R.M., Charleston, IL, U.S.A.; 2001.01.09)
[RM] As a personal introduction, I have ordered and read both Who Are the Netzarim? (WAN) and Atonement In the Biblical 'New Covenant' (ABNC), and I continue to study them and compare them in realation to other scholarship done in the area. I continue to ponder certain questions, but I have found them to provide excellent information that is exceptionally helpful and to the point for one such as myself (who used to be deceived by the paganism that seeks to replace Israel and the Torah of HaShem).
Getting onto my point, since I have realized that X-ianity is blatant paganism - far from the Torah - I have also realized something even more ironic. It is obvious that X-stians have no idea what Torah is or what the true covenant of HaShem is, and this is to be expected because they blatantly reject Torah. However, what I find even MORE ironic is that they have no idea what their "replacement" document the N.T. says!!
[YBD] You shouldn’t be so surprised. As a door-to-door Christian missionary once defended her
[RM] Jewish scholarship, understandably, is new to the idea of examining the N.T. texts to gain understanding about 1st century Judaism. One has to sort through X-stian redactions, of course, but making it even MORE difficult is the BAD X-stian scholarship on the documents that have to be overcome!!! Even when an outstanding Jewish scholar picks up the texts, he is unfortunately already pre-exposed to X-stian interpretations of it, and will be pressed to overcome mainstream BAD translation and understanding of it to gain any insight at all into authentic Netzarim practice. (Note: authentic Netzarim practice should only look to the Hebrew Matityahu for authority, and the N.T. as non-authoritative insightful writings that can only be given a scholarly investigation and not one's reliance)
[YBD] I don’t mean to belittle the considerable study you’ve done and progress you’ve made, but, on the other hand, I’m bewildered at the
Christianizing redactions inherent in the Διαθηκη Καινη (NT) isn’t news. We’ve been aware of this from the beginning. However, "BAD, " as understood by Christians, has its own definition. And Christian interpretation is "GOOD " – in fact, the only "TRUE " interpretation – in the eyes of Christians. Your approach is effective only when "preaching to the converted " (who don’t need it).
The Διαθηκη Καινη (NT) offers nothing true or reliable to anyone, and – Eusebius documented – (for good reason, it must be acknowledged) the Διαθηκη Καινη (NT) was never accepted by the original followers of
You must learn to distinguish the Διαθηκη Καινη (NT) from the earliest extant source documents from which the Διαθηκη Καινη (NT) was syncretized.
The earliest extant source documents from which the Διαθηκη Καινη (NT) was syncretized, when (and only when) understood within the Judaic perspective (e.g. of Dead Sea Scroll 4Q MMT, et al.), can help to illuminate Judaism of the period. In particular, these earliest extant source documents (not the Διαθηκη Καινη (NT)!!!) illuminate the efforts of religious Jews to help restore
[RM] Case in point: I just read another post siting Paul in the N.T. The standard pagan X-stian interpretation of the text was applied. Namely, that Paul considered those who kept kashrut "weaker" in faith than those who ignored kashrut by being "stronger" in faith. That particular passage in their own replacement writings is one of MANY that X-stians don't understand. And, unfortunately but understandably, there is not much interest in Jewish scholarship to correct these BAD X-stian interpretations. It is only from a Jewish understanding that these documents can be correctly interpretted to reveal interesting insites into Judaism (be it Netzarim, apostate, or otherwise), rather than being used by pagans to endorse their replacement theology.
[YBD] I think it’s probably mentioned somewhere in NQ (the ‘
[RM] The correct interpretation of that passage involves Paul AFFIRMING kashrut! It is to the shame of X-stianity that not only is the life-giving Torah rejected, but they don't even understand their texts of replacement!
[YBD] Here you’ve seriously blundered. They do understand their texts of replacement. If they understood the original source documents as the
[RM] The "stronger" in faith were those who knew HaShem was the only elohim, and who saw the idols as worthless objects. The "weaker" in faith were perhaps goyim trying to live according to Torah who still had trouble with seeing idols as nothing - as no elohim.
[YBD] Your mistaken here in your perspective of both.
It’s a serious error to characterize the "stronger in faith " as merely knowing that
It’s well documented that in that period, religious Jews weren’t permitted to interact with
[RM] It would be terrible to broadcast a message that it is "kosher" to consume meat and wine sacrificed to foreign elohim. Therefore, Paul affirmed this by telling people not to implicity communicate that to those "weak in faith" - those who would see such an action as affirming it's alright to eat what is sacrificed to idols. This could be compared to the high priest at the time of Antiocus Epiphanes refusing to eat "kosher" meat portrayed as pork, because he did not want to send the message that he endorced this (and he died for it). Therefore, one who is "strong in faith" ought not to eat otherwise "kosher" food if it is known to be sacrificed to idols, because it would embolded those who see idols as elohim to do the same. Even though the one "strong in faith" is not bothered by what he knows to be a lifeless block, he ought to obstain for the sake of one "weak in faith" who strugles with seeing the idol as an elohim.
[YBD] While you seem headed in the generally correct direction, we have published these principles – in greater detail, within a far more accurate Judaic perspective and properly documented – for many years, in The Netzarim Reconstruction of Hebrew Ma•ti•tᵊyâhꞋu (NHM).
[RM] Not only does this passage - when correctly understood - AFFIRM the practice of kashrut, it applies an old halachic ruling (not a new one) to make a fence for the Torah by avoiding even the APPEARENCE of violating Torah or implicitly encouraging others to do so!!! This is just one tiny example of how X-stians don't even understand their N.T. (let alone the Torah they reject!). The N.T. can tell us about Judaism in the first century,
[YBD] No. You’re correct that, when correctly understood, it does affirm the practice of
[RM] but it will take time to overcome to X-stian dogma associated with the BAD scholarship concerning anything perceived to effect Torah observance. The X-stian claim that those writings are more important or - heaven forbid! - replace the Torah are pagan foolishness, and yet another claim along side that of the Koran. However, unlike the Koran, the N.T. can tell us something of Judaism in the 1st century if good Jewish scholarship takes the time to do it (as the Netzarim have begun to do).
[YBD] Begun??? Sir, it is you who is the novice with no significant Judaic perspective. The Διαθηκη Καινη (NT) has never had, doesn’t now have, and shall never have any place in Judaism. Moreover, Christians accept Christian interpretations, invalidating your entire approach. By admitting the Διαθηκη Καινη (NT) for discussion the only thing you accomplish is to open a Pandora’s Box of eternally interminable argumentation of Διαθηκη Καινη (NT) citations which has already been going on now for 2,000 years. You accomplish nothing. The
[RM] Even the myth of "three kings" coming to the "birth" of J*E*S*U*S is a totally wrong understanding of Luke. They aren't "kings" but "magi" - there aren't "three" of the magi but three KINDS OF GIFTS (who knows how many magi brought those gifts and who knows how many individual gifts of the three kinds!!!) - and the magi didn't come to the birth site but arived years later! Living in the U.S. I see it reinforced every winter solstice when the birth of the S*U*N-G*O*D is celebrated as the birth of J*E*S*U*S that X-stians can't even read their N.T. correctly!!! (let alone have any idea what the Torah says!).
It's a shame really.
[YBD] You’re right about Christmas. However, it is well demonstrated that the Iranian (Persian) magicians arrived at the birth site on 12.05 of B.C.E. 7, when
[RM] (and, by the way, I am still considering asking to become a talmid, a ger toshav under your beit din... I am still searching out some lingering questions because should I ask, I know I be must be resolved and sincere)
[YBD] The meaning of
The meaning of geir
For non-Jews to presume to replace Jews as the proper teachers of Judaism is just another brand of the Replacement Theology you thought you recognized.
It is your views which must be brought into compliance with our beit din in order for you to qualify as a geir
Within those constraints I hope you’ll continue to progress toward that goal. Having read Who Are the Netzarim? (WAN) and Atonement In the Biblical 'New Covenant' (ABNC), if you’ve begun reading NHM then you have the necessary information to make an informed decision.
 |
|
 |