Leviticus

[URAVIP2ME]

They were expecting the Messiah, and had been so for quite some time. They are still in expectation of the Messiah.
Also, the Temple was already in existence in the first century. It had been in existence for quite some time. It was not destroyed until 70 C.E. I'm not exactly sure what you are getting at.

Right, the temple was in existence in the 1st century, and in the 1st century is when Jesus appeared. And as Matthew 24vs1,2 says not a stone would be left. All records were destroyed in the year 70. Records necessary to the leading up to the Messiah.

Which temple was in existence?
Not Solomon's temple
Not the temple built by Zerubbabel
but the temple rebuilt by Herod

Right, it was not destroyed until the year 70. Luke 21vs 20,21 when Jerusalem was encircled by Roman armies under Titus. The Christians had already left the city in the year 66.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Why would a Jew care what Luke or Matthew say?

But we're not just talking gospel writers, but the Hebrew writers such as: Ezra, Nehemiah, Jeremiah, Isaiah and Daniel. Showing from the Hebrew Scriptures about the Messiah coming and in the 1st century.

 

[Levite]

Which is just one of the many reasons it makes a very poor foundation for a religion. I mean, if the core text is so complicated and hard to understand that it takes years of study to "understand" it (meaning of course agree with you) then it's not going to be useful to many people.

You forget that there is no way or standard to determine who's "understanding" of the Bible is correct.

I don't presume that one single understanding is correct. Judaism permits multiple interpretations. But any reasonable and socially helpful interpretation needs to be an educated interpretation. And I do presume that the very complexity of the text is what makes it suitable as the basis for a transgenerational socioethical spiritual framework: anything simpler would have long ago exhausted its possibilities.

And I could not disagree more that since it takes years of study to interpret properly, that negates its general usefulness. It takes years of study to interpret most social codes properly. That is why one begins study in childhood. To imagine that anything as complex as a self-sustaining society ought to be based on something basic and uncomplicated enough that anyone without any study, training, or practice can interpret it and achieve full comprehension of every aspect of social participation and behavior is deeply simplistic.

We spend most of our lives as children and adolescents learning what we need to function in our society. In traditional Jewish communities, that same social ethic is simply applied to religion, also. In those communities, it works perfectly: the religious culture thrives. In those non-traditional communities where education is subpar or nonexistant, the culture declines and withers. It is an exact parallel to those neighborhoods where public schools are deeply substandard, and the resultant lack of education produces antisocial behavior, like crime and social disorder.

It is education that we must strive for: a mastery of the methodologies of successful interpretation: by which we mean interpretation that results in a thriving and healthy evolution and sustainment of law and ethics. It is not only unnecessary to achieve one single "correct" interpretation, it is actually counterproductive, as that fails to produce debate, dialogue, and a richness of legal precedent.

 

[Levite]

Right, the temple was in existence in the 1st century....

Which temple was in existence?
Not Solomon's temple
Not the temple built by Zerubbabel
but the temple rebuilt by Herod

Herod made modifications and aesthetic improvements, as well as considerable structural repair and enhancement to the foundational structure of the stone plateu. But the Temple building itself was, and remained the Second Temple, built under the governance of Zerubavel, Ezra, and Nehemiah. We do not consider Herod to have been a Temple builder, and in fact, there was some debate over whether his building projects aided in rendering the ritual purity of the Temple compromised, as Herod was not a Jew, and he did much to increase the corruption of the priesthood.

 

[Levite]

As Matthew 24vs1,2 mentions there would no longer be a temple.

A coming future Messiah would not be in harmony with Daniel 9vs25,26; Neh 2v1,5,7,8 because that puts the coming of the Messiah in the 1st century.

What Matthew says is irrelevant. Matthew is a Christian text. It has no bearing on Jewish text.

And your interpretations of Daniel and Nehemiah are the standard Christian interpretation. That is not how we Jews interpret those passages, nor has it ever been. Christian interpretation has no relevance to Jewish text.

 

[fallingblood]

Jesus believed his understanding was correct.
Jesus used logic and reasoning on Scripture as the basis for his beliefs.
Jesus often prefaced his statements with '"it is written" meaning it was already written in the Hebrew Scriptures. The Bible has corresponding or parallel verses and passages by subject or topic arrangement so one can compare.
-Acts 17v11

There is a problem though. Jesus was a Jew. He was probably illiterate, and most likely did not quote from scripture as much as is claimed. Also, the Hebrew Scriptures were compromised of more than just what we have in the Old Testament. And even then, what Jesus thought was scripture probably didn't even include all of the Old Testament.

More so, Christian interpretation and Jewish interpretation are quite different. Considering Jesus was a Jew, I would have to say that Christians usually are getting issues wrong. Especially since Jesus did fail in a lot of what he said; what first comes to mind is the Kingdom of God never appearing.

Finally, Jesus even gets scripture wrong. He is seen quoting supposed prophecies that have nothing to do with the Messiah, and have already been fulfilled. So trying to follow what Christianity states that Jesus thought scripture meant really doesn't hold.

 

[fallingblood]

Right, the temple was in existence in the 1st century, and in the 1st century is when Jesus appeared. And as Matthew 24vs1,2 says not a stone would be left. All records were destroyed in the year 70. Records necessary to the leading up to the Messiah.

Again, Matthew was written after the fact, and was actually even wrong. There is still a wall standing of the former Temple. This is actually comical since Matthew wrote about the incident after the fact and still got it wrong.

Also, not all records were destroyed in the year 70. So the idea that those records being necessary for the leading up to the Messiah is moot, as not all of the records were destroyed. I'm not even sure what records you are really even talking about though.

Which temple was in existence?
Not Solomon's temple
Not the temple built by Zerubbabel
but the temple rebuilt by Herod

Levite goes over this better than I will, but I want to reiterate the point. Herod never rebuilt the Temple. The Temple was already in existence. Herod simply added on and remodeled it.

Right, it was not destroyed until the year 70. Luke 21vs 20,21 when Jerusalem was encircled by Roman armies under Titus. The Christians had already left the city in the year 66.

I'm not sure where you are getting these facts. Firstly, Christianity really hadn't even been formed. At the time, Judaism and Christianity were still interconnected. Meaning Christianity was still, for the most part, a Jewish sect. More so, there is evidence, quite a bit of it actually, that Jewish Christians were in Jerusalem and helping with the rebellion against Rome. Secondly, there really is no reason they would leave. Certainly some did. But so did some Jews. So did some of probably every group there. But in no way did all of the Christians leave. I would actually be interested to see any evidence supporting this. Especially when there is more than enough evidence to show that Christianity was still not fully formed, was still a Jewish sect, and that they helped fight against Rome during the first revolt.

 

[fallingblood]

But we're not just talking gospel writers, but the Hebrew writers such as: Ezra, Nehemiah, Jeremiah, Isaiah and Daniel. Showing from the Hebrew Scriptures about the Messiah coming and in the 1st century.

They really didn't though. Maybe you should actually point it out a little more, because I've looked at the verses you've quoted already, and they say no such thing.

The fact that Judaism doesn't hold that to be true, and from what I know, never did, shows that you are quite wrong about that point. Jews are still expecting their Messiah.

 

[Poisonshady313]

As Matthew 24vs1,2 mentions there would no longer be a temple.

A coming future Messiah would not be in harmony with Daniel 9vs25,26; Neh 2v1,5,7,8 because that puts the coming of the Messiah in the 1st century.

With each post that you post, it becomes clearer and clearer to me that you have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[Danmac]

I was born and raised Catholic but after I decided to read the bible, I lost my faith in the Christian religion, that was some time ago. I recently befriended this guy who is 22, and a true God fearing virgin, he preaches to me ALL the time, so I decided I'd give the bible another chance, and it still ****** me off. So this guy, I'll call him... Eli, was telling me that he had been thinking about getting a tattoo, but then he heard that the bible condemns it, so he couldn't. So I went home, dusted off my bible, and indeed found this condemnation in Leviticus, immediately after the verse: Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard. This is Leviticus 19:27. It makes me SO angry when Christians portray themselves as hardcore followers of God's law and doing what the bible says but they simply ignore some things that don't quite fit into their liking. 'Cause I gotta tell ya, Eli is as clean shaven as they get, this guy is totally anti body hair, but tattoos are bad, premarital sex is bad and also no cussing because that's what the bible says. Comments?

In a nutshell, the commandment of God is the golden rule, which is love. Love is not self seeking ...

1st Corinthians 13:5 doth not seek its own things,

In other words, Christians are not to keep the law for their own sakes, but for the sake of others. Whoever refrained from stealing to benefit himself. When we refrain from stealing it is the potential victim that is benefited. The law was given by God in order to maintain harmony among God's creation. It was never given to merit God's favor in any way, shape, or form.

People that obey God in order to be accepted are attempting to pave their own road to heaven. A road that was paved by Christ alone. It appears that Eli's walk with God is self serving, and probably a miserable one. If Eli want's to obey God in the name of lifestyle evangelism, then his obedience will be accepted, as he would be using his actions to influence others rather than God.

Matthew 5:16 Let your light so shine before men that they may see your good works and glorify your Father who is in Heaven.

According to this our obedience is for the sake of influencing people and not God. Eli need not make any changes to be loved by God.

 

[Levite]

There is a problem though. Jesus was a Jew. He was probably illiterate, and most likely did not quote from scripture as much as is claimed. Also, the Hebrew Scriptures were compromised of more than just what we have in the Old Testament. And even then, what Jesus thought was scripture probably didn't even include all of the Old Testament.

With all due respect, I don't concur that he was probably illiterate. The Rabbis of the Talmud tell us that he was once a student in the academy of Rabbi Yehoshua the Elder, and I tend to concur. The way he is depicted as using midrash is precisely the methodology of the Rabbis at that time, and he is depicted as using it well, as did his disciples. That kind of midrash is not the kind of art readily practiced by an illiterate: one had to be master of a number of different kinds of texts and discourses.

He would likely have been very familiar with the Torah, with the books of the major Prophets, probably with at least selections from Judges, Samuel, and Kings, Psalms, Proverbs, and very likely some other books that ended up in the canon as well. He would also likely have been exposed to at least some apocrypha, probably Ben Sirach, since it was a perennial favorite of the Rabbis, and possible one of the early apocalypses, since they tended to be favored by the ascetic fringe groups, and Jesus appears to have spent time with some Essenes, or Essene-like group.

In his public speeches, he might well have quoted liberally from Torah, from Psalms, and possibly from Proverbs, since those would have been the works that common folk knew best. Torah especially, of course, since even the illiterate went to synagogue to hear the Rabbis discourse on Torah, and the Torah itself was read in weekly sections, in public, in the marketplace, every Monday and Thursday, and translated on the spot into Aramaic for those whose Hebrew was not good.

 

[Autodidact]

Jesus believed his understanding was correct.
Jesus used logic and reasoning on Scripture as the basis for his beliefs.

On what do you base this belief?

Jesus often prefaced his statements with '"it is written" meaning it was already written in the Hebrew Scriptures. The Bible has corresponding or parallel verses and passages by subject or topic arrangement so one can compare.
-Acts 17v11

Yet, according to Christians, Jesus threw huge chunks of the law out the window.

 

[Autodidact]

But we're not just talking gospel writers, but the Hebrew writers such as: Ezra, Nehemiah, Jeremiah, Isaiah and Daniel. Showing from the Hebrew Scriptures about the Messiah coming and in the 1st century.

That's ridiculous.

 

[Autodidact]

I don't presume that one single understanding is correct. Judaism permits multiple interpretations. But any reasonable and socially helpful interpretation needs to be an educated interpretation. And I do presume that the very complexity of the text is what makes it suitable as the basis for a transgenerational socioethical spiritual framework: anything simpler would have long ago exhausted its possibilities.

And I could not disagree more that since it takes years of study to interpret properly, that negates its general usefulness. It takes years of study to interpret most social codes properly. That is why one begins study in childhood. To imagine that anything as complex as a self-sustaining society ought to be based on something basic and uncomplicated enough that anyone without any study, training, or practice can interpret it and achieve full comprehension of every aspect of social participation and behavior is deeply simplistic.

We spend most of our lives as children and adolescents learning what we need to function in our society. In traditional Jewish communities, that same social ethic is simply applied to religion, also. In those communities, it works perfectly: the religious culture thrives. In those non-traditional communities where education is subpar or nonexistant, the culture declines and withers. It is an exact parallel to those neighborhoods where public schools are deeply substandard, and the resultant lack of education produces antisocial behavior, like crime and social disorder.

It is education that we must strive for: a mastery of the methodologies of successful interpretation: by which we mean interpretation that results in a thriving and healthy evolution and sustainment of law and ethics. It is not only unnecessary to achieve one single "correct" interpretation, it is actually counterproductive, as that fails to produce debate, dialogue, and a richness of legal precedent.

Are you trying to claim that education reconciles the many conflicting interpretations of the Bible? I would say the opposite. The most diametrically opposite interpretations of the Bible come from those with the most education in it. Say, Rev. Fred Phelps and Rev. Troy Perry. Both know it by heart and have studied it, both are learned in translation issues, and believe it means exactly opposite things.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

There is a problem though. Jesus was a Jew. He was probably illiterate, and most likely did not quote from scripture as much as is claimed. Also, the Hebrew Scriptures were compromised of more than just what we have in the Old Testament. And even then, what Jesus thought was scripture probably didn't even include all of the Old Testament.
More so, Christian interpretation and Jewish interpretation are quite different. Considering Jesus was a Jew, I would have to say that Christians usually are getting issues wrong. Especially since Jesus did fail in a lot of what he said; what first comes to mind is the Kingdom of God never appearing.
Finally, Jesus even gets scripture wrong. He is seen quoting supposed prophecies that have nothing to do with the Messiah, and have already been fulfilled. So trying to follow what Christianity states that Jesus thought scripture meant really doesn't hold.

First of all, the transfiguration was not literal [Matt 17v9] but a 'vision' of Jesus future kingdom 'glory'.-[ Matt 16v27; 25v31]
According to Luke [19vs11-15] that kingdom glory would be future.

Why would you think intelligent Jews were illiterate?___________________

The volume 'The Jewish Bible and the Christian Bible' mentions:
The Bible has no fewer than 429 references to writing and to written documents.

The 'Oxford Encyclopedia of Archaeology in the Near East' mentions:
that in ancient Israel that writing was in integral part of the religious experience.

According to a senior lecturer, Alan Millard, at the University of Liverpool mentions:
Evidently, reading and writing were assumed to affect lift at most levels.
Deut 31vs9-13; Joshua 1v8; Nehemiah 8vs 13-18; Psalm 1v2.
Paul wrote how we should view such holy writings [Rom 15v4] that all the things [Scriptures] written aforetime are for our instruction.....
Alan Millard is also a professor of Hebrew and ancient Semitic languages and also mentions: Writing in Greek, Aramaic and Hebrew was widespread and could be found at all levels of society....that was the environment in which Jesus worked.

Apparently waxed writing tablets were readily available.
A waxed tablet with its writing instrument of the 1st century is found at the British Museum.
The British Library has a schoolboy's wax tablet from the 2nd century.
Didn't Jewish Zechariah [Luke 1v63] ask for a writing tablet?
It would have been a small tablet made of wood with a prepared wax surface where hinged panels could be overlaid with smoothed-out bees wax with using a stylus as a writer. The surface could be erased and the newly smoother surface be re-used.

The 'New International Dictionary of the New Testament Theology' says of Acts [3vs11,19] that the image expressed there by the verb used is most probably smoothing the surface of a wax writing-tablet for re-use.

Wouldn't Jewish Matthew being a tax collector, as well as the Jewish scribes, Pharisees, Sadducees, and all the members of the Jewish high court, the Sanhedrin, be educated?

Professor Harry Y. Gamble, professor at University of Virginia, mentions:
It can hardly be doubted that from the beginning there were [Jewish] Christians.... who devoted themselves to the close study.....of Jewish Scripture, constructing from it the textual warrants [proofs] of Christian convictions and making those texts serviceable for Christian preaching.

The book 'Reading and Writing in the Time of Jesus' mentions:
Scriptures found from various parts of the Roman empire.....display the widespread use of the tablets.

Syrian writer Tatian completed his work in 170 CE?AD known as the 'Diatessaron' . That provides evidence that the four gospels were known and accepted by the 2nd century.

 

[Levite]

Are you trying to claim that education reconciles the many conflicting interpretations of the Bible? I would say the opposite. The most diametrically opposite interpretations of the Bible come from those with the most education in it. Say, Rev. Fred Phelps and Rev. Troy Perry. Both know it by heart and have studied it, both are learned in translation issues, and believe it means exactly opposite things.

No, of course I am not trying to claim that! What I said had nothing to do with reconciling conflicting interpretations, it had to do with clarifying the point of what kind of education Jesus would or would not have had, and thus what kinds of teaching or preaching would or would not he have been likely to make.

Jesus, IMO, would have been able to couch his teachings in the Pharisaic style that was so popular amongst the Jews of that time, while integrating into them his own novellae and the innovations he likely learned amongst some ascetic, quasi-monastic community, such as the Essenes. In other words, it's not about reconciling anything, it's about Jesus' own education providing him with the tools to make his particular message appealing to his followers.

 

[DeitySlayer]

I find it hilarious that the book Christians use to bash homosexuality is the same book that condemns the consumption of shellfish as a mortal sin.

IRONY.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It makes me SO angry when Christians portray themselves as hardcore followers of God's law and doing what the bible says but they simply ignore some things that don't quite fit into their liking.

There's more to the Bible than just Leviticus. There are a number of passages in the New Testament that say that the "Old Law" no longer applies (though there's considerable debates about exactly what the "Old Law" is).

'Cause I gotta tell ya, Eli is as clean shaven as they get, this guy is totally anti body hair, but tattoos are bad, premarital sex is bad and also no cussing because that's what the bible says. Comments?

Where in the Bible does it say "no cussing"? I'm not familiar with that passage.

I know where it says "do not swear at all", but that's talking about oaths, not profanity.

 

[Autodidact]

No, of course I am not trying to claim that! What I said had nothing to do with reconciling conflicting interpretations, it had to do with clarifying the point of what kind of education Jesus would or would not have had, and thus what kinds of teaching or preaching would or would not he have been likely to make.

Jesus, IMO, would have been able to couch his teachings in the Pharisaic style that was so popular amongst the Jews of that time, while integrating into them his own novellae and the innovations he likely learned amongst some ascetic, quasi-monastic community, such as the Essenes. In other words, it's not about reconciling anything, it's about Jesus' own education providing him with the tools to make his particular message appealing to his followers.

We have no idea what kind of education Jesus had. We're not even sure there was a Jesus! Talk about rank speculation.

 

[Levite]

We have no idea what kind of education Jesus had. We're not even sure there was a Jesus! Talk about rank speculation.

Yes, hence the phrases "would have" "would not have" and "IMO." Personally, I tend to think there was a historical Jesus, but I certainly agree there is no hard evidence for his existence. However, if there were a historical Jesus, it is most likely that to be a folk religious leader among Jews at that time, he would have had Pharisaical training in which to couch his ideas, since Pharisaic presentation of Torah teaching was predominately popular in the main stream of Jewish culture at that time.

Of course it is all speculation. I would never claim otherwise. But there is nothing wrong with a little educated speculation.