A RE-POST from June 29, 2011 . . .
The AENT: MIS-LEADING the Flock
Through MESSIAH ben JOSEPH
.
Now note this: the Aramaic Scripture text in this edition seems to be excellent as far as we've reviewed.
The English part, however, in both the translation and footnotes , as well as in the appendices, needs to be carefully sifted. Some of the information included in this volume is excellently done yet much of it is seriously misleading. I will point out some of these issues.
To begin at the beginning, then:
To begin at the beginning, then:
Matthew 1: 1-19, in the mis-pagination edition of the Aramaic New Testament with an English translation, footnote 2 reads as follows:
Footnote 2: In a discussion about the word "Messiah," the book calls Y'shua (JESUS) "Mashiyach ben Yoseph."
However, this term is NOWHERE to be found in either the Old Covenant or the New Covenant. The only support for using this term must come from writings OTHER THAN SCRIPTURE. Both the English translation and Aramaic text for this footnote (verses 1,2) read like this:
"Y'shua the Mashiyach, the son of Dawid, the son of Awraham..."
So, is this footnote trying to correct Scriptures?
Yes, Y'shua was indeed the suffering servant and many old writers, no doubt, were troubled that their Victorious Messiah should suffer. They would rather have HIM+ conquering the enemies of Israel than suffering from their adversaries. But, we don't change the identity of Our LORD, as that could develop into problems further along the road of faith.
In the same footnote, the book explains what the Tanakh is: it is the Torah (the 5 books of Moses), the Prophets, and the Writings. In the Hebrew language, the T-N-Kh are the letters which start the words "Torah-Prophets-Writings."
Why would a CHRISTIAN book use the Jewish term for the Old Covenant ?
The answer is plain as one reads through this volume: this book does NOT "SEE" THE COVENANT AS "OLD". In this edition, the Old Covenant has been revived and renewed, not "fulfilled" in CHRIST, as Scripture teaches. Thus, the Old Covenant, which is now dead before GOD, is being promoted as active and effectual... and must be kept by GOD-fearing believers, according to the sympathies promoted in this edition.
+ + +
More to come...
12 comments:
Please excuse my harsh words, but this is the most ridiculous rebuke I have ever seen. First, this is not a Christian book, this is a Jewish (Netzarim) book. The Hebrew Scriptures are called the Tanakh because that's what they are (Torah [teaching], Neviim [prophets} and Ketuvim [writings]).
Second, you've completely misunderstood what it means to "fulfill" something, speaking from the perspective of Scripture. Please see Matthew 5:19 in the AENT.
Third, pointing out that Yeshua is Mashiyach ben Yoseph is one of the greatest teachings to be found in the AENT. Do you know why? This has nothing to do with "changing the identity" of our Lord or "correcting scripture", it has everything to do with helping readers understand Jewish concepts that are lost/forgotten so that they can be better equipped to bring Jews to a saving knowledge of their Messiah!! You really need to dive deeper into these subjects before making such horrible assumptions. In order to understand certain things within the Scripture, you need to reference things up and above Scripture, not because it is authoritative over the written word (heaven forbid) but so we can better understand the cultural context, beliefs, ideas and idioms of the writers and intended audiences of the various books of our Scripture. Please consider this.
Dear haDerech... I am sorry this response has taken so long, but I am having trouble posting. I'll try to work out the problems soon.
SJH
Dear haDerech,
I'm still having issues with this post and my computer, for some reason, so I will have to answer your concerns in small doses.
I want to thank you for your interest in my blog. I see your comment as intense, not necessarily harsh. It is good to be intense about the TRUTH, is it not? I will try to answer all your concerns.
A JEWISH BOOK:
First of all, thank you for being honest enough to admit this edited edition of the New Testament is NOT CHRISTIAN in some of its translation into English and its footnotes and 84-plus appendices.
The ARAMAIC TEXT itself, thankfully, has not be tampered with inasmuch as I've had time to check it.
It was not advertised as a "Jewish" book. It was simply advertised as an ARAMAIC New Testament published by a Netzarim publishing house which I credited as being akin to the Coptic or Eastern Orthodox house of Christians. Now I see I was wrong.
Sister Judith Hannah + + +
Dear haDerech,
To your next issue:
TANAKH: This is the common acronym used for the Old Covenant among the Jewish camp. Would you happen to know when in history that acronym came into use? I would be interested in that information and verification of where you found it, if you would be so kind as to post it. Thank you.
Followers of Y'SHUA+ HaMASHIYACH take Jer. 31:31 to heart that YHWH would make a new covenant with the house of Israel and Judah... NOT ACCORDING to the covenant which YHWH made with their fathers. That's verse 32 and please note that since the new covenant is NOT ACCORDING to the old one, it could not possibly be "re-newed", as a re-cyled, re-worked covenant.
Verses 33 and 34 tells us that this New Covenant will be such that they WILL NOT EVEN HAVE TO TEACH IT TO ONE ANOTHER !
So you see, this wonderful New Covenant will not have to be "learned" because it will be the Living Word put into one's inmost being. Marvelous!
SJH + + +
Dear haDerech... on to "fulfill" :
FULFILL: Followers of Y'SHUA+ HaMASHIYACH do not stop at verse 19 in chapter 5 of Matthew, but go on to verse 20.
How does ANY human being EXCEED the righteousness of the exacting and meticulous Pharisees... who kept BOTH the written law (Torah) AND the oral law (traditions) ?
We know from Y'SHUA+'s words in other verses that The ELOHIM did not find mercy and grace as one of the fruits of the RUACH HaKODESH in the lives of the Pharisees, generally speaking, regardless of how strictly Torah was observed and traditions kept.
There had to be a better way... and YHWH made the perfect way... His+ name is Y'SHUA+ HaMASHIYACH Who+ is THE Way, THE Truth, and THE Life; no man can come to THE FATHER except through HIM+, Bless The ELOHIM !
HE+ is the perfect Way because Y'SHUA+ HaMASHIYACH is the Living Miltha, the Living WORD+ of ELOAH (Aramaic text, not English) Who+ then could live in the hearts of His+ followers.
Y'SHUA+ HaMASHIYACH fulfilled Torah not only by being the Living WORD+ but because HE+ through the offering of HIMSELF+ (crucifixion) also fulfilled the requirements of the Unblemished BLOOD+ sacrifice needed to establish a Covenant... this NEW COVENANT... between ELOAH and man.
SJH + + +
Dear haDerech,
Now, on to "The greatest teaching found in the AENT..." :
You may be correct in that you point out it is in the AENT... because that item is certainly NOT FOUND OR EVEN MENTIONED OR REFERENCED IN ANY WAY in the Aramaic Text of the New Testament, Hebrew, or English versions of it... nor in the early Greek and Latin versions and not in any other versions of Scripture, Old or New Covenant.
"M. ben Joseph" is NOT SCRIPTURAL at all !
It came from the writing of a commentator, yes? And, as I recall, that writer "saw" the Anointed ONE+ as a Suffering Servant... the ONE+ Whom+ Zechariah saw they pierced and looked upon and they became very bitter and mourned for HIM+.
The correct placement of such a note should OF COURSE be placed at crucifixion of Y'SHUA+ HaMASHIYACH. If placed appropriately in that context, it would benefit the reader to know that a learned Jewish writer actually realized beforehand that the Anointed ONE+ would have suffered before rising from the dead.
But in this volume, it is clearly used as an identifying title placed in footnote 2 at the LINEAGE of Y'SHUA+ HaMASHIYACH. Yes, at the LINEAGE ! Why at the LINEAGE ?
In fact, the editor of said volume DIDN'T EVEN QUALIFY OR EXPLAIN where or why he called Y'SHUA+ HaMASHIYACH by the title "M. ben Yoseph" instead of the "Son of Dawid" as does the very Scripture footnoted!
Thus, its function is to mis-lead the reader away from thinking about HIM+ as being the promised "Son of Dawid" .
Surely the serious and seeking Jewish student would know the prophecies that Y'SHUA+ HaMASHIYACH would have the correct lineage as the Son of Dawid. This, he would know, would point to the fulfillment of those promises to King Dawid.
Doubts well-planted in the reader's mind would, of course, be used to eventually cast doubt upon the Divine, supernatural birth of Y'SHUA+ HaMASHIYACH.
That is the game plan, is it not?
OTHER WRITINGS:
Scripture stands as the authority; why delve into lesser writings to "explain" Scripture?
I desire that Y'SHUA+ HaMASHIYACH help all those hungering Jews (and other peoples) to come to HIM+ for cleansing and healing and to enter into the New Covenant of Life.
Sadly, this volume will not help them to do that. It only provides a millstone about their necks, to their great, Eternal misfortune.
Sincerely,
Sister Judith Hannah + + +
Order of the GOOD SHEPHERD+
Dear Shali... Greetings to you this day in the Life-Giving Name of Y'SHUA+ haMASHIYACH+... the only name given under Heaven among men whereby we must be saved.
I deleted your comment because you included another blog/web site. That's not kosher on this blog, sorry.
Your thoughtful comments, however, are most welcome to add to the discussions, if you have a seeking heart or feel you could add some elucidation to the issue at hand.
Even though we all lean towards intensity, dear friend, try to avoid emotional labels of disgust if you possibly can and ... um.. just the facts, perhaps? [Yes, and you are welcome to include your conclusions from those facts, also ! ]
Until next time....
Sr. Judith Hannah + + +
Dear Friends... While I cherish the interaction and honest discussion of the subjects at hand, I would urge each one of you to stay on topic.
Your responses need to pertain to the blogspot articles, facts, and figures.
That would be more edifying... and perhaps draw others closer to Y'SHUA+ ha MASHIYACH.... as that is our common goal, yes?
Again, thank you kindly for your interest.
Sr. Judith Hannah + + +
Hello sister, shlomo, may moryo yeshu msikho bless your soul, amin.
Dear YESHURUN...
What an INTERESTING name! Could you tell me what it means, and why you selected it ?
Thanking you kindly,
Sr. Judith Hannah + + +
Post a Comment