PASSOVER HIJACKING AND HIJINKS – by R’ Michael Skobac

PASSOVER HIJACKING AND HIJINKS – by R’ Michael Skobac

Each year, numerous missionary churches and Messianic congregations co-opt the holiday of Passover, claiming that it proclaims a Christian message. The Christian bible compares Jesus to the Paschal lamb (John 1:29) and insists that he died as a sacrifice to atone for the sins of the world (I Cor. 15:3, I John 2:2).

In truth, this deceptive spin totally distorts the actual meaning of Passover.

The exodus of the children of Israel from their long bondage in Egypt 3300 years ago was preceded by ten awesome plagues that God visited upon our oppressors. The last of these plagues was the slaying of the Egyptian first born. God instructed the Israelites to place the blood of a lamb on their doorposts and lintels of their houses. The Angel of Death passed over the houses marked in this way as it went about smiting the Egyptian first born.

The Passover lamb became a yearly sacrifice eaten on the first night of the holiday to commemorate this event. It was not sacrificed to atone for anyone’s sins and the original sacrifice in Egypt only served to spare the first born Jews.
If Jesus’ death was supposed to have been an atoning sacrifice, it would have been more appropriate to liken him to the special goat that was offered on Yom Kippur – the national Day of Atonement (Leviticus 16).

Missionaries often try to connect Jesus to the Passover lamb because unlike other victims of crucifixion, his legs were not broken (John 19:33). In the laws of the Passover sacrifice, the Torah prohibited breaking any of its bones (Exodus 12:46, Numbers 9:12).

However, it is a cynical farce to arbitrarily seize upon only one requirement of the Passover sacrifice and show a parallel to the death of Jesus while ignoring all the laws that don’t fit. For example, the Bible prohibited sacrificing any animal that was maimed or blemished in any way (Leviticus 22:19-22, Deuteronomy 17:1). However, prior to being crucified, Jesus was beaten and scourged (Matthew 27:26, Mark 15:15-19) which would render him unfit to be a sacrifice. In addition, he was circumcised in the flesh (Luke 2:21), which according to Philippians 3:2 is considered to be a form of mutilation.

As well, the Passover sacrifice most certainly could not have been a human being! The Bible strongly condemns and forbids human sacrifice over a dozen times.

The actual meaning and significance of the Passover lamb is, in fact, a total repudiation of Christianity. Four days prior to the Exodus, the children of Israel were instructed to set aside a lamb that they would eat on the evening prior to leaving Egypt (Exodus 12:3-6). This was a tremendously risky act of defiance because the Egyptians worshiped the lamb (Exodus 8:22 / 8:26 in a non-Jewish Bible).

The slaughtering of the Paschal lamb was a dramatic renunciation of idolatry. It was a statement that the people inside those houses worshiped God alone. The blood on their doorposts was a brave protest against the prevailing beliefs and a forceful rejection of the worship of any created being. Our Passover today continues to serve as a rejection of the deification of any human being.

Have a true and kosher Passover – sweet, joyous and inspiring!

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Holidays. Bookmark the permalink.

151 Responses to PASSOVER HIJACKING AND HIJINKS – by R’ Michael Skobac

  1. Eleazar says:

    Here, I’ll beat them to it.

    Rav Skobac: “For example, the Bible prohibited sacrificing any animal that was maimed or blemished in any way (Leviticus 22:19-22, Deuteronomy 17:1). However, prior to being crucified, Jesus was beaten and scourged (Matthew 27:26, Mark 15:15-19) which would render him unfit to be a sacrifice.”

    Christian: Jesus was spiritually pure and unblemished! He was perfect and never sinned. The physical perfection of the lamb pointed to the spiritual perfection of Jesus.

    Eleazar: First, the Tanakh says nothing about sacrifices symbolizing the Messiah’s spiritual purity. Jesus was far from spiritually perfect. Jesus’ prideful rebellion, vandalism, arrogance, deceptions and blatant lies are on record in the New Testament. He even got baptized, which served ONLY the purpose of symbolizing repentance from sin.

  2. bible819 says:

    Eleazar,

    Should we continue to:

    2 Chronicles 35

    Josiah contributed to the lay people, (to all who were present), flocks of lambs and young goats, all for the Passover offerings, numbering 30,000 plus 3,000 bulls; these were from the king’s possessions.

    30,000 lambs and young goats
    3000 bulls
    To do what?

    Sanctify yourselves and prepare for your brethren to do according to the word of the LORD by (Moses.)

    A lot of blood!

    Ill take Jesus as the as the risen Temple!

    When your temple is rebuilt:

    How many animals will be slaughtered?

    • Eleazar says:

      As many as HaShem asks to be. Howe many animals are slaughtered daily for far less important reasons? Unless you are vegetarian, you participate in the sacrifice of animals to your own stomach regularly.

      Why didn’t Josiah just pick out one special “sinless” sheep instead of thousands of different animals? Why is flour ( which doesn’t bleed) not only accepted for atonement, but also described as being prepared a litany of different ways, specific to the particular sacrifice? As I’ve said before, if HaShem commanded a single male adult sheep, and only that, in all sacrifices, the Christian point would be better made. But He didn’t. Some times it is male, sometimes specifically female. Sometimes a lamb; other times a bull and not a lamb. Sometimes ONLY flour cakes made with oil ( Oooh, the holy spirit was sacrificed too?).The amazing diversity and array of forms, materials and specifics used in the sacrificial system presents an insurmountable problem to the “type/antitype” argument. As mentioned by Rav Skobac, the Yom Kippur scapegoat is the closest that comes to a “Jesus-like” sin-transfer offering. Yet, Christians want nothing to do with that. Why? Because it was allowed to live and its blood was not used!

      But your post is irrelevant to the Passover issue. Do you admit that the Pesach lamb/goat could not have “pointed to Jesus”, for the reasons Rav Skobac explained?

      • bible819 says:

        Eleazer,

        Let God speak for himself!

        As many as HaShem asks to be=0

        1″What are your multiplied sacrifices to Me?” Says the LORD. “I have had enough of burnt offerings of rams And the fat of fed cattle; And I take no pleasure in the blood of bulls, lambs or goats.

        Passover is Salvation Bought by Christ!

        What evidence?
        Christ brought the world towards him during Passover.

        Evidence:

        The entire world participates the Risen Christ.

        Question: Does not the world know the Father because of Christ blood?

        We (In the West, South America, and Europe) know the Passover because of the True Lamb not the slaughter of lambs year after year after year.

        Try to make sense of why Judiasm never glorified the Father, because it never spread anywhere in the world;

        Yeshua The Lord on the other hand is still being spread World Wide- Salvation (Passover Lamb)
        North Korea and Parts of India will be our next stop.
        Jesus is coming soon.

        • LarryB says:

          bible819
          Your continued apparent belief that no one else but you has access to the bible or the Internet amazes me.
          “Passover is Salvation Bought by Christ!
          What evidence?
          Christ brought the world towards him during Passover.
          Evidence:
          The entire world participates the Risen Christ.”
          A simple search of the word Passover mentions nothing of a Christ. A child would know he has to ignore you.
          Evidence
          Now I happen to know you suffer from what has been called evidexlencia.
          It means you have a hard time understanding the truth and when you say things like
          “The entire world participates the risen Christ”, or “Christ brought the world towards him during Passover”, That’s proof of your disorder because the majority of the world does not believe in him. Only in your mind is it true.
          With all due respect, if I was you I’d stay clear of North Korea for the obvious reasons and all of India. You really shouldn’t trust your ability to read even a map.

          • RT says:

            bible819

            With all due respect, your messianic passorver is celebrate by a minority. Chrisitan Easter is mostly about a bunny and his eggs, and ham. Most religious Christian only think about the Cross and most don’t have a clue about the “old” testament Passover!

            1″What are your multiplied sacrifices to Me?” Says the LORD. “I have had enough of burnt offerings of rams And the fat of fed cattle; And I take no pleasure in the blood of bulls, lambs or goats.

            Exactly, he does not want sacrifice, especially not one that is not prescribed on a cross. What G-d wants is repentance…

          • bible819 says:

            LarryB,

            I try to avoid insults.

            The Truth is; Nothing in the world supports the effort to spread Judaism.

            What is the message you spread?
            Truth:
            You don’t do anything.
            We face trials and persecution (all around the world)
            Middle-east, Russia, and where ever else (to spread Salvation)
            Where are you at?
            4000 years and hasn’t grown.

            What would be your message?
            Follow the Law. The messianic age is coming for Israel.
            No!
            Jesus Christ is the Passover Lamb (I desire mercy and not sacrifice).

          • bible819 says:

            RT,
            Thanks for the respect and truthful words with respect to Most Christians.

            I agree the Church has been watered down with traditions that the Father hated when the Law of Moses was the guardian until Jesus came.

            But just as Remnant Of Israel will be saved so will a narrow gate of Christians.
            The Law was full curses that Israel suffers from Today.

            If Man would stone Moses, they would stone God.

            Yes the Cross, yes repentance. Mercy not Sacrifice.

          • RT says:

            bible819, the problem is that the theories of the new testament are based of pure lies and shadows, not on fact. Jesus was nowhere in the Hebrew Bible, and unless you show that Jesus was truly in undoubtly the messiah, (a feat that is not possible) you words mean nothing. If you cannot show that Jesus is the messiah, than you are worshiping a dead man, and the curse of the law lies on you, not the Jewish people or Noahide that follow G-d.

          • bible819 says:

            RT,
            You can’t prove that the Father didn’t speak through Jesus.

            Just as David was a Shepard who appeared as the weakest link among the Brothers, As Saul’s rebellion led to the Kingdom being snatched away from them, Israel thought is was grumbling against against Moses but instead “grumbling against God”, after everytin- Moses didn’t speak to the Rock because of a Lack of FAITH;

            Jesus is the Shepard, The King who took back the Kingdom from a rebellious nation who grumbled against God, had the Faith to trust the Father to speak things into existence ie. Healing, Miracles, and the Creation of the World.

            Satan has deceived you greatly. You believe in Egyptian gods, Just as Israel believed in the Egyptian gods the Golden Calf. Point -No difference between human beings

            Isaiah 53:6
            ” All of us like sheep have gone astray, Each of us has turned to his own way”
            but
            1 Peter 2:25
            For you were straying like sheep, but have now returned to the Shepherd and Overseer of your souls.

            Jesus is Risen and Lord.

          • RT says:

            Sorry Bible819, I do not need to prove anything. You are the one with the claims. Jesus is dead, this is against the law to worship or call on the deads. The sign of Jonah was to the Pharisees, and Jesus never happened to have fulfill this prophecy. He just did not give then any signs. That makes him a false prophet on top of that… And why Am I worshiping Egyptian gods? HaShem is G-d, are you denying that too?

            And please, stop throwing random verses, that does not work, it is not an effective evangelism method… If you want to look into Isaiah 53, you may explain me when did Jesus have offspring (seeds). If you cannot show me that, then it does not apply to Jesus. Also, when did Jesus died twice, the word death(s) is plural…?

          • bible819 says:

            We are his offspring.
            He will see more of his offspring.
            Jesus is still spreading to more people to tell you more about him.
            Jesus does live. He lives in us!
            You see Jesus anytime you look at US!
            You might have heard of Christianeze.
            Yeshua is the Word.
            We speak His Word.
            Glory to my Risen Lord and King.

        • Eleazar says:

          I’m sorry, Bibs, you didn’t answer my question, except to invalidate your own view. Let me explain.

          You quoted “I desire mercy and not sacrifice”, yet you believe that HaShem chose sacrifice over mercy in sending a man to die for your sin by the shedding of his blood. Any argument denying the atoning value of clean animals must by reason apply to the unclean Jesus as well ( as living entities that do not divide the hoof or chew the cud, humans are unclean for sacrifice according to the law). If you say this applies to men and not HaShem, you are saying HaShem put a higher standard on man’s behavior than He did his own.

          Bibs wrote, “Question: Does not the world know the Father because of Christ blood?”

          Answer: No. Most of the world does not know anything about he Father. In fact, Christians who believe in the trinity do not know the Father and that accounts for 90% of Christendom. If they did, they would know the fraudulent nature of that doctrine.

          Now I will wait for your response to my actual points made in my first response to you. Quit deflecting and changing the subject. It is unbecoming.

          • bible819 says:

            Eleazar,
            1st.
            Where Judaism spreading?
            If the old covenant was not Succeeded by the New Testament where is it in the world?
            The Father always receives his glory.
            Jesus Glorified Him!
            We still keep spreading the word about HIM.

          • RT says:

            Jesus glorified himself, I am the good shepherded (John 10), I am the savior, I, I, I…

            What did Jesus said? “If I glorify myself, my glory means nothing…” I agree with you Jeez!

        • LarryB says:

          bible819
          So you didn’t like my play on the words evidence and dislexia? It just popped into my head when I read what you wrote about evidence. It really wasn’t meant as an insult but to inform you how backwards your thinking is to me. That’s why I listed your incredible distortions of the truth. A better word would be lies and distortions, half truths, contradictions. You later asked what do I do, well I dont lie and try not to distort, tell half truths and contradict the Torah. But like you I’m still learning. Stick around you won’t find a finer group of people who genuinely want to help you find the truth that you seek.

  3. Concerned Reader says:

    Bible 819: Christians for centuries made it 100% illegal for Jews to spread their faith. If they did, they would be killed for it. So, why havent Jews spread the word? Threat of death at the hands of Christian theocracies. Learn some history before speaking please.

    Its still this way in several countries, in fact in some countries, it is Christians who have silenced Christian groups they disagreed with. So, the answer is Christians are a huge reason Jews dont spread their faith.

    • bible819 says:

      Concerned:

      The old testaments speaks volumes of how God looks at Israel Transgressions.

      God describes it as a Spirit of Prostitution. A byword among nations.
      Hear the word of the LORD,
      You rulers of Sodom;
      Give ear to the instruction of our God,
      You people of Gomorrah.

      He doesn’t say a “faith” will speak of Salvation in my name and persecute my people.
      Wrong!

      He says, “It is too small a thing that You should be My Servant To raise up the tribes of Jacob and to restore the preserved ones of Israel; I will also make You a light of the nations ((((So that My salvation may reach to the end of the earth)))).”

      Bless the my Lord Jesus for doing so!

      We spread Salvation about Jesus Christ.
      Jesus brings back Jacob.

      • RT says:

        I’m sure glad G-d did not write about Christians and how salvation was spread. But you are not interested in facts. (Crusades, genocides, forced conversions, torture, inquisitions, etc.)

  4. CP says:

    R’ Skobac writes;
    “The Christian bible compares Jesus to the Paschal lamb (John 1:29)”

    This statement is either a honest mistake due to sloppy scholarly research or in the authors own words; “deceptive spin” totally distorting the actual meaning.

    John 1:29
    “The next day he *saw Jesus coming to him and *said, “Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!”

    As can be seen from above the verse has nothing to do with the “Passover” lamb, and can refer to a number of different lambs, however I will not bore you with the various the Tanach verses pointing to each – (I don’t have time this morning to play bible verse karate).

    R’ Skobac continues;
    “If Jesus’ death was supposed to have been an atoning sacrifice, it would have been more appropriate to liken him to the special goat that was offered on Yom Kippur – the national Day of Atonement (Leviticus 16).”

    Again sloppy research, the author is the one who supplys the verse (1 John 2:2) which specifically designates the lamb as a Kapperot.

    1John 2:2
    ” He Himself is the propitiation (Kapperot) for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world.”

    After all has been said, R’Skobac is still referencing later books with highly developed Christology influenced by Pauline theology which I am personally at odds with. IMO, if you really want to know what kind of sacrifice Yeshua was all you have to do is watch the movie “Grand Torino” with Clint Eastwood, (Yes, it’s a ‘movie’ but Truth is Truth no matter the source) then apply the same point to the corrupt leaders holding the average Jew in religious and economic slavery and guess what? – You have Yeshua as the real “Passover Lamb”.

    The whole problem with modern Judaism and Yeshua is even to today they refuse to admit who the slave masters where during the end of the second Temple period.

    • RT says:

      John 1:29
      True enough that John 1:29 does not mentioned Passover and might be a reference to other passages. But, if we cross reference it to John 19:36, I think that it is most likely a reference to the Passover lamb. Again, you can argue that John 19 was a reference to a psalm or other Bible verse, but it strengthen the claim to have two similar passages that could refer to Jesus as the Passover sacrifice.

      Anyway CP, I won’t watch Grand Torino, and I doubt that any will want to watch that movie either. So for the sake of the argument, what kind of sacrifice was Jesus. The Passover sacrifice is not for sin anyway, so it is a poor theology to compare him with the Passover lamb. Do you believe that Jesus death on the cross provide any atonement? I asked you the question before and I think that you did not see it. It is hard to understand you if we do not know what you think of Jesus death on the cross…

    • LarryB says:

      CP
      There is no mistake, you may disagree but here is a quote from the catholic church.
      You have your own belief but BILLIONS of people have another. There is more if needed.
      “This is the definition of Paschal Mystery in the glossary of the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
      Christ’s work of redemption accomplished principally by his Passion, death, Resurrection,
      and glorious Ascension, whereby “dying he destroyed our death, rising he restored our life”
      (1067; cf. 654). The paschal mystery is celebrated and made present in the liturgy of the
      Church, and its saving effects are communicated through the sacraments (1076), especially
      the Eucharist, which renews the paschal sacrifice of Christ as the sacrifice offered by the
      Church (571, 1362–1372). (P. 891) “

      • RT says:

        CP, why did Jesus died on Passover then?

        LarryB, try to avoid quoting the Catholic Church, many protestant and non-Catholic consider them as “the harlot” or consider the pope as an antichrist… Nevertheless, most protestant and messianic would agree with this specific statement anyway…

        • LarryB says:

          RT
          I don’t understand your point and don’t care what catholic’s, protestant, or non-catholic’s believe.
          Anything I say the other might not agree with.

        • CP says:

          RT,
          “CP, why did Jesus died on Passover then?”

          Yeshua said he only did what the Father told him to do. If this is true (and I think this must be considered as a possibility to consider an outcome) then the question isn’t what did Yeshua do? But rather what is Hashem doing?

          • RT says:

            Why did HaShem sent Jesus then? This is a rather important question that you avoid.

          • CP says:

            RT,
            You pose the question;
            “Why did HaShem sent Jesus then? This is a rather important question that you avoid.”

            I’m not avoiding the question, its just that you ask probably the most difficult question that has been debated for 2000 years by Christendom. I agree it is very important, but disagree that personally knowing the minutiae of what Hashem is doing through Yeshua is personally important to individuals. If we take a look at Yeshua’s words in the earliest Gospels it is very easy to see the work he was anointed to do. It is after his death and resurrection that multifaceted events begin to take shape what in makes his life an event of global proportions. Therefore in effect, you are asking me how Hashem is using the obedience of HIS anointed in the world for the remainder of time and perhaps in the world to come. I certainly can’t answer that, no one but Hashem knows the answer. I can point to a few things that have happened, but that’s it.

            Bottom line for me is; Yeshua taught a very straight forward, simple common sense interpretation of Torah observance from the heart. He said; ‘Why do you call me lord lord, yet don’t do what I say?’ If you stick with the earliest Gospels you’ll notice Yeshua isn’t teaching what to believe, but rather what to do and the importance of why you do it – this is what Hashem looks at and values.

      • bible819 says:

        The Catholic Church is a harlot and persecutor of the Body of Jesus.

        • RT says:

          See Larry, if you use other source, you point will be the same, and you might even be listened to

          Bible819, you should know your history better. Catholics have persecuted Protestants: Protestants have pursued Catholics: Lutherans have hunted Anabaptists; Episcopalians have burned Puritans ; Puritans have hanged Quakers; Calvinists have tortured Unitarians, and all have united in persecuting the heroic Infidels who have refused to believe in any of the multifarious and conflicting creeds. (Bennett RM. The champions of the church: their crimes and persecutions. D.M. Bennett, 1878, p. 832)

          And you think you are better? You shall know them by their fruits. Catholics don’t do more harms and many are not worst idolater than their protestant counterpart…. (at least not anymore) Not that I agree with their theology, but to single out a group as the evil one is easy to do. Indeed, we could solve most problems in the world if we did not act like that.

          • LarryB says:

            RT
            It’s difficult to make a point out of a guy who lies and distorts the truth as much as bible819. Plus the Catholic Church cannot be ignored just because others do not like them. Plus using that logic I should not mention Protestant beliefs because I know first hand how much Catholics hate them. Since the discussion was about how misinformed Skobac is I believe it does not matter since like I said, somebody’s likely not going to like what I say. Whether it be Catholic or Protestant. I have to disagree.

          • RT says:

            Bible819 is only using the distorted lenses of the non-testament + he believes that everything we say comes from satan (so he must be very careful not to listen to anything we say lest he be tempted)

          • RT says:

            As a rule of thumb, Catholics are not in this forum. If you use non-Catholic reference, your punch will be stronger..

          • bible819 says:

            RT and LarryB,
            Read Nehemiah 9, and you’ll find that Nememiah and I have the same spirit.
            Nememiah(Spirit) words vs yours.
            Killed Prophets, disobedience stiff necked people, failed leadership.
            Justify Nehemiah 9 without a distorted lens.
            Lastly, The pope is nothing.
            Praise Yeshua!

          • LarryB says:

            bible819
            You say you and Nehemiah have the same spirit. Well, previously I highlighted your lies and distortions which you have not responded to, are you now saying Nehemiah was a liar? This may seem harsh to you but if you would stop speaking in half thoughts and try completing a sentence that might help.

    • CP “Refuse to Admit” – those are strong words. How do you know who was evil and was righteous at that point in time? Are you basing your version of reality on a book of propaganda? A book which inspired more bloodshed than any other? Are these authors going to tell you who was righteous and who was evil? Are we expected to take this seriously?

      1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >

      • bible819 says:

        Yourphariseefriend,

        You can’t outweigh sins versus another.
        God hid his face over the inequities of Israel.
        They were the only Peoples to be given the promises and Law of God.
        God clearly explains that evil within nations around Israel.
        How many times did Israel become the same way????
        Point being, A prophet had not corrected Israel for 400 years before the Christ.
        In so doing, To think Israel was not like the nations around them when Yeshua came is completely harebrained.

        Did you think they were in favor with God when Yeshua Came??????

        • bible819 I guess you believe that God is harebrained – 2samuel 7:24 1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >

          • bible819 says:

            No I just Believe says it all. (Nehemiah 9).

            But they became disobedient and rebelled against You,
            And cast Your law behind their backs
            And killed Your prophets who had admonished them
            So that they might return to You,
            And they committed great blasphemies.

            27“Therefore You delivered them into the hand of their oppressors who oppressed them,
            But when they cried to You in the time of their distress,
            You heard from heaven, and according to Your great compassion
            You gave them deliverers who delivered them from the hand of their oppressors.

            28“But as soon as they had rest, they did evil again before You;
            Therefore You abandoned them to the hand of their enemies, so that they ruled over them.
            When they cried again to You, You heard from heaven,
            And many times You rescued them according to Your compassion,

            29And admonished them in order to turn them back to Your law.
            Yet they acted arrogantly and did not listen to Your commandments but sinned against Your ordinances,
            By which if a man observes them he shall live.
            And they turned a stubborn shoulder and stiffened their neck, and would not listen.

            30“However, You bore with them for many years,
            And admonished them by Your Spirit through Your prophets,
            Yet they would not give ear.
            Therefore You gave them into the hand of the peoples of the lands.

            31“Nevertheless, in Your great compassion You did not make an end of them or forsake them,
            For You are a gracious and compassionate God.

            32“Now therefore, our God, the great, the mighty, and the awesome God, who keeps covenant and lovingkindness,
            Do not let all the hardship seem insignificant before You,
            Which has come upon us, our kings, our princes, our priests, our prophets, our fathers and on all Your people,
            From the days of the kings of Assyria to this day.

            33“However, You are just in all that has come upon us;
            For You have dealt faithfully, but we have acted wickedly.

            34“For our kings, our leaders, our priests and our fathers have not kept Your law
            Or paid attention to Your commandments and Your admonitions with which You have admonished them.

          • bible 819 who is this talking to? Who is the target audience? Which other nation reveres a book that speaks their faults?

            1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >

          • bible819 says:

            The same nation that won’t acknowledge that they missed the Messiah 2000 years ago.

            Puts their souls on the line to side with the same humans that Nememiah described

            became disobedient and rebelled against You,
            And cast Your law behind their backs
            And (killed Your prophets who had admonished them)
            So that they might return to You,
            And they committed great blasphemies.

            ((((“For our kings, our leaders, our priests and our fathers have not kept Your law))))
            Many other prophets say the same thing.

            Yeshua exposed it!

      • CP says:

        R’B,
        “refuse to admit” – Yes, those are strong words, yet they are spoken sincerely from the heart. In the spirit of effective communication and pursuing peace I am more than willing to soften the words with; ‘A major problem with modern Judaism and Yeshua is even until today modern Judaism refuses to admit the possibility of who the slave masters were during the end of the second Temple period.

        Please allow me to explain;
        I assume we both believe the Covenant between Hashem and Israel as outlined in Deuteronomy is for REAL. Therefore in light of the Covenant there is only one enemy with the power to harm Israel. This enemy is not a foreign nation or outside group or an outside religion. The only enemy that can harm Israel is Israel herself; by not trusting Hashem and turning from HIS instructions. When this happens, Hashem is bound by the Covenant to THEN allow outside enemies to do harm.

        If you consider the above to be true, then during the days of Yeshua the real enemy wasn’t Rome, rather it was corrupt religious leaders dominating Hashem’s own children. If you were in HIS position what would you do – remove Rome or remove the leaders who were using the Temple and their power to exploit the poor, the orphan, the foreigner, the widow and the average Jewish person – thus per the Covenant allowing an outside force to rule Israel?

        Yeshua was anointed to do simple job; Live as completed Tzadik according to the Torah, call Israel to repentance and be for the religious leaders of his day, a catalyst for good or evil. They chose evil, condemning themselves by their actions. Even then, Hashem still gave them 40 years to repent, giving also other signs such as the eternal flame refusing to stay lit, the red ribbon no longer turning white, Temple gates opening by themselves, the red heifer giving birth and the Bat Kol declaring Hashem’s Spirit was leaving. The religious leaders still refused to repent and the Temple burned on the 9th of av.

        With the above witness AND Tanach clearly and repeatedly declaring “SOME” generations of Israel’s past religious leaders corrupt resulting in judgment on Israel, how can a person firmly declare an unbroken line of righteous leaders stretching back till Moses? In light of such evidence certainly such a person could rightfully be accused of cognitive dissonance. So far the evidence points to the possibility of corrupt religious leaders in the days of Yeshua. But there is more –

        You ask;
        “How do you know who was evil and was righteous at that point in time? Are you basing your version of reality on……..”

        I am basing my version on:
        1) The Tanach’s historical record of previous corrupt leaders.
        2) The Talmud’s historical record
        3) The NT “propaganda”
        4) Extra biblical historical writings
        5) Archeology – Today archeologists are uncovering the houses of the Temple priests who lived during Yeshua’s day – they were living in lavish luxurious houses. (they rightfully could be considered the wealthy TV evangelists of their day)

        “…… a book of propaganda? A book which inspired more bloodshed than any other? Are these authors going to tell you who was righteous and who was evil?”

        This is a red herring. Whatever whoever did with the NT writings to justify their actions has no relevance to our discussion of what the death of Yeshua actually accomplished hundreds of years earlier. Are some of the NT writings propaganda? Yes, of course, some even admit as much, but that doesn’t mean they are complete works of fiction solely intended to denigrate Jews.

        ” Are we expected to take this seriously?”

        Do you think it is too much to expect people of your caliber to take a honest look outside the lens of modern Judaism/Christianity at what actually happened 2000 years ago instead of focusing on Pauline Christianity?

        • RT says:

          Ok, CP, for the sake of the argument. Let say you were right about the Priests and corrupted leaders. Does that mean that we can conclude that Jesus was the messiah for that? Let say that the temple was destroyed as per the bad behavior of the “televangelist” money driven Judean leaders. Let us say that Yeshua condemned those leaders, but was killed in 38 CE. What is the link between the destruction of the temple due to G-d Judgment on the corrupted Judean leaders and Yeshua’s claim of messiahship? We can only conclude logically that he was right about the corruption and denounced it. Then he died because of it, and that’s the end of the story… Isn’t it? I am sure he was not the only Jew who spoke against it. I am sure that many others spoke against those corrupted leaders. But he died, and that’s what happened. Why should anybody go and try to see what is truth in a book full of lies just to understand a pious Jew who denounce the leaders of the Jews 2000 years ago? Imagine us trying to pinpoint what is the truth in the new testament. How can that be done? We can do like Shmuley Boteach and reinvent a nice story to fit our theory about who was Jesus. But what’s the point? CP you are stuck and if G-d chose Jesus to deliver a message to those Judean leaders, then his message was long gone, forgotten and corrupted with 2000 years of Christianity and interpretation.

          • CP says:

            RT,
            “….. then his message was long gone, forgotten and corrupted with 2000 years of Christianity and interpretation.”

            If you believe this to be true then how do you explain verses like Matthew 5:17-19 ?

          • RT says:

            He meant the law, not the new testament. I can also tell you that not one verse of the book of Mormon will be changed until everything is fulfilled, that does not make it true. You, just like I, agree that not 100% of the NT is true. If not all is true and the semi-god Jesus is not, then a big bunch of it is a lie…

          • CP says:

            RT,
            Yes, he meant the Torah and wasn’t referring to the NT – not sure why you would assume I believe otherwise?

            The point is you claimed nothing in the NT can be trusted, therefore I gave you a verse – do you trust it is true or not? Please don’t interpret the verse into a straw man argument.

          • CP says:

            R’B,
            “CP And since when is financial poverty and indication of righteousness?”

            I only offered historical support for the finical standing of Yeshua in response to your query; “How do you know who were the ones living in the lavish homes?” I did not mean to equate finical status to righteousness or corruption. However, I will say imo, a person is Not loving Hashem and their loving their fellow man as themselves when their fellow man is naked and staving and they are sporting a 14 caret gold toilet paper dispenser in their bathroom – what’s worse is when this person is making this money off the poor when they are supposed to be representing Hashem. The evidence points to this picture during Yeshua’s days, and the archeology evidence backs up these were the homes of the priests.

            I completely agree that “The corrupt loudmouths will always become leaders for people who are looking for corruption” however I don’t agree “the righteous people will always find leaders that sing David’s tune” – the Tanach if full of those righteous crying out to God in search of righteousness. I agree “the leaders don’t have to be “establishment” but they will always be leaders to the remnant.” – this is an excellent description of Yeshua. If I may point out this “remnant” is not the Christian Church nor any other man made religion, but is made up of people who through their actions Love Hashem with all their beings and love their neighbor as themselves.

          • RT says:

            “The point is you claimed nothing in the NT can be trusted, therefore I gave you a verse…”

            CP, a half truth is more deceitful than a full blown lie, that’s why so many believe it. Now, if you say that some of Yeshua’s saying were right, than I must agree with you. He said things that are right and even helps us to do good. Most people won’t accept your understanding of the new testament. Anybody can interpret it as he wish as well. If you teach to anybody your Yeshua and he believes you, there is a good chance that this person will finally go to a Congregation that teaches the god-Jesus and even if your intentions are good, your reality is only bond to you and if one Christian out of ten thousands believe like you, that would even be surprising. This, in and out of itself, shows that it is really unlikely that Yeshua is the messiah. Yeshua’s words were not preserved intact. Your version of Yeshua could be inaccurate and the version of the new testament too. In the end, you are just better without Jesus. I don’t see any reason why you should half-believe the new testament if you don’t believe Jesus to have died as a sin-offering anyway…

          • CP says:

            RT,
            “if one Christian out of ten thousands believe like you, that would even be surprising. This, in and out of itself, shows that it is really unlikely that Yeshua is the messiah. Yeshua’s words were not preserved intact. Your version of Yeshua could be inaccurate and the version of the new testament too.”

            A better estimate from personal experience is between 1/1000 to 1/500. We are not as rare as one might think. This may be because we have learned to keep our mouth closed to avoid offense.

            The number of people who believe Yeshua is the first advent of Messiah has no bearing on if he was or wasn’t. In fact there is a NT passage which suggests it is one a few find the narrow path.

            It doesn’t matter if Yeshua’s words were pristinely preserved intact, we would still be three languages, two cultures and 2000 years away from them. What matters is are they sufficient to lead us into a true loving obedient relationship with our Creator. The same can be said of the Tanach. We all must beware of Biblidolatry.

        • CP I agree with most of your analysis. My question to you is – how do you know that Jesus was not one of the corrupt leaders? How do you know who were the ones living in the lavish homes? And there certainly is a chain of righteous leaders going back to Moses. God always preserved a remnant. Just because some of the leaders or even many of the leaders were corrupt, doesn’t mean that all of them were corrupt. 1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >

          • Eleazar says:

            I thought you understood Christianity better than that, rabbi. 🙂

            The “good leaders” were the ones who became supporters of Jesus, like Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea. The rest, the ones who did not accept Jesus, were the “evil, corrupt leaders”.

          • CP says:

            R’B,
            “how do you know that Jesus was not one of the corrupt leaders? How do you know who were the ones living in the lavish homes?”

            I think the evidence suggests Yeshua was poor. It is recorded he said; “The foxes have holes and the birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay His head.”. Also he couldn’t afford the Temple tax. And the very first identifiable Jewish sect after his death are called Ebionites; a term referring to Ebion signifying “poor”.

            I agree 100% there was always a chain of righteous Jewish people stretching to Moses, but how do you know the righteous remnant always included the religious leaders? Doesn’t the Tanach indicate sometimes it was the religious leaders who led Israel astray?

          • CP And since when is financial poverty and indication of righteousness? The corrupt loudmouths will always become leaders for people who are looking for corruption and the righteous people will always find leaders that sing David’s tune – so the leaders don’t have to be “establishment” but they will always be leaders to the remnant. 1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >

          • CP says:

            R’B,
            “CP And since when is financial poverty and indication of righteousness?”

            I only offered historical support for the finical standing of Yeshua in response to your query; “How do you know who were the ones living in the lavish homes?” I did not mean to equate finical status to righteousness or corruption. However, I will say imo, a person is Not loving Hashem and their loving their fellow man as themselves when their fellow man is naked and staving and they are sporting a 14 caret gold toilet paper dispenser in their bathroom – what’s worse is when this person is making this money off the poor when they are supposed to be representing Hashem. The evidence points to this picture during Yeshua’s days, and the archeology evidence backs up these were the homes of the priests.

            I completely agree that “The corrupt loudmouths will always become leaders for people who are looking for corruption” however I don’t agree “the righteous people will always find leaders that sing David’s tune” – the Tanach if full of those righteous crying out to God in search of righteousness. I agree “the leaders don’t have to be “establishment” but they will always be leaders to the remnant.” – this is an excellent description of Yeshua. If I may point out this “remnant” is not the Christian Church nor any other man made religion, but is made up of people who through their actions Love Hashem with all their beings and love their neighbor as themselves.

          • CP I agree with you that amassing wealth while others starve is an indication of wickedness – and those who were in cahoots with the Romans (such as the Sadducee priests) were doing just that. But that is not the only way to be wicked. Preaching about the wickedness of others in a way that inspires people to focus on the faults of their theological opponents while ignoring their own is another form of wickedness. 1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >

          • bible819 says:

            CP,

            I appreciate your insight. A really unbiased position.
            Also believe the entire world was corrupt while Yeshua exposed it.

            A Shepard into a Messiah.

            Appreciate Nehemiah 13:26

            Did not Solomon king of Israel sin by these things? yet among many nations was there no king like him, who was beloved of his God, and God made him king over all Israel: nevertheless even him did outlandish women cause to sin.

            How far did he fall?

            For Solomon went after Ashtoreth the goddess of the Sidonians and after Milcom the detestable idol of the Ammonites.

            Speaks volume to your point.
            Yeshua is my anointed Lord and Shepard.

          • RT says:

            Bible819, because one man sinned, that makes you right to worship Jesus? I don’t see your reasoning…

          • CP says:

            bible819,
            One of my most valued possessions and something I will never forget:
            Solomon related to God predominantly through wisdom and his mind, in the end it let him down.
            David related to God predominantly through heart felt relational love, even though he sinned, it never let him down.

            I’m not advocating either/or but am convinced which is more important.

          • CP says:

            R’B,
            you’ve written;
            “Preaching about the wickedness of others in a way that inspires people to focus on the faults of their theological opponents while ignoring their own is another form of wickedness.”

            I agree with all you said in this post, including this, however, I am assuming (possibly wrongly) this last part is a jab at Yeshua and/or the NT?
            These things you allude to can be looked at objectively. Let’s take Yeshua first; he didn’t say anything drastically different than what can be found in Talmud. But what is read in Talmud is read by those who have first hand knowledge and understand its context. Therefore it is not understood as anti-Semitic propaganda by its readers. It is gravely unfortunate Yeshua’s words spoken among his own people were given to readers not familiar with or understanding its context. Therefore drastically misunderstood, resulting in horrific consequences.

            For example, if 70 years from now a group of people stumble on to your Blog, declare you their hero,decide to edit your Blog using it for their manifesto to persecute and kill others – can we rightfully condemn you for their actions?

            Yes, the NT is not without its problems (neither is the Tanach, but that is not our subject). God has given us brains to use, granted not to rely on 100%, but to use. Therefore a superficial look at the NT gives approximate dates of writings which correspond to an evolution of Christology and related doctrines. These same dates correspond to the spread of a previously Jewish based religion among the Gentiles. Factor in the potential of misunderstanding which occurred when Gentiles tried to understand Paul’s writings and a picture of what happened starts to form.

          • CP Jesus set an example of seeing the faults of people that he didn’t like, demonizing them, while being totally blind to his own faults 1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >

          • RT says:

            “G-d has given us brains to use, granted not to rely on 100%, but to use.”

            You are asking too much CP… maybe if everybody would be like you and try their best to understand for themselves instead of following others, maybe it would work. Look at the Quran and how many people would kill for Allah. The same happened with the New Testament. People are no willing to see for themselves and try to see if what they believe is really the truth. They are not even trying to see if what they do hurt others in the name of their gods. They try to convince themselves that they are right and just force it others. The New Testament teaches many things that go against the Torah. Now, you can use your common sense and say “that does not make sense”, but don’t expect that for most people…. Common sense is not that common…

          • bible819 says:

            CP,

            I appreciate your response.

            A circumcised heart.

            But to this one I will look, To him who is humble and contrite of spirit, and who trembles at My word.

            and

            People look at the outward appearance, but the LORD looks at the heart.”
            and again.

            You are the ones who justify yourselves in the eyes of others, but God knows your hearts.

            A great definition of David and Solomon.
            Amen.

          • bible 819 One man said he was sinless – that is justifying yourself – both David and Solomon admitted s

          • CP says:

            R’B,
            You respond to bible 819; “One man said he was sinless – that is justifying yourself”

            This is another one of those common misconceptions; Yeshua never said any such thing. This is something others said about him, not something he claimed. The closest thing is: “Which one of you convicts Me of sin? If I speak truth, why do you not believe Me?”
            (John 8:46).

          • CP My response to bible 819 was about his Jesus – not yours. 1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >

          • CP says:

            R’B,
            “CP Jesus set an example of seeing the faults of people that he didn’t like, demonizing them, while being totally blind to his own faults”

            Would you say the same of Isaiah and Jeremiah? What about Hosea, Amos, Jonah, Elijah, Obadiah, Joel, Zechariah, Amos, Zechariah, Micah, Nahum, Zephaniah, Habakkuk, Haggai, Malachi, Zechariah?

          • CP Here is from Supplement to Contra Brown

            Brown compares the invective of the Christian scriptures against the Jews to the rebuke of the Jewish prophet’s. Another outrageous analogy. The prophets wrote and spoke their rebuke as a rebuke to their own following, while the authors of the Christian scriptures wrote their invective as accusations against people outside the sphere of their following. The Jewish books of scripture were read as a chastisement to the people who considered the prophet’s words holy, while the books of the Christian scriptures are read until today, as character assassination of Jesus’ opponents, and as words of self-righteous reassurance to the “believers”. The Jewish prophets included themselves when they spoke of the sins of their nation (Exodus 16:28, Jeremiah 14:29, Isaiah 64:5, Psalm 106:6, Daniel 9:5, Ezra 9:6, Nehemiah 9:33). The authors of the Christian scriptures never saw themselves or their intended audience as a part of the group that they were maligning.

            1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >

          • RT says:

            CP, maybe I was a Christian for too long, I never though that he actually never said he was sinless, or that anybody could think otherwise if they believe in him.

          • CP says:

            R’B,
            The Scripture references you posted have to do with the one writing or praying including themselves in the sin of Israel. (Btw typo on the Jeremiah 14:29 verse). I could easily cite the ‘Our Father Prayer’ to show Yeshua doing likewise. What you are addressing in the NT are disputations and the resulting teaching from disputations with specific religious leaders. I could glean similar verses from the Tanach. The verses you posted don’t support your your view of Yeshua in this regard, you are comparing apples and oranges.

          • CP The point I was bringing from the verses is that the prophets who rebuked Israel saw themselves as part of the community they were rebuking and thatis how those who heard teh rebuke saw them as well. Jesus spoke his rebuke as an outsider and that is how his followers saw him and see him until today – they believe he was sinless. The “our father prayer” is not Jesus’ own prayer – in other words no Christian believes that Jesus confessed his own sins before God – it is a prayer that Jesus gives for the people to say – not for himself. 1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >

        • Alan says:

          CP,

          1. You say Yeshua was a Beit Hillel Pharisee.
          2. A Pharisee is one who submits himself to the rules of halacha according to the kosher Sanhedrin of each generation starting with Moses.
          3. But Yeshua did not follow the rules of halacha according to kosher Pharasaic tradition as I have shown you.
          4. Therefore, your Yeshua was not a kosher Pharisee.

          You asked me to prove this to you and I believe I did but you did not respond to my last two posts that explained this. You also said that if Yeshua would have said that it is forbidden to marry one’s cousin then that would be the law. You also implied that if Yeshua said that people should pray to him (which according to you he didn’t), it would also be the law. Do you hold that the ultimate yardstick of Torah law is what Yeshua said and that his words need not be validated against the Pharasaic writings?

          • CP says:

            Alan,
            I don’t remember exactly what I said about Yeshua being a Beit Hillel Pharisee and don’t have the time to hunt for the post, but I will share my intended meaning: I would not consider Yeshua was a card carrying member of the Beit Hilel Pharisees, rather his Torah Interpretations with few exceptions most resembled Beit Hillel Pharisees. Also there is a NT passage which implies Yeshua was “among” the Pharisees. Yeshua did not closely follow what he considered the traditions of men, although he did not condemn others for following traditions of men except where they violated a command of God.

            Was Yeshua “kosher”? Depends, according to who is defining the rules. According to written Torah – absolutely kosher! According to the Sanhedrin/Beit Din interpretation of oral/written Torah – likely not – however with 63 volumes of often differing views, it is still open to debate.

            Alan you’ve mentioned about proving Yeshua was not a kosher Beit Hillel Pharisee according to the Sanhedrin of his day -(which according to evidence was corrupt). I’m sorry you feel this needed proving, as this is something we agree on. Where we disagree is thinking Yeshua came to add to Torah or create more Jewish halacha; Yeshua taught his interpretation of Torah which doesn’t differ from written Torah. If Yeshua was going to make new laws, he or his talmudim would of written them down to study as was the common practice for talmudim.

            As for marrying your cousin; This is the perfect example to exhibit our differences. Written Torah says one should not marry a close relative – That IS the Law, period. However how Yeshua might of defined what constitutes a close relative is not Law, but a interpretation of Law. This is where we differ because of your notion that the Sanhedrin has the authority to write new Laws under the guise of ‘interpretation” therefore you wrongly assume this is what Yeshua was up to. The 70 of Moses’ day were only to handle and decide difficult cases, not write new laws (precedents) applicable to all men for all time.

            Yeshua taught to pray to the Father.

            Lastly you ask;
            “Do you hold that the ultimate yardstick of Torah law is what Yeshua said and that his words need not be validated against the Pharasaic writings?”

            The ultimate yardstick of what Yeshua said is written Torah per Matthew 5:17-19. Pharasaic writings are subject to the same yardstick – written Torah.

          • Alan says:

            CP,

            “The ultimate yardstick of what Yeshua said is written Torah per Matthew 5:17-19. Pharasaic writings are subject to the same yardstick – written Torah.”

            What this means is that Yeshua was definitely not any kind of Pharisee not Beit Hillel or Beit Shammai. He was a Saduccee who were the first Karaites – they believed only in the Written Torah and not in any Oral Torah passed down from Sinai. This means that everyone is free to interpret the Written Torah however one sees fit. For example, “eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, etc” should be taken literally, and “you shall cut off her hand (Deuteronomy 25:12)” should also be taken literally, and this is exactly what the Saduccees and Karaites did as opposed to the Pharisees which had a tradition from Sinai that these laws were not to be taken literally and every single Pharisee agreed, there was never a dispute over this among them.

            If this is what you’re saying, then all the talk of Rabbis Harvey Falk and Shmuley Boteach and you about how Yeshua was a Pharisee is out the window because you are now defining Yeshua as a type of Saducee or pre-Karaite. Are you ok with Yeshua being a Sadducee/Karaite? According to Pharasaic Judaism, the Saducees and Karaites are heretics because the deny on Oral Torah from Sinai.

          • CP says:

            Alan,
            The evidence points to Beit Hillel, not Sadduces, not a proto Karaite, not Beit Shammai, not Zealot, however perhaps some Esscene leanings. Yeshua was not a isolationist, not a dagger man, nor strictly a literalist.

            The Written Torah IS the yardstick, this doesn’t mean it can’t be interpreted. However I think you want to say exactly what the Catholic Church teaches; only a select few have the power to interpret and anyone who interprets differently is labeled a heretic and cut off.

            If this is the case, what happened to ‘we don’t need no mediator – we go straight to God’?Seems to me you have a meditator, not a Pope, but a Committee of men who listens to God for you then relays to you what to do, how to think, how to read, how to pray, how to wash, how wipe your rear end. In this respect, I agree, Yeshua is nothing like any of these Pharisees. Even though a majority of his teachings can be found in Talmud he also taught not to lord authority over others.

          • Alan says:

            CP,

            You certainly led me to think that you believed that Yeshua was an Orthodox Jew. You had me listen to that class on “Yeshua as Moshiach ben Yosef” in which the speaker says that Yeshua was an Orthodox Jew. You had me look into Rabbi Harvey Falk’s book “Jesus the Pharisee”. You led me on. Now you are changing your tune and saying that “really Yeshua wasn’t actually a real Orthodox Jew.” Please clarify what is going on here before I go any further.

          • CP says:

            Alan,
            Yeshua was a Orthodox Jew of HIS DAY. Orthodoxy of his day is not as precisely defined as it is today. There were a least four major sects of Judaism back then, which one was the “Orthodox” one? If I was trying to decide if Yeshua wore a kippa or a black hat; I be wrong on both counts.

          • Alan says:

            CP,

            Even though Orthodoxy today is different than it was in Yeshua’s day, there are still many things they have in common. Do you know what today’s rabbinic or Orthodox Jews have in common with the rabbinic Jews of Yeshua’s day? It lies in the word “rabbinic”. Do you understand the main thing that differentiated rabbinic Jews from Sadducees (non-rabbinic Jews)? Rabbinic Jews accepted that God gave both a Written and an Oral Torah to Moses. Sadducees and Karaites only accept that God gave the Written Torah to Moses. Was Yeshua a rabbinic or non-rabbinic Jew according to this definition I wrote?

          • CP says:

            Alan,
            Yeshua supported and taught both the Written and Oral Torah, yet when he saw a conflict between the two he sided with the Written. I believe Yeshua taught the ancient path spoken of by the Prophets.

          • Alan says:

            CP,

            Are you saying that Yeshua held that the plain meaning of the Written Torah always overrides the Oral Torah?

          • RT says:

            I have two questions:

            Where did Jesus clearly broke the oral law?

            In Rabinic Judaism, in case of contradiction, which would be followed “Oral” or “Written”?

          • Alan says:

            RT,

            He clearly broke away from rabbinic Judaism in proclaiming a new law on his own – that a man who gives his wife an invalid divorce commits adultery if he marries another woman. This was just one example, the others are just redactions. (;-)

            One must understand what the Oral Torah means – it is the explanations of the commandments given by Hashem to Moses. The Written Torah contains the commandments written in a concise way, almost like lecture-notes. The Oral Torah explains the exact parameters of the commandments that are not written in the “lecture-notes” form. A few examples, “eye for eye, tooth for tooth, etc” is not to be understood literally, but only means a monetary punishment; “bind them for ornaments between your eyes” means the tefillin but how to make and wear them is only explains in the Oral Torah, not in the Written Torah; the Written Torah tells us we may slaughter animals for food but it doesn’t explain how to actually do it, this is what the Oral Torah fills in; the Oral Torah teaches that the Torah can not be interpreted through prophecy after Moses gave the Torah to the Jewish people. Rabbinic Judaism is not a free-for-all license for interpreting Written Torah. Rabbinic Sadduceeism and Karaism say that Hashem didn’t give an Oral Torah and therefore individuals can decide how to do the commandments when the Written Torah is not clear.

          • Alan says:

            Typo – “Rabbinic Sadduceeism and Karaism…”

            Correction – “Sadduceeism and Karaism…”

          • CP says:

            Alan,
            To answer your question; No.
            Just an innocent observation – You appear to me as a very black and white kind of guy and seem to be looking for a box, catagory or a descriptive all in one title for Yeshua. This is difficult to do 2000 years after the fact, especially more so when Yeshua didn’t fit into a neat little package in his own day.

            This is off our subject but perhaps this will help explain my view. The earliest writings portray Yeshua as an anointed Tzadik sage who God exalted after his death. As the writings get later the exaltation moves earlier in his life to baptism, then birth, then to pre-existence. All of this is open to debate even among liberal Christians. (Conservative Christians hold to a Nicene Creed view and are typically not open to debate)

            Personally I see Hashem doing something with Yeshua, perhaps Yeshua pre-existed as a divine being or perhaps he an anointed human who was given the Spirit of God at his baptism or perhaps Yeshua had to live his life in obedience to God till the death before God exalted him. I do believe Yeshua was anointed by Hashem to accomplish a particular work and was rewarded for a job well done – excatly how that happened; I don’t know. However I do know in 1 to 3 years without writing a book or raising a army a backwoods itinerant Jewish Tzadik, changed the world forever.

          • Alan says:

            CP,

            Did Yeshua believe in an Oral Torah?
            How did Yeshua know when to go with the plain meaning of the written Torah over the Oral Torah? For example, if Yeshua said “eye for eye” means a literal eye for an eye, would he have the authority to say this was the law?

          • CP says:

            Alan,
            In your response to RT you’ve written; “proclaiming a new law on his own”.

            I don’t see this in the NT.
            Did Yeshua declare he was proclaiming a new law or was he sharing his interpretation? – Big difference.

            Do you think the Prophets who said God doesn’t desire sacrifices were proclaiming new law.

          • Alan says:

            “In your response to RT you’ve written; “proclaiming a new law on his own”.

            I don’t see this in the NT.
            Did Yeshua declare he was proclaiming a new law or was he sharing his interpretation? – Big difference.”

            No difference

            “Do you think the Prophets who said God doesn’t desire sacrifices were proclaiming new law.”
            The prophets said that God doesn’t desire sacrifices with injustice but that He does desire them with righteousness. The prophets didn’t add or subtract laws from the Torah unlike Yeshua.

          • CP says:

            Alan,

            Here are a couple examples of what Yeshua taught as to Oral Torah:
            (Please remember he is not addressing all Pharisees only those who were corrupt in his day)

            “Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to His disciples,
            saying: “The scribes and the Pharisees have seated themselves in the chair of Moses;
            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.”
            (Matthew 23:1-3)

            “The Pharisees and the scribes *asked Him, “Why do Your disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders, but eat their bread with impure hands?”

            And He said to them, “Rightly did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written:
            ‘THIS PEOPLE HONORS ME WITH THEIR LIPS,
            BUT THEIR HEART IS FAR AWAY FROM ME.
            ‘BUT IN VAIN DO THEY WORSHIP ME,
            TEACHING AS DOCTRINES THE PRECEPTS OF MEN.’

            “Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men.”

            He was also saying to them, “You are experts at setting aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition.“For Moses said,
            ‘HONOR YOUR FATHER AND YOUR MOTHER’; and, ‘HE WHO SPEAKS EVIL OF FATHER OR MOTHER, IS TO BE PUT TO DEATH’;

            but you say, ‘If a man says to his father or his mother, whatever I have that would help you is Corban (that is to say, given to God),’you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or his mother; thus invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down; and you do many things such as that.”
            (Mark 7:3-13)

          • Alan says:

            CP,
            I don’t want to respond to these slanders of Yeshua in the NT because that’s all they are. If the rebuke was coming from someone who loved them, I would give it consideration. But because it’s coming from an enemy who wants to “Lord his authority over them” I will not pay attention to it. The Jewish people have plenty of good and loving rebuke-givers in every generation that I will pay attention to.

            I’ll ask my questions again:
            Did Yeshua believe that Hashem gave the Oral laws to Moses together with the Pentateuch?

            How did Yeshua know when to go with the plain meaning of the written Torah over the Oral Torah? For example, if Yeshua said “eye for eye” means a literal eye for an eye, would he have the authority to say this was the law?

          • CP says:

            Alan,
            “CP,
            I don’t want to respond to these slanders…..”

            These aren’t slanders, similar vernacular which you do accept can be plucked from Tanach and Talmud. Therefore you appear to reject solely on the basis it comes from Yeshua. – (even more; Yeshua is quoting the Prophets and you still view it as “slander”?)

            “I’ll ask my questions again:
            Did Yeshua believe that Hashem gave the Oral laws to Moses together with the Pentateuch?”

            Alan,
            How do I know what Yeshua believed? I can only make an educated guess from the writings. I posted a couple of samples, but you choose to view them as unsubstantiated slander from an enemy. Personally I think you’ve bought into the rosy picture others have painted of Second Temple Judaism. Research the Talmud; its not all rainbows and butterflies, nor is the Tanach.

            In my opinion Yeshua taught and supported the Written and Oral Torah, railed against hypocrisy especially those who were appointed to shepard HIS children and didn’t accept every tradition of the elders as Authortative.

            If you choose to reject Yeshua, you can find plenty of reasons to support your decision.
            If you choose to accept Yeshua, you can find plenty of reasons to support your decision.
            Therefore the question is; How honestly and unbiased can you consider the evidence.

          • Alan says:

            CP,

            Please let me ask the question a different way – the verse “eye for eye, etc..” – how do you, not Yeshua, explain this Biblical commandment? I would greatly appreciate discussing this question if you are open to it. If you’re not, I’ll drop it.

          • CP says:

            Alan,
            I don’t mind discussing anything. In fact I pay close attention to the feeling of being afraid to discuss something – fear informs me when I’m on shaky ground.

            You queried; “the verse “eye for eye, etc..” – how do you, not Yeshua, explain this Biblical commandment?”

            “how do you, not Yeshua” – This is a loaded question, Y’shua is my Rebbe. However I can answer in my own words according to what I’ve been taught. Hashem desires Mercy over Sacrifice. This commandment is in the form of an idiom denoting the equal value of harm caused to payment. However this commandment is not to used as an excuse for revenge. Forgiveness is the higher road and God will repay.

          • Alan says:

            CP,

            “this is a loaded question”
            I asked what YOU think because a couple of posts ago when I asked you what Yeshua thought you wrote “Alan, How do I know what Yeshua believed?” about the Oral law being from Sinai.

            “Hashem desires Mercy over Sacrifice. This commandment is in the form of an idiom denoting the equal value of harm caused to payment. However this commandment is not to used as an excuse for revenge. Forgiveness is the higher road and God will repay.”

            Do you believe that Hashem told Moses to write the words “eye for eye” in the Pentateuch?

          • CP says:

            Alan,
            Yeshua didn’t address the authority of the Oral Torah directly, however his teaching reflects a person who sees a difference between the “Traditions of the elders” and the “Customs of the fathers”. Yet the religious leaders had rolled these two up into a neat little package, stamped it “Oral Torah” and fed it to the common people as 100% authoritive. Yeshua never addresses the whole package, but rather repeatedly dissects it, showing what is real Oral Torah and what has been added.

            “Do you believe that Hashem told Moses to write the words “eye for eye” in the Pentateuch?”

            Being written in three of the five, (Ex, Lev, Duet) and quoted by Yeshua, yes I would assume so. (Remember the context in Matthew 5 – ‘who is Yeshua addressing; those who read or the common people of the land; those who hear?)

          • Alan says:

            CP,
            So you accept that Hashem told Moses to write the words “eye for eye, etc..” in the Pentateuch. When Hashem told Moses to write these words, do you think He gave Moses the explanation of these words or did He not give Moses the explanation of these words?

          • CP here you go again slandering the Pharisees with baseless lies – how do you know that they “rolled it together in a neat little package”? The Talmud doesn’t do this – distinguishing between teh different origins of various practices 1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >

          • CP says:

            Alan,
            I feel the question is overly simplistic. It is like if a close friend of mine said; “I’m so hungry I could eat a horse” and you asking if they explained what they meant. I’m have no doubt if Moses or the 70 appointed, misunderstood, regularly taking this in the most literal way, Hashem would of intervened and corrected them. As a matter of fact we have later examples in the Prophets of Hashem doing just that; correcting the misapplication of HIS Word.

            So to answer your question; No, it probably didn’t need to be explained, Moses understood correctly, if he hadn’t then Hashem would of explained.

          • Alan says:

            “I feel the question is overly simplistic. It is like if a close friend of mine said; “I’m so hungry I could eat a horse” and you asking if they explained what they meant. I’m have no doubt if Moses or the 70 appointed, misunderstood, regularly taking this in the most literal way, Hashem would of intervened and corrected them. As a matter of fact we have later examples in the Prophets of Hashem doing just that; correcting the misapplication of HIS Word.

            So to answer your question; No, it probably didn’t need to be explained, Moses understood correctly, if he hadn’t then Hashem would of explained.”

            Are you saying that “eye for eye” has always been an idiom in every culture and time with the sole meaning of monetary payment for bodily injury? Hammurabi took it literally. The Sadducees and many Karaites took it literally. The Shiite Muslims take it literally today. Hashem explained all of the commandments to Moses so no doubts in people’s minds would arise later on. The explanation of the commandments that Hashem gave to Moses is the Oral law. The Oral law is the Explanation. Can you imagine the rabbis in Mose’s time asking Moses, “Moses, are you sure Hashem didn’t mean it literally? How do you know He didn’t mean it literally? Did he tell you He didn’t mean it literally? But those are Hashem’s words! Maybe it’s supposed to be literal. I’ve heard the saying before and it’s taken literally by some and figuratively by others. Moses! Why didn’t you ask Hashem what He meant!”

          • CP says:

            R’B,
            “CP here you go again slandering the Pharisees with baseless lies”

            – this is not my intention.

            “how do you know that they “rolled it together in a neat little package”?”

            – so far from my limited research, the evidence points in this direction.

            “The Talmud doesn’t do this – distinguishing between teh different origins of various practices”

            – Are you implying some of Oral Torah authoritive and some is not? Did the am ha-aretz know this?

  5. Dina says:

    Following.

  6. Eleazar says:

    “Solomon related to God predominantly through wisdom and his mind, in the end it let him down.
    David related to God predominantly through heart felt relational love, even though he sinned, it never let him down.”

    Nonsense. It was emotions that got the best of both of them. It was David’s love of Torah that got him through ( Psalm 119) .

  7. Eleazar says:

    ““For Moses said…”

    Everything wrong with Jesus summed up in three words. God wrote that commandment, not Moses. It was written in stone by the finger of God.

    Jesus ( or whomever actually said this) was totally picking and choosing with the law Or did not know basic Hebrew or Jewish terminology. Qorban referred to animal sacrifices at the temple, and was not considered Qorban until it was offered by the priests. The use of the word in saying “Whatever I have to give”, “that is to say, ‘given to God”, as well as, “The scribes and the Pharisees have seated themselves in the chair of Moses” are terrible translations even in the Greek, let alone are radically different from the 1st Century Jewish meaning of the terms.
    What? Did you go and find the worst translation you could get your hands on?

    From Wikipedia: A qorban was a kosher animal sacrifice, such as a bull, sheep, goat, deer or a dove that underwent [ past tense] shechita (Jewish ritual slaughter).

    The KJV translates Matt 23 1-3 as
    “Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples,

    2 Saying The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat:

    3 All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.”

    One translation implies lawful appointment by HaShem ( which is true, IMO), the other implies they put themselves there arbitrarily. If Jesus said the KJV version, then he was quoting and teaching Oral Torah, only to contradict himself in Mark 7 by saying the priests and Pharisees were “teaching the commandments of men”. If Jesus was saying the NIV, or whatever version you took that from, he is plainly denying the Oral Torah, as well as the authority God invested in the priests and Pharisees. The whole chapter of Mark 7 is Jesus’ rejection of Oral Torah and priestly authority in favor of a Karaite/Sadducee approach. Either way, you have a Jesus with an identity crisis and/or just plain rebellious.

    • Alan says:

      Eleazar,

      Yashar koach! Mark 7 is so horrifying for any kind of Pharisee to read – even for a good kosher Beit Hillel one! Not only does it completely reject an Oral Law from Sinai it also uproots the Written Torah by saying that nothing you eat can defile you. Mark 7 uproots both the Written and Oral law and makes non-Jews think that Jews consider them as dogs.

      • Eleazar says:

        Thank you! I need every “Yasher Koach” I can get! 🙂

        • CP says:

          Great job? Really?

          1) “““For Moses said…”
          Everything wrong with Jesus summed up in three words. God wrote that commandment, not Moses. It was written in stone by the finger of God.”

          This is a logical fallacy. Just because God wrote it doesn’t mean Moses didn’t say it, in fact it implies the exact opposite.

          2) “What? Did you go and find the worst translation you could get your hands on?”

          The translation used was the NASB. Of common English translations the NASB is accepted by ALL as the most literal and true to the Greek. Yet you counter with the KJV? An Elizabethen English translation based on the non-extant Textus Recptus Text from the 9th century? LOL! Fortunately for you the grand exhibition of your ingnorance will go unoticed by most here.

          3) “lawful appointment by HaShem ( which is true, IMO), the other implies they put themselves there arbitrarily”

          Clearly you don’t know your history. Do you know how, when and why the Pharisees came to be? I’ll give you a hint; it started by lay people not accepting the teachings of the priests as authortative! I ask you: Who did Hashem say should teach the people?

          4) “teaching the commandments of men”. If Jesus was saying……. he is plainly denying the Oral Torah,”

          “plainly”? Plainly you are not understanding. For starters; the Oral Torah is supposed to be just that “ORAL”, as soon as you write it down it ceases to be “Oral”. Nevertheless, Yeshua believed, observed and taught the “Oral” Torah although he denounced the “Traditions of men” that were ADDED to the Oral Torah.

          5) “From Wikipedia: A qorban was a kosher animal sacrifice, such as a bull, sheep, goat, deer or a dove that underwent [ past tense] shechita (Jewish ritual slaughter).”

          Sorry, I was unable to access a second Temple period papyri text of Wikipedia. However I was able to access a english digital Babylonian Talmud text on qorban which appears to agree with the NT assessment of the situation Yeshua was addressing.

          Eleazar, In closing; I find your readings incredibly biased and most often just plain wrong.

          • CP Where are you getting your “history” of teh Pharisees from?

            1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >

          • Eleazar says:

            Biased? After years of objective research on these topics I have concluded findings and formed my opinions based on them. They may be “biased” now, to you, but the research was not.
            The larger point not even bias, but reality and truth. What I wrote was true.

            “Moses said” is not a logical fallacy by me, but a clear tactic used repeatedly by Jesus. When Jesus defended his own opinions, it was “God said” or “the word of God”. When it was something he wanted to abrogate or ignore it was “Moses said”, “it has been said” or “It was told to you from old”. As a Christian I noticed these patterns, as did many of my church mates in Bible studies. The difference is they could look past such tactics and I couldn’t.

            Biased? Maybe. Wrong? Prove it.

          • CP says:

            From various articles and books, currently though, mainly: Rabbinic essays.
            By: Jacob Zallel Lauterbach.

          • CP That’s like getting information about evangelical Christians from liberal leftists 1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >

          • CP says:

            Eleazar;
            Since it appears you only asked me to “Prove” one out of the five points made, I’ll only prove the one you object to. Below* is the exact passage quoted from the comment you addressed. Notice what it says; “the commandment of God……For Moses said,” then the actual commandment of God is listed. But you have falsely contended this passage draws a distinction between what God commanded and what Moses said, when in fact Yeshua declares Moses is saying the commandment of God.

            The original statement stands; “I find your readings incredibly biased and most often just plain wrong.”

            *”He was also saying to them, “You are experts at setting aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition.“For Moses said,
            ‘HONOR YOUR FATHER AND YOUR MOTHER’; and, ‘HE WHO SPEAKS EVIL OF FATHER OR MOTHER, IS TO BE PUT TO DEATH’;”

          • CP says:

            R’B,
            I don’t know what to tell you, but thank you for the comment. I’m just trying to piece together for myself the history from Ezra leading up to Yeshua, the various sects of Judaism, the destruction of the Temple and later Bar Kokhba in an effort to understand what was really going on rather than just believing modern mainline Christianity.

          • CP says:

            R’B,
            Btw, what do you think of; “Talmud and Apocrypha” by Herford ?

          • CP Never read it – I’ll try to check itout

            1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >

          • Concerned Reader says:

            CP That’s like getting information about evangelical Christians from liberal leftists 1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >

            Rabbi B, I hope you dont think my contributions have been for naught because of this genetalization. A person can be a progressive democrat and have much knowledge of evangelical beliefs.

          • Concerned Reader I did not mean to offend you – what I should have written was “liberal leftists who are writing a propaganda pamphlet.” Your writings are not propaganda – I appreciate your writing when you agree and when you disagree. 1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >

          • bible819 says:

            MyPhariseefriend,

            Point was that Prophets came to admonish Israel.

            Nehemiah described Israels response to correction as ” Killing the Prophets, as Bad leadership, and a forsaken God”

            Described the Wisest man, Solomon, believed in and worshiped other gods because he was led astray. (Saul as well)

            The least we can agree on this statement-

            The Spirit on a Prophet is apart of God.*

            The Words of Prophet are Gods Words.*

            I.E Moses didn’t came up with the Commandments with his own mind.

            (Unseen God gave them to him)

            I.E Solomon didn’t have wisdom without God.
            (Given Wisdom)

            1 Corinthians 2:14 said it best.

            The natural man does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God. For they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.
            If history repeated itself, and Prophets always came to admonish Israel because of transgressions.

            What about the last 2000 years?

            Its not hard to believe that Israel Rejected their Messiah.

            As to Yeshua sinning; I don’t believe he did. My Bible says he didn’t.

            “He committed no sin, and no deceit was found in His mouth.” (Peter and Isaiah testify to this)

            He is my sacrificial Lamb, Lord, and Savior.

            We know that they (Solomon, Moses, and David) sinned as it is recorded.
            We know the Spirit of God was on the Prophets who admonished Israel.
            We know the Prophets didn’t speak on their accord.
            We know that Isaiah and Nehemiah (God Speaking) that Israel’s leadership was blind guides.

            We know Israel killed those who God sent, thus killing a Messenger from God.
            Moses said it best?
            Your grumblings are not against us but against the LORD.”

            You are putting your hopes on your Leaders of 2000 years ago -to have made the right assessment of whether Yeshua was sinful and not the Messiah.
            You believe he wasn’t
            I believes Gods Messiah is Sinless and is Yeshua.

          • bible 819 My hope is in God alone – it is you who are hoping to a man 1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >

  8. Alan says:

    CP,

    Here are 2 more examples of the why Hashem surely gave the Explanation of the commandments (= the Oral law) to Moses together with the text of the commandments in the Pentateuch –

    Leviticus 21:9 – And the daughter of any priest, if she profane herself by playing the harlot, she profaneth her father: she shall be burnt with fire. – A person who does not accept the Explanation could say that even if the priest’s daughter was not married she should be put to death. A Sadducee or Karaite or Yeshua might have said such an explanation, because what is stopping them?

    Leviticus 23:40 – And ye shall take you on the first day a beautiful tree-fruit, branches of palm-trees, and boughs of thick trees, and willows of the brook, and ye shall rejoice before the Lord your God seven days. – A person who does not accept the Explanation could say that the beautiful fruit is a pomegranate. A Sadducee or Karaite or Yeshua might have said such an explanation, because what is stopping them?

    But in the Explanation (=Oral law = Mishnah/Talmud) we never find any dispute over these commandments. We never find someone saying it can be a pomegranate and another saying it can be a citron. Everyone agrees it is a citron because this was the Explanation received by Moses on Sinai. We never find someone saying the priest’s daughter is put to death even if she was unmarried at the time she had relations. Everyone agrees she must have already been married and warned at the time of the act by two valid witnesses that what she was doing was a transgression and that the punishment would be execution.

    Without the Explanation, the Written law is a free-for-all. Hashem gave Moses written commandments to serve as lecture notes, so to speak, together with the explanation of how each and every commandment should actually be done.

    A man who give his wife a divorce, even if it is an illegitimate divorce, does not commit adultery if he takes another wife. This is the Explanation in the hands of rabbinic Jews, aka Orthodox Jews, aka Pharisees. Yeshua gives his own explanation of what constitutes adultery, an explanation that contradicts the Explanation. Someone who does this is no longer an Orthodox Jew. A rabbi who does this and who teaches his explanation of the law is in big trouble with Hashem unless he repents. A prophet who does such a thing is in big trouble too.

    • CP says:

      Alan,
      The problem (as I see it) is you presume to have a Legitimate God given system. God told Moses to appoint judges to decide cases as they came up, not to write binding precedents for all time and eternity.

      • Alan says:

        CP,

        “Alan,
        The problem (as I see it) is you presume to have a Legitimate God given system. God told Moses to appoint judges to decide cases as they came up, not to write binding precedents for all time and eternity.”

        You wrote a couple of days ago that you accept that Hashem gave the written law (the Pentateuch) to Moses. Are you saying here that you do not accept that Hashem explained the Biblical laws to Moses as well? The self-definition of rabbinic=Orthodox=Pharisaic Jews is they accept that Hashem gave the Pentateuch to Moses along with the explanation of the Biblical laws.

        • CP says:

          Alan,
          Are you saying here that you do not accept that Hashem explained the Biblical laws to Moses as well?
          Certainly there was some explanation, however it wasn’t 63 volumes worth. To prove not EVERYTHING was explained, we need not look further than the Sabbath stick gatherer – the people knew he broke the law but didn’t know what to do with him. So they took him to Moses, but Moses didn’t know what to do with him. So Moses went to God.

          This proves not everything was explained. IMO this is intentional as it elevates our relationship with, and our dependence on the One True Living God who is the Ultimate Judge of ALL things.

          • Alan says:

            “the people knew he broke the law but didn’t know what to do with him. So they took him to Moses, but Moses didn’t know what to do with him. So Moses went to God.

            This proves not everything was explained.”

            Moses went to Hashem and Hashem explained it to him. I don’t understand what you mean.

            I agree that not everything in the Mishnah/Talmud is from Hashem. Right now, I am not talking about rabbinical laws, I am only talking about Biblical laws. Do you accept that Hashem gave Moses the commandments with their explanations some time BEFORE MOSES DIED?

          • RT says:

            The problem that occurs when there is no oral law is that everybody does what he thinks is right for him. Some will say that lighting candles on Shabbath is wrong, and as per Torah, it does seems so (Exodus 35:3). Other would say that putting the heater is wrong, or that driving a car is fine. What about gardening? What about working at a charity? In the end, we have the best example of one group who follow Torah without any guidance; the messianic. Most don’t eat pork, but don’t care if the beef was slaughtered in a kosher way. They will go to a restaurant and will ask for a pizza that has no pepperoni, but ham is mixed in the same bowl than their cheese. They buy cookies, but don’t care if there is a kosher logo next to it or not. In the end, can we say that they follow the law? I have seen many going to do their grocery, taking the bus, driving, etc. None follow the same set of rules. If God intended it like that, Judaism would never have been able to coexist in a gentile world.

          • Alan says:

            RT,

            What would the USA look like if each American was allowed to interpret the US Constitution for him/herself?

          • RT says:

            And who is following the torah? The Jews or the Church? Maybe the oral Torah is essential to be able to follow the Torah? I honestly think that without the oral Torah, the Jewish people would not have been able to survive and would have been assimilated. Loot at the messianic movement, it has barely 80 years and you is not coherent anymore. You go to one congregation and will tell you to follow torah, the other one not. One will tell you this about the oral Torah, the other the opposite. I am not too familiar with orthodox Judasim, but I doubt that the teaching will be diametrically opposite from one place to another.

          • Alan says:

            RT,

            “Maybe the oral Torah is essential to be able to follow the Torah? I honestly think that without the oral Torah, the Jewish people would not have been able to survive and would have been assimilated.”

            It might be helpful to call the oral Torah “the Explanation” as Rabbi Zvi Lampel does sometimes in his books. When some people hear “oral law” or “oral Torah” it makes them uncomfortable – it sounds like there are 2 Torahs – one from Hashem that is reliable and one from man that is not so reliable. The oral law is just the Explanation, with a capital E.

            Rabbinical laws (laws passed by the 71 sages of the Sanhedrin by vote) are also part of the Explanation even if these laws cannot be traced back to Moses, but this is a different discussion.

            CP has been saying (or at least letting us think) for the past couple of months that Yeshua was a Pharisee. I’m trying to help CP realize what it actually means to be a Pharisee and to also realize that Yeshua says at least one thing in the gospels (that CP says is not a redaction) that is anti-the Explanation. And I hope it will help him realize why Pharisees and other rabbinic Jews cannot accept Yeshua.

          • Alan says:

            “I am not too familiar with orthodox Judaism, but I doubt that the teaching will be diametrically opposite from one place to another.”

            You are right when it comes to the commandments in general, but there is variation when it comes to details of the commandments. There would be much more uniformity if there were a Sanhedrin to bring the disagreements over law details to a vote.

          • Dina says:

            The differences are on hair-splitting minutiae, never on fundamental concepts. You wouldn’t get the kind of variance within Orthodox Judaism that you get among devout Christian sects.

          • RT says:

            But would you get that kind of difference between Reform / Conservative /Orthodox?

          • Alan says:

            RT,

            I’m not sure I understand your question.

          • Dina says:

            CP, I remember you mentioning here at one point that you are trying to understand Orthodox Judaism. I can’t remember if I responded, so at the risk of repeating myself, the links below will guide you to possibly the two best websites devoted to explaining Orthodox Judaism.

            aish.com
            simpletoremember.com

          • Dina says:

            Yes, RT, but the others don’t claim an authentic tradition from Sinai, whereas every kind of Christian I ever spoke to claimed to know the only truth.

          • CP says:

            Dina,
            Thank you for recommending the links, in my studies I’ve come across these sites and spent some time there. It is certainty good to know that you think highly of them, I’ll go back and visit some more! Thank you.

            If you don’t mind I would like to query concerning your statement;
            “the others don’t claim an authentic tradition from Sinai, whereas every kind of Christian I ever spoke to claimed to know the only truth.”

            I feel there is something here needing to be objectively addressed; Orthodox Judaism claims an authentic tradition from Sinai. Christianity claims a renewed Covenant of Sinai. I’m fairly familiar with the evidence Christians use to support their claim. What is the evidence Orthodox Judaism uses to support their claim?

          • Dina says:

            CP, do you believe there is any Jewish group today that has an authentic tradition from Sinai?

          • CP says:

            Dina,
            I don’t know, as far as I know there is only one Sect who claims such. With what little history I know, this is difficult to accept as true, however I am honestly open to considering the evidence. I must admit the Karaites are interesting, but I don’t think they claim a direct unbroken line to Sinai.

          • CP says:

            Alan,
            “Do you accept that Hashem gave Moses the commandments with their explanations some time BEFORE MOSES DIED?”

            After living 40 years with the commandments and Moses (speaking to God) I would assume the majority of the common, bigger details of the Law would of been worked out for their day before Moses passed. There are two assumptions yet to be made; Is there evidence these were these meant to be applicable, binding and unchangeable for every generation until the end of time – as eternal as the Written Torah itself? Is there evidence of an unbroken, uncorrupted, trustworthy line of transmission back to Sinai?

          • Alan says:

            CP,

            “There are two assumptions yet to be made; Is there evidence these were these meant to be applicable, binding and unchangeable for every generation until the end of time – as eternal as the Written Torah itself? Is there evidence of an unbroken, uncorrupted, trustworthy line of transmission back to Sinai?”

            Hashem gave Moses the written laws and their explanations to go with it.

            All of the evidence is documented through the most intense and rigorous analysis in the Talmud –
            the most intense debates you can imagine, but the overwhelming majority of the rules of the Biblical commandments are not disputed at all. There is much more they agree on than they don’t agree on. There was a tradition going all the way to Moses who received from Hashem that the “beautiful fruit” that we take on Succot is the citron, and the phylacteries are little black leather boxes with scrolls inside. You never find one sage in the Talmud that disputes these laws, and yet these laws are not written anywhere in the Tanach.

            But even if you don’t get a chance to experience this most rigorous search for Hashem’s Explanation of the commandments in the Talmud, you can understand by reason that just as the sages have been so painstakingly careful to preserve the integrity of the Pentateuch from generation to generation, they striven just as hard to preserve the Explanation of the laws that Moses received from Hashem from generation to generation because they believe that without both it is impossible to serve Hashem the way He wants us to serve Him.

            I recommend Rabbi Zvi Lampel’s books “Disputes in Talmudic Times” and “Maimonides Intro to the Talmud”.

          • CP says:

            Alan,
            I don’t understand; if there was an unbroken, uncorrupted, trustworthy line of transmission easily proven to stretch back to Sinai, then why would there be disputes?

          • Alan says:

            Due to the length and persecutions of the long exile, some information was forgotten and some became blurred. In trying to reconstruct the information, disputes arose. But most information remained intact and there are no disputes over them.

          • CP says:

            Alan,
            Btw, thanks for the recommendations: Rabbi Zvi Lampel’s “Disputes in Talmudic Times” and “Maimonides Intro to the Talmud”.

          • CP says:

            Alan,
            ” In trying to reconstruct the information”

            When and where did this reconstruction project occur?

          • Alan says:

            Among groups of torah scholars in every generation, when their was a dispute it was brought to the Sanhedrin and decided there or left as an open question.

          • CP says:

            Alan,
            I don’t mean to offend or be contentious, but that doesn’t seem like a perfectly preserved Oral Tradition stretching back to Moses, but rather a general consensus of roughly what the Oral Tradition was at Sinai leaving room for the possibility of additions from every generation.

          • Alan says:

            “but rather a general consensus of roughly what the Oral Tradition was at Sinai ”

            Not “roughly” at all! If you look at the minutia it’s rough, but I’ll say it a million times, MOST of the details of ALL of the Biblical laws have been perfectly preserved.

  9. Concerned Reader says:

    Alan, even the Church permits divorce, so I don’t think we need to take Jesus literally.

    • Alan says:

      Concerned Reader,

      “Alan, even the Church permits divorce, so I don’t think we need to take Jesus literally.”

      But is there anything stopping a Christian from taking him literally?

      • Eleazar says:

        No, Alan, there isn’t because there ARE Christians who do take it literally.. I know them personally.

        • Alan says:

          Thank you and yashar koach!

        • Concerned Reader says:

          Eleazer, are there Christians who take it literally? Yes. Is there a very very large body of Christian orthodoxy that is older than the Protestant tradition that does not? Yes. In the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox traditions, and in Canon law, divorce is permitted under certain circumstances. It is understood that Jesus’ words are to be seen as an ideal, not necessarily literal always.

          • Concerned Reader says:

            Also, we have to remember that Jesus himself did not take his own words literally when he was confronted with the situation of a woman caught in Adultery. He allegedly said, “let he who is without sin cast the 1st stone.”

            IE in the law, the adulterous person must be either caught in the act by witnesses, or in the Church’s case, they must reveal their adultery (and a knowledge that it is wrong) in confession, or be caught, before any formal crime could be charged.

            What is the Church’s punishment? Exclusion from communion, and excommunication until the person repents.

            IE Jesus was confronted with an actual case with an adulterous woman, and he did not take it literally, neither does the Church.

            Even when the rabbis take a death penalty case literally, they strive to provide a punishment that fits the crime, to go with mercy over the letter. Jesus was attempting to establish an ideal.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s