???

@@Esther_is_my_name there is a genocide going on. It's clear. The IHRA definition is being weaponised on every free thinking person under the sun with absolute impunity and the faith communities response is to rally around the chosen people as if they are the only people worth preserving. Infants are being snuffed out like candles while you pray for the friends of Israel to stimy another mp or journo from speaking the truth.

-“He is clearly missing fundamental Jewish concepts”- Do you mean *PAGAN BABYLONIAN JUDAISM?*

-“an ignorant Cristian with a weak argument”- Says the *PAGAN BABYLONIAN* that goes to graves so dead people could intercede on their behalf

*As God's forgiveness was granted even without blood, Christianity is a lie.*

Without blood there is no forgiveness of sin! Read the Tanakh! ​@@pazrahamim9220

-“it seems that Tovia Singer needs to double down on all his ardent efforts”- Actually what Coward Singer needs to do now s next time knock on the door and challenge a Hebrew Speaking believer to a debate. Has been running since shellacking by Dr Brown over 30 years ago

-“a clear Grace-Roman invention”- Says someone that follows a *PAGAN BABYLONIAN cult* .

@TORAHMARK - Please explain HOW you could be a "Baptist pastor/missionary/revivalist who preached JC to thousands in the US, Canada and S. America", never having been "called" by God to do that, nor received any "confirmation" from God that Jesus is the Christ or that the New Testament is His Word ?? Did Moses "call himself" ? Did Aaron "call himself" ? Did any of the Prophets "call themselves" ? Did you miss these scriptures when you were a pastor ?? "Flesh and Blood, (or man), has not REVEALED this to you Peter, but my Father which is in heaven" (Matthew 16:17) "No man can come unto me unless the Father that has sent me, DRAW HIM...It is written in the prophets; they shall be taught BY GOD; therefore, whosoever has HEARD and LEARNED FROM THE FATHER, (not man), comes unto me" (John 6:44,45)

Granted, there are numerous texts in the Hebrew Bible that describe God as merciful and forgiving, and these generally do not mention blood sacrifices. This is not unusual, however, since these passages are highlighting who God is, not how atonement is made. They call people to repentance and use the description of God’s merciful nature to encourage them. In fact, the word kipper is used in the Psalms to speak of God’s forgiveness (see 65:4[3]; 78:38; 79:9), but there is no reason to think that these passages refer to any other ordained means of achieving forgiveness apart from blood atonement. These passages do not spell out the requirements for forgiveness, but are simply describing the gracious nature of God. In Isaiah, there are several passages which use the word kipper (see esp. 27:9), but again, because of the context (which has to do with ending idolatrous practices) the term is generally translated “purge, wipe away,” instead of “atone.” In Isaiah’s description of his vision of the Lord, he uses the word kipper to speak about the removal of his guilt and sin (Isa. 6:7), which is best translated as “take away, remove.” Even if this passage is referring to atonement, there is a very close connection with sacrifices in the use of the burning coal which was taken from the altar. Also, we have to keep in mind that this is a prophet’s vision and that this is the only instance in which coal is burned as a means of purification in the Bible. This passage does not provide a firm foundation for claiming that burning coal is an alternative form of atonement. Besides, applying burning coals to our lips to ensure our forgiveness would not be a very good idea! The context of the vision indicates that the action is meant to purge whatever is unclean, not make atonement for sins. None of the passages that are generally used to support the claim that blood sacrifices are not the only way in which we can achieve atonement with God offer conclusively a replacement for sacrifice. Blood sacrifices were the only God-ordained means of atonement in the Hebrew Bible. Throughout the generations, blood sacrifices were offered to make atonement for the nation. Hezekiah offered them (2 Chron. 29:20, 24), the priests and Levites in Nehemiah’s day offered them (Neh. 9:32-33), and in Ezekiel’s vision of the future, blood sacrifices are still offered (Ezek. 43:19-20, 26; 45:15-17, 20). The Tanakh is indisputable, consistent, and clear. As summarized by the author of Hebrews: “without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.” Any other system of atonement which does not include blood is not biblical, and any other system of atonement which fails to offer substitutionary atonement, i.e., an innocent sacrificial victim dying on behalf of a guilty sinner, is not able to provide real forgiveness of sins. God established life for life, not money for life, not jewelry for life, not flour for life, not incense for life, as the means of expiation for his people. As even the Talmudic rabbis recognized-atleast while the Temple stood-”There is no atonement without the blood.”

​@@LeonKerkdijk. Wrong. There was no obligation of blood even when the temple was up and running. Let me show you how it was always done, regardless if there is a temple or there isn't one, keep in mind that Ezekiel wrote while he was in exile when there was no temple but Isaiah wrote while the first temple was still very much in use, so you will clearly see that this is to be followed at any given time. *See what God truly said about His forgiveness.* *Isaiah 55:7-9* Let the wicked forsake their ways and the unrighteous their thoughts. *Let them turn to the Lord,* and he will have mercy on them, and to our God, for he will *freely pardon.* (!!!!) 8 “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways,” declares the Lord 9 “As the heavens are higher than the earth,so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts. *(you were taught these two verses, but you were never taught they speak of God's forgiveness, I'm sure, those three verses go together!).* *Read the interpretation:* *For My thoughts are not your thoughts:* Mine and yours are not the same; therefore, I say to you, “The wicked shall give up his way,” and adopt My way… My laws are not like the laws of man [lit. flesh and blood]. *As for you, whoever confesses in judgment is found guilty, but, as for Me, whoever confesses and gives up his evil way, is granted clemency (Proverbs 28:13).* *Ezekiel 18:21-23* “But if a wicked person *turns away from all the sins they have committed and keeps all my decrees and does what is just and right,* that person will surely live; they will not die. 22 *None of the offenses they have committed will be remembered against them*. Because of the righteous things they have done, they will live. 23 *Do I take any pleasure in the death of the wicked? declares the Sovereign Lord. Rather, am I not pleased when they turn from their ways and live?* *Also see Ezekiel 33* 11 Say to them, ‘As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign Lord, I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that they turn from their ways and live. Turn! Turn from your evil ways! Why will you die, people of Israel?’ ... 14 And if I say to a wicked person, ‘You will surely die,’ *but they then turn away from their sin and do what is just and right- 15 if they give back what they took in pledge for a loan, return what they have stolen, follow the decrees that give life, and do no evil-that person will surely live; they will not die. 16 None of the sins that person has committed will be remembered against them. They have done what is just and right; they will surely live.* *God has no need for blood to forgive.* You really think God cannot forgive without shedding of blood?? How were the people of Ninveh saved?? No sacrifices, repentance is the key. ___________________________________________________ *Now tell me is the God of Israel the same as all other God's who's forgivness relies on blood of humans, like any other PAGAN GODS ??* *Is he 'unable' to forgive without blood ???* *Who is the more compassionate God? the God of Israel who FREELY FORGIVES (!) or the Christian god who demands human sacrefice to do so??* Who belittles God, Judiasm or Christianity? 'No remission without blood...' - a lie !!!

​@@pazrahamim9220 There are several reasons why the sacrifice of Christ on the cross does not violate the prohibition against human sacrifice. First, Jesus wasn’t merely human. If He were, then His sacrifice would have also been a temporary one because one human life couldn’t possibly cover the sins of the multitudes who ever existed. Neither could one finite human life atone for sin against an infinite God. The only viable sacrifice must be an infinite one, which means only God Himself could atone for the sins of mankind. Only God Himself, an infinite Being, could pay the penalty owed to Himself. This is why God had to become a Man and dwell among men (John 1:14). No other sacrifice would suffice. Second, God didn’t sacrifice Jesus. Rather, Jesus, as God incarnate, sacrificed Himself. No one forced Him. He laid down His life willingly, as He made clear speaking about His life: “No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again” (John 10:18). God the Son sacrificed Himself to God the Father and thereby fulfilled all the requirements of the Law. Unlike the temporary sacrifices, Jesus’ once-for-all-time sacrifice was followed by His resurrection. He laid down His life and took it up again, thereby providing eternal life for all who would ever believe in Him and accept His sacrifice for their sins. He did this out of love for the Father and for all those the Father has given Him (John 6:37-40). Exodus 19:4-6 says that Israel was called to be a “kingdom of priests and a holy nation.” In living out that calling, Israel interceded and made atonement not only for their own sins, but for those of the whole world. Gentile nations that repented and turned to the God of Israel would be forgiven because of Israel’s sacrifices. This understanding of Israel’s calling is explained and emphasized in the Talmud (b. Sukkah 55b; Pesikta de Rav Kahana, Buber edition, 193b-194a). Rabbi Yohanan mourns for the world’s loss resulting from the destruction of the Second Temple, since everyone was deprived of the means for atonement. Clearly, “God can have mercy on whom he wants to have mercy and have compassion on whom he wants to have compassion” (Exod. 33:19), but he called the nation of Israel to perform all that was necessary for obtaining atonement for the sins of the world. We all are sinners and need some way to have our relationship with God restored. The sacrificial system had its important, though partial, role to play in that restoration, but it was the atoning death of the Messiah that fulfilled it and made it possible for everyone to enter into God’s presence.

Regarding the word "lamo". The verse that rabbi Singer reads to his audience goes: for the transgression of my people a plague befell them (vs 8) This above translation is the translation the rabbi suggests in his online audio lecture on his website. Take note that he makes a big deal (1:14:00, part 1) about the KJV translating verse 5 (…we are healed) in the present tense while that sentence is in the past tense and condemns those translators, but now rabbi Singer uses the past tense where there is no past tense at all! The word “befell” is nowhere to be found in the text. I thought that was a bad thing! So when the KJV does it, it is one of the great Christian deceiving tactics, but now the rabbis does it and it is considered an accurate translation, acceptable at worst. But to continue with the word “lamo”, I can be very brief: the rabbi is right! Lamo means “for them”. BUT, how is it consistently used in the scriptures? The rabbi goes on to give us examples of other verses where lamo is used and they are, of course, all plural. Now the following is interesting. There are 3 instances of lamo being applied to a single individual or item and guess what the KJV does in all those instances. It translates it accordingly! If the word lamo refers to a single person, then it should be translated in the singular form, which is exactly what the KJV does! Here are the quotes: #1 And he said, Blessed [be] the LORD God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant. (Gen 9:26) #2 he maketh it a graven image, and falleth down thereto. (Isaiah 44:15) #3 for the transgression of my people was he stricken (Isaiah 53:8) So what is rabbi Tovia Singer complaining about? The KJV has no agenda here, it just translates it in accordance with the context and thus follows a consistent pattern. But rather than the KJV having an agenda, it is the rabbi who has an agenda. He not only blatantly lies about the KJV translating the word “lamo” as “them” in all other places, as has clearly been demonstrated, but he then goes on to ignore the use of lamo in Isaiah 44:15! WHY? Because it doesn’t support his claim! Look at the context and you will see it is totally singular. I have put all the singular Hebrew words in brackets: 10 Who hath fashioned a god [el], or molten an image [uphesel nasach] that is profitable for nothing? 11 Behold, all the fellows thereof [chaveraav] shall be ashamed; and the craftsmen skilled above men; let them all be gathered together, let them stand up; they shall fear, they shall be ashamed together. 12 The smith maketh an axe, and worketh in the coals, and fashioneth it [yitserhu] with hammers, and worketh it [wayif´alehu] with his strong arm; yea, he is hungry, and his strength faileth; he drinketh no water, and is faint. 13 The carpenter stretcheth out a line; he marketh it [y´ta´arehu] out with a pencil; he fitteth it [ya´asehu] with planes, and he marketh it [y´ta´arehu] out with the compasses, and maketh it [wa´ya´asehu] after the figure of a man, according to the beauty of a man, to dwell in the house. 14 He heweth him down cedars, and taketh the ilex [tirzah] and the oak [w´alon], and strengtheneth for himself one among the trees of the forest; he planteth a bay-tree [oren], and the rain doth nourish it [y´gadel]. 15 Then a man useth it [w´hayah] for fuel; and he taketh thereof (i.e. from the pieces of wood), and warmeth himself; yea, he kindleth it , and baketh bread; yea, he maketh a god [el], and worshippeth it; he maketh it [asahu] a graven image [pesel], and falleth down thereto [lamo]. And then it goes on and tells the same story in the singular. So it looks like the KJV translates lamo correctly. You might say “but this is about idols in general hence the plural lamo”. But the context is singular, uses a substantial number of singular words to describe the idol and the actions of the worshipper and so it should be translated accordingly. Likewise, the language of Isaiah 53 is thoroughly singular and therefore lamo should be translated accordingly. So why does rabbi Tovia Singer ignore this passage? And where does this leave his claims of distortion? Also, there are translations that translate it as saying “for the transgression of my people to whom the stroke was due”, making it clear that this servant got the punishment that the speakers deserved.

Rabbi Tovia Singer makes the claim in his online audio lecture that the word b'motav must be changed to the singular because it is a “nuisance to the cross”. But again, I must give the rabbi credit where credit is due: he is right again. “B’motav” means “in his deaths” and “b’moto” means “in his death”. But does this indicate plurality? NO! If it were “b’moteihem/b’motam”, then he would have a point beyond any doubt, since this would mean “in their deaths/in their death”, which is indisputably plural. But this word in Isaiah 53:9 does not support anything he goes on to say. The rabbi then goes on to say that he can’t prove his point from the Tanakh because the word “b’motav” doesn’t appear in the rest of scripture. But the plural expression of that word is indeed used elsewhere in scripture. But rabbi Singer doesn’t quote that and we will see why he doesn’t. Let’s look at Ezekiel 28: (8) They shall bring thee down to the pit; and thou shalt die the deaths of them that are slain, in the heart of the seas…. (10) Thou shalt die the deaths of the uncircumcised by the hand of strangers; for I have spoken, saith the Lord YHWH.’ These are examples of a single person being addressed and threatened to die deaths (plural). Now it is often said that these are instances that the word “deaths” refer to the plural “uncircumcised”. Well, that doesn’t excuse the plural use either, because the Tanakh shows us that the singular is used in reference to a multitude [e.g. Numbers 23:10; Let me die the death (singular; moth) of the righteous (plural; y’sharim)]. And also verse 8 is a striking example of the plural being applied to a singular person. It speaks of “m’motei chalal b’lev yamim” which translates “in the deaths of one slain in the in the heart of the seas”. The plural (chalalim) is not used here (e.g. Isaiah 66:16, Daniel 11:26). Again, rabbi Tovia Singer claimed that this was an exceptional word and this form doesn’t appear in the rest of the Tanakh so that means he must have studied it out. So if he has studied this out, how come he “forgot” to mention these two instances? So again, rabbi Tovia Singer’s charge of deceit is yet again without any substance whatsoever and I again leave it up to you to decide if this was just an accidental mistake or he deliberately left out the information.

Verses 7-9, which describes the character of the Servant’s suffering and the manner in which He was killed, concludes with the mention of His burial. The first part of the verse reflects the intention of the sinners who wanted to let Him disappear into anonymity by burying Him in a kind of mass grave together with the two robbers who had been crucified with Him. But God had determined otherwise and provided an appropriate environment. Therefore, the Roman authorities allowed His body to be buried by and in the grave or tomb of “a rich man”, Joseph of Arimathea (Mt 27:57-60).

@@LeonKerkdijk As Joseph of Arimathea wasn't even there at the time of the crucifixion, Jesus did not die with the rich. Your explanation is moot.

@@LeonKerkdijk *Part 1:* *Isaiah 53 - Lamo and Bemotav* The Hebrew will show you that the servant in Isaiah 53 speaks of a people and not a person: There are two words that refer to the servant in plural (!) and have been mistranslated: Verse 8 - *למו* - THEM (lamo) Verse 9 - *במותיו* - IN HIS DEATHS (be'motav) ___________________________________________________ *Isiah 53 Verse 8:* מִפֶּשַׁע עַמִּי נֶגַע , *לָמו* The Christian translation: *for* the transgression of my people *he was stricken* . [2] *Keep in mind that these are the kings of the nations speaking about the servant (Israel)- you will read about it in part 3.* *The correct translation - Chabad:* *because* of the transgression of my people, *a plague befell them (!)* ___________________________________________________ *Now see other places in the OT the same word was translated correctly, not as in Isaiah 53 🙏* ___________________________________________________ *Isiah 53 Verse 8:* מִפֶּשַׁע עַמִּי נֶגַע , *לָמו* Compare with these: ___________________________________________________ *Deuteronomy 32:35* "לי נָ קָם וְשִׁלֵּם לְעֵת תָּמוּט רַגְלָם כִּי קָרוֹב יוֹם אֵידָם וְחָשׁ עֲתִדֹת *לָמוֹ* It is mine to avenge; I will repay. In due time their foot will slip; their day of disaster is near and their doom rushes upon *them* . ___________________________________________________ *Isaiah 26:16* "יְהוָה בַּצַּר פְּקָדוּךָ צָקוּן לַחַשׁ מוּסָרְךָ *לָמוֹ* Lord, they came to you in their distress; when you disciplined *them* , they could barely whisper a prayer. ___________________________________________________ *Deuteronomy 32* כִּי מִגֶּפֶן סְדֹם גַּפְנָם וּמִשַּׁדְמֹת עֲמֹרָה עֲנָבֵמוֹ עִנְּבֵי רוֹשׁ אַשְׁכְּלֹת מְרֹרֹת *לָמוֹ* 32 Their vine comes from the vine of Sodom and from the fields of Gomorrah.Their grapes are filled with poison, and *their* clusters with bitterness. ___________________________________________________ *Deuteronomy 33* וַיֹּאמַר יְהוָה מִסִּינַי בָּא וְזָרַח מִשֵּׂעִיר *לָמוֹ* הוֹפִיעַ מֵהַר פָּארָן. 2 He said:“The Lord came from Sinai and dawned over *them* from Seir; he shone forth from Mount Paran. ___________________________________________________ *Isaiah 23* מַשָּׂא צֹר הֵילִילוּ אֳנִיּוֹת תַּרְשִׁישׁ כִּי שֻׁדַּד מִבַּיִת מִבּוֹא מֵאֶרֶץ כִּתִּים נִגְלָה *לָמוֹ* 1 A prophecy against Tyre: Wail, you ships of Tarshish! For Tyre is destroyed and left without house or harbor. From the land of Cyprus word has come to *them.* ___________________________________________________ *Isaiah 26* מֵתִים בַּל יִחְיוּ רְפָאִים בַּל יָקֻמוּ לָכֵן פָּקַדְתָּ וַתַּשְׁמִידֵם וַתְּאַבֵּד כָּל זֵכֶר *לָמוֹ* 14 They are now dead, they live no more; their spirits do not rise.You punished them and brought them to ruin; you wiped out all memory of *them.* ___________________________________________________ *Isaiah 35* וְהָיָה שָׁם מַסְלוּל וָדֶרֶךְ וְדֶרֶךְ הַקֹּדֶשׁ יִקָּרֵא לָהּ לֹא יַעַבְרֶנּוּ טָמֵא וְהוּא *לָמוֹ* הֹלֵךְ דֶּרֶךְ וֶאֱוִילִים לֹא יִתְעוּ. 8 And a highway will be there; it will be called the Way of Holiness; it will be for *those* who walk on that Way.The unclean will not journey on it; wicked fools will not go about on it. ___________________________________________________ *Isaiah 48* וְלֹא צָמְאוּ בָּחֳרָבוֹת הוֹלִיכָם מַיִם מִצּוּר הִזִּיל *לָמוֹ* וַיִּבְקַע צוּר וַיָּזֻבוּ מָיִם. 21 They did not thirst when he led them through the deserts; he made water flow for *them* from the rock; he split the rock and water gushed out. ___________________________________________________ *Habakkuk 2* הֲלוֹא פֶתַע יָקוּמוּ נֹשְׁכֶיךָ וְיִקְצוּ מְזַעְזְעֶיךָ וְהָיִיתָ לִמְשִׁסּוֹת *לָמוֹ* 7 Will not your creditors suddenly arise? Will they not wake up and make you tremble? Then you will become *their* prey. ___________________________________________________ *Psalm 2* יוֹשֵׁב בַּשָּׁמַיִם יִשְׂחָק אֲדֹנָי יִלְעַג *לָמוֹ* 4 The One enthroned in heaven laughs; the Lord scoffs at *them.* ___________________________________________________ *Psalm 44* כִּי לֹא בְחַרְבָּם יָרְשׁוּ אָרֶץ וּזְרוֹעָם לֹא הוֹשִׁיעָה *לָּמוֹ* כִּי יְמִינְךָ וּזְרוֹעֲךָ וְאוֹר פָּנֶיךָ כִּי רְצִיתָם 3 It was not by their sword that they won the land, nor did *their* arm bring them victory; it was your right hand, your arm, and the light of your face, for you loved them. ___________________________________________________ I have plenty more verses - should you wish to see them, please let me know. ../2..

Don't be sorry. There is no need to apologize for telling the truth that everyone needs to hear.

@LYINGPaz The Servant of 52:15-53 dies *BECAUSE* someone else. Whether this servant is Israel as a Nation according to your *PAGAN BABYLONIAN Sect* , The Messiah, Daffy or Donald Duck someone is dying *BECAUSE* someone else

First of all, Jesus is alive and He reigns forever. Second of all, if you're using the Ezekiel 18 argument by saying that no one can die for your sins, then let me tell you this: You're taking Ezekiel 18 out of context. Ezekiel says nothing about atonement. He just gives us the traits of a righteous person that his righteousness counts for himself and so it is the case for ones wickedness. But does this mean that this speaks about the atonement process? No! Now, it is true that God tells us in Ezekiel 18 that “the soul who sins is the one who will die.” (v. 20) and “Repent! Turn away from all your offenses; then sin will not be your downfall.” (v. 30) However, in the context of this chapter and Ezekiel 33 as well, God is talking about His justice. On judgment day, we will only be responsible before God for the sins we have committed, not the sins of others. Also, our forgiveness requires that we repent of our sins. This is a consistent teaching of both the Old and the New Testament. However, statements in Ezekiel 18 do not disprove the need for sacrifice to remove sin. We should not try to make one Bible truth cancel another Bible truth. Speaking of falsely quoting the Scripture, in Vol. 1, p. 77 of Singer’s fraudulent book he claims to find the quote “The righteous man cannot die for the sins of the wicked” in Ezekiel 18. I have to ask Singer, what verse are you quoting here? I do not find a verse that even comes close to saying this! We can agree with Singer that God outlaws human sacrifice unambiguously. The involuntary taking of one human life in order to propitiate God and to provide forgiveness to another human is an abomination. However, the willing, voluntary sacrifice of Jesus, who is “the Lamb who was slain from the creation of the world.” (Revelation 13:8) is another matter. It is a misappropriation of Scripture to use Ezekiel 18 to prove differently.

​@@LeonKerkdijk So many words over nothing.. I'll let God's word do its work.. *Deuteronomy 24:16* "Parents are not to be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their parents; *each will die for their own sin."* *You were lied to that the new covenant is with you, it's not, it's with Judah and israel and here's the best proof of that other than as was explicitly written...* *Vicarious atonment by a human is not the what God allowed, just the opposite, he forbade such a thing, and people will understand this in the end of days (I'll show you all these things here below. Jesus's so called sacrefice was in vain!! Christianity is not from God, it was made up!* *No vicarious atonement at the end of days* (See how it is attached to 'the new covenant prophecy' you were fooled to think as your own..) *Jeremiah 31:* 29 “In those days people will no longer say, ‘The parents have eaten sour grapes, and the children’s teeth are set on edge.’ 30 Instead, *everyone will die for their own sin;* whoever eats sour grapes-their own teeth will be set on edge. Christianity is a lie and you're calling God a liar.

@@LeonKerkdijk And by the way we know where he's buried.. nowhere near Jerusalem.

You called Mitch Glazer "Rabbi". Your dead rabbi instructed his followers to call no man "rabbi". (Matthew 23:8) By calling Mitch Glazer "Rabbi" you deny Christ as your Master. Are you that ignorant of your own false deity's teachings or just in rebellion to him? Rabbi Tovia has done many debates are posted on his youtube channel. You should debate him. Send him an email. kzbin.info/www/bejne/rHyVXomiiL2lmLM

​​@@eddiekaos8441Hey kid, you should speak with a Christian before making false statements like this. This verse says not to call teachers people like your fake and prideful "Rabbi Singer". At that time, there was only one real Rabbi Jesus. Nowadays, we have real Rabbis like Glazer who teach what Jesus thought. You must be one of those sophomores who call Tovia Singer show to "debate" him and pretends to be a Christian.

@@eddiekaos8441-“Rabbi Singer has done many debates”- Actually Rabbi Coward Singer has been running from Hebrew speaking believers for past 30 + years after shellacking by Dr. Brown. I offered to broker a debate with *ONE for ISRAEL* and he refused

@@pepepena1937 Brown and One for Israel are all apostates who have embraced paganism - the worship of a created being.

@@eddiekaos8441-“Brown and One for Israel are apostates”- How about Rabbi *COWARD SINGER* growing a spine and *DARING* to debate them live if he is so sure of his beliefs. He knows that his Ponzi Scheme would come crashing down

Why? So they can see for themselves that he is one of the most disgusting and repulsive people that they will ever have the misfortune of coming across online?

First of all, every punch from the anti-missionaries is below the belt. Second of all, we don't serve false gods. We don't serve any god instead of or in addition to HaShem, because Jesus IS HaShem. He is YHWH. And third of all, we don't care what the Talmud says. That blasphemous pile of Babylonian pig excrement 🐷💩 wasn't even written down until 220 AD. The 'Oral Law' was never given by God to Moses on Mount Sinai, but it's nothing more than an urban legend. It's a myth, a fable, a fairy. It's a lie, a scam, and a fraud. -Rabbis- made it up. You see, if there is no actual Oral Law, then there is no need for Rabbinic Halacha. If there is no need for Rabbinic Halacha, then there is no need for -rabbis- . And when there is no need for -rabbis- , there are suddenly thousands of people left without their power, without their authority and without their paychecks. An entire industry to which a lot of people inject billions of shekels would be nullified. The -rabbis- have played the most sophisticated scheme on the nation of Israel: They made all the Jews think that rabbinic rules and traditions, which were invented by them, are in fact “the Law of Moses”. An educated person to carry out research based on the Bible, history and archeology can’t afford to take the claim that Moses received the Oral Law along with the written Torah seriously. It is a fairytale, a folk myth with the sole purpose of granting anyone named “rabbi” power and control.

-“I moderate Rabbi Singer’s Channel free of Charge”- “Moderate” as in blocking people like me from exposing Rabbi *COWARD SINGER’s* deceit? How about you relay my offer *ONE MORE TIME* for a live debate with *ONE for ISRAEL?* He has been running from Hebrew Speaking believers since shellacking by Dr. Brown over 30 years ago

@hrvatskinoahid1048 - Oh, we KNOW exactly WHO you are, the "fake" Noahide, the "Cancel Culture" and "Social Media Banning" Police, who is even MORE of a "hypocrite" than Tovia is, the one you are doing the devil's work for !! "Birds of a feather certainly flock together" that is for SURE !!

This video is not meant as a rebuttal, but as a rebuke. And by the way, we're not the idolaters, you guys are. Every Christ-rejecting modern Jew is as much of an idolater as a Muslim, a Hindu, a Buddhist or a militant pagan. Without regeneration, they all will merit condemnation. Therefore, to say that any Jew who rejects Jesus as the Messiah will endure the wrath of God in hell forever - that is not anti-Semitic, it is a reality of the Gospel. To suggest otherwise makes a mockery of God’s holiness, tramples Christ’s work underfoot and spits in the face of God’s truth.

lemo לָֽמוֹ - which means “to them" Isaiah 23:1 them lemo לָֽמוֹ Isaiah 26:14 them lemo לָֽמוֹ Isaiah 30:5 them lemo לָֽמוֹ Isaiah 43:8 they lemo לָֽמוֹ Isaiah 44-7 them lemo לָֽמוֹ Isaiah 48:21 them lemo לָֽמוֹ ISAIAH 53:8 To THEM strikes were given.. The them - the members of the faithful remnant Israel the strikes were given. They were stricken. - Not a single person. Pagan Rome correctly translated lemo לָֽמוֹ except in Isaiah 53:8. They intentionally changed it to "he". They are lying to us....

@@eddiekaos8441 -“THEY were stricken…NOT a Single person….Pagan Rome blah,blah,blah”- Hey brighstar *NOT* a single translation I provided above was Christian. Every single one was a Jewish translation and *NOT ONE* used *THEY/THEM* . Comprende buddy

@@pepepena1937 The Hebrew is the actual word of the All-Mighty. English translations are not.

@@eddiekaos8441 -“Hebrew is the actual word of the All-Mighty”- Why don’t you show me where you got that nonsense. I’m sure you are not aware that Hebrew language didn’t come into existence until hundreds of years after Moses. I gave you Jewish translations to prove how deceitful your *PAGAN BABYLONIAN Cult* is. Accusing Christian translations when they have the same thing

@@eddiekaos8441 -“The Hebrew is the actual word of the Almighty”- Show me *ANYWHERE* where Hebrew is the holy language

According to coward singer “Therefore, rabbinic commentators 👉 *tend to lift up the messiah’s name more frequently* 👈 than the names of other faithful servants of God.” *Tovia Singer* *Outreach Judaism*

@@toviaskryptonitelll976 what is wrong about that? By the way nice to see that you read good contents.

@@paimei7246 “what is s wrong about that” that he disproving the notion that it refers to Israel as a Nation. In hi is book he clearly says that most rabbis believe is the Messiah

@@toviaskryptonitelll976 he doesn’t. He describes it in the sentence above the one you mentioned in his article.

@@paimei7246 -“he doesn’t”- What part of “Therefore, rabbinic commentators 👉 *tend to lift up the messiah’s name more frequently* 👈 than the names of other faithful servants of God.” Don’t you understand? It doesn’t say ““Therefore, rabbinic commentators 👉 *tend to lift up* the *NATION of ISRAEL more frequently* 👈 than the names of other faithful servants of God.”