Poll: Opinions on Talmud/Oral Torah

[DanielRB]

Shalom, All :wave:

I'd like to see some of the points of view on Talmud/Oral Torah. Please explain why you have the particular point of view that you have.

In Messiah,

Daniel

[Andyman_1970]

Jesus understood it to be authoritative and observed some of it...........but He had s'mikah so He could make what ever interpretation of Torah / Oral Torah He wanted.

[shmuel]

Jesus understood it to be authoritative and observed some of it...........but He had s'mikah so He could make what ever interpretation of Torah / Oral Torah He wanted.

I have seen Andyman make this claim several times. Now I would like to see documentation.

The Mishnah was not compiled until circa 200 CE and the Gemara were not completed until several hundred years after that. Thus, while the Pharisees had their traditions it is an anachronism to speak of this as Oral Torah. Rabinnic Judaism teaches that there were two Torot given at Sinai, one written and one oral. The transmission of these Torot is given in Pirkei Avot.

Dan Gruber commemts on this as follows:

The contemporary sources bear witness that there was a significant body of Pharisaic, and then rabbinic, law in the first century. The sources do not, however, indicate in any way that the Pharisees, and then the Rabbis, claimed at that time that this law came from Sinai or that it was solely an interpretation of the Torah.

The sources all speak in terms of tradition or an "oral tradition."1 None of them speak of an "Oral Law." "We thus have indications that in the time of Josephus and Philo oral transmission was looked upon as the characteristic medium of Pharisaic tradition."2 Though Josephus and Philo mention Pharisaic tradition, they do not mention an "Oral law."

The Pharisees did try to increase the force of their tradition by placing its origin as far back in the past as they could. "Josephus brings this out when he says of the Jewish leaders, 'Their endeavour is to have everything they ordain believed to be very ancient.'"3

Josephus gives some of the political history of this tradition. He tells us, for example, about the reign of Alexandra towards the end of the Maccabean period. "So she made Hyrcanus [her son] high-priest because he was the elder, but much more because he cared not to meddle with politics, and permitted the Pharisees to do everything; to whom also she ordered the multitude to be obedient. She also restored again those practices which the Pharisees had introduced, according to the traditions of their forefathers, and which her father-in-law, Hyrcanus, had abrogated."4

In this account, the traditional practices of the Pharisees were enforced upon the people by the ruling governmental power. The extent of the common observance of Pharisaic traditions depended upon the extent of Pharisee's own political power.

The Sadducees had a different power base - the Temple and its institutions - and a different view of these traditions. Josephus tells us, "What I would now explain is this, that the Pharisees have delivered to the people a great many observances by succession from their fathers, which are not written in the law of Moses; and for that reason it is that the Sadducees reject them, and say that we are to esteem those observances to be obligatory which are in the written word, but are not to observe what are derived from the tradition of our forefathers..."5

Josephus not only characterizes the Pharisaic ordinances as 'unwritten', but as 'handed down by the fathers' (ek pateron diadoke )."6 "A similar expression paradosin ton presbuteron (traditions of the elders) is used in the New Testament to designate the Pharisaic oral traditions. [Mk.7,3.5 (Mt. 15,2); cf. Galatians 1,14 and Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, IV, 22,8 who refers to the agrafos paradosis (unwritten traditions) of the Jews.]"7

The Dead Sea Scrolls reinforce the point. "In sum, the Qumran literature provides concrete and abundant examples of written halakhic texts from the pre-rabbinic period. It moreover lacks any trace of the distinction between Written Law and Oral Law which is characteristic of rabbinic sources and which serves as the basis of the contrasting forms of transmission."8 "

Joseph M. Baumgarten and Lawrence H. Schiffman have likewise shown that the Qumran law books speak neither of an oral Torah nor of two Torahs....It should be no less significant than the absence of the term Oral Torah from Josephus' description of the Pharisees and from the Qumran law books that this term is similarly absent from the Mishnah and the Tosefta. Moreover, the term 'two Torahs' is also absent from the Mishnah while none of the three attestations of this term in the Tosefta refers to an Oral and a Written Torah. In tSanhedrin 2:5 'two Torahs' refers to the two scrolls of the pentateuch to be written by and for every king of Israel. In the two remaining cases - tHagigah 2:9 and tSotah 14:9 - 'two Torahs' is the term of disparagement applied to the controversies between the disciples of Hillel and Shammai, who, it is alleged, created their two separate doctrines because they failed to study carefully the single Torah which they all received from Hillel and Shammai."9

These traditions and rabbinic decrees were not called "Oral Law" in the first century. Nevertheless, for Pharisees especially, they were of great importance. "'The most necessary business of our whole life,' writes Josephus, 'is to observe the laws which have been given us, and to keep those rules of piety that have been delivered down to us.'"10

Footnotes

1. All peoples and cultures (and probably every person as well) accumulate traditions. Traditions are an almost indispensable part of life. Given that, it was inevitable that traditions would develop concerning the fulfillment of Torah. As Hayim Donin noted, "The Written Torah commands us to 'bind them as a sign upon your hands and as frontlets between your eyes.' This reference to tefillin leaves us in the dark as to how they were to be made up, what they were to consist of, how they were to be donned...The Written Torah prescribes capital punishment for various crimes. What legal rules and procedures had to be followed before such a verdict could be handed down? What were the limitations? The Written Torah does not say." Hayim Halevy Donin, To Be a Jew, Basic Books, 1991, P.26
In terms of tefillin, it could be argued that the lack of specificity indicated God's indifference to the particulars; and in terms of judicial procedure, that God had clearly laid out the principles for making judgments. While that may be so, the tefillin and the judicial inquiry still had to be made in some particular way. That would inevitable lead to the development of tradition or sets of different traditions. The issue that concerns us here is the source of the tradition - man or God.
2. Baumgarten, J.M., "The Unwritten Law in the Pre-Rabbinic Period," JSJ,
Vol.III, no.1, 10/72, P. 15
3. C. Apion, II., xv, §152, in A. Lukyn Williams, Talmudic Judaism and
Christianity, S.P.C.K., London,1933, P.46
4. Josephus, Flavius, The Works of Josephus, translated by William Whiston,
Hendrickson Publishers, Peabody, MA., 1985 Ant.13,16,2
5. Josephus, Ant.XIII,X,6
6. Baumgarten, p13
7. Baumgarten, p14
8. Baumgarten, p12
9. Gruber, Mayer I., "The Mishnah as Oral Torah: A Reconsideration," JSJ,
Vol.XV, 1984, Pp. 113-114
10. Williams, A.Lukyn, Talmudic Judaism and Christianity, SPCK, London, 1933 Pp.43-44

[shmuel]

Chapter 1 of Pirkei Avot

1. Moses received the Torah from Sinai and transmitted it to Joshua; Joshua to the elders; the elders to the prophets; and the prophets handed it down to the men of the Great Assembly. They said three things: Be deliberate in judgment, raise up many disciples, and make a fence around the Torah.

2. Shimon the Righteous was one of the last survivors of the Great Assembly. He used to say: On three things the world is sustained: on the Torah, on the (Temple) service, and on deeds of loving kindness.

3. Antigonus of Socho received the Torah from Shimon the Righteous. He used to say: Be not like servants who minister unto their master for the sake of receiving a reward, but be like servants who serve their master not upon the condition of receiving a reward; and let the fear of Heaven be upon you.

4. Yosi ben Yoezer of Tzeredah and Yosi ben Yochanan of Jerusalem received the Torah from them. Yosi ben Yoezer of Tzeredah said: Let your house be a meetinghouse for the sages and sit amid the dust of their feet and drink in their words with thirst.

5. Yosi ben Yochanan of Jerusalem said: Let your house be wide open and let the poor be members of thy household; and do not talk much with women. This was said about one's own wife; how much more so about the wife of one's neighbor. Therefore the sages have said: He who talks too much with women brings evil upon himself and neglects the study of the Torah and will in the end inherit Gehenna.

6. Joshua ben Perachyah and Nittai the Arbelite received the Torah from them. Joshua ben Perachyah said: Provide for yourself a teacher and get yourself a friend; and judge every man towards merit.

7. Nittai the Arbelite said: Keep far from an evil neighbor and do not associate with the wicked; and do not abandon belief in retribution.

8. Judah ben Tabbai and Shimon ben Shetach received the Torah from them. Judah ben Tabbai said: Do not make yourself like those that present before judges. When parties to a Torah suit are standing before you they should be in your eyes as wicked men, but when they have departed from they should be in your eyes as innocent, if they have accepted the verdict.

9. Shimon ben Shetach said: Examine the witnesses diligently and be cautious in your words lest through them they learn to falsify.

10. Shemayah and Avtalion received the Torah from them. Shemayah said: Love work; hate domination; and seek not undue intimacy with the government.

11. Avtalion said: Sages, be careful with your words lest you incur the penalty of exile and are called to a place where the waters of learning are impure and the disciples that come after you drink of them and die; and the Heavenly Name is consequently profaned.

12. Hillel and Shammai received the Torah from them. Hillel said: Be of the disciples of Aaron, loving peace and pursuing peace, loving your fellow creatures and bringing them close to the Torah.

13. Hillel used to say: He who aggrandizes his name, loses his name. He who does not increase his knowledge, decreases it. He who learns not, forfeits his life. He who makes unworthy use of the crown (of the Torah) shall pass away.

14. Hillel used to say: If I am not for myself who will be for me? Yet, if I am for myself only, what am I? And if not now, when?

15. Shammai said: Make your study of the Torah a fixed habit. Say little and do much, and receive all men with a cheerful face.

16. Rabban Gamaliel said: Provide yourself with a teacher and remove yourself from doubt, and do not accustom yourself to give tithes by estimation.

17. Shimon his son said: All my days have I grown up among the wise and I have not found anything better for a man than silence. Studying Torah is not the most important thing rather fulfilling it. Whoever multiplies words causes sin.

18. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel said: On three things the world is sustained: on truth, on judgment, and on peace, as it is it says (Zechariah 8:16): "Speak the truth to one another, render in your gates judgments that are true and make for peace."

[Andyman_1970]

I would argue from the evidence we have in the Gospels Jesus was a Pharisee.

In Matthew 23 He affirms the authority of the Pharisees, and thus the authority of the Oral Torah.

Jesus and the Oral Law

By: David Bivin Posted: September 17 2003

Torah has always been the focus of rabbinic teaching. Unfortunately, the Hebrew word 'torah' is usually translated in English simply as "law," which has created the impression that it has to do only with commandments. This is not the case at all. The Torah was given by God as a guideline for a whole way of life. A better translation would be "God's instructions."
Written Torah, 'torah shebiktav', consists of the instruction God gave to Israel at Sinai, contained in the five books of Moses: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. Israel's sages believed that in addition to this written revelation, Moses received further instruction which was communicated orally. These added instructions were the beginning of the Oral Torah, 'torah shebe'al pe'.

Living Tradition

The orthodox Jewish view of Jesus' day was that this Oral Torah had been handed down from generation to generation from the time it was initiated with Moses. Along with forty-two verbal commandments given to Moses at Sinai, the Oral Torah included the precepts and interpretations implied in the Written Torah. It also came to include the legal decisions of rabbinical courts and the oral traditions which first-century sages had received from their predecessors.

The Oral Torah was a living tradition with the authority to interpret and, at times, modify the written code. A contemporary analogy is found in the body of legal precedent that develops as judges hand down rulings which interpret the laws enacted by legislators. Such judges, like the early Sages, apply the written law as cases are brought before them, and thus create a tradition of interpretations and precedents which is no less authoritative than the laws themselves.

The "tradition of the elders," besides claiming an authority and continuity equal to that of the Written Torah, also claimed to be its authentic living interpretation and essential complement. It occupied a place above the Written Torah in the same sense that a house must be above its foundation. Each, however, was dependent upon the other.

Sayings of the Fathers

Evidence of the authenticity accorded to the Oral Torah is found in a rabbinical work entitled 'Avot', the Hebrew word "forefathers." This book presents the accumulated tradition of the forefathers of Israel, and begins with these words, which show how the Oral Torah developed:

Moses received [oral] Torah at Sinai and transmitted it to Joshua, and Joshua to the elders, and the elders to the prophets, and the prophets transmitted it to the men of the Great Assembly.

This is followed by a series of sayings attributed to the men of the Great Assembly, a saying of Simon the Righteous, one of the last survivors of the Great Assembly, and then a saying of Antigonos of Socho, which he received from Simon the Righteous. From this verse until the conclusion of Avot, there follows the sayings of a string of teachers, each of whom received his tradition from his predecessors.

Transcribing the Oral Torah

Rabbi Yehuda ha-Nasi was the first to compile the Oral Torah in written form for public use. His work is known as the Mishnah, and was completed in about A.D. 200. Once he broke with tradition, other collections of the Oral Torah were made which incorporated material not included in the Mishnah, notably the Gemara, which is a commentary on the Mishnah. In time, the Gemara and Mishnah were printed together and known collectively as the Talmud.

This work exists in two versions; the Jerusalem Talmud, compiled in Israel, and the Babylonian Talmud, compiled by Jewish sages in Babylon. Being the work of different schools of scholarship, the Gemara in each version differs considerably, but the Mishnah in both is that of Rabbi Yehuda.

The Babylonian Talmud, the Gemara of which is written mostly in Aramaic, was completed about A.D. 500 and consists of two and one-half million words filling 5,894 pages approximately 27 by 36 centimeters in size. The Jerusalem Talmud preceded the Babylonian version by about 100 years and fills 574 pages. Its Gemara is written mostly in Hebrew. Today the Babylonian Talmud is central in Jewish religious education, and when the word 'Talmud' appears alone, it is the Babylonian version to which it refers.

The Written Torah is not viewed as something separate from the Talmud, but rather as the foundation upon which the "house" of the Talmud is built. Therefore, a thorough knowledge of Written Torah is a prerequisite of Talmudic study. As in the days of Jesus, every Orthodox Jewish child today grows up learning the Bible, and familiarity with the five books of Moses is considered an important first step in studying the Talmud.

Blessing

Jesus apparently attached great importance to the Oral Torah (unwritten in his day), and it seems he considered it to be authoritative. When he admonished his disciples to "do and observe everything they [the scribes and Pharisees] command you" (Matthew 23:3), he was referring to the Pharisees' oral traditions and interpretations of the Written Torah. The Written Torah itself could not have been in question, for it was accepted by all sects of Judaism, and Jesus himself said, "Heaven and earth would sooner disappear that one 'yod' or even one 'kotz' from the Torah (Matthew 5:18).

Many rabbinic statements express similar ideas, such as:
Should all the nations of the world unite to uproot one word of the Torah, they would be unable to do it (Leviticus Rabbah 19:2).

Evidence of Jesus' Observance

To what extent did Jesus observe the practices of the Oral Torah? Jesus was never charged with breaking any part of it, and although his disciples occasionally were accused of disobeying aspects of the Oral Torah (Luke 6:1-2), only one such accusation was made against Jesus--that he broke the Sabbath by healing the sick (Luke 14:1-4). However, even his Sabbath healings were permitted by rabbinic ruling, as Hebrew University professor and Jerusalem School scholar, Shmuel Safrai, notes in "Religion in Everyday Life" (The Jewish People in the First Century, volume II, page 805).

It may seem that there is a shortage of hard evidence in the New Testament concerning Jesus' religious observance, but one must remember that the New Testament was written by Jews for Jewish readers. The normal Jewish religious practices were so well known and followed, both by the writers and first readers of the New Testament, that it would have been considered superfluous to discuss them. Nonetheless, one is able to gather enough evidence from the Gospels to conclude that Jesus observed the biblical commandments as they were interpreted in the Oral Law.

Blessings for all Occasions

One of the most basic examples of a rabbinic command which Jesus obeyed is in the realm of blessings. The sole scriptural basis for the many blessings that an observant Jew still says daily is Deuteronomy 8:10: "When you have eaten your fill, thank the LORD your God..." (literally, "And you will eat and you will be full and you will bless the LORD your God"). The rabbis found justification in this verse for saying a blessing before the meal as well as after, and on many other occasions--indeed, on almost every occasion.

The general rule, as delineated in Berachot 35a, was "Anything which is enjoyed requires a blessing." If a man built a house or bought something new, he was to say, "Blessed is he who has brought us to this moment." If one saw a place where great miracles had occurred in Israel's history, one was to say, "Blessed is he who in this place performed miracles for our ancestors." In response to a shooting star, lightning, a storm, or an earthquake, one was to say, "Blessed is he whose strength fills the universe," and a mountain, hill, lake, river, or desert were to prompt, "Blessed is he who fashions the works of creation."

There was a blessing to be said before publicly reading from the Torah, and another at the completion of the reading; a blessing after immersing oneself in a 'mikveh' (ritual immersion bath); a blessing upon seeing a great scholar. There was even a blessing to be said when one urinated: "Blessed is he who formed man in wisdom and created in him numerous orifices and cavities. It is revealed and known before the throne of your glory that if even one of them should be opened or if even one of them should be obstructed, it would be impossible to exist and stand before you."

One was obligated to bless God for calamity and misfortune as well as for prosperity and good fortune: "For rain and for good news one says, 'Blessed is he who is good and who gives good.' For bad news one says, 'Blessed is he who is the true judge.'"

Jesus' Use of Blessings

There is evidence that Jesus adhered to the rulings of the Oral Torah in his use of various blessings. In conformity with the rabbis' interpretation of Deuteronomy 8:10, Jesus not only recited a blessing after meals, but also said the blessing before meals: "Blessed is he who brings bread out of the earth." It is recorded that at the last Passover meal, which Jesus ate with his disciples in Jerusalem, Jesus 'took bread and blessed and broke and gave to his disciples' (Matthew 26:26).

Since in the Greek text there is no direct object following the verbs "blessed," "broke," and "gave," English translators have felt it necessary to supply the word "it" after each of these, or at least after "broke" and "gave." The English reader, therefore, receives the impression that Jesus not only divided and distributed the bread, but blessed it as well.

One sees evidence of this misunderstanding in many translations of the New Testament. For instance, King James, Goodspeed, Phillips, Weymouth, Williams, Living Bible, and New American Bible have all added "it" after the verb "blessed." This is simply a misunderstanding of the Hebraic and Jewish connotations of the word "bless."

Saying "Grace"

Before dining with the two disciples from Emmaus, Jesus "blessed, broke, and gave," as he did before he fed the five thousand with five loaves and two fish (In Luke's account, but not in Mark's or Matthew's, the text reads "blessed them," but one important Greek manuscript reads "blessed for them" at Luke 9:16). Because of the recurring "blessed, broke, and gave the bread" in the Gospels, it is a common Christian misunderstanding that Jesus blessed the bread. Consequently, Christians customarily "bless the food" before they eat a meal. No observant Jew would ever make such a mistake: one does not bless anything or anyone except God!

The blessing that was said in Jesus' time before one ate was praise and thanksgiving to God who so wondrously provides food for his children, to him who "brings bread out of the earth." One does not bless the food, nor does one even ask God to bless the food. One blesses God who provides the food.

It is similarly a misunderstanding to assume that Jesus multiplied the loaves and fish by blessing them. Jesus, as usual, simply blessed God before beginning the meal. The miracle was not in the blessing, for food did not multiply on other occasions when Jesus offered a blessing before breaking bread.

Better Understanding

This is a good example of how Christians' lack of knowledge of Jewish custom has led to misunderstanding an act of Jesus. In this case it has led to the development of a Christian practice which, though perhaps not harmful, has no foundation whatsoever in Jesus' own practice or teaching.

It is also an example of how a Jewish book can create confusion for later non-Jewish readers. Luke made it clearer for his Greek-speaking readers when he described Paul's practice of "saying grace." A literal translation of Acts 27:35 reads: "And taking bread, he gave thanks to God before all, and breaking, he began to eat."

The Unutterable Name of God

Another example of Jesus' observance of the Oral Torah is his adherence to the rabbinic prohibition against using the Unutterable Name of God. The original understanding of the third commandment, "You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain" (Exodus 20:7), was that one must keep one's vow when swearing by God's name. The rabbis eventually came to interpret this commandment to mean using the Lord's name lightly or frivolously. To avoid the risk of employing the Divine Name irreverently, the rabbis ruled that one should not utter it at all.

The tetragrammaton, YHVH, could be pronounced only in the Temple (Sifre Numbers 39), in the daily priestly blessing (Sotah 7:6), and in the confession of the High Priest on the Day of Atonement (Yoma 6:2). When reading or reciting Scripture, one was not to pronounce the Unutterable Name, but rather had to substitute 'adonai', (Lord).

This avoidance of the tetragrammaton began very early. Although there was no hesitation about pronouncing the Sacred Name in daily life during the First Temple period, already by the third century B.C. 'adonai' was being substituted for YHVH.

Further Substitutes

In time, the substitute 'adonai' itself came to have such a sacred aura that it was used only in Scripture reading and prayer.

When it was necessary to refer to God in everyday speech, other substitutes were sought: 'ha-makom' (the Place), 'ha-kadosh', (the Holy), 'ha-govoah' (the High), 'ha-lashon' (the Tongue), 'ha-g'vurah' (the Power), 'ha-shem' (the Name), 'shamaiyim' (Heaven), and others. Even 'elohim' (God), which could refer to the God of Israel or to false gods, was avoided in conversation.

So serious was the prohibition against pronouncing the tetragrammaton that the rabbis included among those who have no share in the World to Come "he who pronounces the Divine Name as it is spelled" (Sanhedrin 10:1).

Divine Euphemisms

Jesus often used euphemisms for God--his audiences would have been shocked had he not. The most common word for God used by Jesus was "Heaven." This occurs often throughout the Gospel of Matthew in the phrase "Kingdom of Heaven," the term Jesus used for his community of disciples.

Mark and Luke used "Kingdom of God," possibly because most of their Greek readers might not have understood the euphemism. However, the original, 'maikut shamaiyim' (Kingdom of Heaven) is common in the Hebrew literature of the period while "Kingdom of God" is never used.

Matthew 21:25 quotes Jesus asking those in the Temple who questioned his authority, "Was the baptism of John from Heaven [i.e., from God] or from men?" Similarly, in the parable of the prodigal son (Luke 15:21), Jesus quotes the prodigal as saying to his father, "I have sinned against Heaven."

One other euphemism for God's name used by Jesus was 'ha-g'vurah' (the Power). When interrogated by the high priests, Jesus was asked to admit that he was the Messiah. His answer, recorded in Matthew 26:63, is a classic example of rabbinic sophistication: "From now on the 'Son of Man' will be sitting on the right of the Power," which hints at two messianic passages from Scripture, Daniel 7:13 and Psalm 110:1.

[Toney]

B"H,

Those interested in this thread may also find the book Jesus the Pharasee by Hyam Maccoby to be of interest.

Here is an except of a review of that book from Amazon:

"The Gospel writers all, to varying degrees, accidentally left lines from the original Jerusalem Church documents as they were redrafting and concocting the Pauline Jesus mythology---lines which completely contradict their other manufactured statements and depictions of the life of Jesus. Maccoby successfully challenges the theories of many contemporary pro-Gospel Christian historians who, as Maccoby demonstrates, lack even the most basic logical and commonsensical abilities, and whose true motivations can sometimes best be explained as anti-Semitic. Through proven and accepted methods of textual examination, Maccoby pieces together a truly shocking picture of Jesus that goes completely against the portrayal that Christians are taught to believe. Although this was certainly not his intent, this book exposes the fatal flaws of Christianity's Jesus mythology and makes its adherants look absolutely foolish."

The full review and book details are here> (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0334029147/ref=reg_hu-wl_item-added/002-1023161-0168029?%5Fencoding=UTF8&v=glance&n=283155)

Maccoby's work is somewhat controversial in certain circles, but he was a highly respected Jewish historian during his lifetime.

Another of his works, Revolution in Judea, which is out of print, is excerpted here> (http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/maccoby.htm) and allows you to sample his writing style.

Shalom

[Andyman_1970]

Maccoby is not the only scholar that asserts Jesus was a Pharisee, Shemuel Safrai (professor at Hebrew University) also indicates that Jesus was most likely a Pharisee. I tend to agree with Dr. Safrai's conclusion as well.

[BarbB]

One only has to read Jewish commentary on the Torah readings today to understand how oral torah has led the Jews away from a clear understanding of Yeshua our Messiah. :(

[Andyman_1970]

Since Jesus affirms the Oral Torah (or at least His interpretation of it) I would disagree with that somewhat.

[LittleLambofJesus]

Maccoby is not the only scholar that asserts Jesus was a Pharisee, Shemuel Safrai (professor at Hebrew University) also indicates that Jesus was most likely a Pharisee. :scratch: I tend to agree with Dr. Safrai's conclusion as well. Hebrew 7 appears to say Jesus belonged to a "different" kind of priesthood, so how could He be a Pharisee?. Thoughts? Peace. I voted this:[Talmud is contrary to the Tanakh and should be avoided].

Hebrew 7:12 for the priesthood being changed, of necessity also, of the law a change doth come, 13 for he of whom these things are said in another tribe hath had part, of whom no one gave attendance at the altar, 14 for [it is] evident that out of Judah hath arisen our Lord, in regard to which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood. 15 And it is yet more abundantly most evident, if according to the similitude of Melchisedek there doth arise another priest, 16 who came not according to the law of a fleshly command, but according to the power of an endless life,

[shmuel]

As I said in my first post on this subject, it is the teaching of Orthox Judaism that Oral Torah is revelation from God given at Sinai.

From http://www.aish.com/holidays/Shavuot/What_is_the_Oral_Torah.asp


It's important to clarify a common misconception many have about the role of the Oral Torah in Judaism.
The Oral Torah is not an interpretation of the Written Torah. In fact, the Oral Torah preceded the Written Torah. When the Jewish people stood at Mount Sinai 3,300 years ago, God communicated the 613 commandments, along with a detailed, practical explanation of how to fulfill them. At that point in time, the teachings were entirely oral.
It wasn't until 40 years later, just prior to Moses' death and the Jewish people's entering the Land of Israel, that Moses wrote the scroll of the written Torah (known as the Five Books of Moses) and gave it to the Jewish people. (my emphasis added)

[Shimshon]

Since Jesus affirms the Oral Torah (or at least His interpretation of it) I would disagree with that somewhat.I thought a house divided against itself does nothing but fall? If he was a parush, why did the leading p'rushim not know who authorized him?

Mt 21:23 He went into the Temple area; and as he was teaching, the head cohanim and the elders of the people approached him and demanded, "What s'mikhah do you have that authorizes you to do these things? And who gave you this s'mikhah?"As you know, he throws it back and asks them where John recieved his authority? You know, the man they just killed for proclaiming the Kingdom of God?

27 So they answered Yeshua, "We don't know." And he replied, "Then I won't tell you by what s'mikhah I do these things.
28 "But give me your opinion:


And so he speaks to the Pharisees about the Kingdom in parables, and concludes by saying this to them.

Mt 21: 43 Therefore, I tell you that the Kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to the kind of people that will produce its fruit!" 44 Some manuscripts include verse 44: Whoever falls on this stone will be broken in pieces; but if it falls on him, he will be crushed to powder!"

45 As the head cohanim and the P'rushim listened to his stories, they saw that he was speaking about them. 46 But when they set about to arrest him, they were afraid of the crowds; because the crowds considered him a prophet.

He sums up by saying the Kingdom is going to be taken from the head preists and Torah teachers (cohanim and the p'rushim) and given to those who will see it and enter it.

They, the pharisees, wanted to kill him. The people considered him a prophet.

So again I ask, how does a house divided against itself stand? If Yeshua was a parush, he was stating that the Kingdom would be taken from them and given to others.

And the people considered him a prophet, not one of the p'rushim who he just said would have the kingdom taken from them.

Taken because "they are shutting the Kingdom of Heaven in people's faces, neither entering yourselves nor allowing those who wish to enter to do so." Mt 23:13

He didn't say some of them were doing this. He mentions both the priest and the teachers.

Of which your saying he was one of?

Yet they themselves do not know where he recieved this authority. And the people considered him a prophet.

[Andyman_1970]

Remember there were almost as many sects of Pharisee's in the 1st century as their are Christians today.......we assume (thanks to Luther in part) that all Pharisee's are "bad"........this is not historically accurate.

Notice once He tells Him that part of His s'mikah came from John the Baptist they no longer question Him regarding His s'mikah.

Also, the Pharisee's have very little control on the Sanhedrin, they were outclassed by the Sadducees (which the Preists were part of being Herodians) who did control the Sanhedrin for the most part....also it's apparent some Pharisee's aligned themselves with the Sadducees for example Paul.

So was Jesus a prophet and not a rabbi?

[Shimshon]

It's important to clarify a common misconception many have about the role of the Oral Torah in Judaism.
The Oral Torah is not an interpretation of the Written Torah. In fact, the Oral Torah preceded the Written Torah. When the Jewish people stood at Mount Sinai 3,300 years ago, God communicated the 613 commandments, along with a detailed, practical explanation of how to fulfill them. At that point in time, the teachings were entirely oral.
It wasn't until 40 years later, just prior to Moses' death and the Jewish people's entering the Land of Israel, that Moses wrote the scroll of the written Torah (known as the Five Books of Moses) and gave it to the Jewish people. (my emphasis added)

Ex 20 is the giving of the Ten Words, Ex 21 we have the rulings that Moshe was to presnet to Yisrael. Here is the start of the 613 if you will. It goes on through Ex 23. And at Ex 24 we have this;

3 Moshe came and told the people everything ADONAI had said, including all the rulings. The people answered with one voice: "We will obey every word ADONAI has spoken." 4 Moshe wrote down all the words of ADONAI.

He rose early in the morning, built an altar at the base of the mountain and set upright twelve large stones to represent the twelve tribes of Isra'el. 5 He sent the young men of the people of Isra'el to offer burnt offerings and sacrifice peace offerings of oxen to ADONAI. 6 Moshe took half of the blood and put it in basins; the other half of the blood he splashed against the altar. 7 Then he took the book of the covenant and read it aloud, so that the people could hear; and they responded, "Everything that ADONAI has spoken, we will do and obey." 8 Moshe took the blood, sprinkled it on the people and said, "This is the blood of the covenant which ADONAI has made with you in accordance with all these words."

Exodus 25 starts the instructions for the Ark.........


In fact, the Oral Torah preceded the Written Torah. When the Jewish people stood at Mount Sinai 3,300 years ago, God communicated the 613 commandments, along with a detailed, practical explanation of how to fulfill them. At that point in time, the teachings were entirely oral.
?????????

[Shimshon]

Remember there were almost as many sects of Pharisee's in the 1st century as their are Christians today.......we assume (thanks to Luther in part) that all Pharisee's are "bad"........this is not historically accurate.

If the Kingdom is being taken from them and given to others, what parush will have the 'key' to the kingdom?

Notice once He tells Him that part of His s'mikah came from John the Baptist they no longer question Him regarding His s'mikah.

No longer question? You can't be serious?

They COULD NOT answer. lol Because if they say from God, they would be guilty of not believing it and killing a prophet. And if they say from man, then the people would turn on them because they believe he was a prophet. Yeshua put thier perverbial backs against the wall. That is why they did not question any longer. Not becaue he answered them.

27 So they answered Yeshua, "We don't know." And he replied, "Then I won't tell you by what s'mikhah I do these things.

Also, the Pharisee's have very little control on the Sanhedrin, they were outclassed by the Sadducees (which the Preists were part of being Herodians) who did control the Sanhedrin for the most part....also it's apparent some Pharisee's aligned themselves with the Sadducees for example Paul.

So was Jesus a prophet and not a rabbi?Most definitly a prophet. And most definitly a teacher. But his 'authority' did not come from the p'rushim. He was not one of them, he was the Son of God. His teaching came from above. Theirs came by their own 'discussions'....

They discussed it among themselves: "If we say, `From Heaven,' he will say, `Then why didn't you believe him?' 26 But if we say, `From a human source,' we are afraid of the people, for they all regard Yochanan as a prophet." 27 So they answered Yeshua, "We don't know." And he replied, "Then I won't tell you by what s'mikhah I do these things.

[Andyman_1970]

If the Kingdom is being taken from them and given to others, what parush will have the 'key' to the kingdom?

So I guess the majority of the church pre Acts 10 was not from the Pharisee sect? From what I have studied it was........Paul even says in Acts 23 he is a Pharisee, not was.

I'm really surprised to see the influences of Luther on this forum with respect to the Pharisees.

If No longer question? You can't be serious?

He wasn't questioned anymore in that passage was He?

They COULD NOT answer. lol Because if they say from God, they would be guilty of not believing it and killing a prophet. And if they say from man, then the people would turn on them because they believe he was a prophet. Yeshua put thier perverbial backs against the wall. That is why they did not question any longer. Not becaue he answered them.

He did answer them, He answered them with a question........in typical rabbinic fashion no less. He told them where half of His s'mikah came from John the Baptist, with respect to Jesus' mikvah.........God obviously being the second voice declaring He had s'mikah.

Most definitly a prophet. And most definitly a teacher. But his 'authority' did not come from the p'rushim. He was not one of them, he was the Son of God. His teaching came from above. Theirs came by their own 'discussions'.....

If it came from their own directions why does Jesus tell His followers to follow what they teach? Not only that He affirms their authority by indicating they sit in the Moses seat.......they have Biblical authority.

[LittleLambofJesus]

Most definitly a prophet. And most definitly a teacher. But his 'authority' did not come from the p'rushim. He was not one of them, he was the Son of God. His teaching came from above. Theirs came by their own 'discussions'...
Andyman: If it came from their own directions why does Jesus tell His followers to follow what they teach? Not only that He affirms their authority by indicating they sit in the Moses seat.......they have Biblical authority.This is an interesting passage here. Any views on what Jesus was actually saying? Peace.

[Young] Matthew 23:1 Then Jesus spake to the multitudes, and to his disciples, 2 saying, `On the seat of Moses sat down the scribes and the Pharisees; 3 all, then, as much as they may say to you to observe, observe and do, but according to their works do not, for they say, and do not;

[Andyman_1970]

Some more food for thought regarding the Pharisee's

Characteristics of Pharisees

By: William V. McDonald, Ph.D. Posted: September 03 2004

In the tradition of Moses, the development of a group called the "Pharisees" sustained the spiritual teachings of the Law. Because of their commitment to Halakah and Agadah, both distinct methods of teaching Torah, it is clear that Torah and the Jewish people are one. One without the other is as inconceivable as Christendom is without Christ.[1] This Pharisaic spirit is visible in the ethical and moral standards of Jewish life. It should be the controlling element in the daily life of each person and in society as a whole. The foremost concern of the Pharisaic spirit is to pursue truth and promote the spiritual welfare of man. Judaism is a religion today only because of the Pharisees.

To understand how this sect of individuals played such an important role in the survival of a religion, a closer look at the word Pharisee, and the attributes it embraces, is essential.

The word "Pharisee" is derived from the Hebrew word, Parush, or the Aramaic Perishaya, which carries the meaning "separated.”[2] The Greek language sources (particularly Josephus and the N.T.) refer to perishaya as pharisaioi. The Semitic language sources (particularly rabbinic sources) refer to the parush as perushim. This concept of being separated, according to the rabbis, can be seen in the books of Ezra, as it speaks of those who returned from the Babylonian Exile. They had parush/separated themselves from the filthiness of the nations of the land (Ezra 6:21). R. Jose said:
Ezra was worthy for the Torah to have been given by him, had not Moses come before him.[3] About Moses, a "going up" is mentioned, and about Ezra, the same, as it says, "And Moses went up to God" [Ex.xix.3], and of Ezra, "And he, Ezra, went up from Babylon" [Ezra vii.6].[4]

In a comparison of Ezra (who was seen as one of those who had separated and devoted himself to the study and observance of the laws of God), the rabbis saw him in the same measure as Moses. "And the Lord commanded me at that time to teach you statutes and judgments" (Deut. 4:14). Here too, Ezra went up from Babylon and taught Torah to Israel, as it is said, For Ezra had prepared his heart to expound the law of the Lord and to do it and to teach in Israel statutes and judgments (Ezra 7:0).[5] The attributes of Ezra, the scribe or the sofer, who was also one of the Men of the Great Synagogue, became a founding principle for the Pharisaic movement.

The rabbinic tradition continues this growing concept of what is a Pharisee, by connecting “Simon the Just" with the Men of the Great Synagogue. Simon used to say: "By three things is the world sustained: by the law, by the [Temple-]service and by deeds of loving-kindness."[6] The identity of this Simon has been disputed among scholars.[7] However, the Apocryphal work of I Maccabees mentions a Simon as a prince in connection with the Men of the Great Synagogue. It also identifies him as a Hasmonaean.[8] This Pharisaic attitude is, seen in the actions of Simon as written in I Maccabees 14:4,15:

The land had rest all the days of Simon. He sought the good of his nation; his rule was pleasing to them, as was the honor shown him, all his days. To crown all his honors he took Joppa for a harbor, and opened a way to the isles of the sea. He extended the borders of his nation, and gained full control of the country. He gathered a host of captives; he ruled over Gazara and Beth-zur and the citadel, and he removed its uncleanness from it; and there was none to oppose him. They tilled their land in peace; the ground gave its increase, and the trees of the plains their fruit. Old men sat in the streets; they all talked together of good things; and the youths donned the glories and garments of war. He supplied the cities with food, and furnished them with the means defense, till his renown spread to the ends of the earth. He established peace in the land, and Israel rejoiced with great joy. Each man sat under his vine and his fig tree, and there was none to make them afraid. No one was left in the land to fight them, and the kings were crushed in those days. He strengthened all the humble of his people; he sought out the law, and did away with every lawless and wicked man. He made the sanctuary glorious, and added to the vessels of the sanctuary.[9]


Simon the Just played a very important role in the continuing development of the coming Pharisees. His actions were consistent with that of Ezra and Moses. This developmental concept, the attribute that embodies the character of a Pharisee, would also be seen in other Jewish sects. Jesus speaks of the Scribes and the Pharisees in a manner as if they are one and the same, since it is hardly likely that the Scribes sat on one-half of Moses' seat and the Pharisees on the other.[10] In the writing of Matthew, the Scribes-Pharisees are a single class, but the words "...woe to you, Scribes, Pharisees, Hypocrites..." almost make the reader think of three parties. If we analyze the content of the statement, in light of rabbinic sources, we are at a loss to find any difference between the Scribes and the Pharisees.[11]

There are two key words that embellish the understanding of the Pharisee, Hasidim and Hakamim. Hasid denotes "pious," and Hakam, "wise"; these are two distinct but different words. However, when they are being applied to the Pharisees, they are one and the same. To the pious he put his trust in God, in an active practice of kindness. This word chasid (kindness, merciful) also refers to God, “The Lord is just in all his ways, and merciful in all his works.” Just as the word tzdak designates God as employing justice, so does chasid describe him as employing love towards his creatures.[12] These same words are being used to imply the characteristic held by his people.
In rabbinic literature, tzdak is used in connection with Hillel. A story is told of elders who went to the family of Gadia in Jericho, and a heavenly voice came forth saying, “There is among you a man worthy of the holy spirit, only the generation is not worthy of it." All eyes turned towards Hillel the elder.[13] This sense of worthiness is seen in the action Hiilel displays in his life. Moses is said to have been a very meek man. The rabbis saw that it was not that Moses was humble in money or in physical strength or beauty, but exceedingly humble in character.[14] "Now the man Moses was very meek, more so than all men upon the face of the earth" (Num. 12:3). The statement of his humble character stands out as the central principle of the Pharisaic development. The question is asked: was Moses meek in the sense that he was not of magnificent appearance? No. Was he more meek than the ministering angels? No. Was he more meek than the generations of old? No. Moses was only ten cubits in height, but he was not more meek that the ministering angels or the generations of old. But the soul of Moses was more humble than them all.[15] The rabbis placed Hillel, and his innate meekness and humility, in the same categories as Ezra and Moses.

A pattern is slowly being developed. Ezra patterns himself after Moses, Simon patterns himself after both Moses and Ezra. Hillel is now taking on the pattern of all three. This should not be seen as the forming of a "sect" that would later become a special group. It was individuals taking on the God-like characteristics, which is a pattern for life. Hillel displays his action from his heart, which is seen as doing honor of God. An example of this concept can be seen in the statement:
When Herod built the Temple, it rained at night, and in the morning the sun shone, the wind blew, and the earth was dry, so that the workmen could go to their work; this showed them that their doing was, in the honor of God. The support of God demonstrated to them that the building of the Temple by the sinful king was not disapproved of by God as soiled and unholy, but was, at least as far as the share of the workmen was concerned, carried on with pure intentions, in the honor of God. R. Nathan in Sifre Deut. 11. 14.42, 80a, Mekhil: Exod.12.11,7b.[16]

The pious man wanted to avoid all sin. Whenever he acted, his only motive was God, whose will he was carrying out. Hillel passed this concept on to his disciple, R. Johanan b. Zakkai, who, along with R. Jose the priest, said: "Let all thy deeds be done for the sake of God." The intent is to express the highest principle that would guide man's action. The rabbis believed that God should ever be present in his mind, and whatever he does, whether it is great or small, important of indifferent, religious or moral, he should, like Hillel, think of God, and measure his deed by the will and honor of God; not for his own benefit or pleasure, nor his own ambition and glory, but only God's honor.[17] True to heart is the attitude of the hasid Pharisee, his day-by-day duties are centered in God.

The word Hakam in the writings of Josephus is related to the Pharisaioi. Historical reference is extremely rare in most rabbinic sources. In looking at these two bodies of sources, namely that of Josephus and that of the Rabbinic works, a dear fact emerges, that of the distinct identity of the Pharisaloi and the Perushim. Josephus does not refer to the Perushim as the predecessor of the Pharisalol. But he does make strong cross-references to the Pharisaioi and the Hakamim.
As a man separates himself from the fruit of growth for the first three years, so will those who become entangled with handmaids be separated (prushim) from the righteous on the day of judgment. Bem.Rxi[18]
He also annulled the confession and decreed in respect of demai, because he sent [inspectors] throughout the Israelite territory and discovered that they only separated the great terumah but as for the first and second tithes some fulfilled the law while others did not. Sot.48a[19]

The perushim is being referred to as the separation of tithe, but it could also be used as separation of people (Ber.ix.5). The rabbis made it clear that the word perushim is to be detached from that of the Hakamim. A distinction between the two is suggested by R. Johanan b. Zakkai; one of the greatest figures in the Hakamic/rabbinic tradition. He speaks of the perushim as though the word is separate from himself. It is important to note that he also argues for the perushim being against the Sadducees. R. Zakkai gives a measure of distinction, but he also gives a measure of association as well:

The Sadducees say, We cry out against you O ye Pharisees, for ye say, “The Holy scriptures render the hands unclean” [and] “The writings of Hamiram do not render the hands unclean.” Rabban Johanan b. Zakkai said, Have we naught against the Pharisees save this?-for lo, they say, “The bones of an ass are clean, and the bones of Johanan the High Priest are unclean." They said to him, As is our love for them so is their uncleanness-that no man make spoons of the bones of his father or mother. He said to them, Even so the Holy Scriptures: as is our love for them so is their uncleanness; [whereas] the writings of Hamiram which are held in no account do not render the hands unclean (Yad.iv 6).[20]

In the text above, Johanan's reference to the perushim as if it were distinct from himself is not a standard, but the distinction is being made. The essence of the comparison is not in whether they are the same, but that they did embrace the same moral, ethical, and religious values. The Hakamim function was to issue rulings or interpretations on moral or ethical principles in the Temple, while the Sadducees were the controlling body. This implies that the Hakamim, the soferim, the sages, the ones called to holiness in the service unto God, were interwoven into the developing concept of the Pharisaic belief. A story is told of R. Jose b. Kisma:
I was once walking by the way, when a man met me and saluted me, and I returned the salutation. He said to me, "Rabbi, from what place are you?" I said to him, "I come from a great city of SAGE and SCRIBES." He said to me, "if you are willing to dwell with us in our place, I will give you a thousand golden denarii’s and precious stones and pearls." I said to him, "Were you to give me all the silver and gold and precious stones and pearls in the world, I would not dwell anywhere but in a home of the Torah; and thus it is written in the Book of Psalms by the hand of David, King of Israel, "The law of Thy mouth is better unto me than thousands of gold and silver."

The rabbi in this statement is connecting himself with this Pharisaic belief. R. Kisma not only referred to himself as a scribe and a sage, but it is acknowledged by the person speaking to him that he was also a rabbi.
In conclusion, the Pharisaic belief can be seen in those who were and are faithful to the study of Torah. The study of Torah leads to faithfulness to God. R. Akiba said study is greater. The other rabbis agreed with Akiba, and they all decreed that study is more important, because study leads to practice (kid. 40b). During the development of the characteristic of the Pharisaic belief, the individuals who embraced these qualities set themselves apart as God's people. The study of Torah teaches the behavioral principles that were the developing beliefs of the Pharisees. These characteristics form a consistent pattern of life for those serving God, from Moses to Ezra, to the Men of the Great Synagogue, to the Hasid, to the Hakam, to the Pharisees\Rabbis, and as it was also displayed in the life of rabbi Jesus.

NOTES
[1] Samuel Umen, Pharisaism and Jesus. (New York: Philosophical Library, 1963), p. 1.
[2] Ibid., p. 2.
[3] Jacob Neusner, The Tosefta. vol. IV (New York: Ktav Publishing House Inc., 1981), p. 208.
[4] John Bowker, Jesus and the Pharisees. (Great Britain: Cambridge Press, 1973), p. 121.
[5] Jacob Neusner, p. 209.
[6] Herbert Danby, The Mishnah. (London: Oxford Press, 1933), p. 446.
[7] Asher Finkel, The Pharisees and the Teacher of Nazareth. (Netherlands: E.J. Brill, 1964), p. 17.
[8] Ibid., p. 17.
[9] Bruce M. Metzger, The Apocrypha. (New York: Oxford Press, 1957), p. 257.
[10] Ellis Rivkin, Hebrew Union College Annual. vol.xlix Scribes, Pharisees, Lawyers, Hypocrites: (Cincinnati: 1978), p. 135.
[11] Ibid., p. 135.
[12] Adolph Buchler, Types of Jewish Palestinian Piety. (New York: Ktav Publishing House, Inc. 1968), p. 7.
[13] Ibid., p. 8.
[14] Ibid., p. 9.
[15] Judah Goldin, The Fathers According To Rabbi Nathan. (London: Yale Press, 1955), p. 56.
[16] Adolph Buchler, p. 17.
[17] Ibid., p. 18.
[18] John Bowker, p. 164.
[19] B. D. Mien, The Babylonia Talmud. "Sotah" (New York: Traditional Press,), p. 95.
[20] Herben Danby, p. 785.
[21] A. Cohen, Everyman's Talmud. (New York: Schocken Books, 1975), p. 131.

[Toney]

His teaching came from above. Theirs came by their own 'discussions'....

This is perhaps the most important point I have read in this thread. Indeed, a prophet speaks for God: the definition of a prophet. In doing so, he (or she) may be indifferent toward theological niceties.

It is all about spirituality, and not about differences in "correct beliefs" between Jewish (or Christian) sects. This is why, IMO, Jesus railed against hypocricy.

The Pharisees got bad press in the NT, probably because the Christian communities wanted to curry favor with Rome and, no doubt, because of animosities between... sects. I, myself, doubt that Paul was a Pharisee as he claimed.

The Saducees, on the other hand, owed their jobs to Rome. They were the bad guys and no doubt were complicit in Jesus' execution.

But make no mistake about it. Pilate was a cold bloodied murderer who ordered Jesus' crucifixion for the crime of sedition and then had lunch. Washing blood off innocent hands? Bunk!

(A private aside. Would the OP of this thread consider placing OPEN tags on it, please?)

[shmuel]

Andyman would you share your primary sources from which you get your information.

Virtually all our knowledge about the Pharisees is derived from three sets of sources: the works of the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus, The Jewish War (ca. A.D. 75), The Antiquities of the Jews (ca. A.D. 94), and Life (ca. A.D. 101); the various compilations of the rabbis (ca. A.D. 200 and later); and the NT. Other works, parts of the Apocrypha, the Pseudepigrapha, or the Dead Sea Scrolls, may also contain information concerning the Pharisees. But since the Pharisees are never explicitly mentioned in these works, their use in constructing a picture of the Pharisees is heavily dependent on prior assumptions which are at best speculative.

It should be noted, however, that even the use of the explicit sources is problematical. Most of the NT is written from a point of view that is antagonistic to the tenets of Pharisaism. The rabbinic traditions about the Pharisees are also shaped by polemical forces and are often anachronistic. The value of Josephus's information (traditionally regarded as the most helpful) is diminished by recent studies which suggest that Josephus was not a Pharisee before A.D. 70 and that his eventual conversion was motivated more by political realities than by careful study of the different Jewish sects. It certainly cannot be denied that Josephus's descriptions of the Pharisees are superficial. In short, therefore, our sources provide neither a complete nor a straightforward picture of the Pharisees.

http://mb-soft.com/believe/txc/pharisee.htm

My views are not from Luther. I have taken courses taught by Messianic Jewish teachers where we examined the primary sources. So I ask you once more, what is the documentation for your claims?

[Shimshon]

So I guess the majority of the church pre Acts 10 was not from the Pharisee sect? From what I have studied it was........Paul even says in Acts 23 he is a Pharisee, not was.

And he is quoted as saying he counted it all as dung.


I'm really surprised to see the influences of Luther on this forum with respect to the Pharisees.

You are either for him or against him, there is no inbetween. Luther was a man, I don't care for much of his writtings. He was very anti-semetic. I don't care what man says what. It comes down to knowing Yeshua personally. He is who causes my heart to beat, and motivates me to speak.


He wasn't questioned anymore in that passage was He?

Actually they sent many more Tzadukim and P'rushim to try and trap and trick him. This was their goal. They were not for him.


He did answer them, He answered them with a question........in typical rabbinic fashion no less. He told them where half of His s'mikah came from John the Baptist, with respect to Jesus' mikvah.........God obviously being the second voice declaring He had s'mikah.

He is quoted as saying, 'neither will I tell you where mine comes from'. God declares his authority, yes, but not all believe it. They did not. Because John proclaimed it, as did God. But they still had to ask where he received it? His answer is 'I won't tell you'. How you see this as telling them his authority I can't imagine. And even you can see his authority came from God, not the p'rushim. Hence, not a parush. They did not know who authorized him, and they did not believe the testimony of those who were proclaiming it. Namley Yeshua.

If it came from their own directions why does Jesus tell His followers to follow what they teach? Not only that He affirms their authority by indicating they sit in the Moses seat.......they have Biblical authority.

Follow what they teach, but do NOT what they do, because they are not entering the kingdom and are preventing others from doing so as well.

They sit there but they are HYPOCRATES! Do what God told them, not what they tell you.

They have no biblical authority. Yeshua states the kingdom is being taken from them. They are given the rules but they do not live by them. AND they teach other to live like they do. Do NOT do what they do.

[Andyman_1970]

And he is quoted as saying he counted it all as dung.

With respect to what does he count it poo? Context. He still identifies himself in Acts 23 as a Pharisee, which implies he observed the Oral Torah even after he repented in the Messiah (I purposely did not say Paul converted).

You are either for him or against him, there is no inbetween. Luther was a man, I don't care for much of his writtings. He was very anti-semetic. I don't care what man says what. It comes down to knowing Yeshua personally. He is who causes my heart to beat, and motivates me to speak.

Luthers misrepresentation of both 1st century Judaism and Pharisee’s has infected Protestant Christianity for the last 500 years……….hence the reaction to the assertion that Jesus was of the Pharisee sect.

Actually they sent many more Tzadukim and P'rushim to try and trap and trick him. This was their goal. They were not for him.

Please note, I was referring to Jesus exchange in Matthew 21 regarding His s’mikah not the rest of the Gospel account. I think it’s a great assumption to think the majority of Pharisee’s were against Jesus.

He is quoted as saying, 'neither will I tell you where mine comes from'. God declares his authority, yes, but not all believe it. They did not. Because John proclaimed it, as did God. But they still had to ask where he received it? His answer is 'I won't tell you'. How you see this as telling them his authority I can't imagine. And even you can see his authority came from God, not the p'rushim. Hence, not a parush. They did not know who authorized him, and they did not believe the testimony of those who were proclaiming it. Namley Yeshua.

But once Jesus indicated where His s’mikah came from they ceased their questioning, they had no other answer but to acknowledge His s’mikah, which they were not about to do.

Follow what they teach, but do NOT what they do, because they are not entering the kingdom and are preventing others from doing so as well.

Do you admonish people to follow false teachings? Jesus acknowledged their teachings as authoritative, and admonished His followers to follow the teachings (by implication this includes the Oral Torah) but not their actions……..which Jesus doesn’t rebuke their teachings as false, but their hypocritical actions.


They have no biblical authority. Yeshua states the kingdom is being taken from them. They are given the rules but they do not live by them. AND they teach other to live like they do. Do NOT do what they do.

He did tell His disciples to follow what they teach………

You and I disagree on this brother which is fine, but we do disagree, you’re not going to change my mind, nor do I believe I will change yours.

Have a great evening…………Shalom.

[DanielRB]

Shalom, all, thanks for your posts--they're very interesting! :wave:

I have a certain ambivilance towards Talmud. On the one hand, I see it as a valuable source of certain traditions that were preserved (though I don't believe that these traditions were the only ones that existed at Yeshua's time--just the best preserved, while other traditions were lost).

However, I have issue with the way it is viewed by some (the Orthodox in particular). I believe that Moshe very clearly taught that Torah was complete, and should not be "added to or taken from":

"You shall not add to the word that I command you, nor take from it, that you may keep the commandments of the Lord your God that I command you." (Deuteronomy 4:2, ESV)

"“Everything that I command you, you shall be careful to do. You shall not add to it or take from it." (Deuteronomy 12:32, ESV)

Some might argue that the "oral Torah" was part of this, but I disagree.

Although I admit my own great ignorance on the Talmud, I understand that the Rabbis interpret Exodus 23:1-3 as stating that the individual should submit to the majority decision on matters of instruction (although the passage reads excatly the opposite. This is illustrated in Tractate Baba Metzia IV p. 140

There is a Mishna (Keilim, V., 10) which treats of an oven which R. Eliezer makes clean and the sages unclean, and it is the oven of a snake. 1 What does this mean? Said R. Jehudah in the name of Samuel: It intimates that they encircled it with their evidences as a snake winds itself around an object. And a Boraitha states that R. Eliezer related all answers of the world and they were not accepted. Then he said: Let this carob-tree prove that the Halakha prevails as I state, and the carob was (miraculously) thrown off to a distance of one hundred ells, and according to others four hundred ells. But they said: The carob proves nothing. He again said: "Let, then, the spring of water prove that so the Halakha prevails." The water then began to run backwards. But again the sages said that this proved nothing. He again said: "Then, let the walls of the college prove that I am right." The walls were about to fall. R. Joshua, however, rebuked them, saying: "If the scholars of this college are discussing upon a Halakha, wherefore should ye interfere!" They did not fall, for the honor of R. Joshua, but they did not become again straight, for the honor of R. Eliezer [and they are still in the same condition]. He said again: Let it be announced by the heavens that the Halakha prevails according to my statement, and a heavenly voice was heard, saying: Why do you quarrel with R. Eliezer, who is always right in his decisions! R. Joshua then arose and proclaimed [Deut. xxx. 12]: "The Law is not in the heavens." [How is this to be understood? said R. Jeremiah: It means, the Torah was given already to us on the mountain of Sinai, and we do not care for a heavenly voice, as it reads [Exod. xxiii. 2]: "To incline after the majority." R. Nathan met Elijah (the Prophet) and questioned him: "What did the Holy One, blessed be He, at that time?" (when R. Joshua proclaimed the above answer to the heavenly voice), and he rejoined: "He laughed and said, My children have overruled me, my children have overruled me."] [Link from ] (http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/t06/me105.htm)

From what I can understand, this puts the Rabbis in the position of overrulling YHWH's command. I cannot accept this idea. Indeed, it strikes me as blasphemy.

In Messiah,

Daniel

[shmuel]

The passage that Daniel quotes is Baba Metzi'a 59b relating to the oven of Aknai. It's an interesting story that is much discussed in Messianic Judaism.

http://www.come-and-hear.com/babamezia/babamezia_59.html#PARTb

Note that in the end R. Eliazer is vindicated.

[Andyman_1970]

Some more food for thought, an excerpt from and article from Dr. Roy Blizzard:

The rabbis of Jesus' day had a reverence for the inspired Word of God that transcends that of most Christians. However, they believed that God had communicated his Word in both oral and written form. The Oral Law they considered to be no less authoritative than the Written Law. The rabbis, and I believe we can also establish, Jesus himself, believed that the Oral Law was given to Moses at Sinai simultaneously with the Written Law. Not only did they believe that the Written Law was inspired, they believed that men of God who came later to interpret or to enable us to better understand the Word of God were also directed by the Holy Spirit. They believed that God gave the Holy Spirit to the interpreters (those who gave, understanding to the Written Law) just as he did to the writer. The interpreter needed to be equally as inspired by God to understand the text as the writer was inspired to write. Unless the Holy Spirit directs the reader, he can not understand God's great written truths. This is a view of inspiration that is much more sophisticated and abstract than the more limited view often put forward in Christianity.