The prophets tell us that THE SCRIBES HAD CHANGED THE GOD'S LAW

[Tumah]

Like CMike, I also find your opinion highly interesting and would love for you both to give me the rationale behind your flat rejection.

I would also be highly interested in hearing what you think Jesus is saying in Matthew 15:1-9 so that we could compare notes.

Sure, check out Mark 7:9-13. This was actually discussed about halfway down this page.

The authors are saying that if a person dedicates his field for Temple use, he no longer has ownership of the fields and by extension can no longer use the proceeds to take care of his parents. According to the authors of Matt and Mark, this constitutes a transgression of the Biblical Law to honor one's parents.

Of course, one of the mistake that authors (or at least the original author both these books are taken from) are making is that the Law of dedicating something to the Temple is also Biblical (see Deut. 23:22-24 for example).

It has nothing to do with the Sabbath.

 

[Prophet]

I have already admitted that neither observance of the Sabbath, cleanliness, kosher law, temple sacrifice, nor even familial respect is the true issue at hand here.

Quoting myself:

I fear you miss the forest for the trees. The issue at hand was neither cleanliness nor familial respect. The issue was the utter failure of blind guides to the law to recognize the difference between the law of God (love all, serve all), and mere human conventions Jews had made into law for human needs (like the ban on pork, washing hands, and observance of the Sabbath).

When Pharisees scoffed at Jesus' disciples failure to adhere to Torah law by eating with dirty hands, Jesus in turn scoffed at the Pharisees failure to recognize the difference between the Law of God and mere rules of men, rejecting their authority to be recognized as givers of the law by calling them blind guides.

I liked to imagine Pharisees forbidding charitable work from being done on a Saturday as an example of the law givers "nullifying the word of God for the sake of their tradition." I'll grant that you may be right in that Jesus may have been referring to law regarding sacrifice and not the Sabbath. Jesus adds in Mark 7:13, "Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And you do many things like that." Would not forbidding helping one's parents on a Saturday be a correct example of "many things like like that?"

I feel that you've judged me as not knowing what I'm talking about somewhat unfairly.

One more example of "many things like that" in Mark 2:23-28:

23One Sabbath Jesus was going through the grainfields, and as his disciples walked along, they began to pick some heads of grain. 24The Pharisees said to him, “Look, why are they doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath?”

25He answered, “Have you never read what David did when he and his companions were hungry and in need? 26In the days of Abiathar the high priest, he entered the house of God and ate the consecrated bread, which is lawful only for priests to eat. And he also gave some to his companions.”

27Then he said to them, “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. 28So the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath.”

 

[Tumah]

I have already admitted that neither observance of the Sabbath, cleanliness, kosher law, temple sacrifice, nor even familial respect is the true issue at hand here.

Quoting myself:


I liked to imagine Pharisees forbidding charitable work from being done on a Saturday as an example of the law givers "nullifying the word of God for the sake of their tradition." I'll grant that you may be right in that Jesus may have been referring to law regarding sacrifice and not the Sabbath. Jesus adds in Mark 7:13, "Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And you do many things like that." Is not forbidding charitable work for one's parents on a Saturday an example of "many things like like that?"

It was to the second half of that quote that I was referring.

Charitable work that does not involve profaning the Sabbath is permissible on the Sabbath. Unlike regular businesses transactions, one can even discuss and donate monetary charity on the Sabbath (although not physically give it, until the conclusion).

I think your NT writers are setting up a straw-man by declaring the Sabbath Laws "traditions of men." There are Rabbinical Descrees and there are Biblical Laws. Your NT doesn't recognize certain Laws as being of Biblical in origin because they are not explicitly written in Scriptures. But that doesn't mean they are not.

I did not mention any Laws regarding sacrifice, I mentioned Laws regarding dedications. So I'm not sure what you mean there.

Also can you explain why you put the "ban on pork" into the category of "mere human conventions Jews had made into law for human needs" in light of Lev. 11:7, Deut. 14:8?

Edit: Somehow I missed this part:

I feel that you've judged me as not knowing what I'm talking about somewhat unfairly.

One more example of "many things like that" in Mark 2:23-28:

23One Sabbath Jesus was going through the grainfields, and as his disciples walked along, they began to pick some heads of grain. 24The Pharisees said to him, “Look, why are they doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath?”

25He answered, “Have you never read what David did when he and his companions were hungry and in need? 26In the days of Abiathar the high priest, he entered the house of God and ate the consecrated bread, which is lawful only for priests to eat. And he also gave some to his companions.”

27Then he said to them, “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. 28So the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath.”

This doesn't make any sense. Why are we deriving the Law regarding picking heads of grain on the Sabbath from eating the show-bread of the Temple? Those are two separate Laws. It's like saying, since I'm allowed to kill in self-defense I'm also allowed to kill on Sabbath.

That aside, David was fleeing with his men from Saul. They had no other food. David told Achimelech (not Abiathar!!) that his men fulfilled the requirements for eating the bread and the bread itself was no longer completely holy.

So the only comparison we might be able to draw, is that when one is starving, one is allowed to perform actions that may normally not be performed. So if Jesus' men were starving, then no one would have said a word to him. It must be they were not starving. And we see from his response that he did not disagree of the existence of harvesting on the Sabbath. Rather he decided reinterpret the meaning of the Sabbath and then apply it to himself so that he can allow whatever he wants against G-d's express command (Ex. 34:21)

 

[Flankerl]

This is simply hilarious.


So appareantly the "Scribes" changed the law. Okay.

So now after they changed it a prophet came and told everyone about it. Which gets written down in the very same book that was apparently changed.

The conclusion is obviously that this prophet doesnt revert things to how they were. No all he does is tell people that it was changed which to make the whole matter even crazier gets written down and included into the canon.

Witness the most incompetent Prophet in the history of mankind.



At least by the logic of some people here.

 

[Tumah]

This is simply hilarious.


So appareantly the "Scribes" changed the law. Okay.

So now after they changed it a prophet came and told everyone about it. Which gets written down in the very same book that was apparently changed.

The conclusion is obviously that this prophet doesnt revert things to how they were. No all he does is tell people that it was changed which to make the whole matter even crazier gets written down and included into the canon.

Witness the most incompetent Prophet in the history of mankind.



At least by the logic of some people here.

No no no. They're just doing what Christians do best. Tweaking the verses to make it say what they want it to say. In this case, it helps them back up Jesus' complaints about the Pharisees.

Only, that's not what the verse is saying as I've said on these forums multiple times. The verse is saying that the people are making what the Scribes write into lies. They are claiming that what they are doing is what G-d wants, when really its not, as the next verse explains. Since it is against what the Scribes are writing they are metaphorically turning Scriptures (which is what Scribes write) into lies.

 

[CMike]

Prophet "I fear that I may think the same of your own counter-argument in the event that you share it in its entirety but I'll reserve my judgement until I can discount your argument rationally.



I fear you miss the forest for the trees. The issue at hand was neither cleanliness nor familial respect. The issue was the utter failure of blind guides to the law to recognize the difference between the law of God (love all, serve all), and mere human conventions Jews had made into law for human needs (like the ban on pork, washing hands, and observance of the Sabbath)"

The laws regarding washing your hands isn't because your hands are dirty.

Morning Hand-Washing - Get Your Hands Wet! - Mitzvah Minutes

Prophet "When Pharisees scoffed at Jesus' disciples failure to adhere to Torah law by eating with dirty hands, Jesus in turn scoffed at the Pharisees failure to recognize the difference between the Law of God and mere rules of men, rejecting their authority to be recognized as givers of the law by calling them blind guides."

It's really hard to follow the twisted logic.

The laws of the Sabbath come from G-D. Also, the Torah gives the sages the power to make decisions, and G-D said not to veer from it right nor left.

Dvarim

Deuteronomy - Chapter 17 (Parshah Shoftim) - Tanakh Online - Torah - Bible

11. According to the law they instruct you and according to the judgment they say to you, you shall do; you shall not divert from the word they tell you, either right or left.


By jesus just picking and choosing what he likes and what he doesn't like he is defying what G-D said to do from the Torah.

 

[CMike]

I have already admitted that neither observance of the Sabbath, cleanliness, kosher law, temple sacrifice, nor even familial respect is the true issue at hand here.

Quoting myself:


I liked to imagine Pharisees forbidding charitable work from being done on a Saturday as an example of the law givers "nullifying the word of God for the sake of their tradition." I'll grant that you may be right in that Jesus may have been referring to law regarding sacrifice and not the Sabbath. Jesus adds in Mark 7:13, "Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And you do many things like that." Would not forbidding helping one's parents on a Saturday be a correct example of "many things like like that?"

I feel that you've judged me as not knowing what I'm talking about somewhat unfairly.

One more example of "many things like that" in Mark 2:23-28:

23One Sabbath Jesus was going through the grainfields, and as his disciples walked along, they began to pick some heads of grain. 24The Pharisees said to him, “Look, why are they doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath?”

25He answered, “Have you never read what David did when he and his companions were hungry and in need? 26In the days of Abiathar the high priest, he entered the house of God and ate the consecrated bread, which is lawful only for priests to eat. And he also gave some to his companions.”

27Then he said to them, “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. 28So the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath.”

Extremely arrogant.

No he was not.

The sabbath laws were given by G-D. So jesus was saying he was "lord" over G-D.

I think jesus was extremely arrogant and had delusions of grandeur. IMO he really needed to get over himself.

He was not a god.

He was not the son of god

He was not the jewish messiah

He was a salesman. Basically he was saying you have a special deal with me. You don't have to keep the comandments, you don't have to repent for your sins, you don't need to do any of the hard stuff. All you have to do is believe I am your god or whatever it is any you will go to heaven.

However, none of that was true.

 

[Brickjectivity]

There are a lot of world views that profess Jesus as their prophet. There are some Christians who believe in selflessness, love, and equality to all as core values. There are also some Christians excuse their omissions from universal love with a belief that God will torture or cast out non-Christians for all eternity, excusing their own support for wars that destroy families and lives. I think the Christianity that Jesus was calling "salt of the earth" was demonstrably less diverse than the myriad of institutionalized religion that identifies with Christianity today.

(Ok, we are about to depart completely from the main topic.) You do yourself and all Christians credit by choosing life and more abundant life. That is the true root of righteousness. In the face of all the faults and bad things that have happened you seek out the 'Bruised reed' so as not to break it. That is good, but I disagree deeply with thinking the denominations are separate. If you are Christian then you are responsible for all other Christians and those who claim to be including Muslims, Mormons and anybody else who claims to be Christian. All of the distributed groups with all of their bickerings are all Christian, and also the Mormons and Muslims are Christian and are the responsibility of all of the other Christians and vice versa both in guilt and in reward. Jesus would not consider these to be separate groups despite unbeliefs, disagreements and cat calls. There is one body, not 10,000 bodies, one body trying to fight off a terrible disease with a fever so high its about to kill itself. If you would save it start ignoring the fake boundaries that pride has erected.

From Matthew 7:

21“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ 23Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’

In short, I think Jesus was addressing a much smaller group as proponents of radical progress, including but certainly not limited to marital equality, when he identified his followers as "salt of the earth". Institutionalized religion seems quite the opposite as a proponent of change but rather stagnation.

I believe my response to this can be read above partly. As for what you are saying about marriage it is known from other sources that at this time there were two opposing Jewish schools of thought about marriage: one that a man could divorce his wife over almost anything and the other that he could divorce his wife only if the marriage agreement or else the law was broken (the position Jesus took). I don't know why the Pharisees are portrayed in the NT as opposing Jesus since it is thought that they would have shared his opinion on marriage. Perhaps it is just one of those things we'll never be certain about during our lifetimes.

Then, I would ask, what kind of man do you think Jesus could be addressing with 'reductio ad absurdum' with this if not the legalist Pharisee?

Another passage with the same message leaves no room for doubt that it addresses the legalist Pharisee who might have a problem with a man tending to his parents' fields on a Saturday. From Matthew 15:

This is, IMO, a scathing review of legalism.

Let us suppose that Jesus is a prophet or better. Then he is closer than us to the blazing light of God's glory, and anything we do is going to look terrible to him -- you know 'Filthy rags'. Now suppose we are a couple of do-gooders who spend our days doing things for the poor such as educating and feeding them, and then one day this prophet Jesus shows up calling us 'Vipers'. That is the situation in the gospels. Christians generallly don't get it, because they only hear half of the story. The gospels and Jesus discussion with the Pharisees is a very poor introduction to them and to what they believed. If we assume like you that they were legalistic, then that has implications about what Jesus was saying. Assuming it is not a good idea, since it can blind us to any other aspect of what Jesus says. I also don't think it is appropriate to assume that the Pharisees were 'Legalistic' without first investigating whether we are right or not. Basically by assuming things and accusing people we don't know, we are only making ourselves look bad.

 

[CMike]

Yanno...this is rather silly.

Christians discussing judaism based on their very twisted and warped version of judaism is really rediculous.

Let's start from the beginning.

The five books of Moses contains the laws of Judaism. These laws all come from G-D because jews believe that all the laws in the Torah were given from G-D.

The laws can not be added to nor subtracted from as stated in Deutereonmy 13.

Jews have 613 commandments.

Below is a link that lists them.

Judaism 101: A List of the 613 Mitzvot (Commandments)

Moses got on Mt Sinai also the oral law. The oral law further clarifies ambiguities in the written law. Both the written law and oral law come from G-D.

Prophets come from the individual prophet. No laws comes from prophets. Prophets by definition are prohesies.

I find that Pharisses is what anti-semities call jews. It's similar to the new term of "zionists" rather than jews.

Legal Pharisses? Seriously?

Jews are supposed to keep all the laws in the Torah.

No one has the power to pick and choose what laws they are supposed to follow and not follow and keep the Torah.

Also G-D in the Torah grants power to the sages to make decisions. The power of these decisions comes from G-D.

 

[Prophet]

It was to the second half of that quote that I was referring.

Charitable work that does not involve profaning the Sabbath is permissible on the Sabbath. Unlike regular businesses transactions, one can even discuss and donate monetary charity on the Sabbath (although not physically give it, until the conclusion).

I feel pretty confidently that Jesus disregards Torah law where it demands that we reserve charitable giving for the conclusion of Saturday. Jesus said that the "Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath," clearly casting observance of the Sabbath into the camp of "merely human rules."

I think your NT writers are setting up a straw-man by declaring the Sabbath Laws "traditions of men." There are Rabbinical Descrees and there are Biblical Laws. Your NT doesn't recognize certain Laws as being of Biblical in origin because they are not explicitly written in Scriptures. But that doesn't mean they are not.

I realize that you are debating against a bit wider set of world views under the umbrella of Christianity than the one I hold. I want to assure you that the word "Biblical" does not carry the same inerrant weight with me as it can with many of us. I guess I'll make some definitive statements on what I believe: The Law of God would still be the Law of God if it was written on a toilet stall as long as it demands selflessness of us. The Bible is errant, and any teaching gleaned from it or anywhere must be independently confirmed with reason.

I did not mention any Laws regarding sacrifice, I mentioned Laws regarding dedications. So I'm not sure what you mean there.

Is not the dedication of the proceeds of a field that could have directly profited the owner an example of sacrifice? Please excuse my ignorance.

Also can you explain why you put the "ban on pork" into the category of "mere human conventions Jews had made into law for human needs" in light of Lev. 11:7, Deut. 14:8?

Again, I'll reiterate that I do not care that the pork ban is listed in the pages of the Bible. I'll take my gospel from Chris Rock in this case. Pork was causing the spread of disease. Leaders decided the easiest way to stem the outbreak was to ban pork and tell their people that God said not to eat it. God remains silent on the issue.

 

[Prophet]

(Ok, we are about to depart completely from the main topic.) You do yourself and all Christians credit by choosing life and more abundant life. That is the true root of righteousness. In the face of all the faults and bad things that have happened you seek out the 'Bruised reed' so as not to break it. That is good, but I disagree deeply with thinking the denominations are separate. If you are Christian then you are responsible for all other Christians and those who claim to be including Muslims, Mormons and anybody else who claims to be Christian. All of the distributed groups with all of their bickerings are all Christian, and also the Mormons and Muslims are Christian and are the responsibility of all of the other Christians and vice versa both in guilt and in reward. Jesus would not consider these to be separate groups despite unbeliefs, disagreements and cat calls. There is one body, not 10,000 bodies, one body trying to fight off a terrible disease with a fever so high its about to kill itself. If you would save it start ignoring the fake boundaries that pride has erected.

When a human believes that he is a separate entity onto himself, caring for only his own need and wants and seeks to increase himself without regard for the rest of humanity, he becomes blind and the cause of his own suffering and the suffering of those who surround him. When a cell of your body believes it is a separate entity onto itself, caring for its own needs and seeking to increase itself without regard for the body, it becomes blind and the cause of its own suffering and the suffering of the body around it. It is called cancer. Selfishness and the fear that reinforces it are a cancer on the body of life.

Recognizing this, there was no desire on my part to split up any religion. Instead, I merely attempted to clarify the audience Jesus addresses as "salt of the earth". In the vernacular of our country, "salt of the earth" type people is what institutionalized religion produces, typically meaning people who stand for tradition and against social progress such as allowing gay marriage, almost completely the opposite of the proponents for radical change who Jesus was addressing.

I believe my response to this can be read above partly. As for what you are saying about marriage it is known from other sources that at this time there were two opposing Jewish schools of thought about marriage: one that a man could divorce his wife over almost anything and the other that he could divorce his wife only if the marriage agreement or else the law was broken (the position Jesus took). I don't know why the Pharisees are portrayed in the NT as opposing Jesus since it is thought that they would have shared his opinion on marriage. Perhaps it is just one of those things we'll never be certain about during our lifetimes.

I have already expressed my doubts that Jesus would have cared to make pronouncements on divorce law. I believe both passages to be interpolations, so I won't defend either. If this is a debate you want, let me know, but I feel I have covered the difference between Law of God and conventions of men to a good extent in this thread.

Let us suppose that Jesus is a prophet or better. Then he is closer than us to the blazing light of God's glory, and anything we do is going to look terrible to him -- you know 'Filthy rags'. Now suppose we are a couple of do-gooders who spend our days doing things for the poor such as educating and feeding them, and then one day this prophet Jesus shows up calling us 'Vipers'. That is the situation in the gospels. Christians generallly don't get it, because they only hear half of the story. The gospels and Jesus discussion with the Pharisees is a very poor introduction to them and to what they believed. If we assume like you that they were legalistic, then that has implications about what Jesus was saying. Assuming it is not a good idea, since it can blind us to any other aspect of what Jesus says. I also don't think it is appropriate to assume that the Pharisees were 'Legalistic' without first investigating whether we are right or not. Basically by assuming things and accusing people we don't know, we are only making ourselves look bad.

When God classifies acts of righteousness as "filthy rags" it is not because the act wasn't good enough. It's because the act was just that, an act. Though they act selflessly, it never went beyond acting--they never became selfless. It is for this reason Jesus teaches all to "not perform acts of righteousness in front of others to be seen by them". Jesus says to these actors:

Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of the bones of the dead and everything unclean.

To paraphrase, Jesus is accusing them of hypocrisy because their motives for their acts of selflessness are, at their core, selfish. They feign selfless, unattached, truly loving behavior to receive the selfish, attached rewards of personal honor. They "will have no reward from their Father in heaven" in form of the profound self-awareness that comes with giving from the heart which peels back the physical illusion and shows us that others REALLY ARE a part of us. No, they take their "reward in full" here in the physical illusion of separateness:

“Everything they do is done for people to see: They make their phylacteries wide and the tassels on their garments long; 6they love the place of honor at banquets and the most important seats in the synagogues; 7they love to be greeted with respect in the marketplaces and to be called ‘Rabbi’ by others.

I will grant that I only have half of the story regarding the Pharisees. I will also grant that it is closed-minded to disparage groups of people wholesale. Amongst any group there are going to be some good apples and some bad ones. However, this very day, I'm debating against the idealogical progeny of the Pharisees who still believe God favors those who eschew work on Saturdays and don't eat pork. This tells me that there is still massive confusion in the Jewish community about what goodness is. I personally guarantee you that God could not care less about these things.

 

[Tumah]

I feel pretty confidently that Jesus disregards Torah law where it demands that we reserve charitable giving for the conclusion of Saturday. Jesus said that the "Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath," clearly casting observance of the Sabbath into the camp of "merely human rules."



I realize that you are debating against a bit wider set of world views under the umbrella of Christianity than the one I hold. I want to assure you that the word "Biblical" does not carry the same inerrant weight with me as it can with many of us. I guess I'll make some definitive statements on what I believe: The Law of God would still be the Law of God if it was written on a toilet stall as long as it demands selflessness of us. The Bible is errant, and any teaching gleaned from it or anywhere must be independently confirmed with reason.



Is not the dedication of the proceeds of a field that could have directly profited the owner an example of sacrifice? Please excuse my ignorance.



Again, I'll reiterate that I do not care that the pork ban is listed in the pages of the Bible. I'll take my gospel from Chris Rock in this case. Pork was causing the spread of disease. Leaders decided the easiest way to stem the outbreak was to ban pork and tell their people that God said not to eat it. God remains silent on the issue.

In that case, we have no middle-ground with which to have any discussion. Any verse I quote, you can dismiss out of hand as not Biblical (ie. not the Law of G-d) if you don't believe/understand it. Or choose to accept certain verses as Biblical over other simply because you relate to them better.

 

[Prophet]

In that case, we have no middle-ground with which to have any discussion. Any verse I quote, you can dismiss out of hand as not Biblical (ie. not the Law of G-d) if you don't believe/understand it. Or choose to accept certain verses as Biblical over other simply because you relate to them better.

I don't feel that this is a fair characterization of my messages with you and others here. Yes, I dismiss many of your verses and accept my own, but, out of hand? Without any thought or reason?

You equate the adjective "Biblical" with the Word of God when all Biblical really means is "in the Bible". At no point in history did God write anything in the Bible. The Bible was written, rewritten, copied, and compiled by men. Some of these men were great holy men who were fit to write Scripture, some were less fit. It stands to reason that some false Scripture will sneak in. Luckily for all of us, the phrase "Word of God" does have a condition, that being that it is necessarily TRUE for all eternity, meaning we can easily test Scripture for validity.

In actuality, you're accepting your own verses and rejecting mine in this out of hand, thoughtless manner you complain about in my debating. You accept kosher law as the Law of God out of hand merely because of its presence in a book you were taught to honor as the Truth without question. You see a ban on pork in the Torah and seemingly will accept no possible reason for it being there other than "God said so." If God did say so, go ahead and present His rationale. If you can't present perfect reasoning behind God's rationale, what kind of position are you in to teach anyone what God says or thinks?

You may be right about us not being able to find middle ground, and I am sorry for that.

 

[Tumah]

I don't feel that this is a fair characterization of my messages with you and others here. Yes, I dismiss many of your verses and accept my own, but, out of hand? Without any thought or reason?

You equate the adjective "Biblical" with the Word of God when all Biblical really means is "in the Bible". At no point in history did God write anything in the Bible. The Bible was written, rewritten, copied, and compiled by men. Some of these men were great holy men who were fit to write Scripture, some were less fit. It stands to reason that some false Scripture will sneak in. Luckily for all of us, the phrase "Word of God" does have a condition, that being that it is necessarily TRUE for all eternity, meaning we can easily test Scripture for validity.

In actuality, you're accepting your own verses and rejecting mine in this out of hand, thoughtless manner you complain about in my debating. You accept kosher law as the Law of God out of hand merely because of its presence in a book you were taught to honor as the Truth without question. You see a ban on pork in the Torah and seemingly will accept no possible reason for it being there other than "God said so." If God did say so, go ahead and present His rationale. If you can't present perfect reasoning behind God's rationale, what kind of position are you in to teach anyone what God says or thinks?

You may be right about us not being able to find middle ground, and I am sorry for that.

I think that you are missing the point. The question was whether the NT portrayal of the Pharisees as dismissing the "Law of G-d" is an accurate depiction. You cited Matthew which (after some clarification) deals with whether one can dedicate one's fields to the Temple in lieu of "G-d's Word" that we honor our parents. Ostensibly you posit with Matthew that this would include not dedicating one's field to the Temple.

Now, aside from the fact that you seem to be taking the NT's claim of "nullifying the Word of G-d for the sake of tradition," as gospel, you put me into a position where I can't make any counter-claim because you don't believe that the verses that speak about Temple dedication are Word of G-d. In other words, anyone who disagrees with you, is wrong because they are not citing the "Word of G-d," but the "traditions of men", even if both are Biblical.

Similarly, you've taken the NT's position that the Pharisees reject the "Word of G-d" in favor of tradition when it comes to picking grains on the Sabbath. So when I provide a verse that clearly establishes harvesting on Sabbath as prohibited, it means nothing to you, because that verse for you is not the Word of G-d.

I can provide a perfectly rational reason behind the dietary Laws. However, it is predicated on the acceptance of the rest of Scriptures. Which you don't, so that's not going to be very relevant here.

 

[Prophet]

I think that you are missing the point. The question was whether the NT portrayal of the Pharisees as dismissing the "Law of G-d" is an accurate depiction. You cited Matthew which (after some clarification) deals with whether one can dedicate one's fields to the Temple in lieu of "G-d's Word" that we honor our parents. Ostensibly you posit with Matthew that this would include not dedicating one's field to the Temple.

I appreciate the context you are providing. I'm not sure how relevant it is. All debating is meaningless if we disagree on the terms, which makes a debate about definitions extremely relevant.

You posited that the Word of God is that which is included in the Torah. My assertion in reply: Truth is still the truth even written on a filthy bathroom stall wall. I continue to insist that to qualify as the Word of God, inclusion in the Torah or any holy book is irrelevant. You refused to address this and instead chose to dismiss me "out of hand".

I also continue to insist that to qualify as the Word of God, a passage must relate ideas that are unconditionally true, regardless of era or culture. You are so fundamentally sold out to your own culture/holy book that you dismiss me "out of hand" in this instance as well.

You accused me of dismissing you without thought or reason. It is a dangerous trap to accuse others of things which you, yourself, are more guilty.

Now, aside from the fact that you seem to be taking the NT's claim of "nullifying the Word of G-d for the sake of tradition," as gospel, you put me into a position where I can't make any counter-claim because you don't believe that the verses that speak about Temple dedication are Word of G-d. In other words, anyone who disagrees with you, is wrong because they are not citing the "Word of G-d," but the "traditions of men", even if both are Biblical.

Similarly, you've taken the NT's position that the Pharisees reject the "Word of G-d" in favor of tradition when it comes to picking grains on the Sabbath. So when I provide a verse that clearly establishes harvesting on Sabbath as prohibited, it means nothing to you, because that verse for you is not the Word of G-d.

I can provide a perfectly rational reason behind the dietary Laws. However, it is predicated on the acceptance of the rest of Scriptures. Which you don't, so that's not going to be very relevant here.

I've already been over what the word Biblical means to me, and it is not synonymous with "foolproof" as Torah seems for you. Yes, I do take that phrase as gospel, but I only do so after confirming the reasoning behind it. The Word of God says you are to treat all mankind as part of yourself, yet you do not treat me as a lost brother but rather a dangerous adversary to the structural integrity of your world view. It is plain to see that your traditions are a bigger deal to you than being an embodiment of love.

In my opinion, you, yourself, have nullified the Word of God for the sake of your traditions in this very debate.

 

[Tumah]

I appreciate the context you are providing. I'm not sure how relevant it is. All debating is meaningless if we disagree on the terms, which makes a debate about definitions extremely relevant.

You posited that the Word of God is that which is included in the Torah. My assertion in reply: Truth is still the truth even written on a filthy bathroom stall wall. I continue to insist that to qualify as the Word of God, inclusion in the Torah or any holy book is irrelevant. You refused to address this and instead chose to dismiss me "out of hand".

I also continue to insist that to qualify as the Word of God, a passage must relate ideas that are unconditionally true, regardless of era or culture. You are so fundamentally sold out to your own culture/holy book that you dismiss me "out of hand" in this instance as well.

You accused me of dismissing you without thought or reason. It is a dangerous trap to accuse others of things which you, yourself, are more guilty.

I've already been over what the word Biblical means to me, and it is not synonymous with "foolproof" as Torah seems for you. Yes, I do take that phrase as gospel, but I only do so after confirming the reasoning behind it. The Word of God says you are to treat all mankind as part of yourself, yet you do not treat me as a lost brother but rather a dangerous adversary to the structural integrity of your world view. It is plain to see that your traditions are a bigger deal to you than being an embodiment of love.

In my opinion, you, yourself, have nullified the Word of God for the sake of your traditions in this very debate.

I get the feeling that you are more interested in reiterating your special universalist view of truth, then in dealing with the issue. Yes, I get it. You'll take truth from an intellectually disabled person on heroin just as you would from your favorite prophet. I understand.

What is relevant is that this means that G-d's Word to you means anything you understand or relate to. That's fine. To each his own. But that means that if I present something, like the Law of Temple dedication as an explanation of why Matthew's got it wrong, there is no way to get past the boundary you've made. Unlike other Christians, where the common ground is Scriptures.

So if you want - and maybe that's what you've been saying all along- you can claim that Matthew himself recognized as you did, that Scriptures was not G-d's Word. Rather he believed that only the verses that he related to were G-d's Word. And based on that he argues that the Pharisees were not keeping G-d's Word. Well that's fine. I don't know enough about the NT to argue.

But it also wouldn't make sense to argue with you about NT passages, when essentially you get to choose the weapons I use, namely: which verses are G-d'w Word and which are not.

It would make more sense to argue about why a given verse/passage should be considered G-d's Word or not.

Also, if you are referring to the verse, "and you should love your friend as yourself," it doesn't say I should love you as if you were a part of me. It also doesn't say that all of mankind should be considered my brother. It also doesn't say that I should love anyone unequivocally as Pro. 8:13 makes clear. So I don't think I am nullifying G-d's Word here.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Yanno...this is rather silly.

Christians discussing judaism based on their very twisted and warped version of judaism is really rediculous.

Let's start from the beginning.

The five books of Moses contains the laws of Judaism. These laws all come from G-D because jews believe that all the laws in the Torah were given from G-D.

The laws can not be added to nor subtracted from as stated in Deutereonmy 13.

Jews have 613 commandments.

Below is a link that lists them.

Judaism 101: A List of the 613 Mitzvot (Commandments)

Moses got on Mt Sinai also the oral law. The oral law further clarifies ambiguities in the written law. Both the written law and oral law come from G-D.

Prophets come from the individual prophet. No laws comes from prophets. Prophets by definition are prohesies.

I find that Pharisses is what anti-semities call jews. It's similar to the new term of "zionists" rather than jews.

Legal Pharisses? Seriously?

Jews are supposed to keep all the laws in the Torah.

No one has the power to pick and choose what laws they are supposed to follow and not follow and keep the Torah.

Also G-D in the Torah grants power to the sages to make decisions. The power of these decisions comes from G-D.

I realize that it is funny sometimes and may be boorish. (Christians can also fart on demand. That is what the little wafers are for.) Our issues could be discussed in secret and I could try to hide the appearance of problems, but I feel like they should be discussed openly for posterity. It's not like I'm particularly happy with my own Christian upbringing, either; so why shouldn't I talk about it? I don't want the same mistakes to happen again! Let those who laugh, laugh. If something is horrible, let it be deplored. We live in a transition period (digital, social techological, religious revolutions) that will likely create uncertainty about History itself. For the sake of people living in the far off future and the immediate future we are discussing our thoughts openly, and that will give them a connection to our common past even if that past is less than admirable. I think historians will dote on our time period. Let them know what our thoughts are about it and what we think about the past. If there are people a thousand years from now I want them to feel connected with the same History that we have, so they don't feel like someone made it all up! It may even be important in the immediate future, given that the world is changing so quickly. So its tragic, its funny but its still important.

 

[CMike]

I agree with Tumah.

Jews take the Torah as what G-D said, which is sacred for us.

If you just poo poo what we cite from the Torah as our laws from G-D then there really isn't a basis to debate anything.

As Tumah said anything from the Torah is just whatever for you.

However, to jews what is in the Torah comes from G-D. It was dictated to Moses from G-D.

Jesus if he was an observant jews doesn't get to pick what he liked and what he disliked. You have to follow it all.

 

[Prophet]

I get the feeling that you are more interested in reiterating your special universalist view of truth, then in dealing with the issue. Yes, I get it. You'll take truth from an intellectually disabled person on heroin just as you would from your favorite prophet. I understand.

While it is certainly a goal of mine to take truth from retarded people and junkies just as openly as I’d hear out a respected prophet, I fear my prejudices and misconceptions in seeing myself as superior still often obstruct my sight. I assure you that you cast praise upon me that I have done nothing to deserve.

What is relevant is that this means that G-d's Word to you means anything you understand or relate to. That's fine. To each his own. But that means that if I present something, like the Law of Temple dedication as an explanation of why Matthew's got it wrong, there is no way to get past the boundary you've made. Unlike other Christians, where the common ground is Scriptures.

God's Word, to me, implies eternal truth, useful in any culture or era, quite independently of what I can relate to. I can relate to the drive you feel to see me as an enemy, and in my less thoughtful moments I fall into that trap. Yes, I do require myself to understand words so well I can explain it to others before I am willing to accept them as truth. This part of your praise I am willing to accept.

In case you think I discount the OT wholesale, my favorite passage is in Isaiah:

The wolf will live with the lamb,
the leopard will lie down with the goat,
the calf and the lion and the yearling together;
and a little child will lead them.
The cow will feed with the bear,
their young will lie down together,
and the lion will eat straw like the ox.
The infant will play near the cobra’s den,
and the young child will put its hand into the viper’s nest.
They will neither harm nor destroy
on all my holy mountain,
for the earth will be filled with the knowledge of the Lord
as the waters cover the sea.

This sounds rather universalist to me.

So if you want - and maybe that's what you've been saying all along- you can claim that Matthew himself recognized as you did, that Scriptures was not G-d's Word. Rather he believed that only the verses that he related to were G-d's Word. And based on that he argues that the Pharisees were not keeping G-d's Word. Well that's fine. I don't know enough about the NT to argue.

But it also wouldn't make sense to argue with you about NT passages, when essentially you get to choose the weapons I use, namely: which verses are G-d'w Word and which are not.

It would make more sense to argue about why a given verse/passage should be considered G-d's Word or not.

Again, the source of the passage is irrelevant to me. NT, OT, bathroom stall, junkie, whatever. Furthermore, I'm choosing your weapons for you no regardless of whose turf you think we are on, because in your thoughtless devotion to the Torah, you choose to accept as gospel things no reasoning could possibly confirm like God's preference for those who rest on Saturday. In your insecurity, you then accuse me of thoughtlessly accepting the verses I like, a charge you are guilty of yourself. All the while, you fail to present any reasonable case that I accept anything without thought. An accusation with no evidence amounts to nothing but slander. Your insecurity makes you blind to your crime. This is how hypocrisy works.

Also, if you are referring to the verse, "and you should love your friend as yourself," it doesn't say I should love you as if you were a part of me. It also doesn't say that all of mankind should be considered my brother. It also doesn't say that I should love anyone unequivocally as Pro. 8:13 makes clear. So I don't think I am nullifying G-d's Word here.

I am referring to MANY verses when I say God's Word says to love everyone, including that passage from Isaiah I quoted. How could such a world come about where the young of former predator and prey sleep in the same bed together if we will not love our enemies? How can Judism in the form you defend it ever bring this perfect world it prophesies to fruition?

You think it is all well and good to love your friends and to hate your enemies. How does doing this truly make you a good man? Don't your enemies often do the exact same thing from their own perspective? You are exactly the same, yet you believe that God judges you good and your enemy evil. Your rational position here seems terribly insecure.

And does Pro. 8:13 make it as clear as you say? Please explain for me why it is good, and the will of God that we do not love unequivocally. I know the Bible gave great King Solomon a platform to trumpet himself as the wisest ever and elevate his writings as being worthy of the title Scripture. I bet king Solomon thought he was pretty smart when he figured out the true mother's identity by threatening to cut a disputed baby in two. I imagine him in a proud moment, bragging to all his court what a clever king he is, making sure after the applause has died down that his scribes recorded this moment of wise king Solomon's glory.

Were I to hear this story of anyone I knew, I would think them minimally clever and completely unwise. I would be struck by the cruelty first, and second by the lack of self-awareness that makes him actually able to be proud of this and want this savagery recorded for posterity. King Solomon puts all the wisdom of King Joffrey on display.

 

[Prophet]

I agree with Tumah.

Blind agreement is the basis for fundamentalist religion, so I'm not majorly surprised.

Jews take the Torah as what G-D said, which is sacred for us.

I have documented my disagreement with any reasoning that will accept that a teaching is from God on sole basis that it made it into your holy book. If you need me to re-document why I don't believe we can attribute words to God that could make Him, our standard for goodness, a liar or bigot, I'll be happy to go over that again.

If you just poo poo what we cite from the Torah as our laws from G-D then there really isn't a basis to debate anything.

My basis is summarized above. Again, I am happy to go into more detail. If you are so sold out to your belief that nothing I can demonstrate for you can possibly alter your view, the debate is actually pointless, rather than baseless.

As Tumah said anything from the Torah is just whatever for you.

Torah, OT, NT... None of these are dogs I have in a race.

However, to jews what is in the Torah comes from G-D. It was dictated to Moses from G-D.

Moses is another one of my favorites. From Exodus 19:

9 The Lord said to Moses, “I am going to come to you in a dense cloud, so that the people will hear me speaking with you and will always put their trust in you.” Then Moses told the Lord what the people had said.

10 And the Lord said to Moses, “Go to the people and consecrate them today and tomorrow. Have them wash their clothes 11 and be ready by the third day, because on that day the Lord will come down on Mount Sinai in the sight of all the people. 12 Put limits for the people around the mountain and tell them, ‘Be careful that you do not approach the mountain or touch the foot of it. Whoever touches the mountain is to be put to death. 13 They are to be stoned or shot with arrows; not a hand is to be laid on them. No person or animal shall be permitted to live.’ Only when the ram’s horn sounds a long blast may they approach the mountain.”

Are you familiar with how a ruse works? I believe anyone who doesn't have a horse in this race will admit that something suspicious is going on atop of Mt. Sinai. I am accusing Moses of faking God's authorship of the Ten Commandments.

Jesus if he was an observant jews doesn't get to pick what he liked and what he disliked. You have to follow it all.

Jesus wasn't considered an observant Jew in your mind because he didn't submit to Torah law without thought and rational disagreement. The demand that to be a real or "observant" Jew, one must blindly submit to belief of every word is an assertion I doubt you can support. I reject the notion that God gave us intelligence to test if we could bury it.