Anti-Semitism in the NT? Examining the claims of Uri Yosef

There have been many claims in the past about the NT teaching some form of Anti-Semtism. This will be the first of a few articles on Anti-Semitism if the Lord Wills me to write more on it.

I will be focusing mainly on scriptural quotations raised by Uri Yosef of thejewishhome.org in his article called "THE ANTI-JEWISH NEW TESTAMENT" I hope this may satisfy my Jewish readers, specifically the Rabbinic communities and of course, Christians who have run into this problem when speaking to Jews.

Let me start of my article by saying this emphatically, Anti-Semitism IS WRONG. The slaughter of the Jews has been a stain on the history of Christendom itself and has besmirched the name of Jesus himself. Sadly, this has permeated the thinking of the Jewish people to the point where most Jews reading the NT assume that it's contents promote Jew hatred among Christian ranks.

Mr Yosef quotes also from various Lectionary for Mass documents from Lutheran and Catholic sources, which I am happy to read in the future if the Lord Wills

For now in this article, I shall take a look at the Gospel passages 1 by 1 and see if Mr Yosef has actually looked at the statements in context. I shall also look at the passages in Paul's letters as well as the book of Acts.

The first Gospel that Yosef takes a look at is the subject of the Gospel of Matthew with respect to the references that are shown in a table of his.

Yosef's points shall be quoted then I shall show the context and what the text means. He does also give specific sources with respect to the verses on the table and I shall provide a link to his article so you can look for yourself: http://thejewishhome.org/counter/AntiJewishNT.pdf.

Quotations of scripture shall be in Bold and Mr Yosef shall be provided in Italic and Bold

3:7c The Pharisees and Sadducees are called poisonous snakes

"4 John’s clothes were made of camel’s hair, and he had a leather belt around his waist. His food was locusts and wild honey. 5 People went out to him from Jerusalem and all Judea and the whole region of the Jordan. 6 Confessing their sins, they were baptized by him in the Jordan River.

7 But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to where he was baptizing, he said to them: “You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the coming wrath? 8 Produce fruit in keeping with repentance. 9 And do not think you can say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father.’ I tell you that out of these stones God can raise up children for Abraham. 10 The ax is already at the root of the trees, and every tree that does not produce good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire."

John the Baptist is taking note of the wickedness of the Pharisees and Sadducees hypocrisy and wickedness and is exhorting them to repent of their evil ways. One point I have to come to is I fail to see any Anti-Semitism in the text, Why would the disciples or those who believed in Jesus as Jews would make Anti-Semitic comments? That makes zero sense and this is a point I have to hammer home throughout the article.

John the Baptist himself is Jewish and thus is not guilty of being Anti-Semitic at all. Besides, Isaiah calls the Israelites a number of things in the following passage: 

"Isaiah 57:3 “But you—come here, you children of a sorceress,

    you offspring of adulterers and prostitutes!

4 Who are you mocking?

    At whom do you sneer

    and stick out your tongue?

Are you not a brood of rebels,

    the offspring of liars?"

Is that Anti-Semitic? If not, why not? And if it is a condemnation of a particular group of Jews, why is that same courtesy not extended to the NT? 

12:34a The Pharisees are called evil poisonous snakes --

"22 Then they brought him a demon-possessed man who was blind and mute, and Jesus healed him, so that he could both talk and see. 23 All the people were astonished and said, “Could this be the Son of David?”

24 But when the Pharisees heard this, they said, “It is only by Beelzebul, the prince of demons, that this fellow drives out demons.”

25 Jesus knew their thoughts and said to them, “Every kingdom divided against itself will be ruined, and every city or household divided against itself will not stand. 26 If Satan drives out Satan, he is divided against himself. How then can his kingdom stand? 27 And if I drive out demons by Beelzebul, by whom do your people drive them out? So then, they will be your judges. 28 But if it is by the Spirit of God that I drive out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you.

29 “Or again, how can anyone enter a strong man’s house and carry off his possessions unless he first ties up the strong man? Then he can plunder his house.

30 “Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters. 31 And so I tell you, every kind of sin and slander can be forgiven, but blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. 32 Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.

33 “Make a tree good and its fruit will be good, or make a tree bad and its fruit will be bad, for a tree is recognized by its fruit. 34 You brood of vipers, how can you who are evil say anything good? For the mouth speaks what the heart is full of. 35 A good man brings good things out of the good stored up in him, and an evil man brings evil things out of the evil stored up in him. 36 But I tell you that everyone will have to give account on the day of judgment for every empty word they have spoken. 37 For by your words you will be acquitted, and by your words you will be condemned.”"

The Pharisees were the ones to attack Christ and he then condemned them because of their wicked utterance. They claimed he was doing miracles by the power of Beelzebub and Jesus then refutes their claim and exposes the Pharisees' hearts in the presence of the people, showing the folly of their statement. Nothing anti-Semitic here and again, in light of Isaiah 57? What basis can you claim that is not Anti-Semitic and Matthew 12:34 is, when both Isaiah and Jesus were both Jews?

15:3-9 Condemnation of the Pharisees for rejecting the commandments

"3 Jesus replied, “And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition? 4 For God said, ‘Honor your father and mother’[a] and ‘Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.’[b] 5 But you say that if anyone declares that what might have been used to help their father or mother is ‘devoted to God,’ 6 they are not to ‘honor their father or mother’ with it. Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition. 7 You hypocrites! Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you:

8 “‘These people honor me with their lips,

    but their hearts are far from me.

9 They worship me in vain;

    their teachings are merely human rules.’[c]”

10 Jesus called the crowd to him and said, “Listen and understand. 11 What goes into someone’s mouth does not defile them, but what comes out of their mouth, that is what defiles them.”"

Jesus was actually in the right for condemning the Pharisees, they were taking ordinary traditions and placing them above that of the Word of God given to them through Moses. If anything, This is meet and right so to do. What is wrong with Jesus condemning the Pharisees for substituting the Word of God for the traditions of men? Isaiah chides the Israelites for doing the same thing as the Pharisees, Putting human rules above God's commands, hence why Jesus has a go at the Pharisees.

15:12-14 The Pharisees are called blind guides leading the blind 

"12 Then the disciples came to him and asked, “Do you know that the Pharisees were offended when they heard this?”

13 He replied, “Every plant that my heavenly Father has not planted will be pulled up by the roots. 14 Leave them; they are blind guides.[d] If the blind lead the blind, both will fall into a pit.”

15 Peter said, “Explain the parable to us.”

16 “Are you still so dull?” Jesus asked them. 17 “Don’t you see that whatever enters the mouth goes into the stomach and then out of the body? 18 But the things that come out of a person’s mouth come from the heart, and these defile them. 19 For out of the heart come evil thoughts—murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander. 20 These are what defile a person; but eating with unwashed hands does not defile them.”"

The Pharisees were spiritually blind and would not heed the warnings that Jesus gave, hence he tells the disciples not to waste their time with them, after all, they showed by the creation of their traditions that they made the Word of God, ie. the TANAKH Null and void.

16:6 Beware of the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees

"5 When they went across the lake, the disciples forgot to take bread. 6 “Be careful,” Jesus said to them. “Be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees.”

7 They discussed this among themselves and said, “It is because we didn’t bring any bread.”

8 Aware of their discussion, Jesus asked, “You of little faith, why are you talking among yourselves about having no bread? 9 Do you still not understand? Don’t you remember the five loaves for the five thousand, and how many basketfuls you gathered? 10 Or the seven loaves for the four thousand, and how many basketfuls you gathered? 11 How is it you don’t understand that I was not talking to you about bread? But be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees.” 12 Then they understood that he was not telling them to guard against the yeast used in bread, but against the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees."

Doesn't Jesus have the right to warn about false teachers? The Rabbis of today warn about certain teachers within the orthodox community who propagate what they deem as strange ideas. Didn't Immanuel Schochet once warn people about the Real Kosher Jesus by Shmuley Boteach? I am not endorsing Boteach's book here, I am simply making a point. 

Jesus is telling the disciples not to be lead astray by the Pharisees. Rabbis, Do you not have that concern about the people in your ranks? Do you think that many have been lead astray in your eyes and you need to call them back and warn them?

"19:3-9 The Pharisees are said to be hard-hearted"

"3 Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?”

4 “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’[a] 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’[b]? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”

7 “Why then,” they asked, “did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?”

8 Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”"

And the people in the TANAKH are called hard-hearted, Even Moses, himself Jewish and who according to Rabbinic Judaism stands on the highest plane of Revelation said this:

"Numbers 20:9 So Moses took the staff from the Lord’s presence, just as he commanded him. 10 He and Aaron gathered the assembly together in front of the rock and Moses said to them, “Listen, you rebels, must we bring you water out of this rock?” 11 Then Moses raised his arm and struck the rock twice with his staff. Water gushed out, and the community and their livestock drank."

Even Moses knew that there were rebels and hard hearted stubborn people among the Israelites, Jesus even tells you WHY Moses gave the command of divorce, it was because of the hardness of their hearts? I fail to see any anti-semitism in this context, he is making a point that Israel were stubborn hence Moses allowed divorce to occur, although this wasn't intended from the beginning.

19:28 The disciples of Jesus will judge the twelve tribes of Israel

"Matthew 19:27 Peter answered him, “We have left everything to follow you! What then will there be for us?”

28 Jesus said to them, “Truly I tell you, at the renewal of all things, when the Son of Man sits on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. 29 And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or wife[e] or children or fields for my sake will receive a hundred times as much and will inherit eternal life. 30 But many who are first will be last, and many who are last will be first."

No anti-Semitism at all here, this is referring to the reward that the disciples and those after them will recieve if they are willing to forsake all to follow Christ and put him above everything. How is the apostles being given the authority to judge anti-semitic I don't know.

22:18c The Pharisees are called hypocrites HMLR 

"Matthew 22:15 Then the Pharisees went out and laid plans to trap him in his words. 16 They sent their disciples to him along with the Herodians. “Teacher,” they said, “we know that you are a man of integrity and that you teach the way of God in accordance with the truth. You aren’t swayed by others, because you pay no attention to who they are. 17 Tell us then, what is your opinion? Is it right to pay the imperial tax[a] to Caesar or not?”

18 But Jesus, knowing their evil intent, said, “You hypocrites, why are you trying to trap me? 19 Show me the coin used for paying the tax.” They brought him a denarius, 20 and he asked them, “Whose image is this? And whose inscription?”

21 “Caesar’s,” they replied.

Then he said to them, “So give back to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.”

22 When they heard this, they were amazed. So they left him and went away."

Jesus is exposing the Pharisees for asking their dis-ingenious question to try and land him into trouble. Again for the life of me, WHERE is there any anti-semitism in this text? It is not there.

23:13-36 The scribes and Pharisees are repeatedly vilified as hypocrites

"13 “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the door of the kingdom of heaven in people’s faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to. [14] [b]

15 “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when you have succeeded, you make them twice as much a child of hell as you are.

16 “Woe to you, blind guides! You say, ‘If anyone swears by the temple, it means nothing; but anyone who swears by the gold of the temple is bound by that oath.’ 17 You blind fools! Which is greater: the gold, or the temple that makes the gold sacred? 18 You also say, ‘If anyone swears by the altar, it means nothing; but anyone who swears by the gift on the altar is bound by that oath.’ 19 You blind men! Which is greater: the gift, or the altar that makes the gift sacred? 20 Therefore, anyone who swears by the altar swears by it and by everything on it. 21 And anyone who swears by the temple swears by it and by the one who dwells in it. 22 And anyone who swears by heaven swears by God’s throne and by the one who sits on it.

23 “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices—mint, dill and cumin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law—justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former. 24 You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel.

25 “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You clean the outside of the cup and dish, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence. 26 Blind Pharisee! First clean the inside of the cup and dish, and then the outside also will be clean.

27 “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of the bones of the dead and everything unclean. 28 In the same way, on the outside you appear to people as righteous but on the inside you are full of hypocrisy and wickedness.

29 “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You build tombs for the prophets and decorate the graves of the righteous. 30 And you say, ‘If we had lived in the days of our ancestors, we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.’ 31 So you testify against yourselves that you are the descendants of those who murdered the prophets. 32 Go ahead, then, and complete what your ancestors started!

33 “You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell? 34 Therefore I am sending you prophets and sages and teachers. Some of them you will kill and crucify; others you will flog in your synagogues and pursue from town to town. 35 And so upon you will come all the righteous blood that has been shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah son of Berekiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar. 36 Truly I tell you, all this will come on this generation."

A condemnation of the Pharisees is not anti-Semitic in the slightest. Just a plain reading of the text shows that Yosef is reading something into the text that's NOT there. Again as I said before the Israelites are called depraved children by Isaiah because of their wickedness. Jesus is condemning the Pharisees to hell for the spiritual deadness of Israel they have caused, their hypocrisy, their self rightousness and other things detestable to God. A question to the Rabbis, Do you guys like to see evil flourish and good do nothing? If so, that is worrying to say the least.

23:38 The house of Jerusalem is to be forsaken and desolate

"Matthew 23:37 “Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were not willing. 38 Look, your house is left to you desolate. 39 For I tell you, you will not see me again until you say, ‘Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord."

If there is no repentance, then Jerusalem is left desolate. Jesus is upset and distraught with the state his people because of their sins and their refusal to turn back to God. My question to the Rabbis, Are you not concerned about how many Jews are mostly secular Jews do things that the Torah deems detestable? 

26:59-68 The chief priests and council condemn Jesus as deserving death MLR

"57 Those who had arrested Jesus took him to Caiaphas the high priest, where the teachers of the law and the elders had assembled. 58 But Peter followed him at a distance, right up to the courtyard of the high priest. He entered and sat down with the guards to see the outcome.

59 The chief priests and the whole Sanhedrin were looking for false evidence against Jesus so that they could put him to death. 60 But they did not find any, though many false witnesses came forward.

Finally two came forward 61 and declared, “This fellow said, ‘I am able to destroy the temple of God and rebuild it in three days.’”

62 Then the high priest stood up and said to Jesus, “Are you not going to answer? What is this testimony that these men are bringing against you?” 63 But Jesus remained silent.

The high priest said to him, “I charge you under oath by the living God: Tell us if you are the Messiah, the Son of God.”

64 “You have said so,” Jesus replied. “But I say to all of you: From now on you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.”[e]

65 Then the high priest tore his clothes and said, “He has spoken blasphemy! Why do we need any more witnesses? Look, now you have heard the blasphemy. 66 What do you think?”

“He is worthy of death,” they answered.

67 Then they spit in his face and struck him with their fists. Others slapped him 68 and said, “Prophesy to us, Messiah. Who hit you?”"

Matthew is simply recording what transpired with the death of Jesus, The Pharisees see Jesus as worthy of death not only because of his Messianic claims, but also his claims of deity, which is another topic neither here nor there. I would encourage the Jews to do an honest reading of the text in Matthew 26 and tell me, where there is any Anti-Semitism in this text.

27:1-26 The people demand that Jesus, not Barabbas, be crucified MLR

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2027&version=NIV

Same as before, Matthew is simply recording what happened. Furthermore, it is not every Jew in Israel that is demanding this of Jesus. The Galileans, themselves Israelites, where not involved with Jesus death. Again, I would encourage the Jews to do an honest reading of the text in Matthew 27 and tell me, where there is any Anti-Semitism in this text.

27:62-66 The chief priests and Pharisees request a guard at Jesus' tomb MLR

"Matthew 27:62 The next day, the one after Preparation Day, the chief priests and the Pharisees went to Pilate. 63 “Sir,” they said, “we remember that while he was still alive that deceiver said, ‘After three days I will rise again.’ 64 So give the order for the tomb to be made secure until the third day. Otherwise, his disciples may come and steal the body and tell the people that he has been raised from the dead. This last deception will be worse than the first.”

65 “Take a guard,” Pilate answered. “Go, make the tomb as secure as you know how.” 66 So they went and made the tomb secure by putting a seal on the stone and posting the guard."

This is a request to have the guards to guard the tomb so that the body isn't stolen by the disciples at all. Again, I am not seeing anti-Semitism here. Is this nitpicking for the sake of it?

28:4 The guards tremble and become like dead when the angel appears LR

"Matthew 28:1 After the Sabbath, at dawn on the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to look at the tomb.

2 There was a violent earthquake, for an angel of the Lord came down from heaven and, going to the tomb, rolled back the stone and sat on it. 3 His appearance was like lightning, and his clothes were white as snow. 4 The guards were so afraid of him that they shook and became like dead men.

5 The angel said to the women, “Do not be afraid, for I know that you are looking for Jesus, who was crucified. 6 He is not here; he has risen, just as he said. Come and see the place where he lay. 7 Then go quickly and tell his disciples: ‘He has risen from the dead and is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him.’ Now I have told you.”"

Er.. Where is the anti-Semitism again? All that is being shown is the Guards are frightened by an angel of the Lord that appeared to them. Again Yosef is reading something into the text that which is not there.

28:11-15 The chief priest bribe the guards to lie about their actions

Matthew 28:28 11 While the women were on their way, some of the guards went into the city and reported to the chief priests everything that had happened. 12 When the chief priests had met with the elders and devised a plan, they gave the soldiers a large sum of money, 13 telling them, “You are to say, ‘His disciples came during the night and stole him away while we were asleep.’ 14 If this report gets to the governor, we will satisfy him and keep you out of trouble.” 15 So the soldiers took the money and did as they were instructed. And this story has been widely circulated among the Jews to this very day.

Considering the early apostles were Jews, Matthew is recording a rumour that is circulating among the unbelieving Jews, not the Messianic Jews and by Messianic I mean Jews who believe in Jesus. Matthew is telling you what the chief priests did and recording a person's actions in this context is no way anti-Semitic.

The references in Mark will be addressed in another article in the future.

Answering Judaism.

Micah 5:2: Taken out of Context?

In this article we shall be looking at Micah 5:2 and what it's message entails. Let's read the whole chapter.

"Micah 5 [a]Marshal your troops now, city of troops,

    for a siege is laid against us.

They will strike Israel’s ruler

    on the cheek with a rod.

2 “But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah,

    though you are small among the clans[b] of Judah,

out of you will come for me

    one who will be ruler over Israel,

whose origins are from of old,

    from ancient times.”

3 Therefore Israel will be abandoned

    until the time when she who is in labor bears a son,

and the rest of his brothers return

    to join the Israelites.

4 He will stand and shepherd his flock

    in the strength of the Lord,

    in the majesty of the name of the Lord his God.

And they will live securely, for then his greatness

    will reach to the ends of the earth.

5 And he will be our peace

    when the Assyrians invade our land

    and march through our fortresses.

We will raise against them seven shepherds,

    even eight commanders,

6 who will rule[c] the land of Assyria with the sword,

    the land of Nimrod with drawn sword.[d]

He will deliver us from the Assyrians

    when they invade our land

    and march across our borders.

7 The remnant of Jacob will be

    in the midst of many peoples

like dew from the Lord,

    like showers on the grass,

which do not wait for anyone

    or depend on man.

8 The remnant of Jacob will be among the nations,

    in the midst of many peoples,

like a lion among the beasts of the forest,

    like a young lion among flocks of sheep,

which mauls and mangles as it goes,

    and no one can rescue.

9 Your hand will be lifted up in triumph over your enemies,

    and all your foes will be destroyed.

10 “In that day,” declares the Lord,

“I will destroy your horses from among you

    and demolish your chariots.

11 I will destroy the cities of your land

    and tear down all your strongholds.

12 I will destroy your witchcraft

    and you will no longer cast spells.

13 I will destroy your idols

    and your sacred stones from among you;

you will no longer bow down

    to the work of your hands.

14 I will uproot from among you your Asherah poles[e]

    when I demolish your cities.

15 I will take vengeance in anger and wrath

    on the nations that have not obeyed me.”"

There is a ruler promised to the people of Israel who will govern over them and save them from the Assyrian people and then God will do away with the idolatry that has taken root within the Land of Israel. The ruler in the context will act as a protector and a comfort to Israel when the Assyrians come to invade their land. To this day, the people of Israel are scattered among the nations, even as far as America and Australia, considering Jews4Judaism and Outreach Judaism operate in those areas. 

Jesus came from a manger in Bethlehem to first save his people from their sins, especially the lost sheep of the house of Israel and eventually when he returns shall bring his recompense with him against those who have attacked his people, his people being made up of Jews and Gentiles who have come to faith in him. The Father sends the Son to accomplish this task. Evil and sin will be uprooted from the world and shall not pollute it again.

Hopefully this article has been of help to you.

Answering Judaism.

Christological Typology in the Old Testament

We know as Christians that Christ's shadow can be found within the confines of the TANAKH and it is an interesting topic to see Christ found even in the OT before he came into the world through the virgin birth.

To begin with there is the subject of Abraham in Genesis 22:8 where Abraham says that God will provide a ram for the burnt offering. What makes this interesting is the fact Abraham saw a ram with its head caught in a thornbush. Obviously, Christ wasn't burned, but what was the connection that was made, A ram was provided in the place of Isaac, just as Christ was a substitute for us, to cleanse us from transgression. The subject of the method of sacrificing is not an issue that Christians think about, it's what the ram's sacrifice was pointing to, a righteous substitute. Another thing is the hill that Abraham was about to sacrifice Isaac on the altar on the very mountain that Jesus was crucified. One who raises the point about Christ not being a burnt offering as an argument miss the entire point that Christians make regarding this point.

Joseph has even some similarities to Jesus himself, both were betrayed by one of their own, Joseph was sold by his brothers because of what Judah suggested to them in Genesis 37 and Jesus was betrayed by Judas. Both Joseph and Jesus were sold for a price, pieces of silver (20 for Joseph, 30 for Jesus). Mike Pilavachi of Spring Harvest has suggested that inflation was allowed to happen regarding the pieces of silver count. Also, God used Joseph to bring about Israel's survival by saving them from a famine and Christ was used by the Father to bring salvation to his people Israel and the world. Both were used to save Israel in one way or another.

The New Testament points to Jesus being the Passover Lamb that has been slain, and Jesus was slain at Passover. Even if though the Exodus story doesn't mention repentance, which isn't what Paul is conveying when he alludes to the Passover. In other words, just as the blood was used to cover the doorpost and cause the angel of death to Passover the Israelites, so the blood of Christ which we are washed in, causes God's wrath to Passover us. Paul does mention putting away the old leaven (evil and sin), but his point, again, the blood on the door post and the blood of Jesus acting as a protective covering from God's wrath.
I am aware Asher Meza brings up the subject of goats and sheep in Exodus 12:5 in one video he did, but he still misses the entire point that Paul was once again conveying.

The sacrificial system also pointed to Jesus himself, the need for atonement and a substitute to cleanse use from our sins and make us clean. We also have Melchidezek who was a priestly king in the TANAKH who gave Abraham and his troops bread and wine and blessed them in the name of the Most High God.
In a lecture done by David Pawson on Genesis, he mentions several others including the ladder of Jacob, the punishment of the serpent being bruised and Jesus being the second man or second Adam. Here are some highlighted in the NT.

"Romans 5:18 Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people. 19 For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous"

"John 1:43 The next day Jesus decided to leave for Galilee. Finding Philip, he said to him, “Follow me.”

44 Philip, like Andrew and Peter, was from the town of Bethsaida. 45 Philip found Nathanael and told him, “We have found the one Moses wrote about in the Law, and about whom the prophets also wrote—Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.”

46 “Nazareth! Can anything good come from there?” Nathanael asked.

“Come and see,” said Philip.

47 When Jesus saw Nathanael approaching, he said of him, “Here truly is an Israelite in whom there is no deceit.”

48 “How do you know me?” Nathanael asked.

Jesus answered, “I saw you while you were still under the fig tree before Philip called you.”

49 Then Nathanael declared, “Rabbi, you are the Son of God; you are the king of Israel.”

50 Jesus said, “You believe[h] because I told you I saw you under the fig tree. You will see greater things than that.” 51 He then added, “Very truly I tell you,[i] you[j] will see ‘heaven open, and the angels of God ascending and descending on’[k] the Son of Man.”"

And of course back in the TANAKH

"Genesis 3:14 So the Lord God said to the serpent, “Because you have done this,

“Cursed are you above all livestock
    and all wild animals!
You will crawl on your belly
    and you will eat dust
    all the days of your life.
15 And I will put enmity
    between you and the woman,
    and between your offspring[a] and hers;
he will crush[b] your head,
    and you will strike his heel.”"

Pawson goes into greater length in his talk on Genesis when speaking on Joseph which I would recommend.

It is very interesting to see things that point to Jesus within the Old Testament, sometimes there are things that we don't even notice until we dig a little deeper.

There are also the Messianic Prophecies pointing to the servant of the LORD, found in such chapters as Isaiah 42, 49 ,50, and 52:13-53:12. The last passage especially what the Messiah would come to do, and that is to suffer and die as a ransom for many and in Isaiah 42 is sent to bring justice to the nations. In his response to Eli Cohen, Nakdimon316 goes into greater detail than I regarding these servant passages and even goes into specific details, those videos are worth checking out.

I am aware that modern day Jews have no problem with the Messianic interpretation of Isaiah 53, Some even say Messiah and Israel suffer together, but they will say this refutes the Christian view. Nothing can be further from the truth because if Jesus is the subject of Isaiah 53, who is he suffering on behalf of? The righteous remnant of Israel, but not only that, he is suffering on behalf of the Gentiles who would believe.

In one of my articles responding to Yisroel Blumenthal I have said the following. (Yisroel's objection is in italics):

""III. 7. Page 43
Brown points to the passage in Isaiah 49 where God’s servant is called “Israel” yet is sent to redeem Israel. Brown argues that this can only be referring to an individual within the nation. According to Brown this individual can only be the Messiah. Brown seems to have forgotten Isaiah 51:12-16 where Israel is being addressed in plural terminology, yet they are sent to declare to Zion that they are God’s nation. It is obvious that the servant who is sent to Israel is not an individual but rather a plural entity. It is the righteous of Israel as Rashi affirms.
It is also interesting to note that this interpretation is supported by the Christian scriptures. Acts 13:47 interprets Isaiah 49:6, which speaks of the individual servant, as a reference to the righteous community."

The NT application of Isaiah 49 wouldn't refute the Messianic application given by Christians. On the contrary, Rabbinic Jews today claim that the Messiah and Israel are found collectively in Isaiah 53, So the same thing would be the case in Isaiah 49. The Messiah is made a light to the nations and so will also those who put their trust in the Messiah. Not to mention the Messiah in Isaiah 53 suffers on behalf of the righteous remnant, as well as the nations who put their trust in him." (http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/examination-of-some-arguments-raised-by_27.html).

This to me lends more credibility to the Christian interpretation of the suffering servant passages rather than an outright refutation of it.

It is sad that many liberal Christians today seem to disregard many of these prophecies and cut the Bible up with a pair of scissors, but that's unfortunately something that we have to put up with and try to repudiate.

One thing I can say is the return of the Messiah is drawing nearer. To all man, let him who is holy continue to be holy and may he who is unholy be granted repentance.

Amen Come Lord Jesus. Hope this article has been a blessing.

Answering Judaism.

Challenge to Itzhak Shapira

I had recently sent an email to Rabbi Itzhak Shapira with respect to the concerns I had, I sent him the following message to his website:
"Hello Mr Shapira

I am the writer and of Answering Judaism, a blog that seeks to respond to Rabbinic objections.

I have recently stumbled upon a video that you have done in response to Contra Brown author Yisroel Blumenthal on the subject of compound unity. The following statement made by you is of grave concern:

""The Zohar explains that God is truly a compound unity, ok, and to argue that this is not is arguing against Judaism. That is why when a man approached Yeshua and asked him what is the greatest commandment, Yeshua replied in Mark 12:29 Shema Yisrael Adonai Eleheinu Adonai Echad. Christianity on the other hand misunderstood it's compound unity and understood that God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit are all three different personas, well that is not true either. That is not the point in my book and that's not what I believe. I believe that God is a compound God, he is ONE and he is absolute, without beginning and end, but at the same time he can manifest himself in anyway he chooses for"."

Judging by your statement, it appears you seem to be advocating the Oneness perspective or Modalist perspective, both of which are dangerous and quite frankly contrary to scriptures.

I myself hold to the doctrine of the Trinity, that there is one God in Three Persons, however, you flatly deny this on the program which I have provided the quote from.

My grave concern and I don't say this to be hateful or disrespectful but I am convinced you are teaching a very damnable error.

However, despite your quotation of numerous Trinitarian sources, including Michael L Brown of AskDrBrown, as I said before you flatly denied this teaching and said that it wasn't the point of your book and asked if God can manifest itself in different ways. Even Yisroel Blumenthal himself took note that you were not a Trinitarian after watching the program itself.

I exhort you to renounce this dangerous teaching that you are propagating and seriously reconsider your position.

Answering Judaism."

I have not received a response back from Shapira regarding this issue and so far he has not responded to what I have said. I ask Rabbi Shapira and tell me honestly, do you hold to the Doctrine of the Trinity? Yes or No? I want a simple yes or no.

I await your reply.

Answering Judaism.

Warning: The Modalist Heresy of Itzhak Shapira

Itzhak Shapira is a Messianic Rabbi who runs Ahavat Ammi Ministries and is the author of the book "The Kosher Pig", a book panned by the Orthodox Community in Judaism.

Recently the Answering-Islam Facebook page had issued a warning that Shapira does not teach the Trinity, but an ancient  heresy called Modalism.

Modalists deny the Trinity yet acknowledge Yeshua or Jesus as God. The problem is that the unity of the individual persons is taken to the extreme where Jesus is the same person as the Father or where they are merely different manifestations of God. On a side note although Oneness advocate Roger Perkins claimed he acknowledged that the Father and the Son as distinct persons, I am not sure what he means by that in light of his denial of the Trinity.

(However, I recently discovered that there are two types of Modalist, Synonymous and Successive. Successive means the Father, Son and Spirit exist at different points, whereas Synonymous means they exist at the same time but are not three distinct persons)

Back to Shapira, the "rabbi" had recently spent time in a video responding to Rabbi Yisroel Blumenthal on objections he raised with respect to the Trinity.

Although Shapira spends the majority of the video trying to demonstrate that YHWH or Ha Shem is a compound unity by quoting the Zohar, a Kabbalistic text, and quoting from the TANAKH.

However, 13 minutes roughly in the video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bu4EWiw9Os4), Shapira says the following:
"The Zohar explains that God is truly a compound unity, ok, and to argue that this is not is arguing against Judaism. That is why when a man approached Yeshua and asked him what is the greatest commandment, Yeshua replied in Mark 12:29 Shema Yisrael Adonai Eleheinu Adonai Echad. Christianity on the other hand misunderstood it's compound unity and understood that God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit are all three different personas, well that is not true either. That is not the point in my book and that's not what I believe. I believe that God is a compound God, he is ONE and he is absolute, without beginning and end, but at the same time he can manifest himself in anyway he chooses for".

And it is ALL downhill from here.

As I have said before, The Trinity teaches that in the very being or essence of God, there exist Three Distinct persons, Not three beings in one being or three persons in one person (like Ahmed Deedat falsely claimed). There are not three seperate Gods, but one Eternal God which the TANAKH and the NT make very clear. This is clearly something denied by Shapira.

I myself on a side note want to represent accurately what Rabbinic literature says properly. I have even occasionally spoken with orthodox Jews such as Funkdude and Sefard not Sefardi on some issues and ask for their perspectives and both have advised against using Shapira, which judging by what I have heard I am glad I didn't.

Yisroel Blumenthal has noted here the following:(http://yourphariseefriend.wordpress.com/2013/12/17/shapira-is-not-a-trinitarian/):
"Why did I assume that Shapira is a Trinitarian?

Simple; he claims to have been ordained by the IMACS which is a subsidiary of the MJAA. The statement of faith of the MJAA declares that the organization believes in the trinity. Furthermore; Shapira quotes extensively from Trinitarian books (such as “Can Three be One”) and from various Trinitarian Christians (such as Dr. Michael Brown). At no point does Shapira distance himself from the beliefs of those he quotes from."

Though I would disagree with Blumenthal that worship of Jesus is idolatry, that is not the topic of this article.

I find it a shame that Shapira is teaching the Modalist Heresy and I urge Shapira if he is reading what I write to abandon this heresy he is teaching, it is doing more harm to the Body of Christ than good.

Hope this article has been a help.

Answering Judaism.

Addendum, Here is the video about this subject and Michael L Brown: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ynqRrHryPYo

Addendum 2: Shapira is not a Modalist in the sense of Successive Modalist, he is actually a Synonymous Modalist, For more details, read here: http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2014/02/video-examination-of-itzhak-shapiras.html

Comments on statements by Dr Immanuel Schochet

Since I do not know the best way to introduce the late Dr Immanuel Schochet to those who don't know, I'll let chabad.org introduce him:

"Rabbi Dr. Jacob Immanuel Schochet, a Chabad scholar and academic, and a preeminent defender of traditional Jewish belief, passed away on Shabbat, the 20th of Av 5773, July 27, 2013, following a long illness. He was 77.

As a congregational rabbi, professor of philosophy, and world-renowned lecturer and personal advisor, Schochet combined erudition and wit to influence and inspire generations of scholars, university students, and young Jewish men, women, teenagers and families from all walks of life."

I want to spend this article commenting on some of the things that Dr Schochet said in his debate with Michael Brown back in 1995, Namely regarding Brown's response on the subject of why Christianity differs from other faiths.

Although Brown did provide a response himself to the comments by Dr Schochet, I want to respond to some of the points by the Dr himself.

Atonement

Firstly, Dr Schochet claimed that Muhammad and the Muslims have the same atonement as Jesus as the Christians and that if you don't accept Muhammad as the final prophet, of to the barbecue as the Muslims claim.

The problem is that Islam doesn't have a means of atonement for sin, whereas Judaism did once have atonement through the temple and Christians have Yeshua as their means of atonement to cleanse them. Islam doesn't have a means of atonement that can satisfy the wrath of God and deal with the problem of human sin and Muslims don't recognise the TANAKH or the NT as undefiled, but rather see it as corrupted. Sam Shamoun of Answering-Islam has proposed based on reading the Quran and the Hadith Sources such as Sahih Bukhari, Muslim, Sunan Abu Dawud etc that the Quran actually confirms the Torah and the Gospel, which would consequently falsify the Quran because it contradicts the TANAKH and the NT documents.

Another comment made by Dr Schochet was basically that any religion that claims to be universal claims to offer atonement, however, there is ONE problem with Dr Schochet's assertion, Idolatry.

Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, New Age, Satanism etc do not follow the God of Israel nor submit to him, whereas Christianity, despite the misrepresentations, actually points people back to the God of Israel. In fact one of Jesus' exhortations was to "love the Lord with all your heart, mind, soul and strength and love your neighbor as yourself" as found in Mark 12:28-30. Although Muslims claim to know the God of Israel, the fact that their Quran denies God having a son period and other issues which I won't go into now shows otherwise and that they are following a counterfeit. Mormons, despite their claims to know the God of Israel, are guilty of being polytheistic although they will give themselves a different name, so that would immediately disqualify them as being Christians, let alone worshippers of the One True God.

As for his comments on Islam being the fulfilment of the TANAKH and the NT, that has already been covered.

Conversion
For the life of me I have no idea why Muslims are constantly used as a means of arguing against Christianity, It's one argument I do get sick and tired of hearing from Rabbinic Jews. But anyway, As David Wood of Answering-Muslims has pointed out, the reason that you have Islam growing rapidly is because of high birth rates. Just because any religion is the fastest growing religion in the world, that doesn't make it the Way, the Truth and the Life. I don't even use that argument to prove Christianity as an argument for it's veracity, it's not even a good one.

Fruits
Dr Schochet then pointed to the fruits of those who become part of cults and that if you truly believe something then it will fix you up, whether it is idolatry or nonsense. Problem, When has idolatry ever brought healing? The hyperdulia found in Roman Catholicism has not brought that, neither has bowing to the black stone in Mecca, or whatever on earth the Hindus and Buddhists bow to doesn't help them. Even Witchcraft, Mysticism, New Age Sorcery and Gnosticism doesn't bring spiritual healing, quite to the contrary they have brought spiritual death to millions. Idolatry doesn't help anyone, we know this from the TANAKH and from the NT. None of those religions deal with the problem of human sin and change you from the inside out to be a new creation in right reconciliation with God. Even under the guise of Christianity, Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy have their fair share of idolatry that takes people to hell, namely the veneration of icons in the EO tradition and Mary Veneration in the RC tradition which I already mentioned. Denial of the Trinity also leads to idolatry, considering many such as Arians, JWs, Socians or groups that deny the deity of Christ expect Christians to pay homage to a mere creature and give him the honor that only God deserves. Their version of Jesus is not the Biblical Jesus and thus would fall into Avodah Zara or Alien Worship.

Conclusion
Christianity as it stands today offers a solution that the other religions Dr Schochet mentioned cannot offer, namely a new heart, a new nature and reconciliation with God.

Feel free to examine my points and think them over.

Answering Judaism.

Correcting Misconceptions of Protestantism: A response to Yisroel Blumenthal

Yisroel Blumenthal of yourphariseefriend.wordpress.com has taken the time to respond to one of my articles (and others) on the subject of Acts 21 and Paul. He quotes from his treatise Supplement to Contra Brown with respect to certain issues within Protestantism which I shall be responding to. This particular article won't be dealing with Paul and Acts 21 because they require another article to deal with.

I had stated the following in my first article to Mr Blumenthal with respect to contradictions:
"I think Mr Blumenthal and others will agree that the honest thing to do with any book is to read a passage within in it's context. To claim that the New Testament writers wrote contradictory messages shows that the person is unwilling to take the time to reconcile the contradictions, Besides, many more can be found in the Hebrew Bible, which can all be reconciled and the Talmud which I am sure the Rabbis have given superlative answers regarding the 63 tractates."

I raised this issue because often many will assert that Jesus taught a different doctrine to Paul or James taught a different doctrine to Paul and that this problem can be rectified by careful study and looking into these issues and the same being with the subject of the TANAKH and the Talmud. In this paper I wish to look at some of the points Blumenthal makes in his paper.

I had been meaning to do this for some time but I think now is the perfect time to do it. Let's begin.

"IV. 6. Objections 5:16 and 5:17 

Here Brown focuses on some of the misquotations and contradictions that are to be found in the Christian Scriptures. Brown’s responds by demonstrating that the Jewish Scriptures and the Jewish Rabbinic writings also contain discrepancies and seeming contradictions. Brown argues that whatever methods that the adherents of Judaism utilize to resolve the contradictions found in their sacred texts should be allowed for the resolution of the discrepancies found in the Christian texts. 

Brown has failed to grasp the vast difference between the respective faith structures of Judaism and Christianity. 

Judaism affirms that God established the basic foundations of Judaism in the hearts of the Jewish people. The Exodus and the Sinai revelation which were experienced by the nation as a collective unit, served to establish the basic truths of Judaism in the hearts and minds of the nation. The sacred books were presented to the nation in order that their message be assimilated by the people who will read these books in light of the foundational experiences. 

As it is with any written work, and especially one as lengthy as the Jewish Scriptures, there will be questions and confusion. Judaism maintains that the Divine intent was that the judges of the Jewish people arbitrate in all situations where the Scriptural guidance is not clear. The foundational concepts of Judaism will never be affected by the intricacies of the text because they are not dependant on the text. They were established in the hearts of the people independent of any text."

Brown I think was simply pointing out that there needs to be consistency when it comes to examining another religion and that uneven weights and unequal measures are not to be utilized.

In a discussion I had with Nakdimon and Gassen Duu last year, I asked for their comments on the point regarding the Sinai Revelation and other points.:

Nakdimon wrote: "Blumenthal writes: “Judaism affirms that God established the basic foundations of Judaism in the hearts of the Jewish people. The Exodus and the Sinai revelation which were experienced by the nation as a collective unit, served to establish the basic truths of Judaism in the hearts and minds of the nation. The sacred books were presented to the nation in order that their message be assimilated by the people who will read these books in light of the foundational experiences. 

As it is with any written work, and especially one as lengthy as the Jewish Scriptures, there will be questions and confusion. Judaism maintains that the Divine intent was that the judges of the Jewish people arbitrate in all situations where the Scriptural guidance is not clear. The foundational concepts of Judaism will never be affected by the intricacies of the text because they are not dependant on the text. They were established in the hearts of the people independent of any text.“

What Blumenthal is writing here is just not true! It sounds all nice and dandy but this is just another romanticized, wishful thinking description of the historical events and contrary to the testimony of the Hebrew Scriptures. The basic foundations are NOT in the hearts of the Jewish people, which is evident of the rebellion of the Jewish people for centuries as soon as Moses died and even when Moses lived! In fact, that rebellion is the exact reason why God sent prophets over and over again to attempt to set the Jewish people straight. The rebellion of the Jewish people resulted in two exiles, the second being more severe than the first. 

Also, the majority of the Jewish people nowadays are secular at worst, semi-religious at best and follow little to no Torah. It is the minority of the Jewish people that are religious and read the scriptures at all. But take away the Hebrew Scriptures and it is only by the grace of God that there will be any religious Jews left. So much for “the basic foundations of Judaism [being] in the hearts of the Jewish people“. Truth is that the supposed experience at Sinai died with the people in the desert, all that is left is the testimony of that experience, which we find in the Tanach. The foundational concepts of Judaism (if Judaism is to be measured by any Biblical standard) depend very much on the TEXT of the Hebrew Bible!"

Protestant Christianity, on the other hand prides itself that it does not rely upon humans for the foundation or for the transmission of their belief system. Protestants point to the texts of Scripture and declares that they only rely upon the word of God. 

Without getting into the question as to who decided that these texts are indeed the word of God and upon what authority is this decision based, there are serious problems with the Protestant position. If indeed these texts are to serve as the foundation of the religion, and these texts are not meant for any specific audience (as opposed to the texts of Judaism which are meant for a specific target audience) – then who is to arbitrate when confusion arises? These confusions are not limited to peripheral issues in the Christian faith. The texts are unclear about some of the most essential issues of Christianity. This problem is severe enough when we limit our focus to the Christian Scriptures alone. But the confusions are multiplied exponentially when we throw the Jewish Scriptures into the mix."

One of the 5 Solas of Protestantism that is well known in Christian circles but is also the most misunderstood is Sola Scriptura.

Sola Scriptura teaches that the scriptures, The TANAKH and the NT, are are the final authority in all matters of faith and conduct. Protestants who know what Sola Scriptura teaches will not deny the usage of tradition. Quite to the contrary, Protestants do use tradition such as church councils, church fathers, creeds, catechisms etc, however, the tradition uttered needs to be in conformity with the scriptures themselves.

There is something called SOLO Scriptura, which does teach you can only use the Bible and no tradition period, however, this concept is foreign to the Reformers and even to those well versed in the Protestant faith. The fact that Protestant Churches have creeds in the first place means they don't deny the usage of tradition. Pastors ,Teachers, Tradition, General Revelation, the Holy Spirit and the transmission of scripture orally, arenot refuted by Sola Scriptura.

Sam Shamoun in an article on Sola Scriptura articulates what it teaches in three points:
"1. The Holy Scriptures are the sole, infallible rule of faith by virtue of it being breathed out or inspired by God. As such it is completely sufficient in and of itself to thoroughly equip Christians in all things necessary for salvation and sanctification.

2. The Bible is the only certain norm, since it is the only revelation that can be demonstrated to have come from inspired men of God. This cannot be said of oral traditions.

3. Finally, the central focus of the Scriptures is to reveal and make known the risen Lord and immortal Savior Jesus Christ, God’s eternally beloved Son, who alone grants eternal life to all who believe"

Keith Thompson has also done a comprehensive documentary refuting Catholicism and in a small snippet defines what Sola Scriptura is: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t24AnKrp61o&list=UUf7UKslwT23nmUwsMMO48xw

My question to Mr Blumenthal, Didn't the Prophets call their people back to Moses? The Torah was the ultimate authority and is to the people of Israel. Also, in Rabbinic thought to the best of my knowledge the Torah stands on the highest plane of revelation so wouldn't the traditions of the Rabbis need to be tested in light of the Torah?

"The sacred texts of Christianity do not give clear direction on issues such as the alleged divinity of Jesus, on the position of the Law of Moses after the advent of Jesus, on the role of the Jewish people in the Messianic age and on many such issues that have divided the Protestant Church since its inception."

The Deity of Christ is quite clear, especially in the Book of Acts where people are praying to Jesus just as HaShem was called on by the righteous in the Genesis 4:26. I have written on this subject of the Trinity, specifically responding to Richard Merrel and Tovia Singer.

Protestants to the best of my knowledge will be in agreement that the Law of Moses as a whole doesn't apply to Gentiles and that only moral commands minus the death penalty will apply, which the NT makes very clear, especially in the letters of Paul, although Protestants are divided on the issue of the Sabbath whether it should be observed or not and the subject of tithing is also disputed.

I am aware that Seventh Day Adventists make a mountain out of a molehill about Sabbath observance but they do not take Romans 14 or Colossians 2 into consideration. But that is another issue I won't be getting into here.

"Since Protestant Christianity does not attribute any authority to a body of human judges, there is no way that these conflicts can be effectively resolved except on a person by person basis. Each reader could resolve the confusions as he or she sees fit. This leaves Christianity with the unhappy proposition of having as many Christianity’s as there are adherents."

Letting the common man resolve the confusions would not allow him to interpret as he sees fit, especially when it comes to moral prohibitions within the NT and the fact that the NT commands Christians not to focus on worldliness.

As for issues not directly addressed in scripture, The subject of playing sports, watching movies or going down the gym is up for debate.

As stated before, Sola Scriptura is not a denial of authority, what it actually does is holds the authority accountable to the Bible.

Like I said with respect to the TANAKH, the prophets called their people back to the Law of Moses by Ha Shem's command. Jesus and the apostles are the ones whom Christians are to be called back to obeying Christ and the Father on the basis of both TANAKH and NT, considering the fact the warnings of the TANAKH can make a Christian wise unto salvation. The point is the ones who wrote the scriptures are the ones we are called back to, but this doesn't mean you cannot have a second and lesser authority guiding you.

There are two other points also worth noting:
1. The "many" Christianities arise because of the FAILURE to practice Sola Scriptura, not because of using Sola Scriptura effectively.
2. Protestants are only to divide over issues that affect our salvation. Believing in the existence of a third temple, eschatology and stuff such as what food's we can eat and what day we should worship on are minor issues which don't affect a man's salvation.

"This is only where Christianity’s problems begin. When we consider the question of the trustworthiness or lack thereof of the sacred texts of Christianity the Protestant Christian can only point to the texts themselves. As opposed to Judaism where the testimony of the living nation augments the testimony of the texts and the testimony of the texts augments the testimony of the living people – Protestant Christianity only has a set of books upon which they could place their trust. How can we know if these texts were written by honest people? On what basis can we accept that the books of the Christian Scripture were authored by people who lived up to a high ethical and moral standard? Why should we judge the authors of the gospels in a favorable light if there is no outside evidence to support the thesis that these were honest and ethical people?"

I had to get clarification from Mr Blumenthal before I could answer this, he said to clarify his point:
"What I am trying to say is this: If you have a person that is reputed to be Godly, honest, kind and trustworthy and he writes something in a book that seems to be dishonest – it is appropriate to study his/her words and try to understand them in a light that would fit with everything else that we know about this person.
But if you have someone who has a reputation for the opposite – or even if he has no reputation – and such a person writes something that seems to be dishonest – why should we exert ourselves to understand his/her words in a favorable light?"

If they were dishonest, you would still test what they say, considering one is able to mix truth with error. If however they were honest people, then yes, you would try to understand what they are saying and read what they say. Aren't we supposed to judge all mans words and test them, even mine?

Gassen Duu also made the following observation: “As opposed to Judaism where the testimony of the living nation augments the testimony of the texts and the testimony of the texts augments the testimony of the living people – Protestant Christianity only has a set of books upon which they could place their trust. How can we know if these texts were written by honest people? On what basis can we accept that the books of the Christian Scripture were authored by people who lived up to a high ethical and moral standard? Why should we judge the authors of the gospels in a favorable light if there is no outside evidence to support the thesis that these were honest and ethical people?"

This is an understandable objection and for sure nothing new, at least as old as the challenge for the “testimonies of the living nation” recorded by a single person – Moses.

As Nakdimon pointed out in another conversation:” Moses was a person of high moral conduct. BUT WHERE IS THE OUTSIDE SOURCE THAT TESTIFIES TO THAT?”

The New Testament was penned by the first hand eye witnesses of Jesus and those who stayed close to the disciples of Jesus."

Let's carry on

"In the case of Judaism, we have the testimony of the nation concerning the moral and spiritual character of the Biblical authors. These men and women established their credentials in the hearts, minds, and memories of a nation appointed by God as His witnesses. If we find confusion in their writings, we have the testimony of the nation amongst whom these writers lived to reassure us that these authors were holy and trustworthy. The confirmation of a nation serves to counteract any questions that would arise from the body of the texts. 

In the case of Christianity, on the other hand, the exact opposite is true. The Jewish people amongst whom these authors lived remember them in a negative light. Why should we trust these people? What is the justification to exert ourselves to straighten out the confusion that abounds in their writings? Where is the witness that will stand to counterbalance the contradictions found in the gospels?"

The apostles do not remember in a negative light every single Jew who has ever lived, only those who denied the Messiahship of Yeshua, that's it. The apostles had used the TANAKH as their foundation to demonstrate how Yeshua or Jesus fulfils the OT prophecies pertaining to the Messiah.

Not to mention some of the NT books such as the book of Hebrews were specifically written to the Jewish Christians in Rome.

The TANAKH is the foundation for both Jews and Christians, hence that is where we should start and see where the truth actually lies. We are both not interested in the Quran, the Bhagvad Gita or the Book of Mormon as our foundation, we are strictly speaking of the Judeo-Christian texts and no other texts outside them.

Hope this article helps

Answering Judaism.