Michael L. Brown,

RSS
Email

0 Kudo

Author	Comment
searchingjew		#41	[-]
Posts: 29 (03/16/09 10:31:31) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Sophiee: a quick question: I believe I read in this forum that Rav Blumenthal wanted to debate Brown a couple years ago. What happened to that? Also, did Blumenthal not offer to publish the content of their e-mail correspondence? Is that online somewhere?
Sophiee1		#42	[-]
Posts: 11951 (03/16/09 10:58:06) Moderator Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Sorry, I don't remember that. סופי And everything that Sarah tells you, listen to her voice. Bereshit (Genesis) 21:12
ProfBenTziyyon		#43	[-]
Posts: 1829 (03/16/09 11:15:28) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	focusfront wrote: The New Testament was written in Koine Greek. That includes Yeshua's name. Problem is, the closest a Greek could get to putting the name 'Yeshua' in writing in his own language was Iesu (no 'sh' or 'y' sound in the Koine Greek alphabet). Latin transposes 'Iesu' as 'J-su', which over the years has become 'J-sus'.... You would never criticize an ethnic Japanese for not being able to say 'lollypop,' yet you criticize the Greeks of Yeshua's day for not being able to say or spell 'Yeshua,' to the extent that you sense a conspiracy in it. Here, sir, you have shot yourself in the foot. You are correct that Greek lacks the consonantal sounds "sh" and "y", but it DOES have the vowel sound "a". The Hebrew name שֽׁוּעַ Shu'a (B'réshιt 38:2, 38:12) is translated in the LXX as Σαυα Saua, and the name of Sha'ul's son מַלְכִּי־שֽׁוּעַ Malki-Shu'a is rendered by the LXX as Μελχισα Melchisa in Sh'muel Alef 14:49, 31:2 (trangely, the LXX translates בַּת־שֽׁוּעַ Bat-Shu'a as θυγατρὸς Σαυας thugatros Sauas or "Saua's daughter" in B'réshιt 38:12 and Divrei Hayamim Alef 2:3, but as Βηρσαβεε Bersabee in Divrei Hayamim Alef 3:5!) The point is that if the Hebrew name יֵשֽׁוּעַ Yéshu'a is transliterated into Greek letters, the result should be something like Ιεσουα Iesoua rather than Ιεσου Iesou. Logically, the latter form (which transliterates further into the Latin IESVS from which the English "J-sus" derives) should have come from the Hebrew יֵֽשׁוּ Yéshu; so I ask you again: WHAT HAPPENED TO THE "A"? (I already asked you this once before in Post #25, but you ignored the question − probably because you had no answer to it). Interestingly, while all modern editions of the LXX translate all 27 instances of the name יְהוֹשֻֽׁעַ Y'hoshua in the Torah as Ιεσου Iesou, there are several fragments of the LXX in the Hebrew Museum in which the original spelling Ιεσουα Iesoua appears. focusfront wrote: To ProfBenTziyyon; thank you for giving me the usual brush-off. As I do not speak and read both current and Biblical Hebrew, and have not studied the Torah in the original languages, I am not entitled to an opinion about it.... Who but a total idiot would ask a person who hasn't even read a certain book for his opinion of it? He may well have one − but it is worthless! focusfront wrote: ....Even if I spent the next twenty years of my life (God should give me so much time and money for the effort) studying all those fields, you would STILL toss anything I said back in my lap because I am also not an ethnic Jew.... How wrong you are! I have on my shelf a copy of the Mishnah, translated by the late Rev. Dr. Herbert Danby D.D., who served as librarian and canon of the Anglican Cathedral of St. George in Jerusalem and was appointed professor of Hebrew at the University of Oxford in 1936. Danby's Mishnah has now been superceded by far superior editions but, when it was first published in 1933, it was considered by far the best edition available at the time and was extensively used in Jewish scholars. Danby, although a christian and an ordained Anglican priest, was nonetheless highly respected in Jewish academia and was regarded as one of the foremost authorities on many aspects of Hebrew. focusfront wrote: ....This is your main problem with Michael Brown; you can't play your two favorite trump cards on him. He has a Ph.D. in Mideastern Languages from New York University (as prestigious a school as anyone could wish), and he is Jewish. He has authored many books, mostly popular, some scholarly. If his qualifications can't get him a seat at the table, whose can? I have met Brown several times at seminars organised by the Hebrew University (where I used to head the Department of T'nach Studies), and he studiously avoided company in which Hebrew was being spoken. I personally witnessed one incident in which someone asked him, "Doctor Brown, ha'attah rotzeh mashehu lish'tot?" and he could not understand even this simple question. Now, all four of those words are found frequently in the Scriptures (for example, ha'attah "do you....?" occurs in Shoftim 13:11; rotzeh "want" is the present tense of the preterite ratzah "wanted", which occurs in Divrei Hayamim Alef 28:4; the infinitive-construct lish'tot "to drink" occurs 19 times, the first of which is in B'réshιt 24:22; and, while mashehu is not found in the T'nach, it is clearly a combination of the two words mah shehu, literally "what it is", and is a colloquialism for "something" − so the simple question Dr. Brown could not understand was "Do you want something to drink?"). http://mordochai.tripod.com - פרופ' מָרְדֳּכַי בֶּן-צִיּוֹן, יְרוּשָׁלַיִם, אֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל
UriYosef		#44	[-]
Posts: 1735 (03/16/09 12:03:28) Director of Education Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	focusfront, Are you a "reincarnation" of 'On Dr Browns side', per chance? UriYosef Our raison d'être: WHOSOEVER DESTROYS A SINGLE SOUL OF ISRAEL, SCRIPTURE IMPUTES [GUILT] TO HIM AS THOUGH HE HAD DESTROYED A COMPLETE WORLD; AND WHOSOEVER PRESERVES A SINGLE SOUL OF ISRAEL, SCRIPTURE ASCRIBES [MERIT] TO HIM AS THOUGH HE HAD PRESERVED A COMPLETE WORLD. (Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Sanhedrin, 37a) The fruits of our effort: The battle against spiritual terrorism is being won, one soul at a time!!!
searchingjew		#45	[-]
Posts: 30 (03/16/09 12:19:01) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Sophiee, if you search Blumenthal in the MT search box, it comes up that Chaim Ben Yaakov had spoken with Rav Blumenthal, who had offered to debate and post the dialogue up, but Brown said he "didn't have time" to debate Blumenthal. I msged Chaim, but haven't heard anything.
focusfront		#46	[-]
Posts: 4 (03/16/09 17:53:52) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Sophiee 1; Speaking of rules, you don't want me to proseletyze, yet you criticize Jesus (Yeshua is a contraction of Yehoshua, Joshua in English, as close as my keyboard can come to writing them) in a way that makes it necessary if I am going to answer you. I thought we were talking about Dr. Brown, not Jesus. Brown is extremely learned in Torah; your definition of learned may have a lot more to do with your own interpretation of Torah than it does with the Hebrew language, the historic and literary context of Torah, and the way Torah was interpreted at the time Jesus walked the earth, which is more pertinent than the way it is interpreted now, in light of two thousand years of Jewish-Christian enmity. If you want me to explain the Christian view of the Trinity I'll be happy to do so, but I'll need permission to do it from Dr. Yosef, as it would probably violate the rules of this blog to do so.
Sophiee1		#47	[-]
Posts: 11955 (03/16/09 17:59:11) Moderator Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Trying to change the subject and act all affronted, huh? Another typical missionary ploy. Pity. Can't you be a bit more original. How about actually responding to the fact that your last post was torn to smithereens for its inaccuracies? Happy to move on once you actually finish the FIRST dialog. סופי And everything that Sarah tells you, listen to her voice. Bereshit (Genesis) 21:12
SearchinMyRoots	Extremely Learned?	#48	[-]
Posts: 574 (03/16/09 19:42:40) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Quote: "Brown is extremely learned in Torah" If he is, then how come he doesn't understand Hebrew, the language it is written in? And he won't debate anyone in Hebrew? He is "extremely learned" in translations.
Ezekah		#49	[-]
Posts: 164 (03/16/09 20:40:04) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	focusfront wrote: Ezekah; thank you for the gentlemanly tone of your reply. ...{snip} ...The value of debate is that hopefully, other points of view can examine yours, and you can examine theirs, revealing strengths and weaknesses you both may not have known exist. I did read some of the posted rebuttals to Brown. Shulman praises him but disagrees with him based on current (anti-Christian) Jewish interpretation of the Scriptures (which is his right, of course); Sophiee 1's blogs basically insult him. I will repeat, I've seen him in debate and nobody has come close to beating him (no Gentile beats him, either). He doesn't have any advantages over his opponents in any debate, and yet he wins. Why is that? Why are his opponents so witty in print and so tongue-tied when he is there to reply to their objections first-hand? Your reply was not internally consistent. You told me that the value of a debate is for both sides to examine their POV and find strengths and weaknesses within their OWN arguments. Yet, one paragraph later, you tell the Professor that Dr Brown wins every debate. So where is the give and take that you were telling me about? It sounds like you (or Dr. Brown) just want to tell us blind Jews what you believe the truth is.
UriYosef		#50	[-]
Posts: 1736 (03/16/09 21:36:44) Director of Education Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	focusfront wrote: The value of debate is that hopefully, other points of view can examine yours, and you can examine theirs, revealing strengths and weaknesses you both may not have known exist. The problem with this statement is that all debates ever prove is who is more skilled in his or her showmanship. How can anyone judge who won a debate? Take a poll? Use score cards like in "American Idol", or in the boxing rink, or in the gymnastics competition, or in ice-skating competition? All such judgements are biased and worthless. UriYosef Our raison d'être: WHOSOEVER DESTROYS A SINGLE SOUL OF ISRAEL, SCRIPTURE IMPUTES [GUILT] TO HIM AS THOUGH HE HAD DESTROYED A COMPLETE WORLD; AND WHOSOEVER PRESERVES A SINGLE SOUL OF ISRAEL, SCRIPTURE ASCRIBES [MERIT] TO HIM AS THOUGH HE HAD PRESERVED A COMPLETE WORLD. (Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Sanhedrin, 37a) The fruits of our effort: The battle against spiritual terrorism is being won, one soul at a time!!!
focusfront		#51	[-]
Posts: 5 (03/16/09 21:43:34) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Dr. UriYosef; I am Focusfront. Never been or heard of 'On Dr. Brown's Side.' Sophiee 1; I am not offended or affronted. But it is hard for me to speak of Jesus defensively without alluding to His deity, which would be construed as proselytizing on this site. Nor am I trying to change the subject; most or all of the written objections to Dr. Brown I've read have to do with which interpretation he makes of the Scriptures, not his accuracy in exegeting them. Because you can name one churchman back in 1933 who you respect, that means that you are therefore completely unbiased and can dismiss every other Xian scholar you meet with a clear conscience (there are quite a few of them out there, by the way). Nice one. I felt the tear. And Sophiee 1, since I started this I have been accused of insulting your people, had to answer a critic who called Jesus thrice-accursed, and have been accused of trying to proselytize. You have me on the defensive because anything new I introduce could be taken as against the rules since it would involve me calling Jesus God. Can someone with a life respond to six or seven angry rebuttals in a short time? Apparently that is what I must do, or be taken for someone who doesn't respond but moves on or changes the subject. I don't know how I have been torn to smithereens. My opinion has been differed with, but I expected that. I read your posts and click on your links, see what's there, and it's all the sort of remarks people make against someone who is not there to answer them back. You want to convince me of anything, get across the table from Dr. Brown with the cameras running. It seems to my inexperienced eyes that most of your links go to rebuttals made by anti-missionaries, sent to anti-missionaries. Lots of 'apostate Jew' stuff, comments that mean a lot to you but very little to me. I ask myself, would Hitler have given Dr. Brown a pass because he is an 'apostate Jew'? Would the peasant army in the First Crusade have let him alone on that basis? If the answer is no, then from my point of view Dr. Brown is still on your team, whether you want to play him or not. As for Dr. Brown using unfair debate tactics, any tactic he allegedly uses against your side in debates or in print, your side can use on him. I have seen Schmuely Boteach run every game there was on Dr. Brown during their debates (short of having him mugged in the parking lot), all to little avail. The punch line is that Dr. Brown really likes Boteach and often debates him. In short, to say that he wins debates because he uses unfair tactics is nonsense, even if he did use unfair tactics... which, by the way, he doesn't. You should have seen him against Phil Donahue, about seven years ago. Donahue began the discussion with a three digit decibel shriek, "Who the hell are you to say that some people are going to hell and some aren't," and he just kept on screaming until the commercial break. Except for "hello," Dr. Brown barely got out a word. You guys don't do that, so I guess this comment does you little good, but I just wanted you to know that Dr. Brown has been blunted if not beaten. I started this defending Dr. Brown and I'm still there. I haven't changed the subject. Yes he makes a living at what he does, but no more so than anyone else with his education and talent would be making, and he puts up with considerably more public censure than a college professor or lawyer gets. His latest fight makes you guys look easy; he is challenging politically correct attitudes towards gay rights in Charlotte, NC and elsewhere. Almost alone, Dr. Brown supports marriage as God intended and revealed in Scripture (including Torah), and is not afraid to preach it. And now the gays and secular media are pointing their guns at him, and they can bring weapons to bear that you fellows can scarcely imagine. The gay marriage advocate Dr. Brown debated essentially played the violin and did it beautifully, but Dr. Brown's exposition on the complementarity of the man/ woman relationship of marriage, mostly derived from the Hebrew Scriptures, would have made most of you happy he was the one on the good side.
Sophiee1		#52	[-]
Posts: 11961 (03/17/09 06:22:57) Moderator Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	focusfront wrote: it is hard for me to speak of Jsus defensively without alluding to His deity, which would be construed as proselytizing on this site. Nor am I trying to change the subject; most or all of the written objections to Dr. Brown I've read have to do with which interpretation he makes of the Scriptures, not his accuracy in exegeting them. I can understand why the Jewish religion's total rejection of Jsus in any form, let alon a deity, would be upsetting to a Chrstian -- and yet this IS a counter missionary forum. We are here to teach Jews why your religion is an anathema to G-d. If that offends you, you should find another forum. You might also want to read the forum rules at Rules of Counter Missionary Education -- they will help you avoid proselytizing. There is no way you can try to "ptich" Jsus as a god without proselytizing. You CAN ask questions ("Why can't G-d be a trinity?" for example). If you would sincerely read the posts in this thread where we've addressed some of Brown's points you'll see that none of them have to do with interpretation -- all of them have to do with distortion (perhaps based on ignorance). How can you explain the statements of Nachmanides with what Brown says about him??? That is not an interpretation -- that is Nachmanides own words refuting Brown's assertions. You don't have to agree with us, and given your defensive support of Chrstianity you won't agree with us. That is your perogative. You do sound like a cheerleader for Brown (e.g. your comments about Phil Donahue) -- the fact that the man is a dynamic speaker doesn't make him right. Hitler was a dynamic speaker, too. Kindly do remember the forum rules and the fact that this is not a soapbox from which to preach. סופי And everything that Sarah tells you, listen to her voice. Bereshit (Genesis) 21:12
Sophiee1		#53	[-]
Posts: 11964 (03/17/09 07:57:48) Moderator Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	focusfront wrote: I ask myself, would Hitler have given Dr. Brown a pass because he is an 'apostate Jew'? Would the peasant army in the First Crusade have let him alone on that basis? If the answer is no, then from my point of view Dr. Brown is still on your team, whether you want to play him or not. Newsflash: neither you nor Hitler define who is a Jew. The Torah defines who is a Jew. Michael L. Brown definitely IS a Jew. He is an apostate Jew. Brown rejected G-d. He rejected his responsibilities as a Jew. And now, Israel, what does G-d want of you? Only that you remain in awe of G-d your L-rd, so that you will follow all His paths and love Him, serving G-d your L-rd with all your heart and with all your soul. You must keep G=d's commandments (mitzvot) and decrees that I am prescribing for you today Deuteronomy 10:12-13 Brown turned his back on G-d, and chose to worship a false god. Even if Brown worshiped only one god, by choosing to not follow the mitzvot G-d gave to us Jews he turned his back on his religion, his people and his G-d. It is impossible to be Jewish and be a Chrstian or a Muslim or a Bddhist - or any other religion. While it is true that Sanhedrin 44a tells us that there is a biologic link of a Jew to the Jewish people which is impossible to break -- and this certainly includes Michael Brown, it goes on to say that a Jew following another religion is an apostate and is not considered to be part of the Jewish people. Any Jew who follows another religion forfeits his/her legal and social rights, and is no longer part of the Jewish people. They are kareit - cut off from G-d and from Judaism. There is no such thing as a "messianic Jew" - that is an oxymoron. You can't be Muslim, Christian, Bddhist - or any other religion- and still be part of the Jewish people. "You shall have no other gods before Me" (Exodus 20:3, Deuteronomy 5:7. Jews have a contract, a בְּרִית "brit" with G-d. The Hebrew word בְּרִית (brit) means an agreement or a pact or a treaty. An excellent article on the subject of covenants in the T'nach (Jewish bible) written by Professor ben Tzyyion. This contract binds us to live as Jews and have only One G-d. We agreed to this contract as an entire nation born and unborn at Mount Sinai when G-d spoke to every Jew - national revelation. This eternal contract binds Jews to follow G-d's instructions on how to perfect this world - The Torah (known as "The Five Books of Moses" or the Pentateuch). Any religion that comes along and claims to replace this covenant is false. Deuteronomy 4: 2. Do not add to the word which I command you, nor diminish from it, to observe the commandments of the L-rd your G-d which I command you. . . and Deuteronomy 13:2 [This is what you must do] when a prophet or a person who has visions in a dream arises among you. He may present you with a sign or miracle, 13:3 and on the basis of that sign or miracle, say to you, 'Let us try out a different god. Let us serve it and have a new spiritual experience.' 13:4 Do not listen to the words of that prophet or dreamer. G-d your L-rd is testing you to see if you are truly able to love G-d your L-rd with all your heart and all your soul. .. 13:7 [This is what you must do] if your blood brother, your son, your daughter, your bosom wife, or your closest friend secretly tries to act as a missionary among you, and says, 'Let us go worship a new god. Let us have a spiritual experience previously unknown by you or your fathers.' 13:8 [He may be enticing you with] the gods of the nations around you, far or near, or those that are found at one end of the world or another. 13:9 Do not agree with him, and do not listen to him. Do not let your eyes pity him, do not show him any mercy, and do not try to cover up for him, Did the Jews at Mount Sinai who heard G-d speak know of Jsus? Even if you think Jsus is "part" of the G-d of Sinai, Deuteronomy 13 proves that Chrstiainity is false -- and that by following it a Jew (including Brown) is removing themselves from the Jewish people and from G-d. My fore-fathers did not know Jsus. Jsus was not at Sinai. Jsus is a false god. Deuteronomy 13 tells you that your "spiritual experience" in other religions - religions unknown to the Jews at Mount Sinai - are false. G-d is unchanging (read Malachi) -- G-d is one, not three or fifty-three (Deuteronomy) -- and a final death knell to Jsus as part of G-d (aka trinity): "I am the first, and I am the last, and beside Me there is no G-d" (Isaiah 44:6). The Chrstian trinity consisting of "G-d the Father," "G-d the Son," and "G-d the Holy Spirit" is the opposite of Isaiah 44:6. Chrstians have put another god before the one true G-d (you only reach the "father" through the "son". . .) To repeat: Torah says do not follow any gods we did not know from the day He spoke to the entire nation of Israel (3 million or so people) at Mount Sinai. Jsus wasn't "known" to the Jews at Sinai, and that is another reason we know he is not a god or part of the real G-d. What if you don't believe Jsus is G-d, but still think he was the messiah? Well, you are entitled to your opinion, but according to Jewish law and the T'nach (bible) Jsus was not the Jewish messiah, if he ever lived as a normal man he failed to fulfill the prophecies associated with the messiah. The Jewish messiah (anointed one) will be a mortal human being - not a god. Check out UriYosef's article: "Messiah Wanted." and read "Is Jsus the Real Messiah?" which is the second half of that article. סופי And everything that Sarah tells you, listen to her voice. Bereshit (Genesis) 21:12 Last Edited By: Sophiee1 03/17/09 08:06:27. Edited 3 times.
focusfront		#54	[-]
Posts: 6 (03/17/09 12:41:19) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Sophiee 1; Thank you for going to the Scriptures. It is probably time for me to end my portion of this discussion forum. The rules of the site do not permit me to answer your objections to the Trinity. I respect that and will withdraw. For what it is worth, the doctrine of the Trinity does fly against earthly logic (just as getting food out of the clear sky or crossing the Red Sea on foot does) and it is difficult to teach. Most Christian heretics usually trip over the Trinity. Today's cults like Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons join the Arians of the past in that they cannot grasp that concept. Muslims simply think that Christians worship three gods; I wouldn't for one second lump you with Muslims, but there are about a billion of them, and on this one single issue they feel pretty much as you do. So you have plenty of company today and throughout history concerning your opinion of this one doctrine. I am through responding but I will read your reply to this question, as I would like your insight; the Bar-Kokhba revolt of AD 132 or so started because Shimon Bar-Kokhba was considered by most Jews in Judea to be 'a messiah,' if not 'THE Messiah.' That revolt didn't go down well, so by definition Bar-Kokhba was not the Messiah, and a lot of learned people guessed wrong. Figuring out who Messiah is may be is obviously a slippery business. My question is, how will you know the Messiah when you see him? I end with the comments that opened this discussion, from Ras Eliah: "Today was my first experience with Mr. Michael Brown, not personally, but in that I had never heard of him before. He is extremely impressive and very well spoken and you can tell that he has put in serious work and isn't riding in on someone elses fumes. I have to say even as a non-christian that I find him to be very refreshing. I know that many of us who are in counter missionary are tired of constantly stepping in a pile of "Josh McDowell" and having to clean it from the bottom of our shoes. What I mean is, Michael Brown is not an idiot, and it seems like he can sow his oats." He is all those things. You do not need to mischaracterize the man to disagree with him.
Sophiee1		#55	[-]
Posts: 11969 (03/17/09 13:15:37) Moderator Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	focusfront wrote: My question is, how will you know the Messiah when you see him? If you follow the links I gave in my last post you'll have your answer. The Jewish messiah (anointed one) will be a mortal human being - not a god. Check out UriYosef's article: "Messiah Wanted." and read "Is Jsus the Real Messiah?" which is the second half of that article. Also we have a thread "stickied" in the CM forum Why Jews Know Jsus was a false messiah which does the same thing. Bottom line, there HAVE been many false messiahs. The Hebrew word for "messiah" means "anointed one" and it applies to all anointed kings and priests. In every generation there lives a man who COULD be the messiah ("the" messiah being the one who will fulfill all of the messianic prophecies). Bar Kochba COULD have been the messiah, and for awhile R' Akiva thought that he was. Unfortunately for us Jews (and the rest of the world) he was not. Regarding the Trinity -- aside flying against earthly logic it goes against the Torah itself and who G-d tells us He is. G-d is not a man. G-d is unchanging. Many early Chrstians did not believe in the Trinity -- and the argument caused a schism in the early church (Council of Nicea, 325 CE). Nowhere in the Greek text will you find the trinity mentioned. The concept of father, son and holy ghost three G-ds as one but separate is pagan. The New Encyclopedia Britannica *Quote:* "Neither the word Trinity, nor the explicit doctrine as such, appears in the New Testament, nor did Jsus and his followers intend to contradict the Shema in the Old Testament: 'Hear, O Israel: The L-rd our G-d is one (an only) L-rd' -- Deut. 6:4 The concept is pagan -- many religions had dying man-gods who resurrected. The Jewish G-d is One, not a unified conglomeration -- and G-d tells us that He is not a man, and that He does not change. G-d doesn't lie, focusfront, and G-d cannot die -- and lastly, G-d cannot cease being G-d. . . I HaShem do not change Malachai 3:6 Before Me no god was formed, nor will there be one after Me. I, even I, am HaShem, and besides Me there is no Savior." Isaiah 43:11 "I am the first and I am the last; apart from Me there is no G-d! Isaiah 44:6 I am HaShem, and there is no other; besides Me there is no G-d; Isaiah 45:5 Remember the first things of old, that I am G-d and there is no other; I am G-d and there is none like Me. Isaiah 46:9 The parting comment in your post was that we don't have to mis-characterize Michael Brown to disagree with him. That is an accusation you have done nothing to prove. We (Netanel, the Professor, UriYosef and myself) have spent a great deal of time giving you factual evidence that Brown has made many mistakes in his declarations. You may admire him all you like, but at least admit that you have been told the truth here -- including the Professor's personal annecdote that the man apparently can't speak Hebrew. ("Do you want something to drink?" ring a bell???) סופי And everything that Sarah tells you, listen to her voice. Bereshit (Genesis) 21:12 Last Edited By: Sophiee1 03/17/09 13:24:41. Edited 2 times.
Netanel		#56	[-]
Posts: 1647 (03/17/09 13:16:19) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	I am through responding but I will read your reply to this question, as I would like your insight; the Bar-Kokhba revolt of AD 132 or so started because Shimon Bar-Kokhba was considered by most Jews in Judea to be 'a messiah,' if not 'THE Messiah.' Who/whatever gave you that idea? That is absolutely false. The Bar Kochba revolt started - among other reasons - because various mitzvot were outlawed by the Roman occupiers, and because of their intentions to transform Y'rushalayim into a pagan city. And this was on top of the already oppressive atmosphere of Judea. The gospels give a largely fictional picture of Judea at the beginning of the first millenium, making it appear as if Judea was a largely peaceful province. Yet from all historical accounts we know that there was perpetual unrest. We revolted against the Greek Syrian occupiers in the 2nd century BCE, and there were numerous revolts from the time the Romans and Herods rose to power in Judea. The revolt against the Selucids, the first Roman-Jewish war, the Kitos War, and the Bar Kochba Revolt all took place within the span of less than 300 years. If you need any more indication of the conditions in Judea and for Jews elsewhere in the near Roman Empire I don't know how I could draw a better picture. And how do you know who thought Bar Kochba was a or the messiah? The Jews of the 2nd century were united in a way that the Jews of 66-70 were not. But that doesn't mean they thought Bar Kochba was the messiah. Maybe some did. Maybe they viewed him as more of a Gid'on. The bottom line is that the Jews revolted against Rome because they had been oppressed too long. They saw their holy places desecrated for too long. They had a heathen nation trying to block them from observing some of the most basic mitzvot. How anyone can claim that the revolt happened because the Jews thought Bar Kochba was the messiah is beyond me. Whether anyone thought he was the messiah or not was independant from the things which caused the revolt. That revolt didn't go down well, so by definition Bar-Kokhba was not the Messiah, and a lot of learned people guessed wrong. Figuring out who Messiah is may be is obviously a slippery business. My question is, how will you know the Messiah when you see him? Bar Kochba was not the messiah because he did not fulfill the messianic requirements, requirements which nobody to this day have fulfilled. He had the potential to be, and he was putting his money where his mouth was (driving the Romans out of Judea and some even say extending the size of the Temple Mount to the dimensions described in Y'hezqél), but ultimately he fell short just as others before and after him did What he was, however, was a great Jewish military leader who - like the Judges before him - attempted to throw off the subjugation of a foreign oppressor. Which is a hell of a lot more than the GT's Yéshu ever did. Bar Kochba fought to save Jewish lives, and to usher in Jewish self-rule in the Jewish homeland under the one God, while Yéshu's supposed death (a death hundreds of thousands of Jews before and after any Yéshu received from the Romans) has caused more Jews to be murdered than perhaps anything else in history. Last Edited By: Netanel 03/17/09 13:21:02. Edited 1 times.
SearchinMyRoots		#57	[-]
Posts: 575 (03/17/09 13:49:21) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Focusfront, I know your reply to Sophiee's "list" of verses describing Hashem as ONE, will be answered by you trying to explain that you do believe Hashem is one but can manifest Himself. In each and every verse Sophiee has listed, Hashem makes it CLEAR that HE is the ONLY ONE. So I ask you this; If you believe (and I'm not sure if you do) that Genesis 3:26 is speaking of "the godhead", why doesn't Hashem use the same wording in the verses Sophiee has provided? Why does it specifically say "me" and not "us"?
ProfBenTziyyon		#58	[-]
Posts: 1840 (03/17/09 14:11:01) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	SearchinMyRoots wrote: I ask you this; If you believe (and I'm not sure if you do) that Genesis 3:26 is speaking of "the godhead".... There are only 24 verses in chapter 3 of B'réshιt, SMR. http://mordochai.tripod.com - פרופ' מָרְדֳּכַי בֶּן-צִיּוֹן, יְרוּשָׁלַיִם, אֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל
SearchinMyRoots		#59	[-]
Posts: 576 (03/17/09 16:47:47) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	ProfBenTziyyon wrote: SearchinMyRoots wrote: I ask you this; If you believe (and I'm not sure if you do) that Genesis 3:26 is speaking of "the godhead".... There are only 24 verses in chapter 3 of B'réshιt, SMR. Correct once again!! I meant Genesis 1:26. Thank you for your "eagle eye".
ProfBenTziyyon		#60	[-]
Posts: 1842 (03/18/09 03:11:21) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	SearchinMyRoots wrote: In each and every verse Sophiee has listed, Hashem makes it CLEAR that HE is the ONLY ONE. So I ask you this; If you believe (and I'm not sure if you do) that Genesis 1:26 is speaking of "the godhead", why doesn't Hashem use the same wording in the verses Sophiee has provided? Why does it specifically say "me" and not "us"? I have no doubt his reply will be "But it does say 'us' in B'réshιt 1:26!" You need to be much more careful in how you phrase questions to people like "focusfront", to avoid any ambiguity. http://mordochai.tripod.com - פרופ' מָרְדֳּכַי בֶּן-צִיּוֹן, יְרוּשָׁלַיִם, אֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Add Reply

Yuku free message boards

Michael L. Brown,

Quick Reply