Which prophecies did Jesus fulfill as to be the Messiah?

[nazz]

Then you clearly didn't read the link.

The "Torah" in the usage of the term, as I thought I explained clearly, was "Pentateuch" the way that website was using it.

There is a huge difference between the Law itself and the narrative of the Pentateuch which INCLUDES the law.

To say that just because the Pentateuch itself in its current form is not Inspired automatically dispels the Torah is a gravely fallacious concept.

You're simply not interpreting what the site says correctly. It says they follow the Documentary Hypothesis concept of the formation of the Torah NARRATIVE.

Besides, even if they thought some parts of the Law itself within that narrative are artificial, I'd like to see a handy website detailing which ones.

Otherwise, you simply flung a link that doesn't really explain anything other than that they believe in the Documentary Hypothesis.

I've been to Reform Temple, I've known many Reform. None of them thought the Law itself did not come from God.

Well I heard that when the Reform movement in America has its inauguration they held a banquet and served shrimp cocktail. That should tell you something.

 

[metis]

Well I heard that when the Reform movement in America has its inauguration they held a banquet and served shrimp cocktail. That should tell you something.

It all depends on how looks at Torah in regards to the issues of "divine inspiration" and "inerrancy".

 

[nazz]

It all depends on how looks at Torah in regards to the issues of "divine inspiration" and "inerrancy".

Since you identify as a Reform Jew perhaps you could clear up this controversy between Shermana and me? Do you believe the Torah, as recorded in the first five books of the Bible, was given by God to Moses on Mt. Sinai? That every commandment recorded therein must be obeyed as it came from God?

 

[Brickjectivity]

Probably at least in part, but there was another dynamic going on at that time and afterwords, and that is the "building the fence around the Torah", which toughened up some of the Laws because there's a human propensity to fudge a bit. Now, whether these provisions are actually all included in the oral law supposedly dating back to the Sinai Experience is rather conjectural.

Jesus appears to be taking a "liberal Pharisee" (sometimes referred to as "love Pharisees") position whereas "love" dominates all of the Law. Therefore, to Jesus, if one follows the "law of love" all the other Laws are basically covered. Obviously, and for good reason, the vast majority of Jews disagreed and still disagree with that approach, although we fully realize that compassion and justice permeate Torah, Tanakh, and Talmud.

Thank you for that reply, Metis. Although it could be argued that Jesus was not against the Oral laws or against the fences so much as against the faith in the way discipleship was managed. In the gospels he 'Silenced the Sadducees' then went after the Pharisees next. He belonged to no group at all and quipped "Foxes have holes, birds have nests, but the son of man has nowhere to lay his head' which speaks (to me) of a very strong individual tendency in interpreting the law versus the group orientation of Pharisees and Sadducee s. It doesn't mean that he rejected the Oral Law necessarily or that he didn't value what the Sadducee or Pharisee had to say. I have said in the past that I think he was against something about the way Pharisees made disciples, but I don't think he would have rejected any 'Oral Torah' or its transmission. He had disciples himself, obviously; but he selected them from extremely diverse groups of all kinds. Actually it looks like he was careful not to use any criteria whatsoever for choosing disciples, (other than that they were Jews) and this seems related to his opposition to 'The Pharisees' of that time period. He said that they "Searched over land and sea" to find a potential disciple, meaning they were extremely choosy.

 

[nazz]

Thank you for that reply, Metis. Although it could be argued that Jesus was not against the Oral laws or against the fences so much as against the faith in institutions and clicks. In the gospels he 'Silenced the Sadducees' then went after the Pharisees next. He belonged to no group at all and quipped "Foxes have holes, birds have nests, but the son of man has nowhere to lay his head' which speaks (to me) of a very strong individual tendency in interpreting the law versus the group orientation of Pharisees and Sadducee s. It doesn't mean that he rejected the Oral Law necessarily or that he didn't value what the Sadducee or Pharisee had to say. I have said in the past that I think he was against something about the way Pharisees made disciples, but I don't think he would have rejected any 'Oral Torah' or its transmission. He had disciples himself, obviously; but he selected them from extremely diverse groups of all kinds. Actually it looks like he was careful not to use any criteria whatsoever for choosing disciples, and this seems related to his opposition to 'The Pharisees' of that time period.

One could argue he preached his own brand of Oral Torah considering the fact that his teachings were not written down till much later.

 

[Brickjectivity]

It doesn't answer the question of why Paul says Jews are entrusted with the words of God if there's no Oral Torah. Jesus would not of dumped any Torah. If the Oral Torah is a recent invention like you seem to be suggesting, then Jesus would not have bothered with it. If it is original as CMike suggests, then Jesus would have carefully kept it. The thing is, I don't know what it says; and I've no authoritative statement about it.

 

[nazz]

It doesn't answer the question of why Paul says Jews are entrusted with the words of God if there's no Oral Torah. Jesus would not of dumped any Torah. If the Oral Torah is a recent invention like you seem to be suggesting, then Jesus would not have bothered with it. If it is original as CMike suggests, then Jesus would have carefully kept it.

But the NT indicates he didn't. He didn't even accept all of the Written Torah as divine.

 

[Brickjectivity]

But the NT indicates he didn't. He didn't even accept all of the Written Torah as divine.

? What planet is your interpretation coming from ? Sorry, but I disagree so much with that statement; and I think you are perhaps overstating your case providing (as you typically do) absolutely no references for ideas that are so uncommon. People are constantly asking you to provide references and context for things you say, because you just presume that they aren't necessary. Its like you need people to trust you, but its not a situation in which trust is a replacement for references. I'm not able to just 'Get' to the same place by osmosis. If I post like that and it confuses you, you should call me out, too.

 

[nazz]

? What planet is your interpretation coming from ? Sorry, but I disagree so much with that statement; and I think you are perhaps overstating your case providing (as you typically do) absolutely no references for ideas that are so uncommon. People are constantly asking you to provide references and context for things you say, because you just presume that they aren't necessary. Its like you need people to trust you, but its not a situation in which trust is a replacement for references. I'm not able to just 'Get' to the same place by osmosis. If I post like that and it confuses you, you should call me out, too.

References happily supplied upon request

Mat 19:8 He said to them, “Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, permitted you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so."

Notice he does not say "God" but "Moses". And he states that the law of divorce, supposedly given to Moses by God, is not in harmony with God's desire. This contradicts a Torah of divine origin.

Then there are the "but I say unto you" statements Jesus makes in Matthew 5. These begin with something like "you have heard that it was said to those of old". This seems to question that these things were actually said to those of old. And Jesus gives his own teaching that supersedes these anyway whereas the Torah of the OT states it cannot be altered in any way. Jesus states in Mt. 5:17 that he has come to complete and perfect the Torah.

Then there are the statements in the Gospel of John (I believe I already quoted these?) where Jesus refers to the Torah as "your Torah" and "their Torah" indicating it is not his Torah.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Thank you for providing that reference!

Mat 19:8 He said to them, “Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, permitted you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so."

Very important, yes. As for me, I'm convinced that Jesus was pointing out to these men that their 'Hearts' were 'Hard'. They were asking him under what conditions they could divorce their wives, divorce being the compassionate alternative to keeping a women without respecting her rights as a mate, lover and mother. They already knew that divorce was such an alternative, so the only innovation was that he used their own compassion to point out that they were hardened in this area. His reply did not in my opinion overturn Moses one iota, instead providing a way for me and you to understand the purpose of the law. The fact that Jesus didn't say divorce was illegal goes in favor of Moses, elevating Moses for his insight.

Notice he does not say "God" but "Moses". And he states that the law of divorce, supposedly given to Moses by God, is not in harmony with God's desire. This contradicts a Torah of divine origin.

Lets us say that Moses was inspired and far sighted by the wisdom of the spirit. Jesus did not, for instance, overturn divorce when he explained the law of Deut 24 but criticized the men for making it necessary. It was therefore not just 'Supposedly' given by God or Jesus would have criticized the law itself as the cause of the problem rather than the hearts of men. (Moses refused to allow the 'Chained woman' condition what modern Christians have been guilty of -- where a man can ignore his wife's sexual needs, monetary needs, her children's needs but she's not permitted to divorce him.)

There are other examples with Moses where an ideal is put forward that no one is going to follow, and then an alternative less ideal plan is provided in stead of the ideal. Divorce and marriage wouldn't be alone in that, but its humanity that is not in harmony with God's desire rather than the law itself. Moses prophesied that the 'Children of Israel' would fall away from 'Serving the LORD' but that they would return. The laws recognized that and made provision for that eventuality. Moses also said Israel should not ever choose a king over them --- but that they when they did do it he should meet such & such requirements. (Deut 17:14, I Samuel 8:7, Psalm 118:22)

Then there are the "but I say unto you" statements Jesus makes in Matthew 5.

These also don't appear to overturn any law. Instead they point out the reason certain laws were implemented.

Jesus states in Mt. 5:17 that he has come to complete and perfect the Torah.

He says "...I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." In other words he doesn't 'State' what you have said. You are paraphrasing and claiming its a quote. Please don't do that.

Then there are the statements in the Gospel of John (I believe I already quoted these?) where Jesus refers to the Torah as "your Torah" and "their Torah" indicating it is not his Torah.

You may have a point here. I don't really know the significance of saying 'Your Torah'.

 

[Akivah]

My guess is that Jesus had belonged to a Jewish sect, and then at some point he went solo. Jesus didn’t magically fall out of the sky one day. He had to come from somewhere.

That presumes that the man known as jesus actually existed. If he was just a literary character, then none of your questions matter.

 

[nazz]

The point I am making is this. Why does Jesus not say God gave you this law? Why does he say Moses did? If God did not want men divorcing their wives then why give them permission to do it? If it is because it was too hard a law that could be said about many of the laws God supposedly gave.

These also don't appear to overturn any law. Instead they point out the reason certain laws were implemented.

The point is they altered the law. That is not permissible by order of the Torah itself.

He says "...I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." In other words he doesn't 'State' what you have said. You are paraphrasing and claiming its a quote. Please don't do that.

Actually I'm not. The word translated "fulfill" in that verse is the Greek
πληρόω (plēro&#333

1. to make full, to fill up, i.e. to fill to the full
   1. to cause to abound, to furnish or supply liberally
      1. I abound, I am liberally supplied
2. to render full, i.e. to complete
   1. to fill to the top: so that nothing shall be wanting to full measure, fill to the brim
   2. to consummate: a number
      1. to make complete in every particular, to render perfect
      2. to carry through to the end, to accomplish, carry out, (some undertaking)
   3. to carry into effect, bring to realisation, realise
      1. of matters of duty: to perform, execute
      2. of sayings, promises, prophecies, to bring to pass, ratify, accomplish
      3. to fulfil, i.e. to cause God's will (as made known in the law) to be obeyed as it should be, and God's promises (given through the prophets) to receive fulfilment

BTW, in the very next verse we also see the word "fulfill" which is a translation of a different Greek word, γίνομαι. One that conveys the usual sense of the English word "fulfill".

You may have a point here. I don't really know the significance of saying 'Your Torah'.

Because if I say something is 'yours' I imply it is not 'mine'. If it belongs to both of us I would say 'our'.

 

[metis]

Since you identify as a Reform Jew perhaps you could clear up this controversy between Shermana and me? Do you believe the Torah, as recorded in the first five books of the Bible, was given by God to Moses on Mt. Sinai? That every commandment recorded therein must be obeyed as it came from God?

No and No. However, just because I don't believe either approach, don't take it that I believe the opposite. To me, it's virtually impossible to tell for sure either way, so I have copyrighted my "I don't know" response that I use so very often.

And if you infringe on my copyright, I'll sue you're butt off.

 

[nazz]

No and No.

thank you. This confirms my understanding.

 

[metis]

Thank you for that reply, Metis. Although it could be argued that Jesus was not against the Oral laws or against the fences so much as against the faith in the way discipleship was managed. In the gospels he 'Silenced the Sadducees' then went after the Pharisees next. He belonged to no group at all and quipped "Foxes have holes, birds have nests, but the son of man has nowhere to lay his head' which speaks (to me) of a very strong individual tendency in interpreting the law versus the group orientation of Pharisees and Sadducee s. It doesn't mean that he rejected the Oral Law necessarily or that he didn't value what the Sadducee or Pharisee had to say. I have said in the past that I think he was against something about the way Pharisees made disciples, but I don't think he would have rejected any 'Oral Torah' or its transmission. He had disciples himself, obviously; but he selected them from extremely diverse groups of all kinds. Actually it looks like he was careful not to use any criteria whatsoever for choosing disciples, (other than that they were Jews) and this seems related to his opposition to 'The Pharisees' of that time period. He said that they "Searched over land and sea" to find a potential disciple, meaning they were extremely choosy.

And thanks for your reply as well.

To me, I think the key lies in his statement as being opposed to "laws made by men", and because of his general orientation, I simply cannot see where he had room for either the oral law of the building the fence around the Torah. Both seemingly go very much in the opposite direction he seems to be going in, plus we do know that this was a liberal Pharisee position that he at least seems to share.

His disagreement with "the Pharisees" and these "laws made by men", seems to be geared against the mainline Pharisee element and not the more liberal Pharisees. The mainline Pharisees did believe in the oral law and also the fence, but the more liberal elements seemingly didn't accept it as law but may have taken a position more along the line of the Sadducees and Karaites by referring to it as an "oral tradition", which has a more liberal tang to it.

Now, did he actually belong to one of these liberal groups? I don't know since there's really no way to tell, but I do have my doubts.

 

[metis]

thank you. This confirms my understanding.

You're welcome, but please do realize that this is my approach, which hasn't been exactly written in stone.

 

[nazz]

And thanks for your reply as well.

To me, I think the key lies in his statement as being opposed to "laws made by men", and because of his general orientation, I simply cannot see where he had room for either the oral law of the building the fence around the Torah. Both seemingly go very much in the opposite direction he seems to be going in, plus we do know that this was a liberal Pharisee position that he at least seems to share.

Regarding the building fences around the Torah I would say he did agree with this and gave some instruction of his own regarding such. For instance he says that not only should we not murder we should guard against even being angry with someone. Regarding adultery he says not only should we not commit that we should not even look lustfully at a married woman. Two examples that come to mind.

His disagreement with "the Pharisees" and these "laws made by men", seems to be geared against the mainline Pharisee element and not the more liberal Pharisees. The mainline Pharisees did believe in the oral law and also the fence, but the more liberal elements seemingly didn't accept it as law but may have taken a position more along the line of the Sadducees and Karaites by referring to it as an "oral tradition", which has a more liberal tang to it.

I've never encountered the view that there were any Pharisees who felt the Oral Torah did not have the force of law. For sure there were different interpretations between the school of Shammai and that of Hillel.

 

[metis]

Regarding the building fences around the Torah I would say he did agree with this and gave some instruction of his own regarding such. For instance he says that not only should we not murder we should guard against even being angry with someone. Regarding adultery he says not only should we not commit that we should not even look lustfully at a married woman. Two examples that come to mind.

I think there are exceptions to the general approach, especially since these exceptions can be place in the "law of love" context.

One key is when Jesus is asked what is the most important Commandment? Now, if one is a traditionally observant Jew, one would most likely answer "None, as all are equally important". But that's not what he answered. Instead, it was love God and neighbor as yourself, and then he finishes off by saying that all the Commandments relate to these two. This is the polar opposite approach of the oral law and the building of the fence.

I've never encountered the view that there were any Pharisees who felt the Oral Torah did not have the force of law. For sure there were different interpretations between the school of Shammai and that of Hillel.

The word "Torah" is typically rendered as "Law", but actually "Teachings" is a better translation. This translation takes nothing away from what Torah teaches, but it does allow for some give and take in regards to interpretation and application, and it does so because interpretation is not an exact art, nor is application exact since every case tends to be at least somewhat different from the others. The Hillel school is an example of this more liberal approach, and essentially modern Jews pretty much reflect their approach.

Now, what makes Jesus' approach different than Hillel's is that, even though Hillel believed and taught that the main purpose of Torah was for compassion and justice (thus reflecting the "love"-- "agape"-- concept), nevertheless he taught that the other Laws must still be followed. The "Jesus School", if I can call it that, relatively quickly walked away from the observance of the much of the Law, such as what we see in Acts when Peter declares all foods "clean" after his vision. It's very hard for me to imagine his violating that which Jesus taught, therefore Jesus' approach must have been liberal enough to allow for that much wiggle room.

This is how I see it as I try to tie these pieces together, but doing such is an imprecise art.

 

[Brickjectivity]

To me, I think the key lies in his statement as being opposed to "laws made by men", and because of his general orientation, I simply cannot see where he had room for either the oral law of the building the fence around the Torah. Both seemingly go very much in the opposite direction he seems to be going in, plus we do know that this was a liberal Pharisee position that he at least seems to share.

Ok, well I haven't read the Mishna, so I don't have further comment.

His disagreement with "the Pharisees" and these "laws made by men", seems to be geared against the mainline Pharisee element and not the more liberal Pharisees. The mainline Pharisees did believe in the oral law and also the fence, but the more liberal elements seemingly didn't accept it as law but may have taken a position more along the line of the Sadducees and Karaites by referring to it as an "oral tradition", which has a more liberal tang to it.

Now, did he actually belong to one of these liberal groups? I don't know since there's really no way to tell, but I do have my doubts.

Well, explaining it to Christians is far from trivial. It all depends upon what one considers to be the 'Word of God'. As Nazz was just saying, just because Moses said it doesn't mean he accepts it as God's word. If we have a distinction between what Moses said and what 'God' said, then that comletely re-writes what we think Jesus was saying. Part of the issue here, too, is that Torah isn't just a word to be spoken, nor is it a set of rules nor is it this nor that, but Christians tend to think of it as such. The word Torah approximates the ideal Torah like a square can approximate a circle. Christians today don't begin with studying what and who God is. Christians begin with a declaration of God, a person who has certain amazing characteristics, certain seemingly contradictory powers and essences. Jews think of creation in terms of contraction. Christians tend to think of it as an expression of love exploding from a creative being. From there the distances between Christian and Jewish thought just becomes greater. Discussion of the variants among Pharisees is almost impossible.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Actually I'm not.

You are, and you're denying it. A quote and a statement are not paraphrases. If I paraphrased you and said it was a quote, I could completely misrepresent what you were saying.