- That should be quick.
- From Singer’s perspective, the Tanach–i.e. what you call “the old Testament”–has absolutely nothing to say about “Jesus”. Period.
- No “ifs”, “ands”, “buts”, or “what abouts” The suggestion that any words in the Jewish Bible refer to or point toward Jesus is the product of delusion. Case closed.
- It should come as no surprise, then, to discover that practically nothing in the “new Testament” has any credibility from Singer’s perspective.
- I have been mocked, along with all Christians, for using the obviously non-Hebraic name “Jesus”, when any competent Jew knows that the correct name of our “Jesus” should have been, at best, ישוע (Yēšūaʿ), a shorter variant of the earlier Hebrew name יהושע (Yəhōšūaʿ, English: “Joshua”). I’ve been told: “Your ‘Jesus’ doesn’t even have a proper Hebrew (or Aramaic) name.”
- The Christian position only becomes more unbelievable from there on.
- For example, see Singer’s “exposé” of the Greatest Story that Never Happened: The Woman Caught in Adultery.
- From Singer’s perspective, the Tanach–i.e. what you call “the old Testament”–has absolutely nothing to say about “Jesus”. Period.
Contrary to anyone’s belief that I just want to give you a hard time, I actually think @Paraleptopecten shared something relevant in his OP: A Recent The Gospel Coalition Article and that was this:
- “If you’re concerned with truth, you must give other perspectives reasonable consideration. The principle of charity means attempting to understand an argument on its own terms. As the late James Leo Garrett said, ‘Only when you can state your opponent’s position so well that they themselves say, “Yes, that’s what I believe,” can you then begin to debate.’
In this case, i.e. in your case, you can only begin to debate AND exercise “the principle of charity” when you realize and accept that your opponent’s position is that you have no leg to stand on.