The prophets tell us that THE SCRIBES HAD CHANGED THE GOD'S LAW

[CMike]

Dear friend, the Hebrew scriptures were first. After were the Greek scriptures. But in the year 70 after Christ, the Hebrew scriptures were destroyed by the Romans.

The Christians had the Scriptures of the Old Testament written in Greek, and was what was left after the destuccion of Temple.

After centuries, in the Middle Ages, the Jews wanted to rebuild the canon (law), and then took the Christian scriptures written in Greek in order to rebuild the Old Testament canon.

The Law that now have we Christians, is the law of the Gospel, the only real, logical and correct Law. Laws written in the Old Testament that are different than the law of the Gospel, already passed because they wasn't the true God's Law.

Let's see your proof that every single Torah in existence was wiped out by the romans?

 

[CMike]

Dear friend, the Hebrew scriptures were first. After were the Greek scriptures. But in the year 70 after Christ, the Hebrew scriptures were destroyed by the Romans.

The Christians had the Scriptures of the Old Testament written in Greek, and was what was left after the destuccion of Temple.

After centuries, in the Middle Ages, the Jews wanted to rebuild the canon (law), and then took the Christian scriptures written in Greek in order to rebuild the Old Testament canon.
The Law that now have we Christians, is the law of the Gospel, the only real, logical and correct Law. Laws written in the Old Testament that are different than the law of the Gospel, already passed because they wasn't the true God's Law.

That is extremely twisted.

 

[Brickjectivity]

I believe you missed the point which is that the things that people do that are not Christian can't define the Christian faith. It would be like saying that tax evasion is a good example of good citizenship.

The things that people do define the Christian experience or the Christian reality. What you are calling 'The Christian faith' is a member of that Christian experience and is denigrated by evil actions. It doesn't just walk away squeaky clean. What you do affects its reputation. What other Christians do, it reflects upon you. What the martyrs did also reflects upon you by the same token. Its like a big famous family, just like the Corleone or the Kennedy family. Not only that but if other Christians are doing bad things, do you really think that you and they are not both affected? If they are obviously weak it reveals a hidden weakness in you.

 

[dantech]

Dear friend, the Hebrew scriptures were first. After were the Greek scriptures. But in the year 70 after Christ, the Hebrew scriptures were destroyed by the Romans.

The Christians had the Scriptures of the Old Testament written in Greek, and was what was left after the destuccion of Temple.

After centuries, in the Middle Ages, the Jews wanted to rebuild the canon (law), and then took the Christian scriptures written in Greek in order to rebuild the Old Testament canon.

The Law that now have we Christians, is the law of the Gospel, the only real, logical and correct Law. Laws written in the Old Testament that are different than the law of the Gospel, already passed because they wasn't the true God's Law.

Quite the vivid imagination you got there! You do need a reality check, and urgent basic history lesson, in my opinion.

 

[Nakosis]

Dear friends, this is what happened, what the prophets tell us: The God's law was changed by the scribes. The Old Testament's law is different to the commandments of Jesus Christ.

It's not important. If the Truth is the truth it is something anybody should be able to determine. Problem is most have vested interests and would rather support these interests then the obvious.

A person has to decide whether to support their own interests or the obvious in front of them. Imagine what ever truth that you want but accept the obvious for what it is.

 

[CMike]

I wanted to add that the laws from G-D in the Torah are vastly different from anything jesus said.

We are proud of that.

 

[RabbiO]

That you do not believe yourself, because all biblical scholars know there is no previous Hebrew texts the Greek texts. Everything was destroyed by the Romans in 70 AD.

The Old Testament that Christians have is the oldest survivor of the scriptures.

You have been asked more than once, and by more than one person, to provide documentation for this claim. You have, as appears to be your modus operandi, to ignore those requests and then simply continue to repeat yourself over and over and over again. Plainly put, you are wrong. For example, Hanina ben Teradion, in approximately 135 CE, some 65 years after the Romans destroyed the Temple in 70 CE, was burned alive by the Romans wrapped in the Torah scroll he was teaching from when he was captured. (Teaching Torah had been prohibited by the Romans.)

You also seem ignorant of the fact that we use our Torahs, they do not simply sit somewhere in a glass case . Over time scrolls can become worn, they can deteriorate, they can become damaged. There comes a point when a Torah may no longer be fit for use unless it is possible to repair it. Sometimes it can be repaired, but the cost is more than procuring a new or newer Torah.

By the way, do you know what happens to a Torah under those circumstances??

 

[Prophet]

Fact: the Hebrew Tanach was preserved. Also preserved were the two Talmud versions, one from Jerusalem and one from Babylon.

Incidentally the Apostle Paul trusts the preservation by the Jews of both the Tanach and their Oral Torah. Romans 3:2 "...the Jews have been entrusted with the very words of God." This he said is one of the advantages of being a circumcised Jew, that these words are in your care. If we listen to Paul it means the Christian might buy a copy of a Bible, but they aren't 'Entrusted' with its words.

What are you trying to say? That Paul thinks Jews are special? Maybe I'm mixing you up with someone else, but that doesn't sound exactly consistent with I remember being said about Paul before now. Your cite directly precedes this passage in Romans 1:

Circumcision has value if you observe the law, but if you break the law, you have become as though you had not been circumcised. 26So then, if those who are not circumcised keep the law’s requirements, will they not be regarded as though they were circumcised? 27The one who is not circumcised physically and yet obeys the law will condemn you who, even though you have the written code and circumcision, are a lawbreaker.

A person is not a Jew who is one only outwardly, nor is circumcision merely outward and physical. 29No, a person is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code. Such a person’s praise is not from other people, but from God. Romans 1:25-29

Paraphrasing in a fashion that works for all laws ever written: Following the law has value if you do so selflessly, but if you follow the law selfishly, you become evil, just like those who do not observe the law. So then, if those who do not observe the law conduct this disobedience selflessly, do they not become good? The one who is not observing the law and yet does so selflessly will expose you as evil, even though you have the letter of the law on your side.

A person is not good who is only good outwardly, nor is true observance of the law merely physical acting. No, a person who is good is good in his motives, and observation of the true law occurs in the heart, not in observance of laws of men.

Clearly, Paul redefines Jew here, making your following point completely out of context.

 

[Prophet]

That seems very reasonable at first. Why I wonder then on what basis Jesus tells the Pharisees "Woe to you, because you build tombs for the prophets, and it was your ancestors who killed them. So you testify against yourselves that you are the descendants of those who murdered the prophets." (Luke 11:47). So what if their ancestors killed the prophets? They didn't do it themselves. That should count for something, shouldn't it? Yes, it seems that you and I may both disagree with Jesus on this point, unless you think we have made a mistake?

Jesus is saying the Pharisees are the ideological progeny of those who murdered prophets before him, their praise of of their martyred prophets is false, and given the chance these law givers would murder him just the same. (Go ahead, then, and finish what your ancestors started! -Matt 23:32) This has very little to do with sins in the past and everything to do with the murderous motives in their hearts in that exact moment.

 

[CMike]

Jesus is saying the Pharisees are the ideological progeny of those who murdered prophets before him, their praise of of their martyred prophets is false, and given the chance these law givers would murder him just the same. (Go ahead, then, and finish what your ancestors started! -Matt 23:32) This has very little to do with sins in the past and everything to do with the murderous motives in their hearts in that exact moment.

Which jewish prophets were murdered?

 

[Prophet]

Which jewish prophets were murdered?

Zechariah, son of something that begins with b I believe.

 

[roger1440]

Zechariah, son of something that begins with b I believe.

That would be Bob. Only kidding,

 

[CMike]

What are you trying to say? That Paul thinks Jews are special? Maybe I'm mixing you up with someone else, but that doesn't sound exactly consistent with I remember being said about Paul before now. Your cite directly precedes this passage in Romans 1:



Paraphrasing in a fashion that works for all laws ever written: Following the law has value if you do so selflessly, but if you follow the law selfishly, you become evil, just like those who do not observe the law. So then, if those who do not observe the law conduct this disobedience selflessly, do they not become good? The one who is not observing the law and yet does so selflessly will expose you as evil, even though you have the letter of the law on your side.

A person is not good who is only good outwardly, nor is true observance of the law merely physical acting. No, a person who is good is good in his motives, and observation of the true law occurs in the heart, not in observance of laws of men.

Clearly, Paul redefines Jew here, making your following point completely out of context.

That is inaccurate.

You get credits for following the law regardless of the motive. It is better if you do it for the right reasons.

An example could be that you get credit for giving charity even if you get a tax deduction.

In the Torah the jews said we will do and we will understand.

Doing comes before understanding. Often the understanding follows the doing.

Doing is also more important than understanding.

 

[metis]

Jesus is saying the Pharisees are the ideological progeny of those who murdered prophets before him, their praise of of their martyred prophets is false, and given the chance these law givers would murder him just the same. (Go ahead, then, and finish what your ancestors started! -Matt 23:32) This has very little to do with sins in the past and everything to do with the murderous motives in their hearts in that exact moment.

Jesus was operating from the Pharisee paradigm, but whether he saw himself as a Pharisee is too hard to say. Paul identifies himself as being a Pharisee upon arrest by the Romans, and likes tend to attract likes in this arena, and being a Pharisee is a matter of choice and not birth. The Pharisees were more of a movement than a monolithic group, and historians have identified at least four different Pharisee groups, and there well might have been more.

What seems to be taking place is sort of a "family" argument dealing especially with what is called the "oral law" that was passed down from the Sinai experience, along with the results of the court decisions from courts that God told Moses to create. Also, there were also decisions to "build a fence around the Torah" to make certain Laws less likely to be broken because of a natural propensity for us to "fudge". This in essence made the Laws even tougher in terms of observance.

Jesus appears to be identifying this "oral law" as "laws made by men", instead attempting to simplify the Law, which naturally would draw suspicion from many of the leaders as far as what exactly what is he up to? Is he saying that the entire Law isn't necessary? Is he ranking the Laws into those that must be kept versus those that are optional?

So, if this scenario is true, and I do think it helps to explain the various positions both sides are taking, then one can see how and why this gets played out the way it did.

 

[Prophet]

Jesus was operating from the Pharisee paradigm, but whether he saw himself as a Pharisee is too hard to say. Paul identifies himself as being a Pharisee upon arrest by the Romans, and likes tend to attract likes in this arena, and being a Pharisee is a matter of choice and not birth. The Pharisees were more of a movement than a monolithic group, and historians have identified at least four different Pharisee groups, and there well might have been more.

What seems to be taking place is sort of a "family" argument dealing especially with what is called the "oral law" that was passed down from the Sinai experience, along with the results of the court decisions from courts that God told Moses to create. Also, there were also decisions to "build a fence around the Torah" to make certain Laws less likely to be broken because of a natural propensity for us to "fudge". This in essence made the Laws even tougher in terms of observance.

I don't necessarily disagree with you on Jesus possibly being family with Pharisees. However, that doesn't make the argument one of a lesser degree. They call him a blasphemer for disagreeing with them and teaching the people of God without sanction from them, the religious authorities, a crime which calls for a public execution according to Mosaic Law. He calls them hypocrites for teaching the people of goodness without goodness themselves, a crime of abject hypocrisy which damns them to hell. This is more than a little spat.

Jesus appears to be identifying this "oral law" as "laws made by men", instead attempting to simplify the Law, which naturally would draw suspicion from many of the leaders as far as what exactly what is he up to? Is he saying that the entire Law isn't necessary? Is he ranking the Laws into those that must be kept versus those that are optional?

If the purpose of law is to mediate between a society's members and people are brought out of ignorance and into selflessness, the law becomes fulfilled and thus, obsolete.

So, if this scenario is true, and I do think it helps to explain the various positions both sides are taking, then one can see how and why this gets played out the way it did.

I am highly uncertain that anything has been clarified personally for me. I don't think I'm being purposefully dense.

 

[Prophet]

That is inaccurate.

You get credits for following the law regardless of the motive. It is better if you do it for the right reasons.

An example could be that you get credit for giving charity even if you get a tax deduction.

In the Torah the jews said we will do and we will understand.

Doing comes before understanding. Often the understanding follows the doing.

Doing is also more important than understanding.

Filthy rags are all you get credit for. Those who perform goodness with their motive attached to something they want in return are EVIL.

All of us have become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous acts are like filthy rags; we all shrivel up like a leaf, and like the wind our sins sweep us away. Isaiah 64:6

 

[CMike]

Filthy rags are all you get credit for. Those who perform goodness with their motive attached to something they want in return are EVIL.

All of us have become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous acts are like filthy rags; we all shrivel up like a leaf, and like the wind our sins sweep us away. Isaiah 64:6

Speak for yourself. We haven't.

 

[metis]

I don't necessarily disagree with you on Jesus possibly being family with Pharisees. However, that doesn't make the argument one of a lesser degree. They call him a blasphemer for disagreeing with them and teaching the people of God without sanction from them, the religious authorities, a crime which calls for a public execution according to Mosaic Law. He calls them hypocrites for teaching the people of goodness without goodness themselves, a crime of abject hypocrisy which damns them to hell. This is more than a little spat.

I never stated nor implied it was a "little spat". Belief in God, the Abrahamic Covenant, and the Mosaiic Law, are what Judaism is about. Any attempt to undermine either of those is potentially punishable by death, according to Torah, because anyone who pushed that agenda while claiming he was speaking for God is considered a "false prophet". However, this had nothing to do with Jesus' crucifixion.

If the purpose of law is to mediate between a society's members and people are brought out of ignorance and into selflessness, the law becomes fulfilled and thus, obsolete.

But that's impossible according to Torah and Tanakh, both of which state that both Covenant and the Law are "perpetual" and "forever". Therefore, logically "fulfillment" can only be attained by actually observing the Law-- but not just some of it. Now, gentiles are not bound by that, so you're off the hook.

I am highly uncertain that anything has been clarified personally for me. I don't think I'm being purposefully dense.

OK.

 

[Prophet]

I never stated nor implied it was a "little spat". Belief in God, the Abrahamic Covenant, and the Mosaiic Law, are what Judaism is about. Any attempt to undermine either of those is potentially punishable by death, according to Torah, because anyone who pushed that agenda while claiming he was speaking for God is considered a "false prophet". However, this had nothing to do with Jesus' crucifixion.

Sorry, I honestly didn't know what you were getting at there. However, I do not think either of us has the ammunition to demonstrate that Jesus' crucifixion was solely to blame upon the Roman Empire or the Jews. While I will grant that the Roman Empire's version of the events present in the canonized Bible did attempt to hide Rome's complicity its part in Jesus' murder, this is far from a complete alibi for the Jews.

But that's impossible according to Torah and Tanakh, both of which state that both Covenant and the Law are "perpetual" and "forever". Therefore, logically "fulfillment" can only be attained by actually observing the Law-- but not just some of it. Now, gentiles are not bound by that, so you're off the hook.

So this law is eternal, according to the law itself? Frankly, this is fundamentalism. If your testimony to this point should be taken seriously, this argument is beneath you and should be left to crazies.

 

[CMike]

We? I'm not talking about anyone but you, CrazyMike. I bet nearly every Jew here has distanced themselves from your insanity. Tumah has had to make excuses for you saying that you really don't mean the genocidal things you say. Metis has brought up more than once that your bigotry is not something all Jews share.

You are the one that thinks you are a filthy rag, not me.

Who is insane? :help: