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

[rosends]

While the Jews may have committed many categories of sins than three, the “three cardinal sins” you alluded to were certainly evil enough to justify God having taken the Jews original religion from them.

Again, this is your opinion. Not only is your opinion about what is "evil enough" useless, but your claim that the reaction to committing sins is God's taking what you think of as the "original religion" away is completely unfounded.
At least now you are talking about categories instead of swapping out your claims to specific sins, so you are getting closer to intellectual honesty I guess.

I was trying to clarity that the link you gave me that explained that specific and the terrible sins of the Jews such as rape, sexual immorality, murder, Idolatry and Baseless hate had specific consequences that led to the loss of prophetic revelation, the loss of the ability to produce scripture, the loss of the temple and the loss of temple worship and the loss of priestly functions.

I'm not sure which link of mine you are referring to. Was it this one? If so, I don't see where it mentions rape.

While you claimed the Jews lost these characteristics in a certain order, they were still lost.

Where did I claim they were lost in a certain order?

The loss of these important characteristics resulted in changes to the character of their religion just as the prophet Ezra said would happen when the Jews sinned: “Hear these words, O Israel. At first our fathers dwelt as aliens in Egypt and they were delivered from there, and received the Law of life, which they did not keep, which you also have transgressed after them. then land was given to you for a possession in the land of Zion; but you and your fathers committed iniquity and did not keep the ways which the Most High commanded you. And because he is a righteous judge, in due time he took from you what he had given. “ Fourth Book of Ezra 14:28-32….

Again, you mean "according to a book that Jews have no connection to and which speaks with no authority about Judaism." Got it.

You pointed out that it was the sins of the Jews which led to the consequences.

Well, the categories which led to specific consequences (the destructions) and those consequences and the subsequent exiles led to, eventually, the loss of prophecy.

I simply pointed out that these were characteristics of authentic Judaism.

No, you claimed this. Since it is a baseless and unsubstantiated claim supported only by your own presuppositions, it is not useful.

I am pointing out

Ah, good, so you recognize that you are not responding to anything I said, even though your statement indicates otherwise.

that the Jews had a religious system that was developed characteristics such as Prophetic revelation, the ability to create sacred literature (scripture), the characteristic of temple worship, the characteristic of a functioning priesthood, and a worship of the Abrahamic God.

I will try to figure out your meaning even though there is an important word missing in your statement. The religious system was extant AFTER there was prophetic revelation, WHILE there was still certain literature being written, and BEFORE, DURING and AFTER there was a standing temple. In this religion there are many different functions for the priest, some of which are still in place now and some which are studied and practiced but not executed. And we still worship the same God (as if there was more than one?) None of the words is causal. They are all indicators of time relationship.

Secondly, that these specific, important characteristics were taken away or lost due to sins such as you pointed out includings rape and sexual immorality, murder, apostasy from the true God and turning to idolatry, and baseless hatred.

No, I never said that. I said that the causes of the destruction of each of the temple has been attributed to particular categories of sin and these destructions called in to action other rules and expectations from within Judaism. Your "includings" [sic] is your attempt to reword the categories to fit your limited understanding.

I did not claim they were “Jewish”.

And yet you claim that Abraham's receiving of divine revelation is foundational and necessary for Judaism. Judaism teaches exactly the opposite.

The point is that modern rabbinic Judaism doesn’t have access to ANY prophets in their modern religion to look to for modern, ongoing guidance.

Current Judaism has access to all the prophetic revelations through the written word. You keep insisting that new revelations are continually necessary but that was never the case.

They no longer have the ability to produce prophetic scripture.

And for some reason, you think that this is an essential component to the identity of a religion. It just isn't. You have already admitted to a limited knowledge of Judaism. Why then do you keep making these claims that are simply wrong, instead of attempting to learn?

A great deal of the foundational beliefs and doctrines and traditions and interpretations from early Judaism came from prophets and revelation. (e.g. the Ten commandments), this avenue of sacred direction and traditions and beliefs and interpretations were taken away from the later Jews because they committed sins.

Not really true. A great deal of the foundational beliefs and doctrines in Judaism came from a specific revelation, and a specific prophet (that's an important point in Judaism -- that doctrines and belief rarely came from later prophets). Once that body of doctrines and belief were established, that "avenue" was not needed again. In terms of later interpretation, as I pointed out, other avenues were built in from the get go. Just as Yitro.

Without Moses prophetic qualities and revelation, no freedom from Egypt.

Not exactly true. Without Moses' personal qualities and leadership ability, then no freedom from Egypt.

No freedom from Egypt, no other lessor stories from history would have occurred as it did.

This makes the Exodus a foundational EVENT. One wouldn't say that because this generation does not have an Exodus, the religion is different, would one? (Jews would say something tangentially related to this but in a more homiletic sense)

The Prophetic calling and revelation are foundational principles to much of religious history.

They are events, not principles. When those events do or do not occur, they do not define the religion.

Religion that has prophets and revelations and miracles and ongoing guidance from prophets develops differently and is a different religion than a religion that never had or has lost such foundational characteristics.

So then once Moses died, you must conclude that "original" Judaism died with him, at least until Joshua acted as a prophet. And once Joshua died, and there was no prophecy for a while, the religion died again. Thing is, the presence of a prophet was never a foundational "characteristic" so it loss signaled no change to the religion in its structure or identity.

You can keep claiming what you want to be true, but it is predicated on misunderstandings, ignorance and misstatements, and driven BY a conclusion instead of TOWARDS one.

 

[BilliardsBall]

So only one mitzvah. And I gather that this faith is only on condition of reward?

Faith = trust.

"Those who trust in the Lord are as Mount Tziyon, which cannot be removed, but ABIDES FOREVER."

I'm DELIGHTED in the Lord, to trust the Lord, not my mitzvot, for eternal life.

 

[BilliardsBall]

"Nonsense"?
Based on what? Your delusions and wishes? It doesn't work like that.
"Verse 10 starts a new section"?
Based on what? Verse 10 begins with the conjunction "and" and there is no break in the words indicating a new section until after verse 16. Verse 10 repeats (after the introductory conjunction) the same address (ish ish) from verse 8 and verse 3 connecting the verses topically.
Care to show me how you come to this conclusion of "new section"?
View attachment 49003

Yes, I'm aware of how the Hebrew was recorded.

"New section" equals "new thought, new concept". There are sacrifice passages describing atonement for sin and also, other types of sacrifices.

Address what I wrote. You made a specious claim that v. 11 isn't atonement for sin, going back to verse 8, when verse 10 strengthens the fact of verse 11 that WITHOUT BLOOD, SIN ATONEMENT IS LACKING.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Psalm 119 refutes this doesn't it?

The entire psalm describes devotion to the commandments, plural, as a demonstration of faith in salvation.

It complements. There is great reward in keeping the commands, principles and precepts of God.

We receive eternal life/atonement of sin via trust, however, not mitzvot.

 

[BilliardsBall]

If the subject is atonement for sin without a Temple, look in Daniel.

24 Indeed, O king, may my counsel please you, and with charity you will remove your sin and your iniquity by showing mercy to the poor; perhaps your tranquility will last."

Yes, I've also heard similar arguments made from Solomon's prayer at the Temple, Hosea (the bulls of our lips), etc.

But the eternal Torah says blood is required for remission of sin, and the shedding of blood starts with God's covering in Genesis for Adam and Havah.

 

[BilliardsBall]

What fellowship? I'm confused.

I did not mean to cause confusion.

When unsaved Jewish brethren are intolerant of and rude to Messianics, it makes me not want to leave Messianism. I'd prefer the company of non-Jews who love their fellow man.

 

[Rival]

I did not mean to cause confusion.

When unsaved Jewish brethren are intolerant of and rude to Messianics, it makes me not want to leave Messianism. I'd prefer the company of non-Jews who love their fellow man.

I'm not Jewish.

 

[rosends]

Yes, I'm aware of how the Hebrew was recorded.

"New section" equals "new thought, new concept". There are sacrifice passages describing atonement for sin and also, other types of sacrifices.

So you can't find anything to support your contention of "new section." Got it. And you ignore the internal proof that I presented that shows that this is not a new section. Understood. It would totally destroy your position so you'd best keep your eyes closed.

Address what I wrote. You made a specious claim that v. 11 isn't atonement for sin, going back to verse 8, when verse 10 strengthens the fact of verse 11 that WITHOUT BLOOD, SIN ATONEMENT IS LACKING.

You didn't read what I wrote, in which I did address this. As this is all a section which is NOT about atonement sacrifices (see how maintaining a "new section" belief destroys your understanding?) it simply makes the point about why, when making ANY sacrifice we are not allowed to eat the blood. It says NOTHING about sin atonement lacking without blood because if it did, it would be invalidating the other non-sacrificial sin atonement that exists, and the non-blood sacrifice sin atonement that exists. So, yes, I did address it but you ignored what I wrote. Not surprising.

So, let's start again -- this is not a new section. You have no proof otherwise.
This is a section dealing with sacrifices in general.
This section, when mentioning sacrifices discusses eating those sacrifices. The sin-atonement sacrifices were only eaten by the kohanim so these sacrifices (zevachim, as olot are not eaten by anyone and these are the two types explicitly listed in verse 8), must not be sin sacrifices as the discussion of eating is not specific to the kohanim in these verses - the text generalizes to all people.
These, when eaten, are subject to the laws of eating slaughtered meat which includes the stated law not to eat the blood.
For comparison, look at this verse which, while talking about something else, drops in a law regarding what may or may not be eaten and its reason.
עַל־כֵּ֡ן לֹֽא־יֹאכְל֨וּ בְנֵֽי־יִשְׂרָאֵ֜ל אֶת־גִּ֣יד הַנָּשֶׁ֗ה אֲשֶׁר֙ עַל־כַּ֣ף הַיָּרֵ֔ךְ עַ֖ד הַיּ֣וֹם הַזֶּ֑ה כִּ֤י נָגַע֙ בְּכַף־יֶ֣רֶךְ יַעֲקֹ֔ב בְּגִ֖יד הַנָּשֶֽׁה

 

[rosends]

Yes, I've also heard similar arguments made from Solomon's prayer at the Temple, Hosea (the bulls of our lips), etc.

But the eternal Torah says blood is required for remission of sin, and the shedding of blood starts with God's covering in Genesis for Adam and Havah.

Here are some verses worth reading
Lev 5:11
Num 17:11
Num 31:50

They all have something in common. Can you figure out what it is?

 

[dybmh]

It complements. There is great reward in keeping the commands, principles and precepts of God.

We receive eternal life/atonement of sin via trust, however, not mitzvot.

My objection is to "not the mitzvot".

Psalm 119 offers several examples of salvation from sin which come from Torah observance. It also says that a person cannot be saved without it (92 & 155). Therefore Torah observance is **required** for salvation per Psalm 119.

Per Psalm 119:

• Verse 1 - Torah observance perfects the path.
• Verse 3 - Torah observance prevents injustice, inequity.
• Verse 9 - The path is purified by guarding Torah.
• Verse 77 - Mercy comes from delighting in Torah.
• Verse 92 - Destruction comes without delighting in Torah.
• Verse 93 - Torah sustains life.
• Verse 94 - Torah brings salvation.
• Verse 107 - Torah sustains life ( again )
• Verse 153 - Remembering Torah releases from affliction.
• Verse 155 - Salvation is far from those who do not observe Torah.
• Verse 165 - Loving Torah prevents obstacles

 

[Clear]

Clear said : “While the Jews may have committed many categories of sins than three, the “three cardinal sins” you alluded to were certainly evil enough to justify God having taken the Jews original religion from them.”

Rosends responded : “Again, this is your opinion. “


History is more than simply opinion, it is at least partly, based on data.
You provided a link in post #213, describing Sins the Jews were guilty of :
What’s the truth about….the Cause of the Destruction of the Beit Hamikdash? - Jewish Action

The link YOU provided in post #213 described the many sins Jews themselves were guilty of which resulted in their losses.


THE MULTIPLE TYPES OF SINS THE JEWS COMMITTED FOR WHICH THEY WERE PUNISHED


Your link described a misconception that the destruction of Temple as solely” to gratuitous hatred” (the “baseless hatred you alluded to) among Jews.

Your link identified additional sins which were the cause of their national tragedy.

This Jewish list of additional sins included the three cardinal sins which were :

The Jews abandoned original religion and turned to man made religion and worshipped idols

The Jews engaged in prohibited sexual relations which, as another Jewish site points out included rape of women (though this could be homosexual rape as well, but the Jewish website didn’t specify what type of rape the Jews committed);

In fact, the Jews committed sexual immorality to the extent where “they were not ashamed of one another” as your link pointed out.

The Jews committed murder.


Your link described additional sins Jewish literature indicates Jews were guilty of including :

The Jews neglecting the agricultural sabbatical year,

The Jews engaged in “love of money and each one hates his neighbor”

Their Judges rnot rendering appropriate judgments.

The Jewish literature gives specific examples of Cardinal sins such as one Priest fighting with another for the right to work on the Holy Altar. “Rampant Idolatry” rather than isolated idolatry.

The Jews were guilty of the desecration of the Sabbath in the temple.

The Jews were guilty of the neglect of reading the Shema.

The Jews were guilty of neglecting the education of children.

The Jews were guilty of the equalization of small and great.

The Jews were guilty of the neglect of Torah study.

The Jews were guilty of the actual abandonment of Torah.

The Jews were guilty of the neglect of recitation of birchat Ha Torah.

The Jews were guilty of “wasting” time and relying on “vanities and nothingness”.

The Jews were guilty of the type of elitism where they treated others who did not exactly conform to the beliefs as “heretics”

The Jews were guilty of gossip.

These are examples of the types of and the multitude of sins which the Jews, on the link you gave me say they were guilty of as described in Jewish literature.



HISTORICAL LITERATURE CONFIRMS THE JEWISH LITERATURE

These reasons (and more reasons) for God punishing Israel with loss of the temple, loss of a fully functioning priesthood; loss of revelation; loss of prophets and prophetic gifts and accompanying losses are described in other historical literature as well.

We can compare the Jewish records with historical records and the historical predictions parallel the Jewish records with unsettling similarity.

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;


The admission of the Jews themselves in their own historical records as well as other historical records describing the Sins of the Jews which resulting in the disastrous loss of characteristics of ancient religion are more than opinion.

There is an fair amount of history documenting the Jews loss of their temples, loss of their prophets, loss of their revelatory gifts, loss of their ability to create scripture, loss of their priesthood functions, etc in the Judaism that characterizes the modern rabbinic Jewish movement.


It is in the context of history that the prophet Ezra said : “Hear these words, O Israel. At first our fathers dwelt as aliens in Egypt and they were delivered from there, and received the Law of life, which they did not keep, which you also have transgressed after them. then land was given to you for a possession in the land of Zion; but you and your fathers committed iniquity and did not keep the ways which the Most High commanded you. And because he is a righteous judge, in due time he took from you what he had given. “ Fourth Book of Ezra 14:28-32….


The sins the Jews committed are not merely my opinion and the results of their sins and removal of many of their blessings because of those sins is not "completely unfounded."

I will get to some of your other relevant points later


Clear
φυακνεσεω

 

[rosends]

History is more than simply opinion, it is at least partly, based on data.
You provided a link in post #213, describing Sins the Jews were guilty of :
What’s the truth about….the Cause of the Destruction of the Beit Hamikdash? - Jewish Action

Did it mention "rape"? Because you mentioned "rape."

The Jews engaged in prohibited sexual relations which, as another Jewish site points out included rape of women (though this could be homosexual rape as well, but the Jewish website didn’t specify what type of rape the Jews committed);

Can you show me what other Jewish website identified rape as one of the sins committed? It wasn't on the one I referenced. Thanks.

The Jews committed murder.

Sh'fichat damim is a lot more than murder.

These are examples of the types of and the multitude of sins which the Jews, on the link you gave me say they were guilty of as described in Jewish literature.

Which is why, when you asked, I said that there are 3 categories of cardinal sins (regarding the 1st temple, plus baseless hatred for the 2nd), but that there were others of which they were guilty. I'm glad you read all of this.

These reasons (and more reasons) for God punishing Israel with loss of loss of revelation; loss of prophets and prophetic gifts and accompanying losses are described in other historical literature as well.

If you recall, I said that prophecy ended about 300 years before the common era. Since the conventional dating of the destruction of the second temple is 69/70 CE, prophecy clearly continued after the destruction of the first temple (so its loss can't be attributed to the destruction of the 1st temple) and before the destruction of the second (so its loss can't be tied to that either).

We can compare the Jewish records with historical records .... Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs- Levi 14:1-8;
...Testament of Moses...Jubilees

If you see these as "historical record," sure. I don't see them as anything valid at all, let alone some sort of authoritative historical record. The pseudepigraphal works mean nothing to me, but carry on.

There is an fair amount of history documenting the Jews loss of their temples, loss of their prophets, loss of their revelatory gifts, loss of their ability to create scripture, loss of their priesthood functions, etc in the Judaism that characterizes the modern rabbinic Jewish movement.

Well, these events characterize Jewish history, not a "Jewish movement."

Fourth Book of Ezra 14:28-32….

Oh look, more pseudepigrapha!

 

[BilliardsBall]

So you can't find anything to support your contention of "new section." Got it. And you ignore the internal proof that I presented that shows that this is not a new section. Understood. It would totally destroy your position so you'd best keep your eyes closed.

You didn't read what I wrote, in which I did address this. As this is all a section which is NOT about atonement sacrifices (see how maintaining a "new section" belief destroys your understanding?) it simply makes the point about why, when making ANY sacrifice we are not allowed to eat the blood. It says NOTHING about sin atonement lacking without blood because if it did, it would be invalidating the other non-sacrificial sin atonement that exists, and the non-blood sacrifice sin atonement that exists. So, yes, I did address it but you ignored what I wrote. Not surprising.

So, let's start again -- this is not a new section. You have no proof otherwise.
This is a section dealing with sacrifices in general.
This section, when mentioning sacrifices discusses eating those sacrifices. The sin-atonement sacrifices were only eaten by the kohanim so these sacrifices (zevachim, as olot are not eaten by anyone and these are the two types explicitly listed in verse 8), must not be sin sacrifices as the discussion of eating is not specific to the kohanim in these verses - the text generalizes to all people.
These, when eaten, are subject to the laws of eating slaughtered meat which includes the stated law not to eat the blood.
For comparison, look at this verse which, while talking about something else, drops in a law regarding what may or may not be eaten and its reason.
עַל־כֵּ֡ן לֹֽא־יֹאכְל֨וּ בְנֵֽי־יִשְׂרָאֵ֜ל אֶת־גִּ֣יד הַנָּשֶׁ֗ה אֲשֶׁר֙ עַל־כַּ֣ף הַיָּרֵ֔ךְ עַ֖ד הַיּ֣וֹם הַזֶּ֑ה כִּ֤י נָגַע֙ בְּכַף־יֶ֣רֶךְ יַעֲקֹ֔ב בְּגִ֖יד הַנָּשֶֽׁה

Why start again? You (and your source) is dealing with an obvious Christian apologetic by saying the section is defined by an earlier verse. Now, watch how others read the actual text under discussion:

If any one of the house of Israel or of the strangers who sojourn among them eats any blood, I will set my face against that person who eats blood and will cut him off from among his people.
Lev 17:11

For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it for you on the altar to make atonement for your souls, for it is the blood that makes atonement by the life.

 

[Harel13]

Faith = trust.

"Those who trust in the Lord are as Mount Tziyon, which cannot be removed, but ABIDES FOREVER."

I'm DELIGHTED in the Lord, to trust the Lord, not my mitzvot, for eternal life.

So you only keep one mitzvah.
Okay. Perhaps you could clarify what you meant by this:

I enjoy Shabbat rest AND show fear of God by mitzvot, but I'm not going to Heaven by being a good person who does mitzvot.

What miztvot (plural) were you talking about, if you only keep one?

 

[BilliardsBall]

Here are some verses worth reading
Lev 5:11
Num 17:11
Num 31:50

They all have something in common. Can you figure out what it is?

I'd prefer you explain Lev 17:11 properly before goal post shifting to other verses (which you are likewise taking out of context).

 

[BilliardsBall]

My objection is to "not the mitzvot".

Psalm 119 offers several examples of salvation from sin which come from Torah observance. It also says that a person cannot be saved without it (92 & 155). Therefore Torah observance is **required** for salvation per Psalm 119.

Per Psalm 119:

• Verse 1 - Torah observance perfects the path.
• Verse 3 - Torah observance prevents injustice, inequity.
• Verse 9 - The path is purified by guarding Torah.
• Verse 77 - Mercy comes from delighting in Torah.
• Verse 92 - Destruction comes without delighting in Torah.
• Verse 93 - Torah sustains life.
• Verse 94 - Torah brings salvation.
• Verse 107 - Torah sustains life ( again )
• Verse 153 - Remembering Torah releases from affliction.
• Verse 155 - Salvation is far from those who do not observe Torah.
• Verse 165 - Loving Torah prevents obstacles

Verse 92: One may perish in affliction--is that Hell and Heaven or say, an illness? Likewise, the NT (which is 95% Torah commentary) says an ill person needs to be anointed with oil but also confess any sin.

Verse 155: Agreed, the saved (those who've prior trusted in God for salvation) will avoid wicked behavior.

Be careful not to turn descriptive passages into proscriptive passages. Have you read the NT? EVERY NT passage of any length or importance is justified by Tanakh references and commentary in the text. Definitely a life-changing read for us both!

 

[rosends]

Why start again? You (and your source) is dealing with an obvious Christian apologetic by saying the section is defined by an earlier verse. Now, watch how others read the actual text under discussion:

I started again to break down the illogical of your position from the beginning because you had opbviously failed to see it when i put it together the first time.

If any one of the house of Israel or of the strangers who sojourn among them eats any blood, I will set my face against that person who eats blood and will cut him off from among his people.
Lev 17:11

This was 17:10 and I notice that the ESV translation ignores the first letter of the verse which means "AND". Funny how that translation DOES translate the AND in the previous 2 verses. Strange, the omission...

For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it for you on the altar to make atonement for your souls, for it is the blood that makes atonement by the life.

This is your ESV's version, along with your adding of boldface.

Adding in some bolding does nothing. The verses set out a law (don't eat blood) and a reason specific to blood, because of its power in the sacrifice-atonement process. This translation DOES use the "and" in the middle, pointing out the lack of causal reasoning (life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it). Nothing in that excludes other means of atonement, but talking about flour and incense wouldn't be relevant.

Now, try dealing with all the stuff I posted instead of just reposting this same, problematic translation.

 

[rosends]

I'd prefer you explain Lev 17:11 properly before goal post shifting to other verses (which you are likewise taking out of context).

I have but you and your ESV seem to want to remove words, invent "new section" and misunderstand the entire section. Now you claim that three other verses which say precisely what they say are "out of context." You, for Lev 17:11 are inventing context ("new section") so your understanding is clearly wrong.

 

[dybmh]

Verse 92: One may perish in affliction--is that Hell and Heaven or say, an illness?

The same logic can be applied to Psalm 125. What does it mean to abide forever? If the inference that was brought for 125 verse 1 is acceptable, then making inferences about the affliction in verse 92 should be acceptable as well.

Likewise, the NT (which is 95% Torah commentary) says an ill person needs to be anointed with oil but also confess any sin.

There's no doubt that the NT supports your position that salvation does not come from mitzvot.

Verse 155: Agreed, the saved (those who've prior trusted in God for salvation) will avoid wicked behavior.

Here's the translation I'm looking at. Those who cease seeking, maybe because they think they're saved already, are far from salvation. Even if someone has trusted God for salvation, if they do not seek the statutes ( plural ), then they are far from salvation.

155 Salvation is far from the wicked, for they did not seek Your statutes.

Be careful not to turn descriptive passages into proscriptive passages. Have you read the NT? EVERY NT passage of any length or importance is justified by Tanakh references and commentary in the text. Definitely a life-changing read for us both!

I've read the first 4 gospels, revelation, and bits and peices of the other books.

EVERY NT passage of any length or importance is justified by Tanakh references and commentary in the text.

I have not found any justification for the "light burden", or for "the only way to the father is through me". Those are the biggies. But I have other objections as well.

 

[2ndpillar]

Whatever your definition of elitist is you would not want us so called "elitist" involved in your religion. We would take everything in your religion so far outside of the Christian norm and to such a level that you wouldn't even recognize your religion by the time we were done with it - i.e. I would feel obliged to redact whole swaths of it based on the OP I mentioned earlier and I don't think you want that would you?

Besides, if you read my earlier posts and other threads I made it clear that....drum roll.....Torath Mosheh Jews and Orthodox Jews don't use translations (even ones made by non-Christian Jews) as standards for making decisions on Torah and Halakha. We use only the Hebrew text for that. Even the Aramaic Targum is not on the level of the Hebrew text.

The non-Christian Jews who use Soncino Press English translations or other translations themselves recognize that the Hebrew text is the standard and not a Soncino translation. Further, if a non-Christian Jew tried to prove something to me by way of an English translation I would tell him the same thing I am telling you......"Bring the Hebrew text and only the Hebrew text and go from there." No double standard there - only one standard.

So, do Torath Mosheh Jews have a high standard? Yes, 100%. If you can't meet it then be satisfied that what you believe meets your own personal standard.

I believe the Hebrew language was mostly only used by the religious elites, the "scribes", by around 200 AD. The common folk, the deplorables, mostly spoke Aramaic or Greek. I am thinking that this "biblical Hebrew" was developed around the time of the Babylonian captivity. A time when the Jews seemed to worship Baal (Jer 32:35), Marduk, and Bel. As for the Jewish elites, the "scribes", Jeremiah 8:8 indicated that they turned the Law into a lie. I would suggest that Truth is truth, and a lie is a lie, no matter what the language it is spoken. The fact that "scribes" can turn truth into a lie, kind of undermines any dependence on a language as being a gate keeper. We apparently will have to wait for the unification of Judah and the house of Israel (Jer 31:31) & (Ez 36 &37) & (Malachi 3:18) to have everyone in on the what is and what is not. Judgment/punishment comes for all, including Jacob (Jer 30:11), irrespective of what language they use.