Yeshua vs the Pharisees (round 3)

[sojourner]

So….do you want to or not? I don't want to do anything you believe with be unproductive.

Then why are you continuing to post this unsupportable drivel?

 

[Simplelogic]

Because I haven't been challenged and proven wrong yet. My mind can be changed and it has before. But I haven't herd a logic counter argument yet.

 

[sojourner]

Because I haven't been challenged and proven wrong yet. My mind can be changed and it has before. But I haven't herd a logic counter argument yet.

You haven't been listening.

 

[Simplelogic]

You haven't been listening.

I have responded to many arguments. None from you though. Only blanket statements discrediting the Bible itself. This is not an argument.

 

[sojourner]

I have responded to many arguments. None from you though. Only blanket statements discrediting the Bible itself. This is not an argument.

"Discredit" is a dishonest term. I haven't "discredited" the bible. I have insisted that it be interpreted honestly and utilized honestly.

 

[LightTraveler]

"BTW. Yeshua is upholding the stoning commandment. Uh oh!"

You mean, throwing stones at people to kill them? Perhaps you've forgotten the "he who is without sin cast the first stone" quote.

It would be nice if you all could engage in an actual conversation.

 

[Simplelogic]

"BTW. Yeshua is upholding the stoning commandment. Uh oh!"

You mean, throwing stones at people to kill them? Perhaps you've forgotten the "he who is without sin cast the first stone" quote.

It would be nice if you all could engage in an actual conversation.

Sorry. I didn't get any updates for this thread. Would love to discuss this with you. Yeshua clearly upheld the stoning commandment. I haven't forgotten John: 8. Yeshua was not going against the law of Moses here. He was exposing a trial which was contrary to Torah.

 

[Tumah]

The Pharisees and some of the scribes gathered around Him when they had come from Jerusalem, 2*and had seen that some of His disciples were eating their bread with impure hands, that is, unwashed. 3*(For the Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they carefully wash their hands, thus observing the traditions of the elders; 4*and when they come from the market place, they do not eat unless they cleanse themselves; and there are many other things which they have received in order to observe, such as the washing of cups and pitchers and copper pots.) 5*The Pharisees and the scribes *asked Him, “Why do Your disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders, but eat their bread with impure hands?” Mark 7

Yeshua's response absolutely crushes the oral Torah:

Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men.”
9*He was also saying to them, “You are experts at setting aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition. 10*For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘He who speaks evil of father or mother, is to be put to death’; 11*but you say, ‘If a man says to his father or his mother, whatever I have that would help you is Corban (that is to say, given to God),’ 12*you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or his mother; 13*thus invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down; and you do many things such as that.” Mark 7: 9-13

Torah references in red

Oral law references in blue

Round 3 goes to Yeshua and the Law of Moses!

BTW. Yeshua is upholding the stoning commandment. Uh oh!

The ability to consecrate ones property is a Biblical ability. It is a vow. The Bible required one to fulfill one's vows (Num. 30:3), just as it requires one to honor one's parents. Once I have promised to give my couch to the Temple, since I am Biblically required to give it to the Temple, for all practical purposes it now belongs to the Temple and is only missing the fact that the Temple has no yet collected its belongings.

In the case where Yeshua absolutely crushes the oral Torah, the individual in question does not have a Biblical injunction to honor his parents with his couch. His couch does not have to honor his parents. The commandment is that he honor his parents. The couch is only beholden to the individual, not his parents. A person can use the couch to perform the Biblical commandment of honoring one's parents. But the couch is not Biblically dedicated to this task.

Once the man consecrates the couch to the Temple, through the power of the vow by the person to whom the couch is beholden to, the couch has become Temple property. The man is still required to honor his parents, he only has one less tool with which to do this.

Another example of this would be economic investment. There are no Biblical injunctions against investing my money. There is a Biblical commandment to honor my parents. I am allowed to invest my money thereby risking the loss of my couch to creditors at the expense of honoring my parents. The reason being that the command to honor my parents is on me, not my couch.

It perhaps could be considered a breach of honor to purposely consecrate my couch when I know my father enjoys its use. But that doesn't mean I can break another Biblical injunction to remedy it.

 

[Simplelogic]

The ability to consecrate ones property is a Biblical ability. It is a vow. The Bible required one to fulfill one's vows (Num. 30:3), just as it requires one to honor one's parents. Once I have promised to give my couch to the Temple, since I am Biblically required to give it to the Temple, for all practical purposes it now belongs to the Temple and is only missing the fact that the Temple has no yet collected its belongings.

In the case where Yeshua absolutely crushes the oral Torah, the individual in question does not have a Biblical injunction to honor his parents with his couch. His couch does not have to honor his parents. The commandment is that he honor his parents. The couch is only beholden to the individual, not his parents. A person can use the couch to perform the Biblical commandment of honoring one's parents. But the couch is not Biblically dedicated to this task.

Once the man consecrates the couch to the Temple, through the power of the vow by the person to whom the couch is beholden to, the couch has become Temple property. The man is still required to honor his parents, he only has one less tool with which to do this.

Another example of this would be economic investment. There are no Biblical injunctions against investing my money. There is a Biblical commandment to honor my parents. I am allowed to invest my money thereby risking the loss of my couch to creditors at the expense of honoring my parents. The reason being that the command to honor my parents is on me, not my couch.

It perhaps could be considered a breach of honor to purposely consecrate my couch when I know my father enjoys its use. But that doesn't mean I can break another Biblical injunction to remedy it.

One clear aspect of honoring our parents is taking care of them in their elder years. I don't agree with your interpretation on the Torah at all on this point.

 

[Tumah]

One clear aspect of honoring our parents is taking care of them in their elder years. I don't agree with your interpretation on the Torah at all on this point.

I agree that this is a clear and important aspect of honoring one's parents.
However, you have not refuted my point, so for the meantime, I will assume you disagree because its convenient, not because of a valid argument.
Thank you for your time.

 

[Simplelogic]

I agree that this is a clear and important aspect of honoring one's parents.
However, you have not refuted my point, so for the meantime, I will assume you disagree because its convenient, not because of a valid argument.
Thank you for your time.

You statement is convoluted to say the least. The clear take away from this text is that Pharisees were telling people to give money to their religious institution instead of using it to take care of elderly parents. The couch analogy is not necessary.

 

[Tumah]

You statement is convoluted to say the least. The clear take away from this text is that Pharisees were telling people to give money to their religious institution instead of using it to take care of elderly parents. The couch analogy is not necessary.

There is no Pharisaical requirement to dedicate one's belongings to the Temple. The passage in question deals with a theoretical instance of what to do when someone dedicates his belongings to the Temple, when he has elderly parents at home. No one is required or asked to make such a dedication in the first place. So this is not the Pharisees telling people to give their money to their religious institutions.

Secondly, dedicating belongings to the Temple was a common practice (see 2 Kings 12:5). And pretty much the only way to ensure that the Temple could remain functional.

This is not a Pharisaical doctrine as I demonstrated. It is only a practical application of Biblical process. In your passage the Pharisees explain that according to Scriptures if one were to consecrate ones belongings, the Biblical requirement to fulfill one's vows, would prevent the person from fulfilling the Biblical requirement to honor one's parents. There are no Pharisaical enactments involved in the decision here.

 

[Simplelogic]

There is no Pharisaical requirement to dedicate one's belongings to the Temple. The passage in question deals with a theoretical instance of what to do when someone dedicates his belongings to the Temple, when he has elderly parents at home. No one is required or asked to make such a dedication in the first place. So this is not the Pharisees telling people to give their money to their religious institutions.

Secondly, dedicating belongings to the Temple was a common practice (see 2 Kings 12:5). And pretty much the only way to ensure that the Temple could remain functional.

This is not a Pharisaical doctrine as I demonstrated. It is only a practical application of Biblical process. In your passage the Pharisees explain that according to Scriptures if one were to consecrate ones belongings, the Biblical requirement to fulfill one's vows, would prevent the person from fulfilling the Biblical requirement to honor one's parents. There are no Pharisaical enactments involved in the decision here.

I know what 2 Kings 12 says and I know what the Torah says. What was going on in the first century was one of the many distortions of the true intent of the law. And also one of the many reasons Jerusalem was overthrown.

 

[Simplelogic]

The same way pesach was turned into in economic stimulus package for religious leaders.

 

[Tumah]

I know what 2 Kings 12 says and I know what the Torah says. What was going on in the first century was one of the many distortions of the true intent of the law. And also one of the many reasons Jerusalem was overthrown.

Says you.

The same way pesach was turned into in economic stimulus package for religious leaders.

Says you.

 

[Simplelogic]

Says you.


Says you.

Ok. Well, I gatta run.