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

Clear said:

YOU indicated to @2ndpillar that the Jewish Orthodox religious movement desires to stick to the text that “we have historically and currently investigated and verified to be the truth” and that “our investigations and verifications have found it to be correctly transmitted in...”.

Click to expand...

Actually, you misquoted me.

I.e. I didn't use the statement "Orthodox Religious Movement," which has some very specific meanings being behind it. That is your statement and not mine. Also, I didn't state that the "Orthodox Religious Movement" was a "we" and I did not state that the "Orthodox Religious Movement" - "desires to stick to the text." that is again a misquote of your own construction.

What I stated was the following.

Things like this you have to get right the first time or else you end up coming to wrong conclusions about things you may not understand.

Clear said:

My point is that your first link proves that you have NOT currently investigated and "verified" the text to be the correct text. In fact, your own link provides data to show that the Masoretic bible is NOT known to be the true text and proves it is NOT verified.

Click to expand...

What you wrote above proves the point I was making. You focus on two links, and specifically ones that I had a feeling you would focus on and ignore all the other ones. You also jumped to a link, while skiping others, and ignoring the PDF's and tells me something in particular.

I.e. that you don't understand what a (מסורת) Mesoreth and how to identify it among the various ancient Jewish communities. Let's test out my theory.

Please give me some details about the (מסורת) Mesoreth of the Jews of Habban, Tzana, Jerba, and Iraq. What is significant about it and how did it get to those areas?

If you can answer that it will prove to me that you understand what my response to 2ndpillar meant and even what the statement Torath Mosheh even means.

Clear said:

The two pdfs that you seem to be the author of also relate a LOT of traditions and claims. There was nothing in either pdf that verified the bible created by your religious movement as being the correct text nor did your pdfs verify your masoretic bible to be the words God gave Moses. It seems many of your links were a deflection.

The irrelevant videos felt like a "bait and switch" as well.

Click to expand...

Thus, this proves that you weren't asking a question. You were making a statement.

You asked me how I know something and how others like me know something. So, I have provided you a small amount of research I and others have done written in English - which shows how we know it. I.e. the best way for someone to show how they know something is when they can sit down and write papers about it and also make presentations about it with sources. I.e. how many papers and lectures with relevant sources have you given on what you hold by? If you would also like the information from Hebrew sources I can give you that also. Let me know.

Of course, the history of how dispersed Jewish communities and even the Samaritans have maintained various (מסורת) doesn't mean anyting to you. As Christians this is not a standard you hold by and I know it is foreign in various Christian settings as was stated in the OP and confirmed by a few of the Christians throughout this thread. It does matter in the world of science of analyzing history so as the Convergence of Evidence method and it matters to Torath Mosheh Jews.

You don't have to like the answers, you can simply accept that as a Christian your standards are different than mine as a Torath Mosheh Jew.

Ehav4Ever said:

Actually, you misquoted me.

I.e. I didn't use the statement "Orthodox Religious Movement," which has some very specific meanings being behind it. That is your statement and not mine. Also, I didn't state that the "Orthodox Religious Movement" was a "we" and I did not state that the "Orthodox Religious Movement" - "desires to stick to the text." that is again a misquote of your own construction.

What I stated was the following.

"Thus, it is better, and required, for Torath Mosheh Jews and Orthodox Jews to stick to what we have historically and currently investigated and verified to be the truth i.e. Torath Mosheh with the (מסורת) Mesoreth, the texts, and the languages (עברית - ארמית) our investigations and verifications have found it to be correctly transmitted in while avoiding and ignoring what our investigations and verifications have found it to not be reliably transmitted in. (Greek texts, foreign texts from non-Torath Mosheh sources, and other translations)

To do otherwise would not be holding by the principle you have expressed in the statement above.

As stated in the OP, Christians have different standards and thus they should hold by what they think is the truth of their theologies and texts IF......drum roll.....they have investigated them and verified them to be the truth and not a lie since lies can be in Greek, Latin, and English also.
​

Things like this you have to get right the first time or else you end up coming to wrong conclusions about things you may not understand.

​

What you wrote above proves the point I was making. You focus on two links, and specifically ones that I had a feeling you would focus on and ignore all the other ones. You also jumped to a link, while skiping others, and ignoring the PDF's and tells me something in particular.

I.e. that you don't understand what a (מסורת) Mesoreth and how to identify it among the various ancient Jewish communities. Let's test out my theory.

Please give me some details about the (מסורת) Mesoreth of the Jews of Habban, Tzana, Jerba, and Iraq. What is significant about it and how did it get to those areas?

If you can answer that it will prove to me that you understand what my response to 2ndpillar meant and even what the statement Torath Mosheh even means.

Click to expand...

Ehav4Ever said:

Thus, this proves that you weren't asking a question. You were making a statement.

You asked me how I know something and how others like me know something. So, I have provided you a small amount of research I and others have done written in English - which shows how we know it. I.e. the best way for someone to show how they know something is when they can sit down and write papers about it and also make presentations about it with sources. I.e. how many papers and lectures with relevant sources have you given on what you hold by? If you would also like the information from Hebrew sources I can give you that also. Let me know.

Of course, the history of how dispersed Jewish communities and even the Samaritans have maintained various (מסורת) doesn't mean anyting to you. As Christians this is not a standard you hold by and I know it is foreign in various Christian settings as was stated in the OP and confirmed by a few of the Christians throughout this thread. It does matter in the world of science of analyzing history so as the Convergence of Evidence method and it matters to Torath Mosheh Jews.

You don't have to like the answers, you can simply accept that as a Christian your standards are different than mine as a Torath Mosheh Jew.

Click to expand...

So, I to assume all of the ad hominems and deflections and irrelevant stuff means that we can both agree that you cannot support your claim that the Masoretic text is the correct text and is the actual words given to Moses and you can't admit it?

So I think we can agree that the Bible created by the Rabbinic movement cannot be verified as being the correct and actual text given to Moses.

Next time, perhaps you can consider whether you can support a claim before you overstate a claim.




Clear
σενεακσιω

Clear said:

but such claims are made inside the reference that Josiah found three DIFFERENT Torahs which conflicted with each other.

Click to expand...

@Clear what you're doing here is exactly what you're criticizing @Ehav4Ever for. I brought you the actual quote from the Jerusalem Talmud with a translation of the text, but you evidently refused to even glance at it, thus you continue to a push a narrative that simply does not exist. You claim that the three Torah scrolls discovered in the Temple were found in the time of Josiah. Well, newsflash, that's not mentioned ever in the Talmudic story. I recommend you stop propagating this notion without presenting any evidence. Show me the actual quote from the Talmud that proves your version of the story.

Clear said:

they are Jewish “rumors”

Click to expand...

And if they were "Christian" rumors, would they be considered stronger in your eyes? I mean, why note that they are "Jewish" - does that fact invalidate them?

Clear said:

Who know how many hundreds of versions and conflicts existed BEFORE Josiah and his four different versions?

Click to expand...

As mentioned prior, please provide evidence, from the Talmud itself of your version of this story. If you find that you are unable to, then I recommend you stop mentioning this, because it's the opposite of objective research, which is what you claim your posts are.

Hi @Harel13;

No, I am NOT claiming any biblical text has been verified as the "true text" and is the actual text delivered by God to Moses and then, when unable to support the claim, dismissing criticisms.

Regarding your claim about the Three texts found in the temple precinct.
Below is the quote from the Jewish Scholar David Ginsberg (who later in life, became Christian). He is one of the greatest scholars on the Masorah. It is on page 408 of his thousand page tome on the Masorah. Ginsberg points out that the creators of the Masoretic bible point out errors in the text and changes made.
They themselves left us lists of examples of mistakes and changes to the text they both found and themselves made to the text



I have not made the claim that any ancient text of any religion is without error or is the actual text given from God to man.
If you are wanting to correct a claim I have made, I am certainly willing to amend a claim I made if you have data.

@Harel13 said : "And if they were "Christian" rumors, would they be considered stronger in your eyes? I mean, why note that they are "Jewish" - does that fact invalidate them?"

I did not mischaracterize the data in the link. The actual link I was given as proof used the word "rumors".
However, if a mere "rumor" or anecdote is all that "verifies" the Masoretic text, then this bar is too low to be considered credible evidence.
The link I was given by @Ehav4Ever itself is good evidence against "verification" of the Masoretic text as being the "correct" text nor the actual Torah delivered to Moses.

If these were Christian rumors I would be just as critical. Verification and investigation imply more than a rumor.

Surely you see this? have you read the links I was given as "proof"?

Clear

Clear
σιτζτζφιω

Clear said:

No, I am NOT claiming any biblical text has been verified as the "true text" and is the actual text delivered by God to Moses and then, when unable to support the claim, dismissing criticisms.

Click to expand...

Did I say that? Or is that something @Ehav4Ever said?

Clear said:

Regarding your claim about the Three texts found in the temple precinct.
Below is the quote from the Jewish Scholar David Ginsberg (who later in life, became Christian). He is one of the greatest scholars on the Masorah. It is on page 408 of his thousand page tome on the Masorah. Ginsberg points out that the creators of the Masoretic bible point out errors in the text and changes made.
They themselves left us lists of examples of mistakes and changes to the text they both found and themselves made to the text

I have not made the claim that any ancient text of any religion is without error or is the actual text given from God to man.
If you are wanting to correct a claim I have made, I am certainly willing to amend a claim I made if you have data.

Click to expand...

Thanks for finally answering. This is like the third or fourth time I've requested you bring your source. Yes, that's the exact Talmud quote I brought here weeks ago.

It says absolutely nothing about Josiah there. Thus, as expected, your claim about it being about Josiah's time is utterly baseless. Please go back and read my post here to get some idea of what Jews really believe the Masoretic Text is and what are the true ramifications of the story in the Talmud. I also recommend this post.

Now, you've mentioned to @rosends that evidence from the Maaseh Ephod book may only be brought from one specific MS, which you claimed was locked up in the British Museum. I provided a link to viewing the MS for free online, which I believe you also haven't glanced at. Here:

Harel13 said:

@rosends, @Clear, here's a link to the digitalized manuscript Orient. 1425 of Maaseh Ephod. Now you guys can check what it actually says.

And good luck, because that's some complicated Sephardic handwriting.

Click to expand...

What folio in Maaseh Ephod were you referring to?

Clear said:

I did not mischaracterize the data in the link.

Click to expand...

As pointed out both by myself and @rosends, you have continuously mischaracterized many things, both about the MT and Judaism in general. Considering all of that, your calling the rumors "Jewish" as though that in itself invalidates them, says much.

Clear said:

If the were Christian rumors I would be just as critical.

Click to expand...

I hope that's true. I suppose we could test that out pretty simply, by me asking you what think about various rumors and traditions held by Christians.

Clear said:

So, I to assume all of the ad hominems and deflections and irrelevant stuff

Click to expand...

Greetings

You know we Torath Mosheh and Orthodox Jews have a statement we use when people assume things.


I am sure you guys have something similar in Greek.

Clear said:

means that we can both agree that you cannot support your claim that the Masoretic text is the correct text and is the actual words given to Moses and you can't admit it?

Click to expand...

Hey I can do that too. [Ehav4Ever's serious voice]


All of that, I know we both agree on.

Clear said:

So I think we can agree that the Bible created by the Rabbinic movement cannot be verified as being the correct and actual text given to Moses.

Click to expand...

We can definately agree that the movement that Hashem commanded (משה בן-עמרם רב, מורה, וחכם לעם ישראל) Mosheh ben-Amram Rabban (meaning that Mosheh ben-Amram is the rabbi of all Torath Mosheh and Orthodox Jews and thus to us what he started can be classified as a Rabbinic movement if one wants to use such a term), Teacher, and Hakham to Am Yisrael to make from Mitzrayim to Har Sinai and the movement from Har Sinai to the land of Israel by Torath Mosheh Israelis/Jews that has moved from the past to the present era of Mizrahi, Teimani, Maghrebi, Sephardi, Ashkenazi, and Ethiopi Torath Mosheh Israelis/Jews does not meet the standards that Christians use to determine what is accetable and not acceptable textually.

We can further agree that your definition of Moses more than likely looks like this.



While we can also agree that my Torath Mosheh definition of Mosheh ben-Amram would look more like this.

Clear said:

Next time, perhaps you can consider whether you can support a claim before you overstate a claim.

Click to expand...

Next time. What makes you think there will be a next time? We already agreed that all claims made by Torath Mosheh and Orthodox Jews are non-sense to certain types of Christians and all Christian claims are not relevent to and to be not considered by Torath Mosheh and Orthodox Jews - for the reasons stated in the OP and other threads.

In any case, I do have to thank you though. You have inspired me to make more videos that don't meet Christian standards, such as the one below hot off the presses. Happy trails.

Harel13 said:

Did I say that? Or is that something @Ehav4Ever said?

Click to expand...

He can't be talking about me since I didn't use the English word "God" anywhere in this thread.

Hi @Harel13


1) REGARDING THE CLAIM THAT THE BIBLE THE RABBINIC MOVEMENT CREATED WAS INVESTIGATED AND VERIFIED TO BE CORRECT AND THE ACTUAL WORDS OF GOD TO MOSES

Clear said regarding this claim : “You claim that you have knowledge that the version of the Torah your Jewish movement created is “verified to be the truth” and your “investigations and verifications have found it to be correctly transmitted…” (post #441) and that the version of the Torah created by your specific movement is “the same as the Torah” that Moses received from God and was transmitted to Jews “before they entered into” the land of Israel". (all Bold and underline are mine)

This claim itself is so fantastic that one cannot be blamed if they ask for some confirming evidence for it.

If someone says “My grandfather had a three-headed horse that spoke french.” The claim is fantastic but perhaps is not particularly interesting because it is not particularly credible.
BUT, if the claimant adds statements such as, “It has been thoroughly investigated and verified.” Then one may ask to see the data of the investigation.
If he replies that "there are rumors of the horses' existence but the data no longer exists", then one cannot rationally blame one for feeling incredulous in the face of an incredulous claim.

This is the nature of Ehav4evers claim.
He seems to be claiming that a rabbinic Jewish movement, created a biblical text in the medieval time period that is without error (i.e. “correct”) and is the actual words of God that were given to Moses.
No other group in modern history has such a text, not any group of Christians, not any group of Jews, not any group of historians.
This is an incredulous and fantastic claim.
If the claim is true, it is amazing and wonderful.
If it is false, then it is another fake.
If it is simply an article of belief, then this is fine.

The difference is that there is the additional claim that it has been "investigated" and "verified" in some way.
I simply asked for the data of the investigation and criticized the data when it lacked credibility.



A) What sort of “investigation” and “verification” is acceptable:

Regarding the working assumption for investigation

Below is an actual cut and paste from the link EHav4ever gave me.





1) First, the author tells us there are mistakes in the Torah scrolls and thus “can hardly be used as proof of the original Torah text”.

2) The author tells us he is going to “depart from academics” in his investigation

and importantly’

3) The authors working model is “absent any evidence to the contrary” he will assume “the Masoretic Text – is correct.”.


I am not trying to be difficult, but I have definite (and I think legitimate) criticisms of this sort of data when used as evidence of “investigation” and “verification” of the claim that someone has an inerrant text that is the actual words of God spoken to Moses and offers to give readers proof of this.

1) The admission of errors in Torah scrolls is not evidence the text is correct.

2) Departing from academic standards is suspicious. Such standards are not “Jewish” or “Christian” or even “religious”. Standards for investigations and for data used provide credibility in conclusions and are helpful to all study and investigation.

3) The approach of simply assuming something is correct without data proving it wrong isn’t confirmation that something is correct. It doesn't "verify".



2) REGARDING THE USE OF “RUMORS” AS “EVIDENCE” A BIBLE CREATED IN THE MEDIEVAL TIMES IS WITHOUT ERROR AND IS THE ACTUAL WORDS OF GOD TO MOSES

Below are two actual cut and pastes from the link I was given that represents part of my criticism of the “investigation” and “verification” of EHav4evers claim.


Another cut and paste admits the text was lost




I criticized the use of “rumors of it resurfacing” as having incredibly poor evidential value and I criticized the claim that books that “were lost and dispersed” could possibly be used as evidence for an investigation that verified a relatively late text was inerrant or represented the actual text of "lost books", especially "original" books that no longer exist. I said :

Clear said : “they are Jewish “rumors”
Harel13 replied : “And if they were "Christian" rumors, would they be considered stronger in your eyes? I mean, why note that they are "Jewish" - does that fact invalidate them?”
Clear replied : “I did not mischaracterize the data in the link. The actual link I was given as proof used the word "rumors". However, if a mere "rumor" or anecdote is all that "verifies" the Masoretic text, then this bar is too low to be considered credible evidence.


Of course the rumors would be just as silly if they were "Christian rumors".
It is irrelevant if such rumors and lost texts are Jewish, or Christian, or Muslim or simply a diary from an atheist in history.

Occassionally Christians will make the claim of inerrancy of ancient texts of significant size.
They are wrong to do to.
Jews who make the same mistake are wrong to do so.

“Rumors” and texts that are "lost texts" have no evidential value to show a bible created in the medieval times by the rabbinic movement is without error and is the actual words of God to Moses.


I could, honestly, use this same link as a perfect criticism of the type of “investigation” and “verification” that religionists of any type might use to claim a base belief was “verified” as true.


This is why I pointed out that The link I was given by @Ehav4Ever itself is good evidence against "verification" of the Masoretic text as being the "correct" text nor the actual Torah delivered to Moses.”



3) SIMPLE STATEMENTS OF BELIEF VERSUS CLAIMS OF EVIDENCE AND VERIFICATION

IF a Jew or Christian, or any other religionist claims that they believe that the Masoretic bible is inerrant and is the actual words of God to Moses, this is a simple statement of belief and I have no problem with them believing this sort of statement.
All individuals have a right to belief whether correct or incorrect and I honor those who honor God for their good intent.

HOWEVER, IF they claim this specific belief has been well "investigated" and "verified", I may ask for data and if the data is irrational and illogical and faulty, I may point out the problems with the data.

I do not think it appropriate to recieve ad hominems instead of explanations or data when I point out the problems in the "investigation" and "verification" claims.

This is how I view the discussion on this specific subject so far.



Clear
σιειτζτζω

rosends said:

You seem fixated on this "atones for the soul" line, so I'll humor you. In the Hebrew, the phrase "to atone for your soul is, "לְכַפֵּ֖ר עַל־נַפְשֹׁתֵיכֶ֑ם"
lechapeir al nafshoteichem.
I won't waste time expaining how the n-f-sh root here does not mean "soul" but "life". That's not of interest to you I guess.
I will, though, point out Numbers 31:50, in which the people brought offerings of gold to atone for their souls, or as it says "לְכַפֵּ֥ר עַל־נַפְשֹׁתֵ֖ינוּ" lechapeir al nafshoteinu. The only difference is that one speaks in second person, and one in first person. The verb and the use of the n-f-sh word are identical. In 31:50, Moses and Elazar accepted the offering from the people. No blood was included.

You can also look at Exodus 30:15 in which the giving of a coin to the temple effects exactly the same "לְכַפֵּ֖ר עַל־נַפְשֹׁתֵיכֶֽם" in the second person. The exact same.

I am still left with a question about why you think that other sin offerings which effect atonement (the ch-p-r root word) without blood (and are equated explicitly to those with blood) don't count to you simply because they don't include the "al nafshoteichem" phrase, when the other BLOOD versions ALSO don't have that same phrase.

Click to expand...

I won't waste time explaining to you that I used the CHABAD BIBLE ONLINE. You don't like "Soul"? Take it up with them.

I won't waste time explaining to you how the LIFE of an animal ATONED for the LIFE of a human in this verse. And how some verses--well all verses that point to King Yeshua--bother you so much that you HAVE to simply look at other verses or Talmud to get of the subject.

GOD GAVE US BLOOD ATONEMENT. Take it up with HIM.

Baruch Ha Shem!

dybmh said:

I agree that BarKokhba wasn't the Jewish messiah. Other than that, I don't know much about his beliefs or whether he claimed Isaiah 9 as a prophecy about himself.

Isaiah 53 is not about Jesus. If verses 7,8,9, and 11 are literal, then verse 10 is also literal. Verse 10 literally says the suffering servent has children. Jesus literally had no children. If the verses aren't literal, then 53 is describing a martyr archetype. Either way, the suffering servent isn't literally describing Jesus.

What else do you want to discuss?

Click to expand...

Does God have physical children only, or spiritual children? Moshiach has a fiancee, the church, made of Gentiles and Jews, He has children, anyone who trusts Him for eternal life has Father and Son and is a child of God.

Isaiah 53 is so obviously about Jesus that nearly 100% of Jews I read it to aloud say, "SURE, that text is about Jesus, but I don't believe in the NT," after which I explain it's from Isaiah, then they get silent. A very small portion of Jews, such as yourself, who are steeped in anti-Christian apologetics, disagree.

I can help you via process of elimination because as sure as the grave 53 isn't about ISRAEL. Israel never died, it was only in diaspora, and never rose after death to count His/our children. "Who has believed our report" is an obvious allusion to some Gentiles and some Jews trusting and a lot of Jews not believing Isaiah about Messiah.

Messiah, per the prophecies, is worshipped as such by Gentiles worldwide. The JEWISH Messiah. The fact that the Gentiles have done dumb things regarding our people and our traditions doesn't nullify Tanakh prophecies, indeed, that is likewise prophesied there.

BilliardsBall said:

I won't waste time explaining to you that I used the CHABAD BIBLE ONLINE. You don't like "Soul"? Take it up with them.

Click to expand...

So you subscribe to the oral law and its interpretations? I had no idea. That's fantastic!

BilliardsBall said:

I won't waste time explaining to you how the LIFE of an animal ATONED for the LIFE of a human in this verse. And how some verses--well all verses that point to King Yeshua--bother you so much that you HAVE to simply look at other verses or Talmud to get of the subject.

Click to expand...

In other words, I gave you what you claimed didn't exist and you have no response to all the verses I presented. Got it.

BilliardsBall said:

GOD GAVE US BLOOD ATONEMENT. Take it up with HIM.

Click to expand...

He also gave us non-blood atonement. Take it up with him.

Harel13 said:

Do you believe in the Jewish Oral Tradition?

Click to expand...

I believe in the oral tradition wherever it upholds our tri-unified Divine One and wherever it points, as it so frequently does, to NT truth and Rebbe Melekh HaMoshiach Abba Tzaddik Yeshua, May He Be Praised Forever!

Thanks for asking.

dybmh said:

Yet another failure resulting from poor understanding of the original language...

King of the universe is small compared to what it actually says.

Click to expand...

You better tell all the Jews who pray such or have such in prayer books that they are again inferior to you who have superior knowledge. After all, Ha Shem has taught we Jews that we are superior to the Gentiles, praise Yeshua!

Knowledge is more powerful than love! Praise God!

Your love for me is so small compared to what God actually has, Praise JESUS FOREVER!

Now maybe you'll (regardless whether you wish to substitute something "bigger" than KING OF THE UNIVERSE) deal with the TRIUNE nature of our daily prayer and praise.

If you can humble yourself greatly to actually do so. I recommend deep teshuvah for you.

Thank you for insulting my knowledge and me as I tell you about King Yeshua, He promised His followers that non-believing Jews would do so, His prophecies are all true!

Hi @BilliardsBall

I got busy and forgot to comment on something you said many posts ago.
You said something to the effect that much of the New Testament is commentary on the Tanakh.

The concept of Christianity as a type of Judaism (just as Rabbinic Judaism is a type of Judaism) as Ignatius also pointed out anciently, is an interesting viewpoint.
That is, Christianity as a type of Judaism that accepted the Messiah versus Rabbinic Judaism as a type of Judaism that did not accept the Messiah.

Your comment seemed to run along similar lines and was thought provoking and insightful.

Clear
εισιειτζω

BilliardsBall said:

Does God have physical children only, or spiritual children? Moshiach has a fiancee, the church, made of Gentiles and Jews, He has children, anyone who trusts Him for eternal life has Father and Son and is a child of God.

Click to expand...

If your choice is to read the text figuratively, then it is speaking about any martyr leading a movement.

BilliardsBall said:

Isaiah 53 is so obviously about Jesus that nearly 100% of Jews I read it to aloud say, "SURE, that text is about Jesus, but I don't believe in the NT," after which I explain it's from Isaiah, then they get silent. A very small portion of Jews, such as yourself, who are steeped in anti-Christian apologetics, disagree.

Click to expand...

It's equally plausible that the authors of the NT copied from Isaiah. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy.

BilliardsBall said:

I can help you via process of elimination because as sure as the grave 53 isn't about ISRAEL. Israel never died, it was only in diaspora, and never rose after death to count His/our children. "Who has believed our report" is an obvious allusion to some Gentiles and some Jews trusting and a lot of Jews not believing Isaiah about Messiah.

Click to expand...

Looks like you've chosen the literal approach? Fair enough. Neither Israel nor Jesus is the suffering servant.

BilliardsBall said:

Messiah, per the prophecies, is worshipped as such by Gentiles worldwide. The JEWISH Messiah. The fact that the Gentiles have done dumb things regarding our people and our traditions doesn't nullify Tanakh prophecies, indeed, that is likewise prophesied there.

Click to expand...

OK, if you still need an example of "not the prince of peace" "bringing the sword", how about the story in Acts where the married couple dies because they didn't contribute their entire home sale price to the ministry?

BilliardsBall said:

You better tell all the Jews who pray such or have such in prayer books that they are again inferior to you who have superior knowledge. After all, Ha Shem has taught we Jews that we are superior to the Gentiles, praise Yeshua!

Knowledge is more powerful than love! Praise God!

Your love for me is so small compared to what God actually has, Praise JESUS FOREVER!

Now maybe you'll (regardless whether you wish to substitute something "bigger" than KING OF THE UNIVERSE) deal with the TRIUNE nature of our daily prayer and praise.

If you can humble yourself greatly to actually do so. I recommend deep teshuvah for you.

Thank you for insulting my knowledge and me as I tell you about King Yeshua, He promised His followers that non-believing Jews would do so, His prophecies are all true!

Click to expand...

If you knew what it meant, you would never eqaute it to triune. Abstracting to trinity is the fail. You won't find trinity in any Jewish prayer books.

I'm sorry if I insulted you. Sincerely,

BilliardsBall said:

Yeshua is King, Messiah and God

Click to expand...

BilliardsBall said:

Rebbe Melekh HaMoshiach

Click to expand...

BilliardsBall said:

Rebbe Melekh HaMoshiach Abba Tzaddik Yeshua, May He Be Praised Forever!

Click to expand...

So...every few days you learn about a new phrase that you expect will make your Christian theology sound more Jewish and attempt to make use of it? Believe me, around here, in particular in this thread which is swamped with Jews who actually know a thing or two, it won't help.

Most of what you wrote to me was about @Ehav4Ever's posts. While they interest me, I still haven't had the time to thoroughly go over his material, to understand what exactly troubles you about it. So I recommend in the mean time that you keep on questioning him.
The only thing that actually refers directly to one of my posts to you is your last point:

Clear said:

Occassionally Christians will make the claim of inerrancy of ancient texts of significant size.
They are wrong to do to.
Jews who make the same mistake are wrong to do so.

Click to expand...

Thus, you agree that characterizing the rumors as Jewish is irrelevant, because it casts a tone that makes it seem as though they are wrong simply because they are Jewish. Perhaps you should have written "the rumors passed around by Jews". That was the only point I was making with regards to that particular quote of yours.

Clear said:

I do not think it appropriate to recieve ad hominems instead of explanations or data when I point out the problems in the "investigation" and "verification" claims.

Click to expand...

As I said, your description of the rumors turns your view of them into ad hominems. I recommend not doing that, in order for people to take your criticism seriously. But your call, really.