Lashon hara

visionary · Apr 9, 2017

"Lashon Hara" to those who are critiquing others or are sharing a burden from their own experience. How many have heard the statement "you shouldn't judge"? In John 7:24 Yeshua says to "judge with righteous judgement." The Bible itself is honest about the strengths and weaknesses of the founders of our faith. We should be no less objective in our observations.

Open Heart · Apr 10, 2017

If I'm going to judge with a righteous judgment, I do it to the person's face. I have no business saying it behind their back to those who have no business hearing it: I think you'll agree THAT would be lashon hara, no matter how righteous the judgment.

CS Lewis once said the Devil has no imagination. He can't think up even one original sin. All he can do is take good and pervert it. To take the goodness of righteous judgement and pervert it by saying it behind a person's back makes it sin.

Heber Book List · Apr 10, 2017

Matthew 18 is about judging people in a righteous manner. If we do it in such a way, then Yeshua says that 'wheresoever 2 or 3 are gathered in my name, I am there in your midst'. That is in the context of judging others - it has absolutely nothing to do with the popular use about making excuses for small congregations or meetings!! It actually means that he is there with us in making that righteous judgment, as a witness.

Elihoenai · Apr 11, 2017

Righteous Judgment is Reserved for the Righteous!

Don't be deceived by the Modern View of what Filthy is, as this is far removed from the Ancient View as one side of the Universe to the other.

The God of Israel/Yahweh/Jehovah seeth not as (Modern Man?) seeth.

Psalm 53:1-3 Young's Literal Translation (YLT)

53 To the Overseer. -- `On a disease.' -- An instruction, by David. A fool said in his heart, `There is no God.' They have done corruptly, Yea, they have done abominable iniquity, There is none doing good.

2 God from the heavens looked on the sons of men, To see if there be an understanding one, [One] seeking God.

3 Every one went back, together they became filthy, There is none doing good -- not even one.

Heber Book List · Apr 11, 2017

Whenever we take it upon ourselves to judge, we must judge in a right, Scriptural way and from a righteous, G_dly perspective and not as 'man' would normally judge.

See the often wrongly interpreted 'judgement' of the lady charged with adultery. That is a prime case of judgement that was enacted against the Law - there was no witness and the man found in bed with her was not present as he should have been; both should have been stoned to death if found guilty. As the 'presiding' Rabbi at her public trial, Yeshua showed that there was no charge to sustain against her. The case was, technically, merely hearsay as there were no witnesses and only one 'offender' was present. She was therefore sent on her way with a warning by Yeshua, to go and sin no more just as, today, a motorist might be let off where there is no clear evidence and / or no witness, against his bad driving, with the judge saying: you may go - make sure you drive more carefully in future.

Dave-W · Apr 11, 2017

Heber Book List said:
there was no witness and the man found in bed with her was not present as he should have been; both should have been stoned to death if found guilty. As the 'presiding' Rabbi at her public trial, Yeshua showed that there was no charge to sustain against her. The case was, technically, merely hearsay as there were no witnesses and only one 'offender' was present.

That is not actually correct. The guys that brought her to Yeshua were ALL eye witnesses to her "extra-curricular" activity.

But at the time, the rabbis bent over backward to avoid the death penalty (which was a problem with Rome). Note our Lord's words: "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."

The Torah required an eyewitness to cast the first stone. Deut 17.6-7
Rabbinic extension at the time said the eye witnesses had to be completely innocent in the matter at hand. Everyone knew that.

Sensing a set-up, Yeshua knew that all the men who "discovered" this adultery were involved in the event. So by saying "Let he who is without sin..." HE meant specifically in this case of adultery. Thus he excluded them. With no witnesses, there could be no execution.

The lack of the guy involved meant he was probably in on the incident as well.

Heber Book List · Apr 11, 2017

DaveW-Ohev said:
That is not actually correct. The guys that brought her to Yeshua were ALL eye witnesses to her "extra-curricular" activity.

But at the time, the rabbis bent over backward to avoid the death penalty (which was a problem with Rome). Note our Lord's words: "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."

The Torah required an eyewitness to cast the first stone. Deut 17.6-7
Rabbinic extension at the time said the eye witnesses had to be completely innocent in the matter at hand. Everyone knew that.

Sensing a set-up, Yeshua knew that all the men who "discovered" this adultery were involved in the event. So by saying "Let he who is without sin..." HE meant specifically in this case of adultery. Thus he excluded them. With no witnesses, there could be no execution.

The lack of the guy involved meant he was probably in on the incident as well.

Really? You know positively, directly from the scriptural account, that every single person there, except Yeshua, were actual witnesses, or were involved in the event they reported? You know, equally well, that Yeshua knew that all the men before him were lying through their teeth? It can't be a set-up, if they all saw it - either she was committing adultery, or not. There is no way a half measure can work in that situation. Please cite the relevant texts to prove this.

Yeshua's words about 'he who is without sin' relates not to the fact they were all conspiring (had that been the case he, as presiding Rabbi, would have had to deal with them as false witnesses, the punishment for which would have been stoning to death) but, rather, that in their haste to see this woman condemned as an adulteress they had, perhaps unwittingly, committed the sin of violating the very Law by which she could be tried on their word, by virtue of the fact that no witness was brought, and the man with whom she was found was not brought to the trial either, so whatever happened no punishment could be meted out. The only sin the men had committed, was their failure to comply with the Law, making them all guilty of bearing false witness.

The Mishnah sets out, very clearly, the process for the situation where the husband wants to charge his wife with the adultery - it is strange that he is not involved in this situation (she could only commit adultery if she was a married woman), which lead us to see an impetuous act by the scribes and Pharisees who, in their haste, broke the Law, as they would have done many times over when they wanted to seize Yeshua on trumped up charges.

We must be careful to avoid eisegesis, when reading scripture. If the plain simple text gives a clear, open account we must not embellish it.

Dave-W · Apr 11, 2017

Heber Book List said:
We must be careful to avoid eisegesis, when reading scripture. If the plain simple text gives a clear, open account we must not embellish it.

I am not sola scriptura in that sense. Scripture must be seen thru the filters of the culture of the day. They could not have presented their case had they not all been witnesses. The talmuds tell of the stricture of the eye witnesses being innocent in the matter. They also tell us of how rampant prostitution was during Sukkot; so much so that eventually (before the destruction of the Temple) they had to shut down that celebration.

Sometimes we THINK scripture has a "clear, open account" which actually conflicts with what was going on in that day.

Heber Book List · Apr 11, 2017

DaveW-Ohev said:
I am not sola scriptura in that sense. Scripture must be seen thru the filters of the culture of the day. They could not have presented their case had they not all been witnesses. The talmuds tell of the stricture of the eye witnesses being innocent in the matter. They also tell us of how rampant prostitution was during Sukkot; so much so that eventually (before the destruction of the Temple) they had to shut down that celebration.

Sometimes we THINK scripture has a "clear, open account" which actually conflicts with what was going on in that day.

If, as you have claimed, it was all a set-up, that claim indicates that the proposition that 'they could not have presented their case had they not all been witnesses' is in error, by definition. A set-up needed no more than the mandatory two witnesses - so why bother with so many? Were they all in a tiny room at the same time whilst she was engrossed in what she and the guy were doing? Sounds to me like they were perverts if that was the case! It also makes them guilty because they should have prevented it from happening if they were there, watching it - they cannot claim to be innocent in the matter. And if they were all there, it should not be a problem to declare who the man was, and to send people to find him, or maybe he was in the wider crowd that Yeshua was teaching at that time? What makes you think that they could not tell lies, even though the Law requires objectivity - they manifestly could, and did, in this situation, as they did with Yeshua, and others.

No, the simple account stands true. It is as it is.

Dave-W · Apr 11, 2017

Heber Book List said:
Were they all in a tiny room at the same time whilst she was engrossed in what she and the guy were doing?

This was Sukkot. Everyone stayed in Sukkas - small tents open to the world on one side and on the top:

Heber Book List · Apr 11, 2017

Duplicate post

Heber Book List · Apr 11, 2017

DaveW-Ohev said:
This was Sukkot. Everyone stayed in Sukkas - small tents open to the world on one side and on the top:

View attachment 194310

I think that is irrelevant - for the purposes of the debate it is a 'room', albeit a room external to the usual family rooms in the house, though it makes it less likely that she was 'caught in the act by all the men, simultaneously. But we are only guessing that that is where she and the man might have been - it could have been anywhere. That really is eisegesis!

Na Nach Oi! · Apr 11, 2017

visionary said:
"Lashon Hara" to those who are critiquing others or are sharing a burden from their own experience. How many have heard the statement "you shouldn't judge"? In John 7:24 Yeshua says to "judge with righteous judgement." The Bible itself is honest about the strengths and weaknesses of the founders of our faith. We should be no less objective in our observations.

I think it includes shaming/humiliating the guilty person publicly.

But, what about gossiping?
Sometimes, we could avoid malicious person because the gossips which contain some truth on it, right?

Open Heart · Apr 11, 2017

Na Nach Oi! said:
But, what about gossiping?
Sometimes, we could avoid malicious person because the gossips which contain some truth on it, right?

I agree with you Na Nah Oi. Even if the gossip is 100% true, if it is spoken to people for whom it is none of their business, all it does is hurt the original person and is an act of hatred and harm and is a terrible horrible sin.

I like the Rabbinical ruling that listening to gossip is also a sin, and that if we accidentally hear gossip, we are required not to believe it.

DennisTate · Apr 22, 2017

visionary said:
"Lashon Hara" to those who are critiquing others or are sharing a burden from their own experience. How many have heard the statement "you shouldn't judge"? In John 7:24 Yeshua says to "judge with righteous judgement." The Bible itself is honest about the strengths and weaknesses of the founders of our faith. We should be no less objective in our observations.

Well said......
if Sid Roth's estimate of the number of Messianic Jews at the time of the Bar Kochba Revolt may
have been basically accurate..... how might the ideas of the Messianic Jewish community of that time be different from what it is now?

(Sid Roth, The Incomplete Church, Chapter 7, page 64, 65)

Acts 10). The Jerusalem Council meeting determined that Gentiles did not have to be circumcised. There were only four easily followed requirements. They were to abstain from things polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from things strangled, and from blood (Acts 15:20). After all, James said, they could learn more about God by hear- ing the words of Moses every Saturday in the syna- gogue (see Acts 15:21). This opened the door to widespread church growth among the Gentiles. So many Gentiles were saved that the Jewish believers became a minority.

The first Jewish followers of Jesus were called Nazarenes (part of the Essenes sect of Judaism dis- cussed in Chapter 3). They practiced traditional Judaism and were widely accepted by unbelieving Jews. Early in the second century their numbers reached 400,000.1 In the Book of Acts, the early church fathers said to Paul: You see, brother, how many myriads [tens of thousands] of Jews there are who have believed, and they are all zealous for the law (Acts 21:20).

The Nazarenes acceptance by traditional Jews came to a halt in A.D. 135 when Rabbi Akiba declared that Bar Kochba was the Jewish Messiah. His followers hoped he would lead them to victory over the Romans. The Nazarenes refused to fight because they believed Jesus was the true Messiah rather than Bar Kochba. They were branded traitors, not because they believed in Jesus, but because they would not join Bar Kochbas armed struggle. Bar Kochba and his followers were quickly slaughtered by the Romans. Afterward, Jews were banned from Jerusalem.

History shows that as the center of the Christian faith moved from Jerusalem to Rome, it became increasingly Hellenized, adopting pagan customs and philosophies rather than the God-ordained practices and beliefs of the Bible. At the same time, Christianity became increasingly anti-Jewish.

Open Heart · Apr 22, 2017

DennisTate said:
Well said......
if Sid Roth's estimate of the number of Messianic Jews at the time of the Bar Kochba Revolt may
have been basically accurate..... how might the ideas of the Messianic Jewish community of that time be different from what it is now?

I think that not participating in the Bar Kochba rebellion was the greatest mistake (although done with the best of intentions) of the MJ community in Jerusalem. They should have made the very loud and adamant stance that they did NOT believe Bar Kochba was the Messiah, but they would stand with their Jewish brethren to defend the land from the Romans.

IMHO, by remaining aloof during the slaughter, they became traitors to Israel. It began the separation of the Church from Israel which then continued for so many other terrible reasons. It was the first strike against the Church which weakened her so badly, separating her from the roots upon which she was supposed to be grafted.

Only now is that mistake being dealt with after 2000 years.

DennisTate · Apr 22, 2017

Open Heart said:
I think that not participating in the Bar Kochba rebellion was the greatest mistake (although done with the best of intentions) of the MJ community in Jerusalem. They should have made the very loud and adamant stance that they did NOT believe Bar Kochba was the Messiah, but they would stand with their Jewish brethren to defend the land from the Romans.

IMHO, by remaining aloof during the slaughter, they became traitors to Israel. It began the separation of the Church from Israel which then continued for so many other terrible reasons. It was the first strike against the Church which weakened her so badly, separating her from the roots upon which she was supposed to be grafted.

Only now is that mistake being dealt with after 2000 years.

I have to admit that absolute pacifism may not
have been exactly what Messiah Yeshua - Jesus actually taught.
.....
I just want to say that I am truly sorry for all those years that I was close to believing in near total pacifism! Rabbi Jesus/Yehoshua once asked a question of the Scribes and Pharisees that should have made it obvious to me that an extreme situation can call for drastic action by a Christian or Jew who feels called into a life in the military or police!

Mark 3:4
"And he saith unto them, Is it lawful to do good on the sabbath days, or to do evil? to save life, or to kill? But they held their peace."

I am almost certain that Rabbi Jesus/Yehoshua was referring to the situation faced by the Machabees when Greco - Syrian armies were attacking Jewish communities on the Sabbath.

One community had refused to fight back....but the Machabees....in my opinion correctly judged that this is a violation of an admonition by King Solomon:

Ecclesiastes 7:16
"Be not righteous over much; neither make thyself over wise: why shouldest thou destroy thyself?"
Douay-Rheims Catholic Bible, First Book Of Machabees Chapter 2
...
"So they gave them battle on the sabbath: and they were slain with their wives, and their children, and their cattle, to the number of a thousand persons. [39] And Mathathias and his friends heard of it, and they mourned for them exceedingly. [40] And every man said to his neighbour: If we shall all do as our brethren have done, and not fight against the heathens for our lives, and our justifications: they will now quickly root us out of the earth.

[41] And they determined in that day, saying: Whosoever shall come up against us to fight on the sabbath day, we will fight against him: and we will not all die, as our brethren that were slain in the secret places."

visionary · Apr 23, 2017

Open Heart said:
I think that not participating in the Bar Kochba rebellion was the greatest mistake (although done with the best of intentions) of the MJ community in Jerusalem. They should have made the very loud and adamant stance that they did NOT believe Bar Kochba was the Messiah, but they would stand with their Jewish brethren to defend the land from the Romans.

IMHO, by remaining aloof during the slaughter, they became traitors to Israel. It began the separation of the Church from Israel which then continued for so many other terrible reasons. It was the first strike against the Church which weakened her so badly, separating her from the roots upon which she was supposed to be grafted.

Only now is that mistake being dealt with after 2000 years.

I believe there was more at play here, especially since Yeshua told them that when they see the "abomination" to flee.

Open Heart · Apr 24, 2017

visionary said:
I believe there was more at play here, especially since Yeshua told them that when they see the "abomination" to flee.

Yes, to flee to the mountains after Rome conquered the Temple. But what of before that? They should have fought BEFORE the Romans stood in the Temple.

visionary · Apr 25, 2017

Open Heart said:
Yes, to flee to the mountains after Rome conquered the Temple. But what of before that? They should have fought BEFORE the Romans stood in the Temple.

Yeshua revealed two major signs that would alert believers to flee: “When ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh.” (Luke 21:20.)

He also said, “When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand

“Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains: “Let him which is on the housetop not come down to take any thing out of his house: “Neither let him which is in the field return back to take his clothes.” (Matt. 24:15–18.)

Jerusalem was surrounded by Rome, people were eating each other they were starving so bad. Anyone trying to leave Jerusalem were slaughtered. Tacitus wrote that he had heard that 600,000 were besieged in Jerusalem (see Histories, 5:13), whereas Josephus estimates that nearly three million were in the city because of the feast of unleavened bread. He bases his guess on the reported number of sacrifices during the feast. The number 1,100,000 that he gives seems to refer to those who died in all of Judaea. (See Wars of the Jews, 6:9:3.)

There was only one window of escape, so some reason Rome opened up a way of escape, the believers took it as their sign and did flee. Inside the rally cry was to stay and fight to the bitter end. The flight to Pella took place in A.D. 66 during the attack by Gallus.

Eusebius wrote: “The whole body, however, of the church at Jerusalem, having been commanded by a divine revelation, given to men of approved piety there before the war, removed from the city, and dwelt at a certain town beyond the Jordan, called Pella.” Ecclesiastical History, tr. C. F. Crusè, 3d ed., in Greek Ecclesiastical Historians, 6 vols. (London: Samuel Bagster and Sons, 1842), p. 110 (3:5).

Adam Clarke wrote: “It is very remarkable that not a single Christian perished in the destruction of Jerusalem, though there were many there when Cestius Gallus invested the city; and, had he persevered in the siege, he would soon have rendered himself master of it; but, when he unexpectedly and unaccountably raised the siege, the Christians took that opportunity to escape. …

Vespasian was approaching with his army, all who believed in Christ left Jerusalem and fled to Pella, and other places beyond the river Jordan; and so they all marvellously escaped the general shipwreck of their country: not one of them perished.” The New Testament … with a Commentary and Critical Notes, 6 vols. (Nashville: Abingdon Press, n.d.), 5:228–29.

Lashon hara

Your God is my God... Ruth said, so say I.

Well-Known Member

Theologian [Applied Theology]

Who has ceased to eat Manna?

Theologian [Applied Theology]

Welcoming grandchild #7, Arturus Waggoner!

Theologian [Applied Theology]

Welcoming grandchild #7, Arturus Waggoner!

Theologian [Applied Theology]

Welcoming grandchild #7, Arturus Waggoner!

Theologian [Applied Theology]

Theologian [Applied Theology]

Embracing paradoxical thinking

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Your God is my God... Ruth said, so say I.

Well-Known Member

Your God is my God... Ruth said, so say I.

Similar threads