Bible Options Bible Study Software
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Is the New Testament a Jewish book?
What about accounts of the life of Jesus - are they reliable?
What about that rabbi who thinks all Jews should read the New Testament?
Does light enable you to see? Yes, His word enlightens because it is true because only God can be our Savior as we are told in Tanakh. That is why I believe the accounts are reliable. As they say, knowledge is power and the truth will set us free! I think they said something like that. Smile
I am only one-sixteenth Jewish but if you look close enough in the New Testament it says "how much the fullness thereof" will there be (financially) for Jewish Christians. My father makes a hundred thousand a year. Also one of my good friends is a quarter Jewish and she visions. I am intuitive also. There are many blessings to being Jewish and saved.
Yes, it is a Jewish book, written by Jews  who believed in what Jesus was doing and preaching . It took them years to figure out what happened to Jesus and why. The writers  tried  to make sense of all of it after many years and wrote  about it the best they could. It was for all of us to learn from.  Not just one group, but the whole world. We must learn from it.
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.
If you believe in a religion, it is always good to examine another one to test the validity of your own beliefs. Since there is such histortical baggage between J and C, it is always good to study both.... An unexamined life is not worth living (Socrates) Wink
Well I guess if you are reformed, then yes it is Jewish, in some cases more Jewish then some reformed schules, but for the most part, no I do not belive it is a Jewish book.  Shabbot Shallom !
It is fine for a Jew or anyone else to read the New Testament.  It is also fine to read the Qur'an, the Bundahisn, the Mahabharata, the Homeric epics, the Enuma Elish, the Atrahasis epic, etc.   What would possibly be "wrong" about reading?
Shalom to everyone on the forum,

   A question that needs to be answered is "Which New Testament should I read?"
Translations from the Western texts (Greek & Latin) are very good for the most part, but since the original Old Testament was written in Hebrew, the most kindred New Testament would be the one written in Assyrian Aramaic. This ancient text is called the Peshitta. Hebrew could be called "Jewish Aramaic." The Ancient Assyrian Church of the East has believed for many centuries that their Peshitta text is the REAL original and not the Greek. An original "Jewish Aramaic" (Hebrew) Old Testament with a corresponding original Assyrian Aramaic (sometimes shortened to "Syriac") New Testament. That would represent only a difference in dialect as opposed to the (almost universally accepted theory) that the original Old Testament was written in Hebrew but the original New Testament was written in Greek. This theory represents not only a total shift in languages between O. T. and N. T. but a total difference of language families altogether since Hebrew is of the Afro-Asiatic language family and Greek is of the Indo-European language family. There are many examples of how closely knit the Hebrew and Assyrian dialects are. For instance, one name the Jewish people give for their Hebrew square script is "Ash-oo-raye" which means "Assyrian."
   Where different expressions in the O. T. or N. T. are hard for the Western mind to understand, I can appreciate the fact that not only are the Western texts compared by such commentators as John Gill and Adam Clarke, but also the ancient Oriental versions are compared and bring considerable light on occasion. The Oriental texts Adam Clarke and John Gill compare are the Ethiopic, Persic, Aramaic and Arabic.

Peace and Blessings, Bro. Larry
It is not for me to answer such a question, however the following is the text of [my] email regarding a similar topic:
I heard an interview on NPR recently discussing, among other topics your book "How to Read the Bible". I read the first chapter online []. I was impressed with your genuine and candid zeal for what is often a very tedious endeavour. I can't resist but to offer some observations on the Topic:

1) It seems almost impossible to discuss the Bible from a neutral perspective. To treat the books as "ancient texts" offends those that revere those texts as scripture. To assume that the writings have a special (if not Divine value )intimidates or at least annoys secular readers.

2) Currently many readers prefer a  "modern"  and more readable [English]translation. However the original King James Versions are often considered to be among the most authentic, if not exhaustive, translations and are best expressed in the dialect of the translators. I find it peculiar, if not humorous, when some people feel too "old fashioned" to cite a scripture in Elizabethan dialect but feel "intellectual" when reciting Shakespeare !

3) Several books, such as Psalms and Proverbs, are Universally Classic in terms of composition and structure. My favourite is Job. Often readers, as much as they dislike becoming a proverbial "Job's Comforter", almost invariably end up proposing exactly what Job's sin was. The visual setting is ingenious:  Job's friends sit, console, and argue over the cause and remedy of[[to]Job's crisis not thinking that the same may befall them as well.
I read an interesting [old] encyclopedia article on the book. It pointed out an obvious context of the narrative. At the time the book was written, much of the world considered deities as having the the perfect right to be arbitrary. They used their power simply because they could and the only remedy for mortals was to appease the offended deity ASAP. The concept of a just [supreme]power which would not only make covenants with human beings but that would ultimately explain a rebuke [not to mention provide redemption] was profound for that era.

[You must be very busy so finally....]

4) The best "neutral" study stategy that I can suggest is to assume the obvious. The bible is absolutely chronological. That is, the more recent writings had the luxury of the older texts as reference. Most of the most recent authors/editors were also devout scholars of the earlier scrolls. Thus there are unavoidable and often specific references throughout the bible. Published marginal [literally "in the margin" not a reflection on the quality] concordances are a great help. It is a great challenge to muse over just what the author was considering when composing the text. It is also a good academic exercise which helps one organize the structure of an otherwise onerous volume[/b].

For example consider the now famous [United Nations] reference to "...turn their swords into plowshares....." etc.. I thought this metaphor would be found frequently throughout the bible, especially in the prophets. Only Micah and Isaiah quote this once. Since they were virtual contemporaries of each other, who was citing whom ? The dilemma expands when one discovers that the prophet Joel writes the converse of this concept, ie "......plowshares into swords..."(etc.) ! Yet there is some controversy in dating the book of Joel - somewhere prior to Jonah to post exile ! Who was the student of whom ?

I wish you well with your book.


Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)