Thank you King Solomon for your kind words. I will read all this interesting information that all of you have presented here. Quite informative indeed!!
Why didn't God disfellowship Jesus for breaking the laws of the Talmud?
by I_love_Jeff 50 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
mP
mP
mP said:
Honestly i picture jesus as a traitor to his people and a pawn of the rich. His message about slaves being true to their masters, the payment of taxes and so on cannot be denied. Thereis also a story where he accepts a jar of oil and rebukes someone who asks if they should sell the oil and give it to the poor. Hardly the actions of a "good or caring" person.
King -> MP:
If a historical (i.e. real) Jesus even existed, it's likely that his message had been heavily modified and redacted so as to put words in his mouth. If Jesus WERE an observant Jew, he'd probably be ashamed of ever claiming to be the Jewish Messiah, as history has proven without doubt that he WAS just another False Jewish Messiah (unless someone wants to claim that the second temple destruction never occurred, or that Isreal has been restored to it's former glory).
mP-> King:
Now your putting words in jesus mouth by stating others put words in his mouth. The simple thing to do is take whatis in the gospels are face value. In the case of the scriptures i am referrign too, I believe it shows Jesus is simply being practical. Anyone with a bit of common sense would have observed that the Jews even if they were totally united had no chance at the Roman armies. Unfortunately for the Jews they were not united but rather disjointed. Even during the siege of Jerusalem, the different factions were killing each other and fellow Jews for disagreeing and running away.
-
I_love_Jeff
So Christ condemned the traditions of the Mishnah (early Talmud) and those who taught it (Scribes and Pharisees), because the Talmud nullifies the teachings of the Holy Bible. So the modern day Pharisees (Jehovah's Witnesses) have their own compact version of the Mishnah which is the Elder's rule book? Perhaps we can find some similar points made in both books (THe Mishnah and Elders Book?
-
King Solomon
TD said:
I'm still curious about the point of authority for that statement. What written law did he violate and who, besides the annoying Christian in the time machine (From the video you posted) would agree that he violated it?
Obviously working on the Sabbath violates Exodus 20:8 ("Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy."), is one of the 10 commandments, and the law is seen in it's full gory/glory by the example from Numbers 15:32-36:
While the Israelites were in the desert, a man was found gathering wood on the Sabbath day. Those who found him gathering wood brought him to Moses and Aaron and the whole assembly, and they kept him in custody, because it was not clear what should be done to him. Then the LORD said to Moses, “The man must die. The whole assembly must stone him outside the camp.” So the assembly took him outside the camp and stoned him to death, as the LORD commanded Moses.
But the question if healing WAS a violation of Sabbath still exists. The following example offers a pretty-good example of why it's important to determine who knew what, and when they knew it.
From http://www.hebrewyeshua.com/was_yeshua_a_pharisee.html
Healing on the Sabbath
Another argument put forward by Oral Law-believing Messianics is that Yeshua upheld the Oral Law by teaching it was permissible to heal on the Sabbath. They quote the Mishnah, Sabbath 22:5 as proof that the Oral Law teaches it is permissible to heal on the Sabbath but in fact that passage in the Mishnah says nothing whatsoever related to healing on the Sabbath. So what did the Pharisees believe about healing on the Sabbath?
Modern Rabbinic law allows any and every sort of healing on the Sabbath, but ancient Pharisaic law had limitations on what was allowed and what was not allowed on the Sabbath. For example, Mishnah, Sabbath 18:3 declares that it is permissible to assist a woman in childbirth on the Sabbath. On the other hand, the laws relating to treating wounds are more complex and this is only permissible under certain circumstances:
“If one manipulates an abscess on the Sabbath, if in order to make an opening for it, he is liable [i.e. he has sinned]; if in order to draw the matter out of it, he is exempt [from sinning].” (Babylonian Talmud, Sabbath 107a [Soncino])
It is really incredible that anyone would claim that Yeshua relied on the Oral Law for the issue of healing. In fact, the exact opposite is true! All one has to do is read the account in Luke to see that the Pharisees were the ones opposed to healing on the Sabbath,
“And the scribes and Pharisees watched him, whether he would heal on the sabbath day; that they might find an accusation against him.” (Luke 6:7)
Clearly what this is saying is that the Pharisees wanted to catch Yeshua healing on the Sabbath so they could accuse him of violating the Sabbath. This only makes sense if the Pharisees in that period believed that it was forbidden to heal (or at least forbidden to heal in the manner in which Yeshua was healing) on the Sabbath. Yeshua clearly did not agree with the Pharisees and according to Luke 6:8 he healed a man on the Sabbath despite the fact that the Pharisees were waiting for him to slip up by doing just this. So rather than this incident proving that Yeshua was obedient to Pharisee Oral Law, in fact it is a clear example where he opposed the Pharisees and their Oral Law! The fact that later Rabbinical Judaism changed its mind and today allows all forms of healing on the Sabbath cannot anachronistically be used as proof that Yeshua was a Pharisee!
By the way, as one who only looks to the Tanach for the Creator’s commandments, I am left wondering why on earth it would be prohibited to heal on the Sabbath in the first place. Even if a particular form of healing requires some violation of the Sabbath (for example, building a fire), we have a commandment in the Torah that specifically requires us not to sit idly by while someone is in mortal danger (Lev 19:16). So healing on the Sabbath is not just permissible, it is required at all times by the Torah.
@@@@@
Problem is, why would the Pharisees be scrutinizing Jesus to see if he healed on the Sabbath if they HAD been aware of Lev 19:16?
Besides, that line of reasoning opens the can of worms as to WHY the Pharisees and Sadduccees did not charge him with violating the Sabbath (vs blasphemy), if in fact there WASN'T an exception in oral law that existed at the time, and/or they weren't aware of Lev 19:16.... Remember, they scrutinized everything Jesus did when he was before the Sanhedrin, and according to the NT, they found Jesus to be blameless, perfect.
So it's an unanswered question, and one that is open, but likely to be chalked up to a continuity error, a slip-up in the legalistic plot that wasn't considered at the time the Jesus story was written.
I love Jeff said:
Thank you King Solomon for your kind words. I will read all this interesting information that all of you have presented here. Quite informative indeed!!
You're welcome, but that doesn't mean we can't talk about it any more, does it?
-
King Solomon
mP said:
Now your putting words in jesus mouth by stating others put words in his mouth.
Wha? No kidding: it was clearly my personal speculation....
The simple thing to do is take what is in the gospels are face value.
Yeah, the simplest thing to do is take anything at face value: that goes for the WT and Awake, too.... (and how well did THAT one work out for y'all?)
So what other rather obvious homespun homilies do you still have up your sleeve?
-
King Solomon
I love Jeff said:
So Christ condemned the traditions of the Mishnah (early Talmud) and those who taught it (Scribes and Pharisees), because the Talmud nullifies the teachings of the Holy Bible.
I don't know if you could say that fairly, since 'nullifies' is a rather strong word. The oral laws were are attempt to comply or spell out the principles found in the Torah into specifics (as were dietary laws, kashrut, etc), but things get lost in translation sometimes in law where the "rubber meets the road".
So the modern day Pharisees (Jehovah's Witnesses) have their own compact version of the Mishnah which is the Elder's rule book? Perhaps we can find some similar points made in both books (THe Mishnah and Elders Book?)
As stated, JWs USUALLY err on the side of caution, but there's some behaviors that they deem acceptable or conscience matters which were considered as grave sins in the Land of Israel, and strongly forbidden in the Torah (just as strongly as working on the Sabbath).
First example that comes to mind is having sex with a menstruating women. In the Torah, this was the most serious of sins, a felony" if you will, right up there with murder and idolatry! In fact, it was deemed such a serious sin that it not only brought dishonor on the participants, but even threatened to cast a pall over the entire community, the entire peoples of the Land of Israel, such that if it wasn't dealt with properly, ALL inhabitants faced expulsion ("vomited out of the Land", referring to being taken captive to some other land).
Soooo, if YHWH strongly objected in the Torah by expressing his Divine Will in forbidding sex with a menstruating woman, why has the GB made same act a "conscience matter" today?
Remember: they say that YHWH's strong feelings against eating blood is STILL important to them (as is against idolatry and murder), so why isn't menstrual sex also important? It's a no-brainer crazy-ass prohibition, since it's not like anyone dies from having sex during menstruation (unlike refusing a blood transfusion so as not to make God "unhappy").
-
I_love_Jeff
We can still talk Mr King Solomon : )
-
Prognoser
So Christ condemned the traditions of the Mishnah (early Talmud) and those who taught it (Scribes and Pharisees), because the Talmud nullifies the teachings of the Holy Bible. So the modern day Pharisees (Jehovah's Witnesses) have their own compact version of the Mishnah which is the Elder's rule book? Perhaps we can find some similar points made in both books (THe Mishnah and Elders Book?
I_love_Jeff, you are correct.
I don't know if you could say that fairly, since 'nullifies' is a rather strong word. The oral laws were are attempt to comply or spell out the principles found in the Torah into specifics (as were dietary laws, kashrut, etc), but things get lost in translation sometimes in law where the "rubber meets the road".
King Solomon, I like how you pretend the Talmud is merely supplementary to the Torah SheBitchtav.
Amont the three levels of study in Judaism, the Bible (Torah SheBichtav) is the lowest form. The next best is the Mishnah. The highest is the Babylonian Talmud (the Germara). The Mishnah makes up the formative writings of Judaism founded on the Oral Law (Torah Shebeal Peh) of the first century A.D. Pharisees which Jesus confronted in His lifetime. As you can see, in Judaism the Torah can refer to either the Pentateuch (five Books of Moses contained in the Christian Bible) as well as the more authoritative Talmud (non-Biblical). There is a big difference between the two, and contrary to what King Solomon is saying, the Talmud has the most authority in Judaism and is not merely a spelling out of principles found in Torah SheBichtav. The Talmud contains huge amounts of laws and practices completely absent from and unrelated to laws in the Bible.
If someone presents you with "The Torah", ask them which one it is. They will probably be surprised you know there is more than one.
As far as the Kabbalah is concerned, consider that it is sometimes claimed that the Zohar (principal work of the Kabbalah) is not a basis for rabbinic law. However:
Not only did the author of the Shulchan Aruch not guard himself against the influence of the Kabbalah, he listened to it willingly as far as a great hahakhic scholar like him could reconcile his views with it. —Y. Katz, Jalahah ve-Kabbalah (Jerusalem, 1983), p. 76.
Additionally,
Rabbi Steinsaltz said that Kabbalah, despite a mystical and esoteric nature that's shrouded in mystery, is 'part of the Torah in the same way Talmud is part of the Torah.' —David Lazarus, Canadian Jewish News, Nov. 7, 2007.
-
mP
MP:
The simple thing to do is take what is in the gospels are face value.
LKing:
Yeah, the simplest thing to do is take anything at face value: that goes for the WT and Awake, too.... (and how well did THAT one work out for y'all?)
mp:
My cimment forgot to include a qualifier that i was referring to the gospels. Some statements havebeen made about Jesuswould do or say this and that, and yet he never did. The same applies to the WT and A!, read it for what it says. Im not suggesting that you believe, just dont make stuff up, read what it says and then you will see the nonsense.
-
TD
But the question if healing WAS a violation of Sabbath still exists.
Like everything else, there's disagreement on that too:
"To look at the Gospel accounts of Jesus' healing on the Sabbath in the light of Jewish teachings may help us to understand the behavior and attitudes to which these Christian accounts testify. They also show us the antiquity of laws which otherwise might be mistaken for late rabbinic innovations. In all cases, it is likely that Jesus' healing in itself constitutes nothing that many scribes or Pharisees, if not all, would have found as breaking Torah law." (Basser, Herbert W. Studies In Exegesis: Christian Critiques of Jewish Law and Rabbinic Responses 70-300 C.E. Brill 2000 pp. 17-18)
"It is an amazing fact that, when we consult the Pharisee law books to find out what the Pharisees actually taught about healing on the sabbath, we find that they did not forbid it, and they even used the very same arguments that Jesus used to show that it was permitted. Moreover, Jesus' celebrated saying, 'The sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath,' which has been hailed so many times as an epoch-making new insight proclaimed by Jesus, is found almost word for word in a Pharisee source, where it is used to support the Pharisee doctrine that the saving of life has precedence over the law of the sabbath. So it seems that whoever it was that Jesus was arguing against when he defended his sabbath healing, it cannot have been the Pharisees." (Maccoby, Hyam The Mythmaker Paul and the Invention of Christianity Barnes & Noble Publishing 1998 pp. 33-34)
***************
"A common misperception is that healing was permitted on the Sabbath only in the most extreme circumstances only when life was in danger. When this supposition is applied to these controversies, one inevitably concludes that the issue was Jesus' humanitarianism versus the inflexibility on the part of the Pharisees to bend the Law in the face of human need or suffering. But according to Mishnah, the rubic on Sabbath healing is "whenever there is doubt whether life is in danger, this overrides the Sabbath" (Yoma 8:6) The discussion shows how very lenient was the interpretation of "doubt" including ravenous hunger, a sore throat, or a pregnant woman's craving for food." (Salmon, Marilyn J. Preaching Without Contempt: Overcoming Unintended Anti-Judaism Fortress Press 2006 p. 90)