Fragility of Religious Layering

smaneck said:

Jerome, by the way, is being misquoted. What he actually said was:

"Further, we might find that in the Gospel used by the Nazarenes the name of Jehoiada is used instead of Barachias."

In other words he is speculating that "the Gospel used used by the Nazarenes" might say that. And nowhere does he suggest that this Gospel is Matthew.

Click to expand...

In Jerome's "Commentary on Matthew, Book Four (Matthew chapter 23)", translated by Thomas P. Shreck, Jerome writes the following:

In the gospel that the Nazarenes use, in place of "son of Barachiah" we have found it written: "son of Jehoiada."

Click to expand...

https://books.google.com/books?id=j...nepage&q=jerome commentary on matthew&f=false

cloudyday2 said:

I wonder whether this quote from Isaiah is criticizing sacrifice or merely saying that sacrifice is pointless without righteous behavior too? Geza Vermes (or somebody else maybe?) said that there has always been a separate strain of Judaism that is more mystical or charismatic. He claimed there were traveling holy men like prophets who were admired by the common people and on bad terms with the priests. Of course, many of the prophets that have their writing recorded were connected to the priestly establishment.

Click to expand...

Psalm 51
15 O Lord, open my lips,
and my mouth will declare your praise.
16 For you have no delight in sacrifice;
if I were to give a burnt-offering, you would not be pleased.
17 The sacrifice acceptable to God is a broken spirit;
a broken and contrite heart, O God, you will not despise.

Jane_the_Bane said:

Islam follows that example, too, except that its claim to fame is RESTORING the original, Abrahamic monotheism. It does not claim to be something new, but something much OLDER than all the others.

Especially the younger ones were also quite self-conscious WRT other, new religions attempting the same as they did, and thus not only warned their followers against "false" prophets, but also made it perfectly clear that THEY were the final revelation.
Even the Baha'i, with their concept of progressive revelation tailored to the understanding of mortals, are guilty of this. IIRC, their founder made it perfectly clear that no new revelation would be forthcoming for at least half a millennium or something to that effect, even though society and our understanding of the universe and our place within it have changed more profoundly since the days of Baha'ullah than in the two millennia that preceded him.

Click to expand...

Jane.. I agree that Islam claims it restores the original monotheism..but it also has revelations in the Qur'an that relate to historical context during the revelations. Baha'i Writings do not claim to be a final revelation.. but rather the "latest" revelation. As to changes in our world views..I would suggest the Baha'i Writings were percipient in the view of a more united planet and this is a challenge to our current civilization.

cloudyday2 said:

I wonder whether this quote from Isaiah is criticizing sacrifice or merely saying that sacrifice is pointless without righteous behavior too? Geza Vermes (or somebody else maybe?) said that there has always been a separate strain of Judaism that is more mystical or charismatic. He claimed there were traveling holy men like prophets who were admired by the common people and on bad terms with the priests. Of course, many of the prophets that have their writing recorded were connected to the priestly establishment.

Click to expand...

Yes, the prophets were largely at tension with and critical of the Temple Cult. Out of that grows the difference between the Pharisee and Sadducee sects.

cloudyday2 said:

Do you think this was understood to mean that sacrifices were not pleasing or maybe even displeasing to God? I assume this Psalm dates to the time when there was a Temple.

Click to expand...

The Psalms were sung in the Temple. I think it's condemning, much like Isaiah is, the idea of sacrifices being some kind of magic charm that you can go do and then go on and keep sinning because you were forgiven. Like taking out the trash every week as a routine thing that you just did.

I will point out that David is shown to be forgiven by HaShem for simple repentance. No sacrifice was requested.

LoAmmi said:

Saying modern Judaism allows atheists isn't entirely accurate. In order to keep the 613 commandments, one must believe in HaShem. That's to be an Orthodox Jew. No Orthodox Jewish rabbi would say a Jew should be an atheist. They would say a Jew being an atheist if preferable to them following another faith.

The Reform movement allows leeway on this, but my opinion of them is that they are keeping the culture going but not keeping the religion going. However, all the prayers are to HaShem even in a Reform synagogue. We certainly don't encourage atheism nor would even a Reform rabbi speaks about how great atheism is from the bimah.

Click to expand...

I am curious about Judaism, when did it come into existence, is it the continuation of Pharisism which seems to based on the Babylonian Talmud, and when did Hashem come on the scene; does Hashem mean wealthy prince, the word appears once in the Christian old testament and that person was not a nice person?

sparow said:

I am curious about Judaism, when did it come into existence, is it the continuation of Pharisism which seems to based on the Babylonian Talmud, and when did Hashem come on the scene; does Hashem mean wealthy prince, the word appears once in the Christian old testament and that person was not a nice person?

Click to expand...

Judaism came into existence several hundred years before the founding of Christianity. Modern day Judaism is a continuation of the Pharisees, who were the group in Judaism to survive the fall of the Temple. "Based upon the Talmud" is not what I'd say; Judaism is based upon the Torah or the first five books of the Bible. The Talmud explains how Jews are to keep the Torah, because there are many questions regarding it.

HaShem is not Hashem the Gizonite. Though transliterated into English with the same letters here, HaShem is two words. Ha the definite article and Shem which means name. So it literally translates The Name. It is a replacement for the four letter name of G-d. So, HaShem came onto the scene prior to the existence of the Universe.

sparow said:

.. and when did Hashem come on the scene;..

Click to expand...

That is ha Shem (Hebrew for "the Name"). Because of the third commandment (Exod 20:7) Jews would not pronounce YHWH and replaced it with "Adonai" = Lord. Hence the KJV places LORD (small capitals) in each mention of YHWH (which was pronounced as Jehovah, but is now pronounced as Yahweh). But Jews will not pronounce it at all if possible, and replace it with ha Shem.

cloudyday2 said:

Do you think this was understood to mean that sacrifices were not pleasing or maybe even displeasing to God? I assume this Psalm dates to the time when there was a Temple.

Click to expand...

Hypocritical sacrifices were displeasing, and that is the point about sacrifices not being acceptable.

Poor Beggar said:

The Hebrew prophets discussed a coming Messiah and Isaiah gave enough detail to confirm a new covenant as well. So Christianity coming out of Judaism isn't a surprise. Now, Jews may not agree that Christianity IS that covenant, but the existence of Christianity doesn't surprise Jews. Make sense? However, in the Jewish prophets' writings we see that after this Messiah and his kingdom there will be no other and in the Christian New Testament (Covenant) writings we see the clear statements that this is the end of divine revelation.
So...Islam and Baha'i only make sense if they are the fulfilment of Old Testament prophecies rather than Christianity. It wouldn't make sense to build them as an addition to Christianity. When this is done it is fairly easy to refute by those knowledgeable in the writings. However, as we all know, if a person is committed to a way of thinking it's probably a done deal.

Click to expand...

Basically I agree with you but I take issue with some points. Christ is the fulfilment of prophesies in every book of what we call the OT; in Minor Prophets a new covenant is promised but the timing of it is given in Daniel. Christianity is not that new covenant; Most Christians have abrogated the covenant or nailed it to the cross; in this sense most Christians are not different to other religions.


The 4 Gospels are the history of Christ making the new covenant; who He is making it with – the Jews and the lost sheep but not the gentiles; the apostles, the other disciples and Jesus are the new priesthood; Jesus is the Lamb of God from the foundation and the blood shed for the remission of sin; but in the middle of His 3 1/2 of making the new covenant before He is cut off, is the sermon on the mount He declares, Matthew 5:17-18 (KJV)

17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.


The Law and the prophets are the covenant and won’t be changed till heaven and earth pass, till all is fulfilled. To my mind this covers eternity; it certainly covers the fulfilment of Revelation.


The Law /covenant goes to the Gentiles at and after Pentecost and after chapter 3 in Acts.


““However, as we all know, if a person is committed to a way of thinking it's probably a done deal.

Many people might have attained wisdom had they not assumed they had it.””


People may think the scriptures say differently but that matter was determined at the council of Trent when the Catholic challenged the Protestants, “If you go by the Bible and the Bible alone you will have to keep the fourth commandment, including Saturday, because there is no other authority for keeping Sunday or for not keeping the Law other than the Papacy”, and this stopped the protestants dead in their tracks. This getting off topic, I am preparing to start a thread on the New Covenant.

LoAmmi said:

Judaism came into existence several hundred years before the founding of Christianity. Modern day Judaism is a continuation of the Pharisees, who were the group in Judaism to survive the fall of the Temple. "Based upon the Talmud" is not what I'd say; Judaism is based upon the Torah or the first five books of the Bible. The Talmud explains how Jews are to keep the Torah, because there are many questions regarding it.

HaShem is not Hashem the Gizonite. Though transliterated into English with the same letters here, HaShem is two words. Ha the definite article and Shem which means name. So it literally translates The Name. It is a replacement for the four letter name of G-d. So, HaShem came onto the scene prior to the existence of the Universe.

Click to expand...

Now I have an understanding of Judaism .


The followers of Jesus are also required to use the OT for doctrine. Jesus accused the Pharisees of being murders, adulterers, thieves and hypercritics, and of not entering into the covenant and would not allow others to enter in either and of making the keeping of the Law a heavy burden. The followers of Jesus were ideally the remnant that came out, the ones who kept the Law the way it should be kept. When Jesus said to Pharisees, “your law says this or your law says that”, He wasn’t referring to the first five books of the Bible but to something the Pharisees had concocted, doctrines of men; now Jesus' comments would be, "depart from me you who practice lawlessness.

sparow said:

When Jesus said to Pharisees, “your law says this or your law says that”, He wasn’t referring to the first five books of the Bible but to something the Pharisees had concocted,

Click to expand...

Evidence?

Job8 said:

That is ha Shem (Hebrew for "the Name"). Because of the third commandment (Exod 20:7) Jews would not pronounce YHWH and replaced it with "Adonai" = Lord. Hence the KJV places LORD (small capitals) in each mention of YHWH (which was pronounced as Jehovah, but is now pronounced as Yahweh). But Jews will not pronounce it at all if possible, and replace it with ha Shem.

Click to expand...

This is strange to me, this the 7th commandment; using Gods name when quoting scripture is hardly using the lords name in vain.

sparow said:

This is strange to me, this the 7th commandment; using Gods name when quoting scripture is hardly using the lords name in vain.

Click to expand...

We don't know how to pronounce it properly anymore. People like to put forth speculation, but in the end we'd prefer not to use the wrong name. To give a real world example, imagine someone's name was Bill. Now, since we don't know the right vowels to use, we could be saying BAll, BEll, BOll, BUll. Now, would we really want to do that with our friend Bill? Now imagine if you got it wrong for the Lord?

sparow said:

Now I have an understanding of Judaism .


The followers of Jesus are also required to use the OT for doctrine. Jesus accused the Pharisees of being murders, adulterers, thieves and hypercritics, and of not entering into the covenant and would not allow others to enter in either and of making the keeping of the Law a heavy burden. The followers of Jesus were ideally the remnant that came out, the ones who kept the Law the way it should be kept. When Jesus said to Pharisees, “your law says this or your law says that”, He wasn’t referring to the first five books of the Bible but to something the Pharisees had concocted, doctrines of men; now Jesus' comments would be, "depart from me you who practice lawlessness.

Click to expand...

You are free to believe about the Pharisees as you wish. I completely disagree with you and don't much care what early Christians had to write about us.

The animosities towards the Pharisees exhibited by the gospels are most likely an anachronism reflecting the conflicts between these groups in the late 1st century CE rather than the status quo in the 30s CE. The Pharisees weren't particularly influential at that point of history, but antagonized the Christian movement several decades later. The authors of the gospels were basically projecting the conflicts they were experiencing upon a historical canvas, drawing a portrait of their founder winning the kind of debate they were having.