What does the leaven represent, which must be cast out?

[CMike]

Thats a stretch

:redcard:



I expect better out of you.

A Pharises was a jew.

Anti-semitics just like jews by other names because it doesn't seem as outwardly bigotted and anti-semitic.

 

[CMike]

The Pharisees [some] were known to be corrupt and used Roman muscle to extort tithes from the population.

The Woes of the Pharisees are historical.


We dont know exactly what Jesus was or was not, what you attribute would be directed to the unknown authors more then the jesus character

Must be what some idiot quoted in Wikipedia said.

 

[CMike]

Could you explain why you think that? What was it that Jesus did that was hypocritical or particularly arrogant?

He complained about arrogance, however, he showed the hight of arrogance.

He falsely stated that people need to go through him to get to G-D.

However, that is utterly untrue.

G-D said in numerous passages that there is only him and to trust only in him.

Also jesus doesn't get to redo the laws given by G-D in the Torah. He was not god, he wasn't even close. In fact, he seemed to be ant-G-D by his actions.

 

[CMike]

Luke 12:1 In the meantime, when a crowd of so many thousands had gathered together that they were stepping on one another, he started by saying first to his disciples: “Watch out for the leaven of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy

 

[CMike]

Kudos to Metis.

The problem Jesus has with the 'Leaven of the Pharisees' isn't pride but that they would not eat his 'Bread of affliction.' Jesus never says that its pride. In fact he never calls the Pharisees 'Proud'.

Unleavened bread represents the 'Bread of Affliction'. Leavened bread is bread that is not the bread of affliction, and Jesus was preaching a lot of extra suffering for his disciples. John the Baptist wore a hair shirt representative of this and Jesus taught his disciples to each take up their cross and follow him -- a clear reference to Roman crucifixion. He taught them "In this age you will face tribulation but take courage..." This was his bread of affliction which ran counter to the Pharisees leaven. Jesus taught that if a Roman forced you to carry a distance you should volunteer to go twice that distance. He preached giving to whomsoever asked. His gospel of peace was like the bread of affliction in this respect, and to this the Pharisees objected.

Unleavened bread occurred because the jews had to get out of Egypt and didn't have time to wait for the bread to rise.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Unleavened bread occurred because the jews had to get out of Egypt and didn't have time to wait for the bread to rise.

Ok, but the bottom line is that levin Jesus mentions has nothing to do with pride or 'Being puffed up' as is often claimed without any justification for saying so. In the gospel stories Jesus never once calls the Pharisees proud, and it wouldn't have made sense anyway. Anyway the next time someone tells you that they think the Pharisees were 'Proud' because Jesus said such & such, if you're feeling generous you can tell them that they are mistaken about that point. If you feel like it.

Translations aren't usually perfect. I think Fox's makes more sense. Fox translates Deuteronomy 16:3 as "Poverty's bread," but I don't think it changes the point I wanted to make. I was going by NIV when I used 'Bread of affliction'.

 

[CMike]

Ok, but the bottom line is that levin Jesus mentions has nothing to do with pride or 'Being puffed up' as is often claimed without any justification for saying so. In the gospel stories Jesus never once calls the Pharisees proud, and it wouldn't have made sense anyway. Anyway the next time someone tells you that they think the Pharisees were 'Proud' because Jesus said such & such, if you're feeling generous you can tell them that they are mistaken about that point. If you feel like it.

Translations aren't usually perfect. I think Fox's makes more sense. Fox translates Deuteronomy 16:3 as "Poverty's bread," but I don't think it changes the point I wanted to make. I was going by NIV when I used 'Bread of affliction'.

It's called the bread of affliction, because it reminds jews of what they suffered in Egypt.

 

[metis]

It's called the bread of affliction, because it reminds jews of what they suffered in Egypt.

And after eating matzah for eight straight days, the "affliction" continues. :thud:

 

[Tumah]

In Preparation for the Feast of Unleavened Bread, one is to cast out the leaven from the household. What does the leaven spiritually represent.

Matthew 16:11 NAS "How is it that you do not understand that I did not speak to you concerning bread ? But beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees."

If the unleavened bread represents the "Word of God", what does the leaven represent, which must be removed from the house?

It simply refers to the traditions of men, and particularly to that of the Sadducees and the Pharisees. The bread of life, must be consumed without the leaven (hypocrisy) of the Pharisee.

Matthew 23:15-28 NAS "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites,.....So you, too, outwardly appear righteous to men, but inwardly you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness.

But if the unleavened bread doesn't represent the "Word of G-d", than you don't have much of an OP here.
Deut. 16:3 calls unleavened bread "the bread of affliction." Do you feel your god's word afflicts you?

Also, not sure why you threw in Saducees there. Was it to seem less anti-Pharisee? The Saduccees rejected the Oral Law, which is kind of where you were taking this thread.

 

[2ndpillar]

But if the unleavened bread doesn't represent the "Word of G-d", than you don't have much of an OP here.
Deut. 16:3 calls unleavened bread "the bread of affliction." Do you feel your god's word afflicts you?

Also, not sure why you threw in Saducees there. Was it to seem less anti-Pharisee? The Saduccees rejected the Oral Law, which is kind of where you were taking this thread.

Tumah,
As for the affliction of God per the Word of God, David said it best in Psalms 51:17. Some might consider a "broken and contrite heart"a form of affliction. Some might consider the future capture of Jerusalem, in which "the women ravaged", might be considered an affliction to those women, and probably due to the leadership of the "old men"of Ez 9:6. The "Word" of God is the Law and the prophets, in which it tells the story that one is afflicted and dies when they transgress God's commandments.

The Saduccees were included by Yeshua as being hypocrites as well as the Pharisees. It just seemed that the Pharisees caught the blunt of the criticism, because of the self professed Pharisee Paul, who was to later start his own religion, which was the religion of Lawlessness, and traditions of men (leaven). (Romans 7:6)

The point of the thread is that "My Word" does not return to Him without accomplishing "what I desire". (Is 55:11) The "Words"may not be understood, but that is according to Isaiah 6:9-10.

Is 55:11,"So will My word be which goes forth from My mouth; It will not return to Me empty, Without accomplishing what I desire, And without succeeding in the matter for which I sent it.

 

[Tumah]

Tumah,
As for the affliction of God per the Word of God, David said it best in Psalms 51:17. Some might consider a "broken and contrite heart"a form of affliction. Some might consider the future capture of Jerusalem, in which "the women ravaged", might be considered an affliction to those women, and probably due to the leadership of the "old men"of Ez 9:6. The "Word" of God is the Law and the prophets, in which it tells the story that one is afflicted and dies when they transgress God's commandments.

The Saduccees were included by Yeshua as being hypocrites as well as the Pharisees. It just seemed that the Pharisees caught the blunt of the criticism, because of the self professed Pharisee Paul, who was to later start his own religion, which was the religion of Lawlessness, and traditions of men (leaven). (Romans 7:6)

The point of the thread is that "My Word" does not return to Him without accomplishing "what I desire". (Is 55:11) The "Words"may not be understood, but that is according to Isaiah 6:9-10.

Is 55:11,"So will My word be which goes forth from My mouth; It will not return to Me empty, Without accomplishing what I desire, And without succeeding in the matter for which I sent it.

This does not make any sense. I said, that you are saying that unleavened bread represents the word of your god(s). Scriptures also calls unleavened bread, "the bread of affliction." That would mean that the words of your god(s) are affliction.
Your response is that G-d enjoys a broken and contrite heart which is a form of affliction.
It seems to me that there is some in formation missing here, because god's['] word, ostensibly comes from god, while a broken and contrite heart should be coming from the person.

Your response about the Saducees doesn't make sense to me either. I put forth that this thread which was meant to argue against "traditions of men" is not an argument that is relevant to Saducees who argued against tradition. Your response is that the NT authors were critical of them too. That may be, but it has nothing to do with adherence to traditions which they did not.

 

[metis]

Tumah,
As for the affliction of God per the Word of God, David said it best in Psalms 51:17. Some might consider a "broken and contrite heart"a form of affliction. Some might consider the future capture of Jerusalem, in which "the women ravaged", might be considered an affliction to those women, and probably due to the leadership of the "old men"of Ez 9:6. The "Word" of God is the Law and the prophets, in which it tells the story that one is afflicted and dies when they transgress God's commandments.

The Saduccees were included by Yeshua as being hypocrites as well as the Pharisees. It just seemed that the Pharisees caught the blunt of the criticism, because of the self professed Pharisee Paul, who was to later start his own religion, which was the religion of Lawlessness, and traditions of men (leaven). (Romans 7:6)

The point of the thread is that "My Word" does not return to Him without accomplishing "what I desire". (Is 55:11) The "Words"may not be understood, but that is according to Isaiah 6:9-10.

Is 55:11,"So will My word be which goes forth from My mouth; It will not return to Me empty, Without accomplishing what I desire, And without succeeding in the matter for which I sent it.

Even though many today want to throw Paul under the bus, sorta speak, I would suggest that the opposite is more likely true. Certainly I feel that Paul went much further than Jesus did with his explanations, as did the others btw, but he worked in conjunction with the Twelve as we see both in Acts and also through the fact that his books were widely circulated within the various "Christian" communities.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Certainly I feel that Paul went much further than Jesus did with his explanations, as did the others btw, but he worked in conjunction with the Twelve as we see both in Acts and also through the fact that his books were widely circulated within the various "Christian" communities.

Again, I suspect that you give the text too much credit. What happened, Paul's interpretation/representation of what happened, and Luke's presentation of what happened, are not necessarily the same. As far as I can tell Paul is trying hard to sell himself as a legitimate heir of the Jerusalem sect in the diaspora and among the gentiles, while Luke is trying even harder to sell Paul, with each addressing a slightly different audience.

Again I would recommend Udo Schnelle's History And Theology Of The New Testament Writings..

 

[metis]

Again, I suspect that you give the text too much credit. What happened, Paul's interpretation/representation of what happened, and Luke's presentation of what happened, are not necessarily the same. As far as I can tell Paul is trying hard to sell himself as a legitimate heir of the Jerusalem sect in the diaspora and among the gentiles, while Luke is trying even harder to sell Paul, with each addressing a slightly different audience.

Again I would recommend Udo Schnelle's History And Theology Of The New Testament Writings..

I think that this simply ignores too much. If all that we had were Paul's and Luke's writings, we certainly would have less to go by-- but we have some of the others as well.

With me, whenever I'm stuck on alternative ideas, I try to focus in on the actions that came after for possible clarification. Especially because of Paul's past, had he been considered off-base with his teachings, I have no doubt that the others would have jumped all over him and his writings certainly wouldn't have gone very far.

Also, Acts has it that Paul met with the Twelve at least three times, so why would they give Paul even the time of day if he was some sort of self-gratifying renegade?

Was Paul trying to sell himself? No doubt, but the reason I feel is that he's trying to accomplish least two things, namely to indicate that he's a changed person, which is quite understandable, and also to try and legitimize what he is teaching, especially since he's not one of the Twelve.

As far as the book is concerned, thanks, and I'll see what I can find on it.

 

[2ndpillar]

Even though many today want to throw Paul under the bus, sorta speak, I would suggest that the opposite is more likely true. Certainly I feel that Paul went much further than Jesus did with his explanations, as did the others btw, but he worked in conjunction with the Twelve as we see both in Acts and also through the fact that his books were widely circulated within the various "Christian" communities.

Dear metis,
Your foundation for Paul seems to be from Paul, and some unknown writers of Acts and Luke, which was probably Luke, an associate of Paul, and a direct witness to nothing, according to Luke 1:1-3. What you didn't mention was the verse from the unknown writer of 2 Peter. As for Paul's testimony concerning Paul, that comes under self testimony, determined by Yeshua in John 5:31 as being "not true". As for Luke's possible testimony, it fails to meet the minimum criteria of Dt 19:15, every matter needs to be established by at least two witnesses (Mt 18:16). This would mean eye witnesses, not 3rd party witnesses. As for the "Christian"community, that was the community of Paul, which was based on the false gospel of "Grace", and which was antithetical to the Gospel of the "kingdom".

The result of Paul's hypicritical, double minded, babble, which is based on the traditions of Babel, is that there are now approximately 42,000 different denominations. As for James not outing Paul, he was under commandment to not touch the tares (Mt 13), but he did refute the methods and teachings of Paul. Paul and Judas Iscariot had their places, but Paul's place was to be preserved until the "end of the age". (Mt 13:40)

 

[2ndpillar]

This does not make any sense. I said, that you are saying that unleavened bread represents the word of your god(s). Scriptures also calls unleavened bread, "the bread of affliction." That would mean that the words of your god(s) are affliction.
Your response is that G-d enjoys a broken and contrite heart which is a form of affliction.
It seems to me that there is some in formation missing here, because god's['] word, ostensibly comes from god, while a broken and contrite heart should be coming from the person.

Your response about the Saducees doesn't make sense to me either. I put forth that this thread which was meant to argue against "traditions of men" is not an argument that is relevant to Saducees who argued against tradition. Your response is that the NT authors were critical of them too. That may be, but it has nothing to do with adherence to traditions which they did not.

Tumah,
The Saducees had their own traditions. Theÿ had the tradition that there was no "resurrection of the dead". Of course, this kind of flies in the face of face of Daniel 12:13. The leaven was representative of the hypocrisy of the Saducees, which was having traditions not conforming to the Scripture.

As for a God "enjoying a contrite and broken heart", that is not what is written. What is written is that a "contrite and broken heart" are an acceptable sacrifice. (Psalms 51:17) And this would be in the realm of the workings of the Spirit of God, of which king David had been annointed, and would be in contrast to that of what happened to the king of Egypt, whose heart was hardened.

Is 51:17,"The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit; A broken and contrite heart, O God, Thou wilt not despise.

 

[Tumah]

Tumah,
The Saducees had their own traditions. Theÿ had the tradition that there was no "resurrection of the dead". Of course, this kind of flies in the face of face of Daniel 12:13. The leaven was representative of the hypocrisy of the Saducees, which was having traditions not conforming to the Scripture.

As for a God "enjoying a contrite and broken heart", that is not what is written. What is written is that a "contrite and broken heart" are an acceptable sacrifice. (Psalms 51:17) And this would be in the realm of the workings of the Spirit of God, of which king David had been annointed, and would be in contrast to that of what happened to the king of Egypt, whose heart was hardened.

Is 51:17,"The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit; A broken and contrite heart, O God, Thou wilt not despise.

2ndpillar

The Saducees had no tradition. That was their selling point. They didn't believe in the Resurrection of the Dead because they had a different way of interpreting that verse. The same way you have a different way of interpreting many verses. Or they could have rejected the Book of Daniel altogether.

Saying that a "'broken and contrite heart' are in the realms of the working of the Spirit" has no functional meaning.
The point is that the "broken and contrite heart" here refers to man's feelings. Which means that you have not yet demonstrated how the word of your god is afflicting.

 

[CMike]

This does not make any sense. I said, that you are saying that unleavened bread represents the word of your god(s). Scriptures also calls unleavened bread, "the bread of affliction." That would mean that the words of your god(s) are affliction.
Your response is that G-d enjoys a broken and contrite heart which is a form of affliction.
It seems to me that there is some in formation missing here, because god's['] word, ostensibly comes from god, while a broken and contrite heart should be coming from the person.

Your response about the Saducees doesn't make sense to me either. I put forth that this thread which was meant to argue against "traditions of men" is not an argument that is relevant to Saducees who argued against tradition. Your response is that the NT authors were critical of them too. That may be, but it has nothing to do with adherence to traditions which they did not.

The unleavened bread is referred to as the break of affliction because it reminds the jews of how they were afflicted in Egypt.

 

[Brickjectivity]

The unleavened bread is referred to as the break of affliction because it reminds the jews of how they were afflicted in Egypt.

Its important for helping to clarify where Jesus ultimately disagreed with the Pharisees. He was not calling them proud but blind. Jesus believed in private revelation of himself rather than a public revelation and suffering along with it. Pharisees rejected his concept of having both tribulation and restoration at the same time. That is likely why he referred to their teachings as leavened bread, and it is likely why they called him demon possessed (crazy). They rejected his suffering, his 'Take up your cross' message, his 'This is the kingdom, stupid' message. They would have thought he was crazy as would most people today by-the-way. They would have said 'No this isn't the kingdom!' and 'No I'm not going to accept your version of a suffering Jubilee!'

 

[2ndpillar]

2ndpillar

The Saducees had no tradition. That was their selling point. They didn't believe in the Resurrection of the Dead because they had a different way of interpreting that verse. The same way you have a different way of interpreting many verses. Or they could have rejected the Book of Daniel altogether.

Saying that a "'broken and contrite heart' are in the realms of the working of the Spirit" has no functional meaning.
The point is that the "broken and contrite heart" here refers to man's feelings. Which means that you have not yet demonstrated how the word of your god is afflicting.

Tumah,
Let us take another example. Will the "elders", who the "executioners" of the city of Jerusalem (Ez 9:6), think that they are being afflicted when the "Word" of God (Scripture), says they they will be the first to be struck down?

The Saduccees, like the Catholics, all have their selling points. The problem is that when one has doctrines and traditions, that have little or no basis in Truth, then you are relegated to having the traditions of men. Either the Saducees are right, and the Pharisees are wrong, or they both cling to the traditions of men, irrespective of their claims.

It doesn't make any difference if the Saducees claim they have no tradition, they in fact have traditions which vary from that of the traditions of the Pharisees. The Catholics can falsely claim a foundation based on the "Word"of God, and the Sadducees can claim their infallibility also, but it all comes down to having a foundation based on the tradition of men.

It is not until "I turn My hand against you, and will smelt away your dross", that that "I will restore the judges as at first". (Is 1:26) The judges "as at first", will be as with initially, have the annointing of the Spirit of God, and will make righteous judgments. That presumes that at the time of Isaiah, and yet today, the judges were making unrighteous judgments.

Is 1:26,"Then I will restore your judges as at thje first, and your counselors as at the beginning."