Yahushua Ha Mashiach (Jesus) and The Law

[metis]

There is no evidence that such a census involved going back to where one was born, which would have been terribly disruptive and costly not only to the individuals but also to the Romans themselves. A friend of mine, who specializes in Roman history, told me that there is no precedent for this in Roman history that he's aware of.

Therefore, I suspect that what we read is probably a theological construct whereas the authors are trying to connect Jesus with David.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Well, I've come to believe that the Galileans (mostly) converted to the Jewish religion about 300 years before Yeshua's time.

How did you come to believe this?

 

[oldbadger]

"The census or enrollment, which, according to Luke 2:1, was the occasion of the journey of Joseph and Mary to Bethlehem where Jesus was born, is connected with a decree of Augustus embracing the Greek-Roman world. This decree must have been carried out in Palestine by Herod and probably in accordance with the Jewish method--each going to his own city--rather than the Roman.

No..... Herod had died ten years before this time. His useless son Herod Archelaus had been deposed and sent back to Rome (retirement) and a Prefect had been put in place, a bloke called Pilate. Then was the census ordered, because Roman taxation was coming to Judea, Idumea and Samaria, but not Galilee, because Herod Antipas the Tetrarch was doing ok, and his sister Philip (?) in (forghet where) was holding out ok as well.

Joseph never went to Judea!

While Josephus does not mention the Herodian census, Luke carefully distinguishes the census at the time of Jesus' birth as "first," (i.e. first in a series of enrollments connected either with Quirinius or with the imperial policy inaugurated by the decree of Augustus).

The geographical work of [Herod] Agrippa, together with the interest of the emperor in the organization and finances of the empire and the attention which he gave to the provinces are indirectly corroborative of Luke's statement. Augustus himself conducted a census in Italy in and in Gaul in 727/27* [see roman dating system, ‘auc'] and had a census taken in other provinces. For Egypt there is evidence of a regular periodic census every 14 years extending back to 773/20 and it is not improbable that this procedure was introduced by Augustus.

The time of the decree is stated only in general terms by Luke, and it may have been as early as 727/27 or later in 746-8, its execution in different provinces and subject kingdoms being carried out at different times. Luke dates the census in the kingdom of Herod specifically by connecting it with the administrative functions of Quirinius in Syria. But as P. Quintilius Varus was the legate of Syria just before and after the death of Herod from 748/6-750/4 and his predecessor was C. Sentius Saturninus from 745/9-748/6 there seems to be no place for Quirinius during the closing years of Herod's reign."

...... but this census never took place in Galilee, Perea or Philppa's region.

Joseph was not involved!

(must go and collect wife...... will resume later, if you like....)

 

[Hawkins]

The bottom line is that if salvation is not an issue, then you can pick any religion (or no religion) as you wish. If salvation matters, then Judaism can never save the Gentiles (99% of today's humans).

That said, a covenant is usually tied to a set of Law with a scope of humans. The contract with the Mosaic Law (a covenant with the Jews) is an eternal covenant but only with a scope of the Jews in God's term, not necessarily in human terms. Humans generally use blood line to define the Jews.

Genesis 17:14 (NIV)
Any uncircumcised male, who has not been circumcised in the flesh, will be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant.

Jews are no longer the Jews in God's eyes once they are CUT OFF from God's people.


Jesus' words are only meaningful in terms of salvation. So it's pointless to give it a meaning if you believe that salvation doesn't matter. Jesus' coming is not to make the Law obsolete. He's here to extend the Law such that the Jews (together with the Gentiles) can be saved by God's Grace legitimately and legally.


The Law (even when it means Mosaic Law in specific) will remain intact till the end of days. The same Law will be used for the final judgment (of the Jews).

John 5:45 (NIV)
But do not think I will accuse you before the Father. Your accuser is Moses, on whom your hopes are set.

 

[gsa]

There is no evidence that such a census involved going back to where one was born, which would have been terribly disruptive and costly not only to the individuals but also to the Romans themselves. A friend of mine, who specializes in Roman history, told me that there is no precedent for this in Roman history that he's aware of.

Therefore, I suspect that what we read is probably a theological construct whereas the authors are trying to connect Jesus with David.

In the case of the census, author. There is no census in Matthew, and the infancy narrative that author provides cannot be reconciled with the infancy narrative of Luke, which includes the census. The census narrative is historically absurd and demonstrates that the author of Luke was a very bad historian. To the extent that the census mentioned in Acts is meant to be the same census that appears in Luke the author is believed to be the same.

 

[gsa]

The bottom line is that if salvation is not an issue, then you can pick any religion (or no religion) as you wish. If salvation matters, then Judaism can never save the Gentiles (99% of today's humans).

Not according to traditional Judaism. You observe the Seven Laws of Noah, you're good. And in fact many have questioned whether you can observe those laws if you are a Trinitarian; perhaps most famously Maimonides. To at least some Jewish authorities, Christianity doomed most of its adherents by forcing them to disobey the Seven Laws.

 

[Hawkins]

Not according to traditional Judaism. You observe the Seven Laws of Noah, you're good. And in fact many have questioned whether you can observe those laws if you are a Trinitarian; perhaps most famously Maimonides. To at least some Jewish authorities, Christianity doomed most of its adherents by forcing them to disobey the Seven Laws.

The Laws of Noah is not something Canonical or mentioned in the Bible. Christians basically don't need to observe the Mosaic Law in a way as the Jews do. Christians follow Christ teaching though.

The term "Traditional Judaism" is very ambiguous. Christians believe that at Jesus' time, the Jews in general had acquired the concept of salvation mostly as a result of rabbinic and Pharisee education. Such a concept is also reflected in Jews writings such as the book of Enoch.

 

[gsa]

The Laws of Noah is not something Canonical or mentioned in the Bible. Christians basically don't need to observe the Mosaic Law in a way as the Jews do. Christians follow Christ teaching though.

So what? You claimed that salvation is unavailable for 99% of the world population; I pointed out that, in Judaism, it is available to anyone who follows the Seven Laws of Noah. And obviously it is not canonical for Christians, who have inserted any number of concepts (i.e., the Trinity) into their canon by way of creedal affirmations that are far more exegetically tenuous than the Noahide commandments.

The term "Traditional Judaism" is very ambiguous.

"Very" ambiguous? I don't think so, but for purposes of this discussion: Rabbinical Judaism, and I will even restrict it to Orthodoxy.

Christians believe that at Jesus' time, the Jews in general had acquired the concept of salvation mostly as a result of rabbinic and Pharisee education. Such a concept is also reflected in Jews writings such as the book of Enoch.

What's the point of this observation about what Christians believe Jews did?

 

[Dark Priest]

Agreed. It is tempting to just throw out the NT and I understand those that do. However, I can't get away from the beautiful words of Yeshua which call us back to repentance. Unfortunately these words are veiled by a pagan cover up Jesus invented by Paul imho.

I suspect the same. Paul's Christ seems to have very little to do with the historical Yeshua.

 

[Levite]

The Laws of Noah is not something Canonical or mentioned in the Bible. Christians basically don't need to observe the Mosaic Law in a way as the Jews do. Christians follow Christ teaching though.

The term "Traditional Judaism" is very ambiguous. Christians believe that at Jesus' time, the Jews in general had acquired the concept of salvation mostly as a result of rabbinic and Pharisee education. Such a concept is also reflected in Jews writings such as the book of Enoch.

A lovely idea, except that Rabbinic Judaism has no doctrine of salvation, nor of original sin. Nor did Biblical Judaism. They may possibly be found in some apocryphal writings of the Second Temple era, but the idead never seem to have made it into mainstream thought, probably because they tend to result in theologies not very congenial to Jewish thought.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

A lovely idea, except that Rabbinic Judaism has no doctrine of salvation, nor of original sin. Nor did Biblical Judaism.

Precisely!

 

[Dark Priest]

Simplelogic........ now listen!!
Joseph was never required to attend Bethlehem at all! Do you think that Romans required everybody to go to their ancestral homes for a taxation census? Madness! Romans (or Antipas in Galilee) wanted to tax all folks where they lived. Luke's story is a manipulation in attempt to tie in ancient prophesies. Joseph never went anywhere near Judea. The Galileans were not included in the census. Antipas looked after their fleecing.... literally! And the Census date of 6CE messes up everything because Herod the King died in 4BC!

Yes. And what man, in his right mind, would even DARE attempt to drag his 9 month pregnant wife, by donkey, on a 70 mile journey? Trust me, it didn't happen! (Father of four here)

 

[Dark Priest]

There is no evidence that such a census involved going back to where one was born, which would have been terribly disruptive and costly not only to the individuals but also to the Romans themselves. A friend of mine, who specializes in Roman history, told me that there is no precedent for this in Roman history that he's aware of.

Therefore, I suspect that what we read is probably a theological construct whereas the authors are trying to connect Jesus with David.

My understanding is that Roman records indicate that the first universal census didn't occur until around 74 C.E. during Emperor Vespasian's reign.

 

[gsa]

A lovely idea, except that Rabbinic Judaism has no doctrine of salvation, nor of original sin. Nor did Biblical Judaism. They may possibly be found in some apocryphal writings of the Second Temple era, but the idead never seem to have made it into mainstream thought, probably because they tend to result in theologies not very congenial to Jewish thought.

I assume "salvation" as discussed here would encompass any form of the World To Come, and need not imply salvation from original sin.

 

[Hawkins]

A lovely idea, except that Rabbinic Judaism has no doctrine of salvation, nor of original sin. Nor did Biblical Judaism. They may possibly be found in some apocryphal writings of the Second Temple era, but the idead never seem to have made it into mainstream thought, probably because they tend to result in theologies not very congenial to Jewish thought.

That remains your own assertion. Christians believe that at Jesus time. the Pharisee (and rabbinic teaching) believe that hell exists, redemption from hell also exists. Such ideas can also be found in writings such as the book or Enoch. The Sadducees took another stance though.

Sadducees - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Pharisees also believed in the resurrection, but Josephus, who himself was a Pharisee, claims that the Pharisees held that only the soul was immortal and the souls of good people would be reincarnated and “pass into other bodies,” while “the souls of the wicked will suffer eternal punishment.”

 

[metis]

In the case of the census, author. There is no census in Matthew, and the infancy narrative that author provides cannot be reconciled with the infancy narrative of Luke, which includes the census. The census narrative is historically absurd and demonstrates that the author of Luke was a very bad historian. To the extent that the census mentioned in Acts is meant to be the same census that appears in Luke the author is believed to be the same.

Even the censuses found in Torah don't match up exactly. We have to remember that undoubtedly most of these authors simply did not have their own personal Torah whereas they could check up on everything.

 

[metis]

My understanding is that Roman records indicate that the first universal census didn't occur until around 74 C.E. during Emperor Vespasian's reign.

I know they have at least some records of Roman census taking, and I do remember that there is no records of any being done during Jesus' time, so you well may be correct with the above.

 

[rosends]

That remains your own assertion. Christians believe that at Jesus time. the Pharisee (and rabbinic teaching) believe that hell exists, redemption from hell also exists. Such ideas can also be found in writings such as the book or Enoch. The sadducees took another stance though.

We have Jewish Pharisaic writings from the time. They don't support this belief. This is not a simple and personal assertion, but a documented history of Jewish thought as evidenced textually.

 

[metis]

That remains your own assertion. Christians believe that at Jesus time. the Pharisee (and rabbinic teaching) believe that hell exists, redemption from hell also exists. Such ideas can also be found in writings such as the book or Enoch. The sadducees took another stance though.

You are confusing sheol with hell, but they're not the same.

 

[Hawkins]

I assume "salvation" as discussed here would encompass any form of the World To Come, and need not imply salvation from original sin.

It's more about the redemption from the suffering of eternal punishment.