Prof. Solberg I love how what u say is super informative. Your words are backed up and u don’t contradict yourself by speaking a lot of unnecessary words. I love how u don’t condemn others or mock people. I really enjoyed ur closing remarks also. I appreciate you and how u spread God’s word and love. Peace be with you both.
@@TheBiblicalRoots If New David fears YHWH, then he can't be YHWH. Isaiah 11:1-3. David will be YHWH's servant. Jer 33:26, Eze 34:23, 37:24. Which means he isn't YHWH. Is YHWH his own servant and does he fear himself? Of course not. Whatever David may be, he isn't YHWH. He will only be the the servant of YHWH.
Rob I’ve watched your videos for a while now and I want to say you are always so kind and loving no matter who you’re talking to or what subject. Your tone never changes and you desire to share the gospel remains your most important message! Thank you, God bless you!
I’m at the closing statement right now. I enjoyed this debate. God bless you sir! I wish Rabbi Tovia Singer the best and I pray Jesus will reveal himself to him in person.
@@TheBiblicalRoots At about 43 minutes, Tovia made a claim about Paul quoting nonexistent scripture. I never caught a response from you(???). Also, what are your thoughts on his closing argument that Christianity being the most widespread religion proves it is the wrong religion/faith according to scripture? I started following your page because most of my friends have either adopted the Progressive/New Age “Christianity” or Torah Observance. Thanks so much for your videos. ☺️
@@sammyroscher5921 I’m Torah observant and I watch Rob all the time. We have disagreements but I see him as a brother in the faith and I have a lot of respect for him because of this debate. I wanted to attempt to answer your questions if that would be okay. As for Paul, I do not believe he was quoting a specific verse but rather he was referring to the entirety of the the Old Testament scriptures. The topic of the majority is a good argument until you remember that the promise to Abraham was that his descendants would be numbered like the stars in the sky.
@@hosea4660 And Jesus confirms it with a parable, Lu 13:18-19 (NASB), "So He was saying, “What is the kingdom of God like, and to what shall I compare it? “It is like a mustard seed, which a man took and threw into his own garden; and it grew and became a tree, and THE BIRDS OF THE AIR NESTED IN ITS BRANCHES.”
At the very end, Rabbi Singer says we have to start with the Hebrew Bible and then quotes Numbers 23:19 (2:02:00) My question is who wrestled with Jacob and changed his name to Israel?
Congratulations from France, I am a follower of rabbi Tovia Singer, and I have already watched the debate on his channel, I really appreciated the quality of your arguments, your sense of humor and your ability to always remain calm in defending your points of view, which unfortunately is not always the case in this type of debate. Thank you very much for this very interesting debate.
I know that rob is calm when he debates, but rabbi tovia singer appears to be misleading and at times deceitful, and I have no problem addressing how deceitful he is and will give him examples. He was shocked at the way rob debated him. The problem I have with rob is that he distinguishes the law of God from the law of Moses, and I do call him out on it.
Tovia Singer is not a Jew. None of the semites who claim to be Jews are Jews. Ask him to prove he is a Jew...he can't. All he can prove is that they are semites which are descendents of Canaan. Liars...every one of them.
There is no such thing as a christian bible. Remember this, that the Gospel is the life of Yeshua and his purpose. The Acts of the Apostles has to do more with the lives of the Apostles, disciples, the body of Yeshua, and the Epistles are letters of correction. Revelation is a book of prophecy. Another thing is that you continue to lend your ears to rob. You are allowing yourself to be engraved with some of his distorted teachings on certain topics.
Thank you so Much Mr Solberg for Your Contributions in God's Work Your teachings help me a lot personally. May Our Gracious lord Yeshua Use you more and more For his Glory ❤
What a great respectful mature exchange of beliefs was made at this 'debate'. Thank you both and everyone who made it possible and made it available so widely. As a Christian I come away with greater respect for the Jewish perspective without losing an iota of faith and belief that Yeshua is the promised Messiah. As Prof. Rob summarised, the evidence of Jesus life, crucifixion and resurrection is testimony to old testament scripture, not opposition to it. Rabbi and Professor I have immense respect for both of you. Thankyou.
One thing Rabbi Singer is missing and that Professor Solberg didn't mention is the precious born-again experience that only occurs when one repents and accepts Jesus as their personal Saviour. A miracle of rebirth that occurs in the human heart by the power of the Holy Spirit. Like the gospel song said "if God is dead, who's this living in my soul?"
Not everyone has a miracle experience like u say u did. So God plays favorites when saving people? Exactly why your belief is unfounded and your faith based on how it makes you feel. No thanks!
The New Birth experience and further experiences are what kept me in the Christian faith. However I also realised that I accepted a lot of doctrinal errors because I falsely assumed that this experience validates everything the church teaches. Unfortunately, what often happens, is, that Christians who are led by the Holy Spirit and read scripture, see that some passages don’t agree with the church teachings. However they are being told not to trust the guidance of the spirit and should rather follow the church teachings. Soon they become dependent on the church for insight and learn to filter out anything that doesn’t agree.
Thank you for sharing! This was a real eye opener for me, to see what Yeshua was up against- lack of faith and then disbelief in the face of so many miracles, let alone fulfillment of prophecies.😢
Tovia Singer has some great linguistic techniques that serve as great walls in a debate, very impressive. You did really well, this is the first I've seen of you. Both of you are good communicators.
Rabbi Tovia Singer should tell you all about Psalm 2:12 12 Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in him.
Prof Solberg is bright but he got rocked. However, here are some points R Singer could have been more clear and confident on. 1. There was not a single Jew in the 2nd temple period, Philo included, who thought that Gods supernal wisdom was an uncreated divine person. Philos "logos" is created, the kabbalists chochma ilaa is created, Proverbs 8 tells us all of this explicitly. Jesus was claiming to be an incarnation of Gods wisdom, but definitely not God himself. See Tertullian against praxeas, where he specifically states that Jesus was a created being whos will and power was completely nullified by father, the one true God, which created him. 2. the angel of the Lord "stuff". Haggai 1, the prophet is called the angel of the Lord. I guess Haggai is God too, now, huh? No, angel means angel. How about when Moses says "I am the Lord your God", is Moses God? Some 2nd temple writings call Moses the God-man, so I guess they meant that literally, huh? No. How about Joshua 24? Is Samuel God? Is Israel God (Is. 45:14 Israel is yeishtahavu, literally worshipped)? NO! Only God is God because He is one, where as everything in creation, Jesus included, are not. We are finite, He is infinite, etc.
@@MrMaxSkorpion your second point is fallacious. We know that angel can refer to messenger. However in certain "angel of the LORD" passages there are clear references to the angel of YHWH seemingly claiming deity. Gen 16:7-14, 22:11-15, Jud 13:3-22. It must be taken on a verse by verse basis. There are more passages I could cite to.
@@mikeprew1. Jude is not in the bible because God did not inspire it. 2. It's literally your OPINION that the angel claims deity. You should try rereading my original comment. The fact that an angel is called "god" would only be germain if the God of Israel were the only person called "god", which isnt true in the Hebrew bible or the NT.
@@MrMaxSkorpion You are mixed up. *Angel means messenger and when the Lord of hosts is sent by the Lord of hosts as in Zechariah 2:8-11 he becomes the Angel of the Lord but he's the Lord himself.* *Only God is God because he is ONE Trinity as in, **_"Hear O Israel, the Lord (1), our God (2), the Lord (3) echad."_* *Jesus is the God of Israel aka the Angel of the Lord, the Word of the Lord, the Name of the Lord, the Arm/Hand of the Lord, etc.* *Jesus is referred to as God's servant Israel in Isaiah 49:1-7 and other scriptures because he will come in human form by being born to the virgin from the house of David and in him will be realized the blessings and promises given to Jacob/Israel.* *Similarly, the Messiah Jesus is referred to as David in messianic prophecies because he is a fulfillment of the promises God made to King David.*
Rabbi Tovia Singer can not understand any truth you share Professor Solberg, as he can not appreciate anything that is explained to him. His ears become deaf, his eyes are blinded to the merits of the true doctrine of Jesus Christ, and everyone who knows our Messiah Yeshua gets the distinct impression that this person's heart has indeed been sealed and that he is blind leading the blind. See Isaiah 29. We pray for our enemies, those who harm us in differing ways and we forgive them for their transgressions upon us.
In this whole 2 hour debate, one key event caught my attention. One thing that really set apart the true and the false between the two speakers: one was humble and genuine enough to pray to God before speaking, while the other never even thought about it. One demonstrated a relationship with God while the other thinks he has.
I just wanted to say thank you Prof Solberg for agreeing to this debate. And for treating it with respect. Our Rabbi had nothing but good things to say about you when we met up in Dallas. I only wish perhaps in a future time you could discuss subjects like this without the timer. So many things that could've been said weren't. And it just seemed when you and our dear Rabbi were sitting and talking back and forth, more comparisons were made. Again thank you, and may Hashem bless you and your family.
Thank you, Yasmin! I agree, a lot was left unsaid. But I really enjoyed my time getting to know Rabbi Singer before and during the debate. Blessings, Rob
Yes, a lot was unsaid, but a lot was unanswered as well, and I am referring to rabbi tovia singer in the unanswered comment. He was prevented from distorting the Brit-Chadashah because God stopped him from bringing it up, leaving him in the Tanakh so that Yeshua could be shown in the Tanakh. By the way, using jokes is part of his tactic to draw people toward him, but being that he was stopped from discussing the Brit-Chadashah, he had to double up on his jokes. I am sorry to say this, but he appears to be very arrogant.
@Sundown Sam Well, actually I could have said the same about Prof. Solberg who used just as much humor and his own methods of distracted distortion to present his case. That's how debate works. If that's a problem for you they were both guilty of doing it. I could argue that Prof. Solberg intentionally consumed most of the Rabbi's time so he didn't get to ask more than one question. Was that fair? Yes, because a debate is like having a theological battle. Singer imho was too nice and allowed the Prof to have more time when he should've reminded them earlier that the Prof. time for asking questions was up. I'm assuming you saw the entire video, so do you recall what Prof. Solberg said about owning both of Rabbi Singer's books? That means that Solberg knows exactly what Rabbi Singer's response to a couple points would've been, so why would the Rabbi waste words on something that would've eaten up probably 10 minutes of the debate time? I would've done the same thing and picked what I felt was the more pertinent things to mention while ignoring the things I didn't see as important. That's why I think it would be really informative to have an untimed discussion between the Rabbi and the Prof, where there isn't a timer so they could have a more relaxed, round table sort of discussion. The only problem is that might take days to do so there would have to be some sort of cut off, but it would still be good imho. You didn't bring up what you thought was an unanswered comment, so I'm not sure we're looking at the same things, but from my perspective, the unanswered comments are actually answered in Rabbi Singer's book vol 1 of Let's Get Biblical.
Not that I am defending rob because I do have problems with his views on some issues, but rob did not use jokes to shy away from responding to questions. That is not the way debates should be, but it appears they try to work it that way to avoid responding, and this is the tactic Rabbi Tovia Singer appears to be using in all of his debates. Yes, I have a problem with that because it appears that jokes are used as camouflage to avoid responding to questions. The reason rabbi tovia singer was too nice was because he was stopped from bringing up the Brit-Chadashah and that is what he is good at distorting. Not to mention, he was caught off guard; he probably rob to be that prepared. About rob picking up two of rabbi tovia singer's books shows that he entered the debate prepared and there is nothing wrong with that. I do agree with you on the debates. In the future, there should be a moderator to make sure a question is responded to before asking another question or changing topics.
@Sundown Sam There was a moderator. It was the person who introduced them. As for Singer's jokes, what can I say. I don't read minds, but I don't see them as a means to avoid answering questions. Jews and humor are like peas in a pod. When the world is worrying about life, we're joking about it and finding ways to make it easier until things get better. If you want to see them as a bad thing, that's your choice. I feel sorry for someone who hates humor yeesh, life must be really tense for you. Did I say there was anything wrong with Solberg's buying a copy of Singer's books? However if he really did read them, why did he ask a simple question when the answer is already in the book? What would be the point to ask questions you already know the answer to? Unless it was intended to stall and divert attention from the real topic. I'll have to watch the video again I guess. Nothing stopped Singer from bringing up anything about the supposed Brit-Chadashah as you call it. It didn't have anything to do with the topic. Btw, are you talking about the ברית חדשׁה (barit Chadash) mentioned in Jeremiah 31:31? I think you put an extra -ah on it. Just thought you'd like to know. And that's talking about the covenant God will make with the house of Israel and the house of Judah. Which Singer has talked about several times, but again it had nothing to do with the topic they were discussing. And in case you'd like to know read the verse. The text says that the days come (that means in the future), says Hashem, that I will make a new covenant (brit hadash) with the house of Israel and the house of Judah; (this is one half of the entire statement btw, not the whole thing). Who was the house of Israel and who was the house of Judah? The house of Israel as it's mentioned several times in the bible, was what the northern kingdom was called. It consisted of 10 tribes, who went off the path as we call it and started picking up the practices from the pagan nations around them. Their wickedness grew worse and worse, so God sent them into exile. BUT Jeremiah prophesied that the lost kingdom which consisted of most of the 10 tribes will be returned in the end days. Further instead of two kingdoms God will unite them with Judah. Which will be one kingdom as it was in the beginning. So to know if there is a new covenant yet between the house of Israel and the house of Judah, we first have to ask is have the 10 tribes returned to the land of Israel? That answer is no. So there is no new covenant yet. I won't confuse you with the facts of what the new covenant is, but read Jeremiah 31:31-34. Or the whole chapter if you like. Anyway, the subject of the debate was about whether Jesus was the promised Jewish messiah. Not whether God made a new covenant or not. Hope that helps you understand why the Rabbi probably chose to stay on topic instead of going off on a side subject.
43:53 When Rabbi Singer highlights 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 highlighting "in accordance with the Scriptures" it is important to note that Paul is talking about many Scriptures. In General, the claim is that there are many Scriptures/ the entire OT that testify of Jesus. In Specific, since it is unspokenly requested, here are Scriptures pertaining to 1 Corinthians 15:3-4: Psalm 16:10; Isaiah 53:10. The claim of Jesus is that if you truly knew the Scriptures, you'd recognize Him, and therefore know the Father they claim to worship. It's all about Jesus.
I just watched the debate a second time. I love your energy Rob. During the cross-examination you could see and feel your focus, you did your homework and were prepared. Amazing, it carried over into your closing argument. I didn't want your time to end. Here we are still after over 2,000 yrs talking about a back woods Rabbi, awesome , loved you phrased it that way. Not what you said exactly but true to the point you were making. Again as I've said before your desire and love for the Truth is evident. I'm inspired to be better in my pursuit of Truth in my studies of scripture and also witnessing. God Bless 🙏
Professor Solberg was so humble, and kind …he’s a great representative for what Jesus teaches us to be. Not to mention he spoke the truth and was able to back up what he was saying. The rabbi did not seem to show Christians the same love and kindness though, but rather mocked Christian’s and he behaved very smug IMO and like he thinks he’s better. Plus he deflected questions being asked of him and made accusations without backing them up. He also left out the word “and” from Isaiah 44:1…. 1Yet now hear, O Jacob my servant; and Israel, whom I have chosen: It’s really important not to add or take away words, since it then changes the meaning.
He seriously is recycling jokes and rebuttals from other debates I’ve seen. I’ve not finished yet, but he’s yet to answer the objections put before him.
This was a great and civil discussion. I have been greatly blessed by the dialogue here, from both Singer & Solberg. I am a Torah-observant follower of Messiah, drawn to observe Solberg's work to test my own faith, convictions, and actions. I think it is beautiful when we can come together as beloved followers of the Most High El of Abraham, Isaac, & Jacob.
Rob, Thank you for your patience in debating with people who close their bible at the end of Malachi and proudly choose to remain in darkness. In contrast, in great humility, Jesus showed He was truly the light of the world. I think the fact that Rabbi Tovia Singer refuses any future debate with Dr Michael Brown speaks volumes...
Mr. Tovia Singer if the servant in Isai 53 is the nation Israel as you claim Question 1. V8 - "for the transgression of my people was he stricken", if "my people" here refers to Israel, God's people, then who is the"he" (The servant) that is stricken? 2. V9- If the "he" mentioned here is Israel as you claim, has the nation Israel not done violence and deceit? The Tanakh is full of Israel's violence and deceit. 3. V10 - How can the soul of sinful Israel be accepted by God as sin offering? 4. V11 - If the servant is Israel, whose iniquities does israel bear? 5. V12 - How did the nation Israel make intersession for the transgressors?
Great questions!!! I bet he's to scared to even try answering. He'll make lame jokes, mock Christianity and cry about Christians reading books regardless if we actuality read or bring them up which... Who cares? Then laugh and blab on about unrelated topics. I really wanted him to give an answer for Isaiah 53 at least, but he couldn't give an answer. He's all over the place and the status of the debate for Singer... is directly proportional to the state of his soul. 😧👎LOST.
Hi those are great questions! I do have answers and you can let me know what you think if you want to. Answer 1: Isaiah 43:10 states “You are my witnesses,” declares the Lord, “and my servant whom I have chosen, that you may know and believe me and understand that I am he. Before me no god was formed, nor shall there be any after me” Here we see that the singular term “servant” is actually comprised of multiple “witnesses” in the plural. And we can find multiple places in Isaiah where it clearly states the servant is Israel. Answer 2: It’s not talking about the nation of Israel as a whole of which one can point out people whom have indeed engaged in deceit and violence but instead is talking about the righteous remnant of Israel as described in Isaiah 10:20. Answer 3: Is addressed by answer 2 Answer 4:We must ask who is speaking in Isaiah 53? Luckily Isaiah 52:15 tells us “Just so he shall startle many nations. Kings shall be silenced because of him, For they shall see what has not been told them, Shall behold what they never have heard.” Followed by Isaiah 53:1 “Who can believe what we have heard? Upon whom has the arm of GOD been revealed?” We see it is the Gentile kings of the world who are speaking ( the chapter breaks are artificial Isaiah was written as one long chapterless scroll before chapter breaks were introduced) regarding the servant/witnesses which are the righteous remnant of Israel bearing their (the gentile kings) iniquities. Answer 5: The extreme suffering and persecution of the Jewish people in many instances inspired many people to question what the Jewish religion is about and brought many people to believe in God and morality meaning it doesn’t mean a person is forgiven for sins he committed because Jewish people suffered but rather the Jewish people bearing the suffering of persecution brought many people out of iniquity to repentance. Hope your doing well, Respectfully
44:00 That passage is not there because it was removed by the jews soon after the resurrection. Justin Martyr outlined this in his dialogue with Trypho. They tried to scrub the Torah of messianic passages that pointed to Jesus. They did a pretty good job of it too, but you can see many of the edits in the Septuagent and they couldn't scrub an entire chapter so they're stuck avoiding or re-interpretting Isaiah 53 for all the reasons Solberg brought up in his opening.
This was a very interesting debate indeed. The one thing that was a bit irritating, is that Rabbi Singer tried to ignore the elephant in the room, namely the fact that his interpretation of the scriptures are not necessarily the same as quite a few of the Jewish Rabbis in ancient times' were (specifically referring to the interpretation of Isaiah 53). Rabbi Singer claimed that we should ONLY consult the scriptures, and forget about how ancient Rabbis interpreted Isaiah 53. If this is truly the way, why does Rabbinic Judaism, insist that Jewish people NEVER read the Tanakh without Rabbinical (men's) interpretation? Other than this obvious hypocrisy, I have to thank both parties for being respectful and mostly kind towards each other.
Changing Rabbi Singer's mind was actually my fourth priority, Samuel. The top priority was sharing the Gospel of Jesus with tens of thousands of people in a way they may never have heard before, showing how it is completely connected to (and grounded in) the Tanakh. The second priority was to present a compelling biblical and intellectual case for the Messiahship of Jesus to the listeners. The third priority was to "put a pebble in the shoe" of skeptical listeners who _thought_ they knew who this Jesus character was; I wanted to leave them with a nugget or two to chew on. The distant fourth priority was convincing Rabbi Singer. But I do still pray for his eyes to be opened to his Messiah! Shalom, Rob
@@TheBiblicalRoots I appreciate your work, to God be the glory! I say this in kindness and a loving tone which I don't want misunderstood by being in text, but... I was unsettled in the spirit when you prayed for God to bless him and gave promotion of his books. Why pray for God to bless and increase the wolves actively devouring the flock? Kindness, love your neighbor, honorable debate, respect... Yup absolutely, but don't wonder why your flock is dwindling or you find them slaughtered about, when your blessing the wolves with food and their packs increase and circle about. I just couldn't stop this vision pressed upon me each time this happened. Still, this was the best debate I've seen with him, he's nearly unbearable to watch but I really learned a lot from you. He really didn't answer anything though. Great job! You definitely won the debate though I know it didn't matter either way. I'm just claiming it for Jesus! 😆👍💯
I don't know why these debates even happen. There is just not enough time to saturate in explanation any one subject that arises in a debate like this. A discussion of such importance should be done in a radio show or podcast, with episodes numbering in the hundreds if not thousands.
Oh my goodness!!! Absolutely loved this. It was dripping with scripture and I’m with you RL, I learned a lot. If this debate was another 2 hours I would’ve listened. He definitely knows his scripture but he has to deny a lot to say the Old Testament doesn’t point to Christ as our savior. You did awesome!
@@truediscussionmedia1481 Christians draw their conclusions about Jesus from their Christian scripures, like Mormons do from their scriptures.(BOM) Jews reject Jesus because they draw their conclusions from the Hebrew scriptures.
@@truediscussionmedia1481 The Hebrew bible is clear about the role of the Messiah. 1)Jews reunification 2)The Temple rebuilt 3)World Peace, etc. The Christian scriptures make the claim Jesus was the Messiah without him having actually fulfilled the role.
A professor trying to tell a Rabbi he doesn’t understand his Tanakh is mind blowing. You can tell the Rabbi is so passionate speaking about the book his ancestors preserved through thousands of years. Meanwhile the professor is trying to fit a Catholic book into the Hebrew Scriptures
Gospels were written much earlier and when Paul said according to Scripture, he referred to the gospels. We have internal evidences to prove Gospels especially Matthew and Mark were written earlier. So Paul could quote …according to the scripture
Hello Mr. Max! Tribal affiliation can be transferred through levirate marriage, which is when the brother of a deceased man was obligated to marry the widow and produce a child for his deceased brother. The Torah requires that the firstborn child of the levirate marriage should be counted in the genealogy of the man who died childless (Deut 25:5-6). Blessings, Rob
@Mich Ebb Truth. Leviticus 24 verse 10, A Jew who had a Israelite mother but a egyptian father, and it calls him "the son of the israelite woman" who fought with "the israelite man" ie: a jew whom both parents were Jewish. This son of the egyptian man, was still Jewish, because his mother was Jewish, however he was not called an "Israelite" because his father wasn't jewish and hence had no tribal affiliation, rather only "the son of the israelite woman".
@@TheBiblicalRoots If I’m not mistaken, taken your brothers widow in yebum is only possible through paternal brothers, so this wouldnt hold. What makes you say Caleb/Zerubabel specifically earned their tribal affiliations any other way than through their fathers?
Greg Mcbride and Rabbi Singer said Paul distorted or mistranslated the Hebrew Bible or tanakh. Both used Rom 11:26 and Isa 59:20 to show the differences between the verses to prove their points. Rom 11:26 *As it is written* : "The Deliverer will come out of Zion, and He will turn away ungodliness from Jacob" Isa 59:20 "The redeemer will come to Zion, and to those who turn from transgression in Jacob" say the Lord Sadly, both thought that the meaning of *As it is written* means that somewhere in the Tanakh there is a verse exactly or near exactly the same as Rom 11:26. They found Paul was quoting Isa 59:20. Since Paul did not say exactly what Isa 59:20 says they said Paul was corrupting Isa 59:20. Lets's look at Lev 23:40-43 “And you shall take for yourselves on the first day the fruit of beautiful trees, branches of palm trees, the boughs of leafy trees, and willows of the brook; and you shall rejoice before the LORD your God for seven days. 41 You shall keep it as a feast to the LORD for seven days in the year. It shall be a statute forever in your generations. You shall celebrate it in the seventh month. 42 You shall dwell in booths for seven days. All who are native Israelites shall dwell in booths, " Nehemiah was quoting Lev 23:40-43 in Neh 8:15 ““....And that they should announce and proclaim in all their cities and in Jerusalem, saying, "Go out to the mountain and bring olive leaves and leaves of oil trees, myrtle leaves, date palm leaves, and leaves of plaited trees, to make booths, *As it is written* ." How come there is no olive leaves and myrtle leaves in Lev 23? Nehemiah says "Date palm leaves" whereas Moses was talking about branches of palm trees. Moses did NOT say to make booth (which Nehemiah says) from these leaves and branches but for keeping them as a feast. Although Nehemiah says *As it is written* , he didn't say exactly what Lev 23:40-43 say. Why do Greg Mcbride and Rabbi Singer expected Paul to say exactly what Isa 59:20 says? This is a scam.
I get Singers aversion to the resurrection as a starting point, but isn't the evidence for the resurrection similar to the flood which he affirms? And he seemed to dismiss the resurrection as democracy and yet would affirm Jewish tradition by the same.
At 44 minutes mr singer says Paul made up verses. Paul makes the claim to have received revelation from the risen Jesus. Jesus said the only sign that would be given is the sign of Jonah. We know from the scriptures that Jonah was in the belly of the fish for 3 days. We know from the gospels that Jesus was in the heart of the earth for 3 days. This is the connection paul and was making 🙏❤️
@@beng7431 if you read the story of Jonah you read that Jonah says “I cried out of the belly of hell”. Just as Jesus died on the cross Jonah died in the belly of the fish. This is the connection Jesus made with Jonah.
There are not. many Christian scholars who would agree to a public debate with Rabbi Singer. It was amazing to see how he can quote from the entire bible without any notes in English and Hebrew. I have watched his live broadcasts on his Facebook Chanel and I always learn so much. Thank you both for being so respectful.
There are many who would have no problem debating rabbi tovia singer, and the majority of them probably would not be scholars. You appear to think that one needs to have a biblical degree to debate rabbi tovia singer. Another thing is that the Holy Spirit is the one who teaches according to what God made clear when he first spoke, and he is the one who gives us scriptural understanding of the truth of God's word. With the above being said, how should one debate rabbi tovia singer? Make sure he does not reference the Talmuh, and being that he does not believe Yeshua is the Messiah, one needs to stop him from bringing up the Brit-Chadashah. Just stay on the Tanalk. Yeshua will be seen from the Tanakh, and God will bring them to the Brit-chadashah.
more like Brown slaughtered Tovia so badly that Tovia refused to air the debate for a long time. Brown only engages in personal attacks against Tovia because time and time again the Rabbi has used scriptures deceptively to captivate a misunderstood audience. there are many times he rips a verse out of context or makes up his own translation and changes the meaning.@@Ancient-theology
Something I noted: Rabbi Singer never really answers any of the questions that Solberg asks. I was looking forward to his explanations as to why he disbelieves Jesus, the resurrection, and the NT writers and validity of the entire NT. I watched the entire video....Rabbi skillfully skirted those Jesus questions that Solberg kept asking him throughout the entire debate. And even at the very end...Solberg respectfully asks him to please address at least one Jesus-question in the Rabbi's closing argument. Crickets. (Sly fox.)
The Rabbi failed to read Hosea 6:2 when stating that Paul’s comment in 1 Corinthians 15 was invented. Also Isaiah 53 states that Messiah would die for our sins. Paul did reference scripture correctly, Yeshua is the Messiah Amen.
Singer is not willing to understand double prophecy. He can only see how the "plain meaning" of Isa 7:15-"before the boy knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, the land of the two kings you dread will be laid waste" - meaning that Isaiah believes the child he has just described (v. 14) will be born within his lifetime, as a harbinger of the destruction (by Assyria!) of kings Rezin of Aram and Pekah of Remaliah (7:1). The language of 8:3 echoes that of 7:14 as Isaiah goes in to the prophetess and she conceives and gives birth to a son. It is no longer controversial to observe that the ‘almah of 7:14 simply refers to a young woman of marriageable age, without settling the question of her virginity. Thus it seems most likely that the child of 7:14 is Isaiah's son, Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz. Isaiah 8:4 reinforces this equation, with language carefully reminiscent of 7:15-"Before the boy knows how to say ‘My father' or ‘My mother,' the wealth of Damascus and the plunder of Samaria will be carried off by the king of Assyria." Only now Israel is explicitly included among Assyria's victims. However what Singer doesn't understand is that at the same time, 7:14 refers to the enigmatic child as Immanuel, "God with us," the name that recurs in 8:8 and 10. This name likewise links the child with Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz but also points forward to a more distant time when the plans of Israel's enemies will be thwarted (8:9-10). This "bifocal vision" prepares the reader for 9:1-7, which is all about restoration after the punishment begun by Assyria. In this context appear the words musically immortalized by Handel, "For to us a child is born, to us a son is given" (9:6a). Against the current critical consensus it is difficult to identify this son, who is an heir to David's throne, "Mighty God," "Everlasting Father," "Prince of Peace," and governing eternally (9:6b-7), with anyone other than Israel's royal Messiah, and we ought not be surprised to learn that that is precisely how the post-Christian Jewish Targum understood it. While dating traditions in the Isaiah Targum proves notoriously difficult, it does seem unlikely that any Scripture would first be taken as messianic in any Jewish context aware of Christian claims for that text. We do not know why the translators of the LXX chose parthenos-a term that does imply sexual virginity-to render ‘almah, but it seems reasonable to assume that part of the reason was that they too recognized Immanuel was no ordinary child whose fulfillment was exhausted in the life of Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz. Certainly no figures in between Isaiah's day and Jesus' birth even remotely qualify for this child who is a sign of divine presence; hence it seems appropriate to use the expression, "double fulfillment." Isaiah recognized that his son would be a sign and symbol (8:18), both of God's activity in his day and of the ultimate child who would comprehensively fulfill the Immanuel promises of chaps. 7-9. It's this double prophecy we also see in Isaiah and despite it also talks of Israel as a nation the double prophecy in 53 brings us to the messiah, as if you study Isaiah 53 in its full context you must raise the question how all of the content can possibly apply to Israel or did Israel ever be righteous or die for the sins of Israel etc?
According to what Tovia said @ 36:15. Here it is: Isaiah 53:8 He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken. 9 And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth. - There you go Tovia, see you in Church : )
I’m not a Christian anymore but I really enjoyed your debate with Tovia. Both of you guys were well equipped and very educated on the subjects at hand, but in contrast to his previous debates you were quite formidable, so kudos to you on that.
@5:20 Mr. Solberg, I won't hold you being a Gentile against you, but I will hold it against you if you think Mr. Singer is not a Gentile. The "Jewish" are not Jews, as explained below. They are mere "Jewish" Gentiles because they have no patrilineal registry. (See Ezra 2:62)
The reason the Messiah is Israel and can represent Israel is because He is the King of Israel! It's why monarchs can speak with the "royal we." Peter Gentry has a number of pertinent points in Isaiah that would help in this debate.
Israel is a man (Jacob). Israel is land. Israel is a people. Israel is a remnant. Israel is the Messiah. The word Israel is applied in so many unique ways, the fact any Jew would argue that the Messiah is not truly "Israel" is so bizarre.
Hi, Jon. Yes, the term _mashiach_ simply means "anointed one." It's used to describe multiple figures in the OT, including the Gentile king Cyrus for conquering Babylon and liberating the Jews from captivity. RLS
Keep it up, brother, I've watched a few minutes and I can tell you that debating is not the easiest task out there but I see you prepared well and put forth some good arguments so far, I have to watch the whole thing still. I think as a whole we as followers of the Jewish Messiah, have a task to prepare ourselves diligently so that we can understand how the blessed people of Israel thinks, and to be able to understand their counter arguments and be able to put forth a Biblical answer for the faith that we profess and believe is theirs also in Messiah Yeshua, may the Lord of Hosts bless them and may He let His face shine upon them. God bless!
Yes its not easy with orthodox but Jesus is the saviour zech 9 9 Ephesians 2 8 For By grace are ye saved through faith and that not of yourselves it is the gift of Gd not of works lest any should boast.
CS Lewis also dealt with the legend. CS Lewis more or less said he had read about legends and said the gospels have never read as legend but as fact. He could tell the difference between 2 types of story. The other issue is even most secular scholars believe Jesus existed.
It is worth to notice that it’s hard to convince a Jew that Jesus is the messiah without evidence outside the Tanakh and Prof. Solberg does a very good job at giving evidence within and outside Tanakh. But if ones reject evidence outside Tanakh, then it is indeed hard to convince them that Jesus is the messiah. However it doesn’t mean we must strictly reject all evidence outside Tanakh! God give us mind to discern and we indeed can discern things is true or not even if its not written in the Tanakh. That’s what’s scholarship is all about and I can see why Prof. Solberg plea for us to look it from scholarship points of view, because scholarship doesn’t have to disagree with Tanakh, but Rabi Tovia acted as if scholarship is always against Tanakh. Let’s pray so that God lead us all to his truth, both from His living words of scripture and also from out ability to discern. Peace for yall! For Prof. Solberg: maybe you can maneuver your argument so someone can agree that scholarship doesn’t have to disagree with Tanakh? I think if there is a group of people who can make this maneuver, you are definitely one of them. Because I agree with Rabi Tovia that faith is not democracy and about headcount, on which christians and their magnitude really doesn’t appeal even for me, but credibility of scholarship is not the same with democracy on number (in my view) but Rabi Tovia clearly don’t think the same. How can we convice him, then? I have no idea…. I am looking up on you!
Thats the problem. Some see evidence of Jesus in the OT and some dont. Some see reincarnation in the bible and some dont. Knowing their is a case for Jesus. The best was to determine if he is the messiah is to simply put the book down and listen to what the world declares. No higher name than Jesus and no other name has been spoken of more by atheists buddhists hindus etc in regards to having visions in NDEs or OBEs of going into the light. Truth is found in the spiritual revelations always.
@@Yes-fe8ni Listening yo the world is a horrible way. God even warns of this. Be not like the nations around you, and talks about all the abominations they commit. Calling on the name of the LORD comes from Joel 2: 32 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the LORD shall be delivered: The name is Gods name (Tetragrammaton) not Jesus. You can’t take that out and replace it with Jesus. Isaiah 45:23 again the LORD(Tetragrammaton) speaking That unto me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear. The New Testament again takes Gods name out and replaces it with Jesus. You can’t do this.
@@Christo-pv7eb i agree with you we shouldn’t follow the way of the world but it doesn’t mean we completely close our ear to listen for what people has to say. we first listen and then discern, then check it in light of teaching of Tanakh… now, most scholar agree that embarrassment of Jesus witnesses being woman is a evidence that these story is not just fabricated, but Rabi Tovia dodged it with story of Jezebel by implying that woman can become a witness to sth wrong, which is completely different case because Jezebel literally is the queen and we all know the only person more powerful than the King is The Queen (which is one of implicit message of the story) and the case with jesus witness is they are lowly woman, relative of and associated to an executed criminal, on which making a witness is not giving them any gain at all… this is the basis of resurrection of Jesus and we must have an open mind thinking that they are at least sincere then we check their sincerity and their story in light of Tanakh to see whether this is the truth or not. Now, I’m not saying that I agree with all current christology, but if we just open our heart a little with a discerning mind, the possibility of Jesus being the promised messiah is not far fetched fabricated story as most Rabi will frame it…
@@tekletgaming Why do Christian’s always do this “open mind” crap? Do you honestly think the rabbi hasn’t checked into these claims? He knows the whole Bible better than you or me. Do you know I spent years on this topic? Do you think that whole time I was just being stubborn and foolish? Listen if there was a prophecy saying someone will die for your sins and the only way God will forgive you is if you believe in the death and resurrection then we’d believe it. But the messiah is supposed to bring peace and worldwide knowledge of God. He’s supposed to fear God, not be worshipped as God.
@@Christo-pv7eb Because without the open mindedness, all debate will back to square one. What christian really want is for the Jews to cross check the fact themselves. Even if at the end you still reject Jesus after you cross check your fact, we are happy to see that! However, what most rabbi does is tell their follower to not even touch the new testament, don't read it, etc. If you spent your due diligence to research and check your faith, good for you and God will indeed give you your reward! Problem is people are often not even allowed to think, which is in itself is problematic at least for me. Again, my Jewish brother, I would be much more happy to hear you reject Jesus after you done your research, than just blindly following rabbi told you don't read this don't read that. That's the answer to your question why Christian beg for Jewish people open mindedness, because truth to be told, what is the only book is not accessible in the land of Israel? And why is that? Is it because all people agree upon it, or its just because the rabbi told them so? You can see Rabi Tovia always dodge the thing if we going toward this direction and framing this kind of open-mindedness is dangerous. Well, it is dangerous I agree with that, especially from rabbinical perspective, and if it is indeed wrong, many people at risk to be lead astray. However, I think it is a fair price to pay if you want to get to the truth, and the Rabbi not letting people check by themselves (by dodging all these things) is something I don't agree with. Just give them the cautions, but do not do it in a misleading way! There is no other documents on the face of the earth that the Rabbis really treat with hostility like the new testament... This fact on itself is something that we really need to examine, why is that? Isn't that intriguing?
The Resurrection of Christ on the old testament Psalm 71:20 You who have made me see many troubles and calamities will revive me again; from the depths of the earth you will bring me up again. Psalm 49:13-15 This is the path of those who have foolish confidence; yet after them people approve of their boasts. Like sheep they are appointed for Sheol; death shall be their shepherd, and the upright shall rule over them in the morning. Their form shall be consumed in Sheol, with no place to dwell. But God will ransom my soul from the power of Sheol, for he will receive me. And after the sixty-two weeks, an anointed one shall be cut off and shall have nothing. And the people of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. Its end shall come with a flood, and to the end there shall be war. Desolations are decreed. Daniel 9:26 Psalm 16:8-11 I have set the LORD always before me; because he is at my right hand, I shall not be shaken. Therefore my heart is glad, and my whole being rejoices; my flesh also dwells secure. For you will not abandon my soul to Sheol [realm of the dead] or let your holy one see corruption. You make known to me the path of life; in your presence there is fullness of joy; at your right hand are pleasures forevermore.
Tovia wants to throw Proff. Segal under the bus by saying he was a liberal. but that has nothing to do with the evidence he presented. proff. Segal quoted Jewish sources which prove that jews of the first century did believe there was a second divine person. him being a liberal, or not believing in the inspiration of scripture doesn't change that. as long as Proff. Segal presented historical and rabbinic evidence to show the jews of the first century were not unitarians, that it. since Tovia cannot refute the fact that the first jews weren't unitarians he appeals to authority. which is a fallacy
I've seen him pop up on social media thru the years and I watched several until I felt physically ill from the multitude of his blatent and horrendous lies about Christians, deceitfulness, psychological manipulation, arrogance, and gaslighting his followers. It's wretched. He says in this debate, he used to hate Christians... Well I hope that's true, obviously, but I doubt the "used to" part. He goes on saying we don't believe certain books and implies authors are lying... He lumps all Christians into his hateful slander that might be true for certain people claiming to be Christian but they don't testify for me and I'm offended by his continual lies and mockery. Some of his group setting were the worst I saw. Lying about us, tons of false claims about what we believe and false claims saying we don't use certain texts or we change our texts, all kinds of blasphemy, and laughing at us, mocking Jesus, making strawman arguments and laughing... Everything's so funny to him. I pray God gets him serious with open eyes, ears and heart of flesh not stone. That he repent and turn from his wicked ways and see truth. In Jesus name amen and amen
Funny I see opposite for the last 30 years I have many Chrisitan friends who ask tons of questions just because I'm a Jew. most ask why I don't believe in messiah. So, I always reply with the same thing. The messiah is not a divine being and will not die. Then I show them in scripture. Deuteronomy 13:6-8 King James Version 6 If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers. 7 Namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you, nigh unto thee, or far off from thee, from the one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth; 8 Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him: I tell them as you can see here the warning not to follow other gods that your father did not know. So when God reveled himself at Sinai jesus was not there. he was very specific Deuteronomy 4 12 And the Lrd spoke unto you out of the midst of the fire: you heard the voice of the words, but saw no image only heard a voice. again, saw no image 16 Lest you corrupt yourselves, and make you a graven image, the image of any figure, the likeness of male or female the likeness of anything 23 Take heed unto yourselves, lest you forget the covenant of the Lrd your Gd, which he made with you, and make you a graven image, or the likeness of anything, which the L_rd thy Gd hath forbidden you. 5 Unto thee it was shown, that thou mightest know that the Lrd he is Gd; there is none else beside him. 39 Know therefore this day, and consider it in thine heart, that the Lrd he is Gd in heaven above, and upon the earth beneath: there is none else Hosea 13:4 4 Yet I am the Lord thy God from the land of Egypt, and thou shalt know no god but me: for there is no saviour beside me. Joel 2:27 27 And ye shall know that I am in the midst of Israel, and that I am the Lord your God, and none else: and my people shall never be ashamed. Isaiah 44:6 Thus said the LORD, the King of Israel, Their Redeemer, the LORD of Hosts: I am the first and I am the last, And there is no God but Me. Deuteronomy 4:35 35 Unto thee it was shewed, that thou mightest know that the Lord he is God; there is none else beside him. Isaiah 48:12 12 Hearken unto me, O Jacob and Israel, my called; I am he; I am the first, I also am the last. None else one Echad they get and so do all the many people talked to becoming a Noachides
@@Pasture_Prime there is more than 144000 messianic Jews even wtihin Israel they tried to ban the Bible because many Jews converted , I can tell. My whole Family accepted Christ.. so I'm speaking about Facts and you?
How I wish Rabbi Singer ultimately know that Jeshua is really the Messiah in the Old Testament Bible. Wishing God will open his spiritual eyes. God bless Rabbi Singer.
He was also a carpenter's son. Not sure why they want to make him "poor", (is this supposed to be a Jewish 🤑$$ financial insult?), obviously he's the richest for eternity, literally everything is his! He came to dwell among us as a servant and asked his disciples who of you while traveling with me lacked for anything? None lacked a single thing. God provides all our needs according to his riches in glory. God's grace is sufficient. Hallelujah and praise God for his unspeakable gifts!
You said that Yahshua agreed with Hillel on Lev.19:18 the the substance of the Torah is LOVE yet your whole ministry is against those who desire to walk out love in their every day life by walking as Messiah walked in the Torah. Sound hypocritical. “Become imitators of me, as I also am of Messiah.” 1 Corinthians 11:1
@@tbishop4961 Complicated,no. hard to actually do, yes. And if you do them that’s works salvation according to most. That’s only half of it, the half towards showing love for mankind. The other half of the equation is loving God and showing it in our actions. Both loving God and loving mankind has been belittled to just believing and saying you do because if you actually walk out what you confess then you might be labeled as a hieratic for doing “works to be saved“ even though that’s not the case it doesn’t matter to those who don’t do what they confess.
@@ForgedinTruth the road is being widened by this type of thinking. I wondered if there was anyone out there that saw it this way. You will never reach the orthodox when you and your version of messiah goes against deut 13 and the law of God.
@@ForgedinTruth well if someone says you don’t have to keep the commandments that God told us to walk in then it goes against it. People who come against other people who follow the commands don’t want to walk in the way. Deuteronomy 13 says the prophet that leads you away from following Him should not only not be followed but they should be stoned. Not that I am advocating for anyone’s stoning :) I actually like rob solberg. I liken listening to his arguments.
Rabbinic Judaism’s interpretation of Isaiah 53 as Israel fails logically. Isaiah 53:11 identifies a “servant without sin” who bears others' sins, yet Isaiah 4 shows Israel as sinful and in need of atonement. How could Israel, laden with its own sins, serve as a sinless redeemer? This servant must be distinct from Israel-fulfilled in Jesus, who alone fits the prophecy of a sinless Messiah bearing the sins of others. The Rabbinic stance on atonement contradicts the Torah itself. Leviticus 17:11 makes blood essential for atonement; if repentance alone sufficed, the Torah would not mandate sacrifices. Even upon returning from Babylonian exile, Israel resumed sacrifices, confirming that blood atonement remained essential. Rabbinic teachings suggest sacrifices will resume in a Third Temple, reaffirming that atonement through blood is intrinsic, not symbolic or optional. Similarly, Hosea’s encouragement to prayer doesn’t override blood atonement. Nowhere does Hosea nullify sacrifices; this Rabbinic interpretation lacks Torah support. While repentance and prayer matter, they don’t erase the Torah’s command that blood is central to forgiveness. Finally, Daniel’s prophecy aligns precisely with Jesus. Daniel 9:26 foretells an “anointed one” cut off before the Temple’s destruction. Starting from Artaxerxes’ decree in 444 BCE, Daniel’s timeline leads exactly to Jesus’ crucifixion in 33 CE. This precise fulfillment underscores Jesus as the promised Messiah. Claims that Daniel points elsewhere disregard both text and historical accuracy. In short, Rabbinic readings selectively bypass the Torah’s requirements, whether on sin, sacrifice, or prophecy. Claims that Israel can serve as a sinless servant, that blood isn’t essential for atonement, or that Daniel doesn’t point to Jesus are each unsustainable under a full reading of the text. In the name of Jesus Christ, I bless you all!
@@1DaTJo Jesus was not merely human but God incarnate-fully divine and fully human. His sacrifice was not a “human sacrifice” but God Himself offering redemption out of love (John 10:18). This fulfills the Torah’s principle of blood atonement (Leviticus 17:11), which remains central to forgiveness. Worshiping Jesus isn’t idolatry. Yeshua HaMashiach is God in the flesh (John 1:14), as Isaiah 9:6 declares, calling the Messiah “Mighty God.” Praying to Him is worshiping the God of Israel, who took on human form to accomplish salvation. Far from being anathema, the Messiah’s mission was divine. It fulfills the Torah and the prophets perfectly, revealing God’s ultimate plan for humanity.
@@danielmayer1977 nowhere in the Torah does God state that He desires human sacrifice. Nowhere in the Torah does God State that he wants us to pretend to drink blood. Nowhere in the Torah does it say the Messiah is supposed to die and be resurrected. The Messiah is supposed to be fully human and from the lineage of King David. Did Jesus have legs and arms? Did he have a head and eyes and ears and feet? Then he was human. God clearly tells us that He is not human, that He is not a man. Which part of the first Commandment is confusing for you? God‘s first commandment is “I am the Lord your God -you shall have no other gods besides me.” He did not say “besides me and my son. “
@@1DaTJo Jewish texts, including the Dead Sea Scrolls and Sanhedrin 38b, reflect a complex understanding of the Godhead. Genesis 1:2-3 shows God, His Spirit, and His Word active in creation, while Isaiah 48:16 speaks of “the Sovereign Lord,” “Me [the Messiah],” and “His Spirit.” This challenges the claim that God cannot manifest in different forms, including as Jesus. Jesus never commanded literal drinking of blood. In John 6:63, He clarifies that His words are spiritual. His death fulfills the Torah’s requirement for atonement (Leviticus 17:11), akin to the Passover lamb in Exodus 12. His sacrifice embodies the Passover lamb, the scapegoat of Leviticus 16, and the suffering servant of Isaiah 53, achieving reconciliation with God. Pre-incarnate appearances of Jesus include Genesis 18 (the Lord visiting Abraham), Joshua 5 (the Commander of the Lord’s army worshiped), and Daniel 3 (the fourth figure in the furnace). These reflect God manifesting visibly. Numbers 23:19, which says, “God is not a man,” speaks to His holy and unchanging nature-not that He cannot take human form. Jesus’ lineage fulfills Messianic criteria. Through Mary, He is biologically descended from David (Luke 3); through Joseph, He legally inherits the Davidic line (Matthew 1). This dual lineage meets genealogical and royal requirements in the Torah. Rabbinic teachings face contradictions. Early Jewish sources, such as Targum Jonathan, saw Isaiah 53 as Messianic until Rashi reinterpreted it as Israel. The Seder Olam calendar omits ~168 years of Persian history, contradicting archaeological evidence. Ezekiel 43:18-27 confirms that blood sacrifices will resume in the Third Temple, reaffirming their necessity. Isaiah 53 describes a suffering redeemer; Daniel 9’s timeline aligns with Jesus’ crucifixion; and Leviticus 17:11 underscores the need for blood atonement. Together, these texts point to Jesus as the Messiah, leaving Rabbinic teachings with unresolved gaps.
@@danielmayer1977 no, you’ve got it all wrong. God does not go to the bathroom. Animal sacrifice was for UNINTENTIONAL sins. I strongly recommend that you learn Hebrew and read what the Torah really says, not what some preacher told you it says. Start with the first commandment. I am the Lord your God you shall have no other gods besides me. You notice it doesn’t say “besides me and my son. “
the objection he used against the new testament can be used against him. he said all the things you believe to be true, is because the new testament told you. and that is a circular reasoning. well, that same argument can be used against him. because, everything he believes to be true is found from the torah. its the torah which told him God came down in a cloud and fire at mount Sinai. and that is the basis (the Sinai event) for Judaism. but the only source which tells us that this happened is the torah. which means he just fell in the circular reasoning he attacked the new testament by which means he is being dishonest. second, if he throws away the new testament whole sale as legend, then he would be forced to answer these five questions:- 1) how did Christianity start? 2) who started it? 2) where did it start? 3) how did it rapidly spread? 4) why were the Jews extremely hostile to it FROM THE VERY BEGINNING? because, there is a real religion called Christianity, its 2000 years old and it was extremely opposed by the rabbis from the very beginning. the only way you can explain these facts, is if the the new testament is historical. if the new testament was complete fiction, then you wouldn't be able to explain the reality of Christianity.
@@thatethiopiandude5077 I hear this from atheists all the time. the answer is simple that it amazes me how you miss it. you think RTS is dismissing the empirical proof for the NT which you are then using against the OT. in reality, he is saying that since we all agree that the OT is true, in order to prove the NT changes to judaism you need to provide the jews empirical evidence, which you cannot do by citing a book. your responses to the OT, that's its also only true because of the book and the belief in the father to son oral tradition is only an argument for someone who doesnt want to rely on the book and the father to son tradition - people such as atheists etc. jews and christians both trust the book and the oral tradition. that's why the professor's argument fails - he said that the resurrection is what saves the OT from biblical criticism. his attempt at using modern biblical criticism fails because it is not the resurrection that supports the OT - it is the jewish tradition. he apparently doesnt understand judaism. I want to know how he thinks all the jews including j followers believed in the torah prior to the resurrection? were they all just not smart and dont know epistomology?
The religion isn’t complete fiction, obviously it started at some point and was opposed by the Jews. How does that prove that the NT facts are historical?!
@Dustin Neely the Christian problem is that they also accept the Jewish tradition that they received the Torah at Sinai. (At least I think they do, I don’t know much about catholics). Therefore, the book can’t be used as proof, and neither can any Christian traditions, since they were opposed as false traditions by the Jews at the beginning. So while a Catholic can use his traditions to belief in his faith, he has no weapon in his quiver of which to use to converting Jews, and interestingly, the modern day Catholic Church isn’t busy converting jews (as far as I know). Furthermore, it’s not just a disagreement about the veracity of the Christian tradition that prevents jews from following it. Jews will maintain the Christian traditions to be a theological impossibility due to its contradictions of the written Torah. So while you are right that the sola scriptura people have a problem in the face of Judaism because of their lack of traditions, catholics have the second problem. Lastly, if you can inform me, the Jewish tradition is based on a national revelation which continued to have national revelations. Do catholics have a national revelation tradition?
@@proudpharisee5303 if he doesn't completely deny the empirical proof for the NT, he then has to deal with the evidence for the resurrection. but because he cannot, the way he deals with the evidence for the resurrection is by completely dismissing the new testament since you agreed that cannot be done, you are stuck with the proof for the resurrection
he also said the dead will rise when the messiah comes, and he quotes Is 26 as proof. what is ironic, is that is exactly what the new testament says will happen when Jesus returns! *1 THESSALONIANS 4:15-17*
@@yosefelianimusicchannel1070 This is something that will happen when he returns. As described in Psalms 110:1-2 The Messiah will sit at God's right hand until his enemies are made to be his footstool. The Book of Psalms which records the prophecy of Psal 110 tells us that God is in heaven (Psal 2:4 Psal 11:4 Psal 102:19 Psal 102:19 Psal 123:1) this is also stated in the Torah (Deut 26:15 Gen 19:24) So, God's dwelling place is in heaven So, for the Messiah to be seated at God's right hand, he must go to heaven and sit at his right hand in his heavenly dwelling place and be with him. After his suffering and atoning death prophesied in Isaiah 53, he will be seated at God's right hand as prophesied in Psalms 110:1 But, according to Psalms 110:1 will he sit at God's right hand indefinitely or until his enemies are made his footstool? Until his enemies are made his footstool! When the time for this arrives, he will come from his seat at God's right hand i.e heaven to earth. This is why Psal 110:2 says "..rule in the midst of your enemies.." where are his enemies situated? On earth! So, the Messiah will be seated at God's right hand (heaven) until his enemies are made his footstool, then when it's time for his enemies to be made his footstool comes, he will rule in the midst of his enemies (earth) this is also described in the prophetic vision of Zachariah 14 *God's right hand = heaven* *the midst of his enemies = earth* Thus establishing the doctrine of the second coming. So, once the Messiah returns from God's right hand (heaven) to the midst of his enemies (earth) the resurrection of the dead he mentioned will take place. It will happen after Psalms 110:1-2 is fulfilled. And this matches with what the New Testament says about the return of The Lord Jesus Christ and the resurrection of the dead in 1 Thes 4:15-17 And as for Psal 110:1-2 being about the Messiah, what is said of that Lord who will sit at God's right hand is what is said of the Messiah in Numbers 24:19 and Psalms 72:9, Jewish sources too say that passage is Messianic.
One of Tovia Singer’s disciples challenged me to go buy a Stone Edition Tanakh and read it. They said I would NOT find our LORD Jesus in there anywhere. I would encourage all Christians to do the same. You may not see Him in some of the traditional Messianic passages that were used to, but you WILL find Him in places you never expected, and that Christians have never considered as “Messianic”. It is SO amazingly cool to see how the LORD Messiah is EVERYWHERE in the Tanakh-for those who have eyes to see!
Jesus isn't prophesied ANYWHERE in the Tenakh, and the good Prof. Solberg was unable to show that he is. In the light of context, Christian prophetic claims always collapse.
Without jesus glasses, you certainly cannot see jesus, and a lot of new testament teachings are just totally different from the jewish scriptures. Take Ezekiel 18 for example... Who would have guessed salvation only involves repentance and turning away from wickedness, there's certainly no jesus there. In the jewish bible, the future messiah is just a king a man who will rule over a world who truly fears Gd, not a persona of Gd himself.
Example: Repentance is definitely required for forgiveness and atonement, but that is only possible because of the Redeemer. “A Redeemer WILL come to Zion, to those who repent from willful sin…” (Isaiah 59:20) Who is this ⬆️ “Redeemer”? “…with Hashem is abundant redemption. And HE shall redeem Israel from all its iniquities.” (Psalm 130:7,8) The Redeemer is Hashem. Who is “Hashem”? “Hashem IS the Righteous One…” (Exodus 9:27) “Hashem, the Righteous One…” (Zephaniah 3:5) “The Righteous One (Hashem) perishes ✝️, and no man takes it to heart; men of kindness are gathered in with no one understanding, that because of the impending evil, the Righteous One (Hashem) was gathered in ✝️. He (the Righteous One, the Redeemer, Hashem) will come in peace…the Exalted and UPLIFTED One (uplifted on the cross ⤴️, and resurrected ⤴️ uplifted from the dead) who abides FOREVER, and whose Name is Holy.” (Isaiah 57:1,2,15) “They killed those who predicted the coming of the Righteous One (Hashem), and now you have betrayed and murdered Him🩸✝️…” (Acts 7:52) “…Jesus Messiah, the Righteous One (Hashem). He is our atoning sacrifice for our sins…🩸✝️” (1 John 2:1,2) “Thus says Hashem, King of Israel👑, and its Redeemer, ‘I am the FIRST and I am the LAST’. Aside from Me there is NO God.” (Isaiah 44:6) The FIRST and the LAST (Hashem) IS God. “Do not be afraid. I am the FIRST and the LAST (Hashem). I am the Living One; I WAS dead, and behold, I am ALIVE for ever and ever 👑!…the words of The FIRST and the LAST (Hashem); Who died and came to life again 👑 (the LIVING God)…I Am the FIRST and the LAST! Blessed are they who wash their robes (accept Hashem’s atonement🩸✝️, repent, and do God’s good works), that they may have the right to the Tree of Life 🌳, and may go through the gates into the City ✨.” (Revelation 1:17,18; 2:8; 22:13,14) Such GOOD News‼️😊 As Hashem said ⬆️: “Don’t be afraid” to believe and accept who He really is! He loves you, and wants you to accept what He’s done for you! Tovia is SO correct. At 43:13 in the debate, he said we MUST read the New Testament in light of the Old! Such good advice! ☺️ Also, Ezekiel 37:25 says: “My servant David shall be their prince FOREVER.” No human can be a leader of a people FOREVER…right? (All Hebrew scripture was copied from the Stone edition Tanakh.)
@@sunsetfree5358 congratulations for BUTCHERING the meaning of Is. 57: 1,2 and 15, and adding to those verses your own wayward words to manipulate the text! You have to add your own choice words (such as "resurrection" and "uplifted on the cross"), because the Hebrew in no way indicates your christological interpretation. Even Christian Study Bibles would be embarrassed by your interpretation of those verses (my NIV Study Bible does not agree with you, and I don't either). Btw, using the "Stone" edition is not a wise choice, because most people do not have it, and it is not easily accessible online (unlike, say the Chabad). "Biblehub" doesn't have the Stone. So I will use the NIV, which presents a comprehensible and good translation of Isaiah chapter 57. The Chabad Bible will also do fine. Let's revisit those verses without your editings: Is. 57:1 and 2: Verse 1: "The righteous perish, and no man ponders it in his heart; devout men are taken away, to be spared from evil." The verse has nothing do with Hashem being taken away! The "righteous" (Hebrew: "sadiq" or צַדִּיק ) here refers to righteous men (as it often does), and the verse means that the righteous may be taken away from us [ie. die] in order to spare them the coming evil which we may need to face instead. Verse 2 continues the theme of righteous men: "Those who walk upright enter into peace, and find reast as they lie in death." SO FAR, THEN, THERE IS NOTHING CHRISTOLOGICAL IN THAT CHAPTER! Now let's move to your verse 15: "For this is what the high and lofty One says, he who lives forever, whose name is holy: I live in a high and holy place, and also with him who is contrite and lowly in spirit, to revive the spirit of the lowly and the heart of the contrite." We see noting christological in that verse either, and no implication of an atoning sacrifice or a messiah! Although you might argue that Jesus was "high" (or "lifted up") on the cross, the same remark could be made of the two thieves crucified on either side of him, so it doesn't automatically get you to Jesus ! At any rate, there is no obvious context for Jesus in the passage or chapter. There is nothing about a blood or ransom sacrifice or atonement for sin implied in the chapter either. You are obviously very desperate in casting about for something...but not really getting anywhere! You have to find coherent context for Jesus to make your claim.
[part 2 contniuation...] so, once we have established the suffering servant to be the messiah, lets ask some questions 1) is there any place in the entire hebrew bible where the whole nation of Israel or its righteous remnant are portrayed as a shoot and/or a root which sprouts forth (atsmakh)? 2) is there any incident where the suffering of the whole nation of Israel or its righteous remnant resulted in healing for the gentile nations? (because that is what the suffering of the servant does Is 53:5) 3) is there any moment where Israel became a sin offering for the nations? or was it itself in need of a cure for its sin? Once this is out of the way, lets examine his claim of falsifiability. the rabbi claims, all of the things done by Christ are unfalsifiable. so therefore they cannot be used as evidence to establish his messiahship. but this is wrong in light of Is 53. lets examine that passage:- "He was assigned a grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death, though he had done no violence, nor was any deceit in his mouth." (Is 53:9) here it clearly says the suffering servant (The Messiah) will die and be buried in a grave (the hebrew qavar) this is a clear prophecy about the messiah dying. we know why he is going to die. as an atonement for the sins of Israel and the world. that is explicitly stated in Is 53:5-8. in fact, he is said to be an offering for sin (asham) in v.10. an offering for sin is a sacrifice done for the purpose of the forgiving of sin (Lev 5:7 for instance) so the messiah will die, so that our sins will be atoned for. But, after he dies, it says he shall see the light of life and be satisfied "After the suffering of his soul, he will see the light [of life] and be satisfied; by his knowledge my righteous servant will justify many, and he will bear their iniquities." Is 53:11 (even though the dead sea scrolls and the Septuagint have the phrase "the light of life" the masoretic doesn't) *HOW CAN HE SEE THE LIGHT IF LIFE AND BE SATISFIED, AFTER HE HAD DIED? AFTER HE HAD BEEN BURIED?* The only way he can see the light of life again and be satisfied after he died, is if he came back to life. is if he was resurrected. that is the only way he can see the light of life after he had been dead and buried. so that is the criteria to identify the true messiah *ANY MESSIAH CLAIMANT WHO CLAIMS TO DIE FOR THE SINS OF THE WORLD, AND THEN COMES BACK TO LIFE AFTER HIS DEATH AND BURIAL, IS THE TRUE MESSIAH* a resurrection is not something that can be faked. either he rose from the dead or not. and according to the chronology given by the prophet, the messiah must suffer and die first, then raise from the dead. any person who didn't rise from the dead is not the messiah. so singer's polemic false flat to the ground. we know Jesus will fulfill the rest of the messianic prophecies, because he fulfilled the most important one. he died for the sins of the world, and then he rose from the dead. as the prophet said he would. the proof for it all is the resurrection we can even go further, in Is 53:3-4 the suffering servant is considered as someone smitten of God by his own people. we know the speakers are the jewish people, because in v.8 the speaker who is the prophet, says he was stricken for the transgressions of *MY PEOPLE* that is what the speakers said in v.5. they said he (the servant) was wounded for our transgression. proving the speakers are the people of the prophet. meaning the jewish people the jewish people thought this servant was smitten and cursed by God. but in reality he was the arm of God, the servant of God who had died for their sin. meaning, who ever the true messiah is, he must initially be rejected by the jewish people. the jewish people must consider him as someone cursed and smitten by God. any messiah claimant, who wasn't rejected and considered as smitten by God by the Jewish people is not the true messiah. the true messiah, must be considered by the jewish people as cursed and smitten by God finally, in Is 53:1-2 the suffering servant is called the arm of The Lord. this means he has an ontological oneness with God. just as an arm and the rest of the body are of one flesh, God and the messiah are of one deity. that is why he is equated and depicted as a body part of God. which means he is God, he is divine. that is why he is called Jehovah/YHVH our righteousness (Jer 23:5-6) The God/Elohim who has an eternal throne (Psal 45:6) the mighty God (Is 9:6-7) the one who comings-forth is from eternity (Mic 5:2) the Lord in heaven (Psal 110:1) so whoever the the true messiah is, he must be someone who claimed to be God in the flesh (because the messiah is human too, a physical descendant of David and Abraham) any messiah claimant, who doesn't claim to be God in the flesh is not the true messiah *CONCLUSION* 1) THE MESSIAH MUST DIE FOR THE ATONEMENT OF OUR SIN 2) HE MUST COME BACK TO LIFE AFTER HIS DEATH AND BURIAL 3) HE MUST BE REJECTED BY HIS PEOPLE FIRST 4) HE MUST CLAIM TO BE GOD IN THE FLESH *who does that sound like......?* tovia singer refuted
Prof. Solberg I love how what u say is super informative. Your words are backed up and u don’t contradict yourself by speaking a lot of unnecessary words. I love how u don’t condemn others or mock people. I really enjoyed ur closing remarks also. I appreciate you and how u spread God’s word and love. Peace be with you both.
That means a lot to me, Nickie. Thank you!!
Blessings, Rob
Great debate. Ex Muslim converted Christian here declaring JESUS IS GOD.
First time on this channel and it’s owned my subscription.
I'm glad you found us, Jamal! Blessings, Rob
👏🙏🙌
@@ScalpNinjaTrader You have truly overcome more than I ever will. Richest blessing to you my Christian friend.
Jesus is a man and NOT GOD , ex christian convert to Islam
God is One but Jesus Christ is not God.
I really enjoyed this debate! Thank you to both gentlemen. I recently found R.L Solberg’s ministry and I am really grateful for it! Keep it up.🙏🏻👍
Thanks, Kendall! Blessings, Rob
In hindsight, I think Soleberg could have made a better argument, with making less compliments. But I’m only a student of the Bible
@@TheBiblicalRoots If New David fears YHWH, then he can't be YHWH. Isaiah 11:1-3. David will be YHWH's servant. Jer 33:26, Eze 34:23, 37:24. Which means he isn't YHWH. Is YHWH his own servant and does he fear himself? Of course not. Whatever David may be, he isn't YHWH. He will only be the the servant of YHWH.
@@__Man_ Then you do not believe John 1:1
Shalom! I'm a Jew and I wanted to share my amazing testimony! We Jews are waking up to the truth! th-cam.com/video/8ptOI_x2UlY/w-d-xo.html
Rob I’ve watched your videos for a while now and I want to say you are always so kind and loving no matter who you’re talking to or what subject. Your tone never changes and you desire to share the gospel remains your most important message! Thank you, God bless you!
Thank you so much! Blessings, Rob
Prof Rob, I want to thank you for such a great job you have done for Yeshua. I was very impressed by your perfomance! God bless brother!
Thank you, sir! Blessings, Rob
Your channel is like a breathe of fresh air
Thanks, D.K.!
I’m at the closing statement right now. I enjoyed this debate. God bless you sir!
I wish Rabbi Tovia Singer the best and I pray Jesus will reveal himself to him in person.
And may God bless, you, Popoola! Thanks for watching. ~Rob
We need a part 2 🙏🏾🙏🏾 God bless you guys
Rob you did great Job man! Bless you from Texas
Thank you, Sing! -Rob
@@TheBiblicalRoots At about 43 minutes, Tovia made a claim about Paul quoting nonexistent scripture. I never caught a response from you(???). Also, what are your thoughts on his closing argument that Christianity being the most widespread religion proves it is the wrong religion/faith according to scripture? I started following your page because most of my friends have either adopted the Progressive/New Age “Christianity” or Torah Observance. Thanks so much for your videos. ☺️
@@sammyroscher5921 I’m Torah observant and I watch Rob all the time. We have disagreements but I see him as a brother in the faith and I have a lot of respect for him because of this debate.
I wanted to attempt to answer your questions if that would be okay. As for Paul, I do not believe he was quoting a specific verse but rather he was referring to the entirety of the the Old Testament scriptures.
The topic of the majority is a good argument until you remember that the promise to Abraham was that his descendants would be numbered like the stars in the sky.
@@hosea4660 And Jesus confirms it with a parable, Lu 13:18-19 (NASB), "So He was saying, “What is the kingdom of God like, and to what shall I compare it? “It is like a mustard seed, which a man took and threw into his own garden; and it grew and became a tree, and THE BIRDS OF THE AIR NESTED IN ITS BRANCHES.”
In his effort to disprove Christianity, Singer is dismantling Judaism. No one does more to disprove Judaism than Tovia Singer
At the very end, Rabbi Singer says we have to start with the Hebrew Bible and then quotes Numbers 23:19 (2:02:00) My question is who wrestled with Jacob and changed his name to Israel?
28 Then He said, “Your name shall no longer be Jacob, but Israel; for you have striven with God and with men and have prevailed.”
This is amazing that Jews want to debate this topic! I love your love for Jesus and our awesome salvation message!
Congratulations from France, I am a follower of rabbi Tovia Singer, and I have already watched the debate on his channel, I really appreciated the quality of your arguments, your sense of humor and your ability to always remain calm in defending your points of view, which unfortunately is not always the case in this type of debate. Thank you very much for this very interesting debate.
Thank you, Federo! Blessings, Rob
I know that rob is calm when he debates, but rabbi tovia singer appears to be misleading and at times deceitful, and I have no problem addressing how deceitful he is and will give him examples. He was shocked at the way rob debated him. The problem I have with rob is that he distinguishes the law of God from the law of Moses, and I do call him out on it.
Tovia Singer is not a Jew. None of the semites who claim to be Jews are Jews. Ask him to prove he is a Jew...he can't. All he can prove is that they are semites which are descendents of Canaan. Liars...every one of them.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but wasn’t it the Jews that wrote the “Christian Bible”? Does Rabbi Singer know that?@@TheBiblicalRoots
There is no such thing as a christian bible. Remember this, that the Gospel is the life of Yeshua and his purpose. The Acts of the Apostles has to do more with the lives of the Apostles, disciples, the body of Yeshua, and the Epistles are letters of correction. Revelation is a book of prophecy.
Another thing is that you continue to lend your ears to rob. You are allowing yourself to be engraved with some of his distorted teachings on certain topics.
You are so awesome! You won this debate and did it with so much grace and kindness.
Thank you so Much Mr Solberg for Your Contributions in God's Work
Your teachings help me a lot personally.
May Our Gracious lord Yeshua Use you more and more For his Glory ❤
I'm surprised Singer even showed up. He runs scared when Michael Brown refutes him
Singer is the man! He owned this debate.
Now that would be a good debate to watch if he ever does. 😊
What a great respectful mature exchange of beliefs was made at this 'debate'. Thank you both and everyone who made it possible and made it available so widely.
As a Christian I come away with greater respect for the Jewish perspective without losing an iota of faith and belief that Yeshua is the promised Messiah.
As Prof. Rob summarised, the evidence of Jesus life, crucifixion and resurrection is testimony to old testament scripture, not opposition to it.
Rabbi and Professor I have immense respect for both of you.
Thankyou.
Humility goes a long way. Great debate. Ty for putting that on and allowing the world to see.
Wow, I’m glued to my seat just listening. This is probably the best debate I’ve ever seen.
I love watching this debate! So good!
One thing Rabbi Singer is missing and that Professor Solberg didn't mention is the precious born-again experience that only occurs when one repents and accepts Jesus as their personal Saviour. A miracle of rebirth that occurs in the human heart by the power of the Holy Spirit. Like the gospel song said "if God is dead, who's this living in my soul?"
Amen! That is very true.
Not everyone has a miracle experience like u say u did. So God plays favorites when saving people? Exactly why your belief is unfounded and your faith based on how it makes you feel. No thanks!
@@openigangWho said anything about feelings?
The New Birth experience and further experiences are what kept me in the Christian faith. However I also realised that I accepted a lot of doctrinal errors because I falsely assumed that this experience validates everything the church teaches.
Unfortunately, what often happens, is, that Christians who are led by the Holy Spirit and read scripture, see that some passages don’t agree with the church teachings. However they are being told not to trust the guidance of the spirit and should rather follow the church teachings. Soon they become dependent on the church for insight and learn to filter out anything that doesn’t agree.
Thank you for sharing! This was a real eye opener for me, to see what Yeshua was up against- lack of faith and then disbelief in the face of so many miracles, let alone fulfillment of prophecies.😢
Tovia Singer has some great linguistic techniques that serve as great walls in a debate, very impressive. You did really well, this is the first I've seen of you. Both of you are good communicators.
Thanks, Michael!
Rabbi Tovia Singer should tell you all about
Psalm 2:12
12 Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in him.
Prof Solberg, I am not a Christian but you debated like a true gentleman and professional.
Thanks, Michael! Blessings, Rob
Prof Solberg is bright but he got rocked. However, here are some points R Singer could have been more clear and confident on.
1. There was not a single Jew in the 2nd temple period, Philo included, who thought that Gods supernal wisdom was an uncreated divine person. Philos "logos" is created, the kabbalists chochma ilaa is created, Proverbs 8 tells us all of this explicitly. Jesus was claiming to be an incarnation of Gods wisdom, but definitely not God himself. See Tertullian against praxeas, where he specifically states that Jesus was a created being whos will and power was completely nullified by father, the one true God, which created him.
2. the angel of the Lord "stuff". Haggai 1, the prophet is called the angel of the Lord. I guess Haggai is God too, now, huh? No, angel means angel. How about when Moses says "I am the Lord your God", is Moses God? Some 2nd temple writings call Moses the God-man, so I guess they meant that literally, huh? No. How about Joshua 24? Is Samuel God? Is Israel God (Is. 45:14 Israel is yeishtahavu, literally worshipped)? NO! Only God is God because He is one, where as everything in creation, Jesus included, are not. We are finite, He is infinite, etc.
@@MrMaxSkorpion your second point is fallacious. We know that angel can refer to messenger. However in certain "angel of the LORD" passages there are clear references to the angel of YHWH seemingly claiming deity. Gen 16:7-14, 22:11-15, Jud 13:3-22. It must be taken on a verse by verse basis. There are more passages I could cite to.
@@mikeprew1. Jude is not in the bible because God did not inspire it.
2. It's literally your OPINION that the angel claims deity. You should try rereading my original comment. The fact that an angel is called "god" would only be germain if the God of Israel were the only person called "god", which isnt true in the Hebrew bible or the NT.
@@MrMaxSkorpion You are mixed up.
*Angel means messenger and when the Lord of hosts is sent by the Lord of hosts as in Zechariah 2:8-11 he becomes the Angel of the Lord but he's the Lord himself.*
*Only God is God because he is ONE Trinity as in, **_"Hear O Israel, the Lord (1), our God (2), the Lord (3) echad."_*
*Jesus is the God of Israel aka the Angel of the Lord, the Word of the Lord, the Name of the Lord, the Arm/Hand of the Lord, etc.*
*Jesus is referred to as God's servant Israel in Isaiah 49:1-7 and other scriptures because he will come in human form by being born to the virgin from the house of David and in him will be realized the blessings and promises given to Jacob/Israel.*
*Similarly, the Messiah Jesus is referred to as David in messianic prophecies because he is a fulfillment of the promises God made to King David.*
Jesus está vivo. Ele me salvou! Aleluia!
Aleluia, Queleu!
Shalom, Rob
Alleluia
paz y vida bendecida amigo(
Rabbi Tovia Singer can not understand any truth you share Professor Solberg, as he can not appreciate anything that is explained to him. His ears become deaf, his eyes are blinded to the merits of the true doctrine of Jesus Christ, and everyone who knows our Messiah Yeshua gets the distinct impression that this person's heart has indeed been sealed and that he is blind leading the blind. See Isaiah 29. We pray for our enemies, those who harm us in differing ways and we forgive them for their transgressions upon us.
In this whole 2 hour debate, one key event caught my attention. One thing that really set apart the true and the false between the two speakers:
one was humble and genuine enough to pray to God before speaking, while the other never even thought about it.
One demonstrated a relationship with God while the other thinks he has.
This is infact a great debate held between two gentleman.
I just wanted to say thank you Prof Solberg for agreeing to this debate. And for treating it with respect. Our Rabbi had nothing but good things to say about you when we met up in Dallas. I only wish perhaps in a future time you could discuss subjects like this without the timer. So many things that could've been said weren't. And it just seemed when you and our dear Rabbi were sitting and talking back and forth, more comparisons were made. Again thank you, and may Hashem bless you and your family.
Thank you, Yasmin! I agree, a lot was left unsaid. But I really enjoyed my time getting to know Rabbi Singer before and during the debate. Blessings, Rob
Yes, a lot was unsaid, but a lot was unanswered as well, and I am referring to rabbi tovia singer in the unanswered comment. He was prevented from distorting the Brit-Chadashah because God stopped him from bringing it up, leaving him in the Tanakh so that Yeshua could be shown in the Tanakh. By the way, using jokes is part of his tactic to draw people toward him, but being that he was stopped from discussing the Brit-Chadashah, he had to double up on his jokes. I am sorry to say this, but he appears to be very arrogant.
@Sundown Sam Well, actually I could have said the same about Prof. Solberg who used just as much humor and his own methods of distracted distortion to present his case. That's how debate works. If that's a problem for you they were both guilty of doing it. I could argue that Prof. Solberg intentionally consumed most of the Rabbi's time so he didn't get to ask more than one question. Was that fair? Yes, because a debate is like having a theological battle. Singer imho was too nice and allowed the Prof to have more time when he should've reminded them earlier that the Prof. time for asking questions was up.
I'm assuming you saw the entire video, so do you recall what Prof. Solberg said about owning both of Rabbi Singer's books? That means that Solberg knows exactly what Rabbi Singer's response to a couple points would've been, so why would the Rabbi waste words on something that would've eaten up probably 10 minutes of the debate time? I would've done the same thing and picked what I felt was the more pertinent things to mention while ignoring the things I didn't see as important.
That's why I think it would be really informative to have an untimed discussion between the Rabbi and the Prof, where there isn't a timer so they could have a more relaxed, round table sort of discussion. The only problem is that might take days to do so there would have to be some sort of cut off, but it would still be good imho.
You didn't bring up what you thought was an unanswered comment, so I'm not sure we're looking at the same things, but from my perspective, the unanswered comments are actually answered in Rabbi Singer's book vol 1 of Let's Get Biblical.
Not that I am defending rob because I do have problems with his views on some issues, but rob did not use jokes to shy away from responding to questions. That is not the way debates should be, but it appears they try to work it that way to avoid responding, and this is the tactic Rabbi Tovia Singer appears to be using in all of his debates. Yes, I have a problem with that because it appears that jokes are used as camouflage to avoid responding to questions. The reason rabbi tovia singer was too nice was because he was stopped from bringing up the Brit-Chadashah and that is what he is good at distorting. Not to mention, he was caught off guard; he probably rob to be that prepared.
About rob picking up two of rabbi tovia singer's books shows that he entered the debate prepared and there is nothing wrong with that.
I do agree with you on the debates. In the future, there should be a moderator to make sure a question is responded to before asking another question or changing topics.
@Sundown Sam There was a moderator. It was the person who introduced them.
As for Singer's jokes, what can I say. I don't read minds, but I don't see them as a means to avoid answering questions. Jews and humor are like peas in a pod. When the world is worrying about life, we're joking about it and finding ways to make it easier until things get better.
If you want to see them as a bad thing, that's your choice. I feel sorry for someone who hates humor yeesh, life must be really tense for you.
Did I say there was anything wrong with Solberg's buying a copy of Singer's books? However if he really did read them, why did he ask a simple question when the answer is already in the book? What would be the point to ask questions you already know the answer to? Unless it was intended to stall and divert attention from the real topic. I'll have to watch the video again I guess.
Nothing stopped Singer from bringing up anything about the supposed Brit-Chadashah as you call it. It didn't have anything to do with the topic.
Btw, are you talking about the ברית חדשׁה (barit Chadash) mentioned in Jeremiah 31:31? I think you put an extra -ah on it. Just thought you'd like to know. And that's talking about the covenant God will make with the house of Israel and the house of Judah. Which Singer has talked about several times, but again it had nothing to do with the topic they were discussing.
And in case you'd like to know read the verse. The text says that the days come (that means in the future), says Hashem, that I will make a new covenant (brit hadash) with the house of Israel and the house of Judah; (this is one half of the entire statement btw, not the whole thing).
Who was the house of Israel and who was the house of Judah? The house of Israel as it's mentioned several times in the bible, was what the northern kingdom was called. It consisted of 10 tribes, who went off the path as we call it and started picking up the practices from the pagan nations around them. Their wickedness grew worse and worse, so God sent them into exile.
BUT Jeremiah prophesied that the lost kingdom which consisted of most of the 10 tribes will be returned in the end days. Further instead of two kingdoms God will unite them with Judah. Which will be one kingdom as it was in the beginning.
So to know if there is a new covenant yet between the house of Israel and the house of Judah, we first have to ask is have the 10 tribes returned to the land of Israel? That answer is no. So there is no new covenant yet. I won't confuse you with the facts of what the new covenant is, but read Jeremiah 31:31-34. Or the whole chapter if you like.
Anyway, the subject of the debate was about whether Jesus was the promised Jewish messiah. Not whether God made a new covenant or not. Hope that helps you understand why the Rabbi probably chose to stay on topic instead of going off on a side subject.
43:53 When Rabbi Singer highlights 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 highlighting "in accordance with the Scriptures" it is important to note that Paul is talking about many Scriptures. In General, the claim is that there are many Scriptures/ the entire OT that testify of Jesus. In Specific, since it is unspokenly requested, here are Scriptures pertaining to 1 Corinthians 15:3-4: Psalm 16:10; Isaiah 53:10. The claim of Jesus is that if you truly knew the Scriptures, you'd recognize Him, and therefore know the Father they claim to worship. It's all about Jesus.
I just watched the debate a second time. I love your energy Rob. During the cross-examination you could see and feel your focus, you did your homework and were prepared. Amazing, it carried over into your closing argument. I didn't want your time to end. Here we are still after over 2,000 yrs talking about a back woods Rabbi, awesome , loved you phrased it that way. Not what you said exactly but true to the point you were making. Again as I've said before your desire and love for the Truth is evident. I'm inspired to be better in my pursuit of Truth in my studies of scripture and also witnessing. God Bless 🙏
Thank you, David! I really appreciate your kinds words. Blessings, Rob
@Mich Ebb I doubt there are any Jewish people who would claim to be God, or to say that they are atoning, a ransom, for the sins of anyone.
You had my heart at the opening prayer psalm 25 🙏🙌 i pray that all the time
Someday everyone will know that Jesus and the Father are one.
Professor Solberg was so humble, and kind …he’s a great representative for what Jesus teaches us to be. Not to mention he spoke the truth and was able to back up what he was saying. The rabbi did not seem to show Christians the same love and kindness though, but rather mocked Christian’s and he behaved very smug IMO and like he thinks he’s better. Plus he deflected questions being asked of him and made accusations without backing them up. He also left out the word “and” from Isaiah 44:1….
1Yet now hear, O Jacob my servant; and Israel, whom I have chosen:
It’s really important not to add or take away words, since it then changes the meaning.
Singer is one of the best for saying so much while saying absolutely nothing!
right! he rarely hit any point that prof made he just rejected them or reworded them
He seriously is recycling jokes and rebuttals from other debates I’ve seen. I’ve not finished yet, but he’s yet to answer the objections put before him.
😂🎯
No. He clearly rebutted them. Give me one point he didn't address, and I'll tell you, concisely, bis rebuttal
@@davidgrossman7965 He literally dodged everything he said. He's a false teacher and gets called out for it by multiple scholars and Rabbis
This was a great and civil discussion. I have been greatly blessed by the dialogue here, from both Singer & Solberg.
I am a Torah-observant follower of Messiah, drawn to observe Solberg's work to test my own faith, convictions, and actions. I think it is beautiful when we can come together as beloved followers of the Most High El of Abraham, Isaac, & Jacob.
Rob, Thank you for your patience in debating with people who close their bible at the end of Malachi and proudly choose to remain in darkness. In contrast, in great humility, Jesus showed He was truly the light of the world. I think the fact that Rabbi Tovia Singer refuses any future debate with Dr Michael Brown speaks volumes...
Mr. Tovia Singer if the servant in Isai 53 is the nation Israel as you claim
Question
1. V8 - "for the transgression of my people was he stricken", if "my people" here refers to Israel, God's people, then who is the"he" (The servant) that is stricken?
2. V9- If the "he" mentioned here is Israel as you claim, has the nation Israel not done violence and deceit? The Tanakh is full of Israel's violence and deceit.
3. V10 - How can the soul of sinful Israel be accepted by God as sin offering?
4. V11 - If the servant is Israel, whose iniquities does israel bear?
5. V12 - How did the nation Israel make intersession for the transgressors?
Great questions!!! I bet he's to scared to even try answering. He'll make lame jokes, mock Christianity and cry about Christians reading books regardless if we actuality read or bring them up which... Who cares? Then laugh and blab on about unrelated topics. I really wanted him to give an answer for Isaiah 53 at least, but he couldn't give an answer.
He's all over the place and the status of the debate for Singer... is directly proportional to the state of his soul.
😧👎LOST.
Isiah 49 you can see two servants there ISRAEL and the One who rescues ISRAEL which it the suffering sevant❤
The verse is Hebrew doesn’t say he was stricken. It says they were stricken
@@melantheoszimurri9981 What about my other questions??
Hi those are great questions!
I do have answers and you can let me know what you think if you want to.
Answer 1: Isaiah 43:10 states “You are my witnesses,” declares the Lord, “and my servant whom I have chosen, that you may know and believe me and understand that I am he. Before me no god was formed, nor shall there be any after me” Here we see that the singular term “servant” is actually comprised of multiple “witnesses” in the plural. And we can find multiple places in Isaiah where it clearly states the servant is Israel.
Answer 2: It’s not talking about the nation of Israel as a whole of which one can point out people whom have indeed engaged in deceit and violence but instead is talking about the righteous remnant of Israel as described in Isaiah 10:20.
Answer 3: Is addressed by answer 2
Answer 4:We must ask who is speaking in Isaiah 53? Luckily Isaiah 52:15 tells us “Just so he shall startle many nations.
Kings shall be silenced because of him,
For they shall see what has not been told them,
Shall behold what they never have heard.” Followed by Isaiah 53:1 “Who can believe what we have heard? Upon whom has the arm of GOD been revealed?” We see it is the Gentile kings of the world who are speaking ( the chapter breaks are artificial Isaiah was written as one long chapterless scroll before chapter breaks were introduced) regarding the servant/witnesses which are the righteous remnant of Israel bearing their (the gentile kings) iniquities.
Answer 5: The extreme suffering and persecution of the Jewish people in many instances inspired many people to question what the Jewish religion is about and brought many people to believe in God and morality meaning it doesn’t mean a person is forgiven for sins he committed because Jewish people suffered but rather the Jewish people bearing the suffering of persecution brought many people out of iniquity to repentance.
Hope your doing well,
Respectfully
The almighty rabbi Singer did not look so mighty after this debate you can see several tactics have been exposed. great work prof. Solberg hurray
Thanks, Samantha!
Says the christians thieves.
loving the debate so far what verse in ruth rabba 5 shows the messiah coming a second time brother Solberg?
I hope the rabbi comes to know that Jesus loves him
Who??
44:00 That passage is not there because it was removed by the jews soon after the resurrection. Justin Martyr outlined this in his dialogue with Trypho. They tried to scrub the Torah of messianic passages that pointed to Jesus. They did a pretty good job of it too, but you can see many of the edits in the Septuagent and they couldn't scrub an entire chapter so they're stuck avoiding or re-interpretting Isaiah 53 for all the reasons Solberg brought up in his opening.
This was a very interesting debate indeed. The one thing that was a bit irritating, is that Rabbi Singer tried to ignore the elephant in the room, namely the fact that his interpretation of the scriptures are not necessarily the same as quite a few of the Jewish Rabbis in ancient times' were (specifically referring to the interpretation of Isaiah 53). Rabbi Singer claimed that we should ONLY consult the scriptures, and forget about how ancient Rabbis interpreted Isaiah 53. If this is truly the way, why does Rabbinic Judaism, insist that Jewish people NEVER read the Tanakh without Rabbinical (men's) interpretation? Other than this obvious hypocrisy, I have to thank both parties for being respectful and mostly kind towards each other.
Even if there was a non-rabbinical reading of the Bible, it wouldn't in any way coincide with the Christian misinterpretation of literal Hebrew words.
Rabbi Singer avoids answering direct questions. Why would anyone want to debate/ discuss anything with such a person.
Changing Rabbi Singer's mind was actually my fourth priority, Samuel. The top priority was sharing the Gospel of Jesus with tens of thousands of people in a way they may never have heard before, showing how it is completely connected to (and grounded in) the Tanakh. The second priority was to present a compelling biblical and intellectual case for the Messiahship of Jesus to the listeners. The third priority was to "put a pebble in the shoe" of skeptical listeners who _thought_ they knew who this Jesus character was; I wanted to leave them with a nugget or two to chew on. The distant fourth priority was convincing Rabbi Singer. But I do still pray for his eyes to be opened to his Messiah!
Shalom, Rob
@@TheBiblicalRoots I appreciate your work, to God be the glory!
I say this in kindness and a loving tone which I don't want misunderstood by being in text, but... I was unsettled in the spirit when you prayed for God to bless him and gave promotion of his books. Why pray for God to bless and increase the wolves actively devouring the flock?
Kindness, love your neighbor, honorable debate, respect... Yup absolutely, but don't wonder why your flock is dwindling or you find them slaughtered about, when your blessing the wolves with food and their packs increase and circle about.
I just couldn't stop this vision pressed upon me each time this happened.
Still, this was the best debate I've seen with him, he's nearly unbearable to watch but I really learned a lot from you. He really didn't answer anything though. Great job! You definitely won the debate though I know it didn't matter either way. I'm just claiming it for Jesus! 😆👍💯
I don't know why these debates even happen. There is just not enough time to saturate in explanation any one subject that arises in a debate like this. A discussion of such importance should be done in a radio show or podcast, with episodes numbering in the hundreds if not thousands.
Really nice to see this God Bless 🕊🤍💛
Oh my goodness!!! Absolutely loved this. It was dripping with scripture and I’m with you RL, I learned a lot. If this debate was another 2 hours I would’ve listened. He definitely knows his scripture but he has to deny a lot to say the Old Testament doesn’t point to Christ as our savior. You did awesome!
Mormons also make the Jewish scriptures point to Joseph Smith. This doesn't prove Jesus as the Messiah, anymore than it proves Joseph Smith a prophet.
@@waitstill7091 your argument is self defeating. You are assuming that Jesus isn’t the messiah.
@@truediscussionmedia1481 Christians draw their conclusions about Jesus from their Christian scripures, like Mormons do from their scriptures.(BOM) Jews reject Jesus because they draw their conclusions from the Hebrew scriptures.
@@waitstill7091 so because the Jews reject Jesus as the Messiah, then the New Testament is false? By what standard do you know the Jews are correct?
@@truediscussionmedia1481 The Hebrew bible is clear about the role of the Messiah. 1)Jews reunification 2)The Temple rebuilt 3)World Peace, etc. The Christian scriptures make the claim Jesus was the Messiah without him having actually fulfilled the role.
A professor trying to tell a Rabbi he doesn’t understand his Tanakh is mind blowing. You can tell the Rabbi is so passionate speaking about the book his ancestors preserved through thousands of years. Meanwhile the professor is trying to fit a Catholic book into the Hebrew Scriptures
Good to see that someone here is intelligent. ❤
Gospels were written much earlier and when Paul said according to Scripture, he referred to the gospels. We have internal evidences to prove Gospels especially Matthew and Mark were written earlier. So Paul could quote …according to the scripture
Can anybody clarify what Prof Silberg meant at 1:38:20, that tribal affiliation being transmitted by maternal line?
He says through adoption.
According to the Bible if your Jewish is determined by your mother, the tribe is determined by the father.
Hello Mr. Max! Tribal affiliation can be transferred through levirate marriage, which is when the brother of a deceased man was obligated to marry the widow and produce a child for his deceased brother. The Torah requires that the firstborn child of the levirate marriage should be counted in the genealogy of the man who died childless (Deut 25:5-6). Blessings, Rob
@@TheBiblicalRoots two brothers have the same Tribe affilation via their father...weak argument.
@Mich Ebb Truth. Leviticus 24 verse 10, A Jew who had a Israelite mother but a egyptian father, and it calls him "the son of the israelite woman" who fought with "the israelite man" ie: a jew whom both parents were Jewish. This son of the egyptian man, was still Jewish, because his mother was Jewish, however he was not called an "Israelite" because his father wasn't jewish and hence had no tribal affiliation, rather only "the son of the israelite woman".
@@TheBiblicalRoots If I’m not mistaken, taken your brothers widow in yebum is only possible through paternal brothers, so this wouldnt hold.
What makes you say Caleb/Zerubabel specifically earned their tribal affiliations any other way than through their fathers?
Rob my family appreciates you and we’re praying for you man. Thank you
Thank you, Mason! Shalom, Rob
@@TheBiblicalRoots You were embarrassing, to say the least. Stop kidding yourself.
Greg Mcbride and Rabbi Singer said Paul distorted or mistranslated the Hebrew Bible or tanakh. Both used Rom 11:26 and Isa 59:20 to show the differences between the verses to prove their points.
Rom 11:26 *As it is written* : "The Deliverer will come out of Zion, and He will turn away ungodliness from Jacob"
Isa 59:20 "The redeemer will come to Zion, and to those who turn from transgression in Jacob" say the Lord
Sadly, both thought that the meaning of *As it is written* means that somewhere in the Tanakh there is a verse exactly or near exactly the same as Rom 11:26. They found Paul was quoting Isa 59:20. Since Paul did not say exactly what Isa 59:20 says they said Paul was corrupting Isa 59:20.
Lets's look at
Lev 23:40-43 “And you shall take for yourselves on the first day the fruit of beautiful trees, branches of palm trees, the boughs of leafy trees, and willows of the brook; and you shall rejoice before the LORD your God for seven days. 41 You shall keep it as a feast to the LORD for seven days in the year. It shall be a statute forever in your generations. You shall celebrate it in the seventh month. 42 You shall dwell in booths for seven days. All who are native Israelites shall dwell in booths, "
Nehemiah was quoting Lev 23:40-43 in
Neh 8:15 ““....And that they should announce and proclaim in all their cities and in Jerusalem, saying, "Go out to the mountain and bring olive leaves and leaves of oil trees, myrtle leaves, date palm leaves, and leaves of plaited trees, to make booths, *As it is written* ."
How come there is no olive leaves and myrtle leaves in Lev 23? Nehemiah says "Date palm leaves" whereas Moses was talking about branches of palm trees. Moses did NOT say to make booth (which Nehemiah says) from these leaves and branches but for keeping them as a feast.
Although Nehemiah says *As it is written* , he didn't say exactly what Lev 23:40-43 say. Why do Greg Mcbride and Rabbi Singer expected Paul to say exactly what Isa 59:20 says? This is a scam.
I get Singers aversion to the resurrection as a starting point, but isn't the evidence for the resurrection similar to the flood which he affirms? And he seemed to dismiss the resurrection as democracy and yet would affirm Jewish tradition by the same.
Wow I love you calmness that’s only from the Holy Spirit !
Rabbi Tova has heard many debate but he still blind not only is he blind but angry too!
At 44 minutes mr singer says Paul made up verses. Paul makes the claim to have received revelation from the risen Jesus. Jesus said the only sign that would be given is the sign of Jonah. We know from the scriptures that Jonah was in the belly of the fish for 3 days. We know from the gospels that Jesus was in the heart of the earth for 3 days. This is the connection paul and was making 🙏❤️
3 days and 3 nights......Jeseus was not in the heart of the earth for 3 nights
@@beng7431 if you read the story of Jonah you read that Jonah says “I cried out of the belly of hell”. Just as Jesus died on the cross Jonah died in the belly of the fish. This is the connection Jesus made with Jonah.
Sorry but Its doesnt prove nothin
There are not. many Christian scholars who would agree to a public debate with Rabbi Singer. It was amazing to see how he can quote from the entire bible without any notes in English and Hebrew. I have watched his live broadcasts on his Facebook Chanel and I always learn so much. Thank you both for being so respectful.
There are many who would have no problem debating rabbi tovia singer, and the majority of them probably would not be scholars. You appear to think that one needs to have a biblical degree to debate rabbi tovia singer. Another thing is that the Holy Spirit is the one who teaches according to what God made clear when he first spoke, and he is the one who gives us scriptural understanding of the truth of God's word.
With the above being said, how should one debate rabbi tovia singer? Make sure he does not reference the Talmuh, and being that he does not believe Yeshua is the Messiah, one needs to stop him from bringing up the Brit-Chadashah. Just stay on the Tanalk. Yeshua will be seen from the Tanakh, and God will bring them to the Brit-chadashah.
Michael Brown wants to debate him again and well as rabbi Eduardo and many others
@@ThePreacherman9 brown is known for attacking his opponents personally that’s why tovia isn’t interested in wasting time talking to him
more like Brown slaughtered Tovia so badly that Tovia refused to air the debate for a long time. Brown only engages in personal attacks against Tovia because time and time again the Rabbi has used scriptures deceptively to captivate a misunderstood audience. there are many times he rips a verse out of context or makes up his own translation and changes the meaning.@@Ancient-theology
To be fair, singer avoids debating messianic Jews.
Something I noted: Rabbi Singer never really answers any of the questions that Solberg asks. I was looking forward to his explanations as to why he disbelieves Jesus, the resurrection, and the NT writers and validity of the entire NT. I watched the entire video....Rabbi skillfully skirted those Jesus questions that Solberg kept asking him throughout the entire debate. And even at the very end...Solberg respectfully asks him to please address at least one Jesus-question in the Rabbi's closing argument. Crickets. (Sly fox.)
The Rabbi failed to read Hosea 6:2 when stating that Paul’s comment in 1 Corinthians 15 was invented. Also Isaiah 53 states that Messiah would die for our sins. Paul did reference scripture correctly, Yeshua is the Messiah Amen.
Apostle Paul did he know about the Matthew and Luke genealogies that were written?
Singer is not willing to understand double prophecy. He can only see how the "plain meaning" of Isa 7:15-"before the boy knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, the land of the two kings you dread will be laid waste" - meaning that Isaiah believes the child he has just described (v. 14) will be born within his lifetime, as a harbinger of the destruction (by Assyria!) of kings Rezin of Aram and Pekah of Remaliah (7:1). The language of 8:3 echoes that of 7:14 as Isaiah goes in to the prophetess and she conceives and gives birth to a son. It is no longer controversial to observe that the ‘almah of 7:14 simply refers to a young woman of marriageable age, without settling the question of her virginity. Thus it seems most likely that the child of 7:14 is Isaiah's son, Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz. Isaiah 8:4 reinforces this equation, with language carefully reminiscent of 7:15-"Before the boy knows how to say ‘My father' or ‘My mother,' the wealth of Damascus and the plunder of Samaria will be carried off by the king of Assyria." Only now Israel is explicitly included among Assyria's victims. However what Singer doesn't understand is that at the same time, 7:14 refers to the enigmatic child as Immanuel, "God with us," the name that recurs in 8:8 and 10. This name likewise links the child with Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz but also points forward to a more distant time when the plans of Israel's enemies will be thwarted (8:9-10). This "bifocal vision" prepares the reader for 9:1-7, which is all about restoration after the punishment begun by Assyria. In this context appear the words musically immortalized by Handel, "For to us a child is born, to us a son is given" (9:6a). Against the current critical consensus it is difficult to identify this son, who is an heir to David's throne, "Mighty God," "Everlasting Father," "Prince of Peace," and governing eternally (9:6b-7), with anyone other than Israel's royal Messiah, and we ought not be surprised to learn that that is precisely how the post-Christian Jewish Targum understood it. While dating traditions in the Isaiah Targum proves notoriously difficult, it does seem unlikely that any Scripture would first be taken as messianic in any Jewish context aware of Christian claims for that text. We do not know why the translators of the LXX chose parthenos-a term that does imply sexual virginity-to render ‘almah, but it seems reasonable to assume that part of the reason was that they too recognized Immanuel was no ordinary child whose fulfillment was exhausted in the life of Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz. Certainly no figures in between Isaiah's day and Jesus' birth even remotely qualify for this child who is a sign of divine presence; hence it seems appropriate to use the expression, "double fulfillment." Isaiah recognized that his son would be a sign and symbol (8:18), both of God's activity in his day and of the ultimate child who would comprehensively fulfill the Immanuel promises of chaps. 7-9.
It's this double prophecy we also see in Isaiah and despite it also talks of Israel as a nation the double prophecy in 53 brings us to the messiah, as if you study Isaiah 53 in its full context you must raise the question how all of the content can possibly apply to Israel or did Israel ever be righteous or die for the sins of Israel etc?
Great job Dr Solberg! God bless you!
Finaly.. a good debate with Tovia Singer
We shall seek the Lord with our heart and Hewill reveal himself to us. The Lord says the human knowledge is foolishness to God.❤
He was on the ropes in the first part of the open dialog but… he talked around.
Who?
@@wakehimup4eva778 rabbi was on the ropes but kinda changed the direction. RL hit him with a few zingers.
According to what Tovia said @ 36:15. Here it is: Isaiah 53:8 He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken. 9 And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth. - There you go Tovia, see you in Church : )
Soldier of Christ 💪🏻
This was a great debate. The comments here are very respectable to both. The comments on Singers channel, not so much.
Thank you for praying. I’m always a little taken aback when men of God don’t pray publicly prior. It just feels right.
Thank god for professional rls❤
Rabbi Singer is a fulfillment of Isaiah 6:10
If you want to know how Jesus Christ connects to God read Colossians 1 from verse 15. Why do debaters not mention this Scripture.
I’m not a Christian anymore but I really enjoyed your debate with Tovia. Both of you guys were well equipped and very educated on the subjects at hand, but in contrast to his previous debates you were quite formidable, so kudos to you on that.
Thank you, Mikhael. Blessings, Rob
@5:20 Mr. Solberg, I won't hold you being a Gentile against you, but I will hold it against you if you think Mr. Singer is not a Gentile. The "Jewish" are not Jews, as explained below. They are mere "Jewish" Gentiles because they have no patrilineal registry. (See Ezra 2:62)
@hesedkenrecovery
Exodus 2:24
- Ruhama Avraham, Avishai Abrahami, Roman Abramovich, Henry Abramson, Dan Abrams
- Rabbi Amnon Yitzhak, Dalia Itzik, Shahar Isaac, Jason Isaacs, Barak Yitzhaki, Rabbi Shimon Isaacson, Yoav Yizchak
- Rabbi YY Jacobson, Gad Yaacobi, Simcha Jacobovici, Rabbi Binyomin Jacobs, Omer Benjakob
1 Chronicles 2:1-2
- Rami Levy, Steve Cohen, Gershon HaCohen, Ellie Cohanim, Yariv Levin, Adam Levine, Chaim Levinson, Batya Levinthal, Tsahi HaLevi, Steven Levitan
- Gal Gadot, Yosef Ba Gad, Josh Gad
- Rabbi Yaron Reuven, Milton Rubenfeld, David Rubenstein, Simon Reuben, David Reuben, Kevin Rubin
- Danny Danon, Yohanan Danino, Yaakov Zada Daniel, Yuval Dayan
- Haim Ben-Asher, Ya’akov Asher
- Hananya Naftali, Ori Naftaly
- Joe Zevuloni, Itay Zvulun
- Rabbi Shlomo Yehuda, Monte Judah, Eliezer Ben Yehuda
- Yafit Josephson, Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, Tomer Yosefi, Oded Menashe, Molly Ephraim, Ari Ben Menashe, Mark Ifraimov, Allison Josephs
- Avi Issacharoff, Naama Issachar
- Paul Simon, Daniel Ben-Simon, Itamar Shimoni, Ran Ben Shimon, Kobi Shimony, Rabbi Moshe Shimonov
- Yoav Benjamini, Ben Binyamin, Yuhan Benjamin
Regions
- Guni Israeli, Benjamin Disraeli
- Raphael Jerusalemy, David Yerushalmi
- Naor Zion, Shloime Zionce (2 Samuel 5:7)
- May Golan (1 Chronicles 6:71)
- Yitzhak Shamir (Judges 10:1)
- Ariel Sharon (1 Chronicles 27:29)
- Omer Adam (Joshua 3:16)
- Ofri Arad (Judges 1:16)
- Izhar Ashdot (1 Samuel 5:1)
- Maya Maron, Hanna Meron (Nehemiah 3:7)
- Nathan Goshen (Genesis 46:28)
- Moshe Sinai (Exodus 19:1)
- Shai Efrati (Genesis 35:16)
- Noam Arnon (Numbers 21:24)
- Rami Jaffee, Rabbi Dov Yaffe (Jonah 1:3)
- Yosef Shiloach (Isaiah 8:6)
- Mati Shoshani, Rabbi Duvi Bensoussan (Esther 1:2)
- Noa Tishby (1 Kings 17:1)
- Mordechai Kedar (Psalm 120:5)
- Dudi Sela (Judges 1:36)
- Aviv Alush (Numbers 33:13-14)
- Yoni Eilat (2 Chronicles 26:2)
- Gur Megiddo (Judges 5:19)
The reason the Messiah is Israel and can represent Israel is because He is the King of Israel! It's why monarchs can speak with the "royal we." Peter Gentry has a number of pertinent points in Isaiah that would help in this debate.
Israel is a man (Jacob). Israel is land. Israel is a people. Israel is a remnant. Israel is the Messiah. The word Israel is applied in so many unique ways, the fact any Jew would argue that the Messiah is not truly "Israel" is so bizarre.
"Messiah" appears to be used generically in the OT as "apostle" is in the NT.
Hi, Jon. Yes, the term _mashiach_ simply means "anointed one." It's used to describe multiple figures in the OT, including the Gentile king Cyrus for conquering Babylon and liberating the Jews from captivity.
RLS
Keep it up, brother, I've watched a few minutes and I can tell you that debating is not the easiest task out there but I see you prepared well and put forth some good arguments so far, I have to watch the whole thing still. I think as a whole we as followers of the Jewish Messiah, have a task to prepare ourselves diligently so that we can understand how the blessed people of Israel thinks, and to be able to understand their counter arguments and be able to put forth a Biblical answer for the faith that we profess and believe is theirs also in Messiah Yeshua, may the Lord of Hosts bless them and may He let His face shine upon them. God bless!
People struggling in darkness will go toward a light if there is one available. If you have one, prop it up
@@tbishop4961 He is the light of the world so may we make His name known 🙏
Yes its not easy with orthodox but Jesus is the saviour zech 9 9 Ephesians 2 8 For By grace are ye saved through faith and that not of yourselves it is the gift of Gd not of works lest any should boast.
@@tbishop4961 Trash. You’ve resorted to deleting comments when challenged. You should keep quiet.
@@Christo-pv7eb I can't delete your comments dude🤦♂️. You're way too angry to be trolling youtube comments
CS Lewis also dealt with the legend. CS Lewis more or less said he had read about legends and said the gospels have never read as legend but as fact. He could tell the difference between 2 types of story. The other issue is even most secular scholars believe Jesus existed.
_Solbergs KO's_
On the basis for the resurrection of Jesus, Acts 2:27 was a midrash of Psalm 16:10.
You did well, good debate!
I don't think so
Why?
@@Viral_Christology😂😂😂😂😂😂
Looks like Solberg was trying to flatter Tovia to death.
Not exactly a winning strategy.
The letters of Paul don't mention them at all either
It is worth to notice that it’s hard to convince a Jew that Jesus is the messiah without evidence outside the Tanakh and Prof. Solberg does a very good job at giving evidence within and outside Tanakh. But if ones reject evidence outside Tanakh, then it is indeed hard to convince them that Jesus is the messiah.
However it doesn’t mean we must strictly reject all evidence outside Tanakh! God give us mind to discern and we indeed can discern things is true or not even if its not written in the Tanakh. That’s what’s scholarship is all about and I can see why Prof. Solberg plea for us to look it from scholarship points of view, because scholarship doesn’t have to disagree with Tanakh, but Rabi Tovia acted as if scholarship is always against Tanakh.
Let’s pray so that God lead us all to his truth, both from His living words of scripture and also from out ability to discern. Peace for yall!
For Prof. Solberg: maybe you can maneuver your argument so someone can agree that scholarship doesn’t have to disagree with Tanakh? I think if there is a group of people who can make this maneuver, you are definitely one of them. Because I agree with Rabi Tovia that faith is not democracy and about headcount, on which christians and their magnitude really doesn’t appeal even for me, but credibility of scholarship is not the same with democracy on number (in my view) but Rabi Tovia clearly don’t think the same. How can we convice him, then? I have no idea…. I am looking up on you!
Thats the problem. Some see evidence of Jesus in the OT and some dont. Some see reincarnation in the bible and some dont. Knowing their is a case for Jesus. The best was to determine if he is the messiah is to simply put the book down and listen to what the world declares. No higher name than Jesus and no other name has been spoken of more by atheists buddhists hindus etc in regards to having visions in NDEs or OBEs of going into the light.
Truth is found in the spiritual revelations always.
@@Yes-fe8ni Listening yo the world is a horrible way. God even warns of this. Be not like the nations around you, and talks about all the abominations they commit. Calling on the name of the LORD comes from Joel 2: 32 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the LORD shall be delivered: The name is Gods name (Tetragrammaton) not Jesus. You can’t take that out and replace it with Jesus.
Isaiah 45:23 again the LORD(Tetragrammaton) speaking That unto me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear.
The New Testament again takes Gods name out and replaces it with Jesus. You can’t do this.
@@Christo-pv7eb i agree with you we shouldn’t follow the way of the world but it doesn’t mean we completely close our ear to listen for what people has to say.
we first listen and then discern, then check it in light of teaching of Tanakh…
now, most scholar agree that embarrassment of Jesus witnesses being woman is a evidence that these story is not just fabricated, but Rabi Tovia dodged it with story of Jezebel by implying that woman can become a witness to sth wrong, which is completely different case because Jezebel literally is the queen and we all know the only person more powerful than the King is The Queen (which is one of implicit message of the story)
and the case with jesus witness is they are lowly woman, relative of and associated to an executed criminal, on which making a witness is not giving them any gain at all… this is the basis of resurrection of Jesus and we must have an open mind thinking that they are at least sincere
then we check their sincerity and their story in light of Tanakh to see whether this is the truth or not.
Now, I’m not saying that I agree with all current christology, but if we just open our heart a little with a discerning mind, the possibility of Jesus being the promised messiah is not far fetched fabricated story as most Rabi will frame it…
@@tekletgaming Why do Christian’s always do this “open mind” crap? Do you honestly think the rabbi hasn’t checked into these claims? He knows the whole Bible better than you or me. Do you know I spent years on this topic? Do you think that whole time I was just being stubborn and foolish?
Listen if there was a prophecy saying someone will die for your sins and the only way God will forgive you is if you believe in the death and resurrection then we’d believe it.
But the messiah is supposed to bring peace and worldwide knowledge of God. He’s supposed to fear God, not be worshipped as God.
@@Christo-pv7eb Because without the open mindedness, all debate will back to square one. What christian really want is for the Jews to cross check the fact themselves. Even if at the end you still reject Jesus after you cross check your fact, we are happy to see that! However, what most rabbi does is tell their follower to not even touch the new testament, don't read it, etc. If you spent your due diligence to research and check your faith, good for you and God will indeed give you your reward! Problem is people are often not even allowed to think, which is in itself is problematic at least for me. Again, my Jewish brother, I would be much more happy to hear you reject Jesus after you done your research, than just blindly following rabbi told you don't read this don't read that. That's the answer to your question why Christian beg for Jewish people open mindedness, because truth to be told, what is the only book is not accessible in the land of Israel? And why is that? Is it because all people agree upon it, or its just because the rabbi told them so?
You can see Rabi Tovia always dodge the thing if we going toward this direction and framing this kind of open-mindedness is dangerous. Well, it is dangerous I agree with that, especially from rabbinical perspective, and if it is indeed wrong, many people at risk to be lead astray. However, I think it is a fair price to pay if you want to get to the truth, and the Rabbi not letting people check by themselves (by dodging all these things) is something I don't agree with. Just give them the cautions, but do not do it in a misleading way!
There is no other documents on the face of the earth that the Rabbis really treat with hostility like the new testament... This fact on itself is something that we really need to examine, why is that? Isn't that intriguing?
The Resurrection of Christ on the old testament
Psalm 71:20
You who have made me see many troubles and calamities will revive me again; from the depths of the earth you will bring me up again.
Psalm 49:13-15
This is the path of those who have foolish confidence; yet after them people approve of their boasts. Like sheep they are appointed for Sheol; death shall be their shepherd, and the upright shall rule over them in the morning. Their form shall be consumed in Sheol, with no place to dwell. But God will ransom my soul from the power of Sheol, for he will receive me.
And after the sixty-two weeks, an anointed one shall be cut off and shall have nothing. And the people of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. Its end shall come with a flood, and to the end there shall be war. Desolations are decreed. Daniel 9:26
Psalm 16:8-11
I have set the LORD always before me; because he is at my right hand, I shall not be shaken. Therefore my heart is glad, and my whole being rejoices; my flesh also dwells secure. For you will not abandon my soul to Sheol [realm of the dead] or let your holy one see corruption. You make known to me the path of life; in your presence there is fullness of joy; at your right hand are pleasures forevermore.
Tovia wants to throw Proff. Segal under the bus by saying he was a liberal. but that has nothing to do with the evidence he presented. proff. Segal quoted Jewish sources which prove that jews of the first century did believe there was a second divine person. him being a liberal, or not believing in the inspiration of scripture doesn't change that. as long as Proff. Segal presented historical and rabbinic evidence to show the jews of the first century were not unitarians, that it. since Tovia cannot refute the fact that the first jews weren't unitarians he appeals to authority. which is a fallacy
Yeah, Tonia side stepped all those issues.
What is the Rabbi talking about? 🤔 Zachariah 9 goes all the way up to 9:17 we definitely have Zachariah 9:10
I've seen him pop up on social media thru the years and I watched several until I felt physically ill from the multitude of his blatent and horrendous lies about Christians, deceitfulness, psychological manipulation, arrogance, and gaslighting his followers. It's wretched.
He says in this debate, he used to hate Christians... Well I hope that's true, obviously, but I doubt the "used to" part.
He goes on saying we don't believe certain books and implies authors are lying... He lumps all Christians into his hateful slander that might be true for certain people claiming to be Christian but they don't testify for me and I'm offended by his continual lies and mockery.
Some of his group setting were the worst I saw. Lying about us, tons of false claims about what we believe and false claims saying we don't use certain texts or we change our texts, all kinds of blasphemy, and laughing at us, mocking Jesus, making strawman arguments and laughing... Everything's so funny to him.
I pray God gets him serious with open eyes, ears and heart of flesh not stone. That he repent and turn from his wicked ways and see truth. In Jesus name amen and amen
Yet. Tova didn't applied any Tanakj explanation of the Messiah , and many Jews accept Christ more and more , including me
Funny I see opposite for the last 30 years
I have many Chrisitan friends who ask tons of questions just because I'm a Jew.
most ask why I don't believe in messiah.
So, I always reply with the same thing. The messiah is not a divine being and will not die.
Then I show them in scripture.
Deuteronomy 13:6-8
King James Version
6 If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers.
7 Namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you, nigh unto thee, or far off from thee, from the one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth;
8 Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him:
I tell them as you can see here the warning not to follow other gods that your father did not know.
So when God reveled himself at Sinai jesus was not there.
he was very specific
Deuteronomy 4
12 And the Lrd spoke unto you out of the midst of the fire: you heard the voice of the words, but saw no image only heard a voice.
again, saw no image
16 Lest you corrupt yourselves, and make you a graven image, the image of any figure, the likeness of male or female
the likeness of anything
23 Take heed unto yourselves, lest you forget the covenant of the Lrd your Gd, which he made with you, and make you a graven image, or the likeness of anything, which the L_rd thy Gd hath forbidden you.
5 Unto thee it was shown, that thou mightest know that the Lrd he is Gd; there is none else beside him.
39 Know therefore this day, and consider it in thine heart, that the Lrd he is Gd in heaven above, and upon the earth beneath: there is none else
Hosea 13:4
4 Yet I am the Lord thy God from the land of Egypt, and thou shalt know no god but me: for there is no saviour beside me.
Joel 2:27
27 And ye shall know that I am in the midst of Israel, and that I am the Lord your God, and none else: and my people shall never be ashamed.
Isaiah 44:6
Thus said the LORD, the King of Israel,
Their Redeemer, the LORD of Hosts:
I am the first and I am the last,
And there is no God but Me.
Deuteronomy 4:35
35 Unto thee it was shewed, that thou mightest know that the Lord he is God; there is none else beside him.
Isaiah 48:12
12 Hearken unto me, O Jacob and Israel, my called; I am he; I am the first, I also am the last.
None else
one
Echad
they get and so do all the many people talked to becoming a Noachides
@@Pasture_Prime there is more than 144000 messianic Jews even wtihin Israel they tried to ban the Bible because many Jews converted , I can tell. My whole Family accepted Christ.. so I'm speaking about Facts and you?
דְמ֥וּ עַמִּ֖י מִבְּלִ֣י הַדָּ֑עַת כִּ֣י אַתָּ֞ה הַדַּ֣עַת מָאַ֗סְתָּ וְאֶמְאָֽסְךָ֙ (כתיב וְאֶמְאָֽסְאךָ֙) מִכַּהֵ֣ן לִ֔י וַתִּשְׁכַּח֙ תּוֹרַ֣ת אֱלֹהֶ֔יךָ אֶשְׁכַּ֥ח בָּנֶ֖יךָ גַּם־אָֽנִי:
@@Pasture_Prime don't speak google translate
@@TheBibleCode
אאֵ֣ת כָּל־הַדָּבָ֗ר אֲשֶׁ֤ר אָֽנֹכִי֙ מְצַוֶּ֣ה אֶתְכֶ֔ם אֹת֥וֹ תִשְׁמְר֖וּ לַֽעֲשׂ֑וֹת לֹֽא־תֹסֵ֣ף עָלָ֔יו וְלֹ֥א תִגְרַ֖ע מִמֶּֽנּוּ:
בכִּֽי־יָק֤וּם בְּקִרְבְּךָ֙ נָבִ֔יא א֖וֹ חֹלֵ֣ם חֲל֑וֹם וְנָתַ֥ן אֵלֶ֛יךָ א֖וֹת א֥וֹ מוֹפֵֽת:
גוּבָ֤א הָאוֹת֙ וְהַמּוֹפֵ֔ת אֲשֶׁר־דִּבֶּ֥ר אֵלֶ֖יךָ לֵאמֹ֑ר נֵֽלְכָ֞ה אַֽחֲרֵ֨י אֱלֹהִ֧ים אֲחֵרִ֛ים אֲשֶׁ֥ר לֹֽא־יְדַעְתָּ֖ם וְנָֽעָבְדֵֽם:
דלֹ֣א תִשְׁמַ֗ע אֶל־דִּבְרֵי֙ הַנָּבִ֣יא הַה֔וּא א֛וֹ אֶל־חוֹלֵ֥ם הַֽחֲל֖וֹם הַה֑וּא כִּ֣י מְנַסֶּ֞ה יְהֹוָ֤ה אֱלֹֽהֵיכֶם֙ אֶתְכֶ֔ם לָדַ֗עַת הֲיִשְׁכֶ֤ם אֹֽהֲבִים֙ אֶת־יְהֹוָ֣ה אֱלֹֽהֵיכֶ֔ם בְּכָל־לְבַבְכֶ֖ם וּבְכָל־נַפְשְׁכֶֽם:
האַֽחֲרֵ֨י יְהֹוָ֧ה אֱלֹֽהֵיכֶ֛ם תֵּלֵ֖כוּ וְאֹת֣וֹ תִירָ֑אוּ וְאֶת־מִצְוֹתָ֤יו תִּשְׁמֹ֨רוּ֙ וּבְקֹל֣וֹ תִשְׁמָ֔עוּ וְאֹת֥וֹ תַֽעֲבֹ֖דוּ וּב֥וֹ תִדְבָּקֽוּן:
ווְהַנָּבִ֣יא הַה֡וּא א֣וֹ חֹלֵם֩ הַֽחֲל֨וֹם הַה֜וּא יוּמָ֗ת כִּ֣י דִבֶּר־סָ֠רָ֠ה עַל־יְהֹוָ֨ה אֱלֹֽהֵיכֶ֜ם הַמּוֹצִ֥יא אֶתְכֶ֣ם | מֵאֶ֣רֶץ מִצְרַ֗יִם וְהַפֹּֽדְךָ֙ מִבֵּ֣ית עֲבָדִ֔ים לְהַדִּֽיחֲךָ֙ מִן־הַדֶּ֔רֶךְ אֲשֶׁ֧ר צִוְּךָ֛ יְהֹוָ֥ה אֱלֹהֶ֖יךָ לָלֶ֣כֶת בָּ֑הּ וּבִֽעַרְתָּ֥ הָרָ֖ע מִקִּרְבֶּֽךָ:
זכִּ֣י יְסִֽיתְךָ֡ אָחִ֣יךָ בֶן־אִ֠מֶּ֠ךָ אֽוֹ־בִנְךָ֨ אֽוֹ־בִתְּךָ֜ א֣וֹ | אֵ֣שֶׁת חֵיקֶ֗ךָ א֧וֹ רֵֽעֲךָ֛ אֲשֶׁ֥ר כְּנַפְשְׁךָ֖ בַּסֵּ֣תֶר לֵאמֹ֑ר נֵֽלְכָ֗ה וְנַֽעַבְדָה֙ אֱלֹהִ֣ים אֲחֵרִ֔ים אֲשֶׁר֙ לֹ֣א יָדַ֔עְתָּ אַתָּ֖ה וַֽאֲבֹתֶֽיךָ:
חמֵֽאֱלֹהֵ֣י הָֽעַמִּ֗ים אֲשֶׁר֙ סְבִיבֹ֣תֵיכֶ֔ם הַקְּרֹבִ֣ים אֵלֶ֔יךָ א֖וֹ הָֽרְחֹקִ֣ים מִמֶּ֑ךָּ מִקְצֵ֥ה הָאָ֖רֶץ וְעַד־קְצֵ֥ה הָאָֽרֶץ:
טלֹֽא־תֹאבֶ֣ה ל֔וֹ וְלֹ֥א תִשְׁמַ֖ע אֵלָ֑יו וְלֹֽא־תָח֤וֹס עֵֽינְךָ֙ עָלָ֔יו וְלֹֽא־תַחְמֹ֥ל וְלֹֽא־תְכַסֶּ֖ה עָלָֽיו:
יכִּ֤י הָרֹג֙ תַּֽהַרְגֶ֔נּוּ יָֽדְךָ֛ תִּֽהְיֶה־בּ֥וֹ בָרִֽאשׁוֹנָ֖ה לַֽהֲמִית֑וֹ וְיַ֥ד כָּל־הָעָ֖ם בָּאַֽחֲרֹנָֽה:
יאוּסְקַלְתּ֥וֹ בָֽאֲבָנִ֖ים וָמֵ֑ת כִּי בִקֵּ֗שׁ לְהַדִּֽיחֲךָ֙ מֵעַל֙ יְהֹוָ֣ה אֱלֹהֶ֔יךָ הַמּוֹצִֽיאֲךָ֛ מֵאֶ֥רֶץ מִצְרַ֖יִם מִבֵּ֥ית עֲבָדִֽים:
יבוְכָ֨ל־יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל יִשְׁמְע֖וּ וְיִֽרָא֑וּן וְלֹֽא־יוֹסִ֣פוּ לַֽעֲשׂ֗וֹת כַּדָּבָ֥ר הָרָ֛ע הַזֶּ֖ה בְּקִרְבֶּֽךָ:
יגכִּֽי־תִשְׁמַ֞ע בְּאַחַ֣ת עָרֶ֗יךָ אֲשֶׁר֩ יְהֹוָ֨ה אֱלֹהֶ֜יךָ נֹתֵ֥ן לְךָ֛ לָשֶׁ֥בֶת שָׁ֖ם לֵאמֹֽר:
ידיָֽצְא֞וּ אֲנָשִׁ֤ים בְּנֵֽי־בְלִיַּ֨עַל֙ מִקִּרְבֶּ֔ךָ וַיַּדִּ֛יחוּ אֶת־יֽשְׁבֵ֥י עִירָ֖ם לֵאמֹ֑ר נֵֽלְכָ֗ה וְנַֽעַבְדָ֛ה אֱלֹהִ֥ים אֲחֵרִ֖ים אֲשֶׁ֥ר לֹֽא־יְדַעְתֶּֽם:
טווְדָֽרַשְׁתָּ֧ וְחָֽקַרְתָּ֛ וְשָֽׁאַלְתָּ֖ הֵיטֵ֑ב וְהִנֵּ֤ה אֱמֶת֙ נָכ֣וֹן הַדָּבָ֔ר נֶֽעֶשְׂתָ֛ה הַתּוֹעֵבָ֥ה הַזֹּ֖את בְּקִרְבֶּֽךָ:
טזהַכֵּ֣ה תַכֶּ֗ה אֶת־יֽשְׁבֵ֛י הָעִ֥יר הַהִ֖וא לְפִי־חָ֑רֶב הַֽחֲרֵ֨ם אֹתָ֧הּ וְאֶת־כָּל־אֲשֶׁר־בָּ֛הּ וְאֶת־בְּהֶמְתָּ֖הּ לְפִי־חָֽרֶב:
יזוְאֶת־כָּל־שְׁלָלָ֗הּ תִּקְבֹּץ֘ אֶל־תּ֣וֹךְ רְחֹבָהּ֒ וְשָֽׂרַפְתָּ֣ בָאֵ֗שׁ אֶת־הָעִ֤יר וְאֶת־כָּל־שְׁלָלָהּ֙ כָּלִ֔יל לַֽיהֹוָ֖ה אֱלֹהֶ֑יךָ וְהָֽיְתָה֙ תֵּ֣ל עוֹלָ֔ם לֹ֥א תִבָּנֶ֖ה עֽוֹד:
יחוְלֹֽא־יִדְבַּ֧ק בְּיָֽדְךָ֛ מְא֖וּמָה מִן־הַחֵ֑רֶם לְמַ֩עַן֩ יָשׁ֨וּב יְהֹוָ֜ה מֵֽחֲר֣וֹן אַפּ֗וֹ וְנָֽתַן־לְךָ֤ רַֽחֲמִים֙ וְרִֽחַמְךָ֣ וְהִרְבֶּ֔ךָ כַּֽאֲשֶׁ֥ר נִשְׁבַּ֖ע לַֽאֲבֹתֶֽיךָ:
יטכִּ֣י תִשְׁמַ֗ע בְּקוֹל֙ יְהֹוָ֣ה אֱלֹהֶ֔יךָ לִשְׁמֹר֙ אֶת־כָּל־מִצְוֹתָ֔יו אֲשֶׁ֛ר אָֽנֹכִ֥י מְצַוְּךָ֖ הַיּ֑וֹם לַֽעֲשׂוֹת֙ הַיָּשָׁ֔ר בְּעֵינֵ֖י יְהֹוָ֥ה אֱלֹהֶֽיךָ:
So if apostle Paul knew about those prophecies about the messiah didn't the Sanhedrin also know too as well about those prophecies?
How I wish Rabbi Singer ultimately know that Jeshua is really the Messiah in the Old Testament Bible. Wishing God will open his spiritual eyes. God bless Rabbi Singer.
He pray the same for you
why do we think Jesus as being dirt poor? what happened to the gifts of the magi?
He was also a carpenter's son. Not sure why they want to make him "poor", (is this supposed to be a Jewish 🤑$$ financial insult?), obviously he's the richest for eternity, literally everything is his!
He came to dwell among us as a servant and asked his disciples who of you while traveling with me lacked for anything? None lacked a single thing. God provides all our needs according to his riches in glory. God's grace is sufficient. Hallelujah and praise God for his unspeakable gifts!
You said that Yahshua agreed with Hillel on Lev.19:18 the the substance of the Torah is LOVE yet your whole ministry is against those who desire to walk out love in their every day life by walking as Messiah walked in the Torah.
Sound hypocritical.
“Become imitators of me, as I also am of Messiah.”
1 Corinthians 11:1
It's not complicated
Feed and clothe desperate strangers
Minister to the sick and incarcerated
@@tbishop4961
Complicated,no. hard to actually do, yes.
And if you do them that’s works salvation according to most.
That’s only half of it, the half towards showing love for mankind.
The other half of the equation is loving God and showing it in our actions.
Both loving God and loving mankind has been belittled to just believing and saying you do because if you actually walk out what you confess then you might be labeled as a hieratic for doing “works to be saved“ even though that’s not the case it doesn’t matter to those who don’t do what they confess.
@@ForgedinTruth the road is being widened by this type of thinking. I wondered if there was anyone out there that saw it this way. You will never reach the orthodox when you and your version of messiah goes against deut 13 and the law of God.
@@davelyn786
How do you see that it goes against Debarim 13
@@ForgedinTruth well if someone says you don’t have to keep the commandments that God told us to walk in then it goes against it. People who come against other people who follow the commands don’t want to walk in the way. Deuteronomy 13 says the prophet that leads you away from following Him should not only not be followed but they should be stoned. Not that I am advocating for anyone’s stoning :) I actually like rob solberg. I liken listening to his arguments.
I have to say that as soon as Rabbi Singer started his critique the Holy Spirit guarded me against him. Intuitively I knew he was missing the mark
Rabbinic Judaism’s interpretation of Isaiah 53 as Israel fails logically. Isaiah 53:11 identifies a “servant without sin” who bears others' sins, yet Isaiah 4 shows Israel as sinful and in need of atonement. How could Israel, laden with its own sins, serve as a sinless redeemer? This servant must be distinct from Israel-fulfilled in Jesus, who alone fits the prophecy of a sinless Messiah bearing the sins of others.
The Rabbinic stance on atonement contradicts the Torah itself. Leviticus 17:11 makes blood essential for atonement; if repentance alone sufficed, the Torah would not mandate sacrifices. Even upon returning from Babylonian exile, Israel resumed sacrifices, confirming that blood atonement remained essential. Rabbinic teachings suggest sacrifices will resume in a Third Temple, reaffirming that atonement through blood is intrinsic, not symbolic or optional.
Similarly, Hosea’s encouragement to prayer doesn’t override blood atonement. Nowhere does Hosea nullify sacrifices; this Rabbinic interpretation lacks Torah support. While repentance and prayer matter, they don’t erase the Torah’s command that blood is central to forgiveness.
Finally, Daniel’s prophecy aligns precisely with Jesus. Daniel 9:26 foretells an “anointed one” cut off before the Temple’s destruction. Starting from Artaxerxes’ decree in 444 BCE, Daniel’s timeline leads exactly to Jesus’ crucifixion in 33 CE. This precise fulfillment underscores Jesus as the promised Messiah. Claims that Daniel points elsewhere disregard both text and historical accuracy.
In short, Rabbinic readings selectively bypass the Torah’s requirements, whether on sin, sacrifice, or prophecy. Claims that Israel can serve as a sinless servant, that blood isn’t essential for atonement, or that Daniel doesn’t point to Jesus are each unsustainable under a full reading of the text.
In the name of Jesus Christ, I bless you all!
@@danielmayer1977 human sacrifice is anathema to the God of Israel. So is idol worship i.e. worshipping a human.
@@1DaTJo
Jesus was not merely human but God incarnate-fully divine and fully human. His sacrifice was not a “human sacrifice” but God Himself offering redemption out of love (John 10:18). This fulfills the Torah’s principle of blood atonement (Leviticus 17:11), which remains central to forgiveness.
Worshiping Jesus isn’t idolatry. Yeshua HaMashiach is God in the flesh (John 1:14), as Isaiah 9:6 declares, calling the Messiah “Mighty God.” Praying to Him is worshiping the God of Israel, who took on human form to accomplish salvation.
Far from being anathema, the Messiah’s mission was divine. It fulfills the Torah and the prophets perfectly, revealing God’s ultimate plan for humanity.
@@danielmayer1977 nowhere in the Torah does God state that He desires human sacrifice. Nowhere in the Torah does God State that he wants us to pretend to drink blood.
Nowhere in the Torah does it say the Messiah is supposed to die and be resurrected. The Messiah is supposed to be fully human and from the lineage of King David.
Did Jesus have legs and arms? Did he have a head and eyes and ears and feet? Then he was human. God clearly tells us that He is not human, that He is not a man.
Which part of the first Commandment is confusing for you? God‘s first commandment is “I am the Lord your God -you shall have no other gods besides me.” He did not say “besides me and my son. “
@@1DaTJo
Jewish texts, including the Dead Sea Scrolls and Sanhedrin 38b, reflect a complex understanding of the Godhead. Genesis 1:2-3 shows God, His Spirit, and His Word active in creation, while Isaiah 48:16 speaks of “the Sovereign Lord,” “Me [the Messiah],” and “His Spirit.” This challenges the claim that God cannot manifest in different forms, including as Jesus.
Jesus never commanded literal drinking of blood. In John 6:63, He clarifies that His words are spiritual. His death fulfills the Torah’s requirement for atonement (Leviticus 17:11), akin to the Passover lamb in Exodus 12. His sacrifice embodies the Passover lamb, the scapegoat of Leviticus 16, and the suffering servant of Isaiah 53, achieving reconciliation with God.
Pre-incarnate appearances of Jesus include Genesis 18 (the Lord visiting Abraham), Joshua 5 (the Commander of the Lord’s army worshiped), and Daniel 3 (the fourth figure in the furnace). These reflect God manifesting visibly. Numbers 23:19, which says, “God is not a man,” speaks to His holy and unchanging nature-not that He cannot take human form.
Jesus’ lineage fulfills Messianic criteria. Through Mary, He is biologically descended from David (Luke 3); through Joseph, He legally inherits the Davidic line (Matthew 1). This dual lineage meets genealogical and royal requirements in the Torah.
Rabbinic teachings face contradictions. Early Jewish sources, such as Targum Jonathan, saw Isaiah 53 as Messianic until Rashi reinterpreted it as Israel. The Seder Olam calendar omits ~168 years of Persian history, contradicting archaeological evidence. Ezekiel 43:18-27 confirms that blood sacrifices will resume in the Third Temple, reaffirming their necessity.
Isaiah 53 describes a suffering redeemer; Daniel 9’s timeline aligns with Jesus’ crucifixion; and Leviticus 17:11 underscores the need for blood atonement. Together, these texts point to Jesus as the Messiah, leaving Rabbinic teachings with unresolved gaps.
@@danielmayer1977 no, you’ve got it all wrong. God does not go to the bathroom.
Animal sacrifice was for UNINTENTIONAL sins. I strongly recommend that you learn Hebrew and read what the Torah really says, not what some preacher told you it says.
Start with the first commandment. I am the Lord your God you shall have no other gods besides me.
You notice it doesn’t say “besides me and my son. “
I love listening to Rabbi Singer but i think Prof Solberg put forward some great arguments and i think he was more convincing in this debate.
the objection he used against the new testament can be used against him. he said all the things you believe to be true, is because the new testament told you. and that is a circular reasoning. well, that same argument can be used against him.
because, everything he believes to be true is found from the torah. its the torah which told him God came down in a cloud and fire at mount Sinai. and that is the basis (the Sinai event) for Judaism. but the only source which tells us that this happened is the torah. which means he just fell in the circular reasoning he attacked the new testament by
which means he is being dishonest.
second, if he throws away the new testament whole sale as legend, then he would be forced to answer these five questions:-
1) how did Christianity start?
2) who started it?
2) where did it start?
3) how did it rapidly spread?
4) why were the Jews extremely hostile to it FROM THE VERY BEGINNING?
because, there is a real religion called Christianity, its 2000 years old and it was extremely opposed by the rabbis from the very beginning. the only way you can explain these facts, is if the the new testament is historical. if the new testament was complete fiction, then you wouldn't be able to explain the reality of Christianity.
@Dustin Neely but they are still rabbinic sources. which means he is still in the "circular reasoning" he accused the new testament of
@@thatethiopiandude5077 I hear this from atheists all the time. the answer is simple that it amazes me how you miss it. you think RTS is dismissing the empirical proof for the NT which you are then using against the OT. in reality, he is saying that since we all agree that the OT is true, in order to prove the NT changes to judaism you need to provide the jews empirical evidence, which you cannot do by citing a book. your responses to the OT, that's its also only true because of the book and the belief in the father to son oral tradition is only an argument for someone who doesnt want to rely on the book and the father to son tradition - people such as atheists etc. jews and christians both trust the book and the oral tradition.
that's why the professor's argument fails - he said that the resurrection is what saves the OT from biblical criticism. his attempt at using modern biblical criticism fails because it is not the resurrection that supports the OT - it is the jewish tradition. he apparently doesnt understand judaism. I want to know how he thinks all the jews including j followers believed in the torah prior to the resurrection? were they all just not smart and dont know epistomology?
The religion isn’t complete fiction, obviously it started at some point and was opposed by the Jews. How does that prove that the NT facts are historical?!
@Dustin Neely the Christian problem is that they also accept the Jewish tradition that they received the Torah at Sinai. (At least I think they do, I don’t know much about catholics). Therefore, the book can’t be used as proof, and neither can any Christian traditions, since they were opposed as false traditions by the Jews at the beginning. So while a Catholic can use his traditions to belief in his faith, he has no weapon in his quiver of which to use to converting Jews, and interestingly, the modern day Catholic Church isn’t busy converting jews (as far as I know).
Furthermore, it’s not just a disagreement about the veracity of the Christian tradition that prevents jews from following it. Jews will maintain the Christian traditions to be a theological impossibility due to its contradictions of the written Torah. So while you are right that the sola scriptura people have a problem in the face of Judaism because of their lack of traditions, catholics have the second problem.
Lastly, if you can inform me, the Jewish tradition is based on a national revelation which continued to have national revelations. Do catholics have a national revelation tradition?
@@proudpharisee5303 if he doesn't completely deny the empirical proof for the NT, he then has to deal with the evidence for the resurrection. but because he cannot, the way he deals with the evidence for the resurrection is by completely dismissing the new testament since you agreed that cannot be done, you are stuck with the proof for the resurrection
Matthew 24 doesn't mention a second coming that is similar to the thing that is written on in Daniel 7
he also said the dead will rise when the messiah comes, and he quotes Is 26 as proof. what is ironic, is that is exactly what the new testament says will happen when Jesus returns!
*1 THESSALONIANS 4:15-17*
But they didnt.. nobody did .
R.Tovia showing you that is one condition. And it didnt happend
@@yosefelianimusicchannel1070 This is something that will happen when he returns. As described in Psalms 110:1-2 The Messiah will sit at God's right hand until his enemies are made to be his footstool.
The Book of Psalms which records the prophecy of Psal 110 tells us that God is in heaven (Psal 2:4 Psal 11:4 Psal 102:19 Psal 102:19 Psal 123:1) this is also stated in the Torah (Deut 26:15 Gen 19:24) So, God's dwelling place is in heaven
So, for the Messiah to be seated at God's right hand, he must go to heaven and sit at his right hand in his heavenly dwelling place and be with him. After his suffering and atoning death prophesied in Isaiah 53, he will be seated at God's right hand as prophesied in Psalms 110:1
But, according to Psalms 110:1 will he sit at God's right hand indefinitely or until his enemies are made his footstool? Until his enemies are made his footstool! When the time for this arrives, he will come from his seat at God's right hand i.e heaven to earth.
This is why Psal 110:2 says "..rule in the midst of your enemies.." where are his enemies situated? On earth! So, the Messiah will be seated at God's right hand (heaven) until his enemies are made his footstool, then when it's time for his enemies to be made his footstool comes, he will rule in the midst of his enemies (earth) this is also described in the prophetic vision of Zachariah 14
*God's right hand = heaven*
*the midst of his enemies = earth*
Thus establishing the doctrine of the second coming. So, once the Messiah returns from God's right hand (heaven) to the midst of his enemies (earth) the resurrection of the dead he mentioned will take place. It will happen after Psalms 110:1-2 is fulfilled. And this matches with what the New Testament says about the return of The Lord Jesus Christ and the resurrection of the dead in 1 Thes 4:15-17
And as for Psal 110:1-2 being about the Messiah, what is said of that Lord who will sit at God's right hand is what is said of the Messiah in Numbers 24:19 and Psalms 72:9, Jewish sources too say that passage is Messianic.
Off topic question...what's with the tree man avatar?
One of Tovia Singer’s disciples challenged me to go buy a Stone Edition Tanakh and read it. They said I would NOT find our LORD Jesus in there anywhere.
I would encourage all Christians to do the same. You may not see Him in some of the traditional Messianic passages that were used to, but you WILL find Him in places you never expected, and that Christians have never considered as “Messianic”.
It is SO amazingly cool to see how the LORD Messiah is EVERYWHERE in the Tanakh-for those who have eyes to see!
Jesus isn't prophesied ANYWHERE in the Tenakh, and the good Prof. Solberg was unable to show that he is. In the light of context, Christian prophetic claims always collapse.
@@psandbergnz
“…you will seek the Lord your God, and you will find Him, if you seek Him with all your heart and with all your soul.” 😌
Deut 4:29
Without jesus glasses, you certainly cannot see jesus, and a lot of new testament teachings are just totally different from the jewish scriptures. Take Ezekiel 18 for example... Who would have guessed salvation only involves repentance and turning away from wickedness, there's certainly no jesus there.
In the jewish bible, the future messiah is just a king a man who will rule over a world who truly fears Gd, not a persona of Gd himself.
Example:
Repentance is definitely required for forgiveness and atonement, but that is only possible because of the Redeemer.
“A Redeemer WILL come to Zion, to those who repent from willful sin…”
(Isaiah 59:20)
Who is this ⬆️ “Redeemer”?
“…with Hashem is abundant redemption. And HE shall redeem Israel from all its iniquities.”
(Psalm 130:7,8)
The Redeemer is Hashem.
Who is “Hashem”?
“Hashem IS the Righteous One…”
(Exodus 9:27)
“Hashem, the Righteous One…”
(Zephaniah 3:5)
“The Righteous One (Hashem) perishes ✝️, and no man takes it to heart; men of kindness are gathered in with no one understanding, that because of the impending evil, the Righteous One (Hashem) was gathered in ✝️. He (the Righteous One, the Redeemer, Hashem) will come in peace…the Exalted and UPLIFTED One (uplifted on the cross ⤴️, and resurrected ⤴️ uplifted from the dead) who abides FOREVER, and whose Name is Holy.”
(Isaiah 57:1,2,15)
“They killed those who predicted the coming of the Righteous One (Hashem), and now you have betrayed and murdered Him🩸✝️…”
(Acts 7:52)
“…Jesus Messiah, the Righteous One (Hashem). He is our atoning sacrifice for our sins…🩸✝️”
(1 John 2:1,2)
“Thus says Hashem, King of Israel👑, and its Redeemer, ‘I am the FIRST and I am the LAST’. Aside from Me there is NO God.”
(Isaiah 44:6)
The FIRST and the LAST (Hashem) IS God.
“Do not be afraid. I am the FIRST and the LAST (Hashem). I am the Living One; I WAS dead, and behold, I am ALIVE for ever and ever 👑!…the words of The FIRST and the LAST (Hashem); Who died and came to life again 👑 (the LIVING God)…I Am the FIRST and the LAST! Blessed are they who wash their robes (accept Hashem’s atonement🩸✝️, repent, and do God’s good works), that they may have the right to the Tree of Life 🌳, and may go through the gates into the City ✨.”
(Revelation 1:17,18; 2:8; 22:13,14)
Such GOOD News‼️😊
As Hashem said ⬆️: “Don’t be afraid” to believe and accept who He really is! He loves you, and wants you to accept what He’s done for you!
Tovia is SO correct. At 43:13 in the debate, he said we MUST read the New Testament in light of the Old!
Such good advice! ☺️
Also, Ezekiel 37:25 says:
“My servant David shall be their prince FOREVER.”
No human can be a leader of a people FOREVER…right?
(All Hebrew scripture was copied from the Stone edition Tanakh.)
@@sunsetfree5358 congratulations for BUTCHERING the meaning of Is. 57: 1,2 and 15, and adding to those verses your own wayward words to manipulate the text! You have to add your own choice words (such as "resurrection" and "uplifted on the cross"), because the Hebrew in no way indicates your christological interpretation. Even Christian Study Bibles would be embarrassed by your interpretation of those verses (my NIV Study Bible does not agree with you, and I don't either). Btw, using the "Stone" edition is not a wise choice, because most people do not have it, and it is not easily accessible online (unlike, say the Chabad). "Biblehub" doesn't have the Stone. So I will use the NIV, which presents a comprehensible and good translation of Isaiah chapter 57. The Chabad Bible will also do fine.
Let's revisit those verses without your editings:
Is. 57:1 and 2:
Verse 1: "The righteous perish, and no man ponders it in his heart; devout men are taken away, to be spared from evil."
The verse has nothing do with Hashem being taken away! The "righteous" (Hebrew: "sadiq" or צַדִּיק ) here refers to righteous men (as it often does), and the verse means that the righteous may be taken away from us [ie. die] in order to spare them the coming evil which we may need to face instead.
Verse 2 continues the theme of righteous men: "Those who walk upright enter into peace, and find reast as they lie in death."
SO FAR, THEN, THERE IS NOTHING CHRISTOLOGICAL IN THAT CHAPTER! Now let's move to your verse 15:
"For this is what the high and lofty One says, he who lives forever, whose name is holy: I live in a high and holy place, and also with him who is contrite and lowly in spirit, to revive the spirit of the lowly and the heart of the contrite."
We see noting christological in that verse either, and no implication of an atoning sacrifice or a messiah! Although you might argue that Jesus was "high" (or "lifted up") on the cross, the same remark could be made of the two thieves crucified on either side of him, so it doesn't automatically get you to Jesus ! At any rate, there is no obvious context for Jesus in the passage or chapter. There is nothing about a blood or ransom sacrifice or atonement for sin implied in the chapter either.
You are obviously very desperate in casting about for something...but not really getting anywhere! You have to find coherent context for Jesus to make your claim.
Pod. Solberg deserves more than just 20k subscribers..
[part 2 contniuation...]
so, once we have established the suffering servant to be the messiah, lets ask some questions
1) is there any place in the entire hebrew bible where the whole nation of Israel or its righteous remnant are portrayed as a shoot and/or a root which sprouts forth (atsmakh)?
2) is there any incident where the suffering of the whole nation of Israel or its righteous remnant resulted in healing for the gentile nations? (because that is what the suffering of the servant does Is 53:5)
3) is there any moment where Israel became a sin offering for the nations? or was it itself in need of a cure for its sin?
Once this is out of the way, lets examine his claim of falsifiability. the rabbi claims, all of the things done by Christ are unfalsifiable. so therefore they cannot be used as evidence to establish his messiahship. but this is wrong in light of Is 53. lets examine that passage:-
"He was assigned a grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death, though he had done no violence, nor was any deceit in his mouth." (Is 53:9)
here it clearly says the suffering servant (The Messiah) will die and be buried in a grave (the hebrew qavar) this is a clear prophecy about the messiah dying. we know why he is going to die. as an atonement for the sins of Israel and the world. that is explicitly stated in Is 53:5-8. in fact, he is said to be an offering for sin (asham) in v.10. an offering for sin is a sacrifice done for the purpose of the forgiving of sin (Lev 5:7 for instance) so the messiah will die, so that our sins will be atoned for.
But, after he dies, it says he shall see the light of life and be satisfied
"After the suffering of his soul, he will see the light [of life] and be satisfied; by his knowledge my righteous servant will justify many, and he will bear their iniquities." Is 53:11
(even though the dead sea scrolls and the Septuagint have the phrase "the light of life" the masoretic doesn't)
*HOW CAN HE SEE THE LIGHT IF LIFE AND BE SATISFIED, AFTER HE HAD DIED? AFTER HE HAD BEEN BURIED?*
The only way he can see the light of life again and be satisfied after he died, is if he came back to life. is if he was resurrected. that is the only way he can see the light of life after he had been dead and buried. so that is the criteria to identify the true messiah
*ANY MESSIAH CLAIMANT WHO CLAIMS TO DIE FOR THE SINS OF THE WORLD, AND THEN COMES BACK TO LIFE AFTER HIS DEATH AND BURIAL, IS THE TRUE MESSIAH*
a resurrection is not something that can be faked. either he rose from the dead or not. and according to the chronology given by the prophet, the messiah must suffer and die first, then raise from the dead. any person who didn't rise from the dead is not the messiah. so singer's polemic false flat to the ground. we know Jesus will fulfill the rest of the messianic prophecies, because he fulfilled the most important one. he died for the sins of the world, and then he rose from the dead. as the prophet said he would. the proof for it all is the resurrection
we can even go further, in Is 53:3-4 the suffering servant is considered as someone smitten of God by his own people. we know the speakers are the jewish people, because in v.8 the speaker who is the prophet, says he was stricken for the transgressions of *MY PEOPLE* that is what the speakers said in v.5. they said he (the servant) was wounded for our transgression. proving the speakers are the people of the prophet. meaning the jewish people
the jewish people thought this servant was smitten and cursed by God. but in reality he was the arm of God, the servant of God who had died for their sin. meaning, who ever the true messiah is, he must initially be rejected by the jewish people. the jewish people must consider him as someone cursed and smitten by God. any messiah claimant, who wasn't rejected and considered as smitten by God by the Jewish people is not the true messiah. the true messiah, must be considered by the jewish people as cursed and smitten by God
finally, in Is 53:1-2 the suffering servant is called the arm of The Lord. this means he has an ontological oneness with God. just as an arm and the rest of the body are of one flesh, God and the messiah are of one deity. that is why he is equated and depicted as a body part of God. which means he is God, he is divine. that is why he is called Jehovah/YHVH our righteousness (Jer 23:5-6) The God/Elohim who has an eternal throne (Psal 45:6) the mighty God (Is 9:6-7) the one who comings-forth is from eternity (Mic 5:2) the Lord in heaven (Psal 110:1)
so whoever the the true messiah is, he must be someone who claimed to be God in the flesh (because the messiah is human too, a physical descendant of David and Abraham) any messiah claimant, who doesn't claim to be God in the flesh is not the true messiah
*CONCLUSION*
1) THE MESSIAH MUST DIE FOR THE ATONEMENT OF OUR SIN
2) HE MUST COME BACK TO LIFE AFTER HIS DEATH AND BURIAL
3) HE MUST BE REJECTED BY HIS PEOPLE FIRST
4) HE MUST CLAIM TO BE GOD IN THE FLESH
*who does that sound like......?*
tovia singer refuted