Was Jesus anti-Pharasaic?

[Desert Snake]

Well, you just "lol" at yourself because Aquinas actually believed and taught that, ever though a literal approach wouldn't work dealing with the messianic prophecies, the Tanakh laid the groundwork for Jesus, iho. Maybe you should go on modesty medication if you think you know more than Aquinas did on Christian theology, and it's obvious you'd rather jump to a crazy conclusion than actually doing some homework. Frankly, you just made yourself look like quite the fool but are probably not even aware of that. Agree or disagree with him, he was very bright, and certainly not a "bum".

''Literal approach''? How subjective is the non-literal approach?

 

[roger1440]

Regretfully, I have to go along with you on this. The infancy narratives were penned several decades after Jesus lived and died, and since there's so little on his early life covered in the gospels, this seemingly implies that even the early church didn't consider that time period in his life to be that terribly important.

There is very little known about his life at all. If we string end to end everything Jesus said from all known Gospels it would take less than 2 hours to read. Is it that Jesus had so little material to work with or very little was known about his life?

 

[metis]

There is very little known about his life at all. If we string end to end everything Jesus said from all known Gospels it would take less than 2 hours to read. Is it that Jesus had so little material to work with or very little was known about his life?

I tend to think both of the above. His role of teacher only went on for roughly three years; his use of parables may have left quite a bit of vagueness, which seems confirmed because the apostles seem to have difficulty in some areas of this new theology after he was gone; there was a general simplicity with his message, but specifics appear to have been lacking; and it appears that the apostles and others thought he was returning soon, so not much was written down right away.

My take.

 

[roger1440]

I tend to think both of the above. His role of teacher only went on for roughly three years; his use of parables may have left quite a bit of vagueness, which seems confirmed because the apostles seem to have difficulty in some areas of this new theology after he was gone; there was a general simplicity with his message, but specifics appear to have been lacking; and it appears that the apostles and others thought he was returning soon, so not much was written down right away.

My take.

I went to a church about 6 weeks ago. The Pastor rambled on longer then everything Jesus has said in the Gospels. This was only in one sitting,LOL.

 

[anotherglenda]

But I never made the claim that there is. You, however did write, "There is no caveat in the scripture which states that eating is 'work' except for the day of atonement..."

I'm glad you don't say that nibbling grain is work.

The issue of any possible caveat was raised by Tumah, who claimed there is a caveat against picking and nibbling grain on sabbath.

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.

I responded there is no such caveat in scripture

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.

The only caveat specified in scripture about refraining from all work, including 'eating', on the day of atonement is 'afflict your souls' which means refrain from eating

 

[Desert Snake]

The actual text is not ''literal'', on everything, so why would rest on the Sabbath be literal? Makes no sense.

 

[anotherglenda]

This seems to be relying on a single archaeological paper from 25 years ago to speculate that the stone chair in question may have been a "seat of Moses." However, this single instance of speculation does not alter, in any meaningful fashion, the fact that many other synagogues from about the same era have been unearthed, none with "seats of Moses." Nor the fact that no Jewish literature of the period (or before or after the period) mentions such a thing as a "seat of Moses" in synagogues. Nor the fact that Torah is always read standing up, not sitting down.

The inscription on the stone seat has nothing to do with Moses. So why should we call it a "seat of Moses?" There are plaques all over my synagogue commemorating donations by benefactors: if one is one a pew, does that make it the "seat of Moses?" Judging from the inscription on the stone chair, it seems like it was the "seat of Judah son of Ishmael."



First of all, this is a midrash. An exegetical parable. It is not supposed to be taken as a literal historical record-- even the Rabbis didn't think of it as such. Second of all, this midrash is depicting an encounter between Moses and God in the Heavens above Mount Sinai, when Moses is said to have been taken up into the Heavens after he ascended the mountain to receive the Torah. So it is not, in fact, a "physical seat," since in this midrash it is depicted as existing in Heaven. Not in this world. To say nothing of the fact that the midrash in question describes a seat created for the actual personage Moses, one time: it has nothing to do with a "seat of Moses" allegedly in synagogues.

I appreciate your thoughts about this, but there have been multiple seats of Moses unearthed so far
eg
Chorazin (basalt in good condition)
Hammoth Tiberias (limestone deteriorating)
En_Gedi (also mentioned in magazine 'Archaeology in Israel' piece by Jacqueline Schaalje)
& diaspora synagogues
Delos (from 1st century)
Dura Europas

There is a really good book called 'Ancient Synagogue Seating Analysis and Limits by Chad S Spigel PhD, which discusses ancient synagogue furniture, including seats of Moses. He points out that most synagogues used wooden furniture and mats, and any non-stone seating, including mats, wooden seats and seats of Moses have not survived material record due to decay, but thankfully nails have survived which show such wooden furniture did exist.

Evidently there are references to seats of Moses in Pesikta de Rab Kahana and Eleazer Sukenik identified the existence of literal seats of Moses from manuscripts where they were called 'qadetry demoshe'. Another book, 'the Significance of Yavneh and other Essays in Jewish Hellenism' by Shayne J D Cohen also discusses seats of Moses and admits they physically exist, but doesn't like that they are called seats of Moses and prefers to consider them in a non-literal sense as a seat of authority.
Evidently his preference is a common one.

There are multiple seats of Moses available and more reference material available for interested parties. I find them interesting but they aren't everyone's cup of tea and that's ok

 

[Levite]

I appreciate your thoughts about this, but there have been multiple seats of Moses unearthed so far
eg
Chorazin (basalt in good condition)
Hammoth Tiberias (limestone deteriorating)
En_Gedi (also mentioned in magazine 'Archaeology in Israel' piece by Jacqueline Schaalje)
& diaspora synagogues
Delos (from 1st century)
Dura Europas

There is a really good book called 'Ancient Synagogue Seating Analysis and Limits by Chad S Spigel PhD, which discusses ancient synagogue furniture, including seats of Moses. He points out that most synagogues used wooden furniture and mats, and any non-stone seating, including mats, wooden seats and seats of Moses have not survived material record due to decay, but thankfully nails have survived which show such wooden furniture did exist.

Evidently there are references to seats of Moses in Pesikta de Rab Kahana and Eleazer Sukenik identified the existence of literal seats of Moses from manuscripts where they were called 'qadetry demoshe'. Another book, 'the Significance of Yavneh and other Essays in Jewish Hellenism' by Shayne J D Cohen also discusses seats of Moses and admits they physically exist, but doesn't like that they are called seats of Moses and prefers to consider them in a non-literal sense as a seat of authority.
Evidently his preference is a common one.

There are multiple seats of Moses available and more reference material available for interested parties. I find them interesting but they aren't everyone's cup of tea and that's ok

I am sure there were stone seats, and probably wooden seats, in lots of synagogues. I sincerely doubt that they were called "seats of Moses," or "qadetry d'moshe" (I would have to see it spelled in Hebrew characters, since I don't recognize the word "kadatra" or "kiditra" or anything like that).

I am well aware that there is the image of a seat for Moshe in certain midrashim-- but again, that is a mythopoeic image used for symbolic purposes in exegetical parables. Not a literal chair, nor having anything to do with actual practice in ancient synagogues.

I also am friendly with Shaye Cohen-- I was privileged to study with him while I lived in Israel. I would be quite surprised if he believed that any stone seats or evidence of wooden seats found in ancient synagogues were literally called "seats of Moses" and used as alleged, as institutionalized chairs in all or most synagogues for authority figures to read from the Torah.

 

[rosends]

I'm glad you don't say that nibbling grain is work.

The issue of any possible caveat was raised by Tumah, who claimed there is a caveat against picking and nibbling grain on sabbath.

I responded there is no such caveat in scripture

The only caveat specified in scripture about refraining from all work, including 'eating', on the day of atonement is 'afflict your souls' which means refrain from eating

There are two sides to your claim:
1. That the text never lists picking grain as eating. This is true.
2. That the text DOES say that " eating is 'work' [on] the day of atonement" That is not true.

You cannot support your contention by then citing text which says "afflict your soul" which you then infer is eating and decide that that is a textual proof that the text calls anything "working." Is eating generally "working"? If so, then when the text, in terms of the sabbath, forbids work, it must be forbidding eating.

 

[rosends]

I am sure there were stone seats, and probably wooden seats, in lots of synagogues. I sincerely doubt that they were called "seats of Moses," or "qadetry d'moshe" (I would have to see it spelled in Hebrew characters, since I don't recognize the word "kadatra" or "kiditra" or anything like that).

I am well aware that there is the image of a seat for Moshe in certain midrashim-- but again, that is a mythopoeic image used for symbolic purposes in exegetical parables. Not a literal chair, nor having anything to do with actual practice in ancient synagogues.

I also am friendly with Shaye Cohen-- I was privileged to study with him while I lived in Israel. I would be quite surprised if he believed that any stone seats or evidence of wooden seats found in ancient synagogues were literally called "seats of Moses" and used as alleged, as institutionalized chairs in all or most synagogues for authority figures to read from the Torah.

If it is the same Shaye Cohen I knew when I was (much) younger, I doubt he would make the logical leap from "synagogues have chairs" to "the chair is a specific Seat of Moses."

 

[Simplelogic]

Ok.


No such physical seat exists or has every existed. In fact, at the alleged time of Jesus, the custom was to stand while learning Torah.



Ok.


You are cherry picking verses. There are many more verses describing the sacrificial system than you have brought here. You are choosing to ignore entire swaths of the Law of Moses for the sake of a few scattered verses. My view incorporates the sacrificial system with these verses.


I do.

They were not.



Glorifying G-d's Name at the expense of G-d's Law is not glorifying G-d's Name. He made the Laws. If He was embarrassed of them, he shouldn't have had them written in. The fact that He didn't means that He isn't. So I won't be either.


Effort has nothing to do with it.

Chorazin

 

[rosends]

Chorazin

Was Jesus anti-Pharasaic? | Page 8 | ReligiousForums.com

 

[Simplelogic]

Was Jesus anti-Pharasaic? | Page 8 | ReligiousForums.com

Even if we don't have 100% confirmation on the seat of Moses the point is clear in the text. Its also obvious that Jesus was not teaching anyone to keep Rabbinic interpretation. One merely needs the read the following verse to see just how much Jesus disagreed with Rabbinic logic. Jesus didn't even agree with them being called "Rabbi". Here are a few examples:

4“They tie up heavy burdens and lay them on men’s shoulders, but they themselves are unwilling to move them with so much as a finger.

Obviously in reference to their version of the oral Torah

5“But they do all their deeds to be noticed by men; for they broaden their phylacteries and lengthen the tassels of their garments.

Overt spirituality, insincerity

6“They love the place of honor at banquets and the chief seats in the synagogues, 7and respectful greetings in the market places, and being called Rabbi by men. 8“But do not be called Rabbi; for One is your Teacher, and you are all brothers. 9“Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven. 10“Do not be called leaders; for One is your Leader, that is, Christ. 11“But the greatest among you shall be your servant. 12“Whoever exalts himself shall be humbled; and whoever humbles himself shall be exalted.

The entire authority structure is being challenged here

13“But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you shut off the kingdom of heaven from people; for you do not enter in yourselves, nor do you allow those who are entering to go in. 14[“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you devour widows’ houses, and for a pretense you make long prayers; therefore you will receive greater condemnation.]

False humility and neglect of the widow's

27“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs which on the outside appear beautiful, but inside they are full of dead men’s bones and all uncleanness. 28“So you, too, outwardly appear righteous to men, but inwardly you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness.

Here Jesus is calling the Pharisees "lawless". So are we really supposed to believe that Jesus commanded his followers to follow "lawless people"???
Of course not! The command was pertaining to Mosaic authority. Pharisees were teaching both Moses and their own doctrines.

 

[Simplelogic]

I appreciate your thoughts about this, but there have been multiple seats of Moses unearthed so far
eg
Chorazin (basalt in good condition)
Hammoth Tiberias (limestone deteriorating)
En_Gedi (also mentioned in magazine 'Archaeology in Israel' piece by Jacqueline Schaalje)
& diaspora synagogues
Delos (from 1st century)
Dura Europas

There is a really good book called 'Ancient Synagogue Seating Analysis and Limits by Chad S Spigel PhD, which discusses ancient synagogue furniture, including seats of Moses. He points out that most synagogues used wooden furniture and mats, and any non-stone seating, including mats, wooden seats and seats of Moses have not survived material record due to decay, but thankfully nails have survived which show such wooden furniture did exist.

Evidently there are references to seats of Moses in Pesikta de Rab Kahana and Eleazer Sukenik identified the existence of literal seats of Moses from manuscripts where they were called 'qadetry demoshe'. Another book, 'the Significance of Yavneh and other Essays in Jewish Hellenism' by Shayne J D Cohen also discusses seats of Moses and admits they physically exist, but doesn't like that they are called seats of Moses and prefers to consider them in a non-literal sense as a seat of authority.
Evidently his preference is a common one.

There are multiple seats of Moses available and more reference material available for interested parties. I find them interesting but they aren't everyone's cup of tea and that's ok

I would love to see more information on this if you don't mind.

 

[Simplelogic]

Another example of Jesus condemning Rabbinic authority:
Yeshua vs the Pharisees (round 3) | ReligiousForums.com

 

[rosends]

Even if we don't have 100% confirmation on the seat of Moses the point is clear in the text. Its also obvious that Jesus was not teaching anyone to keep Rabbinic interpretation. One merely needs the read the following verse to see just how much Jesus disagreed with Rabbinic logic. Jesus didn't even agree with them being called "Rabbi". Here are a few examples:

4“They tie up heavy burdens and lay them on men’s shoulders, but they themselves are unwilling to move them with so much as a finger.

Obviously in reference to their version of the oral Torah

5“But they do all their deeds to be noticed by men; for they broaden their phylacteries and lengthen the tassels of their garments.

Overt spirituality, insincerity

6“They love the place of honor at banquets and the chief seats in the synagogues, 7and respectful greetings in the market places, and being called Rabbi by men. 8“But do not be called Rabbi; for One is your Teacher, and you are all brothers. 9“Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven. 10“Do not be called leaders; for One is your Leader, that is, Christ. 11“But the greatest among you shall be your servant. 12“Whoever exalts himself shall be humbled; and whoever humbles himself shall be exalted.

The entire authority structure is being challenged here

13“But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you shut off the kingdom of heaven from people; for you do not enter in yourselves, nor do you allow those who are entering to go in. 14[“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you devour widows’ houses, and for a pretense you make long prayers; therefore you will receive greater condemnation.]

False humility and neglect of the widow's

27“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs which on the outside appear beautiful, but inside they are full of dead men’s bones and all uncleanness. 28“So you, too, outwardly appear righteous to men, but inwardly you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness.

Here Jesus is calling the Pharisees "lawless". So are we really supposed to believe that Jesus commanded his followers to follow "lawless people"???
Of course not! The command was pertaining to Mosaic authority. Pharisees were teaching both Moses and their own doctrines.

so the two points boil down to
1. The seat may not exist so the notion that certain teachings' utility is contingent on their sitting in a physical seat when discussing it is not an issue
2. Even though the text says to follow what they teach even though they don't DO as they teach is incorrect because what they teach is wrong.

ok

 

[Simplelogic]

so the two points boil down to
1. The seat may not exist so the notion that certain teachings' utility is contingent on their sitting in a physical seat when discussing it is not an issue
2. Even though the text says to follow what they teach even though they don't DO as they teach is incorrect because what they teach is wrong.

ok

I guess if you want to read that one verse and forget the obvious context around then you have a point.

 

[Simplelogic]

This is what happens when people try to use another faith's text against them. They only learn sound bytes of scripture which seem to make their point while usually dismissing the obvious surrounding context. This is a classic example. To even think that Matt 23 could be logically used to bolster the idea of Jesus supporting Pharisaic doctrine is pure insanity. There isn't a chapter in the NT which is more hostile to Pharisaic/Rabbinic doctrine and logic then this very chapter.

 

[rosends]

I guess if you want to read that one verse and forget the obvious context around then you have a point.

and if you want to read the others and ignore that one then you have a point.

 

[Desert Snake]

Another example of Jesus condemning Rabbinic authority:
Yeshua vs the Pharisees (round 3) | ReligiousForums.com

I don't agree that ''Pharisaic', means the same thing as ''Rabbinic''. There can be similarities, however this notion of equating ''Judaism'', with the Pharisees, in much of modern argument, is a false dichotomy.