Did Jesus wear a prayer shawl (tallit)?

Status
Not open for further replies.

ContraMundum

Messianic Jewish Christian
Supporter
Jul 2, 2005
15,666
2,957
Visit site
✟78,078.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Whether it existed or not is irrelevant. Nowhere does it say that Jesus wore one. If it was that important for the believer, don’t you think that the text would have been a little more specific?


Well, in all honesty, more Tim Hegg articles would do absolutely nothing for me. He isn’t an archaeologist or an expert in ancient near east studies with a PhD. He is a guy with some study at seminaries that I do not know much about. I do not find his articles accurate nor authoritative. There are plenty of Hebrew roots people on the net writing the same type of stuff that he does. Lots of conjecture.

OK...so far we have tried to show you from scripture, history, and tradition that shawls were commonplace. You refuse to accept any of the above or even consider them.

Charles has done a fair job answering you. Hegg has done a fair job answering you. The scriptures speak of mantles, tzitzis, burial garments, priestly robes, street attire and all the rest- all pointing to the fact that Jews, as well as just about everybody else int he region, wore shawls.

At what point are we to give up on you? Now? Later? When will you simply say "well, that may well prove tradition to be correct, let me check it out".?

Neither are your ad hominem attacks. Please discuss the proof of your assertions.

Saying that you have a fundamentalist approach to interpreting the religion is not an ad-hominem attack. It's the same as you saying I have a traditionalist approach ot the religion. Don't mistake the proper use of a theological term as an attack on you, because it isn't- it's a comment on your methodology.

Now, if you think "fundamentalist" is a dirty word, then you might have a problem because your dogma on scripture and its application is completely constructed and informed by the fundamentalist paradigm. I think if you checked it out you'd be compelled to agree.

...and what's wrong with the Talmud?
It blasphemes Christ and His finished work. Any other questions?

Don't you read documents from history, or do you just get all your answers from the Bible? (Which is impossible.....hence the phenomenon of the Christian bookstore...you need outside references to understand the faith). Whether or not you think the Talmud is a valid religious teaching source, it IS a valid historical reference.

Was Jesus stoned? Was He hung? Was He a sorcerer? I guess there are differences in opinions of what constitutes a “valid historical reference”.

Without having to answer well-worn Talmud myths propagated by.....well, I won't use the word because you say it's ad-hom....let me just say that I need you to reply with a little more sincerity in order to facilitate you. My comment was not speaking of the theology of the Talmud, but it's witness the the practices of Judaism. You are departing from my intended meaning to be argumentative.

And I say that Jesus froze the sea of Galilee with His breath, and then Him and the apostles played a game of ice hockey there. Maybe I can find some proof for that in the talmud. ;)

The problem you have here is that we have presented a Biblical, historical, theological and traditional case for Christ wearing a tallit...but you've merely moved the boundaries beyond academically acceptable criteria to retain your rather fanciful position. You've asked us to play soccer and you won't let us use a ball. Sorry, but you're not winning us to your novel interpretation of the Bible.

I'd like to point out that your argument has not addressed a single point of ours. You have not taken the time to deconstruct the texts and examples given to you. You merely cry out for what you would accept as "proof", without being honest enough to say that your version of proof can never prove anything.
 
Upvote 0

baraqemet

Active Member
Mar 30, 2005
262
4
✟424.00
Faith
Messianic
Quote from Baraqemet:

It blasphemes Christ and His finished work. Any other questions?

Don't you read documents from history, or do you just get all your answers from the Bible? (Which is impossible.....hence the phenomenon of the Christian bookstore...you need outside references to understand the faith). Whether or not you think the Talmud is a valid religious teaching source, it IS a valid historical reference.

Was Jesus stoned? Was He hung? Was He a sorcerer? I guess there are differences in opinions of what constitutes a “valid historical reference”.


Contra Mundum:

Without having to answer well-worn Talmud myths propagated by.....well, I won't use the word because you say it's ad-hom....


Baragemet:
Oh, do you mean these anti semitic sources?

Quote:

The Talmud speaks negatively of Jesus in various books that comprise its writings. The Talmud is a Rabbinic commentary on the Torah, which Christians know as the first five books of the Old Testament. Recently, some in Judaism have tried to state that the Talmud is speaking of another person(s) named Jesus, and not Jesus Christ, but some orthodox Jewish Rabbis such as Daniel Lapin have clearly stated that the Talmud does in fact denigrate Jesus. Here is a quote by Mr. Lapin was originally posted on his website:

“Do we really want to open up the Pandora's Box of suggesting that any faith may demand the removal of material that it finds offensive from the doctrines of any other faith? Do we really want to return to those dark times when Catholic authorities attempted to strip from the Talmud those passages that they found offensive? Some of my Jewish readers may feel squeamish about my alluding to the existence of Talmudic passages uncomplimentary toward Jesus as well as descriptive of Jewish involvement in his crucifixion. However the truth is that anyone with Internet access can easily locate those passages in about ten seconds. I think it far better that in the name of genuine Jewish-Christian friendship in America, we allow all faiths their own beliefs even if we find those beliefs troubling or at odds with our own beliefs. This way we can all prosper safely under the constitutional protection of the United States of America.
It was originally posted (link now inactive) on his website here:


http://www.towardtradition.org/article_Mel_Gibson.htm


It was mirrored on this site, and can still be read there in its entirety:


http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/lappin200309260936.asp


The Jewish encyclopedia has this:

In Jewish Legend:

The Jewish legends in regard to Jesus are found in three sources, each independent of the others—(1) in New Testament apocrypha and Christian polemical works, (2) in the Talmud and the Midrash, and (3) in the life of Jesus ("Toledot Yeshu'") that originated in the Middle Ages. It is the tendency of all these sources to be-little the person of Jesus by ascribing to him illegitimate birth, magic, and a shameful death. In view of their general character they are called indiscriminately legends. Some of the statements, as that referring to magic, are found among pagan writers and Christian heretics; and as the Ebionites, or Judæo-Christians, who for a long time lived together with the Jews, are also classed as heretics, conclusions may be drawn from this as to the origin of these legends.
It ought also to be added that many of the legends have a theological background. For polemical purposes, it was necessary for the Jews to insist on the illegitimacy of Jesus as against the Davidic descent claimed by the Christian Church. Magic may have been ascribed him over against the miracles recorded in the Gospels; and the degrading fate both on earth and hereafter of which the legends speak may be simply directed against the ideas of the assumption and the resurrection of Jesus. The Jewish legends relating to Jesus appear less inimical in character when compared with the parallel passages which are found in pagan authors and Christian sources, more especially as such legends are fixed and frequently occurring themes of folk-lore; and imaginations must have been especially excited by the historical importance which the figure of Jesus came to have for the Jews.

The earliest authenticated passage ascribing illegitimate birth to Jesus is that in Yeb. iv. 3. The mysterious phrase ("that man") cited in this passage as occurring in a family register which R. Simeon ben Azza is said to have found seems to indicate that it refers to Jesus (see Derenbourg in "R. E. J." i. 293), and here occur also the two expressions so often applied to Jesus in later literature—( "that anonymous one," the name of Jesus being avoided) and ("bastard"; for which in later times was used). Such a family register may have been preserved at Jerusalem in the Judæo-Christian community. [end quote]

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=254&letter=J&search=jesus

Your attempt at alluding that I am anti semitic is once again merely empty and hollow attacks. Please put away the Jewish card and deal in facts.
 
Upvote 0

~RENEE~

Legend
Jan 21, 2005
12,685
1,225
56
home
✟28,526.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Did Jesus wear a Jewish Prayer shawl (tallit) ??
tallit-hanger-sm.jpg
Are you familar with the woman that had the issue of blood? She touched the hem of His garment. What she actually touched was the fringes on the bottom of a prayer shawl

Consider this Jesus was a Jewish man. And as such he lived by Jewish tradition

 
Upvote 0

baraqemet

Active Member
Mar 30, 2005
262
4
✟424.00
Faith
Messianic
ContraMundum

OK...so far we have tried to show you from scripture, history, and tradition that shawls were commonplace. You refuse to accept any of the above or even consider them…..

I have considered all that you have said, but unfortunately you are trying to force a meaning of your liking into the Biblical texts. It is starting to appear that everything that is made out of cloth that is mentioned in the Bible must be a tallit. Using your logic, then a pocket hanky could also be a tallit.

Charles has done a fair job answering you. Hegg has done a fair job answering you. The scriptures speak of mantles, tzitzis, burial garments, priestly robes, street attire and all the rest- all pointing to the fact that Jews, as well as just about everybody else int he region, wore shawls.

You are overlooking the fact that a shawl is not a modern tallit. Where were the tzit tzit attached? You have no proof.

The problem you have here is that we have presented a Biblical, historical, theological and traditional case for Christ wearing a tallit...but you've merely moved the boundaries beyond academically acceptable criteria to retain your rather fanciful position.

Fanciful….sigh…more attacks. You have presented much personal interpretation, and attempted to force meanings into texts that are not there upon a plain uncolored reading. That qualifies as conjecture.

You've asked us to play soccer and you won't let us use a ball. Sorry, but you're not winning us to your novel interpretation of the Bible.

Because the ball that you have bought is to “play” with is not regulation. It is sized by the Hebrew roots standards.
 
Upvote 0

baraqemet

Active Member
Mar 30, 2005
262
4
✟424.00
Faith
Messianic
Contra stated:
OK...so far we have tried to show you from scripture, history, and tradition that shawls were commonplace. You refuse to accept any of the above or even consider them.

Charles has done a fair job answering you. Hegg has done a fair job answering you. The scriptures speak of mantles, tzitzis, burial garments, priestly robes, street attire and all the rest- all pointing to the fact that Jews, as well as just about everybody else int he region, wore shawls.

Let’s use you and Charles system of reasoning on another passage:

[FONT=&quot]Isa 64:6[/FONT][FONT=&quot] But we are all as an unclean2931 thing , and all our righteousnesses6666 are as filthy5708 rags899; and we all do fade5034 [8799] [8676] 1101 [8686] as a leaf5929; and our iniquities5771, like the wind7307, have taken us away5375 [8799].[/FONT]

H899
[FONT=&quot]בּגד[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]beged[/FONT]
BDB Definition:
1) treachery, deceit
2) (CLBL) garment, clothing (used indiscriminately)
Part of Speech: noun masculine
A Related Word by BDB/Strong’s Number: from H898
Same Word by TWOT Number: 198a

Using you eisegetical method of finding a text and then forcing a meaning, then the “rag” described in the above passage could be a tallit also, as well as any carpet or piece of cloth.

Definition of Eisegesis
Eisegesis is the approach to Bible interpretation where the interpreter tries to "force" the Bible to mean something that fits their existing belief or understanding of a particular issue or doctrine. People who interpret the Bible this way are usually not willing to let the Bible speak for itself and let the chips fall where they may. They set off with the up-front goal of trying to prove a point they already believe in, and everything they read and interpret is filtered through that paradigm. Stated another way, they engage in what the Bible refers to as "private interpretation".
 
Upvote 0

baraqemet

Active Member
Mar 30, 2005
262
4
✟424.00
Faith
Messianic
Contra:
Charles has done a fair job answering you. Hegg has done a fair job answering you. The scriptures speak of mantles, tzitzis, burial garments, priestly robes, street attire and all the rest-

From an earlier post by Charles:

Mantle — (1.) Heb. ˒addereth, a large over-garment. This word is used of Elijah’s mantle (1 Kings 19:13, 19; 2 Kings 2:8, 13, etc.), which was probably a sheepskin.
It appears to have been his only garment, a strip of skin or leather binding it to his loins.

Was it a sheepskin tallit then?

Charles then speculated:

"In Johns Gospel Peter arrives at the Tomb and goes inside and he sees the linen burial cloth laying in a pile and folded nicely in a separate place he sees the "Napkin" that had been wrapped around his head. What Napkin, a dinner napkin? I don't think so. "

Lets examine the burial garment argument:

[FONT=&quot]John 20:7[/FONT][FONT=&quot] And2532 the napkin4676, that3739 was2258 [5713] about1909 his846 head2776, not3756 lying2749 [5740] with3326 the linen clothes3608, but235 wrapped together1794 [5772] in1519 a place5117 by itself1520 5565.[/FONT]


G4676
[FONT=&quot]σουδάριον[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]soudarion[/FONT]
Thayer Definition:
1) a handkerchief
2) a cloth for wiping perspiration from the face and for cleaning the nose and also used in swathing the head of a corpse
Part of Speech: noun neuter
A Related Word by Thayer’s/Strong’s Number: of Latin origin

What a eisegetical stretch that one is. Was it a Latin style tallit? When was the last time that you saw someone use a tallit to clean their nose and wipe their face?

Let's examine the "robe" argument:

Revelation 7
13 And one of the elders answered, saying to me, These, the ones having been clothed in the white robes, who are they, and from where did they come?
14 And I said to him, Sir, you know. And he said to me, These are those coming out of the great tribulation; and they washed their robes and whitened them in the blood of the Lamb.
15 Because of this they are before the throne of God, and serve Him day and night in His sanctuary. And He sitting on the throne will spread His tabernacle over them.

Are you saying that these were tallits also?

G4749
[FONT=&quot]στολή[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]stolē[/FONT]
Thayer Definition:
1) an equipment
2) an equipment in clothes, clothing
2a) spec. a loose outer garment for men extending to the feet, worn by kings, priests, and persons of rank
Part of Speech: noun feminine
A Related Word by Thayer’s/Strong’s Number: from G4724
Citing in TDNT: 7:687, 1088


In the end, all of your and Charles suppositions are unfounded. It is clever speculation, as are the majority of the Hebrew roots teachings, but upon close examination it all becomes obvious conjecture driven by a theological need. If the Scriptures don't say it, then the next move in the "Hebraic mindset" is to reinterpret or "idiomize" to get them to say it:

Charles:
[FONT=&quot]There might be a translation error here but when Yeshua prayed for the dead girl and raised her to life he said, "Tallitha Kumi" which could be "You under the Tallit Arise" "Tallit Ha Kumi" The Oral tradition that founded the Gospels may have distorted these Hebraic/Aramaic words over time.


[/FONT]
So much for God's promise to keep His Word for all generations. (shakes head)



 
Upvote 0

ContraMundum

Messianic Jewish Christian
Supporter
Jul 2, 2005
15,666
2,957
Visit site
✟78,078.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Bark,

You are missing the forest for the trees- the logic here is simple.

a) People wore shawls. I don't think you are disputing that.

b) If shawls had four corners, devout Jews would put tzitzis on them- hence making what became known as a tallit. I doubt you would argue that either.

c) A careful reading of the Hebrew texts commanding the wearing of tzitzis imply that such garments were already worn. I don't think you have the Hebrew background to accept that though.

d) You've done tremendous violence to the Greek too- again, I don't think you've got enough Greek background (and I don't have enough time or patience) to accept it though.

Continue as you were...I won't make a fuss. :)
 
Upvote 0

Charles YTK

Well-Known Member
Nov 26, 2002
2,748
152
Florida
✟3,839.00
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Married
If you continue to use Christian/Greeco-Roman materials to understand scripture then you will contine to come right back to their same mistakes. You can't use Greek Gentile definitions to understand Hebraic terms. The scriptures of the New Testamnt are filled with Hebraisms and Poetic structures that never get presented in their Hebraic form because they were translated into Greek and then to English without Hebraic though transfer. If a person hold only those greek/Gentile reference materials as correct and reject Jewish people who interpret the Jewish writings, (Which the New testament is) they are stuck. There is no reason to even try to present anything to them. Let them enjoy their Gentile form of religion and worship their Gentile form of Jesus, who according to Christianity, did nothing Jewish, hated the Jews, abolished the law, broke the commandments and lived in sin rejecting everything associated with the Jewish people who were his brothers.

For me, the Gentile Jesus is not an image faithful to the scriptures and the culture and context of the written word.

I read the word and wonder how in the world can the church miss the fact that the last supper was a Passover seder. When you read it, it is like a description of every Seder that has ever been held since the days of Moshe.

He was crucified at the Passover at the very time the lambs were killed in the temple beginning at 3 PM being the fulfillement of the sacrifice that prophetically looked forward to hs death.

How can the church miss the fact that he was born in a Sukkah during the feast of Sukkot in fulfillment of that prophetic feast that looked forward to his birth, Instead they connect his birth to the Pagan festival of Christmas because that was the day the birth of the Roman sun god Mithrais was celebrated.

How can anyone read the sriptures and not see that he was resurrected on the feast of first fruits in fulfillment of that festival that looked forward to his resurrection?

How can you read the scriptures and not realize that the holy spirit was poured out and the New Covenant began on the very same day that the Sinai Covenant was given, with the same types of miraculas signs, with flames of fire and eery man hearing and understanding in his own language?

The church misses all these things and many more because they fail to read the scriptures in the correct Hebraic cultural and historical context relying instead of Christian references which did everything possible to hide the Hebraic nature of the scriptures and of Messiah, and so they continue to substantiate the same errors over and over again.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mohawk
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Der Alte

This is me about 1 yr. old.
Supporter
Aug 21, 2003
28,575
6,063
EST
✟991,946.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
If you continue to use Christian/Greeco-Roman materials to understand scripture then you will contine to come right back to their same mistakes. You can't use Greek Gentile definitions to understand Hebraic terms. The scriptures of the New Testamnt are filled with Hebraisms and Poetic structures that never get presented in their Hebraic form because they were translated into Greek and then to English without Hebraic though transfer. If a person hold only those greek/Gentile reference materials as correct and reject Jewish people who interpret the Jewish writings, (Which the New testament is) they are stuck.

Do you read Hebrew? I do. And there is NO, NONE, ZERO, manuscript evidence that the N.T. was written in Hebrew. Don't you think if it was so important to God that everything be Jewish, Hebrew etc. that he would have ensured that many Hebrew manuscripts survive? But there is not even one.

There is no reason to even try to present anything to them. Let them enjoy their Gentile form of religion and worship their Gentile form of Jesus, who according to Christianity, did nothing Jewish, hated the Jews, abolished the law, broke the commandments and lived in sin rejecting everything associated with the Jewish people who were his brothers.

False accusation.

I read the word and wonder how in the world can the church miss the fact that the last supper was a Passover seder. When you read it, it is like a description of every Seder that has ever been held since the days of Moshe.

It was a passover. What is your point? I have never heard any Christian ever deny that it was,

How can the church miss the fact that he was born in a Sukkah during the feast of Sukkot in fulfillment of that prophetic feast that looked forward to his birth,

Prove it!

How can anyone read the sriptures and not see that he was resurrected on the feast of first fruits in fulfillment of that festival that looked forward to his resurrection?

Prove it!

The church misses all these things and many more because they fail to read the scriptures in the correct Hebraic cultural and historical context relying instead of Christian references which did everything possible to hide the Hebraic nature of the scriptures and of Messiah, and so they continue to substantiate the same errors over and over again.

More false accusations that you can't back up. Suggestion instead of listening to all that anti-Christian rhetoric you are repeating here, try reading what the writers of the early church wrote. People, for example, like Ignatius and Polycarp, who were disciples of John, the disciple, and Ireneaus who was a student of Polycarp. If you can show us some of the supposed, “Hebraic cultural and historical context,” “the Hebraic nature of the scriptures,” “Hebraisms and Poetic structures,” etc. in the early church then I will listen to what you have to say.
 
Upvote 0

ContraMundum

Messianic Jewish Christian
Supporter
Jul 2, 2005
15,666
2,957
Visit site
✟78,078.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Do you read Hebrew? I do. And there is NO, NONE, ZERO, manuscript evidence that the N.T. was written in Hebrew. Don't you think if it was so important to God that everything be Jewish, Hebrew etc. that he would have ensured that many Hebrew manuscripts survive? But there is not even one.

I don't think Charles was saying the the NT was written in Hebrew, but rather there are a multitude of Hebraic idioms, parables etc etc...I can only think of one author who speculates about Matthew being originally written in Hebrew, and he was Catholic. His name escapes me. Charles is pretty much in step with the best scholarship at the moment.

More false accusations that you can't back up. Suggestion instead of listening to all that anti-Christian rhetoric you are repeating here, try reading what the writers of the early church wrote. People, for example, like Ignatius and Polycarp, who were disciples of John, the disciple, and Ireneaus who was a student of Polycarp. If you can show us some of the supposed, “Hebraic cultural and historical context,” “the Hebraic nature of the scriptures,” “Hebraisms and Poetic structures,” etc. in the early church then I will listen to what you have to say.

Actually, I have read (thoroughly and extensively) the Early Church Fathers and I'm not convinced they would support your postulation here. There is a diversity in their writings that hint at varying levels of Hebraic thought. Certainly some ECFs were heavily influenced by Hellenism and thus were at variance to the disciples in the Holy Land in some respects.

If you want to look for Hebraic thought in the ECFs, then go no further than the Didache, which has Hebrew forms of prayer etc. The more familiar (to us) forms of prayer are only found later and in the writings of Gentile believers. I find that interesting. Not that it really matters.
 
Upvote 0

Charles YTK

Well-Known Member
Nov 26, 2002
2,748
152
Florida
✟3,839.00
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Married
Der Altar,

I can and have proven everything that I say. There is a lot o scolarship out there which you can read and discover the truth. However if you believe that only Polycarp and Ignacious , or Chisolsom are the repository of all truth, then you will only reherse over and over again their opinions and their antisemtism. Read beyond that, and do so by first establishing yourself in the Hebraic nature of the New testament writings, their people and culture. Then you can see it.

Matthew was originally written in and preserved in Hebrew until after the 4th century acording to your own Church historian Epiphanius in Par 29. Read his testimony for yourself. Other church historians also agre with this. The fact that no copy remian today is most like the efect of Christain persecution against the Jews and the Nazarenes who the 4th century had deemed heretecs and killed. This is church legacy.

Can I prove he was born on the feast of Tabernacles? Yes it is coded into the scriptures in several places. If you understand the Hebraic festivals and the prophetic nature they hold in regards to Messiah. Even his circumision is on the 8th and final day of the festival which points to rejoicing in the Torah, celebrating the Torah of God becoming alive in us.

He was born on the first day of Sukkot. If you know the law concerning Rabbis and preists you would see that they can not minister until their 30th year. Then they are baptised and anoited. Yeshua was baptised and anoited by the spirit and by John on his 30th birthday. He then goes into the wildernes for 40 days and when he returns is ready to begin his ministry. A man in this situation is honored by being called up to read the scheduled scriptures from the prophets, a defined reading repeated every thre years. Yeshua is called up and reads the text from Isaiah 61, which is the scheduled reading for the sabbath 40 days after the beginning of Sukkot. This is an ancient schedule that goes back to 400 BCE.

There is also the rotation of priests, which shows that John the Baptizer was born on Passover and Yeshua six months later on Sukkot. These rotations are ancient as well as were the cycle of readings.

Yeshua had a ministry of 3 1/2 years. He died on Passover. If you take a count back from Passover 3 1/2 yeas you will not be at Christmas, you will be at sukkot in sept/oct.

Yeshua was born in a manger. The word for manger in the English derives from Stall, in the Greek. A stall is also called a booth. The small structure we build to live in during sukkot is called a booth or Sukkah. The festival is known as Sukkot or Taberncales, or booths. It celebrates the theme of "God lives with man" which looks back at the wilderness experience, and forward to the time wihen God lives with us as Messiah. If Yeshua was not born in Sukkot, then he was not the Messiah, just as he has to die on Passover, if he did not die on Passover he was not the Messiah.

The resurrection on the feast of first ruits is also given. First fruits is held on the first day of the week following the sabbath that falls in the week of Unlevened bread. Unleavened bread begins right after the completion of the Passover sacrifices. Therefore Sunday following the crucifixion was the feast of first fruits. This was the Sunday morning the empty tomb was discovered. Yeshua is called the first fruits of all those who will be resurrected.

The holy spirit was poured out on Shavuot.(Pentecost) Did you think this was a Christain holiday? It comes from the Torah form the days of Moshe, and it is the day the Sinai covenant was give by God, with thunderings, and flames of fire and every man hearing the covenant in his own language. How fitting that the New Covenant is brought to men while they are gathered together to reaffirm their commitment to the Sinai covenant as they did each year on that day.

If you would like some help understanding these things click on my link to the Yeshua the King Web site.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mohawk
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Charles YTK

Well-Known Member
Nov 26, 2002
2,748
152
Florida
✟3,839.00
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Married
Contramindrum

I don't think Charles was saying the the NT was written in Hebrew, but rather there are a multitude of Hebraic idioms, parables etc etc...I can only think of one author who speculates about Matthew being originally written in Hebrew, and he was Catholic. His name escapes me. Charles is pretty much in step with the best scholarship at the moment.

Yes, thank you. The New testament is a Jewish writing and the terms and poetic structures reveal this. Some of the Parables of Yeshua are found in other Jewish writings from the time only Yeshua has adapted them for his own purpose. His formula of Halacha, is typical Rabbinical technique, "You have them of ancient times say....... but I say unto you......." He uses this over and over in the Sermon on the mount. Yeshua teaches almost exclusively from the Torah and most often from Deuteronomy, and Psalms and Isaiah.(who speak to most about Messiah). He was called Rabbi by his people, revered one. And even by Jews today he is know as the greatest teacher of Torah that ever lived, even though they reject him as Messiah. That is mostly due to the distortion of the Gospels Hebraic nature and the Jewishness of Messiah that is hidden in the Christain version of the telling.

However acording to the church historian Epiphanus the Gospel of Matthew was originally written in Hebrew and maintained and used by the Nazarenes until his time in the 4th century.
 
Upvote 0

Charles YTK

Well-Known Member
Nov 26, 2002
2,748
152
Florida
✟3,839.00
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Married
Did Yeshua break the Law of God given through Moshe when he and his disciples were eating with unwashed hands?


Another Question:

In Acts 15 "there came from Jerusalem certain men saying that unless a man is circumsied after the manner of Moshe he can not be saved." Did Moshe require Gentiles to be circumcised as they say?
 
Upvote 0

Der Alte

This is me about 1 yr. old.
Supporter
Aug 21, 2003
28,575
6,063
EST
✟991,946.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I don't think Charles was saying the the NT was written in Hebrew, but rather there are a multitude of Hebraic idioms, parables etc etc...I can only think of one author who speculates about Matthew being originally written in Hebrew, and he was Catholic. His name escapes me. Charles is pretty much in step with the best scholarship at the moment.

Your last sentence is a logical fallacy, “appeal to authority.” I own three church histories, A History of Christianity, Vol. I, Beginnings to 1500, Kenneth Scott Latourette, Harper & Row, 1975, and Early Christian Doctrines, J.N.D. Kelley, Harper & Row, 1978, The History of Doctrines, Reinhold Seeberg, Baker House, 1978, they do not support Charles’ argument. I'm not aware of any earth shaking new discoveries since these were written.

I agree that about 5 ECF stated that Matthew wrote the words of Jesus or a gospel, “in the Hebrew tongue.” or “his native language,” which may have been Hebrew, but most likely was Aramaic. These were, Papias, bishop of Hierapolis, c. 150 A.D., Irenaeus (120-202 A.D.), Origen (c. 225 A.D.), Eusebius, Bishop of Caesarea (c. 325 A.D.), and Ephiphanius, Jerome. But there is no surviving copy of a Hebrew/Aramaic Matthew.

And, there is no evidence that any other book in the N.T. was written in Hebrew or Aramaic. And as I said before if it was so important to God that Christianity be Jewish and Hebrew, why is there no manuscript evidence, whatsoever, supporting this?

Actually, I have read (thoroughly and extensively) the Early Church Fathers and I'm not convinced they would support your postulation here. There is a diversity in their writings that hint at varying levels of Hebraic thought. Certainly some ECFs were heavily influenced by Hellenism and thus were at variance to the disciples in the Holy Land in some respects.

“Hint at varying levels of Hebraic thought.” Is a long way from proving that God intended for Christianity to totally be Jewish/Hebraic. I mentioned three specific ECF for a reason. All three were closely associated with the apostle John. Two, Polycarp and Ignatius, were fellow students of John, and Irenaeus was a student of Polycarp. I asked for evidence from these three close followers of John that Christianity was intended to be Jewish/Hebrew only. None was forthcoming, only vague allusions to “Certainly some ECFs were heavily influenced by Hellenism and thus were at variance to the disciples in the Holy Land in some respects.”

If you want to look for Hebraic thought in the ECFs, then go no further than the Didache, which has Hebrew forms of prayer etc. The more familiar (to us) forms of prayer are only found later and in the writings of Gentile believers. I find that interesting. Not that it really matters.

The Didache is only one writing. “Hebrew forms of prayer,” etc., in one writing does not substantiate the claims being presented here. And it is no surprise that the writings of early Christians reflect, to some degree, their respective backgrounds Jewish, Greek, or other. But that is not evidence that God intended all of Christianity to be Hebrew/Jewish or a Torah observant sub-sect of orthodox Judaism.
 
Upvote 0

Der Alte

This is me about 1 yr. old.
Supporter
Aug 21, 2003
28,575
6,063
EST
✟991,946.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I can and have proven everything that I say. There is a lot o scolarship out there which you can read and discover the truth. However if you believe that only Polycarp and Ignacious , or Chisolsom are the repository of all truth, then you will only reherse over and over again their opinions and their antisemtism. Read beyond that, and do so by first establishing yourself in the Hebraic nature of the New testament writings, their people and culture. Then you can see it.

Do you read Hebrew? I do! I studied Hebrew and church history, at the graduate level, more than 2 decades ago, I have been a Christian for over 4 decades. Please do not presume to lecture me on the “Hebraic nature of the N.T.,” or anything else, if you cannot even read the language. And you certainly have not produced any evidence for these assertions here.

Please read my response to ContraMundum, above, re: Polycarp, Ignatius, and Irenaeus. And it appears you didn’t read much of anything I said very carefully at all. You misspelled Ignatius and I have no idea who “Chisolom” is supposed to be.

If you are going to summarily accuse three close followers of John the apostle of simply writing their opinions and anti-Semitism, please produce your evidence.

Matthew was originally written in and preserved in Hebrew until after the 4th century acording to your own Church historian Epiphanius in Par 29. Read his testimony for yourself. Other church historians also agre with this. The fact that no copy remian today is most like the efect of Christain persecution against the Jews and the Nazarenes who the 4th century had deemed heretecs and killed. This is church legacy.

See my response to CM above about the Hebrew/Aramaic Matthew. If you have any evidence relating to this discussion from Epiphanius, please post it. I’m quite sure your citation is not correct. “Other church historians” is a logical fallacy, appeal to authority. Who, when, where?

“no copy remian today is most like the efect of Christain persecution against the Jews” Is it your argument then that God intended for Christianity to be Hebrew/Jewish but he was not able to preserve the alleged Hebrew N.T. because of “Christian” persecution, although the entire Hebrew O.T. has been faithfully preserved?

Can I prove he was born on the feast of Tabernacles? Yes it is coded into the scriptures in several places. *snip*
He was born on the first day of Sukkot. If you know the law concerning Rabbis and preists you would see that they can not minister until their 30th year. *snip*
If you understand the Hebraic festivals and the prophetic nature they hold in regards to Messiah. *snip*
There is also the rotation of priests, which shows that John the Baptizer was born on Passover and Yeshua six months later on Sukkot. *snip*
These rotations are ancient as well as were the cycle of readings. *snip*.

Repeating unsupported assertions does not validate them. Please produce your evidence, from scripture, not your assumptions and presuppositions of what you infer certain passages may allude to.

Yeshua had a ministry of 3 1/2 years. He died on Passover. If you take a count back from Passover 3 1/2 yeas you will not be at Christmas, you will be at sukkot in sept/oct.

And you think counting back 3 ½ years from the death of Jesus is significant in what way?

Yeshua was born in a manger. The word for manger in the English derives from Stall, in the Greek. A stall is also called a booth. The small structure we build to live in during sukkot is called a booth or Sukkah. The festival is known as Sukkot or Taberncales, or booths.

According to Luke Jesus was laid in, not born in, a manger. Many modern scholars have determined that natural and man-made caves were used to house livestock, in that area, at the time of Jesus, and that Jesus was born in such a cave, not a separate building.

The Greek word translated “manger” in Luke is phatne. “Manger” is translated from, not “derived” from, the Greek word. Manger (n.) A trough or open box in which fodder is placed for horses or cattle to eat.

How many times in the O.T. Is the word sukkot used to describe a shelter for livestock?

If Yeshua was not born in Sukkot, then he was not the Messiah, just as he has to die on Passover, if he did not die on Passover he was not the Messiah.

Where is this stated in scripture?

The resurrection on the feast of first ruits is also given. First fruits is held on the first day of the week following the sabbath that falls in the week of Unlevened bread. Unleavened bread begins right after the completion of the Passover sacrifices. *snip*

If you are going to try to Judaize Christianity, and force all the feasts and festivals on the church, perhaps you should get your facts straight. The feast of unleavened bread begins on the day of Passover and continues for seven days.

The holy spirit was poured out on Shavuot.(Pentecost) Did you think this was a Christain holiday? *snip*
What is your point? Of course it was a Jewish festival, they were Jews, in Jerusalem.

If you would like some help understanding these things click on my link to the Yeshua the King Web site.

I have heard it all before why not back up your assertions right here?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

ContraMundum

Messianic Jewish Christian
Supporter
Jul 2, 2005
15,666
2,957
Visit site
✟78,078.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Your last sentence is a logical fallacy, “appeal to authority.”

What a ridiculous statement. Appeal to authority is a completely valid approach on an internet forum- this isn't your little college debate team. It's a forum, and for your information- a) no one is obligated to spend endless hours debating over every single point- most of us have a life, b) If I spent the time decontructing your posts I'd drive you nuts, so don't bother doing that with me, because I've done the time and walked the road.



I own three church histories, A History of Christianity, Vol. I, Beginnings to 1500, Kenneth Scott Latourette, Harper & Row, 1975, and Early Christian Doctrines, J.N.D. Kelley, Harper & Row, 1978, The History of Doctrines, Reinhold Seeberg, Baker House, 1978, they do not support Charles’ argument. I'm not aware of any earth shaking new discoveries since these were written.

It's not a matter of whether or not "discoveries" were made in recent times or not- it's about who is writing the history, what their bias is and what they intend to cover. History is bigger than a few books. Histories are open to bias, and none convers everything...not to mention historians are interpreters of history anyway.

Now, if I knew why you were telling us all this perhaps I could reply further.

I agree that about 5 ECF stated that Matthew wrote the words of Jesus or a gospel, “in the Hebrew tongue.” or “his native language,” which may have been Hebrew, but most likely was Aramaic....

..and then...

And as I said before if it was so important to God that Christianity be Jewish and Hebrew, why is there no manuscript evidence, whatsoever, supporting this?

Well, simply because the texts are not written in Hebrew (for obvious reasons, the lingua franca of the day was Greek, and the word should be spread, right?) does not mean that they are not primarily Jewish documents, written by Jews, with a Jewish concept of the Jewish Messiah. These little dealt-with facts would demand an interpretive prolegomena that justifies a predominantly Jewish paradigm.

“Hint at varying levels of Hebraic thought.” Is a long way from proving that God intended for Christianity to totally be Jewish/Hebraic.

Well, I had no intention to prove, nor does Charles for that matter, that Christianity is to be totally Jewish/Hebraic.

Perhaps you're arguing against something no one has postulated?


The Didache is only one writing. “Hebrew forms of prayer,” etc., in one writing does not substantiate the claims being presented here. And it is no surprise that the writings of early Christians reflect, to some degree, their respective backgrounds Jewish, Greek, or other. But that is not evidence that God intended all of Christianity to be Hebrew/Jewish or a Torah observant sub-sect of orthodox Judaism.

The problem you have here, is that no one is advocating that anyway- I certainly don't, and yet I am entirely Torah observant as is humanly possible in the 21stC as I was born to be. What you do and what you believe is your business.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.