Let’s get biblical with Tovia Singer

Faith & Science Conversation
32
  • 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.

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.

1 Like
33

I keep wanting to say “biblically, I know what you mean” for humorous effect. But of course I don’t really know and I can’t find a clever way to work it in.

2 Likes
34

You just did.

35

You caught me!

2 Likes
36

Interesting Skov. Learning about Judaism — from Jewish scholars or otherwise would be a good thing. But why not just those “Jewish scholars…[who] are anti Christian”? Some are a lot more polite, even while still believing what they believe. As for “any scholars that are purposely trying to defend Christianity against rabbis?” not sure what that phrase means.Good luck.

37

Judaism in the general time period BC/AD was contemplating/positing some sort of binary deity (while still being One). They tossed the idea out the window and kicked it over the horizon when they saw some of their fellow Jews, who became Jesus followers, making fuller use of it. Idea not new…and the idea of God-made-man or a man who was God existed in that era. Dead Sea Scrolls etc.

38

This guy takes an hour to say anything of substance. He likes to hear himself talk I think. I am about 15 minutes in and he has said nothing I haven’t heard from actual Christians in Christian commentaries. The ending of Mark isn’t original? The woman caught in adultery is a later addition? Nothing earth shattering or new here.

The New Jerome Biblical commentary which has an imprimatur and nihilism obstat stamp on it writes:

115 [Agraphon: Woman Taken in Adultery (7:53-8:11)]. This story did not find its way into mss. ofthe Gospel until the 3d cent. Though it fills a “gap” by providing a narrative before the discourse of 8:12-59, it has none of the characteristic features ofJohannine style or theology. The copyist who inserted the story here may have thought that it illustrated 8:15, “I pass judgment on no one,” and 8:46, “Can anyone convict me of sin.”Thestoryisa“biographicalapophthegm,”inwhich Jesus’ opponents set a “trap” that he must escape through a wise saying or action (e.g., Mark 12:13-17, on the tribute coin). The setting presupposes the “daily teaching in the Temple ”connected with Jesus’ Jerusalem ministry in Luke 20:1; 21:1,37; 22:53. Some NT mss. have this story after Luke 21:38. Its interest in Jesus forgiving a sinful woman reflects a theme that appears in Luke’s special tradition (e.g., Luke 7:36-50; 8:2-3). 8:1.Mt. of Olives: Jesus’going to the Mt. of Olives reflects Luke 21:37. Thus, many exegetes think that this story is a piece of the special Lucan material that was circulating in the tradition.5.inthelaw:Deut22:23-24prescribesstoning for a married woman who commits adultery. If John 18:31 is correct in insisting that the Romans had deprived the Jews of the right to carry out the death penalty in cases where their law required it, then the “trap” may have been similar to that implied in the tribute money story (Mark 12:13-17). Jesus must, so his opponents think, reject the law of Moses or the authority of Rome.

He clams the trap is the niceness of Jesus vs OT law (nice caricature and mockery on his part!). In fact the trap is more likely between Rome and Torah. And yes, evidence would normally be needed ( the amount says she was caught in the act) and it seems like stoning was not very much favored by some Rabbis but lynch mobs exist and have always existed. As much I think many Christians vilify pharisees and Jews unjustly he seems to want to white-wash Judaism from what I have seen thus far.

He calls it a complete invention but Papias, the Gospel of the Hebrews and the the Didascalia all appear to preserve an early version of this story which has affinities with Lukan “L” material in what looks like two forms. The version in the NT might be a blending of these two stories into one. Or maybe Jesus was originally trapped with a thought question that it was turned into a more vivid scene. It is quite possible a parable could be historicized in retelling.
Why not a trap given more vividness?

From what I have seen of him the last few days, it is like watching a fundamentalist Jew argue against fundamentalist Christianity. The pot has met the kettle. We all know there were interpolations and editing in the Christian canon. I think there were quite a few and that apologists have vastly overstated our textual confidence in the NT autograph (whatever those are).

We can reconstruct the whole Bible from patristic Testimony?
We have 5000 greek manuscripts?

I’d love to see the totality of what we can reconstruct from the NT the first 300 years after Jesus in 50 year increments. You will find its hundreds of years before certain NT books have any textual evidence. There is a century of silence or more for most NT works and plenty of evidence of changes and alterations.

When Christians overstate the evidence they set themselves up for failure. You are correct that the confirmation bias article relays important information. We need to trust God to have left us a reliable record of salvation history and the incarnation, not in the intellectual promise of conservative textual critics who claim the NT is very reliable when there is lack of evidence for what the texts actually looked like in their formative stages. The Catholic Church canonized the Vulgate which is better than hypothetical autographs no one has ever seen or knows exactly what they looked like.

Vinnie

39

Did you miss my point in sharing the link to the Youtube video? … which was: Tovia Singer’s position is that he concedes no credibility to the New Testment.

  • If he rejects any assertion that the Old Testament refers to or points to Jesus, and
  • He rejects any credibility in the New Testament,
  • Then Skov has no leg to stand on in any attempt “to argue for the importance, much less the relevance” of Jesus to Judaism and Jews. As for any importance or relevance to Non-Jews, Singer’s position would be: “The Noachide Laws govern/save Non-Jews.”

Singer is an Orthodox Jewish Rabbi, i.e. the essence of fundamentalist Judaism. Skov’s “interest in a potential argument” was, IMO, ill-conceived.

40

Has nothing to do with arguments. This rabbi is a highly m mmmm respected rabbi within the Jewish community. I’m not looking for rabbis who are teaching Judaism as a stance specifically against Christianity. That is then best way to learn counter arguments…. By learning counter arguments. The first few episodes are not in-depth. He’s laying out part of why he is actively trying to undermine Christianity within Jewish communities. A few episodes in it starts getting he’s over and heavier. I’m specifically interested in this subject. It’s not for everyone. But I am curious about their arguments on many things and they do bring up many things that I myself have often wondered.

Such as why does Matthew completely misuse the “prophecy of young woman vs virgin woman. I’ve always been curious if throughout the tanakh we constantly see Yahweh bring up that he does not desire sacrifices and that we are all accountable for our sins. So how can Christ cover it, and if he did not desire animal sacrifice why does he want a human sacrifice suddenly. He brought up something I’ve noticed before such as in the tanakh there are three ways to be forgiven of sins. Charity and repentance for sins you knowingly committed and sacrifice for sins you unknowingly committed. It’s interesting that Jesus says , forgive them they don’t know what they are doing” and ect… it’s a 25 something episode long series with some episodes over 2 hours. So it’s not wide open at the beginning. It’s a series based off of books.

41

You like “hyperbole”, don’t you?

So, while you’re “learning how to refute Christians”, maybe you’ll learn about Orthodox Judaism’s hope and plans for the Third Temple and the resumption of sacrifices there, when the מָשִׁיחַ returns or before.

1 Like
42

Aren’t there Christians groups who accept this as well? They harmonize scripture by claiming this occurs after the rapture I believe.

43

The episode I just listened too stated that they mostly don’t believe in a third temple. That the Bible teaches three ways to receive forgiveness and that it’s for told they will go without a temple.

I guess I’m trying to find out what exactly is the contention you are feeling with my post?

44

So my post was “ has anyone went through this guys series he’s considered a well respected rabbi among Jews.

I then stated I sought this podcast out asking for references to books or podcasts by Jewish rabbis that are wanting to show the testament can’t possibly be from god and that the tanakh proves the New Testament is false.

I wanted to go through this because I enjoy learning by studying counter segments.

So in order for me personally to feel like I’m learning how Christ fulfills the law I want to hear by rabbis on how he failed it.

So I can then take that argument, and search out counter arguments to it.

45

???
What Will the Messiah do in the Third Temple? Rabbi Tovia Singer’s Answer might surprise you

46

Just saying what I just listened to.

Also, I don’t believe in a third temple.

I’m just trying to find out what has you upset.

47
  • Yes.
  • I ain’t a member of any such group.
  • If and when animal sacrifices are resumed, I suspect PETA will make its opinion known.
  • So what?
  • I’m not the guy who said: “throughout the tanakh we constantly see Yahweh bring up that he does not desire sacrifices…”
48

You might share this with your friends. It was written by scholar Robert Cargill. You might not agree with it, but he does make some good points.

OF COURSE Jews and Christians are supposed to update the text of the Bible to apply to modern times. The Bible updates ITSELF internally on multiple occasions. 1-2 Chronicles update 1-2 Samuel and 1-2 Kings; it literally rewrites it! Likewise, translations update texts, as do apocryphal texts and the writings of later authorities within their respective communities. So 1 Enoch and Jubilees rewrite portions of the Pentateuch. Josephus and Philo update and interpret the text. The Septuagint "fixes" certain problems with the Hebrew text. The New Testament writers resolve what they see as issues with the Hebrew Scriptures. Rabbis resolve issues with the Hebrew Bible in the Mishnah and the Talmud (and other rabbinic writings), and "church fathers" and councils resolve issues they see with the Christian Bible.

The history of both faith traditions—both within the text itself and beyond—is a history of rewriting and adapting the Bible to remain applicable to a constantly progressing and evolving society. As morals and technology develop and advance, so too does the interpretation of the biblical text. It’s always been this way, even while the Bible was being written!

Of course, the greatest change in Judaism happened when the second temple was destroyed and the Jews were scattered. Temple Judaism, with its emphasis on the temple and animal sacrifices ordered by God, became Rabbinic Judaism. The willingness to radically change meant the faith would endure.

btw, the religious and political realities of today mean there is zero chance of the temple being rebuilt.

49

My response to Tovia Singer:

  • There is no indisputable evidence for the Exodus;
  • There is no indisputable evidence for the Flood;
  • The notion that the rainbow first appeared on the earth after the Flood assumes that there was no rain before The Flood;
  • And the doctrine of Tzimtzum is silly.
  • P.S. The doctrine of Noachide Laws is “Jewish replacement theology”.
2 Likes
50

http://bakerpublishinggroup.com/authors/michael-l-brown/288

scroll down to Answering Objections

51

This topic was automatically closed 6 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.