[b]I am new here, I am new to discovering my Judaism. I am not new to debate, discussion, and criticism!
In my several theses and the class I co-ordinate I suggest that prior to studying the N.T. one study I Macabbees! The bridge between Old and New Testament is here as well as the world into which Jesus was born. Understanding Yoshua bar Joseph MUST be done with a Jewish ethic and NOT a Christian ethic. The loss is monumental!
I would also warn, despite the differences in language, that one must be extremely cautious as to authors of the various Gospels and Epistles and our modern translations. I use, The Masoretic Text, for The Holy Scriptures, and the New Revised Standard Version for the Apocrypha and the N.T. The Interpreter's Study Bible, NRSV, is an excellent choice for both in the modern idiom. But one, as I said, must be careful of the authors and the text in the N.T. An excellent example is Luke's writing. The challenges I must overcome as a Lutheran and a theologian are extreme, and I stay in turmoil with the 'priesthood' of that denomination. Luke was a Syrian Gentile from Antioch! His knowledge of the Jewish teachings of Jesus have been misinterpreted and they have been rewritten with obvious errors. I would site two examples, The Prodigal Son, and, The Good Samaritan!
Aside from this, I would recommend a study of the N.T. as being essential for all who are led by The Spirit to know Jesus as Messiah. But know him in his Jewishness and not as, G-d forbid, the first Christian.
I Am, as always.
Victor G
[b]I am new here, I am new to discovering my Judaism. I am not new to debate, discussion, and criticism!
In my several theses and the class I co-ordinate I suggest that prior to studying the N.T. one study I Macabbees! The bridge between Old and New Testament is here as well as the world into which Jesus was born. Understanding Yoshua bar Joseph MUST be done with a Jewish ethic and NOT a Christian ethic. The loss is monumental!
I would also warn, despite the differences in language, that one must be extremely cautious as to authors of the various Gospels and Epistles and our modern translations. I use, The Masoretic Text, for The Holy Scriptures, and the New Revised Standard Version for the Apocrypha and the N.T. The Interpreter's Study Bible, NRSV, is an excellent choice for both in the modern idiom. But one, as I said, must be careful of the authors and the text in the N.T. An excellent example is Luke's writing. The challenges I must overcome as a Lutheran and a theologian are extreme, and I stay in turmoil with the 'priesthood' of that denomination. Luke was a Syrian Gentile from Antioch! His knowledge of the Jewish teachings of Jesus have been misinterpreted and they have been rewritten with obvious errors. I would site two examples, The Prodigal Son, and, The Good Samaritan!
Aside from this, I would recommend a study of the N.T. as being essential for all who are led by The Spirit to know Jesus as Messiah. But know him in his Jewishness and not as, G-d forbid, the first Christian.
I Am, as always.
Victor G
With all due respect.. the Word of God contains no errors..the only "obvious errors and misinterpretation" are yours not Luke's or the Bibles. You cite the Prodigal Son and The Good Samaritan but you don't tell us what the so called errors are supposed to be.
The New Testament is just a continuation of Torah (Old Testament) in fact some Theologians believe that the Gospels should be in Torah and that the first book of the New Testament should be the Book of Acts.
No one that I know of knows Jesus as the first Christian since the term was never used in his lifetime and was first used at Antioch to denote followers of Christ.
Peace be upon your house and all who reside therein
Absolutely the Brit Chadasha (New Testament) is Hebraic. IT was written about a Jewish messiah by Jewish believers. and alot of it was written to Jewish congregations. I might add, without ounce of Jewish thought, you will not understand alot of things in the NT. There has actually been many Orthodox Rabbi's who have read the Book of Revelation and said it was the most Jewish book they have ever read. The Roman Catholic Church at one time wanted to take the book of Revelation because it was "too jewish". Remember. The Torah of YHWH is truth.
Hi Warrior,
I know this is grossly unfair to question something written almost a year ago, but I am just know reading this thread. I just wanted to clarify your above statement.
It was actually the Catholic church who put the books of the Bible together, and it was
Martin Luther who wanted to take out the book of Revelation ( because it was too Catholic, it describes the Mass in alot of ways). this would have been after the reformation in late 1500's....
But, I agree with you, you think it is very jewish. I started a new thread about the similarities in the catholic mass and jewish faith. Check it out.
In God's peace and time,
Robin
Yes.
The NT was written by the Jews for the Jews and some of it for the Gentiles.
Am Yisroel Chai!
happy
What about accounts of the life of Jesus - are they reliable?
What about that rabbi who thinks all Jews should read the New Testament?
The accounts of the life of Jesus (gospels),are the most reliable, I believe, in comparison to all other religious writings. This includes
the accounts of Buddha, the writings of Mohammed, the accounts of Confucious, and the tractates of Hindu and Shintu and Taoism.
It is good to know the manuscript source and the eyewitness authorship
of the information you are taking in.
The rabbi who thinks all Jews should read the New Testament has carefully considered that thought and probably bases it on his personal relationship with each individual student and the progress he or she has made in the eyes of that rabbi.
If the rabbi admits Y'shua (Jesus) is a great teacher, but refuses to admit Y'shua is the Jewish Messiah, the whole point of the New Testament has been missed, along with the prophecies of the Old.
YES - IT IS. As I learned to know it, it means that MATTHEW is the 1-st and from Him the others created they own historical overviews of those happening - the same things that had happend, but the differencies in knowledge make especially the 3 other Evang. among at least 20-30 others, not quite alike the basic source, that is Matthew, tell the same story. That's why they ar different, but One Main Object Common for them: name Jesus & His doings; as the Saviour - but there are 2 Clear Views Of This - both in oposition - of 2 different experience!
I also recommend reading Matthew first and I'd like to suggest you read it from "The Complete Jewish Bible" by David Stern.
Ruth
YES - IT IS. As I learned to know it, it means that MATTHEW is the 1-st and from Him the others created they own historical overviews of those happening - the same things that had happend, but the differencies in knowledge make especially the 3 other Evang. among at least 20-30 others, not quite alike the basic source, that is Matthew, tell the same story. That's why they ar different, but One Main Object Common for them: name Jesus & His doings; as the Saviour - but there are 2 Clear Views Of This - both in oposition - of 2 different experience!
I also recommend reading Matthew first and I'd like to suggest you read it from "The Complete Jewish Bible" by David Stern.
Ruth
Ruth,
I don't know. I just don't trust that you may not actually be provoking Kiefko or someone else. As for Biblical chronology, I'd look at a study Bible.
The new is compared to the old yes.
Let's see, the nt was written in Greek?
Doesn't seem to Jewish to me.
Let's see, the nt was written in Greek?
Doesn't seem to Jewish to me.
It was greek ARAMAIC and hebrew
greek makes up most of it.
I guest serach your going to call all those jews who also speak greek back then not jewish?