A Quick Rebuttal to Rabbi Tovia Singer's Objections to the Translation of Ps. 40:6 in Heb. 10:5

 
The following blogpost responds to a video by rabbi Tovia Singer here: https://youtu.be/QsjWC555geI

Like most of rabbi Tovia Singer's videos, there's nothing really new or shocking about his video. He talks about things which he himself admits [including in this video itself] Christian scholars already know about.

I don't have time to do an exhaustive rebuttal. Also, I'm only an amateur apologist. Nevertheless, here are some hastily written comments on the video.

- Singer is wrong in claiming that Sola Scriptura doesn't get us to the concept that Jesus retroactively atoned for the sins of David. Hebrews 10:1-10 clearly teaches the Old Testament sacrificial system did not ACTUALLY take away sin. Yet, the OT teaches atonement is necessary. The obvious inference is that Jesus' death was the real and final atonement for sins (the anti-type of the types in the OT). Compare Rom. 3:24-26.

- Or maybe by "Sola Scriptura" Singer is referring only to evidence limited to the Tanakh. Well, there are plenty of passages that predict a future New Covenant (Jer. 31-33; Ezek. 11:19ff.; 36:26ff.) that the LORD would one day provide the ultimate sacrifice (Gen. 22:14). That the Messiah would provide such atonement by  His death (Isa. 53). That the Messiah would be both divine and human can be seen by the Danielic Son of Man being described in Dan. 7:13ff. as both "one like a son of man" (i.e. human or human-like) and yet rides the clouds like a deity. That the final future sacrifice would be of a divine and human figure can be seen when the Angel of Yahweh (the pre-incarnate Christ in a divine Christophany in human form) went up with the flame of a sacrifice in Judges 13:20ff.

Judg. 13:20    And when the flame went up toward heaven from the altar, the angel of the LORD went up in the flame of the altar. Now Manoah and his wife were watching, and they fell on their faces to the ground.
21    The angel of the LORD appeared no more to Manoah and to his wife. Then Manoah knew that he was the angel of the LORD.
22    And Manoah said to his wife, "We shall surely die, for we have seen God."
23    But his wife said to him, "If the LORD had meant to kill us, he would not have accepted a burnt offering and a grain offering at our hands, or shown us all these things, or now announced to us such things as these."

There are many more evidences Christian can present from the Hebrew of the Tanakh. Of course, there are Jewish objections and Christians have answers and responses. The above was just a sampling and quick survey of the evidences. Back to responding to the video.

- Singer says it's un-Jewish to think that the death of the righteous could atone for sins. Yet, there's a long history of such speculation, even assertion, among Jews. Both past and present. See this article by Tony Costa.

"The Concept of Atoning Death in the New Testament: Pagan or Jewish?" by Tony Costa
https://www.biblicaltheology.com/Research/CostaT03.pdf
OR
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rxHgpGWc8ObRJJNVZpv59nyVZQFo1Bkk/view?usp=sharing


Regarding the difference between Ps. 40:6 and Heb. 10:5 see the following freely online commentaries HERE:

https://biblehub.com/commentaries/hebrews/10-5.htm

I'll make a few observations. First off, some of the apparent "abuses" of the NT's use of the OT can be explained through the Jewish hermeneutical approach called Pardes/PaRDeS. Messianic Jew Arnold Fruchtenbaum explains and applies Pardes in the 3rd lecture (of 21 lectures) of his MASTERFUL series linked below:

The Jewish Life of Christ by Arnold Fruchtenbaum [21 lectures in mp3]
https://www.deanbibleministries.org/bible-class-listing/messages/series/the-jewish-life-of-christ

See also Fruchtenbaum's article here:

How the New Testament Quotes the Old Testament by Messianic Jew Arnold Fruchtenbaum
http://arielb.org/archives/794

Here's an excerpt:

//Literal Prophecy Plus Literal Fulfillment: Pshat
The first category is known as “literal prophecy plus literal fulfillment,” reflecting the rabbinic pshat, which refers to the simple meaning of the text. The example of this first category is found in Matthew 2:5 6.//

//Literal Plus Typical: Remez
The second category of quotations can be labeled “literal plus typical.” In rabbinic theology it was known are remez or “hint.” An example of this category is found in Matthew 2:15.//

//Literal Plus Application: Drash
The third category is “literal plus application,” correlating with the rabbinic drash. The example of this category is Matthew 2:17 18.//

//Summation: Sod
The fourth category is “summation” or “summary.” The meaning of sod is “secret” or “mystery” or “something unknown.” The example of the fourth category is found in Matthew 2:23.//

Pardes (Jewish exegesis) [wikipedia article]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pardes_(Jewish_exegesis)


- Singer claims Christians changed Ps.40:6 when quoted in Heb. 10:5. Actually, the writer of Hebrews is merely following the Jewish translated Septuagint (also known as the LXX). So, if anyone "changed it" it was Jews who did it first. The Jewish translators were translating the sense of the passage. There's nothing wrong with that. The Aramaic Targums did the same thing too, and they were EVEN MORE PARAPHRASTIC. They paraphrased the Hebrew much more than the LXX does. Yet, the Targums were accepted by Jews both before and after the birth of Jesus. Singer should first charge the translators of the Targumim and the LXX for changing the Bible before he charges Christians.

Notice what some of the commentaries in the BibleHub.com LINK I gave above have to say:

Benson Commentary states:
//...The words, a body hast thou prepared me, are the translation of the LXX.; but in the Hebrew it is, Mine ears hast thou opened, or bored; an expression which signifies, I have devoted myself to thy perpetual service, and thou hast accepted of me as thy servant, and signified so much by the boring of mine ears. So that, though the words of the translation of the LXX., here used by the apostle, are not the same with those signified by the original Hebrew, the sense is the same; for the ears suppose a body to which they belong, and the preparing of a body implies the preparing of the ears, and the obligation of the person for whom a body was prepared, to serve him who prepared it; which the boring of the ear signified... //

Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary states:
//...a body hast thou prepared me—Greek, "Thou didst fit for Me a body." "In Thy counsels Thou didst determine to make for Me a body, to be given up to death as a sacrificial victim" [Wahl]. In the Hebrew, Ps 40:6, it is "mine ears hast thou opened," or "dug." Perhaps this alludes to the custom of boring the ear of a slave who volunteers to remain under his master when he might be free. Christ's assuming a human body, in obedience to the Father's will, in order to die the death of a slave (Heb 2:14), was virtually the same act of voluntary submission to service as that of a slave suffering his ear to be bored by his master. His willing obedience to the Father's will is what is dwelt on as giving especial virtue to His sacrifice (Heb 10:7, 9, 10). The preparing, or fitting of a body for Him, is not with a view to His mere incarnation, but to His expiatory sacrifice (Heb 10:10), as the contrast to "sacrifice and offering" requires; compare also Ro 7:4; Eph 2:16; Col 1:22. More probably "opened mine ears" means opened mine inward ear, so as to be attentively obedient to what God wills me to do, namely, to assume the body He has prepared for me for my sacrifice, so Job 33:16, Margin; Job 36:10 (doubtless the boring of a slave's "ear" was the symbol of such willing obedience); Isa 50:5, "The Lord God hath opened mine ear," that is, made me obediently attentive as a slave to his master. Others somewhat similarly explain, "Mine ears hast thou digged," or "fashioned," not with allusion to Ex 21:6, but to the true office of the ear—a willing, submissive attention to the voice of God (Isa 50:4, 5). The forming of the ear implies the preparation of the body, that is, the incarnation; this secondary idea, really in the Hebrew, though less prominent, is the one which Paul uses for his argument. In either explanation the idea of Christ taking on Him the form, and becoming obedient as a servant, is implied. As He assumed a body in which to make His self-sacrifice, so ought we present our bodies a living sacrifice (Ro 12:1).//

John Gill Commentary states:
//...But a body hast thou prepared me; or "fitted for me"; a real natural body, which stands for the whole human nature; and is carefully expressed, to show that the human nature is not a person. This was prepared, in the book of God's purposes and decrees, and in the council and covenant of grace; and was curiously formed by the Holy Ghost in time, for the second Person, the Son of God, to clothe himself with, as the Syriac version renders it, "thou hast clothed me with a body"; and that he might dwell in, and in it do the will of God, and perform the work of man's redemption: in Psalm 40:6 it is, "mine ears thou hast opened"; digged or bored, the ear being put for the whole body; for if he had not had a body prepared, he could not have had ears opened: besides; the phrase is expressive of Christ's assuming the form of a servant, which was done by his being found in fashion as a man, Philippians 2:7 and of his being a voluntary servant, and of his cheerful obedience as such, the opening, or boring of the ear, was a sign, Exodus 21:5. And thus by having a true body prepared for him, and a willing mind to offer it up, he became fit for sacrifice. //

- Singer claims it's illegitimate for Christians to appeal to the LXX because we're supposed to prove our doctrines from the Hebrew Bible alone. In actuality there are various degrees or levels of strength in our apologetical arsenal. Some arguments are more and better grounded and therefore stronger than others. But that DOESN'T mean that we may not use the less strong arguments as well. Arguments using the Hebrew Bible will be our strongest arguments. Arguments outside the Hebrew Bible will be less strong. But that doesn't mean we may never use them. Since God has been providentially working in the Jewish community even during the intertestamental period nudging things here and there so that certain speculations or accretions (yes, I dare say it, even errors) now and then hit upon a truth or a type that would be fulfilled in the anti-type of Jesus and in the New Testament.

Also, this charge by Singer doesn't allow for the Christian use of Pardes, when he should allow for Pardes among Christians just as among interestamental Jews and later Jews. Singer is a rabbinic Jew not a Karaite Jew, and rabbinic Judaism often uses Pardes (or at least Pardes-like) exegesis, or commentary or application. Karaite Jews reject the Oral Law and find the Word of God only in the written Scriptures. It might be ironic that Singer, a rabbinic Jew, is requiring Christians to basically take a Karaite approach to Scriptural interpretation.

If the author of Hebrews was debating a Jew who wanted to limit the argumentation to the original Hebrew Bible, I'm sure he could have built a case from the Hebrew Bible alone. But the book of Hebrews is not written to convince only Jews who never believed in Jesus. Admittedly, it's addressed to doubting Jewish converts who were tempted to go back to non-Yeshua-following Judaism, but the book is also addressed to believing Christians. So, the author wasn't required to limit his argumentation to the Hebrew of the Bible.

Moreover, many scholars recognize that the book was probably originally a sermon (or series of sermons) that was transcribed then later improved upon, polished, and then sent out in epistolary form. So, it wasn't the intention of the author to make a precise case for Christianity using the most indisputable airtight evidences and arguments. Because he's trying to encourage faint-hearted Christians he's not trying to be purely logical and evidential. He's using rhetoric to lift up the spirits and strengthen the courage of Christians. Some of the rhetorical flair that accompanies impromptu sermonizing was left in the letter for various purposes including aesthetic reasons. Therefore, the author(s) didn't limited himself to the types of arguments that one might use for Jews who only want evidences from the Hebrew Bible. In which case, he was free to use less than strict evidences. Including the LXX translation of Ps. 40:6. Especially since his audience already accepted the LXX as a generally reliable (though not perfect) translation of the Jewish Scriptures into Greek.

Given the evidence and arguments that scholars provide, one can easily imagine that transcribed sermons originally orally preached to believing Christians were the basis for the book/letter of Hebrews. In which case, that could easily explain why rhetorically impassioned and less than strict arguments used for Christians (who weren't especially doubting) could make it into a book whose target audience were both doubting Jewish converts, and believing (though struggling) Christians.

- Singer seems to claim the Ketuvim and the Nevi'im of the LXX was translated by Christians. I'm not sure if that's what he's claiming. But if he is, WHAT'S the evidence for that? As far as I know, the overwhelming evidence is that they were translated by Jews. Singer is right that some books in the LXX were probably originally written in Greek.

- Singer claims Origen edited the LXX. I grant that some passages in SOME MANUSCRIPTS of the LXX might have Christian influence, even sometimes interpolation due to the copying process in the early Christian centuries. But that doesn't mean all of them did. Or that the influence is widespread. Admittedly, some of the surviving LXX manuscripts may have been copied by only Jews and some [at some time eventually] by Christians. Moreover, it would have been impossible for Origen to edit all the manuscripts of the LXX in a way that doesn't leave any evidence of tampering. It would have taken all the money and all the armies of the world to hunt down every copy of the LXX and alter them exactly the way he wanted. That's a logistical impossibility even if the Emperor were on his side. If that was Origen's plan, he failed miserably because the various LXX manuscripts are different. Sometimes having major discrepancies and differences. Which leads us to the next point.

Also, and more importantly, there is no "ONE" LXX. The evidence shows there were many translations of the Jewish books which were translated by different Jews at different times that we now (for simplicity's sake) collectively call the "Septuagint". That's why Christian apologist Peter J. Williams has an EXCELLENT lecture titled (tongue-in-cheek), "Why I Don't Believe In The Septuagint."

Here's the video:

Why I Don't Believe In The Septuagint 
https://youtu.be/RmpnJ1cgh58

Psalm 10:5 and KJV Onlyism

I'm NOT a KJV Onlyist. However, here's an alleged problem with modern translations that I encountered on Facebook by a KJV Onlyist:

I don't claim to know which is the correct translation. However, I don't think the modern translations are necessarily wrong, for the following reasons (which I posted on Facebook).

"Prosper" might be legitimate translation in light of the next verse (6). The context implies that he's boasting that he's secure and that calamity won't strike him. Similar to other passages in the OT where the wicked boast in their riches and earthly blessings.

The tabernacles of robbers prosper, and they that provoke God are secure; into whose hand God bringeth abundantly.- Job 12:6 KJV

They spend their days in wealth, and in a moment go down to the grave.- Job 21:13 KJV

Rest in the LORD, and wait patiently for him: fret not thyself because of him who prospereth in his way, because of the man who bringeth wicked devices to pass.- Ps. 37:7 KJV

For I was envious at the foolish, when I saw the prosperity of the wicked.- Ps. 73:3 KJV

Righteous art thou, O LORD, when I plead with thee: yet let me talk with thee of thy judgments: Wherefore doth the way of the wicked prosper? wherefore are all they happy that deal very treacherously?- Jer. 12:1 KJV

The NET Bible footnote on this verse says, "Heb “they are firm, his ways, at every time.” The verb חַיִל (khayil, “be firm, be strong”) occurs only here and in Job 20:21, where it has the sense “endure.”"

John Gill in his commentary says the following (notice Jarchi's interpretation):

To God and to his people; or, "his ways cause terror" (a), so Aben Ezra; make men fear; as antichrist has made the whole world tremble at him, Rev_13:4; or, "his ways are defiled", as the Septuagint and Vulgate Latin render it; for to him is nothing pure, his mind and conscience being defiled, Tit_1:15; or, "his ways always remain" (b); they are always the same, there is no change in them for the better: or they "prosper" (c) as Jarchi interprets it; and this is sometimes stumbling to the saints, Jer_12:1;

Albert Barnes prefers the interpretation of the KJV of the word. But Barnes nevertheless admits that it's a difficult word to translate. Here's what Barnes says:

Long QUOTE:
Psalms 10:5
His ways are always grievous - His paths; his manner of life; his conduct toward God; his dealings with men. The word rendered “are grievious,” יחילוּ yāchiylû - has been variously rendered. The Latin Vulgate renders it, “His ways are defiled.” So the Septuagint. Coverdale renders it, “His ways are always filthy.” Prof. Alexander, “His ways are firm.” So DeWette, “Es gelingen seine Wege.” Horsley, “His ways are confident.” This variety in the interpretation arises from the ambiguity of the original word - חול chûl. The meaning of this word, as given by Genesius, is to turn round, to twist, to whirl; and hence:
(1) to dance;
(2) to be whirled, or twisted upon anything;
(3) to twist oneself with pain, or to be in pain;
(4) to bear or bring forth;
(5) to tremble, to quake;
(6) to be strong or stable, as things twisted are.
Hence, he translates this passage, “his ways are firm, or stable, that is, all his affairs prosper.” But it seems to me plain that this is not the idea in the mind of the psalmist. He is not dwelling on the prosperity of the wicked, or on the result of his conduct, but on his character. In the previous verses he had stated some of the traits in his character, and the subsequent verses continue the description; hence, it is natural that we should expect to find some special feature of his character referred to here, and not that there should be an allusion to the stability of his affairs. It seems to me, therefore, that the exact idea here is, that his ways, or his modes of feelling and conduct were always perverse and forced, and hard; that there was always something tortuous and unnatural about him; that he was not straightforward and honest; that he did not see things as they are, and did not act in a plain and upright manner.
End QUOTE

When it comes to interpreting the Psalms, I always profit from reading Joseph Addison Alexander's commentary (various versions freely online at archive.org).

Here's a Screen Shot of of Alexander's commentary on this verse.

Click on picture to better read the comments.

I could have written more, but that should suffice to show that the modern translations do not commit a "gross" error.

Isa. 7:14, Matt. 1:23 and the Virgin Birth

The writing of this blogpost was inspired by Christian apologist Steve Hays' blogpost The virgin birth prophecy which is a response to atheist skeptic Richard Carrier's article The Problem of the Virgin Birth Prophecy (2003). I recommend reading both articles.

All bolding below has been added by me, AP.

Many skeptics are quick to charge the writer of Matthew (in Matt. 1:23) of mistranslating, abusing and twisting Isa. 7:14 to fit Christian theology. Usually, they do so by making claims and argument even knowledgeable and scholarly atheists would regard as erroneous and fallacious. The fact is that the meaning of the words "almah," bethulah," (in Hebrew) and "parthenos" (in Greek) do not have a single definite meaning. They must be interpreted in light of context. Even the skeptic Richard Carrier states, "The Greek word parthenos carries a basic meaning of 'girl', hence it denotes 'virgin' only by implication." Nor does Carrier deny, but rather affirms, that the Hebrew word "almah" could refer to a virgin, even though he is quick to point out that the Hebrew word "bethulah" more clearly meant virgin. Carrier also states, "It is possible the Jewish translator of Isaiah wasn't taking sides on whether 'virgin' was meant but was using a word that could mean either, and that only later did Christians take it as definitely meaning 'virgin'."

I recommend reading Carrier's full article, The Problem of the Virgin Birth Prophecy (2003). Make sure to also read the footnotes. Then immediately read Steve Hays' response The virgin birth prophecy


The Jewish Annotated New Testament is a New Testament with annotations written by non-Messianic Jewish scholars. Page 33 has an article that includes the following [entirety not quoted]

Matthew's rendering of the LXX's parthenos from Isa 7.14 ("A virgin will conceive and bear a son" [Mt 1.23]) remains a site of popular piety and scholarly debate. The Hebrew word translated by parthenos in the LXX is 'almah, which is used in the Tanakh in Isa 7.14 and six other times (Gen 24.43; Ex 2.8; Ps 68.26; Prov 30.19; and Song 1.3; 6.8) in the sense of "a young woman" but does not necessarily suggest "virgin." The Greek parthenos does not, for the LXX, necessarily connote "virgin," although that is the predominant translation. It appears in Gen 34.3 in reference to Dinah, who had just had intercourse with Shechem. The Hebrew term betulah, used more than fifty times, including several times in Isaiah, usually (but not always) carries the technical sense of "virgin." Thus for the Hebrew text of Isa 7.14, and perhaps even the Greek text, the prophet is saying, "The young woman is pregnant...." There is no reason to presume her pregnancy was miraculous.

I tried to be exact in typing the above excerpt (including italics). I put in bold what I found interesting.

Even according to these Jewish scholars (who are not believers in Jesus/Yeshua as the Messiah) NONE of the words "almah," "parthenos" or "betulah" have only one definite meaning. If that's true, then that seems to demolish the charges that 1. the LXX (translated by Jews no less) was definitely wrong in its translation of almah. 2. Matthew was wrong in latching onto "parthenos" as having the sole definite meaning of "virgin."

When the above facts are coupled with the traditional Jewish hermeneutical approach to Biblical interpretation called Pardes/PaRDeS, Matthew cannot be charged with 1. tampering with the wording of the Hebrew scriptural passage, 2. altering its prophecy, 3. twisting its meaning by a misleading translation, 4. putting an eisegetical spin on its interpretation and application to Christ's virgin birth.  Since it is not clear which of the four hermeneutical approaches of PaRDeS Matthew used to connect Isa. 7:14 with Jesus' supernatural conception and birth.

Moreover, some Christians scholars have argued that there is a dual fulfillment of Isa. 7:14. One relatively immediate during the lifetime of the original recipients of the prophecy, and secondly the final ultimate fulfillment in Christ's virgin birth. In which case, if God meant to have a dual fulfillment, then the more ambiguous word "almah" would make room for two fulfillments, rather than "bethulah" which would only allow for one fulfillment.

In a review of the NET translation of the Bible a footnote states:

9. For example, F.F. Bruce, who defends the rendering "virgin" thus:

But since the new [RSV] revisers have enlisted the aid of the Ras Shamra documents elsewhere, they might have done so here. For Isaiah’s announcement of the birth of the child Immanuel is couched in language reminiscent of the Ugaritic formula for announcing the birth of a hero. And in that formula the Ugaritic equivalents of Hebrew 'almah and bethulah appear in synonymous parallelism! There are overtones in Isaiah 7:14 which are not satisfied by the RSV rendering. The prophet’s words probably rang a bell in the minds of his hearers, just as did the reference of his contemporary Micah to “the time when she who is in travail has brought forth” (Mic. 5:3, RSV). (“A British Scholar Looks at the RSV Old Testament,” Eternity, May 1954, p. 45.)

See further the careful analysis of the word in Edward J. Young's Studies in Isaiah (1955), pp. 143-98, and his commentary, The Book of Isaiah. Vol. 1. Chapters 1-18. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1965), pp. 283-94. Even such a liberal scholar as Hans Wildberger must admit that "the translation of the word with παρθενος (virgin), which has caused the passage to be interpreted as the account of the virgin birth, is not impossible from the outset. Procksch (ad. loc.) offers his candid opinion: 'According to the content [sic], the Gk translation παρθενος and Vulg virgo is right on target ..., whereas Aquila, Sym, Theod distort the meaning by using νεανις'; cf. also Schulz, op. cit." (Isaiah 1-12. A Commentary, translated by Thomas H. Trapp [Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1991], p. 308). On a popular level, see the article "Virgin" by J.A. Motyer in The New International Dictionary of the Bible edited by J.D. Douglas (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1987), pp. 1051-52.

The argument against the rendering "virgin" depends upon the idea that in Hebrew only the word בתולה (bethulah) carried the sense "virgin," and so if Isaiah had wished to convey that sense he would have used that word, and not the word עלמה. But evidently בתולה does not unambiguously refer to a virgin, because in Genesis 24:16, Leviticus 21:3, and Judges 21:12 the biblical authors add to the word such phrases as "who had not known a man," which are obviously designed to make sure that the word is understood in the specific sense of "virgin." Why should we expect Isaiah to use one ambiguous word instead of another? We have enough reason to think that both בתולה and עלמה are like our old English word "maiden"— meaning "young woman" in some places or times, and "virgin" in others. There is something perverse about any analysis of the words which will not admit that probability, and which insists that only בתולה can mean "virgin." It is like saying that Shakespeare could not have meant the same thing as "virgin" when he used the words "maid" and "maiden." We know very well that he did use the Anglo-Saxon word "maiden" in that sense, although he also used the Old French word "virgin" in his plays. Ultimately, our decision regarding the appropriate rendering in Isaiah 7:14 depends upon our judgment of what word best conveys the author's meaning, and we judge that "virgin" belongs in this place.

Regarding other aspects of the interpretation of the Immanuel prophecy, see the discussions in Ernst W. Hengstenberg, Christology of the Old Testament (4 vols., Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1854-1858); James Orr, The Virgin Birth of Christ (New York: Charles Scribner's sons, 1907); and J. Gresham Machen, The Virgin Birth of Christ (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1930).

See also the following resources:

What Do You Think About The Messiah?
This is my comprehensive blogpost in defense of the true Messiahship of Jesus.

Does the New Testament Quote the Old Testament Out of Context?

How the New Testament Quotes the Old Testament by Dr. Arnold Fruchtenbaum

A Look at Messianic Prophecy: Four Ways the New Testament Authors Use the Hebrew Bible

The virgin birth prophecy by Steve Hays

"The Virgin Will Conceive": Typological Fulfillment in Matthew 1:18-23 by James M. Hamilton Jr.

Context And Content in the Interpretation of Isaiah 7:14 by J.A. Motyer

Is Isa 7:14 prophetic? by Steve Hays

Isaiah 7:14 by Steve Hays

Almah: Virgin or Young Maiden? by Zhava Glaser 

Modern Rabbis and the Virgin Birth of Messiah

7 Supernatural Sons

Virgin Birth Prophecy Jesus and the Old Testament - Dr. Michael S. Heiser

https://youtu.be/puLgX-zp0_c

A "Pregnant Virgin"?!? Defending a Messianic interpretation of Isaiah 7:14 - The Case for Messiah

https://youtu.be/Z5aQkUPoK1U

The Jewish Life of Christ, Twenty One (21) mp3 Lectures by Messianic Jew Arnold Fruchtenbaum

Answering Your Toughest Questions with Dr. Michael Brown YouTube Episodes:
 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16,
 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25,26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32


Countering the Counter-Missionaries with Dr. Michael Brown
(Over 24 hours of teaching)

Day 1 part 1 & 2 http://youtu.be/vV9rMFOFkgY
Day 1 part 3 & 4 http://youtu.be/OLT7BYpdU1o

Day 2 part 1 & 2 http://youtu.be/tcsK1VfAA0Y
Day 2 part 3 & 4 http://youtu.be/wbKAFnr0O6Q

Day 3 part 1 & 2 http://youtu.be/roHll6Gf3EY
Day 3 part 3 & 4 http://youtu.be/nt3X4SbijEo

Day 4 part 1 & 2 http://youtu.be/JLg4XnkitKE
Day 4 part 3 & 4 http://youtu.be/O_LyQI9dpI4

Day 5 part 1 & 2 http://youtu.be/Q-nMtATgETE
Day 5 part 3 & 4 http://youtu.be/7KUc9kQlb1Y

It's common for non-Messianic Jews to argue that no respected and learned rabbis ever accepted Jesus' Messiahship. However that's false. As the following two articles proves.

Rabbis Who Thought For Themselves Part ONE
Rabbis Who Thought For Themselves Part TWO