The 1 Year Ministry of Christ According to Luke's Chronology

Humble Penny

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Mar 14, 2020
1,212
219
36
San Francisco
✟239,642.00
Country
United States
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Married
The Israelites being exiled to Babylon led to some self-reflection about what went wrong and what they could do differently to help ensure that the they do not go astray again, which resulted in the start of synagogues and public Torah readings, as supported by Ezra and Nehemiah. Christ was participating in these traditions in Luke 4:16 when he went to his home town synagogue to read a portion of Isaiah. Likewise, in 1 Timothy 4:13, Paul encouraged him to devote himself to the public reading of Scripture. However, regardless of whether or not you agree that these are good traditions to follow, the context is that the people that the book of Luke was written to did follow these traditions. It is not so much that all of the oral law was given by Moses, but that the framework for its development had its roots in what Moses taught in Deuteronomy 17:8-13.



The parashah cycle is also chiastic, though Luke being chiastic is not what is not what supports the position that portions of Luke were intended to correspond to the weekly Torah portion. The haftarah is a short reading from the Prophets that corresponds to the theme of the Torah portion, and the book of Luke can be divided into portions that do the same thing, so it is the fact that Luke fits with the Torah portion that supports this position. Also, I was not claiming that the parashah cycle is a pattern that runs through the entire Bible, just that Luke corresponds to this cycle.
I have no problem with public reading of scripture...I'm just being very technical in saying that the Law of Moses doesn't talk about such readings that are of recent inventions. My main point is not to confuse the recent traditional readings with what is written in the Law and the Prophets or the Gospels.

You've mentioned on multiple occasions that the Bible is not to be used as giving an exact chronological timeline of events, and with this I have to disagree as the Bible wouldn't bother in giving us such specific dates and events if that were the case. It's as clumsy as saying not to take the Genesis account literally or seriously when the Gospels depend upon those genealogies and histories being literal to prove Christ to have descended from the line of Judah.

I'm not sure how you read the Bible exactly but it is not real history in some parts and just fantasy or allegory in others. As far as the reading cycle you keep talking about I'll have to check out those references you cited as I just recovered from being very ill.
 
Last edited:
  • Winner
Reactions: visionary
Upvote 0

Humble Penny

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Mar 14, 2020
1,212
219
36
San Francisco
✟239,642.00
Country
United States
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Married
For example, the book of Luke is one giant chiasm that is composed of 145 smaller chiasms. These 145 chiasms can be divided into halves, thirds, fourths, fifths, sixths, eights, ninths, tenths, twelfths, eighteenths, or twenty-fourths, and each part of those fractions forms its own chiasm. Chiasms express a sequence of thoughts and then usually repeat that sequence in the reverse order, and the goal of what the author is generally wanting us to notice is what is at the center of the chiasm and how the parts that mirror each other provide commentary on each other, which can throw off someone is approaching what they wrote as if their goal was to communicate a precise chronological order. This is not to say that there isn't a general chronology to what is being spoken about, just that the chronology is not the primary thing that the author is wanting us to understand. There are a number of things in the Bible that an astute reader will notice are not in chronological order and the chronological order can in some cases be intentionally adjusted if its placement makes a parallel to something else to make a point that the author is wanting us to understand as well as to fit the chiastic pattern.
The big problem here is that this approach is a very small picture view and takes you away from the big picture communicated in all four Gospels:

Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the prophesied Messiah who would die on the cross and rise from the dead to free mankind from the bods of sin and death. This freedom would allow all who follow Him to enter into the New World and eat from the Tree of Life and live forever.

And the chronology in all four are very straightforward:

Jesus Christ is born from Mary the Virgin
Jesus Christ is baptized at 30 in the Jordan by John
Jesus begins His 1 Year ministry
Jesus dies on the cross, is buried, and rises from the dead after 3 Days and 3 Nights at the end of His ministry

Still I'm not surprised at your small treatment of biblical chronology. Many people don't seem to understand that you can't rightly mark events in history without laying biblical chronology down as the foundation with Genesis as the chief cornerstone. Chiastic patterns also exist in the rise and fall of empires, so I don't believe too much importance should be placed on this type of pattern as it relates to the Bible.

Anyways dear brother my repsoses to you are more coming from my walking out of the bad habit which many in the Church have developed: that is to say that many who "preach" or "expound" on the Word of God attempt to show they "know some mysteries" getting people lost in "codes", letters, numbers, etc. And in the meantime the believers don't realize that they are being led into the kabbalah or some other pagan mystery cult.

To close I'd like to say that unless what is being taught clears up some difficult passages or is an actual prophecy given by God...we are more than likely being distracted like Little Red Riding Hood was by the Wolf, whom we know is Satan.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Humble Penny

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Mar 14, 2020
1,212
219
36
San Francisco
✟239,642.00
Country
United States
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Married
This book promotes the position that the ordering spoken about in these verses was done so that a relevant portion of Luke would be read along with each portion of the parashat cycle:

https://www.amazon.com/Evangelists-Calendar-M-D-Goulder-1978-08-31/dp/B01FIWKZF4

It is out of print and over $900 on Amazon, so this series of blog posts discusses the case made by the book:

The Shuvah Project #1 — What is it?

"“What sort of Greek history is it which moves from the Prologue to two chapters whose indebtedness to the Old Testament is evidenced in every verse? The order is no whit more chronological than Mark’s: in fact it is the Marcan order. When Luke deserts it, as in the Rejection at Nazareth (Luke 4:16-30), he involves himself in contradictions: the crowd asks Jesus to repeat miracles done at Capernaum, where Luke has not yet taken him (the reader).” (The Evangelists’ Calendar, p. 9)."

I found out about this information as part of this podcast, which goes through the Bible from Genesis to Revelation from a Messianic perspective:

The BEMA Podcast

This website has an index that tracks the complex chiastic structure of many of the books of the Bible, which includes the five books of Moses and the four Gospels:

Patterns Of Life Bible

For example, the book of Luke is one giant chiasm that is composed of 145 smaller chiasms. These 145 chiasms can be divided into halves, thirds, fourths, fifths, sixths, eights, ninths, tenths, twelfths, eighteenths, or twenty-fourths, and each part of those fractions forms its own chiasm. Chiasms express a sequence of thoughts and then usually repeat that sequence in the reverse order, and the goal of what the author is generally wanting us to notice is what is at the center of the chiasm and how the parts that mirror each other provide commentary on each other, which can throw off someone is approaching what they wrote as if their goal was to communicate a precise chronological order. This is not to say that there isn't a general chronology to what is being spoken about, just that the chronology is not the primary thing that the author is wanting us to understand. There are a number of things in the Bible that an astute reader will notice are not in chronological order and the chronological order can in some cases be intentionally adjusted if its placement makes a parallel to something else to make a point that the author is wanting us to understand as well as to fit the chiastic pattern.
Sigh...well I am reading through the blog and...there are so many errors its not even funny. However this thread is not here to cover that. What I will say is that from a historical perspective Christ is not building upon a "long rabbinical tradition" nor was it ever the intent of the gospel writers to write the life of Christ to align with some weekly reading of Scripture...which never happens once...that's all I will say but if you have more to say then please create a separate thread for it, but otherwise...let's use some common sense in analyzing these words:

"4. Matthew is a very Jewish Gospel. In both Goulder’s first book on the topic Midrash and Lection in Matthew, and the later book I discussed above, he makes the strong case that Matthew follows the 1st century Jewish calendar and is based on rabbinic midrash. Midrash is “an ancient [rabbinic] commentary on part of the Hebrew scriptures, attached to the biblical text” (Google’s dictionary). How can a Western reader (you and I) understand the God Matthew reveals; if: (1) we’ve never even heard of midrash; and (2) we are unlikely to be well versed in the midrashic stories which are referenced in Matthew?"
-THE SHUVAH PROJECT #2--WHY IS IT NECESSARY? Chris Gambino (Content creator) quoting M.D. Goulder's 'Evangelists' Calendar'

Common sense should tell any diligent student of the Word of God that this cannot be true as Christ was an avid enemy of these rabbi's. Yet Gambino, like Boulder, completely ignore this for if these rabbi's were "pro Jesus" then their ancestors should have never crucified Christ! And of they are so "pro Jesus" why have they not accepted Jesus as the Son of God and the Messiah? And anyone who knows history will know that the Midrash would not even be relevant until the 4th Century i.e. 400 Years after Christ was born...and what of these words?

"5. Jesus stands on the foundation of other rabbis. Jesus enters the scene among a rabbinical debate around the greatest commandment. You may be familiar with Jesus’ response in Matthew, Mark, and Luke. But are you as familiar with the names of the two rabbis having the debate? Or, what the debate is between? Our Jesus takes a side in the debate. So maybe it is important to better understand the wisdom and discourse of ancient rabbis regarding the Text so that as modern-day followers of Jesus we can better interpret our Rabbi, Jesus."
-THE SHUVAH PROJECT #2--WHY IS IT NECESSARY? Chris Gambino (Content creator) quoting M.D. Goulder's 'Evangelists' Calendar'

Oh my...why is it that Christ nor any of His 12 Apostles only quote from Moses and the prophets, but never quote from these ignorant rabbis??? When Jesus expounded to the Apostles about His prophesied death and resurrection from where did He read from?

"And he said to them, “O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer these things and enter into his glory?” And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself. Then he said to them, “These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.” Then he opened their minds to understand the Scriptures, and said to them, “Thus it is written, that the Christ should suffer and on the third day rise from the dead, and that repentance for the forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem. And behold, I am sending the promise of my Father upon you. But stay in the city until you are clothed with power from on high.”
Luke 24:25‭-‬27‭, ‬44‭-‬47‭, ‬49

Do you need to be Jewish to understand where Jesus was quoting from? Tsk...let's use some common sense okay? If you want to learn about Jews you go to Jews but, you don't go to them to learn about Christ because they rejected Him...you must turn to the Word of God to learn about God and Christ. If you want to learn about the history of Israel you consult the Law of Moses which tell us plainly that the Jews are from Judah who is one of the twelve sons of Jacob who was later known as Israel...

Ancestry of the Jews
Israel = Nation of Twleve Tribes
Hebrew = Ethnicity
Judah = Tribe of the Jews
Jacob = Father of 12 Sons who are the 12 Founders of the 12 Tribes of Israel

Ancestry of the Hebrews
Isaac = Ancestor of Israel/Jacob
Abraham = Ancestor of Isaac
Heber = Ancestor of Abraham and the Hebrews who were 1/70 Nations descended from the 3 Sons of Noah

Ancestry of Mankind
Shem = 2nd Son of Noah and ancestor of the peoples of Asia
Noah = son of Lamech
Lamech = son of Methuselah
Methuselah = son of Enoch
Enoch = son of Jared
Jared = son of Mahalalel
Mahalalel = son of Kenan
Kenan = son of Enosh
Enosh = son of Seth
Seth = son of Adam
Adam = son of God

Well did we need the assistance of the rabbis to understand all of that? No...God doesn't do things out of order...but I digress...know your history and biblical chronolgy and you can't be fooled...
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Soyeong

Well-Known Member
Mar 10, 2015
12,416
4,600
Hudson
✟281,745.00
Country
United States
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Single
I have no problem with public reading of scripture...I'm just being very technical in saying that the Law of Moses doesn't talk about such readings that are of recent inventions. My main point is not to confuse the recent traditional readings with what is written in the Law and the Prophets or the Gospels.

Reading the Law of Moses was commanded once every seven years (Deuteronomy 31:10-13), though it became more frequent under Ezra and Nehemiah. I did not claim that a yearly Torah cycle was a direct command of God, though that was something that was followed during the 1st century and is part of the historical and cultural context in which the book of Luke was written.

You've mentioned on multiple occasions that the Bible is not to be used as giving an exact chronological timeline of events, and with this I have to disagree as the Bible wouldn't bother in giving us such specific dates and events if that were the case. It's as clumsy as saying not to take the Genesis account literally or seriously when the Gospels depend upon those genealogies and histories being literal to prove Christ to have descended from the line of Judah.

I'm not sure how you read the Bible exactly but it is not real in history in some parts and just fantasy or allegory in others. As far as the reading cycle you keep talking about I'll have to check out those references you cited as I just recovered from being very ill.

This is what I said: "This is not to say that there isn't a general chronology to what is being spoken about, just that the chronology is not the primary thing that the author is wanting us to understand."

So I agree that there is a general chronology to the Bible, though there are parts of it that are displaced that are distinctly not in chronological order. I said nothing against taking the Genesis account literally or seriously. I said nothing about parts of it not being real history or about some parts being just fantasy or allegory. I am glad that you were able to recover.

The big problem here is that this approach is a very small picture view and takes you away from the big picture communicated in all four Gospels:

Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the prophesied Messiah who would die on the cross and rise from the dead to free mankind from the bods of sin and death. This freedom would allow all who follow Him to enter into the New World and eat from the Tree of Life and live forever.


I said nothing to present a small view or to take away from the big picture or against anything you said in your second paragraph.

And the chronology in all four are very straightforward:

Jesus Christ is born from Mary the Virgin
Jesus Christ is baptized at 30 in the Jordan by John
Jesus begins His 1 Year ministry
Jesus dies on the cross, is buried, and rises from the dead after 3 Days and 3 Nights at the end of His ministry


Still I'm not surprised at your small treatment of biblical chronology. Many people don't seem to understand that you can't rightly mark events in history without laying biblical chronology down as the foundation with Genesis as the chief cornerstone. Chiastic patterns also exist in the rise and fall of empires, so I don't believe too much importance should be placed on this type of pattern as it relates to the Bible.

Anyways dear brother my repsoses to you are more coming from my walking out of the bad habit which many in the Church have developed: that is to say that many who "preach" or "expound" on the Word of God attempt to show they "know some mysteries" getting people lost in "codes", letters, numbers, etc. And in the meantime the believers don't realize that they are being led into the kabbalah or some other pagan mystery cult.

To close I'd like to say that unless what is being taught clears up some difficult passages or is an actual prophecy given by God...we are more than likely being distracted like Little Red Riding Hood was by the Wolf, whom we know is Satan.

Again, I agree that there is a general chronology to the Gospels, though whether his ministry lasted only a year is debatable. The chiastic patter of the rise and fall of empires is a gross oversimplification of the chiastic patterns found in the Bible. For example, the account of Noah's Flood is a chiasm with 13 elements around the center that mirror each other in reverse order, and that is just the tip of the iceberg in regard to the complex patters that are found in the Bible. Patterns have predictive power where seeing the elements in the topic half allows us to predict the order of how the elements will appear in the bottom half. People are welcome to debate the meaning of complex pattern of chiasms, perhaps in a different threat, but the reality is that many of the books of the Bible do have complex chiastic patterns that have meaning, and that chronology takes 2nd place to this pattern.
 
Upvote 0

Soyeong

Well-Known Member
Mar 10, 2015
12,416
4,600
Hudson
✟281,745.00
Country
United States
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Single
Sigh...well I am reading through the blog and...there are so many errors its not even funny. However this thread is not here to cover that. What I will say is that from a historical perspective Christ is not building upon a "long rabbinical tradition" nor was it ever the intent of the gospel writers to write the life of Christ to align with some weekly reading of Scripture...which never happens once...that's all I will say but if you have more to say then please create a separate thread for it, but otherwise...let's use some common sense in analyzing these words:

"4. Matthew is a very Jewish Gospel. In both Goulder’s first book on the topic Midrash and Lection in Matthew, and the later book I discussed above, he makes the strong case that Matthew follows the 1st century Jewish calendar and is based on rabbinic midrash. Midrash is “an ancient [rabbinic] commentary on part of the Hebrew scriptures, attached to the biblical text” (Google’s dictionary). How can a Western reader (you and I) understand the God Matthew reveals; if: (1) we’ve never even heard of midrash; and (2) we are unlikely to be well versed in the midrashic stories which are referenced in Matthew?"
-THE SHUVAH PROJECT #2--WHY IS IT NECESSARY? Chris Gambino (Content creator) quoting M.D. Goulder's 'Evangelists' Calendar'

Common sense should tell any diligent student of the Word of God that this cannot be true as Christ was an avid enemy of these rabbi's. Yet Gambino, like Boulder, completely ignore this for if these rabbi's were "pro Jesus" then their ancestors should have never crucified Christ! And of they are so "pro Jesus" why have they not accepted Jesus as the Son of God and the Messiah? And anyone who knows history will know that the Midrash would not even be relevant until the 4th Century i.e. 400 Years after Christ was born...and what of these words?

Jesus was by no means an enemy of the rabbis, though he was an enemy of hypocrisy. A number of the Pharisees accepted Jesus as the Son of God and the Messiah, such as Nicodemus and Paul, and in Acts 15:5, a group of Pharisees were described as being believers. Paul never stopped identify as a Pharisee (Acts 23:6), which means that most of the books of the NT where written by a Pharisee, and that we are instructed to follow the example of a Pharisee (1 Corinthians 11:1). Jesus also recognized that the Pharisees sat on Moses' seat and instructed His followers to do what they say, but not as they do (Matthew 23:1-3), so he recognized their authority, but spoke against their hypocrisy. The Pharisees were the people that Jesus spent the bulk of his ministry interacting with, so they were the people that he thought he could work with, while it was spending a week with the Sadducees that lead to his crucifixion.

"5. Jesus stands on the foundation of other rabbis. Jesus enters the scene among a rabbinical debate around the greatest commandment. You may be familiar with Jesus’ response in Matthew, Mark, and Luke. But are you as familiar with the names of the two rabbis having the debate? Or, what the debate is between? Our Jesus takes a side in the debate. So maybe it is important to better understand the wisdom and discourse of ancient rabbis regarding the Text so that as modern-day followers of Jesus we can better interpret our Rabbi, Jesus."
-THE SHUVAH PROJECT #2--WHY IS IT NECESSARY? Chris Gambino (Content creator) quoting M.D. Goulder's 'Evangelists' Calendar'

Oh my...why is it that Christ nor any of His 12 Apostles only quote from Moses and the prophets, but never quote from these ignorant rabbis??? When Jesus expounded to the Apostles about His prophesied death and resurrection from where did He read from?

In the debate between rabbis Hillel and Shammai, Jesus almost always sided with Hillel, who was the grandfather of Gamaliel, who was Paul's rabbi (Acts 22:3). Christ spoke on his own authority, so there was no need for him to quote Hillel as an authority, though Hillel predated Christ's birth, and we can compare the positions that he took and see a strong correlation to the positions that Christ took.

"And he said to them, “O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer these things and enter into his glory?” And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself. Then he said to them, “These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.” Then he opened their minds to understand the Scriptures, and said to them, “Thus it is written, that the Christ should suffer and on the third day rise from the dead, and that repentance for the forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem. And behold, I am sending the promise of my Father upon you. But stay in the city until you are clothed with power from on high.”
Luke 24:25‭-‬27‭, ‬44‭-‬47‭, ‬49

Do you need to be Jewish to understand where Jesus was quoting from? Tsk...let's use some common sense okay? If you want to learn about Jews you go to Jews but, you don't go to them to learn about Christ because they rejected Him...you must turn to the Word of God to learn about God and Christ. If you want to learn about the history of Israel you consult the Law of Moses which tell us plainly that the Jews are from Judah who is one of the twelve sons of Jacob who was later known as Israel...

No, you do not need to be Jewish to understand where Jesus was quoting from. Christ was a Jew and many Jews became his followers. In fact all followers of Christ were Jews for roughly the first 7-15 years after Christ's resurrection up until the inclusion of Gentiles in Acts 10. In Acts 21:20, they were rejoicing that tens of thousands of Jews were coming to faith who were all zealous for the Torah. The Word of God certainly is where we should turn to learn about Jesus, though understanding the Jewish historical and cultural context of the Bible does help us to gain a better understanding of it.

Well did we need the assistance of the rabbis to understand all of that? No...God doesn't oesnt do things out of order...but I digress...know your history and biblical chronolgy and you can't be fooled...

I did not claim that we need to assistance of the rabbis to understand all of that or that God does things out of order.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Humble Penny

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Mar 14, 2020
1,212
219
36
San Francisco
✟239,642.00
Country
United States
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Married
Jesus was by no means an enemy of the rabbis, though he was an enemy of hypocrisy. A number of the Pharisees accepted Jesus as the Son of God and the Messiah, such as Nicodemus and Paul, and in Acts 15:5, a group of Pharisees were described as being believers. Paul never stopped identify as a Pharisee (Acts 23:6), which means that most of the books of the NT where written by a Pharisee, and that we are instructed to follow the example of a Pharisee (1 Corinthians 11:1). Jesus also recognized that the Pharisees sat on Moses' seat and instructed His followers to do what they say, but not as they do (Matthew 23:1-3), so he recognized their authority, but spoke against their hypocrisy. The Pharisees were the people that Jesus spent the bulk of his ministry interacting with, so they were the people that he thought he could work with, while it was spending a week with the Sadducees that lead to his crucifixion.



In the debate between rabbis Hillel and Shammai, Jesus almost always sided with Hillel, who was the grandfather of Gamaliel, who was Paul's rabbi (Acts 22:3). Christ spoke on his own authority, so there was no need for him to quote Hillel as an authority, though Hillel predated Christ, and we can compare the positions that he took and see a strong correlation to the positions that Christ took.



No, you do not need to be Jewish to understand where Jesus was quoting from. Christ was a Jew and many Jews became his followers. In fact all followers of Christ were Jews for roughly the first 7-15 years after Christ's resurrection up until the inclusion of Gentiles in Acts 10. In Acts 21:20, they were rejoicing that tens of thousands of Jews were coming to faith who were all zealous for the Torah. The Word of God certainly is where we should turn to learn about Jesus, though understanding the Jewish historical and cultural context of the Bible does help us to gain a better understanding of it.



I did not claim that we need to assistance of the rabbis to understand all of that or that God does things out of order.
So, I know my words come off very strong and they seem to be pointed towards you however I'm attacking the information presented by the people you cited your information from. Now the main idea these men present is that Paul was a Pharisee and a disciple of Gamaliel. Since Jesus picked Paul He must have been siding with the Pharisees especially because many Pharisees turned to Him.

Here's the huge flaw in this argument: Jesus never called anyone to be a Christian, a Pharisee, a Sadducee, etc. He simply said "Follow Me".

All you have to do is think and ask yourself, "If the Pharisees had it right then why would they convert and follow Christ?" As to the text you cited from Acts 23:6a Paul wasn't still a Pharisee, instead he used a rhetorical argument which took advantage of the fact that the council was made up of partly Pharisees and partly Sadducees (vv. 6b-10), and this because he was trained in the way of the Pharisees. And if Paul still remained a Pharisee Agrippa would not have told Paul, "You almost persuade me to be a Christian" (Acts 26:28). And what did Christ say about the Pharisees?

"For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven."
Matthew 5:20

Does this sound like any mark of approval by our Lord for the Pharisees? No. Jesus is clearly telling us here that everything the Pharisees did was for show and not sincere. Let us not confuse intellectual and political correctness with spiritual correctness, for the Pharisees and scribes (and mankind in general) are guilty of the other words of Christ:

“Why do you call me ‘Lord, Lord,’ and not do what I tell you?
Luke 6:46

Is it because we do what the prophets said?

“Listen to me, you stubborn of heart, you who are far from righteousness:
Isaiah 46:12

"Thus says the Lord: 'What wrong did your fathers find in me that they went far from me, and went after worthlessness, and became worthless?'"
Jeremiah 2:5

“‘This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me;"
Matthew 15:8

"A perverse heart shall be far from me; I will know nothing of evil."
Psalm 101:4 ESV

And as regards the point you made about Jesus not being against all Pharisees, let us consider the standard Christ set for distinguishing between His friends and enemies:

"John said to him, 'Teacher, we saw someone casting out demons in your name, and we tried to stop him, because he was not following us.' But Jesus said, 'Do not stop him, for no one who does a mighty work in my name will be able soon afterward to speak evil of me. For the one who is not against us is for us. For truly, I say to you, whoever gives you a cup of water to drink because you belong to Christ will by no means lose his reward.'"
Mark 9:38‭-‬41

I believe Scripture is more than clear that the Pharisees do not belong to Christ. For if they did then we should have only heard the Saudducees and scribes being rebuked, and they should not have converted from Pharisianism to Christ. And Paul would not be combating them after he gave his life to Christ on the road to Damascus...or maybe our Lord Yeshua was confused when he called the Pharisees children of the devil? You can't be a called a child of Satan by our Messiah and still be considered His friend can you?
 
Upvote 0

Humble Penny

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Mar 14, 2020
1,212
219
36
San Francisco
✟239,642.00
Country
United States
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Married
@Soyeong To bring a close to these chiasms let us consider that God calls Himself the Alpha and the Omega , the Beginning and the End, so who's in the middle?

God (Beginning)
Christ (Middle)
God (End)

Because chiasms make up the big picture it should come as no surprise why we find them in the details of the same picture. So, dear brother let's not put any unnecessary weight of importance on them as they (and other like things) will lead us off the straight path God set us on, just as Little Red Riding Hood was led off the straight path her parents put her on because she heeded the words of the Wolf to take the scenic route and look at the flowers.
 
Upvote 0

Soyeong

Well-Known Member
Mar 10, 2015
12,416
4,600
Hudson
✟281,745.00
Country
United States
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Single
So, I know my words come off very strong and they seem to be pointed towards you however I'm attacking the information presented by the people you cited your information from. Now the main idea these men present is that Paul was a Pharisee and a disciple of Gamaliel. Since Jesus picked Paul He must have been siding with the Pharisees especially because many Pharisees turned to Him.

Here's the huge flaw in this argument: Jesus never called anyone to be a Christian, a Pharisee, a Sadducee, etc. He simply said "Follow Me".

I did not argue that since Jesus picked Paul he must have been siding with the Pharisees. Rather, you said that Jesus almost always sided with Hillel because there is a strong correlation between what they taught, and Jesus inviting people to follow him does not detract from this.

All you have to do is think and ask yourself, "If the Pharisees had it right then why would they convert and follow Christ?"

In Matthew 7:23, Jesus said that he would tell those who are workers of lawlessness to depart from him because he never knew them, so the Mosaic Law is God's us God's instructions for how to know Jesus, which means that people getting the law right leads to following Jesus. In John 5:39-40, Jesus said that they searched the Scriptures because they think that in them they will find eternal life, and they testify about him, yet they refuse to come to him that they might have life. In Matthew 19:17, Jesus said that the way to enter eternal life is by obeying God's commandments, so eternal life can be found in Scriptures and they were correct to search for it there, but they needed to recognize that the a relationship with Christ is the goal of the law and come follow him for eternal life.

As to the text you cited from Acts 23:6a Paul wasn't still a Pharisee, instead he used a rhetorical argument which took advantage of the fact that the council was made up of partly Pharisees and partly Sadducees (vv. 6b-10), and this because he was trained in the way of the Pharisees.

I agree that Paul was using a rhetorical argument, but that does not mean that Paul lied about being a Pharisee.

And if Paul still remained a Pharisee Agrippa would not have told Paul, "You almost persuade me to be a Christian" (Acts 26:28).

People can be both Pharisees and Christians, such as Paul and Nicodamids and those Pharisees who were described as believers in Acts 15:5.

And what did Christ say about the Pharisees?

"For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven."
Matthew 5:20

Does this sound like any mark of approval by our Lord for the Pharisees? No. Jesus is clearly telling us here that everything the Pharisees did was for show and not sincere. Let us not confuse intellectual and political correctness with spiritual correctness, for the Pharisees and scribes (and mankind in general) are guilty of the other words of Christ:

“Why do you call me ‘Lord, Lord,’ and not do what I tell you?
Luke 6:46

Is it because we do what the prophets said?

“Listen to me, you stubborn of heart, you who are far from righteousness:
Isaiah 46:12

"Thus says the Lord: 'What wrong did your fathers find in me that they went far from me, and went after worthlessness, and became worthless?'"
Jeremiah 2:5

“‘This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me;"
Matthew 15:8

"A perverse heart shall be far from me; I will know nothing of evil."
Psalm 101:4 ESV

Some Pharisees also criticized other Pharisees as being hypocrites, so Jesus was not the only one to do that. The Talmud contains some rather strong criticisms of what other rabbis have said, but that does not mean that they were enemies, but rather Jews being able to spent all day vigorously disagreeing with each other and still remaining brothers at the end of the day is a quality that I admire. While there were some Pharisees who were rightly criticized for their pride, hypocrisy, and lack of compassion, that does not mean that every Pharisee had the same problems and that they were all wrong about every last thing that they did or taught, especially because we can see correlation between things that they taught and what Jesus taught. Both Jesus and the Pharisees taught from the same books. Jesus also affirmed some people, such as in Mark 12:34.

And as regards the point you made about Jesus not being against all Pharisees, let us consider the standard Christ set for distinguishing between His friends and enemies:

"John said to him, 'Teacher, we saw someone casting out demons in your name, and we tried to stop him, because he was not following us.' But Jesus said, 'Do not stop him, for no one who does a mighty work in my name will be able soon afterward to speak evil of me. For the one who is not against us is for us. For truly, I say to you, whoever gives you a cup of water to drink because you belong to Christ will by no means lose his reward.'"
Mark 9:38‭-‬41

I believe Scripture is more than clear that the Pharisees do not belong to Christ. For if they did then we should have only heard the Saudducees and scribes being rebuked, and they should not have converted from Pharisianism to Christ. And Paul would not be combating them after he gave his life to Christ on the road to Damascus...or maybe our Lord Yeshua was confused when he called the Pharisees children of the devil? You can't be a called a child of Satan by our Messiah and still be considered His friend can you?

Jesus is a Jew who practiced Judaism by living in sinless obedience to the Torah, so those who became his followers were not converting to a different religion. In Matthew 23:23, Jesus said that tithing was something that they ought to be doing while not neglecting weightier matters of the law of justice, mercy, and faithfulness, so he was not their enemy, but rather he was calling them to a fuller obedience. Someone was following the teachings of the Pharisees and was not neglecting the weightier matters of the law could avoid coming under Christ's rebuke while still remaining a Pharisee. You might find this book interesting:

https://www.amazon.com/Hillel-Jesus-Comparisons-Religious-Leaders/dp/0800625641
 
  • Like
Reactions: chunkofcoal
Upvote 0

Humble Penny

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Mar 14, 2020
1,212
219
36
San Francisco
✟239,642.00
Country
United States
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Married
I did not argue that since Jesus picked Paul he must have been siding with the Pharisees. Rather, you said that Jesus almost always sided with Hillel because there is a strong correlation between what they taught, and Jesus inviting people to follow him does not detract from this.



In Matthew 7:23, Jesus said that he would tell those who are workers of lawlessness to depart from him because he never knew them, so the Mosaic Law is God's us God's instructions for how to know Jesus, which means that people getting the law right leads to following Jesus. In John 5:39-40, Jesus said that they searched the Scriptures because they think that in them they will find eternal life, and they testify about him, yet they refuse to come to him that they might have life. In Matthew 19:17, Jesus said that the way to enter eternal life is by obeying God's commandments, so eternal life can be found in Scriptures and they were correct to search for it there, but they needed to recognize that the a relationship with Christ is the goal of the law and come follow him for eternal life.



I agree that Paul was using a rhetorical argument, but that does not mean that Paul lied about being a Pharisee.



People can be both Pharisees and Christians, such as Paul and Nicodamids and those Pharisees who were described as believers in Acts 15:5.



Some Pharisees also criticized other Pharisees as being hypocrites, so Jesus was not the only one to do that. The Talmud contains some rather strong criticisms of what other rabbis have said, but that does not mean that they were enemies, but rather Jews being able to spent all day vigorously disagreeing with each other and still remaining brothers at the end of the day is a quality that I admire. While there were some Pharisees who were rightly criticized for their pride, hypocrisy, and lack of compassion, that does not mean that every Pharisee had the same problems and that they were all wrong about every last thing that they did or taught, especially because we can see correlation between things that they taught and what Jesus taught. Both Jesus and the Pharisees taught from the same books. Jesus also affirmed some people, such as in Mark 12:34.



Jesus is a Jew who practiced Judaism by living in sinless obedience to the Torah, so those who became his followers were not converting to a different religion. In Matthew 23:23, Jesus said that tithing was something that they ought to be doing while not neglecting weightier matters of the law of justice, mercy, and faithfulness, so he was not their enemy, but rather he was calling them to a fuller obedience. Someone was following the teachings of the Pharisees and was not neglecting the weightier matters of the law could avoid coming under Christ's rebuke while still remaining a Pharisee. You might find this book interesting:

https://www.amazon.com/Hillel-Jesus-Comparisons-Religious-Leaders/dp/0800625641
Sigh...you do realize the huge implication you're making right? With your logic all denominations and sects of Christianity and Judaism will make it into heaven because they have the core beliefs correct...and only those who are hypocrites will not get into the kingdom of God.

Again...tsk...this is already WAY off topic...NO denomination or sect can claim to be The Way as Christ clearly said:

"I Am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father but, by Me."

"Follow Me."

And what does the Law say?

"Thou shalt not bear false witness."

A Jehovah's Witness knocks on your door and tells you to be a JW to be saved are you going to agree? A methodist comes to your door and says the same...then a Mormon....and a Catholic...etc...are you going to sit there and tell me that all their claims are valid and will not conflict with the command to not lie? My point is that no denominations or sects or religious groups can validate their names from the Bible.

According to your logic one may be a Pharisee or whatever religious group they claim and be a Christian. Where does Christ or Moses say that?

The Pharisees and Sadducees weren't relevant until 167 AD, and the Mishna and Talmud wouldn't be relevant until around the 4th Century AD. That alone should tell you that Moses nor the prophets weren't basing their teachings on anything remotely close to those aforementioned books and groups...and not to mention that Moses never dressed nor acted nothing like the modern Jews do today.

And why should you be surprised to read that Paul lied? The Bible unlike human books does not cover up the faults of people but makes them clear so we see the good and bad side and can learn about the complex lives of the people God has chosen as He leads them to grow in Him. David committed murder and adultery, Solomon served foreign gods, Abraham lied twice, Rebekah and Jacob connived to steal Esau's blessing, Samson broke the Law multiple times though being a judge...Peter denied Christ three times in the heat of the moment of being interrogated to save his skin, and Judas betrayed Christ for some coins...

So what does Paul say about himself being a Pharisee? Is it true he remained one?

They have known for a long time, if they are willing to testify, that according to the strictest party of our religion I have lived as a Pharisee.
Acts 26:5

Do you notice how he speaks in the past tense and not the present tense? Of course this should be no surprise as he counted all of his past accomplishments as a Pharisee and works of the law in the flesh as rubbish and counted it as loss (Philippians 3:5).

Anyways if thats what you want to believe go on ahead...just know that Christ's teachings nowhere mirror or reflect anything close to rabbinic Judaism. Otherwise if you have a point about chronology bring that up
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

chunkofcoal

Messianic Christian
Sep 30, 2004
1,825
455
✟83,228.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
...just know that Christ's teachings nowhere mirror or reflect anything close to rabbinic Judaism.

Just curious - have you studied Rabbinic Judaism so you can make that statement with certainty?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Humble Penny
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Humble Penny

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Mar 14, 2020
1,212
219
36
San Francisco
✟239,642.00
Country
United States
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Married
Just curious - have you studied Rabbinic Judaism so you can make that statement with certainty?
Yes I have to an extent and found their teachings to copycat many Chrsitian elements...which I will not go into at length. Now...I don't want to detract any further than I have from this thread...all you have to do is understand history:

Jesus is Eternal and pre-existed rabbinic Judaism by approximately 5,540 Years...so the Word of God originated with God and Christ and not man...

Jesus = The Word
The Word is Eternal
The Word of God was first given in writing to Moses on Mount Sinai


At this point in the story there was no "Judaism" as we commonly use the term today because on a very technical level God gave the Law to the Hebrews whose nationality was Israeli...though foreigners addressed them as Canaanites since they sojourned out of Canaan.

Anyways John was right when he said that the Law came through Moses and grace through Jesus Christ...because well...the prophets only prophesied that Jesus would be the Savior of the world and the ruler of it.

From the time of Moses to Malachi the Hebrew Scriptures had not left Israel and could only be accessed by the High Priest as Moses laid up the Law of God in the Ark of the Covenant, so the common people couldn't tamper with it as anyone enetering the Holy of Holies that wasn't High Priest would die...so from the destruction of the 1st Temple onwards the narrative focuses on the Jews as we get closer to Christ's birth..

Fast forward to Ptolemy II and we have the first translation of the Hebrew Scriptures into a foreign language...that happened to be Greek and the birth of the Septuagint...it is from the Jews who lived during the Maccabeean period that the Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes would spring from around 167 BC...at this time the rabbis are at odds with the Zadokite priesthood and have no control over the people or the Temple...

By the time Christ hits the scene the Essenes are in the desert and decide to do their own thing, so Christ's main opponents are from the other two groups...long story short all three groups add or take away many things which God did not prescribe to Moses in His Law, so Jesus came to set the record straight...if you carefully look at the teachings of Christ He always quoted from the Law of Moses and declared Himself as the authority...the rabbinic Jews always draw on the authority of their sages and teachers, not Moses or God..

Anyways the enemies of Christ get jealous but, can't do anything and the details are in the Gospels...the rabbinic Jews don't find an opening to grab power until Rabbi Akiva--a gentile from Babylon and a direct descendant of Sisera (enemy of the Israelites who lived during the rule of Deborah and Barak)--falsely declares Bar Kokhba to be the Messiah in fulfillment of Micah 5 which is during the end of the failed revolt, this forces the true followers of Christ to look like anti-Israelis in the eyes of the Jewish people...after the destruction of the 2nd Temple the rabbis finally have control and power over the people and have been exerting it since.

Seeing that Christ called them children of Satan we see that these are thr many seed of the Serpent, and should not find it surprising that they twist the Law and the Prophets to suit their own ends today...bleh....
 
Last edited:
  • Informative
Reactions: chunkofcoal
Upvote 0

Humble Penny

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Mar 14, 2020
1,212
219
36
San Francisco
✟239,642.00
Country
United States
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Married
Just curious - have you studied Rabbinic Judaism so you can make that statement with certainty?
And just remember the wise words of our Lord Yeshua dear sister:

"A tree is known by its fruit."

and...

"Wisdom is justified by her children."

Want to know whether a tree is good or bad? Look at the fruit it produces. Want to know what type of parents a man and woman are? Look at the children they gave birth to.
 
  • Friendly
Reactions: chunkofcoal
Upvote 0

Soyeong

Well-Known Member
Mar 10, 2015
12,416
4,600
Hudson
✟281,745.00
Country
United States
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Single
Sigh...you do realize the huge implication you're making right? With your logic all denominations and sects of Christianity and Judaism will make it into heaven because they have the core beliefs correct...and only those who are hypocrites will get into the kingdom of God.

Again...tsk...this is already WAY off topic...NO denomination or sect can claim to be The Way as Christ clearly said:

"I Am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father but, by Me."

"Follow Me."

And what does the Law say?

"Thou shalt not bear false witness."

A Jehovah's Witness knocks on your door and tells you to be a JW to be saved are you going to agree? A methodist comes to your door and says the same...then a Mormon....and a Catholic...etc...are you going to sit there and tell me that all their claims are valid and will not conflict with the command to not lie? My point is that no denominations or sects or religious groups can validate their names from the Bible.

According to your logic one may be a Pharisee or whatever religious group they claim and be a Christian. Where does Christ or Moses say that?

I did not claim that all denominations or sects of Christianity or Judaism will make it into heaven or that only hypocrites will make it into the Kingdom of God. Denominations or sects are just tools to categorize people who have similar interpretations of the Bible, and what is important is not so much whether they can validate their names from the Bible, but whether their interpretations are correct. Early Christians referred to themselves as being members of the sect called The Way (Acts 24:14), so that is a name that can be validated from the Bible, but just because a group calls themselves that does not necessarily mean that their beliefs are correct.

The Law of Moses is the way (Jeremiah 6:16-19), the truth (Psalms 119:142), and the life (Deuteronomy 32:47), and Jesus is the living embodiment of that (John 14:6) because the Law of Moses is God's instructions for how to act in accordance with God's nature, and Jesus is the exact expression of God's nature, which he expressed through living in sinless obedience to the Law of Moses. Furthermore, expressing God's nature through our obedience to it is the way to experientially know the Father and the Son (John 14:7). There are many verses that refer to the Mosaic Law as being the way of the Lord, such as Deuteronomy 10:12-13, Isaiah 2:2-3, Joshua 22:5, Psalms 103:7, and many others, so can express the nature of Christ by walking in the way of the Lord in accordance with his example regardless of what they want to call themselves.

The Pharisees and Sadducees weren't relevant until 167 AD, and the Mishna and Talmud wouldn't be relevant until around the 4th Century AD. That alone should tell you that Moses nor the prophets weren't basing their teachings on anything remotely close to those aforementioned books and groups...and not to mention that Moses never dressed nor acted nothing like the modern Jews do today.

I did not claim that Moses based his teachings off the Pharisees and Sadducees, but rather they and Jesus based their teachings on Moses. I'm not sure you referenced the Maccabean Revolt is relevant. The Mishna and Talmud existed orally long before they were codified. Hillel predated Jesus, and we have his teachings available, so we can compare what he taught to what Jesus taught. Jesus did not exist in a cultural vacuum.

And why should you be surprised to read that Paul lied? The Bible unlike other human books does not cover up the faults of people but makes them clear so we see the good and bad side and can learn about the complex lives of the people God has chosen as He leads them to grow in Him. David committed murder and adultery, Solomon served foreign gods, Abraham lied twice, Rebekah and Jacob connived to steal Esau's blessing, Samson broke the Law multiple times though being a judge...Peter denied Christ three times in the heat of the moment of being interrogated to save his skin, and Judas betrayed Christ for some coins...

So what does Paul say about himself being a Pharisee? Is it true he remained one?

They have known for a long time, if they are willing to testify, that according to the strictest party of our religion I have lived as a Pharisee.
Acts 26:5


If you need to say that Paul lied in order to maintain your position, then you should reconsider your position because that stance opens up a can of worms where you can reject anything that Paul said that you disagree with by accusing him of lying, and he may have been lying when he said the things that you do agree with.

In Acts 26:4-5, the point that Paul was testifying about and said that all the Jews could testify about was that he had lived as a Pharisees from the time of his youth to the present. He was not testifying that he had been a Pharisee in the past, but was no longer one. In any case, Acts 23:6 is speaking in the present tense.

Do you notice how he speaks in the past tense and not the present tense? Of course this should be no surprise as he counted all of his past accomplishments as a Pharisee and works of the law in the flesh as rubbish and counted it as loss (Philippians 3:5).

In Romans 9:30-10:4, the Israelites had a zeal for God, but it was not based on knowledge, so they failed to attain righteousness because they pursued the law as though righteousness were by works in an effort to establish their own rather than pursuing the law as through righteousness is by faith in Christ, for Christ is the goal of the law for righteousness for everyone who has faith. In John 5:39-40, Jesus said that they searched the Scriptures because they thing that in them they will find eternal life, and they testify about him, yet they refuse to come to him that they might have life. In Matthew 19:17, Jesus said that the way to enter eternal is by obeying God's commandments, so eternal life can be found in the Scriptures and the Pharisees were correct to search for it there, but they needed to recognize that the goal of everything in Scriptures is to testify about how to have a relationship with Christ and come to him for eternal life. In Matthew 7:23, Jesus said that he would tell those who are workers of lawlessness to depart from him because he never knew them, so again knowing Christ is the goal of the law. In Philippians 3, Paul was in the same boat where he had been keeping the law, but without having a focus on knowing Christ, so he had been missing the who goal of the law and counted it all as rubbish. The right solution to incorrectly obeying God's law is to start obeying it correctly with the right focus, not to stop obeying God.

Anyways if thats what you want to believe go on ahead...just know that Christ's teachings nowhere mirror or reflect anything close to rabbinic Judaism.

Again, we have the teachings of Hillel available to us, so we can compare what he taught with what Jesus taught and find many parallels, so insisting that there are no parallels is being unwilling to look at the evidence and is willful ignorance. Both Hillel and Jesus based their teachings on the OT, so it would be absurd to suggest that what they taught had nothing in common. The world of the Talmud was the same world as the Gospels. For example:

From Shabbat 116:b "The Gemara relates: Imma Shalom, the wife of Rabbi Eliezer, was Rabban Gamliel’s sister. There was a Christian philosopher [pilosofa] in their neighborhood who disseminated about himself the reputation that he does not accept bribes. They wanted to mock him and reveal his true nature. She privately gave him a golden lamp, and she and her brother came before him, approaching him as if they were seeking judgment. She said to the philosopher: I want to share in the inheritance of my father’s estate. He said to them: Divide it. Rabban Gamliel said to him: It is written in our Torah: In a situation where there is a son, the daughter does not inherit. The philosopher said to him: Since the day you were exiled from your land, the Torah of Moses was taken away and the avon gilyon was given in its place. It is written in the avon gilyon: A son and a daughter shall inherit alike.

"The next day Rabban Gamliel brought the philosopher a Libyan donkey. Afterward, Rabban Gamliel and his sister came before the philosopher for a judgment. He said to them: I proceeded to the end of the avon gilayon, and it is written: I, avon gilayon, did not come to subtract from the Torah of Moses, and I did not come to add to the Torah of Moses. And it is written there: In a situation where there is a son, the daughter does not inherit. She said to him: May your light shine like a lamp, alluding to the lamp she had given him. Rabban Gamliel said to him: The donkey came and kicked the lamp, thereby revealing the entire episode."

In regard to "avon gilyon", the Greek word for "Gospel" is "Evangelion". The arguments made are very similar to those that are still being made today.

Otherwise if you have a point about chronology bring that up

We tend to consider chronology to be much more important than the people who wrote the Bible. There is a reality that order of the book of Luke can be divided in a way that corresponds to the yearly Torah cycle, make of it what you will.
 
Upvote 0

Humble Penny

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Mar 14, 2020
1,212
219
36
San Francisco
✟239,642.00
Country
United States
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Married
I did not claim that all denominations or sects of Christianity or Judaism will make it into heaven or that only hypocrites will make it into the Kingdom of God. Denominations or sects are just tools to categorize people who have similar interpretations of the Bible, and what is important is not so much whether they can validate their names from the Bible, but whether their interpretations are correct. Early Christians referred to themselves as being members of the sect called The Way (Acts 24:14), so that is a name that can be validated from the Bible, but just because a group calls themselves that does not necessarily mean that their beliefs are correct.

The Law of Moses is the way (Jeremiah 6:16-19), the truth (Psalms 119:142), and the life (Deuteronomy 32:47), and Jesus is the living embodiment of that (John 14:6) because the Law of Moses is God's instructions for how to act in accordance with God's nature, and Jesus is the exact expression of God's nature, which he expressed through living in sinless obedience to the Law of Moses. Furthermore, expressing God's nature through our obedience to it is the way to experientially know the Father and the Son (John 14:7). There are many verses that refer to the Mosaic Law as being the way of the Lord, such as Deuteronomy 10:12-13, Isaiah 2:2-3, Joshua 22:5, Psalms 103:7, and many others, so can express the nature of Christ by walking in the way of the Lord in accordance with his example regardless of what they want to call themselves.



I did not claim that Moses based his teachings off the Pharisees and Sadducees, but rather they and Jesus based their teachings on Moses. I'm not sure you referenced the Maccabean Revolt is relevant. The Mishna and Talmud existed orally long before they were codified. Hillel predated Jesus, and we have his teachings available, so we can compare what he taught to what Jesus taught. Jesus did not exist in a cultural vacuum.



If you need to say that Paul lied in order to maintain your position, then you should reconsider your position because that stance opens up a can of worms where you can reject anything that Paul said that you disagree with by accusing him of lying, and he may have been lying when he said the things that you do agree with.

In Acts 26:4-5, the point that Paul was testifying about and said that all the Jews could testify about was that he had lived as a Pharisees from the time of his youth to the present. He was not testifying that he had been a Pharisee in the past, but was no longer one. In any case, Acts 23:6 is speaking in the present tense.



In Romans 9:30-10:4, the Israelites had a zeal for God, but it was not based on knowledge, so they failed to attain righteousness because they pursued the law as though righteousness were by works in an effort to establish their own rather than pursuing the law as through righteousness is by faith in Christ, for Christ is the goal of the law for righteousness for everyone who has faith. In John 5:39-40, Jesus said that they searched the Scriptures because they thing that in them they will find eternal life, and they testify about him, yet they refuse to come to him that they might have life. In Matthew 19:17, Jesus said that the way to enter eternal is by obeying God's commandments, so eternal life can be found in the Scriptures and the Pharisees were correct to search for it there, but they needed to recognize that the goal of everything in Scriptures is to testify about how to have a relationship with Christ and come to him for eternal life. In Matthew 7:23, Jesus said that he would tell those who are workers of lawlessness to depart from him because he never knew them, so again knowing Christ is the goal of the law. In Philippians 3, Paul was in the same boat where he had been keeping the law, but without having a focus on knowing Christ, so he had been missing the who goal of the law and counted it all as rubbish. The right solution to incorrectly obeying God's law is to start obeying it correctly with the right focus, not to stop obeying God.



Again, we have the teachings of Hillel available to us, so we can compare what he taught with what Jesus taught and find many parallels, so insisting that there are no parallels is being unwilling to look at the evidence and is willful ignorance. Both Hillel and Jesus based their teachings on the OT, so it would be absurd to suggest that what they taught had nothing in common. The world of the Talmud was the same world as the Gospels. For example:

From Shabbat 116:b "The Gemara relates: Imma Shalom, the wife of Rabbi Eliezer, was Rabban Gamliel’s sister. There was a Christian philosopher [pilosofa] in their neighborhood who disseminated about himself the reputation that he does not accept bribes. They wanted to mock him and reveal his true nature. She privately gave him a golden lamp, and she and her brother came before him, approaching him as if they were seeking judgment. She said to the philosopher: I want to share in the inheritance of my father’s estate. He said to them: Divide it. Rabban Gamliel said to him: It is written in our Torah: In a situation where there is a son, the daughter does not inherit. The philosopher said to him: Since the day you were exiled from your land, the Torah of Moses was taken away and the avon gilyon was given in its place. It is written in the avon gilyon: A son and a daughter shall inherit alike.

"The next day Rabban Gamliel brought the philosopher a Libyan donkey. Afterward, Rabban Gamliel and his sister came before the philosopher for a judgment. He said to them: I proceeded to the end of the avon gilayon, and it is written: I, avon gilayon, did not come to subtract from the Torah of Moses, and I did not come to add to the Torah of Moses. And it is written there: In a situation where there is a son, the daughter does not inherit. She said to him: May your light shine like a lamp, alluding to the lamp she had given him. Rabban Gamliel said to him: The donkey came and kicked the lamp, thereby revealing the entire episode."

In regard to "avon gilyon", the Greek word for "Gospel" is "Evangelion". The arguments made are very similar to those that are still being made today.



We tend to consider chronology to be much more important than the people who wrote the Bible. There is a reality that order of the book of Luke can be divided in a way that corresponds to the yearly Torah cycle, make of it what you will.
Alright so you believe Hillel pre-existed Jesus in contradiction to what the Scriptures plainly say about Jesus:

"Jesus was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God[...]all things were made through Him and there was nothing made that was not made by Him."

Jesus is Eternal and the Word of God and made Hillel...so you have a major problem there...but, your words show clearly who you place your faith in more. If this claim you make is all you have to say about the chronological work I've posted then you need to come with something better because you've really said nothing.
 
Upvote 0

Soyeong

Well-Known Member
Mar 10, 2015
12,416
4,600
Hudson
✟281,745.00
Country
United States
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Single
Alright so you believe Hillel pre-existed Jesus in contradiction to what the Scriptures plainly say about Jesus:

"Jesus was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God[...]all things were made through Him and there was nothing made that was not made by Him."

Jesus is Eternal and the Word of God and made Hillel...so you have a major problem there...but, your words show clearly who you place your faith in more. If this claim you make is all you have to say about the chronological work I've posted then you need to come with something better because you've really said nothing.

Sorry for not being clear, I meant to say that he predated Christ's birth. I was not suggesting that Hillel existed eternally from the beginning of time, but that he was born before Christ was. He was born in 110 BC and lived until 10 AD, so he lived and died before Christ began his ministry. I said nothing about putting our faith in him.
 
  • Friendly
Reactions: Humble Penny
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Humble Penny

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Mar 14, 2020
1,212
219
36
San Francisco
✟239,642.00
Country
United States
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Married
Sorry for not being clear, I meant to say that he predated Christ's birth. I was not suggesting that Hillel existed eternally from the beginning of time, but that he was born before Christ was. He was born in 110 BC and lived until 10 AD, so he lived and died before Christ began his ministry. I said nothing about putting our faith in him.
You're still arguing the fact that because Hillel was born in the flesh before Christ was that Hillel's teachings are the foundation for Christ's teachings. And this is not true at all.

My refutation to you was to point out the fact that because Jesus is the Word and is Eternal: He is also the same Word that was given to Moses on Mount Sinai. Therefore we would not have the Word of God had not the Law been given to Moses; and Moses would not have the Word of God unless had given His Word (i.e. Christ) to Moses: therefore long before Christ came in the flesh His teachings were already written down from the very beginning:

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."

So what am I arguing? God created time, then the heavens where His Kingdom exists and therefore His Word is Law and was laid down; and from there God created the earth and gave the same Law for man to follow. So if God hadn't given His promise to Adam and Eve in the garden that Yeshua (i.e. The Seed) would come from Eve to crush the serpent, then Moses wouldn't have received the Law; and if God didn't give His Word (i.e. the Law) to Moses then the Israelites--Jews included--would not have the Law and the Prophets; which by extension would mean Christ wouldn't have come in the flesh to fulfill God's evangelionic (i.e "Good news") prophecy, and if Christ didn't come to give grace then the Jews would not have Judaism...which means that rabbinic Judaism wouldn't have existed: therefore man would be forever lost in sin and death and separate from God.

We see then that Life doesn't come from the Law as it was made for sinners and only puts people to death. Life comes from Christ who has Life and is the Light of mankind and the world. For if keeping the Law leads to life then all of the righteous men and women should be alive to this day. And had Adam and Eve understood this then they would've not eaten from the Tree of Knowledge but, from the Tree of Life an live forever; but because they didn't understand this they disobeyed God's Word which led to their death. As long as Adam and Eve did not disobey God's Word they remained alive and were able to live a long life, yet they weren't eternal in nature: therefore from their history we see that keeping the Law doesn't lead to eternal life and breaking it leads to death. And what is the reward for the faithful in the final chapter of Revelation?

"Then the angel showed me the river of the water of life, bright as crystal, flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb through the middle of the street of the city; also, on either side of the river, the tree of life with its twelve kinds of fruit, yielding its fruit each month. The leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations. No longer will there be anything accursed, but the throne of God and of the Lamb will be in it, and his servants will worship him. They will see his face, and his name will be on their foreheads. And night will be no more. They will need no light of lamp or sun, for the Lord God will be their light, and they will reign forever and ever."
Revelation 22:1‭-‬5

We see clearly that the Tree of Life is the reward for the saints which is what they will eat and allow them to live forever! The Scriptures soundly refute all you have said and show the foundation of rabbinic Judaism to be nothing but lies. For all of the rabbis who say and believe eternal life are in the Law have died.

And bringing this back to history and chronology, both will show that the oral Law is never mentioned in the Law or the Prophets, and in all cases that Moses did not know how to execute a law he never once consulted an oral law but, asked God directly for help. And when Joshua succeeded him we read that he did all that was written in the Law of Moses. On top of that how could the oral law be passed in an unbroken generational chain when king Josiah and the Jews did not know how to celebrate Passover since they stopped doing so from the time of the judges??? How is it that king Josiah and the priests consulted the written Law of Moses and not one mention of them consulting the oral law? Surely if the written Law of Moses is dependent on the unwritten oral law then we would expect to see some mentions of it spoken about...but, again zero mentions of it ever. If you or others still foolishly cling to this oral law nonsense then consider the words from the Law of Moses and the Prophets:

“'And now, O Israel, listen to the statutes and the rules that I am teaching you, and do them, that you may live, and go in and take possession of the land that the Lord, the God of your fathers, is giving you. You shall not add to the word that I command you, nor take from it, that you may keep the commandments of the Lord your God that I command you.'"
Deuteronomy 4:1‭-‬2

“'Everything that I command you, you shall be careful to do. You shall not add to it or take from it.'"
Deuteronomy 12:32

"So Moses continued to speak these words to all Israel. And he said to them, 'I am 120 years old today. I am no longer able to go out and come in. The Lord has said to me', ‘You shall not go over this Jordan.’ 'The Lord your God himself will go over before you. He will destroy these nations before you, so that you shall dispossess them, and Joshua will go over at your head, as the Lord has spoken. And the Lord will do to them as he did to Sihon and Og, the kings of the Amorites, and to their land, when he destroyed them. And the Lord will give them over to you, and you shall do to them according to the whole commandment that I have commanded you. Be strong and courageous. Do not fear or be in dread of them, for it is the Lord your God who goes with you. He will not leave you or forsake you.' Then Moses summoned Joshua and said to him in the sight of all Israel, 'Be strong and courageous, for you shall go with this people into the land that the Lord has sworn to their fathers to give them, and you shall put them in possession of it. It is the Lord who goes before you. He will be with you; he will not leave you or forsake you. Do not fear or be dismayed.' Then Moses wrote this law and gave it to the priests, the sons of Levi, who carried the ark of the covenant of the Lord, and to all the elders of Israel. And Moses commanded them, 'At the end of every seven years, at the set time in the year of release, at the Feast of Booths, when all Israel comes to appear before the Lord your God at the place that he will choose, you shall read this law before all Israel in their hearing. Assemble the people, men, women, and little ones, and the sojourner within your towns, that they may hear and learn to fear the Lord your God, and be careful to do all the words of this law, and that their children, who have not known it, may hear and learn to fear the Lord your God, as long as you live in the land that you are going over the Jordan to possess.' And the Lord said to Moses, 'Behold, the days approach when you must die. Call Joshua and present yourselves in the tent of meeting, that I may commission him.' And Moses and Joshua went and presented themselves in the tent of meeting. And the Lord appeared in the tent in a pillar of cloud. And the pillar of cloud stood over the entrance of the tent. And the Lord said to Moses, 'Behold, you are about to lie down with your fathers. Then this people will rise and harlot after the foreign gods among them in the land that they are entering, and they will forsake me and break my covenant that I have made with them. Then my anger will be kindled against them in that day, and I will forsake them and hide my face from them, and they will be devoured. And many evils and troubles will come upon them, so that they will say in that day, ‘Have not these evils come upon us because our God is not among us?’ And I will surely hide my face in that day because of all the evil that they have done, because they have turned to other gods. Now therefore write this song and teach it to the people of Israel. Put it in their mouths, that this song may be a witness for me against the people of Israel. For when I have brought them into the land flowing with milk and honey, which I swore to give to their fathers, and they have eaten and are full and grown fat, they will turn to other gods and serve them, and despise me and break my covenant. And when many evils and troubles have come upon them, this song shall confront them as a witness (for it will live unforgotten in the mouths of their offspring). For I know what they are inclined to do even today, before I have brought them into the land that I swore to give.' So Moses wrote this song the same day and taught it to the people of Israel. And the Lord commissioned Joshua the son of Nun and said, 'Be strong and courageous, for you shall bring the people of Israel into the land that I swore to give them. I will be with you.' When Moses had finished writing the words of this law in a book to the very end, Moses commanded the Levites who carried the ark of the covenant of the Lord, 'Take this Book of the Law and put it by the side of the ark of the covenant of the Lord your God, that it may be there for a witness against you. For I know how rebellious and stubborn you are. Behold, even today while I am yet alive with you, you have been rebellious against the Lord. How much more after my death! Assemble to me all the elders of your tribes and your officers, that I may speak these words in their ears and call heaven and earth to witness against them. For I know that after my death you will surely act corruptly and turn aside from the way that I have commanded you. And in the days to come evil will befall you, because you will do what is evil in the sight of the Lord, provoking him to anger through the work of your hands.'"
Deuteronomy 31:1‭-‬29

"Now the acts of King David, from first to last, are written in the Chronicles of Samuel the seer, and in the Chronicles of Nathan the prophet, and in the Chronicles of Gad the seer,"
1 Chronicles 29:29

"Now the acts of Rehoboam, from first to last, are they not written in the chronicles of Shemaiah the prophet and of Iddo the seer? There were continual wars between Rehoboam and Jeroboam."
2 Chronicles 12:15

"Now the rest of the acts of Manasseh, and his prayer to his God, and the words of the seers who spoke to him in the name of the Lord, the God of Israel, behold, they are in the Chronicles of the Kings of Israel. And his prayer, and how God was moved by his entreaty, and all his sin and his faithlessness, and the sites on which he built high places and set up the Asherim and the images, before he humbled himself, behold, they are written in the Chronicles of the Seers."
2 Chronicles 33:18‭-‬19

As you can clearly read everything God wanted us to know and keep was given by royal decree and then written down in the presence of multiple witnesses. So if anything was passed orally it was always given by God first and then to the prophets or the priests who then wrote it down. If anything was to be kept secret then God never revealed it but kept it to Himself or prevented it from being written as in the case of John the Revelator who heard the voices of the seven thunders, or prevented it from being understood until a later time as in the case of Daniel's 70 Week Prophecy. These faithful words show that there was never any instruction given to have an oral law passed by word of mouth which destroys the foundation of rabbinic Judaism which add and take away many things from the Law of Moses and the Prophets to suit their own serpentine ends.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Torah Keeper

Well-Known Member
Jun 2, 2013
917
586
Tennessee
✟37,351.00
Country
United States
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Single
Christian literally means "follower of Christ". And I've never heard of Yeshua's ministry lasting only one year. You have to ignore a lot of events to hammer that square peg of error into a round hole. Irenaeus even suggested Yeshua's ministry was over 10 years.
 
  • Friendly
Reactions: Humble Penny
Upvote 0

Humble Penny

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Mar 14, 2020
1,212
219
36
San Francisco
✟239,642.00
Country
United States
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Married
Christian literally means "follower of Christ". And I've never heard of Yeshua's ministry lasting only one year. You have to ignore a lot of events to hammer that square peg of error into a round hole. Irenaeus even suggested Yeshua's ministry was over 10 years.
And have you done your homework on uncovering how many years there were before Christ was born? Or is your understanding based on accepting whatever you hear or read without checking the work others have laid down?

Not sure if you bothered to read my other threads here or looked at my blog but, I didn't just casually come to this conclusion based on hearsay.
 
Upvote 0

visionary

Your God is my God... Ruth said, so say I.
Supporter
Mar 25, 2004
56,918
8,033
✟572,541.44
Faith
Messianic
Christian literally means "follower of Christ". And I've never heard of Yeshua's ministry lasting only one year. You have to ignore a lot of events to hammer that square peg of error into a round hole. Irenaeus even suggested Yeshua's ministry was over 10 years.
I have only recently been introduced to the 1 year ministry and have found it fits better than the three for many reasons. Before concluding a lot of events don't fit, study it for yourself to see if it is so. Jubilee year preached at the start of His ministry.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Humble Penny
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Torah Keeper

Well-Known Member
Jun 2, 2013
917
586
Tennessee
✟37,351.00
Country
United States
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Single
I've done my own chronology, I actually wrote a timeline of all the events in the Bible I could. I wasn't the first to do this and many others have done it too. Yeshua's birth and resurrection around 4000 AM makes much more sense. Especially if you consider the last days verses. If there is a 7000 year week, with the last 1000 being the Millenium, then the last days start at 4000 AM. With each 1000 years being a day. If the Millenium begins in 6000 AM, that would be right about now. Or very soon at least. Probably before 2050. This is my personal opinion. I don't mean to be rude. And you didn't address Irenaeus' opinion either. I think a longer ministry makes much more sense. I don't hold to a specific number of years, but a one year ministry is the least plausible length I've ever heard of. I think you need solid evidence disproving all possibility of a longer than one year ministry, before I am convinced.
Irenaeus, despite his denomination, made a case that Yeshua was at least 40 years old when he was asked "Thou art not yet 50 years of age, and hast thou seen Abraham?" Such talk is not for those who have not passed the age of 40. In fact it seems he was 49. Yeshua was very famous. I don't think His adversaries were completely ignorant of His age. They attempted to dig up any possible dirt they could find on Him.

Shalom
 
  • Prayers
Reactions: Humble Penny
Upvote 0