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

[Ehav4Ever]

This must be how Rabbi Mosheh ben-Nachman must have felt.

 

[1213]

You 100% are right. I avoid any book that has the title "Old Testament" on the front of it or inside of it.

I go by texts that look like the below.
...

Looks really nice. Is it only the looks, or is there something in the contents that makes it different, more believable than the Gospels in the Bible? Please give one example, which can’t also be found from the Gospels.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Maybe your teacher forgot to tell you. Maybe your teacher didn't know. Maybe your teacher was not taught very well. Maybe your teacher had a foreign concept of a messiah.

What is the name of your teacher? Maybe we can get him on the right path.

I can trace the origins of commentary on Torah same as you, but which is superior, Torah or the commentary? Which came first and has the precedent power?

Moses didn't follow most of the suggestions you made for Messiah to follow. Should we listen to Moses?

 

[Ehav4Ever]

I can trace the origins of commentary on Torah same as you, but which is superior, Torah or the commentary? Which came first and has the precedent power?

Moses didn't follow most of the suggestions you made for Messiah to follow. Should we listen to Moses?

I asked about your teacher. What is he name?

 

[dybmh]

which is superior, Torah or the commentary?

Commentary!

Torah/teachings will be magnified! Isaiah 42:21

 

[Ehav4Ever]

Looks really nice. Is it only the looks, or is there something in the contents that makes it different, more believable than the Gospels in the Bible? Please give one example, which can’t also be found from the Gospels.

Different content, different language, and different perspective. Also, NT authorship claims come from the Church Fathers who were neither Jews nor did they claim to have learned from Jews. Torah authorship claims comes from Jews and was done by a Jew. The other texts of the Tanakh was done by Jews and is claimed by Jews. Further, Jews of today descend from the Jews who were around during the time of the Tanakh while all of the Christian Jews who are described in the NT did not produce a second generation that was from their own offspring.

Textually, there are loads of examples but I will give you one for now. The Greek of John 1:1-2 is Avodah Zara according to the Hebrew Text of the Torah and is contradicted by the Hebrew Torah from Sefer Devarim which states the below.

 

[dybmh]

Please give one example, which can’t also be found from the Gospels.

I'm not sure if this qualifies, but, look in the lexicon for the hebrew word for "to guard". You'll see that Jewish people are instructed to guard the covenant made with God as described in the text. Guarding it means taking active measures to prevent the covenant from being broken or forgotten. This guarding of the covenant is unique in Torah.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

more believable than the Gospels in the Bible?

A better way of looking at it would be the following.

1. The NT and the Tanakh are not compariable.
2. They are different texts, written, in different languages, and the authors come from completely different cultures.
3. No different than comparing a text about medicine written in Archaic Chinese to a text written in Old Slavic about gardening. The medical text is not competing with the gardening text, even if the gardening text makes it into a competition.
4. Given that worldwide most Christians do not read/understand the Greek of the NT - the NT meets all of the needs and requirements of Christians.
   • The NT does not meet the requirements of Torath Mosheh Jews and Orthodox Jews and there is no need for it to comply with our standards. No different than how fish food sold in a pet store is obviously not up the nutritional standards of bears and lions.
5. The Tanakh is readiable and understandable to in ancient Hebrew/Aramaic/Judeo-Arabic/Parsit/Yiddish/Ladino to both Torath Mosheh Jews, Orthodox Jews, Secular Jews, and the entire modern state of Israel where Hebrew is the national language, etc.
   • Among average Christians the Hebrew text of the Tanakh has little to no importance and it doesn't need to.
   • A minority of Christian scholars find it important and learn it. Most of these scholars recognize that Torath Mosheh Jews and Orthodox Jews undrstand the Hebrew Tanakh the best.

I hope that helps.

 

[Rival]

Also, NT authorship claims come from the Church Fathers who were neither Jews nor did they claim to have learned from Jews.

This isn't strictly true, but I'm not much in the mood to go at length about it.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

Looks really nice. Is it only the looks, or is there something in the contents that makes it different, more believable than the Gospels in the Bible? Please give one example, which can’t also be found from the Gospels.

Oh one more thing I forgot to mention. Ancient Hebrew worked on a system of three letter roots called (שורשים). Knowing how this root system worked is CRITICAL to knowing what the text says.

Greek, from the time of the NT, did not work this way. Also, there are some Christians who claim that the NT authors used the LXX. Yet, according to Jewish and even Christian sources the original LXX was only a translation of the Torah - and even the story about the translation is a bit of a legend. Further, according to both Jewish and scholarly Christian sources those original LXX translations of the Torah did not survive.

According to Jewish sources, the vast majority of Jewish communities stayed away from Greek texts. You have to remember that Jews fought a number of hard wars against Greek/Greek influenced armies, especially after those Greek armies tried to outlaw Jews keeping Torah, and that left a bad taste for Greek language and culture among Torath Mosheh Jews.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

This isn't strictly true, but I'm not much in the mood to go at length about it.

Greetings,

The decision on what books went into the NT was made by Church leaders who had no direct connection to the early Jewish Christians.

In fact, Irenaeus in Against Heresies, 2nd century stated "There are four gospels and only four, neither more nor less: four like the points of the compass, four like the chief directions of the wind. The Church, spread all over the world, has in the gospels four pillars and four winds blowing wherever people live. These four gospels are in actual fact one single Gospel, a fourfold Gospel inspired by the one Spirit, a Gospel which has four aspects representing the work of the Son of God."

The view he poses is not that he got the information by way of a mesorah. By the early fourth century the 27 books now included in the New Testament were first mentioned in a list by the Council of Nicaea as being God-breathed. Again, not because they received it by way of a mesorah from valid Jewish sources. By that point any Jewish Christian sources were gone and various groups were already considered heretics by various Church Fathers.

Even before Nicaea, a council in Elvira (Spain) in c. 305 CE had tried to keep Jews and Christians apart by ordering the latter not to share a meal with Jews, not to marry Jews, not to use Jews to bless their fields, and not to observe the Jewish Sabbath. These objectives remained constant for centuries. For example, the prohibition against sharing a meal with Jews was repeated at Vannes (465), Epaon (517), Orleans III (538), and Mâcon (583); mixed marriages were prohibited at Orleans II (533), Clermont (535), Orleans III (538), and Orleans IV (541).

It is claimed by the Catholic Church that "potentially" some of the The Apostolic Fathers were Christian writers of the first and second centuries who are known, or are considered, to have had personal relations with some of the Apostles, or to have been so influenced by them that their writings. YET, the name was apparently unknown in Christian literature before the end of the seventeenth century. The term Apostolic, however, was commonly used to qualify Churches, persons, writings, etc. from the early second century, when St. Ignatius, in the exordium of his Epistle to the Trallians, saluted their Church "after the Apostolic manner."

The point is that all of the above is unacceptable from a Torath Mosheh and Orthodox Jewish perspective. That is what I mean.

 

[Kenny]

I agree. The group you mentioned are irrelevant to the OP and to Torath Mosheh so we can drop them out of the discussion.

that is still at your discretion.

Why does it matter if you don't have any proof for Isaiah or Daniel. First of all, Isaiah is not even an ancient Jewish name. So, of course you would have no proof for a Jew in the land of Israel several thousand year ago with that name.

2nd, you should hold by what you have proof for. If you don't beleive they existed then disregard them.

??? did you miss the principle?

Clement is not a valid source for anything to Torath Moshe Jews and Orthodox Jews. We (Torath Moshe Jews and Orthodox Jews) don't hold by anything he says.

Was that even the point? The point was about the existence of Paul which you said there was no such Paul. Nice side step.

If there was a Hellonist by the name of Gamliel in Tarsus then fine Paul learned from that guy. If you want to beleive that Paul knew Hebrew then that is fine, for you. Paul's very heavy use of Greek or even the fact that Christians were only willing to preserve anything he wrote in Greek speaks volumes, for me. I.e. I have a mitzvah to ignore/disregard Paul's writings. His rate of survival for Jews is very low. Time pretty much whipped away from the historical any Jewish community that may have followed him.

Again... the preaching of the Gospel of the Kingdom of God was for all nations.... not just the Hebrews.

Of course you don't, you are a Christian. I mentioned that in the OP. Torath Mosheh Jews and Orthodox Jews have a different standard to hold by that Hashem gave - and that standard is Hebrew first.

Of course you do... you hold to the Mosaic Law. Our understanding also that it is for the Jews...... first.... and then the Gentiles. Of course, Gentiles needed the information in Greek.

I actually do have evidence for Mosheh ben-Amram. The concept you have for Moses, I also agree doesn't exist. I don't see a problem with you saying that Moses didn't exist if you don't see evidence for him existing. You should hold by what you have proven to be reality and not for what you are unsure about.

OK.. so, if Moses didn't exist, what evidence do you have that Hashem gave those scriptures?

Actually I can. For example, the rules for the Torah are not the same as the rules for the prophets. The rules for the prophets are not the same as the writings. In fact, this may shock you. Torath Mosheh Jews and Orthodox Jews hold that during the return of the Davidic kingship in the land of Israel the only books of the Tanakh that will remain in circulation are the Torah and the book of Esther. At that time all of the prophets and all of the other writings will go to the shelf. I.e. there won't be a Tanakh during that time. Only the Torah and on its own the book of Esther.

You missed the point completely. You said you needed evidence for our scriptures. What external evidence do you have (using your rules) the Moses did receive the Law at Mt Sinai?

Oh, here we go again. We were making such good progress.

Look. If you want to beleive that - that is fine for you. They were definately not reading for any Hebrew Tanakh I have ever read. Oh I forgot they were reading from one of the many Christian versions of the LXX, in Greek.

So... no evidence that I was wrong.

I am not changing the subject. You brought up a group that has nothing to do with anything. The Messyanic movement, by their own admission, started in the 1960's and are not in any way connected to the 1st to 2nd Century Jewish Christians. I.e. they are not relevant to this or any conversation of this nature.

Again... ignoring what I said doesn't change what I said.

So, then let's agree to not bring up groups that have nothing to offer to this thread like the Jews of Bereoa and the Modern day Messianic movement. Neither has any bearing on this thread or the OP.

OK... I thought it was relevant with your statements. My statements still stand.

Your statement was invalid. The Torah requires a Torath Mosheh Jew to judge things that are foreign to the Hebrew Torah. Just like your statement about uneven weights. Your statement is not even what the Torah is talking about when it comes to weights. What Hashem doesn't like is for Torath Mosheh Jews and Orthodox Jews to accept things that don't match the standard provided in the Torah for determining what is correct and incorrect.

OK... that is your viewpoint. Of course I believe it was very valid. Since I am in the New Covenant which is different from the Mosaic Covenant that was given when He took His people out of Egypt, I have no problem with you believing that which was meant for you.

As it was written:
Yirmeyah 31:31 (30) Hinei, the days come, saith Hashem, that I will cut a Brit Chadasha with Bais Yisroel, and with Bais Yehudah;

If you say so.

I do!

 

[Kenny]

Thus, this thread is about what Torath Mosheh Jews and Orthodox Jews were given as a requirement to verify mesorah and facts for us to consider or disregard. This is even proven out in that every Torath Mosheh and Orthodox Jew on RF agrees with what I wrote. I am sure if were to approach other Torath Mosheh Jews and Orthodox Jews they would also agree.

Maybe it is your title and the OP is the cause of our disconnect:

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

I don't see anything in your statement that reflects the title.

Maybe you should have put that in the Jews DIR? It looked like it was more directed to Christians.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

that is still at your discretion.

Exactly. Mine and all Torath Mosheh and Orthodox Jews. Agreed.

??? did you miss the principle?

No. Maybe you didn't expect the answer. I.e. that there is nothing wrong with someone rejecting or not accepting something that they see no evidence or proof for. That goes for EVERYTHING.....Tanakh included. There is no punishment for a lack of beleif based on a lack of evidence. We humans were given analytical reason for the purpose of descerning what makes sense and what doesn't. At least that is what we Torath Mosheh Jews and Orthodox Jews hold by.

Was that even the point? The point was about the existence of Paul which you said there was no such Paul. Nice side step.

Yes. I don't see any evidence that Paul is a worthwhile person or source of information for Torath Mosheh Jews or Orthodox Jews to go by. You mentioned Clement in relation to Paul I say that Clement's views on Paul have no meaning to me. A LOT of Torath Mosheh and Orthodox Jews agree with me on this. A LOT!

Again... the preaching of the Gospel of the Kingdom of God was for all nations.... not just the Hebrews.

If the nations accept the NT that is up to them. They have the same powers of reason that I have just by being human. Yet, there are some nations who accept Islam instead of Christianity so I can easily have the same conversation with them where they state that the preaching of the Quran of the Kingdom of Allah was for all nations.....not just the Hebrews. I don't know any Hebrews who claim that Hashem only likes Hebrews - Hashem has always given benefits to all of humanity and Hashem will continue to do so. That is a foundation of Torath Mosheh.

Of course you do... you hold to the Mosaic Law. Our understanding also that it is for the Jews...... first.... and then the Gentiles. Of course, Gentiles needed the information in Greek.

The western term "Mosaic Law" means something different to you than it does to me. I hold by Torath Mosheh, I know you hadn't heard of that until I mentioned it. Given that the Non-Jewish world has always been filled with more non-Greek speaking people I don't see your point here but nevermind. Also, given that a large portion of the world is Islamic using Arabic texts I think it all works out. Don't you think?

OK.. so, if Moses didn't exist, what evidence do you have that Hashem gave those scriptures?

Gave what scriptures? What is a scripture to you? Also, let's assume that I don't beleive that Hashem gave anything. All the more reason for me to ignore the NT, right? Thus, my OP stands because if we can prove that the Tanakh is false we doubly prove that the is NT false, right? Unless you are saying that the NT has no connection to the Tanakh.....hmmm. So, do you really want to go down that path?

You missed the point completely. You said you needed evidence for our scriptures. What external evidence do you have (using your rules) the Moses did receive the Law at Mt Sinai?

I didn't say that I needed evidence of your scriptures. I said based on how NT texts were authored, organized, and who did the authoring and organizing I am required Hashem/Torah to reject/ignore it. I also presented a better format that the authors and organizing would have used IF they were really trying to convince Torath Mosheh Jews, but as we agree that wasn't their goal. They were trying to convince the Greek speaking populations who didn't know Hebrew.

In terms of Mosheh ben-Amram and external infomation. Let's do a Zoom and I can run through a number of Egyptian texts with you. In ten minutes you can know whether or not you should beleive that Mosheh ben-Amram existed or whether you should reject it. What do you say?

So... no evidence that I was wrong.

This thread is not about you. It is about the reason why Torath Mosheh Jews and Orthodox Jews are required by the Hebrew Torah to ignore and reject the NT. That is discussed in the OP. I am not here to prove you wrong. If I were I would have named the Thread - Why KenS is wrong about something, or most things, or everything - 28 months out of the year. If the NT works for you go forth with it and enjoy.

Again... ignoring what I said doesn't change what I said.

Right back at you.

OK... I thought it was relevant with your statements. My statements still stand.

Ehav Ever's respnose: If you say so. KenS response: I do.

OK... that is your viewpoint. Of course I believe it was very valid. Since I am in the New Covenant which is different from the Mosaic Covenant that was given when He took His people out of Egypt, I have no problem with you believing that which was meant for you.

Great, so the OP stands and we are right back where we started. Torath Mosheh Jews and Orthodox Jews will continue to do what we do w/o the NT and you do what you do with it. Problem solved.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

Maybe it is your title and the OP is the cause of our disconnect:

I don't see anything in your statement that reflects the title.

Maybe you should have put that in the Jews DIR? It looked like it was more directed to Christians.

If it were directed at Christians it would have been titled Christians: Why the NT is Historically and Theologically not acceptable for Torath Mosheh Jews

Also, RF has more than just Christians on it. There are some non-Christians who benefit from knowing about this. I had a long conversation with a Buddhist on this topic and we had a very good productive discussion on the topic.

I think that most RF's by now know what they are signing up for when they see me posting something and they decide to comment. Besides, there is no need to post this in a Jews DIR since there is no Jews DIR. Also, Torath Mosheh Jews and Orthodox Jews in and outside of RF alerady know and agree with my OP. The OP also clearly matches the title. You can tell by the ratings on the OP - which I see someone by the name of KenS rated as Informative.

 

[PruePhillip]

But the Jewish texts live and breathe on the basis of the individual word so knowing the etymology, the context, the variant spellings, and even the grammar of the line, plus the other uses of the word and all that are what allow the text to exist. When the Gospels use Jewish source materials and deemphasize the precision of the language (those "nuances") then they risk losing the meaning of the source and replacing it with something else.

Sure, accept that, to a point...
The problem then is that people build doctrine around one interpretation of
a single word. It's been with us for a long time - Paul warned those 'striving
over words to no effect.'

And context - Psalm 22 is a classic. Did the writer say 'pierced by hand and
my feet' or 'a lion tore my hands and feet.? The language is ambiguous, it's
all to do with the length of a single pen stroke (and in the Dead Sea Scrolls
the Psalm 22 stroke is mid way!) BUT THE REST OF THE PSALM 22 IS
QUITE CLEAR IT ISN'T ABOUT LIONS.

 

[ToGodorNottoGod]

Not a problem at all. Concerning your question. You are in luck. I did a paper about that. It is attached below. It is a bit technical but it may help a bit.

I just finished reading your paper here. I enjoyed that very much, thank you for sharing it! That was delightful to read, and I am looking forward to learning more from your materials.

 

[rosends]

Sure, accept that, to a point...
The problem then is that people build doctrine around one interpretation of
a single word. It's been with us for a long time - Paul warned those 'striving
over words to no effect.'

Except that the Jewish tradition was always to strive over words, and there is incredible effect. And the possibility to variations in meaning and shades of impact are an essential part of building Jewish thought.

And context - Psalm 22 is a classic. Did the writer say 'pierced by hand and
my feet' or 'a lion tore my hands and feet.? The language is ambiguous, it's
all to do with the length of a single pen stroke (and in the Dead Sea Scrolls
the Psalm 22 stroke is mid way!) BUT THE REST OF THE PSALM 22 IS
QUITE CLEAR IT ISN'T ABOUT LIONS.

Verses 14 and 22 both mention a lion. Why would you say the rest isn't about lions?

 

[PruePhillip]

Except that the Jewish tradition was always to strive over words, and there is incredible effect. And the possibility to variations in meaning and shades of impact are an essential part of building Jewish thought.


Verses 14 and 22 both mention a lion. Why would you say the rest isn't about lions?

Because Psalm 22 isn't about a lion attack. The context is clear, particularly when
1 - a word has similar spelling
2 - a lion COULD be mentioned, as it clearly is in V13, and so too are dogs and bulls mentioned.

This Psalm is about someone suffering AT THE HAND OF MAN. Now, is it David, or
a contemporary of David, or Jesus?

And when people will argue over the length of a pen stroke (too short, too long?) I think they are
deflecting the theme of the Psalm.

 

[rosends]

Because Psalm 22 isn't about a lion attack. The context is clear, particularly when
1 - a word has similar spelling
2 - a lion COULD be mentioned, as it clearly is in V13, and so too are dogs and bulls mentioned.

This Psalm is about someone suffering AT THE HAND OF MAN. Now, is it David, or
a contemporary of David, or Jesus?

Wait -- you said it wasn't about a lion but I showed 2 other references to a lion, making the use of the word as lion consistent with the context. The other option, "k'aru" isn't even a grammatical construct in Hebrew and appears no where else in the Jewish texts. For "ka'ari" look in Num 24:9 to begin (there are others).