Comment:

Your website's "Testimonies" section is full of miracles G-d supposedly performed for those who accepted Yeshua as Messiah. G-d is obviously perfectly capable of creating miracles, experiences, and even visions which do not lead to him (i.e. Pharoh's magicians in Egypt who could turn water to blood and staves into snakes). Thus, this proves that either way (YHWH or Yeshua) of seeking G-d is valid. G-d put free choice in the world so that we could choose to follow him or not, and He performs miracles wherever He wants.

Response:

Messianic Jews do not dispute that God is capable of creating miracles for all humankind – even those pesky Egyptian Pharaohs! Satan can counterfeit miracles - to a point. But when it came to creating lice or creating life, he could not counterfeit those miracles. The Bri't Hadashah says in the last days there will be numerous counterfeit miracles. There are satanic healers out there and miracles do happen for them - to a point. They can give their false healings but not create life. The Ancient Jews knew that when Messiah came, He would heal the lame, heal those blind from birth, and raise the dead. The last two could not be counterfeited by Satan so that people would know who the Messiah was, once He appeared on the scene! Even though they knew this, many still rejected Yeshua because He did not set up His kingdom at that time. This is because humans have a tendency to view time in a linear context, rather than to accept the fact that God's timetable is limitless. He's God, so why should He have to fulfill everything within OUR concept of time?

Furthermore, we do not claim that only those who follow Yeshua will experience healing or miracles. Our position is that Yeshua performed miracles to further evidence His contention that He was the Son of God. Miracles were one of many ways Yeshua demonstrated His divinity to us as Messiah. Other evidence that demonstrates His divinity, for example, might include prophecies included in the Torah and Haphtarah.

Turning to those who accept Yeshua as Messiah and the Son of God, they too may experience healing – in addition to other revelations they may arrive at on their own – as one additional piece of evidence to support their beliefs. One might respond that if this was the case, why would anyone but a Messianic Jew be healed? The obvious answer is that God’s plan is not to kill off everyone who refuses to accept Messianic Judaism. As you wisely point out, God leaves us with the choice. However, if you are on a path to accepting Yeshua for who He really is, one sign you may receive on that journey is healing.

Comment:

You seem to regard the OT and NT as a contiguous whole, and therefore, it is legitimate to use the NT to prove that the OT points to Yeshua. On this basis, when I interpret the OT differently, you see me as ignoring the "word of G-d" (specifically, the New Testament). This is circular reasoning on your part: you first assume that the NT belongs in the Bible, then use it to show that the OT points to it. Of course, if I accepted the validity of the NT, there would be nothing to discuss, since the NT clearly says that Yeshua was (and is) the Messiah. The first rule of discussing issues of disagreement is never to assume anything that the other person doesn't already agree to. Thus, while I regard the Talmud as valid for interpreting the OT, I would never cite it as proof of anything, because you don't accept it. Likewise, it is futile for you to insist that I accept the NT as part of the Bible, since my Bible doesn't have a NT. (In particular, it doesn't have 2 Timothy 3:16.)

Response:

Please refer back to the first sentence of your answer. You’ll notice you mention I look to the New Testament to prove my assertions about Yeshua. I’m not claiming the New Testament closes the book on all discussion. If God wanted that to happen, we would all believe the exact same thing. Since we do not all believe the exact same thing, by definition, it is not in God’s plan at this time to end the discussion. Once again, God wants us to choose to believe in Him. In making that choice, He wants us to wrestle with difficult issues. I suggest only that if one rejects the New Testament in light of the overwhelming evidence to support it, they are ignoring the word of God. If you feel the same way about the Talmud, that is simply another discussion for us to have.

Comment:

Moreover, your stance betrays an ignorance of how the OT and NT came to be canonized. The OT was canonized by the Men of the Great Assembly under the leadership of Ezra the scribe. These men were the successors to the elders appointed by Moses (Exodus 18:25) and as such had their authority. It therefore suffices to prove the divine authorship of Exodus, and the rest of the OT follows therefrom. Exodus, in turn, is backed up by the national revelation at Sinai and the parting of the Red Sea: I can tell you I saw something, but I can't say you saw it too unless it happened.

The New Testament, by contrast, was canonized by the CATHOLIC CHURCH at the Council of Carthage and the Council of Hippo. The Catholics weeded out scores of documents, including more than a hundred accounts of the Gospel, and picked the ones it deemed inspired. This is the same Catholic Church that changed the Sabbath to Sunday, deleted the kosher laws from Christian observance, and viciously persecuted our people. Yeshua said we would know them by their fruits (Matthew 7:20). What fruits has the Catholic Church produced? Would you entrust your immortal soul to its judgments of what is and is not inspired Scripture?

Response:

One hundred percent true! If the Catholic Church shifted the days of significant religious events around to fit an agenda, then why in the world would a Jew put credence in a Catholic decree?

To properly answer this point, one must distinguish between the arbitrary acts of Constantine to fit an agenda (like setting December 25th to be Yeshua’s birthday when it is more likely in mid-September) and the Council of Carthage that actually canonized the Bible.

The canonization itself took place over hundreds of years and included debates that spanned over thousands of miles and peoples before it was finally agreed upon. The final consensus was that the books selected passed two basic tests. First, they each had to have a history of continuous and widespread approval amongst believers. Second, the books had to have been written by an apostle or specifically approved by the apostles. The notion that Constantine (or someone like him) raised a magic wand and deemed the 27 books divine is simply not accurate.

The reality is that by the time the Council of Carthage confirmed the 27 books to be included, there was shared consensus amongst all believers of what those books should be (except, perhaps, Revelations). The stamp of approval given by the council was mostly symbolic for all its formality. Professor Arthur Darby Nock at Harvard University used to tell his students, "The most traveled roads in Europe are the best roads; that’s why they’re so heavily traveled." That’s a good analogy. British commentator William Barclay said it this way: "It is a simple truth to say that the New Testament books became canonical because on one could stop them doing so."

Last but not least, let's not forget what other books the Council included...the entire Torah and Haphtarah. If someone like Constantine had his way, those books would never have been canonized. Again, the same reasoning applies. Our Torah and Haphtarah were included because all believers saw them as intimately connected to the New Testament. If you find this to be a questionable motivation, then we are back at the same starting point. That is, we believe the New Testament and the Torah and Haphtarah are connected, and you may not. But this does not make the Council that canonized these works the culprit.

To note, Canon 24 provides "Besides the canonical Scriptures, nothing shall be read in church under the name of divine Scriptures." Moreover, the canonical Scriptures are these: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua the son of Nun, Judges, Ruth, the four books of the Kings,(a) the two books of Chronicles, Job, the Psalms of David, five books of Solomon,(b) the book of the Twelve [minor] Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, Tobias, Judith, Esther, the two books of Ezra,(c) and the two books of the Maccabees. The books of the New Testament: the Gospels, four books; the Acts of the Apostles, one book; the epistles of the apostle Paul, thirteen; of the same to the Hebrews, one epistle; of Peter, two; of John the apostle, three; of James, one; of Jude, one; the Revelation of John.

Comment:

On your website you've cited the following verses to show that Yeshua claimed to be Messiah: Matthew 16:15-17, John 4:26, and John 17:3. As far as I can tell, he does NOT claim to be G-d in any of these verses. In Matthew, Mark, and Luke, Yeshua claims on several occasions to be Messiah, to have been sent by G-d, and even to have authority to forgive sins, but he does not claim to be G-d in the flesh. The author of John makes such a claim in John 1:1, but this is the author's opinion, not a direct quote of Yeshua himself. Yeshua does say, "I and my Father are one", in John 10:30, but he also prayed that the disciples would be one, even as he and the Father were one, in John 17:11. The same Greek word, "ein", is used to mean "one" in both verses and indicates a unity of purpose, rather than a oneness of being. In John 14:28, Yeshua goes so far as to say, "The Father is greater than I"! Why else would the New Testament not contain even a passing reference to Isaiah 9:6?

Response:

In 1977, British author John Hick raised this same question and caused a tremendous controversy. If the prophecies contained in the Haphtarah suggest the Messiah will be God (Isaiah 9:6-7, Jeremiah 23:5-6, Zechariah 12:10-11), why does Yeshua not reference these prophecies during his ministry? The answer lays within the historical and cultural realities of Yeshua’s time. Messianic Jews can argue until they’re blue in the face that language like "I and my Father are one" demonstrates Yeshua’s divinity. The problem is that without context, "I and my Father are one" will never mean "I am God in a man."

If possible, imagine what it must have been like to be a Jew in Jerusalem 2,000 years ago. Now imagine a 33 year old kid approaches you and a crowd of people and says, "Hi everyone, I am Yahweh. You know, the one who led you out of Egypt. Yep, it’s me!" He instantly would have been branded the worst type of blasphemer and likely would have been killed immediately. At the very best, He would have escaped with his life, but certainly without followers. The point is that announcing He was God would have been entirely counterproductive to His efforts to spread His message.

The question then becomes, what can we make of Yeshua’s teachings in light of a claim that Yeshua was God? Let's first look at the relationship with Yeshua’s disciples. Yeshua has 12 disciples, yet notice that He is not one of the 12. Initially, this may appear to be an insignificant detail. But it’s not. If the 12 represent a renewed Israel, where does Yeshua fit in? He’s not just part of Israel, not merely part of a redeemed group, He’s forming the group – just as God in the Old Testament formed His people and set up the 12 tribes of Israel. What does this say about what Yeshua thinks of Himself?

Let's turn to John the Baptist. Of John the Baptist Yeshua says, "Of all the people born of woman, John is the greatest man on earth." Having said that, Yeshua goes even further in His ministry than John the Baptist. What does this say about what Yeshua thinks of Himself?

As you know, many of the Pharisees didn’t accept Yeshua’s message. They saw only the law and not the spirit behind the law as taught by Yeshua. Yeshua taught that while He did not come away to do away with the law, he also indicates that God has some new plans for humankind. What kind of person thinks He has the authority to set aside divinely inspired Jewish scriptures and supplant them with His own teaching? What does this say about what Yeshua thinks of Himself?

One should also consider Yeshua’s relationship with the Roman authorities. That is, why did they crucify Him? If He had merely been an innocuous apocalyptic telling nice little parables, how did He end up on a cross during Passover – when no Jew wants any Jew to be executed? Either Yeshua made a verbal claim that He was the word of God in the flesh, or someone clearly thought He did.

Let's return to the subject of miracles for a moment. It’s not the fact that Yeshua performed miracles that illustrates His own self-understanding; (after all, his disciples performed miracles as well) what is important is how Yeshua interprets the miracles He performs. Yeshua says "If I, by the finger of God, cast out demons, then you will know that the kingdom of God has come upon you." He’s not like other miracle workers who do amazing things and then life proceeds as it always has. To Yeshua, His miracles are a sign indicating the coming of the kingdom of God. This sets Yeshua apart.

To be precise, Yeshua sees His miracles as bringing about something unprecedented – the coming of God’s dominion. He doesn’t merely see himself as a worker of miracles; he sees himself as the one in whom and through whom the promises of God come to pass. That is a not too thinly veiled claim of transcendence.

Another interesting point concerns the way Yeshua began prayer. He said "Amen I say to you," which is to say, "I swear in advance to the truthfulness of what I’m about to say." This is revolutionary. Why? In Judaism, you need the testimony of two witnesses, so witness "A" can witness the truth of witness "B" and vice-versa. But Yeshua witnesses to the truth of His own sayings. So here you have someone who considered Himself to have authority above and beyond what the Old Testament prophets had. He believed He possessed not only divine inspiration, as King David did, but also divine authority and the power of direct divine utterance. What does this say about what Yeshua thinks of Himself?

The fact that Yeshua refers to God as Abba is also quite significant. Abba connotes intimacy in a relationship between a child and his father. Interestingly, it is also the term disciples used for a beloved teacher in early Judaism. But Yeshua uses it of God. The reason this matters is because within the context in which Yeshua was operating, it was strict custom for Jews to work around having to say the name of God. His name was the most holy word you could speak, and they even feared mispronouncing it. If they were going to address God, they might say something like, "The Holy One, blessed be He," but they were not going to use His personal name (part of the reason Yeshua could never announce He was God).

Abba, by contrast, is a personal term. It’s the term of endearment which a son would call his father. When one considers that throughout the Gospels Yeshua says that only through Him does this relationship with God become possible, one realizes that Yeshua is the initiator of an intimate relationship that was previously unavailable. The question is: What kind of person can change the terms of the relationship with God? What does this say about what Yeshua thinks of Himself?

Then of course there is the famous exchange, recorded in Matthew, in which Yeshua asks His disciples in a private meeting, "Who do you say I am?" Peter replies, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." Yeshua does not duck the issue and says, "Blessed are you, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven." (Matthew 16:15-17.) If Yeshua does consider himself to be the Son of God in a man, why would He answer this way?

Taking all of this into account, I suggest returning to the prophecies I cite earlier (Isaiah 9:6-7, Jeremiah 23:5-6, Zechariah 12:10-11). It becomes readily apparent that the language of these prophecies fall squarely in line with the notion that Yeshua believed Himself to be the word of God in human form.

I will make one final suggestion relating to this matter. Let's assume that 2,000 years ago that instead of sending Yeshua, God revealed himself as a man hundreds of feet tall with a long white beard. A man that could level Rome in one fell swoop and leave no question whatsoever about His identity. God being the creator of all things and the supreme being in the universe could have easily done so. So why didn’t he? The answer lays within one of the first comments you make. God wants us to choose to have a relationship with Him. The element of choice is utterly lost if we are so awestruck we feel forced to follow. There’s no relationship there; no choice to believe - and that’s not what God wants. Yeshua presents us with just enough evidence to make that choice. The question is: What will you choose to believe?

Comment:

On one of your web pages you pose the question that, since traditional Jews reject Messiah, how are they going to get through heaven's gates - because there is no temple, and without the temple, there can be no sacrifices.

G-d said through Hosea, who prophesied around the time of the destruction of the first Temple, "O Israel, return unto the L-RD they G-d; for thou hast fallen by thine iniquity. Take with you words, and turn to the L-RD: say unto Him, Take away all iniquity, and receive us graciously, so will we offer [the words of] our lips [instead of] calves." Thus we learn that prayer is an acceptable substitute for sacrifices when there is no Temple.

Ezekiel's prophetic ministry also spanned the time of the first destruction. G-d told him, "Say unto them [the house of Israel], As I live, saith the L-rd G-D, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live: turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die, O House of Israel?" (Ezekiel 33:11) Here we find that repentance alone is sufficient when there is no Temple. Note that Ezekiel never says we must also have faith in the atoning death of the coming Messiah, but merely, "turn ye from your evil ways".

Response:

It is good that traditional Jews point to this passage as evidence that faith in the atoning death of Yeshua is unnecessary. The reason is that it highlights one of the biggest misconceptions about what faith in Yeshua means. When a traditional Jewish friend of The Refiner's Fire, initially set out to disprove Yeshua and Messianic Judaism, one of his central objections was that repenting to a Messiah cannot absolve someone of their wrongful actions.

...For instance, let's say somebody decides to commit adultery. The Christian position seems to suggest that by simply repenting to the Messiah, you can go on about your business. What’s missing there? A change of heart. That is, one cannot simply hope to throw the ball in the Messiah’s court every time they commit a wrong and expect that by doing so they are forgiven. Nothing has changed within them. This is why traditional Jews point out that true repentance from the heart, and not in a Messiah, is what brings salvation.

The ultimate expression of the apparent backwardness of the Christian position is illustrated in the Catholicism. CATHOLIC: "Forgive me father for I have sinned. I have committed adultery." PRIEST: "Say ten hail Mary’s and eight our fathers." What the heck is that? How exactly does one repent through repetition? That is, how is the human heart truly changing when all it does is repeat a bunch of words? Similarly, how is simply asking a Messiah for forgiveness anything more than a formality? Nothing has actually changed within you. I would agree with each and everyone of these critiques.

Taking a step back, what are Messianic Jews really saying when they suggest faith in the atoning death of Yeshua is necessary? Are they saying that simply throwing the ball in Messiah’s court is all that is required for repentance? Not at all. To analyze this issue, one must ask themselves: (1) what it means to believe that the God of Israel became a man to teach us the spirit behind His laws (Torah); and (2) what it means when one suggests that Yeshua was resurrected.

The first issue concerns the notion that the God of Israel became a man to teach us the spirit behind His laws. For Yeshua, one must fulfill God’s Torah with Kavannah. Kavannah means "intention," "directedness," or "will." Kavannah means both consciousness that one is fulfilling the will of God in observing Torah, and consciousness of the higher purpose of the law. Kavannah means fulfilling the Torah with all of one’s will, without divided thoughts.

Yeshua’s emphasis on Kavannah is the central theme of His teachings. For example, the teaching that one should pray and fast privately rather than before the crowd. Or the teaching that what comes out of a person is more important that what goes in. This list goes on and on. The point is that Yeshua, as the word of God in a man, taught us the spirit behind the written laws of the Torah. He did this because our Torah and Haphtarah is, in part, the story of God’s Chosen People constantly failing to properly follow the laws of the Torah. Knowing this, God gave us animal sacrifice to atone for our sins. He then sent the prophets. Nothing worked.

Ultimately, God Himself became a man in the form of Yeshua and directly taught us the meaning behind His Torah. He then demonstrated His love for His chosen people by dying for us in human form. Why? Because as an eternal being, God cannot die. Death in human form was the most God could do to demonstrate His love for Israel.

The connection to repentance is that when one TRULY repents to Yeshua for the wrongs they have committed, they are saying that His Torah and the spirit behind His laws are the right way to live. They are saying, in the case of adultery for example, that God wants us to live a certain way. Whatever wrongful actions have come before, through repentance in Messiah, we not only acknowledge that the action itself breaks God’s law; we acknowledge the divine reasoning behind the law. We change our hearts because we know why we should.

A traditional Jew will likely point out that Rabbis throughout history have interpreted God’s Torah to find the spirit behind His laws. For many Rabbis this may be true. However, none of them were God in the flesh interpreting those laws. God as Yeshua is saying that by CHOOSING to live the way I want you to live, you will have salvation. When you repent to Him, you choose to acknowledge that you veered from God’s path, and can do better. This is the essence of repentance, and is a far cry from simply throwing the ball in Jesus’ court, or saying ten hail Mary’s.

The next issue concerns the connection of our discussion to the resurrection. First off, for those traditional Jews who dispute any notion of a resurrection, I would suggest researching traditional Judaism’s end time scenario where all Jews experience resurrection. Setting that aside, the question is, "In light of Yeshua’s teachings, what does His resurrection teach us with regard to repentance?" The meaning of the resurrection is that if one strives to live life in the way God as Yeshua teaches, we will triumph over our carnal death and have salvation. We can achieve this, in part, by repenting to Yeshua throughout our lives for the reasons described above. Yeshua, interestingly, means "Salvation."

Let's return to Ezekiel 33 to determine if there is support for this contention. As you point out, Ezekiel 33:11 says, "Say to them ‘As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign Lord, I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that they turn from their ways and live. Turn! Turn from your evil ways! Why will you die, O house of Israel?" Skipping down a few verses to Ezekiel 33:14-15, it says "And if I say to the wicked man, ‘You will surely die,’ but he then turns away from sin and does what is just and right – if he gives back what he took in pledge for a loan, returns what he has stolen, follow the decrees that give life, and does no evil, he will surely live; he will not die."

What is God saying here? God is saying that if one follows the decrees that give life, the individual will never perish, and will experience eternal salvation. This is the identical message of Yeshua’s life and resurrection. We are therefore left with only two possibilities. Either this is all just an incredible coincidence, or perhaps repentance through Yeshua means something more than we thought. What you choose to believe,of course, is up to you....

For more information concerning blood sacrifices, please see an indepth reponse at Challenging: Prayer and Repentance Are All That's Required to Get into Heaven.