Truth in Hammers?

[The 614th Mitzvot]

Do you think that the books of the Maccabee's are truth, or prophetic, or simple history. I have never read these books so I only know that the Talmudists didn't put them in because they were considered un-prophetic.

[R' Y'hoshua Moshe]

I would say it is like the Talmud, it is a helpful studyhelp, but not inspired, prophetic, or of divine origin.

Shalom brother,

Reuel

[The 614th Mitzvot]

I disagree, I think Talmud is of divine origin and that it has a divine purpose. I believe that it is truth, but since it was written b different men, I believe some is prophetic, and some is not. The Maccabees wrote truth in terms of history, but perhaps not prophetic. Has anyone read the Maccabees?

[R' Y'hoshua Moshe]

Shalom achi,

You stated...

I disagree

That is alright, we can disagree.

I think Talmud is of divine origin and that it has a divine purpose. I believe that it is truth, but since it was written b different men, I believe some is prophetic, and some is not.

Hmmm...you will be hard pressed to find any support for that in the scriptures (TeNaKh,Brit HaDashah). Also, I am sure that you are aware if you have read any of the Talmud that Yeshua disagreed with some of the sentiments found therein. In fact, we can see several places in the Brit HaDashah where He disagreed. So, basically that Talmud is a good study help, but by no means does the TeNaKh lend to it any authority, or does it suggest that it is of divine origin. We are disciples of Yeshua HaMashiach, He is the authority, He is our -only- rabbi. His disciples have been given divine authority in regards to halachah (the way in which we are to walk) for His disciples as found in the Brit HaDashah (Matt.16:19)...But, those whom we find in the Talmud whom do not belive in Yeshua HaMashiach neither have authority over us, or are they sent by G'd if they expressedly reject His Son. Perhaps we should rename this thread "Truth in Talmud?" as this seems to be the main subject.

Any thoughts?

Reuel

[Kallah]

B"H
Shalom achim:
There are Five Books of Maccabees. I've read
annotations of 1 and 2 Maccabees....
the historical narratives of the Jewish people fighting for the right to worship G-d. The writings of which are considered accurate historical acccount of the war that erupted in Yisrael in 167 B.C. when (the evil)Syrian king, Antiochus IV Epiphanes, decided to force the Jews to give up their religion and start worshipping Greek gods. I have not read all of five Maccabees, to give overall opinion. Though, there's no denying that Talmud and much of Jewish literature as a whole has been helpful in our examination of Scripture, I also admit there is much that is questionable and left to debate. Dodi Yeshua HaMashiach had much to object against the deceitful teachings of Jewish leaders, who hid under the mask of pious observance. Reuel and Yoahshoah I thought to furnish you the following (two) links. The data is lenghthly, and painsakenly appalling. However, worth examining. Take a moment, take your time, and draw your own conclusion. The Talmud: Judaism's holiest book documented and exposed EDIT: Link removed. Please see forum rules. theloveofgod.proboards3.com/index.cgi?board=guidlines&action=display&n=1&thread=23
JAHG-USA website
Jews and Hasidic Gentiles - United to Save America www.noahide.com/yeshu.htm
? ? ? ? ? ?

Shalom b'shem Yeshua, Kallah

[azumah]

I haven't read that much of the Talmud. I don't think, however, the part that suggests Yeshua's birth could have been the result of a Roman soldier having intercourse with Mary is divinely inspired.

[The 614th Mitzvot]

What I am saying is that it is probable that some of these men were G-d fearing and truthful while others were not.

[azumah]

"I think Talmud is of divine origin and that it has a divine purpose"

I disagree with this statement.

"What I am saying is that it is probable that some of these men were G-d fearing and truthful while others were not."

I agree with this statement.

[el Gusano]

I agree with that summary. The Talmud is not divine, but some of the writers were God-fearing. However, the Talmud does help us in understanding some of the Scriptures by word usage, etc.

[Mercedes]

shalom,
This is my first post, wow the smiley choices are great, I wish Mr.s Pac Man was one, then we could use a pac man when we wanted to eat our own words.
Okay here's my comment
Regarding Maccabees and Judith, Esther and Tobit. All these books were written in Greek and the Jews had all of them together but here was the dilema, If they were to cannonize them all together as one they would be considered as equal to the Hebrew scriptures and this they could not do. The Hebrew must be considered the pure language of God and therefore they put the status of those books as secondary only to make a distinction of the Hebrew from the Greek.

J Mercedes

[R' Y'hoshua Moshe]

Shalom jmcmercedes,

Welcome to HaAhava Elohim Discussion Forums! I encourage you to share your testimony in the apropriate area of this forum to get to know you a little more.

Regarding Maccabees and Judith, Esther and Tobit. All these books were written in Greek and the Jews had all of them together but here was the dilema, If they were to cannonize them all together as one they would be considered as equal to the Hebrew scriptures and this they could not do. The Hebrew must be considered the pure language of God and therefore they put the status of those books as secondary only to make a distinction of the Hebrew from the Greek.

I am just curious, what is your source for the information above?

I look forward to your future posts.

B'shem Yeshua HaMashiach (in the name of Yeshua The Messiah),

Reuel

[el Gusano]

Esther was written in Hebrew originally, but had some additions to the Greek version. Of the 270 verses, I believe that 107 of them were added in Greek. They were interspersed in chronological order (except in the Latin, they are put at the end, which renders them as meaningless). From all indications, Esther may not belong anywhere but the deuterocanonical books, as it appears to be more imaginative storytelling than history, and it seems to be based on exilic paganism. (Also, fragments of all OT books were found in the Dead See scrolls except for Esther.)

We have no complete Aramaic scrolls of Tobit, all we have is the Greek translation of them. However, we have found fragments that show it was originally in Aramaic.

If I'm not mistaken, the Maccabbees books are written with Hebrew (two dialects) and Greek, in an odd mixture. (I don't know if they have complete texts other than Greek of these.)

Judith also is one that is preserved only in the Greek, but we have older fragments that show that it was originally written in Hebrew. (All appearances are that this was also a fictitious tale based on the nucleus of a true story.)

It's interesting that scholars use the Maccabbees to prove that Daniel was not written when it says it was, and Jews don't accept it because it denies the truth of Daniel.**

**Part of what they use as proof is some references that date it later than the 6th century and some language that was not existant until the 2nd or 3rd century BC. Since the oldest manuscripts we have come much later than that, I find it odd that no one thinks that perhaps this was just part of the transmission of the original manuscripts (difference between 579 BC and 100 BC), much like the difference between the KJV and the ASV.

[Mercedes]

Good Morning,
Yes, FRAGMENTS of all these books have been found in the Hebrew, but the entirety of the books themsleves is preserved in GreeK.
The Greek Septuagint was compiled in 280 B.C. containting all the books we are now disputing. Neither Yeshua or the Apostles disputed this book. Then in 90-100 A.D. the Council of Jamnia led by Rabbi Ben Zakkai a pharisee and president of the sanhedrin determined 4 criteria had to be met for the Canon: the books had to conform to the Pentateuch, written in hebrew, written in Palestine, and written before 400 B.C.

So now books that were considered "inspired" for 400 years now are designated "Uninspired" and labeled Deuter (meaning secondary) by the authority of not Messiancs but rather the same Pharisee group that hunted and persecuted all the apostles even stoning
stephen. Acts 6:12 They seized stephen and brought him before the Sanhedrin.. and before they stoned him he spoke of them in Acts 7:51: You are just like your fathers: You always resist the Holy Spirit! was there ever a prophet your fathers did not persecute? They even killed those who predicted the coming of the righteous one. And now you have betrayed and murdered him..
The authority of the sanhedrin is what i dispute. The Septuagint stood alone for 400 years till the authority of the sanhedrin ruled against it.

www.jewishencyclopedia.com/index.jsp
this is a good place to start a study on Rabbi Zakkai and canon subjects.

J merecedes

[el Gusano]

Only parts of the Apocrypha have ever been considered canonical; others have always been excluded. There is sufficient reason to doubt the authenticity of many of these. The ones that have been included in the canon at one point or another are:

First Book of Esdras, Second Book of Esdras, Tobias, Judith, Additions to Esther, Wisdom, Baruch,, Epistle of Jeremiah, Book of Susanna, The Book of Bel and the Dragon, Prayer of Manasseh, First Book of Macabees, Second Book of Macabees, Sirach, Prayer of Azariah, Paul to the Laodiceans

The ones that are considered the pseudepigrapha are:

The Forgotten Books of Eden [1926]
This is a collection of pseudepigrapha, specifically:
The First Book of Adam and Eve
The Second Book of Adam and Eve
The Book of the Secrets of Enoch
The Psalms of Solomon
The Odes of Solomon
The Letter of Aristeas
Fourth Book of Maccabees
The Story of Ahikar
The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs
Testament of Reuben
Testament of Simeon
Testament of Levi
The Testament of Judah
The Testament of Issachar
The Testament of Zebulun
The Testament of Dan
The Testament of Naphtali
The Testament Of Gad
The Testament of Asher
The Testament of Joseph
The Testament of Benjamin

The Biblical Antiquities of Philo: An alternative pseudepigraphal narrative of the Hebrew Bible from Gensis through 1 Samuel, written in the first century C.E.

The Gospel of Thomas: These are reputedly the writings of the apostle 'Doubting Thomas'. This text purports to be a collection of the sayings of Jesus. Traditionally Thomas was Jesus' twin brother. This text shows strong Gnostic influence.

The Sibylline Oracles: The Sibylline books were oracular Roman scrolls. These are the pseudo-Sibylline Oracles. The reason they are cross-referenced here is because they have many similarities to early Christian writings, and they were quoted by the Church Fathers.

The Book of Enoch: Enoch introduced such concepts as fallen Angels, the Messiah, the Resurrection, and others.

The Book of Jubilees: The Book of Jubilees is a text from the 2nd century B.C.E. which covers much of the same ground as Genesis, with some interesting additional details. It may have been an intermediate form of Gensis which was incorporated into later versions.

Slavonic Life of Adam and Eve

The Books of Adam and Eve

The Book of Jasher

Excerpts from the Gospel of Mary: This fragment, of disputed authenticity, puts the relationship between Mary Magdalen, Jesus and the Apostles in a radically different perspective than traditional beliefs.


Here is a source for these and others not listed: www.comparative-religion.com/christianity/apocrypha/

[The 614th Mitzvot]

My point is this, that these books that were not put together by the Great Council, do not belong. They are good to teach and to show the way and they are divinly ordained in the fact that they survive. G-D has some plan for them and if he didn't we wouldn't even know that they existed. The Maccabee's is good, as is Talmud, but it cannot compare to scripture. I know this, but should we thow it away because it is not scripture.

Reuel, you said that scripture does not agree with the following of Talmud, yet did not Yohshuah HaMoshiach not say himself to follow the Ph'rushim and do what they say, but not as they do? I cannot seem to find the exact passage, but I will post it later on.