Was Jesus anti-Pharasaic?

[anotherglenda]

I really

In what section? Your link did not post.

I am truly sorry Levite. I'll try again ... and maybe it will be ok to copy the last paragraph to ensure it shows up
Chorazin
"Renewed excavations within the later synagogue, as well as new excavations within the town, were undertaken by Z. Yeivin in 1962–64 and 1980–87. Based on these excavations and a survey, the layout of the town and the setting of the synagogue became clear. The synagogue was built in the form of a basilica, 79 × 56 ft. (24 × 17 m.), with its ornate facade turned southward toward Jerusalem. In the hall are two rows of columns along its length and one row along its width. Steps descended from a terrace in front of the synagogue, which was constructed of basalt stones. The synagogue, and especially the frieze, was elaborately decorated with representations of human beings and mythological figures such as Hercules, a Medusa, a centaur, and other scenes showing a soldier and a vintage. 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). It bears a Judeo-Aramaic inscription commemorating a benefactor named Judah, son of Ishmael, who made the colonnade and its stairs. The date of the synagogue is still a matter of debate. The conventional date for Galilean-type synagogues is the second to third centuries C.E., but recent research suggests a fourth or fifth century C.E. date for the Chorazin synagogue. Next to the synagogue was a ritual bath and at a short distance several blocks of houses, one containing a large oil press.

Also there is evidently a Midrash discussing a physical seat
Midrash Rabbah: "They made for him (Moses) a chair like that of the advocates, in which one sits and yet seems to be standing." (Exodus Rabbah 43:4)

 

[anotherglenda]

It's Sunday night here & I have a full work week coming so I may not be around for a bit. Thank you Disciple for an excellent topic and thank you all for enlightening discussion.
Blessings

 

[Levite]

I really

I am truly sorry Levite. I'll try again ... and maybe it will be ok to copy the last paragraph to ensure it shows up
Chorazin
"Renewed excavations within the later synagogue, as well as new excavations within the town, were undertaken by Z. Yeivin in 1962–64 and 1980–87. Based on these excavations and a survey, the layout of the town and the setting of the synagogue became clear. The synagogue was built in the form of a basilica, 79 × 56 ft. (24 × 17 m.), with its ornate facade turned southward toward Jerusalem. In the hall are two rows of columns along its length and one row along its width. Steps descended from a terrace in front of the synagogue, which was constructed of basalt stones. The synagogue, and especially the frieze, was elaborately decorated with representations of human beings and mythological figures such as Hercules, a Medusa, a centaur, and other scenes showing a soldier and a vintage. 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). It bears a Judeo-Aramaic inscription commemorating a benefactor named Judah, son of Ishmael, who made the colonnade and its stairs. The date of the synagogue is still a matter of debate. The conventional date for Galilean-type synagogues is the second to third centuries C.E., but recent research suggests a fourth or fifth century C.E. date for the Chorazin synagogue. Next to the synagogue was a ritual bath and at a short distance several blocks of houses, one containing a large oil press.

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."

Also there is evidently a Midrash discussing a physical seat
Midrash Rabbah: "They made for him (Moses) a chair like that of the advocates, in which one sits and yet seems to be standing." (Exodus Rabbah 43:4)

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.

 

[Kolibri]

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

That particular verse is not found in the oldest of manuscripts available. It was a later addition inserted into the text.

 

[Tumah]

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.

And how does your dictionary definition distinguish between "labor" and "work" mentioned in Ex. 20:10.
Please also include verses that express these differences.

 

[rosends]

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.

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..."

 

[Tumah]

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.

What I found was
סנהדרין ג: תוס' ד"ה רבי יהודה אומר שבעים
and
פסיקתא דרב כהנא פיסקא א' ויקריבו נשיאי ישראל

 

[Juhurka]

There is really no way to prove as the authors or all those who wrote stories about him long after he died made up stories to prove their point. Once Christianity entered the pagan masses a story had to be developed to separate Christianity from Judaism so the character of Jesus had to become something of a martyr who stood up to authorities.

If a man by the name Jesus actually did exist, he would be a mamzer (*******) and in that ancient society ******** were not always welcomed by higher religious authorities.

 

[Levite]

If a man by the name Jesus actually did exist, he would be a mamzer (*******) and in that ancient society ******** were not always welcomed by higher religious authorities.

That presumes that Jesus was the product of an adulterous union. But it is far more likely that Jesus was simply the son of Joseph the woodwright, the husband of Mary.

 

[metis]

That presumes that Jesus was the product of an adulterous union. But it is far more likely that Jesus was simply the son of Joseph the woodwright, the husband of Mary.

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.

 

[Levite]

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.

Not to mention that his presumed messiahdom comes to him through Joseph's blood. It was only much later, when the whole virgin birth/literal son of God thing came into Christianity that they had to tie themselves into knots trying to find Davidic blood on Mary's side, ignoring the genealogy that still ended up leading in Matthew (and ignoring the fact that royal blood, like tribal affiliation, in ancient Israel was patrilineal, not matrilineal).

 

[metis]

Not to mention that his presumed messiahdom comes to him through Joseph's blood. It was only much later, when the whole virgin birth/literal son of God thing came into Christianity that they had to tie themselves into knots trying to find Davidic blood on Mary's side, ignoring the genealogy that still ended up leading in Matthew (and ignoring the fact that royal blood, like tribal affiliation, in ancient Israel was patrilineal, not matrilineal).

Yep.

BTW, Aquinas noticed this and some other similar discrepancies, and he drew the conclusion that the Tanakh should not be taken as literal by Christians because of these and some other inconsistencies.

I took a three evening seminar from a Christian theologian who taught that Jesus simply cannot at this time be declared the Messiah since most of the messianic predictions have not been fulfilled. He felt they would likely be fulfilled with the 2nd coming, but until then...

 

[roger1440]

I really

I am truly sorry Levite. I'll try again ... and maybe it will be ok to copy the last paragraph to ensure it shows up
Chorazin
"Renewed excavations within the later synagogue, as well as new excavations within the town, were undertaken by Z. Yeivin in 1962–64 and 1980–87. Based on these excavations and a survey, the layout of the town and the setting of the synagogue became clear. The synagogue was built in the form of a basilica, 79 × 56 ft. (24 × 17 m.), with its ornate facade turned southward toward Jerusalem. In the hall are two rows of columns along its length and one row along its width. Steps descended from a terrace in front of the synagogue, which was constructed of basalt stones. The synagogue, and especially the frieze, was elaborately decorated with representations of human beings and mythological figures such as Hercules, a Medusa, a centaur, and other scenes showing a soldier and a vintage. 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). It bears a Judeo-Aramaic inscription commemorating a benefactor named Judah, son of Ishmael, who made the colonnade and its stairs. The date of the synagogue is still a matter of debate. The conventional date for Galilean-type synagogues is the second to third centuries C.E., but recent research suggests a fourth or fifth century C.E. date for the Chorazin synagogue. Next to the synagogue was a ritual bath and at a short distance several blocks of houses, one containing a large oil press.

Also there is evidently a Midrash discussing a physical seat
Midrash Rabbah: "They made for him (Moses) a chair like that of the advocates, in which one sits and yet seems to be standing." (Exodus Rabbah 43:4)

Stephen Hawking leaves Newton's chair at Cambridge| Reuters

 

[metis]

Stephen Hawking leaves Newton's chair at Cambridge| Reuters

Thanks for this. I just bought "Brief History of Time" last month but haven't got around to reading it yet.

BTW, did you see "The Theory of Everything"?

 

[Desert Snake]

Yep.

BTW, Aquinas noticed this and some other similar discrepancies, and he drew the conclusion that the Tanakh should not be taken as literal by Christians because of these and some other inconsistencies.

I took a three evening seminar from a Christian theologian who taught that Jesus simply cannot at this time be declared the Messiah since most of the messianic predictions have not been fulfilled. He felt they would likely be fulfilled with the 2nd coming, but until then...

That's his problem.

 

[metis]

That's his problem.

Or maybe it's your problem but you don't yet realize it. When it comes to Christian theology, Aquinas wasn't exactly a slouch.

 

[Desert Snake]

Or maybe it's your problem but you don't yet realize it. When it comes to Christian theology, Aquinas wasn't exactly a slouch.

He sounds like a bum, if he discredited the Tanach for prophetic use, lol. Look, just because he may have been correct on some things, I haven't read him, doesn't mean that that opinion is very astute. I wonder how many traditional Rabbis would even agree with him? Sounds like he was promoting a version of Xianity that might necessitate, the non-use of the OT, idk, sounds very sketchy. Most people equate Jesus and the early Christians with a differing branch of Judaic thought, even if the Xian church eventually spread elsewhere.

 

[roger1440]

Thanks for this. I just bought "Brief History of Time" last month but haven't got around to reading it yet.

BTW, did you see "The Theory of Everything"?

He really doesn't interest me. The point I'm making is that the "chair" isn't a tangible thingie.

 

[metis]

He sounds like a bum, if he discredited the Tanach for prophetic use, lol.

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".

 

[metis]

He really doesn't interest me. The point I'm making is that the "chair" isn't a tangible thingie.

Got it. I hadn't read the entire quote you were responding to.