Need Help Responding to Attack on our Faith

I once had a Jew tell me that the idea of God becoming man is pagan and not consistent with the Old Testament. I asked him: is the Messiah man or God? He told me only a man. I then asked him: why is the Messiah called Mighty God and Eternal Father in Isaiah 9? He told me I'm not reading it in the original Hebrew and not understanding the context. I told him it says the same thing even in the original Hebrew.
Does it, though? I'm not saying it does or it doesn't, but we have to be fair and admit to ourselves that we don't speak Hebrew (or perhaps you do) and the rabbis do. This is something else that stood out from the debate; he handily and readily quotes Hebrew, and easily, while the professor can barely read words here and there, and doesn't seem to have the decades of knowledge from speaking it like the rabbi does. (This comes in handy for the rabbi when the professor challenges him on proving there's an oral Torah, and the rabbi immediately shoots back by sourcing "Torahs" from the written text, and explains how this means "Torahs" and not "instructions."

Everyone here seems to be writing him off, calling me a Jew, mocking my Catholicism, telling me to do my own research, or saying they're not interested in watching the entire debate, but this is the salvation of our souls, our entire belief systems, and our bloodlines and families' honor, in my opinion. This isn't something to casually dismiss away because the Jew debater is fat or whatever, like someone else said earlier.
 
To the OP, there is nothing in this debate that should give you great concern. Write down the arguments you felt had the greatest bite and take the time to study them. The answers are out there and many learned men have taken the time to answer these objections. The Rabbi made the claim that Christians translated 'young woman' in Isaiah as 'virgin'. That was enough for me to see that he was arguing in bad faith and is either ignorant of his own Scriptures, or knows better and is presenting this information in a sensationalistic fashion in order to prey on people's ignorance.

Either Jesus is the Christ, or all of Judaism is false. The Jewish religion as defined in the Old Testament cannot even be practiced anymore. The prophecies concerning Christ can only be fulfilled by one such as Jesus. Study very closely the Letter to the Hebrews, the Mosaic Covenant is done and the New Covenant has come.
Thank you. So you got through the entire thing, I take it. I would be a lot more confident if that's the case, and you still say it's not a concerning debate result. I wasn't so pleased with how the professor handled himself or represented our view. Not sure if you agree, though.
 
Can we please focus on this point, since you mentioned it? You have indicated that it's a moot one, and I'm happy to accept that, but in this video, he clearly (and all the audience when he asks them for the meaning of the word in English before explaining why he's asking) agrees that "alma" or "almah" or whatever it is, is a young woman, and "batulah/batoolah" is a virgin. He even says here, in this video, that he has documentation of priests and Christian clergy apologizing to Jewish authorities for what he claimed was a Christian whitewashing of the covering up of the real meaning, etc. If that's true -- and he said he was willing to show it there, in the actual debate if the opponent wished -- this is exactly what I came here; he has argumentation and evidence that isn't so cut and dried and able to take down. I have never seen, for example, Shamoun address this rabbi. Singer? Yes. Others? Yes. But not this one.
So the Hebrew word 'almah' in Isaiah 7 does literally mean 'young woman'. There is no textual variance or corruption here. When the Tanakh was translated into Greek, they translated 'almah' as 'parthenos' which means 'virgin'.

There is a degree of interpretation in every translation and in this instance, this is not a corruption, it reflects how the Jews understood the original text. The reason it's a moot point is because Christians are not responsible for this translation, which is what Jews try to present. Jews translated it this way hundreds of years before Christ. In their context, 'young woman' was synonymous with 'virgin', so it's appropriate to translate it either way.

Within the context of Isaiah 7, this birth is described as a sign given by God. There is nothing miraculous about a young woman giving birth. But a virgin birth is miraculous, so 'virgin' is the better translation considering the context.
 
So the Hebrew word 'almah' in Isaiah 7 does literally mean 'young woman'. There is no textual variance or corruption here. When the Tanakh was translated into Greek, they translated 'almah' as 'parthenos' which means 'virgin'.

There is a degree of interpretation in every translation and in this instance, this is not a corruption, it reflects how the Jews understood the original text. The reason it's a moot point is because Christians are not responsible for this translation, which is what Jews try to present. Jews translated it this way hundreds of years before Christ. In their context, 'young woman' was synonymous with 'virgin', so it's appropriate to translate it either way.

Within the context of Isaiah 7, this birth is described as a sign given by God. There is nothing miraculous about a young woman giving birth. But a virgin birth is miraculous, so 'virgin' is the better translation considering the context.
The professor responded with this point in the debate, I believe, and it was one of the very few times I felt relief in the way he spoke. He spoke well here. That said, not being a native Hebrew speaker, I never know what to think when either side speaks it. For example: I honestly had absolutely no idea that alma really does mean young woman; I thought it indeed meant a virgin, and that the Jews were too embarrassed (or wicked) to freely admit this.
 
What an audience thinks is irrelevant, what he claims individuals have done is irrelevant. If you care so much about this topic, have a read. It'll take you far less time than 3 hours.


It won't allow me to download anything. It says I don't have permission. What is it?
 
Does it, though? I'm not saying it does or it doesn't, but we have to be fair and admit to ourselves that we don't speak Hebrew (or perhaps you do) and the rabbis do.
Mighty God = El (God) Gibor (Strong).

It takes a long time to become proficient in the Biblical languages and I am not an expert by any means. That doesn't mean anyone can't take the time to study these things, especially when they are the same recycled, bad arguments.

It was stuff like this that caused me to look at the text behind the text and take translation philosophy, textual criticism, manuscript traditions more seriously.
 
Last edited:
[UPDATE: Note that the statement below that the Dead Sea Scrolls has the word "virgin" appears to be incorrect. I am leaving my comment as is, but please note that when reading it. The other points made here still hold.]

The Septuagint is the translation used by the Orthodox church. Also referred to as the "Greek Old Testament", it is a translation made by Jews in the 3rd century B.C. from the original Hebrew OT into Koine Greek. Again, the translation dates back to the 3rd century B.C.

The Masoretic text, or the Hebrew Old Testament, is the version used both by Jews but also by most Protestants. The earliest Masoretic text manuscripts date only to the 9th century A.D. (that's A.D., not B.C.). So the Septuagint preserves a much earlier version of the Hebrew in Greek translation. The Masoretic text continued to be revised and edited throughout history, so the versions we see may vary considerably from the original versions. And, highly relevant in this context, Jewish rabbis continued to revise the Masoretic text in response to Christianity: i.e. they made changes in order to refute and undermine the claims of Christians. One of these changes was taking out the word "virgin" and using "young woman."

The Dead Sea Scrolls (from around 1-2 c. BC to 1st c AD), which are much earlier manuscripts than the transmitted Masoretic text, confirmed this to be the case. From Wikipedia: "there was indeed a Hebrew text-type on which the Septuagint-translation was based and which differed substantially from the received MT. The scrolls show numerous small variations in orthography, both as against the later Masoretic Text, and between each other. It is also evident from the notings of corrections and of variant alternatives that scribes felt free to choose according to their personal taste and discretion between different readings."

Specifically, the Dead Sea Scrolls confirmed that the word "virgin" had originally been in the text, and was subsequently changed in the MT. From an editor's footnote to Blessed Theophylact's commentary on the Gospel According to St. Matthew: "Note: the Hebrew text of Isaiah found among the Dead Sea Scrolls at Qumran in 1947 does confirm the accuracy of the Septuagint reading of "virgin"."

And speaking of Blessed Theophylact, his commentary also confirms that this same debate has been going on for 1,000 years: Theophylact's commentary (which is really really good), dates to the 10th century.

Blessed Theophylact makes the point that whether the word used is "virgin" or "young woman", the prophecy only makes sense when interpreted to mean "virgin". Why? Because there is nothing incredible or unusual about a "young woman" giving birth to a child. What made Isaiah's prophecy so marvelous and indicated that it was a "wonder" and a "sign" is precisely that she was a virgin.

Here is the full text of Blessed Theophylact's commentary on the relevant passage from Matthew 1:23:

"The Jews say that it is not written in the prophecy "virgin" but "young woman". To which it may be answered that "young woman" and "virgin" mean the same thing in Scripture, for in Scripture "young woman" refers to one who is still a virgin. Furthermore, if it was not a virgin that gave birth, how would it be a sign, something extraordinary? Listen to Isaiah who says, ''For this reason the Lord Himself shall give you a sign,'' and immediately he adds, ''Behold, the Virgin.''18 So if it were not a virgin that would give birth, it would not be a sign. The Jews, then, alter the text of Scripture in their malice, putting "young woman" instead of "virgin".19 But whether the text reads "young woman" or "virgin", it should be understood in either case that it is a virgin who will give birth so that the event may be a miraculous sign."​

Footnote 18 is the citation to Isaiah 7:14. Footnote 19 is the wording I provided above about the Dead Sea Scrolls confirming the antiquity of the original word "virgin" in Isaiah.
 
Last edited:
Specifically, the Dead Sea Scrolls confirmed that the word "virgin" had originally been in the text, and was subsequently changed in the MT. From an editor's footnote to Blessed Theophylact's commentary on the Gospel According to St. Matthew: "Note: the Hebrew text of Isaiah found among the Dead Sea Scrolls at Qumran in 1947 does confirm the accuracy of the Septuagint reading of "virgin"."
Pure falsehood. Compare the Dead Sea Scrolls reading of Isaiah 7:14 to the Masoretic Text.

 
Pure falsehood. Compare the Dead Sea Scrolls reading of Isaiah 7:14 to the Masoretic Text.


Ah, interesting. I took the footnote in the Theophylact commentary at face value without looking into it further. The guy in the video does make the point that the Septuagint may have been relying on yet another ancient Hebrew version (not the DSS version) which did have the Hebrew word virgin. There would have been multiple versions circulating.

The other point still holds, namely that it's being a sign or wonder really only makes sense if it is interpreted as virgin.
 
Ah, interesting. I took the footnote in the Theophylact commentary at face value without looking into it further. The guy in the video does make the point that the Septuagint may have been relying on yet another ancient Hebrew version (not the DSS version) which did have the Hebrew word virgin. There would have been multiple versions circulating.

The other point still holds, namely that it's being a sign or wonder really only makes sense if it is interpreted as virgin.
Of all the Jewish arguments against Christianity, this one is among the most frustrating because of how much noise it has gotten, despite being a total nothing-burger. Just because 'young woman' is not synonymous with 'virgin' in our context, does not mean they weren't synonymous in theirs.
 
And, highly relevant in this context, Jewish rabbis continued to revise the Masoretic text in response to Christianity: i.e. they made changes in order to refute and undermine the claims of Christians. One of these changes was taking out the word "virgin" and using "young woman."
I had absolutely no idea. I'd like to put this point to Singer. Do you have any further info on these Jewish revisions? I searched for Branch's info on it, but because his name is "Jeremiah," I get links to pages about the prophet, etc., and not what I really want to read about: how the Jews modified the words originally used.
 
It takes a long time to become proficient in the Biblical languages and I am not an expert by any means. That doesn't mean anyone can't take the time to study these things, especially when they are the same recycled, bad arguments.

It was stuff like this that caused me to look at the text behind the text and take translation philosophy, textual criticism, manuscript traditions more seriously.
Perhaps not an expert, but you seemingly have a very decent knowledge of the Hebrew words and phraseology - without the muddling and Talmudic BS. Is what he said about God maintaining His bond with the Jews “forever and ever, for all eternity” the accurate wording? (I can’t transcribe the Hebrew words he used phonetically because I didn’t time stamp it — I should have -- but I remember him mentioning it at least twice in the three-hour debate, and the wording rhymed, I remember.)
 
Perhaps not an expert, but you seemingly have a very decent knowledge of the Hebrew words and phraseology - without the muddling and Talmudic BS. Is what he said about God maintaining His bond with the Jews “forever and ever, for all eternity” the accurate wording? (I can’t transcribe the Hebrew words he used phonetically because I didn’t time stamp it — I should have -- but I remember him mentioning it at least twice in the three-hour debate, and the wording rhymed, I remember.)
God is faithful to Israel forever and ever. Those Jews who followed Christ, He retained a bond with. The Church is Israel. Those Jews who did not follow Christ have been cut off, and a new branch (the gentiles) has been grafted in.

The argument he is making is ignorant of the New Testament. Saint Paul explains all of this very well.
 
Is what he said about God maintaining His bond with the Jews “forever and ever, for all eternity” the accurate wording?
Yes. Unless you're reading a wonky translation, you can generally trust that your English translation is a faithful translation.

Two issues with his application: generally, these all-encompassing statements are defined by their context. This is something that happens a lot in the New Testament when the word 'all' occurs. Second, the Old Testament itself prophesies the New Covenant, so they are without excuse to believe that the Mosaic Covenant would be perpetuated forever.

God's bond is not with so-called Jews who reject the Messiah. His promises have always been fulfilled to the faithful remnant of Israel.

When it comes to doctrinal issues and Scriptural interpretation, the New Testament already refutes what the Rabbi is saying. I mainly wanted to chime in that his critique of the New Testament at the textual level can be applied to his own position as well.
 
God is faithful to Israel forever and ever. Those Jews who followed Christ
I promise you I am not advocating for him whatsoever, but everyone here has been telling me to make notes of what about the debate bothered me so much, rather than to have posted the URL, so I'd like to "challenge" this point -- not because I want him to be right, but because he framed it like this in the debate and I remember it well and wish to further our dialogue on this point, if I may.

Much of his confidence in the necessity for Jews to follow the Mosaic law even to this day (which is, of course, contrary to our beliefs of being under grace at this point) is the preface to any aspect of these debates that God gave the OT to the Jewish people in a public event witnessed by all of them. He repeatedly uses this to build the foundation of his arguments, and repeatedly declares this to be the only time in history that a religion has claimed a national revelation like this (not only using us as an example of a religion that doesn't claim it, but mocking, say, Islam, for Mohammed having been alone when he got his claimed revelation, etc.). As such, he essentially says that because the NT wasn't given to the world by God in a public event, the OT retains supremacy and is the true divine book.

Now, with my limited knowledge, I already know that I can catch him with the fact that the OT was never given at Mount Sinai, but rather just the Ten Commandments, but he'd just use his circular logic of the Talmud saying this is what happened, and that the entire OT was given - not just the 10 Commandments.

We already know he wouldn't accept that response, and would insist, etc. But forgetting about him for a minute: I asked about the "God always being with the Jewish people, for all eternity, forever and ever" being accurate because if it is indeed accurate, he can claim that even if they reject His Son, He'd still stick with them. I want to disprove this.
 
I promise you I am not advocating for him whatsoever, but everyone here has been telling me to make notes of what about the debate bothered me so much, rather than to have posted the URL, so I'd like to "challenge" this point -- not because I want him to be right, but because he framed it like this in the debate and I remember it well and wish to further our dialogue on this point, if I may.

Much of his confidence in the necessity for Jews to follow the Mosaic law even to this day (which is, of course, contrary to our beliefs of being under grace at this point) is the preface to any aspect of these debates that God gave the OT to the Jewish people in a public event witnessed by all of them. He repeatedly uses this to build the foundation of his arguments, and repeatedly declares this to be the only time in history that a religion has claimed a national revelation like this (not only using us as an example of a religion that doesn't claim it, but mocking, say, Islam, for Mohammed having been alone when he got his claimed revelation, etc.). As such, he essentially says that because the NT wasn't given to the world by God in a public event, the OT retains supremacy and is the true divine book.

Now, with my limited knowledge, I already know that I can catch him with the fact that the OT was never given at Mount Sinai, but rather just the Ten Commandments, but he'd just use his circular logic of the Talmud saying this is what happened, and that the entire OT was given - not just the 10 Commandments.

We already know he wouldn't accept that response, and would insist, etc. But forgetting about him for a minute: I asked about the "God always being with the Jewish people, for all eternity, forever and ever" being accurate because if it is indeed accurate, he can claim that even if they reject His Son, He'd still stick with them. I want to disprove this.
Not meaning to sound rude but I can't do the arguments better than Saint Paul does in his Epistles. If this Jew accepted them then he would be a Christian.
 
You're wasting too much time on this Jew's lies. And now by extension I am too. So this will be my final word. Don't concern yourself too much with a Jew who lies and argues in bad faith.

He is a liar because he quotes directly from the Gospels in the genealogies and he makes out that they are both for Joseph. There is no reason why he would not know this, he literally quotes from them. He is lying to create the impression of a contradiction.

He argues in bad faith when he states that Christians ignore Christ in regard to following the Mosaic laws. If he was honest and good faith he would look to understand the reasons for this and try to refute those. He doesn't he just acts like all Christians contradict the teachings of Christ. This is absurd, bad faith and dishonest.

Don't waste your time with it. Hes a fat lying Jew. If someone claims to have lost faith because of his BS they are either stupid, trolling or never had any faith to begin with. Refuting every minute things he says is a waste of time. I have demonstrated that he is a bad faith liar. You don't need to look deeper
 
You're wasting too much time on this Jew's lies. And now by extension I am too. So this will be my final word. Don't concern yourself too much with a Jew who lies and argues in bad faith.

He is a liar because he quotes directly from the Gospels in the genealogies and he makes out that they are both for Joseph. There is no reason why he would not know this, he literally quotes from them. He is lying to create the impression of a contradiction.

He argues in bad faith when he states that Christians ignore Christ in regard to following the Mosaic laws. If he was honest and good faith he would look to understand the reasons for this and try to refute those. He doesn't he just acts like all Christians contradict the teachings of Christ. This is absurd, bad faith and dishonest.

Don't waste your time with it. Hes a fat lying Jew. If someone claims to have lost faith because of his BS they are either stupid, trolling or never had any faith to begin with. Refuting every minute things he says is a waste of time. I have demonstrated that he is a bad faith liar. You don't need to look deeper
Totally respect this, and I appreciate your time invested until now. Thank you.
 
Back
Top