Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Judaism - True or False Religion?
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3458 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 1 of 116 (286393)
02-14-2006 9:43 AM


In the “Early Instances of Christian Elements . ” thread a statement was made in ””Message ””16 which generated an off topic discussion through Message 32.”
The claim was that Judaism is a false religion based on the talmud and not the Old ”Testament. The only verses provided to support this claim came in ””Message ””32 followed by an Admin Off Topic warning.”
I would like to give that discussion a chance to blossom in this thread.
I do ask that ”participants be respectful of the beliefs and religions involved and provide evidence not ”emotional responses.”
My personal position is that the words supposedly spoken by Jesus in the NT do not support the idea that Judaism was or is a false religion.
Comparative Religions please.

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Faith, posted 02-14-2006 12:12 PM purpledawn has replied
 Message 4 by Phat, posted 02-14-2006 12:55 PM purpledawn has not replied
 Message 8 by jar, posted 02-14-2006 2:48 PM purpledawn has not replied
 Message 10 by macaroniandcheese, posted 02-14-2006 6:49 PM purpledawn has not replied
 Message 13 by Faith, posted 02-14-2006 11:35 PM purpledawn has not replied
 Message 116 by R. Cuaresma, posted 03-02-2006 9:25 AM purpledawn has not replied

  
AdminAsgara
Administrator (Idle past 2303 days)
Posts: 2073
From: The Universe
Joined: 10-11-2003


Message 2 of 116 (286421)
02-14-2006 10:40 AM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 3 of 116 (286461)
02-14-2006 12:12 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by purpledawn
02-14-2006 9:43 AM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by purpledawn, posted 02-14-2006 9:43 AM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by purpledawn, posted 02-14-2006 1:13 PM Faith has replied
 Message 7 by jar, posted 02-14-2006 2:37 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 9 by ramoss, posted 02-14-2006 3:35 PM Faith has replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 4 of 116 (286479)
02-14-2006 12:55 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by purpledawn
02-14-2006 9:43 AM


Jesus originally came for the Jews
The basic theories of Dispensationalist Theology assert that Jesus came for the Jews and that salvation only went to the Gentiles after an appropriate period of time had passed.
NIV writes:
Matt 15:21-24-- Leaving that place, Jesus withdrew to the region of Tyre and Sidon. 22 A Canaanite woman from that vicinity came to him, crying out, "Lord, Son of David, have mercy on me! My daughter is suffering terribly from demon-possession."
23 Jesus did not answer a word. So his disciples came to him and urged him, "Send her away, for she keeps crying out after us."
24 He answered, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel."
Why would He not say that He was sent to everyone? Because the time had not yet come for that! It was only after this happened:
NIV writes:
Rom 11:25-26-- I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers, so that you may not be conceited: Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in.
It was sort of a "plot twist".
NIV writes:
Acts 11:17-18
17 So if God gave them the same gift as he gave us, who believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I to think that I could oppose God?"
18 When they heard this, they had no further objections and praised God, saying, "So then, God has granted even the Gentiles repentance unto life."
The Jews were offered it first, hardened their hearts as a nation, and yet will still be the chosen in the end!
Truly, the first (chosen) will be last (to receive salvation) and the last (The gentiles) will be first.

Gradually it was disclosed to me that the line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either, but right through every human heart, and through all human hearts. This line shifts. Inside us, it oscillates with the years. Even within hearts overwhelmed by evil, one small bridgehead of good is retained; and even in the best of all hearts, there remains a small corner of evil. --Alexander Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by purpledawn, posted 02-14-2006 9:43 AM purpledawn has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Faith, posted 02-14-2006 1:08 PM Phat has not replied
 Message 96 by DeclinetoState, posted 02-23-2006 12:39 PM Phat has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 5 of 116 (286483)
02-14-2006 1:08 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Phat
02-14-2006 12:55 PM


Re: Jesus originally came for the Jews
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Phat, posted 02-14-2006 12:55 PM Phat has not replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3458 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 6 of 116 (286486)
02-14-2006 1:13 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Faith
02-14-2006 12:12 PM


Matthew
I looked at your evidence in the Book of Matthew.
Notice the very beginning of that chapter:
23:1
Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples,
23:2
Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat:
23:3
All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.
Pretty much Jesus told the multitude to do as they say, but not as they do.
The woes you listed describe hypocrites who aren't even following their own teachings. From what I have read of the Talmud, Jesus is not rejecting the Talmud (oral law).
You've seen ministers preach against adultry and then commit adultry.
All you have shown is that Jesus felt the religous leaders were hypocrites. Why do you feel it was speaking against the Talmud?
quote:
It contains the same instructions that Jesus condemned, such as concerning Sabbath observance and hand washing for instance.
The sabbath is a biblical law and the hand washing is a rabbinic law. Jesus didn't condemn the sabbath observance or handwashing. He condemned the practice of putting those type of things ahead of human needs.

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Faith, posted 02-14-2006 12:12 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Faith, posted 02-14-2006 11:42 PM purpledawn has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 395 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 7 of 116 (286532)
02-14-2006 2:37 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Faith
02-14-2006 12:12 PM


Have you even read the Talmud?
It certainly sounds like you haven't.
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.
Hell, anyone, Jewish or otherwise will tell you that the Talmud is a collection of arguments about what the laws meant. Far from being authoritive, it is the epitome of debate and discussion. It is the very tradition that Jesus used in so many of his discussions and parables.
Reject the Talmud? Hell no, Jesus embraced the Talmud and all it stood for.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Faith, posted 02-14-2006 12:12 PM Faith has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 395 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 8 of 116 (286539)
02-14-2006 2:48 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by purpledawn
02-14-2006 9:43 AM


I read those passages
and there is absolutely no condemnation of Judaism in any of them.
What is clear in the statements of Jesus is a condemnation of behaviours, of placing the tenets of the religion ahead of following the spirit, of loving the religion more than man.
If Jesus returned today he would likely say the same thing about Christianity, he would speak out against the televangelists and other harlots like Swaggart, Robertson, Falwell, Dobson, Phelps, Roberts and Bakker. He would be condemning groups like Focus on the Family and the 700 Club and all the other exclusionary, intolerant organizations that use religion to separate man from GOD.
No, there is nothing in the Bible that even hints that Judaism is a False Religion.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by purpledawn, posted 02-14-2006 9:43 AM purpledawn has not replied

  
ramoss
Member (Idle past 613 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 9 of 116 (286572)
02-14-2006 3:35 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Faith
02-14-2006 12:12 PM


The CHristian claim of what Jesus condemned or did not condemn is totally irrelavent. And, if I remember correct, Jesus condemned the fact that the Sadducees and the Pharasees did not follow what they preached, and then Jesus told his listeners to follow the law.
The Talmud is an authority on how to put the laws of the Torah into everyday life. It is a huge 'coffee house' discussion from various rabbi's about their opinion on how those laws relate to everyday living.
Your understanding of what the Talmud is seems rather limited.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Faith, posted 02-14-2006 12:12 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Faith, posted 02-14-2006 11:46 PM ramoss has replied

  
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3928 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 10 of 116 (286647)
02-14-2006 6:49 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by purpledawn
02-14-2006 9:43 AM


it's not like the talmud is a singular, goaled document. it's a collection of the musings and theories of disparate rabbis. it's like a research periodical. it's like someone wrote down the sermons of a bunch of christian preachers and put it in a book. now, one preacher might be baptist and one might be episcopalian and no one will agree that they are both right, but it might constitute the church government once the topics have become so old that they are no longer controversial.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by purpledawn, posted 02-14-2006 9:43 AM purpledawn has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 11 of 116 (286695)
02-14-2006 11:26 PM


Some Examples from the Talmud
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 unclean
To Part b
Original 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 Reference
Berakoth 52b
while 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 Yeshiva
Obsessional handwashing rituals.
===============================================================
This message has been edited by Faith, 02-14-2006 11:27 PM

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by jar, posted 02-14-2006 11:41 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 12 of 116 (286698)
02-14-2006 11:32 PM


Some commentaries on Matthew 23
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 23
Bible Search and Study Tools - Blue Letter Bible
3. (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 others
4. (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 message
5. (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 themselves
6. (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 law
b. 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 hell
7. (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 man
8. (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 23
Bible Search and Study Tools - Blue Letter Bible
13. 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 23
Bible Search and Study Tools - Blue Letter Bible
Note, 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.
====================================================================

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 13 of 116 (286699)
02-14-2006 11:35 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by purpledawn
02-14-2006 9:43 AM


My personal position is that the words supposedly spoken by Jesus in the NT do not support the idea that Judaism was or is a false religion.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by purpledawn, posted 02-14-2006 9:43 AM purpledawn has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 395 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 14 of 116 (286700)
02-14-2006 11:41 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Faith
02-14-2006 11:26 PM


Re: Some Examples from the Talmud
Fine except everything you posted shows exactly what we've been telling you all along.
The Talmud was not the Oral Law. In fact it's commentary on the law with differing opinions and interpretations from differing rabbis.
There is no support for your assertion that Judaism is a false religion or that Jesus condemned Judaism.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Faith, posted 02-14-2006 11:26 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Faith, posted 02-15-2006 12:02 AM jar has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 15 of 116 (286701)
02-14-2006 11:42 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by purpledawn
02-14-2006 1:13 PM


Re: Matthew
looked at your evidence in the Book of Matthew.
Notice the very beginning of that chapter:
23:1 Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples,
23:2 Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat:
23:3 ll therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.
Pretty much Jesus told the multitude to do as they say, but not as they do.
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.
The woes you listed describe hypocrites who aren't even following their own teachings. From what I have read of the Talmud, Jesus is not rejecting the Talmud (oral law).
qYou've seen ministers preach against adultry and then commit adultry.
All you have shown is that Jesus felt the religous leaders were hypocrites. Why do you feel it was speaking against the Talmud?
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.
It contains the same instructions that Jesus condemned, such as concerning Sabbath observance and hand washing for instance.
The sabbath is a biblical law and the hand washing is a rabbinic law. Jesus didn't condemn the sabbath observance or handwashing. He condemned the practice of putting those type of things ahead of human needs.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by purpledawn, posted 02-14-2006 1:13 PM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by purpledawn, posted 02-15-2006 8:50 PM Faith has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024