Did Yeshua mention Talmud?

Exactly. This is also a great example of how he derided them for upholding the traditions above the law or instead of the law of G-d.

I'll clarify some things here:

1 Then came to Yeshua scribes and Pharisees, which were of Jerusalem, saying,

Click to expand...

Yeshuah had spoken to what kind of pharisees and scribes?
We know that there were two different houses/schools of pharisaic learning.
NON of them wrong, in fact, both of them stood in the correct, however, one had an understanding that one did not.
There existed the House of Hillel and the House of Shammai.
Hillel was a descendant of Kind David of the House of Judah.
Hillel had come from Babylonia to Bet-Lechem and this is where he established his school.
This school was about 5-6 miles away from Jerusalem which is very close in proximity.
And then there is the School of Shammai
Bet Shammai.
And he located his school in Jerusalem.

So, now reviewing this verse again, you know what school Yeshuah had encountered.

Now, what are the differences betweent the such schools?

Bet Hillel had taught that people could no longer stand under G-D's strict Justice as people had in times before. Now, there was a transition were people can only stand before G-D in Mercy, and not in strict Justice because there was a degeneration. And the degeneration was evident.
And that after their time the transition would have been completed where not one person in the world can stand under HaShems strict Justice!

All of this said and understood by Bet Hillel- what did bet Shammai understand?
they understood it as it always was and they applied the Torah as it always was.
They did not take heed to the circumstance at hand that people could no longer stand under rigid justice. So bet Shammai had taught that people are to DO as it says because HaShem judges in strictness.

So, both are correct however, Hillel said that mercy (Rakhamim) needs to be on top of Strict Justice.

hard to understand?

So, the verse should be understood as such:

Scribes (Hakhamim=Rabbis) and Pharisees that are of the House of Shammai [located in Jerusalem] (Student of Shammai) came to Yeshuah,

2 Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread.

Click to expand...

This is most obviously not speaking to a group of learned disciples such as Hakham Tsefet (Peter) and Yochanan(John) and the rest of the 10.
However, it is speaking of a specific group of his Talmidim (disciples) that in todays Judaism (since it follows Hillel's rulings) are not required to WASH HANDS.
These are what is generally called Noachites or a Ger Tsaddiq.

So, Yeshuah had talmidim who were gentiles in the process of convertion or just beginning their walk in Judaism- thus they did not need to wash hands.
It would have been too much for these novices to be burdened with such customs-especially without understanding as to why it needs to be done.

So, the verse should be understood as:

Why do your gerim/noachite disciples transgress the tradition of the elders who are Ezra, Nehemiah and the rest of the 120 men of the great assembly? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread

3 But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?

Click to expand...

Now after understanding a little bit more in the above Yeshuah is saying here this:


Why do you nullify the mitzvah by YOUR HOUSE'S TRADITION- Your tradition is not needed now- it will be used later when people again can stand under strict judgement, but not now- so you are nullifying the mitzvah by your not understanding.

4 For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.

5 But ye say, Whosoever shall say to his father or his mother, It is a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me;

Click to expand...

This was a slight fault by this house and it was also a thing of who has the stronger Halacha.
This was the age of the Tanna and Yeshuah was one.
So, it is simple to see and the House of shammai was strict in their observance.

6 And honour not his father or his mother, he shall be free. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition.

Click to expand...

Already explained above.

Though, I'm sure that you'd want more explanation but this is as concise that I can put it just so that you can have enough and yet do the work to find out the detail of the painting.

but as to the last question asked...
Yes, we are to follow Talmud, the Talmud is actually inside the "New Testament" itself- the entire documents and all of its volumes are zipped up in the Nazarean Codicil- all it need to be done is to be extracted from the zip file called the Nazarean Codicil.

Yes, I have the very same concerns, he also told his disciples not to go to them while he was still on earth as well didn't he?

Sha'ul was the apostle to the Gentiles and he was from Gamaliel's school so who did he study under?

Buccaneer said:

I still have to disagree but that part you said about Yeshua having gentile converts? That strikes me as odd seeing as how he was only sent unto the "Lost sheep out of the house of of israel" and had very rare encounters with Gentiles throughout scripture.

Click to expand...

Over Y'shua's teachings? No. If you see that his teachings are on halacha then you are to follow that.

then there is something that you guys do not understand about the "lost sheep".

Perhaps there is, if you have this gem of knowledge what prevents you from sharing it?


Weren't they pretty much all lost under the current leadership?

This was mainly to do with Sojeru's post.

What precedent is there where Shammai's school was refered to as those"of Jerusalem"?
Hillel was nasi of the Sanhedrin from 10bc to 10ce. The city would be flocked with his followers, i hardly think the physical location of their schools could be used to make an exegetical leap concerning who Messiah was refering to at the end of verse 1.

In verse 2 again where is your justification for reinterpreting the verse as you did. It does not take much to state the case that the "disciples" in question is simply those observant jews who had became believers and students of Y'shua.
Please let it not be a case of eisegesis to creatively reinterprete for whatever reasons.. If those comments were speculative, then say so and i guess all can consider the verse and your interpretation with an open mind. But if you insist on your interpretation then what are your justifications, upon which authority do you draw such connections, where else are there such parellel where disciples are noachides?

The talmud can be promblematic and needs to be discussed instead of legislating it with "the Talmud is actually inside the "New Testament" itself- the entire documents and all of its volumes are zipped up in the Nazarean Codicil- all it need to be done is to be extracted from the zip file called the Nazarean Codicil."
A lot of it is actually very similiar to deconstrutionism, i was not surprised when i read that Derrida was a Jew

i've come to understand the lost sheep as referring to the "remnant" of Yisrael. One can see quite clearly that ones tribal status was still recognized and known in Yeshua's time. Otherwise Shaul's claim to be from the tribe of Benyamin and the prophet Hannah (a woman prophetess no less) stated as being from the tribe of Asher would seem in irony. How could you know your tribal status if the tribes were lost? This even routes out any merit in the 2 house efrayimite movement as they would probably claim that the tribe of Benyamin was not lost....as it was joined with Yehudah and only 10 of the 12 were lost. But Asher was not aligned with the house of Yehudah but Yisrael and well documented as being in the exiles from Yisrael. Not to mention the fact that though all tribes were exiled in time all Yisrael came back and lived in it's own territory as returned exiles..(Ezra..Nechemyah) So in my view the "lost" sheep referred to by Yeshua are in fact the "remnant" which is being made kadosh and gathered just like Yeshua said would happen through his prophets when they spoke of the "remnant Yisrael" (HaShe'ar Yisra'el).

Buccaneer said:

"It was only after the ressurection he told them to become fishers of men.

Click to expand...

Buccaneer, to quote the brit chadasha Mattityahu 4:19 states "Yeshua said to them, "Come after me, and I will make you fishers of men!" This was when Yeshua first started to gather his talmidim (Kefa and Andrew) and long before his resurrection.

Which brings to mind another issue with this verse. I would love to hear the responses as to just how Yeshua met and called Shim'on Kefa and Andrew?

Did Yeshua see the two fishing and tell them he would make them fishers of men and they left their nets at once and both followed him.(Mattityahu 4:18-20)

OR, did Yochanan standing around with his talmidim the day after he immersed Yeshua point out to them "Look! G-d's lamb!" and two of them who heard deside to follow Yeshua and were taught all day by him. At which point one named Andrew runs to find his brother Shim'on to tell him they found the Mashiach. Andrew takes Shim'on to Yeshua and upon seeing him renames him Kefa.? (Yochanan 1:35-42)

Not to mention the time line....in Mattityahu Yeshua had been immersed then the Ruach lead him into the wilderness for 40 days after which he returned to the Galil then left it for K'far-Nachum on lake Kinneret where he meet Shim'on and Andrew and then proceeds to gather the rest and continue his ministry. Yet in Yochanan we see mention that the day after he was immersed by Yochanan he started to gather the talmidim and enter into his ministry with no mention of the 40 days that occurred in between the immersion and the gathering of the talmidim. This last mention is usually explained by "what is not mentioned is no issue" However having been seen in light of the first issue of two completely different accounts I would tend not to gloss it over as such.

And note..I am only looking for your humble opinions...not seeking to demean or blast another persons faith or theology.

B'H
Shalom
David ben Michael

Which brings to mind another issue with this verse. I would love to hear the responses as to just how Yeshua met and called Shim'on Kefa and Andrew?

Click to expand...

I see all three events happening. Yeshua when baptised was witnessed by Andrew and he did go tell Simon, Yeshua did leave to the wilderness for forty days, and when He returned called Andrew and Simon to be fishers of men.

rooster said:

A lot of it is actually very similiar to deconstrutionism, i was not surprised when i read that Derrida was a Jew

Click to expand...

Hi Rooster! I know you probably didn't meant it this way, but I jumped when I read this statement. Deconstruction is not at all what Sojeru is leading us to. In fact, I very much agree that the Brit haHadasha is a working out of Torah. The B''H leads us back to the heart of Torah. It constructs and establishes: not one jot or tittle will pass away. Two things are egregious about your statement to me. First of all, it is ad hominem, and second of all (because it IS ad hominem) it leads the uncareful reader to anti-Semitism.

koilias said:

Hi Rooster! I know you probably didn't meant it this way, but I jumped when I read this statement. Deconstruction is not at all what Sojeru is leading us to. In fact, I very much agree that the Brit haHadasha is a working out of Torah. The B''H leads us back to the heart of Torah. It constructs and establishes: not one jot or tittle will pass away. Two things are egregious about your statement to me. First of all, it is ad hominem, and second of all (because it IS ad hominem) it leads the uncareful reader to anti-Semitism.

Click to expand...

Ad Hominem?
I asked him to justify his interpretation, nothin personal.

Anyway deconstructionism is surprisingly similiar to certain methods of jewish interpretation, similiar, not the same.

So you got any comment on sojeru's interpretation?

And i will be more careful with my statements in case it gets misconstrued

"anti-semitic"?

How so?

Anyway he was talking about the talmud not the torah which lead to my statement about the deconstructionism

visionary said:

I see all three events happening. Yeshua when baptised was witnessed by Andrew and he did go tell Simon, Yeshua did leave to the wilderness for forty days, and when He returned called Andrew and Simon to be fishers of men.

Click to expand...

I have looked over the subject verses again...and have found that in fact the verses in Yochanan only tell of the "testimony" Yochanan gave of the immersing and not the actual immersing itself. This opens up the time line to allow the understanding you gave of all three happening, and in order, just not given in a coherent linear timeline. With that said, I studied the two writtings more indepth to try and assertain, or veiw the two books in harmony. Although I did not attain a crystal clear harmoneous concept of the accounts, I was satified enough by my new understanding of the accounts that I will let this issue be and no longer consider it as such.

Visionary, todah lecha for your input

David ben Michael