Was Jesus anti-Pharasaic?

[anotherglenda]

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?

No that verse does not equate eating with harvesting (otherwise people could not have eaten quail since they didn't harvest them), but simply says that fresh produce may be harvested that year and consumed, while other verses clarify that non-harvested produce may be consumed other years:

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'm so glad you agree that reaping is not involved in immediate consumption.

Everyone has the right to eat fresh produce when their hungry. Providing that the method they get it is not prohibited.

It's not prohibited by Torah.

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.

Actually Jesus said to do what the Pharisees in the seat of Moses say.
The seat of Moses was an actual seat where they read Torah from, so Jesus was actually promoting what Moses says ... which is why some variations say do as 'he' says while others say do as 'they' say .... either way it's the words of Moses that Jesus promoted heeding. Talmud wasn't written or read in synagogues at that stage.

When did I imply that eating is work? It's the picking that's considered work, not the eating.

The definition of 'work' is 'performing an activity for a purpose' and eating falls in this definition.
In Mosaic times, a spade was required for toilet activity, and possibly digging a hole now could be considered work because most people now don't dig for hygiene, but back then it was a daily hygiene activity and when digging for this purpose it was not a breach of Sabbath, while digging for a servile or productive purpose probably would have been. .

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.

I believe it would be beneficial for all people to believe Torah at face value when it says 'do not commit adultery' and other similar clear instructions. I accept you disagree.

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.

According to the prophets there is no need for the sacrificial system but people back then didn't heed the prophets either.
Jer 7:22 For I spoke not unto your fathers, nor commanded them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt-offerings or sacrifices;
Jer 7:23 but this thing I commanded them, saying: 'Hearken unto My voice, and I will be your God, and ye shall be My people; and walk ye in all the way that I command you, that it may be well with you.'
Jer 7:24 But they hearkened not, nor inclined their ear, but walked in their own counsels, even in the stubbornness of their evil heart, and went backward and not forward,
Jer 7:25 even since the day that your fathers came forth out of the land of Egypt unto this day; and though I have sent unto you all My servants the prophets, sending them daily betimes and often,
Jer 7:26 yet they hearkened not unto Me, nor inclined their ear, but made their neck stiff; they did worse than their fathers.

HOS 6:6 For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings.

David understood that God doesn't desire or require a sacrificial system
PS 51:16 For thou desirest not sacrifice; else would I give it: thou delightest not in burnt offering.
PS 51:17 The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit: a broken and a contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise.

If you truly believe that a sacrificial system is necessary then you must consider that you cannot repent in lack of a temple and sacrifices which can only be performed there.

That's true. So stop believing what Matt, Luke, Pete and Mark are telling you and listen to the Words of G-d.

If you truly believed this then you would promote obedience to God including cancellation of debts every seven years etc
Matt, Luke, Pete and Mark were Torah observant and actually promote heeding God as priority over heeding man-made enactments:
ACTS 5:29 Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men.

The same way Moses treated that man who wanted some sticks to warm his poor bones on the Sabbath. Num. 15:32-36

Thank you for clarifying you desire to be an executioner by stoning. I can't imagine how that would glorify God and make you a light to the Gentiles, but I accept your choice.

There is no comparison to 'collecting wood' and 'picking primary produce for immediate consumption (not reaping or harvesting)'
I know this from experience. I previously had wood heating and know for a fact that collecting wood is indeed strenuous 'work' .... even the word 'gathering' is defined as 'accumulate from scattered sources'. Accumulating enough wood for a decent fire and hauling increasing amounts of wood scattered across a wide area and dragging it away is hard work. The intent of the fire is suspect too .... back in those days they had garments they could even use for warmly sleeping in according to scripture, so the purpose of the fire may have been intended for cooking rather than warmth and God had commanded no cooking on Sabbath.
Certainly nothing akin to nibbling some grain but I accept you would like to stone to death any hungry person nibbling grain on Sabbath.

 

[Tumah]

No that verse does not equate eating with harvesting (otherwise people could not have eaten quail since they didn't harvest them), but simply says that fresh produce may be harvested that year and consumed, while other verses clarify that non-harvested produce may be consumed other years:



I'm so glad you agree that reaping is not involved in immediate consumption.



It's not prohibited by Torah.

Ok.

Actually Jesus said to do what the Pharisees in the seat of Moses say.
The seat of Moses was an actual seat where they read Torah from, so Jesus was actually promoting what Moses says ... which is why some variations say do as 'he' says while others say do as 'they' say .... either way it's the words of Moses that Jesus promoted heeding. Talmud wasn't written or read in synagogues at that stage.

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.

The definition of 'work' is 'performing an activity for a purpose' and eating falls in this definition.
In Mosaic times, a spade was required for toilet activity, and possibly digging a hole now could be considered work because most people now don't dig for hygiene, but back then it was a daily hygiene activity and when digging for this purpose it was not a breach of Sabbath, while digging for a servile or productive purpose probably would have been.


I believe it would be beneficial for all people to believe Torah at face value when it says 'do not commit adultery' and other similar clear instructions. I accept you disagree.

Ok.

According to the prophets there is no need for the sacrificial system but people back then didn't heed the prophets either.
Jer 7:22 For I spoke not unto your fathers, nor commanded them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt-offerings or sacrifices;
Jer 7:23 but this thing I commanded them, saying: 'Hearken unto My voice, and I will be your God, and ye shall be My people; and walk ye in all the way that I command you, that it may be well with you.'
Jer 7:24 But they hearkened not, nor inclined their ear, but walked in their own counsels, even in the stubbornness of their evil heart, and went backward and not forward,
Jer 7:25 even since the day that your fathers came forth out of the land of Egypt unto this day; and though I have sent unto you all My servants the prophets, sending them daily betimes and often,
Jer 7:26 yet they hearkened not unto Me, nor inclined their ear, but made their neck stiff; they did worse than their fathers.

HOS 6:6 For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings.

David understood that God doesn't desire or require a sacrificial system
PS 51:16 For thou desirest not sacrifice; else would I give it: thou delightest not in burnt offering.
PS 51:17 The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit: a broken and a contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise.

If you truly believe that a sacrificial system is necessary then you must consider that you cannot repent in lack of a temple and sacrifices which can only be performed there.

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.

If you truly believed this then you would promote obedience to God including cancellation of debts every seven years etc

I do.

Matt, Luke, Pete and Mark were Torah observant and actually promote heeding God as priority over heeding man-made enactments:
ACTS 5:29 Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men.

They were not.

Thank you for clarifying you desire to be an executioner by stoning. I can't imagine how that would glorify God and make you a light to the Gentiles, but I accept your choice.

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.

There is no comparison to 'collecting wood' and 'picking primary produce for immediate consumption (not reaping or harvesting)'
I know this from experience. I previously had wood heating and know for a fact that collecting wood is indeed strenuous 'work' .... even the word 'gathering' is defined as 'accumulate from scattered sources'. Accumulating enough wood for a decent fire and hauling increasing amounts of wood scattered across a wide area and dragging it away is hard work. The intent of the fire is suspect too .... back in those days they had garments they could even use for warmly sleeping in according to scripture, so the purpose of the fire may have been intended for cooking rather than warmth and God had commanded no cooking on Sabbath.
Certainly nothing akin to nibbling some grain but I accept you would like to stone to death any hungry person nibbling grain on Sabbath.

Effort has nothing to do with it.

 

[anotherglenda]

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.

Here is a link to images of some of the actual common physical seats of Moses, but a web search will show you many more
http://www.discerningtheworld.com/images/wpi/chorazin_seat-of-moses_fjenkins033106_83t.jpg
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-3Pz54pRgKvY/UW83zr5JvcI/AAAAAAAAAv8/lmNMntP1ho8/s1600/seat.jpeg
http://www.hebrewyeshua.com/moses_seat.gif
https://holylandphotos.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/delossynagogue-1.jpg
http://www.generationword.com/images/israel_pictures/korizan/seat.jpg
http://karyldalbeyphotography.net/img/s2/v4/p71614432-3.jpg
enjoy

 

[Levite]

Here is a link to images of some of the actual common physical seats of Moses, but a web search will show you many more
http://www.discerningtheworld.com/images/wpi/chorazin_seat-of-moses_fjenkins033106_83t.jpg
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-3Pz54pRgKvY/UW83zr5JvcI/AAAAAAAAAv8/lmNMntP1ho8/s1600/seat.jpeg
http://www.hebrewyeshua.com/moses_seat.gif
https://holylandphotos.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/delossynagogue-1.jpg
http://www.generationword.com/images/israel_pictures/korizan/seat.jpg
http://karyldalbeyphotography.net/img/s2/v4/p71614432-3.jpg
enjoy

LOL!

Hilarious! Those are just pictures of ancient stone chairs! I'm sure people sometimes sat in them: that's what chairs are for. Doesn't mean any of them are "the seat of Moses." It's a metaphor, an idiom. It's not a real chair, there's no such thing!

It's been a while since I had a good laugh like that, thank you!

 

[rosends]

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?

So you are inferring that because eating is an activity, and work is performing an activity, then eating is work? Except the text never calls eating work. By your definition, breathing is also work. And in terms of the languages, I read the text in the Hebrew, where the word involved is "melacha" a constructive activity defined by certain religious guidelines.

Your claim was "There is no caveat in the scripture which states that eating is 'work' except for the day of atonement..." and yet I can't find any scriptural statement that says that eating is work in terms of the day of atonement.

 

[rosends]

LOL!

Hilarious! Those are just pictures of ancient stone chairs! I'm sure people sometimes sat in them: that's what chairs are for. Doesn't mean any of them are "the seat of Moses." It's a metaphor, an idiom. It's not a real chair, there's no such thing!

It's been a while since I had a good laugh like that, thank you!

What I find funny is that the websites which show the picture of a seat then decide that because the seat exists it must be the "seat of Moses" so the proof becomes circular (the text refers to it so it must be the seat, and since it is the seat, the text must be accurate).

 

[Levite]

What I find funny is that the websites which show the picture of a seat then decide that because the seat exists it must be the "seat of Moses" so the proof becomes circular (the text refers to it so it must be the seat, and since it is the seat, the text must be accurate).

Right. When I was at the Bible Lands museum in Jerusalem, I saw an ancient chariot they had dug up someplace. By the same reasoning, that must be the proof of the Merkavah....

 

[anotherglenda]

LOL!

Hilarious! Those are just pictures of ancient stone chairs! I'm sure people sometimes sat in them: that's what chairs are for. Doesn't mean any of them are "the seat of Moses." It's a metaphor, an idiom. It's not a real chair, there's no such thing!

It's been a while since I had a good laugh like that, thank you!

What I find funny is that the websites which show the picture of a seat then decide that because the seat exists it must be the "seat of Moses" so the proof becomes circular (the text refers to it so it must be the seat, and since it is the seat, the text must be accurate).

Right. When I was at the Bible Lands museum in Jerusalem, I saw an ancient chariot they had dug up someplace. By the same reasoning, that must be the proof of the Merkavah....

Best you let the experts at the Israel Museum in Jerusalem they got it wrong then
Israel Museum - NET

 

[anotherglenda]

LOL!

Hilarious! Those are just pictures of ancient stone chairs! I'm sure people sometimes sat in them: that's what chairs are for. Doesn't mean any of them are "the seat of Moses." It's a metaphor, an idiom. It's not a real chair, there's no such thing!

It's been a while since I had a good laugh like that, thank you!

What I find funny is that the websites which show the picture of a seat then decide that because the seat exists it must be the "seat of Moses" so the proof becomes circular (the text refers to it so it must be the seat, and since it is the seat, the text must be accurate).

Right. When I was at the Bible Lands museum in Jerusalem, I saw an ancient chariot they had dug up someplace. By the same reasoning, that must be the proof of the Merkavah....

Best you let the experts at the Israel Museum in Jerusalem they got it wrong then
Israel Museum - NET

 

[Levite]

Best you let the experts at the Israel Museum in Jerusalem they got it wrong then
Israel Museum - NET

That is not the site of the Israel Museum. That is a page about the Israel Museum on the website of a Christian tour agency.

In the spirit of open-mindedness, I did a quick Google search for "seat of Moses" and variations thereof. Basically everything that popped up was Christian websites, with the most well-written and apparently well-educated ones being about how the "seat of Moses" is not a literal chair. The ones stating that it is a literal chair mostly seem to rely on the supposition that the stone seat found in a single ancient synagogue represents a "seat of Moses" allegedly found in all ancient synagogues. Never mind the fact, of course, that quite a large number of ancient synagogues from that era have been unearthed, without "seats of Moses" to be found in them. Never mind the fact that Jewish literature from that era-- replete with information about prayer and Torah study-- makes no mention of such a thing. Never mind the fact that there is ample evidence that people in that time customarily stood while they read from the Torah (even as Jews have stood to read from the Torah for the past 2000 years, and still do today). Never mind that Jewish literature for the past 2000 years, which intently studies the teachings of the Rabbis of that period, has no mention of such a thing.

Nice try, though.

 

[Tumah]

Here is a link to images of some of the actual common physical seats of Moses, but a web search will show you many more
http://www.discerningtheworld.com/images/wpi/chorazin_seat-of-moses_fjenkins033106_83t.jpg
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-3Pz54pRgKvY/UW83zr5JvcI/AAAAAAAAAv8/lmNMntP1ho8/s1600/seat.jpeg
http://www.hebrewyeshua.com/moses_seat.gif
https://holylandphotos.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/delossynagogue-1.jpg
http://www.generationword.com/images/israel_pictures/korizan/seat.jpg
http://karyldalbeyphotography.net/img/s2/v4/p71614432-3.jpg
enjoy

You are right. I stand corrected. There is a seat called the "Kathedra of Moses." Kathedras are identified by the rounded top on the back. In the synagogue, it referred to the seat on the eastern wall where the leader (Rabbi or patron) of the synagogue sat. Today too, the Rabbi of the synagogue sits in a seat on the eastern wall.
In the Sanhedrin, it refers to the seat where the head of the Sanhedrin sat. It is called the Kathedra of Moses because in the desert there were 70 elders plus Moses above them. In the Sanhedrin there were likewise 70 judges plus the head judge of the Sanhedrin.

In other words, your suggestion that Jesus "actually promoting what Moses says" by referring to an "actual seat where they read Torah from" is wrong. The reference was to the seat where the leaders sat.

 

[anotherglenda]

That is not the site of the Israel Museum. That is a page about the Israel Museum on the website of a Christian tour agency.

In the spirit of open-mindedness, I did a quick Google search for "seat of Moses" and variations thereof. Basically everything that popped up was Christian websites, with the most well-written and apparently well-educated ones being about how the "seat of Moses" is not a literal chair. The ones stating that it is a literal chair mostly seem to rely on the supposition that the stone seat found in a single ancient synagogue represents a "seat of Moses" allegedly found in all ancient synagogues. Never mind the fact, of course, that quite a large number of ancient synagogues from that era have been unearthed, without "seats of Moses" to be found in them. Never mind the fact that Jewish literature from that era-- replete with information about prayer and Torah study-- makes no mention of such a thing. Never mind the fact that there is ample evidence that people in that time customarily stood while they read from the Torah (even as Jews have stood to read from the Torah for the past 2000 years, and still do today). Never mind that Jewish literature for the past 2000 years, which intently studies the teachings of the Rabbis of that period, has no mention of such a thing.

Nice try, though.

Thank you for doing a Google search in the spirit of open-mindedness. I'm sorry everything you found were Christian websites. A well-researched site you may like is the Jewish virtual library which discusses it. How Jews or Christians choose to explain the physical seat of Moses relies on their beliefs and what they are comfy with or what offends them.
Here is the link to the Jewish site with a healthy bibliography
Hope that helps

 

[anotherglenda]

So you are inferring that because eating is an activity, and work is performing an activity, then eating is work? Except the text never calls eating work. By your definition, breathing is also work. And in terms of the languages, I read the text in the Hebrew, where the word involved is "melacha" a constructive activity defined by certain religious guidelines.

Your claim was "There is no caveat in the scripture which states that eating is 'work' except for the day of atonement..." and yet I can't find any scriptural statement that says that eating is work in terms of the day of atonement.

I simply shared dictionary standardized definitions of work. I didn't write any dictionaries. The dictionary definition of 'work' being an activity for a purpose doesn't include natural body functions which don't require deliberate thought or effort.
Breathing can usually be done by most people without thinking and even during sleep and unconsciousness.
.... except for the joke about a bimbo who goes for a hair perm and dies when her walkman ear plugs are removed .... when thy listened to what was coming from them it was 'breath in, breath out' lol
Standardized definitions are a necessity, otherwise people could make up their own individualized definitions and call sweet 'sour' and good 'bad' etc which God speaks against.
The law relies on standardized definitions too. The law for OH&S specifies what 'activities of daily living' are for reference by the health industry. This includes eating (requires deliberate effort), dressing, toileting, hygiene etc. \
Language specifies what is work. We must understand language to understand scripture and not vica versa. Scripture doesn't specify what 'and' or 'but' any other word means. Language does.
You may not find any scripture saying that eating is work, but there is also no scripture saying that nibbling grain is work either.

 

[Levite]

Thank you for doing a Google search in the spirit of open-mindedness. I'm sorry everything you found were Christian websites. A well-researched site you may like is the Jewish virtual library which discusses it. How Jews or Christians choose to explain the physical seat of Moses relies on their beliefs and what they are comfy with or what offends them.
Here is the link to the Jewish site with a healthy bibliography
Hope that helps

I am familiar with Jewish Virtual Library, thanks. I looked on the site, didn't see anything about the "seat of Moses."

 

[anotherglenda]

You are right. I stand corrected. There is a seat called the "Kathedra of Moses." Kathedras are identified by the rounded top on the back. In the synagogue, it referred to the seat on the eastern wall where the leader (Rabbi or patron) of the synagogue sat. Today too, the Rabbi of the synagogue sits in a seat on the eastern wall.
In the Sanhedrin, it refers to the seat where the head of the Sanhedrin sat. It is called the Kathedra of Moses because in the desert there were 70 elders plus Moses above them. In the Sanhedrin there were likewise 70 judges plus the head judge of the Sanhedrin.

In other words, your suggestion that Jesus "actually promoting what Moses says" by referring to an "actual seat where they read Torah from" is wrong. The reference was to the seat where the leaders sat.

From Jewish virtual library link in response to Levite "A stone chair found inside the synagogue may be a "seat (cathedra) of Moses" such as is mentioned in Matthew 23:2, but there have been dissenting views about their function (Rahmani 1990)"
People may argue over the function, so it can't be assumed who may be right or wrong.
However, in that Matthew reference, some texts say all 'he' says do (rather than 'they' say)... which certainly allows for it being 'Moses' people should be heeding.
I'm certain you'd agree that people should indeed heed Moses and that is not an offensive option? (I certainly don't find it offensive)

 

[anotherglenda]

I am familiar with Jewish Virtual Library, thanks. I looked on the site, didn't see anything about the "seat of Moses."

Apologies for not specifying place in reference ... it's 3rd last sentence 4 lines before the bibliography

 

[Kolibri]

(I am being lazy by not reading through all 7 pages prior to posting).

Jesus reference to the "seat of Moses" at Matthew 23:2 could be nothing more than to say that the Pharisees at the time were claiming to be the official interpreters of the divine law.
Shortly after he said that they were instead hindering people from finding the road to life by their interpretations. (Matthew 23:13,15-36) (14 is spurious so ignorable)

 

[Tumah]

From Jewish virtual library link in response to Levite "A stone chair found inside the synagogue may be a "seat (cathedra) of Moses" such as is mentioned in Matthew 23:2, but there have been dissenting views about their function (Rahmani 1990)"
People may argue over the function, so it can't be assumed who may be right or wrong.
However, in that Matthew reference, some texts say all 'he' says do (rather than 'they' say)... which certainly allows for it being 'Moses' people should be heeding.
I'm certain you'd agree that people should indeed heed Moses and that is not an offensive option? (I certainly don't find it offensive)

Whether your texts say "he" or "they" it still agrees with what I've said. The seat was the place where the leader/s sat. Not the place where the Torah was read.
And yes I do agree that people should heed Moses provided it is within the context of Rabbinic interpretation of his words. Because they sit in his seat.

 

[Levite]

Apologies for not specifying place in reference ... it's 3rd last sentence 4 lines before the bibliography

In what section? Your link did not post.

 

[Desert Snake]

(I am being lazy by not reading through all 7 pages prior to posting).

Jesus reference to the "seat of Moses" at Matthew 23:2 could be nothing more than say that the Pharisees at the time were claiming to be the official interpreters of the divine law.
Shortly after he said that they were instead hindering people from finding the road to life by their interpretations. (Matthew 23:13,15-36) (14 is spurious so ignorable)

What does that mean, Matthew 23:14 is ''spurious''?