Camouflaging the Law of Moses
In today's age, people insist that the Christian Bible's basic message has remained unchanged since the beginning of its authorship. They argue that the Supreme G-d, blessed be His Name, would not take on the task of presenting humankind with a written message only to permit gross corruption of such a message to happen. There are several major falacies here. First, they have naturally assumed that the New Testament is indeed from G-d. Second, they have assumed and that it has the same message that first generation founders taught. Third, they have disregard that G-d, in his Divine wisdom, gave mankind the ability to be free thinkers--to choose to act in all manner of ways, corrupt and incorrupt and thus has indeed empowered mankind to corrupt His Word. Even moreso, it is hard to envision our own religion as participating in such corruption. But with so many different mistranslations and with so many people receiving opposing views from what they read, we can only conclude that such corruption does indeed exist and has it has indeed destroyed the original message of the New Testament. Still, such a conclusion is only opinion. Thus, it is our own responsibility to ensure we are not being misled. We must take upon ourselves the dedication to find Truth.
If it were true that G-d would not go to the trouble to give us His Word if He was then going to allow it to be corrupted, there would not be a single society who would not uphold anything but His Truth. But instead, there are all manner of religions, faiths, doctrines and practices. If one were to take inventory all the number of souls who have lived thoughout time and examine their beliefs and practices, we would find only a remnant who are indeed following or believing in the Truths of G-d.
Any time the translation process occurs, there is an inevitable adding and taking away from the Bible. This is not to say necessarily that making a translation is wrong as this is sometimes necessary. It's just to say that if a person desires to know the most accurate understanding of G-d's message, the most important thing for him to do is to stay away from translations and examine the source which is acceptedly "original." This source is the Hebrew text.
Contrary to what most people think, the Greek texts of the New Testament are not originals. The original New Testament books are lost. The Greek manuscripts are under scrutiny by Christian scholars who endeavor to find the most accurate version of the New Testament they can find. In their research, scholars have concluded that the gospels have come from a hypothetical book which they have called "Q." It is their belief that this theoretical book contained only the sayings of Jesus and that the gospel writers added quotes from this source.
In doing the research, scholars have determined that a healthy percentage of the New Testament contains "Christian interpolations" or "interpolations of the Church." An "interpolation" is a nice way of saying that the Church edited the books, sometimes adding to them or taking away from them. There is no question that the first generation Christians changed the Greek books of the New Testament as well as other writings of the Early Church Fathers. The early Church Fathers even testify to the fact that others were making false books. This is not questioned by historians nor by clergy. "The Acts of Paul and Thecla" is a good example of a forgery. It was written by a presbyter of Asia. Its author admitted to the deed after being charged by other leaders of the Church and was deposed for it. Tertulian records the event in De baptismo 17.
Evidence of "Christian interpolation" remains to this day and is clear to anyone desiring examination of his Bible. A person needs only to read the Hebrew Tanach and Greek New Testament to see this. Many weak laymen who have learned Hebrew or Greek will actually refuse to admit such a thing believing that admitting it would threaten their personal confession of the Bible or their religion, or what they consider is "scripture." Or perhaps such admission would threaten their own status as a Christian, their faith or their salvation. Others who are sturdy in their faith, find that admitting such practice changes nothing. Nevertheless, anyone with a heart to study the languages can verify the practice for himself and is challenged by me to do so. It's the only way he can know for sure.
One of the problems facing the Roman Church was what the Jewish followers and their alleged messiah (Jesus) taught concerning the eternity of Law of Moses. Rome wanted to suppress any New Testament meantion of Torah observance, its permanence, or its relevance to the gentile. But it had to do this delicately, without notice, otherwise it could lose the trust of those who were allegiant to such "scripture." So while Rome made an outward and frontal human attack to dissolve Judaism and overpower the Church, much of the teachings of and about Yeshua, Paul, James, Peter, and the Jewish followers underwent subtle changes so as to not offend the Church. Those who fought against these changes were killed.
Many of these modifications are recognizable today, particularly the anti-Semitic ones. But others were so slight especially those regarding the Torah that many gentiles have mistakenly formed messianic congregations. These congregations insist upon observing the Commandments that are only the responsibility of the Jew. But even though they insist upon observing them, these messianic congregations simultaneously distrust the Seat of Moses (rabbinic authority) and any instruction or interpretation rabbis provide because of the many anti-Semitic and anti-Pharisaic emmandations made by the Romans which remain in the New Testament to this day.
The Early Church was zealous for the Law of Moses
One of the examples where there is clear cut evidence that the Church taught the Torah and the Noahide Commandments can be found in the Book of Acts. In chapter 21, verse 20, we learn that there were thousands of Jews who were zealots for the Torah even though they accepted Jesus as Messiah. James and Paul were also Jews who were zealous for the Torah. In this passage, James addresses rumors that Paul was teaching that familiar modern Church doctrine: "We are no longer under the Law of Moses." To prove that Paul didn't accept such doctrine, James asks him to go with certain men who were taking a Nazarite vow and be purified with them in a Temple ritual "so that all would know that there is nothing to these rumors about you." Instead of rebutting James and saying something to the effect of "But brother James, I am teaching these things. You need to stop Judaizing!" as the modern Church might teach, Paul follows James's instructions and observes the Temple sacrifice. In fact, the rest of the book of Acts, seven chapters in all, are devoted to telling how Paul appeared to the multitude, the Sanhedrin, governors Felix and Festus, and king Agrippa to defend himself against the false accusation that he was teaching such doctrines.
Notice that in this part of the story, not only has Jesus died and allegedly been resurrected, but according to Christianity, the Church had already been established and the "outpouring of the Holy Spirit" had already taken place. It was now the new dispensation. Paul had already gone to all the congregations throughout the Roman world and his gospel had already been spread amongst the gentiles. If there were no longer a need for the Temple or its sacrificial system in this "new covenant" as people claim today, why then doesn't Paul rebuke James at this point and not agree do the things James asks?
The truth of the matter is, these Jews were no different than regular Jews in theology and practice. They only believed that Jesus was their messiah. The early Jewish believers kept all the Law of Moses. But notice that we find a strange message in verse 25: "And as for the Gentiles who believe...." It is clear that regarding observation of the Torah, there is a distinct difference between Jewish believers and Gentile believers. Christian translators simply do not understand the passage because they are not Jewish. But to the Jew, the answer is obvious. With the proper translation, we can see that four of the Seven Noahide Commandments are listed by James in this passage.
What James said about the Noahide Laws
To see what James said here, we must correct the mistranslations. The first problem is with the English phrase "from meat offered to idols." The Greek phrase to te eidolothyton means in its literal order, "the things [with respect to] idol-offering." ("Idol-offering"--eidolothyton--is a noun describing a material thing, not a conceptual one.) The translators should have translated it, "...from things relating to idol-sacrifice." Instead they mistranslate, "from food offered to idols." The English translators assume that the subject is meat because the word eidolothyton means the victim itself, not the act of idol sacrifice. But the things which are related to idol-sacrifice victims are both the physical and conceptual--otherwise, idolatry. Another translation could be "from anything related to idol-sacrifice victims." The question is, how do we know? Chapter 15 of the book of Acts clarifies that this is the case. In verse 20 where the four Commandments are listed again the author chooses a different way to say the same thing: "from the filth of idols" (eidolon=images, likenesses=idolatry). Once again here, the word eidolon means the idol itself, not the action of idolatry. But the fact that the intent refers to the filth (or pollution) of idols, the context once again refers to idolatry. Verse 29 of this chapter repeats the list.
Think about it. Paul himself wrote that eating meat offered to idols is permitted as long as one does not cause
his brother to stumble. (1 Corinthians 8:9-13) So if the Church was harmonious in thought, why would James write a blanket command to abstain from meat offered to idols, while Paul would write that eating meat offered to idols is okay? Weren't the forefathers of the Early Church harmonious?
The next thing to discuss is what is mistranslated as "blood" in today's English translations. The Greek word is haima. Haima does indeed mean blood. But translators forget that haima also means "bloodshed," depending upon context. For example, out of context, the word "watch" can have at least two meanings. It could mean "a time indicator" or it could mean "the act of looking." Only context reveals which meaning the word represents. If someone were to say that they intend to have their watch repaired, nobody would think that the word refered to doing something relative to sight because the context definitely refers to "a time indicator." In the case of haima in this verse, it is obviously that the context is Noahide since the subject at hand is commandments to Gentiles. Since Paul and James were Jews after the Pharisaic persuasion and believed in following what Yeshua stated in Matthew 23:1-3, the word haima can only mean "bloodshed" (or if you will, "murder") in this context and not "blood." (Even the Church agrees that there is nothing wrong with the eating of blood.)
Like the phrase to te eidolothyton, the Greek word pniktos is also translated verbosely and wrong in today's translations. Pniktos literally means "an animal choked to death," that is, "strangled." But this is not it meaning in this case. It should only be translated with the Hebrew word treyfe which also literally means "torn" or "strangled." When a lion killed its prey, it did so by strangling, tearing, and breaking of its victims flesh and bones. At one point in history, people who were not aware of G-d's Noahic Commandments might have at one time stolen this type of meat from a predator. But a descendant of Noah, being obligated to the Seven Noahide Laws, would recognize that such meat is prohibited. Why? Because in Genesis 9:4, G-d commands against eating it. A Noahide would then refer to such meat as "treyfe," meaning "torn" or "strangled." When the Torah was given to Israel, the same word was used by Jews to refer to the more unkosher meats and foods. Thus, the word became a reference to any meat or food forbidden to eat. The word is still used to this day. It would be absurd to refer to treyfe grape juice (the modern way of saying "unkosher grape juice") as "strangled grape juice," its literal meaning. Pniktos therefore translates most properly as treyfe, meaning (though not literally) "unkosher." And to Gentiles, treyfe foods are the foods prohibited to gentiles, that is, as G-d commanded, "a limb cut from an animal which has it's lifeblood still in it" (that which is still alive). (The prohibition is designed with the kindness of animals in mind--animals need their limbs while they are alive, thus it is forbidden to remove a limb from a living animal. The beast must be slaughtered first.)
Correcting the mistranslations and applying their true meanings, the passage in Acts should be more literally rendered this way: "As for the Gentile believers..., they should abstain from
things with respect to idol-sacrifice (that is, idolatry); from bloodshed (that is, murder); from treyfe (that is, from
eating a limb cut from an animal which is still alive), and sexual immorality." So the average reader can understand the passage easier, it can be better translated this way: "As for the Gentile believers..., they should abstain from idolatry, from murder, from removing a limb from a living animal, and from sexual immorality."
These four "commandments" meantioned by James are actually four of the Seven Noahide Commandments. James left out the Commandment to not blaspheme G-d, the Commandment to not steal, and the Commandment to observe courts of justice. Most if not all Christians would agree that the three Commandments left out by James should be obeyed, none-the-less. (For they can even be found elsewhere in the New Testament.) Most Christians have already been taught by their Sunday school teachers to obey the laws of the land, to not blaspheme the "holy spirit" (G-d), and to not steal.
So then why do so many people rebel against the Pharisaic teaching of the Noahide Commandments? It is because their hearts are in rebellion toward the true authority established by G-d (the rabbis) and to the idea of obeying Torah (the Law of Moses). It is because they rebel against the teachings of their messiah Jesus, to the New Testament, and against the New Covenant they outwardly claim to accept. This rebellion only shows that the New Covenant (Jeremiah describes it) has not yet truly been established, though Paul in the New Testament claims it has. (He quotes Jeremiah.) People wish to do what is right in their own eyes and after their own hearts, and that is not the promise of the New Covenant. For in Jeremiah's New Covenant passage, it states that in the New Covenant, there is no need for prosylization, for conversion, and for teaching others of G-d and His Plan for "salvation." "They will no longer teach--each man his fellow, each man his brother--saying, 'Know YHVH!' For all of them will know Me, from their smallest to their greatest." "I will put My Torah in their hearts." (Jeremiah 31:34)
The New Testament describes one of the greates Jewish rabbbis of all time, Gamaliel, to have said, "If [the sect of Jesus] be of G-d, then we cannot fight it. If not, it will die of itself." How correct he was. For the Church founded by Paul, Jesus, and James did not last past a hundred years at best.
Copyright (c)2004/(c)5764 mattityahu@yahoo.com
This site updated on 2-10-04
Press to continue to next page....
>
Get your own Free Home Page