Wednesday, January 25, 2012

Misinformation Is Not Kosher


During the course of more than 20 debates with Rabbi Shmuley Boteach, he and I have become dear friends despite our intense theological differences. In fact, in the Acknowledgements section in his controversial new book Kosher Jesus, Shmuley stated that “our exchanges have served as one of the sources of inspiration for this book.” Within the book, where my writings are one of his frequent targets, he describes me as “the world’s leading Jewish-Christian missionary-scholar and my longtime debating adversary, even as we have become close friends.”

In light of the relationship we have enjoyed, one that is mutually respectful and yet ruthlessly honest, I have been dismayed to see the outright dismissal of Shmuley’s book in some ultra-Orthodox Jewish circles, to the point that it has been publicly banned by Rabbi Dr. J. Immanuel Schochet, whom I also debated in 1995 (more on that in a moment).

To be candid, I would have expected the book to be far more offensive to Christians than to Jews, since the Jesus that Shmuley presents is very different than the Jesus of the New Testament documents, and he argues strenuously against Jesus’ divinity and his Messianic claims. Why aren’t major Christian leaders calling for the book to be banned?

After all, if Shmuley is right about Jesus not being the Messiah (an argument, of course, that I would absolutely reject), then the very foundation of the Christian faith has been overturned. Why then should it be perceived as more of a threat to the Jewish community?

Just last year, Oxford University Press published The Jewish Annotated New Testament, representing the combined effort of a number of top Jewish scholars, and this landmark publication is receiving approbation in both Jewish and Christian circles. Why then the great uproar over Shmuley’s book?

Jewish scholars and even rabbis have been reclaiming Jesus the Jew for decades (or even centuries if we go back to the famous 1757 letter of the Talmud scholar Rabbi Jacob Emden). And they have done this despite the horrors of 1,500 years of “Christian” anti-Semitism and despite the fact that, at times, the Church has transformed this Jewish rabbi him into an “unkosher Christ.” Yet scores of books have been written about by Jesus by Jewish scholars (including two with the title Jesus the Pharisee, one by a rabbi and other by a professor). Shmuley’s book simply continues in that tradition.

I fully understand religious believers wanting to preserve the integrity of their own communities, and they certainly have no obligation to give exposure to dissenting views. On the other hand, it is healthiest when our beliefs can withstand scrutiny and criticism and challenge, and that’s why Shmuley and I have committed ourselves to ongoing public dialog and debate, with the hopeful goal of the edification and education of our listeners.

But not everyone sees things that way. Last Friday, the Post carried a column written by Rabbi Yitzchak Schochet entitled "Not Everything Is as Kosher as It Seems.” (Rabbi Schochet is the son of the aforementioned Rabbi Immanuel Schochet, a world class scholar of Jewish mysticism and philosophy, and a famed opponent of Jewish believers in Jesus.) In his column, Rabbi Schochet spoke disparagingly about such debates, mentioning one in particular.

“To be sure,” he wrote, “there was one debate my father did have when asked to challenge Michael Brown, the tragic Jews for J proponent. This was in the presence of a panel of judges who would determine the winner of the debate. Notwithstanding my father's victory and inasmuch as he felt that one time necessary, he still regretted it thereafter.”

Now, he is quite correct in mentioning my debate with his father (which took place on March 30, 1995, before an audience of almost 600 at the Arizona State University at Tempe Arizona), but he is quite incorrect in his description of the event: There was no panel of judges, nor was a victor declared. (His comment that I am “the tragic Jews for J proponent” need not be dignified with a response, whatever he meant by it.)

Dr. James White, the moderator of the debate, emailed me on January 22, 2012, stating, “It is now being claimed by the Rabbi’s son, Rabbi Yitzchak Schochet, in a Huffington Post piece, that this debate took place before ‘a panel of judges’ and that Schochet was proclaimed the victor by this group of judges.  This is simply false.  I was the only moderator of the debate.  There were no judges, there was no panel.  There was no proclamation of a victor: that was left to the listeners to decide, as in the vast majority of such debates.” (The debate was audio and video taped and released in unedited form to the general public, so all details can be easily verified.)

As far as the verdict of the listeners, Dr. White wrote, “The audience was primarily Christian, and I would imagine the vast preponderance of the audience, myself included, considered the debate rather one-sided in Dr. Brown’s favor.”

That, of course, is a matter of opinion, and others can freely dispute it. What is not a matter of opinion is that Rabbi Yitzchak Schochet gave a false and misleading picture of the debate (I assume unintentionally, and I hold no malice towards him), a description that was as inaccurate as his comment that I “once” debated Rabbi Shmuley (unless “once” is roughly equal to more than 20 times).

The title of his column, then, serves as a cautionary warning – and an ironic one at that – since, indeed, “not everything is as kosher as it seems.”

55 comments:

  1. Where could we see the debate between Rabbi Immanuel Schochet and yourself brother?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Deliberate misinformation (in the favor of the prejudical) is nothing less than "bearing false witness". ... hopefully, he (and anyone else supporting this) will repent of this misdeed.

    As to "The Kosher Jesus". Jesus was kosher *AND BEYOND KOSHER* from the moment of manifestation/incarnation. - but, of course, this is only seen by way of testimony & revelation of Ruach haKOdesh. ... keep standing for TRUTHe, brother. The Lord Yeshua is with you. ImManUeL.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Dr.Brown, a public apology & retraction from R.Schochet is definitely in order. Also: the Huffington Post should correct this misinformation as a matter of fairness & integrity. ... just a thought. Shalom in Sar Shalom.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Dr. Brown,
    I wouldn't be so quck to dismiss the "tragic Jews (Holocaust, at least) for J (Jesus)" comment; it could be helpful in future debates.
    If the modern "smart" rabbis are now describing Jesus of Mazareth as close-to-myth, they must also dismiss the Second Temple animal sacrifices as close-to-myth; something their followers would not tolerate. I am not up on the modern rabbi movement, but know that Rabbi Nachman was well-respected; and that his modern mysticism has no basis except as connected to the ancient Scriptures; and that Torah without the Prophets (that allude to Yeshua Messiah regularly) cuts off a lot of the historical record of the Jewish people.
    To sum up, I think most Orthodox rabbis and most ecumenical Christians would love to keep the debates polarized between the Torah and Paul's epistles. By focusing on the Prophets and the four Gospels instead, you leave them with a dilemma of rejecting their own accepted for their rejected: the Savior of the world.
    In Him, Ron M.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I watched the debate and a panel was there as well besides the moderator Dr. White. That was the condition for the debate. The panel was forgotten and not utilized. The victory was apparent in the fact (besides just listening to it) that even though attempts were made at the time for another debate, Dr. Brown refused or suddenly did not have the time. Interestign that this readily available debate on not on Dr. Brown's site like his Boteach debate.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Anonymous, you are 100% misinformed. We have the audio and video, we know the organizers of the debate and the moderator, and there was no official panel of judges. Any others present on the platform were there to assure that the debate went properly, not to officially judge the outcome. You are also 100% misinformed (or lying, I don't know which) about my not being available for another debate. I have been 100% available and willing to debate Rabbi Schochet anytime in any setting, but he has no desire to do so. In fact, his own son in the Huffington Post said that his father regretted doing the debate. Finally, we had the audio of the debate available free online for years but were informed that part of the audio was missing, so we pulled it until we could re-post with the complete audio from the master copy. We have just relocated the original video masters in Beta format and as soon as we have them transferred to a current workable format, we will post the video online for free viewing.

    May I ask you candidly if truth matters to you in God's sight? And would you care to share what your sources are who informed you that I refused another debate -- whereas, as God and thousands of other witnesses know, I'm on record as being willing to debate any qualified Jewish rabbi or scholar or counter-missionary about Jesus in any setting where we can both have equal opportunity to share our views orally. I look forward to your reply, and I trust that, if truth matters to you, you'll be enough of a mensch to come back to this site and correct your story. Thanks for posting!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Mike, I was the person that organized Rabbi Schochet's itinerary at the time and that is why I know first hand about the occurrences at that time and your 'lack of availability'. Rabbi Schochet's only main regret was using the panel (funny how you first write that there was only a moderator and now you admit there was a panel but they were only there to oversee the debate. Who ever heard of such a thing? Unless they were to act as judges at some point but never utilized. Speak about talking truthfully...)

      I will remain anonymous as the very act of coming to this site probably requires my immersion in a mikvah. I only came across this as a result of your posting on your good friend Shmuley's facebook.

      Again, as for being truthful, you had the debate on your site for years minus an 'accidental' 10 minutes even though the complete audio of this debate is readily available in its entirety through many facets. Only when someone from Jews for Judaism emailed you about it (I don't know if it was anonymous or not) did the debate get taken down. That was almost 5 years ago.

      I know you must be loving the new book by Boteach. A 'Rabbi' koshering Jesus...half your work is done already! As a former daf yomi attendee you will know the term 'hamisabek im menuvel misnavel gam ken'. Looks like all your debates with Shmuley finally fulfilled this idiom. Such a shame.

      Delete
  7. Mike, I was the person that organized Rabbi Schochet's itinerary at that time and that is why I know first hand about the occurrences at that time and your 'lack of availability'. Rabbi Schochet's only main regret was not using the panel (funny how you first write that there was only a moderator and now you admit there was a panel but they were only there to oversee the debate. Who ever heard of such a thing? Unless they were to act as judges at some point but were never utilized. Speak about talking truthfully...)
    I will remain anonymous as the very act of coming to this site probably requires my immersion in a mikvah. I only came across this as a result of your posting on your good friend Shmuley's facebook.
    Again, as for being truthful, you had the debate on your site for years minus an 'accidental' 10 minutes even though the complete audio of this debate is readily available in its entirety through many facets. Only when someone from Jews for Judaism emailed you about it (I don't know if it was anonymous or not) did the debate get taken down. That was almost 5 years ago.
    I know you must be loving the new book by Boteach. A 'Rabbi' koshering Jesus...half your work is done already! As a former daf yomi attendee you will know the term 'hamisabek im menuvel misnavel gam ken'. Looks like all your debates with Shmuley finally fulfilled this idiom. Such a shame.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Can I get a link to that debate? I have been wanting to hear the entire debate audio for a while now. Also, Michael Licona of RisenJesus.com has been wanting to debate an anti-missionary over the resurrection of Jesus for some time now. Interested?

      Delete
    2. Drew, I just happened to ask about the status of this today, since we had to convert old video tapes into a current format before uploading. It turns out that the staff member responsible for this got the tapes converted but didn't realize they were supposed to be uploaded, so that should happen any day now, and I'll be announcing and posting the link. As for Michael Licona, I hope he can find a counter-missionary willing to debate him on this! Perhaps I can help facilitate.

      Delete
  8. Dear Anonymous,

    Thanks for your post. I will address your points in order (and since you won't reveal your identity, I'll have to take at face value that you had some relationship to Rabbi Schochet):

    1) It is a complete myth that I was unavailable to have another debate with Rabbi Schochet. In fact, from March 30, 1995 until April 9, 2002 (when I first debated Shmuley) not a single rabbi accepted an invitation to have a public debate with me. Believers in different cities tried to organize such debates, contacting whatever counter-missionaries they could, and in all cases the rabbis and counter-missionaries refused. I would joyfully have a public debate with a rabbi every single month if they were willing. Moreover, to repeat, Rabbi Schochet’s own Yitzchoq wrote that his father regretted having the debate, yet you claim that he wanted to do it again. Fascinating!

    In any event, there’s an easy way to settle this (for those who don’t trust or know you or me): I hereby invite Rabbi Immanuel Schochet to have another public debate with me at a mutually agreed upon time and place on the subject of whether Yeshua is the Jewish Messiah. I will do it for free, and I would request that Rabbi Schochet do the same. (If you organized his schedule the first time around, then you will know what financial requirements he required back then.) The debate will be webcast live for free as well, and the unedited audio and video of the debate will be placed online. Is this acceptable?

    2) There was no panel of judges. James White was the sole moderator and the only one with an official function at the debate. (I worked with the organizers of the debate, and they too have confirmed this to me privately.) The “panel” that was present was simply to ensure the propriety of what took place. It struck me as odd as well, but the organizers wanted to go the extra mile to guarantee that the entire debate was conducted in a fair and unbiased fashion, which it was. I assume that Rabbi Yitzchoq will publicly retract his false statements in the Huffington Post (which hurt him, not me) upon receiving written confirmation of this from one of the panelists? On your part, since you are accusing me of lying, why not produce proof that there was a panel of judges who also awarded the victory for Rabbi Schochet?

    (Continued in the next post)

    ReplyDelete
  9. (Continuing the previous post to Anonymous)


    3) As to the debate being on my website for years, you’re absolutely correct, and that is because we always want people to hear both sides, presented fairly and side by side in public. The fact we put in online meant that we wanted people to hear it!

    It was a believer (not Jews for Judaism) who first informed me that a major part of my presentation was missing from the debate, and so I notified the webmaster, who was instructed to pull the audio, find the original, and immediately put it back online. I only discovered last week that the full audio was not re-posted (although it may surprise you, I do not spend my time listening to my old debates online or checking every web page we have, and with a very small, dedicated staff, there are things that sometimes fall through the cracks). I was sent a link last week to an audio of the debate online, and it is posted on our Line of Fire (radio) homepage. And, as stated, we have located the video originals and they are being transferred to current video format, after which time we plan to put the video tapes online for everyone to watch, and they can copy them and plaster them all over YouTube. I always felt that Rabbi Schochet was an able and eloquent opponent but that he terribly misused the New Testament and did not respond adequately to my scriptural arguments. He, for his part, was quite clear in his scornful assessment of my presentation. That’s why we are thrilled to get the videos online so others can watch and evaluate for themselves. 2 Corinthians 13:8! John 3:21!

    4) As for Rabbi Shmuley’s new book, it is far more offensive to Messianic Jews than to traditional Jews, but I’m thrilled he had the courage to write it and get Jews and Christians in discussion about Jesus. As for him being my dear friend (in spite of the fact that he never stops telling me I’m wrong and that he opposes what I do – and I mean in our private conversations), I am also dear friends with several leading counter-missionaries, one of whom I dialogue with weekly (and have done so for years). So, I guess you would not be happy with these rabbis either. (And yes, they are constantly trying to convince me I’m wrong, and vice versa.)

    5) As for me being a former Daf Yomi subscriber (for the sake of other readers here, that refers to participating in the study of one page of the Talmud daily, together with other Jews worldwide), then you will remember one of the more shameful moments in the traditional Jewish community’s dealing with me when I lived in Maryland. Not only did the Chabad rabbi there choose not to learn Shulkhan Arukh with me (at my request; I suggested that text to be sure he would not think that I was trying to use our studies for “missionary” purposes), but when the Daf Yomi folks learned that I had subscribed to participate by phone, they changed their phone numbers and blocked me out. Are you proud of this?

    All that being said, if, in fact, you have no affiliation with Rabbi Schochet and you have manufactured your entire post out of whole cloth to try to make me look bad, sadly, you have only done the reverse. In any case, I pray that the Lord’s kindness and mercy and grace would triumph in your life in a way that is far beyond your wildest dreams.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Not to drag this out I will reply here is short points and this will be my last post:
    1) in one article you say there was only the moderator Dr. white. now you admit to there being a panel but say their purpose were to act as moderators. Sounds like a retraction or correction is needed in one of your articles.

    2) Rabbi Yitzchak Schochet did not say his father regretted the debate in the way you are saying. He regretted it because he forgot to use the panel of 'moderators'.

    3) Much like the stories of the new testament, it is easy to come all these years later and state facts as you wish. That goes for both of us. But we both know in our hearts that my version is correct.

    4) challenging Rabbi Immanuel Schochet to a debate now is shameful. It is a well know fact that he has gone through a year of radiation and chemotherapy treating a brain tumor. While he is thank G-d clear, the toll it has taken on his stamina does not allow him to lecture and debate. He continues to do great written work but that is all his health will allow right now. (Spare us the comment of how you will pray for him. That is such a missionary cliche...)

    5) as for you being ousted from a daf yomi shiur they absolutely did the right thing! Someone using our holy Torah for your shameful work certainly requires as much interference as possible. I don't know if you got as far as Sanhedrin but I am sure you know the laws pertaining to a maysis u'modeach.

    I pray for you that one day somehow, you will be inspired by a true divine light and will repent a complete repentance, return to the G-d of our forefathers and leave the fallacy life you currently live. And let us say, Amen!

    ReplyDelete
  11. Dear Anonymous, with each post, the falsity and/or unreliability of your comments becomes clearer to all, sad to say. To respond to your points in order:

    1) There was no panel of judges. Period. That was the only “panel” that was ever in question.

    2) First, we have no idea who you are, so you certainly cannot be taken as a reliable spokesman for Rabbi Yitzchok. In any case, the exact wording of his statement refutes yours, since he claims in the article that the panel of judges declared him the winner! That being said, feel free to contact Rabbi Yitzchok and encourage him to post his evidence here.

    3) I know “in my heart” that your version is correct as much as I know that Elvis Presley is alive and launching a mission to Mars. You are living in a fantasy world, and I certainly know what happens within my own ministry far better than you do.

    4) I had no idea that Rabbi Schochet had a brain tumor and I am truly sad to hear that, although it’s good to hear that he is “clear.” As for my praying for him or you, why in the world would I allow your opinion to get in the way of my relationship with my heavenly Father?

    5) As for your sentiments re: Daf Yomi – but of course. I assure you that any Jew wanting study with a New Testament group would be quite welcome. As far my learning Shas, it is still part of my heritage, even if I reject its authority.

    By all means, pray for me, as many others do and I do for them. I haven’t the slightest doubt that, in the end, you will recognize Yeshua as our Messiah and King. I only pray that your eyes will be opened before it’s too late, so that there will be time for repentance.

    Finally, you are free to post your comments as are others, in keeping with our guidelines, but I cannot allow you to make statements re: the Schochets without you revealing your identity. Since this is archived online and many others will make their way here through search engines, an anonymous poster could make any claims for and about anyone. I will, however, pass your comments on to counter-missionaries in case any of them choose to verify or deny your posts should you choose to remain anonymous.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Hi Michael,

    As a Jewish believer in Yeshua, I am looking forward to reading Schmuley's book - although I expect I'll be squirming through most of it. But as you have alluded to above, the truths found in the Tanakh and the B'rit Hadashah stand up to scrutiny, and we need not fear.

    To turn a phrase of Shakespeare, I find that the rabbis "they doest protest too much." If faith in Yeshua as the Messiah promised by Moses and the Prophets is as much narishkeit as the rabbis claim, why act with such fear? But perhaps these claims are not so easy to dismiss if looked at openly, honestly and with the fear of G-d? Is that the cause of such hooplah?

    I am glad to read in your online magazine that you are preparing a response to Schmuley's book. Might I suggest "The More Than Kosher Jesus" as a title?

    I thank God for your ongoing ministry and keep you in my prayers. I will also pray for you, Anonymous, not because I am a missionary but because G-d answers the prayers of His children.

    Daniel Muller
    General Director
    New Covenant Forum

    ReplyDelete
  13. http://yourphariseefriend.wordpress.com/2012/01/30/persuasion-versus-education-response-to-dr-brown/

    ReplyDelete
  14. Dear Pharisee Friend,

    Thanks for the post!

    1) Actually, I engage in education all the time, seeking to educate Jewish people about who Yeshua really is so they can make informed decisions before God.

    2) I find most of the material on counter-missionary websites to be much more a matter of persuasion than education, based on the way you're using the words.

    3) I find debates to be very helpful -- as do many, many others -- because they allow for an environment where each side can make their points as clearly as possible, to be immediately challenged by the other side, with rebuttal and interaction. What can take years to do in writing can be done in a matter of hours in an oral debate. But I'm for all of it: Prayerful study and seeking of God and His truth; all kinds of educational and informational formats; debate and dialogue and discussion -- and by God's grace, I engage it all of it too.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Dr. Brown
    Points #1 and #2 are your own evaluation as for #3 - if you have time to engage in a debate every month - as per your previous post - why can't you find the time to respond to my written critique of your writings?

    ReplyDelete
  16. Dr. Brown
    points #1 and #2 are your own evaluation - regarding point #3 If you have time to debate once a month as per your previous post - why then don't you have the time to respond to my written critique of your work?
    (I posted this earlier this afternoon - for some reason it din't get on to the board)

    ReplyDelete
  17. Pharisee Friend,

    Yes, #1 and #2 are my own evaluation, but shared with many others, just as your post reflects your evaluation, perhaps shared by others, correct? Re: #3, although I'd prefer not to answer in a public forum, lest it appear as an insult, I will respond to your question. I don't have time to respond to your written critique of your work for a few reasons. First, I spent many years in research and writing to produce 1,500 of quality material answering Jewish objections to Jesus, and by God's grace, many lives have been and are being touched through them. Having made that investment of time and energy, there are writing projects I am spending my time. Second, in a live debate, I can reach hundreds or thousands (or more, with an internet feed) in a matter of a few hours, whereas to write serious responses to several hundreds of pages of critiques takes more time. Third, I must be sensitive to priorities before the Lord. Since writing my books, there are have been quite a few articles written against them (and I would expect to see counter-books against at some time), plus multiplied thousands comments and posts attacking the material in different ways. Do I spend all my time answer the critics? Fourth, since only a handful of people have contacted me asking me to write a response to you, and since the majority of them are counter-missionaries who are hardly looking for me to help lead them to the Lord, I cannot make it a major priority without the Lord's direction. I could give more reasons, but I trust these are sufficient. (I'm happy to address you by name, assuming I know who you are, but I don't want to be presumptuous and do so when you haven't put your name here. God bless!

    ReplyDelete
  18. One further note. I assume and hope that this was totally unintentional on your part, but your article makes false and incorrect assumptions about me (e.g., whether or not I would have endorsed Shmuley's book if the he wrote what you suggested he wrote and changed the title; the fact is I wrote my endorsement with strong disagreement, knowing that my writings were attacked throughout the book and that the last part of the book will probably be the most read, Jewish attack on "Christian" beliefs in many years; but I wrote the endorsement in harmony with Shmuley and I being committed to put all the issues on the table and to expose CHRISTIAN readers to his viewpoints for dialogue and discussion -- who else do you think my endorsement would influence, Lubavitch Hasidim?), is inaccurate in other statements made (e.g., that I claim to have won the debate with Rabbi I. Schochet in 1995; I simply quoted the words of the moderator and would never announce that I "won" the debate, especially in a published article!), and you bring up the same hackneyed charges as if they somehow carry weight by being repeated (e.g., that I didn't cite Deut 4:35 in my relevant discussions about God's nature in my books, whereas in fact I have cited the verse even in short apologetic articles written years ago and, more importantly, I dealt with all the relevant arguments raised to be my traditional Jews without citing that particular verse) -- among just several shortcomings that are certainly a matter of "disseminating misinformation." That being said, I absolutely don't have the time to go into a detailed refutation of what you wrote. Your fellow counter-missionaries will applaud you, of course; others will not be concerned. And this is done in the name of "education"? Truly, that strikes me as odd.

    ReplyDelete
  19. http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/respond-to-contra-brown/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=Petition
    No disrespect to Dr Brown intended, however, I'd like to get as many Christians believers as possible to sign this petition to warrant a response from Dr Brown.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Rabbi Eli, I posted your previous comment because it doesn't violate our guidelines, but frankly, this strikes me as a cheap stunt.

    First, the vast majority of Christian believers (and that's an understatement) will never read the article in question.

    Second, and more importantly, counter-missionaries and rabbis have been refusing to debate me for decades, with the rarest of exceptions (which is another reason I commend Rabbi Shmuley for his courage and conviction), and so I have not been running from dialog and debate and discussion. It has been the reverse! When the rabbis and counter-missionaries are willing to have an extended, in-depth, fair public dialog then I'll consider some written responses.

    Third, I never finished writing my response because I virtually never had anyone ask me about it (less than five over two years, aside from counter-missionaries!), so I need to put my time to better use.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Dr.Brown
    I have ammended my article so as to eliminate some of the flaws you pointed out
    I have a question for you
    How can you justify the statement that you dealt with all the relevant arguments rasied to you by traditional Jews when I challenged you in the summer of 2001 to include certain objections in your book - at the time you accepted the challenge but subsequently you pulled back?
    Furthermore - how can you call my accusation that you didn't include Deut. 4:35 in the entirety of your 1500 pages a "hackneyed charge"? when it was not just a verse you didn't include but a foundational argument (faith structure) that you didn't include?
    As I mentioned in the past - I don't enjoy doing this in a public venue - but you leave me with no other choice
    Yisroel Chaim Blumenthal

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm pleased to hear you made some changes, which speaks well of you, of course. I actually had several more issues to raise but chose not to.

      I never pulled back from your challenge, but it appears that I didn't answer the objections in a way that you felt was adequate, an opinion you are certainly welcome to hold. As for Deut 4:35, again, I dealt with the Jewish objections the way they were presented to me over the years by traditional Jews (vol. 2, which addresses God's nature and unity came out in 2000, before we even met), and I dealt with the issues relating to Deut 4:35 without citing that particular verse. But as you know, I use that verse frequently in my other apologetics writings and talks and even started by debate with Shmuley at Oxford using that very verse. Whatever you're implying is entirely inaccurate and misleading.

      Since this is all in the public (to my distaste as well), please remember that: 1) I didn't bring this up here, you did; 2) colleagues of yours are doing things that actually strike me as demeaning to your cause to try to provoke me to finish my responses to your articles, again, bringing this into the public light; 3) you know that I told you over the phone that as I read Contra Brown the first time (before it even had that name), I refuted the arguments in my head as I read it (surely you recall me saying this); and 4) I told you years ago that, since my schedule didn't permit me to respond to every point you were raising to me in emails, etc., that I would devote time to speaking with you by phone once a week (45 minutes to an hour), as often as possible, and we have both tried to keep with this schedule. I now feel that this is being scorned and our agreement is being forgotten. Surely that cannot be your intent.

      I'm constantly in the midst of writing deadlines, and you have to know me well enough to know that I love refuting objections -- actually, I have to discipline myself not to do so the moment I receive them -- and one reason I struggled with finishing my responses to your points was that I felt uncomfortable tearing them down with such clarity and force, feeling that I was not being sufficiently gracious to you. (We talked about this on the phone too.) In any case, should I get around to finishing my rebuttals (although, to be candid, colleagues of yours posting counter-missionary provocations on the Facebook pages of my friends is NOT the way to get this done and actually gives me reason NOT to respond), you will see that there was not the least problem or issue raised for me, based on the clear testimony of the Word.

      Re: your last comment: Of course you have other choices, and look at this thread here and others (such as the Line of Fire radio site): Who brings these things up first in public, you or me?

      Still your friend in the midst of our differences,

      Michael L. Brown

      Delete
    2. Why would Deuteronomy 4:35 be a difficulty? It states that only Yahweh is God. This is true. There is no God but Yahweh. Every Christian affirms this.

      In order to make this an objection, you need to add additional premises, such as

      1. Jesus is not Yahweh
      or
      2. If the Father is Yahweh, the Son is not Yahweh

      and it's these additional premises that are in dispute.

      Delete
  22. For any counter-missionaries (and their friends) following this, another reason why I haven't been particularly moved to prioritize finishing my response to "Contra Brown" is that I have also shared the contents with colleagues of mine, and they have not been impressed.

    One young man, a serious student of the Word, saw the post on the Jews for Judaism page, read the article, and wrote this to me today: "The document was riddled with so many absurdities. I laughed out loud on a number of occasions. Particularly the sections about Isaiah 53 and the atonement. The argumentation was horrendous."

    I hesitate to post this, since I don't mean to insult the author of "Contra Brown" -- a personal friend -- but when the same counter-missionaries who refused to debate me for years now try to pressure me to write a response to one particular challenge to my writings (one of many, of course), it's necessary to remind them that the alleged great challenge to the gospel and to my writings IS easily refuted.

    ReplyDelete
  23. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Please remember that personal attacks are not permitted here. Differing viewpoints are welcomed, but not personal attacks -- even against me. :) Thanks!

      Delete
  24. "I laughed out loud on a number of occasions. Particularly the sections about Isaiah 53 and the atonement. The argumentation was horrendous."

    Hi Dr. Brown:

    I also laughed a number of times when I read Contra Brown and the elephant and the suit. But not because I thought the arugments were horrendous. In fact, I laughed because I felt that Rabbi Blumenthal so effectively and poignantly responded to your arguments. But I suppose reasonable people may differ.

    Mattisyahu

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Exactly. But since his articles are meant to influence believers in Yeshua and they seem to have the opposite effect -- or no effect, in terms of raising serious questions -- then it's just preaching to the choir. In any case, that's why I prefer public give and take -- after all, the Talmud is filled with that! -- since within a few minutes, you can get far more clarified than in back and forth written arguments. In fact, many a time Rabbi Blumenthal and I have looked forward to our Wednesday night talks to clarify things we had written to each other. Having said that, should I ever feel the need to finish my responses to both articles, I'm quite hopeful the laughing out loud on your end will quickly turn to serious contemplation -- trusting you to be a "reasonable" person.

      Delete
    2. Hello Dr. Brown:

      It is interesting that you say this. Although your magnum opus, "answering Jewish objections to Jesus," by its very title appears to be aimed at convincing Jewish non-believers in Jesus, I know of not a single Jewish individual that was swayed to your side because of it.

      Furthermore, and I think you have to agree with this, far more Christians believers, who already agreed with your theses, have read your books than Jewish non-believers [in Christian doctrine]. I imagine the actual number of Jewish people who have read the books (myself included) is very small. They number of Jewish people that have been influenced by your arguments (myself not included) is even more miniscule. The number of Jewish people that were Orthodox Jewish believers and who became Christian believers because of your books I believe is non-existent.

      As for Rabbi Blumenthal's response to your works, I don't believe that his sole aim was to convince believing Christians to abandon Christianity. Rather he likely wanted simply wanted to demonstrate that your arguments in your works were fallacious and incompetent. I think, like many of us involved in so-called anti-missionary or counter-missionary dialogue, there may be some fear of your influence over the less educated of our Jewish brethren (your works are a gross non-issue, that will not even begin to be considered, for the yeshiva-educated), have a genuine interest in the arguments, subject matter, and back-and forth (and not to mention the pleasure that the arguments are so riddiculously lopsided towards our viewpoint). This is why I have maintained an interest in the missionary-countermissionary debate, sadly to the partial neglect of my other more fundamental Jewish studies but that is a different story.

      You are correct that the Talmud is public give and take, but it is is written form (and edited written form at that).
      Mattisyahu

      Delete
    3. Mattisyahu,

      Thank God, we have heard from a good number of Jewish people over the years who came to faith through my books (the Lord Himself, of course, being the only Savior); we have heard from many more who came back to faith or were helped to stay in the faith through the books; and then there are the Christians who have read the books and led their Jewish friends to faith. It's heartwarming and gratifying, thank God, and the fact that counter-missionaries target my books and even mention them in seminars and the like is further proof the the Lord is using them.

      As for the purpose of Rabbi Blumenthal's writings, we have spoken at length about these things, but I will not say anything publicly that he himself has not said. In any case, should the need arise or should I ever feel prompted to finish writing my rebuttals of his material -- in the hope that there will be open-minded, non-Messianic Jewish readers who will see my responses -- I haven't the slightest concern that I will be able to demonstrate the solid biblical foundations for the pro-Yeshua side and expose the very obvious errors in the positions of those who oppose him.

      Re: the Talmud, fine. We'll have the debates and then folks can transcribe them and write them down. :) Seriously, it is the height of hypocrisy to me for Jews for Judaism and other counter-missionaries to have a non-debating policy and yet they will give talks on campuses and the like -- but will refuse to give the opposing side equal time (which I always request when asked to speak in such settings) and will refuse every invitation given them to debate me and others, then folks from their organization think they can somehow "pressure" me to respond in writing to articles someone writes against me. Please step back and realize how this looks to others -- and to me. John 3:20!

      Delete
  25. Hello Dr. Brown:

    "Thank God, we have heard from a good number of Jewish people over the years who came to faith through my books"

    Again, I have not heard of a such a single individual. I don't want to imply that you are lying, or even stretching the truth, but I am very skeptical that such people exist. This is especially true because evangelical Christians are often quite proud to so-called witness and share their faith, often giving great detail to how they came to that faith. My curiosity has led me to various reaches of the intenet, which has an abundance of so-called messianic Jewish sites. Again, I do not recall a single instance in which your series had any effect on the individual's decision to embrace Christianity. I don't mean to imply that my search has been exhaustive, but I may have expected your works to have more of an impact.

    "we have heard from many more who came back to faith or were helped to stay in the faith through the books"

    This I am much more inclined to believe. People that have an emotional inclination toward one side of the argument will find even the most tenuous of arguments convincing.

    "the fact that counter-missionaries target my books and even mention them in seminars and the like is further proof the the Lord is using them"

    This statement represents, and don't take this as any personal insult, a certain disregard for logic and tendency for hyperbole that I have observed in your works. At best you might say, "I could hypothesize that the reason counter-missionaries target my works is beause they are successful." But there is certainly no proof to this. There are plethora of reasons countermissionaries may target your works, some of which I suggested in my previous post. Moshe Shulman and Rabbi Blumenthal in fact, on his website, specifically state why they specifically choose your works to target: You have secular credentials which may cause people to take your works more seriously. This, however, does not begin to imply that your works have any impact.

    "Re: the Talmud, fine. We'll have the debates and then folks can transcribe them and write them down. :) "

    Why take the extra time to have the debate and write it down when it could be written down in the first place? It's likely that the whole concept of an oral debate represents an antiquated medieval method of comparing arguments betweeen parties, in a day when even to publish books and disseminate books was prohibitively expensive. In todays age, when arguments can be easily presented in written form on the intenet, without limitations of oral debate (for instance time limits for participants, one party always getting the "last word", one party perhaps lacking a certain verbal eloquence) a written debate, at least for those really wanting to get "to the bottom" of issues is clearly superior.

    "Seriously, it is the height of hypocrisy to me for Jews for Judaism and other counter-missionaries to have a non-debating policy and yet they will give talks on campuses and the like -- but will refuse to give the opposing side equal time (which I always request when asked to speak in such settings) and will refuse every invitation given them to debate me and others, then folks from their organization think they can somehow "pressure" me to respond in writing to articles someone writes against me."

    First of all, you have equal opportunity to make similar presentations on campuses, and in fact you have (i.e. USC presentation). I can understand an apprehension to debate based on a fear that people may incorrectly perceive a limited discourse as a true representation of the superiority of one's sides arguments.

    As for "pressuring" you, there is no pressure as far as I am concerned. If you do not wish to respond, that is your prerogative, but understand that then Rabbi Blumenthal has had the last word, and very strong arguments at that.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Matisyahu,

    This will be the last post on this subject since, in fact, it does not relate to the main post.

    1) Your circle of knowledge of Jewish believers around the world is tiny. How many of the 200,000+ have you interviewed? Thankfully, my books have been used to touch many -- and it is to God's glory alone, and because of his truth. Feel free to deny the impact of the books and concentrate on other things. That's fine with me!

    2) Re: written vs. oral debate, so, when you and your wife have a misunderstanding or issue to work through, do you exchange emails from your respective rooms or do you talk face to face? Really now!

    3) My USC presentation was just me because Rabbi Kravitz refused the invitation to debate (or even to speak with me by phone, I was told) and everyone else -- including professors -- who were invited to debate declined. So, we made it a SHORT presentation and spent the bulk of the time with open mike Q & A, and at least one Jewish professor came to the mike and asked an open question.

    4) Re: pressuring, it's not pressure on me -- actually, the reverse -- but please be truthful, OK? Starting a petition drive urging me to do something is trying to use pressure.

    One last thing: If there were serious, strong arguments in the article -- especially if they were affecting people negatively -- I would have received requests for a response from people other than counter-missionaries!

    ReplyDelete
  27. Dear Dr. Brown:

    I understand if you do not wish to publish this on your blog as it may slightly go off topic. That so, consider this as a personal message to you. However, I believe that I was merely responding to some items that you yourself originally introduced. But, at least you see the power of having the last word.

    "Your circle of knowledge of Jewish believers around the world is tiny. How many of the 200,000+ have you interviewed? Thankfully, my books have been used to touch many."

    All I am saying is that aside from your stating this to be the case, I see no evidence for it. That said, I remain skeptical.


    "written vs. oral debate, so, when you and your wife have a misunderstanding or issue to work through, do you exchange emails from your respective rooms or do you talk face to face? Really now!"

    I don't believe that this is an appropriate comparison. Obviously, a discussion between a married couple goes beyond logic and rational arguments, and validates emotions, and feelings. I do not feel these have a place in a theological debate. If I told you I don't believe in Jesus because a Chrsitian made me feel bad when I was 10 years old, I don't think you would find my argument too compelling.

    "pressuring, it's not pressure on me -- actually, the reverse -- but please be truthful, OK? Starting a petition drive urging me to do something is trying to use pressure."

    Just between you and me, I don't completely understand it myself. As I said, if you don't want to respond, you don't have to.

    One last thing: If there were serious, strong arguments in the article -- especially if they were affecting people negatively -- I would have received requests for a response from people other than counter-missionaries!

    "One last thing: If there were serious, strong arguments in the article -- especially if they were affecting people negatively -- I would have received requests for a response from people other than counter-missionaries!"

    Again, this statement is without logic. Maybe the Christians have not read his works. Maybe they are not interested in the debate. Maybe they don't understand his arguments. Maybe Yisroel Blumenthal does not have the same name recognition as a certain Rabbi Tovia Singer. You can't jump to conclusions about the strength of the arguments by the effects they have on people.

    I have my own hypotheses as to why Christians may not have responded to you regarding Blumenthal as they may have regarding another countermissionary. Basically, he is responding to your work that itself responded to primary Jewish arguments. The fact that you made arguments in the first place is satisfactory to 99% of the populace. The thinking is that "Well I may not totally understand the arguments, but at least Dr. Michael Brown argued them and that they can be argued." Again, people are less concerned with the truth of the arguments than the perception that their point of view can be argued, and this is why they are not even interested in what Blumenthal has to say.

    I will just have you know regarding Blumenthal, and I don't know how much you care about this, but there are a slew of contermissionary afficianados (myself included) who believe that he utterly destroyed your arguments in Contra Brown, the Elephant and the Suit, and the point by point rebuttal of the AJOTJ series.

    Take Care,
    Mattisyahu

    ReplyDelete
  28. Let me state my personal objections to Shmuely's book. I need to first state that he himself admits that the material in the book is based on already published works by Chaim Maccoby. So it must be understood that he really breaks no new ground. Let me state the objections that I have to his book and the views that he (and Maccoby) have taken.

    1. He advances the idea that all Jews need to learn the NT, because there are Jewish ideas there. I agree that there are Jewish ideas there, but why waste time on a book that has some 'Jewish' ideas and many that are not? Do we advocate reading Marx, because we can trace concepts in his works back to Biblical themes?

    I believe that if one wishes a good source of Jewish moral ideas from that time, by people of high moral character then they should not be looking into the NT but into works like Perkei Avos and Avos d'Rabbi Nosan. There are a number of well known instances of Jesus acting towards his mother (and father) in ways that are outside of the Biblical requirements of honoring parents. Also I find his hypocrisy at times disturbing. For example, he castigates those who give their money to the Temple because it deprives their parents of support, but at the same time he tells a rich man to give all his money away to charity which likewise leaves his parents without support.

    2. Shmuely, Maccoby and a number of others push the idea that Jesus was a Pharisee. While it is true that Josephus states that the majority of people followed the views of the Pharisees there are problems with saying that Jesus was one.

    First, it involves selective quoting from the NT. It is a big jump from saying that Jesus was a Jew to saying that he followed X group.

    Second there are valid scholarly views that would place doubt on that view. For example in Mark and 1 Corinthians we see the view of Jesus on Divorce. This qualifies as multiple attestation and earliest source material. But the view taken there is one that is not Pharisaic!! It is beyond the most stringent view that the Pharisees took on this issue. Interestingly Matthew will later modify this to bring it more in line with Pharisaic rulings. So the question is was he really a Pharisee, or did the editors of the NT make modifications (as Matthew did) to bring Jesus more in line with the views that the majority of Jews in that time would approve of,i.e. the Pharisaic ones?

    To close, we Jews need only look to the shining examples of holy men like Hillel and others whose actions and teachings are related in the above sources. We do not need to rehabilitate people just to impress Christians who are our 'friends'.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. For the record, the above comments about Kosher Jesus were written by Rabbi Moshe Shulman and posted here at his request.

      Delete
  29. Shmuely Boteach says that anyone who lives a righteous life has a place in the life to come. I heard him say that before both Dr. Michael Brown and Sid Roth.

    Well Mr Boteach...how righteous is righteous enough? What does it mean to be truly righteous? If a Jew has only kept one law of the Ten Commandments is that enough? If by keeping the Torah, that is what it means to be righteous. Yet there are some 600 plus laws, and what Jew has kept them all? I say none, zero.

    The implications of Judaism today, is so weak, so lukewarm and diluted. It isn't anything close to what my Fathers kept nor did.

    I believe Jesus is Immanuel, and that without Prophets & Levites, nobody not even Israel is able to truly enter the curse as the people, priests and Levites did during the life of Nehemiah. They write a list of the law in Nehemiah,it is by no means complete but Jews today don't even do that much. No Jew today is able to walk before God righteously. Because we've all gone astray as sheep just as Isaiah 53 says. We need an intercessor as Isaiah 53 states will be to come and it is only found in Jesus the Christ.

    Remember, the Gentiles will seek Messiah, it says this in the Tanach. And the only Jew that the Gentiles have sought for over 2,000 years is Jesus the Christ.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Tim,
    I suppose that wasn't a question but rather a statement of faith.
    In case your interested, I have a feeling that you don't understand what Judaism believes. It's possible that you may have heard a line here and a line there, but you'd get a better handle on what people like myself believe if you sat down face to face with one and ask them enough questions to zero in on the issues you'd like to know about.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Eli Cohen,

      It was both a question and a statement of faith. I would love to sit down with you face-to-face, if you want check out one of my threads on Jews for Jesus forums (jewsforjesus.org/). One that I entitled: "Because of the Nehemiah Challenge" it is located in the Forum titled: "Why I believe in Y'shua (Jesus). That is my main question. My personal name on there is MessianicJew. If you respond to a thread, please let me know on here and if you could send me a private email on Jews for Jesus so I can respond that would be awesome. I have a lot on my heart as you will read from my threads. And it would be very interesting to hear from someone like yourself, I've been looking forward to the opportunity.

      Also, it is hard to understand what Judaism believes when no one is the supreme authority on the subject. Since within Judaism you have Reform, Conservative, Orthodox etc. It is always funny to me to hear someone say "What Judaism believes" as if Judaism is a real person and not a religion. I guess that is why I get different answers, for example I've been on AskMoses.com and get different responses even with the Rabbi's they use.

      I would definitely take the time to sit down face-to-face with you, if you live in the Portland Oregon area. I know the Chabad-Lubavitch is out here, would they be a good representation of you? Otherwise this forum is perfect too.

      However, I know my way around a complete English translation of the entire Tanach with Rashi's commentary better than you might think. I read it in conjunction with the Tanach and New Testament translated under the authority of then King James of England. They're both extremely similar.

      Please let me know what you decide as I can cut and past the thread here on this forum too.

      Delete
  31. Eli Cohen,

    Thanks for the response. Here is a question to zero in on:

    Although not a literal "challenge", it most certainly challenged my faith as one of Israel, that if I should want to go back to the law and cast off Christ as my Savior. Jews who don't believe in Christ have to have faith, and it takes a whole lot for them to believe that they are OK before God even though they haven't been able to keep the Law of Moses and only uphold a certain amount of the Torah. For example, some Jews do more and some less...and then they have to believe that this is quite alright with God.

    Nehemiah & Ezra sure knocked down any pillar that could have been put up in my mind as a reason not to believe Jesus is Messiah.

    One only needs to begin reading Ch. 10 to see that these Jews refused to give their daughters to the people of the land. Yet how many so- called Orthodox have a Jewish Mother and Gentile dad? And they think they're Jewish???

    Did I do or am capable of completing all of the below? With no Levites on top of it?

    1. Shewbread.
    2. The continual meat offering.
    3. The continual burnt offering, of the sabbaths, of the new moons, for the set feasts, and for the holy things, and for the sin offerings to make an atonement for Israel.
    4. The wood offering, to bring it into the house of our God, after the houses of our fathers, at times appointed year by year, to burn upon the altar of the LORD our God, as it is written in the law
    5. Keep not only the feast of tabernacles, as it is written, but also offer the daily burnt offerings by number, according to the custom, as the duty is required everyday.
    6. Building an altar of the God of Israel, to offer burnt offerings on it, as it is written in the law of Moses the man of God.
    7. Offering the continual burnt offering, both of the new moons, and of all the set feasts of the LORD that were consecrated

    Taken from Nehemiah ch. 10 and Ezra ch. 3.

    Yet what this is what I'm told: "Hey no biggie, we don't have a Temple, oh we don't have secure borders, oh hey, ever read Hosea 3?". This isn't what was taught at the time people lived to see the Prophet Haggai himself and Zechariah the son of Iddo now is it? No.

    Read Ezra 3:6, How can any Jew posit that without a Temple they don't have to keep blood sacrifice? Or give burnt offerings? When that is exactly what Jews did at the time of Ezra well before the Second Temple was ever built !!

    "From the first day of the seventh month began they to offer burnt offerings to the LORD. But the foundation of the temple of the LORD was not yet laid."

    How can any Torah you've kept in your life ever amount to God smiling on you when compared to what Jews did at the time the Prophet Haggai was alive? I believe that goes for Jews living today.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Tim these are all good questions.
    I'm sure that when you are approached to defend your faith in the eyes of those who see it as wrong, you would feel the need to properly articulate a response. While I could give you some responses to your questions on the blog here, I don't believe it will suffice as it would be more of a debate then a discussion. I will however give you one thing to think about. Biblically, how did someone like Daniel atone for his sins when there was no temple?
    The Torah is eternal and the law of Moses required in the time of Haggai is still required today. I couldn't agree with you more.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Eli Cohen,

      Thank you for the response.

      To answer your question, Daniel was a Prophet. Being a Prophet you are afforded privileges that the priests, and the people are not given. For example, you wouldn't marry a Prostitute, neither would I and yet Hosea married Gomer.

      So it is the Priests and those of the tribes of Judah and Israel who have to wonder what it takes to live righteously.

      If we agree that to enter the curse, and the law of Moses from the time of Haggai is still required. Then you can see how one like myself who traces to Israel would begin to wonder just how righteous is righteous enough. How many of the 7 things that I listed do you do in your life? I can maybe complete a couple.

      And so I believe it is impossible to do, to live righteous before God. We've all gone astray like sheep.That is why I believe Christ is Messiah, because Isaiah 53 speaks of one who would intercede and make many just. Not all, but many. And the Gentiles would seek Messiah. This lines up with the claims by the Jews who claim they were the Apostle of Christ as witnesses.

      I live in Portland, Oregon. The Chabad-Lubavitch is out here, are you? Are they a good representation of you? Those are the only Jewish community's I know of that exist out here. I mean one of the them study's 8 hours a day and wasn't even firm on being circumcised the 8th day. He told me it was fine that I was circumcised soon after birth.

      So it seems like many in the Judaism that exists today like to smooth things over rather than follow the law to a "T" as they say. I believe the implications and extent of their actions will affect their very eternal life to come in a negative way.

      Delete
    2. Tim,
      I live in Sydney Australia. I can't speak for anyone but myself and the way I understand Judaism. I cannot comment on discussions you;ve held with other Jews as I wasn't present.
      The bottom line is as many scholars have finally begun to recognize, jews don't obey G-d's commandments in order to reach perfection or justification. We do it out of a love and obedience to G-d.
      Daniel 9:18 says it best "for we are not presenting our supplications before You on account of any merits of our own, but on account of Your great compassion."
      G-d bless you.

      Delete
    3. Eli Cohen,

      In order to have a place in the life to come, you have to live "righteously". And from your writing you're not too sure exactly what that entails. So nice, you keep some of the law of God out of obedience, but that means if you keep 1 out of obedience than that is the same as your neighbor keeping 50. Yet how many of you have even kept all 10 of the 10 Commandments? So even on your death bed, you won't be too sure how righteous is righteous enough. You'll only know that you've been obedient, but you won't even know if it is obedient enough either.

      I go by what I know, I know I haven't kept enough, or obeyed enough, and I know that it is Prophecy that the Gentiles will seek Messiah. And I know the only Messiah the Gentiles have sought for over 2,000 years and counting is Jesus the Christ.

      Now I also know that is one lengthy track record that no man in History will be able to claim...ever.

      I also know that in the book of Daniel the City and the Sanctuary would fall after the Anointed One is cut off. And this happened in 70 AD after Rome sacked Jerusalem. The only person to fit the Messianic birth, and hometown of Bethlehem is Jesus the Christ.

      Delete
  33. Dr. Brown, why are you calling the Jewish Annotated New Testament a landmark publication? Are you praising it?

    ReplyDelete
  34. Nicholas,

    Why should that surprise you? It's the first time that a group of Jewish scholars have come together to produce an annotated New Testament, also trying to appreciate it rather than attack it, so despite my differences on numerous points, it's certainly a landmark publication, right?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I understand. Sorry for being to harsh.

      Delete
  35. Would a discussion about the Kippah be a proper subject under this blog? It has a lot to do with Judaism these days.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Replies
    1. Where would I be able to properly ask this question? I've been studying your question and answer number 13 on Youtube about the Kippah, and there seems like a contradiction from your answer you gave to the photo I've seen. I live out on the West Coast, I can't really call your show.

      Delete
  37. Tim, if you have a question you would like asked, just go to www.askdrbrown.org and click on Contact and you can send your question there. God bless.

    ReplyDelete
  38. We now have the video of my debate with Rabbi Dr. Schochet posted online: http://realmessiah.com/video/is-jesus-the-jewish-messiah.

    ReplyDelete