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

rosends said:

@Clear
You wrote, "Of course the Jewish records were translations from text created in an earlier language.
There is no evidence that National Hebrew existed in the time of Adam or Abraham.
Thus, the version of the Old Testament in hebrew is not the original text, but a translation into Hebrew.
This is the reason for my initial question as to why your texts must be in Hebrew.
It seems very inefficient for the world to learn Hebrew if there is not some great advantage."

Why "of course"?
And what is "national Hebrew" as opposed to proto-Hebraic, or Assyrian?
You are stating as a premise that the text is a translation into Hebrew. Do you have evidence of a prior version in another language? If not, what evidence do you have that it wasn't in Hebrew (or an Assyrian, or other base semitic language's letters)?

Click to expand...

I don't think that you are going to get a clear answer on this from Clear. I think Clear is only presenting this to try and create arguement on my claim that we Torath Mosheh and Orthodox Jews don't accept the NT for logical/valid Torah based reasons. I.e. Clear is grasping at straws to turn the arguement into us defending our stance by engaging him/her in a debate that neither side will really agree on.

It is part of tactic and an arguement that some xians have to say that we Jews have a) corrupted the original Torah, b) we Jews don't really understand the Tanakh, or c) Hashem is done with the Jewish people but we are just to stubburn to realize how blind we are in not accepting Jesus.

Also, I have seen in various forums that when people capalize, bold, underline, and color their comments more than once they are often coming from a (מי נגד מי) frame of mind. I will show you what I mean in a second.

Clear said:

One problem I find with the O.P. is that parts of the O.P. that feel like they are simply claims made in an attempt to claim textual superiority, but avoiding applying the same criticisms to the Jewish production of texts.

Click to expand...

Can you do me a favor. Can you read, translate, and give me the history of the follwing text? Thanks.

Here is another good video from Rabbi Singer.

Ehav4Ever said:

Only if you provide it ONLY in Hebrew w/o English translation and it is provided with the entire chapter it comes from for context. For exmaple, provide it to me from a Torah scroll, like I have provided below, and I will look at it. I.e. take a picture of the Torah scroll you use at home or is used in your "community" and I wil l review everything you provide, given that it is in the format I am requesting. Cheers.

View attachment 48585

Click to expand...

The issue there is I write for readers who work in English, not hardened people who are against the Messiah because they fear retaliation from our Jewish friends and family.

Clear said:

IF ORIGINAL OLD TESTAMENT TEXTS WERE NOT WRITTEN IN HEBREW, WHY THE INSISTENCE TO RELY ON A TRANSLATION IN HEBREW?

@BilliardsBall said : "Would you like three dozen verses and passages as to why Torah is superior to commentary on Torah?" (post #116)
Ehav4Ever said : "Only if you provide it ONLY in Hebrew w/o English translation and it is provided with the entire chapter it comes from for context (post #117)

Hi @Ehav4Ever

Since the earliest source texts for the old testament were not written in national hebrew, but instead were translated into Hebrew, I do not understand why you insist that individuals must give you data in Hebrew. For example, if billiardsball offers you his verses from the LXX which is the older and more original text, why cannot billiardsball offer the verses in a more original language?

I do not see the reason to provide data in untranslated Hebrew except perhaps it is a requirement of your religious tradition?

Can you explain why a translation made into Hebrew has advantage over a more ancient and more original translation made into greek.

Thanks in advance for any insight you can provide on this point.


A second question regarding the O.P. itself. If one applies the principles of "inclusion" or "exclusion' to the Old Testament / Tanakh, that you are applying to the New Testament, what books of the Old Testament can qualify for acceptance?

Perhaps I do not understand your personal principles of why you think one specific text is inspired of God (and therefore sacred) and another is not?

Can you give insight on this question?



Clear
ειφιφυφιω

Click to expand...

Perhaps I can give some insight. They don't want to deal with the Greek of the Septuagint, which predates Jesus by centuries and is utterly FILLED with evidence that Jesus is the Messiah of Israel.

BilliardsBall said:

The issue there is I write for readers who work in English, not hardened people who are against the Messiah because they fear retaliation from our Jewish friends and family.

Click to expand...

So, when you write to "those readers" you are talking about write in English.

If you want to convince me of something present it in Hebrew from a valid source w/o translation. Either that or just have your guy call or SMS when if he decides to show up.

BilliardsBall said:

Perhaps I can give some insight. They don't want to deal with the Greek of the Septuagint, which predates Jesus by centuries and is utterly FILLED with evidence that Jesus is the Messiah of Israel.

Click to expand...

Yes, because it was stuffed to the brim with polemics by later editors, redactors and translators.

BilliardsBall said:

Perhaps I can give some insight. They don't want to deal with the Greek of the Septuagint, which predates Jesus by centuries and is utterly FILLED with evidence that Jesus is the Messiah of Israel.

Click to expand...

"In the 3rd century CE Origen attempted to clear up copyists’ errors that had crept into the text of the Septuagint, which by then varied widely from copy to copy, and a number of other scholars consulted the Hebrew texts in order to make the Septuagint more accurate.

The text of the Septuagint is contained in a few early, but not necessarily reliable, manuscripts. The best known of these are the Codex Vaticanus (B) and the Codex Sinaiticus (S), both dating from the 4th century CE, and the Codex Alexandrinus (A) from the 5th century. There are also numerous earlier papyrus fragments and many later manuscripts. The first printed copy of the Septuagint was in the Complutensian Polyglot (1514–22)."

Septuagint | biblical literature | Britannica

We don't have 'The Septuagint' anymore. It's a purely Christian work now.

Ehav4Ever said:

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.

Click to expand...

Well, I am not so sure you are in line with the Law and the prophets. Moses was told that Israel was to listen to the prophet to come. As for your "mitzvoth" (traditions mostly stemming from the Talmud which are best described as the making of the law into a lie by the scribes by way of Jeremiah 8:8, and further undermined by Ezekiel 34, whereas the shepherds did not feed nor heal the flock, and the fat shepherds will be judged and destroyed and David will be put in their place), all of which remains in the future, as put forth in Ez 36-37 & Zechariah 14. As for your dismissal of the RCC canon of the NT, keep in mind that the RCC was based on the false Trinity doctrine, put initially into place by the Roman king spoken of in Daniel 7:25, who was to endeavor to "make alterations in times and law". All of this in line with the Law and the prophets, such as Hosea 3, who was for many days to take an adulterous for a wife, until Israel returns. Israel has not returned (Hosea 5 & 6). The price paid for the adulterous wife was the equivalence of 30 pieces of silver. As for the "house of Israel"/Ephraim, the lost 10 northern tribes, they remain scattered among the nations (Ez 36), and have not been joined to Judah in the land given to Jacob, under the rulership of David (Ez 37). As for the "Christians", they have chosen the lie of the serpent (Genesis 3), and believe they shall not sleep/die, by way of the false prophet, the Pharisee Paul. The chastening of Jacob, and the destruction of nations (Daniel 2:45) (Jer 30:10-11) remains in the future. Yeshua's message was only to repent of one's sins, which is transgression of the Law, to be baptized in water, and in the Spirit (Ez 36:25-26), and produce good fruit. The Christians have followed the path of the Jews, and have apparently followed the precepts of men who call themselves shepherds, who apparently follow the Pharisee point of view. The end of the age comes with a great earthquake, and the nations falling upon Jerusalem (Zechariah 14) & (Daniel 12). Keep in mind that it is best for the nations to attack Jerusalem while the US has a weak president. Biden is here today and gone tomorrow.

2ndpillar said:

Well, I am not so sure you are in line with the Law and the prophets.

Click to expand...

Since you are not personally sure what we Torath Mosheh Jews and Orthodox Jews are in line with we Torath Mosheh Jews and Orthodox Jews will stick with Hashem and the (מסורת) we received from Mosheh ben-Amram at (מעמד הר סיני). We wouldn't want to stand in your way so - you be happy in your path and we wil take care of this side of things.

Harel13 said:

Yes, because it was stuffed to the brim with polemics by later editors, redactors and translators.

Click to expand...

Don't forget the part where a lot of people on RF who taught the LXX often can't read from it or else they would be quoting Greek left and right.

BilliardsBall said:

The issue there is I write for readers who work in English, not hardened people who are against the Messiah because they fear retaliation from our Jewish friends and family.

Click to expand...

Also, so now I know that when you write things in English they are not directed at me and instead for others/the readers. So, I should ignore everything you write in English, right?

Hi @rosends


THE INSISTENCE FOR HEBREW IN AN ENGLISH FORUM

We arrived to this point because I asked a question to Ehav4ever.

@BilliardsBall offered to show Ehav4ever why Torah was superior to commentary on Torah (post #116).
However,
@Ehav4Ever insisted Billiardsball must give the data “in Hebrew” without an “English translation…” (post #117)

It is irrational to limit critical data to Hebrew in an english speaking forum so as to exclude readers from understanding data critical to one’s position. It is simply silly to demand that others respond in Hebrew in an english language forum or to reject information because it is not in a foreign language of choice.



NATIONAL HEBREW IS NOT THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGE OF ADAM

I asked why the quotes from Torah had to be in Hebrew because the earliest Patriarchs such as Adam, Abraham, Moses, did not speak or write in the national Hebrew language (i.e. the language Ehav4ever is quoting and the language of the Masoretic).

Any original oral histories from Adam, Abraham and Moses (etc) would have originated in the language Adam, Abraham and Moses spoke and wrote, rather than Hebrew. When the oral stories progressed to the written stage, they would have been written in the language available to and used by the original writers.

If we are to assume the story of Babel is correct, then all written stories would have been written in the original language and then translated into the various subsequent languages. Unless Hebrew was the original language, then it is one of the languages the earlier stories would have been translated into.

Ehav4ever responded : “They are not translations of any text but instead they are texts that were copied from older (ספרי תורה) in the possesion of (שבטים - שופטים - ונשאים) of Am Yisrael and because they were written on (גוויל) they can normally last several hundred years in the right conditions - just like the Dead Sea did. (post #122)

However, the claim that “they are not translations” is simply a statement of tradition that is unsupportable by fact. We have no evidence that biblical Hebrew existed during the time periods when the earliest traditions first happened nor in the earliest stages when these traditions progressed from oral transmission to written texts originated.



INACCURATE AND INCOMPLETE TRANSMISSION OF TEXT IN THE MASORETIC VERSION

And while Ehav4ever said the medium which books are written on (papyri, vellum, etc) can last for several hundred years, this is irrelevant since the dead sea scrolls demonstrate that the Masoretic version has major glosses in data in certain books and transmission is imperfect and the Masoretic is not the original text in many cases as the Masoretes (the creators of this bible) tell us.

There are multiple inaccuracies in much of what Ehav4ever has presented.

For example, insisting that one must offer data in Hebrew on an English speaking forum begs the question as to why one should pick a relatively modern Jewish Hebrew version produced in the middle ages versus an older Greek Jewish version produced in approx. 300 b.c.


I asked Ehav4ever : “Can you explain why a translation made into Hebrew has advantage over a more ancient and more original translation made into greek." (The fact that the Jewish Greek version is older and a translation, it may provide insights not found in a later Hebrew translation.)

Ehave4ever replied : “Because the Greek LXX that is used by Christians is the product of Christians and not Torath Mosheh Jews.” (post #122)

This is a very strange claim since it assumes this version of the Old Testament was produced by Christians almost 300 years before Jesus was born.
It is another irrational claim.




WHAT HAPPENS IF THE O.P. APPLIES IT’S CRITICISMS TO IT’S OWN TEXTS

I also asked regarding the O.P. and it’s fairness.

The O.P. is applied in a “one-sided” manner to Christian revelations and texts.

However, these criticisms can also be applied to Jewish revelations and texts regarding how those in power controlled and determined what information would be available and included and what would be suppressed and excluded.

My example was the Jewish rabbinic prohibition against any inquiry or discussion regarding texts and traditions and discussion regarding what happened before creation (Technically before the Beyt in the first line in Genesis).

A second question regarding the O.P. itself :
If one applies the principles of "inclusion" or "exclusion' to the Old Testament / Tanakh, that you are applying to the New Testament?





Rosends asked : “And what is "national Hebrew" as opposed to proto-Hebraic, or Assyrian?”


Hi Rosends

THE TERM "NATIONAL HEBREW"
I am simply using the term “National” Hebrew to describe the written language the Masoretes used when they created their version of the Bible that became the bible of orthodox Judaism as opposed to the various earlier versions of the Hebrew bible.

By earlier versions I mean versions of the text represented by eastern vs western schools, versions prior to matris lectiones and non-pointed versions; versions such as the supralinear punctuated versions, and versions before sopherim and Masoretes edited the text when they created the Masoretic version of the Tanakh.


REGARDING THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN LANGUAGES
As to your question regarding Hebrew versus the Assyrian language.

I do not speak Assyrian and cannot speak to all of the differences between languages, however the Assyrian Orem Frien says “The ancient Assyrian language is related to Hebrew in a distant sense, much the same way as Russian and English are both Indo-European languages. However they are not close enough to have a normal conversation. “

He says that “As an Assyrian I can recognize some modern Hebrew words, but I have never tried to have a conversation with an Israeli in Hebrew. “

He explains that the languages are close enough that “we may still be able to communicate somewhat” but he says he will still need to communicate in another common language if they are not going to use a translator.

The point is that they are different languages despite similarities. In the same way, early Canaanite language (of which Hebrew is one) are related, but are considered different languages.

I assumed the claims regarding Hebrew being the original language is simply an attempt to find some point of superiority and the data becomes mixed and tainted when one tries to skew the data to support the claim that Hebrew was the language of Adam or of the early written Jewish traditions of Abraham, etc.

In any case, I hope it makes sense that the issue of whether Hebrew is the UR language of the earliest patriarchs such as Adam or Abraham.

I hope your own journey is wonderful @rosends

Clear
ειακτζτωω

Clear said:

Hi Rosends

THE TERM "NATIONAL HEBREW"
I am simply using the term “National” Hebrew to describe the written language the Masoretes used when they created their version of the Bible that became the bible of orthodox Judaism as opposed to the various earlier versions of the Hebrew bible.

Click to expand...

Do youhave earlier versions to demonstrate differences?

Clear said:

By earlier versions I mean versions of the text represented by eastern vs western schools, versions prior to matris lectiones and non-pointed versions; versions such as the supralinear punctuated versions, and versions before sopherim and Masoretes edited the text when they created the Masoretic version of the Tanakh.

Click to expand...

And you have these to discuss?
The talmud records a discussion about what language the text was given in but this relates to the written version, that is, the letter forms used to convey the words, so the possibility of Assyrian is a matter of spellings and the shape of letters, not the language use per se.

Which alphabet were the original Torah scrolls in?

I defer to the scholars who were 2000 years closer and who understood the scripts and their relationship more closely than I, or a modern day speaker of any language. If we have no record of text written in other languages, then the "common sense deduction" that the text must have been given in anotehr language is simply an empty assertion with no more support for it than any other.

Ehav4Ever said:

... I went around asking Christian and non-Christian scholars what happened to the original Jewish Christians and everyone agreed they were off the historical map around 2 generations after they started....

Click to expand...

I would like to know how they know that.

Ehav4Ever said:

... Because Hashem warned Torath Mosheh Jews, in the Torah, that those who don't keep the Torah correctly will disappear - it is one of the ways we know what is false doctrine. If you look at my video about Messianics I cover this issue. Also, in the link I provided earlier I addressed this in detail.

Click to expand...

All people that lived before year 1800 have disappeared, by what I know, so, none of them kept Torah correctly?

Clear asked : “IF ORIGINAL OLD TESTAMENT TEXTS WERE NOT WRITTEN IN HEBREW, WHY THE INSISTENCE TO RELY ON A TRANSLATION IN HEBREW?”

@BilliardsBall said : “They don't want to deal with the Greek of the Septuagint, which predates Jesus by centuries and is utterly FILLED with evidence that Jesus is the Messiah of Israel.”

@Harel13 replied to Billiardsball saying : “Yes, because it was stuffed to the brim with polemics by later editors, redactors and translators.



Hi Billiardsball;

My tentative view is that we all (myself included) view religious data through our own personal biases and both see and want to see things that confirm our bias and that disprove any conflicting viewpoints. This is the way I see the O.P. and some of the comments (both by Christians and by Jews and by all other religionists – by all of us)


While I am comfortable with differing views on religion, I am uncomfortable with the presentation of data that represents a criticism of the views of another religion but which one’s own religious views cannot survive. For example, the criticisms which the O.P. applied to the Christian texts can be applied to the Jewish texts as well. (but the O.P. avoids this fairness).

As another example, Harel13 criticises the Jewish Septuagint as affected by editors, redactors and translators while it is well knowns that the Jewish Masoretic was also affected by editors, redactors and translators.

The Masoretes who created the Masoretic Bible themselves left an enormous amount of descriptive material which tells us that they changed the biblical text and describes their motives for doing so (which motives were not evil).

The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls was both illuminating and uncomfortable for Jews (and uncomfortable to Christians for different reasons) because they demonstrate in specific cases the redactions and losses to the Masoretic text which itself has become corrupted.

This is not to say the Septuagint is superior, (because it also may have a presumably similar number of corruptions), but I am saying that the claim that the Masoretic is somehow superior to the earlier versions, or that it represents the version of Text that existed from the beginning, or that it is in the language of Adam, are claims that are meant to reassure those who believe such claims but that they are incoherent historically and are not credible.

I think that BOTH the various Christians AND the various modern religious that call themselves Judaism should still be very grateful for the texts that they have.



Clear

EARLIER SOURCE TEXTS THE MASORETES USED TO CREATE THE MASORETIC BIBLE
Clear said : "I am simply using the term “National” Hebrew to describe the written language the Masoretes used when they created their version of the Bible that became the bible of orthodox Judaism as opposed to the various earlier versions of the Hebrew bible."
rosends asked : "Do youhave earlier versions to demonstrate differences?" (post #154)

Yes.

The dead sea scrolls have examples of stark differences in text and show glosses in the Masoretic.
The Masoretes, who created the Jewish Masoretic bible themselves describe differences in the Masorah.



THE THEORY THAT ANCIENT ASSYRIAN IS THE SAME LANGUAGE AS NATIONAL HEBREW OF THE MASORETIC BIBLE
rosends says : “…so the possibility of Assyrian is a matter of spellings and the shape of letters, not the language use per se….”

rosends, Can you demonstrate this claim in any comparison of ancient Assyrian biblical text as compared to a Hebrew text or that the two were the same language or why they are viewed as different languages by linguists?



THERE WERE MANY ANCIENT WRITTEN LANGUAGES
rosends said : "If we have no record of text written in other languages,...."

But we DO have texts written in other languages.

For example :
There is a great deal of Egyptian text, Sumerian texts, Akkadian epics (enuma elish), old Phoenician cuneiform, Gilgamesh (the epic about the flood), etc.
It is precisely because the epic of Gilgamesh was older than the Jewish version of the flood story that some historians claim the Jews took their later version from the older Gilgamesh version of the story of Noah and the Flood.


rosends, I am not saying that national hebrew is not old, nor am I trying to disparage hebrew, nor am I saying that there is no advantage to learning a biblical language such as Hebrew or Greek or Aramaic. I am saying we have no evidence that National Hebrew of the Masoretic bible is the same language spoken by Adam or Abraham or Moses who lived in a time and place when National Hebrew did not exist historically. IF, we have no evidence that national Hebrew existed anciently, then the earliest oral traditions that were written down and ultimately became source material for the Old Testament / Tanakh were written in another language than national Hebrew.



Clear
ειακσεδρω.

1213 said:

I would like to know how they know that.

Click to expand...

A process of convergence of facts is used. You basically look for first hand information from the community in question. For example, you look for settlements, documents, and families that identify them as being a) Jewish and b) beleivers is Jesus. The New Testament, in Acts, makes the claim that there were thousands of Jewish Christians at a certain point so you take that and check to see if when you pull out a map you have that.

If you find that there is little to no information at one period in history, and then in another you find that there are no settlements, no documents, and no families that a) indentify themselves as Jews and b) identify themselves as being Jewish you take that into account.

Next, you look for 2nd hand sources from those outside of those communities. If the same process exists, i.e. at one time the the group in question is documented by outside sources but then over time the outside sources go silent about said group then that is the next step.

Lastly, IF such a group was existing, growing, and thriving you would expect them to exist throughout all of Christian history, unbroken, and even existing today. For example, the NT claims that Peter and few others had families. Well, the obvious question is what happened to them? Did they continue in Peter's path, did they become the 2nd generation of leadership? Where are Peter's descendents now?

It is no different than saying, how do you know that the Jonestown group or the Branch Davidians no longer exist as Christian sects? The way you know is if you look around and don't see any signs of them. The same process.

1213 said:

All people that lived before year 1800 have disappeared, by what I know, so, none of them kept Torah correctly?

Click to expand...

Not us Torath Mosheh Jews (and BTW there are a number of people in various parts of the non-Western world who have existed prior to 1800 years ago and still exist today).

We Torath Mosheh Jews experienced two major exiles, numerous invasions, and numerous progroms and masscres and we are still here. The Jewish languae of thousands of years ago is in use by Torath Mosheh and Orthodox Jews today. DNA testing also shows that even the most far-flung Jewish communities have members that share a common ancestry from about 2,000 to 2,500 years ago. Around the time of the two major exiles.

See the following two videos below.

1213 said:

All people that lived before year 1800 have disappeared, by what I know, so, none of them kept Torah correctly?

Click to expand...

This may also help.

Yemenite Jews - Wikipedia

Habbani Jews

Adeni Jews

History of the Jews in Iraq

History of Jews in Syria - Wikipedia

Ehav4ever : “... I went around asking Christian and non-Christian scholars what happened to the original Jewish Christians and everyone agreed they were off the historical map around 2 generations after they started....”

1213 stated : “I would like to know how they know that.” (post #155)


Hi @1213


While Ehav4ever is correct that the “original” Jewish Christians obviously died, still, the Jewish movement which called itself “Christianity” became very, very popular as a world religion.


MODERN "JUDAISM" IS NOT THE SAME RELIGION AS ANCIENT "JUDAISM"

I might as well point out that the religion that was Judaism anciently, no longer exists.

The early religion called “Judaism” had prophets, the modern religions calling themselves Judaism name do not have prophets.

The early religion called “Judaism” created scriptures through revelation. The modern religions that call themselves “Judaism” do not produce scripture by revelation.

The early religion called “Judaism” practiced a temple service with an actual temple. The modern religions calling themselves “Judaism” do not have a temple service.

The early religion called “Judaism” had a fully functioning priesthood that officiated in ordinances including temple service. The modern religions that call themselves “Judaism” do not have a fully functioning priesthood in the same manner, but instead are lead, for the most part, by rabbis who are not fully functioning priests.


One could go on comparing the original Judaism with modern religions that call themselves Judaism, but the point is the modern Jews are not of the same religion as ancient Jews despite having the same name.

I hope your own spiritual journey is wonderful 1213

Clear
ειακσεδρω