Levitucus - all or none?

The Thadman · Jul 21, 2005

D.W. said:
Shalom Steve,

This may be figurative to you but to me it is quite literal. We are to have the laws writen on our hearts too, but the laws came on siani first. To write them on your heart is figurative. It means to live by those laws and to make them part of your everyday life. The laws and how to do them is a commandment, not to be put on the wait till you can put them on your heart list. G-d told us to obey these customs that you say we do not need. So I guess that would be G-ds word over yours.

No, it is a matter of your trust in your own interepretation of the text over mine; let that fact be straight.

Exo 18:20 And thou shalt teach them ordinances and laws, and shalt show them the way wherein they must walk, and the work that they must do.

706. choq, khoke; from H2710; an enactment; hence an appointment (of time, space, quantity, labor or usage):--appointed, bound, commandment, convenient, custom, decree (-d), due, law, measure, X necessary, ordinance (-nary), portion, set time, statute, task.

8451. towrah, to-raw'; or torah, to-raw'; from H3384; a precept or statute, espec. the Decalogue or Pentateuch:--law.

The "Five Books of Torah" were known as "The Torah" collectively after they were compiled, much like how the "Bible" was named after it was codified.

There are many more instances where G-d said to follow the ordinances but I believe this is enough.

And God claims commandments written in the 5 Books are "ordinances," not an oral tradition.

The oral laws were given to Moses who gave them to the seventy who gave them to the people and continued to be passed down from generation to generation.

So, Moses knew of Chanukah, Purim, and the Samaritans? It's in the Mishnah.

These parts of oral torah Moses couldn't possibly have known or passed down

As far as the arguments go we all know that man continues to search out the truth of the Torah as G-d meant it to be. What you dont understand is that the Rabbis take every meaning that can be thought of, every word all of the way back to its original root, examine it pass it back and forth argue over its meaning come to a conclusion and agree on its meaning when it comes to the laws that are presented in the Torah. The meaning of scripture may not always be agreed on, but the meaning of the laws are.

But there is never an agreement, only arguments. Why do we not accept the rulings of the Tanaitic sages?

Nothing is added nor is anything taken away.

These interpretations add much to the Torah. What order one puts on their shoes. That God commanded candles to be lit before Shabbath. What prayer one must recite before they go to the toilet. These are not in Torah, nor was Moses told these. If you trace back the oral traditions followed today, the majority of them are young and could not possibly date back to Moses.

No it is not to hard, we will always have the customs passed down so that we do not forget the proper way to honor G-ds laws and ordinances.

The recipe to make the Temple incense was forgotten when the Levite family that held it died out. The recipe for the special rabbinic dye for tzitzit was lost to the sands of time, to the point that everyone wears black or white, and today's reconstruction is just a guess. The rabbinic weight of the shekel was lost, the rabbinic artwork and specifications for the Temple were lost.

Peace!
-Steve-o

D.W. · Jul 21, 2005

Shalom,

The Thadman said:
And God claims commandments written in the 5 Books are "ordinances," not an oral tradition.

That would be your interpretation not G-d's.

Lev 26:3 If ye walk in my statutes, and keep my commandments, and do them;
Gen 26:5 Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.

These are all differant words to mean different things in the Torah, sometimes statutes and ordinances being the same word, commandments being a different word altogether.

Num 9:14 And if a stranger shall sojourn among you, and will keep the passover unto the LORD; according to the ordinance of the passover, and according to the manner thereof, so shall he do: ye shall have one ordinance, both for the stranger, and for him that was born in the land.

So, Moses knew of Chanukah, Purim, and the Samaritans? It's in the Mishnah.

These parts of oral torah Moses couldn't possibly have known or passed down

The holidays that you list are not in nor said to be a part of the law. Oral or Torah? These are days that exist in todays world and you can observe them but there is no law that says you must, just as it is your choice on whether to observe your b-day or not. Your non-understanding is putting more into the equation than what exists.

But there is never an agreement, only arguments. Why do we not accept the rulings of the Tanaitic sages?

I can tell that you do not read the Talmud or you would understand that you are wrong, they do come to an agreement.

These interpretations add much to the Torah. What order one puts on their shoes. That God commanded candles to be lit before Shabbath. What prayer one must recite before they go to the toilet. These are not in Torah, nor was Moses told these. If you trace back the oral traditions followed today, the majority of them are young and could not possibly date back to Moses.

This is what you do not understand, what a Rabbi says should be because, and he always has a reason, and what the law says do not always coincide.Now don't get me wrong, because a Rabbi says to put on one shoe before the other does not make him wrong, but that is not a mitzvoth, you may do as he does or not. If it is one of the 613, then these are the laws that are commanded. These are expounded on in the Talmud or the oral laws if you will. They are always referenced to the Torah.

The recipe to make the Temple incense was forgotten when the Levite family that held it died out. The recipe for the special rabbinic dye for tzitzit was lost to the sands of time, to the point that everyone wears black or white, and today's reconstruction is just a guess. The rabbinic weight of the shekel was lost, the rabbinic artwork and specifications for the Temple were lost..

These things I do not know.

G-d Bless,

Dan

The Thadman · Jul 22, 2005

D.W. said:
That would be your interpretation not G-d's.

If you claim that your interepretation is the sole understanding gleaned from God, himself, then please get in line with everyone else. There are more interpretations and opinions between exegetes then there are exegetes.

Lev 26:3 If ye walk in my statutes, and keep my commandments, and do them;
Gen 26:5 Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my

commandments, my statutes, and my laws.

These are all differant words to mean different things in the Torah, sometimes statutes and ordinances being the same word, commandments being a different word altogether.

Num 9:14 And if a stranger shall sojourn among you, and will keep the passover unto the LORD; according to the ordinance of the passover, and according to the manner thereof, so shall he do: ye shall have one ordinance, both for the stranger, and for him that was born in the land.

How does this even imply an oral tradition when these ordinances are written down in Torah?

The holidays that you list are not in nor said to be a part of the law. Oral or Torah? These are days that exist in todays world and you can observe them but there is no law that says you must, just as it is your choice on whether to observe your b-day or not. Your non-understanding is putting more into the equation than what exists.

Chanukah is mentioned in the Talmud in the Tractate Shabbath, Purim is mentioned in the Talmud, by Maimonides as a tradition handed down by Moses, the Samaritans appear in the Mishnah as the "Cutheans." These three things did not exist at the times of Moses, yet they are in the "oral traditions handed down from Moses."

I can tell that you do not read the Talmud or you would understand that you are wrong, they do come to an agreement.

Click to expand...

When do Hillel and Shammai ever agree?

Additionally, why do modern Rabbis not follow some of arguments -in- the Talmud?

This is what you do not understand, what a Rabbi says should be because, and he always has a reason, and what the law says do not always coincide.

Click to expand...

Then we reject the Rabbi and follow to the Law, for they teach as doctrine the commandments of men.

Now don't get me wrong, because a Rabbi says to put on one shoe before the other does not make him wrong, but that is not a mitzvoth, you may do as he does or not.

Click to expand...

But it does make him add to the Torah. He is in effect saying "well it really means this..." when certain Laws were written as ambiguous. What is the "proper" way to tie tzitzit? There is none, be creative! Just make sure it has a blue thread and you're good. Under rabbinic tradition, there are 5 mutually exclusive ways to tie them in the various oral torot. Do they all go back to Moses?

If it is one of the 613, then these are the laws that are commanded.

Click to expand...

613 is a tradition that is shown as incorrect by simply counting the mitzwot. Have you? The numbers don't match.

These are expounded on in the Talmud or the oral laws if you will. They are always referenced to the Torah.

Click to expand...

Stop right there:

expound

v 1: add details, as to an account or idea;

Deuteronomy 4:2
You shall not add to the word which I command you, neither shall you diminish from it, that you may keep the commandments of Yahweh your God which I command you. (c.f Deut 12:32)

Additionally, oral traditions have a very interesting principle whereby verses are quoted out of context to prove a point. Are you familliar with the story of Eliezer and the oven?

These things I do not know.

Click to expand...

Please investigate them. Much of this Rabbinic tradition that claims to be from Moses has been lost for millenia.

This is one of the reasons why I, personally, believe that Leviticus is so important. Getting back to the base of what Jesus and his Disciples taught, cutting throught the millenia of additional traditions and layers of expounding upon simple, easy-to-follow rules for living.

Peace!
-Steve-o

horuhe00 · Jul 22, 2005

The Thadman said:
Stop right there:

expound

v 1: add details, as to an account or idea;

Deuteronomy 4:2
You shall not add to the word which I command you, neither shall you diminish from it, that you may keep the commandments of Yahweh your God which I command you. (c.f Deut 12:32)

Additionally, oral traditions have a very interesting principle whereby verses are quoted out of context to prove a point. Are you familliar with the story of Eliezer and the oven?

Ooohhh... He got you there

Pretty hard to argue with Deuteronomy 4:2.

D.W. · Jul 22, 2005

The Thadman said:
If you claim that your interepretation is the sole understanding gleaned from God, himself, then please get in line with everyone else. There are more interpretations and opinions between exegetes then there are exegetes.

I was showing you scripture, not my interpretation, but i can see how one would want to see it as my interpretation especialy since they have thier own.

How does this even imply an oral tradition when these ordinances are written down in Torah?

The how to is not writen down in most cases.

The holidays that you list are not in nor said to be a part of the law. Oral or Torah? These are days that exist in todays world and you can observe them but there is no law that says you must, just as it is your choice on whether to observe your b-day or not. Your non-understanding is putting more into the equation than what exists.

Chanukah is mentioned in the Talmud in the Tractate Shabbath, Purim is mentioned in the Talmud, by Maimonides as a tradition handed down by Moses, the Samaritans appear in the Mishnah as the "Cutheans." These three things did not exist at the times of Moses, yet they are in the "oral traditions handed down from Moses."

Because they are mentioned does NOT MAKE THEM LAWS, to find the laws one has to look at the end product thatn is written in the Talmud. Artscroll
does a very good job of showing how this is done. In short they say the mishnah says this, the Gemara says this, and this is what is agreed on.

When do Hillel and Shammai ever agree?

All things. One was more liberal than the other.

Additionally, why do modern Rabbis not follow some of arguments -in- the Talmud?

But it does make him add to the Torah. He is in effect saying "well it really means this..." when certain Laws were written as ambiguous. What is the "proper" way to tie tzitzit? There is none, be creative! Just make sure it has a blue thread and you're good. Under rabbinic tradition, there are 5 mutually exclusive ways to tie them in the various oral torot. Do they all go back to Moses?

I've never met a Rabbi who said this is a law to tie the tzitzit this way. Instead what is said usualy is that this is the way that we tie it in our community. It is the custom to go to your Rabbi and ask what way that things are done in that community.

613 is a tradition that is shown as incorrect by simply counting the mitzwot. Have you? The numbers don't match.

Yes I have, but it was easier for me since I have 2 books that tell me what they are. Positive and negative commandments by the Rambam. Sometimes a commandment is listed as both a positive and a negative. Rambam explains this in detail at the begining of the positive book so that you understand how they got the 613.

Stop right there:

expound

v 1: add details, as to an account or idea;

Deuteronomy 4:2
You shall not add to the word which I command you, neither shall you diminish from it, that you may keep the commandments of Yahweh your God which I command you. (c.f Deut 12:32)

Once again they do not add to it, the Rabbis explain it so that it may be observed the right way.

This is one of the reasons why I, personally, believe that Leviticus is so important. Getting back to the base of what Jesus and his Disciples taught, cutting throught the millenia of additional traditions and layers of expounding upon simple, easy-to-follow rules for living.

I too believe that Leviticus is important.I also believe that Jesus followed those traditions which explains how those things are not far from us to understand. I have lost the quotes and it would take a while to find them again, but one of the quotes that Jesus used was by Hillel.

G-d Bless,
Dan

D.W. · Jul 22, 2005

http://yashanet.com/studies/matstudy/mat3a.htm Shalom Steve,
This is a good place to see the writings of Yeshua and where they are also found in the Talmud.

G-d Bless,
Dan

The Thadman · Jul 22, 2005

D.W. said:
http://yashanet.com/studies/matstudy/mat3a.htm Shalom Steve,
This is a good place to see the writings of Yeshua and where they are also found in the Talmud.

G-d Bless,
Dan

Almost all of the sayings on that page are as similar to Roman Catholic teachings as Martin Luther believed.

How many similarites such as the ones you cite on this website do a Mormon share with a Baptist? We need to look for the distinct teachings.

For example:

We never have Jesus say "follow the Tradition of the Elders (Gemara of the Avot)." Do we have Jesus endorsing what the Pharisees stood for?

We have in -several- places Jesus saying that the Pharisees make the Word of God null and void by the Traditions of the Elders (Gemara of the Avot). We only have attributed sayings that denounce what the Pharisees stood for.

Additionally, note that this page you link to cites all of its examples from Matthew (with one from Mark)? Why aren't more of these in Luke, Mark, or Thomas? It is a trend within Matthew to give Jesus' words more of a Rabbinic slant, as all signs point towards the author of Matthew being raised within a Rabbinic community and converting to Christianity. Mark, Luke, the three sources of John individually, Paul, and Peter, for example, all have different images of Jesus.

Have you read the works of Robert Funk and the Jesus Seminar?

Peace!
-Steve-o

D.W. · Jul 23, 2005

The Thadman said:
Additionally, note that this page you link to cites all of its examples from Matthew (with one from Mark)? Why aren't more of these in Luke, Mark, or Thomas? It is a trend within Matthew to give Jesus' words more of a Rabbinic slant, as all signs point towards the author of Matthew being raised within a Rabbinic community and converting to Christianity. Mark, Luke, the three sources of John individually, Paul, and Peter, for example, all have different images of Jesus.

Have you read the works of Robert Funk and the Jesus Seminar?

Peace!
-Steve-o

The real reason the accounts of the deciples are not worded exactly the same is because they are writings of men who sat at Jesus feet. These are things that stood out in their mind whenever they finally wrote them down. The accounts are the same; the details of those accounts vary.

Shabbot Shalom,
Dan

The Thadman · Jul 23, 2005

D.W. said:
The real reason the accounts of the deciples are not worded exactly the same is because they are writings of men who sat at Jesus feet. These are things that stood out in their mind whenever they finally wrote them down. The accounts are the same; the details of those accounts vary.

Shabbot Shalom,
Dan

How do we know that they stat at Jesus' feet?

There is no way to know

However, we can see from evidence within the text that the authors of these books were dealing with a Jerusalem that was several decades post-Jesus. All of Paul's letters predate the Gospels. These aren't first-hand sources, and in many cases (for example the Gospel of John) the final versions we have today are fourth-hand and fifth-hand sources with their own agendas. Within the 4 "cannonical" Gospels, alone, we have at least seven images of Jesus at work.

(Mark, Matthew, Luke, Q, Signs, Dialogues, 4th Gospel Author)

Peace!
-Steve-o

D.W. · Jul 24, 2005

The Thadman said:
How do we know that they stat at Jesus' feet?

There is no way to know However, we can see from evidence within the text that the authors of these books were dealing with a Jerusalem that was several decades post-Jesus. All of Paul's letters predate the Gospels. These aren't first-hand sources, and in many cases (for example the Gospel of John) the final versions we have today are fourth-hand and fifth-hand sources with their own agendas. Within the 4 "cannonical" Gospels, alone, we have at least seven images of Jesus at work. (Mark, Matthew, Luke, Q, Signs, Dialogues, 4th Gospel Author)

Peace!
-Steve-o

Shalom Steve,

This would be an interesting study.
Good morning and G-d bless,
Dan

whatiswatanabe · Jul 25, 2005

ahab said:
Personally I look to Jesus as the fulfillment of the law,

That is not logical. I have heard this before but it makes not a shred of sense.

How can a person be a fulfilment of a law? They are mutually distinct categories.

A biblical Law was a description of an Action that either you were supposed to do or refrain from doing. You fulfill this law by DOING IT!

Search

Search

Levitucus - all or none?

The Thadman

Well-Known Member

More options

D.W.

Contributor

More options

The Thadman

Well-Known Member

More options

horuhe00

Contributor

More options

D.W.

Contributor

More options

D.W.

Contributor

More options

The Thadman

Well-Known Member

More options

D.W.

Contributor

More options

The Thadman

Well-Known Member

More options

D.W.

Contributor

More options

whatiswatanabe

Active Member

More options

Similar threads