Gospels and Jewish law

Duvduv said:

Why would Jesus a religious Jew make a statement as in verse 17 that contradicts the book of Genesis which says that God rested on the seventh day?! On the one hand we have a layer of Jewishness even in the gospel of John, but then another layer asserting non-Jewish superiority by invoking a God who does not rest on the sabbath. So much confusion!

Click to expand...

Priests and Levites could do the work of God on the sabbath.

Jesus answered them, “To this very day My Father is at His work, and I too am working.”

Jesus was in his 3 year ministry till his death and was a total servant to God and was always serving and doing the work of God and that's what he is claiming there.

Obviously if God manifest in human form says it's alright for man to pick up his mat and walk then it must be.
There is a lot different interpretation about what constitutes work on the sabbath. IT's controversial.
The carrying law found in the OT I believe is carrying things for reward. Carrying heavy things to do work.
Not picking up a mat or a book or a pen ectra in home or private use.

Also Duvduv you have to know That those 3 years of ministry were a transition period Jesus does talk to some Jews about old testament laws. But with the disciples and parables, he quoted, He was bringing in Christianity and New Covenant. He was training the disciples and said a lot of things to them privately that he didn't say in public. I can give you examples if you want. That's why you see differences.

Duvduv said:

How can God be manifest in human form [=avatar] since God is everywhere anyway, and not restricted in time and space?! It is of course a non-Jewish concept integrated into New Testament.

Click to expand...

Simple.

Duvduv said:

How can God be manifest in human form [=avatar] since God is everywhere anyway, and not restricted in time and space?! It is of course a non-Jewish concept integrated into New Testament.

Click to expand...

Philippians 2:7-9 New King James Version (NKJV)
7 but [a]made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross. 9 Therefore God also has highly exalted Him and given Him the name which is above every name,

It's God's redemption plan for mankind.

John 3:16 New International Version (NIV)
16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

The great men of faith in the OT spoke Jesus into existence through there prophecies being inline with God the father.

@Duvduv It has been accepted by many biblical scholars that the authors of the gospels never knew Jesus and that they were all written at different times by different unknown individuals. The synoptics are said to be the most Jewish of the gospels with John being more theological and semi-gnostic even. It is clear however that the authors were not Jewish scholars as they were vague or mistaken about certain Jewish practices. The Halaka I believe was still not fully formed during the time of Jesus so there were still grey areas besides the written mitzvahs that every Jew knew.

We also must remember that many miracles that appear in both the Torah and the Christian gospels and acts were largely just stories attributed years after the events occurred. We cannot expect them to be reasonable.

Duvduv said:

Dougangel, since the Book of John refers to the laws of the Pharisees, one would assume Jesus would correct them but he doesn't. The author of the gospel could have created an authentic scenario to make the same point. But he doesn't. It's obvious that he was not familiar with the rabbinic laws.

Click to expand...

The focus of the gospels is on the One who fulfils the law not on contemporary Pharisees who thought they knew better than God and who rejected the Messiah. Fundamentally this was a power struggle not a matter of law violations or ignorance of the fence that Pharisees had placed around the law. The Pharisees could not accept Jesus as a Messiah because their traditions blinded them as to who He was, distorting their expectations. Also they were afraid he would displace them as the religious leaders of the nation or bring down the anger of Rome upon them.

Since much of the rabbinic tradition and text selections took place after the time of Jesus and indeed the later fall of Jerusalem it seems the inherent bias against Christian interpretations that would lend weight to Christs Messianic authority is built into them. The plain bible text is a conversational history of first century miraculous events not an exhaustive rebuttal of 2nd or third century Rabbinical revisionism

Duvduv said:

How can God be manifest in human form [=avatar] since God is everywhere anyway, and not restricted in time and space?! It is of course a non-Jewish concept integrated into New Testament.

Click to expand...

Hello Duvduv, I just wonder whether you have a living relationship with the spirit of Adonai? .. that is the way that He was amidst the camp of Israel, as Moses said "The word is near you, even in your heart and on your lips".

The teaching of Christianity, when one has followed it to correct interpretation, reveals to us that God is a personal companion (consider John 16:13-15 and John 14:21). It is not for any one of us to assume that we are an "avatar" for His voice, but when we really do know Him, we recognise His spirit's conviction in the moment when He is present (Matthew 18:20).

So although we (the faithful) do recognise the Spirit of Adonai in our midst and sometimes we recognise when He is speaking through us, it is for the sake of those carnal and not discerning the spiritual that we can never speak AS God - we are always speaking as a disciple, or servant, of God.

In that way, Jesus was unique, because of what John the Baptist said in John 1:32, and that knowledge, being unique, is the reason that Jesus spoke with the context of first-person "I Am", whereas we can only ever speak in reference to Him.

That the Jewish people in Jesus' time had a relationship with the spirit of Adonai, and yet they had never before met a person who spoke in first-person as the spirit of Adonai - in the end, their having chosen to not believe Him when He spoke led to Him speaking the curse of Matthew 23:37-39.

Duvduv said:

As a Jew I have found reading parts of the gospels interesting in terms of how they express what Jewish law requires. I have also been watching a 3 hour dramatization of the Book of John. In most cases I can see that the authors of the gospels were at best only superficially familiar with Jewish law and misinterpreted it.
For instance, the blind man carries his mat on the sabbath within the confines of the Temple and is criticized by "the priests" for it. However, the prohibition of carrying on the Sabbath does not even apply to the confines of a closed location. Similarly the criticism of healing on the Sabbath is misinterpreted. Healing is a rabbinical injunction to prevent someone from performing certain actions on the Sabbath such as grinding, sewing, etc. which are Torah prohibitions. The supernatural healing of an individual does not meet this test since it involves no prohibited "labors." Surely whoever wrote the gospel would have known this had he been a Jew. It is clear that the author was a Roman in Rome or Constantinople who was very superficially acquainted with Jewish law who wanted to make a point about Jesus trying to display more compassion than the so-called rigid law.

Click to expand...

As a Jew you already lost what Law could mean. Today's Jews no longer adapt the same fundamental Pharisaic concepts once dominant thus they no longer possess the same Law concepts as ancient Jews did.

Modern Judaism together with their teaching such as the Talmud are products after AD 250 and not before. Modern Judaism was revived after AD 250 and no longer stick close to the Pharisaic concepts before AD 70.

As a Jew, you don't have any supremacy over how the Law should read. The Bible on the other is based off Jews with firmed Pharisaic concepts. That's why they are actually harmonized very well with what Josephus mentioned in his books.

Hawkins said:

As a Jew you already lost what Law could mean. Today's Jews no longer adapt the same fundamental Pharisaic concepts once dominant thus they no longer possess the same Law concepts as ancient Jews did.

Modern Judaism together with their teaching such as the Talmud are products after AD 250 and not before. Modern Judaism was revived after AD 250 and no longer stick close to the Pharisaic concepts before AD 70.

As a Jew, you don't have any supremacy over how the Law should read. The Bible on the other is based off Jews with firmed Pharisaic concepts. That's why they are actually harmonized very well with what Josephus mentioned in his books.

Click to expand...

Actually, the Talmud quotes from the Mishnah which contains the words of some sages who predate Jesus.

Steve Petersen said:

Actually, the Talmud quotes from the Mishnah which contains the words of some sages who predate Jesus.

Click to expand...

Yes it does, but the Talmud was still not compiled until many years after the destruction of the temple. And we must remember that it is purely oral and is full of opinion on various matters.

Steve Petersen said:

Actually, the Talmud quotes from the Mishnah which contains the words of some sages who predate Jesus.

Click to expand...

First that depends how accurate those words are put. Not many legitimate documents left after AD 70. Today we have to rely heavily on the Red Sea Scrolls to reconcile our Scripture, however they were scrolls from a Essene library. We don't have a Pharisee library to serve the same purpose, as an Essene library is already the best we can get to.

Second, not all sages are legitimate Jewish figures. Back in Jesus' days whatever disputes rose from the Shammaites were rejected simply because they were not in power. The Great Sanhedrin was in charge instead. Consider that Shammai was already one of the greatest sages back then.

In a nutshell, rabbinic views are not Pharisaic views. Only Pharisaic views endorsed by the Great Sanhedrin are considered legitimate. Whoever they quoted may be questionable on that, 1) how accurate and legitimate their documents (ancient scrolls) at hand they had, 2) how legitimate their views are in supporting the quotes.

Even today, if without the enforcement of our Church, you can arbitrarily quote anything from, say, Apocrypha or the book of Enoch (can be as old as the Bible) to support your views. However the legitimacy remains questionable.

Hawkins said:

First that depends how accurate those words are put. Not many legitimate documents left after AD 70. Today we have to rely heavily on the Red Sea Scrolls to reconcile our Scripture, however they were scrolls from a Essene library. We don't have a Pharisee library to serve the same purpose, as an Essene library is already the best we can get to.

Second, not all sages are legitimate Jewish figures. Back in Jesus' days whatever disputes rose from the Shammaites were rejected simply because they were not in power. The Great Sanhedrin was in charge instead. Consider that Shammai was already one of the greatest sages back then.

In a nutshell, rabbinic views are not Pharisaic views. Only Pharisaic views endorsed by the Great Sanhedrin are considered legitimate. Whoever they quoted may be questionable on that, 1) how accurate and legitimate their documents (ancient scrolls) at hand they had, 2) how legitimate their views are in supporting the quotes.

Even today, if without the enforcement of our Church, you can arbitrarily quote anything from, say, Apocrypha or the book of Enoch (can be as old as the Bible) to support your views. However the legitimacy remains questionable.

Click to expand...

Shammai was a Pharisee.

The High Priests during the Second Temple era were appointed by the Romans and were Sadducees.

I can find no sources which indicate definitively that the Pharisees controlled the Sanhedrin in Jesus' day.