Nojc.  You claimed once that only the Jew could understand his own scripture..or something like that.  Would you claim that the any Jew undertands the NT writings?

Right!  The Jew should be able to understand it.  But why don't they?

(I should add that some Jews that I have conversed with said that they don't understand some things said)

geegee said:

Right! The Jew should be able to understand it. But why don't they?

A) They do! They understand it better than christians do!  But christians think they're so smart that they can impose their own faulty understandings of the new testament upon the Jews, and make it say what it does not say, while claiming it does not say what it clearly does say.
B) Many Jews have never read the new testament. It's just that christians are of the opinion that the new testament is a good thing, and it's NOT!
C) The new testament was written for and by Jews (or so the story goes) but was NOT given by God! It's a man-made document, and no man-made document superceedes the Tanakh, so who needs the nt? The nt was given, not to the Jews, but to the Gentiles, which means it's not for the Jews after all. If it had been a gift from God to the Jews, He would have given it to them.

rareairpug said:

Quote:
"At least, I don't recall anybody offering a restriction on interpretation for the n.t.
"I'm open to suggestions."

The Roman Catholic church perhaps? (at least in some periods)

Yes. of course them. But I meant verses from the NT that restrict interpretation only to certain people/entities.

rareairpug asked:

Let's assume that there aren't any. What are you implying? That there are multiple interpretations of the NT? I think that the NT itself makes it clear there is only one gospel (Galatians 1:8 for example--there are others). So, I guess I'm not sure what you are getting at.

I'm being smart-alecky. In order to spread the "good news," christians will necessarily "explain" Scripture. Some folks don't like it when I say that they haven't got enough information to correctly interpret Scripture. "But," they sometimes say, "I can read Biblical Hebrew, and you, nojc4me, can't!" So I point out that the Torah itself restricts interpretatation to "priests, Levites, and the judge" who lives in your days.
And then, when I explain why we know that the new testament is omitted as Divinely Inspired because it says thus-and-so, the same people might complain that I am "misreading" or "misunderstanding" the text of the new testament.
So I advise them that I am just as qualified to interpret the new testament as they are, the new testament doesn't restrict interpretation to any one person or group of persons; all are able to interpret as they see fit. That is one reason that there are so many splinter groups of belief, all claiming to be "the real" followers of chrsistianity, but only one Torah-true Judaism.*
In effect, I say that the christian interpretation of the "old testament" is invalidated if it doesn't conform to ewhat the Jewish Rabbis say, but I can find any pattern in the new testament I want to, and their complaints fall on deef ears.
In short, if there's a difference of opinion, I'm right and you probably aren't.
I try to save that for the odd case where the opponant tries to flout his scholarship qualifications, or refuses to see reason. If he's going to be unreasonable, I'm going to be just as unreasonable - but with a good argument and a very good reason for being so unreasonable.
____
* There are four groups claiming to be Judaism: Orthodox, Reform, Conservative, and Reconstructionist. I don't know of any of them that claims that Orthodoxy is not Judaism, while the Orthodox refuse to recognize the others as Judaism. Their adherents are (mostly) Jews, but the religions they follow aren't Judaism. There is only one.
BUT...
There are four groups claiming to be Judaism.
There are who-knows-how-many groups (but certainly in the thousands) claiming to be "christianity."
Judaism has been around for 3500 years.
Christianity for less than 2000.
One reason for Judaism's longevity is its singular source of authority. It keeps them consistent, whereas christianity is factionalized to the point of warfare between themselves.

geegee said
   
Concerning A. So the Jews understand the NT "better" than christians, eh? Okay.

Unsubstantiated guess, based solely on braggadoccio (sp?). Also, the first followers of jesus (if he ever existed in the first place) were Jews, and their beliefs were very different from those we find in the new testament, which is mostly the work of Paul, who never heard jesus preach so much as a word. (The evidence of the rift between Paul and the real followers of jesus can be seen in the new testament itself, and the evidence that Paul never heard jesus preach is in the book of the Acts of the Apostles).
And the new testament didn't exist as we have it now for another 300 years.
So my claim that the Jews understood the new testament better than the Greeks and Romans seems to be contradicted by the "historical" evidence.

I would gladly agree with that since it was mainly Jews who started the "christian" religion.

Look! There it is right there! I really ought to read these posts before I reply, shouldn't I?

So, I agree that Jews should understand the NT. But why did Jews of that era disagree with the Jews who came forth with a message that Jesus was indeed G-d's Son who came to set things strait?

Because of the evidence. The story about jesus had him misquoting Scripture, flatly contradicting God and His prophets, giving false prophecies, and allegedly offering a blood sacrifice of a human being "as a ransom" for other people's sins!
And things didn't get any better than they had been before. In fact, they got worse!
And God HAS no "son" (other than all Israel, that is).
Why should they have agreed with that theory?
I suppose here that the reply might be, "but things got worst because the Jews had rejected jesus." If that is to be the answer then I would point out that jesus was a failure, so again, what should the Jews accept the claim "that Jesus was indeed G-d's Son who came to set things strait?"

Concerning B. Okay. So, "many" Jews have not read the NT. And I guess I could add that they have never studied it into depth then? I guess we can conclude that these are the ones who should be asking questions before adding their two cents?

Why do they need to? He was a failure, remember? Why revisit the claim? It's already been settled centuries ago.

Concerning C. Yes. It is mainly the Jewish-thought-forms that we find within the NT writings.

No, they're not.
There is no vicarious atonement in Judaism. No virgin birth. No teachings of a man/god. No trinity. No supplanting of the Covenant with a "new" one. And God HAS no son.

The NT was man-made (like the Tanakh) in that it was needful for a human(s) to write down the thoughts/words of G-d. You conclude that this then was "for" the Gentiles. No. I conclude that you are misunderstanding. The message of the NT is that Gentiles are included in the blessing of the New Covenant.

If that was it's purpose, it was superfluous. The Gentiles already had a Covenant with God. Who needs a "new testament" when the Torah, which describes the Covenant between God and man, is already at hand? (Even in the Septuagint translation of the Torah, the Covenant with God is fairly accurately described.)

This message was brought to the Jew that he might understand the Gentiles were not excluded from G-ds blessings and salvation.

Again, superfluous and redundant. They already had learned that from the Torah. Except for the "salvation" thing. That's not even a Jewish idea.

This necessarily includes words/admonishings/encouragement to the Gentiles that they are not excluded, but included, into the promises of Abraham.

But they're not! The covenant with Abraham is for the Jews, not the Gentiles.
Thus, the new testament was a pack of lies intended to support a lie.

geegee said:

So you continue to question the existence of Jesus in that specific era, eh?

Yes, I do.

That's fine. Yes. The FIRST followers of Jesus were indeed Jews. As a matter of fact, the Jews were the first "christians". But we may be getting somewhere when you say that "the first followers of jesus...and their beliefs were very different from those we find in the NT..which is mostly the work of Paul". Tell, say, how did you come to such a conclusion?

Fodder for another thread.
Look for "Peter vs. Paul" or something like that.

Actually, a thought just came to me, nojc.  (I am still seeking that thread about Peter vs Paul..c'mon, give me a hint)

Now, you seem to believe that Peter or Paul or any other person besides Jesus did exist in that era of the biblical report.  My question is WHY?  Would a real Peter, a real Paul or a real whoever (you think did exist during that era) speak of a real person an era before their time?

geegee said:

Actually, a thought just came to me, nojc. (I am still seeking that thread about Peter vs Paul..c'mon, give me a hint)

I think I called it "Paul vs. Jewish followers of the teachings of jesus" or something. It's right here under "Variant Beliefs."

Now, you seem to believe that Peter or Paul or any other person besides Jesus did exist in that era of the biblical report.

I'm not against believing they did exist, or some persons very much like them. Those two characters are more believable than that fictitious person is.

My question is WHY? Would a real Peter, a real Paul or a real whoever (you think did exist during that era) speak of a real person an era before their time?

Not sure I understand that. Do you mean...
Why would a real person write about another real person? To spread the news, like any biographer would do. That's clearly not the case with the jesus fables.
Why would a real person write about another real person, but exagerate the events and deeds of that person's life? Sensationalism sells. And the primary character was dead - as the story explains - so there's no fear of angering him.
Why would a real person write about another real person, but ascribe to that other person completely ludicrous acts, beliefs, and intentions? To sell fiction. Somebody did that with the real person named "Heracles", and in so doing, created a character more like some heroic man-god than a real person. Sherlock Holmes was allegedly also based on a real person.
Why would a real person write about another but NOT real person? To sell a story. The heroic Doc Savage was such a literary figure.

geegee asked:

Would you then think that this was possible to pass on in a short 40 years?

Depends. It's quite possible to pass on a "rippin' good yarn" in a remarkably short period of time.
But the early church had a head start. You see, Yeshu lived about a hundred years before the time of Pontius Pilate, so the followers of his were already dead and had taught new believers and they themselves were old men when Pilate took office.

Let us not just realize that because the letters of the NT were written about 40 years later of the events described, but let us realize that this message was continued long before they were even written?

The letters may possibly have been written then, but that does not mean the gospels and epistles of the current new testament were written then. There are scholars who admit that not many words in a row in any book of the new testament are undisputed. They were voted upon from among just some of several different versions of the many many books with the same titles as the ones the christians were looking for. They're not divinely inspired, they were cherry-picked by men from the writings of men.

This might suggest that these were oral teachings long before they were written, which is the case based on some texts of the NT writings.

So, it's a good thing for christians to have oral traditions, while if the Jews have oral traditions, that's a bad thing, and they're not reliable at all, right?

What am I saying? With other words, these teachings about Jesus were already passed along long before they were written down. They were never disputed at that time.

I do believe they were in dispute. Can't remember if I read that in "The Word" by Irving Wallace, or in "The Grounds of Christianity" by George Bethune English, or somewhere else.

geegee said:

Oh, I see, nojc. Can you verify, with some amount of reliable certiantly, that this "Yeshu", you speak of, lived about a hundred years before Pontias Pilate?

Sure. The Talmud. I can look up specific citations, but it may take another day or two. This is another aikido night.

No. Thats not what I am implying. Verifying or proving a written down oral teaching would be a good thing though.

I agree.

When you suggest that the first era "christian" movement is nothing more than a rehash or continuing of something that started a century of so before, then I would like to see some proof if there be some?

I assumed that this is what you meant by your words above. I'll get right on it.