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.
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.
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 ❤
@@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.
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! 😆👍💯
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.
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.
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.
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.)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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!
@@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.”
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
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.
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.
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.
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.😢
@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)
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...
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 : )
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.*
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.
Brother Solberg, I know you’re a very knowledge person, I’m following all your videos and stuff, because I love the way you talk, but you’re lacking a little bit of boldness amon your statements, I would like to hear in this debate you’re talking about Jesus Christ, the Lord, and savior, with all passion like the Juwish guy did about Jahweh
So jesus was the messiah because the Christian "profiths" that comes after him said so. . ? That is a very unsollid ground for argument. J . .... I wonder why jews dont belive in 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 🙏
I think both are missing a piece of the puzzle. Truth might be somewhere in the middle.... as in Natsarim or Hebrew roots teachings. I dunno. Just a confused seeker of Truth here.
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.
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 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.
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.
Something odd in this debate: how come it's the Christian starting to ask questions to the rabbi? Why not the other way around? Christianity offers the answers to the world. Not Judaism.
Good morning Professor Solberg you did a surperb job im.puzzled about Rabbi Tovias opening remarks it apeared he was doing a sermon not rebutting your statements the old testement is full of Yeshuas coming The Bible is not a christian bible it was written mostly by Jews inspired by The Holy Spirit also Yeshua,was a jew not a christian shalom.and blessings to you and your family
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
I really appreciate Professor Solberg's defense of the Gospel. However, because of his commitment to Futurist Eschatology he missed an opportunity to really shut the mouth of Rabbi Singer who was going off about Jesus failing to fulfill all the Messianic Prophesies. If you invest the time (a lot of time, hundreds of hours) to studying Covenant Eschatology, an Eschatology which clearly demonstrates that Jesus Parousia took place in 70 AD, and that God's enemies (Apostate Jewry) were judged and destroyed, as well as Judgment on Rome 66-70 AD. Jesus and the Apostles were not wrong, the Apostles were not confused, the time indicators of near and close at hand were spot on and they fulfilled all of the Messianic prophesies of the Conquering KIng. Modern Israel is a sham and the Jews who run it are not even Semites. Let Rabbi Singer and his clan wait for their false Messiah, but be not deceived, Jesus came again in that generation just as he said he would. Christians who hold to a futurist Eschatology cannot answer the Jewish, Atheist and Muslim objections that Jesus and the Apostles were wrong about their Prophetic Predictions about the Last Days (End of the Age) and the Eschaton. A right understanding of Biblical Eschatology (both OT and NT) is a powerful weapon against such ignorance as Rabbi Singer is spewing forth! It is sad to see the Futurist Christian Community continue to say "just you wait and see, Jesus is going to show you when He comes floating on Clouds with the Angels and Fire and so on." It is a big misunderstanding of the Apocalyptic Language of Scripture ( OT and NT) as well as a rejection of the clear time indicators of Jesus and the Apostles.
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*
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.
2:01:23 his logic doesn't follow. Scripture says the world will worship the Lord, but then says if your religion is the majority then you should question whether or not your religion is true because Jews have always been the minority??? Why not accept that Christianity is the fulfillment of that scripture in that it has brought the nations into worshipping the God of Israel? He says to stick with Isaiah, Jeremiah, and so on not to appeal to scholars for their interpretation, but we should believe his interpretation? Very circular if you ask me. At the end of the day it was an enjoyable debate. I had a few laughs.
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…
@@rioanantakeliat5170 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?
Singer quotes from the Babylonian Talmud.....but he forgot to mention what it says about Jesus the eternal Son of God....that he is boiling in his own excrement in hell....thats what the Talmud says about Jesus. Gentiles have no soul and ate cattle...Thw Talmud is from rhe wvil one and Singer is seriously lost
Cross-Examination... Talking over. Take it back. Rephrase. Interrupt. ... Obfuscate? Strawman? ... Maybe I've been listening for too long, but Singer started sounding like Charlie Brown.
Jesse Im asking you to clarify your Ad hominem "Maybe I've been listening for too long, but Singer started sounding like Charlie Brown." so that that is a comment about the speaker not the facts you claim Cross-examination "Talking over. Take it back. Rephrase. Interrupt. ... Obfuscate? Strawman?" where are the facts? where is the context? he obfuscated how? Strawman because he said what? rephased what was the context? that called evidence you presented none that is called a strawman
@@jessebryant9233 ad hominem directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining. All that was a personal attack on Tovia over the actual points in the debate. Mic drop
I watched this debate on Tovia's channel. I think you did speak very well, and he never answered the questions, but speaking Jew to tell us that if we don't speak Jew we are not God’s people and can't understand the scriptures. He's making the same mistake his ancestors did by denying Jesus as The Messiah. Question to the Jews: If you don't believe in Jesus being The Son of Man, who was The Son Of Man King Nebuchadnezzar saw in Daniel 3:24-24. I love what Paul said in Romans 10:1-5 🙏🏾
Hello! First Rabbi Tovia dosent need to answer your Question when you rellay on the new testament, wich for jews dosent worth nothing . But You can ask on the Old testament.. Christians really on the jews but the jews dont need to rellay on chrsitian as far they need to "proof" something . The Tora stand for its self. If you take out what is said in Tora you stay with nothing in your gospel. -Man was created In the image of god and not god was created in the image of man (like Christians do) I will check on daniel on return to you my answer. ❤
A right you probbley belive its jesus because its said the son of god .. Its have to be jesus how can it be other then him ? Well its an angel=son of god. But you dont hebrew so you translate it worng
1:39:15 lmao!! Tovia played it cool..."you understand what you just said!? that's the most ilogi...most unlikely..." We all know what Tovia really wanted to really say!! lmao!! Professor Solberg made no sense whatsoever!!
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
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
I see he blames Christian countries for the holocaust, maybe he could acknowledge that Hitler was not Christian and 2 Christian countries liberated many of the camps.
Yes. Before the holocaust there were pogroms in Europe against the Jews, by Christians. Jesus loving Christians. Also the Catholic Church permitted the holocaust.
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.
Good job, Ron! I thought you did well in this debate, I just wish you addressed the fact that all nations do not know that Jesus is the Christ, and not just the most popular religion.
The fact that not all nations know Jesus is a proof that he is not the messiah because when the messiah comes everyone on earth will know the one true God and no one will have to teach anyone about him because they will know. So all evangelism, Bible schools, different religions, atheism is a proof that Jesus wasn’t the messiah
@@mikeprew ironically that's exactly why Jews don't believe Jesus is the Messiah (among other reasons). In the Old Testament, the Messianic Prophecies and requirements to be the Messiah state that the person must bring world peace and all will know him. Nothing about a Second Coming (that's only in the New Testament). The Jewish Messiah is supposed to bring world peace and world knowledge of him in his first time arrival (not a second or third or fourth etc time. The FIRST TIME) according to Judaism and the OT. The NT admits that Jesus failed to do this and needs to use the excuse of a "second time". Jesus failed to bring world peace and global knowledge of him the first time, and so now there is the excuse that "he'll get it right the second time". Whether or not Jesus will come back or he will get it right the second time is irrelevant, because by failing to do so the FIRST TIME, he has already failed the Messianic Prophecies of the OT and Judaism.
@@YokaiX you can interpret His second coming as an excuse or whatever, but I really do disagree with that notion. The Hebrew Bible does seem to display seemingly contradicting depictions of the anointed One. Micah 5 says that He will be born in Bethlehem while Daniel 7 seemingly indicates the Christ as divine. Isaiah 9 says He will be reign forever while Daniel 9 says He will be cut off. You probably think Isaiah 53 speaks of Israel, but it speaks of a suffering servant who will bear the sins of people and be killed. All of these seemingly contradictory statements made in the TaNaKh can be understand when putting it into a Christian context. It is true that the entire world does not recognize Jesus as the anointed one, but I don't think it's ad hoc or moving the goalposts to say that this will happen at His second coming- I find it reasonable and not a strong enough reason to reject Yeshua as the mashiach.
The Jews who don’t believe that Jesus is the Messiah always use the argument that Jesus cannot be the Messiah because he did not bring world peace. Salvation is in phases. The first peace that Jesus accomplished through his death, burial, and resurrection was peace between God and Mankind. Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ. (Romans 5:1) The second peace that Jesus accomplished for us was personal peace within ourselves. Even though we live in a wicked, cruel world we are still able to experience inner peace. For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility. (Ephesians 2:14) Jesus is the Prince of Peace and peace is a person, Jesus Christ. The final peace that Jesus will bring upon the earth is when he returns and establishes the Kingdom of God upon the earth by destroying Satan’s kingdom. Then the end will come, when He hands over the kingdom to God the Father after He has destroyed all dominion, authority, and power. (1 Corinthians 15:24)
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.
If Christianity really were reading the original Hebrew text, they will really see how much idolatry they are in. May Aba YAHUWAH guide and protect you during this era Rabbi TobYah.
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.
Rob There is no way that Jesus of Nazareth could have been the servant of God described in Isaiah 53! First of all, according to Christian mythology, Jesus was God Himself, come in the flesh! Timothy 3:16 tells us that ‘GOD WAS MANIFEST IN THE FLESH (of Jesus)’!! Colossians 2:9 tells us that ‘in him (Jesus) dwelleth ALL of the GODHEAD, BODILY!’ John 14:9 tells us, ‘he that has seen ME (Jesus) has SEEN THE FATHER!’ etc. Since Jesus was GOD ‘disguised’ as a man, he could not be the Servant of God! At best, he would be playing the part of a ‘servant’. It is no big deal for ‘God to ‘suffer’, since he knows all along that he is ‘God’, (a very consoling thought!), unless he temporarily ‘forgot’ he was ‘God’, (which is unlikely, for a person like ‘God’!). Secondly, the servant of God is to LIVE, and have children! Verse 10 of Isaiah 53 reads, in the Hebrew: If his soul offers itself as a sin-offering, he (the Servant) shall see seed (children! progeny!) and have a long life! (YIREH ZERA, YAARIKH YAMIM). Hardly a fitting description of a man who died childless in his thirty third year!! Moreover, the Servant is a THEY, not a HE!! Again, translating from the Hebrew, we read in verse 8: ‘for the transgression of my people were THEY stricken! (NEGA LAMO - third person plural!). But, wait a minute! WHO is being quoted in Isaiah 53? The Prophet? The people of Israel? The confusion is caused by the artificial chapter division. The story of the Servant begins in chapter 52, verse 13: ‘behold, my servant shall prosper! (Jesus was forsaken, Matthew 27:46) … so shall he surprise MANY NATIONS! (GENTILES!) Kings shall shut their mouths (in astonishment) because of him! For that which they have not heard SHALL THEY (THE GENTILE RULERS) PERCEIVE! It is the rulers of the NATIONS who exclaim in astonishment: ‘who would have believed what we report? The despised rejected servant suffered AS A RESULT OF OUR SINS, and nevertheless, he healed us with his truth. We thought that he was smitten of God, whereas, in truth, he was crushed by our iniquities which we gentiles perpetrated against him!’ Now, we know that Christianity was spread throughout the nations of Europe by myriads of saints, apostles and preachers, so the surprise element doesn’t exist if the gentile rulers here quoted were referring to Jesus; but what a surprise it will be to them when they perceive on THEIR OWN, that the Servant of God is despised, afflicted ISRAEL who has for centuries borne of the nations’ sins! The Pharaohs, Hamans, Hitlers sinned, and Israel suffered. But, not ALL ISRAEL were righteous servants. Many were sinners! THE SERVANT, THE IDEAL ISRAEL is a class within Israel! The Prophets, the saints, the sages, like Moses - Jeremiah - Isaiah - Elijah - Akiva, etc. - the holy ones who perished in the inquisitions, crusades, pogroms, the holocaust - these are the COLLECTIVE SERVANT, the light into the nations, FAITHFUL ISRAEL who has borne witness to God by deeds, sacrifice and tenacious faith! (This collective servant is further described in the 65th chapter of Isaiah.) IF SO … why did Jesus die? If he wasn’t the righteous servant of God, (and he WASN’T), why did he die such a terrible death?? The answer to this question is unequivocally provided in the Hebrew Scriptures. Thus shall you say to them: the gods that have NOT made the heavens and the earth, THESE shall perish from the earth, and from under the heavens!! (Jeremiah 10:11)
1) the reason Jesus could be the servant of God, and God at the same time is because he is The Son. The God of Israel is The Trinity, The Father, The Son and The Holy Spirit. three distinct persons, one essence. so, when one of the persons became flesh (The Son) he became the servant of The Father who sent him. that is how, he is both God and the servant of God. 2) seed is referring to spiritual seed. he shall see his spiritual seed. in Is 53:11 it says he shall make many righteous. so the seed, are those people who were made righteous because of him. in the bible, seed doesn't only refer to physical seed. for example:- Is 57:5 it speaks of people as seeds of falsehood. obviously falsehood doesn't have physical seed 3) the hebrew word "lamo" doesn't always refer to multiple referents. it can refer to a single referent. for example:- in Is 44:15 "lamo" is used to a single referent. also in Gen 9:27, the word "lamo" is used to refer to a single referent. so you cannot say lamo always refers to a multiplicity of individuals
the speakers are no the people of the world, but the prophet speaking on behalf of his people. in Is 53:5 the speakers say "he was wounded for our transgression" then, the prophet says in v.8, "he was smitten for the transgression of MY PEOPLE" proving the speakers of v.5, are the people of the prophet second, the suffering and death of the servant wasn't just a result of our sin, but as a source of healing. in v.5 it says "by his stripes we are healed" so his suffering was for the sole purpose of granting us healing. so you are wrong all over the hebrew bible, the suffering of the righteous remnant of Israel result sin the punishment of the gentile nations which caused that suffering. so if the servant was the nation, healing wouldn't have been the result but punishment. since the outcome is healing, the suffering servant cannot be the whole nation of Israel nor its righteous remnant
@@thatethiopiandude5077perhaps you should read a better translation Chabad for instance. As Professor Rob pointed out even in India jesus is considered a divine being. Trinity is not found in Jewish scripture it only in pagan ones. let's look at Hindus beliefs. I have included the sources The Puranas, one of the Hindu Bibles of more than 3,000 years ago, contain the following passage: 'O ye three Lords! know that I recognize only one God. Inform me, therefore, which of you is the true divinity, that I may address to him alone my adorations.' The three gods, Brahma, Vishnu, and Siva [or Shiva], becoming manifest to him, replied, 'Learn, O devotee, that there is no real distinction between us. What to you appears such is only the semblance. The single being appears under three forms by the acts of creation, preservation, and destruction, but he is one.' "Hence the triangle was adopted by all the ancient nations as a symbol of the Deity . . . Three was considered among all the pagan nations as the chief of the mystical numbers, because, as Aristotle remarks, it contains within itself a beginning, a middle, and an end. Hence we find it designating some of the attributes of almost all the pagan gods" (Sinclair, pp. 382-383). "In the Fourth Century B.C. Aristotle wrote: 'All things are three, and thrice is all: and let us use this number in the worship of the gods; for, as the Pythagoreans say, everything and all things are bounded by threes, for the end, the middle and the beginning have this number in everything, and these compose the number of the Trinity'" (Arthur Weigall, Paganism in Our Christianity, 1928, pp. 197-198). "The ancient Babylonians recognized the doctrine of a trinity, or three persons in one god-as appears from a composite god with three heads forming part of their mythology, and the use of the equilateral triangle, also, as an emblem of such trinity in unity" (Thomas Dennis Rock, The Mystical Woman and the Cities of the Nations, 1867, pp. 22-23). Egyptologist Arthur Weigall, while himself a Trinitarian, summed up the influence of ancient beliefs on the adoption of the Trinity doctrine by the Catholic Church in the following excerpt from his previously cited book: "It must not be forgotten that Jesus Christ never mentioned such a phenomenon [the Trinity], and nowhere in the New Testament does the word 'Trinity' appear. The idea was only adopted by the Church three hundred years after the death of our Lord; and the origin of the conception is entirely pagan . . . let's look at seed of falsehood. And you, draw near hither, children of sorcery; children who commit adultery, and played the whore. whom will you [rely to] enjoy yourselves; against whom do you open your mouth wide; against whom do you stick out your tongue? Are you not children of transgression, seed of falsehood? here it is talking about the children born of sorcery, adultery and Harlots. they are the offspring(seed) of Falseness, so it is a physical seed. As regards the word lamo, “to them,” grammarians recognize that it is also in a sense singular, “to him” (as it is in non-poetic usage), because it agrees with certain singular nouns. As in this verse, lamo, the poetic form of lahem (“to them”), is used often in referring to a collective noun. Examples are, Genesis 9:26 (where it refers to Shem, that is, the descendants of Shem); Psalms 28:8 where it refers to the people of verse 9; Psalms 73:10 (also in reference to “people”); Isaiah 44:15 (in reference to ’el [a god] and pesel [a carved image], which are also to be understood respectively as referring collectively to all false gods); and finally Isaiah 53:8. The translator of the Hebrew, into the Greek Septuagint, understood the proper use of lamo when rendering Isaiah 44:15: “That it might be for men to burn: and having taken part of it he warms himself; and they burn part of it; and bake loaves thereon; and the rest they make for themselves gods, and they worship them.” Lamo is generally rendered “to him” as it refers to the collective noun, servant, that is, the Jewish people, not a single individual. In such an instance, lamo can be translated in the singular. Although it must always be understood to be in the plural in relation to what numerically constitutes the entity that is given the appellative servant. The plural nature of the poetic form lamo is supported by the manner in which it is used in the Jewish Scriptures. Isaiah uses lamo eleven times: 16:4, 23:1, 26:14, 26:16, 30:5, 35:8, 43:8, 44:7, 44:15, 48:21 and 53:8. This poetic usage especially works well in verse 8. Although the subject of chapter 53 is given throughout in the singular, the change to the plural form in verse 8 is fully accounted for when the servant of God is considered to stand collectively for the people of Israel. That the plural lamo in verse 8 refers to the servant as a collective noun excludes any possibility that it pertains to an individual. Therefore, it cannot refer to Jesus.
@@Pasture_Prime you said the trinity is pagan, ok. but i say the God of Israel is the Trinity. The Father, The Son and The Holy Spirit. and we can prove that from the torah and the rest of the bible please post Gen 31:10-13
@@Pasture_Prime you just conceded "lamo" can be used to refer to a singular. that makes my case because, i never denied lamo can refer to a plurality of individuals. my point is, lamo can also refer to a singular referent. since you conceded that point, there is no need for further bickering. you cannot rely on the word lamo alone, to say the servant is the nation or its righteous remnant. that is something that requires further evidence
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.
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.
The Rabbi thinks Isaiah was one single author who wrote it in one go?? Literally no scholar worth their salt thinks that. The dude also sounds like the Cowardly Lion so that cracks me up, the Jews are always so full of themselves. Their pride over their legalism is their very downfall and why they denied their own savior.
He really didn't address the Two Powers in Heaven issue did he? IMHO the burden is on him to show relationship between modern Judaism and ancient Judaism.
Hey, Jim. Yeah, I was a little disappointed! I wanted to hear Rabbi Singer's position on that issue. But he side-stepped and, instead, challenged whether Alan Segal (the Jewish scholar I had cited) was a "real" Jew. Rob
@Finn Lapp But surely it is recognized that Judaism is not practiced by anyone today as it was in the first century when the temple and priesthood existed?
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.
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.
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
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 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
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! 😆👍💯
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.
Rabbi Singer is a fulfillment of Isaiah 6:10
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. 😊
I hope the rabbi comes to know that Jesus loves him
Who??
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
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.
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.)
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
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
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.
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.
In his effort to disprove Christianity, Singer is dismantling Judaism. No one does more to disprove Judaism than Tovia Singer
Your channel is like a breathe of fresh air
Thanks, D.K.!
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.
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?
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??
_Solbergs KO's_
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
Jesus está vivo. Ele me salvou! Aleluia!
Aleluia, Queleu!
Shalom, Rob
Alleluia
paz y vida bendecida amigo(
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.
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.”
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
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.
This is amazing that Jews want to debate this topic! I love your love for Jesus and our awesome salvation message!
We need a part 2 🙏🏾🙏🏾 God bless you guys
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.”
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.
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
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.
If you want to know how Jesus Christ connects to God read Colossians 1 from verse 15. Why do debaters not mention this Scripture.
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.😢
@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)
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...
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 : )
Wow, I’m glued to my seat just listening. This is probably the best debate I’ve ever seen.
I’m not saying there isn’t an argument that can be made that can turn me from Jesus but I will say I’ve never heard one and I didn’t hear one today.
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.*
Humility goes a long way. Great debate. Ty for putting that on and allowing the world to see.
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.
Brother Solberg, I know you’re a very knowledge person, I’m following all your videos and stuff, because I love the way you talk, but you’re lacking a little bit of boldness amon your statements, I would like to hear in this debate you’re talking about Jesus Christ, the Lord, and savior, with all passion like the Juwish guy did about
Jahweh
Soldier of Christ 💪🏻
So jesus was the messiah because the Christian "profiths" that comes after him said so. . ?
That is a very unsollid ground for argument.
J . ....
I wonder why jews dont belive in 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.
I think both are missing a piece of the puzzle. Truth might be somewhere in the middle.... as in Natsarim or Hebrew roots teachings. I dunno. Just a confused seeker of Truth here.
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!
Someday everyone will know that Jesus and the Father are one.
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 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.
So, Solberg mops the floor with Singer, then Singer has to Crack jokes to posture.
He's not a nice guy.
Totally agree!!
Finaly.. a good debate with Tovia Singer
This was a great debate. The comments here are very respectable to both. The comments on Singers channel, not so much.
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.
Something odd in this debate:
how come it's the Christian starting to ask questions to the rabbi?
Why not the other way around?
Christianity offers the answers to the world.
Not Judaism.
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.
Good morning
Professor Solberg you did a surperb job
im.puzzled about Rabbi Tovias opening remarks
it apeared he was doing a sermon not rebutting your statements
the old testement is full of Yeshuas coming
The Bible is not a christian bible it was written mostly by Jews inspired by The Holy Spirit
also Yeshua,was a jew not a christian
shalom.and blessings to you and your family
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
I really appreciate Professor Solberg's defense of the Gospel. However, because of his commitment to Futurist Eschatology he missed an opportunity to really shut the mouth of Rabbi Singer who was going off about Jesus failing to fulfill all the Messianic Prophesies. If you invest the time (a lot of time, hundreds of hours) to studying Covenant Eschatology, an Eschatology which clearly demonstrates that Jesus Parousia took place in 70 AD, and that God's enemies (Apostate Jewry) were judged and destroyed, as well as Judgment on Rome 66-70 AD. Jesus and the Apostles were not wrong, the Apostles were not confused, the time indicators of near and close at hand were spot on and they fulfilled all of the Messianic prophesies of the Conquering KIng. Modern Israel is a sham and the Jews who run it are not even Semites. Let Rabbi Singer and his clan wait for their false Messiah, but be not deceived, Jesus came again in that generation just as he said he would. Christians who hold to a futurist Eschatology cannot answer the Jewish, Atheist and Muslim objections that Jesus and the Apostles were wrong about their Prophetic Predictions about the Last Days (End of the Age) and the Eschaton. A right understanding of Biblical Eschatology (both OT and NT) is a powerful weapon against such ignorance as Rabbi Singer is spewing forth! It is sad to see the Futurist Christian Community continue to say "just you wait and see, Jesus is going to show you when He comes floating on Clouds with the Angels and Fire and so on." It is a big misunderstanding of the Apocalyptic Language of Scripture ( OT and NT) as well as a rejection of the clear time indicators of Jesus and the Apostles.
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
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.
Thank you for praying. I’m always a little taken aback when men of God don’t pray publicly prior. It just feels right.
2:01:23 his logic doesn't follow. Scripture says the world will worship the Lord, but then says if your religion is the majority then you should question whether or not your religion is true because Jews have always been the minority??? Why not accept that Christianity is the fulfillment of that scripture in that it has brought the nations into worshipping the God of Israel?
He says to stick with Isaiah, Jeremiah, and so on not to appeal to scholars for their interpretation, but we should believe his interpretation? Very circular if you ask me.
At the end of the day it was an enjoyable debate. I had a few laughs.
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…
@@rioanantakeliat5170 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?
Singer quotes from the Babylonian Talmud.....but he forgot to mention what it says about Jesus the eternal Son of God....that he is boiling in his own excrement in hell....thats what the Talmud says about Jesus. Gentiles have no soul and ate cattle...Thw Talmud is from rhe wvil one and Singer is seriously lost
Cross-Examination... Talking over. Take it back. Rephrase. Interrupt. ... Obfuscate? Strawman? ... Maybe I've been listening for too long, but Singer started sounding like Charlie Brown.
jesse so if the rabbi stated falsehood post i don't want to see your Ad hominem attacks
what did he say that was false?
@@Pasture_Prime
What are you talking about?
Jesse
Im asking you to clarify your Ad hominem "Maybe I've been listening for too long, but Singer started sounding like Charlie Brown."
so that that is a comment about the speaker not the facts
you claim Cross-examination
"Talking over. Take it back. Rephrase. Interrupt. ... Obfuscate? Strawman?"
where are the facts?
where is the context?
he obfuscated how?
Strawman because he said what?
rephased what was the context?
that called evidence you presented none
that is called a strawman
@@Pasture_Prime
That's not ad hom...
@@jessebryant9233 ad hominem directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.
All that was a personal attack on Tovia over the actual points in the debate.
Mic drop
I watched this debate on Tovia's channel. I think you did speak very well, and he never answered the questions, but speaking Jew to tell us that if we don't speak Jew we are not God’s people and can't understand the scriptures.
He's making the same mistake his ancestors did by denying Jesus as The Messiah.
Question to the Jews: If you don't believe in Jesus being The Son of Man, who was The Son Of Man King Nebuchadnezzar saw in Daniel 3:24-24.
I love what Paul said in
Romans 10:1-5 🙏🏾
Hello!
First Rabbi Tovia dosent need to answer your Question when you rellay on the new testament, wich for jews dosent worth nothing .
But You can ask on the Old testament..
Christians really on the jews but the jews dont need to rellay on chrsitian as far they need to "proof" something .
The Tora stand for its self.
If you take out what is said in Tora you stay with nothing in your gospel.
-Man was created In the image of god and not god was created in the image of man (like Christians do)
I will check on daniel on return to you my answer.
❤
A right you probbley belive its jesus because its said the son of god ..
Its have to be jesus how can it be other then him ?
Well its an angel=son of god.
But you dont hebrew so you translate it worng
Rabbi singer alway turned blind eyes on his sources just because he want to repudiate Christianity. Thank you for pointing out his double standards
We gentiles loves the Jews because of YESHUA period
1:39:15 lmao!! Tovia played it cool..."you understand what you just said!? that's the most ilogi...most unlikely..."
We all know what Tovia really wanted to really say!! lmao!! Professor Solberg made no sense whatsoever!!
David K. led an offshoot of the 7th Day Adventists. The plague in Waco, Tx even notes this fact. 🤔
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.
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.
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.
I see he blames Christian countries for the holocaust, maybe he could acknowledge that Hitler was not Christian and 2 Christian countries liberated many of the camps.
Yes. Before the holocaust there were pogroms in Europe against the Jews, by Christians. Jesus loving Christians. Also the Catholic Church permitted the holocaust.
@@truthwins8147 You are confusing the roman catholic church with the christian church
@@decay-154 Both the Uk and US are Protestant. The Christian church comes from many denominations to make the one body.
Wow, amazing debate. Rabbi Singer makes me want to learn hebrew.
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.
Good job, Ron! I thought you did well in this debate, I just wish you addressed the fact that all nations do not know that Jesus is the Christ, and not just the most popular religion.
The fact that not all nations know Jesus is a proof that he is not the messiah because when the messiah comes everyone on earth will know the one true God and no one will have to teach anyone about him because they will know. So all evangelism, Bible schools, different religions, atheism is a proof that Jesus wasn’t the messiah
@@isaaclosh8082 they will know when He returns a second time.
@@mikeprew ironically that's exactly why Jews don't believe Jesus is the Messiah (among other reasons). In the Old Testament, the Messianic Prophecies and requirements to be the Messiah state that the person must bring world peace and all will know him. Nothing about a Second Coming (that's only in the New Testament). The Jewish Messiah is supposed to bring world peace and world knowledge of him in his first time arrival (not a second or third or fourth etc time. The FIRST TIME) according to Judaism and the OT. The NT admits that Jesus failed to do this and needs to use the excuse of a "second time". Jesus failed to bring world peace and global knowledge of him the first time, and so now there is the excuse that "he'll get it right the second time". Whether or not Jesus will come back or he will get it right the second time is irrelevant, because by failing to do so the FIRST TIME, he has already failed the Messianic Prophecies of the OT and Judaism.
@@YokaiX you can interpret His second coming as an excuse or whatever, but I really do disagree with that notion. The Hebrew Bible does seem to display seemingly contradicting depictions of the anointed One. Micah 5 says that He will be born in Bethlehem while Daniel 7 seemingly indicates the Christ as divine. Isaiah 9 says He will be reign forever while Daniel 9 says He will be cut off. You probably think Isaiah 53 speaks of Israel, but it speaks of a suffering servant who will bear the sins of people and be killed. All of these seemingly contradictory statements made in the TaNaKh can be understand when putting it into a Christian context. It is true that the entire world does not recognize Jesus as the anointed one, but I don't think it's ad hoc or moving the goalposts to say that this will happen at His second coming- I find it reasonable and not a strong enough reason to reject Yeshua as the mashiach.
@@isaaclosh8082 Actually he is the most know person in the world. People love him or hate him. Who else has met the many prophecies of scripture.
The Jews who don’t believe that Jesus is the Messiah always use the argument that Jesus cannot be the Messiah because he did not bring world peace. Salvation is in phases. The first peace that Jesus accomplished through his death, burial, and resurrection was peace between God and Mankind. Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ. (Romans 5:1) The second peace that Jesus accomplished for us was personal peace within ourselves. Even though we live in a wicked, cruel world we are still able to experience inner peace. For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility. (Ephesians 2:14) Jesus is the Prince of Peace and peace is a person, Jesus Christ. The final peace that Jesus will bring upon the earth is when he returns and establishes the Kingdom of God upon the earth by destroying Satan’s kingdom. Then the end will come, when He hands over the kingdom to God the Father after He has destroyed all dominion, authority, and power. (1 Corinthians 15:24)
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
If Christianity really were reading the original Hebrew text, they will really see how much idolatry they are in. May Aba YAHUWAH guide and protect you during this era Rabbi TobYah.
אמן
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.
Singer is lost. Jesus is savior God.
Amen and amen hallelujah!!
Rob
There is no way that Jesus of Nazareth could have been the servant of God described in Isaiah 53!
First of all, according to Christian mythology, Jesus was God Himself, come in the flesh! Timothy 3:16 tells us that ‘GOD WAS MANIFEST IN THE FLESH (of Jesus)’!!
Colossians 2:9 tells us that ‘in him (Jesus) dwelleth ALL of the GODHEAD, BODILY!’
John 14:9 tells us, ‘he that has seen ME (Jesus) has SEEN THE FATHER!’ etc.
Since Jesus was GOD ‘disguised’ as a man, he could not be the Servant of God!
At best, he would be playing the part of a ‘servant’. It is no big deal for ‘God to ‘suffer’, since he knows all along that he is ‘God’, (a very consoling thought!), unless he temporarily ‘forgot’ he was ‘God’, (which is unlikely, for a person like ‘God’!).
Secondly, the servant of God is to LIVE, and have children! Verse 10 of Isaiah 53 reads, in the Hebrew:
If his soul offers itself as a sin-offering, he (the Servant) shall see seed (children! progeny!) and have a long life! (YIREH ZERA, YAARIKH YAMIM).
Hardly a fitting description of a man who died childless in his thirty third year!!
Moreover, the Servant is a THEY, not a HE!!
Again, translating from the Hebrew, we read in verse 8: ‘for the transgression of my people were THEY stricken! (NEGA LAMO - third person plural!).
But, wait a minute!
WHO is being quoted in Isaiah 53?
The Prophet? The people of Israel? The confusion is caused by the artificial chapter division.
The story of the Servant begins in chapter 52, verse 13: ‘behold, my servant shall prosper! (Jesus was forsaken, Matthew 27:46) … so shall he surprise MANY NATIONS! (GENTILES!) Kings shall shut their mouths (in astonishment) because of him! For that which they have not heard SHALL THEY (THE GENTILE RULERS) PERCEIVE!
It is the rulers of the NATIONS who exclaim in astonishment: ‘who would have believed what we report? The despised rejected servant suffered AS A RESULT OF OUR SINS, and nevertheless,
he healed us with his truth. We thought that he was smitten of God, whereas, in truth, he was crushed by our iniquities which we gentiles perpetrated against him!’ Now, we know that Christianity was spread throughout the nations of Europe by myriads of saints, apostles and preachers, so the surprise element doesn’t exist if the gentile rulers here quoted were referring to Jesus; but what a surprise it will be to them when they perceive on THEIR OWN, that the Servant of God is despised, afflicted ISRAEL who has for centuries borne of the nations’ sins! The Pharaohs, Hamans, Hitlers sinned, and Israel suffered.
But, not ALL ISRAEL were righteous servants. Many were sinners! THE SERVANT, THE IDEAL ISRAEL is a class within Israel! The Prophets, the saints, the sages, like Moses - Jeremiah - Isaiah - Elijah - Akiva, etc. - the holy ones who perished in the inquisitions, crusades, pogroms, the holocaust - these are the COLLECTIVE SERVANT, the light into the nations, FAITHFUL ISRAEL who has borne witness to God by deeds, sacrifice and tenacious faith! (This collective servant is further described in the 65th chapter of Isaiah.)
IF SO … why did Jesus die?
If he wasn’t the righteous servant of God, (and he WASN’T), why did he die such a terrible death??
The answer to this question is unequivocally provided in the Hebrew Scriptures.
Thus shall you say to them: the gods that have NOT made the heavens and the earth, THESE shall perish from the earth, and from under the heavens!! (Jeremiah 10:11)
1) the reason Jesus could be the servant of God, and God at the same time is because he is The Son. The God of Israel is The Trinity, The Father, The Son and The Holy Spirit. three distinct persons, one essence. so, when one of the persons became flesh (The Son) he became the servant of The Father who sent him. that is how, he is both God and the servant of God.
2) seed is referring to spiritual seed. he shall see his spiritual seed. in Is 53:11 it says he shall make many righteous. so the seed, are those people who were made righteous because of him. in the bible, seed doesn't only refer to physical seed. for example:- Is 57:5 it speaks of people as seeds of falsehood. obviously falsehood doesn't have physical seed
3) the hebrew word "lamo" doesn't always refer to multiple referents. it can refer to a single referent. for example:- in Is 44:15 "lamo" is used to a single referent. also in Gen 9:27, the word "lamo" is used to refer to a single referent. so you cannot say lamo always refers to a multiplicity of individuals
the speakers are no the people of the world, but the prophet speaking on behalf of his people. in Is 53:5 the speakers say "he was wounded for our transgression" then, the prophet says in v.8, "he was smitten for the transgression of MY PEOPLE" proving the speakers of v.5, are the people of the prophet
second, the suffering and death of the servant wasn't just a result of our sin, but as a source of healing. in v.5 it says "by his stripes we are healed" so his suffering was for the sole purpose of granting us healing. so you are wrong
all over the hebrew bible, the suffering of the righteous remnant of Israel result sin the punishment of the gentile nations which caused that suffering. so if the servant was the nation, healing wouldn't have been the result but punishment. since the outcome is healing, the suffering servant cannot be the whole nation of Israel nor its righteous remnant
@@thatethiopiandude5077perhaps you should read a better translation Chabad for instance.
As Professor Rob pointed out even in India jesus is considered a divine being.
Trinity is not found in Jewish scripture it only in pagan ones.
let's look at Hindus beliefs.
I have included the sources
The Puranas, one of the Hindu Bibles of more than 3,000 years ago, contain the following passage: 'O ye three Lords! know that I recognize only one God. Inform me, therefore, which of you is the true divinity, that I may address to him alone my adorations.' The three gods, Brahma, Vishnu, and Siva [or Shiva], becoming manifest to him, replied, 'Learn, O devotee, that there is no real distinction between us. What to you appears such is only the semblance. The single being appears under three forms by the acts of creation, preservation, and destruction, but he is one.'
"Hence the triangle was adopted by all the ancient nations as a symbol of the Deity . . . Three was considered among all the pagan nations as the chief of the mystical numbers, because, as Aristotle remarks, it contains within itself a beginning, a middle, and an end. Hence we find it designating some of the attributes of almost all the pagan gods" (Sinclair, pp. 382-383).
"In the Fourth Century B.C. Aristotle wrote: 'All things are three, and thrice is all: and let us use this number in the worship of the gods; for, as the Pythagoreans say, everything and all things are bounded by threes, for the end, the middle and the beginning have this number in everything, and these compose the number of the Trinity'" (Arthur Weigall, Paganism in Our Christianity, 1928, pp. 197-198).
"The ancient Babylonians recognized the doctrine of a trinity, or three persons in one god-as appears from a composite god with three heads forming part of their mythology, and the use of the equilateral triangle, also, as an emblem of such trinity in unity" (Thomas Dennis Rock, The Mystical Woman and the Cities of the Nations, 1867, pp. 22-23).
Egyptologist Arthur Weigall, while himself a Trinitarian, summed up the influence of ancient beliefs on the adoption of the Trinity doctrine by the Catholic Church in the following excerpt from his previously cited book:
"It must not be forgotten that Jesus Christ never mentioned such a phenomenon [the Trinity], and nowhere in the New Testament does the word 'Trinity' appear. The idea was only adopted by the Church three hundred years after the death of our Lord; and the origin of the conception is entirely pagan . . .
let's look at seed of falsehood.
And you, draw near hither, children of sorcery; children who commit adultery, and played the whore.
whom will you [rely to] enjoy yourselves; against whom do you open your mouth wide; against whom do you stick out your tongue?
Are you not children of transgression, seed of falsehood?
here it is talking about the children born of sorcery, adultery and Harlots.
they are the offspring(seed) of Falseness, so it is a physical seed.
As regards the word lamo, “to them,” grammarians recognize that it is also in a sense singular, “to him” (as it is in non-poetic usage), because it agrees with certain singular nouns. As in this verse, lamo, the poetic form of lahem (“to them”), is used often in referring to a collective noun. Examples are, Genesis 9:26 (where it refers to Shem, that is, the descendants of Shem); Psalms 28:8 where it refers to the people of verse 9; Psalms 73:10 (also in reference to “people”); Isaiah 44:15 (in reference to ’el [a god] and pesel [a carved image], which are also to be understood respectively as referring collectively to all false gods); and finally Isaiah 53:8.
The translator of the Hebrew, into the Greek Septuagint, understood the proper use of lamo when rendering Isaiah 44:15: “That it might be for men to burn: and having taken part of it he warms himself; and they burn part of it; and bake loaves thereon; and the rest they make for themselves gods, and they worship them.” Lamo is generally rendered “to him” as it refers to the collective noun, servant, that is, the Jewish people, not a single individual. In such an instance, lamo can be translated in the singular. Although it must always be understood to be in the plural in relation to what numerically constitutes the entity that is given the appellative servant. The plural nature of the poetic form lamo is supported by the manner in which it is used in the Jewish Scriptures. Isaiah uses lamo eleven times: 16:4, 23:1, 26:14, 26:16, 30:5, 35:8, 43:8, 44:7, 44:15, 48:21 and 53:8. This poetic usage especially works well in verse 8. Although the subject of chapter 53 is given throughout in the singular, the change to the plural form in verse 8 is fully accounted for when the servant of God is considered to stand collectively for the people of Israel. That the plural lamo in verse 8 refers to the servant as a collective noun excludes any possibility that it pertains to an individual. Therefore, it cannot refer to Jesus.
@@Pasture_Prime you said the trinity is pagan, ok. but i say the God of Israel is the Trinity. The Father, The Son and The Holy Spirit. and we can prove that from the torah and the rest of the bible
please post Gen 31:10-13
@@Pasture_Prime you just conceded "lamo" can be used to refer to a singular. that makes my case because, i never denied lamo can refer to a plurality of individuals. my point is, lamo can also refer to a singular referent. since you conceded that point, there is no need for further bickering. you cannot rely on the word lamo alone, to say the servant is the nation or its righteous remnant. that is something that requires further evidence
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:
We shall seek the Lord with our heart and Hewill reveal himself to us. The Lord says the human knowledge is foolishness to God.❤
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
A special units soldier of the Lord
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
The application of jargon is the only way to explain the Trinity
The Rabbi thinks Isaiah was one single author who wrote it in one go?? Literally no scholar worth their salt thinks that. The dude also sounds like the Cowardly Lion so that cracks me up, the Jews are always so full of themselves. Their pride over their legalism is their very downfall and why they denied their own savior.
He really didn't address the Two Powers in Heaven issue did he? IMHO the burden is on him to show relationship between modern Judaism and ancient Judaism.
Hey, Jim. Yeah, I was a little disappointed! I wanted to hear Rabbi Singer's position on that issue. But he side-stepped and, instead, challenged whether Alan Segal (the Jewish scholar I had cited) was a "real" Jew.
Rob
@Finn Lapp But surely it is recognized that Judaism is not practiced by anyone today as it was in the first century when the temple and priesthood existed?