Response to Ya'acov 3
Dear Ya'acov,
Many thanks for your letter of 15th June.
I was glad to receive it and I note the points you make. However, I get the impression that you have not really thought through any of the issues I raised in answer to your arguments. I dealt with many of the points you raise in my letter of 13th May: matters regarding the need of a mediator, the messianic reign of peace and the relationship of Jesus to God.
Your strategy appears to be to ignore my answers and to simply throw up a fresh set of questions or to repeat the questions I have already answered. For my part I am prepared to have a reasonable correspondence in which we both answer each other's relevant points. So far I have attempted to do that but I have not really received any satisfactory explanations from you, only your demands that I explain certain verses to your satisfaction. If you will provide me with a reasoned critique of the answers I offered in both my letters we will have the basis for a debate.
The only point you do seem to address is the Immanuel prophecy of Isaiah 7:14, so I will attempt to deal with your argument. Nowhere does Isaiah indicate that Immanuel was the son of Ahaz. Apart from that, you do not seem to take into account that if you are correct in your assertion, the wife of Ahaz would have had to be an almah; a virgin. That virgins did not give birth is not really the point. That you think such an event would overthrow all the teaching of the Tanakh [Hebrew Bible] is not the crux of the matter. The point is; does ha almah mean "the virgin". All the philological and linguistic evidence points that way.
I am sending, as a postscript, some of the points I have raised in my last two letters. One of the problems in focusing on such a wide amount of data is that we can spread ourselves too thin. I suggest that we keep to one point at a time. In the Tanakh, sins cannot be forgiven without the substitutionary shedding of innocent blood (Leviticus 1:5; 3:2; 4:5-7; 5:5-6; 16:14, 18-19; 17:11). May I therefore suggest that in your next letter you deal with the matter of atonement.
With best wishes,
Mike
Postscript:
You state that the Second Coming is unbiblical. On occasions you quote the New Testament approvingly, and the New Testament clearly teaches that Messiah will return (Matthew 24:35-44; John 5:21-29; 21:21-23; Acts 1:6-8; 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18; 2 Thessalonians 1:4-10; 2:1-13 etc).
In your letters, you argue that Messiah will finish his work in one coming. Yet the rabbis themselves had problems about the mission of Messiah. They saw passages that evidently referred to Messiah inaugurating a reign of peace. They also recognised that many passages in the Hebrew Scriptures predict the coming of a suffering Messiah. To relieve this tension some developed a doctrine of two Messiahs. They held that there would be a suffering Messiah; Messiah ben Joseph, and a triumphant Messiah; Messiah ben David. Which theory is correct? The rabbinic two-messiah doctrine or the Christian two-advent theology?
I believe, along with the earliest Christians, the majority of whom were Jewish, that Jesus will return. But I also believe that Messiah's reign of peace has been inaugurated. The New Testament places great emphasis on the fact that Messiah brought peace (e.g. Romans 5:1; John 14:27; 16:33; Ephesians 2:14; Philippians 4:7; Colossians 1:20 etc.). Wherever the true message of Jesus prevails there is peace. For example, in Israel Jewish and Arab believers in Messiah embrace each other as brothers; in this country during the miners' strike, striking and non-striking miners met together to pray for an end to the dispute. Messiah's reign of peace does not result from the working of some magical force that subdues mankind against its own will. It begins in the hearts of individuals and works its way outward. I am sure you would agree that an enforced peace would be less than satisfactory.
You seem to imagine that Christians believe that Jesus is his own Father (in your words 'one and the same thing'). You ought to become more acquainted with the Christian viewpoint if you want to properly criticise it. The Bible teaches that there is but one God (Deuteronomy 6:4; James 2:19). Both Jews and Christians believe this. But Christians recognise a teaching in the Tanakh that implies a plurality in the Godhead, for example: the term 'us' in connection with God's dealings (Genesis 1:26; 3:22; 11:6-9; Isaiah 6:8), and the plural word Elohim, the Hebrew word translated 'God'.
In the New Testament this one God is Jesus' Father (Matthew 3:17) yet we also see Jesus is referred to as God, that in the beginning he was "with God, and ... was God" (John 1:1-3). Throughout the New Testament Jesus is acknowledged as God. For example, Thomas (John 20:19-29) confesses that Jesus is his 'Lord and God' and Jesus commends him. The New Testament also calls the Holy Spirit 'God' (2 Corinthians 3:17). How does one reconcile the clear teaching of one God yet also maintain that there are three Persons who are called God? One does not. If we accept that the entire Bible is equally inspired by God we must therefore hold both truths to be equally valid. One God: three Persons. Jesus is not the Father; the Father is not the Spirit; the Spirit is not Jesus; yet they are all one God. Not three gods, but one God.
Two of your most significant errors of fact are your assertions that Judaism does not require a mediator and that the Old Testament teaches that men can repent without an atoning sacrifice. Modern Judaism may teach the non-necessity of a mediator but biblical Judaism had an elaborate priest system to approach God on behalf of the people of Israel. That is why Saul, the king, found himself in trouble (1 Samuel 13:8-14) because he attempted to approach the Lord through sacrifice without the God-appointed mediator, Samuel. Moses also was a mediator for the people. The Old Testament also teaches the necessity of the shedding of blood as well as repentance for the forgiveness of sin. Repentance alone and blood alone are insufficient.
If, as your maintain, the Messiah has not yet arrived, how will you recognise him when he does arrive? There are certain elements that would make it impossible for any claim to messiahship to be authenticated. For example: Messiah is to be David's son (1 Chronicles 17:11-14; Isaiah 11:1, 2, 10; Matthew 22:41, 42). At the destruction of Jerusalem all the genealogies were destroyed (cf: Wars of the Jews, Book IV; Josephus). Jesus, being born before the destruction of the records, could trace his ancestry back to David (Matthew 1; Luke 3:23ff). The Jerusalem Talmud also recognises this stating that Jesus was the son of Mary, daughter of Heli, thus vindicating Luke's ancestral record of Messiah No claimant to messiahship since 70CE has been able to vindicate his claims. Perhaps even more important than this is that according to the prophet Daniel (Daniel 9) the Messiah could not appear later than the 1st century CE. Daniel predicted that Messiah was to appear within a figurative 70-week period (490 years) commencing with Cyrus' edict to restore Jerusalem. By this reckoning Jesus is, again, a legitimate candidate for Messiah. Any future would-be Messiah is simply too late.
Mike
