נוצרי לשעבר מתוודה בפני הרב סינגר: הרגזת אותי!

I remember watching you when I was a teenage fundamentalist. Um, what was it? Line of Fire? Lee Strobel was hosting and you were going against the Trinity and I was like, "Dude, this guy's It was shocking they even allowed that to air and I was blown away. So, so I have some questions that I'd like to to dive into with you specifically about the New Testament. You've been doing um, I would say anti-Christian apologetics for quite some time or time with Christian missionaries. You've been listening to um, the apologist for many years. So, you've been doing this for some time. What are what's the single biggest misunderstanding Christians have about how Jews read their own scriptures or read their own scriptures? Maybe read as in how they read them, but also read. >> Right. So, Jewish people view any theological claim in light of the Hebrew Bible. When I say Jewish people, I don't mean the our friend from the senator from Vermont. I I mean that Jewish scholars are always assessing any claim in light of the Hebrew Bible. And the core tenants of the Christian faith are not compatible with books like Isaiah as an example. And I'm speaking about chapters that are um, that are unique, that are clearly Messianic, that what comes into view is a time when the chosen of Israel turn back to the land of Israel, Jerusalem is restored in our hands. And then um, the there's a war, Ezekiel 38 and 39 with Persia. That has to happen and then there'll be the knowledge of God covers the world as a water covers sea, a worldwide knowledge of God, a universal peace on earth will nation will not lift up sword against nation, neither will they learn of war anymore. Isaiah chapter 2 verse 3 and 4 is so important, so epic even the United Nations had the brains to put it up on uh across the street on 42nd Street and 1st Avenue. That That passage from Sinai does not appear in the Christian Bible, although everyone knows it's Messianic. The in-gathering of the exiles, the restoration of the Jews to their land. Isaiah on. Ezekiel 37. Uh the building of a temple, that's critical on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem once the Jews return. That's Ezekiel the last three passages of Ezekiel 37 and Ezekiel 41 through 47. So, when we examine the 1st century, the let's say the first 30 years of the 1st century, we don't find any of this. In fact, it's not that Jesus didn't do it yet and he's going to do it. It's the very opposite occurred, meaning there wasn't a world peace in the 1st century. On the contrary, there was war and it was during the golden age of the Roman Empire and the Jews went to war with Rome. It didn't turn out very well. Um there wasn't a temple built during the 1st century, but rather one that was destroyed in the culmination of the great war that uh ended in on the 9th day of the 5th month in the year 70. Uh there wasn't a universal knowledge of God during the 1st century. Quite the contrary, because of the wars with the empire and the uh the undoing not just a building of a temple, but the entire Jewish commonwealth in Jerusalem was shattered. The knowledge of God and the commitment to observance uh uh uh was dramatically weakened. There wasn't a resurrection of the dead. Well, that's pretty clear in Tanakh. In fact, many Jews, tens of thousands, died in those wars with Rome. So, if you wanted to know what the Messiah's supposed to do, um wouldn't you look at the first third of the 1st century and just invert it? It's the polar opposite. It It's um It's it's you could it's the reciprocal of it. So, this is not like a complicated issue. Now, it is true that if you and I wanted to start a religion and we didn't accomplish anything, you would have to somehow come up with the idea of a second coming. You would have to All the religions do that. There's got to be a second coming. The Of course, that's not compatible with Tanakh and moreover, it suffers from the fallacy of unfalsifiability. It it it can't be tested in any way. Anybody could be the Messiah. And then, if we can use that kind of If there is that kind of elasticity, why do fundamentalist Christians then reject the the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the Mormons? They Protestants reject the Roman Catholic Church. Their chief argument is that these people didn't do what they're supposed to do with the papacy there. But, Catholics have their personal Messiahs going to happen. So, they're using a rigorous methodology to to reject Islam and other religions, but they won't apply it to themselves. So, that's the real problem. The The core principles of the Christian religion are not compatible with Tanakh, full stop. >> Mhm. You know, I I recently was I I did a post of some sort on why I'm not a Christian and like there's an immediate reaction happening right now where if you are critical of Christianity, you're accused of being a Jew. For simply not believing in Christianity and critiquing it. You're not allowed to actively critique it or else you're Jewish. Um clearly, they hate Jews, right? And this has got a long history that goes back to God killers and and uh I mean, you see it in the book of Acts. And what I found interesting in our dialogue in the past is how you brought up Matthew in a way I never saw it. Because most scholars I talked to see the Gospel of Matthew as the most Jewish gospel that Matthew is like pro-Judaism and pro-law-abiding and such and you're looking at it going, I see huge red flags here, the way that they portray Jews. So, can you tell us some of the reasons why Jews do not accept Jesus or that he's the Messiah and that Christianity is the religion they should follow? >> Right. So, two parts there. Matthew, in my view, is with the John is the most anti-Jewish of the Gospels. The reason why they think that Matthew's Matthew's pro-law-abiding is a good reason. That's the Sermon on the Mount, Matthew 5. The sheep and the goats. There's reason to think that, but that should not be conflated with how Matthew portrays the Jews at every turn. Both when Jesus is born in the infancy narrative, it's the Jews and the king of the Jews that are trying to kill the baby Jesus and it's these non-Jews from the East that are worshipping him. That's a setup. And look at Matthew 27, the Jews are saying, crucify him and Pontius Pilate and his wife are going, he's innocent. His wife makes a cameo, the only cameo in the New Testament, and the Jews then proclaim verse 25, we take his blood upon ourselves and our children forever. There's There's no even parallel to to that. People are confusing that with the point that Matthew's quoting the Hebrew Bible more frequently than the other Gospels, which he does, and Matthew is saying that Jesus is pro-law-abiding, which he does, but has nothing to do with the culpability of the Jewish people. But going back to Jesus being the Messiah, look, we have Let me just make it really easy. Yeah. Ezekiel Ezekiel 37, Valley of Dry Bones. Like, can there be a more simple chapter than that? Well, we have there everything that's supposed to happen in the Messiah. You could read it with no commentary, just go It's 28 verses. Ezekiel is very generous in providing saturated information what he means. The The value dry bones of the restoration of Israel, restoration of the Jews to their land, the in-gathering of the exiles. Incidentally, half the Jews live in Israel today, half the known Jews live in Israel, and Jerusalem has been restored. Ezekiel 24 and 25, the Messiah is explicitly there, and the Jews are keeping all the commands. And 26, 27, 28, the temple is built, there's world peace, and there's um a gathering in. It's a covenant of peace. So, that's all you would have to do. That means all I'm asking the viewers to is to let Ezekiel speak for itself, not through Augustine or Chrysostom, not through the photos of the church fathers. Just let it read for itself. You don't need a commentary, I assure you this. And you don't need to read Hebrew. Pick your translation. It's so It's so easy to see what's supposed to happen, realize that there's nothing going on in a church service, a highly liturgical church service, or one that's not well structured, the Assemblies of God, that has anything to do what what we would encounter in Isaiah 11 or Isaiah 37. We're not anti-Christian, we're just very pro-Tanakh, and therefore any idea that's not compatible with it is rejected, much in the way Christians reject the claims of of Mormonism because it's not compatible. Same thing, same deal. >> If you enjoyed this program, please like and subscribe. >> [music] [music] [singing]