Isaiah 51:4

[Heber Book List]

I'm not sure how you can say this when Yeshua clearly said in Matthew 15 that it was about tradition over the commandments.


I agree, except that the law did change concerning the high priest's lineage.


This was among the disputed laws in that some took it literally and others took it to mean equal compensation must be given as is shown in Exodus 21:26-27. I believe the latter is true. It is practically impossible to literally enforce such a thing justly. If I burn your arm, how is my arm to be burned to the same degree? If I only have one hand, foot or eye and I smite one of your two eyes, feet, or hands, then I will be left with no hands, blind, or unable to walk. Such retaliation is totally unjust. Most of the time a monetary price was paid for such things as determined by the judges. Many times such things occurred by accident and could not be avoided even if one observed what Yeshua taught.


I agree.

It was not Matt:15. It was Matt:5

The law about priests was dealt with way back by me. I know it was a long time ago on the thread but that was as a result of constant arguing!

You seem not to be able to work with things the other way round, Try looking at things to see how to avoid falling foul of the law. You don't HAVE to strike some one back, You don't HAVE hurt someone in exactly the same way etc. He was 'reversing' the law and show how to live inside it - in the same way as we do today. Yeshua tried to teach them how to stay on the right side of the law.

The argument with the priests does not concern (Matt 15) because they are not around. But I agree with you on them.

 

[gadar perets]

It was not Matt:15. It was Matt:5

From post #81-100 we were discussing Matthew 15. Therefore, when you wrote, "It was not tradition, or old halachic decisions, Yeshua didn't make a error, it had nothing to do with Oral Law", I had no idea you jumped back to Matthew 5.

You seem not to be able to work with things the other way round, Try looking at things to see how to avoid falling foul of the law. You don't HAVE to strike some one back, You don't HAVE hurt some in exactly the same way etc. He was 'reversing' the law and show how to live inside it - in the same way as we do today. Yeshua tried to teach them how to stay on the rignt side of the law.

Why are you getting on my case when I said I agreed with you?

 

[Heber Book List]

From post #81-100 we were discussing Matthew 15. Therefore, when you wrote, "It was not tradition, or old halachic decisions, Yeshua didn't make a error, it had nothing to do with Oral Law", I had no idea you jumped back to Matthew 5.


Why are you getting on my case when I said I agreed with you?

Sorry, my bad.

 

[Heber Book List]

From post #81-100 we were discussing Matthew 15. Therefore, when you wrote, "It was not tradition, or old halachic decisions, Yeshua didn't make a error, it had nothing to do with Oral Law", I had no idea you jumped back to Matthew 5.


Why are you getting on my case when I said I agreed with you?

My earlier post about the priesthood was #26!

My second post with the same points as this one made was #70. That was late last night!

My last post #99 was this morning - I thought you had stayed on the same subject.

 

[chunkofcoal]

Torah of moshe?

Enough,
Take your strife elsewhere.

If you seek a conversation in Christ.
Do so with sincerity.
Instead of embarrassing yourself.

What about my opening post caused "strife"? All I did was ask a couple of questions.
"Messianic Judaism" is supposed to be "a sect of Judaism" so I thought those here might be familiar with what I posted and have some thoughts about it.



[If there is a moderator watching these posts, would you please close this thread. Thank you.]

 

[Rachel Rachel]

Torah of moshe?

Enough,
Take your strife elsewhere.

If you seek a conversation in Christ.
Do so with sincerity.
Instead of embarrassing yourself.

If that's the case, the entire forum needs to be shut down.

 

[gadar perets]

What about my opening post caused "strife"? All I did was ask a couple of questions.
"Messianic Judaism" is supposed to be "a sect of Judaism" so I thought those here might be familiar with what I posted and have some thoughts about it.



[If there is a moderator watching these posts, would you please close this thread. Thank you.]

There is nothing wrong with your OP. The post you replied to was rude and unacceptable. Just report it. No need to request the thread be closed unless you prefer it that way.

BTW, it is outside forces like this that can turn a chunkofcoal into a diamond. Your gentle reply here shows you are becoming just that.

 

[chunkofcoal]

There is nothing wrong with your OP. The post you replied to was rude and unacceptable. Just report it. No need to request the thread be closed unless you prefer it that way.

BTW, it is outside forces like this that can turn a chunkofcoal into a diamond. Your gentle reply here shows you are becoming just that.

Thank you gadar perets.

Okay - you can all carry on....

 

[Rachel Rachel]

No, I mean I have on more than one occasion, including earlier today, documented how
1. Yeshua instructed his followers to do and observe ALL that the Pharisees taught Matthew 23:1-3
2. Yeshua himself followed the Pharisaical tradition of "building a wall around the Torah" in his sermon on the mount, such as lusting being a form of adultery.
3. Jesus himself observed Oral Torah (as in the example you gave of Yeshua washing his hands.
4. Certain of Yeshua's teachings being Rabbinical teachings, such as "Let your yes be yes and your no be no."

That's four strong and separate arguments. Put together it's an overwhelming case.

Let's bring common sense into it, too.

Matthew 23:
1Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: 2“The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. 3So you must be careful to do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach. 4They tie up heavy, cumbersome loads and put them on other people’s shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them.

5“Everything they do is done for people to see: They make their phylacteries wide and the tassels on their garments long; 6they love the place of honor at banquets and the most important seats in the synagogues; 7they love to be greeted with respect in the marketplaces and to be called ‘Rabbi’ by others.
​

This scripture is clearly about Yeshua showing Pharisees for their ungodliness....not as a shining example to be followed.

There is excellent evidence that Matthew was originally written in Aramaic and that verses 2 and 3 should be understood to mean that the Pharisees sat on the literal seat of Moses - an actual carved stone chair in which pharisees sat and read from Torah

- and that one should follow what they taught there....Torah.....not their made up rules.

 

[Meowzltov]

Let's bring common sense into it, too.

Matthew 23:
1Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: 2“The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. 3So you must be careful to do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach. 4They tie up heavy, cumbersome loads and put them on other people’s shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them.

5“Everything they do is done for people to see: They make their phylacteries wide and the tassels on their garments long; 6they love the place of honor at banquets and the most important seats in the synagogues; 7they love to be greeted with respect in the marketplaces and to be called ‘Rabbi’ by others.
​

This scripture is clearly about Yeshua showing Pharisees for their ungodliness....not as a shining example to be followed.

There is excellent evidence that Matthew was originally written in Aramaic and that verses 2 and 3 should be understood to mean that the Pharisees sat on the literal seat of Moses - an actual carved stone chair in which pharisees sat and read from Torah

View attachment 236780 - and that one should follow what they taught there....Torah.....not their made up rules.

Verses 4-7 deal with the Pharisee's HYPOCRICY, a theme that Yeshua deals with over and over again. He is not really concerned with the fact that they teach traditions.

Actually he very much is dealing with their authority from Moses. Scholars agree that he is making an indirect appeal to the authority given the 70 elders back in the Torah, and the authority vested in them by God himself in Deuteronomy 17. If there was a literal chair, not all 70 could sit in it.

 

[Rachel Rachel]

Verses 4-7 deal with the Pharisee's HYPOCRICY, a theme that Yeshua deals with over and over again. He is not really concerned with the fact that they teach traditions.

Actually he very much is dealing with their authority from Moses. Scholars agree that he is making an indirect appeal to the authority given the 70 elders back in the Torah, and the authority vested in them by God himself in Deuteronomy 17. If there was a literal chair, not all 70 could sit in it.

Which scholars agree? Could you post some links?
I've never heard anyone say they believe that he wasn't concerned with them teaching traditions. He clearly said that they loaded people down with heavy burdens that couldn't be borne. What do you suppose those burdens were?

 

[Meowzltov]

Which scholars agree? Could you post some links?
I've never heard anyone say they believe that he wasn't concerned with them teaching traditions. He clearly said that they loaded people down with heavy burdens that couldn't be borne. What do you suppose those burdens were?

Let's start with THESE scholars, the MJ Rabbinical Council, in this paper by Mark Kinzer:
http://ourrabbis.org/main/documents/Oral_Torah_Kinzer.pdf

Bet Shammai was unduly strict and burdensome, not so bet Hillel. I've said this many times. I wonder if you listen to me.

 

[Rachel Rachel]

Let's start with THESE scholars, the MJ Rabbinical Council, in this paper by Mark Kinzer:
http://ourrabbis.org/main/documents/Oral_Torah_Kinzer.pdf

Bet Shammai was unduly strict and burdensome, not so bet Hillel. I've said this many times. I wonder if you listen to me.

Yeshua never *once* made a distinction between Pharisees who were of the school of Shammai and the school of Hillel. He simply called the Pharisee leaders vipers...period.

 

[Meowzltov]

Yeshua never *once* made a distinction between Pharisees who were of the school of Shammai and the school of Hillel. He simply called the Pharisee leaders vipers...period.

He addressed the Pharisees in charge, which were bet Shammai. You do have to know something about Second Temple Judaism to understand the gospels fully.

 

[Rachel Rachel]

He addressed the Pharisees in charge, which were bet Shammai. You do have to know something about Second Temple Judaism to understand the gospels fully.

What total bologna.
YHVH intended for his word to be understood by all.

Matthew 11: 25 At that time Jesus prayed this prayer:“O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, thank you for hiding these things from those who think themselves wise and clever, and for revealing them to the childlike.26 Yes, Father, it pleased you to do it this way!

Furthermore, if one believes that Yeshua taught bet Hillel...the less burdensome of the two...why would they be teaching others that they must not turn on a light switch on the Sabbath?

 

[danny ski]

What total bologna.
YHVH intended for his word to be understood by all.

Matthew 11: 25 At that time Jesus prayed this prayer:“O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, thank you for hiding these things from those who think themselves wise and clever, and for revealing them to the childlike.26 Yes, Father, it pleased you to do it this way!

Furthermore, if one believes that Yeshua taught bet Hillel...the less burdensome of the two...why would they be teaching others that they must not turn on a light switch on the Sabbath?

Actually, the Ani semitism of Christianity was born out of the ignorance of Christians, unwilling and uniterested in the realities of the Jewish society in the Jesus' time. You're just continuing in that tradition. The main fault, of course, lies with the writers of the Gospels who recorded an incomplete and, frankly, sketchy narrative. Instead of acknowledging that Jesus existed within the competing povs, the writers painted all with the same brush. Result? A complete rejection of the Christian claims. And a lot of dead Jews.

 

[gadar perets]

Actually, the Ani semitism of Christianity was born out of the ignorance of Christians, unwilling and uniterested in the realities of the Jewish society in the Jesus' time.

Just to clarify, you are not referring to antisemitism in general, but just the form it took through Christianity, correct? Because we know antisemitism existed long before Christians did in people like Haman and Manetho.

The main fault, of course, lies with the writers of the Gospels who recorded an incomplete and, frankly, sketchy narrative. Instead of acknowledging that Jesus existed within the competing povs, the writers painted all with the same brush. Result? A complete rejection of the Christian claims. And a lot of dead Jews.

The Gospels were not written to explain Jewish society or their povs, but to teach about the life and views of Yeshua. Therefore, it is not the fault of the writers of the Gospels, but the lone fault of ignorant Christians. I read the same Gospels they did, but, IMHO, am not antisemitic. Neither are millions of other Messianics, or Christians for that matter.

 

[danny ski]

Just to clarify, you are not referring to antisemitism in general, but just the form it took through Christianity, correct? Because we know antisemitism existed long before Christians did in people like Haman and Manetho.


The Gospels were not written to explain Jewish society or their povs, but to teach about the life and views of Yeshua. Therefore, it is not the fault of the writers of the Gospels, but the lone fault of ignorant Christians. I read the same Gospels they did, but, IMHO, am not antisemitic. Neither are millions of other Messianics, or Christians for that matter.

And thus you prove what Romans used to say: Littera docet, littera nocet- the word teaches, the word harms. An ambiguity in understanding is born out of the ambiguity of the message.

 

[gadar perets]

And thus you prove what Romans used to say: Littera docet, littera nocet- the word teaches, the word harms. An ambiguity in understanding is born out of the ambiguity of the message.

Even Torah can be ambiguous (as you know) and do harm, yet it is truth as are the Gospels.

 

[danny ski]

Even Torah can be ambiguous (as you know) and do harm, yet it is truth as are the Gospels.

Yes, it can be, but let us not go down this road. Counting Jewish corpses is not the proper activity for a long weekend Monday.