So I just got done talking to an Orthodox Jewish guy that I speak to regularly. I hesitate to call him a "friend" because I know how he feels about Gentiles in general and more specifically Christians. Nevertheless, we have had some interesting conversations in the past.
Having said that, I would define this as perhaps one of the most fruitless exchanges we have had to date. Let me lay the foundation for you before speaking about this particular conversation. A few weeks ago this guy made a claim to the effect that the New Testament was false and contradicted itself, blah, blah, blah... Same stuff I always hear from Jewish anti-missionaries. So of course in turn I replied that the NT was historically accurate and a reliable doctrine. I told him that if he held the Tanach (Hebrew scriptures) to the same standard that he held the NT to, then he would have to conclude the Tanach was false as well.
This sparked a lengthy email exchange where he made points like he knew the Tanach was true because of the eyewitness testimony of the 5 million+ Jews who were there. When I pointed out that no such testimony exists he claimed that it had been passed to him via tradition from his father, and his father before him, etc... So of course I stated that the NT is based on eyewitness testimony, Matthew, John, James, Peter, Jude and Paul all having been eyewitnesses of the resurrected Christ, as well as Luke interviewing eyewitnesses and researching their claims along with traveling alongside Paul. Mark was a companion of Peter so he had direct access to an Apostolic eyewitness.
Well this was not good enough for him because there are people who contradict their testimonies and the testimonies themselves contradict each other. When I pointed out that there are people who contradict his "eyewitness" testimony and that his "eyewitness" testimony contradicts itself (via the Talmud) he simply wrote that off as false. In fact he went so far as to play the ad populum game. Because he allegedly had 5 million eyewitnesses, that trumps my 5 (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul *an error I pointed out in that there were more than 5 eyewitnesses who wrote*). I then pointed out that he really only had 1 eyewitness of the exodus and Sinai in Moses, maybe 2 if we include Joshua. He wrote that off as well.
Certainly he cannot claim eyewitness testimony for the creation, fall of Adam, flood of Noah, birth of Esau and Jacob, etc... seeing as how the nation of Israel that he claims as his 5 million eyewitnesses were not even in existence yet. But he had no problems with this.
Then came the claim that I could not use the textual accuracy and reliability of the NT as a proof that the NT is reliable and true because a text cannot verify itself, (now get this) EXCEPT in RARE CASES! Guess what one of these "rare cases" just happened to be? You got it... the Tanach! He then cites a verse from Leviticus 25 about a man receiving enough grain for three years if he asks in the Sabbatical year what they will eat in the 7th year. He claims that the Torah backs itself into a corner here and proves itself to be true because anyone who asks this question would have been provided for and if they were not then we know the Torah was lying. He then cites an example from the NT about having faith and moving mountains saying that there is no real verification in this because if a person doesn't move a mountain he can always claim to have not had enough faith, therefore there is an "out" as he put it. The problem with this argument which I pointed out to him is that there IS an "out" to the Leviticus passage and that is the condidtion set forth in the verses preceding it (Lev. 25:17-19). Basically obedience was required for God to provide during the Sabbatical year. So if one asks the question and is not provided for than we can always say they were disobedient. Of course he rejected this as well.
Then there were the annoying claims that secular historians didn't agree with the NT. I provided numerous sources that corroborated people and events from the NT. He dismissed these because there are other accounts that disagree with them. I pointed out that there is no secular history to corroborate anything that Moses wrote, none! He dismissed this and said he had eyewitness testimony.
He cited ridiculous mythical claims about Jesus being the son of a Roman soldier and when pointed to Jewish sources that said this was not true he dismissed them as being written by people who didn't know about Judaism. I directed him to the writings of Dr. Michael Brown in his 3 (soon to be 5) volume work, "Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus." He claims to own all three but only had read the first 81 pages of the first book before deciding that Dr. Brown was an "idiot" who "knew nothing about Judaism." This is what was a main topic of conversation today although he kept attempting to change the subject.
Anyway, today he claimed that Dr. Brown was an idiot who knew nothing about Judaism. I pointed out that this is demonstrably false seeing that Dr. Brown is a credentialed scholar who holds a PhD from New York University in Near Eastern Languages and Semitics. He is recognized by both his peers and anti-missionaries as a scholar. He is a Jew by birth and well versed in the Rabbinic literature of Orthodox Judaism. This was dismissed and he kept incessantly asking which orthodox rabbi accredited Dr. Brown. I explained to him that scholarship is not determined by orthodox rabbis, but rather by credentialed institutions. His claim was that to be a scholar of Judaism you had to be accredited by a rabbi and those guys at NYU probably didn't know enough about Judaism to accredit him either. So now you see the mentality I was dealing with. To draw an analogy, asking an Orthodox Jewish Rabbi to accredit (and by the way as far as scholarship goes they have no right in and of themselves to give such accredidation) a Messianic Jewish believer is like asking an atheistic science journal to publish an article written by a scientist who holds to a literal 6 day creation. It would never happen! I wonder if he would object if I claimed that unless and Islamic Imam accredited Rabbi Moses Maimonides then he was no scholar of Judaism. Of course he would, but we see the double standard that is being applied here.
He kept insisting that Dr. Brown's arguments were stupid and easily diffused, yet when asked to refute them he could not. In fact he showed no knowledge of any of Dr. Brown's arguments to even hold an opinion about them. He kept insisting that no orthodox rabbi would call Dr. Brown a scholar. I then listed 4 who not only will, but have in the past done so, those being: Rabbi Shmuley Boteach, Rabbi Tovia Singer, Rabbi Dr. David Blumofe, and finally Rabbi Dr. Immanuel Schochet. All four men have debated Dr. Brown in the past and although they disagree with him, they never questioned his credentials. So then because he saw that he was wrong he demanded the locations of these rabbis so he could contact them. Of course I don't know the men personally nor do I have any clue as to where they live. Such a request is ridiculous, but it was made in an attempt to say that if I couldn't provide this info then these men were not real rabbis. Once again, you see the mentality I was dealing with.
The red herrings started and he began asking me what the first commandment in the Bible is claiming that any 6 year Jewish child knows this. I pointed out that it was irrelevant and a red herring so I didn't answer. He then says I don't have enough knowledge about Judaism to know anything about it or challenge him on any issue. Once again ridiculous and illogical. I then asked him if he felt he knew enough about Christianity to challenge me and his reply was that he didn't have to know about Christianity to know that Jesus was a false prophet and not the Messiah. Once again we see the double standard in action...
This is just a small sampling of the illogical and irrational arguments that I had to deal with. There is so much more that I can't cram into a little blog, but I would love to address it all. The bottom line is this... If the Tanach and Talmud were held to the same standard as the NT was then they would be rejected by Jewish anti-missionaries as well.
To be continued...
