Rabbi Singer Exposes Paul: The Man Who Invented Christianity!

Is there in your mind is there a chance that they invented this character as a suffering dying messiah type figure [music] a part of a fringe maybe Jewish kind of movement um that invented him using scripture and there never really was a guy and that in my view is the most compelling reason to believe that there is a historical figure that is from Nazareth and [music] Bethlehem was a later thought and only emerges in Matthew and Luke both written probably in the mid [music] to late 80s. The the the questions that non-believers have for believers are good questions. [music] They're thoughtful questions. They demand a serious answer. However, I think that people who are not believers should not give up on those [music] really good questions for saying why no there's no Moses. How could you know there's no Moses? Welcome back to Myth Vision, Rabbi Tovia Singer. >> Hey, great to join you, Derek. Great to be back. >> Yeah, welcome back. Welcome back. I I it's been long overdue and I think um it's time that we hit this topic again, but obviously we'll hit it from different angles and so I appreciate your time, of course. Thank you for coming back. Great to be here. Great to be here. >> Absolutely. >> I got some questions. Now, look, ladies and gentlemen, if you're watching, we're not going to keep Rabbi for too too long. Okay? To sing Singer can only stand me for so long before he has to go. We talked about this before the show. He said, "I I can't I can't put up with you, but only for so long." Um, so we're going to take your Q&A as much as we can. I'm going to get some questions out of the way with him, and then we'll take some questions from you, and then he has to go. Is that okay with you, Tubby? >> Absolutely. That's great. >> Excellent. So, I have some questions that uh I'd like to to dive into with you specifically about the New Testament. You've been doing um I would say anti-Christian apologetics for quite some time time with Christian missionaries. You've been listening to u the apologists for many years. In fact, I remember watching you when I was a teenage fundamentalist. Um what was it? line of Fire Lee Strobble was hosting and you were going against the Trinity and I was like, "Dude, this guy's >> It was shocking they even allowed that to air and I was blown away." So, you've been doing this for some time. What are what's the single biggest misunderstanding Christians have about how Jews read their own scriptures or read their own scriptures? Maybe read as in how they read them, but also read, >> right? So, Jewish people view any theological claim in light of the Hebrew Bible. When I say Jewish people, I don't mean the our friend from the senator from Vermont. I I mean that Jewish scholars are always assessing any claim in light of the Hebrew Bible. And the core tenants of the Christian faith are not compatible with books like Isaiah as an example. And I'm speaking about chapters that are um that are unique, that are clearly messianic, that what comes into view is a time when the children of Israel return back to the land of Israel. Jerusalem is restored in our hands and then um the there's a war Ezekiel 38-39 with Persia. That has to happen. And then there'll be the knowledge of God covers the world as a water covers sea. a worldwide knowledge of God, a universal peace on earth will nation will not lift up sword against nation, neither will they learn of war anymore. Isaiah chapter 2 verse 3 and 4 is so important and so epic even the United Nations had the brains to put it up on uh across the street on 42nd Street and 1st Avenue. That that passage does not appear in the Christian Bible although everyone knows it's messianic. the in gather of the exiles, the restoration of the Jews to their land. Isaiah 43:2 345 and so on. Ezekiel 37. Uh the building of a temple that's critical on the temple mount in Jerusalem once the Jews are return. That's Ezekiel the last three passages of Ezekiel 37 and Ezekiel 41-47. So when we examine the first century, the let's say the first 30 years of the first century, we don't find any of this. In fact, it's not that Jesus didn't do it yet and he's going to do it. It's the very opposite occurred. Meaning, there wasn't a world peace in the first century. On the contrary, there was war and it was during the golden age of the Roman Empire and the Jews went to war with Rome. It didn't turn out very well. Um there wasn't a temple built during the first century, but rather one that was destroyed in the culmination of the great war that ended in on the ninth day of the fifth month in the year 70. Uh there wasn't the universal knowledge of God during the first century. Quite the contrary, because of the wars with the empire and the the undoing, not just a building a temple, but the entire Jewish commonwealth in Jerusalem was shattered. the knowledge of God and the commitment to observance uh uh was dramatically weakened. There wasn't a resurrection of the dead. Well, that's pretty clear in Tanakh. In fact, many Jews, tens of thousands, died in those wars with Rome. So, if you wanted to know what the Messiah is supposed to do, um why don't you look at the first third of the first century and just invert it? It's the polar opposite. It it's um it's you could it's the reciprocal of it. So this is not like a complicated issue. Now it is true that if you and I wanted to start a religion and we didn't accomplish anything, you would have to somehow come up with the idea of a second coming. You would have to all the religions do that that it's got to be a second coming. The of course that's not compatible. It's not and moreover it suffers from the fallacy of unfalsifiability. It it it can't be tested in any way then anybody could be the messiah and then if we can use that kind of if there is that kind of elasticity why do fundamentalist Christians then reject the the church of Jesus Christ and Latter-day Saints the Mormons they Protestants reject the Roman Catholic Church. Their chief argument is that these people didn't do what they're supposed to do with the papacy is there. But Catholics have their verse and they say it's going to happen. So they're using a religious methodology to to reject Islam and other religions, but they won't apply it to themselves. That's the real problem. The the core principles of the Christian religion are not compatible with Tanakh. Full stop. >> There's so much there. Look, I'm cutting ahead to some of my questions because I wanted to bring up a different approach with you um that deals with the question of historicity of Jesus. There's been a big question we've been asking on myth vision for a long time and different scholars have had different takes. Most the scholars in as you know consensus think there was some dude okay I'm just going to use the term a guy existed but around him enveloped mythology and legend and all of this literary embellishments and they invented a character um in in some sense you could say they're kind of mythicist because they say hey a lot of this never happened about the guy but then you have full-blown mythicists who think there was never a Jesus at all and I wanted to make this a two-prong kind of question that is we know that they're using scripture. you would call abusing. Uh maybe you might use the term they're abusing scripture, but is there in your mind is there a chance that they invented this character as a suffering, dying messiah type figure, a part of a fringe maybe Jewish kind of movement um that invented him using scripture and there never really was a guy, >> right? So let's let's do a check here sound check in that we're in the humanities right now. We are not navigating hard sciences means there's no way to replicate what happened. So all we could say is that we feel more confident in one position than another. So I would say that there are reasons to think that it is more likely that there was a person and then all the mythology was created around it. And we could see that trajectory of mythology. Uh Paul's letters of the earliest surviving Christian literature and then Mark uh earliest to the surviving gospel and then the Matthew Luke and so on. And we could see that just if we just go from Mark to Matthew Luke probably a decade apart we could see that trajectory. Mark doesn't have a virgin birth, no infancy narrative and no resurrection accounts in the real Mark which ends at verse 8, the last 12 verses or later. And then we see this expansion in Matthew and Luke. So that kind of expansion points to something that probably was a real person. And moreover, here's why I think it is more likely there was someone there who came from Nazareth in that if Jesus never existed, if there was nothing like it, he's a composite personality just so then why do you need Nazareth? meaning if you want him to be born in Bethlehem as Matthew and Luke do and there's a very good reason you'd want to do that because after all Bethlehem is the birthplace of King David uh 1st Samuel 17. So we would want to place him in Bethlehem the city of David and they do so there's not so why have this convoluted this this torturous narrative? Matthew and Luke use a different plot device. They're not different. They're completely opposite, but they're all trying to in two entirely different ways. Matthew and Luke are independently coming up with a plot device to get Jesus born in Bethlehem, but somehow he grows up in Nazareth. Why? Why do you need Nazareth if Nazareth if he never existed? If he's Casper the friendly ghost, then why just have him grow up in Bethlehem? In that Matthew, Luke are stuck with Nazareth. And after all, when we when people speak about Jesus, they never say Jesus of Bethlehem. We never hear that. It's always Jesus of Nazareth. So therefore, what when I say certainly, I mean morally certain, episteologically uh certain. I mean, they're going to be certain of anything, but I feel what likely happened. There's someone from Nazareth in the upper Galilee. And then each Matthew and Luke using a different source are then creating a story where well according to Luke the family is originally from Nazareth. They have to go to Bethlehem for a census and then return back. Matthew revers it. The family's from Bethlehem and go down to Egypt then wind to Nazareth. Both of them that's why it's important. The contradiction in my view between Matthew and Luke on this infancy narrative points in one direction. It is compatible with the historical figure that actually does come from Nazareth and Matthew and Luke each independently come up with the plot device where the where the family winds up in Nazareth either Matthew's way the M source or the L source and that in my view is the most compelling reason to believe that there is a historical figure that is from Nazareth and Bethlehem was a later thought and only emerges in Matthew and Luke both written probably in the mid to late 80s. >> Okay, if I could follow up and press a little more just to get people to hear the interaction. Suppose suppose we could come up with a plausible explanation for Nazareth as a literary device by Mark somehow. Okay. Um and we go back to Paul. Paul talks about Christ died and was raised and then he says this odd thing according to the scriptures and that he received his gospel by revelation not from any man. People like Dr. Richard Carrier and others who've looked at this, they think that there's this like visionary experience that this guy's having and he's pretty much putting Jesus together from scripture. So he's like he's kind of like finding secret codes, if you will, from scripture and then pretty much finding this Jesus character as if he is inside of the scriptures in which he says according to the scriptures. Now you and I have talked about this before. There's no text that says like the Messiah will die on the cross, three days later rise from the dead. This kind of thing. Um, so if you were to put a number, a complete subjective number on this, because it's a soft science, like you said, and you tend to lean toward more of an argument of kind of embarrassment slash, how do we deal with this guy? He's kind of getting in the way. Uh, rather than if we made him whole cloth, we'd have just made him this way to begin with. What are the odds in your minds if you were to put a number like where you land on there being a guy versus did they invent this guy using scripture? Because they obviously invented him in many ways. uh that isn't historical according to you and me I would say would you agree with me on that >> my confidence level that there actually was someone is probably somewhere between a seven and eight is fairly high uh because of this the other proofs I think are are not valuable and when it comes to Jesus there is no criteria of embarrassment criteria of embarrassment for our viewers is the most rigorous methodology to know if anything happened historically so So let me just give so the viewers understand what you said because it's extremely valuable. Uh let me give you an example of something that we could say with virtual certainty happened that Paul fought with Peter that Paul did not get along with Barnabas that he got he couldn't get along with John Mark that he was fighting with his fellow Christians. It is is it's inconceivable that those were made up because they're very embarrassing. So that really works that character and Paul incidentally you alluded to this and Paul saying that what he has directly from Christ he didn't get it by the so-called pillars of the church that's a very important theme so there's no I saying no question we could say with with what's called uh moral certainty that these are this historical but we just don't know what would be embarrassing to just because he didn't write anything we on in contrast Paul we do let's go to 1 Corinthians 15 perhaps the most famous uh chapter of all in all of Paul's letters when Paul says that Jesus rose on according to the scripture he felt confident we talk about comedy he felt confident that his audiences in Corenth would not have access to a Bible they have no way to look it up in fact we you and I navigate in the modern world where in a moment in a split second any viewer could We can go on chat. We can go on an AI program and look anything up. In the ancient world, you didn't even have access to a book. Anything written had to be handwritten. That's what the word manuscript literally means. So they he could make any claim he wants and that's he's claiming he's claiming that Jesus rose according to scripture. Now what he does add in this comes up in his in almost all of his letters and that is that what he has is a personal revelation that came only to him and this solves a mystery that's highly gnostic and that and he says for inance same book 1 Corinthians chap 2 7 and 8 that in fact what he his revelation is a secret no one knew it that's real narcissism and this world is a broken place and he claims in verse seven and 8 he says If the rulers of the generation had had access to his revelation, they would have not killed the Lord of glory. That's the part of the personal revelation. So those are two distinct parts. He's making ambitious claims that aren't there. Fatuous, as you pointed out, but then he's claiming personal revelation. Therefore, his revelation supersedes the claims of other Christians. >> There's so much. My gosh, this is this is I'm already having fun. Um, so when he said when [laughter] he says >> take you a long time to jump in. >> Look, we have we always have fun. Um, >> when he says he died and rose again on the third day according to the scriptures, do you think he's butchering Hosea? I mean, I can find like or Zechariah, do you think he's just like ripping stuff out of context in case someone may have been able to read the scriptures and said, "Dude, you're you're you're completely pulling something out of like kind of like they do the virgin birth, right? We read that and we're like, come on. you guys are clearly inventing here. It doesn't even say virgin. The Greek can give you that, but the Hebrew clearly doesn't give you that. And there's like this butchering of the scriptures. So, do you think he's doing that in this passage? >> Just a footnote here, no one knows what the Greeks said on Isaiah 7:14, even though people say it is, but it's not true. No one has Isaiah 14 in a septuagent that's older than Christianity, >> right? So what Paul is always doing is he's taking something that's real and in fact I want to say this when people lie there's if the lie gains traction there has to be a little bit of truth. There has to be something to it whether it's Candace Owens or Paul it's there's got to be some truth there. uh when when Kenzo always claimed that Israel killed JFK whatever well JFK was a person who was did not appreciate the state of Israel was going to whatever the point is there was something there that she could navigate from Paul is always doing this he's always misquing Hosea 6 is about a frame has nothing to do with rising from the dead uh Paul is marshalling Deuteronomy chapter uh 30 in Romans chapter 10 always is doing this Romans He's misquing text. There is some type of text out there. But again, I want to just say this to the viewer. In order for you to understand the ancient world, the Greco Roman world, you must divorce yourself. The world we occupy where we have access to everything. We could have communities that think for us and go into a world where even the text wasn't accessible. That means there's in Corinth, it's not like Paul's preaching in Jerusalem. He's preaching to people who would have no access to these texts. >> There's um an article right now that was peer- reviewviewed by uh Dr. Carrier since we were on the mythicism topic. And he argues that there's some material that shows in certain Jewish circles, which you can always find all sorts of different ideas among Jews, that there was a suffering um Messiah type idea that may have existed prior to the Christian uh religion. And this can at least it doesn't prove anything mythicism but at least opens the door to saying well if you had a historical guy he might have thought he needed to suffer. But then you also have the other side that says well you could have invented that. And I wanted to ask you uh you know look for example Enoch gets associated with the suffering um servant in one Enoch as well as the son of man. So, they're like starting to like it feels like they're attaching all this mythology and it's hard to like push away the legend or mythology you're finding that they're adding on to characters and find the real dude. And when we talked on the on whatnot, I was like, "Hey, what what can you say you're pretty confident happened?" Or if since you do think there was more likely a guy, I imagine you think he was crucified, but would he have really been crucified on the day in which the gospels say, would it have been the same week? Can we really imagine Jews being overwhelmingly concerned with put him on the cross today or else we're telling Caesar and then turn around and like it's a holy day and then be trying to get him off whether Pontious Pilot would have obeyed that order or not. You see what I'm trying to say? Like what can we be confident about Rabbi? >> Well, there's a problem here and that is we have we have no contemporaneous historians that were not Christian that wrote a word about him. Our earliest our earliest source that we're confident about plenty of the younger that's already early second century the Josephus thing is is corrupt completely corrupted partially almost certainly completely corrupt. So we don't have sources on this. I need to just jump in. Second century Judaism could have looked I'm going to do this. This is totally not correct. But you have in the the United States example many different denominations of the Jewish faith going from orthodox Jews probably most wellknown and I'm going to say this is outrageous. I never said this on air. If I asked you the viewer, what exactly is conservative Judaism or reformed Judaism and how is it different from the other? you'd have a hard time explaining it, right? It wouldn't be that simple, right? Orthodox dream is very easy to define. But there is a denomination in the United States called reconstructionist Judaism. The guy who invented it is was a rabbi, an Orthodox rabbi who went rogue, who just rejected a personal god, rejected theism all together. And the reconstruction movement, I think, has like a 100,000 people follow it. there now there are people who belong to the reconstruction of movement who believe in God that's there personally but the movement doesn't believe in a personal god that hears your prayers so that's what the second century look like I'm using that as a model second had all kinds of ideas and hellenistic ideas so I I just want to point that out and people confuse the messiah son Joseph but now let's get back to the core of your question where I think you were aiming the core of your question is that what h what actually happened so if Jesus was crucified because we have to have a starting point. So that's our axim. He actually was crucified. That means that he was part of an insurrection. The Romans thought he was part of an insurrection. And that any thinking that he would be the Messiah would have been disisconfirmed. And people go, "What happened here?" And we seem to see that in Matthew. People doubted it. There's a problem there. But the key point is if someone then said, "Well, Jesus then appeared to me like Mary Magdalene who's front and center in the gospels 11 times she's mentioned in the passion narrative only one time in Luke I think chapter 8 right in the beginning where she has seven demons cast out of her. So I think likely is that someone afterwards thought that um that he he appeared to her and then she went and told other people in the ancient world this was norm. That's what I think likely. This is just my thinking likely we the evidence for it is kind of it's compatible with text that we discover. That's all we could say. >> Yeah. And I guess to just hone in on the idea of could there have been an existing trope for a suffering figure and they and they invented that about Jesus. Um you know >> no I don't I don't think that no it's not I'm convinced in the it's entirely the opposite direction. What happens is tons of people suffering in the first century and people killed. This is wars with Rome. People know about the big ones. There are little ones. Every kind of war. So what happens is that there is a I need to say this. It'll take 20 seconds. There is a con that before the Messiah comes there's going to be a tremendous trauma with one person or many people are killed. Uh many people believe October 7th was that day. It doesn't matter if you think that or not, but it's in Zechariah 12. So what happens is he dies and no one expects him to die and then later on people then apply that idea that people uh are mourning and that triggers repentance which triggers the coming of the Messiah. Then that gets applied to Jesus so that to make sense of what occurred here it's not the other way around. >> Okay. Now, as far as crucifixion, just to answer that question, do you do you believe it sounds shocking to me that they would actually force that on such a day at such a time of the week? Um, do you think that it's probably a different day? I mean, historically speaking, there's so many oddities in the Gospels. Uh, what what are your thoughts about that? >> There's no source for this. I mean, it was a Roman execution, not a Jewish execution. Forget John 19. forget you know Mark 14:15 there in the view of the gospel Jews own this whole thing and they're there at every turn incidentally a point must be made yes >> of the all four gospels portray the Jews as response for Jesus' death however the culpability of the Jews increases as the gospels later as we hit the book of John into the point that in John 19:11 Jesus tells Pontis piled those who gave me over to you there it's their sin is greater um and the culp of the Roman Empire or Pontius Pilate its representative recedes. So when we can say there's a direct trajectory, we could we could see that this is the mythology and reality. So therefore Jews had nothing to do with it. The empire couldn't care less if they were crucifying someone on pastor. It meant nothing to them. Do so if we were to like hypothetically reconstruct Jesus and what happened would you say he attempted to possibly go cleanse the temple if we can grant that historically got captured by soldiers or by Rome itself intervenes because it's a holy week and they're saying hey we're going to this guy's a troublemaker so technically you don't even need the Jews to be actively involved in the trial at all. It literally is just Rome that that said, "Hey, this guy's a troublemaker. We're gonna crucify him and that's it." >> Right? You have to begin with an axiom or postulate or else what am I working from? So, we have to assume we don't have to do this by the way just if you want to do anything. You have to have an assumption and you don't have to buy into this at all. If we accept that Jesus was crucified by the empire, we can reverse engineer that safely in the ancient world, the empire had capital punishment for all sorts of people. Um, but crucifixion, which was the most cruel way to kill anyone, was reserved for people who were guilty of insurrection. It's not just any crime. It was a very complicated way to kill people. It was very costly to the empire. They literally were running out of wood at sometimes. That means the empire wanted to make an example out of you. Get the picture. I mean, I live here in Jerusalem. Imagine walking around Jerusalem where I live and seeing hundreds of people naked for days. Jerusalem's weather is very temperate. You could you could stand up there for days if you want to. It's not like living in Minnesota. And people were people were just saying to themselves, I do not want to wind up there. And therefore, if we begin that Jesus was crucified, that means the Roman Empire had to believe that Jesus was guilty of treasoning, insurrection against the empire. If you begin with that, then somehow Jesus was viewed as someone who was dangerous. I cannot extrapolate from that that Jesus was doing something. It doesn't make sense to me that he was creating a thing in the temple. it it for we do have stuff going on in the temple from very reliable sources on Passover but not that it would have to be the empire would have to be convinced Kim Jong-un would have to be convinced that you were a threat to North Korea it's really comes down to that and then you're welcome to reverse engineer it wouldn't be so much as making a mess at the temple that happened a lot >> okay um I want to shift gears a little off the mythicism to some of the problems you find within the New Testament that are reasons Jews in general um find problems with Jesus and and and believing I don't want to say the person himself. I mean because that's a completely different question from the religion that is in around him. But um you know I I recently was I I did a post of some sort on why I'm not a Christian and like there's an immediate reaction happening right now where if you're critical of Christianity a lot of I want to say this the bottom of the barrel. I did a live stream the other day. You're accused of being a Jew for simply not believing in Christianity and critiquing it. you're not allowed to actively critique it or else you're Jewish. Um, clearly they hate Jews, right? And this has got a long history that goes back to God killers and and uh I mean you see it in the book of Acts. And what I found interesting in our dialogue in the past is how you brought up Matthew in a way I never saw it because most scholars I talked to see the Gospel of Matthew as the most Jewish gospel. Obviously, the the Apocalypse of John would be the probably the most Jewish New Testament text they would argue, but like that Matthew is like pro-Judaism and pro- law- abiding and such. And you're looking at it going, I see huge red flags here, the way that they portray Jews. So, can you tell us some of the reasons why Jews do not accept Jesus or that he's the Messiah and that Christianity is the religion they should follow? >> Right. So, two parts there. Matthew, in my view is with John is the most anti-Jewish of the gospels. Uh, the reason why they think that Matthew's Matthew's pronomine is good reason. That's the sermon on the mount, Matthew 5, the sheep and the goats. There's reason to think that, but that should not be conflated with how Matthew portrays the Jews at every turn. both when Jesus is born in the infanty narrative, it's the Jews and the king of the Jews that are trying to kill the baby Jesus and it's these non-Jews from the east that are worshiping him. That's a setup. And look at Matthew 27. The Jews are saying, "Crucify him." And Pontious Pilot and his wife are going, "He's innocent." His wife makes a cameo, the only cameo in the New Testament. And the Jews then proclaim verse 25, we take his blood upon our ourselves and our children forever. There's there's no even parallel to to that. People are confusing that with the point that Matthew is quoting the Hebrew Bible more frequently than the other gospels, which he does. And Matthew is saying that Jesus is pronomian, which he does, but it has nothing to do with the culpability of the Jewish people. But going back to Jesus being the Messiah, look, we have chap. Let me just make it real easy. >> Yeah. >> Ezek Ezekiel 37 valley dry bones. Like can there be a more simple chapter than that? Well, we have there everything that's supposed to happen in the message. You could read it with no commentary. Just go. It's 28 verses. Ezekiel is very generous in providing saturated information what he means. The the valley of dry bones is the restoration of Israel. Restoration of the Jews to their land. The in gathering of the exiles. Incidentally, half the Jews live in Israel today. Half the known Jews live in Israel and Jerusalem has been restored. Ezekiel 24 and 25 the Messiah is explicitly there and the Jews are keeping all the commandments and 26 27 28 is the temple is built there's world peace and there's um a gathering in it's a covenant of peace so that's all you would have to do that means all I'm asking the viewers to do is to let Ezekiel speak for itself not through Augustine Christoone not through the photos of the church fathers just let it read for itself you don't need a commentary I assure you this and you don't need to read Hebrew pick your translation. It's so it's so easy to see what's supposed to happen and realize that there's nothing going on in a church service, a high lurggical church service or one that's not well structured in the assemblies of God that has anything to do with what we would encounter in Isaiah 11 or Ezekiel 37. We're not anti-Christian. We're just very pro Tanakh. And therefore any idea that's not compatible with it is rejected much in the way Christians reject the claims of of Mormonism because it's not compatible. Same thing, same deal. >> Okay, that makes a lot of sense. So, so how would Christians feel if Mormons really I just want to hypothetically imagine this. They they they end up taking over, right? Mormons become the thing and then Christians are over here going, "Dude, you're not like you're breaking off the beaten path. I mean, you completely went off of the rails of what we've thought." And and it's kind of the same kind of thing is here's a 2.0 completely remaking. are some of the other things you you brought up Ezekiel 37, but some of the other things are like land promises like actual earthly expectations and you see a constant shifting of spiritual and vertical rather than actually down here on on the ground. That that's uh one of the big problems I see on the fulfillment of scripture. Tanakh is saying the following. Whether you're out there and you believe or don't believe, the claim is transparent. The claim of the Hebrew text is the Jews go into exile because of the sense is a horrible long exile. Not we we don't blame the Romans or the Babylonians for it. As far as our literature goes, if the Jews return to the land of Israel and Jerusalem is their hands, that means there is a God and he kept his promise. Full stop. That's how Tanakh speaks. And in fact, Ezekiel 38 and 39, that's the end time war between Israel and Persia is all pivots on that. The whole reason why there's a war at the end of the day between two countries that are separated by a thousand miles, roughly the distance between New York and St. Louis, is so that the world will watch in real time and everyone watching that war, not other wars in North Africa. And when Persia is defeated, then the nation will know that I'm going. So, I just want to make the case of the text. The text is saying openly Ezekiel 39:21 then the nation will see the glory of God when Gog is defeated. Verse 22, Israel will know. Full stop. That's what the text is saying. And I would just say to people whether you're a believer or not a believer, Christian or Muslim or Jewish, let the voice of the prophet speak and then you decide if you're in or out. >> Okay. Okay. I'm I'm going to be we've already got eight eight questions or seven questions and I'll tell you I don't want to let our audience um be hanging and I don't want to keep you forever. I have so many more questions. We have to do this again. I'd like to dive deeper into the text like example by example with you because you cover this in your books. Let's get biblical. But like it'll be really interesting for you to come back on and we do this again sometime in the coming month or so if that if that per if you have time. Um let's start with some super chats if you're okay with that. >> Sure. >> Excellent. All right. Hippie Hermeticist, thank you so much for the super chat and being a member. Um they were just warning you about your microphone. I guess it's better now. So thank you so much. I just want to acknowledge you for that. It is better now. So don't worry about it. Ivy Ann, thank you for the super chat. I really appreciate the support. Love your books. Let's get biblical rabbi singer. So eye openening and I never realized how terrible people like Chris Stumb and Luther were. Horrific writings from them both. Many thanks to you and to you Derek. Thank you. I didn't know if it was a question or not, but I really >> No, I but I want to just as a point. The reason why the Orthodox Church is in so much trouble, it's the second largest Christian denomination. Now, there are many branches. we'll just say orthodox is because they're instructed by the priests to only read the Old Testament through the church fathers. Chrisam was a highly prolific u church father and the other church praise to this guy who's a it's like Nick Fuentes on steroids. He makes Tucker Carlson look like he belongs to I mean he is just incredibly anti-semitic. Just it would shock even the anti-semmites watching me now. They'll go whoa that's too much. You know, if the the that poker player was watching, I forget his name. If an anti-semite was watching it, you would go, "Whoa, that's a little that's a little rough around the edges." Augustine hated Jews and express it in the city of God. So, the Christian world, particularly the apostolic denomination, a lot because they're always reading the Hebrew Bible to the church fathers. I just say to people, uh, don't do that. Read a text and don't allow the church fathers to interfere with that. Anyways, good point. Thank you. >> Yeah. Thank you, Ivy. Uh, great super chat. Thank you so much. I'm going to butcher your name here, my friend. But thank you for the super chat. It's PLR NJT. Why is it so difficult to deconstruct the idea of hell? This is a good question for you because I don't think you believe in hell. I think Sha was the the Hebrew Bible's understanding, but correct me if I'm wrong here, Tovia. Um, why is it so difficult to deconstruct the idea of hell even after knowing that the Christian concept of hell is a barbaric idea? Okay. So I want to push back on everything I just heard. Let's do that. So there's no question idea of all the grave and it's not clear and Tanakh is not using that term in a univocal way. But that there is destruction for the wicked isn't Tanakh. Here is where I want to take a twist with this. Tanakh never threatens the wicked with hell because it's unfalsifiable. It's a very important distinction. Tanakh, you pointed this Derek to there are many threats in Tanakh about if you don't if you're not guarded properly just like your doctor will warn you if you gain weight and drink and smoke your so Tanakh will say to you look if you turn away from him um you're not going to have rain you're going to go to war and your enemies will defeat you. These are highly falsifiable claims that could be tested around the world around Tanakh does not threaten with heaven or hell. Never does that because there's no way to test it. Now our other religions are the competing Abrahamic religions are not only I not only make this claim but this is like front and center. You know this well Derek that if you're a Christian and you leave Christianity the first thing you're going to hear if I'm wrong Derek you've been in this thing tell me I'm wrong. The first argument is gonna be, "But you're going to go to hell." Well, how if I'm right, then don't say anything. So, if that's true, what's going on here? So, that's what Tanakh is allergic to, and you should be allergic to that as well. However, that doesn't mean there isn't a heaven and hell. There is an afterlife. Uh, you want to hold, but there I mean, Hitler is in hell forever. There that those terms are there rarely. There is even an idea that someone before going to heaven, their sins could be after they die. This is in all of Tanakh. There's only one passage that points to this. That's and it's not even a threat. It's Isaiah 22:14. That's it. So, the Hebrew Bible wants to persuade us to live our lives this way. And the Hebrew Bible will simply pull into view those things that you actually have access to. we don't have access to the grave or the other side of the grave. So Tanakh never marshals as a reason why you would reconsider but that doesn't mean that is not the same as saying that the idea of heaven is not real and the resurrection is definitely in Isaiah it's in Daniel and so on. So the resurrection is real also never a threat. So there is an afterlife um very much so and there is punishment for the wicked uh but Tanakh is not interested in it because there's no way for you to assess it. >> Okay. Okay. So would is it safe to say and we move to the next super chat here. Would you say that the interpretation in of heaven and hell is that a uh orthodox Jewish position or like is that what most Jews believe about it? Because most of the scholars I've talked I know that we can get off track here, but most of the scholars I've talked to think shale is the grave and simply that that there wasn't this punishment of hell until you get to of course they date this material later than you would. For example, they think once you get to 3rd and 2 century BC with Daniel because they think Daniel 2nd century BC and I know that you would think it's older. Um, do you think uh most Jews in the various forms of Judaism we have today do believe in a heaven and a hell? >> You mean Jews, you don't mean Norman Finkelestein. That means you right. All right. So, we have >> religious Jews like different we all know. So, no look I I'm sure there are many of our friends who are watching who belong to reform movement. I don't mean anything disparaging at all. But in fact, orthodox Jew, that term is only dates back to the year 1800s. It just means um the same as a Pharisee Jew, religious Jew, all I can't say every Jew, but orthodox Judaism definitely encompasses believing certainly there's an afterlife. It's a very important part of life. It just the threats don't go there. Look, we have an immortal soul. The soul can't be destroyed. However, the body decays in the ground except for the bones. The bones are there for the resurrection. The that there is a resurrection. You don't need Daniel. Um, you can go to texts much older than Daniel by every account. Whether you look at Daniel traditionally as I do or someone who doesn't look at traditionally, Daniel was definitely written after Isaiah. We have the resurrection Isaiah 26:19. You don't that's that's the old Isaiah by every account. So therefore, it's there. But the only thing is it's not exp it's not as a threat and and it's very very important to understand that Tanakh is not interested in threatening with something that you have no access to but it is there. >> Okay. Thank you. Appreciate you elaborating on that. Um Georgie >> may I just for a sec I apologize a second. If the body physically decays in the grave which of course it does. So how could hell be a place where you see things or hear things? Our ears and eyes decay. Of course, it's a metaphysical world. That's all. I want to just add that in, please. Thank you. I'm sorry. >> Okay. Yeah, no problem. Uh, thank you, Georgie, for the super chat. What is Rabbi Tovia's view on biblical scholarship? What does he think about the claim that Moses never existed? >> I think it's silly. Moses's brother was my greatgrandfather. Um, I think that it's a lazy way to be an atheist. I think atheists or people who question the veracity of the Hebrew Bible should engage on its own terms. And I think that people who are not believers are raising very important questions that require answers from scholars. But by saying he never existed, what they're doing is everyone knows you can't prove someone didn't exist. And it is widely known that people like me, I'm a cohane. I can blindly say that you there are I'm making this part up. There are half a million men like me. I don't know that. There could be threequarters of I just don't know. I could you could blindly do a blood test on us and find a Y chromosome. This has been done. So, I think that the the the questions that non-believers have for believers are good questions. They're thoughtful questions. They demand a serious answer. However, I think that people who are not believers should not give up on those really good questions for saying, "Why know there's no Moses?" How could you know there's no Moses? Or, "I know that um Moses as a baby was, you know, in a in the water." Why? Because we have an ancient text that has that applying to someone. Yeah. But that ancient text is much later than the Torah. So, people are It's not fair to do that. That means you have I just want to give you a good argument. Not that argument. A good claim is well we have an ancient text that says that there was this baby who a leader who was saved as if in the water. We do. But how old is the text itself? I don't know 2700 years old. According to tradition, it's 30. The Torah is 3,300 years old. You're claiming a crosspollination in one direction. So I would say why don't we go in two directions? And therefore, I would say that the claim that Moses didn't exist is weakening what would otherwise be a a very important argument that I don't believe in God, which requires to be addressed. I don't believe in the historicity of Torah. Argue that, but don't default to what in my view what is a lazy argument, which says I don't have to even address them because if he didn't exist, then what's the point? >> I see what you mean. Yeah. So technically, one could evaluate this and question someone's existence. But if that's your like, well, I just don't think it existed and that's like your argument that that doesn't really get move the needle. By the way, does this question, if you don't mind me asking, does this question bother you? Uh because I don't want to I don't want to bother you, but I figure I'd ask because I imagine there are other questions that would be more irritating than simply asking whether or not Moses existed. Does this one kind of irritate you? Are you annoyed by this kind of question specifically? >> So that's family, right? So on that case, it's family. [laughter] It's part of a unique uh tribe that I'm a part of. So it doesn't annoy me. It doesn't go like what? But I we all know that you can't know you can't have any confidence of certainty that Moses didn't exist. We know that even now we're not opponents but people who are atheists are not like personally my opponents but even those who have a dramatically different view than mine they can't know it and they would concede they can't know it they can feel a moral confidence that he didn't exist. So when people say that Moses didn't exist and they say it with confidence and sometimes you see people who are scholars um who have the same background who sometimes chuckle why do you need to laugh like I don't when you ask me did Jesus exist I'm obviously not a Christian I'm not a fan of the Christian religion but I say that Jesus probably did exist and I don't laugh so that doing that and like chuckling haha that to me is transparent there's no way any scientist whether religious or not religious could say with confidence I know Moses didn't exist and that's where my disappointment is why you why are you lowering yourself you could do better than saying I know Moses didn't exist don't do that you could you you atheists could ask much better questions or make make better assertion than that one >> thank you appreciate that uh follow-up there hippie hermeticis thank you again my friend rabbi what do you think of theory Robert Eisman's. >> I don't know which theory or what. I I need a lot more information than that. >> Yeah, I I'd have like there's a lot there to try and unpack. Hippie, um >> I don't know if you can help me out here and give me a little more uh to go with because he wrote uh James, the brother of the Lord, and went into like all sorts of stuff. >> That's right. >> Yeah. So, I'll come back and circle back to you, hippie, if I can. please give me a specific because that's like asking Rabbi uh what do you think about Derek's ideas and then Rabbi's like well Derek I'll tell you about Derek I met him in Jerusalem one time and we were talking about uh which you know we did we walked uh the streets of Jerusalem you remember that >> yeah we we had a good time you enjoyed it >> that was a fun time yeah >> yeah that's yeah >> I want to be able to come back there and uh go haggle with the guys on the streets uh making wills and deals they're fun I That was one of my f the bartering was one of the fun parts to me. Um, next super chat. Georgie, thank you again, Georgie, for the super chat. I think that's uh I think that's a I don't know what symbol that is that the shekele symbol. >> I'm not looking the screen so I have no idea. >> It has like a like a >> Oh, I'll look at it now. Yeah. 30 shekels. That's $10. >> Okay. Okay. Okay. >> You're loaded. And so you're done. >> Well, we're ending the show. Have a nice 30 shekels is is 10 bucks. That's good. >> No, thank you. Thank you. What is rabbis view on the idea that Jesus never existed, which we did bring up, but was instead a literary invention created by Jews in order to theologically conquer the Gentiles. So, let me let me since you've already answered that there was a Jesus, let me reword this, okay? Because I want to give Georgie his his full shekels here. And if there was a Jesus, which we're granting based on the argument you're convinced the problem was a guy, do you think there was any theological bend in trying to get the the Gentiles conquered through ideology, uh, through believing and trying to get them to be underneath the Jewish religion? So, they invented some of this stuff in order to do that. They were successful obviously with converting, uh, Gentiles, but what what are your thoughts about that? So, I'm trying to give them something cuz you already said there was a Jesus. Scratch that part of the question. Do you think that there's some literary invention in the religion created by Jews in order to theologically conquer the Gentiles? >> The answer is no. And I can answer why. Jews weren't trying to conquer non-Jews. They were trying to maintain their commonwealth. The second temple didn't work out very well. The [clears throat] Christian Bible has anti-Jewish ideas that are so baked in despite Eisman's view and I have a lot of respect. He's a genuine scholar. U this means you could take the earliest surviving Christian literature which by every account is first Thessalonians might be even 49 where the Jews are held directly accountable for killing Jesus. even they are the Jews who killed the Lord Jesus Christ and the wrong prophets and are contrary to mankind and you can go all the way to I don't know revelation now and and you can go to later texts because it's possible that the pastor though it's likely that the pastoral epistles are second century they're all uh portray the Jews in a very unflattering way so if the Jews tried to invent Christianity they did a terrible job at this moreover I think this is the claim. I'll tell you where this comes from. The person who's asking the question doesn't realize this. So really, this doesn't go to you. There are people who really are not fond of Jews and are anti-Christian that claim that the Jews created Christianity into subjugating the non-Jews. And we really want to control the world. I mean, this is Tucker, Coulson, Canada, the whole thing. There's the whole deal. So they thought this is a an anti-semitic but anti-Christian idea. And then they then the Jews invented Christianity in order to make everyone serve us. And Christianity is just a method of mode of us subordinating the world. That's where this comes from. This is not a young idea. This is a obviously and that's where it comes from. So I would say to you the view whoever wrote that if you don't hold that view understand where it was hatched. But there's no plausible reason to think that way from the text itself. >> If I may add to this, um my understanding is from scholars like Paula Frederickson and others who've written like uh Paul the Pagans Apostle and others that he believes he's at the end of history and therefore part of the scriptures teaches that in the end uh 10 Gentiles will grab the coats of the Jews and tell them to teach them. um that there's this idea that Paul's trying to save Gentiles so that the end happens. In a way, it's almost like uh uh he's trying to cause the end through his ministry of getting non-Jews into the movement uh in his mind somehow. So she she does argue that the mission to the Gentiles was prophetic in his mind and that he's at the edge of history but not through the lens of she doesn't say anything like oh so that Jews can subjugate or conquer. Um, she does mention there are two types of prophetic text that seem to have a negative outlook for many of the nations that obviously have been against Israel and then a positive outlook like there's going to be a utopian kind of society in the end and that kind of way. So Paul's wrestling with both. Like if you deny Christ, he's using those passages she says to say, "Hey, um, you're gonna get destroyed, right? But then if you accept him, oh, you're going to be good." And therefore, he's using or cherrypicking the prophets to his own usage for that redemption plan. But it's not this idea like so that we could subjugate them or uh I guess imprison or enslave them or something like that. I she's a real genius and a genuine New Testament scholar. Um and and what she's saying is very very generous because Paul we actually have what he wrote. Seven of his letters are undoubtedly from his hand and it's possible a few others are as well. It's likely it's possible that others were as well. Paul is always about Paul. Paul I her view is very interesting but it's very generous. Paul is always pivoting against fellow Christians first Galatians 1 and two and that his in contrast to Peter who he confronts to his face he has direct revelation Peter's nothing but a hypocrite I mean there's no chance that was invented that Paul traveled to Arabia why would he go to Arabia because he didn't get it from Jerusalem he says explicitly Paul is very much listen to me I get it directly from Jesus Christ and I would encourage viewers not to read my book anybody's book to actually open Galatians 1 and 2, just do it yourself. You will draw that exact conclusion. Paul is pushing back against the Jerusalem church where you only expect a couple of weeks. That's why Acts has Paul in Jerusalem much more than Paul's own writings with Lex. Paul is pushing back in all this. So, I don't have a positive view of Paul. He's someone who we mentioned earlier in the show did not get along with Barnabas. How do you do that? Like Barnabas is the one that got Paul in in in a a meeting with the Jerusalem church and the cousin Mark. Like why are you fighting with these people? >> Paul is a a difficult personality. We all have someone at in the family who shows up at Thanksgiving and I go, "Oh god, Uncle John is here." Right? I go, "All right, just everybody quiet. Uncle John is here. It's going to rip. just he's going to say crazy stuff about immigrants or whatever. Just just let it go till we get past the turkey. That's what Paul is. Paul is the guy who just sucks the oxygen out of the room. And I ask the viewers just read Galatians 1 and 2. That's indisputed. Just read what he says. It's transparent. >> Thank you so much. By the way, um coming back to hippie hermeticist because I don't want to forget about him. He was talking about the the Essen Nazarene theory. So I off the top of my head, I'm not going to be able to remember exactly, but that was talking about with Robert Eisman's position on the Essen Nazarene theory. I don't know if you would know that off the top of your head. >> No. Eisman is very well known for the Jewish context in which Jesus emerged and he wrote extensively like that. He's a first class scholar. Um theans are an unknown, you know, even the word we're not sure about. Um, Nazareth. Nazareth is a place that archaeologists believe they found it. I have no reason to doubt that, but I'm not familiar with that theory. >> Okay. I am not either off the top of my head. I can't remember. Um, Hippie is back. Thank you so much. Rabbi, does John Hercanis I converting Edom and the later Herodian dynasty play into politics of antiquity? Does it impact rabbitic study today? >> Yeah, he's looked upon. He's in the Makabian dynasty and he forces non-Jews to convert to Judaism. I know people are going what? Well, yeah. So he's looked upon as [snorts] a a loser in Jew because I want to say something I've been thinking about I never said and that is if while I meet many people who convert to Judaism if I were ever to discover someone forced the person to convert Judaism I I can say this on behalf of every Jew it would be I would go what that's horrible that would be so embarrassing to me yet the church did that to us so therefore the way we think is that Judaism is such a great idea. We don't need to use violence to spread the faith of Israel is just appealing if you just look at it. So the notion that someone from an aristocratic family connected with a very important revolt against the Salucian Empire Greece in a epic moment of Kaneka and that someone would emerge from that to force non-Jews to convert Judaism and that is connect to Herod somehow that is just so the consensus among Jews that's just an unbearable event. it happened. Then the question is were those converts to deemed to be Jewish given they were converted by force? So that's the consensus view. That's embarrassing. That's a a failed uh Jewish leader. That's the way the consensus views it. >> Thank you so much. I really appreciate that. I think IvN was timing chiming in said his theory was James as the righteous teacher and Paul the spout of lies in the scrolls. I know that was one of them, but specifically I think what Hippy's point was the Essen Nazarene thing. Um so that's why it was very important to be specific about the question like because he dated uh Eisenman for example um dated the scrolls into the first century roughly around the time of Christian origins with Paul as the spout of lies discussed in the dead sea scrolls instead of this being a hundred years prior which the consensus of scholars think the dead sea scroll material that's talking about the teacher of righteousness and the spout of lies is a whole another Jewish movement that is not related um he interpreted it as Paul as the spout of lies, teacher of righteousness being James. So anyway, uh no comments necessary. >> No comment. It's just I view them as completely disconnected and I don't think there's a single he now he's a great Dead Sea Scroll scholar. I am not but I have never seen something because the claim is fantastic. I just want to make that point and of course you can um make that you what people can make that case but um I think it's a rather fantastic claim to connect the two one can make it and again he's a brilliant Dead Sea Scroll scholar I am not so but I don't think I have never been persuaded there's any text in the Kuman that was written after the first century now there could have been something that was copied over that found itself in Kuman that is was written in the first century but is predates the first century and that is the consensus out there and I think that makes more that makes sense to me. He's a brilliant person so he may be right on this. I'm I'm not um >> well he's outside of consensus. He he's trying to argue that the census is first century BCE whereas he's trying to argue this material might be first century and he is uh in a minority on that particular argument. Um, okay. Moving to the next three here. Then I have to let uh Tovia go because it's late over there. >> You're very funny. Yeah, go ahead. [laughter] >> But no, seriously, I want to have you back. >> We've got to go we've got to go deeper into the weeds about what's going on in and certain examples with you if that's okay. >> Right. >> Um, >> Reels, thank you so much for the super chat. Again, in Romans 4:13, Paul alludes to Genesis 17:4-6 to prove the promise comes through faith and not the law. But it seems he totally leaves out verse 10. Was the promise to Abram contingent upon the law? No. Well, yes. Meaning that Abraham uh God says because he followed all my commandments, therefore he is chosen. This is a highly problematic verse for the church because in what universe could somebody keep the commandments. So the Torah says because Abraham kept all my commands every commanded him. That's why he was chosen. And Abraham on 10 occasions followed the will of God and God deemed him as faithful. This is something very hard for the church to explain. And for viewers who don't understand this, the 32nd version of it is that in standard Christian theology, no person could save themselves. No one could uh that's Romans 3, four, five, six. I mean, that's the original sin. Five, all those texts in Romans are all conveying that no one could be saved by the law. You theoretically could if you can keep the law, you could save yourself, but you can't. And then Paul's going to mess with these texts. But it's very clear that Abraham did. and says so in the text and below it because this Abraham was chosen to be the progenitor of the children of Israel. Thank you so much. Quick question before we leave Paul. We got two super chats remaining um that I see and you know the way you read Paul reminds me of some of the scholarship that was prior to the Paul within Judaism school that started becoming popular within the last 20 30 40 years if you will uh like started becoming more prevalent in the academic arena that I'm interviewing scholars in and still I have like Robert Price come on I have others who still see Paul and It's hard for them to think that this guy's like within Judaism operating and functioning the way, you know, we would expect standard Jews to operate and function. They see him breaking away even though that he's using the language says he was a Pharisee. And I know that you have disputes about that, but like that he's breaking away from the law. like he doesn't see it ultimately as a thing that's going to be important at all for people and may even be doing so for Jews. There's the accusation in Acts that says um you know, hey, we're even being told that you're telling Jews to stop keeping the law and go take this vow and he shaves his head and whatnot, but he never says anything in the text. It's like James speaks for him in Acts. So, can you tell us a little bit about how you view Paul in light of this? and then we'll get to the next two super chats if you're okay with that. I'm going to say something I've never said in public and I'm interviewed not quite every day but a lot. And I've never said on your show and I'm gonna You might say me, Rabbi, you're wrong. So I'm going to take it. It may have never been said on your show. That's probably not correct because you have so many scholars, but I'll give it I'll anyways express this. There is nothing Phariseaic about Paul. There's nothing about his methodology that's pharaohsaic. All of it is middle platonic. All of it emerges from a zeitgeist of the Greco Roman world in which he emerged. There's nothing pheriseic about his thinking. Now Paul will claim pheriseic authority because that was the gold standard. So if you want to draw attention to yourself in the area of physics, you would say I studied at Princeton with Einstein. But Paul doesn't Yeah. But Paul doesn't even claim Gum Leo. That's axe max forum. Now here's the rub. Whereas there's no Phariseaic thinking, that means the way he organized information is not pharisaic at all. It is very comfortable in the middle platonic world. That can't be said for the gospels. Meaning the gospels are routinely marshalling phariseaic thinking in order to make their point. It's not that I can give you an example. It's all over the place. That means whoever the gospels emerge from well you know the two source theory and all that I don't have to go through it the gospels have these stories es especially synoptic gospels in common and they're always marshalling phariseaic thinking meaning as an example let's take John it's not synoptic uh the but Jesus we are told use an example of a circumcision if you can circumcise a baby on the eighth day a Jewish child on the eth which comes out on Sabbath. So how much more so can you heal a a a full-size limb rather than a small limb? That's completely Pharisee. That's exactly the way the Talmet is filled with that kind of thinking. Um the story of of the disciples eating grain on the Sabbath. Well, bringing a proof from David who ate bread that ordinarily would be forgi forbidden to him. That's highly Pharisee. It's all wrong. It's all wrong. But the methodology that they're seeking to marshall, that is all Pharisees. So this is where people get it wrong. And it's because in school they teach that Paul was a Pharisee. People just accept that like they accept that Mark was written 65 or 70. Why do you have to believe that? Like what word guns to your head to accept such an early date for Mark? You don't need to. So people just assume that Paul was a Pharisee. He was not. Paul was a person who was who was very well aware of Tanakh much in the way that the professor of Old Testament at at Stanford University is familiar with Tanakh but not in the Phariseaic method in my rebbitical schools very very different so he's able to point to text and Tanakh but he is going to move through it with the grace of a bulldozer conversely the the the gospels are going to finesse this point and going to marshall rabbitic thinking those who are watching this are familiar with the tomt how um how the force of reason is using used through a kal something light then certainly something heavy that's what the go so all the pharisaic thinking in terms of the process of thinking is in the gospels and what you find in Paul's letters are not phariseaic at all >> let me add to that if you don't mind is he lying or Is it like the modern example of a rogue rabbi who was orthodox who then makes a whole new thing? >> Or could it be both? I mean, where do you land on Paul? >> That's so easy. This all you do is go back to his text. He actually wrote stuff that survives. I just say to the viewer, just read Galatians 1 and two. Read Philippians 3. Just do it. Don't don't trust me. You tell me what you think of Paul. Don't read Act. Now, people do this. They're using Acts and saying they think that Paul wrote that stuff. So don't that they're the two separate texts. If you read Paul right away, who bewish you foolish Galatians um Galatians 3:1, he he spins off of people who have been to his churches in Asia Minor and have told him a different gospel where I get it. What I have is directly from Jesus Christ. I get it directly. He says um he says that this is a grand mystery only. I have revelation and if you listen to me that's when you find a truth not from the supposed you know you know leaders in Jerusalem. So you don't this is not you know you know nuclear chemistry. This is not complicated. Paul is very transparent. This is all about Paul and I don't assign any uh any of his motives to something charitable. >> Thank you. Thank you. So he's your best friend. I'm kidding. [laughter] >> We're very close. will work in a relationship. You never know how things can go. >> Michael Collins Hawk, thank you for the super chat. I'm an atheist, but I can read a whole forgiveness and salvation path in the Hebrew scriptures. No Jesus was ever a requirement. What gave teeth to the thought a messiah like that was needed? >> Right? So, uh, Christianity is has an amazing selling point. We don't know each other. But I'll just say that if you want to see the person that's most critical of you look in the mirror, Christianity marshals the problem of human self-esteem and goes, "You are a sinner. You're filthy. You're dirty. There's nothing you can do to save yourself." If one of them says strange to you, that means you've never been to church in your life and you're probably listening to this show in Brooklyn or Jerusalem. That's from the moment you walk in. The moment you walk out, you're a sinner. You're filthy. You're dirty. If that resonates for you that there is one guy, Derek, let's say you and I are 7-Eleven waiting online, okay? And we're sitting there and I got a bag of potato chips and and iced tea and I turn to you and I say, "Come over here." And in your I say, "Don't look, but the guy behind us looks just like Jesus, right? Don't." And then at some point you're going to be naughty and actually look. What are you expecting to see? We don't have to explain this as a guy. He's not a short fat bald guy, but he's a tall. He looks like he's in cheek. He looks great. So Jesus everything you'll never be. He's perfect. He's a son of God. But he's a son of God. Like what does it mean that he was tempted? That doesn't make sense. So the the force of Christianity is Paul. Without Paul, there's no Christianity. Is that you're a sinner. You're filthy. You're worthless. Meaning that Christianity is man's attempt to create God in his image. Judaism is the opposite. God created you his image. You no one has to go for you don't need an intermediary. You can go directly to God and God will forgive you. Christian, he can't forgive you because you're so horrible and the father's perfect. Therefore, there has to be an intercessor. And the Roman Catholic Church, well, the all the apostolic charges are going to insert Mary there because you can't even go to Jesus. You need Mary as an intermediary and you have to go to the saints. So, they're going to just keep loading up the intermediaries, but it's that same that's extremely attractive and you have to respect your opponent in this case. There was an episode recent, maybe a month or two, maybe three now, on one of these big podcasts where this Christian pastor comes in and he gives this analogy about a king where this guy's like, "Well, what's the greatest teaching, you know, about Christianity?" And he goes into this forgiveness story where there's this king, he's a ruler of the kingdom, but like peop somebody's stealing out of his uh stealing money out of his treasury. And so he's like, "All right, look, we got to stop this." You know, and and like there's so many holes. I can't reconstruct the whole story in what he said, but ultimately the punishment keeps getting bigger. Find the person, find the person. All of a sudden, it ends up being his own daughter. So because he's a just king, he has to punish her. But because he's merciful, he then stands in thestead of the whip that's going to actually kill her. Because the punishment is death according to the king's uh righteousness. He's got to kill her, right? So, this the king stands in thestead of the girl and then strikes her to death, which by the way, in the story, he's able to change the law like to make it, you know, fit the crime. Uh, it didn't fit the crime. So, anyway, there was already problems there. But then he flips over and it was this odd little Fruityian slip where he then goes, you know, he he didn't even see the logic where he says if a if a judge said to someone who's a rapist, you know, listen, I forgive you, right? I just forgive you. And and the dad walks in and says, I'm going to serve his time. My son committed the crime, but I'm going to serve his time. All of us would say that that was completely wrong. And I thought to myself, "Oh my goodness, like this inj the injustice in the entire idea of the atonement here is so immoral in so many ways for us to look at." That was one of the big problems I saw is that someone who commits this crime, you can just step in theirstead. We would freak out if we were watching a modern show because we see it happen all the time. A murder, something really criminal happens and then the dad or someone walked in and the judge says, "Okay, okay, go ahead. Lock him up. let the criminal go. Like, that's pretty wild thinking. >> So, I want to say this to you, the viewer. I don't know what your views are in the criminal justice system. I don't know if you support capital punishment for the worst criminals in the world. But regardless, I feel a certain sense of confidence that wherever you live, whether it is Florida, Kentucky, or California, that you want to feel certain that the people who are languishing in prisons are guilty. And it would crush your soul to think that there was one person rotting in a prison somewhere in Texas who was innocent of the charges, right? I don't whether you're a theist or an atheist, you feel that way. So the notion the the Christian notion of God is as a judge is one that has no mercy in it. So you gave me a metaphor. I wanted to sharpen the metaphor with your permission. >> Please. Please. the the person who stands before the judge and the judge says you're guilty and you have to pay a fine of $100,000 or you're going to go to prison. If someone in the back of the courtroom is observing that spectacle and says to your attorney, I will pay the fine for your client. the judge is informed of this and judge says look I don't care where the money comes from if someone else is willing to pay the price and I'm choosing those words carefully >> then it's fine okay so that's number one someone pays the price for uh an expense for which the the person who's convicted cannot afford to go to view two and this is the faith of Israel sitting for the judge and the judge says same thing you pay $100,000 you go to jail. And at that moment, you realize that you're you've done a horrible thing and you recognize that you what that your path has been horrible and you've harmed so much and the God of Israel and you just break down. You start crying and says, "I don't have the $100,000, but I'm so sorry, and I really regret what I did." The judge in this case actually knows your heart and goes, "I forgive you. Go. just don't sin anymore. Almost sound like like the book of John borrows that ending because it sounds great although it's not authentic to the probe adultery as we all know. But see that's Judaism. Judaism is that the judge can actually forgive you and no one has to pay for it. You got ones the moment you say that someone paid for it that means the judge is not merciful. He's just letting someone else pay it. The real merciful judge in this case a metaphor for God is the one who actually forgives the person says nobody has to pay because I see you really have a broken contrite heart. Psalm 51. This I think best expresses Judaism is misunderstood. This goes back to an earlier question. >> So Judaism therefore I would posit is really God is merciful. He can really forgive you like the people who lived in the in the capitalist Syrian Empire in Ninve. He really forgave them because they repented. Whereas the Christian God, the father cannot forgive you unless somebody pays the price. Someone have to shed their blood for you. That means there's no mercy there. I rest my case. >> No, this you I think you articulated that very well. Thank you. >> Um, two more and we have Hesper Hesperis 777. Thank you so much for the super chat. Is it fair to say that early Jewish Christianity is historically authentic from a late second temple Palestinian Jewish apocalyptic framework? >> I was following do I think that early Jewish Christianity something like that >> is historically authentic from a a late second temple Palestinian Jewish apocalyptic framework. >> I I just didn't get the second century apocal No. No. just it relates to temple second temple. So is Jewish early Jewish Christian? >> No, they're not related to each other. However, there is of course helenized ideas that were circulating in the Jewish world. [gasps] I don't mean this hurtfully, but there are a lot of Jews who are not observant but adopt ideas in in high higher criticism wellous in theory. It doesn't mean they're actually Jewish. So no question those those things intersect. It is I'll just say what I'm not being it is transparent that the earliest Christians were likely Torah observant and that the notion that you don't have to keep Torah is a later innovation not later as in centuries but later as in Paul and Paul's response that's transparent that the beginning point is just a deviation from uh Pharisee Judaism. The Sadducees aren't that held in the steam in the Christian Bible. That seems very obvious to me. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> We have one more. >> Thank you. Thank you. >> Yep. We got um Thank you, Matt, for the $1. And then the last question and then I have to stop there because it's already past the hour. Warren Hollstead, thank you so much for the super chat. I hope I pronounced your name properly. Is there a symbolic connection between God giving a Adam animal skins after the fall and Jacob wearing goat skins to impersonate Esau? Interesting. >> Um no, each of them are independent. In the case of Adam is given a animal skin because um Adam failed to behave like a human being but rather did what the snake instructed them and that is not care about God's voice. And an animal acts on a primal feeling. I want to eat what's forbidden and therefore I act upon it. You can get your dog not to jump on the on the dining room table, but it requires work. So the failure of So Adam and Eve, it's not that God is making a fashion choice, which means that they were wearing clothing that was made out of plant material and God takes something more durable. There's nothing about senator atonement there at all. But what's happening is you behave like the animals do, not like a porative, like you behave like an animal, but rather you're you were imitating the way animals do. In fact, you were following the serpent who can walk, who could talk, it's highly intelligent, as a connoisseur of good food. You blew it. You behave the way cats do instead of acting the way you could have done. And therefore, animal skins are therefore most appropriate for you rather than a plant that has no free will, is not sentient. Bingo. That's what's happening there. >> Thank you so much, Warren. I appreciate it, everybody. Thank you so much. And Rabbi, of course, always enjoy you. I can't wait to dive deeper into some of these texts. Is there any final words you'd like to say before we wrap things up? >> Yeah, we're living in a very special time right now. We're observing a spectacle that describes a remarkable encounter and everybody is watching. Uh please keep us in your prayers and your thoughts. And I wish all of you a wonderful year and a and uh thank you so much for joining me. I'm here in Jerusalem. So shalom to all of you. If you enjoyed this program, please like and subscribe. >> [music] [singing] [music]