1.  WHY DON'T YOU MISSIONARIES LEAVE US ALONE?

     What would I have others do unto me? I would have them instruct me in the truth. So therefore I must do to them as I would have them do to me.
     Now, what I really wish is for people to share with me not just what they think is the truth, but that which is in fact the objective truth. Every person should have a desire for objective truth, whatever this truth  might turn out to be. And yes, I want people to listen carefully and attentively when an objective truth that they did not know is being proclaimed. I want this to be so, regardless of who the speaker is: be he the Pope, be he my sinful self, be he Mohammed, be he the Chief Rabbi.
    But am I obligated to listen if someone presents a view I disagree with? Obviously, it would seem I would want to listen to them only when I agreed that they were right. But in practice, usually I should listen respectfully to the other side and examine their arguments and strive to understand them, even if I am firmly convinced they are wrong. The reason for this examination is not so much my lack of certainty as to my rightness, but rather is a respect for the other person as a person, and a desire to help them. And there may be some truths in their arguments, some truths perhaps grasped more clearly than I grasp them, even if the final end of the argument is wrong. Moreover, it is my duty as an apologist to listen to the arguments of the other side--as carefully as possible--that I might help the other person to see and overcome the limitations in those arguments. And I must do all this very respectfully, respecting that perhaps the person is deceived. All this respect can be given without abandoning my conviction of being right.
      I must also listen to the criticism that the other person brings against my arguments. First of all, I should listen because even if my conclusions are right, perhaps the arguments may be wrong. And also, I should listen so as to learn precisely where we--always respectfully--agree or disagree.

     Finally, in telling other people the truth:

     1.  There must be no coercion except that which a well-founded argument exercises by its own virtue and by the grace of G-d on a person's mind.
     2.    I may not use empty emotional arguments which do not have any rational backing--for to do so is to deceive, and one may not deceive, even 'for the sake of the truth'.
     3.    I may not simply use empty phrases and pretty sounding words which do not have a substantial argument behind them.
     4.    I may not use arguments that I do not think are well-formed; to use a false argument to come to the truth is itself an error.
     5.    I may not speak of something as certain when in fact I am not morally certain of it.
     6.     I must speak those arguments which are logically correct and which truly lead to the conclusion, without excessive adornment and certainly without deceit.

     When should  I tell the truth to someone who doesn't want to hear it?  I think this is a prudential judgement dependent on circumstances. I am obliged to convey this truth to him--but if he is not willing to receive it at the moment, then prudence may dictate that the best way is not to speak to him at the moment about it, depending on the circumstances. On the other hand, it would be demeaning for a person to be thought incapable of receiving the truth; so perhaps we should be a little careful in this kind of prudential judgement.

     Suppose we spread this 'good news' about Yeshua to everyone EXCEPT Jews.  That would be anti-Semitic in itself, because we would be withholding something that we believe to be good--indeed, the highest good--from the Jews simply because they are Jews.

     Let me put it this way: we believe the messiah has come. Would you think highly of us if we kept this secret from you? If we believe that he has come, then it is our duty to inform others of this. Imagine at the last judgment, HaShem asking us, 'So you thought My messiah had come but you didn't bother to tell anyone else about it?' No! If we believe that the messiah has come, then we should not keep such weighty news to ourselves only.

     Yes,  Jews already follow a religion which is derived largely from scripture (and so, since we believe that scripture is the revelation of the truth to man, this religion is thereby closer to the truth than are the religions devised by men, such as Hinduism or Buddhism.)  But HaShem  also ordained that Yeshua should come to the Jewish people (and not to the Romans, or to the Greeks, or to the Anglo-Saxons).  Yeshua said to Nicodemus, 'You must be born again.' Nicodemus was a master in Israel,  well-versed in Jewish practice. Yet even to him, Nicodemus, Yeshua explained that traditional practices alone were not enough, there had to be something more.

     I believe that for a Jew to be most truly a Jew, he must also believe in his messiah. And that Faithfulness to the Torah and to G-d requires this. The Torah says that prophets whose prophecies come true are to be followed. Yeshua prophesied his own death and resurrection. IF he truly rose from the dead, then the Torah requires that his teaching be followed. Now, of course, you might dispute the premise that he rose from the dead. However, since we do believe this (if we didn't, we wouldn't be his followers), we must also believe as a logical consequence that the Torah commands us to follow Yeshua of Nazareth's teachings. Since you dispute the premise, you do not see this consequence.
     The late Roman Brandstaetter (a well-known Polish poet who came to believe in Yeshua) once said, 'Conversion is for pagans.'  He said that as a Jew he was never a pagan so he never considered  that he had 'converted' into anything (even though he became a member of  the Roman Catholic church).  A more correct description of the process would be 'Coming to the fullness of G-d's plan'. A Jew who receives his messiah does not repudiate the Torah, but he believes that by following the messiah he is fulfilling the fullest and ultimate meaning of G-d's intent in giving the Torah to Moses.  If this is so, then a Jew who receives his messiah does not lose his Jewish identity; rather, it is by doing so that he becomes most fully a Jew.

3.  WHAT YOU WANT TO DO IS COMPLETE HITLER'S WORK. YOU WANT JUDAISM TO DISAPPEAR!

     The survival of the Jewish people as a people does not (and never did) depend upon their adherence to a set of rules made by the rabbis. The survival of the Jewish people has always depended upon their adherence to what is required of them by HaShem. If HaShem has in fact sent them a messiah, then listening to His messiah  will not lead to their disappearance.

     You apparently believe that the gospel is incompatible with faithfulness to Torat Moshe. You apparently  believe that faithfulness to the gospel destroys Am Yisrael. However, we believe the precise opposite: that it is in the gospel that Torat Moshe finds its highest meaning, and that the Jewish people will attain their greatest glory when they understand and accept their messiah.  .  . As long as we hold these beliefs, we must act on our beliefs, and not on the beliefs of others.

    Judiasm is a 'waiting' religion. It is 'waiting' for the redemption, for the coming of the messiah. It is an 'expectant' religion. Jews are looking for prophecies to be fulfilled. It would therefore be normal and proper for them to consider opinions on whether or not the one who is expected has come.

5.  THE G-D OF JUDAISM WOULD NEVER ASSUME HUMAN FORM, OR INHABIT A HUMAN BODY; THIS IS A PAGAN IDEA!

     (Notwithstanding Isaiah 6, in which it certainly appears that HaShem is assuming a human-like form, 'seated up a throne', and so that Isaiah says, 'My eyes have seen HaShem'--verse 5--thus making it clear that it is not merely an angel he is observing; and notwithstanding that the prophet here also says that he heard 'the voice of the L-rd'--verse 8--saying, 'Who will go for us?'--and that a voice is certainly as much an anthropomorphic characteristic as a hand or an arm) it should be remembered that HaShem also promised to come and dwell with His people in  a tent in the wilderness for 40 years (and longer).
     Now, there is not that much difference between the Almighty Ruler of the universe saying he will 'tabernacle' with His people from the inside of a tent, and His saying that He will 'tabernacle' with them for a similar period of time from within a human-flesh form.

   I do not understand 'how' the Almighty can assume a human nature  in addition to His divine nature any more than I can understand 'how' the Almighty can part the Red Sea. The way I would express the 'what' of what happened (though the 'how' is a mystery) would be with some technical vocabulary. We must distinguish between 'person' and 'nature'. A 'person' (and this is a technical term; it applies not only to human persons but also to G-d and angels) is in some way an individual, an 'I', a subject. For instance, I am a person. Likewise, 'personhood', or even triple 'personhood', can be found in G-d. A given 'person' USUALLY possesses a single 'nature'. Thus, I posssess a human nature, which is just another way of saying that I am a man. The angel Gabriel could say about himself, 'I am an angel'. That would be an assertion about a 'person', namely Gabriel who is the 'I' in the sentence 'I am an angel', and about a 'nature', meaning that this person possesses an angelic 'nature', ie, is an angel.
     So what we believe is that in Yeshua there is a single subject, a single 'person', a single 'I'. But that 'person' possesses two 'natures', one human, the other divine. They are both present in Yeshua without mixing. The divine 'nature' does not change by being present in one 'person' with human 'nature'.

     What about Daniel 7:13? :

     'In my vision at night I looked and there was one before me like the Son of Man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into His presence. He was given authority, glory, and sovereign power. All peoples, nations, and men of every tongue worshipped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed.'

     The word used here for 'worship' is 'pelach'. Pelach occurs ten times in Tanach. In every case it refers to the 'serving' or 'service to' or 'worship' of a god (or G-d):

     Ezra 7:24   the servants of the Temple (those who 'pelach') at the House of the L-rd

     Daniel 3:12  'But there are some Jews whom you have set over the affairs of the province of Babylon--Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego--who pay no attention to you, O King. They neither serve (pelach) your gods nor worship the image you have set up.

    Daniel 3:14  'Nebuchadnezzar said to them, 'Is it true, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, that you do not serve (pelach) my gods or worship the image of gold I have set up?'

    Daniel 3:17  'If we are thrown into the fiery furnace, the G-d we serve (pelach) is able to save us from it . . .'

     Daniel 3:18  'But even if He does not. . . we will neither serve (pelach) your gods or worship the image of gold you have set up.'

     Daniel 3:28  'Then Nebuchadnezzar said, 'Praise be to the G-d of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, who has sent His angel and rescued his servants (the ones who 'pelach')

     Daniel 6:16  'The king said, 'May your G-d, whom you continually serve (pelach), rescue you!'

     Daniel 6:20 'Daniel, servant of the Living G-d, has your G-d, whom you serve (pelach) continually, been able to rescue you from the lions?'

     Daniel 7:27  His kingdom will be an everlasting kingdom, and all rulers will serve (pelach) and obey him.

     In each of these cases the word 'pelach' refers to the service to or worship of a divine being. In fact, in some instances there seems to be a use of Semitic parallelism (Daniel 3:12, 3:14, 3:18) between the words 'worship' and 'pelach' ('They neither serve. . . nor worship'; 'Is it true. . .  that you do not  serve. . .nor worship. ?'; 'we will not serve. . .  nor worship')  Thus, the Son of Man in Daniel 7:13 appears to be receiving the 'service' or 'worship' of a kind which is only afforded to a divine being in the Tanach.

     A related word, 'pulchana', occurs in the great Kaddish, meaning 'worship'.  And Brown-Driver-Briggs defines this word as meaning 'PAY REVERENCE TO  diety'.

     And what about Zechariah 12:8-10?  'On that day the L-rd will shield those who live in Jerusalem, so that the feeblest among them will be like David, and the House of David will be like G-d, like the Angel of the L-rd going before them. . . '  Here the head of the House of David, the king, will be like G-d, or like the Angel of the L-rd, the specific designation of the special Angel of G-d who, in Exodus 23:21, is said to bear the Name of G-d, and to have the power to forgive sins. This Angel is also given the name 'Wonderful' in Judges 13, which is the same word used in Isaiah 9. And this Angel receives the worship of Joshua (Josh. 5:14,15) , who bows down before him and is told to remove his shoes, as the place where he is is holy ground.
     This all  suggests that the defender of Jerusalem is going to be someone who is more than a merely human figure.

     'When Abraham Avinu was born, one star from the east came and swallowed up four stars at the four corners of the heavens. The wise men said to Nimrod, 'At this hour a son is born to Terah and a nation will issue forth from him. . . '  (Ma-ase Avraham; Sefer HaYashar 18a-19a)

     'When the partriarch Isaac was born, G-d intensified the light of the sun forty-eight times its usual brilliance.' (Pesikta Rabbati)

     'When Moses was born the house was filled with light: 'And when she saw that he was good', and it is written elsewhere, 'And G-d saw the light that it was good'.  (Sota 12a)

     'A star shall rise out of Jacob, a scepter will rise out of Israel.' (Num. 24:17)

     '. . . they went on their way, and the star they had seen in the east went ahead of them and stopped over the place where the child was. When they saw the star, they rejoiced greatly.'   (Matthew 2:9,10)

     And Josephus ('Antiquities') says of the birth of Moses:

     A soothsayer warned Pharaoh that a child was about to be born who would destroy his kingdom.
     Pharaoh was seized by fear at this (Herod was seized by fear at the announcement of the wise men that they had come seeking one who was born 'King of the Jews').
      Pharaoh  ordered all newborn Israelite children slain to eliminate this child (Herod ordered all newborn infants at Bethlehem slain).
       Moses' father, while asleep, was told by G-d not to be afraid, that he would have a son who would be the deliverer.

     'And Pharaoh charged all his people.' R. Jose b. Hanina said, 'He imposed the same decree upon his own people', (to kill the male newborn children because the soothsayers warned him that a boy was soon to be born who would overthrow him).'  (Sota 12a)

     Exodus 2:23  Pharaoh dies.
     Matt. 2:19  Herod dies.

     Exodus 4:19 'The L-rd said to Moses in Midian: '. . . return to Egypt, for all those who were seeking your life are dead.'
      Matt. 2:19-20  'The angel of the L-rd said to Joseph in Egypt: ' . . . go back to the land of Israel, for those who were seeking the child's life are dead.'

     Exodus 4:20  'Moses took along his wife and children and returned to Egypt.'
     Matt. 2:21   'Joseph took the child and his mother and went back to the land of Isreal.'

     'The L-rd will raise up for you a prophet like me from among your own brothers. You must listen to him.' (Deut. 18:15)

     Thus the sequence of events for the birth of Yeshua as depicted in Matthew followed what contemporary Jewish tradition would have expected for the birth of this 'second Moses' ('like the first redeemer, so the last Redeemer') who would lead the 'second redemption' of the messianic era.

     Some modern Jewish commentators try to make the remarks in Micah 5:2 ('But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans of Judah, yet from you will come for Me one who will ruler over Israel, whose origins are from of old. . . ') mean only that the messiah will come from the line of David, who was from Bethlehem. But earlier comment was more specific.  For example, in Bereshith Rabbati, there is the famous story about the mother of the messiah:

      'On the day on which the Temple was destroyed, Elijah of blessed memory was walking along the road.'  Elijah is despairing, but eventually a heavenly voice calls to him to tell him that the Redeemer has already been born. 'Where is he?' Elijah asks.  'In Bethlehem of Judah.'   (Apparently there was no question but that the messiah should come from this little town, obscure though it was.)

     Further, the writers of the gospels, who were contemporary with the Second Temple,  go to great lengths to indicate that Yeshua was born in Bethlehem. It is illogical to assume that they would do this (ie, include the entire census story, which they credit as having affected the entire Roman world), UNLESS they felt that they HAD to demonstrate that he was born in Bethlehem. And why was that? Again, the logical assumption is that there was such a contemporary belief about Bethlehem held among the people of their time.

       By 'original sin', we mean that people are generally born without being in a loving relationship with G-d. People are not born obeying the second line of the Shema ('You shall love HaShem your G-d with all your heart and all your soul and all your might'). People do not know G-d as Adam and Eve did. Just by looking at people we can see that people need to be TAUGHT about G-d; they do not know Him from the beginning of their lives. The Shema says to TEACH our children, and is this not (at least in part) because children are born without knowing G-d? People are nowadays not born by nature loving G-d--this is original sin.

      And we aren't in Eden now, are we? And everyone is still dying, aren't they?  So the EFFECTS of Adam's disobedience must still be with us.  (The scripture is quite clear that the reason for barring Adam from the garden after his disobedience was because had he remained, he might have lived in that condition forever.) And since even infants die--those who are much too young to have committed any intentional sin, it seems that these effects--which are a result of the sin of Adam--are inherited at birth.
     What Adam chose to do was to doubt G-d. He believed the insinuation that G-d was trying to keep something back from him; and also that He had lied, by saying that Adam would die if he ate from the tree. Adam doubted, and he acted on this disbelief about the nature of G-d, and found out that he had been lied to--not by G-d, but by the serpent.  And mankind has been finding that out ever since.
    It is interesting that the greatest celebration  of the year for Isreal is NOT one to commemorate the giving of Torah. (In fact, there is NO divinely ordained celebration  commanded to remember this, which seems odd if it were originally intended that obedience to Torah was to be the centerpiece of the faith.) Instead, the greatest celebration is to commemorate the escape from death at Pesach, when the Angel of death passed over Israel.
     There are some people who believe that by following 613 rules punctiliously, they will be able to reverse the effects of Adam's sin. (They believe this despite the fact that Adam was unable to keep even ONE rule perfectly.) But there are others who, from the example given in Tanach, believe that redemption from death can come only through the covering of the blood of the lamb.

     Why were the great rabbis of his day ignored by the 'contemporary' literature of his day?  What 'literature' written at the time of the Second Temple mentions Hillel and Shammai? (Whatever was written about them was not set down to paper for centuries.)  Does this mean that they were not major figures?
      What about Philo, a great Jewish thinker, and probably a representative of an entire faction of Jewish thought of his time? He is not even mentioned in the Talmud. (Do you think that the Talmud provides a complete picture of Judaism as it existed prior to the destruction of the Temple?)
      What about the leaders of the Sadduccees and the Essenes?  We know they led important sects of Judaism; but were we to base everything we know on them from what we can derive from the Talmud, we would not have very much to go on.