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

[Ehav4Ever]

So, unless the NT conforms to what YOU expect of it, it isn't true?

If the NT doesn't conform to Torath Mosheh then yes all Torath Mosheh Jews and Orthodox Jews are required by Hashem, from the Torah, to stay away from it - and we do.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

Who do YOU believe Jacob, Zechariah and Daniel to be speaking of?

Let's do a Zoom and I will show you what the Hebrew text says. Agreed?

BTW one person on RF took me up on this Zoom offer. We had a really good conversation. It was great, you would have loved it.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

Why would the Torath Mosheh Jews accept the scriptures of any other religion other than their on scriptures?

Most ancient religions simply do not accept the scriptures of other religions, without extreme qualifications if at all.

Exactly!

 

[PruePhillip]

Let's do a Zoom and I will show you what the Hebrew text says. Agreed?

BTW one person on RF took me up on this Zoom offer. We had a really good conversation. It was great, you would have loved it.

No thanks. I don't do zoom, don't have the equipment and think better in text.
You just have to answer the question, that's all.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

No thanks. I don't do zoom, don't have the equipment and think better in text.

Okay. So it must not be that important to either one of us then. And since we have already established that you don't read/understand Hebrew there isn't much you could add to this topic, based on the OP. Wow that was faster than the Zoom. Thanks.

 

[PruePhillip]

Okay. So it must not be that important to either one of us then. And since we have already established that you don't read/understand Hebrew there isn't much you could add to this topic, based on the OP. Wow that was faster than the Zoom. Thanks.

I speak a bit of Greek, and get into conversations with people who claim to know Greek
and seek to intellectually brow beat you. Often their 'translation' boils down to choosing
one of a number of definitions of a word, and claiming that people don't know their bible
because they 'don't know ancient Greek.'
Same with Hebrew (ie the word 'hell' or 'virgin' or 'pierce' etc..)

 

[shunyadragon]

Eh, wot?

Most Christians, particularly Evangelicals, consider their scripture revealed in Revelation as is, especially the NT. It varies as to how the scripture is literal as in Genesis, but the testimony of the authors of the NT considered Genesis literal history. The modern scholarly view that the Bible is compiled, edited and redacted over time, and the provenance and authorship is questionable, and not written as is by witnesses of the events is not accepted.

 

[rosends]

I speak a bit of Greek, and get into conversations with people who claim to know Greek
and seek to intellectually brow beat you. Often their 'translation' boils down to choosing
one of a number of definitions of a word, and claiming that people don't know their bible
because they 'don't know ancient Greek.'
Same with Hebrew (ie the word 'hell' or 'virgin' or 'pierce' etc..)

But those who don't know the original language don't even have the chance to choose among translations because they lack the tools to assess the accuracy of the translations - they have to take someone else's word for it.

 

[PruePhillip]

But those who don't know the original language don't even have the chance to choose among translations because they lack the tools to assess the accuracy of the translations - they have to take someone else's word for it.

The Interlinear is good for this. It can give a range of translations.
Most of all it's the context that's the decider.
And in any case, when it comes to the New Testament it can survive
many translations because the focus is upon the story, not nuances
of Old Testament law.

 

[PruePhillip]

Most Christians, particularly Evangelicals, consider their scripture revealed in Revelation as is, especially the NT. It varies as to how the scripture is literal as in Genesis, but the testimony of the authors of the NT considered Genesis literal history. The modern scholarly view that the Bible is compiled, edited and redacted over time, and the provenance and authorship is questionable, and not written as is by witnesses of the events is not accepted.

Indeed, in the first creation account there's THREE references to sun/light appearing.
I believe you can believe the bible 99% of the time, all the way down to 1% of the time.
There's no 100% or 0% - you can't defend absolute numbers due to the historic factor
and the contradictions.

 

[rosends]

The Interlinear is good for this. It can give a range of translations.
Most of all it's the context that's the decider.
And in any case, when it comes to the New Testament it can survive
many translations because the focus is upon the story, not nuances
of Old Testament law.

But the Jewish texts live and breathe on the basis of the individual word so knowing the etymology, the context, the variant spellings, and even the grammar of the line, plus the other uses of the word and all that are what allow the text to exist. When the Gospels use Jewish source materials and deemphasize the precision of the language (those "nuances") then they risk losing the meaning of the source and replacing it with something else.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Given that the various church councils were the ones who decided what material went into the New Testament and what information did not go into it – this alone provides a very critical reason why Torath Mosheh Jews and Orthodox Jews are required by Hashem/Torah to ignore such a text due to its historical and theological content and the lack of some specific requirements given by Hashem to Am Yisrael.

It further shows, based on how the early Christian Church chose to structure the text, that it was not meant for Torath Mosheh Jews and Orthodox Jews. I.e. if Christians like it and accept it is not my place to judge that BUT Torath Mosheh Jews and Orthodox Jews have mitzvoth to avoid it. The historical and theological information and claims found in the Greek derived NT texts from start to finish makes it suspect and thus a Torath Mosheh Jew and Orthodox Jew consider it (פסול) and (עבודה זרה) for us.

That being said, you may ask what structure and content would have given a Torath Mosheh Jew, at any time in history, a reason to even consider reading it? The answer to that is simple and thus what follows is a less problematic structure and content that would have made more sense to construct from a Jewish perspective.

1. The Gospel of Jesus "written in Hebrew/Aramaic by Jesus himself" containing:
   • A description of when Jesus wrote the text and for what purpose.
   • An autobiography of Jesus’s early life including a clear description of his family and verifiable names of who he learned Hebrew, Torah, and Halakha from.
   • A description of why Torath Mosheh Jews should listen to Jesus, his teachings, and his students. I.e. Jesus’s description of how listening to him and reading his gospel, and those of his students, are included in mitzvoth from the Torah.
   • A mitzvah by mitzvah detail of each of the 613 mitzvoth of the Torah and the practical application of each one in in all situations.
   • A dictionary of ancient Hebrew words, weights, and measurements. For example, what is Hashem’s definition of (כזית).
   • A review of Jesus’s Torah scroll that he was required to transcribe in his lifetime and who would be preserving it into the future. This would include his analysis of writing on (גוויל) vs. (קלף).
   • An identification of all the individuals who would be leading his Jewish followers in the future and what texts written about him were accetable.
   • A description of how Jesus got married, the traditions, and how his Jewish followers were to marry and raise their children. (עורך חיים ותלמוד תורה שלו)
   • A detailed description of future Christian movements that would not represent his teachings.
   • Jesus’s description of how the universe/reality works. I.e. Jesus’s teachings on astrobiology, biology, chemistry, physics, thermodynamics, cosmology, history, evolution, etc.
   • Lastly, Jesus’s specific advice for how Torath Mosheh Jews should survive/escape the remainder of the Roman occupation, the Crusades, the Inquisition, the Mamluks, that Nazis, and western assimilation.
2. The Gospels of all 12 of Jesus’s Jewish disciples, written in Hebrew/Aramaic, covering the following topics:
   • Their family history (father’s name and grandfather’s name as well as the tribe they came from) also who they married and the names of their students.
   • The people they learned Torah from before Jesus.
   • The teachings that Jesus taught them on all of the 613 mitzvoth.
   • Their formula for surviving the Roman occupation.
   • A description of how they tie their tzitzith and which tefillin type they used. I.e. (רש"י \ רמב"ם) vs. (רבנו תם).
   • A description of the Torah scroll that Jesus was required to write and also how they made copies of it, as they were required to do by Jewish law.
   • Their commentary on the gospel of Jesus.
   • All of the writings of Paul and Revelations would not be included such a text.

If the NT had been structured, completely and not partially, in the above way then maybe it would be something that Torath Mosheh Jews would consider reading and investigating. YET, because it was not written in the above format Torath Mosheh Jews and Orthodox Jews have a mitzvah from the Torah to ignore it.

Now I know that some Christians will feel like none of this matters and for someone who is not a Torath Mosheh Jew or an Orthodox Jew it may be fine that it doesn't matter for them, YET, it is a requirement for Torath Mosheh Jews and Orthodox Jews to consider such a matter. Essentially, the NT authors and compilers had only one chance to get it right with Torath Mosheh Jews and Orthodox Jews and ....... we all know what the results are.

I hope that helps.

I was never taught that Messiah when He comes will be in the box in his teaching or relevance to Israel.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

I was never taught that Messiah when He comes will be in the box in his teaching or relevance to Israel.

Maybe your teacher forgot to tell you. Maybe your teacher didn't know. Maybe your teacher was not taught very well. Maybe your teacher had a foreign concept of a messiah.

What is the name of your teacher? Maybe we can get him on the right path.

 

[Kenny]

We know that the location you gave of Beroea neither you nor I can find any historical information about any Jews there. Thus, neither you nor I have any information that proves a) that they knew Hebrew, b) that such a Jewish community even existed, and c) that they even had a Tanakh that they looked.

Even if they did exist they could have easily been considered heretically Chrsitians by the Nicene Counsel like so many Christians were.

Excepting, of course, the book written by Luke called the book of Acts. Just saying "they didn't exist" doesn't mean there were no Jews... especially since we have the letter.

Today there are no Jews in Veria but does that mean there were never any Jews? Of course not. If it weren't the fact that time did not destroy the Synagogue that still stand there... you would say they never existed too.

.premium-the-secret-history-of-one-of-greece-s-oldest-jewish-communities-1.6411008

So your position is nothing but conjecture while, at the least, we have a written historical letter of that time.

With all due respect that is what you say. Yet, I find it a bit odd that the entire NT was written in Greek and no NT text survives from the time frame in Hebrew. In fact, I find it strange when I offer for Christians to do a Zoom with me where they show me in the Hebrew Tanakh, w/o translation, where their historical and theological claims are supported they utterly refuse.

Concerning Paul preaching from the Tanakh. I don't have proof that Paul knew Hebrew. He certainly did write anything in Hebrew that survived. If he did it must not have been very important to the early Churches. Also, the Ebionites sure did not beleive that Paul was Teaching for the Tanakh. The Ebionites beleive in Jesus and considered Paul to be a heretic.

Further, on the point of Paul supposidly "preaching from the Tanakh." I don't mean to be disrespectful when I say this but. David Koresh was supposidly preaching from the Tanakh and the NT, Jim Jones was supposidly preaching from the Tanakh and the NT, there is a Sacred Name cult that supposidly teach from the Tanakh and the NT. Are all of these people correctly teaching from the Tanakh and the NT? If not, then that means that preaching from the Tanakh, even theoritically, doesn't mean what you are teaching is accurate. I.e. people start cults all the time and base them on something.

I don't want to deal with information that is quite irrelevant or create scenarios that have nothing to do with the subject. (It gives the hue that we are grasping at straws)

I have no proof that Isaiah actually existed or spoke in Hebrew other than what is written. I have no proof that Daniel spoke anything but Akkadian - someone must have translated his information into Hebrew/Aramaic. Absurd, of course, but anyone can create a scenario.

Clement (95AD) mentioned Paul. Since it is recorded that Paul studied under Gamaliel, there is no reason for me not to believe he spoke Hebrew.

I don't find it odd at all that the letters and works we have today are in Greek. The Gospel of God's Kingdom was, as declared to Abraham, for all nations. The prevailing mode of communication was Greek. By the time they were writing their works, it was already established that it was for all nations and not just the Jewish nations--logic would say "write in the language of the common people" - which was Greek.

I don't see any proof of Paul being a Pharisee or that he learned from anyone named Gamliel. BTW there has been more than one Gamiliel in Jewish history. Paul was supposidly from Tarsus and there is no well known Gamliel from there. And yes I know that some Christians come later and claim that he moved from Tarsus Jerusalem and all that. Yeah, what is the source for that and when did he claim to have done such?

Paul, in his own writings never claimed this. Only the writer of Acts, who was not Paul, makes this claim. Besides, if Paul was a Pharisee he was not much of one since he was willing to do work for the Saducees. Yet, all of these claims about Paul come from the NT and not from any external Jewish sources where Paul is virtually unheard of it.

Again... we can create a scenario with our imaginations... but does that prove anything? What "external evidence" do you have that Moses existed? None. Do I take the position that he never existed because of that?

I understand that you don't believe what was written by the believers in Yeshua Hamashiach. Which I have no problem with that. But you can't apply one set of rules for these works but a different set of rules for the TaNaKh.

So, that brings up back to the original question. You mentioned the Jews of Beroea. Did they agree with version of the NT that the Church counsels came up with? If so, what is your proof? How do you know the didn't agree with Ebionites or the Marceonites? Again, not your opinion but something that proves the point historically.

I'm not sure, again, why this is even a question. I am not trying to "prove" to you whether the NT version is correct or not. All I am saying is that they preached from the TaNaKh which I assume you do agree with those scriptures.

There is also no evidence that they existed and there is no evidence as to their beliefs, AND if there is no evidence that they kept Torah (correctly) or that they were experts in the Torah then there is no reason to bring them up in this type of discussion. They have literally to add to such a discussion, based on the OP, and thus we are debating our own imaginations of theories. If time erased them off the historical map then that tells me that they are not of any interest for a Torath Mosheh Jew or an Orthodox Jew to even consider. There are a loads of Torath Mosheh Jewish communities that existed in the 2nd Temple period that time did not erase. I will go by those groups, just as Hashem commanded me to do.

So, I think we can be drop the so called Jews of Beroea from this discussion and allow time to continue to erase them historically. Agreed?

At your discretion.

Would you mind giving me the names of Jews/Jewish communities from the time of the Tanakh who didn't keep Torah and whose communities/descendants survived not keeping the Torah from their time to the modern era? I will make it easier for you - from the time of the Tanakh to 1,500 years ago.

Jerusalem?

Ezekiel 23?

The Messianic Movement, by their own admission started in the 1960's. None of them descend from 1st Century Christians. In fact, most Messianics are not even Jewish. I did a paper video and a paper on this topic. Here is the link to the video and attached below is the paper.

https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLXECa6N2EVJVk6DFRCTRtYjeCCwd3kTR-

You are changing what I said here. I never said the the Messianic Jews are all Jews. I simply said there are Messianic Jews. Appreciate you not changing what I said.

And the Church Fathers considered those kinds of Christians heretics and those groups of Christians disappeared off the historical map more than 1,700 years ago. In facgt, none of writings survived and they are only known today because of the writings of the Chruch Fathers calling them heretics.

Again... has nothing to do with what I said

Can you show me where the Progressive Jews and the everything in between claim to hold by Torath Mosheh?

All I did was applied your statement to your own faith. If we are going to judge... let's not use uneven weights, Hashem doesn't like that.

And my point is that the Jewish Christians disappeared off the historically map for a reason. It is a pretty powerful sign of what the result of their beleif system was and how shaky their whole system was.

Hashem warned Torath Mosheh Jews to not get involved in groups who can easily be historically erased by time. Not being erased by time is a mitzvah and gift that Hashem gave to Torath Mosheh Jews to take seriously - and as you can see from Torath Mosheh and Orthodox Jews on this site and others we take it seriously.

Hmmmmmm... no on point one. The Holocaust erased many things, the diaspora erased many things but it wasn't because the system was bad. Heaven and earth can pass away but His words will never pass away. The temporal can cease to exist but the eternal will never be erased.

Point two-- yes, if you are locked into the Torah Mosheh, you will hold onto that system. I am of the faith of Abraham and of the Abrahamic Covenant which was before the Mosaic Covenant.

 

[dybmh]

So your position is nothing but conjecture while, at the least, we have a written historical letter of that time.

This is ridiculous Ken. The book of Acts contains 5 maybe 6 verses about Berea with very few details.

You're being hypociritcal, your position is also nothing but conjecture.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

Excepting, of course, the book written by Luke called the book of Acts. Just saying "they didn't exist" doesn't mean there were no Jews... especially since we have the letter.

Today there are no Jews in Veria but does that mean there were never any Jews? Of course not. If it weren't the fact that time did not destroy the Synagogue that still stand there... you would say they never existed too.

.premium-the-secret-history-of-one-of-greece-s-oldest-jewish-communities-1.6411008

https://www.haaretz.com/world-news/...-greece-s-oldest-jewish-communities-1.6411008

Greetings.

If you read the OP you will notice that I noted that I don't consider the NT valid historically or theologically. So, the claim that Luke wrote acts or that Luke was even a valid source of information is a claim I don't accept. So, we can pretty much scratch Luke off the list.

Also, the point was not whether there were Jews in a location. You brought up a location and the made claims about them. Yet, we both agree that little to nothing is even known about the people you referenced. Thus, either a) they existed but they could not keep their community alive or b) they did not exist the way you (or the author of acts) claim.

Thus, they are of no meaning in this thread. If you want to beleive that they were something special I don't have to beleive anything about them when there is no proof. So, since they are of no importance to the topic I won't discuss them any further, for the reasons stated.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

I don't want to deal with information that is quite irrelevant....

I agree. The group you mentioned are irrelevant to the OP and to Torath Mosheh so we can drop them out of the discussion.

I have no proof that Isaiah actually existed or spoke in Hebrew other than what is written. I have no proof that Daniel spoke anything but Akkadian - someone must have translated his information into Hebrew/Aramaic. Absurd, of course, but anyone can create a scenario.

Why does it matter if you don't have any proof for Isaiah or Daniel. First of all, Isaiah is not even an ancient Jewish name. So, of course you would have no proof for a Jew in the land of Israel several thousand year ago with that name.

2nd, you should hold by what you have proof for. If you don't beleive they existed then disregard them.

Clement (95AD) mentioned Paul.

Clement is not a valid source for anything to Torath Moshe Jews and Orthodox Jews. We (Torath Moshe Jews and Orthodox Jews) don't hold by anything he says.

Since it is recorded that Paul studied under Gamaliel, there is no reason for me not to believe he spoke Hebrew.

If there was a Hellonist by the name of Gamliel in Tarsus then fine Paul learned from that guy. If you want to beleive that Paul knew Hebrew then that is fine, for you. Paul's very heavy use of Greek or even the fact that Christians were only willing to preserve anything he wrote in Greek speaks volumes, for me. I.e. I have a mitzvah to ignore/disregard Paul's writings. His rate of survival for Jews is very low. Time pretty much whipped away from the historical any Jewish community that may have followed him.

I don't find it odd at all that the letters and works we have today are in Greek.

Of course you don't, you are a Christian. I mentioned that in the OP. Torath Mosheh Jews and Orthodox Jews have a different standard to hold by that Hashem gave - and that standard is Hebrew first.

Again... we can create a scenario with our imaginations... but does that prove anything? What "external evidence" do you have that Moses existed? None. Do I take the position that he never existed because of that?

I actually do have evidence for Mosheh ben-Amram. The concept you have for Moses, I also agree doesn't exist. I don't see a problem with you saying that Moses didn't exist if you don't see evidence for him existing. You should hold by what you have proven to be reality and not for what you are unsure about.

I understand that you don't believe what was written by the believers in Yeshua Hamashiach. Which I have no problem with that.

Great, so we see eye to eye on the OP.

But you can't apply one set of rules for these works but a different set of rules for the TaNaKh.

Actually I can. For example, the rules for the Torah are not the same as the rules for the prophets. The rules for the prophets are not the same as the writings. In fact, this may shock you. Torath Mosheh Jews and Orthodox Jews hold that during the return of the Davidic kingship in the land of Israel the only books of the Tanakh that will remain in circulation are the Torah and the book of Esther. At that time all of the prophets and all of the other writings will go to the shelf. I.e. there won't be a Tanakh during that time. Only the Torah and on its own the book of Esther.

I'm not sure, again, why this is even a question. I am not trying to "prove" to you whether the NT version is correct or not.

Great. Now we are getting somewhere.

All I am saying is that they preached from the TaNaKh which I assume you do agree with those scriptures.

Oh, here we go again. We were making such good progress.

Look. If you want to beleive that - that is fine for you. They were definately not reading for any Hebrew Tanakh I have ever read. Oh I forgot they were reading from one of the many Christian versions of the LXX, in Greek.

At your discretion.
Jerusalem?
Ezekiel 23?

How about we do a Zoom where you show what is written there in Hebrew, w/o Christian or even Jewish translations? Otherwise, we aren't speaking the same language.

You are changing what I said here. I never said the the Messianic Jews are all Jews. I simply said there are Messianic Jews. Appreciate you not changing what I said.

I am not changing the subject. You brought up a group that has nothing to do with anything. The Messyanic movement, by their own admission, started in the 1960's and are not in any way connected to the 1st to 2nd Century Jewish Christians. I.e. they are not relevant to this or any conversation of this nature.

Again... has nothing to do with what I said

So, then let's agree to not bring up groups that have nothing to offer to this thread like the Jews of Bereoa and the Modern day Messianic movement. Neither has any bearing on this thread or the OP.

All I did was applied your statement to your own faith. If we are going to judge... let's not use uneven weights, Hashem doesn't like that.

Your statement was invalid. The Torah requires a Torath Mosheh Jew to judge things that are foreign to the Hebrew Torah. Just like your statement about uneven weights. Your statement is not even what the Torah is talking about when it comes to weights. What Hashem doesn't like is for Torath Mosheh Jews and Orthodox Jews to accept things that don't match the standard provided in the Torah for determining what is correct and incorrect.

I am of the faith of Abraham and of the Abrahamic Covenant which was before the Mosaic Covenant.

If you say so.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

I am going to bring up a very important point. Torath Mosheh Jews and Orthodox Jews have no requirement to try to convince anyone that the Torah is correct.

Further, if someone looks at the Torah and says, "I don't see any proof for any of this stuff." It is not a problem at all and it is actually a foundation of Torath Mosheh that person a should investigate all matters and not just accept something on "faith." Only accepting what they see has proof behind it.

As it is stated in the Kuzari. The Torah was not given to contradict what is proven to be true. And as the Rambam stated, "We hold by the truth, no matter which path it comes from." Again, if something to be true it has to be proven to be such.

 

[Kenny]

Greetings.

If you read the OP you will notice that I noted that I don't consider the NT valid historically or theologically. So, the claim that Luke wrote acts or that Luke was even a valid source of information is a claim I don't accept. So, we can pretty much scratch Luke off the list.

Also, the point was not whether there were Jews in a location. You brought up a location and the made claims about them. Yet, we both agree that little to nothing is even known about the people you referenced. Thus, either a) they existed but they could not keep their community alive or b) they did not exist the way you (or the author of acts) claim.

Thus, they are of no meaning in this thread. If you want to beleive that they were something special I don't have to beleive anything about them when there is no proof. So, since they are of no importance to the topic I won't discuss them any further, for the reasons stated.

That is fine. You have your point of reference in an opinion stance. However, your opinion of Luke doesn't make it fact. You can scratch it off of your list (it the light of rejecting the New Covenant as stipulated in the TaNaKh, in favor of the Mosaic Covenant which is your point of reference. But that is just that... your viewpoint.

So, I won't scratch Luke off of my list.

As fare as Jews in a location. As I pointed, there are no Jews in that community of 66,000 people today yet we have verifiable evidence of having been Jews there because wars et al have not destroyed due to modern evidence. Are they not there today because the didn't observe the Torah? Or was it the eradication of Jews because of the Holocaust?

Do we have the original Hebraic scriptures? Of course not. We have copies of copies due to time. 2,000 years of history has the capacity of destroying evidence. BUT - we do have the book of Acts and it has the markings of being a true account.

So, your thread is basically is based on what YOU think is important and relevant but not what IS important and relevant. IMO

 

[Ehav4Ever]

That is fine. You have your point of reference in an opinion stance. However, your opinion of Luke doesn't make it fact. You can scratch it off of your list (it the light of rejecting the New Covenant as stipulated in the TaNaKh, in favor of the Mosaic Covenant which is your point of reference. But that is just that... your viewpoint.

You forgot to mention that it is not just my viewpoint but also the viewpoint of all Torath Mosheh Jews from Yemenite, North African, Misrahhi, Ashkenazi (Orthodox), and Ethiopian Jewish communities. It is also the viewpoint of the Karaites.

So, I won't scratch Luke off of my list.

Sigh!!! If you remember correctly I said that Christians have a different list and different standards. I.e. I am not telling you to take anything off of your personal list. Luke is yours to have and keep. Enjoy.

Do we have the original Hebraic scriptures? Of course not.

I personally don't need originals of any text. (Scriptures is your word not mine) I just need a verifiable Mesoreth to analyze a text under. That is the standard for all Torath Mosheh and Orthodox Jews. For example, I don't have the original writings and notes of Charles Darwin. Yet, I have read copies of his original works. I also don't have the original Declaration of Independence of any nation yet, I have read transcriptions/copies of them and I don't personally have a problem with that. It doensn't bother me to read copies as long as they meet the criteria of being from an accurate and valid source that I can fact check. Nice try though.

We have copies of copies due to time. 2,000 years of history has the capacity of destroying evidence. BUT - we do have the book of Acts and it has the markings of being a true account.

If the book of acts is to your liking and meets your requirements then it is yours to have and keep. All the while we Torath Mosheh Jews and Orthodox Jews will disregard it because it doesn't meet ours. Win win for everyone!

So, your thread is basically is based on what YOU think is important and relevant but not what IS important and relevant. IMO

Are you sure you read the OP? If you did, you don't seem to understand it. The versions you have of a NT text that most modern day Christians don't know how to read due to not being taught Greek doesn't mean anything to Torath Mosheh Jews and Othodox Jews.

The content of the NT, the history behind who decided what went into and what was not included and the authorship issues make it invalid, per Torath Mosheh, for Torath Mosheh Jews and Orthodox Jews. If it is the book of the week/of the century for Christians....great....have at it. If you are happy with the NT as it is I am happy for your happiness.

Thus, this thread is about what Torath Mosheh Jews and Orthodox Jews were given as a requirement to verify mesorah and facts for us to consider or disregard. This is even proven out in that every Torath Mosheh and Orthodox Jew on RF agrees with what I wrote. I am sure if were to approach other Torath Mosheh Jews and Orthodox Jews they would also agree.

As you admitted you are not a Torath Mosheh Jew nor are you an Orthodox Jew. So the standards of Torath Mosheh are not for you...that's all.