Burning the NT

[Beautiful_Dreamer]

Thanks, Vern. I haven't melted, but for a Brooklyn boy. I'm moving reeeeeeel slooooow.

Well I have always lived in the South (as long as I can remember-Guam as a baby doesn't count since I don't remember it), and I feel like I could melt sometimes! My mother in law keeps threatening to move to Canada...I would say you can come see me outside Atlanta, but I don't know if our weather would be much better.

[Clyde5001]

My God, I've met a person from Guam!

[Beautiful_Dreamer]

My God, I've met a person from Guam!

LOL unfortunately my family left when I was 3 months old. I am a Navy brat. I want to go back to see everything, because all of the pictures my parents have show it as an absolutely beautiful place!

And what makes me sick is, I was bored once and looked up the weather forecast there-it was in the 90s here, a good ten degrees cooler there. On a tropical island!!! So I could theoretically go there to *escape* from the heat...odd. There's no winter there either-several months with rain every day.

Kefa, it might be good to remind you that, while you apparently consider the NT to be authoritative, there are many here who are not Christians of any kind (Clyde and river are Jewish, SW is an atheist, etc), and thus do not consider the NT to be authoritative. For lack of a better description,  you may as well be reading from the Duncan Hines cookbook-it would hold the same level of weight to them. As well as having better cookie recipes.

[Kefa2]

OK, but in the exact same vein -

Kefa,

If only you wouldn't trust in the uninspired writings of the New Testament, which can never lead you to the God of Israel. If only you would just open your eyes and read the Jewish bible as it was meant to be read, you would see that this Jesus is nowhere to be found. You could be such a mensch!

And let’s get real here –

Where do you get the authority to call the Talmud uninspired, but the New Testament inspired – or valid for that matter? Why is your faith witness so much more valid than mine?

*["Where do you get the authority to call the Talmud uninspired, but the New Testament inspired - or valid for that matter? Why is your faith witness so much more valid than mine?"]
***The Talmud is Rabbinic Judaism's holiest book (actually a collection of books). It's authority takes precedence over the Old Testament. Evidence of this may be found in the Talmud itself, Erubin 21b (Soncino edition): "My son, be more careful in the observance of the words of the Scribes than in the words of the Torah."

The Scribes claim the Talmud is partly a collection of traditions Moses gave them in oral form. These had not yet been written down in Jesus' time. Christ condemned the traditions of the Mishnah (early Talmud) and those who taught it (Scribes and Pharisees), because the Talmud nullifies the teachings of the Bible.

The warning of Jesus Christ about the tradition of men that voids Scripture (Mark 7:1-13), is in fact, a DIRECT reference to the Talmud...or more specifically, the forerunner of the first part of it, the Mishnah, which existed in oral form during Christ's lifetime, before being committed to writing. Mark 7:1-13 represents Christ's pointed condemnation of the Mishnah.

Mark 7:1-13 explains why the Mishnah nullifies the Word of God (Torah):
Verse 1-2: The Pharisees and teachers of religious law said that Jesus' disciples did not follow all of the laws of the Pharisees' oral tradition. They noticed that some of Jesus' disciples failed to follow the usual Jewish ritual of hand washing before eating. This referred to a particular kind of washing that made a person "ceremonially clean" before eating.

Verse 3: The Pharisees did not eat until they had performed a ceremonial washing where water would be poured over their cupped hands. They did this so that they would not eat with "defiled" hands.

The origin of this ceremonial washing is seen in the laver of the Tabernacle, where the priests washed their hands and feet prior to performing their sacred duties (Exodus 30:17-21)...that was part of God's law. BUT oral tradition EXTENDED this law to ALL Jews to be performed before formal prayers and then before eating.

Jesus discerned that the Pharisees' purpose was to keep up appearances...to demonstrate that they were not Gentiles...and to outdo the common people in priestly devotion. These religious leaders had completely lost their perspective on the reason the law of God had been given: to bring God's Kingdom to earth...to provide RECONCILIATION between God and his people...and to bring PEACE.

Verse 4: There were laws for everything; no wonder the common people didn't bother themselves with strictly following them. But the religious leaders kept all these laws because they believed their "cleanliness" EQUALED "godliness." In their minds, keeping these laws showed their devotion and service to God. Bur Jesus could not have disagreed more.

Verse 5: The religious leaders asked Jesus why his disciples did not follow the age-old customs. Their underlying question was, "If you are really a rabbi, as holy and righteous and versed in the law as we are, then you should know that we don't eat without first ceremonially washing our hands. That makes you no better than a common sinner, certainly not a rabbi whom all these people should be following!"

Verses 6-9: Jesus did not answer their spoken question...but their underlying one. First, he called them HYPOCRITES. The Pharisees pretended to be holy and close to God, thus judging all other people as sinners. But what they pretended on the OUTSIDE was NOT true on the INSIDE.

Jesus quoted from the prophet Isaiah...who criticized hypocrites (Isaiah 29:13), and Jesus applied Isaiah's words to these religious leaders...who say all the right words and give lip service to God, but their hearts were far from him. Jesus attacked their true heart condition. The PROBLEM: They replace God's commands with their own MAN-MADE teachings and their own TRADITIONS. As leaders, they were especially culpable, for they should have been teaching the people about God...instead, they looked down on the people as ignorant sinners and spent their time busily staying pure...on the OUTSIDE while remaining corrupt on the INSIDE! Isaiah explained that their worship was a farce...they worshipped for appearances, NOT out of love for God. 

Verses 10-12: Next Jesus gave an example to illustrate how the tradition could be used (and was being used) to NEGATE God's law. He first quoted Moses because the religious leaders traced the oral law back to him (Deuteronomy 4:14). Jesus chose an example about people's duty toward their parents...Honor your father and mother (Exodus 20:12)...for who they are and what they have done. The commandment did not apply just to young children, but to anyone whose parents are living. Honor includes speaking respectfully and showing care and consideration.

The same law is written negatively in (Exodus 21:17 and Leviticus 20:9): "Anyone who speaks evil of father or mother must be put to death"...speaking evil of one's parents is the OPPOSITE of HONORING them! Such action carried a severe penalty.

The religious leaders knew Moses' words, but they found a way to completely SIDESTEP God's command to honor parents. The words "but you say" demonstrated their opposition to what Moses had written (7:10). What Jesus described here was the practice of "Corban" (literally, "offering") where a person could dedicate something to God for his exclusive use by WITHDRAWING it from PROFANE or ORDINARY use by anyone else. People could dedicate money to God's Temple that otherwise would have gone to support their parents (based on Deuteronomy 23:21-23 and Numbers 30:1-16). Thus a man could simply take the vow of "Corban," saying that he had vowed to give to God what he could have given to his parents. He could still use his money any way he chose, but could use his Corban vow as an excuse to DISREGARD his NEEDY parents. Corban had become a religiously acceptable way to neglect one's parents. Although the action--dedicating money to God--seemed worthy and no doubt conferred prestige on the giver, these religious leaders were ignoring God's clear command to honor parents.

Verse 13: The Corban vow effectively put tradition ABOVE God's word. To be able to exempt oneself from one of God's commandments by taking a HUMAN vow meant that the Pharisees had attempted to BREAK THE LAW of God.

This is only one example of the premeditated selfishness of these religious leaders who set themselves above all the people and, in effect, destroyed the laws that they took so much PRIDE in keeping. In this example, Jesus clarified to these hypocritical religious leaders that God's law, NOT oral tradition, should be the TRUE AUTHORITY over people's lives. {A special thanks to Dr. Bruce Barton & Linda K. Taylor]

Kefa 

[river]

Bible babble.

[Acumen]

Come on, River.  Kefa may have a different paradigm,  different religion, and a different view of the scriptures, but he/she is taking the time and interest in this discussion to lay out an argument, rather than post drive-by messages like other fundies.

Your views may be irreconcilable, but everyone likes to see a good, academic debate between religions - I know I do.  Kefa has committed himself (sorry, don't know your gender Kefa) to the argument with scriptural support.  Isn't that worthy of a more sizable response?   

[Clyde5001]

Isn't that worthy of a more sizable response?    

Actually, no.

His whole purpose is to invalidate my religion. Why is that? To convert the Jewish people.

What happens if the Jewish people convert? We disappear.

To me , that is spiritual genocide. I cannot "play" with someone who I believe has that in mind. To you and others, that may be fun to watch. For me, it makes my skin crawl.

That is how I see it and how I believe.

There is no other Judaism but rabbinic Judaism. Talmud, with Tanakh, is our holiest book. He mocks it. That shows a general lack of respect.

Additionally, he quoted many times from the NT. That, as Beautiful Dreamer pointed out, has as much authority with me as as the Duncan Hines Cookbook.

[SquirleyWurley]

There is no other Judaism but rabbinic Judaism. Talmud, with Tanakh, is our holiest book. He mocks it. That shows a general lack of respect.

Additionally, he quoted many times from the NT. That, as Beautiful Dreamer pointed out, has as much authority with me as as the Duncan Hines Cookbook.

It's sort of like using the Qu'ran and Hadith to criticize Christianity.

[Acumen]

Isn't that worthy of a more sizable response?    

Actually, no.

His whole purpose is to invalidate my religion. Why is that? To convert the Jewish people.

What happens if the Jewish people convert? We disappear.

To me , that is spiritual genocide. I cannot "play" with someone who I believe has that in mind. To you and others, that may be fun to watch. For me, it makes my skin crawl.

That is how I see it and how I believe.

There is no other Judaism but rabbinic Judaism. Talmud, with Tanakh, is our holiest book. He mocks it. That shows a general lack of respect.

Additionally, he quoted many times from the NT. That, as Beautiful Dreamer pointed out, has as much authority with me as as the Duncan Hines Cookbook.

I understand your point, Clyde.  However, this is a debate board where such stuff is supposed to happen.  There are other boards exempt from such challenges and critiques.

[metis]

If only you would just open your eyes and read the Jewish bible as it was meant to be read, you would see that this Jesus is nowhere to be found. You could be such a mensch!

So, you are telling us how to correctly read the "Jewish bible", which we wrote, interpreted, commented on, translated, and passed on to others, including you? 



 

The Talmud is Rabbinic Judaism's holiest book (actually a collection of books). It's authority takes precedence over the Old Testament. Evidence of this may be found in the Talmud itself, Erubin 21b (Soncino edition): "My son, be more careful in the observance of the words of the Scribes than in the words of the Torah."

Absolutely untrue.  If you bothered to actually study Talmud, you would notice that when it comes to the use of scriptural commentary, it first starts off with a Torah portion.  What is not accepted, according to halacha (Jewish Law), is commentary that contradicts Torah.  To say we elevate Talmud over the Torah is total, complete nonsense.  Talmud is an attempt to clarify some controversial aspects of Torah (like what is a "graven image", which is not described in Torah), set the teachings of Torah into acceptable/unacceptable actions, along with other purposes.  But the center ring is ALWAYS Torah.     

This is only one example of the premeditated selfishness of these religious leaders who set themselves above all the people and, in effect, destroyed the laws that they took so much PRIDE in keeping. In this example, Jesus clarified to these hypocritical religious leaders that God's law, NOT oral tradition, should be the TRUE AUTHORITY over people's lives. 

That's a stereotype that blatantly false even according to elementary logic.  Pharisees, of which Jesus shared their tradition, were all over the board on various interpretations of Torah.  And we know Jesus used some of these interpretations and commentaries, such as descriptions of heaven and hell (which are not found in Torah), keeping kosher (the process of slaughter that is required, according to Leviticus, is not described anywhere in Torah but must have been well known through the oral tradition), praying in synagogues (not found in Torah), etc. 

So, are you also saying that the oral law didn't exist?  Provide evidence for that charge, since that also defies basic logic.  What we find in Exodus, for example, is that God gave more than just the Decalogue to Moses, which is quite evident if one reads on.  With that, we find that God gave Moses, not just 10 Laws, but 613 of them, all of which are found in Torah.  So when you talk about following "God's Law", is this what you are referring to? 

Let me also just add that since Jesus does not appear to be opposed to much of the oral law, it does appear he may have objected to the "building a wall around the Torah" aspect that toughened up some of the Laws.  The intent of that approach was to try to protect the Law because there's often a human tendency to "fudge" on following what is required, plus the problem that one may accidently violate a Law.  Jesus seems to have objected to that approach, and there were many other Pharisees (especially liberal Pharisees and Hellenized Pharisees) who also disagreed with that approach as well, I might add. 

So, in closing, let me recommend you actually spend some time studying Talmud, realize how it's constructed, and realize just how misguided you are.  And, like river said, all you're doing with your post is nonsensical babble that erroneously describes what we actually do believe. 

I think we know how to read our own books.   

[Acumen]

So, you are telling us how to correctly read the "Jewish bible", which we wrote, interpreted, commented on, translated, and passed on to others, including you?

I think we know how to read our own books. 

First, let's dispel this notion that certain parts of the bible belong to certain ethnic or religious groups.  Christians will maintain that the OT (the entire bible for that matter) belongs to everyone who has an interest in learning the truth laid out by God for His people.

And second, I don't know that I or other Christians will trust current Jewish interpretations of the OT because there were a lot of strange things occurring between Rabbinic Judaism and early Christianity after the death of Jesus and just before the crystallization of the Talmud.  In other words, for those Christians who don't simply believe that the Jews got it wrong from the beginning, others believe they had it right, but chose to alter some of their interpretations to separate themselves from a growing movement called "the way" that was becoming a threat to the Rabbinic Jewish identity.  Such interpretive differences can be seen in the Jewish conception of the literary figure of Satan, which appears to be significantly different than the Christian conception based upon certain Jewish believers during NT times.

[SquirleyWurley]

Perhaps Christianity and modern Judaism both derived from different branches of Judaism of the day.

Christianity built upon the 'apocryphal' texts which are apparently referenced in Jude and in other places in the NT (references to the Book of Enoch, for example, which Ethiopian Jews have preserved and held in high esteem), Judaism made different use of materials from the same period in its development.

It does seem to me that in the first couple centuries AD each branch diverged more widely and in certain ways distinguished itself from the other consciously.  The notions of first century Jewish history in each camp seem to reflect their respective views in the next couple centuries.

[Acumen]

Perhaps Christianity and modern Judaism both derived from different branches of Judaism of the day.

Christianity built upon the 'apocryphal' texts which are apparently referenced in Jude and in other places in the NT (references to the Book of Enoch, for example, which Ethiopian Jews have preserved and held in high esteem), Judaism made different use of materials from the same period in its development.

It does seem to me that in the first couple centuries AD each branch diverged more widely and in certain ways distinguished itself from the other consciously.  The notions of first century Jewish history in each camp seem to reflect their respective views in the next couple centuries.

I tend to agree.  I didn't always think that way, but after discussing these issues with knowledgeable people in the Jewish community, it is difficult to conceive it happening any other way. 

For instance, the topical issue of Satan is intriguing to me.  There is such a theological cleft between the Rabbinic version and the Christian version, it makes one wonder how such differences emerged.  NT characters such as Jesus, Paul, Peter, and James all reference Satan as an enemy of God intentionally tempting, obstructing, and harming humankind.  The depiction of Satan as having freedom of choice, his own personality, and his own unique identity is clear from the conclusion that he will be punished for his antics sometime in the future. 

Why is it that there is such a significant difference between these two views, and how could such a difference be justified?  How is that these NT Jews understood Satan differently than the Rabbinic Judaism of the 2nd and 3rd centuries without there being an intentional separation?

[Clyde5001]

I think when we're being whacked over the head with the "OT", we do kind of want to claim it as exclusively ours. And let me tell you, the Tanakh is is heavy and it hurts.

[Acumen]

Clyde,

I hear ya.  I feel the same tendencies when non-Christians pretend to know more about the NT than we do.  However, it helps a lot when such disagreements are conducted with civility and humility. 

[metis]

First, let's dispel this notion that certain parts of the bible belong to certain ethnic or religious groups.  Christians will maintain that the OT (the entire bible for that matter) belongs to everyone who has an interest in learning the truth laid out by God for His people.

I agree, but what I was saying was that the poster I was responding to was misreporting how the Talmud was being used and that it was considered more important than Torah.  On top of that, he misrepresented what the Pharisee movement and approaches were about.     

And second, I don't know that I or other Christians will trust current Jewish interpretations of the OT because there were a lot of strange things occurring between Rabbinic Judaism and early Christianity after the death of Jesus and just before the crystallization of the Talmud. 

That's understandable.  There was no monolithic group Pharisee group, which is why one simply cannot stereotype the Pharisees.  But at the same time do remember that all observant Jewish groups today are descendants of the Pharisees since they're the ones who eventually won out.  On top of that, even though there may be some questions dealing with details, we do know a great deal about the movement, including dealing with them during the time period that Jesus lived.  It's not like all Jews suddenly had a gigantic brain fart and forgot their history and traditions.  As Howie has pointed out before, there was a great deal of writing taking place before, during, and after Jesus' time period dealing with the Pharisees and other groups.  But, again, the devil is sometimes in the details. 

Probably like many Christians here, I was brought up to believe that Jesus was on one side and the Pharisees were on the other.  It wasn't until much later that I realized that the "Pharisee approach" is not so much based on doctrine as it is on which books are being used and how we may look at the oral law.  In regards to the books, the Pharisees considered the "Prophets" and their "Writings" as being scripture, unlike the Saduccees, but they had varying takes on how to deal with the "oral law".  Historians know of at least four major schools that often differed from each other in one respect or another, but there may well have been more.  On top of that, since their approach wasn't so much based on doctrine, a Jew back during Jesus' time could pick and choose items from differing groups if he so wished, and I'm pretty certain many did (or didn't really care much one way or another). 

As mentioned before, we're quite sure that Jesus was of that tradition, although it's impossible for us today to say how he perceived himself vis-a-vis that movement.  If one compares his moral teachings with Hillel, who definitely was a Pharisee, there essentially no significant difference in their approaches if we exclude the verses whereas Jesus appears in the gospels to possibly deify himself, which I consider quite questionable as you well know.  And we also have to remember that Paul identifies himself as a Pharisee upon arrest, which should tell us pretty much that he and Jesus were at least on a similar page.             

[river]

Acumen wrote: Come on, River.  Kefa may have a different paradigm,  different religion, and a different view of the scriptures, but he/she is taking the time and interest in this discussion to lay out an argument, rather than post drive-by messages like other fundies.

I've never read a fundy/evangelist's post which left a "drive by" message about the verses in the bible.  It's always "Open Your Eyes"  blah blah blah,  and see things MY way.   

[river]

The Greeks were masters at writing fiction. Comedy, tragedy, psychology, history and all sorts of stories which ended up into their religions.

The Greek Gospels were written about 40-80 years after the death of Jesus, at a time when conditions were very different from those prevailing in Judaea during Jesus's lifetime. More important, they were written outside Judaea , in a non-Semitic language, but an Indo European one, and by writers with a Hellenistic, not a Jewish, outlook. These writers were in fact pro-Roman and anti-Jewish.  It is not surprising, therefore, that in their hands the life-story of Jesus, the Pharisees and even Pilate suffered so much distortion.  Since the Romans took the gods and stories of the Greeks, and turned them into their own Roman religion and gods, it's not surprising they took the Greek myths about the life of Jesus and did the same thing. They even changed their names ........ to protect the innocent!  (themselves)

For hundreds of years, the Greeks were blessed with the art of story telling. Not surprising then, how they twisted the stories of Jesus into a god, the Pharisees into evil preachers, and the cruel Pilate into a kind, compassionate ruler.

[Acumen]

Acumen wrote: Come on, River.  Kefa may have a different paradigm,  different religion, and a different view of the scriptures, but he/she is taking the time and interest in this discussion to lay out an argument, rather than post drive-by messages like other fundies.

I've never read a fundy/evangelist's post which left a "drive by" message about the verses in the bible.  It's always "Open Your Eyes"  blah blah blah,  and see things MY way.   

Right, but fundies don't bother to support their arguments with detailed scriptural analysis either.  It's usually, I'm right and you're wrong - open your eyes because it's as plain as day.

[river]

Well, I guess we've read different posts.   Most of the ones I've read from fundies go on paragraph after paragraph, verse after verse determined to explain how Isaiah 53, or some other verses in the bible prove that Jesus is the promised Messiah, Mary was a virgin, and then go on to report one verse after another from intertwining New and Old testament verses to prove beyond any doubt that Jesus is not only the Messiah but God himself, and Jews are all blind and it will be proved to them at the end of time. Then usually intertwined are verses from Revelations, as to where we Jews will all end up.  In the "lake of fire" as they so quaintly put it.  Ho hum.  More supernatural stories but rarely drive by messages.  Perhaps we've read different forums.