What specifically can you point to that is not backed up by scripture? (Tanakh) After all, these were the scriptures used by Jesus. Paul was well versed in them.
-
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!
Questions & Answers
- Thread starter nPeace
- Start date
As I do not get to speak face to face with Jews here in rural Australia, I was wondering if you could give us some examples of the written law that needed the oral law to make sense of it? Just interested to learn...
nPeace
Veteran Member
Of course. I did not see the need to go into the whole receipt and ticket thing.
However that is a good point. Hence why I said, "there must be harmony and agreement,"
...and these are good questions.
All these questions are addressed in the Hebrew scriptures though.
1) Jesus never said to worship him. Neither did Paul.
2) Circumcision was a requirement based on the covenant made at Genesis 17:1-14 ; Acts 7:8).
It was a covenant between Abraham's generation, and God. The nations were not included.
That covenant was and is no longer valid.
3) The Mosaic law was until the seed arrived. The seed did arrive. That too was not an everlasting covenant. Nor did it include the nations. Besides that, it was prematurely broken. (Exodus 19:5 ; Jeremiah 31:31, 32 ; Galatians 3:19 ; Ephesians 2:14, 15 ; Luke 22:20 ; Hebrews 8:8-12)
Since God's will was to include people of the nations, Paul was in harmony with that will, which went into operation during Paul's time, and not Jesus... although Jesus is the one who validated it.
God made many covenants, but none of them are binding today. (Genesis 6:18)
The rainbow covenant is, because it was made with all flesh. (Genesis 9:8-17) That will never change... apparently.
nPeace
Veteran Member
Good point you brought in there about the repeated appeals God made to them, and they refused to listen, killing the prophets, and finally killing God's chief representative - his son.
Moses referred to them as stubborn ... For I myself well know your rebelliousness and your stubbornness. If you have been so rebellious against YHWH while I am still alive with you, then how much more so will you be after my death!
Moses himself was not even optimistic about reform, but he would know, because he pleaded many times for God to spare them, but he realized the seemed to be disease with wickedness.
rosends
Well-Known Member
The Sadducees were more literalists as it relates to their understanding of the 5 books of Moses.
That is certainly your understanding and theirs, but there is no way that they could have followed some of the laws without explanation or expansion which is one reson why we understand that the body of oral law was complementary and contemporaneous.
Sure -- you can look at scripture and realize that there is no way to understand it without some other text and yet people were able to follow it. You can look at verses like Deut 12:21 which references laws which are not in the written text and see that there were clearly other laws in play.
Jesus was also able to quote oral law. I can give you loads of examples of that. In fact, what I find amusing is that, given the different sects of Jews, he repeatedly endorses the Pharisees and not the Sadducees, but the Pharisees are the ones who accepted the oral law.
rosends
Well-Known Member
In one sense, it does, but the text doesn't mention teachers either. The ones who misled people were those who claimed to be prophets, or the ones who were political leaders -- I don't recall any claim that it was the judges who did anything wrong.
It is serious. We also have records of blessings and curses, of a people who go astray, are punished and who repent. That's the entire book of Judges. We have promises and prophecies of destruction and eventual return. We have statements about the eternal law of God and his promised eternal covenant with his people. We have no record, though, of anyone being allowed to get rid of the laws. So we follow them. The record of the history of the Jewish people and God's stated relationship with us is well documented including time after the bible.
You mean, except all the biblical examples? Read up on Chizkiyahu. Read up on Ezra and Nechemiah. Or, just focus on the negative stuff and decide that that is enough for you to paint the absolute and overarching vision of the Jewish people.
There is an interesting discussion in the Bartenura commentary about this verse pointing out that the entire time that Joshua was in charge, none of this happened.
Wait, are you going to justify why the gospels should be believed by quoting the gospels which I don't believe?
It is a compendium of oral laws and explanations transmitted to Moses at Sinai, along with the application and explanation and arguments about those statements. The backbone is a set of laws which are divine, not man made, and a set of divinely established laws for deriving other elements of practice. Consigning all of it to the "words of men" might be comforting, but is as useful as my saying the same about all the gospels -- words of men, so why listen to them?
The oral law included God's requirements, yes.
rosends
Well-Known Member
The most basic one is that of ritual slaughter. The written text has God saying to the people that they are to slaughter animals "as I commended you" but that commandment is not in the text. Other examples include explaining what it means to "bind frontlets on your eyes" -- the Hebrew word is never explained nor is the method. We just passed the feast of tabernacles. The text commands us to take "the lovely fruit of the tree" but doesn't tell us which tree that is. More examples and explanations are presented here. Here are a couple of other sites with examples and explanation
What is the "Oral Torah"?
The Oral Law -Talmud & Mishna
The Oral Tradition
a really thorough and detailed set of examples is here
Proofs For The Oral Law
Could I trouble you for those quotes please....and where Jesus endorses the Pharisees. I would like to examine them.
rosends
Well-Known Member
Matt 23:2-3 and 7:12 and 6:3-4 (the first is a direct endorsement and the second and third are following their interpretation of text and presentation of oral law). He quotes or refers to oral law ideas in other places as well. If he didn't endorse that oral law, why would he paraphrase and adopt it? (side note -- the examples I have are all from Matthew but I don't know how this fits in to anyone's idea of what gospels are official or authoritative)
I understand that only after the Noachian Flood, man was permitted to kill animals for various reasons. The Mosaic law required the slaughter of different kinds for sacrifice, and animal skins or leather were properly used for not only garments but also such things as shoes, belts, containers, writing material and tabernacle parts and accessories. (Leviticus 1:5, 10, 14; Leviticus 13:59; Ezekiel 16:10)
So to my understanding, as long as the animals were properly bled and the blood used ceremonially, there was not a lot of other instruction in the Law....did there need to be? Cutting the throat was the most humane way for the animal to be slaughtered and bled out from a main artery.
Initially, all animals could be used for food, with the exception of their blood: Genesis 9:3-4 (Tanakh)
"Every moving thing that lives shall be yours to eat; like the green vegetation, I have given you everything. גכָּל־רֶ֨מֶשׂ֙ אֲשֶׁ֣ר הוּא־חַ֔י לָכֶ֥ם יִֽהְיֶ֖ה לְאָכְלָ֑ה כְּיֶ֣רֶק עֵ֔שֶׂב נָתַ֥תִּי לָכֶ֖ם אֶת־כֹּֽל:
4But, flesh with its soul, its blood, you shall not eat. דאַךְ־בָּשָׂ֕ר בְּנַפְשׁ֥וֹ דָמ֖וֹ לֹ֥א תֹאכֵֽלוּ: "
There were clean and unclean animals on the ark, but these were apparently only in the sacrificial sense. Isn't that why there were seven of the clean animals and only two of the unclean ones? Three pairs for breeding and one for sacrifice, after they came out of the ark? (Genesis 8:20)
It seems as though it was pretty straight forward....
Definition of phylactery
1: either of two small square leather boxes containing slips inscribed with scriptural passages and traditionally worn on the left arm and on the head by observant Jewish men and especially adherents of Orthodox Judaism during morning weekday prayers" (Merriam Webster)
Was it not to symbolically portray the keeping of God's things in front of ones eyes constantly?
I have looked that up in Numbers 29 and cannot find mention of fruit......can you help me out with a reference please?
Thank you...
The first one strangely, is from Matthew 23, which is hardly an endorsement of the Pharisees.
In fact it is a damning condemnation.
Jesus said...
“The scribes and the Pharisees have seated themselves in the chair of Moses; 3 therefore all that they tell you, do and observe, but do not do according to their deeds; for they say things and do not do them."
"By saying that they have "seated themselves" (in the chair of Moses) as representatives of the Law, whenever they taught the Law, all was well and good, but he goes on to relate how they didn't practice what they taught. If you read the entire chapter you will see that he did not endorse them in any way.
But then he went on to say...
"...they do all their deeds to be noticed by men; for they broaden their phylacteries and lengthen the tassels of their garments. 6 They love the place of honor at banquets and the chief seats in the synagogues, 7 and respectful greetings in the market places, and being called Rabbi by men. 8 But do not be called Rabbi; for One is your Teacher, and you are all brothers."
Classical rabbinic Judaism flourished from the 1st century CE to the closure of the Babylonian Talmud, so by the time of Jesus presence on earth, the title "Rabbi" seems to have taken on an air of undue prominence.
In Matthew 7:12....
“In everything, therefore, treat people the same way you want them to treat you, for this is the Law and the Prophets."
Since Jesus is referring to "the Law and the Prophets", isn't he simply reiterating what is written in Leviticus 19:18?
"You shall neither take revenge from nor bear a grudge against the members of your people; you shall love your neighbor as yourself. I am the Lord. יחלֹֽא־תִקֹּ֤ם וְלֹֽא־תִטֹּר֙ אֶת־בְּנֵ֣י עַמֶּ֔ךָ וְאָֽהַבְתָּ֥ לְרֵֽעֲךָ֖ כָּמ֑וֹךָ אֲנִ֖י יְהוָֹֽה:"
Matthew 6:3-4
"But when you give to the poor, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, 4 so that your giving will be in secret; and your Father who sees what is done in secret will reward you."
Again we see the same principle conveyed as recorded in Proverbs 19:17...
"He who is gracious to a poor man lends to the Lord, and He will repay him his reward. מַלְוֵ֣ה יְ֖הוָה ח֣וֹנֵֽן דָּ֑ל וּ֜גְמֻל֗וֹ יְשַׁלֶּם־לֽוֹ: "
As far as I can see, these quotes are from the Tanakh, not the oral Torah. There does not seem to be a need to flesh out or give more detail to any of that, as its quite clearly stated......don't you think?
rosends
Well-Known Member
You have just decided that a certain method is the most humane. Not everyone agrees with you (in fact, ritual slaughter is banned in some places because it is not humane). The text says that the method was taught, not inferred, and yet the text lacks that teaching. We are clearly not to infer our own idea of what is right.
well, the text uses a particular set of words and then later later uses words to describe those words that can be eaten (but they aren't words that mean "clean" and "unclean" but require more understanding as they also apply to people, and yet one cannot eat people). Before the flood ended, no one could eat meat so the "only in a sacrificial sense" is because there was no other sense.
It seems as though it was pretty straight forward....
Definition of phylactery
1: either of two small square leather boxes containing slips inscribed with scriptural passages and traditionally worn on the left arm and on the head by observant Jewish men and especially adherents of Orthodox Judaism during morning weekday prayers" (Merriam Webster)
You just used an English word which is means "amulet" to define a Hebrew word which does NOT mean amulet and used a picture of a rabbinic understanding of the Hebrew word to say it is straightforward? The picture has a guy wearing a head strap and a black box on his forehead. Doesn't the text say "between your eyes"? How is his forehead the right place to put it? And what's with all the straps on his arm? How is it tied on his hand as a sign?
1. We don't wear it constantly
2. If it is symbolic how come it is an actual, physical thing
3. If it is on the forehead, i can't see it, so how is it in front of my eyes?
4. Where does the text say that it is for the keeping of God's things in front of one's eyes? Is that your interpretation?
try Lev 23:40
rosends
Well-Known Member
He instructs people to do all that the Pharisees teach. The condemnation is about their behavior. They are hypocrites, but the content of their instruction should be followed. Condemning the person but not his theology is an endorsement of that theology.
You just agreed that all was well and good whenever they taught the law. So their teachings are what he supports.
He is actually lifting this notion from the oral law in which the text reads "snah et harabanut" -- hate the "rabbinate". One should avoid a position of prominence. That is from the Ethics of the Fathers (Mishna Avot 1:10). His criticism of the title was actually a Pharisaic (oral law based) teaching.
If you want to equate "love your neighbor as yourself" which defines neither love nor neighbor with "what is hateful to you don't do to someone else" then you are using an interpretive mode. Thing is, the oral law had already made that leap. ("What is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor." is from the Talmud)
Where does the Proverbs quote indicate anything about keeping the donation a secret? Matthew talks about it as a secret but the Proverbs quote doesn't. Of course, in the Talmud, Rabbi Eleazar said: "A man who gives charity in secret is greater..." So how did you find "secret"?
nPeace
Veteran Member
Okay. That would be the Torah that was available in their time.
Okay. I understand, and I appreciate that.
Yes. Joshua orally conveyed the written law, to the people. There was an explanation, and putting into meaning. Is this what you refer to as the oral law?
Of course that was centuries ago, but oral law would continue from various, should I say, rabbis, throughout the years down to this day.
In that case, the Mishna is a collection of which oral laws?
I understand. The other writings help in understanding other text.
Similar to my view, that the Bible interprets itself, in that one, or more text explains other texts.
At what point then would you say, there would be a completion?
For example, the book of the law was complete, and the king were supposed to read it, understand it, and put it into practice. There was no need for anything else written to support it... at least not that I have seen.. Was there?
Could you show me which oral law Jesus quoted please. Thanks.
Are you sure Jesus did not engage the Sadducees?
(Matthew 16:1-4)
(Matthew 16:6) . . .Jesus said to them: “Keep your eyes open and watch out for the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.. . .
(Matthew 16:11, 12) . . .But watch out for the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.” 12 Then they grasped that he said to watch out, not for the leaven of bread, but for the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees.
(Matthew 22:34-40)
The Sadducees may not have been as aggressive, and corrupt as the Pharisees, but they were not exempt from Jesus judgments.
Got to go. Be back later.
rosends
Well-Known Member
AS the Pharisees taught that there was also an oral torah available at the time, the Sadducee position was one of rejection of available material.
Restating the written law does not make it the oral law. The oral law, beginning as the mishna, was a series of complementary teachings passed down from Moses to Joshua. The beginning of the Ethics of the Fathers (the Mishna, tractate Avot) reads, in part, "Moses received the Torah at Sinai and transmitted it to Joshua, Joshua to the elders, and the elders to the prophets, and the prophets to the Men of the Great Assembly." The transmnission was not perfect and the discussions about meaning, precise application and such comprised the conversation which expanded the Mishna into the full Talmud.
I don't think there ever will be. The king can read the entire of the written text and be "finished". He can read a section and be "finished" with that section. Of course, without the oral law, he wouldn't know what to do with this -- he is told to make the sabbath holy, but is never told what that means or how to do it. The king can study the oral law and put the law into practice and still continue to learn it. The greatest sages of every generation never claimed to have "finished" anything.
Well, here is one example. In Matt 5:28, Jesus is quoted as saying "every one who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart." From where does he get that? Maybe from the Talmud, Tractate Kallah "He who regards a woman with an impure intention is as if he had already had relations with her."
Sure he engaged with them. He just didn't follow their teachings.
firedragon
Veteran Member
I presume you are referring to the New Testament.
I am no Jew. But I do know that Jewish scholars have thought that Jesus was an actual figure who was part of a very important episode in the history of humanity to come. For example, in Christianity there is a belief about the coming of the anti christ. So that's an important episode. Not exactly like that, but similarly, the coming of Jesus was considered as an important stage in the Jewish Escatology. Although, Jesus in this episode was a false prophet. In the midst of a belief like that why would the Jews not dismiss the NT?
As you very well know the concept of the Messiah of the Jews and the Christians are poles apart. I so far have not met a single Jew who does not cringe when the Tanakh is called the "OT". Now I see a new breed of Jews who are more used to hearing this but that does not mean they accept it. I don't think many of us could ever dream enough to understand how much a jew reveres the Tanakh. They obviously reject the NT because of the conflict they will show you if asked. But you as a Christian would not accept it. Naturally. But this division is there.
rosends
Well-Known Member
I have yet to encounter a Jewish scholar who saw Jesus' existence (if he even believed in it, historically) as important at all to Judaism or Jews or as an important stage in anything.
firedragon
Veteran Member
Please read up on what Rambam and Halevi had to say.
rosends
Well-Known Member
They say nothing more than the existence of errors and roadblocks helps push Jews toward the truth. But neither says that Jesus or any other false messiah was part of an important stage, unless by extension you want to say that every challenge to Judaism is a similarly important stage. Every situation in the texts in which the people were led astray and had to refine themselves to improve would be on the same level. In fact, the Rambam says that the important stage that Jesus is part of is to show non-Jews all that is wrong so that they will recognize when things are right.
As the Rambam writes, "אֵינָן אֶלָּא לְיַשֵּׁר דֶּרֶךְ לַמֶּלֶךְ הַמָּשִׁיחַ, וּלְתַקֵּן אֶת הָעוֹלָם כֻּלּוּ לַעֲבֹד אֶת ה' בְּיַחַד" all of the events related to Jesus and Muhammed are only to establish the correct path to the King Messiah, and to fix the whole world to worship God, alone." He follows by explaining that for the whole rest of the world, Jesus got them thinking erroneously about the messiah and the commandments. This important stage then is not in Jewish development, but non-Jewish development.
firedragon
Veteran Member
So you contend that Maimonides doesnt consider it an important event? Thats not a problem. Its your prerogative.
Its not that I agree with Maimonides. I am only quoting him. Also, I did not say anything like "Most important" so you dont have to take it so personally. Rambam mentions the coming of Jesus was an important event in the forming or preparation of the coming age of strict monotheism with the eschatological messianic age, although he also considers him a false messiah.
I cannot read Hebrew so I cannot understand what you have said there. But if you are quoting the Hilhot Melahim from the Mishneh Torah (Mind my pronunciation), I will refer to the same thing which is speaking specifically about Jesus the Nazarene and Muhammed the Ishmaelite who are here to pave the way for the king Messiah and to repair the whole world so that the world may serve God as one.
If you ask me, I can never be a scholar of the Hebrew religion because it is too vast, thus if your sources say otherwise maybe I can be enlightened. Here, Maimonides was speaking of cause and consequence and he was making a distinction between the hidden things that happen and the open events that take place. Clearly distinguishing God as the master planner. So in this matter he is indeed stating that these events that took place are indeed important events for the paving of the way for the king Messiah, and the strict monotheism to come.
It is evident that Rambam states very clearly that the coming of the Jesus character and the Muhammed character were both bad for Jews where he states they harmed the Jews and Despised the Jews but though it was detrimental to the Jews, this was an important event in the paving of the path to the future. The king Messiah, and the Ethical Monotheism.
If you are indeed looking for some scholars who spoke about this you could maybe refer to Moshe Blidstein, Henrik Vroom, etc.
Yet if you believe these translations that we non-jewish folk refer to are wrong and there are other interpretations or exegesis you are more than welcome to state them.
Peace.