• 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

Simplelogic

Well-Known Member
Of course I'm serious, because there's nothing false about it. I know Christians love to claim Torah is universal, but it just isn't.
What makes you think so? And why would YHVH not want gentiles to keep commandments which bring life?
 

Dark Priest

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.

Hello. I think I posted this thread in the wrong forum. It was intended for discussion and feedback from Christians who do believe in the inerrant nature of the gospels and NT.

I agree with you; from within a textual criticism viewpoint, there are many issued raised in regard to authenticity. We don't have primary sources, the documents are neither internally nor externally consistent, anonymous authors, written in different language from that of the protagonists and written many decades after the alleged events. (To name a few--there are more issues).

I wrote the OP from within the Christian premise of assuming that the texts contain authentic accounts of happenings and saying of Yeshuah. I assumed this premise solely for the sake of discussion with Christians who believe that "Jesus" did indeed end the requirement of Torah observance. That he, in a sense, nullified the Law.

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.

See above. The OP was written so that Christians could present their refutation against the points I made. As I mentioned previously, perhaps the thread should have been posted in a different sub-forum. :(
 

Dark Priest

Member
I believe Mark to the 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.

I find Luke to be highly revisionist for the same reasons you state. It's as if the apostles, those who actually spent years with Yeshuah, knew him personally and were privy to 24/7 teachings all but disappeared to make way for a man who long after the fact claims to be an apostle through vision and revelation.
 

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
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)
And who wrote them? … when? … to what audience?

Your pretend knowledge is simply that: pretense.
Great, I join the forum and immediately get the village idiot (forum troll in this case) stalking me from my very first thread.

Again, I repeat,
You invoke Matthew 7:28-29 as some sort of evidence for your preaching. Very well: again, I repeat, …

… who wrote it? … when? … to what audience?

If you do not want your 'evidence' challenged, or if find yourself incapable of meeting the challenge, perhaps you should preach less rather than lacing your claims with crass ad hominem.
 

Simplelogic

Well-Known Member
I find Luke to be highly revisionist for the same reasons you state. It's as if the apostles, those who actually spent years with Yeshuah, knew him personally and were privy to 24/7 teachings all but disappeared to make way for a man who long after the fact claims to be an apostle through vision and revelation.

Agreed. It is tempting to just throw out the NT and I understand those that do. However, I can't get away from the beautiful words of Yeshua which call us back to repentance. Unfortunately these words are veiled by a pagan cover up Jesus invented by Paul imho.

Albert Einstein said it best:

"As a child I received instruction both in the Bible and in the Talmud. I am a Jew, but I am enthralled by the luminous figure of the Nazarene....No one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word. No myth is filled with such life." --Albert Einstein
 

Simplelogic

Well-Known Member
You invoke Matthew 7:28-29 as some sort of evidence for your preaching. Very well: again, I repeat, …

… who wrote it? … when? … to what audience?

If you do not want your 'evidence' challenged, or if find yourself incapable of meeting the challenge, perhaps you should preach less rather than lacing your claims with crass ad hominem.
Beat it dweeb!
 

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
I respect yours as well.
I believe Mark to the 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.
Interesting!
Where you see G-Mark as stripped down (afterwards), I see Matthew as heavily embellished (afterwards).

Where you see G-Mark as a buttress for Paul, I see it as quite the opposite. I don't think that Paul knew about or cared about Yeshua's life..... at all.

Paul's mentions of Yeshua's life and mission could be written large on half of an envelope or less. Indeed, I see Paul (and probably others) as the initiators of the Christ faith....... because Yeshua, as reported in G-Mark..... certainly did not.

G-Mark shows a tekton/nagarra turned to healer who was attracted to JtB's mission, joined it, and picked it up after John's arrest...... finding much interest (from the crowds) in his healing and speeches but failing to win enough supporters. etc etc.... An 11-12 month mission up until Passover the following year.

What d'ya reckon?
 

Simplelogic

Well-Known Member
Interesting!
Where you see G-Mark as stripped down (afterwards), I see Matthew as heavily embellished (afterwards).

Where you see G-Mark as a buttress for Paul, I see it as quite the opposite. I don't think that Paul knew about or cared about Yeshua's life..... at all.

Paul's mentions of Yeshua's life and mission could be written large on half of an envelope or less. Indeed, I see Paul (and probably others) as the initiators of the Christ faith....... because Yeshua, as reported in G-Mark..... certainly did not.

G-Mark shows a tekton/nagarra turned to healer who was attracted to JtB's mission, joined it, and picked it up after John's arrest...... finding much interest (from the crowds) in his healing and speeches but failing to win enough supporters. etc etc.... An 11-12 month mission up until Passover the following year.

What d'ya reckon?
Forgive the long post, but I believe this article makes the best argument for my position:

Pro-Paul Bias Explains Mark Edited Matthew
So is it demonstrable that Mark had a pro-Paul bias as Bauer claimed?

John Mark was a companion of Paul referenced in Colossians 4:10, Philemon 24 and 2 Tim. 4:11. The Coptic church—the most ancient Christian Church of Egypt—maintains this same John Mark was the author of Mark’s Gospel. See “Mark the Evangelist,” Wikipedia (2011).

But was Mark instead close to Peter and written under Peter’s influence, as is commonly asserted? Not if you listen to the earliest source on the origin of Mark’s Gospel: Clement. Eusebius quoted Clement, an early leader at Rome about 92 AD, who said Peter was unaware Mark had written a gospel until it was completed, “and that when the matter came to Peter’s knowledge, he neither strongly forbad it nor urged it forward.” Eusebius Ecclesiastical History 6.14.6-10, cited in Powell, Robbing Peter to Pay Paul, supra, at 71.

The notion that Peter gave Mark his Gospel originated almost 100 years later and much farther from Rome where Mark wrote. It came from Egypt’s Origen (ca. 185 AD). But that means that it “appears the farther from Peter’s lifetime we get, the closer Mark is to him [i.e., Peter].” Powell, Robbing Peter to Pay Paul, supra, at 71.

Conversely, when we move closer to Peter’s lifetime, there is absolutely no link between Mark’s Gospel and Peter.

Hence, as a matter of history, there is more reason to support a Pauline connection than a Petrine connection to the origin of Mark’s Gospel. And this will help us identify the likely reason that Mark omitted the Sermon on the Mount.

Why does a connection between Mark and Paul best explain the absence of the Sermon on the Mount rather than that Mark was written before Matthew, and thus Matthew added the Sermon for his own reasons?

As explained by scholar David C. Sim from the Department of New Testament Studies University of Pretoriain in his article “Matthew’s anti-Paulinism: A neglected feature of Matthean studies,”HTS 58(2) 2002 at 776-777 [PDF link]:

H D Betz...argued that the Sermon on the Mount...reflected a conservative Jewish Christian perspective that was overtly anti-Pauline (cf Mt 5:17-20; 7:13-27.)

How so? The Sermon on the Mount emphasized the Law and obedience for kingdom entry. For Matthew 5:20 said “your righteousness must exceed that of the Pharisees” who Jesus in Matthew depicts as anti-legalists / shallow adherents to the Law. See Matt 15:6, 23:23. See also “Matthew 23:23: Pharisees As Anti-Legalists” on page 178 infra.

To confirm this, do we find a consistent bias in Mark which similarly explains why other passages in Matthew do not appear?

Indeed, there are numerous examples that Mark removes verses which have an anti-Paul flavor but which permeate Matthew’s Gospel, whether GATHM or the Greek version, including the Sermon on the Mount (viz., Matt 5:19).

For example, in Mark, gone is the reference in Matthew 5:17-19 that the greatest in the kingdom of the heavens teaches the Law, but the one loosening the Law will be known as the LEAST—the meaning of Paul’s Latin name of Paulus, a contraction of Pauxillus which means the LEAST. (See “Matthew 5:19: A Reference To Paul?” on page 158 infra.) In fact, the word Law never appears in Mark!

In Mark, gone is the reference to the false prophets as “ravening wolves” in “sheep’s clothing” as we find in Matthew 7:15—an obvious allusion to the “Benjamite Ravening Wolf” prophecy of Genesis 49:27 which was hardly complimentary of Paul. (See “Matthew 7:15: The Benjamite Wolf Prophecy” on page 160 infra.)

Gone also in Mark’s account of the Parable of the Wheat and the Tares (Mark 4:26-29 cfr. Matthew 13:24-29; 36-40) is that the Tares are first taken from the earth when Christ returns, not Christians. Thus, Mark removes the fact that Matthew’s account of the same parable is at odds with Paul in 1 Thess. 4:17. There Paul says instead that Christians are raptured first, leaving the evil behind. Mark’s Gospel tells the same parable by Jesus but without the fact the evil are raptured, not Christians, when Christ returns. Mark similarly omits Matthew 24:31 which repeats that the evil are first raptured out of the earth, leaving the righteous to inherit the earth (which matches Revelation ch. 14 as well). See Matthew 24:31.

Also disappearing from the Parable of the Wheat and the Tares is the allusion to an “enemy” sowing tares among wheat. As several commentators point out, the Parable of the Tares in Matthew was apparently intended as direction to orthodox Christians to tolerate Paul’s followers in the church as sown by an “enemy.” Even though this message was kind and tolerant, Mark, with a pro-Paul bias, evidently would not want it to appear Jesus was giving any prophetic attention to the problem of Paul. Especially if Jesus depicted Paul as an enemy. This would explain again why Mark dropped “enemy” out of the parable. See Matthew 13:25, 39

Gone also in Mark’s account is Peter’s confession of Jesus as “Messiah, Son of God.” (Matt 16:17.) As a result, gone is that Jesus says Heaven revealed this to Peter, implying Peter received this directly from the Father. Cfr. Mark 8:29. And Matthew adds that Jesus says that upon this rock (Peter’s faith? or Peter whose name means rock?), Jesus will found His church.

David C Sim in his article, “Matthew’s anti-Paulinism: A neglected feature of Matthean studies,” HTS 58(2) (2002) [PDF link] explains the anti-Pauline feature to this passage of Matthew:

“[T]he words of Jesus in Mt 16:17 bear a striking similarity to Paul’s words of his own revelation and commission by the risen Christ in Gl 1:12 and 16-17. Matthew [sic: Jesus] is making the point that it was Peter and not Paul who experienced divine revelations and who was commissioned by Jesus to lead the church.” See also, Sim, The Gospel of Matthew and Christian Judaism: The history and social setting of the Matthean community (Edinburgh: T& T Clark, 1998) at 200-203.

Why would Mark leave out something that elevates Peter? Because a defender of Paul would wish to take such recognition from Peter, as Paul attacked Peter in Galatians as a hypocrite (Gal. 2:11-12), dismissing him as a “seeming” pillar of the church (Gal. 2:9) who “imparted nothing to me” (Gal 2:7) and “whatsoever they [i.e., Peter, James and John] were makes no difference to me,” i.e., Paul is unimpressed by their stature with Jesus. Gal 2:6. Mark’s Gospel by deleting these passages supportive of Peter in Matthew would present a gospel easier for Paul’s followers to read.

Gone in Mark is also Jesus’ statement to call no man ‘father’ in Matt 23:9, when Paul told the Corinthians he was their “spiritual father” in Christ. See “Matthew 23:9: Don’t Call Anyone Father” on page 177 infra.

Also gone in Mark is Matthew 23:21 where Jesus says not to swear by the Temple where “God resides” when Paul teaches at Athens that God “does not live in temples built by human hands.” (Acts 17:24.)

Gone in Mark is also Jesus’ depiction of the Pharisees as anti-legalists in Matthew 23:23 whom Jesus faults for obeying the smaller parts of the Law but not teaching the greater parts of the Law, i.e., justice, piety and mercy. But Paul had the contrary view the Pharisees were strict legalists. He states this in Philippians 3:5-6 and Acts 26:5. See “Matthew 23:23: Pharisees As Anti-Legalists” on page 178 et seq.

In addition, gone in Mark is the reference that Jesus says the Pharisees were excellent at performing the outward acts necessary to appear in compliance with the Law, but inwardly were deceitful and corrupt. (Matt 23:28.) Jesus in Matthew similarly says the Pharisees were white-washed tombs on the outside to make others believe they were law-abiding. They cleaned the outside of the cup when their external behavior was solely to appear Law-compliant—an expedient to gain honors and money; it was not to truly obey God. (Matt 23:25, 27.) But Paul openly endorsed and practiced exactly the same outward-Law-conformance practices, acknowledging inwardly he was not subject to the Law but obeyed the Law solely for expedience-sake to gain adherents among Jews. (1 Cor 9:20-21 (“to the Jews I became as a Jew that I might win Jews...myself not being myself under the Law....”) Paul even extolled hypocrisy for the sake of gaining followers: “But be it so, I did not myself burden you; but, being crafty, I caught you with guile.” (2 Cor. 12:16, ASV.) Mark deleted all condemnations by Jesus of the Pharisees’ tactic of hypocritical obedience to the Law to gain adherents. Any follower of Paul aware of such passages must cringe when reading Matthew. But such problem is absent with Mark.

There is no doubt about Paul’s principles that are implicated by our Lord’s words. For example, Paul taught that he was free to violate the Exodus command not to eat meat sacrificed to idols, but Paul said that only if he were around someone who thought it was wrong, Paul would refrain from eating such meat. (1 Cor 8:11.) Paul’s moral explanation for such behavior appears to be what Jesus condemned—obedience solely for expediency but otherwise Paul thought he did not have to obey any inward duties imposed by the Law. Paul wrote: “All things are lawful but not all things are necessarily expedient.” (1 Cor 6:12.) Paul also explained that on eating such foods, the rule was not to offend by insisting upon any principles so as to gain adherents: “Therefore, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do...[g]ive no offense, either to the Jews or to the Greeks or to the church of God, just as I also please all men in all things,..seeking...the profit of many, that they may be saved.” (1Corinthians 10:31-33.)

So in Mark’s Gospel, we find Jesus’s words are erased which condemn similar hypocrisy of the Pharisees whom Jesus said obeyed the Law for appearance-sake and expediency to gain followers. Thus, Mark’s gospel served to cleanse such embarrassing commands from our Savior—thereby becoming an important text to use if one were to have a gospel acceptable to Paul’s followers.

Likewise, gone in Mark is the command “do not take wages” (OGM) and “freely you received, freely give” (ASV) which we find in Matthew 10:8. These Matthean lessons were similarly at odds with Paul who tells the Corinthians: “I robbed other churches, taking wages of them that I might minister unto you.” 2 Cor 11:8 (ASV.) Paul also defended preachers taking wages of the churches in 1 Tim. 5:17, where Paul wrote: “The elders who direct the affairs of the church well are worthy of double honor [i.e., payment] especially those whose work is preaching and teaching.” Paul defends this by using a verse about not muzzling an ox, applying that agricultural rule to imply churchgoers have a duty to pay the elders for their service. (1 Tim. 5:18.) Hence, Jesus’ blunt lesson not to take wages for preaching was evidently removed by Mark as Mark apparently did with so many other passages where Jesus’ words otherwise trouble a follower of Paul.

Marcan Priority Claim Is Invalid
 

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
Yeshua's father Joseph was of the line of David.

Yeshua's father was a Galilean.......... I understand that this means.... he was a relatively recent convert. Can somebody back that up, please?

Yeshua's father was a member of the peasant class, below farming peasant by a notch or two...... a displaced person who gained a living by working stone and wood. Such people could not read/write and used oral tradition ........ a method which left the distant past in thick haze. Luke's lineage is bulldust. :)
 

Simplelogic

Well-Known Member
Yeshua's father was a Galilean.......... I understand that this means.... he was a relatively recent convert. Can somebody back that up, please?

Yeshua's father was a member of the peasant class, below farming peasant by a notch or two...... a displaced person who gained a living by working stone and wood. Such people could not read/write and used oral tradition ........ a method which left the distant past in thick haze. Luke's lineage is bulldust. :)

And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; (because he was of the house and lineage of David: Luke 2:4
 

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
Forgive the long post, but I believe this article makes the best argument for my position:

Pro-Paul Bias Explains Mark Edited Matthew
So is it demonstrable that Mark had a pro-Paul bias as Bauer claimed?
......................................


I understand your position a little better......
I have always been suspicious of long winded representations...:)

Yeshua (in G-Mark) was not advocating a kigdom of heaven. He was advocating a kingdom on Earth! He wanted to either bring back the upper classes from their Hellenised, Romanised, hypocritical, quisling ways to the true religion. Only the peasant classes held to it, and if you read G-Mark in that mindset you will see that John the Baptist and (later) Yeshua wanted to see their lands freed and brought back to their religion.

Ergo...... Christ and the Pauline religion were nothing to do with Yeshua or JtB.
 

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; (because he was of the house and lineage of David: Luke 2:4

Simplelogic........ now listen!! :)
Joseph was never required to attend Bethlehem at all! Do you think that Romans required everybody to go to their ancestral homes for a taxation census? Madness! Romans (or Antipas in Galilee) wanted to tax all folks where they lived.

Luke's story is a manipulation in attempt to tie in ancient prophesies. Joseph never went anywhere near Judea. The Galileans were not included in the census. Antipas looked after their fleecing.... literally!

And the Census date of 6CE messes up everything because Herod the King died in 4BC! :D
 

Simplelogic

Well-Known Member
Simplelogic........ now listen!! :)
Joseph was never required to attend Bethlehem at all! Do you think that Romans required everybody to go to their ancestral homes for a taxation census? Madness! Romans (or Antipas in Galilee) wanted to tax all folks where they lived.

Luke's story is a manipulation in attempt to tie in ancient prophesies. Joseph never went anywhere near Judea. The Galileans were not included in the census. Antipas looked after their fleecing.... literally!

And the Census date of 6CE messes up everything because Herod the King died in 4BC! :D

"The census or enrollment, which, according to Luke 2:1, was the occasion of the journey of Joseph and Mary to Bethlehem where Jesus was born, is connected with a decree of Augustus embracing the Greek-Roman world. This decree must have been carried out in Palestine by Herod and probably in accordance with the Jewish method--each going to his own city--rather than the Roman.

While Josephus does not mention the Herodian census, Luke carefully distinguishes the census at the time of Jesus' birth as "first," (i.e. first in a series of enrollments connected either with Quirinius or with the imperial policy inaugurated by the decree of Augustus).

The geographical work of [Herod] Agrippa, together with the interest of the emperor in the organization and finances of the empire and the attention which he gave to the provinces are indirectly corroborative of Luke's statement. Augustus himself conducted a census in Italy in and in Gaul in 727/27* [see roman dating system, ‘auc'] and had a census taken in other provinces. For Egypt there is evidence of a regular periodic census every 14 years extending back to 773/20 and it is not improbable that this procedure was introduced by Augustus.

The time of the decree is stated only in general terms by Luke, and it may have been as early as 727/27 or later in 746-8, its execution in different provinces and subject kingdoms being carried out at different times. Luke dates the census in the kingdom of Herod specifically by connecting it with the administrative functions of Quirinius in Syria. But as P. Quintilius Varus was the legate of Syria just before and after the death of Herod from 748/6-750/4 and his predecessor was C. Sentius Saturninus from 745/9-748/6 there seems to be no place for Quirinius during the closing years of Herod's reign."

Did a Census Really Bring Joseph and Mary to Bethlehem? - Online Bible Study Tools
 
Top