After confronted with a list of different sorts of work in post #171, dybmh now agrees that certain work can be done on the sabbath “but not for our own self glorification...” (dybmh admits this is post #175)
I agree that “self glorification” is wrong.
This was one of the lessons the Messiah was trying to teach the Pharisees. It was wrong for the hypocrites to pray “in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have the glory of men.” (Mtt 6:2) just as it was wrong to hold religious traditions of men such as the pharisees in priority over the Laws of God.
Beautiful, that's from a different book, though. The scene in John is a little different if I recall.
Thus it was important that the Messiah taught “
I seek not my own glory” (
John 8). He did not NEED to seek glory since he already HAD glory which the Father had already bestowed upon him as the Messiah before the earth was formed. The Messiahs overarching purpose was to Glorify The Lord God and to fulfill the Lord Gods plan for mankind by accomplishing the atonement for mankind which the Lord God sent him to accomplish. The Lord Gods work and his Glory in creating and populating the earth is the salvation of mankind.
THAT sort of work can and should be done on the Sabbath.
While the Messiah does want individuals to recognize him for what he is, it is for the purpose of saving mankind that he wants them to see he was the Messiah that they were expecting and who would accomplish the atonement for their salvation, according to the Lord Gods’ plan.
My claim was that his justification was out of the inherent Glory of the JC-Father couplet. It was not claimed to be out of Glory for The LORD. Doesn't that seem odd to you?
The rabbinic purpose of regulating movement was not to stop all movement (that could not BE done), but they rejected undue exertion and sought serenity that would leave one free to worship God. For example, the rule from the Jewish Tosefta is “One may not run on the Sabbath to the point of exhaustion, but one may stroll leisurely throughout the day without hesitation”. The bare law itself did not describe the important moral imperatives that required going beyond the man made traditions. Thus the rabbis interpreted Exo 18:30 “And thou shalt make them know the path they are to walk in and the work they are to do.” And, the work they are to do says Rabbi Elazar are acts of saintliness which are “beyond the measure of the law”.
Ok, I'm happy to discard the problem about Traveling. But certainly, everyone knows that Shabbos is a bout No "work" however a person chooses to define it, that's the prohibition. No work. There are any number of ways a person can approach this subject matter with humility towards G-d and Torah. and he
admits to doing "work" continuously. He knows what work is. We simply must agree there or else he cannot be a "rabbi" of any sort.
What he is advocating for in public is not remembering the Shabbos ( literal translation of the law in Tanach ). If he is always doing the work of God, then there is no difference between weekday and The Day of Rest. That is erasing Shabbos. He is arguing to erase Shabbos entirely for anyone doing G-d's work
in The Book of John. That is leading a Jewish person to a violation, again, of the Ten commandments ( ref: Exodus 20:8 )
So, yes. The rabbis are correct that we not only may, but should walk or travel on the Sabbath when it means to do acts of kindness, saintliness and acts that are beneficial to mankind in the accomplishment of the Lord Gods plan for mankind. No one did the work of the Lord God more than the Messiah.
I would respectfully disagree on this. But as I said, the impurity is when he is making the miracles and actively transgressing.
Do you want to talk more about “work” that may be done on the sabbath, or “traveling” on the sabbath or do you want to move on to your second complaint?
Here's my proposal.
I will grant you that, a prophet and a Kabballist would possibly have the capability to tread the waters of these transgressions, mostly, without incurring impurity. I think it's important for believers in Christ to feel that Jesus was faultless. However, from the Jewish perspective he doesn't need to be faultless at all. he can do Teshuvah, and there are other ways to atone and purify oneself, also, a person like that may have foreknowledge of gain and loss on a supernatural level so that they can do no harm, or, possibly they can intuit the will of G-d and only work within those bounds. As an exmaple, King David in the story was a master of Teshuvah, and therefore it would make sense that his descendant the prodigy, the Moshiach, would also be a master of Teshuvah. I say it's possible, but I don't see that in the Book of John. But pretending that I do, we can move on past the particulars of Halacha which is an area where we disagree without any chance of compromise.
-------------------------------------------------------
What I want to talk about next is chapter 6. Specifically in reference to John's quotation from John 3:27. Then compare that to what is said in Chapter 6, John 6:32-33. if you look at the Greek, it is very obvious. The food is not from heaven, it has a seal on it, so does JC, seals are occult practices. How is this reconciled?
Was John wrong in 3:27? Isn't this exchange in Chapter six another version of the poison apple from way way back in Genesis?
In Judaism, it is very important to receive bread from a G-d Fearing Jew. there are additional restrictions on manufacture of wine as well. Basically, for a Jew, the moral of this whole story from beginning to end is teaching not to introduce a foreign substance, food, drink, or spirit into yourself without knowing *where it comes from*. Note 3:27, it's all about
where.
Please note in chapter six, where does the food and drink come from? It isn't *received* ( λαμβάνειν in greek ) from heaven. This is contradicting what John said in Chapter 3. Pay close attention to 6:32-33. JC here is speaking the truth, just like the serpent. Giving truth but it's still poison. In Chapter 6, JC comfirms what John said in 3:27, but also tells them that the food he is offering is not coming down from heaven. It is not received from heaven. it is heavenly food from an other, "MyFather".
That's the story. the only way to read it differently is to change the words around. or insert words from somewhere else, which is fine. But this particular book cannot be Jewish of any kind if JC is to be understood as virtuous... It's occult, and it paints it as a negative. Judaism does not encourage nor condone what's happening in The Story, in this chapter, and neither does John in 3:27.
---------------------------------------------------------
I'm sure we will disagree about this, my friend, and that's fine. How we lead our lives is what's more important than how the story reads on paper all on it's own without additional resources. the same goes for me and Torah, if not more so. It requires oral torah and requires a tradition of ethical, do no harm, practices. This is why Mussar is important and learning about the great Rabbis and Tzaddikim is important. because it shows more clearly how to function in the material world in cooperation with the divine will as written in Torah. Torah on it's own is as bad if not worse than some of this. Especially the later books in the canon.
That said, after chapter 6, I'd like to get your impression, and
@Vouthon's impression, of the end of the Book. What do you think? Did Jesus in the story accomplish his goal? If so, why do you think so?