Yuku free message boards

focusfront wrote:

---

In case you were wondering, the name 'Jsus' comes from the Greek transliteration of Yes-hua.

Wrong. The Greek Text is in Greek, not in Hebrew. IF there ever was a prototype for the Jsus of the Greek Text no one knows what his Hebrew name might have been. Most likely it would have been Yehosua (Joshua).

focusfront wrote:

---

And you might ask yourself why Dr. Brown, a brilliant scholar with a Ph.D. from a prestigious university, has taken a stand that puts him at odds with Jews (he's a traitor to his own people), Gentiles (he's a right wing intolerant Neanderthal), and even other Chrstians (he's a Pentecostal flake). He makes a good living, but so does a tenured prof. at a major university (which he could be, or could have been), and that without the criticism, threats, and outright hatred he suffers. Whose dog is Michael Brown? Whose tool is he? Who is patting him on the back for what he does? Nobody's, nobody's, and just about nobody, that's who. Why then does he do what he does? Perhaps THAT is something you can debate about.

For one he is making a heck of a lot of money from people who DO follow him. He is a kind of "demi-god" to many (you seem to be one of them).

He is not a brilliant scholar. Sorry to burst your little bubble there, but he is not learned in Judaism - and studying about Judaism from fellow Chrstians isn't a great "prestigious" way to learn Judaism.

Brown, per his own autobiography on his website, was a drug addict thief who as a teen became a Chrstian. Maybe he believes his own religion (as you pointed out, he is anti-main stream Chrstianity) -- but then he is no better or worse than Joseph Smith of the Mormons or Mohamed of the Muslims.

I take it you didn't actually read any of those articles we referred you to? Nope, you'd rather think he is brilliant (and so are you) than to learn just how basic his errors really are. You're entitled to your opinion -- you aren't entitled to pull the wool over anyone else's eyes.

Contra Brown: Answering Dr. Brown's Objections to Judaism

Table of Contents

I. Who is Dr. Brown? -4

II. The real Jewish objections -5


1. The totality of scripture -6
2. Faith structure -10
3. The relationship that the Jewish people shared with G-d -11

III. Messianic prophecies -12

A. The Messianic era according -12
B. Son of David? -14
C. Psalm 22 and a light to the gentiles -15
D. Must the Messiah appear before 70 C.E.? -15


1. Haggai 2:6-9 -16
2. Malachi 3:1-4 -18
3. Daniel 9:24 -27 -18
4. Yoma 39b -20

E. Priestly King -21


1. Zechariah 6:9-15 -22
2. Psalm 110 -23
3. Messiah is not the only priest -24

F. Isaiah 53 -24

1. The identity of the servant -24
2. What did the Rabbis say? -25
3. The innocence of the servant -26
4. The suffering of the servant -27
5. The exaltation of the servant -28

IV Is the Messiah to be Divine? -32


A. Genesis 18 and Exodus 24 -32
B. The exalted nature of the Davidic king -33
C. Daniel 7:13 -34

V. Atonement -35

A. Brown's solution to a Chrstian problem -35

1. Talmud commentaries -35
2. The centrality of the offerings -35
3. The path from Leviticus 17:11 to Hebrews 10:4 -35

B. The Talmud commentaries in context -36

C. The centrality of the offerings in context -38

D. From Leviticus 17:11 to Ezekiel 11:16 -39


1. The suffering of the righteous -39
2. Life for a life -39
3. Who replaced the sacrifices? -41

VI. A call to my Messianic brothers and sisters -43

Footnotes -44

R' Moshe Shulman's articles on Michael Brown:

Who is Dr. Brown and Why Spend so Much Time on Him?



Dr Michael Brown and Rabbi Moshe Shulman. Chatting after one of Dr. Brown's debates.

Responses to Dr. Michael Brown's books "Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus"

Response to Dr. Michael Brown's objection to my comments about Dr. David Stern in the article "Lies, Damn Lies and What the Missionaries say the Rabbis say."

Response to Dr. Michael Brown's objection to my comments about what is in my article "Lies, Damn Lies and What the Missionaries say the Rabbis say."

Response to Dr. Michael Brown's response to Rabbi Michael Scobac's article dealing with atonement for sin with the flour offering.

(R' Moshe Shulman)

focusfront wrote:

---

You would never criticize an ethnic Japanese for not being able to say 'lollypop,' yet you criticize the Greeks of Y-shua's day for not being able to say or spell 'Yshua,' to the extent that you sense a conspiracy in it.

Like so many missionaries you make declarations which you do nothing to support. Take the one above -- it totally ignores the points that were made, namely that there is no historical Hebrew name for Jsus and that the one you use, Ye-shua is an impossibility. UriYosef told you this back on post 35 (you seem to be ignoring our responses to you) where he told you:

Dead wrong! You need to read the essay - Exposing the "Yeshu'a" Name Game, in order to learn how those who wrote the Greek Text were unable to distinguish between three similar names that occur in the Hebrew Bibles

This has more to do with Hebrew than Koine Greek BTW -- wasn't Jsus supposedly the JEWISH messiah?

focusfront wrote:

---

I did read some of the posted rebuttals to Brown. Shulman praises him but disagrees with him based on current (anti-Chrstian) 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?

You might want to read the forum rules about showing respect to others. Warning #1.

You read some rebuttals -- yet they are not "insults" but rather very precise explanations of Brown's errors and outright deceptions (whether he makes them knowingly or through ignorance I can't say). What about the use of Ibn Crispin? How about the total distortion of Ramban on Isaiah 53?

As for why not debate face to face -- that has also been explained to you. Brown has been debated by many, but he throws out about 10 "references" for every answer and it is impossible for a debater to show them to be wrong in face to face debate (both due to time restrictions and the fact that we'd need a library to check every single reference he makes cavalierly). The Ramban example I've given is such a perfect example of this -- and yet you dismiss these factual distortions and call them insults!

That, in itself, is insulting OF you.

Brown says that the Ramban (Nachmanides) agrees with Chrstians that the servant in Isaiah 53 is the messiah. Is this true? Here is what Brown wrote:

Moses ben Nachman (called Nachmanides or the Ramban) felt compelled to follow the weight of ancient tradition and embrace the individual, Messianic interpretation of the Talmudic rabbis (found in the Midrash, despite his belief that the plain sense of the text supported the national interpretation).

Note that Brown said Ramban felt COMPELLED to follow "tradition" of saying that the servant is the messiah. How does he know this pray tell? Does he bother explaining to the Chrstian what Midrash (aggudah which he doesn't define from Midrash halacha) IS? Nope. He leaves the reader believing that the sages thought the servant in Isaiah 53 was the messiah, contrary to all fact.

Let's read what Moses ben Nachman (called Nachmanides or the Ramban) really had to say on the subject of the servant in Isaiah 53. The following is from a debate between Nachmanides and a Jewish apostate, Friar Paul, in front of the King of Spain. This is referred to as "The Disputation at Barcelona.":

Friar Paul claimed: "Behold the passage in Isaiah, chapter 53, tells of the death of the messiah and ho he was to fall into the hands of his enemies and how he was placed alongside the wicked, as happened to Jsus. Do you believe that this section speaks of the messiah?

I (Ramban aka Nachmanides) said to him: In terms of the true meaning of the section, it speaks only of the people of Israel, which the prophets regularly call 'Israel My servant' or 'Jacob My servant. '

Friar Paul said: "I shall prove from the words of your sages that it speaks of the messiah."

I said to him: "It is true that the rabbis in the aggudah explain it as referring to the messiah.

The Ramban explains the concept of midrash aggudah (which Brown's readers might have found helpful!):

"We have a third book called Midrash, meaning sermons. It is just as if the bishop would rise and deliver a sermon, and one of the listeners whom the sermon pleased recorded it (Disputation at Barcelona, p. 7)."

So Brown references Ramban speaking about midrashim but he (Brown) does not explain to the Chrstians that Ramban was "delivering a sermon" aka making a moral point, and not speaking literally. This is known as lying, aka distorting the truth.

Ramban also said:

The right view respecting this Parashah is to suppose that by the phrase "my servant" the whole of Israel is meant. . . .As a different opinion, however, is adopted by the Midrash, which refers it to the Messiah, it is necessary for us to explain it in conformity with the view there maintained. The prophet says, The Messiah, the son of David of whom the text speaks, will never be conquered or perish by the hands of his enemies. And, in fact the text teaches this clearly. . .

1. The servant is Israel (the Jews)
2. In Midrash Aggudah the servant in Isaiah 53 may refer to the messiah (or Moses or a variety of others) . . .BUT

and this is the part the Chrstians never mention that Ramban told the King of Spain

The Messiah. . .will never be conquered or perish by the hands of his enemies. And, in fact the text teaches this clearly.

Michael Brown distorts Nachmanides teachings on Isaiah 53, this is a fact, not an insult. Can you see the difference?

Lastly, Ramban said to the King of Spain at Barcelona:

I am amazed. The words said in our presence to convince us that the Nazarene (Jsus) is the Messiah, were said by the Nazarene himself when he brought this same message to our ancestors and tried to persuade them.

They refuted him to his face with a perfect and strong rejection despite the fact that it was he who spoke, who knew and could argue his claim that he is divine, in accordance to your opinion, better than you can today. Now, if our ancestors who saw him and knew him did not heed him, how then can we believe and heed the voice of the king, whose only knowledge of the matter stems merely from the hearsay of distant reporters who heard it from people who neither knew him nor were his countrymen as our ancestors knew him and witnessed his life.

Now tell me, am I merely "insulting" Brown or proving him to be untruthful? Reading what Brown wrote about the Ramban and what the Ramban actually said, can you see how he (Brown) twists things out of context, completely reversing them in meaning?