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

[Ehav4Ever]

I would suggest that Truth is truth, and a lie is a lie, no matter what the language it is spoken.

Greetings,

Your statement above is very true.

Thus, it is better, and required, for Torath Mosheh Jews and Orthodox Jews to stick to what we have historically and currently investigated and verified to be the truth i.e. Torath Mosheh with the (מסורת) Mesoreth, the texts, and the languages (עברית - ארמית) our investigations and verifications have found it to be correctly transmitted in while avoiding and ignoring what our investigations and verifications have found it to not be reliably transmitted in. (Greek texts, foreign texts from non-Torath Mosheh sources, and other translations)

To do otherwise would not be holding by the principle you have expressed in the statement above.

As stated in the OP, Christians have different standards and thus they should hold by what they think is the truth of their theologies and texts IF......drum roll.....they have investigated them and verified them to be the truth and not a lie since lies can be in Greek, Latin, and English also.

Great point. Thanks.

 

[Harel13]

@BilliardsBall At some point I forgot about another question I had posed to you, which is:

They had the option of staying. But it would have meant either giving up Christianity, or saying every day a blessing that is the equivalent of saying: "I am happy that I am not myself and I hope people like myself will be wiped out".

You mean like thanking God I'm not a Gentile or a woman?

Yes, but in a different section of prayer. You often write on RF that you know a lot about Judaism. Do you know which section of prayer I'm talking about?

So do you know what section of prayer I'm referring to?

 

[Rival]

@BilliardsBall At some point I forgot about another question I had posed to you, which is:



So do you know what section of prayer I'm referring to?

When 18 blessings are actually 19 blessings.

Or am I wrong?

 

[BilliardsBall]

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

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

The Psalms tell us in the keeping of God's commands and mitzvot are great rewards. One must trust Rebbe Melekh HaMoshiach for eternal life. If you or I perform other mitzvot, that's fine.

 

[Harel13]

The Psalms tell us in the keeping of God's commands and mitzvot are great rewards. One must trust Rebbe Melekh HaMoshiach for eternal life. If you or I perform other mitzvot, that's fine.

But you don't keep other mitzvot, right?

 

[BilliardsBall]

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.

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...

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.

For the soul of the flesh is in the blood, and I have therefore given it to you [to be placed] upon the altar, to atone for your souls. For it is the blood that atones for the soul. Source: https://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/9918

You "posted stuff" to goal post shift from the obvious inference in the verse--blood offerings atone for sin.

 

[BilliardsBall]

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.

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

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.



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



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.

Passages like Isaiah 52-53, Isaiah 9, Moses's warning about a coming prophet, etc. are obvious references to Yeshua as Rebbe Melekh HaMoshiach. That's my stance.

 

[rosends]

For the soul of the flesh is in the blood, and I have therefore given it to you [to be placed] upon the altar, to atone for your souls. For it is the blood that atones for the soul. Source: https://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/9918

You "posted stuff" to goal post shift from the obvious inference in the verse--blood offerings atone for sin.

No, it is the blood in an animal-sin offering that atones for the sin. This does not exclude non-animal-sin offerings, non-sin animal offerings, non-offering sin atonement, or anything else. It simply explains why blood is the component that one cannot eat, you know, in a section about what one can and cannot eat. You have yet to show how this is separate from the context of the verses around it, and the "posted stuff" is stuff that directly disproves your position by showing that animal blood offerings are not the only way to atone for sin.

 

[dybmh]

Passages like Isaiah 52-53, Isaiah 9, Moses's warning about a coming prophet, etc. are obvious references to Yeshua as Rebbe Melekh HaMoshiach. That's my stance.

By changing the subject you're conceding that "Salvation by trust not mitzvot" ( your words ) isn't supported by scripture.

Moving on, here's my refutation of these so-called "obvious refrences".

Isa 52-53 doesn't fit because it requires a literal translation of 53:8-9 and 10, while at the same time requiring verse 10 to be figurative and symbolic.

Moses' warning was against dreamers and miracle workers who promoted foreign gods. Deuteronomy 13:6-9. God is Love is a greek God. The promise for eternal life is Egyptian. God incarnating as human is both Egyptian and Hindu. Jesus was advocating for a foriegn god and foreign religious practices.

Isa 9 is in past tense ( not prophecy ) and verse 6 is clearly not talking about Jesus. Jesus is **obviously** not a prince of peace, he did not have the government on his shoulders. Isa 9 is a fail.

Matthew 10:34 Do not assume that I have come to bring peace to the earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword.

 

[Skywalker]

Why would the Torath Mosheh Jews accept the scriptures of any other religion other than their on scriptures?

Most ancient religions simply do not accept the scriptures of other religions, without extreme qualifications if at all.

The Old Testament and the New Testament are one testament.

 

[shunyadragon]

The Old Testament and the New Testament are one testament.

Of course this is from the perspective of your belief, The Jews of course will deny this. The Tanakh only represents their scripture

 

[Skywalker]

Of course this is from the perspective of your belief, The Jews of course will deny this. The Tanakh only represents their scripture

The New Testament is about the teachings of Yeshua the Messiah it's not the scriptures of a different religion. Some Messianic Jews say we have not become Christians. The Messiah came to save us and to teach us how to live.

 

[BilliardsBall]

But you don't keep other mitzvot, right?

No WE don't keep the other mitzvot. We must have blood atonement, but have no Temple. Yeshua is the answer and Rebbe Melekh HaMoshiach.

 

[BilliardsBall]

No, it is the blood in an animal-sin offering that atones for the sin. This does not exclude non-animal-sin offerings, non-sin animal offerings, non-offering sin atonement, or anything else. It simply explains why blood is the component that one cannot eat, you know, in a section about what one can and cannot eat. You have yet to show how this is separate from the context of the verses around it, and the "posted stuff" is stuff that directly disproves your position by showing that animal blood offerings are not the only way to atone for sin.

So when a verse says "I've given you blood to atone for your sin" that "explains why we don't eat (most of) the blood in kosher meat".

 

[BilliardsBall]

By changing the subject you're conceding that "Salvation by trust not mitzvot" ( your words ) isn't supported by scripture.

Moving on, here's my refutation of these so-called "obvious refrences".

Isa 52-53 doesn't fit because it requires a literal translation of 53:8-9 and 10, while at the same time requiring verse 10 to be figurative and symbolic.

Moses' warning was against dreamers and miracle workers who promoted foreign gods. Deuteronomy 13:6-9. God is Love is a greek God. The promise for eternal life is Egyptian. God incarnating as human is both Egyptian and Hindu. Jesus was advocating for a foriegn god and foreign religious practices.

Isa 9 is in past tense ( not prophecy ) and verse 6 is clearly not talking about Jesus. Jesus is **obviously** not a prince of peace, he did not have the government on his shoulders. Isa 9 is a fail.

Matthew 10:34 Do not assume that I have come to bring peace to the earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword.

You're right--Isaiah 9 was a prophecy about Hezekiah, given when the King was about 12 years of age. He lived a few years longer and is an "eternal father". Hezekiah's GOVERNMENT HAD NO END.

 

[rosends]

So when a verse says "I've given you blood to atone for your sin" that "explains why we don't eat (most of) the blood in kosher meat".

No, when the verse says "don't eat the blood"
(as verse 10 does, "And if anyone of the house of Israel or of the strangers who reside among them partakes of any blood, I will set My face against the person who partakes of the blood, and I will cut him off from among his kin.")
and then explains why as vers 11 does
("Because the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have assigned it to you for making expiation for your lives upon the altar")
then we know why we don't eat the blood of any animal.
But we don't learn anything about any other forms of expiation/atonement. They are discussed elsewhere.

 

[dybmh]

You're right--Isaiah 9 was a prophecy about Hezekiah, given when the King was about 12 years of age. He lived a few years longer and is an "eternal father". Hezekiah's GOVERNMENT HAD NO END.

All I can say for sure about Isaiah 9 is that it cannot be talking about your messiah.

 

[Harel13]

No WE don't keep the other mitzvot. We must have blood atonement, but have no Temple. Yeshua is the answer and Rebbe Melekh HaMoshiach.

But you said keeping mitzvot will get you other rewards, besides for faith that earns you eternal life. Aren't you interested in those?

 

[BilliardsBall]

No, when the verse says "don't eat the blood"
(as verse 10 does, "And if anyone of the house of Israel or of the strangers who reside among them partakes of any blood, I will set My face against the person who partakes of the blood, and I will cut him off from among his kin.")
and then explains why as vers 11 does
("Because the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have assigned it to you for making expiation for your lives upon the altar")
then we know why we don't eat the blood of any animal.
But we don't learn anything about any other forms of expiation/atonement. They are discussed elsewhere.

You "didn't learn" from "For it is the blood that atones for the soul" that "blood atones for the soul"?

 

[BilliardsBall]

All I can say for sure about Isaiah 9 is that it cannot be talking about your messiah.

How can you say that for sure, since He is spoken of by millions as "Prince of Peace", "Immanuel", etc., etc.?

"I don't know who it is, but it's not Jesus Christ," is not a good answer.