Is Jesus portrayed in the Gospels as Anti-Torah?

[dybmh]

Sure, if you wanted to join his discipleship, it was a come-on, you need nothing, let's go deal. But I don't take that as the whole meaning behind following him.

I agree. In a recent discussion regarding divine wrath and fear tactics the same point was raised. From my perspective I think it's very important to identify Jesus' audience in each of the episodes in the Gospels. When I read Jesus' teachings, I like to determine who Jesus was speaking to. That solves a lot of conflicts for me. The sermon on the mount is for the crowd, the masses. The teachings for the disciples is different. The teachings for the deniers is different. The teachings for the pharisees is different.

In Judaism, we have a concept of a Tzaddik. It literally means a "righteous" person. However, the title includes ... a lot more than that. One of the features of a Tzaddik is that they are able to tailor their teachings to each individual and address their individual needs at that moment in their lives.

My favorite example, is John 3? I think. The passage about being born of water and spirit? As a necessity to recognize Jesus' true nature and purpose? That was a private audience, and the inquiry began with the word: "Rabbi?" The man coming to Jesus was a pharisee? I think. These are important details to me. Jesus answered that man's question. And the answer was, imo, particularly addressing that individual at that time and at that place. The teaching is very interesting, of course. But I think that without considering whom Jesus is speaking to, a great deal will be lost to the reader.

 

[dybmh]

No,

Please be fair? You asked if it could mean anything else. I gave you a viable option.

it can as well mean, if someone else is burying a person, it is not necessary to do it yourself, especially if there is more important thing to do.

Agreed. But that is anti-Torah. The Torah does not consider preaching about the Kingdom more important. The Kingdom is not described anywhere in either the Hebrew Torah, nor the Greek scriptures, nor the epistles. Keep that in mind, please.

If what you're saying is true, then, following the law is less important than preaching about any undefined dream, or wishful fantasy? That is how people are lead astray by charlatans and snake-oil salesmen. I'm not saying Jesus was a charlatan. I'm saying that Jehovah's law protects the righteous Jew from charlatans and snake-oil salesmen. We are not permitted to follow someone and preach, just because we like they idea.

A righteous Jew does not break the law in favor of preaching a pipe-dream.

I expect that you will refer me back to all of Jesus' miracles, especially the Resurrection, to prove, beyond the shadow of a doubt that the Kingdom is NOT a pipe-dream. And that is fair, but only if the verses are taken out of context and considered here and now in 2024 AD. Jesus was not preaching in 2024. The man he was speaking to did not know what you know now. There was no Resurrection yet. At that time, for the individual who was being directed NOT to bury the dead, Jesus was preaching the equivalent of a pipe-dream.

Do you think a Jew should break the law under those conditions?

 

[dybmh]

Thanks for your explanation. I think it is clear that Jesus doesn't say "NOT to follow the law". He says let the other people bury the dead, which we can assume means that the person would be buried as required and the law would not be broken.

I agree he is not saying "NOT to follow the law". One of the benefits of speaking in parables ( riddles, double-speak ) is that the individual avoids culpability. What I think Jesus is saying here ( "let the dead bury the dead" ) has nothing to do with the law. He is not focused on the law. He either doesn't care about the law or doesn't know about the law. And. To be honest, I think it's a little of both. I doubt, very highly, that Jesus had access to the the law ( example: the lord of the sabbath episode ). He didn't have those "books". He had Isaiah, Psalms, and maybe Proverbs. He also was probably familiar with the book of Enoch. But. A person can do a lot with just those 2 books, Isaiah and Psalms.

What if? Jesus was not anti-Torah, instead he was teaching his own Torah? The Torah of Jesus which comes from Isaiah and Psalms? And this, the Torah of Jesus is not the same as the Torah of Moses? What do you think about that? Still divine, still coming from Jehovah, certainly. But it's a different Torah. It's the Torah of Jesus?

It solves a lot of problems. Right?

 

[Ehav4Ever]

So the argument that Jesus wasn't following the Torah when he said "let the dead bury the dead" is that only a son could honour his father by burying him?

The arguement would be, if the historical Jesus did respond the way the story claims, that Jesus was telling the man to break the Torah mitzvah for him [the man] to honor his parents. According to the story, the man stated he would follow Jesus but first he needed to bury his father. Jesus's response of, letting the dead bury the dead, telling the man to not honor his father. If the man had someone else lined up to bury his father it would more than likely would have been presented that way. The way it is presented he did not, and it was his duty to his father.

Also, according to the story there would have been no reason, that outweighs the honor to his father, for him to have first buried his father and then join Jesus at a later time.

Further, when Eliyahu the prophet approached Eliha, Elisha asked to first say goodbye to his parents and w/o challenge Eliyahu waited for him.

 

[Spice]

Matthew 16:24-25.



John

No doubt he was accepting his fate, and explaining to Peter how deep was his dedication, but I still don't see him seeking martyrs. I stick to his speaking to stop procrastination, to stop wasting "today."

 

[Ebionite]

The arguement would be, if the historical Jesus did respond the way the story claims, that Jesus was telling the man to break the Torah mitzvah for him [the man] to honor his parents.

That's the claim. The question is whether or not it is supported by the facts.

Torah mitzvah for him [the man] to honor his parents.

Yes, from Exodus 20:12 and similar. How does that relate to the man not being involved in the burial of his father?

Jesus's response of, letting the dead bury the dead, telling the man to not honor his father.

No, Jesus did not tell the man not to honour his father, you just made that up to support your claim.

If the man had someone else lined up to bury his father it would more than likely would have been presented that way.

In the exchange the 'someone else' is referred to as the dead, implying that the man's father would not be left unburied.

Also, according to the story there would have been no reason, that outweighs the honor to his father, for him to have first buried his father and then join Jesus at a later time.
Further, when Eliyahu the prophet approached Eliha, Elisha asked to first say goodbye to his parents and w/o challenge Eliyahu waited for him.

You don't have any connection between dishonouring a father and not burying a father.

Further, when Eliyahu the prophet approached Eliha, Elisha asked to first say goodbye to his parents and w/o challenge Eliyahu waited for him.

The difference here is that Elisha'a parents were still alive.

The difference between the living and the dead in relation to the Torah is evident in the first two commandments. The first is about the worship of living beings, the second is about the worship of lifeless things.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

That's the claim. The question is whether or not it is supported by the facts.
Yes, from Exodus 20:12 and similar. How does that relate to the man not being involved in the burial of his father?
No, Jesus did not tell the man not to honour his father, you just made that up to support your claim.
In the exchange the 'someone else' is referred to as the dead, implying that the man's father would not be left unburied.
You don't have any connection between dishonouring a father and not burying a father.
The difference here is that Elisha'a parents were still alive.
The difference between the living and the dead in relation to the Torah is evident in the first two commandments. The first is about the worship of living beings, the second is about the worship of lifeless things.

What one has to consider is that Christians or beleivers in Jesus have a particular view of the world and the text they use to support their ideas. We Jews who don't hold by those views see something different in the Christian texts, the history of the region, the history around the Christian texts, and the ultimate fate of Jews who originally followed these concepts. Knowning that these differences exist, I would still stand by the claim that (in Hebrew, and based on the Torah written and oral, no Torah based Jew would follow Jesus's advice, and shouldn't. It becomes clear to me why all of the Jews who followed some form of Jesus beleif disappeared off the historical map 2 generations after their start.

 

[Ebionite]

What one has to consider is that Christians or beleivers in Jesus have a particular view of the world and the text they use to support their ideas. We Jews who don't hold by those views see something different in the Christian texts, the history of the region, the history around the Christian texts, and the ultimate fate of Jews who originally followed these concepts. Knowning that these differences exist, I would still stand by the claim that (in Hebrew, and based on the Torah written and oral, no Torah based Jew would follow Jesus's advice, and shouldn't. It becomes clear to me why all of the Jews who followed some form of Jesus beleif disappeared off the historical map 2 generations after their start.

Yes, there is a difference in worldview between Christianity and Judaism. Standing by your original claim is simply a reflection of your tradition, and tradition is no guarantee of reliability for any religion.

The core issue here is the oral law that is recorded in the Talmud. The criticism from the gospels was that man-made traditions made the law burdensome and effectively replaced worship of deity with worship of man.

The question of what happened to the original disciples can be addressed by looking at the prophetic context of the crucifixion:

Awake, O sword, against my shepherd, and against the man [that is] my fellow, saith YHWH of armies: smite the shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered: and I will turn mine hand upon the little ones.
Zechariah 13:7

In that day there shall be a fountain opened to the house of David and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem for sin and for uncleanness.
And it shall come to pass in that day, saith YHWH of armies, [that] I will cut off the names of the idols out of the land, and they shall no more be remembered: and also I will cause the prophets and the unclean spirit to pass out of the land.
Zechariah 13:1-2

 

[Ehav4Ever]

Yes, there is a difference in worldview between Christianity and Judaism. Standing by your original claim is simply a reflection of your tradition, and tradition is no guarantee of reliability for any religion.

The core issue here is the oral law that is recorded in the Talmud.

That is why I stand away from a tradition when it comes to matters like this. I look at the historical content and the history of the claim. I have no problem doing while ignoring things like the Oral Torah while doing such a review.

Yet, what I have found is that when I take the Tanakh, in Hebrew, along with the history of the region that the events of the NT "supposidely" took place in, where I live, and then compare it to the various types and interations of Jesus centered beleif throughout history, I see enough reasons to say that I don't see anything in the Christian beleif that lines up with the commands that Hashem gave to Am Yisrael in the Torah and I see enough historical information to say, that the beleif always ends bad for Jews who join it.

I also actually know a couple of fellow Jews who fell into the Christian beleif and didn't end well for them.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

Yes, there is a difference in worldview between Christianity and Judaism.

I would also say that I see within certain elements of Christian claims to be centered around an idea of, "Just beleive and don't think to much." I see this when very simple historical questions are brought up that should be easy to answer with something realistic. I also notice in the fact that the majority of Christians can't take a Hebrew text and prove out the theological claims as well as ignoring historical issues with the NT text itself.

That is why I keep saying that:

1. There more than likely was a historical Jesus, or more than one individual the Jesus stories were based on.
2. Then there is the Jesus that the NT authors invented.

 

[Ebionite]

1) Practical problem: If what you're saying is true then there is no requirement to bury the dead who died of natural causes?

People often do reasonable things despite there being no religious requirement to do them.

2) Theological problem: From the Christian perspective all of us are being put to death for our sins when we die?

The Christian perspective ignores the doctrine from Ezekiel that a man can avoid death by changing his path to a righteous one. The idea of becoming immortal is present in the Christian gospels and is also found in the Gospel of Thomas. The problem is that Christianity has a specific formula for salvation which primarily involves belief in Christian doctrine rather than a change in the way that a life is lived.

3) Contextual problem: This is not what Jesus is teaching in Luke 9 with the directive: "Let the dead bury the dead" ?

IMO interpreting "let the dead bury the dead" should consider the "I AM" claims relating to Jesus, one of which is:

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

Taking this into account the dead would be people who live secular lives rather than one that relates to Elohim.

 

[dybmh]

The Christian perspective ignores the doctrine

So, in order for Luke 9 to be consistent with the Torah you're throwing Christian doctrine under the bus?

I like you. You're hired! Donuts are in the break room, help yourself.

Taking this into account the dead would be people who live secular lives rather than one that relates to Elohim.

Can you connect this, above, to your workaround for Luke 9. I'm trying to shoe-horn it, but, It doesn't work. They contrast.

You're saying, the man didn't need to be buried because he didn't die as a consequence of sin? Right? That doesn't match what you wrote above. They're clashing or at least completely unrelated.

 

[Ebionite]

I would also say that I see within certain elements of Christian claims to be centered around an idea of, "Just beleive and don't think to much."

Absolutely. From Paul:

For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.
Romans 1:17

But there's a caveat with that:

Behold, his soul [which] is lifted up is not upright in him: but the just shall live by his faith.
Yea also, because he transgresseth by wine, [he is] a proud man, neither keepeth at home, who enlargeth his desire as hell, and [is] as death, and cannot be satisfied, but gathereth unto him all nations, and heapeth unto him all people:
Habakkuk 2:4-5

I see this when very simple historical questions are brought up that should be easy to answer with something realistic.

Yes, one of the criticisms of Christianity is that doctrinal proofs from the Tanak can be superficial.

I also notice in the fact that the majority of Christians can't take a Hebrew text and prove out the theological claims as well as ignoring historical issues with the NT text itself.

IMO Christian theology is build on Christian apologetics, and this goes back to the relationship between church and state where religious cohesion was a political objective rather that an ethical one.

That is why I keep saying that:

1. There more than likely was a historical Jesus, or more than one individual the Jesus stories were based on.
2. Then there is the Jesus that the NT authors invented.

Yes, the righteous servant had a problem with false witnesses, and sometimes the gospels will take repeat their side of the story, specifically the sign relating to the destruction of the second temple.

 

[Ebionite]

So, in order for Luke 9 to be consistent with the Torah you're throwing Christian doctrine under the bus?

There's a lot of material in Luke 9, but in general I think that it's appropriate to criticise doctrine if it is inconsistent with the Torah.

Can you connect this, above, to your workaround for Luke 9. I'm trying to shoe-horn it, but, It doesn't work. They contrast.

You're saying, the man didn't need to be buried because he didn't die as a consequence of sin? Right? That doesn't match what you wrote above. They're clashing or at least completely unrelated.

What I'm saying is that the Torah places no obligation on anyone to bury someone who wasn't put to death and hanged on a tree according to the following verses:

And if a man have committed a sin worthy of death, and he be to be put to death, and thou hang him on a tree:
His body shall not remain all night upon the tree, but thou shalt in any wise bury him that day; (for he that is hanged [is] accursed of Elohim that thy land be not defiled, which YHWH thy Elah giveth thee [for] an inheritance.
Deuteronomy 21:22-23

 

[dybmh]

What I'm saying is that the Torah places no obligation on anyone to bury someone who wasn't put to death and hanged on a tree according to the following verses:

You're right. However, what happens if any corpse is not buried? It's not good right? So, we apply some logic. If it's a curse not to bury one who has died from being punished for their sin, how much more so, for one that has not died as a consequence of their punishment for a sin?

To put it another way:

His body shall not remain all night upon the tree, but thou shalt in any wise bury him that day; (for he that is hanged [is] accursed of Elohim that thy land be not defiled, which YHWH thy Elah giveth thee [for] an inheritance.

If you please, "that the land not be defiled"? If any corpses are not buried, is the land purified by this? The land is defiled if any corpse is not buried, but especially if they were killed for a capital offense.

But you're still not addressing my question.

Jesus is teaching a lesson in luke 9: "Let the dead bury the dead", right? What is that lesson? Does that have anything to do with the verse in Deut 21? If not, then I think you're making an interesting point about Deut 21, but that point is disconnected from the problem of Luke 9. Unless you there is some reason to believe that people were not actually obligated to bury the dead, and corpses are fine to lay around and rot in the open per the Torah.

I suppose if we need another verse I'll bring: Gen 3:19

"With the sweat of your face you shall eat bread, until you return to the ground, for you were taken therefrom, for dust you are, and to dust you will return."

Dust to dust. That means the corpse should be buried?

We could also look to the Abraham's example when he buried Sarah himself. He didn't give that duty to someone who was "dead" spiritually.

 

[Ebionite]

You're right. However, what happens if any corpse is not buried?

If the corpse is not of someone who is cursed then nothing apart from the stink and the possibility of attracting predators.

If it's a curse not to bury one who has died from being punished for their sin, how much more so, for one that has not died as a consequence of their punishment for a sin?

Your question (assumes as far as the Torah is concerned) that burial is a consequence of death rather than a consequence of being hanged on a tree with the associated curse.

And if a man have committed a sin worthy of death, and he be to be put to death, and thou hang him on a tree:
His body shall not remain all night upon the tree, but thou shalt in any wise bury him that day; (for he that is hanged [is] accursed of Elohim that thy land be not defiled, which YHWH thy Elah giveth thee [for] an inheritance.
Deuteronomy 21:22-23

There is no curse associated with someone who died from natural causes.

If you please, "that the land not be defiled"?

טמא, translated as defile, can relate to the ceremonial uncleanness of a dead body.

In Ezekiel 9 the slain were killed because of their sin, so it's reasonable to conclude that the meaning of the word relates to that.

And he said unto them, Defile the house, and fill the courts with the slain: go ye forth. And they went forth, and slew in the city.
Ezekiel 9:7

If any corpses are not buried, is the land purified by this?

I don't think so.

The land is defiled if any corpse is not buried, but especially if they were killed for a capital offense.

What is your basis for this from the Torah?

Jesus is teaching a lesson in luke 9: "Let the dead bury the dead", right? What is that lesson?

That people should focus on life more than on death, IMO.

Does that have anything to do with the verse in Deut 21?

Yes, because the verse is about a special case of death.

Unless you there is some reason to believe that people were not actually obligated to bury the dead, and corpses are fine to lay around and rot in the open per the Torah.

Yes, because burying the dead is done primarily for practical reasons rather than religious ones.

Dust to dust. That means the corpse should be buried?

No, because a corpse with naturally decompose over time to become as the dust of the earth.

We could also look to the Abraham's example when he buried Sarah himself. He didn't give that duty to someone who was "dead" spiritually.

Burial can also be an act of closure to sever the emotional ties to the deceased, and there's no reason to think that he was called for a divine purpose at that time.

 

[dybmh]

If the corpse is not of someone who is cursed then nothing apart from the stink and the possibility of attracting predators.

Yes. Those consequences? Do they indicate divine approval for leaving the corpse above ground? The flies? The rats? They carry disease. Vermin and pestilence are associated with demons and curses. See Psalm 91?

Your question (assumes as far as the Torah is concerned) that burial is a consequence of death rather than a consequence of being hanged on a tree with the associated curse.

What I'm assuming is that burying the corpse is more dignified to the corpse and the memory of the deceased than leaving it above ground to rot, and stink, and bloat, and draw all kinds nasty critters. Can we agree on this? If so, then if only the corpses of the sinner on a pole is required to be put in the ground, then the sinner's body and the sinner's memory is required to be dignified, but the others aren't required to be dignified. Does that make sense to you?

You don' need to agree wit me. I'm just curious at this point if you understand my point of view? The sinner's corpse should not get more dignity and care than the innocent.

I'll stop here, but I'll read what you wrote so that we can discuss it if needed.

 

[Ebionite]

Yes. Those consequences? Do they indicate divine approval for leaving the corpse above ground? The flies? The rats? They carry disease. Vermin and pestilence are associated with demons and curses. See Psalm 91?

There are many things for which there is neither divine approval or disapproval.

What I'm assuming is that burying the corpse is more dignified to the corpse and the memory of the deceased than leaving it above ground to rot, and stink, and bloat, and draw all kinds nasty critters. Can we agree on this?

Sure, that's reasonable.

If so, then if only the corpses of the sinner on a pole is required to be put in the ground, then the sinner's body and the sinner's memory is required to be dignified, but the others aren't required to be dignified. Does that make sense to you?

You're leaving about the part about the curse.

I'm just curious at this point if you understand my point of view?

I interpret your point of view to be based on a conflation of Deuteronomy 21:23 with the usual social norms associated with burying a corpse.

 

[1213]

Please be fair? You asked if it could mean anything else. I gave you a viable option.

Sorry, I don't think it is a viable option, especially if we take into account all that he said.

If what you're saying is true, then, following the law is less important than preaching about any undefined dream, or wishful fantasy?

What do you think it the greatest commandment in the law? Is it not the "love Yahweh your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your might"? Wouldn't that mean you do God's will, if asked?

A righteous Jew does not break the law in favor of preaching a pipe-dream.

By what i know, they preached that people should be or become righteous. I think that is the main message, because:

These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.
Matt. 25:46
For the wages of sin is death...
Romans 6:23

I expect that you will refer me back to all of Jesus' miracles, especially the Resurrection, to prove, beyond the shadow of a doubt that the Kingdom is NOT a pipe-dream.

I think the kingdom is not a pipe dream, I think it is already here, among those who keep Jesus as their king.

Do you think a Jew should break the law under those conditions?

I think Jews should not brake the law in any case. I think that is also what Jesus says.

 

[1213]

I agree he is not saying "NOT to follow the law".

Thank you.

One of the benefits of speaking in parables ( riddles, double-speak ) is that the individual avoids culpability. What I think Jesus is saying here ( "let the dead bury the dead" ) has nothing to do with the law. He is not focused on the law.

to me the scripture shows it was obvious to him.

He either doesn't care about the law or doesn't know about the law.

I don't see how one could say honestly that he doesn't care, when he tells it is valid.

What if? Jesus was not anti-Torah, instead he was teaching his own Torah? The Torah of Jesus which comes from Isaiah and Psalms? And this, the Torah of Jesus is not the same as the Torah of Moses? What do you think about that? Still divine, still coming from Jehovah, certainly. But it's a different Torah. It's the Torah of Jesus?

What is the difference?