OBJECTING TO DR. MICHAEL BROWN'S OBJECTIONS

RSS
Email

0 Kudo

Author	Comment
Chaim ben Yaakov	OBJECTING TO DR. MICHAEL BROWN'S OBJECTIONS	Lead	[-]
Posts: 3049 (10/19/05 19:31:10) Moderator Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Tags : None Rather than start with page 1 of Volume 1 of Dr. Michael Brown's books and refute each objection in order, I'm choosing to just re-hash the material on these boards that correspond to some (or most of) his arguments. I don't see the point in re-inventing the wheel. There's just too much good stuff here already! Enjoy! ----------------- "He who saves one life... it is as if he saves an entire universe. He who destroys a life... it is as if he destroys an entire universe" TALMUD - Sanhedrin 4:5 -----------------
pninah1	Re: ANSWERING DR. MICHAEL BROWN'S OBJECTIONS TO COUNTERMISSI	#1	[-]
Posts: 2135 (10/19/05 20:20:33) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Rather than start with page 1 of Volume 1 of Dr. Michael Brown's books and refute each objection in order, I'm choosing to just re-hash the material on these boards that correspond to some (or most of) his arguments. I don't see the point in re-inventing the wheel. There's just too much good stuff here already! *** chaim, there are probably some of us that have not read his books nor do we care to. i have seen them on his website and they are just the same old evangelical xian nonsense that has been re-hashed for about 2000 years now. nothing new under the sun here.
Sophiee1	Re: ANSWERING DR. MICHAEL BROWN'S OBJECTIONS TO COUNTERMISSI	#2	[-]
Posts: 12970 (10/19/05 21:02:44) Moderator Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	From the book Why Jews Rejected Jsus" on a previous thread. Dr. Michael Brown (From Why Jews Rejected Jsus by David Klinghoffer) The most comprehensive example of a recent Chrstian polemic runs to three volumes (of a projected four), titled Answering Jewish Objections to Jsus. The author is a Jew by birth, Michael L. Brown, who as a self-described sixteen-year old heroin-shooting rock-drumming teen rebel startled his parents by accepting Jsus. That was in 1971 when he couldnt so much as read Hebrew. Today, decorated with a PhD in Near Eastern languages from New York University, Brown heads a ministry school in New York City and speaks around the country at churches, which lionize him as that very rare prize, a Jew turned Xian who knows something about Jewish traditional sources. Actually his book learning is impressive. For thirty years, he has been obsessively searching the Hebrew Bible and the Talmud for proof that Jsus was the Messiah. Its worth a pause here to glance at some of his material, because it is so representative of the stuff if more packed with erudition that a Jew is likely to hear even today from missionary minded Xians. In the volumes he has published so far, Brown addresses 124 common objections to Jsus. Here are several, with Browns answer to the objection followed by the obvious Jewish rejoinder. Objection: If Jsus is really the Messiah, why isnt there peace on earth? Answer: Brown replies that all the famously unfulfilled prophecies (for instance, that the messianic era will be one of peace) apply to the second and final act in Jsus career, when he returns to earth. This is a convenient an necessary dodge. The Bible itself never speaks of a two-act messianic drama. In the course of making his argument, Brown goes back to the same Talmudic passages that Nachmanides argued over with Pablo Christiani, the one about a 2000 year period, the Days of the Messiah, that seemingly began about 242 CE. Brown wants to use this as proof, which necessitates moving that date back a couple of centuries, to coincide with the appearance of Jsus or Yeshua, as Brown likes to call him. The details neednt detrain us, but he does this by rejecting a figure, taken from Daniel 9, for the number of years the Second Temple stood, 420 years, and adjusting that to 600 years. But only eight pages later we find Brown citing the very same verse in Daniel as if it were authoritative, divine writ. Which is to say, he very much comes from the familiar heads I win, tails you lose school of biblical exegesis. Is scripture to be understood in a rigorously literal way or not? Yes, when it can be turned to argumentative advantage but no when it cannot. Objection: Jews dont believe in the Trinity. We believe in one G-d, not three. Answer: Brown rejects Maimonidess teaching that G-ds unity is to be understood as absolute, as in Deuteronomy 6:4 Hear, O Israel, the L-rd our G-d, the L-rd is the One and Only. But two pages later, we find him citing Abraham Ibn Ezra, another medieval Jewish sage, who in his comments on the same verse emphasizes a different point. Brown jumps on this, presenting the revered Ibn Ezra as authoritative. Why? Because he is less inconvenient here than Maimonides to a Xian understanding. Again, its head I win, tails you lose. Objection: If you claim that Jsus is G-d then you are guilty of making G-d into a man. You are an idol worshipper! Answer: Brown argues that there is nothing idolatrous in thinking of G-ds Presence being revealed on earth in a physical, material representation. For instance, the Torah describes how the glory of the L-rd filled the Tabernacle that the Jews built in the desert after leaving Egypt. Brown asks: How is that different from Jsus? Well, its different because the Israelites did not worship the Tabernacle. To do so would indeed have been idolatrous. Objection: Jews dont believe in a divine Messiah. Answer: Brown cites Psalm 45, traditionally understood by Jews as being addressed to the future Davidic king. Read literally, verse 7 seems to address the king as G-d: Your throne, G-d, is forever and ever, the scepter of fairness is the scepter of your kingdom. Must be referring to Jsus, right? No. One has to understand that the psalms were written to be sung by multiple voices in combination, with different voices singing various divisions of verses in a given psalm. This is not unlike modern verse, which can make a poem like The Waste Land hard to follow. So a psalm, as here, may begin by addressin the king Gird your sword upon your thigh O mighty one (V.4) and then switch voices and ecstatically speak directly to G-d Himself Your throne, G-d, is forever and ever.. . . The immediate context would also disallow applying Psalm 45 to Jsus. Adjoining verses speak of the king as a mighty warrior and married man, with a queen standing erect at your right in the golden jewelry of Ophir (V. 10). Cocerning the very best verse in the whole Hebrwe Bible for asserting the divine nature of the Messiah, Daniels vision of the son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. . .all peoples, nations and men of every language worshipped (or bowed) to him (7:13), Brown admits that even this is certainly debatable. The Aramaic word translated as worshipped can also mean bowed or prostrated, which would connote only reverence for royalty: King Davids own wife bowed to him. this is only part of the 10 pages Klinghoffer gives to Dr. Brown in his book.
Unregistered(d)	Just a reminder: I'm ready to have public dialogue!	#3	[-]
Posts: 0 (10/19/05 21:52:21) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Dear Chaim and friends, Just for the record, I repeat yet again -- as I have for years -- that I would be delighted to have an in-depth dialogue via Paltalk discussing the issues raised in my books, since I do not have the time to debate them in bulletin board forums, nor is that the most profitable way, because of the many side issues that come up. So, I have not refused dialogue nor will I. THERE MUST BE SOMEONE QUALIFIED TO DEBATE THESE SUBJECTS ON PALTLALK! Is there no rabbi or counter-missionary! One other comment: It is ludicrous to use David Klinghoffer's 8 page summary of more than 900 pages of my volumes as a basis for discussion. At times, he actually fails to understand the nature of the points I am making, so it's best to get the material firsthand. (The books can be found in many libraries, so it's not necessary to buy them.) In any case, I'm blessed to know that my volumes are a subject of discussion, and I continue to work on vol. 4, with God's help, focusing on objections to the New Testament and including more than 100 pages refuting the concept of Torah She-Be`al Peh. I hope to have it finished within the next few months. In Messiah's service, Michael L. Brown
Sophiee1	Re: Just a reminder: I'm ready to have public dialogue!	#4	[-]
Posts: 12970 (10/19/05 21:58:36) Moderator Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Gee, that makes 3 posts telling us he doesn't have time to post! And as Pninah pointed ou -- 60 minutes are 60 minutes -- why not spend them dialoging here instead of insisting on doing it on PalTalk? BTW, Dr. Brown, I was just re-reading your distortion of Jewish sages on Isaiah 53. Misusing midrashim and zohar among other things -- perhaps your knowlege comes from Driver and Neubauer and not Jewish teachings at all. Is that were you got your idea that Ibn Crispin was a Jewish sage? Given that your PhD is in languages and not Torah perhaps you don't know the difference from drash and pshat? Would you like to share a few of these early Jewish sources and their quotes? Oh I forgot -- you don't have time to do that here. BTW, did you ever correct your error on Ibn Crispin as promised on this forum?
Chaim ben Yaakov	Mike Brown - Vol.2, section 3.13 - part 1	#5	[-]
Posts: 3049 (10/19/05 22:47:23) Moderator Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	This may take a while. In fact, I could just focus in on this one section and refute it all day long - effectively countering Michael Brown and proving Christian doctrine to be utterly incompatible with Tanakh teachings. Volume 2 of Jewish Objections. Section 3.13. Pages 136-152. On Blood sacrifice. Part I: The argument is that Ezekiel 18, 33 and Daniel 6 proves that blood is not necessary for the remission of sins. Mike Brown starts by quoting from Daniel 6:10-11 as well as 9:1-19 trying to prove that Daniel's prayer couldn't replace Temple sacrifices. He claims at best, that Daniel could only ask for mercy individually (page 139) and that no Temple in Daniel's day meant no national atonement (page 140). Here are some of the problems with that argument: 1. Daniel's prayer in chapter 9 was on behalf of all Jews. If Brown is right in that there was no national atonement without a Temple, then Daniel certainly wasn't aware of this as he requested national forgiveness in verses 9:9 and 9:19, in what was a very beautiful prayer. If there was no national atonement or forgiveness without a Temple, then Daniel was into futility, wasting his breath - knowing his prayer for forgiveness could never be heeded by God. This is illogical. On an individual note, Daniel was saved (Ezek 14:14, 20) by his own righteousness, not by belief in looking forward, and certainly not because of blood sacrifice. Incidentally, King David is righteous in the very same way in II Samuel 22:21-27. It's David's own righteousness by keeping the Torah that makes him righteous. By the same token, Daniel is righteous by his own doing, but WITHOUT blood. 2. This prayer in Daniel 9 corresponds directly to 1Kings 8:46-50, in which we see how exiled Jews are to ask forgiveness from God when they are nowhere near their Temple. This is also echoed in Deut 4:29-30 and Deut 30:1-2. When Jews are in exile without a Temple, God is still able to forgive. In fact, 2Chron 33:1-20 is an example showing where a Jew who asks for prayer outside the land of Israel is forgiven, without blood. While Michael Brown might claim (p.140) that in these cases, Jews are praying to an existing Temple where sacrifices were still being offered and this is why prayer is effective), Deut. 30 proves this is not so, as the context points to the future, more than a couple thousand years after the destruction of the 2nd Temple. Also, Hosea 14:1-2 further proves prayer is effective without blood as Hosea 13:14 shows that destruction and exile is to come upon Israel. No repentance (or sacrifice) will avert this punishment, as Hosea 13:14 is very clear. However, AFTER the destruction (14:1), Israel may return (14:2ff). This is a NEW context, where sacrifice is no longer possible. Besides, Isaiah 40:1-2 proves that there WAS indeed national atonement without blood - and without a Temple with which to direct prayer. God forgave Israel because Israel suffered DOUBLE for her sins, and therefore, the exiles were allowed to go back to the land. See also Jer 29:10-14. No blood, no Temple - and yet there was national atonement (forgiveness). 3. Brown claims (pp.140-141) that Ezra and his contemporaries were in a hurry to get back to Israel to offer sacrifices - realizing the importance of it - believing that only blood atones. However, only 42,000 Jews returned with Ezra. Why so few? Did all other Jews just forget the importance of blood sacrifice? You'd think nearly all Jews would come back if they knew their eternal souls were dependent on blood offerings. 4. Jeremiah's Lamentations were written specifically about this exile. Why don't we read a word in it lamenting the fact that atonement or forgiveness was impossible without blood? Why don't we read anything in Josephus reminding us that for a span of 70 years, there was no atonement? 5. Interestingly, Michael Brown claims that Ezekiel 18 has nothing to do with atonement (p.146). However, vss. 18:22, 27-28 show that a wicked man's repentance and good deeds causes God to forget his sins (wipe the slate clean), makes the formerly wicked man righteous, and saves his soul. How can this not be about atonement? Ezekiel lived during the exile, without a Temple, and his message was heeded by his fellow Jews. Of course, this perfectly corresponds to the other scripture cited above in #1-4. It doesn't stand on its own, and neither do the other scriptures cited. 6. Brown's answer to HOW Jews of the 1st exile were forgiven without a Temple is that they "looked forward" to the Messiah's sacrifice for mankind (see p.151). His basis for this is Isaiah 53 and Daniel 9. He contends that Jews knew of these passages speaking of a future Messiah who dies for mankind, just as Abraham supposedly knew by faith (Gen. 15:6). Thus, Jews looked forward before Jesus. After Jesus, people are to "look back" at his sacrifice to be forgiven. So therefore - all people have been forgiven, even before Jesus - by the Messiah's sacrifice. But is this true? If Jews somehow "knew" to look forward, there certainly isn't any proof of this in either the Hebrew or Greek scriptures. In fact, no prophet mentions any such thing. We'd have to believe the prophets headed a major conspiracy to actually 'hide' such an important teaching from other Jews. We also read in the Greek scriptures that none of Jesus' 12 disciples knew a thing about this "looking forward" business. They'd never heard of a suffering Messiah who dies for mankind's sins. Read Mark 9:10 and Luke 9:22,45, as well as Matt 16:21-23 (Mark 8:31-33) and Matt 17:22-23 and Mark 9:31-32. And ESPECIALLY READ LUKE 18:31-34!!! Not until Luke 24:45, after Jesus was dead and allegedly resurrected, were the scriptures "opened" to the disciples. They didn't understand christology until AFTER the resurrection, and they only did by some alleged act of Jesus. They'd really never heard such a thing before! And they all thought Jesus was the Messiah. They weren't looking forward to 'christology'. And this begs the question as to WHO actually did "look forward" as Brown contends. 1Cor 2:7 corresponds to these scriptures in showing that all this was some hidden mystery. If we are to believe the greek scriptures, NONE of this could have been known beforehand. This suffering Messiah who rises after 3 days was believed to be "idle tales" as we see in Luke 24:11. John 20:9 also shows they still didn't know christology even after Jesus died. You'd think at least 1 disciple would have known what Isaiah 53 and Daniel 9 was about. They probably did know what Isaiah 53 and Daniel 9 was about. They saw these passages then as modern traditional Jews see them now, without any christian slant. So much for "looking forward" (and later on, we'll see that this shows there was no 'Rabbinical Conspiracy' to change Judaism and its laws due to Jesus....and also no Jewish plot to change the meanings of Isaiah 53 and Daniel 9....the above proof withstanding). In addition, it can be argued that even Jesus didn't know christology, as he didn't wish to be a sacrifice for all mankind (Luke 22:42, Matt 27:46). Didn't he know his atoning death was the only reason he was sent to earth? Lastly - sacrifice was for unintentional sin (with the 2 exceptions in Lev 5:20-26 or 6:1-7). See Numbers 15:29-31. To counter this, Brown claims the Yom Kippor sacrifices in Leviticus 16 atones for ALL sins, including intentional ones. So if we are to believe Mike Brown, there really is sacrifice for all sins - both intentional and unintentional - by the time Yom Kippor comes about. But read Lev 16 closely. Verses 16:16 and 16:20 show this blood sacrifice atones for sins related to ritual cleanliness (or lack thereof) in the Temple and related to the altar. That's one big set of sins, related to the Temple. Then we see in vss. 16:21-22 that the SCAPEGOAT atones for all other corporate sins of Israel. These are not individual sins. In fact, he-goats are never used for individual sins. This is for the whole congegation of Israel. While it may have been nice to have skipped some individual sacrifices during the year so that Yom Kippor could cover those sins, this is demonstrably not the case. The LIVE goat covers more sins than the sacrificed goat. This LIVE scapegoat is no blood sacrifice that is ever placed on the altar. So much for blood atoning for all sins, intentional ones included. ...to be cont'd ----------------- "He who saves one life... it is as if he saves an entire universe. He who destroys a life... it is as if he destroys an entire universe" TALMUD - Sanhedrin 4:5 -----------------
Chaim ben Yaakov	Re: Mike Brown - Vol.2, section 3.13 - part 1	#6	[-]
Posts: 3049 (10/19/05 23:00:31) Moderator Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Dr. Brown - Maybe after I write a few more refutations of your volumes here, someone else may want to use this material to publicly debate (or just refute) you. Give me more time to fill this thread up, and I might consider doing live battle with you. I suppose I can use my 'script' here and not sound too bad in a public debate. Meanwhile, consider what you'll be going up against. I'm just getting started! ----------------- "He who saves one life... it is as if he saves an entire universe. He who destroys a life... it is as if he destroys an entire universe" TALMUD - Sanhedrin 4:5 -----------------
Chaim ben Yaakov	Re: Mike Brown - Vol.2, section 3.13 - part 1	#7	[-]
Posts: 3049 (10/20/05 05:24:55) Moderator Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	More on Hosea 14's prayer/sacrifice. On pages 93-95 of Volume 2 in section 3.9, Brown argues that Hosea 14 speaks nothing of prayer taking over for sacrifice with respect to the remission of sins. He argues that the hebrew points to 'fulfilling the vows of our lips' instead, with bullocks. But what does the context tell us? What do we know of bullock offerings? The bullock was one of the two forms of national sin offering (Lev. 4:13-21 - the other being the he goat). Thus, the bullocks of Hoshea 14:3 are clearly sin offerings NOT olah ones (as Brown argues), and prayer is to take the place of sin offering when the nation is in exile and cannot sacrifice. Bullocks can be offered as voluntary olah offerings by individuals (Lev. 1:3-9), but the national olah offering - which was twice daily - was a lamb (Num. 28:1-8 ), not a bullock. It is clear that Hoshea is speaking about Israel (the 10 Northern Tribes) as a whole corporate entity in this passage, not about individual sinners. In fact, the reference to Asshur in vs. 4 is clearly a reference to Israel's national crisis of the Assyrian Exile. As such, Brown would need to prove where in Torah bullocks can be offered corporately as olah offerings. The whole immediate context is a penitential prayer - "Return O Israel unto Hashem your G-d; for you have stumbled in your iniquity. Take with you words, and return to Hashem. Say unto Him: 'Forgive all iniquity, and accept that which is good; thus, we will render for bullocks the offering of our lips'...." "Take words" and "return from iniquity" - sounds like prayer when doing teshuvah from sin, doesn't it? And what are "offerings of our lips" if not prayer? The word "offerings" here is sacrificial terminology - further equating the words offered to Hashem (and what else is prayer but words to G-d?) with the bullocks. And the Tanach itself shows that "bullocks", as communal offerings, are sin offerings (chatat) NOT olah ones. ----------------- "He who saves one life... it is as if he saves an entire universe. He who destroys a life... it is as if he destroys an entire universe" TALMUD - Sanhedrin 4:5 -----------------
pninah1	Just a reminder: I'm ready to have public dialogue!	#8	[-]
Posts: 2135 (10/20/05 06:18:27) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	(The books can be found in many libraries, so it's not necessary to buy them.) *** i would not buy them wasting my money nor would i waste my valuable time going to a library for them. like i said, there is nothing new under the sun here. and if you are ready to have a public dialogue, this is a public board. you have already posted here trying to push your books when you in fact have said that you do not have time to post. contradictions seem to be a xian thing.
mark	Re: The Emperor's New Clothes	#9	[-]
Posts: 1124 (10/20/05 06:40:02) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Chaim ben Yaakov: Maybe after I write a few more refutations of your volumes here, someone else may want to use this material to publicly debate (or just refute) you. I don't pretend to put myself in the same league as Dr. Brown, but really, Chaim - I could refute each of your claims myself. If Dr. Brown sees no pressing need to rise to your challenge, it may be (I really can't speak for him, but if I was in his place, I wouldn't do it either) because he knows, as well as I do, that: none of his responses will be acceptable to you anybody who reads the Tanakh without being fully intent on rejecting Jesus can see these things for themselves you keep asking the same questions, acting as if nobody has or ever could answer them As I said, I've covered most of your questions already myself, which is why I include that last point. As I read your questions, I sit here, shaking my head, knowing that you carry on as if we had never had our discussions. Don't get me wrong - I am not the final authority on these matters, and I don't care if you agree with me personally. The point is, there is a tendency among the anti-Jesus members of this forum to toss grenades at the "enemy" and then run away. If you'd stick around to watch the results, you'd see that most of your grenades were duds. If you'd pay attention to the results, you'd see that indeed, when it comes to fighting Jesus, no weapon formed against Him shall ever prosper. But you don't see that. You keep asking the same questions over and over again, not learning anything from anyone who disagrees with you. As I said, Chaim, I've already personally addressed each of your questions elsewhere in this forum myself. And most of them were answered during one-on-one discussion between the two of us. While I don't expect you to agree with my arguments, I do expect you to keep them in mind when raising new questions. If you did that, you'd know how your questions will be addressed. And even failing that, I'd at least expect you to realize by now that there is always a reasonable response, no matter how "clever" your questions seem from your point of view. So go ahead and present your questions again. You will see the same good answers given, and you will simply reject them and carry on with your religion. But rest assured that we have answered all of your questions. Well, sorry to butt in like that. It's just that... well, the timing of Dr. Brown's latest post in relation to my last (full) post is just too good to ignore. I see something very Cool happening here, and I guess I just wanted to be a part of it. Peace
Chaim ben Yaakov	Re: The Emperor's New Clothes	#10	[-]
Posts: 3049 (10/20/05 08:18:33) Moderator Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Mark, You're right. We have discussed many of these themes already. But your answers are unacceptable because they're not biblically sound. That's the bottom line. Take any 1 of the arguments above and try refuting it, or point me to your alleged 'refutation'. It doesn't exist. Your unsupported assertions are no real 'answer' to these objections. Neither are Michael Brown's points biblically or logically sound - as I've proven above. He argues that Ezekiel 18 has nothing to do with atonement/forgiveness and that there is no national atonement without exile. He claims Jews "looked forward to Jesus". I provided scriptural evidence proving his claims false. A simple "no but Jesus said..." is not a scripturally sound reply to the Tanakh's irrefutable teachings. Heck, even the NT teachings utterly refute Brown. It's not just a matter of opinion. But what are you arguing here, Mark? You've already agreed with me in cases like 2Chron 33 that there is forgiveness separate and apart from blood. Then, seeking to keep your own beliefs intact, you posit that there is always some "special provision" in light of no sacrifice or blood. But this hedging of your bets has no basis in scripture. In other words - it's your opinion and you cannot back it up with anything other than an argument from silence. Tell you what Mark. Show me where in Lamentations Jeremiah laments that there is no atonement without blood. Find for me something in Josephus stating that the 70 year exile was problematic for Jews because they couldn't be forgiven. Provide for me sound, scriptural support or else admit you have none. It's as simple as that. Do better than that and prove my logic is faulty. Or that your beliefs are more plausible and scripturally sound. Can you do this? Barring that, your answers hold no weight. ----------------- "He who saves one life... it is as if he saves an entire universe. He who destroys a life... it is as if he destroys an entire universe" TALMUD - Sanhedrin 4:5 -----------------
Unregistered(d)	Re:On "looking forward" and "looking backward	#11	[-]
Posts: 0 (10/20/05 08:42:47) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	To me every religious/spiritual person will understand, as the prophets often explain, that salvation/atonement etc. is not to be found in the material or behaviour of: a Temple, sacrifices, priests, prayer, Land, blood, rituals, etc. The Temple and the sacrifices not only looked forward (as prototypes) to the ultimate sacrifice of the 'lamb of God', but they also, and especially, looked upwards to the reality of the reconciliation within the heavenly true sanctuary of God. The redemption of Christ through his sacrifice has eternal meaning and power: it covers all of human history, and even more, it covers reality before, after, above and within the time-zone. So the sacrificial rituals were indeed a 'shadow' of a, also at that time, heavenly reality. Mozes saw that reality on the mountain, and he made a 'copy' of this (tabernacle). To God all times are now. I believe Abraham and others looked upwards to the (inner reality) of God, where atonement comes from. Aad
mark	Re: The Emperor's New Clothes	#12	[-]
Posts: 1124 (10/20/05 08:51:26) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Chaim ben Yaakov: Take any 1 of the arguments above and try refuting it, or point me to your alleged 'refutation'. It doesn't exist. Maybe that's the problem. You're looking for an outright refutation, when in many cases, all I've actually given you has been a "missing piece". In any case, this statement from you above shows your intent to keep going back to "square one". In my opinion, you do this, however unintentionally it may be, to avoid having to face the reality that none of this can be settled by intellect and education alone. I don't pretend to think that I could ever change your mind on my own words, but I would hope that I could have at least shown you this much. Chaim, there is a very good answer for every question you ask. Intellect and education are not enough to settle this. It takes a change of heart to lift the veil here. And only God can do that. After all - did you have anything to do with the decision that you would be born Jewish? If you refuse to give God the credit for your understanding of these things, then all our discussions about being humble before Him are settled once and for all. Having said all that, I'll just remind you, one final time, that the "missing piece" here is to remember that the exile in Babylon was a punishment, the outpouring of God's wrath upon Israel. All the rest has already been explained here. You can choose to ignore it and go back to square one again, but it won't change the reality that your questions have been answered. Peace
Chaim ben Yaakov	Re: Re:On "looking forward" and "looking back	#13	[-]
Posts: 3049 (10/20/05 08:51:53) Moderator Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Yes Aad - that's all it is. Shadows. Types. Nothing that can be found according to the plain, literal meaning within context. Mike Brown even attempts to answer the point that there are no prophecies about Jesus - but the fact is there are no prophecies regarding Jesus in the Tanakh that do not deal with these imaginary types, shadows, and allegories. This is what we really mean when we challenge people like Dr. Michael Brown to provide us with just 1 prophecy in Tanakh regarding Jesus. Something that has NOT to do with types, allegory, shadows, or gnostic mysteries that need to be unraveled and that are only understood by the "properly initiated". That's smoke-and-mirrors, Aad. Plain and simple. ----------------- "He who saves one life... it is as if he saves an entire universe. He who destroys a life... it is as if he destroys an entire universe" TALMUD - Sanhedrin 4:5 -----------------
Chaim ben Yaakov	Re: The Emperor's New Clothes	#14	[-]
Posts: 3049 (10/20/05 08:54:24) Moderator Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Mark, Yes - I'm looking for an outright refutation. Something pointing to the illogic of my arguments. Something showing that what I write is biblically unsound. Let me know when you can bring it because that's all I've been doing to christian doctrines, your "but maybes" withstanding. ----------------- "He who saves one life... it is as if he saves an entire universe. He who destroys a life... it is as if he destroys an entire universe" TALMUD - Sanhedrin 4:5 -----------------
mark	Re: The Emperor's New Clothes	#15	[-]
Posts: 1124 (10/20/05 09:44:14) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Chaim, what I'm politely trying to tell you is that I've done what you've asked. Your rejection of those responses doesn't mean that they never existed. Peace
Medini	To Mark	#16	[-]
Posts: 288 (10/20/05 10:09:07) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Mark: You have been presenting two different arguments here - one that there is always a "reasonable response" from the Christian side to our points, and the other that intellect (I presume you mean logic) and learning alone are not enough to answer these questions. I do not think you have shown the first argument to be valid because in order for a response to be "reasonable" it must adhere to the rules of logic, and yet many of your responses have been shown to be violations of Okham's Razor, one of those logical rules, as I have specifically shown you on occasion. By contrast, you have said that our positions are a "stretch" but only argued this in subjective terms, without specifically showing us how they violate specific rules of logic. As to your second point, while I agree that G-d gives us our abilities and opportunities to understand, the point is that in assessing the validity of Jewish versus Christian positions, learning and logic frankly are the only objective tools we have, since the degree to which G-d has "blinded" or "enlightened" us on these matters is entirely subjective. And it appears to me that when Christian positions or responses have been shown to be unreasonable by the rules of logic, you resort to this secondary argument, one, which logically, is not a valid argument at all but a subjective resort to belief. Thus, I, for one, do not see how many of your responses can be considered "reasonable" - in the sense of their logic - at all.
mark	Re: To Mark	#17	[-]
Posts: 1124 (10/20/05 10:59:05) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Medini: I, for one, do not see how many of your responses can be considered "reasonable" - in the sense of their logic - at all. Yes, I'm aware of that. Peace
Chaim ben Yaakov	Re: To Mark	#18	[-]
Posts: 3049 (10/20/05 10:59:19) Moderator Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Mark, While you have been polite - and moreso than I have been with you - nevertheless, as Medini has pointed out you have failed to provide 'reasonable' responses that are both logically coherent and biblically sound. Again, if what you write is not plausible either logically or biblically, then it is NOT reasonable. Do you understand this? Tell you what. Mike Brown contends that Jews "looked forward" to Jesus. Now read my refutation of that claim. Does he have a sound basis for his assertion? Yes or No. ----------------- "He who saves one life... it is as if he saves an entire universe. He who destroys a life... it is as if he destroys an entire universe" TALMUD - Sanhedrin 4:5 -----------------
Unregistered(d)	Re: Re:On "looking forward" and "looking back	#19	[-]
Posts: 0 (10/20/05 10:59:54) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	*Quote:* Chaim ben Yaakov: smoke-and-mirrors Old saying: "The HT is revealed in the GT and the GT (c.q. Jesus) is hidden in the HT." So, I guess you are right; we don't have more then this to believe. For me it is enough. I t seems to me this looks alot like what Israel had in the desert: The pillar of cloud went ever before them by day, and the pillar of fire by night. (Ex 13:22). Smoke and fire is all we got for our walk with God. Bless you Aad
mark	Re: To Mark	#20	[-]
Posts: 1124 (10/20/05 11:29:00) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Chaim ben Yaakov: you have failed to provide 'reasonable' responses that are both logically coherent and biblically sound. I am quite aware that this is your opinion. Chaim ben Yaakov: Mike Brown contends that Jews "looked forward" to Jesus. Does he have a sound basis for his assertion? Yes or No. Chaim, Chaim, Chaim - we have been through this! If you honestly do not know my answer to this question, then you are hiding from the reality of it. Also, that question is so loaded... well, anyway, it's loaded. You need to be a lot more specific in terms of the context of the question. Having said that, I will try to answer briefly, in a few different contexts. Were the Jews looking forward to the coming of the Messiah? Yes. Were they aware of substitutionary atonement? Yes. (And please - let's not go back to square one on this. I'm just summarizing.) Were they thinking about the Messiah paying the penalty for their sins with His own life? It depends when you asked them. During the time of Moses, based on what the Tanakh tells us, most of them probably would have had no clue about this. But starting with Isaiah 53, I think some of them would have gotten the picture. (And again, this is just a summary. I won't go back to square one on this one.) Chaim, again - all your questions - and I mean ALL of them - have a reasonable response. Please, stop trying to take this whole thing back to square one each and every time. Instead, why not try to become familiar with our responses so that you can move on to different arguments, and stop re-hashing the same old discussions over and over again? Really, from my point of view, it looks like all you're trying to do is bury us in snow. The responses will always be there, Chaim. It's up to you how you want to proceed from here. Peace

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Add Reply

Yuku free message boards

OBJECTING TO DR. MICHAEL BROWN'S OBJECTIONS

OBJECTING TO DR. MICHAEL BROWN'S OBJECTIONS

Quick Reply