Updates: Future exposure of Maestro Erano Evangelista

In my articles, I try to be gracious as possible, only using harsh words when speaking about false prophets, not unbelievers.

For those who do not know, Maestro Erano Evangelista is some nutcase who claims to be a Prophet like Moses who cannot be stood up against. He is not Jewish just to clarify, but a Philippino who claims that he is a true prophet.

In my articles, I hope to demonstrate that he is a false prophet who is guilty of distorting scripture and it is my fond hope that those enslaved by his false teaching may come to know the God of Israel.

Erano often claims that because he is the prophet like Moses (which begs the question and is absolutely false) and scholars and theologians have no business speaking again him or correcting him and his followers claim this as well.

However, such doesn't refute the rebuttals to him and he and his followers need to address the points raised by the scholars and theologians and not dismiss what we say just because we are not prophets like Moses.

I hope by God's grace to address the points raised by Era no and expose him for the false prophet and scoundrel he is.

A stern warning from Ezekiel is given to those who follow false prophets and refuse to repent:

Ezekiel 14:10 They will bear their guilt--the prophet will be guilty as the one who consults him.


If you follow Erano, or know someone who does, it is my fond hope that my articles may be a blessing to you and that they may bring you to the knowledge of YHWH, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

Answering Judaism.

Core of the Relationship: Examining "Heart of a Relationship"

For this article I want to take a look at another article recently penned at yourphariseefriend.wordpress.com, which can be found here: http://yourphariseefriend.wordpress.com/2014/01/28/heart-of-a-relationship/

Let us take a look at it shall we?

"Christians contend that Jesus was a manifestation of God. They compare Jesus to the fire of the burning bush that Moses saw at Horeb (Exodus 3:4), to the pillar of cloud that led the Israelites in the wilderness (Exodus 13:21), and to the Angel of the Lord that appears throughout the Jewish Scriptures (Exodus 23:20; Judges 6:12; Isaiah 63:9).

This argument is rooted in a misunderstanding of the relationship that the Jewish people share with God. The relationship between God and Israel includes many activities that are ancillary to the essence of the relationship. The essence of the relationship is God’s love for Israel and Israel’s love and reverence for God. As expressions of His love, God guides His people, He speaks to their prophets, and he protects them from their enemies. As expressions of Israel’s heart for God we offer sacrifices, we build a Temple and we follow His Law. All of these activities are only part of the relationship inasmuch as they express the heart of one party to the other. If you remove the heart from these activities, they remain empty husks."

All of the manifestations of God that are found in Scripture relate to the ancillary aspects of the relationship. God showed His people that He chose Solomon’s Temple with a cloud of glory (1Kings 8:10), God accepted Elijah’s sacrifice with a fire from Heaven (1Kings 18:38), and God spoke to Abraham through the agency of an angel (Genesis 22:15). These have no impact on the essence of our relationship with God; namely, the love of our heart."

We do claim that Jesus is seen in Exodus 3:4 and the various passages that have been cited in the first paragraph. That is correct, but we don't say that Jesus was a manifestation of God, we say he is the Second Person of the Trinity. We also say that Jesus did appear to the OT in the passages that have been cited. There is also no question that "God showed His people that He chose Solomon’s Temple with a cloud of glory, God accepted Elijah’s sacrifice with a fire from Heaven". However, the angel in the context of Genesis 22:15 is not treated as a mere agent of the Father. While he does speak on The Father's behalf and we don't claim he is the Father, this wouldn't make him less than deity and it is quite clear that the angel is not simply relaying from the Father, but is in fact making it clear that HE is swearing by HIS name. 

"15 The angel of the Lord called to Abraham from heaven a second time 16 and said, “I swear by myself, declares the Lord, that because you have done this and have not withheld your son, your only son, 17 I will surely bless you and make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and as the sand on the seashore. Your descendants will take possession of the cities of their enemies, 18 and through your offspring[b] all nations on earth will be blessed,[c] because you have obeyed me.”"

"When God came to teach His people about the essence of our relationship with Him, they saw no image. God emphasized this point when He reminded His people of this covenantal encounter (Deuteronomy 4:15). The Sinai encounter was the definitive teaching about the heart of our relationship with God. And in this critical context the Scriptures emphasize that there was no manifestation at all.

Christianity’s claim for Jesus is a claim about the essence of the relationship. Christianity demands a love and a reverence for the person portrayed in the pages of the Christian Scriptures. This is not telling us at which location to bring our sacrifices, it is not guiding our travel and it is not merely bringing us a message. This is telling us where to direct our hearts. It is a teaching that attempts to place a finite existence in the essence of our relationship with God. This is idolatry."

No question that no manifestation was present at Sinai regarding the point made by the article and also, The subject of Deuteronomy 4:15 I have wrote on in this article here: http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/deuteronomy-415-20-re-examined.html

I have also written on Deuteronomy 13 in this article here: http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/anointed-ones-and-strange-gods.html

In addition to this, let's read the passage:

"15 You saw no form of any kind the day the Lord spoke to you at Horeb out of the fire. Therefore watch yourselves very carefully, 16 so that you do not become corrupt and make for yourselves an idol, an image of any shape, whether formed like a man or a woman, 17 or like any animal on earth or any bird that flies in the air, 18 or like any creature that moves along the ground or any fish in the waters below. 19 And when you look up to the sky and see the sun, the moon and the stars—all the heavenly array—do not be enticed into bowing down to them and worshiping things the Lord your God has apportioned to all the nations under heaven. 20 But as for you, the Lord took you and brought you out of the iron-smelting furnace, out of Egypt, to be the people of his inheritance, as you now are."

Reading the passage we see there was no form seen at a particular point in time, but specifically at Horeb and thus there is a warning to the Israelites not to worship graven images or even the sun moon and stars within the heavens.

Another point which I have made in my first paper responding to Supplement to Contra Brown:

"It is Jesus' claim and the apostles that he was God in the flesh. If Jesus was not who he claimed to be, Then the Jews were right in concluding that bowing to him in worship would be idolatry. If however Jesus is God but he is not the Father in heaven and proved that to be the case, then worshipping him is acceptable. We don't bow to the flesh, we bow to the one who took on flesh. He "tabernacled among us" as John 1 puts it."

If the claims of Jesus are true, then Christians are encouraging devotion to HaShem and not detracting from him with their worship of Jesus, considering that the Trinity teaches that Father Son and Spirit are HaShem. If his claims are false, then the article written by my Rabbinic friend would have absolute merit and I would be a fool responding to it.

Here is a video I did on my bobo577 account which I think I will be of interest to you: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WiaBaxzTSHU

Feel free to judge this article and video and I hope have addressed the issues.

Answering Judaism.

Comments on "The Pharisees"

I had recently came across and article that was penned back in May 2013 on the subject of the Pharisees. It caught my eye and I thought I should respond to it. The article can be found here: http://yourphariseefriend.wordpress.com/2013/05/07/the-pharisees/

Before you read this response, read the original article for yourself and come to your own conclusion.

"You would expect that the authors of the Christian Scriptures would attempt to teach the doctrines of Christianity. Indeed, the theology of Christianity can be found by reading the letters of Paul. But the writers of the Christian Scriptures did not stop at presenting their own theology; they also found it necessary to give their readers a perspective of Jewish theology. It seems that believing certain things about Jews and Judaism is part and parcel of Christianity.

The word “Pharisee” appears 100 times in the Christian Scriptures. Who were the Pharisees? The Pharisees were the leaders of those Jews who believed in the national testimony of the Jewish people. The Pharisees were the leaders of the Jewish people and their philosophy and teachings is known today as Orthodox Judaism.

A popular thesaurus equates the word “Pharisee” with: “hypocrite”, “fraud”, “deceiver” and “pretender”. A typical Christian study Bible describes the Pharisees as: “self-righteous”, “avaricious”, “fond of distinguished titles”, “oppressive” and “cruel”. This view of the Pharisees is rooted in the writings of the Christian Scriptures. Every other historical document that we have that describes the Pharisees does not support this negative judgment of the Pharisees.


The writings of the Pharisees themselves preach against all of these vices. Not only do they preach against these vices but they also provide stories from real life that provide illumination in humility, kindness, honesty and selflessness."

The word Pharisee does carry a negative connotation within Christian circles, also, Just because historical documentation documents virtues they had, that doesn't mean that the vices that are pointed out by the NT itself are automatically false. While there may have been good Pharisees, which even the NT mentions, there were Pharisees that by in large were hypocritical. In fact in the article, the writer admits there were hypocrites and frauds within Jewish circles.

While there were a remnant of righteous Pharisees in the NT, it doesn't hesitates in pointing out that the Pharisees at that time began to fail in properly giving the Torah to the people, and lade unnecessary baggage on them.

"If we would be alive in the times of the writing of the Christian Scriptures we can perhaps have an argument as to which path it is that leads to humility – is it the path proposed by the writers of the Christian Scriptures or is it the path mapped out by the Pharisees. But today there is no room for such an argument. We have 2000 years of historical data in front of us. Were there any hypocritical Jews in the past 2000 years? Of-course! Did the Jews sometimes have leaders who were frauds and deceivers? Yes, they did. I am not trying to deny that. What I am saying however is that the community who walked the path mapped out by the Pharisees fared so much better than the community who followed the path mapped out by the authors of the Christian Scriptures. The authors of the Christian Scriptures did not provide their community with the spiritual leadership that it needed while the Pharisees did.

When presented with the historical record of the community who respected the Christian Scriptures missionaries often respond with the slogan: “they were not real Christians”. This assertion rings very hollow in my ears. So many students of history have concluded that to disassociate the Christian Scriptures from the Inquisition and the holocaust is like trying to disassociate smoking from lung-cancer. But it is not necessary for me to expose the empty rhetoric of the missionary here and now. All I need to say to the Christian is that if you want me to judge the authors of the Christian Scriptures on the basis of their moral teachings and on nothing else then I ask you to be consistent. Don’t judge the Pharisees by what their theological enemies have said about them. Judge them by their moral teachings or don’t judge them at all."

There is no empty rhetoric when trying to separate the NT from the Inquisition and thus there isn't anything for this gentleman to expose. I have even read the references given by Uri Yosef where he claims anti-Semitism is rife and not ONE reference he gave teaches such absurdity. Also, it makes ZERO sense to suggest that the disciples of Jesus or even Jesus himself was anti-Semitic because they were, JEWS. Thus to compare separating the NT from the Inquisition and the holocaust to separating smoking from lung cancer is a read herring.

Also, Christians are to judge teachers by action AND doctrine, the Pharisees included. So yes, I am happy to be consistent to condemn the Pharisees with the scriptures. but to say "Don’t judge the Pharisees by what their theological enemies have said about them. Judge them by their moral teachings or don’t judge them at all." does not mean or show a lack of consistency on the part of Christians. WE ARE FREE to use the NT to condemn the Pharisees, where is lack of consistency in using the apostles? If you want to accuse Christians of rhetoric when they say that people who kill Jews in the name of Christ are not true Christians, I could easily say you are guilty of rhetoric when you try and say the disciples were anti-semites.

Also, WHAT spiritual leadership do you assume the apostles never provided? They appointed teachers and elders, raised them up and others later did the same? So what do you mean the apostles never provided spiritual leadership that the Pharisee's provided?

Anyway, That's all I have to say for now on this topic.

Answering Judaism.

Examination of some arguments raised by "Supplement to Contra Brown" 8

Here is another article in the series looking at more points raised by Yisroel Blumenthal in his Supplement to Contra Brown. In our last article, we looked at and excerpt called "Revised Messiah from Critique of Volume 4" which can be found here: http://yourphariseefriend.wordpress.com/2014/01/19/revised-messiah-excerpt-from-critique-of-vol-4/.

With that out of the way, Shall we go?

"Brown puts down 6 points that the proponents of this objection (that the theology of the Messiah’s death was invented as a result of Jesus’ death) must believe – and Brown takes the pains to point out how ludicrous he considers each of these 6 points to be.

The first point that Brown brings out, is that those who present this objection must posit that there are no biblical prophecies that point to the “Messiah’s suffering”. Brown argues that this would contradict the objection that some people raise against Christianity which posits that the disciples reconstructed Jesus’ life to fit those prophecies.

The flaws in Brown’s argument are readily apparent. Brown himself admits that while Jesus was alive, the disciples did not find any prophecies in the Jewish Bible that speak of the Messiah’s suffering. Brown acknowledges that it was only after Jesus’ death that the disciples “discovered” these “prophecies”. This means that one could read the Jewish Bible without an “anti-Jesus” bias and still fail to see anything about a suffering Messiah. It is only when one reads the Bible with a “pro-post-crucifixion-Jesus” bias that he or she will “see” the concept of a suffering Messiah. After the disciples began reconstructing their concept of the Messiah, it is entirely reasonable to assume that the same imaginations that saw a suffering Messiah where there was none to be seen, also wished events into existence in order to fit their new theology."

And yet the concept of Mosiach Ben Yosef exists. While obviously not the same as Ben David, this particular Messiah DOES suffer in the Rabbinic context, however as far as I know, the opinion is not a widely held opinion, though I could be wrong. Who of the Rabbis came up with Mosiach Ben Yosef, one who dies in battle and is raised by Mosiach Ben David? People could only read the concept of two Messiahs according to Blumenthal's criteria through bias. There is a supposed conspiracy here that the apostles reconstructed their concept of the Messiah and thus created a new theology based on their imaginations. For what reason? I had mentioned earlier and this is a point to hammer home, why would they fabricate this concept of a suffering Messiah while being absolutely aware of Jesus being in the grave? One doesn't make a lie and be willing to die for it as if it is a truth.

"The second point that Brown makes in defense of Christianity is that the proponents of this objection (that the disciples invented the concept of the Messiah’s death out of thin air) would have to believe that Jesus never taught this foundational Christian doctrine. Brown considers this to be untenable because the gospels do record such teachings of Jesus.

Brown fails to consider the fact that all of the people that were with Jesus throughout his entire teaching career did not expect him to die. This tells us that Jesus did NOT teach about his suffering and death. He certainly didn’t teach it in an open and unambiguous way. After the disciples invented this myth and retrojected this concept into the mouth of Jesus, we are not surprised to find that the gospels report that Jesus taught this concept. But the disciple’s confusion at the time clearly indicates that Jesus did NOT teach his disciples about the supposed suffering of the Messiah."

Just because they didn't expect Jesus to die and were ignorant, that doesn't mean Jesus NEVER taught his vicarious atonement, nor does it explain their change in attitude after supposedly seeing Jesus. Blumenthal is arguing from silence. Why would the disciples retroject their concept of Messiah into Jesus' own lips and for what reason would they do it? Furthermore if the resurrection happened, then the apostles could understand the purpose and meaning of Jesus' death. Like I have said before, some of the disciples were speaking to Jesus on the road to Emmaus, but did not realise it until later on. If Jesus was on the road not merely a hallucination, this demonstrates that the disciples were not lying about their master's resurrection, but believed he had rose from the dead. Thus, this is not an invention placed into the mouth of Jesus.

On a side note, there are people who falsely have claimed that the concept of animals being killed as sacrifices was an invention and not what Moses had given to the people as part of the Torah. I am sure Blumenthal would not accept that and neither would I. But why does Blumenthal assume that the disciples invented the concept of a suffering Messiah in order to hold desperately to their failed Messiah? Again, A conspiracy hypothesis doesn't account for a change in their attitude AFTER the crucifixion.

"The third argument that Brown advances focuses on the last supper. Brown points out that if the disciples invented the concept of the Messiah’s death, this would then mean that the last supper never took place, and that Jesus never spoke of his blood being shed to inaugurate a new covenant. Brown sees this as an impossible proposition because of the fact that the followers of Jesus had been practicing this ritual since his death.

The question that we must ask here is: at what point in time did the disciples come to understand that the last supper was a “foreshadowing” of Jesus’ death? According to the Christian’s own gospels, the disciples were in a state of confusion even after the crucifixion. They did not understand how their beloved leader could die. If, as Brown argues, Jesus had clearly taught about his impending redemptive death, then why would the disciples despair? Why the confusion? It is clear that Jesus did not provide his disciples with any clear teaching about his impending death. It was only with the passing of time that his disciples came to reinterpret his death and his last supper in a manner that would allow them to maintain their belief in their beloved leader.

Another detail worthy of consideration in relation to this argument is the fact that Paul claims that the concept of the last supper had been revealed to him personally by the dead Jesus (1Corinthians 11:23). This would seem to indicate that until Paul had received this “revelation”, the last supper was not “properly” understood by the followers of Jesus. The Christian Scriptures tell us that it was Paul, and not Jesus, who gave “prophetic” significance to the ritual of the last supper."

Peter did react negatively in Matthew 16 when Jesus said he was going to die.

"21 From that time on Jesus began to explain to his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things at the hands of the elders, the chief priests and the teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and on the third day be raised to life.

22 Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him. “Never, Lord!” he said. “This shall never happen to you!”

23 Jesus turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the concerns of God, but merely human concerns.”."

Jesus rebukes Peter for trying to say that Christ will not die at the hands of the priests. Also, even though Paul says he received a Revelation, this isn't to say the disciples did not have his understanding of the Lord's Supper as well or even before Paul. Whatever point the disciples understood the Lord's Supper's meaning, would not impact the NT severely and Jesus DOES speak of his blood in inaugurating the covenant through his blood at the Lord's Supper. For that matter, Even though Jesus did speak of his vicarious death, It isn't surprising that the disciples were in fear and terror after his death, Why wouldn't you be?

"The fourth argument that Brown presents as a refutation to this objection (that the concept of the death of the Messiah was a myth invented by the disciples after the death of Jesus) only serves to accentuate the lack of logical cohesion that permeates Brown’s arguments. Brown argues that if the objection is correct in its basic supposition that the disciples invented the theology of the suffering and death of the Messiah, then we would also have to accept the supposition that the resurrection never happened. That is like saying that if we are to accept the supposition that a specific person is guilty, we must be aware that we will also have to assume that he is not innocent.

The proponents of the argument that Jesus’ disciples concocted the concept of a suffering Messiah will certainly also believe that the resurrection never happened."

If the disciples didn't concoct the vicarious suffering of their Messiah, then Jesus would have taught it and after his death and resurrection, enlighten his apostles and "open their minds to understand the scriptures" as Luke 24:44 states.

"Brown explains to his readers why it is that he finds the belief that the resurrection never happened to be so preposterous. He claims that those who believe that the resurrection never happened will have to accept that: “the books of the New Testament… are 100 percent wrong 100 percent of the time about the most foundational element of their faith.

This argument is fallacious from several angles. First and most obviously is that those who reject Islam or Judaism have to live with the fact that they believe that the books of these two world religions are 100 percent wrong 100 percent of the time about the most foundational elements of their faith. This is no problem for people who do not attribute too much validity to the foundational texts of these religions to begin with. But Christianity claims to accept the Jewish Bible. The Jewish Bible teaches that the foundational event of the belief system; the Sinai revelation, taught the Jewish people that to attribute deity to any inhabitant of heaven or earth is a violation of our relationship with God. Christianity rejects this teaching. This means that Christians have to accept that the Jewish Bible is 100 percent wrong 100 percent of the time about the most foundational element of the faith. Christianity does this at the same time that it pays lip-service to its reverence of the Jewish Bible.

A second point that we ought to consider is the question: who says that the alleged resurrection of Jesus was the most foundational element of the faith of Jesus’ disciples? Let us remember, these disciples were totally devoted to faith in Jesus long before the crucifixion. They were not even expecting him to die and be resurrected. So how can the resurrection have been so foundational to their faith?"

The idea that Christianity rejects the Sinai Revelation is a lie. I have also written on the subject of the Sinai Revelation in the following articles:
http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/examination-of-some-arguments-raised-by.html
http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/anointed-ones-and-strange-gods.html.
I can assure you, I pay no lip-service to the TANAKH whatsoever. Christians who do not read the TANAKH will have trouble understanding certain issues in the NT.

The resurrection is crucial, if the resurrection never happened, my faith is in vain and I am practicality wasting my time responding to Blumenthal. The resurrection would also be a VINDICATION of Jesus, that he has the Father's stamp of approval. But again, Just because the disciples were ignorant of the Messiah's vicarious death, that doesn't entail that they couldn't understand and acknowledge it later.

"The fifth argument that Brown advances against the objection that proposes that the disciples made up the theology of the suffering of Messiah after the death of Jesus focuses on the disciples activities after the death of Jesus. Proponents of the objection, argues Brown, will have to accept that: “Within days, all the disciples, without breaking ranks, overcame the shock and trauma of their masters ignominious death; quickly came up with this fabricated account; developed a whole new theology to support it – although until that time they had never once entertained the idea…”

This argument is just as hollow as the previous arguments. For starters, the fact that Brown finds it incredulous that the disciples had: “until that time never once entertained the idea” utterly discredits him. Brown himself acknowledges, and the Christian Scriptures teach, that up until the crucifixion of Jesus the disciples had no clue about the supposed sacrificial death of the Messiah. This sentence has no honest place in Brown’s argument."

"Furthermore, how does Brown know that it only took days for the disciples to develop this theology together with the supporting mythology? The earliest dating for the Christian Scriptures places them decades after the death of Jesus. History is replete with the followers of failed movements coming up with new theologies and supporting mythical events to support them. A typical historical template would have the disciples sharing their inspired visions of their master, and with time these came to be interpreted as physical sightings. If there was some confusing physical event that the disciples seized upon in order to overcome their disappointment, this would have only accelerated the process. This could have been a report of a sighting or a report of an empty grave. Neither of these scenarios necessitates belief in an actual resurrection. It is common for people who suddenly lose a loved one to think they see him or her somewhere. The scenario of an empty grave is actually supported by the Christian Scriptures. According to the gospels, Jesus was buried hastily, close to nightfall, with few people attending the burial, and in a grave designated for another person. How difficult would it be to assume that the disciples were mistaken about the location of the grave? How difficult would it be to assume that the rightful owners of the grave removed Jesus’ body? In fact John presents this scenario as the first thought that came to Mary’s mind when she found an empty grave (John 20:2). Would the devoted followers of a charismatic leader need more “evidence” than that which any of these scenarios provide before believing a resurrection? History testifies that devoted followers of charismatic have a strong tendency to believe the most preposterous things about their leader provided that they support their devotion."

Jesus after the resurrection spoke to his disciples in Luke 24:44 and opened their minds as mentioned before. One would be hard-pressed to assume the disciples were mistaken about the location of the grave but how does Blumenthal know that they could be mistaken about the tomb's location? Furthermore, Why after lending a tomb to someone would you decide to remove the body without the person's friends and families knowledge and permission to do so? For that matter, Guards were stationed at the tomb to prevent anyone from getting near it to take the body. The dating of the Christian scriptures isn't a problem to be honest, since know Christian claims the Gospels were written in Christ's day

Even IF the disciples thought they saw Jesus just because "It is common for people who suddenly lose a loved one to think they see him or her somewhere.", this would not prove they fabricated a story to lie and deceive wilfully. If this point in bold by Blumenthal is correct, they were merely subject to their own delusions and were not out to deceive people. Also, Considering Jesus made appearances to 500 individuals, you have to account for how so many people could see him in 12 instances. Hallucinations will not do, because that would only serve the point that he was dead, but even in the Gospel of John in the same chapter that Blumenthal quotes, Jesus requests Thomas to put his finger in his side to demonstrate that he was alive and well.

"24 Now Thomas (also known as Didymus[a]), one of the Twelve, was not with the disciples when Jesus came. 25 So the other disciples told him, “We have seen the Lord!”

But he said to them, “Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe.”

26 A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you!” 27 Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe.”

28 Thomas said to him, “My Lord and my God!”

29 Then Jesus told him, “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”"

A hallucination cannot be touched, that is quite clear, so obviously Jesus would of been standing in front of Thomas himself.

"Finally, how does Brown know that there was no “breaking of ranks”? Matthew reports that there was an element of doubt about the resurrection in the mind of some of the disciples. How can Brown be confident that these disciples did not break rank with those who believed the resurrection in a literal sense?

The sixth and last argument presented by Brown points out that the proponents of the objection (that the disciples invented the suffering Messiah concept) would have to believe that: “On top of all this, they not only created the myth of a second coming but then misunderstood the myth they created, wrongly believing it would happen in their lifetime when, in fact they were fully aware that they made the whole thing up.

Brown finishes his argument with: “If you believe this, I have an exclusive contract for you on the Brooklyn Bridge…”

Brown is in the process of trying to sell his readers the equivalent to a contract on the BrooklynBridge, and he yet accuses his critics of trying to sell the BrooklynBridge!

The disciples understood that Jesus will return in their lifetime based on words that Jesus spoke before the crucifixion. As it is with most Messianic pretenders, Jesus promised his following that they will merit to witness the age of Israel’s glory. Before the crucifixion, this was understood by Jesus’ followers to mean that he will soon assume the position of Israel’s Messiah. After the crucifixion, his disciples reinterpreted his message to mean that he will return from the dead to assume what they considered his rightful position. Is this chain of events so preposterous? It is the common template followed by the disappointed devotees of almost every failed Messiah."

Jesus actually said he would come again with his angels in Matthew 24, Mark 13 and 14. Blumenthal has no evidence that the disciples "reinterpreted" what Jesus said, he only has conjecture.

"Matthew 24:26 “So if anyone tells you, ‘There he is, out in the wilderness,’ do not go out; or, ‘Here he is, in the inner rooms,’ do not believe it. 27 For as lightning that comes from the east is visible even in the west, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. 28 Wherever there is a carcass, there the vultures will gather.

29 “Immediately after the distress of those days

“‘the sun will be darkened,
    and the moon will not give its light;
the stars will fall from the sky,
    and the heavenly bodies will be shaken.’[b]
30 “Then will appear the sign of the Son of Man in heaven. And then all the peoples of the earth[c] will mourn when they see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven, with power and great glory.[d] 31 And he will send his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other.

32 “Now learn this lesson from the fig tree: As soon as its twigs get tender and its leaves come out, you know that summer is near. 33 Even so, when you see all these things, you know that it[e] is near, right at the door. 34 Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened. 35 Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away."

"Mark 13:21 At that time if anyone says to you, ‘Look, here is the Messiah!’ or, ‘Look, there he is!’ do not believe it. 22 For false messiahs and false prophets will appear and perform signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect. 23 So be on your guard; I have told you everything ahead of time.

24 “But in those days, following that distress,

“‘the sun will be darkened,
    and the moon will not give its light;
25 the stars will fall from the sky,
    and the heavenly bodies will be shaken.’[c]
26 “At that time people will see the Son of Man coming in clouds with great power and glory. 27 And he will send his angels and gather his elect from the four winds, from the ends of the earth to the ends of the heavens.

28 “Now learn this lesson from the fig tree: As soon as its twigs get tender and its leaves come out, you know that summer is near. 29 Even so, when you see these things happening, you know that it[d] is near, right at the door. 30 Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened. 31 Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away."

In one of my recent papers, barry umansky commented on the word Generation in which he said:
"Matthew 24 is quite consistent with Matthew 16:28-28 “Truly I tell YOU some who are standing HERE will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.” Any attempt to rationalize genea to some future generation or to the nation of Jews is just that- a poor rationalization. His followers expected something immanent in their lifetimes."

and Blumenthal also said the following:
"Before the crucifixion, this was understood by Jesus’ followers to mean that he will soon assume the position of Israel’s Messiah. After the crucifixion, his disciples reinterpreted his message to mean that he will return from the dead to assume what they considered his rightful position."

The onus of proof is on Blumenthal to show that the disciples reinterpreted the message. If they did, they would not be willing to go through with their deaths. While they may of not understood Christ will come twice until after the resurrection, that doesn't mean they wouldn't of understood it later. I know I am reminding the audience of this point but this is worth consideration.

A quick note on barry's comment is again:
"One way generation can be understood is referring to a particular race of people, namely the Jews. Jesus also goes on to say that no man knows the day or the hour in the same context.

"36 “But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son,[f] but only the Father. 37 As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. 38 For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark; 39 and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away. That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. 40 Two men will be in the field; one will be taken and the other left. 41 Two women will be grinding with a hand mill; one will be taken and the other left."

Jesus obviously didn't mean that he would return in the apostles lifetime."
barry did dismiss what was said about the word generation in his comment and his claim of "Any attempt to rationalize genea to some future generation or to the nation of Jews is just that- a poor rationalization." doesn't address the issue.
This article on the subject of the word Generation will be of use to one on this issue: http://www.mountainretreatorg.net/faq/generation.shtml

I hope that this article and the previous one has been of help to you and I thank you for taking the time to read.

Answering Judaism.

Addendum, here is a video Nakdimon did on the resurrection of Jesus. This is part 4 of his Isaiah 53 series: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VI_bI1Vkgg4

Examination of some arguments raised by "Supplement to Contra Brown" 7

Recently Yisroel Blumenthal reposted an excerpt from his response to Michael Brown in Supplement to Contra Brown, in particular looking at the objections in Volume 4 of "Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus". As a reminder, All Biblical quotes, quotes from Brown and from Blumenthal shall be put in bold. Brown's points will be highlighted in italics as well.

"Brown presents an objection to Christianity:

“When Jesus failed to fulfill the prophecies, his followers invented the myth of his substitutionary death, his resurrection, and finally his second coming, which, of course, they completely expected in his lifetime.”

Brown responds on behalf of Christianity:

“In order to make this claim, you virtually have to rewrite the entire New Testament, since a central theme of those writings, from their earliest strata on, is that Jesus had to go to the cross and suffer and die and then rise from the dead.”

Brown’s response does not begin to address the objection. The New Testament was written after the disappointed followers of Jesus had already developed a semi-coherent theology to explain the death of their leader. No one claims that any part of the New Testament was written while Jesus was alive. The fact that the New Testament claims that Jesus preached about his death is to be expected. At the same time, the authors of the New Testament admit that the disciples of Jesus did not expect him to die, and that they originally saw his death as a refutation to his Messianic claim (Luke 24:21).

Brown himself admits that the disciples of Jesus only understood his death as part of his Messianic mission after the crucifixion (page 107). So there is no question that Jesus did not teach about his death in a clear and explicit way. It was only after his death and after rumors of his resurrection began to circulate that his disciples came up with the story that he had already taught about his death during his lifetime, but that they had not properly understood his teaching at the time."

Luke 24:21 says the following:

"17 He asked them, “What are you discussing together as you walk along?”

They stood still, their faces downcast. 18 One of them, named Cleopas, asked him, “Are you the only one visiting Jerusalem who does not know the things that have happened there in these days?”

19 “What things?” he asked.

“About Jesus of Nazareth,” they replied. “He was a prophet, powerful in word and deed before God and all the people. 20 The chief priests and our rulers handed him over to be sentenced to death, and they crucified him; 21 but we had hoped that he was the one who was going to redeem Israel. And what is more, it is the third day since all this took place. 22 In addition, some of our women amazed us. They went to the tomb early this morning 23 but didn’t find his body. They came and told us that they had seen a vision of angels, who said he was alive. 24 Then some of our companions went to the tomb and found it just as the women had said, but they did not see Jesus.”

25 He said to them, “How foolish you are, and how slow to believe all that the prophets have spoken! 26 Did not the Messiah have to suffer these things and then enter his glory?” 27 And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself.

28 As they approached the village to which they were going, Jesus continued on as if he were going farther. 29 But they urged him strongly, “Stay with us, for it is nearly evening; the day is almost over.” So he went in to stay with them.

30 When he was at the table with them, he took bread, gave thanks, broke it and began to give it to them. 31 Then their eyes were opened and they recognized him, and he disappeared from their sight. 32 They asked each other, “Were not our hearts burning within us while he talked with us on the road and opened the Scriptures to us?”"

Within the context, those who knew Jesus certainly didn't expect that Jesus came to die on the cross, despite the fact on numerous occasions he made it clear that he would suffer, die AND rise again. Blumenthal claims that the disciples " came up with the story that he had already taught about his death during his lifetime, but that they had not properly understood his teaching at the time." But this doesn't explain the radical change of attitude after they claimed to see him. Liars make poor martyrs, If the disciples knew fully well that Jesus was NOT going to rise from the dead but instead liberate Israel in his lifetime, they would not of been so inclined to die for what they KNEW to be a lie. It is one thing to be convinced in your mind that something is true and die for that cause, but it's quite another story to wilfully die knowing full well that what you were telling people was a lie. A conspiracy hypothesis doesn't work. Either the disciples were deluded, or they were convinced they saw Jesus and understood the significance of his death and why he went through with it.

To the best of my knowledge, no serious historian would deny the existence of Jesus, secular or otherwise.

Even ancient historians like Josephus acknowledge the existence of Jesus. If you take out the interpolations, you are left with the following:

"Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him and the tribe of Christians so named from him are not extinct at this day."

What Blumenthal is presenting is merely a theory about the NT. Again, If the disciples did not expect Jesus to die, for what reason would they lie? There is none, so the disciples must of been deceived or are telling the truth. Additionally, notice the context Blumenthal quotes from. In the context, some of the disciples were speaking to Jesus on the road, but did not realise it until later on. If Jesus was on the road not merely a hallucination, this demonstrates that the disciples were not lying about their master's resurrection, but believed he had rose from the dead.

"Let us summarize what the Christian Scriptures tell us about the progression of events in the community of Jesus’ disciples.

A)    – While Jesus was alive, his disciples believed he was the Messiah, but did not expect him to die.

What we learn from this is that Jesus did not teach his disciples the Christian doctrine of the substitutionary death of the Messiah. If we assume that the disciples of Jesus were familiar with the Jewish Scriptures, then this fact teaches us that the disciples of Jesus read the entirety of the Jewish Scriptures, including Isaiah 53, Daniel 9, and Psalm 22 without seeing the concept of the substitutionary death of the Messiah. They obviously had a different interpretation of these passages. An interesting question to ponder is: On what basis did they understand that Jesus is the Messiah? This was before the crucifixion, so they didn’t have Isaiah 53, they didn’t have Daniel 9 or Psalm 22. They believed he was some type of divine being – but on what basis? And if these people were so credulous so as to accept these claims without a Biblical basis, then why should we trust anything these people tell us?

If we accept the alternative scenario; that the disciples of Jesus were ignorant of the Jewish Scriptures, then the fact that they accepted Jesus as the Messiah is meaningless. Their opinion would be worthless.

B)    – At the point of the crucifixion, the disciples despaired of Jesus being the Messiah.

C)    – At some point in time after the crucifixion, the disciples “came to understand” that this was the role of the Messiah all along.

This means that the crucifixion of their beloved leader caused them to reinterpret the Jewish Scriptures in a manner that they had not understood them until now. Not only were they reinterpreting the Jewish Scriptures, but they were also reinterpreting the message of Jesus. These were the people who were with Jesus throughout his entire teaching career – and they had never heard of the concept of the “substitutionary death of the Messiah”."

In previous papers, I have mentioned in the past that the NT as a historical document gives us insight as to what the JEWS as a whole believed, not just the disciples beliefs before Christ's death. Early Jews did acknowledge the Messiah would be a King, usher in universal peace and the knowledge of God. Both Rabbinic Judaism and Christianity both agree on these points. This is a comment I made in one of my previous papers, Biblical quotes are underlined:

"If we take the NT as a HISTORICAL record, It gives us an insight into the early opinions of the Jews themselves. It doesn't have an exhaustive record of what they believed, but it records some of the early opinions on where the Messiah would be born, what he would do etc. John 7 even records this:

"John 7:37 On the last and greatest day of the festival, Jesus stood and said in a loud voice, “Let anyone who is thirsty come to me and drink. 38 Whoever believes in me, as Scripture has said, rivers of living water will flow from within them.”[c] 39 By this he meant the Spirit, whom those who believed in him were later to receive. Up to that time the Spirit had not been given, since Jesus had not yet been glorified.

40 On hearing his words, some of the people said, “Surely this man is the Prophet.”

41 Others said, “He is the Messiah.”

Still others asked, “How can the Messiah come from Galilee? 42 Does not Scripture say that the Messiah will come from David’s descendants and from Bethlehem, the town where David lived?” 43 Thus the people were divided because of Jesus. 44 Some wanted to seize him, but no one laid a hand on him."

Some of the people were confused, they were convinced that the Messiah WOULD come from Bethlehem, yet some, knowing that Jesus had been raised in Galilee, were sceptical that Jesus was the Messiah. Putting aside the Messiahship of Jesus for now here, Notice the people, not just the high priests, were convinced the Prophet came from Bethlehem. Blumenthal has the right to reject this, he is free in the matter, but in the case of historical study, the NT is a reliable source that mentions Rabbinic opinion and those of the lay people. Even the Talmud records debate and discussion with respect to the Messiah. Does this mean I deny the inspiration of the NT? By no means. I do affirm the NT as God's word just as the TANAKH is."

There were people that were convinced Jesus was the Messiah, even without Isaiah 53, Daniel 9 and Psalm 22, because obviously those are not the ONLY Messianic passages we have, Isaiah 11 is treated as Messianic by Rabbinic Jews and Christians alike as one example. While members of the Jewish people were wondering if Christ was the Messiah, they didn't expect him to die and that was a blind spot that they had. While they may not of had the same Messianic passages in mind that the disciples would have later, this wouldn't invalidate Christ. Furthermore, the standard that people would of used to prove Christ was the Messiah would of been the TANAKH. As for the subject of his deity, John points to the vision in Isaiah 6 and to Isaiah 53:

"37 Even after Jesus had performed so many signs in their presence, they still would not believe in him. 38 This was to fulfill the word of Isaiah the prophet:

“Lord, who has believed our message

    and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?”[a]

39 For this reason they could not believe, because, as Isaiah says elsewhere:

40 “He has blinded their eyes

    and hardened their hearts,

so they can neither see with their eyes,

    nor understand with their hearts,

    nor turn—and I would heal them.”[b]

41 Isaiah said this because he saw Jesus’ glory and spoke about him."

As Dr James R. White notes:

"Towards the end of Jesus'public ministry as recorded by John we find an incident where a group of Greeks seek out the Lord Jesus. The significance of the passage often goes right past us because we are looking more at the encounter than a little comment John tacks on to the end of his citation of Isaiah:

"37 But though He had performed so many [a]signs before them, yet they were not believing in Him. 38 This was to fulfill the word of Isaiah the prophet which he spoke: “Lord, who has believed our report? And to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?” 39 For this reason they could not believe, for Isaiah said again, 40 “He has blinded their eyes and He hardened their heart, so that they would not see with their eyes and perceive with their heart, and [b]be converted and I heal them.” 41 These things Isaiah said because he saw His glory, and he spoke of Him.""

The struggle with the meaning of the words of Isaiah often causes us to fly right past verse 41. Yet what does John mean when he says that Isaiah "said these things because he saw his glory and spoke of him"? Who is the "Him" to whom Isaiah refers?

We have to go back a little to see that John cites two passages from the book of Isaiah. In verse 38 he quotes from Isaiah 53:1, the great "Suffering Servant" passage that so plainly describes the ministry of the Lord Jesus Christ. John says the unbelief of the Jews, despite their seeing signs, was a fulfilment of the word of Isaiah in Isaiah 53. He then goes beyond this to assert their inability to believe and quotes from Isaiah 6 and the "Temple Vision" Isaiah recieved when he was commissioned as a prophet:

"6 In the year of King Uzziah’s death I saw the Lord sitting on a throne, lofty and exalted, with the train of His robe filling the temple. 2 Seraphim stood above Him, each having six wings: with two he covered his face, and with two he covered his feet, and with two he flew. 3 And one called out to another and said,

“Holy, Holy, Holy, is the Lord of hosts,

The [a]whole earth is full of His glory.”

4 And the [b]foundations of the thresholds trembled at the voice of him who called out, while the [c]temple was filling with smoke."

In this awesome vision Isaiah sees YHWH (The LORD) sitting on upon his throne, surrounded by angelic worshippers. The glory of YHWH fills his sight. Isaiah recognises his sin and is cleansed by the Lord, then commissioned to go and take a message to the people. But the message is not one of salvation, but of judgement.

"9 He said, “Go, and tell this people:

‘Keep on listening, but do not perceive;

Keep on looking, but do not understand.’

10 “Render the hearts of this people [e]insensitive,

Their ears [f]dull,

And their eyes [g]dim,

Otherwise they might see with their eyes,

Hear with their ears,

Understand with their hearts,

And return and be healed.”

11 Then I said, “Lord, how long?” And He answered,

“Until cities are devastated and without inhabitant,

Houses are without people

And the land is utterly desolate,"

John cites the heart of the message of judgement given to Isaiah and sees the hard-heartedness of the Jews, who had seen the miracles of the Lord Jesus and heard His words of grace as the fulfilment of these words.

Then John says, "These things Isaiah said because he saw his glory, and saw spoke of Him". John has quoted from two passages in Isaiah, Isaiah 53 and Isaiah 6:10. Yet the immediate context refers to the words from Isaiah 6, and there are other reasons why we should see the primary reference as the Isaiah 6 passage. John speaks of Isaiah "seeing" "glory". In Isaiah 6:1 the very same term is used of "seeing" the LORD and the very term glory appears in verse 3. Even if we connect both passages together, the fact remains that the only way to define what "glory" Isaiah saw was to refer to the glory of Isaiah 6:3. and that glory was the glory of YHWH. There is none other whose glory we can connect with Isaiah's words.

Therefore, if we ask Isaiah "Whose glory did you see in your vision of the temple?" he woulds reply "YHWH's" But if we ask the same question of John "Whose glory did Isaiah see" he would answer with the same answer only in it's fullness, "Jesus." Who then, was Jesus according to John? None other than the eternal God in human flesh, YHWH. 

If the apostles did not hesitate to apply to the Lord Jesus such unique and distinctive passages that can only meaningfully be applied to deity, to the Lord Jesus, how can we fails to give Him the same honor in recognizing Him for who He truly is?" (James R. White The Forgotten Trinity Pg 136-138).

I am aware of Blumenthal's statement here:

"What we learn from this is that Jesus did not teach his disciples the Christian doctrine of the substitutionary death of the Messiah. If we assume that the disciples of Jesus were familiar with the Jewish Scriptures, then this fact teaches us that the disciples of Jesus read the entirety of the Jewish Scriptures, including Isaiah 53, Daniel 9, and Psalm 22 without seeing the concept of the substitutionary death of the Messiah. They obviously had a different interpretation of these passages. An interesting question to ponder is: On what basis did they understand that Jesus is the Messiah? This was before the crucifixion, so they didn’t have Isaiah 53, they didn’t have Daniel 9 or Psalm 22. They believed he was some type of divine being – but on what basis? And if these people were so credulous so as to accept these claims without a Biblical basis, then why should we trust anything these people tell us?"

I was simply making a point regarding the deity of Christ. After the crucifixion and resurrection the apostles understood the significance of the texts that Blumenthal mentions, namely Daniel 9, Psalm 22 and so forth.

Also, the disciples themselves would have been familiar with the scriptures themselves, it was the responsibility of the religious leaders of the Jews to read the TANAKH to the other Jews and literacy is certainly to the best of my knowledge is required among Jews, including the ancient ones. My point is they would not be ignorant of the scriptures and those who wrote the NT would have expected their audiences to know the content of the TANAKH as well.

Blumenthal is presenting a theory about the disciples conjuring up the substitutionary work of Christ rather than admit Christ was false. Liars make poor martyrs as I have said before. For what reason would they try and explain the death of their leader?

"In analyzing this situation we are left with two options: 1) – Jesus really did teach about his substitutionary death, and the Jewish Scriptures are also quite clear on this subject – but for some odd reason – although the disciples had the evidence staring them in the face – they couldn’t understand this most foundational teaching of their beloved teacher. This begs the question: what other teachings of Jesus did his disciples misunderstand or simply “not get”?

Option 2) – Jesus never taught about the substitutionary death of the Messiah, and the Jewish Scriptures do not present any clear teaching on this matter – but with the unexpected death of their beloved leader – the disciples could not admit that their leader was a fraud – so their internal mental defense mechanism slowly came up with the theology of the substitutionary death of the Messiah – including some imaginative readings of both the Jewish Scriptures and of the teachings of their leader.

To help you with this analysis – please consider the following: From a historical perspective – how many followers of charismatic leaders had the courage and honesty to admit that the devotion they felt towards their leader was wrong when the facts didn't turn out as expected?"

1. Jesus said he came to give his life as a ransom for many and did hint at his death. Also, sometimes the disciples didn't understand Jesus' points at the time they were spoken, but that doesn't mean they didn't understand them at a later date or couldn't understand them at a later date. It's like bringing a new objection that you have never heard of and you don't have an answer at the time it is presented, but after careful thought you would then know the answer. The apostles later understood Jesus' points, but not at the time they were raised, which isn't a problem to be honest. One can be ignorant on a subject and then be enlightened and thus know better.

2. You need to show in what way that Jesus would of denied his substitutionary atonement, again, Why would the disciples fabricate a lie and then die for that lie, knowing it is blatantly a lie. As I have said before, Liars make poor martyrs.

I shall look at some more objections in another article.

Answering Judaism.

Doppelgangers: Agent Smith Copycat.

The following nics do not belong to me, watch out for them and avoid them like the plague.

kingdomofgod07
BibleTeacher
rebukelies (not rebukesinners)
SpunkyGirlfromVermont
bobo557 (not bobo577)
Bobo775
TheSanRafaelSvvell2

TheGreatCrocodile

unitarian_calvinist
Answering_Judaism (NOT Answering Judaism)

These are not my nics and stay away from them.

Answering Judaism.

Interesting Objections from the Rabbinic Camp

This article is looking into some general objections raised by Rabbinic Jews and I hope to address them to the best of my ability.
The first objections I shall address are the ones raised by umansky, who has recently followed what I hav been writing:

"Be fruitful and multiply" (Genesis 1:28). This obligates a person to marry and have children. Jesus remained single his entire life. He also encouraged others to disobey this commandment by recommending celibacy (Matthew 19:12). This is the first mitzvah mentioned in the Tanakh-given to humanity not just the Jewish people."

Jesus in Matthew 19 is speaking to the Pharisees on the issue of marriage, what it is and the subject of divorce. In verse 12, he is speaking about those who for the sake of focusing on the Kingdom of God, do not focus on Marriage but rather on giving the Gospel to the nations. While there is nothing wrong with marriage, those who do may face having to see their family persecuted or killed if they are Christians.

"Genesis 1:28 God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.”"

While marriage is something that God has blessed the human race with, this section speaks of filling the earth. I think with 7 billion people at the time this article was penned shows that the earth is quite full, even in the times of the TANAKH there were many nations after the time of Noah. This is not a command to be married, although marriage is part of being fruitful and multiply, considering fornication is out of the question. What do I mean? There is a command to marry and have kids, but because of the fact there are many on this planet after being fruitful, this command is not obligatory and marriage is an option. Considering the fact that in the time of Jesus you already had many on the earth, he is not violating this command by being celibate. The earth was already filled in his day. *

Jeremiah himself wasn't married, In fact God even told him NOT to waste his time marrying the daughters of Israel because the disaster that was approaching:

"16 Then the word of the Lord came to me: 2 “You must not marry and have sons or daughters in this place.” 3 For this is what the Lord says about the sons and daughters born in this land and about the women who are their mothers and the men who are their fathers: 4 “They will die of deadly diseases. They will not be mourned or buried but will be like dung lying on the ground. They will perish by sword and famine, and their dead bodies will become food for the birds and the wild animals.”"

According to the interpretation given by the one who raised this objection, by his own criteria Jeremiah is a false prophet considering he remained celibate throughout his ministry. But that is not the case in either Jesus and Jeremiah, considering Jeremiah was commanded to be celibate in a given context and Jesus was talking about being celibate in a given context. Genesis 1:28 doesn't condemn Jesus or Jeremiah, but if you want to say it does condemn Jesus because of celibacy, then reject Jeremiah as well, if you are going to be consistent.

"2. Sabbath Observance
"The seventh day is a Sabbath to the L-rd your G-d. Do not do any work" (Exodus 20:9). Jesus defended his "hungry" disciples when they plucked grain on the Sabbath. This is agricultural labor and is unquestionably a violation of the Sabbath.

Christian apologists insist that Jesus was revealing the true meaning of the Sabbath when he said, "The Sabbath is not made for man; man is made for the Sabbath (Mark 2:27)." This is untenable. Deuteronomy 17:8-13 says that we are to follow the Jewish High Court in disputes of Jewish law and this requirement is recognized by Jesus himself (Matthew 23:2). With whom is he arguing in Mark? It is the same Jewish legal authorities who are Biblicaly authorized to interpret the Law!

If Jesus meant that they were starving and their lives were threatened, the Gospel account must be fictional.1 Talmudic (Pharisee) law agrees this would be a reason to violate the Sabbath (Talmud Yoma ch.8). The Rabbis would not have quarreled with Jesus if this were the case. If there was no danger to life, then plucking grain violates the Sabbath and the apostles were probably guilty of theft for eating from a field not theirs."

So if Jesus was claiming the disciples were starving, the Gospel is false? That doesn't even make sense and is  a moot objection. Furthermore, Jesus is anathematizing the Pharisees for their wickedness and hypocrisy in the context. He tells the disciples to obey them but not emulate them. In other words it's to do with the Torah, not the rulings of the Pharisees, although the tradition consistent with the scripture wouldn't of been harmful.

""23 Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: 2 “The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. 3 So you must be careful to do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach. 4 They tie up heavy, cumbersome loads and put them on other people’s shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them.
5 “Everything they do is done for people to see: They make their phylacteries[a] wide and the tassels on their garments long; 6 they love the place of honor at banquets and the most important seats in the synagogues; 7 they love to be greeted with respect in the marketplaces and to be called ‘Rabbi’ by others.
8 “But you are not to be called ‘Rabbi,’ for you have one Teacher, and you are all brothers. 9 And do not call anyone on earth ‘father,’ for you have one Father, and he is in heaven. 10 Nor are you to be called instructors, for you have one Instructor, the Messiah. 11 The greatest among you will be your servant. 12
For those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted.""

Jesus did accept a Rabbinic ruling if it did not contradict the Torah. Also, read the context of Matthew 12:
"12 At that time Jesus went through the grainfields on the Sabbath. His disciples were hungry and began to pick some heads of grain and eat them. 2 When the Pharisees saw this, they said to him, “Look! Your disciples are doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath.”

3 He answered, “Haven’t you read what David did when he and his companions were hungry? 4 He entered the house of God, and he and his companions ate the consecrated bread—which was not lawful for them to do, but only for the priests. 5 Or haven’t you read in the Law that the priests on Sabbath duty in the temple desecrate the Sabbath and yet are innocent? 6 I tell you that something greater than the temple is here. 7 If you had known what these words mean, ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice,’[a] you would not have condemned the innocent. 8 For the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath.”

9 Going on from that place, he went into their synagogue, 10 and a man with a shriveled hand was there. Looking for a reason to bring charges against Jesus, they asked him, “Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath?”

11 He said to them, “If any of you has a sheep and it falls into a pit on the Sabbath, will you not take hold of it and lift it out? 12 How much more valuable is a person than a sheep! Therefore it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath.”

13 Then he said to the man, “Stretch out your hand.” So he stretched it out and it was completely restored, just as sound as the other. 14 But the Pharisees went out and plotted how they might kill Jesus."

Jesus makes a point of what is actually allowed on the Sabbath and what isn't and the Pharisee's were guilty of interpreting that command in an extreme fashion and not in the way it was meant to be. Even today Orthodox Jews and even some Messianics, but not all, go as far as not even turning on a light switch, which is pushing it.

Also, The Rabbinic community assumes there is an oral Torah that goes back to Moses and read it anachronistically into the NT writings. The burden of proof is on them.

"3.Not Honoring a Torah Sage
"Honor the face of an elder [zaken] " (Leviticus 19:32). Zaken does not simply mean an old person; for that is the subject of the first half of the verse ("You shall rise before an old person [seiva]"). This is a commandment to respect Torah scholars. Judges and religious leaders are typically called zaken in the Bible (Exodus 24:14, Leviticus 4:15, Numbers 11:25, Deuteronomy 22:16, 25:7). If Jesus did not violate this by calling them "vipers," no one ever did (Matthew 23:13-33)."

Indeed one should respect their leaders or speak evil. However, one calling out a leader as a hypocrite when it's the truth, is not a sin and is not a violation of the Torah. Furthermore, Isaiah refers to his people as a brood of vipers because of their wickedness, which would include the scribes, judges and religious leaders who were encouraging their people in their idolatry. Calling someone a hypocrite because of the fact they are doing evil in the sight of the Lord is not disrespect to any leader if they are responsible for bringing instructing people in the ways of Ha Shem or God. In the days of the NT, the Pharisees, though not guilty of worshipping statues, where certainly guilty of Avodah Zara or alien worship. They substituted the commands of God for the traditions of men, just as the people in Isaiah 29 did and Jesus quotes this passage to condemn the Pharisees in Matthew 15.

"4. False Prophecy
Deuteronomy 18:20 prohibits false prophecy. The same passage defines false prophecy: "the word does not materialize or come to pass." As the New Testament asserts that Jesus is a prophet (Acts 3:22) one must regard as false prophecy the following statement: ".this generation will by no means pass away till all these things take place." (Matthew 24:34).

This statement follows a description of signs of the End of Days. "This generation" of course died about 2,000 years ago and the prediction was never actualized. 
"

One way generation can be understood is referring to a particular race of people, namely the Jews. Jesus also goes on to say that no man knows the day or the hour in the same context.

"36 “But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son,[f] but only the Father. 37 As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. 38 For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark; 39 and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away. That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. 40 Two men will be in the field; one will be taken and the other left. 41 Two women will be grinding with a hand mill; one will be taken and the other left."

Jesus obviously didn't mean that he would return in the apostles lifetime. There are some good commentaries on this issue which I recommend looking at: http://biblehub.com/matthew/24-34.htm

"5. Not Honoring Parents
"Honor your father and mother" (Exodus 20:12). Jesus ignored his mother when she came to visit. "Someone told him, 'your mother and brother are standing outside, wanting to speak to you' He replied to him, 'who is my mother, and who are my brothers?' Pointing to his disciples, he said, 'Here are my mother and my brothers" (Matthew 12:47-49). He goes on to state whoever does the will of the Father is his kin. This is dishonorable conduct wrt his own mother by any objective measure. "

Jesus was not intending disrespect to his mother in the context. he was interrupted during his teaching by another person and couldn't speak to his mother at the time.

"46 While Jesus was still talking to the crowd, his mother and brothers stood outside, wanting to speak to him. 47 Someone told him, “Your mother and brothers are standing outside, wanting to speak to you.”

48 He replied to him, “Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?” 49 Pointing to his disciples, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers. 50 For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.”"

As Jamieson Fausset Brown observes
"47. Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee, &c.—Absorbed in the awful warnings He was pouring forth, He felt this to be an unseasonable interruption, fitted to dissipate the impression made upon the large audience—such an interruption as duty to the nearest relatives did not require Him to give way to. But instead of a direct rebuke, He seizes on the incident to convey a sublime lesson, expressed in a style of inimitable condescension."

Matthew Henry in his commentary says:
"12:46-50 Christ's preaching was plain, easy, and familiar, and suited to his hearers. His mother and brethren stood without, desiring to speak with him, when they should have been standing within, desiring to hear him. Frequently, those who are nearest to the means of knowledge and grace are most negligent. We are apt to neglect that which we think we may have any day, forgetting that to-morrow is not ours. We often meet with hinderances in our work from friends about us, and are taken off by care for the things of this life, from the concerns of our souls. Christ was so intent on his work, that no natural or other duty took him from it. Not that, under pretence of religion, we may be disrespectful to parents, or unkind to relations; but the lesser duty must stand by, while the greater is done. Let us cease from men, and cleave to Christ; let us look upon every Christian, in whatever condition of life, as the brother, sister, or mother of the Lord of glory; let us love, respect, and be kind to them, for his sake, and after his example."

More objections shall be addressed in the future if the Lord Wills.

Answering Judaism.

*2nd June 2024. While the point about 7 billion people and that there is not enough room is false in hindsight and for that I apologise for the comment, it doesn’t change the fact in the New Testament that marriage is not obligatory, but there is freedom to be married or not.

Jesus didn’t marry yet still did the will of the Father. (On a side not, Jesus being married to the church doesn’t logically entail that all Christians must have a spouse, they are two different catergories. Marriage is an illustration of Christ and the Church but individuals are not necessarily called to have a spouse though if they marry (in a way pleasing to God.) they have not sinned as Paul speaks about 1 Corinthians (7:28).

Jesus did not sin by not marrying and thus remains pure.