Was Jesus born an illegitimate child? (1st question) Tovia Singer 1696

Welcome to the Knock Talk. I'm your host, William Hol, broadcasting live out of Kingsland, Texas, USA, with another episode of Rabbi Toia Singer's "Let's Get Biblical Q&A." Coming to you from the Holy Land, Rabbi Toia Singer, welcome back. How are you today?

So great to have me on. How am I doing? I'm doing well, you know, doing well. It's a challenging time here in the Holy Land. Challenging neighborhood. Yeah. Gotcha. Well, we're glad you're safe. Glad all the ones we, uh, yeah, yeah. Very good.

All right, our first question is, uh, definitely one of, should, should be one of concern, uh, for every Christian out there. So this is, uh, here we go. My name is Obi, calling out of Los Angeles. I just had a quick question. Over here in the New Testament, it says that, uh, Mary was a virgin, right? And so, my question is, in reference to Jewish customary law of the time, in, uh, in around Jerusalem and Nazareth at the time, I guess the time we had the Great Sanhedrin, what was the custom for having a baby? Did you first have to be married? And if you were not married to the person you had the child by, would that be considered, uh, out of marriage, out of wedlock? And would be then the derogatory term of bastard would be handed down, or the title for that child? Um, if so, I think that that would, by the, the law then, be handed down to, um, the main, uh, figure of Christianity, if I'm not mistaken, which I think is a, is a big eye-opener to that. So, uh, yeah, that's my question. Um, love to hear an answer to that. Take care. Awesome.

All right, that is a good question. Gra, yeah, that, that question is more intriguing than the caller probably, uh, anticipates. So, as it turns out, there's, there's no custom on the status of a child being a bastard in Hebrew. Mamer, a momser is not a child that's born out of wedlock. It's not a child that's, uh, born to a woman who's not married. In fact, it's not easy to produce a momser, a bastard, but the consequences are very significant. It's in the Torah. It's not a local custom. Has nothing to do with whether there's a Sanhedrin or no Sanhedrin. So, a, a momser can only be produced from very unique relationships. If a woman is unmarried and conceives through a relationship that's out of wedlock, where there was no kiddushin, where there was no marriage, that child is 100% legitimate. That child is just as legitimate as any other child. Of course, local custom, of course, we want women to have children, married women to have children. So, there's a family that has no influence on the status of the child whatsoever. This was, again, this comes directly from the Torah. In order for a child to be considered a bastard, there is no term illegitimate. There is a term in English, though. Many kings, different monarchs who had many children, most of them, if you read their biographies, were not legitimate. They were with all kinds of concubines and so on. Those are not momser. A momser would be produced, for example, if you actually had a married woman. If a woman was married to a Jewish man and she had a relationship with someone who's not her husband, and she had a child, so that child would be a momser. That problem comes up rarely, but it can come up even in modern times. It can come up when a, um, when a, um, when a soldier goes to war and they think that the soldier was killed in battle and the body wasn't found, or they thought they found the body, and she goes on and gets married to somebody else eventually, after mourning the loss of her husband, and then suddenly the husband turns up, right? Is suddenly ex-, uh, exchanged in a, in a, in a prisoner swap. That can happen. It happened after the Holocaust. That's very, very complicated.

So, let's now move to the issue of what happened with Jesus. So, this is a very intriguing topic because, as it turns out, Mary's, um, miraculous birth, or should I say, Jesus's miraculous conception, is not mentioned. Does not appear in any of the early writings of the Christian Bible. The earliest surviving Christian literature are the letters of Paul. There are 13 letters that are ascribed to Paul. The letters, it's said, were written by Paul. Seven of them are undisputed are from his hand. In my view, at least 10 of them are from the hand of Paul. Those ear-, there's no mention in any of Paul's writings that there was anything unusual about Jesus's conception, about his birth. Nothing, nothing at all. Paul found nothing intriguing about it. But then again, that was Paul. Paul had really very little to say about Jesus himself in terms of anything Jesus might have done or said in his own life, lifetime. Um, the earliest gospel chronologically is The Book of Mark, written about the time of the destruction of the Second Temple. It was written somewhere around the year 70. So that's where we would expect to find any mention of Jesus's birth. You won't find it there. We are introduced to Jesus in The Book of Mark as an adult in chapter one, basically. We have the inipit and then Jesus's baptism. So there is, whoever wrote The Book of Mark, the authorship is unknown. It's written anonymously. The inscription that it was written by Mark is a second-century ascription. Um, so as far as Mark is concerned, there is nothing striking, there's nothing unusual about the conception or birth of Jesus. Or if he thought it was, there was anything unusual about it, he surely didn't think it was important enough to mention. That's Mark. We are only first introduced to a, the notion that Jesus was conceived supernaturally in The Book of Matthew and Luke. Both of them probably written about the same time, in the 80s of the first century, written by people whose names we also don't know. Matthew and Luke both are written anonymously, and the inscription is late 2nd century. Only when we come to the bishop of Leon, Irenaeus, around, let's say, 180, only then does the church adopt the notion that the gospel of Matthew was written by the tax collector. There's no indication about The Book of Matthew that Matthew wrote it. It's a Catholic tradition that Protestants happily embrace.

So, this is very, very striking because not only is Jesus's conception not mentioned, but in Paul's letters or in The Book of Mark, Joseph isn't mentioned either. In any of Paul's letters or in The Book of Mark, there's no mention of Joseph anywhere in The Book of Mark. In fact, fact, in The Book of Mark, it's not Joseph who is the carpenter, but rather it's Jesus who is the tekton, and that's Mark 6:3. That's the only source in the entire Christian Bible for the notion that Jesus was a carpenter, just one passage in The Book of Mark. This is where it gets interesting. So, in The Book of Matthew, we have our infancy narrative. It's two chapters of an infancy narrative. There are two chapters in Luke that are also an infancy narrative. Luke's infancy narrative is much more elaborate. Let's stay with Matthew. It's real simple. So the question is, how do you read Matthew chapter 1, verse 18? Mary, uh, was espoused to a man named Joseph, and Joseph has a dream where he is informed that Mary, the one who he's espoused to or pledged to, is pregnant through the Holy Spirit. Now, the question is then, so Joseph, when he first finds out that Mary is pregnant, he wants to divorce her. He doesn't want to make a public scene out of it. He wants to make it, he wants to make it private, but he's told that, in fact, that Mary was impregnated by the Holy Spirit, "Don't put her away." So, here there's a lot going on here that has to be unpacked. Is Joseph a real historical figure? I don't think so. I think Joseph is introduced later on for a reason, that is to explain away what's going on. And that's why Joseph appears very prominently in Matthew and Luke. John, strikingly, Mary, the mother of Jesus, is never mentioned by name in The Book of John. So the question is, what is the deal with Joseph and what's the deal with their relationship? I mean, if they were married, married, then why hadn't he been intimate with her? How would she still be a virgin?

So, let me explain what is coming into view here today. When a, a man and a woman get married, so there are actually two segments of a marriage that are all happening together at the same time. If you've ever attended a Jewish wedding, you might think you might be under the impression that you are observing one wedding, but in reality, you're observing two segments of a wedding. And those two segments, in the ancient world, took place usually about a year apart. One is called an Arison. Now, that's not an engagement, because engagement means just two people promised to marry each other, but it means they really were married, but they didn't live together. Typically, the girl would go back to her father's house while her husband went to build a house and prepare for a life together. She already had on her finger the gold ring, okay? The diamond ring, the engagement ring, means nothing in Jewish law. It doesn't mean anything. I mean, it's nice, it's pretty, there's nothing, there's no meaning in Jewish law. If two people are engaged and he gives her a diamond ring and they, for whatever reason, discover that they're not suited for each other and break the engagement, while you have two broken hearts, there's nothing legally binding. It's though she's never been married. Follow? There's no divorce, nothing like that. The engagement that we call today when we say that two people are engaged, that has no weight in Jewish law, okay? None. Now, what happens? So, in the ancient world, is the husband, the man actually married his wife, that she was betrothed to her, and she had the status of an arusa, which means betrothed. She waited at her father's house for him to return and then bring her home with him, and then they live together as a man and his wife, and that's called the nissuin, okay? Now, if during that one-year interval period, she was, the girl was unfaithful to her husband, because she's an, she's an arusa, she's betrothed, so it's like they're married, that child would then be a momser, that child will be a bastard, because they, they're considered married. If during that year period, they got into a big fight and they decided they don't want to go ahead with this whole thing, then he had to write her a bill of divorcement, a get, and then she was a divorcee. She'd be a divorcee, and she, for example, could not marry a cohen, okay? So that's very critical. And that's what seems to come into view in the Christian Bible. And it's not uncommon for, um, to encounter events in the Christian Bible that cannot be understood, stood without the oral tradition, without the oral law, okay? This is one of them. So that's what appears to be in view in Matthew chapter 1, and that's why Joseph had not slept with her, but they were really betrothed, and he was going to give her a get, a bill of divorcement, because he can't remain married to a woman who's been unfaithful to him. That's what seems to be in view.

And now, what's striking is that there was a second-century Greek philosopher, his name was Celsus, who wrote a book called "The True Word," and it was the most, the harshest criticism of Christianity, very harsh criticism of Christianity, where he attacks Christianity on every level, every, he just smashes Christianity back and forth and sideways. And one of the claims he makes in his work called "The True Word" is that really Mary, during that year period, had an affair with a Roman soldier named Panda, or Pantera. That was his argument. Um, at the time, in the 2nd century, no one wrote a response to his extensive, excoriating, um, attack on Christianity. He was not Jewish, he was a pagan. But Origen, the 3rd-century Church Father, let's say about 60 years after Celsus, his work writes a copious response to Celsus, and in it, he quotes, it's a book called "Origen Contra Celsum" in Latin. And in his work, Origen essentially quotes everything that Celsus says. It happens to be very interesting from on many, many levels. So Origen quotes everything that was sent by Celsus in the second century, and we see there that Celsus raises this issue that the, the man that you worship happens to be an illegitimate child. And that charge definitely is going to stick around. People who are not fans of Christianity. I should mention just one other piece that's just interesting, and I address this in my book, "Let's Get Biblical," and that is Origen, a very important 3rd-century Church Father. He, he was really a brilliant guy. He wrote, I don't know how many books in his life. Um, it is claimed by the church, he could have written more than 2,000 books during his lifetime. Jerome thought he was the smartest person that ever lived. He was obviously a very bright, a prodigious fellow, very bright guy. He actually describes his entanglement with Jews who didn't believe in Christianity. Means, while Origen responding to Celsus says that I met many Jews and discussed Isaiah 53, and the Jews said that Isaiah 53 is speaking about the nation of Israel, which is very interesting, because missionaries claim that the, that Rashi, in the 11th-century commentator, Rabbi French Rabbi, invented that idea. And we see from Origen's work, a 3rd-century Church Father, that missionary argument is a complete lie. So anyway, so that's the story of, of Mary. If Mary was an arusa, which means that she married Joseph and had a full arusa, just didn't have a nissuin, and they didn't live together, but that means she had the gold ring. Forget diamond rings, they don't mean anything. So then he would have had to divorce her, and that's what seems to come into view into Matthew, that's what the first, the author of the first gospel seems to be conveying. Anyways, thank you for your question.

All right, very good. Moving on. All right, caller, you're live on the air. Please tell us your name, where you're calling from.

Hi, good morning. This is Jay from Kansas City. Again, Rabbi, good to see that you're still healthy and well. Uh, my question this morning is about the minimal facts argument about the historicity of the Resurrection. People like, uh, Gary Habermas and William Lane Craig, saying that, uh, people who study the historical Jesus, including supposedly atheists and Muslims, uh, would argue that these things are historically provable. That number one, Jesus was crucified and died. And number two, that his disciples genuinely believed that he did rise from the dead. And that, thirdly, people who were opposed to him and were enemies of early Christians came shortly thereafter to believe that he genuinely had risen. And I, I was just curious what your response to the, the minimal facts argument is. And, uh, if maybe that was, if it's misrepresented, that perhaps not quite so many people would actually argue that those things are indisputable. Thank you.

I, I, I'll tell you this. You could stay on. William, you're, you're in charge. Sure. I don't even understand the argument. That's the truth. I've looked at it, I've researched it, and it's silly. And I don't understand why people who have even an average IQ would find this persuasive. I just don't. It means, in order to believe this, you have to believe that he was crucified. Well, yeah, more than 100,000 Jews were crucified during the first century. That, what was the second arc part of the argument? The second, the second part was that his closest followers genuinely believed him to have actually resurrected. What is the source for that? I don't even understand what, what is your source for that? What would there be? How, why would anyone consider what, what's the source? Yeah, that's kind of the point. I mean, I don't even understand where you're, unless you want to engage in the most promiscuous, um, apologetics, we give you're relying on the New Testament, which means you're engaging in circular reasoning. Then what is your source for that, that his earliest followers genuinely believed it? And there was a guy named Sai Baba. Anyways, thank you very much for your call. Okay, go and hang now.

T, that again. There, there's a guy. He didn't die that long ago. I don't know, many years ago. Sai Baba. You, how many people he resurrected from the dead? I don't know the exact number, but this guy might have like 30 million followers. And he healed the sick, he made blind people see, healed cripples, and definitely resurrected the dead. And people definitely saw him after his death, and people believe it. What should I do? Move, move to India and shave my head off? What kind of, like, what is even, why would someone believe that? Moreover, the story of the empty tomb that we find in the Christian Bible couldn't possibly have happened because it's silly. Why would the women? Now, I'm not interested in how many women came to the tomb according to the evangelists, according to the rise of the New Testament. Was it two? Was it three? Was it more than four? Or was it just one, as John? Whatever it, it obviously depends. I don't, that's not important. So, I want to ignore. Let's ignore all these contradictions because contradictions contradict. So, what, I'm not interested in that. Those are really not contradictions, they're just variants. I'm a variant. But why did the women come to the tomb? What was the reason? What do the reason we're given? So, I encourage you to look at the last passage of the second to the last chapter of The Book of Mark, and do the same thing with The Book of Luke, okay? So, we're told in The Book of Mark that Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Joseph, so we, he was laid. Now go to Mark chapter 16. That's the last chapter of The Book of Mark, okay? And when Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James and Salome, they, they bought spices so they might be able to anoint the body of Jesus, okay? What happens the next week, means Sunday morning, uh, right after sunrise, on they come, come to the tomb. Okay? And why are these women coming to anoint the body of Jesus? Or in The Book of Luke, it's all these women, they're coming. Why? Because they weren't able to anoint the body before the Sabbath with spices. Why? Why? Why would you need spices? We, what, why would you need to anoint a body? Why? This is a plot device to explain an empty tomb story. And expectedly, we would not find this in the book of, in F, in the letter that Paul wrote to Corinth, the First Corinthians 15. There's no even mention of the women encounter. Forget all that. Why would you put spices on a body that's been decaying for three days? Why? Could anyone tell me this? Now, you might say to yourself, well, isn't there some sort of ritual that's performed on a dead body before it's buried? Yes, there's a taharah. It's a very sacred thing. And that is before a body is buried, before a body is buried, it's washed, it's cleaned, and is wrapped in a shroud, okay? Women would, will, would perform this taharah on a deceased woman, men on deceased men, before they're buried. No one digs up bodies three days later. That would never happen, ever. Number two, what does oil have to do with anything? And why spices? Are we cooking dinner here? Like, why would spices be it? This doesn't. Now, you're probably going, well, you're being pedantic. You're being, no, I'm not. Where does spices come in? So, so the way the story goes in Mark and in Luke is that you somehow need spices. They weren't able to get the spices. And before this episode, we got to put the spices on a body that's been in the ground for three days. Why? Why? Incidentally, have you ever seen a body that's decaying for three days? I don't need to say more. If you have, you know how ridiculous that is. Why? Where do spices come from? What is this? And Christians, I don't know why they, I guess they're just, they don't think about it. I don't blame them, it probably just doesn't occur to them. So, what, why spices? Now, in one other point that should be mentioned is, by the time The Book of John is written, that's the fourth gospel, was the last gospel to be authored, or the spices have already been added before the Sabbath. Nicodemus took care of that. So, what are they adding spices? It's already been done. All right. This, forget John for a moment. What's going on? So, why is there, what, what is spices? There's no mitzvah in the Torah to put spices with a dead body. So, let me explain to you how this all happened. In Jewish law, when someone passes away, the most important thing is to bury them quickly. That's the most important thing. The body should be buried as quickly as possible. But it does take time, you know, until the body's prepared, until it's buried. In the ancient world, there was no refrigeration. Today, a body is put in a refrigerated morgue, which does not stop the decay, but it slows it down. From the moment, it's not just a person, every, any living thing dies, decomposition begins immediately. Immediately. Right away. Okay? So, there's time from the time the person dies, so decomposition is triggered instantaneously, but it's a process. You could slow that process down, obviously, with refrigeration. So, on, there's ways to slow that process down, but decomposition begins. Now, so what happens if someone dies and the first opportunity you have to bury someone could take time? What's the problem? So, the problem is the dead body has to be brought to interment, has to be brought to a grave. That could take whatever time it takes. It takes time. I remember one time where I was overseeing the burial of someone, a very beloved person, in in Jakarta, and the refrigeration system broke down, and there was a child, a daughter, who was on another island, who had to fly back because Indonesia is all islands, and whatever they had to add ice and ice and ice to that. So, the person who passed away would, the body, it would slow down the, I don't need to say more, okay? It was not a good situation at all, and the daughter was crying, begging me, begging me, don't bury my father before he got, she got there. And you have to fly from Bali, you have to fly to Jakarta, you have to get on a plane, it's an hour and a half flight, whatever it is, okay? Decomposition begins immediately, which causes what? It causes a, a foul smell. It, it creates a foul smell. Does that, that things that go bad, that decay, have a foul smell? It's so, that why? So people should know this is dangerous because dead bodies could spread all kinds of diseases, okay? You understand? So, there's it. Now, during the levaya, during the burial, during the process of bringing the body, the corpse, to its place of interment, the people who are part of the funeral process, that are accompanying the body to its permanent resting place, you don't want the body to smell. Why? Because it's a biz-, it's a disgrace. The disease that the dead body should smell. So, what did they do in the ancient world without refrigeration? So, they used, there were spices. They used very strong spices that were used that they put around the body that had, that had s-, these spices had such a strong fragrance that it offset the, the bad smell of the decaying body. This is a very important issue. We need to get that body interred into whatever it was, a tomb, a grave, made no difference. We need to make sure that that body does not give off a foul odor because it's a biz-, could you imagine a bigger disgrace to the dead? Okay? Very simple. In fact, they, they had this, these techniques all worked out where they would even have spices that they would light them on fire, that would create smoke that would even generate more of this fragrance to offset any possible odor that a body can give off. You got it? There, all, in fact, this topic of dead bodies giving off foul odor comes up in the chrish. This is very well known today. It's not an issue because today they have refrigerators, all kinds of things, okay? Then it was a huge issue. So, until you got the body in the tomb, spices were used. It's not a mitzvah to make sure you make sure you bury a person with spices. The spices were there for the funeral so that no one would smell the unpleasant odor that a decaying body, a decomposing body would give off. Now, once the body is in the tomb, once the body is buried, no one, three days later, would dig up a dead body to add spices. It's so ridiculous. It's so foolish. Why would you? There's not an, it's, there's no longer a need for spices. The point of the spices was that the body hasn't been buried, it hasn't been interred yet, so you don't want the body to give off a foul odor. Digging up a, a decomposing c-, you know, you know what a body looks like if you go to a cemetery three days after a person has been buried? I don't want to tell you, it's not good. Who anoints such a body? Women come to when they, a decaying three-day story is nonsensical. So, these kinds of stories, you know, can rely on Christians not having a clue of what's going on. But the, now, as I said, Matthew doesn't get into this. Mark solves the problem as he does frequently where Mark seeks out solutions to problems that appear in the synoptic gospels. This is one of them. And that is, in, in, in John, Nicodemus already has spices. So, how could somebody say that the disciples believed that Jesus? How do you know that? What is your source of that? The Christian Bible. If I, a priori, believe that the Christian, in the Christian Bible, that I'm already a Christian, that's so silly. I mean, then what religion can be dismissed? If I already believe in the Book of Mormon, that I'm already a Mormon, it's relying on it. What Christian should say is that, look, I, I can't prove it. He wants, because once people like Gary say these things, they're mocking themselves. If the Christian says, look, there's no proof of this, it's an article of faith. So, fine, it's an article of faith. I forget the name of the Cardinal of New York in the 1980s. I forget his name. He was a nice fellow. The, the Cardinal of New York in the 1980s, um, was it Cardinal O'Connor? I think he was a nice fellow. He was a very smart guy. He once said that these beliefs are just an article of faith. You are believe or don't. Where Christians get themselves into trouble is by claiming that there's some evidence for this, some proof of this. So, that's completely silly. Moreover, the Christian Bible displays that these stories are manufactured, manufactured after the fact. And, and they try to, they seek to come up with plot devices where they explain why would someone go back to the tomb. Now, I know Christians argue with me and all kinds of things that people might go back to the tomb, you know, to Grandma's grave three days later to put flowers. I get that. But that's not what Luke, Mark, or arguing. See, there, it's what they, so there are a lot of Christians who are not crazy about what I'm saying, and it bothers them, and I can't help them. And they come up with these convoluted answers. This, it's the issue is not why would anyone return back to a tomb three days later of a loved one. I can think of a hundred reasons why. The, why would you use spices three days later? Why would women be anointing a man's body three? That would never, never, never happen. That's all invented, made up. I'm not going to try to prove from silence that in 1 Corinthians 15, when Paul enumerates all the people who putatively saw the resurrected Jesus, the women are not named among them. Whatever. I don't want to argue with them. But this argument that they believe in it, what's your source that people believe in it? There, you don't even know who wrote. You don't even know who wrote these books. You don't know who wrote The Book of Mark, and neither do I. You don't know who wrote The Book of Luke, and neither do I. Only you could say with certainty about Luke is that whoever wrote Luke also wrote the book of Acts. That's it. Nothing more, nothing less. So, these are, these are terrible arguments. Was say on face. So, then they have a new problem, and that is, there is nothing in Tanakh that supports this. There's no idea the Messiah's die and rise from the dead. Nothing, zero, not one. And if you believe in it, you're saved. You're not believing this is nothing like that. Nothing like that in Tanakh. Even Isaiah 53, the chapter that desperate Christians run to that really can't help them because it's talking about Israel. They want to take a talk. Doesn't say that, that if you believe the Messiah rose for your, doesn't say it anywhere. Now, you guys, so it doesn't say it anywhere. You want to know why that's humongous, huge? Because Luke 24 says it says it. That's how Luke 24 ends. See, Luke 24, 40 through 46, it says that it says it in Tanakh, and it doesn't say in anywhere. And Hosea chapter 6 isn't speaking of the Messiah dying and rising on the third day. It's speaking about Ephraim. Read the context, please. Read the context for yourself. People have an aversion to reading books, and this is the reason why YouTube is so successful, no question. The reason why YouTube and Rumble and SchMumble and SchmiSchmock and McHock are so, people because people are lazy, really. I would be, no one would listen to me if they read the book. I would be unemployed. Whatever. I don't care. All I'm doing is I just read the book and I'm saying, look it up. Read Hosea, the end of Hosea chapter 5. Read in, talk about Ephraim, talking about the northern kingdom, who was, were carried away during the first temple period, during the Assyrian Empire. So, that's the first day. They weren't around during the second temple period. Ephraim was gone, meaning northern kingdom was gone. All that was left during the second temple period was Judah with the tribe of Levi and part of the tribe of Benjamin. But they were all under the kingdom of Judah. That was it. But in the third and final temple, which is the third day, it's going to return back. See the end of Hosea. See Ezekiel 46, 47. Openly, the northern tribes are going to be restored, and their land will be allotted, and the two rods will become one in your hand. See Ezekiel chapter 37. Nehemiah and Judah, those are the two rods. You know, people would read the Bible. I'm very happy that I wouldn't have a job. I'd really be so happy, unemployed. It's all there. There's nothing mysterious that I'm teaching here. So, I don't, I don't even understand the base of the argument. He says, but most scholars, who cares? Most scholars, I have a brain, use it. And if scholars will tell me that the harmonica is a more difficult instrument to play than the violin, I, I know me. I don't have to have a PhD from Juilliard to know that's nonsense. Thank you for your question.

All right, moving on to the next caller. Caller, you are live on the air. Please tell us your name, where you're calling from.

Um, yes, hello. This is Desiree Callins from Georgia. Hi, Desiree. So, um, in John 6, it's in the 50s, I believe it's like 53 or 56 through till the end, discuss about yes. And, um, and then some of his disciples leave him. It seems, uh, I would like you to kind of explain what that actually would represent, Rabbi. And, um, I'm going to go back to John, uh, 6:53, and then skip to 60, and ask you to see and tell us what's going on here. So, Jesus said, uh, and the very, verily, verily I say unto you, except you eat my flesh, the Son of Man, and drink my blood, you shall have no life in you. And then later on, in 60, it says, many of the disciples, when they heard this, said, this is a hard saying. Who can hear this? What's going on here?

Right. This is something that you find very frequently in the New Testament, that is, that people who are followers of Jesus don't understand it. They don't get, like, why are you telling us that eating my body and drinking my blood, uh, provides salvation? They don't get any of that. This idea that followers of Jesus don't understand him is frequently found in the Christian Bible. It's not unique to John 6. The first eight chapters of The Book of Mark, no one has any idea of what even Jesus is even doing. Who is he? In fact, in the gospels, portray the disciples as clueless until the end. And I, now the question is, how did this infiltrate the text of the New Testament? This is what I think makes the most sense. What actually historically went on here is that during the life of Jesus, no one thought he was the Messiah. And that's why in the, because he is not walking around going, "I am the Messiah." He's not saying stuff like that. So that's why the idea that we find, for example, in Matthew 16, where Jesus asks, "Who do you say that I am?" and people don't know. When does that occur? It occurs right before the crucifixion. Well, well, how could they not know? And then when Peter says, "You're the Christ, Son of the Living God," we are told Jesus says, "Flesh and blood didn't reveal." So they don't know any, they don't understand any of it. The question, how, forget about whether this is historical, non-historical, I don't think it's historical, but why is it in? Why would that infiltrate the canon? So it's an apologetic. It's in there because when the, when Christianity, a word not found in the New Testament, okay? But when this movement, this Christian movement, began, it was being, it was inventing itself, and people just weren't sure what did the historical Jesus teach? And people go, "I didn't hear that he claimed to be the Messiah." Any of those things? And none of that. I hear that people aren't sure that he rose from the dead, right? So what they, what do you do with that? So what you then, is what you then have to do is you have to interpolate these question marks into the Christian Bible, like, "I don't understand it." And the idea is that Jesus really was a complete mystery, that people didn't get, didn't understand, didn't even know who he was. I mean, when I say the first eight chapters of Mark, no one knows who Jesus was. That's half, that's half of The Book of Mark. I, I hear an echo. Yeah, something's going on. Um, yeah, something's going on with the static or something. And I can't forget what it is. I'm gonna just play with my, oh, yeah, yeah, that was it. Whatever happened. What have you just did? Fixed it all. All right, good. So there it is. Oh, wow. Cool. Okay, great. Thanks. Listen carefully. So, in the Christian Bible, we have a lot of people not knowing and not understanding because this was very much like the early Gnostic religions, what people didn't understand. Gnostic means knowledge. In the ancient world, everything seemed mysterious. In the ancient world, people don't understand why heal a woman who was healthy a week ago is dead. They don't understand any of these things. So the world was filled with mysteries, and if you can unlock the mystery, then you can understand why. And that's why the word mystery appears so frequently in the Christian Bible, not just in word, but in kind. John 6 isn't an exception. Ephesians 3, 1 Thessalonians 2, excuse me, 1 Corinthians chapter 2, there's a mystery, and someone has the knowledge. Who does? Paul says, "I have that knowledge." So the Christian Bible is going to explain. Are you the people who are on the, this comes up a lot. Are...

You, those that have that knowledge, or are you those that don't have that knowledge? And it's not, it's, it doesn't seem, it, it's easy to understand why Gnostic Christianity would emerge so quickly, because it, it, it came to convey that Jesus came to impart the knowledge, the gnosis, that was necessary to be saved, from what? From this world to a better world, from the evil God of this world to the true Lord, who is Jesus Christ, who is Christ Jesus. The language of Paul, that's why this mystery talk comes up so frequently.

Okay, thank you for your question. Very good. Awesome. Thank you, Robert, for that. All right, caller, you're live on here. Please tell us your name and where you're calling from.

Hey guys, it's the Rev. Robins over here in North Carolina. Hope y'all are doing good. Welcome back. Go ready. Um, hey, so, uh, Rabbi, question for you. Um, where did the idea and the notion that, uh, us Gentiles, because I'm, uh, like I've said before, I'm not going to convert, I don't have any intention to convert. But when, um, when did the notion that we were, uh, I guess subhuman in the eyes of, in the eyes of, uh, God and the, uh, the rest of the world? When did that, when did that come about? I guess would be, cuz, cuz Jesus, uh, in Matthew 15, uh, basically said we were dogs that ate from the Jews of the, they ate from the crumbs of the Jews' table. And, uh, Paul in Romans 11 went on to say that the only reason God saves us is because he wants to make, uh, the Jews mad and jealous. Uh, when did this idea come about that we were, that we were like the second-class humans? And, you know, that God only loved you guys? Um, so just, that's a great question there. You go. Good question. All right, go.

Name, answer. Thank you. Yes, sir. Yeah, so that's a very good question. So the word Gentile is not a Jewish word, it's a gentile word. It's important to know that. That's funny. So there, there are two parts, two answers to this. Um, one answer is that in the view of, let's just take Matthew 15 as an example. Well, take the Book of Matthew. There are, um, there are two dispensations, there are two salvific economies. One prior to the cross, and one after the cross. So in Matthew's view, Jesus came to the Jews and did not come to the Gentiles, the non-Jews. And Jesus, in Matthew chapter 10, we are told, says, "Go not into the way of the Gentiles and the city of the Samaritans." Samaritans are not Jewish. And not only go to the lost sheep of the House of Israel. Okay? So the initial, uh, salvific endeavor of, in the view of Christianity, and Paul conveys this as well in Romans chapter 11, for example, was initially the salvation program was for the Jews. Now, this bears no resemblance to anything in Tanakh. You're learning Christianity now. This is stuff you'd learn in undergraduate New Testament Studies classes. This is not Matthew. Then has a second economy or a dispensation where the world is saved after the veil of partition is rent asunder, in the language of King James, and then go into all nations and preach in the name of the Father, Son, Holy Ghost. And that's how Matthew 28 ends. So the Christian Bible, the Gospels and Paul convey a dispensation that Jesus initially came to the Jews, but the Jews, they want no part of it. And the, such rejected salvation. Paul is going to explain this is part of some plan. The Jews were blinded. Paul has a whole bunch of theories because he wrote over the course of years that developed. Also depended on who Paul was speaking to. He spoke a different language to different audiences. In the Book of Romans, he's more gentle about Jews because he knows Jews are listening. He's writing to people he hasn't even met yet. So Matthew, so, so therefore, you find the story in Matthew chapter 15. You have its parallel story in Mark chapter 7, where Jesus encounters a non-Jewish woman whose daughter is vexed with the devil. Okay? And he's, she is asking that Jesus heal her, heal her daughter, heal this girl. Jesus responds by turning down her request and says, "I've only come for the lost sheep of the House of Israel." Right? She goes to the disciples and starts to nudge them, asking, would you intercede on my behalf because my daughter is vexed with the devil? Well, these Pharisees are not interested in helping out this non-Jewish woman. And they run back to Jesus, say, essentially, you know, get her away from us. How lovely. And, and then we are told in the Gospels that the woman then goes back to Jesus, making a full-blown case, please heal my daughter. And Jesus says, in the language of the King James, "It is not meat, it's not right to take the children's bread and give it to dogs." Okay? Because you're a dog, you're not Jewish. And the woman accepts that status instead of pushing back and going, "Just because I'm not Jewish doesn't mean I'm a dog." And the woman says, "Yes, but even dogs eat from the crumbs that fall from the master's table." And Jesus approved of that because she reckoned. I, I know, I, I know I'm not a white person, but, you know, even a, even a black man in Alabama can eat, you know, the crumbs, can eat a bone left over. That's really what it was. So that's what's. There's nothing like this in this. This is, this is a, these are horrible stories. And in fact, I think that non-Jews believe that Jews think this way. I sometimes listen carefully to the way non-Jewish people speak about what they think Jews think about them. And they really think that we can't eat at the same table with them because Peter refused to do that. And nothing can be further from the truth. In fact, all this is vulgar to a Jew because our entire role as a Jew is to facilitate the salvation of the non-Jew, to be a light to the nations. It's, it's not only are people who are not Jewish not subhuman, it's just the opposite. We were only created or shaped or chosen for what? For wealth, for power, for prosperity and security in our possessions? No. We are proud, but we want all men to be proud. We want the nations of the world to come to the God of Israel. And we believe that the nations will come by our light and fulfill the words of Isaiah 60: "Arise and shine, for your light has come." King things will go by your light. So, you know, did, are, are Jewish people proud? Yeah, because we want you to be proud. We want you to rise up. We want you to come with us, not try to convert us. That's the terrible thing to do. Why, why do I work so hard to prevent Jews from converting to Christianity? Because I'm, because people who try to convert Jews are doing the worst thing in the world. They're destroying the light. I'm saying, no, you don't want to put out the light. That's your only source. So this idea of before the cross, that's where the, the notion that the veil in the Temple was torn down. Why does that come up? Because it's, let's, because the veil is a separation between Jews and Gentiles. That's, they're all following this scheme as Paul did. It's not, I mean, it's not historical. There's no veil that comes torn. I remember years ago, I'll just mention this. I was at a convention, a Christian convention, and a very, very, very well-known Christian theologian came over to me, and I won't mention who it was, and asked me, "Rabbi, tell me, is there any mention in the Tanakh of the veil in the temple being torn in half?" And he was hoping that I would say yes. And I told him, "It doesn't exist anywhere." He was so sad and walked away. But in any case, that's what's really going on. It's these ideas that are being peddled, ideas that are completely unknown to the Jewish mind and the Jewish scriptures.

Thank you for your question. All right, looks like we got time for one more caller. You are live on the air. Please tell us your name and where you're calling from.

Yes, Rabbi. This is Aaron in, uh, in Florida. I want to thank you again for taking my call. I have a relatively simple question, but I think it, uh, is very important. So purportedly, Jesus made three, among many other statements. He said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No man comes to the Father but by me." He also said, "Do not think that I have come to bring peace, but a sword." And then went on to say, "I have come to set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. One's spouse shall be those of his own household." So my question is, wouldn't each one of these individually disqualify Jesus as being the Messiah? And certainly all three together? It would be the farthest thing from our imagination to make this person be a Jewish Messiah. Thank you. Thank you for your call. Go ahead and hang up now.

Rabbi, for answer. So those of you who are in a rush, the answer is yes. That's the short answer. Right? This is precisely the opposite of what Messiah is supposed to do. Just the opposite. John 14:6, "I am the way, truth, and life. No one comes to the Father but by me." I mean, there's just nothing like that in Tanakh. It's just the opposite. The Messiah is the rabbi of the world, and he gives to the nations. See Isaiah 2:3 and 4. If Christians would read Isaiah 2:3 and 4, they would repent. I think the New Testament authors were very clever to make sure to omit those epic passages. He's a teacher. That's all. He fears God in the way that you're to fear God. Isaiah 11:2 and verse 3. And then Matthew 10, where he says, "I didn't come to bring peace on earth, but the sword." Is exactly opposite of what Messiah is supposed to do. Messiah, why does he come into Jerusalem on a donkey? Why a donkey? Well, it comes on a donkey because a donkey is not used in battle. It's a horse that is used in battle. And that is he's bringing peace to the world, not the sword. And he's come, he's coming to restore families. Makes no difference which Bible you read. The last five passages of the Book of Malachi. Just read it. Read it. I promise you, I didn't sneak into your house and put a page in your Bible because I have an unfavorable view of the Christian religion. It really tells us about Elijah the prophet, families restored to each other. And the notion that Jesus should say in Matthew chapter 10:34, "Do not think that I have come to bring peace on earth. I, I didn't come to bring peace, but a sword. And turn a man against his father, and her daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. A man's enemies will be the members of his own household." This is exactly what Messiah is not supposed to do. Now, Christians, how do Christians even deal with this question? Go, "Well, compared to your love for me, it'd be like you hate your family." This is, this is, this is. It's not that just this is not inconsistent with the Hebrew Bible. Please read Zechariah chapter 9:10, because I know you know Zechariah 9:9 because you find that in the Gospels. Read Zechariah 9:10 and you'll discover that Jews are not obstinate. We're not, we don't have, we're not angry at Christians. None of those things. We're just choosing Isaiah over Matthew, that's all. And a Messiah who comes to bring the sword rather than peace is just not the Messiah of Tanakh. And you know what's intriguing is that you see Christians, I don't want to mention who because I never want to make this personal, but really well-known Christians who talk about the message of Paul and ignore completely the message found in Tanakh. I don't even know where to begin. But Christians instinctively, intuitively understand that the two of them are just not compatible. I saw, I don't want to say who, but I see Christians on television because there's a lot going on in the world now, and they're saying, "That's an old covenant. There's a new covenant." What are you talking about? I don't know. But this is how they're talking. There is, there's nothing about what the church did, there's nothing about what Jesus accomplished, there's nothing in the Christian Bible that in any way comports with, maps on to, is consistent with the explicit prophecies in Tanakh. Really. And it's not helpful when Christians quote texts that, for instance, say that homosexuality is a sin, and then they take that literally and just ignore everything else in Tanakh. Or churches favor pastors that talk about tithing as long as it's given to the church. Oh, they love those verses on tithing. That's a law amount, you know? Yeah, Christians had to keep. But ignore the Mitzvot, the Torah, the explicit statements of Jeremiah, of Isaiah, Zechariah, Zechariah chapter 3. So that's what's. So it, it's not that they're not the same. I think people feel like, well, Christianity may be just a different orientation. Judaism? No, they're polar opposites. It's Esau and Jacob, really. Not, they, they're not consistent with each other. The prophets of Israel oppose the core teachings of the church. It's just that simple. And all I encourage the Christian to do is just to read the Hebrew Bible and then measure the claims of the church. If they're consistent with the Hebrew Bible, don't take stuff out of context. If you read one chapter out of context, you're not going to have a chance. So if you do that, don't bother. If you really, you're obviously watching because you care about the truth, right? If you, not, you don't care about the truth and this is just a sporting event between two teams, the Jews and the Christian team, so then, then watch reruns of Lost in Space. But if you really care, just look at the Hebrew Bible. Look at clear passages, um, Ezekiel 37, it's all Messianic. And just look at the Christian Bible. You would immediately realize that this is not an issue of orientation, but the Hebrew Bible opposes every teaching of the New Testament. And if you're going to then go to the default of a second coming, then any religion can be true. Then no claim could be falsified. You are in my prayers. Thank you so much for your question.

Christians today, what should we do? And I believe that the best way today, not 3,300 years ago, is to answer the questions, the pressing questions, the burning questions that Christians are asking, and answer them with love and understanding and care. That's what I think. I think that Christians are today are just raised as children. "Jesus loves you." That's all they know. And they're told that if you don't believe in Jesus, you're going to go to hell. They're never taught the Hebrew of Tanakh, some more than others. They're taught stories in the Hebrew Bible, but they're not really reading through Numbers 33, not reading through that with very few exceptions. And they don't know any better. So I think we are living in a time when Christians are welcoming a Jewish voice. Just don't be offensive. Don't ever be violent. The way Christians are violent with us here in Israel. Christians are roaming the streets screaming at Jews. Don't do that. Until the Messiah comes, there will be many, many religions. When the true Messiah comes, everyone will know about the one God of Israel. And now is a time when Gentiles are asking the question, "Teach us. Would you teach us about God? Because we think that God is with you." And we should fulfill that. Speak to them gently, carefully, thoughtfully. Most of them meet well. There are some, the leaders in many of the churches are not impressive people. That's the truth. The truth is that, you know, especially those missionaries in Israel, the leaders are a nightmare, usually the leaders of the churches. And I think I'll say something I never said in my life, thought about it a lot. The Christians who are engaged in Jewish evangelism in Israel are much nuttier, not all, but for the most part, are crazier than missionaries who go to the African continent. There's something about them. They're like off. And that's why they're so violent and violent with each other. And, and just they're, they are. And that's why they have such conflicts with no Messianic congregations. They hang along with each other. They're just, it's, it's worse. Let me get back to your question now. We're living at a time where people are asking us questions. No need to destroy anything. Just talk. Listen. You have two ears. You have one mouth. Use them. Listen to their questions. Answer them thoughtfully. They really will appreciate this. And there are many people who are watching me now who are listening to my voice who used to hate me, despise me, thought I was a devil. And then for a moment, they thought, "Let me hear what this singer has to say." And then they thought about it, looked it up, and they repented. So now is a time for that. Now is a time to teach by answering their questions. Not all of them, but Christians, many of the questions Christians are asking are thoughtful questions, and they deserve an answer. Never use violence. Never. Don't ever do that. Telling you now, listen carefully. Never use violent language. Never. Never do that. And when Christians use violence, and they do here in Israel, it's terrible, terrible what they're doing. The desecration in Israel, attacking Jews here in Israel, screaming at them in bomb shelters. It's a nightmare. It's really crazy here. You know, you hear a siren going off, means a rocket's coming in. You have 11 seconds. What do you have? 10 seconds. You, you have to run for your life. Imagine you run into a bomb shelter, and who's waiting for you? A missionary there trying to convert you, trying to convert soldiers to Christianity, screaming on the streets of Israel's cities, really attacking people whose cousins and children have been kidnapped or murdered by Hamas. And people are laws. Don't imitate them. I'm not saying all Christians like that here or that way, but there's way too many people here who just don't know how to behave. And in truth, in Israel, there is an effort to that all religions should be treated with respect. But the missionaries who try to convert Jews, they're very different. And they're all Christian Zionists, almost all. Almost all. They're not Catholic, who are for the most part respectful here. And they're not the Orthodox Church. They're all Evangelical Christian Zionists. So I would say this, the time now is to be a light to the nations, to answer their questions in a thoughtful way, in a meaningful way. They believe this because they were taught it. They were taught this since they were children. These Christian ideas fill the marrow of their bones. They think we're blind. These Christians think that the Jews are absolutely blinded. And it's mind-blowing. They think we're blind because the book of Romans said that the Jews have been supernaturally blinded. Paul gives a whole bunch of reasons why he thinks the Jews don't believe. He has all kinds of explanations for this. Whatever it is, it requires a lot of patience and thoughtfulness to help them. Now, at this time, what happened 3,300 years ago was a unique epic in time. Now it's a different epic. It's a time to talk and more importantly, listen. Be thoughtful. And you'll see that so many people will come back to the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

Thank you for your question. Thank you, Rabbi, for your time. I appreciate that very much, as we all do. Um, so pray that you, uh, will be well. And, um, prayers is going out for Israel, of course, during this tough time. And, uh, guys, there's about four callers who have, who were on hold. Be sure to call in next week with those questions. Those are great questions. Um, numbers on your screen. We'll see you next week, same time, same place, Hashem willing. And Rabbi, you should be well. Thank you so much, everybody. Peace. Shalom. Shalom, my dear friends. Hope this message finds you well. If you like the way this channel is going and the channel has been a blessing to you, please consider supporting the channel by going to the website, TanakhTalk.com. T-A-N-A-C-H-T-A-L-K.com. Thank you once again for your time and for supporting Tanakh Talk.

[Music] Shalom.

[Music]

[Music]

Fore.