Mosaic law still present?

[IndigoChild5559]

And that was my point, they only accepted the written Torah, and literally, while the Pharisees believed an oral tradition open to interpretation, which they believed went back to Moses.

How does acceptance of the Prophets and Oral Torah make the Pharisees more liberal? Their observance was more strict (they taught that one should put a fence around the Torah) and that makes them more conservative.

 

[metis]

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.

 

[2ndpillar]

When one converts to Judaism, one becomes 100% Israelite (a Jew). Indeed Abraham becomes one's father and Sarah becomes one's mother -- one takes on a new name that includes "ben Avraham" (son of Abraham) or bat Sarah (daughter of Sarah).

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.

 

[2ndpillar]

How does acceptance of the Prophets and Oral Torah make the Pharisees more liberal? Their observance was more strict (they taught that one should put a fence around the Torah) and that makes them more conservative.

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."

 

[TheBannerofHomuraAkemi]

I think most have at least began to view certain things differently, so over my 73 years I've seen some quite substantial changes with many, including within my Catholic faith since Vatican II. Personally, I never would have converted to Catholicism if the Church still was pre-VII.

But also please realize that no church can stray too far from the Christian scriptures without making them and itself irrelevant. We can argue over which should be pretty much ignored and which shouldn't, but throwing the baby out with the bathwater is simply not an option, nor would it be sensible as morals must have some sort of base. Without some sort of base, anything goes.

So, it's trying to strike a compromise of sorts between what the scriptures say and what the use of "reason" should tell us, and we can disagree on what that "compromise" should be without chucking the whole thing into the garbage. I left my fundamentalist Protestant church many years ago because it failed to use enough "reason" as it took a largely anti-science position.

Dude your old like 45 years older than me.

I find myself thinking that a lot of christian scriptures aren't really relevant to todays society. But it's not like people would accept us writing new ones. So were stuck with these books that are increasing in their non-relevance and more christian apologetics sounding more pathetic.

Well thats because the bible was written during a time were our science wasn't at a good level. So you get concepts like flat earth and a firmament in the heavens etc.

 

[2ndpillar]

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.

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.

 

[Desert Snake]

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.

Essenes related to Nazarenes this noted by good sources, and the fact that 'christianity' wasn't created by the later established churches, may make some of your theories somewhat abstract to the religious ideas that actually inform or are original to Jesus Religion, as opposed to Judaism.

 

[Desert Snake]

Let me just mention that there were several Pharisee groups according to historians, and one was so liberal that at least one theologian that I know called them "Love Pharisees".

I prefer to often refer to the Pharisees as a "movement" because of this, especially since they more emphasized Torah than the ritualistic Temple sacrifices. But when one does that, different interpretations can all too lead to conflict, thus forming division.

There already are divisions, many Jews basically following the teachings of Jesus, or Yoheshua, or Yeshua, and some more 'religious', or ritualistic.

May as well just use Jesus as the symbolic 'Rabbi', here, though often it's literal, anyway.

So, not really sure what you're getting at, here.

 

[metis]

Dude your old like 45 years older than me.

The word is not "old"-- it's mature.

Well thats because the bible was written during a time were our science wasn't at a good level. So you get concepts like flat earth and a firmament in the heavens etc.

I absolutely agree, and you might pick up the essence of why I say that because of "My Faith Statement" at the bottom of my posts. In science, we tend to question pretty much anything and everything.

 

[metis]

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.

It's not "centuries" that I'm referring to.

 

[metis]

Essenes related to Nazarenes this noted by good sources,

There's no evidence that the Essenes had any significant influence on the Way, but they may have had an influence on John the Baptist but I even have doubts on that because the Essenes were quite reclusive.

the fact that 'christianity' wasn't created by the later established churches, may make some of your theories somewhat abstract to the religious ideas that actually inform or are original to Jesus Religion, as opposed to Judaism.

"Christianity" was forged on Pentecost, and one can see the term "Christian" being applied to the Church in Acts.

 

[metis]

There already are divisions, many Jews basically following the teachings of Jesus, or Yoheshua, or Yeshua, and some more 'religious', or ritualistic.

May as well just use Jesus as the symbolic 'Rabbi', here, though often it's literal, anyway.

So, not really sure what you're getting at, here.

Let me suggest you read this: Pharisees - Wikipedia

 

[Desert Snake]

Let me suggest you read this: Pharisees - Wikipedia

Interesting, though actually I meant that in a general sense, Jesus being more liberal towards Shabbat, so forth.

 

[Desert Snake]

There's no evidence that the Essenes had any significant influence on the Way, but they may have had an influence on John the Baptist but I even have doubts on that because the Essenes were quite reclusive.

"Christianity" was forged on Pentecost, and one can see the term "Christian" being applied to the Church in Acts.

Certain things like the resurrection timing, the three days, a day starting at sunrise, for example, can suggest or just directly imply a different Shabbat system, which the Essenes had a different calendar, [solar.

So, in my discussion where I say that the shabbat starts at a different time, Christians although outraged, could not explain how the texts, in Greek or english, signify a three day resurrection scenario, which is supposedly very important to christianity. Something as important as that it would seem, should be figured out.

However, g'day.

 

[metis]

Interesting, though actually I meant that in a general sense, Jesus being more liberal towards Shabbat, so forth.

Definitely, even to the point that the Church gradually walked away from observing Shabbat as the Church became increasingly Gentile and the Jewish Laws observing Shabbat no longer applied to them. Instead, it was increasing replaced by the "Lord's Day", namely Sunday (technically Saturday evening to Sunday evening), when as the "agape meal" was celebrated.

 

[metis]

So, in my discussion where I say that the shabbat starts at a different time, Christians although outraged, could not explain how the texts, in Greek or english, signify a three day resurrection scenario, which is supposedly very important to christianity. Something as important as that it would seem, should be figured out.

Jesus was crucified on Friday prior to the beginning of Shabbat (Saturday), and the resurrection took place on Sunday prior to dawn. Therefore, Friday was the 1st day and Sunday the 3rd day.

G'day.

 

[Desert Snake]

The Biblical texts directly inferring a [solar calendar, in other words.

'New day, starting at sunrise'. It's quite literal.

 

[Desert Snake]

Definitely, even to the point that the Church gradually walked away from observing Shabbat as the Church became increasingly Gentile and the Jewish Laws observing Shabbat no longer applied to them. Instead, it was increasing replaced by the "Lord's Day", namely Sunday (technically Saturday evening to Sunday evening), when as the "agape meal" was celebrated.

The days being arbitrary in the non Jewish calendar, for day of rest, sure, however the observance has varied by church, traditionally. I meant how strict one observes it, though.

Necessarily strict vs not necessarily strict.

 

[metis]

The Biblical texts directly inferring a [solar calendar, in other words.

'New day, starting at sunrise'. It's quite literal.

No, the lunar calendar was in use within normative Judaism, plus the Church didn't observe the solar calendar until much later, although I'd have to look up exactly when.

However, I gotta boogey out for now..

 

[Desert Snake]

No, the lunar calendar was in use within normative Judaism, plus the Church didn't observe the solar calendar until much later, although I'd have to look up exactly when.

However, I gotta boogey out for now..