1.   Isn't the Virgin Birth a pagan idea?

     Actually, the idea of a miraculous birth isn't at all foreign to Judaism. Isaac himself was the result of a miraculous birth, and an intervention in the normal natural cycle, a special choice made by G-d, for a purpose. This was the start of the Jewish people. So it's not too off-the-wall to imagine that if, after all, a messiah figure was to be born, that he, too, might be marked out with some sort of special birth.
     There is even a(n intended) parallel here. When Sarah asks (Genesis18:13,14) if she is not too old to have a child, she is told that nothing is too hard for G-d. Likewise, when Miryam (Mary) asks how she can have a child, since she is a virgin, she is told, simply, that with G-d nothing is impossible (Luke 1:37).
     Of course, for those who don't want to accept the virgin birth, there has to be another explanation, and this is where the idea of the 'mamzer' ('bastard') comes in. This 'alternative answer' was promulgated right from the very start (see John 8:19 and 8:41, for example, where Yeshua is taunted with 'Where is your father?', and 'We are not illegitimate children').  These dialogues demonstrate that even then, from earliest times, Yeshua's birth wasn't accepted as 'normal'; there was a question about it--but it wasn't an issue that was only tacked on centuries later by pagan influence.


   The same argument might be made about Judaism. ( Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander)  Consider the examples offered in 'Hebrew Myths: The Book of Genesis', by Graves and Patai (Greenwich House, 1983).
       Here Eve is compared with the goddess Heba, wife of a Hittite storm-diety.  The seven lights of the menorah are said to originate in the fact that there were seven planets. The twelve sons of Jacob are said to have been originally a confederation of twelve tribes, with the 'sons'  story worked up afterward. Ham and Noah are paralleled with the story of Kronos and his sons Zeus, Poesidon, and Hades. Isaac's sacrifice is put against Athama's attempt to kill Phrixus, sons of Zeus. (a ram appears at just the right moment in this story).
     And so on, and so on, and so on. If Christianity could be refuted because of parallels with pagan superstition and mythology, then so could Judaism.

      So the same argument might be made that Judaism adapted pagan elements from the surrounding nations and incorporated them into what you  call 'Torah'. So Judaism is nothing more than paganism with a dash of monotheism for seasoning--right? No, itís not.  And neither is Christianity such a blend.


2. But didn't many ancient cultures have a concept of a god-man, or a son of the gods (such as Alexander the Great, for example, or Hercules)?

     This certainly IS a pagan idea[i.e. sexual relations from Deity to humanity]. There is NEVER any suggestion is Christianity that any deity had sex with Mary (the whole notion is blasphemous, even to us); only, that G-d intervened and marked out a child in a special way by having him born without a father. Yeshua is not G-d's physical son; he is G-d's son in the same way that a natural son may resemble his father, or bear his image. (Did Yeshua weep? Then we know that G-d also weeps. Did Yeshua care about the individual? Then we know that G-d also cares about the individual. 'He who has seen me has seen the father'. )
       Christians also believe that Yeshua has always existed (as he is supposed to have--see Micah 5:2, for example), not that his life began only in Bethlehem.
      Just as G-d's Spirit was hovering over the formless void of the earth, imbuing it with life during the Creation, so, too, was Miryam told that 'the Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you' (Luke 1:35), in the same way.

3.  Didn't Paul invent Christianity?

     Paul did not invent it, any more than Einstein 'invented' his theory of relativity; what Paul did was provide the theoretical framework for life under the New Covenant. Jeremiah wrote that the New Covenant would 'not be like' the covenant made at Sinai. Paul showed how the New Covenant differed from Sinai, as well as how G-d could fulfill the terms of the covenant at Sinai and establish a new one.


4.  Wasn't Paul a self-hating Jew who turned his back on his own people and went to the gentiles?

     He says, 'I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. For I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from messiah for the sake of my brothers, those of my own race, the people of Israel. Theirs is the adoption as sons; theirs the divine glory, the covenants, the receiving of the Law, the temple worship and the promises. Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of messiah, who is G-d over all, forever praised. Amen. .  . Brothers and sisters, my heart's desire and prayer to G-d for the Israelites is that they may be saved. For I can testify about them that they are zealous for G-d, but their zeal is not based on knowledge. Since they did not know the righteousness that comes from G-d and sought to establish their own, they did not submit to G-d's righteousness.

                                                            (Romans (9:2-5; 10:1-3)


5.  Didn't Paul  want to discard Torah altogether?

     Absolutely not. What Paul did was show how Torah would be lived under the New Covenant.
6.  Didn't Paul say it led only to sin?

     No, he said the Torah is like a tutor, who takes you by the hand and leads you safely to your destination. It is a guide, a protection, a fence.But staying 'within the fence' of Torah does not itself result in perfection--only in rule-keeping.


      Paul emphatically declares that Torah does not lead to sin. What Paul says is that through Torah we have knowledge of what sin is. He wrote:

          What shall we say, then?  Is the law sin? Certainly not! Indeed
     I would not have known what sin is except through the law.

                                                         (Romans 7:7)

     In the absence of law, man will do what he pleases and his conscience will be clear. In the presence of law, however, the nature of man comes face to face with the demands of a holy G-d. .  . It is not Torah that leads to sin, it is human nature in the presence of Torah that leads to sin.
     This is why G-d said that he would make a new Covenant with the house of Israel, and that He would replace hearts of stone with hearts of flesh, and that He would put His Spirit in man. It is only in this way--by a change of our nature--that we can truly live in the presence of Torah.



7.  Wasn't Paul an uneducated man who understood nothing about Judaism in the first place?

     Paul was a student of Gamaliel, who in turn was a successor (and grandson) of Hillel. Some people have doubted this. But let's look at the evidence.
     Consider Paul's statement that he was Gamaliel's student, for example.  This was made while he was in Jerusalem.  He had, along with four other Jews, taken Nazarite vows, and he was  in the Temple with fellow Jews who knew him as one who had lived and studied in Jerusalem. While inside the Temple some Jews from Asia Minor  (there for Shavuot) recognized him from one of his missionary journeys, and began lying about him, whipping the crowd into a frenzy, and specifically slandering him about bringing Greeks beyond the Court of the Gentiles. The crowd erupted, went after Paul, and Roman soldiers had to restore peace. They arrested Paul, but before being led away, he sought and received permission to speak to the crowd.

     Now Paul begins speaking, IN HEBREW, to TEMPLE JEWS, IN JERUSALEM, AT THE VERY HOME AND 'OFFICE" OF GAMALIEL. Would these Jews assembled, listening to Paul's defense--who had been beating him until the soldiers arrived--know of Gamaliel? Might we reasonably presume that a) some Jews in the crowd knew Gamaliel personally?, b) many, if not all, knew him by reputation, and c) because of the ruckus, there were perhaps even some of Gamaliel's fellow Sanhedrin members in attendance? Against this context, examine Paul's statement (Acts 22:3ff):
     'Then Paul said,  I am a Jew born in Tarsus of Cilicia, but brought up in this city. Under Gamaliel I was thoroughly trained in the Law of our fathers and was just as zealous for G-d as any of you are today.  I persecuted the followers of this Way (ie, the followers of Yeshua) to their death, arresting both men and women and throwing them into prison, as also the High Priest and the Council can testify. . .
     Now, ask yourself: would Paul have lied about being a student of Gamaliel, to people who KNEW or knew of Gamaliel in, literally, Gamaliel's own backyard?  Would Paul invite the testimony of the High Priest and all the Council of the Sanhedrin to back up his statements--if he were lying?  His public statement would have been instantly disprovable, if false.  How would he have helped his case, his reputation, or his argument to have been caught in such an obvious lie? In fact, it is not recorded that anyone present accused him of lying, either about being a student of Gamaliel or anything else. It IS recorded, however, that his enemies were making up lies about Paul.
     Acts 26:4 has Paul in front of King Agrippa, being examined before being sent on to Ceasar.  Paul said:

     The Jews all know the way I have lived ever since I was a child, from the beginning of my life in my own country, and also in Jerusalem. They have known me for a long time and can testify, if they are willing, that according to the strictest sect of our religion, I was a Pharisee.

     Again we see Paul's openess about the way of life he has lived and been known to live since childhood. He again invites testimony as to his Pharisaic background and lifelong commitment to the Law. This would reasonably include public knowledge as to who he had studied with, his position before the Sanhedrin, and his earlier service to them in persecuting the followers of Yeshua. And again, it is not noted that anyone stood up to accuse him of lying about this.


8.  Didn't his conversion experience (i.e., his vision) show that he, too, like so many others of his ilk, was simply mentally unstable?

     Can you imagine what would have been said if  Abraham  had  told   a psychiatrist  that he thought G-d wanted him to sacrifice his son on an altar?  Or if Moses complained that he had heard 'the voice of G-d' coming to him out of a burning bush?  It's not unusual for G-d to speak to men in a special manner. What is to be noted is whether that encounter makes a change in the person's life afterward.  Paul was not the same afterward; he changed from persecutor to persecuted.  And the rest of his life followed in the new pattern. That is significant.


     Paul's conversion is no different from that of others who have been 'born again' through faith in messiah Yeshua. G-d performs radical surgery on those who believe--a new heart and a new spirit--and if this is mental instability, then Hallelujah!


9.  If  Yeshua was the messiah, why wasn't he accepted by the people of his day? Why didn't the Sanhedrin accept him?   Some of the greatest Torah scholars lived in his era, and they didn't accept him.

     He was also accepted by many of his time---some of the greatest Jews of his time.


     Some of the Sanhedrin (possibly Joseph of Arimathea, Nicodemus, and Paul, assuming that he was a member ) apparently did. But since when did the majority in Israel ever go along with anything? In Elijah's time there were only 7,000 faithful left, weren't there? Do you suppose that THEY weren't rejected as 'not of Israel' for being in such a small minority?  But they were right. The faithful remnant has always been just that--that's why it's called a 'remnant'.


10.  Why do you claim that Isaiah 9 refers to Yeshua? It actually refers to King Hezekiah.

     Hezekiah is dead, and his kingdom certainly didn't last forever (verse 6). Seems to me Isaiah speaks of joy and redemption on a far grander scale than Hezekiah's rule indicated. The lofty and poetic language must apply to something a bit more meaningful to Israel than Hezekiah's short rule, good king though he was.  And after the smoke cleared,  look at how his rule ended--not with a bang, but a whimper. (2 Kings 20:16-19)
     Here's a lame-duck king who, instead of lamenting that his Babylonian political entanglements, not commanded by G-d, were going to result in future trouble for his country (by the word of Isaiah), rationalized instead that the prophetic message had been a 'good' one, since it meant 'peace in our time'.  Shades of 1938! Neither Hezekiah nor Chamberlain would likely be heir to the titles of 'Wonderful Counselor, the Mighty G-d, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace'. And having a few years of life  added doesn't qualify you as 'everlasting'. Think of what 'everlasting' means. You're welcome to believe that, but I would recommend to you other sources which say Isaiah's words were spoken of Messiah, not Hezekiah. Even if you believe Messiah is not Yeshua.

     Hezekiah was 25 years old when he took the throne (II Kings 18:2). His father Ahaz only ruled for 16 years (and possibly 2 more years as regent). Ergo, Hezekiah was not born during his father's reign.
     A note on the translation. According to Catherine Geever, and Margaret and Preston Heinle, in their book, 'Messianic Prophecies from a Dead Sea Scroll', the Hebrew in this passage should be translated as above. In Hebrew, it is a general rule that if one item in a list of words is a noun, then all of the items in that list should also be regarded as nouns.  Thus, this list of titles, ('Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace', etc.) should read as it does, in just that fashion, and without verbs assumed  between any of the titles.