Judaism - True or False Religion?

Almost any observant Jew will tell you that the Talmud is authoritative and interprets the Old Testament, although there are degrees of authoritativeness different groups recognize. The Talmud is the Oral Law which was finally written down some time after Christ. It contains the same instructions that Jesus condemned, such as concerning Sabbath observance and hand washing for instance. Today's Pharisees continue the traditions of the Pharisees of Jesus' time. It shouldn't be too hard to find evidence for this but I am going to be busy for most of the day.

OK Phat, I will just register my objection to the dispensationalist idea by saying that "chosen" is synonymous with "elect" and it is the church or the believers in Jesus Christ who are the elect. Nobody is chosen who is not in Christ. There has been a great ingathering of Jewish believers in Christ in the last few decades, however, and it may be increasing, and I hope it is, but within the church "there is now no more Jew nor Greek... but all are one in Christ Jesus." There is no particular class of people that is to be put above another class.

I'm giving some information as a General Reply because it's hard to sort through it all and direct particular parts of it to particular posts. Here I'm posting some quotes from the Talmud (which in Jesus' time was the Oral Law) that illustrate its concern with the very issues Jesus condemned in the Pharisees. The obsessionalizing nitpicking is illustrated, which in itself illustrates the "heavy burden" Jesus said the Pharisees put on the people.And surely it is familiar that the practices allowed on the Sabbath (or Shabbat) among today's orthodox Jews are enough to drive a person nuts, and even sometimes put them in danger -- as when they are not allowed to call for help if a fire breaks out.In the next post I'll quote some Christian commentaries on Matthew 23.
===============================================================R. Nahman said: May I be rewarded38 for observing three meals on the Sabbath. Rab Judah said: May I be rewarded for observing devotion in prayers.39 R. Huna son of R. Joshua said: May I be rewarded for never walking four cubits bareheaded.40 R. Shesheth said: May I be rewarded for fulfilling the precept of tefillin.41 R. Nahman also said: May I be rewarded for fulfilling the precept of fringes.R. Joseph asked R. Joseph son of Rabbah: Of what is thy father most observant? Of fringes, he replied. One day he was ascending a ladder42 when a thread [of his fringes] broke, and he would not descend until [another] was inserted.http://www.come-and-hear.com/shabbath/shabbath_118.html===============================================================
BETH SHAMMAI SAY etc. Our Rabbis taught: Beth Shammai say that washing of the hands precedes the filling of the cup. For should you say that the filling of the cup comes first, there is a danger lest liquid on the back of the cup will be rendered unclean through one's hands and it in turn will render the cup unclean. But would not the hands make the cup itself unclean? ” Hands receive uncleanness in second degree,10 and that which has received uncleanness in the second degree cannot pass on the uncleanness to a third degree in the case of non-sacred things, save through liquids.11 Beth Hillel, however, say that the cup is first filled and then the hands are washed. For if you say that the hands are washed first, there is a danger lest the liquid on the hands should become unclean through the cup12 and should then in turn make the hands unclean. But would not the cup make the hands themselves unclean? ” A vessel does not make a man unclean. But would not [the cup] render unclean the liquid inside it? ” We are here dealing with a vessel the outside of which has been rendered unclean by liquid, in which case its inside is clean and its outside unclean, as we have learnt: If the outside of a vessel has been rendered unclean by liquids, its outside is uncleanTo Part bOriginal footnotes renumbered. See Structure of the Talmud Files'Er. 7a.
Which is the blessing of the day.
Infra.
That Beth Shammai seem to give precedence to the blessing over wine over that of the day.
But before grace has been said.
That is if he wishes, he can drink the wine before the grace.
To serve as the cup of benediction.
For other ceremonial purposes.
R. Hiyya reporting them as saying that the grace after meals does not require a cup of benediction.
They are rendered unclean by something which has become unclean through touching something by its nature unclean.
This is a Rabbinic rule enunciated in Toh. II, 3.
Supposing that this happens to be unclean. Tractate List / Glossary / Search / Bible ReferenceBerakoth 52bwhile its inside, its rim, its handle and its haft are clean. If its inside has been rendered unclean, it is all unclean. What is the point at issue between them? ” Beth Shammai hold that it is forbidden to use a vessel the outside of which has been rendered unclean by liquids for fear of drippings,1 and consequently there is no need to fear that the liquid on the hands will be rendered unclean by the cup.2 Beth Hillel on the other hand hold that it is permitted to use a vessel the outside of which has been rendered unclean by liquids, considering that drippings are unusual, and consequently there is a danger lest the liquid on the [undried] hands should be rendered unclean through the cup.3 Another explanation is, so that the meal should follow immediately the washing of the hands. What is the point of this 'other explanation'? ” Beth Hillel argued thus with Beth Shammai: Even from your standpoint, that it is forbidden to use a vessel the outside of which has been rendered unclean by liquids, for fear of drippings, even so our ruling is superior, because the washing of the hands is immediately followed by the meal.BETH SHAMMAI SAY THAT AFTER WIPING HIS HAND WITH THE NAPKIN etc. Our Rabbis taught: Beth Shammai say that [the diner] after wiping his hands with the napkin places it on the table. For if you say that he places it on the cushion, there is a danger lest liquid on the napkin may be rendered unclean through the cushion and then in turn render the hands unclean. But will not the cushion make the napkin itself unclean? ” One vessel does not render another unclean. But will not the cushion make the man himself unclean? ” A vessel does not render a man unclean. Beth Hillel, however, say that he puts it on the cushion. For if you say that he puts it on the table there is a fear lest the liquid on the napkin should be rendered unclean through the table and should in turn render the food unclean. But will not the table render the food on it unclean? ” We are dealing here with a table which is unclean in the second degree, and that which is unclean in the second degree does not pass on uncleanness to a third degree in the case of non-sacred things, save through the medium of liquids. What is the point at issue between them? ” Beth Shammai hold that it is forbidden to use a table which is unclean in the second degree for fear lest it may be used by persons eating terumah,4 while Beth Hillel hold that it is permissible to use a table which is unclean in the second degree since persons who eat terumah are careful [to avoid such]. Another explanation is that washing of hands for non-sacred food is not prescribed by the Torah. What is the point of the 'other explanation'? ” Beth Hillel argued thus with Beth Shammai: Should you ask what reason is there for being particular in the case of food5 and not being particular in the case of hands, even granting this, our rule is better, since washing of hands for non-sacred food is not prescribed by the Torah. It is better that hands, the rule for which has no basis in the Torah, should become unclean, rather than food, the rule for which has a basis in the Torah.http://www.come-and-hear.com/berakoth/berakoth_52.html==============================================================
Regulations concerning the tying and untying of knots on the Sabbath MISHNA: Following are the knots for the tying of which one becomes culpable. The knot of the camel-drivers (made on the guiding-ring) and the knot of the seamen (made on the bow of a ship); just as one becomes culpable for tying them, so also one becomes culpable for untying them. R. Meir said: "One does not become culpable for any knots that can be untied with one hand."GEMARA: What is the meaning of a knot of the camel-drivers and a knot of seamen? Shall we assume, that by such a knot is meant the one that is tied in attaching the guiding-line suspended from the nose-ring of a camel to something else, and also the knot made in attaching the hawser of a ship to a capstan on the dock? (Such knots are not permanent, why should the tying of them be prohibited?) Nay; by that knot is meant the one made in attaching the guiding-line to the nose-ring and the hawser to the ship itself (both of which are permanent knots).MISHNA: There are knots on account of which one does not become culpable, as in the case of a camel-driver's or seaman's knot.A woman may tie the slit of her chemise, the bands of her hood, the bands of her girdle, the straps of her shoes and sandals; also the bands of leather flasks (filled) with wine or oil, and of a pot of meat. R. Eliezer, the son of Jacob, says: "One may tie a rope in front of cattle, in order that they may not escape." One may tie a bucket (over the well) with his girdle, but not with a rope. R. Jehudah permits this to be done with a rope also. For a rule was laid down by R. Jehudah: One is not culpable for any knot which is not permanently fastened.GEMARA: Is there not a difficulty in understanding the Mishna itself?The first part states, that there are knots on account of which one does not become culpable, etc., implying, therefore, that, while one who ties them does not become liable for a sin-offering, at the same time he must not do it to commence with. The latter part, however, says, that a woman may tie the slit of her chemise, etc., implying, then, that she may do it in the first place?The Mishna means: There are some knots for the tying of which one does not become culpable, as in the case of the knots of the camel-drivers, etc., and they are: The knots by means of which the guiding-line is attached to the nose-ring, and the knots by means of which the hawsers are attached to the ship itself. For tying such knots one does not become liable for a sin-offering, but he must not make them to commence with (because at times the knot is left on the nose-ring or on the ship for some time), and there are other knots which may be tied in the first place, such as the slit of a woman's chemise, etc.; what would he inform us? Is it not self-evident, that a woman must tie the slit in her chemise. The case treated of is where a chemise has two slits, an upper and a lower, and it can be put on (over the head) even if the lower one is tied. We might assume, then, that only the upper one of the slits would be permitted to be tied; he therefore informs us, that both the upper and the lower may be tied and untied.Tractate Shabbat: Chapter 15==============================================================
A proselyte who has taken it upon himself to observe the law, but is suspected of neglecting one point, is to be suspected of being guilty of neglecting the whole law, and therefore regarded as an apostate Israelite, and to be punished accordingly.Bechoroth, fol. 30, col. 2.
http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/hl/hl04.htm
===============================================================Page Not Found - The Global YeshivaObsessional handwashing rituals.
===============================================================This message has been edited by Faith, 02-14-2006 11:27 PM

I'm giving quotations from three commentaries to show that all of them refer to practices of the Jews that are not detailed in the New Testament but known from other sources, such as the Talmud.====================================================================
David Guzik on Matthew 23Bible Search and Study Tools - Blue Letter Bible3. (14) The religious leaders would steal from others, especially the vulnerable, but they would do it under a "spiritual" veneer a. They would devour widows' houses in the name of good business and "stewardship", and make long prayers for the sake of big donations b. Jesus reminds us of the concept of greater condemnation; no one will have it good in Hell, but we can trust that some will have it worse than others4. (15) The religious leaders were guilty of perverting their converts a. Zeal in evangelism does not prove that a person is right before or with God; these religious leaders would go to great lengths in their evangelism, but they would bring people to darkness, not light i. Paul spoke of the same idea in Romans 10:2, where he observes that the Jews of his day had a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge b. In this respect, the religious leaders were similar to Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses today; courageous and energetic messengers, but with a false message5. (16-22) The religious leaders were guilty of hypocrisy in their false and deceptive oaths a. Out of obedience to God's word, they would not swear by the name of God (Exodus 20:7), but they constructed an elaborate system of oaths, some of which were binding and some were not - a way of making a promise while keeping your fingers crossed b. Jesus reminds us that every oath is binding, and God holds them to account, even if they excuse themselves6. (23-24) Jesus rebukes their obsession with trivialities, while ignoring the real matters a. Their tithing was great, but not if it only soothed the guilt of their neglect of the greater matters of the lawb. Jesus illustrates their folly with a humorous picture of a gnat which could not be swallowed because it was not bled properly in accord with kosher regulations, and swallowing a whole camel instead c. Tragically, the church is often guilty of being distracted with trivialities while the world goes to hell7. (25-26) Jesus rebukes the religious leaders for their failure to be cleansed inside and out a. Many are satisfied with a superficial cleansing, and the appearance of righteousness before others; God demands a true cleansing; we must be clean before God and man8. (27-28) Jesus rebukes the religious leaders because it is not enough to have a life that appears good, there must be spiritual life also===================================================================
Jamieson, Fausett and Brown on Matthew 23Bible Search and Study Tools - Blue Letter Bible13. But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men--Here they are charged with shutting heaven against men: in Luk 11:52 they are charged with what was worse, taking away the key--"the key of knowledge"--which means, not the key to open knowledge, but knowledge as the only key to open heaven. A right knowledge of God's revealed word is eternal life, as our Lord says ( Jhn 17:3 5:39 ); but this they took away from the people, substituting for it their wretched traditions. 14. Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows' houses, &c.--Taking advantage of the helpless condition and confiding character of "widows," they contrived to obtain possession of their property, while by their "long prayers" they made them believe they were raised far above "filthy lucre." So much "the greater damnation" awaits them. What a lifelike description of the Romish clergy, the true successors of those scribes! 15. Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte--from heathenism. We have evidence of this in JOSEPHUS.
and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves--condemned, for the hypocrisy he would learn to practice, both by the religion he left and that he embraced. 16. Woe unto you, ye blind guides--Striking expression this of the ruinous effects of erroneous teaching. Our Lord, here and in some following verses, condemns the subtle distinctions they made as to the sanctity of oaths--distinctions invented only to promote their own avaricious purposes.
which say, Whosoever shall swear by the temple, it is nothing--He has incurred no debt.
but whosoever shall swear by the gold of the temple--meaning not the gold that adorned the temple itself, but the Corban, set apart for sacred uses (see on JF & B for Mt 15:5).
he is a debtor!--that is, it is no longer his own, even though the necessities of the parent might require it. We know who the successors of these men are.
but whosoever sweareth by the gift that is upon it, he is guilty--It should have been rendered, "he is a debtor," as in Mat 23:16 . 19. Ye fools, and blind! for whether is greater, the gift, or the altar that sanctifieth the gift?--(See Exd 29:37 ). 20-22. Whose therefore shall swear by the altar, &c.--See on JF & B for Mt 5:33-37. 23. Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise--rather, "dill," as in Margin.
and cummin--In Luke ( Luk 11:42 ) it is "and rue, and all manner of herbs." They grounded this practice on Lev 27:30 , which they interpreted rigidly. Our Lord purposely names the most trifling products of the earth as examples of what they punctiliously exacted the tenth of.
and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith--In Luke ( Luk 11:42 ) it is "judgment, mercy, and the love of God"--the expression being probably varied by our Lord Himself on the two different occasions. In both His reference is to Mic 6:6-8 , where the prophet makes all acceptable religion to consist of three elements--"doing justly, loving mercy, and walking humbly with our God"; which third element presupposes and comprehends both the "faith" of Matthew and the "love" of Luke. See on JF & B for Mr 12:29; JF & B for Mr 12:32, 33. The same tendency to merge greater duties in less besets even the children of God; but it is the characteristic of hypocrites.
these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone--There is no need for one set of duties to jostle out another; but it is to be carefully noted that of the greater duties our Lord says, "Ye ought to have done" them, while of the lesser He merely says, "Ye ought not to leave them undone." 24. Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat--The proper rendering--as in the older English translations, and perhaps our own as it came from the translators' hands--evidently is, "strain out." It was the custom, says TRENCH, of the stricter Jews to strain their wine, vinegar, and other potables through linen or gauze, lest unawares they should drink down some little unclean insect therein and thus transgress ( Lev 11:20, 23, 41, 42 ) --just as the Buddhists do now in Ceylon and Hindustan--and to this custom of theirs our Lord here refers.
and swallow a camel--the largest animal the Jews knew, as the "gnat" was the smallest; both were by the law unclean.====================================================================Matthew Henry on Matthew 23Bible Search and Study Tools - Blue Letter BibleNote, We must not think the worse of good truths for their being preached by bad ministers; nor of good laws for their being executed by bad magistrates......Mat 23:13-33 In these verses we have eight woes levelled directly against the scribes and Pharisees by our Lord Jesus Christ, like so many claps of thunder, or flashes of lightning, from mount Sinai. Three woes are made to look very dreadful (Rev. 8:13; 9:12); but here are eight woes, in opposition to the eight beatitudes, Mt. 5:3.The gospel has its woes as well as the law, and gospel curses are of all curses the heaviest. These woes are the more remarkable, not only because of the authority, but because of the meekness and gentleness, of him that denounced them. He came to bless, and loved to bless; but, if his wrath be kindled, there is surely cause for it: and who shall entreat for him that the great Intercessor pleads against? A woe from Christ is a remediless woe. This is here the burthen of the song, and it is a heavy burthen; Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites.Note, 1. The scribes and Pharisees were hypocrites; that is it in which all the rest of their bad characters are summed up; it was the leaven which gave the relish to all they said and did. A hypocrite is a stage-player in religion (that is the primary signification of the word); he personates or acts the part of one that he neither is nor may be, or perhaps the he neither is nor would be.2. That hypocrites are in a woeful state and condition. Woe to hypocrites; so he said whose saying that their case is miserable makes it so: while they live, their religion is vain; when they die, their ruin is great. Now each of these woes against the scribes and Pharisees has a reason annexed to it containing a separate crime charged upon them, proving their hypocrisy, and justifying the judgment of Christ upon them; for his woes, his curses, are never causeless.I. They were sworn enemies to the gospel of Christ, and consequently to the salvation of the souls of men (v. 13); They shut up the kingdom of heaven against men, that is, they did all they could to keep people from believing in Christ, and so entering into his kingdom. Christ came to open the kingdom of heaven, that is, to lay open for us a new and living way into it, to bring men to be subjects of that kingdom. Now the scribes and Pharisees, who sat in Moses’s seat, and pretended to the key of knowledge, ought to have contributed their assistance herein, by opening those scriptures of the Old Testament which pointed at the Messiah and his kingdom, in their true and proper sense; they that undertook to expound Moses and the prophets should have showed the people how they testified of Christ; that Daniel’s weeks were expiring, the sceptre was departed from Judah, and therefore now was the time for the Messiah’s appearing. Thus they might have facilitated that great work, and have helped thousands to heaven; but, instead of this, they shut up the kingdom of heaven; they made it their business to press the ceremonial law, which was now in the vanishing, to suppress the prophecies, which were now in the accomplishing, and to beget and nourish up in the minds of the people prejudices against Christ and his doctrine.1. They would not go in themselves; Have any of the rulers, or of the Pharisees, believed on him? Jn. 7:48. No; they were to proud to stoop to his meanness, too formal to be reconciled to his plainness; they did not like a religion which insisted so much on humility, self-denial, contempt of the world, and spiritual worship. Repentance was the door of admission into this kingdom, and nothing could be more disagreeable to the Pharisees, who justified and admired themselves, than to repent, that is, to accuse and abase and abhor themselves; therefore they went not in themselves; but that was not all.
====================================================================

Insofar as the practices Jesus denounced are still the practices of observing Jews, it is the same thing as saying that Judaism is a false religion according to Jesus Christ.I've posted some quotes from the Talmud that are still taken seriously by observant Jews. At least they illustrate that the Talmud or oral law was in fact the source of the teachings Jesus was condemning.

Yes, this is one part of the condemnation of the scribes and Pharisees, but not all of it. The commentaries I posted cover all the facets of Jesus' condemnation but there is so much material it is hard to know where to begin. What I have quoted from the Talmud in post #11 ought to demonstrate the kinds of obsessional rule-making of the sort that Jesus was protesting. In His day these laws were the oral law, not written down until some time after Christ.It was the oral law that added to the Biblical Sabbath regulations all the nitpicking requirements that continue to bind observant Jews, to the point that they cannot drive a car; they cannot even flip a light switch without supposedly violating God's commandment against lighting a fire on the Sabbath, thus missing the spirit of the Law completely, and piling burdens on the people that make the Sabbath a nightmare. What He condemned was the piling on of irrelevant rules onto the simple Biblical law of the Sabbath. Yes, the handwashing was rabbinic and it has this obsessional character, which I believe is pretty well illustrated in post #11.This message has been edited by Faith, 02-14-2006 11:55 PM

Uh huh, I guess you could call it that. It is also considered binding on observant Jews, or at least most of it is. The practices of orthodox Jews on the Sabbath clearly follow the Talmudic teaching. It has nothing in common with the spirit of God's own commandments about the Sabbath, which was to be a day of rest and joy, not of obsessional trivia and unnecessary inconveniences.

Which is exactly what the Oral Law is:

quote:

---

The Talmud has two components, the Mishnah which is the first written compilation of Judaism's Oral Law, and the Gemara, a discussion of the Mishnah (though the terms Talmud and Gemara are generally used interchangeably). It expands on the earlier writings in the Torah in general and in the Mishnah in particular, and is the basis for all later codes of Jewish law, and much of Rabbinic literature.

​

Talmud - Wikipedia

---

You wouldn't recognize the most excellent support for your opponents' position if it bit you in the ass, which it regularly does. Maybe you're numb in that region from all the biting.

Yes, and the custom made a shambles of the Torah's true spirit, added obsessional burdensome rules to God's law, which is exactly what Jesus was condemning. No, I don't. I merely have to show you a body of well argued opinion on the subject that suggests that I am right and you wrong. I am not obliged to convince you or anyone. What I posted from the Talmud amply demonstrates my contention that what Jesus was condemning in the Pharisees was the laws that are now in the Talmud, or whatever was once the Oral Law, the Jewish commentaries on the Torah, which are considered binding on observant Jews even to today, showing that Judaism IS what Jesus was condemning. You don't have to agree with the condemnation, but the point has been made. Of course the Jews are going to continue to believe what they believe. Why would you think I would expect otherwise? Fairness merely requires you to acknowledge that I made my point, that Jesus was condemning Judaism, based on the principles described, whether you agree with the condemnation or not. Oh my, what a silly accusation. It's obvious I get it, and have shown in return that this "just a commentary" contains what Jesus was condemning, the EMBELLISHMENT of the Torah, and that He therefore was condemning Judaism itself, since Judaism follows these Talmudic embellishments. No I don't. What an utterly ridiculous idea. All I have to do is demonstrate the particular facts I claimed follow from what I believe, and that there is logical consistency. In a sense. Your view has its own consistency. It is according to the New Testament and Jesus that the Jewish religion is false, but you don't have to believe the New Testament or Jesus. You are free to continue to judge the New Testament and Jesus false based on the Jewish view of the Hebrew scriptures with just as little credibility as you are imputing to my arguments. Yes in a sense that is true, and debate is really ultimately impossible as it's all a matter of interpretation. With good reason, perhaps. I'm not a fan of Jack Chick but most of the Reformers also considered the Catholic Church to be the Whore of Babylon. There's plenty to suggest that that may be the case. Well, you are welcome to your opinion of course, but I believe I've made my point: Jesus was condemning Judaism.This message has been edited by Faith, 02-15-2006 01:21 AMThis message has been edited by Faith, 02-15-2006 01:27 AM

Excuse me??? I don't see any particularly excessive "fighting and fussing" going on here.And I don't happen to agree that God loves everyone either, Phat. And I'm not being funny. Well you are wrong and I've shown HOW you are wrong in my posts. Judaism practices the very things that Jesus condemned, which means He condemned Judaism. We don't need to get all literalminded and expect that He called it "Judaism." That was a term that developed in response to Christianity to describe those practices of the Pharisees and other leaders of Judea that He condemned. Phat, excuse me but I can't think you've actually read the argument here. Yes, in a general sense he was condemning Religion. That is what the Pharisees and scribes practiced, a man-made religion they imposed on God's word. This is what Jesus was condemning. This man-made religion was codified in their Oral Law which has since then been written down in the Talmud. And since this Religion is what today's Pharisees continue to practice under the name of Judaism, Jesus was condemning Judaism.{ABE: It is also true that this CAN be discussed in relation to ANY kind of pharisaical or "religious" practices in any context, and there have been many such religious deviations within the Christian Church over the millennia. Some of the commentators I quoted in Message 12 apply the condemnation to Christian practices for instance. But that is another subject. The subject on this thread is the specific practices of the Jews themselves which Jesus condemned and which they continue to practice. IF YOU LOVE THE JEWS YOU WILL PRAY THAT THIS RECOGNITION MIGHT HELP TO LEAD THEM TO CHRIST You have completely misconstrued the debate here. Nobody is talking about Law vs. Grace, Phat. We are talking about what Jesus condemned in the Pharisees and He certainly did not condemn the Law. He condemned them for NOT practicing the Law. He condemned them for EMBELLISHING the Law. He condemned them for ADDING TO the Law and making it an obnoxious burden to the people. Not being allowed to flip a light switch on the Sabbath is today's version of what Jesus was condemning. This is NOT the Law. This is a mockery of the Law. I have no idea what you are trying to say. The oral commentaries are still THE MAIN BASIS for observant Jewish practice, Phat, so your declaration that they may have "become unnecessary" might be heard by practicing Jews as a bit presumptuous of you. You aren't making much sense I'm afraid. Phat, for heaven's sake, I was making a polite concession to Ramoss. In the case of this argument certain facts are at issue and I believe I won my point on the question of facts. That is, Jesus was in fact condemning Judaism itself when He condemned the Pharisees, because Judaism practices what they practiced. I believe that point has been made. But as for siding with Judaism or with Christ, that's all a matter of interpretation. Just realize that you can't agree with both because they contradict one another. I think that is the most likely interpretation of the passage, yes. I have no idea what you think you are saying. I am representing the teachings of Christ and defending them accurately as far as I can. Scripture tells us that people are converted by HEARING -- which is only possible by PREACHING. If anybody accepts me or you they are in trouble. It is the word of God they must accept. For heaven's sake, Phat, YOU are the one who needs to get a grip. I've made a perfectly solid point in this thread. I've proved my case by good debating skills, by facts and evidence. What on earth are you doing coming along here and making this into some kind of personality contest? Excuse me, but that is NOT my aim at all. I am here to debate the cause of Jesus Christ as I understand it from His word. It's a matter of TRUTH, Phat. This isn't about some wishywashy idea of "spirituality" at all. I'm sorry, but I've made my case here. Jesus condemned Judaism, which may be called "religion" if you like, but it is also specifically Judaism. That is NOT the task here. The task for me is to defend the word of God. What communion can light have with the darkness, Phat?This message has been edited by Faith, 02-15-2006 09:00 AM

Dear dear, it is SO hard to argue with people who simply do not know how to follow an argument. Well, have a good day.This message has been edited by Faith, 02-15-2006 09:02 AM

I supported it quite adequately. Denial seems to be your debate method of choice, however. Whatever.

I answered the point about the context. Perhaps you missed it. There is more than one thing Jesus is condemning in the Pharisees. Their hypocrisy is one. The "eight woes," or curses against them, however specifically target their peculiar burdensome and falsifying additions to God's law.The quotes in Message 11 illustrate the obsessionalizing rule-making additions to the Bible by the Oral Law. They detail ritualistic handwashing, they discuss the nitpicking rules for the Sabbath, etc etc etc., all of which is commentary on the Bible of exactly the sort Jesus was condemning the Pharisees for. Did you need me to point it out word for word or something?It shouldn't even have needed all that. You should have recognized immediately that Jesus was condemning all of Judaism. The whole New Testament condemns it.Why is there a problem with this? You can still believe Judaism instead of the New Testament. You shouldn't of course, for the sake of your immortal soul, but you are quite free to do so.

Yes, and they receive the messenger BECAUSE OF THE MESSAGE, Phat, not because he/she is a likeable person or any such nonsense. They RECOGNIZE THE TRUTH of the message, and that is why they accept the messenger. Because God opened their ears to hear. The devil can be nice as all get out. In fact that's one of his favorite strategies, sweettalk 'em. Yes, God loves the world in the sense that He'd like to see all saved, but other scripture makes it clear that all will not be saved, that they will reject the message, and also that God hates the wicked. That's a complex theological dispute that WOULD take us way off topic. I would simply remind you that God said He hates the wicked, and specifically He hated Esau. If God said He hates anyone at all, then you can't contradict Him by saying He loves everyone. He doesn't. It is not our business to say whom He loves or hates, that's His business, but it is also very very presumptuous of us to claim that He loves everyone when He has clearly said He doesn't.He does, however, take care of everyone mercifully and kindly, and He does desire that all be saved. Only they won't be, many will continue to reject Him. That's one of the Proverbs, Phat, in the Bible. I don't see any vinegar here, Phat. Besides are we trying to kill flies here or what? John the Baptist? I'm flattered. Are you accusing God's prophets of violating His own Proverb?{ABE: That's funny! JOHN THE BAPTIST TIRADE? I'm quoting JESUS CHRIST!!!! HE is the one who spoke the curses against the Pharisees, Phat. Correcting lies, saving people from wrong beliefs, OUGHT to be regarded as loving people. Seems to me anyway.This message has been edited by Faith, 02-15-2006 11:29 AM

That's hilarious. Did Paul have a "good personality?" Did Peter?