Ancient Christian Witness

9 comments:

Anders Branderud said...

Hello,

Netzarim are not ebionites.
Ebionites are a proto-Christian group.

Ëvyonim; destitute (plural), Hellenized to Εβιωναιους (Ebionaious; Ebionites).
What little is known about the Ëvyonim is found in the early Church literature, by Greek-speaking Hellenists, almost exclusively gentile, who had no grasp whatsoever of Hebrew or Judaism. Their knowledge was limited to what was conveyed to them in Greek. Since the Ëvyonim were Hellenist, they were [a] apostates by definition (as Hellenists) and [b] the first and earliest "Jewish" group with which the earliest Christians could communicate. Eusebius specifically notes (EH III.xxvii.2) that there were a number of groups and he knew no better than to lump all of them together, though noting that they were distinctly different, under the same name: Ëvyonim, acknowledging that he doesn't know which is which; nor is he clear about the differences between them.
Information about the Nәtzârim, as contrasted with the Ëvyonim, must be derived from the description of Dërëkh י--ה given in 4Q MMT in order for the Nәtzârim to have been accepted in the 1st-century Pharaisaic community in the first place as well as to remain there, at enmity with the Christian Church, until the Christian Church extirpated them in 333 C.E.
Eusebius constructively calls all of the Church's pre-135 C.E. Jewish precursors sons of Sâtân: "But others, the Wicked Demon, when he could not alienate them from G*od's plan in Christ, made his own, when he found them by a different snare. The first Christians [sic] gave these the suitable name of Εβιωναιους (Ebionaious; Ebionites) because they had poor and mean opinions concerning Christ. They held him to be a plain and ordinary man who had achieved righteousness merely by the progress of his character and had been born naturally from Mary and her husband. They insisted on the complete observation of the Law, and did not think that they would be saved by faith in Christ alone and by a life in accordance with it." Note that this represents, on the one hand, the earliest Hellenist apostate spin-off from the Nәtzârim known by the Church and, on the other hand, the apostate spin-off prototype of the Christian Church. Thus, this describes the first and earliest hybrid proto-Christian group known by the Church between the Nәtzârim and the Church.
"But there were others besides these who have the same name. These escaped the absurd folly of the first mentioned, and did not deny that the Lord was born of a Virgin and the Holy Spirit but nevertheless agreed with them in not confessing his pre-existence as G*od, being the Logos and Wisdom. Thus they shared in the impiety of the former class, especially in that they were equally zealous to insist on the literal observance of the Law. They thought that the letters of the Apostle [Paul] ought to be wholly rejected and called him an apostate from the Law. They used only the Gospel called according to the Hebrews [i.e., Hebrew Matityahu] and made little account of the rest. Like the former they used to observe the Sabbath and the rest of the Jewish ceremonial, but on S*u*ndays celebrated rites like ours in commemoration of the Saviour's resurrection." (Eusebius, loc. cit.)
(source. Netzarim.co.il)
Regarding, NT. No, your quote is wrong.
“The earliest extant complete source texts of what the Christians call their "New Testament" are the Greek — Hellenized — codices א and β of the 4th-century. All historians, including Christian scholars, agree that there was no "New Testament" during the lifetime of Ribi Yәhoshua his original eyewitness followers, or even his Nәtzarim.”
(source: www.netzarim.co.il)
From
Anders Branderud
Follower of Ribi Yehoshua - Mashiakh (some translate it Mashiakh) - in Orthodox Judaism
If you want to learn more about my life and religion; then click at our website www.netzarim.co.il -- than click at the link "Christians" – then click at my photo.

June 19, 2008 at 2:17 PM

Jnorm said...

Anders,

You seem unaware that a good number of Palestinian Jews spoke greek, as well as Aramiac/Sryaic. Not to many at that time spoke actual Hebrew. Maybe the scribes, and priests involved in the Hebrew Liturgy new and spoke it, but a good portian of Palestinian Jews did not. You should not despise Hellintistic Judaism, for that is how many jews survived for many centuries.

Orthodoxthoughts did a post about this very thing:

http://orthodox-thoughts.blogspot.com/2008/02/canon-debate-mcdonald-and-sanders.html

And this is the book itself:

You keep talking about scholars this and scholars that...well why not try reading what scholars have to say from this book?

It's called "The Canon Debate"
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1565635175?ie=UTF8&tag=tech060-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=1565635175

In it you will find:

"1.)Already by the 2nd century BC, the Septuagint (Greek bible) was cited in Jerusalem.
2.) Many Jewish writers in Palestine wrote in Greek, and were cited by the church fathers.
3.) Greek names were nearly as common as Hebrew and Aramaic names on Jewish tombs in Palestine around the time of Christ.

4.) A Greek inscription from Jerusalem from around the time of Christ records the building and dedication of a synagogue for reading the law and commandments. The builder was a priest and a Greek, and his father and grandfather before him was a synagogue ruler. Probably the synagogue operated in Greek.

5.)Apocryphal/deuterocanonical literature from Qumran is cited in the literature in ways indistinguishable from the Protestant canon.
6.) Sirach is quoted three times as scripture in the Talmud. It is also cited as one of "The Writings".

7.) Sirach was being copied as late as the 12th century by the Jews as scripture.
8.) Jerome had Hebrew texts of Sirach, Tobit, Judith, 1 Maccabees and Jubilees.
9.) Moses ben Naahman (a Jew from 1194-1270CE) ciutes the Aramaic text of Wisdom and also is acquainted with Bel and the Dragon and Judith.
10.) The Jews in the Bar Kokhba revolt were communicating to each other in Greek.,"

This is modern scholarship talking Anders.


Now in regards to the New Testament

I would like to ask you a question.

When were the New Testament books actually written?

The letters of Paul are the oldest. they were all written in the first half of the first century.

Most conservative and moderate scholars....including "some" Liberal scholars believe that the Gospel of John was written from 90 A.D. to about 100 A.D.

The other three Gospels were written between 50 something A.D. to about 68 A.D. according to most conservative and moderate scholars. A good portion of Liberal scholars will date them around 70 something A.D. And even the more radical liberals/modernists who date them around 150 A.D. are still saying something completely different than your group. Your group is saying they were written 400 years after the death of Jesus.


If you ask me, and I am only being honest. But if you ask me, I think your group is confusing our oldest known "surviving full" New Testament manuscripts with when each books were written.

It is true that our oldest surviving "full" New Testament manuscripts date back to the 4th and 5th centuries. the Alexandrian text type is dated in the 300 hundred A.D.'s while the Byzantium Majority text date back to the 400 hundred A.D.'s. But this has nothing to do with when each New Testament book was written.

If you want to go by this logic then you will have to say that the Mesoretic Jewish text was written at around 800 A.D. to 1,000 A.D. since that is the "oldest" full manuscript we have of that text type.

Do you see the flawed logic in that?

Please bear with me. Your group, "the Netzarim" are in error when it comes to this topic. Not only were the New Testament books written in the first century, but they were also quoted by christians in the late first century, 2nd century, and 3rd century.

This was all done, before the 400 hundred years your group claims it was written. It was also translated into what is known as "old latin" by Tertullian, and he lived in the late 2nd century to early 3rd. This couldn't be done if it was first written 400 hundred years after the death of Jesus.

Lets look at a Testamony of when both the Gospel of John and His Revelation were written.


"When John said these things [in Revelation] he was on the island of Patmos, condemned by Caesar Domitian to labor in the mines. Therefore, it was there that he saw the Apocalypse. When he had grown old, he though suffering. However, Domitian was killed and all his judgments were thrown out. After he was released from the mines, John later delivered [to the churches] this same Apocalypse that the Gospel of the complete faith for the sake of our salvation. For when Valentinus, Cerinthus, Ebion, and others of the school of Satan were scattered abroad throughout the world, all the bishops assembled together to John from the neighboring provinces and compelled him to draw up his testimony." Victorinus (280 A.D. [1]

Also what I quoted by Esuebuis wasn't a miss quote. You seem to be unaware of the "Gospel according to the Hebrews". It is a second century work. A work that was written by an Aramaic or Jewish christian.

And just so you know, many Jews did convert to christianity in the first 100 years. And this is one of the reasons why the D.C.'s and the Gospels were eventually rejected by nonbelieving Jews. As well as Jewish christians eventually being kicked out of the synogouges. The third Bishop of Jerusalem was a Jew.

As shown by Eusebius


""(1) Simeon Also having died in the manner shown above,
a certain Jew named Justus succeeded him in the episcopate of Jerusalem. There
were great numbers from the circumcision who came over to the Christian faith at
that time, of whom Justus was one." [2]





I hope I wasn't mean to you Anders, but I really want you to see what actually happened.



JNORM888

[1] page 382 from "A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs" by David Bercot, copyright 1998 David Bercot and published by Hendrickson Publishers, inc

book 3
[2] pages 99-100 by Eusebius in the book "Eusebius Ecclesiastical Historical: complete and Unabridged. New updated edition", translated by by C.F. Cruse, reprinted 1998 & published by Hendrickson Publishers.

June 19, 2008 at 6:49 PM

Jnorm said...

wait, the Gospel of Hebrews is either a late first century or early to mid second century work.

It was quoted by Papias, and he lived in the late first century to early or mid second century.

That is how we know the dating of that work. One group of the Ebionites embraced that work.




JNORM888

June 19, 2008 at 7:02 PM

Anders Branderud said...

No, he is no scholar.

Lee Martin Mcdonald
First Baptist Church
Alhambra, California

You rely your facts on non-scholar – I rely my facts on scholars. That’s an enormous difference. For example Oxford-Historian Scholar James Parkes (Conflict of the Church and the Synagogue) – You should read him as I probably said.

Please next time you write – include information from scholars, not from pastors.

All three accept that Torah is true. So unless you can demonstrate the validity of the NT from Torah -- and that is impossible -- books from displacement theologies are invalid -- false. Therefore, until you validate the NT from Torah, arguments based on the NT are false.
Until you validate the church fathers from Torah, arguments based on the church fathers are false.

Torah-keeping Jews accept that Torah is true. By contrast, however, **no** Torah-keeping (i.e. Orthodox) Jew accepts the Christian NT.

Ribi Yehoshua is documented to be a Ribi even in the Christian NT. If he taught something that contradicted the Pharisees teachings he wouldn’t been allowed to teach in their synagogues. It’s documented in 4Q MMT Qumran Dead Seascrolls that Pharisees followed Torah including Halakhah.
He would have been a false prophet according to Devarim (some translate it Deuteronomy) 13:1-6.
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0513.htm

Do you want to follow the historical Ribi Yehoshua or do you want to follow the redacted NT.
Right now you are following a false prophet – J*esus (http://www.netzarim.co.il/Shared/Glossary/Glos_N-Q.htm#Df-pagan-name) - that have removed commandments and added others – for example pagan e*aster – practiced by idolaters.

This is about you and other Torah-rejecters:
“He that turneth away his ear from hearing the Torah, even his prayer is an abomination.”
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt2828.htm

Anders Branderud
Follower of Ribi Yehoshua - Mashiakh (some translate it Mashiakh) - in Orthodox Judaism
If you want to learn more about my life and religion; then click at our website www.netzarim.co.il -- than click at the link "Christians" – then click at my photo.

June 19, 2008 at 7:25 PM

Jnorm said...

Anders,

Your teacher is a former Baptist pastor, and you trust every word that comes out of his mouth. Are you saying pastors can't be scholars too? I highly doubt that.

I know of an Archeologist that wright fiction novals about Egypt. Does that mean that she can't be an Archeology scholar because she writes fiction novals about Egypt? What Lee Martin Mcdonald said in that book is way more accurate than the stuff found on your teacher's/Rabbi's website.


Ok, how about this. I will quote Dr. J.N.D. Kelly for you. It's a bit dated. I prefere J. Pelikan and others. But this is what he said.


"2. The Primitive Period

The generations stretching from the Apostolic age to the middle of the second century have a special interest for our inquiry. This springs from the fact that, although the New Testament books were already in existence, there was as yet no officially sanctioned New Testament canon. Whence then did the Church draw her teaching, and how did she assess its soundness? For an answer we naturally look to the writings of the so-called Apostolic Fathers (Clement of Rome, Ignatius, Polycarp, the author of 2nd Clement, Barnabas, Hermas) and the Greek Apologists (Aristides, Justin, Tatian, Athenagoras, Theophilus). For all these Christianity seems to have implied a complex of belief and practice (in clement's phrase, the rule of our tradition, or in Justin's following God and the teaching derived from Him) which in the final resort went back to Christ Himself. But if He was the supreme teacher, the immediately accessible authorities both for the facts about His Person and for His message were (a) the prophets, who had foreseen every detail of His ministry, and (b) the apostles, who had worked with Him and whom He had commissioned. This two fold appeal to the united witness of the Old Testament and the Apostles was characteristic of the age; it is aptly illustrated by Polycarp's summons to the Philippians to accept as their standard Christ Himself along with the Apostles who preached the gospel to us and the prophets who announced our Lord's coming in advance. The importance of the Old Testament as a doctrinal norm in the primative Church cannot be exaggerated. A fuller discussion must be postponed until the next chapter; three points only need be established at this stage. First, the doctrinal authority ascribed to it was based on the apparently unquestioning assumption that, correctly interpreted, it was a christian book, and that the prophets in particular were really testifying to Christ and His glory. Justin's insistence that the Jewish Scriptures did not belong to the Jews but to Christians was universally shared. Secondly, this assumption was only rendered possible because Christians were using, consciously or unconsciously, a particular method of exegesis. This method, again, will come in for treatment later; for the moment it is sufficient to remark that it was not overtly contained in, or suggested by, the Old Testament itself. The Apologists who claimed that they had become Christians merely by studying the scriptures (the Old Testament) were clearly going beyond what the facts warranted. Obviously they were reading them with eyes enlightened by the specifically Christian revelation; and Barnabas' admits as much when he describes his Christo-Centric exegesis as a gnosis. But, thirdly, this principle of interpretation was no invention of the early second century. The apostles, as we shall see, had employed it, and there is every reason to suppose that our Lord Himself set the precedent-a fact which Justn explicitly acknowledges. In the days of the Apostolic Fathers and the Apologists it was already traditional in the church, a tradition for which (again Justin is the first to avow it) the Church was on a human plane indebted to the Apostles. The Parallel doctrinal norm, the Testimony of the Apostles, was equally important in theory, and of course more important in fact. The Apostles', wrote Clement 'received the gospel for us from the Lord Jesus Christ.....Armed therefore with their charge, and having been fully assured through the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ and confirmed in the word of God with full conviction of the Holy Spirit, they went forth with the glad tidings. By Justin's time the idea that the Church's message rested upon the apostles witness to Christ and the instructions He had given them before and after His resurrection had been more fully worked out. It was through the Apostles, Hermas stated, that the Son of God was preached throughout the World. [1]




2. The New Testament Canon

"The first writer to speak unequivocally of a New' Testament parallel to the Old was Irenaeus. But in teaching that it was inspired Scripture he was by no means an innovator. The author of 2 Peter had used language about St. Paul's letters which placed them on the level with 'other scriptures'..i.e. the Old Testament, and in Ignatius's eyes 'the gospel was an equivalent authority to the prophets. 2 Clement had introduced a quotation from the First Gospel with the words, 'another Scripture'; and both Barnabas and Justin had prefaced New Testament excerpts with the formula, 'it is written'. After Irenaeus's time, however, the fully scriptural character of the specifically Christian writings was universally acknowldged, and the description of them as the New Testament (a title harking back to St. covenant') came into voque. Clement of Alexandria, for example speaks of a fresh, new Testament being given to the new people of God; when reporting one of the Lord's utterances, he says that it is 'according to the New Testament.' We have Tertullian's statement that the Roman church 'associates the Law and the prophets with the evangelical and authority which he called "instrumentation utriusque testamenti, and both Testaments were on his view alike divine Scripture'. Henceforth there could be no question that the Christian books belonged to what were called αιαγιαι γραφαι, sanctae scriptura or their numerous equivalents. The formal recognition of a fixed list, or canon, of New Testament writings can be dated about the middle of the second century. The first to draft one, so far as survivng evidence shows, was Marcion, the heretic from sinope, on th eblack Sea, who separated himself from the Catholic Church in Rome 144." [2]

I personally don't like J.N.D. Kelly's method. But that is not relevent at this time.

The fact is the New Testament books were written centuries before 400 something A.D.


[1] pages 31-33, [2] pages 56-57 by J.N.D. Kelly in the book "early christian doctrines" copyright 1960, 1965, 1968, 1978 John Norman Davidson Kelly

June 19, 2008 at 9:06 PM

Jnorm said...

Anders,

Your standard of "truth" is flawed. Facts are Facts....no matter where they come from.

What is so false about this?

1.)Already by the 2nd century BC, the Septuagint (Greek bible) was cited in Jerusalem.

It either was or wasn't cited in Jerusalem in the 2nd century. Facts are Facts no matter where they come from.

What is so false about this?

2.) Many Jewish writers in Palestine wrote in Greek, and were cited by the church fathers.

Maybe you should read the book Anders? It's either many Jewish writers in Palestine wrote in greek, and were cited by church fathers or they were not. Facts are Facts no matter where they come from.


What is so false about this?

3.) Greek names were nearly as common as Hebrew and Aramaic names on Jewish tombs in Palestine around the time of Christ.



What is so false about this?

4.) A Greek inscription from Jerusalem from around the time of Christ records the building and dedication of a synagogue for reading the law and commandments. The builder was a priest and a Greek, and his father and grandfather before him was a synagogue ruler. Probably the synagogue operated in Greek.


What is so false about this?

"5.)Apocryphal/deuterocanonical literature from Qumran is cited in the literature in ways indistinguishable from the Protestant canon."


What is so false about this?

"6.) Sirach is quoted three times as scripture in the Talmud. It is also cited as one of "The Writings".

What is so false about this?
7.) Sirach was being copied as late as the 12th century by the Jews as scripture.


What's so false about this?

"9.) Moses ben Naahman (a Jew from 1194-1270CE) ciutes the Aramaic text of Wisdom and also is acquainted with Bel and the Dragon and Judith.
10.) The Jews in the Bar Kokhba revolt were communicating to each other in Greek.,


When talking about when the New Testament was "written" I should use christian sources....after all the New Testament are christian books. We should know about the history of our own books. How can I prove when the New Testament books were written by the Torah alone?

How can I do that? I can't tell you who wrote what New Testament book and when through the Torah alone.

You have to give me room to use my own sources to prove to you that they were written way before 400 A.D.

Why is it fair for you to use non-Torah to claim that they were written 400 years after the death of Jesus, but I'm not allowed to use non-Torah to prove that they were written centuries before 400 A.D.?

And your interpretation of Qumram as well as what Judaism was like in the first century is a reading into the past of modern Rabbonic Orthodox Judaism.

How can you literally keep "all of the Law" with no Temple?

But anyway. Let me quote something about 135 A.D.

"The first revolt(of 70 A.D.) was a national uprising; this
second Revolt(around 135 A.D. or maybe 150 A.D.) would be a messianic movement.
By means of Akiba's work, a large number of jews joined in the rebellion. Even
Samaritans and pagans joined Bar Cochba in his revolt. However, there was one
Jewish sect which refused to join: that obstinate tribe known as christians. The
Christians, a majority of whom were still ethnically jewish, were pressed to
join in this life and death struggle with Rome, but they refused. To accept bar
Cochba as Messiah, as Akiba insisted, would have been nothing short of Apostasy;
and because of their refusal to do so, Christians were treated by the Jews as
heretics and traitors. It is this same Rabbi Akiba who is the very first writer
to explicity and forthrightly reject the inspiration of both the christian New
Testament and the books of the Deuterocanon. Akiba's declaration is found in
Tosefta Yahayim 2:13 which reads;

"The Gospel and heretical books do not
defile the hands. The books of Ben Sira and all other books written from then
on, do not defile the hands."

Two outstanding points must be drawn from
this impious declaration: first, it must have been common knowledge even at this
early date that the christians accepted the Deutercanon and used it as Scripture
(along with the Gospels), otherwise, there would have been no need to rule
against them; secondly that at least some jews must also have shared that
acceptance, otherwise Akiba's decree would have been superfluous."
Here we
have a hostile witness confirming through his actions that the earliest
christians accepted both the Gospels and the Deuterocanon as inspired and sacred
Scripture. It was in this watershed event- the naming of the false Messiah Bar
Cochba and the Anathematizing of those who rejected him- which occasioned the
very first unquestionable rejection of the Deuteros by a single, widely
recognized Jewish authority. It was under Akiba's tenure that a single textual
tradition of the Old Testament was first adopted; before this time (as we have
shown) a variety of different texts were in use among the jews. It was here,
sometime in the middle of the second Christian century, that Judaism first
adopted an official normative text(i.e. the Masoretic Text or the MT). [1]


If what your website said is true.....you know, in the New Testament being written 400 years after the death of Christ. If that statement, (made by your teacher), if that statement is true, how could "Akiba's declaration" include something that wasn't even written yet?

note the declaration says:

""The Gospel and heretical books do not
defile the hands. The books of Ben Sira and all other books written from then
on, do not defile the hands."


And this is just one issue. Why should anyone believe what your teacher says if he can't be trusted in this area? Maybe you should question what you have been tought.


My prayer is that you believe in the True Christ. The one that died and Rose and ascended to the Right Hand of the Father.



JNORM888

[1] pages 68-70 from the book "Why Catholic Bibles are Bigger: the untold Story of the lost books of the Protestant Bible" by Gary G. Michuta

June 19, 2008 at 9:39 PM

Jnorm said...

Maybe you should read, Dr. Jaroslav Jan Pelikan's historical books?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaroslav_Pelikan


He was a Professor at Yale University.


You should also read, Dr. Alister Mcgrath's historical books

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alister_McGrath


And there are a half a dozen more. The ideas of the New Testament being written 400 years after Christ's death is 100% false Mr. Anders.





JNORM888

June 19, 2008 at 9:51 PM

Anders Branderud said...

Please quote Scholars instead of your Christian sources. You only study NT and Church Fathers – it’s not strange that you draw the conclusions you draw about the historical person who was born in Betlehem 7 years BCE – Ribi Yehoshua.

Please study in our History Museum.
Yes, for Lukas purportedly compiled his work c. 85 C.E from the accounts dictated to him by Shimôn Keiphâ Bar-Yonah. Yet, Keiphâ-Lukas was not recognized by the Netzarim. If authentic, Keipha-Luke would have been intended solely as a crutch for the Hellenist Jews and geirim (included in the Covenant of Biblical (read: Tan’’kh – the Jewish Bible) Israel) of the galut (the countries of the Exile.) who could not read Hebrew.
(Source: The Netzarim Reconstruction of Hebrew Matityahu).

But since than that writing have been heavily redacted.
“The earliest extant complete source texts of what the Christians call their "New Testament" are the Greek — Hellenized — codices א and β of the 4th-century. All historians, including Christian scholars, agree that there was no "New Testament" during the lifetime of Ribi Yәhoshua his original eyewitness followers, or even his Nәtzarim.

According to the earliest extant Christian Church historian (Eusebius), these original Jewish followers of the Pәrushi Ribi Yәhoshua ("Ribi," hello; only the perushim had Ribis and rabbis) rejected the Christian claimed "new testament" (EH III.xxvii.4-6)!!!
Christianity was born with the Hellenist-Roman expulsion of the 15th Nәtzarim Paqid from Yәrushalayim in 135 C.E. and his consequent displacement by the first gentile – (Hellenist-Roman) Christian – "bishop." While the occasional verse of Hebrew Matityahu (NHM) may have been translated into Greek from ca. 64 C.E., large-scale translation by Hellenists into Greek and redaction of Hebrew Matityahu (NHM) and various letters, with the inherent Hellenization, began in earnest only subsequent to 135 C.E.

Even according to the most authoritative Christian scholars, e.g., The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible, acknowledges:
"A study of 150 Greek MSS 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 NT in which the MS tradition is wholly uniform… But there are many thousands which have a definite effect upon the meaning of the text. It is true that not one of these variant readings affects the substance of Christian dogma" ("Text, NT," 2nd edition (Abingdon, 1962).

Of course Christians redacting the Jewish texts made Christian redactions to make the Jewish texts compatible with "the substance of Christian dogma." Duh.
Quoting again from The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible,

"It is equally true that many of them do have theological significance and were introduced into the text intentionally… Many thousands of the variants which are found in the MSS of the NT were put there deliberately. They are not merely the result of error or careless handling of the text. Many were created for theological or dogmatic reasons — even though they may not affect the substance of Christian dogma. [Thanks for reminding us that Christians made Christian redactions compatible with Christian dogma; ybd]). It is because the books of the NT are religious books, sacred books, canonical books, that they were changed to conform to what the copyist believed to be the true reading. His interest was not in the 'original reading' but in the 'true reading'"

(ibid.) — as perceived by the Roman Christian redactors, of course. (Emphasis added and quoted from Who Are the Netzarim? (WAN))
The Nәtzarim never changed their mind about it, maintaining that only the Jewish Tana"kh is Scripture and only their own The Nәtzarim Hebrew Matityâhu (NHM) was a legitimate account of the life and teachings of Ribi Yәhoshua.

The Nәtzarim haven't changed from this position, and won't change from this position.
“ (quote: www.netzarim.co.il – Glossaries)

Anders Branderud
Follower of Ribi Yehoshua - Mashiakh (some translate it Mashiakh) - in Orthodox Judaism
If you want to learn more about my life and religion; then click at our website www.netzarim.co.il -- than click at the link "Christians" – then click at my photo.

June 21, 2008 at 8:10 AM

Jnorm said...

Anders,


Please use non Hebrew names. It's difficult knowing what you are saying and who you are talking about. If you can, use their english equivolent names.

Also I would like to ask you a question.


Are you aware of what "Modernism" is? Some call it, "Higher criticism" theological liberalism....ect.

Most of your sources come from that tradition. I can quote higher critical scholars in regards to the Torah & the other books of the Old Testament. They pretty much ripp it apart.

And in regards to text familess. Every text has varirations. Including the Hewbrew. It took Jews 1,000 years worth of editing the Mesoretic text type. Before they had a final edition.


We can play this game back and forth. but it's never gonna go anywhere....especially if you use higher critical cynics.

I can take you to YouTube and show you higher critical scholars talk crazy about their never being a real Israel, with real Jews, and real cities......ect.

I can show you where many of them claim that all the miracles in your Torah were just myths.

so why you quote them is beyond me.


If you are going to quote from higher critical scholars then you are going to have to quote from moderate ones....ones like

Dr. Jaroslav Pelikan and others of his stripe.

Most of the far left higher critics are just speaking nonsense.





JNORM888

June 21, 2008 at 6:16 PM