Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Not really.
Jewish law came from G-D.
Whether you understand the spiritual significance of it is irrelevant to Jews.
Below is a link to some of the reasons of ritual hand washing for Jews.
Washing for Bread
Personally, I really don't care what Jewish laws jesus approved of and what laws he didn't approve of.
He is irrelevant for Judaism.
It's rather annoying how these non Jewish "experts" on Jewish law don't seek to understand what they are talking about, but just blindly and ignorantly cast judgement about Jewish law.
English please?
They bucked against the Romans because the Romans tried to destroy Judaism.
It's rather annoying how these non Jewish "experts" on Jewish law don't seek to understand what they are talking about, but just blindly and ignorantly cast judgement about Jewish law.
IMO it was an easier sales job to say that people didn't actually have to do anything other than accept jesus as their saviour.
However, in reality the deeds are more important than the words.
I don't know how you got this from what I wrote. I used secular law only in regards to the fact that it and Mosaiic Law pretty much become automatic to follow after a while. When in conflict, we Jews are to follow the Mosaiic Law.Give unto Caesar what is his due. But what is not his due is any abrogation of God's primal Law. Taxes were said to give unto him. Not our hearts and souls. Every Jew under the sun and under Roman occupation knew this. You might be smudging a most important concept, assuming secular Law and Mose's Law are mergible, and you even deny why Jews bucked against Roman authority many times.
There are 613 Laws, and because they are not ranked in Torah, it is nonsensical to elevate one over all the rest.Do you understand the Shema is the Great Law? The scribe who confronted Jesus in Mk 12 knew it. Did not Rosends say he was proud to be a Pharisee? THIS Pharisee knew more than the both of you. Do you really think your version of Judaism is the SAME as the Pharisees in Jesus' day? One common trait, not knowing lesser Law from Primal Law. Goody for you.
Current Judaism is the same as Pharisaic Judaism. Except you are relying on flawed gospels which paint a particular and agendized picture of Pharisees and are unreliable as source material so your conclusions are flawed.Do you understand the Shema is the Great Law? The scribe who confronted Jesus in Mk 12 knew it. Did not Rosends say he was proud to be a Pharisee? THIS Pharisee knew more than the both of you. Do you really think your version of Judaism is the SAME as the Pharisees in Jesus' day? One common trait, not knowing lesser Law from Primal Law. Goody for you.
You still don’t understand, do you?One son, one mountain. What of "echad" you want to portray? UNITY OF? Not so. One mountain. Rosends already told you.
Tell me which one are you now?Some have beans and some beanbrains.
It did not say in Genesis 22:2 “An “only/yachid” mountain”.You keep insisting that a single mountain is a "unified one" -- while it might be part of "one mountain range" it is "one mountain."
Ge 42:11 We are all one/echad/259 man's sons; we are true men, thy servants are no spies.In the 5 books, the word "echad" appears in some form 694 times, and achat, the same word, but feminine, appears 271 times.
Your contention is that in each of these, the word is a unified one.
So when, in Gen 42:11, the brothers tell Joseph that they are sons of "one man" they mean a "unified man"? OK.
This is irrelevant. In reality, the Judaic tradition has always upheld the verbal tradition as legit, that's why there are variant views regarding some non-important things in the Jewish Bible. The mistake here is thinking that Jesus was upholding the traditions merely by disagreeing with the Pharisees. No, His message was different, but related to, the teachings in the Temple. Jesus taught a religious practice that didn't 'replace' the verbal tradition, merely shifted the emphasis from a more academic one, to a more spiritual one.Em, the Pharisaical penchant for putting too much weight on the mundane laws? Yes, the question is, how many times DO YOU wash your hands, sir? They accused Jesus' own disciples of not washing.
How many times DO YOU wash your hands sir? Don't you think if you doubled it, twice as holy? Triple it, three times holy?
Quadriple, four times? How holy you wanna be, Levite?
Tell me why it did not say an “only/yachid” locust instead of the “one/echad” locust?And in Ex. 10:19, when no locusts were left over, and the text says "not even one" it means "not even a unified locust." I'm not sure what a unified locust is, but ok.
One/echad unified law, i.e., the Law of Moses, consist of many laws.Numbers 15:16 must be talking about "one unified law"
Current Judaism is the same as Pharisaic Judaism. Except you are relying on flawed gospels which paint a particular and agendized picture of Pharisees and are unreliable as source material so your conclusions are flawed.
If you can tell me the diff bet “echad” and “yachid” that would answer your question here. You do understand that what we are arguing here is about those two words, right? Did you that The word yachid, an absolute “only” one, is never used in reference to God –see Strong’s 3173.That's just a random sampling from the masculine construction, in the 5 books, used without prefixes like "and" (as in Lev 5:7 "one as a chatat offering AND one as an olah offering"). More and more varied uses available upon request. So please explain the "compoundness" of a road, a locust, sacrifice or a man (let alone a mountain).
Once you assert this position, you lose any credibility in terms of explaining what Judaism believes. Not that you had any, but still...NT is as reliable as OT, having the same mechanics as OT canon, the same idea that original revelation of the authors is primal, and that commentary on the original is just that, commentary on the original experience the disciples had.
Paul was a Pharisee, and apparently a higher up, having been taught by Gemaliel, whom you know. His testimony is especially compelling...knowing of course for all Jews, bearing false witness (testimony) is a crime against God.