The modern Jewish definition of a rabbi is no less valid than the term priest. I don't think that the Pharisee's definition of rabbi was more valid than the usage of the term as it applied to Jesus.
-
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 really a Jewish rabbi?
The modern Jewish definition of a rabbi is no less valid than the term priest. I don't think that the Pharisee's definition of rabbi was more valid than the usage of the term as it applied to Jesus.
rosends
Well-Known Member
No, it isn't. See how easy that is?
He argued laws, so according to a non-technical definition, he was a lawyer. He healed people so he was a doctor. He built bridges between people so he was an engineer. If you want to label him based on some invention that has no relevance to the way a word was used when he was alive, then let's do that. He was also a puppeteer and possibly an acrobat.
It both was and is more valid.
Why did it use to be more valid? Because in a world where words have meanings, taking a title and calling yourself so can confuse people into thinking you are really what you say you are. For example, I don't have a medical license. I didn't study medicine. I can barely differentiate between Acamol and Nurofen. But if I started to call myself Harel, MD and opened up an office, I would be tricking people into coming to see me for medical issues, thinking I'm an expert who can actually help them, when in fact, I'm nothing but a charlatan.
Now, I'm not calling Jesus a charlatan, as I've already stated somewhere on this thread. However, it would be problematic for both the disciples and later followers of the man to refer to him by a title that means an expert in a certain field, and he was not an expert in that field. How do we know that? Because he didn't receive the equivalent of a modern-day degree from any of the prior experts.
This is also valid today, for similar reasons: If people came up to Jews and told them that Jesus was a rabbi, without further defining of what "rabbi" supposedly means with respect to Jesus, which has next to nothing to do with what it currently means, then they would be tricking Jews, and that's wrong, in my opinion. And I suppose that would also make these people really bad missionaries, if they can't convince someone of their truth without lying.
Essentially, the point of my OP is a call for a little more honesty.
That's only if you believe the Jesus was a false prophet and the Pharisees definition of rabbi is more valid than that of Jesus and the disciples.
People were Jewish before the Pharisees. Moses and Abraham were Jewish. Their definition of rabbi is not the only valid one.
Nope. Why? Because even a person who has one title cannot use a title that does not belong to him. If he does, then he's tricking people. So a prophet wouldn't have walked around calling himself a kohen if he wasn't one. Nor would he call himself a doctor, a lawyer, a police officer or a fire-fighter if he wasn't trained in any of these fields. Staying true to who you are is true in any case.
Ah, but that's the problem. You've yet to bring evidence that's not from the NT that other groups also used the term "rabbi". As long as you lack evidence for your point, we're left only with the assumption that the disciples did, indeed, borrow the term from the Pharisees. And why would they borrow a term from the Pharisees to use for their master? Because the term meant directing reverence to the individual who was called by the term. Or in other words, they liked the way the Pharisees used that term and wanted to respect their master by using a respectable term for him.
Why was the definition of rabbi used by the Pharisees more valid than other definitions?
Jesus was against the use of the term rabbi. Matthew 23:8 says "But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren." Jesus accepting that term hinted that he was the Messiah.
Because you have yet to provide evidence that non-Pharisitical groups used the term.
a. What does this have to do with anything we've discussed so far? You are attempting to argue that Jesus was a rabbi, but now you say that he didn't like the term - so why bother with it? b. I think this shows that he was a bad teacher, because his disciples didn't listen to him...
oldbadger
Skanky Old Mongrel!
The Levite tribe was separated in to levels, or classes, or higher/lower orders.
Here is a sentence from a wiki article and that alone will ring all the bells for you, I expect. So you know about Kohanim Levites and other Levites?:-
The Levites who were not Kohanim played music in the Temple or served as guards.....
And see what Josephus (in HF of Jesus) said about guards. ...
Jerusalem was policed by the Temple guards, commanded by the high priest. ....... 6000. Not all these men were Temple guards during times of peace. There probably were, however, several thousand guards in all, who ordinarily served in rotation, as did the priests. ............................. 8500 died defending Ananias. Historical Figure of Jesus. Sources: War 4.313: cf 4.206
This just gives an idea about how many temple guards there were, who like the Priests had other jobs. Joseph of Arimathea was a Priest, a member of the Sanhedrin and a merchant. On the side, the people of Cornwall say that Josephus was very probably a Tin Merchant. Merchants from Sidon and Tyre visited Cornwall for thousands of years....
Yes! He was a very distinguished builder. But the Priesthood hated and mistrusted him so much that he was not allowed to reduce a single building until he had supplied all the supplies for the new one.
He was a nutter. Must have been as psychotic as Stalin, I reckon. Caesar (Augustus?) used to joke that he would sooner have been a pig than a son in Herod's household, Herod murdered so many sons (and others) through paranoia.
As you know, I posted it yesterday. But here is a scholar's perception of the fishermen the Lake...Never heard of it. It'd be cool to see.
We could harbor romantic notions about the Sea of Galilee in Jesus' time, and muse on how brave independent fishermen followed a noble carpenter from Nazareth. But fishing was anything but an entrepreneurial activity, especially after Herod Antipas moved to the lake. The fishing industry was a regulated economy. In the book, Palestine in the Time of Jesus, the authors reveal how Herodian rulers sold fishing rights to brokers, commonly known as tax collectors or publicans, who in turn contracted to fishers. The toll office in Capernaum, operated by Matthew (or Levi), probably identifies him as a contractor of royal fishing rights (Matt 9:9, Mk. 2:14). Fishing families, like those of the sons of Zebedee, formed cooperatives or collectives in order to bid for fishing leases. They in turn hired day laborers to man their boats, along with their sons.
Galilean Fisherman did not place their God before Mammon!!
They were like I once was.... opportunist through need!
With that in mind......
Night runs in stormy seas, over to the Gadarenes............ This has often intrigued me.
Mark: {4:35} And the same day, when the even was come, he saith unto them, Let us pass over unto the other side.
............. so this was a night run.........
MARK: {5:1} And they came over unto the other side of the sea, into the country of the Gadarenes.
.............. The Gadarenes were populated mostly by pagans at that time. So why would Jesus or the boatmen would wish to go there..........................
www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/6458-gadarenes
As regards the first question, it would appear that that section of the country was
chiefly inhabited by pagans in the first century............... We can also see that this was indeed a pagan area because of the size of the swine herds there.............
MARK: {5:13} ............ And the unclean spirits went out, and entered into the swine.................
So........ Why would the boatmen of the lake set out into the coming dark in what was certainly very bad weather to arrive at the Gadarenes at night? This was an intended journey!!
The boatmen of the lake used gill nets made from shredded and hand woven flax and (possibly) trammel nets (it is claimed) similar to those which I used as a boy. There were catfish monsters in the Lake's deeps, and the boatmen didn't fish them, probably from superstitious fears and also because such beasts would rip their nets to shreds in a very short time. As a youth I was once unfortunate enough to have a porpoise swim into my herring net.... same result! Never forgotten!
If they did happen to catch a giant catfish there was no point in landing it at Capernaum. But they might have made wet-keep-tanks just for these beasts, and since the pagans of the Gadarenes could eat swine flesh, or unscaled fish flesh, etc..... why not take these catches there? Oh, and Jesus was a tecton.... handy.
But why a night run, and in bad weather? Well, suppose the lake officials watch-boats have all packed in for the night, and gone to their beds...? A bloke who lives up the road from me fished for scallops off the Sandiettie off French Coast..... got tempted to run contraband in/out of France while over there. He ALWAYS picked bad weather for his runs.... but in his case the French Navy's technology proved unlucky for him and he got taken despite being hidden from view in a storm... served 8 years in Longnesse prison.
Human minds have not changed in Ten Thousand years, let alone two.... apply humanity to the gospels and you get some level of definition, apply heaven and hell and you get the Gospel of John....
So much changed in such a short time.