Tovia Singer Responds to Ben Shapiro and Dr. W. Craig on the Topic of the Messiah - FULL SHOW - 2079

[Music] Welcome to the Dunk Talk. I'm your host, William Hall. Broadcasting. Broadcasting. I'm broadcasting, broadcasting live out of King's of Texas, USA, with another episode of Rabbi Toby Singers. Let's get biblical Q&A, volumes one and two. Volume three, four coming to you at a theater near you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Let me get this back over here, and we are good to go. Welcome back, Rabbi. Good to see you as always.

>> Hey, great to be here. You know what's interesting is that the books are coming out in Hebrew very shortly. So, there actually is going to be three and four. Volume one and two are coming out in Hebrew in the next, uh, couple of weeks. So, that's exciting.

>> That's awesome. You know, just a real quick question. Um, so, in Israel, I know you stay busy there in Israel. I mean, do you find that, uh, a lot of people in Israel, like a majority of people, are being affected by Christian missionaries, or is it just like certain, certain handfuls?

>> So, in Israel, in a way, it's worse than the United States. It's counterintuitive. So, in America, it's very unlikely, or in Europe, it would be extremely unlikely for a synagogue in London or Manchester to have anything to do with the church or Christians. There would be just no interaction at all. In Israel, the problem of missionaries and their ability to infiltrate the Jewish community is heightened exponentially. And the reason for that is that in Israel, uh, Christians are working with the government or with Jewish organizations, and every, it's a whole thing. So, actually, what goes on in Israel would never go on anywhere else. So, therefore, uh, Israelis are, I want to say, very aware, but it's in their face all the time. Much, much more so if you were going to a synagogue in LA or Chicago, we'd have absolutely nothing to do with the evangelicals. Especially if you talk about the largest cities in the United States, that means New York, LA, Chicago, Miami is an example. Those, that's not really the Bible Belt. None of those are. So, um, in fact, all those are, except for one, they're all blue states. So, yeah.

>> So, do you think that, do you think that the Christians are not living up to their word? Because, you know, Paul said, "To the Jew first, and then to the Greek." Uh, and I mean that more in the states than anything else, because it's like I've been to a couple of synagogues, and I've never heard anything about Christians coming to missionize in in local synagogues like in the states. But is that, is that a thing?

>> Yeah. You can't, a missionary can't just walk into a, I mean, they physically can walk in now. There's a lot of infiltration going on. This is not like it has, this is like hermetically sealed in the boundary. I mean, there's nothing stopping a missionary from attending a synagogue in Dallas.

>> But there's, there are not going to be events or projects where they're working together. Now, what I just said is not true. There are actually all kinds of projects, especially to support Israel. A night to bless Israel. There are all kinds of projects when it comes to Israel where there is working together. Of course, that happens. But in Israel, they're everywhere, and they're, they're everywhere, and the government loves them because it perceives them, you know, as, you know, Canada, um, England, New Zealand, Australia, they're all lining up, you know, the whole EU is all lining up to, you know, to attack Israel. The evangelical Christians are staunchly pro-Israel. So, and Israelis are very, very aware of this, especially at a time like this.

>> Right. That makes sense. Okay. Well, let's get the show moving. And thanks for answering my curiosity there. All right, let's get on, get on with this first.

>> So, let me, let me introduce this.

>> Yeah, let me, let me introduce this. What would I do without this? This is very interesting.

>> Without me, forget about it. So, as it turns out, in my view, the, um, the, the, the best, um, Christian apologist in the English-speaking world is William Lane Craig, and many view him as the most articulate spokesperson for evangelical Christians. He was a professor, I don't know if he is still. He's a professor at HBU where I debated Craig Evans. Um, so he's like a very smart guy, and he and I debated on Christian television. The key is he, uh, is interviewed on the Daily Wire. Ben Shapiro interviews William Lane Craig, and their conversation is, is Jesus the Messiah? Now, Ben Shapiro is an Orthodox Jew. William Lane Craig is not. So, the way Lane Craig is going to try to make the case to Ben Shapiro of why Jesus is the Messiah, and let's watch what he has to say.

>> All right, let's do that. Here we go.

>> So, what are, what are, what is the proof that Jesus was who he says he is in, in the gospel?

>> Well, first, we need to establish who he thought he was. When you look at the religio-historical context, uh, of the life and ministry of Jesus, I think you can show that among the historically authentic words of Jesus were claims that he thought he was the Jewish Messiah, that he believed himself to be the son of God in a unique sense that set him apart from Jewish kings and prophets. And finally, that he thought that he was the Son of Man predicted by the prophet Daniel, to whom God would give all dominion, power, and authority. So, he had this radical self-understanding of being Messiah, Son of God, and the Son of Man. And at the trial scene before the Sanhedrin in Mark 15, all three of these titles come to a head when the high priest asks him, "Are you the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed One, that is the Son of God?" And Jesus says, "I am." And then, virtually quoting from Daniel, "And you will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven and seated at the right hand of the Power."

>> All right, there you go. Take it away.

>> Yeah. So, what's intriguing is Ben asked him an excellent question, like, what is the proof that Jesus is the Messiah? And what you heard is the best attempt a Christian apologist can make, and that is, well, Jesus saw himself as being the Son of God in a unique and special way. And of course, what we're doing is we're engaging in, well, circular reasoning. You know, if we a priori believe that the Christian Bible is a, um, a dependable book and we could trust and believe in it, then of course you're going to be a Christian. Just like if you believed a priori that the Book of Mormon accurately recalls and and and records for us, you know, the events in Joseph Smith's life and the odd history, uh, that is that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints views, the, the Native Americans and all the rest of that. Of course, you're already going to be a Mormon. The question Ben is asking him, it's a very important question, is how does this in any way, how does this collaborate? How is this consistent with the Jewish Bible? Christians have to answer the question, the Jewish Bible tells us that the Messiah is going to be an heir to the Davidic throne and bring about the ingathering of the exiles, uh, the restoration of the knowledge of God, which will be universal, the building of the temple, the establishment of the reestablishment of the Jewish commonwealth, uh, peace, worldwide peace. This is explicit. None of those things did Jesus, did Jesus even claim to have done. And Jesus saying, "You will see." As it turns out, when he's speaking to the high priest, the high priest never saw those things. So, when he says, "You will see the, um, Son of Man coming with the clouds of heaven." You know, well, he never saw it. So, if I couldn't, I don't really like to do this, but you couldn't possibly have made a better, um, case that Jesus' words were unfulfilled than those. Means you're going to see Daniel 7:13 and 14. That's what he's referring to. Daniel 7:13 and 14 is the fifth kingdom, the kingdom of the Messiah, where the Messiah himself comes. He's called one like the Son of Man who comes with the clouds of heaven to God, the Ancient of Days. And God gives him all sovereignty. All nations will serve him. Well, none of those things happen. In fact, what occurs is quite diverse. He's killed. All the disciples are killed. All of that collapses. So, you couldn't possibly bring a better proof that Jesus is not the Messiah than the very passages that William Lane Craig cites.

>> Okay. That was a sharp stop. Usually, I can tell by your breathing pattern when you're going to end. I, you, you snuck up on me on that.

>> Yeah.

>> All right. Let me, let me pull this other clip away.

>> Jesus' understanding of the Messiah was radically different from the prevailing, um, cultural understanding of the Messiah among the chief priests and the common people, and he didn't meet their expectations. Indeed, that's what helped to get him crucified. To claim to be the Son of God in a unique sense, and then especially the Son of Man prophesied by Daniel, sitting at the right hand of the Power, that is truly blasphemous and is sufficient for his condemnation. Now, the question I think that is raised by your,

>> interpretation.

>> Yeah. Your interpretation, Ben, is this.

>> Why should we believe Jesus' reinterpretation of the Messiah rather than the one that the chief priests and the people held? And I think the answer to that is his resurrection from the dead.

>> So, this is rather silly. He frames the expectations of the priests and the common people as something that's cultural. As it turns out, it's not cultural. We have a rabbi, and his name is Isaiah. He is our chief rabbi. He is our authority. So, Isaiah tells us explicitly that when the Messiah comes, he's going to rebuke the nations. He's going to judge among the peoples. The result will be, uh, striking. Nations will take their swords and spears, their implements of war, and turn them into implements of agriculture, um, pruning hooks, and they will, the world will change where the wolf will lie with the lamb. The, the lion will eat straw. These are not cultural beliefs. This is the Bible. That's our core authority. So, the way it's framed, I think, and I think William Lane Craig is trying to be very, um, respectful to to Ben, but in reality, what he's doing is he's framing it as this is some cultural expectation that the Jews sort of came up with this idea. No, read Isaiah 11. That whole chapter is messianic. It's indisputable. There's no controversy about Isaiah 11. It's talking about the Messiah. The text tells us about the restoration of the Jewish people of the land. That's not a cultural, ethnic, or a misunderstanding. Now, if somebody comes along later and sincerely thinks he's the Messiah, and let me tell you, there are people in Israel walking the streets of my city and other cities throughout the Jewish state that believe they're the Messiah. They're out there. They eventually will wind up on a plane, or they'll wind up at the Ababernell mental hospital hospital. It's, it's, there is a syndrome in Israel. People self-believe these things. That's not relevant. Our authority is Jeremiah. Our authority, Ezekiel chapter 37, the restoration of the people to the land, the building of the temple in Jerusalem. In fact, the last three passages of Ezekiel 37, very famous because it's the valley of dry bones, where the view of the restoration of the nation of Israel, uh, is seen by the prophet himself. The end of the chapter tells us in three verses, 26, 27, and 28, that there will be a temple that will be built, and then the nations will know that I am Lord. Everyone will know the truth. Right? Has that happened? No. Could you add to the Bible with a new understanding? No. The Bible says you can't add to it, nor take away. Deuteronomy chapter 4, verse 2. I mean, I would say this to, um, Dr. Craig, you know, why do you reject the Mormon religion? Right? So, I'm sure that you would say the reason you reject the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is because it's not compatible with the New Testament, right? That's why you would reject it. You would say, "I, you know, I don't." Why, um, Dr. Craig, aren't you a Roman Catholic? Why don't you believe, um, in the largest Christian denomination in the world? Roman Catholic Church is so big that if you took every other denomination or a lot of them and add it up, it would not be as large as the Roman Catholic Church. Well, why do you reject transubstantiation? Why do you reject the authority of the Bishop of Rome, who can ex cathedra make a pronouncement that's infallible? Why do you reject that? Why do you reject transubstantiation? Why do you reject the Assumption of Mary? Why do you reject the notion that Mary is worthy of veneration? Why do you reject the Immaculate Conception? Why do you reject the Immaculate Conception? I don't get it. Why do you reject transubstantiation? Incidentally, incidentally, I'm not a fan of the Roman Catholic Church. I mean, its beliefs at all, at all. But that said, they can make a fairly good case for transubstantiation from John chapter 6, verse 54, 55, and 56. They can make a case, not a very strong, but at least there's a case for the notion that the, uh, that Rome, that Peter was the first pope, based on Matthew chapter 16. You'd have to stretch it a little bit, but it's not like out of nowhere. You can make a case for the veneration of Mary, a case for it from Luke chapter 1 in the Annunciation. We have the highest view of Mary. Like, it's not like the Roman Catholic Church is out of their minds. I mean, it's there. I'm with you. That means I agree with Protestants that the idea of a pope and that kind of authority. I agree with. But it's there. It's not like they're sitting on nothing. But you reject it. Why? Because you'd say it's a later accretion. Okay. Well, if you have the sense, the awareness that the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church, or many of the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church, are incompatible with the, with the New Testament, and you therefore reject it. All I'm asking you to do, all we're asking you to do, is to apply the same rigorous standing to Tanakh. And if the Christian Bible is making claims that are not compatible with Tanakh, the Jewish scriptures, it's not a cultural thing. He's trying to be very nice with Ben, but it's not working. It's not a cultural thing. The Jewish Bible is the word of God. We are all children of God. Deuteronomy chapter 16, excuse me, chapter 14, verse 1. So, it's very clear that we're all children of Hashem. What the New Testament is seeking to advance is that Jesus is somehow God and worthy of worship. Now, I don't believe the New Testament thought that Jesus was equal to God, but he's certainly being elevated. No, none of that is compatible with the Jewish scriptures. So, I want you, the Christian, to think the following. Imagine the reason why you reject Mormonism, right? You know the joke I tell. You know, why did God invent Mormons? So Christians would know how Jews feel, right? Think about the reasons why you reject one of the fastest growing Christian denominations in the world, who you even refuse to acknowledge that they are Christians. Evangelical Christians, Catholics, they don't believe that Mormons are even Christians. They're not even Christians. I mean, there are many Protestants who believe that, uh, Catholics are Christians, and there are many Catholics who believe that Protestants, while they don't have the fullness of it, but there are some people that are more ecumenical and say, well, you can, you know, there are some, there are some Baptists who feel, sure, if you're a Roman Catholic, you can still be saved. You know, other people say, look, it's grace alone, and the fact that you have all these sacraments, meaning there are works involved, goodbye, right? So, if you could apply the kind of rigorous, ous thinking that you do to reject all these other iterations of Christianity, just understand the plight of a child of God who looks at the Hebrew Bible, where we are told explicitly what the Messiah is supposed to do, and then we look at Jesus in the New Testament and go, there's, there's no correlation between them. And of course, so then we reject it. Any more than we reject Buddha. It's not rejecting it, it's just not of God. And if it's not of God, then we want nothing to do with it. Let's continue.

>> Okay, here we go.

>> So, one of the counter claims to some of this is that the Gospels are written significantly after Jesus lives. Even the earliest Gospel is written what, 70 CE, uh, some, somewhere in, somewhere 40 years after, after Jesus is crucified. So, what's to say, I mean, that like most historical events, there is some play in the joints here. So, that this would be the historical argument against the exact veracity of, of the Gospel revelations, for example.

>> Now, I think it's important to understand, Ben, that in order for a historical document to be reliable, it isn't required that it be inherent,

>> contemporaneous. Of course. So, um, what I would argue is that underlying the inference to the resurrection of Jesus are three great independently established facts which are supported by the historical evidence, uh, and which, surprisingly, I did my doctoral work on this in Germany, are, are recognized as such by the majority of New Testament scholars today who studied the historical Jesus. And these facts would be that after his crucifixion, um, uh, and burial by a member of the Sanhedrin named Joseph of Arimathea, that Jesus' tomb was discovered empty on the first day of the week by a group of his female followers. Secondly, would be that various individuals and groups of people then witnessed appearances of Jesus alive. And finally, number three, would be that the original disciples suddenly and sincerely came to believe that God had raised Jesus from the dead, despite having every predisposition to the contrary. The vast majority of scholars have come to accept as convincing the evidence in support of those three facts, not assuming biblical inherency or inspiration, but treating the Gospels as ordinary historical documents. You can show, for example, that the fact of the discovery of the empty tomb is attested by at least six independent sources in the New Testament, some of which are extraordinarily early. No scholar denies that individuals and groups saw post-mortem appearances of Jesus. The only question is whether you should or could dismiss them as hallucinatory.

>> Okay. So, so he's using the New Testament to prove the New Testament. Go ahead.

>> He's actually, he's taking it, I'm glad you said that, because he's taking it a step further in that the New Testament doesn't make that claim. I, I can't believe what I just heard. So, Dr. Craig actually says you have six independent witnesses to Jesus' resurrection. Now, when he says that, I think what he's saying is he's saying Paul, you have the three Gospels, you have Acts, um, I like, none of the, well, Paul wasn't a Christian at the time, so that's totally made up. The, none of the writers, in none of the four Gospels claim to have been witnesses. This is mind-blowing what you just heard. None of the authors of the four Gospels claim to have been eyewitnesses. It's not like, um, like they claim, and I am not sure if I believe it or not. None of them make that claim. Matthew, never, whoever wrote the book of Matthew, we don't know the, the inscription Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John is much later. It's 2nd century. The Bishop of Lyon, like 180, he's going to assign these names to these books, but it's not in the book. So, if you look at the four Gospels, forget that it says St. Matthew on the top. That's not in the text. Okay? So, none of them say, "I'm an eyewitness." None of them say, none of the authors claim to be eyewitnesses. How could you even, it's really mind-blowing. How could you even claim that Paul was an eyewitness when Paul, we are told, was persecuting Christians? Now, whether that's true or made up or whatever, Paul doesn't even make that claim. So, so as it turns out, William Lane Craig is more Christian than the New Testament. The New Testament isn't making that claim. And the book of Acts is written by whoever wrote Luke. So, you don't have a separate eyewitness. Moreover, whoever wrote, uh, Luke and Matthew were depending on Mark. And Mark actually doesn't even have a resurrection account because the real Mark ends at chapter 16, verse 8. This is such a convoluted answer. That means, moreover, moreover, the Christian Bible explicitly states that the reason it's all this stuff was written down is to get you to convert to Christianity. This is not some, like, there may be newspapers out there, uh, there may be so-called journalists out there that you trust or don't trust, whatever, but journalists claim that, "I'm just, I'm a journalist and I'm, you know, writing, you know, independently and I have no bias at all." Right? All journalists will scream. Now, I don't know who you are watching me right now, but there are certain journalists that you don't trust at all, that you, you know, you do or don't trust. They're biased, not by whatever. But the Christian Bible admits this at the very end of John 20:31. It literally says that this whole thing was written down so that you would believe that Jesus is the Messiah. It says it, like the book admits it. So, the book says, whoever wrote it down said that, "I'm writing this to get you to be a Christian." Right? So, whether you're pro-gun, you know, you're pro, you know, gun, abortion, choice, life, whatever it is, but at least journalists pretend that they have no dog in it. The, whoever wrote this, and we don't know who wrote the book of John. The book of John does not say, "End with yours truly, John." And there are reasons to believe by looking at the book of John, whoever wrote this definitely was not John, because whoever wrote is saying he got it from the disciple Jesus loved. So, I don't, we're going off. Okay, now this is, so this is all nonsense. So, Paul can't be an eyewitness because he didn't believe in this. He didn't believe in this at the time. Now, Paul is going to claim a special revelation later on. Forget that. So, that's fake. That the writers of the New Testament claim that they're eyewitnesses. They don't make that claim. And Acts means that's how you'd have six. Like, Acts is Luke. It's the same author. Whoever wrote Luke, that's volume one of a two-part, uh, series called Luke-Acts. Okay? This was the same author, and Luke and Matthew are depending on Mark. It's, this is completely mind-blowing. And now, my friends, there's an elephant in the room, and that is the Messiah is not supposed to die and rise on the third day. There's nothing like that in the Hebrew Bible. Moreover, please look it up for yourself. I always tell you that. Look, I'm going to ask you this. It's nice to be liked, but don't like me. Just don't trust me. I need you to look this stuff up for yourself, please. Okay? This is really important. The claim in the Christian Bible is that there's actually a passage in the Jewish scripture that says the Messiah was to die and rise on the third day. Paul makes that claim in an undisputed book, a letter called 1 Corinthians chapter 15, probably the most famous chapter in all of Paul's letters, where he says that Jesus died, rose on the third day according to the scriptures. Look at our 1 Corinthians 15:3 and 4. There is no scripture like it. It doesn't exist. And don't tell me Hosea chapter 6. Please, if you have a Bible that says you can find us in Hosea 6, if you do, please look up the passage in context. It's talking about a frying. It's not talking about the r, the rising and dying, the dying and rising of Messiah. So, it's that's all complete nonsense. Luke 24 is going to make that claim in Luke 24, verse 44 to 46. So, the big piece of the whole story is that the Messiah is not supposed to die and rise from the dead on the third day. All that is made up. In fact, incidentally, that the women were at the tomb and they, the, the women found an empty tomb. Neither the women nor an empty tomb are mentioned by Paul. Paul doesn't even mention women coming to the tomb on Sunday morning. Doesn't mention the women. Doesn't mention an empty tomb. He only says Jesus rose from the dead. In the, in the Greco-Roman mind, and that's what Paul emerged from, you can, you would rise from the dead, but your corpse is still in the grave. You understand that point? I mean, the ancient, this is very critical because I know people get confused with this. So, in the ancient world, the, let's take the, in the Greco-Roman mind, they almost all the religions believed in an afterlife. Okay? They all, but none of them believed that the physical body would physically reconstitute, like the mortal body was, uh, like as in Jew. Only Judaism believed that. No one else believed that. That's very important. That doesn't mean they didn't believe in an afterlife or a resurrection. They did. But to them, the wretched body stays in the ground. Who the heck would ever want to go back to that wretched body? In the ancient world, they thought that was, they even though Jews were generally admired in the Greco-Roman world, or Judaism was, it was a popular religion for reasons that are beyond the scope of this. They thought the Jews were absolutely insane for thinking and believing in the physical resurrection of the person that died. When Cicero, in his sixth volume of the Republic, discusses this, like, why would you want to do that? Greek philosophers were happily happy to get rid of their physical body. Now, the church is going to turn on this in the Gospels. Meaning the Gospels are going to advance the Jewish idea that the resurrection is completely physical, and the physical body of Jesus rose. So, you should know that's one area that Paul lost on. It was, was rejected by the authors of the Gospels. So, the big elephant in the room is the Messiah is not supposed to die and rise. So, the moment you make that claim, you immediately sabotage the whole religion. If your only source is the Bible, and don't tell me most Christian scholars are new. How do you know that? Like, on what is this a, a thing you vote on? And how do they know it? It's the Christian Bible that says that. And incidentally, it should be, I think this is, it's not pedantic, but like, why in, in Matthew 28, when they go to the Galilee, the followers go to the Galilee, and there they encounter the risen Jesus, why does some doubt it? Like, why are they doubting it? It's very obvious. There were big, big problems. Like, why does Jesus have to run around for 40 days showing them so they would know that they were, why, like, why would you doubt it if he really was there, if it was a really a veritical encounter? Like, why would you doubt it? Doesn't even make sense. But I want to like, just set that aside. This doesn't appeal in the humanities. You can't appeal to scholars. Now, in the hard sciences, okay? And this is history, this is humanities, okay? All this is humanities. You can't, you can't appeal to authority. Now, you can in an area where you can replicate. For example, you could say, the vast majority of doctors would say that cigarette smoking is dangerous to your health, right? You can do that. Why? Because you can actually replicate the study and see the numbers and immediately you can confirm it. There's, in, in the, in history, you can't do that. You can't say it doesn't matter. This is not a vote. Doesn't, what do they have access to? A book that I don't have access to. You don't have access. Don't, this appeal to authority is nonsense. What they're doing is they're engaging in circular reasoning. Circular reasoning is a red flag for a false religion. I rest my case.

>> All right. Rested very well. Cool. Pull up next caller here. This next caller is, um, named Brandon, who, uh, is got one foot in the door Christianity, but like a heavy foot out. So, uh, Brandon, welcome to the show. Go ahead with your question, sir.

>> Yeah, of course. Um, yeah, as I said, I wouldn't really identify myself as a Christian anymore.

>> And passages like Matthew 15 with the Canaanite woman are really hard for me. After reading that, I never even questioned if God loved Gentiles. But I clearly see Jesus had some sort of racial, uh, lens. Rabbi Singer really helped me in the beginning to learn a lot, but it's been difficult letting go of Christianity. I hate feeling like I've been lied to. And now I just want to know that I can trust the Hebrew Bible and I won't be lied to again. I especially want to see where it shows that God truly loves Gentiles as well as well. And I need, I need to understand why should I convert? Will God not love me if I do until I do? Thank you.

>> So, your question really revolves around the Canaanite woman in Matthew 15.

>> Yeah. But I would say mostly like, um, I want to see in the Hebrew Bible that God loves Gentiles.

[Music]

>> Yeah, thank you for your question.

>> Very good. Go ahead and hang up, and you for the answer. Great question, Rabbi. Thank you.

>> Thank you.

>> Bye.

>> Great question.

>> Yeah. Yeah. I was thinking about this week. Yeah. I don't know what people think about. I mean, I think about important things, but I was thinking about this a lot. I'm just going to say this. So, you have the story of a non-Jewish woman. You find it in Matthew 15, Mark 7 as an example. And Jesus says, "You're a dog. Get away. I'm not helping you." The disciples, "Get away. You're not Jewish. Go." And only when she recognizes that she is a second-class citizen does he heal the daughter. And there's a lot of things here. You know, I can only imagine a black man in Alabama in the early 19th century, right, where you were a half a man. You were worthless. And I can only imagine a, you know, a black man in the South, you know, begging a white physician for help for his own daughter who's sick and being told, "You're just a negro." And I'm being, get away. Right? I imagine that that kind of conversation went on a lot, right? Where you had a, a black woman in the South in the early 19th century, and I'm being charitable, early 19th century. It's not like, you know, you had a Civil War, slavery ends, and things are great for black people. No, Jim Crow comes after the Civil War. And it's not like things are great, you know. It's not like, you know, you could just imagine that. Now, this is not what I was thinking about. We actually did a show about this, and I'm going to stop this because this is just something I thought about, and I always tell you, you can't depend, depend on the Christian Bible to prove anything because it's circular reasoning. So, I'm really just, that's a caveat. But it is intriguing. It's just intriguing that Jesus comes off very angry, very frequently in the Gospels, and it doesn't, it's not clear why. I'm just saying this because I was thinking about this. So, everyone in New Testament scholarship is trying to figure out who was the, um, historical Jesus, and is there anything in the Christian Bible at all that's historical at all? That's the big, that's every, that's the unholy grail. It's unholy because you shouldn't be thinking about that, no more than you should think about who, who was the real Hari Krishna, who's the authentic. But that said, it's odd, like, why is he so angry all the time? You know, whether he's, uh, treating the, the, in early Mark, you know, when he's, he's treating the, the fellow who was a, his conversation with Nicodemus in John 3, he's strikingly angry and confrontational with Nicodemus, and like, why, where is this anger coming from? And it doesn't, it doesn't come through like Nicodemus, and I'm just putting this, this proves nothing, it really doesn't, because, um, I don't engage in circular reasoning. There's always a question in any book, can there be something that we could say possibly is historical, even though the book is, you know, basically all legend and fiction? There is some residue of something historical. So, there is a criteria of embarrassment. I don't, I don't think this, this, um, passes that criteria. So, I just want to say that this is just a thought that I have a lot when I examine these texts, that Jesus is always angry and gratuitously angry, and I don't know why he's angry. Like, as in his, if you read John 3, and Nicodemus is supposedly, there's a reason, there's reason to think that Nicodemus was, is a character invented by John, but let's just say it's not like, so this guy Nicodemus is asking Jesus about like, what's the deal? And Jesus is telling him, you need to be born again. And Jesus just, Nicodemus just says, "I don't really get what you're talking about." And, you know, you just read it for yourself, Jesus is just really angry, angry in his response. Like, why are you angry? Why not say, "Hey, let me explain to you. You might not understand what born again means. Let me, there's a dualantandra here." But the, the meek, gentle Jesus doesn't come across in the Christian Bible. Now, what you just heard is just a reflection that I've had that literally in the last few days, and it's something that comes out. If you read the Christian, the Gospels, which are very easy to read, Jesus is usually a pretty angry guy. You're pretty angry at. And I don't know why. I can't say that the historical Jesus was really angry. How did it ever get in there? We'll just leave it there. But that's just my musings. Let's get back. Abraham, my friend. It's so cute that I said Abraham, my friend, because that's what God says. And that I wasn't planning that, but Isaiah 41:8-9, God called Abraham my friend. There's no one in Tanakh who God calls my friend except for Abraham. Abraham was not Jewish. He was a Mesopotamian. He didn't come from the most austere, the, the best family in the world. His father, Terah, was an idol worshipper. He not only worshiped idols, he was in the idol business. So, he does not, it's not like Abraham came from this prestigious family. He came from a family that all worshiped idols, and he figured out on his own God's nature, that he is one, and therefore he's all loving and all kindliness. He wasn't a Jew. I know a Jewish man, his name was Jonah. We read about his life every Yom Kippur, every synagogue around the world. A book devoted to a, a mandate God gives to a reluctant prophet and says, "I want you to go to the people of Nineveh." What's Nineveh? Well, that was the capital of the Assyrian Empire. So, you have like the worst empire in the world, and then their capital city. You can only imagine the grotesque sin that the people of Nineveh are engaging in, right? Jonah is a little nervous about that, right? And he goes to them and tells them that in 40 days, because of your behavior, this city will be overturned. They repented, and God forgave them. And that's what Jews read about. In fact, the de to become a to convert to Judaism. Now, I'm using the word convert to Judaism a little differently here than most people do. Does you could, meaning joining the Jewish faith either as a Noah or joining the nation of Israel as well as a what's called a ger tzedek. In both conversion, the reason is because the God of Israel created you in his image. Christianity is just the opposite. Christianity is man's hopeless pursuit in creating God in his image, hence Jesus worship of man who looks like the perfect man. You'll never, hey, that's what it's all about. You're low. You're a sinner. There's nothing you can do. This is what was barreled into your head all of your life. That you're a sinner. There's nothing you can do to save yourself. You're wretched. God can't even look at you. And therefore, you need a mediator between God and men. That's the man Jesus Christ. 1 Timothy 2:5. And you know, I'm not making this up. What? Like, right now, I'm talking to you. Tens of millions of Christians are in churches in North America right now. And the message they're getting is you're a wretched sinner, and there is no initiative of yours that can save you. You're hopeless, and therefore you need the cross. Jesus had to die for your sins. And you probably want to speak to Mary if you're a Roman Catholic and ask her and the saints for intervention. The oldest book in the Hebrew Bible, the oldest book is the book of Job. And Job was a righteous man, and he was a very successful man. He wasn't Jewish. It's such an old book that all the things that, like, there's no mention that Job kept Shabbat or kept kosher, any ritual laws that are not Noahide laws. Why? Because it's, it's pre-Mosaic. It's before modern Torah, right? And and Satan asked God, look, he's faithful, he's righteous, but he has a great family. He has enormous wealth. He's enormously successful. Perhaps if those were taken away from him, he's not Jewish. Sweethearts, listen to me. He was not Jewish. Perhaps he would curse you. Perhaps. And God told Satan, "This is what you can do. This is what you can't do." The book of Job takes us on a journey about a Gentile who is surrounded by dummies. He had a wife you would not want. In chapter 2:9, Job's wife advises him. He's going through this turmoil that, "Why don't you man up, curse God, and die?" Brilliant idea, right? She does not do well, right? He's got friends who are giving him terrible advice. Ultimately, the key is that Job never curses God. He struggles mightily. He wishes at some point that he, "I just wish I had never been born." But ultimately, he turns to the God of Israel. He wasn't Jewish. And I'm going to say this to you. I want you to listen very carefully. Why am I here as a Jew who you may want to become? But I, I say this to you as you consider converting to Judaism. What will be your central mandate? And I'm just talking to you right now. If you should choose to become a Jew, to convert to Judaism, both nation and faith, your central role is to save the non-Jews. Do you hear me? That means my whole purpose of being is to be a light to the non-Jews. So, if you're considering converting to Judaism, know that your whole purpose is to save the non-Jews. That's how much God loves you, and you're created in his image, and you can do better. And if you turn to God, God has mercy on you, and he will surely forgive you because his ways are not your ways. I'm quoting Isaiah 55, verses 6, 7, 8, 9, which is diametrically opposed by Christianity. Isaiah didn't, couldn't stand these ideas that God can't forgive you. What do you mean he can't forgive you? My ways are higher than your ways. The whole purpose of the Jew is not to be a doctor, or not to win Nobel prizes, or to be an economist, or to make the best movies Hollywood has ever produced. No. To be an accountant, to get you out of jail. None of those things at which Jews excel at. But that's not what we're here for. Hashem wants the Jew to be a light of the world. So, if you like that idea, join us. I think you'll love it. So, now it is true, it is true that the non-Jewish world, particularly the Abrahamic religions, particularly Christianity, they didn't treat us very well. So, some Jews are a little nervous. We're not sure how to handle, you know, the relationship. 2,000 years, we'll do that. But I just, you must know this, that you are created in the image of God. These great men, the, the, the founding fathers of the Jewish faith, they knew that God was one. He was alone. And therefore, his, his core nature was mercy and loving kindness. That's the whole key. And I say this to you, if you want to convert to Judaism, if you want to do that, know that the most central feature of the mandate that you will undertake is to save the non-Jew. Well, how does that sound, sweetheart? It's pretty good. No, think about it. Shalom.

>> All right, very good. Move into the next caller. Joel, you are live on the air. Go ahead with your question, sir.

>> Uh, yes. In Matthew's genealogy of Jesus and Luke's genealogy of Jesus, both mention Zerubbabel. If Zerubbabel was from a cursed line, then who in that generation was the legitimate heir? And why didn't that heir build the Second Temple instead of Zerubbabel?

>> Zerubbabel.

>> I, I, you know, I apologize, and I was doing really well, and then I lost you at the end. So, could you just go over that again?

>> Sure. If Zerubbabel was from a cursed line, then who in that generation was the legitimate heir? And why didn't that heir build the Second Temple instead of Zerubbabel?

>> Okay. Okay. That's really, really, really great. Wow, that was really good. I actually, I thought you were asking something else. This is much more intense. Okay. Go ahead and hang up, Joel, and turn your answer. Thank you, sir. Bye.

>> Yeah.

>> All right. Go ahead.

>> Right. Right. So, yeah. So, you're right. You, you Zerubbabel, along with his partner, his name was Joshua ben Yehud Zadok. Zerubbabel was from the house of David. And Joshua ben Yehud Zadok was a priest, the nephew of Ezra. Ezra's brother was Yehud Zadok, his younger brother. They, uh, led the way, the path for 42,360 Jews to build the Second Temple. The key of Zerubbabel. So, you're asking a question which I need to explain, uh, to the audience, and that is that there is a curse, and the curse is found in, um, Jeremiah 22:30, where the great-grandfather, father of Zerubbabel, his name is Jehoiachin, or however the Anglicize it, that none of his seed will sit on the throne of David. Okay, so that's, that's the question. So, you have a, so you have a king, uh, Jehoiachin, who was so evil. In fact, the Talmud goes into more stuff he did, it's not in the Bible, that's so insane that you would lose your mind. So, he was like, he was really like a Jewish Caligula. Like, he was completely insane. So, Jeremiah curses him. And the curse is not that he won't have children, but you have to read the text, that none of his seed, righteous man, is childless, in that, that none of his seed will sit on the throne of David. Okay, that's the curse. Now, the problem, of course, is that Zerubbabel appears in both Matthew and Luke's genealogy. They're only two genealogies in the New Testament provided for Joseph. Go, no. Right. So, it's really Joseph's genealogy that's found in Matthew 1 and Luke 3. So, like, why is that relevant to Jesus? Well, and you probably, why is that an issue? Well, it's an issue because out of 27 books in the Christian Bible, it is, as it turns out, those two books who not only supply a genealogy of Jesus but also insist that Jesus was supernaturally conceived, and Joseph was not his daddy. Joseph did not impregnate, um, Mary. As far as Mark is concerned, the earliest Gospel chronologically, there's nothing unusual about Jesus' birth or conception. You got that? Really important for you to get that. Okay? Because as far as Paul was concerned, Paul is the author of the earliest surviving Christian literature. There is nothing unusual about Jesus's, uh, conception or birth. So, this is a later development which Matthew and Luke independently, because they're not, they're very much not the same. The infancy narrative found in Matthew chapter 1 and Luke chapter 3 are, it's not that they kind, there are just two different stories. They have nothing to do with each other except that Jesus was born to a virgin, to a woman named Mary, in Bethlehem. Besides that, they, there's nothing. They're just totally, but that's not germane. I don't want you to be confused about that. And their genealogies are dramatically different, just incredibly different. Now, now getting back here, so you're asking how could Zerubbabel build, be involved in building a temple, which he was, and the answer to that question is really quite simple. And that is, Zerubbabel was not a king. Zerubbabel was a great-grandson of Jehoiachin, but he wasn't a king. In fact, there were no Davidic kings during the Second Temple period. None. Okay? During, now, there were pretenders, people who against the law illicitly claimed to be king, as an example. Tragically, the Maccabean dynasty, who we think of as our heroes who defeated the Seleucid Empire, hence Hanukkah, but their descendants went astray and considered

them king. Thought the Makabian family were kahanim. They were priests. And as it turns out, Herod would wipe them all out. And in the Jewish view, they would suffer that fate because they, uh, tragically misappropriated kingship. Um, if you are from the tribe of Levi, if you're a Cohen, you cannot be a king. Herod is not even Jewish. His mother is not Jewish, or her conversion is not accepted. So, so the, there really is a very short answer to your question, that is Zerubbabel was not a king. He was rather a governor. And Christians really have to answer this question: Why wasn't he? The reason he, this is a very big issue for Christians because Zerubbabel, we are told, was a really great man. In the book of Haggai, he is given a significant ring of authority, right? So, I'm amping up the problem. So, Zerubbabel wasn't just some ordinary guy. "Hey, we need to build a temple. Sure, why don't you come along?" No. No. Zerubbabel was way, way up there, but he could not be king. And he was not king. He was a governor who, along with Joshua, together would build, initiate the building of the Second Temple. As it would happen, the Persians would change their mind because they were influenced by others, and that whole project would be halted, and that's what the book of Nehemiah is about, and we're not going into that. So the big, big, big problem for Christians is that Zerubbabel, if any of the descendants of David and Solomon were worthy of being a king, it would be Zerubbabel. He was a good man. We are told openly in Haggai, like, "We're giving, we're going to give you a lot of authority." Despite that, you can't. He's not king. Christians have to deal with this. There are Christians, I'm not kidding, who, who argue. This happened in a debate once. I did a debate with a fellow, I forgot his name already, years ago, who actually claimed, and Joshua Dal claims this in his book called "Evidence of the Man's Verdict," that that's the reason why Jesus had to be born of a virgin in order to, uh, sidestep the curse. You're born to a virgin, you're not really the son of Joseph. You're not really the son of Joseph. You don't inherit the curse. Really? Then why am I given the genealogy? You know, just take Matthew 1:1. So, great question. Thank you so much. That was really more brilliant than I thought.

>> I need you to clarify something. I think his main question was, who was the legitimate heir?

>> Right. Okay. So there was no heir. That means there has not been a, a Davidic king since Zedekiah. There was none. There was no Davidic king during the Second Temple. So the last Davidic king was Zedekiah. That's it. And as it turns out, to just complete this, the person who became king after Jehoiachin was his uncle Zedekiah. So as it turns out, the next king was his uncle, which solves all problems because his, if you want to know who the direct, uh, heir was to Jehoiachin, was his father's brother, which solves everything. How does it solve everything? Because now his father's brother was not a descendant of Jehoiachin, of course, his father's brother, but he's still a descendant of David and Solomon. Well, thank you for your question.

>> Cool. All right, moving on to our next caller. Okay. Uh, Jordan, you are live on the air. Go ahead with your question, sir.

>> Okay. Um, you know, so I have a question for the Rabbi. Um, instead of Christians trying to convert Jews, in my experience, and especially lately, um, I see online like on X and things like this, you see a lot of Christians and Catholics trying to delegitimize Judaism and, and our faith and trying to convince people that Jews are demons, etc. I just want to know how, like, the Rabbi goes about engaging with people like this and because from what I'm seeing is it's not like I have to worry about these people converting me. If anything, they're throwing me way, way, you know, away from Christianity, but they're also insulting and trying to delegitimize and take apart our faith. Um, so I guess my question is, how does the Rabbi engage if he does, um, and things like that?

>> Yeah, that is very interesting. Actually, goes back to my first comment earlier about Paul, or whoever said, "to the Jew first, and to the Greek," but they're not even, they're actually hating on them instead of loving on them. All right, go ahead. That's a really great question. So when that happened to me, not exactly those words, but you can watch this on YouTube. I was walking down Jaffa Road, which is like a main road in Jerusalem, and I happened upon this guy, and you could watch it, who is wearing a tallit and he's preaching, and we just start engaging. He's a European. I forget what country he's from. I forget what country he's from. And he said, he just says it straight away, "You guys are Christ killers. You killed Jesus." That's what he said. And he said it right like to my face. I think like most people, like some people just don't like a group. Like, you don't, I don't know, you don't like people from Luxembourg. Usually, you don't just tell them to their face. There's something about these guys who just tell you right to your face. And what I said to him is, "I agree with you." And he went, "What?" You can actually see him do this. This is how I handled it. So I like to handle things, of course, truthfully, but in a counterintuitive way to sort of, um, to attack the issue in a way that is not expected. It's just because you can address issues in many ways. I could say, "You know, I wasn't even in the neighborhood at the time, so I definitely didn't kill anybody," and I could do that if I want to. Really be cute. But obviously, it's coming out of a place of a lot of hatred, you know? And, and if you read the Gospels, something that I, when I was a youngster, and I started reading the Gospels, which, as you may or may not know, are very easy to read. You could just pick up the Gospel, read it, the Gospels, and it's very easy to understand what they're saying. The stories are very, they're coherent. The stories are well-developed. It's, they're, they're very easy to read. And but the anti-Semitism is very, very striking, and it's, it's you have to be ready for it. But then you will go, "Aha, now I get it. Now I get why if a Jew in 1943 had to hide, he would want to be in a Buddhist country or a Hindu country rather than a Christian country. Your chances of survival be much higher." That's it's just really very simple. So I said to the fellow, "You're right. A natural reading of the text of the Christian Bible would lead you to believe that Jews, not just the Jews who lived during the time of Jesus, but future generations of Jews were completely culpable, myself included, for killing Jesus." And he went, "What?" I said, "Yeah." And I said, "The Jews said, 'We take it upon ourselves and our children.'" The Jews say that in the Christian Bible, "We take his death upon ourselves and our children." He said, he asked me, "Where does it say it?" You know, Christians ask me, "Where in the New Testament does it say it?" I said, "It says it in Matthew 27:2." And he went, "Yeah, yeah, yeah. It's right there." I said, "So I want you to know that your reading of this, that all the Jews today are responsible for killing Jesus, is it really relies on a natural, plain reading of the text. Now, you have to, one thing is really important, okay? You have to stay calm, and you have to like, really get what's going on. I did think as a child, as a little kid, that non-Jews and every, all the non-Jews I knew were Christians in Borough Park. This is a part of Brooklyn. So all the neighborhoods around Borough Park, all Christians. We know if there were Hindus there, I didn't see them. I never encountered a Muslim. They were all Christians. Every one of them. They all hated Jews. Hated Jews. They all did. I, I, I'd even ask this. If during this show, if I'm on live, I thought about this this week. If you are a person that grew up in Brooklyn in a Jewish, in the outskirts of a Jewish neighborhood, and you can relate to what I'm speaking about, if you're willing to. So, if you're Italian, this is, I remember a lot of Italian, Irish, um, Hispanic, you know, Puerto Rican. As though if you're a person who actually grew up in the neighborhood in the '60s and '70s in Brooklyn, and what I'm saying makes sense to you, I would, I would really like to hear from you. Now, I, I imagine that most of you who thought that way would be embarrassed to come on. And I really, I'm really just curious to hear it, just to explain to me, because I can explain to you that what I thought about non-Jews, and I didn't like any of them, not because that was anything personal, because they were all treating me this way, and I changed my view completely 180 degrees later on as an adult when I encountered people who were really good people. I just went, "Oh, I guess I was wrong." So I'm not trying to catch you. I am very curious to know, like, what were you thinking about the Jews you know during this period? I, I really, I would really like to know. Let's get back. It's very important to always stay very calm. And as the person is laying this all out for you, just let them talk. And when they speak, that gives you time to think. Because if your instinct is to just respond, you know, and understandably so, getting really angry and say, "It's this," this conversation is not going to go anywhere. It's going to go somewhere really bad, and it's not going to achieve your goal. You will not be achieved, really won't. You always want to stay calm. Now, I personally, my personality is one where I, I'm a very calm person. I'm a very easygoing person. Not like on air, I'm just very easygoing, just very, very chilled. That I do do this, right? That I'm chilled. But I am, as them. So what you want to do is just, this is very disarming. Now, I'm not doing this as a technique, like when I'm chilled when I meet missionaries, people curse me in my face on the streets of New York. Have films that, or this guy in Jerusalem told me I killed Jesus. I'm not going, "Okay, be chilled because it's like a great technique." No, it's just, it's just my way. But you have to, you do have to be very, very calm in responding. And and realize that they, there's a lot of hatred in their heart. And if you respond aggressively, which they have it coming to them, saying they don't, nothing good is going to come out of it. And in truth, what you can say is, "I, you could say it all depends, but I might say, 'I get it. I get it completely. The Christian Bible characterizes the Jew as the Jews as a villainous people, solely responsible for killing Jesus.' And we find that not just in late literature in the New Testament, but the earliest surviving literature in the entire New Testament. First Thessalonians is almost certainly the earliest surviving piece of Christian literature. And in it, Paul says, 'The Jews are totally responsible for killing Jesus. They forbid us to, um, to evangelize Gentiles, and they're contrary to all mankind.' Please look it up for yourself. First Thessalonians, an undisputed letter of Paul, chapter 2, verse 14-16. Okay. So, it's right there. And and then you can go to the last book in the. Now, it's not clear which book is really last because of the authorship question. So, but if I was to steel man this, I'll say the book of Revelation is perhaps the latest book in the Christian Bible. We read, right? Chronologically, it probably wasn't. But I don't, I want to keep the Jew, you know, the, you know, Jews are not even Jews. See, Revelation 2:9, 3:9, and their synagogue is really, you know, the synagogue of Satan. That's where they're getting it from. So it's, and but I'll say this, I don't know how I would react if all I was told as a kid was, you know, this group is the, are the worst people in the world. And hey, there, I don't know. Like, that's what they're taught. Interesting thing is that when I, I'm self-reflecting here, but interesting thing is that invariably the people who would attack me were people my age, meaning young kids. Like, I never, I don't recall ever, uh, their parents, like 30-year-old or 40-year-old, whatever. I don't know how old they were, whatever. Like, they didn't say anything. It's not that they were friendly. They were not friendly, but they weren't. They didn't say "Jew boy" or throw pennies at me. So I used to think maybe the kids are crazy and their parents are normal. But then I mean, to know where did Anthony get this from? Why is Chris saying this to me? Where did he learn that? He learned that at home. It's just the parents have the good sense to restrain themselves. But that's where they get it from. Their home. So this is passed on in the home. And I know you watching me now are not Jewish. I know almost certainly you have family like this, you have an uncle like this, whatever. But you know that this is the kind of stuff that went on. Answering your question, stay very calm and just say, "I get you. You took your new text." This is the truth. It's again, this is not like a technique where we're being, uh, we're manipulating our interlocutor, but I would say that I get it. You're absolutely, your view of the Jews is shaped by the literature found, unambiguous literature found in the Gospels. The portrayal of the Jew is the, the, the son of the devil. John 8 openly says the, the father of the Jews are the devil. I mean, says that. It's just, but I want to just one other thing I want to tell you about bigotry. The way you convince people to be bigots is you tell stories about them and you filter out. So you only tell, uh, the stories about a certain group, fill in this, the space that's negative, and leave out all the good stuff. That's how you, storytelling is the most, uh, successful way of producing bigots. If you just say, "I hate the Hindus," people go, "Why do you hate the Hindus?" But if you keep telling stories about Hindus that are just so unfavorable that the person will just learn will hate Hindus. Okay, that's how it works with the Jews. The Gospels are most responsible for this because it repeatedly, without end, every story involves the Jews, and the Jews are the villains. And don't tell me, "But Jesus was a Jew and his disciples were Jewish." Because this is an issue called "fencing." And that is in racism, invariably, racists have a select few people who they're, "I like. I don't like black people, but Michael Jordan's different. He's different. Oprah Winfrey is different." So, I, my, so invariably, invariably, racists, even Hitler thought that his mother's doctor, uh, Dr. Bloch, was a noble Jew. Okay, so invariably, the craziest racists in the world have a certain people who are members of that race that, "Oh, but they're different." Okay, you know, Michael Jordan's different, Sosa is different, or what, I don't know, whatever the top baseball players or Carter, the pitcher who couldn't throw at 500 miles an hour. Oh, he's he's different, right? So, just get that. Okay, so that's what I would say. And the other point is like, if the Jews, I don't know if I would say it because you have to feel it out, but if like the Jews didn't kill Jesus, you wouldn't have a religion. Like, if Jesus died of Alzheimer's, what would you do? You'd have no religion. So, it's very striking, isn't it? The idea is so insane to hold people accountable for what their parents, great-grandparents supposedly did. And I just end with this. I have met and interviewed many children and grandchildren of Nazis. I've interviewed, I've met many people whose, who've come to me and they recognize me and they would say to me, "Rabbi, I want to apologize. My grandfather was a Nazi. I've met people whose grandfather were big Nazis, like big, like famous Nazis. Please, um, forgive me." And I'm at a loss of words because really, I'm speaking to a person who's German, Austrian, whatever. Um, I didn't do anything. And they're, and obviously they're, um, demonstrating that they're really good people. And I'd always say, "But you didn't do anything. Like, you didn't do anything." So, that's like a side thing. Like, why would you, it wouldn't occur to me, and I don't think it would occur to any normal person. I don't think so. Like, if you met the grandchild of a Nazi, like, would you really, "You killed six?" No. If you behave like the Nazis, you say you're doing what your grandpa's doing. Sure. But it's like insane. It's insane. And the Christian, Christianity is uniquely responsible with this. Now, you'll ask me, I know you're wondering, what about all the, uh, pro-Jewish Christians, for evangelicals, Christian Zionists, and so on? They've got to work this out. Okay, I'm not going to go further because I don't want to take that much time on this. But if you, if you are a, um, a dispensationalist Christian who thinks that God is blessing the Jews and the Jews are still uniquely chosen, all that, and that movement began in the United States, John Nelson Darby, and his movement, um, and the Scofield Bible had an influence. So you've got to then go back to these incredibly anti-Semitic texts, and there's so many of them, and reinterpret them somehow. It's, it's not an easy job. So, just always stay calm, and the more the calmer you are, the more you will disarm your interlocutor. Okay? And keep them in your prayers. All right. Thank you.

>> Okay. Very good. One second. We are got about 10 minutes left. Okay. Actually, no. We got about 20 minutes left. Okay, cool. That's good. Now. All right, uh, let's see. Let me get my next caller. 368. One second. Okay. All right, Pierce, you are live on the air. Go ahead with your question.

>> Hello, William. Hello, Rabbi. Thank you so much again.

>> Certainly.

>> Um, uh, so my question today is, how would it be neither blood nor flesh, but the Father who told Peter Jesus is Messiah in Matthew 16:17, if in John 1:41, it was Andrew, his flesh and blood brother, who said, "We found Messiah," told him his name, and then brought him before Jesus? And would it be considered speaking arrogantly, and maybe why Peter rejected Jesus three times after hearing Jesus exalt himself over Caiaphas when the court sat down for deliberation? Um, I thank you very much for taking the time to hear, uh, these understandings.

>> You guys, Pierce, that's a great question. By the way, go and hang now. Answer. Thank you.

>> That's good stuff.

>> Do, do we not have?

>> We do. Maybe I'm prejudiced. We have the sweetest, um, we have the sweetest callers, really. And I say this to all the other folks out there who have YouTube channels. We have the best right here at Tanakh. We have the best. Such good calls. Such sweet people.

>> True.

>> Ah, it's so refreshing to hear these voices. It's so nice. What a thoughtful question. See, you're a good guy. You're a good fellow. So you're going to wait. So all right, let me set up the question. All right, the question is, in Matthew 16, as an example, Jesus tells his disciples, he asks them, "Who do you think I am?" Nobody knows. Peter gets, "You're the Christ." He says he's going to have to suffer many things. But the key is, he says, "Who do you think I am?" Just so you have, we could set up Matthew 16. And this is a really important chapter for many reasons, which we're not going into, but for the one that you are. Jesus asks, "Who do you think I am?" What is he saying this? He's saying at the end of his ministry. That means the crucifixion's coming up next, okay? Just so you know, it's not like he just popped on the scene. "Who do you think I am?" "I don't know." No, they, they, this could convey to us very clearly that Jesus was not really going around saying, "I'm the Messiah." The historical Jesus, I can't say certainly, but almost certainly, certainly in Jewish tradition, he did not claim to be the Messiah. And that's a claim that's a claim that would be made for him later on, okay? And you could see that pulling through in Mark, like nobody knows who he is, and that's the big mystery. The first eight chapters. It's only in chapter 8 that, why is that there? Now, it's very interesting. So you're right. So in Matthew, um, Peter says, "You are the Christ. You're the Messiah." You know, and so Jesus replies to him, "Flesh and blood couldn't reveal this to you." Which means that no one could have told you that. Okay? Like, so if you doubt, if you thought I said that Jesus, the historical Jesus never claimed to be the Messiah, I can't know, but I kind of know because this comes up in New Testament because I'll, in the Christian Bible, they're obviously writing it in a way trying to explain to the readers again, the Gospels are written like a half a century after Jesus' life. Okay? So if Jesus died in the, in 30, like Matthew and Luke, as an example, are written in the '80s, right? So it took a half a century later. So people are asking the question, I am sure, like, "But this guy wasn't going around saying, 'I'm the Messiah.' Why are you saying now that he's a Messiah?" So they say it was a big secret. You got it. That's why the, that's why these texts are there. So you have to understand these texts are inserted into the story as an apologetic to address the question of people who are contemporaneous of, "Wait, you're saying this guy who's whatever he was, who got in trouble with the empire, empire. This guy was the Messiah, but he never, I, I never heard anybody say he was the Messiah." So how would you address that? You would, early Christians would have to come up with, "Oh, it was a secret." Now you go, "Well, why would someone buy that?" So in the ancient world, the idea of the occult, the secret, the thing that is hidden, um, the mystery religion, the Gnostic beliefs, all that involved a secret that people didn't know, a mystery. And Paul is going to tell us over and over again that he's here through his own personal revelation to tell you the secret, to unravel the mystery that only he has access to. Okay? So whereas today, if someone said to you, "Do not, you're a 21st-century person. If you want to understand literature from the first century, you have to divorce yourself from the modern age that we live in where information is accessible everywhere." Moreover, we understand stuff. We understand why there are earthquakes. We know exactly what tectonic plates are. We get it. We know microbiology. I mean, we're not experts. We, but we get it. We get, you know, where mental illness comes from. We, we know DNA. They had no clue in the ancient world. They didn't know why people were alive and vigorous today and two days later they were dead. And no one knew why. They didn't know. They didn't know what lightning was. They, lightning. They saw a bolt of lightning and they thought the gods were throwing down, um, spears. They all thought that. They all thought that lightning was in the ancient world. What do they think? You see a bolt of lightning come down and hit earth, right? What do they think that the gods are throwing? They're angry. Gods are angry and they're throwing spears. And they didn't, they were, they absolutely clue. They had no idea. So why am I going through this? That in the ancient world, the idea that there's this mystery and we need to know the, the answer to the hidden mystery was part of their zeitgeist, their velt, their worldview. It's very important to understand to get history, you have to step out of your world where we have all the information you want. You go on ChatGPT, ask anything you want to, and bingo, you know, whatever. They didn't know anything then. They know anything. So therefore, I'm sure the people were saying that when they said that Jesus being the Messiah was a mystery that no one knew, that would have made sense in the ancient world, even though in Tanakh, it's not compatible. You see, in Tanakh, everybody knows it. "The knowledge of God fills the world as the water covers the sea." So none of this is in Tanakh. This idea of mysteries and the, no, the secret things belong to the Lord, but that which has been revealed belongs to us and our children forever, that we keep all the words of this Torah. It's the last passage of Deuteronomy 29. No, God is one. He's only one. He's one alone. There's nothing else. It's all simple, guys. Yeah, there are things that I can't explain to you, but you don't need to know about that. You just need to know to walk to, to the Lord, to love him, and have personal relation, be loyal to him. That you need to know. You, everything you need to know is there. No, there's none. But in the ancient world, there was "messiahs of the gods" and so on. Let's get back here. So when Peter responds, "You are the Christ," right? The response is, "Flesh and blood didn't reveal this to you." Translation: "No one could have told you that." Well, that's really important because what that means literally is that means that was a secret. Had it means you did not receive that from man. Now, you're asking me out, John 1:41. It doesn't matter because John 1:41 is a different book, and they don't agree with each other. They just don't. Stop thinking. There is a question among Christian scholars if whoever wrote the book of John read the Synoptic Gospels. This is a big question. It's out there. I think bear in mind that about 90% of the Fourth Gospel appears nowhere in the Synoptic Gospels. I mean, John is not just different. It's really different. Now, of course, there's the passion narrative which is more similar, you know, but you have the farewell discourse that goes on for five, just oldest John. 90% of John is not in the Synoptic Gospels. Okay. It's a really different book. And the church, it often was regarded as everyone's favorite book because they thought it was very spiritual, and certainly presented the highest Christology in the prologue in the first 18 passages of the John chapter one. There is some consensus among scholars. I don't like to appeal to that, but I, I don't think John was written by less than three authors, probably five. I can't prove it, but it's unlikely for many, many reasons. But it doesn't matter. They don't agree with any. They don't care. So what? So Luke chapter 1, verse 6, says that Mary and Elizabeth, the supposed parents of John the Baptist, never sinned. Okay, please look it up for yourself. Luke 1:6 says that that Elizabeth, so they were cousins of Mary. So it's all in the family there. That that Elizabeth, they were totally sinless, sinless. They never, they blamelessly kept all of God's commandments. Everything they did, everything right. If you know anything, you know that in Christian theology, that's impossible. They don't care. It's just whatever gives, whatever in that precipice, whatever the author wants you to know, there it is. One other point, I might as well point out, in the world, people didn't have access to books. They really didn't have access to books generally, with scrolls, but they could get a book in the ancient world. Someone had to write it by hand. That's what manuscript literally means. So this is why there's not going to be a lot of pushback is because it's written in a language people generally didn't understand. I mean, that's why the Reformers, even going to John Wycliffe, felt that it was really important to translate the Bible into a vernacular people actually spoke. Wycliffe, you know, publishes his, uh, Middle English translation of the Bible at the end of the 14th century. He's really the founder of the Reformation. But people like, "How did you even get a book?" So, the New Testament doesn't agree with itself. It's, it doesn't matter. You're right. It's like, why didn't John the Baptist know who the heck Jesus was? It doesn't make sense. On one end, John the Baptist, when he's baptizing Jesus, is saying that, "I'm not worthy to tie his sandals," but later on from prison, he's going, "Who is he?" Well, I, I would just, so you know, you can ask a Christian these questions. You can. But these are not the, these are very important questions. But the truth is, you have to dispense with the notion. You have to get rid of the idea. You have to jettison the notion that that the Gospels are univocal. They're totally highly variegated, and whatever the author felt like putting in there to, uh, get the message along was inserted. So if you wanted John the Baptist's parents to appear to be saints, then you wrote that there. Paul was saying everyone's a sinner. It doesn't matter. So it doesn't matter. These are, these books are not univocal theologically. They're, they're, another one contradicting in terms of like, um, you know, the stories contradict each other. Forget that. They just, they have a different type of message on a fundamental level. Anyway, thank you so much for your thoughtful question.

>> All right. All right. So, we are only seven minutes left. If you got time, I'll put this last question in.

>> All right. Go for it.

>> Okay. Here we go. 6556. Go ahead. You are live on the air.

>> Sure. Can you hear me or is the speaker a problem?

>> You're fine for now. Go ahead.

>> Okay. Hi Serato. So, um, I guess the form that this question is going to take is comparing the Noah or the time to [Music] the Book of Mormon, but not in practice, just in the realm of arguments. Meaning the same way how the Book of Mormon is something new that's not in the original Christian Bible. Therefore, the original Christian Bible states important. Um, arguably the, the in our time doesn't fit with the Christian Bible. So why does the Nostra take precedence over the actual Christian Bible itself? And I guess in the realm of arguments, I'm not saying in practice. Just in the realm of arguments, I guess what I'm

>> Okay, Rabbi, you clear?

>> All right.

>> Yeah.

>> Okay. Thank you. Tuning for your answer. Uh, Rabbi, go ahead and if you don't mind, rephrase that question for me. Just state a new question so we all understand. Thank you. So his question really, um, goes to the Book of Mormon, which is a, a different story, really different than the New Testament. It, it doesn't fit well. I mean, you can make it fit, and they do it in Utah all the time. At least the Book of Mormon is not called the New New Testament. At least they don't try that stunt out. And Nostra. So that's the, um, it's a document called "Nostra Aetate," and it is the most notable document to emerge out of the Second Vatican Council, which was completed in 1964. Isn't that new? Okay. So you can't compare the two. Okay. So really to understand why this, oh, wait, this document "Nostra Aetate" is a small but highly controversial document that the Roman, that the Roman Catholic Church hammered out, and it basically is calling for a favorable view of Jews. It's a, it's saying it's referring to the Jews as their elder brother, condemning anti-Semitism, and it's essentially saying that the Jews today are not responsible for killing Jesus. It was only the Jews who lived, you know, it was Jewish leaders who lived during the time of Jesus. Okay. All right. Now, background. Why would the Roman Catholic Church come out with this? Okay. Hitler's Pope, Pope Pius the XII. You know, whenever you have a pope with the name Pius, watch out. It's not a good sign. The Pius the XII, German, Hitler's Pope, who succeeded in having diplomatic relations with the Third Reich very quickly. The information's coming out. We always knew it. You know, he was in it. He was not just silent. It was a nightmare. The Catholic Church was, you know, it's interesting that Paul Johnson, who is a historian, not Jewish, brilliant man, you know, writes that, um, so it's intriguing during World War II, uh, 65% of Germans were Protestants, primarily Lutherans, and 35% were Roman Catholics. But as it turns out, of the, of the Wehrmacht, like 55% Roman Catholic, they really could have made a difference. You know, Goebbels, Goebbels was excommunicated by the Catholic Church. Of all the, all the big Nazis, he was the one that was excommunicated. And why was he excommunicated? He was excommunicated for marrying a Protestant. I'm not kidding. I am not kidding. You think that the Vatican would excommunicate him for being directly responsible for the Holocaust or for killing, respon? No. No. He happened to marry a Protestant. That was the reason. And I'm sure you're going to look this up because you're, this is like too insane to believe, right? Like the Vatican didn't think that other prominent members of the Gestapo should be excommunicated for killing Jews, right? You can't make this crazy stuff. Okay, so Pius the XII, the vicious anti-Semite, and he just let it happen right under his nose. He could have spoke out. You know, popes now know how to speak out about humanitarian crises. Now they know how to talk, speak. But then apparently silence, they thought was the best avenue. So as you can imagine, the Catholic Church had a problem on its head, like it has in the modern period. The Catholic Church had major scandals of massive pedophilia. Massive. I don't need to tell you this. Massive problems of not just its priests committing unspeakable acts of pedophilia. Not just that, but hiding them, moving the priests around, covering for them, all that stuff, right? It's a problem. And it's when it's a problem when they're able to put a new pope in, they take a nice smiley guy from Argentina who can, you know, come and he replaces. So what happens is Pius the XII dies in 1958. So the bad guy, the German pope, the Nazi collaborating pope, he dropped, he dies in 1958. Okay. Who are they going to bring in? So when they bring in a new pope, right, they got a deal. They got to put out a fire. The fire is that the Roman Catholic Church had a direct diplomatic relations with Nazi Germany. You know, when the state of Israel was born, there was no diplomatic relations between the Vatican. Didn't recognize Israel. It was not till much, much later when it was finally, because it's not important why, but they didn't. And Pius the X told Herzl, "Go to hell. I'm not, we're not going to recognize the state of Israel." So, so who do they bring in? Who was elected the next cardinal? Who, which cardinal was made the bishop of Rome? Meaning made the next pope? His name was Pope John the XXIII. Who was Pope John the XXIII? He was a man who really had a great love for Jews. He was a real genuine philo-Semite. He really liked Jews. He really liked Jews. And he, during the Holocaust, saved Jews. He, in turn, convenes the Second Vatican Council. Now, he dies before the council is completed. But a big part of that council was, we've got to deal with this issue of the Jews. So now we bring in a nice guy. Now he's the new Catholic Church. Like you have this guy, Leo the XIV. So now you have this smiley American guy now who's just nodding his head, right? Well, he's like, it's like a break from the guy beforehand. So, they bring in a pope who really, really was a good guy and really liked the Jews. And he sets forward, step forward to create a Second Vatican Council which will address anti-Semitism, which will expunge, remove all the anti-Semitic liturgy from the, um, let's say the Good Friday service, which until that point referred to the Jew as the "treacherous perfidious," and, and there were, there was such an uproar, believe me, there was a big uproar in the Arab world who opposed this completely. In the Arab world, this is the 1960s. Like, you know, forget it. So, there was a big uproar all over the place. You're not going to say nice things about the Jews. You're not. The opposition to this is explosive, but he pushes it through. He, now, this is not, he, this is not a pronouncement ex cathedra, but it, it has a very big effect on the Roman Catholic Church, and it's all for the positive. Did it go as far as it should have gone? No, of course not. But it was a, a very positive move. As I said, Pius the XII, excuse me, um, John the XXIII dies before it's completed, but it comes out, and it's a small document called "Nostra Aetate." And the key of it is, it's positive, and no one cares. It has nothing to do with the Book of Mormon. So don't conflate them. The Book of Mormon is a, a Christian book that Christians would never consider Christian. And it's just another accretion. The Book of Mormon is to the New Testament what the New Testament is to Tanakh. Okay. Uh, but the, the document "Nostra Aetate" was an effort by the Roman Catholic Church to present Roman Catholicism as as less hostile to Judaism. And it was, it's not a perfect document. You can read it online. It's not, you know, it doesn't mean that the Jews shouldn't know about Jesus. Doesn't say any of those things. But it definitely is positive. So they have nothing to do with each other. It's not an ex cathedra statement, means they're not Catholic. You should know it triggered a big part of the Catholic. I'll change that. It triggered a significant part of the Roman Catholic Church to reject it completely. And a lot, a lot of folks said, "Really? Second Vatican Council, Nostra Aetate, the Jews are not cursed? We're out of here." A lot of them did. And there, and they then didn't accept Pope John the XXIII or subsequent popes, and they're called the Sedevacantists, Sedevacantists, excuse me, Sedevacantists, which means people who say the seat is empty, meaning there's the popes today are not authentic. And this is like the Mel Gibson, the Marshall Taylor types, and they, they're not, whatever. They have funny views about Jews. In any case, thank you for your question, and to all of you.

>> Shalom.

>> Okay, Rabbi, just give me one second here, please. Okay, very good. Rabbi, thank you for your time. Uh, thank you all for tuning in. Uh, be sure to hit that like button, subscribe to the YouTube channel, turn on notifications, and buy Rabbi's books. If you've already got a set, get a set for your neighbor. That's how we, that's how we, we're going to save the world through this channel and through Rabbi Singer and through counter-missionary work. Guys, hit that like button, subscribe to the YouTube channel, go to Rabbi Singer's channel as well, and also don't forget his two-volume book set, uh, "Let's Get Bibles," Volume 1 and 2. The audio files are available, but the CDs are not, but they're available on his website.

>> The MP3. Let me say, I want to just one other thing. You guys listen carefully. Pay attention to that man. No, listen to me. It's so important. If you, you believe in the work that William is doing, that we're doing here. Whenever you watch any of our videos, please, please like it, and please share it. It's very important because it really affects the algorithm so that our videos are spread around. So really, it's very, very important that whenever you see a video of William, a video of mine, it's very important to like it. If you, I hope we like it, but if you do, don't just pass it. Just make sure you like it, and make sure that you subscribe to channels because it really has a very big impact on spreading Torah throughout the world. It's very, very important. You should really go through our videos and make sure that those videos that you haven't liked yet, you do like them. It really has a very, very big impact on spreading this message. Anyways, Shalom.

>> And commenting on them also helps generate views as well. So kind of refreshes them on the system. So Rabbi, thank you. Great show, and we'll see you at Shavua Tov, same time, same place next week. Shalom everyone.

>> Yeah.

>> Bye.

>> If you enjoy this channel and the content, and it has changed your life, or perhaps the life of a loved one or a close friend, would you please consider supporting this work? You can click this link, and it'll take you directly to my website with a donate button. Or there is a Patreon link and a mailing address for snail mail if you would prefer. If you do donate, please do me a favor and leave me a phone number where I can contact you and thank you properly. I hope you all have a wonderful 2025. Shalom.