Audio of a Debate between Brown & R' Tovia Singer

[Sophiee]

Michael Brown sounds good to those who don't know any better. He throws out multiple "sources" without backing them up, using them out of context and basically dazzling his readers or listeners with his bluster.

Debating him (as R' Tovia Singer did) gives the man (Brown) a platform he doesn't deserve. He throws out sources and references with great abandon. In a debate it is impossible to stop and explain "who" Rashi / Rambam / Ibn Ezra (etc.) was, and whether the quote is in or out of context. It is impossible to explain the way drash is meant to be taken, etc.

Brown is a very good speaker and given that he is always on the "attack" with his multiple sources and quotes anyone debating him is forever in "catch up" mode.

Therefore take these audios for what they are worth -- if you truly want detailed answers to Brown's mis-use of Jewish sources and even of Hebrew read the various posts in this section of the forum. I found these audios on YouTube and have embedded them in posts on this thread. I do not know if the YouTube poster had authorization from Brown or R' Singer to post them. I intend no copyright violation and have no rights to the audio files.



For some strange reason Brown claims that the oldest "complete" Jewish T'nach is "only 1000 years old" -- as if to prove that it is somehow more accurate that the Greek Text.

This is an odd claim indeed, and R' Singer doesn't really retort it.

Even today there isn't a "complete" New Testament. It varies from one sect to another. The Textus Receptus dates to 1512 -- a mere 500 years ago. Earlier manuscripts (Sinaticus and Vaticanus are older but they differ greatly from the TR and indeed from each other).

This is why debating Brown is such a waste of time. He simply got the discussion off topic and tried to put R' Singer on the defensive -- defending the accuracy of the T'nach when supposedly Chrstians ACCEPT the T'nach. Singer either didn't know much about the Greek Text or simply didn't have at his disposal the facts to refute Brown's assertions.

Here is a little info on the GT, its authors and its accuracy.

From The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible, a book written to prove the validity of the GT , says:

" A study of 150 Greek [manuscripts] of the Gospel of Luke has revealed more than 30,000 different readings... It is safe to say that there is not one sentence in the New Testament in which the [manuscript] is wholly uniform."

The oldest complete manuscripts (dating to about 350 CE) are the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. They are not word-for-word with today’s GT but they don’t even include the same books in the GT canon as today’s RCC and Protestant version. Sinaiticus adds Hermas and Barnabas. Vaticanus omits 1-2 Timothy, Titus, James, 1-2 Peter, 1-3 John, Jude, and Revelation. The inclusion or omission of these works do change the GT theology significantly.

Go farther back to the earliest GT fragments and you’ll find they come from the 2nd C. CE, and they include some with considerable variance from later versions (just read B. Ehrman’s book - The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture: The Effect of Early Christological Controversies on the Text of the New Testament. New York: Oxford University Press, 1993). http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/ ... 63-4478228

“What do survive are copies of the copies some 5,366 of them in the Greek language alone, that date from the second century down to the sixteenth. Strikingly, with the exception of the smallest fragments, no two of these copies are exactly alike in all their particulars. No one knows how many differences, or variant readings, occur among the surviving witnesses, but they must number in the hundreds of thousands.” (page 27).

“. . .there are some kinds of textual changes for which it is difficult to account apart from the deliberate activity of a transcriber. When a scribe appended an additional twelve verses to the end of the Gospel of mark, this can scarcely be attributed to mere oversight. . . (page 27-28).

“The evidence suggests that during the earliest period of its transmission the (GT) text was in a state of flux, that it came to be more or less standardized in some regions by the fourth century. . .As a result the period of relative creativity was early, hat of the strict reproduction late. Variants found in later witnesses are thus less likely to have been generated then than to have been reproduced from earlier exemplars. Additional evidence for this view derives from the fact that although our earliest witnesses are widely divergent among themselves and in relation to the later types of text, they scarcely ever attest individual textual variants that do not also appear in one or another later source. Thanks to the discovery of early papyri during the present century, readings that may have appeared unusual when we had only later witnesses are now known to have ourred early. . .(page 28).

“. . .because scribes occasionally changed their texts in “meaningful” ways, it is possible to conceptualize their activities as a kind of hermeneutical process. Reproducing a text is in some ways analogous to interpreting it. . . .” (page 29)

[Sophiee]

Note that this caller says that "the messiah must be from the tribe of Judah" and "all records were destroyed in the destruction of the second Temple in 70 CE" -- his reasoning being that there is no way to know who the messiah is because all the records were destroyed (ergo he claims Jsus had to be the messiah).

We've written here before that per the Greek Text Jsus was NOT of the tribe of Judah. If there was a virgin birth then Jsus had no tribe. Tribal rights are only passed from biological father to biological son. R' Singer tries to make the point (but it gets lost over the caller not allowing him to finish) that being of the tribe of Judah, a descendant of David, is just "table stakes." It isn't a major messianic prophecy. There are literally tens of thousands of David heirs alive today -- and none of them are the messiah because the messianic prophecies which MUST be fulfilled by the messiah have not happened.

BTW, the caller was wrong that the lineages were kept in the Temple and destroyed when the Temple was destroyed. The second Temple post dated the Babylonian exile and a majority of Jews lived outside of Judah in those days. Families keep their own lineage record and although many Jews have lost track of their tribes, others have not. Rashi (the famous sage) was a descendant of King David. R' Schneerson (of the Chabad) was a descendant of David, and so forth.

UriYosef has written an article de-bunking this false claim entitled Genealogical Scams and Flimflams. It can be found here: http://www.virtualyeshiva.com/counter/genealogy.swf or http://www.virtualyeshiva.com/counter/genealogy.pdf

______________________________

Then Brown brings up the "70 Weeks" in Daniel 9 insisting that this all had to happen before the destruction of the Second Temple.

This just goes to show yet again that Brown isn't the great expert he likes to claim he is in Hebrew, if he can't tell the difference between two separate time frames and two separate messiahs -- he is basing what he says on MIS-TRANSLATIONS.

The time frame isn't 70 weeks. The time frame is between seven shavuim (which coincides with the Babylonian exile) and then another sixty-two shavuim -- 62 + 7, not 70.

The 62 shavuim was a time when Jews were on probation. IF they had done all those things then there would not have been a second, far longer, exile. The Jews did not heed Daniel's warning and as a result the second Temple fell thanks to baseless hatred of Jew against Jew.

Rather than a prophecy that there will be everlasting righteousness, Daniel is saying that Israel must end corruption in its courts and society. Israel must return to universal justice. So this isn't a prophecy of world peace, but rather a warning to Israel. Which she did not heed and thus the warning given by Daniel came to pass. "The" messiah didn't come. Indeed the term "the messiah" is not found in Daniel 9. Instead two messiahs came and went. The first was Cyrus who gave the decree to rebuild Jerusalem and the second one marked the end of the period that Jews had to repent and avoid the punishment. Since messiah (moshiach) means anointed one this second messiah could have been a Roman Emperor who destroyed Jerusalem, or a high priest or a variety of people who WERE messiahs -- Jsus never was.

[Sophiee]

Then Brown says Jews can't atone for sins without the Temple and aren't allowed to "make up" new ways to atone for sins outside of the Temple sacrifices.

Guess Brown didn't read his T'nach very closely.

Brown (and most Chrstians) may believe there is no remission of sin without blood. This is absolutely the opposite of what the Jewish bible teaches. This mistake that atonement of sin requires a blood sacrifice comes from a mis-reading of Leviticus 17 where Jews are forbidden from EATING blood and told its only purpose is on the altar or to be thrown away into the dirt (Leviticus 17:13).

Yet the bible tells us that charity atones:

Daniel 4:24. "Indeed, O king, may my counsel please you, and with charity you will remove your sin and your iniquity by showing mercy to the poor; perhaps your tranquility will last."

How about money? Granted this isn't atonement for sin, but atonement for the soul (exactly the same as Leviticus 17:11 BTW):

"You shall take the atonement money from the sons of Israel and shall give it for the service of the tent of meeting, that it may be a memorial for the sons of Israel before HaShem, to make atonement for souls."

And jewelry too -- atones for the soul the same as blood and money:

Numbers 31:50 We therefore want to bring an offering to G-d. Every man who found any gold article [such as] and anklet, a bracelet, a finger ring, and earring, or a body ornament [wishes to bring it] to kafar (atone) for our nefesh (life force / soul) before G-d.'

The Torah says that blood atones -- it doesn't say that ONLY blood atones. This concept was added by the Greek Text to explain the need for Jsus to die for them. It is like saying "pizza is food -- ergo the only food in the world is pizza."

Many, may things atone.

There is atonement through:

repentance (II Samuel 12:13-14, Jonah 3:10, Lev. 26:40-42, Ezek. 18:21-32, 33:11-16)
kindness (Prov. 16:6, Daniel 4:24)
prayer (Hos. 14:2-3,I Kings 8:46-50, Daniel 9:19)
removal of idolatry (Is. 27:9)
punishment (Is. 40:1, Lam. 4:22),
death (Is. 22:14)
flour offerings (Lev. 5:11-13)
money (Ex. 30:15)
jewelry (Num. 31:50)
and incense (Num. 17:11-12).

Turning to G-d (teshuvah), and communicating with G-d (tefillah) have always been a REQUIREMENT for the forgiveness of sins -- with or without a Temple.

Perhaps Brown forgets that Abraham didn't have a Temple. Neither did Jacob. Or Isaac. The Jews in Egypt didn't have a Temple. There were no sacrifices prior to the giving of the Torah at Sinai. . .

Here is what G-d has always required:

Deuteronomy 4:27-31 – (29) . . .seek the L-rd your G-d, then you will find Him, if you seek Him with all your heart and with all your soul. (30) When you are in distress, and these words will find their way to you; in the end of days, you will return to the L-rd your G-d, and you will obey him; (31) For the L-rd your G-d is a merciful G-d, He will not forsake you and will not destroy you; and He will not forget the covenant of your fathers which He swore to them.

Seems that Brown has over looked quite a few things in the bible, doesn't it?

[Sophiee]

Brown keeps trying to say that the Rabbis "made up" Judaism, and that Judaism isn't really following the Torah. BTW, nowhere in this tape do I hear from R' Singer at all. It is just Brown's assertions with no one rebutting him.

He insists (for example) that if the bible says go left and the rabbis say go right the Jews will go right.

There is NOTHING in the oral tradition that changes the written Torah. The Torah makes it clear that we are not to add to or subtract from it. The oral law merely tells us HOW to follow the written one. Brown is flat out lying here (out of ignorance or deceit I cannot say). Not only does Moses say "listen to the Rabbis" but so does Jsus in the GT! Yet, Brown here is contradicting Jsus (whom he claims to follow) who clearly said "listen to the Rabbis, they sit in Moses' seat."

Two good articles to read on how fraudulent is Brown's claim are found on Being Jewish. Haven't Rabbis Changed the Laws? (http://www.beingjewish.com/unchanged/never-altered.html ) and The Indispensable Oral Law (http://www.beingjewish.com/mesorah/oral-imperative.html ).

He also says there is no such thing as the oral law in the Torah and yet again the Rabbis "made it up."

Well, hopefully in the past few posts you've seen that Brown is great at making claims but that they are not supported by the bible. Neither is this assertion.

The oral law is mentioned in the written bible.

Ex 12:49 "The same Torah shall apply to the native as to the stranger who sojourns among you."

This can't be the written Torah -- it didn't EXIST yet. Moses hasnt been to Sinai yet! So the Torah is the oral one. The Torah is spoken of again in Exodus 13:9, 16:4:

I will test them to see whether or not they will keep My Torah.

What Torah? They are in the desert eating mana. They haven't yet made it to Sinai - there is NO WRITTEN TORAH. What Torah is G-d speaking of???

Read Exodus 24:12

ויאמר ה' אל משה עלה אליי ההרה והיה שם ואתנה לך את לוחות האבן והתורה והמצווה אשר כתבתי להורותם

And HaShem said to Moshe: Come up unto me on the mountain and remain ('be') there. I shall give to you the stone tablets, the Torah, and the Mitzvah, which I have written [for you] to teach them.

Write these words for YOURSELF.

Hashem tells Moshe first "write for yourself these things," and then says "for according to (al pi) these things I have made a covenant with you and the Children and Israel. This quote tells us both to write it down transmit it orally. The literal meaning of al pi is to teach by word of mouth.

The ORAL LAW that Brown insists isn't Biblical has been mentioned in Exodus 24:12, in Exodus 13:9, in Exodus 16:4 and many, many more.

There is a very good article on the subject at http://www.beingjewish.com/mesorah/oral-imperative.html

The written Torah will often tell us to do things, and the "how" to do it is not explained in the written Torah. It will say "do it as I told you."

This alone shows that the "how" to follow the instructions was always oral.

It is impossible to even READ the Torah without an oral law! There are no vowels in the Torah!! To even read Hebrew one must learn from the oral law.

The Babylonian Talmud tells a story of a man who wanted to convert to Judaism. He went to Rabbi Hillel and said:

"Convert me on condition that I accept the Written but not the Oral Law." He was willing to be a Jew, but only a heretical one.

Poor Hillel. First he had to put up with a fool who wanted to learn Torah while standing on one foot, and then this fool shows up. But Hillel had patience and he didn't even argue. He agreed to teach the man.

The first day, Hillel taught him the first four letters of the Hebrew alphabet: aleph, bet, gimel, dalet.

The next day the man came back and this time Hillel taught him the same letters in reverse order: dalet, gimel, bet, aleph.

"But yesterday," protested the man, "you taught me the opposite."

"You see," said Hillel, "you have to rely on me even to learn the alphabet. Rely on me also when it comes to the Oral Law." (Shabbat 31a).

How would your Brown have been able to learn Hebrew (as rudimentary as his knowledge is) Torah without the oral law? He couldn't have.

From the Being Jewish link:

To demonstrate, I will cite some examples of Laws from the Written Torah that are completely incomprehensible without knowledge of the Oral Tradition.

When the Bible tells us (Lev. 20:14) to take together four species on the first day of Succos, which four species are meant, and what are we supposed to do with them?

The prohibition of Chelev (fat) (Lev. 7:24) leaves us uninformed as to which fat is included in the category of Chelev, and which are Shumin (fat) and therefore permitted.

Which blood is forbidden, (Lev. 7:26) and how do we purge the meat of it?

What are Totaphot? (Ex. 13:16) If that means Tefillin, what exactly are Tefillin? How are they made, and how are they "bound as a sign upon your hand?"

Which work is forbidden on the Sabbath, and which is permitted?

"You shall not cook a young animal in its mother's milk" is stated three times in the Bible. Why? The Oral Law explains why. It also explains the seemingly odd wording of the commandment.

Most Hebrew words change their meaning when pronounced differently. Without the Oral Tradition, how can we determine the true meaning of the words of the Hebrew Scriptures, written as they were without vowels?

[Sophiee]

I deleted the last 4 or so posts after I realized that they were NOT debates with R' Singer but just missionizing by Brown on some Chrstian radio show.

Hopefully both R' Singer's remarks on the tapes and my comments showing Brown's errors and distortions are useful to those of you who want to listen to them.