Why Torah based Jews would be unconvinced

[Ehav4Ever]

You mean the church fathers?

Not just them. In Europe there were situations where Jews were forced into disputations with Christian priests.

You may have seen it already but this is one of the most famous ones.

 

[Harel13]

and legal stuff,

Did Jesus ever suggest his own legal system? Or was he vague about how justice should work?

 

[firedragon]

Not just them. In Europe there were situations where Jews were forced in disputations with Christian priests.

You may have seen it already but is one of the most famous ones.

Okay okay. I understand. Thanks.

 

[PruePhillip]

Did Jesus ever suggest his own legal system? Or was he vague about how justice should work?

In the bible there are the Ordinances (dietary rules, Tabernacle, Holy days etc.), the Judgments (property,
inheritance, divorce etc.) and the Commandments (the moral law regards stealing, killing etc.) Jesus
preached only the Commandments and made them more onerous. As Jeremiah put it, the new covenant
would be written in the heart, not in rules or symbols.

Thus there is "no law" in the NT, but over a thousand moral exhortations to obey. Half of every saying of
Jesus and half of every verse of Paul's speak to these requirements. Both men stated the Levitical and
Deuteronomical commandments were not enough in themselves to be in Moses' "book of life."

This was about CHARACTER, against which the law had nothing to say, according to Paul.

 

[Harel13]

Thus there is "no law" in the NT, but over a thousand moral exhortations to obey

Is this enough to set up a fully-functional legal system?

 

[Harel13]

Below are the names transliterated into English. In any place where some of the name is not clear to me I put (?). So, this is the family tree of (ישועה בן אברון) Yeshuah ben-Aharon from the year 1503 in Yemen. When I get some free time I will have to pull out Divrei HaYamim and compare.

Yeshuah ben-Aharon ben-Amram ben-Yoseph ben-Amram ben-Orer ben-Amram ben-Sa’adyah ben-Avigar ben-Shalom ben-Orer ben-Zecharyah ben-Ya’aqov ben-Yoseph ben-Shemaryah ben-El’ansi ben-Yoseph ben-Qatzs(?)I ben-Ya’aqov ben-Maimon ben-Yepheth ben-Yeshayah ben-Yepheth ben-Mosheh ben-Avigar ben-Ya’aqov ben-Eli ben-Payas ben-Yair ben-Yehhezqel ben-Mahran ben-Ezra ben-Daniel ben-Yehonatan ben-Elishuv ben-Qarmiel ben-Michah ben-Yirmeyah ben-Am(?)rav ben-Zarahh ben-Itan ben-Ha(?) ben-Azaryah ben-Yerahhmiel ben-Kaqlun ben-Aminadav ben-Nahhshon ben-Shlomo ben-Boaz ben-Oved ben-Eliav ben-Avinadav ben-Yoav ben-Tishal ben-Yathal ben-Shuv ben-Arnon ben-Ephrath ben-Hhur ben-Uri ben-Betzael ben-Shaguv ben-Yair ben-Machir ben-Kam ben-Yamin ben-Sasson ben Shamai ben-Amnon ben-Daniel ben-Shaphtyah ben- ben-Natan ben-Amiel ben-Rahhavam ben-Yehoyahhim ben-Yechanyah ben-Shaaletel ben-Shaphat ben-Qanas(?) ben-Atheniel ben-Tzadoq ben-Pinhhas ben-Ashriel ben-Awuthi ben-Amihud Aminadav ben-Amri ben beni-Man beni-Peretz ben-Yehudah ben-Ya’aqov​

Thank you for the effort. I went and found the relevant section from Nachum's book on Otzar Hachochmah:

 

[Ehav4Ever]

Thus there is "no law" in the NT, but over a thousand moral exhortations to obey.

So, what is the New Testament definition of the difference between a "Law" and a "Moral Exhortatation to Obey?" Can Christians pick and choose how if they do a "Moral Exhortatation?" Can they pick and choose how they interpret it and do it? Where in the NT is the term Moral Exhortatation even stated and defined?

Also, doesn't what you are stating contradict what the author of Matthew 5:19 wrote Jesus said? The Church Father John Chrysostom claimed the Jesus was making new "laws." , he Church Father John Chrysostom stated: "He speaks not this of the old laws, but of those which He was now going to enact, of which he says, the least, though they were all great. For as He so oft spoke humbly of Himself, so does He now speak humbly of His precepts."

 

[Redemptionsong]

@Redemptionsong ,

The problem with the new covenant offered by Jesus in the NT is that the commodity ( salvation ) is misrepresented. Jesus said that he is the way ( singular) John 14:6. But Moses said there are multiple ways ( plural ) Deuteronomy 5:33. Because of this, the contract is null and void.

The 'ways' spoken of in Deuteronomy 5:33 are the 'statutes and judgments' of Deuteronomy 5:1. These are plural, for the law consists of many (613).

The 'way' of Jesus is the way of truth and life. It's the fulfilment of all that is contained in the law!

 

[PruePhillip]

So, what is the New Testament definition of the difference between a "Law" and a "Moral Exhortatation to Obey?" Can Christians pick and choose how if they do a "Moral Exhortatation?" Can they pick and choose how they interpret it and do it? Where in the NT is the term Moral Exhortatation even stated and defined?

Also, doesn't what you are stating contradict what the author of Matthew 5:19 wrote Jesus said? The Church Father John Chrysostom claimed the Jesus was making new "laws." , he Church Father John Chrysostom stated: "He speaks not this of the old laws, but of those which He was now going to enact, of which he says, the least, though they were all great. For as He so oft spoke humbly of Himself, so does He now speak humbly of His precepts."

I don't recognize any 'church father' outside the New Testament. This Chrysostom
led a mob to destroy one of the seven wonders of the ancient world. He was a
Catholic, and Catholics made their own rules - turning their version of Christianity
into a Christian Old Testament, complete with priests, altar, temples, wealth, temporal
power, pomp, ceremony and the like. Worse than Pharisees.

 

[PruePhillip]

Is this enough to set up a fully-functional legal system?

It could, and in some ways, actually did. But Christianity of the New Testament
claimed no right to political, judicial or economic power. In fact these powers
were rejected - fine for the world but not for Christians.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

I don't recognize any 'church father' outside the New Testament.

But weren't the Church Fathers who were outside of the New Testament the ones who codified the New Testament and the content that is in in modern times? Are you a part of a branch of Christianity that predates the Catholic Church? If so, what type of Church is it that you attend or what type Christianity do you practice?

Catholics made their own rules - turning their version of Christianity into a Christian Old Testament, complete with priests, altar, temples, wealth, temporal power, pomp, ceremony and the like. Worse than Pharisees.

Wow. So, in your view the Catholics were worse than the Pharisees? Aren't Catholic practices pretty much in line with what Paul taught? Are Catholic practices pretty much the oldest of modern Christianity?

Do you consider the Catholics void of the Christian concept of Salvation or do you just consider them to be misled? Are there any other types of Christians who are in line with what you consider to be correct Christianity?

Are you a type of Ebionite? You mentioed that you are part Jewish, are you saying that the Jewish part of you comes from the Ebionites?

 

[Link]

In that case any conclusion I personally come to about the text of the Quran is correct; including translations I make for myself.

Okay, so the same rules of thermodynamics, alchemy, and bread making that has allowed you to be an expert in the Hebrew Tanakh when you don't know Hebrew have allowed me to be an expert in the Arabic Quran even though I don't know Arabic.

Thus, in conclusion the Arabic Quran supports everything I wrote in this thread before this point, including the language issues mentioned before.

No there are somethings you need to know check various meanings of words and disputes among Muslims about them, but you don't need to know Arabic to know Quran emphasizes on God's chosen sent ones. This cannot be hidden in any translation.

 

[Link]

By the way, the Ansar were almost all Jews that also believed in Isa. They were Jews in the sense they still kept to the commands and were not trinitarians so didn't go by the term Christian. Historically they were known as Jews, but they also called themselves helpers of Isa, and it was these who welcomed Mohammad (s) and his followers, and the only reason why Mecca was not destroyed.

Also the regions of Jews like in Yemen and other places, all came to Islam freely. There were only a minority of Jews who didn't believe in the region at the end.

There is also Ibn Kathir recording all the Jews of the region at a certain time became Shiites because they believed the Twelve Princes from offspring of Ismail referred to Twelve Imams.

So while you say "no Jew will convert", historically, Islam was founded on support of messianic Jews who were awaiting Mohammad (s) because they saw him the Torah and Gospels.

And later on many Jews (messianic or otherwise) converted especially when they heard of Twelve Imams (a) per Ibn Kathir.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

No there are somethings you need to know check various meanings of words and disputes among Muslims about them, but you don't need to know Arabic to know Quran emphasizes on God's chosen sent ones. This cannot be hidden in any translation.

No, no, no. I get to decide for myself what the meanings of words in the Quran are, when those meanings apply and when they don't. I also get to decide who is right or wrong in any dispute. I can also use non-Muslim views to come to conclusions which differ than standard Muslims. That is to say using your method I literally ignore any established Muslim authority and claim that the views I pick and choose trumps theirs because I see the trees from the forest better than they did and do.

That is what you were claiming before. Now you are claiming that I can't understand the Quran w/o Muslim Arabic scholarship. Well that literally contradicts what you wrote earlier.

Also, you state, "No there are somethings you need to know check various meanings of words and disputes among Muslims about them" did you did that with the Tanakh. If I throw a number of words from the Tanakh at you that you can't google would you be able to understand them? Also, how good is your Samaritan? Using your method can you tell what the following means?

 

[Link]

But I get to decide for myself what the meanings of words are, when those meanings and when they don't. I also get to decide who is right or wrong in any dispute. I can also use non-Muslim views to come to conclusions which differ than standard Muslims. That is to say using your method I literally ignore any established Muslim authority and claim that views trumps there because I see the trees from the forest better than they do. Now you are claiming that I can't understand the Quran w/o Muslim Arabic scholarship. Well that literally contradicts what you wrote earlier.

Also, you state, "No there are somethings you need to know check various meanings of words and disputes among Muslims about them" did you did that with the Tanakh. If I throw a number of words from the Tanakh at you that you can't google would you be able to understand them? Also, how good is your Samaritan? Using your method can you tell what the following means?

View attachment 57248

If you want to strawman what I'm saying go ahead. None of the translations can hide chosen ones such as Abraham, Elijah, Moses, etc, are emphasized in the Torah and Tanakh to be special servants of God and chosen by him.

 

[Link]

I'm saying there are somethings you can know are for sure in the Quran whether you know Arabic or not. Then there are nuances. For example, to know Mohammad (s) is the Final Nabi, you have to consult Arabic experts and see what the verse is saying in this regard.

To know God emphasizes on oneness of himself you don't need to know Arabic, it's there all over.

I hope you can tell the difference.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

The Quran does the same as the Bible here. It emphasizes on one path and multiple paths. There is the straight path which is to follow God through his chosen leader of the time and light of the world, and then are many instances of that path through out time.

Here is a big difference. I have yet to read a Hebrew Tanakh that states anything like the above. But again, I am sure if I read a translation of your book I would probably come to a different conclusion about it than what you have.

 

[Link]

Here is a big difference. I have yet to read a Hebrew Tanakh that states anything like the above. But again, I am sure if I read a translation of your book I would probably come to a different conclusion about it than what you have.

I've read and see that to be the main message in the Bible. Christians replace Jesus and his predecessors authority by the Church while Simon was only partial authority and Elyas/Elijah held the position of the Witness and Guide on earth till Mohammad (s). You guys do it by your religious scholars. And Muslims do it by their scholars.

In my view, they all missed the main emphasis, which is to rely on God's guidance, rope and that he will provide chosen ones to hold on to so to not make us rely on people not appointed by him.

Those provided/set by God as leaders are the go to go people to replace Moses and his successors or Abraham and his successors, not regular Joes or any clergy including Muslim scholars.

In my view, all holy books are clear, that chosen ones are always somewhere on earth, and we can pray to God that he guides by their hands and be shown signs by their hands so we attain certainty.

He didn't emphasize on miracles, guides, etc, for it all to go away.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

If you want to strawman what I'm saying go ahead. None of the translations can hide chosen ones such as Abraham, Elijah, Moses, etc, are emphasized in the Torah and Tanakh to be special servants of God and chosen by him.

Not a strawman. It is the exact claim you made previously. Now you are saying that in order to understand the Quran correctly I have to "know check various meanings of words and disputes among Muslims about them." Based on your earlier claims I should be able to pick up the Quran in Hebrew, ignore all Islamic authories, and go by non-Muslim scholarship. I have done that before and here I am.

If I don't need to know Arabic then Arabic scholars don't need to know it either. We can all just rely on the English translations made by anyone w/o going by authentic Quranic scholars, who obviously learned Arabic to be considered authorities.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

I've read and see that to be the main message in the Bible.

Right, you read a "bible." That is not a Hebrew Tanakh. Big differences between them. Now I understand where you are coming from better. We are definately not reading the same thing.