QUESTION: Isn't the Virgin Birth a pagan idea?

RESPONSE: Actually, the idea of a miraculous birth isn't at all foreign to Judaism. Isaac himself was the result of a miraculous birth, and an intervention in the normal natural cycle, a special choice made by G-d, for a purpose. This was the start of the Jewish people. So, it's not too off-the-wall to imagine that if, after all, a messiah figure was to be born, that he, too, might be marked out with some sort of special birth.

There is even a(n intended) parallel here. When Sarah asks (Genesis18:13,14) if she is not too old to have a child, she is told that nothing is too hard for G-d. Likewise, when Miryam (Mary) asks how she can have a child, since she is a virgin, she is told, simply, that with G-d nothing is impossible (Luke 1:37).

Of course, for those who don't want to accept the virgin birth, there has to be another explanation, and this is where the idea of the "mamzer" ("bastard") comes in. This "alternative answer" was promulgated right from the very start (see John 8:19 and 8:41, for example, where Yeshua is taunted with "Where is your father?", and "We are not illegitimate children"). These dialogues demonstrate that even then, from earliest times, Yeshua's birth wasn't accepted as "normal"; there was a question about it - but it wasn't an issue that was only tacked on centuries later by pagan influence.

The same argument might be made about Judaism. Consider the examples offered in "Hebrew Myths: The Book of Genesis", by Graves and Patai (Greenwich House, 1983).

Here Eve is compared with the goddess Heba, wife of a Hittite storm-diety. The seven lights of the menorah are said to originate in the fact that there were seven planets. The twelve sons of Jacob are said to have been originally a confederation of twelve tribes, with the 'sons' story worked up afterward. Ham and Noah are paralleled with the story of Kronos and his sons Zeus, Poseidon, and Hades. Isaac's sacrifice is put against Athama's attempt to kill Phrixus, sons of Zeus. (A ram appears at just the right moment in this story).

And so on, and so on, and so on. If Christianity could be refuted because of parallels with pagan superstition and mythology, then so could Judaism.

So, the same argument might be made that Judaism adapted pagan elements from the surrounding nations and incorporated them into what you call "Torah". So Judaism is nothing more than paganism with a dash of monotheism for seasoning - right? No, it's not. And neither is Christianity such a blend.

QUESTION: But didn't many ancient cultures have a concept of a god-man, or a son of the gods (such as Alexander the Great, for example, or Hercules)?

RESPONSE: This certainly IS a pagan idea. There is NEVER any suggestion in Christianity that any deity had sex with Mary ... only, that G-d intervened and marked out a child in a special way by having him born without a father. Yeshua is not G-d's physical son; he is G-d's son in the same way that a natural son may resemble his father, or bear his image. (Did Yeshua weep? Then we know that G-d also weeps. Did Yeshua care about the individual? Then we know that G-d also cares about the individual. "He who has seen me has seen the father".)

Christians also believe that Yeshua has always existed (as he is supposed to have - see Micah 5:2, for example), not that his life began only in Bethlehem.

Just as G-d's Spirit was hovering over the formless void of the earth, imbuing it with life during the Creation, so, too, was Miryam told that "the Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you" (Luke 1:35), in the same way.

QUESTION: Didn't Paul invent Christianity?

RESPONSE: Paul did not invent it, any more than Einstein "invented" his theory of relativity; what Paul did was provide the theoretical framework for life under the New Covenant. Jeremiah wrote that the New Covenant would "not be like" the covenant made at Sinai. Paul showed how the New Covenant differed from Sinai, as well as how G-d could fulfill the terms of the covenant at Sinai and establish a new one.

QUESTION: Wasn't Paul a self-hating Jew who turned his back on his own people and went to the Gentiles?

RESPONSE: He says, "I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. For I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from messiah for the sake of my brothers, those of my own race, the people of Israel. Theirs is the adoption as sons; theirs the divine glory, the covenants, the receiving of the Law, the temple worship and the promises. Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of messiah, who is G-d over all, forever praised. Amen. . . Brothers and sisters, my heart's desire and prayer to G-d for the Israelites is that they may be saved. For I can testify about them that they are zealous for G-d, but their zeal is not based on knowledge. Since they did not know the righteousness that comes from G-d and sought to establish their own, they did not submit to G-d's righteousness. (Romans 9:2-5; 10:1-3)

QUESTION: Didn't Paul want to discard Torah altogether?

RESPONSE: Absolutely not. What Paul did was show how Torah would be lived under the New Covenant.

QUESTION: Didn't Paul say it led only to sin?

RESPONSE: No, he said the Torah is like a tutor, who takes you by the hand and leads you safely to your destination. It is a guide, a protection, a fence. But staying "within the fence" of Torah does not itself result in perfection - only in rule-keeping.

Paul emphatically declares that Torah does not lead to sin. What Paul says is that through Torah we have knowledge of what sin is. He wrote:

What shall we say, then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! Indeed I would not have known what sin is except through the law. (Romans 7:7)

In the absence of law, man will do what he pleases and his conscience will be clear. In the presence of law, however, the nature of man comes face to face with the demands of a holy G-d....It is not Torah that leads to sin, it is human nature in the presence of Torah that leads to sin.

This is why G-d said that he would make a new Covenant with the house of Israel, and that He would replace hearts of stone with hearts of flesh, and that He would put His Spirit in man. It is only in this way - by a change of our nature - that we can truly live in the presence of Torah.

QUESTION: Wasn't Paul an uneducated man who understood nothing about Judaism in the first place?

RESPONSE: Paul was a student of Gamaliel, who in turn was a successor (and grandson) of Hillel. Some people have doubted this. But let's look at the evidence.

Consider Paul's statement that he was Gamaliel's student, for example. This was made while he was in Jerusalem. He had, along with four other Jews, taken Nazarite vows, and he was in the Temple with fellow Jews who knew him as one who had lived and studied in Jerusalem. While inside the Temple some Jews from Asia Minor (there for Shavuot) recognized him from one of his missionary journeys, and began lying about him, whipping the crowd into a frenzy, and specifically slandering him about bringing Greeks beyond the Court of the Gentiles. The crowd erupted, went after Paul, and Roman soldiers had to restore peace. They arrested Paul, but before being led away, he sought and received permission to speak to the crowd.

Now Paul begins speaking, IN HEBREW to TEMPLE JEWS, IN JERUSALEM, AT THE VERY HOME AND "OFFICE" OF GAMALIEL. Would these Jews assembled, listening to Paul's defense - who had been beating him until the soldiers arrived - know of Gamaliel? Might we reasonably presume that (a) some Jews in the crowd knew Gamaliel personally? (b) many, if not all, knew him by reputation, and (c) because of the ruckus, there were perhaps even some of Gamaliel's fellow Sanhedrin members in attendance? Against this context, examine Paul's statement (Acts 22:3ff):

"Then Paul said, I am a Jew born in Tarsus of Cilicia, but brought up in this city. Under Gamaliel I was thoroughly trained in the Law of our fathers and was just as zealous for G-d as any of you are today. I persecuted the followers of this Way (ie, the followers of Yeshua) to their death, arresting both men and women and throwing them into prison, as also the High Priest and the Council can testify.

Now, ask yourself: would Paul have lied about being a student of Gamaliel, to people who KNEW or knew of Gamaliel in, literally, Gamaliel's own backyard? Would Paul invite the testimony of the High Priest and all the Council of the Sanhedrin to back up his statements - if he were lying? His public statement would have been instantly disprovable, if false. How would he have helped his case, his reputation, or his argument to have been caught in such an obvious lie? In fact, it is not recorded that anyone present accused him of lying, either about being a student of Gamaliel or anything else. It IS recorded, however, that his enemies were making up lies about Paul.

Acts 26:4 has Paul in front of King Agrippa, being examined before being sent on to Ceasar. Paul said:

The Jews all know the way I have lived ever since I was a child, from the beginning of my life in my own country, and also in Jerusalem. They have known me for a long time and can testify, if they are willing, that according to the strictest sect of our religion, I was a Pharisee.

Again we see Paul's openness about the way of life he has lived and been known to live since childhood. He again invites testimony as to his Pharisaic background and lifelong commitment to the Law. This would reasonably include public knowledge as to who he had studied with, his position before the Sanhedrin, and his earlier service to them in persecuting the followers of Yeshua. And again, it is not noted that anyone stood up to accuse him of lying about this.

QUESTION: Didn't his conversion experience (i.e., his vision) show that he, too, like so many others of his ilk, was simply mentally unstable?

RESPONSE: Can you imagine what would have been said if Abraham had told a psychiatrist that he thought G-d wanted him to sacrifice his son on an altar? Or if Moses complained that he had heard 'the voice of G-d' coming to him out of a burning bush? It's not unusual for G-d to speak to men in a special manner. What is to be noted is whether that encounter makes a change in the person's life afterward. Paul was not the same afterward; he changed from persecutor to persecuted. And the rest of his life followed in the new pattern. That is significant.

Paul's conversion is no different from that of others who have been 'born again' through faith in messiah Yeshua. G-d performs radical surgery on those who believe - a new heart and a new spirit - and if this is mental instability, then Hallelujah!

QUESTION: If Yeshua was the messiah, why wasn't he accepted by the people of his day? Why didn't the Sanhedrin accept him? Some of the greatest Torah scholars lived in his era, and they didn't accept him.

RESPONSE: He was also accepted by many of his time - some of the greatest Jews of his time.

Some of the Sanhedrin (possibly Joseph of Arimathea, Nicodemus, and Paul, assuming that he was a member) apparently did. But since when did the majority in Israel ever go along with anything? In Elijah's time there were only 7,000 faithful left, weren't there? Do you suppose that THEY weren't rejected as "not of Israel" for being in such a small minority? But they were right. The faithful remnant has always been just that - that's why it's called a 'remnant '.

QUESTION: Why do you claim that Isaiah 9 refers to Yeshua? It actually refers to King Hezekiah.

RESPONSE: Hezekiah is dead, and his kingdom certainly didn't last forever (verse 6). Isaiah speaks of joy and redemption on a far grander scale than Hezekiah's rule indicated. The lofty and poetic language must apply to something a bit more meaningful to Israel than Hezekiah's short rule, good king though he was. And after the smoke cleared, look at how his rule ended - not with a bang, but a whimper. (2 Kings 20:16-19)

Here's a lame-duck king who, instead of lamenting that his Babylonian political entanglements, not commanded by G-d, were going to result in future trouble for his country (by the word of Isaiah), rationalized instead that the prophetic message had been a 'good' one, since it meant "peace in our time". Shades of 1938! Neither Hezekiah nor Chamberlain would likely be heir to the titles of "Wonderful Counselor, the Mighty G-d, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace". And having a few years of life added doesn't qualify you as "everlasting"....

Hezekiah was 25 years old when he took the throne (II Kings 18:2). His father Ahaz only ruled for 16 years (and possibly 2 more years as regent). Ergo, Hezekiah was not born during his father's reign.

A note on the translation. According to Catherine Geever, and Margaret and Preston Heinle, in their book, 'Messianic Prophecies from a Dead Sea Scroll', the Hebrew in this passage should be translated as above. In Hebrew, it is a general rule that if one item in a list of words is a noun, then all of the items in that list should also be regarded as nouns. Thus, this list of titles, ('Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace', etc.) should read as it does, in just that fashion, and without verbs assumed between any of the titles.

QUESTION: Don't you believe in three gods? This is forbidden in the Tenakh. "Shema Yisroel, Adonai Elohenu, Adonai Echad."

RESPONSE: There is one and only one G-d. That G-d has a form of existence which is difficult for us to comprehend, and all human attempts at expressing that form fall short, does not change the fact that there is only one G-d.

Isaiah sees G-d (Isaiah 6) "seated upon a throne" while the skirts of His robe fill the Temple. This one is described as "(Divine Name), the L-rd of Hosts", whom Isaiah says he saw with his own eyes (verse 5). Do you think that this figure, seated upon the throne, constituted all that G-d was?

So, G-d can manifest Himself via His Spirit (mentioned many times in Tanach), or in human-like form, and yet not be totally encompassed in either. To remain monotheists, we have to say that this is one G-d, revealing Himself in three Persons, NOT three gods.

QUESTION: So why did Yeshua say, 'My G-d, My G-d, why hast thou forsaken me?' if he was one with G-d?

RESPONSE: It's a pointer to Psalm 22, the one that starts with everything in total disarray, and ends with G-d's victory.

Perhaps his dying words for our benefit?

In Genesis 19:24 G-d (Divine Name) rains fire on Sodom from G-d (Divine Name) in heaven - ergo, if He can be in two places at the same time then, on earth and also in heaven, then He could also have been on the cross and in heaven, likewise.

QUESTION: "Into Thy hands I commit my spirit". Why should he have to say this, if he is already the same with G-d?

RESPONSE: It wasn't a direction, but a statement of total unity between them. I came from You, I am returning to You."

QUESTION: But don't you also claim that Yeshua was a man? In Numbers 23:19 it says, "God is not a man".

RESPONSE: Finish the verse. "G-d is not a man that he should lie...." This does not say, nor does it imply, that G-d cannot become man.

QUESTION: Look, following a false god is heresy. See Deuteronomy 29:17-19.

RESPONSE: Yep. If we're wrong, then we are way wrong. If we're right, then those who reject Yeshua are in the same trouble:

I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their own people; I will put My words in the mouth of the prophet, who shall speak to them everything that I command. Anyone who does not heed the words that the prophet shall speak in My name, I Myself will hold him accountable. (Deut. 18:18,19)

QUESTION: Didn't Yeshua want to abolish Torah as old and outmoded and replace it with something else?

RESPONSE: Yeshua came to fulfill, or extend the law to its perfection, not abolish it. In other words, it isn't enough to simply refrain from committing murder; you can "murder" a person in your heart, so you must not hate, as well. It isn't enough not to commit adultery; you can commit adultery in your heart, as well, with lust. In other words, all the commandments of Torah must be based on love, love for HaShem, first, and love for one's fellows, second. A person who loves in this way will fulfill all the obligations of Torah naturally, and will not need to be bound by any sets of regulations. Neither will he think that blind obedience to any regulations, minus that ingredient of love, is an adequate "obedience", or pleasing to HaShem.

When Yeshua was asked what the greatest commandment was, he said: To love the L-rd your G-d will all your heart, and all your mind. The second is like it: To love your neighbor as yourself. Sounds Torah-observant, doesn't it?

Do you think that just because you bite your lip and keep your hands at your side, that G-d doesn't see you lashing out in hatred in your mind toward your enemy? Torah says, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself". This includes what you think, too.

QUESTION: Yeshua wasn't perfect. Didn't he break the Sabbath?

RESPONSE: "And he was teaching in one of the synagogues on the sabbath day. And behold, a woman which had a spirit of infirmity eighteen years, and she was bowed together, and could in no wise lift herself. And when Yeshua saw her, he called her, and said to her, Woman, thou art loosed from thine infirmity. And he laid hands upon her; and immediately she was made straight, and glorified G-d. And the ruler of the synagogue, being moved with indignation because Yeshua had healed on the sabbath, answered and said to the multitude, There are six days in which men ought to work, in them therefore come and be healed, and not on the day of the sabbath. But Yeshua answered him and said, Ye hypocrites, doth not each one of you on the sabbath loose his ox or his ass from the stall, and lead him away to watering? And ought not this woman, being a daughter of Abraham, whom Satan had bound, lo, these eighteen years, to have been loosed from this bond on the day of the sabbath?" (Luke 13:10-16)

Do you find something wrong with this? Is it permitted to do good on Sabbath? WHERE in Tanakh is it forbidden to do this on sabbath? Is it forbidden to allow cruelty to an animal on the Sabbath, but not to a human? Is the law supposed to exist only for its own sake, so much so that following the "rules" become more important than anything else? "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath" (Mark 2:27) Or, "The Sabbath was given to you, but you were not given to the Sabbath" (Betzah 17).

Deut. 17:10,11 doesn't give the rabbis authority to create new law through halacha, but even if it did, the Messiah replaced the Sanhedrin and the leaders of the tribes by appointing the band of 70 and the twelve apostles, who sit on thrones, even now, judging Israel through their writings....

Yeshua was not the only one to criticize the addition of stringent restrictions to the written Torah. The Qumran community, for example, referred to the pharisees as "dorshe halaqot", or those who "seek after smooth things". "Halaqot" is used for "lies" or "untruths", but it is also a pun on "halakhot", or the Oral Law, which the pharisees followed for their interpretations. As far as the Qumran group was concerned, the traditions of the pharisees were an annulment of Torah, since they replaced biblical teachings with their own rulings.

The Pharisees were the only major Jewish sect (aside from the Christians) to survive the catastrophe of the year 70. But this does not mean that their interpretations were the ONLY acceptable ones.

Yeshua's intent is to unite the masses with G-d's law. Where that differs from Rabbinic regulations, there is where the friction was. The Master of the sabbath does not attack it; he defines it.

QUESTION: Isn't the central point of Christianity a human sacrifice (the death of Yeshua)? That is forbidden by Torah!

RESPONSE: It certainly is! However, Yeshua's death was a self-sacrifice. "...I lay down my life for the sheep...No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord." (John 10:15,18). "Greater love has no man than this, that he lay down his life for his friends" (John 15:13). "This is how we know what love is: Yeshua haMoshiach laid down his life for us. And we ought to lay down our lives for our brothers." (I John 3:16).

In short, there is a world of difference between throwing a man on a grenade so that he takes the blast instead of you; and the man throwing himself on the grenade so that he takes the blast instead of you. G-d forbids the former. The Messiah did the latter....

QUESTION: Christianity stresses "faith" while Judaism stresses obedience to Torah.

RESPONSE: Faith? And for what was Abraham rewarded with the covenant? Wasn't it for his faith, his trust in G-d? He believed (i.e., he had faith in) G-d's promises that he would yet have a son. So G-d considered him to be righteous. He was NOT considered a righteous man because of his "deeds", because of his keeping of any laws or restrictions. Had THAT been necessary, then why wouldn't HaShem have given Abraham the whole Torah right then, and told him to keep it (i.e., Sabbath, kashrut, etc.) and all? Why didn't he just give the laws to Adam right outside of the garden? The sacrifices were begun then, after all. There is even the point made - and nothing is put into scripture by chance, but only for our benefit and example - that Abraham served both MILK and MEAT to his heavenly visitors. And he was NOT rebuked for this. There is an example here, because these events are not recounted just to be empty words.

QUESTION: But the notion of "salvation" is just a Christian doctrine, isn't it? It's not a Jewish concept.

RESPONSE: Salvation isn't a Jewish concept?

• The L-rd is my light and my salvation; whom shall I fear? The L-rd is the stronghold of my life; of whom shall I be afraid? (Ps. 27:1)
  
  
• The L-rd lives! Blessed be my Rock, and exalted be my G-d, the rock of my salvation. (II Samuel 22:47)
  
  
• Sing to the L-rd, all the earth. Tell of his salvation from day to day. (I Chronicles 16:23)
  
  
• Our G-d is a G-d of salvation, and to G-d, the L-rd, belongs escape from death.( Ps. 68:20).

Just how does the Jewish idea of salvation differ from the Christian one?

QUESTION: Yes, but what are we being "saved" from?

RESPONSE: From death.

QUESTION: But why do we need this "salvation"?

RESPONSE: Because we couldn't save ourselves.

QUESTION: No one can die for another's sins.

RESPONSE: Ezekiel notes that very point, that no one can die for another's sins. Everyone dies for their own sins. No mere human could suffer in the place of another; that is why we need a more-than-human messiah. But the idea of a substitute sacrifice is woven throughout Judaism, beginning with Abraham and Isaac, the scapegoat on the Day of Atonement, the entire Temple system, and so on. All these are intended to be pictures, or foreshadowings, of what was to come. As it says in Exodus Rabbati, Terumah 35:4:

"If ever Israel deserved destruction, then the Temple would be their pledge with G-d. Then Moses said to G-d, 'But what if a day arrives when there is neither a Temple or a Tabernacle? What will be the pledge for them then?' And the L-rd answered, 'I will pick one righteous man from out of them, and use him as a pledge for them, and I will atone for them on account of all their sins.'"

And that, in a nutshell, is Christianity.

QUESTION: But where in Judaism do you find the concept of the need for a mediator between G-d and man?

RESPONSE: Our Jewish history is full of mediators - the people begged Moshe to go up and speak for them - and he did (and received the Ten Commandments). Does that not sound like a mediator? How about the High Priests who went into the Temple and sacrificed for the people? Mediator there, too.

The communal sin offerings in the Temple, in fact, prove the point that a mediator is necessary. The High Priest would first make atonement for himself (the mediator must not be part of the communal sin), and then atonement for all the people.

If individual repentance and making amends is all that is necessary, then why didn't G-d deal with Israel on an individual basis at Sinai? Why did Moses intercede? Why didn't Moses just say, "OK, G-d. Those that repent - you forgive them. Those that don't repent - wipe 'em out." Why was the mediation of Moses necessary then? Why is a mediator not necessary now?

QUESTION: All that is necessary for forgiveness is repentance and obedience to Torah.

RESPONSE: So why did G-d ask for sacrifices as well? Why didn't he just ask for a few prayers to be said? So why wasn't Moses allowed to just repent and enter the promised land? Why wasn't Achan allowed to repent? Why did Israel suffer exile?

It is because G-d demands perfection that remedies for sin were included in the law. If G-d didn't care about perfection, He wouldn't have added these provisions. But G-d must balance the books. Your forgiveness must be paid for.

Are you better at repentance and obedience than those who lived before you? Better than the generations which had the Temple and the sacrifices? Because when they lived, THEY had to offer sacrifices (and this would include Samuel and David, Hezekiah, Elijah, Joshua, Joel, etc., plus Hillel, the Maccabees, and so on). It's true that David said (Ps. 51:17) "The sacrifices of G-d are a broken spirit, a broken and contrite heart"; but THEN he goes on to add, that after his spirit has been broken, "THEN there will be righteous sacrifices, whole burnt offerings to delight you; then bulls will be offered on your altar" (Ps. 51:19). The meaning here is that sacrifices not done in the right spirit will not be accepted. Further, David wanted to build a temple for the L-rd. He would not have planned for this if he had not believed that sacrifices were also necessary.

Of course, our deeds also have a place. People will be rewarded or not on the basis of what they have done. But can anyone be "good enough" to merit being returned to Eden? G-d is perfection, and holiness; and we cannot live in His presence unless we, too, are made spotless. So it is for THIS cleansing, or perfection, or making clean again, totally, that we need the sacrifices, or what they represent.

Jews don't believe in "original sin". That's a Christian idea.

No, but they do believe that everyone sins, or has sinned. Close enough. And also, that everyone strives against an "evil impulse", or inclination to do evil; again, close enough.

Who is referred to in Psalm 14:3, in that "all have turned bad, altogether foul; there is no one who does good, not even one." Who is not included when Isaiah wrote "all we like sheep have gone astray, each to his own way...."?

If modern Judaism stressed the fact that everyone has sinned, then all of their efforts to assert their righteousness through obedience, and all of their own efforts to achieve this through their own efforts, would have to go by the wayside, because they could no longer rely on themselves.

We aren't in Eden anymore, are we? And there is death now, isn't there? So Adam must have done something. Even infants who have never committed a willful sin die; so this must be part of their inheritance from Adam, not something brought on by their own deeds.

If we couldn't keep that ONE rule in Eden, not to eat of the tree, what makes you think we can keep 613 rules NOW? And if violating that ONE rule got us thrown out of the presence of G-d, what makes you think that violating MANY of the 613 rules, MANY times over, will still not prevent us from returning to the presence of G-d?....

QUESTION: Yeshua never claimed to be God, himself; this claim was only made later, by his followers, wasn't it?

RESPONSE: ...But Yeshua did claim to be G-d, in several places. For example, in John 8:58 he said that "before Abraham was born, I AM". This was understood by his Jewish audience as a reference to G-d (and the Divine Name), because they took up stones to stone him for it. In John 10:30, he makes the statement, "I and my Father are one". Again, his Jewish audience interprets this (and how could they not, in light of the Shema, which they all knew) as blasphemy. They state (in John 10:33) that they want to stone him because "you, a mere man, claim to be G-d". And Yeshua also claimed the right to forgive sins, which only G-d can do.

QUESTION: In any case, weren't these accounts written long after the events, maybe two or three generations later?

RESPONSE: One can make the case, based on the Hebrew structure and words which show up underneath the Greek, that most of the gospels were composed in Hebrew first. Ergo, they must have been written,then, by Jews, and probably before the destruction of the Temple (70 AD). So these writers may very well have known Yeshua personally. And Paul, as well, quotes or paraphrases many of Yeshua's words, so that he must have known of them quite early, also.

Jean Carmignac, a scholar who worked on the Dead Sea Scrolls, has found many such Hebraisms in the gospel of Mark. In the Our Father, for instance, in Hebrew a triple-word play appears, in which the word "forgive" comes from the root "nasa", "debts and debtors" from "nashah", and "temptation" from "nashah". Another such word play exists in Mark 3:14,15: "to send" comes from "shalah", "to have power" comes from "shalat", and "to cast out" from "shalak".

Carmignac notes that these verbs are even in alphabetical order! He argues that this cannot be merely coincidence. The uses of such word-plays is very common in Hebrew because, among other things, it helps facilitate memorization....

...All this suggests that the gospels were first composed at a very early date, by Hebrew-speakers who were natives of Judea. (See Jean Carmignac, "The Birth of the Synoptics"). (They would not have been composed in Hebrew had they been written by non-Jews at a very much later date.)

The gospels also contain a great deal of detail about the land of Israel - physical descriptions, the identity of little towns, villages, geographical descriptions, and so on, which it would have been difficult if not impossible for someone to reconstruct a century or two later, and especially after the Romans had laid waste the countryside in two wars.

And even the letters of John declare that "we" are proclaiming to you what "we" have seen an heard. These do not sound like the words of an old man, the last leaf on the tree, the final living apostle; it sounds as if it is written while others are still alive. And in 3 John verse 7, he speaks of serving for the sake of "the Name", which is a very Jewish expression ("haShem"), not one likely to be used in a Gentile culture far removed in time from its Jewish origin.

QUESTION: Sorry, but where does being "born again" fit into the Jewish scheme of things?

RESPONSE: But isn't a new heart the central obligation that you have?

Circumcise, then, the foreskin of your heart, and do not be stubborn any longer (Deut. 10:16).

Circumcise youselves to the L-rd, remove the foreskin of your hearts, oh people of Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem.... (Jer. 4:4).

Cast away from you all the transgressions that you have committed against me, and get yourselves a new heart and a new spirit! Why will you die, oh House of Israel? (Ezek. 18;31).

Create in me a clean heart, oh G-d, and put a new and right spirit within me. (Ps. 51:10).

Salvation is not about performance; because your performance only reveals your desperate condition. Salvation is about being bandaged, soothed, and healed. Are you going to continue to try to put the band aid on yourself, or are you going to go to the Physician who can heal the sick?

QUESTION: If Yeshua was really the messiah, why isn't there peace yet? Do you see the lion laying down with the lamb?

RESPONSE: We know that Messiah will gather the nation of Israel from the four corners of the world. We also know that Gentiles will join with Israel and worship the G-d of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; for Isaiah wrote, "My House shall be called a House of Prayer for all peoples".

But in the midst of this we note that not all worship G-d and that preparations for war will be made. Ezekiel wrote of a time when Israel would be dwelling in peace and safety in unwalled villages, without bars or gate (Ez. 38). And in the "latter days", armies from the north would descend upon Israel and would be utterly defeated by the L-rd.

Therefore, the expectation of universal peace through Messiah is shown to be at variance with the prophecies in scripture. Universal peace will not occur until this "final battle" and G-d makes a new heaven and a new earth.

...So, if the Messiah were to do this mechanically, and by forcing it on humanity, then men would no longer be free, or even men. They would be like dancing puppets, that go limp or dance only when animated. Will the messiah "force" everyone to be good? If everyone were only turned into a puppet like this, then Jewish history (and all history) would be meaningless. Instead, Yeshua used words like "leaven" and "seed" to suggest the way the kingdom of G-d will come, and slowly infiltrate the rest of society, and change it.

QUESTION: It's been 2000 years. How much longer do we have to wait?

RESPONSE: In fact, this question is applicable to both Jews and Christians. Jews have been waiting for the advent of the Messiah longer than Christians have been waiting for his return.

In the Talmud (Sanhedrin 97a) there is a note which says, "It was taught in the school of Elijah, the world will last for six thousand years: two thousand years in chaos, two thousand years with Torah, and two thousand years will be the days of the Messiah". If this is correct, then Yeshua came at exactly the right time.

When Yeshua's talmidim asked him this very question, that is, if he was going to restore the kingdom of Israel right then, at that very time, he answered with a mashal. A farmer went out to plant, he said. But before the crop could come in, an enemy went and planted weeds in the same field. What should be done? Should the farmer destroy the field, and count the whole crop as a loss? No, said Yeshua. He would wait until harvest time; and then it would be easy enough to separate out the weeds from the crop.

Thus, the weeds were allowed to continue, for the present. Likewise, sin and unrighteousness are allowed to continue, for the present. It will be easy enough to separate the two at the time of judgment. In the meantime, the righteous are to be allowed to "grow" to their fulfillment.

QUESTION: Doesn't Isaiah 53 really refer to Israel?

RESPONSE: "And his grave was set among the wicked, and with the rich, in his death...." (Is. 53:9).

When did Israel die? Surely it is not a Jewish belief that Israel will die, is it? That this does not apply to Israel is clear when you read all of Isaiah:

"How the faithful city has become a whore! She that was full of justice, righteousness lodged in her--but now murderers! (Is. 1:21)

"For the vineyard of the L-rd of Hosts is the House of Israel, and the people of Judah are his pleasant planting; he expected justice, but saw bloodshed; rightousness, but heard a cry!" (Is. 5:7)

"Ah, you who make iniquitous decrees, who write oppressive statutes, to turn aside the needy from justice and to rob the poor of my people of their right, that widows may be your spoil, and that you may make the orphans your prey! What will you do on the day of punishment, in the calamity that will come from far away? To whom will you flee for help, and where will you leave all your wealth...." (Is. 10:1-3)

"The way of peace you do not know, and there is no justice in their paths. Their roads they have made crooked; no one who walks in them knows peace. Therefore justice is far from us, and righteousness does not reach us; we wait for light, and lo! there is darkness; and for brightness, but we walk in gloom. We grope like the blind along a wall, groping like those who have no eyes; we stumble at noon as in the twilight, among the vigorous as though we were dead." (Is. 59:8-10)

Thus, to Isaiah, Israel does not qualify as one who has "done no injustice and spoken no falsehood" (verse 9).

"Yet it was OUR sickness that HE was bearing, OUR suffering that HE endured'.

Who is the prophet speaking of here? Who is the OUR and the HE? Aren't there two different entities here?

"WE accounted HIM plagued, Smitten and afflicted by G-d. 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 WE were healed."

Two entities.

"WE all went astray like sheep, each going his own way; and the L-rd visited upon HIM the guilt of all of US".

No innocence here. Whose guilt is it that is "visited" upon "HIM"?

Is. 53:11 is also the only place in scripture where the phrase, "My righteous servant" is used. Others are called, "My servant", but not "My righteous servant". A righteous servant must be holy. Who is this righteous servant?....

QUESTION: But isn't the messiah supposed to reign as a king? Where in Judaism do you find the idea of a messiah who suffers and dies?

RESPONSE: In some Jewish thinking, just as Moses was unable to enter the promised land, so the messiah would be unable to complete his work and finish building the messianic kingdom. Therafter he would be succeeded by a second messiah, messiah ben David, who would finish the work. (This first messiah would then be named, messiah ben Joseph). Christianity resolves this dilemma by having the same first messiah simply return again, i.e., coming twice. The first time he arrives as a sufferer. Examine the following:

The Patriarchs of the world (Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob) will in the future arise in the month of Nisan (the month of Passover) and will say to him: 'Ephraim, our true Messiah! Though we are your fathers, you are greater than we, for you have suffered on account of the sins of our children, and cruel chastisements have come on you ... and you sat in darkness and your eyes saw no light, and your skin stuck to your bones, and your body dried up like wood, and your eyes became weary from fasting, and your strength was like a potsherd. And all of this was because of the sins of our children....Pesikta Rabbati

"And the land shall mourn" (Zech. 12:12). What is the reason for this? R. Dosa and the rabbis disagree about it. R. Dosa says, "(They will mourn) over the Messiah who will be killed", and the rabbis say, "(They will mourn) over the Evil Inclination [i.e. man's desire to sin] which will be killed (in the day of Messiah)...." Sukkah 52a

(When He created King Messiah) the Holy One...began to tell him the nature of his task, and He said to him, "Those who are with you in your generation, their sins are going to force you into a yoke of iron, and they will tear at you like a calf whose sight is grown weak, and they will choke your spirit with the yoke, and on account of their sins your tongue will stick to the roof of your mouth. Will you agree to this?"

...he said to Him, "King of the World! I accept it with joy in my joy and happiness of heart, in order that not even a single one of those who will live in my day should die; and not only that those who live in my day should be saved, but also all the dead who have ever died from Adam until now. And not just them, but also the stillborn should live in those days; and not only the stillborn, but even everyone to whom You thought to give life, but whom You did not create. This is what I desire, this is what I agree to!" Pesikta Rabbati

Elijah of blessed memory caresses his (messiah's) head, holds it on his lap, and says to him, "Accept all these sufferings and the verdict of the Holy One who causes you to suffer for the sins of Israel." And so it was written, "He was wounded for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities" (Is. 53:5). Bet HaMidrash (Mid. Konen)

So it can be seen that this isn't merely a Christian interpretation, or something that was sought for and found later, in order to justify the crucifixion, but rather, that it was (and has been) a part and parcel of Jewish tradition about the Messiah all along.

Unfortunately, very seldom is there anyone who will approach this chapter of Isaiah with an open mind. Far too often, the approach taken is to assume, first off, that it will NOT refer to Yeshua; anything, or anyone else, will be acceptable. A better approach would be to stand back, take an objective look, abandon all previous opinions and bias, and consider it as though it were fresh. Then make up your mind.

QUESTION: But Isaiah 53 is only one of four "servant" songs in Isaiah. Are you trying to say that Yeshua is portrayed in ALL of them? How about Isaiah 42:1-4?

RESPONSE: "This is My servant, whom I uphold, My chosen one, in whom I delight. I have put My spirit upon him. He shall teach the true way to the nations (gentiles). He shall not cry out or shout aloud, Or make his voice heard in the streets. He shall not break even a bruised reed, Or snuff out even a dim wick. He shall bring forth the true way. He shall not grow dim or be bruised Until he has established the true way on earth; And the coastlands shall await his teaching (Isaiah 42:1-4)."

Sounds like Yeshua to me. Who has had G-d's spirit put upon him? Who has taught the true way to the nations (Gentiles)? (It certainly wasn't King Hezekiah!) He was not a rowdy politician or fanatic - he did not cry aloud nor make his voice heard in the streets, but was meek and mild, and gentle to those whose lives, or righteousness, had grown dim. And the coastlands (or the isles) - which generally means the Gentile nations - have awaited and accepted his teaching, to lead them into the true way (and out of paganism).

QUESTION: So what about Isaiah 49:1-6? You mean to say that this doesn't refer to Israel? It even says, "My servant, Israel"!

RESPONSE: First, yes, the word "servant" IS often applied to Israel. (It occurs often enough that I don't have to mention all the examples.) It is also applied to various individuals, for instance, Moses (Num. 12:7), Joshua (Judges 2:8), David (Ps. 89:21), Eliakim (Isaiah 22:20), and so on. Even Nebuchadnezzer gets this title (Jer. 25:9 and 27:6). So, would it not be logical to assume that the messiah, too, when he comes, would also be referred to as a "servant" in this way? And perhaps he is, in Zech. 3:8, "For behold, I will bring forth My servant the Shoot".

Now, in chapter 49, the messiah is depicted as called from his mother's womb (verse 1). He is even named by G-d before he was born. This fits Yeshua, whom Miryam was told to call "Yeshua", because "he will save" his people, even before he was born.

Then, in verse 2, he is shown hidden, concealed with G-d, like a sword kept in a sheath, or an arrow in a quiver, until it is time for him to appear.

It is verse 3 that might at first appear troublesome. "...You are My servant, Israel..." However, the name Israel is also the name of a person, the one who wrestled with G-d and prevailed; and the name here could, in a collective sense, be seen to refer to BOTH the nation, and to that nation's ultimate representative or champion (i.e., the appearance of the redeemer). For example, in a hypothetical case, G-d might choose to address Churchill in WWII by saying, "You are My servant, England", referring to both Churchill, specifically, and the English people as a whole. Will not in the same way the Messiah represent the whole of Israel? And is not, in fact, the Messiah the culmination of the purpose for the choosing of Israel as a nation in the first place? So it would be right to address him by that name.

In addition, the entire life of Yeshua is a parallel to the life of the nation of Israel. Like them, he is called out of Egypt. Like Moses, who is told, "the men that sought thy life are dead" (Exodus 4:19), Yeshua's family is told they can return home because "those who were trying to take the child's life are dead" (Matt. 2:20). Likewise, Joseph was rejected by his own brothers, and delivered over to the Gentiles. There he is given the title, Zaphenah-Paneah, "savior of the world" (Gen. 41:45). At the end of the story he is reunited with his family, and he tells them not to fear him, "I am your brother" (Gen. 45: 4). (The very story of Yeshua, in a nutshell.)

Yeshua was most likely born during Sukkot. This was the festival of great joy, the season of rejoicing - because it commemorated the time when G-d, Himself, was personally present with the people in the wilderness. Yeshua was slain at Pesach, on the very day, and died at the exact same moment when the lamb of Pesach was being offered in the Temple. And so on, and so on. Thus, his life mirrored Israel's, and Israel's mirrored his. And all this is just as it should be, for the life of the messiah. As R. Shlomo Atruc (14th cent.) put it: "When he (Isaiah) speaks of the people, the King Messiah is included with it; and when he speaks of the King Messiah, the people are included with him." (Note that he says this...even though he himself did not accept Yeshua, and thought that Isaiah 53 referred primarily to the nation of Israel.)

In verse 4, the messiah complains that his labors have been in vain and have brought forth little fruit. Yet G-d comforts him - he who was formed to "bring Jacob back to Him, and that Israel be gathered unto Him". (It would be hard to see the nation of Israel as the one doing the restoring in this verse.) In verse 6, G-d promises him his reward: "It is too small a thing that you should be My servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob, and to restore the offspring of Israel; I will also give you for a light to the Gentiles, that My salvation may be known to the ends of the earth". (Again, it is hard to see the nation of Israel "restoring" the nation of Israel.)

"I will give you for a covenant of the people...." (verse 8) - again, possibly the messiah who will initiate the new covenant of Jeremiah 31:31-33. And finally, to extend a bit, in verses 15 and 16, you have the wonderful notation that, even though a mother may forget her own children, G-d will not forget Israel; for he has "graven you upon the palms of My hands...."

QUESTION: What about Isaiah 50:4-9?

RESPONSE: Here the messiah receives his commission from G-d (verse 4), and he does not turn back from his task, even though it involves suffering (verse 5). In verse 6 he is humiliated ("I gave my back to the smiters, and my cheeks to them that plucked off the hair; I hid not my face from shame and spitting" - and this corresponds to Matt. 26:67, Mark 14:65, and Mark 15:19,20 in the NT, where Yeshua is mocked in the same way. Yeshua himself refers to this in Luke 18:31,32). Yet he knows that G-d will justify him in the end.

QUESTION: So how about the last song? Remember that Isaiah 52:13 on,and Isaiah 53, really form one cohesive whole (the chapter divisions were added in the Middle Ages). Is Yeshua here, in all of this, too?

RESPONSE: "Behold, My servant shall prosper, He shall be exalted and lifted up, and shall be very high" (verse 13). Sounds like Yeshua: "Exalted to the right hand of the Father", Peter said of him (Acts 2:33). "G-d exalted him to His own right hand as Prince and Savior that he might give repentance and forgiveness of sins to Israel" (Acts 5:31). "Who...made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant...therefore G-d exalted him to the highest place...." (Phillipians 2:9).

In verse 14, again the humiliation of the Messiah is depicted. Yet he shall still (verse 15) "sprinkle" many nations (Gentiles? heathen?) as, perhaps, after a sacrifice. (Note that the word for "sprinkle" here is used 24 times in the Tenach. In the King James Version, it is always translated as "sprinkle", or similarly. In the modern Jewish Publication Society version, it is translated 23 times as "sprinkle" or similarly. Here, however, is it translated differently, as "startle". There does not seem to be sufficient reason for this. Two of the earliest Greek translations, by Aquila and Theodotion, use the technical word for "sprinkling to clean" here. Similarly, a host of Jewish commentators through the centuries have also denoted "sprinkle" or similar. (See Driver and Neubauer, pp. xxxvii-xxxviii, and notes J through 8, for an extensive comment.)

"Kings shall shut their mouths because of him; For that which (they) had not been told about shall they perceive." Again, if this refers to the Gentile nations, it can mean that they shall have the truths about G-d told to them (as would fulfill Jeremiah 16:19,20).

Finally, we come to the fifty-third chapter, which, as noted, is really a continuation of the last part of the fifty-second. In verse 2, we have perhaps again a reference to the "shoot from the stock of Jesse. . .the twig from out of his roots" spoken of in Isaiah 11:1 (a passage generally admitted to be messianic, as it is the place where the prophet speaks of the lion laying down with the lamb); and possibly also to the passage in Zechariah 3:8. In verse 3 we see that the Messiah is rejected and despised: "he was despised and rejected of men": and "a man of suffering, and familiar with sickness; and as one from whom men hide their face: he was despised, and we esteemed him not". Certainly Yeshua was despised and rejected in his own time; and by his own people. (In the Great Isaiah Scroll of the Dead Sea Scrolls, the impression is even stronger, saying, "we despised him and we did not esteem him". See Geever and Heinle, "Messianic Prophecies From a Dead Sea Scroll".)

Verse 4:"Surely our diseases he did bear, and our pains he carried; whereas we did esteem him stricken, smitten of G-d, and afflicted".

Verse 5: "But he was wounded because of our transgressions". The Great Isaiah Scroll here has, "And he was pierced because of our transgressions."

Verse 7: Here the Messiah accepts the role G-d has given him; there is no protest in his mouth. Yeshua went to the crucifixion. Though no man was more innocent, he did not protest his innocence on the way to death. He did not plead for help from the crowd which only a week before had welcomed him into Jerusalem and wanted to proclaim him king. He did not cry out for pity. He remained silent before them all. His only concern was for the inhabitants of Jerusalem, which he expressed to some women who were weeping for him along the way.

In verse 8: "For he was cut off out of the land of the living, for the transgression of My people to whom the stroke was due." Who exactly was cut off? If this refers to Israel being cut off from the land of Israel, then who is the "My people" to whom the stroke was due? If this refers to Israel being sent into exile because of Israel's sins, then Israel's sufferings cannot be said to be innocent, and thereby suffering for OUR transgressions (whoever the OUR is - presumably, according to one interpretation, the Gentiles).

"Land of the living" is used elsewhere in scripture, for example, by the same prophet in Is. 38:11 to refer to Hezekiah's expectation of dying young; in Jer. 11:19 about a plot to kill Jeremiah; and in Job 28:13, where it is stated that wisdom cannot be found in the land of the living. From these contexts it seems clear that this expression means literally what it says, and does not refer to the land of Israel.

In verse 9 the word for "death" here is no more a plural than is the word "chaim", for "life", a plural. (It is also used for the death of the king of Tyre in Ez. 28:10.) Many Hebrew nouns use a plural in this way to describe a "state of being" (such as "youth", "life", "death", etc.)

In verse 10, why does he suffer? Because it is the L-rd's will to crush him, not because He was unable to save him. And why? In order that he might be a guilt-offering. Note that the Great Isaiah Scroll from the Dead Sea Scrolls renders this, "But the L-rd wanted him crushed, and he pierced him (to death)...." The modern Hebrew Massoretic text reads, "Yet it pleased the L-rd to crush him by disease", or "to crush him and make him sick". (The King James translates this as "he hath put him to grief"; and the NIV as "and cause him to suffer".) The Dead Sea Scroll, however, is 1000 years earlier than the Masoretic text, and it is possible that it reflects an earlier (or more accurate) tradition. (See Geever and Heinle, as above). "He shall seed his seed (or more accurately, "a seed")...." This is the same expression, "a seed", used in Psalm 22:30 (31), "A seed shall serve him", also a prophecy about the messiah. (See Driver and Neubauer, pp. lvii-lviii, for an extended discussion.)

In verse 11, the Masoretic text reads, "Of the travail of his soul, he shall see to the full"; or, in the King James Version, "He shall see the travail of his soul, and be satisfied". In the Great Isaiah Scroll, the text has an added word: "From the suffering of his soul he shall see LIGHT and be satisfied". According to the authors of "Messianic Prophecies from a Dead Sea Scroll", the Hebrew reads much more naturally with this added word, as in the Masoretic text there are two back-to-back verbs without it, and this would be unusual in Hebrew usage. Can this be a reference to a resurrection for the sufferer?

In verse 12, the sufferer enjoys his triumph. But it is not a triumph won by force of arms, but rather, it is his reward from G-d. "Therefore I will give him the mighty for a portion, and he shall divide the strong as a spoil, for a reward". As it says in Psalm 2, which may also refer to the Messiah, "Ask of Me, and I will give you the nations (Gentiles?) for an inheritance, and the ends of the earth for you possession".

So, it is possible to interpret these passages as being of one whole, and referring to a suffering Messiah. Certainly these were so understood by the early followers of Yeshua. For example, they are explained that way in Acts 8:32-3, and in I Peter 2:22-25, where parts of Isaiah 53 are quoted or paraphrased almost verbatim. In other words, some people of that period (which was before the Temple was destroyed), who were therefore very familiar with the sacrificial system, saw the parallels here with the life (and death) of Yeshua. They did not miss the meaning of the words "sprinkle" and "guilt-offering", and saw the passage in that light.

QUESTION: But you misunderstand. What Isaiah is talking about is how the Gentiles will see the suffering they have caused Israel and repent of it, when they see Israel glorified. This repentance will "cure" them and make them whole again, and right with G-d.

RESPONSE: Well, let us assume, for the moment (for the sake of argument), that this is the case, and these passages do refer to Israel. What then becomes of the justice of G-d? For He would be making the innocent suffer on account of another's sins. And no HUMAN is ever substituted and made to suffer for another's sins. THAT concept is specifically denied by scripture. "The soul that sinneth, it shall die; the son shall not bear the iniquity of the father with him, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son with him; the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him" (Ezekiel 18:20). And Psalm 49:8 says, "No man can by any means redeem his brother, nor give to G-d a ransom for him - for too costly is the redemption of their soul".

Further, Israel cannot be considered sinless and righteous, which is another requirement of the passage. (Isaiah even declares himself to be a man "of unclean lips", who lives among "a people of unclean lips" (Is. 6:5). And what becomes of the (supposed) doctrine that it is Israel's sins which are keeping the Messiah from appearing?

In addition, neither did Israel ever undertake her exiles voluntarily, nor were her sufferings optional. The servant, on the other hand, humbles himself, and opens not his mouth in protest. He is not rebellious (as in Is. 50, verse 5). He does not turn away backward. When Israel suffers, however, she cries for justice, as do her prophets when they suffer: "You understand, Oh L-rd; remember me and care for me. Avenge me on my persecutors....Why is my pain unending? And my wound grievous and incurable?" (Jeremiah 10:15,18). "Oh daughter of Babylon, doomed to destruction, happy is he who repays you for what you have done to us - he who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks" (Psalm 137:8,9). "Pay them back what they deserve, Oh L-rd, for what their hands have done. Put a veil over their hearts, and may your curse be upon them. Pursue them in anger and destroy them from under the heavens of the L-rd" (Lamentations 3:64-66).

On the other hand, it is promised that "G-d shall redeem my soul from the power of the grave" (Ps. 49:16; verse 15 in Christian Bibles). In the sacrifice of Yeshua, it is G-d Himself intervening to bear the punishment. And He is the only one who can truly be considered innocent.

QUESTION: How can you claim to be a Jew and a Christian at the same time? Isn't this deceitful?

RESPONSE: Both sides would agree that a Jew is a person who follows Torah. To reject Torah is to reject Judaism. The sticking point comes when we consider what it means to follow Torah. To one side, following Torah means living according to the covenant made at Sinai. For these, accepting Yeshua is seen to be a rejection of Torah, for a covenant which does not yet exist. For believers in Yeshua, rejection of Messiah is seen to be the most explicit rejection of Torah possible.

As you have noticed, there is "Jew by descent" and "Jew by practice". So in the first instance there is no problem. The problem occurs with the second, because one groups states that they, and they alone, practice Judaism as G-d intended it to be; and the other group makes the exact same claim. One side says, "Messiah is yet to come"; and the other says "Messiah has come". One side says, "The Covenant at Sinai is the current covenant"; the other side says, "The New Covenant has been made". So the answer to the question of "What is the true Judaism?" hinges on how these questions are answered. Both sides are vocal, stubborn, and completely assured that they are right.

QUESTION: Why should we believe in the Resurrection when even some of those who were present didn't believe in it?

RESPONSE: Why should we believe in the revelation given at Sinai, when even some of those who were present didn't believe in it?

What a poor bit of fable the resurrection story is, if that's all it is. First, none of the PRIME players in the later church are depicted as present to see it happen. Peter, James, John, Mary, et. all, are absent. Wouldn't it have been a better fable on their part to have made themselves a part of it, to have said, "We witnessed his rising?" This would have given them greater status in the church. And then - to whom does Yeshua first appear? To them? To Peter, his supposed "vicar" and possible head of the new believers? No. Not even to James or John, but instead, to Mary of Magdala, a minor character in the cast.

Instead, what you have is a straight, simple narrative, each witness speaking from his own view; they didn't even get together to coordinate their stories.

Neither do you find the sort of invective you would have expected from a fable. There is never a word said against Caiaphas, or Annas, or Pilate - no derogatory adjectives. Again, just straightforward facts. First this happened, and then that.

Again, as Pascal says, human beings are very susceptible to bribery, changes of mind and heart, lying, promises, and fear of torture or death. Only one of the apostles had later to deny this story later, and the jig would have been up. Yet none of them did; instead, they died rather than to recant.

QUESTION: How can you say that Isaiah 7:14 mentions a "virgin"? The word used there is "almah"; and everyone knows that this doesn't mean "virgin" in Hebrew. The word for "virgin" is betulah.

RESPONSE: "Almah", which is sometimes said to mean simply "young woman", is used in several places, including Gen. 24:43, Exodus 2:8, Psalm 68:26, Song of Songs 1:3 and 6:8, Prov. 30:19, and so on. In some of these places it would seem most likely that a virgin is implied, if not stated. For example, in Gen. 24:16, Rebekah is called a "betulah", a "virgin". In Gen. 24:43, she is called an "almah". And when the Tenach was translated into Greek (for the Septuagint), the word "parthenos", simple Greek for "virgin", was used in Isaiah 7:14. (And this was done more than a century before the birth of Yeshua.)

However, there are, indeed, SOME occasions when "parthenos' can mean something other than a virgin (though that is not its usual use). On the other hand, there also seem to be some occasions when "betulah" might NOT mean "virgin". For example, in Joel 1:8, it might refer to a married woman. And in the Genesis passage, (Gen. 24:16), it is further qualified by the phrase, "a virgin whom no man had known", or, "a virgin, neither had any man known her", which might seem an unecessary qualification if that were to be considered obvious merely from the use of the word "betulah".

So, part of our problem is that we are living 2000 years, and in some cases, 3400 years or so (as in the case of Genesis), from the time when these writers put these words down on paper; and there is no one living today who can know, with aboslute certaintly, all the possible shades and nuances of meaning that these words had. "Almah", for example, is thought to derive from "alem", "to grow up", "to become marriageable". Jerome, the translator of the Vulgate (directly from the Hebrew), thought that it meant, specifically, "a young virgin". This would suit the Jewish tradition about Rebekah, that she was only a child, perhaps as young as three years old, when she was betrothed to Isaac. Others have suggested that it simply means "an unmarried woman", who, by implication, though, would still be a virgin. (In the related languages, Arabic and Syriac, the related word is never used of married women.)

QUESTION: But what does this matter, anyway? Isaiah was talking to King Ahaz. What good would a child to be born 700 years in the future be to him?

RESPONSE: Certainly there was a crisis in the days of King Ahaz. The people feared that the nation would be destroyed, and that nothing would remain. G-d offers Ahaz the chance to choose a sign, any sign, as a proof to him that this would not occur. Ahaz refuses; but G-d offers him (and the believing remnant of Israel) a sign anyway. It is capable of a double meaning--both as to the current situation, and as a hint of things to come.

Thus, a child will be born. Before the child is very old, old enough to distinguish between good and evil, the enemy nations they so feared will have been overthrown. That is, within a period of about three years, the country will be delivered from its enemies. (This period would also match the length of Yeshua's ministry.)

However, the people may also be pointed to another, second child. Isaiah's contemporary, Micah, was declaring about this time, that "But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans of Judah, out of you will come for Me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are from of old, even from the days of eternity" (Micah 5:2). The prophet goes on to say, "Therefore Israel will be abandoned, until the time comes when she who is in labor gives birth...." (verse 3). Now, this too is capable of a double meaning. It can be a reference to the notion that exiled Israel will be reborn in a day, as is stated in Isaiah 66:7. But it can also, in addition, refer back to the statement just made, that is, meaning until the specific child of verse 2 is born. So, in other words, the people are promised a child - both in Micah, and in Isaiah, as a sign of G-d's promise that the nation will endure.

Isaiah and Micah further intersect when Isaiah, in chapter 9, goes on to announce, "For unto us a is born, unto us a son is given, and the government will be upon his shoulders. And he will be called, Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty G-d, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his kingdom there will be no end. He will reign on David's throne...from that time on and forever." This child coincides with the one from Bethlehem, "whose origins are from of old, even from the days of eternity".

Thus, the people are to be reassured: the nation will survive. A child will be born to prove this; and, by way of double assurance, G-d promises yet another child, far in the future, who will sit on David's throne and of whose kingdom there will be no end. From this the people are to take heart and hope.

QUESTION: But isn't that a mistranslation of Isaiah 9?

RESPONSE: Usually, the practice in Hebrew is that if there is a list of words, all of the words will be of the same type, unless they are specifically identified otherwise. This is because Hebrew is so economical in its use of words. Thus, if one word in a list is a noun, all of the other words in that same list should also be nouns, unless there is a specific exception. Some of the words in the list of titles for this child ("Wonderful, Counselor", etc.) are undeniably nouns; therefore, the rest of them should be regarded as nouns, as well. Some modern Jewish translations insert verbs between the nouns, thus obtaining something like "Wonderful in counsel is the Mighty G-d, the Everlasting Father" etc., but there is no linguistic reason for this.

Note that the word for 'Wonderful' here is the same as that used in the story of the birth of Samson, where the Angel of the L-rd, asked his name, replies, "it is wonderful", (Judges 13:18) meaning, "full of wonder, ineffable, mysterious, full of awe". Neither this nor any of the other names of the list are likely to have been applied to a human being.

Further, some Jewish thought also derived hints of the Messiah from this passage. For example, 'R. Yose the Galilean said: "The Messiah's name is Peace, because it is said, 'Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace...' (Perek Shalom). And in the Midrash Mishle (from the 9th century, perhaps from Babylonia): "The Messiah is called by eight names: Yinnon, Tzemah, Miracle, Counselor, Messiah, El ("G-d"), Hero ("Gibbor"; another possible translation for "Mighty"); and Everlasting Father of Peace".

QUESTION: Look, when the true messiah comes, everyone will know he is the messiah. We won't have to go around wondering about it.

RESPONSE: How? Merely because he says he is the messiah? A lot of people have announced this, and some of them (Bar Kochba, Shabbatai Zvi, etc.) have been believed. No, they will know him if he fulfills the prophecies about him in the Scriptures. That's why the prophecies are there, to serve as his ID card. For example, he must be of the House of David, etc. Don't take any false messiahs.

So when he begins his mission and calls all of the Jews to him, are you just going to wait around until he finishes his mission to be sure of who he is? That is, you're going to wait until Israel is gathered home before you get up and go home? Sounds kinda like circular reasoning....

QUESTION: In any case, there's no proof Yeshua was born at Bethlehem. That's just a preposterous story made up to make him seem to fit the prophecies!

RESPONSE: Of course, we weren't there, so we can't really say of our own knowledge where Yeshua was born. But let's look at it like this: supposing I were the writer of a gospel, and that I felt it was necessary, according to my interpretation of the scriptures, to have my candidate for the messiah be born in Bethlehem. BUT, his parents lived in Galilee. So, in my account, I would have to get them from Galilee to Bethelehem in time for the birth. How should I accomplish this?

Wouldn't it be much easier for me simply to write that his parents had personal business there of some sort, and went there for a time, and that during this time the child was born, and then they returned home again? No one would ever be able to check up on this. WHY would I write that there was an external event, the census, which required them to go to Bethlehem??? EVERYONE ELSE would know whether there had been such a census or not - and if it hadn't happened, it could make me look like a liar straight off. And WORSE, why would I make my account say that this census was for ALL of the Roman world? Then, for SURE, everyone would know about it - and nobody would be convinced of the truth of my story. So, this detail would make it seem less likely that the gospels are inaccurate here; instead, it would seem more likely that they are telling the truth about this, and that there really was such a census, which everyone could remember.

Did they really require everyone to return to a home city for a census in those days? Again, the same arguments as above apply: everyone in those days would have known whether this was true or not. And, we have found a papyrus in Egypt from a different census, for that of 104 C.E., requiring that everyone in Egypt was required to return home for that census. ( See A. Deissmann, 'Light from the Ancient East', 1927, pp. 270-271).

QUESTION: Who is the "Word" of G-d?

RESPONSE: When the Jewish people returned from exile to Babylon, not all of them could speak Hebrew. Little by little more and more of them began to use Aramaic, although Hebrew itself remained the language of a substantial number. To assist those who could not understand the Hebrew, a series of translations and commentaries on the scriptures was made. These were called "targums". At first, it was even forbidden to write down these targums, lest they should come to have equal authority with the scriptures. These translations (and commentaries) would sometimes be read in the synagogues at the conclusion of the reading of the scripture, so that the congregation could fully understand what was being read. (See, for example, Nehemiah 8:8: "And they read in the book, in the Law of G-d, distinctly; and they gave the sense, so that they understood the reading".) So, while these translations and notes were in no way to be considered equal to scripture, they do give us hints as to what the interpreters believed then, and how they viewed certain passages.

The two main targums which we have to this day are the Targum of Onkelos on the five books of Moses, and that of Jonathan ben Uzziel on the prophets, although fragments of other targums also remain. In places in these targums the writers, in order to show reverence for G-d, substitute a word or phrase such as "The Holy One", or "The Name", for that word. In places, they also substitute "The Word of G-d", or the "Memra" ('Word') for G-d. For example, in Exodus 19:17, instead of "Moses brought the people out of the camp to meet G-d", one can read in the targum, "...to meet the Word of G-d". According to Alfred Edershem, the use of this word "memra" occurs over 600 times in the targums in relation to G-d. (See, "The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah", Alfred Edersheim)

Thus we have, in the targum of Jonathan ben Uzziel, "And the Word of the L-rd caused to descend upon...Sodom and Gomorrah, brimstone and fire...." (Gen.19:24), instead of the usual text, "Then the (Divine Name) rained upon Sodom," etc. In Genesis 1:27 we have, in the same targum, "And the Word of (Divine Name) created man in his likeness...." Genesis 15:6 reads in the targum of Onkelos, "Abraham believed in the Word of (Divine Name), and He counted it to him as righteousness". In Genesis 22:8, Abraham replies to his son (in the Jersualem targum of Jonathan ben Uzziel ) "The Word of the L-rd will provide me a lamb...." The same targum even says, in reference to the Ten Commandments, "And the Word of the L-rd spoke all these glorious words" (Exodus 20:1).

Now we can see with more clarity just what it was that John was referring to when he began his gospel with the words, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with G-d, and the Word WAS G-d. Through him were all things made; without him nothing was made...."

QUESTION: Who is the "Spirit" of G-d?

RESPONSE: The "Spirit" of the L-rd is frequently mentioned in the scriptures. For example, in Numbers 11:25, "Then the L-rd came down in the cloud and spoke with him, and he took of the Spirit that was on him and put the Spirit on the seventy elders. When the Spirit rested on them, they prophesied...." The Spirit of G-d is said to be hovering over the waters at the beginning of the creation (Gen. 1:2) . In Numbers 24:2, the Spirit of G-d comes upon Balaam so that he can prophecy. The same thing occurs to Saul, in I Samuel 10:10; and so on. In Isaiah 63:10 there is the statement, "Yet they rebelled against Him and grieved His Holy Spirit". And in the targums, too, there is this same expression, "Holy Spirit". For Gen. 6:3, "My Spirit shall not strive with man forever....", the targum of Johnathan ben Uzziel says, "Have I not given my Holy Spirit in them...." For the question, "Who has directed the Spirit of the L-rd....?" (Isaiah 40:13), the same targum has, "Who has directed the Holy Spirit?"

So we see that there is a divine Spirit which may rest upon man, sent from the L-rd, and yet which does not encompass Him in its entirety.

QUESTION: How can you say that you believe in one G-d, when you actually believe in three?

RESPONSE: We believe in the same G-d Who is presented in Torah. Here He is called, variously, "El" and "Elohim". "El" is the singular form for "G-d", and "Elohim" is the plural form. That "elohim" really is a plural form is seen by its use in such passages as Judges 10:13. Joshua 23:16, Exodus 18:11, and even in the Ten Commandments, "Thou shalt have no other gods ("elohim") before Me" ( Ex. 20:3). When used in reference to the G-d of Israel, though, "Elohim" is always translated in the singular. Perhaps there is a form of "hint" intended here?

In Genesis, there is the phrase, "Let Us make man in Our image". Some people think that this means G-d is speaking to the angels. But we are not made in the image of angels. And, in Genesis 3:22, after man's disobedience, it says, "Behold, the man is become as one of Us". This is not an expression that G-d would have used if he were speaking merely to an angel, because angels are not equal with G-d, they are less, only created beings. G-d would not speak to an angel as an equal.

In the Shema, it says, "Hear O Israel, (Divine Name) our G-ds (Divine Name) is one" (Deut. 6:4). The word for "one" here is "echad". Echad is used a number of places in the scripture to indicate a "unity", rather than a "singleness". For example, In Genesis 1:5, evening and morning together make up "yom echad", or one day. In Genesis 2:24 a man and wife shall cleave together and be one (echad) flesh. In Numbers 13:23 there is one (echad) cluster of grapes. There is another word in Hebrew for one, "yaheed", which is an indivisible unity, a pure, mathematical "one", or "an only one", but it is not used in the Shema. Likewise the word "rak" might have been used, or the word "bilti". An example of the use of "bilti" is found in Exodus 22:20, "He who sacrifices to any gods save only (bilti) Adonai shall be utterly destroyed."

But these words were not used. They are the ones one would have expected to find had the intention of the writer been to emphasize that there was only one, to the exclusion of all others, of what was being mentioned. Since one of these words, which clearly expresses that meaning, was not used, one is forced to conclude that Moses was not expressing that concept here. (Maimonides, in his second statement of faith, substitutes here the word "yaheed" for "echad", perhaps because he was aware of this very difficulty.)

QUESTION: But there is no place in Judaism where G-d assumes a human form!

RESPONSE: In Isaiah 6 the prophet says "In the year that King Uzziah died, I saw my L-rd seated upon a high and lofty throne; and the skirts of His robe filled the Temple". Sure sounds like he saw something that resembled a human form. Seated on a throne? Skirts of His robe?

And at Sinai the people all hear the voice of G-d. This is on the same level as his assuming a human form, in order to be able to better communicate with us. (Some try to say that it is not considered anthropomorphic for HaShem to have spoken with a voice, because a "voice" - that is, sound waves - only emanate from a Being, and are not a real representation of Him. But light (or photons) are also only "emanations", and thus in that case a "sight" of HaShem would not be anthropomorphic, either.) Certainly, G-d CAN assume such a form, if He wishes. Surely no one would want to claim that this would be beyond His power?

QUESTION: Son of G-d doesn't have any special meaning. A lot of people are called sons of G-d in the scripture. We're ALL sons of G-d.

RESPONSE: Yes, but in Psalm 2 there seems to be a mention of a special "son of G-d". Here, the nations of the world plot against G-d and his "anointed" (the word in Hebrew here is "moshiach"). Then the Psalm goes on to show how G-d laughs at the nations which would try and stop His plans. He says, (verse 6) "But I (G-d) have installed My king on Zion, My holy mountain. Let me tell of the decree: the L-rd said to me, 'You are My son, I have fathered you this day. Ask of Me, and I will make the nations your domain, your estate, the limits of the earth'."

This sure sounds like it is, at least, messianic. And that there is a particular individual here in mind - "My king", etc. And who is it who will inherit the nations of the earth, and who will rule the limits of the earth? Can this be a suggested hint of something, of a further meaning in the text?

In the Talmud (Suk. 52a), there is the comment, "The Holy One, Blessed be He, will say to Messiah ben David..."Ask of me anything, and I will give it to you, for it is written, 'The Lord said to me, "You are my son, this day I have begotten you, ask of me and I will give you the nations for your inheritance." And when he will see that Messiah ben Joseph is slain, he will say before him, "Master of the World! I ask nothing of you except life!". G-d will say to him, "Even before you said 'life', your father David prophesied about you, as it is written, 'He asked life of you ,and you gave it to him'." (Ps. 21). (Edersheim suspects that the term "Messiah ben Joseph" was a later emendation, and that the original reads "Messiah ben David".)

Similarly, in Proverbs 30:4: "Who has wrapped the waters in His garment? Who has established all the extremities of the earth? What is His name, or His son's name, if you know it?" Another hint?

QUESTION: Does the name "Yeshua" appear in the Tenakh?

RESPONSE: In Matthew 1:21, Joseph is told to call his wife's, Miryam's, newborn son "Yeshua", because, says the angel, he will save his people from their sins ("Yeshua" means "Salvation"). This is in keeping with the practice in the scriptures of giving names which had specific meanings.

Thus, practically whenever you find the word "salvation" in the Tenakh, it is virtually identical with the name "Yeshua". Psalms 9:14 might therefore just as easily read, "I will rejoice in Thy Yeshua (salvation)". Psalm 91:16 might read, "With long life will I satisfy him, and show him My Yeshua (salvation)".

In Isaiah 62:11, you can read, "Say to the daughter of Zion, behold, your Yeshua comes; behold, His reward is with Him, and His work before Him".

In Habbakkuk 3:13, there is the statement, "You went forth for the Yesha (a form of Yeshua) of Your people; for Yesha (again a form of Yeshua) your Messiah".

And thus, in Luke 2:29-30, it is only natural that the old tzaddik Shimon should say, with the infant Yeshua in his arms, "Lord, now let your servant depart in peace, according to your word; for my eyes have seen your Yeshua". As it says in Isaiah 52:10, "The L-rd will lay bare His holy arm in the sight of all the nations (Gentiles), and all the ends of the earth will see the Yeshuat (a form of Yeshua) of our G-d".

QUESTION: Isn't the New Testament anti-Semitic? Doesn't Yeshua condemn the Jews and call them "sons of the devil"?

RESPONSE: ...Rabbi Harvey Falk, in his book "Jesus the Pharisee", makes some interesting points about this, especially in regard to Matthew 23, the "woe to the Pharisees" chapter.

The Pharisees (notes Falk) were divided into two main camps, the Bet Shammai, and Bet Hillel. Beth Shammai opposed accepting converts into Judaism. Rabbi Eliezer (see Sanhedrin 105a) held that no gentile, no matter how righteous, could have a place in the world to come. (See also Shabbat 31a). Aquila, a famous convert to Judaism, was almost rejected because of R. Eliezer's attitude (see Midrash Genesis Rabbah 70:5). Bet Hillel, on the other hand, welcomed converts.

"Woe to you Pharisees (i.e., Bet Shammai). You shut up heaven in men's faces...nor will you let those enter who are trying to do so." This now appears in a different light, when placed into context.

Dosa ben Harkinas, a famous sage of the period, once called his brother a "first-born of Satan" because he sided with Bet Shammai in a decision. (See Yevamot 16a). It was also said (Berakhot 11a and Berakhot 1:4, Yerushalmi) that "he who observes the teachings of Bet Shammai deserves death". When Rabbi Tarfon acted in accord with Bet Shammai in one case, and then escaped being killed by robbers, the Sages told him (Mishnah, Berakhot 10b) that he would have deserved to have been killed. These remarks are not considered to be anti-semitic when placed in their proper context.

Bet Shammai was also implicated in the murder of a Zechariah ben Berechia in the Temple (see Josephus, Wars, 4:335), possibly as instigators of the Zealots, who committed the murder. Thus, the condemnation of these Pharisees (in this case perhaps only from Bet Shammai) for the murder(s) which their fathers did, including the blood of Zechariah ben Berechia, may fit into place.

Bet Shammai is also seen as grouping together to confront Hillel (Betsah 20a) and his followers (Betsah 20b) in the Temple, the way Yeshua was later confronted. Falk notes that there is no record of Bet Hillel acting in this way.

Ergo, the events of Matthew 23 fit right into the Jewish context of the Second Temple period, and have to be wrenched away from it in order to arrive at some sort of anti-Semitic conclusion.

It should also be noted that the Talmud itself complains of hypocrites among the "plague of Pharisees". "What is a plague of a Pharisee? He teaches legal tricks...." (Sotah 22). "A foolish saint, a subtle knave, a woman Pharisee, and the plague of Pharisees bring ruin on the world" (Mishnah Sotah 3,4). "What is the plague of Pharisees? Scholars acting as lawyers who give counsel by which, apparently in strict form of law, the law may be circumvented" (Sotah 19a, Yerushalmi).

QUESTION: What about calling Jews "sons of the devil"?

RESPONSE: When Yeshua calls some of the leaders "sons of the devil" (John 8), it is (a) not a criticism of ALL Jews - in fact, the inference is clear that he is simply calling them "unJewish", the way that we might call someone "unAmerican". To call someone "unJewish", i.e., NOT a son of Abraham, but rather a son of the devil, is NOT a criticism of Jewishness. And (b) neither was it unique: Dosa ben Harkinas referred to his own brother as a "first-born of Satan" because he sided with Bet Shammai in a dispute with Bet Hillel (Yevamot 16a). John the Baptist refers to his opponents as a "brood of vipers" (Matt. 3:7). This may be equivalent in Hebrew to "sons of the Snake" (i.e., the devil); a similar expression, "creatures of the Snake", occurs in the Qumran Thanksgiving Hymns IQH3:17. And in Isaiah 1:4, Israel is called the "seed of evildoers, sons who corrupt". Therefore, such expressions fit neatly into the milieu of the times.

QUESTION: Don't the Gospels try to pin all the blame for the death of Yeshua on the Jews?

RESPONSE: "They will condemn him to death and will turn him over to the Gentiles, to be mocked and flogged and crucified" (Matt. 20:17). (Looks like Gentiles do the crucifying here!)

"They will condemn him to death and will hand him over to the Gentiles, who will mock him and spit on him, flog him and kill him" (Mark 10:33-34). (Looks like the Gentiles are at work again!)

"He will be handed over to the Gentiles. They will mock him, insult him, spit on him, flog him and kill him" (Luke 18:32). (Gentiles again...)

Is this why they report he said, "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do?" There is, in fact, no invective in the New Testament. There are no adjectives - there is no "wicked, evil Caiaphas", no "stealthy, crafty Annas", no "cowardly Pilate"; just straightforward renditions of what everyone did. If the authors of the New Testament had really wanted to, they could have done a much better job of "fantasizing" things, and of villainizing specific individuals.

Anyway, we're not talking about ALL of the people here, just the cabal of the leaders - who were generally toadies of the Romans. The Romans selected the high priests, and dismissed them at will. From the years 6-36 C.E. the high priest's garments were retained in the keeping of the governor. From the time of Herod to the fall of Jerusalem there were no less than 28 high priests. (See Josephus, Antiquities, XVIII 2.2). One governor shuffled four of them in his term, until he found one he liked: Caiaphas. Caiaphas then held office for the next 18 years, the longest of any. One can assume from this that he and the Romans got along well together - rather like the Vichy French and the Germans. However, after Pilate was recalled in 36 C.E., the governor of Syria, Vitellius, dismissed Caiaphas as well. (See Josephus, Antiquities, especially XVIII 2.2, 4.2; XIX 8.1). R. Judah b. Ilai was recorded as saying, "Since one gives money for the high priesthood, they change every 12 months". (Yoma 8b, Bavli).

...Ergo, one would deduce that such a 'ramrod' form of justice was possible; and that not all of the "just men" of the city would have agreed to it.

Another similar case is recorded by Josephus in his 'Wars' (VI 5.3). There a man (also named Yeshua, or Jesus) predicted the destruction of Jerusalem (and by implication, the Temple). The authorities arrested him and handed him over to the Roman governor, Albinus, for judgement. This Jesus was also whipped, until his bones were laid bare, but he refused to make any defense for himself, except to repeat, over and over, "Woe to Jerusalem". Albinus, considering him a madman, released him.

(We are, after all, looking back on these events from a perspective of 2000 years. We assume that Judaism then must be as Judaism now - a unified religion. But, remember that in those days Bet Hillel, for example, was only one opinion; members of Bet Hillel had even been subject to attacks, and murder, by members of Bet Shammai, the majority. There were also Temple factions (Sadducees), who were compromised with the political rulers, Essenes, etc. Which of these factions is it correct to explicitly label "the Jews", or "the Jewish leaders"?

QUESTION: The Sanhedrin would never have acted in such an illegal manner!

RESPONSE: Oh, right. And government always stays inside the lines of the constitution. And cops don't go bad, husbands don't beat their wives, clergy don't molest children, and judges always run honest courtrooms....

Christians have remarked on the highly irregular procedures recorded in the Gospels for centuries. But we assert their historical accuracy nevertheless. Those charging Yeshua were afraid of a riot if they conducted the trial in the normal, public manner.

That was the idea - to get it over with quickly, before an insurrection started, with Jerusalem filled with pilgrims for the Passover, and national feelings for freedom at a high pitch - just the time for a "messiah" to arrive. Ergo, snuff the movement out quickly, so that it is over with before anyone knows the difference. What sort of reaction the public - the real public, which had welcomed Yeshua into the city only a week before - do you think would have resulted if they had delayed and held lengthy open daylight trials, with, perhaps, another kind of mob waiting outdoors?

Consider a hypothetical modern parallel example: a popular leader arises in an occupied country, say, a Lech Walesa in Poland. He grows so popular that everyone fears an anti-Russian, anti-communist revolt will break out. But, with memories of Hungary and 1956 in their minds, the leaders of the Church (who are the real representatives and custodians of Polish national feelings) decide that it would be best for Poland to be rid of Walesa. However, they lack the power to do this. So they go to the civil government. But the government is afraid things will go bad, anyway, and that will get them in trouble with Moscow. They finally assent, but only if the Church leaders take responsibility for everything. If there is any popular reaction, it must be directed at them.

The execution proceeds apace. The Church leaders say, "We had to do it to save Poland". The government announces loudly, "WE had nothing to do with it". And Walesa is remembered ever after as a great martyr who sacrificed his life for Poland.

Politicians being now, as then, what they are, what is so improbable and ludicrous about this?

QUESTION: But weren't the gospel accounts written long after the events? So of course they are inaccurate!

RESPONSE: So? The Torah was written long after many of the events depicted in it, too (especially the events in Genesis). Is it inaccurate?

Actually, the documents detailing how the Sanhedrin was run were put down on paper long after the Gospels. The Mishnah was probably put into written form at least a century (and probably a century and a half) later. Don't you think something might have become "idealized" by then? Just as our own constitution might, in a similar instance, be remembered as it was written - but not as it was always practiced? (Remember Watergate?)

QUESTION: Anyway, there's no contemporary evidence that Yeshua even existed!

RESPONSE: And there's no evidence for the Exodus, either. Nobody has ever found the chariots of Pharaoh, no one has ever found a piece of manna, and so on....

QUESTION: Don't the Gospels try and whitewash Pilate?

RESPONSE: The Gospels don't paint a pretty picture of Pilate. He hates the Jews, so he is suspicious of them and reluctant to agree to their demands. He "washes his hands" of the affair as if to refuse. But in the end he sees no reason not to kill this one Jew. He does take the occasion to make a political statement: an insult to the Jews who demand this man's death. The crime board nailed to the cross proclaims him "King of the Jews".

So why don't they go even further? Pilate vacillates. He has Yeshua scourged. Why not delete this? Why show the Roman soldiers mocking Yeshua? Why have any criticism of Pilate at all? Why not have him, like Albinus, be enraged and angry? Praising Roman justice? A few sentences like this here and there could have been inserted to that effect. Why not? If, as is claimed, they were making the whole thing up anyway?

QUESTION: What about, "His blood be on us, and our children?"

RESPONSE: Just before this, Pilate washes his hands. This is apparently in imitation of the Jewish custom (Deut. 20:6-8), in which the elders of a city declare themselves innocent of a murder. After this, they pray, "...do not hold your people guilty of the blood of an innocent man". The crowd, familiar with this, and knowing the usual response, and having been worked into a frenzy, simply shouts back, as a mob will, the reverse of this - in effect, "yes, we are guilty; put his blood upon us!". They aren't in the least fear about this, and they do not consider Yeshua to be the messiah. (Compare, "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do".)

The intent of the author of Matthew is to portray Yeshua as the lamb of Passover. When the Angel of Destruction saw the blood on the doorposts of the houses of the people of Israel, he passed over them. In this "second" Passover, all the principals, from the High Priest on, play their expected roles. Yeshua dies exactly at the right moment during the sacrifice of the unblemished lamb in the Temple. And the people cried out, "His blood be on (or over) us"; i.e., the blood of the lamb of Passover be over us. This is the only possible intended meaning given the setting of the rest of the narrative. Again, ripped out of its Jewish context, the passage looses its meaning and can be (as it has been) misinterpreted by anyone to suit their own purposes. (But anti-semites should not be allowed to force their interpretation of scripture onto the rest of the world.)

QUESTION: The actions of everyone in the story are too improbable to be believed!

RESPONSE: ....It is extremely implausible that people behold the majesty and power of G-d in a pillar of cloud and a pillar of fire (hardly natural phenomena) and yet want to go back to Egypt. It is extremely implausible that people witness to the descent of G-d upon Mt. Sinai with thunder and darkness and cloud; hear a voice from heaven speak to them - and in particular tell them "You shall not make any graven images" - and then go off and make a graven image. G-d parts the waters and destroys the Egyptian army - yet the people have no confidence in the ability of G-d to deliver the promised land to them. Yet all these things happened.

QUESTION: You only accept these accounts because you have to; they are part of your religion, and it would collapse if you didn't.

RESPONSE: And you have to reject the account of the resurrection - because if the resurrection occurred (and it did), then Christianity is exactly what it claims to be. You have to reject the clear interpretation of Isaiah 53, for the same reason. And you have to reject the account of the trial of Yeshua, because you cannot accept the idea that the Temple leaders would do something of this magnitude.

Assume, for a moment, that the resurrection actually happened. Can your world-view accept this? The answer, of course, is "No" - you cannot. Therefore, the resurrection must be false - not on the basis of history, but on the basis of what you feel you must believe.

QUESTION: So who did cause "that man" to be put to death?

RESPONSE: G-d.

QUESTION: How can you be sure what your Christian scriptures say? There are MANY versions of the New Testament which have survived from ancient times, and they differ from one another; whereas, the Tenach has been handed down without error.

RESPONSE: Yes, there ARE many versions of the New Testament books, but then, there are many thousands of New Testament manuscripts remaining from the first few centuries. And, when compared with one another, it is not too difficult, in most cases, to arrive at what was more or less the "common" version. Only about one-half of one percent of the NT has variant readings (and that out of thousands of manuscripts); many of these are simply spelling/stylistic variants. And in NO case is there a doctrinal issue at stake.

The Tenach, on the other hand, has come down to us from a single copy, inscribed about 1008 C.E. But weren't there variants before this time? The Masorites, who put together (or maybe "ratified" is a better word) our present version were, of course, masters of the language, and they selected which manuscript versions would be kept. However, it is never claimed that THEY were divinely inspired, or infallible. Thus, here and there, when they compared manuscripts, they might have made an erroneous selection of vowels with which to mark the words, or, when faced with a difficult choice between words, have selected the wrong one. And can it be that they, like all of us, might have been influenced, even if subconsciously, by their own beliefs and theology as to which rendering OUGHT to be correct?

For example, we know that in various places the word "Adonai", and elsewhere perhaps "elohim", was sometimes substituted for the Divine Name. (See the work of Dr. C. D. Ginsburg on the Massorah notes for this.) It is also noticeable that the present text of Jeremiah is about one-seventh longer than the text of Jeremiah in the Septuagint, and that the material is in a slightly different order. (Thus, the early translators of the Septuagint may have been working from a different text than that selected by the Masorites.) And the Dead Sea Scrolls have demonstrated that, indeed, there were variants of the Tenach which existed at that time. In the book of Isaiah, for instance, the 53rd chapter, the tenth verse, the Great Isaiah scroll text reads "But the L-rd wanted him crushed, and He pierced him (to death)". The present version has, "Yet it pleased the L-rd to crush him", or "to crush him by disease". In verse 11, a word appears to have been left out of our present text. Two Hebrew future tense verbs occur back-to-back. This is unusual. In the Great Isaiah scroll, the word "light" is inserted between them. Thus, the text of the Masorites reads "He shall see and he shall be satisfied"; whereas the Dead Sea Scroll reads "He shall see light and shall be satisfied". (See Catherine Geever, Margaret and Preston Heinle, "Messianic Prophecies From a Dead Sea Scroll".)

There are hints in the Talmud that occasionally "corrections" to the text might have been made. For example, Men. 35a (Shab. 13b, Hag. 13a), asserts that Hananiah ben Hezekiah spent some time (and 300 barrels of lamp oil!) working on "correcting" the book of Ezekiel.

Thus, while we can all believe that the original text of the scriptures was given to us perfectly, and is inerrant, we cannot always be certain that the text we currently have is the same as that text.

QUESTION: But how can you be sure you really have any of Yeshua's own words? He didn't write anything himself - everything you have was written down later, and could have been altered by his followers.

RESPONSE: The same could be said of the Torah. G-d never "wrote" it. It was written by His followers. In fact, there is more "scientific evidence" for the New Testament stating Yeshua's words (cf. the historians of Yeshua's day) than for the Tanakh stating G-d's words. Does this make us believe it is less true? No way!

QUESTION: Listen, missionaries prey on the weak and the uneducated, and those who feel unsatisfied with their lives.

RESPONSE: Same as a doctor especially looks for those who are sick.

QUESTION: Missionaries will always try and take a verse out of context; and if you call them on it, they'll switch to another verse. They'll try and drown you in information, but they won't answer your questions.

RESPONSE: The Tanakh contains so much Messianic wealth that it would be idiotic and downright deceitful for a believer to try and get your mind off the verse in question. In fact, he wouldn't be a true follower of the Truth, whose name is Yeshua.

Apply the same touchstone to the words and actions of anybody you question, priest, pastor, or rabbi. Keep on your guard so that you are not deceived, and pray that G-d will reveal Himself to you. It's always warm and comfortable to believe what you are told. It takes guts to stand up and say, "Enough! I'm getting two opposing opinions! One is wrong and I'm going to find out for myself which it is!" Ignorance in life-affecting matters is not bliss. Admit it when you are ignorant of a matter, and then go and check the Tanakh to see what G-d (not some rabbi/pastor) says on the matter. Ultimately the decision is between you and G-d. Make sure you consult Him in the process.

QUESTION: Christian Jews are apostates. Don't let them turn you away from your own people.

RESPONSE: Yeshua and Saul/Paul were unequivocal in contradicting you on that point. That's again your opinion. Have you ever asked a Messianic Jew whether he's "turned away" from his own people?

There is a Jewish ethnic people, who originate(d) in the Middle East, members of which belong to various religions. There are Buddhist Jews, Zen Jews, Atheist Jews, and even Hare Krishna Jews. None of these are called "Jewish" by religion. However, all of them still remain ethnically Jewish. (After all, they haven't become Chinese.) And all of them are quite welcome to return home to their ethnic homeland, without any interference at all.

However, there is ONE group, and ONLY one group, which is not welcomed home, and whose participation in things ethnically Jewish is disputed. This doesn't seem logical. There are even efforts made occasionally to deport members of this group if they have managed to return home. Now, deporting criminals who have immigrated with a bad criminal record would be logical, but what is the "crime" of these people? Is it really a "crime" to belong to this group, if you are in Israel?

Thus, an ethnic "Jew" is someone born of Jewish parents (or at least, a Jewish mother). If we are going to start sorting out the "righteous" among them from the "unrighteous", and accepting in our definition only those whom we label "righteous", then we are going to be pre-supposing the conclusions which will be made only on the Day of Judgment; and also, presuming a little bit too much ability on our part.

If you are so anxious for these people to return to Judaism, why don't you welcome them in the synagogues, instead of driving them away? (Afraid they'll proselytize? But wouldn't there be a rabbi present? No potential missionary "prey" would have to be caught alone, or would be subjected to "love-bombing", or "cult-like tactics". This means there would only be an open discussion - now who could be convinced by anything like that? In other words: you'd have nothing to be afraid of, right?)

QUESTION: If Hitler had repented at the last minute in the bunker, do you think he would have been forgiven?

RESPONSE: Judaism also makes a great deal out of repentance. What does Judaism have to say about this?

What this question really deals with, is, can there ever be anyone who is SO bad that he can NEVER be forgiven. And, to turn it around, is there ever anyone who is SO good that he can MERIT paradise and the world to come? Of course, believers in Yeshua would assert that the answer to the second question is NO, that no man is ever perfect enough, and can never become so. And since G-d is perfection, and holiness, there must always then be this separation between man and G-d. That is why the cleansing of the sacrifices, or what the sacrifices represent (Yeshua's death) were necessary.

Of course, Hitler represents a kind of Amalek. Amalek tried to destroy Israel before they even arrived at Mt. Sinai. Haman, who was a descendant of Amalek, tried to wipe out the Jewish people and thus thwart G-d's plan. So, too, Hitler tried to destroy the Jewish people on their second journey to the promised land (and to what future spiritual blessings? We cannot yet know). But he was thwarted, and a remnant escaped. It may be suggested that by that point Hitler, like Pharaoh, may have had his heart hardened, so that he could not repent; and instead was destined only for judgment.

Yeshu was a false god. We shouldn't even pronounce his name!

Why do you call him "Yeshu" - "May his name be blotted out"? Jews don't normally try to hide the insanity of Hitler and the Nazis; they expose them for what they were. We are instructed to "never forget". Never forget what? A piece of Nazi propaganda? No!!! We are never to forget the historical TRUTH! It seems strange, therefore, that you refuse to call One by His historical name and that you want to hide Him from our people!

It seems odd that you can pronounce "Haman". You can say "Amalek". You can say "Hitler". You can even say, "Satan". But there is ONE name which you cannot say - you have to replace it with "that man", or "Yeshu", etc. Do you really consider that Yeshua was worse than Satan? Worse than Amalek? What is the source of this unreasonable taking of offense, this hatred without a cause directed at the person of Yeshua?

QUESTION: In Judaism, we believe that repentence and good works are all that is required; not "being born again", or "sacrificed for" by anyone's death.

RESPONSE: You see, that's the problem. You think that some people are actually better than others. You think that there are some people who actually merit heaven (yourself included?). You are forced to ignore, or explain away, clear scriptures to the contrary.

Did G-d command Adam to exercise dominion over this world? Yes. Did Adam fall and fall so hard that man can no longer carry out that command? Yes. In fact, did Adam make such a mess of things that it would require the direct intervention of G-d to straighten it out? Yes.

Judaism is a religion, like every other religion which postulates the existence of a Supreme Being, whereby man makes himself presentable to G-d. Whether through obedience to Torah, adherence to 8-fold way, or just by being a "good person" (as opposed to the obviously "really bad" people) - they all have this theme in common. And this is a shame, because the Tanakh is full of examples of the way things really work - G-d reaching down to man.

• You didn't have the Torah--He gave you the Torah.
  
  
• You didn't have food - He gave you manna.
  
  
• You didn't have water - He gave you water from the rock.
  
  
• You didn't have a leader - He gave you Moses.
  
  
• You were stuck in slavery - He brought you out.
  
  
• You were scattered because of your disobedience - He will bring you back, not because of anything you do, but because of His promise to Abraham.

Whether it's Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, or anything else, it's all the "hamster wheel that leads to heaven", the endless circle of effort but never any progress.

G-d wants to lift you out of the hamster cage and clasp you to Himself. Except that there is still the small matter of sin. You need righteousness. Given G-d's track record (as above), how do you think He will accomplish this?

The question is not, "What is the Jewish view?", or "What is the Christian view?", but rather, what does Tanakh say? (See Isaiah 57:12, "I will declare your righteousness and your works; they will not help you.")

Repentance alone was not enough when:

• Adam was not permitted to remain in the garden;
  
  
• Esau was not permitted to repent and retain his birthright;
  
  
• Moses was not permitted to repent and enter the promised land;
  
  
• Aachan was not permitted to repent;
  
  
• David was not permitted to repent and build the Temple.

Something more is needed.

Are Torah scholars "better" than other men because they study? "Improvement-through-study" is a nice Platonic concept - it originated among the Greeks, so maybe it is a Hellenistic transplant. However, the prophets of Israel didn't say, "Go and study". They said, "Go and repent".

But maybe if they study even more can they come to "merit" the good gifts of G-d (including Gan Eden)? Just remember that not even Moses - who surely knew what Torah was - was permitted to enter the promised land - he was tainted by disobedience (sin) despite a lifetime of serving G-d. The "good deeds" and "years of obedience" weren't placed in a scale and balanced against his one act of "disobedience"; he had been imperfect, that was all there was to it.

The theme that you can improve yourself enough to "merit" anything in G-d's eyes is not found in Tanach. Instead, all of the good things of G-d are given freely, even to those who don't deserve them (such as Jacob, who is chosen over his brother).

QUESTION: Psalm 22 doesn't refer to the messiah; it refers to David; or to any righteous sufferer.

RESPONSE: Compare these verses:

But I am a worm and not a man, scorned by men and despised by the people; all who see me mock me; hey hurl insults, shaking their heads: "He trusts in the L-rd; let the L-rd rescue him, if He delights in him!' (Psalm 22: 6-8)

Those who passed by hurled insults at him, shaking their heads....In the same way the chief Cohenim and Torah teachers and the elders mocked him. "He saved others", they said, "but he cannot save himself....He trusts in G-d. Let G-d rescue him now if He wants him...." (Matthew 27:39; 41-43)

I am poured out like water, All my bones are out of joint. My heart has turned to wax; It has melted within me. My strength is dried up like a potsherd, And my tongue cleaves to the roof of my mouth....

Dogs have surrounded me; A band of evil men has encircled me, They have pierced my hands and feet. I can count all my bones; People stare and gloat over me. They divide my garments among them And cast lots for my clothing. (Psalm 22:14-18)

When they had crucified him, they divided up his clothes by casting lots. (Matthew 27:35)

When the soldiers crucified Yeshua, they took his clothes, dividing them into four shares, one for each of them, with the undergarment remaining. This garment was seamless, woven in one piece from top to bottom. "Let us not tear it", they said to one another. "Let us decide by lot who will get it." (John 19:23,24)

Who else suffered in this manner? Who else suffered in ALL these ways?

QUESTION: But again, this is only your Christian interpretation.

RESPONSE: "The patriarchs of the world will arise in the month of Nisan (the month of Pesach - and, by the way, also the same time as the crucifixion) and will say to him: Ephraim, our Messiah! Even though we are your forefathers, you are greater than we, because you have suffered on account of the sins of our children, and cruel chastisements has come over you...and you were held up to ridicule, and scorned...and you sat in darkness and your eyes beheld no light, and your skin stuck to your bones, and your body dried up and became like wood, and your eyes grew dim from fasting, and your strength was like a potsherd." - Pesikta Rabbati

While this is perhaps intended to be allegorical, it does show that Jewish thought sometimes considered Psalm 22 as being descriptive of the type of suffering the messiah would have to undergo, either in this world, or possibly in paradise before his descent to earth.

QUESTION: But Psalm 22:16 doesn't say "they pierced my hands and feet". It says, "Like a lion, they were at my hands and feet"!

RESPONSE: The psalm says, "(something) my hands and feet". The word here in the parenthesis is not found elsewhere in Hebrew, so we have to guess at its meaning. The three earliest translations of this passage, the Syriac, the Septuagint, and the Vulgate, all saw this word as a VERB,and translated it as "they pierced". (And the Septuagint was completed over a century before the birth of Yeshua.) Modern Jewish translations prefer to consider that this word is a NOUN, or an adjective, "like a lion". It is possible to attain this reading if you use different vowel points. However, this would still leave the phrase without a verb, since then it would say, "like a lion my hands and feet".

Attempts have been made by some scholars to assume that, perhaps, a word has been left out, and the phrase should read, "like a lion, they (something) my hands and feet". Suggestions here range from "they tear at my hands and feet", "they maul", or perhaps "they tore (kaaru) like a lion (kaari) my hands and feet".

If the word is, indeed, a verb, it would then be synonymous with a very similar verb for "to bore through". (Arabic in fact possesses a similar set of verbs.) In any case, however, whatever verb is used here, is indicative of wounding of the hands and feet, which is what took place at the crucifixion.

It doesn't mention a crown of thorns, or scourging, or a spear in the side, either. This is NOT proof that the reference is not to Yeshua. It's not even a reasonable disqualification. The important thing is that what I