God's True Rulebook
What Yeshua and his apostles called "Holy Scripture"
PDF file not yet created
Also available in
Revised 02/2018
Does Christianity promote the real "Holy Scripture"?
Or does Christianity supersede it with something else?
The TRUE “Rule book” of the Kingdom
I end this discussion with a clear series of statements defining my unwavering reverence for the New Testament. Please read this with an open mind and without predetermined conclusions until you absorb all I have said and spend some time pondering the enormity of the issue.
Two teams met to take part in an athletic contest. The players took their positions, and the game began. But wait! Almost immediately whistles were blown and accusations hurled as each team charged the other with committing grievous fouls. It soon became obvious the game was doomed from the start.
Why? What could cause such an immediate termination of an event in which all participants were sincere in their desire to take part in the contest according to the rules? Indeed, each team vehemently accused the other side of breaking the rules while claiming to be perfect in their obedience to the rule book!
There were a few among the participants – unfortunately very few – that truly wished to continue the game. So, as the majority of their team members departed in anger, these few sincere players decided to meet to resolve the reasons for the disputes. They peacefully assembled, took out their rule books, and began to passionately point to the rules they felt the other side had broken.
"What? There is something terribly wrong here!” they exclaimed. “You have a different rule book!”
And thus the reason for the problem became obvious. Each team had their own rule book, and they were entirely different! The “rules” (laws) of one were missing entirely from the other. In fact, one side’s rule book forcefully stated the very “rules” that were so clearly defined in their opponent’s rule book had been “abolished” long ago! Compromise was impossible. There was only one solution. The true rule book had to be found. Until the actual “rules” were established from an “eternal” rule book that is “unchanging” the game could not continue.
Such is the problem today in the Judeo-Christian faith. The rule book – the actual teachings of God – has fallen victim to man’s deceptions and traditions. My intent is to prove exactly what is the final authority in all matters of doctrine.
I realize emotions run high and tradition is at risk. I realize most “believers” may despise me and consider me a heretic for even suggesting what I plan to prove. Yet I stand by my belief because it is irrefutable from “Scripture”, and I challenge anyone to show from Scripture that I am wrong. Thus far no one has been able.
The problem should be obvious to all. There are literally thousands of different groups that claim to be “Christian”. And even among individual groups (denominations) there exist divisions and spin-off organizations. When one tries to count all the various separate groups claiming to be the true representatives of the Christian faith he finds the task impossible. The number of separate groups is always in a state of flux; thus, no one really knows at any given instant the exact number of organizations. Before the census of groups can be totaled there has undoubtedly arisen a few more or, perhaps, some have merged together so that there are a few less. Suffice it to say there is a real problem when so many groups all claim to be following the same Bible.
Strangely, and worthy of notice, the same situation does not exist in Judaism. There are actually only three main branches of Judaism: Reform, Conservative, and Orthodox, though there are slight variations among each group. Some may also include the Chassidim, but I prefer to include them in the Orthodox faith. Nevertheless, the horrible level of division and doctrinal disagreement present in Christianity is absent from Judaism, although some may argue that since Reform Judaism in realistic terms doesn’t revere the Torah that it causes a major division with Conservative and Orthodox groups. I might agree on that point, but the level of condemnation among Judaic groups would still be less that can be found among the many thousands of Christian organizations where it is common for one group to viciously claim the members of others are likely going to hell.
The divisions within Judaism primarily focus on a single issue – the extent to which the Torah (teachings) of God is to be strictly followed. There is also disagreement over the extent to which the Oral Torah (halakah, Kabbalah, etc.) is to be considered. However, the situation within Christianity is far, far worse. It is so bad, that one must stretch the bounds of reason to even call the various denominations and splinter groups one religion.
But you may be thinking, what could I mean by this suggestion? Doesn’t everyone use the “Bible”? In answer to your question I pose the following question – what exactly is the “Bible”; or, more importantly, who exactly should define what is the “Holy” Scripture?
I present my case by answering 3 simple questions
- Who should define what is Holy Scripture?
- What do they define as "Holy Scripture"?
- What is the final authority in all matters of faith and practice – are there Scriptures that are subject to other Scriptures?
Question 1: Who should define "Holy Scripture"?
The apostle Peter said in his second epistle:
20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the Scripture is of any private interpretation.
21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
From this we get a hint as to who should define Scripture. According to Peter, no prophecy of “Scripture” should be privately (individually) interpreted, but should be consistent with the intent of the original author. How much more for the very definition of “prophecy” or Scripture itself.
I see no need to belabor the answer to our first question. Who should define Scripture? The answer is obvious. Scripture should define Scripture.
Now continuing, doesn’t using Scripture to define Scripture lead us into a perpetual circle from which there is no escape?
NO. Absolutely not.
Christians exalt as inspired the writings of the followers of Jesus (Yeshua – Yay'-shoo-ah). Thus, we should let those great men of faith tell us what Scripture is, and they very clearly do! So, we will let them be the final authority and by doing so we will let “Scripture define Scripture”.
Scripture - the Biblical authors themselves - should define Scripture, and we should never overrule or tamper with their definition.
Question 2: What do they define as "Holy Scripture" – what does Scripture say is Scripture?
A simple word study of the term “Scripture” in the New Testament reveals an immense truth.
(irreverently called the “Old” Testament)
Here, I have listed every occurrence in the New Testament where the term “Scripture” is found. To be certain I got every instance, I even searched for the original Greek word (graphe).
So, only 1 out of a total of 51 New Testament passages may imply the New Testament is of equal inspiration to the Tanakh.
If one actually reads the New Testament without bias it will be clear how central and final in authority Yeshua and his followers considered the sacred writings to be which they clearly defined as Scripture.
So, what we have is a situation where, according to the number of verses in the New Testament that define “scripture”, the Tanakh is clearly presented as THE Holy Scriptures! Additionally, as you will soon see, that one verse in the New Testament many use to “prove” the NT to be Scripture, doesn’t prove it at all.
Is it not puzzling how so many Christians rarely study the very “Bible” Yeshua and his followers studied? Is it not strange that the sacred writ considered as the ultimate source of wisdom and understanding by Yeshua and his followers is today being preached as “abolished”, “changed”, or only of “historical” significance? Is it not repulsively odd how many preachers claim to be “New Testament believers” by unabashedly promoting the concept that the Old Testament is superseded by the New Testament or of only limited application today? Isn’t it strange how, even though the New Testament leaves no doubt that the Hebrew Scriptures are what Yeshua and his disciples considered Scripture, almost no time is invested by most Christians to study those Hebrew Scriptures?
The very “Bible” used and preached from by our Messiah and his followers, by being constantly overruled by the New Testament (particularly by a misinterpreted application of the apostle Paul's epistles), has effectively been discarded from the church or relegated to “lesser” importance!
There is perhaps no better example of the clear embrace of the “Old” Testament as Scripture by a New Testament writer than is shown in Paul’s second letter to Timothy. Here, the writer most often exalted by Christians unambiguously reveals what he considered to be “Holy Scripture”.
14 But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them; 15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.
Sincere preachers the world over erroneously force this passage to refer to the New Testament as “holy Scripture” and use it to support study of the New Testament.
If this is so, would someone please explain to me how Timothy, “from a child”, could have known to study as part of the “holy Scriptures” a letter that he would not receive from Paul for many years – until he later grew to be a young man? And what of the other epistles of Paul and others that were possibly not written during the time Timothy was a “child”? Since the New Testament was centuries away from being canonized, how did Paul possibly expect Timothy to study the New Testament as part of these “holy Scriptures” if they were not to exist for many years?
Was Paul suggesting reincarnation? Obviously if this passage is referring to the New Testament he must have been expecting Timothy to study the “New Testament” several lives later. Did Timothy experience a miraculous time warp that was not recorded in the New Testament? Did “Dr. Who” from the popular British show of the same name arrive and give Timothy a ride in his magical telephone booth to a different place and time?
It seems most “New Testament” Christians would have us to believe the impossible. Paul was not even aware of the “New Testament” when this letter was written. There was no such thing as the “New Testament” writings during Paul’s ministry. Therefore, to say this passage in which Paul encourages Timothy to study Scripture applies to the New Testament is beyond the realm of possibility if the actual intent of the author is applied.
I wish basic common sense would be used by more people when reading the Bible and long for the day when sincere Christians finally admit the obvious. I pray The Most High hastens the day that the power of blind tradition is broken and Scriptural sanity and sincerity is finally established in the Christian faith. A primary means to accomplish this is to use the same Scriptures as Messiah and his loyal followers.
It is undeniable that Paul, in his exhortation to Timothy, is advising him to study the Tanakh (Old Testament). Furthermore, it will probably surprise most Christians that Paul proves in his letter to Timothy that he considered the Tanakh (not the “New Testament”) to be the source of doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction, and that the Tanakh (not the “New Testament”) makes one “wise unto salvation“, and that the Tanakh (not the “New Testament”) makes one “perfect, thoroughly furnished“.
Yet, I know of almost no Christian today who uses the Tanakh as their source for doctrine, reproof, correction, instruction, salvation wisdom, perfection, and to be thoroughly furnished. How can anyone possibly teach that the Tanakh, which Paul so eloquently advises his beloved son in the faith to study is abolished or of no significant value to the Christian? Quite frankly, such teaching is ludicrous, blasphemous, and in direct opposition to the New Testament instructions that Christians claim to follow.
So a clear fact is presented by 2 Timothy 3:14-17 – a fact that brings upon me fury and condemnation from Christians. And that fact is this:
It is obvious Paul did not intend this letter to Timothy nor any of the other New Testament writings to be equated to the “Holy Scriptures” that he advised Timothy to study for knowledge of truth. It is also obvious Paul had no other “Scripture” in mind except for the Tanakh when he wrote this letter to Timothy.
Why is this so clear? The answer is implicitly obvious using necessary inference. To repeat – the “New Testament,” which includes the letter to Timothy, had not even been canonized as “Scripture” at the time Paul wrote this letter to Timothy. There was no such thing as a New Testament in Paul’s mind. It did not exist and would not exist for hundreds of years. Paul, in his wildest imaginations, would never have thought that just a few hundred years later and for millennia to come his personal letters would be placed on an equal level with the “Holy Scriptures” he deeply loved – much less used to destroy the teachings of those beloved Scriptures – the Tanakh.
What was Peter’s intent in 2 Peter 3:15-16?
Now, what of the one passage in the New Testament – the very last use of the term “Scripture” in the Bible – that some point to as “proof” that the New Testament is on an equal level with the Tanakh. Although a common sense review of 2 Timothy and the 50 other verses in the New Testament should make the case, I realize tradition is often unbreakable and most will cling to it no matter what. That is understandable. I will now move to the “proof” passage used by most Christian clergy. That passage is 2 Peter 3:15,16.
15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other Scriptures, unto their own destruction.
I will respond to those that demand these verses “prove” that the New Testament is scripture using the following arguments:
- This is the only passage in the entire Bible that even hints that the New Testament is Scripture; thus, those that use it as evidence of the New Testament being Scripture are fighting against all the rest of the Bible!
- The Greek word, graphe, used in verse 16 and translated as “scriptures” may not even mean “Holy” scripture; however, even if it does, which I believe to be the case, it certainly does not equate Paul’s writings or the New Testament to “Holy” scripture.
- The actual intent of Peter’s statement is misinterpreted to imply that somehow he was equating Paul’s writings to “Holy” scripture; however, he was actually intending to make an entirely different point. His focus was upon the misinterpretation of writings. His intention was not on the writings themselves.
Point 1: The Only passage hinting at the NT being “Holy” scripture
It must be realized that 2 Peter 3:15,16 is the only passage in the ENTIRE “Bible” that even suggests that the letters written in the New Testament may be considered “Scriptures” and thus equal to the Tanakh. However, does it really, without question suggests this, or is that interpretation forced upon it by the bias of the reader?
The assumption most Christians make is that Peter’s use of the term “Scriptures” during his reference to Paul’s epistles means that Paul’s writings must be “holy” Scripture. Furthermore, the use of word “other” in the phrase “other Scriptures” is the primary reason many jump to the conclusion that the New Testament is on an equal level with the Tanakh. So, what we have is actually a single word in the entire Bible that even suggests that the New Testament is “Holy Scripture”! One single word!
Point 2: Is the passage actually talking about “Holy” scripture. If so, does the use of the Greek term graphe explicitly equate Paul’s writings to “Holy” Scripture?
What of the passage? Well, first it must be noted that an entirely different word is used that clearly does refer to Paul’s writings. That word in the Greek is epistole and is correctly translated as “epistles” in the verse. Though some may argue of the relevance of this point, it nonetheless must be realized that an entirely different Greek word, which does not mean “Holy Scripture”, is used to refer to the letters of Paul. Below is the Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance definition of this word.
Strong's #1992 epistole {ep-is-tol-ay’}
from 1989; TDNT – 7:593,1074; n f
AV – epistle 15, letter 9; 24
1) a letter, epistle
Secondly, the Greek word graphe, which is here and elsewhere correctly translated “Scriptures” does not necessarily have to refer to the Holy Scriptures. Why do I say this? Well, note the definition from Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance:
Strong's #1124 graphe {graf-ay’}
of uncertain affinity; TDNT – 1:749,128; n f
AV – Scripture 51; 51
1) a writing, thing written
2) the Scripture, used to denote either the book itself, or its contents
3) a certain portion or section of the Holy Scripture
Strong’s definition of graphe, as well as the definition from other Greek lexicons, suggests it could just as easily be referring to any “writing” or “thing written”. Other lexicons define it as “document” – any general document. To force it to mean “Holy” Scripture is to force upon the passage a meaning that the writer may not have intended.
It is very important to note that the Greek term, graphe, is used in a plural form here, which is why it is translated as the plural word “scriptures.” In reference to the plural form of this word, The Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament based on Semantic Domains states the following:
“The reference is to the OT (Old Testament) and not to the entire Bible, including both New and Old Testaments.”
Thus, use of 2 Peter 3:15,16 as “proof” that the New Testament was considered “Holy Scriptures” by Peter is nebulous at best and openly devious at worst. Although it is true that the term did refer to “Scripture” in all other uses, the additional term specifically referring to Paul’s writings (epistole) implies this use of graphe may be better interpreted to be referring to general “writings” or “documents”, since that is exactly what the word means.
I do not force this opinion because there is no need to. In fact, I personally believe Peter's use of the term may indeed be with respect to true Scriptures, but I am unsure. However, I will next show why even if the meaning is “scripture” it still does not prove Paul’s writings or the New Testament are to be considered “Holy” scripture. Realistically, this verse must be relegated to the level of inconclusive, and I humbly disagree with anyone who forces upon it an interpretation that Peter may not have intended.
Now to the final and most important point.
Point 3: Christian misinterpretation of the intent of Peter’s statement
Let’s assume that Peter is referring to Holy Scripture within the context of his mentioning of “Scripture” in verse 16. That still doesn’t prove Peter was equating Paul’s writings to Scripture. An important point of clarification is with regards to the issue of what Peter’s actual point is in stating what he did in verse 16.
What is Peter’s point in that sentence? What is Peter actually equating? Is he equating Paul’s epistles to Scripture, or is he making an entirely different comparison? Let’s look at the verses again.
15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other Scriptures, unto their own destruction.
Note the following.
- Peter mentions Paul’s letters (epistles) and states that those letters are sometimes misinterpreted.
- Peter then equates the misinterpretation of Paul’s letters with the common misinterpretation of “Scripture.”
- So, what Peter is equating is the misinterpretation aspect. He is not equating the actual writings of which he speaks. A simple, unbiased reading of the verse shows this to be an obvious grammatical fact.
He mentions “Scriptures” ONLY so that he can provide an example of misinterpretation to help illustrate the problem he had seen of people also misinterpreting Paul’s letters. Strangely, that same misinterpretation and misapplication problem Peter was warning about has been done with his own epistle! Peter’s reason for verse 16 was to provide an example of how the “unlearned and unstable” often do not understand Paul’s letters JUST AS they often to not understand Scripture (or possibly other writings that may have been in circulation at the time). It is the misunderstanding aspect Peter is here focusing on, not the “scripture” aspect.
Also, depending upon how one reads verse 16, it can appear that Peter is actually distinguishing between Paul’s epistles and the Scriptures. Frankly, when I read the passage I see little to suggest that Peter considered Paul’s epistles to be Scripture.
The problem is that bias has so infected the Christian mind, that the typical Christian reader of these passages is incapable of reading them without bias. I present the short study above only because so many are intoxicated on contemporary Christian bias.
Read verse 16 again. This time, don’t emphasize “other” so much. Amazingly, if the word “other” is not read or were not present, the assumption that Paul’s letters are “Holy Scripture” goes away completely. Additionally, if the term “other” is read to simply be a reference to "other" true Holy Scriptures instead of some sort of “code word” to equate Paul’s writings to Scripture, the argument that the New Testament is “Holy Scripture” is again shown erroneous. This is particularly true if you consider that synonyms (equivalent terms) for "other" are "alternative", "supplementary", "separate", etc. There is nothing in the term "other" that necessarily equates Paul's epistles to "Holy Scripture".
Finally, if Christians would consider how no other verse anywhere in the Bible even hints at support for the position that the New Testament is "Holy" Scripture equal in authority to the Tanakh, my point is proven.
So, even if Peter’s use of the term “Scripture” did refer to “Holy Scripture,” this verse is still shown to not be equating Paul’s writings to Holy Scripture.
in the entire Bible
Furthermore, this verse is only referring to the specific epistle or epistles that Peter was thinking about at that moment. What of Peter’s epistles, or John’s, or the Gospels? What about the book of Acts? There is no mention by Peter in which he referred to them as “scripture”.
What is the FINAL Authority for faith and practice?
This question is easily answered using the facts presented above.
Clearly, and in accord with the teachings of our Torah observant Messiah Yeshua and all His Torah observant followers, THE final authority is the Tanakh.
Furthermore, when one studies the New Testament this final authority must be kept in mind as apparent contradictions arise between what the New Testament writer appears to say and the Tanakh which Yeshua and his followers so lovingly embraced as unchanging and ultimate truth.
Often, when one places oneself within the thoroughly Hebraic context and mind set of the writer such a Bible student will realize there is no conflict at all. That is a topic we will discuss in another writing. However, to prime you for what is to come ponder this. It is impossible to correctly interpret Hebraic pro-Torah writings from Israelite authors who honor a Messiah of Israel if one uses westernized, Greco-Roman philosophy or thought patterns.
Conclusion
Why is it when individuals like myself use a correct contextual interpretation of the Bible as the basis of truth they are generally considered a “heretic?” The dangerous grip of Christianity's anti-Torah “tradition” is most clearly shown in such circumstances.
We should use the Bible along with a proper historical and contextual approach to define our faith. It is from the Bible using a straight forward, rather simple and easily understood approach that I obtained the information presented above.
There is simply no way around the absolutely sure truth that all writers of the New Testament considered the Tanakh (Hebrew Scriptures) to be the “Bible”. The fact that so many are offended by this is troublesome, since their offence is really directed toward the Word of the Almighty Creator God.
Such anger also betrays a deep, dark antisemitism that still lurks within Christianity and the hearts of many Christians, since much of the resentment is due to the inescapable underlying fact that the Judaic Scriptures (Tanakh) used by Yeshua and all NT writers are still the only true “HOLY” Scriptures. It is alarming to see so many Christians react so bitterly to that fact, and it is in this bitter reaction that I see the age-old satanic hatred of Hebraic truth, Jews, and Israel.
I had to discover what I present on this website on my own through laborious, lengthy study. As of the date of this writing, it has been an educational journey of over two decades. Of course, I give all thanks to the Most High for guiding me and creating the circumstances that lead to my awakening. Notice I said “lead” in present/future tense instead of “led” in past tense, because there is always more knowledge to obtain from the infinite storehouse of God’s teachings.
All I hope to accomplish in this writing is to somehow persuade Christians to think as the authors of the New Testament thought – to cause Christians to consider “Scripture” to be what the authors considered it to be. I hope to somehow awaken Christians to the danger to their eternal destiny if they reject the ultimate truth and final authority of the Tanakh.
Basically, I do what I can while hoping and praying that Christians will return to study of the actual Holy Scriptures, the Tanakh, which very few Christians ever spend time reading. Seriously. Few Christians expend much effort reading the Bible at all, and very, very few have ever read it in its entirety. The common notion is that studying what they irreverently call the “Old” Testament is a waste of time since, to them, it has been superseded by the “New” Testament – a notion that I can and have proven wrong.
Please be honest regarding the New Testament's imperfections ...
It must also be noted, as discussed elsewhere, that the New Testament is not a 100% perfect transmission of what was written. That is an absolutely sure and incontrovertible fact. Many who disagree with me vehemently present an argument similar to the following:
“The New Testament has been “proven” 99 percent accurate.”
Ok, let’s assume that I accept their statement. In fact, I will accept that the New Testament is highly reliable and state such elsewhere on this web site. I may even accept the 99% accuracy claim. The question is, do they actually accept their own accuracy estimate? Are they willing to stand by their statement? If they so forcefully promote the idea that the New Testament is 99 percent accurate, then they must also accept what is implied by their statement, which is that there is 1 percent corruption. Are they willing to admit that one out of every 100 words in the New Testament is incorrect based upon their own vigorously stated position of 99 percent New Testament accuracy?
There are 7957 verses in the New Testament. Are those promoting 99 percent accuracy willing to admit that by their own estimation roughly 80 New Testament passages present a corrupt transmission of information? Depending upon where those 80 verses are located, they may greatly affect one’s understanding of the New Testament or its transmission of truth.
The fact is, even those who assume 99 percent accuracy for the New Testament still refuse to admit there may be 1 percent error. If one chooses to assume 99.5% accuracy that still leaves 40 corrupt passages, and they generally will not admit that either. Additionally, those who accuse me of discarding passages I choose not to accept do the same thing when shown New Testament passages that conflict with their own beliefs. They are proven to be hypocrites.
The difference between me and them is that I use the same approach as the “noble” Bereans in Acts 17:11. I test the verses of the New Testament by comparing them to what is written in the Tanakh, the historical context of the first century, and what I deem to be legitimate oral Torah. This test is virtually never used by Christians, or even Messianics.
Therefore, my use of discernment to determine what may be incorrect within the New Testament is not only Scriptural, but is also commanded from within the very pages of the New Testament. In truth, since I follow the command to “test” the apostolic writings I am more of an authentic “New Testament believer” than are those Christians who differ with me.
I am NOT saying the New Testament is bogus or of little value. Many falsely accuse me of that since they cannot refute my arguments. All I am saying is that even if the corruption exists in a very small percentage of the overall number of New Testament passages, it is unwise to ultimately base one’s faith on a collection of writings proven to be corrupt or questionable in various areas, which were collected by men who were driven by bias and often a lust for power.
I am not implying a lot of corruption. However, it doesn’t take much cyanide or cobra venom to kill. One drop is all that is needed. Likewise, a scribal “edit” of just a few carefully placed words can totally poison truth, particularly when those words are contained in a handful of crucial verses. It is for this reason we should follow the New Testament authors’ pleas to always base one’s faith ultimately on what is written in the Tanakh by verifying that what they understand from the New Testament has proper contextual Tanakh support.
Christians need to also realize the New Testament canon underwent substantial redaction (editing) and that the available manuscripts exhibit clear scribal manipulation. These manuscripts (the thousands of original Greek writings) also differ from one another, thus proving they are not “God breathed”. Next time a preacher tells you the New Testament is free of substantial error, ask him or her to provide the number of differences. If they do not tell you the differences between manuscripts number into the thousands, they are either lying or ignorant of the facts.
The usual tactic is to declare the differences to be “minor.” Though I would agree in most cases and do feel the New Testament is generally reliable, the fact is nonetheless proven that the available manuscripts do differ in thousands of places; therefore, they are obviously not the “pure” Word of God. If they were “perfect” they would all be identical! Anyone using common sense must admit this.
The immense reverence given the Hebrew writings (Tanakh) by Hebrew Scribes and the unthinkable idea of manipulating those revered texts was not followed by New Testament Scribes who looked upon the Greek New Testament manuscripts with far less of a “hands off” approach. As uncomfortable as it is, it is nonetheless an absolute fact than scribal manipulation did occur as the New Testament underwent the process of canonization.
Fortunately The Living God gave us an easy means with which to verify the topics discussed in the New Testament. That sure method of verification is to compare all of the writings within the pages of the New Testament to the Tanakh! That is exactly what the Bereans of Acts 17:11 did!
11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the Scriptures daily, whether those things were so.
The Scriptures they searched were within the Tanakh. The “New Testament” did not exist at that time.
Proper approach to the New Testament
A proper approach is to consider the New Testament as learned commentary – oral Torah – regarding what the authors considered to be the true Word of God and to always use the Tanakh to verify the New Testament. In fact, I prove in a separate article that the New Testament is largely based on Judaic oral Torah and can, itself, be considered oral Torah.
I embrace and promote the New Testament and believe it to be highly reliable. I study it, love reading it, and am always assured of encouragement when I do. It is a fabulous compilation of writings that, IF properly understood in the light of its Hebraic context, clarifies many things regarding Torah (Law), The Creator God, and the Messiah. I cherish the clarity and concise presentation of many of the various aspects of God’s instructions (particularly moral) found in the New Testament as I do the many exhortations to persevere in this evil and often painful age.
However, I am constantly reminded of the sure fact that all the authors of the New Testament submitted to the ultimate Truth they considered to reside in the Tanakh and that they would be horrified at the thought of their letters were being used to abolish what they considered Eternal and perfect.
The writers of the New Testament – even with all the thousands of edits made by Christian scribes all the way up to the 16 century – clearly do show their view of what constitutes Holy Scripture, and it is not the epistles which they wrote. I sadly am convinced that proper contextual interpretation and reverence of the Scripturally defined Holy Scripture (Tanakh) is rarely done in the overwhelming number of “Christian” organizations.
I do not support or agree with those who wish to tear the New Testament from the Bible or who consider Paul a false teacher. Such people have, in my opinion, wrongly interpreted Paul’s writings and are far too quick to take the easy road of passing judgment instead of attempting to view his writings from the Pharisaic, Judaic context in which he wrote. Therefore, the opponents of Paul and those who grossly misinterpreted what they call “Pauline theology” into an anti-Torah teaching both make precisely the same error. They both seem to miss the dominant pro-Torah message of Paul. I discuss this at length in the article mentioned previously in which I prove the legitimacy and necessity of “oral Torah“.
Those of us who realize the Tanakh takes precedence in all matters of truth and who read the New Testament with that in mind began immediately to see perfect correlation without the slightest “speed bump” as we transition from the Tanakh to the writings of the New Testament. Indeed, the inspiration of Scripture by God is clearly proven once one recognizes how perfectly a proper contextual interpretation of the New Testament dovetails with the Tanakh. Virtually all supposed irregularities in the Bible disappear when the New Testament is rightly considered subject to the Tanakh. Evidence proving the existence of the Almighty Himself blazes forth as the unbreakable chain of both testaments is recognized.
I have thus far had no one give me any Scriptural refutation of my conviction that the Tanakh is the ONLY pure Holy Scripture. In every attempt the promoter of an incorrect “New Testament faith” who implicitly or explicitly discards the “Old Testament” definitions of faith (such as Torah observance) to the wastebasket, has had to resort to standard orthodoxy – Christian traditions of men. No one has presented any Scriptural proof that the authors of the New Testament considered their writings to be superior to or even equal to the Holy Scriptures they adored.
I still seek scriptural opposition to the scriptural position I take. This requires that the “Scripture” be interpreted and used as the original authors would have intended it to be – to whom was it written, when was it written, about what was it written, what traditions existed and how do they integrate into an interpretation, etc. Frankly, failure to actually interpret from the true Hebraic context of the writers is the cause for the popular blasphemy within Christianity of the Scriptures (Tanakh) that the writers of the New Testament so loved.
I will not consider as reproof of my opinion “traditional” teachings or opinions that are not supported by Scripture. Thus far, such opposition is all anyone has been able to mount. All I have ever received as opposition is the traditional, classic assumption that the authors intended their writings to be “Scripture” even though they never said so. This is an enormous, possibly unparalleled assumption; yet, few ever consider the immense implication of such an idea. By this assumption many are literally declaring the Eternal Torah (teachings) of the Creator God to be superseded, or abolished, or at the very least equaled by writings whose authors NEVER implied such an outrageous idea. The ease at which most make this assumption is indicative of how horribly diminished the concept of God and His Word has become in the minds of many traditional Christians. This is yet one of many proofs of how the fear, awe, love, majesty, glory, and honor of God is all but dead in the minds of many that have been fed false doctrines from their Christian leaders.
To assume, just because Christian tradition says so, that the Almighty, Eternal, Creator God’s Holy Word has been superseded by other writings is pure blasphemy, and I cannot sit by and allow such evil assumption to go unopposed. The Holy One commands in Ezekiel 3 and 33, as well as elsewhere, that I am to oppose all forms of wickedness, and nothing is more wicked than attempts to eradicate His Holy Word.
It is amazing how much hatred can be generated towards those that stand on the foundation of the Holy Scriptures. Satan really emerges in others when he sees his attempt to rid the world of God’s Word exposed. I have already shown that there is but one verse in the entire Bible to which Tanakh and Torah haters can go, and I have also proven that verse to be inconclusive at best. Perhaps someone can find one or two more, but they definitely will not find any in the Tanakh. Ok, fine. Then we will say the standard Christian position has a 31100 to 2 or 31099 to 3 weight of evidence against it.
But, alas, I fully expect the traditional bias of many to rise to the surface as they find themselves without any sound basis for the dominant implicit or explicit teaching within Christianity that the New Testament is “better” or “supersedes” the Tanakh. It does not, never did, and never will!
I stand on the scripturally defined Scripture. My friend, on what do you stand? I sincerely pray you will deeply consider what Scripture defines as Scripture and will then seek truth from those Holy Writings.