How can a Jew reject Jesus as the Messiah?

[IndigoChild5559]

That's different from relying on human beings to interpret the scriptures. The only one we can really trust is God.

No, actually the whole POINT of Deut 17:8-13 is that we need human beings to help us interpret the Torah.

 

[Skywalker]

No, actually the whole POINT of Deut 17:8-13 is that we need human beings to help us interpret the Torah.

We need spiritual leaders but we shouldn't give them trust like they are God. What halacha says doesn't necessarily determine if a step parent is a close relative. It depends on the circumstances. A fifth cousin may not really be a cousin if there is no close ongoing family connection with them.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

We need spiritual leaders but we shouldn't give them trust like they are God.

Yet Deut 17:8-13 is very clear that we are to go neither to the right nor to the left of what they judge, and if anyone questions them, they are to be killed. That's an awful, awful lot of authority. That's not at all like reading someone's book and just taking what I please.

 

[Skywalker]

Yet Deut 17:8-13 is very clear that we are to go neither to the right nor to the left of what they judge, and if anyone questions them, they are to be killed. That's an awful, awful lot of authority. That's not at all like reading someone's book and just taking what I please.

We are to give a certain level of respect to spiritual leaders but that doesn't mean we are to follow them like they are God. A lot of false teachings about who Christ is, like Christ suffered for our sins in hell, come from the opinions of people.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

We are to give a certain level of respect to spiritual leaders but that doesn't mean we are to follow them like they are God. A lot of false teachings about who Christ is, like Christ suffered for our sins in hell, come from the opinions of people.

Hey I'm just following what God's word says to do. why not you?

 

[Skywalker]

Hey I'm just following what God's word says to do. why not you?

Halacha's standards of close relatives doesn't determine if Jesus is the Messiah-what the Old Testament says about the Messiah does.

But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. (Isaiah 53:5).

 

[Harel13]

I think 1 Enoch and the Testaments of the 12 Patriarchs (all found in the DSS) are among some that seem to be suspiciously ignored. There is nothing in them which contradicts Torah but it's likely their depictions of Messiah are unacceptable to the Jews.

I've only skimmed some parts of the two, so I can't tell you whether I agree or disagree with your statement that "there is nothing in them which contradicts Torah", but as I told you already, there were a number of criteria for canonizing books. The most basic and important was whether it was recognized that certain books were indeed written prophetically, and so if these books weren't canonized, I suppose it was likely because it was recognized that they weren't prophetic works.
And as I previously wrote with my Harry Potter parable - just because a book wasn't mentioned doesn't mean it was ignored. Look, there are some extra-biblical texts quoted in the Talmud. If a text had any bearing to the Talmudic discussions, it was brought. If not, why mention it? The Talmud is an important source of historical information, but like the Tanach, that's not its main reason for existing. It wasn't written as a history book, hence it would not mention every single think history-lovers wish it would say. Heck, there are bigger questions about the Talmud. For instance, why isn't Josephus mentioned? That's just one example.

Perhaps what makes the matter more provocative is that these books were preserved in Qumran to reach this end time generation.

Whether they were aware that the dryness of the desert makes an excellent preservative or not, it's good that they kept their texts there. But that doesn't necessarily mean it has any deep spiritual significance for the end times. Many of the Qumranians seemed to hold by a belief in a priestly messiah, a descendant of the House of Tzaddok. Any way you twist it, Jesus wasn't one of those. So I wonder why you take so much stock in the Qumranians.

It makes you wonder

I don't wonder.

Yes, it is quoted nearly verbatim by Messiah in one passage. 4 Ezra 1:30-33 and Matthew 23:37-39

Good to know. But I was referring to the scriptural cataclysm. I take it that's not mentioned anywhere, right?

I'm getting the impression you're not keen on 4 Ezra...

I'm not keen on the insinuation that it's a divinely inspired work that must be stuffed into my Tanach for whatever reason.

You better hope you're right my friend, to speak with such confidence. It would have been wiser to say "I highly doubt it". But to call it "drivel"? Such boldness! Better hope you're right.

If I'm wrong about this, then I'm wrong about a great many things and 4 Ezra is the least of my worries. So no biggie.

Your example is flawed. Hopefully I don't need to explain why.

I don't see why. See again what I wrote in this same post about the historical aspect of the Talmud. Evidence is needed for your claim that these books were swept under the rug. I don't think you've provided evidence of this yet.

Indeed, I believe strongly that the Bible we have today is smaller than it was back in the first century.

As I said, Ben Sira was debated over. I'm sure other books were also debated over. So I agree that according to some Jewish views at the time, there may have been different books in the canon.

Am I saying Harry Potter should follow Malachi? No.

The Harry Potter example was intended to point out that the exclusion of a book doesn't mean that it's hidden away, swept under the rug or whatever. Not to twist your words to make it as though you believe that every book ever written must be included in the canon.

I may be wrong. I'm just sharing what I've heard from numerous sources. One such source is here

Figured it was One For Israel. One of the biggest liars of the bunch.
Look, I just explained this recently. Can't remember if it was on this thread or a different one. The explanation is very simple. Jews don't hide away Isaiah 53 and there was never, ever any discussion of taking it out of Tanach. So what do missionaries base their claim on? On the fact that it's not read in synagogue. But here's the kicker: There are two readings every Shabbat in synagogue: One is the annual Torah reading cycle, in which we complete the entire Pentateuch over the course of one year. The second reading is reading portions of the prophets, but this is not a cycle intended to complete all of the prophets. The reading of the prophets was first established millennia ago during a time when a law was passed banning Jews from reading the Torah in synagogue. While the law was in play, Jews instead set up the reading of the prophets, and this custom continues to this day. How were specific portions chosen? Either by a certain portion being related to a central subject in that week's Torah portion, for example, the prophetic reading for the portion of Exodus in which the Song of the Sea is read, is Deborah's Song in Judges. Another criteria is if there's something special that Shabbat. And this is where Isaiah comes in. After the Fast of the 9th of Av, there are seven Shabbats called Sheva Denechamata, which is Aramaic for the Seven of Consolation. During each Shabbat, the prophetic portion read is something that refers to the redemption, to the ending of the grief of God and Israel. Isaiah 53 is a portion that describes negative events. Thus, this is not read. The previous portion is read, and the portion after that is also read - because these have positive connotations. But not Isaiah 53. See here an example of a haftarah (prophetic portion) calendar and you'll find that a great many portions of the Prophets are never read.

Continuing to push the false narrative behind the reasoning for "skipping over" Isaiah 53 is really low and despicable on missionaries' part.

If you read my post, I didn't suggest all the scrolls would have likely been destroyed. Although that too is possible.

So why would Ezra have needed to have the scrolls written down with God's assistance? Ezra was called "the scribe", I'm sure if he had access to scrolls he would have known how to copy them by himself. 4 Ezra insinuates that no scrolls existed.

The 24 books were for the lay people and the remainder were for the wise.

You're right, I made a mistake.

Hmmm. This is all conjecture.

Yes. But it's well within the reasoning of the study of the plain reading of the text.

I'm sorry could you flesh out the question a little more?

I gathered you don't believe the trinity is referred to in Tanach. Does this mean you don't believe Jesus is god, and therefore only believe he's the messiah, or did I misunderstand (in other words, what/who is Jesus to you)?

I don't know you well, but I know you have the access to more information and tools that your ancestors could have ever dreamed of. What would have taken them hours or days to do by flickering candlelights and limited sources you can do within minutes on your computer - and far more effectively. So why set your ceiling at level 9?

I can bring an example. In the Talmud it is stated about some people that they were so high in spirituality and holiness, that they deserved to be prophets. But they weren't. Why? Because their generation was a lesser generation. Therefore, one can reach great levels, but other factors that aren't in his control are in play as well, in terms of what his highest possible level could be.

Then you haven't understood Paul my friend. Paul was all for Torah.

Don't let Christian missionaries ripping his words out of context fool you. Believe you me, Paul's words are congruent with the whole of the Tanakh and he cites it regularly and thoroughly.

Don't worry. My info isn't from Christian missionaries.

I personally keep a vegan diet

That's just evading the question. If you're part of a community that claims to hold by Torah as you do, and not everyone is vegan, then someone must have an answer to this question.

For circumcision, this is a big topic. But as for which "part" - do you mean as common sense would have it by a peshat reading the Scriptures?

You seem to only hold by this, so yes. The Hebrew is ערלה - Orlah. How do you know what part of the body that is?

But I thought you were more logical than this.

I simply skipped over the obvious questions. I've seen this specific Q&A played out dozens of times already. We only exchange messages about once or twice a day. Would've been a shame to drag this out over 2-3 days. As for more logical, I already told you that your views are the ones more accepted by academia, while if I were to hold by academia's views, I probably would not be religious today. Or I'd be lying to myself that all modern academic views can fit with Judaism, which is nonsense. My logic is rooted in my Judaism.

I see. Well may it go well for you and your work be successful.

Thanks.

Hehe okay. Yeah, most consider me strange... I really should start taking the hint.

I don't find you strange. Just that specific act seems strange to me.

 

[Harel13]

My belief about halacha is that we are to read the Bible and trust what God says. The only book we need for answers is the Bible.

So how do you know according to the bible what part of the body must be circumcised? Don't forget that the Hebrew is ערלה - Orlah, which is a vague term that doesn't translate into "skin covering male sexual organ".

 

[Skywalker]

So how do you know according to the bible what part of the body must be circumcised? Don't forget that the Hebrew is ערלה - Orlah, which is a vague term that doesn't translate into "skin covering male sexual organ".

A lawyer making decisions about how to deal with a case will use common sense and common sense is given to us by God.

And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory. 1 Timothy 3:16.

The Bible isn't there to give us information about everything, it can't, it's a limited book.

 

[Harel13]

A lawyer making decisions about how to deal with a case will use common sense and common sense is given to us by God.

And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory. 1 Timothy 3:16.

The Bible isn't there to give us information about everything, it can't, it's a limited book.

So in other words, you have absolutely no idea how to identify what the Orlah is. Good luck with figuring out all of the laws with only using the Bible.

 

[Skywalker]

So how do you know according to the bible what part of the body must be circumcised? Don't forget that the Hebrew is ערלה - Orlah, which is a vague term that doesn't translate into "skin covering male sexual organ".

The Bible was using appropriate language to talk about the human body.

 

[Tzephanyahu]

but as I told you already, there were a number of criteria for canonizing books. The most basic and important was whether it was recognized that certain books were indeed written prophetically, and so if these books weren't canonized, I suppose it was likely because it was recognized that they weren't prophetic works

Okay, I see we are at a dead end here. You seem to prize the authority of sages gone by as prophets. Therefore, whatever they have said and whatever they have left out, you align your thinking accordingly. To me, this is being narrow minded and in great danger of being led by the blind into the pit. I realise that very notion is likely to seem insulting to you unfortunately - which is kind of my point. However, in truth we cannot discuss these books freely without their influence shadowing your views.

But don't imagine I come from a background too different than yours in that Christianity ignores these books too. Mainstream Christianity looks down on those who study these DSS books with the same cynicism as probably found in your community. I'm not a typical representative of Christianity (for better or for worse). But I made a decision that I would forge my path with Elohim in truth, whatever the cost, even if that lead me in the opposite direction of the masses (for better or for worse).

Aren't you at all concerned that this veneration of the Canon today could becoming an idol itself? A view which implies "Elohim has not spoke and could not speak in any book outside of our precious Canon".

Anyway, let's leave these additional books as we're going in circles with debating them.

Heck, there are bigger questions about the Talmud. For instance, why isn't Josephus mentioned? That's just one example.

It doesn't surprise me one bit. I should imagine wasn't held in high regard after referring to Yahushua as the Messiah and recording the history of Israel for Rome. Another example of "sweeping under the rug" perhaps.

Whether they were aware that the dryness of the desert makes an excellent preservative or not, it's good that they kept their texts there. But that doesn't necessarily mean it has any deep spiritual significance for the end times. Many of the Qumranians seemed to hold by a belief in a priestly messiah, a descendant of the House of Tzaddok. Any way you twist it, Jesus wasn't one of those. So I wonder why you take so much stock in the Qumranians.

The scrolls describe that these "Qumranians", as you call them, were actually priests. More specifically, the sons of Zadok.

After the Maccabean successes and when the priestly line became corrupted into the Hasmonean dynasty, the priesthood was torn away from the officiating sons of Zadok and they were chased out of Jerusalem into the wilderness, much like David. There, they had a very strict community for living to ensure that the truth would not depart from them or become compromised, as it had from Jerusalem. Out of this community in Qumran, it seems Yochanan the Immerser emerged, likely sent in by his Levite father, and would have been commissioned to make straight the path for Adonai who was coming to visit His people - as prophesied in Isaiah and Malachi.

So no, I don't think Yahushua was a "Qumranian". But I do think the sons of Zadok in Qumran knew when the Messiah was due to come and thankfully kept the texts preserved as they would have been available at the time of the Maccabees, at the very least.

Good to know. But I was referring to the scriptural cataclysm. I take it that's not mentioned anywhere, right?

No, that isn't mentioned.

What then, should every incident in the Tanakh be repeated in the Besorah? There was a far more important message to relay rather than confirming what was already detailed in 4 Ezra. However, the fact the Messiah quotes from that book gives credence to what else is within it - to me.

I'm not keen on the insinuation that it's a divinely inspired work that must be stuffed into my Tanach for whatever reason.

And there it is - "MY Tanach". This highlights my original point in this reply. Fair enough. Let's leave this book then as I realise you don't like it.

If I'm wrong about this, then I'm wrong about a great many things and 4 Ezra is the least of my worries. So no biggie.

No biggie huh? Hmm, I beg to differ.

I don't see why. See again what I wrote in this same post about the historical aspect of the Talmud. Evidence is needed for your claim that these books were swept under the rug. I don't think you've provided evidence of this yet.

The evidence is indeed sparse and not significant enough to convince anyone of the other persuasion. Still, when it's coupled with a potential motive for doing so, it becomes a possibility. The motive to hide how these books allude to Messiah that matches Yahushua or, at the very least, match this "first century teacher who made the authorities uncomfortable and started a movement". The Jewish authorities had to deal with many railing accusations in that time, of course.

Figured it was One For Israel. One of the biggest liars of the bunch.

Hah. I have no reason to take your word for this. But it would certainly help your case if it were so!

. Isaiah 53 is a portion that describes negative events. Thus, this is not read.

Well, that seems very sad. From the Natstarim perspective it is one of the most precious passages. But I suppose if you think Israel is the suffering servant, then you wouldn't like it much. In my opinion, you really have to torture the text to make Israel fit in that context though. But why listen to me or them crazy first century teachers right? You have your later sages that then understood it correctly - which came with a guarantee that it was the final and correct interpretation.

But let's suppose you're right and that the community hides their faces from these "negative" passages in their reading cycles because they are too evocative. Has this direction come from men or Elohim?

So why would Ezra have needed to have the scrolls written down with God's assistance? Ezra was called "the scribe", I'm sure if he had access to scrolls he would have known how to copy them by himself. 4 Ezra insinuates that no scrolls existed.

Let's say you lived back in the days of that exile and had a photographic memory and you could recite all of the Tanakh easily. Would you have confidence in rewriting all the scrolls for all of Israel and future generations? Or would your hand suddenly become shaky and doubtful on the order of words as you began?

The psychological pressure on a mere man to rewrite Bere**** for all future generations would be incalculable, despite the confidence with which he may recite it. When a copy isn't there to check, it's a different ball game. I'm sure Ezra knew all of the Torah and probably some of Ketuvim and Nevi'im. Nevertheless - would it be perfect? Would each word and letter be perfect? Would he be a wise man if he thought it would be? No, in the event of a "scriptural cataclysm", only El Elyon could relay each word perfectly for His scribes.

The only scrolls I think could have already been present are Jeremiah, Ezekiel and Daniel. I'm basing this on Scripture and logic. It's possible others may have survived though but that's entirely conjecture.

I gathered you don't believe the trinity is referred to in Tanach. Does this mean you don't believe Jesus is god, and therefore only believe he's the messiah, or did I misunderstand (in other words, what/who is Jesus to you)?

I believe that Yahushua is the son of El Elyon - known as the "The Word of YHWH" in the Tanakh and by many other names before He was incarnated into a human form as Yahushua/Yeshua/Jesus. As far as humans are concerned, Yahushua has all the authority of the Father, just as a co-regent Prince would. But He is not the Father. The Father begot the Son. Now, Yahushua is Elohim in the sense of power and authority and in the plurality of the word, but He is not the Father. Christians who say otherwise do not know the Scriptures.

When The Word arrived in human form He was born in the line of David and came to fulfil prophesies of the "ben-Yosef" Messiah (as I understand you guys refer to it). He became the suffering servant to take away our sins, as He was a perfect, blameless, spotless "lamb". This salvation is available first to the Jews, then the Gentiles - providing we repent of our wicked ways and heart and turn to following YHWH in truth and spirit, and not legalistically thinking we can earn eternal life.

Yahushua was crucified and in three days rose from the dead - showing us of the resurrection that awaits all that believes in Him (which means walking the ways He did, by Torah and in truth). Now, He sits at the right hand of the Father, in His resurrected body, awaiting the great Day of YHWH. When Yahushua returns, He'll bring New Jerusalem with Him and rule on earth from there in a very literal Kingdom. All nations that remain in those days will come to bring gifts and sacrifices to YHWH in those days, as the Father will also be present in New Jerusalem Himself with His Son.

All these things have been prophesied in the just about every book of the Bible, from Genesis to Malachi, in great detail. It would be painful to list all such verses and I'm sure you are acquainted with most of them from missionaries.

Tell me, who do you understand the Messiah to be? Do you understand him to be just a man? If so, who do you think Psalm 110 refers to?

Don't worry. My info isn't from Christian missionaries.

Then please, share a line from Paul that makes you think this? Hopefully you're not getting all your info from this "Jesus isn't for the Jews" website or whatever it's called. I'm hoping you've at least read some of letters for yourself? Hopefully you are not working on hearsay.

 

[Tzephanyahu]

That's just evading the question. If you're part of a community that claims to hold by Torah as you do, and not everyone is vegan, then someone must have an answer to this question.

Fair response. Those who keep Kosher attempt to get meat from animals that have been killed in the practice of the wilderness years. Where this isn't available, they tend to get meat from kosher suppliers or local suppliers and ensure they remove any trace elements of blood left.

As for me, whenever I do eat meat (as I'm a weak vegan at times!) I ensure it's a clean animal and without blood. Sure, it may have not had an amazing life. But as I understand Torah, what you eat is more important than how it was slaughtered - within reason. When you're not part of the Jewish community and have very little money, there aren't many options. That's not ideal I know. That's why I tend to go vegan and may El Elyon guide me further in this matter.

You seem to only hold by this, so yes. The Hebrew is ערלה - Orlah. How do you know what part of the body that is?

What, do you want me to draw you a picture? The foreskin.

But when you say I hold on to this (ahem) I'm not circumcised and neither do I advise anyone to.

From a gentiles perspective, they are drawn into covenant with Elohim directly through the death and resurrection of Messiah. Now, we are counted as dead, with Him. Effectively, this body of mine is counted as dead and my true body is to come is with the resurrection. Therefore, if being drawn into death and (proleptically speaking) born into this covenant, going back to circumcise the fleshy body would mean that I doubt that reality. That is, once the heart is circumcised, which is the true meaning of circumcision (Deut 10:16), I don't go in reverse and do the "sign" after. Lest I think, and proclaim, that it is by MY actions that I have acquired and secured salvation.

For example, it would be like marrying a girl and after the ceremony going "Oh no, I didn't get you an engagement ring! Our marriage doesn't count! Let me go and buy you one!" No, the marriage still stands. The marriage is not annulled because of the lack of engagement ring and getting one after implies the marriage is nothing without this "sign" or band of gold - when it is so much more. So then, is circumcision a waste of time? Definitely not. But when one is counted as a dead already, what would be purpose of marking it for citizenship with Israel today? Our citizenship is not with Israel today, but the the Israel to come in New Jerusalem.

Awaits backlash...

As for more logical, I already told you that your views are the ones more accepted by academia

No, that's factually incorrect. Unless you can correct me and cite your sources.

My logic is rooted in my Judaism.

In YOUR Judaism huh? What about the Tanakh? Shouldn't you naturally name that first before your religion?

 

[Harel13]

Okay, I see we are at a dead end here. You seem to prize the authority of sages gone by as prophets. Therefore, whatever they have said and whatever they have left out, you align your thinking accordingly. To me, this is being narrow minded and in great danger of being led by the blind into the pit. I realise that very notion is likely to seem insulting to you unfortunately - which is kind of my point. However, in truth we cannot discuss these books freely without their influence shadowing your views.

I'm generally not insulted by Christian views of Judaism. Might get a little angry, but not insulted.
I think you lack an understanding of what the role of the sages was and is, and for this believe that the Jewish view of the authority of the sages is exactly as we view the authority of the prophets, when in reality we're looking at two entirely different fields of authority. I recommend reading Maimonides's Introduction to the Mishna.

and could not speak in any book outside of our precious Canon".

Yet that is not at all a view held in Judaism. That you think so leads me to believe that perhaps you don't know the purpose of creating the canon in the first place. We know there were other books of prophets that aren't in the canon, because at least some are mentioned in Tanach, such as the Book of Natan, Book of Gad, Book of Chozai, Book of the Wars of the Lord, etc. These are equally the word of God as those in the canon. But roughly from around the time the Greeks conquered the Land of Israel all the way toward the early Medieval Period, there arose the issue of Jews writing books and touting them out as prophetic, just like the older books. Prophecies have ramifications, they have authority, they shape Jewish theology- so these books were taken seriously, at least by some. It's entirely possible that many of these authors believed that they indeed had prophetic capabilities. Josephus mentions in his writings that in his time many people claimed powers of prophecy. When you have no idea what prophecy looks like, it's easy to convince yourself that you have it. These new books were a danger to the Jewish people. The Jewish leaders took it upon themselves to create a system that will allow differentiation between various books. This eventually became known as the "Tanach" or "Biblical Canon". Now, you may be wondering why the Book of Natan and other such books aren't in the canon. We're also wondering that, but from what we know about the process in which the canon was formed, divine inspiration was not the only reason books were included in/excluded from the canon. Most likely, other books were excluded from the canon for one of those other reasons.

This is more or less what was going on in the minds of The Church around the Council of Nicaea: There were multiple gospels, epistles and other religious texts running around, and there was a need to form a system to define what was authoritative for Christians and what was not.

Anyway, let's leave these additional books as we're going in circles with debating them.

Sure.

It doesn't surprise me one bit. I should imagine wasn't held in high regard after referring to Yahushua as the Messiah

I'm afraid I'm one of the people who hold that that passage is a later forgery.

Another example of "sweeping under the rug" perhaps.

Possibly, but probably not for the Jesus reason. More likely because of his role in the Revolt. And you still haven't provided actual evidence of this "sweeping under the rug" stuff you keep talking about.

The scrolls describe that these "Qumranians", as you call them, were actually priests. More specifically, the sons of Zadok.

This is not entirely clear from their texts. They highly regarded the Tzaddokite lineage, true, but it's unclear whether all of the thousands of Qumranians themselves were priestly descendants of Tzaddok.

After the Maccabean successes and when the priestly line became corrupted into the Hasmonean dynasty, the priesthood was torn away from the officiating sons of Zadok

The other day I read an essay that hypothesized that the Chashmonaim were descendants of Simon the Just and thus equal descendants of Tzaddok just like anyone else. Made me wonder that if that's the case, then what was the deal with the Qumranians.

But I do think the sons of Zadok in Qumran knew when the Messiah was due to come

I recall that some pre-Jesus DS texts say that the messiah ("Moreh Tzedek" as they called him) has already come.

What then, should every incident in the Tanakh be repeated in the Besorah?

No. Just looking for evidence for what you claim was a central event in Jewish literary history. It seems non-existent.

And there it is - "MY Tanach".

So I'm not allowed to refer to holy texts as "mine"?

No biggie huh? Hmm, I beg to differ.

I can list things that have a bigger "biggie":
- wrong on the essence of God
- wrong on the concept of the messiah
- wrong on the point of the Torah and commandments
- wrong lifestyle
- likely my relatives murdered in the Holocaust and all throughout history died for nothing
- an entire life spent praying to the wrong deity

and the list goes on.
So yes, I'd wager that if 4 Ezra is true, as is held by at least some Christians, then that's really the least of my worries. But I'm not worried.

 

[Harel13]

The motive to hide how these books allude to Messiah that matches Yahushua or, at the very least, match this "first century teacher who made the authorities uncomfortable and started a movement". The Jewish authorities had to deal with many railing accusations in that time, of course.

And now we're dealing with accusations of "sweeping under the rug". Fantastic. Luckily, there's the lack of evidence. In a fair trial, I think we'd do alright. And this is the 21st centuries, so I'm optimistic about our chances at actually getting a fair trial.

Hah. I have no reason to take your word for this. But it would certainly help your case if it were so!

Why do you like them?

Well, that seems very sad. From the Natstarim perspective it is one of the most precious passages.

Sad =/= not precious. I emphasized that the emphasis during the Seven Shabbatot is to speak about the redemption, not the pain that everyone is well aware Israel was and is going through.

You have your later sages that then understood it correctly

And our earlier ones, too. I can see you absolutely love the Christian narrative that "the rabbis" changed all of Judaism after the death of Jesus. Please, spare me.

But let's suppose you're right and that the community hides their faces from these "negative" passages in their reading cycles because they are too evocative.

I never said we "hide". I pointed out in my previous post that we most certainly learn Isaiah 53 and all other passages in the Tanach. Heck, as I said, the canon was still in development long after Jesus came and went. Don't you think it would've been wise of "the rabbis", who you claim did everything in their power to blind the rest of the "poor Jews" and continue to maintain their evil control over them, to remove Jesussianic passages from scripture? Would've been smart. Hey, must be evidence they were idiots, right? Couldn't be any other possible reason that they didn't do this (note another example is the difference between the Masoretic Jeremiah and the Septuagint Jeremiah. There are significant differences between the two. It's been noted that the Septuagint's version did not include many passages that express the same ideas over and over again. I assume Jews in the first few centuries CE realized this as well, yet preferred the MT version for certain reasons. The only other option I see is that they were utter fools).

Let's say you lived back in the days of that exile and had a photographic memory and you could recite all of the Tanakh easily. Would you have confidence in rewriting all the scrolls for all of Israel and future generations? Or would your hand suddenly become shaky and doubtful on the order of words as you began?

I think I would have done it. It's not like the project would have been me, myself and I. The work would have been given over to the most learned men in the community, those people who remembered scripture (for example: Ezekiel, Daniel, Chananyah, Mishael, Azaryah, Mordechai, Baruch, etc) to go over it and see if I made any mistakes. Judaism is a community-centric religion. We're not in this alone (I'll also note that I've personally memorized whole lectures on Shabbat and written them down after Shabbat. It's not an impossible feat, especially when people do it together).

Do you understand him to be just a man?

Yes.

If so, who do you think Psalm 110 refers to?

David, Abraham, Yehoshafat. Pick one.

Then please, share a line from Paul that makes you think this? Hopefully you're not getting all your info from this "Jesus isn't for the Jews" website or whatever it's called. I'm hoping you've at least read some of letters for yourself? Hopefully you are not working on hearsay.

You seem to be getting most of your Judaic info from One for Israel and such ministries, so I see nothing wrong with my listening to anti-missionaries. I myself take the time to open up the NT stuff I hear about, but do you take the time to research Jewish texts to see if what these missionaries are telling you about us is true? So far it seems not. Correct me if I'm wrong, and if so, I'd appreciate a list of texts you've checked.

"Then Paul said: “I am a Jew, born in Tarsus of Cilicia, but brought up in this city. I studied under Gamaliel and was thoroughly trained in the law of our ancestors. I was just as zealous for God as any of you are today. I persecuted the followers of this Way to their death, arresting both men and women and throwing them into prison, as the high priest and all the Council can themselves testify. I even obtained letters from them to their associates in Damascus, and went there to bring these people as prisoners to Jerusalem to be punished." (Acts 22:2-5)​

Smack in the middle of the 50s CE in Jerusalem, we're supposed to believe that the High Priest himself took the time to send a special enforcer to eradicate a teeny-tiny cult in Damascus of all places? Puh-lease. They had political problems with the Romans to deal with. Moreover, the High Priest was a Sadducee. Why would he send a "Pharisee" to do the job, and why would this "Pharisee" agree to take orders from a Sadducee, whom he should have viewed as a heretic equal in heresy to the early Christians? If Paul was some sort of assassin, like the sicarii, he should have plunged the knife into the heretical High Priest who was tainting the position, not stand at attention and follow his orders. So "Pharisee"? Yeah, right. Whoever wrote this cute story sure picked an excellent time to write it. Dated to decades after the destruction of the Temple and decades after the death of Rabban Gamliel (so he couldn't denounce these claims, nor could anyone go to him to ask whether they were true or not), at a time in which the Jews were at a particularly low point and could care less about nonsensical stories such as those touted by the Book of Acts, this was the perfect time to propagate these falsehoods to unknowing non-Jews.

Those who keep Kosher attempt to get meat from animals that have been killed in the practice of the wilderness years.

And how do you know such meat is kosher?

Where this isn't available, they tend to get meat from kosher suppliers

And how do you know that this meat is kosher per your standards?
Or is the sign only whether it's bloodless?

What, do you want me to draw you a picture? The foreskin.

You misunderstood the question. How do you know what part of the body the Orlah is? The Torah doesn't explain. Orlah is used in reference to a number of different things in Tanach. How do you know what part of the body that is, without later translations that are obviously based on the Jewish tradition of what that word means in the context of that covenant?

No, that's factually incorrect. Unless you can correct me and cite your sources.

If you say so.

In YOUR Judaism huh?

I really have no idea why you are bothered with my using the word "my".

What about the Tanakh? Shouldn't you naturally name that first before your religion?

Tanach is part of Judaism, my religion (emphasized just for you). But it's not the only part.

 

[Tzephanyahu]

I think you lack an understanding of what the role of the sages was and is,

Maybe I have misunderstood. Nevertheless, the veneration you afford to them hasn’t really left me feeling corrected on the matter.

That you think so leads me to believe that perhaps you don't know the purpose of creating the canon in the first place. We know

An unnecessary explanation, but thanks all the same.

Possibly, but probably not for the Jesus reason. More likely because of his role in the Revolt. And you still haven't provided actual evidence of this "sweeping under the rug" stuff you keep talking about.

Yes you seem to be missing my point about this. I’m running out of ways to say it.

This is not entirely clear from their texts. They highly regarded the Tzaddokite lineage, true, but it's unclear whether all of the thousands of Qumranians themselves were priestly descendants of Tzaddok.

So who do you suppose these devolt “qumranians” were? And how is it that they had so many scrolls and such a strict form of living as a community, if not a group of priests? I’d be keen to hear your alternative theory, which will hopefully be backed by evidence.

I recall that some pre-Jesus DS texts say that the messiah ("Moreh Tzedek" as they called him) has already come.

The Teacher of Righteousness may have been a literal leader in the Qumran community as well as a foreshadow of Messiah. However, the prophecy in Genesis 49 and Daniel 9 should have been sufficient for them to identify the due time period.

Just looking for evidence for what you claim was a central event in Jewish literary history. It seems non-existe

So besides the fact of 4 Ezra’s survival and revival in these days, you need more evidence. Fair enough. What would appease you? Confirmation by Rambam?

I can list things that have a bigger "biggie":
- wrong on the essence of God
- wrong on the concept of the messiah
- wrong on the point of the Torah and commandments
- wrong lifestyle
- likely my relatives murdered in the Holocaust and all throughout history died for nothing
- an entire life spent praying to the wrong deity

Well, there are some points on that list that I think, from my view, you do have wrong and so I see as a “biggie”. Alas, it doesn’t seem to think you could have anything wrong. From your list above it implies that you seem very confident in your ways. Which is admirable is some respect.

 

[Tzephanyahu]

And now we're dealing with accusations of "sweeping under the rug". Fantastic. Luckily, there's the lack of evidence. In a fair trial, I think we'd do alright. And this is the 21st centuries, so I'm optimistic about our chances at actually getting a fair trial.

I guess so. Especially when your community seemingly has the authority of saying what is and isn’t inspired text as well as the discrepancies between the “perfect” Masoretic text compared to the earlier LXX. So yes, I’m sure your case can be argued well, with your subjective evidence.

Why do you like them?

I like their heart attitude in making the Besorah available in Israel – at a time when it is still taboo to read in some families. That's all.

And our earlier ones, too. I can see you absolutely love the Christian narrative that "the rabbis" changed all of Judaism after the death of Jesus. Please, spare me.

No, but I see the potential for foul play. And I seem less biased on the matter than you.

Or what do you think – do you think it works in my favour to cast the MT into doubt when surely 95% of Christian Bibles are based upon it? Do you think it works in my favour to speak on books that Christians are more afraid of than the Jews?

No, I don’t “absolutely love” the possibility that Jewish authorities have had ill-motive for doing these things. Far from it. But whilst it’s easier to run-and-hide and assume previous generations were perfect, I accept the possible alternative – whether it is true or not.

I think I would have done it.

This is just getting silly now. I don’t know you, but I highly doubt you would have done it but buckled under the pressure. This would just be a standard psychological response to a pressure of such magnitude.

Memorisation is indeed possible (this is not news to me). But there is a difference between memorisation and reciting to recording it as what will be considered holy writ to the community and before Elohim.

David, Abraham, Yehoshafat. Pick one.

Oh dear... Well, it’s interesting to read your suggestions at least.

You seem to be getting most of your Judaic info from One for Israel and such ministries, so I see nothing wrong with my listening to anti-missionaries. I myself take the time to open up the NT stuff I hear about, but do you take the time to research Jewish texts to see if what these missionaries are telling you about us is true? So far it seems not.

No, I do not rely on One For Israel. My sources do include them but also the testimony of Jews who now see Messiah.

No, I don’t spend time reading the Talmud – why would I? I don't recognise its authority. Would it lead me to a place in thinking Psalm 110 was referring to the Yehoshafat?

But it’s good you read the New Testament. But when you say “stuff you hear about” does that mean just searching a particular verse reference?

Smack in the middle of the 50s CE in Jerusalem, we're supposed to believe that the High Priest himself took the time to send a special enforcer to eradicate a teeny-tiny cult in Damascus of all places? Puh-lease.

Damascus was also a name given to the Qumran community as described in the DSS. So the trip may have been more localised than Syria, to reach the "sons of light" who believed in Yahushua it seems.

But what if it was in Syria? What information do you have on the community there? You seem confident that it was “teeny-tiny”.

Moreover, the High Priest was a Sadducee. Why would he send a "Pharisee" to do the job, and why would this "Pharisee" agree to take orders from a Sadducee

Paul was zealous to persecute the church. A Sadducee, whilst the opposition, would have been a partner against a common enemy. Besides – the High Priest is the High Priest, and Paul is recorded as respecting that position and it’s full authority, despite who held it.

If Paul was some sort of assassin, like the sicarii, he should have plunged the knife into the heretical High Priest

This is nonsense. What makes you think he was an assassin? What would make you think that he would raise himself against the High Priest? Sloppy argument.

Whoever wrote this cute story sure picked an excellent time to write it. Dated to decades after the destruction of the Temple and decades after the death of Rabban Gamliel (so he couldn't denounce these claims, nor could anyone go to him to ask whether they were true or not),

Hmm, you’re going to have to do better than that my friend. This argument is weak and written by a man who has clearly not read the whole Book of Acts. But if this argument is truly enough for you, then I don’t know how I can reason with you further on Paul.

And how do you know such meat is kosher?

I go by the animal it is. Or would you rather I sit at the feet of your leaders and ask them to approve it first?

And how do you know that this meat is kosher per your standards?
Or is the sign only whether it's bloodless?

For me, I have standard than run according to my Tanakh, not your traditions.

How do you know what part of the body the Orlah is?

Okay, this is getting a little bit painful now. I think you might be running out of decent arguments here.

A young child to an old man would know it to be the foreskin. Searching a library or searching online would prove it to be the foreskin. But along comes Harel13 “How do you know what part of the body it is?” Brilliant. Well done.

Tanach is part of Judaism, my religion (emphasized just for you). But it's not the only part.

Indeed it’s not the only part, and that’s part of my point.

I don’t think we’re really communicating too well here anymore. It’s turning a bit repetitive and I think we’ve hit “ceiling” if I'm honest.

Nevertheless, it was interesting speaking with you an hearing your views and thank you so much for taking the time to consider and to reply to me. It has been educational and I do understand the logic behind your views, even though I don't concur.

I hope your project goes well and may it bring glory to Elohim.

Peace.

 

[Harel13]

Maybe I have misunderstood. Nevertheless, the veneration you afford to them hasn’t really left me feeling corrected on the matter.

While that post wasn't directed toward me, we began talking on this thread because I gave you the courtesy of watching that video about verses Jews supposedly edited out of the Tanach. Would you give me the same courtesy of going over Maimonides's Introduction to the Mishna? Most of it is available in English on Sefaria. And if you're willing, I can take the time to translate the parts that are significant to this discussion that are yet-to-be-translated.

An unnecessary explanation, but thanks all the same.

If it was unnecessary, then why do you believe that Jews venerate the canon above all else?

Yes you seem to be missing my point about this. I’m running out of ways to say it.

What, that there's a secret rabbinical conspiracy to wipe out Christianity and all traces of Jesus? Touching about that verse in Josephus, the first person to quote that verse was Eusebius in the 3rd-4th century. No prior Church Father did, though this is supposedly excellent nearly-contemporary evidence for the existence of Jesus. Really, Christians create their own conspiracies fine without our assistance. Which makes things like the Protocols of the Elders of Zion all the more ridiculous (no, I'm not calling you an antisemite, it was simply the first antisemitic Christian conspiracy theory I could think of). Going back to this conspiracy (provided that that's what you are, indeed, referring to), there are hundreds, perhaps thousands of verses in Tanach that Christians claim point to Jesus. Why were they not removed by the Jews? I mean, if they are so clearly referring to Jesus, it should have been such a basic move on our part...

So who do you suppose these devolt “qumranians” were? And how is it that they had so many scrolls and such a strict form of living as a community, if not a group of priests? I’d be keen to hear your alternative theory, which will hopefully be backed by evidence.

No alternative theories at the moment, just trying out some logic: Why are priests the only ones who can preserve scrolls? And you're familiar with the strictness in lifestyle of certain Jews. No evidence that only priests are capable of that. In fact, dozens if not hundreds of mikvaot (ritual immersion pools) from the Second Temple period have been discovered all over Israel. That's how we know that a great many people at the time were strict in keeping the laws of purity. I'm not too bothered about who these people were in terms of religion. Whether they believed in Jesus or whomever, it doesn't matter to me. I take interest in them because of my interest in history and archeology, so I'm not bothered if you prefer to think of them as a group of thousands of priests. Simply wondering why. I assume theologically it sounds better that thousands of holy priests foresaw the coming of Jesus, rather than thousands of people who we don't know where they come from, but historically - why?

So besides the fact of 4 Ezra’s survival and revival in these days, you need more evidence. Fair enough. What would appease you? Confirmation by Rambam?

I don't get why you're bringing Rambam into this. I told you multiple times what would be evidence. Other ancient (say, 2nd century CE and back) writers discussing the event.

From your list above it implies that you seem very confident in your ways.

I've seen the Christian arguments time and again. They fall apart.

with your subjective evidence.

I've asked you to bring evidence that the rabbis swept pro-Christian messages in ancient Jewish texts under the rug.

No, but I see the potential for foul play. And I seem less biased on the matter than you.

I think we're both biased against each other's religions and religious leaders. But feel free to disagree.

Or what do you think – do you think it works in my favour to cast the MT into doubt when surely 95% of Christian Bibles are based upon it? Do you think it works in my favour to speak on books that Christians are more afraid of than the Jews?

It might. You've already told me about a number of things that you believe most Christians get wrong.

This is just getting silly now. I don’t know you, but I highly doubt you would have done it but buckled under the pressure.

Hopping to duty? Guess you haven't served in the army, then.

Oh dear... Well, it’s interesting to read your suggestions at least.

Oy vey that you aren't even interested in hearing explanations. But not actually surprising.

No, I do not rely on One For Israel. My sources do include them but also the testimony of Jews who now see Messiah.

So not hearing anything from actual Orthodox Jews. Okay.

No, I don’t spend time reading the Talmud – why would I? I don't recognise its authority.

Who was talking about the Talmud?
And I don't recognize the authority of the Church Fathers, yet I read their writings. And yes, occasionally I'll check out missionary sites. Do you see the contrast here? You expect me to read the NT and fall in line with Christian interpretations; you expect this of all Jews, but you yourself cannot bring yourself to even bother hearing the Jewish view of things. "To the Jew first- with our eyes shut, our fingers stuck in our ears and yelling "lalalalala can't hear YOUUUU""...that's how it seems to me. This reminds me a bit of the Disputation of Barcelona, where Nachmanides wasn't allowed to ask any questions himself nor bring any books with him, but only answer what the Christians asked him and from memory.

 

[Harel13]

Damascus was also a name given to the Qumran community as described in the DSS. So the trip may have been more localised than Syria, to reach the "sons of light" who believed in Yahushua it seems.

Okay, creative interpretation, I'll give you that, except that the Judean Desert was, if I'm not mistaken, part of the province of Judea, both in the time of the Persians and later on. The Galilee was the area nicknamed "Damascus" because it was under the control of the Syrian province, whose capital was Damascus. Yes, I'm aware of one scholar, Dr. Joshua Brand, who believed that the Damascus Covenant actually originated in the Galilee and was later adopted by the Qumranians.

But what if it was in Syria? What information do you have on the community there? You seem confident that it was “teeny-tiny”.

I found this. Don't know if you'd consider it evidence, but evidently there weren't many Christians in the 50s. And even less in the 40s. I doubt they were all in Damascus. Wasn't Peter in Rome? He was probably not alone there. And I'm sure others opted to remain in Judea. Therefore, I surmise that there were, at best, a few hundred Christians in Damascus. It's estimated that there were about 4.4 million Jews in the world at the time. Roughly half lived in the Land of Israel. A few hundred Christians against millions of Jews is nothing. Why would the High Priest take interest in them? There were far more Qumranians, far far more Pharisees at the time. Christians were small fries. Seriously. Why send a special enforcer all the way there, and not even one from your own sect?

Paul was zealous to persecute the church. A Sadducee, whilst the opposition, would have been a partner against a common enemy.

Were they really an enemy? Really really? Like, so much worse than the Romans or other sects who were equally heretical? Because if so, why was the decision to kick them out of synagogue (though not physically, it was a psychological technique) only made in the time of Rabban Gamliel the younger, circa the 90s-100s? Are you certain that the Christians posed such a huge threat to the rest of the Jews at the time?

This is nonsense. What makes you think he was an assassin?

"I persecuted the followers of this Way to their death" - The author of Acts's words, not mine.

What would make you think that he would raise himself against the High Priest?

Because the High Priest was a Sadducee heretic. Why were Christians supposedly persecuted and killed according to Acts? Because the author of Acts knew one thing about Judaism, and that is that heretics are to be put to death. Paul, being the zealous Pharisee that he supposedly was, having gotten close enough to the High Priest, should've totally knifed him in the gut. Either Paul wasn't really a zealous Pharisee or he was never sent by the High Priest anywhere. Or both. Probably the third option.

Hmm, you’re going to have to do better than that my friend. This argument is weak and written by a man who has clearly not read the whole Book of Acts. But if this argument is truly enough for you, then I don’t know how I can reason with you further on Paul.

You haven't disproven it, so I think I'll stick with it for the time being.

For me, I have standard than run according to my Tanakh, not your traditions.

That was not the question. But it helps me clarify my meaning. Of course I understand that you have your own standard, based on the bible. But how do you know that kosher meat marts, who follow traditional Jewish standards, are in level with your standards?

Okay, this is getting a little bit painful now. I think you might be running out of decent arguments here.

A young child to an old man would know it to be the foreskin. Searching a library or searching online would prove it to be the foreskin. But along comes Harel13 “How do you know what part of the body it is?” Brilliant. Well done.

Well, you still don't understand the question. Last try. God didn't come to Abraham and told him: Cut off your foreskin, which is the layer of skin above the male private part. He came to him and told him to cut off his Orlah. Now, Orlah is a word that means several things - it's a homonym, like "bark", "pen", "book", and so forth. And God didn't refer to any part of the body. In fact, it is never stated in Tanach what the Orlah is, in any context. So how would you know what Orlah God was referring to?

I don’t think we’re really communicating too well here anymore. It’s turning a bit repetitive and I think we’ve hit “ceiling” if I'm honest.

Could be. Ultimately, I'm mainly interested in knowing whether you're willing to afford me the same courtesy I generally give Christians and check out some Jewish texts, videos and views. If that's not up your alley, then I guess there's really nothing more to talk about.

 

[Tzephanyahu]

I gave you the courtesy of watching that video about verses Jews supposedly edited out of the Tanach. Would you give me the same courtesy of going over Maimonides's Introduction to the Mishna?

Keep in mind, I asked nothing from you. That post was directed to someone else.

As I mentioned previously, I greatly appreciate you watching that video and considering it thoroughly. However, I have no desire to read Maimonides' Intro to the Mishna. This would be equivalent to me saying "please read X Christian Leader's intro to the X Christian Work". Surely, you neither care for this leader nor for this work. Though you may have more time and inclination than I to investigate - in which case, good on you.

Now, I realise the importance of the Mishna to you and I really don't intend to disrespect you in anyway by saying this. But I have more important material to read whenever I do happen to get a spare moment to read (the Scriptures, additional books and DSS). I'm far behind on my list, probably by a year. I appreciate that this work will probably have some benefit but also probably have a huge omission in the understanding of Messiah - as revealed in the Besorah. So it's difficult to find the inspiration to raise it as a priority. Just as you would find it difficult to get excited about a work which denies Moses.

If it was unnecessary, then why do you believe that Jews venerate the canon above all else?

You misunderstand me. I don't think they venerate the canon above all else, but venerate it disproportionately. This is not just a concern for the Jews but Christians also.

I think wrapping up a selection of scrolls in a nice leather-bound/hardback cover has a presupposition. A negative result of modern day convenience - causing people to assume a trustworthiness in the past and preventing independent investigation.

What, that there's a secret rabbinical conspiracy to wipe out Christianity and all traces of Jesus?

If their forebears were responsible for killing one that many heralded as Messiah because of x, y and z passages - then yes, it's a possibility. But you seem to suddenly have great faith in mankind when it comes to how these men would have handled that incident. Has history and present day events not taught you anything about the heart of men?

Keep in mind, I'm not forcing the Messiah's reality on you in saying this. I'm meeting you where you're at - saying that a man who was believed by many to be the Messiah was then killed, whether He was or not. Now, there was clearly an uprising of a movement that came about thereafter, which became Christianity today. So yes, I think it is possible that "heavy-shepherding" took place surrounding the Scriptures that were popular in this Natsarim movement - which by implication put the Jewish authorities to shame, again, whether true or not.

there are hundreds, perhaps thousands of verses in Tanach that Christians claim point to Jesus. Why were they not removed by the Jews? I mean, if they are so clearly referring to Jesus, it should have been such a basic move on our part...

True. The Scriptures would need to be butchered beyond recognition to remove the Messiah completely - so greatly is He entwined into each scroll. However, it seems that more vivid passages suffered creative interpretations, when we compare the MT with the LXX and Targums.

But yes, you can't get rid of all prophecies of Messiah which match Yahushua's first coming. You can however develop a way of teaching Scriptures that convinces its students of the interpretation of certain "problematic passages", such as the Suffering Servant is Israel and that Psalm 110 may be David, Abraham or Jehoshaphat (That last one might be just you though as I haven't come across that before.)

No alternative theories at the moment,

Exactly.

I assume theologically it sounds better that thousands of holy priests foresaw the coming of Jesus, rather than thousands of people who we don't know where they come from, but historically - why?

Eh? I didn't understand your question here. Perhaps it was the way it was phrased.

Whether the sons of Zadok or thousands of "random people" knew, there was clearly a heavy expectation of the Messiah's due arrival in the first century - similar to the heavy expectation that the Jews have today. Many pretenders of that position arose before and after Yahushua. However, only Yahushua matched all the prophecies outlined in the Tanakh. But of course that is entirely dependent of one recognising the accounts of the Besorah.

I think we're both biased against each other's religions and religious leaders. But feel free to disagree.

Yes and no. I am of course biased to Christianity (though that title comes with a lot of baggage). But I have little love for the "religion of Christianity" and its many leaders (past and present). Don't get me wrong, there are many good people, who accept and humble themselves before the Word and teach it accurately. But the majority read the NT only and so have a skewed ideas of the Way. I believe you can show clearly in the Besorah that the Messiah prophesied that the Way would become the mess that it is today - that is, Christianity with its many denominations and divisions and ignorance of Torah.

But I suppose that is another difference between you and I. You see your faith as a "religion" - in your own words. I see mine as not a religion at all, but a way of citizenship. A citizenship of New Jerusalem. Religion is formed by men - which can help and also hinder.

Oy vey that you aren't even interested in hearing explanations. But not actually surprising.

I didn't mean to offend you by not asking for you explanations, but I found your suggestions illogical from the outset. Just as I imagine that you would find the interpretation that Psalm 110 is about the Son of Elohim illogical. So I neither bothered you with my explanation and, in like manner, I didn't ask you to share any further either.

And I don't recognize the authority of the Church Fathers, yet I read their writings. And yes, occasionally I'll check out missionary sites. Do you see the contrast here? You expect me to read the NT and fall in line with Christian interpretations; you expect this of all Jews, but you yourself cannot bring yourself to even bother hearing the Jewish view of things. "To the Jew first- with our eyes shut, our fingers stuck in our ears and yelling "lalalalala can't hear YOUUUU""

Haha, good point. Whether you read the NT or not is between you an Elohim. I can't make you do anything and won't ask you to do anything - and if I do, I fully expect you not to do it. Who am I?

What then, am I closed minded? No. I just have zero spare time to invest into areas that are not the Scriptures themselves (and the additional books). I'm definitely not scratching around for things to read or study at the moment. I have much ahead of me to study and so fitting in writings of "the Jewish view of things" isn't high on my priority - as all they have to say is lacking the understanding of Yahushua. This would be like me saying "please read this excellent Christian view of things, but we do deny Moses" - of what importance would you assign to these things?

Look, I started as an Atheist, then became a Christian. Then I became "Messianic" for many years, seeking knowledge. I jumped into the deep end of observing the lifestyle of the Jews and incorporated even some of the traditions in my "religious observances". This taught me a lot about the Hebraic way of reading the OT and NT, and I even incorporated some Jewish traditions into my "religious observances". I appreciate all the good I gathered from that time, but ultimately it was a path that led to raise "Judaism" too high, as if an entity in of itself. Elohim was often in the background and Jewish traditions in the foreground. All this to say I have deep appreciation for the "Jewish view of things", as you call it.

To me, there is a point in which the "Jewish way" does start to drift from the "Tanakh way", as history shows and as the present shows with the denial of Messiah, again, in my opinion. Therefore, what would you have me read? Doesn't it seem as though our paths aren't exactly parallel? So what map would you give to me and what map could I possibly give to you? If you wouldn't listen to Yahushua, you're not going to listen to me. And if I purposely walked away from Messianic Judaism, why would I listen to leaders of "Judaism" alone?

I'm more than happy to discuss matters on an individual basis. But if the conversation parts from mind to mind and becomes community to community, it will be a dead end, like it has been for the last 2000 years. That is where it seems this chat is going unfortunately.