John Bernall

Sorry, the previous response I was going to post decided not to work in the manner I was expecting. I typed inside the quote and it seemed to add to what you were saying. Didn't want to give any confusion lol Anyways, according to the Talmud and rabbinical tradition, the presiding officer was a Pharisaic scholar, or Nasi (President) (Mantel, 1961; Hoenig, 1953). The position of Nasi was created in about 191 BCE when the Sanhedrin lost confidence in the ability of the high priests to serve as the head of their body. Not surprising, given that the high priest was often opposed to the Oral Law. This doesn't mean the High Priest wasn't present, nor does it mean that the office thereof had no reverence from the people. But ultimately, it was the zugot, the Nasi and Av Beit Din, that held authority, and it was through these that the religion progressed after the temple's destruction. The religion was geared towards a Judaism without temple or priesthood.

The Talmud is of course a Judaism religious book. It is divided into two major sections, the Mishnah and the Gemarah. In Judaism, the Rabbis teach that God gave a written Torah, and an oral Torah. The Oral Torah (Mishnah) was to be passed down verbally, thru the Priesthood etc. The Oral Torah was to provide more information and details on how the written Torah commandments were to be practiced. After Jesus time, when the Temple was destroyed, there was concern about the loss of this oral law without a Priesthood, Temple, and Jewish people being scattered, so what was remembered was written down. Just as a note, of the sects of Judaism of that time, only the Pharisees believed in this Oral Torah. The Sadducees and the Essenes did not believe that an oral law was actually handed down. The Gemarah is Rabbinical commentary/debates. In Jewish culture, debate is used to investigate a topic, and as a learning tool. The Gemarah is mostly Rabbinic debates. Each section of the Mishnah is also based on scripture. So you have the written law, and the oral explanation of that law, and then the Rabbinic debates. The Rabbis would look at scripture and oral law, and would take potential positions of the possible meaning and application. Some of these proposals are extreme. They would then debate the various stands. The Talmud does not really have the conclusion or final decision based on the debates. Pirkei Avot (Wisdom of the Fathers) 1:1 Moses received Torah from Sinai and handed it down to Joshua; and Joshua to the Elders; and the Elders to the Prophets; and the Prophets handed it down to the members of the Great Assembly. They said three things: Be deliberate in judgement, stand up many students, and make a fence for the Torah. This section describes the supposed chain of transmission of the Oral Torah. If you will notice, the final section mentions making a fence around the Torah. This fence is what Jesus spoke against in many instances. To make sure the law was not accidently broken, certain commands were expanded so that someone would not accidently break the command. A simple example that I have used is, if you believed that God told you to pray for someone, everyday for the next month, at 2 pm until 2:30 pm, most Christians would indeed pray at 2 pm to 2:30. But, what if you get busy, and miss the start time? What if you clock is off by 5 minutes? God did say 2 pm. Would you start at 1:50? (Most Christians I have asked agreed that they would start a little early because God was so specific about the time). Well, what if you clock is off the other way by 5 minutes? Would you finish praying at 2:40 to make sure you were praying at the right time? Most Christian I have asked agreed that they would pray a little longer. I think asked if perhaps, the times God gave were actually based on Israeli time. Would they set an alarm for 1:50 pm Israel time, and pray then also? Not as many Christians said they would do that, but many still said they would so as not to miss what God asked them to do. That is an example of a fence around the law. It is routed in the desire to do what God said, and not miss it. Some of the fences made by the Rabbis do go to some silly extremes. Some debates are very tedious, as they comb thru such fine details. The Talmud uses expressions which are very unique and difficult to understand without an explanation. They are like Jewish court room expressions, or Rabbinical slang. Just wanting to make some minor adjustments to the information . . . Qnts2: ". . . The Oral Torah (Mishnah) was to be passed down verbally, thru the Priesthood etc." ~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~ Not quite. The Oral Torah (Torah Sh'b'al-Peh) was not to be passed down through the Priests. You have actually cited below from the Oral Torah the main passage that tells us this. According to tradition it was passed through from Joshua, to the Judges, being the Elders, who were members equally chosen from all the tribes. And then, from them, to the Prophets, etc. Priests are not mentioned in this chain of custody, though some of the Elders were Priests and Levites. It may be interesting to note in Torah that the custody of the Torah was to be through the Priests and Levites. Like it's alluded to in the commandment for a King to write a copy of it (Deuteronomy 17:18): "Also it shall be, when he sits on the throne of his kingdom, that he shall write for himself a copy of this Law in a book, from the one before the Priests, the Levites." and it is also said (Deuteronomy 31:9): "So Moses wrote this Law and delivered it to the Priests, the sons of Levi, who bore the ark of the covenant of the LORD, and to all the elders of Israel." "For the lips of a Priest should keep knowledge, And people should seek the Law from his mouth; For he is the messenger of the LORD of Hosts." (Malachi 2.7) Ultimately what the Oral Torah did was to serve in the usurping of the Torah itself that was once in the hands of the Priests and Levites, especially after the destruction of the temple. ~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~ Qnts2: "The Oral Torah was to provide more information and details on how the written Torah commandments were to be practiced. After Jesus time, when the Temple was destroyed, there was concern about the loss of this oral law without a Priesthood, Temple, and Jewish people being scattered, so what was remembered was written down. Just as a note, of the sects of Judaism of that time, only the Pharisees believed in this Oral Torah. The Sadducees and the Essenes did not believe that an oral law was actually handed down." ~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~ Almost. The concern for loss of the oral law really had nothing to do with the loss of the temple and priesthood. They began to write it down because those who knew these traditions were becoming few and dying out. Many were being killed by Romans. Yochanan ben Zakkai was the one at Jerusalem's final siege who made a deal with the devil (Vespasian), and asked that the family of Hillel (Gamliel) be spared, and that they be allowed to move to Yav'neh. Few of the Sages were given leave to go with them, and they began the Palestinian accademy from which came the earlier redactions of the traditions and the beginning of the Tal'mud Y'rushal'mi, collecting what oral traditions they could (Mish'nah) and making up new things to add thereto (Gemara), they made further redactions (Tosefta). A bit more info on the sects then, there were 26-30 different sectaries. The pharisees were actually a small group, but noted for their stricture and observances. There still existed many other groups after the destruction of the temple and later Jerusalem itself, but they had assimilated into the Jewish communities they were in dispersion with. Good resources are "Sketches of Jewish Social Life" and "The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah" by Alfred Edersheim. ~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~ Qnts2: ". . . In Jewish culture, debate is used to investigate a topic, and as a learning tool. The Gemarah is mostly Rabbinic debates." ~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~ I'm not sure how to respond to this, because it's not quite correct, but at the same time, it's unofficially true concerning the Rabbinical lol Not all of Jewish culture was/is Rabbanic Centric. Not all have embraced the Talmud. There are the odd ones ~ the Karaites. There were those of an orthodoxy that refused Talmud into their midst. But as with most things that are persistent, it crept in. The same thing happened with Kabbalah. Most orthodoxy refused it. But ultimately it spread and became more acceptable. While there are some debates in the Tal'mud, to listen to a Mach'zor and participate and engage with it, isn't always debate. The teaching found in there are not always actual debates recorded. Sometimes it will say Rav-1 says, "thus n such," but Rav-2 has said, "this n that." And these two are more than likely from different regions or times and never met. In a Mach'zor Shiur, it's more listening to the M'lamed and by asking questions it becomes more investigative (as you have mentioned), searching every angle to a topic, even to the slightest detail of a letter's presence or lack thereof in a word. I sometimes miss the Daf Yomi classes. ~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~ Qnts2: "Each section of the Mishnah is also based on scripture." ~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~ No, not really. There's maybe 5% scripture to every Masekta (Section of a Book), and often times they are out of context or have little or nothing to do with the topic discussed. Though many of the topics are based upon Scriptural concepts, like the Sh'ma, Scripture itself is not as present in the Tal'mud. Everything else is based upon the sages interpretation of how it should be done - Halakhah. But some things, though based upon the text, are not actually what the text is saying or meaning. Example would be the first Mish'nah of the first Masekta concerning reciting the Sh'ma in the evening. It doesn't quote the Scripture, but merely refers to it. And the discussion being about when you recite Sh'ma in the evening completely neglects the Scripture that plainly says, "When you lie down" lol But that's nothing. There's no commandment in Torah to recite the Sh'ma. The Sh'ma itself is the commandment to speak of "all of these words" and teach them to your kids and such, and "all of these words" are the Ten Utterances in the previous chapter. So, yeah, they refer to text, but not to what it actually means. ~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~ Qnts2: Pirkei Avot (Wisdom of the Fathers) 1:1 Moses received Torah from Sinai and handed it down to Joshua; and Joshua to the Elders; and the Elders to the Prophets; and the Prophets handed it down to the members of the Great Assembly. They said three things: Be deliberate in judgement, stand up many students, and make a fence for the Torah. This section describes the supposed chain of transmission of the Oral Torah. If you will notice, the final section mentions making a fence around the Torah. This fence is what Jesus spoke against in many instances. To make sure the law was not accidently broken, certain commands were expanded so that someone would not accidently break the command. ~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~ Yesh, Mish'nah was the first fence; Gemara was the second; Tosefta was the third . . . then about 600-700 ce later Rabbis added stuff and continued until the medieval period. Savoraim, Geonim, and Rishonim, until the consolidation of the Shulkan Arukh, about 1550-1560? ~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~ Qnts2: "The Talmud uses expressions which are very unique and difficult to understand without an explanation. They are like Jewish court room expressions, or Rabbinical slang." ~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~ "Rabbinical slang" made me giggle. I remember those words. But how can I not, I still listen to Talmud Shiurim online. But yes, words like R'shuth v'Chovah ~ Permissive and Obligatory; and Maq'pid uMeqel ~ Strict and Lenient. I'll just say that my writing was an intro and overview of the Talmud. Not an overview of other Jews writings or the chain of authority. I disagree with a lot of what you wrote, but won't go into the details as this is an overview. Since the High Priest was to head the high court (Great Sanhedrin), the Priest were to be the final judges or ruling authority. The re-group in Yavneh, worked to slowly establish a Judaism, minue the Temple, the Priests etc. Yes, the legend of the Oral Law becoming written in the Talmud is tied tightly to the loss of the Temple, the Priesthood. And the development of a Judaism practiced in diaspora, without a Temple and the Priests. Yavneh was in my view, a power play, and power grab. Well I'm not going to argue with you, it would be fruitless. I know whereof I speak, and the learning I have gained in the History and understanding of Judaism as my faith and heritage. Be blessed

The Talmud is of course a Judaism religious book. It is divided into two major sections, the Mishnah and the Gemarah. In Judaism, the Rabbis teach that God gave a written Torah, and an oral Torah. The Oral Torah (Mishnah) was to be passed down verbally, thru the Priesthood etc. The Oral Torah was to provide more information and details on how the written Torah commandments were to be practiced. After Jesus time, when the Temple was destroyed, there was concern about the loss of this oral law without a Priesthood, Temple, and Jewish people being scattered, so what was remembered was written down. Just as a note, of the sects of Judaism of that time, only the Pharisees believed in this Oral Torah. The Sadducees and the Essenes did not believe that an oral law was actually handed down. The Gemarah is Rabbinical commentary/debates. In Jewish culture, debate is used to investigate a topic, and as a learning tool. The Gemarah is mostly Rabbinic debates. Each section of the Mishnah is also based on scripture. So you have the written law, and the oral explanation of that law, and then the Rabbinic debates. The Rabbis would look at scripture and oral law, and would take potential positions of the possible meaning and application. Some of these proposals are extreme. They would then debate the various stands. The Talmud does not really have the conclusion or final decision based on the debates. Pirkei Avot (Wisdom of the Fathers) 1:1 Moses received Torah from Sinai and handed it down to Joshua; and Joshua to the Elders; and the Elders to the Prophets; and the Prophets handed it down to the members of the Great Assembly. They said three things: Be deliberate in judgement, stand up many students, and make a fence for the Torah. This section describes the supposed chain of transmission of the Oral Torah. If you will notice, the final section mentions making a fence around the Torah. This fence is what Jesus spoke against in many instances. To make sure the law was not accidently broken, certain commands were expanded so that someone would not accidently break the command. A simple example that I have used is, if you believed that God told you to pray for someone, everyday for the next month, at 2 pm until 2:30 pm, most Christians would indeed pray at 2 pm to 2:30. But, what if you get busy, and miss the start time? What if you clock is off by 5 minutes? God did say 2 pm. Would you start at 1:50? (Most Christians I have asked agreed that they would start a little early because God was so specific about the time). Well, what if you clock is off the other way by 5 minutes? Would you finish praying at 2:40 to make sure you were praying at the right time? Most Christian I have asked agreed that they would pray a little longer. I think asked if perhaps, the times God gave were actually based on Israeli time. Would they set an alarm for 1:50 pm Israel time, and pray then also? Not as many Christians said they would do that, but many still said they would so as not to miss what God asked them to do. That is an example of a fence around the law. It is routed in the desire to do what God said, and not miss it. Some of the fences made by the Rabbis do go to some silly extremes. Some debates are very tedious, as they comb thru such fine details. The Talmud uses expressions which are very unique and difficult to understand without an explanation. They are like Jewish court room expressions, or Rabbinical slang. Just wanting to make some minor adjustments to the information . . . Qnts2: ". . . The Oral Torah (Mishnah) was to be passed down verbally, thru the Priesthood etc." ~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~ Not quite. The Oral Torah (Torah Sh'b'al-Peh) was not to be passed down through the Priests. You have actually cited below from the Oral Torah the main passage that tells us this. According to tradition it was passed through from Joshua, to the Judges, being the Elders, who were members equally chosen from all the tribes. And then, from them, to the Prophets, etc. Priests are not mentioned in this chain of custody, though some of the Elders were Priests and Levites. It may be interesting to note in Torah that the custody of the Torah was to be through the Priests and Levites. Like it's alluded to in the commandment for a King to write a copy of it (Deuteronomy 17:18): "Also it shall be, when he sits on the throne of his kingdom, that he shall write for himself a copy of this Law in a book, from the one before the Priests, the Levites." and it is also said (Deuteronomy 31:9): "So Moses wrote this Law and delivered it to the Priests, the sons of Levi, who bore the ark of the covenant of the LORD, and to all the elders of Israel." "For the lips of a Priest should keep knowledge, And people should seek the Law from his mouth; For he is the messenger of the LORD of Hosts." (Malachi 2.7) Ultimately what the Oral Torah did was to serve in the usurping of the Torah itself that was once in the hands of the Priests and Levites, especially after the destruction of the temple. ~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~ Qnts2: "The Oral Torah was to provide more information and details on how the written Torah commandments were to be practiced. After Jesus time, when the Temple was destroyed, there was concern about the loss of this oral law without a Priesthood, Temple, and Jewish people being scattered, so what was remembered was written down. Just as a note, of the sects of Judaism of that time, only the Pharisees believed in this Oral Torah. The Sadducees and the Essenes did not believe that an oral law was actually handed down." ~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~ Almost. The concern for loss of the oral law really had nothing to do with the loss of the temple and priesthood. They began to write it down because those who knew these traditions were becoming few and dying out. Many were being killed by Romans. Yochanan ben Zakkai was the one at Jerusalem's final siege who made a deal with the devil (Vespasian), and asked that the family of Hillel (Gamliel) be spared, and that they be allowed to move to Yav'neh. Few of the Sages were given leave to go with them, and they began the Palestinian accademy from which came the earlier redactions of the traditions and the beginning of the Tal'mud Y'rushal'mi, collecting what oral traditions they could (Mish'nah) and making up new things to add thereto (Gemara), they made further redactions (Tosefta). A bit more info on the sects then, there were 26-30 different sectaries. The pharisees were actually a small group, but noted for their stricture and observances. There still existed many other groups after the destruction of the temple and later Jerusalem itself, but they had assimilated into the Jewish communities they were in dispersion with. Good resources are "Sketches of Jewish Social Life" and "The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah" by Alfred Edersheim. ~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~ Qnts2: ". . . In Jewish culture, debate is used to investigate a topic, and as a learning tool. The Gemarah is mostly Rabbinic debates." ~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~ I'm not sure how to respond to this, because it's not quite correct, but at the same time, it's unofficially true concerning the Rabbinical lol Not all of Jewish culture was/is Rabbanic Centric. Not all have embraced the Talmud. There are the odd ones ~ the Karaites. There were those of an orthodoxy that refused Talmud into their midst. But as with most things that are persistent, it crept in. The same thing happened with Kabbalah. Most orthodoxy refused it. But ultimately it spread and became more acceptable. While there are some debates in the Tal'mud, to listen to a Mach'zor and participate and engage with it, isn't always debate. The teaching found in there are not always actual debates recorded. Sometimes it will say Rav-1 says, "thus n such," but Rav-2 has said, "this n that." And these two are more than likely from different regions or times and never met. In a Mach'zor Shiur, it's more listening to the M'lamed and by asking questions it becomes more investigative (as you have mentioned), searching every angle to a topic, even to the slightest detail of a letter's presence or lack thereof in a word. I sometimes miss the Daf Yomi classes. ~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~ Qnts2: "Each section of the Mishnah is also based on scripture." ~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~ No, not really. There's maybe 5% scripture to every Masekta (Section of a Book), and often times they are out of context or have little or nothing to do with the topic discussed. Though many of the topics are based upon Scriptural concepts, like the Sh'ma, Scripture itself is not as present in the Tal'mud. Everything else is based upon the sages interpretation of how it should be done - Halakhah. But some things, though based upon the text, are not actually what the text is saying or meaning. Example would be the first Mish'nah of the first Masekta concerning reciting the Sh'ma in the evening. It doesn't quote the Scripture, but merely refers to it. And the discussion being about when you recite Sh'ma in the evening completely neglects the Scripture that plainly says, "When you lie down" lol But that's nothing. There's no commandment in Torah to recite the Sh'ma. The Sh'ma itself is the commandment to speak of "all of these words" and teach them to your kids and such, and "all of these words" are the Ten Utterances in the previous chapter. So, yeah, they refer to text, but not to what it actually means. ~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~ Qnts2: Pirkei Avot (Wisdom of the Fathers) 1:1 Moses received Torah from Sinai and handed it down to Joshua; and Joshua to the Elders; and the Elders to the Prophets; and the Prophets handed it down to the members of the Great Assembly. They said three things: Be deliberate in judgement, stand up many students, and make a fence for the Torah. This section describes the supposed chain of transmission of the Oral Torah. If you will notice, the final section mentions making a fence around the Torah. This fence is what Jesus spoke against in many instances. To make sure the law was not accidently broken, certain commands were expanded so that someone would not accidently break the command. ~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~ Yesh, Mish'nah was the first fence; Gemara was the second; Tosefta was the third . . . then about 600-700 ce later Rabbis added stuff and continued until the medieval period. Savoraim, Geonim, and Rishonim, until the consolidation of the Shulkan Arukh, about 1550-1560? ~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~ Qnts2: "The Talmud uses expressions which are very unique and difficult to understand without an explanation. They are like Jewish court room expressions, or Rabbinical slang." ~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~ "Rabbinical slang" made me giggle. I remember those words. But how can I not, I still listen to Talmud Shiurim online. But yes, words like R'shuth v'Chovah ~ Permissive and Obligatory; and Maq'pid uMeqel ~ Strict and Lenient.

I thought it was because we wouldn't have to remember the pain by getting it done that early in life just kidding heheh

Thank you for your references. I must point out, however, being quite familiar with the Shem Tob and other Hebrew versions of the time, that the Shem Tob, aka Even Bohan, is a corrupt translation that was coupled with a commentary geared towards refuting Christian doctrine by Medieval Rabbis. When I was a practicing Jew this particular commentary was often referred in referenced materials. There are many subtleties to the text, and how it denies Yeshua as being Messiah, even from the very first pasuq/verse: Eleh Tol'doth Yesh'u Ben David, Ben Avraham – This is the generations of Yesh'u, the son of David, the son of Av'raham. Notice “Mashiach” is missing? The only time “Mashiach” is ever applied to Yeshua in the text is when he is referred to as Mashiach by others, or when it is qualified with the statement “who was called” or “who was believed to be” or other similar manners. Whenever the text directly refers to Him as being Mashiach, it switches it up a bit. Examples (all 17): 1.1 Already shared above . . . 1.16 Who is called Mashiach, just as regular Matthew would put it, but it doesn't directly say he IS Mashiach, only that he was called so. 1.17 Which should say: “ and from the exile into Bavel until the Mashiach are fourteen generations.” in Shem Tob reads: “and from the exile into Bavel until Yesh'u fourteen generations.” - removing “the Mashiach” 1.18 Which should read: “Now the birth of Yeshua ha Mashiach was . . .”, reads in the Shem Tob: “Vay'liduth MYesh'u (מיש''ו) hu . . .” What we have here is another acronym like “Yesh'u” (יש''ו – Which I forgot to explain is Y'makh' Sh'mo V'Zikh'rono “His name and memory be blotted out”). The “M” in Myesh'u may be thought of as referring to Mashiach, but it isn't. The “M” in Myesh'u refers to Mamzer. The direct statement that he is “the Mashiach” is removed. 2.4 The Shem Tob does say: “he inquired of them where the Mashiach was to be born.” However, subtly it is not directly referring to Yeshua (in the Rabbis' eyes), but to the teaching of where Mashiach is to be born. 11.2 Shem Tob changes “when Yochanan had heard in prison about the works of Mashiach . . .” to “when Yochanan had heard in prison about the works of Yesh'u . . .” 16.16 When Shim'on called Yeshua the Mashiach, the Shem Tob kept it. However, it must be understood that it is Shim'on calling Him Mashiach, and they (the Rabbis) consider Shim'on a retard anyways. The Shem Tob version in keeping this in the text itself is not giving credence to Yeshua being Mashiach (in the Rabbis' eyes), it is only recording that Shim'on (actually) called him this. 16.20 Same kind of concept. It is not saying that He is Mashiach (in the Rabbis' eyes). 22.42 Is just a general question concerning the Mashiach. 23.8 Which says: “You, be not called Rabbi, for one is your Rabbi, the Mashiach . . .” However in the Shemmy Tubby “The Mashiach” is removed, but this is also true of the Latin Gospel (Vulgata) that this Hebrew rendition derived its translation from. So it may be coincidence. 23.10 Retains “The Mashiach”, but this is a general understanding of who he will be and doesn't necessarily refer to Yeshua (in the Rabbis' eyes). 24.5 “For many will come in My name, saying, I am the Mashiach, and will deceive many.” What's not always understood about this statement of Yeshua's is that those coming in His Name, are not saying they themselves are the Mashiach, but are confirming that Yeshua is Mashiach (according to how the Greek can be rendered). The Rabbis manipulate the emphasis of meaning here a bit, and keep it as is by interpreting it to mean evil, for it goes on to say “and will deceive many.” 24.23 is left as is also, for it doesn't necessarily refer to Yeshua as being Mashiach (in the Rabbis' eyes). 26.63 is left as is also, for it doesn't necessarily refer to Yeshua as being Mashiach (in the Rabbis' eyes). 26.68 is left as is also, for it doesn't necessarily refer to Yeshua as being Mashiach (in the Rabbis' eyes). 27.17 is left as is also, for it doesn't necessarily refer to Yeshua as being Mashiach (in the Rabbis' eyes). 27.22 is left as is also, for it doesn't necessarily refer to Yeshua as being Mashiach (in the Rabbis' eyes). I think using the shem tob as a reference for some Hebraic grasp on the Gospels is a mistake that Nehemia Gorden shouldn't have encouraged. It's like using a letter opener in a sword fight. It's the wrong tool for the wrong work. I recommend the 5th edition (not 6th that ffoz uses) of the Delitzsch Ha B'rith Ha Chadashah. My first NT was the 5th edition Delitzsch. He strove to make his version comparable to the Hebrew of the Tanakh. What ffoz has in their Hebrew Gospels wasn't actually Delitzsch's work, but someone's who took over the task when he died. Delitzsch first began to use the Critical Text Manuscripts (CTMs), like Nestle Aland, Westcott and Hort – with Textus Receptus (TR) and other Majority Texts in footnotes. But finding himself to be in disagreement with many of the CTMs he decided to use only TR and Majority texts. When he died, the one who took over his work went back to using those CTMs, because they were the latest craze, I guess lol. As for the Church Fathers seeing a Hebrew Matthew; and I can only refer to the letters I have seen and read by them, though they saw a Matthew (and maybe even a Hebrews) written in Hebrew Letters, they were not necessarily in the Hebrew Language, according to the Latin and Greek letters I've read on the matter. What the church fathers have seen was more likely an early Aramaic version. As an example, even Jerome wrote about looking into the text: “Denique Matthaeus, qui evangelium Hebraeo sermone conscripsit, ita posuit: Osanna barrama, id est: Osanna in excelsis.” “In short, Matthew, who wrote down the good news of the Hebrew speech, put it in such a way: Osanna Barrama, that is Osanna in the highest.” (Jerome, letter to Damascus, commentary on Matthew 21.9) Hebraeo Sermone, Hebrew speech, doesn't necessarily mean the Language of Hebrew itself, but rather a manner of speech or dialect they may have spoke, whether Hebrew or Aramaic. His transliteration of “Osanna Barrama” reflects an Aramaic dialect. Though He wrote it incorrectly a bit, I think. It should have been transliterated “Osanna Bamrome” (אושענא במרומא) which would have been reflecting the Hebrew phrase Hosha-na Bamromim (הושע-נא במרומים). I don't mean to nit pick. As for the Hebrew versions seen by the fathers, I'm more of the impression that they saw Aramaic versions, though I haven't read all accounts by them. I don't agree with the Aramaic primacy argument either, but that's another story. Thank you for your answers, they were helpful in understanding where you are coming from. Shalom

Which (Hebrew) version of the New Testament are you using? Or is this simply based upon the idea that those who know Hebrew would be able to understand that, even though it is in Greek, we would realize that the Hebrew puns and plays could be read this way? I don't quite see actual word plays in most of these, I also perceive some errors in the Hebrew, like “Nazarith” נאזרית - this would be more of a transliteration from Greek (ναζαρετ) into Hebrew. Nazareth in Hebrew would be N'tzareth (נְצָרֶת). I'm not meaning to be argumentative. I'm only curious as to where you are getting your information, that perhaps there's something I don't know in the universe heheh (as if I know it all - hahaha) Blessings

In a nut shell, the Tal'mud is the written record of the "traditions" developed by the Jewish elders between the Babylonian exile and approximately 250 years after the second temple's destruction. These are the things Yeshua mentioned in saying (Mark 7:6-9,13): "Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written: 'This people honors Me with their lips, but their heart is far from Me. And in vain they worship Me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.' For laying aside the commandment of God, you hold the tradition of men - the washing of pitchers and cups, and many other such things you do. . . . All too well you reject the commandment of God, that you may keep your tradition. . . . making the word of God of no effect through your tradition which you have handed down. And many such things you do."

this is a very good viewpoint, and i had almost written it off until i read "but Pro. also seems to be saying the Word was also created by God as an extension of Himself." essentially i was thinking it was going to lead into a "Jesus was a creation too" kind of thing. however, this word in the Hebrew more accurately defines "possessed" or "acquired", but Kanah, when referring to the creating of a thing, it is not the making of a thing as much as it is the establishment of a thing. like creating a star out of a nobody. the person exists already, but they have received a different, more lofty station. for context the next verse (23) says: "from everlasting I was established (even: annointed 5258) from the Head, from the antiquities of the earth." this is also used in Psalm 2 where the Lord states "...I have established (or: anointed) My King on My holy mountain fo Tziyon". John

i skimmed through this thread just to find a shakespeare reference so i can share something i learned in poetry class. will shakespeare had a friend who was a translator for the 1611 project. and for his 46th birthday, he translated the 46th psalm with him in mind if you count 46 words from "God" in verse 1, you come to "shake", and count 46 words backwards from "refuge" in verse 11 (because "Selah" wasn't considered a word, but a musical sign of some sort) and you come to "speare". but to the original post, just to nit-pick... "help" and "meet" don't belong together to form one word. that is always a problem i find with KJV only peeps... they don't know the language it's simply a "help" (aka helper) "meet" (that is, "comparable with"...) like John the Baptist says in Mat 3:8 "...bring forth fruits meet (comparable with / worthy of) repentance." as for the NIV's missing scriptures. it isn't missing any when you look at the greek manuscripts it was translated from. and older doesn't mean better. there are greek texts just as old as the ones used for the NIV that match up with the Received Text/Byzantine Tradition, and there are more manuscripts that line up with the Received Text/Byzantine Tradition which is why they are called Majority Texts. John

shalom, i'm going to assume, and probably correctly, that the person presenting this video was a Jew, like myself (though i am a believer of Messiah, Yeshua). he's not confused so much as he is 1. blind to what scripture says, as it is written that blindness has come upon Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles comes in, or 2. is being deliberately misleading concerning the application of these scriptures pertaining to Messiah. you are correct in your understanding of these pertaining to the second coming. non-believing Jews say it isn't so because, for many, within the confines of a single verse it jumps from referencing His first coming to His second coming (or what believers think are the 1st and 2nd comings, in their eyes), and this supposedly goes against the context of the prophecy. In Messiah, John

here's another, but without the fonts for this weeks Torah reading... Name Interpretations: Sh

Shalom, the "rapture" is going to happen, no doubt about that. "when" becomes the main theme of debate. many seem to think of the "rapture" in terms of the tribulation and its time line. but this is not the main "signpost" of its occurance. the resurrection itself is that signpost, as Paul himself states: "the dead in Messiah rise first...etc" plain and simple enough, "then we who are alive and remaining...etc". the dead rising is resurrection. so when does this occur? though the actual date and time are not specifically given, the order of events are: But immediately after the tribulation of those days, the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall down from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. [cp. Isaiah 34:4; Joel 2:10; 2:31] And then the sign of the Son of man will appear in the heavens; and then all the tribes of the earth will beat their breasts, and they will see the Son of man coming on the clouds of the heavens, with power and great glory! [Dan 7:13] ~Mattai 24:30 And I saw the heavens having been opened. And look! A white horse, and the One sitting on it is being called Faithful and True, and He judges and wages war in righteousness. Now His eyes are like a flame of fire, and on His head are many diadems having names having been written on them, and a name having been written which no one knows, except Himself, and having been clothed with a robe having been covered with blood, and His name is called, The Word of Elohim. And the armies, the ones in heaven (the angels?), were following Him on white horses, having clothed themselves with fine linen, bright and clean. And out of His mouth proceeds a sharp, double-edged sword, so that with it He should strike down the nations. And He will shepherd them with an iron staff. And He Himself treads the winepress of the wine of the rage of the wrath of Elohim, the Almighty. And He has on the robe and on His thigh a name having been written, "King of kings and Lord of lords." ~Revelation 19:11-16 And He will send forth His angels with the sound of a loud shofar (horn) blast, and they will gather together His chosen ones from the four winds, from the farthest limits of the heavens to the other farthest limits of them. [Exod 19:16; Deut 30:4] ~Mattai 24:31 Mar'kos puts it this way: And then He will send out His angels, and He will gather together His chosen ones from the four winds, from the farthest limits of the earth to the farthest limits of the heavens. ~Mar'kos 13:27 For this we say to you by the word of Adonai, that we, the ones living, the ones being left until the Arrival of Adonai, by no means shall precede the ones having fallen asleep. Because Adonai Himself with a shout of command, with the voice of an archangel and with the shofar (horn) of Elohim, will descend from heaven, and the dead in Mashi'ach will be risen up first, then we, the ones living, the ones being left, will be caught up together with them in the clouds to a meeting of Adonai in the air, and in this manner (ressurected & changed) we will always be with Adonai! ~1 Tas'lonikim 4:15-17 Listen! I tell you a secret: We indeed will not all sleep, but we will all be changed, in a moment, in a blinking of an eye, at the last shofar (horn), for it will sound, and the dead will be raised incorruptible, and we also will be changed! For it is necessary for this corruptible to put on incorruption, and this mortal to put on immortality. Now when this corruptible shall put on incorruption, and this mortal shall put on immortality, then will happen the word, the one having been written, "Death was swallowed up into victory." [isaiah 25:8] ~1 Korin'tiyim 15:51-54 And I saw thrones, and they sat on them, and judgment was given to them, and the souls of the ones having been beheaded because of the testimony of Yeshua and because of the word of Elohim, and who did not prostrate themselves in worship before the beast nor his image and did not receive the mark on their forehead and on their hand. And they lived and reigned with Mashi'ach for the thousand years. But the rest of the dead did not live until the thousand years are completed. This is the first resurrection. ~Revelation 20:4,5 many are fearful of this outcome, fearing tribulation. we are not appointed to wrath is a fair verse to point out in this instance. look to the children of Yis'rael while in Mitz'rayim (Egypt) during the rage of the wrath of Adonai then. they were still there, in Mitz'rayim (Egypt), in Goshen גשן . but they were not affected by the plagues that fell upon Mitz'rayim (Egypt). Goshen גשן is an interesting word which seems to have no definition in Strong's, though Brown Diver Briggs seems to define it as "Drawing Near". However, Goshen make me think of the word Geyshan גישן, from a root Gush גוש; or Gish גישׁ, meaning, variously, lump of earth, earthy, earthiness and earthbound. much love and blessing in Yeshua, John

the funny thing about Job's statement, that the earth is hung on nothing is that it doesn't literally mean nothing. He stretches out the north over empty space; He hangs the earth on nothing (בלי־מה). Job 26:7 these words for nothing, Beli-mah (בלי־מה), literally mean "Without What?" it is an expression not meaning "Nothingness", but pertains to the "Ineffible", that is, something inexpressible due to the lack of science or vocabulary pertaining to its existence. so he wasn't saying that it hangs on nothing, but that what it hangs on is beyond comprehension. i know this has little or nothing to do with the discussion in general, but i thought it interesting to share. John

i noticed most have jumped on the "corners of the earth" thing, so i will hit the bats In Hebrew, bats are birds, not because they are called birds, but because all flying creatures whether bats or eagles are simply called winged flying creatures. Animals in general are classified in Hebrew by their actions, flyers, swimmers, or simply living creature. these three catagories do have subcatagories as well. John