Why the NT is Historically and Theologically not acceptable for Torath Mosheh Jews

[BilliardsBall]

Okay, so:

1. Ashkenazi or Sephardi?
2. From what family?
3. Who is the human teacher/leader of your community?
4. Are you able to read a Hebrew Tanakh w/o translation?

1. Jewish
2. Family of Jacob/Israel
3. JESUS aka YESHUA
4. Right to left or left to right?

Please drop your elitist nonsense. How's your Greek? I only have A-level work in a year of Greek at a secular university, but I bet you don't understand the Greek Jewish scriptures a fraction of a fraction of a fraction as well as I.

 

[Rival]

You interpret this as "Thank you God that I have more commands to obey than others".

Yes. More mitzvot, more opportunities to please G-d and do what He wants. This is an exceedingly good thing.

 

[Harel13]

My heart breaks for you as my fellow Jew. I've abandoned your type of intellectual elitism. I count my former knowledge as cow dung compared to the joy of knowing Messiah. In that, I share with Rabbi Shaul.

My heart would break for you, except rather than actually answering my question, you just claim that your heart breaks for me at my "intellectual elitism" and call my religion dung. So no, my heart doesn't break for you. How about actually answering the question instead of dodging? (I'll give you a tip: You could likely find the answer on Wikipedia and act as though you knew it all along).

 

[Harel13]

In diaspora, we Jews (as always) made do. How did we manage to not keep for ourselves uncorrupted copies of the LXX?

Same reason other ancient Judaic texts were unpreserved: They were not deemed holy enough for us to give our fortunes and lives over their preservation. You must be aware of how the sages viewed the translating of the Torah. If you want to know what they thought of the translating of the Nach, I recommend reading Rabbi Reuven Margolies's המקרא והמסורה, where he has an essay dedicated to the sages' view of the Septuagint.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

1. Jewish
2. Family of Jacob/Israel
3. JESUS aka YESHUA
4. Right to left or left to right?

I had a feeling you would answer that way. Thanks for providing it.

How's your Greek?

My Greek is horrible. I would never want to learn Greek. I don't have a use for it. Especially Koine Greek. It has no use and holds no weight here. See how easy that was?

I only have A-level work in a year of Greek at a secular university, but I bet you don't understand the Greek Jewish scriptures a fraction of a fraction of a fraction as well as I.

I don't understand any Greek, including the letters because where I live here in Jerusalem Greek is literally a foreign language. You won't find any Jews in this side of Jerusalem reading anything in Greek. We stick to the Hebrew and Aramaic and leave the Greek to the Christians in Jerusalem who are part of the Greek Orthodox Church.

 

[Harel13]

I've never met a rabbi who could 1) deal with the holy scriptures without interpolating Talmud and tradition (sort of the way Catholics add to the NT) or who could 2) relax and take Shabbat in the love of God.

So...you know about five rabbis, at best, I take it?
Have you ever listened to Rabbi Tovia Singer? He only uses the verses. If asked about the Talmud, he'll talk Talmud. But that's something else. Anyway, you must have heard him, because you once made an odd claim about him here on RF and when I asked you to provide evidence for that claim, you never replied.

PS. I use words like "Gentile" because others read what we write, and see the difference between your elitist views and someone who wants to communicate God's Word.

Yes, others read what I write.

But when I refer to non-Jews, I vote to use a traditional term. I'm sure you've gone through at least some of the Shulchan Aruch. You must be aware that Rabbi Karo used that term to refer to non-Jews. אינו-יהודי. That's about 500 years ago. I prefer a good old traditional term as opposed to a meaningless word invented to create more hateful barriers between mankind. I'm sure you're aware that the term "gentile" carries as much negative baggage as "goy" does. While "goy" simply means "nation", and is a term used to refer to both the Nation of Yisrael and other nations, as Christians twisted the word to mean something negative, it fell out of positive use. I never see Christians coming and saying "I'm a proud gentile". It'll only be "I'm a proud Christian" or "I'm actually a Jew grafted onto the branch of Israel" or something like that. Gentile is a negative word, and I find that when the term is used, the connotation is that the person who used the term is peering down their nose at "the lowly gentiles".

Why not take a step back with me to extol the excellencies of God's Word to man, brought forth as the Word of truth through us, the Chosen People?

I can extol stuff about "the "word"" alright, but I don't think you'll be happy to hear what I have to say about him.

 

[dybmh]

Torah/teachings will be magnified! Isaiah 42:21

42:21 says HE will magnify the Law

Messiah said, "Come, learn from me, my burdens are light".

A light burden doesn't magnify the law.

I guess Isaiah wasn't talking about your messiah.

 

[rosends]

I've never met a rabbi who could 1) deal with the holy scriptures without interpolating Talmud and tradition (sort of the way Catholics add to the NT)

Yeah, Jesus was always quoting talmud. I can see why that would bother you. Maybe you should be a Karaite.

relax and take Shabbat in the love of God.

Hi -- nice to meet you. I relax on shabbat and I feel the love of God every day! Of course, I balance my love for God (and his for me) with my fear of him because fear is textually demanded of me as well.

 

[Clear]

Hi @rosends

I apologize for not responding earlier such that we lost our train of thoughts. I simply got busy at work and will be traveling for a couple of days soon.


THE CONCEPT THAT RELIGIOUS HISTORIES (E.G. BIBLICAL TEXTS, ETC. ) ARE SUBJECTIVE

Rosends said : “I don't put the kind of stock that you do into the existence of some transcendent and correct "history." History is a shifting set of understandings driven by agenda and limited by the available data, and the selection from among that data.”

I think you are actually quite correct on this point. History and the texts resulting from history are subjective and not necessarily correct.

Just as you point out that textual history is not “transcendent and correct”, the modern Judaism based on the early Jewish historical texts is not built upon a “transcendent and correct” version of textual history. The modern Jewish religion, is to a certain extent, a religion that, historically wise, was created, by a “shifting set of understandings driven by agenda and limited by the available data, and the selection from among that data.”


REGARDING VARIATIONS IN BIBLICAL AND OTHER HISTORICAL TEXTS
Regarding your point that “…this does not mean that every variant text has the same potential to change the normative and accepted text in a reconcilliatory process.

I agree that the presence of texts like the Dead Sea Scrolls that conflict with the Jewish text does not automatically mean the modern Jewish text is incorrect.

I also have to agree that no one knows what the most ancient and original Biblical texts said and thus, no one can claim with surety that their version is correct.

If we apply these agreed upon principles to the Jewish Masoretic text, we end up admitting that it is also an arbitrary “standard” text where one cannot tell if conflicting texts are more correct or it is more correct or multiple versions are wrong.

Having said this, I realized that the Jews do not deserve being faulted for retaining an arbitrary standard unless they see a legitimate reason to adopt a different text. Even the changes the Masoretes made to the text, (though I think they were misguided), seemed to be made for honorable reasons (to keep God from being dishonored).

However, the application of these principles that “the historical and theological information and claims found” in the Jewish texts are arbitrary and simply one version among many, and no one can really know what the original texts were, mean the modern Jewish texts are just as “suspect” or perhaps more suspect as the O.P. claims the N.T. texts are.

To the extent that modern Judaism is built upon arbitrary and variant texts, any religious doctrines based on an arbitrary and capricious text is arbitrary and capricious.


THE MOTIVE OF BIBLICAL COMMITEES IN COORDINATING THEIR TEXT TO READ LIKE THE DEAD SEA SCROLL TEXT DOES
As to your comment that repairing the text of bibles resulting from the Dead Sea Scroll is “a sort of appeal to novelty which is often set against an appeal to tradition…”

I do not think the motivation to coordinate modern biblical texts with Dead Sea Scroll texts was mere “novelty” (since, like the Jews, Christians, with their bible committees are also “tradition” driven similar to the Jews). Instead, I think the committees looked at the Scrolls and thought the Dead Sea Scroll version was more correct for reasons more logical and a more rational more coherent reasons. (I am assuming this since I have not read the discussions of the various committees. )

For example, the wiki article points out that this text "...was included by the authoritative Jewish historian, Josephus, in his Antiquities of the Jews. He may have adopted these writings from 4QSama and other early Scriptural texts similar to its tradition.[13] Josephus wrote of Nahash's clever practice of putting out the right eyes of warriors, leaving them useless in battle when their left eye was covered by their shield (5.1, 386). For those who committed insurrection or rebellion against him, he would give the ultimatum of either, cutting "off a small member of their body, or universally perish[ing]" (5.1, 387). Consequently, the Qumran texts and Josephus himself combine to form our "two most ancient witnesses",[11] demonstrating the validity of the missing segment from 1 Samuel 10 and thus must be considered valuable revelation."

However, the question remains as to why this portion is missing from the Masoretic Text and Septuagint at all. Dead Sea Scrolls scholars indicate that its exclusion is possibly due to "mechanical or scribal errors" that occurred during the copying of the text.[14] Furthermore, Emanuel Tov, professor at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem notes that these verses were most likely accidentally omitted in the earliest stages of copying.[15] In accordance to Tov, professor of Theology at the University of Notre Dame, Eugene Ulrich writes that a number of scribal errors occurred by the hand of a Masorete ancestor(s) that were never corrected in the later traditions of the Masoretic Text.[13] Thus, while scholars acknowledge that this topic is problematic, there are no concrete explanations for its occurrence, only weighted assumptions concerning the human scribes and their transmission.

My point is that it isn't mere "novelty" that motivated such textual corrections in other bible committees.


WHY ARE THERE SO MANY VARIANT BIBLICAL TEXTS?
Regarding your question that “one can ask "why are these variants different?"

I assume there are various reason for mistakes (homoteoutelon, lacunae, etc.) but I also assume various schisms of Judaism produced multiple versions of the texts for the same reason Christian schizms did.

For example, the branch of Judaism that calls themselves “Orthodox” produced their own version in the Masoretic with its own text which differs from the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Masoretes tell us that, in creating this Bible, they changed the original source texts. Perhaps creating a biblical text specific to a religious schism is simply the habit of all schizms who understand the texts differently than others.



THEOLOGICAL VERSUS HISTORICAL IMPORT
Rosends said : “And if they have "no theological importance" then why would any religious authority chafe at the prospect of fixing the traditional text (as has been done in the past)? “

My point was NOT that variations to the text the Jewish Masoretes have in their bible are of “no theological importance”. Some of them are very important.
I was referring specifically to Samuel 11:1 as having no THEOLOGICAL import (that I can see). However, it does have HISTORICAL importance.

Some of the variations in biblical text have a great deal of theological importance. I think that most individuals simply are unaware of the changes and of their import.

For example, the Masoretes tell us of the original text in Genesis 31:1 versus their version. The difference is of theological importance but How many Jews or Christians even know of the original version?

The point is that while the early versions may agree with the earlier ancient Judaism, it might not agree with the later religion Judaism became.

In the prior example I gave where the original text that has the Lord standing yet before Abraham is of theological importance since it indicates one of the three individuals visiting Abraham was the Lord rather than an angel. In such cases, I think the Masoretes should not have made changes to the source texts (but I do not think their justifications for changing the text were evil). I think they were trying to do good.



POST TWO OF TWO FOLLOWS

 

[Clear]

POST TWO OF TWO
HOW THE JEWISH RELIGION CHANGED FROM HAVING REVELATION, PROPHETS, PRODUCING SCRIPTURE, HAVING A TEMPLE WORSHIP TO A RELIGION WHICH HAS NONE OF THESE THINGS

Clear asked : “Can you explain what the “3 cardinal” sins the Jews committed which led to God taking away the prophetic revelatory gifts from the Jews.”
Rosends said : “If you don't know about the 3 cardinal sins, that does not indicate a failure on my part to answer, just a gap in your knowledge base. I also did not say that these 3 sins led to God taking prophecy away. I said that traditionally, these 3 sins (bloodshed, idolatry and immorality are the 3 categories) led to the destruction of the first temple and an exile.


When I asked about what specific sins led to exile and the taking away of the prophetic gifts from the Jews, instead of simply giving me a link, you could have explained :

The Jews were guilty of rape of women and other sexual immorality;

The Jews were guilty of murder, and

The Jews created a different religion and did not worship God in truth.

The Jews were guilty of “a baseless hatred” towards others.

And all these as reasons for their punishments by exile and the loss of prophetic gifts in their religion.

These reasons (and more reasons) for God punishing Israel with loss of the Prophetic gifts and the loss of the temple existed in multiple histories.
For examples :


Levi, taught his sons about the terrible sins their descendants would commit.

“And now, my children, I know from the writings of Enoch that in the end-time you will act impiously against the Lord, setting your hands to every evil deed; because of you, your brothers will be humiliated and among all the nations you shall become the occasion for scorn. For your father, Israel, is pure with respect to all the impieties of the chief priests, [who laid their hands on the Savior of the world,] as heaven is pure above the earth; and you should be the lights of Israel as the sun and the moon.

For what will all the nations do if you become darkened with impiety? You will bring down a curse on our nation, because you want to destroy the light of the Law which was granted to you for the enlightenment of every man, teaching commandments which are opposed to God’s just ordinances.

You plunder the Lord’s offerings; from his share you steal choice parts, contemptuously eating them with whores. You teach the Lord’s commands out of greed for gain; married women you profane; you have intercourse with whores and adulteresses. You take gentile women for your wives and your sexual relations will become like Sodom and Gomorrah.

You will be inflated with pride over your priesthood, exalting yourselves not merely by human standards but contrary to the commands of God. With contempt and laughter you will deride the sacred things. Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs- Levi 14:1-8;


“Now I have come to know that for seventy weeks you shall wander astray and profane the priesthood and defile the sacrificial altars. You shall set aside the law and nullify the words of the prophets by your wicked perversity.

You persecute just men: and you hate the pious; the word of the faithful you regard with revulsion. A man who by the power of the Most High renews the Law you name ‘Deceiver,’ and finally you shall plot to kill him, not discerning his eminence; by your wickedness you shall take innocent blood on your heads…Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs- Levi 16:1-3;


“1 And when the times of exposure come near and punishment arises through kings who (though) sharing their crimes yet punish them, 2 then they themselves will be divided as to the truth. 3 Consequently the word was fulfilled that they will avoid justice and approach iniquity; and they will pollute the house of their worship with the customs of the nations; and they will play the harlot after foreign gods. For they will not follow the truth of God, but certain of them will pollute the high altar by … the offerings which they place before the Lord.

They are not (truly priests (at all), but slaves, yea sons of slaves. 5 For those who are the leaders, their teachers, in those times will become admirers of avaricious persons, accepting (polluted) offerings, and they will sell justice by accepting bribes. 6 Therefore their city and the full extent of their dwelling places will be filled with crimes and iniquities. For they will have in their midst judges who will act with impiety toward the Lord and will judge just as they please.....ch 6 2 They will perform great impiety in the Holy of Holies... Testament of Moses 5:1-6 and p 930 6:2


“And this testimony will be heard as a testimony against them, for they will forget all of my commandments, everything which I shall command them, and they will walk after the gentiles and after their defilement and shame.

And they will serve their gods, and they will become a scandal for them and an affliction and a torment and a share. And many will be destroyed and seized and will fall into the hand of the enemy because they have forsaken my ordinances and my commandments and the feasts of my covenant and my Sabbaths and my sacred place, which I sanctified for myself among them, and my tabernacle and my sanctuary, which I sanctified from myself in the midst of the land so that I might set my name upon it and might dwell (there).” Jubilees 1:9-10;

Lest you think I am picking on the Jews who did these terrible things, I can point out that the Christians ended up making exactly the same mistakes, and, mostly for the same reasons.

The point here is that it has been known in religious histories regarding the reasons God punished the Jews by taking away Prophetic religion from the Jews and gave it to others as Justin Martyr claimed in 155 a.d.,

However, you are correct that I have multiple knowledge gaps.
Though I was aware of some history regarding the various sins of the Jews that resulted in the loss of revelation and prophetic gifts and the temple, but I did not know what the modern Jewish religion was teaching themselves regarding these reasons.

If jewish historical records tell us anything it is that mankind tends to apostatize, prophets try to restore and repair us to correct principles which may work for a while, but the process of apostasy repeats itself whether Jews or Christians or (I suspect..) muslims….


REGARDING THE JEWISH RULE THAT A PROPHET MUST BE ECSTATIC / HAPPY IN ORDER TO PROPHESY

Regarding your claim that Prophets must be happy (ecstatic) in order to prophesy and when they were not, they could not prophesy.

Rosends said : “You mean like placement in Israel, or the spiritually ecstatic state required? I mentioned those. Check the Rambam, in his laws of prophecy, item four, which I cited earlier.”

While you mentioned that prophets needed to be happy and in an “ecstatic state” in order to prophesy, this was a new concept for me. I had never heard of that Jewish tradition.

For example, Jeremiah was not particularly happy or ecstatic. He said “Accursed be the day That I was born! Let not the day be blessed When my mother bore me! [...] Why did I ever issue from the womb, To see misery and woe, To spend all my days in shame!” (Jer ch 20).

I think the reason prophets no longer were found among Israel was not that they needed to be ecstatic or happy to prophesy (I think that is one of these doctrines that the later Jewish religion created), but instead, it was part of the removal of the gift of revelation and prophesy among the Jews who had, as you said, sinned in terrible ways.

I do not see how the prediction that that Jews would no longer be a religion that had prophets, or revelation, or a temple, means the ancient jewish religion that had these things is the same religion as the modern Jewish religion that no longer has these same Characteristics.

Again, I am not picking on the Jews. This is a similar process that happened among the Christians.


My point in all of this is that the same criticisms in the O.P. that are applied to Christian religious literature can be applied to Jewish literature and religion.

Thank you so much for the effort and time you do spend trying to clarify these historical issues. I admit that I do not know a lot about the modern Jewish Religious movement.


Clear
φιεινετζω

 

[Harel13]

I agree! Shame on Rome for bastardizing the Jewish-written, Jewish-lead, Jewish-Messianic truths of the testaments.

I'm okay with this. The one good thing the Roman Empire did was show how non-Jewish Christianity is.

Born agains are CONSTANTLY pursuing the open-minded for discipleship and relish mentoring non-Christians.

Sounds creepy, I must say. Good thing I'm not open-minded, or I'd find myself in the incapable hands of the people who made GOD.TV a thing in Israel (until they were shut down, that is).

I happen to know that that's what fueled evangelists to invent Messianic Judaism. How do we get more Jews to...what d'you call it? "extol praises to the Word"? And bam, Messianic Judaism was born.

 

[Rival]

Good thing I'm not open-minded, or I'd find myself in the incapable hands of the people who made GOD.TV a thing in Israel (until they were shut down, that is).

Reminds me of this quote,

'Be open-minded, but not so open minded you let the trash blow in.'

 

[1213]

Thus, it is their product. Just because they didn't write them doesn't mean they didn't decide what was in and what was out. Further, if they had the ability to misuse they also had the ability to edit them and redact them...

Reason why I think they didn’t edit them is that there is so much contradictions between their own doctrines and the Bible.

 

[rosends]

The modern Jewish religion, is to a certain extent, a religion that, historically wise, was created, by a “shifting set of understandings driven by agenda and limited by the available data, and the selection from among that data.”

But it is based on the chain of transmission of practices and understandings as understood through a particular and consistent lens making the Judaism of today simply a continuation of (and not distinct from) any earlier form of Judaism. We are still using the rules and precedents that have been used, in the way that they have been used for thousands of years.

If we apply these agreed upon principles to the Jewish Masoretic text, we end up admitting that it is also an arbitrary “standard” text where one cannot tell if conflicting texts are more correct or it is more correct or multiple versions are wrong.

Well, Judaism would not say it is arbitrary. The practice of reconciling variant texts has a long history so within Judaism, there is a way of establishing what is "right" and normative with faith grounding the end result in a particular position of authority that other versions would not have. The process was not about honoring anyone or thing, but about maintaining a tradition and keeping within it. Therefore, as the process is true to a tradition, the end result is not suspect. Outside texts which are inconsistent are. And the legal system developed based on those same, internally consistent texts is one that continues to be consistent with earlier legal precedent, tradition and method. But I guess that considering it capricious relying on a view that the text must in some way be whimsically decided upon is a perfectly reasonable view from outside the system.

I think the committees looked at the Scrolls and thought the Dead Sea Scroll version was more correct for reasons more logical and a more rational more coherent reasons. (I am assuming this since I have not read the discussions of the various committees. )

But knowing that similar committees within the realm of Jewish historical scholars (with the bona fides to prove it) have come up with a different conclusion calls into question the supremacy of the other committees. Each uses a rationale of its own. Opting for one over another must be informed by some other agenda. I know mine.

For example, the branch of Judaism that calls themselves “Orthodox”

Side question -- would you suggest that the Reform and Conservative movements have Torah texts which differ?

produced their own version in the Masoretic with its own text which differs from the Dead Sea Scrolls

In this sentence, the order of statements is questionable. One could easily say "the Essenes produced their own text which differs from the accepted Masoretic text's sources". Assuming that the Masoretic text is invariably the changed one (and not one reconciled in accordance with the source text) presents a presupposition which might not be true.

and the Masoretes tell us that, in creating this Bible, they changed the original source texts.

No, that they reconciled when presented with variant texts. A flat out change, unprecedented and arbitrary? I don't think so.

I had pointed to some statements in the Ma'aseh Ephod which support my understanding of the process. I hope you had a chance to look at them.

Some of them are very important.

To whom? And why would, if it had historical importance, it not have been included in any earlier canonized version? It seems that the finding of one set of external scrolls has convinced you of their authority, sans any real provenance.

In the prior example I gave where the original text that has the Lord standing yet before Abraham is of theological importance since it indicates one of the three individuals visiting Abraham was the Lord rather than an angel. In such cases, I think the Masoretes should not have made changes to the source texts (but I do not think their justifications for changing the text were evil).

And you also cite the linguistic, theological and textually based rule that they employed so while you think that they should not have done something, they would say that they were undoing something that was an error in light of the rest of the text and the historical and religious context in which the text was generated.

you could have explained

but the laws are more than just soundbites and their application is more complex than simply labeling a single behavior "they did X". We speak about "spilling blood" but in Jewish law, that goes well beyond murder, or even assault. If one wishes to understand, one should eschew such convenient reductions, and read through source material.

The point here is that it has been known in religious histories regarding the reasons God punished the Jews by taking away Prophetic religion from the Jews and gave it to others as Justin Martyr claimed in 155 a.d.,

What might have been known about the sins of the Jews is one thing, one which can be gleaned by reading Jewish texts, but a claim that there is a "prophetic religion" or that God punished the Jews by giving something to other groups is simply a claim made by others in a form of replacement theology.

Jeremiah was not particularly happy or ecstatic

Yes, that is answered here.

I do not see how the prediction that that Jews would no longer be a religion that had prophets, or revelation, or a temple, means the ancient jewish religion that had these things is the same religion as the modern Jewish religion that no longer has these same Characteristics.

And I do not see how the establishing of a religion which accounts for future events which will require the application of different, already extant, laws makes the later application into a different religion. If the text tells us how to connect with God in the absence of sacrifices, then when there are no sacrifices and we use the other textually mandated system, we aren't practicing a different religion. The underlying religion has the same characteristics and demands.

 

[Harel13]

A flat out change, unprecedented and arbitrary? I don't think so.

Also, we have absolutely no evidence of such a thing. @Clear, I don't know if you read my reply to you where I quoted the Jerusalem Talmud, but it says there clearly that the way the texts were corrected was by comparing the majorities - they didn't invent any words themselves. I tried to explain that to you about the Masoretes - "Masoretic text" does not mean that they changed of their own accord the text - it means that they compared a large amount of scrolls with variants and saw which textual variants made up the majority. They then wrote newly accurate scrolls in order to create a standard for the Jewish people. This seems to be something quite a few people do not understand about the Masoretes. I've seen such claims by other people. They believe that the Masoretes, being people who lived in the 8th-9th centuries, must've pulled their texts out of thin air, when that was not the case at all.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Yahcubs: in general, your posts are too long. Please try to focus in on just one or two points you want to address. I usually just skip long posts. Or, I just delete huge portions and reply to only parts.

The Judges are not the Rabbis

The judges were the elders, who knew the law and were trusted enough, respected enough, that their decisions would not be questioned. Today these are known as Rabbis. Rabbis attend years of rabbinical school to learn all the minutiae of the Law, both Torah and Talmud, and a great deal of Tradition to boot. If a congregant has a question regarding the application of the law, they can with confidence go to their rabbi for an answer. Such an ordained Rabbi can also sit on a Beit Din (Jewish tribunal) and render decisions on cases exactly like the judges of old.

Judges/Rabbis are not prophets; they do not hear directly from God. This does not mean they don't have authority. God gives them authority in Deuteronomy 17:8-13.

Second, Israel the nation is in the definition of the nation of the children of the kingdom

The People of Israel are simply the descendants of the Patriarch Israel, via his 12 sons, or those who have been adopted into the People via a halakhic (lawful) conversion, like Ruth (who was born a Moabite but died a Jew).

Children of the Kingdom is a phrase that really only has meaning to your specific sect. I don't know anyone else who uses it.

The Prophet that Moses spoke of, is the same that Malachi spoke of

No its not.

Who was it that Noah was taught by? Enoch? Even Father Adam? GOD.

Noah, like Adam, is not a historical person. The story of the flood is there in the sacred texts to teach us how much God hates sin.

Yes, you killed Prophets sent to you.

Besides the prophets that Jezebel killed, please list all the many prophets that the Jews killed up till Malachi. Can't find any? Thought so.

And furthermore, why is that Image now the very emblem that represents the priesthood of medicine?

It's not. The medical symbol has TWO snakes, as well as wings. Nor is being a doctor a priesthood position. Please don't go weird on me.

 

[Harel13]

And furthermore, why is that Image now the very emblem that represents the priesthood of medicine?

That's a caduceus. Or a rod of Asclepius.

 

[Clear]

Hi @rosends

You also asked a question in post #229 that I did not get to.

rosends asked : "Just one question -- you cite the Maaseh Ephod. If you are saying that his book is an authority on the text, do you also see him as an authority on other things that he says (I'm thinking of page 30, in his discussion of the evolution of language) or its historical place (as he mentions on page 39 and follows up with on 177)? The answer to my earlier question might be on page 175 but if so, then, well, it answers the question. I did not see a list of textual fixes in line with some of what you quoted so if you could give me page numbers, I can become more informed about those specific cases. Thanks in advance. "


Ginsberg in his book, Introduction to the "Massoretico-critical edition of the Hebrew bible" describes his the source (of the four lists) he is referring to on page 351-2.
He says "Another list of these alterations with the original readings has been preserved in Orient. 1425 which contains the MS of the Hebrew Grammar called Maase Ephod by Prophiat Duran. …as it gives only fifteen instances and does not mention any number, it is evident that it emanates from a source prior to the Massoretic recension which the number was already fixed....

(1) Gen XVIII:22 …in all the three Massoretic Rubrics in Orient 1379, 2349 and 2365 in each of which it is emphatically stated that it ought to be, or that the original reading was “but the Lord stood yet before Abraham” only that the text was altered. (comp. the St. Petersburg Codex Ezek. VIII:17 and Zech II:12)"

So, he is referring to four different lists from four different sources which witness to the same changes. The one from Profiats' text is in the Hebrew manuscript Orient.1425.

Clear
φιτωσιφιω

 

[Yahcubs777]

Yahcubs: in general, your posts are too long. Please try to focus in on just one or two points you want to address. I usually just skip long posts. Or, I just delete huge portions and reply to only parts.



The judges were the elders, who knew the law and were trusted enough, respected enough, that their decisions would not be questioned. Today these are known as Rabbis. Rabbis attend years of rabbinical school to learn all the minutiae of the Law, both Torah and Talmud, and a great deal of Tradition to boot. If a congregant has a question regarding the application of the law, they can with confidence go to their rabbi for an answer. Such an ordained Rabbi can also sit on a Beit Din (Jewish tribunal) and render decisions on cases exactly like the judges of old.

Judges/Rabbis are not prophets; they do not hear directly from God. This does not mean they don't have authority. God gives them authority in Deuteronomy 17:8-13.


The People of Israel are simply the descendants of the Patriarch Israel, via his 12 sons, or those who have been adopted into the People via a halakhic (lawful) conversion, like Ruth (who was born a Moabite but died a Jew).

Children of the Kingdom is a phrase that really only has meaning to your specific sect. I don't know anyone else who uses it.

No its not.

Noah, like Adam, is not a historical person. The story of the flood is there in the sacred texts to teach us how much God hates sin.

Besides the prophets that Jezebel killed, please list all the many prophets that the Jews killed up till Malachi. Can't find any? Thought so.


It's not. The medical symbol has TWO snakes, as well as wings. Nor is being a doctor a priesthood position. Please don't go weird on me.

It's very obvious that you are far from understanding the things of GOD, HIS people, and even why Prophets are sent. That system in Deuteronomy, is a flawed system founded on error. That is why Aaron is the head of it. While the Prophets are above them, and judges of the Prophets is the Elijah. Amazing to me that all you say is the Prophet Malachi spoke of is not the same as Moses. Really? Then who is it? You didn't give any evidence. The rabbis are among them that do not know GOD. Imagine claiming that Noah is not a real person. You may be a Jew biologically, but whether you are from the seed of Abraham is questionable at best.

Now I understand better why Jesus His Pre-Eminence said: I leave your house unto desolate.

 

[rosends]

Hi @rosends

You also asked a question in post #229 that I did not get to.

rosends asked : "Just one question -- you cite the Maaseh Ephod. If you are saying that his book is an authority on the text, do you also see him as an authority on other things that he says (I'm thinking of page 30, in his discussion of the evolution of language) or its historical place (as he mentions on page 39 and follows up with on 177)? The answer to my earlier question might be on page 175 but if so, then, well, it answers the question. I did not see a list of textual fixes in line with some of what you quoted so if you could give me page numbers, I can become more informed about those specific cases. Thanks in advance. "


Ginsberg in his book, Introduction to the "Massoretico-critical edition of the Hebrew bible" describes his the source (of the four lists) he is referring to on page 351-2.
He says "Another list of these alterations with the original readings has been preserved in Orient. 1425 which contains the MS of the Hebrew Grammar called Maase Ephod by Prophiat Duran. …as it gives only fifteen instances and does not mention any number, it is evident that it emanates from a source prior to the Massoretic recension which the number was already fixed....

(1) Gen XVIII:22 …in all the three Massoretic Rubrics in Orient 1379, 2349 and 2365 in each of which it is emphatically stated that it ought to be, or that the original reading was “but the Lord stood yet before Abraham” only that the text was altered. (comp. the St. Petersburg Codex Ezek. VIII:17 and Zech II:12)"

So, he is referring to four different lists from four different sources which witness to the same changes. The one from Profiats' text is in the Hebrew manuscript Orient.1425.

Clear
φιτωσιφιω

That's great. I have the book open. Can you let me know on what page of Ma'aseh Ephod I can find this information?