Yeshua, first century, oral Torah

Click on the Hebrew translitterated words if there is any word that you don’t understand.

Many persons claim that Rabbi Yeshua ha-Mashiach didn’t keep and teach oral Torah. However is this true or not? Assumptions are dangerous to make. Many person claiming that Rabbi Yeshua didn’t keep and teach Torah, don’t know that the written Torah commands mishpatim. Indeed there are additions to Torah and subtractions from Torah in what many rabbis today claim to be oral Torah. However, this doesn’t imply that everything claimed to be oral Torah is additions to Torah and/or subtractions from Torah. For example, learn more about Shabbat-observance and what’s additions and what isn’t additions on this link: Shabbat and melachah; Judaism and Torah

Here follows a quote about Rabbi Yeshua, oral Torah and Torah-observance in the first century:

Selective observance of Torâh has always been the “red line” sine qua non that distinguished Hellenism, with its emphasis on syncretism, from Judaism. From the time of the very first Hellenist proto-Christian, around the time of thekâreit of Paul the Apostate ca. 45 C.E., Christians defined themselves outside the pale of Torâh, proclaiming themselves“freed” from the core definition of Judaism: Torâh – “freed from bondage to the law of sin and death through the grace ofJ*esus.” To then claim that Christianity originated in Judaism is the ultimate self-contradiction of original Christianity.

Full and non-selective acceptance of the authority of the Beit-Din to interpret Torâh (including Halâkhâh), stands in stark contrast to the widespread Christian orientation of individuals following their own heart and their own eyes (b^e-Midbar 15.39) – mislabeling their contra-Torâh and, therefore, unholy intuition “the holy spirit” – interpreting Torâh according to their own, alien-to-Judaism, gentile and Hellenist-based pagan perspective. In addition to contradicting the prohibition against following one’s own heart and own eyes (b^e-Midbar 15.39), self-interpretation (typically by those who can’t even read Torâh) and consequent selective observance contravenes – displaces – the Beit-Din system ordained byha-Sheim (Sh^emot 18.13-26). Thus, contra-Judaic interpretations are a self-proclaimed pretense purporting that their Hellenist-based intuitive rejection of Torâh, the mark of a false prophet (D^evârim 13.1-6), is of their “holy spirit.” Thus equating the Ruakh ha-Qodësh with, l^e-havdil, a spirit advocating transgressing Torâh not only ascribes evil (defined byTorâh as aveirot Torâh) to, l^e-havdil, the Ruakh ha-Qodësh but defines the Ruakh ha-Qodësh, l^e-havdil,, as an evil spirit (demon) – blaspheming the Torâh-defined Ruakh ha-Qodësh.

Dead Sea Scroll 4Q MMT demonstrates that what distinguished all of the major sects of first century Judaism from Samaritans, Ëvyonim and other m^eshumâdim non-Judaic groups was the full and non-selective acceptance of the authority of Oral Law by all sects of first century Judaism. Full and non-selective acceptance of the authority of Oral Law (i.e., the Beit-Din system that was the sole legitimate authority to render Oral Law) was the sine qua non of Judaism – by authority of the Beit-Din ha-Jadol – from Har Sinai through the first century C.E. – and remains so today. No other individual, congregation, or association of congregations could, or can, legitimately self-proclaim the proper interpretations of Torâh, or self-proclaim recognition – either of themselves or geirim.

Consequently, of all who claim to follow Ribi Y^ehoshua, only those recognized by a Beit-Din originating in the P^erushim-heritage (Orthodox) Jewish community are legitimate! Within this constraint of the P^erushim-heritage Beit-Dinsystem, only the Beit Din ha-N^etzârim accepts followers of Ribi Y^ehoshua as the Mâshiakh. Thus, the N^etzârim are the only alternative for legitimate followers of Ribi Y^ehoshua! All others – from the earliest proto-Christian, pseudo-Judaic,Displacement Theology about the time of Paul the Apostate (ca. 45 C.E.) to ca. 64 C.E. – are merely charlatans playing a pretend game, pretending that a Hellenist antithesis is Judaism, and duping the ignorant into a pretend “salvation” based on a counterfeit. They are described in Revelation 2:9 and 3:9.

Blindly emphasizing “faith” without Instruction – Hebrew Torâh, Christianity glosses over the Hebrew term tzadiq inKhavaquq 2.4: “the tzadiq shall live in his ëmunâh” (not “the believer shall live by his faith”). Y^ekhëzqeil (18.5, in the Hebrew) defines tzadiq as one who does mishpât! Therefore, contrary to simplistic Christian “faith,” Khavaquq 2.4 declares that it is the one who does mishpât who shall live in his ëmunâh! Further, mishpât is the Biblical term forHalâkhâh that is handed down by the Beit-Din! Thus, Khavaquq 2.4 implicitly declares that it is the one who doesHalâkhâh who shall live in his ëmunâh! How far from the Christian apostasy and what an empty and dead-end deception the Christian concept of “ ’salvation’ by faith” is!

The one Khavaquq prophesied “shall live in his ëmunâh” is Yisrâ·eil (including the nilwim categories of the yukhasin) who, by living according to Torah, remains party to the B^eritot. Yisrâ·eil is the tzadiq, not those who selectively-observe = selectively-reject Torah. It is in this context of keeping the revealed Torah that we can appreciate the origins of ëmunâh in b^e-Reishit 15.6: “And [Avrâhâm] hë·ëmin י--ה, and he considered it a tz^edâqâh” – not tzëdëq as confused in English.

Ribi Y^ehoshua himself explicitly corroborated this Judaic view of tz^edâqâh relative to kipur. Dead Sea Scroll 4Q MMT demonstrates that the hottest topic in the 1^st-century Jewish community was the controversy over which sect’s interpretation of the Oral Law – Halâkhâh, Ma·asëh or the Book of Decrees – was “correct.” Full and non-selective commitment to the Oral Law by all three of the major sects of first-century Judaism is indisputably proven from 4Q MMT. When Ribi Y^ehoshua‘s teachings are read from this historically authentic first century Judaic perspective relative toMa·asëh, as revealed in Dead Sea Scroll 4Q MMT, this emerging controversy leaps from the page, from the lips of RibiY^ehoshua himself, in the earliest extant mss.,²⁷ all of which are incorporated into The N^etzârim Reconstruction of HebrewMatityâhu (NHM) 5:17-20 with notes:

“Not to curtail the Torâh of Moshëh or the N^eviyim have I come, nor to add on to the Torâh of Moshëh or the N^eviyim have I come. Rather, I have come to reconcile [Torâh] with the True Oral Law. Should the heavens and hâ-Ârëtzexchange places, still, not even one י or one  of the Oral Law of the Torâh of Moshëh shall so much as exchange places; until it becomes that it is all being fully ratified and performed non-selectively. For whoever deletes one Oral Law from the Torâh, or shall teach others such, by those in the Realm of the heavens he shall be declared “deleted.” Both he who preserves them and he who teaches them shall be called “Rav” in the Realm of the heavens. For I tell you that unless your tz^edâqâh is over and above that of the Sophrim and the P^erushim, there is no way you will enter into the Realm of the heavens!”

Ribi Y^ehoshua confirmed that full and non-selective acceptance of the authority of Torâh was always, and still continues to be, the sine qua non of legitimate, P^erushim-heritage Judaism, just as selective observance of Torâh is the “red line” that has, since the very first day of its inception in 135 C.E., demarcated Hellenism and its offspring, Christianity, from Judaism.”

Quote: Atonement in the Biblical New Covenant; Available on http://www.netzarim.co.il/