Contradictions?

[Andyman_1970]

I had read the scriptures that referred to Jesus as a rabbi, but never made the connection that you made there. My lights are blinking, and I must explore this more, thank you!

I must warn you I've been studying this for about 2 years now and it's quite addicting..........

So when he gave the authority to bind and loose to the disciples was he giving over the authority to teach new interpretations as well? Fascinating discussion.

Some think this (as I do), look at Acts 15 the Jerusalem council. Here you have a group of Torah observant Jews trying to figure out what to do with all these new Gentile beleivers, they are in uncharted territory. However they excersize their authority to "bind" (prohibit) and "loose" (allow) things related to the Torah. One note on this, typically unless you were a rabbi with S'mikah, binding and loosing was a communal act (so as to keep unorthodox ideas from cropping up).

Feel free to PM me if you have any questions.............

 

[SumTinWong]

I must warn you I've been studying this for about 2 years now and it's quite addicting..........

That is about as long as I have been a Christian so I will wait until my training wheels are off before I ride down this path. But you gave me alot to think about and i may never read the Bible the same way.

Some think this (as I do), look at Acts 15 the Jerusalem council. Here you have a group of Torah observant Jews trying to figure out what to do with all these new Gentile beleivers, they are in uncharted territory. However they excersize their authority to "bind" (prohibit) and "loose" (allow) things related to the Torah. One note on this, typically unless you were a rabbi with S'mikah, binding and loosing was a communal act (so as to keep unorthodox ideas from cropping up).

I see sort of like the councils of the early Christian fathers?

 

[SumTinWong]

Yes, that's it pretty much. Romans 12:17-18 supports this:
Rom 12:17 Recompense to no man evil for evil. Provide things honest in the sight of all men.
Rom 12:18 If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men.

Live peacably with all men, but if they insist on not living peacably despite your efforts, we are not to be stand by and let them do evil. The Jewish culture spoke in absolutes as a figure of speech. They did not intend that in every single situation that we should turn the other cheek. We are to do so as much as we possibly can.

God bless,
Dave

For instance 70 times 7? I do not knwo if the human ego would let us turn the other cheek in every situation, but at the same time I think it would be good to try. As much as lieth in you, or as much as we can take? Is that what you meant?

Thanks by the way

 

[Crazy Liz]

I must warn you I've been studying this for about 2 years now and it's quite addicting..........



Some think this (as I do), look at Acts 15 the Jerusalem council. Here you have a group of Torah observant Jews trying to figure out what to do with all these new Gentile beleivers, they are in uncharted territory. However they excersize their authority to "bind" (prohibit) and "loose" (allow) things related to the Torah. One note on this, typically unless you were a rabbi with S'mikah, binding and loosing was a communal act (so as to keep unorthodox ideas from cropping up).

Feel free to PM me if you have any questions.............

Does this mean that only Peter was made a "rabbi with S'mikah," since "you" is singular in Matthew 16, and plural in Matthew 18?

 

[Andyman_1970]

That is about as long as I have been a Christian so I will wait until my training wheels are off before I ride down this path. But you gave me alot to think about and i may never read the Bible the same way.

Don't let that intimidate you, we all start with baby steps. If you ever run across anything you have a question about I'll be more than happy to help (if I can).

 

[Andyman_1970]

Does this mean that only Peter was made a "rabbi with S'mikah," since "you" is singular in Matthew 16, and plural in Matthew 18?

No Peter was not a rabbi with S'mikah, you got S'mikah according to the Jewish rabbinic tradition by two people that had S'mikah had to lay hands on you and declare you have it.

Notice though that in the begining of Chapter 16 all the disciples are there, so a case could be made that Jesus switches from Peter to all the disciples after Peter's confession - I think there are various points of view on that. But it's easy to see how the Catholic church got Peter being the gatekeeper in heaven.............anyway..........

There is this Jewish tradition that the Text is like a gem and as you hold it up to the light it refracts and you get different colors as you turn the gem.

 

[Crazy Liz]

Notice though that in the begining of Chapter 16 all the disciples are there, so a case could be made that Jesus switches from Peter to all the disciples after Peter's confession - I think there are various points of view on that. But it's easy to see how the Catholic church got Peter being the gatekeeper in heaven.............anyway..........

Not really referring to the gatekeeper thing, but to what you said about rabbis "binding and loosing," vs. "binding and loosing" communally.

If the bible tags give us the KJV, you'll be able to see what I'm talking about, since "thou" is you (singular) and "ye" is you (plural):

[bible]matthew 16:19[/bible]

deses (thou shalt bind) and luses (thou shalt loose) are both second person singular aorist active subjunctive.

[bible]matthew 18:18[/bible]

desete (ye shall bind) and lusete (ye shall loose) are both second person plural aorist active subjunctive.

Your argument that Matthew switches from singular to plural between Matthew 16:18 and 16:19 does not hold up. This is one instance where the KJV, because it preserves the former distinction in English between singular and plural second person pronouns, is more precise than the newer translations.

 

[Andyman_1970]

Your argument that Matthew switches from singular to plural between Matthew 16:18 and 16:19 does not hold up. This is one instance where the KJV, because it preserves the former distinction in English between singular and plural second person pronouns, is more precise than the newer translations.

I wasn't try to make an arguement, I was trying to put fourth a possible differnt point of view, thus the statement about the Text being a gem.

But I see what your saying. Traditionally from the Jewish point of view "binding" and "loosing" was done communally - unless you had S'mikah.

 

[SumTinWong]

Don't let that intimidate you, we all start with baby steps. If you ever run across anything you have a question about I'll be more than happy to help (if I can).

I do appreciate it.

One question for you.

Who were the two that laid their hands on Jesus to make him S'mikah? Do we know?

 

[Crazy Liz]

I do appreciate it.

One question for you.

Who were the two that laid their hands on Jesus to make him S'mikah? Do we know?

I'll follow this up with some speculation.

[bible]matthew 7:28-29[/bible]

Do you think the Greek behind "as one having authority" is intended to be a translation of the Hebrew (Aramaic?) S'mikah?

As far as two laying hands on Jesus, I would say one could view Jesus' baptism - the voice from heaven and the dove descending - as having that significance. Or, if Andyman is correct about John the Baptist, it might be said that John the Baptist was one and God was the other.

 

[SumTinWong]

I'll follow this up with some speculation.

Matthew 7:28-2928 And it came to pass, when Jesus had ended these sayings, the people were astonished at his doctrine: 29 For he taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes.

Do you think the Greek behind "as one having authority" is intended to be a translation of the Hebrew (Aramaic?) S'mikah?

Very good question.

As far as two laying hands on Jesus, I would say one could view Jesus' baptism - the voice from heaven and the dove descending - as having that significance. Or, if Andyman is correct about John the Baptist, it might be said that John the Baptist was one and God was the other.

What is so amazing is I thought of this after I posted it. Hot dog I like it when that happens It would make sense as Johnny B was in the line of Priests. Wow great stuff!

 

[Andyman_1970]

I'll follow this up with some speculation.

[bible]matthew 7:28-29[/bible]

Do you think the Greek behind "as one having authority" is intended to be a translation of the Hebrew (Aramaic?) S'mikah?

As far as two laying hands on Jesus, I would say one could view Jesus' baptism - the voice from heaven and the dove descending - as having that significance. Or, if Andyman is correct about John the Baptist, it might be said that John the Baptist was one and God was the other.

You beat me too it..........you're exactly right...........

Check out Matthew 21:23-27 "Jesus entered the Temple courts and while He was teaching, the cheif preists and elders of the people came to Him. "By what authority are you doing these things?" they asked. "And who gavve you this authority?" Jesus replied "I will also ask you one question. [side note rabbinic practice was many times to answer a question with a question] If you answer me I will tell you by what authority I am doing these things. John's baptism - where did it come from? Was it from heaven, or from men?" They discussed it among themselves asn said "If we say, 'From heaven' He will ask, 'Then why didn't you believe him?' But if we say 'From men' - we are afraid of the people, for they all hold John was a prophet."

Jesus here alludes to John the Baptist as one of whom Jesus got His S'mikah from.