Why doesn’t Judaism accept the Christian Messiah | Rapp Report Weekly 0034 | Striving for Eternity

This podcast is something that was recorded a year ago.

It's in response to a video done by Rabbi Tovia Singer answering the question

whether Jesus could be the Jewish Messiah.

Now Rabbi Tovia has a ministry to Jewish people that convert to

Christianity to convert them back to Judaism.

So one of the things I need to correct off the bat is you're gonna hear throughout I'm gonna refer to him as Tova

Singer.

That is not his name.

He is properly pronounced Tovia Singer.

I didn't know it at the time of this recording.

Since the time of this recording Rabbi Tovia and I have been in touch.

We are trying to set up a formal debate.

Maybe someone out there can help us.

We're looking for a large place where we can debate the topic of whether Jesus was the Jewish Messiah.

He has been in touch with me.

We've communicated.

So when I pronounce his name, there is no misintent in it.

It is only because I didn't know the proper pronunciation.

Now I do.

So please forgive the fact that I mispronounced his name Tova instead of Tovia.

Another thing that you might notice is that his sound quality it may not be as good as mine though and maybe not

hearing me right now in this introduction because I'm mobile, but he has some you're

gonna hear some cranking or noise that is gonna be the rustling of

his microphone against his shirt.

Maybe sometime he and I can get together and I can help him get set up.

We can go to our favorite electronics store B &H Electronics in New York and a Jewish owned place and

we can get him set up right so that he doesn't have that but you're gonna hear that throughout.

I hope that doesn't become annoying.

The third thing that I do need to address is this.

I felt when he did his recording it to me it came off as a little bit a little bit snarky and

but in a folksy way I was being snarky as well.

But when I re -listened to this, I think I was being a little bit too snarky.

I think I came off a little bit too much so in that way and I did not mean that to be.

I hope that you would forgive me for that.

I think the points that I make are very true.

I think the points where I think that he cannot answer my point of that I make is valid

just as much as when he says that we can't answer his.

I think I might have gone overboard with it.

So I just need to let you know that up front.

So this is the question being answered.

Is Jesus the Jewish Messiah a response to Rabbi Tobia Singer?

Welcome to the rap report with Andrew Rapaport where we provide biblical interpretations and

applications.

This is a ministry of Striving for Eternity.

For more content or to request a speaker or seminar for your church, go to strivingforeternity

.org.

I've been asked by several people to address a video that's come out.

I guess actually it came out in 2016 titled, Why Doesn't Judaism Accept

the Christian Messiah by Rabbi Toba Singer.

So let me start off by giving a little bit about Rabbi Toba Singer.

My understanding, if this is the same gentleman when I, oh about 18 -20 years ago,

when I had a rabbi trying to convert me back to Judaism, he gave me these cassette tapes,

for those of you who are kind of younger, cassette tapes were something you put into a thing, it had tape on it, and

he'd play, before the time of CDs, just sang.

Some of you may remember because you'd stick a pencil in it to wind it up to get the tension right.

Anyway, the reality is I had about six to eight hours of

audio tapes of Rabbi Toba Singer, and this rabbi that was trying to convert me back

to Judaism said, listen to this rabbi, he knows his New Testament as well as he does his Tanakh, the Old

Testament.

And he said, listen, he'll straighten you out.

And I listened to all the hours of tape that I had, and you know what my conclusion was, that this

gentleman did not understand Christianity at all.

In fact, what he was doing was confusing Roman Catholicism with Mormonism and

didn't know the differences.

Now, who's his audience?

His audience, it was always, or almost always, rabbis who know nothing

about Christianity.

So he could pull this off.

This is no different than Joshua Evans, who is a Muslim apologist, who goes to Muslims and argues for what

Christianity believes, but he will not, at least not after he had a debate with me, he refuses to be on

stage with a Christian anymore.

Why?

Because when he's confronted with someone that actually understands Christianity, he doesn't want to be around

it because they can correct it.

The rabbi that gave me these cassettes, I told him any time that Rabbi Toba Singer is in

town, I would be happy to debate him on the topic of Christianity to display to

all the rabbis that he knows nothing of what Christianity actually teaches.

But his audience are those who know far less than him, so he seems like an expert.

Well, he's put this video together, Why Judaism Doesn't Accept the Messiah.

I'll put a link of it in the description so you can see this in in full context because we're not gonna have like we usually like

to do is go through the play the entire thing only because of the sake of time.

I'll give you the link.

We're gonna play different clips, we're gonna interact with it and what we are gonna spend most of the time with is examining the scriptures that he

wants to discuss.

Because well, we're gonna see that well, we'll just see that he doesn't

doesn't exactly follow the same rules that he sets for others.

So let's begin.

We're gonna begin by playing part of this clip.

So let's listen to.

Rabbi Singer.

How would you identify the Messiah?

What you should do is you should study everything that Christianity teaches about

Moshiach about them about Jesus and it's exactly the opposite.

So Rabbi Singer says that the way to identify the Messiah is listen to what

Christianity says and believe the opposite.

So what you end up seeing here?

Well, a couple logical fallacies called begging the question and poisoning the well for one.

Well, actually that's two.

Begging the question is he's assuming the thing he's trying to prove.

He's trying to prove that Christianity doesn't have the right view of the Messiah.

So what does he do?

The way to know what the Old Testament teaches about the Messiah is look at what the New Testament teaches and believe the

opposite.

That's not exactly gonna teach you what the Old Testament teaches about the Messiah, is it?

It's also poisoning the well because what he's doing is saying that we should basically look at

everything that's said and know that it's all wrong.

Just everything.

So now I'm there's about ten minutes after this clip that I played of

just storytelling and then let me just give you guys for those that do go and listen to the full thing.

Do you understand that a Jewish way of of communicating is by storytelling is by

just he seems like he's rambling.

Now, he was asked this question on a looks like a, you know, a video hangout

or whatever.

And so maybe he wasn't prepared for it.

Maybe he's rambling for a couple of minutes telling stories as a way of

just describing things while he gets his thoughts together.

In there one of the things I did think was funny as he's rambling and and and sharing stories is a he mentions how Jews

and Muslims got along.

There's a thing called the Middle East crisis and people have been arguing that's always

been there.

I don't know where this Jews and Muslims get along because the the Muslims used to

well, they used to kill the Jews.

They used to tax the Jews.

They used to persecute the Jews and still do today and he says they get along.

Just a little side note.

But other than that, let's play another clip from him and start dealing with some of the passages eventually that

he's gonna get to.

Remember, the discussion is what's the Jewish Messiah?

Why doesn't the Judaism accept the Christian Messiah?

Well, he says right off the bat the way to find out what the Old Testament teaches about the Messiah is to ignore

everything from the, actually not even ignore, take the opposite of what the New Testament teaches.

So that's really gonna be interesting.

We're gonna see.

Here's gonna be the challenge.

Let's see if Rabbi Singer actually deals with any of the verses that talk about

Messiah's first coming.

We're gonna deal with this first and second coming because that's gonna become an issue.

But we'll deal with that a little bit later on.

You're gonna see this come up because he's only gonna focus on what the what we as Christians would say is the second coming

and he's gonna say that's the only coming of the Messiah and what his whole argument is gonna be

is to look at that and say that the Messiah is the opposite of

what we see in the New Testament.

Now, Christians understand that Jesus Christ, the Messiah, is gonna come twice

and therefore all these things that you're gonna see him argue for we would say is the second coming and it's still the

same Messiah.

So it's not that Christians believe in two Messiahs.

That would be a fallacy if he tries to argue that.

I don't think he's arguing that but here's what you're gonna see.

He's gonna be making this argument over and over again and he's gonna look at just some of the passages that he

wants to that support his claim.

Now, let me give an illustration of this.

In here in America, we had a presidential election where we had

President Barack Obama got elected.

Now if I did a prophecy and I prophesied about Barack Obama's

presidency and talked about his presidency and we take this example

and apply it to what Rabbi Singer is saying, what we would do is look only at the

prophecies or the claims that refer to Barack Obama's running against Mitt

Romney.

What he's basically doing is saying that the Barack Obama could not have been president

because he's ignoring the fact that Barack Obama first won presidency by

John against John McCain.

The illustration I'm trying to say is Barack Obama ran for president twice.

Once against John McCain, once against Mitt Romney and to look only at his running of what

happened with Mitt Romney and then argue that he never ran against John

McCain or to say that his running in 2008 like didn't happen would be to

ignore half of the facts.

This is exactly what you're gonna see Rabbi Singer do over and over again.

Here be my challenge.

I'll just give two passages because he'll say later that if they're that God should just give at least one example of

Christ fulfilling some of the New Testament prophecies of Messiah that are claimed.

Rabbi Singer, this would be my challenge.

Isaiah 53.

Just deal with that one.

Deal with Psalm 22.

Deal with those exegetically.

You will find that he will never refer to any of the passages that Christians would look at as the coming of

the Messiah the first time.

So he ignores all that and then he just looks at what we would refer to as the second

coming to prove that the first coming must have never happened.

In other words, Jesus can't be the Messiah unless he fulfilled just the portions he wants fulfilled

and this is gonna be the thing.

What you end up seeing is he ignores the passages that don't fit his conclusion.

So in other words, the Messiah is spoken of often in Scripture, but he only wants to look at those

passages that fulfill the future coming of the Messiah and look at those passages

that support his conclusion.

This is another logical fallacy called confirmation bias.

Now, why am I pointing out the logical fallacies early on?

You're gonna see him at the end of this talk about logical fallacies or logic and appeal to

logic and yet what you're gonna see is he's gonna be breaking laws of logic.

He's gonna be committing fallacies and not even recognize it.

So he's committing the fallacy of the excluded middle because he thinks that there's only one

possibility of the Messiah coming and that's the one he's drawn the conclusion.

Therefore any of the prophecies of Messiah that don't fit his conclusion he's going to explain away as if they're

not there's no possible answer for those prophecies to be of Messiah.

He's not gonna deal with any of the ones that we would look to speaking of Christ and look at those.

If he really wanted to take a challenge, he would do like I did take all the passages that he's using

examine them and look at what they teach.

This is what he doesn't do.

He doesn't address what Christians respond to.

Why?

Because his audience is Jewish.

If Rabbi Tova Singer was to be debating someone like me or any other Christian I'm sure that he'd have to

give a response to what Christians are actually saying.

He ignores all that and just looks from the Old Testament that he wants to to come to the conclusions that he comes

to.

So let's take a look at this now.

...carefully and the Jewish Bible falls.

That can not be.

I'm going to say that again.

It is impossible, every Christian knows this, that the it is impossible

for the Christian Bible to be the Word of God.

It is impossible for Matthew, Mark, Luke, John and the Apostles of Paul and John and so on and so forth and

Peter that cannot be true and the Jewish Bible falls.

Do you understand that?

Okay, so he's saying that it is impossible for the New Testament to be true and the Old

Testament to be false.

Christianity would say they're both true.

He's trying to say that and this is basically his argument is that if the New Testament is true he's going to

argue that that proves the New Testament is false.

But what he's going to appeal to is he's going to say to the Christians that what we must do is focus only on

the Old Testament because if we focus only on the Old Testament, then we would get that information.

The argument is, I'm going to say it again, he wants us to say, okay, the New

Testament says that the Old Testament is true.

Okay, we both agree, Jews and Christians agree, the Old Testament is God's Word and accurate.

Therefore, he's saying, well, let's look just at the Old Testament and examine just the Old Testament and

not look at any of the New Testament.

Here's a problem with this and a fallacy with this is, let me apply this now to the Old Testament.

There are Jews, Samaritans, that would only look at the first five books of the Torah, the

Pentateuch called, the first five books of Moses, and they wouldn't look at anything else.

Now, Rabbi Singer would agree that the first five books are Scripture, are God's Word.

Would he be willing to throw out all of the rest of the Old Testament and only prove that the Messiah is

from the first five books?

In fact, if we look at his references, we'll go through later, you're gonna see not one of them are from the Torah,

not one.

They are all from the prophets.

You see, when we have the progression of revelation, we end up seeing that this is

continues, that we end up seeing that we have more and more information.

The Torah does not give enough information about the Messiah and who he is.

You needed more revelation.

So to throw out the New Testament, it gives further revelation of who Messiah is, would be as

silly as throwing out all the prophets, when that's specifically the thing that it's gonna teach about,

right?

So we wouldn't do things like that.

And so this is one of the fallacies he's gonna end up committing here, is that he would like us to throw out

the New Testament, which, by the way, he already did.

Remember?

He said, hey, look what the New Testament teaches.

Teach the, you know, basically take the complete opposite of it.

And he's gonna argue here for looking for clear texts.

He wants a clear text.

But notice, as you go through this whole video, if you do, he doesn't mention Isaiah 53 once.

The key text that every Christian would go to when it comes to the Christian Messiah, the Christian view of Jesus

as the Messiah, okay?

So what you do is he doesn't deal with the one main text.

By the way, in synagogue readings, you don't have Isaiah 53 being read.

So this is an issue that you end up seeing.

They want, they're ignoring the key text.

That's not dealing with the clear text.

I'm gonna play him saying this a little bit.

But I want you to see, because as we go through this, you're gonna see that he doesn't appeal to any clear texts.

And therefore,.

Listen, my holy brothers and sisters, if you want the truth, where do you have to look?

You gotta look in the Jewish Bible.

And then you use the Jewish Bible, which we all know is the Word of God, as a measuring tool,

as a measuring read.

That's what the word canon means.

You notice he appeals to some Christian language there.

That's what canon means.

He's trying to sound like, and he's very, you know, very folksy, very, you

know, very kind, you know, just, I'm trying to think of the best word, but he just sounds someone that you'd like to get

along with and talk to.

You're seeing this in his demeanor, how he's just, just come

alongside, just leave with me, just follow with me, is the type of attitude.

Measure against it every claim made by the church.

I don't care, we can call them fantastic claims, they are, but so what fantastic claims?

That's fine.

I'll go with that.

But every claim of the church must be measured against

the Word of Hashem.

Okay, so is he willing to measure every word only by the Torah?

No, he doesn't do that.

He does not do what he claims for others.

It's all God's Word.

He pits one against the other.

But the fact is, then I would challenge him to defend all of his argument only from the Torah,

only from the books of Moses.

Can he do that?

No, he cannot because God gave up aggression in Revelation.

For the sake of time, let me just go, I was gonna try to wait till he gets to the point where he asks for,

look for graphic, clear texts.

That's what he's gonna say that we should look for.

But here, let's look and listen to how he describes Christians pastors, because this

is gonna be very interesting.

Pastors,.

Whatever it is, they get up in their churches and they teach homilies.

It's part of their Sunday church classes.

It comes up in Bible classes during the week.

Now, it's okay.

That means they have homilies, which means they're not clear, but you put some text

together.

There's three angels, la, la, la.

You know, those are homilies.

Those are Christian homilies.

We have them, too.

They're nice for sermons.

They're okay.

But you cannot introduce that into this

fundamental question, is Jesus the Messiah?

Is Jesus the second part of the triune Godhead?

What you, what you, what we're looking for are graphic texts where it is plain to

the reader what exactly is being conveyed.

Okay, so there was the part that I was looking for with the graphic text.

Okay, so here's the thing.

He's saying that what Christians do is homily.

They're speaking, and what he describes is what we call in hermeneutics, the art and science of interpretation, proof texting, where you grab a

passage of Scripture, maybe rip it out of its context, you grab another one, you slam them together, and you give

it a meaning.

That is called proof texting.

He's calling it homily.

It's storytelling where you're grabbing different ideas and putting them all together.

He says we should not do that.

We should not do that.

That what we should do when we're looking at these texts is examine what the texts actually say.

This would be my challenge.

Listen, watch the whole 36 minute video, and you know what you're gonna see?

Not once does he sit take a passage of Scripture as we're gonna do with his passages, and work through

that, and then actually exegete the passage.

No, what he actually does is the very thing he just criticized.

He does a homily.

The rest of this video is nothing but a homily.

The very thing that he says we shouldn't do.

And what he ends up using as an example is things like the four blood moons.

This is what you're gonna end up seeing.

He does not deal with general, conservative, biblical Christianity.

No, he deals with the extremes.

People that most Christians wouldn't even call Christian according to what the Bible says, because they don't have the same

gospel.

He lumps everyone that uses the name of Christ into one thing.

Whether you're Benny Hinn, he says he refers us in the video, he goes from Benny Hinn to the Catholic

Church.

It doesn't matter.

He puts them all in the same category as those of us that actually follow what the Bible says,

following the rules of interpretation.

So what you end up seeing here is he's gonna end up doing a homily that he says we shouldn't do.

We shouldn't do homilies, and that's what he's gonna end up doing.

He's got nothing but homilies, in fact.

This solves the question, what does God think?

I mean, God must have an opinion about this.

Okay, so what does God think?

You know, some of the things, let me deal with some of the passages that he's gonna bring up.

And just so you could have these ready, he's gonna bring up Isaiah chapter 2.

We're gonna spend a lot of time in Isaiah 11, actually, because he brings that one up over and over.

That's his strong one.

But Isaiah 2, Malachi 4, Jeremiah 16,

Ezekiel, we're gonna deal with Ezekiel 37 all the way to 46.

We're gonna deal with Jeremiah 23, Malachi 3, Ezekiel 34, Daniel 12,

Jeremiah 31.

These are all the passages that he deals with.

Now, that's a number of passages, isn't it?

And yet he's gonna deal with all of those in 36 minutes.

He's not having time to actually go through and explain them.

So here he's gonna end up saying, in this one, he states that Christianity, he's gonna say that Christianity

has circular reasoning.

And you're gonna see that we've already shown his reasoning has got problems, but let's see what he says.

It can't be vague.

It can't be ambiguous.

Why?

Because...

Okay, he says it can't be vague and it can't be ambiguous.

I'm gonna play some of his clips to see whether he's really as clear as he pretends to be or whether the texts

actually say anything like what he says they say.

Everything's at stake.

You can't, it has to be clear.

And it is.

If you read the Jewish Bible and just forget everything you know about the New Testament for a moment...

Okay, do you see what he said?

Forget everything you know about the New Testament just for a moment.

Just accept his view and then everything will be good.

So he's begging that he starts with, you must accept his view and then go to it.

He's not gonna say you have to go through all the Jewish Bible like he says because he's not gonna deal with Isaiah 53.

That's my challenge.

Deal with the actual text.

Deal with the clear one.

Deal with the one that everyone knows is clear instead of dealing with these ones that, as we're gonna see, don't even deal

with the Messiah.

...moments to set aside and read what does the Jewish Bible says.

The Jewish scriptures tells us exactly what will happen in the end of days.

And we don't, it's beyond the scope to go through every text.

I'm not trying to sell books, but it's in volume one of Let's Get Biblical where I get a

present.

But the key central is that when the Moshiach comes, there will be events that will

occur and we are told graphically that the knowledge of God will cover the world as the water

covers the sea and...

Okay, so let's start with that one first.

That knowledge will cover the world as the waters cover the sea.

There's only two passages that deal with that, Habakkuk 2 .14.

Habakkuk 2 .14 does not address the issues, anything to do with this.

So I'm gonna assume he's gonna deal with the Isaiah 11, which he does come back to often.

So Isaiah 11 1 through 9.

I'm not gonna take the time to read all of that just because we are already like 23 minutes in.

So let's let's take a look at what Isaiah 11 1 through 9 teaches.

You can go and look at this.

You can see what does it teach about Messiah?

Well, one thing is it teaches that the Messiah will be of the physical offspring of David.

That's who it's gonna be.

So we know that from the stump of Jesse, a branch is gonna be of the roots.

So we know that it's gonna be of the line of David.

Okay, so far that one is true of Jesus.

Okay, that the Spirit of the Lord will rest upon Messiah, which means the Spirit of the Lord and the Messiah

are different persons.

Well, that's consistent with the Trinity so far.

Okay.

The Messiah will be the judge of righteousness.

Well, that's exactly what the New Testament teaches too, that Jesus Christ is gonna be the judge of righteousness, that he's

gonna be the judge over all the people.

That the wolf will lie down with the lamb.

Oh, oh wait, that's exactly like Revelation does teach.

You see, you see where where he focuses is, there's a there's talking of this Messiah here.

When it talks about the Messiah, it's true of Jesus.

But then he only wants to focus on this end time stuff, where he says, oh look, this is what's gonna happen at the

end.

And it says here, and by the way, I'm reading from the Tanakh, from

the Hebrew Scriptures printed, you know, in the 1985 version from the Jewish

Publication Society.

Okay, so if I end up reading some of this, and it sounds a little different, that could be why,

because I'm reading from a different translation maybe than some of the Christians would have in

English.

All right, but in in verse 11, it gets interesting.

It says, in that day my Lord will apply his hand again to redeeming

the other part of his people from Assyria and also from Egypt, Parthias, Nuban,

Elam, Shina, Hamath, and and the coastlands.

Okay, so here you have now, if you look in like an English translation, the English translation of this is gonna say, and in that

day the Lord will extend his hand yet a second time.

The word again has that idea.

So what was the first time, Rabbi Singer?

If there was again, if it says here that the Lord will apply

his hand to redeeming the part again, again

means there was two times.

There was two attempts or two different periods where he redeemed the people.

Now, my challenge to him, now my guess is, he's gonna talk about Israel coming back

into the land, somehow being the first one.

But then if he argues that, that it's them coming into the land from the Assyrian invasion or the

Babylonian invasion, then the second time would have had to have been what?

1948?

Because that's the second time.

Again, if the redeeming is dealing with the land, then this is a ready fulfilled, and Rabbi

Singer, your challenge now is to tell me where's the Messiah, because he should have been on the scene over 70

years ago.

All right, Israel already came back 70 years ago.

The Messiah should be here.

Where is he?

There should be all this peace that you're gonna describe, and you don't see it.

Why?

Because this is dealing with a different redemption than land.

And so what you end up with is this again.

Did Jesus Christ, was he, as this passage says, was he of the seed of David?

Yes.

Was he separate from the Spirit of the Lord?

Yes.

Did the Spirit of the Lord rest upon him?

Yes.

And did all these things that are described, are they referred to as the second redeeming?

Yes.

Exactly as the New Testament teaches.

Hey, Rabbi Singer, I'm just going to the passages that you're overlooking, the ones you brought up and don't want to

actually exegete.

You just want to do the homilies?

No, sorry.

Let's actually deal with what the text actually says.

You have to get around the fact that this speaks of two redemptions.

Two different times that Israel is being going to be redeemed by the Spirit of the Lord.

We speak of a second coming.

You will later in this video, you'll hear him deny that there should be any talk of a second coming.

That could be anyone.

It could be his sister, he's gonna say.

And yet the reality is what you end up seeing is he ends up having to ignore what

actually is in the very text that he brings up.

And he will, the Messiah,.

We're told this in the beginning of Isaiah 2, will rebuke many nations.

And what will they do with these teachings?

Okay, so he says, he brings up Isaiah 2 and says that they will rebuke many nations.

Again, this is that second, that again redeeming.

Again, the Lord will redeem.

The second redeeming.

And he says that Isaiah, that Messiah will rebuke many nations.

And yet this passage is not so clear because it doesn't mention the Messiah at all.

In fact, it's, the question is, is this even dealing with the Messiah?

He says that we got to go to some clear passages, something that's clear.

And yet in Isaiah 2, verse 2, it says, in the days to come the mount of the

Lord's house shall stand firm above the mountains and the tower of the hills and the nations.

Well, when exactly was that?

I mean, is he saying that this is the time that in Isaiah's day?

I mean, it's, he's gonna argue this is the period when Messiah comes.

But again, he's going to say this and say this is so clear.

The clear of which though?

That first redeeming or the second redeeming?

I would agree this is dealing with what we see in the book of Revelation, by the way.

Again, he said forget what you learn about the New Testament.

Just forget it.

The Messiah, being Jesus, doesn't mean that he doesn't have two different times that he comes in, two different

administrations, two different manners in which he comes.

Once as a suffering servant, and then as this ruling king that we see.

And this is perfectly in line with the New Testament.

That thing he said, I'll throw that out, just do the opposite.

Well, here's the thing, Rabbi Singer, if we do the opposite, then these passages can't be referring to the Messiah either, because this is

what the New Testament, that thing you said was the opposite, that's what it teaches.

Okay, so this is, again, he ends up saying that this is very

clear, because they're gonna beat their swords and their plowshares,

their pruning hooks, the nation won't take up against nation, and that the Lord's gonna rebuke

them.

This is exactly what we end up seeing in the New Testament being taught.

There's nothing different there.

We'll take the implements of war, namely swords and spears, and turn them into

plowshares and pruning hooks.

La yisra goyal goy, kher v 'la yomadu, ayid milchama.

Nation will not lift up sword against nation, neither will they learn of war anymore.

Read, also, read Micah chapter 4.

Ten Gentiles of different languages will grab just a Jew and say, take us with you, because now we know

God is with you.

Okay, so I wanted to play a little bit of an extended so you hear what it's like listening to him, but I want you to note,

he started off saying that we shouldn't listen to homilies.

Homilies are not what you do when you come to something like this.

But do you hear how he's doing a homily?

He's just putting a bunch of verses and texts and things like that together without explaining them.

He's not going verse by verse through this.

He's just gonna take them and throw it out there, put it with another one.

This is a homily.

When you go verse by verse, you see that not one of these actually contradict the New Testament.

They're all, all of these, end up speaking of Messiah's second coming as made clear

by passages like Isaiah 11, 1 through 11.

Okay, and referring to that second redemption, being redeemed again.

And so, let's deal with some more of his passages.

I mean, if we're wrong, if the Jews are wrong about the most fundamental,

the most important thing to God, which the church claims, that we are off.

And when I say Jews, you know what I'm talking, we're gonna use conventional language now.

When, when, if we, if the Jews are wrong, Jesus is the Messiah and he is the second person of

the triune Godhead.

Why does the Bible say that everyone will turn to the Jews and nations will say.

In Jeremiah chapter 6.

Okay, so he says, why is it that everyone will turn to the Jews?

Very simply, because they will in the future.

I mean, that's why.

Because the scriptures say that this will happen.

Just because it hasn't happened yet doesn't mean it won't happen.

Again, to use that illustration, poor illustration, but if someone was to have prophesied about Obama being elected

and you only referred to the second coming, or the second election, sorry, of Obama,

then would you sit there and even though Obama got elected say, well that didn't happen, that's got to be wrong, because we're only looking

for the second one.

And if you're in between those two, when that, during that first four years of President Obama, were you denying,

were you gonna deny that he was president because he didn't fulfill the things that occurred in the second

election, that would be silly.

And what he wants you to do is throw out the New Testament, teach the opposite, which so far it's, everything he's

saying is consistent with the New Testament.

We end up seeing that he wants to say, well, you have to first accept his view.

You see that he won't do this with his own scriptures.

He won't look at just the Torah and say, well, we'll throw out everything else.

No, no, we don't do that.

16, reads verse 17, 18, 19, for yourself the Gentiles will come, the

nations will come to you, they'll come to the Jewish people and say, surely we've inherited lies and vanity

where there's no truth.

How could a man make unto himself gods when they are not?

If we're wrong about the absolute most important issue,

why would we, we, the Jews should be going to the Christians, oh yeah, we made a mistake, we could have had

a V8, whatever.

Okay, so Rabbi Singer, you're wrong.

It's that simple.

How do I know that you know you're wrong?

Because you won't deal with the actual passages that we would address.

You only want to look at the passages of the second coming, and if you really wanted to

prove why Judaism doesn't accept, or doesn't teach, I should say, the Christian Messiah,

you would go to the passages that Christians use and argue from there.

Now, why does Judaism not accept the Christian Messiah?

Notice that the difference in the word, accept versus teach.

See, Judaism doesn't accept it.

That doesn't mean that the Hebrew scriptures don't teach it.

They don't accept it.

Well, that's okay.

That's called pride.

I mean, that's exactly what it is.

He's gonna, and for folks who say, hey, how could you say that?

He's gonna say later on that he's gonna not be politically correct and say things the way they are.

Well, I'm gonna say it the way it is.

Look, in the first century, you had people who were Jewish leaders that had power.

They didn't want that power struggle being upset, and Jesus upset the apple cart.

And they were not going to follow anyone, even God in their midst.

They were not going to follow him because they had their legalistic system, and Jesus didn't fit their

system.

What you have here is the same thing.

Jesus doesn't fit their system.

They don't question their system.

They question God.

That's a problem.

If you really want to deal with this, deal with what the Old Testament teaches about his first coming.

That would be the challenge for you.

That's what you should do.

But you're not doing that.

Why are you not doing that?

Very simply, because you know as well as I that if you were to do that, you would have to address

what the scriptures actually say about the Messiah.

The knowledge of God, Isaiah chapter 11, verse 9, the knowledge of God will cover the

world as the water covers the sea.

No one is going to have to teach his children about God.

They will all know me.

Take a look at the Temple Mount.

There will be a temple standing there, Ezekiel chapter 37.

Okay, so let's deal with some of the things we end up seeing here.

He's mentioning about the Temple.

He mentions the Temple would be present at the time of the Messiah.

Well, when Jesus came to on earth, the Temple was present.

Huh?

Remember he said that you take what the New Testament teaches, do the opposite?

Well, so far we haven't found any contradictions yet.

So far, he's the one that said this.

He's the one that just said that in Ezekiel 37, he said the Temple would be present

when the Messiah comes.

Was the Temple present when Jesus came?

Answer?

Yes, it was.

So here's the thing.

To anyone who listens to Rabbi Tova Singer, listen to what he said.

Take the New Testament, do the opposite.

That's the Messiah.

Well, if we take the New Testament, the New Testament said that the Temple would be there when Jesus came.

Do the opposite.

Then the Old Testament must teach that there would not be a Temple when the Messiah came.

That's called opposite.

He's saying do the opposite.

Opposite is not the same.

I see the same.

The Temple being there, as he said, is one of the things.

He just gave that as the proof that the Temple would be there.

The Temple was there when Jesus was come.

That's not an opposite.

That's the same.

That's not a contradiction.

I've yet to see this contradiction that he appeals to.

He appeals to Christians to listen to him.

And he said at the beginning, I skipped over this, but in the beginning, he said that Christians are guilty of

idolatry.

Okay?

He ends up saying that he's not going to be politically correct.

So he wants to say that Christians are ignorant and that's what he's saying is not

politically correct.

Well, the reality is if he's going to argue, and I'm going to say this not being politically correct,

that he is ignorant of Christianity and the New Testament and in his self

-righteousness and arrogance, it is to think that he could judge something is

wrong that he doesn't even understand.

That he says we must throw out all the examination before we examine it.

If he is wrong, he's not only headed to hell, he's leading thousands with him.

That's why this is serious.

I do agree with him that this is a serious thing.

I do agree that this is something we should take serious.

But the reality is by his own testimony, he's saying you throw out the the New Testament.

We don't examine that.

Just read it to know and take the opposite.

And yet we're listening to him and we see that it's consistent with what the New Testament teaches.

In most of the passages that he cites, he never exegetes any of them,

nor does he give the context, nor does he explain them.

And you're going to see that this is going to be a real problem for him coming up now.

And when the sanctuary will be built, then the nations will know that I am God.

The building of the temple is described for nine chapters straight through from Ezekiel chapter 40

through the last chapter through 48.

So has any of these things happened?

Okay, so he's saying that there are nine chapters of Ezekiel 37, and that none of these

things happened.

I'm just going to say none of them happened yet, but the same Jesus that came the first time will come the

second time and fulfill them as well.

He states that looking at all these prophecies, not one of them were fulfilled in the first century, but

he ignores all of the prophecies that refer to the first coming.

I'm going to keep hammering this because if you're listening, I want you to see that what he's doing.

He's referring to that second redemption in Isaiah 11, 11.

That again, God's going to redeem his people.

That reference to a second time.

This is, everything he said is consistent with what the New Testament teaches, and he has to ignore

passages from the Old Testament to come to the conclusions that he comes to.

He has to ignore them because basically if he doesn't ignore them, he's going to see that the

passages he's trying to avoid actually teach about the first.

Coming.

It's clear about this.

The Moshiach will have a family.

He's going to have children.

Read Ezekiel 40, 46 through 17, 18, 19, 16,

17, 19.

So that's, wow.

So the Messiah is going to have a family.

Let us read, well, let him finish speaking because this is going to be important.

16 and 17, where the Messiah is called the Prince.

We all know what's talking about the Messiah.

Okay, we all know what's talking about the Messiah.

We all know.

Now that is a logical fallacy.

What's it doing?

The purpose of this fallacy, when you claim that, well, we all know this.

It's actually the opposite that occurs.

We don't all know this.

This is why this is being discussed.

In fact, this is one of the funniest ones because this is the one that the scriptures actually clearly teach against what he's

going to say.

He says we all know this.

The reason people do something like that is because they want to make it seem like it is so simple.

Everyone can understand it.

And if you disagree with it, it's simply because you're uneducated.

However, he ignores the large passages of the Old Testament to draw his conclusion.

I mean, give me Psalm 53.

Give me, sorry, Psalm 22 or Isaiah 53.

So let's take a look at the verse he brings up.

So Ezekiel 46.

I'm going to be re -reading again out of the Tanakh, the Old Testament, so it's going to sound a little different in our English.

Okay.

Thus says the Lord God, if the prince makes a gift to any of his sons,

it shall become the latter inheritance.

The prince is going to have sons.

You know what?

If you go through this, you're going to see who's the prince.

I mean, isn't that important?

He says we all know it's, we all know who it is.

We all know that this is referring to the Messiah.

We all know that.

Isn't that what he said?

And yet what you end up seeing, if we look at the beginning of this whole passage, okay, because

even though we have chapter breaks, there weren't chapter breaks inspired in the scriptures.

And so you don't have the chapter breaks.

And this is one long reading, okay, that you end up seeing here in this

passage.

And so where does it start?

Well, he even said it started nine chapters earlier.

So let's take a look at Ezekiel 37 .25 to see who exactly

is this prince?

Does it mention who the prince is?

Well, let's take a look.

I'm going to start in verse 24.

My servant David shall be king over them.

There shall be one shepherd of them all.

All of them.

They shall follow my rules, faithfully obey the laws.

Verse 25.

Thus they shall remain in the land which I gave to my servant Jacob,

and in which your fathers dwelt, they and their children and their children's

children shall dwell there forever with my servant

David as their prince for all time.

Hmm.

David is the prince.

That's the context.

This idea of prince is we see throughout here.

And when we end up looking at this each time, he's going to say, well, the prince must be the messiah.

Well, in the context, it refers to the prince as the David.

But you know, Ezekiel of 38 refers to the chief prince.

That's the prince over Gog and Magog.

Hmm.

The chief prince of Meshach.

So you end up seeing here that there's a couple of princes mentioned here.

If this passage is so clear, why is there a mention to several princes?

And why does the beginning of this whole section, why does it refer to David as the prince?

If this is speaking of the messiah having children, notice what he did.

He assumed the thing he's trying to prove.

He assumes the prince can only refer to messiah.

And yet we see two different references to prince in this whole nine chapters, and it is to

two different people.

The prince that he seems to be referring to is David.

That's what God says is the prince.

Now note, just as he claims, we all know this, that he's talking about the messiah when referring to the

prince, but he doesn't want to deal with Isaiah 53.

He assumes the messiah is, and again, there's no clear reference,

just saying, he said, let's look to the clear.

I'm not seeing it yet.

So Rabbi Singer, if the prince is the messiah, you have the burden to prove that, not

just assume it.

This is a homily.

This is not taking a passage, looking at what the passage actually states.

My challenge to folks would be to take a reading, take a look, starting in Ezekiel 37,

and read all the way through to Ezekiel 46.

Read those chapters.

Read all the way through chapter 40.

Read the whole context, and see whether this is actually saying that the prince anywhere is referring to

messiah, and that that is the prince that's going to have children that's referred to.

He has the burden of proof, but notice what he does.

He states it, and then goes, we all know this.

We just all know this.

Everyone knows this.

Everyone knows this because that way he doesn't have to give the answer.

He doesn't have to expound on this because if he had to expound on this, he wouldn't be able to.

Read Ezekiel 34, verses 11 through 16.

The key point is that not a single one of these prophecies unfolded

in the first century, during the Christian century.

Nothing.

Not a single one of them.

In fact, I would posit to you, everybody knows this plain, that the opposite occurred.

Okay, so the opposite occurred.

So let's see which of the opposites that he mentioned.

The passages he looked at, he looked at Isaiah 11, where we saw that the Messiah

would be the offspring of David.

Well, that one's not the opposite.

That one's actually consistent with the New Testament.

That the Spirit of the Lord would rest upon the Messiah.

Oh, yeah, that one's actually exactly like the New Testament says as well.

That the temple would be there.

Yep, that one again.

I'm wondering where this opposite is.

Where's the opposite?

The opposite is where he wants to look at the peace that will come in the second coming,

in that which has yet to be fulfilled.

He's saying that therefore this isn't true.

It can't have happened.

Jesus can't be the Messiah because the end game hasn't been fulfilled.

And therefore this can't be.

But again, I keep going back to it, but he's ignoring all the passages that deal with the first

coming.

He has to.

He has no choice.

Because if he deals with those things, he's going to have to deal with what the texts actually say.

There was no peace on earth in the first century.

It was the worst possible events that occurred.

The Jews were there were massacres with Rome.

The hundreds of thousands of Jews were murdered by Rome.

There's a prophecy in Daniel.

Okay, so before we get to the prophecy in Daniel, so he says there's no peace on earth.

First off, he's speaking of a physical peace.

Does God deal with the physical realm like man?

No, God usually deals with the spiritual realm.

That seems to be where he focuses more of his time.

I would think a rabbi would understand that sort of thing.

That he would know that God focuses on the spiritual realm and not only on

the physical.

And so the peace on earth, when Jesus came, was there peace on earth?

Yeah, there was.

He brought peace.

Peace being that we could be reconciled with God.

That's the more important thing.

That's the central thing is that we could be in a reconciled relationship with the Almighty God.

Now, let's deal with this Daniel 12 passage because this is going to be good.

12 of the resurrection of the dead.

They didn't.

Jews weren't resurrecting from the dead.

Okay, so Daniel chapter 12.

This one's kind of interesting because of the fact that he says that there must be peace on earth.

Must be peace on earth when the Messiah is coming.

So if Daniel chapter 12 is dealing with the Messiah coming, let's read verse one.

This is how we do context, Rabbi Singer.

You read verse one first.

At that time the great prince Michael.

Oh, wait, by the way, that prince is Michael.

Hmm.

That should be the Messiah, shouldn't it?

Okay.

The great prince Michael who stands besides the sons of your people

will appear.

It will be a time of trouble the like of which has

never been seen since the nation came into being.

At that time your people will be rescued.

Who?

All who are found inscribed in the book.

That's verse one.

So Rabbi Singer, you said that Messiah comes will be a time of peace.

This is your verse, your passage.

You brought up Daniel chapter 12.

I didn't.

I wouldn't have gone here.

You chose to go here.

And you're saying that verse two, many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth will wake some to

eternal life and others to a reproach to the everlasting abhorrence.

Now, by the way, side note for those who think that there is no hell, no everlasting hell, there it is, Daniel chapter

12 verse 2.

Just as you have everlasting life in the same way you have eternal life is the same way you have this

everlasting abhorrence, this everlasting reproach, this everlasting hell.

So just side note.

But the point here being is he claimed that when the Messiah comes, when

you end up having the Christ, okay, he's

going to be coming into a time of peace.

And Rabbi Singer's argument is when Jesus came, Jews were being killed.

It was a horrible time.

He's saying, describing it as one of the worst times.

Exactly like Daniel chapter 12 verse 1.

I'm not making the case that Daniel 12 verse 1 is a time of the

is the proof text for a Messiah.

I'm not going to use that.

He did.

So if we look at that and we say, okay, what do we have?

He's the one making the case that this is dealing with Messiah coming and he just

got done.

This is why I wanted to play this whole thing so that you could hear.

He is the one that says that in the time the Messiah comes,

there's going to be a time of peace after saying that everything is wrong.

And he's the one making the argument that the case is to be made

that you ended up having you ended up having a time of

just trouble when Jesus came.

Well, that's exactly what Daniel 12 verse 1 states.

He says that about the raising of the dead.

Well, in the book of Matthew, if he knew the book of Matthew, it ends up

saying that when Jesus Christ died, there were dead that were raised and walked and they came into

town.

So the New Testament talks about Daniel chapter 12 too then maybe.

I mean the reality is that he ends up just saying this and again, I'm still looking for this

contradiction that he's talking about.

Because so far what we've seen is every one of the passages he's brought up, either he's not

dealing with what the text says, he's either got the passages wrong because they don't deal with the Messiah, or he's trying to say,

well, we all know this deals with the Messiah when it doesn't, or it deals with dealing with the second coming, but

he's yet so far in all of his video to deal with any of the passages that Christians would refer to

with the first coming.

The fact that there was trouble in the first century is exactly what verse 1 would imply by what

he's saying.

I'm just going by the passages he's bringing up.

I wouldn't bring these passages up.

I would bring up a whole bunch of other ones, but he's brought them up.

And so since he's bringing them up, I think it's only fair that we deal with the ones he's bringing up.

If I was to challenge him, I would say, hey, how about you deal with something like Isaiah 53?

There was no worldwide knowledge of God during the first century.

The Jews were expelled from the land of Israel.

Okay.

He keeps coming back to this idea of no worldwide knowledge of God.

Is that true?

Really?

So there's no worldwide knowledge of God.

Now notice what ends up happening.

Here's another logical fallacy.

Because he thinks the only way of having a knowledge of God is through

Judaism, as he just said.

Because Judaism was put on a shelf.

Judaism wasn't having that worldwide impact, and therefore there couldn't be a worldwide knowledge of God.

And yet there is a worldwide knowledge of God.

And it came through Christianity, not Judaism.

Christianity has brought a worldwide knowledge of God literally around the world.

It is because of Christianity that we end up seeing that there are, and you could go to the Museum of the Bible in

Washington, D .C., and you can see there, they have all these languages.

And they show you where the Bible was translated into both Old and New Testament, or just New Testament, and the

languages where there's no Bible.

But in there, they also talk about the fact that they give you the numbers.

I don't remember offhand, but the number of languages that never had a written language until the

Bible or the New Testament was written in that language.

We brought written languages.

Why?

Because Christianity was spreading the knowledge of God around the world.

Rabbi Singer cannot recognize it, because as he said in the beginning, he throws out the New Testament.

He doesn't believe in it.

He thinks it teaches the opposite, and thus he cannot accept the truth that it confirms

because of his own confirmation bias.

Because he's throwing out the New Testament, he can't see that this is fulfilled in that

sense.

If he wants to say that there must be this worldwide knowledge of God, it is

Christianity that is bringing the knowledge of God throughout the world.

Judaism has been hiding it within their own people.

Judaism doesn't evangelize.

Judaism doesn't go out and share with others.

No, it stays.

Judaism stays to their own.

Judaism doesn't try to convert people.

No, they try to keep to their own.

How are they going to teach the worldwide knowledge of God by teaching it to themselves?

No, that's not where the knowledge of God is going.

The knowledge of God is being shared by Christians sharing the truth of both the Old and New

Testaments, the full word of God, the completed revelation, that progressive

revelation of God.

This is what he ignores.

And I understand he must, he has no choice, because if he doesn't ignore this, he's got to actually

deal with what the New Testament says.

If you want to advance any Messiah, a person who you think is the Messiah,

and he fulfills nothing, zilch, none of these things, which are there, please look it up.

Please look it up in context, right?

Okay, he says, please look it up.

Please look it up in context.

He puts his hands out, waving them.

The reality is that's exactly what we did.

I looked up every one of these passages, and you know what I did?

I went back and read the entire chapter, the chapter before, the chapter after, that's what context is.

And in the one case that he makes with Ezekiel, I had to read through nine chapters

to look at that.

And what we end up seeing is, I'm sorry, your case isn't being made.

Again, what is it that is not being taught?

Is it being taught that the opposite is that when Messiah comes, there'd be a temple?

There was a temple when Jesus came.

That he would be born of the line of David.

He was born of the line of David.

That he would have the Spirit upon him, and he had the Spirit upon him.

And according to Rabbi Singer, that the knowledge of God would spread worldwide.

And what do we see with Christianity?

The knowledge of God spread worldwide.

So let's go back and now play this back again and see what it is he just said, and see whether that's true.

It was the very opposite.

Now, one last point.

If you want to advance any Messiah, a person who you think is the Messiah,

and he fulfills nothing, zilch, none of these things which are there, please look it up.

Please look it up in context, right?

So, so none of them, zilch, nothing, nada, yet he's yet to show one that hasn't been

fulfilled.

Every single one of them is either fulfilled or prophesied to be fulfilled.

That's the thing.

The ones he says of the Messiah, not what things are going to look like after the

Messiah finally comes, but what it is, what do we know of the Messiah?

He says not one of them.

Rabbi Singer, was Jesus born of the line of David?

If the answer to that is yes, then what you just stated is wrong.

You don't want to be politically correct.

Neither do I.

You're wrong.

Even worse than that, you're lying to your congregation.

You are lying to people about what Christianity teaches and believes, because you know

that the people who you're speaking to do not understand Christianity at all, and therefore maybe you

sound like you're really smart and intelligent and that you can handle these things, but the reality is I challenge you to look

at the context, challenge you to go and look at these contexts and tell me which one of these Jesus didn't

fulfill and isn't prophesied to still fulfill.

The reality is you say there's none.

Well, you've just made a claim.

All I have to do is show you where you're wrong once, and yet through the passages that you have brought up, I've shown you

over and over again where you have been wrong several times, where there are

things that the Messiah did do as the passages you brought up

were predicted to have.

So this is the thing.

You know, you're stating the opposite is true.

So they're saying there's no knowledge of God worldwide anymore.

Is that what you're saying?

Or that only it's through Judaism that you could be.

The reality is as he states that it's the opposite of the knowledge of God, a worldwide

knowledge of God, but it is true only for Judaism, where Judaism has been on the decrease, as

he mentioned, and its influence has been decreased, but it's not true for Christianity.

Within Christianity, we see the knowledge of God being spread around the world.

My sister -in -law, my brother -in -law could be the Messiah.

Sorry, let me back that up because that's where he's going to talk about the second coming.

Messiahs, they had to do this.

That is,.

Yeah, he didn't do any of these things, but he'll do it in some sort of second coming.

Well, if it's a second coming, then my sister -in -law, my brother -in -law could be the Messiah.

Okay, is that true?

No, actually that's not true.

It's a great rhetoric and it's a great little tactic to play.

Oh, my sister could be, my brother -in -law could be, anyone could be.

No, actually that can't be.

It would have to still be Jesus.

You see, it would have to be Jesus because he's the Messiah.

It couldn't be your sister or your brother -in -law or anyone else.

It has to be the same person that came the first time.

That fulfilled those references that you don't want to deal with.

That you say, oh, it's wrong.

It's wrong.

Well, if it was so wrong, I mean if it was so wrong, then how come Jesus was of the

line of David?

There's one where you said, couldn't happen, didn't happen, and yet that's exactly what happened.

So what you end up seeing is he states that if there's any reference to the second coming, okay, we should just

ignore it.

Just ignore it.

We should ignore any references to the second coming in the New Testament the same way he ignores all of the references

in the first coming.

Let me deal now a little bit with Isaiah 52 verse 12 and Isaiah 53.

This is the passage he wants us to ignore, by the way, because he doesn't want to address it.

Isaiah 52 verse 13.

I'm going to start there because, well, it's called context and that's where the passage kind of starts where we're going to see.

He says, indeed, again, the translation I'm using is going to be from the Jewish, the JPS,

Jewish Publication Society.

So, indeed my servant shall prosper, be exalted and raised to great heights,

just as the many are appalled at him.

So marred was his appearance, unlike that of man, his form

beyond human semblance, just so he shall startle

many nations.

Kings shall be silenced because of him, for they shall see what has

not been told them, shall behold what they

have, what they never have heard.

Now, by the way, just a note here.

You end up seeing this as describing that people are going to, he's been so marred, he's going to marvel nations.

What do you end up seeing here?

You end up seeing that he's going to do some things people didn't know of.

Huh?

You mean the way that Rabbi Singer doesn't know of the first coming?

Gee, it almost sounds like it fits.

Okay, so Isaiah 53.

Who can believe what we have heard?

Upon whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?

For he has grown by his favor like the, like a tree

crown, like a tree trunk out of the arid ground.

He had no form or beauty that we should look at him, no charm

that we should find him pleasing.

He was despised, shunned by men, a man of suffering, familiar

with disease.

By the way, I'll stop here before I continue.

And this, what the rabbis would say is that this is speaking of the nation of Israel.

And as I read this, just ask yourself, does this sound like a nation?

Does this, I mean, a nation that does this?

Just look and see if this is speaking of a person or a nation.

And if a nation, why in the male sense and not the female?

You know, wisdom is referred to as a female.

Often we see in the female gender with these kind of things if it's going to be like that, but here it's a male.

So it says, again, picking up on Isaiah 53 verse 3 at the end, and he was despised and we held

him of no account.

Yet it was for our sickness.

Now, if this is in verse 4, if this is referring to the nation, if this person that's

referred to is the nation of Israel, then who's the our sickness?

I mean, that's the nation of Israel?

Well, it can't be if the nation of Israel is going to be bearing the sickness of its own self.

You see, this cannot be Israel.

This is someone outside.

Because this is speaking of the people of Israel and someone that's doing this.

If this is all the nation, then you have a problem right here in verse 4.

Yet it was for our sickness that he was bearing our suffering

that he endured.

We accounted him plagued, smitten, and afflicted by God, but

he was wounded because of our sins, crushed because of our

iniquities.

He bore the chastisement that made us whole, and by his

bruises were we healed.

We all went astray like sheep, each going his own way, and the Lord

visited upon him the guilt of us all.

He was maltreated, and yet he was submissive.

He did not open his mouth like a sheep being led to slaughter, like the

ewe dumb before those who shear her.

He did not open his mouth.

By oppressive judgment, he was taken away, who could describe his abode,

for he was cut off from the land of the living.

Through the sin of my people, who despised the punishment, and

his grave was set among the wicked, and with the rich in

his death.

Though he has done no injustice, and he had spoken no falsehood,

but the Lord chose to crush him by disease, that if he made

himself an offering for guilt, he might see offspring and

have long life, and that through him, the Lord's purpose

might prosper.

Out of his anguish, he shall see it.

He shall enjoy it to the full, through his devotion.

My righteous servant makes the many righteous.

It is their punishment that he bears.

Assuredly, I will give him the many as his portion.

He shall receive the multitude as his spoil, for he exposes himself

to death, and was numbered among the sinners, whereas he bore the

guilt of many, and made intercession for sinners.

That's Isaiah 53.

You know, one of the things Rabbi Tova Singer says, just give me one passage that's clear.

You know what?

I, when I'm out on the street sharing the gospel with people, and people say that the Bible is written by men,

this was written about 750 BC, before Christ.

I read this passage without telling people where it's from, and I ask them, who is this speaking about?

And not once has anyone given me any answer other than Jesus Christ.

It is such a clear description of what Jesus Christ went through, that even unbelievers who did not

grow up in church, anybody I speak to, and by the way, even liberal Jews, when I

go to New York, and I speak to someone that's Jewish, and I'll read this, I'll say, who is this speaking of?

And they don't know the Old Testament well enough to know it's Isaiah 53.

Well, maybe it's because Isaiah 53 isn't read in the synagogues, maybe.

But the reality is, what you end up seeing is, they don't know.

They say this is speaking of Jesus Christ.

In other words, you want something clear?

Here it is, Isaiah 53.

So clear that just by reading it, everyone assumes it's referring to Jesus Christ, even though it was 750

years before Jesus Christ.

So you say your sister could be the second coming?

Your sister could be the second coming only if she is Jesus Christ, and she is not.

He states the second coming is antithetical to the Jewish scriptures.

And yet, if we looked at the messiahic passages as we just did, we see it's not

antithetical.

In fact, what he has to do to make his argument is he had to ignore the Jewish scriptures.

Deal with Isaiah 53.

That's my challenge to you.

Deal with it.

Don't sit here and take the passages and say, well, we can't have a second coming.

That is you using illogic.

Be logical, my friend.

Deal with what the texts actually say.

And when you do that, and when you do that, you'll see that there's nothing antithetical in the New

Testament from the Old Testament.

In fact, you've yet to show a single thing that is opposite like you've said.

You haven't shown one contradiction.

And all I had to do was prove one that's right.

And as I prove them, and I have been proving them over and over, you will not recognize it.

The fact is I'm looking only, except for Isaiah 53, because you ignore that one, I've only been looking at the

passages you bring up.

And so far we see that Jesus fulfilled that he was of the line of David.

You brought that up in Isaiah 11.

You just didn't address that one.

But he's of the line of David, that the spirit rested upon him.

You brought up that the temple would have to be in existence when Messiah came, and it was.

You brought up the fact of Daniel 12, 2, and that the dead would raise.

We know that from after when Jesus Christ died on the cross, that there were people that rose from the dead.

But the fact is you said that that was a time of peace when Daniel 12, verse 1 says it's a time

of trouble.

In fact, it was such great trouble that it hadn't even been seen yet, which is exactly the trouble described in the

book of Revelation, still coming.

So I'm just saying you got to deal with what the text actually says.

I mean, that's what is called context.

Sacrifice is an abomination in the Jewish Bible.

Let me back that up a little bit.

I want to back that up.

...is alien to the prophecies of the Jewish scriptures.

Now, that's just very simple.

I didn't even go to what Christianity...

Hold on.

I think I got to go back a little bit further.

Sorry about that.

But basically what he's going to say is that he's going to talk about human sacrifice.

And I want to deal with this.

What Christianity teaches on vicarious atonement, human sacrifice is an abomination in the Jewish

Bible.

You know what?

We agree.

Human sacrifice is an abomination.

That wasn't... but he's saying that that's referring to the cross.

But on the cross, that wasn't a human sacrifice.

That was a divine sacrifice.

That was God doing what he chose to do.

And God...

Rabbi Singer, God has the right to do what he wants to do.

And if he wants to sacrifice himself...

See, this is the difference.

This was not a human sacrifice the way he's describing.

The way he's describing in the Old Testament is when someone would sacrifice somebody else.

They would take their children and offer their children up to Malak and say that that is a sacrifice to a false deity.

This is God himself who's sacrificing himself on that cross.

This is not a mere human sacrifice.

This was a divine sacrifice.

Context matters.

And if you're going to argue that Christianity is an abomination to the Old Testament, then at least define

your terms consistently because this is a fallacy of equivocation.

Where you're using the word sacrifice, human sacrifice, two different ways.

A human sacrifice is when you sacrifice somebody else.

Not sacrificing yourself.

By the way, if Rabbi Singer is saying that someone sacrificing himself is an

abomination to the Bible, then he's just called Samson an abomination to the Bible.

To God.

Because Samson sacrificed himself in killing the Philistines.

That was a sacrifice.

And it was a human sacrifice.

That wasn't a divine one.

That was him acting as judge.

And he did that.

Now, if you're going to say that that's the case, then you've just called him out.

You've just called out Samson as being an abomination.

You'll perish for eternity?

I mean, John 17, 3, Mark 16, 20.

If you believe and you're baptized, you're saved.

If you believe you're not, you're damned.

I mean, if God would have just thrown that in the book of Numbers, I don't know.

All of us would be in church right now.

Okay, all of you would be in church right now.

Isaiah 53.

I mean, I'm just going to stick with one.

Just one.

You say just one.

You want one?

Isaiah 53.

Deal with it.

Why won't you deal with it?

Because you can't.

Because Isaiah 53 contradicts basically everything you said.

You said if there was just one, you would be in church.

He said he mentions that the prophets, none of the prophets mentioned anything.

Anything.

Okay, that the Messiah, as we went through several of these, the Messiah was going to be

necessary for righteousness with God, and yet he ignores Isaiah 11, the passage he brought up, which

is exactly what we see in Isaiah 53, the same book.

Several times it states it, and you see that he ends up ignoring this.

You want just one.

I've given it to you.

Come to church.

Couldn't just have one verse?

Because if you ask me, why did you use Calvary, Omer?

You ask me any commandment we do, I can just point to the Bible and say, here's where we eat matzah.

Look at Exodus chapter 12.

So just look at Exodus chapter 12.

Well, I would say just read Isaiah 53 and come to church.

The reason you don't come to church based on Isaiah 53 is because of your confirmation bias.

That's why.

That's the issue.

And my challenge to you is to stop with this confirmation bias.

And come to church.

Hearing to you on French toast, that doesn't fit in anywhere into Protestant theology, and therefore they

completely just ignore all these sightings of Mary, you know, in the washing machine.

They go, that's nonsense.

It's preposterous, and they reject it.

So I just say to you, just use that same sort of thinking.

And of course, I say, pray to Hashem, but just for wisdom.

But it has to be based on scripture.

It has to be based on the Bible.

If it's not, you should utterly reject it.

I love it.

Okay, so.

Notice what he does, and he mentioned seeing Mary, you know, he goes to the Catholic church.

He mentioned earlier Benny Hinn, and he's going to go to these extremes.

Okay, he states that Christians only accept things if it appeals to their doctrine.

And yet that's exactly what we see he's been doing throughout this whole video.

Note that Christians do not have to throw out God's word for their doctrines as he's doing.

He's not dealing with the actual passages that would be challenging to him.

He's dealing with ones, and he's ignoring it.

Again, for what he said to be true, Jesus Christ would have not, it would have had to be that Jesus

Christ could not be, could not be of the line of David.

If that's true, then what he stated is false.

That the temple would not exist during the time of Jesus.

If the temple existed when Jesus walked the earth, then what he stated is not true.

Every single one of the things that he stated is one of two things.

Either it's true of Jesus in his first coming, or it's true of Jesus in his second coming.

The fact is, Christians reject things like Mary, okay, because they're

not in the Bible.

That's the whole thing.

He's saying, oh, he's believing that you're seeing a vision of Mary.

No, you know why biblical Christians do not accept the claims of the Catholics when they argue for things like seeing the

face of Mary and all this?

Because it's not in the Bible.

It's not there.

Christians, biblical Christians, go to what's in the Bible, Rabbi Singer.

That's where we go.

That's where we look at, and we do it in context.

We don't reject certain passages or just push them aside when they don't teach what we want them to teach.

No, what we do is we actually look at the fact that we see what

scriptures say, we examine them, and we follow whatever they say.

We don't sit there and say, okay, we don't exactly like this, so we're going to skip that.

And then after all this, almost 30 minutes of him talking, we get this.

They know precisely what it is.

There is no mystical voices.

It's just simply this is what they have.

There's something tangible here.

And I hear people all the time, even Christians, who will say, well, the Holy Spirit finally showed me that I shouldn't be eating

pork.

And one Christian says, well, the Holy Spirit just showed me I can eat pork.

And it's like, come on, seriously?

Is he schizophrenic or what?

I don't know.

We have to take this logically, okay?

Okay, we have to take this logically.

After 30 minutes of begging the question, poisoning the well, the fallacy of an

excluded middle.

I mean, he's committed several fallacies, and he's going to say we got to take this logically.

And yet the question ends up being one where it's kind of interesting because what he ends up saying is, well, one person says

this, one person says that, and he ends up going to the extremes of these things.

And it's just this is what he has.

He's the one arguing from a logical position.

And then we have this.

So he's told me that this whole fight breaks out.

But forget all that for a moment.

What would God do to ensure to convey the following?

If anybody comes up with a message that is contrary or not found anywhere

in the Torah, how would God say, don't listen to it?

What he would say is what we find in Deuteronomy chapter 4, verse 2.

You cannot add to the Torah nor take away from it.

Okay, so, and this is, I really, I guess, should have played his full answer to that question.

But what he was arguing there is that because there's disagreements within Christianity, you know

what, I'm going to rewind it, play this again, because this actually is kind of important to the argument

that he's making.

But here's the argument he's going to make.

He's going to say that because there's disagreements within Christianity, okay, that the disagreements prove

that.

Christianity is discredited.

...is against Jesus.

You've got to stop that because there's a lot at stake here.

And the key is if God wanted to ensure that people would never...

Okay, let me go back a little bit further.

Maybe I missed it.

Come on, seriously, is he schizophrenic or what?

I don't know.

We have to take this logically, okay?

Because we, people can get emotional, it's almost like a sports team.

You're the Christian, you're the Jewish team, you're for Jesus, against Jesus.

You've got to stop that because there's a lot at stake here.

And the key is if God wanted to ensure that...

By the way, right there,.

I don't know what happened.

He had to stop and they edited.

There was definitely some edit that happened there.

People would never follow their own personal revelation.

What would he do?

Just think about it.

Okay, so he ends up talking about personal revelation.

So he's making a difference that what Christians do is personal revelation.

And if there's any disagreements, well, I have news for you, Rabbi Singer, there's disagreements not in Christianity.

I agree.

There's also disagreements in Judaism.

And so if Christianity is wrong because Christians disagree with one another, then you must be

wrong.

If I ever debated Rabbi Singer, all I would do is I would bring to him the rabbis that taught me that

the Bible, the Old Testament, is not actually God's word.

It's just some things men put together that give people a good feeling.

Rabbi Singer, do you believe that?

The answer should be no, from what I know of him.

The answer would be no.

He believes this is God's word.

But if there's disagreement, I mean, should I take their word for it or your word for it?

They have their interpretations.

You have your interpretation.

This is the argument he makes.

But by the same token that he tries to discredit Christianity, he discredits Judaism.

Because both of them do the same thing.

Both of them are going to have people that disagree with one another.

And if that discredits, well, then he's discrediting his own position.

And that is the issue.

Why does he permit such a thing?

And the tarot then says, I am only testing you to see if you love me.

So the answer is you can't go rely on your own personal experience.

It has to be the Bible.

It has to be scripture.

And you, my beautiful evangelical Christians, if you're Protestant and

therefore you're very interested in the show, let's put everything on the table and be honest with each other.

Okay, that's the challenge.

Let's bang the table.

Put it all on the table and be honest with each other.

That's my challenge to you.

Put it on the table.

Isaiah 53.

Deal with it.

Just deal with it.

Deal with it once.

I mean, if you're going to do a passage, a whole thing explaining why Jesus is not the Christian

Messiah, don't you think you would deal with the one passage that we go to first?

The key passage that we would look to?

I mean, you've yet to show a single thing that's not true in the New Testament.

He states here that he's relying on scripture and we're relying on personal emotions.

And yet, what do you see?

You see from right from the beginning, he said throw out the New Testament.

Throw it out.

It's the opposite.

Everything's wrong.

He started by what his conclusion was and he starts with his own interpretation.

And he doesn't examine the scriptures, the full counsel of God.

I don't have a problem examining every one of the passages he looked at.

I went through each one of them.

Why could I do that?

Because the scriptures are true.

They're God's word.

I have no problem looking at that, examining that, and seeing what it teaches.

I'm not sitting here and relying on my feelings.

I'm relying on the scriptures.

That's why I became a Christian.

That's why I left Judaism and became a Christian.

Because it's true.

And he has to go to fringe groups like Benny Hinn or the Catholic Church or Mormonism.

If you have to make an argument based on the fringe, then you really don't have a strong position of your

own.

Christianity relies on the whole Bible.

Not just the Jewish part and not just the passages that we like.

Not just the ones that kind of support what we're saying.

No, we rely on the whole thing, Rabbi Singer.

My challenge to you, if you're going to argue that Christianity is wrong, and I do agree with you, there's a lot at stake.

So much so that it is your eternal soul at stake.

It is either going to be heaven or hell.

There is no in -between here.

The reality is, for a man like Rabbi Singer, who goes around and has his

focus, he's going to correct what the view is of Christianity.

Then what he needs to do is deal with the text in context and see that most of these

passages he brought up don't teach anything against what Jesus Christ

came and what the Messiah was to be and what he would be.

I mean by his argument, we would have to have everything fulfilled at once

and yet that's not what we end up seeing.

It would be, let me give it to Daniel.

The book of Daniel lays out 70 weeks, which by the way was a long time ago.

It's 77 year periods, 490 years, and gave explicit detail of what would happen during those

times.

The Israel coming back into the land, Israel rebuilding the temple in the city, and then within

a specific period of time that it would take to rebuild that, and then a specific period of time after that

where Messiah would come.

That's 490 years, by the way, and that was 2 ,500 years ago.

Messiah should have been here by now.

I mean you're 2 ,000 years late, just saying, but would we say that those are not

fulfilled?

Or we could go, because they weren't all fulfilled, or we could go earlier in the book of Daniel where he gives prophecies of

the Greek, well first in the Babylonian empire, and the Medo -Persian empire, and the

Roman empire, or the Greek empire, and the Roman empire.

Would he hold like many liberals did that those were all written much later because of the fact that their prophecies are

so specific that they had to be later, and then we find the Dead Sea Scrolls and find out that they were written before,

and what we end up seeing is that by his argument those prophecies couldn't be true unless they're all fulfilled

at once, and they can't be fulfilled at once.

What do you do?

What do you do when the Isaiah 53 describes this suffering servant who's going to come and die for the people,

and at the same time the same person, the same Messiah, is going to be someone who is going

to be the king, and rule, and bring about a time of peace?

They're two different time periods.

That's not very difficult, and actually Isaiah 53 kind of mentions that people might not understand it.

So my challenge to him, and I know that there's atheists trying to use, suddenly atheists want to go to

Jewish rabbis, but they want to use this to prove that Jesus Christ isn't the Messiah.

Well, the reality is Rabbi Tova Singer failed completely, because he said that

there's not one, zilch, nada, of the prophecies that were of the Messiah

fulfilled in Christ, and yet not one of them has been wrong.

Every passage he looked at was accurate.

Some of them are still yet to be fulfilled.

Fine, but we look at the ones that were fulfilled and see that they were fulfilled literally

in the context, just as it said.

So for the many people who've been challenging this one, I know this is a little bit of a longer podcast than we

typically do, but I really wanted to deal with this and help you guys see that this is a gentleman who

claims to know Christianity, does not.

He claims that he's gone through the New Testament, and all these Jewish people that look at him as someone that

really understands this, and what do you end up seeing?

You end up seeing someone who claimed that not one prophecy was fulfilled, and just looking at the

passages he brought up, we see that not one of them has been wrong.

There are no contradictions.

I'm still waiting for him to point those out, and he hadn't.

Jesus Christ is the Jewish Messiah.

Jesus Christ came and died on a cross to bear the sins, and

even though he was marred and numbered with the sinners, and all that Isaiah 53 says,

he was also rejected by his own people, and your rejection, Tova Singer, is

evidence that Isaiah 53 is speaking of Jesus, your fulfilling prophecy.

Please, I beg of you to repent.

Come to Christ.

Come to your Messiah.

Have eternal life.

This is my plea to you, and to any other Jewish person that might be listening.

Please, come to Christ and live.

This podcast is part of the Striving for Eternity ministry.

For more content, or to request a speaker or seminar to your church, go to strivingforeternity .org.