Posted on 12/30/2013 8:39:57 PM PST by Phinneous
If you've never heard of mass-revelation (it's not a realization of having gained weight nor an encounter with a creep in the old Combat Zone in Boston...)
Rabbi Kelemen's concise class on why Jews not only believe in G-d's revelation at Sinai, but why we KNOW this to be fact.
2Kings 17:19
גם־יהודה לא שׁמר את־מצות יהוה אלהיהם וילכו בחקות ישׂראל אשׁר עשׂו׃
You are broadcasting a....Jewish perspective? No. That’s the point of this whole thread and the class I posted....the Oral Torah is completely G-dly and the rabbis (ahem, the orthodox, Jewish ones) are vested with the power to decide the law.... they have G-d’s seal of approval.
Why do you care? Is your point to undermine the starting premise, that the Pentateuch and Oral Law were both given to Moses on Mt. Sinai?
It wasn't until I read it for myself and read things written in it that I was so disgusted to the point of vomiting that I knew it was not of God.
Or more accurately, “The Instruction.” (book of life).
You are truly doing G-d’s work here at Free Republic. Thank you.
It's sometimes in the construct state (Torat HaShem, Torat Mosheh), which makes it implicitly definite in those cases.
The Hebrew word for "law" is actually din. "Torah" is more accurately translated "teaching" or "instruction."
In the strictest sense Genesis-Exodus-Leviticus-Numbers-Deuteronomy. In a wider sense these books plus the Oral Torah.
In a more complete sense, perhaps Torah is simply the internal Jewish word for Judaism.
Your belief in J*sus doesn't come from the Torah or the rest of the Hebrew Bible. It comes from the "new testament" and the assumption that its interpretation of the Hebrew Bible is authoritative.
Your belief that the "new testament" is authoritative does not come from anywhere in the Hebrew Bible. You assume it from the outset, therefore you assume from the outset that the Hebrew Bible means only what the "new testament" says it means.
I suppose it’s like in the UK where it’s said they took them to hospital not “the hospital” or same in the US where they say “he went to school” not “the school” - but then we say it in either case.
I don’t roll caucus! (and I don’t roll on Shabbos :)
I was pinged back into this thread today and reread you post... when you quote Acts 3:22 and write [Hebrew word] Elokim.... is that from the original Greek which distinguishes between the Hebrew words ‘YKVK’ and ‘Elokim?”
(note, and point to jonrick46, we use G-d and substitute a ‘h’ for a ‘k’ to avoid writing even a transliteration for G-d’s name(s.) The reason is that it’s the Jewish application of the commandment not to take His name in vain.
Not exactly. We are to take both the Hebrew and NT scriptures in a literal-grammatic approach. Not one interpreting the other.
I take it you are not a follower of Yeshua HaMashiach so you will disagree.
You chrstians absolutely refuse to even think about this, don't you?
When the "new testament" says that J*sus "fulfilled" this or that prophecy, it is interpreting the Hebrew Bible. You have never even wondered whether it has the authority to do so because you have always just assumed that it did. If the "new testament" is in fact a fraud, then it does not have the authority to declare J*sus as the fulfillment of this or that "messianic prophecy." And if J*sus was a fraud, then he didn't have the authority to declare this or that act a "fulfillment of messianic prophecy."
Jews go by the Torah because they were given the Torah at Sinai. You don't accept the "old testament" because you received it from G-d. You accept it only on the "authority" of the "new testament." You are engaged in a logical fallacy known as "affirmation of the consequent," "proving" your argument by simply assuming it's truth (evolutionists do the same thing, but chrstians are the world champions).
But never mind. You won't even consider a word I've said because you "know" the "new testament" is divinely inspired by the same G-d Who gave the Torah. You have absolutely no reason whatsoever to assume this (you've just decided to do so), but that won't stop you.
I take it you are not a follower of Yeshua HaMashiach so you will disagree.
He's still not the messiah no matter what you call him.
I will assume you have not read B’rit Chadasha. The testimony there in came in both word (Torah) and Power (miracles). Also meeting more than the eye witness testimony as evidenced in Torah. In some cases thousands at a time.
IMO, none of the above compares to the miracle a person realizes when they confess with their tongue and believe in their hearts Yeshua HaMashiach.
“Din” is related to the name “Dan”, right? That literally means to justify or vindicate; root meaning is to be straight or direct. I’ve never seen it translated as “law”.
The words most commonly translated into English as “law” out of Hebrew are “torah”, “khoq” (alternately as “statute” and “ordinance”) and “mitzvah” (alternately as “commandment”).
>> “Jews go by the Torah because they were given the Torah at Sinai” <<
.
Jews also defeat that same Torah by replacing it with false oral laws to empower their own tyranny over those who foolishly trust them.
That in reality was the Pharisees’ main gripe against Yeshua; he blew their game. Their own high priest told them that Yeshua was Yehova in the flesh.
.
Zionist is correct, Torah is the teaching. To reduce it to just ‘law’ is to remove the love that Yeshua said was the very basis of it.
Calling it “law” is an elevation rather than a reduction. Take note that whenever the Torah is referenced in the Gospels and the rest of the New Testament, the Greek word “nomos” (law) is used. James 1:25 calls it the “perfect law of liberty” (nomon teleios ton tes eleutherias).
You people are impossible.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.