Transcription
Q&A. Hello Jay, can you hear me or no? Yes. So, uh, so I'm an author, Jew, and I just want to have a discussion with you regarding Jesus and the fulfillment of the messianic prophecies. Okay. Do you, what, what specifically? So I just want to ask a few questions because I'm not really sure what sect of Christianity you are in. So I know you guys have different views, you know. So, well, I'm Orthodox Christian. So, Eastern Orthodox. Okay. Eastern Orthodox. That's nice, cuz my best friend is actually Eastern. So, so, uh, do you believe in the new covenant as mentioned in Jeremiah 31? Yes. And you believe that's been fulfilled, or partially fulfilled, or waiting to be fulfilled? Like, what do you believe it to be? Well, we believe that at the first coming of the Messiah, he brought the reality of that new covenant that is characterizing our age, and then the fullness of that will be brought in at the escaton. So it's a both and. Yes.
Um, okay. So, like, if we do have a discussion, I'm not sure if you do want to, but I'm just wondering if it's possible if we can stick to the Old Testament exclusively and just adhere to what the Old Testament says, if it's okay. Right. Yeah. I don't mind. I mean, I, well, obviously, I understand you, you wouldn't accept the New Testament. So, no, I don't have a problem with that. Also, it's like, you, you can correct me if I'm wrong, but when Jesus says he's mentioned in the scriptures, that's not referring to the letters of Paul or? No, of course. That's responding to the five books of Moses and and perhaps. So, my contention with your interpretation regarding Jeremiah 31 is it, like, in, in verse 31, it, you know, mentions something that is quite, you know, fundamental in, in the whole sort of aspect of the future. Is it, it mentions the house of Israel and the house of Judah. And I'm sure you're aware how the house of Israel was expelled 800 or so years before Jesus, right? Give or take. So if you want to make the argument that it's been fulfilled within the time of Jesus, then how do you reconcile the fact that it mentions the house of Israel and the house of Judah when, in reality, they have not been restored? And this is evident, and this is evident within Jeremiah itself when he mentions in, um, Jeremiah, um, 30:3, as well as 31:10, as well as Zechariah and Ezekiel, they all mention the restoration of, of the house of Israel and the house of Judah. Right. And I'm familiar with what you're saying with, like, like Ezekiel talks about there will never be any more division, that the two will be joined back together. Right. Right. That's 36. So, so, so obviously, when the house of Israel and the house of Judah are being referenced, do you, that's within a scope of the Old Testament, that's always referring to the inhabitants of the house of Israel, of the house of Judah, or at least the kingdoms. It's never referring to anyone other than the house of Israel and the and the house of Judah. You would agree with that?
Well, right. Actually, no. Here we would depart because the way we interpret that is that in the first century, there were descendants who were in large part the entirety of the, uh, the church. So the church in the, like, say, after the death of Christ up to Acts chapter 10 is almost entirely Jewish converts. So we interpret that because if you look at Acts, I understand you don't accept this. I'm just telling you this. Yeah. Acts, come with two, right? So, so Acts talks about the house, uh, the tabernacle of David being rebuilt and and restructured in the fulfillment of the church, right? But that's my contention is, is that nowhere in Jeremiah or nowhere in any of these prophets does it mention a replacement to the church or a, even a hint to the church? Well, no, but see, we're not, it's not a replacement, it's the fulfillment. So, that's two different ideas. So replacement would be like the things that came before don't count. That's why it's a fulfillment. So, we're, it's a totally different paradigm where, where we're saying that all of these prophecies are fulfilled not just in the person of Christ, but who is, for example, in Isaiah, like Isaiah 53. We would say that he's the servant. He is Israel, right? So Jesus is the person, right? So, if, if we can stick, like, one prophecy, cuz to go jumping to.
Okay, but here's the thing. So I understand what you're saying, but here's the thing about the way a lot of prophecies work. And even the way, for example, I have the Jewish Study Bible, it will admit that messianic prophecies are sometimes just sections of a chapter, not the entire chapter or the entire book. So, not everything in Jeremiah 31 is necessarily part of the prediction of the new covenant. Let me give an example. In Isaiah 19, for example, it says that there will be an altar set up in Egypt and that, uh, Egypt, Syria, and Israel, all three will be God's footstool and his people. Right? So, in Isaiah 19, that didn't all happen in that time period. There was a partial fulfillment which encapsulates the whole chapter. But as far as I understand, most, I think Jews believe that's also a messianic fulfillment towards whenever the Messiah comes. So, in the same way, I would say that there was something that occurred at the time of Isaiah 19 that related to, you know, God's people and the Syrians and the Egyptians. But the, the full fulfillment awaits the messianic era, which is what we would say 45 when it speaks about Cyrus. That's not a, you know, that's a, that already occurred within like shortly after Isaiah. So, I do agree what you're saying. Okay. But what I'm saying is that are you saying that the Cyrus is something that was only fulfilled in the person of Cyrus, or that it also has a messianic fulfillment? No, I'm saying it's not, and, and it's already, but that's not my point of contention. Sorry, my point of contention. My point of contention is that every time the house of Israel and the house of Judah is being referenced or spoken about, it's always referring to the physical people, like in Jeremiah or in, or in, like Zechariah. And it says there will be. I just disagree. I disagree that every time it's that. On what scriptural basis within the frame of the Old Testament? Because Israel, because Israel was always the true believers in God, and not just the physical descendants. You, you see the issue here is that you're bringing external interpretation, which is no, but see, everyone does that. You do the same thing. It's just that you have a different paradigm. Give me an example. So when I say the house of Israel and the house of Judah are, are always in, are always speaking about the house of Israel and the, like, house of Judah. What sort of, like, this is different to what you're doing by by bringing the New Testament into? I again, everyone brings their paradigm to any specific text. You do it, I do it. We have different paradigms. So what you're calling out is a feature of everybody's worldview, not something that's unique to mine. Right. That's that's that's I do hear what you're saying, but like I say, the basis of is that your interpretation, you would say, is based exclusively from the from the church. Well, again, our paradigms will determine how it's even understood back in the old times. So, for example, did Abraham believe in a Unitarian deity or did he believe in the Messiah? The Christian inter arguing that's, but it's part of, but, but it is, but it's part of my argument. So, I know you don't believe that. You're not arguing that. But I'm saying that that's part of our paradigm. Right. Right. But I'm not trying to argue every aspect within your paradigm currently. Perhaps for another time, in a different time. I didn't, I didn't think you were. I've just given an example of how. Okay. No, no. I'm all for examples. Like, you know, I do like examples and I do like stuff. But look, every time house of Israel and house of Judah are referenced within. How do you know that? You're just saying that that's the case based on your paradigm because I read it and every time. Okay, so that's how so that's how we do. So when I read it and I, I can just say every time it it presents my position is that how it works. You can, if it's logical to the context of the Old Testament. Well, but that's again going to depend. Like, give me some sort of argument against my interpretation without. Well, you just asserted that your interpretation. Yeah, I'm giving you an argument. I'm giving you an argument. It's an epistemic argument that you just asserted that every time it is your position and that's because that's what it says and that's what the Old Testament says. That's just asserting your position. How do we know that every time that's the case? Because we can look for the context and we can see when Zechariah speaks to the people. Okay? But see, if we went with that perspective, then messianic prophecies would only be relevant to the immediate context. They would never be a future prophecy. When did I ever say that? No, I'm saying that. See, so it's a double, like, it's a double standard. So if we went with your original point there that it always only means the immediate context, then you could never have a messianic prophecy that is a mirrored prediction. That's. No, that's. No, I know you didn't say that. That's my argument and critique of your position. So, what's my position then? What you just said, if it was consistent, would then have to reject the notion that the messianic prophecies have an immediate and a future fulfillment. Can you, can you, uh, can you repeat my statement what I said? You just said house of Israel only refers to the literal physical house of Israel, right? No, that's not what I said. That is what you said. No, I said the house of Israel and the house of Judah. Okay. Okay. In reference, for example. Okay. Now, you're just. So, this is sophistry. So, you don't want. You would just want to play word games and argue over chivals, right? What do you mean I'm playing word games? You, you just straw man argument. And it wasn't a straw man. It was just restating your position. I'm not trying to. Yes. Instead of the house of Israel, but I said house of Israel and the house of Judah. I always, for example. Okay. I wasn't trying to misstate your position. Okay, that's fine. So, let's go back to the crux of this. So, so the prophecies I'm speaking about are the restoration of Israel and Judah. And it's, so this is what I'm referencing alongside Jeremiah 31 when it mentions. So how do you reconcile the fact that the houses of Israel and the house of Judah has not been brought together like Ezekiel said, like Zechariah chapter 10? How do you reconcile the fact that within the time frame of the first century, in fact, the opposite happened, they were exiled instead of being returned? Just simply that the house of Israel and the house of Judah are not, in this case, literal and strictly only the physical descent? Can you show me that within the Old Testament? Can you give me some scriptural support within the Old Testament for that?
Yeah, like the fact that to be a true Israelite means, as Jeremiah says, your heart is circumcised and that the physical flesh circumcision is not what makes you right with God, because many people before Abraham were right with God, like Noah. Right? But I'm, in terms of when the house of Israel went, the house of Judah. Was Noah made right? Was Noah made right with God? Was Noah from the house of Judah or from the house of Israel? Well, the point is that what makes one right with God is not the biological physical descent. That's the point. I never said that. I just said in terms of the house of Israel and the house of Judah, right? So the point that I'm making is that that shows, as Paul argues, that he's correct to say that the true Israel has always been those who are believers in God from the heart, and that physical circumcision was a time-bound external symbol and not what made you right with God. So it was, it was always the spiritual Israel. So when Ezekiel, or for example, Deuteronomy chapter 30 speaks about following the law, right? And which is in which, which is in reference to Jeremiah 31, right? So, like I said, I'm just because you believe. Yeah. Like, so, so if I can go to, uh, Rabbinical debates right now on YouTube, and I can find rabbis that admit that because you don't keep the law, because there's not a temple, that God looks upon your good works as if that was the keeping of the law. Oh, you mean the Christian position. So you see that constantly in the Rabbinical Judaism, you guys admit the very principles that we have. Another example would be that you guys admit that there's two different Messiahs in the Talmud. There's Messiah Ben Joseph and Messiah Ben David. Those for you, hold on. Those those for you reconcile the the text that we bring up about the two comings of the Messiah. But what that shows is that at every point, you have a way to just turn it back into not recognizing Christ as the Messiah. Look, if you want to be emotional, which you clearly are by emotional, I just made you two arguments. So now you're saying that I'm making emotional arguments. You haven't even addressed my argument first. Yeah, my argument was that again. Do you want me to? No. So now you're, you're now you're getting refuted because I know what's in the Talmud. Now you're calling me emotional when I just made two different arguments to you. You haven't even addressed my first argument. You want me to address it for the third time? That the physical descent was never what made you a true Israelite. It was always whether you from the heart were circumcised. And so Noah was part of true Israel. That's the argument. But, but that goes against scripture 100%. When, for example, I mean, I asked you if Noah was righteous and you ignored it. Was Noah righteous? Was Noah righteous or not? I'm not arguing whether Noah was righteous. I'm arguing. I know you're not. I am. So why you look? So, so the whole chat, dude, nobody's buying your argument. You don't want to address it. So, like, if I brought an argument to the table and you want to delve into new arguments, you want me to bring the. So the fourth time. Do you want me to bring the argument that it was never the physical descent that made you righteous? How about that for the fourth time? So why does the New Testament come, um, in Matthew chapter 1, that Jesus is, is the Messiah through the bloodline of of David, which is genealogy, aka? Yeah. I don't know that we believe that that was the whole point of him being born of both Adam and Abraham and David is to fulfill those prophecies. So that's not even an argument. No, I'm saying that you do believe that physical. I didn't say it had no relationship. I said it had nothing to do ultimately with what made you the true Israel. Was Job part of Israel? I'm arguing with that. Okay. So you don't want to. So, yeah, you don't want to address the point. That's the thing. Was, was Job from the descendants of the of the 12 sons of Jacob, aka Israel? Was Noah part of Israel? No. Noah came God knows how many decades. So being a biological descendant, as Acts 15 and as Paul argues, is not ultimately what made you a true Israelite. I could see that faith is important. But I'm not arguing whether faith is important. I'm arguing that when it speaks about the house of Israel and the house of Judah, always the references are are with the physical people. Yeah, that's your presupposition that it always only means the physical. And I'm challenging that. So, show me a time when it doesn't. Then show me a time when Noah was made righteous with God. And so he's part of the heavenly Jerusalem. He's part of the true people of God. One. It's how about where Jeremiah himself, Jeremiah himself says that to be right with God means that you're circumcised in your heart. How about that? Yes, I know to be right with God. I do believe that Gentiles will come to, to, to Israel. That's that's not what I'm arguing. I'm arguing with the house of Israel and the house of Judah. How was something that happened? Was Melchizedek a priest of God? Yes. How was that? Why are we jumping from? Because because these things disprove your presupposition that every text refers to the biological descendants, and I'm giving you multiple people who were made right with God and thus constitute part of spiritual Israel. No, that's not what I'm arguing. I'm not arguing that you can't. Then these things disprove your argument. No, it does not. How does it not? Because because Jeremiah 31 says the ancestors that I took you out of Egypt, none of the Melchizedek nor Job nor. You're missing the point. The point is that spiritual Israel. So can you show me where in Jeremiah 31, when it says your ancestor that I took you out of Egypt? Can you give me another? So this is what you do. Like you don't accept canonical holistic interpretation. You only accept what works for you in the immediate self-evident, right? Uh, interpretation of the text, right? But that's not true because when you read Jeremiah 31, which is why, right, which is why I brought up. So, you're inconsistent, right? Because that's when I brought up messianic, right? So, no, but you already admitted, you already admitted that messianic prophecies can be immediate and future fulfillment. Did you not? I said messianic prophecies are messianic when when. So, you won't answer. Yeah, you won't answer clearly. You, you double talk on this. So, do they, did Cyrus have, did Cyrus text on Isaiah have an immediate and a future fulfillment or not? Not an immediate. It wasn't immediate. It wasn't about it wasn't about Cyrus. Yes, that's why I said immediate but not future. Okay. So, it's not about the Messiah because, because the, uh, so it has to. This is what I argued 10 minutes ago. Never exclusive to, to the son of David. The term Messiah is never exclusive to the son of David. I'm just asking if there's a future. So you won't address this point which refutes you. The refusing back to the argument of Jeremiah. Yeah. I've already addressed it five times and you won't address it. So I have the answer.