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

[Clear]

Hi @Billardsball

When I pointed out that the Jews cooled to the Dead Sea Scrolls because the secular texts were too Christian in their descriptions, I meant the descriptions off what Judaism was like and how the worship among them was carried out. I gave examples of Christian-like worship and characteristics. The Jew Teicher claimed they were Christian documents.

Billiardsball responded : * Israel prominently trumpets the scrolls on stamps, coinage, international publicity, etc. today, NOW
I agree with you in the main. I was not sufficiently clear in my statements.

I very much agree that Israel has always been proud of the DSS BIBLICAL texts.
The SECULAR texts and description of Jewish worship, not so much (during the early stages of their translation).
While I am describing the early reaction to the texts, that early discomfort may certainly have changed over time and it may differ among different groups.
If the jews have become welcoming and happy with the secular writings in the Dead Sea Scrolls, this is a good thing.
These writings describe much about early Jewish belief and attitudes as opposed to modern judaism.



Billiardsball responded : * 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

I am not sure why you make reference to the "Essene culture" since these individuals at Qumran were NOT the essenes Josephus described.
While that was an early assumption of De Vauxs' group, as more information about the group became apparent, it was seen that they were not Josephus' Essenes.

Another theory that has been disproven over time is the assumption that the group of approx 300 men, women, and children were the authors of the more than 1200 texts discovered.
No one actually knows who wrote the dead sea scroll library.
As to my part, I think the scholars theory that these books were part of the Jerusalem library that was being protected from the Romans coming through and burning everything, (including the temple) is likely correct.

REGARDING THE SECULAR DOCUMENTS "PREFIGURING" CHRISTIANITY
I also like your point that the tests strengthens the case that Israel expected their Messiah in short order and that it's message "prefigures" Christianity.
I agree with this.
The secular documents of Qumran describe a Judaism that was very much like Christianity in many ways.

The Christians that I referred to that became uncomfortable with the secular description in the Dead Sea Scrolls were the Christians who had assumed that Christianity began with Jesus.
Such Christians did not adhere to the concept that Christianity had been taught by the Jews long before Jesus was born and that Jesus did not come to start a "new religion", but to repair, correct, and restore the aspects of Judaism that had been corrupted.

This was one of the points Ignatius made to the early Christians, “It is utterly absurd to profess Jesus Christ and to practice Judaism. For Christianity did not believe in Judaism, but Judaism in Christianity,...” Ignatius to the Magnesians P 96 10:3.

Thanks for you clarifying comments. I apologize that I was not more clear.

Clear
δρτζφυσεω

 

[1213]

I just remembered that I have something that may help....

Thank you. For me Bible, including the Torah, is the authority in this case. And I looked the scriptures that were mentioned in your post. They don’t have word “Jew” in them, therefore they are not telling who is a Jew. They speak about offspring of Jacob, who is also called Israel. If Jew would only mean biological offspring of Jacob then only they are Jews, but, by what I know, Torah doesn’t say directly what is the definition of a Jew.

The son of an Israelite woman, whose father was an Egyptian, went out among the children of Israel; and the son of the Israelite woman and a man of Israel strove together in the camp. The son of the Israelite woman blasphemed the Name, and cursed; and they brought him to Moses. His mother's name was Shelomith, the daughter of Dibri, of the tribe of Dan. [no word Jew in that]
Lev. 24:10-11

They assembled all the congregation together on the first day of the second month; and they declared their ancestry by their families, by their fathers' houses, according to the number of the names, from twenty years old and upward, one by one. [no word Jew in that]
Num. 1:18

When the jubilee of the children of Israel shall be, then will their inheritance be added to the inheritance of the tribe whereunto they shall belong: so will their inheritance be taken away from the inheritance of the tribe of our fathers. [no word Jew in that]
Num. 36:4

For I, Yahweh, don't change; therefore you, sons of Jacob, are not consumed. From the days of your fathers you have turned aside from my ordinances, and have not kept them. Return to me, and I will return to you," says Yahweh of Hosts. "But you say, 'How shall we return?'
Mal. 3:6-7 [no word Jew in that]

Remember the law of Moses my servant, which I commanded to him in Horeb for all Israel, even statutes and ordinances. Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the great and terrible day of Yahweh comes. He will turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the hearts of the children to their fathers, lest I come and strike the earth with a curse." [no word Jew in that]
Mal. 4:5-7

Shecaniah the son of Jehiel, one of the sons of Elam, answered Ezra, We have trespassed against our God, and have married foreign women of the peoples of the land: yet now there is hope for Israel concerning this thing. Now therefore let us make a covenant with our God to put away all the wives, and such as are born of them, according to the counsel of my lord, and of those who tremble at the commandment of our God; and let it be done according to the law. [no word Jew in that]
Ezra 10:2-3

and if the peoples of the land bring wares or any grain on the Sabbath day to sell, that we would not buy of them on the Sabbath, or on a holy day; and that we would forego the seventh year, and the exaction of every debt. [no word Jew in that]
Nec. 10:31

 

[1213]

...That is because Christians never had a national element to their religion. It was purely beleif based and not nation based...

In Biblical point of view, Jesus is the king of Jews. Those who keep Jesus as their king, form a nation, a kingdom. Nation doesn't require that all its people are same bloodline.

...Here is a good example. One of the heresies that was noted by the Church Fathers were the Ebionites. Supposidly, they were Jews who had Torah based practices and they only held by the writing of matthew. They considered Paul a heretic and they considered Jesus to be purely human. None of their writings survived, there are no modern Jews who trace their ancestry to them, and the only information about them comes from their enemies (The Church Fathers)...

That is interesting, if we notice that Paul also says:

For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,
1 Timothy 2:5

Also, if they accepted Torah and Matthew, I think their writings have survived, because we can still read them. I don't think Paul, or Jesus says anything against Torah.

...YET, it is interesting that the Church Fathers didn't seem to agree with you on that. They seem to point to the idea that they/Christians are not "Jews" but instead they/Christians have replaced Israel, the one that existed from Mount Sinai until the 1st century, and have a become a "new Israel".

Interesting thing is that the "Church fathers" have then obviously been against the Bible, have not believed Jesus, nor Paul. And I think it is sad thing that they have managed to mislead many people away from truth.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

Thank you. For me Bible, including the Torah, is the authority in this case. And I looked the scriptures that were mentioned in your post. They don’t have word “Jew” in them, therefore they are not telling who is a Jew. They speak about offspring of Jacob, who is also called Israel. If Jew would only mean biological offspring of Jacob then only they are Jews, but, by what I know, Torah doesn’t say directly what is the definition of a Jew.

Greetings,

Actually, the Hebrew text of the Torah defines a descendent of Ya'aqov as someone who is biologically from Ya'aqov through his twelve sons. Thus, the mixed multitude were not on their own described as being descendents of Ya'aqov.

When the Torah was given, the Hebrew text of the Torah describes, as shown in the sources I provided, that Israelis were not to marry men or women who were Kana'anim - due to the practices of those nations.

Further, in Ezra the men who had married foreign wives were instructed to send their wives, and the children from those wives, away. If those children had been considered Israelis/Yehudim/Jews they would not have sent them away.

Again, if you beleive that you are a Jew under a different definition it is not my place to define you. It is interesting though that those who compiled the NT didn't feel the same way as you. Also, if what you are saying is true then Christians should be able to move forward w/o any attempt to convince or covert Torath Mosheh Jews and Orthodox Jews to Christianity since Christians would already see themselves as Jews. Yet, I also find it interesting that most Christians don't see themselves as Jews and don't call themselves Jews.

I beleive I posted this video earlier, but this explains how the word Yehudah/i.e. Jew is described in the Tanakh.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

In Biblical point of view, Jesus is the king of Jews. Those who keep Jesus as their king, form a nation, a kingdom. Nation doesn't require that all its people are same bloodline.

And thus, the Christian standard is its own thing and is not similar to what Torath Mosheh describes.

That is interesting, if we notice that Paul also says:

For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,
1 Timothy 2:5

And yet, some early Christians sects like the Ebionites rejected Paul as a heretic. So, Paul must have done something to get his fellow Christians so riled up.

Also, if they accepted Torah and Matthew, I think their writings have survived, because we can still read them. I don't think Paul, or Jesus says anything against Torah.

And yet, Christian scholars claim that the Ebionite "version" of Matthew did not survive. It is further interesting that groups like the Ebionites who the Church Fathers seemed to portray as Jew, different themselves, considered their fellow Christians to be heretics.

The Gospel of the Ebionites is the conventional name given by scholars[n 1] to an apocryphal gospel extant only as seven brief quotations in a heresiology known as the Panarion, by Epiphanius of Salamis;[n 2] he misidentified it as the "Hebrew" gospel, believing it to be a truncated and modified version of the Gospel of Matthew.[1] The quotations were embedded in a polemic to point out inconsistencies in the beliefs and practices of a Jewish Christian sect known as the Ebionites relative to Nicene orthodoxy.[n 3]​

Interesting thing is that the "Church fathers" have then obviously been against the Bible, have not believed Jesus, nor Paul. And I think it is sad thing that they have managed to mislead many people away from truth.

Yet, the NT that exists today is a product of their [Church Fathers] work. Essentially, all Christians are reading NT's that are the product of the Church Fathers. They certainly claimed that they beleived in Jesus and for most of early Church history there was nothing but them.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

Also, if they accepted Torah and Matthew, I think their writings have survived, because we can still read them.

According to the following from Christian scholars you can't still read the Ebionite version.

Edwards, James R. (2009). The Hebrew Gospel and the Development of the Synoptic Tradition. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing. ISBN 978-0-8028-6234-1.

Cameron, Ron (1982). The Other Gospels: Non-Canonical Gospel Texts. Westminster/John Knox Press. ISBN 978-0-664-24428-6.

Further,

The surviving fragments derive from a gospel harmony of the Synoptic Gospels, composed in Greek with various expansions and abridgments reflecting the theology of the writer. Distinctive features include the absence of the virgin birth and of the genealogy of Jesus; an Adoptionist Christology,[n 4] in which Jesus is chosen to be God's Son at the time of his Baptism; the abolition of the Jewish sacrifices by Jesus; and an advocacy of vegetarianism.[n 5] It is believed to have been composed some time during the middle of the 2nd century[2] in or around the region east of the Jordan River.[n 6] Although the gospel was said to be used by "Ebionites" during the time of the early church,[n 7] the identity of the group or groups that used it remains a matter of conjecture.[n 8]​

The Gospel of the Ebionites is one of several Jewish–Christian gospels, along with the Gospel of the Hebrews and the Gospel of the Nazarenes; all survive only as fragments in quotations of the early Church Fathers. Due to their fragmentary state, the relationships, if any, between the Jewish–Christian gospels and a hypothetical original Hebrew Gospel are uncertain and have been a subject of intensive scholarly investigation.[n 9] The Ebionite gospel has been recognized as distinct from the others,[n 10] and it has been identified more closely with the lost Gospel of the Twelve.[n 11] It shows no dependence on the Gospel of John and is similar in nature to the harmonized gospel sayings based on the Synoptic Gospels used by Justin Martyr, although a relationship between them, if any, is uncertain.[3] There is a similarity between the gospel and a source document contained within the Clementine Recognitions (1.27–71), conventionally referred to by scholars as the Ascents of James, with respect to the command to abolish the Jewish sacrifices.​

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Interesting thing is that the "Church fathers" have then obviously been against the Bible, have not believed Jesus, nor Paul. And I think it is sad thing that they have managed to mislead many people away from truth.

Hmmmm. The thing is, when the Church Fathers canonized the books of the New Testament, one of the criteria was that all these books represent what they considered to be orthodox teaching. That seems to me to be proof that they accepted both Jesus and Paul.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

The following information seems to point out that the 3rd to 4th century Church did not see themselves as Jews. Further, the Catholic Church does not describe itself as being Jewish.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

Lastly, concernig the Ebionite Gospel.

 

[BilliardsBall]

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.

See above.

Evidence?

"ERRORS" was in quotation marks. YOU find errors in Jewish documents that point to Mashiach.

 

[BilliardsBall]

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.

...Because they were excluded from the community. Google "Messianic Jewish leaders of Christianity" and you'll see, what you already know, shiva for Jews who trust Christ.

 

[Harel13]

"ERRORS" was in quotation marks. YOU find errors in Jewish documents that point to Mashiach.

I find errors in Jewish documents? This is the Christian Septuagint(s) we're talking about, remember?

 

[BilliardsBall]

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.

I already knew these things.

Put differently, "What kind of knife should we use to kill an animal? Well, a sharp one, since it says 'The righteous man regards the life of his beast . . . '"

There's a reason for commentary, Christians write commentaries also, but I'm asking you to consider the answer without referring to commentary as you just have, which is superior, the Holy Word of the Lord or commentaries?

I had to trust in Messiah, though I didn't want to become a Christian, because I took Torah above what the rabbis said or what the commentators, far removed from the events of the NT, said.

 

[Harel13]

...Because they were excluded from the community.

They had the option of staying. But it would have meant either giving up Christianity, or saying every day a blessing that is the equivalent of saying: "I am happy that I am not myself and I hope people like myself will be wiped out".

 

[Ehav4Ever]

I already knew these things.

Put differently, "What kind of knife should we use to kill an animal? Well, a sharp one, since it says 'The righteous man regards the life of his beast . . . '"

The choice of knife you use a Christian at up to you as a Christian.

In Torath Mosheh and Orthodox Jewish communities, the characteristics of the "types of knives" that can be used to do (שחיטה) were defined by Hashem to Mosheh ben-Amram and to everyone who was at Har Sinai. That was passed by mesorath from generation to generation of Torath Mosheh Jew.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

There's a reason for commentary, Christians write commentaries also, but I'm asking you to consider the answer without referring to commentary as you just have, which is superior, the Holy Word of the Lord or commentaries?

Actually, based on the refusal of the Zoom offer I have been making for some time, I have come to the understndanding that most Christians on RF who are trying to convince Jews to join them in Christianity are not concerned with what the Hebrew Tanakh actually says. Otherwise, they would jump at the prospect of showing me from the Hebrew Tanakh w/o translation and w/o commentary that thier claims are true. Thus, I get the impression that Christian commentary and translation is considered superior by certain types of Christians than the Hebrew Tanakh.

That is the impression I am given.

BTW - One Christian on RF took me up on the Zoom offer and we had a really good and peaceful conversation. Yet, I know most are not interested in that - but that is okay.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

...Because they were excluded from the community. Google "Messianic Jewish leaders of Christianity" and you'll see, what you already know, shiva for Jews who trust Christ.

Then that says a lot of about what how their faith didn't amount to much for them or their children. If such a group, who have not been identified thus far, did exist they should have been able to easily be excluded and then build something stronger and better, based on their faith, than what existed for those who supposidely excluded them. I.e. the so called group you claim to be referencing should have easily been able to become the dominant group and should have had an unbroken group of descendents until the modern era.

The reality seems to be, from Christian sources that they excluded themselves because they thought Jesus was coming back in their generation. Paul's writings also seem to point to the original Jewish Christians wanting to be excluded from Torath Mosheh Jewish communities. So, in the end they were excluded because that is what they wanted.

In terms of sitting shiva. Given that the vast majority of messianics come from non-Torath Mosheh and non-Orthodox Jewish homes it is doubtful that a lot of them have had any sit shiva for them. The few that did have when they return to Torath Mosheh often state that while they were messianic they had already felt dead inside because of how distant the messianic movement is from the Torah.

 

[Harel13]

The few that did have when they return to Torath Mosheh

Think Messianics sit shiva for these people?

 

[Ehav4Ever]

Think Messianics sit shiva for these people?

Most of the ones I have run into would say, "What is shiva? Is that that new sushi place in Rechavya?"

 

[Ehav4Ever]

The video below is a good example. I love what he says at the end when he returns to his yeshiva.

Messianic Jew Returns to Orthodox Judaism with HaRav Amnon Yitzchak shlit"a