Ehav4Ever
Well-Known Member
Actually, there is a NT "mishna." It is the writings of the Church Fathers. The Oral NT is found in their writings in terms of how the NT must be understand by the various factions of Christianity.
-
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!
Sin and Repentance
- Thread starter Redemptionsong
- Start date
Actually, there is a NT "mishna." It is the writings of the Church Fathers. The Oral NT is found in their writings in terms of how the NT must be understand by the various factions of Christianity.
Ehav4Ever
Well-Known Member
Also, the following may be good in explaining the NT style "mishna" that BilliardBall is describing.
rosends
Well-Known Member
The gospels certainly have oral explanations but to call any of them a mishna imports a whole lot of stuff (duplicitously), tying it to the method, concept and content of the actual mishna. And if it, in any way, coopts the idea of the mishna and expects validity then it demands that one accept the validity of the actual mishna.
Ehav4Ever
Well-Known Member
Yes, I know. But you won't be able to convince him that he doesn't have what he claims he does. What I saying let's be specific in identifying where his information really comes from. I.e. the Church Fathers.
BilliardsBall
Veteran Member
1) Nearly every Tanakh passage has pictures of Jesus. Comparing nearly 100% of prayer leaders in Tanakh in the position of crucifixion is not worthy to be compared with the word "the". And Issac had children and Jesus had spiritual children, which you've forgot I've shared with you multiple times in recent weeks, in fulfillment of Isaiah 53! So how about this, instead of using the word "the", you name one or two key Bible figures you think do NOT have pictures of Yeshua in their stories. Let's take a look together?
2) I appreciate that you don't want to put the NT, not just the gospels, on par with Tanakh, however, placing Talmud and etc. on a par with holy Tanakh is the very problem that led Jesus and the apostles to come into conflict often with their fellow Jewish leaders. It is evident to even a casual reader that Talmud is arguments of men and Tanakh is the Word of God is a unique way. If you truly trust Moses's words, you will find Moshiach soon, IMHO.
3) NT authors' mishnah on Tanakh and even oral law. For example, Paul comments saying there is neither man nor woman, slave nor free, Jew nor Gentile in Moshiach--and we both know this is his commentary on both Tanakh and other oral, later written practice. Wouldn't I respect you more if you actually addressed what I wrote rather than taking cheap shots?
4) You accuse me of dishonesty because I asked you whether the Jewish obsessions with lawkeeping and the Christian obsession with loving others speaks to you? Does it not speak to you? Our people have brought monotheism to the world and some of our many laws, the born again goyim brought the love of Ha Shem and the love of their fellow man to this world!
BilliardsBall
Veteran Member
Church Fathers meaning post-1st century, in the accepted (goy) Orthodox sense?
Not al all--almost 100% of the NT is commentary on Tanakh! Paul and his fellow commentators say things about Tanakh you don't like, but don't mischaracterize the text so badly.
rosends
Well-Known Member
In your mind. IN the mind of others, they all have pictures of Muhammed, or Joseph Smith or Harry Potter. You find what you are looking for and what you need to find.
"Prayer leaders"? Bizarre term. And you want to say that anyone who did anything with his arms is in a T position. Another strange one.
And rocks have pretend children. Once you start making stuff up, anything counts.
But since all bets are off and you can find anything you want in anything anyone does, then how about you find one that doesn't have a picture of Harry Potter and I get to invent some ridiculous connection in response. Fun game!
I understand that you don't want to put the Talmud on par with Tanach, however placing the Christian texts on par is the very problem that Jews had with non-Jews and what caused non-Jews to come into conflict with Jews. It is evident to even the casual reader that the gospels and other Christian texts are the claims and stories of imaginative and desperate men and the Tanach is the word of God in a unique way. If you truly trust Moses' words, you will find your theology is false soon. Or you won't. Who cares, IMHO.
Later authors making claims and interpretations on the Torah is not mishna (though you wouldn't understand why, would you?) You don't respect anything other than your own twisted needs, supported by your inventions and games. Wouldn't you garner more respect if you admitted to basic things like "words of church fathers explaining their understanding of text isn't same as 'mishna'." But you won't will you?
No, I accuse you of dishonesty because you admit to being a Christian and still insist on including "Jewish" in your profile descriptor even though the two are exclusive of each other. Claiming that I said what you claim is also dishonesty, by the way.
Ehav4Ever
Well-Known Member
The choice of NT books included in canon come from the Church Fathers. The choice of only 4 gospels instead of the gospels of Phillip, Mary, Peter, and Judas are all Church Father Choices. Doctrines used by all modern Christians are also Church Fathers. The use of the revelations text that has 666 vs. the one that has 616 was Church Fathers. Every English translation of the Greek NT was influenced by the Chruch Fathers.
The Church Fathers are the avoth of all Jesus/Yeshua/Yahushua/Yahshua beleivers.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
What's "avoth"?
Ehav4Ever
Well-Known Member
Avoth is (אבות) like fathers/or patriarchs. It means that the Church Fathers set the standard that all modern day Christianity developed from in one way or the other.
Last edited:
Ehav4Ever
Well-Known Member
Ehav4Ever
Well-Known Member
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Thanks for the clarification.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Yep, and this process is called "apostolic succession" and was the "mark" of the early Church, thus not the Bible itself.
BilliardsBall
Veteran Member
Again using the hypothesis method if you're right, that "desperate men wrote the claims and stories":
1) You'd therefore have to explain why 12 desperate men and their desperate teams of scribes/authors, not including apocrypha, facing threats from Rome and expulsion of the synagogue, wrote the NT. What made all these dozens of authors hallucinate, do you think? (I don't know why people do crazy things isn't an answer).
2) You'd therefore have to explain why there are no counter-documents to their claims contemporary to the period, "I lived in Jerusalem and the itinerant preacher Jesus did not draw thousands of people in crowds, do miracles, die and leave an empty tomb, etc."
3) You'd therefore have to explain why Talmud teaches Messiah did miracles, didn't have Joseph as a father, died at 33 1/2 on a stake during Pesach, etc.
4) You'd therefore have to explain why billions of Gentiles have fulfilled prophecies that the Jewish Messiah would be adored by Gentiles, a light unto them, etc.
Statements like "who cares IMHO" show a great reason not to deconvert. The pride and lack of love most Jews show to the converted, compared to the genuine, deep love of born agains, is an ever-present proof of the truth of Yeshua.
Please provide some Tanakh pictures of Muhammed and Joseph Smith. Prove your claim. I keep providing pictures and proof of claims and you keep providing sarcasm only.
BilliardsBall
Veteran Member
Which has nothing to do with what I wrote--the 27 NT books are nearly 100% Tanakh commentary/Tanakh driven. Hundreds of Tanakh references are considered prophecy therein and are expounded upon--a rabbi wrote 2/3 of these 27 books, and used a teaching style common to the day and to oral and written law.
Ehav4Ever
Well-Known Member
Actually it does. The NT is Church Father commentary. No one said that the Church Fathers weren't trying to draw some of their points from the Tanakh when they decided to include some writings and reject others like the gospel of Thomas, Phillip, Mary, Peter, and Judas.
Last edited:
rosends
Well-Known Member
Sadly, desperate people, looking for instant validation and gratification have historically written stories to explain their world. I never claimed that any hallucinated. I think, historically, there have been claims that or 2 hallucinated, but I'm no expert on that. I think they recycled stories, imagined, and filled in gaps in order to give themselves and others something immediate.
So instead of any proof that what they wrote was accurate (and the threads discussing whether the accounts were written contemporaneously with the events, or whether there is any valid external corroboration abound) you want me to provide texts that say that a later invention didn't happen? If someone, in 50 years, claims that in 2020 there were rainbow goats from the moon, will you be faulted for not saying in 2020 that there are none? That's a backwards demand.
Except it doesn't. I mean, I could ask you to explain why the Medrash about how miracles were performed is wrong, or why Rashi's claims on Yoma 10 are inaccurate. How does that sound?
Except that Jesus isn't the Jewish messiah and most of the spread of Christianity was by threat.
What is "deconvert"? If you are saying that my attitude about your religious choice isn't convincing you to go back to whatever idea of Judaism you think you had, then say so. Since Judaism (if you were ever, indeed, Jewish) doesn't recognize "converting" out of Judaism, there is no notion of "deconverting."
Muslims find Muhammed's actual name in biblical text (that's something that Jesus followers can't do) and here are some other points to consider Muhammad and the Bible - Wikipedia.
As for Joseph Smith, here Prophecies in the Bible about Joseph Smith
No doubt you will look at their claims the same way I look at yours.
BilliardsBall
Veteran Member
The church fathers who came centuries after the NT writers are not in the discussion. The 27 NT books are nearly 100% Tanakh commentary/Tanakh driven. Hundreds of Tanakh references are considered prophecy therein and are expounded upon--a rabbi wrote 2/3 of these 27 books, and used a teaching style common to the day and to oral and written law.
One of the reasons for accepting the 27 and rejecting the others is that the 27 ARE from Tanakh.
BilliardsBall
Veteran Member
No, I look at Muslim and Mormon claims via logic, the hypothesis method, and whether their claims and doctrines perfectly align with Tanakh. The NT aligns with Tanakh magnificently, pervasively, thoroughly.
"Sadly, desperate people, looking for instant validation and gratification have historically written stories to explain their world."
12 teams of NT authors and scribes did so? They risked expulsion from synagogues and Jewish life, and Rome's persecution, to "explain" a false Messiah by independently citing hundreds of Tanakh passages? They made up stories that whether written early or very late, weren't confronted by Jewish contemporaries with counter claims? And then many thousands of Jews believed the stories and converted, risking expulsion from Jewish life and Roman martyrdom?
Put differently, the many facts cited by the writers prove 1st century authorship and even hardened atheist academics agree to 1st century dating of the NT. Where are the counter documents written by Jews, "Yeshua of Galilee never did miracles, preached to thousands during Pesach and other festivals, I lived in Jerusalem and these things weren't done", etc? And most of the early converts were Jews. And of course Jesus is described in Talmud as an enticer who was hanged on Pesach and all else.
Unfortunately, neither of us have the will to review all the cited prophecies together. I don't have the time or desire to hear your "powerful refutations", let's see . . . Hezekiah is an ETERNAL FATHER and is the CHILD GIVEN TO US in a prophecy written long after his birth (!) . . . God gave us another astonishing prophecy that a YOUNG WOMAN WILL BEAR A CHILD and some ARMIES WILL BE DEFEATED (!) . . . King David had people attack his wrists and feet LIKE A LION, and on and on . . . Tanakh speaks eloquently of Jesus . . . and our people's antimissionary claims . . . and lives . . . are sorely lacking.
It seems your main line of defense is I don't know how to read or understand Tanakh. So I ask again why I know Lubavitchers, Rabbis, Orthodox and Conservatives, Ph. D Hebrew scholars, who adore Yeshua?