• 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!

Yahushua Ha Mashiach (Jesus) and The Law

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
Well, the use of the title "Rabbi", while admittedly anachronistic (it wasn't used formally as a title until long after the events reported in the NT) , is useful as he was obviously a teacher.
So let's just forget' Rabbi'. Nor was Yeshua any member of the priesthood, since he was a member of the downtrodden, suppressed, overtaxed peasant classes.

Now, this 'teacher' title. Do you think of your country's leaders as teachers? If a person makes a political speech,or answer questions about a situation on television, do you think of that person as a teacher?

Jesus was encouraging the peasant classes to stand up against the hypocrisy of the quisling upper classes who had forsaken much of their own culture, laws and ways in favour of imitating the invader's ways of life. Oh, and they were corrupt, or course.

Doesn't anyone care to discuss the points introduced in the OP? I was hoping to have discussion from Christians who could present their argument against Torah observance.
Ah..... that would be difficult for Christians to do. Yeshua wanted to reinstate the old laws, ways and customs. He also wanted to free the working classes of the unfair crushing taxation and levies imposed upon them.
I'll bet that the fields were harvested to their very borders, for instance, instead of leaving a very large margin for the poor to glean for necessary food. etc etc.

Yeshua's 'special laws' of loving each other, standing by each other, avoiding dealing in money where possible, going without etc.... were to prepare the people to stand strong together when the time came.

Paul and others spun the religion, using Yeshua as a figurehead. Paul cared nothing for Yeshua's life, nor did he bother to learn anything about it. :)
 

Dark Priest

Member
So let's just forget' Rabbi'. Nor was Yeshua any member of the priesthood, since he was a member of the downtrodden, suppressed, overtaxed peasant classes.

Now, this 'teacher' title. Do you think of your country's leaders as teachers? If a person makes a political speech,or answer questions about a situation on television, do you think of that person as a teacher?


Yahushua was not a country leader nor politician. He was an apocalyptic, itinerant preacher/teacher who was definitely considered by his audience to at least be a teacher. Consider:

"Now when Jesus had finished saying these things, the crowds were astounded at his teaching, for he taught them as one having authority, and not as their scribes." Matthew 7:28-29 (NRSV)
 

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
"Now when Jesus had finished saying these things, the crowds were astounded at his teaching, for he taught them as one having authority, and not as their scribes." Matthew 7:28-29 (NRSV)
And who wrote them? … when? … to what audience?

Your pretend knowledge is simply that: pretense.
 

Desert Snake

Veteran Member
It's the same thing.

How? Non rabbinical Jews or others, like some Xians, might follow the Torah differently, because they aren't under the authority of rabbinical councils

An example of this is tattoos. There are rabbinical technicalities of what type of tattoos are 'ok', and which /theoretically/, aren't. The answers are clearly an interpretation, because there are other possible interpretations. There are other examples. The only way you would be correct is if the verbal Torah was literally one thing with the Tanakh, which it isn't/
 
Last edited:

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!

Yahushua was not a country leader nor politician. He was an apocalyptic, itinerant preacher/teacher who was definitely considered by his audience to at least be a teacher. Consider:

"Now when Jesus had finished saying these things, the crowds were astounded at his teaching, for he taught them as one having authority, and not as their scribes." Matthew 7:28-29 (NRSV)

No he was not...... :)
Do you think that John the Baptist was a teacher? He spoke to crowds rather like Jesus did.

He was a craftsman with an unusually strong ability to heal. Maybe that is why he appealed to JtB..... he was a crowd puller....?

The gospels were, shall we say..... evangelically adjusted?
 

Simplelogic

Well-Known Member
Hi Simplelogic. Now what makes you think that Luke knew anything about Yeshua the handworker and healer? He copied much of his 'record' from G-Mark and G-Quelle, and his Nativity story is just rubbish.

His messing about with lineage is a manipulation.

Now start quoting from G-Mark and we'll get some sense into this..... :)
Valid questions. This article explains much of my views on Luke:
Luke is a Legitimate Gospel History

Regarding the Marcan priority claim:

Marcan Priority Claim Is Invalid
 

Simplelogic

Well-Known Member

Well, the use of the title "Rabbi", while admittedly anachronistic (it wasn't used formally as a title until long after the events reported in the NT) , is useful as he was obviously a teacher.

Doesn't anyone care to discuss the points introduced in the OP? I was hoping to have discussion from Christians who could present their argument against Torah observance.
Wasn't trying to create a rabbit trail there.

I would also like to see someone provide ANY proof that Yeshua taught against ANY of the commandments.
 

CMike

Well-Known Member
How? Non rabbinical Jews or others, like some Xians, might follow the Torah differently, because they aren't under the authority of rabbinical councils

An example of this is tattoos. There are rabbinical technicalities of what type of tattoos are 'ok', and which /theoretically/, aren't. The answers are clearly an interpretation, because there are other possible interpretations. There are other examples. The only way you would be correct is if the verbal Torah was literally one thing with the Tanakh, which it isn't/
It's all based on the Torah. Rabbis are needed when something is murky in order to clarify it. However, it's all based on the intentions and writings of the Torah.
 

CMike

Well-Known Member
Yahshua, descendant of both David and Levi

In the book of Luke it is recorded that Yahshua’s mother Mary was a “cousin” (KJV) to Elizabeth who was “of the daughters of Aaron”. (Luke 1:5,36) The Greek word translated “cousin” literally means close blood (genetic) relative. The genetic connection can easily be seen by English speaking people in the Greek word “sungenes”. This literally meansclose kin (See Strongs 4773) This word could just as easily mean Elisabeth was Mary’s aunt. Considering Elisabeth was much older than Mary, this would appear to be more likely the case, but it is a moot point in light of the fact that it doesn’t make a difference either way as you will see.

In Leviticus, God commanded that Levite men were to marry only Levite women. (Leviticus 21:1,13-14, 22:12-13) Levite women on the other hand were permitted to marry outside the tribe. We know that Mary’s father Heli was a descendant of David of the tribe of Judah So if Mary was either a cousin ,or a niece to Elisabeth, it must mean that Mary’smother had to have been either a sister or aunt to Elisabeth, which means that Mary’s mother had to have been a “daughter of Aaron” as well! Here is the breakdown. If Mary and Elisabeth were cousins, as it says in the KJV, then Mary’s mother was a sister to one of Elisabeth’s parents, both of whom had to have been full-blooded Levites for Elisabeth to be called a “daughter of Aaron” and be legitimately married to Zacharias the priest. If Elisabeth was Mary’s aunt, as is more likely the case, then Mary’s mother was a sister to Elisabeth. No matter how one works it, it comes out the same. Mary’s mother was a full-blooded Levite. She was then one of those who married outside the tribe when she married Heli of the tribe of Judah. Now it also logically flows perfectly well, that if Yahshua had no earthly father, no new genetic material was introduced at his conception. Therefore his physical bloodlines must have been identical to his mother’s bloodlines. Mary was a perfect blend of both tribes Judah and Levi!

There is also another likelihood that makes this even better. Since God commanded the Levite men to marry only Levite women, it stands to reason the genetic markers He recognizes as the Levitical priestly markers are passed down by the mothers making the tribe matrilineal. These markers would be located in what science today calls the mitochondrial DNA. The genetic markers of the other tribes were passed down by the fathers from the Y chromosome. It is also a well established fact of science that the father’s genetic markers and the mother’s genetic markers do not compete with each other during the process of recombination, so neither of them is diluted by the other. This would mean that Mary, and subsequently Yahshua, carried all the genetic markers of both tribes! It stands to reason that God intended for Levi’s genetic markers to be matrilineal for the very purpose of being able to bring all of Judah, and all of Levi together into one man.

God promised the Messiah would be both king and priest like Melchizedek in Psalm 110:4. God also spoke through other prophets on numerous occasions that He would indeed bring both offices into one in the Messiah.

“Behold, the days are coming”, says the Lord, “that I will perform that good thing which I have promised to the house of Israel and to the house of Judah; In those days and at that time I will cause to grow up to David a Branch of righteousness; He shall execute judgment and righteousness in the earth. In those days Judah will be saved, andJerusalem will dwell safely. And this is the name by which she will be called; ‘THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS’. For thus says the Lord; David shall never lack a man to sit on the throne of the house of Israel; nor shall the priests, the Levites, lack a man to offer burnt offerings before Me, to kindle grain offerings, and to sacrifice continually.” Jeremiah 33:14-18

“Behold, the man whose name is the BRANCH! From his place he shall branch out, and he shall build the temple of the Lord; Yes, he shall build the temple of the Lord. He shall bear the glory, and shall sit and rule on his throne; So he shall be a priest on his throne, and the counsel of peace shall be between them both.” (both offices) Zechariah 6:12-13

“Then it shall be the prince’s part to give burnt offerings, grain offerings, and drink offerings, at the feasts, the New Moons, the Sabbaths, and at all the appointed seasons of the house of Israel. He shall prepare the sin offering, the grain offering, the burnt offering, and the peace offerings to make atonement for the house of Israel .” Ezekiel 45:17

God had said the Levites had and “everlasting” priesthood. The only way God could fulfill these promises He made to David and the Levites is if the Messiah was from both tribes. Yahshua just so happens to be descendant of both David and Levi!

Who is Yeshua
All tribal lineage goes through the biological father.

Therefore, jesus was in no way a descendant from David.

Based on christian theology jesus' father was G-D, G-D was not a descendant of David.
 

Desert Snake

Veteran Member
It's all based on the Torah. Rabbis are needed when something is murky in order to clarify it. However, it's all based on the intentions and writings of the Torah.
Fine, but that doesn't mean those two distinctions are the 'same thing'. And, in fact, unless one is quite strict in Torah observance, there is going to be variance in Torah adherence. You might have your opinions on that, but so do many others.
 

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
Valid questions. This article explains much of my views on Luke:
Luke is a Legitimate Gospel History

Regarding the Marcan priority claim:

Marcan Priority Claim Is Invalid

To read G-Luke is to see so much manipulation, anecdote and obvious story telling. To believe in G-Luke before G-Mark is to lose the simple historic Jesus in my opinion. :)

The opinion of Standford Rives is your opinion, I see. Do you accept everything that Standford Rives has decided about the Jesus story? If I look up Standford Rives's claims I will see yours as an exact duplicate..... true?
 

Levite

Higher and Higher
The Jewish Rabbi Yahushua Ha Mashiach (now commonly referred to as "Jesus") was a devout adherent to Torah (Jewish Religious Law) as were his direct disciples and followers. Pauline-Roman Christianity, which represents the majority of modern Christendom, originated and has developed as heretical sects which do not follow the original teachings or practices of Rabbi Yahushua.

Rabbi Yahushua explicitly taught and upheld the Torah through his words and deeds. Pauline-Roman Christians today (which include all three major branches--Orthodox, Roman Rite and Protestant) argue that "Jesus" implicitly taught Torah nullification implicitly and base their argument on one specific word while ignoring specific, explicit teachings and behaviors of not only the Rabbi, but his followers both before and after his death.

Some initial points of consideration to begin this discussion are:

1. The Torah was written as an eternal contract. The teachings in The Law and The Prophets very clearly indicate that G-d's Laws and Commitments are everlasting. (Deuteronomy 4:2, 4:40, 5:29, 11:1, 12:32 etc.). In fact, the explicit instructions, examples and implicit teachings of the eternal natural of G-d's covenant are too numerous to include in one thread.

The 613 laws contained within Torah were explicit. Repeal or nullification of explicit laws requires a specific process where explicit nullification language is presented through an accepted repeal process recognized as valid by the society bound by such law.

And a promise is a promise right? Pauline-Roman Christians use the example of G-d's promise after the flood to teach about the nature of G-d's everlasting, permanent and unbreakable promise; however, they find that is somehow doesn't apply to Torah observance. This inconsistency is illogical and irrational.

2. Yahushua explicitly taught Torah observance:

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one letter, not one stroke of a letter, will pass from the law until all is accomplished. Therefore, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, will be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven." Matthew 5:17-20 (NRSV)

"Then someone came to him and said, “Teacher, what good deed must I do to have eternal life?” And he said to him, “Why do you ask me about what is good? There is only one who is good. If you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments.” He said to him, “Which ones?” And Jesus said, “You shall not murder; You shall not commit adultery; You shall not steal; You shall not bear false witness; Honor your father and mother; also, You shall love your neighbor as yourself." Matthew 19:16-19 (NRSV)

(Obviously I expect the typical Pauline-Roman argument of the word "fulfill" as used in Matthew 5:17 to be presented. This will be addressed in a follow up post as I am just making initial points in this first post. A complete etymological and exegetical review of 'πληρόω" will be presented. Additionally, I expect and am prepared to answer the question of non-Peshat (simple-direct) interpretations of the text following Matthew 19:16-19. Multiple layers of interpretation is common to the study of scripture. Interestingly enough, Pauline Christians will simultaneously apply Peshat and Remez (hinted-deep) interpretations within the same passage so as to support their heretical doctrine.

3. The lack of a mob reaction to Matthew 5:17 indicates that the original listeners never understood that Rabbi Yahushuah was teaching or even insinuating an annulment of The Torah. This is an important point, because there are other stories in the NT where the crowd turns against the Rabbi and even attempt stoning him.


4. The disciples, followers and original church body were Torah observant. The people who actually knew the Rabbi and spent three years with him were all faithful to the Torah.

5. When asked which were the greatest commandments, Rabbi Yahushuah quoted The Torah:

" 'Teacher, which commandment in the law is the greatest?' He said to him, 'You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ This is the greatest and first commandment. And a second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.' " Matthew 22:36-40 (NRSV)

Pauline-Roman Christians will use this verse to attempt to support their heresy that G-d's law was nullified or replaced, but here, Rabbi Yahushuah was directly quoting Torah and His audience would have recognized these scriptures. (Deuteronomy 6:5, 10:12, [love G-d], Leviticus 19:18 & 34 [love neighbor]).

***The Paul argument***

I recognize that Pauline-Roman Christians will attempt to debate against what Rabbi actually said and did by quoting a man (Paul) who never once met the actual Rabbi nor ever spent any time with him. I would like to ask that for the sake of keeping this thread less than a hundred pages, we stick to what the Rabbi himself actually said and practiced as can be found in the gospels.

For this reason (brevity), I have not quoted other (non-Pauline) NT scripture which also support Torah observance.​

I am trying to pinpoint something in the above which is not pure speculation, based on nothing.

There is no reason to suppose that anything Jesus (whose name would actually have been Yeshua or Yehoshua, there not being either a Hebrew or Aramaic pronunciation "Yahushuah") actually did or said is recorded in the Christian scriptures, all of which were written after his lifetime, and partly or mostly by non-Jews.

Presuming that Jesus did, in fact, teach strict Torah observance-- which I would, in fact, assume to be the case-- what possible relevance would his teachings have to modern-day Christians of any sort? Christians are all non-Jews. The Torah was given to the Jewish People alone, and was never intended to apply to non-Jews.

Not to mention that, while I am not in doubt that Jesus did wrongly claim to be the messiah and probably taught some heretical notions, I find it unlikely in the extreme that any even marginally sane Jew of that time would have claimed to be either the literal son of God or any part of God Himself. Since the Christian scriptures certainly depict him claiming the former, and possibly the latter as well, that would seem either to invalidate them wholly as accurate, or portray him as a false prophet at best. But in either case, it certainly removes Christianity in any form from being any kind of acceptable Jewish teaching.

So since Christianity is not Jewish teaching, is incompatible with Jewish teaching, is followed more or less exclusively by non-Jews, and includes theologies which would likely have been unacceptable to Jesus himself, why should Christians care whether Jesus taught strict Torah observance or not?
 

Simplelogic

Well-Known Member
To read G-Luke is to see so much manipulation, anecdote and obvious story telling. To believe in G-Luke before G-Mark is to lose the simple historic Jesus in my opinion. :)

The opinion of Standford Rives is your opinion, I see. Do you accept everything that Standford Rives has decided about the Jesus story? If I look up Standford Rives's claims I will see yours as an exact duplicate..... true?
I believe that the Hebrew Matthew was the earliest account, as well as the Q source which I believe Matthias authored…not the tax collector but the 12th apostle who was added after Judas.

I also believe that Lazarus authored the gospel attributed to John.

Ben Witherington: Was Lazarus the Beloved Disciple?
 

Simplelogic

Well-Known Member
I am trying to pinpoint something in the above which is not pure speculation, based on nothing.

There is no reason to suppose that anything Jesus (whose name would actually have been Yeshua or Yehoshua, there not being either a Hebrew or Aramaic pronunciation "Yahushuah") actually did or said is recorded in the Christian scriptures, all of which were written after his lifetime, and partly or mostly by non-Jews.

Presuming that Jesus did, in fact, teach strict Torah observance-- which I would, in fact, assume to be the case-- what possible relevance would his teachings have to modern-day Christians of any sort? Christians are all non-Jews. The Torah was given to the Jewish People alone, and was never intended to apply to non-Jews.

Not to mention that, while I am not in doubt that Jesus did wrongly claim to be the messiah and probably taught some heretical notions, I find it unlikely in the extreme that any even marginally sane Jew of that time would have claimed to be either the literal son of God or any part of God Himself. Since the Christian scriptures certainly depict him claiming the former, and possibly the latter as well, that would seem either to invalidate them wholly as accurate, or portray him as a false prophet at best. But in either case, it certainly removes Christianity in any form from being any kind of acceptable Jewish teaching.

So since Christianity is not Jewish teaching, is incompatible with Jewish teaching, is followed more or less exclusively by non-Jews, and includes theologies which would likely have been unacceptable to Jesus himself, why should Christians care whether Jesus taught strict Torah observance or not?
Valid questions. I guess the most obvious would be that most Christians claim to be followers of Yeshua. If Christians were to actually read Yeshua's words then they would be pro Torah. This would be a good thing regardless of how you see Yeshua.

I don't think that this will actually happen though. Christians primarily get their beliefs from the doctrines of Paul…not Yeshua.
 

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
I believe that the Hebrew Matthew was the earliest account, as well as the Q source which I believe Matthias authored…not the tax collector but the 12th apostle who was added after Judas.

I also believe that Lazarus authored the gospel attributed to John.
Ben Witherington: Was Lazarus the Beloved Disciple?
Thanks for that......
I respect your opinion and belief.
I am only drawn to G-Mark, but would defend most of G-Mark strongly, even though I do feel that there has been 'fiddling' with it, and that lengthy addition in the last chapter. But all the rest..... yes..... I accept G-Mark as probable.
 

Simplelogic

Well-Known Member
All tribal lineage goes through the biological father.

Therefore, jesus was in no way a descendant from David.

Based on christian theology jesus' father was G-D, G-D was not a descendant of David.

"Since God commanded the Levite men to marry only Levite women, it stands to reason the genetic markers He recognizes as the Levitical priestly markers are passed down by the mothers making the tribe matrilineal. These markers would be located in what science today calls the mitochondrial DNA." Who is Yeshua

I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she
shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel. Gen 3:15

Yeshua's father Joseph was of the line of David, however his line had been cursed because of Jeconiah. Jeremiah 22: 24-30. Mary possessed all the genetic markers from both the line of David and Aaron. This also means that Yeshua would have been adopted at birth by Joseph into the line of Kings as his eldest son, which would make him heir to the throne of David. This effectively circumvented the curse of Jeconiah in a quite fascinating way.
 

Simplelogic

Well-Known Member
Thanks for that......
I respect your opinion and belief.
I am only drawn to G-Mark, but would defend most of G-Mark strongly, even though I do feel that there has been 'fiddling' with it, and that lengthy addition in the last chapter. But all the rest..... yes..... I accept G-Mark as probable.
I respect yours as well.

I believe Mark to be a revisionist work which was meant to strip down all of the pro Torah/anti Paul verses in Matthew. Mark was heavily influenced by Paul and would have plenty of motive to try to make Paul's doctrines mesh with Yeshua's.
 
Last edited:
Top