Judaisms Core

[Ehav4Ever]

Please explain how is this against the Torah?

The statement is a false statement. Hashem, in the Torah never required any Jew to leave their families to follow an individual making the claims that are found in the NT. The statement, "when the Son of Man sits on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel." There is no place where Hashem promised such a thing. Thus, this claim is just made up. Anyone can come around making false promises like this and if their followers doin't know Torah they can be fooled by it. Also, to make such a claim a person would be claiming to be a prophet.

The Torah does not tell any Jew to leave houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or wife[e] or children or fields for the sake of anyone in this way. Essentially, someone claiming these things w/o a Torah basis would be a false prophet.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

Please explain how is this against the Torah?

Again, there is no place in the Torah where it is claimed that “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning."

Further, the Torah never claims that "anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.” This is the author of the Jesus story just making things up.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

Also, I think in this case it is good to notice, Jesus said that also his disciples are one with God.

that they may all be one; even as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be one in us; that the world may be-lieve that you sent me.
John 17:21

I understand that means they have the same will, which in my opinion is not against the Torah.

IF he actually said that he was wrong. He and his disciples were not one with Hashem. According to the story they were not in line with the Torah that Hashem gave. Further, even claiming they had the same will is against the Torah. Since the Jesus accounts show that he did not have the same will as what Hashem gave in the Torah.

 

[metis]

So, serious Torah students do know - IF they study the source material from across the Jewish world and avoid sites like Wikipedia and such.

I studied Torah for years, and what you are posting is nothing short of sheer nonsense.

There were numerous schools and they often disagreed on various interpretations. This is why we call them "commentaries". The Hillel and Shammai camps were at odds enough at times that they even had some physical struggles with each other.

The old expression "2 Jews = 3 opinions" very much applies with these commentaries. When the two Talmuds were merged, compromises had to be sought since they didn't exactly match. It is totally nonsensical that they and other commentaries were or are somehow uniform. Seems you're more into the lock-step approach as with Catholicism than actual Judaism
.
Lock-step interpretation is not how Judaism works, and if you don't understand that then you need to do a LOT more studying. You come of as a "know-it-all", which is an approach that actually defies the traditional approach to Torah and also halacha in general.

Unless you come down to earth off your high horse, you and I are done.

 

[metis]

He and his disciples were not one with Hashem.

Hillel the Elder said [paraphrased] that he could explain the gist of Torah standing on one leg, namely do not do unto others that which you would not want done unto yourself, and all the rest is commentary, so go study. This is not much different from Jesus' approach of "love your neighbor as yourself".

Yes, there are obviously some differences though.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

I studied Torah for years, and what you are posting is nothing short of sheer nonsense.

We have already discussed years ago what you claim you studied. You didn't study across the Jewish spectrum. According to what you stated a few years ago you weren't willing to say who your rabbi was before you converted back to Christinaity. The most you were willing to say is that you supposidly had some connection to the Carlebach shul in Jerusalem.

Again, none of this proves you know anything about ancient Hebrew, system of Shoreshim in Hebrew, or that you have studied the Mishnah, Gemara, Geonim, Rishonim, or Achoronim. Let alone, you never gave the impression that you studied Mizrahi, Sephardic, Orthodox Askenazi, or Hassidic sources. I have already posted several sources for what I am stating and not Wikipedia articles.

 

[metis]

We have already discussed years ago what you claim you studied. You didn't study across the Jewish spectrum.

Actually I did do as such. Your know-it-all attitude is sickening and not in tune with real Jewish commentary. So, I'm 100% done with your and nonsensical and arrogant statements. In order to be an excellent Torah scholar, one has to get over themselves first, and you clearly haven't done that.

bye

 

[Ehav4Ever]

Hillel the Elder said [paraphrased] that he could explain the gist of Torah standing on one leg, namely do not do unto others that which you would not want done unto yourself, and all the rest is commentary, so go study. This is not much different from Jesus' approach of "love your neighbor as yourself".

Yes, there are obviously some differences though.

That is not what Hillel said. You are deleting the entire story by trying to paraphrase it. Hillel was approached by three different types of potential converts. Said non-Jew presented the idea of Hillel teaching him the entire Torah on one foot. Hillel gave him a fundamental and then (drum roll) told him to go study (זיל גמור).

Further, you forgot that the story includes two other potential converts one of which Hillel presented to him the fact he was will to trust Hillel about the Aleph-Beth then he should also trust him about the Oral Torah.

You left all that out critical information out of your description. In terms of the NT claim that Jesus made a similar statement is not of any consequence since Hillel lived before the historical Jesus and at most the historicla Jesus, if he said what the NT claims, was only referencing something that was already a part of the "tradition."

 

[Ehav4Ever]

Actually I did do as such. Your know-it-all attitude is sickening and not in tune with real Jewish commentary. So, I'm 100% done with your and nonsensical and arrogant statements. In order to be an excellent Torah scholar, one has to get over themselves first, and you clearly haven't done that.

bye

I am not a know it all. I am always very clear where my sources come from and where which Jewish communities them from and also when there are differences between valid sources.

I presented the actual sources of what I am talking about, so if you don't agree with the Mishnah, Gemara, Geonim, Rishonim, and Achoronim it must be clear that you are getting your information from invalid sources. Lastly, Torah scholars are clear about the fact that bad sources have to be called out so that people are fooled by them. The reality is that they don't support what you stated.

 

[Ebionite]

That sounds like your personal tradition.

It's an interpretation based only on the last verse of Exodus 19 and the first two verses of Exodus 20. First Moses speaks, then Elohim speaks, and these descriptions are of the same event. If this information wasn't present then the reader would have no way of knowing how YHWH spoke to the people.

For comparison, in Exodus 3 (the burning bush) Elohim is YHWH and his angel.

 

[Ebionite]

You didn't read what I wrote - or you didn't understand it.

I understood it fine. Vowels have been used to corrupt the text in Genesis 16:12:

​

"And he shall be a wild *** of a man; his hand shall be against every man, and every man's hand against him..."​

"... he will be a fruitful man: his hand shall be with everyone, and every man's hand shall be with him..."

Link

 

[Ebionite]

Instead, there are few minute discussions about several individuals named yeshu who lived at various periods and did things that "potentially" were what early Christian writers used as their basis for the NT.

Who were these individuals that were called yeshu?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I think that is interesting, difficult to know why they accept the 7 are his, but not the rest. I believe they all are from Paul.

I know very little about the specifics of how textual criticism is done, but I know that it is opinions on a text based on actual evidence. IOW the scientific approach. They pay attention to stylistic differences in the text, common themes, different word choices, etc. Have you ever been in a chatroom and realize that someone in the room is someone you already know, but they are now using a different nick? You realize this because they are discussing the same topics and saying exact same things as the person you knew when they used the earlier nick. That is you using a primitive form of textual criticism.

Since I myself am so uneducated in textual criticism, I went and asked ChatGPT why scholars don't think 1 Timothy was written by Paul Here is the answer:

1. Language and Style:​

• Vocabulary: The vocabulary used in 1 Timothy includes many words that are not found in the undisputed Pauline letters. These words and phrases seem to reflect a different period and context.
• Style: The writing style in 1 Timothy differs significantly from the style in the letters that are universally accepted as written by Paul. This includes differences in sentence structure and rhetorical devices.

2. Theological Content:​

• Doctrinal Emphasis: The theological themes and church organizational instructions in 1 Timothy appear to be more developed and systematic than in Paul’s authentic letters. This suggests a later stage in the development of early Christian doctrine and church structure.
• Ecclesiology: The detailed instructions on church leadership and hierarchy in 1 Timothy (e.g., qualifications for bishops and deacons) are more formalized than what is found in Paul's genuine letters, indicating a more developed ecclesiastical structure.

3. Historical Context:​

• Church Structure: The church structure described in 1 Timothy, with its detailed regulations for bishops, elders, and deacons, aligns more closely with the early 2nd century than with Paul’s time in the mid-1st century.
• Gnosticism: The letter addresses certain heresies and doctrinal disputes that are more characteristic of the 2nd-century Christian context, particularly early forms of Gnosticism.

4. Personal Circumstances:​

• Biographical Inconsistencies: The personal references and circumstances described in 1 Timothy do not easily fit into the timeline of Paul's life as known from his other letters and the Acts of the Apostles.

5. Patristic Evidence:​

• Early Church Reception: Some early church fathers questioned the Pauline authorship of the Pastoral Epistles (1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, and Titus), and there were variations in the acceptance of these letters in the early church.

 

[1213]

For a Jew, according to the Torah, taking care of and even burying one's parents is a big mitzvah. One can't claim to be doing good for others if they are neglecting their own parents...

I think taking care of living is much more important than taking care of dead. Doesn't necessary mean disrespect. But, I think you have a good argument. I just don't think in this case people did against God's will.

 

[1213]

...According to some Torah scholars there is no such thing as magic, ...

I think that is true and also Biblical.

 

[1213]

In the Torah Hashem never claims that any individual is the way to Him, and that no one gets to Hashem w/o going through any particular Jew. The Torah clearly states that Hashem alone is the path to Hashem, not someone else claiming to be the path.

Please show the scripture.

In Biblical point of view Jesus is like mediator between men and God. Very similar to Moses, who predicted it to happen:

Yahweh your God will raise up to you a prophet from among you, of your brothers, like me. You shall listen to him.
Deut. 18:15 (Acts 7:37)

For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,
1 Tim. 2:5

And Jesus told that he speaks what God had commanded him to speak. And Jesus can't do anything without God. That is why I think it is ultimately by God.

Jesus therefore answered them, "My teaching is not mine, but his who sent me.
John 7:16
For I spoke not from myself, but the Father who sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak.
John 12:49
I can of myself do nothing. As I hear, I judge, and my judgment is righteous; because I don’t seek my own will, but the will of my Father who sent me.
John 5:30

 

[1213]

The statement is a false statement. Hashem, in the Torah never required any Jew to leave their families to follow an individual making the claims that are found in the NT. The statement, "when the Son of Man sits on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel." There is no place where Hashem promised such a thing.

Never happening, or not being in the first scriptures is no in my opinion a good argument against those. There are lot of things in the Bible, that happen later and are not mentioned in the first paragraph.

Luckily the promise is something that we don't have to believe now, it is something that everyone will see in the end.

Thus, this claim is just made up. Anyone can come around making false promises like this and if their followers doin't know Torah they can be fooled by it. Also, to make such a claim a person would be claiming to be a prophet.

I think the main teaching Jesus has is, people should be righteous and love God. If one promises reward for spreading that message, I believe it can be from God, because I think it is also in OT.

The Torah does not tell any Jew to leave houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or wife[e] or children or fields for the sake of anyone in this way.

I don't see any meaningful difference to this:

Now Yahweh said to Abram, "Get out of your country, and from your relatives, and from your father's house, to the land that I will show you.
Genesis 12:1

 

[1213]

Again, there is no place in the Torah where it is claimed that “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning."

This scripture indicates to me that it was so:

When a man takes a wife, and marries her, then it shall be, if she find no favor in his eyes, because he has found some unseemly thing in her, that he shall write her a bill of divorce, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house. When she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man's [wife]. If the latter husband hate her, and write her a bill of divorce, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house; or if the latter husband die, who took her to be his wife;
Deut. 24:1-3

Further, the Torah never claims that "anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”

In the original meaning of the word, I think Jesus is correct.

 

[1213]

IF he actually said that he was wrong. He and his disciples were not one with Hashem. According to the story they were not in line with the Torah that Hashem gave. Further, even claiming they had the same will is against the Torah. Since the Jesus accounts show that he did not have the same will as what Hashem gave in the Torah.

Sorry, I disagree with that. I think he had and also better understanding of what is truly God's will. But, please give one example of where Jesus shows he had opposite will to God?

 

[1213]

I know very little about the specifics of how textual criticism is done, but I know that it is opinions on a text based on actual evidence. IOW the scientific approach. They pay attention to stylistic differences in the text, common themes, different word choices, etc. Have you ever been in a chatroom and realize that someone in the room is someone you already know, but they are now using a different nick? You realize this because they are discussing the same topics and saying exact same things as the person you knew when they used the earlier nick. That is you using a primitive form of textual criticism.

The problem with that is, people tend to change their style. For example I don't now write in the same ways as 20 years ago, because I have learned many things since then. Textual critic could not recognize my texts from back 20 years.