Does Jeremiah 22:28 and Matthew 1:11 Negate Adon Y'shua as Mashiach?

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by pilgrim on December 7, 2010 at 3:21pm

The NT claims do not seem to have any validity when validated against Tanakh and Jewish halacha.

Jesus has no established genealogical record going back to King David. Even if Joseph was the “legal” father it is absolutely impossible to pass on one's genealogy through adoption.

For example, a priest (Kohain) is someone who is born to another priest. If your father is a priest, then you are a priest. If a priest (Kohain) adopts a boy who is the son of someone who was not a priest, that child does not become a priest through adoption.

Therefore, Joseph is a non starter for any genealogical claim.

As to Mary: There is no evidence at all that the genealogy listed in Luke is that of Mary. The chapter clearly says that this is the genealogy of Joseph. Mary isn't even mentioned.

If Mary could trace herself back to King David, it still wouldn't help. According to the Torah, the mother determines if someone is Jewish (Deuteronomy 7:3-4).

Tribal affiliation and family genealogy can only be traced through the person's father in accordance with (Exodus 28:4, 29:9-30, 30:30), and 40:15 [Priesthood Lineage];

Numbers 36 Tribal Lineage;

Genesis 49:10, I Kings 11:4, and I Chronicles 17:11-19 Kingship Lineage.

The discrepancies in each genealogy, as well as the discrepancies between the two genealogies, should awake some biblical and intellectual questions.

Rabbi, I am curious as to which Jewish group you are a rabbi in? is it Orthodox, Conservative, Chassidic, or Reform?

(please ignore that question, i did not notice that you were a messianic rabbi, (not Jewish)).

Permalink Reply by Nick Price on December 8, 2010 at 8:23am

A couple things to consider...

First, your comment "Y'shua's virgin birth is therefore a prophetic necessity. Without it he could not have been Mashiach." in a way defeats the entire premise of the paper. If Jesus was born of a virgin, then... Well I think it has been sufficiently proven that the word "alma" does not mean virgin. As proof, even many Christian Bible translators have changed it in their translations (see: RSV, Revised English, New English, NRSV, The Message, Layman's Bible Commentary, New Jerusalem Bible, etc.) To avoid tiresome proofs that can be found anywhere online, I will offer one. The Greek word used in Isaiah 7 to describe the woman is "parthenos" (alma in Hebrew). In Genesis 34 we read about Dinah, an Israelite woman who was raped and defiled. Interestingly, the Septuagint refers to her as "parthenos". Using Christian interpretation, this woman who has had relations would be a virgin.

Also, if anyone cares to read the verses following Isaiah 7:14, we see that this prophecy had a timeline and was already fulfilled by the time Jesus came on the scene. It's actually a great story. King Ahaz was afraid because of neighboring kings who were mounting up to attack Jerusalem. God gave him a sign to show that he and Jerusalem would be spared. "Behold (Hebrew word here is "hineh" which means look and see, in the present tense) the young woman is with child, and she shall bear a son, and she shall call his name Immanuel. Cream and honey he shall eat when he knows to reject bad and choose good. For, when the lad does not yet know to reject bad and choose good, the land whose two kings you dread, shall be abandoned."

We know from 2 Kings that this event happened and Jerusalem was spared. Now I must ask. Did this happen in the 1st century C.E.? No.

And to your point about the lineage going through Miriam and then Nathan instead of Solomon. This is in direct violation of the Messianic prophecy! 2 Samuel 7:12-16 describes Solomon as David's descendant whose kingdom will be forever. Ironically, it is Nathan speaking these words to David!

You have already shown that Joseph's descendants could not have taken the throne and interestingly enough, Ryrie agrees with you in his study Bible. So nothing further is required on that. His only choice of lineage was through his mother and this excludes him from Messiahship.

I would like to leave with a quote from the Christian writings. 1 Timothy 1:4, "nor give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which cause disputes rather than godly edification which is in faith."

Permalink Reply by Rabbi Yochanan Levine on December 8, 2010 at 4:52pm

Thanks for the responses.

Unfortunately we lost our connection to Net for now (squirrels chewed through the cables). Once our connection is restored (hopefully a couple of days) I will be happy to respond with the attention your points deserve.

Shalom

Permalink Reply by Rabbi Yochanan Levine on December 12, 2010 at 9:09pm

Hi Les, Whether or not the NT claims have support when validated against Tanakh and halacha is a matter of debate. From my studies I am convinced the two sections of Scripture are completely harmonious and validated by Torah, the Ruach HaKodesh and by HaShem.

 

Les: Jesus has no established genealogical record going back to King David. Even if Joseph was the “legal” father it is absolutely impossible to pass on one's genealogy through adoption.

 

RY: "Jesus" is the creation of the Catholic Church. Y'shua ben Miryam has a double lineage going back to Jesse and David and back to Avraham. According to the best available evidence the Gospel accounts date back to circa 50 CE. in their original forms (as you know there are no original versions of any book in the Bible). Being written prior to 70 CE (when the Temple records were destroyed) supports the existence of the Gospel lineages (with at least as much certainty as any other genealogy recorded in Scripture). There is no more reason to reject these two than any of the others.

 

Les: ...For example, a priest (Kohain) is someone who is born to another priest. If your father is a priest, then you are a priest....

 

RY: A cohen that is a Levite is a Levite and cohen by the order of HaShem in Torah. Its a different thing, however the same principle applies in this case because since both of his parents are from Judah that makes him qualified on that score to be Mashiach as I explain in the piece.

 

Les: Therefore, Joseph is a non starter for any genealogical claim.

 

RY: The only arguable disqualification is the curse I discuss here and it is a "non-starter." Y'shua's qualifier comes through Miryam however he has Davidic royalty on both sides.

 

Les: As to Mary: There is no evidence at all that the genealogy listed in Luke is that of Mary. The chapter clearly says that this is the genealogy of Joseph. Mary isn't even mentioned.

 

RY: As I say in the piece Luke's lineage being of Miryam is somewhat conjecture. It is not however without evidence.

Matthew's lineage comes through Solomon (and Y'khanyahu) while Luke's follows a different thread. Either the two authors contradict each other on a critical point of their defense of Y'shua's claims (which seems odd since they were seeking to show support for the claim and this would do the opposite) or they are referring to two different people. Considering the obvious edits done to the Bible by the Catholic canonization members it is inconceivable that they would have ignored one this massive. The very fact that the differences exist in the text supports that Luke was referring to Miryam's.

 

Another evidence is in the text:

Luke 3:23  And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli...

"As was supposed" reveals that Luke was making sure all bases were covered regarding his genealogy by pointing out that he was eligible through Miryam (as well). As a talmidim of Paul Luke would have known better.

 

Consider this from the Virtual Jewish Library:

(A) GENESIS 15:2–3. Being childless, Abram complains that *Eliezer, his servant, will be his heir. Since in the ancient Near East only relatives, normally sons, could inherit, Abram had probably adopted, or contemplated adopting, Eliezer. This passage is illuminated by the ancient Near Eastern practice of childless couples adopting a son, sometimes a slave, to serve them in their lifetime and bury and mourn them when they die, in return for which the adopted son is designated their heir. If a natural child should subsequently be born to the couple, he would be chief heir and the adopted son would be second to him. Source: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/judaica/ejud_0002_0001_...

 

Again:

(B) GENESIS 16:2 and 30:3. Because of their barrenness, Sarai and Rachel give their servant girls to Abram and Jacob as concubines, hoping to "have children" (lit. "be built up") through the concubines. Source: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/judaica/ejud_0002_0001_...

 

There are several such examples that could be cited.

 

What I have written in this case has solid Jewish and biblical precedence.

 

Les: The discrepancies in each genealogy, as well as the discrepancies between the two genealogies, should awake some biblical and intellectual questions.

 

RY: Absolutely one should always have intellectual questions and one should also always seek the truth despite the existence of those who distort it for their own ends. Much about Nicene Christianity (the man-made Roman religion in all its denominations) is clearly in opposition to Torah, but that does not mean Adon Y'shua was not who he said he was.

 

Les: Rabbi, I am curious as to which Jewish group you are a rabbi in? is it Orthodox, Conservative, Chassidic, or Reform?

(please ignore that question, i did not notice that you were a messianic rabbi, (not Jewish)).

 

RY: Most Orthodox do not accept Conservative, Reform etc. converts nor rabbis either. Messianic Jews are in good company. I am a rabbi at Temple Beth HaShem in Magalia, Ca. We are based very closely on Orthodox tradition. Our Chief Rabbi is a Yeshiva trained Levite. I am a convert to Judaism through the Jewish rabbi Y'shua ben Miryam. Adon Y'shua did not create a new religion. Were I a convert through any of the non Orthodox movements I would not be accepted by many of the Orthodox Jews either.

 

The Way of Y'shua is a Torah observant Jewish movement.

Shalom

Messianic Rabbi Yochanan ben Avraham

Permalink Reply by Rabbi Yochanan Levine on December 12, 2010 at 10:15pm

Hi Nick,

 

Thanks for your thoughts.

 

Nick: "Y'shua's virgin birth is therefore a prophetic necessity. Without it he could not have been Mashiach." in a way defeats the entire premise of the paper...

RY: That's not what I said: "Due to this curse no descendant of Yosef can ever sit on the Throne of David or be King of Israel/Judah. This means that had Y'shua been a physical descendant of Yosef he could not have been Mashiach based on his given lineage."

Given this lineage a virgin birth would have been required since Yosef could not father Moshiach.

 

Nick: ...I think it has been sufficiently proven that the word "alma" does not mean virgin.

 

RY: That was not one of my points, however an almah is not just a young girl (generally early teens), it refers to an honorable young girl. Had Miryam had a child out of wedlock she would not have been an almah because such owuld have not been honorable.

 

The word almah is irrelevant in any case because the text specially states Miryam had never been intimate and she and Yosef did not have sex until after the birth (Luke 1:27)

Luke 1:34  Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?

Luke 2:5  To be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child.

Matthew 1:18  Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.

 

The meaning of the word almah is irrelevant. The text is clear. One can accept what it says or not.

 

As for the Isaiah verse, I agree completely. That was not speaking of the Mashiach at all. It was one of the verses added by the Catholic Church to defend their dogmas. I discuss this in some detail here:

http://allfaith.com/Religions/Noahide/almah.html

 

Nick: And to your point about the lineage going through Miriam and then Nathan instead of Solomon. This is in direct violation of the Messianic prophecy! 2 Samuel 7:12-16 describes Solomon as David's descendant whose kingdom will be forever. Ironically, it is Nathan speaking these words to David!

 

This is correct. And Y'shua is a legal descendant of King David through Solomon (through his adoptive father) and thus satisfies this perimeter of the prophecy.

This is a key point to this study. Jeremiah 22:28 is just as clear that no descendant of Y'khanyahu will ever sit on the throne and yet Matthew 1:11 is completely clear that Y'khanyahu made this requirement seemingly impossible!

 

How can Mashiach come through Solomon without coming through Y'khanyahu? I see no other way! The virgin birth and dual Davidic lineage makes it possible.

 

Nick: You have already shown that Joseph's descendants could not have taken the throne and interestingly enough, Ryrie agrees with you in his study Bible. So nothing further is required on that. His only choice of lineage was through his mother and this excludes him from Messiahship.

 

RY: I'm not sure why this would surprise you. Its what the Bible plainly says.

IF Adon Y'shua is going to be Moshiach I see no other way. Y'shua came through the lineage of Jesse, David and Solomon by adoption and through the lineage of Jesse, David and Nathan by birth.

 

So we return to where we began. One accepts Adon Y'shua or one does not.

If one does not accept him however, one needs to explain how another Moshiach will ever come through Jesse, David and Solomon without passing through the line of Y'khanyahu. To my knowledge there is only one candidate.

 

I will also leave you with a quote from the Jewish Way writings:

 

Acts 17:11 Now the people here were of nobler character than the ones in Thessalonica; they eagerly welcomed the message, checking the Tanakh every day to see if the things Sha'ul was saying were true.

 

When the claims of Y'shua and his talmidim are understood and contrasted with Tanakh they pass the test.

Shalom,

Messianic rabbi Yochanan

Permalink Reply by Nick Price on December 12, 2010 at 11:30pm

I appreciate your responses to my questions and thoughts, but I must admit that I am even more confused than before.  I could not follow your line of reasoning in your response.  Please forgive me.

 

I first would like to say though, that I was quoting your statement about Jesus' virgin birth being necessity.  So unless I misunderstood you, I thought it was a statement of fact that you were making.  I do apologize if I took it out of context.

 

Secondly, you keep saying that no "physical" descendant of Joseph could assume the throne, but immediately follow it up by saying that adoption qualified Jesus.  So what part of Jesus was adopted?  His blood, skin, personality?  Is there such thing as partial adoption?  And also, doesn't adoption make us 100% part of the family?  If not, then we should take Paul's statement about being adopted by God with a grain of salt.

 

Rabbi Tovia Singer: 

"Mary’s genealogy is entirely irrelevant to Jesus’ supposed lineage from King David.  Mary’s genealogy is therefore not traced anywhere in the New Testament.  In both the first chapter of Matthew and in the third chapter of Luke, these New Testament authors provide a genealogy of Joseph alone, although these genealogies severely contradict each other.  As mentioned above, Joseph’s genealogy is irrelevant to Jesus because according to Christian doctrine, Joseph was not Jesus’ father.

I should mention that according to both Catholic and Protestant tradition, whereas Matthew’s genealogy is that of Joseph, Luke’s genealogy is of Mary.  Although this tradition is completely alien to the words of the Gospels, it was a necessary doctrine for the church to embrace. 

Nowhere in the third Gospel, or in the entire New Testament for that matter, does it state that Mary was from the House of David.  On the contrary, Luke 1:27 insists that it is Joseph who was from the House of David, not Mary.  In fact, Luke claims that Mary was the cousin of Elizabeth, who he says was a descendant of Aaron the high priest [Luke 1:5], placing her in the tribe of Levi, not David’s tribe of Judah.  Moreover, in Luke 2:4, the author writes that the reason it was necessary for Joseph and Mary to return to Bethlehem was because Joseph was from the House of David. 

There are a number of reasons why the church has a vital interest in claiming that Luke’s genealogy is through Mary’s line.  To begin with, Paul claims in Romans 1:3 that Jesus was from the seed of David after the flesh.  This has always been understood to mean that Paul was claiming that King David was the biological ancestor of Jesus.  Although at the time Paul penned the Book of Romans, he was completely unaware that Christendom would eventually claim that Jesus was born of a virgin birth.  The church desperately needed to have Paul’s statement correlate with the virgin-birth story.  This was solved by insisting that whereas Matthew’s genealogy was through Joseph’s line, Luke’s genealogy was through Mary’s line.  In this way, Jesus could now be from the seed of David after the flesh through Luke’s genealogy.  Claiming Luke’s genealogy is through Mary’s line, not only solved the problem of what to do with Romans 1:3, but established a physical link between Jesus and King David. 

Finally, it resolves an awkward discrepancy between Matthew’s and Luke’s genealogies.  Whereas in Matthew’s genealogy, Joseph’s father is Jacob[Matthew 1:16], in Luke’s genealogy it is Heli[Luke 3:23]. By claiming that Luke’s genealogy is of Mary, Heli becomes Mary’s father and Joseph’s father-in-law.  Problems solved."

 

I was slightly confused by your statement that the word alma is irrelevant.  I couldn't disagree more!  It is the basis for which the N.T. borrows its information to tell this story about Mary.  But just for argument's sake, let's assume that alma means "virgin" or "honorable young maiden" who obviously would have been a virgin since she wasn't married.  Who was the other virgin-born child?  There has to be 2.

 

Your quote, "When the claims of Y'shua and his talmidim are understood and contrasted with Tanakh they pass the test." bring up some serious questions.  1st, who died on the cross?  Jesus the man or Jesus the God?  Since we know God cannot die, we have to assume it was the man that died.  But if this is true, it is a direct violation of Torah.  For no human can EVER be sacrificed.  This is unacceptable to HaShem!  Also, according to Torah, the only time someone would bring a sacrifice for their sin is if it was committed unintentionally.  Intentional sins were never atoned for with blood.  So even if God did allow human sacrifice, it would only cover partially.  Finally, when blood was used for sacrifice, the Torah is extremely specific on where the blood should be placed.  And it doesn't mention a skull-like hill outside the city.

 

So you are correct in saying that the claims of Jesus should be weighed against Torah.  But to say they pass the test, actually ignores Torah.

 

Acts 17:11 is a great verse from Christian writings.  Everyone in Christianity should be studying Tanakh to see if Paul was true.  Without going into extreme detail, I will tell you that this is how I arrived in Judaism.  Studying Paul in light of the Tanakh!

 

Rabbi Yochanan ben Avraham said:

Hi Nick,

 

Thanks for your thoughts.

 

Nick: "Y'shua's virgin birth is therefore a prophetic necessity. Without it he could not have been Mashiach." in a way defeats the entire premise of the paper...

RY: That's not what I said: "Due to this curse no descendant of Yosef can ever sit on the Throne of David or be King of Israel/Judah. This means that had Y'shua been a physical descendant of Yosef he could not have been Mashiach based on his given lineage."

Given this lineage a virgin birth would have been required since Yosef could not father Moshiach.

 

Nick: ...I think it has been sufficiently proven that the word "alma" does not mean virgin.

 

RY: That was not one of my points, however an almah is not just a young girl (generally early teens), it refers to an honorable young girl. Had Miryam had a child out of wedlock she would not have been an almah because such owuld have not been honorable.

 

The word almah is irrelevant in any case because the text specially states Miryam had never been intimate and she and Yosef did not have sex until after the birth (Luke 1:27)

Luke 1:34  Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?

Luke 2:5  To be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child.

Matthew 1:18  Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.

 

The meaning of the word almah is irrelevant. The text is clear. One can accept what it says or not.

 

As for the Isaiah verse, I agree completely. That was not speaking of the Mashiach at all. It was one of the verses added by the Catholic Church to defend their dogmas. I discuss this in some detail here:

http://allfaith.com/Religions/Noahide/almah.html

 

Nick: And to your point about the lineage going through Miriam and then Nathan instead of Solomon. This is in direct violation of the Messianic prophecy! 2 Samuel 7:12-16 describes Solomon as David's descendant whose kingdom will be forever. Ironically, it is Nathan speaking these words to David!

 

This is correct. And Y'shua is a legal descendant of King David through Solomon (through his adoptive father) and thus satisfies this perimeter of the prophecy.

This is a key point to this study. Jeremiah 22:28 is just as clear that no descendant of Y'khanyahu will ever sit on the throne and yet Matthew 1:11 is completely clear that Y'khanyahu made this requirement seemingly impossible!

 

How can Mashiach come through Solomon without coming through Y'khanyahu? I see no other way! The virgin birth and dual Davidic lineage makes it possible.

 

Nick: You have already shown that Joseph's descendants could not have taken the throne and interestingly enough, Ryrie agrees with you in his study Bible. So nothing further is required on that. His only choice of lineage was through his mother and this excludes him from Messiahship.

 

RY: I'm not sure why this would surprise you. Its what the Bible plainly says.

IF Adon Y'shua is going to be Moshiach I see no other way. Y'shua came through the lineage of Jesse, David and Solomon by adoption and through the lineage of Jesse, David and Nathan by birth.

 

So we return to where we began. One accepts Adon Y'shua or one does not.

If one does not accept him however, one needs to explain how another Moshiach will ever come through Jesse, David and Solomon without passing through the line of Y'khanyahu. To my knowledge there is only one candidate.

 

I will also leave you with a quote from the Jewish Way writings:

 

Acts 17:11 Now the people here were of nobler character than the ones in Thessalonica; they eagerly welcomed the message, checking the Tanakh every day to see if the things Sha'ul was saying were true.

 

When the claims of Y'shua and his talmidim are understood and contrasted with Tanakh they pass the test.

Shalom,

Messianic rabbi Yochanan

Permalink Reply by pilgrim on December 13, 2010 at 8:27am

Thank you for the reply. The points you raised are very debatable and are, as you say, based on "conjecture". I will merely give one example, of many, as regarding the validity of the NT. Here Jesus tries to condone his Sabbath actions. He does not even know his own Tanakh. If it is the word of G_d then we must say that G_d does not even know His Tanakh. This is not question of interpretation, but, actual stated words. If I remember correctly, Ahimelech was priest after Abiathar.

My point is not that you cannot claim or believe whatever you like and support it with NT, or conjecture, or any other mens available. However, r3edefining the Tanakh to say what it does not is also a violation of Torah.

 

If we say that the original NT is correct, then, we must disregard the entire NT since we do not know what is correct and what is not. Also, there is widespread agreement among biblical scholars that the earliest possible Gospel was not written before 70 CE.

 

1 Samuel 21:1

Then David came to Nob to Ahimelech the priest. And Ahimelech came to meet David trembling and said to him, "Why are you alone, and no one with you?"

 

Mark 2:25-26

And he said to them, 'Have you never read what David did when he and his companions were hungry and in need of food? He entered the house of God, when Abiathar was high priest, and ate the bread of the Presence, which it is not lawful for any but the priests to eat, and he gave some to his companions.

Rabbi Yochanan ben Avraham said:

Hi Les, Whether or not the NT claims have support when validated against Tanakh and halacha is a matter of debate. From my studies I am convinced the two sections of Scripture are completely harmonious and validated by Torah, the Ruach HaKodesh and by HaShem......................................

Shalom

Messianic Rabbi Yochanan ben Avraham

Permalink Reply by Rabbi Yochanan Levine on December 13, 2010 at 1:51pm

Hi again Nick,

Nick: I appreciate your responses to my questions and thoughts, but I must admit that I am even more confused than before.  I could not follow your line of reasoning in your response.  Please forgive me.

RY: No forgiveness needed, but re-reading what I wrote I believe my points are clear.

Nick: I first would like to say though, that I was quoting your statement about Jesus' virgin birth being necessity.  So unless I misunderstood you, I thought it was a statement of fact that you were making.  I do apologize if I took it out of context.

RY: My statement you quoted was the summation to a statement made in the preceding paragraph. My point was simply that Y'shua (nor Mashiach) can be a descendant of Y'khanyahu due to the curse. The virgin birth answers this issue. The Tanakh does not say Mashiach must be born of a virgin, however due to the curse Yosef's physical line can not produce him. For Y'shua to be a candidate he could not be Yosef's son. Hence, given THAT lineage the virgin birth would be a necessity.

 

I ask you, how else can Mashiach (whoever he is) be a physical descendant of David and Solomon without also being a descendant of Y'khanyahu? I see no other way than the one used by HaShem with Miryam and Yosef.

 

Nick: Secondly, you keep saying that no "physical" descendant of Joseph could assume the throne, but immediately follow it up by saying that adoption qualified Jesus.  So what part of Jesus was adopted?  His blood, skin, personality?  Is there such thing as partial adoption?  And also, doesn't adoption make us 100% part of the family?  If not, then we should take Paul's statement about being adopted by God with a grain of salt.

RY: Let's say I have some genetic trait that make my kids all have red hair (this is just an example). If I adopt a child that child becomes part of my family in every legal and ethical way, however his hair will not become red. Likewise, Yosef carried a biological curse that says no physical offspring of his can ever sit on the throne of David. Y'shua inherited the legal lineage etc. however he was not a physical offspring and so did not inherit the curse. Seems pretty clear to me.
 
Paul's reference to the adoption is indeed a good one in this context. When a Gentile enters into the B'rit Hadashah (New Covenant) he/she is adopted into Israel, however one does not become Semitic even though one is accounted as though he were among the physical offspring of Avraham. The same is true for countless non-Semitic Jews. Judaism is not a race even though these leneages are based on race and ancestry.

Nick: ...Rabbi Tovia Singer...

RY: There is an old saying, ask 8 rabbis a question, get 10 answers. Of course many rabbis would say this. To say the opposite would be to acknowledge Y'shua's position.
    
Nick: ... As mentioned above, Joseph’s genealogy is irrelevant to Jesus because according to Christian doctrine, Joseph was not Jesus’ father.

RY: As a Messianic Jew I believe Yosef's geneology is very important. Christians believe many unbiblical things. If it didn't matter it would not have been given. I've shared why his lineage matters.

Nick: I should mention that according to both Catholic and Protestant tradition, whereas Matthew’s genealogy is that of Joseph, Luke’s genealogy is of Mary.  Although this tradition is completely alien to the words of the Gospels, it was a necessary doctrine for the church to embrace.

RY: Not so as I have demonstrated in my responses here. Luke's is Miryam's geneology and Matthew's is Yosef's. While the text has become somewhat muddled it is clear enough.

Nick: Nowhere in the third Gospel, or in the entire New Testament for that matter, does it state that Mary was from the House of David. 

RY: Not so:
Luke 1:27  To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary.

...to a virgin of the house of David... Her espousal to Yosef is a descriptor of who she was. The reference is to Miryam's association with the House of David.

Luke 2:4 and 5 say that both she and Yosef were of that house.

Nick: ... On the contrary, Luke 1:27 insists that it is Joseph who was from the House of David, not Mary.

RY: It does not. it says the oposite.
 
Nick: I was slightly confused by your statement that the word alma is irrelevant.  I couldn't disagree more!  It is the basis for which the N.T. borrows its information to tell this story about Mary.  But just for argument's sake, let's assume that alma means "virgin" or "honorable young maiden" who obviously would have been a virgin since she wasn't married.  Who was the other virgin-born child?  There has to be 2.

RY: Nothing in Scripture is irrelavant. My point was that the meaning of the word almah is irrelavant to the points I was making in the piece. I did not refer to the word almah nor did I base my possitions on it. In that sense it was irrelevant.

The main place Nicene Christians stress that point is when trying to defend the added verses Matthew 1:18-23 that incorrectly seeks to make Isaiah 7:14 a prophecy about the virgin birth. Isaiah 7:14 has nothing to do with Y'shua as you correctly state and as the context of that chapter makes clear.

Nick: ...But just for argument's sake, let's assume that alma means "virgin" or "honorable young maiden..."

RY: That's what the word means, there is no "for argument's sake." A "maiden" is a young virgin female and if she is found not to be she is no longer a maiden nor an almah.

What other virgin-born child are you referring to? There is only one in Scripture to my knowlege.

Nick:  Your quote, "When the claims of Y'shua and his talmidim are understood and contrasted with Tanakh they pass the test." bring up some serious questions.  1st, who died on the cross?

RY: No one died on a cross as far as I know. Y'shua died on a "stauros," a stake. Crosses are Pagan religion sumbols.

Nick: Jesus the man or Jesus the God? 

RY: That belief is blasphemy. Y'shua is not God. Only HaShem is El Shaddai.

Shema Yisrael Adonai Elohaynu Adonai Echad
"Hear Israel, the Lord is our God, the Lord is One"

Only HaShem is God and He is Echad, One.
Y'shua is "the Only Begotten Son," the "firstborn of all creation" according to the New Testament. HaShem was never born.

Nick: ... But if this is true, it is a direct violation of Torah.  For no human can EVER be sacrificed.

RY: You seem to be under the inaccurate impression that I am a Christian. I am Jewish. Y'shua was not and is not God nor did he ever claim to be.

Torah does not say "no human can EVER be sacrificed." Many humans have been sacrificed. Torah says HaShem will not accept human sacrifices. Y'shua was murdered by the Romans and later deified by them.

Nick: This is unacceptable to HaShem!

RY: of course it is. Micah even directly chides the very idea:

Micah 6:6  With what shall I come before Adonai, to bow myself before God the Most High? Shall I come before Him with burnt offerings, with calves of a year old?
6:7  Will Adonai be pleased with thousands of rams, with ten thousands of rivers of oil? Shall I give my first-born for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul?
6:8  He has shown you, O man, what is good. And what does Adonai require of you but to do justice and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God?

Nick: So you are correct in saying that the claims of Jesus should be weighed against Torah.  But to say they pass the test, actually ignores Torah.

RY: Many of the Pagan teachings of Nicene Christianity are opposed to Torah. John the Emmasary described how even as early as the late 1st century CE the Way was being overshadowed by Paganism (Nicene Christianity arises from the Nicolaitan heresies (Revelation 2 and 3), Gnosticism and other heresies are making comebacks).

 

The teachings of Y'shua and the Way sect of Judaism are in complete harmony with Torah.

Nick: Acts 17:11 is a great verse from Christian writings.  Everyone in Christianity should be studying Tanakh to see if Paul was true.  Without going into extreme detail, I will tell you that this is how I arrived in Judaism.  Studying Paul in light of the Tanakh!

RY: Same here. By studying Tanakh it became abundantly clear to me that Nicene Christianity in all its forms is not the religion practiced by Y'shua and his talmidim. Y'shua said:

John 4:22  Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews.

Adon Y'shua is Jewish

Shalom,
Messianic Rabbi Yochanan

Permalink Reply by Rabbi Yochanan Levine on December 13, 2010 at 3:08pm

Hi again Les,

Les: ...The points you raised are very debatable and are, as you say, based on "conjecture".

RY: To be clear, the point I said is based somewhat on conjecture (somewhat) is applying Luke's genealogy to Miryam rather than to Yosef. I believe that is the correct understanding and the case for it is sound, if not completely solid. All of my other point are solidly established on Scripture.

Les: ... I will merely give one example, of many, as regarding the validity of the NT. Here Jesus tries to condone his Sabbath actions. He does not even know his own Tanakh. If it is the word of G_d then we must say that G_d does not even know His Tanakh. This is not question of interpretation, but, actual stated words. If I remember correctly, Ahimelech was priest after Abiathar.

RY: Y'shua (and Yochanan the Immerser, Paul and others) claimed that he had been given the task of establishing the B'rit Hadashah (New Covenant). He also said that the Torah remains in firmly place for all eternity. It is the Nicene Church that rejected Torah, not Y'shua and his first century CE talmidim.

Shabbat is the eternally appointed day of HaShem. Y'shua and his biblical talmidim all honored Shabbat. Shabbat observance has never been and will never be repealed.

Y'shua did not accept the divine authority of the Oral Torah (as did most of the other P'rushim) however. In this he was not alone. Many Jewish sects of the day (including the Tz'dukim, Sadducees) did not accept it (just as the Karaites do not today and even many within the Conservative and Reform movements are downplaying it). He taught that first century C.E. Judaism had become so legalistic due to the Oral Torah and other traditions that it had lost sight of what matters most: Love of HaShem. Therefore he taught that "Shabbat was made for man, not man for Shabbat." In other words, the purpose of Shabbat is to lead us to HaShem in Love and obedience but things had become so legalistic that it was having the opposite impact. Many great Jewish thinkers, including Chabad today, say the same thing.

As the Way sect of Judaism became more and more Paganized it eventually even replaced Shabbat for the day of the Roman sun god. The fault is that of the Paganized Church, not the Torah observant Y'shua.

Les: My point is not that you cannot claim or believe whatever you like and support it with NT, or conjecture, or any other mens available. However, r3edefining the Tanakh to say what it does not is also a violation of Torah.

RY: Were I doing that I would agree with you. I am not however. Nothing that violates Torah should be accepted and my beliefs do not.

Les: If we say that the original NT is correct, then, we must disregard the entire NT since we do not know what is correct and what is not.

RY: Why? We don't have the orignal Torah either. There are no originals extant of any book in the Bible -- the Tanakh was preserved much better than the New Testament however by this we'd have to reject all the books from Bereshit to the Revelation of Y'shua.
The wiser course seems to be accepting the Written Torah as the foundation. The remainder of the Tanakh is accepted according to its harmony with Torah. Then the New Testament is accepted according to its harmony with the Tanakh, Torah always holding the highest honor and authority.

Otherwise we throw the proverbial baby out with the bathwater. We should use reason and understanding to determine the quality of the various manuscripts, translations etc. And we contrast the Oral Torah with the Written and use it to enlighten our understandings while always returning to the Written Torah as the final authority.

There is historic reference to Matthew's Gospel existing in it original Hebrew form as late as the 4th century. We need to understand the histories of the Books and their translations... there is no end to study. In the end however our faith is to be placed solely on HaShem.

Les: Also, there is widespread agreement among biblical scholars that the earliest possible Gospel was not written before 70 CE.

There is also widespread agreement among biblical scholars that much of the New Testament dates to the 50's - 90s of the first century. James for instance is often dated to 45-50 CE. The problem is that we know the Catholic Church heavily edited, added to and deleted verses and even whole books when determining the New Testament cannon. The further back one goes the less manuscript evidence there is and there is no "Q Document." The Aramaic Peshita, while I do not believe it is as dependable as the Greek documents, commonly dates to before 70. The continuity of its texts (as well as some of its differences) supports the earlier dates in my opinion by demonstrating how widely they had already traveled and how consistent the basic accounts are.

As in far too many cases however, there is much we do not know and can not prove. Sadly the writers of the Bible were focused on getting their points across (as led by the Ruach Hakodesh) and precise dating matters far more to us than it did to them.

In the end it still comes down to faith.
As for 1 Samuel 21:1 verses Mark 2:25-26 there are many scribal differences. Sometimes different translators used different systems of transliteration, sometimes people are refered to differently (Avram is Avraham, usually written in English as Abraham, Sa'ul and Paul etc). We're dealing with 2-3000 year old texts. Considering that, they are all amazingly well preserved. 

Shalom,
 ~ Yochanan

Permalink Reply by pilgrim on December 13, 2010 at 4:18pm

I would like to stay with one point at a time to it's conclusion. acceptance or rejection, or we will run in circles.

NT validity.

I must reject your point about the errors in the NT and that it can also be applied to the Torah.

 

RY: Why? We don't have the orignal Torah either. There are no originals extant of any book in the Bible -- the Tanakh was preserved much better than the New Testament however by this we'd have to reject all the books from Bereshit to the Revelation of Y'shua.
The wiser course seems to be accepting the Written Torah as the foundation. The remainder of the Tanakh is accepted according to its harmony with Torah. Then the New Testament is accepted according to its harmony with the Tanakh, Torah always holding the highest honor and authority.

 

The Tanakh being in harmony with Torah is not a foundation for NT harmony. When we state a truth it does not mean that it naturally applies to the next thing we state. This is known as thematic theology and really begs the acceptance of a premise based on themes of our own making.

 

Since Jesus also violated the Torah (cursing a fruit tree, Sabbat, etc) I reject his authority based on Deut. 13. For me the wisest course is to disregard a book that claims it was given by G_d which contains factual errors.

 

Christian scholar Rt. Rev. George Arthur Butterick, in The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, a book written to prove the validity of the New Testament, states:

"A study of 150 Greek [manuscripts] of the Gospel of Luke has revealed more than 30,000 different readings.... It is safe to say that there is not one sentence in the New Testament in which the [manuscript] is wholly uniform."

 

There are 304,805 letters (approximately 79,000 words) in the Torah. In the over 3,000 years since Moses received the original Scripture from Mt. Sinai and wrote the 13 copies (twelve of which were distributed among the Tribes), spelling variants have emerged on a total of nine words -- with absolutely no effect on their meaning. The Christian Bible, in comparison, has over 200,000 variants and in 400 instances, the variants change the meaning of the text; 50 of these are of great significance. ( I am sorry I lost the reference to this statement).

 

There is no way to accept the NT as a factually valid, G_d breathed, document. This is not opinion or conjecture but pure fact. Mark 2 compared to 1 Sam 21 is fact and clearly an error that most likely even a young Hebrew boy would not make. Now, again that does not mean that as a document in itself one cannot accept it. But there is no outside source that verifies it apart from "Chrisitian" writings, and the Tanakh most certainly invalidates it as an extension of Torah or the Prophets.

So, either 1Sam 21 is correct, or, Mark 2 is correct. Both cannot be, and this is only one example of many.

Rabbi Yochanan ben Avraham said:

Hi again Les,

Les: ...The points you raised are very debatable and are, as you say, based on "conjecture".

RY: To be clear, the point I said is based somewhat on conjecture (somewhat) is applying Luke's genealogy to Miryam rather than to Yosef. I believe that is the correct understanding and the case for it is sound, if not completely solid. All of my other point are solidly established on Scripture.

Les: ... I will merely give one example, of many, as regarding the validity of the NT. Here Jesus tries to condone his Sabbath actions. He does not even know his own Tanakh. If it is the word of G_d then we must say that G_d does not even know His Tanakh. This is not question of interpretation, but, actual stated words. If I remember correctly, Ahimelech was priest after Abiathar.

RY: Y'shua (and Yochanan the Immerser, Paul and others) claimed that he had been given the task of establishing the B'rit Hadashah (New Covenant). He also said that the Torah remains in firmly place for all eternity. It is the Nicene Church that rejected Torah, not Y'shua and his first century CE talmidim.

Shabbat is the eternally appointed day of HaShem. Y'shua and his biblical talmidim all honored Shabbat. Shabbat observance has never been and will never be repealed.

Y'shua did not accept the divine authority of the Oral Torah (as did most of the other P'rushim) however. In this he was not alone. Many Jewish sects of the day (including the Tz'dukim, Sadducees) did not accept it (just as the Karaites do not today and even many within the Conservative and Reform movements are downplaying it). He taught that first century C.E. Judaism had become so legalistic due to the Oral Torah and other traditions that it had lost sight of what matters most: Love of HaShem. Therefore he taught that "Shabbat was made for man, not man for Shabbat." In other words, the purpose of Shabbat is to lead us to HaShem in Love and obedience but things had become so legalistic that it was having the opposite impact. Many great Jewish thinkers, including Chabad today, say the same thing.

As the Way sect of Judaism became more and more Paganized it eventually even replaced Shabbat for the day of the Roman sun god. The fault is that of the Paganized Church, not the Torah observant Y'shua.

Les: My point is not that you cannot claim or believe whatever you like and support it with NT, or conjecture, or any other mens available. However, r3edefining the Tanakh to say what it does not is also a violation of Torah.

RY: Were I doing that I would agree with you. I am not however. Nothing that violates Torah should be accepted and my beliefs do not.

Les: If we say that the original NT is correct, then, we must disregard the entire NT since we do not know what is correct and what is not.

RY: Why? We don't have the orignal Torah either. There are no originals extant of any book in the Bible -- the Tanakh was preserved much better than the New Testament however by this we'd have to reject all the books from Bereshit to the Revelation of Y'shua.
The wiser course seems to be accepting the Written Torah as the foundation. The remainder of the Tanakh is accepted according to its harmony with Torah. Then the New Testament is accepted according to its harmony with the Tanakh, Torah always holding the highest honor and authority.

Otherwise we throw the proverbial baby out with the bathwater. We should use reason and understanding to determine the quality of the various manuscripts, translations etc. And we contrast the Oral Torah with the Written and use it to enlighten our understandings while always returning to the Written Torah as the final authority.

There is historic reference to Matthew's Gospel existing in it original Hebrew form as late as the 4th century. We need to understand the histories of the Books and their translations... there is no end to study. In the end however our faith is to be placed solely on HaShem.

Les: Also, there is widespread agreement among biblical scholars that the earliest possible Gospel was not written before 70 CE.

There is also widespread agreement among biblical scholars that much of the New Testament dates to the 50's - 90s of the first century. James for instance is often dated to 45-50 CE. The problem is that we know the Catholic Church heavily edited, added to and deleted verses and even whole books when determining the New Testament cannon. The further back one goes the less manuscript evidence there is and there is no "Q Document." The Aramaic Peshita, while I do not believe it is as dependable as the Greek documents, commonly dates to before 70. The continuity of its texts (as well as some of its differences) supports the earlier dates in my opinion by demonstrating how widely they had already traveled and how consistent the basic accounts are.

As in far too many cases however, there is much we do not know and can not prove. Sadly the writers of the Bible were focused on getting their points across (as led by the Ruach Hakodesh) and precise dating matters far more to us than it did to them.

In the end it still comes down to faith.
As for 1 Samuel 21:1 verses Mark 2:25-26 there are many scribal differences. Sometimes different translators used different systems of transliteration, sometimes people are refered to differently (Avram is Avraham, usually written in English as Abraham, Sa'ul and Paul etc). We're dealing with 2-3000 year old texts. Considering that, they are all amazingly well preserved. 

Shalom,
 ~ Yochanan

Permalink Reply by Nick Price on December 13, 2010 at 10:09pm

I guess the sticking points come with the validity of the story of Joseph and Mary.  I think this can be solved by a quick look at both lineages.  First, Joseph's lineage is the true Messianic line.  Sanhedrin 37b - 38a tells of the repentance of Jeconiah and the forgiveness of God.  In fact, we read that the oath that God had made was abolished in the heavenly court.  This can also be found in many different rabbinical writings.

 

So in reality, a physical descendant of David, Solomon, Rehoboam, etc. even through Jeconiah is legitimate.  After all, how could Shealtiel assumed the throne if the curse was still in effect?  The issue now becomes, the virgin birth.  We know that Mary's lineage (even though it's not hers) goes through Nathan.  So this violates Scripture, leaving only Joseph's lineage as a possibility.  Problem is, Jesus was not a physical descendant (according to Christian writings) of Joseph, and therefore not qualified for Messiaship.

 

This also of course negates the adoption issue, regardless of traits.

RY: There is an old saying, ask 8 rabbis a question, get 10 answers. Of course many rabbis would say this. To say the opposite would be to acknowledge Y'shua's position.

 

Nick:  It matters not how many rabbis there are, only which ones adhere to Tanakh.  These are the 10 answers that lead to life.

 

RY: Not so as I have demonstrated in my responses here. Luke's is Miryam's geneology and Matthew's is Yosef's. While the text has become somewhat muddled it is clear enough.

 

Nick:  Luke's genealogy claims Joseph at the end, not Mary.  And how do we know the text is muddled?  We have no original to compare it with.

 

RY: Not so:
Luke 1:27  To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary.

...to a virgin of the house of David... Her espousal to Yosef is a descriptor of who she was. The reference is to Miryam's association with the House of David.

 

Nick:  A simple reading of the Greek shows the error of your English translation.  Also, 2:4-5 only describes the going to the husband's registration and that since she was engaged to him, she was part of his family now as well.  Nothing states she was from the House of David originally.

 

RY: What other virgin-born child are you referring to? There is only one in Scripture to my knowlege.

 

Nick:  The one born as a sign to King Ahaz.

 

After your postings on these issues, total confusion set in for me!  You claimed to be Jewish, yet claimed that Jesus died on a stake but was not God.  But your own writings that you have been quoting claim that very thing.  Just one example, "Thomas answered and said to Him, "My Lord and my God!"  John 20:28.  Was he confused?

 

 

Rabbi Yochanan ben Avraham said:

Hi again Nick,

Nick: I appreciate your responses to my questions and thoughts, but I must admit that I am even more confused than before.  I could not follow your line of reasoning in your response.  Please forgive me.

RY: No forgiveness needed, but re-reading what I wrote I believe my points are clear.

Nick: I first would like to say though, that I was quoting your statement about Jesus' virgin birth being necessity.  So unless I misunderstood you, I thought it was a statement of fact that you were making.  I do apologize if I took it out of context.

RY: My statement you quoted was the summation to a statement made in the preceding paragraph. My point was simply that Y'shua (nor Mashiach) can be a descendant of Y'khanyahu due to the curse. The virgin birth answers this issue. The Tanakh does not say Mashiach must be born of a virgin, however due to the curse Yosef's physical line can not produce him. For Y'shua to be a candidate he could not be Yosef's son. Hence, given THAT lineage the virgin birth would be a necessity.

 

I ask you, how else can Mashiach (whoever he is) be a physical descendant of David and Solomon without also being a descendant of Y'khanyahu? I see no other way than the one used by HaShem with Miryam and Yosef.

 

Nick: Secondly, you keep saying that no "physical" descendant of Joseph could assume the throne, but immediately follow it up by saying that adoption qualified Jesus.  So what part of Jesus was adopted?  His blood, skin, personality?  Is there such thing as partial adoption?  And also, doesn't adoption make us 100% part of the family?  If not, then we should take Paul's statement about being adopted by God with a grain of salt.

RY: Let's say I have some genetic trait that make my kids all have red hair (this is just an example). If I adopt a child that child becomes part of my family in every legal and ethical way, however his hair will not become red. Likewise, Yosef carried a biological curse that says no physical offspring of his can ever sit on the throne of David. Y'shua inherited the legal lineage etc. however he was not a physical offspring and so did not inherit the curse. Seems pretty clear to me.
 
Paul's reference to the adoption is indeed a good one in this context. When a Gentile enters into the B'rit Hadashah (New Covenant) he/she is adopted into Israel, however one does not become Semitic even though one is accounted as though he were among the physical offspring of Avraham. The same is true for countless non-Semitic Jews. Judaism is not a race even though these leneages are based on race and ancestry.

Nick: ...Rabbi Tovia Singer...

RY: There is an old saying, ask 8 rabbis a question, get 10 answers. Of course many rabbis would say this. To say the opposite would be to acknowledge Y'shua's position.
    
Nick: ... As mentioned above, Joseph’s genealogy is irrelevant to Jesus because according to Christian doctrine, Joseph was not Jesus’ father.

RY: As a Messianic Jew I believe Yosef's geneology is very important. Christians believe many unbiblical things. If it didn't matter it would not have been given. I've shared why his lineage matters.

Nick: I should mention that according to both Catholic and Protestant tradition, whereas Matthew’s genealogy is that of Joseph, Luke’s genealogy is of Mary.  Although this tradition is completely alien to the words of the Gospels, it was a necessary doctrine for the church to embrace.

RY: Not so as I have demonstrated in my responses here. Luke's is Miryam's geneology and Matthew's is Yosef's. While the text has become somewhat muddled it is clear enough.

Nick: Nowhere in the third Gospel, or in the entire New Testament for that matter, does it state that Mary was from the House of David. 

RY: Not so:
Luke 1:27  To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary.

...to a virgin of the house of David... Her espousal to Yosef is a descriptor of who she was. The reference is to Miryam's association with the House of David.

Luke 2:4 and 5 say that both she and Yosef were of that house.

Nick: ... On the contrary, Luke 1:27 insists that it is Joseph who was from the House of David, not Mary.

RY: It does not. it says the oposite.
 
Nick: I was slightly confused by your statement that the word alma is irrelevant.  I couldn't disagree more!  It is the basis for which the N.T. borrows its information to tell this story about Mary.  But just for argument's sake, let's assume that alma means "virgin" or "honorable young maiden" who obviously would have been a virgin since she wasn't married.  Who was the other virgin-born child?  There has to be 2.

RY: Nothing in Scripture is irrelavant. My point was that the meaning of the word almah is irrelavant to the points I was making in the piece. I did not refer to the word almah nor did I base my possitions on it. In that sense it was irrelevant.

The main place Nicene Christians stress that point is when trying to defend the added verses Matthew 1:18-23 that incorrectly seeks to make Isaiah 7:14 a prophecy about the virgin birth. Isaiah 7:14 has nothing to do with Y'shua as you correctly state and as the context of that chapter makes clear.

Nick: ...But just for argument's sake, let's assume that alma means "virgin" or "honorable young maiden..."

RY: That's what the word means, there is no "for argument's sake." A "maiden" is a young virgin female and if she is found not to be she is no longer a maiden nor an almah.

What other virgin-born child are you referring to? There is only one in Scripture to my knowlege.

Nick:  Your quote, "When the claims of Y'shua and his talmidim are understood and contrasted with Tanakh they pass the test." bring up some serious questions.  1st, who died on the cross?

RY: No one died on a cross as far as I know. Y'shua died on a "stauros," a stake. Crosses are Pagan religion sumbols.

Nick: Jesus the man or Jesus the God? 

RY: That belief is blasphemy. Y'shua is not God. Only HaShem is El Shaddai.

Shema Yisrael Adonai Elohaynu Adonai Echad
"Hear Israel, the Lord is our God, the Lord is One"

Only HaShem is God and He is Echad, One.
Y'shua is "the Only Begotten Son," the "firstborn of all creation" according to the New Testament. HaShem was never born.

Nick: ... But if this is true, it is a direct violation of Torah.  For no human can EVER be sacrificed.

RY: You seem to be under the inaccurate impression that I am a Christian. I am Jewish. Y'shua was not and is not God nor did he ever claim to be.

Torah does not say "no human can EVER be sacrificed." Many humans have been sacrificed. Torah says HaShem will not accept human sacrifices. Y'shua was murdered by the Romans and later deified by them.

Nick: This is unacceptable to HaShem!

RY: of course it is. Micah even directly chides the very idea:

Micah 6:6  With what shall I come before Adonai, to bow myself before God the Most High? Shall I come before Him with burnt offerings, with calves of a year old?
6:7  Will Adonai be pleased with thousands of rams, with ten thousands of rivers of oil? Shall I give my first-born for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul?
6:8  He has shown you, O man, what is good. And what does Adonai require of you but to do justice and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God?

Nick: So you are correct in saying that the claims of Jesus should be weighed against Torah.  But to say they pass the test, actually ignores Torah.

RY: Many of the Pagan teachings of Nicene Christianity are opposed to Torah. John the Emmasary described how even as early as the late 1st century CE the Way was being overshadowed by Paganism (Nicene Christianity arises from the Nicolaitan heresies (Revelation 2 and 3), Gnosticism and other heresies are making comebacks).

 

The teachings of Y'shua and the Way sect of Judaism are in complete harmony with Torah.

Nick: Acts 17:11 is a great verse from Christian writings.  Everyone in Christianity should be studying Tanakh to see if Paul was true.  Without going into extreme detail, I will tell you that this is how I arrived in Judaism.  Studying Paul in light of the Tanakh!

RY: Same here. By studying Tanakh it became abundantly clear to me that Nicene Christianity in all its forms is not the religion practiced by Y'shua and his talmidim. Y'shua said:

John 4:22  Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews.

Adon Y'shua is Jewish

Shalom,
Messianic Rabbi Yochanan

Permalink Reply by Rabbi Yochanan Levine on December 13, 2010 at 10:52pm

Hi Les,

Les:  I would like to stay with one point at a time to it's conclusion. acceptance or rejection, or we will run in circles.

RY: Works for me.

Les: NT validity.

   I must reject your point about the errors in the NT and that it can also be applied to the Torah.

RY: As you doubtless know, there are no original editions of any book in the Bible, including the Torah. You disagree with that? My point is accurate. that being that your stated point was that the absence of the original New Testament disqualifies it. To be consistent, if that is the case, the same would be true of the Torah. Of course I do not accept this in either case.

  
Les: The Tanakh being in harmony with Torah is not a foundation for NT harmony. When we state a truth it does not mean that it naturally applies to the next thing we state. This is known as thematic theology and really begs the acceptance of a premise based on themes of our own making.

RY: My point was that the Torah is the foundational truth upon which all else is established or rejected. The remainder of the Tanakh is harmonious with Torah and so are the books of the B'rit Hadashah. Were I an Orthodox Jew I would not accept the books of the B'rit Hadashah, as a Messianic Jew I do.

Les: Since Jesus also violated the Torah (cursing a fruit tree, Sabbat, etc) I reject his authority based on Deut. 13. For me the wisest course is to disregard a book that claims it was given by G_d which contains factual errors.

RY: According to many Orthodox rabbis a false prophet is one that leads his hearers to the worship of other gods. Y'shua always directed all worship to HaShem alone. He is not a false prophet.

Each person must make his or her own determinations as to what to believe. I see no contridictions between the teachings and pratices of Y'shua and the Torah nor am I here to convince Jews regarding him.

Les: Christian scholar Rt. Rev. George Arthur Butterick, in The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, a book written to prove the validity of the New Testament, states:

    "A study of 150 Greek [manuscripts] of the Gospel of Luke has revealed more than 30,000 different readings.... It is safe to say that there is not one sentence in the New Testament in which the [manuscript] is wholly uniform." ....   

RY: One can find quotes to support anything one wishes. As I've said, I agree with you that the Tanakh is much closer to its original writings than the New Testament. That seems obvious to me. This does not negate the value of the New Testament however.

Les: There is no way to accept the NT as a factually valid, G_d breathed, document. This is not opinion or conjecture but pure fact.

RY: No its not a fact as is demonstratable by the fact that millions of Christians including innumerable scholars accept the New Testament as a "factually valid, G_d breathed, document." That is not my view either, but to claim that the New Testament has in any way been disproven or shown to be not inspired is not factual.

Les: Mark 2 compared to 1 Sam 21 is fact and clearly an error that most likely even a young Hebrew boy would not make. Now, again that does not mean that as a document in itself one cannot accept it. But there is no outside source that verifies it apart from "Chrisitian" writings, and the Tanakh most certainly invalidates it as an extension of Torah or the Prophets.

    So, either 1Sam 21 is correct, or, Mark 2 is correct. Both cannot be, and this is only one example of many.

RY: It is not my position that any of the books were perfectly preserved nor that every writing in the 66 books were "God breathed" in the first place. The Written Torah is "God breathed" in its original form but there are also histories, poetries, etc. Paul directly says "Thus say I not the Lord" (I Corinthians 7:10) and acknowleges that portions of his writings are based on local culture rather than divine revelation (I Corinthians 11:16).

I see no benefit in tearing down the Scriptures. If that draws you closer to HaShem that's fine I suppose, but I see no benefit in it.

        Shalom,
         ~ Yochanan

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• …
• 17
• Next ›
• Page