• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

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

Ehav4Ever

Well-Known Member
No, your response wasn't very friendly. You basically said that you don't need to answer because Jews know what it means (even though this thread isn't directed towards Jews and you use the term in the title) and because other people use terms you don't know the meaning of. Whatever. I really don't care anymore. Google didn't help either. So it's some obscure term that some Jews like to use but don't want anyone else to know the meaning of, I guess. Have fun with that.

Greetings,

So, if you had just said, "What is Torath Mosheh" then I would have simply written:

"Torath Mosheh (תורת משה) is - All ancient, authoritative, and authentic historical texts, concepts, judicial rulings, practice, and traditions that trace directly back to the singularity of the giving of the Torah at Mount Sinai, as it was transmitted from Hashem to Mosheh ben-Amram and all of Am Yisrael, and has been preserved by their descendants who are from the most ancient communities of Mizrahi, Teimani, Sepahrdic, Maghrebi, and Ashkanazi Jews."

If that wasn't clear I would have provided you with additional information, which in the past, has helped Athiest, Buddhists, and various Christians on RF completely understand what is already known in the Torah based Jewish world.

BUT your second statement of your first comment of "I don't see the point of using obscure terms in an interfaith discussion when you can use terms more readily understood by all." makes it appear that you were not really asking a question and it wasn't very friendly sounding.

Also, this thread is in "Scriptural Debates" and not in "Interfaith Discussion." I don't personally create threads there.

So, if your original post was only the question of "What is Torath Mosheh?" and not the second statement then what I wrote above in this post is the answer. Do you desire more information about Torath Mosheh? If so, a good start is the following link below.

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

Regards,
 

Clear

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Hi @1213

Ehav4Ever said : "...as Clear even pointed out. I.e. by the time of the Nicene Counsel there was no indeitifiably Jewish Christian sect. If they did exist who were they and where were they?
I.e. Jews became Christians in the 1st cent. and by about the 2nd to 3rd century the are no longer identifiable as Jewish and Christian - at the same time
."

1213, I simply wanted to make a comment regarding Ehav4ever's mischaracterization of my statement. He quotes me and then adds to my statement..

I said the original Jews that accepted the Messiah, such as the apostles, are dead. I did not say their descendants were dead. The original rabbinic Jews who lived at that time are dead as well.

The Judaism that accepted the Messiah became known as "Christianity".
I do not think Jesus came to start a new religion, but to repair and restore an earlier, corrupted, religion.

Thus, the Judaism that we call Christianity, is very much alive.

My actual statements are :
Clear said : "Ehav4ever is correct that the “original” Jewish Christians obviously died,..."
Ehav4ever responded : "That is enough reason for Torath Mosheh Jews and Orthodox Jews to leave the Christianity for others to do."
I pointed out this conclusion is irrational and said : "The fact that all ancient Jews are dead and all of the ancient Christians are dead is does not mean someone should either remain with or exit from any specific religion. My point to 1213 is that the ancient Torath Mosheh Judaism does not exist nowadays, but is replaced by different movement that may call themselves by the same name. The ancient Judaism is gone and replaced by a different religion.

This is what I mean when pointing 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.

The point I was trying to make to 1213 is that the modern Jews are not of the same religion as ancient Jews despite having the same name even despite viewing themselves as the same religion or even despite claiming they are the same religion.



rosends responded : I find these comparisons troubling as they bespeak a lack of understanding about what "Judaism" is. As a complex cultural and religious system, it is an evolving set of understandings and obligations driven by an underlying code. Take your first statement, that modern Judaism must be a different religion because of a lack of prophets. But Judaism taught about the end of the prophet system as part of Judaism. So to claim difference by virtue of a characteristic which is inherent IN the system is flawed.

Hi rosends

I think this is a very interesting observation you are making. Can you clarify it a bit more.

For example : Are you claiming that Israel knew they would no longer have prophets and no longer receive prophetic revelation after the last prophet in the Old Testament died?

When the christian Justin Martyr and the Jew Trypho had their debate (approx 155 a.d.), the Jew trypho had pointed out that the prophets had been found among the Jews and this was a sign of Gods favor.

In response Justin Martyr pointed out that God had taken the prophetic gifts away from the Jews (i.e. rabbinic Judaism) and gave those prophetic, revelatory gifts to the Christians (i.e. Messianic Judaism) as a sign his favor had been bestowed upon those who had accepted the Messiah.

If I understand you correctly, you seem to be saying that the later Rabbinic Jews see the loss of prophetic revelation in a different light rather than as a punishment or sign of disfavor.
Is this correct or do I misunderstand?

Can you explain and clarify further, this point you are making that the loss of Prophet gifts and revelation among the Jews means that even despite the loss of this profound Characteristic among rabbinic Judaism, that the later rabbinic Judaism has the same characteristics as ancient Judaism that had prophetic gifts?



rosends said : "The same is true for the notion of "revelation" creating scripture. If the religion has built in the end of "revelation" in that biblical sense, then the lack of such new texts is in line with the established parameters of the religion."

As with the loss of prophetic gifts and the claim that a religion that has no prophets is the same as one with prophets who speak for God, I am not sure I understand how knowing your religion will no longer be able to receive revelation and produce scripture means that your religion that can no longer receive prophetic revelation and can no longer produce scripture is still the same as a religion that DOES receive on-going prophetic revelation and DOES produce on-going scripture.

Can you clarify more on these two points before we move to the other points you made in that same post?

Clear
τωφυτωακω
 
Last edited:

Ehav4Ever

Well-Known Member
For anyone who is interested in the topic of the research I did into what happened to the original "Jewish" Christians, I once asked this question to a missionary organization called Jews 4 Jesus and this is the response they gave me. (Note: everywhere you see Guest that is me.)

upload_2021-3-20_21-59-44.png

upload_2021-3-20_22-0-22.png
 
Last edited:

Ehav4Ever

Well-Known Member
I would like to know how they know that.
All people that lived before year 1800 have disappeared, by what I know, so, none of them kept Torah correctly?

I have been doing some more research in this area and found this article. It may help a bit if you can get access to it.

upload_2021-3-20_22-20-28.png
 

Ehav4Ever

Well-Known Member
Again, on the issue of what happened to the original "Jewish Christians" I found the following interesting.

Did the Twelve Disciples have Children?
Did the Twelve Disciples have Children? - The Bible Answer

"Did any of the twelve disciples have children?
The Bible makes no reference to the twelve disciples having children. Even so, it is very possible that at least some of twelve apostles did have kids. We know from Scripture that the Apostle Peter was married because he had a mother-in-law (Mathew 8:14). Most likely a few of the other disciples were married as well based on (1 Corinthians 9:5). The likelihood that some of the disciples were married but none of them had children are pretty slim.

Peter’s Daughter Petronilla?
Although not found in the Bible, traditionally it is said Peter possibly had a daughter named Petronilla. She is sometimes referred to as Saint Petronilla. Other traditions say she was simply a convert of the disciple, and therefore referred to as a “spiritual daughter” of Peters, not a biological child of his.

There is a wide range of stories based on tradition when it comes to Petronilla. Some say that she was so beautiful that Peter locked her up in a tower to keep her from eligible men. Others say she died a Christian martyr.

Although we can’t say for certain any of these twelve men who followed Jesus had children, if they did, what an honor it would have been to have an apostle for a dad!"
 

Saint Frankenstein

Wanderer From Afar
Premium Member
Greetings,

So, if you had just said, "What is Torath Mosheh" then I would have simply written:

"Torath Mosheh (תורת משה) is - All ancient, authoritative, and authentic historical texts, concepts, judicial rulings, practice, and traditions that trace directly back to the singularity of the giving of the Torah at Mount Sinai, as it was transmitted from Hashem to Mosheh ben-Amram and all of Am Yisrael, and has been preserved by their descendants who are from the most ancient communities of Mizrahi, Teimani, Sepahrdic, Maghrebi, and Ashkanazi Jews."

If that wasn't clear I would have provided you with additional information, which in the past, has helped Athiest, Buddhists, and various Christians on RF completely understand what is already known in the Torah based Jewish world.

BUT your second statement of your first comment of "I don't see the point of using obscure terms in an interfaith discussion when you can use terms more readily understood by all." makes it appear that you were not really asking a question and it wasn't very friendly sounding.

Also, this thread is in "Scriptural Debates" and not in "Interfaith Discussion." I don't personally create threads there.

So, if your original post was only the question of "What is Torath Mosheh?" and not the second statement then what I wrote above in this post is the answer. Do you desire more information about Torath Mosheh? If so, a good start is the following link below.

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

Regards,
And Hellenic polytheism is just Greek polytheism. Greeks don't call Greece "Greece", just as Germans don't call Germany "Germany". Greeks call Greece Hellas and their culture is Hellenic.
 

rosends

Well-Known Member
However, the application of this observation can apply to the Masoretic as well.
Because of the errors and glosses and losses in the Jewish Masoretic, I think It is probable that the much older Dead Sea Scroll version of the Old Testament / Tanakh represents the more original and correct version and the Masoretic source texts were written by a branch sect.
I can understand that you and others might think this. I happen to think that the DSS were secreted away as they were variant or incorrect texts and I wouldn't use them to show that any other versions are "wrong." The Samaritans also have a text which they insist is correct, but that is also a matter of belief.

On a separate note, much of what you quote from (I assume) Aggadic literature is not at all mainstream Jewish writing. The texts are not part of the Jewish canon or thinking. That we have esoteric references to pre-mosaic "writing" may or may not be taken literally but even if it is meant to be taken at face value, there is no mention of an alphabet used for that writing.


For example : Are you claiming that Israel knew they would no longer have prophets and no longer receive prophetic revelation after the last prophet in the Old Testament died?

Yes. That there were preconditions for prophecy and after the death of the last 3 prophets, those conditions not being met, there were to be no more prophets was an accepted idea in Judaism. That era was about 300 years before the common era began.

If I underestand you correctly, you seem to be saying that the later Rabbinic Jews see the loss of prophetic revelation in a different light rather than as a punishment or sign of disfavor.
Is this correct or do I misunderstand?

It was a function of time, place and condition. Exile was a punishment. The loss of prophets was a function of exile. But Prophets were not functionaries in terms of normative Jewish practice so their lack would not have changed much in terms of the day-to-day practice of Judaism. Judaism was not a religion governed by revelation as a matter of course. When a message was to be disseminated, a prophet arose and gave the message. But this was not about practice, ritual and law, only about the communicating of a particular statement or idea.

As much of the written text was a production of prophets (or those writing about prophets, the lack of prophets meant that the canonical literature was not added to. Other literature has emerged pretty consistently.
 

Ehav4Ever

Well-Known Member
The attached document is from a Karaite Jew who mentions the issues that Karaite Jews have with NT sitations of the Hebrew Tanakh.
 

Attachments

  • FaithStrengthened.pdf
    1.1 MB · Views: 1

Clear

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Hi @rosends

Again, thank you so much for being rational and logical and concise and relevant in your answers. It's wonderful to have a conversation with you.

Rosends said : “I happen to think that the DSS were secreted away as they were variant or incorrect texts and I wouldn't use them to show that any other versions are "wrong."

1) The Jews who secreted the Dead Sea Library were entrusted with Israels National and Temple treasure maps
The majority theory is that the Jewish Dead Sea Scrolls library was secreted away in haste, in approximately 70 a.d. to protect the this library from the Romans that came into the lands of Israel to put down the Jewish uprising that was occurring at that time. It entails a library of over 1,200 texts.

Among the Dead Sea library of texts was "the copper scroll" (so named because it was written on a copper place, rolled up).
The Copper scroll, consists of a list of Israel National treasures, their Gold and Silver and other national treasure, including the treasures of the temple in Jerusalem.
These treasures were hidden away (just as the Dead Sea Library was hidden away) to protect these treasures (presumably from the roman army who came to the area at this time).
IF the Copper Scroll is authentic, then this is very compelling evidence that the group was entrusted with this scroll, and who secreted the Dead Sea Scroll library away were trusted, orthodox, temple-centric Jews.
The logic is that Israel would not have trusted their national and temple treasures to an insignificant "splinter group".

Which version is more correct, the Dead Sea Scroll versions or the Masoretic of approx 1000 years later?
Though you say you would not personally use the Dead Sea Scrolls to repair errors in the Masoretic, many other bible committees are using the Dead Sea Scrolls to correct their text.

I’ve already given an example of the multiple textual losses in the Masoretic in Samuel. (If you need or want me to give you the textual loss in the Masoretic, I will certainly do so).
Do you think the Masoretic text of Samuel is correct and the Dead Sea version of Samuel is incorrect?
If so, can you explain why you think the Masoretic Samuel is correct and the Dead Sea Samuel is incorrect?


2) Ancient history has multiple sources
rosends said : “On a separate note, much of what you quote from (I assume) Aggadic literature is not at all mainstream Jewish writing.”


Keep in mind that not all religious historical history comes from the orthodox Jewish literature, but instead, much of it comes from other sources as well. Much of these sources were Christian. I can also do a bit of research for Islamic literature for ancient history if we need to, especially for cross-road doctrines that are common to and agreed to by Judaism, Christianity and Islam.


3) Is it important to mention an "alphabet" was used for writing?
Rosends points out “…there is no mention of an alphabet used for that writing.”


While this is correct, I don't see why the mention of an alphabet is necessary when one is describing books that are "written".
For example, if I tell sister to write a letter to our mom, I do not need to say, “Make sure you use an alphabet”. It is merely understood that she will use an alphabet to write.
The point here is that one assumes that writing a book or letters implies some sort of symbols to transmit meaning whether it is hieroglyphs or letter symbols.
If you think “writing” a book or letter does not imply some sort of symbols or alphabet is involved, can you explain why?


4) The loss of prophetic revelation among Judaism and it's transfer to Christianity
Clear asked : “Are you claiming that Israel knew they would no longer have prophets and no longer receive prophetic revelation after the last prophet in the Old Testament died?”
Rosends replied : “Yes. That there were preconditions for prophecy and after the death of the last 3 prophets, those conditions not being met, there were to be no more prophets was an accepted idea in Judaism.”


This is a very interesting principle and I have not heard much on this specific belief.
Can you clarify what those “preconditions for prophecy” were and why those “conditions” were “not being met” by the Jews.



5) The Punishement of Jews by Exile and loss of prophets as part of the exile
Clear said : “When the christian Justin Martyr and the Jew Trypho had their debate (approx 155 a.d.), the Jew trypho had pointed out that the prophets had been found among the Jews and this was a sign of Gods favor.

In response Justin Martyr pointed out that God had taken the prophetic gifts away from the Jews (i.e. rabbinic Judaism) and gave those prophetic, revelatory gifts to the Christians (i.e. Messianic Judaism) as a sign his favor had been bestowed upon those who had accepted the Messiah.

If I understand you correctly, you seem to be saying that the later Rabbinic Jews see the loss of prophetic revelation in a different light rather than as a punishment or sign of disfavor.
Is this correct or do I misunderstand?”



Rosends explained : “It was a function of time, place and condition. Exile was a punishment. The loss of prophets was a function of exile. “

Can you clarify these two statements.

I think I can understand the concept that “exile was a punishment” of Jews.

I assume you are speaking of the Jewish Exile to Babylon?

Can you explain what Jews think they were being punished for?

What was it the Jews did that deserved an approximately 50 year exile from their land.

If loss of prophets was only a function of exile, why did the prophetic revelatory gifts not continue after the exile was over and after the last prophet died?


Rosends said : “As much of the written text was a production of prophets (or those writing about prophets, the lack of prophets meant that the canonical literature was not added to.”
Yes, I agree that the loss of Prophets and revelation meant that the Jews did not and could not produce any more scripture and thus, they did not and could not add any scripture to their canon. This was part of my point in describing the difference in modern Jewish religion. No more prophetic revelation and no more scripture for modern Judaism.

rosends, I honestly and very grateful for your rational and clear discussion and the insights you are providing into modern Jewish concepts. Thanks.


Clear
τωσιτζφιω
 

Harel13

Am Yisrael Chai
Staff member
Premium Member
@Ehav4Ever already presented academic evidence here, so I'll bring his sources and some others as well:

From Britannica:

"The name Septuagint (from the Latin septuaginta, “70”) was derived later from the legend that there were 72 translators, 6 from each of the 12 tribes of Israel, who worked independently to translate the whole and ultimately produced identical versions. Another legend holds that the translators were sent to Alexandria by Eleazar, the chief priest at Jerusalem, at the request of Ptolemy II Philadelphus (285–246 BCE), though its source, the Letter of Aristeas, is unreliable. Despite the tradition that it was perfectly translated, there are large differences in style and usage between the Septuagint’s translation of the Torah and its translations of the later books in the Old Testament. 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."
As you can see, errors had crept into the Septuagint. Origen tried to clear up mistakes - but that begs the question: What did he consider mistakes and what not?

From the University of Helsinki's Septuagint Project:

"All the witnesses of the Septuagint of 2 Samuel ultimately stem from a single Greek archetype. The textual traditions were split into three branches: the B-text, the Majority text, and the Proto-Lucianic text. The B-text underwent the Hebraizing kaige revision perhaps the first century BCE. The Majority text shares most, but not all, of the kaige readings in B. In addition, one branch of the B-text has undergone another, later, Hebraizing revision that is commonly called “Hexaplaric”. Its notable trait are additions done on the basis of Origen’s (d. 254 CE) Hexapla, a multi-column work that presented a comparison between the Hebrew text, the Septuagint, and a number of other Greek versions. The Proto-Lucianic text attests to only a very small number of kaige readings. However, it served as the base text for another, much later, revision that bears the name of Lucian of Antioch (d. 311 CE)—hence the name “Proto-Lucianic”; the fully developed recensional text is called “the Lucianic text”. Because of the heavy revision, the Lucianic text on the whole is furthest away from the original translation. However, since its Proto-Lucianic base text contained very few kaige readings, the Lucianic text often retains the original reading when both the B and the Majority texts attest a kaige reading. This makes the Lucianic text a highly important witness especially in 2 Sam 10–24 (so-called kaige section) where the Majority text shares most of the kaige readings of the B text.

The edition includes:​

A critically established Greek text that presents the closest possible approximation to the text that the translator produced.
Apparatus I, that lists all the meaningful variant readings in the Greek manuscript traditions, the significant readings from Latin and other secondary versions, as well as a selection of readings from indirect sources such as quotations from 2 Samuel by Greek and Latin patristic authors. The apparatus follows the well-established format of the Göttingen editions.
Apparatus II, that lists extant Hexaplaric readings derived from later Jewish Greek versions (Aquila, Symmachus, Theodotion). These readings can be found in the margins of the manuscripts and noteworthy indirect witnesses such as the Syrohexapla and ancient commentaries."
"The translator" is the person who translated the first ever Septuagint - as you can see, we no longer have that original translation, so much so that a special project has been set up to try to figure out what that original translation was like.

From The Gospel Coalition:

"The term Septuagint is often thought of as the Greek version (or translation) of the Hebrew Bible, much like the Vulgate is the Latin version or the [Pesheeta] is the Syriac version. But, technically speaking, there is no such thing as “the Septuagint.” If you own a modern copy of the Septuagint (e.g., Rahlfs or Brenton editions), it is an “eclectic” edition, that is, a collection of the best and most reliable Greek manuscripts reconstructed to approximate the original translation of the Old Testament from Hebrew to Greek.​

So, when scholars use this term, it does not refer to a single text. Rather, it refers to a collection of Greek translations produced by numerous scribes over the course of a few hundred years and, in all likelihood, composed in different locations. Today, the term is usually used to refer generally to the various Greek translations of the Hebrew Bible, as well as some additional books, such as Tobit, Maccabees, and Sirach, to name a few.""​

As you can see, there were many different Septuagints. And if Origen, one of the most famous Church Fathers, and one of only two who knew Hebrew, noticed errors way back in the 3rd century, you should ask yourself: Why would there be errors? Clearly, these were inserted in by the various translators and copyists. Some might be simply scribal errors. But others? Well, that's a good question.

From New Advent:

"On account of its diffusion alone the hellenizing Jews and early Christians, copies of the Septuagint were multiplied; and as might be expected, many changes, deliberate as well as involuntary, crept in. The necessity of restoring the text as far as possible to its pristine purity was felt. The following is a brief account of the attempted corrections:​

A. Origen reproduced the Septuagint text in the fifth column of his Hexapla; marking with obeli the texts that occurred in the Septuagint without being in the original; adding according to Theodotion's version, and distinguishing with asterisks and metobeli the texts of the original which were not in the Septuagint; adopting from the variants of the Greek Version the texts which were closest to the Hebrew; and, finally, transposing the text where the order of the Septuagint did not correspond with the Hebrew order. His recension, copied by Pamphilus and Eusebius, is called the hexaplar, to distinguish it from the version previously employed and which is called the common, vulgate, koine, or ante-hexaplar. It was adopted in Palestine.​

B. St. Lucien, priest of Antioch and martyr, in the beginning of the fourth century, published an edition corrected in accordance with the hebrew; this retained the name of koine, vulgate edition, and is sometimes called Loukianos, after its author. In the time of St. Jerome it was in use at Constantinople and Antioch. C. Finally, Hesychius, an Egyptian bishop, published about the same time, a new recension, employed chiefly in Egypt."

From SOTS:

"The translated books of the Septuagint were produced between the 3rd century BCE and the 1st century CE and were translated in varying styles. Revisions and new translations were also made over time, so that there is considerable diversity in the manuscript history of the Greek Bible."​

"The first translations of Septuagint books are known in scholarly parlance as the “Old Greek” of those books. This term differentiates it from the revisions and new versions that arise in an attempt to improve the translations. Our earliest attested revision is that of the Minor Prophets scroll found in Nahal Hever in the Judean Desert and dating from the 1st century BCE. This translation of the Minor Prophets is based upon the Old Greek, but, in similar fashion to the group of translations following strict adherence to the Hebrew, it revises the Old Greek towards greater consistency in Hebrew. Similar revisions can be seen in the manuscript traditions of other books, and in some cases (such as for Judges, Esther, and Daniel) there are clearly more than one version in circulation.​

Revisions continued throughout antiquity, and were attributed to significant figures in the early church (such as Lucian or Theodotion) or were preserved without attribution (as in the case of the A-text of Esther or the Barberini Codex). Aquila and Symmachus are two prominent Jewish revisers of the 2nd century CE, who translate in different ways but both adhere to the Hebrew and show an interest in its exegesis."​
 
Last edited:

1213

Well-Known Member
I have been doing some more research in this area and found this article. It may help a bit if you can get access to it.

I think that is a good point. However, by what the Bible tells, people could follow Jesus on earth only that time Jesus was on earth. After that they obviously could have been loyal to his teachings, but they could not have followed him the same way. But, even if they could have, there is no reason why their wives could not have also followed.

Have we no right to take along a wife who is a believer, even as the rest of the apostles, and the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas?
1 Cor. 9:5

The overseer therefore must be without reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, sensible, modest, hospitable, good at teaching;… …Let deacons be husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.
1 Tim. 3:2,12

Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the assembly, and gave himself up for it; … … Nevertheless each of you must also love his own wife even as himself; …
Efe. 5:25,33

Now concerning the things about which you wrote to me: it is good for a man not to touch a woman. But, because of sexual immoralities, let each man have his own wife, and let each woman have her own husband. Let the husband render to his wife the affection owed her, and likewise also the wife to her husband. The wife doesn't have authority over her own body, but the husband. Likewise also the husband doesn't have authority over his own body, but the wife. Don't deprive one another, unless it is by consent for a season, that you may give yourselves to fasting and prayer, and may be together again, that Satan doesn't tempt you because of your lack of self-control.
1 Cor. 7:1-5

Getting wife was not wrong and it does not necessary mean that person then rejects Jesus and God and can’t do what Jesus or God commanded.
 

1213

Well-Known Member
Greetings. I didn't write "early Christians" I wrote "early Jewish Christians." Even Christian scolars agree that that the early "Jewish" Christians did not exist at a certain point, as Clear even pointed out. I.e. by the time of the Nicene Counsel there was no indeitifiably Jewish Christian sect. If they did exist who were they and where were they?

I.e. Jews became Christians in the 1st cent. and by about the 2nd to 3rd century the are no longer identifiable as Jewish and Christian - at the same time.

Thanks for the clarification. (Sorry that this is a long post, but I think this all has to be said for people to understand the point correctly). I think this depends on how a Jew is defined and also what those people really believed. I think world has had and still have many Christians that are not really Christians in the original sense, but I believe there is also Christians in that original sense. Originally a Christians meant, according to the Bible, a disciple of Jesus.

…in Antioch that the disciples were first called Christians.
Acts 11:26

And a true disciple of Jesus (Christian) is a person who remains in the words of Jesus.

Jesus therefore said to those Jews who had believed him, "If you remain in my word, then you are truly my disciples. You will know the truth, and the truth will make you free."
John 8:31-32

By what I see, many “Christians” don’t really do that. Instead they follow doctrines of men that are not what Jesus said. But, I believe, since Jesus was on earth, there has always been also those who have remained loyal to Jesus, because we still have his words in the Bible. But, are they also Jews? That depends on how a Jew is defined. Bible tells that a Jew is a person who has “circumcision of heart”, has law written in his heart and keeps the ordinances of the law.

If therefore the uncircumcised keep the ordinances of the law, won't his uncircumcision be accounted as circumcision? Won't the uncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfills the law, judge you, who with the letter and circumcision are a transgressor of the law? For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, neither is that circumcision which is outward in the flesh; but he is a Jew who is one inwardly, and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit not in the letter; whose praise is not from men, but from God.
Romans 2:26-29

And that is not just Paul’s idea, it was already in Deuteronomy.

Yahweh your God will circumcise your heart, and the heart of your seed, to love Yahweh your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, that you may live. Yahweh your God will put all these curses on your enemies, and on those who hate you, who persecuted you. You shall return and obey the voice of Yahweh, and do all his commandments which I command you this day. Yahweh your God will make you plenteous in all the work of your hand, in the fruit of your body, and in the fruit of your cattle, and in the fruit of your ground, for good: for Yahweh will again rejoice over you for good, as he rejoiced over your fathers;
Deuteronomy 30:6-9

And Jeremiah also confirms the idea.

Behold, the days come, says Yahweh, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they broke, although I was a husband to them, says Yahweh. But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says Yahweh: I will put my law in their inward parts, and in their heart will I write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people: and they shall teach no more every man his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, Know Yahweh; for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest of them, says Yahweh: for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin will I remember no more.
Jeremiah 31:31-34

And I believe that came true through Jesus, because the words he told, as God had commanded him to speak, can cause that change in persons heart.

But as many as received him, to them he gave the right to become God's children, to those who believe in his name: who were born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
John 1:12-13

It is the spirit who gives life. The flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and are life.
John 6:63

…Whoever is born of God doesn't commit sin, because his seed remains in him; and he can't sin, because he is born of God. In this the children of God are revealed, and the children of the devil. Whoever doesn't do righteousness is not of God, neither is he who doesn't love his brother.
1 John 3:7-10

My teaching is not mine, but his who sent me. If anyone desires to do his will, he will know about the teaching, whether it is from God, or if I am speaking from myself.
John 7:16-17

Now, by all this, a Christian is a person who is loyal to the teachings of Jesus, and also keeps the Law of God and therefore is a Jew. But, do “real Jews” agree with this, is person not a Jew, even if he keeps the God’s law and is loyal to God?
 

rosends

Well-Known Member
Which version is more correct, the Dead Sea Scroll versions or the Masoretic of approx 1000 years later?
Though you say you would not personally use the Dead Sea Scrolls to repair errors in the Masoretic, many other bible committees are using the Dead Sea Scrolls to correct their text.

I’ve already given an example of the multiple textual losses in the Masoretic in Samuel. (If you need or want me to give you the textual loss in the Masoretic, I will certainly do so).
Do you think the Masoretic text of Samuel is correct and the Dead Sea version of Samuel is incorrect?
If so, can you explain why you think the Masoretic Samuel is correct and the Dead Sea Samuel is incorrect?
If you would like to see some discussion of the place of the scrolls vis-a-vis considering the masoretic understanding, I would recommend starting with this discussion How does Orthodox Judaism view the Dead Sea Scrolls? and the similar How does Orthodox Judaism view the Dead Sea Scrolls? . For discussion of the variants (and more opinions as to their place within the theological construct there is also Version of the Tanach that pre-dates Jesus and Has the Torah been changed over the ages?
Keep in mind that not all religious historical history comes from the orthodox Jewish literature, but instead, much of it comes from other sources as well. Much of these sources were Christian. I can also do a bit of research for Islamic literature for ancient history if we need to, especially for cross-road doctrines that are common to and agreed to by Judaism, Christianity and Islam.
Yes, but in terms of this conversation, those outside sources will not be of much use as I am coming at my position from within the mainstream of Judaism so I cede no authority to those. I recognize that that might prove frustrating, but I gotta be me.
If you think “writing” a book or letter does not imply some sort of symbols or alphabet is involved, can you explain why?
Writing does imply an alphabet, but with no statement of which alphabet, any conclusion is just a guess. A decision about what someone must have used or invented or relied on, importing from a surrounding culture is just so much guesswork.

This is a very interesting principle and I have not heard much on this specific belief.
Can you clarify what those “preconditions for prophecy” were and why those “conditions” were “not being met” by the Jews.
In Jewish law, prophecy comes about in a specific time, place and even emotional condition. The talmud reports that prophecy left after the death of Malachi (in Tractate Sotah I think) and that it, with the destruction of the temple was limited to children and imbiciles (Tract Bava Batra).


Can you clarify these two statements.

I think I can understand the concept that “exile was a punishment” of Jews.

I assume you are speaking of the Jewish Exile to Babylon?
Among other places, yes.
Can you explain what Jews think they were being punished for?
The 2 temples were destroyed and Jewish tradition teaches that they were, because of different groupings of sin. The common idea about the second temple has to do with baseless hatred. But there is MUCH more to it than that. See here.
What was it the Jews did that deserved an approximately 50 year exile from their land.
You seem to be speaking of the exile after the destruction of the first temple -- for that, I would suggest you begin here.
If loss of prophets was only a function of exile, why did the prophetic revelatory gifts not continue after the exile was over and after the last prophet died?
Because the various conditions were not satisfied -- the spirit of prophecy was removed.

Again, I know it must be annoying to try to have an historical discussion with someone like me, who limits his argument to theocratic positions so I apologize for that and thank you for the interesting information you have presented.
 

Ehav4Ever

Well-Known Member
I think that is a good point. However, by what the Bible tells, people could follow Jesus on earth only that time Jesus was on earth. After that they obviously could have been loyal to his teachings, but they could not have followed him the same way. But, even if they could have, there is no reason why their wives could not have also followed.

Greetings,

The NT authors also make a point of saying that often Jesus's students didn't understand what his goals were, at least the claim of the authors is while they were following him for about 3 years.

So, one would expect that IF their movement was supposed to last for more than a few decades, into the thousands of years later, it would have made sense that their families would have survived as indentifiable Jews/Jewish communities. I would even expect them to be stronger and more numerous than non-Jesus beleiving Jews. I would also expect them to out-survive the Samaritans.

The historically possibilies are only four that I can see, based on what we see from history.
  1. The first Jewish Christians completely abandoned their beleifs in Jesus when what they expecting didn't happen after a few decades and after the main disciples died
  2. They abandoned the Torah and joined non-Jewish Christians - no longer being distinct as Jews/keeping Torah mitzvoth.
  3. They lived and died in their beleifs in Jesus, but did not have children.
  4. They lived and died in thier beleifs in Jesus, but their children/grandchildren did not.
 

Ehav4Ever

Well-Known Member
Thanks for the clarification. (Sorry that this is a long post, but I think this all has to be said for people to understand the point correctly). I think this depends on how a Jew is defined and also what those people really believed.

Greetings,

No problem about the long post. I do those also. ;)

The definition of who was a Jew in the 1st century is no different than the definition that was at Mount Sinai and the same definiton that exists right now. That is, a Jew is:
  1. A person who was born from a Jewish mother and father who were married per Halakha (Torah law) and was raised in a Torath Mosheh based Jewish community.
    • The definition of the two parents above being Jewish means that they descend from a biological ancestry that traces back to the giving of the Torah at Mount Sinai. (Biologically of one 12 tribes of Israel)
  2. A person whose mother was Jewish and her children were accepted and raised in a Jewish community.
  3. Someone who goes to a Torah Court of at least 3 Jewish Torah based Judges and undergoes what is called a giyyur. Once completed and they are accepted into the Torath Mosheh Jewish community they are Jewish are called Gierim.
That definition has been standard for over 3,000 years w/o change.

I think world has had and still have many Christians that are not really Christians in the original sense, but I believe there is also Christians in that original sense.

That is because Christians never had a national element to their religion. It was purely beleif based and not nation based.

Originally a Christians meant, according to the Bible, a disciple of Jesus.

The authors of the gospels of the NT claim that all of Jesus's original students were biologically Jews from the Galilee. The author of the book of Acts claimed that thousands of biologically Jewish people who previoiusly did not beleive in Jesus joined them. So, if one were to accept these as true histories that means that at the start there were a sizable amount of Jewish Christians as compared to in the 4th century there were either none or what was left of them was only a small minority who were not very well considered by the non-Jewish Christian churches.

Here is a good example. One of the heresies that was noted by the Church Fathers were the Ebionites. Supposidly, they were Jews who had Torah based practices and they only held by the writing of matthew. They considered Paul a heretic and they considered Jesus to be purely human. None of their writings survived, there are no modern Jews who trace their ancestry to them, and the only information about them comes from their enemies (The Church Fathers).

Bible tells that a Jew is a person who has “circumcision of heart”, has law written in his heart and keeps the ordinances of the law.

Now, by all this, a Christian is a person who is loyal to the teachings of Jesus, and also keeps the Law of God and therefore is a Jew. But, do “real Jews” agree with this, is person not a Jew, even if he keeps the God’s law and is loyal to God?

So, this means exactly what I stated. As Christians, you have completely different understandings on even what words mean that sets a different standard for how you view the translations you use. Thus, this is why as I stated before if one were to take a Hebrew text and try to prove out various Christian ideas from a Hebrew text they don't hold up.

Now, in terms of Christians deciding that they are now Jews - or trying to use that terminology for themselves. Most Torath Mosheh Jews and Orthodox Jews would not care about this. If there were no such thing as Christian missionaries who approach Jews there would be no concern over what Christians think about themselves. I.e. Christians are free to beleive what they want about themsleves as far as Torath Mosheh and Orthodox Jews are concerned.

YET, it is interesting that the Church Fathers didn't seem to agree with you on that. They seem to point to the idea that they/Christians are not "Jews" but instead they/Christians have replaced Israel, the one that existed from Mount Sinai until the 1st century, and have a become a "new Israel".
 
Last edited:

37818

Active Member
Thus, like I alluded to in a different thread, Christianity is one side of a road and Torath Mosheh and Orthodox Jews are in a completely different country. Christians should be happy with their place in things and Torath Mosheh Jews and Orthodox Jews will remain happy where we are.
Well there are at the minimum a few possibilities here.
1) Both the Jewish and Christian views are based on legend and myth. The Jewish Temple being distroyed in 70 CE, Leviticus, ". . . And this shall be an everlasting statute unto you, to make an atonement for the children of Israel for all their sins once a year. And he did as the LORD commanded Moses. . . ."
2) Or Christianity is true because Jesus of Nazereth argued, John 5:46-47, ". . . For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me. But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?"
Deuteronomy 18:18-19, ". . . I will raise them up a prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee; and I will put My words in his mouth, and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him. And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto My words which he shall speak in My name, I will require it of him. . . ."
Daniel 9:26, ". . . shall an anointed one be cut off, and be no more; and the people of a prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; . . ." 70 CE.
 

Ehav4Ever

Well-Known Member
Well there are at the minimum a few possibilities here.
1) Both the Jewish and Christian views are based on legend and myth. The Jewish Temple being distroyed in 70 CE, Leviticus, ". . . And this shall be an everlasting statute unto you, to make an atonement for the children of Israel for all their sins once a year. And he did as the LORD commanded Moses. . . ."
2) Or Christianity is true because Jesus of Nazereth argued, John 5:46-47, ". . . For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me. But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?"
Deuteronomy 18:18-19, ". . . I will raise them up a prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee; and I will put My words in his mouth, and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him. And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto My words which he shall speak in My name, I will require it of him. . . ."
Daniel 9:26, ". . . shall an anointed one be cut off, and be no more; and the people of a prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; . . ." 70 CE.

Greetings,

There is a third option. Christians can respectful enjoy their myths which was made for them and we Torath Mosheh Jews and Orthodox Jews can respectfully enjoy our myths which was made for us. ;)

Besides, it is not like Christians need Torath Mosheh Jews and Orthodox Jews to throw out our standards for determining the truth for Christians to exist and enjoy their chosen religion. By like token we Torath Mosheh Jews and Orthodox Jews are doing fine w/o changing our standards to Christian ones.

That would be like the Mormons coming to you and saying that your only option is to accept their Momon books. You don't accept those books, right?

Win-win for all. :)
 
Top