Did Jesus wear a prayer shawl (tallit)?

[baraqemet]

[FONT=&quot]ContraMundum:
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]This is precisely the kind of approach to doing theology that brings in so much confusion regarding the Jewish roots of the Faith.
Jewish tradition is nothing like Protestantism. Just because it isn't mentioned doesn't mean it wasn't or shouldn't be done. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Actually Jewish tradition, is not much like first century Judaism either.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]

[/FONT]

 

[ContraMundum]

Ah barquemet....you will never agree with me and I certainly will never agree with you- you approach this from the mind of a Protestant fundamentalist and I from a traditionalist. You assume man has no authority to interpret the scriptures or make practical rulings, and I think we do in certain cases. You assume the Rabbis are bad guys, I assume they are good guys. You assume Jewish doctrine is frozen in the Tanakh (and I would guess Christian tradition frozen in the NT), I believe there is a clear development of religion in the Tanakh and beyond.

If you're looking for a picture of a tallit from the first century, you're asking the wrong question. It's like asking for a picture of a hamburger to prove they ate cows. You need only ask "did they have tzitzit in the first century" and there's your answer. Garments change- the commandment to wear tzitzis does not. We make a four cornered garment to legally wear tzitzis- if you have a problem with that, see if I care! I'm a Jew, I'll continue to do what I've always done, despite what others say I should cease.

I think you have a gripe with history and the televangelists.

As for your gematria leap of conjecture- that's woeful. Perhaps you should consult proper sources before you disparage another's religious practices.

 

[baraqemet]

Ah barquemet....you will never agree with me and I certainly will never agree with you- you approach this from the mind of a Protestant fundamentalist and I from a traditionalist.

Whether we agree is irrelevent. What do the scriptures say?Protestant fundamentalist? Hardly. More like a Berean who searches the scriptures to see if it is so.

You assume man has no authority to interpret the scriptures or make practical rulings, and I think we do in certain cases.

Once again, what do the scriptures say? God laughs at mans opinion. Our ways are not His ways, it is written.

You assume the Rabbis are bad guys, I assume they are good guys.

What did Jesus say?

[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Matthew 15[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]1[/FONT][FONT=&quot] Then came to Jesus scribes and Pharisees, who were from Jerusalem, saying, [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]2[/FONT][FONT=&quot] Why do your disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]3[/FONT][FONT=&quot] But he answered and said unto them, Why do you also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition? [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]4[/FONT][FONT=&quot] For God commanded, saying, Honor your father and mother: and, He that curses father or mother, let him die the death. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]5[/FONT][FONT=&quot] But you say, Whosoever shall say to his father or his mother, It is a gift devoted to God, whatsoever you might have received from me; [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]6[/FONT][FONT=&quot] And honors not his father or his mother, he shall be free. Thus have you made the commandment of God void by your tradition. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]7[/FONT][FONT=&quot] You hypocrites, well did Isaiah prophesy of you, saying, [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]8[/FONT][FONT=&quot] These people draw near unto me with their mouth, and honor me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]9[/FONT][FONT=&quot] But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]

Matthew 23
13 But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for you shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for you neither go in yourselves, neither allow you them that are entering to go in.
14 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for you devour widows' houses, and for a pretense make long prayer: therefore you shall receive the greater condemnation.
15 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for you travel on sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, you make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves.
16 Woe unto you, you blind guides, who say, Whosoever shall swear by the temple, it is nothing; but whosoever shall swear by the gold of the temple, he is bound!
17 You fools and blind: for which is greater, the gold, or the temple that sanctifies the gold?
18 And, Whosoever shall swear by the altar, it is nothing; but whosoever swears by the gift that is upon it, he is bound.
19 You fools and blind: for which is greater, the gift, or the altar that sanctifies the gift?
20 Whoever therefore shall swear by the altar, swears by it, and by all things thereon.
21 And whoever shall swear by the temple, swears by it, and by him who dwells therein.
22 And he that shall swear by heaven, swears by the throne of God, and by him who sits thereon.
23 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for you pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, justice, mercy, and faith: these ought you to have done, and not to leave the other undone.
24 You blind guides, who strain out a gnat, and swallow a camel.
25 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for you make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess.
26 You blind Pharisee, cleanse first that which is within the cup and platter, that the outside of them may be clean also.
27 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for you are like unto whitewashed sepulchers, which indeed appear beautiful outwardly but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness.
28 Even so you also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within you are full of hypocrisy and iniquity.
29 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because you build the tombs of the prophets, and adorn the sepulchers of the righteous,
30 And say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets.
31 Therefore you are witnesses unto yourselves, that you are the children of them who killed the prophets.
32 Fill you up then the measure of your fathers.
33 You serpents, you generation of vipers, how can you escape the judgment of hell?

The words of the rabbis even today mock and blaspheme Jesus and His finished work. You can go with your feelings on the subject. I will go with the Words of the Master.

You assume Jewish doctrine is frozen in the Tanakh (and I would guess Christian tradition frozen in the NT), I believe there is a clear development of religion in the Tanakh and beyond.

If you're looking for a picture of a tallit from the first century, you're asking the wrong question. It's like asking for a picture of a hamburger to prove they ate cows. You need only ask "did they have tzitzit in the first century" and there's your answer.

Tzit tzit and tallits are two separate items which *could* be combined (as they later were), but you have no proof that this occurred in the first century, therefore it is merely your own conjecture.

As for your gematria leap of conjecture- that's woeful. Perhaps you should consult proper sources before you disparage another's religious practices.

I will stick with consulting the Bible. False accusations do nothing to prove your assertions.

 

[Hadassah]

Baraqemet, I have thus far stayed silent on this; but your gematria is a leap.

It wouldn't be jugdged by 6 + 13, but 600 and 10 and 3 - and you could take it down further from there.

The Tallit was something made to seperate us from those outside of our land and faith. It was not "very" different from those outside the land at the time- but what was different was the fringes.

The fact that you're even using gematria; well that's from the rabbis as a method of biblical exegesis; and if by your logic (thus far shown on this thread and others) what the rabbis teach is "all bad" because of a select few passages that Y'shua is teaching about weightier matters vs the minor matters --- then you shouldn't be using gematria as your argument.

the 613 are emblematic of the moving/living name of G-d. It is also an emblem of the commandments He gave, which were classified as 613. I am pretty sure that Maimonides was not the first to classify it as 613 divided commandments of all the things G-d spoke either.

You argue against the Talmud and note that it was written at a certain time; and totally ignore the fact that it was something that was memorized and passed down thought for thought; word for word from rabbi to talmudim for thousands of years before being codified; and that it was codified in Jerusalem and in Babylon - and the difference is only that one is longer than the other; but the content is much the same.

The reason it was even codified is because there had been laws in place that did not allow us to worship together as we should, and we had to hide out. . . having a Torah Scroll itself became dangerous.

One could argue (from your logic) that even our bible should be invalid because people had to memorize it to know what it said, because they were so few and far between... yet we find that out of all the fragments we find; until the masoretic texts there is almost no variation.

Comparing the masoretic text to the more ancient, we find that there are small modifications of the vowel points and pronunciation but almost no error. - how can we account for that? Why, the traditions of the scribes and the care taken to not only preserve, but to upkeep and to copy down word for word, letter for letter, space for space with each, not even using a computer - but by hand.

You argue aganst the Tallit, but we have shown passages about The mantle and other clothing which served that purpose until due to Greek and Roman occupation the neccessity of making a garment which has come to resemble our more modern Tallit.

It used to be exactly like an ephod - a large outer robe with four corners... it used to employ the thread of the garment and only adding in the blue... but then persecution came and to hide out and not get killed- we had to improvise... We made a seperate garment that could be worn at times and not worn at others...

It was a means to an end and I doubt seriously G-d will be that upset that we have found a slightly different way to follow the commandment.

He did not spell out word for word how it must be done, but that we had to wear a four cornered garment. Logic and reason dictates if we cannot wear the robe (which we can again now if we so wished) - we can make a seperate garment to fufil that role where we live outside of the land of Israel.

I too am upset with those who seek to just make something from nothing; or teach people to do something they have no understanding of; but I am tired of being caught in the cross-fire and seeing my folks also caught in it.

We've discussed quite nicely and you keep slamming us into the ground again and again.

Please, let's discuss this Intelectually and Rationally... and stop hitting each other over the head and in the back.

 

[Hadassah]

I think that Paul was quite clear about this condition in the Scriptures:

Galatians 1
8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that you have received, let him be accursed.

Baraqemet, we are not teaching another gospel... and you forget that when this was written; believers were still meeting in the synagogues and had not yet been cast out.

 

[billwald]

Of Course! He was a good Jewish boy.

 

[baraqemet]

You argue against the Talmud and note that it was written at a certain time; and totally ignore the fact that it was something that was memorized and passed down thought for thought; word for word from rabbi to talmudim for thousands of years before being codified; and that it was codified in Jerusalem and in Babylon - and the difference is only that one is longer than the other; but the content is much the same.

The reason it was even codified is because there had been laws in place that did not allow us to worship together as we should, and we had to hide out. . . having a Torah Scroll itself became dangerous.

I see that you have taken another rabbinic talmudic teaching, and accepted it as truth. What does the Scriptures say?

quote:

Exodus 24
3 And Moses came and told the people all the words of the LORD, and all
the ordinances: and all the people answered with one voice, and said,
All the words which the LORD has said will we do.
4 And Moses wrote all the words of the LORD, and rose up early in the
morning, and built an altar at the foot of the mountain, and twelve pillars,
according to the twelve tribes of Israel.
8 And Moses took the blood, and sprinkled it on the people, and said,
Behold the blood of the covenant, which the LORD has made with you
concerning all these words.

Joshua 8
33 And all Israel, and its elders, and authorities, and its judges were standing on this side, the alien as well as the native, and on that of the ark, before the priests, the Levites, who bore the ark of the covenant of the LORD, half of them in front of Mount Gerizim, and half of them in front of Mount Ebal, as Moses the servant of the LORD had commanded at the first, that they should bless the people of Israel.
34 And afterward he read all the Words of the Law, the blessing and the curse, according to all that was written in the book of the Law.
35 There was not a word of all that Moses commanded which Joshua did not read before all the assembly of Israel, and the women, and the little ones, and the aliens that walked among them.


Exodus 24 tells us that Moses told the people all the words of The LORD, as well as all the ordinances. It also tells us that he wrote all of the words. In Joshua 8 we are told that Joshua read all of the words. If Joshua read all of the words as indicated in the passage above, then it would indicate that they were written down at that time, so according to Scripture, all was written down at the time of the book of Joshua, which is dated between 15-13 bce, which is roughly the same time period that the book of Exodus was recorded. This is long before 2-5 ce when the Talmud or Oral Torah is recorded as being written down.

 

[Hadassah]

Baraqemet, you have accused me unjustly.

I am not speaking of Oral Torah itself, and I never have stood by to say that Moses gave us a seperate Torah that was only communicated by word of mouth.

What I have said is that the Talmud was being taught before it was written down. This is common knowledge and can be readily found and attested to by history and even on the internet.

What I am speaking to is the rabbinic commentary, not "oral law".

There's a difference... minor as it may seem.

 

[mohawk]

Why do people go to such extremes to try and prove that Jesus wasn't Jewish? Anti-semitism is on the rise again worldwide...it's time to stop it before it gets out of control again. Jesus was an observant Jewish man...reading from the Torah & yes, wearing a prayer shawl. To deny that is to deny the man.

 

[SolomonVII]

The talmud and sages such as Maimonides clearly preach against Christ. When someone points that out, the post vanishes. I have no beef with traditional Judaism. It is what it is. My complaint is when one tries to teach the things of Christ, blended with the traditions that were established by those who openly hate Him, and some even have Him doing them.The rabbis have elevated the talmud over the Torah. Many times I have heard people say that Jesus taught from the talmud. Does anyone think that He would teach from a manmade book that blasphemes Him and His finished work, forgetting the fact that the talmud was written centuries after He walked the earth. It is all so ridiculous.

I think that this is a very good point here. if this is happening, it should be remembered that Maimonides describes Jesus as the beginning of the sorrows of the Jewish people. There are in the Talmud references to Jesus that are not flattering.
Judaism in the Christian era has very much rejected Jesus.

This is the right of Judaism to do so of course, because it is a different religion. If it believed Jesus to be a true prophets, Judaism would no longer exists as an independant religion.

But for followers of Christ to carry along this line is like trying to square a circle. There are traditions within Judaism developed over the centuries that just will not fit into being a follower of Christ.

If Bareqemet is bringing up these objections because she sees many people being led away from the Gospel of Jesus in favor of Judaism due to what they are reading in the Talmud and their encounter with the thought of Judaism in the Christian era, she has a valid point.

It is indeed unfortunate if she is being censured as a result.

 

[SolomonVII]

Why do people go to such extremes to try and prove that Jesus wasn't Jewish? Anti-semitism is on the rise again worldwide...it's time to stop it before it gets out of control again. Jesus was an observant Jewish man...reading from the Torah & yes, wearing a prayer shawl. To deny that is to deny the man.

Oh I agree that anti-semtism is on the rise and that Jesus was Jewish, and he read from the Torah.

But what I am gathering from baraqemet is not anti-semitism at all, although I can see where it might be constued as that, or may even indeed become that.

In terms of the prayer shawl, her objections seem to be more of the historical nature in that the prayer shawl would likely have been more of a medieval Jewish innovation.

Because Jesus is a man, it is important to correctly understand him in the context of his own era, and not to impose the Judaism from another era onto him. It is important to make clear that Jesus was an adovacte for a New Covenant, and new wineskins to hold it.

Messianic Judiasm has contributed a lot to our understanding of Jesus through their millenial-long remembrance of all things Jewish. But at the same token, it is also important to remember that Judaism is no lover of Jesus and that there have been developments in Judaism in the Christian era that would not be accurate historic descriptions of who Jesus would have been historically.

I don't think that this is anti-semtism in the least to point these things out.

 

[ContraMundum]

Ah barquemet....you will never agree with me and I certainly will never agree with you- you approach this from the mind of a Protestant fundamentalist and I from a traditionalist.

Whether we agree is irrelevent. What do the scriptures say?Protestant fundamentalist? Hardly. More like a Berean who searches the scriptures to see if it is so.

You miss the point friend. I too search the scriptures, as does Pope Benedict, the Orthodox Patricarch, Benny Hinn, whoever.

It's what we do with it that matters.

I would have thought that the first thing any Christian should learn is just how one should understand the Bible. There are a number of viewpoints- yours is that "if the Bible doesn't say it, it shouldn't be practiced"...which I think is illogical and untenable.

You can be a "Berean" all you like. You still won't convince me that you have all the Bible answers. Sorry. I've been reading it too- for years and I don't use the English much these days, so I would hope I'm getting the gist of it.

Once again, what do the scriptures say? God laughs at mans opinion. Our ways are not His ways, it is written.

You seem to forget that God doesn't laugh at every opinion of man, especially when He says "how readest thou?" to us. Likewise, He gave His people certain authority on earth.

You assume the Rabbis are bad guys, I assume they are good guys.

What did Jesus say?

<snip>


The words of the rabbis even today mock and blaspheme Jesus and His finished work. You can go with your feelings on the subject. I will go with the Words of the Master.

Again, you miss the point. Comparing the Rabbis with *certain* Pharisees is like comparing all fish with sharks. It's silly, especially as there were a number of Pharisees that were party of the early church- including a certain Apostle!

Likewise, it's easy to find non-Christians denying Christ, but you'd be hard-pressed to find a Rabbi that didn't know what he was talking about concering the traditions of his own people. This is aproblem for you- you're criticising Jewish tradition and then claiming we don't have any basis for it. Not only is that remarkably arrogant, it's needlessly confrontational and derogatory to the few Jews here who are also Christians. You'd be wiser to leave us alone and not preach to us, because to us, you look quite a sight right now.

Tzit tzit and tallits are two separate items which *could* be combined (as they later were), but you have no proof that this occurred in the first century, therefore it is merely your own conjecture.

Again, you miss the point. Does pursuing the mitzva by combining items *violate* the comandment? Of course not. Therefore, by our reckoning, it's ok and a good thing to do. I'm not asking you to agree or comply- just to step off!

I will stick with consulting the Bible. False accusations do nothing to prove your assertions.

Everyone on this forum consults the Bible. 'nuff said.

 

[baraqemet]

I would have thought that the first thing any Christian should learn is just how one should understand the Bible. There are a number of viewpoints- yours is that "if the Bible doesn't say it, it shouldn't be practiced"...which I think is illogical and untenable.

You can be a "Berean" all you like. You still won't convince me that you have all the Bible answers. Sorry. I've been reading it too- for years and I don't use the English much these days, so I would hope I'm getting the gist of it.

The word tallith does not appear in the Hebrew scriptures. The Greek equivalent of tallith does not appear in the New Testament writings, nor does a transliterated version of Hebrew word tallith appear. Words like Mashiyach appears as Messias in the Greek, but the equivalent for tallith is no where to be found. I do not care if Jewish people wear a tallit out of tradition. My point is that Jesus did what was commanded by God, and not what the middle ages rabbis recorded as tradition. You have absolutely no proof to counter what I am saying, or you would have already supplied it.

Again, you miss the point. Comparing the Rabbis with *certain* Pharisees is like comparing all fish with sharks. It's silly, especially as there were a number of Pharisees that were party of the early church- including a certain Apostle!

Are you ready to tell me that Paul wore a tallit as well? Please clarify.

Likewise, it's easy to find non-Christians denying Christ, but you'd be hard-pressed to find a Rabbi that didn't know what he was talking about concering the traditions of his own people. This is aproblem for you- you're criticising Jewish tradition and then claiming we don't have any basis for it. Not only is that remarkably arrogant, it's needlessly confrontational and derogatory to the few Jews here who are also Christians. You'd be wiser to leave us alone and not preach to us, because to us, you look quite a sight right now.

You do have a basis for it. It is talmudic. Pulling the Jewish card in an attempt to intimidate me has no real value in this discussion of whether Jesus wore a tallit as many Hebrew roots teachers and even Christian pastors have conjectured. You can put it away now and supply some Biblical proof for your assertions.

Again, you miss the point. Does pursuing the mitzva by combining items *violate* the comandment? Of course not. Therefore, by our reckoning, it's ok and a good thing to do. I'm not asking you to agree or comply- just to step off!

Lets get back on topic from the many straw man diversions. Is there any Biblical proof that Jesus wore a tallit. I say none. You are welcome to supply your proof at any time.

 

[Charles YTK]

The commandment to wear Tzitzi with a cord of blue on the corners of the garment is from Deuteronomy. The traditional wearing of a Tallit type covering goes back before the 1st century. It was often called a mantle. Elijah wears a mantle and it is the place of Power for him.

I provide a good amount of scriptural proof to demonstrate the practice of Tallit was already well established by the time of Yeshua, but Baraqment would not respond to these in the Messainic forum where he/she/ brought this accusation.

If one does not accept the Jewish writings because some of them were written by men who did not accept Yeshua, then we throw away a lot of good and valuable historical information. Most Christian scholars use the Jewish writings and the histories of Josephus to establish a point, however if all these should be rejected because these men were not believers, then we simply do not have much context for many of the things written in the New Testament. We should not toss out everything because we do not agree with the men who wrote about their own culture.

Yeshua wore an outer garment with fringes (Tzitzi) as we see the woman with an issue of blood for 38 years, touches them to be healed. This is what a Rabbi used to touch a sick person to pray for healing. That is why she reached for these and not his body, leg, or hand. For a Jewish man to touch a sick person or a woman on her mensus would make them unclean and unable to minister further for that day. The Tzitzi was the point of contact, the place of faith.

Does the Tallit of Today look exactly as it did in the first century? I do not know. No one does. But it was similar we see in that it was large enough to serve as a small tent like covering, it was used for a wedding canopy, it was woven of a single piece and not a sew work. And it had Tzitai on the four corners.

If we want to question these things lets also discover why the priests of the Church also wear a tallit like piece around thier neck and a Kippah like head covering. And then let's ask the Pope where the design for his mighty fine and tall hat comes from, and the Rosary beads. You will find no connection for those things in scripture, but no one seems to be in an uproar about it. Why do some Gentiles think they know more about Jewish traditions than the Jews do?

 

[PastorMikeJ]

why wouldn't He have one....He worshipped at the temple and at the syn. of His home town...He read from Scripture publicly at the syn. so He would have had to be wearing one to read...

 

[baraqemet]

The commandment to wear Tzitzi with a cord of blue on the corners of the garment is from Deuteronomy. The traditional wearing of a Tallit type covering goes back before the 1st century. It was often called a mantle. Elijah wears a mantle and it is the place of Power for him.

I provide a good amount of scriptural proof to demonstrate the practice of Tallit was already well established by the time of Yeshua, but Baraqment would not respond to these in the Messainic forum where he/she/ brought this accusation.

If one does not accept the Jewish writings because some of them were written by men who did not accept Yeshua, then we throw away a lot of good and valuable historical information. Most Christian scholars use the Jewish writings and the histories of Josephus to establish a point, however if all these should be rejected because these men were not believers, then we simply do not have much context for many of the things written in the New Testament. We should not toss out everything because we do not agree with the men who wrote about their own culture.

Yeshua wore an outer garment with fringes (Tzitzi) as we see the woman with an issue of blood for 38 years, touches them to be healed. This is what a Rabbi used to touch a sick person to pray for healing. That is why she reached for these and not his body, leg, or hand. For a Jewish man to touch a sick person or a woman on her mensus would make them unclean and unable to minister further for that day. The Tzitzi was the point of contact, the place of faith.

Does the Tallit of Today look exactly as it did in the first century? I do not know. No one does. But it was similar we see in that it was large enough to serve as a small tent like covering, it was used for a wedding canopy, it was woven of a single piece and not a sew work. And it had Tzitai on the four corners.

If we want to question these things lets also discover why the priests of the Church also wear a tallit like piece around thier neck and a Kippah like head covering. And then let's ask the Pope where the design for his mighty fine and tall hat comes from, and the Rosary beads. You will find no connection for those things in scripture, but no one seems to be in an uproar about it. Why do some Gentiles think they know more about Jewish traditions than the Jews do?

Charles,

You always seem to defer to your feelings on a topic, and always have a lot of conjecture to add, but offer very little in the line of Scriptural proof for your assertions. Even your guy Tim Hegg agreed in his article that they were probably tzit tzit fastened to an existing garment. I at one time operated on feelings, and was tossed to and fro by every Hebrew roots doctrine. I am feeling much better now thank you. If you can't supply Biblical proof, then for me it simply isn't so.

BTW rhetorical questions and ad hominem attacks will not be viewed as substitutes for Biblical proof.

 

[ContraMundum]

barquemet...

This article by Tim Hegg seems to state that the Tallit is indeed Biblical and historical. It's an article about kippas but it does touch on the tallit. http://www.torahresource.com/English%20Articles/1Co%2011%20%26%20Kippas.pdf

 

[ContraMundum]

The word tallith does not appear in the Hebrew scriptures. The Greek equivalent of tallith does not appear in the New Testament writings, nor does a transliterated version of Hebrew word tallith appear. Words like Mashiyach appears as Messias in the Greek, but the equivalent for tallith is no where to be found.

I fail to see the relevance. There's a lot of words and articles of clothing not mentioned in the scriptures. That doesn't mean they didn't exist.

I do not care if Jewish people wear a tallit out of tradition. My point is that Jesus did what was commanded by God, and not what the middle ages rabbis recorded as tradition. You have absolutely no proof to counter what I am saying, or you would have already supplied it.

Well, it's again irrelevant. I found the above article in about ten seconds- if I went through my library I'd find reams of relevant articles about historical wear- but why would I do that for you? You have made up your mind, and I have made up mine. If you don't want to argue then just agree.

You should just admit that you're a fundamentalist in your religous prolegomena and leave it at that. In your mind, if you don't see it in the Bible it can't exist. That's your paradigm, but it's not a convincing or authorative one.

The fact that Jesus did what was commanded by God is relevant, but doesn't provide an argument against wearing shawls. I think anyone without an axe to grind against Judaism can see plainly that such wear was commonplace and attaching tzitit to it would be obeying God's commandment.

Are you ready to tell me that Paul wore a tallit as well? Please clarify.

See above.

You do have a basis for it. It is talmudic. Pulling the Jewish card in an attempt to intimidate me has no real value in this discussion of whether Jesus wore a tallit as many Hebrew roots teachers and even Christian pastors have conjectured. You can put it away now and supply some Biblical proof for your assertions.

People have tried to give you Biblical and historic proof but you don't receive it....why ask me for more?

...and what's wrong with the Talmud? Don't you read documents from history, or do you just get all your answers from the Bible? (Which is impossible.....hence the phenomenon of the Christian bookstore...you need outside references to understand the faith). Whether or not you think the Talmud is a valid religious teaching source, it IS a valid historical reference.

Lets get back on topic from the many straw man diversions. Is there any Biblical proof that Jesus wore a tallit. I say none. You are welcome to supply your proof at any time.

I say Jesus did wear a tallit, and you can't prove He didn't, when half the Middle east wore shawls anyway. Like I said, a tallit does no invalidate the commandment.....and unless you can prove that you have no right to rail against it.

 

[baraqemet]

I fail to see the relevance. There's a lot of words and articles of clothing not mentioned in the scriptures. That doesn't mean they didn't exist.

Whether it existed or not is irrelevant. Nowhere does it say that Jesus wore one. If it was that important for the believer, don&#8217;t you think that the text would have been a little more specific?

Well, it's again irrelevant. I found the above article in about ten seconds- if I went through my library I'd find reams of relevant articles about historical wear- but why would I do that for you?

Well, in all honesty, more Tim Hegg articles would do absolutely nothing for me. He isn&#8217;t an archaeologist or an expert in ancient near east studies with a PhD. He is a guy with some study at seminaries that I do not know much about. I do not find his articles accurate nor authoritative. There are plenty of Hebrew roots people on the net writing the same type of stuff that he does. Lots of conjecture.

You should just admit that you're a fundamentalist in your religous prolegomena and leave it at that. In your mind, if you don't see it in the Bible it can't exist. That's your paradigm, but it's not a convincing or authorative one.

Neither are your ad hominem attacks. Please discuss the proof of your assertions.

The fact that Jesus did what was commanded by God is relevant, but doesn't provide an argument against wearing shawls. I think anyone without an axe to grind against Judaism can see plainly that such wear was commonplace and attaching tzitit to it would be obeying God's commandment.

Once again, you have no proof of your assertions.

...and what's wrong with the Talmud?

It blasphemes Christ and His finished work. Any other questions?

Don't you read documents from history, or do you just get all your answers from the Bible? (Which is impossible.....hence the phenomenon of the Christian bookstore...you need outside references to understand the faith). Whether or not you think the Talmud is a valid religious teaching source, it IS a valid historical reference.

Was Jesus stoned? Was He hung? Was He a sorcerer? I guess there are differences in opinions of what constitutes a &#8220;valid historical reference&#8221;.

I say Jesus did wear a tallit, and you can't prove He didn't, when half the Middle east wore shawls anyway. Like I said, a tallit does no invalidate the commandment.....and unless you can prove that you have no right to rail against it.

And I say that Jesus froze the sea of Galilee with His breath, and then Him and the apostles played a game of ice hockey there. Maybe I can find some proof for that in the talmud.

 

[Charles YTK]

Charles,

You always seem to defer to your feelings on a topic, and always have a lot of conjecture to add, but offer very little in the line of Scriptural proof for your assertions. Even your guy Tim Hegg agreed in his article that they were probably tzit tzit fastened to an existing garment. I at one time operated on feelings, and was tossed to and fro by every Hebrew roots doctrine. I am feeling much better now thank you. If you can't supply Biblical proof, then for me it simply isn't so.

BTW rhetorical questions and ad hominem attacks will not be viewed as substitutes for Biblical proof.

If you are so convinced that there is no scriptural support, then why are you trying to make such an issue about it? No one is saying you have to believe this. (Except Benny Hinn, and I would not believe anything that fellw says.) Are you simply trying to remove another piece of the Jewishness of Yeshua?

If I see Yeshua in the scriptures using something that in Jewish culture is done with a Tallit type garment, and I know that the Tallit was already the cutomed method of wearing the Tzitzi, then I can reason that he was wearing the Tallit type garment. The Tallit was in use long before the time of Yeshua. Whereas the Kippah was not, it is a middle ages addition.

It makes no difference anyway. The Tallit, Katan, Mantle are all customs and traditions. The commandment is to wear the Tzitzi with a blue cord on the corners of your garment. It does not specify what that garment has to look like. We are free to do what we want with it. Nothing that we wear today is really the same as was worn in that time. It makes no difference. We now that the Jews wore a Tallit type four cornered cloak with Tzitzi. And since Yeshua is not accused of violating this religious/cultural practice, we can be pretty sure he was wearing one. No the scriptures do not say that Jesus was wearing a 70 inch by 45 inch woven cloth with a Atarah band and Tzitzi on the corners. That is what the Tallit looks like today. In the days of Elijah it was made from a woolen coat. I am convinced that Yeshua wore Tzitzi, as it is a commandment and he did not break the law. If he had, he would have been a sinner and not a sinless sacrifice.

In Johns Gospel Peter arrives at the Tomb and goes inside and he sees the linen burial cloth laying in a pile and folded nicely in a separate place he sees the "Napkin" that had been wrapped around his head. What Napkin, a dinner napkin? I don't think so. And why is it folded with care while the grave wrapping is not? If you are allowed to investigate the Jewish traditions you find that a Jewish man is burried with a Tallit wrapped over his head. And that is probably what the Napkin is. In another place we see that Lazzarat also had a "Napkin " wrapped over his head when he was buried.