Jewish understanding of the "New Testament" (hereafter referred to as NT) can only be explained by briefly mentioning the history of the conflict between Judaism in the first century verses the offshoot of errant Judaism that ultimately became Christianity.

The Jewish nation had existed with the Torah (the first five books of the Bible, often called the Pentateuch) for approximately 1280 years before Jesus came on the scene of history. It’s philosophies, and it’s culture, were clearly defined long before Christianity came into being. To put this in perspective, Israel existed as a nation almost 6 times as long as the United States has existed as a nation, before the NT even became an issue.

Therefore, when someone came announcing a new system of relating to G-d, it would have to be understood that the message in question would be scrutinized very intensely, given the values and codifications that Israel’s society was constructed upon in approximately 30 C.E. One would have to also understand that Judaism was regarded as a way of life, par excellence, due to its divine origins from Har Sinai and the Torah given by HASHEM. It would never be casually considered or discarded, nor would it be recklessly practiced.

Israel had during its history experienced many different religions, and had practiced some for brief periods of time throughout its history. These idolatrous encounters had come at great cost, and as a result, in 30 C.E., Israel was an occupied nation in servitude to a foreign power. Clearly evident was the cost of accepting a new religion as if it were only a simple change of clothing to be discarded for the latest fashion trend.

Additionally, when considering the NT "message," one also has to consider the times in which it was first delivered. Messianic expectations were high. Israel was searching for a deliverer, a dynamic figure, a warrior-king, an accomplished descendant of David who was anointed by G-d, who the Jewish people of the Roman period believed would be raised up by G-d to break the yoke of the heathen. He would then reign over a restored kingdom of Israel to which all the Jews of the Galus (exile or diaspora) would return. Unknown by many today is the fact that there were, in fact, many would be Moshiach’s (Messiahs or anointed ones), with many of these being contemporary with Jesus. Therefore, the announcement of a "new messiah" would not in and of itself cause a great deal of concern.

Nevertheless, barring the NT accounts, it would seem that Jesus did not rate a great deal of attention, as he hardly finds mention in the early histories of the Second Temple era. If one does not consider the NT at all, he becomes another would be aspirer, among many, to the position of Moshiach.

When one considers the fact that Judaism had such a long and distinguished history, one can begin to understand the problems any first century Jew would have had in accepting the message as is detailed in the NT. Torah, which would have been extensively taught, practiced in synagogues and detailed in simple everyday life would have been so ingrained in the average Jewish person that it would have been relatively easy to understand why any errant message would be both quickly recognized and as quickly discarded. Everyone would have been thoroughly familiar with the original and would easily have spotted a counterfeit.

Biblical revisionists would have you believe that there was a massive conversion of Jews that took place as a result of this new message. However, history is remarkably devoid of such references. No doubt it may have sounded good to the Gentiles to believe that they could be "saved" and delivered by mental acknowledgement of events that had supposedly occurred by Jesus’ message, subsequent death and reported resurrection. It certainly provided the Gentiles a better method for acceptance as a Jew than conversion with its’ requirement of bris milah (circumcision), since the NT message removed this requirement for conversion.

Perhaps the message, or some form of it before later copyists embellished the story with pagan mysticism, had in fact found some adherents from among the Jewish nation. However, Jews were probably much more interested in the report of a deliverer who would cast the Romans from Jewish soil once and for all! Once it became evident that Jesus, like others before and after him, was in fact no promised deliverer, Jewish participation in such non-sense went into relative obscurity.

Among the most obvious reasons for rejecting the NT message is its statements about changing the previous status quo. Torah had clearly defined what Jews were required to expect and look for in a teacher, prophet, king, leader and Moshiach. The requirements for anyone attaining to these positions were well outlined. Among these requirements were tests that would be candidates for the position had to fulfill to even be considered as a possibility. Among the more well known, and agreed, criteria are:

a man,

of the house of Yehudah (Judah),

a son of David,

of Shlomo’s (Solomon’s) lineage,

However, less well known, and among the most condemnatory of Christianity, is the statement of Devarim (Deuteronomy) 13.

(Please note: I will quote the following scriptures out of the accepted Christian translations to avoid unnecessary confusion and to provide acceptable texts to the intended audience. Most quotes will be in the King James Version and all translations will include a mark indicating the source. KJV – King James Version; NIV – New International Version; RSV – Revised Standard Version; NASB – New American Standard Bible).

Much is made out of an errant belief in Jesus’ ability and mission to abrogate Torah in favor a new method for approaching and serving G-d. However, it is amazingly absent from Torah. One would think that if HASHEM had intended to cancel his previous covenant, he would have made it known before hand. Even Paul in the NT says that a subsequent covenant does not alter or change a previous (Galatians 3 - NT). When did the "new" covenant of Yirimeyahu (Jeremiah) cancel the covenant of Sinai?

Amazingly, every Christian I have met is unable to recognize the terms of this covenant. The stated recipients are the house of Yisrael and the house of Yehudah.

So that you know that it is not a "spiritual" people he is talking about, but physical Yisroel (Israel), it further defines them as the people that came out of Mizraim (Egypt), who broke his covenant. These are not Gentiles that HASHEM is addressing!

Further, the mark of this new "epoch" is the indwelling knowledge of his "law" which is in the Hebrew; TORAH! The sign of this new era is that no teaching will be necessary, for all will know him, from the least to the greatest (evidently from the two aforementioned recipients – not Gentiles).

If the vessel for ushering in a new covenant is Christianity, then the covenant has already failed. The last two thousand years has unquestionably shown this to be fact. Christianity has been responsible for countless Jewish deaths all committed in the name of Jesus. Whether one wants to argue that they were or were not "real Christians" is irrelevant and frankly, disgusting. The fact is that it happened. Christianity did not usher in this new era, HASHEM did not provide a transition period for this passing from one era to another, and it simply did not occur. This is indisputable fact. Consider the following:

Klal Yisroel does not accept Jesus or the NT.

1. Yeshivos (schools) all over the world are still teaching Torah.
2. Rabbinim (rabbis) all over the world are still teaching Torah.
3. All Yisroel does not know HASHEM.
4. All Yisroel does not know Jesus.
5. The sins of all Yisroel have not been "forgiven" and are not as yet unremembered.

One can only conclude that the new covenant is not yet in effect.

(Note: The NT in the Book of Hebrews 12:24 uses the Greek word neos. This particular word emphasizes newness, not in the respect of something never before seen, but new as in refreshed or regenerated. It would be better translated as "renewed." It appears that the ancient author(s) of this book recognized the fact that G-d was going to renew the Torah and the covenant given to Moshe with Yisroel who had broken the first rendition due to their disobedience to Torah. It certainly does not emphasize that G-d would break His promise to Yisroel as the Christians interpret it.)

Concerning the transitory nature of Torah taught by Christianity, one needs to consider G-d’s stated view of his covenant. (Please note that while the Christian versions of the Tanakh (the Old Testament) translates the word as "LAW," it is in fact Torah in the original Hebrew).

Did HASHEM ever intend for Torah to be replaced because it was not perfect?

Please note that Tehillim (Psalms) said the Torah was perfect. Christianity says it was not.

Psa 119:152 (NIV) "Long ago I learned from your statutes that you established them to last forever."

G-d has clearly remembered His covenant. Note that at the time of Tehillim, Yisroel has already "broken" His covenant. But HASHEM remains faithful to His promises. It should be obvious that a thousand generations have not passed even today.

Psa 119:44 (KJV) "So shall I keep thy law continually for ever and ever."

Micah 4:2 (KJV) "And many nations shall come, and say, Come, and let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, and to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for the law shall go forth of Zion, and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem."

Upon the testimony of two witnesses, let every word be established. Even the NT states this as evidence for establishing doctrine.

Psa 119:89 (KJV) "LAMED. For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven."

HASHEM has established His word in the heavens. Does not even the NT teach that as it is done in heaven, let it be so in the earth?

Why then does the NT disagree with so foundational a truth as G-d’s Torah, which is the record of His dealing with mankind, especially through His people Yisroel?

I have only scratched the surface of the problems with NT interpretation of Torah. The NT directly contradicts the Torah because its doctrine is based upon another criteria, and limits G-d’s favor solely to the criteria it defines. It is a matter of control. The system that controls "G-d’s favor" controls the disciples of that religion. If there is a alternate way of reaching G-d, then the competition looses the monopoly it holds on its subjugates. The "Jesus is the only way" declarations of Christianity show this to be the case. One need only read the Tanakh to see the fallacy of this argument. Every major hero of the Tanakh is held up for us an example of a Tzaddik (righteous man). And every one made it without believing in Jesus. They obeyed Torah and G-d called them servants, righteous men and examples to be followed. Many were told they would see the promise at the end of days. This without any further obligation, such as believing "in" Jesus in a purgatory like place called "Abraham’s bosom" where Jesus would have had the chance to preach a sermon to them even though they were dead.

I must state that Judaism does not require someone to convert to Judaism in order to be "saved." One can be considered righteous just by being a good Gentile. It is also incumbent that the Gentile obeys the Noachide covenant with its seven principles, which were given to ALL mankind after the flood. Judaism does not demand converts to its belief system to be righteous. Jews are the only ones who are obligated by the terms of Torah to KEEP and OBSERVE the 613 commandments as codified by Maimonides (the Rambam).

At this point it should be pointed out that much is said about intent. I have seen Messianic Jewish/Christian sites where a hybrid mix of Judaism and Pseudo-Christianity is mixed. I call it tallis covered Baptist doctrine. It couches basic Christian doctrine in Jewish theology, terminology and practice. They re-interpret NT doctrine and cover it in Jewish phraseology, sometimes changing the meaning of words to be more Jewish. In some cases, this may be allowable, in others it takes a stretch of the imagination beyond reason to wrest the derivation that is brought forth. While this practice may bring a "Jewish flavor" to the legendary figure of Jesus, it certainly neither makes him a g-d, nor does it make him Moshiach. It also cannot erase the contrived position that the NT takes in making prophetic significance out of his actions, even inventing prophecies to support him as a candidate for the role. Careful consideration of the prophecies, while putting them in their proper context and meaning clearly demonstrates the desperation of the authors, or re-inventors of the gospel stories.

It is also said that Paul changed the practice of NT teaching from Jesus’ original intent. There is certainly great difference between Paul’s stated position and Jesus’. I have heard this explained in a number of ways, including that both had their own gospel message to preach, one to Jews, the other to Gentiles. There is such a great disparity between Paul, Jesus, James, John and Peter that one would wonder if they even knew each other in real life. That does not even account for Paul’s seeming condemnation of everything Jewish including kashrus (kosher laws), bris milah (circumcision), and keeping Torah.

I have also heard it said that Paul changed the meaning of the gospel message to make it more palatable to the Gentile audience he went to in order to gain more converts. If this is the case, it is untrustworthy and must be discounted. It is also said that the "early church fathers," or the Catholic fathers, or monks, or the Papacy changed the NT, etc., etc. To this I must respond that if it has been changed, then the points made in it are not valid. It would have to be considered unreliable and must be discarded. If it were a document sanctioned by HASHEM, it would have been protected by HASHEM. Therefore, this would also make it erroneous and it must be discarded. If it has been changed, it is impossible that it can be used at all for it is unreliable and fictitious.

But what is most glaring in the NT accounts is the anti-Semitism contained in its’ pages. The embracing that such rabid anti-Jewish doctrine would be preached and accepted is contemptible to say the least, especially by Jews. This, as well as the many pagan practices adopted in its pages, and practiced among its various adherents, is the most obvious clue to its Gentile re-workings. The authors of the NT who were all purportedly Jewish, portray their message as if the Jews they are speaking with are all demon-possessed rabble. A few ignorant common folk accept the gift of "faith" revealed in its pages, but the rest of the "wicked" and "perfidious" Jews refuse to give up their adherence to Torah and its principles. These "evil" Jews are summarily condemned in the NT by their own Cohen Ha Gadol (High Priest), by Pauline doctrine and Christian interpretation. In several Pauline "scriptures" Jews are spoken of in the third person and with vehemence and anger, as if Paul spoke about an enemy. Even more remarkable when you consider the NT reveals that Paul was supposedly Jewish himself. Jewish hatred of self is revealed throughout his writings. I once even participated in an online chat where a self-hating Jew who was a Christian condemned his own race to the "righteous" fires of the Shoah (Holocaust) because of their rejection of Jesus!

Finally, the NT derives its authority from the existence of the Tanakh and Torah. Though it refers to myriad prophecies, laying groundwork to support itself, supposedly from enlightened interpretation of the Tanakh, it fails precisely because of this. Why? Because careful reading of Tanakh in proper context, especially in the original Hebrew, reveals the subtle, and sometimes not so subtle changes that were made to make it "fit" Christian conjecture in the NT. Comparing the citation in the NT with the author’s application to events in the life of Jesus, or Pauline application, reveals marked changes in the statements contained in the Tanakh. Sometimes the NT quotes prophecies not found in the Tanakh at all! Though they supposedly point to Jesus as the fulfillment of prophecy, more often that not it is a crooked and broken path. Unfortunately, many believe these so called proofs, without carefully examining them to ensure that they have been properly applied. The only way one can make the leap of "faith" to believe that they speak of a man named Jesus is by ignoring fact and adopting fable. This is by definition the Christian belief in "faith" – ignoring fact and logic and believing without any reasonable support for doing so.

Though it may feel comfortable to believe this erroneous belief system, it certainly defies everything G-d gave to His people to know what He desires. My suggestion: return to the G-d of your Fathers, Avraham, Yitzchak and Ya’akov.