• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Was Jesus anti-Pharasaic?

Was jesus anti-Pharasaic?


  • Total voters
    15
  • Poll closed .

Desert Snake

Veteran Member
Also since Paul has already been brought up, I'm not a fan of the idea that everything was just kosher until he showed up. Simply throwing him under the bus seems like an overly easy "solution" to a more complex situation. I'm not sure we really appreciate the complicated problems of identity. Sacrificing to the gods of your nations was part of your ethnic identity, to totally abstain from it was much like separating from your community. While there have always been God-fearers had been part of synagogue communities, early gentile "Christians" had some things going against them.

They followed a messiah that may have been rejected by the rest of the community, and they may have begun outnumbering the original members of said Jewish communities which may have felt threatened by them. I'm also pretty sure that there wasn't a neat Noahide halakha in place yet to help organize the movement. You essentially have a bunch of people who are basically "orphans" that are neither fully Romans in practice anymore nor Jews. They are dying for a cause that gives them no known identity. This type of dilemma usually leads to marginalization on both sides. This is not something that would be easy to deal with.

Although I don't take Acts at face value, gentiles were obligated some form of dietary rules such as not eating things polluted by blood or idols, as well as certain sexual laws. Assuming Paul followed the Jerusalem Council, his doesn't strike me as "law-free" gospel since these are already pretty big burdens for those coming from a Hellenistic world. I think Paul simply wanted to make clear that gentiles need not fully convert to become people of God and discouraged them in the same manner that later Judaism eventually followed as well. It's not because of "inner lawlessness" that Paul appealed to gentiles, I think it's more so because he made them a priority.

Do you have an opinion on the OP question?
 

Desert Snake

Veteran Member
This is a fair summation of my opinion thank you.

The biggest example of hypocrisy is breaking the golden rule, Jesus, Shammai and Hillel all promoted the golden rule and the Pharisee leaders who Jesus confronted believed they were lawful, including the golden rule, yet they failed to treat others as they wished to be treated. I'm certain they wouldn't like anyone seeking fault with them and yet they sought fault in Jesus and his disciples eg they picked on lack of ritual hand-washing, they picked on healing on the sabbath, they picked on disciples picking and eating grain when they were hungry on a sabbath etc etc. Jesus gave them accepted precedents for all these merciful actions but they persisted in their ill will

God created humans in his image. How we treat God's visible image is how we are actually treating God, which both King David and Jesus confirmed (Ps 51:4, Mt 25:45). God wants mercy rather than picking on each other. Often people who consider themselves religious, think they are righteous because they perform religious rituals of going to religious services and partaking in religious festivals and knowing scripture and dressing and talking in a way that their peers and subordinates hold in esteem ... but what God requires is merciful behaviour in the form of the golden rule (Is 58:1-10) and Jas 1:27 Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.

Truly evil people are obvious to the world eg Hitler, Pol Pot etc In the same way, truly righteous people are famous eg Gandhi, Mother Theresa and the most famous of all is Jesus the merciful righteous Jew. His life and behaviour are so inspiring that other religions attempt to claim him but Jesus assured everyone that salvation is of the Jews since only they know the One true God who is spirit. Jesus came to heal any blindness his countrymen suffered and then enlighten the rest of through his eye-witness apostles. His ministry embraced and promoted merciful scriptural behaviour rather than man-made oral traditions, which sadly offends some Jewish people enough for them to mercilessly disdain, discredit and slander him to their shame for their obvious unrighteous behaviour. Sadly many (not all) Pharisees are the biggest offenders and fail to recognise how this reflects badly on them rather than Jesus. They are caught in the trap they set for another.

I f Jesus was literally anti-Pharisaic, ie, in how they adhered to religion, then hypocrisy is only one issue, that might be a problem; and actually, perhaps not even necessary for Jesus's arguing points.
 

Desert Snake

Veteran Member
Ok, that's a pretty good argument, imo.
The only problem with that, is, if that is the case, then why is that not made more clear in Scripture? Why, if that were the case, were the Pharisees even used as examples? Surely there were other groups that were hypocritical, etc.
 

pearl

Well-Known Member
You're going to have to provide more information to you post, because I don't know what you want from me.


The Pharisee stood by himself and prayed: 'God, I thank you that I am not like other people--robbers, evildoers, adulterers--or even like this tax collector. Lk 18:11

"But the tax collector stood at a distance. He would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, 'God, have mercy on me, a sinner.' Lk 18:13
 

pearl

Well-Known Member
Why, if that were the case, were the Pharisees even used as examples? Surely there were other groups that were hypocritical, etc.


Unlike the others, the Pharisees were the true teachers, but they did not practice what they preached.
 
Where does it say that harvesting and reaping doesn't include what you personally need at the moment? You can't define it to suit your preferences.

I'm not defining it to suit my preferences, but rabbinic oral law did in total disregard and disagreement for what God clearly taught about what is harvesting and reaping, even although man-made oral law disagrees.
After you asked your question I studied to see what God said and here are some clear answers I found

Eating without Harvesting or reaping

Exo 23:10 And six years thou shalt sow thy land, and gather in the increase thereof; 11 but the seventh year thou shalt let it rest and lie fallow, that the poor of thy people may eat; and what they leave the beast of the field shall eat. In like manner thou shalt deal with thy vineyard, and with thy oliveyard.

Lev 25:5 That which groweth of itself of thy harvest thou shalt not reap, and the grapes of thy undressed vine thou shalt not gather; it shall be a year of solemn rest for the land. 6 And the sabbath-produce of the land shall be for food for you: for thee, and for thy servant and for thy maid, and for thy hired servant and for the settler by thy side that sojourn with thee; 7 and for thy cattle, and for the beasts that are in thy land, shall all the increase thereof be for food.

2Ki 19:29 And this shall be the sign unto thee: ye shall eat this year that which groweth of itself, and in the second year that which springeth of the same; and in the third year sow ye, and reap, and plant vineyards, and eat the fruit thereof.

Isa 37:30 And this shall be the sign unto thee: ye shall eat this year that which groweth of itself, and in the second year that which springeth of the same; and in the third year sow ye, and reap, and plant vineyards, and eat the fruit thereof.

Reaping and harvesting
Lev 19:9 And when ye reap the harvest of your land, thou shalt not wholly reap the corner of thy field, neither shalt thou gather the gleaning of thy harvest.
10 And thou shalt not glean thy vineyard, neither shalt thou gather the fallen fruit of thy vineyard; thou shalt leave them for the poor and for the stranger: I am the LORD your God.
Lev 23:22 And when ye reap the harvest of your land, thou shalt not wholly reap the corner of thy field, neither shalt thou gather the gleaning of thy harvest; thou shalt leave them for the poor, and for the stranger: I am the LORD your God.

Rights of the poor
Deu 23:24 (23:25) When thou comest into thy neighbour's vineyard, then thou mayest eat grapes until thou have enough at thine own pleasure; but thou shalt not put any in thy vessel. 25 (23:26) When thou comest into thy neighbour's standing corn, then thou mayest pluck ears with thy hand; but thou shalt not move a sickle unto thy neighbour's standing corn.

Psa 140:12 (140:13) I know that the LORD will maintain the cause of the poor, and the right of the needy.
Job 36:6 He preserveth not the life of the wicked; but giveth to the poor their right.

Recognition of the cause of the poor
Psa 140:12 (140:13) I know that the LORD will maintain the cause of the poor, and the right of the needy.

Pro 29:7 The righteous taketh knowledge of the cause of the poor; the wicked understandeth not knowledge.

I'm not sure how relevant that is. Even if the Law had only been a Rabbinical Enactment, it would still be relevant to someone who wants to call himself a Pharisee. We don't find the Pharisees going to the Hellenized Jews or Saducees complaining about how they are going against the Law. Clearly then the case is someone who wants to identify with the Pharisees, without actually following Pharisaical Law. That doesn't work.
Remember that Pharisees weren't the only Jewish sect, but they were the only ones who promoted their oral law. Sadducees were the Zadokite priestly class and they rejected the unscriptural oral law. The genalogy of Jesus included Zadok. Since Jesus and his disciples never called themselves Pharisees and the only recorded disagreement with the Sadducees was about resurrection, then the rabbinic enactments were not relevant to them. Ethiopian Jews had never heard of the oral law since they exited Israel before Roman rule and rabbinic Judaism. Simply because rabbinic Judaism is the majority sect, doesn't make it right.
Exo 23:2 Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil; neither shalt thou speak in a cause to decline after many to wrest judgment:
God is into minorities and always says if there is cause for destruction then only a few will be saved. Being in the majority doesn't help.

That wouldn't help after the fact. If they were hungry, they should have knocked on a Pharisee's door and asked for food. They wouldn't have been turned down. Why did they choose the path of breaking the Law?
Jesus certainly verified the scriptural instructions of God when he said how his disciples were guiltless for picking and eating grain on sabbath.
So you would prefer to cause people to beg and grovel rather than enjoy the grain God gave them as their right?

I repeat. Mercy is meant to be constrained by justice. There is mercy, but only within the framework of the Law. Think what would happen if every thief or murderer was let off the hook by a merciful judge.
Like I said before, these people had not broken God's Laws or committed any crime despite the Pharisees desiring to condemn them.

Waiting to harrass the poor
Psa 10:9 He lieth in wait in a secret place as a lion in his lair, he lieth in wait to catch the poor; he doth catch the poor, when he draweth him up in his net.
Psa 10:2 Through the pride of the wicked the poor is hotly pursued, they are taken in the devices that they have imagined.

God saves poor from condemnation
Psa 109:31 Because He standeth at the right hand of the needy, to save him from them that judge his soul. (KJV) For he shall stand at the right hand of the poor, to save him from those that condemn his soul.

Righteous judgment pleads the cause of the poor
Pro 31:9 Open thy mouth, judge righteously, and plead the cause of the poor and needy.

Isa 10:1 Woe unto them that decree unrighteous decrees, and to the writers that write iniquity;

Isa 10:2 To turn aside the needy from judgment, and to take away the right of the poor of My people, that widows may be their spoil, and that they may make the fatherless their prey!

Jer 22:16 He judged the cause of the poor and needy; then it was well. Is not this to know Me? saith the LORD.

Mercy & Judgment are not mutually exclusive
Psa 101:1 A Psalm of David. I will sing of mercy and judgment: unto thee, O LORD, will I sing.

Psa 89:14 Justice and judgment are the habitation of thy throne: mercy and truth shall go before thy face.

Zec 7:9 'Thus hath the LORD of hosts spoken, saying: Execute true judgment, and show mercy and compassion every man to his brother;

Hos 12:6 Therefore turn thou to thy God: keep mercy and judgment, and wait on thy God continually.

Zec 7:9 Thus speaketh the LORD of hosts, saying, Execute true judgment, and shew mercy and compassions every man to his brother:

Disdain for the poor? Contempt for mercy? No sir.
Showing priority for merciless oral law over God's command for merciful non-condemnation of poor people practicing the rights God gave them

Its kind of weird that you bring a verse that doesn't say what you are trying to prove. The verse is saying that G-d didn't institute sin-offerings because He wanted us to sin and then receive atonement. Rather G-d prefers that we not sin so that we don't need to bring sin-offerings.
What you are saying doesn't make any sense. If G-d didn't want sin-offerings at all, then why would He have issued Laws about them to begin with?
It's true that God prefers no sin rather than sin offerings but that's not what this particular verse says. There are many forms of sacrifice and that verse doesn't mention 'sin offering'
.Hos 6:6 For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings.
Regarding your mention of atonement: Pro 16:6 By mercy and truth iniquity is expiated; and by the fear of the LORD men depart from evil. (KJV) By mercy and truth iniquity is purged: and by the fear of the LORD men depart from evil.

This verse sums up the whole matter:
Mic 6:8 He hath shewed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the LORD require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?


Thank you for comments promoting scriptural study. Very beneficial thank you.
 

Tumah

Veteran Member
The Pharisee stood by himself and prayed: 'God, I thank you that I am not like other people--robbers, evildoers, adulterers--or even like this tax collector. Lk 18:11

"But the tax collector stood at a distance. He would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, 'God, have mercy on me, a sinner.' Lk 18:13
"Praised is the man who does not walk in the advice of the wicked. And in the path of the sinners, he does not stand. And in the settlement of scorners does not sit." Psa. 1:1

Seems like a justifiable response. I don't see what the problem is.
 
I f Jesus was literally anti-Pharisaic, ie, in how they adhered to religion, then hypocrisy is only one issue, that might be a problem; and actually, perhaps not even necessary for Jesus's arguing points.
Absolutely right
That was why he spoke against the oral law so often and why he defended scriptural law over rabbinic enactments and traditions. In doing this he quoted other prophets God said the same things through. IS 29:13 Wherefore the Lord said, Forasmuch as this people draw near me with their mouth, and with their lips do honour me, but have removed their heart far from me, and their fear toward me is taught by the precept of men:
MT 15:3 But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?
MK 7:8 For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.
MK 7:9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
MK 7:13 Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

No hypocrisy mentioned in these accusations. Simply a re-telling of Isaiah.

Jesus was not saying the Pharisees have authority to make up rules when he mentioned 'the seat of Moses' since it has been discovered they were actual seats in synagogues where scrolls of Moses were read aloud by the Pharisees or scribes. (google images to see what they looked like). This makes sense why a few alternative versions of the verse have been found which say all that 'he' says or all that 'they say' keep and do ... since 'they' were reading Moses as Acts confirms so 'they' speak what 'he' Moses wrote and these words should be heeded. ACTS 15:21 For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.
Jesus had Zadokite heritage so was closer in view to the Sadducees who rejected the oral law, rather than the Pharisees.
 

Tumah

Veteran Member
I'm not defining it to suit my preferences, but rabbinic oral law did in total disregard and disagreement for what God clearly taught about what is harvesting and reaping, even although man-made oral law disagrees.
After you asked your question I studied to see what God said and here are some clear answers I found

Eating without Harvesting or reaping

Exo 23:10 And six years thou shalt sow thy land, and gather in the increase thereof; 11 but the seventh year thou shalt let it rest and lie fallow, that the poor of thy people may eat; and what they leave the beast of the field shall eat. In like manner thou shalt deal with thy vineyard, and with thy oliveyard.

Lev 25:5 That which groweth of itself of thy harvest thou shalt not reap, and the grapes of thy undressed vine thou shalt not gather; it shall be a year of solemn rest for the land. 6 And the sabbath-produce of the land shall be for food for you: for thee, and for thy servant and for thy maid, and for thy hired servant and for the settler by thy side that sojourn with thee; 7 and for thy cattle, and for the beasts that are in thy land, shall all the increase thereof be for food.

2Ki 19:29 And this shall be the sign unto thee: ye shall eat this year that which groweth of itself, and in the second year that which springeth of the same; and in the third year sow ye, and reap, and plant vineyards, and eat the fruit thereof.

Isa 37:30 And this shall be the sign unto thee: ye shall eat this year that which groweth of itself, and in the second year that which springeth of the same; and in the third year sow ye, and reap, and plant vineyards, and eat the fruit thereof.

Reaping and harvesting
Lev 19:9 And when ye reap the harvest of your land, thou shalt not wholly reap the corner of thy field, neither shalt thou gather the gleaning of thy harvest.
10 And thou shalt not glean thy vineyard, neither shalt thou gather the fallen fruit of thy vineyard; thou shalt leave them for the poor and for the stranger: I am the LORD your God.
Lev 23:22 And when ye reap the harvest of your land, thou shalt not wholly reap the corner of thy field, neither shalt thou gather the gleaning of thy harvest; thou shalt leave them for the poor, and for the stranger: I am the LORD your God.
The verses there separate eating and reaping because it is not normal to eat immediately what was reaped. First they would reap it, then they would dry it, grind it and pat it and mark it with a B then put it in the oven for baby and me.
There are no verses here that indicate picking food for immediate consumption is not called reaping in Hebrew as well.

Rights of the poor
Deu 23:24 (23:25) When thou comest into thy neighbour's vineyard, then thou mayest eat grapes until thou have enough at thine own pleasure; but thou shalt not put any in thy vessel. 25 (23:26) When thou comest into thy neighbour's standing corn, then thou mayest pluck ears with thy hand; but thou shalt not move a sickle unto thy neighbour's standing corn.

Psa 140:12 (140:13) I know that the LORD will maintain the cause of the poor, and the right of the needy.
Job 36:6 He preserveth not the life of the wicked; but giveth to the poor their right.

Recognition of the cause of the poor
Psa 140:12 (140:13) I know that the LORD will maintain the cause of the poor, and the right of the needy.

Pro 29:7 The righteous taketh knowledge of the cause of the poor; the wicked understandeth not knowledge.
Not sure what you want from me with these verses.


Remember that Pharisees weren't the only Jewish sect, but they were the only ones who promoted their oral law. Sadducees were the Zadokite priestly class and they rejected the unscriptural oral law. The genalogy of Jesus included Zadok. Since Jesus and his disciples never called themselves Pharisees and the only recorded disagreement with the Sadducees was about resurrection, then the rabbinic enactments were not relevant to them. Ethiopian Jews had never heard of the oral law since they exited Israel before Roman rule and rabbinic Judaism. Simply because rabbinic Judaism is the majority sect, doesn't make it right.
That's probably not true. There are episodes (such as hand-washing) where the decree is obviously a Rabbinic Enactment, yet they still questions Jesus and co. If the author of the NT was not trying to portray Jesus as being from the Pharisees, then that argument wouldn't make any sense to direct at them.

Exo 23:2 Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil; neither shalt thou speak in a cause to decline after many to wrest judgment:
God is into minorities and always says if there is cause for destruction then only a few will be saved. Being in the majority doesn't help.
In that case, you should become an Orthodox Jew. (please don't).

Jesus certainly verified the scriptural instructions of God when he said how his disciples were guiltless for picking and eating grain on sabbath.
So you would prefer to cause people to beg and grovel rather than enjoy the grain God gave them as their right?
Well, since the G-d given right to grain came with the caveat that it not be picked on the Sabbath, I would say yes.

Like I said before, these people had not broken God's Laws or committed any crime despite the Pharisees desiring to condemn them.
Yes, I know what you're argument is.

Waiting to harrass the poor
Psa 10:9 He lieth in wait in a secret place as a lion in his lair, he lieth in wait to catch the poor; he doth catch the poor, when he draweth him up in his net.
Psa 10:2 Through the pride of the wicked the poor is hotly pursued, they are taken in the devices that they have imagined.

God saves poor from condemnation
Psa 109:31 Because He standeth at the right hand of the needy, to save him from them that judge his soul. (KJV) For he shall stand at the right hand of the poor, to save him from those that condemn his soul.

Righteous judgment pleads the cause of the poor
Pro 31:9 Open thy mouth, judge righteously, and plead the cause of the poor and needy.

Isa 10:1 Woe unto them that decree unrighteous decrees, and to the writers that write iniquity;

Isa 10:2 To turn aside the needy from judgment, and to take away the right of the poor of My people, that widows may be their spoil, and that they may make the fatherless their prey!

Jer 22:16 He judged the cause of the poor and needy; then it was well. Is not this to know Me? saith the LORD.

Mercy & Judgment are not mutually exclusive
Psa 101:1 A Psalm of David. I will sing of mercy and judgment: unto thee, O LORD, will I sing.

Psa 89:14 Justice and judgment are the habitation of thy throne: mercy and truth shall go before thy face.

Zec 7:9 'Thus hath the LORD of hosts spoken, saying: Execute true judgment, and show mercy and compassion every man to his brother;

Hos 12:6 Therefore turn thou to thy God: keep mercy and judgment, and wait on thy God continually.

Zec 7:9 Thus speaketh the LORD of hosts, saying, Execute true judgment, and shew mercy and compassions every man to his brother:

Showing priority for merciless oral law over God's command for merciful non-condemnation of poor people practicing the rights God gave them
You have given me verses speaking about having mercy. I never denied that mercy should not be used. I only said it has to be within the framework of judgement. In fact I keep saying that. And that is also what these last five verses you've quoted here are saying as well. The question was not whether mercy should be shown. But whether True Judgement should be abolished in the face of mercy. And to that I've said no.

It's true that God prefers no sin rather than sin offerings but that's not what this particular verse says. There are many forms of sacrifice and that verse doesn't mention 'sin offering'
.Hos 6:6 For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings.
Yes, but the contrast makes more sense that way: mercy vs sin-offerings. The contrast of say, mercy vs the perpetual daily offering doesn't make any sense. There are only two offerings mentioned in this verse, "ZeVaCH" and "OLoTH". However, there are a number of other offerings such as "SHeLaMiM", "MinCHaH" etc. The specific useage of "ZeVaCH" and "OLoTH" refer to the two types of sin-offerings, the "CHaTaTH" and the "ASHaM" respectively. The sin "CHaTaTH" is a "ZeVaCH", because "ZeVaCHIM" are types of sacrifices that are eaten, as it the "CHaTaTH". The "ASHaM" is an "OLaH" it is not eaten but "goes up (olah)" in its entirety.

Regarding your mention of atonement: Pro 16:6 By mercy and truth iniquity is expiated; and by the fear of the LORD men depart from evil. (KJV) By mercy and truth iniquity is purged: and by the fear of the LORD men depart from evil.
The way you read it leaves a contradiction between the verses that demand sacrifice and verses like these. The remedy is that sacrifice alone is not what expiates sin. Only sacrifice with repentance.

This verse sums up the whole matter:
Mic 6:8 He hath shewed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the LORD require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?
Why do you go all the way to Micah when Moses already said in Deut. 10:12,13
What does G-d, your G-d ask from you but to fear G-d your G-d, to go in all His ways, and to love Him and to serve G-d your G-d with all your heart and all your soul. To keep the commandments of G-d and His statutes, that I have commanded you today, for your good.
 

pearl

Well-Known Member
"Praised is the man who does not walk in the advice of the wicked. And in the path of the sinners, he does not stand. And in the settlement of scorners does not sit." Psa. 1:1

Seems like a justifiable response. I don't see what the problem is.

But the tax collector, in humbleness before God, and in recognition of his sinfulness, prayed for God's mercy. The Pharisee on the other hand, was not humble but puffed up
on his own worthiness.
 

Tumah

Veteran Member
But the tax collector, in humbleness before God, and in recognition of his sinfulness, prayed for God's mercy. The Pharisee on the other hand, was not humble but puffed up
on his own worthiness.
I don't see that. I see two men using their individual circumstances to connect to G-d. The first one thanks G-d for His mercy and the second one beseeches G-d for mercy.
 
The verses there separate eating and reaping because it is not normal to eat immediately what was reaped. First they would reap it, then they would dry it, grind it and pat it and mark it with a B then put it in the oven for baby and me.
There are no verses here that indicate picking food for immediate consumption is not called reaping in Hebrew as well.
According to Torah I quoted above about eating from a field, it was WAS normal for the Torah-observant poor to immediately eat what they picked ... NOT reaped.
Your joking argument is not based on Torah since Torah-observant Israelites in scriptural times did NOT reap on the sabbatical year, according to God's own law, so they did NOT reap fields to get grain to take home and cook.

Not sure what you want from me with these verses.
I was hoping you would recognise that God gave the poor the right to eat fresh produce when they are hungry.

That's probably not true. There are episodes (such as hand-washing) where the decree is obviously a Rabbinic Enactment, yet they still questions Jesus and co. If the author of the NT was not trying to portray Jesus as being from the Pharisees, then that argument wouldn't make any sense to direct at them.
The Pharisees hounded Jesus and approached him to pick on him. The NT writers simply stated this and what the Scriptural Torah responses of Jesus were, rather than your promotion that Jesus must have been a Pharisee.

In that case, you should become an Orthodox Jew. (please don't).
So first you show contempt for the Torah -observant poor and now you show contempt for a torah-observant widow who relies on the God of Israel's mercy for survival and show that you don't find either acceptable in your eyes. Thankfully gracious God looks out for me and the poor. May God forgive you.

Well, since the G-d given right to grain came with the caveat that it not be picked on the Sabbath, I would say yes.
There is no caveat in the scripture which states that eating is 'work' except for the day of atonement. If you believe that eating is always work is then you should fast every sabbath.


Yes, I know what you're argument is.
It's a pity that you prioritize human enactments over the law of God. We are all accountable to God and must account to Him as to why we ignored him in preference for heeding any human who is not God. Free will personal choice. I accept your choice.

You have given me verses speaking about having mercy. I never denied that mercy should not be used. I only said it has to be within the framework of judgement. In fact I keep saying that. And that is also what these last five verses you've quoted here are saying as well. The question was not whether mercy should be shown. But whether True Judgement should be abolished in the face of mercy. And to that I've said no.
The scripture I quoted said that true judgment pleads the rights of the poor and God doesn't condemn them for exercising the rights he gave them.
You are judging and condemning them for practicing these Torah rights because man-made enactments void God's Law on this and you like the merciless man-made enactments better. You love picking and judging and condemning people in a less comfortable situation than yourself rather than consider their plight like God does and having mercy rather than unjustly picking when they haven't broken God's merciful laws.


Yes, but the contrast makes more sense that way: mercy vs sin-offerings. The contrast of say, mercy vs the perpetual daily offering doesn't make any sense. There are only two offerings mentioned in this verse, "ZeVaCH" and "OLoTH". However, there are a number of other offerings such as "SHeLaMiM", "MinCHaH" etc. The specific useage of "ZeVaCH" and "OLoTH" refer to the two types of sin-offerings, the "CHaTaTH" and the "ASHaM" respectively. The sin "CHaTaTH" is a "ZeVaCH", because "ZeVaCHIM" are types of sacrifices that are eaten, as it the "CHaTaTH". The "ASHaM" is an "OLaH" it is not eaten but "goes up (olah)" in its entirety.
Youu know how trinitarians view everything through their ingrained filter and simply can't truly see or accept simple scripture which disproves their chosen dogma ... well trinitarians aren't the only religious group who do this. People who don't have that filter recognise the emperor has no clothes. The verse is simple and clear for those who take it at face value.


The way you read it leaves a contradiction between the verses that demand sacrifice and verses like these. The remedy is that sacrifice alone is not what expiates sin. Only sacrifice with repentance.
Yes repentance is needed but it is included in repentance. Mercy atones according to scripture.


Mic 6:8 He hath shewed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the LORD require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?
Why do you go all the way to Micah when Moses already said in Deut. 10:12,13
What does G-d, your G-d ask from you but to fear G-d your G-d, to go in all His ways, and to love Him and to serve G-d your G-d with all your heart and all your soul. To keep the commandments of G-d and His statutes, that I have commanded you today, for your good.
Agreed. I do and have been promoting the same. The fact that I don't comply or agree with man-made enactments which void any of God's Laws is where we differ.
PS 118:8 It is better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in man.
 
You have given me verses speaking about having mercy. I never denied that mercy should not be used. I only said it has to be within the framework of judgement. In fact I keep saying that. And that is also what these last five verses you've quoted here are saying as well. The question was not whether mercy should be shown. But whether True Judgement should be abolished in the face of mercy. And to that I've said no.
.
I just realised I overlooked asking you what you believed should have happened to these poor ones who ate fresh produce on the sabbath?
Since you persist in promoting these poor people were criminals deserving condemnation without mercy, what would your sentencing be for them? Stoning, lashing, jail or what? What would you mercilessly convict them to in your righteous state of being in a place to judge them without mercy? How would you want your rabbis to treat them?
 

Tumah

Veteran Member
According to Torah I quoted above about eating from a field, it was WAS normal for the Torah-observant poor to immediately eat what they picked ... NOT reaped.
2 Kings 19:29
"and on the third year
sow and harvest
and plant vineyards and and eat their fruit"
See how the verse is equating eating with harvesting?
Your joking argument is not based on Torah since Torah-observant Israelites in scriptural times did NOT reap on the sabbatical year, according to God's own law, so they did NOT reap fields to get grain to take home and cook.
The language there implies that reaping then doesn't refer to reaping for immediate consumption.
Ex 34:21 "Six days you shall work and in the seventh day you shall rest. In the plowing season and in the harvesting season, you shall rest."
So you see the fact that the verse refers to the harvest season rather than harvesting, implies large-scale harvesting.

I was hoping you would recognise that God gave the poor the right to eat fresh produce when they are hungry.
Everyone has the right to eat fresh produce when their hungry. Providing that the method they get it is not prohibited.

The Pharisees hounded Jesus and approached him to pick on him. The NT writers simply stated this and what the Scriptural Torah responses of Jesus were, rather than your promotion that Jesus must have been a Pharisee.
That doesn't seem very likely. Also, I recall a verse where Jesus tells people to do what the Pharisees say. That's not a position that Sadducees, or Hellenized Jews would take.

So first you show contempt for the Torah -observant poor and now you show contempt for a torah-observant widow who relies on the God of Israel's mercy for survival and show that you don't find either acceptable in your eyes. Thankfully gracious God looks out for me and the poor. May God forgive you.
What are you talking about?

There is no caveat in the scripture which states that eating is 'work' except for the day of atonement. If you believe that eating is always work is then you should fast every sabbath.
When did I imply that eating is work? It's the picking that's considered work, not the eating.

It's a pity that you prioritize human enactments over the law of God. We are all accountable to God and must account to Him as to why we ignored him in preference for heeding any human who is not God. Free will personal choice. I accept your choice.
Thank you for your kindness.

The scripture I quoted said that true judgment pleads the rights of the poor and God doesn't condemn them for exercising the rights he gave them.
You are judging and condemning them for practicing these Torah rights because man-made enactments void God's Law on this and you like the merciless man-made enactments better. You love picking and judging and condemning people in a less comfortable situation than yourself rather than consider their plight like God does and having mercy rather than unjustly picking when they haven't broken God's merciful laws.
What you are saying is not correct. The verse itself says not to give preference in judgment to a poor person. Whatever you want to say has to take that verse into consideration. You can't just ignore that verse. Which you keep doing. Repeatedly.

Youu know how trinitarians view everything through their ingrained filter and simply can't truly see or accept simple scripture which disproves their chosen dogma ... well trinitarians aren't the only religious group who do this. People who don't have that filter recognise the emperor has no clothes. The verse is simple and clear for those who take it at face value.
There is nothing to be taken at face value in the Torah. Every word of G-d is Wisdom. And Wisdom requires study. You can't take any word for granted because there's a reason why that particular word is used in that particular instance. Why did the prophet say, "ZeVaCHiM" and "OLoTH". Why didn't he use the more inclusive word "KoRBaNOTH"? Its a question that the true scholar needs to answer.

Yes repentance is needed but it is included in repentance. Mercy atones according to scripture.
If that were true, then why did G-d formulate an entire sacrificial system, including a section of sacrifices for repentance? According to what you're saying, there was no need for it.

Agreed. I do and have been promoting the same. The fact that I don't comply or agree with man-made enactments which void any of God's Laws is where we differ.
PS 118:8 It is better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in man.
That's true. So stop believing what Matt, Luke, Pete and Mark are telling you and listen to the Words of G-d.

I just realised I overlooked asking you what you believed should have happened to these poor ones who ate fresh produce on the sabbath?
Since you persist in promoting these poor people were criminals deserving condemnation without mercy, what would your sentencing be for them? Stoning, lashing, jail or what? What would you mercilessly convict them to in your righteous state of being in a place to judge them without mercy? How would you want your rabbis to treat them?
The same way Moses treated that man who wanted some sticks to warm his poor bones on the Sabbath. Num. 15:32-36
 

Desert Snake

Veteran Member
Unlike the others, the Pharisees were the true teachers, but they did not practice what they preached.
This doesn't quite answer the question, imo. We have to take the entire situation into account, and for that matter, Jesus is talking to people who may or may not have followed the Pharisees at that time, place, etc. There is no inherent authorization of Pharisaic teaching by Eshu, just because He tells people to do as they say. This is not literal, obviously, because what they say, is ultimately different from what Eshu says.
 
Last edited:

Desert Snake

Veteran Member
There is going to be a point in which the teachings of Eshu diverge enough from the Pharisaic teachings, to be labeled ''anti-Pharisaic". This doesn't have to mean that Jesus was against everything the Pharisees taught, or practiced, however, if the differences were fundamental enough to be a source of contention on the Shabbat adherence rules, then we don't have to look for much more, imo.
 
Last edited:

rosends

Well-Known Member
@anotherglenda
"There is no caveat in the scripture which states that eating is 'work' except for the day of atonement. If you believe that eating is always work is then you should fast every sabbath. "

where is eating ever called "work" even on the Day of Atonement?
 

pearl

Well-Known Member
There is going to be a point in which the teachings of Eshu diverge enough from the Pharisaic teachings, to be labeled ''anti-Pharisaic". This doesn't have to mean that Jesus was against everything the Pharisees taught, or practiced, however, if the differences were fundamental enough to be a source of contention on the Shabbat adherence rules, then we don't have to look for much more, imo.


Jesus' opposition to the Pharisaic regulations of the Sabbath was a major source of contention. How could it not be?

"Come to me, all you who labor and are burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am meek and humble of heart; and you will find rest for your selves. For my yoke is easy, and my burden light."

The burden is the Sabbath laws which the rabbis have added to, 39 kinds of work to be forbidden. God's commandment is simply to keep the Sabbath holy. Sabbath rest is another symbol for the Kingdom. To understand the enormity of the split over the Sabbath it is necessary to understand the Sabbath as the center of Jewish life.
Eating on the Sabbath was not the problem, but picking was. Still today orthodox Jews do not cook, tare open, carry any distance, drive, even turning on the lights must be
done before sundown, etc. It is only forbidden to eat on a fast day(Day of Atonement) which the Sabbath was not. Referring to Jesus as 'Lord of the Sabbath', Jesus becomes the personification of the Torah. Is it any wonder there was a split?
 
@anotherglenda
"There is no caveat in the scripture which states that eating is 'work' except for the day of atonement. If you believe that eating is always work is then you should fast every sabbath. "

where is eating ever called "work" even on the Day of Atonement?

apologies for delay responding.

The dictionary definition of 'work' in English-speaking languages, is to 'perform an activity for a purpose'.
Common activities (for a purpose) of daily life include eating, hygiene, dressing, toileting etc.
The purpose of 'eating' is to relieve hunger (or the purpose for some people is for enjoyment or relieve boredom) but eating is a deliberate activity for a purpose.

The only way we can understand words we read are according to accepted definitions for the language we read in.
Is 'work' defined differently in other languages?
 
Top