Tumah
Veteran Member
To the Christian mind, perhaps.
-
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!
Was Jesus anti-Pharasaic?
- Thread starter Desert Snake
- Start date
rosends
Well-Known Member
I think that the OP presents only 2 possibilities to what might have been a much more nuanced disagreement with more gray areas than not.
If we take the gospels at face value then Jesus was, at times, preaching a loosening of certain rabbinic rules which would make practice a bit easier. Deemphasizing the demands of hand washing and explaining that the ritual is empty if the person is still a bad person inside (echoing, in fact, a talmudic idea of tocho k'boro, that the inside and outside of a person should be in line) seems to be a rejection of the pharisaic adherence to rules. But in using the pharisaic logical system to argue his point, or then, to establish a set of antitheses which are constitute his own "rabbinic" interpretation which is stricter than the Pharisaic code, Jesus seems to be endorsing the idea that there is a complementary set of understandings. He is simply rejecting the existing structure which represents his generation's iteration of the laws. He was clearly against some specific Pharisees and some specific Pharisaic law. But he might not have been against the idea of the Pharisaic system and might have been trying to work from within the system to become an authority who could establish the practical applications of the Pharisaic method more to his sensibility (and, in his view, God's).
If we take the gospels at face value then Jesus was, at times, preaching a loosening of certain rabbinic rules which would make practice a bit easier. Deemphasizing the demands of hand washing and explaining that the ritual is empty if the person is still a bad person inside (echoing, in fact, a talmudic idea of tocho k'boro, that the inside and outside of a person should be in line) seems to be a rejection of the pharisaic adherence to rules. But in using the pharisaic logical system to argue his point, or then, to establish a set of antitheses which are constitute his own "rabbinic" interpretation which is stricter than the Pharisaic code, Jesus seems to be endorsing the idea that there is a complementary set of understandings. He is simply rejecting the existing structure which represents his generation's iteration of the laws. He was clearly against some specific Pharisees and some specific Pharisaic law. But he might not have been against the idea of the Pharisaic system and might have been trying to work from within the system to become an authority who could establish the practical applications of the Pharisaic method more to his sensibility (and, in his view, God's).
CMike
Well-Known Member
There are numerous ones:
Saying that you have to accept himself, jesus, as lord and savior to get to heaven.
That you can only get to G-D through him
That he (jesus) is the "master of the sabbath"
This is all highly insulting to Jews.
Hear O Israel, the L-rd is our G-D, the L-ord is ONE (Deut)
The central principle of Judaism is that only the one and only G-D has divine power.
I am the Lord, and there is no other; apart from Me there is no God. ...so that from the rising of the Sun to the place of its setting men may know there is none besides Me. I am the Lord, and there is no other. (Isaiah, 45:5-6)
...I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like Me. (Isaiah, 46:9)
... so that all the peoples of the Earth may know that the Lord is God and that there is no other. (1 Kings, 8:60)
Turn to Me and be saved, all you ends of the Earth; for I am God, and there is no other. (Isaiah, 45:22)
This is what the Lord says…"Surely God is with you, and there is no other; there is no other God." (Isaiah, 45:14)
...The Lord our God, the Lord is one. (Deuteronomy, 6:4)
You are my witness--the words of Hashem--and My servant, whom I have chosen, so that you will know and believe in Me, and understand that I am He; before me nothing was created by a G-D, and after Me it shall not be (Isaiah 43:10)
... O Lord; no deeds can compare with Yours. All the nations You have made will come and worship before You, O Lord; they will bring glory to Your name. For You are great and do marvelous deeds; You alone are God. (Psalms, 86:8-10)
O Lord ...You alone are God over all the kingdoms of the Earth. You have made heaven and Earth. (Isaiah, 37:16)
... all kingdoms on Earth may know that You alone, O Lord, are God. (Isaiah, 37:20)
This is what the Lord says—your Redeemer, Who formed you in the womb: I am the Lord, Who has made all things, Who alone stretched out the heavens, Who spread out the Earth by Myself. (Isaiah, 44:24)
Since ancient times no one has heard, no ear has perceived, no eye has seen any God besides You, who acts on behalf of those who wait for Him. (Isaiah, 64:4)
For this is what the Lord says—He Who created the heavens, He is God; He Who fashioned and made the Earth, He founded it; He did not create it to be empty, but formed it to be inhabited—He says: "I am the Lord, and there is no other." (Isaiah, 45:18)
...Was it not I, the Lord? And there is no god apart from Me, a righteous God and a Savior; there is none but Me. (Isaiah, 45:21)
See now that I Myself am He! There is no god besides Me. I put to death and I bring to life, I have wounded and I will heal... (Deuteronomy, 32:39)
...you may know there is no one like the Lord our God. (Exodus, 8:10)
O Lord... there is no god like You in heaven above or on Earth below... (1 Kings, 8:23; 2 Chronicles, 6:14)
Then Asa called to the Lord his God and said, "Lord, there is no one like You to help the powerless against the mighty..."(2 Chronicles, 14:11)
I, even I, am the Lord, and apart from Me there is no savior. (Isaiah, 43:11)
There is no one like You, O Lord, and there is no god but You, as we have heard with our own ears. (1 Chronicles, 17:20; 2 Samuel, 7:22)
There is no one holy like the Lord; there is no one besides You; there is no strength like our God. (1 Samuel, 2:2)
His wisdom is profound, His power is vast. Who has resisted Him and come out unscathed. (Job, 9:4)
For You are great and do marvelous deeds; You alone are God. (Psalms, 86:10)
Praise Him for His acts of power; praise Him for His surpassing greatness. (Psalms, 150:2)
You alone are the Lord. You made the heavens, even the highest heavens, and all their starry host, the Earth and all that is on it, the seas and all that is in them. You give life to everything, and the multitudes of heaven worship You. (Nehemiah, 9:6)
They will say of Me, "In the Lord alone are righteousness and strength."... (Isaiah, 45:24)
You were shown these things so that you might know that the Lord is God; besides Him there is no other. (Deuteronomy, 4:35)
... Is there any god besides Me? No, there is no other strong one; I know not one. (Isaiah, 44:8)
This is what the Lord says—I am the first and I am the last; apart from Me there is no god. (Isaiah, 44:6)
CMike
Well-Known Member
I have no clue what you are talking about, however, G-D mentioned that Jews should follow the Shabbat commandments numerous times. In fact, it's one of the Ten Commandments.
So by Jesus saying he is the "Master of the Sabbath" he is saying that he is "Master of G-D" which is highly heretical.
Jewish exegetes who read the Scriptures (including the New Testament!) with ‘Jewish eyes through Jewish glasses’ (an expression used by Lapide) emphasise that Jesus is speaking completely within the confines of the arguments of the Judaism of His time. A lot has to do with the translation as in Jesus' Sermon on the Mount in Mt. The 'but I say to you' ought to be translated simply ‘and I say to you’, and this corresponds with the usual rabbinical way of saying: ‘wa ani omeer lachem’, which is not an introduction to a contradiction of the Torah, but, on the contrary, an elucidation thereof.
rosends
Well-Known Member
Would you happen to have any citations where the phrase "v'ani omer lachem" is used in that way?
There is no conflict here with the Trinity. There is one God.
I cited in my post it is from Pinchas Lapide. He is a Jewish theologian, concentrating on ecumenism. As it applies here, he has interpreted the Gospel of Matthew from
a Jewish perspective. Much is the debunking of Hellenizing in the NT. From his book ' The Resurrection of Jesus', "By all the reports of Jesus actions, he never broke a
single commandment; he was neither a blasphemer nor a lawbreaker. This Jesus was utterly true to the Torah, as I myself hope to be. I even suspect that Jesus was more true to the Torah than I, an orthodox Jew."
However I did find this on line;
http://cc.bingj.com/cache.aspx?q=lapide+v%27ani+omer+lachem+&d=4729404656387611&mkt=en-US&setlang=en-US&w=ne7FXe1Z4-dmrw0QM_KVFt3SsF3oWW4E
Tumah
Veteran Member
I'll relax the standard a bit, do you happen to have any source for the phrase "ואני אומר לכם" in Hebrew, or "ואנא אימא לכון" in Aramaic, with which you can use to prove such a statement?
rosends
Well-Known Member
Nothing in that site gives a citation that shows that "and I say to you" has any precedent in Jewish usage. Does Lapide offer any sources? My concern isn't whether Jesus' statements were compatible with talmudic thinking, or, in content or form, similar to what had been said by rabbinic authorities, but I take issue with the contention that this "and I say to you" has any precedent in Judaic text, especially as any rule.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Just a reminder that the Pharisees were not a monolithic group as much as they were a movement, and there are various elements that often disagree with each other on various matters found within it. Jesus was pretty much a part of that movement but definitely on the very liberal end of it. IOW, what we are reading about in the gospels is really more of a "family conflict" between "brothers" mostly dealing with certain aspects of the Law, which is a "very Jewish" approach, btw.
Tumah
Veteran Member
No sorry. There is a HUGE difference between the polemic we find between for instance the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel vs the polemic we find between the Pharisees and Jesus. The Talmud is filled with discussion between Mishnaic personalities, plenty of it acerbic. And in none of it do we find rhetoric or story-line of this form. No. Calling it "very Jewish" is either not recognizing the form Jewish polemic of those times took, or simple whitewashing.
Tumah
Veteran Member
So when its a Jew, it must be correct. Just like in Jesus' time right?
I hate this type of appropriation of Jewish identity to lend authenticity to an opinion. Great so you found a Jewish diplomat trying to mend the breach between Jewish and Christian theology. That doesn't mean that what he is saying is accurate, authentic or based in any real source. And the fact that the overwhelming majority of Jews disagree with him, suggests that he is probably not being so honest with himself or his readers. Go and look at the context: the author of Matt. is clearly tacking on his own addition to those Laws that he is quoting. It's 'but'.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Sorry but I don't agree with you. But before continuing, let me make it clear that I am not in any way referring to the divinity claims nor some other aspects found within the gospels. IOW, I'm strictly referring to what appears to me to be happening in regards to Jesus' take on the Law.
The northern area of eretz Israel was quite well know for it's "liberalness', and this was even made more so with the Greek and Roman influences. Jesus' idea of the Law reflecting "the love of God, love of man" concept was hardly new, and Greek influences especially seemingly had an influence of making some elements of Pharisees to be less parochial in their worldview.
Now, what else needs to be considered is the fact that archaeologists believe there were at least four different Pharisee groups and probably even more. And then there's different personal opinions, of course, and to a large extent this is "kosher" as well, and even though I am far from certain Jesus had any affiliation to any specific Pharisee group, nevertheless he was operating out of the general liberal Pharisee paradigm.
BTW, while I'm at it, Martin Buber also mentions this as well, placing Jesus smack-dab within the movement, until both the claims of divinity and the "must believe in order to be 'saved'" changed "the Way" from being a Jewish movement into a separate religion.
Tumah
Veteran Member
I don't know who Martin Buber is but I was referring specifically to the polemics that take place in the NT. They do not take the style of typical Jewish polemics that we find in the Mishnah between opposing opinions. I don't see any reason to call polemics between Jewish factions more "Jewish" than polemics between Christians. Unless they follow the typical format that we find in Jewish literature of that time. Which we don't here.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Buber is a Jewish scholar and author, noted for books like "On Judaism", "Tales of the Hasidim", etc.
As I mentioned before, the Pharisees were more of a movement than a specific branch, therefore no single set of rules can be applied to the entire movement. On top of that, there was sort of a tug of war going on within the movement itself dealing with an Oriental v Occidental approach, with the latter more emphasizing conformity. We still have issues today within Judaism as to exactly how far can individual discernment go in relation to conformity, the latter often put in terms of "normative Judaism".
We also have to remember that the Mishnah Talmud was pretty much written by the movements that succeeded in moving on past the era of Jesus, and we don't typically recognize both the pseudepigrapha books nor the written sources that have been lost over the many centuries since the time of Jesus-- iow, the victors are the ones who write the history books.
Tumah
Veteran Member
I think one of us is not understanding the other, because nothing you are saying here really changes the point I was making.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Or maybe we're just talking past each other.