Tovia tried to counter ...

Licoricia of Winchester, Interest, Blood Libel · Look at This · Palestinian Origins · Christ is King of the Jews · Whaddo You Meme ?? Tried to Give His POV on Christ is King · Colin (Not a Pastor) on Fight For Truth Had a Better Take · Sharing : Isabel Brown · Some Responses to Candida Moss (Beginning of Video) · Christ is King of the Jews, even if Tovia Refuses to See That · Tovia tried to counter ... · When the True God Revealed Himself (sharing) · Tovia Singer Fails to Discredit the Gospels · Sharing on the Trinity in the OT

Church Problem! Christians Do Not Grasp This Covenant! -Rabbi Tovia Singer
Tovia Singer | 5 April 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cshfjNBIX2c

"but if you're born to a virgin 1:43 you're the Son of God what's the big 1:46 deal right what makes someone great is 1:49 not they were never tempted"

For we have not a high priest, who can not have compassion on our infirmities: but one tempted in all things like as we are, without sin
[Hebrews 4:15]

Conquering a temptation makes one great.

Having actually sinned does not add to that.

If God is greater than Adam, and you admit (as I hope you do) that God made no mistakes, you have shown your objection wrong.

If you think God does make mistakes, that the Jewish people have to on occasion correct Him, you have worse problems with adoring God than writing out the name in full.

"one way is the way 3:06 Christians interpret 3:08 it and what what they argue is that this 3:14 passage means that always there would 3:17 always be a king from the tribe of 3:21 Judah 3:24 always"

This is actually, at least for Catholics, a misrepresentation of how we take it.

We are aware that Judah had no Kings of the Davidic line from Nebuchadnezzar's arrival to the arrival of Jesus.

Sure, Herod pretended to have Davidic ancestry, we dispute it. Dito therefore for his ancestry.

Here is anyway the explanation from Haydock:

Ver. 9. A lion's whelp, &c. This blessing of Juda foretelleth the strength of his tribe, the fertility of his inheritance, and principally that the sceptre, and legislative power, should not be utterly taken away from his race till about the time of the coming of Christ: as in effect it never was: which is a demonstration against the modern Jews, that the Messias is long since come; for the sceptre has long since been utterly taken away from Juda. (Challoner)

This none can deny. Juda is compared to a lion, which was the emblem of his royal dignity, and was borne in the standards of that tribe.

To the prey. Hebrew, "from the prey." He proceeds from victory to victory. He couches, ready to fall upon his prey; and, retiring to the mountains, is still eager to renew the attack. (Calmet)

Read the history of David and of Solomon, who, both in peace and war, were a terror to the surrounding nations.

Ver. 10. The sceptre. Almost every word in this verse has been explained in a different manner. But all the ancient Jews agree with Christians, that it contains a prediction of the Messias, and points out the period of his coming. Whether this was verified when Herod, a foreigner, got possession of the throne, and was acknowledged by the Jews, just about the time of our Saviour's nativity, as most of the fathers suppose; or it only took its full effect when Agrippa II lost all his power, the temple and the city were laid in ruins, and the whole nation dispersed for ever, it is not perhaps so easy to determine. In either supposition, the Messias has long since come. Jacob foretels, either that Christ would make his appearance as soon as the Jews should fall under a foreign yoke, and in this sense he was born about the 37th year of Herod the great --- or he should come just before the kingdom of Juda should have an end, which took place in the 70th year of the Christian era, or about 37 years after the public appearance and death of our Saviour.

The sceptre shall not depart irrevocably from the Jews; over whom the tribe of Juda had always the greatest authority in appointing the princes, when they were not selected from the tribe itself, or from his thigh; till the Messias, who has been expected so long, shall come and gather all nations into his Church. Then the designs of Providence, in watching over the Jews, being accomplished, their republic shall be dissolved, because they have shed his blood, instead of acknowledging his celestial beauty, ver. 12. The evident signs of decay in the kingdom of the Jews, were sufficient to excite the attention of all to look for the Messias; and we read, both in St. John iv. 25, in Tacitus, and Suetorius, that his appearance was fully expected about that time.

The sceptre is the emblem of sovereign, though not always independent, power. Juda and his posterity were always at the head of their brethren. They marched first in the wilderness; two of the judges were of this tribe. But their chief glory began with David, whose posterity the whole nation obeyed, till Jeroboam tore away the ten tribes. Still the tribe of Benjamin and the Levites adhered to Juda. During the captivity, there were judges admitted to superintend over their brethren; and King Joakim was raised to high authority. The rulers who came into power after the return of the Jews, were either of this tribe, at least by the mother's side, or were chosen and recognized by the tribe of Juda. Even Herod, in this sense, might be considered as a Jewish king, though a foreigner, as well as a Thracian might be counted a Roman emperor, without any diminution of the imperial authority of Rome. Perhaps indeed he was an usurper, till the nation acknowledged his authority two years after the birth of Christ. (Philo, de Temp. ii; Josephus, Antiquities xvii. 3.) "Herod was the first foreign king admitted by the Jews." (St. Augustine, City of God xviii. 45.) If, therefore, no stranger was to be acknowledged by the nation, till He came, who was to establish a spiritual and everlasting kingdom, the moment was arrived, when the Jews submitted to Herod, and Christ had actually been born two years.

["the moment was arrived, when the Jews submitted to Herod, and Christ had actually been born two years."

Presumably typo for "the Jews submitted to the Romans at the death of Herod" and so on.]

From Juda, or from that tribe; for Jacob gave peculiar blessings to each; (ver. 28,) and hence the fathers gather, that the Messias should spring from Juda.

Ruler from his thigh, lineally descended from him, or acknowledged at least by his posterity, as all the legal princes were till the coming of Christ.

Mechokek might also signify a teacher or scribe expounding the law of Moses, which subsisted for the same period; but this is more probably a farther explication of the sceptre, &c. (Calmet)

Till had ci, which words being joined together, are always taken in this sense. (Helvicus.)

Sent. Schiloach (or Ssolu�) seems to have been in St. Jerome's copy, though we now read Shiloh (or Ssole) "to whom" the authority belongs; Septuagint, "to whom all things are reserved; or till the things arrive, which are laid up for him. (Calmet)

Expectation, or congregation of nations, as Aggeus afterwards foretold, ii. 8. If we examine all the plausible explications which have been given to this verse, we shall find that they all tend to convey the same truth. "The sceptre (shebet, rod, crook, power or tribe) shall not depart (cease, be taken off) from Juda, (the tribe or the Jews) nor a leader (scribe, lawyer, or legislator) from his thigh, (between his feet, or from his banners) till He, who shall be sent, (shio, the pacific, his son, to whom it is, or the things are, reserved) arrive; and Him shall the nations expect, (and obey) to Him they shall look up (and be gathered). Whom will the Jews point out to whom all these characters agree, except our divine Lord, whom they also must one day adore? (Haydock)

4:56 "it does not mean that at all times, there would always be a king for the Jewish people"

1) Not quite the point. After Herod the Great, Judah lost autonomy.

When we read about stonings in the New Testament, attempted or actually gone threw with, they were lynchings. The power in place was such that this was offically not tolerated. If Jesus had said "OK, stone the adulterous woman" He would have found better reception among some Jews (although there is the question why the male adulterer wasn't there to be stoned), but anyone could then have tipped off Pilate He was a troublemaker.

This had not happened at any time before. In the time of Antiochus Epiphanes, the autonomy was threatened but reconquered. This is probably part of why stonings were popular in the time of Pilate, the ones doing or attempting them were dreaming of reconquering autonomy as against Antiochus Epiphanes (who by the way was part of Daniel's IV Beast, since he was a vassal of the Republic).

It had also not happened in the Babylonian captivity, since Daniel had to save an innocent woman from stoning, as we read in Daniel 13.

The loss of autonomy prophecied in Genesis 49 for only after the Messiah comes, coincides with the beginning of a peaceful coexistance with Ephraim, and Judah and Ephraim not carrying arms, things which you have somehow managed to cite as things He did not fulfill, when in fact He did it. And a great part actually united, and admitted Christ as their King, and rejoiced when Constantine became a vassal of that King. I speak of the Palestinians.

2) There is a more direct prophecy about non-lack of a king.

Jeremias 33:14 Behold the days come, saith the Lord, that I will perform the good word that I have spoken to the house of Israel, and to the house of Juda. 15 In those days, and at that time, I will make the bud of justice to spring forth unto David, and he shall do judgment and justice in the earth.

16 In those days shall Juda be saved, and Jerusalem shall dwell securely: and this is the name that they shall call him, The Lord our just one. 17 For thus saith the Lord: There shall not be cut off from David a man to sit upon the throne of the house of Israel. 18 Neither shall there be cut off from the priests and Levites a man before my face to offer holocausts, and to burn sacrifices, and to kill victims continually:

This is fulfilled in Christ.

5:23 They were in fact not revolting against the autonomous Seleucids, since Antiochus Epiphanes was already a vassal of Rome before trying to defile the Temple.

5:53 I think you need to read the two books of the Maccabees.

In the First Century AD, names connected to the Maccabees were popular in the Holy Land.

Jesus had two disciples named Judas, only one of them betrayed him, the other is usually called "Saint Jude" in the French form of the name. Two Simon.

In [1 Machabees 8:17] you find Et elegit Judas Eupolemum filium Joannis filii Jacob.

So, you have two or three John in connexion to Jesus, the Baptist who was His second cousin, the son of Zebedee, and the Beloved Disciple, whom some consider a Cohen.

You also have two Jacob among the twelve and another one as stepbrother of God (of Our Lord Jesus) who was the first bishop of Jerusalem.

There was a Mathathias in the book of Maccabees, and one of the twelve is Matthaeus, a later one, replacing Judas the traitor, is Matthias.

If Joseph was not among the Maccabaean era heros, a speech in first Maccabees two, specifically in verse 53 mentions the one in Egypt.

There was an Ananias in the Maccabee era, and one (very unhappy) Ananias in the New Testament. But another one, in Damascus, seems to have been a totally regular fellow, a prophet, and one who did not share your views on St. Paul.

Point being, the first century Jews did not share your view on the Maccabees.

6:37 For more than 500 years, there was no King. However, Judah retained legislative and jurisdictional autonomy at least.

As mentioned, this is what we think the sceptre means in this context.

7:23 "He was nothing more than a puppet of the Roman Empire"

True of Herod Antipas.

Not true of Herod the Great. Unlike Antipas, he was handling (by usurpation) a real sceptre, i e authority to execute, and that one he abused when slaughtering the innocents in Bethlehem.

When in Rome, he had to do as the Romans do (within limits, he was not required to eat pork). But when in Jerusalem, he could take initiatives, and one of them was, as said, very bloody.

So, a Roman soldier steps up to one Joseph in Nazareth one day. He tells him Caesar Augustus has stated all people all over the world need to be in their legal residence (words actually used "in their city") to sign onto a census.

Joseph answers "sorry, I'm actually not from here, my city" (a phrase which he would not have taken as exactly meaning legal residence) "is Bethlehem".

The Roman soldier tells him to go, but when Joseph arrives in Bethlehem, there were no census officers. Precisely as there are no IRS in Puerto Rico. Like Judaea was a protectorate under Rome, like Puerto Rico under US, but Judaea was at this time no more a province, than Puerto Rico is a state.

When the Gospel records the words as "all the world should take the census" it repeats what the swaggering Roman officer had said to Joseph, not the exact words of Caesar Augustus. Even in the garbled version, it was still issued from Augustus, as he had put the Roman soldiers into Galilee.

He had put no Roman soldiers in Judaea, however, and also no tax collectors.

7:34 "He wasn't a real king"

II Chronicles 33. Manasses was not a real king? Nebuchadnezzar treated him far more poorely than Caesar Augustus treated Herod.

The point is not he was legitimate, the point is, while an usurper, he still showed that Judah had a sceptre.

"the prophecy in 8:39 Genesis 8:40 49:10 is conveying that whenever there 8:43 would be a legitimate King it would be 8:45 from David"

In fact, there is no "whenever" in the prophecy, there is an until.

There is also no David or legitimate or king. There is however a ruler. I e, up to Jesus' arrival, Judah was ruled by people either ethnically from it, or accepted as equivalent.

Given how much Idumaeans and Jews had intermingled, by this time arguably Herod probably did have Jewish ancestry on some lines.

It is also probable that Judah and Levi were already intermarrying, as we see later on, in the Gospel, when Mary, of the house of David, has a cousin who is a Mrs. Cohen.

Hence, the Hasmonaeans too fulfilled the prophecy of being ruled by indigenous people till the Messiah came.

II Kings 7:8 And now thus shalt thou speak to my servant David: Thus saith the Lord of hosts: I took thee out of the pastures from following the sheep to be ruler over my people Israel: 9 And I have been with thee wheresoever thou hast walked, and have slain all thy enemies from before thy face: and I have made thee a great man, like unto the name of the great ones that are on the earth. 10 And I will appoint a place for my people Israel, and I will plant them, and they shall dwell therein, and shall be disturbed no more: neither shall the children of iniquity afflict them any more as they did before,

11 From the day that I appointed judges over my people Israel: and I will give thee rest from all thy enemies. And the Lord foretelleth to thee, that the Lord will make thee a house. 12 And when thy days shall be fulfilled, and thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, I will raise up thy seed after thee, which shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish his kingdom. 13 He shall build a house to my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom for ever. 14 I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son: and if he commit any iniquity, I will correct him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the children of men. 15 But my mercy I will not take away from him, as I took it from Saul, whom I removed from before my face.

16 And thy house shall be faithful, and thy kingdom for ever before thy face, and thy throne shall be firm for ever. 17 According to all these words and according to all this vision, so did Nathan speak to David.

So, what do we Christians make of this?

This was, like the words in Jeremias, only fulfilled by Christ.

On your view, God would have been neglecting that promise for 2500 years or more.

On ours, this has been fulfilled to a T ever since Jesus came. Challoner has sth to say:

[12] "I will establish his kingdom": This prophecy partly relateth to Solomon: but much more to Christ, who is called the son of David in scripture, and who is the builder of the true temple, which is the church, his everlasting kingdom, which shall never fail.

Nel G

@nelg3334

Jesus was not the true king, true messiah and definitely he wasn’t hashem manifested because suchidea of god becoming man is straight up blasphemous

Stop taking verses out of context because when you do God will not have you enter into heaven. Don’t add or subtract from the Tanakh be it in writing or in speach. You failed miserably to orove your point which is rooted in falsehood

Hans Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

@nelg3334 "idea of god becoming man is straight up blasphemous"

You take that from the Quran?

Here is the prophecy of Baruch, chapter 3:36 This is our God, and there shall no other be accounted of in comparison of him. 37 He found out all the way of knowledge, and gave it to Jacob his servant, and to Israel his beloved. 38 Afterwards he was seen upon earth, and conversed with men.

Was seen ... Baruch did not think the idea of God becoming man was blasphemy.

"Stop taking verses out of context"

I looked at the exact verses that Tovia pretended were a disproof of Christianity.

"because when you do God will not have you enter into heaven."

You admit the Blessed go to Heaven? Do you have that from Christians?

In the Old Covenant, the blessed went to the bosom of Abraham, in Sheol, somewhat above the Gehenna of the damned. And if you won't take that from a Christian, how about taking the NT writings about it as a cue of what Jews believed in the Second Temple period?

Your oral torah is not the same as that of the Jews in the Second Temple period. Let alone that of Moses and Joshua.

Karen

@User-x5s3x

@hglundahl : You need to realize, research, and accept, that NOWHERE did God ever mention the "Jesus" character to us, NOWHERE did He tell us that we need to be "saved", and NOWHERE did He tell us that He requires HUMAN BLOOD (a purely pagan ritual that God ABHORS!!) as atonement for our sins.

NO FURTHER SCRIPTURES were given to mankind by God AFTER Mt. Sinai, therefore, Christianity absolutely did NOT come from God!

PLEASE buy a Hebrew Bible (says "Stone Edition TANACH" on the cover), and Rabbi Tovia Singer's books, as well as Rabbi Stuart Federow's book "Judaism and Christianity: A Contrast", to help you understand why Christianity absolutely did NOT come from God.

@hglundahl : You speak from profound willful ignorance! The Tanach CANNOT be understood WITHOUT the Oral Torah (Talmud)!

The ENTIRETY of the Hebrew scriptures were given to Moses at Mt. Sinai. See Ex. 24:12, Lev. 26:46, and Neh. 9:13-14.

I checked

all three references, and each is only saying that the five books of Moses, or the four that were not Genesis (plus chapter one of Genesis) were given to Moses on Sinai. Here they are:

And the Lord said to Moses: Come up to me into the mount, and be there: and I will give thee tables of stone, and the law, and the commandments which I have written: that thou mayst teach them
[Exodus 24:12]

And I will remember my former covenant, when I brought them out of the land of Egypt, in the sight of the Gentiles, to be their God. I am the Lord. These are the judgments, and precepts, and laws, which the Lord gave between him and the children of Israel in mount Sinai by the hand of Moses
[Leviticus 26:45]

Thou camest down also to mount Sinai, and didst speak with them from heaven, and thou gavest them right judgments, and the law of truth, ceremonies, and good precepts Thou madest known to them thy holy sabbath, and didst prescribe to them commandments, and ceremonies, and the law by the hand of Moses thy servant
[2 Esdras (Nehemiah) 9:13-14]

Hans Georg Lundahl

@User-x5s3x "NO FURTHER SCRIPTURES were given to mankind by God AFTER Mt. Sinai"

The Psalms of David were given to Moses?

I don't think so.

The book of Ruth was given to Moses?

I don't think so.

Your oral Torah misrepresents the history of the Old Testament, unless you are misrepresenting it.

I agree that the content of the Scriptures cannot consistently be correctly understood except by tradition.

However, there was a promise by Moses that God would send someone greater than he, and He, the greater one, gave us (through His immediate disciples) a fuller understanding and a better tradition.

Meanwhile, you have destroyed YOUR tradition by rejecting Jesus from Nazareth.

@User-x5s3x When you tell me

"You speak from profound willful ignorance!"

you are going past the conventions of polite debate, which is what I am up for, and you are entering the domain as posing as someone lecturing me, which is more like criminal harassment.

Osee 3:3 And I said to her: Thou shalt wait for me many days: thou shalt not play the harlot, and thou shalt be no man's, and I also will wait for thee. 4 For the children of Israel shall sit many days without king, and without prince, and without sacrifice, and without altar, and without ephod, and without theraphim. 5 And after this the children of Israel shall return, and shall seek the Lord their God, and David their king: and they shall fear the Lord, and his goodness in the last days.

This latter is already fulfilled, it has been the last days for 2000 years now.

Challoner:

"[5] "David their king": That is, Christ, who is of the house of David."

10:57 The "many days" in Osee 3 were over 2000 years ago, and it has been the "last days" since then.

So much for the prophecy contradicting Christianity.

When it comes to Jesus being priest and sacrifice, take a look at:

Malachias 1:11 For from the rising of the sun even to the going down, my name is great among the Gentiles, and in every place there is sacrifice, and there is offered to my name a clean oblation: for my name is great among the Gentiles, saith the Lord of hosts.

Oblation basically also translates as "food offering" ...

Now take a look at a Psalm:

The Lord said to my Lord: Sit thou at my right hand: Until I make thy enemies thy footstool
[Psalms 109:1]

Obviously, this is referring to a Davidic King. One who will triumph over all the enemies of Israel. Who is also a priest:

4 The Lord hath sworn, and he will not repent: Thou art a priest for ever according to the order of Melchisedech.

And now look up this latter person in Genesis.

14:18 But Melchisedech the king of Salem, bringing forth bread and wine, for he was the priest of the most high God,

To fit that bill, go to:
a) Jesus
b) and a Church claiming He founded that particular Church and instituted the Eucharist as a Sacrifice.

11:20 Will return and seek out.

Acts 2.

The audience for the Pentecost discourse were Jewish pilgrims from all over the world. And the ones who were convinced were seeking out in one person, both the Lord their God and David the King.

12:06 No, I don't even remotely "get" that the "last days" are still about to begin, they began 2000 years ago.

12:30 They did not have an unbroken sacrificial system for the 500 years concerned.

If there had been no rebuilding or rededication of the temple, you would not be celebrating Hanukkah.

The fact you do implies, this part of Osee had also been fulfilled before Jesus came.