Well, for anyone who knows the WHOLE Bible, they can see right through these silly allegations (mentioned in the video). As a matter of fact, the answers can be found in various articles on our Countering Jewish Anti-Missionaries page; more specifically, in articles such as Jews need Yeshua. But just for kicks, let's just quickly provide a response to this video's six point assertions as to why Yeshua couldn't possibly be the Messiah!
Let's start with this: One of the questions that all Jews (and their converts and hangers-on) have is: Did Yeshua do all that is required of Messiah to do? The answer is: No, not yet. Nothing says He had to accomplish everything simultaneously - which completely renders moot Points One through Five asserted in the video!
YHWH's timeframe is different from ours. He never said Messiah would "do all" while He was on the earth the first time. Please check out our article about Yeshua's qualifications, which contains the answer to your questions, and more!
Yeshua has accomplished nearly all of the things that the messiah was supposed to accomplish (which the Jews are still waiting for) and will CONTINUE to accomplish in GOD'S timing.
But, what are you going to do with the many prophecies that YESHUA ALREADY FULFILLED? Where do they fit in? For the more than 300 prophecies He has already fulfilled, see Accurate Messiah Prophecies.
Did Rabbi Schneerson, the man many Jews erroneously believe to be Messiah, accomplish all the above things? Has he accomplished even HALF of those things? A third? NO! He's still snoozing in his coffin, which means he hasn't even been raised from the dead yet!
So, let's address the points in their video:
Point One: Ingathering of exiles hasn't happened yet.
Response: It is in progress.
Point Two: Rebuilding of the Temple hasn't happened yet.
Response: It is in progress.
Point Three: Messiah would bring worldwide peace.
Response: It is in progress. The prophecies of Daniel and Revelation are unfolding right now, this very minute! See End times prophecies unfolding.
You can't force YHWH's prophecies to unfold out of sequence! For instance, Israel had to become a nation once more (which happened in 1948), which had to happen before BEFORE the prophecy of Jeremiah (Jeremiah 30:11) could be fulfilled! Jeremiah said the enemies of Israel will be destroyed but that the Jews will never perish. Has THAT happened yet? NO! History has many examples of how nations have tried to destroy Israel and the Jews...and this is still unfolding!
Over the years, millions of Jews worldwide have returned to their ancient homeland. Today, Israel again is a vibrant, independent country. But, the empires of the Nazis, Romans, Babylonians and Assyrians have vanished. Today, we can judge with our own eyes as to whether Jeremiah was correct when he said, 2600 years ago, that the enemies of the Jews would be destroyed, but that the Jews would be preserved. But it is ONGOING. It's not all fulfilled yet! So, why do the anti-missionaries insist all of Messiah's prophecies had to unfold five minutes after He arrived on the scene?
How is it that they teach the world will be a perfect utopia BEFORE Messiah comes? What would be left for the "Arm of YHWH" to do if it was somehow done without any effort on His part? The words of Isaiah are spoken with great pain in the heart of the prophet. "Who has believed our report and to whom has the Arm of YHWH ben revealed?" [Is. 53:1] It is absolutely amazing that Jews for Judaism and their ilk completely ignore the ancient commentaries on Messianic prophecies that speak of a suffering Messiah (Mashiyach ben Yosef) as well as a reigning Messiah (Mashiyach ben David).
Point Four: The Jews will embrace Torah.
Response: It is in progress. And by the way, YHWH has always given man the CHOICE to embrace Torah, or not!
Point Five: There will be a universal knowledge of God
Response: It is in progress. With the radical Muslims trying to take out Israel, and NOT succeeding - it is clear WHO the REAL God is! One day, we are told, EVERY knee will bow!
Point Six: Messiah must be of the Tribe of Judah, a direct descendant of David.
Response: Glad they mentioned that! First of all: According to the Bible, adoption in Biblical times WAS an accepted practice. Please read the following from The New Unger's Bible Dictionary, Copyright (c) 1988:
ADOPTION: Greek: huiothesia, the "placing" as a "son". The admission of a person to some or all of the privileges of natural kinship. As the practice of adoption was confined almost exclusively to sons - the case of Esther being an exception - it probably had its origin in the natural desire for male offspring. This would be especially true where force, rather than well-observed laws, decided the possession of estates.
Hebrew: Abraham speaks of Eliezer (Gen 15:3), a house-born slave, as his heir, having probably adopted him as his son. Jacob adopted his grandsons Ephraim and Manasseh, and counted them as his sons (48:6), thus enabling him to bestow through them a double portion upon his favorite son, Joseph. Sometimes a man without a son would marry his daughter to a freed slave, the children then being accounted her father's; or the husband himself would be adopted as a son (1 Chronicles 2:34).
Most of the early instances of adoption mentioned in the Bible were the acts of women who, because of barrenness, gave their female slaves to their husbands with the intention of adopting any children they might have. Thus Sarah gave Hagar to Abraham, and the son (Ishmael) was considered the child of Abraham and Sarah (Genesis 16:1-15). The childless Rachel gave her maid, Bilhah, to her husband (30:1-7) and was imitated by Leah (30:9-13). In such cases the sons were regarded as fully equal in the right of heritage with those by the legitimate wife.
From Fausset's Bible Dictionary, Electronic Database Copyright (c)1998 by Biblesoft:
ADOPTION: The taking of one as a son who is not so by birth. (I) Natural: As Pharaoh's daughter adopted Moses; Mordecai Esther; Abraham Eliezer (as a slave is often in the East adopted as son) (Gen 15:2-3); Sarai the son to be born by Hagar, whom she gave to her husband; Leah and Rachel the children to be born of Zilpah and Bilhah, their handmaids respectively, whom they gave to Jacob their husband. The handmaid at the birth brought forth the child on the knees of the adoptive mother (Genesis 30:3); an act representative of the complete appropriation of the sons as equal in rights to those by the legitimate wife. Jacob adopted as his own Joseph's two sons, Ephraim and Manasseh, on the same footing as Reuben and Simeon, his two elder sons (Gen 48:5). Thereby he was able to give Joseph his favorite son more than his single share, with his brothers, of the paternal heritage.
The tribes thus were 13, only that Levi had no land division; or Ephraim and Manasseh were regarded as two halves making up but one whole tribe. In 1 Chron 2 Machir gives his daughter to Hezron of Judah; she bore Segub, father of Jair. Jair inherited 23 cities of Gilead in right of his grandmother. Though of Judah by his grandfather, he is (Num 32:41) counted as of Manasseh on account of his inheritance through his grandmother. So Mary, being daughter of Heli, and Joseph her husband being adopted by him on marrying his daughter, an heiress (as appears from her going to Bethlehem to be registered in her pregnancy), Joseph is called in Luke's genealogy son of Heli.
Furthermore - and here's the clencher: Mary should be disqualified to transfer the rights of her lineage to her son Yeshua - except for a little known exception to the rule....
In Matthew 1:1-16 and Luke 3:23-38 we are presented with two genealogies of Yeshua. On the surface these different listings would appear to be a contradiction in the scriptures. The genealogy found in Matthew's gospel is the lineage of Yeshua's earthly father Joseph, while the genealogy found in Luke's gospel is the lineage of Yeshua's mother Mary. However, many of the people that teach on the genealogies fail to realize or address a major problem associated with the genealogical listing found in Luke's gospel, the lineage of Mary.
Once you have established that the line is indeed Mary's you must deal with a second difficulty. The rights of the line are not passed through the mother, only the father. Even though Mary, through her lineage, was of the Davidic bloodline, she should be excluded from being able to pass those rights of the bloodline because of being a female (Deuteronomy 21:16). So it is not enough to prove that Mary was an unblemished descendant of David, she had to be a male to transfer the rights. Therefore she would be disqualified to transfer the rights to her son Yeshua, except for a little known exception to the rule....
HOWEVER - In Numbers 26 we are introduced to Zelophehad. Zelophehad, we are told, had no sons, only daughters. In Numbers 27, following the death of Zelophehad, the daughters of Zelophehad came before Moses and argued their plight. Because their father had died with no sons, all of their rights of inheritance were to be lost and they felt this was unfair. So Moses prayed to God and God gave Moses an exception to the rule. The Lord told Moses that the inheritance CAN flow through a female, IF they fulfill two requirements. There must be no male offspring in the family (Numbers 27:8) and if the female offspring should marry, they must marry within their own tribe (Numgers 36:6).
Now we come back to Mary. On the surface she should be unable to transfer the rights to her Son. But when you research you find that Mary had NO brothers, AND Mary did indeed marry within her own tribe to Joseph. What an awesome God we serve that set in order the requirements to allow the virgin birth to take place 1,400 years in advance! (Taken in part from: The Lineage Loophole by Phil Luna.)
Footnote to Matthew 1 from the Aramaic English New Testament:
The word gowra designates a protector-male or guardian; the context of this verse determines its specific meaning. Y'shua elsewhere says "which one of gowra, if he has a son...."; obviously "father" is intended. "Gowra" also applies to other forms of protector-male type relationships depending on the context, such as "husband", "son", and so forth. Ancient Aramaic Matthew ends at verse 17, not verse 25. The text not only establishes the subject, but shifts from "background history" into the present, from intro to body. This means that the Yosip in verse 16 (the guardian or adopted father of Miriyam (Mary)) is not the same Yosip as the husband of Miriyam in verse 19.
The word gowra designates a protector-male or guardian; the There is no reason for Matthew to use two different words for the same individual, whereas gowra sometimes means "husband" but can also mean "father". The other term baalah can only mean "husband". On the other hand, there would most definitely be a reason to differentiate two men named Yosip, one being the adopted father, the other the husband of Miriyam. With this differentiation we now have three full sets of 14 generations, which satisfies the demands of verse 17.
Furthermore....When you read thoroughly the details of Zelophedad's daughters it is clear that is exactly what it is about: Females inherit the assets of their father when there is no male heir. This is stated DIRECTLY:
Numbers 27:7 'Zelophehad's daughters are right in what they say. You will indeed give them a property to be their heritage among their father's kinsmen; see that their father's heritage is passed on to them. 8 Then speak to the Israelites and say, "If a man dies without sons, his heritage will pass to his daughter. 9 If he has no daughter, the heritage will go to his brothers. 10 If he has no brothers, his heritage will go to his father's brothers. 11 If his father has no brothers, his heritage will go to the member of his clan who is most nearly related; it will become his property. This will be a legal rule for the Israelites, as Yahweh has ordered Moses."' (NJB)
Proof of this is also indirectly stated with Joseph and Mary returning to Bethlehem. Mary is attached to that inheritance through her husband but she also inherits from her family without there being a male heir.
And let's not forget, Talmud says a child is considered Jewish if his MOTHER is Jewish....And Torah says land can only pass WITHIN THE TRIBE it is allotted to. YHWH calls it an INHERITANCE. And with the Levites YHWH says, "I am their inheritance"...so obviously being from a tribe is an asset if you inherit YHWH....
Oh yes, and that pesky "curse of Jeconiah" - not so problematic when viewed in context!
So, dear "anti-missionaries" - if you are really interested in God's Truth, please check out the following articles: Isaiah 53 and Yeshua; Isaiah 53; and Qualifications of Messiah. Oh, and let's put to rest your endless arguments that Yeshua was supposedly an IDOL!
Food for thought: If the Messiah has not been revealed neither has Ruach HaKadosh (Holy Spirit) been manifest. If Ruach HaKadosh (Holy Spirit) has not been manifested, then there is no divine empowerment for spiritual insight of prophecy. Therefore, Jews for Judaism are mishandling prophecy by operating solely from a perspective based on the doctrine of men's knowledge (gnostic). There is too much evidence throughout the Scriptures to deny the Messiahship of Y'shua HaMashiyach (Jesus Messiah/Anointed One)! Please check out this wonderful video.
The biblical pattern of one chosen to deliver appearing twice runs over and over as a prophetic type and shadow of the coming Messiah. See our article about Joseph - who was rejected by his brothers, handed over to Gentiles, then made the supplier of life to all (Savior) then revealing himself to his brothers in the end. This shows the pattern of what Messiah will go through: 1. Rejected by his brothers 2. handed over to Gentile nations. 3. He is the source of Life to all, our Savior. 4. He now is revealing Himself to His Jewish brothers at the end of days. Moses was rejected and returned after 40 years to fulfill his mission. Y'shua was rejected and now after 2,000 years (40 jubilees) He is being received. David was anointed by Samuel but had to run and hide for a season before he reigned as king. (See Ian Michael’s website for a comparison of modern vs. ancient commentaries of Messianic prophecies.)