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

[Skywalker]

You say that, but have no biblical evidence to attest to that. And when I say biblical, I mean only the Tanach.

Isaiah 14

How you are fallen from heaven,

O Day Star, son of Dawn!

How you are cut down to the ground,

you who laid the nations low!

I will ascend to heaven;

above the stars of God

I will set my throne on high;

I will sit on the mount of assembly

in the far reaches of the north;

I will ascend above the heights of the clouds;

I will make myself like the Most High.

 

[Harel13]

God never sent Satan to afflict Job.

God and Satan had a debate over Job's faith, so they decided to put it to the test. God told Satan: Go ahead, do your worst and we'll see what'll happen. Which equals Him sending Satan.

1 Chronicles 21:15 says And God sent an angel unto Jerusalem to destroy it: and as he was destroying, the LORD beheld, and he repented him of the evil, and said to the angel that destroyed, It is enough, stay now thine hand. And the angel of the LORD stood by the threshingfloor of Ornan the Jebusite.

Thank you, more evidence for how evil angels are.

 

[Harel13]

Isaiah 14

How you are fallen from heaven,

O Day Star, son of Dawn!

How you are cut down to the ground,

you who laid the nations low!

I will ascend to heaven;

above the stars of God

I will set my throne on high;

I will sit on the mount of assembly

in the far reaches of the north;

I will ascend above the heights of the clouds;

I will make myself like the Most High.

I see here a description of a giant meteor laying waste to various nations. What's that got to do with Satan or the snake of Genesis?

 

[Skywalker]

God and Satan had a debate over Job's faith, so they decided to put it to the test. God told Satan: Go ahead, do your worst and we'll see what'll happen. Which equals Him sending Satan.

Thank you, more evidence for how evil angels are.

God didn't send Satan like he sent the angel in 1 Chronicles 12:15. Job 2:3 says And the LORD said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil? and still he holdeth fast his integrity, although thou movedst me against him, to destroy him without cause.

 

[Skywalker]

I see here a description of a giant meteor laying waste to various nations. What's that got to do with Satan or the snake of Genesis?

The devil had spiritual influence over the King of Babylon.

 

[Harel13]

The devil had spiritual influence over the King of Babylon.

Nope, it's definitely talking about a destructive meteor.

 

[Skywalker]

Nope, it's definitely talking about a destructive meteor.

The devil was the angel of light and music and he was arrogant about his abilities.

 

[Harel13]

The devil was the angel of light and music and he was arrogant about his abilities.

None of this is stated in the Tanach.

 

[dybmh]

Ibn Ezra's exegesis don't endorse the belief that Satan is a fallen angel

Agreed. So what you said below is false.

I quoted Jewish sources that agree with Christian interpretations of the scriptures.

No, your sources were wrong. Jewish sources don't agree with Christian interpretations of Satan.

 

[Skywalker]

Agreed. So what you said below is false.

No, your sources were wrong. Jewish sources don't agree with Christian interpretations of Satan.

Ibn Ezra did not mention Satan being a fallen angel but he mentioned Satan being the serpent who deceived Eve in the Garden of Eden.

 

[dybmh]

Ibn Ezra did not mention Satan being a fallen angel but he mentioned Satan being the serpent who deceived Eve in the Garden of Eden.

Yes. So I ask again, where did the fallen angel story come from?

 

[Skywalker]

Yes. So I ask again, where did the fallen angel story come from?

The Bible has progressive revelation. Does the Bible teach that there would be two comings of the Messiah? | GotQuestions.org

The second coming of Christ is a major tenet of Christian theology, and we eagerly look forward to our “blessed hope” (Titus 2:13). But the knowledge that the Messiah would have two comings came to humanity gradually, as God’s revelation to mankind was progressive.

The Old Testament clearly teaches that the Messiah would come, but it does not explicitly say that He would come twice. The information God revealed about the Messiah started very basic, with more detail added bit by bit. People living in later times knew more than those who lived earlier. Abraham knew more about the purposes of God than did Noah. David knew more than Abraham. The prophets knew more than David. And finally, the apostles in the New Testament knew more than the prophets. The apostles after the resurrection knew more than they did before the resurrection.

The revelation concerning the Messiah progressed over time. Genesis 3:15 is a cryptic first promise of a Messiah. The seed of the woman will destroy the seed of the serpent. Who the seed of the woman is or how He will accomplish His mission is not revealed. Later, David is promised a lasting dynasty, which means that one of his descendants will reign continually. Again, we are not told exactly who this will be or how it will come about. Sometimes, the prophets speak of this reign as if God Himself will sit on the throne (Zechariah 14). At other times, the prophets expect a descendant of David (Psalm 2). Again, the prophets never explain how this will all come together. Jesus questioned the Jewish leaders regarding this tension in Matthew 22:41–45:

While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them, “What do you think about the Messiah? Whose son is he?”

“The son of David,” they replied. He said to them, “How is it then that David, speaking by the Spirit, calls him ‘Lord’? For he says, “‘The Lord said to my Lord: “Sit at my right hand until I put your enemies under your feet.”’ If then David calls him ‘Lord,’ how can he be his son?” No one could say a word in reply, and from that day on no one dared to ask him any more questions.

 

[dybmh]

Yes. So I ask again, where did the fallen angel story come from?

The Bible has progressive revelation. Does the Bible teach that there would be two comings of the Messiah? | GotQuestions.org

IOW, you don't know where it comes from, but you believe it?

 

[Skywalker]

IOW, you don't know where it comes from, but you believe it?

The book of Job doesn't mention that Satan is a fallen angel as clearly as the New Testament because the Bible uses progressive revelation, similar to how the apostles knew more about the messianic prophecies after the ressurection than before the ressurection.

 

[Harel13]

I don't think gotquestions.org agrees with replacement theology, I think that article was a reference to the people who were persecuting Christians, not Jewish people who don't believe in Jesus, but I won''t mention that article again if you associate it with replacement theology

Feel free to bring whatever you want. I'm merely trying to explain to you why it's problematic to both say you're against replacement theology, to say that GotQuestions are against replacement theology and to bring an article from GotQuestions where they verify that they believe in replacement theology. Life doesn't work like that.

 

[Harel13]

The Bible has progressive revelation. Does the Bible teach that there would be two comings of the Messiah? | GotQuestions.org

"Progressive revelation" is a convient concept invented by Christians to explain why the Tanach doesn't fit with the NT.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

You seem to multiply words (Proverbs 10:19), yet apparently only to obfuscate the Jewish culpability discussed in the Law and the prophets such as in Hosea 5, and what is required to overcome the hole the Jewish shepherds have created (Hos 6) & (Ez 34), and who they will all be replaced with.

Enjoy!

 

[dybmh]

The book of Job doesn't mention that Satan is a fallen angel as clearly as the New Testament because the Bible uses progressive revelation, similar to how the apostles knew more about the messianic prophecies after the ressurection than before the ressurection.

Or... the apostles were exaggerating similar to the other examples: cursing fig trees, moving mountains, ask for anything and you'll get it if you believe, hate your parents, leave your family, drinking blood, eating flesh...

All of those examples you have previously claimed were exagerations in the Christian bible, so, it makes sense that the serpent as a fallen angel is an exaggeration like the others.

 

[Skywalker]

Or... the apostles were exaggerating similar to the other examples: cursing fig trees, moving mountains, ask for anything and you'll get it if you believe, hate your parents, leave your family, drinking blood, eating flesh...

All of those examples you have previously claimed were exagerations in the Christian bible, so, it makes sense that the serpent as a fallen angel is an exaggeration like the others.

The flowering of MIthraism occurred after the close of the New Testament canon, too late for it to have influenced the development of first-century Christianity. Manfred Clauss, professor of ancient history at Free University in Berlin, said in The Roman Cult of Mithras that it does not make sense to interpret the Mithraic mysteries "as a forerunner to Christianity." In his book, MIthraism and Christiianity, published by Cambridge University Press, L. Patterson concluded there is "no direct connection between the two religions either in origin or development."

 

[Skywalker]

Feel free to bring whatever you want. I'm merely trying to explain to you why it's problematic to both say you're against replacement theology, to say that GotQuestions are against replacement theology and to bring an article from GotQuestions where they verify that they believe in replacement theology. Life doesn't work like that.

Paul is rebuking Jewish hypocrisy, in the sense of Jewish superiority. Many contexts of Romans 2:28-29 indicate and add to the Greek for clarification so we get the full sense of it that what Paul is saying, a person is not a Jew if he's one only outwardly, and circumcision is not only outward and in the flesh. In other words, it must also be inward. What Paul is really saying here is between two Jews, who's the real Jew in God's sight, the one who's only a Jew outwardly or the one who's also a Jew inwardly, with a circumcised heart, living a life in obedience to God. I know that because in the very next verse, there are no chapter divisions in the Greek, so chapter 3 verse 1, Paul then asks the question so then what's the advantage in being a Jew? In other words, he's still talking about natural Jews. What does he say in Romans 1:16? I'm not ashamed of the gospel, it's the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes, first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. So, he still recognizes there are people called Jews, who need the gospel, and if you read through the rest of Romans, every time he mentions Jews, he's talking about natural Jewish people, but the one that is not just a natural Jew, but a spiritual Jew, in God's sight, is the Jewish believer in Yeshua the Messiah, the one who has been born from above. Gentile Christians are not spiritual Jews. I understand the concept, but in reality, that's not what Paul taught.