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

[37818]

@Ehav4Ever,

In Deuteronomy 27:26, ". . . Cursed be he that confirmeth not the words of this law to do them. And all the people shall say: Amen.’ . . ."
How are all the things of the Law according to Moses done since 70CE?

 

[Ehav4Ever]

@Ehav4Ever,

In Deuteronomy 27:26, ". . . Cursed be he that confirmeth not the words of this law to do them. And all the people shall say: Amen.’ . . ."
How are all the things of the Law according to Moses done since 70CE?

Greetings.

In order to understand how that mitzvah was to be performed you would have to start reading at 27:2. If you look at the mitzvah it was only required to be done when that generation entered into the land of Canaan. This mitzvah was done during the time when Yehoshua bin-Nun led the nation into the land of Canaan. It is mentioned in Sefer Yehoshua bin-Nun 9:30 - 35 or in English you say that in Joshua 9:23 - 35 it was done and only required to be done once for that generation.

There is a good book called Sepher HaMitzvoth by Rabbi Mosheh ben-Maimon (Rambam) where he explaines the methodology we Jews received from Moses to know which mitzvoth are required for all gnerations and which ones were only for the specific generations of the wilderness and the one that entered into the land of Canaan.

I hope that helps.

 

[Kenny]

Did the Jews of Berea that you mention use the exact same NT that is in use by Christians today?

I'm not understanding this question... As I mentioned before... the scriptures they searched was the Jewish TaNaKh since there was no "NT" at that time.

Historically, what happened to the Jews of Berea that you mentioned? ]What were the names of some of their leaders or notable members?

I joined these two questions together. I looked everywhere possible and, as in basically the whole of the geographical area, don't find anything significant both in leadership, notable members or what happened to the Jews that didn't happen to all other Jews.

Other than Sopater of Berea, who is believed to be the kinsman of Paul, we have no other information (that I could find). It is believed that Onesimus, a Greek, was also from that area and became a bishop of that time.

Are there any Christians today who descend from and are still identifiable as being Jewish?

That is a good question for which I have no idea since I am not in that circle (not that I don't know Jewish Christians, but rather if they descended from that time). As with so many Jewish people of today, genealogies have been lost and need to be rediscovered.

A list: (whether or not their descendants continued, I do uotknow)

List of converts to Christianity from Judaism

Which type of modern Christianity is best representing what the Jews of Berea you mentioned were about?

Not sure I and answer specifically to this narrow standard. I would like to say "me" - but I certainly have seen better researchers than myself. There is always someone who studied more. I would say that you study deep, for sure.

 

[firedragon]

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 respect your paper. It is obvious that you have knowledge in the subject.

But I dont see how it answers the question I asked. Apologies, maybe I just dont get it.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

I'm not understanding this question... As I mentioned before... the scriptures they searched was the Jewish TaNaKh since there was no "NT" at that time.

What evidence do you have that they "searched" the Jewish Tanakh? Which text of it were they searching. Since they were in a Greek area there was no Jewish Tanakh in Greek that was accurate at the time frame you are referencing. Further, if there was NT at their time then it is possible that they wold not agree with the content found in the current NT. That is the intent of the question. I.e. it could be that if they sat down with the current NT that they would say, "What! No, I don't agree with this." That is if such a group even existed.

I joined these two questions together. I looked everywhere possible and, as in basically the whole of the geographical area, don't find anything significant both in leadership, notable members or what happened to the Jews that didn't happen to all other Jews.

I also looked them up and couldn't any evidence that such a community even existed. I.e. one who searched through a Tanakh and beleived in the NT based on something in a Hebrew Tanakh - and who claimed a connection to Paul. It would to reason that if such a community that was "Jewish" did so exist there would be some historical information about them "outside of the NT" yet there is none that can I find to substantiate the claim about their decision to become Christian.

Now, let's assume that they such a group did exist. Their inability to survive and leave a mark makes them not a good example for a Torath Mosheh Jew and an Orthodox Jew to follow. That literally means that when Jews become Christian they literally disappear within one to two generations as indentifiable Jewish communities. The Torah states that when Jews follow the Torah corrently that would not happen.

Other than Sopater of Berea, who is believed to be the kinsman of Paul, we have no other information (that I could find). It is believed that Onesimus, a Greek, was also from that area and became a bishop of that time.

Again, some unknown figure who is claimed to be a Jew with nothing that can be confirmed of him by other Jews. If he did really exist and was friends with Paul it stands to reason that said friendship didn't do very well for him.

That is a good question for which I have no idea since I am not in that circle (not that I don't know Jewish Christians, but rather if they descended from that time). As with so many Jewish people of today, genealogies have been lost and need to be rediscovered.

Ah, and here is another point. Genealogies have not been lost in Torath Mosheh Jewish communities. There are a numerous families in Torath Mosheh communities who are Mizrahi, Teimani, Sephardi, Ashkenazi, and Maghrebi who have geneologies that have been recorded and maintained - in my community there are numerous families (such as the Tzelahh, Ma'atuf-Dohh, Hillel, Kohen, and Lewi families) who have family trees going back to Ya'aqov ben-Yitzhhaq ben-Avraham.

It is only non-Torah based Jewish communities who normally don't keep track of geneoligies in their communities because they lose concern for such. Maybe that is what happened in

Not sure I and answer specifically to this narrow standard. I would like to say "me" - but I certainly have seen better researchers than myself.

What I mean is, you brought up the Jews of Beroea as a type of example. Yet, through both of our research put together between the two of us we can little to nothing about them the obvious question is - "If they did exist we can probably agree that they were not Torath Mosheh, right?" Further, "If they did exist then would they have, for example, agreed with/recognized Catholicism but disagreed with Protestants, Sacred Namers, Hebrew Roots, JW, Mormons, Messianics, etc?" I.e. all of these forms of Christianity differ on some major points of basic NT theology, so they can't all be 100% right at the same time. It is possible that the early 1st to 2nd Christian church would have considered more than half of modern Christianity heretical, right? I say this because the Church Fathers sure did consider a huge swath of 3rd to 5th cent. Christiantiy heretical - such as the Marcianites, Montanists, Gnostics, Euchites / Messalians, Circumcellions, Anthropomorphites, and the Ebionites.

I would say that you study deep, for sure.

Of course. I have to. It is a part of being a Torath Mosheh Jew. It is a trait found in Torath Mosheh and Orthodox Jewish communities.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

But I dont see how it answers the question I asked. Apologies, maybe I just dont get it.

Not a problem. Let's take it from this perspective.

1. Do you understand what a kosher Torah scroll is?
   • Based on the paper what did you gather we Jews consider a Torah scroll to be?
2. If Torah scrolls from about 2,200 years ago found in various places in the Judean desert are 98% to 99% same as Torah scrolls found among Jewish communities who left Israel about 2,500 years ago, and did not return, until about 50 to 60 years ago - what does that say?
   • In the above case if some of the above said Jewish communities had little to no contact with other Jewish communities in Israel or in other far flung regions yet when they all meet up starting 60 to 70 years ago and when comparing Torah scrolls they are 98% to 99% the same with about 14 differences - what does that tell us?
   • If a text transcribed 2,200 years ago in region X, that was only discovered about 70 to 80 years ago, has about 300,000 letters in it with 79,000 words is compared to a group of similar texts transcribed in a different parts of the world (Region A, Region Z, and Region M) where the people doing the transcribing claim to descend from people who left region X 2,500 years ago (and never returned to or had contact with Region X during that time) and it is found that all texts differ in 14 letters (out of 300,000) and only in the size of 5 letters (larger vs. smaller) and in 9 cases some of the texts lack a helper vowel (such as the difference between honor and honour in English) - what does that tell us?

 

[Ehav4Ever]

Is there any evidence that this same belief that the scroll of the Torah has to be transcribed by men so accurately existed in the 1st century judaiya?

Looking at your question a bit more this point may further answer your question.

1st Century and before evidence of the Jewish requirements from how the Torah was to be properly transcribed can be found in Jewish sources from the time. These sources are referenced in Jewish writings from the Mishnah, the Talmud, the Geonim, and even some of Dead Sea scrolls cover it. Mesechet Sofrim has some of the most comprehensive information from the time frame.

Also, there were tefillin found in the Dead Sea from 2,200 years ago and also ~1,800 years ago that match the two type of tefillin used by Jews today.

These rules are based on both the oral Torah from Moses about how to write a Torah scroll and also the part of the Torah that warns against changing it.

Further, even Samaritan texts discuss the proper method of copying/transcribing a Torah scroll. It is covered in a text of theirs called the Hillukh.

 

[ToGodorNottoGod]

Ehav4ever
That literally means that when Jews become Christian they literally disappear within one to two generations as indentifiable Jewish communities. The Torah states that when Jews follow the Torah corrently that would not happen.

ToGodorNottoGod
The Zohar has the same teaching. I have recently acquired the magnificent translation of Daniel Matt's Pritzker edition of the full 12 volume set of Zohar and am currently in volume 3. A most magnificent light for we feebly enlightened non-Jewish folk.

We live in a fantastic day when such great amounts of light, knowledge, and spirituality is so openly available to all. Matt is truly a hero whether the world knows it or not. I am deeply impressed with his commentary apparatus within each volume, and am astonished at how complete it is, though knowing it probably can never actually become completely complete, Matt has taken the Zohar to the greatest heights! The Holy One, blessed be He, is to be praised for helping Matt accomplish such impressive work while alive.

 

[Kenny]

What evidence do you have that they "searched" the Jewish Tanakh? Which text of it were they searching. Since they were in a Greek area there was no Jewish Tanakh in Greek that was accurate at the time frame you are referencing. Further, if there was NT at their time then it is possible that they wold not agree with the content found in the current NT. That is the intent of the question. I.e. it could be that if they sat down with the current NT that they would say, "What! No, I don't agree with this." That is if such a group even existed.

I'm not sure the logic here is correct. How do you know there wasn't a Hebraic/Aramaic TaNaKh? The text would obviously be about Yeshua Hamashiach -- why would they search anything else? Paul was preaching from the TaNaKh. In that as a Pharisee which had a more traditional approach and in that he knew the Hebraic language and studied under Gamaliel, I think he could present it correctly.

Hmmmm... no there was no "New Testament" as the complication of these books happened after they were written individually. So the postulate isn't acceptable.

I also looked them up and couldn't any evidence that such a community even existed. I.e. one who searched through a Tanakh and beleived in the NT based on something in a Hebrew Tanakh - and who claimed a connection to Paul. It would to reason that if such a community that was "Jewish" did so exist there would be some historical information about them "outside of the NT" yet there is none that can I find to substantiate the claim about their decision to become Christian.

You could say that of hundreds of synagogues as they existed throughout the Roman empire since you would be hard pressed to find substantiation. There is no reason for someone not to believe there was a Synagogue in Berea. Time has a way from erasing history.

Again, they preached from the TaNaKh and not from the NT.

First Century Synagogues

Now, let's assume that they such a group did exist. Their inability to survive and leave a mark makes them not a good example for a Torath Mosheh Jew and an Orthodox Jew to follow. That literally means that when Jews become Christian they literally disappear within one to two generations as indentifiable Jewish communities. The Torah states that when Jews follow the Torah corrently that would not happen.

You are assuming the ceased to exist as Jewish believers in Yeshua. But how do you know they ceased to exist? Obviously from the TaNaKh we can see that very often the Jews did not follow the Torah... but they continued to exist. So I don't follow your point.

Again, some unknown figure who is claimed to be a Jew with nothing that can be confirmed of him by other Jews. If he did really exist and was friends with Paul it stands to reason that said friendship didn't do very well for him.

A lot of "suppositions" IMO

What I mean is, you brought up the Jews of Beroea as a type of example. Yet, through both of our research put together between the two of us we can little to nothing about them the obvious question is - "If they did exist we can probably agree that they were not Torath Mosheh, right?" Further, "If they did exist then would they have, for example, agreed with/recognized Catholicism but disagreed with Protestants, Sacred Namers, Hebrew Roots, JW, Mormons, Messianics, etc?" I.e. all of these forms of Christianity differ on some major points of basic NT theology, so they can't all be 100% right at the same time. It is possible that the early 1st to 2nd Christian church would have considered more than half of modern Christianity heretical, right? I say this because the Church Fathers sure did consider a huge swath of 3rd to 5th cent. Christiantiy heretical - such as the Marcianites, Montanists, Gnostics, Euchites / Messalians, Circumcellions, Anthropomorphites, and the Ebionites.

Again... I wouldn't follow that logic. There are still Messianic Jews and, as my list showed, many believed after the fact.

Were there some that stayed as believers in the Torah Mosheh? Sure.

I'm not sure where you were going with Catholics, Protestants et al. Even in the Jewish faith you have a variety of beliefs and teachings from the Hasidic Jews to the progressive Judaism and everything in between.

My point is simply that the Gospel of God's Kingdom was preached from the TaNaKh and many had no problem with believing.

 

[ToGodorNottoGod]

My point is simply that the Gospel of God's Kingdom was preached from the TaNaKh and many had no problem with believing.

Yes, so far as we gather Jesus did quote the Old Testament quite a bit, especially Isaiah...

 

[shunyadragon]

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.

 

[ToGodorNottoGod]

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

Yet we do actually know Genesis takes information from Mesopotamian backgrounds and stories as do the Psalms of King David. Biblical scholarship has demonstrated the very close parallels of ideas, philosophies, and downright quoting from many of the ancient cultures the Jews lived with. To imagine the Jews anciently living in isolation is as silly as imagining the Jews in Hasidic Germany didn't acquire the German language, but continued speaking their own native tongue.

We know thanks to archaeological information that YHVH acquired many characteristics of the Ancient Near Eastern Storm Gods, whether from Egyptian Min or other ancient Gods who were storm Gods such as Ugaritic Ba'al. There is much that is acquired from cultures to cultures in antiquity. And right up to today. Everyone uses automobiles I presume. Gone are the walking only or traveling by horse and buggy alone.

 

[shunyadragon]

Yet we do actually know Genesis takes information from Mesopotamian backgrounds and stories as do the Psalms of King David. Biblical scholarship has demonstrated the very close parallels of ideas, philosophies, and downright quoting from many of the ancient cultures the Jews lived with. To imagine the Jews anciently living in isolation is as silly as imagining the Jews in Hasidic Germany didn't acquire the German language, but continued speaking their own native tongue.

We know thanks to archaeological information that YHVH acquired many characteristics of the Ancient Near Eastern Storm Gods, whether from Egyptian Min or other ancient Gods who were storm Gods such as Ugaritic Ba'al. There is much that is acquired from cultures to cultures in antiquity. And right up to today. Everyone uses automobiles I presume. Gone are the walking only or traveling by horse and buggy alone.

This does not address the issue.

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

Still waiting . . .

 

[ToGodorNottoGod]

This does not address the issue.

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

Oh sorry, I didn't mean to be obtuse. If the Torath Mosheh Jews already accept the Torah, they have already accepted others' scriptures and incorporated them into their own. That was my point. The Torah is an amalgamation of many other culture's stories and views which anciently Jews adapted into the Torah, as well as having their own revelations which they also included.

 

[shunyadragon]

Oh sorry, I didn't mean to be obtuse. If the Torath Mosheh Jews already accept the Torah, they have already accepted others' scriptures and incorporated them into their own. That was my point. The Torah is an amalgamation of many other culture's stories and views which anciently Jews adapted into the Torah, as well as having their own revelations which they also included.

This is true concerning the history of the Torah, and the NT, but nonetheless the Torath Mosheh Jews do not acknowledge this archaeological and paleontological history of the Torah. It is their sacred revealed scripture. Most Christians likewise do not accept the compiled, edited and redacted nature of their version and interpretation of the OT, nor the NT.

This is the reason the different religions reject other scriptures as not canon,

 

[PruePhillip]

I hope that helps.

What was considered 'authentic' in the early Christian communities had little to do with later church
fathers. The books of the NT were compiled on the basis of generally accepted opinions.
Is there a book which contradicts the NT and was rejected, even though it is considered authentic
in some way?

 

[PruePhillip]

Most Christians likewise do not accept the compiled, edited and redacted nature of their version and interpretation of the OT, nor the NT.

Eh, wot?

 

[PruePhillip]

Given that the various church councils were the ones who decided what material went into the New Testament and what information did not go into it – this alone provides a very critical reason why Torath Mosheh Jews and Orthodox Jews are required by Hashem/Torah to ignore such a text due to its historical and theological content and the lack of some specific requirements given by Hashem to Am Yisrael.

It further shows, based on how the early Christian Church chose to structure the text, that it was not meant for Torath Mosheh Jews and Orthodox Jews. I.e. if Christians like it and accept it is not my place to judge that BUT Torath Mosheh Jews and Orthodox Jews have mitzvoth to avoid it. The historical and theological information and claims found in the Greek derived NT texts from start to finish makes it suspect and thus a Torath Mosheh Jew and Orthodox Jew consider it (פסול) and (עבודה זרה) for us.

That being said, you may ask what structure and content would have given a Torath Mosheh Jew, at any time in history, a reason to even consider reading it? The answer to that is simple and thus what follows is a less problematic structure and content that would have made more sense to construct from a Jewish perspective.

1. The Gospel of Jesus "written in Hebrew/Aramaic by Jesus himself" containing:
   • A description of when Jesus wrote the text and for what purpose.
   • An autobiography of Jesus’s early life including a clear description of his family and verifiable names of who he learned Hebrew, Torah, and Halakha from.
   • A description of why Torath Mosheh Jews should listen to Jesus, his teachings, and his students. I.e. Jesus’s description of how listening to him and reading his gospel, and those of his students, are included in mitzvoth from the Torah.
   • A mitzvah by mitzvah detail of each of the 613 mitzvoth of the Torah and the practical application of each one in in all situations.
   • A dictionary of ancient Hebrew words, weights, and measurements. For example, what is Hashem’s definition of (כזית).
   • A review of Jesus’s Torah scroll that he was required to transcribe in his lifetime and who would be preserving it into the future. This would include his analysis of writing on (גוויל) vs. (קלף).
   • An identification of all the individuals who would be leading his Jewish followers in the future and what texts written about him were accetable.
   • A description of how Jesus got married, the traditions, and how his Jewish followers were to marry and raise their children. (עורך חיים ותלמוד תורה שלו)
   • A detailed description of future Christian movements that would not represent his teachings.
   • Jesus’s description of how the universe/reality works. I.e. Jesus’s teachings on astrobiology, biology, chemistry, physics, thermodynamics, cosmology, history, evolution, etc.
   • Lastly, Jesus’s specific advice for how Torath Mosheh Jews should survive/escape the remainder of the Roman occupation, the Crusades, the Inquisition, the Mamluks, that Nazis, and western assimilation.
2. The Gospels of all 12 of Jesus’s Jewish disciples, written in Hebrew/Aramaic, covering the following topics:
   • Their family history (father’s name and grandfather’s name as well as the tribe they came from) also who they married and the names of their students.
   • The people they learned Torah from before Jesus.
   • The teachings that Jesus taught them on all of the 613 mitzvoth.
   • Their formula for surviving the Roman occupation.
   • A description of how they tie their tzitzith and which tefillin type they used. I.e. (רש"י \ רמב"ם) vs. (רבנו תם).
   • A description of the Torah scroll that Jesus was required to write and also how they made copies of it, as they were required to do by Jewish law.
   • Their commentary on the gospel of Jesus.
   • All of the writings of Paul and Revelations would not be included such a text.

If the NT had been structured, completely and not partially, in the above way then maybe it would be something that Torath Mosheh Jews would consider reading and investigating. YET, because it was not written in the above format Torath Mosheh Jews and Orthodox Jews have a mitzvah from the Torah to ignore it.

Now I know that some Christians will feel like none of this matters and for someone who is not a Torath Mosheh Jew or an Orthodox Jew it may be fine that it doesn't matter for them, YET, it is a requirement for Torath Mosheh Jews and Orthodox Jews to consider such a matter. Essentially, the NT authors and compilers had only one chance to get it right with Torath Mosheh Jews and Orthodox Jews and ....... we all know what the results are.

I hope that helps.

So, unless the NT conforms to what YOU expect of it, it isn't true?
Jacob said there would be a Hebrew nation and it would end with the Messiah, and he
would be believed upon of the Gentiles.
Daniel said the Romans would take away the Temple and Israel, and even the Messiah.
Zechariah said the Jews would mourn when they see their Messiah to be same lowly
man they pierced.

Who do YOU believe Jacob, Zechariah and Daniel to be speaking of?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

oops

 

[Ehav4Ever]

I'm not sure the logic here is correct. How do you know there wasn't a Hebraic/Aramaic TaNaKh?

We know that the location you gave of Beroea neither you nor I can find any historical information about any Jews there. Thus, neither you nor I have any information that proves a) that they knew Hebrew, b) that such a Jewish community even existed, and c) that they even had a Tanakh that they looked.

Even if they did exist they could have easily been considered heretically Chrsitians by the Nicene Counsel like so many Christians were.

The text would obviously be about Yeshua Hamashiach -- why would they search anything else? Paul was preaching from the TaNaKh.

With all due respect that is what you say. Yet, I find it a bit odd that the entire NT was written in Greek and no NT text survives from the time frame in Hebrew. In fact, I find it strange when I offer for Christians to do a Zoom with me where they show me in the Hebrew Tanakh, w/o translation, where their historical and theological claims are supported they utterly refuse.

Concerning Paul preaching from the Tanakh. I don't have proof that Paul knew Hebrew. He certainly did not write anything in Hebrew that survived. If he did it must not have been very important to the early Churches. Also, the Ebionites sure did not beleive that Paul was Teaching for the Tanakh. The Ebionites beleive in Jesus and considered Paul to be a heretic.

Further, on the point of Paul supposidly "preaching from the Tanakh." I don't mean to be disrespectful when I say this but. David Koresh was supposidly preaching from the Tanakh and the NT, Jim Jones was supposidly preaching from the Tanakh and the NT, there is a Sacred Name cult that supposidly teach from the Tanakh and the NT. Are all of these people correctly teaching from the Tanakh and the NT? If not, then that means that preaching from the Tanakh, even theoritically, doesn't mean what you are teaching is accurate. I.e. people start cults all the time and base them on something.

In that as a Pharisee which had a more traditional approach and in that he knew the Hebraic language and studied under Gamaliel, I think he could present it correctly.

I don't see any proof of Paul being a Pharisee or that he learned from anyone named Gamliel. BTW there has been more than one Gamiliel in Jewish history. Paul was supposidly from Tarsus and there is no well known Gamliel from there. And yes I know that some Christians come later and claim that he moved from Tarsus Jerusalem and all that. Yeah, what is the source for that and when did he claim to have done such?

Paul, in his own writings never claimed this. Only the writer of Acts, who was not Paul, makes this claim. Besides, if Paul was a Pharisee he was not much of one since he was willing to do work for the Saducees. Yet, all of these claims about Paul come from the NT and not from any external Jewish sources where Paul is virtually unheard of it.

Hmmmm... no there was no "New Testament" as the complication of these books happened after they were written individually. So the postulate isn't acceptable.

So, that brings up back to the original question. You mentioned the Jews of Beroea. Did they agree with version of the NT that the Church counsels came up with? If so, what is your proof? How do you know the didn't agree with Ebionites or the Marceonites? Again, not your opinion but something that proves the point historically.

You could say that of hundreds of synagogues as they existed throughout the Roman empire since you would be hard pressed to find substantiation.

There is no reason for me to say anything about synagogues that I have no evidence about them. I can simply say that I have evidence that they existed and if they did I don't have evidence as to their beleifs. That is what I can say based on the evidence. Again, I didn't bring them up - you did. If neither of us can find any independant information about them they are not pertinent to the discussion.

There is no reason for someone not to believe there was a Synagogue in Berea. Time has a way from erasing history.

There is also no evidence that they existed and there is no evidence as to their beliefs, AND if there is no evidence that they kept Torah (correctly) or that they were experts in the Torah then there is no reason to bring them up in this type of discussion. They have literally to add to such a discussion, based on the OP, and thus we are debating our own imaginations of theories. If time erased them off the historical map then that tells me that they are not of any interest for a Torath Mosheh Jew or an Orthodox Jew to even consider. There are a loads of Torath Mosheh Jewish communities that existed in the 2nd Temple period that time did not erase. I will go by those groups, just as Hashem commanded me to do.

So, I think we can be drop the so called Jews of Beroea from this discussion and allow time to continue to erase them historically. Agreed?

You are assuming the ceased to exist as Jewish believers in Yeshua. But how do you know they ceased to exist?

I am not assuming anything. You brought them up and I asked you for some details about them. As you found from your research there is nothing there. That is proof enough. If they didn't cease to exist can you point me to some "identifialble" Jews from between 1,500 years to the modern day that descend from Jews of Beroea who beleived in Jesus based off of meeting Paul and reading Hebrew/Aramaic Tanakhs? If not, then that speaks for itself. You also mentioned earlier that they were erased from history by time.

Obviously from the TaNaKh we can see that very often the Jews did not follow the Torah... but they continued to exist. So I don't follow your point.
A lot of "suppositions" IMO

Would you mind giving me the names of Jews/Jewish communities from the time of the Tanakh who didn't keep Torah and whose communities/descendants survived not keeping the Torah from their time to the modern era? I will make it easier for you - from the time of the Tanakh to 1,500 years ago.

Again... I wouldn't follow that logic. There are still Messianic Jews and, as my list showed, many believed after the fact.

The Messianic Movement, by their own admission started in the 1960's. None of them descend from 1st Century Christians. In fact, most Messianics are not even Jewish. I did a paper video and a paper on this topic. Here is the link to the video and attached below is the paper.

https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLXECa6N2EVJVk6DFRCTRtYjeCCwd3kTR-

Were there some that stayed as believers in the Torah Mosheh? Sure.

And the Church Fathers considered those kinds of Christians heretics and those groups of Christians disappeared off the historical map more than 1,700 years ago. In facgt, none of writings survived and they are only known today because of the writings of the Chruch Fathers calling them heretics.

Even in the Jewish faith you have a variety of beliefs and teachings from the Hasidic Jews to the progressive Judaism and everything in between.

Can you show me where the Progressive Jews and the everything in between claim to hold by Torath Mosheh?

Hasidic Jews claim to hold by Torath Mosheh, Orthodox Jews claim to hold by Torath Mosheh, Yemenite Jews claim to hold by Torath Mosheh, Moroccan Jews claim to hold by Torath Mosheh, Sephardic Jews claim to hold by Torath Mosheh, Chabad claims to hold by Torath Mosheh, Ethiopian Jews claim to hold by Torath Mosheh, Mizrahi Jews claim to hold by Torath Mosheh, the Ahharonim-Rishonim-Geonim-Amoraim-Tanaim all claimed to hold by Torath Mosheh AND the Pharisees claimed to hold by Torath Mosheh, the Maccabees claimed to hold by Torath Mosheh, the prophets of the Tanakh claimed to hold by Torath Mosheh, Dawith ben-Yishai and his son Shlomo ben-Dawith claimed to hold by Torath Mosheh, and the generation of Yehoshua bin-Nun claimed to hold by Torath Mosheh. So, as you can see those who hold by Torath Mosheh have a long history of survival and can be identified throughout Jewish history as being Jewish and Torah based.

The following link may help in understanding what that means.

https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLXECa6N2EVJXImK1wGbwAQnGGeVPia6aE

My point is simply that the Gospel of God's Kingdom was preached from the TaNaKh and many had no problem with believing.

And my point is that the Jewish Christians disappeared off the historically map for a reason. It is a pretty powerful sign of what the result of their beleif system was and how shaky their whole system was.

Hashem warned Torath Mosheh Jews to not get involved in groups who can easily be historically erased by time. Not being erased by time is a mitzvah and gift that Hashem gave to Torath Mosheh Jews to take seriously - and as you can see from Torath Mosheh and Orthodox Jews on this site and others we take it seriously.