http://www.topix.net/forum/religion/messianic-judaism

Messianic Directory is a Research Engine

1630 Web-Sites listed
as of 1/30/11

http://www.messianicdirectory.info/

Interesting common sense post i found on a forum. ts

Hello Sirs!

Echad (one)
It is customary for some Binitarians and most evangelical Trinitarians (especially Messianics) to propose that the Hebrew word for one, the numeral one (echad), is really “compound one.” This is a clever device which confuses logical thought. Echad occurs some 960 times in the Hebrew Bible, and it is the numeral “one.” It is a numeral adjective when it modifies a noun. “One day,” “one person,” etc. Echad is the ordinary cardinal number, “one.” Eleven in Hebrew is ten and one. Abraham “was only one,” said Ezekiel 33:24 (NASU), “only one man” (NIV).
Just as the famous Armstrongian phrase “uniplural” does not appear in the Webster’s (thus it represents the DIY grammatical venture on which Worldwide theology was done in respect to defining God), “compound one” as a definition of echad is also not recognized in standard texts describing the grammar of the Hebrew language. It is an invented grammatical category which confuses and divides.
The Hebrew word for one operates as does the word “one” in English. You can have one thing, one person. And of course the noun modified by echad may be collective, one family, one people, one flesh, as a single unit composed of two — Adam and Eve, in that case. But to say that “one” carries the meaning of “compound one” is misleading in the extreme. The basic meaning of echad given by the lexicons is “one single,” even the indefinite article “a.” Sometimes “the only one,” or even “unique” is the proper translation of echad.
Suppose now we say that “one” implies more than one. We could prove our point like this: In the phrase “one tripod,” is it not obvious that one really implies three? Does not one dozen mean that one is really 12? Or one million? Is one equivalent to a million? Does this not suggest the plurality of “one”? What about “one quartet” or “one duplex”? To carry this madness to an extreme, we could argue that in the phrase “one zebra,” the word one really means “black and white.”
What is happening here? We are being asked to believe that in the phrase “the Lord our God is one Lord,” that “one” is “compound.” That “Lord” is more than one Lord, perhaps two or perhaps three. We are being lured into a complete falsehood that “one” implies plurality. We are asked to believe this on the basis of a tiny fraction of the appearances of echad when it modifies a compound noun (the vast majority of the occurrences of echad when it does not modify a compound noun are left unmentioned). Even when “one” modifies a compound noun — one family, one cluster — the word “one” retains its meaning as “one single
” There is no such thing as “compound one” as a definition of echad.
This procedure is to confuse the numeral adjective “one” with the noun it modifies. It is to “bleed” the meaning of a compound noun back into the numeral. This will take the unwary by surprise. Thus “one flesh” is supposed to mean that one can mean more than one. The point, obviously, is that “flesh” as a combination of Adam and Eve does have a collective, family sense. But one is still one: “one flesh and not two fleshes.” “One cluster (singular) of grapes” does not in any way illustrate a plural meaning for the word “one.” “Cluster” has indeed a collective, plural sense. But one is still one: “one cluster” and not “two clusters.” Just imagine if at the check-out the clerk announces that your one dollar purchase is really “compound one.” You could become bankrupt.
So then, Yahweh, the personal name of the One God, occurs some 6,800 times. In no case does it have a plural verb, or adjective. And never is a plural pronoun put in its place. Pronouns are most useful grammatical markers, since they tell us about the nouns they stand for. The very fact that the God who is Yahweh speaks of Himself as “I” and “Me” and is referred to as “You” (singular) and “He” and “Him” thousands upon thousands of times should convince all Bible readers of the singularity of God. The fact that God further speaks of Himself in every exclusive fashion known to language —“by myself,” “all alone” etc., — only adds to this proof. “There is none besides Me,” “none before Me” and “none after Me.” “I alone am Elohim, and Yahweh.” “I created the heavens and the earth by Myself; none was with Me.”
A Sample of the Use of echad (one)
Genesis 42:13: “Joseph’s brothers said, ‘We are 12 brothers, sons of one (echad) man, in the land of Canaan. The youngest is this day with our father and one (echad) is not.’” Verse 16: “Send one (echad) of you.” Verse 19: “Let one (echad) of your brothers
” Verse 27: “One (echad) of them opened his sack.” Verse 32: “One (echad) is not.” Verse 33: “One (echad) of your brothers.” There are well over 900 other examples in the OT.
What is illogical to the extreme is the lengths men will go to in support of a tradition that is not based on the apostles and the prophets. Jesus said many are called but few are chosen, which should give all Trinitarians reason to pause and rethink their position. Especially since Jesus equated eternal life with knowing the only true God and Jesus Christ who God sent.
You see Sir, you are appealing to men with your Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament. You are also denigrating the very people who speak a language you don't and that people are the Jews. What many assume is illogical to any thinking man who does not put his intellect on hold to defend redefining the rules of grammar made up by men when it is convenient to do so. And the men who redefined the rules of grammar are the same men who teach that Mary was immaculately conceived, was a perpetual virgin, that the Pope is God's mouthpiece, and etc. Now you can deny that Origen came up with the doctrine of the Trinity but to do so is to deny historical truth.
What no trinitarian has done is explain the plain language meaning of the Scriptures I posted. What they have failed to explain is why no NT author refers to Jesus as God or God the Son.
And BTW, Jesus and His apostles spoke Aramaic not Greek and to ignore this historical fact only shows that trinitarians have put their faith in the traditions of men not God's inerrent and infallible word. The foundation of Christianity is Judaism and its strict monotheism not the cleverly devised myths developed by Greeks who used Greek philosophy to interpret who God and Jesus are not, and they are not part of a triune Godhead.

Sincerely,
James

Important article in regarding following the Pharisees as to setting Passover timing and other things. Don't follow them at all is probably the point. Nemiah Gordon (kararite hebrew language scholar) covers much of the same in his book on Matthew. ts
-----------------------------------------

The Truth About Matthew 23:2-3

First, let us quote Matthew 23:2-3 from the King James Version of the Bible, then the same Scripture from the New Revised Standard Version:

(Mat 23:1-3 KJV) "Then spake Yahshua to the multitude, and to his disciples, {2} Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat: {3} All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not."

(Mat 23:1-3 NRSV) "Then Yahshua said to the crowds and to his disciples, {2} "The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses' seat; {3} therefore, do whatever they teach you and follow it; but do not do as they do, for they do not practice what they teach."

The following discourse on Matthew 23 was taken from an email exchange between two Brothers in the Faith. Their names are "Darrell" and "Chris," so I will use these names to show who is speaking. It was forwarded to several other Brothers in the Faith almost a year ago.

Darrell: The Jewish Talmud was written by Jewish Rabbis out of their love for the Scriptures and their desire to obey it.

Chris: Greetings, Darrel, et al, in the Matchless Name of Yahshua! This response is offered after much prayer and meditation. The New Testament soundly refutes this statement as does the Old Testament record (Jer. 5:1-4), and the historical record as well. Study about the Council of Jamnia. Learn about Masoretic treachery, intentional change and destruction of Scripture by studying about the Vorlage text and the Samaritan Pentateuch (Jer. 8:8-10).

Darrell: They were humans as all of us are, therefore they made their share of mistakes in interpreting Scripture, just as many Christian and Yahwist commentaries do (Rom. 3:10; Rom. 3:23).

Chris: They have gone beyond errors of interpretation. They have outright falsified Scripture. You, Darrell, should know this better than many. You have written and been published regarding their Babylonian "ineffable" doctrine. Read Jeremiah 8:8-10, study as I have noted above, and learn.

Darrell: Their intent was to build a fence around the commandment to go beyond what the Scriptures say, to keep from violating it, not to nullify it.

Chris: That's what they say. They also say Yahshua is not Mashiach. They also say much more vile things of Him than that. They also say don't pronounce His Names…and they falsify His Names as well. The list goes on and on and on ad infinitum, ad nauseum. Also, you know as well as I do about the Scriptural injunction AGAINST going "beyond what the Scriptures say." Yahshua said that they in fact did nullify the Word (Matt. 15:6-9; Mark 7:6-13) by their 'oral torah' tradition!

Darrell: Their talk was good, even according to Yahushua (Matthew 23:2-3).

Chris: No, Darrell, according to Yahshua in Matthew 21:12 through chapter 25 and including 23:2-3 and the entirety of the Scriptural record on this subject, their talk was not good.

Will you be open-minded to "HaDevar Et Ha Elohim" (the Word of the Almighty One) and let Ruach H'Kodesh guide you into His Truth? Following is a detailed Scripturally based examination of Matthew 23:2-3.
Context, context, context. CONTEXT IS EVERYTHING!

In Matthew 23 Yahshua speaks with regard to the Pharisees as follows:

Eight times "Woe unto you."
Eight times as to hypocrisy.
Five times as blind.
Two times as fools.
One time as serpents.
One time as vipers.

The serpent reference is a colloquialism actually referring to "cunning" as in "sneaky and underhanded." Yahshua therefore followed along with His colloquial use of serpent to identify them as of the dangerous, poisonous "vipers" variety of serpents.

This is the immediate context of Matthew 23. There is no endorsement of the Pharisees at all. This is consistent with the Scriptural record. Yahshua soundly, roundly and repetitively reprimanded, renounced, and ridiculed the Pharisees with Matthew 23 being an excellent summation of the totality of the Scriptural record on this subject.

The Pharisees are mentioned almost 100 times in the Gospels. The vast majority of these references deal with some area of conflict with Yahshua. It is similarly shown in the book of Acts with regard to instances of the Pharisees and their interaction with the followers of Yahshua. There were some goodly Pharisees as in the examples of Nicodemus and Gamaliel, but the evidence of the Messianic Scriptures reveals that the majority were not genuine, and in fact were prideful men who by and large met disagreement to them with wicked intentions.

The general context of Matthew 23 encompasses Matthew 21:12 through all of Matthew 25 with regard to the Pharisees and the religious hierarchy of the time. It starts off with Yahshua displacing them physically, then disquieting them mentally and emotionally, and finally quieting them vocally just prior to Matthew 23. They were SILENCED before Him.

What was their response at the end just prior to Matt. 23?

"And no man was able to answer Him a word, neither durst any from that day forth ask Him any more."

The very next words of Scripture are significant.

"THEN spake Yahshua to the multitude, and to His disciples."

Yahshua spoke with regard to those He had just brought to silence. More accurately, He had brought them to be silent of their own volition. He had thoroughly trounced on their understandings, and revealed them to be without understanding in the Scripture of which they held themselves to be masters!
They wrongfully sought preeminence over Yahshua, then sought wrongfully for preeminence over His followers in the book of Acts, and still seek such preeminence over His children today just as wrongfully as ever before from both within and without the camp!

It is in this context that Yahshua said, "The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat…" 'Moses' seat is only mentioned this one time in Scripture. This brings up an important question for consideration:

What is "Moses' seat" and what is its significance?

The ones of whom I have asked this question generally offer no response. Those who have answered it are in agreement with one of the foremost recognized authorities on first century Judaism, Joseph Good, also a leading figure for the Temple Faithful movement.

Good told me that "Moses' seat" signified the position of authority for Judaism from which to make rulings. His answer is in agreement with all those who have answered my query on this point. I asked him for references to confirm this and he had none. Neither has any other offered references on this point.

Subsequent to this, I then queried Good as to how his answer squared with the unanimity of the historical record that the Pharisees did not gain the position of authority for Judaism until after the sacrifice of Yahshua. He had no answer. I suggested he re-examine Matthew 23:2-3 with this in mind.

What, then, is "Moses' seat"? Archaeologists have confirmed that a stone chair has been found in ancient synagogues (in Hamath, Chorazin, En-Gedi, and Delos) next to where the law was kept. It would seem apparent that the Mosaic Torah readings to the congregation would be done from there, hence "Moses' seat."

This makes sense of the passage within the fullness of both the immediate and general context.

"All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say and do not." (Mat. 23:3).

The reader (in this case identified as a scribe or Pharisee) would exhort the people to be keepers of Torah. Yahshua is therefore saying that the Torah portion is the authority, and warning against the exposition by the Pharisees from such readings. Yahshua had just thoroughly demonstrated their understanding to be totally lacking in the passage prior to this. He then launched into a tirade against the Pharisees and scribes to drive the point home!

This passage in context therefore supports the principle of Sola Scriptura, (Scriptures Only) and trounces the notion of unbiblical tradition i.e. "oral torah" and its written counterpart, the Talmud!

Return again to Matthew 23:3. "All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not." The word translated "observe" in this verse is the Greek "tereo" [Strong's 5083; to guard (from loss or injury, prop. by keeping the eye upon; and thus differing from 5442, which is prop. to prevent escaping; and from 2892, which implies a fortress or full military lines of apparatus]. This is not speaking of what to "practice" but of "watching" as in "watch carefully."

The admonition of Yahshua is to guard from loss or injury against the Word of Torah that is read by the Pharisees by keeping a close eye upon these woeful, hypocritical, blind, foolish, poisonous serpents! It is specifically NOT an admonition to follow what the Pharisees say about it (prevent escaping from), nor is it an admonition to hold firmly (as a fortress) to what they say about it. This verse is a warning against the Pharisees teachings which is consistent with the previous two chapters as well as the rest of this chapter and the two chapters following!

Examine the Aramaic of Matthew 23:3:

"…so all they word to you to guard, guard and work." (from "Aramaic New Covenant: A Literal Translation and Transliteration.")

The Aramaic Scriptures are older than the Greek, closer to the Hebrew language of that day, and in fact the common dialect of the first century dweller in the land of Israel. The Aramaic Scriptural record also conveys the idea of "to guard" rather than "to practice."

This is also consistent with the entirety of the Scriptural record. In Matthew 16:6, Mark 8:15, and Luke 12:1 Yahshua warned against "the leaven of the Pharisees" which is specifically identified in Matthew 16:12 as "the doctrine of the Pharisees." Their doctrine is their teaching!

In Matthew 15:13-14 the Pharisees were specifically singled out as "blind leaders" and those who follow them as "blind." Yahshua pronounced that they would all together "fall into the ditch."

Just prior to this Yahshua addressed Pharisees and consigned to them these words of the prophet Isaiah:

"Forasmuch as this people draw near with their mouth, and with their lips do honour me, but have removed their heart far from me, and their fear toward me is taught by the precept of men" (Isaiah 29:13).

Yet again the "oral torah" tradition of the Pharisees was condemned and they with it! The Matthean scribe records Yahshua condemning the Pharisees teachings from their "oral torah" tradition in Matthew 15:6. These teachings are then identified as plants that will be uprooted in Matthew 15:13 because they were not planted by the Father. Their planting is therefore by an enemy, which is identified by Yahshua in Matthew 13:37-39.

Matthew 15:1-20 is a demonstration of how Yahshua neglected and ignored "oral torah" traditions.

Yahshua also noted condemnation upon the Pharisees because they "trusted in themselves," were self-righteous, and exalted themselves over non-Pharisees (Luke 18:9-14).

In conclusion, return again for a final time to Matthew 23:2-3, looking this time to the "Shem Tov" English translation by Professor George Howard that was shared with us by Elder Silvio Soto:

"The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat: All therefore whatsoever he [referring back to Moses] bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their [the Pharisees] works: for they [Pharisees] say, and do not."

Elder Soto made note with regard to this translation, "Consider this and see if you think it has any merits." Yes, Elder Soto, this rendering is consistent with the entirety of the Scriptural record.

HOME