Can you name 10 traditions Yeshua Hamashiach took issue with?

[IshChayil]

So why am I so concerned about this?

A friend of mine who lived in Britain for a while told me that the vastness of American media has started to corrupt even the true English language (in the UK) so that their grammar is starting to be affected by ours (some years ago). I see the similar phenomenon happening in Messianic Judaism.
We birthed the Hebrew Roots movement (quite accidentally), which in turn knows very little about Jewish Law-keeping traditions, which now has dwarfed us in size (I think), and now is influencing some of the very Messianic Organizations from whence it was born. I wont name organizations but one of the largest ones I've seen leaders even hear at Bib. Fam. parroting some of the Hebrew Roots position's against Halakhah.

It is with utmost arrogance and danger we write off the teachings of men who spent at times 16+ hours a day studying Torah and teaching because "they didn't believe Yeshua was the Messiah". Who could really blame them for this? Did anyone actually share the real Yeshua with them or was it a Romanesque Jesus or a Lutheran Jew-hating Jesus they were exposed to? I don't see how if I'm learning algebra (Torah), why someone who doesn't know Calculus (Apostolic Writings [NT]) can't teach algebra. That Calculus class sure as heck isn't gonna reteach the basics b/c it's a prerequisite.

So anytime you guys are gonna say "the rabbis didn't even believe in Yeshua" as an excuse to completely write off mountains of wisdom, maybe rethink how good your algebra is before you decide to take on Calculus.
I heard a Messianic Rabbi say something quite controversial recently. He said, "if you think that the anti-Torah Christians don't understand the Old Testament, then they don't understand the New Testament 5 x more."

 

[mrwill]

Thanks for chiming in William.
Please note, the scope of the thread is: "can you find even 10 Torah-keeping traditions which the Messiah rebuffed"? Not a general "tradition is bad m'kay...m'kay"

The argument about Adam and Eve is a standard polemic made against hedging though really quite inappropriate for a site full of Patriarchs as the reasoning then goes like this: Adam may have told his wife not even to touch the fruit, therefore she sinned and ate it (because the devil was able to show her the hedge was incorrect and she interpreted the hedge as the actual command). No, she ate it because she wanted to sin against G-d. Anyway, that argument is usually used against hedging commandments in general not against honoring one's parents by keeping their commands on how to obey G-d's commands.

My understanding of patriarchy may be different than yours... maybe not and we’re just approaching it from different angles. My understanding is that a key part of the responsibility that comes with being a patriarch (and Gods underlying reason for having it) is accurately passing on the way of holiness to those under our covering. If you add traditions and expectations it complicates things. Jesus may not have specifically spoke against ten specific traditions, but he spoke out against their traditions in broad terms and that should give pause to making them a focus for our families. Many traditions are thought to be useful. Most modern churches have guides on behaviors that they feel lead to sin. The one I grew up in had no alcohol, no dancing and no plural marriage (of course). They were traditions that become taught as doctrine over time, which is the natural life cycle of man made wisdom.

I do have guidelines for my own children, but it’s always made clear to them which parts are scripture and which are my preferences that they will abide by when under my care. And it’s clarified again when we study the scriptures together. And it’s key to keep up front that the scriptures are more free than any man will normally make us.

 

[rockfox]

I see 10 at the very least. But Ish you seem bound and determined to minimize the number and explain them away by various means. This is pointless. I could care less if the number is 10 or 10 thousand. Is someone teaching as doctrine the commandments of men? That's a catchall which catches all manner of Jewish practices not spelled out in the scriptures.

It is with utmost arrogance and danger we write off the teachings of men who spent at times 16+ hours a day studying Torah and teaching because "they didn't believe Yeshua was the Messiah". Who could really blame them for this?

No, in many cases it is wisdom because those are the teachings Christ implicitly condemned and which were codified by men so evil in their heart they rejected the Messiah, persecuted Christians and even modified the scriptures.

Did anyone actually share the real Yeshua with them or was it a Romanesque Jesus or a Lutheran Jew-hating Jesus they were exposed to

Luther came along 1500 years after Christ condemned their Traditions. Much of the Talmud was written before the Roman's took over the western church and came from areas of Orthodox influence. But yes, in the early years people did share the real Yeshua with them and they rejected Him. And the New Testament scriptures were there for them to read after that. "So and so preached a false Christ" won't be a valid excuse on the day of judgement. If these are such great Torah scholors...

"He said to him, 'If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be persuaded if one rises from the dead.'"

 

[mrwill]

Christ is the foundation of truth. Attempting to understand the Torah (or any scripture) without him is fruitless, no matter how clever the rabbi.

 

[Mojo]

"if you think that the anti-Torah Christians don't understand the Old Testament, then they don't understand the New Testament 5 x more."

Profound statement!

 

[Mojo]

I'm not Hebrew Roots or Messianic, but I stand firm on the proposition that Torah and all the history of the Hebrew faith needs to be examined, studied and much more greatly appreciated in the broader assembly of believers.

Everyone is subject to traditions. They are inevitable. We are bathed in them from birth. There are ethnic, cultural, regional, denominational and family traditions, just to name a FEW.

If my fellow brother in Yeshua has been regenerated and trusts only in his Messiah for salvation, then I really don't mind the traditions he keeps. If he looks to the traditions of his forefathers and seeks to dig through the wisdom of the rabbis and scholars, it doesn't bother me. If they help him appreciate the history of the faith, and gain insights, so be it.

If, in following those traditions, he then obliges others to follow them, regardless of the lack of conviction in them, and then chides them as a weak believer, then I have a problem. If he insists that in following these traditions that it shows how much a truer believer he is and that those who don't are lost, then I have a problem.

I don't think @IshChayil has ever proposed anything close to my two concerns. I can see how mystified he is of those who would cast doubt on him as a believer, or his brand of the faith, if he seeks to follow in the traditions of his forefathers that accentuate his understanding of who his creator and redeemer is.

 

[The Revolting Man]

I greatly appreciate your involvement Pete, but this is the viewpoint we all know already, I'm a bit exasperated to read it yet again in this thread; it sounds a bit like a mantra to me whenever I hear it. (I won't engage the dialect issue of shibboleth as that's way off).

This is the point I'm trying to make people think about by starting this thread. I'm gently challenging the Hebrew Roots dogmatic opinion that in general Jewish tradition is bad, needs to somehow be challenged/ignored "just to show it doesn't matter, etc".
The point of the challenge is I don't think of the 40k traditions we can find even TEN in the basorot which Yeshua challenged. So far from the other posts I may have seen 1 additional tradition listed.
Others listed (as you correctly called out Pete) stuff that's just sinful or prideful but certainly not tradition.
I'll address one of those shortly.

Perhaps part of the problem some folks are having is that the current use of the word "tradition" is not specific enough. In the scope of scripture guys, we're talking about "ways to obey commandments of G-d which are passed down from our Torah-keeping ancestors".
Not things like, "I noticed grandma throws salt over her shoulder for good luck".

**** less related to my point in general but I wanted to take the time to address your issue of varying traditions I'll handle in another post to keep this terse****

I think your question may be a little misdirected. You challenge us to to find 10 from the 40,000 Jewish traditions that Jesus condemned. My immediate thought was to wonder how many of those traditions had been established at that time. At it's root Judaism is the most ancient religion in the world. But in many of it's particulars it is quite recent, much of it being codified in the last 200 years. The Talmud is relatively young as well at barely a thousand years old (in it's current form) making it younger than both the New Testament and the Quran. I think the question should be rephrased to ask, of the traditions an educated, first century Jew like Jesus would have been aware of, how many did He object to?

 

[The Revolting Man]

So why am I so concerned about this?

A friend of mine who lived in Britain for a while told me that the vastness of American media has started to corrupt even the true English language (in the UK) so that their grammar is starting to be affected by ours (some years ago). I see the similar phenomenon happening in Messianic Judaism.
We birthed the Hebrew Roots movement (quite accidentally), which in turn knows very little about Jewish Law-keeping traditions, which now has dwarfed us in size (I think), and now is influencing some of the very Messianic Organizations from whence it was born. I wont name organizations but one of the largest ones I've seen leaders even hear at Bib. Fam. parroting some of the Hebrew Roots position's against Halakhah.

It is with utmost arrogance and danger we write off the teachings of men who spent at times 16+ hours a day studying Torah and teaching because "they didn't believe Yeshua was the Messiah". Who could really blame them for this? Did anyone actually share the real Yeshua with them or was it a Romanesque Jesus or a Lutheran Jew-hating Jesus they were exposed to? I don't see how if I'm learning algebra (Torah), why someone who doesn't know Calculus (Apostolic Writings [NT]) can't teach algebra. That Calculus class sure as heck isn't gonna reteach the basics b/c it's a prerequisite.

So anytime you guys are gonna say "the rabbis didn't even believe in Yeshua" as an excuse to completely write off mountains of wisdom, maybe rethink how good your algebra is before you decide to take on Calculus.
I heard a Messianic Rabbi say something quite controversial recently. He said, "if you think that the anti-Torah Christians don't understand the Old Testament, then they don't understand the New Testament 5 x more."

Speaking for my Hebrew Roots brethren and with all the respect due to the Jews for being the Chosen People and the ones through who all the world was blessed, I'm calling bullshit.

Ish you're a learned man, far wiser than me. You've forgotten things I'll never learn but you have told me, on this forum, to not do what the Law says because a tradition says I can't . I am remembering Passover specifically but there may have been something else as well. Moses tells us that God commanded us all to kill the Passover in our own homes (right now my understanding is that the command to perform the Passover in Jerusalem is only binding on Israelites living in the Land. I fall under the early Sinai Law. I'm willing to be persuaded otherwise) and you told me I could not. Who am I supposed to believe? Moses or those who claim to speak for him? When someone comes to me denying both Jesus (I know you proclaim Christ) and Moses I'm going to dicount that person's words.

 

[PeteR]

Again, calling righteous tradition and honoring of our fathers, and apparently yours by the revelation you shared a "minefield of tradition" reveals your heavy bias against the native olive tree.
Maybe your tribe isn't around for a reason? You seem sincere so perhaps you could make this change for me (since you love me):
Stop using loaded words which make Jewish tradition seem dangerous to young minds and others (i.e. minefield).
Especially since you have been unable to come up with even 10 which Yeshua stopped living by and taught others to stop living by and we have the continuity of Rav Shaul who after believing in Yeshua already "lived by the traditions".
Don't worry about the minefield of Jewish traditions teaching how to keep Torah, but maybe worry about the minefield of walking after our own ways ... the way we walk is "halakhah", that's the meaning of that word I'm sure you know...

Ish, I love you, bro and really appreciate the richness you bring to the board. Few things I'd love more than sharing a meal and batting Scripture and thoughts around... even this topic that always gets contentious. Via the web, its particularly thorny to sort out...

That being said, I want to ask you from the logical extreme: does Rabbinic tradition (Talmud) never add to or take away from Moses? I.e., is it 100% reliable with the authority of God's Word? Or, does it ever contain something that you consider an error or false doctrine/interpretation?

Thanks for indulging me...

 

[IshChayil]

And it’s key to keep up front that the scriptures are more free than any man will normally make us.

Then why do those same scriptures command us to set up men to interpret the laws over us? Maybe those under the Law are not as free as you want them to be?
Or are we reading different Torahs?

 

[IshChayil]

Ish, I love you, bro and really appreciate the richness you bring to the board. Few things I'd love more than sharing a meal and batting Scripture and thoughts around... even this topic that always gets contentious. Via the web, its particularly thorny to sort out...

That being said, I want to ask you from the logical extreme: does Rabbinic tradition (Talmud) never add to or take away from Moses? I.e., is it 100% reliable with the authority of God's Word? Or, does it ever contain something that you consider an error or false doctrine/interpretation?

Thanks for indulging me...

Go and study it and let me know where you think it "adds to" by a degree greater than the Messiah himself seems to "add to" (adultery is just looking at a gal who isn't yours, murder is anger in your heart for your brother, divorce is no longer allowed for any reason but only for adultery, etc. etc.). Be honest now, if Yeshua hadn't spoken those things, and you learned our sages taught them (as many of Yeshua's teachings are echoed in Mishnah Pirke Avot), wouldn't you claim the Rabbi who taught those things was "adding to"?

I'm asking rhetorically because I am almost certain the standard people apply as "adding to" would force them to see Yeshua as doing this.
[anyone reading this needs to keep in mind that the Messiah is not allowed to "add to" the Torah otherwise He couldn't have died for our sins as he would have himself sinned]. Is it possible guys that adding to does not mean what you think it means?

"Inconceivable!"
"I do not think that word means what you think it means!"

 

[IshChayil]

I see 10 at the very least. But Ish you seem bound and determined to minimize the number and explain them away by various means. This is pointless. I could care less if the number is 10 or 10 thousand. Is someone teaching as doctrine the commandments of men? That's a catchall which catches all manner of Jewish practices not spelled out in the scriptures.

Seems you don't know what the word tradition means Rock since most of what you listed are called sins

I very carefully and honestly went down your list and demonstrated in painful detail how things like "hypocrisy" are not synonyms for tradition.
Are you even a Torah Keeper anyway? It seems not as your disdain goes further than simply anti-tradition, it's positively antinomian. Now if you want to bail because you can't handle your comments being scrutinized well that's fine. You are the one disengaging not me.
If you're not a Torah keeper anyway then why be mad if I reject your list of alleged attacks on "traditional ways to keep the Law"?
I thought I accepted a couple of your points as valid anyway but already in the original list.

No, in many cases it is wisdom because those are the teachings Christ implicitly condemned and which were codified by men so evil in their heart they rejected the Messiah, persecuted Christians and even modified the scriptures.

You are saying Jews modified the scriptures?
I think you are confusing Jews with Gentiles when it comes to trying to delete books from the bible.
To this day, Christian scholars use the Hebrew Masorah in ALL translations of bibles so which books exactly are we guilty of deleting?
What a bizarre comment. Why don't you just tell me how you really feel LOL.

The rest of your unsubstantiated anti-Jewish rant is unrelated to the topic at hand so I won't respond except for your mention of Luther. It's hillarious you accuse Jews of editing the bible while your boy Luther wanted to delete 4 New Testament books. How's that for definitely not being led by the Holy Spirit. Forget gifts of prophesying, tongues, etc. How about the gift of "NOT DESTROYING THE BIBLE"?

Why do you often end up so angry in so many threads guy?
And if it makes you so angry to participate in well-reasoned, thorough discussions maybe you should consider taking a break. We can be friends here and disagree.
I thought I gave your points a fair and balanced review. Why be mad that I just didn't accept all of them wholesale as valid? If you wish to continue calmly then reply to my previous itemized response and show me where I'm off base.

 

[IshChayil]

Speaking for my Hebrew Roots brethren and with all the respect due to the Jews for being the Chosen People and the ones through who all the world was blessed, I'm calling bullshit.
Ish you're a learned man, far wiser than me. You've forgotten things I'll never learn

What exactly kind of logical fallacy is "calling bullsh*t"? I don't remember learning that one.
It sure sounds convincing though.

but you have told me, on this forum, to not do what the Law says because a tradition says I can't . I am remembering Passover specifically but there may have been something else as well. Moses tells us that God commanded us all to kill the Passover in our own homes ...

Zec, I never argued that tradition was the reason for not killing a Passover lamb any more.
One thing I wrote you specifically was that now Yeshua is our Passover lamb; that's actually a standard Christian argument against sacrificing. To say that I said "you can't keep that Torah law b/c ummm ummm tradition that's why yeah" is inaccurate. You do know that the Passover lambs had to be slaughtered at the holy place (first the Mishkan "Tabernacle" then the Beit Miqdash "temple") right? That's how it happened in scripture, not just tradition. Only the first Passover lamb was to be slaughtered "in your own home" because we did not yet have the holy place. (The Israelites were even later restricted by Moses to not do offerings on private altars any more and that all slaughtering should be done at the Mishkan).
I further reasoned that halakhic exegesis has determined that men are not to inflict unnecessary suffering on animals. This yields the traditional understanding that only an expert butcher should slaughter a living animal so that the animal will not suffer. Now you did not yield my counsel (despite your views of me being wiser and what-not) and you admitted later that the animal which you slaughtered for your Passover meal that year really fought with you. I was careful not to say "I told you so" but now that you bring it up again as if I was so off-base in leaning on traditional understanding and somehow trying to get you to violate a commandment, I'll now say [over a year later] "I told you so". You made an animal suffer unnecessarily in an unsanctified place, when we already have a Paschal lamb, so that you could keep the command "according to your own understanding". I've grown to care for you these last couple of years but I'd like to humbly ask you to revisit the oversimplification of your remark above. Was I really telling you to violate a command ... because tradition or was my argument a bit more cogent and nuanced than that?
Might it be the case that you were just being stubborn in your own ways you didn't want to listen to reason, and even repeated the process again this year (still with a struggling animal but "not as bad as last year")?

The only reason I even intervened so strongly on that issue was I believe it's a sin to do that (a believer in Yeshua to slaughter a Passover lamb at home in this day and age). I was treating you as a brother with my correction. (Maybe I am wrong on my understanding of the issue, but I want you to see the reasoning for this was not simply "tradition")

 

[IshChayil]

I think your question may be a little misdirected. You challenge us to to find 10 from the 40,000 Jewish traditions that Jesus condemned. My immediate thought was to wonder how many of those traditions had been established at that time. At it's root Judaism is the most ancient religion in the world. But in many of it's particulars it is quite recent, much of it being codified in the last 200 years. The Talmud is relatively young as well at barely a thousand years old (in it's current form) making it younger than both the New Testament and the Quran. I think the question should be rephrased to ask, of the traditions an educated, first century Jew like Jesus would have been aware of, how many did He object to?

That's a fair comment Zec.
The answer is, "a whole heck of a lot of them".
The Mishnah records in a whole lot of detail not only various interpretations of how to keep Laws but also WHICH RABBIS taught such and such. This was written down around 200 AD. It had been memorized by the Tannaim Sages who claimed it's much much older. You can certainly go the route of poking holes in those claims. I don't think, however, it's far fetched to consider that such details could have survived from Yeshua's day in an oral tradition for a couple of centuries (though we believe the oral tradition is much much older than that). This is actually the official position of the Messianic Jewish Theological Institute Messianic Judaism's only real Yeshiva (seminary). The position is actually that the Mishna and many comments of the gamara go way before that time. This makes sense if you consider the 400 years of silence where we don't have prophecy on the level of "write this down" happening. Instead there is a transition into the Rabbinical way of approaching scripture.

Your comment that the Talmud is "barely a thousand years old(in it's current form)" is misleading (though I don't think intentionally). The current format (Vilna Edition) is only a couple hundred years (in it's current form). The heart of the talmud, however, is the Mishneh and the comments of the rishonimi and those are far more ancient than you suggest. People misunderstand the nature of the talmud.
Part of the Talmud is written in Hebrew, so that's from a time period when folks spoke Hebrew. Many scholars think Hebrew was no longer spoken in Israel during the days of Yeshua, so riddle me that one?
The Gemara, running commentary / history, in the Talmud is written in Babylonian Aramaic since those who wrote it lived in Babylon. So you may want to rethink that just because we have records of a thing being put on paper at a certain date, hardly means that thing is "created at that date". Respectfully, you may want to learn a bit more about Talmud before making sweeping statements about it brother.

It is not a bible.
It's a conversation across the generations. It includes disagreements, arguments, and the rationale for majority decisions by the courts which Moses commanded be established (religious courts).
It's a bundle of case law in this sense which preserves the dissenting opinions in court cases regarding Torah Law so that future generations can learn not only the ruling (i.e. the tradition) but also the way of thinking which leads to this ruling. There is a common misunderstanding among Hebrew roots folks that the Jewish way of understanding Torah somehow obfuscates Talmud and written Torah.
Among those who study there is always an awareness of a mitzvah that is written in the bible verses a court decree by a religious court. Rabbis often point these things out "that's a tachinah" someone will say. "It's not in written Torah".

Your comment that the Talmud is younger than the Quran" is entirely false and the opinion that the core of the Talmud is younger than the New Testament, well that's not how Jews see it and it's not the Messianic Jewish Theological Institute's perspective either (these are all believers in Yeshua the Messiah).

 

[IshChayil]

So let's update our list so far:

1. Healers should not do healing on the Sabbath day
2. Breaking standing grain and munching on the Sabbath (not harvesting) is categorized as labor
3. One must say the purification prayer and ritually wash hands before eating

Possible additions:
4. Seeking the highest seat or room at a feast (contributed by @Verifyveritas76 )
5. Calling one Lord, Master, Rabbi, Father, Pastor, Deacon, Preacher, Elder, Bishop, Prophet, Apostle, Brother (when "Brother so and so signifies one in spritual authority"), Doctor, Professor : contributed by @Verifyveritas76 bold added by me as modern titles Yeshua surely would have included had they been in use in the day.

I did not include @rockfox "making tzitzit long and making Tefillin leather straps wide" because the actual traditional interpretation of the commands is the actual wearing of the fringes and the use of tefillin (Phylacteries) at all. His attack is not on these traditions but on some men's love to appear holy before others by personally opting to have larger versions of these traditional items (phylacteries and prayer shawels). Yeshua does not condemn the traditions but further refines how to do them in a better way. If you guys disagree with my reasoning we can consider adding these to the list. Please be sure to include your rationale if you object.

 

[IshChayil]

Christ is the foundation of truth. Attempting to understand the Torah (or any scripture) without him is fruitless, no matter how clever the rabbi.

OK so is it safe to assume you've put in the time to even understand Christ's language, culture, the traditions he grew up with and passed on to his disciples, the "clever rabbis" whom he affirmed by adopting their prayers (i.e. Rabbi Hillel). I'm sure you've learned all about that stuff and those you congregate with value all of that stuff as well right WIlliam? Because it's totally easy to understand all the depths of דיברה dibburah devoid of all those things.
He never spoke in parables or anything, always totally direct and to the point.
There are no deep gems or pearls to get from His teaching, it's all at an 8th grade level right?
There have not been several works written illuminating the gospels in light of the Talmud or other Rabbinical writings (midrashim) or anything like that right?
You're totally ok with the fact that your English bible's Old Testament is based on the masorah "tradition" which was vocalized according to tradition by the Masoretes only 1000 years ago by "clever rabbis who didn't know Yeshua". That's totally cool you hook line and sinker accept their version of the Old Testament as the basis of the translation you're holding in your hands but you're so hostile to them regarding significantly LESS weighty things like how we observe mitzvot. Just let those Christless clever rabbis determine the meaning of the words in your bible William (someone else can teach William how Hebrew Niqqudot work I need to work on another project right now).

If that's lost on you, how about showing some humility instead of making grandstanding sound bytes against the olive tree trunk which you're grafted in to and try to take a stab at helping us list at least 10 Torah-keeping traditions Yeshua taught us are evil William since that's what the thread is about.

 

[IshChayil]

...
I know next to nothing about HR/MJ thought, so I won't be staying long, but it seems that God (in either testament) isn't 'against' tradition as long as it doesn't contradict His commandments. He honored the rechabites (sp?) for their tradition of living in tents and drinking no wine. He certainly never commanded them to live that way, but it didn't nullify any of His laws to do so, in fact this tradition very much honored their father who gave the original directive. It was a tradition made in harmony with the Word. (In my view)

Right on with the Rechovites Slumber; that's something I haven't had anyone able to refute. They are treated as righteous in the bible for keeping their ancestors' extra-biblical commands.

I would add that at times Hashem doesn't want Israel to even do His commandments because their hearts were in a bad place "you think I want the blood of bulls? The cattle on a thousand hills are mine...." this same spirit of Hypocrisy addressed in the Old Testament is also revisited in the New. Have the right attitude and loyalties when you fulfill the commands. Most of Yeshua's attacks are on this attitude/motivation issue.

 

[PeteR]

Go and study it and let me know where you think it "adds to" by a degree greater than the Messiah himself seems to "add to" (adultery is just looking at a gal who isn't yours, murder is anger in your heart for your brother, divorce is no longer allowed for any reason but only for adultery, etc. etc.). Be honest now, if Yeshua hadn't spoken those things, and you learned our sages taught them (as many of Yeshua's teachings are echoed in Mishnah Pirke Avot), wouldn't you claim the Rabbi who taught those things was "adding to"?

I'm asking rhetorically because I am almost certain the standard people apply as "adding to" would force them to see Yeshua as doing this.
[anyone reading this needs to keep in mind that the Messiah is not allowed to "add to" the Torah otherwise He couldn't have died for our sins as he would have himself sinned]. Is it possible guys that adding to does not mean what you think it means?

"Inconceivable!"
"I do not think that word means what you think it means!"

Nice Dodge... you didn't answer the question...

 

[IshChayil]

Nice Dodge... you didn't answer the question...

Actually I did, in the same style Yeshua actually used (great teacher right?)

** edit **
Do you think you have been guilty of misapplying "add to"?
I want to nail that down before I answer your question more directly.
If it means something different to you than it meant to Yeshua then how can I answer your question (when we aren't even speaking the same language)?

 

[PeteR]

A

Actually I did, in the same style Yeshua actually used (great teacher right?)

** edit **
Do you think you have been guilty of misapplying "add to"?
I want to nail that down before I answer your question more directly.
If it means something different to you than it meant to Yeshua then how can I answer your question (when we aren't even speaking the same language)?

Actually, you have answered the question. Twice.

Here's what I know. Christian tradition, our 'sages' have tons of great teaching. Volumes and volumes. Much of it codified into doctrines and streams of thought. No different than Judaism. Some us great, some debateable, some clearly wrong in hindsight once held to the fullness of Scripture. 'Old' and 'new' testaments. I know the players, the streams of thought, the errors. It is, imho, a minefield. Most Christians don't view it as such, but no Calvinust turns a new believer loose with Arminius or vice versa.

The combined errors are like barnacles on a boat, they ocassionally need to be scraped off... we call that Reformation. It happens from time to time. Coming to Hebrew roots, I began to recognized heavier layers of barnacles that I needed to scrape off. And, I recognized chunks of doctrine are based mostly on NT Scriptures with assumptions gluing it together.

The nature of religion and the nature of man dictates that barnacles get added. Period. Full stop. Judaism is no different. The problem is I don't know the playing field, the barnacles, the different streams of thought, etc. As one who leads, why in the world would I knowingly go or send others into a 'minefield' that I know has error? Particularly when I don't know where all the errors are?

I'm sorry, it is not personal and it is not antisemitic. Rabbinic Judaism may have some good and reliable stuff. So does Christianity. BOTH have error built in. I have experienced personal reformation and come back to Scripture alone without filters. Does that mean I leave some stuff on the table or maybe not get the most out because I don't read sages or theologians much anymore? Maybe.

I'll know it is time to delve into Jewish thought when I see brothers on that side of the aisle wringing hands and acknowledging that they, too, have missed the mark with manmade interpretations.

I love you and bless you. I choose to walk with you, but may not drink from that fount until the Mashiach throws in a branch to sweeten the bitter elements.

Be that branch. Begin to question everything in the interest of the fullness of truth and for the sake of your brothers. Identify and call out the errors.

Shalom.