Is Jesus portrayed in the Gospels as Anti-Torah?

[John D. Brey]

Jesus is saying: "Come with me if you want to live"

Isn't that Schwarzenegger in one of the Terminator movies?



John

 

[Brickjectivity]

Ehav wrote:

Here are a few examples:

• “‘Follow me.’ But the man replied, ‘Lord, first let me go and bury my father.’ Jesus said to him, ‘Let the dead bury their own dead, but you go and proclaim the kingdom of God’” (Luke 9:59-60).
• Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. (John 14:6)
• Seeing in the distance a fig tree in leaf, he went to find out if it had any fruit. When he reached it, he found nothing but leaves, because it was not the season for figs. 14 Then he said to the tree, “May no one ever eat fruit from you again.” And his disciples heard him say it. (Mark 11:13-14)
• On reaching Jerusalem, Jesus entered the temple courts and began driving out those who were buying and selling there. He overturned the tables of the money changers and the benches of those selling doves, 16 and would not allow anyone to carry merchandise through the temple courts.
• John 10:30 “I and the father are one.”
• “Truly[d] I tell you, if anyone says to this mountain, ‘Go, throw yourself into the sea,’ and does not doubt in their heart but believes that what they say will happen, it will be done for them. (Mark 11:23)
• “So everyone who acknowledges me before men, I will also acknowledge before my Father who is in heaven, but whoever denies me before men, him I also will deny before My Father who is in heaven.” (Matthew 10:32-33)
• Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.” (Matthew 19:8-9)
• Jesus answered, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.” (Matthew 19:21)
• Jesus said to them, “Truly I tell you, at the renewal of all things, when the Son of Man sits on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or wife[e] or children or fields for my sake will receive a hundred times as much and will inherit eternal life. But many who are first will be last, and many who are last will be first. (Matthew 19:28-30)

So is Jesus anti-torah? Its seems more like he has an interpretation that is hard to wrap one's head around. The gospels are catholic in character. Jesus in Matthew seems to assert several axioms that affect how he interprets Torah:

Axiom #1. Jesus asserts we all have only 1 father (as opposed to a whole geneology of fathers). This affects everything if we follow its implications logically in relation to the commandment to honor father and mother.

Axiom #2. Jesus asserts this (his day) is the Time the prophets have looked forward to. He asserts this multiple times in the gospels; and this has implications for the interpretation of Torah since the prophets comment on it. He asserts that Jubilee is here, and its not just any jubilee but the one some prophets mention where many good things will happen. He makes various related assertions such as claiming John the Baptist is Elijah.

Axiom #3. Jesus asserts Jews are suffering for the good of the world, not suffering as punishment for something. This has implications for interpreting Torah. I won't go into it, but it seems like it affects many things.

When you are working with the above assumptions you are going to have a different interpretation of Torah from someone who does not hold these assumptions.

 

[christos]

This thread is about the Torah. The Torah is very different from the Old Testament. It's a common misconception. If you are reading the Old Testament and you believe that the Old Testament is Pagan. ( "Demi-urge" is Pagan ) it's probably because the translators are knowingly or unknowingly Pagan.

Have I got my texts muddled up?

Thank you for correcting me

 

[dybmh]

Thank you for correcting me

Perhaps the most important information I can offer anyone who's endeavor is researching the Torah and its origins is understanding the meaning of the word Pagan as it was practiced prior to the emergence of Jewish monotheism.

Do you know what it means to be Pagan?

 

[christos]

Perhaps the most important information I can offer anyone who's endeavor is researching the Torah and its origins is understanding the meaning of the word Pagan as it was practiced prior to the emergence of Jewish monotheism.

Do you know what it means to be Pagan?

I do not actually, please, what does Pagan mean?

 

[dybmh]

I do not actually, please, what does Pagan mean?

Prior to the emergence of Jewish monotheism the prevailing religious ( spiritual ) belief system was Pagan. Pagans at that time, and for the most part still today, view the world as a product of conflicting and chaotic forces at war with each other. If you read pagan mythology, the Gods are fighting with each other, scheming and plotting, etc..

It is easy to recognize a Pagan religion or theology if the individual / text / myth / practice / craft is perceiving or describing a sort of divine conflict or warfare. The conflict is produced by two or more different divine powers each with its own priorities, preferences, and motives. Each God has its own will and those wills are in conflict. That's Pagan.

 

[christos]

Prior to the emergence of Jewish monotheism the prevailing religious ( spiritual ) belief system was Pagan. Pagans at that time, and for the most part still today, view the world as a product of conflicting and chaotic forces at war with each other. If you read pagan mythology, the Gods are fighting with each other, scheming and plotting, etc..

It is easy to recognize a Pagan religion or theology if the individual / text / myth / practice / craft is perceiving or describing a sort of divine conflict or warfare. The conflict is produced by two or more different divine powers each with its own priorities, preferences, and motives. Each God has its own will and those wills are in conflict. That's Pagan.

Hm… interesting

Thank you for some insight

 

[dybmh]

Hm… interesting

Thank you for some insight

You are very welcome.

 

[John D. Brey]

Axiom #2. Jesus asserts this (his day) is the Time the prophets have looked forward to. He asserts this multiple times in the gospels; and this has implications for the interpretation of Torah since the prophets comment on it. He asserts that Jubilee is here, and its not just any jubilee but the one some prophets mention where many good things will happen. He makes various related assertions such as claiming John the Baptist is Elijah.

Your second axiom is extremely important in the sense that Judaism recognizes that the meaning of many of the decrees given in the Torah (for instance the decree to take a knife to the biological serpent, i.e., brit milah) are what Judaism calls a "chok." A "chok" is a decree whose meaning isn't known and won't be known until Messiah arrives. The meaning of these decrees, the so-called "chukkim," will be manifest in the birth, life, and death, of Messiah.

Take, for instance, ritual circumcision. It represents a birth conceived after the male-organ has been "cut" מיל out of the conception process, i.e., a virgin conception and birth. Similarly, after Abraham ritually cuts ברית מילה his fathering organ out of the conception of Isaac (meaning Isaac is, ritually speaking, virgin conceived and born), Abraham is given the decree (chok) to sacrifice this virgin born son. Ritually speaking, Abraham goes through the motions of sacrificing Isaac (aka the Akedah) just as he went through the motions of "ritually" removing the fathering-organ.

When Messiah comes, he will be born of an actual virgin birth, no fathering-organ in his conception, and he will be truly sacrificed (aka God's Akedah: the crucifixion).

Axiom #3. Jesus asserts Jews are suffering for the good of the world, not suffering as punishment for something. This has implications for interpreting Torah. I won't go into it, but it seems like it affects many things.

I think, according to the Tanakh, Israel is suffering for the good of the world, but also as punishment for something. The scripture is clear that punishment or not, Israel is being purified, cleansed, made ready (by their suffering), for their tremendous place in the eschatology of the end times and the Kingdom of God. The Bible seems to make nothing so clear as the fact that despite the fact that God turns his face from Israel, it's only temporary, and for the good of Israel. All anti-Semitism is anti-God.



John

 

[1213]

....
I hope that helps with what I mean when I say that the followers of Jesus appear to have died out within two generations of their start. If they had family, like children, their children did not continue in their way - OR their children stopped being indentifiable as being Jewish somewhere within 2 generations of the Jewish Christian movement's start. That means that when Jews join themselves to this beleif system, bad things eventually catch up with them and their are only 1 to 2 generations of indentifiable Jews within it.

Thank you now I think I understand what you meant. Obviously, if person decides to follow Jesus, he is not going to be like a Jew who doesn't do so. I don't think it means something bad happens to them.

But, it is interesting that according to the Bible, all Christians (disciples of Jesus) are still Jews.

If therefore the uncircumcised keep the ordinances of the law, won’t his uncircumcision be accounted as circumcision? Won’t the uncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfills the law, judge you, who with the letter and circumcision are a transgressor of the law? For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, neither is that circumcision which is outward in the flesh; but he is a Jew who is one inwardly, and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit not in the letter; whose praise is not from men, but from God.
Romans 2:26-29
But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, being a wild olive, were grafted in among them and became partaker with them of the root and of the richness of the olive tree, don’t boast over the brancEzek. But if you boast, it is not you who support the root, but the root supports you. You will say then, “Branches were broken off, that I might be grafted in.” True; by their unbelief they were broken off, and you stand by your faith. Don’t be conceited, but fear; for if God didn’t spare the natural branches, neither will he spare you.
Romans 11:17-21

At least if they have the "circumcision of the heart", which was foretold

Yahweh your God will circumcise your heart, and the heart of your seed, to love Yahweh your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, that you may live. Yahweh your God will put all these curses on your enemies, and on those who hate you, who persecuted you. You shall return and obey the voice of Yahweh, and do all his commandments which I command you this day. Yahweh your God will make you plenteous in all the work of your hand, in the fruit of your body, and in the fruit of your cattle, and in the fruit of your ground, for good: for Yahweh will again rejoice over you for good, as he rejoiced over your fathers;
Deut. 30:6-9

How I know this to be the case is based on what accounts the early Church Fathers accepted and what they banned and why it is beleived they banned some of the text such as the gospel of Judas, Thomas, Mary, Peter, etc.

So, allegedly there is even more writings about Jesus, which in other cases would make the person even more believable.

Do you think there is some contradiction between those writings and the ones picked in the Bible?

I also know it because I live in Israel and when one looks at the history of the region there are several historical claims made in the NT that did not happen anywhere near when the NT claims or didn't happen at all. Two good examples are the Census and the second is the claim of the Herod massacre of Jewish children in Beit Lechem. A third is the exist of Netzareth in the 2nd Temple period.

How do you know they didn't happen?

Thus, there was someone who most likely tried to start a movement, a cult, etc. and had followers. When he was taken out or died of natural causes his followers more than likely tried to pick up the peices when what they thought would happen didn't and then they started a bunch of legends about him.

Biggest problem to me about that claim is, why would someone do that about a person who actually "didn't do or say anything special"?

Those followers of the "HISTORICAL" Jesus appear to have died out / disappeared historically from the historical map ~2 generations after the movement started.

If that would be true, I don't think we would have the NT.

...gospels were created to match existing pagan beleifs to make conversion easier.

In that case they did a very poor job with that, because NT doesn't seem to fit to any other religion or belief system.

 

[1213]

...the ones who are being directed NOT to bury the dead would not know that at that time. Not yet. It's not even fully revealed publicly, arguably until the events described in the Book of Acts occur. This means, for them, Jesus is directing them to break the law. In order for me, dybmh, Jewish man, to feel OK about this passage:

I don't think Jesus is saying the death should not be buried, only that the person can leave it to the other, probably family members, to do.

For these reasons, I cannot accept Jesus as a friend of Torah. Either he didn't know the law? Or he didn't care about it? Are there any other option?

I don't think Jesus was against the law, because he said:

Don't think that I came to destroy the law or the prophets. I didn't come to destroy, but to fulfill. For most assuredly, I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not even one smallest letter{literally, iota} or one tiny pen stroke{or, serif} shall in any way pass away from the law, until all things are accomplished. Whoever, therefore, shall break one of these least commandments, and teach others to do so, shall be called least in the Kingdom of Heaven; but whoever shall do and teach them shall be called great in the Kingdom of Heaven.
Matt. 5:17-19

I disagree with you. If you're right, and the verse above consistent and true, always and forever, there would be some indicator of a mediator in the story of Hannah. See here: LINK Is there a mediator? Did Hannah go through a mediator? If not, a mediator is not needed. Keyword: needed.

Jesus taught people to pray directly God. So, I don't think the mediator means that you can't pray God directly.

I think Jesus is mediator in similar way as Moses was. And I think he was needed to establish the new covenant.

Seeing in the distance a fig tree in leaf, he went to find out if it had any fruit. When he reached it, he found nothing but leaves, because it was not the season for figs. 14 Then he said to the tree, “May no one ever eat fruit from you again.” And his disciples heard him say it. (Mark 11:13-14)

Ok. He was teaching an important lesson? Can we quote the verses to read about this event and then explore it together?

I think it is related to this:

Even now the axe lies at the root of the trees. Therefore, every tree that doesn't bring forth good fruit is cut down, and cast into the fire.
Matt. 3:10

And that leads to the idea, if one is righteous, he produces righteous "fruit". If one doesn't produce that fruit, he is not righteous. And unrighteous people will not get the eternal life.

These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.
Matt. 25:46
For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
Romans 6:23

 

[1213]

Some, I have seen praising Jesus, as the stumbling block for the Jews. They cheer him on. "Yes! There! Jesus is a stumbling block for the Jews!" And they applaud. This is not OK.

Isaiah? 5:20? "Woe to those who flip-flop" like this. A stumbling block is bitter, not sweet. Being a stumbling block for the Jew? It's anti-Torah.​

I don't think the Biblical message is that it is good, if Jews stumble. I think that is what made also Jesus sad that many Jews stumbled.

​

Jesus answered, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.” (Matthew 19:21)

​

This is a grey area as well. I understand what is meant by it, but, if it is understood literally? This is witch-craft. They are buying their way into heaven.​

I think that is an interesting interpretation. It does not speak about buying their way into heaven. It is about getting a treasure in heaven.

Jesus answered, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.” (Matthew 19:21)

OK. So, in this verse, it was not literal? As long as the individual understands what is good and right, then, they will have treasure in heaven?

I think it is literal. If you want to be perfect, go sell your possessions and give them to poor and then you will have treasure in heaven.

Verses like this are reasons why people confuse Jesus with God Almighty.

It is sad, if that makes people think Jesus is the God. Luckily Jesus told that there is only one true God who is greater than him, so there should not be any misunderstandings.

Does your church have a gift shop?

I think it would be wrong, if in the church there would be market place. I think it should be a place to honor God.

Administrative staff? A publishing house? A business office? People answering the phones? Do those people get paid?

Those must be in the temple and can't be in a separate place that is dedicated to those purposes?

Was it for a greater good? Had the offerings lost their impact? Was there a clear, present, and imminent threat? Maybe. Let's assume that there was. Danger is knocking on the door. I'm asking myself, was Jesus successful in his mission?

I think the mission of Jesus was to proclaim the message and establish the new covenant. I think he was successful in that , because even I can know about it after about 2000 years.

Best examples proving my point: the crusades and Spanish inquisition.

How can Jesus be blamed for those? Jesus didn't say people should do anything like that. I don't think the problem is what Jesus said, but that people don't know what he said and then some lie about it.

Calling us, Jews, children of Satan.

I don't think he called all Jews children of Satan. The children of satan are those who lie and are not righteous.

…He who does righteousness is righteous, even as he is right-eous. He who sins is of the devil, for the devil has been sinning from the beginning. To this end the Son of God was revealed, that he might destroy the works of the devil. Whoever is born of God doesn't commit sin, because his seed remains in him; and he can't sin, because he is born of God. In this the children of God are revealed, and the children of the devil. Whoever doesn't do righteousness is not of God, neither is he who doesn't love his brother.
1 John 3:7-10

 

[dybmh]

Jesus asserts we all have only 1 father

No John 8. Jesus here is quoted speaking about me and my father which is Satan the father of lies.

44 ( NIV ): You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies.​

​

Jesus asserts there at least 2 different Fathers. Those who oppose him come from a different, another, a 2nd God.

Jesus is very clearly anti-Torah in the book of John.

This one? He is "off-derech". Off the path/way.

 

[dybmh]

He asserts that Jubilee is here, and its not just any jubilee but the one some prophets mention where many good things will happen.

Thank you. @John D. Brey , hopefully this helps to corroborate my research and evaluation of the "Son-Of-Man" that I wrote about?

 

[dybmh]

Jesus asserts this (his day) is the Time the prophets have looked forward to. He asserts this multiple times in the gospels; and this has implications for the interpretation of Torah since the prophets comment on it. He asserts that Jubilee is here, and its not just any jubilee but the one some prophets mention where many good things will happen. He makes various related assertions such as claiming John the Baptist is Elijah.

This, to me, is nothing more than Jesus name-dropping for the purpose of bolstering his "street-cred" for lack of a better wording.

 

[dybmh]

Axiom #3. Jesus asserts Jews are suffering for the good of the world, not suffering as punishment for something. This has implications for interpreting Torah. I won't go into it, but it seems like it affects many things.

In order for this to Pro-Torah, there needs to be scripture in the Torah which explicitly or implicitly agrees: "Jews are suffering for the world." Can you provide something to support this?

To be clear, for it to be Pro-Torah, the chain of logic begins with the Torah. It does not, begin with the assumption: "Jews are suffering for the world" then re-interpret the Torah using presuming that assumption is true. That is not Pro-Torah. That is a spin-off, or a "what-if?" revision or rewrite.

 

[dybmh]

So is Jesus anti-torah?

My position is, Jesus is described in the gospels as either ignorant of the Torah or that his priorities do not include the Torah. Because of this, he doesn't care if people break the Torah. He encourages them to do so and role models the anti-Torah behavior himself.

Joshua Son of Nun writes:

​

1:8 This book of the Torah shall not leave your mouth; you shall meditate therein day and night, in order that you observe to do all that is written in it, for then will you succeed in all your ways and then will you prosper.​

---

Brick, my position is scriptural. With Ehav's help I brought specific examples from the Gospels to explain and support my position. You brought principles, one of which is not just false, but it's a deal breaker of Gaussian proportions. John 8, the implications of those hateful, angry words cannot be over-stated. The book of John is the most favored for a reason. It is the least Jewish and the most Pagan.

I would be happy to continue this discussion omitting the book of John, if you wish. Then, I respectfully request that you pick one of the other examples that I brought and we discuss that in detail.

Too often my conversations with individual on RF are superficial and shallow. I strongly believe this is because my conversation partner knows that once the details are included, their position evaporates. I am not interested in a shallow superficial conversation with you. I have already shown there are faults in the axioms you brought. I think we should skip those and look at scripture. Why? That's what's written in the Torah:

​

This book of the Torah shall not leave your mouth; you shall meditate therein day and night, ​

in order that you observe to do ALL that is written in it, ​

for then will you succeed in all your ways and then will you prosper.​

​

The keyword, Brick, in the above verse is ALL.

​

​

​

 

[dybmh]

To any and all reading this thread:

I am asking you:

Did Jesus succeed in all his ways?
Did Jesus prosper?

If he did not, then the Torah will be the judge:

Jesus son of Mary is anti-Torah because he did not succeed and he did not prosper.
Jesus died young, suffered, and the world is still a mess.

---

Joshua 1:8 This book of the Torah shall not leave your mouth; you shall meditate therein day and night, in order that you observe to do all that is written in it, for then will you succeed in all your ways and then will you prosper.

 

[dybmh]

Isn't that Schwarzenegger in one of the Terminator movie?

It's both. Reese is Sarah Connor's savior. Then this becomes a "passphrase" scripture that indicates John Connor can trust his guardian, the 2nd coming of Sarah's savior.

Same archetype. It's the valiant knight, the underdog, who sacrifices himself. Don't forget both saviors, 1st advent and 2nd coming, sacrifice themselves at the end.

 

[dybmh]

don't think Jesus is saying the death should not be buried, only that the person can leave it to the other, probably family members, to do.

No. You have departed from the text of the scripture. You're making excuses. And those excuses are not convincing for me. I doubt they will be convincing to any that are not already Christians. I suppose all that can be done at this point is deny it, right?

I don't think Jesus was against the law, because he said:

Don't think that I came to destroy the law or the prophets. I didn't come to destroy, but to fulfill. For most assuredly, I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not even one smallest letter{literally, iota} or one tiny pen stroke{or, serif} shall in any way pass away from the law, until all things are accomplished. Whoever, therefore, shall break one of these least commandments, and teach others to do so, shall be called least in the Kingdom of Heaven; but whoever shall do and teach them shall be called great in the Kingdom of Heaven.
Matt. 5:17-19

I stand corrected. In addition to denial, you can introduce a contradiction. That only makes it worse. There are 4 and only 4 options.

​

Option 1: Matthew 5 is true and Luke 9 is false​

Option 2: Luke 9 is true and Matthew 5 is false​

Option 3: They are both true, but they need explanation​

Option 4: They are 2 different versions of Jesus, the Christian gets to choose which they want to follow at any given moment.​

​

I presume that you will choose option 3. If so, please state your case. I'll refrain from replying further so that we can focus on one scriptural example at a time.