Oral Torah online? [Archive] - Christian Forums

Catholic Dude

1st August 2005, 03:29 AM

I dont know if Im in over my head here, but I have heard of the Oral Torah that goes along with the Written Torah. I have read that the Oral was eventually written down.
Is there an online Oral Torah in english that you know of and can link?
Other info about it would be nice.

insaneinthebrain

1st August 2005, 11:21 AM

http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/talmud.htm

Bracy

1st August 2005, 01:03 PM

Be forewarned that the Talmud is not just a book, but a *set* of books which is larger than a set of encyclopedias.

I'd offer another website, but I can't post a link yet until I have achieved a post count of 15 posts.

Devasha

1st August 2005, 02:32 PM

Also, be aware that there are many things in the Oral Torah (Mishnah, Jerusalem Talmud, Babylonian Talmud, Midrash) that conflict with the Written Torah and that Yeshua during his ministry on earth condemned these "traditions of men" that conflicted with His Father's commandments and/or made them of no effect.

Catholic Dude

1st August 2005, 03:56 PM

Ok, so I was looking at that link and reading Book 10 the history and I saw some things:
-Why was Talmud burned and banned? Dont people need it to interpret the Bible?

-It says that the Pharisees and Samaritans would argue over interpretations because the Samaritans would take a literal interpretation, what gave the Samaritans the idea that Oral tradition was not needed?

-Then it talks about how the Sadducees argued over interpretations and tried to "eradicate the study of Judaism". Why was a group of Jews trying to eradicate their own religion? I guess I dont understand how these different interpretations came around, wasnt there a set of rules in the beginning that said how the Bible was to be interpreted and who were the authorities?

I dont understand how all this time I had never heard of the Oral Torah yet it seems so important in understanding passages. Im going to have to look into why Christians reject this. This sounds as if it is no different than Protestants rejecting the Early Church Fathers.

Be forewarned that the Talmud is not just a book, but a *set* of books which is larger than a set of encyclopedias.
I looked over the summaries on that link of each volume and it wasnt what I was expecting. I thought it was something where it was a verse by verse commentary/interpretation so if I wanted to I could look up a passage from the Bible to see how it was historically interpreted. It looks like it mostly about rules and regulations and since Im not Jewish I wont understand any of it.

Also, be aware that there are many things in the Oral Torah (Mishnah, Jerusalem Talmud, Babylonian Talmud, Midrash) that conflict with the Written Torah and that Yeshua during his ministry on earth condemned these "traditions of men" that conflicted with His Father's commandments and/or made them of no effect.
Im not sure what the others are because that link only lists the Babylonian one. Also why would stuff conflict with the written? That doesnt sound right at all.

Henaynei

1st August 2005, 04:24 PM

the Talmud is a relatively recent (~1300 CE) codification of commentaries and discussions, covering millenia, on wide ranging topics and issues related to both scripture and the culture of the Jewish people - frequently forged in the furnace on the pressures of persecution and assimilation - the writers were mostly learned men, righteous and pious, men whose only desire was to know G-d more intimately and serve Him and the Jewish people - BUT they were only mere mortals, subject to the foibles and picayunes of all mortal men....

Devasha

1st August 2005, 04:41 PM

Wisdom can be found in the Oral Law, but according to Yeshua, it is not the Word of His Father, and He stood up to enormous persecution (all the way to death) by continually pronouncing that. He called the scribes and Pharisees a brood of vipers, sons of the devil, etc. He said to call no man "Father" or "Rabbi".

What He had against them was that they believed and taught that their authority here on earth superceded that of the Word of YHVH Himself. The Orthodox rabbis, the "descendants" of the Pharisees, still teach this--that their interpretation of Scripture is what must be obeyed.

Not only the Jews, but many religious groups have an oral law that adds to and/or takes away from the Word of God, which is plainly forbidden in Scripture:

Proverbs 30:5-6

Consider this passage of the written Torah:

Deuteronomy 31:10-13

The Torah was to be read to everyone--men, women, children, and even any gentiles around at the time--every seven years. Why? For what purpose? So that they may:

1. Hear.
2. Learn.
3. Fear the LORD.
4. Observe to DO all the words of THIS law.

This means that YHVH expected that even children seven and under would be able to do those four things listed above. They didn't need an interpreter, and neither do we. :)

Bracy

1st August 2005, 07:32 PM

writers were mostly learned men, righteous and pious, men whose only desire was to know G-d more intimately and serve Him and the Jewish people

According to Yeshua:

John 7:19: Did not Moses give you the law, and [yet] none of you keepeth the law? Why go ye about to kill me?

How can one who does not keep the Torah be considered "pious and righteous?"

Deuteronomy 6:25 defines for us what "righteousness" is:

Deuteronomy 6:25: And it shall be our righteousness, if we observe to do all these commandments before the LORD our God, as he hath commanded us.

The Pharisees did not believe in keeping the written commandments of HaShem, they believed in keeping their own rabbinical commandments of the "Oral Torah." The primary purpose of the establishment of the "Oral Torah" was to promote a centralized Pharisaic authority and control over the masses.

The scribes and Pharisees of Yeshua’s day (and later the Rabbis, who called themselves “elders”) were not bashful about their agenda:

…and even on the view that precepts cannot nullify each other, that applies only to a Biblical [precept] with a Biblical [precept], or a Rabbinical [precept] with a Rabbinical [precept], but in the case of a Scriptural and a Rabbinical [precept], the Rabbinical [one] comes and nullifies the Scriptural [one] (b.Pesachim 115a).

A person must not say, “I will not keep the commandment of the elders because they are not from the Torah.” The Almighty says to such a person, “No, My son! Rather all that they decree upon you, observe! As it is written, According to the instruction which they teach you (Deut 17:11). Even I (YHVH) must obey their decree, as it is written, You will decree and He will fulfill it (Job 22:28).” (Pesikta Rabbati 3).

In the Jewish Encyclopedia (Volume 2, p. 337) we learn this:

Even when they (the Rabbis) decide that left should be right or right left, when they are mistaken or misled in their judgment, they must be obeyed (Rosh HaShanah 25a)

Further quotes from the Talmud:

Rava expounded: My son! Be careful concerning Rabbinical decrees even more than the Torah. Because the Torah contains requirements and prohibitions, while the Rabbinical decrees: Anyone who violates a Rabbinical decree is worthy of death (Eruvin 21b).

If there 1000 prophets, all of them of the stature of Elijah and Elisha, giving a certain interpretation, and 1001 Rabbis giving the opposite interpretation, you shall “incline after the majority” and the law is according to the 1001 Rabbis, not according to the 1000 venerable prophets. And thus our Sages said, “By God, if we heard the matter directly from the mouth of Joshua the son of Nun, we would not obey him nor would we listen to him!”

The Sages said further, “If Elijah comes and tells us, the levirate obligation is canceled through a shoe (see Deut 25:9), we will listen to him , but if he says it is canceled through a sandal, we will not listen to him .” [b][b]…And so if a prophet testifies, that the Holy One, Blessed be He, told him, that the law of a certain commandment is such and such, or that the reasoning of a certain sage is correct, that prophet must be executed… as it is written, ‘it is not in heaven’ (Deut. 30:12). Thus God did not permit us to learn from the prophets, only from the Rabbis who are men of logic and reason. (Maimonides, Introduction to the Mishnah)

Has it not been taught: Why were the bazaars of Beth Hini destroyed? Because they based their actions upon (written) Scripture (b.Baba Metzia 88a).

Charles YTK

1st August 2005, 08:53 PM

As you read Talmud you will discover that it also presents the different opinions of men who just did not agree and it is left at that. It is OK to disagree as many of the sages did. But they each present their own reasons for their interpretation. You will still have to decide for yourself.

Many who post here are Biblically obedient, that is to say that the written word is the higher authority. While others like our Jewish brothers for example may hold the Talmud to be of greater authority. As Bracy said, Messiah held to Torah and not the Rabbinical traditions that later became Talmud. But he agreed with some of them too and observed many Jewish traditions that are not from Torah. So he did not discard all of the Oral Torah as one. As long as it did not interfer with the proper observance of Torah or if it inhanced the observing of it, Yeshua was OK with it.

To be real honest with you and hope I can say this without offense; the writings of the Church fathers are some of the most anti-Torah, and unfounded teaching you will ever encounter. Much of what they taught was a complete contradiction of Gods word. So you are in greater danger from the church fathers of the 3rd and 4th century than you are from the Talmud.

Enjoy your reading. Try to remember that these are Jewish men writing to a Jewish audience, in terms that are familiar to both of them. You may have to do the extra to get the true meaning in context.

Charles

Bracy

2nd August 2005, 12:53 AM

Charles:

So you are in greater danger from the church fathers of the 3rd and 4th century than you are from the Talmud.

I used to believe this too, but no longer. I don't think that there is much that can be said of the early Church Fathers that doesn't apply equally well to the Talmudic Sages.

Remember what Yeshua said:

Matthew 16:11-12: How is it that ye do not understand that I spake not to you concerning bread, that ye should beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees? Then understood they how that he bade [them] not beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees.

I believe that the "doctrine of the Pharisees" in this passage is the "Oral Torah" (the Sadducees did not believe in keeping the "Oral Torah," their "leaven" was different).

I believe we err if we think that the Pharisees believed in keeping the written Torah commandments. They did not. They believed in keeping the "Oral Torah," which was a product of their own invention. The Pharisees were saying "Don't keep the commandments of Elohim, keep our commandments instead. You are simply not intelligent enough, or educated enough, to interpret His commandments yourself, you need us to tell you how -- and if you obey us, it will be the same as obeying Adonai Himself."

The Pharisees saw the written Torah as merely a source of law, and not the Law itself. They believed that they had full authority to add to, or diminish from, the commandments of Elohim as they saw fit.

Even today, this line of thinking is still prevalent. In Israel, Rabbi Baruch Paz of Yeshivat Beit El, wrote in an article entitled ”Adding, Uprooting, and Rabbinic Authority:”

Some rabbinical ordinances were enacted not for the purpose of protecting the laws of the Torah, [i]but because the Rabbis saw an independent need to enact them; others, though were enacted as preventative measures , safeguards to prevent people from violating actual commandments of the Torah. At times the Rabbis even saw fit to uproot a Torah law in order to erect one of these safeguards….

…Rabbinical laws are established and based upon Scriptural passages for support. Temporary [rabbinical] suspension of any Biblical commandment is also considered Torah, for ”It is time to act on God’s behalf, suspend your Torah” (Psalms 119:126), such is not a violation of the commandment ”You shall not add to it nor diminish from it.” (Deut. 4:2)

Of course, if one reads Psalms 119:126 in its exact context, the message is completely different:

Psalms 119:118-128: You have rejected all those who wander from Your statutes, For their deceitfulness is useless. You have removed all the wicked of the earth {like} dross; Therefore I love Your testimonies. My flesh trembles for fear of You, And I am afraid of Your judgments. I have done justice and righteousness; Do not leave me to my oppressors. Be surety for Your servant for good; Do not let the arrogant oppress me. My eyes fail {with longing} for Your salvation And for Your righteous word. Deal with Your servant according to Your lovingkindness And teach me Your statutes. I am Your servant; give me understanding, That I may know Your testimonies. It is time for the LORD [YHVH]to act, {For} they have broken Your law. Therefore I love Your commandments Above gold, yes, above fine gold. Therefore I esteem right all {Your} precepts concerning everything, I hate every false way.

Psalm 119:126 doesn’t say that the Rabbis are to act upon His behalf and suspend the Torah! Instead, it calls for HaShem to act against those who want to destroy His Torah. The “they” of verse 126 are the arrogant (verse 122), the oppressors (verse 121), the wicked of the earth (verse 119), and those who stray from the statutes (verse 118). It is they who have made void the Torah. The psalmist is comparing the laws and regulations of the oppressors with those of YHVH – Your testimonies, Your judgments, Your salvation, Your righteous word, Your lovingkindness, Your statutes, Your law (Torah), Your commandments, and Your precepts.

Continuing his thoughts, Rabbi Baruch Paz writes:

It is clear, then, that according to Ravad a rabbinical enactment does not constitute a violation of the commandment ‘You shall not add [onto the Torah].’ What’s more, it is possible to consider them part of the Torah itself, for we find that rabbinical laws themselves are based upon scriptural verses, and if it were forbidden to add, this practice would not be followed. Ravad explains that the temporary suspension of Biblical commandments when necessary is also to be seen as Torah.

Here, Rabbi Paz confuses halacha with takanah, perhaps because he does not consciously know the difference between the two, since Rabbinic Judaism has so thoroughly intertwined the two together. Certainly, during the lives of Yeshua and His disciples, halacha and takanah were not the same thing.

Rabbinic halacha is written scriptural verses of the written Torah that have been completely undermined or twisted to arrive at some legislation that supports the Pharisaic position of authority in Israel. A takanah, on the other hand, is a Rabbinic enactment that serves as a legal device designed to control the masses with no scriptural support whatsoever.

Rabbi Paz states further:

For the sake of the Torah, the Sages are even permitted to enact permanent active violations of the Torah. After all, all rabbinical law rests upon the fact that the Rabbis evaluate things in accordance with Torah values. They say that these evaluations are actually part of the Torah itself, within the framework of the Torah, and that they are the natural development of the desire of the Torah. The Rabbis did not simply enact decrees and ordinances for the fun of it. They enacted them according to the needs and necessities of the Torah. This being the case, it is permissible to legislate a violation of the Torah (note: this is a takanah), for this is not really a violation as such, but the preference of one Torah value over another.

IT IS PERMISSIBLE TO LEGISLATE A VIOLATION OF THE TORAH, TO MAKE A TAKANAH??? Where is the evidence for this in the written Word? It is not needed because the Sages have declared that the Written Word is irrelevant when it comes to the takanot, because as Rabbis Paz says, it is merely “the preference of one Torah value over another.”

As evidence that the Written Word is irrelevant when legislating Rabbinic takanot, Rabbis Paz could draw upon the following quotes from the Talmud:

…and even on the view that precepts cannot nullify each other, that applies only to a Biblical [precept] with a Biblical [precept], or a Rabbinical [precept] with a Rabbinical [precept], but in the case of a Scriptural and a Rabbinical [precept], the Rabbinical [one] comes and nullifies the Scriptural [one] (b.Pesachim 115a).

A person must not say, “I will not keep the commandment of the elders because they are not from the Torah.” The Almighty says to such a person, “No, My son! Rather all that they decree upon you, observe! As it is written, According to the instruction which they teach you (Deut 17:11). Even I (YHVH) must obey their decree, as it is written, You will decree and He will fulfill it (Job 22:28).” (Pesikta Rabbati 3).

The Bible teacher, R. Hanina, once sat before R. Jannai, and as he sat there he stated: The halachah is in agreement with R. Judah. The other called out to him: Go out, read Biblical verses outside; the halachah is not in agreement with R. Judah.

A tanna recited in the presence of R. Nahman: The halachah is not in agreement with R. Judah. The other said to him: In agreement with whom, then? In agreement with the Rabbis? This is surely obvious, [since in a dispute between] one individual and a majority the halachah is in agreement with the majority! — 'Shall I', the first asked him, 'reject it'? 'No', the other replied, 'you were taught [that] the halachah is which, presenting to you a difficulty, you reversed; and in so far as you reversed it your wording is well justified (b.[i]Yevamot 40a).

It seems obvious, to me at least, that the Talmudic Sages are no less guilty of leading their followers away from HaShem's Written Torah commandments than are the early Church Fathers.

Torah

2nd August 2005, 06:11 PM

By Lion and Lamb Ministry

It’s long but is a very good article

YESHUA THE NEW WINE.

Luke 5: 33-39

It seems that the Master’s answer concerning old wineskins torn coats and new patches leave them speechless. They don’t ask him any more questions.

Perhaps that was only because, like me they have no idea what Yeshua was talking about.

INCOMPATIBILITY

Church teaching: The new garment is the Gospel / Grace / Church and the old garment is the Old Covenant /Law / Judaism.

New wine is the Gospel / Grace / Kingdom / Church, the old wine skin is the Old Covenant / law / Judaism. Grace and Law do not mix

CHOOSING THE TWELVE

Talmidim [disciples] –

Unlike me, the Pharisees probably knew exactly what Yeshua meant. because they were probably already familiar with the symbolism Yeshua used in his double parable. Comparing Luke 5:36-39 with the well known Pharisaic proverb from the pirkei Avot 4:20

http://ffoz.org/magazine/archives/category/the_life_of_messiah/000024.shtml

Yeshua's New Wine
By D. Thomas Lancaster

The Emperor’s daughter said to Rabbi Yehoshua ben Chananiah: “What beautiful Torah in an ugly vessel!” He replied, “Learn from the house of your father. In what is the wine stored?” “In jars of clay,” she answered. “But all the common people store their wine in jars of clay! You use them too? You should keep your wine in jars of gold and silver!” She went and had the wine placed in vessels of gold and silver, and it turned sour. “Thus,” said he to her, “It is the same with Torah!” She asked, “But are there not handsome people who are learned?” He replied, “If they were ugly they would be even more learned!” (Talmud Bavli Nedarim 50b)

Imagine, if you will, a banquet at the house of Levi the tax collector. There is singing and drinking and eating and merriment, and in the midst of it reclines the Master and his disciples. On the periphery of the scene are the Pharisees and several disciples of Yochanon the Immerser.[1] They have been following Yeshua, learning from him and scrutinizing him. They would not deign to eat with the sinners and tax collectors that constitute Yeshua’s friends and followers, but they are intrigued enough to stay close and observe. As the meal progresses, the Pharisees began to ask Yeshua’s disciples some questions such as, “How often do you fast?” The disciples are unable to answer with their mouths full, so they shrug and look at Yeshua.

When these same critics turn to Yeshua, informing him that his disciples don’t fast like the disciples of Yochanon and the disciples of the Pharisees, Yeshua disarms them with the double parable of the Old Coat and the New Wine.

No one tears a patch from a new garment and sews it on an old one. If he does, he will have torn the new garment, and the patch from the new will not match the old. And no one pours new wine into old wineskins. If he does, the new wine will burst the skins, the wine will run out and the wineskins will be ruined. No, new wine must be poured into new wineskins. And no one after drinking old wine wants the new, for he says, ‘The old is better.’ (Luke 5:36-39)

It seems that the Master’s profound observations concerning old wineskins, torn coats and new patches leave them speechless. They don’t ask him any more questions, but perhaps that was only because, like the rest of us, they have no idea what Yeshua was talking about.

Incompatibility
Expositors have been scratching chins and nodding heads for a long time over the double parable of Luke 5:33-39. [2] The meaning of the parable is seemingly obvious. The new garment is the Gospel/Grace/Kingdom/Church and the old garment is the Old Covenant/Law/Judaism. No one tears a new garment to patch an old one. Grace and law do not mix. Similarly, the new wine is the Gospel/Grace/Kingdom/Church and the old wineskin is the Old Covenant/Law/Judaism. Just as the new wine would burst the old skins and be spilled, so too the New Covenant Gospel of the Church Kingdom would be wasted if it was poured into the Old Covenant, Mosaic, legalistic religion of Judaism.

In almost unanimous consent interpreters and commentators have agreed that the old wine, old wineskins and the old coat are all symbols of Judaism and Law whereas the new wine and the new coat are symbols of Christianity and Grace.[3] As Kee aptly observes (1970), this “traditional interpretation of the double parable can be summed up in one word: incompatibility. It is supposed to teach that the Old and the New are incompatible, that Judaism is incompatible with Christianity.” The old is worn and obsolete. The Church must be a new and separate movement, not a patch attempting to prolong the institutions of the Old Covenant. The New Covenant has erased and replaced the Old. This meaning of the double parable seems obvious—Or perhaps not.

Serious Problems
There are serious problems with the incompatibility interpretation. For example, it is anachronistic. Critical scholarship now acknowledges that Yeshua was not trying to start a new religion nor was his intention to dismantle Judaism. At the time that Yeshua gave the double parable there was no Christianity, no Church, no new religion for Judaism to be incompatible with. At the time the Gospel writers were recording the double parable, the Church Fathers’ model of Yeshua as an antagonist of the Old Covenant and Judaism had not yet even been conceived. What has, in fact, become worn and obsolete is the very notion that the historical Yeshua was opposed to the Torah and Judaism. Regarding this incompatibility interpretation Kee says, “There is no denying that Jesus radically transformed [and] revolutionized Judaism for his followers, but surely we need not labor the point that it was in fact Judaism which he transformed for them . . . To attribute the idea of incompatibility to Jesus, as a way of describing his relationship to Judaism, is bad theology and bad history.” His point is well taken. The incompatibility interpretation stems from a supersessionist theology of a later century. To place it into the mouth of Yeshua is absurd. [4]

Another serious problem with the incompatibility interpretation is the closing line of Luke 5:39, “And no one, after drinking old wine wishes for new; for he says, ‘The old is good.’” [5] This troublesome verse is found only in Luke’s version of the double parable, and even then the Western version of the text omits it. It creates a serious problem for the incompatibility interpretation because it seems to reverse the value assigned to the new wine. If the Gospel is represented by the new wine, then the statement and even the entire metaphor is ridiculous in Yeshua’s mouth. It is “as if Yeshua was comparing Judaism to good claret and the Gospel to cheap plonk.” [6] Marcion the Heretic was quick to deem the end of 5:39 as a Jewish interpolation into the Gospels. [7] No surprise then that the Western text completely omits Luke 5:39. The omission belies an anti-Judaic bias in the scribal transmission. By removing the statement that the Old is good (or even “better”), the editor felt that he had removed “any suggestion that the Jews would reject the teachings of Christianity because they were well satisfied with Judaism.” [8] If Rice is correct, then the double parable was being read according to the incompatibility interpretation at a very early stage.

Attempts to Salvage
Recognizing that the incompatibility interpretation is flawed, several scholars have made valiant attempts to reinterpret the double parable in a manner consistent with the rest of the Gospels. R. S. Good (1983) and David Flusser (1979), for example both try to force an explanation of the words “the old is better” by reversing the direction of the entire double parable in Luke. According to Good, Luke intentionally reinterpreted the two parables to mean that the Old is better because it is the Old Israel that Yeshua has come to save. [9] The New Wine, bursting the skins and tearing the garment, should then be read as the Pharisees and the Sadducees. The old skins must be preserved: the old garment must be patched because they represent old Israel. This attractive and highly innovative explanation accounts for 5:39 and gets past the anachronistic problems of the traditional interpretations, but it forces itself against statements like 5:38 and does not fit the context. Even Good points out that it is not in concert with Matthew and Mark’s versions.

Stern tries to reconcile the parables by going in several directions. He suggests that Yeshua meant for us to patch up Judaism by pre-shrinking the cloth of Messianic faith to fit the old coat of Judaism. Then he suggests that the new wineskins are actually the old wineskins which have been reconditioned in order to receive the new wine. Hence the New Wineskins should be read as renewed wineskins. While his interpretations are creative, they continue to operate under the premise of incompatibility and stretch the reader beyond the point of believability. In addition, they certainly don’t give answers to the question of Luke 5:39 or to the context in which the parables are given.

Choosing the Twelve
The context in which the double parable occurs is a narrative relating how Yeshua chose his disciples. All of chapter five and the first 16 verses of chapter six string together several stories which deal with the calling and selection of the disciples. Luke 5:1-11 records the story of the first miraculous catch of fish during which Yeshua invites James, John, Peter (and by inference Andrew) to become his disciples. The pericope concludes in 5:11 with the fishermen leaving their boats, their nets and the miraculous catch to follow Yeshua. The narrative then turns aside to relate two short healing stories (5:17-26), but returns to the calling of the disciples with the call of Levi in 5:27 and 28. Like the fishermen, Levi leaves everything and follows Yeshua. Levi holds a banquet for Yeshua and at this banquet the Pharisees level criticisms aimed at Yeshua’s disciples. They asked his disciples, “Why do you eat and drink with tax collectors and ‘sinners’?” They asked Yeshua, “Why don’t your disciples fast and pray like Yochanon’s disciples and like our disciples?” Both questions are criticisms of Yeshua’s disciples and his choice of company. Yeshua replies to the question on fasting with the bridegroom statements of 5:34,35 and then tells the double parable.

Following the double parable, Luke six begins with a short pericope which at first seems unrelated to the concerns of choosing disciples. In the story (6:1-5) the Pharisees challenged Yeshua on Sabbath issues, but it is in fact the disciples behavior which the Pharisees criticized, not the behavior of Yeshua. They accused the disciples of breaking the Sabbath by picking the heads of grain and husking them in their hands. Again the criticism is directed toward Yeshua’s choice of disciples. Connected with the Sabbath observance conflict raised in 6:1-5, Luke offers a matching pericope in 6:6-11 that echoes and complements the first but is clearly meant as an aside.

Returning to the matter at hand, that is the call and selection of Yeshua’s disciples, Luke closes the section with the final elimination round in which Yeshua chooses the Twelve (6:12-16). With the choosing of the Twelve, the disciple issue is settled.

The Calling and Selection of His talmidim

(A) Calling of the First Disciples 5:1–11

(Aside to Healing of the Leper) 5:12–16

(Aside to Healing of the Paralytic) 5:17–26

(B) Calling of Levi 5:27–28

(C) Levi’s Banquet / Pharisees’s criticisms of disciples 5:29–39

Yeshua’s Response and Double Parable

(D) Pharisees accuse disciples of Sabbath violation 6:1–5

(Aside to a similar Sabbath story) 6:6–11

(E) Final selection of the Twelve Talmidim 6:12–16

Smudged Paper and Old Wine
We might imagine the Pharisees leaving Levi’s banquet and later pondering Yeshua’s words saying, “I don’t know what he meant by that, but it sounded very profound.” — Or perhaps not.

Unlike us, the Pharisees probably knew exactly what Yeshua meant because they were probably already familiar with the symbolism Yeshua employed in his double parable. By comparing Luke 5:36-39 with the well known Pharisaic proverb of Avot 4.20, a whole new interpretation arises which is a natural complement to the context of the passage and is more satisfactory than those previously suggested.

Luke 5:36–39
He told them this parable: “No one tears a patch from a new garment and sews it on an old one. If he does, he will have torn the new garment, and the patch from the new will not match the old.

And no one pours new wine into old wineskins. If he does, the new wine will burst the skins, the wine will run out and the wineskins will be ruined.

No, new wine must be poured into new wineskins.

And no one after drinking old wine wants the new, for he says, ‘The old is better.’”

Pirkei Avot 4:20
Elisha ben Avuyah said: “He who studies as a child, unto what can he be compared? He can be compared to ink written upon a fresh [new] sheet of paper. But he who studies as an adult, unto what can he be compared? He can be compared to ink written on a smudged [previously used and erased] sheet of paper.

Rabbi Yose ben Yehudah of the city of Babylon said, “He who learns from the young, unto what can he be compared? He can be compared to one who eats unripe grapes, and drinks unfermented wine from his vat. But he who learns from the old, unto what can he be compared? He can be compared to one who eats ripe grapes, and drinks old wine.

Rabbi (Meir) said: Do not pay attention to the container but pay attention to that which is in it. There is a new container full of old wine, and here is an old container which does not even contain new wine.

Like the larger Gospel context of Luke chapters five and six, the Avot passage is comparing different types of teachers, disciples and teachings. If we allow the similes of Avot 4 to inform the metaphors of Luke 5, we have surprising results. [10] In Avot, the vessels for containing wine are not institutions, religious movements or teachings. The vessels containing the wine are individuals. The wine is the teaching that the individual consumes or contains. [11] Applying this symbolism to Luke, we could parse out 5:36-39 as follows:

New garment = previously uneducated students
Old garment = previously educated students
Patch = teaching
New wineskins = previously uneducated students
Old wineskins = previously educated students
New wine = new teaching
Old wine = previous teaching
Singular Meaning = New teaching requires previously uneducated students in order to be received.
No one takes a lesson meant for a new student and tries to teach it to an old (already educated) student. If he does, he will fail to teach the new student, and the lesson meant for the new student will be rejected by the old student.

No one teaches new Torah-teaching to old (previously educated) students. If he does, the new teaching will be rejected, the student will be lost. No. Instead new Torah-teaching must be taught to new students. And no one after receiving old teaching (previous education) wants the new, for he says, “The old teaching is better.”

The Avot interpretation of the double parable offers several advantages. Unlike the incompatibility theory, the Avot interpretation is not anachronistic. It does not pit Yeshua against Judaism nor does it imagine a conflict between New Covenant Grace and Old Covenant Law. Instead, it pits Yeshua’s choice of disciples against the Pharisee’s choice of disciples. Unlike the incompatibility theory, the Avot interpretation fits the context in which the parable is found, namely the call and selection of Yeshua’s disciples. It addresses the Pharisee’s criticism about fasting and it answers the problems raised by 5:39.

Unsmudged Paper
Luke has gone to some pains to demonstrate the unsavory character of Yeshua’s choice in disciples. They are fishermen, tax collectors and ‘sinners.’ They are feasting and drinking instead of fasting and praying. They are bungling Sabbath observance to feed their stomachs. They are not the pious types. They are not the types to follow in the tradition of the disciples of Hillel and Shammai. They have not been educated with the sages. In this regard, they are like a clean slate, a fresh, unsmudged piece of paper for Yeshua to write on.

This is not to suggest that the disciples had no education. A primary education in Yeshua’s day involved an extensive memorization of Scripture and knowledge of Torah. Educational standards in the Galilee may have even surpassed those of Judah, so even fishermen and tax collectors had received training in the Scriptures. However, only the very gifted went on to study beyond the age of 12 or 13 and only the truly exceptional (and perhaps wealthy) went on to become disciples of the sages. [12]

The situation with the disciples reminds me of a celebrated metal welder who was known in northeast Minnesota for his excellent work. He often remarked that he would rather teach welding to a drunk he found in a bar who had never held a welding torch in his hand than hire a welder with previous training and experience. A man who had never been taught to weld was still teachable, but a man who already knew how to weld was not. This was the case with Yeshua’s choice of disciples. The Pharisees, up to this point in the Gospel narrative, were not yet opponents of Yeshua but were probably still contemplating whether or not to become his disciples. They could not understand Yeshua’s choice of disciples and must have been baffled that he had not yet approached them with the position. At Levi’s banquet, they criticized the uncouth character and behavior of Yeshua’s choice in disciples. Yeshua responded with the double parable, which in essence explained to the Pharisees why they were not qualified for the job of disciple and why the low-life, which he chose to associate with, were. The double parable is not a polemic against Judaism; it is simply an explanation of his choice of disciples. In essence, Yeshua was saying to the Pharisees, “Look, You can’t teach an old dog new tricks.”

We can now understand how the double parable answers to the question about fasting. They said, “Yochanon’s disciples often fast and pray, and so do the disciples of the Pharisees (which is to say, so do we), but yours go on eating and drinking.” Yeshua’s statements about the bridegroom answered directly to the issue of fasting, but the double parable answered to the broader criticism being raised. That criticism was that Yeshua’s disciples were not at all like the disciples of Yochanon or the Pharisees.

The Old is Better
Finally, the Avot interpretation solves the problems raised by 5:39, “And no one, after drinking old wine wishes for new; for he says, ‘The old is good.’” If the parable is comparing Yeshua’s Torah teaching (New Wine) with the Pharisee’s Torah teaching (Old Wine) the meaning becomes perfectly clear. Disciples who have already studied Torah under the Pharisaic schools (or under the tutelage of Yochanon) and have learned to interpret according to those traditions and models are unlikely to be interested in a new approach. Those students will be apt to disregard contradictory teaching because they have already formed opinions and made judgments. They will regard the education they have already received as superior. Yeshua has chosen fishermen and tax collectors precisely because of their lack of formal education.

Luke returns to the disciple’s lack of formal education in Acts chapter 4 when the Sanhedrin questions Peter and John. In Acts 4:13 Luke writes, “Now as [the Sanhedrin] observed the confidence of Peter and Yochanon and understood that they were uneducated and untrained men, they were amazed, and began to recognize them as having been with Yeshua.” On that day, when two, poorly-educated fishermen stood before the Sanhedrin, they demonstrated the full caliber of their education under Yeshua and vindicated his choice of disciples. New garments, new wineskins and new students.

Bibliography
Bivin, David. 1988. Jesus’ Education. Jerusalem Perspective 14,15
Bruce, F.F. 1983. Hard Sayings of Yeshua. IV Press. Downers Grove, Illinois.
Flusser, David. 1979. Do You Prefer New Wine? Immanuel 9: 26-31.
Good, R.S. 1983. Yeshua, Protagonist of the Old, In Luke 5:33-39. Novum Testamentum 25(1): 19-36
Kee, Alistair. 1970. The Old Coat and the New Wine, A Parable of Repentance. Novum Testementum 12(1): 13-21)
Lachs, Samuel Tobias. 1987. A Rabbinic Commentary on the New Testament. Ktav Publishing House, Inc. Hoboken, New Jersey
Lange, John Peter. Commentary on the Holy Scriptures. Critical, Doctrinal and Homiletical. Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, MI.
Lenski, R.C.H. 1961. The Interpretation of Luke’s Gospel. Augsburg Publishing House, Minneapolis, MN.
Mead, A. H. 1988. Old and New Wine. St. Luke 5:39. Expository Times. 99(8): 234-235.
Meyer, Heinrich August Wilhelm. Critical and Exegetical Handbook to the Gospels of Mark and Luke. Volume 2. T. & T. Clark, Edinburgh.
Nolland, John. 1989. Word Biblical Commentary Volume 35A. Word Books, Dallas, Texas.
Rice, George E. 1980. Some Further Examples of Anti-Judaic Bias in the Western Text of the Gospel of Luke. Andrews University Seminary Studies 18 (2): 149-156
Stern, David H. 1992. Jewish New Testament Commentary. JNT Publications, Inc. Maryland
Stern, Robert H. 1992. The New American Commentary, Volume 24 Luke. Broadman Press, Nashville, TN.
Synge, F. C. The Parable of the Patch. Expository Times 56: 26-27
Young, Brad H. 1995. Jesus the Jewish Theologian. Hendrickson Publishers, Peabody, MA.

Footnotes
1. We should not assume that the two groups are mutually exclusive.
2. Also Matt 9:14-17, Mark 2:18-22
3. Bruce, 1983; Lachs 1987; Lange; Lenski 1961; Meyer; Stein, 1992; Synge. The unanimity of this interpretation of Yeshua’s words has been so normative to Christian thinking that the term “Old Wine” is figuratively used to refer to Judaism in Christian writings.
4. Kee (1970) is not alone in his observation of the difficulty with the incompatibility interpretation. He is joined by Nolland (1989), Mead (1988), Stern (1992). Kee also notes that the double parable has nothing to do with fasting. His own explanation, however, is less than satisfying and it necessitates a cut and paste which completely removes the parable from the narrative context the gospels place it in.
5. Or “the old is better.”
6. Mead 1988
7. Flusser, 1979
8. Rice, 1980
9. Flusser however contends that Luke preserves the original form. He is followed by Young (1995).
10. It could certainly be argued that the two sages quoted are Tannaim from a century after the time of Yeshua, but the metaphors and analogies which these Tannaim employed and which constitute the proverbs of Pirkei Avot belonged to a body of oral tradition, much of which predates the day of Yeshua. For example, see the passage from Nedarim 50b quoted at the beginning of the article which uses the same symbolic values for wine and containers.
11. Flusser (1979) cites other related Rabbinical and Talmudic passages in which wine is symbolic for Torah and the interpretation of scripture.
12. (1988, Bivin)

Charles YTK

2nd August 2005, 06:26 PM

All Good points. Bothgroups, Rabbinicals and Church fathers have done their deeds. This is why I so strongly opposed some that we encountered before. And two of them have fallen into the Rabbincal snare.

The Catholics took the same liberty of authority in changing all things. They were completely unappologetic and state pretty matter of fact, "Yes we changed the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday. We have that authority."

At least I can find places in the Talmud such as the teachings of Hillel that he and Yeshua are very close together in their teachings. But the bottom line is that Yeshua is the master and it his instructions in Torah that we are to follow if we are His disciples. He alone has the words of life. We need to always sit at his feet. We need to walk as he walked. Today many of those unsaved Jews teach from the Gospels because they admit that even though they do not believe that Jesus was the Messiah , he was none the less the pinacle of Torah teaching. There is none that surpass what he taught.

Charles

Charles YTK

2nd August 2005, 06:28 PM

Torah,
We must be on the same page. I was just getting ready to post that same article. Thanks for doing so.

Charles

Torah

2nd August 2005, 06:35 PM

Lol :thumbsup:

Catholic Dude

3rd August 2005, 06:01 AM

First of all this thread has been helpful, Im trying to get through all of the posts.

the Talmud is a relatively recent (~1300 CE) codification of commentaries and discussions, covering millenia, on wide ranging topics and issues related to both scripture and the culture of the Jewish people ...BUT they were only mere mortals, subject to the foibles and picayunes of all mortal men....
Here is what I dont get, I agree they are mere mortals, but how can you say that Oral Tradition was lost? One Jew told me that than passage concerning the child boiled in its mother's milk means that Meat and Dairy are not to go together and he finds this answer in the Oral version. When I read a passage like that it sounds like a pagan practice that the Jews were not supposed to copy, I would have never guessed that that passage had to do with separation of meat and dairy. Tradition is what teaches people how to celebrate a holiday, if step by step instructions were to be written down then it would take many many pages. Now if you are getting at the reasonable conclusion that different opinions were taken and recorded as tradition after Jesus came I would agree, there is a good chance that happened, in that sense I dont really have a sure source of unbiased historical Jewish beliefs.

The Torah was to be read to everyone--men, women, children, and even any gentiles around at the time--every seven years. Why? For what purpose? So that they may:

1. Hear.
2. Learn.
3. Fear the LORD.
4. Observe to DO all the words of THIS law.

This means that YHVH expected that even children seven and under would be able to do those four things listed above. They didn't need an interpreter, and neither do we.
I have never heard this was directed at the Gentiles. I though the gentiles were specifically excluded in this Law. A Jew told me that Gentiles only have to obey the Noahide law which was only a few commands, again he cites Oral Law as the basis for this because the Bible doenst really say.
I dont mean to sound dumb but I am older than 7 and I dont know if I would be able to observe all those things, there is so much stuff that needs an interpretation I wouldnt know where to start. I have asked the question about the "eye for eye" rule in the Bible, but again I have been told that isnt to be taken literally. Also all those passages in the Bible where it says something to the effect "if a person does ____ he shal be put to death", I dont understand how half the people arent put to death if this type of talk is to be taken as it looks to the casual observer.

The Pharisees did not believe in keeping the written commandments of HaShem, they believed in keeping their own rabbinical commandments of the "Oral Torah." The primary purpose of the establishment of the "Oral Torah" was to promote a centralized Pharisaic authority and control over the masses.

The scribes and Pharisees of Yeshua’s day (and later the Rabbis, who called themselves “elders”) were not bashful about their agenda:
I understand the part about keeping their own commands, thats how the groups like Sadducees and Pharisees came about, but how do we know who held the correct views?
And about all those quotes concerning their agenda, I was shocked they would say such a thing. If thats the way they feel why dont they vote the Written Torah out of use? I must not understand the purpose of Oral Torah, I thought it was the compliment of the Written which were both accepted at the same time where as from these posts it looks like a power struggle between Man vs Scripture.

As you read Talmud you will discover that it also presents the different opinions of men who just did not agree and it is left at that. It is OK to disagree as many of the sages did. But they each present their own reasons for their interpretation. You will still have to decide for yourself.

Many who post here are Biblically obedient, that is to say that the written word is the higher authority. While others like our Jewish brothers for example may hold the Talmud to be of greater authority. As Bracy said, Messiah held to Torah and not the Rabbinical traditions that later became Talmud. But he agreed with some of them too and observed many Jewish traditions that are not from Torah. So he did not discard all of the Oral Torah as one. As long as it did not interfer with the proper observance of Torah or if it inhanced the observing of it, Yeshua was OK with it.
Ok, this makes a lot of sense. So its not an outright rejection of the Talmu but certain parts which came later. I think I get it now.

To be real honest with you and hope I can say this without offense; the writings of the Church fathers are some of the most anti-Torah, and unfounded teaching you will ever encounter. Much of what they taught was a complete contradiction of Gods word. So you are in greater danger from the church fathers of the 3rd and 4th century than you are from the Talmud.
But the Church fathers were either direct successors or close to from the Apostles themselves, how could they have been so wrong so early?

Enjoy your reading. Try to remember that these are Jewish men writing to a Jewish audience, in terms that are familiar to both of them. You may have to do the extra to get the true meaning in context.
Thats my real struggle, its one of those things where if you didnt grow up Jewish it is hard to understand a lot of things about them. I have to rely mostly on places like here to get some answers.

Ill try to get to the other posts ASAP. Thanks for the help.

visionary

3rd August 2005, 07:32 AM

It would probably be easier to look for Yeshua in all of the old testament, look for how Yeshua explained it. Getting caught up in the Talmud is like getting carried away with the wind. It will blow you every which way. Not saying that you can not find good in it. Just saying that the Lord went to all this trouble to put together His Words, given by those who were closest to Him. Those that truly had a personal experience, relationship with Him, who are better able to witness to the way He is. The Word of God is best understood when taught by the author Himself. Ask Him. Seek Him with all your heart. Do not stop until like Jacob you have wrestled for your blessing. One of the blessings will be the Word of God will be unsealed. The Holy Spirit will speak to you and open up His Words to your heart and mind. Then you should ask for the gift of discernment. So that when you decide to venture out into the religious world of various flavors, you have a strong relationship with Yeshua and through much prayer can see that which is of the Lord and that which is not. Anything that is not, is dross. IT is a lot less confusing this way.

Charles YTK

3rd August 2005, 07:42 AM

Here is what I dont get, I agree they are mere mortals, but how can you say that Oral Tradition was lost? One Jew told me that than passage concerning the child boiled in its mother's milk means that Meat and Dairy are not to go together and he finds this answer in the Oral version. When I read a passage like that it sounds like a pagan practice that the Jews were not supposed to copy, I would have never guessed that that passage had to do with separation of meat and dairy. Tradition is what teaches people how to celebrate a holiday, if step by step instructions were to be written down then it would take many many pages. Now if you are getting at the reasonable conclusion that different opinions were taken and recorded as tradition after Jesus came I would agree, there is a good chance that happened, in that sense I dont really have a sure source of unbiased historical Jewish beliefs.

You are correct. The restriction on not boiling a kid in its mothers milk appears in the direction for sacrificial oferings. The Oral Torah takes the position to avoid even the appearance of evil. So the meat and dairy law is meant to avoid the appearance. However it is not a direct application of Torah in a literal sense.

I have never heard this was directed at the Gentiles.(reading the law) I though the gentiles were specifically excluded in this Law. A Jew told me that Gentiles only have to obey the Noahide law which was only a few commands, again he cites Oral Law as the basis for this because the Bible doenst really say.

What your Jewish friend tells you is not according to Torah but is according to the Oral Torah which is maintained in Rabbinical Judaism. Torah gave one law "For the native born and for the Gentile who dwell with you" Num 15:16 and in many places says that the Gentile is to be included in the festivals, and laws. There is only one place that the Gentiles had to be circumcised to take part and that is the killing and eating of the Passover lamb. Because this festival was given specifically to the sons of Abraham (by blood) and was given before the Sinai covenant. The noachide laws are not from the scriptures but come from Talmud. These were the restriction of a new convert to Judaism in order to enter the synagogue and to begin his learnig process of conversion. Or for "God fearers" like cornelius in Acts. The Apostles use a similar structure in Acts 15, to get the Gentile pagan into fellowship in the synagogues See Act 15:21, but the point is to demonstrate to the Jews in the synagogue that they have truly turned away from Idolatry. All the restriction are associated with Pagan practices.

I dont mean to sound dumb but I am older than 7 and I dont know if I would be able to observe all those things, there is so much stuff that needs an interpretation I wouldnt know where to start. I have asked the question about the "eye for eye" rule in the Bible, but again I have been told that isnt to be taken literally. Also all those passages in the Bible where it says something to the effect "if a person does ____ he shal be put to death", I dont understand how half the people arent put to death if this type of talk is to be taken as it looks to the casual observer.

The best place to begin, and remember you are not expected to know eerything from the start, is to get yourself into fellowship in a Messianic community just as those first Gentiles did in Acts 15. Yes the eye for an eye and such are to show that we should treat others as we want to be treated and that justice needs to be appropriate to the crime. The Torah always makes room for repentence and restitution as its first and best path to take. The best way to understand Torah is by reading the words of the Master, Yeshua. He taught Torah at it's highest level. Even the Jews use the Gespels to get a better understanding of Torah. (Not to imply that Torah is difficult. It is not. But it is deep touching the soul at many levels) Matthew 5-7 is some of the best Torah teaching you will very find.

I understand the part about keeping their own commands, thats how the groups like Sadducees and Pharisees came about, but how do we know who held the correct views?

Weigh it against the teachings of Yeshua. He had it perfect and is the only one who had it all perfect. He is the one who gave us Torah in the first place. It was Yeshua, (preincarnate) who was with Israel in the wilderness and gave the law, that is why it is so astounding to me that some teach that he abolished the law when it was he who gave t and he said not one tiny mark will be relaxed.

And about all those quotes concerning their agenda, I was shocked they would say such a thing. If thats the way they feel why dont they vote the Written Torah out of use? I must not understand the purpose of Oral Torah, I thought it was the compliment of the Written which were both accepted at the same time where as from these posts it looks like a power struggle between Man vs Scripture.
The purpose of Oral Torah was to find a every day practicle way of observing the Torah. It was meant to be commentary just like what you have in your own Christian bibles. However because it is written over a long span of time and by many men the motivation is not consistant. Each man may have a separate reason for his comments. But they are all generally agred to by one another. The "Hedges" minor laws and traditions that were written to protect one from accidently breaking Torah or from gettin close to breaking Torah became very important. But histoically as Israel faced arious situations those laws became more and more Jewish exclusive, blocking the Gentiles out. This is especially true in the Macabean period 165 BC because under the Macabees Judaism was tightened to protect it and the nation and Torah from infiltration and compromise by Gentile, especially those who came in under false pretence. So things like requiring a Gentile to convert and be circumcised before he could be part of the Torah community was added, and laws that blocked Gentiles from access to God. The dividing wall in the temple was built upon those hedge laws of the macabees, but they were not what Torah inself called for. Torah was given to a mixed multitude for all men on earth. The Jews were the vesel that was to protect Torah and to present the revelaion of God to the pagan world. They were to be ministers of Gods will.

But the Church fathers were either direct successors or close to from the Apostles themselves, how could they have been so wrong so early? No the Church fathers were mostly Gentiles who had rejected Judaism and the Torah and sought to redifine Christainity as a separate and completely new line of faith. They did not come about and begin writing until about 120 AD and are not established in their Christain doctrine until 350 AD or later. The Christain Church fathers took the attitude that they had the authority to change anything including Gods eternal word which God said would never change. And so their doctrine was written to be opposite of the word of God. Messiah was sort of hyjacked from the Jews, and the Church claimed to be the replacement of Israel and that Israel was abandoned by God. All of this is heresy and deception and sould be appearent after 1948. When you read Gods word you will find stark contradiction to what God commanded.

Thats my real struggle, its one of those things where if you didnt grow up Jewish it is hard to understand a lot of things about them. I have to rely mostly on places like here to get some answers.

Today there are many really good books that will help. Some sites that you can access these materials

www.ffoz.org (http://www.ffoz.org)
www.torahresource.com (http://www.torahresource.com)

A few good starter books,

Fellow Heirs, The mystery of the Gospel, The Letter Writer, Torah rediscovered, Our Father Abraham,

Bracy

3rd August 2005, 11:38 AM

Bracy

3rd August 2005, 11:41 AM

Continuing...

I wish to make note that there is a strong difference between Biblical Halacha, and Rabbinic Halacha. Biblical Halacha is a straightforward teaching of the Written Torah in accordance with plain context. Rabbinic Halacha generally begins with a biblical source which is then corrupted and manipulated through Rabbinic interpretation and (il)logic.

Here are some examples of Biblical vs. Rabbinic Halacha which should help to show how the Rabbis manipulate Scripture to say what they want it to say:

Doctrine Name: Tehiyeh Acharay Rabim

Exodus 23:2: You shall not follow a multitude in doing evil, nor shall you testify in a dispute so as to incline after the majority in order to pervert justice; nor shall you be partial to a poor man in his dispute.

Biblical Halacha: Do not follow the mob into evil and the perversion of justice.

The rabbis, on the other hand, do some creative editing by striking through what they consider irrelevant, and then through interpretation, they take what is needed to support their own agenda:

Exodus 23:2: You shall not follow a multitude in doing evil, nor shall you testify in a dispute so as to incline after the majority in order to pervert justice; nor shall you be partial to a poor man in his dispute.

The rabbis strike through everything in the above verse except for that which I listed in bold, so that the Rabbinic Halacha is as follows:

Rabbinic Halacha: You shall incline after the majority.

No matter how forced the interpretation, this is still a new ordinance binding on all Israel. The Rabbis use this verse to support their position that we are all obligated to incline after the majority, meaning we are required to obey Rabbinical majority rule when they give us their halacha on the Written Torah. This was later supported in the Babylonian Talmud:

Berachot 37a (also Baba Metzia 59a): (R. Akiva said)…the halacha is determined by the majority (based on Exodus 23:2).

Here is another example of the Rabbinic halacha.

Doctrine Name: Tikr’u Otam B’Mo’adim

Leviticus 23:4: These are the appointed times of YHVH, holy convocations, which you shall proclaim them at the times appointed for them (quoted directly from the Hebrew).

Biblical Halacha: Establishing the appointed times of YHVH’s festivals on earth.

Again, through some creative manipulation and interpretation of the biblical text, the Rabbis take Biblical Halacha and say that they have the authority to proclaim the times of our divine festivals, regardless of whether the proclamation is according to YHVH’s set times for them or not.

Leviticus 23:4: These are the appointed times of YHVH, holy convocations, which you shall proclaim them at the times appointed for them.

In Hebrew, the Rabbis change the object "them" (Hebrew: ”otam” – the holy festivals) and read it as the subject “you yourselves” (Hebrew: ”atem” – meaning all of you Rabbis). In short, they suspend the rules of Hebrew grammar and make the object (the divine festivals) the subject (the Rabbis). After this, they take the word B’Mo’adam which means “in their appointed times,” and entirely ignore it. Little tricks like these force the text to “prove” that YHVH and Heaven itself must yield to them [the Rabbis] who say that they have authority from Moses and Heaven to set the timing of the festivals as they see fit. Thus, Leviticus 23:4 is manipulated to read as follows:

Rabbinic Halacha: You (Rabbis) shall proclaim them.

Here are quotes from Jewish literature which supports this:

It says three times, “…which you shall proclaim them (”otam”) but read it “you yourselves (”atem”) shall proclaim.” (Rashi on Rosh Hashannah 25a).

(Akiva speaking to Rabbi Joshua) The text says, ‘you,’ ‘you,’ ‘you,’ three times, to indicate that ‘you’ [may fix the festivals] even if you err inadvertently, ‘you,’ even if you err deliberately, ‘you,’ even if you are misled. (Rosh Hashannah 25a).

Doctrine Name: Lo BaShamayim Hi

Lo bashamayim hi is a doctrine of Pharisaism evidenced from at least the days of Rabbi Eliezar (c. 90 CE). The Rabbis teach that God assigned all of His earthly jurisdiction over to them, supposedly telling them that they will be His voice to all Israel on earth, based on Deuteronomy 30:11-12:

Deuteronomy 30:11-12: For this commandment which I command thee this day, it not hidden from thee, neither it far off. [i]It [is] not in heaven, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it?

The clear meaning of this verse is straightforward:

Biblical Halacha: God’s commandments are not too difficult for us to perform or understand.

However, the Rabbis, in order to support their authoritative control, cross everything out of this verse, and leave only the words “It is not in heaven.”

Rabbinic Halacha: It is not in heaven.

Everything else in the verse is irrelevant. According to the Rabbis, no voice of YHVH is needed for guidance; the Pharisees (and now the Rabbis) have removed that. Anyone who brings forth an opinion contrary to established rabbinic oral tradition – even if he was known to be a holy prophet – is to be ignored.

As evidence of this, I offer the following quote from the Talmud:

It has been taught: On that day R. Eliezer brought forward every imaginable argument, but they did not accept them. Said he to them: ‘If the halachah agrees with me, let this carob-tree prove it!’ Thereupon the carob-tree was torn a hundred cubits out of its place — others affirm, four hundred cubits. ‘No proof can be brought from a carob-tree,’ they retorted. Again he said to them: ‘If the halachah agrees with me, let the stream of water prove it!’ Whereupon the stream of water flowed backwards — ‘No proof can be brought from a stream of water,’ they rejoined. Again he urged: ‘If the halachah agrees with me, let the walls of the schoolhouse prove it,’ whereupon the walls inclined to fall. But R. Joshua rebuked them, saying: ‘When scholars are engaged in a halachic dispute, what have ye to interfere?’ Hence they did not fall, in honour of R.

Joshua, nor did they resume the upright, in honour of R. Eliezer; and they are still standing thus inclined.

[i]Again he said to them: ‘If the halachah agrees with me, let it be proved from Heaven!’ Whereupon a Heavenly Voice cried out: ‘Why do ye dispute with R. Eliezer, seeing that in all matters the halachah agrees with him!’ But R. Joshua arose and exclaimed: ‘It is not in heaven.’ What did he mean by this? — Said R. Jeremiah: That the Torah had already been given at Mount Sinai; we pay no attention to a Heavenly Voice, because Thou hast long since written in the Torah at Mount Sinai, “after the majority must one incline.”(b.Bava Metzia 59a)

Furthermore, if one were to speak through the authority of prophecy and claim Heaven’s command to do so, whether the prophecy happens to agree or disagree with the Rabbis, he must die. If you think I am joking or exaggerating, then take note of the words from the Rambam – Moshe ben Maimon (Maimonides):

If there 1000 prophets, all of them of the stature of Elijah and Elisha, giving a certain interpretation, and 1001 Rabbis giving the opposite interpretation, you shall “incline after the majority” and the law is according to the 1001 Rabbis, not according to the 1000 venerable prophets. And thus our Sages said, “By God, if we heard the matter directly from the mouth of Joshua the son of Nun, we would not obey him nor would we listen to him!”

The Sages said further, “If Elijah comes and tells us, the levirate obligation is canceled through a shoe (see Deut 25:9), we will listen to him , but if he says it is canceled through [b]a sandal, we will not listen to him .” [b]…And so if a prophet testifies, that the Holy One, Blessed be He, told him, that the law of a certain commandment is such and such, or that the reasoning of a certain sage is correct, that prophet must be executed… as it is written, ‘it is not in heaven’ (Deut. 30:12). Thus God did not permit us to learn from the prophets, only from the Rabbis who are men of logic and reason. (Maimonides, Introduction to the Mishnah)

Bracy

3rd August 2005, 11:42 AM

Continuing...

I assure you, that this is not some obscure teaching from the halls of Rabbinic learning. This is a basic tenet of Rabbinic doctrine. According to the Rabbinites, they have full prerogative to make laws in addition to or in spite of the written Word, because they believe Scripture says “it is not in heaven,” which is a twisted reading of Deuteronomy 30:12. Interpreting Torah by prophecy or even by a voice from Heaven is forbidden, because the Rabbis are said to be men of earthly “logic” and “reason.” Hence, if one were to teach something with a claim that it is from Heaven (such as what a prophet would say, even if it agrees or disagrees with the rulings of the sages), he is to be executed. This is why Yeshua’s teachings fell on deaf ears among the Pharisees when He said: “My teaching is not Mine, but His who sent Me. "If anyone is willing to do His will, he will know of the teaching, whether it is of God or {whether} I speak from Myself.” Yeshua claimed that His teaching was from heaven, and the Rabbis taught that the Torah “is not in heaven.”

With this in mind, one can more easily understand the context of many “New Testament” passages, such as the following:

Matthew 21:23: When He entered the temple, the chief priests and the elders of the people came to Him while He was teaching, and said, "By what authority are You doing these things, and who gave You this authority?"

Matthew 23:34: "Therefore, behold, I am sending you prophets and wise men and scribes; some of them you will kill and crucify, and some of them you will scourge in your synagogues, and persecute from city to city,

Matthew 23:6-7: "They love the place of honor at banquets and the chief seats in the synagogues, and respectful greetings in the market places, and being called Rabbi by men.

Concerning the above quotation from Matthew 23:6-7, that the Pharisees love the honor of men, see how this affects later Rabbinic thinking:

…Whoever casts merchandise into the pockets of scholars will be privileged to sit in the HeavenlyAcademy… (Pesachim 53b).

…A rabbinical scholar may assert, I am a rabbinical scholar; let my business receive first attention as it is written, “…and David’s sons were priests,” just as a priest receives [his portion] first, so does the scholar too (Nedarim 62a).

Raba, hoever, replied: The Rabbis have power to expropriate. For R. Isaac has said: How do we know that the Rabbis have power to expropriate? Because it says, “…and that whosoever came not within three days according to the counsel of the princes and the elders, all his substance should be forfeited, and himself separated from the congregation of the captivity” (Gittin 36b).

These examples from the halls of Rabbinic “learning” show how they creatively misuse written Scripture, placing upon it a marketing “spin,” in such a way as to convince the people that the Rabbis were chosen by Elohim to be His authority on earth; in other words – Lo bashamayim hi – “It is not in heaven.” To counter this bad Pharisaic doctrine, Paul presented the same proof text used for Lo bashamayim hi, based on Deuteronomy 30:12-14, and put it back into its correct context, writing this in Romans 10:1-5:

Romans 10:1-5: Brethren, my heart’s desire and my prayer to Elohim for them is for their salvation. For I bear them witness that they have a zeal for Elohim, but not in accordance with knowledge. For not knowing about Elohim’s righteousness, and seeking to establish their own, they did not subject themselves to the righteousness of Elohim. For Messiah is the end (result) of the (written) Torah for righteousness to everyone who believes. For moses writes that the man who practice the righteousness which is out of (written) Torah shall live by it (that righteousness).

Charles YTK

3rd August 2005, 12:18 PM

Bracy,

Once again excellent post. You know that the Church fathers and preachers today do the very same thing. They take passages out of their Hebraic context and read Christian doctrine or even denominational doctrine back into its meaning. This is why it is so important for us to study the word of God for ourselves and to be bold enough to stand up against such interpretations when we see them.

Many Church doctrines are exactly the opposite of what the Master and the disciples acually said and it is near impossible to get anyone to listen because they trust the minister up front just as the common Jewish man trusted the teachings of the Rabbinate and the temple authority.

Messiah came to free us from our list of sins and from the power of evil over us. But he also came to free Torah from the bondage of Rabbinical teachings, legalism, and false doctrine which had buried it. We were born again, and Torah was born again for our sakes, so that once again we wold have the council of the Lord.

Charles

Bracy

3rd August 2005, 02:14 PM

Charles:

Once again excellent post. You know that the Church fathers and preachers today do the very same thing. They take passages out of their Hebraic context and read Christian doctrine or even denominational doctrine back into its meaning. This is why it is so important for us to study the word of God for ourselves and to be bold enough to stand up against such interpretations when we see them.

I can certainly agree that both Christianity and Judaism have been guilty of the very same thing. While the Pharisees used the "Oral Torah" to promote their own authority and control of the people, Catholicism used "Apostolic Succession" and "Papal Infallibility" to accomplish the same agenda.

Protestantism has been no less guilty. An example of the same "majority rule" overturning the very clear commandments of Elohim appeared recently on WorldNetDaily.com with respect to the MethodistChurch:

A pastor who denied church membership to a homosexual has been banished from the pulpit and denied his salary for one year by the Virginia Annual Conference of the United Methodist Church, despite the admission he acted on his conscience and his action could be defended "in theory" from the Methodist Book of Discipline.

(Of course, the pastor is probably no less guilty than the Virginia Annual Conference in this case. If the pastor denies church membership to homosexuals but turns a blind eye to adulterors, fornicators, and other Torah violations, then he is not applying the Torah equally and fairly.)

But, I can't honestly say that one is in "greater danger from the church fathers of the 3rd and 4th century than [they] are from the Talmud." Both are equally guilty of the very same thing, but in opposite directions: the early Church Fathers correctly understood that we are not to accept the authority of the “Oral Torah,” but they “threw the baby out with the bathwater” by throwing out the Written Torah as well. So, as I see it, one will find just as much good and bad doctrine in the teachings of the Sages or the Christian Theologians.

Charles YTK

3rd August 2005, 03:17 PM

But, I can't honestly say that one is in "greater danger from the church fathers of the 3rd and 4th century than [they] are from the Talmud." Both are equally guilty of the very same thing, but in opposite directions: the early Church Fathers correctly understood that we are not to accept the authority of the “Oral Torah,” but they “threw the baby out with the bathwater” by throwing out the Written Torah as well. So, as I see it, one will find just as much good and bad doctrine in the teachings of the Sages or the Christian Theologians.

I think the reason I consider the Church fathers to be more dangerous to the believers (Christains) is because as it turned out the only witness and Gospel to the unsaved world was through those Church fathers. (as the Jewish Messianics went sort of under ground for a long time due to persecution) Unfortunately they (Church fathers) preach a Messiah which they fashioned for themselves (Jesus) that is not at all what the scriptures say. However there is enough truth in it to at least bring one to turn from unbelief to believing in the need for salvation and then on to their projected image of Messiah. This is enough truth to hide a lot of poison. You know, if a fellow wanted to poison the whole world all he would have to do is make poison that tastes like sugar and it would end up in everybodys drink. (If you know what I mean). So while the believers are naturally skeptical about what the Sages of Judaism say, they are completely open and trusting and convinced of what the Church fathers said. Do you remember my old adversary Tim W.? Everything he believed and said was right out of those Church fathers. And it did not matter how many ways I showed him the error between the Church fathers and what the scriptures actually said, he could not be moved to the truth. A person like this is like an old wine skin. It has been used and stretched to the shape of that doctrine. And now to put new wine into them will cause the wineskin to burst and the skin and the wine are lost. So they close their ears and scream Lalalalalalalal so that they will not hear the truth.

This is the danger I see in the church fathers. For Messianics it is both the Church fathers and the sages. And you and I have witnessed a couple of good strong brothers turn to Rabbinical Judaism and take upon them the yoke of the Oral law which Messiah condemned. And some of those went on to renounce their faith in Messiah as well. Very sad indeed.

All said I do agree with you as you know I have been very critical of the Oral Torah for a long time. I see places where it is right and agrees with the Torah, but you have to be very careful to judge each portion separately and by the teachings of Messiah. That is our standard check for all interpretation. Does it agree with Yeshuas words. And yet this is the big gripe I have with Paulinists, they believe without a single regret that by their understanding Paul revelaed an entirely new knowledge that was against Torah and all that. If Paul does not agree with Yeshua then one of two situaions exists. 1. Paul was a false teacher and should be trashed. or 2. Paul was a true apostle and We did nto understand Paul correctly. Until we see that they are saying the same thing, we have not understood. (I choose option 2)

Charles

Bracy

3rd August 2005, 03:26 PM

Unfortunately they (Church fathers) preach a Messiah which they fashioned for themselves (Jesus) that is not at all what the scriptures say.

Yes, but the Sages are no less guilty in this regard. They too preached a "anti-Messiah" just as surely as the early Church Fathers did. The Jewish Sages were not (and still are not) looking for a Messiah Who would uphold the Written Torah, they were (and still are) looking for a Messiah Who will uphold the Oral Torah. Both the Jewish Sages, and the Church Fathers, preached against the Written Torah of Elohim.

It's the same mistake in either case. The Pharisees had so thoroughly infused their "Oral Torah" into the minds of the people, that they didn't know the difference. They didn't distinguish between "Oral" and "Written" -- as far as they were concerned, it was ALL "Torah."

So when Yeshua and His disciples came along preaching against the "Oral Torah," the Jews saw it as simply being against "Torah" altogether. For Gentiles coming into the faith, and being uneducated in Torah themselves, they naturally made the same mistake, thinking that Yeshua and His disciples were preaching against "Torah" altogether.

That's the fundamental error in Christian theology. Most Christians think that the Pharisees were preaching obedience of the Written Torah when the fact is they were teaching disobedience of the Written Torah. The Sages had declared that Elohim had given them full authority and that no one -- not even Elohim Himself -- could correct them.

Charles YTK

3rd August 2005, 04:37 PM

Yes, but the Sages are no less guilty in this regard. They too preached a "anti-Messiah" just as surely as the early Church Fathers did. The Jewish Sages were not (and still are not) looking for a Messiah Who would uphold the Written Torah, they were (and still are) looking for a Messiah Who will uphold the Oral Torah. Both the Jewish Sages, and the Church Fathers, preached against the Written Torah of Elohim.

I hadn't thought of it in those terms. I guess because I read the Torah I think that their expectation was still the Torah restoring Messiah. But you are correct. Thanks

It's the same mistake in either case. The Pharisees had so thoroughly infused their "Oral Torah" into the minds of the people, that they didn't know the difference. They didn't distinguish between "Oral" and "Written" -- as far as they were concerned, it was ALL "Torah."

So when Yeshua and His disciples came along preaching against the "Oral Torah," the Jews saw it as simply being against "Torah" altogether. For Gentiles coming into the faith, and being uneducated in Torah themselves, they naturally made the same mistake, thinking that Yeshua and His disciples were preaching against "Torah" altogether.

This I agree with as well. This is the issue with them. Yet when he responds to them they seem to know the Torah and are checked by his words but no less persuaded to abandon their Oral Torah tradition.

That's the fundamental error in Christian theology. Most Christians think that the Pharisees were preaching obedience of the Written Torah when the fact is they were teaching disobedience of the Written Torah. The Sages had declared that Elohim had given them full authority and that no one -- not even Elohim Himself -- could correct them.

Yes. I have a place I would like you to visit some time. I would go with you but I am banned for this message. As many times as I have tried to show them the difference between "Works of the law"= Legalism vs. Keeping Torah they can not separate these. For them it is just law. Law is Torah and what Paul was preaching against. Not at all!!! He was preaching against oral Torah and traditions that made Torah of no effect, just as Yeshua also did. (The other disciples as well.)

I think too that people have a hollywood mentle image of what the Jews believe. They see them as the people of the moviess pious and living close to God and his commandments. They do not realize how much Judaism changed from the time of the exile in Babylon. By the time the Hasmoneans were finished and the Macabees, Judaism was completely rewritten. In the years that followed the destruction of the temple the Church relocated its center from Jerusalem to Rome and redefined itself to be as opposite of Judaism as possible. At the same time the Biet Din of Jerusalem went off to Yavneh and redfined Judaism as a templeless and Torahless religion of Rabinnical Judaism.

This is not to say that there are no longer any Torah obedeint Jews. There are always faithful ones who see the truth and remain faithul to it. I have met some on this forum and others.

The truth is still there in the scriptures and both of these groups can go there if they really want the truth. Unless we study Torah (And all of Tanakh) we are in danger of falling into one of these other camps. What I practice as much as possible is Apostolic Judaism. It is not a recognized religion. It is a way of walking.

Charles YTK

3rd August 2005, 05:23 PM

Bracy,

By the way have you heard of the MMT document. It is one of the scrolls of the dead sea, and it is a manual of Dicipline practiced by the Rabbinicals Jews, not the Escenes, but was in their documents probably because they opposed these things. But it is translated "Works of the LAW" and represents a large volume codifying the many Rabbinical laws and how they were to be observed. Some feel that when Paul says "If righteousness came through works of the Law. . ." he is actually refering to this codice that was prevelant in those days. It was the code of conduct for those whom Paul opposed. I have not found an English translation yet. Do you know of one?

Colabomb

3rd August 2005, 06:59 PM

Charles YTK

3rd August 2005, 07:28 PM

This actually covers how a lot of us protestants view the relationship between Scripture and tradition.

Hi Colabomb,

How would you say that has affected your beliefs or practice? Do you still think that the law of God was abolished, or that the Sabbath was changed from the 7th day to the 1st day?

Charles

Catholic Dude

3rd August 2005, 08:29 PM

I will continue with where I left off last

So you are in greater danger from the church fathers of the 3rd and 4th century than you are from the Talmud.
First of all those things about the Early Church Fathers, Im still not sure what is so bad or unBiblical about what they said. Also I noticed the reference to the 3rd and 4th centuries, well what about the ECFs of the 1st and 2nd century? Who was spreading the Gospel around if there was no NewTestament written at the time? St Paul writes to Timothy and Titus to appoint successors. The ECFs of the 1&2 centuries should have some truth and merit.

IT IS PERMISSIBLE TO LEGISLATE A VIOLATION OF THE TORAH, TO MAKE A TAKANAH??? Where is the evidence for this in the written Word? It is not needed because the Sages have declared that the Written Word is irrelevant when it comes to the takanot...

As evidence that the Written Word is irrelevant when legislating Rabbinic takanot, Rabbis Paz could draw upon the following quotes from the Talmud:
... ...
It seems obvious, to me at least, that the Talmudic Sages are no less guilty of leading their followers away from HaShem's Written Torah commandments than are the early Church Fathers.
I have never heard of ECFs writing statments that openly defy the Bible the way I read those comments of Paz and such. I dont know if there is a comparison between the two groups. The ECFs were fighting heresy using the Bible where as the Pharisees seem to be promotings their version of things without using the Bible.

About that stuff on New Wineskins I had a hard time following. Some parts make sense, but others dont. For one how can they think of the Apostles as people who didnt have pre conceived notions of the Messiah? There are references to thier false conclusions about the Messiah all the time. But at the same time I can understand the idea that the pharisees were so hardened and molded that they couldnt be talked to rationally.

The Catholics took the same liberty of authority in changing all things. They were completely unappologetic and state pretty matter of fact, "Yes we changed the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday. We have that authority."
I dont get this at all. I dont know of any Christian group who celebrates the Sabbath according to OT law. The stuff about Sunday is about the day that Jesus rose from the dead, I dont see what the problem is. There are references to the first day of the week in the NT.
They way I hear people talk in here its like Im wrong because Im gentile and dont observe Jewish rules and regulations. I dont know how to celebrate Saturday Sabbath the correct way even if I wanted to. In Acts 15 they ruled that gentiles are not to have that burden on their backs.

It would probably be easier to look for Yeshua in all of the old testament, look for how Yeshua explained it.
Getting caught up in the Talmud is like getting carried away with the wind.
...
The Word of God is best understood when taught by the author Himself. Ask Him. Seek Him with all your heart. Do not stop until like Jacob you have wrestled for your blessing. One of the blessings will be the Word of God will be unsealed. The Holy Spirit will speak to you and open up His Words to your heart and mind. Then you should ask for the gift of discernment. ...
I agree its best if I stick mostly to the OT. I spent about 3 hours today looking though the Babyloninan Talmud and its too much legalsim and what-if senarios and back and forth opinions for me to get anything out of it. I do read the Bible the best I can, and when people do tell me things I do reference the Bible, at the same time getting answers from places like here is so helpful when I get stuck.

You are correct. The restriction on not boiling a kid in its mothers milk appears in the direction for sacrificial oferings. The Oral Torah takes the position to avoid even the appearance of evil. So the meat and dairy law is meant to avoid the appearance. However it is not a direct application of Torah in a literal sense.
I dont get this. The Oral takes the position to avoid even the appearance of evil, and therefore meat and dairy give this appearance, yet this is not the literal sense of the passage? It looks like from this that the Oral is a valid source for things like this, how else would someone understand what Moses was writing?

What your Jewish friend tells you is not according to Torah but is according to the Oral Torah which is maintained in Rabbinical Judaism. Torah gave one law "For the native born and for the Gentile who dwell with you" Num 15:16 and in many places says that the Gentile is to be included in the festivals, and laws.
There is only one place that the Gentiles had to be circumcised to take part and that is the killing and eating of the Passover lamb. ...
The noachide laws are not from the scriptures but come from Talmud. These were the restriction of a new convert to Judaism in order to enter the synagogue and to begin his learnig process of conversion.
Or for "God fearers" like cornelius in Acts. The Apostles use a similar structure in Acts 15, to get the Gentile pagan into fellowship in the synagogues See Act 15:21, but the point is to demonstrate to the Jews in the synagogue that they have truly turned away from Idolatry. All the restriction are associated with Pagan practices.

If Gentiles were always welcome then why did all the Prophets and Kings and OT Writings such come from the Jews? All through the OT I see My People, Isarel, Jacob etc, never a reference to Jews and Gentiles living together. When they got to the Promise land all non Jews were pushed out. I looked at Num15:16 but I dont see that passage.
And about the Passover lamb, thats one of the most important things, how can someone miss it and still be accountable to the other stuff?
About the Noachied laws I had that question of where are they in Scripture, but it looks like it isnt. But I dont understand the "convert to Judaism" stuff, Acts15 starts off by the claim that people have to become Jews in order to become Christinas, this idea was condemned by the council. And how was any Christian supposed to enter a synagogue and survive? They were running for their lives, they werent allowed to talk about the Gospel or NT writings in a Synagogue.

The best place to begin, and remember you are not expected to know eerything from the start, is to get yourself into fellowship in a Messianic community just as those first Gentiles did in Acts 15.
...
Matthew 5-7 is some of the best Torah teaching you will very find.
Did St Paul teach that Gentiles were to get involved in Messianic communities? There is so much that a gentile is not bound to, I can eat meat and dairy for one.

And yes I agree that the sermon on the Mount is some of the best teachings in the Bible.

Weigh it against the teachings of Yeshua.
...
It was Yeshua, (preincarnate) who was with Israel in the wilderness and gave the law, that is why it is so astounding to me that some teach that he abolished the law when it was he who gave t and he said not one tiny mark will be relaxed.
I do weigh stuff against what Jesus said, but I was originally concerned with how certain especially prophetic passages were interpreted before Jesus came. And about the abolishing talk, He did say nothing was being abolished, but it was being fulfilled in such a way that many of those rules and rituals would not be done the same way as they used to.

(continued later)

Henaynei

3rd August 2005, 08:53 PM

ermmm..... that is "kid" boiled in it's mother's milk - kid as in offspring of goat or sheep - NOT *child* boiled in it's mother's milk - just thought I'd clarify ;) One Jew told me that than passage concerning the child boiled in its mother's milk means that Meat and Dairy are not to go together and he finds this answer in the Oral version.

Bracy

3rd August 2005, 09:33 PM

I have never heard of ECFs writing statments that openly defy the Bible the way I read those comments of Paz and such.

Here’s a few:

But again their scruples concerning meats, and their superstition relating to the Sabbath and the vanity of their circumcision and the dissimulation of their fasting and new moons, I do [not] suppose you need to learn from me, are ridiculous and unworthy of any consideration. (The Letter of Mathetes to Diognetus).

Be not deceived with strange doctrines, nor with old fables, which are unprofitable. For if we still live according to the Jewish law, we acknowledge that we have not received grace… [For we] have come to the possession of a new hope, no longer observing the Sabbath, but living in the observance of the Lord’s Day… [For] it is absurd to profess Christ Jesus, and to Judaize. For Christianity did not embrace Judaism, but Judaism Christianity. (The Epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians).

Do not accept Judaism. But if any one preach the Jewish law unto you, listen not to him. For it is better to hearken to Christian doctrine… than to Judaism. (The Epistle of Ignatius to the Philadelphians).

But these sectarians... did not call themselves Christians--but "Nazarenes," ... However they are simply complete Jews.They use not only the New Testament but the Old Testament as well, as the Jews do... They have no different ideas, but confess everything exactly as the Law proclaims it and in theJewish fashion-- except for their belief in Messiah, if youplease! For they acknowledge both the resurrection of the dead and the divine creation of all things, and declare thatG-d is one, and that his son is Y'shua the Messiah.They are trained to a nicety in Hebrew. For among them the entire Law, the Prophets, and the... Writings... are read in Hebrew, as they surely are by the Jews. They are different from the Jews, and different from Christians, only in thefollowing. They disagree with Jews because they have come to faith in Messiah; but since they are still fettered by the Law--circumcision, the Sabbath, and the rest-- they are not inaccord with Christians.... they are nothing but Jews....They have the Goodnews according to Matthew in itsentirety in Hebrew. For it is clear that they still preservethis, in the Hebrew alphabet, as it was originally written. (Epiphanius, Panarion 29).

The early Church Fathers taught against the Written Torah just as surely as the Jewish Sages did. If they had limited the above quotes to the “Oral Torah” only, they likely would not have erred. But the Pharisees had so thoroughly intertwined the “Oral Torah” with the Written Torah, that most did not make a distinction between the two.

I dont know if there is a comparison between the two groups. The ECFs were fighting heresy using the Bible where as the Pharisees seem to be promotings their version of things without using the Bible.

The “Oral Torah” was the tool with which the Pharisees promoted their own authority and control of the people. Obedience of the Rabbis, they claimed, was equivalent to obedience of Elohim Himself. They claimed to sit in the seat of Moses and therefore, they claimed, they were Elohim’s representatives on earth. Compare this with the words of Ignatius below:

You must all follow the lead of the bishop, as Jesus Christ followed that of the Father; follow the presbytery as you would the Apostles; reverence the deacons as you would God’s commandment. Let no one do anything touching the Church, apart from the bishop. Let that celebration of the Eucharist be considered valid which is held under the bishop or anyone to whom he has committed it. Where the bishop appears, there let the people be, just as where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not permitted without authorization from the bishop either to baptize or to hold an agape; but whatever he approves is also pleasing to God. Thus everything you do will be proof against danger and valid. (The Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans).

Let no one deceive himself: unless a man is within the sanctuary, he has to go without the Bread of God. Assuredly, if the prayer of one or two has such efficacy, how much more that of the bishop and the entire Church! It follows, then: he who absents himself from the common meeting, by that very fact shows pride and becomes a sectarian; for the Scripture says: God resists the proud. Let us take care, therefore, not to oppose the bishop, that we may be submissive to God. (The Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians).

In the above quotes, Ignatius is doing *exactly* the same thing that the Pharisees did: where the Pharisees promoted Pharisaic authority and control, Ignatius promoted Papal authority and control. It is the same error, and the same bondage.

I dont get this. The Oral takes the position to avoid even the appearance of evil, and therefore meat and dairy give this appearance, yet this is not the literal sense of the passage? It looks like from this that the Oral is a valid source for things like this, how else would someone understand what Moses was writing?

I mentioned this in another thread, but it bears repeating here: Compare the teaching of the “Oral Torah” with what is found in the Written Torah. Take note of what Abraham served HaShem in Genesis 18:1-8:

Genesis 18:1-8: And the LORD appeared unto him in the plains of Mamre: and he sat in the tent door in the heat of the day; And he lift up his eyes and looked, and, lo, three men stood by him: and when he saw [them], he ran to meet them from the tent door, and bowed himself toward the ground, And said, My Lord, if now I have found favour in thy sight, pass not away, I pray thee, from thy servant: Let a little water, I pray you, be fetched, and wash your feet, and rest yourselves under the tree: And I will fetch a morsel of bread, and comfort ye your hearts; after that ye shall pass on: for therefore are ye come to your servant. And they said, So do, as thou hast said. And Abraham hastened into the tent unto Sarah, and said, Make ready quickly three measures of fine meal, knead , and make cakes upon the hearth. And Abraham ran unto the herd, and fetcht a calf tender and good, and gave unto a young man; and he hasted to dress it.[i] [i]And he took butter, and milk, and the calf which he had dressed, and set [it] before them; and he stood by them under the tree, and they did eat.

If eating meat and dairy products together is forbidden, then how could Abraham have served it to HaShem? And how could HaShem have eaten it?

I'll address your other points in my next post...

Charles YTK

3rd August 2005, 10:50 PM

A great deal is explained by understanding the culture fothe Jewish comminity in which the New testament was written. Think of the many passages concerning circumcision, why? Here is some back ground. From the time of the Macabees the Rabbinical authority tried to secure Judaism and the nation of Israel from infiltration by Gentiles because of the many trageties they had suffered during foreign occupation. So to prove that a Gentile was really wanting to become a Jew and not just pretending to get in and spy on them and such, the process of Rabbinical coversion was set up. A Gentile wanting to worship the God of Israel was required to be trained in Torah, make a sacrifice, be circumcised and a Mikvah (Baptism). After this process the GEntile was considered in every way a Jew.

If you were to stop a Rabbi on the street in the first century Jerusalem and ask him how a man was saved and had part in the world to come, the Rabbi would tell you quite matter of factly, "Only Jews have part in the world to come." "For a Gentile to be saved he must become a Jew through conversion and circumcision. Then he has a part in the world to come, because he is now a Jew."

This is taking Gentile inclusion which is stated over and over in Torah and setting it aside and making salvation strictly a process of Ethnicity and law keeping. And this was in fact the policy of the Jews. And as Bracy pointed out part of why the ECF opposed Judaism. They did not realize that the Judaism of the time was corupted with Oral Torah and Rabbinical authority that was a negation of true Torah.

Now if you apply this background to the scriptures like Acts 15, or the letter to the Galatians, you can see what the issue really was. Does a Gentile have to be circumcised and keep the Torah(Torah oral torah and traditions of the sages which all together was what the Rabbis considered keep the law) in order to be saved. The answer was no. A Gentile does not have to become a Jew. He needs to turn away from his Pagan ways and begin learning growing and procticing the ways of righteousness which are taught in the old testament. Salvation is through grace, and sanctification (Becoming holy in our life) is a matter of doing what God tells us.

The verse you could not find:

Num 15: [15] One ordinance shall be both for you of the congregation, and also for the stranger that sojourneth with you, an ordinance for ever in your generations: as ye are, so shall the stranger be before the LORD. [16] One law and one manner shall be for you, and for the stranger that sojourneth with you.

This is repeated throughut the Torah with each festival and such.

Paul never tells anyone that the Gentile are not to keep the Torah. He tells them not to submit to Rabinical authority or to be circumcised and become Jews. He tells them not to get involved in the legalism of the Pharises. But he does tell them many times to live righteously, to keep the commandments perfectly, to live ccording to Gods law, and says that the spiritual mans mind is subject to the law of God. There is another thread that I posted called, "very Good article worth reading". I would encourage you to read this as it will answer a lot of your questions.

Continue to ask questions here as well.

Charles YTK

3rd August 2005, 10:59 PM

A part thought for this evening,

Paul said 2 Tim 3: [16] All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: [17] That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

We learn righteousness and prepare for living in holiness and establish our doctrine through the scriptures. To Paul who wrote this the scriptures are the Tanakh, what you think of as the Old Testament. There was no such thing as a New testament when he said this. All of our instruction is to be founded upon and tested by God Torah. If what we say we believe and what we practice in our religion is contrary to the Torah then we need to make some changes.

Torah is the benchmark, the foundation. Without it there is no messiah, no salvation no righteousness.

Charles

Bracy

3rd August 2005, 11:09 PM

CatholicDude:

If Gentiles were always welcome then why did all the Prophets and Kings and OT Writings such come from the Jews? All through the OT I see My People, Isarel, Jacob etc, never a reference to Jews and Gentiles living together. When they got to the Promise land all non Jews were pushed out. I looked at Num15:16 but I dont see that passage.

This is a common fallacy in traditional Christian doctrine. The Torah wasn’t given to “Jews,” it was given to all twelve tribes of Israel. “Jews” are primarily from the tribes of Judah and Benjamin (and some from Levi), from where they get their name (“Jew-dah”). In Hebrew, “Judah” is pronounced “Yehudah” and “Jews” are ”Yehudim.” Traditional Christianity tends to think that everyone in the "Old Testament" were Jews. They're not -- they are Israelites.

Remember that at Mount Sinai, all twelve tribes of Israel were gathered there, not just Judah. The Torah was given to the entire nation, not just to the tribes of Judah and Benjamin. And from the very beginning, HaShem gave us this warning:

Deuteronomy 30:1-5: And it shall come to pass, when all these things are come upon thee, the blessing and the curse, which I have set before thee, and thou shalt call [them] to mind among all the nations, whither the LORD thy God hath driven thee, And shalt return unto the LORD thy God, and shalt obey his voice according to all that I command thee this day, thou and thy children, with all thine heart, and with all thy soul; That then the LORD thy God will turn thy captivity, and have compassion upon thee, and will return and gather thee from all the nations, whither the LORD thy God hath scattered thee. If [any] of thine be driven out unto the outmost [parts] of heaven, from thence will the LORD thy God gather thee, and from thence will he fetch thee: And the LORD thy God will bring thee into the land which thy fathers possessed, and thou shalt possess it; and he will do thee good, and multiply thee above thy fathers.

Right from the very beginning, HaShem warned us that if we did not obey His commandments, that we would be driven out of the Promised Land. But that if we would return to Him, and obey His commandments, He would regather us from the four corners of the earth and bring us back to the Promised Land.

And what happened? We disobeyed His commandments, and true to His Word, he drove us from the Promised Land.

Remember too that after the death of Solomon, the Kingdom split into the Southern Kingdom of Judah, and the Northern Kingdom of Israel. We know from 1 Kings that the Northern Kingdom was forcibly removed from the Land of Israel by the divine hand of Elohim and taken into a deep, long-lasting exile to the four corners of the earth.

At Mount Sinai, HaShem took Israel for a bride – a marriage took place in which we promised that we would serve no other gods but Him:

Ezekiel 16:6-8: And when I passed by thee, and saw thee polluted in thine own blood, I said unto thee [when thou wast] in thy blood, Live; yea, I said unto thee [when thou wast] in thy blood, Live. I have caused thee to multiply as the bud of the field, and thou hast increased and waxen great, and thou art come to excellent ornaments: [thy] breasts are fashioned, and thine hair is grown, whereas thou [wast] naked and bare. Now when I passed by thee, and looked upon thee, behold, thy time [was] the time of love; and I spread my skirt over thee, and covered thy nakedness: yea, I sware unto thee, and entered into a covenant with thee, saith the Lord GOD, and thou becamest mine.

Call it literal, symbolic, allegorical or whatever you will, it seems clear that HaShem considered Himself to be a Husband to both Houses of Israel – Judah and Israel. But, we failed to keep our marriage vows, and served other gods – an offense which HaShem likens to adultery:

Jeremiah 31:31-32: Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day [that] I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD:

Regardless of all the extravagant love and devotion that HaShem wanted to give His bride, we were never completely content with receiving it, just as Moses had predicted centuries earlier:

Deuteronomy 31:29: For I know that after my death ye will utterly corrupt [yourselves], and turn aside from the way which I have commanded you; and evil will befall you in the latter days; because ye will do evil in the sight of the LORD, to provoke him to anger through the work of your hands.

We broke our marriage vows to HaShem, even after repeated attempts by Him to reason with us, begging us to cease our adulteries and Torah-rebellion and to return to Him. We never did, so we left Him with no other choice but to divorce us, which He did:

Isaiah 50:1: Thus saith the LORD, Where [is] the bill of your mother's divorcement, whom I have put away? or which of my creditors to whom I have sold you? Behold, for your iniquities have ye sold yourselves, [i]and for your transgressions is your mother put away.

Hosea 2:2: Plead with your mother, plead: for she [is] not my wife, neither [am] I her husband: let her therefore put away her whoredoms out of her sight, and her adulteries from between her breasts;

After much agony, He finally divorced the Northern Kingdom of Israel for their unwavering adultery and collectively issued them a divorce decree. Then, he kicked them out of His house – out of the physical Land of Israel. However, He did not divorce the Southern Kingdom of Judah (although Judah played the harlot also) because He had made a promise to King David, saying:

2 Samuel 7:16: And thine house and thy kingdom shall be established for ever before thee: thy throne shall be established for ever.

Take note of the following verse:

Isaiah 11:12: And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth.

Judah was dispersed, but they were never divorced (“banished,” “outcast”). King Cyrus of Persia allowed the people of Judah (“Jews”) to return to the Promised Land, but the Northern Kingdom of Israel had become assimilated into the pagan population and completely lost their identity, just as Hosea promised they would:

Hosea 1:2-10: The beginning of the word of the LORD by Hosea. And the LORD said to Hosea, Go, take unto thee a wife of whoredoms and children of whoredoms: for the land hath committed great whoredom, [departing] from the LORD. So he went and took Gomer the daughter of Diblaim; which conceived, and bare him a son. And the LORD said unto him, Call his name Jezreel; for yet a little [while], and I will avenge the blood of Jezreel upon the house of Jehu, and will cause to cease the kingdom of the house of Israel. And it shall come to pass at that day, that I will break the bow of Israel in the valley of Jezreel. And she conceived again, and bare a daughter. And [God] said unto him, Call her name Loruhamah: for I will no more have mercy upon the house of Israel; but I will utterly take them away. But I will have mercy upon the house of Judah, and will save them by the LORD their God, and will not save them by bow, nor by sword, nor by battle, by horses, nor by horsemen. Now when she had weaned Loruhamah, she conceived, and bare a son. Then said [God], Call his name Loammi: for ye [are] not my people, and I will not be your [God]. Yet the number of the children of Israel shall be as the sand of the sea, which cannot be measured nor numbered; and it shall come to pass, [that] in the place where it was said unto them, Ye [are] not my people, [there] it shall be said unto them, [Ye are] the sons of the living God.

Now, this situation present a “divine conundrum” of sorts. HaShem had made a solemn oath to Abraham that he would regather all twelve tribes from the four corners of the earth, and bring us all back to the Promised Land. However, according to His Divine commandments:

Deuteronomy 24:1-4: When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give in her hand, and send her out of his house. And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man's [wife]. And the latter husband hate her, and write her a bill of divorcement, and giveth [it] in her hand, and sendeth her out of his house; or if the latter husband die, which took her [to be] his wife; [i]Her former husband, which sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled; for that abomination before the LORD: and thou shalt not cause the land to sin, which the LORD thy God giveth thee [for] an inheritance.

According to Torah Law, once a husband gives his wife a bill of divorcement and sends her out of his house, and then she becomes the wife of another man, the former husband [i]may never again take her again for a wife. This means that, according to Torah Law, HaShem could not, after divorcing the Northern Kingdom, take her again for a wife. The marriage covenant is binding until death.

Hosea 2:7: And she shall follow after her lovers, but she shall not overtake them; and she shall seek them, but shall not find [them]: then shall she say, [i]I will go and return to my first husband; for then [was it] better with me than now.

Hosea prophesied that we would desire to return to our former Husband because we would realize what we had lost. We would realize that we were much better off with our former Husband, than with our current husband.

So what was the solution to this problem? How could HaShem keep his oath to Abraham and bring back all twelve tribes to the Promised Land after he divorced the Northern Kingdom of Israel? How could we return to our former Husband when it was forbidden by the Torah?

Paul tells us in Romans 7:

Romans 7:1-5: Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law,) how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth? For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to [her] husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of [her] husband. So then if, while [her] husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man. Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, [even] to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God. For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death.

Paul explains that a law is only valid when there are people who are alive and contracted to live by that law. How can any law have jurisdiction over someone when they are dead? Thus, if the former husband dies, then the woman is freed from the law concerning her husband so that she is no longer an adulteress. Once the husband dies, the marriage bond is broken, so that she is free to marry another man, but while he is still alive, she remains an adulteress. This means that when Yeshua died, the marriage covenant was dissolved, so that we were freed from our adultery. Once He was resurrected, we were then free to remarry Him, and that is what the “New Covenant” is: it isn’t a covenant that replaces the Mosaic Covenant, it is a covenant which renews the Mosaic Covenant – our Marriage to HaShem. It had to be renewed because our Husband died, which dissolved the Marriage Bond, requiring us to be betrothed to Him again.