Dangers of Rabbinical Judaism

[Charles YTK]

Any time we move away from using the scriptures themselves to understand Gods will or to form our practice, then we are subjecting oursleves to the doctrines of men. Bracy has given some good examples of how the Pharisee's used their supposed authority to change the Torah to actually nullify some of the commandments and at the same time increase their control over the people. During the second temple period, Torah was completely wrapped in Oral Torah and traditions to such an extent that the written Torah was no longer distinguishable. What was followed was the Oral Torah. And this is at the very heart of Pauls disputes over the law, and avoiding the "works of the law". He was not disparaging Torah, but was addressing the false doctrines contained in the legalisms of the Oral Torah which was accepted as the authory of scripture in his time.

Later when the Church separated from the Jerusalem Biet Din in 135 AD, and the new Gentile controlled Christian church made doctrines to completely separate themselves from Judaism, they too used man made Doctrines that were anti-Torah. The reason may have been because they too could not see the written Torah of God because of it's being obscured in Oral Torah. As Bracy pointed out in another thread, They threw out the babay with the bathwater. The Christain Early Church Fathers went off in a direction that was completely contrary of Gods Torah, while at the same time the Jews were doing the same thing, following Oral Torah and making the Written Torah of no effect. And after 135 AD they also were forming a new Judaism that was without priesthood or Temple, a Judaim to be used in the Diaspora.

The middle ground was Apostolic Judaism, which keeps the commandments of God, as given in the written torah , a literal biblical obedeince and have the testimony of Yeshua the Messiah. These believers went into obscurity after about 400 AD.

Bracy if you would be so kind, perhaps you could post again here those Talmudic Halacha and how they abolished the law.

And we may post other doctrines either church fathers or Talmudic teaching to show the error of following the doctrines of men without checking them against the written word. We as believers are to be faithful to Gods word. And since we are not an illiterate society and are able to read for ourselves, we bear responsibility to seek of the truth, even when that truth is uncomfortable in regards to our traditions and the practices of those near us.

Charles

[Charles YTK]

613 Law's
Laws of oaths,
213. To swear in God's name to conform the truth when deemed necessary by court.

Justified by Deut 10: [20] Thou shalt fear the LORD thy God; him shalt thou serve, and to him shalt thou cleave, and swear by his name.

(In this context it would seem that "And swear by His name" means to trust in his name, to trust as an oath, not to prove your own truth, but to believe that Gods word is a sure oath)

Yeshua's Torah,

MT 5:33 Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths: [34] But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne: [35] Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King. [36] Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black. [37] But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.

Matt 23: [16] Woe unto you, ye blind guides, which say, Whosoever shall swear by the temple, it is nothing; but whosoever shall swear by the gold of the temple, he is a debtor! [17] Ye fools and blind: for whether is greater, the gold, or the temple that sanctifieth the gold? [18] And, Whosoever shall swear by the altar, it is nothing; but whosoever sweareth by the gift that is upon it, he is guilty. [19] Ye fools and blind: for whether is greater, the gift, or the altar that sanctifieth the gift? [20] Whoso therefore shall swear by the altar, sweareth by it, and by all things thereon. [21] And whoso shall swear by the temple, sweareth by it, and by him that dwelleth therein. [22] And he that shall swear by heaven, sweareth by the throne of God, and by him that sitteth thereon.

[Charles YTK]

Law of insurgents,

Law 580, Not to add to the Torah commandments or their oral explanations.

Justified by Duet 13:1

While the Torah law is to reject false prophets and those who teach anyone to depart from keping Torah, the addition of the stipulation "Or their oral explanations" gave ground for the murder of Messiah. Yeshua kept the torah perfectly, but rejected and condemned the Oral Rabbinic teachings which had made the law of no effect. This was enough to bring a death sentence. The same accusations were used against the Apostles.

[Henaynei]

Yeshua was not murdered - He sacrificed His life

I find the statement "gave ground for the murder of Messiah" inflammatory and obscene

It was HsShem's will that Yeshua die, and die in that manner - "from the foundations of the earth" - as He Himself said NOone took His life, He laid His life down of His own freewill - else His death would have had NO value...

[ShirChadash]

I really think that if Y'shua had a huge problem with the "Oral Yorah" and Rabbinicalism, He would never have told His followers to obey all that the Pharisees (presursers to Rabbinic Judaism) tell them to do -- but not to obey AS they obeyed (hypocritically, IOW saying and not doing). If Jewish Oral tradition were wholly abominable to Him, there is NO way He would in ANY way instruct His followers to do as the Pharisees taught without clarifying further (as in... "do as is WRITTEN but not their additions" or something such).

[ShirChadash]

the addition of the stipulation "Or their oral explanations" gave ground for the murder of Messiah. Yeshua kept the torah perfectly, but rejected and condemned the Oral Rabbinic teachings which had made the law of no effect. This was enough to bring a death sentence. The same accusations were used against the Apostles.

1) I agree with Henaynei -- "murder of Messiah" is inflammatory and disgusting. No one's Will but the Father's was done in Messiah's choice to die, and Messiah chose it before the foundations of the earth were even lain and man existed and was able to sin, to plot, to condemn, to nail.

2) He didn't reject out of hand the oral Torah teachings, but corrected for us those which were a misapplication or an incomplete understanding/application of Torah. For example, He didn't denounce the wearing of tefillin/phylacteries -- but rather the wearing of overly large (in order to be ostentatious) tefillin which was clearly for the purposes of setting oneself up to be seen as "more righteous". The wearing of prayer boxes is an oral Torah construct, no?

[visionary]

Was He not there for the feasts of lights?
John 10:22 And it was at Jerusalem the feast of the dedication, and it was winter. 23 And Jesus walked in the temple in Solomon's porch. 24 Then came the Jews round about him, and said unto him, How long dost thou make us to doubt? If thou be the Christ, tell us plainly. 25 Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not: the works that I do in my Father's name, they bear witness of me.

[Bruce101]

I believe that Yeshua came to properly interpret the Torah, because the Rabbi's then and now were usurping the authority of God with their self made authority. An example would be in Matthew 15:1-14, when the Pharisees were questioning Yeshua about why his disciples trangressed the traditions of the fathers, this would probably be good example of minhagim (one of the four types of reasoning to bring about a law) , by not washing their hands. They believed that unwashed hands rendered kosher food unkosher. This is not in the Torah. Then Yeshua answered with questioning why they trangressed the law of God by not honoring thier parents with the custom of korban that was not in the Torah. He did lay down his life, there is no question about that, but they still needed justification for his execution. And they found it in the fact that Yeshua did not respect their authority on matters regarding the Torah vs traditions.
A quote,
" My son! Be careful concerning Rabbinical decrees even more than the Torah... the Torah contains prohibitions... but anyone who violates a Rabbinical decree is worthy of death" :eek:
B. Talmud, Eruvin 21b

Bruce

[Bruce101]

Was He not there for the feasts of lights?

Chanukah does not violate Torah.
The contention is when the Rabbi's gave themselves more authority than is in the Torah. Because they felt that the "people of the land" were boors and to ignorant to know about the things of God, so the "people of the land" could not possibly have enough sense to do the right thing without their guidance.

Kind of a , "You are to stupid, let me show you how it works." type of thinking, kinda insulting, ain't it?

Bruce

[Charles YTK]

Yeshua was not murdered - He sacrificed His life

I find the statement "gave ground for the murder of Messiah" inflammatory and obscene

It was HsShem's will that Yeshua die, and die in that manner - "from the foundations of the earth" - as He Himself said NOone took His life, He laid His life down of His own freewill - else His death would have had NO value...

I didn't mean it to be inflamatory. Perhaps I could have worded that better. That is my problem and happens when I try to say something in few words. So now I must explain my thoughts.

Yeshua was not killed by the Jewish authority by a legal means. Yes it was God's plan from the beginning that Messiah would die. But it was not beause he had broken the law. There was no legal reason according to Gods law, to put him to death. The only places where Yeshua did anything that could be an offense to the Jews was when he crossed (violated) Rabbinical ordinances.

Since he was not executed as the result of actual violation of the law of God, his death sentence was not justified. It was in fact a pre-determined action by the Sanhedrin, and they incorperated false witneses and went to great lengths to have him killed. This does constitute murder. It was a unlawful execution. Yes it fulfilled Gods plan. I have theorized in the Past that the corrupt Hasmonean preisthood was allowed by God to come into power for the express reason that if the legitimate priesthod of Zadokies were still there they would not have killed Messiah. So just as Babylon is called "My servant" by God because he used Babylon to spank his rebellious Judeans, so also the Hasmonean priesthood with their Oral Torah served the purpose of executing the innocent son of God.

Charles

[Henaynei]

I didn't mean it to be inflamatory. Perhaps I could have worded that better. That is my problem and happens when I try to say something in few words. So now I must explain my thoughts.

Yeshua was not killed by the Jewish authority by a legal means. Yes it was God's plan from the beginning that Messiah would die. But it was not beause he had broken the law. There was no legal reason according to Gods law, to put him to death. The only places where Yeshua did anything that could be an offense to the Jews was when he crossed (violated) Rabbinical ordinances.

Since he was not executed as the result of actual violation of the law of God, his death sentence was not justified. It was in fact a pre-determined action by the Sanhedrin, and they incorperated false witneses and went to great lengths to have him killed. This does constitute murder. It was a unlawful execution. Yes it fulfilled Gods plan. I have theorized in the Past that the corrupt Hasmonean preisthood was allowed by God to come into power for the express reason that if the legitimate priesthod of Zadokies were still there they would not have killed Messiah. So just as Babylon is called "My servant" by God because he used Babylon to spank his rebellious Judeans, so also the Hasmonean priesthood with their Oral Torah served the purpose of executing the innocent son of God.

CharlesWell, since Yeshua had to die for sins, yet could not die for His own sins since He had none, and since neither could He have died by murder because He HAD to die for sin - a drive by shooting would not have done the same thing.... it was necessary that He be *charged* with sin worthy of death (which blasphemy is according to Torah) - thus all was done according to what which was necessary, period.

Additionally, neither could it have been achieved at another period of time, the circumstances necessary for efficacy intersected then and there.... period :)

[Charles YTK]

I really think that if Y'shua had a huge problem with the "Oral Yorah" and Rabbinicalism, He would never have told His followers to obey all that the Pharisees (presursers to Rabbinic Judaism) tell them to do -- but not to obey AS they obeyed (hypocritically, IOW saying and not doing). If Jewish Oral tradition were wholly abominable to Him, there is NO way He would in ANY way instruct His followers to do as the Pharisees taught without clarifying further (as in... "do as is WRITTEN but not their additions" or something such).

Well this is why he drew a line between what they said and what they did. But there is really another answer to this.

There must be 15 times that Yeshua criticzes the Pharisees for making their own laws which made the Torah of no effect, or calls them hypocrits and such. Yeshua is always warning the disciples about the yeast of the Pharisees. So what does this one verse, tell them to do anything they say, when what they were insisting upon was the oral Torah which cancelled out the Torah in many places.

Could this be a transcibal error. The Shem Tob version of Mattew translates it differently. Here is a clip for Ross K . Nichols on this subject:

Matthew 23:2-3 as translated from Shem Tob’s Hebrew Matthew text.

“Upon the seat of Moses the Pharisees and Sages sit, and now, all which HE (Moses) will say(7) unto you-keep and do; but THEIR ordinances and deeds do not do, because THEY say and do not.”



The Hebrew of Shem Tob’s Matthew allows for a clear distinction to be made between what HE (Moses) says and what THEY (the religious leaders) say. While admitting that the Pharisees and Sages ‘sit upon Moses’ seat’, the Hebrew of Shem Tob’s Matthew does not demand that the ‘people and his disciples’ do and keep what THEY say. Rather by using the singular - ‘He will say’, his hearers are directed to keep and do whatever Moses says unto them, but NOT to do according to the ordinances and deeds of the religious leaders. This proposed solution, based upon a variant reading found within Shem Tob’s Hebrew Matthew text fits within the interpretive framework of Matthew as a whole, and provides a sensible solution to the apparent contradictions which the Greek texts present to scholars.


So this translation agrees with all the other teachings of Yeshua on this subject of Pharisaical authority. I know that there are questions about the validity of Shem Tob, but there are questions about many little variants in the majority texts as well. This at least agrees with the rest of what Yeshua taught, bringing the authority of Moshe, and the Torah given by God, back to it's correct and full meaning.

Charles

[Charles YTK]

1) I agree with Henaynei -- "murder of Messiah" is inflammatory and disgusting. No one's Will but the Father's was done in Messiah's choice to die, and Messiah chose it before the foundations of the earth were even lain and man existed and was able to sin, to plot, to condemn, to nail.

2) He didn't reject out of hand the oral Torah teachings, but corrected for us those which were a misapplication or an incomplete understanding/application of Torah. For example, He didn't denounce the wearing of tefillin/phylacteries -- but rather the wearing of overly large (in order to be ostentatious) tefillin which was clearly for the purposes of setting oneself up to be seen as "more righteous". The wearing of prayer boxes is an oral Torah construct, no?

Zem,

I agree. And I have said the same here on many occassions. Yeshua id not reject all Oral traditions. Certainly not. He drank wine at the seder, and did so reclining. These are not Torah. They are RAbbinical.. He took part in the festival of Chanucha, that is not Torah, it is Rabbinical. Some of his teachings are almost word for word with Hillel, the greatest Pharisee. Yeshua has no gripe against Oral Torah or traditions so long as they inhance, and reveal Torah, or help us to keep it. On the other hand where Oral TOrah changed, losed or was contrary to Torah he oposes it. Where it prevents men from coming to God, he condemns it. So he weighs everything against Torah so that it is established correctly and men can follow it in simplicity. We are directed to do the same. As I have said already here, we must check all doctrine and practice against the writen Torah, and if our traditions inhance or make clear the keeping of Torah them it is OK. If it makes it more dificult or specific to ethnicity, we should avoid the tradition.

Charles

[ShirChadash]

Well this is why he drew a line between what they said and what they did. But there is really another answer to this.



No time to get the Scriptures but I know you already know the ones I refer to... in other passages, He makes clear that the sin of the Pharisees was hypocrisy -- saying but not doing. They were focussed on the lesser aspects of the Torah and neglecting the weightier matters of justice, etc. Messiah said they should not neglect the one while fulfilling the other. Their leaven was hypocrisy. Therefore He told His followers to do all that the Pharisees BID them to do -- teach them to do, tell them to do, and most assuredly this would include the "Oral Torah" -- but not to DO as they did because they "said" but they didn't "do" and therefore they were hypocrits.

[Charles YTK]

I believe that Yeshua came to properly interpret the Torah, because the Rabbi's then and now were usurping the authority of God with their self made authority. An example would be in Matthew 15:1-14, when the Pharisees were questioning Yeshua about why his disciples trangressed the traditions of the fathers, this would probably be good example of minhagim (one of the four types of reasoning to bring about a law) , by not washing their hands. They believed that unwashed hands rendered kosher food unkosher. This is not in the Torah. Then Yeshua answered with questioning why they trangressed the law of God by not honoring thier parents with the custom of korban that was not in the Torah. He did lay down his life, there is no question about that, but they still needed justification for his execution. And they found it in the fact that Yeshua did not respect their authority on matters regarding the Torah vs traditions.
A quote,
" My son! Be careful concerning Rabbinical decrees even more than the Torah... the Torah contains prohibitions... but anyone who violates a Rabbinical decree is worthy of death" :eek:
B. Talmud, Eruvin 21b

Bruce


Bruce,
Thank you. Yes you understand exactly what I am saying in the OP. The washing of hands is the example I use often for this. Another is standing in the field eating grain by rubbing it between the hands. This is not a Torah violation. It was the provision of the poor and homeless, and the corners of the fields were left unharvested so that the poor could eat and survive literally from hand to mouth, (From whense came the expression I blieve) What Torah prohibits is your regular daily labors, your gainful labor, working your store, selling your goods, harvesting to store or to sell, saving for the future, your servile work. It does not restrict one from eating, living, or doing good things that releive suffering or saves life. I know Jewish friends who on friday tea off and stack pieces of toilet tissue so that they are not guilty of doing the work of pulling tissue papaer off the roll if the need to use it on Sabbath arrises. They have elevators set for the Sabbath so that they stop at every floor automatically so that the work of pushing a button is not performed. They have timers to turn the TV on at a certain time to avoid the work of pushing a button and so that they by their own hands do not kindle a fire. It was customary to hire a Gentile to turn the light on and off in the synagogue on Sabbath. Some go without heat. Some eat only cold food.

If this all helps you to honor the sabbath, then that is OK. But to make it an ordinance and a law that becomes equal to or greater than Torah is wrong, since Torah did not say these things. Doe they make Gods law easier to keep or more complicated. Do they fulfill the intent of the law, or do they become ritual legalism. Each of us must decide for ourselves. I am not making light of anyones desire to keep Torah the best they can or saying these extra things are wrong. I am just saying that they are not Torah, and need to be evaluated in the context of Torah which has the higher authority than the oral Torah or traditions.

[Charles YTK]

Well, since Yeshua had to die for sins, yet could not die for His own sins since He had none, and since neither could He have died by murder because He HAD to die for sin - a drive by shooting would not have done the same thing.... it was necessary that He be *charged* with sin worthy of death (which blasphemy is according to Torah) - thus all was done according to what which was necessary, period.

Additionally, neither could it have been achieved at another period of time, the circumstances necessary for efficacy intersected then and there.... period :)

Hen,

Yes I agree. And it was the Hasomnean priesthood and the Rabbinical ordinances that facilitated this killing of Messiah Yeshua, Not Gods Torah." When it comes down to it, Blasphemey was not the reason they kiled him was it. As You said the scriptures called other me "You are god to them". The reason they killed him was for upsurping their Rabbinical ordinances and the damage he was doing to their imagined authority.

As I have said many many times, Yeshua came to set us free from our record of sins of breaking God's law, set us free from the power of the sinful nature, and also to set the Torah free from the bondage it was in through Pharisacial laws. He restored Torah to it's correct and full meaning.

Your post to me initially was that you were offended with the term "Murdered". Would you say then that the Pharisees were justified in killing him? Did they really have a legal right to execture the death sentence. We know that he did not blaspheme as he was in fact the son of God and equal to God. Did they even consult the scriptures to see if it could be true? No. IF they had they would have sen that every prophecy about the Messiah was coming true before their eyes. Others who were not blinded by the Pharisaical laws were able to see this clearly. So it was really the Pharisaical laws that facilitated the killing of Messiah.

Charles

[Charles YTK]

No time to get the Scriptures but I know you already know the ones I refer to... in other passages, He makes clear that the sin of the Pharisees was hypocrisy -- saying but not doing. They were focussed on the lesser aspects of the Torah and neglecting the weightier matters of justice, etc. Messiah said they should not neglect the one while fulfilling the other. Their leaven was hypocrisy. Therefore He told His followers to do all that the Pharisees BID them to do -- teach them to do, tell them to do, and most assuredly this would include the "Oral Torah" -- but not to DO as they did because they "said" but they didn't "do" and therefore they were hypocrits.

Perhaps when you have time to read my response to you in full concerning the Shem Tob Matthew, and the posts by Bruce you will understand what we are saying. Some of the Pharisaical laws negated the authoity of Torah. We nor they of the first century are obleiged to keep those laws, even if the Pharisees said to do so. They did not have the authority to tell any one to do different than Torah, any more than the Church fathers did abolishing Sabbath.

Didn't Messaih say over and over that their laws and ordinances were worthless and made the Torah of none effect? And you think that we are supposed to keep these laws anyway even after Yeshua said they were wrong and violated these laws himself? If was not just hypocrisy that was the proble. It was a volume of so many laws that no man could bear the weight of them, a burder that even our father could not bear according to Peter, (And he is not talking circumcision, he is talking Oral Torah).

[Charles YTK]

I am bringing this in from another thread. From Bracy.
If you do not want this here let me know Bracy and I will remove it.
_____________________________________________________

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:

[Charles YTK]

Continued from above

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 [is] it far off. 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:

[i][quote]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.

[Charles YTK]

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) [/quote]

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)

[Steve Petersen]

Well this is why he drew a line between what they said and what they did. But there is really another answer to this.

There must be 15 times that Yeshua criticzes the Pharisees for making their own laws which made the Torah of no effect, or calls them hypocrits and such. Yeshua is always warning the disciples about the yeast of the Pharisees. So what does this one verse, tell them to do anything they say, when what they were insisting upon was the oral Torah which cancelled out the Torah in many places.

Could this be a transcibal error. The Shem Tob version of Mattew translates it differently. Here is a clip for Ross K . Nichols on this subject:





So this translation agrees with all the other teachings of Yeshua on this subject of Pharisaical authority. I know that there are questions about the validity of Shem Tob, but there are questions about many little variants in the majority texts as well. This at least agrees with the rest of what Yeshua taught, bringing the authority of Moshe, and the Torah given by God, back to it's correct and full meaning.

Charles




Tim Hegg deals pretty effectively with the Shem Tob Matthew at his website, www.torahresource.com.

[Steve Petersen]

No time to get the Scriptures but I know you already know the ones I refer to... in other passages, He makes clear that the sin of the Pharisees was hypocrisy -- saying but not doing. They were focussed on the lesser aspects of the Torah and neglecting the weightier matters of justice, etc. Messiah said they should not neglect the one while fulfilling the other. Their leaven was hypocrisy. Therefore He told His followers to do all that the Pharisees BID them to do -- teach them to do, tell them to do, and most assuredly this would include the "Oral Torah" -- but not to DO as they did because they "said" but they didn't "do" and therefore they were hypocrits.

I believe it was Geza Vermes who quotes a section from the Dead Sea Scrolls in which the Essenes accused the Pharisees of being 'those who seek after the smooth things,' that is they sought out commandments that had high visibility and low self-sacrifice. This affirms the words of Jesus.This also makes me pretty suspicious of the 613 Commandments, as this compilation was done by the descendants of the Pharisees about 300 years after Jesus lived.

[Steve Petersen]

Daniel Lancaster has provided an effective tool for evaluating tradition:

1) Does is contradict what is written?
2) Does it go beyond what is written?

If something contradicts what is written, we throw it out.
If it does not, then apply the second test.
If it goes beyond what is written, but does not contradict what is written, you are free to adopt it, but it is not binding on anyone but you.
If it does not contradict what is written, and does not go beyond what is written, then it is binding.

I have yet to really apply this test to anything, but I think it could work. Why don't we try out a few examples and see if it is useful?

[ShirChadash]

Perhaps when you have time to read my response to you in full concerning the Shem Tob Matthew, and the posts by Bruce you will understand what we are saying. Hi there. I understand what you are saying. I simply disagree.

[ShirChadash]

Daniel Lancaster has provided an effective tool for evaluating tradition:

1) Does is contradict what is written?
2) Does it go beyond what is written?

If something contradicts what is written, we throw it out.
If it does not, then apply the second test.
If it goes beyond what is written, but does not contradict what is written, you are free to adopt it, but it is not binding on anyone but you.


Works for me -- my entire walk is my own and my stance is that no one should try to put observance on anyone but simply allow others to obey as they feel led. Of course, IMHO, that includes those who are convicted to follow Rabbinic Judaism and all.

[Charles YTK]

Daniel Lancaster has provided an effective tool for evaluating tradition:

1) Does is contradict what is written?
2) Does it go beyond what is written?

If something contradicts what is written, we throw it out.
If it does not, then apply the second test.
If it goes beyond what is written, but does not contradict what is written, you are free to adopt it, but it is not binding on anyone but you.
If it does not contradict what is written, and does not go beyond what is written, then it is binding.

I have yet to really apply this test to anything, but I think it could work. Why don't we try out a few examples and see if it is useful?

Daniel Lancaster and I agree. I have said the same thing. He just does a much better job of it. :clap:

Charles

[Charles YTK]

Tim Hegg deals pretty effectively with the Shem Tob Matthew at his website, www.torahresource.com. (http://www.torahresource.com.)

Yes I have read Tims critique, and I believe he is correct in saying that the Shem Tob is not a direct connection to the orginal Hebrew Matthew. That priceless treasure still remains hidden. Could it be based in part on such a manuscript? There is no reason not to think that this understanding of this one passage could not be correct, as many suspect that the scrptures as we have them might have been "adjusted" a bit by early Christain translators. Certainly the Shem Tob agrees with everything else that Yeshua says about the Pharisees, while the standard accepted translation is contrary to everything else he said, and did and what the Disciple end up teaching. The very acts 15 council is a meeting to set aside officially what the Pharisees were insisting upon as a requirement of their laws, which was Gentile conversion. Paul preaches against the need for Gentile conversion in several places, in almost every letter.

For Yeshua to tell the disciple to obey and do everything the Pharisees say, is contrary to everything else he said in other places.

[Charles YTK]

No time to get the Scriptures but I know you already know the ones I refer to... in other passages, He makes clear that the sin of the Pharisees was hypocrisy -- saying but not doing. They were focussed on the lesser aspects of the Torah and neglecting the weightier matters of justice, etc. Messiah said they should not neglect the one while fulfilling the other. Their leaven was hypocrisy. Therefore He told His followers to do all that the Pharisees BID them to do -- teach them to do, tell them to do, and most assuredly this would include the "Oral Torah" -- but not to DO as they did because they "said" but they didn't "do" and therefore they were hypocrits.

OK Zem,

Then the Pharisees said that all Gentiles had to convert through Rabbinical conversion rituals and be circumcised as full Jews before they could be saved. Why didn't the disciple do this commandment of the Pharisees.

Why did Peter eat with Gentiles knowing that it was a breach of Pharisaical laws and made him unclean in their eyes.

Why didn't they gentiles teach that only Jews had a place in the life to come as the Pharisees taught?

Why didn't the Apostles insist that all vessels and hands be washed before preparing and eating food as was required by the Pharisees?

Why did yeshua say that by their (the pharisees) traditions they make the Torah of no effect?

You are free to disagree. And I agree with you that their hypocrisy was a big issue. But there were other issues that went deeper like making the Torah of no effect and Gentile exclusion from the people of God.

Charles

[ShirChadash]

I believe I made it clear to you that I understand quite well -- those Oral laws which Y'shua knew were a misapplication and a misinterpretation of Torah, or with which He took issue, He corrected for us.

I don't believe for one moment Y'shua was speaking in broad sweeping terms of ALL of Oral Torah when He said that by some of their traditions, the Pharisees nullified Torah, just as I realize He was neither addressing every group of Pharisees with every negative comment and evaluation He made of some, nor was He condemning all Pharisees (as is assumed by so many, not necessarily you,of course :) ) when He called certain of them vipers, sons of hasatan, etc.

Yes, I realize I am free to disagree, which is why I chose to post.

[Charles YTK]

I don't believe for one moment Y'shua was speaking in broad sweeping terms of ALL of Oral Torah when He said that by some of their traditions, the Pharisees nullified Torah, just as I realize He was neither addressing every group of Pharisees with every negative comment and evaluation He made of some, nor was He condemning all Pharisees (as is assumed by so many, not necessarily you,of course :) ) when He called certain of them vipers, sons of hasatan, etc.

I say the same thing. As I have said, Yeshua took part in the traditions and festivals ect. that were Rabbinical and which did not take away from Torah.

No broad brushes here!;)

[Henaynei]

Works for me -- my entire walk is my own and my stance is that no one should try to put observance on anyone but simply allow others to obey as they feel led. Of course, IMHO, that includes those who are convicted to follow Rabbinic Judaism and all.:amen:.

[visionary]

:amen: :amen:.

[Charles YTK]

:confused: :confused: :confused: :scratch: