Which prophecies did Jesus fulfill as to be the Messiah?

[Brickjectivity]

Only if you would call Reform Jews "religious conservatives". Because that is what the Sadducees were. It was the Pharisees who were the religious progressives.

It was a joke. The Jewish Encyclopedia says that the Sadducees declined, "in the time of the Tannaim the real issues between them and the Pharisees were forgotten, only scholastic controversies being recorded. In the latter the Sadducees are replaced by the late Boethusians," "the ruling members of the priesthood of later days were forced by public opinion to yield to the Pharisaic doctors of the Law," and "...their views are partly maintained and echoed by the Samaritans."

 

[Akivah]

This is such a non-issue. The Talmud is an authoritative work of Judaism, second only in authority to the Torah.

People of other religions have their own authoritative works. So the Christian bible, Book of Mormon, Book of Wicca, Satanic Bible, and the Quran have equal authority to Judaism, which is to say, zero.

 

[Shermana]

Only if you would call Reform Jews "religious conservatives". Because that is what the Sadducees were. It was the Pharisees who were the religious progressives.

In the USSR, communists were called conservatives.

Sadducees rejected the concept of the Oral Torah from what I understand, how is that "Conservative" in terms of our undertanding of "Conservative Judaism"?

The word "Conservative" goes with whoever is the leading authority of the time.

If the "progressive" idea was to embrace the Talmud, then the Reform of today are along the same lines as those who mostly rejected it, so that would make them akin to the "Conservatives".

 

[CMike]

Oy vey.

I am politically conservative bit I dislike Obama.

 

[nazz]

Sadducees rejected the concept of the Oral Torah from what I understand, how is that "Conservative" in terms of our undertanding of "Conservative Judaism"?

Because the Sadducees viewed the Oral Torah as an innovation. Also the Pharisees interpreted the law in a more relaxed fashion.

If the "progressive" idea was to embrace the Talmud, then the Reform of today are along the same lines as those who mostly rejected it, so that would make them akin to the "Conservatives".

Not, no at all. The Reform movement questions the divine nature of all the Torah, written and oral.

 

[Shermana]

Because the Sadducees viewed the Oral Torah as an innovation. Also the Pharisees interpreted the law in a more relaxed fashion.



Not, no at all. The Reform movement questions the divine nature of all the Torah, written and oral.

Can I get a link for a defacto statement that the Reform movement questions the Divine Nature of the Written Torah? I would think that's "Reconstructionist". Are we talking about the Law itself or the 5 books known as the Pentateuch? Big difference. Not even I believe that the Torah in its current form was written by God and is free from edits and interpolations, and I'm anything but Reform.

Also, I'd like to see some instances where the Pharisees were more "relaxed" in its interpretation. You mean like allowing divorce for mismatched socks and burnt toast?

 

[roger1440]

Did Jesus ever quote or refer to the Talmud? I would ask about the Essenes but not much is known about them.

 

[nazz]

Can I get a link for a defacto statement that the Reform movement questions the Divine Nature of the Written Torah? I would think that's "Reconstructionist". Are we talking about the Law itself or the 5 books known as the Pentateuch? Big difference. Not even I believe that the Torah in its current form was written by God and is free from edits and interpolations, and I'm anything but Reform.

Movements of Judaism / Torah 101 / Mechon Mamre

"Reform Judaism does not believe that the Torah was written by God."

Also, I'd like to see some instances where the Pharisees were more "relaxed" in its interpretation. You mean like allowing divorce for mismatched socks and burnt toast?

They tended to not take the Torah quite as literally. For instance the 'eye for an eye' thing was considered to refer to monetary compensation. They said that the law regarding putting children to death for sassing their parents referred to something else. Those are two that come to mind.

 

[nazz]

Did Jesus ever quote or refer to the Talmud? I would ask about the Essenes but not much is known about them.

the Talmud did not exist in Jesus' day. But he did criticize the Pharisees for following the traditions of men.

 

[Shermana]

Movements of Judaism / Torah 101 / Mechon Mamre

"Reform Judaism does not believe that the Torah was written by God."



They tended to not take the Torah quite as literally. For instance the 'eye for an eye' thing was considered to refer to monetary compensation. They said that the law regarding putting children to death for sassing their parents referred to something else. Those are two that come to mind.

I believe what it says in context is that they don't believe the Pentateuch was written perfectly. That's quite a bit different in use of the term "Torah".

The "Torah" can mean "The Law" itself as well as the Pentateuch.

We don't even know if the Pentateuch was in the same format or had the exact same text back then, and the evidence indicates it was probably a bit different, so this would be moot.

And I'm pretty sure that when Jesus was explaining that "Eye for an eye" was not meant to be taken so strictly, he was referring to the Pharisee doctrine of monetary compensation even for slight offenses. Also, I'd have to see the exact Talmud references indicating what they believed were the Pharisee and Sadducee positions on those issues back then.

Jesus also berated them on the issue of using things dedicated to God as an excuse to get our of helping their parents. In that sense, the "Relaxed" issue is like the "relaxed" divorce interpretation, something is nonetheless very harsh for someone else on the receiving end.

 

[roger1440]

the Talmud did not exist in Jesus' day. But he did criticize the Pharisees for following the traditions of men.

"The traditions of men" would be the oral law?

 

[nazz]

I believe what it says in context is that they don't believe the Pentateuch was written perfectly. That's quite a bit different in use of the term "Torah".

The Pentateuch contains the Torah. So if the Pentateuch is not the word of God neither is the Torah.

 

[nazz]

"The traditions of men" would be the oral law?

Yes...

 

[Shermana]

The Pentateuch contains the Torah. So if the Pentateuch is not the word of God neither is the Torah.

Then you clearly didn't read the link.

The "Torah" in the usage of the term, as I thought I explained clearly, was "Pentateuch" the way that website was using it.

There is a huge difference between the Law itself and the narrative of the Pentateuch which INCLUDES the law.

To say that just because the Pentateuch itself in its current form is not Inspired automatically dispels the Torah is a gravely fallacious concept.

You're simply not interpreting what the site says correctly. It says they follow the Documentary Hypothesis concept of the formation of the Torah NARRATIVE.

Besides, even if they thought some parts of the Law itself within that narrative are artificial, I'd like to see a handy website detailing which ones.

Otherwise, you simply flung a link that doesn't really explain anything other than that they believe in the Documentary Hypothesis.

I've been to Reform Temple, I've known many Reform. None of them thought the Law itself did not come from God.

 

[CMike]

Movements of Judaism / Torah 101 / Mechon Mamre

"Reform Judaism does not believe that the Torah was written by God."



They tended to not take the Torah quite as literally. For instance the 'eye for an eye' thing was considered to refer to monetary compensation. They said that the law regarding putting children to death for sassing their parents referred to something else. Those are two that come to mind.

Actually eye for an eye means money compensation is the meaning throughout judaism.

 

[CMike]

the Talmud did not exist in Jesus' day. But he did criticize the Pharisees for following the traditions of men.

The oral law was given to Moses on Mt. Sinai.

It existed far before the life of jesus.

 

[metis]

"The traditions of men" would be the oral law?

Probably at least in part, but there was another dynamic going on at that time and afterwords, and that is the "building the fence around the Torah", which toughened up some of the Laws because there's a human propensity to fudge a bit. Now, whether these provisions are actually all included in the oral law supposedly dating back to the Sinai Experience is rather conjectural.

Jesus appears to be taking a "liberal Pharisee" (sometimes referred to as "love Pharisees") position whereas "love" dominates all of the Law. Therefore, to Jesus, if one follows the "law of love" all the other Laws are basically covered. Obviously, and for good reason, the vast majority of Jews disagreed and still disagree with that approach, although we fully realize that compassion and justice permeate Torah, Tanakh, and Talmud.

 

[roger1440]

Yes...

So Jesus didn’t believe in the Oral Law, neither did the Sadducees and the Pharisees did believe in the Oral Law. I wonder where the Essenes fit into the scheme of things. I’m curious what other Jewish sects of the first century didn’t believe in the Oral Law. My guess is that Jesus had belonged to a Jewish sect, and then at some point he went solo. Jesus didn’t magically fall out of the sky one day. He had to come from somewhere. We probably will never know what sect he had belonged too. Not much has survived from that period in history thanks to the Romans.

 

[nazz]

Probably at least in part, but there was another dynamic going on at that time and afterwords, and that is the "building the fence around the Torah", which toughened up some of the Laws because there's a human propensity to fudge a bit. Now, whether these provisions are actually all included in the oral law supposedly dating back to the Sinai Experience is rather conjectural.

Jesus appears to be taking a "liberal Pharisee" (sometimes referred to as "love Pharisees") position whereas "love" dominates all of the Law. Therefore, to Jesus, if one follows the "law of love" all the other Laws are basically covered. Obviously, and for good reason, the vast majority of Jews disagreed and still disagree with that approach, although we fully realize that compassion and justice permeate Torah, Tanakh, and Talmud.

That is true as a general statement. However he also took conservative stands such as when he agreed with Shammai on the issue of divorce. Of course that also stemmed from his compassion for the plight of women.

 

[nazz]

So Jesus didn’t believe in the Oral Law, neither did the Sadducees and the Pharisees did believe in the Oral Law. I wonder where the Essenes fit into the scheme of things. I’m curious what other Jewish sects of the first century didn’t believe in the Oral Law. My guess is that Jesus had belonged to a Jewish sect, and then at some point he went solo. Jesus didn’t magically fall out of the sky one day. He had to come from somewhere. We probably will never know what sect he had belonged too. Not much has survived from that period in history thanks to the Romans.

Well I believe he did fall out of the sky so to speak. He didn't belong to any sect or embrace any dogma. He spoke the Truth he heard from God. Sometimes that agreed with what others said and sometimes not.