Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Why not go ahead and post those passages here?It isn't difficult to keep it is impossible. Paul spoke to this in the NT in a few places but a person has to be familiar enough with the Talmud to understand where. I listed three of those instances in one of my last posts to Doran. He hasn't answered it yet and I'll be interested in seeing what he has to say.
You expect me to remember where I posted those messages? LOL. An old man like me who seems to be in the early stages of alzheimers? I'll search my Bible again.Why not go ahead and post those passages here?
Bible Gateway passage: Deuteronomy 6:7 - Living Bible
You must teach them to your children and talk about them when you are at home or out for a walk; at bedtime and the first thing in the morning.www.biblegateway.com
Jud_1:12 These are spots in your feasts of charity, when they feast with you, feeding themselves without fear: clouds they are without water, carried about of winds; trees whose fruit withereth, without fruit, twice dead, plucked up by the roots;
Col 2:23 Which things have indeed a shew of wisdom in will worship, and humility, and neglecting of the body; not in any honour to the satisfying of the flesh.
GEMARA: We were taught (Shebuoth, IV. 2): "The acts
p. 2
of transfer on the Sabbath are two, respectively four." Why is this teaching here specified as two
respectively four on the inside, and two respectively four on the outside, and there no such
specification was made? Said R. Papa: Here the special subject of treatment is the Sabbath, and
the Mishna enumerated the cases which involve guilt and those which do not involve guilt;
while there the principal subject of treatment is a different one, and he mentions only the cases
that involve guilt, leaving the cases that do not involve guilt untouched. But the cases that
involve guilt are those by which acts of transfer are committed, and such are only two? Nay,
there are two acts of transfer from within and two from without. But the Mishna says,
"Yetziath" (which in a literal sense means transfer from within)? Said R. Ashi: The Tana calls
transfer from without by the same term. And for what reason? Because every act of removing a
thing from its place is called Yetziah. Said Rabbina: The Mishna also bears out this sense; for it
speaks of Yetziath and immediately illustrates its remark by citing a case from without. This
bears it out. Rabha, however, says: He (the Tana) speaks about divided premises (whose line of
division is crossed), and in this case there are only two (in each of which there may be four acts
of transfer).
Said R. Mathna to Abayi: Are there not eight, even twelve (instances of transfer over the line of
division)? 1 And he rejoined: Such transfers as involve the obligation of a sin-offering are
counted; but those that do not involve such an obligation are not counted.
"They are both free." Was not the act (of transfer) committed by both? Said R. Hyya bar Gamda:
The act of removing the thing was committed by the joint efforts of both, and they (the rabbis)
said: "It is written in the law, when a person did it" 2--i.e., when one person commits the act he
is culpable, but when an act is committed by the joint efforts of two persons, they are both free.
Rabh questioned Rabbi: If one were laden by his friend with eatables and beverages and carried
them outside (of the house), how is the law? Is the removing of his body tantamount to the
removing of a thing from its place, and therefore he is culpable, or is it not so?
p. 3
Said Rabbi to him: He is culpable. And this case is not like the case of removing his hand. Why
so? Because (in the latter case) the hand was not at rest, while (in the former) the body (before
and after removal) was entirely at rest. 1
Said Rabbi Hyya to Rabh: Descendant of nobles! Did I not tell thee that when Rabbi is engaged
with a certain tract ask him not about a subject (that is treated) in another tract, for he may not
have that subject in his mind! And if Rabbi were not a great man thou mightest cause him
shame, for he would give thee an answer which might not be right. In this instance, however, he
gave thee a correct answer; as we have learned in the following Boraitha: If one was laden with
eatables and beverages while it was yet light on the eve of Sabbath, and he carried them outside
after dark, he is culpable; for his case is not like that of removing the hand mentioned above.
Abayi said: From all that was said above it is certain to me that the hand of a man (standing on
the street) is not treated as public ground. 2 And I also see that (if a man stands on private
ground) his hand is not to be treated a-, private ground. Would it be correct, then, to regard the
hand as unclaimed ground? If so, would the penalty imposed by the rabbis in such a case,
namely, that one should not move his hand (containing a movable thing) back (during the
Sabbath day), apply in this case or not?
Come and hear the following Boraitha: If a man has his hand filled with fruit and he extends it
outside (of the premises where he stands), one said he is not permitted to draw it back, and
another Boraitha says he is allowed to do so. May we not assume that this is their point of
dispute: the former holds that the hand is treated as unclaimed ground, and the latter thinks that
it is not like unclaimed ground? Nay, it may be that both agree that the hand (as spoken of in our
Mishna) is like unclaimed ground, and yet it presents no difficulty. One of the Boraithas treats
of a man who had extended his hand unintentionally, and the other one treats of a man who had
put forth his hand intentionally.
I didn't know if you would remember where the post was or not, but I'm glad you could find some passagesYou expect me to remember where I posted those messages? LOL. An old man like me who seems to be in the early stages of alzheimers?
Thanks!I'll search my Bible again.
I don't doubt that the Talmud is legalistic.The easiest way to do this is to quote something from the Talmud so you can see for yourself how Christless it is. It is pure legalism.
As this is only a very small part of the laws regarding the Sabbath in the Talmud you can see how absolutely legalistic it is.
Possibly, but that is how I read it. Jesus referred to the oral law several times in speaking about the Pharisees' traditions. It's one of the main reasons they hated Him and killed Him. He was making them fear they were losing their influence over the people as they would excommunicate anyone who didn't agree with them or didn't agree with totally contradictory positions. As shown in the quote from the Talmud they often took opposing positions. It''s why scripture tells us the the people were astonished at His teaching because it wasn't like the teaching of the scribes and the Pharisees as He taught as one having authority..I didn't know if you would remember where the post was or not, but I'm glad you could find some passages
Thanks!
I don't doubt that the Talmud is legalistic.
I believe you wrote,
"Paul spoke to this in the NT in a few places but a person has to be familiar enough with the Talmud to understand where."
The book of Jude is interesting, but I don't think Paul wrote it. In any case, could he be referring to apostate Christians? Or people who aren't actually Christians?
Colossians 2:23 could be referring to teachings found in the Talmud, but could it not also be referring to people who were trying to bring an extreme asceticism into the church? Maybe they had been part of a religion that was practicing that before?
I hear thatPossibly, but that is how I read it. Jesus referred to the oral law several times in speaking about the Pharisees' traditions. It's one of the main reasons they hated Him and killed Him. He was making them fear they were losing their influence over the people as they would excommunicate anyone who didn't agree with them or didn't agree with totally contradictory positions. As shown in the quote from the Talmud they often took opposing positions. It''s why scripture tells us the the people were astonished at His teaching because it wasn't like the teaching of the scribes and the Pharisees as He taught as one having authority..
I think we'd be surprised at how much they did. They often stirred up the public to the point Paul was punished and/or run out of town. The Pharisees were a world wide group by Paul's day as the Jews had been scattered all over the world by the judgments of God.I hear thatI'm just thinking the Talmud and the Pharisees may not have had a lot of influence in Colossae.
Well, looking at this, I don't see any instances of the Pharisees stirring up the crowd in the book of Acts. What instances are you thinking of?I think we'd be surprised at how much they did. They often stirred up the public to the point Paul was punished and/or run out of town. The Pharisees were a world wide group by Paul's day as the Jews had been scattered all over the world by the judgments of God.
Act 9:22 But Saul increased the more in strength, and confounded the Jews which dwelt at Damascus, proving that this is very Christ.
Act 9:23 And after that many days were fulfilled, the Jews took counsel to kill him:
Act 9:24 But their laying await was known of Saul. And they watched the gates day and night to kill him.
Act 9:25 Then the disciples took him by night, and let him down by the wall in a basket.
Act 13:50 But the Jews stirred up the devout and honourable women, and the chief men of the city, and raised persecution against Paul and Barnabas, and expelled them out of their coasts.
Act 14:19 And there came thither certain Jews from Antioch and Iconium, who persuaded the people, and, having stoned Paul, drew him out of the city, supposing he had been dead.
Act 20:3 And there abode three months. And when the Jews laid wait for him, as he was about to sail into Syria, he purposed to return through Macedonia.
Some Jews were Pharisees. The word translated Jews in the New Testament can also mean Judeans.Well, looking at this, I don't see any instances of the Pharisees stirring up the crowd in the book of Acts. What instances are you thinking of?
Now, hang on. If you read the gospels they often referred to the Pharisees as Jews. You just forgot about that and so couldn't find anything. Don't feel bad as I did the same thing.
Sure they were. but what we find in the gospels most of the time it is speaking of the Pharisees. When the gospels speak of the common man they just say people.Some Jews were Pharisees. The word translated Jews in the New Testament can also mean Judeans.
Well, hang on. We were talking aboutSure they were. but what we find in the gospels most of the time it is speaking of the Pharisees. When the gospels speak of the common man they just say people.
That happens in the book of Acts, not the Gospels.They often stirred up the public to the point Paul was punished and/or run out of town.
Sigh. You asked about Paul so I demonstrated from scripture what you said didn't exist.Well, hang on. We were talking about
That happens in the book of Acts, not the Gospels.
I disagree that you demonstrated that about Paul, what you said were things likeSigh. You asked about Paul so I demonstrated from scripture what you said didn't exist.
Paul doesn't appear in the Gospels....what we find in the gospels...
I've come to expect much more thoughtful answers from you.I disagree that you demonstrated that about Paul, what you said were things like
Paul doesn't appear in the Gospels.
There's only so many ways to say a person didn't show what they claimed they showedI've come to expect much more thoughtful answers from you.
You didn't. But I thought you were going to show the Paul was persecuted by the Pharisees.Where have I said a record of Paul can be found in the gospels?
Yes, Pharisees were often referred to as Jews, as were Sadducees. Jews/Judeans who were neither Pharisees nor Sadducees are also referred to as Jews, I suspect.What I said was the Pharisees were often referred to as the Jews and the common people as the people. We find that throughout the Gospels
That's what makes discussions interesting imoAs to you disagreeing with on demonstrating the Pharisees persecuted Paul many times, that's business as usual. We disagree many more times than we agree.
That's correct And you disagree with me on everything. So?There's only so many ways to say a person didn't show what they claimed they showed
You didn't. But I thought you were going to show the Paul was persecuted by the Pharisees.
Yes, Pharisees were often referred to as Jews, as were Sadducees. Jews/Judeans who were neither Pharisees nor Sadducees are also referred to as Jews, I suspect.
That's what makes discussions interesting imo
Here's what I remember of the path of the discussion:
You were saying that to understand the SDA position about the law, it was important to understand the role of the Talmud.
Jesus was killed because he taught against the Talmud.
Paul was persecuted because he taught against the Talmud.
We know this because Paul was persecuted by the Jews.
Jews is another name for Pharisees.
That's my impression of what we've been talking about recently. Please correct my impression where needed
The Talmud has no effrct on me as I don't believe the things it says. I have only pointed out a very few things for the benefit of others who knew nothing about it.So did you want to discuss it anymore?
If so, how does the Talmud affect how you keep the law?
Okay. Just so you know where I'm coming from, I have no idea what you're getting at in this post, thenThe Talmud has no effrct on me as I don't believe the things it says. I have only pointed out a very few things for the benefit of others who knew nothing about it.
To help you understand the Sabbath keepers' position read the following post of mine.
Jesus reveals that the 4th commandment is not moral law
Nope, he did dot make the Mosaic Covenant with all peoples. He made that covenant only with Israel (Lev 26:46; Deut 4:7-8; 6:20-25; 31:26; Ps 147:19; Est 3:8; Neh 9:7-15; Ezek 28:20:10-12; Act 7:53; Rom 9:4, etc.). Moreover, the Mosaic Covenant was bilteral in nature. Only the nation of...www.christianforums.com
Sorry I thought my point was obvious. I'm not Hasidic nor do I believe in their extreme legalism which they get from faithfully following the Talmud. It's their Bible.Okay. Just so you know where I'm coming from, I have no idea what you're getting at in this post, then
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?