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

[Clear]

Hi @rosends

Clear said :
"Which version is more correct, the Dead Sea Scroll versions or the Masoretic of approx 1000 years later?
Though you say you would not personally use the Dead Sea Scrolls to repair errors in the Masoretic, many other bible committees are using the Dead Sea Scrolls to correct their text.
I’ve already given an example of the multiple textual losses in the Masoretic in Samuel. (If you need or want me to give you the textual loss in the Masoretic, I will certainly do so).
Do you think the Masoretic text of Samuel is correct and the Dead Sea version of Samuel is incorrect?
If so, can you explain why you think the Masoretic Samuel is correct and the Dead Sea Samuel is incorrect?

Rosends responded : “If you would like to see some discussion of the place of the scrolls vis-a-vis considering the masoretic understanding, I would recommend starting with this discussion How does Orthodox Judaism view the Dead Sea Scrolls? and the similar How does Orthodox Judaism view the Dead Sea Scrolls? .”


rosends, can you explain why YOU personally, think the Masoretic Samuel is correct and the Dead Sea Samuel is incorrect?





REGARDING THE USE OF NON-JEWISH HISTORY TO SUPPORT JEWISH CLAIMS BUT THE LIMITING OF HISTORY TO CRITICIZE JEWISH CLAIMS

Clear said : Keep in mind that not all religious historical history comes from the orthodox Jewish literature, but instead, much of it comes from other sources as well. Much of these sources were Christian. I can also do a bit of research for Islamic literature for ancient history if we need to, especially for cross-road doctrines that are common to and agreed to by Judaism, Christianity and Islam.
rosends responded : "Yes, but in terms of this conversation, those outside sources will not be of much use as I am coming at my position from within the mainstream of Judaism so I cede no authority to those."

This position feels very inconsistent.
Other Jewish posters have referred to non Jewish source to support Jewish claims.
To insist that critics of the Jewish position must use Jewish sources for History critical to Jewish claims is not a historically valid position to take.
You cannot simply dismiss other historians because they are not Jewish when they offer history that undermines Jewish claims.
If Jews are going to enter the world of History, they will have to take the good reality with the bad.
That is simply the way authentic historical discussions work.



REGARDING THE HISTORICAL CONCEPT THAT THE ANCIENT PATRIARCHS COULD WRITE
rosends said : "Writing does imply an alphabet, but with no statement of which alphabet, any conclusion is just a guess. "

Historically, the ancients and patriarchs were able to write just as they were able to speak.
I agree that it is a valid assumption that writing implies some sort of symbols such as an alphabet or pictures or glyphs, etc,.
It is a valid assumption that one speaks the language of the culture they grow up in, and write in the language and symbols of that culture.

For example, IF Adam could speak and write, Can you explain why is knowing WHICH alphabet Abram used is important when the base point is that , historically, Abram could and did write?




REGARDING THE LOSS OF REVELATION AND PROPHETIC GIFTS BY THE JEWS
Rosends explained : “That there were preconditions for prophecy and after the death of the last 3 prophets, those conditions not being met, there were to be no more prophets was an accepted idea in Judaism.”
Clear asked : “Can you clarify what those “preconditions for prophecy” were and why those “conditions” were “not being met” by the Jews.”
Rosends responded : “In Jewish law, prophecy comes about in a specific time, place and even emotional condition.”

Rosends, can you clarify regarding these "preconditions for prophecy" such as what “specific time” and what “place” and what “emotional condition” the Jewish law required for a prophet of God to receive revelation from God or to prophesy?



REGARDING THE REASONS FOR THE EXILE OF THE JEWS, THE LOSS OF THEIR TEMPLE, THE LOSS OF THE PROPHETIC GIFTS AND REVELATION AMONG THE JEWS.
Clear asked : “If I understand you correctly, you seem to be saying that the later Rabbinic Jews see the loss of prophetic revelation in a different light rather than as a punishment or sign of disfavor. Is this correct or do I misunderstand?”
Rosends explained : “It was a function of time, place and condition. Exile was a punishment. The loss of prophets was a function of exile. “
Clear asked : “Can you explain what Jews think they were being punished for?
Rosends explained : “The 2 temples were destroyed and Jewish tradition teaches that they were, because of different groupings of sin.”

We were speaking of exile and your reply concerns temples.
I assume then that the temple destruction and the exiles were a result of Israel committing these sins you are referring to? Is this correct?
My original question is still unanswered.

Can you explain the “different groupings of sin” that the Jews think they were being punished for?



REGARDING THE LOSS OF PROPHETIC GIFTS AND REVELATION AND PROPHECY AMONG THE JEWS AND "CONDITIONS" THAT WERE "NOT SATISFIED"
Clear asked : “If loss of prophets was only "a function of exile", why did the prophetic revelatory gifts not continue after the exile was over and after the last prophet died?”
Rosends replied : “Because the various conditions were not satisfied -- the spirit of prophecy was removed.”

Can you clarify WHAT “various conditions were not satisfied” that resulted in the loss of prophetic revelation and gifts of prophecy among the Jews?




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

Not a problem. I am sure the answers are there and theocratic "speak", if it represents actual answers, is perfectly fine with me.
I do not mind repeating requests for this information and for clarification if the responses do not provide it.
I assume the answers are a bit uncomfortable since they involve “groupings of sin”.
As any honest, religious historian knows, the Christians and Muslims have also been very guilty of “groupings of sin” as individuals as well.

My point in asking is not to create a specific polemic against the jews per se, but to understand the loss of the prophetic gifts among Israel and why you do not think a religion WITH prophetic gifts (i.e. vertical, or ancient Judaism) is not different than a religion WITHOUT prophetic gifts (i.e. horizontal, or modern Judaism).


THE ENTIRE WORLD OWES A DEBT OF GRATITUDE TO THE ANCIENT PATRIARCHS AND TO THE ANCIENT JEWS THAT KEPT HISTORICAL RECORDS
In any case, I am, for myself, very, very grateful to the ancient Jews who created and kept records of sacred histories. I know the ancient histories are not particularly perfect, but that is the nature of ancient records. It does not detract from my gratitude for their diligence and work in creating these records. The world owes the ancient Judaism with it’s prophetic gifts a debt of gratitude they can never repay.


Clear
τωακφυειω

 

[rosends]

rosends, can you explain why YOU personally, think the Masoretic Samuel is correct and the Dead Sea Samuel is incorrect?

because my position is driven by faith, I look for and rely on those explanations which confirm my religious biases. If there is an opinion by someone who has studied the various texts and has a level of scholarship well beyond mine which puts the scrolls in a historical position of lesser authority, then that theory, which resonates with my pre-existing belief, will be preferable to me.

This position feels very inconsistent.
Other Jewish posters have referred to non Jewish source to support Jewish claims.

That doesn't make my making the statement inconsistent. It just means that different people use different texts and integrate them to their own levels of comfort. If you cite Christian texts, they will mean nothing to me. If you cite science to show how the events in the text must be wrong, I will not accept that.

To insist that critics of the Jewish position must use Jewish sources for History critical to Jewish claims is not a historically valid position to take.

I'm saying that those critics, if they want their criticism to have any impact on those who subscribe to Judaism, should not be using texts that will carry no weight to the Jewish person.

You cannot simply dismiss other historians because they are not Jewish when they offer history that undermines Jewish claims.

Well, strictly speaking, I can. You might think it intellectually dishonest and I respect that position. People like to point out that Egyptian historical records have no information about a mass exodus of fleeing slaves. They see this as proof positive that the biblical history is inaccurate. I then say "wait...you are looking at a document which claims creation ex nihilo and that all sorts of animals survived for a year on a houseboat but you are subjecting this claim to judgment via the external record?"

If Jews are going to enter the world of History, they will have to take the good reality with the bad.
That is simply the way authentic historical discussions work.

Then possibly these "authentic" historical discussions are beyond my ken. I'm OK with that. There are others, more versed in history who do still seem to have conversations and don't compromise their faith. It might serve you to reach out to them to pursue this line of thought.

Historically, the ancients and patriarchs were able to write just as they were able to speak.

This may or may not be true. Writing developed well after spoken language, and even then, it was initially a function of commerce and law (if we move beyond cave paintings).

For example, IF Adam could speak and write, Can you explain why is knowing WHICH alphabet Abram used is important when the base point is that , historically, Abram could and did write?

If the claim is that they were writing in a different language because there are claims that they wrote and claims that there is no corroborating account of the existence of a written proto-Hebrew then knowing what language they wrote in would be relevant. Since I don't really see any evidence that they could or did write, pointing out that we can't know what language they would have used just complements that position.

Rosends, can you clarify regarding these "preconditions for prophecy" such as what “specific time” and what “place” and what “emotional condition” the Jewish law required for a prophet of God to receive revelation from God or to prophesy?

Prophecy is an avenue when a person is in the right spiritual position and mood
https://judaism.stackexchange.com/a/93078/1362

in terms of location, this provides some information Prophecy in Galut | Ask the rabbi | Q&A | yeshiva.co

We were speaking of exile and your reply concerns temples.
I assume then that the temple destruction and the exiles were a result of Israel committing these sins you are referring to? Is this correct?

The exiles followed the destructions of the 2 temples so the exiles were a consequence of the loss of national autonomy typified by the burning of the temples.

Can you explain the “different groupings of sin” that the Jews think they were being punished for?

As the earlier sources indicate, there are 3 cardinal sins that were transgressed which led to the destruction of the first while the second centers around interpersonal evil (though, as the link indicates, there is much more).

Can you clarify WHAT “various conditions were not satisfied” that resulted in the loss of prophetic revelation and gifts of prophecy among the Jews?

The loss of the spirit of God's being present. The loss of the national sense of happiness which would have allowed any prophet to be in the proper mindset. The removal of the population (to a large degree) out of the land of Israel.

My point in asking is not to create a specific polemic against the jews per se, but to understand the loss of the prophetic gifts among Israel and why you do not think a religion WITH prophetic gifts (i.e. vertical, or ancient Judaism) is not different than a religion WITHOUT prophetic gifts (i.e. horizontal, or modern Judaism).

A religion that has provisions for prophets and for other roles is the same religion when it has prophets and when it doesn't. There was a temple and now there isn't, but there were provisions made for how to continue the religion in the absence of the temple, so the destruction does not then create a new religion. It just invokes those elements in play when there is no temple.

 

[ToGodorNottoGod]

I'm saying that those critics, if they want their criticism to have any impact on those who subscribe to Judaism, should not be using texts that will carry no weight to the Jewish person.

So would it be appropriate for others who ascribe to another religious outlook to not accept texts cited by Jewish people if those texts do not carry weight with what they believe? How can any kind of conversation and discussion and learning take place if that were to happen? Jews don't accept anything except from Jewish texts, and other religions don't accept anything anyone else says except they use the texts other religions use? Is that even logical to do? There are many Jews who use texts which some Jews do not accept, but other Jews do so accept those texts. No one is wrong, they are just using texts. I can't quite fathom your stance here. It makes no sense. Philo was certainly a Jew yet he used Hellenistic texts, concepts, and philosophy to explicate his own Jewish beliefs. Yet that didn't threaten his Judaism outlook, for him it enhanced it. But it didn't enhance all stances of Jewish believers views. There is no way to do so since not all Jews think alike, then, nor today. So who gets to decide which Jewish outlook is valid?

 

[Clear]

POST ONE OF TWO

Hi @rosends


THE DESIRE TO CONFIRM PRIOR BIAS INSTEAD OF LOOKING FOR ACTUAL AND AUTHENTIC AND ACCURATE HISTORICAL DATA
Clear asked : "rosends, can you explain why YOU personally, think the Masoretic Samuel is correct and the Dead Sea Samuel is incorrect?"
Rosends explained : because my position is driven by faith, I look for and rely on those explanations which confirm my religious biases.

This is a surprisingly honest response rosends.

I think that almost all individuals tend to seek to confirm prior bias instead of seeking objective data simply tells them the truth, wherever that data leads them.
The problem with simply looking for and only accepting data that confirms prior bias is that it works for maintaining a personal belief, but fails miserably to bring us to an understanding of authentic and real history.

Historically inclined investigators tend to want more objective historical data and rational application of that data when trying to decide which of two conflicting narratives are more likely to be correct.


THE JEWISH TALMUD RELATES MULTIPLE CONFLICTING ANCIENT VERSIONS OF THE TANAKH

The Jewish Talmud itself relates there were multiple conflicting versions of the Tanakh even by King Josiahs day.
2 Kings 22:8 Tells us " And Hilkiah the high priest said unto Shaphan the scribe: 'I have found the book of the Law in the house of the LORD.' And Hilkiah delivered the book to Shaphan, and he read it."
While the Masoretic biblical record relates Hilkiah found a "book of the Law", the Jewish Jerusalem Talmud tells us that Hilkiah actually found THREE books in the temple. However, the three texts disagreed in their readings and so the priests used a rule of majority and produced a fourth version based on the two that agreed against the version that did not agree. (the new 4th version is presumably the one Josiah read publicly)
Thus, the Jewish texts had known corruptions by this early time.
Additionally, Whiston tells us Josephus used yet another different version for his histories which vespasian gave him from the spoils of the Jerusalem temple.
The point is that even the Jews have known there were corruptions in the early Old Testaments from the early age.


THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS CONFIRM THE JEWISH TALMUD IS CORRECT REGARDING CORRUPTIONS IN THE VARIOUS JEWISH TEXTS

Let me give readers an example of what I am describing from 1 Samuel 11:1.

1 Samuel has no THEOLOGICAL importance for me but it does have HISTORICAL importance.
During Justin Martyrs debate with the Jew Trypho, Justin pointed out that the Jews had corrupted texts.
The Dead Sea Scrolls simply confirm textual corruptions exist in Jewish records.
As I will show later, the Jews themselves not only admit to changes the consciously made in the Masoretic, but the Jews themselves give us lists of examples of these changes they made, as well as their reasons for doing so in many cases.

The Jewish Dead Sea Scrolls Samuel (approx. 70 a.d.) reads :
"And Nahash, king of the children of Ammon, oppressed harshly the Gadites and the Reubenites. He would gouge out the right eye of each of them and would not grant Israel a deliverer. No one was left of the Israelites across the Jordan whose right eye Nahash, king of the Ammonites, had not gouged out. But there were seven thousand men who had fled from the Ammonites and had entered Jabesh-gilead (1 Sam.11:1)

The Jewish Masoretic (approx. 1100 a.d.) reads
Then Nahash the Ammonite came up, and encamped against Jabesh-gilead; and all the men of Jabesh said unto Nahash: 'Make a covenant with us, and we will serve thee.'

As I pointed out, there are almost 50 words missing from the Jewish Masoretic version just in this single verse.
AND there are more additions in verses 11, 13, 18, 22, 23 and 24 in the first Chapter alone.

Multiple scholar/translators have revised their translations of Samuel based on these corrections. This is partly the reason the New International Version Bible preferred the DSS textual readings over the traditional hebrew text. The DSS allowed for similar corrections are made in "Today’s English version"; "Revised Standard Version", the "New Revised Standard Version", "The New English Bible", The "New American Bible", etc. Multiple bibles are using DSS corrections over the prior traditional Hebrew Text.



THE MASORETES THEMSELVES TELL US THEY MADE CHANGES TO THE BIBLE THEY THEMSELVES CREATED

Here are some examples the Jewish Masora gives us :

1 Samuel 2:17
in 4QS Dead Sea Scrolls reads, "for they (Eli’s sons) dealt contemptuously with the offering of the Lord"
The Masoretic Text reads, "for the men (the worshippers or Eli's sons helpers, according to some exegetes) dealt contemptuously with the offering of the Lord".
This example is part of a LIST of examples of alterations to original readings (which are preserved in Orient. 1425).

In another example in this list is
Gen XVIII:22
The Masoretic bible reads : “22 And the men turned from thence, and went toward Sodom; but Abraham stood yet before the LORD.”
However, In all three Massoretic Rubrics in Orient 1379, 2349 and 2365 in each of which it is emphatically stated that
the original reading was “And the men turned from thence, and went toward Sodom; but the Lord stood yet before Abraham” and it explains the text was altered.

The ancient List in the Jewish Maase Ephod also confirms that the text was originally “and the Lord still stood before Abraham”, and it claims that the text was altered by Ezra and Nehemiah. Since both the post-biblical records and the Jewish Masorah itself state they altered the text also well as to give us the original reading, it makes no sense to claim they did not alter the text.

The Masoretes themselves not only give us examples of the changes they made, but they also describe their rules used to change the text.
For example, the phrase to “stand before another” sometimes referred to state of inferiority and homage.
In accordance with a rule to remove indelicate expressions, the Sopherim altered the biblical text.

In another example given us by the Masoretes themselves is
Numb XI:15.
All four ancient records AND the Masoretic Lists indicate this is another example of alteration by the Sopherim.
The three Yemen MSS. AND the Masorah of the Maase Ephod state the text was originally “Kill me I pray thee out of hand if I have found favour in thy sight that I may not see thy evil”.
Since the text could be interpreted as ascribing evil to the Lord, the Sopherim altered it into “that I may not see my evil” or, as the AV and the RV rendered it “look upon my wretchedness”.)

Another example given us by the Masorah was
Numb. XII:12 which was changed as it was potentially derogatory to Moses’ Mother.

Another example is
I Sam III:13, which said “because his sons cursed God” (correctly rendered by the Jewish LXX), but changed by the sopherim in the Masoretic to soften the statement that the sons of Eli openly blasphemed God and that he did not reprimand them.

Thus, the JEWISH records (such as the Masorah) created by the Masoretes who created the Masoretic bible themselves confirm both other Jewish and non-Jewish historical records that demonstrate the Masoretic was both intentionally (and unintentionally) changed and corrupted just as Justin Martyr claimed.

POST TWO OF TWO FOLLOWS

 

[Clear]

POST TWO OF TWO

THE JEWISH CONCEPT OF ONLY CONSIDERING DATA THAT SUPPORTS A PRIOR BIAS AND REJECTING ALL DATA THAT IS CRITICAL OF PRESENT BIAS
Rosends said : “I'm saying that those critics, if they want their criticism to have any impact on those who subscribe to Judaism, should not be using texts that will carry no weight to the Jewish person.”

This position is simply an unwillingness to subject their position to any objective historical data except data that is biased in favor of their present belief. It disqualifies all of Jewish history if the creators of Jewish history admit they will not examine nor record an accurate and objective set of data, but instead, will only examine and record data which confirms their prior bias.


THE JEWISH CONCEPT OF DISMISSING ALL HISTORICAL DATA THAT UNDERMINES JEWISH CLAIMS
Clear said : “You cannot simply dismiss other historians because they are not Jewish when they offer history that undermines Jewish claims.”
Rosends responded : Well, strictly speaking, I can. You might think it intellectually dishonest and I respect that position

Of course it is an intellectually dishonest position.
If the writers of Jewish history have done this, then none of the Jewish history can be trusted to reflect objective facts, but instead, it represents a historically dishonest narrative that is intended to be an advertisement. This is not history.
This position also is a very strong justification for rejecting the Jewish history and Jewish claim since it simply represents a bias and not real history.



REGARDING THE REASON THE JEWS WERE PUNISHED WITH EXILE AND THE PROPHETIC GIFTS WERE TAKEN FROM THEM AND GIVEN TO THE CHRISTIANS

REGARDING THE REASONS FOR THE EXILE OF THE JEWS, THE LOSS OF THEIR TEMPLE, THE LOSS OF THE PROPHETIC GIFTS AND REVELATION AMONG THE JEWS.
Clear asked : “If I understand you correctly, you seem to be saying that the later Rabbinic Jews see the loss of prophetic revelation in a different light rather than as a punishment or sign of disfavor. Is this correct or do I misunderstand?”
Rosends explained : “It was a function of time, place and condition. Exile was a punishment. The loss of prophets was a function of exile. “
Clear asked : “Can you explain what Jews think they were being punished for?
Rosends explained : “The 2 temples were destroyed and Jewish tradition teaches that they were, because of different groupings of sin.”
Clear responded : “My original question is still unanswered.
Can you explain the “different groupings of sin” that the Jews think they were being punished for?
Rosends replied : As the earlier sources indicate, there are 3 cardinal sins that were transgressed which led to the destruction of the first while the second centers around interpersonal evil (though, as the link indicates, there is much more).


Rosends, it feels like you are reluctant to give me an honest, direct, clear answer.
Can you explain what the “3 cardinal” sins the Jews committed which led to God taking away the prophetic revelatory gifts from the Jews.
What “interpersonal evil” did the Jews commit which caused God to allow them to be exiles and to take the prophetic revelatory gifts from the Jews?




REGARDING THE LOSS OF PROPHETIC GIFTS AND REVELATION AND PROPHECY AMONG THE JEWS AND "CONDITIONS" THAT WERE "NOT SATISFIED"
Clear asked : “If loss of prophets was only "a function of exile", why did the prophetic revelatory gifts not continue after the exile was over and after the last prophet died?”
Rosends replied : “Because the various conditions were not satisfied -- the spirit of prophecy was removed.”

Can you clarify WHAT “various conditions were not satisfied” that resulted in the loss of prophetic revelation and gifts of prophecy among the Jews?


THE JEWISH OF THE THREE "PRECONDITIONS THAT ARE NECESSARY FOR PROPHETS TO PROPHESY
Clear asked : Rosends, can you clarify regarding these "preconditions for prophecy" such as what “specific time” and what “place” and what “emotional condition” the Jewish law required for a prophet of God to receive revelation from God or to prophesy?
Rosends replied : The loss of the spirit of God's being present. The loss of the national sense of happiness which would have allowed any prophet to be in the proper mindset. The removal of the population (to a large degree) out of the land of Israel.

(1) Regarding the Jewish claim that “the loss of the spirit of God’s being present” was necessary for Prophesy
Are you claiming the Jews themselves lost the spirit of God among them or that the Jewish prophets lost the spirit of God among them or both?
Can you clarify WHY the Jews as a religion (or their prophets) lost the spirit of God (and thus prophetic gifts)

(2) Regarding the Jewish claim that the Jewish nation was not happy and this did not allow a prophet to be “in the proper mindset” for revelation.
Are you claiming the Jews had to be “happy” as a nation in order for a prophet among them to be able to receive revelation?
A prophet could not receive revelation if the Jews were sad?

(3 )Regarding the Jewish claim that “The removal of the population (to a large degree) out of the land of Israel” was a reason God took the prophetic revelatory gifts from Israel.
Are you saying that a Prophet could not receive revelation from God when the Jews were not in Israel (to a large degree)?
Why could a prophet not have revelation in another nation like Moses did, or like Joseph in egypt, etc?

Clear
τωνεφυειω

 

[Ehav4Ever]

So would it be appropriate for others who ascribe to another religious outlook to not accept texts cited by Jewish people if those texts do not carry weight with what they believe?

Greetings,

The approach of Torath Mosheh and Orthodox Judaism is that a person should hold by what they have proven to be true. That requires each person to come to conclusions on how they determine what is true. There are methods for this in have discussed, debated, and experimented with in Torath Mosheh and Orthodox Jewish communities for thousands of years. Further, we hold that Hashem, the Source of creation, has provided all the tools that any human needs to development themselves correctly in the reality we each live in.

The key here is that the Torah, in Hebrew, never presents what is the Torah or what Torath Mosheh do as a "religion." In fact, the word in modern Hebrew (דת) that is for the English word "religion" didn't mean "religion" in ancient times. The word (דת) anciently really meant something closer to "statutes."

So, in reality there has never been a Jewish concern on what the rest of the world accepts or doesn't. There further has never been a requirement for the world to become Jewish. The main principle is that the Torah presents is that when Torath Mosheh Jews are able to establish a Torah based nation in the land of Israel with the right Torah based structure from the common person to the goverment that will have an effect, even worldwide.

There is an ancient Jewish concept that all nations have a purpose in the world and all nations have benefit. In terms of how Hashem deals with the nations, our perspective is that is between Hashem and the nations. We Jews are not here to judge how that works.

Lastly, for Torath Mosheh Jews and Orthodox Jews, our "texts" are only like the bridge between two locations. They are not the location. Some of our texts are the bridge between "how we are" on one side and on the other side of the bridge "how we can be as a nation that has agreed to draw close to the will of Hashem per Torath Mosheh."

There is a smaller subset of our texts that serve as instructions for us to "assist" the nations of the world with the seperate bridge that they have between "how they are" and "how we can be as individuals and nations to draw close to the will of Hashem."

 

[Ehav4Ever]

How can any kind of conversation and discussion and learning take place if that were to happen?

The same way that conversations, discussions, and learning takes place in the non-religous world. People who have a reason to conversate, discuss, or learn from each other often do so for the sake of personal or collective goals. If those goals align then they find a space to conversate, discuss, and learn IF there is such a need.

Yet, if there is no need or if there is no person or collective goal to do so then they don't. For example, how often do people Akra, Ghana and people Sidney, Australia conversate, discuss, and learn with each other? The answer is whenever their is a need or when they have personal or collective goals that align for them to do so.

Jews don't accept anything except from Jewish texts,

Actually, we accept the existance of texts that are from different cultures. The reason why Torath Mosheh Jews and Orthodox Jews avoid or ignore certain types of texts is because or basic "claim" is that the Source of creation gave us a particular path to follow, as a national revelation, and it was/is the Source that defined what we should accept, reject, avoid, or consider.

and other religions don't accept anything anyone else says except they use the texts other religions use?

Torath Mosheh and Orthodox Jews hold that is not our place to dictact to the nations what they should and shouldn't accept or reject. We basically consider ourselves on the outside of a debate about what is the correct thing for the nations to do, UNLESS, the nations involve us by force or by nice/peaceful invitation to "hear" what we have to say - but not for the sake of debate. I.e. if a Torath Mosheh Jew or Orthodox Jew does involve themselves in a religious debate it is normally to either a) try to convince lost Jews who is listening to the debate to return to the Torah or b) a situation whre incorrect information about Torath Mosheh Jews and Orthodox Jews has been presented and we are simply trying to set the record straight about us.

 

[rosends]

So would it be appropriate for others who ascribe to another religious outlook to not accept texts cited by Jewish people if those texts do not carry weight with what they believe?

absolutely. Why would a Christian see my use of a talmudic passage as proof of anything when the Christian doesn't confer historical or theological authority to the talmud?

How can any kind of conversation and discussion and learning take place if that were to happen?

Because learning is often about seeing what OTHERS believe, not about changing what I believe. A Muslim, explaining Jesus as only prophet because of the writings of the Quran should NOT be changing the mind of a Christian for whom the Quran is not a persuasive tool, but the Christian can learn what the Muslim believes and why by hearing the argument. And an Orthodox Jew will not care one whit what a non-Orthodox voice has to say about Orthodoxy if that voice has, as an agenda, the presentation of Orthodoxy as anything other than, well, Orthodox. Why would anyone think that hearing what a hellenized Jew says about Judaism would be affective for a non-hellenized Jew? Within Judaism, even religious Jews of other particular traditions don't have the authority to change how others think. Even more narrowly, if I ask 1 rabbi a question of practical application of law, I am bound to what that one rabbi says. I can't then weigh his answer against the answer when other rabbis are asked. If this is how we craft understanding when talking about informed voices from within the community, what makes anyone think that we will suddenly be interested in the opinions of those who stand outside the community?

 

[rosends]

The point is that even the Jews have known there were corruptions in the early Old Testaments from the early age.

There have been books written on the subject, with the underlying question being this one How can the Rambam's Eighth Principle of Jewish Faith be believed in light of Hazal?
of course, this does not mean that every variant text has the same potential to change the normative and accepted text in a reconcilliatory process. So the presence of texts like the DSS does not automatically mean that they are the kind of variant reading that will "prove" that the mainstream text is incorrect. Coming to that conclusion is fallacious (a sort of appeal to novelty which is often set against an appeal to tradition, I know).

If there is a history within the Jewish world to amend the text when differences are found to be persuasive, and yet the DSS has not prompted that exact same process of textual repair, then maybe one can ask "why are these variants different?" And if they have "no theological importance" then why would any religious authority chafe at the prospect of fixing the traditional text (as has been done in the past)? Maybe it is because they don't rise to the level of authority in provenance or content that earlier variants did.

Just one question -- you cite the Maaseh Ephod. If you are saying that his book is an authority on the text, do you also see him as an authority on other things that he says (I'm thinking of page 30, in his discussion of the evolution of language) or its historical place (as he mentions on page 39 and follows up with on 177)? The answer to my earlier question might be on page 175 but if so, then, well, it answers the question.

I did not see a list of textual fixes in line with some of what you quoted so if you could give me page numbers, I can become more informed about those specific cases. Thanks in advance.

 

[rosends]

This position is simply an unwillingness to subject their position to any objective historical data except data that is biased in favor of their present belief.

On one level this reflects a separate bias that information from outside of the religious schema is, by default, "objective". On another level, it is entirely accurate.

It disqualifies all of Jewish history if the creators of Jewish history admit they will not examine nor record an accurate and objective set of data, but instead, will only examine and record data which confirms their prior bias.

Your position is that if they speak from within a system and their position is not confirmed by external voices, it is those outside voices that must be correct and the refusal to accept their conclusions is a fatal flaw. That is an equal and opposite bias. Note, though, that in reference to the authority of the DSS, I cited scholars who have studied voices from all sides, yet still feel that the Jewish perspective is correct.

This position also is a very strong justification for rejecting the Jewish history and Jewish claim since it simply represents a bias and not real history.

I don't put the kind of stock that you do into the existence of some transcendent and correct "history." History is a shifting set of understandings driven by agenda and limited by the available data, and the selection from among that data.

Rosends, it feels like you are reluctant to give me an honest, direct, clear answer.

To me it feels that you are reluctant to read what I have posted and linked to because you are looking for something else.

Can you explain what the “3 cardinal” sins the Jews committed which led to God taking away the prophetic revelatory gifts from the Jews.

If you don't know about the 3 cardinal sins, that does not indicate a failure on my part to answer, just a gap in your knowledge base. I also did not say that these 3 sins led to God taking prophecy away. I said that traditionally, these 3 sins (bloodshed, idolatry and immorality are the 3 categories) led to the destruction of the first temple and an exile. There was prophecy, though, after the first temple's destruction.

What “interpersonal evil” did the Jews commit which caused God to allow them to be exiles and to take the prophetic revelatory gifts from the Jews?

The Hebrew phrase is sin'at chinam, a baseless hatred.

Can you clarify WHAT “various conditions were not satisfied” that resulted in the loss of prophetic revelation and gifts of prophecy among the Jews?

You mean like placement in Israel, or the spiritually ecstatic state required? I mentioned those. Check the Rambam, in his laws of prophecy, item four, which I cited earlier.

(1) Regarding the Jewish claim that “the loss of the spirit of God’s being present” was necessary for Prophesy
Are you claiming the Jews themselves lost the spirit of God among them or that the Jewish prophets lost the spirit of God among them or both?
Can you clarify WHY the Jews as a religion (or their prophets) lost the spirit of God (and thus prophetic gifts)

As per the talmudic quotes I cited, at certain points, God removed his presence to a degree, changing the spiritual nature of the people. If you would like, I can go back to my earlier posts and find the talmudic citations agin so you can study them. Here is some more on the subject.

Are you claiming the Jews had to be “happy” as a nation in order for a prophet among them to be able to receive revelation?
A prophet could not receive revelation if the Jews were sad?

There is a state of spiritual "happiness" which prophets have to achieve to receive prophecy. When a level of God's presence (a poor translation of a complex idea) is removed, attaining that presence is impossible for almost all people.

Are you saying that a Prophet could not receive revelation from God when the Jews were not in Israel (to a large degree)?
Why could a prophet not have revelation in another nation like Moses did, or like Joseph in egypt, etc?

You should check out the discussion I cited on exactly this question. Here is another discussion.

I realize that many of these ideas are steeped in Jewish sources and that they require more study than a passing glance during a discussion, but if you want to understand deep concepts, time must be set aside, context established and texts pored over.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

There are many Jews who use texts which some Jews do not accept, but other Jews do so accept those texts.

I did a video that may help you understand the hierarchy of texts that exist among Torath Mosheh Jews and Orthodox Jews. There are texts that all Torath Mosheh Jews and Orthodox Jews accept and there are texts that we have no requirement to agree on or accept. There is agreement on what is required and what type of texts we must avoid and reject, as well as the reasons why.

No one is wrong, they are just using texts. I can't quite fathom your stance here. It makes no sense.

The better way to look it is that every human being is free to make his/her own choices in life concerning what they accept or reject – and this includes what is true (proven, hidden, or unknown). We Torath Mosheh Jews and Orthodox Jews have no concept that we are the judges of the world to decide/force someone into a particular decision or outlook. Further, if someone has “faith” in a particular text or a concept, Torath Mosheh Jews and Orthodox Jews are not the police officers of the world to police the nations’ those texts or ideas.

Philo was certainly a Jew yet he used Hellenistic texts, concepts, and philosophy to explicate his own Jewish beliefs. Yet that didn't threaten his Judaism outlook, for him it enhanced it. But it didn't enhance all stances of Jewish believers views.

With Philo, he never claimed that his all of his “personal” ideas were derived from a valid Torath Mosheh source from what is a called a (מסורת) “mesoreth”. Further, there are sources that seem to say that he didn’t Hebrew but was an expert in Greek.

His ideas that were not derived from a valid Torath Mosheh source were his own personal ideas and the ability thus for his ideas to survive beyond him rested solely on him – alone. Further, we Torath Mosheh Jews and Orthodox Jews do not take responsibility for every random idea that some fellow Jew has – whether they keep Torah or not. Kind of like Qorah was from the tribe of Lewi, just like Mosheh ben-Amram, yet the majority of the Israeli/Jewish nation did not follow his claims and teachings. Torath Mosheh Jews and Orthodox Jews only take responsibility for things that can be traced back through what is a called a (מסורת) “mesoreth” back to something that Hashem gave our (Torath Mosheh Jews and Orthodox Jews) ancestors at Mount Sinai.

There is no way to do so since not all Jews think alike, then, nor today. So who gets to decide which Jewish outlook is valid?

This one is easy. All Torath Mosheh Jews and Orthodox Jews agree on what is called “halakha” when it a) came directly from Hashem at Mount Sinai, b) came from Mosheh ben-Amram, and c) when it came from a Mosaic court of 71. If these conditions are met all Torath Mosheh Jews and Orthodox Jews go by them. Outside of halakha we have a lot of room to think and decide how we manage ourselves – with our unity coming from Torah and Halakha. That is why all Jews on RF who identify themselves as Torath Mosheh and Orthodox Jews are unified and agree on anything that is halakha. Things that are not, do not require us to agree with each other and we are free to have different ideas/practices/opinions in non-halakhic areas. This is why if I were to go to Rosends, or Harel’s, dybmh’s, or Shaul’s community, and if they were to come to mine, we would know what is going on since we are only standing on the same foundation. The differences between are minor in respect to the current situation of us not having Torah as part of the Israeli national infrastructure.

I hope that helps.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

So who gets to decide which Jewish outlook is valid?

This video may help this question.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Billiardsball said : "The Scrolls aren't uncomfortable for Jews, they are prominently trumpeted in many areas of Israel's politics and culture.
The Scrolls are a wonder, not uncomfortable for Christians, they should without a doubt Messianic expectations and Messianic prophecy centuries before Jesus the Messiah. On one trip to Israel, I met a Messianic archaeologist who was working on Isaiah translation and study who was astounded that the Masoretic was authenticated firmly--after which he immediately converted, having the prophecies made more sure for his mind and heart." Post #176

Hi @BilliardsBall

I only have a second to comment as I am very busy at work today but I should have given more context to my comment..
Shortly after their discovery, the Dead Sea Scrolls were hailed as the most significant religious discovery of that generation. They contained Old Testament texts that were 900 years older than the oldest texts we had before and they allowed us to correct many errors in current bibles (mostly lacunae).

However, as they started to be translated, the Jewish scholars noted the many Christian-like principles in the texts (lead by a group of 12, presided over by 3, a ritual washing akin to baptism, a eucharistic like sacred meal, etc.), then they cooled to the texts. (One Jewish scholar, Zeichner claimed they were Christian...).

Many Christians, who should have welcomed the texts, also cooled to them since the texts described a christianity like religion that existed BEFORE Jesus (which was disorienting to them). The restorationist Christians loved the texts since the texts were supportive of their position.

The texts are WONDERFUL and amazing in their description of an early Judaism and their doctrines and beliefs.


Good journey to you Billiardsball, I simply don't have time to comment more til later.

Clear
τωειτωσεω

Neither of your statements are true.

* Israel prominently trumpets the scrolls on stamps, coinage, international publicity, etc. today, NOW

* Christians know that the Essene culture with its Messianic and apocalyptic outlook prefigures Christianity and strengthens the case that the Messiah was imminently expected by Israel

 

[BilliardsBall]

I quote the Hebrew Tanakh to you in Hebrew. If you don't want to do the same I don't mind it. Just be prepared when I don't take you seriously - that's all.

YET, if you want to ignore me I have no problem with that all. You can ignore me any time you want. You can start ignoring me now if you like.

No fallacy there. Given that I have started at least three or four threads that you decided to comment on and I have literally never commented on any threads you have created that speaks volumes.

I.e. I am not trying to convince you to not beleive in Jesus since that is what you want to do.

I'd rather you not comment on my threads, yes, since you seem to think that Messiah has to follow rules for teaching, behavior and scripture interpretation that 1) are not in our Holy Scripture 2) were laid down long after the scriptures.

I'll ask you a last time, "Which is superior. God's Word or commentary of non-inspired authors/speakers/teachers regarding God's Word?"

 

[BilliardsBall]

@Ehav4Ever already presented academic evidence here, so I'll bring his sources and some others as well:

From Britannica:

"The name Septuagint (from the Latin septuaginta, “70”) was derived later from the legend that there were 72 translators, 6 from each of the 12 tribes of Israel, who worked independently to translate the whole and ultimately produced identical versions. Another legend holds that the translators were sent to Alexandria by Eleazar, the chief priest at Jerusalem, at the request of Ptolemy II Philadelphus (285–246 BCE), though its source, the Letter of Aristeas, is unreliable. Despite the tradition that it was perfectly translated, there are large differences in style and usage between the Septuagint’s translation of the Torah and its translations of the later books in the Old Testament. In the 3rd century CE Origen attempted to clear up copyists’ errors that had crept into the text of the Septuagint, which by then varied widely from copy to copy, and a number of other scholars consulted the Hebrew texts in order to make the Septuagint more accurate."
​

As you can see, errors had crept into the Septuagint. Origen tried to clear up mistakes - but that begs the question: What did he consider mistakes and what not?

From the University of Helsinki's Septuagint Project:

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

The edition includes:​

A critically established Greek text that presents the closest possible approximation to the text that the translator produced.
Apparatus I, that lists all the meaningful variant readings in the Greek manuscript traditions, the significant readings from Latin and other secondary versions, as well as a selection of readings from indirect sources such as quotations from 2 Samuel by Greek and Latin patristic authors. The apparatus follows the well-established format of the Göttingen editions.
Apparatus II, that lists extant Hexaplaric readings derived from later Jewish Greek versions (Aquila, Symmachus, Theodotion). These readings can be found in the margins of the manuscripts and noteworthy indirect witnesses such as the Syrohexapla and ancient commentaries."
​

"The translator" is the person who translated the first ever Septuagint - as you can see, we no longer have that original translation, so much so that a special project has been set up to try to figure out what that original translation was like.

From The Gospel Coalition:

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

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

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

From New Advent:

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

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

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

From SOTS:

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

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

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

The "errors" in the Septuagint consistently point to Yeshua as Mashiach. The "errors" of the Essenes and Messianic Jewish commentators do the same.

Many of the Pharisees (devoted to the Scriptures as inerrant) trusted Yeshua for salvation, none of the liberal scholars did). Were they all in error also?

 

[Harel13]

The Jewish Talmud itself relates there were multiple conflicting versions of the Tanakh even by King Josiahs day.
2 Kings 22:8 Tells us " And Hilkiah the high priest said unto Shaphan the scribe: 'I have found the book of the Law in the house of the LORD.' And Hilkiah delivered the book to Shaphan, and he read it."
While the Masoretic biblical record relates Hilkiah found a "book of the Law", the Jewish Jerusalem Talmud tells us that Hilkiah actually found THREE books in the temple. However, the three texts disagreed in their readings and so the priests used a rule of majority and produced a fourth version based on the two that agreed against the version that did not agree. (the new 4th version is presumably the one Josiah read publicly)
Thus, the Jewish texts had known corruptions by this early time.

If you don't mind me saying, what you're describing here is utterly incomparable to the Samuel DSS. I suspect you might not have read it for yourself, which is something I recommend. Here's the relevant portion with my translation:

Yerushalmi Taanit 20b:

"שלשה ספרים מצאו בעזרה ספר מעוני וספר זעטוטי וספר היא באחד מצאו כתוב מעון אלהי קדש ובשנים כתיב (דברים ל״ג:כ״ז) מענה אלהי קדם וקיימו שנים וביטלו אחד. באחד מצאו כתוב וישלח את זעטוטי בני ישראל ובשנים כתוב (שמות כ״ד:ה׳) וישלח את נערי בני ישראל וקיימו שנים וביטלו אחד. באחד מצאו כתוב תשע היא ובשנים כתיב אחד עשר היא וקיימו שנים ובטלו אחד."​

""Three scrolls were found in the Temple court: The Me'onei scroll and the Za'atutei scroll and the Hi' scroll. In one they found written "the eternal God is Me'on" and in two it was written "the eternal God is Me'onah (a dwelling place)" (Deut. 33:27), so they adopted the reading of the two scrolls and discarded that of the one scroll. In one they found written "And he sent the za‘atutei (nobles) of the children of Israel", and in the other two they found written And he sent na‘arei (the young men of) the children of Israel" (Exo. 24:5), so they retained the reading of the two and abandoned that of the one. In one of the scrolls hi’ was written nine times, but in the other two hi’ was written eleven times, so they adopted the reading of the two and discarded that of the one."​

As you can see, the differences were minute. And it doesn't say anywhere that the scrolls were discovered during Yoshiyahu's time. In fact, pseudo-Rashi on Chronicles's version of this passage in the Talmud, read that Ezra was the one who found the scrolls (and he lists different variations between the three). What the sages at the time did was use a common Jewish halachic ruling technique, which is go by the majority to decide which book was the most accurate.

And that is exactly what the Masoretes did: They sorted through all of the minute variations and chose what they thought to be, based on tradition, the best variations. The Samuel scroll is not like that at all. The differences are enormous. And we have absolutely no evidence that these weren't additions to the text made by the scribe who wrote the scroll himself. In case you're wondering, we do in fact know what was decided by the Masoretes. We have texts by them. I've seen some of the lists. Here's one:

This is a portion from the Rabbi Kook Institute's Daat Mikra edition of Ezra and Nechmyah. Trust me when I tell you all the differences are minor. In fact, I don't think there have been differences at the level of what was found in the Temple for thousands of years. And this is taking into account that the Masoretes lived in Tiberias at a time when there were already Jewish communities from India to France! And the differences are still minute.

The point is that even the Jews have known there were corruptions in the early Old Testaments from the early age.

Old Testaments are most certainly corrupt. The subject here is Torahs and Tanachs. Are there textual variations? Yes. But nowhere in the world is there anything to the extent of the DSS. And knowing the little we know about the people who lived there, one has to wonder, where did those major variations come from?

 

[Ehav4Ever]

For those who asked the question about differences between Torath Mosheh and Orthodox Jewish Communities.

The following videos are of the Passover Seder in the Yemenite, Sephardic/Mizrahi, Ashkenazi, and Ethiopian Jewish communities. Virtually every Torath Mosheh Jew and Orthodox Jew recognizes what is happening in each video, even if there are minor culturally and dialect differences.

In each video each Torath Mosheh Jewish family is about 99% saying the same information and this has been the case since the time of the Roman exile of Jews from Israel. Prior to 2,000 years we all agree about the basic requirements of what mitzvoth must be done on Passover when the Temple stood in Jerusalem. Enjoy.

Yemenite Jewish Passover Seder

--------------
Sephardic Jewish Passover Seder

-------------
Ashkenazi Jewish Passover Seder

-------------
Ethiopian Jewish Passover Seder

 

[Harel13]

The "errors" in the Septuagint consistently point to Yeshua as Mashiach.

What does any of this even mean?
Are you putting your faith in a text that your own religious leaders have pointed out is erroneous? If so, I find that sad.

The "errors" of the Essenes and Messianic Jewish commentators do the same.

See above.

Many of the Pharisees (devoted to the Scriptures as inerrant) trusted Yeshua for salvation

Evidence?

 

[Ehav4Ever]

Many of the Pharisees (devoted to the Scriptures as inerrant) trusted Yeshua for salvation, none of the liberal scholars did). Were they all in error also?

To answer your question. Any so called Pharisee who theoretically followed or beleived in the NT version or other version of Jesus was in error. We also know this since we don't see anyone past 3rd to 4th century who identified themselves as a) being a Pharisee and b) being a beleiver in Jesus.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

I'd rather you not comment on my threads, yes, since you seem to think that Messiah has to follow rules for teaching, behavior and scripture interpretation that 1) are not in our Holy Scripture 2) were laid down long after the scriptures.

I'll ask you a last time, "Which is superior. God's Word or commentary of non-inspired authors/speakers/teachers regarding God's Word?"

No problem. I will continue the practice I already had before that any thread that you start I won't comment on.

Since this is a thread I started and you are asking me a question I will answer.

"The written Torah and the oral explaination of how to do the Torah, and the rules for making Judicial rulings, that Hashem gave to Am Yisrael at Mount Sinai are equal. I.e. the written Torah that Hashem commanded Mosheh ben-Amram to make was a written commentary on the oral commands that Hashem had given before the written text was made."

Commentaries, discussions, and debates about "The written Torah and the oral explaination of how to do the Torah, and the rules for making Judicial rulings, that Hashem gave to Am Yisrael at Mount Sinai" that have been made or recorded throughout Jewish history by Torath Mosheh Jews are one step below "The written Torah and the oral explaination of how to do the Torah, and the rules for making Judicial rulings, that Hashem gave to Am Yisrael at Mount Sinai" since they help Torath Mosheh and Orthodox Jews understand what Hashem gave to Am Yisrael and also how to do the will of Hashem as well as avoid what is not the will of Hashem for Am Yisrael.
​

I hope that helps.