Isaiah 51:4

[Meowzltov]

ONLY when in line with TORAH, not otherwise. Not at all ever as the catholic variations or traditions or ways or practices or lives, or teachings are taught.

Can you give one example of a tradition that violated the Torah?

 

[visionary]

Can you give one example of a tradition that violated the Torah?

Matthew 15:6
And honour not his father or his mother, he shall be free. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Not on this thread , actually not on this forum, probably - a lot of your own posts (from memory) and your own claims (from memory, having seen them in the past) violate TORAH and oppose Jesus. There exist many many examples, but not for going into on this site - there is never a way here to bring about a resolution/ ending.

Can you give one example of a tradition that violated the Torah?

 

[Meowzltov]

Not on this thread , actually not on this forum, probably - a lot of your own posts (from memory) and your own claims (from memory, having seen them in the past) violate TORAH and oppose Jesus. There exist many many examples, but not for going into on this site - there is never a way here to bring about a resolution/ ending.

Unless you can quote the offending post(s), this is nothing but a personal attack and an attempt to divert from my request that you provide an example of your claim that a tradition violated the Torah.

 

[Meowzltov]

Matthew 15:6
And honour not his father or his mother, he shall be free. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition.

Whose halakhah is this, vis? Is this set oral torah? No. This was disputed halakhah. There is nothing about this that is preserved in oral torah today.

 

[gadar perets]

Whose halakhah is this, vis? Is this set oral torah? No. This was disputed halakhah. There is nothing about this that is preserved in oral torah today.

Here is John Gill's commentary in which he cites some references.

But ye say, whosoever shall say to his father or mother,.... That is, it was a tradition of their's, that if a man should say to his father and mother, when poor and in distress, and made application to him for sustenance,

it is a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me, and honour not his father, or his mother, he shall be free: or, as Mark expresses it, "it is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me, he shall be free, and ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or mother". For the understanding of this tradition, let it be observed, that the word "Corban" signifies a gift, or offering, which was devoted to sacred use; and was unalienable, and could not be converted to any other use; and that this word was used among the Jews, from hence, as the form of an oath, or vow; and therefore, when anyone said "Corban", it was all one, as if he swore by "Corban"; or as if he had said, let it be as "Corban", as unalienable as "Corban": by which oath, or vow, the use of that which was spoken of, whether it respected a man's self, or others, was restrained and prohibited: the rule was (r) this קרבן כאומר כקרבן הוא אסור, "if a man said Corban, it was as if he said as Corban, and it was forbidden": and if he used the words "Conem", "Conach", and "Conas", which they call (s) the surnames of Corban, and were no other than corruptions of it, it was all one as if he had said "Corban" itself. There are many instances of this kind of vows, and the form of them in their oral law (t), or book of traditions;

"If anyone should say, קונם שאני נהנה, "Conem (or "Corban") whatsoever I might be profited by the" sons of Noah, it is free of an Israelite, and forbidden of a Gentile; if he should say, "whatsoever I might be profited" by the seed of Abraham, it is forbidden of an Israelite, and is free of a Gentile--if anyone should say, קונם שאני נהנה לערלים, "Conem (or "Corban") whatsoever I might be profited by the uncircumcised", it is free of the uncircumcised of Israel, and forbidden of the circumcised of the Gentiles; if he says "Conem (or "Corban") whatsoever I might be profited by the circumcised", it is forbidden of the circumcised of Israel, and free of the circumcised, of the Gentiles.''

Again (u),
"if anyone says to his friend, קונם שאני נהנה לך, "Conem (or "Corban") whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me", &c.''
which is exactly the same form as here, unless it should be rather rendered, "whatsoever I might be profited by thee": once more (w),
"if a married woman should say to her husband, לאבא ולאביך קונם שאני נהנית "Conem (or Corban) whatsoever I might be profited by my father, or thy father, &c".''

Let these instances suffice: the plain and evident sense of the tradition before us, is this; that when, upon application being made to a man by his parents, for support and sustenance, he makes a vow in such form as this, "Corban, whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me"; that is, whatsoever profit or advantage thou mightest have, or expect to have from me, let it be as "Corban", as a gift devoted to God, that can never be revoked and converted to another use; or, in other words, I vow and protest thou shalt never have any profit from me, not a penny, nor a pennyworth of mine. Now, when a man had made such an impious vow as this, according to this tradition, it was to stand firm and good, and he was not to honour his father or mother, or do anything for them, by way of relief: so that our Lord might justly observe upon it as he does;

thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect, by your tradition: for if such a vow was valid, and a man was obliged to abide by it, according to the tradition of the elders, and not honour his father and mother, as the law of God requires; it is a plain case, that the command of God was made void by this tradition: nay they expressly say (x) that נדרים חלות על דברי מצוה, "vows fall upon things of a (divine) commandment", as well as upon things in a man's power, and that he is bound by them; so that without sin he cannot do what the law commands; insomuch, that if a man vows a vow, and that it may be ratified, a command must be made void, his vow must stand, and the command be abrogated. So truly and justly does Christ charge them with making the command of God of none effect, by their tradition. It is indeed disputed by the doctors, and at last allowed, that such a vow might be dissolved by a wise man, for the honour of parents (y).

"R. Eliezer says, they open to a man, (i.e. the door of repentance, and dissolve his vow,) for the honour of his father and his mother, but the wise men forbid "it". Says R. Tzadok, if they open to him for the honour of his father and mother, they will open to him for the honour of God, and if so, there will be no vows: however, the wise men agreed with R. Eliezer in the affair between a man and his parents, that they should open to him for the honour of them.''

And this could be done only by a wise man; and very probably this last decree was made on account of this just reproof of Christ's, being ashamed any longer to countenance so vile a practice; and even, according to this determination, the vow stood firm till dissolved by of their doctors: so that notwithstanding, Christ's argument is good, and the instance full to prove that for which he brought it: for the above reason it may be, it is, that this tradition Christ refers to is not now extant; but that there was such an one in Christ's time, is certain; he would never have asserted it else; and had it not been true, the Pharisees would have been able to have retired him, and forward enough to have done it: and that such vows were sometimes made, and which were not to be rescinded, is clear from the following fact (z).

"It happened to one in Bethhoron, אביו מודר הימנו הנאה שהיה, "whose father was excluded, by a vow, from receiving any profit from him": and he married his son, and said to his friend, a court and a dinner are given to thee by gift; but they are not to be made use of by thee, but with this condition, that my father may come and eat with us at dinner;''

which was a device to have his father at dinner, and yet secure his vow. Upon the whole, the sense of this passage is, not that a man excused himself to his parents, according to this tradition, by saying, that his substance, either in whole, or in part, was "Corban", or devoted to the service of God, and therefore they could expect no profit, or relief, from him; but that he vowed that what he had should be as "Corban", and they should be never the better for it: so that a man so vowing might give nothing to the service of God, but keep his whole substance to himself; which he might make use of for his own benefit, and for the benefit of others, but not for his father and mother; who, after such a vow made, were to receive no benefit by it, unless rescinded by a wise man; and which seems to be an explanation of it, made after the times of Christ.

(r) T. Hieros. Nedarim, fol. 37. 1. Misn. Nedarim, c. 1. sect. 4. Maimon. Hilch. Nedarim, c. 1. sect. 7. (s) Misn. Nedarim, c. 1. sect. 1, 2. Maimon. Hilch. Nedarim, c. 1. sect. 16. (t) Misn. Nedarim, c. 3. sect. 11. (u) lb. c. 8. sect. 7. Vid. c. 11. sect 3, 4. (w) lb. c. 11. sect. 11. (x) Maimon. Hilch. Nedarim, c. 3. sect. 1. 6, 7. 9. (y) Misn. Nedarim, c. 9. sect. 1. (z) lb. c. 5. sect. 6.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

This is so commonly known, and posted throughout this forum, if you don't know it or see it, there is nothing anyone can do more than was already done.

a tradition violated the Torah.

 

[Meowzltov]

Here is John Gill's commentary in which he cites some references.

But ye say, whosoever shall say to his father or mother,.... That is, it was a tradition of their's, that if a man should say to his father and mother, when poor and in distress, and made application to him for sustenance,

it is a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me, and honour not his father, or his mother, he shall be free: or, as Mark expresses it, "it is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me, he shall be free, and ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or mother". For the understanding of this tradition, let it be observed, that the word "Corban" signifies a gift, or offering, which was devoted to sacred use; and was unalienable, and could not be converted to any other use; and that this word was used among the Jews, from hence, as the form of an oath, or vow; and therefore, when anyone said "Corban", it was all one, as if he swore by "Corban"; or as if he had said, let it be as "Corban", as unalienable as "Corban": by which oath, or vow, the use of that which was spoken of, whether it respected a man's self, or others, was restrained and prohibited: the rule was (r) this קרבן כאומר כקרבן הוא אסור, "if a man said Corban, it was as if he said as Corban, and it was forbidden": and if he used the words "Conem", "Conach", and "Conas", which they call (s) the surnames of Corban, and were no other than corruptions of it, it was all one as if he had said "Corban" itself. There are many instances of this kind of vows, and the form of them in their oral law (t), or book of traditions;

"If anyone should say, קונם שאני נהנה, "Conem (or "Corban") whatsoever I might be profited by the" sons of Noah, it is free of an Israelite, and forbidden of a Gentile; if he should say, "whatsoever I might be profited" by the seed of Abraham, it is forbidden of an Israelite, and is free of a Gentile--if anyone should say, קונם שאני נהנה לערלים, "Conem (or "Corban") whatsoever I might be profited by the uncircumcised", it is free of the uncircumcised of Israel, and forbidden of the circumcised of the Gentiles; if he says "Conem (or "Corban") whatsoever I might be profited by the circumcised", it is forbidden of the circumcised of Israel, and free of the circumcised, of the Gentiles.''

Again (u),
"if anyone says to his friend, קונם שאני נהנה לך, "Conem (or "Corban") whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me", &c.''
which is exactly the same form as here, unless it should be rather rendered, "whatsoever I might be profited by thee": once more (w),
"if a married woman should say to her husband, לאבא ולאביך קונם שאני נהנית "Conem (or Corban) whatsoever I might be profited by my father, or thy father, &c".''

Let these instances suffice: the plain and evident sense of the tradition before us, is this; that when, upon application being made to a man by his parents, for support and sustenance, he makes a vow in such form as this, "Corban, whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me"; that is, whatsoever profit or advantage thou mightest have, or expect to have from me, let it be as "Corban", as a gift devoted to God, that can never be revoked and converted to another use; or, in other words, I vow and protest thou shalt never have any profit from me, not a penny, nor a pennyworth of mine. Now, when a man had made such an impious vow as this, according to this tradition, it was to stand firm and good, and he was not to honour his father or mother, or do anything for them, by way of relief: so that our Lord might justly observe upon it as he does;

thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect, by your tradition: for if such a vow was valid, and a man was obliged to abide by it, according to the tradition of the elders, and not honour his father and mother, as the law of God requires; it is a plain case, that the command of God was made void by this tradition: nay they expressly say (x) that נדרים חלות על דברי מצוה, "vows fall upon things of a (divine) commandment", as well as upon things in a man's power, and that he is bound by them; so that without sin he cannot do what the law commands; insomuch, that if a man vows a vow, and that it may be ratified, a command must be made void, his vow must stand, and the command be abrogated. So truly and justly does Christ charge them with making the command of God of none effect, by their tradition. It is indeed disputed by the doctors, and at last allowed, that such a vow might be dissolved by a wise man, for the honour of parents (y).

"R. Eliezer says, they open to a man, (i.e. the door of repentance, and dissolve his vow,) for the honour of his father and his mother, but the wise men forbid "it". Says R. Tzadok, if they open to him for the honour of his father and mother, they will open to him for the honour of God, and if so, there will be no vows: however, the wise men agreed with R. Eliezer in the affair between a man and his parents, that they should open to him for the honour of them.''

And this could be done only by a wise man; and very probably this last decree was made on account of this just reproof of Christ's, being ashamed any longer to countenance so vile a practice; and even, according to this determination, the vow stood firm till dissolved by of their doctors: so that notwithstanding, Christ's argument is good, and the instance full to prove that for which he brought it: for the above reason it may be, it is, that this tradition Christ refers to is not now extant; but that there was such an one in Christ's time, is certain; he would never have asserted it else; and had it not been true, the Pharisees would have been able to have retired him, and forward enough to have done it: and that such vows were sometimes made, and which were not to be rescinded, is clear from the following fact (z).

"It happened to one in Bethhoron, אביו מודר הימנו הנאה שהיה, "whose father was excluded, by a vow, from receiving any profit from him": and he married his son, and said to his friend, a court and a dinner are given to thee by gift; but they are not to be made use of by thee, but with this condition, that my father may come and eat with us at dinner;''

which was a device to have his father at dinner, and yet secure his vow. Upon the whole, the sense of this passage is, not that a man excused himself to his parents, according to this tradition, by saying, that his substance, either in whole, or in part, was "Corban", or devoted to the service of God, and therefore they could expect no profit, or relief, from him; but that he vowed that what he had should be as "Corban", and they should be never the better for it: so that a man so vowing might give nothing to the service of God, but keep his whole substance to himself; which he might make use of for his own benefit, and for the benefit of others, but not for his father and mother; who, after such a vow made, were to receive no benefit by it, unless rescinded by a wise man; and which seems to be an explanation of it, made after the times of Christ.

(r) T. Hieros. Nedarim, fol. 37. 1. Misn. Nedarim, c. 1. sect. 4. Maimon. Hilch. Nedarim, c. 1. sect. 7. (s) Misn. Nedarim, c. 1. sect. 1, 2. Maimon. Hilch. Nedarim, c. 1. sect. 16. (t) Misn. Nedarim, c. 3. sect. 11. (u) lb. c. 8. sect. 7. Vid. c. 11. sect 3, 4. (w) lb. c. 11. sect. 11. (x) Maimon. Hilch. Nedarim, c. 3. sect. 1. 6, 7. 9. (y) Misn. Nedarim, c. 9. sect. 1. (z) lb. c. 5. sect. 6.

Thank you. IOW, it is as I said, there is nothing in halakhah today that supports such a practice. A wise man (aka a righteous man) will repent of such a foolish/evil vow.

 

[gadar perets]

Thank you. IOW, it is as I said, there is nothing in halakhah today that supports such a practice. A wise man (aka a righteous man) will repent of such a foolish/evil vow.

So are you saying Yeshua was wrong in Matthew 15 or that the Gospel of Matthew has the account recorded wrong? Before the wise man "repents", the tradition had already broken the commandment.

 

[Meowzltov]

So are you saying Yeshua was wrong in Matthew 15 or that the Gospel of Matthew has the account recorded wrong? Before the wise man "repents", the tradition had already broken the commandment.

I'm saying there are different levels of traditions. There were traditions in Yeshuas day that were in dispute and passed away. I don't give a hoot about those.

 

[gadar perets]

I'm saying there are different levels of traditions. There were traditions in Yeshuas day that were in dispute and passed away. I don't give a hoot about those.

What does it matter if that tradition was in dispute? The fact is, that tradition existed and those who accepted it broke the commandments because of it. I wouldn't be surprised if they finally decided to do away with that tradition after Yeshua rebuked them for it.

 

[Meowzltov]

What does it matter if that tradition was in dispute? The fact is, that tradition existed and those who accepted it broke the commandments because of it. I wouldn't be surprised if they finally decided to do away with that tradition after Yeshua rebuked them for it.

It matters! Disputed traditions just aren't in the same category. How can they be?????? It is intuitively obvious. It's like the difference between doctors agreeing that pneumonia should be treated with antibiotics, bed rest, and fluids, and doctors disagreeing about the best diet to loose weight! If you still don't get it, I don't know what to tell you.

 

[pinacled]

I have a couple of questions about this:
Isa 51:4 Hearken unto me, my people; and give ear unto me, O my nation: for a law shall proceed from me, and I will make my judgment to rest for a light of the people.

According to what I've read, this means God will reveal a new Torah through Moshiach -
"One of the central prophecies of the Final Redemption is that “a Torah will go forth from Me” (Yeshayahu 51:4). On this verse Midrash Vayikra Rabba 13 explains that “G-d will reveal a New Torah:” through the Moshiach."
But not a new Torah, but - "Moshiach will teach Torah on a profoundly deep level that we have never been able to see or grasp before"
*quotes are from: https://www.ouisrael.org/torah-tidbits/will-moshiach-reveal-a-new-torah/

SO, do you all agree with that interpretation of "a law shall proceed from me" or do you understand it to mean something different?

And how does this fit with -
Jer 31:33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.

Any thoughts? Has anyone studied this?

(I know the SOP states:
Messianic Jews and Messianic Gentiles believe the Torah of Moses is the same that Yeshua kept, elucidated, and taught.
so if these questions aren't allowed here one of the mods can delete this. )

Torah of moshe?

Enough,
Take your strife elsewhere.

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

 

[visionary]

Thank you. IOW, it is as I said, there is nothing in halakhah today that supports such a practice. A wise man (aka a righteous man) will repent of such a foolish/evil vow.

That is not what you asked for...

 

[gadar perets]

It matters! Disputed traditions just aren't in the same category. How can they be?????? It is intuitively obvious. It's like the difference between doctors agreeing that pneumonia should be treated with antibiotics, bed rest, and fluids, and doctors disagreeing about the best diet to loose weight! If you still don't get it, I don't know what to tell you.

You asked, "Can you give one example of a tradition that violated the Torah?" You did not ask for an undisputed tradition. Nor did you ask for a tradition that did not pass away. TheTalmud is loaded with disputed traditions. One rabbi says one thing and another says something different. They couldn't even agree on lawful reasons for divorce. How come you don't give a hoot about disputed traditions, but Yeshua did?

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

You asked, "Can you give one example of a tradition that violated the Torah?" You did not ask for an undisputed tradition. Nor did you ask for a tradition that did not pass away. TheTalmud is loaded with disputed traditions. One rabbi says one thing and another says something different. They couldn't even agree on lawful reasons for divorce. How come you don't give a hoot about disputed traditions, but Yeshua did?

There is a lot not revealed in this thread or on this site/ forum about the history and beliefs of various groups or people.

It appears that traditions contrary to Scripture are still widely accepted by some if not many posters, and there's nothing allowed on this forum/ site to try to change their minds, nor that they will accept anyway, unless a miracle of Yahweh's Grace happens, as it must for us all simply to seek HIM and to TRUST HIM...... why some people lean on their own understanding instead of on His is a mystery, thus also why we (any of us) ever were subjected to ungodly unrighteous unbiblical traditions at all is in a sense still a mystery because it is still hidden to those who still hold to what many of us may have fully believed also, until we were set free.

 

[Meowzltov]

That is not what you asked for...

I'm sorry that I was vague. I can see where it was confusing.

 

[Meowzltov]

You asked, "Can you give one example of a tradition that violated the Torah?" You did not ask for an undisputed tradition. Nor did you ask for a tradition that did not pass away. TheTalmud is loaded with disputed traditions. One rabbi says one thing and another says something different. They couldn't even agree on lawful reasons for divorce. How come you don't give a hoot about disputed traditions, but Yeshua did?

I apologize for being vague. I can understand why you took it the way you did. However, when I think of tradition, I just don't think of disputed stuff. For example, I don't think of putting on the right shoe first as tradition, because it's disputed.

 

[Heber Book List]

Have you worn yourselves out, let me explain what Yeshua was tallkng about. It was not tradition, or old halachic decisions, Yeshua didn't make a error, it had nothing to do with Oral Law.

He says very clearly that he has not come to break the law but, rather, he comes to fulfill it. How? By showing them that if they observe what he teaches, they can stay within the law. The law hasn't changed, it is there and always will be, but the look at it a diferent way.

The law requires an eye for an eye etc., so everyone went around enforcing it but, what if they did not go around doing the things that require an eye for an eye, any more - the law still remains intact, but you will not need it! The law was given to make us change, Yeshua was giving lessons on how to work within the law. This was his big thing - behave as if you do not need the law, if you want to be my disciples and follow me.

It's what he will do when he comes again - he will expect us to work within the law, as if there is no law.

 

[gadar perets]

It was not tradition, or old halachic decisions, Yeshua didn't make a error, it had nothing to do with Oral Law.

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

He says very clearly that he has not come to break the law but, rather, he comes to fulfill it. How? By showing them that if they observe what he teaches, they can stay within the law. The law hasn't changed, it is there and always will be, but the look at it a diferent way.

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

The law requires an eye for an eye etc., so everyone went around enforcing it but, what if they did not go around doing the things that require an eye for an eye, any more - the law still remains intact, but you will not need it!

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.

The law was given to make us change, Yeshua was giving lessons on how to work within the law. This was his big thing - behave as if you do not need the law, if you want to be my disciples and follow me.

It's what he will do when he comes again - he will expect us to work within the law, as if there is no law.

I agree.