a letter to address the issues Jews have to reject our Messiah

Rather than explain the 3 hour conversation we had with our friend, I wrote down most of his concerns and addressed each one in a letter after the conversation.  If you're interested in this sort of thing and how to share the gospel with the firstborn house of Judah, you can message me and I will explain in further detail, the points they are refusing to accept.  

As I've explained for 6 years now, the main issue as expressed by both the rabbi on the rooftop and our Jewish friend, "Christians have a messiah who made changes and did away with Torah" according to their understanding and what they've been told.  This is the heresy that most of Christianity teaches because of their refusal to reconcile Paul's words.  Paul said no such thing.  He was talking about the traditions and doctrines of men that have been nailed to the cross and his context proves it if people will bother to read it.

If I were you, I would either stop listening to those of us who are trying to get you to see, or.....accept the truth of what the scriptures are actually saying.  Because any other option like listening and then continuing in a false gospel message that does away with Torah allowing you to continue to break God's law (sin) will end very badly for you. (my most loving advice)

Here is the letter:

I wanted to take some time to address each point you made during your explanation of denying Yeshua as Messiah.

As a general overall statement, before addressing each point, I want to say that my understanding of several verses you brought up is that you disagree with the way the New Testament writer used his scriptures (the Tanak) to interpret and how he quoted those scriptures to support the point he was making.  As I showed you with Bret quoting and paraphrasing scripture as well (Jeremiah 31), we wouldn’t necessarily accuse Bret of manipulating the Bible, misusing the Prophet’s writings or out and out lying to us and therefore discount everything Bret said.  So I’m really not sure why we would do this with anyone else either.  If Isaiah quotes Moses (Deuteronomy) and Ezekiel quotes Moses (Deuteronomy) and they don’t quote the verse exactly as Moses wrote it, why is that same exact standard accepted by you but not accepted by you when its someone other than Isaiah or Ezekiel?

I think you would answer that both Isaiah and Ezekiel have a greater standing in the scriptures than Matthew and certainly more than Bret.  But the point here is the measuring tool you are using to accept or reject the premise of the argument by someone is whether or not they have quoted the original verse accurately.  If you’re using that standard to accept doctrinal truth only when it is accurately quoted, then you need to insist on that standard for everyone.  However, if you’ve already accepted the words of the Prophets who have slight variations in what they wrote versus what was originally written in Torah, then it makes no sense why it would bother you for someone else to do it.  I think you and I could both quote scriptures, take some points out that are relative to what we’re saying, use parts of a verse and not the whole and that in itself doesn’t make us liars, deceivers or manipulators of the Bible.

As to the specific issues you brought up, if we can give Matthew some allowances to quote a verse or parts of a verse he feels necessary to make his point (like Isaiah did and like Ezekiel did), then all we need to discuss is whether Matthew’s words themselves contradict or confirm the Prophet he is quoting.

Matt 2:6 says But you, Bethlehem, in the land of Judah, are by no means least among the rulers of Judah.

Bethlehem is in the land of Judah

Bethlehem is not least among the rulers (it is not the smallest)

Micah 5:2 says But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans of Judah……

Bethlehem Ephrathah is in the land of Judah

Bethlehem Ephrathah is small

Both Matthew and Micah said Bethlehem was in Judah.  Matthew presumes Bethlehem is small but not the smallest.  Micah is the one who told him so and that is what he is referring to.  Neither Micah’s words nor Matthew’s words describe Bethlehem as large.  Ephrathah is simply not part of Matthew’s point or he would have included it.  But there is absolutely no contradiction here.

2.  Matt 2:15 says that Hosea’s prophecy is speaking of God’s son.  “Out of Egypt I called my Son” when he (Matthew) is referencing Yeshua’s move to Egypt to flee from Herod.

Hosea 11:1-2 says “When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son.”  Clearly Hosea is speaking about the exodus.

To accuse Matthew of misusing Hosea’s text and therefore manipulating the Bible is just short sighted.  Didn’t Hosea misuse the statement to begin with?  He claimed the statement pertained to a “him” as a singular person instead of “them” as a collective people of Israel who came out of Egypt.  This is done in the Bible all the time and we don’t accuse anybody of manipulation.  As well, is there never a time when a scripture has a double meaning? 

The “son” is mentioned as a specific person (and not a collective group) in Isaiah 7 & 9, Zechariah 12, Daniel 3 & 7 and Psalm 2.  So calling the people of Israel a “son” as well as a specific person a “son” is consistent with the rest of scripture.  I don’t see any manipulation of the text here.  What I read is Matthew’s opinion that Hosea’s prophecy had a double meaning.  If you don’t like Matthew’s opinion, throw out Matthew, not the whole New Testament.

3.  Geneology

If God has a son (as scripture says) and a virgin conceives (whether you agree or not) that virgin would only give her own DNA since the father would not be human.  Therefore, if the father is God, how could you trace geneology back to David except the two ways that the NT does it?  Matthew offers the adoptive father and Luke offers the biological mother.  Her lineage is confirmed in other writings.

Your statement that it is Torah law that the inheritance and geneology pass through the male and not the female is not true.  It may have traditionally been talked about that way but if a man had no sons, his family line did not cease to exist and his relatives were still counted as part of his lineage, even if they were daughters.  This is referenced in Torah with the tribe of Manasseh.  Your argument presumes a human Messiah through the line of David and that he has not appeared yet.  Tell me how it is possible now to prove anything of the sort!  If you are holding Matthew and Luke to your proof standard (whether you agree or disagree) how is your same standard going to hold up when you finally do think you have your messiah?  Do you honestly think that person could provide a link to King David that could be proven?  No way!  Again, you have a double standard.

As to Paul’s words in 1Timothy, he is certainly not speaking about proving the lineage of the Messiah when he makes his statement.  He is talking about whether a blood connection is important for someone to possess who is accepting the covenant of salvation.  He says there is neither Jew or Gentile but “one new man.”  So your accusation about his words is not valid in the context he used those words.

4.  I believe Matthew was referencing the word for “branch” that he read in the Tanak when he said Yeshua was called a Nazarene.  Although this is right back to the original argument and whether you will allow Matthew’s opinion to be relevant.  If you won’t, then get rid of Matthew, don’t renounce the Messiah because you don’t like the way Matthew connects the dots.

5.  I have no answer at all about Hebrews 10:5 and Ps 40:6.  Nor do I see this as a problem that would result in me throwing out the New Testament.  Frankly, I have not heard one single argument yet that would rise to the level wherein I should deny the man who stepped onto the earth in the first century who did unbelievable miracles, was crucified and rose from the dead.  No discrepancies in the way a scripture is quoted by anyone would ever make me renounce Yeshua.  That would be foolish.  He was documented by others and whether someone wrote something down the way I think they should have or not, does not erase the fact that Yeshua lived.  Why do I care how Matthew quoted a verse as long as Matthew is not changing, adding to or taking away from the Torah?

6.  Heb 9:22 says “without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.”

Lev 17:11 says “For the life of a creature is in the blood, and I have given it to you to make atonement for yourselves on the altar; it is the blood that makes atonement for one’s life.”

I’m not sure what you are disagreeing with here.  As we talked about, for thousands of years, an animal was sacrificed by the shedding of blood on behalf of the sin of another.  Even when a grain offering was given by a poor person, it was placed on top of someone else’s blood offering, still allowing that person to participate in the sacrifice of blood regardless of their financial ability.

If killing animals to sprinkle their blood was not required and atonement could be granted another way, then why in the world did millions upon millions of animals have to die?  This whole system tells us something.  It tells us exactly what Leviticus says and what the writer of Hebrews confirms……blood is required.  It also tells us that a substitute dies rather than the guilty party.  If we don’t see these two things, we’re simply in denial for a biased reason.

7.  Daniel 9:26 is about an anointed one (not a wicked one….hence the word “messiah”) who gets destroyed while the temple was still in place.  This is confirmed in Daniel 2:44 as well when this kingdom began “during the time of those kings”, specifically the Roman empire, the fourth beast.  There are many more connections to this person.  He is described in Daniel 7, Psalm 2 and Zechariah 12.  He is not a wicked person.  The text is clear and concise and has many clues in the details that link it to the other texts I just shared.  Those connections are too lengthy to write about here but I can provide them in another conversation.

We haven’t even attempted to discuss all the other prophecies that Yeshua fulfilled.  He was born in Bethlehem, to an alma, which in the first century, meant “virgin.”  If we deny this, then we need to ask why this Hebrew word is treated differently than others with a closed mem and why Matthew would have read Isaiah’s writings and immediately concluded that Mary was a virgin.  Yeshua rode in on a donkey exactly as prophesied and was traded for 30 pieces of silver by his own brothers as pictured in the story of Joseph.  He was beaten as prophesied, didn’t open his mouth, his bones weren’t broken, he was given vinegar to drink, beard pulled out, etc., etc., all according to the clues in the text.  If you have an agenda to make up a story about a guy that might fulfill all these prophecies, you’re just kidding yourself that you could pull it off and find someone who could even came close.  There are corroborating and confirming facts in historical accounts that don’t have any kind of motivation to prove or disprove this story.  This is undeniable.  So to try to convince yourself or others that someone made up this story or many someones got together, agreed to deceive everyone with a fictitious story and then wrote different accounts of the story is simply another biased redirection ignoring the facts.  It is more probable that all those who deny Yeshua as Messiah are unwilling to see the connections rather than the connections not existing in the text itself.

Lastly, I will re-interject one important truth for all of us.  If we are walking in willfull sin, ignoring YHVH’s warnings throughout the scriptures of the very law we willingly break every single day (2nd and 3rd commandments), there is no way we are hearing from YHVH on any issue.  There is no subject matter we could understand and be taught from scripture because we are blind and confused.  Our prayers are not heard.  We don’t have a relationship with the Father at all.  So discussing these details would be like discussing them with someone who has no ability to discern.  This holds true for you and it certainly holds true for me.  If I chose to break the law every single day several times a day, I have no relationship with God, no ability to hear His voice and certainly no salvation to look forward to.  We must repent first.  We must get our life in line with what we’re reading before YHVH will impart wisdom and understanding. 

It is best to start at the most basic level.  Read Torah and align our life with what we’re reading.  Do not add to it any laws and do not take away any laws from it.  Do not follow laws outside of what God said and do not accuse Moses of deceiving the whole world by NOT writing it down.  Either he was truthful and obedient and wrote it down like he was told or he was not and we might as well throw out Moses.  There can be no middle ground here. 

Yehudah, the most loving thing you could do for me is to tell me my sin so that I may repent.  My fear is directed toward a Holy God who requires me to obey Him.  He is not ambiguous on this point nor is He tolerant of willful disobedience.  I appreciate the voice of others in my life even if it doesn’t feel good in the moment.  I would rather suffer some uncomfortable conversations now than stand in front of my Father and be condemned because I paid no attention to His commands.  I hope you feel the same way.

Respectfully and truthfully,