuck with a form of Sabellianism or 3 Gods.  Take your pick.  3 WHOs in 1 WHAT makes the 1 WHAT your God...thank you for affirming that.  But that's exactly the fact that helped me to abandon the trinity.  Your "one God" is not a person.  Your "one God" is a nature, an ousia, a being... an it.  That's an admission of idolatry.  The claim that the "one YHWH" of Deut 6:4 and Mark 12:28-34 is a "WHAT" is eisegesis, contradicts historical usage, and the context."

I don't have to be stuck with Sabellianism or Tritheism, I can safely keep the third option of Trinitarianism because:
1.Jesus is distinct from the Father, two persons.
2. Jesus claims to be able to answer prayers when he says in John 14 "If you ask anything in my name I will do it". He could only answer prayers if he is omnipresent, an attribute that God only has.

Your false dilemma isn't going to work.

Bare also in mins that while a rock has being, it is not personal. When YHWH is referred to as a being, that being is personal, but not a person. You are assuming the Shema is a unitarian creed and assert it as such, just like Anthony Buzzard constantly does.

"The one YHWH is one God, and there is "no other but Him" according to the scribe which Jesus agrees with.  Are you going to tell me now that the one WHAT of the trinity is a "He/Him"?  What is a HE or a HIM?  Is it a WHO or a WHAT?

Is "Him" a singular personal pronoun or a tri-personal pronoun?  Which is the safe assumption?  Would not your doctrine lead you to believe 3 He's(Father, Son, Spirit) are 1 He then?  How is that not an obvious contradiction or claim that 3 persons are 1 person?"

Its one what. Furthermore, there is an obvious distinction between a being and a person. We are not saying 3 persons in 1 person or 3 beings in 1 being, because of obviously that would be absurd rhetoric.

Trinitarians will agree that there is no God but YHWH, since biblical Triniarianism is consistent with Monotheism.

"James White's quote is horrid eisegesis.  That's about as bad as it gets in "theological double-talk" to claim one can read their doctrine into the text wherever one can get away with it.  You should be able to see through that nonsense.  So wherever I cannot tell for sure who YHWH is, I'm just going to assume it's "X" based on a doctrine which never explicitly states YHWH or God is 3 persons or tri-une.  See through that, please!"

This to me is a dismissal of what White has written and said. If you want to reject the statement, that's within your right to do so.

"You did not fully deal with Deut 32... read the entire context.  That God is YHWH, the Father, who is also the Most High(v.8).  Cross-reference "Most High" or "Highest" with any text you'd like and you'll see clearly, Jesus is the son of the Most High God(Luke 1:32-35, Mark 5:7)  You need to read the entire chapter.

36 “For the LORD will judge His people
And have compassion on His servants,
When He sees that their power is gone,
And there is no one remaining, bond or free.
37 He will say: ‘Where are their gods,
The rock in which they sought refuge?
38 Who ate the fat of their sacrifices,
And drank the wine of their drink offering?
Let them rise and help you,
And be your refuge.
39 ‘Now see that I, even I, am He,
And there is no God besides Me;
I kill and I make alive;
I wound and I heal;
Nor is there any who can deliver from My hand.

This is clear proof that the Father is the only God, stop denying it and submit to the entire text my friend.  You are kicking against the goads it is so obvious how far you must go to deny simple grammar and math."

To repeat again, What Deuteronomy 32 speaks on is the One God who gave his people life and created them Jesus is called Father in Isaiah 9:6, but not in the sense of being God the Father, but rather being co-father and co-creator of the human race. In light of this, Deuteronomy 32 speaks on the Godhead generally. There is no kicking against the goad, because the New Testament already affirms the eternal nature of Christ in texts such as John 1:1* and Philippians 2:5-11.

"Ultimately you do not realize, that you're condemning Jesus.  Jesus had a one person God, his Father alone.  We who follow him, have the same God.  Why are you denying Jesus? and why are you denying the one true God and Father of our Lord Jesus Messiah?

Col 1:3 We give thanks to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, praying always for you".

Once again, you misrepresented the Trinitarian position. No Trinitarian denies that Jesus has a God if he is self aware of his theology. Furthermore, read on into Colossians 1:15-20. I have also written an article on this issue:

I don't dispute Jesus worshipped the Father, but this wouldn't refute the Trinity in light of what I have said earlier. Furthermore you haven't addressed what I have said about Revelation 1 and 2. Jesus addresses the Father as his God by virtue of being a flesh and blood man, but he is also God in light of the fact he claims to be the Alpha and Omega which I may add is not some ambiguous phrase, but is a title belonging to God alone.

If you admit Jesus is the Alpha and the Omega, your Unitarianism falls flat and you are guilty of the very thing you accuse Trinitarians of, idolatry. By referring to YOU as an idolater, this doesn't automatically lead to Jesus being such, nor am I condemning Jesus as such. That's fallacious reasoning.

I can happily accept not just Colossians 1:3, but all of Colossians.

Answering Judaism.

*10th of February 2020. See the following information on John 1:1: It is very important regarding the Jehovah's Witnesses arguments regarding John 1:1.

Destroyed opportunity of an interview?

It is claimed by some certain individuals that Sam Shamoun was unhappy with me for telling Rabbi Blumenthal to avoid his show. They claim I have done this to Shamoun.

Once again, THIS IS A LIE.

I haven't spoken with Rabbi Blumenthal about Sam Shamoun ever. The few interactions I have had with Yisroel Blumenthal have namely been article responses and comments sections, which can be found on these pages:

The first article I have commented on in the comments section, as well as posting a link on the School of Matthew, Contra Brown and Shapira is not a Trinitarian.

Other than those interactions, I never told Blumenthal to avoid Shamoun, let alone spoken about Shamoun to him. In fact, Rabbi Blumenthal and I don't talk to each other that much. He is a busy man and I myself have other things to do.

I would personally love to see Sam Shamoun and Yisroel Blumenthal have written correspondence with each other and put issues onto the table, it would be beneficial.

Sam Shamoun, if you happen to be reading this, I have not even spoken to Yisroel Blumenthal about you. Check the articles I have commented on and you'll see I have said nothing about you.

As for those who are constantly trying to rub Shamoun the wrong way by lying about me, Stop doing so, because I am sick and tired of having to dispel these constant lies. May God bring those liars to repentance or judgement upon them.

Answering Judaism.

Tuesday 22 April 2014

Response to Erano on Isaiah 64

As I had stated in a previous article, I would dedicate an article for dealing with Isaiah 64 and what it actually refers to in context. The question is, Does it prove Erano's assertions on what he believes it means?

"What are the events happening today that are signs that God has now come to proclaim His judgment upon us?

Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down,
 that the mountains would tremble before you!
Isaiah 64:1 NIV

“Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down,” -God is in heaven.

“that the mountains would tremble before you!”- we are living witnesses to a world that is now plagued by earthquakes, volcanic eruptions and landslides. These are signs that God’s judgment is now upon us

To continue:

As when fire sets twigs ablaze  and causes water to boil,
come down to make your name known to your enemies
and cause the nations to quake before you!
Isaiah 64:2 NIV

“As when fire sets twigs ablaze    and causes water to boil,” - This is now called Global warming and this is the phenomena that causes all the severe weather disturbances in different countries of the world


“come down to make your name known to your enemies and cause the nations to quake before you!” - The calamities that we witness today are signs that God had made His real Name known to those who have spoken falsely about Him

How can God introduce His Name known to us?  Will He speak from Heaven?

When the people saw the thunder and lightning and heard the trumpet
and saw the mountain in smoke, they trembled with fear. They stayed
at a distance and said to Moses, "Speak to us yourself and we will listen.
But do not have God speak to us or we will die."
Exodus 20:18-19 (NIV)

This is the reaction of the Israelites after hearing God’s voice when He gave Moses His Ten Commandments.

What does thunder and lightning represent?

He unleashes his lightning beneath the whole heaven and sends it to the ends of the earth. After that comes the sound of his roar; he thunders with his majestic voice. When his voice resounds, he holds nothing back. God’s voice thunders in marvelous ways; he does great things beyond our understanding.
Job 37:3-5 NIV

It represents the voice of God.  When the people of Israel, who just came out of their slavery in Egypt, heard God’s voice – they trembled in fear.  From that moment on, God never spoke directly to the people but only to His prophet Moses.

Therefore, we can now understand what was said by the prophet Isaiah in Isaiah 64:2 which reads: “..come down to make your name known to your enemies    and cause the nations to quake before you!“

The prophet Isaiah means that God will send a prophet like Moses who will introduce His name to all nations and will speak on His behalf in our time.  Is this true?"

The article here responds to Erano's misuse and misapplication of the text in Exodus 20

Within the entire context of Isaiah 64, the prophet Isaiah desires YHWH's judgement to come upon the nations. He is also desiring YHWH's deliverance from the Gentiles who are oppressing them. THere is nothing in the text about a so called prophet from the Philippines. In fact it is not referring to another prophet to come again.

I have already covered the subject on Deuteronomy 18 here so I need not go over that again:

"Now let us continue reading Isaiah 64:3-4:

For when you did awesome things that we did not expect,
 you came down, and the mountains trembled before you.
Isaiah 64:3 NIV

“For when you did awesome things that we did not expect,” - Because this revelation of God’s real teaching by His real prophet like Moses was sudden and unexpected.
Why “awesome?”  It is because the man whom God had chosen as His prophet (like Moses) has no background in Biblical studies or Theology.  However, he is able to explain God’s word and reveal His Name through the Bible because God Himself instructed him.

Thus, the long standing and all–time alibi of Christian preachers,(which is “you are out of context”) when their Christian doctrine and interpretation of scripture is threatened is now found to be of no value or worth nothing.  The real teaching of God has come unexpectedly. They will be exposed to have a wrong “understanding” about God’s word.

The truth is: if they have opened their minds that what the apostles have written is the opposite of what God said about Jesus and have chosen to wait for God to fulfill His word about sending a prophet like Moses - they would not have been in an awkward and humiliating situation as they are now.

Instead, they have perpetually taught false teachings about God; have made themselves be called “theologians”; built seminaries and bible schools to promote their false doctrine; and worst of all, RECEIVED DONATIONS for their false teachings.

If the pastors, theologians, evangelists who are reading this article, still have a sense of honor,dignity or decorum left in them, they should now return all the monies and properties (assets) that they have received from their members as “offerings to God”!"

The awesome things refer to past actions of YHWH, namely the miracles he did through the prophets, including those of Moses and of course showing himself to the people his majesty and of course his mighty deeds. Once again it is NOT referring to Erano and of course being the prophet like Moses has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not the person had theological training and a background in religious studies.

Christians have a right to point out if someone is misquoting the Bible, which is of course what Erano is doing. I don't mind someone challenging my beliefs. If it wasn't for Jews and Muslims and others challenging my faith, including the Eranoites, I wouldn't be where I am today and this website would never exist. I wouldn't of been responding to the team at and Erano in some of my materials either.

To be honest, Erano may be a great speaker and orator, but his statements are nothing but empty rhetoric.

"To continue:

 Since ancient times no one has heard, no ear has perceived,
no eye has seen any God besides you, who acts on behalf of those who wait for him.
Isaiah 64:4 NIV

“who acts on behalf of those who wait for him”- these people are the ones whom God had chosen and had led to hear the revelation of the prophet like Moses, Teacher Evangelista. They are the ones who devoted their lives to assist him in sharing this revelation all over the world.

 You come to the help of those who gladly do right,  who remember your ways.
But when we continued to sin against them,    you were angry.
 How then can we be saved?
Isaiah 64:5 NIV

“You come to the help of those who gladly do right,    who remember your ways.” –means that God delights in people who use sound judgment and understanding in their worship of Him and NOT blind faith!"

Those who wait for him are in the context the people of Israel and of course future generations of those who come to know the God of Israel. Ultimately it's referring to the people of Israel, specifically those who are righteous in the sight of God who do what he says.

Also, True Christianity doesn't demand blind faith from people. You'll find that in cult groups no doubt, but certainly not in spirit filled, born again Bible believing Christians. Blind faith is not something that is expected from Christians, they are to be fully persuaded and convinced of the truth and submit in repentance faith.

"How do we know that the prophet like Moses will not be sent by God to perform miracles?

Listen! The LORD is calling to the city - and to fear your name is wisdom -
“Heed the rod and the One who appointed it.
Micah 6:9 NIV

“The LORD is calling to the city” - God is now calling to the whole world through His prophet like Moses, Maestro Evangelista as he is God’s spokesperson in our time.

“fear your name is wisdom” - those people who will be considered wise are those who will accept and acknowledge the true Name of God because they have clearly seen the distinction between the right and wrong teachings about God. These are the ones whom the prophet Isaiah spoke about in Isaiah 64:5, as who ‘gladly do right’

“Heed the rod and the One who appointed it”- Since the prophet Micah says "heed the rod and the One who appointed it", this means that the sign of the prophet like Moses is not through miracles. Moses' miracles are associated with his rod. The prophet “like Moses” reveals the Name of God through the scriptures as God had put His words in his mouth.
Since those who can understand this revelation about the Name of God has wisdom, it follows that those people who will not acknowledge this revelation about the Name of God are deficient in it or considered to possess no wisdom."

Actually the prophet like Moses would do miracles like Moses, as did Jesus and all the true prophets of Israel. Micah 6:9 refers to YHWH calling Jerusalem to repent, submit to him and to fear him as they should. There is no correlation with this text and Deuteronomy 18. The rod referred to in Micah 6:9 pertains to God correcting the people.

"Why do they possess such weak quality?

Many will be purified, made spotless and refined, but the wicked will continue to be wicked. None of the wicked will understand, but those who are wise will understand.
Daniel 12:10 (NIV)

“None of the wicked will understand” -We now know what character they have which is why they possess such weak quality"

Not sure what his reason for quoting this text is. As for Zechariah 13:9, that has been done in another article.

"To continue in Isaiah 64:6

All of us have become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous acts are like
filthy rags; we all shrivel up like a leaf, and like the wind our sins sweep us away.
Isaiah 64:6 NIV

“All of us have become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous acts are like filthy rags;” - With the revelation of the prophet like Moses, people have now realized they followed a false god all this time.  Thus, the kind of worship they have (which they were made to believe by the religions as “righteousness”) is nothing but blasphemy in the sight of God"

Those in sin and transgression have their works contanimated and thus our best efforts before God are like filthy rags. The Hebrew actually describes the works in the context as a menstral cloth, similiar to what we call a tampon. That effectively conveys the disgust that God has towards the good works tainted by sinful hands. I'd say Erano is the one who is causing his followers to have their works reduced to filthy rags.

Zechariah 13:9 is addressed here:

"What did religions took from mankind?

The beginning of wisdom is this: Get wisdom.                                  
Though it cost all you have, get understanding.                        
Proverbs 4:7 NIV

Religions took away UNDERSTANDING from mankind when it was indoctrinated with the teaching to worship Jesus,(the man who cried out in his final moments, “My God, My God, why had you forsaken me?” (Matthew27:46) as a god.

Think about it- WHERE is the righteousness in worshiping a man forsaken by God?

We now live in an era of modern technology.  Therefore such religious belief or faith based on ‘mystery’ in the form of blindly worshiping a man, (who was forsaken by God to die brutally on the cross) as a god, has no place in this modern technological era.

Since the religions continuously indoctrinate mankind with this ‘mystery,’ it shows that what they had preached never endowed mankind with wisdom and understanding about God.  It caused more confusion about God which led to the rise of Atheism."

Psalm 22 and Matthew 27:46 are already covered here:

Christianity doesn't take away wisdom and understanding from people, it tells people to be discerning and watch out for false teachers, heretics and apostates. Not only does man need the Holy Spirit and to know the scriptures to be discerning, wisdom and understanding are part and parcel of being discerning people. Atheism didn't come into existence due to Christianity, but certainly arose when people turned their back on YHWH.

"How can we free ourselves from this falsehood?

No one calls on your name or strives to lay hold of you;
for you have hidden your face from us and have given us over to our sins.
Isaiah 64:7 NIV

By calling on the true Name of God that was revealed by (the prophet like Moses), Teacher Evangelista through the Bible in or www.thenameonline.infowe can free ourselves from this curse!

The Jews who read these revelations might say: why is there a need for us to know the true Name of God when we already know it as YHWH?!"

The misuse of Jeremiah 44:24-26 and Isaiah 14:24 are covered here:

Jeremiah 8:8 is also addressed here:

And of course the rhetoric of being part of Israel despite being Philippino to make himself the prophet of Deuteronomy 18 is already done here:

"Now that we have established that that the Lord God Almighty truly exists because His promise about sending a prophet like Moses has been fulfilled, what will all the people say to God?

8 Yet you, Lord, are our Father.  We are the clay,
you are the potter;  we are all the work of your hand.
Isaiah 64:8 NIV

The people of the world will acknowledge the ONE true God and that He is the creator of all."

The context is simply referring to the acknowledgement that YHWH is a father to Israel and him working them to his good purpose.

Isaiah 65 will be done in another article if the Lord Wills.

Answering Judaism.