51.  Isn't Matthew wrong when he cites 'the prophets' as saying that Yeshua will be called 'a Nazarene'? There is NO such prophecy!

     Isaiah 11:1 states that he shall be called a 'netzer', or Branch. And there is a comparison which may be made with Samson, the L-rd's champion, who delivered his people, and who was dedicated as a Nazarite.
     However, Matthew does not mention a specific prophet, but says, 'the prophets'.  It is likely then that he is not intending to make a direct quotation from a single prophet. Instead, what all the prophets speak of is that the messiah shall be despised and rejected by men. 'I was a stranger to my brothers,' (Psalm 69:9) .
     The Greek used here is 'Nazoraios'. The more usual Greek usage would have been  'Nazarenos', if Nazareth per se was meant. If the  word  'Nazarene' is derived  from 'nazir', and not 'Nazareth', as many believe, then a 'Nazirean' would be one who is 'separated' or a 'stranger', possibly because he was unworthy  of  others' company, or because he  was thrust away from them (i.e.,  perhaps as used in Gen. 49:26, 'Let all rest on the head of Joseph, on the brow of the one separated from his brothers'. And of course Joseph' life  is a picture of the coming messiah.)
       So what Matthew is saying is that Yeshua will be separated from his people and held in low esteem. This is as the prophets foretold (Psalms  22:6-8, 13; 69:8, 20-21; Isaiah 49:7; 53:2,3,8; Daniel 9:26) And since Nazareth itself was held in no high repute, even by other Galileans (John 1:46; 7:42,52), to be called a 'Nazarene' was not a compliment.

     'Sovereign of all worlds! Not on account of our own righteousness do we place our requests before you, but on account of your abundant mercy.'    (Shacharit, or morning daily prayer)

     'Our Father, our King, be gracious to us and answer us, because we have no good works of our own; deal with us in graciousness and loving kindness, and save us.'   (Minhah, or afternoon daily prayer)

     In the Maariv (evening daily prayer), Psalm 51 is included, which again speaks of the need to rely upon G-d's mercy, because we are sinners.

     Tanakh is full of examples of G-d reaching down to man--not of man proving himself 'good enough' to receive G-d's gifts.
      You didn't have Torah--He gave you Torah.
      You didn't have food--He gave you manna.
      You didn't have water--He gave you water from the rock.
      You didn't have a leader--He gave you Moses.
      You were stuck in slavery--He brought you out.
      You were scattered because of your disobedience--He will bring you back, not because of anything you do, or because you deserve it (see, for example, Ezekiel 36:22,32), but because of His promise to Abraham.

     'All of us have become like one who is unclean, and all our righteousness is like filthy rags.' (Isaiah 64:5--64:6 in  Christian versions)

     These examples don't demonstrate men  becoming 'good enough' on their own. Their redemption is always brought about as a gift  from
G-d.

     What Paul/Saul does is ask a question: should we place our  trust in our own works, or should we place  our trust in G-d's works?
       Should you put more faith in man's deeds than in HaShem's deeds?

     'I will maintain My covenant between Me and you, and your offspring to come, as an everlasting covenant throughout the ages.' (Gen. 17:7).

     There are several covenants spoken of in Tanach (as with Noah, for example; or with David and his descendants). In one,  G-d promises that Abraham and his descendants possession of the Land, and gives the sign of the circumcision. This is a 'one-way' promise on the part of HaShem. In Gen. 15:9ff, a blazing fire passes between the halves of the slain animals; this signifies a promise. However, ONLY the fire passes between the halves--not Abraham. It doesn't depend upon Abraham doing anything--if it did, it wouldn't be a holy promise, but a kind of contract. But this promise is not conditional, it's simply a promise--and the promise of HaShem, at that--and it cannot be broken. And THIS is the  covenant that  is declared to be 'everlasting'.

     However, the covenant at Sinai is never declared to be 'everlasting'. And it is conditional:

     'If you will only obey the L-rd your G-d, by diligently obeying all his commandments. . . the L-rd your G-d will set you high above all the nations of the earth; all these blessings shall come upon you and overtake you, if you obey the L-rd your G-d. . . ' (Deut. 28:1ff)

     'But if you will not obey the L-rd your G-d by diligently obeying all of his commandments and decrees. . . then all these curses shall come upon you and overtake you . . . ' (Deut. 28:15ff)

     The new covenant  mentioned in Jeremiah 31:31-33 is specifically said to be NOT LIKE the covenant made when the people were led out of Egypt.
    And  Jeremiah goes on to say, 'I will make an everlasting covenant with them, never to draw back from doing good to them; and I will put the fear of me in their hearts, so that they may not turn from me.' (Jer. 32:40)
     In this covenant no conditions are laid down. Again, this is not like the covenant made at Sinai. So we have gone from a covenant in which the blessings are dependent upon conduct to one in which the people, who failed to obey the first covenant, will now have Torah written in their hearts--and they no longer have to do anything to be sure of  the blessings.
     Yet another way in which this new covenant is different is that in the covenant made at Sinai, atonement for sin had to be made. There had to be a yearly covering for sin. But, now HaShem says, 'their sins and iniquities I will remember no more'. This means that something happens which makes the covering permanent instead of annual. So, ergo, something new must have happened.

     'Why do you call me good? No one is good except G-d alone.' (Luke 18:19)
        The logic of this, followed out, would be: if, therefore, as you say, I (Yeshua) am indeed good, and only G-d is good, then G-d and I must be . . ..'
        The very form of address, 'good teacher', or 'good master', is hardly ever found (and most likely not at all in the Talmud, when addressed to living teachers). Thus the likely meaning of Yeshua's response is, 'Since you address me in this way, you must take me to be the messiah; and since you also call me good, therefore do you really understand who I am, since only G-d can be called 'good'?'

     Yeshua said, 'Do not think that I have come to abolish Torah or the prophets. I have not come to destroy but to fulfill. For I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one dot or one stroke will disappear from Torah until everything is accomplished. Whoever breaks one of the least commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called the least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.' (Mat. 5:17-19)

     Pinchas Lapide notes ('Sermon on the Mount', Orbis Books, 1986) that here Yeshua is even more strick than Rabbi Hiyya bar Abba or Rabbi Jonathan, both of whom were willing to give up  a letter of Torah if that would help publicly sanctify the Name of HaShem. (See Yev. 79a)
     'Destroy' and 'fulfill' here are opposites. They do not describe the same thing. Yeshua completes, or fills up, or gives the full meaning of Torah; he doesn't cancel it. This can be seen by his following remarks in the next verses: it is not enough only not to murder; you must not hate with murder in your heart, as well; it is not enough only to refrain from the actual act of adultery; you must refrain from lust, as well; it is not enough only to tell the truth when you are put under oath; you must always be truthful, with your 'yes' meaning 'yes', and your 'no', 'no'.  This is a perfection of Torah--extending it beyond a mere mechanical observance to an observance carried out in the heart.

     It was an expectation that the messiah when he came would reveal fuller meanings of Torah. For example, '(In the messianic reign) Elijah and Zerubabel will come  and explain and interpret all the secrets of Torah and everything that was twisted or distorted.' (Halakhot Gedalot)

     'Then Yeshua said to the crowds and to his talmidim, 'The Torah teachers and the Pharisees have sat in Moses' seat. So you must obey them and do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach.' (Matt. 23:1-3)

     The actual wording here, 'have sat'--which is how the text actually reads-- does not necessarily  have to imply approval.  It may in fact imply presumption.
      In Matt. 18:15-19, Yeshua details how his followers should judge one who has sinned--establishing two witnesses, explaining matters to the congregation, etc. , and 'whatever you bind on earth will have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose will have been loosed in heaven.'  Elsewhere he delegates 70 talmidim to go and preach, and 12 principal talmidim--these may represent a new Sanhedrin and the new elders of the Twelve Tribes. If this is so, then in any case he is establishing new leadership  for Israel--which the messiah has the right to do--and  which will replace the old.

     His talmidim  had fled and were in hiding.  If they didn't believe in him enough to remain with him while he was alive--to stay with him during his arrest and trial--would they have believed in him enough to remain his followers after he was dead? Would they have endured torture and death--which is how all but one of them died--when by admitting it was a lie would have spared them? Would they have risked a probable sentence of death if they had been caught stealing the body --when they weren't willing to risk such a sentence by standing with Yeshua when he was alive?
     Besides, there was a guard placed at the tomb, and the express purpose of this guard was to prevent such a theft. Assume, though, that they all fell asleep.  Despite the fact that this was an important duty, and not at all a routine one--yet even so, they are lax and all fall asleep. The talmidim arrive and have to make a lot of noise,  rolling back the huge stone--which would have taken some effort, ropes, pulling, etc.--all the while managing not to awaken anyone sleeping nearby. They have to complete all this before any roving commander appears on the scene who might be checking up on his guards at intervals during the night. Then they have to enter the tomb and remove the body and make clean their escape, still making sure that no one can give chase.  And the guards confess afterwards that, oh well, they were sleeping. (But if they were sleeping, how would they know what had happened, anyway?)
     Is THIS scenario supposed to be logical?

     In the wilderness the people of Israel had the presence of HaShem with them for forty years. Every day they witnessed a miracle--they ate the manna, they saw the pillar of cloud and the pillar of fire. They had crossed the Red Sea. They had been at Sinai. Yet even then, despite these and many more miracles, they could grumble at Moses and want to rebel. At one point they even threatened to stone Moses.  After forty years of miracles, they directly disobeyed the command of G-d at Kadesh-Barnea.
      So, even had Yeshua appeared to his enemies, they, had they wished, would have found a way to refuse him anyway. 'If they do not listen to Moses and the prophets, they will not be convinced, even if someone rises from the dead.' (Luke 16:31)

     But which sages? And on which issues? The sages often disagreed with one another. And they missed the boat once when they looked for a messiah and proclaimed the wrong one (Bar Kockba).  This led to immense loss of life and destruction, and the practical end of hope for an independent Jewish state for 1800 years. If a sage of the rank of Akiva could make such a mistake, what can we say about  the judgment of lesser scholars?  Are we only  to hope that they will be able to do  better the next time?

     Consider the following:
        1) A Jew, sincerely believing that Bar Kochba is messiah, is killed by the Romans.
        2) A Jew, sincerely believing that Yeshua is the messiah, is killed by the Romans.

    What is the fate of each of these two men, according to Judaism?  Does ONE get to enter Gan Eden, while the other is considered an apostate?
     And who decides? (The sages?)