Is Jesus portrayed in the Gospels as Anti-Torah?

[dybmh]

Hello,

This question was posed in a recent debate thread, but it deserves it's own thread. @Ehav4Ever asserted that Jesus in the Gospels is anti-Torah. He brought a list of examples. @1213 asked for explanations why these verses describe behavior which is counter to the Hebrew Torah that was given at Sinai per our shared beliefs.

Below is the list of verses which Ehav brought. This is post #203 from the corresponding thread. LINK

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)

1213 asked for explanation. Here is my reply:

---

“‘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).

The priority is to do our religious duty which God Almighty has commanded. That duty, as written in the Torah, is to bury the dead, not to preach and convert. In order to change this, it would require another event of a magnitude equal or greater than the Exodus from Egypt and the revelation at Sinai.​

​

If you can locate something, anything, written in the Torah, which directs, or even implies, that a Jewish person needs to "proclaim the Kingdom of God"? That would be very useful in regard to the argument Ehav is making. I am saying this with nothing but love and affection in my heart.​

​

---

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)

There's several ways to show that this is anti-Torah. The best example, in my opinion, is Hannah. She did not need Christ to come to The Father. But, really, if this statement is true, literally true, then each and every prophet prior to Jesus' earthly ministry are false. That's why this verse is against the Torah. There are 2 ways to reconcile it. ​

​

1) It's not literal at all. It's hyperbolic. It's exaggerated for effect.​

2) Jesus is speaking only to the ones which were present in the room and no one else.​

​

---

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)

This one should be simple. It is prohibited per Moses to destroy a fruit tree out of spite. Deuteronomy 20:19. And I would also argue, it's a very poor example for a minister of God. Leviticus 19:2: "You shall be holy like I, Jehovah, am holy". Destroying the fruit tree? Which God Almighty is blossoming is not holy like Jehovah. It's the opposite.​

​

---

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.

​

I agree this is a grey area. The argument that is made about this, that I am aware of, is: Jesus has become a stumbling block for the blind. That is prohibited. Leviticus 19:14. I think you'll find that there is commentary which flips this into a positive? I'm not sure what you think of that commentary. There is so much variance in the interpretation of the Greek scriptures. 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.​

​

---

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. They are attempting to subvert God's will and replace it with their own. Elsewhere, I hope we agree, Jesus is teaching the the Christian to petition: "THY will be done, heavenly Father". THY will. If this verse is read in isolation or interpreted literally, the aspiring Christian is being lead astray. It stops being a petition for THY will, and it becomes a sort of recipe for MY will to be done. And that is the root of idol worship and witch-craft.​

​

---

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)

This one is tricky. The fault is in the middle. "for MY sake". That's a no-no. Leviticus 10:3. Glory goes to Jehovah, ONLY. There's nothing wrong with approaching the Lord, but it must be done in the right way. This is wrong. Verses like this are reasons why people confuse Jesus with God Almighty.​

​

---

1213 replied with some follow up comments and questions. I will reply to those in the following post.

​

​

 

[dybmh]

Ok, thanks for your answer, nice that you got the scriptures also.

I think Jesus event was of a that magnitude. But, perhaps that is just matter of opinion.

“‘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).

A fair point. But for me, I cannot get past the sequence of the events. In order to agree with you, I need to depart from scripture in time and in place.

Jesus, at this point had not been resurrected yet. The authority of the Father was granted after the Resurrection. Even if Jesus always and forever is doing the will of the Father, 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:

1) Jesus would need to have proven to those people, at that time, that Jehovah had bestowed authority onto him.​

or​

2) Jesus would have needed to bring scripture from Jehovah indicating that preaching the imminent arrival of the Kingdom is their religious duty.​

Further, I absolutely appreciate that taken as a whole, the earthly ministry of Jesus, including the Resurrection, is an event of at least similar magnitude of the Exodus+Sinai revelation. I am not arguing against that. It makes perfect sense to me. But. That cannot be applied in this case. It's out of context. Those events hadn't happened yet in the story. The individuals do not have the benefit of our awareness of the whole story from 4 textual witnesses, and a long list of witnesses throughout history, all over the world, which came after.

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? The answer is yes. But, in my judgement, it is not a compelling valid alternative. Again, in this case.

There is an argument that can be made: What is the Torah? Is it the letter of the law? Is it the spirit of the law? Is it the wisdom to know the difference on a case by case basis? That, my friend, I think, is a very valuable and useful question to ask. Perhaps Jesus was anti-law? Maybe? Anti-law when there is a greater good? If so, maybe, Jesus was not anti-Torah? Jesus was anti-law? The way to test it would be, by asking another question: Was it wise?

But, what do you think, if there would be a situation where person would have to chose to save many people, or to bury one dead person, what would be the right choice?

The right choice would be to do both.

If the law is subverted in that one case publicly, it is very bad example for any others who observe it. What happens to the corpse? That corpse is going to be noticed. Once people think it's OK to skip and ignore divine law... well. I struggle to see good coming from that. In order for me, dybmh, to feel OK about this, the circumstances would need to be grave and immediately threatening the well being of the entire community.

Immediate. In other words, specifically: It's NOT-OK to ignore the law because: "a Satan is coming, your soul will eventually be discarded into the trash heap when you die." That is not a good enough reason to break the seal of the law. Burying the corpse takes about 3 hours. I've done it myself in my community. We do it, ourselves. By hand. With shovels. Why? Because that is the law. And, it is not easy to do. But we do it it any way. Why? Because. Jehovah commanded us to do it.

That's why, in my judgement, the right thing to do, in Luke 9:59-60? Do both. Bury the dead per the divine decree. Then Psalms. Then wash. Then preach the word of God to whomever has ears to hear and eyes to see. That would have been the right thing to do.

Not necessary. It is possible Jesus is the mediator, or the person who makes it possible and still the other prophets are also true. Also, it can be from that point onward.

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)

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.

Maybe it helps to have a mediator? But it's not needed. Because of this, the verse in John becomes either hyperbolic, or, directed to only those people in the room. The alternative is not OK. If this verse is literally true? Friend? Everything that precedes this in scripture is a lie. That is not OK. For myself, or any other Jewish person who is a student of scripture. It is a no-go. Red light. Stop.

This verse? Ruined Christianity for me. I am not kidding. There is no way I am praying through Jesus. Why should I? I have been directed, by King David: Make joyful noise! To whom? Jehovah. Is there a mediator? No! To whom is King David writing to? The entire world! Is there a temple standing and operating at this time? No! No one needs to go through Jesus to get to the Father if they are faithful to scripture.

Psalm 100 ( NWT ) - LINK​

Shout in triumph to Jehovah, all the earth.​

Serve Jehovah with rejoicing.​

Come into his presence with joyful shouting.​

Know that Jehovah is God.​

He is the one who made us, and we belong to him.​

We are his people and the sheep of his pasture.​

The book of John? Ruined it. Spoiled. I cannot get on board with it. The stories in it need a complete overhaul in order for me, dybmh, to consider the protagonist the progeny of King David. We Jews, and the righteous of Israel, we shout triumph to Jehovah and no one else. That is how, H-O-W, we get to the Father. It is with, in, and, through our collective joy: B'Simcha! ( בְּשִׂמְחָ֑ה ) In Hebrew from verse 2.

We follow King David's example. There is a reason we are emblazoned with the Star of David. You are witnesses of Jesus? We are the progeny of King David in spirit. We go to Jehovah alone. Without any mediator through our joy. Not through Jesus. That is the Torah. Going through Jesus is anti-Torah. It is discarding the book of Psalms as utterly insignificant.

I don't think it was out of spite. It was because Jesus saw it was not going to produce fruit. And in a way the same is with people and God, who is not going to spare people who are not righteous.

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?

 

[dybmh]

I think Jesus did right thing, God's temple should not be a marketplace. Does the Torah say the temple is or can be a marketplace?

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.

Yes. God's temple can be a market place. It's written, I think at the beginning of numbers. Perhaps it's elaborated in Chronicles. I don't recall. But more importantly, it doesn't say the temple can't be a market place. If it did, the temple would never be able to function. Are the offerings supposed to be a free for all? Even if there is no profit, it's unsustainable without some form of commerce. It's unsustainable without an infrastructure supporting the temple's work. It's just like any church.

Does your church have a gift shop? Administrative staff? A publishing house? A business office? People answering the phones? Do those people get paid? It's like that.

People go to the temple, there's a market. It supports the temple service and people are able to go there, get what they need, make their offering. Knocking that down is making oneself into a stumbling block and causing all kinds of problems for everyone. It was an act of civil disobedience not unlike protesters marching out into the streets and stopping traffic. It's a major stumbling block. No one is crossing that bridge to effect atonement because Jesus blocked them.



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 vote no. Jesus did not bring the solution and deliver it. Maybe he knew the cure for the disease. Maybe. Maybe he tried. Maybe. But he could not deliver. And I am asking myself why? Why and how did Jesus fail? With all of that talent? What happened? The deck was stacked in his favor. He is the first? He is The Word of God made flesh? How could he have failed? Something went dreadfully wrong. Something big.

Because Jesus did not succeed, that means all of his choices become the subject for investigation by those of us who care. What went wrong? I look at the events like this one, in the temple market, and also in regard to the hand washing, and also in regard to the Lord of the Sabbath, and I see a lot of problems there. What Jesus was doing in that time and place, assuming the stories are true, was risky. Very. Was it bold? Or was it Foolish?

What he did, all through his earthly ministry, including blocking the offerings, to make a political and religious statements against the pharisees and the corrupt scribes, was a waste and made matters worse. Best examples proving my point: the crusades and Spanish inquisition. Was it well intended? Probably. But it was anti-Torah, that's for sure. It was not wise. If Jesus is who you claim, he should have known better. It can be seen, clearly, in review of world history in the form of the persecution, murder, and character assassination of Jewish people through no fault of our own. But, what about "Christiandom?" Had Jesus not been so flamboyant, maybe none of that would have happened? Maybe he would lived a fuller longer life and wrote us a few books from his own hand.

And in this case I think it is the "blindness" that causes people to stumble. And there is nothing to cheer about if people don't see and therefore stumble.

No. People stumble because of Jesus' poor example. Over turning the the market in the temple? The threat to destroy it? Cursing the fig tree? Calling us, Jews, children of Satan. That is a stumbling block which has caused many many deaths. If Jesus is who you claim, he would have known the outcome, and he would have prevented it. Did he conquer Satan or not? Clearly not. The world is a mess.

Interesting interpretation. I think it does not mean that person buys a way to heaven in that. Firstly, it says they will have treasure in heaven, which is not the same as getting into heaven. And also, I think it is not because of the giving money, but because understanding what is good and right.

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 good to notice, Jesus says also:

Sell your possessions and give alms. Make for yourselves purses that do not grow old, an unfailing treasure in Heaven, where a thief cannot come near, nor moth can corrupt.

Luke 12:33

And I understand the meaning is, good deeds are greater treasure than money. Is it not true?

So, you would like Luke 12:33 to moderate ( soften? sweeten? ) Matthew 19:21? Please confirm?

I don't think that scripture means glory doesn't go to God only, for example because Jesus himself gives glory to God, by saying that he could do nothing without God.

Jesus therefore answered them, "Most assuredly, I tell you, the Son can do nothing of himself, but what he sees the Father doing. For whatever things he does, these the Son also does like-wise.

John 5:19

This is eternal life, that they should know you, the only true God, and him whom you sent, Jesus Christ.

John 17:3

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)

And you would also like to include the verses from John 5 and 17 which further moderate ( soften? sweeten? ) the verses from Matthew 19? Please confirm?

 

[Ehav4Ever]

Is there someone who has not disappeared from historical map from that era?

Yes, here are some:

1. The descendants of Ya'aqov ben-Yitzhaq (Jacob son of Isaac) have not disappeared off the historical map. We are still here.
2. The descendants of Aharon ben-Amram Hakohen (Aaron son of Amram the Cohen - brother of Moses). His descendants are still here among modern day Jews.
3. The descendants of King Dawith ben-Yishai (David son of Yishai) and his son Shelomo ben-Dawith (Solomon son of David) are still among modern day Jews.
4. The descendants of the Perushim (Pharisees) of the 2nd Temple period are still here among the Jewish people.
5. The descendants students of Rabban Gamliel are still among the Jewish people in modern times.
6. In fact, the Samaritans mentioned in the NT are still here, though they only number about 1,000 people in the land of Israel.

Now, let us look at Jesus and his students / followers.

1. There are no indentifiable, or claimed, Jews who exist in the modern day and claim descent from Jesus.
2. There are no indentifiable, or claimed, Jews who exist in the modern day and claim descent from any of Jesus's 12 disciples.
3. There are no indentifiable, or claimed, Jews who exist in the modern day and claim descent from Paul of Tarsus and any of his followers.
4. There are no indentifiable, or claimed, Jews who exist in the modern day and claim descent from any Jews who claim that Jesus healed them.
5. There are no indentifiable, or claimed, Jews who exist in the modern day who claim descent from anyone who witnessed any of the events mentioned in the book of Acts.

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.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

@1213 Wrote in the other thread

Ehav@Ever's response:
If you remember I stated that the NT version of claimed Jesus did not exist. There was more than likely a "HISTORICAL" Jesus who the stories of the NT based on. YET, that "HISTORICAL" Jesus did not do or say most of what is claimed in the NT for him to have done and said. 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.

Those followers of the "HISTORICAL" Jesus appear to have died out / disappeared historically from the historical map ~2 generations after the movement started. Whatever was left of what they wrote / beleived made its way to the non-Jewish regions that had contact with the land of Israel and spread there among non-Jews who had no way to verify / check the stories. It is also possible that some of the made up stories about the "HISTORICAL" Jesus that made its way into the accepted and not accepted gospels were created to match existing pagan beleifs to make conversion easier.

Do you understand?

 

[Ehav4Ever]

@1213 wrote:

Ehav@Ever's response:
I am saying that there is:

1. Historical Jesus - An actual individual who lived at some point in history. Somewhere around the 2nd Temple period. Potentially killed by the Romans or other means. Did very little in the way of actual action during that time.
2. Fictional Jesus - A mythical invention by the authors of the NT. It may have been based on some kernal of real history of the Historical Jesus.

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. 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.

 

[John D. Brey]

The priority is to do our religious duty which God Almighty has commanded. That duty, as written in the Torah, is to bury the dead, not to preach and convert. In order to change this, it would require another event of a magnitude equal or greater than the Exodus from Egypt and the revelation at Sinai.​

​

Jesus constantly says to his audience: "You have heard it written" (speaking of the written Torah), "but I tell you," (speaking of the oral, living, Torah). Which is to say that Jesus doesn't pit his statements against the written Torah, but juxtaposes his oral Torah, living breath, with the dead-letter.

When he says let the dead bury the dead, he's speaking of those Jewish exegetes, those experts in the Law, who serve the dead-letter not the living Spirit; he's speaking of those whose faith is born of the scroll before blood is drawn from it to prove it's more than a lifeless idol (can the written scroll bleed?). He's saying he's the Torah that can, will, bleed; and that the blood from this Torah scroll is the true manna from heaven מציצה בפה (John 6:53).

For those unfamiliar with the gravity of even the generality of Jewish symbolism and thought, the paragraph above, with emphasis on the last sentence, could be, with apologies to @IndigoChild5559, considered "hidden." To reveal what's being said, a person would need to already know that the Torah scroll is like God's own reproductive organ, the organ through which he father's his righteous seed. As such, that Torah scroll, the so-called "divine phallus" must be bled, dam brit ברית דם, to prove it's circumcised; to prove there's real, life, blood, inside.

If the Torah scroll father's offspring prior to proving the offspring are clones from the blood of the scroll, rather than a Duke's mixture ala sexual mixing, then the offspring of the scroll are like Cain, and Ishmael, the two would-be firstborn who would be messianic sons if they were conceived of the blood of the scroll rather than the sexual seed that's the so-called "evil smelling drop" (Avot 3:1).

In a traditional circumcision (brit milah) blood from the biological scroll is drawn and metzitzah bpeh is performed as the summum bonum of the ritual. Then, blood dripping from the scroll, and the mouth of the mohel, is wiped up with a special cloth that often becomes a "wimpel," which, the latter, is a cloth wrapped around the written Torah scroll to imply that it, like the biological scroll, must be bled if it's to father Abraham's spiritual seed rather than imposters like Cain and Ishmael.

When Jesus says let the dead bury the dead, he's saying let those who trifle with sacred things by exegeting the dead-letter as though it could really bleed, let them believe they're Abel to be Isaac rather than that they Cain be none other than the carnal avatars of Ishmael:

The impurity of a person suffering from seminal discharge is of a different nature; his own body is its source. This too is the result of what happened with the original serpent, since the latter polluted man as a species. This is the prime reason why we experience impurity when any seminal discharge occurs . . . Had man never sinned, this very semen would have been considred as something sacred and would most certainly not have caused impurity. As it is, the Mishnah describes such semen as "an evil smelling drop" (Avot 3,1) . . . the evil urge has become a "resident" within man . . ..​

​

Shney Luchot Habrit, vol. 3, p. 858-859.​

John

 

[Ehav4Ever]

Jesus constantly says to his audience: "You have heard it written" (speaking of the written Torah), "but I tell you," (speaking of the oral, living, Torah). Which is to say that Jesus doesn't pit his statements against the written Torah, but juxtaposes his oral Torah, living breath, with the dead-letter.

The minute that the NT authors have Jesus stating, "but I tell you," It is equivalent to them saying that Jesus was establishing or making up his own halakha / Jewish law. That statement is more of something akin to making a judicial ruling, even though, based on the content of the stories in the gospels, he had no grounds or authority to make any halakhic / Judicial rulings. If one were to beleive they had the authority to make such a statement, it is not logical for these statements to be made in the environments that the NT Jesus was making them. It would have made more sense to get on the Sanhedrin and into a Judicial position. That is the only place that something of this nature, the level of his claim, would have any meaning. Yet, again that is if one accepts that the historical Jesus said any of that.

 

[John D. Brey]

The minute that the NT authors have Jesus stating, "but I tell you," It is equivalent to them saying that Jesus was establishing or making up his own halakha / Jewish law.

Exactly.

That statement is more of something akin to making a judicial ruling, even though, based on the content of the stories in the gospels, he had no grounds or authority to make any halakhic / Judicial rulings. If one were to beleive they had the authority to make such a statement, it is not logical for these statements to be made in the environments that the NT Jesus was making them. It would have made more sense to get on the Sanhedrin and into a Judicial position. That is the only place that something of this nature, the level of his claim, would have any meaning. Yet, again that is if one accepts that the historical Jesus said any of that.

Correct. Jesus isn't arguing with the Sanhedrin or the experts in the Law. As anyone familiar with these things knows, the experts in the Law are experts par excellent. They really are head and shoulders beyond mere mortals trying to understand the Law.

Jesus isn't arguing interpretation of the Law. He's doing something far worse, something that demands the death-sentence he received: he's saying he's the source of the written Law. He's saying he's the Logos, the Torah that the Sages claim existed two-thousand years before the giving of the written Law.

As such, Jesus doesn't trifle with the exegesis of the experts in the Law. He doesn't want to read meaning out of the written text as they do. He wants them to know he's topside the missionary position concerning intercourse with the Law. He impregnates the written text with his blood, such that the meaning thereafter derived is a clone of him, come from his blood, and not a mixture of the written text and his fleshly body ala the sexual kind of mixing that's come from the "evil smelling drop" (Avot 3:1).

. . . It is clear that the zoharic authorship, consistent with standard medieval views, reflecting in turn ancient Greco-Roman as well as Near Eastern cultural assumptions, identified the writing instrument (pen or chisel) with the phallus, on one hand, and the tablet or page with the female on the other.​

​

Professor Elliot Wolfson, Circle in the Square, p. 62.​

The "evil smelling drop" is tantamount to the lead of the pencil, or the ink of the pen. It places something onto or into the tablet or page the mixing of which produces sexual, that is, binary, meaning. Blood on the other hand implies that the meaning is a clone from the one who provides the blood.

It may be concluded from these and other passages that in zoharic literature engraving letters, or more generally the process of writing or inscription, is a decidedly erotic activity: the active agent of writing is the male principle; the written letters are the semen virile, and the tablet or page upon which the writing is accomplished is the female principle. . . It is obvious, therefore, that the letters must be seen as the semen that the male imparts to the female.​

​

Ibid. p 68.​

Professor Wolfson erroneously parallels writing with a pen versus engraving with an izmel, the latter being the act of a priest producing a hieroglyph rather than a non-priest writing with a pen, which, the latter, isn't a sacred act. Writing produces sexual text such that interpretation is of a necessity a proliferation of meaning like sexual reproduction. Engraving is a priestly act where the tool used doesn't leave anything of itself to mix with the tablet or earthen mother. Engraving signifies removing a earthen veil that hides what's already there, rather producing something new through mixing the ink or lead of the pen or pencil and the paper ala sexual reproduction. Engraving uncovers holy-glyphs, hiero-glyphs, while writing produces demotic, carnal, offspring.

Jesus' is found in the earth of his mother's womb before that earth has been opened by what a pen-is in the sexual kind of writing. Jesus is a sacred Word hidden beneath the earth such that what the pen-is in the proliferation of sexual meaning plays no part in Jesus' being already beneath the soil the priest removes to show Jesus is already there as a hieroglyph rather than a son produced the old-fashioned way: from the writing come from what the pen-is that produces the evil smelling drop of ink, lead, or semen.

Jesus is the only person not concieved through lead poisoning:

The impurity of a person suffering from seminal discharge is of a different nature; his own body is its source. This too is the result of what happened with the original serpent, since the latter polluted man as a species. This is the prime reason why we experience impurity when any seminal discharge occurs . . . Had man never sinned, this very semen would have been considred as something sacred and would most certainly not have caused impurity. As it is, the Mishnah describes such semen as "an evil smelling drop" (Avot 3,1) . . . the evil urge has become a "resident" within man . . ..​

Shney Luchot Habrit, vol. 3, p. 858-859.​

John

 

[dybmh]

If the Torah ...

Wait. John. Did you read what I wrote? What did I say was the right thing to do? Please. I'm not reading anything you've written until you confirm that you have read what I wrote first. You are replying to me. If you are replying to me, I NEED, ( it's not a want, it's a need ) to confirm you read what I wrote first.

What did I say was the right thing to do in regard to Luke 9:59-60?

 

[christos]

Somewhat as the Torah has its origins in the Sumerians

So many believe still today that genesis comes from the Jews but it doesnt
It comes from the sumerians

The original version of Adam and Eve and the creator is that humanity is a slave race created by a lesser being the (SATAM, later this became the word SATAN) strictly speaking the Annuni, also known to Gnostics as the Demiurges/Archon

And this “God” the God of the modern Old Testament, does not want humanity to attain salvation or eternal life

When you read it all IN CONTEXT, you discover that Jews and modern Christian’s believe in a creator God who is infact a demiurge/Archon/SATAN and what Christ was doing in the New Testament was showing us the way to GOD, the first source and centre of all

Anyone with limited capability can make these conclusion just using the modern day bible, by just being honest and asking, why is the Old Testament God so wicked, but the God of Christ is so loving

 

[dybmh]

Somewhat as the Torah has its origins in the Sumerians

No it doesn't. That is a myth promoted by those who either cannot read the Torah in Hebrew, or are themselves Pagan enthusiasts. Their passion for Paganism compromises their judgement.

 

[dybmh]

When you read it all IN CONTEXT

Can you read Hebrew?

 

[dybmh]

the Old Testament

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.

 

[John D. Brey]

Wait. John. Did you read what I wrote? What did I say was the right thing to do? Please. I'm not reading anything you've written until you confirm that you have read what I wrote first. You are replying to me. If you are replying to me, I NEED, ( it's not a want, it's a need ) to confirm you read what I wrote first.

What did I say was the right thing to do in regard to Luke 9:59-60?

As I read you, you said that the right thing to do was to do what the written Torah tells you to do. I think part of your argument might be based on the idea that there's no distinction between what the written text of the Torah is interpreted to say, versus what might be argued elsewhere?

What my response was merely trying to suggest is that there's a higher authority than the written Torah, i.e., the voice of the speaker given a gloss in the written text. Jesus presents himself as a higher authority than the written text. According to the Gospels and Apostolic writings, his is the voice of the author of what's written through the angelic amanuensis on Sinai.

In the Gospels and Apostolic writings, the angelic amanuensis decided he could be like the most high God since there was no one higher than he to interpret what he dictated from God in the guise of the written Torah (which written Torah is the uncircumcised scroll, if you will, and of course you won't). He lorded himself over all of Israel exempting men like Abraham, Moses, and David, who, these great men, are able to speak ---at times ---with the Author rather than his amanuensis.

The argument in the Gospels and Apostolic writings is that the amanuensis, i.e., the angel of death, who's also God's scribe ("That angel served in three capacities: as scribe, executioner, and high priest" ----Midrash Rabbah, Lamentations, II, 3), lords himself over all but those Jews who ascend to the highest rung of understanding and righteousness such that the Lord speaks to them face-to-face: with his voice rather than what his uncircumcised pen is and has become.

In the Gospels the Lord who in times past spoke to men like Abraham, Moses, and David, became a man, in order to overthrow the angelic amanuensis who was lording himself over all the world using much of Israel as his innocent tools, scribes, and Pharisees.

Overcoming the angel of death was actually somewhat easy for the God/man since the angel of death, being merely the amanuensis, wasn't privy to some of the hidden meaning (חקים) in the very text he himself delivered through his own pen, and the pen of the scribes and Pharisees. The Lord told the angel of death that some of the decrees he writes hide meaning that's unknowable and will be unknown until Messiah arrives.

When Messiah arrived he revealed that the angel of death, the amanuensis of God, was not god, nor a faithful servant of God, but the god of this world. Which made the god of this world, and Israel too, very upset if not angry.

The god of this world was so upset he killed the God/man, which was a grave mistake, since hidden in the meaning of brit milah was the fact that if someone is born without the organ created in the image of the divine amanuensis (the serpentine organ that looks and functions like what a pen is), that person (and there's only been one) is not a subject of the power and authority of the angel of death.

Since neither the angel of death, nor Israel's scribes and Pharisees, know the hidden meaning of the decrees (חקים), since for them Messiah hasn't yet come, they're unaware that the angel of death, who's "scribe, executioner, and high priest" has no authority over anyone actually rather than ritually conceived through circumcision such that their only avenue of birth is through the closed womb of a virgin maiden.

What the devil and Israel don't know yet, since it's meaning hidden in the decrees (circumcision being foremost) is that Jesus isn't dead. The angel of death has no power over him. Jesus is merely allowing the angel of death to dig himself in deeper by thinking Jesus is dead, while Jesus softly and tenderly calls to his sons and daughter in Israel, Come Home.

John

 

[dybmh]

As I read you, you said that the right thing to do was to do what the written Torah tells you to do.

No. It's the two words in blue. Please acknowledge that you have read this. Then perhaps we can discuss Luke 9:59-60. In the future, it would be better to make sure that you understand my position before commenting in detail.

 

[John D. Brey]

No. It's the two words in blue. Please acknowledge that you have read this. Then perhaps we can discuss Luke 9:59-60. In the future, it would be better to make sure that you understand my position before commenting in detail.

View attachment 94459

Fwiw, the written Torah says to do both. So we still have the very juxtaposition between what the written Torah says to do, versus what Jesus says to do. What Jesus says to do and what the written Torah says to do aren't always the same thing. Which kinda segues into the question of whether Jesus is anti-Torah.

That's what my response was trying to faithfully respond to. My response implies that Jesus wants you to choose for yourself if you're willing to do more than what the written Torah is interpreted to demand of you even if doing more might in some cases be a mitzvah ha-ba'a ba-averah.



John

 

[dybmh]

Fwiw, the written Torah says to do both

“‘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).

1) Please show me the directive in the written Torah to "proclaim the Kingdom of God"?

2) If you're correct, then Jesus is anti-Torah. Jesus says "do not bury him".

 

[dybmh]

That's what my response was trying to faithfully respond to. My response implies that Jesus wants you to choose for yourself if you're willing to do more

More? Jesus is saying to do less. Don't bury the dead, follow me instead.

I'm saying to do more. And I'm applying some good judgement ( wisdom ) if you read the full content of my reply. I'm saying to do both, IF, there is a good reason.

Anyway. Let's look at the passage ( NIV ):

​

As they were walking along the road, someone said to Jesus, “I will follow You wherever You go.” Jesus replied, “Foxes have dens and birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has no place to lay His head.” Then He said to another man, “Follow Me.” The man replied, “Lord, first let me go and bury my father. But Jesus told him, “Let the dead bury their own dead. You, however, go and proclaim the kingdom of God.” Still another said, “I will follow You, Lord; but first let me bid farewell to my family.” Then Jesus declared, “No one who puts his hand to the plow and then looks back is fit for the kingdom of God.”​

“I will follow You wherever You go." The soul is drawn to the Son-Of-Man. "the Son of Man has no place to lay His head" Jesus as Son-of-Man ( a type of angel, see Enoch ) is on a never-ending processional. "Let the dead bury their own dead." Jesus is saying: "Come with me if you want to live" The Son-Of-Man is the angel that frees the captives in sheol, I think, on Jubilee ( see Enoch and/or Jubilees ? ). "No one who puts his hand to the plow and then looks back is fit" Jesus is saying: "Get on the bus, we're leaving now!" The Son-of-Man is like a chariot of souls.

Based on this. Does Jesus care one iota about anything? He's just shuttling souls out of what he perceives as hell and heading for heaven. Then after that, he'll do it all over again. And he will never rest. That's what I'm reading.

 

[John D. Brey]

“‘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).

1) Please show me the directive in the written Torah to "proclaim the Kingdom of God"?

2) If you're correct, then Jesus is anti-Torah. Jesus says "do not bury him".

Didn't you say that you said to do both? If so, and if the Torah doesn't say to do one of them, where do you get your directive to do both? Or am I misreading you?



John