Answering Rabbi Tovia Singer: 2009

Thursday, November 5, 2009

Response to Tovia's article: Does the Hebrew Word Alma Really Mean “Virgin”?

The purpose of writing a response?

Not everything the Rabbi says is cut-and-dry. Sometimes what he says borders on outright deception. The purpose of this article is to help you, the reader, see the other side. As is stated in Proverbs:

“The first to present his case seems right, till another comes forward and questions him”

We will now question what Rabbi Singer says.

Does the Hebrew Word Alma Really Mean “Virgin”?

Question:

Dear Rabbi Singer,

I have listened to your tapes and I have also read a number of your articles on your web site regarding Christ’s virgin birth and you make some very good points. I have discussed this issue with my pastor and although he did remark that he finds your arguments “interesting” he brought up a good argument (I think). He asked that if the Hebrew word alma only meant “young woman” and not “virgin,” why is it that in every place the word alma appears in the Bible it is always referring to a virgin? I think he has made a good point and will relate your answer to him. I thank you in advance.

A curious reader asks the Rabbi a question. A couple of points are in order:

(i) Definition of Almah and understanding Isaiah 7

This article does not go into extended lexical analysis of the meaning of almah. It merely provides a response to Rabbi Singer’s assertions. There are various ways of reading Isaiah 7:14. I will not be going into that either.

(ii) Alternative Reading of Almah in Proverbs

Tovia Singer for the most part seeks to show us that almah could mean someone who has had sexual intercourse, and hence cannot mean virgin. We will be providing a response to this assertion primarily. But given the subject matter, I shall point you to sources which will give you some idea of the issue:

What does “almah” mean?

In short, the strict literal meaning (as I understand it – please see my points in the paragraph below) of almah is: young woman, full of child rearing potential. This is the strict meaning. It is a word that can be used of virgins, but it does not define one’s virginity in and of itself. But if someone used it in relation to a woman, people thinking or understanding her to be a virgin is certainly not out of the question. Hence we have a problem, an issue that we have to grapple with. The issue is not as straight forward as Tovia makes it out.

I myself do not speak Hebrew, and I don’t know if Tovia can speak Hebrew either (by this I mean I don’t know if Tovia Singer was brought up speaking Hebrew as a wee-tot and knows it back to front vs. him learning it from a textbook at college). His accent sounds American-ish, but what would I know? In any case, my analysis of the issue of what almah means is very limited. I can do no better than to direct you, the reader, to perhaps a more authoritative sources:

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/fabprof2.html .

http://www.themoorings.org/apologetics/VirginBirth/Isaiah.html

http://www.themoorings.org/apologetics/prophecy/VirginBirth/Jerem.html

http://www.themoorings.org/apologetics/VirginBirth/Isaiah.html

http://www.ilifetv.com/thinkitthru/OBJmessianic.htm

Answer:

Your pastor’s contention that “every place the word alma appears in the Bible it is always referring to a virgin” is incorrect. This is not the first time I have come across a Christian who has made this erroneous assertion; and each and every time I hear it I am puzzled as to why these apologists do not do their research before making this claim.

The Rabbi continues to slander Jesus and his disciples. If it was so straightforward a matter, then no one would even be making an argument about it. Why would, in Singer’s own words, the “church” hold on to the untenable position that alma means virgin for night “two millennia”, when they have no basis whatsoever in making that claim?

In truth, the issue is more complicated than that what Rabbi Singer makes out. Note what he says above: “I am puzzled as to why these apologists do not do their research before making this claim,” Tovia sounds like someone who doesn’t even understand what the issue is about!

This is especially the case in our modern age where computer technology has made simple word studies so quick and easy to research. I will briefly explain your question for the readers of our website who are unfamiliar with this subject.

For nearly two millennia the church has insisted that the Hebrew word alma can only mean “virgin.” The church must hold this position because Matthew 1:22-23 translates alma in Isaiah 7:14 as “virgin.”

It is not what Tovia is telling you that is questionable, but what he is not telling you that makes him deceptive.

Now Matthew does quote Isaiah 7:14 as “virgin” – and this is where Tovia Singer is technically correct. But what Tovia Singer does not tell you is that Matthew is also quoting from the Septuagint.

What is the Septuagint?

The Septuagint, to cut a long story short, is basically a Greek translation of the old testament, the Tanach. Now here’s the kicker: when was it translated? It was translated BEFORE, I’ll say again, BEFORE the supposed virgin birth of Jesus Christ. It was translated by Jewish Hebrew scholars. It was translated by Jews, for Jews. Perhaps I can do no better than to quote what has already been said on the issue, conveniently stated by Rabbi Moshe Yoseph Koniuchowsky:

“Seventy outstanding Hebrew scholars on the other hand, translated the LXX [i.e. the Septuagint], WITH THE FULL APPROVAL AND RECOMMENDATION of the High Priest, BEFORE YAHSHUA WAS EVEN BORN. THE LXX WAS FINISHED EVEN BEFORE THE SO-CALLED CHRISTIAN ERA BEGAN! These 70 Jewish rabbis had no axe to grind, and no agenda either pro or con, as pertaining to Yahshua as Messiah. They translated as 70 Jewish rabbis, with direct recommendation from Israel’s High Priest, and Israel’s Sanhedrin. The High Priest therefore knew and approved the Hebrew original from which the LXX was derived. Then of course, Yahshua Himself approved of the LXX. (*Dr Immanuel Tov Hebrew University Jerusalem “ The Dead Sea Scrolls differ in many details from the MT” Oxford Companion Bible Introduction.).”

The Rabbinic Response

It is here that the Rabbinic Jews seek to attack the Septuagint, arguing that is an unreliable translation etc. etc. and so worth. This article is not going to look at the textual criticism arguments on the Septuagint.

But listen to what Tovia says: he KNOWS that the Septuagint exists, but he willingly omits to mention it to you, the Jew who is asking questions about Jesus. Tovia Singer’s silence on this question speaks volumes. If Tovia Singer has never heard of the Septuagint than he must be convicted of being ignorant. He, as a Rabbi should know about it. Either way, it is problematic. He is either lying/manipulating or deceiving by omission, or he is ignorant. You choose (or provide another explanation). Either way, it does not look that good for Tovia.

“For nearly two millennia the church has insisted that the Hebrew word alma can only mean “virgin.” The church must hold this position because Matthew 1:22-23 translates alma in Isaiah 7:14 as “virgin.”

The “almah” translated to “virgin” is a Jewish Translation

Dear readers, the translation of “alma” as virgin is rather a very Jewish one. The translation into the Greek unmistakably means virgin (parthenos) [readers, please note that I myself do not speak Greek, I am merely quoting to you what I have read from Koniuchowsky]. It is not only the church’s position, but a position that was endorsed by the Jewish community, one that was endorsed by the 70 Jewish scholars translating the Hebrew bible, and thus, was implicitly endorsed with the blessings of the high priest of Israel.

Dear reader – do you see how Tovia is manipulating you, by making the situation seem fairly straightforward and not complex? That’s why there’s such a big deal about this text, that’s why there is so much drama: The Jewish community themselves translated it as “virgin”! Surely, that has to mean something?

Now, if one still wishes to assail the question, one can attack the authenticity of the authority of the Septuagint, or one can attack it from a textual criticism point of view. Especially because Tovia does not address the issue, I will be doing neither.

The first Gospel quotes this well-known verse to provide the only “Old Testament” proof text for the supposed virgin birth of Jesus.

There is no old “testament proof” according to Rabbi Singer?

If Tovia means that Isaiah 7 is the only part of the old testament used to prove Jesus’ alleged virgin birth then he, so far is I know, is correct. Only Matthew refers back to Isaiah 7.

The stakes are high for Christendom, because if the Hebrew word alma does not mean virgin, Matthew is misquoting the prophet Isaiah, and both a key tenet of Christianity and the credibility of the first Gospel collapses.

As explained before, Matthew is merely quoting a Jewish scripture, the Septuagint, made by Jews, for Jews, before Christ was even born.

(a) Clarification of the Key Tenet of Christianity

The key tenet of Christianity is that Jesus is the Son of God, and that he died and was resurrected. The virgin birth is more of an interesting quirky fact, or anecdote. Only Matthew and Luke make mention of it, and only Matthew quotes the tanach to suggest that it was alluded to.

(b) Matthew’s Quotations are typological in nature

Also I would like to add that Matthew’s quotes are not like modern day academic citations. His use of quotations are actually quite “loose”, as if he saw something in the tanach that applied to Jesus, and it was something that he could not attribute to mere coincidence. For example, Matthew quotes Hosea 11:1 to suggest that God called his son out of Egypt, and he applies this to Jesus. But if one reads the tanach literally, the “son” is referring to Israel and not Jesus (Israel in itself surely cannot be a literal interpretation, it must be metaphoric in some sense). Matthew sees Jesus as the personification of Israel. Tovia Singer clings on to such ‘inconsistencies’ to persuade Jews that the Gospels are false, and that Jesus was not from God.

(c) Matthew’s emphasis is not crystal clear according to some

Some commentators suggest that Matthew may not even want to be emphasizing the virginity aspect of Mary’s conception, but rather the “Immanuel” part.

How accurate is this Christian claim? The place to explore this issue is in the Jewish scriptures. If the Hebrew word alma means virgin then each usage in the Bible must be either a clear reference to a virgin or at least be ambiguous. The word alma appears in the Jewish scriptures seven times. If even one reference clearly refers to a woman who is not a virgin, then Matthew’s rendition of Isaiah 7:14 becomes untenable.

Tovia seeks to attack Matthew’s use of old testament scripture to prophesy the virgin birth of Christ. A couple of points are in order:

(a) Matthew would know what ‘alma’ means better than Tovia

Firstly, Matthew was a Jew. He would have known what the word “almah” means, having learned the language since the days of his youth. Tovia Singer on the other hand would have probably have had to take a course on Hebrew to learn what “alma” means (a big assumption here – I don’t know anything about Singer’s background), and he would have learned what it means with today’s modern day Rabbinic Judaism’s anti-Christian redefinition of the Hebrew lexicon. Either Matthew was lying or Tovia Singer is plain incorrect. Matthew, being a Jew, and a learned one at that, would have known too much, really, for another definition to be possible.

So now the question becomes: was Matthew lying? But this does not explain the second issue below:

(b) The 70 Jewish scholars who translated the LXX (the Septuagint) would also know better than Tovia

The Septuagint with its 70 Hebrew scholars who translated it, with the blessings of Israel’s high priest, even before Christ was born, said that “alma” means virgin, unmistakably. Matthew quotes from them. And Tovia Singer still wishes to say things like “clearly” alma does not mean virgin? By doing so, Tovia Singer automatically displays his ignorance, or rather, according to my theory, shows off his true colours of deception. Now Tovia will have to attack the LXX via textual criticism or question its authenticity.

One of the places where the uncommon Hebrew word alma appears in the Bible is in Proverbs 30:18-20 which reads,

There are three things which are too wonderful for me, four which I do not understand: the way of an eagle in the sky, the way of a serpent on a rock, the way of a ship in the middle of the sea, and the way of a man with a young woman [b’alma]. This is the way of an adulterous woman: she eats and wipes her mouth, and says, “I have done no wrong.”

In most bibles, Proverbs is delineated in the following way:

¹⁸ "There are three things that are too amazing for me,
four that I do not understand:

¹⁹ the way of an eagle in the sky,
       the way of a snake on a rock,
       the way of a ship on the high seas,
       and the way of a man with a maiden.

²⁰ "This is the way of an adulteress:
She eats and wipes her mouth
and says, 'I've done nothing wrong.'

Verses 18-19 and verse 20 are two separate proverbs

Now in verse 18, the wise man brings us to attention – there are four things which amaze him. The first is the eagle, the second is the snake, the third is a ship and the fourth is they way of a man with a woman. What has the adulteress got to do with this proverb? I would contend that it has absolutely nothing to do with it! The adulteress proverb of verse 20 is simply another proverb totally disassociated with the previous one. The proverbs in verse 18-19 is self contained and different from Proverbs 20. They are two separate proverbs. Rabbi Tovia Singer contends below that they should essentially read together, but I would say they should not. Why not?

(a) There are four items in 18-19, not five

Firstly, the wise men says there are four things that amaze him and lists them: (1) eagles, (2) snakes, (3) ships and (4) – that is, the fourth one, the way of a man with a woman. Four are listed here, not five. The proverb concludes with the mention of the fourth item. If verse 20 was part of the proverb, then five things would be listed.

(b) Verse 20 makes a different point, unrelated to the amazing things of 18-19

Secondly, the proverb of verse 20 makes a different point: and the point is that the adulterer does not see the wrong that she does (of course, adultery can be committed by men also). It has nothing to do with anything amazing, as does the way of a ship on the seas. It is a commentary that the adulteress is so amoral that she does not even see the wrong associated with her sin, and consequently is beyond being able to repent for it.

Those things are truly inexplicable (well, it really depends on how one interprets 18-19). But what is so inexplicable or amazing or wondrous about verse 20? It is a statement of fact of: this is how it is with adulterers, is what Solomon is saying, not a wonder, per se, that it is so. Verse 20 makes a different point to verse 18-19, which is why verse 20 is a completely different proverb. This is one way of looking at it.

(c) Verse 20 Introduces a new Proverb

Verse 20 starts off by saying: “this is the way of an adulteress.” We are now looking forward to finding out about an adulteress, how she thinks, what motivates her and the like etc.. In the end we find out that an adulteress does not even think that what she is doing is wrong. A completely new self contained pithy saying is introduced and concluded. The wise writer creates an expectation, and then delivers. If verse 20 was connected to the previous proverb, there would not be this introduction: “this is the way”.

(d) Verse 20 can be understood independently

We do not need Verses 18-19 to understand verse 20. It is completely self contained. This is all the more reason why verse 20 is different from 18-19. Read it yourself and ask yourself that same question.

Hence I would say that the two proverbs are completely different, and that Tovia Singer is reading them together to imply that in this particular case, “almah” does not mean virgin.

This is not a proof that an alma is a non-virgin. The word alma is not even used in verse 20!

There is no trace of a man lying with a woman?

So Solomon (according to Rabbin Singer) – the wisest man who ever lived, is of the opinion that “once a man has been with an alma there is also no trace of the fornication that had occurred between them”? You’ve got to be kidding!? There is of course a trace! The most traceable trace of all: a child of the union! This is proof that a man has been with an alma! What more proof do you need? And what is more, this is a lasting proof. It does not disappear over time! These are the wise words of Solomon, according to Tovia Singer! As you can see, once the ship’s waters recede there is no way to tell what path it has been through. But this is nothing like a man taking a woman: there is always the possibility of a child being born, and the union proclaimed for whole world to see by the birth of the child. When David fell with Bathsheba was there a trace? Of course! And this trace was the child born.

Even if there was no child there is still proof. Prosecutors use things like DNA to prove their case. There is always a trace. The only way out is for the people to get rid of the incriminating evidence themselves or to cover it up. This is exactly what David tried to do, when he requested his loyal servant Uriah to sleep with his wife, so that Uriah would think that the child which would be born to Bathsheba would be his and not David’s.

There will always be some sort of way of tracing with fornication and adultery. The most notable way is if a child is born. The second is via DNA. Despite the anachronism, in the time of Solomon, one would still be able to see signs via blood, bodily fluids and the like on bed sheets etc. One does not need an electron spectrometer for the proof to exist. It is there if one looks. But no matter how hard one looks, one will never see the path that an eagle took in flight.

This is very different to all the other examples where the evidence of paths recedes naturally, without active human intervention.

A more probable Interpretation of Proverbs 30:19

This is probably a reference to the whole courting process of a man and a woman, and how mysterious this is. It just happens. One can’t quite put a finger on it. How does a man fall in love with a woman? It just happens. It’s mysterious. That’s my take on it. I need not be right, and there are various ways of reading it. Solomon’s meaning of the proverb was probably more in line with this sort of interpretation, and not the monstrous lies which Tovia Singer puts forward.

Verse 18-19 and 20 are separate proverbs – what other people think

As mentioned before in my explanation, they are separate proverbs. If anything placing them together may be for the purposes of contrast. Or it may just be completely random. But what have other people said on the issue? See below. This was taken from the Thinktank website: http://www.christian-thinktank.com/fabprof2.html - it contains an excellent analysis on people like Tovia Singer tacking on verse 20 to verses 18-19.

Therefore, in the following verse (verse 20) King Solomon explains that once this adulterous woman has eaten (a metaphor for her fornication), she removes the trace of her sexual activity by exclaiming, “I have done no wrong.” The word alma clearly does not mean virgin.

The emphasis is on the adulteress not feeling an scruples, rather than her removing traces of the crime by saying “I have done no wrong”

Firstly, verse 20 is not meant to be read with verse 18-19. Please read above discussion.

Secondly, according to Rabbi Singer, Solomon is emphasizing that the adulterous woman is removing all traces of her sexual sin by wiping her mouth and explaining “I have done no wrong”. But the real point of proverbs 20 is to emphasise how the adulteress doesn’t even see the wrong that she is doing. Read Proverbs 20 again:

²⁰ "This is the way of an adulteress:
She eats and wipes her mouth
and says, 'I've done nothing wrong.'

Where does it talk about the adulteress removing all traces of her crime? Saying “I have done no wrong” (a statement of someone’s alleged guiltlessness) is very different from someone taking active measure to cover up one’s crime.

The adulteress thinks committing adultery is no different to eating? “I ate an apple,” she says, “so what?” This is probably what Solomon was getting at with the food and eating metaphor – he probably was not trying to say that the adulteress covers up her crime. I mean, adulteresses would be more likely to cover it up if they thought it was wrong, than if they did not.

Furthermore, the word alma is not contained at all in verse 20. It is the adulteress talking and saying “I have done no wrong” not the alma.

The Rabbi says: “The word alma clearly does not mean virgin.” Well I put it to you, the reader, that it is not that clear. Rabbi Singer is attempting to simplify the issue so you can deny the truth of Jesus Christ, the Son of the Most High God.

In the same way that in the English language the words “young woman” have no bearing on whether virginity is present or not, in the Hebrew language there is no relationship between the words alma and virgin.

What would be an English language equivalent to “almah”?

Brilliant Tovia, young woman does not have any bearing on virginity. But “young woman” is not quite like “alma” – it just does not do. The English word that is used, “maiden”, I feel more closely fits the description of “alma”, without of course, the connotations associated with fecundity. Maiden of course, means “young woman” but it has a perhaps secondary meaning of one who is pure, who has not slept with a man.

This is where the expression “old maid” comes from – from an old woman who is not married despite her age. If you’ve watched Cinderella, the invitation given by the Prince is that “every eligible maiden is to attend.” The Prince would more than likely mean that he wants to marry pure, young virgins rather than otherwise. Or in the game of cricket, when one bowls an over where no runs are scored: what is that called? Is that not called a “maiden” over? Why do you suppose it is called a “maiden”? It is because it has not been corrupted by a single run.

If one wants an English equivalent to alma then I think “maiden” would have to be that word. For the most part “maiden” means young woman, but it also means “virgin” as a secondary meaning. If the Isaiah verse had written “maiden” this would probably give us some idea of the issues that we are grappling with.

On the contrary, it is usually a young woman who bears children. Had Isaiah wished to speak about a virgin birth, he would have used the word betulah¹ not alma. Betulah is a common word in the Jewish scriptures, and can only mean “virgin.”

Sincerely yours,

Rabbi Tovia Singer

Footnote:

Click on the footnote to return to the article

¹In fact, although Isaiah used the Hebrew word alma only one time in his entire corpus (7:14), the prophet uses this word virgin (betulah) five times throughout the book of Isaiah (23:4; 23:12; 37:22; 47:1; 62:5).

There is an analysis on this betulah issue made on the Thinktank website, if you would like to have a look at it: http://www.christian-thinktank.com/fabprof2.html .

Notes

This article appears on Tovia Singer’s Outreach Judaism website: http://www.outreachjudaism.org/alma.htm. I will present it verbatim at the bottom of this article, without my interspersed comments. Everything in this article is exactly what Rabbi Tovia Singer has said without deletion and/or addition. For the sake of correcting points, when they are made, my comments are interspersed throughout his article. This necessarily cuts the continuity of his article, and cuts paragraphs short. But one can always read the unchanged verbatim original, at the bottom of this page.

QUESTIONS...

Does the Hebrew Word Alma

Really Mean “Virgin”?

Question:
Dear Rabbi Singer,

I have listened to your tapes and I have also read a number of your articles on your web site regarding Christ’s virgin birth and you make some very good points. I have discussed this issue with my pastor and although he did remark that he finds your arguments “interesting” he brought up a good argument (I think). He asked that if the Hebrew word alma only meant “young woman” and not “virgin,” why is it that in every place the word alma appears in the Bible it is always referring to a virgin? I think he has made a good point and will relate your answer to him. I thank you in advance.

Answer:

Your pastor’s contention that “every place the word alma appears in the Bible it is always referring to a virgin” is incorrect. This is not the first time I have come across a Christian who has made this erroneous assertion; and each and every time I hear it I am puzzled as to why these apologists do not do their research before making this claim. This is especially the case in our modern age where computer technology has made simple word studies so quick and easy to research. I will briefly explain your question for the readers of our website who are unfamiliar with this subject.

For nearly two millennia the church has insisted that the Hebrew word alma can only mean “virgin.” The church must hold this position because Matthew 1:22-23 translates alma in Isaiah 7:14 as “virgin.” The first Gospel quotes this well-known verse to provide the only “Old Testament” proof text for the supposed virgin birth of Jesus. The stakes are high for Christendom, because if the Hebrew word alma does not mean virgin, Matthew is misquoting the prophet Isaiah, and both a key tenet of Christianity and the credibility of the first Gospel collapses.

How accurate is this Christian claim? The place to explore this issue is in the Jewish scriptures. If the Hebrew word alma means virgin then each usage in the Bible must be either a clear reference to a virgin or at least be ambiguous. The word alma appears in the Jewish scriptures seven times. If even one reference clearly refers to a woman who is not a virgin, then Matthew’s rendition of Isaiah 7:14 becomes untenable.

One of the places where the uncommon Hebrew word alma appears in the Bible is in Proverbs 30:18-20 which reads,

In the above three verses, King Solomon compares a man with an alma to three other things: an eagle in the sky, a serpent on a rock, and a ship in the sea. What do these three things all have in common? They leave no trace. After the eagle has flown across the sky, determining that the eagle had ever flown there is impossible. Once a snake has slithered over a rock, there is no way to discern that the snake had ever crossed there (as opposed to a snake slithering over sand or grass, where it leaves a trail). After a ship has moved across the sea, the water comes together behind it and there is no way to tell that a ship had ever passed through there. Similarly, King Solomon informs us that once a man has been with an alma there is also no trace of the fornication that had occurred between them. Therefore, in the following verse (verse 20) King Solomon explains that once this adulterous woman has eaten (a metaphor for her fornication), she removes the trace of her sexual activity by exclaiming, “I have done no wrong.” The word alma clearly does not mean virgin.
In the same way that in the English language the words “young woman” have no bearing on whether virginity is present or not, in the Hebrew language there is no relationship between the words alma and virgin. On the contrary, it is usually a young woman who bears children. Had Isaiah wished to speak about a virgin birth, he would have used the word betulah¹ not alma. Betulah is a common word in the Jewish scriptures, and can only mean “virgin.”
Sincerely yours,
Rabbi Tovia Singer

Footnote:
Click on the footnote to return to the article
¹In fact, although Isaiah used the Hebrew word alma only one time in his entire corpus (7:14), the prophet uses this word virgin (betulah) five times throughout the book of Isaiah (23:4; 23:12; 37:22; 47:1; 62:5).

Saturday, June 13, 2009

Answering Rabbi Singer - Other Sites also Answering Rabbi Singer

Let the reader know that there are others who have similarly sought to answer Rabbi Tovia Singer. Not wanting to repeat their statements, I shall refer readers to them directly, and will update this page as and when I find more worthy sources which refute Rabbi Singer's scurrilous accusations:

(1) "Challenging Rabbi Singer's assertion that Yeshua's blood didn't fall on the altar and other misconceptions" - http://www.therefinersfire.org/yeshuas_blood.htm

(2) The Refiner's fire also has other articles answering Rabbis - see here: "Taking on the anti-missionaries" - http://www.therefinersfire.org/ca.htm

(3) "Let's get critical - Answering Tovia Singer" by Nikdimon: http://www.geocities.com/nakdimonspage/letsgetcritical.html

(4) A copy of Nikdimon's site is also found here: http://en.wordpress.com/tag/tovia-singer/

And quite recently I found out that Jews for Jesus have a few articles touching on Rabbi Tovia Singer:
(4) Issues - Rabbi Tovia Singer - http://www.jewsforjesus.org/publications/issues/16_08/new_testament
(5) Anti-missionaries like Rabbi Tovia Singer - http://jewsforjesus.org/answers/community/antimissionaries
(6) "Let's Get Biblical" - http://jewsforjesus.org/publications/bookreviews/mrb05-02_Spring/singer

Sunday, May 17, 2009

An Answer to Rabbi Tovia Singer - The Testimony of Believers

I continue my series where I answer Rabbi Tovia Singer. You will find my comments in blue. And you will find the Rabbi’s words in black.

Dear Rabbi Singer,

I am certain that the question will surface somewhere in this general commentary I am making. I hope you will bear with me until the question does arise.

For one who has been a Christian all his life, I find your commentaries very compelling and thought provoking, but, at times, dismaying, while there have always been questions in my mind inherent to matters of truth concerning the Gospels, and the remainder of the New Testament. The question is, as Pilate said it, What is truth? Everyone has a different version, and all claim their particular version to be the final word. Regarding your commentaries, I do not find anything that I would consider to be misleading or mean-spirited in your answers to your reader's questions when you criticize Christianity, but it is obvious to me that you base practically your entire criticism on legalism.

Jesus Christ had much to say about the legalism of the scribes and Pharisees in the context of how it applied to their religious worship. The one thing you seem to miss is that much of the teachings of Jesus related to the depth of the love of the individual towards God. I can understand how you can use legalism to apparently refute many of the claims of Christianity, so I believe my question is: How do you refute the almost unbelievable change in the character and personality of people after they are converted to Christ?

I have seen this again and again, so I believe my observations are, at least, reasonable. I have seen this change continue throughout lifetimes. What you seem to observe as a zeal to convert others is actually a zeal to help others, and of course to witness to that person for Christ. I am not aware of any pressure to convert. The basic premise is to show other people the change in your life and how it came about. As much as I am swayed by your legal criticism, I cannot deny the knowledge of Christ in my being, even when I sin. Surely, the God of all mankind would preempt a false religion, proclaimed in His name, which would lead millions from the true path and towards damnation. If this is not the case, then the existence of man on this world appears quite pointless.

Thanks for your time.

Answer:

Because your letter touches on an intangible condition rooted in the heart of the believer, I am certain that many visitors to our website will not fully grasp the importance of your main question. It would not be an overstatement to say that your thoughtful letter contains one of the most important questions that could be asked of me.

Ever since I began working to help Jews return to Judaism, I have received numerous letters and listened to many stories from people like yourself filled with personal anecdotes recounting how their lives were miraculously changed as a result of their newfound faith. Many of the accounts of these new believers described how their drug addiction and alcoholism inexplicably ceased. Recently, I received a letter from a middle-aged Jewish woman who maintained that as a result of her conversion to Mormonism, her festering illnesses were miraculously cured. Following a recent lecture, a young man vividly recalled how his plaguing depression had lifted soon after he converted to the Catholic Church. For him, the euphoria that had now replaced his nagging bouts of depression bore testimony to the validity of the teachings of Roman Catholicism.

While I was speaking in Southern California a number of years ago, I met four young men who were members of Hare Krishna. It wasn't a planned meeting, we just happened to strike up a conversation as we were crossing the same busy street in Los Angeles. To my utter shock, three of these lost souls were Jews. As I listened attentively to the testimonials of these oddly dressed fellows, each of them carefully described how their newfound religion had transformed their lives. They joyfully spoke of their joining this eastern sect and I could sense the elation and inner peace they felt. They were certain that what they believed was true and it was quite apparent that they were more spiritual now than they had ever been in their former lives.

When considered individually, such moving accounts seem quite impressive. Once these remarkable testimonials are examined as part of a larger pattern, however, they present us with a serious theological problem. Although each of these extraordinary stories may appear to the novice as evidence of the validity of their newly acquired faith, the fact remains that these variant religions cannot all be valid. When it comes to spiritual experiences and miraculous occurrences, things get very messy. The realm of faith would be very tidy if only one religion produced life-altering transformations and miraculous occurrences. To the dismay of the fervid believer, however, this may be the most disorganized arena of organized religion. In fact, the life-changing experience that you describe in your letter is a universal phenomenon produced by virtually all faiths, and people from just about every religion can claim "almost unbelievable change in the character and personality" of the people whom they touch, regardless of the truth of the doctrines they preach. In essence, there is no relationship between spiritual transformation which occurs in the heart of the faithful believer and the spiritual truth which he espouses.

Most excellent, honest and learned Rabbi Singer, you must surely have misinterpreted the question. For the testimony of a believer in Christ is manifested by the changes in his life, away from his propensity towards committing evil towards one free from it; towards one free from vices such as: murder, stealing, adultery, malicious gossip, prostitution etc. to a life apart from such evils. This is the testimony that demonstrates the power of our Lord in their lives.

That someone is more “happy” in a new religion does not in and of itself demonstrate anything, as you have rightfully pointed out.

Bear in mind, our planet is brimming with world religions such as Hinduism, Buddhism, and Islam, each of which boast many hundreds of millions of adherents. The multitudes of these devout believers in their diverse faiths all remarkably speak of the very same "character and personality" transformation which you describe within the context of your religion, Christianity. Yet, as we pay careful attention to their personal testimonials which movingly recount how their religious faith has transformed them, it seems as if they all somehow belong to the same religion -- their testimonials all breathe with the experience of a connection with the divine.

According to your doctrinal barometer, however, billions of these devoted faithful are lost souls merely following a "false religion." Realize, therefore, that their startling religious experiences cannot possibly speak of the validity of their theology. For example, Hinduism and Islam have radically different teachings on the nature of God; yet, how is it that Hindus, Christians, Mormons, and Muslims are all at the very same time experiencing this profound religious conversion which you describe? This question becomes particularly puzzling when we consider your implied assertion that spiritual transformation among the faithful will point us in the direction of spiritual truth. All of these religions cannot possibly be transmitting truth; nevertheless, each of them does ignite profound spiritual changes within the character and personality of their devoted masses.

The question that naturally comes to mind is: Why would God allow all religions, regardless of the theological untruths they espouse, to ignite a spiritual passion within the heart of the believer? The Bible contains a record of many individuals and nations who possessed fervent devotion to their idolatry. Nonetheless, their spiritual adultery is condemned as an utter abomination, regardless of the spirituality and transformation they derived. Why would the Almighty permit religions whose fundamental teachings have no basis in truth to produce life-transforming experiences and miraculous occurrences in the lives of their devout followers?

The answer is found in the beginning of Deuteronomy where the Torah addresses this dilemma in an even more startling scenario. In Deuteronomy 13:1-2 the Bible raises the question of what to do when a "prophet" offers to show a miracle in order to lend credibility to his message. How are we to respond if, in fact, the promised miracle comes to pass just as he predicted? Should we then follow this "prophet" even if he encourages us to worship other gods which are unknown to our people? "You must not listen to the words of that prophet or dreamer," the Torah emphatically declares. God did not send him.

The obvious question is: Why would the Almighty permit religions and prophets who teach unsavory doctrines to produce spiritual transformations and miraculous events? The answer lies in the verses that follow.
The Lord your God is testing you to find out whether you love Him with all your heart and with all your soul. It is the Lord your God you must follow, and Him you must revere. Keep His commands and obey Him; serve Him and hold fast to Him. (Deuteronomy 13:3-4)
God is truly testing you with the experiences and observations you have had and made. This is your choice in a world where free will hangs in its perfect balance. Will you worship the God of Israel alone or turn to gods whom the nation of Israel has not known? If we lived in a world where only one religion could produce spirituality and miraculous life-altering experiences, that precious balance of free will could not exist.

In the 18th chapter of I Kings, the Bible relates that when Elijah had challenged 450 priests of Baal to bring a sacrifice to their gods and see if their offering would be miraculously accepted with fire, there was a peculiar spectacle which followed. It seemed as though there was no doubt in the minds of these pagan worshipers that Baal would hear their supplications and consume their bullock with a heavenly fire. The Bible vividly recounts how they enthusiastically entreated Baal and prayed fervidly for a miracle all day. They even climbed on top of the altar and began to prance beside their sacrifice, and when that failed to secure a response from their gods, in their frantic zeal they used knives and lancets to slice away flesh from their bodies. These prophets of Baal were on fire for their gods. Regardless of their unyielding zeal for their idols, they were commanded to turn away from these abominations.

In fact, the prophet Jeremiah warns us that the spirituality gained from following false prophets and corrupt teachers may become so encompassing and overwhelming that you may begin to have dreams regarding these prophets. Jeremiah concludes,
. . . for thus says the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel, "Do not let your prophets and your diviners who are in your midst deceive you, nor listen to your dreams which you cause to be dreamed; for they prophesy falsely to you in My name. I have not sent them, says the Lord." (Jeremiah 28:8-9)
Jeremiah's message is clear. If the prophet's message has so permeated your being to the point that you are having dreams of these false prophets and their false teachings, you alone are the one who is responsible for these improper apparitions. God has not sent them.

Furthermore, at the very end of your question you insisted that "the God of all mankind would preempt a false religion in His name, which would lead millions from the true path, and towards damnation." This assertion is incorrect; for if your conclusion were accurate, why do these masses of spiritually blind believers make such deplorable choices about their religious affiliations? Why hasn't God in fact "preempted" these false religions? Why is Islam the fastest growing religion in the world when your Christianity is supposedly the only life-transforming truth? In essence, how could so many be so wrong about something so crucial as religion when, according to your reckoning, the Almighty would never "lead millions" away from His true path?
A careful reading of the Bible reveals that, in fact, God does not lead mankind away from His true path. This was always man's decision alone, and it will forever remain in his domain. And your Creator never removed that decision from within your reach. As the Torah declares in Deuteronomy 30:15-19,
See, I have set before you today life and good, death and evil, in that I command you today to love the Lord your God, to walk in His ways, and to keep His commandments, His statutes, and His judgments, that you may live and multiply; and the Lord your God will bless you in the land which you go to possess. If, though, your heart turns away so that you do not hear, and are drawn away, and worship other gods and serve them, I announce to you today that you shall surely perish; you shall not prolong your days in the land which you cross over the Jordan to go in and possess. I call heaven and earth as witnesses against you today, that I have set before you life and death, the blessing and the curse; therefore choose life, that both you and your descendants may live.
God permits man to become enraptured with false religions for the same reason He permits a married man to be attracted to women other than his wife. Free will is within your grasp. If this ordained tender balance of free will were ever compromised, virtue would remain beyond the reach of mankind. Don't, though, look to spirituality and miraculous life-changing events as your guide to truth in faith. Look to the Bible alone for this eternal instruction. Once you have committed your life to truth in the God of Israel, joyously take part in the spiritual food it provides. Never permit spiritual expressions to become your barometer for truth. Your foundation must be the Jewish scriptures.
Best wishes for a happy and healthy New Year.
Let the Rabbi demonstrate his good graces and wishes to the Christian by not falsely slandering his religion; for by doing so, he demonstrates his putrid hatred for Christ and the teachings of his religion.
Very sincerely yours,

Rabbi Tovia Singer

Tuesday, May 12, 2009

An Answer to Rabbi Tovia Singer – Coping with Christians

With the grace given to me from above, I shall now answer the charges Rabbi Singer brings in another article, “Coping with Christmas”. As before, my comments are in blue, and his comments are in black. You will find the full version of his article here: http://www.outreachjudaism.org/christmas.html

Coping With Christmas

Question:

Hello, Rabbi. I hope Hashem has been blessing your work and family. As you may recall, I am a former Christian who is now living as a Noahide and considering conversion to Judaism. I am confronted again with the Christian holiday season and am starting to encounter some uncomfortable situations at home since my extended family still celebrates Xmas. Their love and happiness are important to me, and I would appreciate any suggestions you may have for negotiating these difficulties.

Answer:

The month of December often ushers in a season of strained family relations particularly when its members are made up of different religious faiths. This is especially true when those faiths are Judaism and Christianity.

Of all Christian holidays, one would least expect Christmas to generate this much family tumult, considering that the church has long abandoned its claim that Jesus was actually born on December 25th. Moreover, virtually all Christian scholars agree that the reason Christendom adopted this date to celebrate the second member of the Trinity's birthday is because the pagan Roman holiday Solstice, the great festival of the sun god, was celebrated on December 25th as well. It therefore comes as little surprise that Christianity's Jesus also shares his birth date with so many other notable pagan deities of the mystery religions such as the Persian god Mithra, and a host of other gods who were venerated throughout the Roman empire and beyond.

Let the learned Rabbi point out, where in our scriptures that Jesus, our Christ, is said to have been born on the 25^th of December, before he slanderously accuses Christendom of “adopting this date to celebrate” his birth, and before he slanderously associated the name of the Son of the Most High God with that of pagan deities. Neither, to the best of my recollection, does Jesus command us to celebrate the date of his birth.

But it seems to me that the 25^th of the December was a convenient day-off work for the Christians to worship. And from there, quite apart from Christian doctrine and theology, there sprang up this myth that Jesus was born on that day. Let him bring forth evidence in scripture, for if he cannot, this most learned Rabbi falls on his own sword yet again.

As a rabbi, I recommend that you follow the sage advice of the prophet Jeremiah 1 regarding the embellishments of this non-Jewish holiday celebration.

Thus says the Lord, "Learn not the way of the heathen, and be not dismayed at the signs of heaven; for the heathen are dismayed at them; for the customs of the people are vain for they cut a tree out of the forest, the work of the hands of the workman, with the ax. They deck it with silver and with gold; they fasten it with nails and with hammers that it may not move."

In order for me to render some more concrete advice on how to diplomatically avoid setting off family fireworks this holiday season, I encourage you to write back with some more details about your family's dynamics and volatility. Happy Chanukkah!

Yours,

Rabbi Tovia Singer

An Answer to Rabbi Tovia Singer’s Article – Who Killed Jesus?

Introduction

I thought it fitting that I should make a reply to Rabbi Tovia Singer’s article. Someone asked him a question, as you can see below, and Rabbi Singer proceeds to answer him. I have interspersed my comments within his article. My comments are in blue. And the Rabbi’s article is written in black. If the text is black, then those are the words that Rabbi Singer has written. If it is blue, then I have written them. The full article is located at the bottom of this page, without the comments in between them. Or if you prefer, you can read it directly here (although I cannot guarantee that it is the same one I have made comments to, for Rabbi Singer may update it): http://www.outreachjudaism.org/jesuskillers.html

Summary

In short I basically say:

1. that the New Testament and the bible is not anti-Semitic, nor does it promote hatred towards the Jews, nor does it vilify them, and

2. The Jews of that time killed Jesus: yes, as a historical fact with the help of Pilate. Was killing him a sin? Yes it was. But what’s done is done.

Dear Rabbi,

What can you answer to a "Christian" who claims that the Jews killed Jesus? I was too angry to think clearly of a good answer for that.

Thank you.

P.S. . . . It's hard to be a Jew in Hawaii sometimes!

Answer:

You shouldn't get so angry at that Christian who insisted that the Jews killed Jesus. Your outrage is being directed at the wrong source. Your accuser was simply taking his New Testament a little too seriously. The Christian scriptures are quite clear about the subject of who is responsible for Jesus' death. In I Thessalonians 2:14-16, Paul writes,

. . . even as they have of the Jews, who both killed the Lord Jesus, and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they please not God, and are contrary to all men, forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they might be saved, to fill up their sins always; for the wrath is come upon them to the uttermost!

In Matthew 27:22-25, Pontius Pilate is made out to appear as if he wants nothing to do with Jesus' crucifixion, and he symbolically washes his hands of the affair. In fact, the Gospels consistently portray Pilate as the one fighting with the Jews for Jesus' release. The Jews, on the other hand, continue to scream and call for Jesus' crucifixion until Pontius Pilate finally relents to their incessant demands and reluctantly hands Jesus over to be crucified. Before Jesus is crucified, however, one of the most devastating and catastrophic statements was placed in the mouths of the Jewish people by the author of the first Gospel. In response to Pilate's desperate pleas for Jesus' life, the Jews assure him that, "We take his blood upon ourselves and our children!"

Let the learned Rabbi state his reasons for why he thinks that John, the author of the eponymous Gospel, speaks presumptuously. For with a stroke of a pen, he dismisses that which he does not wish to acknowledge. In the same manner, I too can speak presumptuously, and could dismiss the law of Moses as being one of the greatest and most vile hoaxes ever committed in this history of this earth, by the most famous charlatan that there ever was, and could in a similar matter dissuade people who are wondering if there is any truth to the fantastic stories documented in the Torah. Let his state his reasons, rather than simply dismissing that which he does not wish to hear.

For most people largely agree that this man, Yeshua, (whom we consider also to be the Son of God) walked on the Earth, and most also agree that he was crucified. Most would also agree that according to Roman law, the Jews could not legally execute someone. And most would agree that Jesus did not proclaim a message of rebellion against Rome, for nowhere does he encourage his followers to take up arms and to fight with force to protect his Kingdom – but rather, on the contrary, when Peter lifts up his sword, Jesus rebukes him. Consequently, it is not a far inference to think that Pilate would have found Jesus be not-guilty, and that Pilate ,wanting to distance himself from this impious deed of releasing Jesus unto the Jews, symbolically washed his hands of Jesus’ blood in front of his audience. And of necessity, if one should execute someone, especially when considering the evidence that we have of Jesus’ activities being largely limited to speaking parables and encouraging people to live more righteous lives, they by default take upon themselves the blood of the person they are killing. It is a tautology that when one kills an innocent man, that he takes upon himself the blood of that innocent man.

Read Matthew 27:22-25 (below). These verses will provide some insight as to how the mind and soul of your acquaintance were poisoned by the words of the New Testament. Pilate said to them,

"What then shall I do with Jesus who is called Christ?" They all [the Jews] said to him, "Let Him be crucified!" Then the governor said, "Why, what evil has He done?" But they cried out all the more, saying, "Let Him be crucified!" When Pilate saw that he could not prevail at all, but rather that a tumult was rising, he took water and washed his hands before the multitude, saying, "I am innocent of the blood of this just Person. You see to it." All the people answered and said, "His blood be on us and on our children."

Vilification and Anti-Semitism in Christianity and the Bible

Rabbi Singer, I must address you on this point.

The writers of the New Testament did not vilify the Jews nor were they anti-Semitic as you slanderously and scurrilously accuse them of doing so, for they do none other than state the sins which the Jews were guilty of having committed, and state the words they yelled out to Pilate, and state and their impending punishment:

and they please not God, and are contrary to all men, forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they might be saved, to fill up their sins always; for the wrath is come upon them to the uttermost! (I Thessalonians 2:14-16)

I quote from the very scriptures which you yourself have quoted. Again, Paul, who wrote this letter is simply outlining that it was a sin for the Jews to prevent the gospel from being preached to even the gentiles, and for that, they would incur the wrath of God. He does not rant and rave and vilify them in the manner of Hitler, as you so scandalously accuse him of doing so. For your God, through Moses, similarly declares to his people his law, and the things that displease him, and he goes on further to outline the punishments that will befall his people should they disobey his word. Paul in his letter does no less.

But let me answer further his accusations:

1. Jesus was the “King of the Jews” and Christians would not curse their King.

There was a written notice above him, which read: THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS. (Luke 23:38)

And again:

So Pilate asked Jesus, "Are you the king of the Jews?"
"You have said so," Jesus replied.

So if the authors of the New Testament – or if anyone for that matter, curses a Jew, not only will they bring curses upon themselves:

I will bless those who bless you,
and whoever curses you I will curse (Genesis 12:3)

but they will also bring down those curses upon their own Lord and King, who was the first and foremost Jew, himself being the King of the Jews.

2. Let the learned Rabbi scour the gospels and all the scriptures and let him find a single verse which vilifies the Jewish people and the Jewish nation. For he speaks presumptuously, and he does so without providing any basis for his claims, and on the scripture that he does quote (much to his credit) viz. Paul’s first letter to the Thessalonians, which he says vilifies the Jews - I have already shown that this is not the case. For the scripture he cites merely points out the error of some Jews, that is, the Jews who oppose the Gospel being preached to the Gentiles, and it outlines their punishment. Paul does not condemn the Jewish nation because of their Jewishness, but only speaks about a class of people, who happen to be Jews in this instance. What the learned Rabbi quotes, and accuses of being vilification, does not even come close to the type of vilification that one would find in “works” such as Mien Kampf – and this is the type of thing the learned Rabbi’s readers would have in mind if he did not preface his comments with some sort of caveat. But perhaps this is an innocent omission on his part? I think not, given his further statements and his omissions.

But let me go further, if that is the type of thing that the learned Rabbi construes as being vilification, let him realise what his own prophets say about the Jewish people in Jerusalem when they were acting in sin, and disobeying the laws of the most High God:

“Your mother was a Hittite and your father an Amorite” (Ezekiel 16:25)

This is the same people, Israel, whom God says is his “first born son”. Yet in the above passage he disowns his son, and is rather saying that Israel is not his own son, but a bastard child of the pagan nations driven out of Canaan. And again, in other parts of the scripture, the Lord likens Israel and Judah to prostitutes, to wives who have gone astray. And again, the Lord God himself says the following about the Israelites:

⁹ "I have seen these people," the LORD said to Moses, "and they are a stiff-necked people. ¹⁰ Now leave me alone so that my anger may burn against them and that I may destroy them. Then I will make you into a great nation." (Exodus 32:9-10)

Here we see the Lord himself calling the Israelites “stiff necked”, and wanting to completely annihilate them. Doesn’t that sound just a tad anti-Semitic? Doesn’t it sound like something Hitler himself would say (especially the bit about destroying the Jews)? Then let the learned Rabbi quote the Old Testament, and accuse the prophets who wrote them of being guilty of vilifying the Jews, in the same manner in which he quotes the New Testament, and accuses our saints – who were Jews themselves of doing the same*. Let him apply his double standards, to the writing he himself finds agreeable.

*Yes, I hear you: not all were Jews, but you get the picture: it is a Jewish religion, with Jewish origins.

And in a like manner, let him say that the Jews persecuted and completely annihilated the many nations before them living in Canaan – let him also say that they were guilty of the most heinous genocide, for they spared neither women nor children. Moreover, let him also shout out in the streets that while his forefathers had no problem killing human babies, they also at the same time refused (on one occasion at least) to kill animals (read Samuel 1:15). For Rabbi Singer seems to be learned in the UN declarations of Human Rights, him clamouring eagerly to accuse our venerable saints of being guilty of racial vilification and anti-Semitism. Let him do the same with the fathers of his nation. And again, what is worse: racial vilification (not that our Saints committed such a crime), or the complete genocide and annihilation of an entire race of people? Yet he seems to dwell upon this supposed “vilification”, while being silent about the genocide his fathers’ committed upon entire races of people. Let this learned UN human rights commentator also commentate upon the deeds of his fathers, for he seems to be keen on commentating upon the written words of our saints.

4. And moreover, if the learned Rabbi had bothered to read the scriptures, he would know that they do not vilify the Jews nor are they anti-Semitic. But rather, we find repeatedly, that it is the Jews who are ones persecuting the Christians; the Jews are the ones trying to exterminate the Christian religion from the face of the world, and the Jews are the ones persecuting their own fellow Jews:

¹²Answering again, Pilate said to them, "Then what shall I do with Him whom you call the King of the Jews?"

¹³They shouted back, "Crucify Him!"

¹⁴But Pilate said to them, "Why, what evil has He done?" But they shouted all the more, "Crucify Him!" (Mark 15:12-14)

And again Jesus speaking to his followers, speaking about how their fellow Jews will betray them on account of their beliefs:

¹²"….they will lay hands on you and persecute you. They will deliver you to synagogues and prisons, and you will be brought before kings and governors, and all on account of my name….¹⁶You will be betrayed even by parents, brothers, relatives and friends, and they will put some of you to death. ¹⁷All men will hate you because of me. ¹⁸But not a hair of your head will perish. ¹⁹By standing firm you will gain life. (Luke 21:12)

And again, the apostle suffered at the hands of the Jews:

….they called the apostles in and had them flogged. Then they ordered them not to speak in the name of Jesus, and let them go.

⁴¹The apostles left the Sanhedrin, rejoicing because they had been counted worthy of suffering disgrace for the Name. ⁴²Day after day, in the temple courts and from house to house, they never stopped teaching and proclaiming the good news that Jesus is the Christ.^[b]

And read again, how the Jews stoned the innocent Stephen, and Paul, the foremost apostle to the Gentiles was there approving their conduct

⁸Now Stephen, a man full of God's grace and power, did great wonders and miraculous signs among the people. ⁹Opposition arose, however, from members of the Synagogue of the Freedmen (as it was called)—Jews of Cyrene and Alexandria as well as the provinces of Cilicia and Asia…they secretly persuaded some men to say, "We have heard Stephen speak words of blasphemy against Moses and against God." (Acts 6:8)

Stephen then gave them a speech, which was a condensed version of the history of their ancestors concluding with the following:

⁵¹"You stiff-necked people, with uncircumcised hearts and ears! You are just like your fathers: You always resist the Holy Spirit! ⁵²Was there ever a prophet your fathers did not persecute? They even killed those who predicted the coming of the Righteous One. And now you have betrayed and murdered him— ⁵³you who have received the law that was put into effect through angels but have not obeyed it."

And read carefully what happens next when they stone Stephen:

⁵⁴When they heard this, they were furious and gnashed their teeth at him. ⁵⁵But Stephen, full of the Holy Spirit, looked up to heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God. ⁵⁶"Look," he said, "I see heaven open and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God."

⁵⁷At this they covered their ears and, yelling at the top of their voices, they all rushed at him, ⁵⁸dragged him out of the city and began to stone him. Meanwhile, the witnesses laid their clothes at the feet of a young man named Saul.

⁵⁹While they were stoning him, Stephen prayed, "Lord Jesus, receive my spirit." ⁶⁰Then he fell on his knees and cried out, "Lord, do not hold this sin against them." When he had said this, he fell asleep. (Acts 7:54-60)

And again

On that day a great persecution broke out against the church at Jerusalem, and all except the apostles were scattered throughout Judea and Samaria. (Acts 8:1)

Etc. etc. Ad Nauseam

5. But now, let us show examples of how the apostles did not persecute the Jews. There being examples of such conduct does mean that the New Testament authors were not guilty of vilifying the Jews nor does it mean that they were anti-Semitic, but since Rabbi Singer is unable to adduce sufficient evidence to prove his point (were our scriptures anything like Mein Kampf, I am sure he would not hesitate to point out instances of anti-Semitism), this serves to further reinforce the point of how the authors, Paul especially, cared for the Jews, his own people.

As previously quoted, even unto the death, Stephen cares for his fellow Jewish persecutors who were stoning him:

⁶⁰Then he fell on his knees and cried out, "Lord, do not hold this sin against them." When he had said this, he fell asleep.

And again Paul, a Jew (remember, Paul, the same one whom Rabbi Singer quoted), demonstrates his love for his brothers:

¹I speak the truth in Christ—I am not lying, my conscience confirms it in the Holy Spirit— ²I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. ³For I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, those of my own race, ⁴the people of Israel. Theirs is the adoption as sons; theirs the divine glory, the covenants, the receiving of the law, the temple worship and the promises. ⁵Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of Christ, who is God over all, forever praised!^[a] Amen. (Romans 9:1-12)

And if that wasn’t strong enough, Paul again reinforces this:

¹Brothers, my heart's desire and prayer to God for the Israelites is that they may be saved. ²For I can testify about them that they are zealous for God, but their zeal is not based on knowledge. ³Since they did not know the righteousness that comes from God and sought to establish their own, they did not submit to God's righteousness. ⁴Christ is the end of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes. (My emphasis).

And read the following - Peter is talking to the very same people, the same Jews whom the New Testament, according to the learned Rabbi, “vilifies,” the same people who killed Jesus, trying to get them to repent of their grievous sins. Is this done with a spirit of vindication? Is this done with a spirit of vilification or anti-Semitism? Read it for yourself if you don’t believe me. But rather, the grace of God and forgiveness is wide open for any one who would take it:

¹⁴Then Peter stood up with the Eleven, raised his voice and addressed the crowd: "Fellow Jews and all of you who live in Jerusalem, let me explain this to you; listen carefully to what I say……………

……… ²²"Men of Israel, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know. ²³This man was handed over to you by God's set purpose and foreknowledge; and you, with the help of wicked men,^[d] put him to death by nailing him to the cross……..

…….. ³⁷When the people heard this, they were cut to the heart and said to Peter and the other apostles, "Brothers, what shall we do?"

³⁸Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. ³⁹The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call."

⁴⁰With many other words he warned them; and he pleaded with them, "Save yourselves from this corrupt generation." ⁴¹Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand were added to their number that day.

6. And moreover the entire Christian religion sprung up in Judea, in modern day Israel. The message of Yeshua the Christ, the Messiah, was preached by a Jew, for Yeshua himself was a Jew, to other Jews, and it was these Jews who carried his message, on pain of death and persecution, unto the ends of the world. And yet this learned Rabbi is accusing these Jews of preaching an anti-Semitic message – a message that would be detrimental to themselves! For I am yet to hear of a Jew being anti-Semitic to another Jew, and proclaiming such a message unto themselves, yet this is exactly what this learned Rabbi is implying. And again, I charge this learned Rabbi and his followers, who can produce anti-Semitic statements by the score in Mein Kampf, to do the same with the New Testament scriptures, and to prove in evidence their grand boasts of the scriptures being anti-Semitic. For it is not in the nature of a Jew to be anti-Semitic towards another Jew.

The Romans not Bearing any Guilt?

There now, most learned Rabbi, you have contradicted yourself. For you are either ignorant of the scriptures you are commenting upon - for you profess to be reasonably acquainted with them, otherwise I am sure that a man of your integrity would have would have prefaced your article with a caveat warning of your ignorance – either that or you must be found guilty of misconstruing the scriptures to suit your own purposes. For from the words Jesus says, our Lord and Saviour implies that Pilate is not completely exonerated, but is also guilty of sin. I shall discuss this point further, but before I do so, I must render to the reader the correct reading of John 19:11, for our Rabbi has spoken presumptuously, and with his lying tongue has falsely handled the scriptures. But before that discussion, let the reader ponder this question: if a man, in this case Pilate, should be an accessory to the murder of an innocent man, as Pilate himself declares, would Pilate not be guilty of committing a crime, would he not be guilty of committing some sort of sin?

The Dishonesty of Rabbi Singer

And now, a further and most distressing charge regarding the integrity of this learned Rabbi must be brought, for I did not think of him to be below this level; he must stand accused of tampering with the scriptures and quoting them as saying that which they do not actually say. For I have searched the length and breadth of the internet via Google, and I cannot find a single bible which contains the words which our Rabbi claims the bible to have said, that is, my searches did not bring me to a single bible which has these words: “bear the greatest iniquity”.

Let the discerning reader see the proof for him or herself, by clicking on the following link, which searches the entire internet for those words, in the exact phraseology that this Rabbi has quoted them, within quotation marks, and let him or her see themselves, the sly manner in which this professedly learned Rabbi seeks to deceive those who are ignorant: http://www.google.com.au/search?source=ig&hl=en&rlz=&=&q=%22bear+the+greatest+iniquity%22&btnG=Google+Search&meta=lr%3D

You will notice that the result which Google displays is the article that this Rabbi himself wrote, or derivatives from what this Rabbi wrote, copy/pasted into other web pages. And it is for this very reason, that those search results were probably omitted from the larger search.

Let the Rabbi answer why he did not quote from a bible that is accepted by orthodox Christians, and why he chose to quote from a bible that the whole internet could not yield a positive search.

Now, let me produce for you, O most discerning reader, the true words rendered by the bible, from as many bibles as I could find, and let him read its true words. For they say, for the most part, the words “guilty of the greater sin” rather than saying “guilty of the greatest sin” as Rabbi Singer claims. For the difference in the two words ‘greater’ and ‘greatest’ make all the difference, for the former directly implicates Pilate into a crime, into a sin, rather than ‘completely exonerating him’ as this shameless peddler of error, our most learned Rabbi Singer, claims.

And I am aware that this learned and most honest and pious Rabbi, wanting to justify himself before men, may in the future change his page, to cover up his shameful act, and the error of his ways, let he be seen in bad light before men. Let the reader know, that I have the full version of Rabbi Singer’s article, word for word, copied and unedited below this version which I have interspersed with my comments.

The Correct Version of John 19:11

Let the reader click on the following link and choose from the umpteen versions of the bible that this Rabbi chose not to quote from, to see the correct reading of John 19:11: http://bible.cc/john/19-11.htm or alternatively http://net.bible.org/verse.php?book=Joh&chapter=19&verse=11 . Let the reader peruse through that list and identify the version of the bible that this Rabbi uses – if he can do this at all (and he cannot, for the Rabbi has spoken presumptuously). But clicking on that link is unnecessary, for I have provided the former for you in full below:

International Standard Version (©2008)
Jesus answered him, "You have no authority over me at all, except what was given to you from above. That's why the one who handed me over to you is guilty of a greater sin."

New American Standard Bible (©1995)
Jesus answered, "You would have no authority over Me, unless it had been given you from above; for this reason he who delivered Me to you has the greater sin."

GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995)
Jesus answered Pilate, "You wouldn't have any authority over me if it hadn't been given to you from above. That's why the man who handed me over to you is guilty of a greater sin."

King James Bible
Jesus answered, Thou couldest have no power at all against me, except it were given thee from above: therefore he that delivered me unto thee hath the greater sin.

American King James Version
Jesus answered, You could have no power at all against me, except it were given you from above: therefore he that delivered me to you has the greater sin.

American Standard Version
Jesus answered him, Thou wouldest have no power against me, except it were given thee from above: therefore he that delivered me unto thee hath greater sin.

Bible in Basic English
Jesus gave this answer: You would have no power at all over me if it was not given to you by God; so that he who gave me up to you has the greater sin.

Douay-Rheims Bible
Jesus answered: Thou shouldst not have any power against me, unless it were given thee from above. Therefore, he that hath delivered me to thee, hath the greater sin.

Darby Bible Translation
Jesus answered, Thou hadst no authority whatever against me if it were not given to thee from above. On this account he that has delivered me up to thee has the greater sin.

English Revised Version
Jesus answered him, Thou wouldest have no power against me, except it were given thee from above: therefore he that delivered me unto thee hath greater sin.

Webster's Bible Translation
Jesus answered, Thou couldst have no power against me; except it were given thee from above: therefore he that delivered me to thee hath the greater sin.

Weymouth New Testament
"You would have had no power whatever over me," replied Jesus, "had it not been granted you from above. On that account he who has delivered me up to you is more guilty than you are."

World English Bible
Jesus answered, "You would have no power at all against me, unless it were given to you from above. Therefore he who delivered me to you has greater sin."

Young's Literal Translation
Jesus answered, 'Thou wouldest have no authority against me, if it were not having been given thee from above; because of this, he who is delivering me up to thee hath greater sin.'

Pilate Sinned, and his Sin was Real

For while you state that John has Jesus “completely exonerating the Romans” you also state quote John 19:11 (and you do so incorrectly), but a correct reading would be: “That's why the one who handed me over to you is guilty of a greater sin" (John 19:11). Therefore, by implication Pilate is not completely innocent. Pilate also has some sin within him. Pilate is not completely exonerated, as the Rabbi falsely claims. And let the reader read the commentary that appears below the quoted verses, in the http://bible.cc/john/19-11.htm link. But I have again, provided it for you below:

People's New Testament

19:11……..“Poor, helpless Pilate was not so great a sinner as the Jews, who might have known better, who were filled with devilish hate, who were now forcing Pilate to the crime. The words of Christ are really words of compassion.”

In fact, nowhere in the New Testament are the Romans ever condemned for the crucifixion of Jesus*. Unfortunately, this cannot be said about the Jews. It is therefore not difficult to understand how Pontius Pilate could be venerated as a saint by many churches throughout North Africa. This is made clear in Acts 2:36 where the Jews alone are held accountable for the death of Jesus. Notice how the Roman culpability is never mentioned anywhere in this verse.

*You are incorrect in saying this, Rabbi, and moreover, you have proven yourself to be dishonest by quoting from a bible that, in this modern day and age, I cannot find over entire internet; and if it can indeed be found, then you have quoted from a bible that is not in common circulation amongst orthodox Christians. Moreover this precludes the possibility that you made an innocent mistake, but that you deliberately misconstrued the scriptures, despite you having placed them in quotation marks, with the deliberating and despicable intent of deceiving unwary readers.

What affiliation does Pilate have with a Jew? Does he care for a Jew? When Jesus speaks to Pilate, Pilate says the following:

³⁵"Am I a Jew?" Pilate replied. "It was your people and your chief priests who handed you over to me. What is it you have done?" (John 18:35)

I am presuming that his role was to maintain good order in Judea, to ensure that there was no rebellion against Rome. And it would not look too good with his Roman superiors if he was to release a man who claimed to be King (even though his kingdom was not of this world). So to look politically correct by his superiors, and to gain favour with the Jews, he ordered turned Jesus over to them, much against his will. Moreover should the soldiers bear any guilt? After all, they are obeying the orders of a superior and risk punishment for contradicting Pilate. Do they know who Jesus was? Do they care? The Roman soldiers are not even Jewish. To what extent should they be guilty of a sinful order given by Pilate.

But what about the Jews? They are crucifying their own King, their own Lord and Saviour, whom they saw with their own eyes perform greater miracles than Moses had done, for Jesus, as testified by the scriptures, made people rise from the dead, and made the lepers clean, and made the cripples walk. They saw God’s own glory in his Son first hand, and heard his marvelous parables and his great wisdom, but they were the ones clamouring for his death! And moreover, Moses is dead, but Jesus himself rose from the dead, as testified to by our scriptures. Who is guilty of the greater crime? The Jews or Pilate?

And as to Pilate being venerated as a Saint? This is the first time I am hearing of this. But it illustrates the lengths to which this Rabbi is willing to go, to portray Christians and the Christian religion as being hateful towards the Jewish people. For he wishes to portray the church in a bad light, by saying that some people venerate Pilate as a Saint. He forgets that it was the Jews themselves who were the ones who preached Christianity to the ends of the world, and at the same time he wants to say that the message they preached was anti-Semitic.

Accusation of Jews Killing Jesus?

1. Are we happy that Jesus died? Yes, because that’s the only way we can live. Should we praise someone because of their sins? No. Should we be happy that the Jews sinned? No, for no one should rejoice over another person’s sin. Should we berate the Jews who killed Jesus for doing so? No.

2. Secondly: why oh why, Rabbi, are you obsessed with this? Again: it is not rather an accusation that the Jews killed Jesus, but more so a statement of historical fact. Besides: who cares who killed Jesus? What does it matter? What’s done is done. Moreover: he’s come back to life, and all is forgotten. Go back and read what Peter said to his fellow Jews after the death of Christ, pleading with them to repent and believe in the good news. Don’t you realise that even Christians rejoice over the death of Jesus, for we rely on his blood? In fact, if we do not repent, but continue to act in sin, we are constantly crucifying him and we will suffer our due penalty for it. The important thing is that we do not continue to reject him. And don’t you realise that Jesus could have walked away from the Cross if he wanted to? But he wanted to glorify his father, which was why he stayed.

And to answer to the Rabbi’s second point I shall quote what Origen says on the matter, for he answeredthe Rabbi nearly two millennia before he was born. I shall quote it below, with modifications where necessary:

The Jew continues: "Did Jesus come into the world for this purpose, that we should not believe him, [and that we should crucify him and that we should make of him an atonement for sin]?" To which we immediately answer, that He did not come with the object of producing incredulity among the Jews; but knowing beforehand that such would be the result, He foretold it, and made use of their unbelief for the calling of the Gentiles. For through their sin salvation came to the Gentiles, respecting whom the Christ who speaks in the prophecies says, "A people whom I did not know became subject to Me: they were obedient to the hearing of My ear;" and, "I was found of them who sought Me not; I became manifest to those who inquired not after Me." It is certain, moreover, that the Jews were punished even in this present life, after treating Jesus in the manner in which they did. And let the Jews assert what they will when we charge them with guilt, and say, "Is not the providence and goodness of God most wonderfully displayed in your punishment, and in your being deprived of Jerusalem, and of the sanctuary, and of your splendid worship?" For whatever they may say in reply with respect to the providence of God, we shall be able more effectually to answer it by remarking, that the providence of God was wonderfully manifested in using the transgression of that people for the purpose of calling into the kingdom of God, through Jesus Christ, those from among the Gentiles who were strangers to the covenant and aliens to the promises. And these things were foretold by the prophets, who said that, on account of the transgressions of the Hebrew nation, God would make choice, not of a nation, but of individuals chosen from all lands; and, having selected the foolish things of the world, would cause an ignorant nation to become acquainted with the divine teaching, the kingdom of God being taken from the one and given to the other. And out of a larger number it is sufficient on the present occasion to adduce the prediction from the song in Deuteronomy regarding the calling of the Gentiles, which is as follows, being spoken in the person of the Lord "They have moved Me to jealousy with those who are not gods; they have provoked Me to anger with their idols: and I will move them to jealousy with those who are not a people; I will provoke them to anger with a foolish nation."

2. Moreover here again does this Rabbi engage in hypocrisy. For if you read his article: “Who is God’s Suffering Servant? The Rabbinic interpretation of Isaiah 53” (see: http://www.outreachjudaism.org/sin.html) you will see that he interprets this passage, that Israel as a nation, is the suffering servant, who suffers “unimaginable suffering at the hands of its gentile oppressors”. So according to the scriptures, and according to Rabbi Singer’s interpretation, the gentiles are the ones going to cause untold suffering to the Jews (if they have not done so enough already). Let us grant Rabbi Singer that some suffering has already occurred. And let us grant him (God forbid – but remember, the scriptures cannot be broken) that some suffering will occur in the future, because he interprets that the “stunned kings of nations…will bear witness to the messianic age and the final vindication of the Jewish people following their long and bitter exile” – that things are still to come. The temporal significance really does not matter to make my point. Accordingly, let him apply the lose-lose argument to himself, because if you stop and think about it, the scriptures cannot be broken, nor can God be proven a liar. If you take the writings of Isaiah to its full logical conclusion (and note I speak as a fool here – to show the foolishness of the argument that the Rabbi makes) then the Jew-killers and the Hitlers and the Nazis and the Anti-Semites and the Jew-haters of this world should be praised for their works, for it is by their actions that God’s holy word through his prophets are proven true, and it is by their actions that they fulfill the words of the Lord. For without them and their actions, then God’s words would be proven a lie, and God would be proven a liar, and the scriptures would be broken. So Rabbi Singer, according to your argument you should (and I am talking like a fool here, to demonstrate the foolishness of your arguments) sing an alms of praise to Hitler, and not condemn him (again I am talking as a fool). Does all this make any sense? You (the anti-Semites) just can’t win. Again, I speak as a fool here – and I repeat myself so that no one can get the wrong idea about what I am trying to say. But at the same time, it is not my duty to judge anyone of what they do (even Hitler).

Do you now see the foolishness of the Rabbis arguments? Do you see how he wishes to deceive you? Just because God predicts these events, does not mean that the actions of those who undertake the sinful activities which God predicts, are justified. In the same way, just because God predicted that his Son would be killed, and that atonement would be possible, does not mean that the actions of the people who killed his son were righteous and should be praised. And most importantly, repentance is the primary theme of the New Testament, not this continual environment of vindication and accusation and hostility towards the Jews, which Rabbi Singer has in his mind that Christian do. Again, note what Peter, the apostle to the Israelites said to them about Jesus. Not only that, let the reader understand that Peter was crucified for continuing to preach to them.

And if the Rabbi replies: “but Isaiah spoke presumptuously and he was a false prophet”. Then I shall say to him: go and preach that in your local synagogue, so that your congregation may hear what you have to say on that matter, if you are brave enough.

With regard to your request for advice on how to answer the Christian who accuses the Jews of killing Jesus, remember that you are dealing with someone who is operating out of a venomous hate for God's chosen people*. He is probably not interested in understanding how preposterous this claim is. Instead, remind him that his Bible says that the Almighty will bless those who bless Israel, and curse those curse Israel (Genesis 12:3). What possible spiritual benefit can he ever hope to have under the condemnation of God?

*Rabbi you misconstrue our scriptures and deliberately mislead the ignorant, who come to you seeking advice. For apart from what I said above about Christians who curse Jews, I shall add to this what our Lord and Saviour said about those who hate:

²¹ "You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, 'You shall not murder, ^[a] and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.' ²² But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister ^[b] will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to a brother or sister, 'Raca, ^[c]' is answerable to the Sanhedrin. And anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell. (Matthew 5:21-22)

Read it again: it is a sin to even be angry someone! This is the Christian doctrine. I have quoted it there for you to read. It is a sin to even be angry. Yet you are in essence saying that the Christian religion and Christians in general are hateful towards the Jews – for that is the tenor of your message throughout your whole article. But to your credit, you do preface your comments about ‘Christian anti-Semitism’ with a pathetic caveat (readers, please see it below) to cover the Christians who may indeed come under it, perhaps to hide your predisposition against Christianity while still retaining your credibility (what’s left of it) with your Jewish audience.

Any Christian who promotes bloodshed and hatred against the Jews will be acting contrary to what Jesus preaches. Yet Rabbis like you, who profess to know something about the Christian scriptures, by the manner of your quoting it to prove your points, refuse to point it out (by way of direct omission), the true doctrine, but your rather look to the actions of some “Christians” (who professes to follow Jesus) and attribute their actions to the Christian doctrine itself, and to true Christians everywhere, subject of course to that pathetic caveat you have set out below.

It is important to bear in mind that although, as a result of this despicable charge of deicide, countless Christians have committed unspeakable atrocities against the Jewish people, many decent Christians condemn it. The reason for their condemnation, however, is often varied. While many of these Christians who denounce anti-Semitism operate out a genuine affection for the Jewish people, for others, however, their motives are not as pure. Unfortunately, many Christians who loudly declare their love for the Jewish people and condemn this charge of deicide have an ulterior motive: They do not want to be perceived by their potential Jewish converts to Christianity as being anti-Semitic or associated with Christendom and its long history of hate*.

Sincerely yours,

Rabbi Tovia Singer

And that concludes my answer to Rabbi Tovia Singer’s article. I may in due course update it, for it is with great speed, much like Desiderius Erasmus, that I proceed with to publish it. I hope in due course, to produce replies to other articles of interest, if I feel myself fit enough to do so.

Wishing you, Jew and Gentile alike, most gracious blessings, in the name of our God and Saviour Jesus Christ, son of the Most High God.

Here is the original article in full:

Who Killed Jesus?

Question:

Dear Rabbi,

What can you answer to a "Christian" who claims that the Jews killed Jesus? I was too angry to think clearly of a good answer for that.

Thank you.

P.S. . . . It's hard to be a Jew in Hawaii sometimes!

Moreover, not only are the Jews completely vilified in the New Testament for Jesus' execution, but the Romans are completely exonerated. This vilification is not only directed toward those Jews who supposedly plotted and caused Jesus' death. Rather, the Christian Bible makes it clear that this blame is extended to all future generations of Jews throughout all time.

In Matthew 27:22-25, Pontius Pilate is made out to appear as if he wants nothing to do with Jesus' crucifixion, and he symbolically washes his hands of the affair. In fact, the Gospels consistently portray Pilate as the one fighting with the Jews for Jesus' release. The Jews, on the other hand, continue to scream and call for Jesus' crucifixion until Pontius Pilate finally relents to their incessant demands and reluctantly hands Jesus over to be crucified. Before Jesus is crucified, however, one of the most devastating and catastrophic statements was placed in the mouths of the Jewish people by the author of the first Gospel. In response to Pilate's desperate pleas for Jesus' life, the Jews assure him that, "We take his blood upon ourselves and our children!" Read Matthew 27:22-25 (below). These verses will provide some insight as to how the mind and soul of your acquaintance were poisoned by the words of the New Testament. Pilate said to them,

Moreover, in the fourth Gospel, which is considered by many to be the most anti-Semitic of all, John has Jesus completely
exonerating the Romans for the crucifixion while placing the complete blame for Jesus' death on the head of the Jews. In a
conversation between Jesus and Pilate, Jesus assures the Roman procurator of Judea that he has no power of his own, and therefore "the one who delivered me to you [the Jews] bear the greatest iniquity" (John 19:11). In fact, nowhere in the New Testament are the Romans ever condemned for the crucifixion of Jesus. Unfortunately, this cannot be said about the Jews. It is therefore not difficult to understand how Pontius Pilate could be venerated as a saint by many churches throughout North Africa. This is made clear in Acts 2:36 where the Jews alone are held accountable for the death of Jesus. Notice how the Roman culpability is never mentioned anywhere in this verse.

Therefore let all Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ.

If you stop and think about it, the whole accusation of the Jews killing Jesus is rather preposterous. On the one hand, the New
Testament insists that it was the most wonderful thing for mankind to have an atonement through Jesus' death. On the other hand, the Jews are vilified by the same New Testament for killing him. If you take New Testament theology to its full logical conclusion, the Jews should have been praised in the New Testament for making this atonement possible, not condemned. Does all this make any sense? You [Jews] just can't win.

With regard to your request for advice on how to answer the Christian who accuses the Jews of killing Jesus, remember that you are dealing with someone who is operating out of a venomous hate for God's chosen people. He is probably not interested in understanding how preposterous this claim is. Instead, remind him that his Bible says that the Almighty will bless those who bless Israel, and curse those curse Israel (Genesis 12:3). What possible spiritual benefit can he ever hope to have under the condemnation of God?

It is important to bear in mind that although, as a result of this despicable charge of deicide, countless Christians have committed unspeakable atrocities against the Jewish people, many decent Christians condemn it. The reason for their condemnation, however, is often varied. While many of these Christians who denounce anti-Semitism operate out a genuine affection for the Jewish people, for others, however, their motives are not as pure. Unfortunately, many Christians who loudly declare their love for the Jewish people and condemn this charge of deicide have an ulterior motive: They do not want to be perceived by their potential Jewish converts to Christianity as being anti-Semitic or associated with Christendom and its long history of hate.

Sincerely yours,

Rabbi Tovia Singer

Answering Rabbi Tovia Singer

Thursday, November 5, 2009

Response to Tovia's article: Does the Hebrew Word Alma Really Mean “Virgin”?

Saturday, June 13, 2009

Answering Rabbi Singer - Other Sites also Answering Rabbi Singer

Sunday, May 17, 2009

An Answer to Rabbi Tovia Singer - The Testimony of Believers

Tuesday, May 12, 2009

An Answer to Rabbi Tovia Singer – Coping with Christians

An Answer to Rabbi Tovia Singer’s Article – Who Killed Jesus?

Followers

Blog Archive

About Me