Powerful Muslim Interview with Rabbi Tovia Singer: Is Christianity a Lie?

The grand tragedy, now I hope all my Christian friends—I, I know I’ve offended some of you, and if I did, I really am sorry—but the grand tragedy of the doctrine of the trinity, which is a later Christian accretion, is that it took the true God—not the monkey god of Hinduism, but the true God, the father of us all—and then added in the son as a distinct person and the holy spirit as a separate and distinct person that has unique attributes that the father doesn’t possess.

So I would say, on a deeper level, the reason why I pour my heart out to Christians on such a fundamental level is because they do worship the father. So if you worship the father, ah, it means you have, you have a husband, Hashem. Isaiah 54. So why would you introduce any element into your—I’m using the word marriage because the Bible says it’s okay—into the marital, the intimate marital chamber of God? Why would you let something else in? Don’t do that. [Music]

Um, so as you already know, um, our topic today is Christianity, and Christians do make up a huge percentage of the world’s population, and they do attribute themselves to the God of Abraham, the one who we all claim to, to be attached to and and worship. So, I guess the first question that I, I want to ask you and go over with you is who is the God of Abraham? What is his nature? And who is he to you as an Orthodox Jew? And what does the Tanakh say about the God of Abraham? The God of Abraham is one, and that’s more important to you and I than most people really understand. He is not only the God of created everything; he is also the God of history. He’s involved in our lives.

When we say in Jewish thought that God is one, so that idea that God is one alone and there is no other, it’s repeated so often in the Hebrew scriptures that people sometimes wonder why is this emphasized so much? Why over—he’s one? There’s no one besides him. He’s alone. Like, and moreover, um, it’s intuitive that if a person, God forbid, believes in two gods or three gods or eight gods, it really doesn’t matter anymore. Once, God forbid, someone abandons the sacred absolute monotheism, then it doesn’t matter anymore. The question is why? Why is the one—is it just a math issue or is it something more?

So in, in Jewish thought there is nothing you or I have that God lacks. There’s nothing he needs. There—he did not create the world in order for us to satisfy him because there’s nothing that we have that he lacks. And therefore, if that is the case, then we know about his character, and that is that he is all merciful. He’s all kindliness, and he is all love because he didn’t need anything. So this world was created as a complete absolute act of altruism. So his character is uh bound to that—he is one alone. And therefore, if a person, God forbid, abandons the tawhed that is so precious to the Jew and the Muslim, if a person in any way is anything to God, you have then undermined his nature, not just a numerical nature. And then, and that’s why in a sense, uh, Christianity, uh, by adopting the doctrine of the trinity, so therefore God can’t forgive you, so it takes away from his ability to forgive.

So in Christian thought, is this—this is so—this is really so exquisite if people understand this. That’s why in Christian thought God can’t—the father can’t forgive you unless you believe that Jesus died for your sins. And we’re told—Paul says openly that there’s one God and one mediator between God and man. That’s the man Jesus Christ. Now Paul didn’t believe in the doctrine of the trinity. He never heard of it. It wasn’t invented yet. But it would—we can see in the Christian Bible—it’s heading in that direction. It’s moving in—it’s not a good situation. So therefore, and of course you’d have Catholics, which is the majority of Christians in the world by far, who add in more mediators—like you have to pray through Mary, venerate Mary and the saints. So all those inetweens are a disaster. Whereas in Judaism God is merciful—his name is mercy. That’s very critical. So that’s really our faith, the oneness of God, which means therefore that God must be all compassionate, all merciful and all love. And we can only hope to, to emulate him. We can never be as merciful or loving as God. That’s not possible. But we certainly seek. The Torah says, “Be holy because I’m holy.” We’re created in the image of God, whatever that means. And therefore we seek to emulate God in being merciful, compassionate, loving in our own lives. Right. Right. No, that’s that’s that’s fantastic.

So then what you’re saying is—what I’m understanding is the doctrine of the trinity—that is, there is, according to what they say, there’s absolutely one God, as they profess—that is one divine essence. Um, but there are three distinct persons. Uh, is this reading compatible with the Torah, the Tanakh, with the prophets at all? Um, is there anything that would suggest that there is a multiplicity of persons, whatever that means, um, in the God that the prophets worshiped, or is this reading of, of the text absolutely absurd and not compatible? What do you think? I wish absurd would be adequate. There is no greater um iniquity than to give—assign God a partner. You see, actually the doctrine of the trinity in Judaism is a partnership—called a shut in Hebrew or sherk in Arabic—is actually the worst type, the most grotesque, the most promiscuous iteration of idolatry. It’s much worse than what Hindus do in bowing down to an idol, a, a, a cow or whatever that—what they do. It’s much worse. And the reason is very intriguing. The reason why the doctrine of the trinity is, is so problematic is that Christians genuinely believe in God, and they genuinely believe in the true God. That means that Christians genuinely believe that the father is God, creator of us all. They, and they really believe that—the problem is that they add on to him a partner. They add on to him another person. Now be very careful because they use these, uh, unconventional words in order—as a fig leaf to hide the, the sin of the, of the doctrine of the trinity.

So they believe that Jesus is a—has a—this is very important—has a distinct person or a distinct hypostatic entity that the father does not possess. So the f—so whereas maybe people need to understand this—whereas the father, son and the holy spirit are all, uh, eternal, they’re one, they’re immutable, um, omniscient, omnipotent—all the properties that God shares—however, each of them possess a hyperstatic, distinct hypostatic entity that the, the others don’t possess—in that the father is the monarch, the son and the holy spirit is not the monarch—this is very important. The son, on the other hand, is the word. The father is not the word. The son is begotten. The father is not begotten. Which doesn’t make sense. And it is only the father that can spirate the holy spirit, which is the comforter. The, the—now in Roman Catholicism they hold that the father and the son spirated the holy spirit. They believe in the filioque, which to Orthodox Christians—that’s the second largest Christian denomination—is considered crazy. They actually—almost all Christian arguments are over what, what does this doctrine of the trinity mean? So that—so the doctrine of trinity is opposed by the Hebrew Bible—“You alone are Lord,” chapter 9, verse 6. Oh, it’s so beautiful because it, it means completely alone. It’s an adjective. The word alone in English is an adjective. There is, there is no one besides me. Ephesians. Look, if a Christian with an open heart—with an open heart—would read Isaiah 44:6, they—a person would repent immediately because that’s all they’re doing is they’re saying there’s nothing else. I share my glory with no one.

I will anticipate some things that will come up, and that is there is a odd convention in the Hebrew Bible, and this is odd. This is unconventional to us, but it’s very conventional in Tanakh, and it can mislead people—in that messengers of God, whether there—it’s an angel or a prophet—are called God in the Hebrew Bible because they represent God. In fact, in Jewish thought, the real reason why God created angels, which is an intriguing question, like why does he need an angel? Why do he—had—have—gi Hebrew? Why do you need him? Why do you need Mael? Why—you and I need helpers. We need to employ other people to help us in our work. But God doesn’t need helpers. He doesn’t need—what he need. So the re—the major purpose of an angel is to speak to people because for whatever reason they can’t hear the voice of God directly. Moses was able to speak to God directly. He’s very, very unique. So you have to be very, very careful with this cuz in the Hebrew Bible when angels speak they’re called God. When Moses speaks, he’s called God. When Isaiah speaks, he’s called God. When judges speak, they’re called God in Exodus 21 and 22. So, this gets people in trouble, and Christians, Trinitarian Christians, are able to marshall this. They’re able to weaponize this and create confusion. And this point has to be said from the outset. So, going back, the Trinity is a partnership. In Islam, um, it’s the only sin that’s unforgivable. Uh, in Judaism it’s the most grave form of idolatry because in recognition—to Christianity—Christians really believe in the true God, but they also worship Jesus; they also worship the Holy Spirit as a distinct person—not as a modalism where they’re just different modes of the same thing—that would be very—that would be really quite different. All right, well that’s exactly what I also think, however, ever. It’s—I’m, I’m glad that you touched upon the, the, the angel of the Lord, um, point because I think that’s very, very crucial. Christians always mention the angel of the Lord—not to show the trinity per se—but to show that at least there’s some mention of a multiplicity of, of divine beings or persons that are called by the name Yahweh.

So you mentioned how Moses is called Elohim, how even the angels are sometime called Elohim. They’re called gods because they speak on the behalf of God. And that’s, that’s absolutely correct. As a matter of fact, even Jesus seems to have a different interpretation of this in, in John chapter 10 where he says, “Doesn’t it say in your law that ye are God?” So here it’s not referring to the, the angels and to host of heaven. Rather, it’s referring to the judges of Israel. But whether—whatever interpretation is—that non-divine beings are called gods. Um, now they usually go to passages like, uh, in the book of Genesis where the Yahweh in heaven rain down, uh, sulfur on—from the Yahu—or whatever—the Yahweh on earth—and, uh, there’s also the mention in Exodus where—I will set—I will send my messenger before thee—and later on says be, uh, don’t, uh, don’t disobey him because my name is in him. So, do you want to go ahead and give us our inter—your interpretation of what, what exactly means for the messenger of Yahweh, um, um, or sorry, the, the, the divine name—because you guys don’t pronounce it—to have—my name is in him. What, what does that mean? What is the messenger of the Lord exactly?

You know, this is so striking. It’s striking because the Christian Bible, um, and not just any author, but probably the most elegant writer in the entire New Testament whose Greek, uh, literature is considered the finest, the most refined Greek that you find in the Christian Bible. The author is anonymous. The church came to believe Paul wrote the book of Hebrews. He didn’t. But the book of Hebrews is an attack on Judaism written about the year 64, which is critical, and it’s unlike Paul’s letters. Paul was a highly mercurial personality, which means he was very temperamental. He was all over the place. Hebrews is an argument against the Jewish faith and is highly systematic, very well organized. I mean, I don’t like it. It’s an attack on my religion, but it’s fine. But the key point is the book of Hebrews sets forth—it’s called the epistle to the to Hebrews, but it really isn’t a letter at all. That’s why I call the book of Hebrews—it’s a—whatever you want to call it. It’s not a letter. But the key point is the book of Hebrews begins by explaining why Jesus is not an angel. This is what’s mindboggling. The book of Hebrews opens up by saying, “I know in the past,” this is how it opens. “You know, you understood God’s ways through your prophets, but now we have a, a new way of understanding God.” All right? And that’s through Jesus Christ. That’s how it begins. It literally says we’re going in—this is a new ball game. And of course, this is going to end with the new covenant business, but we’re going to—the key point is the first chapter is the argument that the author of Hebrews makes is that Jesus is not an angel. That’s the whole argument. So, this is really, it’s really a very silly argument. And I wanted to—and I’m going to address these passages, but I want to, um, just—I know that you will agree with this, and I, I think the viewers would agree with it as well. If the Hebrew Bible anywhere said that God is, uh, one, but there are three persons in the Godhead, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, would they be using these angel verses? Well, the answer you know and I know is of course not; they wouldn’t waste their time with it. The reason they’re going to weaponize these passages because they have nothing. So therefore, when it says an angel of the Lord, say for instance in Exodus 23:21, “be very careful—pay very careful attention to him. He’s told by the angel—and listen to his voice. Do not rebel against him. Why?” And he therefore tells us in this passage that he will not forgive your sin, which is mind-blowing. So we are told—listen to his voice because he will not forgive your sins. The next verse—verse 22. So it literally—we’re told this in the text itself. So why would Christians make this argument? In Genesis 19, uh, we’re told that’s where Sodom is destroyed. Two angels depart—the other angel—and two angels come to Sodom to rescue Lot—rescue Lot and his family. It’s a very famous event that occurs. Now in—if someone reads Exodus 19, you’ll see that there—it is in—there’s an interchangeability between who is destroying Sodom. Are these angels going to destroy Sodom, or is it God is going to destroy Sodom? And in fact, you see in the text—moving verse 14, 13, 14—that the angels are saying they’re going to destroy Sodom. And in fact, when Lot is, um, on the run and he can’t take it anymore. He can’t—he can’t run as fast to get away. He says, you know, “Could you, you know, hold back on destroying? Could we stay in this cave so that we could, you know, cuz I can’t keep up with you.” So therefore, at the end of the passage, it says that there’s a fire of, of God from, uh, from heaven—of—from God, and it comes from heaven, but there is an unambiguous—there’s a semicolon there. And I’ll be frank, I understand completely why Christians who—I don’t know—don’t read Hebrew or don’t have a Bible that’s punctuated—pro. But there’s—I see guys who have PhDs in Hebrew who are Christians who say this. And look, if you have a PhD in Hebrew, you can’t be a good faith actor and say that. So therefore—because the ang—God is using the angels to destroy Sodom, Hashem the Almighty, blessed be his name—wants you to know that this is really from me, and they are nothing more than messengers. So that’s very clearly, uh, conveyed in scripture—you—Judges chapter 2—angels are very often called God. But be very careful—an angel we call God. I want to just—if I may—deal with John 10 because you raised it. Uh, this is also a mindblowing thing because you’re raising it. I wanted to sort of tap it all off. So Jesus, we are told, said that “I and the father are one.” The Jews pick up stones. You know—“Are you making yourself equal with God?” And Jesus responds—“Doesn’t it say in your law that you are gods?” This is referring to judges there in Psalm 82:6. It is very clear that the writers of the Christian Bible—now I don’t believe that story ever happened. I don’t believe—I don’t believe—I don’t believe any of it is historical. Um, but what’s very obvious is that in the book of John, which is the highest christology—so we’re going to steal man this—what Jesus means as far as John is concerned—that we are, uh, one in agency—in John 17:11—in the longest dialogue in the entire Christian Bible. It’s called the farewell discourse that extends from John 13 to John 17. What is that—like five chapters? Jesus prays, we are told, to God and asks him—this is right before the passion narrative—He asks him that the disciples should be one as we are one. This is very important—using that same Greek word hen. This is mind-blowing. That means he—if you have any doubt at all of what the fourth gospel means when it is said that—“before Abraham was I am. I and the father are one.” All these texts which are a high christology—or the prologue—the first 18 passages of John chapter 1—are bingo—there you have your answer—that we are of the same purpose and united in one agency, which the authors of New Testament believed—thoroughly believed—but they did not believe in the doctrine of the trinity—that is a later invention—John 17:3—“this is eternal life—that they may know you the only true God and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.” So it’s—what, what happens is the doc of the trinity is a later invention, and that does not mean that Paul didn’t think that Jesus was a, a god in the Greco-Roman sense. He was like in that tier, but they did not—the early Christians did not believe that Jesus was equal to the father, but rather they were of the same purpose. Later on, Ignatius—early church fathers—would already start saying that Jesus is absolutely God, and the doctrine of the trinity would slowly develop over time. Uh, uh, Tertullian would invent the word at the end of the second century—early third century—and then Christians would develop the ideas that we have—the trinity wasn’t invented at the council of Nicaea, but at the council of Nicaea, Constantine, uh, wanted this ironed out, and the fight took place between Alexander, the bishop of Alexandria, and Arius, a, a, a Christian thinker from the same region—from North Africa—and the doctrine trinity then was adopted as the orthodoxy of the church and reaffirmed in Constantinople in 381.

Right. Right. So then everything you said there was right on—was, was right on point. So then with respect to the trinity, you would confirm that the trinity has absolutely no place in the Abrahamic tradition, has no place in the prophets, in Tanakh, nor even the early Jesus movement. You would—you would then conf—Oh yeah. It doesn’t have a place. I, I, I think you’re being very charitable here. It is, it is an enemy of the faith of the God of Abraham. It is a, it is, it is promiscuous. It’s the most vile iteration of idolatry because, because Christians believe that the father is God. It makes it worse. Using the metaphor that the Bible does of adultery and forn—fornication. So fornication is a sin, right? Man, woman, they’re not married, they shouldn’t be together, right? But it’s clearly—adultery is much worse. It’s clear that if a woman sleeps with a, a, a man that’s not her husband and she’s married, that’s a thousand times worse. Right? So that’s what the trinity is. That means Christians are really—in respect to them—they really are married to the father. They believe in the father, but they—the father has a partner who is worthy of worship. This is the most group. That’s why it’s called a sherk or a shut. This is why it’s so, so grotesque because they truly believe in God, but they also add on to him the son and the holy spirit as distinct persons. Right. So, so actually that’s funny that you bring that up. The church is said to be the bride of Christ, but it’s also the bride of the father. So then the church has two grooms, and the church has two husbands. So that’s, that’s, that’s a great way to, to put it. But that, that’s fantastic. Agreed 100%. It’s shirk; it’s idol worship, and I’m glad we’re on the, on the same page there. Uh, before we move on to messianic prophecies and things like that, um, there is a group that, uh, was present around the same time of, uh, Jesus—maybe a little bit before—a little bit after—first, second century—called the two

Power in heaven group. It's a heresy. It's the Talmud, uh, speaks about it. There's some discussions there, rabbitic discussions. Um, texts like what was it? Second Enoch or third Enoch I think. Uh, discuss the Metatron as as the little Yah or the little divine name. Uh, so what what is explain to us what that is and how that stands um with respect to Orthodox Judaism today and the Judaism um in the in the first and second centuries? How how was that viewed and and what exactly was that movement?

You know, I'm happy to report that us Jews, unlike you Muslims, we have no idiots. And I'm happy to report that. I'm happy to report that we have no heretics, only everyone else does. No, that's really quite silly. Of course, as I first heads up, if you interviewed 500 Orthodox Jews, right? None of them would know what the heck you're talking about. They never heard such an idea. This is never a part of Judaism.

However, that said, of course, there was in the ancient world dualisms and it wasn't just first century BC. Although in the first century BC you have um neoplatonic ideas of dualism that is moving in. These are helenizoise ideas but these are alien ideas. That means they're not from Judaism. These are an attack on Judaism just like Christianity is an assault on the faith on the Jewish faith as it is on the Muslim faith. So these books of Enoch first of all not authentic. Enoch didn't write them. They're not considered part of scripture. They're they're nothing as far as they are as meaningful to a Jew as as a Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's court is to a Muslim. It's meaningless. They have they mean nothing to us.

Of course, at the time there was a Greco-Roman world that was filled with dualism. So the idea that there were multiple powers and it's easy to understand why people then believed in it and that is that in the ancient world people this world was full of suffering and misery and people died without eczema. You married a girl and three months later she was dead. They didn't know what breast cancer was. People death was ubiquitous and everything broke. Conversely, when you looked up at the sky, all you saw was perfection. The celestial world represented something. So, this world was a broken world from which everyone wanted to escape. In neoplatonic thinking, which precedes Christianity, this would have a deep influence on this. You call it two powers in heaven. It's just a guy decided to do a book on this. And if you want to do a dissertation, have it accepted. You know the guy who wrote the book the two powers in the heaven, he totally says I don't believe in it at all; he's just identifying a heresy that was out there that really has nothing to do with us but in the ancient world let's talk about narcissism not gnostic Christianity so gnostic Christianity emerges in the second century but the narcissism really emerges in the first 2nd century BC that's the idea that this world is utterly flawed utterly broken and was created by a a power a demiurge that was essentially a weaker, err, fear God not the one who created the heavens and that's why there's so much brokenness in the world and the idea was how do you escape this world you need a special knowledge special information and really that information was a grand mystery. Paul is going to ride this completely wants you to know that there is a grand mystery to salvation that only he knows knows about it. No one before him knew about this. Paul in Ephesians chapter 3 says that I have a revelation and no one else has access to this. See Ephesians 3 4 and 5. He's going to explain why the whole salvation program that Jesus is uh going to come twice and you believe in him. You'll die for your sins. The mystery of the crucifixion, resurrection is was unknown unlike the missionaries who say look at Isaiah 53 openly. It's there. Look at Daniel 9 openly. Paul saying this is a grand mystery. Nobody knew about this. And Paul in fact are and I beg you the viewer please don't be at your your home or watching on television on on screen please look up Ephesians chapter 3 3 4 5 he says in fact in 1 Corinthians chap 2 7 and 8 that this mystery that I'm making known to you if the leaders of the generation that crucified the Lord of glory if they would have known this they would have never even killed them. So this idea of a mystery cult or a mystery religion is something that Paul imports and others do and that's something that Christianity is going to ride this notion of a a dualism. Now Zorastianism and Zorashians hate when I say this but that's really an ancient dualism. So it's not none of these ideas are invented out of nowhere like Einstein comes up with his theories in 1905 that no one ever thought about. These are these are simply built on ideas that predate it. But no religious Jew knows what two powers in heaven is. That's utterly outside of anything that we believe in. Yeah. And as you if anything this doesn't support a trinitarian position. It would just be Benitarianism with subordinationism, right? So, it's still not in continuity and it's it's a it's a heretical sect that arose around that time and kind of died down quick. Certainly not a belief that was held by the prophets. So, that's that's good that um you uh shared with us what you think about that.

Uh, now, I want to move on to kind of messianic expectation. Okay. So um you have early Christianity and you know during the the life of Jesus you would expect that the Jews in in the first century expected a king to come and restore Israel and take them out of their Roman oppressions and be a king like the the Torah says or Tanakh and Torah say. So what was the uh messianic expectation at the time? And I know there was a little bit of a difference like the Essenes saw it a little bit differently. Um uh the Pharisees had a had a different idea. Uh and Josephus says that the Pharisees were the majority of people at the time. Uh so what was what's your take on early messianic expectation? Uh what is um the general consensus in Orthodox Judaism about who the Messiah is? What does he achieve? What is he to do? And what does Tanakh say um with with references please if you can and why the Christian idea the development of a suffering servant um we see this in in Paul's letters as a matter of fact he seems to think that he's a part of of that plan he he seems to use language about himself that's found in in the in the in the servant songs about how he was chosen from his mother's womb and how he's the servant to the Gentiles and he actually applies Isaiah 49 to himself interestingly. So what is your take on that? Who is the Messiah? And why does the Christian idea of a suffering Messiah who dies as a vicarious atonement as a last atonement as Hebrews says for the sins of the world? Um is this supported in any way by Tanakh or by uh early expectation?

We believe that the greatest people who ever lived were the prophets of blessed memory. Let's be very clear about that. They are our rabbis. That's it. Not um not folks at universities. It's what does our sacred literature say? So the prophets are not ambiguous about this. They're very clear about it. The passages describe to us a time when the world would change dramatically where certainly all the nations of the world will come to know about the one true God and God will be king. He'll be uh one and his name one. He will be king of the world. He will be king of the whole world. He will be one. His name will be one. Zechariah 14:9. And in fact, there will be a time not like today with wars all ravag all over the world. There are wars today, but in the messianic age because everyone will be of one accord. There'll only be one religion in the messianic age. And therefore, the nations will take their implements of war, swords and spears, and turn them into plowshares and pruning hooks. Nation will not lift up sword against nation. Neither will he learn of war anymore. I I beg you, the viewer, to see Isaiah chapter 2 uh verse 3 and 4. The Messiah himself, we are told, is going to rebuke the nations. He's a messenger. He's going to give to the peoples. He's going to judge between the nations. That's all it says. Doesn't say anything else. He could have put it in there. He's going to rise. There's nothing remotely resembling that. He's going to warn as a messenger to the world. He is of the Davidic dynasty. He's a great great grandson of King David a blessed memory fulfilling the promise of many passages in the Bible. 2 Samuel chapters uh 12 verse um chapter 7 12-6. Um it's a time when the lamb will lie together with a wolf. It doesn't mean that uh wolves or um lions will actually eat straw. They'll become herbivorous. This is the reference of the nations of the world. The in gathering of the exiles. See Isaiah 43:5 and 6. I mean this is very explicit stuff. This is very clear thing. This is not you don't have to read any. If you want to, anyone wants to just open up Isaiah 11. It was begins with Jesse who is the father of David of blessed memory. And it tells us that and it referring to referring to the Messiah. It tells us that he will in verse two, he will fear the Lord. He will fear God. And in Isaiah 11:3 begins that he will be filled with his whole spirit will be the fear of God. Now, if the Messiah is God, why would he fear God? Does God fear himself? Does God fear anything? Is God have suffer from multiple personality disorder that he's afraid of himself? It's so transparent. And I beg you, the viewer, to say to yourself, I know there are a lot of opinions out there, but I do believe that the scripture is the word of Hashem. And I want to look, if you're watching this show, you're not doing because you have nothing else to do with your life. There's plenty going on in the world. You're here because at the end, you really want to know what the truth is. So I just say, forget me. I'm not important. My gracious host is not important. What's really important like what does God think? That's really what's so if the Messiah is fears god then he can't possibly be God and then the in gathering the exiles the world peace that all the knowledge of God same chapter will cover the world as the water covers the sea a building of a temple a building of a temple in Jerusalem is explicitly in the Hebrew Bible and we are told that no one can die for anyone else's sins this is I mean look I know I'm speaking to people from all over the world. I know that. I know I'm speaking to people in North America. I'm speaking to people in the Middle East. I'm speaking to people in Europe. I know that. And I know that you have I presume that you have different views in terms of um criminal justice. You have different views. Some of you may consider consider yourself conservative. Some of you liberal. But I am sure, I'm certain I could say with confidence that it would break your heart if you lived in Holland, if you lived in England, if you lived in the United States to think that was there was a single innocent person that was sitting in a prison that was incarcerated. That would break your heart. We all want that the innocent should be exonerated and the guilty should be punished. Whatever that punishment is, whether you believe in capital punishment, you don't believe in it, that's not germane. What is germane is you want the guilty people to be convicted and you want the innocent people to be exonerated. And you do not want an innocent person to pay the price. And this is the language used in the New Testament. Jesus paid the price. Like I'm not strawmaning this. I'm still manning this. Jesus paid the price. Galatians 3. We don't want any any innocent person paying the price. God doesn't want such a thing. This is an abomination to Judaism and to Islam and the clearly I mean think this through. If you have this sense of justice and you have it because we believe you're created the image of God. Now I don't know exactly what that means but there's a divine spark in every person that God breathed in to a blessed memory. And we are aware of this. We're aware that chickens are not people and we're aware of this. So if you have that sense of mercy and justice, you do. And you have forgiven people in your life, don't you think God is at least his sense of justice is at least as strong as yours? His sense of mercy is as strong as yours. And does not God warn us not only in the Torah, but in the prophets that the the innocent cannot die for the sins of the wicked? Is it not my desire that the wicked person should repent that he might live and not die and his sins? Ezekiel 18:2-23. I mean, look, you know, I sometimes I don't get it. I really don't get it cuz Christians are not stupid that, you know, Jews and Muslims, we're not smarter than it's plain there. It's right in the text. The innocent cannot die. And if the wicked person would repent and turn away from his sins, you will surely live and not die. And your sins will not be remembered against you. I'm not anti-Christian. I'm just very pro Moses and Ezekiel. That's all. So it's so clear. It's so transparent and you always are using clear text to understand. So the Messiah doesn't die for anybody's sins.

Now there is a catch. There is a catch. It does happen however and this will tie into 83 which naturally I'm sure will come up that people for instance when people when someone god forbid dies you know or people are killed it does cause people to repent. This happens that means that when we see a tremendous calamity a person or it very often you know god forbid when you when a parent reaches 120 my father just passed away this year so you know it you know when that happened it was very shocking to me and it caused me to re-evaluate my relationship with God and to heighten it and that happens to all of us so he didn't die for my sins that I repented when my father passed away and I look forward to seeing him in the resurrection. He didn't die for my sins, but certainly when he died, it certainly caused me to repent. It triggered repentance in me. That is fine. But that he can't die knowing to die for my sins. So again, I'm forewarning this. I'm anticipating this question. People can die and trigger repentance for sure. Uh but God's mercy is the only method. And tzedakah, same word in Arabic and Hebrew, giving charity. We're openly told in the Hebrew Bible that giving charity atones for sin. Daniel a blessed memory tells us to Nebuchadnezzar in chapter 4 24 that you give charity, God will forgive your sins. Why it works if someone will ask? I'll explain it. But this is how this is now in the offerings is called a sacrifice in the English language. And that word sacrifice is a nightmare because it's christological. It's like the animal sacrificed his life for me. No, it the word in Hebrew is korban. It's actually a Hebrew word that comes up in the Christian Bible in different contexts entirely. Korban, right? Same in Arabic. Exactly. What does that mean? The root Arabic and Hebrew are both root languages with cousin languages. So they're very close. Korban really is the root to come close to take the physical and raise it to the spiritual. So for instance on our festivals right on our festivals what do we do? I remember in Indonesia we would have a lot of Muslims at our synagogue and at the end of the days of the fast they would have a a not just any meal they would have a fantastic meal and at the end of Ramadan there would be a big big meal. The Jews are the same way. On our festivals, we have all the best food, the finest food, and enjoy it. And what's all this food? Why aren't we like monks fasting all our lives and just eating I don't know what. So, the reason is that we want to always raise the physical into the spiritual. That's the key. We want to take the physical world and raise it into the spiritual. And that raises up us up higher. And that's so the word korban it's a tragedy that that word got translated sacrifice because sacrifice certainly doesn't only imply but conveys the christology and that's an unfortunate English word. There's a great English word atonement which really comes from the term at-one-ment becoming one with God which is really such a splendid word. Yeah. So yeah that that's so you actually touched upon what I was going to ask you.

So, um, when it comes to Isaiah 53, you spoke about that a little bit. Now, you always in your videos, you always emphasize a point that if you want to understand Isaiah 53, you must understand Isaiah 52 and specifically the previous chapters before because the servant is identified in in Isaiah 49 um and other in Isaiah 44. I think the servant is identified as Jacob or Israel. Okay. Now, uh admittedly, I do uh flirt with the idea that it it could be Jeremiah at the same time as Israel that there's an ideal um embodiment in found in Jeremiah because I do find some of that same length. It's not a popular opinion. I think some rabbis have have had that opinion. I think in 11th century there was a discussion. But so tell us what you think about who the servant is in Isaiah 53 and uh why you think that it is I I know you think it's Israel and why it's Israel and why it cannot be Jesus. And at the same time I want you to explain that sacrificial system. What is this system in Leviticus um regarding unintentional sins? Is it for only for unintentional sins? Is it for all sins? U how does one repent? Does is it really that there is no repentance without the shedding of blood or can somebody just ask God and repent? What is the sacrificial system? How is it used? When is it needed? Um and how does it connect the Christian idea or Christian understanding? Um and Isaiah 53.

All right. So let's take uh the first question. So it happens to be Isaiah 3 is talking about Jeremiah and it is speaking about um Rabbi Yaka and it is speaking about the Messiah and it's not speaking about Bernie Sanders and it's not speaking about Weinstein who was a movie producer of movie mogul in Hollywood. That means all the righteous remnant means is those who are loyal to God and serve God. That's all it means. It does not mean I'll get I'll get sued by him. It does not mean what I forgot his name whatever. Um it doesn't mean all these people who don't believe in God who are happen to be Jewish those people that's not the servants. So it's not that when the sages said let me give you an example now they don't talk that way. It's not the language of midrashic literature like Jeremiah the servant is Moses. It doesn't mean it's him and no one else or the Messiah. It's only Messiah and no one else. What the sages are saying is if you want an example of someone who suffered and his suffering triggered repentance among others, here are examples of them in the Messiah included. Now what missionaries do is they weaponize this literature because they can't prove it from the text as you mentioned. We'll examine that. And they say, "Aha, it must be my uh Jeremiah or it must be speaking about the Messiah only the Messiah." It means every faithful person. It means the righteous remnant of the children of Israel. It doesn't mean people who are working on Wall Street. It doesn't mean guys who are making movies, people who are lawyers for criminals in the all over the world. Many of them are Jewish. A disproportionate number of people who are producing the craziest movies, most disgusting movies in the world are Jews. We all know that why the Jews wind up in Hollywood because they weren't allowed into Harvard. So they went to Hollywood and made a fortune. It's not important. The key is that's not who we're thinking about. The now how do we know who the servant is? So this is very critical in Isaiah just one point. Isaiah contains 66 chapters. 90% actually about 92% of it is poetry. Only five out of the 66 chapters is using employing standard prose. The rest of it is all poetry. Why is this germane? Because if when you have poetic texts, you have to know the context. You really have to know the context or you won't know what's going on. So number one, you have to know who is speaking in Isaiah 53.

So this is so critical. This is what no one gets. And that's why everyone drops the ball on this. So when I use a term Isaiah 53, I'm really speaking on 15 verses. You go 15, but there's only 12. So it's really the last three verses of Isaiah 52. That's 13. All Christians agree on this, by the way. So it's 52:13-15 and then 53:1-2. But there is—we can—that's a propipe. But we could take that module of passages, and they should be broken into three parts.

Isaiah 52:13-15: God is speaking to the prophet. Now this is very important. Isaiah 53:1-8, the gentile kings of nations are speaking. They didn't speak this way in the past, but they will say this in the messianic age when they'll be bewildered by the suffering of the Banu Israel. And then Isaiah 53:9-12, God resumes speaking by making a deal with the servant with Israel and saying to him, "If you'll repent, if you'll do chuvo, so I'm going to give you children. You're going to have long life, and the desire of God will succeed in your hand." Okay, that's really what's going on. If you don't get that, you can close this show and really watch something else because you will not understand anything. You'll never understand this trap. We don't know just who's talking now. Who is the servant, which is mentioned twice in this 15-verse module?

We see it in the chapters that introduce it. Isaiah 41:8 and 9, very famous, and as a Muslim you know because Abraham there is called my friend. Something that's conveyed in Islamic literature as well. But Israel is God's servant. Again, it doesn't mean every Jew. There are many, many, many Jews who are involved in—I don't know what to do in banking and schmalking and hawking and flocking. This is not what it's talking about—not talking about whatever. I don't want to pick out people. We all know who they are. George Soros is not—talking about him. Okay. I hope he repents, but that's not talking about him. Isaiah 41:8 and 9. Look at 43 as an example. Verse 10: "of the you are my witnesses declares the Lord my servant whom I have chosen"—I mean it's obvious the servant is more than one person—these are the four servant songs—you mentioned it earlier—Isaiah 44:1 and in verse 21—now we continue—Isaiah 45:4 and in 48:20 and 49:3—the servant is explicitly identified as Israel as God's servant again—in fact, in Isaiah 49 is very intriguing that the servant is called to do two things. Number one, to restore all the other tribes of Jacob. Shift Yakov. So the Christian—I say that preemptively because—well, how could Israel save Israel? No, it means those who are loyal to God save those who are not loyal to God. And two, to be an or to be a light to the nations. So it's not all the Jews. They're not talking about—I don't want to stop with the New York Times. I'll wind up on the front page, but now I feel safe because the front page is so saturated with other things, they won't bother with me. It doesn't mean the—the family that owns that newspaper. It's talking about those who are servants who are loyal to God, a remnant who will in fact commit no iniquity. There'll be no sins found among them. See Zephaniah 3:12-16.

Just to conclude on this point, uh, a very common argument from the uh missionaries uh is that in Isaiah 49 the servant is identified as Jacob. So it says my servant Jacob. But it says that the servant of God that is Jacob will bring back Israel. And so the argument goes—well, how can the servant be Israel be Jacob if he's bringing back Jacob? And what you're saying is the servant is not just anybody who's who's who's a Jew, right? Rather, it's the righteous remnants bringing back all of Israel. Whether says it openly and now God says to his servant, what is he supposed to do? That he is—he is supposed to bring back—shift—the—the—the uh tribes of Jacob. Incidentally, why Jacob? Why is Jacob used? Jacob was one of the patriarchs. Why not Isaac? Well, because not all of Isaac's children made it in. Isaac—Isaac had a son, Esau. Esau, Asov, who was wicked, and God said, "I hated him." So, why is Jacob chosen? Why not Abraham, a blessed memory? The reason is because all 12 sons of Jacob, they were not perfect by any stretch of the imagination. But they made it in. And therefore, all those 12 tribes are the Ben Israel or Banu Israel in Arabic. And therefore, that's why it's using Jacob. Why doesn't it say Isaac? Why say Abraham? No, it's Jacob because it's specifically because all of his 12 children are blessed at the very end of the—the book of Genesis. So that's why I said the role of the servant is to bring back those Jews in Wall Street—to bring back those Jews in Hollywood. Now look, if you live in Hollywood and you're a servant of God, you're a great person to be in Hollywood—to be in that environment. But there are—I'm sure wonderful people in Hollywood. I'm not saying—I'm just saying generally speaking, it's not a place—a very spiritual place. So the role of the servant is to bring back those who are not loyal and who—and bring them back—the Jews and also the—the rest of the world to be an oral. This is such a simple matter. People—frankly—are—don't be angry—me—people—people don't read the book. They read passages out of context and not familiar with it, and they're completely lost. Right. Good. Yeah. That's—that's—that's perfect.

Now, um, I want you to explain to us, if you may, what is the sacrificial system? Now, I just want to say something to chat quick guys. At the end, for the last 15 minutes or so, we'll have um a little Q&A section. Again, only questions that are relevant to the topic, please. Nothing else will be accepted. So, don't even waste your super chat. Only questions relevant to the topic, please. Okay. Um, so yeah, I want you to explain for us what is a sacrificial system in Leviticus. Um, what are all the circumstances um where somebody has to sacrifice? Is it just a blood sacrifice, or is there another option for those who cannot afford um what is repentance—toba chuva as you call it—look like in Tanakh?

Right. So this is very beautiful. So as we discussed earlier, all of the offerings are to bring you close to God, and at times the offerings are used in the course of a sin, and I'll give you examples of them. There are few—the most noted sin that one could—because why—why would you bring an offering for a sin like—what—what—that—what did that ox do? It didn't do anything—like what's going on here. Okay, so the first and most famous is unintentional sins. That's Leviticus chapter 4. Now, Christians are under the apprehension. Why? Because they're bad? Because they're stupid? No. They're taught this in church every Sunday. Every Bible class, they're taught this. They're taught that without the shedding of blood, there's no atonement. Misquoting Leviticus 17:11 and really quoting Hebrews 9:22. It's a tragedy. So unintentional sins, which means that if it does not mean that a person trips over a mop and as he's falling down hits a thing that turns a fire on Sabbath—is forbidden. That's not an unintentional sin. That's just an accident. In all laws—in all laws—in Judaism, intent is required. There's no intent, then the person's not responsible at all. It means that a person didn't know the laws of Shabbat. So as example, didn't know what day of the week it was. So then you have to bring a—a—a sin offering, a katus. Incidentally, what Christians have to deal with is the Messiah himself; we're told explicitly in the Hebrew Bible, will bring a sin offering when he comes. See Ezekiel 45:20 and 22 for unintentional sins. And Christians cannot deal with this. They go crazy over this, and it's—it's impossible because the end of Ezekiel is about the messianic age. The whole—from Ezekiel—I'll just say from 34 to 48 is all messianic. So—and we have the third temple there. So the number one reason why a person would bring an offering when they sin unintentionally—it means that you had to be uh careless—is to make you more aware and to raise the physical into the spiritual realm. We've talked about this—is a central feature in the faith of scripture that we always are doing—using the physical world to raise it up to the uh spiritual world—two—and this goes to what you talked about—this is Leviticus 5 where you have a very interesting offering called the guilt offering—a carbon—what is that—this is very interesting—this is an offering where the person could have sinned intentionally—unintentionally—we—I have a whole list of them. The key is—I'll give you an example—and will steal me on this. A person steals. Person steals. I make $100. Steals it. He takes it—either public money or private money. And he's not caught. Most thieves, I'm sure—I'm not an expert in the crim—in—in criminal stuff, but I'm sure most people who steal don't get caught, right? So, let's say a guy steals and there's no witnesses. There's no evidence. They don't have evidence on him, right? And now he's home. He's got a stack of cash, right? And then in the middle of night, he feels really bad. What did I do? I did a terrible thing. But there—he—no one can indict him, let alone convict him. And what does he do the next day? He actually steps forward and says to the judges, "I did it. I'm the guy." Oh, really? So although his sin—in—at the get-go was—could have been intentional, unintentional, that's—could be either way. It doesn't matter. But because he confessed his sin, that weakens the amplitude of the original iniquity. And therefore, that person could bring this guilt offering. And as you alluded to, the guilt offering is called in Hebrew, which means it's based on what you can afford. Oil means up or down. So the person could afford a large livestock. It's good. If he can't, he can bring a bird. If he can't afford that, he can even bring grain. And there's no blood in there at all. But he's given—he obviously has to return the money. Well, whatever he stole, but he can bring an offering. Conversely, if someone stoles and they get caught—in Exodus—or explicitly, he has to pay double for what he stole. If he steals livestock, he has to pay four or five times what he stole. There's no sacrifice for that guy. And this is so delicious. This keys in directly into Isaiah 53 because it says about the servant. If the servant will make his soul a restitution, which means he'll do the—he'll admit his guilt. So then the blessings are given—that means that he'll have long life and children and God's purpose will succeed in his hand. It's literally in—it's a deal. So this doesn't make any sense if it's Jesus. I mean, according to the Christianity, Jesus never sinned. He's the son of God. And if I was the son of God born to a virgin, I'd never sin either. It doesn't even make sense. So what's key is notice that that word in Isaiah 53 is in ashram. That's why I spent a little time with it. And then you can have a situation where someone just feels very bad. I feel bad. No one's caught. No one knows the story. I did something. Person can bring a voluntary ola, a—a whole burnt offering.

And the other famous example, really famous. And Christians—Yam Kipur. And this is a nightmare. It's so sad. You know, this is where I was speaking to that former ex-Muslim. Uh, it's on YouTube. We were a—whatever. Yeah. Aia. Yeah. Yeah. Aia. You know, it's funny. So, where I live here in here, there are many, many, many Muslims, but there are no Shia Muslims here. None. I've—If there is one, he's hiding because I've never met him. And I know a lot—a lot of Muslims here. And all of them are Sunni here. And they all say that Shia is a complete—it's like what—what Mormons are to Christians. It's completely—to them—it's clearly idolatry. And many of them will say to me that what you Rabbi Singer believe—I believe—is closer than what Shia—now if you're a Shia and you're watching this—I don't—I don't mean anything—but I'm just saying to you that—but the key point is he brought up the Yom Kippur sacrifice, which is mind-blowing. So let me explain this offering. This is Leviticus 16:16. Easy to remember. 16:16. What happens if a person goes into the temple and defiles the sanctuary during the year—either knowingly or unknowingly? Now ordinarily if you go into the temple, you have to be in a state of purity. There—it depends on how you became impure. It's not a bad thing. You could have buried someone. You become impure. It's a—it's a good thing to bury someone, but a woman—at that time, whatever it is. So, but you're not allowed to go into a temple in that state. Let's say you did by accident. He didn't realize he walked over a cemetery, didn't know. It doesn't matter. So, that—in Jewish law, this is very important. Let's say a person goes past a bacon store. I remember in Jakarta—in Central Park, there was a store that sold bacon for the Christians who are in Indonesia. So, and it looked good. I don't know. I never tasted it. It looked interesting. It's disgusting because it's a pig, but I don't know. So, let's say a person goes in and—and God forbid—eats pork, right? It's a grave. It's a sin. It's a—not the worst sin, but it's a very grave sin. So the way to atone for it is to—um—is to confess your sin and to add—go ask God for mercy. But the way you fully complete the circle is the next time you pass by the bacon store and you go, I'm not going to do it. I repented. So then it's completed. Now we can go back to—to Leviticus 16:16. Let's say during the year a person committed a—a sin against the sanctuary. And please read it for yourself. A sin against the sanctuary—either intentionally or unintentionally. So then you—an offering was brought on your behalf which atoned—in a state of purity—because that's how you undid it. As it turns out, today we can't even commit that sin. Today we can't enter the temple in a state of impurity. Why? Because there is no temple. In fact, I could see the temple looking—I mean, I can see the temple mount looking out of my window. I assure you there's no temple there. The Jewish temple isn't there. There's al-Aqsa there, there's Dome of the Rock there, but there's no—the ancient temple of Solomon there. So therefore, you actually cannot transgress that sin today. It's not possible. And therefore, it just can't function anymore. That there are sins that only a woman can commit, a man can commit, right? There are sins a man can commit and a woman can't commit. That doesn't mean I haven't filled the law. You know, there are sins—is crazy. There are sins that only thieves could commit. There's a commandment to return what you stole. Doesn't mean you have to go and rob a bank in order to fulfill that commandment. So therefore, that commandment is for people who transgress the temple—which people question—Christian says—how—where is your goat—where is Yom Kippur—there can't be one because I can't even commit that sin and need an atonement for it—it's really very straightforward—but all the—what God calls upon us to is to confess—repent—turn back to him—and we believe through God's mercy alone that we are forgiven—and I—I just—a point is—no Jew would ever say, "I know that for sure that I'm saved and I'm going to heaven. I know for sure." We don't talk that way. It's considered arrogant. We trust in God's mercy. Just like when you get on a plane, no one—no—only an idiot would say—getting on a plane—"I know for sure I'm going to land safely." You could say it's the safest way to travel. That's fine. But everyone—no one says that. I feel confident that if—that God's mercy will bring about my forgiveness. Not talking Christians. It's not their fault. They're submitting—them—such sweet people. This is what they're taught in church—that they're going to go to heaven. For sure. For sure. We Jews don't talk that way—and I could say it. Muslims would never talk that way either.

That's right. That's right. Um, now, if—just—just for the understanding of the viewers, um, the Yom Kippur sacrifice is—is consisted of two. There's, I believe, a symbolic one where all the sins of Israel are placed on a—on an animal and he's led into the wilderness. Is that right? Yeah. But it's not a sacrifice—that we use the word sacrifice, which I don't like. It's set into the wilderness from where he came. That means it's—it's not killed. So, it's—it's a sacrifice. So, so what's—what's—what's interesting about that is that all the sins of the people are placed on an animal symbolically once a year, and that animal is not put to death. He's not actually sacrificed. He's just let go into the wilderness. And that symbolizes the sins of the people leaving their encampment. Okay. So, that's—I mean—I mean that's—that's fantastic. And then also there's other examples where—obviously—we—we don't believe in—in the story of—of David with Bathsheba—but it is in the book of Kings and—and Samuel—um—where uh David is supposedly commits a sin—and God sends the prophet Nathan—and God forgives him—no sacrifice—and he says in the book of Psalms—he says uh my sacrifice is a contrite heart—a broken spirit.

Okay. Psalm 51. Right. Right. And then Samuel says that God does not delight in the fat of these rams and these bulls—that he wants your heart. Jeremiah—in Jeremiah, what was it? Uh, chapter 7. Chapter 7. Yeah. He—he says the same thing. He says God wants your heart. Go and take these sacrifices and eat them yourselves. Right. And this is all over—actually, there's an interesting passage if you want to remind me where one of the prophets, was it Micah? One of the prophets where he says rhetorically—asking a rhetorical question—"Are you going to kill your firstborn?" Micah 6 through 8. There it is. And—and that's interesting because Christians literally believe that God killed his firstborn, right? His only begotten. And so God is saying, "Are you going to kill your firstborn as a sacrifice?" I'll say this to you as a Muslim. Um, I—I live among Muslims. I lived in the uh large country that was home to the largest Muslim population in the world. And like Jews, our practices are similar. It's not identical, but there's—the similarities are very, very striking. And we also have sort of rituals and traditions. And sometimes—like I know many of my Muslim friends, even the way their hands were held during prayer differed a little bit. And people could, you know, take these rituals too much where they think if they get the ritual wrong, like the whole thing doesn't count. And people get obsessed with the—I know people have these red strings around their wrists and all these things. People get uh become obsessed with rituals. Now the ritual has a tremendous value. No question. But people got so obsessed with it that—that becomes the whole thing. And that's of course very silly. And that happens in any religion. We don't have a monopoly. Muslim—every—people like to know that they can do this one thing and they're off the hook. And this was a big problem in the Hebrew Bible, which as you said perfectly—in Jeremiah, you said, you could scream—"Temple—the Lord—temple—Lord"—are they? God's not interested. When do they even tell you about sacrifices? Verse 21. This is a problem always facing the children of Israel. And that is that people place rituals over a broken heart and repentance. And this is not just a case for Jews. Is the case for Muslims where people become so obsessed with a ritual which has tremendous value—but that be—the whole ritual becomes everything—that's silly—so therefore the—this was a problem—this is a place where people—and to this day there are Jewish people who make the mistake that they think that this ritual—if they don't get it right—that like God's angry with them—and I get this—I get a lot of phone calls and emails like—"Am I going to go to hell?" No, you're—you're doing just fine—so this—therefore—is the issue—as—as an example, you don't have in the Hebrew Bible where the prophets warn the Jews not to eat pork. Why not? That means we're told you're not allowed to eat pork in the Torah, but you don't have a problem with Jeremiah because that wasn't our thing. And I remember in Indonesia, I had many, many Muslim friends, some of them very religious, some of them—

A little there, whatever it is, but they would never eat pork. That what they would never never do. And that forget about it. That they would never do. I knew Muslims. Some of them would say to you, I could be more religious and more committed just like you have Jews who could be more committed. But pork, that they would never do in a million years. So it's very clear in the prophets didn't waste their time talking about that. Why? Because everyone got that. This was a massive problem where people think that this ritual is going to save me. And Jeremiah, as you said perfectly, Jeremiah says, "Don't you're wasting your time with this stuff."

Right. Right. Exactly. So um that's that's it's perfect that that's clarified because a lot of the average Christian when you talk to them you tell them about repentance you tell them what God really desires and this is what our prophet peace be upon him Jesus reflected that also that he said that have you to the Pharisees have you understood these words that I require mercy not sacrifice quoting Hosea so we we see this idea all over and Christians don't seem to understand it's not their fault like you said they're just taught this nonsense at churches.

Now, uh just um couple last things before we move on to the uh question the Q&A. I know you uh don't have a lot of time here. Uh Christians first of all they they try to go to passages in in Tanakh especially in Isaiah and they say that look the God of heavens the God of Abraham he's going to be born as a son Isaiah 9:6 for unto us a child is born unto us a son is given his name will be wonderful counselor mighty God everlasting father uh prince of peace okay and so they say look uh you know he's called mighty god he's called uh everlasting father for father of eternity. How how could this be?

So, you know, um I I have my way of going about it and I think it's not a problem at all. Um I think there's a variant Septuagint reading. I know you you don't think that the Septuagint has any bearing. No, it does. I'm going to shock you right now. I'm going to shock you. I'm going to shock you. Do you know I'm going to shock all the viewers now who are waiting and listening. Do you know that this end that his name um this is the way it reads it's not a correct translation his name will be called wonderful advisor mighty God everlasting father prince of peace do you know that that is not in the Septuagint? No, I know it. It says messenger of great counsel that's it and and and I say this to the viewer you know many viewers the reason this is very interesting is this is where Christians are playing a game you know the Septuagint is more reliable than Masoretic text you hear 5,000 times you want to jump out the window you'll throw throw up. You hear it so much. So stupid. How could a translation be better than the original? But they're not consistent. They pick and choose. And I, those of you who don't read Greek, please, you can go to what's called the LXE. The LXE is the English translation of the Septuagint. It's online. Please look it up for yourself.

Can you just tell them what the Septuagint is? There's a lot of Oh, sure. Of course. So, sure. In about 250 BCE, 250 B.C.E., the um a translation of the five books of Moses was created for the Alexandrian library by 72 learned men but there was only the five books of Moses that translation does not exist any longer means it doesn't survive the Alexandrian library was destroyed many times over now what happened subsequently because of basically Alexander the Great the most important influential figure in western civilization the Greek language spread So therefore it became a cottage industry to translate the Hebrew Bible into the Greek language. This was done before the advent of Christianity and after the advent of Christianity and became a cottage industry. Jerome in his introduction to the book of Chronos says that there are so many different Septuagints going around. I'm not going to rely on it all when using the Vulgate creating the Vulgate the Latin translation. Jerome lived not far from where I do. He lived he he lived and died in Bethlehem. He came here to produce his uh his Latin translation. So what h what what what is very critical is that subsequently many Greek translations are created. Now here's the nightmare in that every subsequent Greek translation that is created is called a Septuagint even though it's not that original Septuagint. The original Septuagint is only the five books of Moses doesn't include Isaiah doesn't include Psalms and it doesn't exist any longer. The final person that will assess or compose or be responsible for what we have as a Septuagint was a very bright man. He was a Christian theologian Origen and he was only one of two church fathers who was completely conversant in both Greek and Hebrew. Origen was a true genius. He creates a hexapla in any case he's the one that finally edits the Septuagint. That's why the Septuagints today also include the Apocrypha which Protestants don't believe includes the deuterocanonical text that Protestants don't believe in and it has like a book like the wisdom of Solomon which is a pseudepigrapha which was originally written in Greek. Why do you need to translate a book that's already written in Greek? So it's all very silly. But what's critical is that Christians will produce a books and they'll call the Septuagint. It's just a Greek translation. And then they'll say, "Aha, this is the original translation that precedes Christianity by 250 years and shows that the learned rabbis 2 and a half centuries before Jesus, they also believe that it says in Isaiah 7:14 that the Messiah be born of a virgin." So that's very very critical. But today's Septuagint is a mess. And as I said, this is an instance very striking. And I expect you the viewer, please go to LXE translation online. It's free and the Septuagint is translating into English and you can see it's not there. So if you think the Septuagint is better than the Masoretic text, you have big problems.

Moreover, it's so what what's happening in Isaiah 9 is the text is all in the past tense. It's about Hezekiah. Hezekiah was a Davidic king. He was a Zadokite. He was a very righteous man. And most importantly in the 14th year of his reign, the Assyrian Empire after having destroyed the northern kingdom of Israel in three waves where the people walked in darkness, he finally comes to Jerusalem. He has destroyed more than 40 cities in the south including Lachish. And now Jerusalem is completely surrounded. Read about it in 2 Kings 18-19, Isaiah 36 and 37. There's many times. And what happens is Hezekiah out of nowhere inspires a nation to turn to God. Now as a result of that the Assyrian Empire, the Assyrian uh army is destroyed. 185,000 are killed. And in the past tense, the nation is speaking about a child. A child was given to us. A son was born to us. Now why does it say it that way? Because I said to you, Hezekiah came out of nowhere. You listen, what do you mean he came out of nowhere? I thought he was in the house of David. Well, he was, but his father was a very wicked king named Ahaz. Very Ahaz, right? So, he came like his father was I don't know Weinstein. His father was such a wicked guy was like the worst Jew ever. And from this wicked, wicked king who reigned for 16 years comes this great king out of nowhere. And it's all in the past tense where the nation explodes in euphoric uh excitements and saying and the the government was placed on his shoulder and his name it says and his name was called wonderful advisor and read Isaiah 36-37 he gives advice and nation now there's one other point here and that is his names are names of divinity but most Jewish names are that Hezekiah means the mighty God. My name is Tovia, which means the goodness of God. This is very common among Jews that Jewish names are contain a a God's name and a description of God. Doesn't mean he's those things. The NIV takes out will be called it really properly translated properly translated is that the wonderful advisor the mighty the everlasting the the mighty God the everlasting father called his name the prince of peace. It's a little complicated in the grammar. It could be read both ways. The second way I just described to you is the better way the superior way to say it. But it doesn't say his name shall be called, shim means his name was called. The Vav in the beginning is it's in the past tense. What do all the Christians do with all these verbs? What do they do with them? They make them into the future tense. And therefore, these poor Christians read Isaiah 9 uh verse 6 or verse 5, depending on what kind of Bible you use. And they think it's a future prophecy.

Moreover, Christians have to ask themselves the question if it really we have a description of a divine Messiah in Isaiah 9 verse 5 and 6 or 6 and 7 again depending on how which Bible you use. Why does the New Testament quote it and it doesn't it means really the New Testament didn't think that was important enough to mention? It's not in there. This is a later invention of the church. One other catch to Isaiah 9 is of course the following passage is that God rescues a Davidic dynasty. So we say ultimately it's a blessing forever more. So that's what's going on there. But the verbs are changed and in English once you translate it you and I both know because you cherish the Quran and you know that it's very important. Every Muslim I know knows it's very important to read it in its original language. Right? So we know that when you translate especially you translate Arabic into English they're not even related. So there is for instance a Hebrew translation of the Quran it's very much easier to do because Hebrew and and Arabic are the same family Semitic languages. So of course we all know that it's a tragedy when sacred scripture is written into English because English is not even related to Hebrew. It's a different It's not that it's not related, it's a different word. It's the whole way it's structured. Uh the missing words in Hebrew that only imply the Anyways, in any case, um so therefore, when you go from English from Hebrew to English, it's a nightmare and it gets worse when you're corrupting the text. Then you have no chance. So, the problem with the King James and the New American Standard and so on is they not only uh it's a translation, but it's a a deliberately promiscuous translation. That's a nightmare.

Right. Right. Now, um I definitely that's that's fantastic that you say that. Um I look at it in a in a little bit of a different way. In Psalm 45, the king of Israel, whoever it is, some say Solomon, some say others. In Psalm uh 45 uh the king, there's a wedding song and and he's called God. He's called Elohim, right? Um and this is misquoted by the other Hebrews. But I I think for the king to to actually be called Gabbor, I don't think that's um a statement of divinity uh at all. I think it's just like Moses called Elohim, the king of Israel. I mean, according to Psalm Isa Apollo is interrupting you. Isaiah is called the tetragrammaton in Isaiah 7 right Isaiah 7 verse 10 y Isaiah is speak I mean look the problem I know my dear brothers and sisters who are watching this I know to you this is outrageous and by the way I'm making a fantastic claim and you should demand fantastic evidence okay these are not inferences this very clear I mean literally in Isaiah Isaiah is speaking to is a very wicked king. Ahaz in no way can receive prophecy. No way in the world. He was very he was the worst of the worst. So Isaiah Speed said that God and the name of God is Yud Heh Vav Heh. See uh Judges chapter 2 right from the get-go. We're told explicitly that it's an angel of the Lord. And then he says, "I took you out of Egypt." The angel didn't take him out of Egypt. So yet yeah this is one thing that people who are unfortunately are worshiping idolatry they will marshal these kinds of passages in the academic world this is another point that's of interest the academic world cannot accept the secular academic world cannot accept the idea that the Jews were always monotheists because monotheism in the ancient world made no sense and it was at the ancient world Judaism was the only show in town was the only mono monotheism, but it's monotheism was counterintuitive because in the ancient world, why would you think there's one god? The world seemed just crazy. So therefore, they're always in the secular academic world, there's two powers in heaven. They're always looking for these kinds of passages and Christians use these secular academics in order to show that this is a relic of the pagan ancestry of the Jews, which is totally dishonest. It's really a dishonest approach because they're taking an idea that monotheism is a later iteration and it's not original and then they use these they weaponize they marshal these sort of ambiguous passages in order to convey that. Of course, it's utterly untrue.

Absolutely. I I agree with you there 100%. But yeah, actually about the point you just mentioned about um the angel of the Lord saying, "I took you out of uh Egypt." U the same thing uh is said about Moses that Moses took them out of Egypt. But then here if there's no divine agency then I guess you could say that Moses himself is the is is the God of heavens and and that's obviously idolatry. Also in in Exodus I believe in Exodus 7. Yes. Verse one. Mo Aaron is um or God is saying I'm going to take my hand and I'm going to strike with the stick in my hand the water and and X Y and Z is going to happen. And then Aaron does it. I mean, are we to say that Aaron is is is the tetragrammaton? He's he's the God of Israel. He's speaking to Moses. I mean, it's ridiculous. So, and that's actually the same thing that Christians do with the u the beginning of Mark uh where um you know that the author mixes two passages from Isaiah and Malachi and he says, "Prepare the way for the Lord." Oh, Jesus is the Lord. Jesus is the tetragrammaton. Well, that that's just divine agency. So, uh you're absolutely on point there.

With your permission, if I may, I want to say something that's very important because I want to, if I may, one minute and I I think you'll find this very valuable because we're in the middle of apologetics where Jews, Christians, Muslims are all fighting. So, let's find I would like to find a point of agreement that I think Christians would say, you know what, this makes sense. Okay? and a a way of examining a scientific way an objective a rigorous methodology that means if we have all these odd passages in the Bible that's not exactly clear we can concede that Christians will concede these are not clear so how do we know like we all want to do the right thing or what are we doing here so there's a very there's a a fundamental rigorous method of hermeneutics that everyone would agree is correct and listen very carefully Okay, there in holy books there are very clear passages that are unambiguous that they're just they cannot be interpreted any other way. Okay, the majority of our literature is like that. Don't eat pig means if you know what don't means and know what to eat means and know what a pig is. Don't eat it. Leviticus 11. You know I God alone he alone is Lord. It's very Now I we all concede we all concede that there are passages in our sacred canonical literature that are ambiguous. This could be said of the Quran. I've read the Quran more than a few times. I could tell you right hand that I didn't understand at least half of it. It's not so simple. Tanakh is there are many passages that are highly ambiguous and it's not clear exactly what's meant there. Okay. What I would like to present you is the following. The method, the most rigorous methodology we use is we take clear passages, passages that are in the light and we use those passages as a tool to understand passages that are in the dark that are that are ambiguous that are not clear and always always because I we all concede we're all on the same page here. I think all of us who are believers in God, we all know that there are very clear passages in scripture and there are passages that are a little vague and open to interpret. There are there's a lot of poetry going on. The Torah is not a lot of poetry, but there are some well, how do you interpret them? What what is the device? That's rigorous, right? you if you don't if by the way if you don't agree with what I've just shared with you this is the most fundamental rule the most rigorous rule to understand like what does God want then we're just not operating in the same orbit and we operate on a in a different universe conversely this is how cults are created how are they cults what are they doing what is a cult really doing what they're doing is they're taking ambiguous verses and using that as a tool to reinterpret clear verses. You understand? That's how you create heresies. This is true no matter what. Heresies always emerge from this sin. And that is you take an ambiguous passage and use that to reinterpret passage are very clear. Uh then you're going to find yourself in a cult. So if if you believe that that is the most rigorous method of hermeneutics, which I I know you must, it's so transparent, then please apply it here. That means we are examining Christians are raising valuable points. They are ra but you have to use the clear passages to understand the passages that are unclear. Although we have together teased this uh together and shown that they really it really isn't difficult to to understand.

Okay. Exactly. Yeah. So let's just finish off uh quickly here. I have one more thing to to speak about here quick. Uh Christians believe and I know that you find this uh an abomination. I I know you find it absurd and ridiculous. And so do I. Uh why? Because the Torah speaks against it and the Quran speaks against it. U the Christians believe that every Sunday they go and they eat God and drink his blood. That there is a dying rising savior mythical man God who told them to eat his flesh and drink his blood. Now admittedly Protestants do think this is symbolic. Um but this is not the this is not the earlier attested to belief. Rather Irenaeus and early fathers Ignatius and they would actually and even Paul himself in the letters would they actually seem to be saying that they they are eating the they are partaking in God and and drinking his blood. So what are your takes on that quickly and what is that what is that an offense to the Torah? What is what's the what's the view here from an from an orthodox Jewish rabbi? So this is I mean this is expressed expressed explicitly in all the gospels and as you mentioned it's in the letters of Paul meaning you find this in in in 1 Corinthians as well uh 1 Corinthians 11. um the the idea and that's the key because I know Christians well I'm not Roman Catholic and only Roman Catholics believe in transubstantiation right and you know and the diff there are a number of differences in the Orthodox and the Roman Catholic one of them the Orthodox don't believe in transubstantiation but they believe in a very high presence in the Eucharist as do Anglicans Lutheran also hold of a higher presence Calvinists which is very influential in Protestant thinking believe it's completely symbolic. It doesn't matter. It doesn't matter. What does matter is this idea is a ritual cannibalism that you find in John chapter 6 verse 54 55 56 where he says uh whoever uh feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life. That idea is completely alien to the Hebrew Bible is opposed by the Jewish scripture. So it doesn't matter if you go to a non-denomination little church or a Baptist church or a son of God church where they think it's only representation a Lutheran church a little bit higher orthodox church higher and it doesn't matter the I the question Christianity must be measured its truthfulness or the opposite has to be measured by the Hebrew Bible and the church admits this in fact in 2 Timothy 3:16 everything has to be based on scripture when 2 Timothy 3:16 was written there was no New Testament. So it has to be the Hebrew Bible and that's how you measure the idea you eat the body and drink the flesh figuratively literally that is tells you that you are now I'm going to tell you something interesting so in Indonesia there are islands in Indonesia where there are cannibals to this day especially on the

Island of Papa, which geographically is the largest island in Indonesia. It's an island that's shared by two countries: Papa New Guinea on the east, uh, Papa Indonesian in Indonesia. It's—I don't know how big it is, but giant—it's a gigantic island, but there are cannibals there to this day. To this day, they're in the mountains. Now, it's vital for you to know that cannibalism, as practiced throughout the world, is almost never practiced for nutritional reasons. People do not practice cannibalism because they prefer the taste of human flesh—and it's grotesque—or they're doing it because they can get vitamin B from human—disgusting. Cannibalism is practiced for the reason of: when you consume someone's flesh or drink that person's blood, you gain the powers of that individual. That's what's key. So you—evidence—even though to every thinking person cannibalism sounds grotesque and vulgar and disgusting, I'm here to sell you on the idea that there actually is a thinking going on. And we find that in the Christian Bible, not just in the Eucharist, but we also find it in in the book of John. At the end of the book of John, what does Jesus do? Unlike the book of Acts where they're sitting around, you know, at Pentecost, in John, on the first Easter Sunday, Jesus breathes on the disciples; they inhale it and they gain the powers of Jesus because they inhale the breath of Jesus. And they—Jesus then says, "Now you can go and forgive sin. Now you can perform miracles." Which is insane because we're told by Christians that Jesus could forgive sin means he's God. Well, the disciples are able to now forgive sins according to the New Testament, which is mind-blowing. But all of this reeks of ritual cannibalism, which I don't mean that to offend, but the idea of ritual cannibalism always is that if I eat, if I consume the body and blood of the gods or my whoever it is, I gain their powers. And that's what's conveyed in the Eucharist, whether you find it in the synoptic gospels, in Paul's letter to Corinth, or in the book of John.

My question—uh, it's—it's personal to me. I think it's—um—I've been discussing it—um—past couple days I've actually discussed it with somebody who's Jewish. Um, I find it interesting that in the Torah, in uh, in Genesis 17, um, there's a blessing when the covenants are given; there's a blessing given to uh, Ishmael, and that's in response of—of—of Abraham asking, "Oh, that Ishmael may live before your face, that Ishmael may be righteous." And so God responds, right? And in verse 20, he responds and he says, um, that yes, basically that Ishmael will be a great nation. He'll be—he'll be blessed. He'll be fruitful. And so I've read some Jewish commentaries and they say that this is—like—this is prophesying on the coming of Islam. The question is: when did Ishmael become a great nation according to you? Do you agree with these commentaries? Do you not? You know, it's more than that. Um, no, it's more than that. Yeshile and I gave a lecture on this in the Philippines. Yes, Ishmael is very striking. Now, of course, we know that of the nations in the Torah, there are only two—they only two survive, and that's the Ben Yeshu and the Ben Israel, the children of Yeshua. Now, Islam is not—Muslims are not all Arabs. In fact, the—the vast majority of Muslims are not Arabs. There are more Muslims in the subsahara than there are Arabs in the world. But the Islamic religion emerged from an Arab crucible and culture. After all, Muhammad was in Arabia. The Quran, which all Muslims consider to be the word of God, is written in Arabic. So, of course, it emerges from that. The key—what is very—now in Genesis 17, we have the blessings for both Isaac and Yesh contained in those marvelous passages—really very striking. But really, there's really quite a—a remarkable thing about Yeshua. So Yeshua, his descendants ultimately went off the path, and they went into a—a path unfortunately of foolishness. They went into a path where they did not go in the way of their ancestor but rather went into idolatry. So it was so horrible that Mecca was a place where the Kabba was—was a place where hundreds of gods were worshiped, and these were Arabs. It was a great tragedy. They were building houses and putting their babies underneath the house post—the—in—in where the Kabba is—they probably worshiped at least 365 gods if uh, our records are accurate. So therefore, in—in Islamic uh, view, they have the same tradition that many of—not all, but many of the descendants of Ishmael went off the derek, went off the proper din, and they went into a state of—I don't call it stupidity, but of one of lack of knowledge, but ultimately to do that and then come back to recognize one true God—that's unbelievable—that really is very striking. You know, I'm very proud to be a Jew, and Muslims and Jews are not identical. We're not going to fool ourselves. However, we—there is a deep respect between Jews and Muslim because on the mo—very fundamental—most critical thing, there is a—a family sharing—a cousin sharing—and we worship one true God—the same God—and we know that God works out of mercy to forgive us—not vicarious atonement—all this other nonsense—now—but as it turns out, there's so much to say about what happened to the descendants of Yeshua, whereas the Ben Israel, they always were very religious—we'll call them Jews—Al Yehood, we call them Ben, whatever you want to call them. But the descendants of Jacob continued where there was always a line of deeply religious Jews that would—that served God—that placed themselves in service to God. And they were straight. But that did not happen in—for the Ben Ishmael. And for the children of Yeshua to come in the seventh century and turn back to one true God, that's mind-blowing. That's greatness. That is a marvel. Now, there were many Jews in Arabia at the time. But as it turns out, for that to happen, in my view, is a marvel. You know, it's one thing I say to—I know you agree with me. If you come from a very religious family and you're religious, so all right, but you know, you come from a totally irreligious family, a family, god forbid, that are atheists or worship idols, and you give it up for one god and you serve him alone and you uh, you—you bow to him alone, that's a much greater person. So I think what happened to the children of Yeshua is really a remarkable thing. And in Jewish tradition, the children of Yeshua will join the children of Israel in of one accord. And we look forward to this grand moment quickly in our time. Fantastic. Thank you. So then the greatness of Genesis 17 is fulfilled through the coming of the Israelites back to the true God in the seventh century. Fantastic. All right. Well, thank you so much. Um, and also you—you did confirm for us—and the Christians always say this—that we worship the same God—and Christians, however, worship a different God. So I think—I think that was—so I want to actually say something that—and I—we began with this—this evening—which is a little counterintuitive. So, you know, I say this out of love. You know, it—it is because Christians worship God the Father, who really is God. I mean, he really is God. What breaks my heart is that they put Jesus in as well as a God as well, who's a distinct person worthy of worship—veneration. So I—I—so of course, in a simple way—in a very simple—I'd say that uh, Jews and Muslims worship the same God and Christians don't. That's true on—on the fundamental level. Absolutely. But I would say the grand tragedy—now I hope all my Christian friends—I—I know I've offended some of you, and if I did, I really am sorry. But the grand tragedy of the doctrine of the trinity, which is a later Christian accretion, is that it took the true god—not the monkey god of Hinduism—but the true god—the father of us all—and then added in the son as a distinct person and the holy spirit as a separate and distinct person that has unique attributes that the father doesn't possess. So I would say on a deeper level, the reason why I pour my heart out to Christians on such a fundamental level is because they do worship the father. So if you worship the father—ah—it means you have—you have a husband—Hashem—Isaiah 54. So why would you introduce any element into your—I'm using the word marriage because the Bible says it's okay. So—into the marital—the intimate marital chamber of God. Why would you let us something else in? Don't do that. That's—so I want to introduce—coming at this in a different direction—that is the—the trinity is the tragedy. Um, because it introduces somebody else in the bedroom who doesn't belong there. It's only for husband and wife, right? And obviously, we don't use the symbolism of marriage and husband, but I get your point that that's a symbolism. Yeah. I would never do it either, but it's in—in the—in the Bible. It—it just means a bond. That's all it means. And idolatry is used as adultery and it could be used. Right. Right. Idol. So idolatry is referred to as adultery in Islamic literature. So you know the—so it really is because it's breaking the most sacred bond. So—not—god forbid—right—a covenant—a husband and wife—what greater. So there—of course God is not a man or not women. It doesn't mean that, but it means what could be a more sacred bond than a marital bond. And therefore, breaking that is destroying everything. That's the point. If you enjoyed this program, please like and subscribe. [Music] [Applause] [Music]