Mitzvah to Cure on the Sabbath

[Ben Avraham]

Mitzvah to Cure on the Sabbath

And the woman conceived and bore a son at the same season the following year that Elisha had assured her she would. The child grew up and one day, a very hot day, he went out to his father among the reapers and suddenly he cried to his father; Oh my head! My head! The boy was having a sunstroke. He said to a servant. Rush! Get him to his mother! He picked him up and brought him to his mother; and the child sat on her lap until noon; and he died aka passed out. She took him up and laid him on the bed of Elisha, the Prophet; and left him and closed the door. Then she called to her husband: "Please, send me one of the servants and one of the she-*****, so I can hurry to the man of God and back." But he said, "Why are you going to him today? It is neither new moon nor Sabbath" She answered, "It is all right." Elisha came over and started to apply resuscitation. He mounted the bed and placed himself over the child. He put his mouth on its mouth, his eyes on its eyes and his hands on its hands as he bent over it and the body of the child became worm. Elisha tried the same procedure again, the boy sneezed seven times and opened his eyes. Elisha called the mother and said to her, "Pick up your son for he is alive." (II Kings 4:17-37)

The issue to discuss in this post is in the words of the father of the child: "Why are you going to the Prophet today? It is neither new moon nor Sabbath." It means that it was a common thing to do to use the services of the Prophet to cure on the Sabbath. In other words, it was a Mitzvah to cure on the Sabbath. Bottom line, to do good deeds on the Sabbath. Therefore, the criticism in the NT against the Pharisees for standing against curing on the Sabbath was not true but akin to slander.

 

[Kemosloby]

Mitzvah to Cure on the Sabbath

And the woman conceived and bore a son at the same season the following year that Elisha had assured her she would. The child grew up and one day, a very hot day, he went out to his father among the reapers and suddenly he cried to his father; Oh my head! My head! The boy was having a sunstroke. He said to a servant. Rush! Get him to his mother! He picked him up and brought him to his mother; and the child sat on her lap until noon; and he died aka passed out. She took him up and laid him on the bed of Elisha, the Prophet; and left him and closed the door. Then she called to her husband: "Please, send me one of the servants and one of the she-*****, so I can hurry to the man of God and back." But he said, "Why are you going to him today? It is neither new moon nor Sabbath" She answered, "It is all right." Elisha came over and started to apply resuscitation. He mounted the bed and placed himself over the child. He put his mouth on its mouth, his eyes on its eyes and his hands on its hands as he bent over it and the body of the child became worm. Elisha tried the same procedure again, the boy sneezed seven times and opened his eyes. Elisha called the mother and said to her, "Pick up your son for he is alive." (II Kings 4:17-37)

The issue to discuss in this post is in the words of the father of the child: "Why are you going to the Prophet today? It is neither new moon nor Sabbath." It means that it was a common thing to do to use the services of the Prophet to cure on the Sabbath. In other words, it was a Mitzvah to cure on the Sabbath. Bottom line, to do good deeds on the Sabbath. Therefore, the criticism in the NT against the Pharisees for standing against curing on the Sabbath was not true but akin to slander.

Not necessarily. The man of God who was healing on the Sabbath was a prophet. But the Pharisees admitted they were descendents of men who had killed the prophets. So you see, not everybody listened to God and the prophets, but did claim to follow the law.

 

[Eliab ben Benjamin]

I am pleased to see this, as i have at times been called back to fix a ventilator in crisis .. on call 24/7

 

[Tumah]

Mitzvah to Cure on the Sabbath

And the woman conceived and bore a son at the same season the following year that Elisha had assured her she would. The child grew up and one day, a very hot day, he went out to his father among the reapers and suddenly he cried to his father; Oh my head! My head! The boy was having a sunstroke. He said to a servant. Rush! Get him to his mother! He picked him up and brought him to his mother; and the child sat on her lap until noon; and he died aka passed out. She took him up and laid him on the bed of Elisha, the Prophet; and left him and closed the door. Then she called to her husband: "Please, send me one of the servants and one of the she-*****, so I can hurry to the man of God and back." But he said, "Why are you going to him today? It is neither new moon nor Sabbath" She answered, "It is all right." Elisha came over and started to apply resuscitation. He mounted the bed and placed himself over the child. He put his mouth on its mouth, his eyes on its eyes and his hands on its hands as he bent over it and the body of the child became worm. Elisha tried the same procedure again, the boy sneezed seven times and opened his eyes. Elisha called the mother and said to her, "Pick up your son for he is alive." (II Kings 4:17-37)

The issue to discuss in this post is in the words of the father of the child: "Why are you going to the Prophet today? It is neither new moon nor Sabbath." It means that it was a common thing to do to use the services of the Prophet to cure on the Sabbath. In other words, it was a Mitzvah to cure on the Sabbath. Bottom line, to do good deeds on the Sabbath. Therefore, the criticism in the NT against the Pharisees for standing against curing on the Sabbath was not true but akin to slander.

Is doing this normal to you?
Verses 20 and 32 say the boy died. It doesn't say that he fainted. It doesn't say that he fell asleep. It doesn't say that he passed out. It says exactly the same word the Tanach uses when it is telling the court to kill someone: death. Reinterpreting words to suit yourself is not honest.

She didn't go to the prophet to get him to heal her son. She went to complain about the son she was promised dying. Which is what she actually does in 28. Her husband thought his son was dead. No one in their right mind would say, "No don't find a cure for our son today, because its the wrong day of the week/month." And if he suspected his son's life was in danger and didn't immediately go for help, he'd be transgressing a real commandment to preserve life.

There is no commandment to do good deeds on the Sabbath any more than any other day of the week. According to the Pharisees, verse 23 refers to a custom to visit the prophets and teachers on the Sabbath and holidays.

The reason why the NT is wrong is because the author misunderstood the prohibition of healing on the Sabbath. There is no such prohibition. The Rabbinic prohibitions are to perform certain activities that can be confused with activities that are prohibited on the Sabbath. That includes many activities associated with the production of medication and other types of healing. But supernatural healing doesn't have that issue and wearing amulets on the Sabbath that were meant to supernaturally heal a person are permitted. The Pharisees would not have had any problem with someone doing so. Therefor those stories are fabrications.

How do you intend to defend the Pharisees when you are not familiar with our position?

 

[Ben Avraham]

Is doing this normal to you? Verses 20 and 32 say the boy died. It doesn't say that he fainted. It doesn't say that he fell asleep. It doesn't say that he passed out. It says exactly the same word the Tanach uses when it is telling the court to kill someone: death. Reinterpreting words to suit yourself is not honest.

Yes, the boy had died according to the peasants who had no idea about resuscitation. The body of a dead person would never get warm after a few physical tries at resuscitation by someone who knew that the boy had got a sunstroke. Elijah was a master in the school of the prophets. He knew what he was doing. The disciples of the prophets did not learn only to interpret dreams and visions but also some cases of health emergency.

She didn't go to the prophet to get him to heal her son. She went to complain about the son she was promised dying. Which is what she actually does in 28. Her husband thought his son was dead. No one in their right mind would say, "No don't find a cure for our son today, because its the wrong day of the week/month." And if he suspected his son's life was in danger and didn't immediately go for help, he'd be transgressing a real commandment to preserve life.

That was not the point of the thread. The thread was about the mitzvah to cure on the Sabbath that Christians love to slander the Pharisees for forbidding to cure on the Sabbath when they never did.

There is no commandment to do good deeds on the Sabbath any more than any other day of the week. According to the Pharisees, verse 23 refers to a custom to visit the prophets and teachers on the Sabbath and holidays.

You still resist to understand the thread. The father knew why the mother had gone for the prophet and revealed that it was a mitzvah to cure on the Sabbath.

The reason why the NT is wrong is because the author misunderstood the prohibition of healing on the Sabbath. There is no such prohibition. The Rabbinic prohibitions are to perform certain activities that can be confused with activities that are prohibited on the Sabbath. That includes many activities associated with the production of medication and other types of healing. But supernatural healing doesn't have that issue and wearing amulets on the Sabbath that were meant to supernaturally heal a person are permitted. The Pharisees would not have had any problem with someone doing so. Therefor those stories are fabrications.

Yes, Christian fabrications to have some reason to slander the Jewish authorities.

How do you intend to defend the Pharisees when you are not familiar with our position?

What you have just said above, makes absolutely no sense. All the Christian grudge against the Pharisees had its
origin in the Pauline policy of Replacement Theology.

 

[Ben Avraham]

Not necessarily. The man of God who was healing on the Sabbath was a prophet. But the Pharisees admitted they were descendents of men who had killed the prophets. So you see, not everybody listened to God and the prophets, but did claim to follow the law.

That's another slander right there. Would you please provide me with a quote where I can read that the Pharisees claimed that the prophets were killing the prophets. This is crazy nonsense to me. Jesus also claimed to follow the Law if you read Mat. 5:17-19 and Luke 16:29-31.

 

[rosends]

The disciples of the prophets did not learn only to interpret dreams and visions but also some cases of health emergency.

Do you have any sort of textual proof that this was part of the training of a prophet? As a matter of fact, do you have any textual proof about "disciples of prophets" learning to interpret dreams and visions?

 

[Ben Avraham]

Do you have any sort of textual proof that this was part of the training of a prophet? As a matter of fact, do you have any textual proof about "disciples of prophets" learning to interpret dreams and visions?

If you read the books of the Kings about Elijah and Elisha, you will have enough about the disciples of the prophets. And with regards to training on resuscitation, the description of resuscitation effected by Elijah and Elisha was a little crude but where did they learn to bring the breath of life back into the lungs of a boy in the middle of a sunstroke?

 

[rosends]

If you read the books of the Kings about Elijah and Elisha, you will have enough about the disciples of the prophets. And with regards to training on resuscitation, the description of resuscitation effected by Elijah and Elisha was a little crude but where did they learn to bring the breath of life back into the lungs of a boy in the middle of a sunstroke?

So you have no particular textual proof. OK.

 

[Kemosloby]

That's another slander right there. Would you please provide me with a quote where I can read that the Pharisees claimed that the prophets were killing the prophets. This is crazy nonsense to me. Jesus also claimed to follow the Law if you read Mat. 5:17-19 and Luke 16:29-31.

Matt 23:31 And you say, ‘If we had lived in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partners with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.’ 31 So you testify against yourselves that you are the sons of those who murdered the prophets. 32 Fill up, then, the measure of your fathers’ sins.…

Nehemiah 9:26 "They captured fortified cities and a fertile land. They took possession of houses full of every good thing, Hewn cisterns, vineyards, olive groves, Fruit trees in abundance. So they ate, were filled and grew fat, And reveled in Your great goodness. 26"But they became disobedient and rebelled against You, And cast Your law behind their backs And killed Your prophets who had admonished them So that they might return to You, And they committed great blasphemies.

 

[Ben Avraham]

Matt 23:31 And you say, ‘If we had lived in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partners with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.’ 31 So you testify against yourselves that you are the sons of those who murdered the prophets. 32 Fill up, then, the measure of your fathers’ sins.…

Nehemiah 9:26 "They captured fortified cities and a fertile land. They took possession of houses full of every good thing, Hewn cisterns, vineyards, olive groves, Fruit trees in abundance. So they ate, were filled and grew fat, And reveled in Your great goodness. 26"But they became disobedient and rebelled against You, And cast Your law behind their backs And killed Your prophets who had admonished them So that they might return to You, And they committed great blasphemies.

But of prophets killing prophets, I've never heard of it.

 

[Ben Avraham]

So you have no particular textual proof. OK.

Too many! If you are indeed a Jew, it is always a pleasure to find a reason to read the Tanach. Ain't I right?

 

[Ben Avraham]

Matt 23:31 And you say, ‘If we had lived in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partners with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.’ 31 So you testify against yourselves that you are the sons of those who murdered the prophets. 32 Fill up, then, the measure of your fathers’ sins.…

Nehemiah 9:26 "They captured fortified cities and a fertile land. They took possession of houses full of every good thing, Hewn cisterns, vineyards, olive groves, Fruit trees in abundance. So they ate, were filled and grew fat, And reveled in Your great goodness. 26"But they became disobedient and rebelled against You, And cast Your law behind their backs And killed Your prophets who had admonished them So that they might return to You, And they committed great blasphemies.

This above is about the sins against the Golden Rule committed by Jesus if we are to believe the gospel of Matthew. Jesus was charging the Pharisees with being the sons of those who murdered the prophets. Since I am sure, Jesus would not have liked to be charged with being a son of those who murdered the prophets, it means that he broke the Golden Rule which covers the whole second part of the Decalogue. Serious transgressions right there! At least, from now on you will not claim that Jesus was perfect.

 

[Kemosloby]

But of prophets killing prophets, I've never heard of it.

No, i never meant to imply prophets killing prophets.

 

[Kemosloby]

This above is about the sins against the Golden Rule committed by Jesus if we are to believe the gospel of Matthew. Jesus was charging the Pharisees with being the sons of those who murdered the prophets. Since I am sure, Jesus would not have liked to be charged with being a son of those who murdered the prophets, it means that he broke the Golden Rule which covers the whole second part of the Decalogue. Serious transgressions right there! At least, from now on you will not claim that Jesus was perfect.

If he testified falsely about them, but Jesus being the Lord who spoke to Moses, and the Lord who sent the prophets. Jesus would be the one to know who killed the prophets. You think Jesus did wrong because you don't believe Jesus was the Lord and is the Lord.

 

[rosends]

Too many! If you are indeed a Jew, it is always a pleasure to find a reason to read the Tanach. Ain't I right?

So please, lay them out.

 

[Ben Avraham]

So please, lay them out.

You have got to read your Bible aka the Tanach, I hope.

 

[Ben Avraham]

If he testified falsely about them, but Jesus being the Lord who spoke to Moses, and the Lord who sent the prophets. Jesus would be the one to know who killed the prophets. You think Jesus did wrong because you don't believe Jesus was the Lord and is the Lord.

Jesus has been dead for 2000 years. It is impossible to be lord in the grave, the eternal home of the dead. (Psalm 49:12,20) Now, please, would you provide us with a quote to evidence your saying that Jesus spoke to Moses? Thank you.

 

[Ben Avraham]

No, i never meant to imply prophets killing prophets.

Good! You are getting better.

 

[Kemosloby]

Jesus has been dead for 2000 years. It is impossible to be lord in the grave, the eternal home of the dead. (Psalm 49:12,20) Now, please, would you provide us with a quote to evidence your saying that Jesus spoke to Moses? Thank you.

Funny that you picked that Psalm as evidence. The heading for that area of study is "God will redeem my life from the grave"

Psalm 49:20 Though while he lives he congratulates himself-- And though men praise you when you do well for yourself-- He shall go to the generation of his fathers; They will never see the light. Man in his pomp, yet without understanding, Is like the beasts that perish.…

The proud man goes to an eternal grave, but it's implied the righteous man does not.