I feel like a fool for believing for so long, these lies! The scales have truly fallen off my eyes, thanks to you Rabbi Singer. Thank You, When I hear these truths, I feel like I want to tear my garments and shave my head, just to purge all the untruth!
@@xiuhcoatl4830 Hashem is not my God. Allah Almighty is my God. Too many Gods would start a war in the heaven. Too many Gods and their power will be divided. I am talking about One Almighty - not many many smaller Gods. I do hope you will not fall prey to Satanic “Gods” with hideous looks.
@@didi9017 it's the same. It's not even a proper name, "al-ilah" just as hashem. And it's just one of many. Now speaking about hideous looks, islamic scriptures about Allah's looks are... interesting...
Rabbi Singer... I WAS a Christian many years ago. Take it from me... They are all 'crazy'. :-) Awesome lecture, btw... I cannot express in words how beneficial your videos have been in terms of me learning about Jewish Theology and helping me 'Connect' with my Heritage (My Father is Jewish, but he and everyone in the immediate family are totally 'secular'). Your material is beyond fantastic and immense knowledge is both 'inspiring' and 'humbling'. Keep up the incredible work. Baruch Ha'shem.
They are not as 'crazy' as they are misled - and hypcrites by NOT following all the important parts of the law, like forgiving and NOT judging each other. There is no need to - God is sovereign and guides with a staff OR a rod, thru blessings and curses respectively.
@@ChrisMusante yeah... fair enough. I'm not Man of 'Great Faith'. I'm very a skeptic. But, I can only 'Plat The Game of Life with the card I'm dealt'. That being said... Listening to Christian Apologetics can be downright infuriating. To argue that Mainstream Conservative Christianity is totally accurate is to say that all Jews including the most devout and learned Rabbis and Scholars no nothing about their own religion and all the Prophets (Abraham, Moses, David, Isaiah, etc. etc.) also knew nothing and then FINALLY after millenia, a Hellenized Jew named 'Saul of Tarsus' who clearly had a very poor comprehension of Jewish Theology and has no respect for it, somehow 'FIGURED IT ALL OUT' That's insanity! How can any reasonably intelligent person believe that. I recognize that that the '614'th Unwritten Mitzvah' is 'No Proselytizing' and I respect it. Some Things however Must be said. That's why I have such a profound respect for Rabbi Singer! He's a legend! I call him Rabbi Singer 'The Truth Bringer'. Don't hesitate to use that 'nickname' yourself. He deserves the recognition.
this is this fanaticism that is crazy and wars are built on...each word has a value...the intent of interpretation may cause many to misinterpret initial intent as of God. All the churches have different nuances and we listen to pastors and imams thinking they know truth when they are fulfilling agendas. Yes, I too am humbled and grateful to be able to discern truth. It was the 3 days and nights that broke me and the idolotrous pious "christianese" who are self serving and bigots and shaming if dont chime in with " me too...I am saved!" disgusts me.
It would be strange if Paul was a Roman operative, because he was beheaded in Rome by the Romans.... Your logic sounds like you came from the defunct American education system. No logic, just spontaneous fact creation out of thin air. You canot say you were a Christian if you left Christianity and come up with such weak reasoning.
And, Tovia is lying again at 10:12. In the Hebrew Bible there is a verse with the plural of seeds. 1 Samuel 8:15 וְזַרְעֵיכֶם וְכַרְמֵיכֶם, יַעְשֹׂר; וְנָתַן לְסָרִיסָיו, וְלַעֲבָדָיו And Thou Seeds...He will take.... Again, this is just slandering Paul as if He did not know the Hebrew text actually have a plural usage of Seeds. Here is the breakdown of the Second Person Masculine Plural of וְזַרְעֵיכֶם which translates to THOU SEEDS. It is not זְרַעֲכֶם, which would translate as THOU SEED. וְזַרְעֵיכֶם וְכַרְמֵיכֶם, יַעְשֹׂר; וְנָתַן לְסָרִיסָיו, וְלַעֲבָדָיו וְזַרְעֵיכֶם (ve-zar-ei-chem) - "and your seeds" וְכַרְמֵיכֶם (ve-kar-mei-chem) - "and your vineyards" יַעְשֹׂר (ya'asor) - "he will take a tenth" וְנָתַן (ve-natan) - "and give" לְסָרִיסָיו (le-sa-ri-sav) - "to his officers" וְלַעֲבָדָיו (ve-la-a-va-dav) - "and to his servants"
You are fed a clever trick here, one of omission. Here is my response to Mr Singer, who looks and sounds so insincere as to raise major suspicion: Paul was a Christian, not a Jew, so why should his exegesis be the same as yours? He underwent a radical change of understanding from what he used to. Your examples of missquotes? Not convincing! You skillfully avoided mentioning Gen 3:15 where God mentions seed and in that same as הִיא (it) where it clearly in Strongs dictionary reference H1931 states this to be [the third person pronoun singular, he (she or it)] to show that it is the singular. Paul was explaining the meaning as per the Torah. That there are other seeds that would be part of the innumerable number, is not disputed, but here a specific seed is mentioned that in Christianity is clearly understood. Very clever omission, Mr Singer!
@@your_utube If I have one pair of pants, do I say "My pants is in the closet" Of course not Number agreement in irregular nouns is nothing special here. I know it's hard to accept but Paul clearly didn't know any Hebrew.
I gave the whole Bible, both the "Old Testament" and the "New Testament" a go at once, reading (and studying) it from cover to cover for hours each day for 2-3 months. I used 2 Study Bibles (a Catholic and a Protestant version - NAB and NKJV), and used a third one (NIV) in case of the other two not being clear enough. It was very revealing, and I got into the mind of "Paul", so to speak. His ridiculous, twisted "logic", comparisons and a way of convincing his audience made him sound so much like a prosector, a lawyer who is twisting facts and logic in order to convict an innocent person. Unsurprisingly, I later found out that he was a lawyer. No wonder he sounded like a crafty one.
You are right. Paul deceived and concocted his version of Christianity. He was once an enemy of Jesus but after Jesus died Paul claims that Jesus came to him in his dreams On The Road to Damascus and so Paul embraced Christianity and became highly respected. Millions will go to hell because they believe in the Child-like stories Paul concocted.
@@Wakamolewonder I follow Islam. Don't get me wrong, I don't reject ALL of the Bible, there are God's words in it and parts of it are very inspiring, it has actually strengthened my faith and filled some gaps, but it is not easy to distinguish between the corrupted and uncorrupted parts, except where it is obvious that it is the words of a man speaking in his own name. Study Bibles provide many notes, so it's easier to tell where scholars have found corruption, which is definitely not to say that the original manuscript was 100% word of God; the Bible was never revealed as such. Bible or "Biblia" (in Latin) means "Books" and it is a collection of writings, some of which are considered a direct revelation from God, some are considered as inspired from God, and others are clearly historical descriptions of past events or personal thoughts and opinions of an important man (such as king David). And I argue that Saul, a.k.a. "Saint Paul", was a charlatan just like Joseph Smith of the Mormonism, using parts of the previous revelations but twisting or changing them to fit his own narrative Yes, I know many Christians will say the same about prophet Muhammad, but look at his message vs. "Paul" and Joseph Smith and check their claims for consistency with God's core message! It is the reason why I took the time and effort to go through the whole Bible, to see how right or wrong was the Qur'an. Both the Bible and the Qur'an instruct us to verify claims, not to just blindly believe anyone without thinking on our own. Only "Paul" says the opposite of that, because as soon as you start analyzing his words/message and questioning his sincerity, you arrive at the conclusion that he is a twister, a liar, a pretender, a hypocrite. That's why he discourages people from thinking, from using their own minds, and insists that his nonsense only sounds like nonsense because it is "higher than man's wisdom" ("God's foolishness is wiser than the wisdom of men" is what this scumbag says. Doesn't even shy away from attaching foolishness to God in order to mislead people.)
@@didi9017 "Paul" always was and has always remained an enemy of Jesus. He was an agent of Rome, and he did a superb job to convince countless masses that he was speaking for God, while turning a pure, anti-Roman, anti-pagan monotheism of a Jewish Jesus into an anti-Jewish, pro-Roman pagan mythology mixed with Jewish monotheism, the two extreme opposites which never mix, like oil and water, and that's why they've been coming up with an exact "monotheistic" definition of "trinity" for centuries and still made it contradictory and confusing. And "Paul" didn't claim his first seeing of Jesus as a dream, but as an open, real occurence which was allegedly witnessed by those around him (and why would they lie to support his claim, it's not like they were Saul's helpers against Jesus, right? 😉)
“Paul” or Saul or whomever he was, is the singular starting reason I converted to Judaism. Didn’t know my moms grandma was Sephardic Jew. In fact she married into a family that began here in USA in 1670 and started the NYC Portuguese-Spanish synagogue, then moved on and married of into the “stroh’s beer” family, and then we find their headstones and they had hands of the Cohen on them. So my great grandma and her husband were both Jewish and for some reason moved to Alabama. Go figure. Maybe HaShem sent my soul back in order to come back to HIM? Idk
Wow! I've read that Galations verse about the seed as a Christian, but I never picked up on that mistake! These are things Christians are not aware of. We only know select teachings, they are cherry picked that we are to know. For ex: we are only simply and repeatedly taught , I guess the important th ings such as the birth of Jesus, his baptism, his teachings, miracles, crucifixion, resurrection and then it's s repeated. We are completely unaware of mistakes, and if we do see a contradiction in scripture, we just accepted it as is and figure there is no explanation. Now however the truth is getting out through UA-cam and websites like yours.
"seeds" is a KJV mistake, corrected in the NIV, NASB, Green's Literature, etc. NIV says: The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. Scripture does not say 'and to seeds,' meaning many people, but 'and to your seed,' meaning one person, who is Christ."
You are fed a clever trick here, one of omission. Here is my response to Mr Singer, who looks and sounds so insincere as to raise major suspicion: Paul was a Christian, not a Jew, so why should his exegesis be the same as yours? He underwent a radical change of understanding from what he used to. Your examples of missquotes? Not convincing! You skillfully avoided mentioning Gen 3:15 where God mentions seed and in that same as הִיא (it) where it clearly in Strongs dictionary reference H1931 states this to be [the third person pronoun singular, he (she or it)] to show that it is the singular. Paul was explaining the meaning as per the Torah. That there are other seeds that would be part of the innumerable number, is not disputed, but here a specific seed is mentioned that in Christianity is clearly understood. Very clever omission, Mr Singer!
@@karishmakhan2083 I have read the verses and don't agree with Tobia. He thinks that if you multiply then you started with many. You can as easily multiply 1 by 100 as by 1000 to get more than the original 1. The Strong's Hebrew dictionary gives it as H2233 זֶרַע and it is seed, which is singular. Mr Know-it-all should have a dictionary in front of his boastful self before playing the "I am a rabbi" card. He is just so bad, and people fall for this deluded man devoid of the Spirit of God. Has he even heard of the Holy Spirit? He understands as much as a Roman Catholic priest, which is nothing!
And, Tovia is lying again at 10:12. In the Hebrew Bible there is a verse with the plural of seeds. 1 Samuel 8:15 וְזַרְעֵיכֶם וְכַרְמֵיכֶם, יַעְשֹׂר; וְנָתַן לְסָרִיסָיו, וְלַעֲבָדָיו And Thou Seeds...He will take.... Again, this is just slandering Paul as if He did not know the Hebrew text actually have a plural usage of Seeds. Here is the breakdown of the Second Person Masculine Plural of וְזַרְעֵיכֶם which translates to THOU SEEDS. It is not זְרַעֲכֶם, which would translate as THOU SEED. וְזַרְעֵיכֶם וְכַרְמֵיכֶם, יַעְשֹׂר; וְנָתַן לְסָרִיסָיו, וְלַעֲבָדָיו וְזַרְעֵיכֶם (ve-zar-ei-chem) - "and your seeds" וְכַרְמֵיכֶם (ve-kar-mei-chem) - "and your vineyards" יַעְשֹׂר (ya'asor) - "he will take a tenth" וְנָתַן (ve-natan) - "and give" לְסָרִיסָיו (le-sa-ri-sav) - "to his officers" וְלַעֲבָדָיו (ve-la-a-va-dav) - "and to his servants"
@@williamblack3711 thanks for that🤔 what’s ur thoughts on the scrolls ??? They say a lot are fake? Are they all fake ? There is a UA-cam they say the scrolls are too new a language and it’s too much a coincidence they found them at the end of ww2 all a set up ??? Also there is a lady who wrote a book saying jesus was from Egypt ? I think ? And they have the timeline wrong I can’t remember who she said was probably Jesus ! Well thank you
@@williamblack3711 None of what you said makes a difference because Paul was simply killing the Gnostic Christians, the remainder of the Hellenized Jews who were the followers of the Mystical Apocalyptic Sect who believed that a Jewish messiah KING would save them. Even if the ROMANS hadn't have killed him, "jesus" wasn't qualified to be a KING to save his Mystical Apocalyptic Judaism because he had no Father, so had no TRIBE. (INRI was SARCASTIC, of course). Familiarize yourself with Heresiology. DURING THE FIRST ONE HUNDRED YEARS OF CHRISTIANITY, HELLENIZED JEWS WERE NOT TRINITARIANS. Paul killed off the "HERETICS" ( TRUE SAINTS) and replaced them decades later with ROMAN SAINTS. The Vatican't has released a huge amount of material. The only reason that there were "MARTYRS" in the Actual History of the Church was because of the Islamic Caliphates, not because they were dying for the Ancient, Mystical, Apocalyptic sect of Orthodox JUDAISM that "jesus", the Enlightened taught, which became Gnostic Christianity, in which the "Way" knew that "jesus" was not HASHEM. PAUL NEVER KNEW the "jesus" CHARACTER. He was simply used by Paul/ Rome to create a State Religion ( Theocracy) Thanks to his LYING self, we have Idiotic MARTYRDOM in Islm. and a model from the Roman Crusades: the Last BEAST: MODERN CHRISTIANITY/ ISLM. CALIPHATES...PAUL IS IN 🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥
@@williamblack3711 As for Paul's "epiphany", this is what you expect intelligent Jews to follow jesus CULTS over? Give us a break. One witness was blind, the other deaf. And because of that, we have Godless Modern Christianity. Mike Butter Bickle had a Pre-Post-Mid-Trib-Apostolic Premillennialism "epiphany", too. Heck, even Kat. K. said that "she went to heaven" and there was a section that was like "Christmas Town". "Epiphanies" used to happen alot when someone was FORCED TO CONVERT. You might have an "epiphany" too, when you are forced by the sword to CONVERT TO the Islm. CALIPHATE.
@@williamblack3711 I'm curious, how can you defend a Godless RELIGION in which forcing Jews to be Baptized and CONVERTED under the sword is something that you can defend, in your heart? Do you really believe that it is RIGHTEOUS for a Jew to be bur..... on a Roman Cross if they refuse to be Baptized and CONVERTED? How are you okay with that in your SOUL? That is a Wicked Curse that you live under, Christians support that, by default. 🕎
Mathematically speaking, that is a "possibility" only; not a "probability." Do you understand the difference between the two? To insist your assertion as absolutely true, seems evil in intent, not to mention obviously biased. And if you really read & contemplated all of Paul's letters, you'd question much of what Tovia "opinionated" here. To have questionable "doubts" is ok, for any believer of any religion. But to cast aspersions upon people (u don't know well) or opposing religions is an obvious attack, coming from (usually) an ignorant opponent. Tovia isnt totally "ignorant" just obstinate in his own reasoning skills. Thus his "blindness" remains, though he can read/write/speak hebrew and OT/NT scriptures.
Muhammad was just a patch work of illiterate Arian and Gnostic heresies. You don't believe in Jesus, so it is not surprising you would deny Paul who teaches the same Jesus as in The Gospel.
Sean Chaney Muhammad (saw) is the messenger of God. He performed miracles, predicted prophecies which were later fulfilled, taught that there is none worthy of worship except God, and claimed a revelation which has been preserved for 1400 years.
Sean, You got it that's why Islam is sometimes called a Christian heresy.It's like people are half pregnant.Either Christ is the holy one of Israel divine true man and true God. Muslims stop believing like a bad salesman they cannot close the deal. Muslims think Jesus was just a prophet.
My word, this is such an important distinction you’ve made. As someone raised an American Jew and moving to israel for the year, this makes me feel a bit more secure in my own religion.
And, Tovia is lying again at 10:12. In the Hebrew Bible there is a verse with the plural of seeds. 1 Samuel 8:15 וְזַרְעֵיכֶם וְכַרְמֵיכֶם, יַעְשֹׂר; וְנָתַן לְסָרִיסָיו, וְלַעֲבָדָיו And Thou Seeds...He will take.... Again, this is just slandering Paul as if He did not know the Hebrew text actually have a plural usage of Seeds. Here is the breakdown of the Second Person Masculine Plural of וְזַרְעֵיכֶם which translates to THOU SEEDS. It is not זְרַעֲכֶם, which would translate as THOU SEED. וְזַרְעֵיכֶם וְכַרְמֵיכֶם, יַעְשֹׂר; וְנָתַן לְסָרִיסָיו, וְלַעֲבָדָיו וְזַרְעֵיכֶם (ve-zar-ei-chem) - "and your seeds" וְכַרְמֵיכֶם (ve-kar-mei-chem) - "and your vineyards" יַעְשֹׂר (ya'asor) - "he will take a tenth" וְנָתַן (ve-natan) - "and give" לְסָרִיסָיו (le-sa-ri-sav) - "to his officers" וְלַעֲבָדָיו (ve-la-a-va-dav) - "and to his servants"
Paul was a Herodian Jew. He was secured an education at the feet of Gamliel not because of his ability, but because of his privelage and wealth. As a Herodian Hellenized Jew, he took his inheritance and education for granted which is probably why he is so terrible regarding his use of the Old Testament and his reliance on the Greek. A line can be traced from Herod to "Saulus" who according to a historian enjoyed terrorizing people - which does match what we know of Paul before his conversion. Paul had a contentious relationship with the Apostles. He regarded himself as an equal and claimed to be an Apostle himself. The writings of Clement show that the Apostles hated Paul and still referred to him as an enemy even after the conversion. Paul spends many of his epistles desperately attempting to maintain the respect and allegiance of his followers by constantly defending himself. I'm a Christian however I'm 100% on board with you on this. This does not threaten Christianity. It threatens the institution - however with Paul's writings out of the way we are brought back to original Christianity. The Christianity taught and practiced by Jesus and his followers. A Christianity of Torah and Jesus as messiah.
Even when i identified as a Christian i wasn't a fan of paul. What bothered me is that even though they called themselves Christians they seemed to be more followers of paul
@@anthonyjames4319 my friend if you look the last letters of Paul he's ready for his death. Also the tradition of the church mentioned. Acts 21:13 ( he is willing to die) Acts 9:16 ( the Lord Jesus told him) 2 Timothy 4:6-8 ( Paul anticipating his soon demise). Repent of yours sins, came to the Messiah of Yisrael Jesus and have eternal life. Be bless my friend 🙏
@@elduromiguel06 someone being willing to die is not evidence of anything. People of all kinds of faiths die everyday for what they believe, it doesn’t mean it’s true.
Thank you so much for helping me see how foolish the core doctrines of Christianity actually are. I was seduced by it for a long time but now I am free
As the "Apostle to the Gentiles", he was teaching to people who did not know anything about Hebrew. He did not want to convert them to Judaism, to make them closer to the Jewish faith, so he did not require them to learn Hebrew. This is in sync with the approach in Judaism to Noahism, where you can communicate with God in your own mother tongue and those who do not ask for it are not required to convert to Judaism. The use of Greek translation in the letters and their total preference over Hebrew makes perfect sense from this point of view.
Michael...here's another way to look at it...Greek was the preferred language for HELLENICISED Jews of Alexandria and PHILO. As was Greek philosophy, whereby Philo mixed Plato with Hebrew scripture. And that is really where the Logos idea comes from...Plato. Then there's the Septuagint...it looks like the Septuagint was drawing heavily on the SAMARITAN pentateuch, at around 2000 to 3000 points of commonality. Neither group overly fond of Jerusalem Judaism. And then there's Herod Agrippa (II), more a fan of Greek Philosophy, turning against the Jews after 66 c.e., and being very much liked by Hellenicised Jews, Samaritans and Greeks after that point of time...the same groups known to have made up early Christianity. No, there wasn't a fondness for Hebrew...but the reasons are different from expected. For that brief time...and for the Samaritans and Hellenicised Jews, for the next hundred years, till Irenaeus...alternative narratives had won against Jerusalem and Torah Judaism.
What I learned many years ago in slowly moving completely away from Christianity is this; 1. The only book of the New Testament which I trust to have some accurate information about the life of Jesus is Mark. After this, James is at least somewhat consistent with Mark. I rejected Paul as well as anything with the name John attached to it. 2. I looked to find connections between the words attributed to Jesus & the Jewish Bible. 3. Translations by Christians of the Jewish Bible often cannot be trusted as Rabbi Singer has described. I am looking now for English translations by Rabbis such as The Israel Bible.
@@fredgillespie5855 He has done plenty of videos about that! He strongly advised against the KJV, and other translations, and he pointed out errors that have been made in translation into English. Maybe you could give some evidence how and when "the Rabbis" have changed the Hebrew scripture. Who were those Rabbis, and when did this happen? I never heard of it. Any Rabbi who dares to change anything in the Tanakh knows they would have to deal with G-d's wrath. I don't think this is very likely. Read the Artscroll Tanakh, forget the KJV.
@@ToviaSinger1 Honorable Rebbe Please note that only the Bedouins who are the direct descendants of Ishmael are the cousins of the Jews descendants of Isaac - and they speak Arabic! Thus, the vast majority of Muslims in the world are called MUTWALIM which means those who have accepted Islam and therefore they become a part of the necessity of their conversion to Islam That is why there is always enmity between the Bedouin who are the original Arabs and the Ishmaelites the cousins of the Jews and the other Muslims who are just joining! Note in Israel, the Muslim Bedouins serve in the army and integrate well into the Israeli defense system! This is because of the family closeness between the Jews and the Bedouin
A caveat should be added at 9:13. What R. Singer means is that in Hebrew there is no way to say "seeds" in reference to offspring. There is a plural of the word, such as in "apple seeds," "sunflower seeds," etc., but it is NEVER used in reference to offspring. Those are only referred to as the collective noun "seed."
And, Tovia is lying again at 10:12. In the Hebrew Bible there is a verse with the plural of seeds. 1 Samuel 8:15 וְזַרְעֵיכֶם וְכַרְמֵיכֶם, יַעְשֹׂר; וְנָתַן לְסָרִיסָיו, וְלַעֲבָדָיו And Thou Seeds...He will take.... Again, this is just slandering Paul as if He did not know the Hebrew text actually have a plural usage of Seeds. Here is the breakdown of the Second Person Masculine Plural of וְזַרְעֵיכֶם which translates to THOU SEEDS. It is not זְרַעֲכֶם, which would translate as THOU SEED. וְזַרְעֵיכֶם וְכַרְמֵיכֶם, יַעְשֹׂר; וְנָתַן לְסָרִיסָיו, וְלַעֲבָדָיו וְזַרְעֵיכֶם (ve-zar-ei-chem) - "and your seeds" וְכַרְמֵיכֶם (ve-kar-mei-chem) - "and your vineyards" יַעְשֹׂר (ya'asor) - "he will take a tenth" וְנָתַן (ve-natan) - "and give" לְסָרִיסָיו (le-sa-ri-sav) - "to his officers" וְלַעֲבָדָיו (ve-la-a-va-dav) - "and to his servants"
Your videos have vindicated and confirmed for me that Christianity is all about "exclusion" and a global form of pushing the "we-they" syndrome. I always knew something wasn't right with the hatred it espouses for "unbelievers." I could never quite put my finger on why I felt that way until I encountered you brilliant videos. May G-D continue to Bless you and allow you to teach us what His Blessed name wants his children to know. The most important arguments that have been previously lacking are "historical and cultural context" as well as "translation errors." It is a "simple" thing, but translating Hebrew and/or Aramaic , into Greek, then to other languages obviously is a problem, not to mention misattribution of the authors of the New Testament in particular.
@Abraham Mani No matter how clear it is that Saul of Tarsus is a liar, a deceiver, a hypocrite, some people just prefer to hold onto the lies without thinking.
@@user-03-gsa3 when two religions are heretical to the other, there is no conclusion that can be drawn from that. Look at the teachings and see which one makes sense, ignoring completely the tradition that you were taught which clouds judgment.
"Where does it say Paul died for anything?" Good point. Although he had this big speech before heading to Jerusalem the last time...Acts records him as doing all he could to AVOID getting killed. It was long a point that raised a question mark that his behaviour in the last few chapters of Acts showed a man going out of his way to avoid dying for anything...to the point he "sought the protection of the ROMANS to avoid 'zealous believers.' But then...I also consider Acts a second-century document, probably in its earliest form written around the mid-2nd century...but definitely edited into its final form around the 190s. Seems whoever did either, whether the writer or the editor, could have actually been channelling something that happened in the 66-70 c.e. period...Herod Agrippa (II) seeking the protection of the ROMANS to avoid ZEALOTS. There's also the fact everyone outside the proto-Catholics also considered "Paul" to REALLY be Mark, not some droob from Tarsus. But back to the Acts narrative...does it sound like Paul was under "house arrest?" in Rome? Nope. A good read showed he had a Roman bodyguard and still took visitors. Doesn't sound like a man under arrest at all. Interestingly, in the years AFTER 70 c.e., we find Herod Agrippa living a life of luxury in Rome...and talking strange things related to "Two Powers in Heaven. He'd have probably have already died by the time Acts was first written...but the writer seemed to have a clue about Herod Agrippa's career. Of course, the writer of Acts said the zealots had DISPERSED...but that actually did NOT happen till at least after the Bar Kochba revolt. Bar Kochba is known to have given weight to their opinions, so that means they were still in existence till at least 135 c.e. So...for the writer of Acts to have thought they'd dispersed...that would have had to be at a time AFTER 135 c.e. I'm now definitely sure there was a zealot faction or two around in the time of the KITOS war (115-117 c.e)...as I can see some RESENTMENT building among Jews to the superior position Samaritans, Hellenicised-Jews and Greeks held in Iudea AFTER the destruction of the 2nd temple. That means, for 45 years, that resentment built and powderkegged around 115 c.e. But contrary to what Christians think...there doesn't look to have REALLY been any "i" spelling christians in 115. ONLY a bunch of Samaritans, Hellenicist-Jews and Greeks virtue-signallying themselves as the "Good" to the Romans...and benefitting from the Roman victory. That's the "e" spelling ChrEstians. Not a misprint...a virtue-signalling that even had its own theology. Two thoughts on the real origins of Galatians. One...part of a set of letters, core ones, with the first Evangelion published and made a "Great Proclamation" after 70 c.e. OR...two...something written by someone in the INTERMEDIATE stage AFTER Bar Kochba.
I didn't hear the rabbis talk but from my knowledge Paul changed from. Persecuting Christians to becoming one teaching and being persecuted. Something happened on the road to Damascus which changed thing.
It is a pleasure having some one complement and expand on the what rabbi is teaching and posts informative comments. I find most do not fact check and simply post more dogma or worse in response. It may be that a handful of people look into all of our information and start to question why they believe what they were simply told by european church fathers as accurate or true.
Hosea 2:23 The Lords Mercy on Israel 23 and I will sow her for myself in the land. And I will have mercy on No Mercy, and I will say to Not My People, You are my people; and he shall say, You are my God.
Paul was certainly a charlatan & a con man. Another awesome read is Hyam Maccoby's "The Mythmaker - Paul and the Invention of Christianity. Even go back as far as Julius Wellhausen who concludes: "Jesus was not a Christian."
I have been listening to this wonderful Jewish man for acwhile now. He literally is strengthening my faith in Jesus Christ even more. I am completely hopeful one day when the number of Gentiles is full, our brothers the Jewish people will see Him whom they have pierced and mourn for Him as one mourns for an only child.
Powerful video. My views of Paul have changed from passionate love to caution. I believe Xtianity and Islam are paving the way for the spread of the knowledge of God in the messianic age. God bless you, rabbi
Peace Brother, I am having a similar feeling. Studying Rabbi Abulafia and his thoughts of what the full significance of "the Messiah" is, not just historically, but symbolically and metaphysically, fits right in. (More than abstract) Knowledge of Hashem/Allah as the Being of the same. Salam
@@richardjohnson6140 so does Christians bible copying from Judaism and Judaism copying from earlier law ..do you understand the concept of Abraham religions? Love your neighbor.. Are you sure jesus are the first one who teach it? No it was moses teaching
@@richardjohnson6140 Don't be silly. Yes Islam doesn't mention Paul but it clearly says there were false teachers who wrote things claiming they were from God. It raises suspicions and there is a lot to be suspicious about Paul. Your claim that the quran copied the Bible is just your fanciful subjective views which you of course can't prove. Similarity has many cause other than plagiarism.
@@fredgillespie5855 they are not in agreement with Peter, James or Jesus himself, making Paul a single witness. As presented in modern Bible's the teachings are not compatible with the over all Jewish beliefs/structure of ancient time.
@@fredgillespie5855 for what reason? I am not interested in debating my conclusions, after many years of reading, learning and researching, so a Christian can once again try to convince me I am wrong and save my soul.
He doesn't understand Christianity that well though. These objections may be devastating against literalist protestants, but largely toothless against Orthodoxy. Orthodoxy always understood that Paul wasn't above making mistakes. The claim is that he was inspired by God, not a literal mouthpiece. And what these examples show is not a liar, just a man prone to wild (but not impossible) interpretations of scriptures and problematic breaks with tradition. Anyway, Christianity's claim to authority doesn't stand or fall on what Paul said or did. Or anyone after him. It stands and falls with two claims: the resurrection of Christ and the immortality of his Church. If either of these is ever proven false, Christianity is over.
@@youneedonlyknowthenameofgo7786: What you seem to not realize, is that the "New Testament" is NOT scripture that was given to mankind by God, therefore it has ZERO authority in spiritual teaching. The ONLY scriptures ever given to mankind by God is His ETERNAL (i.e. STILL in effect and binding TODAY - a LIVING DOCUMENT!) Hebrew scriptures that He gave to Moses on Mt. Sinai. He specifically told us at that time, that because the Torah IS Eternal, that we are NOT to follow ANY other teaching than what is in His Torah. Christianity IS another teaching, therefore, we are not to follow its false, pagan teachings - God's orders! Nowhere did God ever tell us to expect a SECOND SET of scriptures (i.e. the false, pagan NT) since the only scriptures He ever gave to us are Eternal, and are STILL in effect TODAY! Also, God ABHORS human sacrifice (a purely PAGAN ritual!) therefore, the 'Jesus dying on a cross for people's sins' narrative, just did NOT happen. PLEASE do some honest research on how your false, pagan religion started, and you WILL discover that it absolutely did NOT come from God, Creator of the universe.
@@janishart5128 God doesn't owe you anything. He doesn't need you. He doesn't have to warn you before inspiring someone to write anything. You, as all men, are insignificant before God. Anyway, as I said, the resurrection is ultimately the divine vindication that Christ was who he said he was. Only God can command death to release its hold. If Easter happened Christianity is true and the Church is immortal.
@@youneedonlyknowthenameofgo7786: Where did I ONCE say that "God owes me anything"?! That's a fabrication by YOU! "Christ" is totally irrelevant, and nowhere in the Hebrew scriptures does God say ANYTHING about "Jesus", "Christ", "Easter", or the "church"! Those words name come from the false, pagan, anti-God, anti-Jewish, hate-filled, replacement theology "New Testament", which I've already informed you, did NOT come from God, and is NOT what He ACTUALLY said to us. Human sacrifice is a PAGAN ritual that God ABHORS and that He NEVER commanded us to perform for the forgiveness of our sins. Even animal sacrifice was only used for UNintentional sins - there were MANY other types of sacrifices that people brought to the Temple - NO dead guy on a cross required!! I want you to think VERY seriously about this: "Jesus" was NOT a "sacrifice" in ANY sense of the word, because by definition, a "sacrifice" STAYS DEAD! It doesn't rise again a few days later! THINK FOR YOURSELF!! You have been told what God's ACTUAL Truth is, as taught by the rabbis (as commanded by God!) and now it's up to YOU to do some honest research for YOURSELF, and seek that Truth out, and stop listening with "itching ears" to the "blind guides" who have been outright lying to us for centuries. Christianity is the biggest hoax ever perpetrated on mankind, and you need to do some honest research on this false, pagan religion to discover this Truth for yourself. Only when you're ready to hear God's Truth, and you call out to Him about this, will He open your eyes to that Truth, and not before - because God forces Himself on nobody. PLEASE listen to what the rabbis are saying, and re-read what I've said to you, thinking VERY seriously about what I've said about how Christianity is not even close to God's ACTUAL Truth. The ONLY question you should be asking yourself at this point is: "What did God ACTUALLY say to us on Mt. Sinai?", which is the ONLY time He gave His instructions for living, to mankind.
@@janishart5128 Nothing you said matters. It's irrelevant. You don't know the first thing about Christian doctrine, as evidenced by your bizzare claim that Jesus' death was a human sacrifice for our sin. The church has never taught that. Your attempt at criticizing Christianity is pathetic and you should be ashamed of your ignorance. There are many independent reasons to think Judaism is false. But as I've said before, Easter is what matters. If Easter happened, your religion is irrelevant.
Deuteronomy 32:21 21 They have made me jealous with what is no god; they have provoked me to anger with their idols. So I will make them jealous with those who are no people; I will provoke them to anger with a foolish nation.
In reference to the prophet Hosea, consider the words of Yeshua: "He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” - Matthew 15:24 So the peshat of Hosea is referring to the House of Israel (Ephraim) being carried away into captivity, but the remez of Hosea is speaking of Yeshua coming for Ephraim (the lost sheep of the House of Israel). The problem is that Christians have an identity crisis. They do not realize that they are the lost tribes. James makes it clear who they are: "James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes scattered among the nations: Greetings." - James 1:1 Why would James refer to the gentiles who are being saved, as the "tribes scattered among the nations" if it was not Ephraim? Why would Yeshua say He only came for the lost sheep of the house of Israel (Ephraim) if He came for another people? Would Yeshua lie? For YHWH gave the northern tribes a writ of divorce. And a woman who is divorced cannot marry again until the death of her husband. The husband of Israel is Yeshua, and Yeshua had to die so that they could covenant again. That covenant is the Torah written in their hearts. That Torah is Yeshua, for He is the word made flesh (1 John 1:14). Isaiah 53 makes it clear what Yeshua Ha Machiach will do: "But He was pierced for our transgressions, He was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon Him, and by His stripes we are healed. We all like sheep have gone astray, each one has turned to his own way; and the Lord has laid upon Him the iniquity of us all." - Isaiah 53:5-6
@@fredgillespie5855 The Rabbis of today don't believe that ch.53 refers to the Messiah, but all Rabbis prior to the Middle ages did, such as Maimonides. This is part of the reason why Isaiah 53 is not appear in synagogue calendar readings. But its obscurity, its presence in the shadows, and the silence surrounding it shouts its importance. It's omission from the synagogue readings points to its uniqueness. One Jewish scholar, Claude Montefiore, explained: “Because of the Christological interpretation given to the chapter by Christians it is omitted from the series of prophetical lessons for the Deuteronomy Sabbaths…the omission is deliberate and striking.” Why is the omission so striking? Because when we finish the cycle of readings for the year, we haven’t really finished it. We’ve left out a portion of our own prophets ostensibly because of what Christians think about it. Why has the Christian interpretation of Jewish Scripture placed regulations on what is or is not read in synagogues around the world? So what did the rabbinic sages say prior to 1000 AD? Excerpt from the Babylonian Talmud clearly showing that Isaiah 53 is referencing the Messiah: "What is his [the Messiah’s] name? The Rabbis said: His name is “the leper scholar,” as it is written, “Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him a leper, smitten of God, and afflicted.” (Sanhedrin 98b)" Similarly, in an explanation of Ruth 2:14 in the Midrash Rabbah it states: He is speaking of the King Messiah: “Come hither,” draw near to the throne; “and eat of the bread,” that is, the bread of the kingdom; “and dip thy morsel in the vinegar,” this refers to the chastisements, as it is said, “But he was wounded for our transgressions, bruised for our iniquities.” The Zohar, in its interpretation of Isaiah 53, points to the Messiah as well: There is in the Garden of Eden a palace named the Palace of the Sons of Sickness. This palace the Messiah enters, and He summons every pain and every chastisement of Israel. All of these come and rest upon Him. And had He not thus lightened them upon Himself, there had been no man able to bear Israel's chastisements for the transgression of the law; as it is written, “Surely our sicknesses he has carried.” (Zohar II, 212a) The early sages expected a personal Messiah to fulfill the Isaiah prophecy. No alternative interpretation was applied to this passage until the Middle Ages. And then, a completely different view was popularized by Jewish commentator Rashi (Rabbi Shlomo Itzchaki), who lived one thousand years after Yeshua. Rashi believed that the servant passages of Isaiah referred to the collective fate of the nation of Israel rather than a personal Messiah. Some rabbis, such as Ibn Ezra and Kimhi, agreed. However, many other rabbinic sages during this same period and later-including Maimonides-realized the inconsistencies of Rashi’s views and would not abandon the original messianic interpretation Isaiah 53. The objections these rabbis put forth to this change were threefold: First, they showed the consensus of ancient opinion. Second, they pointed out that the text is grammatically in the singular tense throughout. For example, “He was despised and rejected … he was pierced for our transgressions … he was led like a lamb to the slaughter.” Third, they noted verse eight of chapter 53. This verse presents some difficulty to those who interpret this passage as referring to Israel: "By oppression and judgment he was taken away; and as for his generation, who considered that he was cut off out of the land of the living, stricken for the transgression of my people?" (Isaiah 53:8) But, were the Jewish people ever “cut off from the land of the living?” Absolutely not! God promises that Israel will live forever: "If this fixed order [the sun to shine by day, the moon and stars to shine by night, etc.] departs from before me, declares the Lord, then shall the offspring of Israel cease from being a nation before me forever." (Jeremiah 31:36) Likewise, this interpretation makes nonsense of the phrase, “for the transgression of my people he was stricken,” since “my people” clearly means the Jewish people. If verse eight refers to Israel, then are we to read that Israel is stricken for Israel because of Israel’s sin? How can the sin-bearer and the sinner be the same? Likewise, how can Israel be the servant, the one who “had done no violence, nor was any deceit in his mouth” (Isaiah 53:9)? Israel is not now, nor ever has been, without sin-the Scriptures are replete with examples of Israel’s disobedience. All of these inconsistencies troubled many rabbis, and they expressed their opinions concerning Rashi’s view. Rabbi Moshe Kohen Iben Crispin of Cordova, who lived in the 14th century, said of the Israel-as-servant interpretation, it “distorts the passage from its natural meaning,” and that Isaiah 53 “was given of God as a description of the Messiah, whereby, when any should claim to be the Messiah, to judge by the resemblance or non-resemblance to it whether he were the Messiah or not.” Yeshua is the Messiah. Isaiah predicted that the Servant of the Lord would be disfigured by suffering and rejected by many. 700 years later, Yeshua was struck, spat on, mocked, and blasphemed (Mark 15:17-19, Matthew 27:39-44). Isaiah said this person would come from humble beginnings. Yeshua grew up in a city with a poor reputation, Nazareth (Luke 2:39-40,51). Isaiah said that the Servant would bear our sins and suffer in our place. 700 years later, Jesus “himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness; by his wounds you have been healed” (1 Peter 2:24). Isaiah predicted that the Servant would heal many. Jesus made the lame walk, the blind see, and the sick healthy all throughout his earthly ministry (Matthew 8:16-17). Isaiah said that he would voluntarily take our punishment upon himself. Jesus said: “I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep” (John 10:11). Jesus did not defend himself before Herod, Pontius Pilate, or the Sanhedrin (Matthew 26:62-64; 27:11-14; Luke 23:9). Just as Isaiah foretold, he remained silent during his suffering. Isaiah predicted that the Servant would die, be buried with a rich man, but would not remain dead. Jesus did all of this when he died on a cross (Mark 15:37; John 19:33-34), was buried in the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea (Matthew 27:57-60), and when he rose three days after his death. In 1922, the late David Baron, a British Jewish believer in Yeshua who was well-versed in rabbinics, wrote: "It is beyond even the wildest credulity to believe that the resemblance in every feature and minutest detail between this prophetic portraiture drawn centuries before his [Jesus’] advent and the story of his life, and death, and glorious resurrection as narrated in the gospels, can be mere accident or fortuitous coincidence." Can it be true? Ask yourself-if you have the courage to believe it. Yeshua is the Messiah brother. He is your Messiah, and mine.
@@rrem8332 Isaiah 53 doesn't appear in the regular cyclical readings because the Torah is much shorter than the TaNaKh. There are only so many parashat to have a corresponding haftorah portion. The rabbis just didn't select it because there were better excerpts to compare to the Torah. Also, granting that those passages in Isaiah point to the Messiah, even if this Jesus person did fulfill many of the prophecies, he didn't fulfill all of them, making him at best a failed but promising messianic prospect.
as a normal human being, whenever you're reading a veru sensitive chapter like isaiah 53 while trying to make a verification. you should have read one or two chapters before that main chapter so that you will first of all know who the writer was refering to. this is what makes us human being,. the ability to go back and forth in research. you don't just go ahead assuming for the writer who he was talking about,... you're not there with him.😂 you don't just read Jesus into the text, .you have to allow the text to tell you who is the suffering servant. the ignorant you're displaying here is huge. by the way, the chapter says the servant was a well know with a disease, that everybody turn away their faces when they sighed him. to the contrary... Jesus never had any disease. and since God almighty does not accept human blood sacrifice, then to who did Jesus sacrifice himself to？ i think you need to go back and read the chapter that introduce chapter 53, the ignorant of reading out of context is meaningless.
I don't think you're reading that quite right, Rabbi. Within the context, Paul is referring the promises to the seed (plural) of Abraham. He is saying the Scripture does NOT erroneously say "seeds" (as a double plural), meaning you cannot include the seed of Abraham's contemporaries into that promise. And from that seed of Abraham, came Christ. There's nothing irregular about that statement that doesn't comport to the Scripture.
Galatians 3:16 - 16 "Now the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. He does not say “and to seeds,” as though referring to many, but referring to one, and to your seed, who is Christ." - It sure sounds like Paul is making a case that "his seed" = Christ. That would be completely contradictory to what God told Abraham concerning his seed being so numerous no one could determine the number. (Genesis 13:16, 26:4-5)
Just this morning I was reading Isaiah 53. The entire chapter talks about Jesus as Christ. Just a few verses (4-6): “Surely he took up our pain and bore our suffering, yet we considered him punished by God, stricken by him, and afflicted. But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities, the punishment that brought us peace was on him and by his wounds we are healed. We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to our own way; and the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all.”
As I'm listening to Tovia speak, I find myself wondering what would have happened if the jews had vanished. Many of us might have no source of truth; no one to guide us to the truth. I always found the christian bible hard to believe. Listening to Tovia helped me to see why it's hard to believe as well as to understand the Tanakh much better. Your videos are a blessing Rabbi. Thank you for sharing with us and God bless you.
The Holy Spirit has been given to Christians to understand the Torah. We have a better understanding of the Jewish scriptures than the Jews who reject Jesus. They have rejected the testimony of the Holy Spirit by rejecting their own Messiah, who is prophesied in the Torah.
Paula Eilene Wallace - Jesus is not a creation of God but eternally begotten of the Father. He never addresses God as his creator but as his Father. Jesus is God from God, Light from Light, eternally begotten of the Father but not created in space or time. To worship Jesus is therefore to worship God.
I'm Holy Spirit baptised and I find Rabbi Singer misinformed. Paul had the background of pluriformity similar to the scholarship you see from the community of the Dead Sea Scrolls. He was not using the Canon and oral Torah of Rabbinic Judaism. What is unique about him is he draws on Septuagint and Masoretic texts and other interpretations. His interpretations are interesting to scholars who have wondered how he could draw on so many background texts in his writings. Did he carry all the scrolls with their different interpretations around with him? More importantly Paul is also under the power of the Holy Spirit and when I say under the power of the Holy Spirit I don't mean just that the Holy Spirit is within him but that he had the power on him similar to how the priests in the temple in Kings and Chronicles were unable to minister to the people because the glory cloud was so powerful. This means that a lot of what he said was revelation as it was inspired by the power of God. For instance there is a paradox when you receive the Holy Spirit because although you are free from the law and its condemnation there is a drive for purity and the fulfillment of the law. So something of the law becomes written on your heart. You receive law and love rolled in one. Something the writings in a scroll cannot do. Its paradoxical because you receive realized eschatology i.e. everything is complete but still you have to work out your salvation in a timebound world. Add to this that St. Paul was the apostle to the Gentiles and was called to usurp paganism with Jewish Christianity in a way that works for those from a gentile culture and you get a proper understanding of Paul's scholarship. Paul is not drawing on just his Pharasaic background his approach is much more similar to the pluriformity of the sect of the Dead Sea Scrolls who were probably Essenes and he also has the resurrection of Christ to contend with to include in his scholarship which the sect of the Dead Sea Scrolls did not have. Their scholarship ends before Paul's begins. It was incredible that a student of Gamalial, a Jew, was able to go out into the pagan world and mix with and convert pagans. Only the power of the Holy Spirit could achieve this. You see the tension between Paul the apostle to the gentiles and James the apostle in Jerusalem in the gospels. Paul must have returned with stories of the power of the Holy Spirit falling on pagans which must have been a concern to the Early Jewish Christian church on how to deal with it but of course soon they began must have had to adapt to the fact that God was bringing in the Gentiles. Interestingly when I was Holy Spirit baptised I was driven to search out the Jewish Jesus and research Judaism. The Holy Spirit baptism was doing something Jewish in me. I think God is doing something new know and will probably soon return His power to his people the Jews. Pity we don't have more of St. James's writings too. When you think about the works of St. Paul never forget the tangible power of the Holy Spirit because without understanding the reality of the presence of God in his ministry you will not understand St. Paul's scholarship.
@birnie weat Yes, except that Jesus wasn’t the messiah so that’s out the window. The Messiah wasn’t supposed to get arrested, tried like a common criminal and ignominiously executed on a Roman cross!
You are fed a clever trick here, one of omission. Here is my response to Mr Singer, who looks and sounds so insincere as to raise major suspicion: Paul was a Christian, not a Jew, so why should his exegesis be the same as yours? He underwent a radical change of understanding from what he used to. Your examples of missquotes? Not convincing! You skillfully avoided mentioning Gen 3:15 where God mentions seed and in that same as הִיא (it) where it clearly in Strongs dictionary reference H1931 states this to be [the third person pronoun singular, he (she or it)] to show that it is the singular. Paul was explaining the meaning as per the Torah. That there are other seeds that would be part of the innumerable number, is not disputed, but here a specific seed is mentioned that in Christianity is clearly understood. Very clever omission, Mr Singer!
Which 'Paul'? Today, scholars say there are at least 4 distinct 'Pauls' in the Christian Bible. It is likely that the same Greek scholars that invented 'Jesus' also invented 'Paul'. The entire Christian bible is a hoax.
@@user-03-gsa3 האחד, משה? השני על מה שהוא אומר מביא אתה לחושב שהוא "נגד נוצרים"? הוא לא מאמין בנצרות כי זה שקר ואין בזה חכמות ושכל בדת הזה כלל. אבל לא שונא רחמנה לצלן איש כי הם לא מסכימים?
You are fed a clever trick here, one of omission. Here is my response to Mr Singer, who looks and sounds so insincere as to raise major suspicion: Paul was a Christian, not a Jew, so why should his exegesis be the same as yours? He underwent a radical change of understanding from what he used to. Your examples of missquotes? Not convincing! You skillfully avoided mentioning Gen 3:15 where God mentions seed and in that same as הִיא (it) where it clearly in Strongs dictionary reference H1931 states this to be [the third person pronoun singular, he (she or it)] to show that it is the singular. Paul was explaining the meaning as per the Torah. That there are other seeds that would be part of the innumerable number, is not disputed, but here a specific seed is mentioned that in Christianity is clearly understood. Very clever omission, Mr Singer!
It would seem that Paul's understanding of scripture differs from Tovia's. This leaves us with the task of deciding who understand scripture and who does not.
Since the apostate Paul misquotes the Hebrew Scriptures (the falsely named 'old' testament) on numerous occasions, it's clear to all who have eyes to see that Paul was a liar, deceiver and con artist. He wasn't alone, of course. Numerous 'new' testament heretics deliberately changed the literal words of Tanakh to deceive gentiles and the scripturally illiterate.
Thank you Rabbi for your video. Regarding Gal. 3... may I humbly offer this? Paul is using an obvious point (that seed is singular/plural) to make his REAL point. One should quote the fulness of what Paul says. He says in verse 3:17, "This is what I mean..." He is using a play on words (of course seed is both singular and plural!)... to say this... the law when it came 400 years later, did not change the essence of the promise. Paul is NOT saying there are not many people under the promise... but there is one VEIN of promise. The primary person in that vein is the Messiah, and all the people who follow him are also seed, but they are "covered" by him via covenant so that it's AS IF there is one person as seed. It is like this... when you ask "Who is Abraham's seed?", you can legitimately answer MANY ways. You could "Isaac is!" or "Isaac and Ishmael", or "all Jewish people", etc. We use similar idioms even in English. A father can say to his son "Son, I love you." And yet that older man can also say to a young boy who is a a neighbor "My son..." So Paul is saying that in God's bigger picture, Isaac (the singular son of promise, in spite of Ishmael) is a picture of the TRUE son of promise, Jesus. Jesus is the PRIMARY seed of Abraham (like Isaac was) and all those who follow Jesus are also Abraham's seed (just like all Jewish people are Abraham's seed physically).
Saul's conversion completely changed his view. He repented of his opposition of the Christian faith after he met with Jesus and Jesus explained to him who he actually is, the promised Jewish Messiah, who suffered, died, was buried and rose again. He took the gentile Christians back to God's faith covenant with Abraham which was before the Law of Moses. Abraham became the father of all the faithful, both Jews and gentiles.
In my Bible it says descendant in the Galatians passage. But in the genesis passage it does say descendants plural. So they don’t even bother to make it correspond and therefore validate what Paul is saying and Galatians. Thank you for pointing this out.
To think that when one is reading the authors of the New Testament, that one is actually reading the Author's words, shows me, that person is clueless about Scripture and the whole translation process. Those words have been rewritten over and over again, and then translated into languages that the Hebrew culture and thought cannot be perfectly translated into. To say that the Hebrew language does not have a way to communicate the word seed is either ignorance, or a down right lie.
Rabbi - this pastor told me Jews didn’t speak Hebrew during that time period - “…Jews spoke Aramaic, because Jews lost their tongue during the various diasporas” I had no answer to that
muhammed is a pedopolygamist manmade idol...wake up as imams dictate control and subjugation in jihad if disagree then death...plus sheriah plus abuse of women need I go one? read Robert Spencer for truth.
Rabbi Singer. I have looked up the passages in Genesis 13 in the Septuagint version, and can see where Paul was in error. He was clearly using the (Greek) Septuagint, which was in common use at that time, because the literal translation(from the Hebrew) of seed is not there. Instead it uses the word for sperm. It's singular form is, I believe"!spermatos"" but the Septuagint uses plural forms such as "spermati" where the Hebrew says "seed." This proves your point that Paul was not reading the passage from a Hebrew source. It doesn't prove he couldn't read Hebrew but it certainly suggests it. Having said that, I have found "seed" singular in my bible in Galations. I still think you have a good point.
+Tovia singer whats the number that i have to call so that way i can ask a question on the tenak talk show?, and what are the days and hours that you are on air?
What was the point for Paul to lie since he suffered so much for Christ ?! Jesus choose Paul on purpose because he was a pharisee albeit a great scholar of the Torah and a killer of Christians. His testimony and surffering for Christ is very powerful .
Again, if the Chief Rabbi of Jerusalem was for some reason faced with a congregation of Noahites, he would use an English translation. For Paul, the only possible translation was the Septuagint. I have seen this with my own eyes that rabbis who speak to gentile or mixed audiences do just that. Yes they try to base their teachings also on the original Hebrew. But these rabbis do not want to innovate Judaism - while Paul wanted to radically innovate it. So with premises of Paul, his methodology is quite logical. I am not asking anyone to convert to any particular religion here, but just for a simple respect and open mind, because the answers are here. Not religious answers, but answers about methodology and its "why" beyond "it is all dumb!!!" I am sure that if you would accept that Paul was "not a moron", you would be in no great danger of converting to Christianity.
Michal Ptáčník I believe that you're sorely misinformed because the early churches, certainly Paul himself did not have the Septuagint as what you believe it is in its current form. In fact the early church Septuagint was only just the first five books of Moses. The Septuagint (from the Latin septuaginta, "seventy") is a translation of the Hebrew Bible and some related texts into Koine Greek. As the primary Greek translation of the Old Testament, it is also called the Greek Old Testament. This translation is misquoted a number of times in the New Testament, particularly in Pauline epistles, and also by the Apostolic Fathers and later Greek Church Fathers.
Satoshi Nakamoto whatever its name, the reason why use the bad but familiar to the reader translation still stands. The core of it would have been the Septuagint anyways.
Don't bullshit make excuse my friend ,He has Holly spirit with him.Holly spirit is telling him exegesis .Now u dare tell me If Holly spirit is also ignorant of his own Hebrew revelation! Go Fuck ur FALSE Aposotle
Paul literally says he lied in romans 3:7 and says hes a messenger of satan in 2 Corinthians 12:7. I don't know if he intentionally mislead people or if he had a vision and satan came spoke to him.
You are fed a clever trick here, one of omission. Here is my response to Mr Singer, who looks and sounds so insincere as to raise major suspicion: Paul was a Christian, not a Jew, so why should his exegesis be the same as yours? He underwent a radical change of understanding from what he used to. Your examples of missquotes? Not convincing! You skillfully avoided mentioning Gen 3:15 where God mentions seed and in that same as הִיא (it) where it clearly in Strongs dictionary reference H1931 states this to be [the third person pronoun singular, he (she or it)] to show that it is the singular. Paul was explaining the meaning as per the Torah. That there are other seeds that would be part of the innumerable number, is not disputed, but here a specific seed is mentioned that in Christianity is clearly understood. Very clever omission, Mr Singer!
Paul was a Christian, not a Jew, so why should his exegesis be the same as yours? He underwent a radical change of understanding from what he used to. Your examples of missquotes? Not convincing! You skillfully avoided mentioning Gen 3:15 where God mentions seed and in that same as הִיא (it) where it clearly in Strongs dictionary reference H1931 states this to be [the third person pronoun singular, he (she or it)] to show that it is the singular. Paul was explaining the meaning as per the Torah. That there are other seeds that would be part fo the innumerable number, is not disputed, but here a specific seed is mentioned that in Christianity is clearly understood. Very clever omission, Mr Singer!
Rabbi: Your "seeds" argument applies to the KJV only as it was fixed in the NIV, NASB. Green's Literal, and other versions. NIV says: "The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. Scripture does not say 'and to seeds,' meaning many people, but 'and to your seed,' meaning one person, who is Christ."
❤ Thank you for your insight. I am learning Hebrew quite well now. So excited. But the question is it possible that the seed may represent one family under God. That is how I understood it when it was spoken to Abraham. Sure many people. Many members but one family. The jewish Nation. So one nation born unto the servant (Ishmael) (this earthly jewish nation under bondage). And one nation born unto the free (Isaac) the nation that lets the Jew be resorted to God and have eternal life.? So not a Jew and gentile. But all alike. Thank you for any thoughts.
I have questioned so many times that is it possible Paul was so dedicated to destroying Christianity, that he went above killing the flesh to misleading the Christians so much that he actually did all this to destroy their souls. Absolutely no better revenge to those committing heresy, a fierce motive.... OR I sometimes I wonder if Titus requested Josephus write it, to take the heat off the Roman's, and cause conflict amongst each. I have only started watching Rabbi Singer recently. Because of my biggest concern. The very first commandment. And the trinity, although I understood their explanation of the trinity, i never accepted it.. And it is contradicted so many times It shouldn't be that difficult and it'd never is mentioned in New testament. GOD IS TRUTH, and God expects us to seek him thru his word. The old testament is the foundation of Christiany , it cannot be denied. If the devil is pretending to be the son of God, and have billions fooled, major damage done. Thank Rabbi for caring enough about the salvation of Christians to take the te to do God's work. Thank you for pointing out the truth.
Zacharia 9:9 "Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion. Shout in triumph, O daughter of Jerusalem. Look! Your KING is coming to you. He is righteous, bringing salvation, Humble and riding on a donkey, On a colt, the foal of a female donkey."
The death and resurrection of the Messiah are found in the writings of our sages and Rabbis. The Messiah---what is his name? Those of the house of Rabbi Yuda the saint say, the sick one, as it is said, 'Surely he had borne our sicknesses.' (BT Sanhedrin 98b) And when Israel is sinful, the Messiah seeks for mercy upon them, as it is written, "By His stripes we were healed, and He carried the sins of many; and made intercession for the transgressors." (B'reshith Rabbah) The Holy One gave Messiah the opportunity to save souls but to be severely chastised: and forthwith the Messiah accepted the chastisements of love, as is written, "He was oppressed, and he was afflicted." And when Israel is sinful, the Messiah seeks mercy upon them, as it is written, "By his stripes we were healed," and "He carried the sins of many and made intercession for the trangressors." (Bereshith Rabbah, Rabbi Moshe Hadershan) Also interpreting Zechariah 7:10 "Messiah son of Joseph was slain, as it is written, "They shall look unto me whom they have pierced; and they shall mourn for him as one mourneth for his only son" (Suk. 52a) But It sounds like Paul is quoting some documents relating to Messiah, like an early gospel document.
Instead of following a plagiarized testament how about you read zechariah 12:9 before you claim zechariah 12:10 is about this false New testament plagiarized nonsense. Zechariah 12:9 God speaks of annihilating nations that come against Jerusalem nothing to do with hidden nonsense interpretations of a God coming down as human to die. Repent the nonsense you believe in before you get annihilated as God says he will do to those against Jerusalem.
@@antoniopadro1760 You are quick to accuse, but I don't recall writing the things you are accusing me of. All I posted was some Midrashim of Chahamim, Rabbis. Roman legions were made of nations, these Kitim sons of darkness. But I do agree about Zechariah 12:9.
It's really tricky to get a handle on Paul. There's a writer of the mid-2nd century who wrote about Paul and that was the one book of the time that was CAUGHT OUT as a mere fiction..."The Acts of Paul and Thecla." The writer of that is possibly known as either Peregrinus Proteus or Leucius Charinus. BUT...this was also Irenaeus' "teacher." And Irenaeus was a whole level next in the forgery/fiction stakes. Outside of either of them...there are Gnostic Christians who considered "Paul" as REALLY Mark. Which makes the equation even more interesting. I work now on the idea the Gnostic version of ChrEstianity/Christianity was indeed PRIOR to both this "teacher" and Ireaneus...more a logical outgrowth of the Samaritan/Hellenicist-Jewry streams of alternative narratives (or actual minim). If I can track an autograph "Evangelion" down to the time of immediately POST-70 c.e., then it's easier to see who "Mark-Paul" was...because he would have had to have been someone playing to BOTH the Samaritans AND the Hellenicist-Jews while, at that point of time, turning AGAINST Torah/Observant Jews. The only Mark/Marqe in real history ends up being MARCUS Julius Herod Agrippa...taking a few steps beyond, but still in line with, Philo. So...an early and autograph Evangelion might include a main document, core epistles, and a liturgy. It's kind of interesting to note the liturgical part seems to be found in Samaritan stuff...though mistaken for fourth-century. The underlying and original "Mark-Paul" material would have been in line with Hellenicism. Not overly different from Philo to a degree. Unfortunately, thanks to Irenaeus' "teacher," then Irenaeus himself...we have ADDITIONAL letters of Paul (the Pastorals, which scholars CAN detect are different to the known core letters) and even anti-Gnostic ADDITIONS to even the core letters. It's a really sad state of affairs that so much stuff is mixed together...and then people think that what we've CURRENTLY got is exactly what ever started in the first place. "Saul-Paul" is a pastiche. Yeah, proto-catholicism onwards at least keeps the idea that Paul was named something else before being called Paul...and has this wacky idea of Paul in Acts that really doesn't quite mesh at all with the Paul of the core letters. And then there's the interesting bit with the later chapters of Acts...where "Paul" is SEEKING THE PROTECTION of the ROMANS to ESCAPE "ZEALOUS" BELIEVERS." That has to be the best clue outside others in Acts that the Acts of the Apostles document comes from at least the mid-2nd century earliest. Because...it's an ECHO of the event that happened in the early part of the 66-70 c.e. war...when it was MARCUS (Mark/Marqe) Julius Herod Agrippa (II for those still thinking there were two) who SOUGHT the PROTECTION of the ROMANS to ESCAPE ZEALOTS. Guess the writer of Acts had some hint what he was echo'ing...so it's ridiculous to think the "Paul" version happened before the Herod Agrippa (II) version. The Herod Agrippa (II) version happened first...and someone decades later made that into a Paul story. Interesting that at least the Paul and Thecla story was caught out AS a purely-invented story. I don't think it was the only one that was purely-invented.
I'm thinking Proteus Peregrinus was the historical Ignatius because not only did he go from town to town like Ignatius, but he also IGNITED a fire and jumped into it.
The Rabbi has not read the book of Acts where Paul proclaims that he is referring to Psalm 16:8-11 when he says Christ died and rose according to the scriptures.On the Jewish feast day of Shavuot (Weeks or Pentecost), when Peter preached the first gospel sermon, he boldly asserted that God had raised Jesus from the dead (Acts 2:24). He then explained that God had performed this miraculous deed in fulfillment of David's prophecy in Psalm 16. In fact, Peter quoted the words of David in detail as contained in Psalm 16:8-11. Some years later, Paul did the same thing when he spoke to the Jewish community in Antioch. Like Peter, Paul declared that God had raised Messiah Jesus from the dead in fulfillment of Psalm 16:10 (Acts 13:33-35). It is common knowledge that the Apostles proclaimed Psalm 16 and yet the Rabbi in this video seems to be bewildered. Now, you may not agree with the psalm etc but there is such a Psalm so Saints Peter and Paul were no liars. But this Rabbi is trying to say there was no scripture and Paul pulled a fast one on everyone!!!! The main thing is everyone saw the terrible earthquake and the 3 hour darkness at noon. Africannus and others debated that an eclipse could last for a few minutes and not 3 hours and could not take place on the full moon day of the Passover because the moon is on the wrong side of the earth. A contingent of soldiers were blocking the entrance and the huge stone was sealed and yet the tomb was opened. Since the Pharaisees were so concerned about the Apostles stealing the body as Christ had predicted his own resurrection, they would have kept their own crowd of people watching. SO THE RESURRECTION TOOK PLACE and this Rabbi cannot make it go away. Whether it was predicted or not, it took place.
Thallus wrote a history of the eastern Mediterranean world since the Trojan War. Thallus wrote his regional history in about AD 52 Although his original writings have been lost, he is specifically quoted by Julius Africanus, a renowned third century historian. Africanus states, ‘Thallus, in the third book of his histories, explains away the darkness as an eclipse of the sun-unreasonably as it seems to me.’ Apparently, Thallus attempted to ascribe a naturalistic explanation to the darkness during the crucifixion. Phlegon was a Greek historian who wrote an extensive chronology around AD 137: In the fourth year of the 202nd Olympiad (i.e., AD 33) there was ‘the greatest eclipse of the sun’ and that ‘it became night in the sixth hour of the day [i.e., noon] so that stars even appeared in the heavens. There was a great earthquake in Bithynia, and many things were overturned in Nicaea.’ Tertullian, in his Apologeticus (197 AD), told the story of the crucifixion darkness and suggested that the evidence was still held in the Roman archives. Dionysius the Areopagite in Egypt is said to have observed the darkness and exclaimed, “Either the God of Nature is suffering, or the machine of the world is tumbling into ruin”. Lucian (the martyr of Nicomedia, who died in A.D. 312) appealed to the testimony of national archives then in existence that a supernatural darkness prevailed at the time of the Cross.
Here is a hidden mystery within Exodus and Numbers that has been overlooked for way, way too long. We read in Exodus 12:37 that there were 600,000 adult males that were freed from Egypt. Now the sons of Israel journeyed from Rameses to Succoth, about six hundred thousand men on foot, aside from children. (Exodus 12:37) The children of Israel spent 40 years in the wilderness. Below are three Passages from Numbers (Numbers 14:28-30, 26:63-55, and 32:11, 12). These Passages make it extremely clear that out of the original 600,000 adult men that were freed, that only 2 made it into the Promised Land, they being Joshua and Caleb. So you have 599,998 Hebrew men dying in that 40 years. Stay with me, there is a huge, huge meaning in this. Say to them, ‘As I live,’ says the Lord, ‘just as you have spoken in My hearing, so I will surely do to you; 29 your corpses will fall in this wilderness, even all your [o]numbered men, according to your complete number from twenty years old and upward, who have grumbled against Me. 30 Surely you shall not come into the land in which I [p]swore to settle you, except Caleb the son of Jephunneh and Joshua the son of Nun. (Numbers 14:28-30) These are those who were numbered by Moses and Eleazar the priest, who numbered the sons of Israel in the plains of Moab by the Jordan at Jericho. 64 But among these there was not a man of those who were numbered by Moses and Aaron the priest, who numbered the sons of Israel in the wilderness of Sinai. 65 For the Lord had said [x]of them, “They shall surely die in the wilderness.” And not a man was left of them, except Caleb the son of Jephunneh and Joshua the son of Nun. (Numbers 26:63-65) ‘None of the men who came up from Egypt, from twenty years old and upward, shall see the land which I swore to Abraham, to Isaac and to Jacob; for they did not follow Me fully, 12 except Caleb the son of Jephunneh the Kenizzite and Joshua the son of Nun, for they have followed the Lord fully.’ (Numbers 32:11, 12) Now remember when Moses sent in the 12 spies? Remember only 2 of the 12 had faith, they were Joshua and Caleb. Now if we look up the name meanings for Joshua and Caleb, we get: Joshua means Savior and Caleb means whole heart. Now put it all together: Faith in the Savior of the whole heart gets you into the Promised Land. The deeper meaning of the Promised Land being Heaven. God was sending a Message, the Gospel Message. The choseness of the Hebrews started at Abraham and ended at Jesus Christ!!! Hallelujah!!! If there was a chosen race of people, a Master race, then the 599,998 would not of died in the wilderness. God has always chosen based on the heart. But the Lord said to Samuel, “Do not look at his appearance or at the height of his stature, because I have rejected him; for [b]God sees not as man sees, for man looks at the outward appearance, but the Lord looks at the heart.” (1 Samuel 16:7)
@@aspreedacore thank you! Yes, I know Abraham was called first. I believe in Genesis 14 he is called a Hebrew, this being the first use of the term Hebrew. He was given the Covenant of Circumcision. Through his LOINS all nations would blessed. The choseness of the Hebrews started at Abraham and ended at Jesus Christ, He being the last required Circumcision. In Acts it becomes optional. The book of Matthew, the Gospel directed towards Hebrews, opens up with the genealogy from Abraham to Jesus. The Hebrews are VERY SPECIAL because the Savior of the world came through them. Hallelujah!!!
The people who crept into the church in Galatia did not say Christians had to keep the law and that was it. They said Christians had to be circumsized to be saved. In other words, they conflated soteriology with obedience. That is what Paul was railing against, because he knew that was a fallacy of argumentation, and that the common person would be confused. That is why over and over, you see him writing "God forbid" when it is questioned whether he believes and practices the law. That's why in other parts of his writings, he actually keeps Feasts instead of preaching Christ and observes Sabbath, Etc.
The writings of Paul in the New testament, if they are really from him, are ridiculous, confused and religiously illiterate...He didn't understand basic monotheism and role of Scripture and Prophethood...
Dangerous? It’s a language lol, a language can’t be dangerous, It’s people that are the problem and those who have in sufficient ability in English (including spelling 😉, grammar, punctuation, when to use caps) Greek, Aramaic and Hebrew
It very clear I galatians that Paul was simply stating that the word seed applied in the singular to Jesus not that the word is singular. Go to the Greek and it becomes clear.
Paul is highly misunderstood. He was preaching the Kingdom of God and salvation through Jesus Christ by grace through faith. The New Covenant does not take away from being a Jew or abolish Torah or the Law. The law is an eternal standard, but you are not redeemed through it. Yeshua fulfilled the law writing it on the hearts of men by giving understanding of the spirit of the law. You just don't understand what Paul is saying. These are spiritual messages. It was agreed amongst the apostles that for a time the gentiles would not be overburdened at first. Listen to the audience being spoken to. Matthew spoke to the Jews, Paul mostly spoke to the gentiles. Yeshua was sent to the Jews, " behold, the Kingdom of God is at hand."
ellenfrancis67 to take it one step further, we are all sinners (miss the mark), we're not perfect and Holy like the Almighty. The wages of sin is death. Salvation is attained by grace (of God) through faith in Yeshuah Messiah (His son.) Paul taught and preached about Yeshuah, Grace, and faith, Yet he was still a Torah observant Jew.
ellenfrancis67 Christ was not a human sacrifice. He was rejected by the Jewish leaders in His day and Rome killed Him. However, He gave His life willingly at the will of the Father to take on all the sins of the world as well as remove the curse of death inherited from Adam and Eve. Yeshua is the First Fruit in the resurrection. Soon, we will follow (believers will) both the living and the dead. There will be no more death, sickness and sorrow. God's plan for us still has a short time left to complete all prophesy. Christ's work of salvation was completed on the cross, but our redemption is in God's perfect timing. It's all in the Bible, written from Genesis to Revelation. I'm only paraphrasing. My personal belief is that the final end times are almost here.
ellenfrancis67 True, there is no man. Yeshua was a divine manifestation/incarnation. That's the thing. Only GD could do it. Only the Sons glory was veiled when he walked as a man. And yes, it's in the Tanach. Especially seen in Isaiah 53. Moses and The prophets speak of Him in Micah, Daniel, Joel, Amos, Psalms 2 just for a few. The other thing is in Abrahams time, He was accounted to righteousness by faith, there was no law yet. In Moses day sin was dealt with through the law and Atonement. This was all before Messiah came. In this age sin/salvation is dealt with by grace through faith. The law is written in our heart. Along with the Tanach There is a new Covenant that includes the indwelling of the Holy Spirit to all repentant believers. There is a wonderful online ministry you might like to visit called One for Israel. I'm gentile an read their site often. Blessings to you.
I feel like a fool for believing for so long, these lies! The scales have truly fallen off my eyes, thanks to you Rabbi Singer. Thank You, When I hear these truths, I feel like I want to tear my garments and shave my head, just to purge all the untruth!
No no no! Dance with joy !
Call out to “The One Real God” of the Multi-verse (mind you, not universe) to guide you to Him.
@@didi9017 all Gods are real, your Hashem is just one of them
@@xiuhcoatl4830
Hashem is not my God. Allah Almighty is my God. Too many Gods would start a war in the heaven. Too many Gods and their power will be divided. I am talking about One Almighty - not many many smaller Gods. I do hope you will not fall prey to Satanic “Gods” with hideous looks.
@@didi9017 it's the same. It's not even a proper name, "al-ilah" just as hashem. And it's just one of many.
Now speaking about hideous looks, islamic scriptures about Allah's looks are... interesting...
Rabbi Singer... I WAS a Christian many years ago. Take it from me... They are all 'crazy'. :-)
Awesome lecture, btw...
I cannot express in words how beneficial your videos have been in terms of me learning about Jewish Theology and helping me 'Connect' with my Heritage (My Father is Jewish, but he and everyone in the immediate family are totally 'secular').
Your material is beyond fantastic and immense knowledge is both 'inspiring' and 'humbling'.
Keep up the incredible work.
Baruch Ha'shem.
Chrestians are in a cult - ALL of them.
They are not as 'crazy' as they are misled - and hypcrites by NOT following all the important parts of the law, like forgiving and NOT judging each other. There is no need to - God is sovereign and guides with a staff OR a rod, thru blessings and curses respectively.
@@ChrisMusante yeah... fair enough. I'm not Man of 'Great Faith'. I'm very a skeptic. But, I can only 'Plat The Game of Life with the card I'm dealt'.
That being said... Listening to Christian Apologetics can be downright infuriating.
To argue that Mainstream Conservative Christianity is totally accurate is to say that all Jews including the most devout and learned Rabbis and Scholars no nothing about their own religion and all the Prophets (Abraham, Moses, David, Isaiah, etc. etc.) also knew nothing and then FINALLY after millenia, a Hellenized Jew named 'Saul of Tarsus' who clearly had a very poor comprehension of Jewish Theology and has no respect for it, somehow 'FIGURED IT ALL OUT'
That's insanity!
How can any reasonably intelligent person believe that.
I recognize that that the '614'th Unwritten Mitzvah' is 'No Proselytizing' and I respect it. Some Things however Must be said.
That's why I have such a profound respect for Rabbi Singer!
He's a legend!
I call him Rabbi Singer 'The Truth Bringer'.
Don't hesitate to use that 'nickname' yourself.
He deserves the recognition.
I was too and many are so indoctrinated they no longer have the ability to think for themselves
this is this fanaticism that is crazy and wars are built on...each word has a value...the intent of interpretation may cause many to misinterpret initial intent as of God. All the churches have different nuances and we listen to pastors and imams thinking they know truth when they are fulfilling agendas. Yes, I too am humbled and grateful to be able to discern truth. It was the 3 days and nights that broke me and the idolotrous pious "christianese" who are self serving and bigots and shaming if dont chime in with " me too...I am saved!" disgusts me.
After I left Christianity and read what Bart Ehrman and James Tabor had to say about Paul, I formed an opinion that he was a Roman operative.
It would be strange if Paul was a Roman operative, because he was beheaded in Rome by the Romans....
Your logic sounds like you came from the defunct American education system.
No logic, just spontaneous fact creation out of thin air.
You canot say you were a Christian if you left Christianity and come up with such weak reasoning.
you are correct, scholars have now been uncovering undeniable proofs that kirshianity is a roman creation.
And, Tovia is lying again at 10:12. In the Hebrew Bible there is a verse with the plural of seeds. 1 Samuel 8:15 וְזַרְעֵיכֶם וְכַרְמֵיכֶם, יַעְשֹׂר; וְנָתַן לְסָרִיסָיו, וְלַעֲבָדָיו
And Thou Seeds...He will take....
Again, this is just slandering Paul as if He did not know the Hebrew text actually have a plural usage of Seeds.
Here is the breakdown of the Second Person Masculine Plural of וְזַרְעֵיכֶם which translates to THOU SEEDS. It is not זְרַעֲכֶם, which would translate as THOU SEED.
וְזַרְעֵיכֶם וְכַרְמֵיכֶם, יַעְשֹׂר; וְנָתַן לְסָרִיסָיו, וְלַעֲבָדָיו
וְזַרְעֵיכֶם (ve-zar-ei-chem) - "and your seeds"
וְכַרְמֵיכֶם (ve-kar-mei-chem) - "and your vineyards"
יַעְשֹׂר (ya'asor) - "he will take a tenth"
וְנָתַן (ve-natan) - "and give"
לְסָרִיסָיו (le-sa-ri-sav) - "to his officers"
וְלַעֲבָדָיו (ve-la-a-va-dav) - "and to his servants"
As a former Catholic this is very enlightening
In another video. He says the Catholic Church is just doing damage control to hold on to people. They can’t back out of their nonsense.
@@vincentfernandez7328
He is right. The Catholic Bible is a criminal corruption of the Hebrew Bible.
You are fed a clever trick here, one of omission. Here is my response to Mr Singer, who looks and sounds so insincere as to raise major suspicion:
Paul was a Christian, not a Jew, so why should his exegesis be the same as yours?
He underwent a radical change of understanding from what he used to. Your examples of missquotes?
Not convincing!
You skillfully avoided mentioning Gen 3:15 where God mentions seed and in that same as הִיא (it) where it clearly in Strongs dictionary reference H1931 states this to be [the third person pronoun singular, he (she or it)] to show that it is the singular. Paul was explaining the meaning as per the Torah. That there are other seeds that would be part of the innumerable number, is not disputed, but here a specific seed is mentioned that in Christianity is clearly understood. Very clever omission, Mr Singer!
@@your_utube If I have one pair of pants, do I say "My pants is in the closet"
Of course not
Number agreement in irregular nouns is nothing special here. I know it's hard to accept but Paul clearly didn't know any Hebrew.
@@vincentfernandez7328 Says someone that cannot spell Christian but claims to be one! What point does your ignorant comment make?
I gave the whole Bible, both the "Old Testament" and the "New Testament" a go at once, reading (and studying) it from cover to cover for hours each day for 2-3 months.
I used 2 Study Bibles (a Catholic and a Protestant version - NAB and NKJV), and used a third one (NIV) in case of the other two not being clear enough.
It was very revealing, and I got into the mind of "Paul", so to speak.
His ridiculous, twisted "logic", comparisons and a way of convincing his audience made him sound so much like a prosector, a lawyer who is twisting facts and logic in order to convict an innocent person.
Unsurprisingly, I later found out that he was a lawyer. No wonder he sounded like a crafty one.
So what religion do you follow now if any at all?
You are right. Paul deceived and concocted his version of Christianity. He was once an enemy of Jesus but after Jesus died Paul claims that Jesus came to him in his dreams On The Road to Damascus and so Paul embraced Christianity and became highly respected. Millions will go to hell because they believe in the Child-like stories Paul concocted.
@@Wakamolewonder I follow Islam. Don't get me wrong, I don't reject ALL of the Bible, there are God's words in it and parts of it are very inspiring, it has actually strengthened my faith and filled some gaps, but it is not easy to distinguish between the corrupted and uncorrupted parts, except where it is obvious that it is the words of a man speaking in his own name.
Study Bibles provide many notes, so it's easier to tell where scholars have found corruption, which is definitely not to say that the original manuscript was 100% word of God; the Bible was never revealed as such.
Bible or "Biblia" (in Latin) means "Books" and it is a collection of writings, some of which are considered a direct revelation from God, some are considered as inspired from God, and others are clearly historical descriptions of past events or personal thoughts and opinions of an important man (such as king David).
And I argue that Saul, a.k.a. "Saint Paul", was a charlatan just like Joseph Smith of the Mormonism, using parts of the previous revelations but twisting or changing them to fit his own narrative
Yes, I know many Christians will say the same about prophet Muhammad, but look at his message vs. "Paul" and Joseph Smith and check their claims for consistency with God's core message!
It is the reason why I took the time and effort to go through the whole Bible, to see how right or wrong was the Qur'an.
Both the Bible and the Qur'an instruct us to verify claims, not to just blindly believe anyone without thinking on our own. Only "Paul" says the opposite of that, because as soon as you start analyzing his words/message and questioning his sincerity, you arrive at the conclusion that he is a twister, a liar, a pretender, a hypocrite. That's why he discourages people from thinking, from using their own minds, and insists that his nonsense only sounds like nonsense because it is "higher than man's wisdom" ("God's foolishness is wiser than the wisdom of men" is what this scumbag says. Doesn't even shy away from attaching foolishness to God in order to mislead people.)
@@didi9017 "Paul" always was and has always remained an enemy of Jesus. He was an agent of Rome, and he did a superb job to convince countless masses that he was speaking for God, while turning a pure, anti-Roman, anti-pagan monotheism of a Jewish Jesus into an anti-Jewish, pro-Roman pagan mythology mixed with Jewish monotheism, the two extreme opposites which never mix, like oil and water, and that's why they've been coming up with an exact "monotheistic" definition of "trinity" for centuries and still made it contradictory and confusing.
And "Paul" didn't claim his first seeing of Jesus as a dream, but as an open, real occurence which was allegedly witnessed by those around him (and why would they lie to support his claim, it's not like they were Saul's helpers against Jesus, right? 😉)
@@didi9017 Christians and Muslims believe in hell. Jews do not. If you don't accept Paul's Christianity then why do you still believe in hell?
“Paul” or Saul or whomever he was, is the singular starting reason I converted to Judaism. Didn’t know my moms grandma was Sephardic Jew. In fact she married into a family that began here in USA in 1670 and started the NYC Portuguese-Spanish synagogue, then moved on and married of into the “stroh’s beer” family, and then we find their headstones and they had hands of the Cohen on them. So my great grandma and her husband were both Jewish and for some reason moved to Alabama. Go figure. Maybe HaShem sent my soul back in order to come back to HIM? Idk
Wow! I've read that Galations verse about the seed as a Christian, but I never picked up on that mistake! These are things Christians are not aware of. We only know select teachings, they are cherry picked that we are to know. For ex: we are only simply and repeatedly taught , I guess the important th ings such as the birth of Jesus, his baptism, his teachings, miracles, crucifixion, resurrection and then it's s repeated. We are completely unaware of mistakes, and if we do see a contradiction in scripture, we just accepted it as is and figure there is no explanation. Now however the truth is getting out through UA-cam and websites like yours.
"seeds" is a KJV mistake, corrected in the NIV, NASB, Green's Literature, etc. NIV says:
The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. Scripture does not say 'and to seeds,' meaning many people, but 'and to your seed,' meaning one person, who is Christ."
You are fed a clever trick here, one of omission. Here is my response to Mr Singer, who looks and sounds so insincere as to raise major suspicion:
Paul was a Christian, not a Jew, so why should his exegesis be the same as yours?
He underwent a radical change of understanding from what he used to. Your examples of missquotes?
Not convincing!
You skillfully avoided mentioning Gen 3:15 where God mentions seed and in that same as הִיא (it) where it clearly in Strongs dictionary reference H1931 states this to be [the third person pronoun singular, he (she or it)] to show that it is the singular. Paul was explaining the meaning as per the Torah. That there are other seeds that would be part of the innumerable number, is not disputed, but here a specific seed is mentioned that in Christianity is clearly understood. Very clever omission, Mr Singer!
@@your_utube what was Paul before becoming a Christian? (Paul was trained by Gamleo btw)
@@karishmakhan2083 I have read the verses and don't agree with Tobia. He thinks that if you multiply then you started with many. You can as easily multiply 1 by 100 as by 1000 to get more than the original 1.
The Strong's Hebrew dictionary gives it as H2233 זֶרַע and it is seed, which is singular. Mr Know-it-all should have a dictionary in front of his boastful self before playing the "I am a rabbi" card. He is just so bad, and people fall for this deluded man devoid of the Spirit of God. Has he even heard of the Holy Spirit? He understands as much as a Roman Catholic priest, which is nothing!
And, Tovia is lying again at 10:12. In the Hebrew Bible there is a verse with the plural of seeds. 1 Samuel 8:15 וְזַרְעֵיכֶם וְכַרְמֵיכֶם, יַעְשֹׂר; וְנָתַן לְסָרִיסָיו, וְלַעֲבָדָיו
And Thou Seeds...He will take....
Again, this is just slandering Paul as if He did not know the Hebrew text actually have a plural usage of Seeds.
Here is the breakdown of the Second Person Masculine Plural of וְזַרְעֵיכֶם which translates to THOU SEEDS. It is not זְרַעֲכֶם, which would translate as THOU SEED.
וְזַרְעֵיכֶם וְכַרְמֵיכֶם, יַעְשֹׂר; וְנָתַן לְסָרִיסָיו, וְלַעֲבָדָיו
וְזַרְעֵיכֶם (ve-zar-ei-chem) - "and your seeds"
וְכַרְמֵיכֶם (ve-kar-mei-chem) - "and your vineyards"
יַעְשֹׂר (ya'asor) - "he will take a tenth"
וְנָתַן (ve-natan) - "and give"
לְסָרִיסָיו (le-sa-ri-sav) - "to his officers"
וְלַעֲבָדָיו (ve-la-a-va-dav) - "and to his servants"
One scholar said ,Paul was a relative of Herod, that’s how he travelled so freely, he had Roman citizenship papers
@@williamblack3711 thanks for that🤔 what’s ur thoughts on the scrolls ???
They say a lot are fake? Are they all fake ?
There is a UA-cam they say the scrolls are too new a language and it’s too much a coincidence they found them at the end of ww2 all a set up ???
Also there is a lady who wrote a book saying jesus was from Egypt ? I think ? And they have the timeline wrong I can’t remember who she said was probably Jesus ! Well thank you
@@williamblack3711 None of what you said makes a difference because Paul was simply killing the Gnostic Christians, the remainder of the Hellenized Jews who were the followers of the Mystical Apocalyptic Sect who believed that a Jewish messiah KING would save them. Even if the ROMANS hadn't have killed him, "jesus" wasn't qualified to be a KING to save his Mystical Apocalyptic Judaism because he had no Father, so had no TRIBE. (INRI was SARCASTIC, of course). Familiarize yourself with Heresiology. DURING THE FIRST ONE HUNDRED YEARS OF CHRISTIANITY, HELLENIZED JEWS WERE NOT TRINITARIANS. Paul killed off the "HERETICS" ( TRUE SAINTS) and replaced them decades later with ROMAN SAINTS. The Vatican't has released a huge amount of material. The only reason that there were "MARTYRS" in the Actual History of the Church was because of the Islamic Caliphates, not because they were dying for the Ancient, Mystical, Apocalyptic sect of Orthodox JUDAISM that "jesus", the Enlightened taught, which became Gnostic Christianity, in which the "Way" knew that "jesus" was not HASHEM. PAUL NEVER KNEW the "jesus" CHARACTER. He was simply used by Paul/ Rome to create a State Religion ( Theocracy) Thanks to his LYING self, we have Idiotic MARTYRDOM in Islm. and a model from the Roman Crusades: the Last BEAST: MODERN CHRISTIANITY/ ISLM. CALIPHATES...PAUL IS IN 🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥
@@williamblack3711 As for Paul's "epiphany", this is what you expect intelligent Jews to follow jesus CULTS over? Give us a break. One witness was blind, the other deaf. And because of that, we have Godless Modern Christianity. Mike Butter Bickle had a Pre-Post-Mid-Trib-Apostolic Premillennialism "epiphany", too. Heck, even Kat. K. said that "she went to heaven" and there was a section that was like "Christmas Town". "Epiphanies" used to happen alot when someone was FORCED TO CONVERT. You might have an "epiphany" too, when you are forced by the sword to CONVERT TO the Islm. CALIPHATE.
@@williamblack3711 I'm curious, how can you defend a Godless RELIGION in which forcing Jews to be Baptized and CONVERTED under the sword is something that you can defend, in your heart? Do you really believe that it is RIGHTEOUS for a Jew to be bur..... on a Roman Cross if they refuse to be Baptized and CONVERTED? How are you okay with that in your SOUL? That is a Wicked Curse that you live under, Christians support that, by default. 🕎
you are correct, scholars have now been uncovering undeniable proofs that kirshianity is a roman creation.
Paul realised he wasn’t being effective enough killing Christians physically so he reverted to killing them spiritually.
Absolutely. You are right.
Mathematically speaking, that is a "possibility" only; not a "probability." Do you understand the difference between the two? To insist your assertion as absolutely true, seems evil in intent, not to mention obviously biased.
And if you really read & contemplated all of Paul's letters, you'd question much of what Tovia "opinionated" here.
To have questionable "doubts" is ok, for any believer of any religion. But to cast aspersions upon people (u don't know well) or opposing religions is an obvious attack, coming from (usually) an ignorant opponent. Tovia isnt totally "ignorant" just obstinate in his own reasoning skills. Thus his "blindness" remains, though he can read/write/speak hebrew and OT/NT scriptures.
I agree, the majority of Christians are actually Paulites, worshipping the words of Paul/Shaul the 13th🗣🤔😩
@The Ismaelite Mountain hahahahhahaha if I would know where to find the smileys in youtube I would fill my text with them ;)
The Ishmaelite Mountain, reminds me I need to add a K Cup with Green Mountain Coffee.
This is why *Islam* totally filters out Jesus from Paul's heresies and Greco-Roman evolution.
Islam does not mention Paul.
Miriam Levinson Quran never mention Paul by name but Quran mention about corrupted scripture.
Muhammad was just a patch work of illiterate Arian and Gnostic heresies. You don't believe in Jesus, so it is not surprising you would deny Paul who teaches the same Jesus as in The Gospel.
Sean Chaney Muhammad (saw) is the messenger of God. He performed miracles, predicted prophecies which were later fulfilled, taught that there is none worthy of worship except God, and claimed a revelation which has been preserved for 1400 years.
Sean, You got it that's why Islam is sometimes called a Christian heresy.It's like people are half pregnant.Either Christ is the holy one of Israel divine true man and true God.
Muslims stop believing like a bad salesman they cannot close the deal.
Muslims think Jesus was just a prophet.
My word, this is such an important distinction you’ve made. As someone raised an American Jew and moving to israel for the year, this makes me feel a bit more secure in my own religion.
And, Tovia is lying again at 10:12. In the Hebrew Bible there is a verse with the plural of seeds. 1 Samuel 8:15 וְזַרְעֵיכֶם וְכַרְמֵיכֶם, יַעְשֹׂר; וְנָתַן לְסָרִיסָיו, וְלַעֲבָדָיו
And Thou Seeds...He will take....
Again, this is just slandering Paul as if He did not know the Hebrew text actually have a plural usage of Seeds.
Here is the breakdown of the Second Person Masculine Plural of וְזַרְעֵיכֶם which translates to THOU SEEDS. It is not זְרַעֲכֶם, which would translate as THOU SEED.
וְזַרְעֵיכֶם וְכַרְמֵיכֶם, יַעְשֹׂר; וְנָתַן לְסָרִיסָיו, וְלַעֲבָדָיו
וְזַרְעֵיכֶם (ve-zar-ei-chem) - "and your seeds"
וְכַרְמֵיכֶם (ve-kar-mei-chem) - "and your vineyards"
יַעְשֹׂר (ya'asor) - "he will take a tenth"
וְנָתַן (ve-natan) - "and give"
לְסָרִיסָיו (le-sa-ri-sav) - "to his officers"
וְלַעֲבָדָיו (ve-la-a-va-dav) - "and to his servants"
He convinced non Jews who were searching for meaning in their lives and a spiritual connection. I'm convinced that Paul wasn't Jewish.
Paul was a Herodian Jew. He was secured an education at the feet of Gamliel not because of his ability, but because of his privelage and wealth. As a Herodian Hellenized Jew, he took his inheritance and education for granted which is probably why he is so terrible regarding his use of the Old Testament and his reliance on the Greek. A line can be traced from Herod to "Saulus" who according to a historian enjoyed terrorizing people - which does match what we know of Paul before his conversion. Paul had a contentious relationship with the Apostles. He regarded himself as an equal and claimed to be an Apostle himself. The writings of Clement show that the Apostles hated Paul and still referred to him as an enemy even after the conversion. Paul spends many of his epistles desperately attempting to maintain the respect and allegiance of his followers by constantly defending himself. I'm a Christian however I'm 100% on board with you on this. This does not threaten Christianity. It threatens the institution - however with Paul's writings out of the way we are brought back to original Christianity. The Christianity taught and practiced by Jesus and his followers. A Christianity of Torah and Jesus as messiah.
Even when i identified as a Christian i wasn't a fan of paul. What bothered me is that even though they called themselves Christians they seemed to be more followers of paul
Paul seems like he couldn’t make it as a Pharisee so he jumped on the new religion and mixed in Greek/Roman ideas and misled so many people
... and died for it? What's the gain 🤔
@@elduromiguel06 how do you know Paul died for it? Where do you get that? The New Testament says nothing about Paul’s death.
@@anthonyjames4319 my friend if you look the last letters of Paul he's ready for his death.
Also the tradition of the church mentioned.
Acts 21:13 ( he is willing to die)
Acts 9:16 ( the Lord Jesus told him)
2 Timothy 4:6-8 ( Paul anticipating his soon demise).
Repent of yours sins, came to the Messiah of Yisrael Jesus and have eternal life. Be bless my friend 🙏
@@elduromiguel06 someone being willing to die is not evidence of anything. People of all kinds of faiths die everyday for what they believe, it doesn’t mean it’s true.
@@elduromiguel06 he didn't intend to die. But his nefarious greed for controlling people's minds with his religion eventually caught up with him
Paul is a darling of Christian priests who are happy with trinity and will not question Paul.
Thank you so much for helping me see how foolish the core doctrines of Christianity actually are. I was seduced by it for a long time but now I am free
As the "Apostle to the Gentiles", he was teaching to people who did not know anything about Hebrew. He did not want to convert them to Judaism, to make them closer to the Jewish faith, so he did not require them to learn Hebrew. This is in sync with the approach in Judaism to Noahism, where you can communicate with God in your own mother tongue and those who do not ask for it are not required to convert to Judaism.
The use of Greek translation in the letters and their total preference over Hebrew makes perfect sense from this point of view.
Michael...here's another way to look at it...Greek was the preferred language for HELLENICISED Jews of Alexandria and PHILO. As was Greek philosophy, whereby Philo mixed Plato with Hebrew scripture. And that is really where the Logos idea comes from...Plato. Then there's the Septuagint...it looks like the Septuagint was drawing heavily on the SAMARITAN pentateuch, at around 2000 to 3000 points of commonality. Neither group overly fond of Jerusalem Judaism.
And then there's Herod Agrippa (II), more a fan of Greek Philosophy, turning against the Jews after 66 c.e., and being very much liked by Hellenicised Jews, Samaritans and Greeks after that point of time...the same groups known to have made up early Christianity.
No, there wasn't a fondness for Hebrew...but the reasons are different from expected.
For that brief time...and for the Samaritans and Hellenicised Jews, for the next hundred years, till Irenaeus...alternative narratives had won against Jerusalem and Torah Judaism.
I've seen this theory of yours a few times. I am really curious about it, could you please provide a source for it?
He used deception and lies. In my mind thats all i need to know.
Let's face facts, y'all. Paul had ripped people off (and still doing it) in more ways than one.
What I learned many years ago in slowly moving completely away from Christianity is this; 1. The only book of the New Testament which I trust to have some accurate information about the life of Jesus is Mark. After this, James is at least somewhat consistent with Mark. I rejected Paul as well as anything with the name John attached to it. 2. I looked to find connections between the words attributed to Jesus & the Jewish Bible. 3. Translations by Christians of the Jewish Bible often cannot be trusted as Rabbi Singer has described. I am looking now for English translations by Rabbis such as The Israel Bible.
@@fredgillespie5855 He has done plenty of videos about that! He strongly advised against the KJV, and other translations, and he pointed out errors that have been made in translation into English. Maybe you could give some evidence how and when "the Rabbis" have changed the Hebrew scripture. Who were those Rabbis, and when did this happen? I never heard of it. Any Rabbi who dares to change anything in the Tanakh knows they would have to deal with G-d's wrath. I don't think this is very likely. Read the Artscroll Tanakh, forget the KJV.
first comment salaam alaykum rabbi from australia 😊 love your work
Walikum salaam, Cousin! I think we should go diving. Were do we go?
Tovia Singer lets go to the beach brother 😂, salaam alaykum rabbi I respect your work☺️
I fry on the beach. I hope to dive below the waves of Australia one day.
@@ToviaSinger1 Honorable Rebbe
Please note that only the Bedouins who are the direct descendants of Ishmael are the cousins of the Jews descendants of Isaac - and they speak Arabic!
Thus, the vast majority of Muslims in the world are called MUTWALIM which means those who have accepted Islam and therefore they become a part of the necessity of their conversion to Islam
That is why there is always enmity between the Bedouin who are the original Arabs and the Ishmaelites the cousins of the Jews and the other Muslims who are just joining!
Note in Israel, the Muslim Bedouins serve in the army and integrate well into the Israeli defense system! This is because of the family closeness between the Jews and the Bedouin
@@abc8257a that's an eye opening statement for me but for the Rabbi, I believe he already knows that 😀.
A caveat should be added at 9:13. What R. Singer means is that in Hebrew there is no way to say "seeds" in reference to offspring. There is a plural of the word, such as in "apple seeds," "sunflower seeds," etc., but it is NEVER used in reference to offspring. Those are only referred to as the collective noun "seed."
And, Tovia is lying again at 10:12. In the Hebrew Bible there is a verse with the plural of seeds. 1 Samuel 8:15 וְזַרְעֵיכֶם וְכַרְמֵיכֶם, יַעְשֹׂר; וְנָתַן לְסָרִיסָיו, וְלַעֲבָדָיו
And Thou Seeds...He will take....
Again, this is just slandering Paul as if He did not know the Hebrew text actually have a plural usage of Seeds.
Here is the breakdown of the Second Person Masculine Plural of וְזַרְעֵיכֶם which translates to THOU SEEDS. It is not זְרַעֲכֶם, which would translate as THOU SEED.
וְזַרְעֵיכֶם וְכַרְמֵיכֶם, יַעְשֹׂר; וְנָתַן לְסָרִיסָיו, וְלַעֲבָדָיו
וְזַרְעֵיכֶם (ve-zar-ei-chem) - "and your seeds"
וְכַרְמֵיכֶם (ve-kar-mei-chem) - "and your vineyards"
יַעְשֹׂר (ya'asor) - "he will take a tenth"
וְנָתַן (ve-natan) - "and give"
לְסָרִיסָיו (le-sa-ri-sav) - "to his officers"
וְלַעֲבָדָיו (ve-la-a-va-dav) - "and to his servants"
seeds as in reference to different kinds or species...sunflower or apple...yep
Elijah will make it plain (and remedy this confusion/misunderstanding), when he comes. shalom
Your videos have vindicated and confirmed for me that Christianity is all about "exclusion" and a global form of pushing the "we-they" syndrome. I always knew something wasn't right with the hatred it espouses for "unbelievers." I could never quite put my finger on why I felt that way until I encountered you brilliant videos. May G-D continue to Bless you and allow you to teach us what His Blessed name wants his children to know. The most important arguments that have been previously lacking are "historical and cultural context" as well as "translation errors." It is a "simple" thing, but translating Hebrew and/or Aramaic , into Greek, then to other languages obviously is a problem, not to mention misattribution of the authors of the New Testament in particular.
Happy Hanukah Rabbi!!! blessings to you and your family.
Never liked Paul...
Salaam Rabbi, keep telling it!
@Abraham Mani No matter how clear it is that Saul of Tarsus is a liar, a deceiver, a hypocrite, some people just prefer to hold onto the lies without thinking.
Well said it is "a disaster, a theological crime" Inconceivable. Thank you Rabbi Singer. I hope many will get to see it, be'ezrat Hashem
His words are heresy
Kindly from Christian in Israel
@@user-03-gsa3 when two religions are heretical to the other, there is no conclusion that can be drawn from that.
Look at the teachings and see which one makes sense, ignoring completely the tradition that you were taught which clouds judgment.
@@oatmiser3110 well said
I was born as a Jew
@@user-03-gsa3 - Suuuure you were.
Inconceivable? More like inexcusable. Now it makes sense why all this stuff is happening.
Nice, now I can be antisemitic without worrying about commiting any sin.
Sans logic and logical case making, so much is possible. But beware where it takes you.
"Where does it say Paul died for anything?" Good point. Although he had this big speech before heading to Jerusalem the last time...Acts records him as doing all he could to AVOID getting killed. It was long a point that raised a question mark that his behaviour in the last few chapters of Acts showed a man going out of his way to avoid dying for anything...to the point he "sought the protection of the ROMANS to avoid 'zealous believers.'
But then...I also consider Acts a second-century document, probably in its earliest form written around the mid-2nd century...but definitely edited into its final form around the 190s.
Seems whoever did either, whether the writer or the editor, could have actually been channelling something that happened in the 66-70 c.e. period...Herod Agrippa (II) seeking the protection of the ROMANS to avoid ZEALOTS.
There's also the fact everyone outside the proto-Catholics also considered "Paul" to REALLY be Mark, not some droob from Tarsus.
But back to the Acts narrative...does it sound like Paul was under "house arrest?" in Rome? Nope. A good read showed he had a Roman bodyguard and still took visitors. Doesn't sound like a man under arrest at all.
Interestingly, in the years AFTER 70 c.e., we find Herod Agrippa living a life of luxury in Rome...and talking strange things related to "Two Powers in Heaven. He'd have probably have already died by the time Acts was first written...but the writer seemed to have a clue about Herod Agrippa's career. Of course, the writer of Acts said the zealots had DISPERSED...but that actually did NOT happen till at least after the Bar Kochba revolt. Bar Kochba is known to have given weight to their opinions, so that means they were still in existence till at least 135 c.e. So...for the writer of Acts to have thought they'd dispersed...that would have had to be at a time AFTER 135 c.e.
I'm now definitely sure there was a zealot faction or two around in the time of the KITOS war (115-117 c.e)...as I can see some RESENTMENT building among Jews to the superior position Samaritans, Hellenicised-Jews and Greeks held in Iudea AFTER the destruction of the 2nd temple. That means, for 45 years, that resentment built and powderkegged around 115 c.e.
But contrary to what Christians think...there doesn't look to have REALLY been any "i" spelling christians in 115. ONLY a bunch of Samaritans, Hellenicist-Jews and Greeks virtue-signallying themselves as the "Good" to the Romans...and benefitting from the Roman victory. That's the "e" spelling ChrEstians. Not a misprint...a virtue-signalling that even had its own theology.
Two thoughts on the real origins of Galatians. One...part of a set of letters, core ones, with the first Evangelion published and made a "Great Proclamation" after 70 c.e. OR...two...something written by someone in the INTERMEDIATE stage AFTER Bar Kochba.
I didn't hear the rabbis talk but from my knowledge Paul changed from. Persecuting Christians to becoming one teaching and being persecuted. Something happened on the road to Damascus which changed thing.
It is a pleasure having some one complement and expand on the what rabbi is teaching and posts informative comments.
I find most do not fact check and simply post more dogma or worse in response. It may be that a handful of people look into all of our information and start to question why they believe what they were simply told by european church fathers as accurate or true.
Always a lively fascinating take, sir 💙🤍💙
Hosea 2:23
The Lords Mercy on Israel
23 and I will sow her for myself in the land.
And I will have mercy on No Mercy,
and I will say to Not My People, You are my people;
and he shall say, You are my God.
Paul was certainly a charlatan & a con man. Another awesome read is Hyam Maccoby's "The Mythmaker - Paul and the Invention of Christianity. Even go back as far as Julius Wellhausen who concludes: "Jesus was not a Christian."
I have been listening to this wonderful Jewish man for acwhile now. He literally is strengthening my faith in Jesus Christ even more. I am completely hopeful one day when the number of Gentiles is full, our brothers the Jewish people will see Him whom they have pierced and mourn for Him as one mourns for an only child.
So must be blind lol 😆 or either you aren't understanding anything his saying
@@Geocomedy007yep...choose to stay indoctrinated where they are safe...agree
Powerful video. My views of Paul have changed from passionate love to caution. I believe Xtianity and Islam are paving the way for the spread of the knowledge of God in the messianic age. God bless you, rabbi
Peace Brother,
I am having a similar feeling. Studying Rabbi Abulafia and his thoughts of what the full significance of "the Messiah" is, not just historically, but symbolically and metaphysically, fits right in. (More than abstract) Knowledge of Hashem/Allah as the Being of the same.
Salam
Actually heads are chopped off in the tribulation so its probably the muslim belief that runs the antichrist spirit
It’d be great if singer and Crossan would get together. I’d love to hear them discuss Jesus and Paul.
At least Muhammed (pbuh) was able to convince nearly two billion people that paul was a fraud
Jamal Ahmed Paul isn’t mentioned in the Koran. in fact the Koran borrows a lot from the Christian Bible. Lies built on top of lies
@@richardjohnson6140 so does Christians bible copying from Judaism and Judaism copying from earlier law ..do you understand the concept of Abraham religions? Love your neighbor.. Are you sure jesus are the first one who teach it? No it was moses teaching
@@inongbalee3092 Christians are funny, thank God i now know the truth
@@richardjohnson6140
Don't be silly. Yes Islam doesn't mention Paul but it clearly says there were false teachers who wrote things claiming they were from God. It raises suspicions and there is a lot to be suspicious about Paul.
Your claim that the quran copied the Bible is just your fanciful subjective views which you of course can't prove. Similarity has many cause other than plagiarism.
Muhammed did NOT convince anybody, he killed as a demand to believe that he was a prophet!
The writings of Paul were mostly what turned me away from Christianity..
@@fredgillespie5855 they are not in agreement with Peter, James or Jesus himself, making Paul a single witness. As presented in modern Bible's the teachings are not compatible with the over all Jewish beliefs/structure of ancient time.
@@fredgillespie5855 for what reason? I am not interested in debating my conclusions, after many years of reading, learning and researching, so a Christian can once again try to convince me I am wrong and save my soul.
@@fredgillespie5855 not interested in the debate. Many blessings
@@fredgillespie5855 obviously. Good day
You really know your stuff! Thanks! :)
He doesn't understand Christianity that well though. These objections may be devastating against literalist protestants, but largely toothless against Orthodoxy. Orthodoxy always understood that Paul wasn't above making mistakes. The claim is that he was inspired by God, not a literal mouthpiece.
And what these examples show is not a liar, just a man prone to wild (but not impossible) interpretations of scriptures and problematic breaks with tradition.
Anyway, Christianity's claim to authority doesn't stand or fall on what Paul said or did. Or anyone after him. It stands and falls with two claims: the resurrection of Christ and the immortality of his Church. If either of these is ever proven false, Christianity is over.
@@youneedonlyknowthenameofgo7786: What you seem to not realize, is that the "New Testament" is NOT scripture that was given to mankind by God, therefore it has ZERO authority in spiritual teaching. The ONLY scriptures ever given to mankind by God is His ETERNAL (i.e. STILL in effect and binding TODAY - a LIVING DOCUMENT!) Hebrew scriptures that He gave to Moses on Mt. Sinai. He specifically told us at that time, that because the Torah IS Eternal, that we are NOT to follow ANY other teaching than what is in His Torah. Christianity IS another teaching, therefore, we are not to follow its false, pagan teachings - God's orders! Nowhere did God ever tell us to expect a SECOND SET of scriptures (i.e. the false, pagan NT) since the only scriptures He ever gave to us are Eternal, and are STILL in effect TODAY! Also, God ABHORS human sacrifice (a purely PAGAN ritual!) therefore, the 'Jesus dying on a cross for people's sins' narrative, just did NOT happen.
PLEASE do some honest research on how your false, pagan religion started, and you WILL discover that it absolutely did NOT come from God, Creator of the universe.
@@janishart5128 God doesn't owe you anything. He doesn't need you. He doesn't have to warn you before inspiring someone to write anything. You, as all men, are insignificant before God.
Anyway, as I said, the resurrection is ultimately the divine vindication that Christ was who he said he was. Only God can command death to release its hold. If Easter happened Christianity is true and the Church is immortal.
@@youneedonlyknowthenameofgo7786: Where did I ONCE say that "God owes me anything"?! That's a fabrication by YOU! "Christ" is totally irrelevant, and nowhere in the Hebrew scriptures does God say ANYTHING about "Jesus", "Christ", "Easter", or the "church"! Those words name come from the false, pagan, anti-God, anti-Jewish, hate-filled, replacement theology "New Testament", which I've already informed you, did NOT come from God, and is NOT what He ACTUALLY said to us. Human sacrifice is a PAGAN ritual that God ABHORS and that He NEVER commanded us to perform for the forgiveness of our sins. Even animal sacrifice was only used for UNintentional sins - there were MANY other types of sacrifices that people brought to the Temple - NO dead guy on a cross required!! I want you to think VERY seriously about this: "Jesus" was NOT a "sacrifice" in ANY sense of the word, because by definition, a "sacrifice" STAYS DEAD! It doesn't rise again a few days later! THINK FOR YOURSELF!!
You have been told what God's ACTUAL Truth is, as taught by the rabbis (as commanded by God!) and now it's up to YOU to do some honest research for YOURSELF, and seek that Truth out, and stop listening with "itching ears" to the "blind guides" who have been outright lying to us for centuries. Christianity is the biggest hoax ever perpetrated on mankind, and you need to do some honest research on this false, pagan religion to discover this Truth for yourself. Only when you're ready to hear God's Truth, and you call out to Him about this, will He open your eyes to that Truth, and not before - because God forces Himself on nobody. PLEASE listen to what the rabbis are saying, and re-read what I've said to you, thinking VERY seriously about what I've said about how Christianity is not even close to God's ACTUAL Truth. The ONLY question you should be asking yourself at this point is: "What did God ACTUALLY say to us on Mt. Sinai?", which is the ONLY time He gave His instructions for living, to mankind.
@@janishart5128 Nothing you said matters. It's irrelevant. You don't know the first thing about Christian doctrine, as evidenced by your bizzare claim that Jesus' death was a human sacrifice for our sin. The church has never taught that. Your attempt at criticizing Christianity is pathetic and you should be ashamed of your ignorance.
There are many independent reasons to think Judaism is false. But as I've said before, Easter is what matters. If Easter happened, your religion is irrelevant.
Deuteronomy 32:21
21 They have made me jealous with what is no god;
they have provoked me to anger with their idols.
So I will make them jealous with those who are no people;
I will provoke them to anger with a foolish nation.
In reference to the prophet Hosea, consider the words of Yeshua:
"He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” - Matthew 15:24
So the peshat of Hosea is referring to the House of Israel (Ephraim) being carried away into captivity, but the remez of Hosea is speaking of Yeshua coming for Ephraim (the lost sheep of the House of Israel).
The problem is that Christians have an identity crisis. They do not realize that they are the lost tribes. James makes it clear who they are:
"James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes scattered among the nations: Greetings." - James 1:1
Why would James refer to the gentiles who are being saved, as the "tribes scattered among the nations" if it was not Ephraim?
Why would Yeshua say He only came for the lost sheep of the house of Israel (Ephraim) if He came for another people? Would Yeshua lie?
For YHWH gave the northern tribes a writ of divorce. And a woman who is divorced cannot marry again until the death of her husband. The husband of Israel is Yeshua, and Yeshua had to die so that they could covenant again. That covenant is the Torah written in their hearts. That Torah is Yeshua, for He is the word made flesh (1 John 1:14).
Isaiah 53 makes it clear what Yeshua Ha Machiach will do:
"But He was pierced for our transgressions, He was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon Him, and by His stripes we are healed. We all like sheep have gone astray, each one has turned to his own way; and the Lord has laid upon Him the iniquity of us all." - Isaiah 53:5-6
@@fredgillespie5855 The Rabbis of today don't believe that ch.53 refers to the Messiah, but all Rabbis prior to the Middle ages did, such as Maimonides. This is part of the reason why Isaiah 53 is not appear in synagogue calendar readings. But its obscurity, its presence in the shadows, and the silence surrounding it shouts its importance. It's omission from the synagogue readings points to its uniqueness. One Jewish scholar, Claude Montefiore, explained: “Because of the Christological interpretation given to the chapter by Christians it is omitted from the series of prophetical lessons for the Deuteronomy Sabbaths…the omission is deliberate and striking.”
Why is the omission so striking? Because when we finish the cycle of readings for the year, we haven’t really finished it. We’ve left out a portion of our own prophets ostensibly because of what Christians think about it. Why has the Christian interpretation of Jewish Scripture placed regulations on what is or is not read in synagogues around the world?
So what did the rabbinic sages say prior to 1000 AD?
Excerpt from the Babylonian Talmud clearly showing that Isaiah 53 is referencing the Messiah:
"What is his [the Messiah’s] name? The Rabbis said: His name is “the leper scholar,” as it is written, “Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him a leper, smitten of God, and afflicted.” (Sanhedrin 98b)"
Similarly, in an explanation of Ruth 2:14 in the Midrash Rabbah it states:
He is speaking of the King Messiah: “Come hither,” draw near to the throne; “and eat of the bread,” that is, the bread of the kingdom; “and dip thy morsel in the vinegar,” this refers to the chastisements, as it is said, “But he was wounded for our transgressions, bruised for our iniquities.”
The Zohar, in its interpretation of Isaiah 53, points to the Messiah as well:
There is in the Garden of Eden a palace named the Palace of the Sons of Sickness. This palace the Messiah enters, and He summons every pain and every chastisement of Israel. All of these come and rest upon Him. And had He not thus lightened them upon Himself, there had been no man able to bear Israel's chastisements for the transgression of the law; as it is written, “Surely our sicknesses he has carried.” (Zohar II, 212a)
The early sages expected a personal Messiah to fulfill the Isaiah prophecy. No alternative interpretation was applied to this passage until the Middle Ages. And then, a completely different view was popularized by Jewish commentator Rashi (Rabbi Shlomo Itzchaki), who lived one thousand years after Yeshua.
Rashi believed that the servant passages of Isaiah referred to the collective fate of the nation of Israel rather than a personal Messiah. Some rabbis, such as Ibn Ezra and Kimhi, agreed. However, many other rabbinic sages during this same period and later-including Maimonides-realized the inconsistencies of Rashi’s views and would not abandon the original messianic interpretation Isaiah 53.
The objections these rabbis put forth to this change were threefold: First, they showed the consensus of ancient opinion. Second, they pointed out that the text is grammatically in the singular tense throughout. For example, “He was despised and rejected … he was pierced for our transgressions … he was led like a lamb to the slaughter.” Third, they noted verse eight of chapter 53. This verse presents some difficulty to those who interpret this passage as referring to Israel:
"By oppression and judgment he was taken away; and as for his generation, who considered that he was cut off out of the land of the living, stricken for the transgression of my people?" (Isaiah 53:8)
But, were the Jewish people ever “cut off from the land of the living?” Absolutely not! God promises that Israel will live forever:
"If this fixed order [the sun to shine by day, the moon and stars to shine by night, etc.] departs from before me, declares the Lord, then shall the offspring of Israel cease from being a nation before me forever." (Jeremiah 31:36)
Likewise, this interpretation makes nonsense of the phrase, “for the transgression of my people he was stricken,” since “my people” clearly means the Jewish people. If verse eight refers to Israel, then are we to read that Israel is stricken for Israel because of Israel’s sin? How can the sin-bearer and the sinner be the same? Likewise, how can Israel be the servant, the one who “had done no violence, nor was any deceit in his mouth” (Isaiah 53:9)? Israel is not now, nor ever has been, without sin-the Scriptures are replete with examples of Israel’s disobedience.
All of these inconsistencies troubled many rabbis, and they expressed their opinions concerning Rashi’s view. Rabbi Moshe Kohen Iben Crispin of Cordova, who lived in the 14th century, said of the Israel-as-servant interpretation, it “distorts the passage from its natural meaning,” and that Isaiah 53 “was given of God as a description of the Messiah, whereby, when any should claim to be the Messiah, to judge by the resemblance or non-resemblance to it whether he were the Messiah or not.”
Yeshua is the Messiah.
Isaiah predicted that the Servant of the Lord would be disfigured by suffering and rejected by many. 700 years later, Yeshua was struck, spat on, mocked, and blasphemed (Mark 15:17-19, Matthew 27:39-44).
Isaiah said this person would come from humble beginnings. Yeshua grew up in a city with a poor reputation, Nazareth (Luke 2:39-40,51).
Isaiah said that the Servant would bear our sins and suffer in our place. 700 years later, Jesus “himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness; by his wounds you have been healed” (1 Peter 2:24).
Isaiah predicted that the Servant would heal many. Jesus made the lame walk, the blind see, and the sick healthy all throughout his earthly ministry (Matthew 8:16-17).
Isaiah said that he would voluntarily take our punishment upon himself. Jesus said: “I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep” (John 10:11).
Jesus did not defend himself before Herod, Pontius Pilate, or the Sanhedrin (Matthew 26:62-64; 27:11-14; Luke 23:9). Just as Isaiah foretold, he remained silent during his suffering.
Isaiah predicted that the Servant would die, be buried with a rich man, but would not remain dead. Jesus did all of this when he died on a cross (Mark 15:37; John 19:33-34), was buried in the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea (Matthew 27:57-60), and when he rose three days after his death.
In 1922, the late David Baron, a British Jewish believer in Yeshua who was well-versed in rabbinics, wrote:
"It is beyond even the wildest credulity to believe that the resemblance in every feature and minutest detail between this prophetic portraiture drawn centuries before his [Jesus’] advent and the story of his life, and death, and glorious resurrection as narrated in the gospels, can be mere accident or fortuitous coincidence."
Can it be true? Ask yourself-if you have the courage to believe it. Yeshua is the Messiah brother. He is your Messiah, and mine.
@@rrem8332 Isaiah 53 doesn't appear in the regular cyclical readings because the Torah is much shorter than the TaNaKh. There are only so many parashat to have a corresponding haftorah portion. The rabbis just didn't select it because there were better excerpts to compare to the Torah.
Also, granting that those passages in Isaiah point to the Messiah, even if this Jesus person did fulfill many of the prophecies, he didn't fulfill all of them, making him at best a failed but promising messianic prospect.
as a normal human being, whenever you're reading a veru sensitive chapter like isaiah 53 while trying to make a verification.
you should have read one or two chapters before that main chapter so that you will first of all know who the writer was refering to.
this is what makes us human being,. the ability to go back and forth in research.
you don't just go ahead assuming for the writer who he was talking about,... you're not there with him.😂
you don't just read Jesus into the text,
.you have to allow the text to tell you who is the suffering servant.
the ignorant you're displaying here is huge.
by the way, the chapter says the servant was a well know with a disease, that everybody turn away their faces when they sighed him.
to the contrary... Jesus never had any disease.
and since God almighty does not accept human blood sacrifice,
then to who did Jesus sacrifice himself to？
i think you need to go back and read the chapter that introduce chapter 53, the ignorant of reading out of context is meaningless.
I don't think you're reading that quite right, Rabbi.
Within the context, Paul is referring the promises to the seed (plural) of Abraham. He is saying the Scripture does NOT erroneously say "seeds" (as a double plural), meaning you cannot include the seed of Abraham's contemporaries into that promise.
And from that seed of Abraham, came Christ.
There's nothing irregular about that statement that doesn't comport to the Scripture.
Galatians 3:16 - 16 "Now the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. He does not say “and to seeds,” as though referring to many, but referring to one, and to your seed, who is Christ." - It sure sounds like Paul is making a case that "his seed" = Christ. That would be completely contradictory to what God told Abraham concerning his seed being so numerous no one could determine the number. (Genesis 13:16, 26:4-5)
Christianity follows Paul and Paulianty anyway.
As Joseph Smith of Mormons had a vision and invented a whole new religion so did Paul...
@Abraham Mani Go away Missionising
" God is high, but truth is higher still. " Kirpal Singh
Just this morning I was reading Isaiah 53. The entire chapter talks about Jesus as Christ. Just a few verses (4-6):
“Surely he took up our pain and bore our suffering, yet we considered him punished by God, stricken by him, and afflicted. But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities, the punishment that brought us peace was on him and by his wounds we are healed. We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to our own way; and the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all.”
nope...that is casting human thought as it is all about Israel...all of it!
Paul had Syphilis. That’s my opinion. It explains a lot.
As I'm listening to Tovia speak, I find myself wondering what would have happened if the jews had vanished. Many of us might have no source of truth; no one to guide us to the truth. I always found the christian bible hard to believe. Listening to Tovia helped me to see why it's hard to believe as well as to understand the Tanakh much better. Your videos are a blessing Rabbi. Thank you for sharing with us and God bless you.
The Holy Spirit has been given to Christians to understand the Torah. We have a better understanding of the Jewish scriptures than the Jews who reject Jesus. They have rejected the testimony of the Holy Spirit by rejecting their own Messiah, who is prophesied in the Torah.
ellenfranacis67 - Jesus is One with the Father. Therefore to worship Jesus is to worship God.
+Jonathan DeLeon, to worship anything created like the dead creature Jesus is pure Idolatry.
Paula Eilene Wallace - Jesus is not a creation of God but eternally begotten of the Father. He never addresses God as his creator but as his Father. Jesus is God from God, Light from Light, eternally begotten of the Father but not created in space or time. To worship Jesus is therefore to worship God.
ellenfrancis 67 - In Isaiah 7:14, God says that the son born of the virgin shall be Emmanuel (God with Us).
I'm Holy Spirit baptised and I find Rabbi Singer misinformed. Paul had the background of pluriformity similar to the scholarship you see from the community of the Dead Sea Scrolls. He was not using the Canon and oral Torah of Rabbinic Judaism. What is unique about him is he draws on Septuagint and Masoretic texts and other interpretations. His interpretations are interesting to scholars who have wondered how he could draw on so many background texts in his writings. Did he carry all the scrolls with their different interpretations around with him?
More importantly Paul is also under the power of the Holy Spirit and when I say under the power of the Holy Spirit I don't mean just that the Holy Spirit is within him but that he had the power on him similar to how the priests in the temple in Kings and Chronicles were unable to minister to the people because the glory cloud was so powerful. This means that a lot of what he said was revelation as it was inspired by the power of God. For instance there is a paradox when you receive the Holy Spirit because although you are free from the law and its condemnation there is a drive for purity and the fulfillment of the law. So something of the law becomes written on your heart. You receive law and love rolled in one. Something the writings in a scroll cannot do. Its paradoxical because you receive realized eschatology i.e. everything is complete but still you have to work out your salvation in a timebound world.
Add to this that St. Paul was the apostle to the Gentiles and was called to usurp paganism with Jewish Christianity in a way that works for those from a gentile culture and you get a proper understanding of Paul's scholarship. Paul is not drawing on just his Pharasaic background his approach is much more similar to the pluriformity of the sect of the Dead Sea Scrolls who were probably Essenes and he also has the resurrection of Christ to contend with to include in his scholarship which the sect of the Dead Sea Scrolls did not have. Their scholarship ends before Paul's begins.
It was incredible that a student of Gamalial, a Jew, was able to go out into the pagan world and mix with and convert pagans. Only the power of the Holy Spirit could achieve this. You see the tension between Paul the apostle to the gentiles and James the apostle in Jerusalem in the gospels. Paul must have returned with stories of the power of the Holy Spirit falling on pagans which must have been a concern to the Early Jewish Christian church on how to deal with it but of course soon they began must have had to adapt to the fact that God was bringing in the Gentiles.
Interestingly when I was Holy Spirit baptised I was driven to search out the Jewish Jesus and research Judaism. The Holy Spirit baptism was doing something Jewish in me. I think God is doing something new know and will probably soon return His power to his people the Jews. Pity we don't have more of St. James's writings too.
When you think about the works of St. Paul never forget the tangible power of the Holy Spirit because without understanding the reality of the presence of God in his ministry you will not understand St. Paul's scholarship.
That's the Christian blind faith firing on all cylinders. 🤣🤣🤣
Rabbi, I love your work, wonderful stuff. Please keep us the awesome work!
@birnie weat Yes, except that Jesus wasn’t the messiah so that’s out the window. The Messiah wasn’t supposed to get arrested, tried like a common criminal and ignominiously executed on a Roman cross!
You are fed a clever trick here, one of omission. Here is my response to Mr Singer, who looks and sounds so insincere as to raise major suspicion:
Paul was a Christian, not a Jew, so why should his exegesis be the same as yours?
He underwent a radical change of understanding from what he used to. Your examples of missquotes?
Not convincing!
You skillfully avoided mentioning Gen 3:15 where God mentions seed and in that same as הִיא (it) where it clearly in Strongs dictionary reference H1931 states this to be [the third person pronoun singular, he (she or it)] to show that it is the singular. Paul was explaining the meaning as per the Torah. That there are other seeds that would be part of the innumerable number, is not disputed, but here a specific seed is mentioned that in Christianity is clearly understood. Very clever omission, Mr Singer!
Thanks so much!
I don't know why anyone would follow Paul. His teachings are a confused mess
Which 'Paul'?
Today, scholars say there are at least 4 distinct 'Pauls' in the Christian Bible.
It is likely that the same Greek scholars that invented 'Jesus' also invented 'Paul'.
The entire Christian bible is a hoax.
@@fivish
All 4 of them I presume.
@@fivish מה יש לך נגד נוצרים, מושה?
@@user-03-gsa3 האחד, משה? השני על מה שהוא אומר מביא אתה לחושב שהוא "נגד נוצרים"? הוא לא מאמין בנצרות כי זה שקר ואין בזה חכמות ושכל בדת הזה כלל. אבל לא שונא רחמנה לצלן איש כי הם לא מסכימים?
@@jewishandproud496 you're using Google translate but I'm a Russian Eastern Orthodox Christian living in Israel . I know Jews more then you
14:42 when he yells seed 🤣😂
I wonder what the crew of the USS liberty would have to say about this?
Who cares. They deserved to be fired upon. Not OK to allow egypt to get that intelligence. Their own fault
This is really good food for thought for those who don't know or hasn't researched this for sure. A good reason to change one's direction for sure.
You are fed a clever trick here, one of omission. Here is my response to Mr Singer, who looks and sounds so insincere as to raise major suspicion:
Paul was a Christian, not a Jew, so why should his exegesis be the same as yours?
He underwent a radical change of understanding from what he used to. Your examples of missquotes?
Not convincing!
You skillfully avoided mentioning Gen 3:15 where God mentions seed and in that same as הִיא (it) where it clearly in Strongs dictionary reference H1931 states this to be [the third person pronoun singular, he (she or it)] to show that it is the singular. Paul was explaining the meaning as per the Torah. That there are other seeds that would be part of the innumerable number, is not disputed, but here a specific seed is mentioned that in Christianity is clearly understood. Very clever omission, Mr Singer!
It would seem that Paul's understanding of scripture differs from Tovia's. This leaves us with the task of deciding who understand scripture and who does not.
@@fredgillespie5855 paul had an agenda you appear to be blind to see it
@@fredgillespie5855 NO
Since the apostate Paul misquotes the Hebrew Scriptures (the falsely named 'old' testament) on numerous occasions, it's clear to all who have eyes to see that Paul was a liar, deceiver and con artist. He wasn't alone, of course. Numerous 'new' testament heretics deliberately changed the literal words of Tanakh to deceive gentiles and the scripturally illiterate.
I’ll definitely choose Paul over Tovia Singer. Lol.
Tovia with all due respect Paul did not just pull the word Seeds out of a hat. In the Dead Sea scrolls, the word Seeds is used multiple times
Any evidence?
Thank you, rabbi.
@Abraham Mani - Blah blah blah. Quit pushing your heresy 'channel' on other people's videos.
Is it possible that Paul's main purpose was to make sure that a Christian following his (i.e., Paul’s) christology could never be mistaken for a Jew?
Thank you Rabbi for your video.
Regarding Gal. 3... may I humbly offer this?
Paul is using an obvious point (that seed is singular/plural) to make his REAL point. One should quote the fulness of what Paul says. He says in verse 3:17, "This is what I mean..."
He is using a play on words (of course seed is both singular and plural!)... to say this... the law when it came 400 years later, did not change the essence of the promise. Paul is NOT saying there are not many people under the promise... but there is one VEIN of promise. The primary person in that vein is the Messiah, and all the people who follow him are also seed, but they are "covered" by him via covenant so that it's AS IF there is one person as seed.
It is like this... when you ask "Who is Abraham's seed?", you can legitimately answer MANY ways. You could "Isaac is!" or "Isaac and Ishmael", or "all Jewish people", etc. We use similar idioms even in English. A father can say to his son "Son, I love you." And yet that older man can also say to a young boy who is a a neighbor "My son..."
So Paul is saying that in God's bigger picture, Isaac (the singular son of promise, in spite of Ishmael) is a picture of the TRUE son of promise, Jesus. Jesus is the PRIMARY seed of Abraham (like Isaac was) and all those who follow Jesus are also Abraham's seed (just like all Jewish people are Abraham's seed physically).
Saul's conversion completely changed his view. He repented of his opposition of the Christian faith after he met with Jesus and Jesus explained to him who he actually is, the promised Jewish Messiah, who suffered, died, was buried and rose again.
He took the gentile Christians back to God's faith covenant with Abraham which was before the Law of Moses. Abraham became the father of all the faithful, both Jews and gentiles.
Great job Rabbi as always.
In my Bible it says descendant in the Galatians passage. But in the genesis passage it does say descendants plural. So they don’t even bother to make it correspond and therefore validate what Paul is saying and Galatians. Thank you for pointing this out.
Dr. Singer is brilliant.
@@fredgillespie5855 Dr. Singer is spot-on.
Shalom rabbia can you give me some name of book to study about paul..
To think that when one is reading the authors of the New Testament, that one is actually reading the Author's words, shows me, that person is clueless about Scripture and the whole translation process.
Those words have been rewritten over and over again, and then translated into languages that the Hebrew culture and thought cannot be perfectly translated into.
To say that the Hebrew language does not have a way to communicate the word seed is either ignorance, or a down right lie.
My favourite is when Paul says "I Paul say to you" not the Lord but "I Paul" like he's God or something.
"Seeds" occurs in the Hebrew in 1 Samuel 8:15 and also in the Talmud.
That's right. And paul in galatians is explaining to the gentiles
Rabbi - this pastor told me Jews didn’t speak Hebrew during that time period - “…Jews spoke Aramaic, because Jews lost their tongue during the various diasporas”
I had no answer to that
Cousin good work.I love Moses Jesus and Muhammad peace be upon them all.
muhammed is a pedopolygamist manmade idol...wake up as imams dictate control and subjugation in jihad if disagree then death...plus sheriah plus abuse of women need I go one? read Robert Spencer for truth.
Rabbi Singer.
I have looked up the passages in Genesis 13 in the Septuagint version, and can see where Paul was in error. He was clearly using the (Greek) Septuagint, which was in common use at that time, because the literal translation(from the Hebrew) of seed is not there. Instead it uses the word for sperm. It's singular form is, I believe"!spermatos"" but the Septuagint uses plural forms such as "spermati" where the Hebrew says "seed." This proves your point that Paul was not reading the passage from a Hebrew source. It doesn't prove he couldn't read Hebrew but it certainly suggests it.
Having said that, I have found "seed" singular in my bible in Galations. I still think you have a good point.
pentirah5 The problem is he is getting all his Words from Holly spirit ..unless u say Holly spirit is ignorant or POAL is a fucking lier pig
A theological crime... LOL. Good one!
+Tovia singer whats the number that i have to call so that way i can ask a question on the tenak talk show?, and what are the days and hours that you are on air?
This is a US number 855-95-BIBLE, Sunday, 12 noon, NY time
What was the point for Paul to lie since he suffered so much for Christ ?! Jesus choose Paul on purpose because he was a pharisee albeit a great scholar of the Torah and a killer of Christians. His testimony and surffering for Christ is very powerful .
Paul did not even know "Jesus". He came about almost a century after Jesus's alleged death
@@Germanboy567 where did you get that Paul came almost a century After Jesus since he met Peter and some other apostles?
where did jesus found Paul？ give us bible verse？
This is kind of an important decision I would say the most important, we must get this right.
Again, if the Chief Rabbi of Jerusalem was for some reason faced with a congregation of Noahites, he would use an English translation. For Paul, the only possible translation was the Septuagint. I have seen this with my own eyes that rabbis who speak to gentile or mixed audiences do just that. Yes they try to base their teachings also on the original Hebrew. But these rabbis do not want to innovate Judaism - while Paul wanted to radically innovate it. So with premises of Paul, his methodology is quite logical. I am not asking anyone to convert to any particular religion here, but just for a simple respect and open mind, because the answers are here. Not religious answers, but answers about methodology and its "why" beyond "it is all dumb!!!" I am sure that if you would accept that Paul was "not a moron", you would be in no great danger of converting to Christianity.
Michal Ptáčník I believe that you're sorely misinformed because the early churches, certainly Paul himself did not have the Septuagint as what you believe it is in its current form. In fact the early church Septuagint was only just the first five books of Moses. The Septuagint (from the Latin septuaginta, "seventy") is a translation of the Hebrew Bible and some related texts into Koine Greek. As the primary Greek translation of the Old Testament, it is also called the Greek Old Testament. This translation is misquoted a number of times in the New Testament, particularly in Pauline epistles, and also by the Apostolic Fathers and later Greek Church Fathers.
Satoshi Nakamoto whatever its name, the reason why use the bad but familiar to the reader translation still stands. The core of it would have been the Septuagint anyways.
No, I would NOT buy a used car from that man, or anything else!!!
so Paul messed up......how then do you vehemently assert that his writings are the holy word of God. Get real.
Don't bullshit make excuse my friend ,He has Holly spirit with him.Holly spirit is telling him exegesis .Now u dare tell me If Holly spirit is also ignorant of his own Hebrew revelation! Go Fuck ur FALSE Aposotle
Paul literally says he lied in romans 3:7 and says hes a messenger of satan in 2 Corinthians 12:7. I don't know if he intentionally mislead people or if he had a vision and satan came spoke to him.
Thank you Rabbi for awesome teachings and answers...great appreciated.
You are fed a clever trick here, one of omission. Here is my response to Mr Singer, who looks and sounds so insincere as to raise major suspicion:
Paul was a Christian, not a Jew, so why should his exegesis be the same as yours?
He underwent a radical change of understanding from what he used to. Your examples of missquotes?
Not convincing!
You skillfully avoided mentioning Gen 3:15 where God mentions seed and in that same as הִיא (it) where it clearly in Strongs dictionary reference H1931 states this to be [the third person pronoun singular, he (she or it)] to show that it is the singular. Paul was explaining the meaning as per the Torah. That there are other seeds that would be part of the innumerable number, is not disputed, but here a specific seed is mentioned that in Christianity is clearly understood. Very clever omission, Mr Singer!
Paul was a Christian, not a Jew, so why should his exegesis be the same as yours?
He underwent a radical change of understanding from what he used to. Your examples of missquotes?
Not convincing!
You skillfully avoided mentioning Gen 3:15 where God mentions seed and in that same as הִיא (it) where it clearly in Strongs dictionary reference H1931 states this to be [the third person pronoun singular, he (she or it)] to show that it is the singular. Paul was explaining the meaning as per the Torah. That there are other seeds that would be part fo the innumerable number, is not disputed, but here a specific seed is mentioned that in Christianity is clearly understood. Very clever omission, Mr Singer!
That is, in short, two lies in the base of Christianity, *amazing!*
Think about it especially 1Corinthians 15.
Rabbi: Your "seeds" argument applies to the KJV only as it was fixed in the NIV, NASB. Green's Literal, and other versions. NIV says:
"The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. Scripture does not say 'and to seeds,' meaning many people, but 'and to your seed,' meaning one person, who is Christ."
Rabbi Tovia you rightly said "I don't know how to say about Paul". You need the help of the Holy Spirit to know the Truth of Scripture.
Rabbi Singer does know the truth of the holy texts. however the new testament is in no way holy or truth
❤ Thank you for your insight. I am learning Hebrew quite well now. So excited.
But the question is it possible that the seed may represent one family under God.
That is how I understood it when it was spoken to Abraham. Sure many people. Many members but one family. The jewish Nation.
So one nation born unto the servant (Ishmael) (this earthly jewish nation under bondage).
And one nation born unto the free (Isaac) the nation that lets the Jew be resorted to God and have eternal life.?
So not a Jew and gentile. But all alike.
Thank you for any thoughts.
"For I am not the least bit inferior to these super-apostles."
A GREAT bit inferior, so for once Paul is honest!
I have questioned so many times that is it possible Paul was so dedicated to destroying Christianity, that he went above killing the flesh to misleading the Christians so much that he actually did all this to destroy their souls. Absolutely no better revenge to those committing heresy, a fierce motive.... OR I sometimes I wonder if Titus requested Josephus write it, to take the heat off the Roman's, and cause conflict amongst each. I have only started watching Rabbi Singer recently. Because of my biggest concern. The very first commandment. And the trinity, although I understood their explanation of the trinity, i never accepted it.. And it is contradicted so many times It shouldn't be that difficult and it'd never is mentioned in New testament. GOD IS TRUTH, and God expects us to seek him thru his word. The old testament is the foundation of Christiany , it cannot be denied. If the devil is pretending to be the son of God, and have billions fooled, major damage done. Thank Rabbi for caring enough about the salvation of Christians to take the te to do God's work. Thank you for pointing out the truth.
Zacharia 9:9 "Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion. Shout in triumph, O daughter of Jerusalem. Look! Your KING is coming to you. He is righteous, bringing salvation, Humble and riding on a donkey, On a colt, the foal of a female donkey."
Some Christians are now saying the septuigent of the whole old testament was completed by 100 bc
Tell them to read the introduction to their own Septuagint
Book of Act - written by Luke
Luke - Paul's student :)
This is why luke speak highly on paul !
This is unfair. Paul from your perspective. Its easy to judge a person. But if you face Paul right now in the debate your doomed.
The death and resurrection of the Messiah are found in the writings of our sages and Rabbis. The Messiah---what is his name? Those of the house of Rabbi Yuda the saint say, the sick one, as it is said, 'Surely he had borne our sicknesses.' (BT Sanhedrin 98b)
And when Israel is sinful, the Messiah seeks for mercy upon them, as it is written, "By His stripes we were healed, and He carried the sins of many; and made intercession for the transgressors." (B'reshith Rabbah)
The Holy One gave Messiah the opportunity to save souls but to be severely chastised: and forthwith the Messiah accepted the chastisements of love, as is written, "He was oppressed, and he was afflicted." And when Israel is sinful, the Messiah seeks mercy upon them, as it is written, "By his stripes we were healed," and "He carried the sins of many and made intercession for the trangressors." (Bereshith Rabbah, Rabbi Moshe Hadershan)
Also interpreting Zechariah 7:10
"Messiah son of Joseph was slain, as it is written, "They shall look unto me whom they have pierced; and they shall mourn for him as one mourneth for his only son" (Suk. 52a) But It sounds like Paul is quoting some documents relating to Messiah, like an early gospel document.
New testament is a plagiarized made up testament from the romans
Instead of following a plagiarized testament how about you read zechariah 12:9 before you claim zechariah 12:10 is about this false New testament plagiarized nonsense.
Zechariah 12:9 God speaks of annihilating nations that come against Jerusalem nothing to do with hidden nonsense interpretations of a God coming down as human to die.
Repent the nonsense you believe in before you get annihilated as God says he will do to those against Jerusalem.
@@antoniopadro1760 Can you prove it? Or this just opinion.
@@BabaRabba2 sure answer this question where did this Jesus get his knowledge then ill prove this New testament is plagiarized in many ways
@@antoniopadro1760 You are quick to accuse, but I don't recall writing the things you are accusing me of. All I posted was some Midrashim of Chahamim, Rabbis.
Roman legions were made of nations, these Kitim sons of darkness.
But I do agree about Zechariah 12:9.
It's really tricky to get a handle on Paul. There's a writer of the mid-2nd century who wrote about Paul and that was the one book of the time that was CAUGHT OUT as a mere fiction..."The Acts of Paul and Thecla." The writer of that is possibly known as either Peregrinus Proteus or Leucius Charinus. BUT...this was also Irenaeus' "teacher." And Irenaeus was a whole level next in the forgery/fiction stakes.
Outside of either of them...there are Gnostic Christians who considered "Paul" as REALLY Mark. Which makes the equation even more interesting.
I work now on the idea the Gnostic version of ChrEstianity/Christianity was indeed PRIOR to both this "teacher" and Ireaneus...more a logical outgrowth of the Samaritan/Hellenicist-Jewry streams of alternative narratives (or actual minim). If I can track an autograph "Evangelion" down to the time of immediately POST-70 c.e., then it's easier to see who "Mark-Paul" was...because he would have had to have been someone playing to BOTH the Samaritans AND the Hellenicist-Jews while, at that point of time, turning AGAINST Torah/Observant Jews. The only Mark/Marqe in real history ends up being MARCUS Julius Herod Agrippa...taking a few steps beyond, but still in line with, Philo. So...an early and autograph Evangelion might include a main document, core epistles, and a liturgy. It's kind of interesting to note the liturgical part seems to be found in Samaritan stuff...though mistaken for fourth-century. The underlying and original "Mark-Paul" material would have been in line with Hellenicism. Not overly different from Philo to a degree.
Unfortunately, thanks to Irenaeus' "teacher," then Irenaeus himself...we have ADDITIONAL letters of Paul (the Pastorals, which scholars CAN detect are different to the known core letters) and even anti-Gnostic ADDITIONS to even the core letters.
It's a really sad state of affairs that so much stuff is mixed together...and then people think that what we've CURRENTLY got is exactly what ever started in the first place. "Saul-Paul" is a pastiche. Yeah, proto-catholicism onwards at least keeps the idea that Paul was named something else before being called Paul...and has this wacky idea of Paul in Acts that really doesn't quite mesh at all with the Paul of the core letters. And then there's the interesting bit with the later chapters of Acts...where "Paul" is SEEKING THE PROTECTION of the ROMANS to ESCAPE "ZEALOUS" BELIEVERS." That has to be the best clue outside others in Acts that the Acts of the Apostles document comes from at least the mid-2nd century earliest. Because...it's an ECHO of the event that happened in the early part of the 66-70 c.e. war...when it was MARCUS (Mark/Marqe) Julius Herod Agrippa (II for those still thinking there were two) who SOUGHT the PROTECTION of the ROMANS to ESCAPE ZEALOTS. Guess the writer of Acts had some hint what he was echo'ing...so it's ridiculous to think the "Paul" version happened before the Herod Agrippa (II) version. The Herod Agrippa (II) version happened first...and someone decades later made that into a Paul story.
Interesting that at least the Paul and Thecla story was caught out AS a purely-invented story. I don't think it was the only one that was purely-invented.
I'm thinking Proteus Peregrinus was the historical Ignatius because not only did he go from town to town like Ignatius, but he also IGNITED a fire and jumped into it.
@@edwardmiessner6502 going through Passing...Peregrinus as Ignatius, Justin and Polycarp clearly...though Papias and Hegessipus look also aliases.
The Rabbi has not read the book of Acts where Paul proclaims that he is referring to Psalm 16:8-11 when he says Christ died and rose according to the scriptures.On the Jewish feast day of Shavuot (Weeks or Pentecost), when Peter preached the first gospel sermon, he boldly asserted that God had raised Jesus from the dead (Acts 2:24). He then explained that God had performed this miraculous deed in fulfillment of David's prophecy in Psalm 16. In fact, Peter quoted the words of David in detail as contained in Psalm 16:8-11. Some years later, Paul did the same thing when he spoke to the Jewish community in Antioch. Like Peter, Paul declared that God had raised Messiah Jesus from the dead in fulfillment of Psalm 16:10 (Acts 13:33-35).
It is common knowledge that the Apostles proclaimed Psalm 16 and yet the Rabbi in this video seems to be bewildered. Now, you may not agree with the psalm etc but there is such a Psalm so Saints Peter and Paul were no liars. But this Rabbi is trying to say there was no scripture and Paul pulled a fast one on everyone!!!!
The main thing is everyone saw the terrible earthquake and the 3 hour darkness at noon. Africannus and others debated that an eclipse could last for a few minutes and not 3 hours and could not take place on the full moon day of the Passover because the moon is on the wrong side of the earth. A contingent of soldiers were blocking the entrance and the huge stone was sealed and yet the tomb was opened. Since the Pharaisees were so concerned about the Apostles stealing the body as Christ had predicted his own resurrection, they would have kept their own crowd of people watching. SO THE RESURRECTION TOOK PLACE and this Rabbi cannot make it go away. Whether it was predicted or not, it took place.
and how do you know any of that actually happened?
Thallus wrote a history of the eastern Mediterranean world since the Trojan War. Thallus wrote his regional history in about AD 52 Although his original writings have been lost, he is specifically quoted by Julius Africanus, a renowned third century historian. Africanus states, ‘Thallus, in the third book of his histories, explains away the darkness as an eclipse of the sun-unreasonably as it seems to me.’ Apparently, Thallus attempted to ascribe a naturalistic explanation to the darkness during the crucifixion.
Phlegon was a Greek historian who wrote an extensive chronology around AD 137:
In the fourth year of the 202nd Olympiad (i.e., AD 33) there was ‘the greatest eclipse of the sun’ and that ‘it became night in the sixth hour of the day [i.e., noon] so that stars even appeared in the heavens. There was a great earthquake in Bithynia, and many things were overturned in Nicaea.’
Tertullian, in his Apologeticus (197 AD), told the story of the crucifixion darkness and suggested that the evidence was still held in the Roman archives.
Dionysius the Areopagite in Egypt is said to have observed the darkness and exclaimed, “Either the God of Nature is suffering, or the machine of the world is tumbling into ruin”.
Lucian (the martyr of Nicomedia, who died in A.D. 312) appealed to the testimony of national archives then in existence that a supernatural darkness prevailed at the time of the Cross.
Here is a hidden mystery within Exodus and Numbers that has been overlooked for way, way too long. We read in Exodus 12:37 that there were 600,000 adult males that were freed from Egypt.
Now the sons of Israel journeyed from Rameses to Succoth, about six hundred thousand men on foot, aside from children. (Exodus 12:37)
The children of Israel spent 40 years in the wilderness. Below are three Passages from Numbers (Numbers 14:28-30, 26:63-55, and 32:11, 12). These Passages make it extremely clear that out of the original 600,000 adult men that were freed, that only 2 made it into the Promised Land, they being Joshua and Caleb. So you have 599,998 Hebrew men dying in that 40 years. Stay with me, there is a huge, huge meaning in this.
Say to them, ‘As I live,’ says the Lord, ‘just as you have spoken in My hearing, so I will surely do to you; 29 your corpses will fall in this wilderness, even all your [o]numbered men, according to your complete number from twenty years old and upward, who have grumbled against Me. 30 Surely you shall not come into the land in which I [p]swore to settle you, except Caleb the son of Jephunneh and Joshua the son of Nun. (Numbers 14:28-30)
These are those who were numbered by Moses and Eleazar the priest, who numbered the sons of Israel in the plains of Moab by the Jordan at Jericho. 64 But among these there was not a man of those who were numbered by Moses and Aaron the priest, who numbered the sons of Israel in the wilderness of Sinai. 65 For the Lord had said [x]of them, “They shall surely die in the wilderness.” And not a man was left of them, except Caleb the son of Jephunneh and Joshua the son of Nun. (Numbers 26:63-65)
‘None of the men who came up from Egypt, from twenty years old and upward, shall see the land which I swore to Abraham, to Isaac and to Jacob; for they did not follow Me fully, 12 except Caleb the son of Jephunneh the Kenizzite and Joshua the son of Nun, for they have followed the Lord fully.’ (Numbers 32:11, 12)
Now remember when Moses sent in the 12 spies? Remember only 2 of the 12 had faith, they were Joshua and Caleb.
Now if we look up the name meanings for Joshua and Caleb, we get: Joshua means Savior and Caleb means whole heart.
Now put it all together:
Faith in the Savior of the whole heart gets you into the Promised Land. The deeper meaning of the Promised Land being Heaven. God was sending a Message, the Gospel Message. The choseness of the Hebrews started at Abraham and ended at Jesus Christ!!! Hallelujah!!!
If there was a chosen race of people, a Master race, then the 599,998 would not of died in the wilderness. God has always chosen based on the heart.
But the Lord said to Samuel, “Do not look at his appearance or at the height of his stature, because I have rejected him; for [b]God sees not as man sees, for man looks at the outward appearance, but the Lord looks at the heart.” (1 Samuel 16:7)
@@keithelrod777 wow 0_0 I'll I have is Jesus quote where he says salvation originates with the Jews let me know if you need the scriputure.
@@aspreedacore thank you! Yes, I know Abraham was called first. I believe in Genesis 14 he is called a Hebrew, this being the first use of the term Hebrew. He was given the Covenant of Circumcision. Through his LOINS all nations would blessed. The choseness of the Hebrews started at Abraham and ended at Jesus Christ, He being the last required Circumcision. In Acts it becomes optional. The book of Matthew, the Gospel directed towards Hebrews, opens up with the genealogy from Abraham to Jesus. The Hebrews are VERY SPECIAL because the Savior of the world came through them. Hallelujah!!!
The people who crept into the church in Galatia did not say Christians had to keep the law and that was it. They said Christians had to be circumsized to be saved. In other words, they conflated soteriology with obedience. That is what Paul was railing against, because he knew that was a fallacy of argumentation, and that the common person would be confused. That is why over and over, you see him writing "God forbid" when it is questioned whether he believes and practices the law. That's why in other parts of his writings, he actually keeps Feasts instead of preaching Christ and observes Sabbath, Etc.
I still will trust what the NT says about Paul's education.
But all of the NT is not holy or truth. What a horrible source to trust
The writings of Paul in the New testament, if they are really from him, are ridiculous, confused and religiously illiterate...He didn't understand basic monotheism and role of Scripture and Prophethood...
ENGLISH THE MOST DNGRS LANGUAGE EVER
Dangerous? It’s a language lol, a language can’t be dangerous, It’s people that are the problem and those who have in sufficient ability in English (including spelling 😉, grammar, punctuation, when to use caps) Greek, Aramaic and Hebrew
It very clear I galatians that Paul was simply stating that the word seed applied in the singular to Jesus not that the word is singular. Go to the Greek and it becomes clear.
Paul is highly misunderstood. He was preaching the Kingdom of God and salvation through Jesus Christ by grace through faith. The New Covenant does not take away from being a Jew or abolish Torah or the Law. The law is an eternal standard, but you are not redeemed through it. Yeshua fulfilled the law writing it on the hearts of men by giving understanding of the spirit of the law. You just don't understand what Paul is saying. These are spiritual messages. It was agreed amongst the apostles that for a time the gentiles would not be overburdened at first. Listen to the audience being spoken to. Matthew spoke to the Jews, Paul mostly spoke to the gentiles. Yeshua was sent to the Jews,
" behold, the Kingdom of God is at hand."
ellenfrancis67 I'll have to disagree. The grace of God is not nonsense to me.
ellenfrancis67 its His unmerited favor, blessings, His mercy and love bestowed to the undeserving.
ellenfrancis67 to take it one step further, we are all sinners (miss the mark), we're not perfect and Holy like the Almighty. The wages of sin is death. Salvation is attained by grace (of God) through faith in Yeshuah Messiah (His son.) Paul taught and preached about Yeshuah, Grace, and faith, Yet he was still a Torah observant Jew.
ellenfrancis67 Christ was not a human sacrifice. He was rejected by the Jewish leaders in His day and Rome killed Him. However, He gave His life willingly at the will of the Father to take on all the sins of the world as well as remove the curse of death inherited from Adam and Eve. Yeshua is the First Fruit in the resurrection. Soon, we will follow (believers will) both the living and the dead. There will be no more death, sickness and sorrow. God's plan for us still has a short time left to complete all prophesy. Christ's work of salvation was completed on the cross, but our redemption is in God's perfect timing. It's all in the Bible, written from Genesis to Revelation. I'm only paraphrasing. My personal belief is that the final end times are almost here.
ellenfrancis67 True, there is no man. Yeshua was a divine manifestation/incarnation. That's the thing. Only GD could do it. Only the Sons glory was veiled when he walked as a man. And yes, it's in the Tanach. Especially seen in Isaiah 53. Moses and The prophets speak of Him in Micah, Daniel, Joel, Amos, Psalms 2 just for a few.
The other thing is in Abrahams time, He was accounted to righteousness by faith, there was no law yet. In Moses day sin was dealt with through the law and Atonement. This was all before Messiah came. In this age sin/salvation is dealt with by grace through faith. The law is written in our heart. Along with the Tanach There is a new Covenant that includes the indwelling of the Holy Spirit to all repentant believers.
There is a wonderful online ministry you might like to visit called One for Israel. I'm gentile an read their site often. Blessings to you.
Paul is leading many, many people astray!!!
@@fredgillespie5855 No! By the comments on here you speak of many have been influenced by Paul!
@@fredgillespie5855 comments of butt hurt christians. The rabbi is spot on. Paul is full of BS
Is Tovia a Rabbi, an ignoramus or a charlatan?
He is an amazing Rabbi and speaks the truth