roger1440
I do stuff
Im referring to a law forbidding Jews from healing on the Sabbath. There was no such law during Jesuss life time. If I understand John Meier correctly, thats the point he was making.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
How did Jesus break the Sabbath by healing?
- Thread starter roger1440
- Start date
oldbadger
Skanky Old Mongrel!
..........so........ what did Yeshua say when he was so accused?
If you are a Christian, then there is your answer..... no?
I'll check it out. I haven't read documentation presented or viewed any video on this thread yet.
I'm not sure if I made the point I was trying to make in a previous post, so I hope you don't mind if I restate it. (edit: This is just a good place to do it.
)It was my understanding that this Sabbath issue was one of many inaccurate and/or fabricated accusations of Jesus breaking the law -- accusations leveled by specific people whose positions may have been being misused, and who did not like him pointing out certain things about their behavior.
It was not taught to me that these issues had anything to do with being a commentary on Jewish people as a whole, or Judaism, itself -- but rather, it was an indication of how people, in general, often behave when their position is threatened.
The mere accusation of one or many does not mean there was any law actually broken.
I think no law was broken.
It is my understanding that he knew the law and knew he was not breaking it, and when questioned about the application of certain laws in specific situations -- revealed that he understood the proper application law.
To me the argument about him breaking the Sabbath is unnecessary (IMO) because the way I understand it, he didn't break a law. That was the whole point.
He understood the application of it, even if other individuals around him saw it differently -- or actually knew better and were merely leveling accusations to get him out of the way, because they felt threatened by him in some way.
roger1440
I do stuff
Wasn't everything you had quoted written after Jesus' life time? If so, it can not be brought to the table.
CMike
Well-Known Member
No, it was given to Moses on Mt. Sinai orally. It was part of the oral law. By definition the oral law was oral.
It was later written down.
However, the oral law made up part of the regular law.
Last edited:
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
The Mishnah was based on the oral law that dates back to the Sinai Experience, which eventually was committed to writing later. Commentaries on Torah and the Mishnah attempted to explain and/or qualify some of these passed-down beliefs, and many of these also existed by the time of Jesus.
However, I have long tended to think that maybe Jesus' condemnation of "laws made by men" may have been if reference to the oral law and/or the numerous commentaries.
However, I have long tended to think that maybe Jesus' condemnation of "laws made by men" may have been if reference to the oral law and/or the numerous commentaries.
I believe that the stories are fabrications but that they do, nevertheless, depict a violation of the Sabbath. In Yoma 8.6 we read "Any danger to life overrides the prohibitions of the Sabbath," but in neither Mark (3:1-6) nor Luke (13:10-17) is the condition being addressed life-threatening and, therefore, all prohibitions are in force.
Thanks for explaining that better. I think I agree with you.I'll check it out. I haven't read documentation presented or viewed any video on this thread yet.
I'm not sure if I made the point I was trying to make in a previous post, so I hope you don't mind if I restate it. (edit: This is just a good place to do it.
It was my understanding that this Sabbath issue was one of many inaccurate and/or fabricated accusations of Jesus breaking the law -- accusations leveled by specific people whose positions may have been being misused, and who did not like him pointing out certain things about their behavior.
It was not taught to me that these issues had anything to do with being a commentary on Jewish people as a whole, or Judaism, itself -- but rather, it was an indication of how people, in general, often behave when their position is threatened.
The mere accusation of one or many does not mean there was any law actually broken.
I think no law was broken.
It is my understanding that he knew the law and knew he was not breaking it, and when questioned about the application of certain laws in specific situations -- revealed that he understood the proper application law.
To me the argument about him breaking the Sabbath is unnecessary (IMO) because the way I understand it, he didn't break a law. That was the whole point.
He understood the application of it, even if other individuals around him saw it differently -- or actually knew better and were merely leveling accusations to get him out of the way, because they felt threatened by him in some way.
My thoughts on it are a jumble. Jesus obviously felt that healing was akin to resting, so perhaps he would put a fence around it and include any healing thing as Sabbath-friendly. So would the Pharisees I think, historically. The only prohibitions (I'm getting this from the video) in the Mishna that could be of concern here are ones that oppose quack remedies. For example you couldn't carry a quack remedy on the Sabbath or anything that wasn't proven to be useful. On the Sabbath you could carry aspirin or Tylenol, but you couldn't carry 'Uncle John's system of immortality and guaranteed happiness' pills. The story about Jesus could take this rule against unapproved medicine to its farthest imaginable test. Perhaps the point was that the various rules couldn't take a new medicine (miraculous healing) into account. Then the rules were shown to be lacking -- in that case. The feeling I get is that the story lampoons taking the rules too far. It seems like a perfectly good rule -- no unapproved medicines upon the Sabbath -- but Jesus takes it and shows a scenario in which it isn't a practical rule.
I don't know if that is what the story is about though. Perhaps the withered hand just wasn't life-threatening enough, but I don't think that was the case.
Last edited:
CMike
Well-Known Member
If it's done for the life of a person you have a duty to help the person.
If it's something that is not that important and can wait you should wait.
Shabbos is only approx. 24 hours.
Also, jews don't really care if you personally violate the shabbos or not.
The only time it had become an issue in the past is when a "jew" did it publically and in spite of the sabbath.
If it's something that is not that important and can wait you should wait.
Shabbos is only approx. 24 hours.
Also, jews don't really care if you personally violate the shabbos or not.
The only time it had become an issue in the past is when a "jew" did it publically and in spite of the sabbath.
Thanks, Jay. I'll revisit the issue for myself from a different perspective.
dantech
Well-Known Member
I'm pretty sure it's already been said but I don't feel like going through the previous pages so I'll write it in short.
No sin is possible if the action is to save someone who is in "life" danger, except for murder, idolatry, and forbidden sexual acts. This mean that if a man is dying and I could easily go get medicine that might save him during the Sabbath using my car, and paying for it (both prohibitions according to Orthodox Judaism), then I do it. I can also feed him non-kosher medicine if there is the slightest chance that it will be more effective than the kosher one.
In Jesus' case, I'm not sure what the story is but if the person he healed wasn't in mortal danger, than Jesus sinned. Otherwise, he didn't sin.
No sin is possible if the action is to save someone who is in "life" danger, except for murder, idolatry, and forbidden sexual acts. This mean that if a man is dying and I could easily go get medicine that might save him during the Sabbath using my car, and paying for it (both prohibitions according to Orthodox Judaism), then I do it. I can also feed him non-kosher medicine if there is the slightest chance that it will be more effective than the kosher one.
In Jesus' case, I'm not sure what the story is but if the person he healed wasn't in mortal danger, than Jesus sinned. Otherwise, he didn't sin.
In the Gospel of Mark, he is said to have healed a man with a withered hand.
In the Gospel of Luke, he is said to have healed a woman who had been "bent double" for 18 years.
Note that it's reasonable to presume that the Luke narrative is an embellishment of that offered by the author of Mark.
I notice that zero work was required for these miraculous healings. There was no grinding of herbs for example. These were also lifelong ailments, both affecting the quality of the many future Sabbaths for the individuals. It also doesn't appear to have any practical implications for Christians. I'm not sure what Jesus does in this story actually affects the way the people live in everyday life since nobody else can heal withered hands and bleeding problems by a mere touch. It doesn't appear to change the practices as they were already instituted, so what was the point of the demonstration?
It's a story: The rabbis are bad and mean and Jesus is good and caring. It was very likely manufactured decades after the 30's by folks who were eye witness to absolutely nothing.
psychoslice
Veteran Member
I think Jesus was simply showing that we shouldn't make an idol out of the Sabbath.
Not all opinions are created equal. First explain why we should consider that account authentic.
CMike
Well-Known Member
I agree. They are stories meant to trash jews, and show how supposedly wonderful jesus was.
It is known that the Christians and the rabbinical Jews parted company in stages and that gnosticism, hellenism and politics came between them, so you certainly have a plausible explanation.
Pegg
Jehovah our God is One
the christian scriptures were written by jews living in the first century. They wrote about their customs and practices prevalent at that time.
Things may be very different now for jewish culture and custom,, but back then, things were different. for one thing, the jews back then lived under the priestly system.... but that system ended in 70ce....things have never been the same since that time.
So its not really fair to claim that the writings are full of inaccuracies.