• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Why Torah based Jews would be unconvinced

Link

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Not a strawman. It is the exact claim you made previously. Now you are saying that in order to understand the Quran correctly I have to "know check various meanings of words and disputes among Muslims about them." Based on your earlier claims I should be able to pick up the Quran in Hebrew, ignore all Islamic authories, and go by non-Muslim scholarship. I have done that before and here I am.

If I don't need to know Arabic then Arabic scholars don't need to know it either. We can all just rely on the English translations made by anyone w/o going by authentic Quranic scholars, who obviously learned Arabic to be considered authorities.

I didn't say I understand all of the Torah or Tanakh. I'm saying I understand a main theme of it which can't be hidden in any translation because of it's repeated nature and all translations show it.
 

Link

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Right, you read a "bible." That is not a Hebrew Tanakh. Big differences between them. Now I understand where you are coming from better. We are definately not reading the same thing.

We are reading the same words, just interpretation is vastly different. You want to be about God entrusting everything to Jews at the end, and they become the vessel of guidance, but to me, the Torah and Tanakh is clear, it's God's chosen images and names and words of light - the exalted ones and his beloved ones, that he entrusts guidance to.

Abraham and his family has to be replaced by chosen ones, not by clergy or scholars or a people that are just regular people.
 

Ehav4Ever

Well-Known Member
I didn't say I understand all of the Torah or Tanakh. I'm saying I understand a main theme of it which can't be hidden in any translation because of it's repeated nature and all translations show it.

This statement let's me know that you don't understand the Hebrew Tanakh. The Hebrew Tanakh does not come with a "main theme."

You think it does because you are carrying Quranic perspective, which you are free to have. Thus, you don't know what the Hebrew Tanakh really is because you have never asked a Torah based Jew to explain it to you.
 

Link

Veteran Member
Premium Member
This statement let's me know that you don't understand the Hebrew Tanakh. The Hebrew Tanakh does not come with a "main theme."

You think it does because you are carrying Quranic perspective, which you are free to have. Thus, you don't know what the Hebrew Tanakh really is because you have never asked a Torah based Jew to explain it to you.

This is your view, the main theme is clear to me.
 

Link

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Not true. If that were true you would be able to tell me what this says.

God emphasizes on Enoch, Noah, etc, to be chosen by him and righteous servants that are special. Elijah vs soothsaying Prophets, etc, all show that God wants to be approached through people such as Elijah who shows the proper God vs the non-chosen self-appointed leaders Creator versions.

It's a big theme in the Tanakh, you just in denial at this point.
 

rosends

Well-Known Member
In my view, all holy books are clear, that chosen ones are always somewhere on earth, and we can pray to God that he guides by their hands and be shown signs by their hands so we attain certainty.
I think that this is the operative point -- YOU have a view and have decided that things are clear, having drawn a personal conclusion which is not a conclusion that others who have been studying texts for a longer time than you have not drawn. Doesn't it seem strange that you have decided on a theme and meaning and have proclaimed it to be clear even though no one else seems to agree with you?
 

Link

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I think that this is the operative point -- YOU have a view and have decided that things are clear, having drawn a personal conclusion which is not a conclusion that others who have been studying texts for a longer time than you have not drawn. Doesn't it seem strange that you have decided on a theme and meaning and have proclaimed it to be clear even though no one else seems to agree with you?

It doesn't seem strange. I've witnessed in the Quran. Despite the emphasis on the chosen family most Muslims don't accept them. It's no surprise to me that reading Tanakh or Quran through lenses not from God leads astray.

It's true I came with a bias from Ahlulbayt (a) and their hadiths, but this is not a bad bias, it makes it clear, and I understand it very clearly and see it very clearly. This is the main theme of all holy books.
 

PruePhillip

Well-Known Member
But weren't the Church Fathers who were outside of the New Testament the ones who codified the New Testament and the content that is in in modern times? Are you a part of a branch of Christianity that predates the Catholic Church? If so, what type of Church is it that you attend or what type Christianity do you practice?



Wow. So, in your view the Catholics were worse than the Pharisees? Aren't Catholic practices pretty much in line with what Paul taught? Are Catholic practices pretty much the oldest of modern Christianity?

Do you consider the Catholics void of the Christian concept of Salvation or do you just consider them to be misled? Are there any other types of Christians who are in line with what you consider to be correct Christianity?

Are you a type of Ebionite? You mentioed that you are part Jewish, are you saying that the Jewish part of you comes from the Ebionites?

Diotrephes in 3 John could have been the one Catholic person mentioned
in the NT. It's an uncommon name, he came from a pagan background and
John said he wanted the 'pre-eminence' amongst his admirers, and openly
resisted the itinerate Apostles. One Diotrephes from that age was one of the
first Bishops of the early Catholic Church. As such Diotrephes would have
believed in symbolic worship - holy days, physical sanctuaries, merchandise
etc..

Worse than Pharisees? By the 5th century the Roman Catholic Church was
worse than the Pharisees. Certainly by the 12th Century. It essentially ruled
the world by this stage. The reference to the whore sitting on the 'seven hills'
full of her pomp, glory and wealth reminds me of the RCC.
Those who collated the NT were obviously aware of the associations between
some of the warnings in that text, and their own behavior. This demonstrates
that the 'early fathers' were compiling what was already considered in society
as authentic texts.
 

rosends

Well-Known Member
It doesn't seem strange. I've witnessed in the Quran. Despite the emphasis on the chosen family most Muslims don't accept them. It's no surprise to me that reading Tanakh or Quran through lenses not from God leads astray.

It's true I came with a bias from Ahlulbayt (a) and their hadiths, but this is not a bad bias, it makes it clear, and I understand it very clearly and see it very clearly. This is the main theme of all holy books.
Wouldn't this mean, though, that if I were to assert equal clarity but present a different theme, my assessment and claim would be as valid as yours?
 

Link

Veteran Member
Premium Member
For example, I've read in ahadith that all Prophets (a) are risen with Walayah, and that denial of Walayah of Imams (a) is denial of all holy books. This does give me a bias to see the theme in that way, but, it's good bias, because when you see it, it's vividly clear, and to miss it, is to miss the forest for the trees. Everyone can take a specific tree and make an interpretation out of it, but what is repeated by God, and emphasized through out, this no one can hide and it's clear.
 

Link

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Wouldn't this mean, though, that if I were to assert equal clarity but present a different theme, my assessment and claim would be as valid as yours?

The claim can appear the same to people, so people can than read and see which one is true. I'm asserting something to me is so vivid and clear, God emphasizes on chosen ones of his to be the means of guidance through out time and when he talks stories of the past, is not about the past only.
 

dybmh

דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
The 'ways' spoken of in Deuteronomy 5:33 are the 'statutes and judgments' of Deuteronomy 5:1. These are plural, for the law consists of many (613).

The 'way' of Jesus is the way of truth and life. It's the fulfilment of all that is contained in the law!
The 'way' is keeping the 'ways' ( plural ). Not keeping the 'ways' plural is contemptible: Malachi 2:8-9. Misrepresenting the way as **only** the single gate of faith renders the new covenant null and void. It would be the same as someone misrepresenting any commondity; claiming it's one-of-a-kind when there are actually many of the same thing. The seller claims "come get this coin, there is nothing else like it in the world", but the if truth is that there are many coins like it, then the seller is being deceitful.
 

Ehav4Ever

Well-Known Member
For example, I've read in ahadith that all Prophets (a) are risen with Walayah, and that denial of Walayah of Imams (a) is denial of all holy books. This does give me a bias to see the theme in that way, but, it's good bias, because when you see it, it's vividly clear, and to miss it, is to miss the forest for the trees. Everyone can take a specific tree and make an interpretation out of it, but what is repeated by God, and emphasized through out, this no one can hide and it's clear.

I can read that differently and say that your bias is not good. Where in the Quran is your bias justified?
 

Redemptionsong

Well-Known Member
The 'way' is keeping the 'ways' ( plural ). Not keeping the 'ways' plural is contemptible: Malachi 2:8-9. Misrepresenting the way as **only** the single gate of faith renders the new covenant null and void. It would be the same as someone misrepresenting any commondity; claiming it's one-of-a-kind when there are actually many of the same thing. The seller claims "come get this coin, there is nothing else like it in the world", but the if truth is that there are many coins like it, then the seller is being deceitful.
I can't make sense of what you're saying here.

There are many commandments of God, but doing just one of them is not fulfilling the law. It is necessary to do them all - the entirety.

When the scriptures of the NT say that Jesus came to fulfil the law, they mean all of them! For that reason it is possible to use the singular 'way' as reference to his absolute truth. Such a claim cannot be made unless he is the perfect 'face' of God.
 

Rival

Si m'ait Dieus
Staff member
Premium Member
I can't make sense of what you're saying here.

There are many commandments of God, but doing just one of them is not fulfilling the law. It is necessary to do them all - the entirety.

When the scriptures of the NT say that Jesus came to fulfil the law, they mean all of them! For that reason it is possible to use the singular 'way' as reference to his absolute truth. Such a claim cannot be made unless he is the perfect 'face' of God.
What do you mean by all?

There are commandments only for men.

Commandments only for women.

For priests.

For kings.

For nazarites.

For lepers.

Etc.
 

Ehav4Ever

Well-Known Member
Everyone can take a specific tree and make an interpretation out of it, but what is repeated by God, and emphasized through out, this no one can hide and it's clear.

Taking that into account I can remove all of the dots below (tha), (dha), (ya), and reinvent what is written to match my desire to say that my preconcieived notion that the authors of the Quran intended to say that we Torath Mosheh are doing okay and we should continue w/o reading any further in the Quran. I of course get this from the below.

upload_2021-11-3_19-44-1.png
 

Ehav4Ever

Well-Known Member
God emphasizes on Enoch, Noah, etc, to be chosen by him and righteous servants that are special. Elijah vs soothsaying Prophets, etc, all show that God wants to be approached through people such as Elijah who shows the proper God vs the non-chosen self-appointed leaders Creator versions.

It's a big theme in the Tanakh, you just in denial at this point.

If that is what the book you are reading is focused on, and that is the first thing your bring out, we definately not reading the same text. Thanks for clearing that up for me. Done.
 

dybmh

דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
I can't make sense of what you're saying here.

There are many commandments of God, but doing just one of them is not fulfilling the law. It is necessary to do them all - the entirety.

When the scriptures of the NT say that Jesus came to fulfil the law, they mean all of them! For that reason it is possible to use the singular 'way' as reference to his absolute truth. Such a claim cannot be made unless he is the perfect 'face' of God.
I agree it's a complicated thesis I'm presetning... :)

I think its accurate to say that Jesus desired to fullfill all the law and then act as the solitary gate to the one Jesus calls "TheFather". But that doesn't mean he succeeded. Malachi further states in Chapter 3 "Return to me and follow all the ways of the commandments and I will return to you". According to this Jesus is not the solitary gate. It's possible that he offeres a legitimate path for Christians; but for Jews we are still bound by the original covenenat with many ways included in the path to salvation.

What I'm trying to say is: the path via salvation might be a viable option; but its not the only option. When Jesus says he is the only way; that misrepresents the Covenenat in Tanach. The easy solution is that Jesus was not talking to Jews anymore at John 14:6, he was speaking to his disciples who had already abandoned Jewish principles in favor of Jesus as the solitary avenue to salvation. But it's ot solitary per Deuteronomy 5:33 and Malachi 3:8-9.

If the path to salvation is not only through Jesus (and I think scripture supports this) then the sales pitch from Jesus ( forgive me if this is trite ) is false advertising. He's saying theres only ne way, without disclosing the other legitimate pathes to salvation offered in the Torah. It's lying by omission.

Even if we disagree; do you understand what I'm trying to say? :)
 

Ehav4Ever

Well-Known Member
Worse than Pharisees? By the 5th century the Roman Catholic Church was worse than the Pharisees.

So, do you consider modern day Catholics also to be worse than the Pharisees? Also, what type of church are you a part of again? Do you consider yourself an Ebionite? Also, what is your take on Marcion?
 
Top