Mosaic law still present?

[metis]

Lots of Mosiac laws are binding on all UK citizens.

Lots ......

Same here across the pond, but those are the choices our countries make.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Yes, I'm quite familiar with that.

But one can use "liberal" in another way, namely referring to a deviation from the norm, so it depends on how one looks at this in terms of what "liberal" is being referenced to.

Yes, and I agree with you but just wanted to point out that there's another angle on this.

And, btw, I'm enjoying this discussion as well.

Take care.

But the Pharisees did NOT deviate from the norm. The whole thing with Oral Torah is that it adds precautions so that the odds of deviating from the norm are SMALLER. That was my point, that they were more conservative. Some deviations are the opposite of liberal. They go the other direction.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Oh, btw, I actually did go to the red-light district in Amsterdam with a group but did not participate. To make up for that , I also visited the Portuguese Synagogue there, which was where Spinoza attended. Beautiful shul!

Wonderful on both accounts!

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Well, why don't you just define "righteousness" as well (Malachi 3:17-18). "Liberal" means you can "not strictly" interpret the law. Redefined by the standards of men, such as with the pen of the scribes (Talmud).

Definition of "liberal":
(especially of an interpretation of a law) broadly construed or understood; not strictly literal or exact.
liberal definition - Bing

According to the Big definition of liberal, the Pharisees would be conservative, not liberal, since they are so concerned with being traditional that they set up a fence around it lest anyone violate the traditions.

 

[oldbadger]

Same here across the pond, but those are the choices our countries make.

Of course, our countries recognise that so many iof the laws written back themn are still good now.

Those laws were such an amazing basis for a successful nation of people, and although repeals have been necessary still hundreds of them hold good and are in force in many of our countries, from whatever State you live in, right through the Islamic countries and all the way to Oz.

Amazing.......
Extraordinary success.

 

[oldbadger]

According to the Big definition of liberal, the Pharisees would be conservative, not liberal, since they are so concerned with being traditional that they set up a fence around it lest anyone violate the traditions.

It seems to me that the Pharisees of the early 1st century that were Levites and Priests were not too conservative, really. They didn't do anything about the insulting Temple coinage, many of of them were Hellenised, most of them were corrupt and the Baptist described them perfectly as Vipers.

 

[metis]

But the Pharisees did NOT deviate from the norm. The whole thing with Oral Torah is that it adds precautions so that the odds of deviating from the norm are SMALLER. That was my point, that they were more conservative. Some deviations are the opposite of liberal. They go the other direction.

That is an item that could be debated over and over again and was as other Jewish groups did not buy into the Oral Law, instead preferring their own "Oral Traditions". But either way, the "building the wall around Torah" was not implicit within the Oral Law itself, thus is more "liberal" in the context that it was not there to begin with.

Also, the interpretation of the Law all so often varied, thus leading to different schools with at least somewhat different approaches, such as the Shammai and Hillel schools. Most observant Jews today tend to lean more towards the latter, which is a more liberal position than the former.

 

[sooda]

It seems to me that the Pharisees of the early 1st century that were Levites and Priests were not too conservative, really. They didn't do anything about the insulting Temple coinage, many of of them were Hellenised, most of them were corrupt and the Baptist described them perfectly as Vipers.

You mean Roman coin? They had no control over that.

The Jews living around Galilee and the Decapolis were Hellenized and prosperous.. I don' think Jerusalem was.

 

[sooda]

It seems to me that the Pharisees of the early 1st century that were Levites and Priests were not too conservative, really. They didn't do anything about the insulting Temple coinage, many of of them were Hellenised, most of them were corrupt and the Baptist described them perfectly as Vipers.

Pharisees were very strictly religious people not necessarily of the Levitical tribe (e.g. Paul was a Pharisee and a Benjamite) who were attempting to follow the Scriptures literally.

The Sadducees were more religiously liberal, and tended to view the requirements of Scripture less literally.

Jesus was a Pharisee so I doubt he thought ALL Pharisees were vipers. Perhaps Matthew was attacking the Pharisees for his own purposes.

 

[metis]

The Jews living around Galilee and the Decapolis were Hellenized and prosperous.. I don' think Jerusalem was.

To a large extent, you're correct, but that influx of Roman money created a significant disparity of wealth that created much instability and in-fighting.

 

[oldbadger]

You mean Roman coin? They had no control over that.

They just didn't care.

The Jews living around Galilee and the Decapolis were Hellenized and prosperous.. I don' think Jerusalem was.

I do!

 

[sooda]

They just didn't care.


I do!

How do you know what their emotions were concerning Roman coin?

Jerusalem was always poor, arid and stony compared to the area around Galilee.

 

[oldbadger]

Pharisees were very strictly religious people not necessarily of the Levitical tribe (e.g. Paul was a Pharisee and a Benjamite) who were attempting to follow the Scriptures literally.

So you just repeated back what I had explained, that Pharisees were not necessarily Priests.
Jesus had no argument with loyal Jews and priests. It was John who spun all that rubbish up.
Both the Baptist and Jesus wanted a return of the old laws and ways, but not the Temple corruption or the sacrificial money-go-round.

The Sadducees were more religiously liberal, and tended to view the requirements of Scripture less literally.

The Sadducees were a bunch of vipers, according to the Baptiste, and I believe that 100%.

Jesus was a Pharisee so I doubt he thought ALL Pharisees were vipers. Perhaps Matthew was attacking the Pharisees for his own purposes.

The Baptist and Jesus thought that the PRIESTHOOD was a bunch of vipers..... especially the Temple authorities. Totally corrupted.

Like the Baptist, Jesus was leading an uprising against corrupt priesthood. He may not have liked Roman occupation, but he HATED a quisling, hellenised, hypocritical, corrupted priesthood.

 

[oldbadger]

How do you know what their emotions were concerning Roman coin?

Why do you think that Jesus lead a demonstration in the Temple against the money exchange traders?
Do you think that was by chance?

Jerusalem was always poor, arid and stony compared to the area around Galilee.

Jerusalem was fat on the takings from the visiting working people for every meal, sleeping space or other service provided, and then the Temple ripped them off completely.

The City of London is rather stony, but like Jerusalem is very rich.

 

[sooda]

To a large extent, you're correct, but that influx of Roman money created a significant disparity of wealth that created much instability and in-fighting.

Most of the Roman soldiers were garrisoned in Assyria.. Just a few at Fortress Antonia in Jerusalem.

 

[sooda]

Why do you think that Jesus lead a demonstration in the Temple against the money exchange traders?
Do you think that was by chance?


Jerusalem was fat on the takings from the visiting working people for every meal, sleeping space or other service provided, and then the Temple ripped them off completely.

The City of London is rather stony, but like Jerusalem is very rich.

The Jewish moneychangers were ripping off poor people buying animals for sacrifice.

Have you been to London or Jerusalem?

 

[oldbadger]

How do you know what their emotions were concerning Roman coin?

By the way, the coin was TEMPLE coin struck in the design authorised by Rome, a head of Baal on the face, with a graven image of a large raptor on the prow of a ship on the reverse, and with the name 'Caesar' in abbreviated Greek beside it. (KP and KAP)

........ and Jesus asked, 'Whose head is this, and inscription?'..... I think he was holding a Temple half-shekel and teasing the priesthood, who, if they had answered truthfully the crowd would have torn them all to pieces. So they had to lie.....what irony!

 

[oldbadger]

Most of the Roman soldiers were garrisoned in Assyria.. Just a few at Fortress Antonia in Jerusalem.

The Roman garrison was at Caesarea on the coast, but the Antonian Fortress held a couple of hundred, I think. There were 6000 Levite Guards for in-Temple duties.

 

[sooda]

By the way, the coin was TEMPLE coin struck in the design authorised by Rome, a head of Baal on the face, with a graven image of a large raptor on the prow of a ship on the reverse, and with the name 'Caesar' in abbreviated Greek beside it. (KP and KAP)

........ and Jesus asked, 'Whose head is this, and inscription?'..... I think he was holding a Temple half-shekel and teasing the priesthood, who, if they had answered truthfully the crowd would have torn them all to pieces. So they had to lie.....what irony!

First century Roman coin

First century Shekel

 

[oldbadger]

The Jewish moneychangers were ripping off poor people buying animals for sacrifice.

No they were not!
They were CHANGING MONEY!
The working people's money was neither pure enough or correct weight for Temple currency, only the accurate Shekel and half shekel in exact sivler content and weight. So the people had to buy TEMPLE MONEY at rip-off %s.

The priesthood charged for lambs and sacrificial duties. The law said that people could bring their own lamb if it was perfect.... of course the priests could condemn such animals as imperfect. Total rip-off.

This is why the Baptist was cutting off funds to both Jerusalem and the Temple, by redeeming folks in the Jordan for nothing.

Jesus had a call.....Hosea's chant....... 'Mercy! Mercy and not sacrifice!'

Have you been to London or Jerusalem?

Yep.