Mosaic law still present?

metis said:

I believe that a Jew in 1st Temple Judaism would hardly recognize late 2nd Temple Judaism because of all the changes that took place, so a 1st century Jew would likely look at a late 2nd century Jew as being very "liberal" because of these additions.

Just my take.

Click to expand...

Hi metis. I'm really enjoying this discussion.

All of the additions are based on the adage that the first thing we need to do is build a fence around the Torah. It's like the Catholic saying that you need to avoid the near occasion of sin. If you don't want to end up in bed with a prostitute, you don't go hang out in the red light district, right? The oral laws that were added basically said, "Don't go hang out in the red light district." The very nature of these rules would make Judaism STRICTER rather than more liberal.

Liberal would be taking away rules or making many exceptions for them. That is NOT what happened in Second Temple Judaism.

Do you see what I'm saying now?

2ndpillar said:

I miss your point. I would think that a 2nd century Jew would be without a temple, and without a country, and keeping out of the limelight. A wise 1st century Jew would be packing his to go bag, and getting ready to escape Titus. Both seem preoccupied with getting through the circumstances alive, as a survivor.

Click to expand...

Temple.... NOT century.

2ndpillar said:

Abraham's sons of notoriety are Ishmael, and Isaac. Jacob/Israel, is the son of Isaac, and the "house of Judah", the Jews, are not the same as Edom, the house of Esau, or of Ishmael. Abraham means father of people/nations, which would include his slaves and all the members of his household who were circumcised. The "whole house of Israel/Jacob", does not included Edom, and the Edom does not include the "house of Judah". When the Idumeans/Edom were defeated, they had to be circumcised, which as sons of Abraham, most of them already were, and keep the laws of the Jews. They did not become of the "house of Judah". The Jews had to keep the laws of the Spanish in the 17th century, or leave the country, they did not become Spanish/hybrid Muslim descendants, they just pretended to be Christians.

Click to expand...

You are simply mistaken, 2ndpillar. After the war, the idumeans were converted to Judaism. Their circumcision meant that they became Jews, aka that they were adopted into the People of Israel, and that they were now obligated to the Torah, same as every other Jew. IOW they were born Imudeans, but died Jews. That is what conversion means.

The problem was not with the conversion process per se. The problem was that these conversions were not voluntary. It raised suspicions about the sincerity of the converts. These suspicions were carried over to their children and grandchildren. In this way, even Herod, who was raised as a Jew from birth, was suspect according to some.

However, given time and generations, no one cared any longer, and subsequent descendants were considered as Jewish as anyone else.

IndigoChild5559 said:

You are simply mistaken, 2ndpillar. After the war, the idumeans were converted to Judaism. Their circumcision meant that they became Jews, aka that they were adopted into the People of Israel, and that they were now obligated to the Torah, same as every other Jew. IOW they were born Imudeans, but died Jews. That is what conversion means.

Click to expand...

You have a hodge podge of ideas, because the Christians were Israelites, Jews could be converts from anywhere, and you mix up 'jew' with "people of Israel".
Would make sense if you just said 'jew'.[religion.

Like IN THE BIBLE, THE EPISTLES, for example.

2ndpillar said:

Their "fence", the lying pen of the scribes (Jeremiah 8:8), the Talmud, made a lie of the law. Liberals are known for trying to do away with the law, or rewriting the law, by any means possible, and putting power in their own hands. The Pharisees and Sadducees apparently wanted their cumin tithe above honoring one's parents, thereby putting the traditions of men above that of keeping the law. The result being they didn't stay "long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee". (Deuteronomy 5:16). The objective is to have the Law written on the hearts of the house of Judah and the house of Israel, so no one will have to teach his neighbor to know the LORD (Jeremiah 31:31-33), and happens in Ezekiel 36 :1 & 27-28 & 37, and Ezekiel 34:20 & 23, when the "shepherds of Israel" will be judged, and replaced by "one shepherd". The reason the judges are replaced is because they apparently don't make righteous judgements.

Leviticus 19:15. "You shall do no injustice in judgment. You shall not be partial to the poor, nor honor the person of the mighty. But in righteousness you shall judge your neighbor."

Click to expand...

You have jumped to a lot of conclusions that are simply not warranted. For example, you have wrongly assumed that the Oral Torah is the "vain pen" of the scribes.

Jeremiah 31:31-33 is a prophecy of the messianic era. It will come true at the end of time. You can't rush it.

I could find nothing in any of your passages in Ezekiel about shepherds being judged and replaced by a single shepherd. It makes me not trust you very much.

All in all, after investigating you post, it appears you basically made up a whole lot of stuff.

Jesus and most of that religion, were Israelites.
[In the time of Jesus.

Most Jews were Israelites, yet accepted converts, just like Christianity.

The Christians following Jesus, were in occupied Israel, and opposed the roman occupation.

Some Jews, were siding with the romans, hence the crucifixion scenario, so forth.

'Jews' and ' Christians', were religious designations, of Israelites, who both accepted converts.

IndigoChild5559 said:

You have jumped to a lot of conclusions that are simply not warranted. For example, you have wrongly assumed that the Oral Torah is the "vain pen" of the scribes.

Jeremiah 31:31-33 is a prophecy of the messianic era. It will come true at the end of time. You can't rush it.

I could find nothing in any of your passages in Ezekiel about shepherds being judged and replaced by a single shepherd. It makes me not trust you very much.

All in all, after investigating you post, it appears you basically made up a whole lot of stuff.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the article on the Pharisees.

Disciple of Jesus said:

You have a hodge podge of ideas, because the Christians were Israelites, Jews could be converts from anywhere, and you mix up 'jew' with "people of Israel".
Would make sense if you just said 'jew'.[religion.

Like IN THE BIBLE, THE EPISTLES, for example.

Click to expand...

The earliest Christians were all Jews, and the movement began as a Jewish sect. But it didn't take long for this to change. Paul was a missionary to the Gentiles, and by the second century the Gentiles overwhelmed the Jews in the church. Plus, the Jews had kicked the Christians out of the synagogues. So I'm not sure why you would say that Christians were Israelites, when the overwhelming majority were Gentiles. Even today, something like 99.98% of the Christian church is Gentile.

Hebrew=Israelite=Jew. Which one you use all depends on what time period you are referring to. Hebrew is before the Exodus. Israelite is after the Exodus but before the Babylonian Captivity. And Jew is during Babylon and after. Among ourselves, we Jews will still refer to ourselves as b'nei Yisrael, the Children of Israel.

Disciple of Jesus said:

'Jews' and ' Christians', were religious designations, of Israelites, who both accepted

Click to expand...

According to the canonical gospels, Jesus was arrested and tried by the Sanhedrin, and then sentenced by Pontius Pilate to be scourged, and finally crucified by the Romans.

The complaint about Jesus was brought by the Sanhedrin not the Romans.

IndigoChild5559 said:

The earliest Christians were all Jews, and the movement began as a Jewish sect. But it didn't take long for this to change. Paul was a missionary to the Gentiles, and by the second century the Gentiles overwhelmed the Jews in the church. Plus, the Jews had kicked the Christians out of the synagogues. So I'm not sure why you would say that Christians were Israelites, when the overwhelming majority were Gentiles. Even today, something like 99.98% of the Christian church is Gentile.

Hebrew=Israelite=Jew. Which one you use all depends on what time period you are referring to.

Click to expand...

It's contextually mixing things up. The Epistles are talking to the Gentiles[more than one meaning, and Jews also, however this isn't in an 'Israelite' inference, any more than Judaism, is an 'Israelite' inference, contextually. In other words, what you are calling 'gentiles' also includes Israelites, because you are using 'gentiles' in a religious sense, as opposed to 'Jews'. This usage means that it's a religious designation, and you are going into the abstract, with it, by using it to define 'Israelites'.

So, it isn't just contextual to the discussion, it just doesn't work, regardless of whether most Xians aren't or weren't Israelites, after the crucifixion, resurrection.

Also comparing Xianity to Judaism like that doesn't make sense, Xianity is a gigantic religion, and Judaism barely even makes the pie chart. So of course Xianity has more non Israelites.

Just abstract, anyway

Disciple of Jesus said:

Jesus and most of that religion, were Israelites.
[In the time of Jesus.

Most Jews were Israelites, yet accepted converts, just like Christianity.

The Christians following Jesus, were in occupied Israel, and opposed the roman occupation.

Some Jews, were siding with the romans, hence the crucifixion scenario, so forth.

'Jews' and ' Christians', were religious designations, of Israelites, who both accepted converts.

Click to expand...

All Jews are Israelites, including converts. When you convert to Judaism, you are adopted into the People of Israel. Consider Ruth, who was born a Moabite, but died an Israelite.

Most Christians in the first century church were Gentiles, not Israelites (Jews).

Christians, because they were being persecuted by the Romans, wanted to placate their persecutors. This the reason, for example, that the gospels go out of their way to blame the Jews rather than the Romans for the crucifixion. Christians were very non-political.

Jews, on the other hand, were a thorn in the proverbial Roman side.

Disciple of Jesus said:

In other words, what you are calling 'gentiles' also includes Israelites, because you are using 'gentiles' in a religious sense, as opposed to 'Jews'.

Click to expand...

There is no such thing as a Gentile that is an Israelite.

Israelite is a tribal designation. It refers to those descended from Jacob/Israel and also those adopted into the tribe.

Gentile is anyone who is not an Israelite. In the Bible the word Gentile (which means Nations) is constantly juxtraposed with Israel. There is Israel and there are the Nations. If a Gentile is anyone who is not an Israelite (aka Jew), then BY DEFINITION a person CANNOT be an Israelite/Jew and a Gentile at the same time.

IndigoChild5559 said:

There is no such thing as a Gentile that is an Israelite.

Israelite is a tribal designation. It refers to those descended from Jacob/Israel and also those adopted into the tribe.

Gentile is anyone who is not an Israelite. In the Bible the word Gentile (which means Nations) is constantly juxtraposed with Israel. There is Israel and there are the Nations. If a Gentile is anyone who is not an Israelite (aka Jew), then BY DEFINITION a person CANNOT be an Israelite/Jew and a Gentile at the same time.

Click to expand...

You know this is non'religious, because it contradicts the traditional estimation of things, and not how the Epistles is usng 'gentiles', a generalized word, however I'll just leave it here.

Disciple of Jesus said:

You know this is non'religious, because it contradicts the traditional estimation of things, however I'll just leave it here.

Click to expand...

You are correct. It IS non-religious in that it is a tribal designation, not a religious designation. One can be a Jew and be an atheist or a Buddhist for example. Gentile as well has no particular religious designation; one could be Christian or Hindu or Agnostic or whatever. The only thing a Gentile cannot be is a Jew.

IndigoChild5559 said:

You are correct. It IS non-religious in that it is a tribal designation, not a religious designation. One can be a Jew and be an atheist or a Buddhist for example. Gentile as well has no particular religious designation; one could be Christian or Hindu or Agnostic or whatever. The only thing a Gentile cannot be is a Jew.

Click to expand...

Agree with that, basically.


•
The new testament usage tends to be religious, so that is contextual

Disciple of Jesus said:

Agree with that, basically.


•
The new testament usage tends to be religious, so that is contextual

Click to expand...

You are mistaken about the new testament usage.

IndigoChild5559 said:

You have jumped to a lot of conclusions that are simply not warranted. For example, you have wrongly assumed that the Oral Torah is the "vain pen" of the scribes.

Jeremiah 31:31-33 is a prophecy of the messianic era. It will come true at the end of time. You can't rush it.

I could find nothing in any of your passages in Ezekiel about shepherds being judged and replaced by a single shepherd. It makes me not trust you very much.

All in all, after investigating you post, it appears you basically made up a whole lot of stuff.

Click to expand...

If you would read closer, you wouldn't have so many problems. I had said that the objective of Jeremiah 31:31-33, was to have the Law written on one's heart. The same message that Moses gave to Israel (Deuteronomy 10:16), And Jeremiah gave to Jerusalem (Jeremiah 4:4), which was to circumcise their hearts. Ezekiel 36:17 & 24-26 indicates that happens despite the "stiff necks" of Israel, after the "house of Israel" are gathered out "from the nations". The oral Torah, is the traditions of men, and is the "pen of the scribes" which makes a lie out of the law. As for "shepherds" being judged, see Ezekiel 34:2, which states "Woe, shepherds of Israel who have been feeding themselves! Should not the shepherds feed the flock? You eat the fat sheep without feeding the flock". Ezekiel 34:16, "the fat I will destroy". Ezekiel 34:17,"I will judge between one sheep and another, between the rams and the male goats". The rams and the male goats being the leaders, such as the Pharisees and scribes, the keepers of your Talmud. As for a single shepherd, see Ezekiel 34:23, "I will set over them one shepherd, My servant David".

Jeremiah 4:4 Circumcise yourselves to the LORD, circumcise your hearts, you people of Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem, or my wrath will flare up and burn like fire because of the evil you have done- burn with no one to quench it.

New American Standard Bible Deuteronomy 10:16
"So circumcise your heart, and stiffen your neck no longer.

IndigoChild5559 said:

You are correct. It IS non-religious in that it is a tribal designation, not a religious designation. One can be a Jew and be an atheist or a Buddhist for example. Gentile as well has no particular religious designation; one could be Christian or Hindu or Agnostic or whatever. The only thing a Gentile cannot be is a Jew.

Click to expand...

That is not quite true. Jewishness is now determined, apparently by their scribes, by if the mother is a Jew. The term Jew came as a designation for those of the "house of Judah". Judah was not a mother. As for Gentiles/nations, the "house of Israel" is scattered among the nations/Gentiles" (Ezekiel 36:19). They have not been "hunted down" and returned to "their own land" (Jeremiah 16:15-16). The "house of Israel"/"Ephraim will be joined to Judah to become one house (Ezekiel 37:15-28), and live on the "land I gave to Jacob". That will happen after "Jacob's distress" (Jeremiah 30:7), when Jacob will be "justly" "judged" (Jeremiah 30:11). As for beliefs, some, considered Gentiles are closer to keeping the Law, than your average liberal Jew, who may be an Atheist, Buddhist, or supporter of mass murder.

2ndpillar said:

If you would read closer, you wouldn't have so many problems. I had said that the objective of Jeremiah 31:31-33, was to have the Law written on one's heart. The same message that Moses gave to Israel (Deuteronomy 10:16), And Jeremiah gave to Jerusalem (Jeremiah 4:4), which was to circumcise their hearts. Ezekiel 36:17 & 24-26 indicates that happens despite the "stiff necks" of Israel, after the "house of Israel" are gathered out "from the nations". The oral Torah, is the traditions of men, and is the "pen of the scribes" which makes a lie out of the law. As for "shepherds" being judged, see Ezekiel 34:2, which states "Woe, shepherds of Israel who have been feeding themselves! Should not the shepherds feed the flock? You eat the fat sheep without feeding the flock". Ezekiel 34:16, "the fat I will destroy". Ezekiel 34:17,"I will judge between one sheep and another, between the rams and the male goats". The rams and the male goats being the leaders, such as the Pharisees and scribes, the keepers of your Talmud. As for a single shepherd, see Ezekiel 34:23, "I will set over them one shepherd, My servant David".

Jeremiah 4:4 Circumcise yourselves to the LORD, circumcise your hearts, you people of Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem, or my wrath will flare up and burn like fire because of the evil you have done- burn with no one to quench it.

New American Standard Bible Deuteronomy 10:16
"So circumcise your heart, and stiffen your neck no longer.

Click to expand...

The circumcision of the heart refers to our kavanah, our intent to do the right thing. IOW, am I doing right because I don't want to get caught doing wrong and punished and because I want to go to heaven, or am I doing right for the sake of doing right and obeying God simply because he is God and deserving of my obedience?

Having the law written upon our hearts is something else entirely. It means we don't need to be taught what is right and what is wrong, but instinctually know it. Obviously that is not true yet (including among Christians). Our inclination to good and our inclination to evil often conflict and can leave us very confused. We would defend our sister against a bully, but would we defend a stranger against a bully? We have to be TAUGHT not to stand idly by our neighbor's blood, because it does not come naturally. In the messianic era, the law will be written on our hearts, meaning we will no longer need to be taught it.

I think you need a better understanding where Oral Torah comes from.

First, you need to understand that you cannot obey the Torah unless you have Oral Torah. For example, the Torah says to rest from work on the Sabbath, but it doesn't tell us what "work" is. Different people would have different ideas, and how could Israel enforce the law if there was no agreement on what it was? SOMEONE needed to determine what "work" was.

It is so necessary that there is no way that Jesus existed as a Jew without obeying Oral Torah. Everything from how many knots tied his tzitzit to how to lay his tefillin was determined by Oral Torah. To get around Oral Torah, he would have had to have gone hog wild and quite being a Jew.

But it's MORE than that. The Torah itself creates Oral Torah. You cannot possibly accept the Torah without also accepting the God-given authority of Oral Torah. See Deuteronomy 17:8-13
8 If there arise a matter too hard for thee in judgment, between blood and blood, between plea and plea, and between stroke and stroke, even matters of controversy within thy gates; then shalt thou arise, and get thee up unto the place which the LORD thy God shall choose. 9 And thou shall come unto the priests the Levites, and unto the judge that shall be in those days; and thou shalt inquire; and they shall declare unto thee the sentence of judgment.
10 And thou shalt do according to the tenor of the sentence, which they shall declare unto thee from that place which the LORD shall choose; and thou shalt observe to do according to all that they shall teach thee.
11 According to the law which they shall teach thee, and according to the judgment which they shall tell thee, thou shalt do; thou shalt not turn aside from the sentence which they shall declare unto thee, to the right hand, nor to the left.
12 And the man that doeth presumptuously, in not hearkening unto the priest that standeth to minister there before the LORD thy God, or unto the judge, even that man shall die; and thou shalt exterminate the evil from Israel.
13 And all the people shall hear, and fear, and do no more presumptuously.

IndigoChild5559 said:

All Jews are Israelites, including converts. When you convert to Judaism, you are adopted into the People of Israel. Consider Ruth, who was born a Moabite, but died an Israelite.

Click to expand...

Ruth and Mose's wife, Zipporah, became an Israelite, by way of acts of faith. Mose's wife circumcised their child before the angel was about to kill Moses. You need to become more familiar with your own bible, and less familiar with the pen of the scribes. Most Jews of today, have little such faith, and apparently 2 out of 3 will not come out alive of the refining fire of Zechariah 13:8-9.

https://www.biblehub.com/exodus/4-25.htm
But Zipporah took a flint knife, cut off her son's foreskin and touched Moses' feet with it. "Surely you are a bridegroom of blood to me," she said. But Moses' wife, Zipporah, took a flint knife and circumcised her son. She touched his feet with the foreskin and said, "Now you are a bridegroom of blood to me.".