Judaism needs Christianity to stand up under the Historical method

Thanks to mosc for restarting this debate. The Jewish T'nach acts as both a book of moral instruction and a recollection of the history of Ancient Israel prior to Roman invasion and occupation of Palestine. Do you really believe that none of the books in the T'nach have anything to do with the history of Israel? I don't understand what you are getting at when you say I am ignorant in comparative religion. So try again with your explanation. I was saying that the New Testament manuscripts were written in multiple languages, Not the Jewish T'nach unless you recognize both the Old and New Testament as God's holy scripture. What you said in your next paragraph is true even though it isn't really relevant to the context of this debate. When interpreting the Torah and T'nach I will apply to the relevant verse the theological, Historical, Social, Cultural, And political context of the verse. On the origin of The "Musar" Movement: The Musar movement arose among the non-Hasidic Orthodox Lithuanian Jews as a response to the social changes brought about by the Enlightenment and the corresponding Haskalah movement among many European Jews. In this period of history anti-Semitism, The assimilation of many Jews into Christianity, And the impoverished living conditions of many Jews in the Pale of Settlement caused severe tension and disappointment. Many of the institutions of Lithuanian Jewry were beginning to break up. Religious Jews feared that their way of life was slipping away from them, Observance of traditional Jewish law and custom was on the decline, And even those who remained loyal to the tradition were losing their emotional connection to its inner meaning and ethical core. I have already addressed what you have said in regards to the reliability of the Book of John. John was not focusing on history and I have argued that the T'nach is both a book of instruction surrounding ethics and a history book. Your T'nach is my Old Testament so. Also, I hope the voters see how you make the assumption that I have never studied Judaism or the scholarship around it which is a blatant example of the fallacy of unwarranted assumption and in e way begging the question fallacy! The context we seem to be discussing makes the neighbour your "fellow man" and Love a showing of mercy. This, By the way, Has nothing to do with the motion before us. The Apostles age varied some have argued they were in their late teens other in their late twenties I think few would argue that the apostles were older than Jesus. After researching this greek papyrus on the Gospel of Mark and the Egypt Exploration Society I have realized something. This early manuscript is not the original and it is simply treated as an early copy, Not the literal document written by the literal Apostle. Here's some truth concerning the Gospel of Mark. Because of the reference to the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem in 70 CE (Mark 13:2), Most scholars believe that the Gospel of Mark was written sometime during the war between Rome and the Jews (66-74). Most early dates fall around 65 CE and most late dates fall around 75 CE. Those who favour an earlier date argue that Mark's language indicates that the author knew that there would be serious trouble in the future but, Unlike Luke, Didn't know exactly what that trouble would entail. Of course, It wouldn"t have taken divinely inspired prophecy to guess that the Romans and Jews were on yet another collision course. Supporters of early dating also need to make sufficient room between Mark and the writing of Matthew and Luke, Both of which they also date early " as early as 80 or 85 CE. Conservative scholars who favor an early date often rely heavily upon a fragment of papyrus from Qumran. In a cave sealed in 68 CE was a piece of a text which is claimed to be an early version of Mark, Thus allowing Mark to be dated before the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem. This fragment, Though, Is just one inch long and one inch wide. On it are five lines with nine good letters and one complete word " hardly a firm foundation upon which we can rest an early date for Mark. Jews do rule your homeland. . . . Because of the Christian British Empire and the support from Christian America! I interpret documents using the Laws of Logic and Thought not the Oral Tradition! Holy means to be set apart at least to me and many Christians it does but what I have done here is taken the different types of holiness and ask you to choose one and then I shall define it! Let me ask you a question? Does God have the power to revise his laws? If not why? Doesn't that get rid of the idea of an Omnipotent God? On the genealogy of Christ Jesus, I quote J. Warner Wallace a detective who runs Cold Case Christianity: Minor Reasonable Contributing Factor: Some theologians and scholars have noted that one of the authors may simply have been more interested in including members of Jesus" "legal" lineage who are related to him through "levirate marriage". Back in these days, If a man passed away without any sons, The man"s brother would marry the widow to produce a son who could carry on the original man"s name. The son could then be listed under the genealogy of his natural father or his legal father. This might explain why Joseph is listed as the son of Heli in Luke but the son of Jacob in Matthew. While this may explain some of the differences between genealogies, There are too many variances to trust this minor contributing factor as a comprehensive explanation. Major Reasonable Contributing Factor: A more likely contributing factor, In my view, Is the difference in the initial objectives of each author. Matthew appears to be writing to a Jewish audience. As a result, He begins his genealogy with characters familiar to Jews of the time (folks like Abraham, Isaac and Jacob) and places the genealogy at the start of his narrative. He quickly tries to connect Jesus to the overarching Jewish history leading up to the New Testament era. Luke, On the other hand, Seems to be more interested in a broader audience that includes Gentiles. His narrative begins by addressing Theophilus and he quickly connects the story of Jesus to the "days of Herod". Luke doesn"t even present the genealogy until after he first introduces Mary and the virgin conception of Jesus. For this reason, It is quite likely that Luke may be tracing the genealogy of Jesus through Mary rather than Joseph. This would explain why Luke traces Jesus back through David"s son Nathan (if he is in the line of Mary), While Matthew traces Jesus back through David"s son Solomon (in an effort to track the line of Joseph). Christianity was formed as a messianic sect in Judaism until it was completely separated through the various pre-ecumenical and ecumenical councils Your final comments are nonsense and have lost their privilege to a rebuttal. Blessings.