Rabbi Tovia Singer: Why Paul was not a Pharisee & Student of Gamaliel
Вставка
- Опубліковано 21 жов 2024
- Rabbi Tovia Singer’s discusses whether Paul the apostle was really a Pharisee, a student of Rabbi Gamaliel and a persecutor of the Christians. His surprising analysis of the accounts found in both the book of Acts and Paul’s epistles calls into question some of the most commonly accepted beliefs that we are led to believe about the apostle from Tarsus. Was Paul in fact a trained Pharisee? Did Paul set out to persecute Christians in Damascus at the behest of the High Priest? Was he in fact a student of Rabbi Gamaliel? Why would a “Pharisee of Pharisees” pepper his theological arguments with out-of-context Torah quotations? You may never read the letters of Paul the same way again after watching this gripping presentation on the most important convert to Christianity. outreachjudais... www.toviasinger...
Saying that one is the student of a Luminary, a giant, whilst opposing that scholar most likely means what?
(A) That you were not his student
Or
(B) You flunked all of his tests
Thank you Rabbi Tovia Singer
Moira
From England.
Wonderful Rabbi Singer
Great video, thanks ❤
thanks again rabbi for the comman sence truth and that's great to know of your background.
Rory McClure :
Comment by the way
● There were more straw men in this video than an scarecrow convention.
1:40 "The book of Acts wasn't written in AD 90." Wrong. First, ch. 28 ends with Paul under house arrest. While waiting to appear before Caesar, he was free to preach to all who come to him. This had to occur before A.D. 64, when a great fire swept through Rome and the Emperor Nero said that Christians were to blame. Second, Acts does not mention Paul’s death, which appeared to be imminent when the apostle wrote 2 Tim. 4 and which occurred around A.D. 68. Third, near the end of Acts, Luke portrays the Roman government as benevolent toward Christianity, an attitude that changed after A.D. 64.
1:50 "Paul was a descendant of Gamaliel." Wrong. Nowhere does the NT claim that Paul was a descendant of Gamaliel. Luke only records Paul's words: “I am indeed a Jew, born in Tarsus of Cilicia, but brought up in this city at the feet of Gamaliel, taught according to the strictness of our fathers’ law, and was zealous toward God as you all are today.” (Acts 22:3)
4:09 16:15 etc. Acts does't claim that the high priest had jurisdiction over what's happening in Damascus. However he would have great influence in the synagogues of Damascus, just as Luke says. “Meanwhile, Saul was still breathing out murderous threats against the Lord’s disciples. He went to the high priest and asked him for letters to the synagogues in Damascus, so that if he found any there who belonged to the Way, whether men or women, he might take them as prisoners to Jerusalem.” (Acts 9:1-2)
11:10 "Paul wouldn't work for the pharisees because the Pharisees wouldn't work for the Saducee temple priests." Wrong. Josephus tell us that they did. Book 2, Chapter 17, Paragraph 3. "Hereupon the men of power got together, and conferred with the high priests, as did also the principal of the Pharisees; and thinking all was at stake, and that their calamities were becoming incurable, took counsel what was to be done. Accordingly, they determined to try what they could do with the seditious by words, and assembled the people before the brazen gate, which was that gate of the inner temple [court of the priests] which looked toward the sun-rising. And, in the first place, they showed the great indignation they had at this attempt for a revolt..."
12:07 "The notion that Paul would go to Damascus to persecute Christians is nonsense. Why would a Pharisee be interested in doing that?" Because of their zeal for the law. They would be obeying the law of Moses as they understood it. “And whoever blasphemes the name of the LORD shall surely be put to death.” (Lev. 24:16) “But that prophet or that dreamer of dreams shall be put to death, because he has spoken in order to turn you away from the LORD your God,” (Deut. 13:5) etc.
13:15 "It is extremely unlikely that Paul would have been a Roman Citizen." Wrong. Roman citizenship was common for wealthier Jews in the Roman diaspora. Eg. "for when Antioch, the capital of Syria, was founded, equal rights of citizenship were given to the Jews as to the heathen." (History of of Jews in Rome. E H Hudson. p 7) "The Samaritans then forfeited their privilege of Roman citizenship, and to the Jews it was confirmed, and they were set free from some of the restrictions to which they had been hitherto subjected." (p. 276)
@@dengguer8
Best comment I’ve read on these pages so far, I agree 100% with your response. It is rather bizarre to listen to such obvious misinformation presented as if it was scholarly fact, but many people here are so ready to accept it.
May God bless, encourage and strengthen you in the inner man, and give you His Shalom.
281/5000
Why did Jesus bother having disciples? After all the effort and suffering, the disciples disappeared and were replaced by a complete stranger, who never knew Jesus, preaching a different gospel. Why did not Jesus recruit Paul from the beginning?
@in777sight that was the stupidest explanation I've ever heard
That's like saying why God chose Moses to talk and Aaron to do the Miracles when God could use just Moses to do the Miracles since he was the one who saw God in the burning bush.
Every disciple has their own attributes and each one their own missions. Paul was a student of the Hebrew Bible, vert few understood the scriptures like him. Paul was very important as a witness of Jesus, not only he gave the early church the right orientation due to his knowledge, but his change from a zealot and persecutor of the Nazarenes to one of the biggest believers of Jesus was key to show that Jesus was indeed the Son of God and the Messiah to come.
God has a time to call all of his chosen, just like He chose all the prophets in the different times and sometimes He could have called them earlier, but He didn't. Why? We are not sure, but God's times are perfect.
Any subject concerning Judaism or Hebrew I google, I get so many Christian websites, pretending to be Jewish. I even seen one that said Hebrew for Christians. I just had to laugh. How about just Hebrew for everybody?
Man I love your knowledge.
‘Ever learning but never coming to a knowledge of the truth’… comes to mind.
Scholarly intellect can seem very attractive and enticing, but needs looking at under a discerning lens.
Keep up the great work Rabbi.
Yes
you are great, rabbi! love from Turkey.
are you there? I'm from Turkey, too
The chid Rabbi is working for the messianis movement.,yes but after his conversion
I'm Muslim and rabbi tovia speaks truth
What have you read to say he speaks truth 😲. Aren't you Muslims worship allah who prays to another god bigger than him.
Anyway see this comment down here
Rory McClure :
Comment by the way
● There were more straw men in this video than an scarecrow convention.
1:40 "The book of Acts wasn't written in AD 90." Wrong. First, ch. 28 ends with Paul under house arrest. While waiting to appear before Caesar, he was free to preach to all who come to him. This had to occur before A.D. 64, when a great fire swept through Rome and the Emperor Nero said that Christians were to blame. Second, Acts does not mention Paul’s death, which appeared to be imminent when the apostle wrote 2 Tim. 4 and which occurred around A.D. 68. Third, near the end of Acts, Luke portrays the Roman government as benevolent toward Christianity, an attitude that changed after A.D. 64.
1:50 "Paul was a descendant of Gamaliel." Wrong. Nowhere does the NT claim that Paul was a descendant of Gamaliel. Luke only records Paul's words: “I am indeed a Jew, born in Tarsus of Cilicia, but brought up in this city at the feet of Gamaliel, taught according to the strictness of our fathers’ law, and was zealous toward God as you all are today.” (Acts 22:3)
4:09 16:15 etc. Acts does't claim that the high priest had jurisdiction over what's happening in Damascus. However he would have great influence in the synagogues of Damascus, just as Luke says. “Meanwhile, Saul was still breathing out murderous threats against the Lord’s disciples. He went to the high priest and asked him for letters to the synagogues in Damascus, so that if he found any there who belonged to the Way, whether men or women, he might take them as prisoners to Jerusalem.” (Acts 9:1-2)
11:10 "Paul wouldn't work for the pharisees because the Pharisees wouldn't work for the Saducee temple priests." Wrong. Josephus tell us that they did. Book 2, Chapter 17, Paragraph 3. "Hereupon the men of power got together, and conferred with the high priests, as did also the principal of the Pharisees; and thinking all was at stake, and that their calamities were becoming incurable, took counsel what was to be done. Accordingly, they determined to try what they could do with the seditious by words, and assembled the people before the brazen gate, which was that gate of the inner temple [court of the priests] which looked toward the sun-rising. And, in the first place, they showed the great indignation they had at this attempt for a revolt..."
12:07 "The notion that Paul would go to Damascus to persecute Christians is nonsense. Why would a Pharisee be interested in doing that?" Because of their zeal for the law. They would be obeying the law of Moses as they understood it. “And whoever blasphemes the name of the LORD shall surely be put to death.” (Lev. 24:16) “But that prophet or that dreamer of dreams shall be put to death, because he has spoken in order to turn you away from the LORD your God,” (Deut. 13:5) etc.
13:15 "It is extremely unlikely that Paul would have been a Roman Citizen." Wrong. Roman citizenship was common for wealthier Jews in the Roman diaspora. Eg. "for when Antioch, the capital of Syria, was founded, equal rights of citizenship were given to the Jews as to the heathen." (History of of Jews in Rome. E H Hudson. p 7) "The Samaritans then forfeited their privilege of Roman citizenship, and to the Jews it was confirmed, and they were set free from some of the restrictions to which they had been hitherto subjected." (p. 276)
Was Paul willing to LIE to convince you?
Romans 3:7
But if through my lie the truth of God abounded to His glory, why am I also still being judged as a sinner?
I have become all things to all men, 1Cor 9:22
Can we trust such a man?
Arikm7 Yes ...Paul has deceived billions of people.
Arikm7 I think if we had no religions the world would have more peace.
Tony DC Paul was a faker....smarten-up.
Tony DC you offer no proofs or rebuttals. Your logic is nonexistent.
One of the best liars in history
Christianity made a choice to follow Pauline theology, because it allowed the clearest brake away from any Jewish traditions. Any Bible student reading the new testament knows well that some of the rest of authors are clearly antagonistic to Paul, his false claims about himself and his teachings. Nevertheless, since the mainstream theology has been developed by and for gentiles, Paul remains as first choice.
And what “theology” is that?? The fact that Paul teaches God is live? Or to teach purity, love, honesty, faithfulness to Jesus? Like what theology are u referring too????? It’s the same theology that Jesus taught about purity, love, hope, GOD……… Pauline theology agrees with the rest of the testament.. ???
@@jordanmckissick6362 leave this people they are taken in by the false narrative of Historical Critical Scholars who are in the Enlightenment School claiming that Paul founded Christianity
Tovia, your point is moot and vapid; ignorant too. Paul had a reformation.
Paul was to persecute Jews who believed in yeshua as moschiah. And Tovia is lying as usual....
You mean “break” not “brake.” A brake is on a car.
My problem with Paul is where in the world was he when Jesus was preaching in Jerusalem, etc??? Yet he appears at Stephen's stoning and is a mad wolf against christians . So strange.
Where is it written that he had to be around? They didn't have youtube or cell phones dude.
Rory McClure :
Comment by the way
● There were more straw men in this video than an scarecrow convention.
1:40 "The book of Acts wasn't written in AD 90." Wrong. First, ch. 28 ends with Paul under house arrest. While waiting to appear before Caesar, he was free to preach to all who come to him. This had to occur before A.D. 64, when a great fire swept through Rome and the Emperor Nero said that Christians were to blame. Second, Acts does not mention Paul’s death, which appeared to be imminent when the apostle wrote 2 Tim. 4 and which occurred around A.D. 68. Third, near the end of Acts, Luke portrays the Roman government as benevolent toward Christianity, an attitude that changed after A.D. 64.
1:50 "Paul was a descendant of Gamaliel." Wrong. Nowhere does the NT claim that Paul was a descendant of Gamaliel. Luke only records Paul's words: “I am indeed a Jew, born in Tarsus of Cilicia, but brought up in this city at the feet of Gamaliel, taught according to the strictness of our fathers’ law, and was zealous toward God as you all are today.” (Acts 22:3)
4:09 16:15 etc. Acts does't claim that the high priest had jurisdiction over what's happening in Damascus. However he would have great influence in the synagogues of Damascus, just as Luke says. “Meanwhile, Saul was still breathing out murderous threats against the Lord’s disciples. He went to the high priest and asked him for letters to the synagogues in Damascus, so that if he found any there who belonged to the Way, whether men or women, he might take them as prisoners to Jerusalem.” (Acts 9:1-2)
11:10 "Paul wouldn't work for the pharisees because the Pharisees wouldn't work for the Saducee temple priests." Wrong. Josephus tell us that they did. Book 2, Chapter 17, Paragraph 3. "Hereupon the men of power got together, and conferred with the high priests, as did also the principal of the Pharisees; and thinking all was at stake, and that their calamities were becoming incurable, took counsel what was to be done. Accordingly, they determined to try what they could do with the seditious by words, and assembled the people before the brazen gate, which was that gate of the inner temple [court of the priests] which looked toward the sun-rising. And, in the first place, they showed the great indignation they had at this attempt for a revolt..."
12:07 "The notion that Paul would go to Damascus to persecute Christians is nonsense. Why would a Pharisee be interested in doing that?" Because of their zeal for the law. They would be obeying the law of Moses as they understood it. “And whoever blasphemes the name of the LORD shall surely be put to death.” (Lev. 24:16) “But that prophet or that dreamer of dreams shall be put to death, because he has spoken in order to turn you away from the LORD your God,” (Deut. 13:5) etc.
13:15 "It is extremely unlikely that Paul would have been a Roman Citizen." Wrong. Roman citizenship was common for wealthier Jews in the Roman diaspora. Eg. "for when Antioch, the capital of Syria, was founded, equal rights of citizenship were given to the Jews as to the heathen." (History of of Jews in Rome. E H Hudson. p 7) "The Samaritans then forfeited their privilege of Roman citizenship, and to the Jews it was confirmed, and they were set free from some of the restrictions to which they had been hitherto subjected." (p. 276)
Exactly. NONE of this adds up.
The early believers knew Paul was a false apostle.
Rory McClure :
Comment by the way
● There were more straw men in this video than an scarecrow convention.
1:40 "The book of Acts wasn't written in AD 90." Wrong. First, ch. 28 ends with Paul under house arrest. While waiting to appear before Caesar, he was free to preach to all who come to him. This had to occur before A.D. 64, when a great fire swept through Rome and the Emperor Nero said that Christians were to blame. Second, Acts does not mention Paul’s death, which appeared to be imminent when the apostle wrote 2 Tim. 4 and which occurred around A.D. 68. Third, near the end of Acts, Luke portrays the Roman government as benevolent toward Christianity, an attitude that changed after A.D. 64.
1:50 "Paul was a descendant of Gamaliel." Wrong. Nowhere does the NT claim that Paul was a descendant of Gamaliel. Luke only records Paul's words: “I am indeed a Jew, born in Tarsus of Cilicia, but brought up in this city at the feet of Gamaliel, taught according to the strictness of our fathers’ law, and was zealous toward God as you all are today.” (Acts 22:3)
4:09 16:15 etc. Acts does't claim that the high priest had jurisdiction over what's happening in Damascus. However he would have great influence in the synagogues of Damascus, just as Luke says. “Meanwhile, Saul was still breathing out murderous threats against the Lord’s disciples. He went to the high priest and asked him for letters to the synagogues in Damascus, so that if he found any there who belonged to the Way, whether men or women, he might take them as prisoners to Jerusalem.” (Acts 9:1-2)
11:10 "Paul wouldn't work for the pharisees because the Pharisees wouldn't work for the Saducee temple priests." Wrong. Josephus tell us that they did. Book 2, Chapter 17, Paragraph 3. "Hereupon the men of power got together, and conferred with the high priests, as did also the principal of the Pharisees; and thinking all was at stake, and that their calamities were becoming incurable, took counsel what was to be done. Accordingly, they determined to try what they could do with the seditious by words, and assembled the people before the brazen gate, which was that gate of the inner temple [court of the priests] which looked toward the sun-rising. And, in the first place, they showed the great indignation they had at this attempt for a revolt..."
12:07 "The notion that Paul would go to Damascus to persecute Christians is nonsense. Why would a Pharisee be interested in doing that?" Because of their zeal for the law. They would be obeying the law of Moses as they understood it. “And whoever blasphemes the name of the LORD shall surely be put to death.” (Lev. 24:16) “But that prophet or that dreamer of dreams shall be put to death, because he has spoken in order to turn you away from the LORD your God,” (Deut. 13:5) etc.
13:15 "It is extremely unlikely that Paul would have been a Roman Citizen." Wrong. Roman citizenship was common for wealthier Jews in the Roman diaspora. Eg. "for when Antioch, the capital of Syria, was founded, equal rights of citizenship were given to the Jews as to the heathen." (History of of Jews in Rome. E H Hudson. p 7) "The Samaritans then forfeited their privilege of Roman citizenship, and to the Jews it was confirmed, and they were set free from some of the restrictions to which they had been hitherto subjected." (p. 276)
There were more straw men in this video than an scarecrow convention.
1:40 "The book of Acts wasn't written in AD 90." Wrong. First, ch. 28 ends with Paul under house arrest. While waiting to appear before Caesar, he was free to preach to all who come to him. This had to occur before A.D. 64, when a great fire swept through Rome and the Emperor Nero said that Christians were to blame. Second, Acts does not mention Paul’s death, which appeared to be imminent when the apostle wrote 2 Tim. 4 and which occurred around A.D. 68. Third, near the end of Acts, Luke portrays the Roman government as benevolent toward Christianity, an attitude that changed after A.D. 64.
1:50 "Paul was a descendant of Gamaliel." Wrong. Nowhere does the NT claim that Paul was a descendant of Gamaliel. Luke only records Paul's words: “I am indeed a Jew, born in Tarsus of Cilicia, but brought up in this city at the feet of Gamaliel, taught according to the strictness of our fathers’ law, and was zealous toward God as you all are today.” (Acts 22:3)
4:09 16:15 etc. Acts does't claim that the high priest had jurisdiction over what's happening in Damascus. However he would have great influence in the synagogues of Damascus, just as Luke says. “Meanwhile, Saul was still breathing out murderous threats against the Lord’s disciples. He went to the high priest and asked him for letters to the synagogues in Damascus, so that if he found any there who belonged to the Way, whether men or women, he might take them as prisoners to Jerusalem.” (Acts 9:1-2)
11:10 "Paul wouldn't work for the pharisees because the Pharisees wouldn't work for the Saducee temple priests." Wrong. Josephus tell us that they did. Book 2, Chapter 17, Paragraph 3. "Hereupon the men of power got together, and conferred with the high priests, as did also the principal of the Pharisees; and thinking all was at stake, and that their calamities were becoming incurable, took counsel what was to be done. Accordingly, they determined to try what they could do with the seditious by words, and assembled the people before the brazen gate, which was that gate of the inner temple [court of the priests] which looked toward the sun-rising. And, in the first place, they showed the great indignation they had at this attempt for a revolt..."
12:07 "The notion that Paul would go to Damascus to persecute Christians is nonsense. Why would a Pharisee be interested in doing that?" Because of their zeal for the law. They would be obeying the law of Moses as they understood it. “And whoever blasphemes the name of the LORD shall surely be put to death.” (Lev. 24:16) “But that prophet or that dreamer of dreams shall be put to death, because he has spoken in order to turn you away from the LORD your God,” (Deut. 13:5) etc.
13:15 "It is extremely unlikely that Paul would have been a Roman Citizen." Wrong. Roman citizenship was common for wealthier Jews in the Roman diaspora. Eg. "for when Antioch, the capital of Syria, was founded, equal rights of citizenship were given to the Jews as to the heathen." (History of of Jews in Rome. E H Hudson. p 7) "The Samaritans then forfeited their privilege of Roman citizenship, and to the Jews it was confirmed, and they were set free from some of the restrictions to which they had been hitherto subjected." (p. 276)
Jews and their interpretive analysis is the most out of this world thing you will ever see. Where they get their sources is beyond me.
I don't know what the jews see when it is said somewhere in Daniel that their Messiah will come at the time of the 1st century and wi,l bd cut off but not for himself
@BYJOB excuse me, from where is rabbi tovia raising his objections .
He wasn’t under arrest but protective custody(he was of the herodian family tree, lots of protection), and no evidence of being beheaded . Just Christian folklore tradition.
@@marilynsamaniego4652 are you sharing your opinion or is it a fact ?
the idea presented by Gamaliel in the jurisdiction of the Jews were not the concrete idea of all the Pharisee. It is the only idea of Gmaliel to ease the uproar against Peter.
You know... I really hate to brag... BUT, I'm a Disciple of Rabbi Gamaliel. ;-)
He seems to miss that fact that the Jewish people felt that the following,
"When they heard this, they were furious and wanted to put them to death."
So, the people that were there wanted to put him to death, but Gamliel step forward and the following happened.
"But a Pharisee named Gamaliel, a teacher of the law, who was honored by all the people, stood up in the Sanhedrin and ordered that the men be put outside for a little while."
Therefore, Paul was reacting like all the other Jews, he was not the only one who felt this way.
So, we need to reject the words of Paul of himself while accepting your own witness of yourself, Tovia??!!??
A moot point.
@mikemorgan3891 No, it's not. It's hypocritical to criticize others for what they say of themselves while accepting your own. Hypocrite
Perhaps you should listen to what Jesus says about Paul.
@@ruthbates9549 and what's that?
Another thought for food is as followed:
Here I am making a case that Paul was persecuting the Christians because their actions, such as the mass selling of land, could be viewed as a direct violation of Mosaic Law, potentially provoking a harsh response from devout Jews. Leviticus 25:23 states, “The land shall not be sold in perpetuity, for the land is mine; for you are strangers and sojourners with me.” This verse emphasizes the concept that the Israelites were merely stewards of the land, which ultimately belonged to God. The early Christians’ practice of selling their land and sharing the proceeds (Acts 4:34-37) might have been seen by some, including Saul (later Paul), as disregarding this divine stewardship, thus violating the sacred law.
Additionally, the incident involving Ananias and Sapphira (Acts 5:1-11), where they were struck dead for lying about the proceeds of a land sale, illustrates the severity with which the Christian community treated matters related to communal living and honesty. This strict internal discipline could have been perceived as a radical departure from Jewish legal traditions, possibly reinforcing Saul’s motivation to persecute the Christians.
Furthermore, Paul's later actions, such as handing over Hymenaeus and Alexander to Satan “to be taught not to blaspheme” (1 Timothy 1:20), show a form of strict internal discipline that mirrors his earlier zeal in upholding Jewish law. This approach to dealing with internal community transgressions could be seen as a reflection of his earlier commitment to the purity of Jewish faith and practice.
Considering these points, Saul's background as a student of Gamaliel, who advocated for a more patient approach towards the Christians, might have been overshadowed by Saul’s own zealous interpretation of the law and his perception of the Christian practices as a significant deviation from Jewish tradition. This perspective could have fueled his initial fervor in persecuting the early Christian church, despite his education under a more moderate teacher.
By: grammaplow
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are at least two possible explanation for this distinction between Paul and Gamaliel. One that can be eliminated almost immediately, is any suggestion of a "falling out" between the two as Paul later touts his association with Gamaliel as a badge of honor (Acts 22:3). So, I am not sure there is a definitive answer, but here are two plausible possibilities:
Different Personalities
As the OP has pointed out, Gamaliel was remarkably tolerant toward the emerging Christian church. This may have been, in part at least, due to a soft and congenial personality.
By contrast, Paul is always portrayed, especially before his conversion, as a very fiery and intolerant person who was described as "zealous" (ie, "boiling") for whatever cause he threw himself into.
The root cause of Paul's fierce objection to Christianity is difficult to fathom; the Jewish leaders believed Jesus was undermining their authority (He did but only incidentally); but Paul should have had no such problem. However, the fact that Paul changed so quickly when he met Jesus on the Road to Damascus (Acts 9) suggests that his theological objection were more apparent than real.
There is plenty of precedent for such differences in personalities and attitudes in Israelite history such as:
Athalia vs Joash
Ahaz vs Hezekiah
Hezekiah vs Manasseh
Manasseh and Amon vs Josiah
Josiah vs Jehoahaz and Jehoiakim
etc.
Difference of Opinion
It is well-known that the Jewish tradition, even to modern times, almost encourages differences of opinion and enthusiastic debate because this stimulates growth in understanding. Thus, it is entirely possible that Paul, for reasons still unknown, graduated from Gamaliel's tutelage with quite different views.
By Dottard
Paul bragged about his role.
2Corinthians 12:16
""But be that as it may, I did not burden you myself; nevertheless, crafty fellow that I am, I took you in by deceit.""
+Stuart Shepherd Continue reading up to verses 17-20 so you will know what Paul is implying in verse 16..
Peter Rock Whatever the reason, do you think "deceit" should be used with people who deserve the truth?
***** You can always count on the Christian Translators to HELP the translation.
Have Christians noticed that Ben Carson is a seventh day Adventist? Carson's beliefs are at odds with traditional Christian beliefs.
Maybe gamaliel wanted to get rid of him fast
Yeah yeah
That's it
Now go away
Tovia; you are getting on my nerves telling all your lies. At approximately 5:04 you said that Paul couldn't be a disciple of Gamaliel because it would have been listed in the Mishnah. I took 2 minutes tops and looked in the Jewish Encyclopaedia and it says and I quote *"Hence Gamaliel is omitted in the chain of tradition as given in the Mishnah (Abot i., ii.),"* So; if Gamaliel wasn't listed; then his disciples would clearly not be as well.
and I wonder if there was a reason that his name was left off the list? Perhaps it was ordained in heaven that the claim of Paul would have no real honour?
Railroad Reg And perhaps pigs have wings.
Please see my explanation for Deltassippi (above) to understand the true situation
Here is the full deal. He was omitted from the list at the beginning of Avot because of the modesty of the school he headed for a while as successor to Hillel www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/14240-tannaim-and-amoraim
www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/14240-tannaim-and-amoraim
Rav. Tovia , you are a genius and know so so much.People should read about Genetics by,
Pr.Richard Lynn, G´ bless you.
Rory McClure :
Comment by the way
● There were more straw men in this video than an scarecrow convention.
1:40 "The book of Acts wasn't written in AD 90." Wrong. First, ch. 28 ends with Paul under house arrest. While waiting to appear before Caesar, he was free to preach to all who come to him. This had to occur before A.D. 64, when a great fire swept through Rome and the Emperor Nero said that Christians were to blame. Second, Acts does not mention Paul’s death, which appeared to be imminent when the apostle wrote 2 Tim. 4 and which occurred around A.D. 68. Third, near the end of Acts, Luke portrays the Roman government as benevolent toward Christianity, an attitude that changed after A.D. 64.
1:50 "Paul was a descendant of Gamaliel." Wrong. Nowhere does the NT claim that Paul was a descendant of Gamaliel. Luke only records Paul's words: “I am indeed a Jew, born in Tarsus of Cilicia, but brought up in this city at the feet of Gamaliel, taught according to the strictness of our fathers’ law, and was zealous toward God as you all are today.” (Acts 22:3)
4:09 16:15 etc. Acts does't claim that the high priest had jurisdiction over what's happening in Damascus. However he would have great influence in the synagogues of Damascus, just as Luke says. “Meanwhile, Saul was still breathing out murderous threats against the Lord’s disciples. He went to the high priest and asked him for letters to the synagogues in Damascus, so that if he found any there who belonged to the Way, whether men or women, he might take them as prisoners to Jerusalem.” (Acts 9:1-2)
11:10 "Paul wouldn't work for the pharisees because the Pharisees wouldn't work for the Saducee temple priests." Wrong. Josephus tell us that they did. Book 2, Chapter 17, Paragraph 3. "Hereupon the men of power got together, and conferred with the high priests, as did also the principal of the Pharisees; and thinking all was at stake, and that their calamities were becoming incurable, took counsel what was to be done. Accordingly, they determined to try what they could do with the seditious by words, and assembled the people before the brazen gate, which was that gate of the inner temple [court of the priests] which looked toward the sun-rising. And, in the first place, they showed the great indignation they had at this attempt for a revolt..."
12:07 "The notion that Paul would go to Damascus to persecute Christians is nonsense. Why would a Pharisee be interested in doing that?" Because of their zeal for the law. They would be obeying the law of Moses as they understood it. “And whoever blasphemes the name of the LORD shall surely be put to death.” (Lev. 24:16) “But that prophet or that dreamer of dreams shall be put to death, because he has spoken in order to turn you away from the LORD your God,” (Deut. 13:5) etc.
13:15 "It is extremely unlikely that Paul would have been a Roman Citizen." Wrong. Roman citizenship was common for wealthier Jews in the Roman diaspora. Eg. "for when Antioch, the capital of Syria, was founded, equal rights of citizenship were given to the Jews as to the heathen." (History of of Jews in Rome. E H Hudson. p 7) "The Samaritans then forfeited their privilege of Roman citizenship, and to the Jews it was confirmed, and they were set free from some of the restrictions to which they had been hitherto subjected." (p. 276)
Paul was not a Jew Period. There is no Jew on the planet who doesn't know where the Matriarchs and Patriarchs are buried. In the Cave of Machpelah in Hebron.Acts 7:14 after this Joseph sent for his father Jacob and his whole family, seventy five persons in all. Acts 7:15 And Jacob went down to Egypt and there he and our fathers died. 16 From there they were removed to Shechem (which is in Nablus) and laid in the tomb which Abraham had purchased for a sum of money from the sons of Hamor in Shechem...Gen. 49:29 Read and find all the errors in the NT.
Gee I had not known of that! Saying that the Matriarchs and Patriarchs are buried in Shechem is a major inaccuracy
sharon kerr Paul didn't write Acts, the same author as Luke did.
@@Elizabeth-kn3ld
And so? That's more horrible and doesn't get the NT out of the problem!!
😆subtitles say “student of gum wheel.” And Gum Leo.
2nd. The message of the ephesus church in Rev 2:2 ,was nothing to do with the apostle Paul, ....Paul died in A D6 under the emperor Nero, while the apostle John was exiled in the isle of patmos under the roman emperor Titus ...do you see how far you are from the scripture. Read 2 Peter 3:14-16.May The Lord opened ur spiritual eyes
@Iyas kelu * I can't believe that Rabbi Tovia Singer would say that Paul was a Pharisee, ever.
What is the song at the end of this video?
purawngailocano - That's from Psalms 121 Shir LaMaalot or Song to the ascents.
purawngailocano its one of the best known and loved psalms, in the KJV it starts I WILL LIFT UP MINE EYES UNTO THE JILLS FROM WHENCE COMETH MY HELP every time i say it tears come my eyes
David Austin I what it is but who is the singer?
purawngailocano sounds like the same guy who sings adon olam on many of Singer's internet pieces with that aspiring convert who introduces so many listeners to him. You might find the name of the singer that way :^)
If you write to "outreach judaism" I am sure that guy who ntroduces Tovia wll give you the info :)
Historically Yahshua (Jesus) and the Pharisees got along but Christianity says they didn't. Yahshua (Jesus) was at odds only with the Sadducess.
Jesus worship God not but he is not god ,Paul make him god
@@jo-wv4lc I'm not even sure if it was Paul who started it, we just don't know when that tradition began. It was either Paul or the Roman Catholic church 3rd or forth century. Whenever it started, it was a slow growing belief.
"You are not to be called Rabbi." Is that what Jesus said? Yes. Matt 23:8
In that same sentence, there are warnings, given by Jesus. "Everything they do is done for people to see: They make their phylacteries a wide and the tassels on their garments long; they love the place of honor at banquets and the most important seats in the synagogues; they love to be greeted with respect in the marketplaces and to be called ‘Rabbi’ by others.
“But you are not to be called ‘Rabbi,’ for you have one Teacher, and you are all brothers. And do not call anyone on earth ‘father,’ for you have one Father, and he is in heaven. Nor are you to be called instructors, for you have one Instructor, the Messiah. The greatest among you will be your servant. For those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted. etc.
Tovia Singer is such a man. Listen to Jesus, not Tovia.
Keep the 7 Noahide commandments and stop slandering Rabbis.
Yet another example of the pagan demigod going directly against the Torah. "The Law is NOT in Heaven."
Shalom! Br Tovia, why ar u attacking a humble servant of God? Do u think that Paul was fool? He accepted to be killed ,tortured and by Jews just because of his faith in Christ. Please let his soul in peace, defend ur faith ,stop criticising or judging Paul, wait the judgment day, we will if u are right or Paul was right
The church at Ephesus judged Paul because he failed the test of Deut 13. A false prophet. Read rev 2:2. That church was congratulated for finding the apostles there to be liars.
Paul admitted all of Asia rejected him. That’s where the 7 churches were.
He opposed the 12 apostles. They kept the Torah. He told people to not follow the Torah. That’s what a false prophet is. .
@@marilynsamaniego4652 Shalom , don't please misunderstood the scripture, Paul never told the 12 to not keep the the Torah, instead they have acknowledged the revelation Paul received from the Lord, and they encouraged him and Barnabas to preach the Word...Acts 15: 22- 29
@@marilynsamaniego4652 not all, Paul have kept the teaching of torah correctly than others pha
Paul went to Beth Medrash Yeshiva in Lakewood? Lol. 😂
So, the bible is a lie now? LOL. Acts 22:3, says, "I am a Jew, born in Tarsus in Cilicia, but brought up in the city, educated at the feet of Gamaliel according to the strict manner of the law of our fathers, being zealous for God as all of you are this day."
Only the NT is a total lie but not the OT. We Jews know who is a TRUE JEW. PAUL can't be a JEW nor a Pharisee.
A fake bible written by half-literate pagans that tells people to worship a dead schizophrenic is probably a lie, yes.
It's been posited paul was bipolar
Rory McClure :
Comment by the way
● There were more straw men in this video than an scarecrow convention.
1:40 "The book of Acts wasn't written in AD 90." Wrong. First, ch. 28 ends with Paul under house arrest. While waiting to appear before Caesar, he was free to preach to all who come to him. This had to occur before A.D. 64, when a great fire swept through Rome and the Emperor Nero said that Christians were to blame. Second, Acts does not mention Paul’s death, which appeared to be imminent when the apostle wrote 2 Tim. 4 and which occurred around A.D. 68. Third, near the end of Acts, Luke portrays the Roman government as benevolent toward Christianity, an attitude that changed after A.D. 64.
1:50 "Paul was a descendant of Gamaliel." Wrong. Nowhere does the NT claim that Paul was a descendant of Gamaliel. Luke only records Paul's words: “I am indeed a Jew, born in Tarsus of Cilicia, but brought up in this city at the feet of Gamaliel, taught according to the strictness of our fathers’ law, and was zealous toward God as you all are today.” (Acts 22:3)
4:09 16:15 etc. Acts does't claim that the high priest had jurisdiction over what's happening in Damascus. However he would have great influence in the synagogues of Damascus, just as Luke says. “Meanwhile, Saul was still breathing out murderous threats against the Lord’s disciples. He went to the high priest and asked him for letters to the synagogues in Damascus, so that if he found any there who belonged to the Way, whether men or women, he might take them as prisoners to Jerusalem.” (Acts 9:1-2)
11:10 "Paul wouldn't work for the pharisees because the Pharisees wouldn't work for the Saducee temple priests." Wrong. Josephus tell us that they did. Book 2, Chapter 17, Paragraph 3. "Hereupon the men of power got together, and conferred with the high priests, as did also the principal of the Pharisees; and thinking all was at stake, and that their calamities were becoming incurable, took counsel what was to be done. Accordingly, they determined to try what they could do with the seditious by words, and assembled the people before the brazen gate, which was that gate of the inner temple [court of the priests] which looked toward the sun-rising. And, in the first place, they showed the great indignation they had at this attempt for a revolt..."
12:07 "The notion that Paul would go to Damascus to persecute Christians is nonsense. Why would a Pharisee be interested in doing that?" Because of their zeal for the law. They would be obeying the law of Moses as they understood it. “And whoever blasphemes the name of the LORD shall surely be put to death.” (Lev. 24:16) “But that prophet or that dreamer of dreams shall be put to death, because he has spoken in order to turn you away from the LORD your God,” (Deut. 13:5) etc.
13:15 "It is extremely unlikely that Paul would have been a Roman Citizen." Wrong. Roman citizenship was common for wealthier Jews in the Roman diaspora. Eg. "for when Antioch, the capital of Syria, was founded, equal rights of citizenship were given to the Jews as to the heathen." (History of of Jews in Rome. E H Hudson. p 7) "The Samaritans then forfeited their privilege of Roman citizenship, and to the Jews it was confirmed, and they were set free from some of the restrictions to which they had been hitherto subjected." (p. 276)
Acts 22:1-15 New International Version (NIV)
22 1 “Brothers and fathers, listen now to my defense.”
2 When they heard him speak to them in Aramaic, they became very quiet.
Then Paul said: 3 “I am a Jew, born in Tarsus of Cilicia, but brought up in this city. I studied under Gamaliel and was thoroughly trained in the law of our ancestors. I was just as zealous for God as any of you are today. 4 I persecuted the followers of this Way to their death, arresting both men and women and throwing them into prison, 5 as the high priest and all the Council can themselves testify. I even obtained letters from them to their associates in Damascus, and went there to bring these people as prisoners to Jerusalem to be punished.
6 “About noon as I came near Damascus, suddenly a bright light from heaven flashed around me. 7 I fell to the ground and heard a voice say to me, ‘Saul! Saul! Why do you persecute me?’
8 “‘Who are you, Lord?’ I asked.
“ ‘I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom you are persecuting,’ he replied. 9 My companions saw the light, but they did not understand the voice of him who was speaking to me.
10 “‘What shall I do, Lord?’ I asked.
“ ‘Get up,’ the Lord said, ‘and go into Damascus. There you will be told all that you have been assigned to do.’ 11 My companions led me by the hand into Damascus, because the brilliance of the light had blinded me.
12 “A man named Ananias came to see me. He was a devout observer of the law and highly respected by all the Jews living there. 13 He stood beside me and said, ‘Brother Saul, receive your sight!’ And at that very moment I was able to see him.
14 “Then he said: ‘The God of our ancestors has chosen you to know his will and to see the Righteous One and to hear words from his mouth. 15 You will be his witness to all people of what you have seen and heard.
Rory McClure :
Comment by the way
● There were more straw men in this video than an scarecrow convention.
1:40 "The book of Acts wasn't written in AD 90." Wrong. First, ch. 28 ends with Paul under house arrest. While waiting to appear before Caesar, he was free to preach to all who come to him. This had to occur before A.D. 64, when a great fire swept through Rome and the Emperor Nero said that Christians were to blame. Second, Acts does not mention Paul’s death, which appeared to be imminent when the apostle wrote 2 Tim. 4 and which occurred around A.D. 68. Third, near the end of Acts, Luke portrays the Roman government as benevolent toward Christianity, an attitude that changed after A.D. 64.
1:50 "Paul was a descendant of Gamaliel." Wrong. Nowhere does the NT claim that Paul was a descendant of Gamaliel. Luke only records Paul's words: “I am indeed a Jew, born in Tarsus of Cilicia, but brought up in this city at the feet of Gamaliel, taught according to the strictness of our fathers’ law, and was zealous toward God as you all are today.” (Acts 22:3)
4:09 16:15 etc. Acts does't claim that the high priest had jurisdiction over what's happening in Damascus. However he would have great influence in the synagogues of Damascus, just as Luke says. “Meanwhile, Saul was still breathing out murderous threats against the Lord’s disciples. He went to the high priest and asked him for letters to the synagogues in Damascus, so that if he found any there who belonged to the Way, whether men or women, he might take them as prisoners to Jerusalem.” (Acts 9:1-2)
11:10 "Paul wouldn't work for the pharisees because the Pharisees wouldn't work for the Saducee temple priests." Wrong. Josephus tell us that they did. Book 2, Chapter 17, Paragraph 3. "Hereupon the men of power got together, and conferred with the high priests, as did also the principal of the Pharisees; and thinking all was at stake, and that their calamities were becoming incurable, took counsel what was to be done. Accordingly, they determined to try what they could do with the seditious by words, and assembled the people before the brazen gate, which was that gate of the inner temple [court of the priests] which looked toward the sun-rising. And, in the first place, they showed the great indignation they had at this attempt for a revolt..."
12:07 "The notion that Paul would go to Damascus to persecute Christians is nonsense. Why would a Pharisee be interested in doing that?" Because of their zeal for the law. They would be obeying the law of Moses as they understood it. “And whoever blasphemes the name of the LORD shall surely be put to death.” (Lev. 24:16) “But that prophet or that dreamer of dreams shall be put to death, because he has spoken in order to turn you away from the LORD your God,” (Deut. 13:5) etc.
13:15 "It is extremely unlikely that Paul would have been a Roman Citizen." Wrong. Roman citizenship was common for wealthier Jews in the Roman diaspora. Eg. "for when Antioch, the capital of Syria, was founded, equal rights of citizenship were given to the Jews as to the heathen." (History of of Jews in Rome. E H Hudson. p 7) "The Samaritans then forfeited their privilege of Roman citizenship, and to the Jews it was confirmed, and they were set free from some of the restrictions to which they had been hitherto subjected." (p. 276)
He didn’t say “Paul was a descendant of Rabbi Gamliel” but a disciple, The descendant part was only concerning Rabbi Singer
“Acts doesn’t claim the High Priest” had jurisdiction over Damascus” : so what would give Paul the authority to take the men prisoner to Jerusalem? It would be considered a kidnapping no?
he doubts Jewish literacy in Greek in the 1st century..bogus...read Joesphus he was highly literate in Greek and owned a library of Greek literature. Jews even had Greek names since the Maccabean era.
*****
okay Onklos thats 2 - what about all the Greek writing Jews - Alexander Yannai thats 3 - Alexander Maccabee - thats 4 - even Philo in Egypt- what about Jerusalem Talmud tractate Peah which recommends Jews study Greek...please pull your head out of your ass...you clearly know nothing of Jewish history....
Christianity has faded away? I hardly doubt it
This is probably nitpicking, but you technically can be Jewish, try And keep all Mitzvah's and believe that Yashua existed.
If you think that Yashua is a 'Saviour' who died to grant people Salvation from Pagan Hell and that The Word of Ha'Shem is all a big lie, then NO! That's irreconcilable!
But, you can , like me believe that Yashua was a real historical person... Not a terribly influential person. Just a dude.
The other Apostle would've known if Paul was lying about his Pharisee claims and upbringing. Other writers testified that Paul persecuted believers and they were weary of him. If Paul was all Tovia claims he was, the Jewish Apostles would've never accepted him as an Apostle. Nice try Tovia, poor argumentation. Repent and believe in Jesus the MESSIAH
Why Paul would lie about being something he was totally dispising at that current moment? That doesnt make any sense. What do makes sense is Gamaliel who this rabbi tells to be his ancestor errased all kind of connection from his biography and from the story of his religion and so diminish the effect of Paul convertion.
Big wow. Totally proved so simply that Paul wasn't a student of Gamaliel.
Rory McClure :
Comment by the way
● There were more straw men in this video than an scarecrow convention.
1:40 "The book of Acts wasn't written in AD 90." Wrong. First, ch. 28 ends with Paul under house arrest. While waiting to appear before Caesar, he was free to preach to all who come to him. This had to occur before A.D. 64, when a great fire swept through Rome and the Emperor Nero said that Christians were to blame. Second, Acts does not mention Paul’s death, which appeared to be imminent when the apostle wrote 2 Tim. 4 and which occurred around A.D. 68. Third, near the end of Acts, Luke portrays the Roman government as benevolent toward Christianity, an attitude that changed after A.D. 64.
1:50 "Paul was a descendant of Gamaliel." Wrong. Nowhere does the NT claim that Paul was a descendant of Gamaliel. Luke only records Paul's words: “I am indeed a Jew, born in Tarsus of Cilicia, but brought up in this city at the feet of Gamaliel, taught according to the strictness of our fathers’ law, and was zealous toward God as you all are today.” (Acts 22:3)
4:09 16:15 etc. Acts does't claim that the high priest had jurisdiction over what's happening in Damascus. However he would have great influence in the synagogues of Damascus, just as Luke says. “Meanwhile, Saul was still breathing out murderous threats against the Lord’s disciples. He went to the high priest and asked him for letters to the synagogues in Damascus, so that if he found any there who belonged to the Way, whether men or women, he might take them as prisoners to Jerusalem.” (Acts 9:1-2)
11:10 "Paul wouldn't work for the pharisees because the Pharisees wouldn't work for the Saducee temple priests." Wrong. Josephus tell us that they did. Book 2, Chapter 17, Paragraph 3. "Hereupon the men of power got together, and conferred with the high priests, as did also the principal of the Pharisees; and thinking all was at stake, and that their calamities were becoming incurable, took counsel what was to be done. Accordingly, they determined to try what they could do with the seditious by words, and assembled the people before the brazen gate, which was that gate of the inner temple [court of the priests] which looked toward the sun-rising. And, in the first place, they showed the great indignation they had at this attempt for a revolt..."
12:07 "The notion that Paul would go to Damascus to persecute Christians is nonsense. Why would a Pharisee be interested in doing that?" Because of their zeal for the law. They would be obeying the law of Moses as they understood it. “And whoever blasphemes the name of the LORD shall surely be put to death.” (Lev. 24:16) “But that prophet or that dreamer of dreams shall be put to death, because he has spoken in order to turn you away from the LORD your God,” (Deut. 13:5) etc.
13:15 "It is extremely unlikely that Paul would have been a Roman Citizen." Wrong. Roman citizenship was common for wealthier Jews in the Roman diaspora. Eg. "for when Antioch, the capital of Syria, was founded, equal rights of citizenship were given to the Jews as to the heathen." (History of of Jews in Rome. E H Hudson. p 7) "The Samaritans then forfeited their privilege of Roman citizenship, and to the Jews it was confirmed, and they were set free from some of the restrictions to which they had been hitherto subjected." (p. 276)
@@dengguer8
Don't you have a child to rape and a human sacrifice to pretend to cannibalize? Leave civilized people alone.
I agree someone can lie by telling İ was one of them in order to gain credibility and disciples to a sect that would bring him benefits. Paul lost the benefits and suffered torture misfortune and death because of his faith. Why someone would lie to die miserable?
+strangerares Easy to see, for someone who loves life and truth.
*****
Where we might agree about the glory coming necessarily with suffering and that glory comes with the love of the truth of god. implementing god's kingdom.
@@Bobbel888 Precisely: He wouldn't lie. The only liar here is the rabbi. Shameful behavior on his part.
He was a criminal like all the rest of the Chrestians.
@@dreaddybear8366 * Rabbi Tovia Singer is not a liar. You may not understand what he was saying. Orthodox Jews do not convert to Christianity. The lies are on the side of "the church". Have an open mind (and heart) when you search for truth.
When I studied torah, it strengthened by belief and understanding of JESUS.
You obviously weren't studying it correctly then. I can disprove Jesus in just a couple of verses in the Torah. Chief among them: Numbers 23:19 God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent.
God is not the son of man. He is NOT a man. And yet....you worship a man as god. We call that Idolatory.
@@hrgirl26 I never said I believe in a trinity or that JESUS is GOD. You should research the early history those who would later oppose the Nicene creed and subsequent councils and creeds. We were never invited to the parties. Christians have always been extremely political.
@@philadelphiyahhsmyrna0 You never studied TORAH properly. Many of us who did: abandoned and renounced YESHU and its idolatrous teachings. You have to open your intellect and see the facts which is also called critical thinking.
@@pardes7342 How do you know how I study? Maybe there is a problem with your opinion and your reading and comprehension and interpretation skills? Maybe you are allowing christian theology and christology to cloud your judgement?
@@philadelphiyahhsmyrna0 I know based on your name. You are using Revelations a part of the NT= which is a false covenant. Torah does not strengthen your belief in JZeus if you had sincerely learned TORAH= you will find out that there is only ONE TRUE G-D of the universe and he revealed himself to approximately 3.5 million JEWS at Mt Sinai. G-d is only ONE and he is not a man who can die. He has no beginning nor end and he is the great creator. He revealed himself to the Jews who accepted his TORAH 3340 years ago before Xtianity appeared on the scene 1700 years later during the Roman empire.
The Romans invented this NT and forced it to the world with the sword. Just think of a virgin birth which is laughable because the TORAH says that a human being is created by 3 partnership: Man, woman and G-d. JZeus has 2 parties????
Let me tell you also of the situation of Jzeus= a mamzer/bastard. A Mamzer can not marry just any JEW but he has to marry a mamzeret that is why he never got married. A MAMZER is a product of adulterous affair.
Moreover, Jews never eat/drink actual blood or by symbolization. it is prohibited by G-d. The NT has this commandment by the mamzer to do it. Why can't you see the contradiction?
The TORAH is the light and living word. I have been learning it for over 11 years now and it is just getting larger than the sea...can't be exhausted or finished even until a person reaches 120 or more years old. It is endless and so rich no comparison with the NT.
I hope you get it.
I've previously listened to the Rabbi present his arguments almost flawlessly. Not this time. Mostly an ad-hominen attack using straw man arguments, vs. delving into the actual historical facts. This is not his finest hour...or 28 minutes.
No one knows their genealogy back to David, it's rediculous to think so.
J Day yes they do. You’re the ridiculous one if you think it’s impossible. Your whole demigod belief rests on his being a descendant of David.
Xtians always moving the targets when they think no one’s watching
J Day great, hope you’re not worshiping Mr. J, but people can trace their ancestry back to David even today.
That's not true. I'm a descendant of David.
Incorrect
@@justaguy1212 reply back your genealogy
In order to be a roman citizen you need a roman parent, pauls father was roman and his mother jewish
@in777sight number one, water baptism is a modification on a mikvah, jesus never left the jews. It is obvious that jesus keep the clothing, the holidays, and traditions
Tell me you know nothing about Rome without saying you know nothing about Rome.
Citizenship wasn't a birthright because one of your parents spoke Latin, it was rewarded after 25 years of military service, and even then it wasn't full citizenship.
Amen Rabbi Tovia for desclosing Paul not a Pharisee
only thing i disagree there were jews believed in Jesus as a messiah not as a god. Romans persecuted them because they didn't believe in Trinity.
wonder lust . agreed! because roman paganism was and still is alive today as the 'unholy' trinity: Nimrod/Baal, Tammuz, Eternal Flame/Spirit... trinity wasn't officially added To christianity until The Roman Empire went 'christian' with the council of Nicea.
You say reform Jews don't believe in G-d and don't have a Torah scroll? LOL! I know of several reform Jews who in fact deeply believe in G-d and I know for a fact that they do have several Torah scrolls!
Don't act in such an arrogant way!
I've been to reform and conservatives for some years. Yes they do have many sefer TORAH but do they believe in the teachings of TORAH? As myself, a witness and have been under some of those rabbi...I say that they modified the TORAH to fit their agenda. To believe in G-d is to stay loyal and uncompromising.
Acts is just a myth and completely unreliable for history sake.
so concentrate on the Epistles written by Paul himself. he only say he was raised in the faith of his fathers, so no Gameliel or Pharisee-ship mentioned anywhere other then the myth of about 40 years later. Of course the name of Gameliel had a more lasting inpact then probably tht of Paul. And when on want to create a big myth letting Paul almost duplicate the acts of Jesus what bigger fame is there than to attach Gameliel to it.
God preserved the Jews b/c they kept Torah the Northern Kingdom assimilated b/c they had to fulfill that prophecy and it takes time to return to torah and let a generation die out before they enter into the land when they are re-united to the Root...
oh please, Paul was a Torah observant, Jew from the tribe of Benjamin who remained so until his death. He states he studied under Rabban Gamaliel and was a Pharisee. The New Covenant was not expanded to include gentiles until after the death of Messiah. At that time, so Paul was in the persecution business until the visitation on the road to Damascus. Never did he preach against the law or Torah to the Jews.
Bride of Christ Paul can say whatever he wants, much like you can, that doesn’t make it true. He is not a Pharisee, he’s a moron who probably got kicked out of Yeshiva (assuming he’s Jewish)
He calls the laws a yoke, a curse. Who should we believe, you or the texts?
1) Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. = Matt 5:17-18 ‘’(Christ) Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace’’ = Ephesians 2:15.
2) Forbids eating meat offered to idols(Jesus says such people must be killed) = Revelations 2:14-23 Permits eating meat offered to idols = 1st Corinthians 8.
3) If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments = Matt 19:17 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin. But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets = Romans 3:20-21.
4) For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled = Matt 5:18 But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter = Romans 7:6.
5) For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven = Matt 5:20.
But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested = Romans 3:21.
6) Moses therefore gave unto you circumcision; (not because it is of Moses, but of the fathers;) and ye on the sabbath day circumcise a man. If a man on the sabbath day receive circumcision, that the law of Moses should not be broken; are ye angry at me, because I have made a man every whit whole on the sabbath day? = John 7:22-23.
Beware of dogs, beware of evil workers, beware of the concision(cutting). For we are the circumcision, which worship God in the spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no - confidence in the flesh(circumcision) = Philippians 3:2-3.
7) For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak. And I know that his commandment is life everlasting: whatsoever I speak therefore, even as the Father said unto me, so I speak = John 12:49-50 (Jesus calls the Law everlasting life).
Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ. And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith = Philippians 3:8-9 (Paul calls the Law is dung).
8) Long hair is viewed in a positive light in the Nazarite vow ordinance of the Law of Moses. Jesus’s brother James the Just and Samson had long hair because they were Nazarites = Numbers 6:1-21, Judges 13:5, Hegesippus memoir book 5. Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? = 1st Corinthians 11:14.
9) And Deborah, a prophetess, the wife of Lapidoth, she judged Israel at that time = Judges 4:4 (Deborah, a woman thus has the authority of men),
But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence = 1st Timothy 2:12.
I don't understand how some people say Paul never taught against the Law of Moses, he clearly did, and contradicts Jesus himself.
Nowadays some woke Christians don't believe Paul was an apostle and are returning to the roots. And for the Jewish-born: Accepting Yeshua does not change anything, if you still keep the law.
Jesus personally taught the idolatrous concept of the trinity in Matthew 28:19. If you are a Gentile, keep the 7 Noahide commandments. If you are Jewish, return to traditional Judaism.
For Paul it doesn't matter, if he was a persecutor. He stopped trying to appeal to some Jewish elite, whether it was the Pharisees or someone else, and decided to appeal to God only and he invited everyone to do so, and finally this makes him righteous to speak on Yeshua's behalf.
If someone dares to judge him or contorts, what can be known about him, he speaks his own court.
Bobbel888 no it does not, he’s a lying pos. He claimed to have received revelations through his epileptic seizure, wow that’s so credible.
You can judge by examining his ego. If humility pleases god then Paul is in last place
@@gabrielmiller1226 You can judge yourself
Muhammadim try to use Deuteronomy 18 and others to say it's talking about Muhammad.
Two thousand years have come and gone and Rabbi Singer knows far more than the Apostles who were there??!! Sure!!
Mark Rogers yes. The apostles were murdered by the Romans and their butt boy Paul, the wannabe Pharisee founder of xtianity.
Paul was never an apostate, nobody selected him for anything, he claims he had an epileptic seizure and saw Jesus. Very credible sounding
Regarding Paulus, I am seeing comments that (1) make him patrician, (2) blood tied to the current ruling Flavian Emperor Nero and those who proceed him and (3) Paul's remark that members of Nero's household, which I thought originally meant servants and staff, but as I sift through things I now realize he meant immediate family, extended through marriage relatives, and distant cousins... Paulus is saying he has converts within the very rooms and corridors of Nero's house.
Looking at various books of the New Testament, there has been extensive rewrites.
Nero has an active interest in this new Jewish sect by which he can manipulate and extend his godhod.
Nero is on record for having converted a favorite (dead?) horse into a god. And later named himself a living, breathing god.
I am sure that Rabbi Singer is a good one but how much better if would except Yeshua as. Messiah
John 3:36.
Amen coach
Question: Do you believe the Orthodox Jewish take on who Jesus was, that he was a sorcerer that he had a cut in his flesh, wherein he placed G-ds ineffable name etc.? If so, how do you explain the strong contrast in the way he is presented by those who follow him? Indeed, who declare sorcery and wickedness as an abomination even according to him? How does what the rabbis claim of Jesus compare to his parables that undeniably ring with a profound sense of truth ? i.e. It seems that what the rabbinical authorities of the time say about Jesus is so far and dirty compared to the pure Jesus portrayed in the various Gospels (gnostic and otherwise). Why is that? How is that? The rabbis made pain staking efforts to eradicate his name, but failed, while other Jewish and non-Jewish factions vanished from existence.
I admit there are certain things that are marred in mystery and contradiction regarding the rise of x-tianity. However, we cannot doubt that there was in fact a Jewish man "once upon a time", whose word was so powerful, as to wreak havoc across the earth, destroy pagan gods, barbaric races, convert rulers, kings and nations to some concepts of Torah over a 2,000 year period, solely dedicated to his name. Now, 2,000 years impact within a time frame of 6,000 decreed for the beginning and ultimate culmination of humanity (according to Jewish tradition), is tremendously significant. Given this fact alone, is it so difficult to conceive that the prophets would foresee a symbol or ensign that would sweep across the globe for 2,000 years, expose barbaric races to the Torah, and completely turn civilization upside down? Would it not be foolish to suppose the prophets would not foresee such an epic mark on civilization?
I honestly think religious Judaism for all its complexity, beauty, holiness and wisdom is short-sighted in regards to only one thing, and that is to recognize the huge and positive impact this man made on the evolution and development of humanity. Now, When it comes to blame this man for the uncountable murder of Jewish lives over the centuries, it would be foolish of us Jews to deny that the G-d who revealed Himself to those same prophets said that He indeed would bring the horror of His anger against His own people, destroy his Holy Temple, cast the Jews out of their land, and burn His fury upon them for various sins they committed up to that time (Baseless Hatred (Sinat Hinam) being the primary one). But, those same prophets said that after a time, He will cease to punish His people, and then turn to punish those who hurt them, while His people He will guide back on the path of righteousness, and with endless love, pave the way for them to return to their land flowing with milk and honey.
G-d also states that there will be no end to the Kingdom that will be established by His servant. I think it would be foolish to think that the man whose name is Jesus, would ever be eradicated from history. Indeed, it would be wiser to accept that to his kingdom, there will be no end, since countless people convert to x-tianity on a moment to moment basis, and the evidence, (whether it is regarded as evidentiary or not by rabbinical authorities), simply doesn't change the fact that converts to x-tianity take the evidence as good enough for them, especially in light of the remarkable changes that occur in their own lives.
For an indicator in the Torah that perhaps projects events that would be simulated by the events surrounding Jesus, one may ponder on the life of Joseph. He was rejected and hated by his righteous brothers, we are told, for good reason. They feared Joseph's vanity, visions of grandeur, and dreams of rulership. They gossiped terribly about him to their father Jacob, and so did Joseph say terrible things about his brothers to his father as well. But in him being rejected, and his coat dipped in goats blood by his brothers, he was cast where there was no Torah, no truth, a pit of scorpions with no water, in order for him to be lifted up from there, and slowly climb up penetrating deeper and higher into the gentile world. He would lose his visage and distort all form of him ever have been a Hebrew, he would even lose his Hebrew name, be replaced with some Egyptian one, and increasingly become clothed within a gentile, Egyptian masque. But Joseph, he was chosen to be rejected by his righteous brothers so he could ultimately rise up high enough to save the world from a dreadful famine...physical and spiritual....that would eventually penetrate the land of the brothers, Canaan, forcing them out of desperation to seek this mysterious ruler. In time to come, through many trials and tribulations, he will have enough, and would come to remove the gentile masque he would accumulate over time, and finally revealing himself, as one of them, their brother, he would forgive them, because it was all G-ds doing. Joseph, a suffering prince favored by his father, one crowned among his brothers, as Moses so beautifully reiterates.
Jesus fits beautifully into the paradigm of Mashiach ben Yosef, the Messiah in the image (really) of Joseph, that suffering messiah who shows up on the scene at a dreadful time at the gates of Rome. Rejected by his righteous brothers, he ends up suffering like a leper, slandered against by his brothers, but for the purpose of coming to fight G-ds wars, prepare the world, gather gentiles but cause much suffering to his Jewish brothers, purifying them as he was. He was cast into the world at a terrible time of sin, when no-one was worthy of understanding him, his ways, his parables, dreams and visions.
You don't need the New Testament to prove that something disturbing, but glorious occurred that could only be penned by G-d, something undeniable that has, and is still happening over 2,000 years. You really can find the magic markers to it all in the Holy Torah itself, for they really are One. Yes, falsehood will certainly evaporate, but the Truth will grow more obvious still, and honestly surprise us all. - And very pleasantly for those of us who are truly after G-d's own heart.
so you worship Jesus?
ShaRone Kushnir, MS Please tell me where yo find this supposed othodox jewish idea that Jesus cut himseld to write something into his flesh. That is real hocus pocus
ShaRone S. Kushnir, LMHC. 😵😵😵
Railroad Reg that’s all you got after that scathing report ... take it back to house sir and no supper for you
David Austin you will truly strain a gnat to swallow a camel
Just by this alone all the xtian people should be appreciative of the Jewish people because xtianity could have been destroyed from it's inception and never made as a major religion but the Jews just shook their heads and said let these poor people believe in their fantasies. In the end though through the Inquisition, pogroms and even through the holocost if those people only knew what suffering would come through xtianity. But who knows instead of xtianity it would be through pagans, Hashem help us.
This is the future of the Jews after getting to realize that they cruxified their Messiah in his first coming
“And I will pour on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem the Spirit of grace and supplication; then they will look on Me whom they pierced. Yes, they will mourn for Him as one mourns for his only son, and grieve for Him as one grieves for a firstborn.
( Psalm 22 & Isaiah 53 are helpful passages as well ) The unbelieving jews are blinded , don't want to read their Tanakh so as to know their Messiah
Notice the timing of the Coming of The True Messiah ( His firstcoming has to happen at the 1st century & before the destruction of the Second Temple )
Daniel 9:26
“And after the sixty-two weeks Messiah shall be cut off, but not for Himself; And the people of the prince who is to come Shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end of it shall be with a flood, And till the end of the war desolations are determined.
The latter part of the prophecy ( see Jewish Diaspora and destruction of the Second Temple at 70 A.D )
Paul is very clever, he deceive the whole world.
Rory McClure :
Comment by the way
● There were more straw men in this video than an scarecrow convention.
1:40 "The book of Acts wasn't written in AD 90." Wrong. First, ch. 28 ends with Paul under house arrest. While waiting to appear before Caesar, he was free to preach to all who come to him. This had to occur before A.D. 64, when a great fire swept through Rome and the Emperor Nero said that Christians were to blame. Second, Acts does not mention Paul’s death, which appeared to be imminent when the apostle wrote 2 Tim. 4 and which occurred around A.D. 68. Third, near the end of Acts, Luke portrays the Roman government as benevolent toward Christianity, an attitude that changed after A.D. 64.
1:50 "Paul was a descendant of Gamaliel." Wrong. Nowhere does the NT claim that Paul was a descendant of Gamaliel. Luke only records Paul's words: “I am indeed a Jew, born in Tarsus of Cilicia, but brought up in this city at the feet of Gamaliel, taught according to the strictness of our fathers’ law, and was zealous toward God as you all are today.” (Acts 22:3)
4:09 16:15 etc. Acts does't claim that the high priest had jurisdiction over what's happening in Damascus. However he would have great influence in the synagogues of Damascus, just as Luke says. “Meanwhile, Saul was still breathing out murderous threats against the Lord’s disciples. He went to the high priest and asked him for letters to the synagogues in Damascus, so that if he found any there who belonged to the Way, whether men or women, he might take them as prisoners to Jerusalem.” (Acts 9:1-2)
11:10 "Paul wouldn't work for the pharisees because the Pharisees wouldn't work for the Saducee temple priests." Wrong. Josephus tell us that they did. Book 2, Chapter 17, Paragraph 3. "Hereupon the men of power got together, and conferred with the high priests, as did also the principal of the Pharisees; and thinking all was at stake, and that their calamities were becoming incurable, took counsel what was to be done. Accordingly, they determined to try what they could do with the seditious by words, and assembled the people before the brazen gate, which was that gate of the inner temple [court of the priests] which looked toward the sun-rising. And, in the first place, they showed the great indignation they had at this attempt for a revolt..."
12:07 "The notion that Paul would go to Damascus to persecute Christians is nonsense. Why would a Pharisee be interested in doing that?" Because of their zeal for the law. They would be obeying the law of Moses as they understood it. “And whoever blasphemes the name of the LORD shall surely be put to death.” (Lev. 24:16) “But that prophet or that dreamer of dreams shall be put to death, because he has spoken in order to turn you away from the LORD your God,” (Deut. 13:5) etc.
13:15 "It is extremely unlikely that Paul would have been a Roman Citizen." Wrong. Roman citizenship was common for wealthier Jews in the Roman diaspora. Eg. "for when Antioch, the capital of Syria, was founded, equal rights of citizenship were given to the Jews as to the heathen." (History of of Jews in Rome. E H Hudson. p 7) "The Samaritans then forfeited their privilege of Roman citizenship, and to the Jews it was confirmed, and they were set free from some of the restrictions to which they had been hitherto subjected." (p. 276)
From the moment that Jesus DIE, from that moment the sect he invented DIE as well. What follows it is call Christianity today: the continuation of the Roman pagan tradition. And this is what Christians believe today. Christians modern are descendent of pagans Romans from ancient times.
Shut up your mouth if you don't know any informations . Too much ignorance
Acts 5:36…2022 AD
What use is it to be stuck in our human traditions of descendce from ancestors? Abraham can raise children of Israel from stones. Paul’s greatest claim is that he was a direct disciple of the God who created Gamaliel by a simple breath of love.
ok, if the jews were so correct, 'god will take care of this and that, let it self correct, etc', why was Israel so persecuted and dispersed, sacrifice ended ( 1 for Jesus' prediction ). Merry Christ-mas everybody, and Rabbi too!
Isaiah 53 New International Version (NIV)
53 Who has believed our message
and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?
2 He grew up before him like a tender shoot,
and like a root out of dry ground.
He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him,
nothing in his appearance that we should desire him.
3 He was despised and rejected by mankind,
a man of suffering, and familiar with pain.
Like one from whom people hide their faces
he was despised, and we held him in low esteem.
4 Surely he took up our pain
and bore our suffering,
yet we considered him punished by God,
stricken by him, and afflicted.
5 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.
6 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.
7 He was oppressed and afflicted,
yet he did not open his mouth;
he was led like a lamb to the slaughter,
and as a sheep before its shearers is silent,
so he did not open his mouth.
8 By oppression[a] and judgment he was taken away.
Yet who of his generation protested?
For he was cut off from the land of the living;
for the transgression of my people he was punished.[b]
9 He was assigned a grave with the wicked,
and with the rich in his death,
though he had done no violence,
nor was any deceit in his mouth.
10 Yet it was the Lord’s will to crush him and cause him to suffer,
and though the Lord makes[c] his life an offering for sin,
he will see his offspring and prolong his days,
and the will of the Lord will prosper in his hand.
11 After he has suffered,
he will see the light of life[d] and be satisfied[e];
by his knowledge[f] my righteous servant will justify many,
and he will bear their iniquities.
12 Therefore I will give him a portion among the great,[g]
and he will divide the spoils with the strong,[h]
because he poured out his life unto death,
and was numbered with the transgressors.
For he bore the sin of many,
and made intercession for the transgressors.
Even enemies like pharisees and sadducees can unite against a common enemy and bigger threat like Jesus. Thats not so dificult to imagine. Nowadays politicians still doing it.
+Arikm7 jesus was a threat,why do you think pharisees and sadducees handed him over to romans to crucify on the cross then? he claimed to be god and mentioned destruction of the temple which for jews protecting the temple is more important than to be kind and change their hearts disturbed some elite high class religious jews,they wanted to get rid of him and by crucifying him which couldnt succeed in killing him ,because many people witnessed his appearance after the resurrection and sacrificed their lives for it and not forgotten for 2000 years when you consider he only preached and healed people for only 3 years
+Arikm7 I am not being spurious or antisemitic,Jesus was a jew so were all the apostles,first christians were jews.all I am saying Jesus' claims bothered some group of elite religious jews that is why they handed him over romans so he could be crucified,jews were under the authority of rome,so they wouldnt be allowed to do such thing themselves,existence of Jesus is completely another subject to discuss about.It seems you are jumping subjects because my answer upset you that he wasnt dead or forgotten.I am not against jews, not everyone who disagrees with you is antisemitic.but according to your logic if you READ some real history only documents you can find about Jesus are gospels,if you doubt about authencity of gospels then rome wouldnt be against someone didnt exist,if they were against jesus then you have to accept that he existed,you have problem with your logic then,rome wasnt against jesus,rome was against christians,check your facts before you speak man
+Arikm7 I dont think you got my point when I mentioned that Jesus was jew and apostles and first christians to legitimize christianity,you either believe it or you dont,I mentioned because accused me of being antisemitic.
but since mithra or apollo or baal werent a real person and walked on earth there were no group of jews had them executed on the cross except Jesus,that itself proves that they felt threatened he was a real deal and they didnt know how to protect what they have other than having him killed on the cross.
by the way i will quote from an answer that is given before:
The Old Testament prophecies of Jesus’ crucifixion and resurrection do not show up in explicit form. That is, there is no verse that says, “The Messiah shall be crucified,” or “After his crucifixion, the Messiah shall be resurrected.” If it had, the Jewish Sanhedrin would never have given Jesus over to the Romans for crucifixion. They would have sought to dispose of him in some other way for they would not have wanted to play into the hands of those Jews who thought Jesus was the Messiah.In order for the promises of God about Messiah to be fulfilled, they had to be given in veiled form - like a riddle. With riddle, the answer is inscrutable…until its given, and then it seems obvious. For example, what gets wetter and wetter the more it dries? A towel. Or consider this biblical riddle from Samson: “Out of the eater came something to eat, and out of the strong came something sweet” (Judges 14). What is it? The carcass of the lion Samson killed which housed a honeycomb. In somewhat similar fashion, the prophecies of Messiah were about his sufferings and his glories. Therefore, prophecies of Jesus’ crucifixion include being “wounded for our transgressions” (Isaiah 53:5), “hung on a tree” (Deuteronomy 21:23), “looked upon as pierced” (Zechariah 12:10), and “the stone that was rejected” (Psalm 118:22). Prophecies of resurrection include “became the chief cornerstone” (the continuation of Psalm 118:22), “a prophet raised up” (Deuteronomy 18:15), “high and lifted up” (Isaiah 6:1), and “seated at God’s right hand” (Psalm 110:1). Of course, there are many, many more prophecies (promises) in both categories (suffering and glory).
+Arikm7 there are 353 prophecies fulfilled in Jesus Christ and I dont think there is any other person who had lived would fulfill like Jesus did,its more than a coincidence
and agian I am not blaming anyone for Jesus' crucifiction
my faith doesnt rely on finding who was to blame for his crucifiction
if it were then they all died 2000 years ago,
it was supposed to happen,it was Jesus' mission
it was God's plan to send messiah and save us from our sins
maybe you should concern yourself with who is going to pay for your sins?
+Arikm7 I can understand some of the paranoia that you have against everyone who is not jewish,because of the persecution jewish people had for a long time but that doesnt justify you addressing me anti-semitic or having bloodlust or generalizing all christians as blood-obsessed in a simple discussion like this
I cannot educate you here in a couple sentences nor do I want it
but let me teach you by asking a hypothetical question
how do we define christians or jews or muslims?
Do we say good ones are and bad ones arent?
answer: the ones believe and execute of the doctrine is being taught
in christianity there is no teaching for violence or killing anyone or torturing which can be hold accountable for that matter,therefore there is nothing can be put the blame on Jesus Christ if not on the contrary
this world is ruled by satan his mission is take us from God's kingdom through him
there has been violence in the name of religion but just like the jews worshipping idols as you stated before that doesnt make them real jews if they fall away from torah's teachings the ones you were mentioning kosher
now when it comes to christianity I can see hypocrisy in your approach
so you mentioning rome persecuting jews has nothing to do with Jesus teachings
or muslims attacking jews has nothing to do with Jesus teachings
cruzaders defending themselves against muslim occupation has nothing to do with Jesus teachings
nor discovery of America and colonizing it and in the process killing natives has nothing to do with Jesus teachings
Hitler's extermination has nothing to do with Jesus teachings
He wasnt even pretending to be a christian since he wrote bible himself and places in chruches with mein kampf
Thousands of Catholic priests and Christian pastors were forced into concentration camps. A special barracks was set up at Dachau, the camp near Munich, Germany, for clergymen. A few survived; some were executed, but most were allowed to die slowly of starvation or disease.
these actions took place in history to seize political power,land and money
how can you blame Jesus for the things that are he taught the opposite?
it requires special kind of talent to blame
but I know what causes that,accusing everyone without checking the cause of it,blind faith in rabbi tovia
these are excat his words you are just repeating them without even thinking
sometimes I believe people write all these things just to fulfill the page to look smart
I think you are being one of them
that brings me to the second point where did Paul's understanding of ''price of a sin can be death''come from?
lets look at it:
adultery (Lev. xx. 10; Deut. xxii. 22); bestiality (Ex. xxii. 18 [A. V. 19]; Lev. xx. 15); blasphemy (Lev. xxiv. 16); false evidence (intended to lead to a conviction) in capital cases (Deut. xix. 16-19); false prophecy (Deut. xiii. 6, xviii. 20); idolatry or inciting others to the same (Lev. xx. 2; Deut. xiii. 7-19, xvii. 2-7); incestuous or unnatural connections (Lev. xviii. 22, xx. 11-14); insubordination to supreme authority (Deut. xvii. 12); kidnaping (Ex. xxi. 16; Deut. xxiv. 7); licentiousness of a priest's daughter (Lev. xxi. 9); murder (Ex. xxi. 12; Lev. xxiv. 17; Num. xxxv. 16 et seq.); rape committed on a betrothed woman (Deut. xxii. 25-27) or fornication by or with her (Deut. xxii. 20, 23-24); striking or cursing a parent, or otherwise rebelling against parental authority (Ex. xxi. 15, 17; Lev. xx. 9; Deut. xxi. 18-21); Sabbath-breaking (Ex. xxxi. 14, xxxv. 2; Num. xv. 32-36); witchcraft and augury (Ex. xxii. 17; Lev. xx. 27).
Blasphemy, idolatry, Sabbath-breaking, witchcraft, fornication by or with a betrothed virgin or the rape thereof, and the rebellious son are, according to the Pentateuchal laws, to be punished with death by stoning; bigamous marriage with a wife's mother or daughter and the prostitution of a priest's daughter are punished by burning; murder and communal apostasy are punished by the sword. With reference to all other capital offenses, the law ordains that the perpetrator shall die a violent death, which traditionally was understood as strangulation. Occasionally the Biblical text adds the expression, His (their) blood shall be upon him (them), which traditionally was understood as prescribing death by stoning. The Torah speaks also of hanging (Deut. xxi. 22), but, according to the rabbinical interpretation, not as a mode of execution, but rather of exposure after death
even taking a dump in a wrong place is punishable of death or eating jellyfish is punishable of death,now tell me if christians are blood-obssesed I do not know what do you call these
when was the last time have you seen anyone lashed(makkot) or stoned to death or killed by a sword because of the sins they have committed? or since then no-one has committed these sins?
or there is nobody believes in torah anymore or take it seriously to execute?
how do we define people if they were follower and believer religious or not?if they were not to act on it
christian perspective on price of sin comes from the begining of creation of Adam and Eve
they were created in heaven and they were immortal,they broke the law kicked out from heaven and became mortal
sin brought death,that was the only price
since Adam and Eve this sin continues because we are mortals
and new Adam is Jesus,he restored what was broken
Didn’t the Pharisees persecuted Yahshuah?
We orthodox Jews are the pharisees. RABBI Singer is a pharisee. I am a pharisee. And yes jesus was a false prophet and must die. What about it?
"Abject ignoramus". Rabbi, you are far too kind to Paul.
What do you expect from those who have set their minds on rejecting anything to do with Christ? Even with the proofs from outside Christian circles testifying about Saul being the std of tge great rabbi, this person will deny with all his might.
I expect Christian claims to be rigorously tested... so many of them are dubious ie Mark was the interpreter of Cephas... lies; Herod and the slaughter of the innocents and downright deceptions Josephus Mentions Jesus. Christians have history they are not to be trusted or taken at face value!
This is what will heppen to the Jews when they realize lately that they rejected their Messiah in His First Coming.
Zechariah 12:10
“And I will pour on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem the Spirit of grace and supplication; then they will look on Me whom they pierced. Yes, they will mourn for Him as one mourns for his only son, and grieve for Him as one grieves for a firstborn.
Keep the 7 Noahide commandments and leave Jews alone.
Se Jews have the unique idea of messiah ongoing before you. And no one rejects him when he comes. No one. We certainly reject using a greek word to messiah and know jesus doesn't qualify at all
Oh Paul was an STD alright.
Behold, another false religion
More lies from the servant of the adversary.
What do you know
He knows you are obligated to keep the 7 Noahide commandments.
We know christianity is a false religion.
THIS MAN IS ABSOLUTELY IGNORANT..PAUL WROTE A GOOD PORTION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT IT WAS GIVEN TO HIM BY GOD ALMIGHTY BECAUSE MANY JEWS DIDN'T BELIEVE IN HIS SON OUR 👑MESSIAH👑
😂😂😂 I hope you can walk away from idolatry and find HaShem.
The christians didn’t believe Paul either. Have you ever read the Non Testament? Read Acts 15. James and Peter are there. They hate Paul. And they refute him to his face. Then Paul leaves and rejects everything James told him. Read 1 Corinthians 8. You don’t know what you’re talking about. Or, to use your words, you’re absolutely ignorant.
@@Noahs_Crazy_KidActs 15 doesn't support your 1st position. Your 2d position doesn't hold water either. Liar
@@Post-Trib Sure it does. If Paul was called by G-d to be the apostle to the gentiles, why was James in charge of the council? And then why did Paul go contrary to the decision of that same council? They hated him and he hated them. It’s all a big fight 😂
@@Noahs_Crazy_Kid where does it say as you say it does? Chapter and verse?
PEOPLE OF THE WORLD KNOW THIS TRUTH: I AM JEW BY THE GIFT OF GOD BY HIS HOLY SPIRIT ROM. 28:29 I AM THE MINISTER OF THE ORACLES OF GOD ROM. 3: 1;2. FOR IT IS WRITTEN: THE KINGDOM OF GOD WAS REMOVED FROM THE ISRAELITE'S AND GIVEN TO OTHER NATION FROM THE FAR EAST TO HIS CHOSEN PEOPLE BORN BY THE HOLY SPIRIT NOT BY FLESH TO INHERIT THE NEW JERUSALEM. THE DAY OF THE LORD ALMIGHTY HAS BEGUN. REPENT! IT IS WRITTEN: THE TRUTH WILL SET YOU FREE. THE BIBLE WILL BE RE-WRITTEN TO MAKE IT HOLY AND ALL THE NATIONS WILL HEAR THE GOSPEL OF THE LORD ALMIGHTY BEFORE HIS COMING. AMEN.
Mike Mortel You are a pagan and an idolater and an IGNORAMUS
I do not need praises from you or from the world my praises coming from LORD God Almighty like the apostle and servants of the Churches of GOD. ROM. 2:29 GAL. 1:10.
Mike Mortel Go back to Rome you pagan, with your dead idol Jesus....
May the LORD Almighty show mercy upon you and your household my friend! Amen.
the fact that a book by the name of Romans is one of the books you highly venerate is a really big laugh. And you get upset when Hashem calls the Roman church the mother of all harlots IN YOUR OWN BOOK...who are the harlots??? I will tell you.....the 80,000 christian cults worldwide, with a few other sects such as Islam (they even dress the same, even today). Ho hum with the arguing any longer. I am over feeling sick about it.
BABEYE TOAD SLINGER? HMMM?
+evr08 YOU ARE NOT INTELLIGENT ENOUGH TO FOLLOW ME. I AM THREE GRADES AHEAD OF YOU, I MENTALLY TRANSPOSE MY THOUGHTS ONTO THE SCREEN, NO KEYBOARD NEEDED. IF YOU EVER DEVELOP A BRAIN YOU MIGHT TRY IT.
+evr08 I DON'T THINK YOU MEANT THAT, YOU DIDN'T CALL ME "SIR", "RABBI", "MASTER", ETC. - BUT I GUESS I'LL FORGIVE YOU. ROFL!
+evr08 I THOUGHT THEY ABORTED ALL IDIOTS, AFTER MEETING YOU, I GUESS NOT.
Billions believe in Jesus and more to come...including overseas and local Jews. It proves God the Almighty already sent the Messiah long ago... like 2000years ago. Keep denying.
@James M Your comment is baseless and unsupported in the Tanakh: Deut 7:7 “The LORD did not set his love upon you, nor choose you, because ye were more in number than any people; for ye were the fewest of all people.” G-d said this would happen. 2 billion “Jesus” believers absolutely proves nothing about “Jesus” as the true messiah. You have fallen for a false messiah, as predicted, so many other have too, and have lost this argument
@@howardrosen3736 you know the bible contains so many verses pointing to Jesus as the Messiah. Read Daniel 7, 8, and 9 for exmple. Or Isiah 53. But of course, to support you argument you CHOSE the one fitting your argument while ignoring the many other verses supporting the Messiah argument. Peace.
I wonder if you ever read Zechariah 12:10 & compare it with Psalm 22 .. plus Daniel 9:26 ( which says the Messiah will come at the first century before the destruction of the second temple )