Trinity claims that the Jews believed that a Son is equal to his Father

[Soapy]

that your claim that the use of the singular is significant and has anything to do with "Israel the man" is wrong.

Show me "saviour" in the chapter.

Quoting a non-Jewish text to try and make any case to someone discussing Judaism is not useful.

You are right. Somehow I didn’t realise I was in a question concerning Jewish beliefs ….

I agree and have stated as much when I try to debate with Trinitarians wherein I say that I will not accept any references to Trinity Creed in responses.

 

[Brian2]

Are not a husband and wife considered as 'one' scripturally? At least in the Christian Greek scriptures.

They are seen as one flesh and that seems to be in the act of sex. (Matt 19:5)
In the OT it says that a man and woman will become one flesh (Gen 2:24) and God is called one. (Echad) Deut 6:4.

 

[Brian2]

Are you supposing that this verse attributed to Jesus from God was spoken in the time of Acts?

And I did not mention psalms 2 - I was only deterring to the fact that it is an ADOPTION statement…. Something you conveniently skipped in the question I asked you!

It was stated to Mary the Virgin that the son she was going t give birth to WILL BE CALLED ‘Son of the Most High [God]’.

Do you read the words ‘WILL BE’?

And in respect of psalm 2… verse 7 states David saying:

• “I will proclaim the LORD’s decree: He said to me, “You are my son; today I have become your father.” (Psalm 2:7)

In verse 2 David is feeling low because:

• “The kings of the earth rise up and the rulers band together against the LORD and against his anointed, saying,” (Psalm 2:2)

David declares himself as being the Lord’s anointed and that the ‘kings of the earth’ are against him and against God, the Lord!

This is exactly reflected in the time of Jesus … indeed, this is the purpose of prophesy: ‘God speaks of what is to come before it comes’.

And we know that Jesus speaks to the Jews that they should read the scriptures (obviously the Old Testament) that speaks of his FUTURE activities and events (albeit Jesus just attributes the readings to Moses!)

I think I implied that you were right and that it was a declaration of adoption for David, but it is adoption of Jesus in the NT who was already a Son before the adoption. iows it is a declaration that Jesus is God's Son to everyone.
In the same way Christians are already children of God but are said to be adopted at the resurrection of their bodies. IOWs declared to be children of God to everyone.

 

[Brian2]

Sorry, I don't think that is well enough supported by the Bible. I think the meaning is that they have same will, which is why they are one. Jesus does God's will, similarly as I think disciples of Jesus should do and in that way they are one.

He who sent me is with me. The Father hasn’t left me alone, for I always do the things that are pleasing to him.”
Joh. 8:29

For I spoke not from myself, but the Father who sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak. I know that his commandment is eternal life. The things therefore which I speak, even as the Father has said to me, so I speak."
John 12:49-50

Jesus therefore answered them, "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

All of what I said is based on the scriptures however.
But yes the Father and Son are also in harmony even though that does not mean they are one "thing".
If you want the scriptures just let me know.

>>>Jesus and the Father are one (thing) The "one" is neuter and implies a thing.
The disciples who are in Christ (who is in the Father) are one (thing) also, with each other. They are one body and Jesus and His Father are one God.
With the disciples the Spirit is joined with their spirits.
With Jesus and His Father the Spirit of God IS the Spirit of Christ.
There is one Spirit and the Father and Son share that one Spirit.<<<

 

[YoursTrue]

They are seen as one flesh and that seems to be in the act of sex. (Matt 19:5)
In the OT it says that a man and woman will become one flesh (Gen 2:24) and God is called one. (Echad) Deut 6:4.

It may appear to you that a man and woman united in marriage is said to be considered a sexual union as one, but that is not necessarily the case. Eve was made from Adam's rib. Adam did not have "sex" to produce Eve. had no father and mother who raised her from infancy. Both were produced as adults, not babies.
Now the fact that Jesus got baptized at about the age of 30 says something about his relationship with God, his Father.
God is called one because He IS one. To say that Jesus is God's son does not say that Jesus is God. To say that God's holy spirit is God is also not saying that the holy spirit is God and one godperson of three godpersons said to be one.

 

[Soapy]

They are seen as one flesh and that seems to be in the act of sex. (Matt 19:5)
In the OT it says that a man and woman will become one flesh (Gen 2:24) and God is called one. (Echad) Deut 6:4.

God is not called ‘One’ as a person nor as a multiplicity ‘union’ of three persons.

The pagan tribes among whom the Israelites often found themselves claimed to worship MANY GODS…
YHWH told his Israelite nation that they should worship Him as their ONE and ONLY GOD.

This is the single and sole and one and only context that ‘One God’ is used in the scriptures.

Yhwh is telling his nation that the world WAS NOT CREATED by a multiplicity of deities … but by HIM and HIM ALONE!

‘I am to be you ONLY GOD’

The translators chose to use the word ‘One’ instead of ‘Only’. The Hebrew text used in the Old Testament does not lend itself to be easy mis-translated and therefore attempts at Trinitarianising it are bound to fail or be pretty obvious errors!

And, indeed, that is so. There is no trinity in the Old Testament - not even a hint. In the beginning … there is GOD and HIS SPIRIT… God the thinker and the actor behind his thinking.

What God thinks, his spirit acts on!

That is the same as a sentient beings: Think of something … then the spirit acts on the body to make it happen!

A person in a coma still THINKS but their Spirit is not able to ACT to make their body move! That is not TWO PERSON.

It is one person and their personal actor spirit. A body is just a vehicle that the spirit of the person acts on in the physical world.

 

[David Davidovich]

View attachment 62481

View attachment 62482

Thank you, Ehav4Eve. And I haven't had time to watch your videos yet, but I did want to

If you go back to the first video I posted I stated that there were Jews who did Avodah Zara. I also made it clear that when a Jew does Avodah Zara they are not holding by Torath Mosheh. Thus, they are not a "Torath Mosheh Jew" when they do Avodah Zara. The second video further explained what Torath Mosheh means to begin with.

By like token when you brought up Hellenistic Jews I also brought up that they existed and the moment they were "Hellenist" they were doing Avodah Zara and thus no longer Torath Mosheh Jews. I also stated that if go back and at some point Jews who start up groups of Avodah Zara normally disappear off the historical landscape with 2 to 3 generations of their start. This is what happened to the original Jewish Christians.

Yet, the concept of the "heavens" that is a part of the Western English speaking world's way of talking is not a Torath Mosheh concept and even in ancient Israeli the concept of (שמיים) is different.

Sorry, but I didn't have time to look at your video yet. However, I did want to ask you whether or not you believed if the www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org quote that I posted had any merit? Or whether or not that site has any merit at all? Also, here is the quote again:

All the Apocrypha and most of the Pseudepigrapha are Jewish works (some contain Christianizing additions). They provide essential evidence of Jewish literature and thought during the period between the end of biblical writing (ca. 400 BCE) and the beginning of substantial rabbinic literature in the latter part of the first century CE. They have aroused much scholarly interest, since they provide information about Judaism at the turn of the era between the Bible and the Mishna (Biblical Law and Oral Law), and help explain how Rabbinic Judaism and Christianity came into being.​

click here: The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha (jewishvirtuallibrary.org)

 

[David Davidovich]

View attachment 62481

View attachment 62482

Thank you for that, Ehav4Ever. Also, even though, I know that you believe differently, Ehav4Ever, the following will be information about Alan F. Segal, and Benjamin D. Sommer for anyone who has an interest in the viewpoints of these Jewish scholars and how it pertains to this topic:

Twenty-five years ago, rabbinical scholar Alan Segal produced what is still the major work on the idea of two powers in heaven in Jewish thought. Segal argued that the two powers idea was not deemed heretical in Jewish theology until the second century C.E. He carefully traced the roots of the teaching back into the Second Temple era (ca. 200 B.C.E.). Segal was able to establish that the idea’s antecedents were in the Hebrew Bible, specifically passages like Dan 7:9ff., Exo 23:20-23, and Exo 15:3. However, he was unable to discern any coherent religious framework from which these passages and others were conceptually derived. Persian dualism was unacceptable as an explanation since neither of the two powers in heaven were evil. Segal speculated that the divine warrior imagery of the broader ancient near east likely had some relationship.

In my dissertation (UW-Madison, 2004) I argued that Segal’s instincts were correct. My own work bridges the gap between his book and the Hebrew Bible understood in its Canaanite religious context. I suggest that the “original model” for the two powers idea was the role of the vice-regent of the divine council. The paradigm of a high sovereign God (El) who rules heaven and earth through the agency of a second, appointed god (Baal) became part of Israelite religion, albeit with some modification. For the orthodox Israelite, Yahweh was both sovereign and vice regent—occupying both “slots” as it were at the head of the divine council. The binitarian portrayal of Yahweh in the Hebrew Bible was motivated by this belief. The ancient Israelite knew two Yahwehs—one invisible, a spirit, the other visible, often in human form. The two Yahwehs at times appear together in the text, at times being distinguished, at other times not.

Early Judaism understood this portrayal and its rationale. There was no sense of a violation of monotheism since either figure was indeed Yahweh. There was no second distinct god running the affairs of the cosmos. During the Second Temple period, Jewish theologians and writers speculated on an identity for the second Yahweh. Guesses ranged from divinized humans from the stories of the Hebrew Bible to exalted angels. These speculations were not considered unorthodox. That acceptance changed when certain Jews, the early Christians, connected Jesus with this orthodox Jewish idea. This explains why these Jews, the first converts to following Jesus the Christ, could simultaneously worship the God of Israel and Jesus, and yet refuse to acknowledge any other god. Jesus was the incarnate second Yahweh. In response, as Segal’s work demonstrated, Judaism pronounced the two powers teaching a heresy sometime in the second century A.D.​

click here: Two Powers in Heaven


In this installment of “From the Academy,� Dr. Benjamin Sommer, Professor of Bible at the Jewish Theological Seminary, tells us about his current research and academic work.

I just finished a book, The Bodies of God and the World of Ancient Israel, which will be published next year by Cambridge University Press.In it I describe an ancient Near Eastern perception of divinity that shows up in certain parts of the Bible, according to which a god (or, in its biblical version, God) differs from a human because a god can have more than one body, each one located at some specific place on earth or in heaven.

As a result, a god (or God) has a fluid self that is quite unlike the self of a human. The dominant strains of biblical religion rejected this understanding of divinity, which I call “the fluidity tradition,” but it is still found in some biblical texts, especially in Genesis, Exodus, Hosea, Isaiah, and some psalms.

Later Jewish and Christian thinkers inherited this ancient way of thinking, so that it shows up in the doctrines of sefirot in and the trinity in Christianity.

I spent eight years working on this book, and they were wonderful, eye-opening and stimulating. The topic appeals to me because it allows me to address several types of religious questions.


Modern biblical scholars often claim that the religion of the Hebrew Bible or Tanakh is quite removed from what we know as Judaism. Some biblical critics, both Christian and Jewish, take what I think is an immature delight in trying to show that the Tanakh really belongs to the cultures of the ancient Near East and not to Judaism.

In this book, however, I show that it is precisely when we recover a lost ancient Near Eastern way of perceiving divinity that we recognize a deep continuity between the Tanakh and later Jewish thought. We also notice the deep roots of some kabbalistic ideas in earlier Judaism, not only in rabbinic literature but also in the Tanakh itself.

(In this regard, my project is a footnote to and extension of the lifework of Idel, who has done so much to demonstrate the ancient rabbinic origins of basic ideas found in medieval Jewish mysticism.)​

click here: From the Academy: Benjamin Sommer | My Jewish Learning

 

[Brian2]

It may appear to you that a man and woman united in marriage is said to be considered a sexual union as one, but that is not necessarily the case. Eve was made from Adam's rib. Adam did not have "sex" to produce Eve. had no father and mother who raised her from infancy. Both were produced as adults, not babies.
Now the fact that Jesus got baptized at about the age of 30 says something about his relationship with God, his Father.
God is called one because He IS one. To say that Jesus is God's son does not say that Jesus is God. To say that God's holy spirit is God is also not saying that the holy spirit is God and one godperson of three godpersons said to be one.

Adam and Eve became one flesh when they had intercourse.
Echad, one, can mean a composite "one".
Being baptised at the age of 30 shows that Jesus was given the Holy Spirit for what He needed to go off and teach etc. The apostles had been given the Holy Spirit by Jesus before Pentecost but they were also given the Holy Spirit at Pentecost for the purpose of them doing their work of teaching etc. (John 20:22)
The Father is the one true God and the Holy Spirit is in Him and comes from Him. He is not created and is shown to have the attributes of a person and is shown in the scriptures to be alive.
The Son is in His Father and gets His life from His Father and that has been the case from eternity.
The Father is the God of the Son because the Son is a man, even now.
His Father became His God when He became a man. (Psalm 22:10)

 

[Ehav4Ever]

However, I did want to ask you whether or not you believed if the www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org quote that I posted had any merit? Or whether or not that site has any merit at all?

Greetings. The article, in English, would have no merit to me as a final source of information. Also, given that it does not include a detailed section of why such texts were not accepted by the majority of Jews who survived the 2nd Temple period and why they were not found in Jewish communities that survived outside of Israel after the 2nd Temple period.

For example, here is an important quote from another part of the article.

What is their importance?

When these books were first studied, scholars realized that they could help to provide a context for the understanding of the origins of Christianity. No longer was rabbinic Judaism to form the primary basis for comparison with the earliest Christian literature, but rather the Jewish literature of the Second Temple Period, and particularly the Pseudepigrapha, could contribute much insight, making the Jewish origin of Christianity more comprehensible.​

I.e. since the original Jewish Christian started they may have, for a time, just been a group of Jews with non-standard ideas that they were getting for questionable sources. Yet, as time went on they took those questionable sources and built something so distant from Torath Mosheh that the normative Torath Mosheh Jewish communities throughout the Middle East and the early Jewish Christians seperated. The questionable texts became a primary source for the early Jewish Christians and the normative Torath Mosheh finally put the text in ignore bin.

Yet, within two generations the Jewish Christians dissappeared off the historical map to be replaced by non-Jewish Christians. Thus, the value of those lost any relevance to the Jews who had originally championed them.

Further, when one states "Jewish literature" one can be talking about a Jew, who keeps no Torah, and wrote something. One can also be talking about Jew who writes something that has no historical basis whatsoever. I.e. just because a Jew writes doesn't make it Torath Mosheh, and for Torath Mosheh Jews something is only valid if it meets the criteria of Torath Mosheh - these texts were deemed to not meet that criteria by all surviving Jewish communities.

Also, to address the section you quoted. I have highlighted some areas that also make the above point that the article doesn't cover. I have added comments in red.

All the Apocrypha and most of the Pseudepigrapha are Jewish works (some contain Christianizing additions) [Ehav4Ever comment - in Torath Mosheh anything with Christian addition would make the entire text invalid and we consider it to have no value - thus it basically becomes non-Jewish this is described in the Mishnah. Concerning the rest if we see a text - written by a Jew - that doesn't match Torath Mosheh we check it, verify its content, and then mark it as not Torath Mosheh i.e. not-Jewish]. They provide essential evidence of Jewish literature and thought [Ehav4Ever comment - again. Being Jewish and writing something doesn't make the text or the content Torath Mosheh. If this article was written in Hebrew that would be more clear.] during the period [between the end of biblical writing (ca. 400 BCE) and the beginning of substantial rabbinic literature in the latter part of the first century CE. They have aroused much scholarly interest, since they provide information about Judaism [Ehav4Ever comment - problematic statement. The term Judaism is not a 2nd Temple word. The closest thing to it would have (יהדות) which doesn't carry the same meaning as the English word Judaism in English carries. English articles, including many written by Jews often ignore the non-European descriptions of what 2nd Temple writings meant thus this statement may be misunderstood by someone who has read Jewish literature outside of articles and books written in English] at the turn of the era between the Bible and the Mishna (Biblical Law and Oral Law), and help explain how Rabbinic Judaism and Christianity came into being. [Ehav4Ever comment - problematic statement. The reason why so called "Rabbinic Judaism" cannot be linked with Christianity in this kind of concept is because the early Jewish Christians dissappeared off the historical map leaving virtually none of their original texts and no Jewish descendents to explain the sources of many of their ideas. Thus, there is scholarlly questions about their origins. With so called "Rabbinic Judaism" often western scholars ignore huge portions of it from Jewish communities that existed in Arabia, North Africa, the Middle East, and Asia at the same time. Thus, they sometimes act as if the Torath Mosheh of that time and its sources weren't known when they were.]
​

I have a number of videos where I address areas of ancient and modern Jewish history that is ignored by western scholars, with the exception of minor foot notes. Many of footnotes have large volumes written about them in Hebrew.

 

[Brian2]

God is not called ‘One’ as a person nor as a multiplicity ‘union’ of three persons.

The pagan tribes among whom the Israelites often found themselves claimed to worship MANY GODS…
YHWH told his Israelite nation that they should worship Him as their ONE and ONLY GOD.

This is the single and sole and one and only context that ‘One God’ is used in the scriptures.

You ignore the fact that Jesus is called YHWH in the scriptures.

Yhwh is telling his nation that the world WAS NOT CREATED by a multiplicity of deities … but by HIM and HIM ALONE!

You ignore the fact that scripture tells us that Jesus was there at the creation and doing the creating.

‘I am to be you ONLY GOD’

The translators chose to use the word ‘One’ instead of ‘Only’. The Hebrew text used in the Old Testament does not lend itself to be easy mis-translated and therefore attempts at Trinitarianising it are bound to fail or be pretty obvious errors!

And, indeed, that is so. There is no trinity in the Old Testament - not even a hint. In the beginning … there is GOD and HIS SPIRIT… God the thinker and the actor behind his thinking.

The word "echad" was used because it is not one, unity. I have read that implies a composite one.
It certainly does not deny the trinity.

It is one person and their personal actor spirit. A body is just a vehicle that the spirit of the person acts on in the physical world.

Yes humans are one being, body, mind and spirit.
You don't seem to recognise that our body speaks to our mind and our mind speaks to our body. You don't seem to realise that our spirit communicates with our mind. We are 3 in one.

 

[YoursTrue]

Adam and Eve became one flesh when they had intercourse.

Eve was taken from the flesh of Adam. She was made of his flesh. (ok, his rib.)

 

[Brian2]

Eve was taken from the flesh of Adam. She was made of his flesh. (ok, his rib.)

1Cor 6:15 Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall I then take the members of Christ and unite them with a prostitute? Never! 16 Or don’t you know that he who unites himself with a prostitute is one with her in body? For it is said, “The two will become one flesh.” 17But he who unites himself with the Lord is one with Him in spirit.…

 

[PearlSeeker]

Jesus was answering the Jews about being greater than Abraham.

Your father Abraham rejoiced that he would see My day. He saw it and was glad.”

Then the Jews said to Him, “You are not yet fifty years old, and You have seen Abraham?”

(John 8)

 

[Soapy]

Your father Abraham rejoiced that he would see My day. He saw it and was glad.”

Then the Jews said to Him, “You are not yet fifty years old, and You have seen Abraham?”

(John 8)

Exactly.

It is NOT about physically ‘SEEING’ a person of ages past (Abraham, in this case). That would be absurd seeing that Abraham died tens of hundreds of years prior.

CONTEXT - CONTEXT - CONTEXT and FIGURE OF SPEECH - FIGURE OF SPEECH!

‘Fifty Years Old’ was considered the age of scribal maturity for Jews. Basically, the Jews were saying to Jesus that he had no authority to speak about the great patriarch, Abraham, let alone claim seniority of authority.

Jesus’ answer was that he was indeed greater than Abraham because even Abraham was pleased to learn that ONE GREATER THAN HIMSELF would be coming FROM HIS OWN LOINS (so to speak)… that the MESSIAH, the Saviour, would come from his linage.

The promise from God: the Covenant would be accomplished through one his offspring….

And, just as Isaac was promised to him as a covenant, and just as Isaac was put up for sacrifice, Jesus Christ, was the true covenant son, the true sacrifice, the true lamb of God, saved from eternal death by the resurrection of the same.

And, so angry were the Jews on hearing this bold statement from Jesus that they wanted to stone him to death.

‘I Am’ is not the name of God. The name of God is ‘YHWH’.

The MEANING of YHWH is ‘I am’ or ‘I shall be’ (I prefer the former!) ‘I am’ is not a name any more than ‘The Rock’ is a name … it is the MEANING of ‘Peter’/‘Cephas’.

Jesus did not say, ‘Before Abraham was, God’, did he? If you think so then you must believe that Peter was Christ: ‘The Rock…. that followed the children of Israel in the wilderness WAS CHRIST!’

 

[PearlSeeker]

Exactly.

It is NOT about physically ‘SEEING’ a person of ages past (Abraham, in this case). That would be absurd seeing that Abraham died tens of hundreds of years prior.

CONTEXT - CONTEXT - CONTEXT and FIGURE OF SPEECH - FIGURE OF SPEECH!

‘Fifty Years Old’ was considered the age of scribal maturity for Jews. Basically, the Jews were saying to Jesus that he had no authority to speak about the great patriarch, Abraham, let alone claim seniority of authority.

Jesus’ answer was that he was indeed greater than Abraham because even Abraham was pleased to learn that ONE GREATER THAN HIMSELF would be coming FROM HIS OWN LOINS (so to speak)… that the MESSIAH, the Saviour, would come from his linage.

The promise from God: the Covenant would be accomplished through one his offspring….

And, just as Isaac was promised to him as a covenant, and just as Isaac was put up for sacrifice, Jesus Christ, was the true covenant son, the true sacrifice, the true lamb of God, saved from eternal death by the resurrection of the same.

And, so angry were the Jews on hearing this bold statement from Jesus that they wanted to stone him to death.

‘I Am’ is not the name of God. The name of God is ‘YHWH’.

The MEANING of YHWH is ‘I am’ or ‘I shall be’ (I prefer the former!) ‘I am’ is not a name any more than ‘The Rock’ is a name … it is the MEANING of ‘Peter’/‘Cephas’.

Jesus did not say, ‘Before Abraham was, God’, did he? If you think so then you must believe that Peter was Christ: ‘The Rock…. that followed the children of Israel in the wilderness WAS CHRIST!’

Nope.

"I came from the Father and entered the world. In turn, I will leave the world and go to the Father."

 

[Soapy]

Nope.

"I came from the Father and entered the world. In turn, I will leave the world and go to the Father."

You are avoiding the obvious and presenting diversions as a response.

Oh dear, the verse says ‘Come from the God’.

And the following verse says ‘Came from the Father’.

The Father is God: God is the Father!!!

But, in reality, the ‘Coming’ is not what you are trying to make it out to be.

Always, Jesus says he was ‘SENT’. This is not a ‘From Heaven’… Jesus was ‘SENT’ AFTER he was baptised / anointed / set aside / sanctified / consecrated by the Father by means of His Holy Spirit at the river Jordan.

It was AFTER that event and the wilderness testing that Jesus was SENT INTO THE WORLD… that is to say: To face Adversity : to face the wickedness of the world.

Notice that Jesus did not do anything of renown BEFORE those events…. Only AFTERWARDS!!

Acts 10:37-38 sums it up for all to observe.

And as Jesus is dying, what were his words: ‘My God, My God, WHY HAVE YOU FORESAKEN ME!’

How is Jesus ‘going BACK to God’ if GOD has abandoned him?

Who is God if God foresook Jesus?

 

[PearlSeeker]

Always, Jesus says he was ‘SENT’. This is not a ‘From Heaven’… Jesus was ‘SENT’ AFTER he was baptised / anointed / set aside / sanctified / consecrated by the Father by means of His Holy Spirit at the river Jordan.

He "entered the world" after he was baptized??

Don't ask me how is he going back to the Father. I just quoted from the Bible.

 

[Soapy]

He "entered the world" after he was baptized??

Don't ask me how is he going back to the Father. I just quoted from the Bible.

Are you purposely being obtuse?

When Jesus says about ‘To come into the world’ it is not about being born! Are you doing a Nicodemus?

‘The world’ in this context means ‘to face the deceit of it’…. ‘To take the cares of it upon himself’.

It’s like I said, before Jesus was ‘in the world of sin’ he did nothing. He was dutiful and compliant with the law and the guidance of his earthly parents. After he was anointed with Holy Spirit and power (Acts 10:37-38) he was SENT TO FACE ADVERSITY IN THE WORLD.

And when he CONQUERED the world he was no longer in the world… but his disciples/Apostles were to remain in it… that is, they were to face adversity and deceit of the wicked one: that wicked one no longer had any power over Jesus because he had shown that the world cannot seduce him… he was ‘no longer in the world!’.

• John 17:11
• John 17:16
• John 15:19

So Jesus said, “When you have lifted up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am he and that I do nothing on my own but speak just what the Father has taught me.The one who sent me is with me; he has not left me alone, for I always do what pleases him.” (John 8:28-29)

The one who sent me …
The one who taught me…
The one whom I always please…
“Behold my Servant, my chosen one on whom I will put my spirit’
“The one on whom you see the spirit come down and remain on - he is the one!” (Paraphrased)
‘This is my Son in whom I am well pleased!’

 

[David Davidovich]

Greetings. The article, in English, would have no merit to me as a final source of information.

Thank you for your response to my inquiry. However, for clarity in regard to your sentence above, I don't understand why with the article not being in English, but if it was in Hebrew and if it was saying the same thing, then would that mean that it would have merit to you as a final source of information? And if so, why?

Also, given that it does not include a detailed section of why such texts were not accepted by the majority of Jews who survived the 2nd Temple period and why they were not found in Jewish communities that survived outside of Israel after the 2nd Temple period.

For example, here is an important quote from another part of the article.

What is their importance?

When these books were first studied, scholars realized that they could help to provide a context for the understanding of the origins of Christianity. No longer was rabbinic Judaism to form the primary basis for comparison with the earliest Christian literature, but rather the Jewish literature of the Second Temple Period, and particularly the Pseudepigrapha, could contribute much insight, making the Jewish origin of Christianity more comprehensible.​

I.e. since the original Jewish Christian started they may have, for a time, just been a group of Jews with non-standard ideas that they were getting for questionable sources. Yet, as time went on they took those questionable sources and built something so distant from Torath Mosheh that the normative Torath Mosheh Jewish communities throughout the Middle East and the early Jewish Christians seperated. The questionable texts became a primary source for the early Jewish Christians and the normative Torath Mosheh finally put the text in ignore bin.

Further, when one states "Jewish literature" one can be talking about a Jew, who keeps no Torah, and wrote something. One can also be talking about Jew who writes something that has no historical basis whatsoever. I.e. just because a Jew writes doesn't make it Torath Mosheh, and for Torath Mosheh Jews something is only valid if it meets the criteria of Torath Mosheh - these texts were deemed to not meet that criteria by all surviving Jewish communities.

Yet, within two generations the Jewish Christians dissappeared off the historical map to be replaced by non-Jewish Christians. Thus, the value of those lost any relevance to the Jews who had originally championed them.

Okay, so it looks like what you are saying is that Torath Mosheh Judaism would be an unadulterated, genuine form of Judaism where these other so-called versions of Judaism which are mentioned in articles such as these are not really Judaism. However, the concern that I have with that is that I have seen on other forums where people who claim to be Jewish have said that there are all various types of Judaism. Also, I got this from wikipedia:

Jewish religious movements, sometimes called "denominations", include different groups within Judaism which have developed among Jews from ancient times. Today, the main division is between the "traditional" branches of Judaism (Orthodox and Conservative) and the more modern Reform, with several smaller movements alongside each. This structure is mainly present in the United States and United Kingdom; in Israel, the fault lines are between Haredi Judaism (Haredim), Religious Zionism (Datim), Masortim (traditional), and Hiloni (secular) Jews.[1]

The movements differ in their views on various issues. These issues include the level of observance, the methodology for interpreting and understanding Jewish law, biblical authorship, textual criticism, and the nature or role of the messiah (or messianic age). Across these movements, there are marked differences in liturgy, especially in the language in which services are conducted, with the more traditional movements emphasizing Hebrew. The sharpest theological division occurs between Orthodox and non-Orthodox Jews who adhere to other denominations, such that the non-Orthodox movements are sometimes referred to collectively as the "liberal denominations" or "progressive streams".​

click here: Jewish religious movements - Wikipedia

Also, to address the section you quoted. I have highlighted some areas that also make the above point that the article doesn't cover. I have added comments in red.

All the Apocrypha and most of the Pseudepigrapha are Jewish works (some contain Christianizing additions) [Ehav4Ever comment - in Torath Mosheh anything with Christian addition would make the entire text invalid and we consider it to have no value - thus it basically becomes non-Jewish this is described in the Mishnah. Concerning the rest if we see a text - written by a Jew - that doesn't match Torath Mosheh we check it, verify its content, and then mark it as not Torath Mosheh i.e. not-Jewish]. They provide essential evidence of Jewish literature and thought [Ehav4Ever comment - again. Being Jewish and writing something doesn't make the text or the content Torath Mosheh. If this article was written in Hebrew that would be more clear.] during the period [between the end of biblical writing (ca. 400 BCE) and the beginning of substantial rabbinic literature in the latter part of the first century CE. They have aroused much scholarly interest, since they provide information about Judaism [Ehav4Ever comment - problematic statement. The term Judaism is not a 2nd Temple word. The closest thing to it would have (יהדות) which doesn't carry the same meaning as the English word Judaism in English carries. ​

So, what exactly does that word in Hebrew characters mean?​