Why did you not finish the Hebrews 8 reference where your bible says, "And I regarded them not, saith the Lord: Heb 8:9. While the Hebrew Scriptures for the same verse says "although I was their master, says the Lord;" Why did you not mention the exact verse that Rabbi Singer was talking about, it appears that you are the one being deceptive. Rabbi Singer actually read both Jeremiah and Hebrews and stressed the error in Hebrews, but then you don't mention that either. Where does it teach in the Tanach that human sacrifice or blood is required for the redemption, as the book of Hebrews claims? Where does it teach in the Tanach that the true Messiah can forgive sins? I'm really glad you fell for the christian lie about the Isaiah ch53, where does it say that the servant is the Messiah? Seeing as the author only ever calls Israel the "Servant". + Isaiah ch53 never mentions a human sacrifice that is only found in false christian doctrine. The entire ch53 teaches that Israel has been treated far worse for her sins than they were expected to be treated, far above what HaShem intended. The section you quoted explains that Israel has been mistreated by our enemies (how sinned in doing so) yet we still make intersession to HaShem for them. Your attempt to explain Leviticus is really funny, first off it is not prophecy, second the book of Hebrews says that is the "Old system", what old system and if there is an old there must a new they obvious problem is that HaShem teaches that the Torah is eternal, that means for ever.
Thank you for your comments. I read a "man" (Isaiah 53:3) on whom was put "the sins of us all" (Isaiah 53:6). "He died" (Isaiah 53:8) for "our sins" (Isaiah 53:5). I would rather you said that the version of Isaiah 53 I am reading is corrupt, than to say you don't see how a man can be a man in the verses. To deny what the verses are saying (without referring to other verses) simply doesn't make sense.
If God wants to call the Messiah a man in Isaiah 53 and Israel as a Servant elsewhere why do you have a problem with that? Israel was a man when God change Jacob's name to Israel.? God can do what He wants. Not sure why you automatically say the MAN is Israel because Israel is called a servant elsewhere. Man = Man no matter how you slice or dice it. You are saying, since ISRAEL = SERVANT therefore MAN = ISRAEL. Doesn't sound very logical to me.
@@andyfairchild, Who does the author tell us the servant is? Look it up for yourself it says so right there in ch 52, and by the way if this is talking about jesus, 10 he did not have children (v10), 2) he did not live a long life (v10), 3) he supposedly dies with the wicked and was burired with the rich, exactly opposite to Isaiah ch 53 v9
@@andyfairchild, read it in context, yes if you read it out of context you could make it mean a man, however Isaiah tells us that the "Servant" is Israel and no one else. Israel is spoken of in the singular multiple time on the Tanach, this is one of them.
I have to say this. I came across you guys just scrolling. And you reference the new covenant that you find in Jeremiah 31. I don't mean to be rude but have you ever read the entirety of Jeremiah? In fact, please answer honestly not to me but in your heart. Have you read Jeremiah 31 from beginning to end? It says who the New covenant is with explicitly. It doesn't matter which translation you use. I can read the original Hebrew but you don't have to. Goodness gracious guys.
You are not being rude at all. The New Covenant with Israel is that all people (from every tribe, and tongue, and nation of the world) can become a part of the Chosen People (spiritual Israel) through faith in the death of Jesus Christ on the cross for them. The text says the New Covenant will not be like the Old Covenant, it doesn''t say the Old Covenant will be implemented differently next time around. God said the Old Covenant was broken by the Israelites and he is not going to renew it. It is no longer in force. Here's a question for you: if the Old Covenant was broken and the New hasn't come, whose teachings are you following? Or could it be that Yeshua is the Messiah, the fulfillment of the prophecies of the New Covenant, and God sent Him so that you wouldn't be lost? Did God know the Temple would be destroyed? Of course He did. He was the one who had it destroyed. No my friend. You are wrong. The New Covenant has come.
@andyfairchild Andy may I ask you a question? Where do you get your theology? Are you studying scripture or just visiting Christian websites? The new covenant appears where in the Hebrew scripture? I want to go through this slowly and gently because I want you to understand what was written and why your belief could not be more wrong. So let's begin there. Where is the Hebrew scripture do you find the new covenant?
@@davidkatz341 Thank you for asking. However I may need some clarification. Do you mean Scriptures in the "Hebrew language" or any English translation of the Hebrew scriptures?
@andyfairchild Scripture is entirely Hebrew with a small amount of Aramaic. Translations, even by the most skilled and well-meaning, doesn't convey the word but it will have to do. Pick a translation of Jeremiah 31. Read the entire chapter and ask yourself why this cannot be Jesus or a covenant with gentiles. Try to be open and not force your theology into the text. The words should speak to you and give you a window into G-d's plan.
I like the way your worded your comment. Yes and that is what Jesus did. He followed the Law completely and then died for those of us who didn't or haven't. He was the righteous one who died for us the unrighteous.
@@andyfairchild Can you provide an example of Jesus being obedient to the Law? Jesus rejected our commandments several times in Mathew chapter 5. Jesus practiced witchcraft in Mathew chapter 17 by summoning the spirit of Moses. Jesus made false accusations against David when he was caught violating the Sabbath! Jesus taught pagan traditions in John 6:53-56 and Christians memorialize the abomination he taught through Communion. Jesus failed to end the curse in Genesis chapter 3! Men still labor to provide for our families. Women still have pain in child birth. And, snakes still crawl on their belly despite having the muscles to support the legs they lost. Snakes will still bite at our heel when given the chance!
@andyfairchild I reaponded to you 2 days ago. I read the original Hebrew. No translation. Even Jewish translations are wildly off. The 1917 JPS is awful. It is not a translation it is a copy of the KJV. Chabad is ok but inconsistent. Art scroll is better but still a transition is only a translation. If you learn some Hebrew you will understand.
In what book did you read the original Hebrew? The book you say you read most certainly has a title, year of publication, and names of the editors. :Looking forward to your response.
@andyfairchild I'm getting the feeling that you're not understanding what I'm saying. There are many many books that contain the original Hebrew text. It matches exactly with the Torah scrolls itself with the exception that the scrolls do not have the nekudot. That word means the vowels. Hebrew is a continental language so to read it you have to know the words. So I'm not sure where you're going with this. Are you going to claim that I'm reading the masoretic text? I certainly hope not because that'll take 3 seconds to debunk. Let's pick any modern text that has the Hebrew next to the English. Any art scroll that says Tanahk. That will contain the five books of Moses, the prophets and the writings. It will be in Hebrew adjacent to the English. I find when someone gets a little obtuse when it comes to this the point is that we don't have the original Hebrew? Is that where you're going with this? Because we most certainly do and Christian Bibles track along with the masuritic text 99.9% anyway. The only things they change are the things they deliberately change to make them... Well more jesus-like. And we know their changes because we have, for example, the original Isaiah scroll. So I don't care which version you want to use pick your poison. As for me I can go to any synagogue anywhere in the world. I will pick up a Torah scroll and it will be identical whether it's in New York City or Paris or Yemen or Morocco or in Jerusalem. Word for word identical. But since we're on the topic let me return this question to you. Are you aware that the last 12 verses in Mark were added by scribes and not original to the texts? Are you aware that the first two chapters in Luke are also later interpolations. That means the entire birth narrative was not original to Luke. Let's jump to John. The woman taken in adultery? Wonderful story very moving but it was an invented until 500 years later and didn't appear in a Greek manuscript until the Middle ages. Oh let's not forget the Johannine Comma. That came in in the Middle ages too. I happen to be very well schooled in the Greek Testament and I can go chapter and verse with inconsistencies and changes and flat out contradictions all day. But it gets us away from the original question. Have you ever read the chapter that you discussed from front to back? I think I asked you that the first time we interacted and I never heard you answer.
@@davidkatz341 Wow. All I'm looking for is TITLE, YEAR OF PUBLICATION, EDITORS of the so-called HEBREW LANGUAGE ORIGINAL BIBLE you say you have. Surely it can't be that hard to find? Why not just say you don't know?
It seems very odd you cannot provide stuff like editor, publisher, year of publication, title for ANY of the Hebrew languages sources you say exist. Or are your sources so secret that no one can have access to them? editor, publisher, year of publication, title.
@@andyfairchildYou seem more interested in arguing rather than understanding what someone communicates. The Hebrew versions of Tanak will not have publisher information like your Christian KJV. The Hebrew copies are letter for letter identical going back long before your Jesus would have existed. The Greek NT is NOT letter for letter identical within itself, and even more inaccurate when the NT attempts to match the Hebrew Tanak. Here's another way to frame it: The Hebrew Bible hasn't changed, but the NT has changed over time. There are more textual variations in the NT than there are words. Tanak is letter for letter identical. You're comparing chicken nuggets to actual chicken, and you're faith is in the nuggets. The Hebrew text is the original, not the English translation of the Hebrew texts. Jews have a letter for letter book, Christians do not have this. Which group is more likely to have the truth?
Rabbi Singer is miles and miles ahead of the rest in his knowledge of scripture. There is no need to be intimidated, Rabbi Singer is very kind when he corrects Christians for their false doctrine!
@@charleslitherbury8600 thank you Charles for your comment. Unfortunately knowledge and intelligence and interpretation are different things. The devil has even more knowledge than Rabbi singer about the Scriptures. But I think you would agree that the more knowledge one has does not necessarily make that person correct?
@andyfairchild The devil is a figment of imagination , so I doubt the knowledge that has been given him through Christian theology is of any value. My opinion.
@@charleslitherbury8600 Perhaps you haven't come across these verses yet in Tanakh: "...members of the heavenly court came to present themselves before the Lord, and ...Satan came with them. “Where have you come from?” the Lord asked Satan." (Job 1:6.) "Satan rose up against Israel and caused David to take a census of the people of Israel." (1 Chronicles 21:1, NLT.) OR this one is NT: "For you are the children of your father the devil, and you love to do the evil things he does. He was a murderer from the beginning. He has always hated the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, it is consistent with his character; for he is a liar and the father of lies." (John 8:44, NLT.) I selected than at random. No harm intended.
@andyfairchild Satan in Hebrew scripture is nothing like the devil in the NT. Satan works for God. He only has the authority to do the will of God. In Christian theology, the devil works independently and is the ruler of this world. It is obviously just another scare tactic to make people believe whatever keeps the money plates full. The devil doesn't worry me in the slightest. People have their own evil inclinations. Job 5:6-11
@andyfairchild Apples and oranges, there is no comparison between Satan, an agent of God who has no authority of his own, and the Devil who controls this world according to the NT. Christianity isn't a fulfillment of Hebrew scripture. It's a religion all on its own that doesn't jive with Hebrew scripture. Completely contradicting.
Leviticus 26,42. Then will I remember my covenant with Jacob, and also my covenant with Issac ,and also my covenant with Abraham will I remember, and I will remember the land. Are the covenants made with Issac and Abraham made null and void by the covenant with Jacob?? NO. So why would the new covenant in Jeremiah 31,31 ??
The one and the same as here: "For unto us a child is born to us, a son is given to us. The government will rest on his shoulders. And he will be called: Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace." (Isaiah 9:6,NLT.)
@andyfairchild Well, apparently you didn't read chapter eight, did you? Chapter 7 refers to the second son of Isaiah. It's staring you right in the face. Isaiah 8:3 3 Then I made love to the prophetess, and she conceived and gave birth to a son. And the Lord said to me, “Name him Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz. She is also not a virgin, she's a young woman. Virgin was put into the text. It's a mistranslation. The Dead Sea Scrolls sea scrolls do not have Virgin, it has young woman.
@@0861USMC Christians don’t start reading at verse one, they parachute into verse 14 and quickly retreat. Why? Because Jesus doesn’t fit into the 65 year timeframe of the prophecy.
In one of his online audio lectures, Tovia Singer accuses the writer of Hebrews of changing the text in chapter 8:9 to do away with Israel, claiming that this is the agenda of the writer of Hebrews. Tovia says that the writer of Hebrews “had to literally rape” the text of Jeremiah 31:31 to get rid of Israel. What an accusation! A lot of untrue accusations too, if I may. First of all, the writer of Hebrews didn’t have to “get rid of Israel”, because he himself, as a Jew, was part of that very same Israel. Second, the writer didn’t change a thing in the text, since he was quoting from the Greek text of the LXX (Septuagint), which was the dominant Greek text in Jewish circles in that time. You simply don’t accuse someone of changing the text when he quotes from a translation, in this case, the dominant Jewish translation of the day. And third, look at the preceding verse that doesn’t make any sense if he wanted to “get rid of Israel”: “For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:” Since the New Testament gets accused of changing texts to fit it’s agenda all the time, why didn’t the author of Hebrews come up with the idea of just chopping the verse in half and leaving out all the offending references? The author could have easily done that, but he didn’t because there was no “offensive part”. And of course I am aware of the stories that the LXX has been manipulated by the church. This is something that Tovia Singer claims in a few lectures. But it would be hard to believe that the authors of the New Testament would have quoted from a LXX that didn’t say what they claimed it said. It doesn’t make sense to claim that the LXX says something that it doesn’t, especially when people could verify it. Most Jews spoke Greek so therefore it would be really silly to think that you would deceive those people you wanted to reach by manipulating a text they were familiar with. And the story that it was only the Torah that was translated by the 72 rabbis and not the Prophets and the Writings, so, therefore, only the translation of the Torah is to be considered valid. Again, we need to ask; why would people not only read from the Torah translation of the LXX in the synagogues, but also from the Prophets and Writings if those translations were considered inaccurate and misleading? Obviously people recognized the entire Tanakh translation in those days as an accurate and authoritative Greek translation. This actually shows us the exact opposite of what the anti-missionaries claim.
Am I right in saying the Jesus primarily quoted the Septuagint (Greek translation) of the Tanakh? And wasn't the Septuagint written because Hebrew was no longer the lingua franca of the day? The Septuagint was written by Rabbis to make the Hebrew scriptures available to the Jewish community in Egypt and the Greek-speaking world after Alexander the Great's conquests. What version of the Hebrew language Tanakh (if any) does Rabbi Singer use? He has never stated.
@@andyfairchild The Septuagint was translated in the third and second centuries BC in Alexandria, Egypt. As Israel was under the authority of Greece for several centuries, the Greek language became more and more common. By the second and first centuries BC, most people in Israel spoke Greek as their primary language. That is why the effort was made to translate the Hebrew Bible into Greek - so that those who did not understand Hebrew could have the Scriptures in a language they could understand. The Septuagint represents the first major effort at translating a significant religious text from one language into another. Hebrew ceased to be a spoken language as early as the exilic or post-exilic period (cf. Nehemiah 13:24), and Aramaic became the lingua franca of the Jewish people. With the rise of Alexander the Great and the Greek empires, the Jews in the diaspora were Hellenized, and for some Jews, especially those living in Ptolemaic Egypt, Greek became the primary language. Thus, it became necessary for the Scriptures to be translated into Greek. I'm not certain if Jesus primarily quoted the Septuagint, but in comparing the New Testament quotations of the Hebrew Bible, it is clear that the Septuagint was often used. Many of the New Testament quotes from the Hebrew Bible are taken from the Septuagint. This is the result of the fact that by the late first century BC, and especially the first century AD, the Septuagint had “replaced” the Hebrew Bible as the Scriptures most people used. Since most people spoke and read Greek as their primary language, and the Greek authorities strongly encouraged the use of Greek, the Septuagint became much more common than the Hebrew Old Testament. As faithful as the Septuagint translators strove to be in accurately rendering the Hebrew text into Greek, some translational differences arose. But the fact that the apostles and New Testament authors felt comfortable, under the direction of the Holy Spirit, in using the Septuagint should give us assurance that a translation of the original languages of the Bible is still the authoritative Word of God. I wish I could tell you which version of the Tanakh Tovia Singer is using, but I honestly have no idea. I looked up some of the passages Tovia showes in his videos on the screen and came to the conclusion that he uses various translations.
@@davidkatz341 Theologically speaking, scholars generally regard the book of Hebrews to be second in importance only to Paul’s letter to the Romans in the New Testament. No other book so eloquently defines Christ as high priest of Christianity, superior to the Aaronic priesthood, and the fulfillment of the Law and the Prophets. This book presents Christ as the Author and Perfecter of our faith (Hebrews 12:2). However, both the authorship and audience are in question. The title “To the Hebrews,” which appears in the earliest known copy of the epistle, is not a part of the original manuscript. There is no salutation; the letter simply begins with the assertion that Jesus, the Son of God, has appeared, atoned for our sins, and is now seated at the right hand of God in heaven (Hebrews 1:1-4). The letter closes with the words “Grace be with you all” (Hebrews 13:25), which is the same closing found in each of Paul’s known letters (see Romans 16:20; 1 Corinthians 16:23; 2 Corinthians 13:14; Galatians 6:18; Ephesians 6:24; Philippians 4:23; Colossians 4:18; 1 Thessalonians 5:28; 2 Thessalonians 3:18; 1 Timothy 6:21; 2 Timothy 4:22; Titus 3:15; and Philemon 25). However, it should be noted that Peter (1 Peter 5:14; 2 Peter 3:18) used similar - though not identical - closings. It is possible that it was simply customary to close letters like this with the words “Grace be with you all” during this time period. Church tradition teaches that Paul wrote the book of Hebrews, and until the 1800s that issue was closed. However, though a vast majority of Christians scholar still believe Paul wrote the book, there are some tempting reasons to think otherwise. First and foremost is the lack of a salutation. Some sort of personal salutation from Paul appears in all of his letters. So it would seem that writing anonymously is not his usual method; therefore, the reasoning goes, Hebrews cannot be one of his letters. Second, the overall composition and style is of a person who is a very sophisticated writer. Even though he was certainly a sophisticated communicator, Paul stated that he purposely did not speak with a commanding vocabulary (1 Corinthians 1:17; 2:1; 2 Corinthians 11:6). The book of Hebrews quotes extensively from the Old Testament. Paul, as a Pharisee, would have been familiar with the Scripture in its original Hebrew language. In other letters, Paul either quotes the Masoretic Text (the original Hebrew) or paraphrases it. However, all of the quotes in this epistle are taken out of the Septuagint (the Greek Old Testament), which is inconsistent with Paul’s usage. Finally, Paul was an apostle who claimed to receive his revelations directly from the Lord Jesus (1 Corinthians 11:23; Galatians 1:12). The writer of Hebrews specifically says that he was taught by an apostle (Hebrews 2:3). If Paul didn’t write the letter, who did? The most plausible suggestion is that this was actually a sermon Paul gave and it was transcribed later by Luke, a person who would have had the command of the Greek language that the writer shows. Barnabas is another likely prospect, since he was a Levite and would have been speaking on a subject that he knew much about. Martin Luther suggested Apollos, since he would have had the education the writer of this letter must have had. Priscilla and Clement of Rome have been suggested by other scholars. However, there is still much evidence that Paul wrote the letter. The most compelling comes from Scripture itself. Remember that Peter wrote to the Hebrews (that is, the Jews; see Galatians 2:7, 9 and 1 Peter 1:1). Peter wrote, “Just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him” (2 Peter 3:15). In that last verse, Peter is confirming that Paul had also written a letter to the Hebrews! The theology presented in Hebrews is consistent with Paul’s. Paul was a proponent of salvation by faith alone (Ephesians 2:8, 9), and that message is strongly communicated in this epistle (Hebrews 4:2, 6:12, 10:19-22, 10:37-39, and 11:1-40), indicating that either Paul wrote the epistle or the writer was trained by Paul. Although it is a small detail, this epistle makes mention of Timothy (Hebrews 13:23), and Paul is the only apostle known to have ever done that in any letter. So, who actually wrote Hebrews? The letter fills a needed space in Scripture and both outlines our faith and defines faith itself in the same way that Romans defines the tenets of Christian living. It closes the chapters of faith alone and serves as a prelude to the chapters on good works built on a foundation of faith in God. In short, this book belongs in the Bible. Therefore, its human author is unimportant. What is important is to treat the book as inspired Scripture as defined in 2 Timothy 3:16-17. The Holy Spirit was the divine author of Hebrews and of all Scripture, even though we don’t know who put the physical pen to the physical paper and traced the words.
@@andyfairchild He uses the Masoretic Text. The 70 was written centuries before Yeshua and comprised only The Mosaic Torah, and it no longer exists. The Greek Bible is a hit and miss affair of integral and corrupt sources. For instance if you are serious about Daniel in the context of Mark you will go to Theodotian, not the Greek bibles (see Jeff Cate; essay from the 2017 Birmingham Colloquium, if you ask him nicely he will probably e-mail you a copy). If you want to debate serious students and scholars then start researching things for yourself instead of parroting your popes.
You meant warning people against false prophets! Nothing Jesus said came true! Nothing changes with a renewed covenant! We don’t have this covenant yet, because we are still teaching you to know our Creator! You will be out of a job when our renewed covenant takes effect! Correct, whoever wrote the book of Hebrews lied!
Teaching what? The Temple is gone and the Old Covenant is broken and no longer in existence, So what exactly are you teaching? The Israelites ripped up the Mosaic covenant and G-d said "Fine, I'll bring in a New One." And He did. The New Covenant is in Yeshua. You can dream all you want. It doesn't stop the fact that Jesus died on the cross for our sins; that Jesus is our Messiah and Savior - Glory to His Name. What you're saying is: The Old is gone, the New hasn't come, so I'll listen to Rabbi Singer.
@ Stop deceiving people like Jesus tried! The Law doesn’t change, neither does His promises! The only difference with our new promise is that the Torah will be written on our hearts and we won’t have to teach you to know Him! Your abominable child sacrifice can’t save you! Believing in that paganism only makes you complicit in murder! Jeremiah 31:30-34 “But every one shall die for his own iniquity: every man that eateth the sour grape, his teeth shall be set on edge. [31] Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: [32] Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD: [33] But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. [34] And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.” There is nothing “old” about any of His promises! Isaiah 40:8 “The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever.”
@ I still have His perfect Law, in my Bible, fully intact, it’s not “ripped up” at all! That’s just your deceptive unsupported opinion! Our Creator doesn’t change! Isaiah 40:8 “The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever.” If you read the whole Scripture instead of the partial Scripture, that Paul chopped up, it says that His Torah will be written on our hearts! The Law doesn’t change, only our hearts are changed! We will abhor the thought of sinning! Jeremiah 31:30-34 “But every one shall die for his own iniquity: every man that eateth the sour grape, his teeth shall be set on edge. [31] Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: [32] Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD: [33] But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. [34] And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.” The pagan belief of a dying man/god is not supported by the Scriptures! It says here in Jeremiah that everyone will die for their own iniquity! The abominable sacrifice that you believe in only makes you complicit in murder!
I've seen Tovia pretend to not know about "prophetic tense" to argue that verse cannot be a prophecy because it's in the past tense. Either he's deceptive, or he's an incompetent scholar
@@houstoneuler Lol, you can’t turn past events into future prophecy! We use past, present or future tense for a reason! There are no mistakes in the Scriptures!
@@acesdraincleaning1919 i didn't say that, tovia was saying a passage could not be a prophecy because the passage was written in the past tense, even though passages he accepts as prophecies are written in past tense because of using the prophetic tense - that they are so certain to come to pass that they're written as if they had already happened
You meant warning people against false prophets! Nothing Jesus said came true! Nothing changes with a renewed covenant! We don’t have this covenant yet, because we are still teaching you to know our Creator! You will be out of a job when our renewed covenant takes effect! Correct, whoever wrote the book of Hebrews lied!
Why did you not finish the Hebrews 8 reference where your bible says, "And I regarded them not, saith the Lord: Heb 8:9. While the Hebrew Scriptures for the same verse says "although I was their master, says the Lord;" Why did you not mention the exact verse that Rabbi Singer was talking about, it appears that you are the one being deceptive. Rabbi Singer actually read both Jeremiah and Hebrews and stressed the error in Hebrews, but then you don't mention that either.
Where does it teach in the Tanach that human sacrifice or blood is required for the redemption, as the book of Hebrews claims?
Where does it teach in the Tanach that the true Messiah can forgive sins?
I'm really glad you fell for the christian lie about the Isaiah ch53, where does it say that the servant is the Messiah? Seeing as the author only ever calls Israel the "Servant". +
Isaiah ch53 never mentions a human sacrifice that is only found in false christian doctrine.
The entire ch53 teaches that Israel has been treated far worse for her sins than they were expected to be treated, far above what HaShem intended. The section you quoted explains that Israel has been mistreated by our enemies (how sinned in doing so) yet we still make intersession to HaShem for them.
Your attempt to explain Leviticus is really funny, first off it is not prophecy, second the book of Hebrews says that is the "Old system", what old system and if there is an old there must a new they obvious problem is that HaShem teaches that the Torah is eternal, that means for ever.
Thank you for your comments. I read a "man" (Isaiah 53:3) on whom was put "the sins of us all" (Isaiah 53:6). "He died" (Isaiah 53:8) for "our sins" (Isaiah 53:5). I would rather you said that the version of Isaiah 53 I am reading is corrupt, than to say you don't see how a man can be a man in the verses. To deny what the verses are saying (without referring to other verses) simply doesn't make sense.
If God wants to call the Messiah a man in Isaiah 53 and Israel as a Servant elsewhere why do you have a problem with that? Israel was a man when God change Jacob's name to Israel.?
God can do what He wants. Not sure why you automatically say the MAN is Israel because Israel is called a servant elsewhere. Man = Man no matter how you slice or dice it. You are saying, since ISRAEL = SERVANT therefore MAN = ISRAEL.
Doesn't sound very logical to me.
@@andyfairchild, Do you even know who is speaking in Isaiah ch53, read it properly mate you too can come out of christian idolatry.
@@andyfairchild, Who does the author tell us the servant is? Look it up for yourself it says so right there in ch 52, and by the way if this is talking about jesus, 10 he did not have children (v10), 2) he did not live a long life (v10), 3) he supposedly dies with the wicked and was burired with the rich, exactly opposite to Isaiah ch 53 v9
@@andyfairchild, read it in context, yes if you read it out of context you could make it mean a man, however Isaiah tells us that the "Servant" is Israel and no one else. Israel is spoken of in the singular multiple time on the Tanach, this is one of them.
I have to say this. I came across you guys just scrolling. And you reference the new covenant that you find in Jeremiah 31. I don't mean to be rude but have you ever read the entirety of Jeremiah? In fact, please answer honestly not to me but in your heart. Have you read Jeremiah 31 from beginning to end? It says who the New covenant is with explicitly. It doesn't matter which translation you use. I can read the original Hebrew but you don't have to. Goodness gracious guys.
You are not being rude at all. The New Covenant with Israel is that all people (from every tribe, and tongue, and nation of the world) can become a part of the Chosen People (spiritual Israel) through faith in the death of Jesus Christ on the cross for them. The text says the New Covenant will not be like the Old Covenant, it doesn''t say the Old Covenant will be implemented differently next time around. God said the Old Covenant was broken by the Israelites and he is not going to renew it. It is no longer in force.
Here's a question for you: if the Old Covenant was broken and the New hasn't come, whose teachings are you following?
Or could it be that Yeshua is the Messiah, the fulfillment of the prophecies of the New Covenant, and God sent Him so that you wouldn't be lost?
Did God know the Temple would be destroyed? Of course He did. He was the one who had it destroyed. No my friend. You are wrong. The New Covenant has come.
@andyfairchild Andy may I ask you a question? Where do you get your theology? Are you studying scripture or just visiting Christian websites? The new covenant appears where in the Hebrew scripture? I want to go through this slowly and gently because I want you to understand what was written and why your belief could not be more wrong. So let's begin there. Where is the Hebrew scripture do you find the new covenant?
@@davidkatz341 Thank you for asking. However I may need some clarification. Do you mean Scriptures in the "Hebrew language" or any English translation of the Hebrew scriptures?
@andyfairchild Scripture is entirely Hebrew with a small amount of Aramaic. Translations, even by the most skilled and well-meaning, doesn't convey the word but it will have to do. Pick a translation of Jeremiah 31. Read the entire chapter and ask yourself why this cannot be Jesus or a covenant with gentiles. Try to be open and not force your theology into the text. The words should speak to you and give you a window into G-d's plan.
@@davidkatz341 Which Hebrew language Bible do you use? Who are the editors? What is the title of book on the cover? What year was it published?
What's important about the new covenant is that it will not be an annulment or alteration of the law but affirmation of it.
I like the way your worded your comment. Yes and that is what Jesus did. He followed the Law completely and then died for those of us who didn't or haven't. He was the righteous one who died for us the unrighteous.
@@andyfairchild
Can you provide an example of Jesus being obedient to the Law?
Jesus rejected our commandments several times in Mathew chapter 5.
Jesus practiced witchcraft in Mathew chapter 17 by summoning the spirit of Moses.
Jesus made false accusations against David when he was caught violating the Sabbath!
Jesus taught pagan traditions in John 6:53-56 and Christians memorialize the abomination he taught through Communion.
Jesus failed to end the curse in Genesis chapter 3!
Men still labor to provide for our families.
Women still have pain in child birth.
And, snakes still crawl on their belly despite having the muscles to support the legs they lost. Snakes will still bite at our heel when given the chance!
@ He bled and died on the cross for your sins. Everything else is a lie.
@@andyfairchild
So, the only part of the NT story that’s true to you is the abominable sacrifice committed by your false Greek gods?
@andyfairchild With all due respect, what you wrote is the lie.
@andyfairchild I reaponded to you 2 days ago. I read the original Hebrew. No translation. Even Jewish translations are wildly off. The 1917 JPS is awful. It is not a translation it is a copy of the KJV. Chabad is ok but inconsistent. Art scroll is better but still a transition is only a translation. If you learn some Hebrew you will understand.
In what book did you read the original Hebrew? The book you say you read most certainly has a title, year of publication, and names of the editors. :Looking forward to your response.
@andyfairchild I'm getting the feeling that you're not understanding what I'm saying. There are many many books that contain the original Hebrew text. It matches exactly with the Torah scrolls itself with the exception that the scrolls do not have the nekudot. That word means the vowels. Hebrew is a continental language so to read it you have to know the words. So I'm not sure where you're going with this. Are you going to claim that I'm reading the masoretic text? I certainly hope not because that'll take 3 seconds to debunk. Let's pick any modern text that has the Hebrew next to the English. Any art scroll that says Tanahk. That will contain the five books of Moses, the prophets and the writings. It will be in Hebrew adjacent to the English. I find when someone gets a little obtuse when it comes to this the point is that we don't have the original Hebrew? Is that where you're going with this? Because we most certainly do and Christian Bibles track along with the masuritic text 99.9% anyway. The only things they change are the things they deliberately change to make them... Well more jesus-like. And we know their changes because we have, for example, the original Isaiah scroll. So I don't care which version you want to use pick your poison. As for me I can go to any synagogue anywhere in the world. I will pick up a Torah scroll and it will be identical whether it's in New York City or Paris or Yemen or Morocco or in Jerusalem. Word for word identical. But since we're on the topic let me return this question to you. Are you aware that the last 12 verses in Mark were added by scribes and not original to the texts? Are you aware that the first two chapters in Luke are also later interpolations. That means the entire birth narrative was not original to Luke. Let's jump to John. The woman taken in adultery? Wonderful story very moving but it was an invented until 500 years later and didn't appear in a Greek manuscript until the Middle ages. Oh let's not forget the Johannine Comma. That came in in the Middle ages too. I happen to be very well schooled in the Greek Testament and I can go chapter and verse with inconsistencies and changes and flat out contradictions all day. But it gets us away from the original question. Have you ever read the chapter that you discussed from front to back? I think I asked you that the first time we interacted and I never heard you answer.
@@davidkatz341 Wow. All I'm looking for is TITLE, YEAR OF PUBLICATION, EDITORS of the so-called HEBREW LANGUAGE ORIGINAL BIBLE you say you have. Surely it can't be that hard to find?
Why not just say you don't know?
It seems very odd you cannot provide stuff like editor, publisher, year of publication, title for ANY of the Hebrew languages sources you say exist.
Or are your sources so secret that no one can have access to them? editor, publisher, year of publication, title.
@@andyfairchildYou seem more interested in arguing rather than understanding what someone communicates. The Hebrew versions of Tanak will not have publisher information like your Christian KJV. The Hebrew copies are letter for letter identical going back long before your Jesus would have existed.
The Greek NT is NOT letter for letter identical within itself, and even more inaccurate when the NT attempts to match the Hebrew Tanak.
Here's another way to frame it: The Hebrew Bible hasn't changed, but the NT has changed over time. There are more textual variations in the NT than there are words. Tanak is letter for letter identical.
You're comparing chicken nuggets to actual chicken, and you're faith is in the nuggets. The Hebrew text is the original, not the English translation of the Hebrew texts. Jews have a letter for letter book, Christians do not have this. Which group is more likely to have the truth?
Rabbi Singer is miles and miles ahead of the rest in his knowledge of scripture. There is no need to be intimidated, Rabbi Singer is very kind when he corrects Christians for their false doctrine!
@@charleslitherbury8600 thank you Charles for your comment. Unfortunately knowledge and intelligence and interpretation are different things. The devil has even more knowledge than Rabbi singer about the Scriptures. But I think you would agree that the more knowledge one has does not necessarily make that person correct?
@andyfairchild The devil is a figment of imagination , so I doubt the knowledge that has been given him through Christian theology is of any value. My opinion.
@@charleslitherbury8600 Perhaps you haven't come across these verses yet in Tanakh: "...members of the heavenly court came to present themselves before the Lord, and ...Satan came with them. “Where have you come from?” the Lord asked Satan." (Job 1:6.)
"Satan rose up against Israel and caused David to take a census of the people of Israel." (1 Chronicles 21:1, NLT.)
OR this one is NT: "For you are the children of your father the devil, and you love to do the evil things he does. He was a murderer from the beginning. He has always hated the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, it is consistent with his character; for he is a liar and the father of lies." (John 8:44, NLT.)
I selected than at random. No harm intended.
@andyfairchild Satan in Hebrew scripture is nothing like the devil in the NT. Satan works for God. He only has the authority to do the will of God. In Christian theology, the devil works independently and is the ruler of this world. It is obviously just another scare tactic to make people believe whatever keeps the money plates full. The devil doesn't worry me in the slightest. People have their own evil inclinations.
Job 5:6-11
@andyfairchild Apples and oranges, there is no comparison between Satan, an agent of God who has no authority of his own, and the Devil who controls this world according to the NT.
Christianity isn't a fulfillment of Hebrew scripture. It's a religion all on its own that doesn't jive with Hebrew scripture. Completely contradicting.
I think you are rather a deceptive person,God already forgives our sins,God doesn't need a human blood sacrifice to forgive sins.
Seeing these comments, it is clear, Christianity is dying.
Leviticus 26,42. Then will I remember my covenant with Jacob, and also my covenant with Issac ,and also my covenant with Abraham will I remember, and I will remember the land.
Are the covenants made with Issac and Abraham made null and void by the covenant with Jacob?? NO.
So why would the new covenant in Jeremiah 31,31 ??
I guess Isaiah 7 is also about the birth of Jesus.
The one and the same as here: "For unto us a child is born to us, a son is given to us. The government will rest on his shoulders. And he will be called: Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace." (Isaiah 9:6,NLT.)
@andyfairchild
Except it's not Jesus.
@ You are free to believe what you want to have your sins forgiven and get yourself into heaven. Sleep well.
@andyfairchild
Well, apparently you didn't read chapter eight, did you?
Chapter 7 refers to the second son of Isaiah. It's staring you right in the face.
Isaiah 8:3
3 Then I made love to the prophetess, and she conceived and gave birth to a son. And the Lord said to me, “Name him Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz.
She is also not a virgin, she's a young woman. Virgin was put into the text. It's a mistranslation.
The Dead Sea Scrolls sea scrolls do not have Virgin, it has young woman.
@@0861USMC
Christians don’t start reading at verse one, they parachute into verse 14 and quickly retreat.
Why? Because Jesus doesn’t fit into the 65 year timeframe of the prophecy.
In one of his online audio lectures, Tovia Singer accuses the writer of Hebrews of changing the text in chapter 8:9 to do away with Israel, claiming that this is the agenda of the writer of Hebrews. Tovia says that the writer of Hebrews “had to literally rape” the text of Jeremiah 31:31 to get rid of Israel. What an accusation! A lot of untrue accusations too, if I may. First of all, the writer of Hebrews didn’t have to “get rid of Israel”, because he himself, as a Jew, was part of that very same Israel. Second, the writer didn’t change a thing in the text, since he was quoting from the Greek text of the LXX (Septuagint), which was the dominant Greek text in Jewish circles in that time. You simply don’t accuse someone of changing the text when he quotes from a translation, in this case, the dominant Jewish translation of the day. And third, look at the preceding verse that doesn’t make any sense if he wanted to “get rid of Israel”: “For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:”
Since the New Testament gets accused of changing texts to fit it’s agenda all the time, why didn’t the author of Hebrews come up with the idea of just chopping the verse in half and leaving out all the offending references? The author could have easily done that, but he didn’t because there was no “offensive part”.
And of course I am aware of the stories that the LXX has been manipulated by the church. This is something that Tovia Singer claims in a few lectures. But it would be hard to believe that the authors of the New Testament would have quoted from a LXX that didn’t say what they claimed it said. It doesn’t make sense to claim that the LXX says something that it doesn’t, especially when people could verify it. Most Jews spoke Greek so therefore it would be really silly to think that you would deceive those people you wanted to reach by manipulating a text they were familiar with. And the story that it was only the Torah that was translated by the 72 rabbis and not the Prophets and the Writings, so, therefore, only the translation of the Torah is to be considered valid. Again, we need to ask; why would people not only read from the Torah translation of the LXX in the synagogues, but also from the Prophets and Writings if those translations were considered inaccurate and misleading?
Obviously people recognized the entire Tanakh translation in those days as an accurate and authoritative Greek translation. This actually shows us the exact opposite of what the anti-missionaries claim.
Am I right in saying the Jesus primarily quoted the Septuagint (Greek translation) of the Tanakh?
And wasn't the Septuagint written because Hebrew was no longer the lingua franca of the day? The Septuagint was written by Rabbis to make the Hebrew scriptures available to the Jewish community in Egypt and the Greek-speaking world after Alexander the Great's conquests.
What version of the Hebrew language Tanakh (if any) does Rabbi Singer use? He has never stated.
@@andyfairchild The Septuagint was translated in the third and second centuries BC in Alexandria, Egypt. As Israel was under the authority of Greece for several centuries, the Greek language became more and more common. By the second and first centuries BC, most people in Israel spoke Greek as their primary language. That is why the effort was made to translate the Hebrew Bible into Greek - so that those who did not understand Hebrew could have the Scriptures in a language they could understand. The Septuagint represents the first major effort at translating a significant religious text from one language into another.
Hebrew ceased to be a spoken language as early as the exilic or post-exilic period (cf. Nehemiah 13:24), and Aramaic became the lingua franca of the Jewish people. With the rise of Alexander the Great and the Greek empires, the Jews in the diaspora were Hellenized, and for some Jews, especially those living in Ptolemaic Egypt, Greek became the primary language. Thus, it became necessary for the Scriptures to be translated into Greek.
I'm not certain if Jesus primarily quoted the Septuagint, but in comparing the New Testament quotations of the Hebrew Bible, it is clear that the Septuagint was often used. Many of the New Testament quotes from the Hebrew Bible are taken from the Septuagint. This is the result of the fact that by the late first century BC, and especially the first century AD, the Septuagint had “replaced” the Hebrew Bible as the Scriptures most people used. Since most people spoke and read Greek as their primary language, and the Greek authorities strongly encouraged the use of Greek, the Septuagint became much more common than the Hebrew Old Testament.
As faithful as the Septuagint translators strove to be in accurately rendering the Hebrew text into Greek, some translational differences arose. But the fact that the apostles and New Testament authors felt comfortable, under the direction of the Holy Spirit, in using the Septuagint should give us assurance that a translation of the original languages of the Bible is still the authoritative Word of God.
I wish I could tell you which version of the Tanakh Tovia Singer is using, but I honestly have no idea. I looked up some of the passages Tovia showes in his videos on the screen and came to the conclusion that he uses various translations.
@@LeonKerkdijk Who wrote the Book of Hebrews? We know it wasn't Paul so then who was it?
@@davidkatz341 Theologically speaking, scholars generally regard the book of Hebrews to be second in importance only to Paul’s letter to the Romans in the New Testament. No other book so eloquently defines Christ as high priest of Christianity, superior to the Aaronic priesthood, and the fulfillment of the Law and the Prophets. This book presents Christ as the Author and Perfecter of our faith (Hebrews 12:2). However, both the authorship and audience are in question.
The title “To the Hebrews,” which appears in the earliest known copy of the epistle, is not a part of the original manuscript. There is no salutation; the letter simply begins with the assertion that Jesus, the Son of God, has appeared, atoned for our sins, and is now seated at the right hand of God in heaven (Hebrews 1:1-4).
The letter closes with the words “Grace be with you all” (Hebrews 13:25), which is the same closing found in each of Paul’s known letters (see Romans 16:20; 1 Corinthians 16:23; 2 Corinthians 13:14; Galatians 6:18; Ephesians 6:24; Philippians 4:23; Colossians 4:18; 1 Thessalonians 5:28; 2 Thessalonians 3:18; 1 Timothy 6:21; 2 Timothy 4:22; Titus 3:15; and Philemon 25). However, it should be noted that Peter (1 Peter 5:14; 2 Peter 3:18) used similar - though not identical - closings. It is possible that it was simply customary to close letters like this with the words “Grace be with you all” during this time period.
Church tradition teaches that Paul wrote the book of Hebrews, and until the 1800s that issue was closed. However, though a vast majority of Christians scholar still believe Paul wrote the book, there are some tempting reasons to think otherwise.
First and foremost is the lack of a salutation. Some sort of personal salutation from Paul appears in all of his letters. So it would seem that writing anonymously is not his usual method; therefore, the reasoning goes, Hebrews cannot be one of his letters. Second, the overall composition and style is of a person who is a very sophisticated writer. Even though he was certainly a sophisticated communicator, Paul stated that he purposely did not speak with a commanding vocabulary (1 Corinthians 1:17; 2:1; 2 Corinthians 11:6).
The book of Hebrews quotes extensively from the Old Testament. Paul, as a Pharisee, would have been familiar with the Scripture in its original Hebrew language. In other letters, Paul either quotes the Masoretic Text (the original Hebrew) or paraphrases it. However, all of the quotes in this epistle are taken out of the Septuagint (the Greek Old Testament), which is inconsistent with Paul’s usage. Finally, Paul was an apostle who claimed to receive his revelations directly from the Lord Jesus (1 Corinthians 11:23; Galatians 1:12). The writer of Hebrews specifically says that he was taught by an apostle (Hebrews 2:3).
If Paul didn’t write the letter, who did? The most plausible suggestion is that this was actually a sermon Paul gave and it was transcribed later by Luke, a person who would have had the command of the Greek language that the writer shows. Barnabas is another likely prospect, since he was a Levite and would have been speaking on a subject that he knew much about. Martin Luther suggested Apollos, since he would have had the education the writer of this letter must have had. Priscilla and Clement of Rome have been suggested by other scholars.
However, there is still much evidence that Paul wrote the letter. The most compelling comes from Scripture itself. Remember that Peter wrote to the Hebrews (that is, the Jews; see Galatians 2:7, 9 and 1 Peter 1:1). Peter wrote, “Just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him” (2 Peter 3:15). In that last verse, Peter is confirming that Paul had also written a letter to the Hebrews!
The theology presented in Hebrews is consistent with Paul’s. Paul was a proponent of salvation by faith alone (Ephesians 2:8, 9), and that message is strongly communicated in this epistle (Hebrews 4:2, 6:12, 10:19-22, 10:37-39, and 11:1-40), indicating that either Paul wrote the epistle or the writer was trained by Paul. Although it is a small detail, this epistle makes mention of Timothy (Hebrews 13:23), and Paul is the only apostle known to have ever done that in any letter.
So, who actually wrote Hebrews? The letter fills a needed space in Scripture and both outlines our faith and defines faith itself in the same way that Romans defines the tenets of Christian living. It closes the chapters of faith alone and serves as a prelude to the chapters on good works built on a foundation of faith in God. In short, this book belongs in the Bible. Therefore, its human author is unimportant. What is important is to treat the book as inspired Scripture as defined in 2 Timothy 3:16-17. The Holy Spirit was the divine author of Hebrews and of all Scripture, even though we don’t know who put the physical pen to the physical paper and traced the words.
@@andyfairchild He uses the Masoretic Text. The 70 was written centuries before Yeshua and comprised only The Mosaic Torah, and it no longer exists. The Greek Bible is a hit and miss affair of integral and corrupt sources. For instance if you are serious about Daniel in the context of Mark you will go to Theodotian, not the Greek bibles (see Jeff Cate; essay from the 2017 Birmingham Colloquium, if you ask him nicely he will probably e-mail you a copy). If you want to debate serious students and scholars then start researching things for yourself instead of parroting your popes.
You meant warning people against false prophets!
Nothing Jesus said came true!
Nothing changes with a renewed covenant! We don’t have this covenant yet, because we are still teaching you to know our Creator!
You will be out of a job when our renewed covenant takes effect!
Correct, whoever wrote the book of Hebrews lied!
Teaching what? The Temple is gone and the Old Covenant is broken and no longer in existence, So what exactly are you teaching? The Israelites ripped up the Mosaic covenant and G-d said "Fine, I'll bring in a New One." And He did. The New Covenant is in Yeshua.
You can dream all you want. It doesn't stop the fact that Jesus died on the cross for our sins; that Jesus is our Messiah and Savior - Glory to His Name.
What you're saying is: The Old is gone, the New hasn't come, so I'll listen to Rabbi Singer.
@
Stop deceiving people like Jesus tried!
The Law doesn’t change, neither does His promises! The only difference with our new promise is that the Torah will be written on our hearts and we won’t have to teach you to know Him!
Your abominable child sacrifice can’t save you! Believing in that paganism only makes you complicit in murder!
Jeremiah 31:30-34
“But every one shall die for his own iniquity: every man that eateth the sour grape, his teeth shall be set on edge. [31] Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: [32] Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD: [33] But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. [34] And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.”
There is nothing “old” about any of His promises!
Isaiah 40:8
“The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever.”
@
I still have His perfect Law, in my Bible, fully intact, it’s not “ripped up” at all!
That’s just your deceptive unsupported opinion!
Our Creator doesn’t change!
Isaiah 40:8
“The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever.”
If you read the whole Scripture instead of the partial Scripture, that Paul chopped up, it says that His Torah will be written on our hearts! The Law doesn’t change, only our hearts are changed! We will abhor the thought of sinning!
Jeremiah 31:30-34
“But every one shall die for his own iniquity: every man that eateth the sour grape, his teeth shall be set on edge. [31] Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: [32] Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD: [33] But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. [34] And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.”
The pagan belief of a dying man/god is not supported by the Scriptures!
It says here in Jeremiah that everyone will die for their own iniquity!
The abominable sacrifice that you believe in only makes you complicit in murder!
@@andyfairchild Show your proofs for these claims from The Tanakh.
It's a perfectly reasonable request.
@@nickmansfield1 For what claims? I'd be happy to respond. What specific claim are you suggesting?
Yes Tovia is deceptive...may be he doesn't realize he is deceptive?...😅😂...nope
@@johnbear6145 Being deceptive in the promotion of one's beliefs, and being deceived about what one believes are 2 different things.
@andyfairchild yes both connected to a lie
I've seen Tovia pretend to not know about "prophetic tense" to argue that verse cannot be a prophecy because it's in the past tense. Either he's deceptive, or he's an incompetent scholar
@@houstoneuler
Lol, you can’t turn past events into future prophecy!
We use past, present or future tense for a reason! There are no mistakes in the Scriptures!
@@acesdraincleaning1919 i didn't say that, tovia was saying a passage could not be a prophecy because the passage was written in the past tense, even though passages he accepts as prophecies are written in past tense because of using the prophetic tense - that they are so certain to come to pass that they're written as if they had already happened
Rabbi Singer and you all tell nonsense ✌️✌️
He's actually a very learned guy, God told me this, and when he's not busy hiding things one can learn much from him.
@nickmansfield1 there are more smart people who can prove that God does not exist.
don't hide and seek either
You meant warning people against false prophets!
Nothing Jesus said came true!
Nothing changes with a renewed covenant! We don’t have this covenant yet, because we are still teaching you to know our Creator!
You will be out of a job when our renewed covenant takes effect!
Correct, whoever wrote the book of Hebrews lied!