If you had, I could have converted you years earlier!
Well, not too late to convert now, God will then repay you years eaten by the locust!
But, say what?
I mean all of this video:
Rabbi Singer Exposes What Everyone Missed in Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount
Tovia Singer & Tassja Cadoch | 30 April 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0hak5NJ2HPY
And especially the part about the Sermon on the Mount. But, let's take first things first.
According to Isaias 11:2,3, can God become the Messias?
And the spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him: the spirit of wisdom, and of understanding, the spirit of counsel, and of fortitude, the spirit of knowledge, and of godliness And he shall be filled with the spirit of the fear of the Lord. He shall not judge according to the sight of the eyes, nor reprove according to the hearing of the ears
[Isaias (Isaiah) 11:2-3]
Your argument is, God fears no one, so "fear of the Lord" in a person proves he cannot be God.
Now, this misunderstands what the Incarnation is. It doesn't mean God takes on human flesh, but retains as His only consciousness the one He has as God. No, He takes on human ways of experiencing things, therefore human experience. In human experience, fear of fearful created things is part, but fear of God, which drives out that fear, is part of the experience of holy men.
So, God could cry when as an eight day old baby He was circumcised. And if fear of the Lord is a fear of displeasing Him, the fact of having a human body and mind not used to since eternity doing the complete holiness of God, well, as God He didn't fail in doing God's will, but He could be nervous, perhaps. Even if your first bike lesson doesn't mean you fall, it may mean you are nervous of falling. And the human consciousness of God incarnate is not shielded from that by divine knowledge of His in fact not falling.
But above all, it's an attitude when we approach God, and doesn't necessarily mean being afraid of something. I don't know Hebrew, but I can look up the interlinear and then the meanings in Strong.
Meaning and core idea
יִרְאָה (yir’ah) speaks of an attitude of awe-filled reverence that may include trembling before God’s majesty but always presses toward loving obedience. It can describe dread of judgment (Genesis 20:11) or the glad worship that springs from recognizing the LORD’s holiness (Psalm 2:11). The word therefore gathers together emotion, intellect, and will: the heart is struck by God’s glory, the mind acknowledges His authority, and the life aligns with His ways.
Totally compatible with the fact of Jesus being God incarnate. Just as His praying was so.
Can the Messias be God and offer sacrifice for His own sins?
On Calvary, Jesus bore our sins nearly as if they had been His. But that's not all of it.
Every day, the Messias is actually offering sacrifice for His own sins. How does that work?
Every Catholic priest who is validly ordained and celebrates Mass is saying:
| Nobis quoque peccatóribus fámulis tuis, de multitúdine miseratiónum tuárum sperántibus, partem áliquam, et societátem donáre dignéris, ... | To us also Thy sinful servants, who put our trust in the multitude of Thy mercies, vouchsafe to grant some part and fellowship ... |
The priest offers the sacrifice, and he does so for his sin and that of the others ... but where does the Messias come in? Well, the priest is, became at ordination, a second Christ. He become united to Jesus Christ, and Jesus Christ is offering, as well as being offered, whenever he celebrates Mass. So, the Messias actually does not in his own person, but in the united person of the priest, "sins of his own" to offer sacrifice for.
Did Jesus speak the sermon on the Mount?
I absolutely didn't miss this. I enjoyed every second.
Jesus, habitually spoke Aramaic. Therefore, He didn't use the allitterations on pi in the Beatitudes. But how come there is this allitteration in Greek?
If there were nothing else, one would need to have this takeaway: the criticism presumes Jesus to be a purely human author, with no way at all of knowing what the words he spoke would sound like translated. Come on, He spoke the universe and every one of our souls into existence, and somehow He couldn't say a few lines in Aramaic so that when His disciple Matthew (Matatiahu ha-Levi) translated them they would allitterate in Greek? Come on. What do Rabbis do, if they are caught in such a blunder that even a five year boy would get a reprimand in the Yeshiva? You should do that (I don't mean damage control).
But there is one more level to this. Jesus had spent part of His childhood in Alexandria, presumably. Jews there spoke Greek. In Galilee, bilingualism in Greek would have not been uncommon. And we know from Matthew 4 that Jesus was in Galilee:
And Jesus went about all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom: and healing all manner of sickness and every infirmity, among the people And his fame went throughout all Syria, and they presented to him all sick people that were taken with divers diseases and torments, and such as were possessed by devils, and lunatics, and those that had palsy, and he cured them And much people followed him from Galilee, and from Decapolis, and from Jerusalem, and from Judea, and from beyond the Jordan And seeing the multitudes, he went up into a mountain, and when he was set down, his disciples came unto him And opening his mouth, he taught them, saying
[Matthew 4:23-25, 5:1-2]
Matthew is highlighting possibly one occasion, possibly repeated, within this span of time in Galilee.
So, as He is in Galilee, He could have been speaking Greek.
But there is one more level to this too. Church Fathers have said, the Sermon in Matthew is the first sermon to the disciples, and the Sermon in Luke is the ensuing sermon to the crowd. Let's highlight the relevant words from Matthew 5:
And seeing the multitudes, he went up into a mountain, and when he was set down, his disciples came unto him And opening his mouth, he taught them,
Does them mean "the disciples" or "the multitudes" ...? Both "mathetai" and "ochlous" are masculine plural. The disciples are the closer other referent, so, the Church father takes this as what He taught to His disciples (while the crowd was getting ready and sitting down and things).
And all the multitude sought to touch him, for virtue went out from him, and healed all And he, lifting up his eyes on his disciples, said: Blessed are ye poor, for yours is the kingdom of God
[Luke 6:19-20]
Here the first Marcan beatitude is adressed to the disciples, but in the presence of the crowd. So, the Church father is saying the Lucan Sermon is the one adressed to the crowd. The one where He has the greater chance of speaking Aramaic is what He said to the disciples, the one where He has a less small chance of speaking Greek is what He said to the crowd or to the disciples in front of the crowd. And the Lucan Beatitudes alliterate less in Greek. So, it actually is more likely, as God He foresaw that the longer Beatitudes would be translated with allitteration. And as a Levite, Matthew certainly didn't overlook it once he saw what words in Greek were available.
I think we can take miracles and historicity of the Gospels another time, but the more "in principle" objections of the video, well, this was it ... one more. You misrepresent what the acceptance of Jesus' teachings would have implied to a Second Temple Jew.
Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. Joseph Workman
1.V.2026
Solemnitas sancti Joseph Opificis, Sponsi beatae Mariae Virginis, Confessoris, opificum Patroni.
