Which prophecies did Jesus fulfill as to be the Messiah?

[Me Myself]

You are technically right, but many of us just refer to is as the Talmud anyway.

Could you clarify for me?

 

[nazz]

How so?

For starters, ask any knowledgeable Jew if they think Jesus was teaching the same Torah their rabbis taught.

The Torah of the Tanakh says it is complete in every way and cannot be altered. Jesus said it needed perfecting.

And then in the Gospel of John Jesus makes statements about "your Torah" (speaking to the Jews) and "their Torah" referring to the Jews and thereby distinguishing between that and his Torah.

 

[roger1440]

For starters, ask any knowledgeable Jew if they think Jesus was teaching the same Torah their rabbis taught.

The Torah of the Tanakh says it is complete in every way and cannot be altered. Jesus said it needed perfecting.

And then in the Gospel of John Jesus makes statements about "your Torah" (speaking to the Jews) and "their Torah" referring to the Jews and thereby distinguishing between that and his Torah.

Quote a verse please.

 

[nazz]

Quote a verse please.

I assume you mean for my last comment?

Jhn 8:17 “It is also written in your law that the testimony of two men is true."

Jhn 10:34 Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your law, ‘I said, “You are gods” '?'"

Jhn 15:25 “But this happened that the word might be fulfilled which is written in their law, ‘They hated Me without a cause.'"

 

[Shermana]

For starters, ask any knowledgeable Jew if they think Jesus was teaching the same Torah their rabbis taught.

The Torah of the Tanakh says it is complete in every way and cannot be altered. Jesus said it needed perfecting.

And then in the Gospel of John Jesus makes statements about "your Torah" (speaking to the Jews) and "their Torah" referring to the Jews and thereby distinguishing between that and his Torah.

You are confusing Jesus saying it itself needs perfecting, as opposed to their interpretations.

When Jesus says "You have heard", that means "You have heard from the Pharisees, but their interpretation is incorrect".

Jesus flat out said that the Law is binding and eternal. He never said it needed to be changed.

This is a very common misunderstanding from those who think Jesus was going against the Torah, as if he was completely contradicting himself.

 

[dantech]

Could you clarify for me?

In the Talmud there is a certain layout. It starts with a mishna, which essentially is the oral law, followed by gemaras, which is basically debates between sages on what the mishna means, and then developed even more. This whole text is surrounded by comments from Rashi, and Tosfot. Since really, everything written in it is either mishna, or talks about the mishna, we call the Talmud, as a whole the "oral law". Though technically, the mishna is "the oral law", and the rest is 'commentary' of you will...

Orthodox Jews like CMike and I know the difference, but it's just the way we call it. We don't really make a distinction. We see it completely as the oral law.

Btw, these debates are where halakhots derive from. Other than the clear ones that are written in the written Torah, the sages of the Talmud decode the mishna to pull out the remainder of the Halakhot that we wouldn't otherwise be able to know about.

 

[Brickjectivity]

In the Talmud there is a certain layout. It starts with a mishna, which essentially is the oral law, followed by gemaras, which is basically debates between sages on what the mishna means, and then developed even more. This whole text is surrounded by comments from Rashi, and Tosfot. Since really, everything written in it is either mishna, or talks about the mishna, we call the Talmud, as a whole the "oral law". Though technically, the mishna is "the oral law", and the rest is 'commentary' of you will...

Orthodox Jews like CMike and I know the difference, but it's just the way we call it. We don't really make a distinction. We see it completely as the oral law.

Btw, these debates are where halakhots derive from. Other than the clear ones that are written in the written Torah, the sages of the Talmud decode the mishna to pull out the remainder of the Halakhot that we wouldn't otherwise be able to know about.

This question is not directed at you, Dantech, or at anyone in particular. We have Paul saying "...the Jews have been entrusted with the very words of God" (Romans 3:2) I have wondered which 'Words of God' Paul is referring to. Is he referring to the Oral Torah as well as the written Torah? Is it everything in the Tanach? Does it include apocryphya? What about the various commentaries in the Talmud? Going further there are other writings and sayings like the Jewish Encyclopedia (which I doubt anyone considers the Words of God but as an extreme case). Where are the edges of these 'Words of God' that Paul is thinking about?

 

[Akivah]

Who or what decided the Talmud is authoritative? The Sadducees didn’t believe in the Oral Law.
Pharisees, Sadducees & Essenes | Jewish Virtual Library

Continue reading your link about the Sadducees, Roger.

The Sadducees disappeared around 70 A.D., after the destruction of the Second Temple.

The Sadducees are no more. They abandoned the whole law and they are no more. The Pharisees stayed true to Judaism and embraced the whole Law, Written and Oral. We Jews give authority to the Talmud because it ultimately came from G-d.

 

[roger1440]

Continue reading your link about the Sadducees, Roger.

The Sadducees are no more. They abandoned the whole law and they are no more. The Pharisees stayed true to Judaism and embraced the whole Law, Written and Oral. We Jews give authority to the Talmud because it ultimately came from G-d.

I knew the Sadducees were out of a job when the Temple was destroyed, so much for job security. LOL. What makes the Talmud authoritative? Who decides? The Sadducees did not accept the Talmud.

 

[roger1440]

I assume you mean for my last comment?

Jhn 8:17 “It is also written in your law that the testimony of two men is true."

Jhn 10:34 Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your law, ‘I said, “You are gods” '?'"

Jhn 15:25 “But this happened that the word might be fulfilled which is written in their law, ‘They hated Me without a cause.'"

I see what you mean. It appears from those verses Jesus is separating himself from the Torah because of the use of the words “your” and “their”. I have to look into it. I think I’ll consult with the great and powerful Yahoo Answers.

 

[roger1440]

Everyone thinks they are on the side of orthodoxy. It’s always the other guys who are the heretics.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Everyone thinks they are on the side of orthodoxy. It’s always the other guys who are the heretics.

God loves the heretic in a special way.

We should all revel in our heresies.

 

[Flankerl]

The Sadducees did not accept the Talmud.

Fascinating how many of them are still around huh?

 

[Brickjectivity]

The Sadducees are no more. They abandoned the whole law and they are no more. The Pharisees stayed true to Judaism and embraced the whole Law, Written and Oral. We Jews give authority to the Talmud because it ultimately came from G-d.

The Sadducees were counted legitimate until they failed to thrive. They didn't pass the 'Live long' and 'Do well' tests, so that counts against them. It proves they weren't keeping the law? The commands say that if they had followed the laws they would still be around. Reasoning from the laws as I read them in English, the Talmud are proven safe to consult because their users are still around, doing things the same way as the writers of the Talmud. If the Talmud wasn't legitimate, then its followers would likely break the laws and fail to thrive. Either they would cease to be law-keeping and to do well or they would die. Since they are still here, doing well I presume, the Talmud is seen as a safety net for following the law properly.

 

[nazz]

The Sadducees were counted legitimate until they failed to thrive. They didn't pass the 'Live long' and 'Do well' tests, so that counts against them. It proves they weren't keeping the law? The commands say that if they had followed the laws they would still be around. Reasoning from the laws as I read them in English, the Talmud are proven safe to consult because their users are still around, doing things the same way as the writers of the Talmud. If the Talmud wasn't legitimate, then its followers would likely break the laws and fail to thrive. Either they would cease to be law-keeping and to do well or they would die. Since they are still here, doing well I presume, the Talmud is seen as a safety net for following the law properly.

People, please. The Sadducees did not disappear based on the observance or lack of observance of Torah. Their power and influence was sustained by their collusion with Rome. They were mainly priests and when the Temple was destroyed so was their influence. But their ideas survived and were taken up by later generations of Karaites who still exist to this day. And the vast majority who exist today are not Torah observant according to Orthodox halacha.

 

[Brickjectivity]

I mean that according to the Torah they disappeared based upon lack of observance of the Torah, or they'd be fine. The Karaites are an independent group who will thrive or not depending upon what they do, not upon what the Sadducees did. Its true they don't follow the various Orthodox methods, but that doesn't make the Sadducees. It also doesn't make them law breakers. Halacha isn't Orthodox. It is just law. The Karaites just don't follow the Orthodox experience, and they are making their gamble by not doing so. The Orthodox are taking the gamble that their methods are reliable. The idea is that time will reveal who is correct.

 

[Shermana]

Fascinating how many of them are still around huh?

I think they now go by "Reform".

 

[roger1440]

Fascinating how many of them are still around huh?

After the Temple was destroyed the Sadducees didn’t serve any purpose. Kind of like being the social director on the Titanic, no Titanic, no job. The Sadducees left no writings behind. All we know about them is what their opponents wrote about them.

 

[Brickjectivity]

After the Temple was destroyed the Sadducees didn’t serve any purpose.

Just like those Line-o-type operaters, huh?

 

[nazz]

I think they now go by "Reform".

Only if you would call Reform Jews "religious conservatives". Because that is what the Sadducees were. It was the Pharisees who were the religious progressives.