Right, but arguing with Jews about scripture is sort of like trying to tackle a wild, greased pig.  (Anyone ever try that btw?  I have, and it's very difficult because they slip away from your grasp.  The only way to do it effectively is by being exceedingly aggressive and not worrying too much about hurting the pig.  More on this story later)

I use this analogy because Jews tend to interpret the scriptures "non-literally," hence the greasy part.  A fundamentalist Christian will be hard-pressed to hold their feet to the fire if they do not share a common ground viewing particular passages.  The debate often ends in "well, that's because you're interpreting the passage too literally."

Just saying . . . 

"There is no self-evident blueprint in the Hebrew Bible which can be said to unambiguously point to Jesus. Only after one has come to believe that Jesus was the Messiah, and more specifically the kind of Messiah that he is, can they begin to try and make it hang together." (Yehoshua Ben David, Olive Press 1995, p.155).

Isaiah tells us that the Servant will be universally despised and rejected (53:3). While this has certainly been true for the Jewish people, the Christian Bible describes Jesus as immensely popular! hummm? (Luke 2:52, 4:14-15, Mark 3:8-9, etc.).

The future course of history only saw a rise in Jesus’ stock. Isaiah’s Servant is to be rewarded with long life and many children (53:10). This was certainly not the fate of Jesus who died young and childless.

The gospel's greatest difficulty is countered by Isaiah’s declaration that the suffering Servant is actually a group of people, and not an individual ("…as a result of the transgression of my people, they were afflicted." 53:8.) The gospels used Isaiah 53 not only to validate their claim that Jesus is the Messiah. They relied on this passage to explain and set down the mission of the Messiah: He was to die as a sensational sacrifice in order to atone for the sins of the world. This idea has three important flaws.

1. The traditional Jewish concept of the Messiah as the Davidic king who will reign over a redeemed world of universal peace and universal knowledge of G-d is substantiated by dozens of passages throughout the Bible. The Christian messianic concept hangs entirely upon one controversial passage in Isaiah, and has no external corroboration.
2. The Christian messianic notion is based upon a subtle mistranslation. Isaiah 53:5 does not say, "He was wounded for our transgressions, crushed for our iniquities", which could convey a terrible suffering. Rather, the text when properly translated reads, "He was wounded from our transgressions, crushed from our iniquities." This certainly does not convey that the Servant suffered to atone for the sins of others, but rather that the Servant suffered as a result of the sinfulness of others. This distinction is crucial!
3. Christian belief maintains that not only does the Messiah come to atone for sin, but also, the only way for humans to atone for sin is through belief in the Messiah’s extraordinary sacrifice on their behalf. This idea directly contradicts Biblical teaching on many fronts. Here are just some of them.

1. The Bible rejects the concept of an innocent person dying in place of a guilty one (Exodus 32:32-33, Deuteronomy 24:16, Ezekiel 18:1-4).
2. Biblical sacrifices, in and of themselves, are never sufficient to atone for our sins (Proverbs 15:8, Isaiah 1:11-16, Amos 5:22-24, Micah 6:6-8).
3. The Bible strongly prohibits human sacrifice (Genesis 22:10-13, Leviticus 18:21, Deuteronomy 18:10).

Since G-d promises forgiveness to all who sincerely repent of their sins and return to Him, there is no need for the Messiah to atone for us (II Chronicles 7:14, Ezekiel chapters 18 and 33, Jeremiah 36:3, Isaiah 55:6-7, Jonah 3:6-10, Daniel 4:27, Hoseah 14:1-3, Proverbs 16:6).

Not only does Isaiah 53 never mention the need to believe in the suffering of G-d’s Servant, but there isn’t even one reference in the entire Bible to believing in the Messiah as one’s personal saviour from sin.

What Paul Thought About Jesus

The Apostle Paul is forced to concede that a crucified Messiah who doesn’t reign over a redeemed utopian world is totally out of sync with what Jewish readers of the Bible had always understood (I Corinthians 1:23).

 "I've been reading an Alabama newspaper that one man shot another man because he beat him in a Bible-quoting competition."
..........Richard Dawkins

Aw Clyde, and I'm having so much fun!   

Dr. Michael A Brown is a fundamentalist, and a Baptist missionary and I have no interest in anything he has to say.  I argued your points after you insulted me. 

May I just say between him and Hagee the only interest they have in Israel or Jews is they think Jesus  will come again if Israel is in Jewish hands.  At some point there will be this Rapture, and a bunch of you will go up in the sky.  I've heard it all.  Those Jews who do not accept him will go to hell.  If you wish to believe that sort of stuff, please do, but I will not listen to your evangelizing.  I'm not interested in verses from the Greek NT which condemn Jews. I don't believe one word of it is true. Therefore, I'm leaving.  Goodbye, have a nice day. I will not be reading here anymore.   

I'm watching it too,,,and the thing I find interesting, is that in most states, if you kill someone in the commission of a crime, it's first degree murder (sometimes felon murder) whether you INTENDED to kill them or not,,,

Isn't that the case in Wa? Or did I miss that discussion on court TV?  Holly

River is no longer with us.   

*[Howiedds says: "Talmud is not our “holiest book” as we don’t have a scale that runs from holy to less holy."]

***The Talmud is, indeed, your holiest book for you put more credence in its dictates than in the infallible words of the God of Israel in the Torah which you call an "an inadequate written constitution"...and then proceed to rationalize why you don't believe it. We don't need an oral law to understand the written law that God gave us in the language that He gave us specifically in the first place.

The oral law is a vehicle used by evil men to consolidate power unto themselves in order to keep the people in bondage to the law which could never save them. The law was given to show that all men are born sinners [Psalms 51:1-5] and cannot keep God's righteous standards required by the law. It shows us how we all fall short and our need of a Saviour [i.e., the KINSMAN redeemer of Israel] to restore us back to God.

Rabbinic Judaism as we know it today took shape before and after the destruction of the Temple in 70 C.E. By around 600 C.E., it was fully worked out. From 150 B.C.E., we search in vain for the rabbi as model and authority, Torah as the principal and organizing symbol, study of Torah as the capital religious deed, the life of religious discipline as the prime expression of what it means to be Israel, the Jewish people. These definitive characteristics of Judaism as we now know it, and as the world has known it from late antiquity, simply make no appearance: we find no evidence whatsoever of the rabbi as the Torah incarnate and the human being who shows what it means to be "like God"..."in our image and likeness." These corrupt notions define Judaism as it has florished for nearly twenty centuries.

So, Howiedds, as our people entered the first century the principal institutions of Israel remained priesthood and monarchy, scripture and its way of life, holy Temple, land, and people. Various groups---Essenes, Pharisees---claimed to possess traditions in addition to scripture. But in sources produced in the perod (not merely those that refer to it but were produced later on) we find no references to an additional, oral Torah, revealed to Moses at Mount Sinai along with the written one. None...zero...zilch.

By the third century the world had changed...Israel's life in the land of Israel had come under the dominion of not priests or Kings but rabbis...on the stage alongside it is the Mishnah, soon to be declared the other oral law of Sinai...oy.

But the Mishnah was what what they wrote...not God. If Yahweh had intended us to have another document, He would have seen to it that the people received it...then, not hundreds of years later in the opinions of men. It would have been in the form of "yahweh said."


*[Howiedds says: "That is your take on it. Another read of your testament would be that Jesus condemned those who taught “but did not.” He never disputes when the Sabbath begins and ends, for example, or what constitutes work, to continue with my example. He seems to condemn the hypocrites among the scribes and pharisees 'who say and do not.' I will certainly own up to their presence among us as every Christian would acknowledge them among their own; just turn on the TV. Notice that at several places he says something to the effect of 'do what the Pharisees say because they sit in Moses seat. Do what they say but not what they do because they say and do not.'”]

***To be the official interpreters of the scriptures referred to their authority. Because of that authority, the people ought to practice and obey whatever they say. Jesus did not toss aside the religious leaders as worthless, He understood the need for their function when they taught correctly. But He did question their actions. For all their teachings, the leaders did not practice what they were teaching. Also the Pharisees were notorious for adding minute details and requirements to the law that made it impossible for the average person to keep the law. After giving the people all these impossible commands, the leaders would never lift a finger to help ease the burden. They offered the people no practical advice in working the law out in their lives or in building a relationship with the heavenly Father.


*[Howiedds says: "That is only your anti-Jewish interpretation. You are entitled to it, but there are many Christians who would condemn you for it. First, you are reading the evangelist writing not Jesus speaking. You may have faith that these are truly the words of Jesus, but all anyone can know for sure is that it is the words of those that wrote it. We don’t share your faith that they are the words of Jesus just as you do not share our faith that the Oral Teachings are from God to the Jewish people."]

***You are in error when you say that there are Christians who would condemn me for what I have said. Christians who take the scriptures as their sole authority in things pertaining to God know that what I am saying is true because they believe the inspired testimony of those scriptures. Those "christians" that you allege would condemn my "anti-Jewish" interpretation are not Christians at all because they do not believe in the authority of God's written testimony...and neither do you...and that is precisely why you believe in the oral Torah...because you reject your own Hebrew scriptures as God's sole authority and place man's ipinion alongside it. The Judaism that you adhere to is not the Judaism of our Fathers or the prophets...but the religious system concocted by the rabbis after the destruction of the Temple in 70 C.E.

Too; you say, "we don't share your faith that they are the words of Jesus." I submit that you deny that they are because Jesus in Mark 7:6-13 denounces the Mishnah: "Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do....Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition." By not sharing our faith that they are the words of Jesus you conveniently dismiss His denunciation of the oral law. You do, however, share the same hatred of Jesus and His words as did your Pharisaic fathers before you...because they reveal what you all really are---hypocrites.


*[Howiedds says: "...Notice he does not condemn the ritual itself but only the lack of spirituality and change in thought and behavior that the ritual represents. In doing that he acts within the Jewish prophetic tradition in which the prophets condemned the empty gesture that did little to perfect creation, but were done only for show. He even quotes Isaiah. Neither he nor Isaiah say that the ritual is at fault, only the imperfect practitioners of it."]

***On the contrary, He, indeed, does condemn the ritual...to wit: "Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men" [Mark 7:7]. Jesus says that they worship Him in vain when they teach the commandments of men [oral Torah] as doctrines. The washing of pots and cups and other such commandments of men which lay aside the commandments of God and nullify it. The washing of pots and cups are not part of the law but are of the "traditions of men."


*[Howiedds says: "...He even quotes Isaiah. Neither he nor Isaiah say that the ritual is at fault, only the imperfect practitioners of it."]

***Again you do err. Jesus applied Isaiah 29:13 to the Pharisaic religious leaders. They might say all the right words and give lip service to God, but their hearts were far from Him. Jesus attacked their true heart condition. The problem: They replace God's commands with their own man-made teachings and their own traditions. Their focus on minute rules of everyday life caused them to forget the scope of God's law and what it meant for the people.


Kefa

Page 1:

*["I knew you would focus on Torah being and inadequate constitution and miss the point. Not that repetition will change your attitude about Jews and their beliefs, but..."]

***Au contrare...I rightly focused on it because it is the crux of the whole issue at hand...which you strive to avoid. It is you who missed "the point"...the "point" being that the Written Torah is God's inspired word and explains itself and does not need anything alongside it to explain it to the people in order for them to keep its dictates. Too, God based His Covenant with Israel on the Written Torah [Exodus 24:3-8;34:27]...not on the Oral Torah of which there is no evidence that it ever existed...none...nada...zilch!

BOTTOM-LINE: You and your Pharisaic forefathers denied the Written Torah and placed their faith in the traditions of men which nullified God's Written Torah.


*["Every written constitution is inadequate if it leaves out the details of how its general principles are to be specifically lived. That is why traditional Jews believe the oral explanation of the written was also given to Moses."]

***There is no doubt that traditions existed and developed in the life of ancient Israel...but it is another thing to argue that these traditions were divinely inspired, that they were given by God on Mount Sinai and that they were handed down in unbroken, authoritative form through the generations. That is a theory accepted only by Orthodox Jews.. In fact, it is only ultra-Orthodox Jews who accept this concept in its literal totality.

What is ironic is that, eventually, the oral traditions were put in writing, and it is in their written form that they have been preserved. What makes this all the more ironic is that the Talmud stated that the Written Torah was not to be transmitted orally...and the Oral Torah was not to be transmitted in writing [b.Gittin 60b].

BOTTOM-LINE: You do not believe your Oral ["adequate"] Torah which, you allege, was to explain the Written ["inadequate"] Torah. You can't have it both ways, Howiedds...oy!


*["And of course you need an explanation of when the Sabbath begins and ends and what is prohibitive work if you are to keep the Sabbath and not work on it. Do you know when the Sabbath begins and ends without the Oral Teachings? Do you read it anywhere in the written?"]

***There has been a large body of research done on the question that you have posed...and there has been a conscious effort to seek first the testimony of Scripture before appealing to resources outside the Bible ["Let God be true, but every man a liar"...Romans 3:4].

The position set forth in this study is that the Scripture teaches the terminus a quo (i.e. the start) of a new day to be at morning rather than at evening. The following evidence from Scripture is brought forth in order to demonstrate that a new day begins at morning.

1. When expressions like "tomorrow", "that night", "the next day", or "the same day" are used in Scripture, the context in certain texts indicates that the night is a continuation of "the same day" that preceded it (and not the beginning of a new day). Whereas the following morning is distinguished from the previous night by being designated as "tomorrow" or as "the next day."

a. Genesis 19:33-35

All the incestuous events of Gen. 19:33 occur on "that night." However, the recounting of the events of the previous night actually occurred "on the morrow" (Gen. 19:34). Also note that the dialogue between the daughters of Lot "on the morrow" (Gen. 19:34) occurred before nightfall ("that night also", Gen. 19:35), and yet what occurred the night before (Gen. 19:33) and what occurred the day after (before nightfall) are reckoned as two different days ("the morrow", Gen. 19:34). This chain of events can only be reckoned as two separate days if the following morning begins a new day. If the previous evening begins a new day (as the evening view affirms), then one could not refer to the following morning and afternoon (before night) as "the morrow." For the previous night, the next morning, and the next afternoon (before night) would all be the same day and not two separate days.

(Continued)

Page 3:

f. Mark 4:35

Not only do we not find a text that reads, "in the evening on the next day;" to the contrary, we find this passage saying, "And the same day, when even had come." Again, I ask where is there a text which would indicate morning as being the same day as the previous evening using language similar to Mk. 4:35 (e.g. "On the same day, when morning had come")?

2. The phrases, "the evening and the morning" or "the morning and the evening", do not necessarily indicate the order in which a day begins and ends.
a. The phrase, "the evening and the morning", (and similar expressions) occurs in Gen. 1:5,8,13,19, 23, 31; Ex. 27:21; Lev. 24:3; Num. 9:21; Ps. 55:17 and Dan. 8:14,26. Consider the discussion below under Creation
(pp.6-7).
b. However, the phrase, "the morning and the evening", (or similar expressions) occurs in Ex. 18:13,14; 1 Sam. 17:16; 1 Chron. 16:40; 2 Chron. 2:4; 2 Chron. 13:11; 2 Chron. 31:3; Ezra 3:3; Job 4:20; Ps. 65:8; Is.
21:12; Is. 28:19; and Acts 28:23.
c. It is rather obvious that neither "the evening and the morning" nor "the morning and the evening" can specifically indicate the time in which a day begins without contradicting one another.

3. The phrases, "night and day" and "day and night", do not necessarily indicate the order in which a day begins and ends.
a. The phrase, "night and day", (and similar expressions) occurs in 1 Sam. 25:16; 1 Kgs. 8:29; Est. 4:16; Ps. 19:2; Ps. 91:5; Is. 27:3; Is. 34:10; Jer. 14:17; Mk. 4:27; Mk. 5:5; Lk. 2:37; Acts 20:31; Acts 26:7; 2 Cor. 11:25; 1 Thess. 2:9; 1 Thess. 3:10; 2 Thess. 3:8; 1 Tim. 5:5; 2 Tim. 1:3.
b. Whereas the phrase, "day and night", (or similar expressions) occurs in Gen. 1:18; Gen. 7:4; Gen. 8:22; Gen. 31:39,40; Ex.10:13; Ex. 13:21,22;Ex. 24:18; Ex. 34:28; Lev. 8:35; Num. 9:21; Deut. 9:9,11,18,25; Deut.
10:10; Deut. 28:66; Josh. 1:8; 1 Sam. 30:12; 2 Sam. 21:10; 1 Kgs. 8:59; 1 Kgs. 19:8; 1 Chron. 9:33; 2 Chron. 6:20; Neh. 1:6; Neh. 4:9; Neh. 9:12,19;Job 2:13; Ps. 1:2; Ps. 32:4; Ps. 42:3; Ps. 55:10; Ps. 74:16; Ps. 88:1; Ps. 121:6; Ps. 136:8-9; Eccl. 8:16; Is. 28:19; Is. 38:12,13; Is. 60:11; Is. 62:6;Jer. 9:1; Jer. 16:13; Jer. 33:20,25; Lam. 2:18; Jonah 1:17; Zech. 14:7; Mt 4:2; Lk. 18:7; Acts 9:24; Rev. 4:8; Rev. 7:15; Rev. 12:10; Rev. 14:11; Rev. 20:10.


(Continued)