Torah in Christianity

[Brian2]

It does, but that was not the focus of what I was saying. And again, it depends what era you are talking about later translators may have based themselves more on the MT, but very likely not the earlier ones.

The Masoretic text was not available to translate until it was fully produced.
I hear that Jews consider the MT as authoritative but that there were other MSs going around and it is not sure which is closer to original.

 

[Harel13]

The Masoretic text was not available to translate until it was fully produced.

Indeed. But once again, I do not understand why out of my whole comment you keep steering to the MT which was not the focus. You are correct, there were other variant manuscripts. But there are reasons for the differences.

 

[Brian2]

What's different? Nothing has changed. Jesus came, he died, the world is the exact same. The Messianic Age is meant to be different, better, peaceful.

Russia just invaded Ukraine.

'Neither shall they learn war anymore.'

Messianic alright!!!!

The Word of God had to go from Jerusalem to the Gentiles also when most Jews rejected Jesus.
Jews just have a different view of the Messiah and what the Messianic age is all about and probably how long it lasts and it seems even about the Messiah dying for sins, even if there have been Jews in the past who have noticed this and even hypothesised more than one Messiah to cover what they had seen in the scriptures.
It is not a case of wham bam and everything in the Messianic age is done at once.

 

[Rival]

The Word of God had to go from Jerusalem to the Gentiles also when most Jews rejected Jesus.
Jews just have a different view of the Messiah and what the Messianic age is all about and probably how long it lasts and it seems even about the Messiah dying for sins, even if there have been Jews in the past who have noticed this and even hypothesised more than one Messiah to cover what they had seen in the scriptures.
It is not a case of wham bam and everything in the Messianic age is done at once.

The messiah is meant to usher in the Messianic Age, and after 2,000 years yours hasn't. The Messianic Age is the focus of the prophets, not the person of the messiah. Nowhere is he even called 'the messiah' in the text. The focus is on the changes in the world and how things will be for the better - there's literally no point to the messiah without the accompanying Messianic Age, which is the thrust of these prophecies. It's like a king without a kingdom. What happens during this Age is what defines the messiah and how we know who he is in the first place; without these things, one couldn't possibly know.

 

[Brian2]

This, however, is the crux of the problem. The discussion has been to the effect that the Christian should read the "Old Testament" -- if he did he would change his view of his own gospels. And then you defend the gospels through the idea that jesus was the Jewish messiah. But if you read the Jewish bible, you see that the messianic character can not be Jesus, so the conclusion you draw about Jesus must be erroneous. What you are advocating is reading the gospels first and then reading selections of the Jewish texts as seen through the light of extant Christianity.

No you can't read the gospels first at this stage in your life.
But personally I do see Jesus in the pages of the Hebrew Scriptures and I have no doubt that if somehow you came to believe what the NT writes about Jesus, you would understand the Hebrew scriptures differently.
You may say it is confirmation bias, but also it has to do partly with differences in the Tanakh compared to the Christian OT translations.
In my bias I see it as an effort to hide Jesus in Tanakh but no doubt you see it differently.

 

[Harel13]

It is not a case of wham bam and everything in the Messianic age is done at once.

And you say the apostles and other early Christians knew they'd be waiting 2000 years? Well, I suppose we should give 'em a medal for that. Of course, it's not nearly as long as the Samaritan wait for their messianic era, which is over 10000 years from the creation (I can look up the exact number in my notes if you really want).

 

[Rival]

You may say it is confirmation bias, but also it has to do partly with differences in the Tanakh compared to the Christian OT translations.

This is not necessarily true. I read through the whole 'OT' (various Christian translations) as a Christian/non-believer and came to the same conclusion - this is not supporting what is written in the NT; and this is before I met any Jews online, as at the time I had no internet (hence why I had much time to devote to reading) and was not biased either way. The translations I used were mostly the ESV, KJV, NKJV and RSV.

 

[rosends]

No you can't read the gospels first at this stage in your life.
But personally I do see Jesus in the pages of the Hebrew Scriptures and I have no doubt that if somehow you came to believe what the NT writes about Jesus, you would understand the Hebrew scriptures differently.
You may say it is confirmation bias, but also it has to do partly with differences in the Tanakh compared to the Christian OT translations.
In my bias I see it as an effort to hide Jesus in Tanakh but no doubt you see it differently.

But your position requires reading the gospels first. If one were to read them second, without that confirmation bias, one would not find what you have. Or, if one were to read the Jewish bible without the lens of belief in the message of the gospels (whether or not one has read them independently) one would not find what you see there.

One has to "come to belief" in Jesus first and then find things in the earlier texts to support that belief. Do you think that one who read the Jewish texts first would come to believe in Muhammed because Muslims insist he is in the Jewish texts if you read them through the lens of their beliefs? They say the same as you, only they find someone else.

 

[pearl]

This, however, is the crux of the problem. The discussion has been to the effect that the Christian should read the "Old Testament" -- if he did he would change his view of his own gospels. And then you defend the gospels through the idea that jesus was the Jewish messiah. But if you read the Jewish bible, you see that the messianic character can not be Jesus, so the conclusion you draw about Jesus must be erroneous. What you are advocating is reading the gospels first and then reading selections of the Jewish texts as seen through the light of extant Christianity.

I think the advice to be familiar with Hebrew Scripture is to 1) be realize that Jesus was a Jew, and 2) the Gospels cannot be understood apart from Hebrew Scripture. As for a messianic character whom for Christianity is Jesus, I think it is understood that was not the intent of the authors who wrote, they did not have in mind Jesus. However, God revealed himself in stages through various covenants, for Christians Jesus is God's continued and last revelation.

 

[Brian2]

This whole thing of imputed righteousness is a wrong headed notion and IMHO a very dangerous idea because it leads to moral complacency. Righteousness is when you aspire to keep God's commandments, when you love God and your neighbor as yourself. That's the only kind of righteousness that's real.

The LORD is full of gifts for Abraham and even without the Law Abraham is declared righteous because of his believing God.

Genesis15:1 After this, the word of the Lord came to Abram in a vision:
“Do not be afraid, Abram.
I am your shield,
your very great reward.”
2 But Abram said, “Sovereign Lord, what can you give me since I remain childless and the one who will inherit my estate is Eliezer of Damascus?” 3 And Abram said, “You have given me no children; so a servant in my household will be my heir.”
4 Then the word of the Lord came to him: “This man will not be your heir, but a son who is your own flesh and blood will be your heir.” 5 He took him outside and said, “Look up at the sky and count the stars—if indeed you can count them.” Then he said to him, “So shall your offspring be.”
6 Abram believed the Lord, and he credited it to him as righteousness.
7 He also said to him, “I am the Lord, who brought you out of Ur of the Chaldeans to give you this land to take possession of it.”

But of course complacency is possible even for those who are to keep the Law. Christians are warned about this and repentance is an important step in turning to Jesus.

Jeremiah 7:1 This is the word that came to Jeremiah from the Lord: 2 “Stand at the gate of the Lord’s house and there proclaim this message:“‘Hear the word of the Lord, all you people of Judah who come through these gates to worship the Lord. 3 This is what the Lord Almighty, the God of Israel, says: Reform your ways and your actions, and I will let you live in this place. 4 Do not trust in deceptive words and say, “This is the temple of the Lord, the temple of the Lord, the temple of the Lord!” 5 If you really change your ways and your actions and deal with each other justly, 6 if you do not oppress the foreigner, the fatherless or the widow and do not shed innocent blood in this place, and if you do not follow other gods to your own harm, 7 then I will let you live in this place, in the land I gave your ancestors for ever and ever. 8 But look, you are trusting in deceptive words that are worthless.
9 “‘Will you steal and murder, commit adultery and perjury, burn incense to Baal and follow other gods you have not known, 10 and then come and stand before me in this house, which bears my Name, and say, “We are safe”—safe to do all these detestable things? 11 Has this house, which bears my Name, become a den of robbers to you? But I have been watching! declares the Lord.

Christians should and are encouraged to keep God's Commandments in loving God and our neighbour, but without knowing our need for forgiveness and mercy there is danger in becoming proud,,,,,,,,,something God hates.

 

[Brian2]

Indeed. But once again, I do not understand why out of my whole comment you keep steering to the MT which was not the focus. You are correct, there were other variant manuscripts. But there are reasons for the differences.

I must have missed your focus whenever you said it.

 

[Starlight]

Why do you stop there, it goes on!...

For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven."

If you say that all has been fulfilled, then you don't expect any second coming, right?

All means all. Either all is done or it's not, you can't have it both ways.

You did forget this:

For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

When shall it be fullfilled? The answer is this:

30 When he had received the drink, Jesus said, "It is finished." With that, he bowed his head and gave up his spirit. John 19:30

So before Jesus death, all had to follow the laws in the Torah. After Jesus death christians do not have to follow the laws in the Torah.

 

[Brian2]

The messiah is meant to usher in the Messianic Age, and after 2,000 years yours hasn't. The Messianic Age is the focus of the prophets, not the person of the messiah. Nowhere is he even called 'the messiah' in the text. The focus is on the changes in the world and how things will be for the better - there's literally no point to the messiah without the accompanying Messianic Age, which is the thrust of these prophecies. It's like a king without a kingdom. What happens during this Age is what defines the messiah and how we know who he is in the first place; without these things, one couldn't possibly know.

The Gospel of the Kingdom is to be preached to the whole world and people from every tongue and nation will come to the Kingdom. The time is getting closer.
There are events surrounding Israel which are to be fulfilled also and other things.
It has also been a long time and the Jewish Messiah has not come. And people say, "where is the promise of His coming"? That's fine, that is all part of prophecy and we carry on regardless.
Nobody could know if Jesus is the Messiah or not unless He has already fulfilled prophecy. This of course would include dying and rising from the dead and going to heaven to receive the Kingdom (Dan 7:13,14) and ruling from there.
So since Jews can't even see these things in prophecy and deny what the Christians say is Messianic prophecy, why would you even consider Jesus? especially after 2000 years with quite a bit of Christian persecution of Jews and after being told how anti Jewish teaching, Jesus and Christianity is and how evil it would be for a Jew to become a Christian.

 

[Rival]

You did forget this:

For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

When shall it be fullfilled? The answer is this:

30 When he had received the drink, Jesus said, "It is finished." With that, he bowed his head and gave up his spirit. John 19:30

So before Jesus death, all had to follow the laws in the Torah. After Jesus death christians do not have to follow the laws in the Torah.

Non-Jews were never and are not bound by the Torah.

 

[Starlight]

Non-Jews were never and are not bound by the Torah.

Thats true yes

 

[Brian2]

And you say the apostles and other early Christians knew they'd be waiting 2000 years? Well, I suppose we should give 'em a medal for that. Of course, it's not nearly as long as the Samaritan wait for their messianic era, which is over 10000 years from the creation (I can look up the exact number in my notes if you really want).

Notes? That's organised.
But no the early Christians did not know how long before Jesus returned, all we can do is look for the fulfilment of prophecies to see when the time is nearing,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,even if some Christians like to think they can work out the time down to the year or even closer.

 

[Brian2]

This is not necessarily true. I read through the whole 'OT' (various Christian translations) as a Christian/non-believer and came to the same conclusion - this is not supporting what is written in the NT; and this is before I met any Jews online, as at the time I had no internet (hence why I had much time to devote to reading) and was not biased either way. The translations I used were mostly the ESV, KJV, NKJV and RSV.

Yes well I guess there is no set rule about these things.
I imagine that if you somehow turned to Jesus and believed what He said and the Gospel story about Him, that would open your eyes to what OT prophecy says about Him.
It is good to realise that God's focus is not just on the Jews and that God wanted to save all humanity and creation from the problems (sin and death) that came about with A@E.

 

[Brian2]

But your position requires reading the gospels first. If one were to read them second, without that confirmation bias, one would not find what you have. Or, if one were to read the Jewish bible without the lens of belief in the message of the gospels (whether or not one has read them independently) one would not find what you see there.

One has to "come to belief" in Jesus first and then find things in the earlier texts to support that belief. Do you think that one who read the Jewish texts first would come to believe in Muhammed because Muslims insist he is in the Jewish texts if you read them through the lens of their beliefs? They say the same as you, only they find someone else.

Yes and Baha'is say the same.
Satan has done all this, and more, to obfuscate the truth of the matter.
It certainly is interesting to see the lengths Satan has gone to tear down the Hebrew and Greek scriptures and make them look like fiction because of what scholars and sceptics say about them.

 

[Harel13]

I must have missed your focus whenever you said it.

Thought it was obvious from these posts:

Not always. But sometimes, yes. Especially depending how much the version you prefer is based on the LXX, and which version of that, of course.
And sometimes it wasn't dishonesty but conflation of external ideas and worldviews. This becomes more relevant the further back in time you go.

I was actually referring to sources external to the Masoretic tradition. And then it goes deeper than that. One must consider the reasons for the differences.

Ah, well.

 

[Harel13]

Notes? That's organised.

I try. They're notes from a trip to the Samaritan neighborhood in Shechem where we spoke to two leaders of the community.