Did Yeshua wear Tefillin?

[Sephania]

What do you think?

Please post scriptures to back up your reasons, and possible extra biblical sources.

[Bananna]

Yes

tzit tzit were sometimes called wings
They were worn by all observant men of his day though a bit smaller.

Mal 4:2 (http://cf.blb.org/search/getBible.cfm?b=Mal&c=4&v=2&version=KJV#2)But unto you that fear my name shall the Sun of righteousness arise with healing in his wings; and ye shall go forth, and grow up as calves of the stall.

Mat 9:20 (http://cf.blb.org/search/getBible.cfm?b=Mat&c=9&v=20&version=KJV#20)And, behold, a woman, which was diseased with an issue of blood twelve years, came behind [him], and touched the hem of his garment:
Num 15:38 (http://cf.blb.org/search/getBible.cfm?b=Num&c=15&v=38&version=KJV#38)Speak unto the children of Israel, and bid them that they make them fringes in the borders of their garments throughout their generations, and that they put upon the fringe of the borders a ribband of blue: Deu 22:12 (http://cf.blb.org/search/getBible.cfm?b=Deu&c=22&v=12&version=KJV#12)Thou shalt make thee fringes upon the four quarters of thy vesture, wherewith thou coverest [thyself].

[talmidim]

What do you think?

Please post scriptures to back up your reasons, and possible extra biblical sources.Yes.
From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tefillin
Excavation of the Dead Sea (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Sea) area in the Judean Desert (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judean_Desert) known as Qumran (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qumran) in 1955 revealed the earliest tefillin known, they were used by a non-Pharisee (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharisee) sect indicating widespread use during the Second Temple (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Temple) period.

[simchat_torah]

First, tzitzit are not teffillin.

But moving on....

There are no christian passages that support either side. However, if he was a fist century Jewish Rabbi, then the answer is yes. But if you believe him to be more or less than that, then who knows?

[A_Pioneer]

First, tzitzit are not teffillin.

But moving on....

There are no christian passages that support either side. However, if he was a fist century Jewish Rabbi, then the answer is yes. But if you believe him to be more or less than that, then who knows?
I agree. I will add one scripture, Lu. 4:16, I don't believe a lowly uneducated Gallileian would be asked to read the haftorah portion, they considered him a Rabbi with full privileges. JMO.

Shalom

[HeatherMicaela]

Well, I don't see any evidence in scripture one way or the other. My guess is not, but I could be wrong.

tzitzit - I absolutely belive He wore :)

[mpossoff]

What do you think?

Please post scriptures to back up your reasons, and possible extra biblical sources.

If He did will He be wearing tzizit when He comes back?

Marc

[A_Pioneer]

As Talmidim showed that; Excavation of the Dead Sea (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Sea) area in the Judean Desert (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judean_Desert) known as Qumran (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qumran) in 1955 revealed the earliest tefillin known, they were used by a non-Pharisee (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharisee) sect indicating widespread use during the Second Temple (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Temple) period.
He was a Rabbi, has had talmidim and would have done all the Shema, Talmidim, has shown they were done in his time, he was a Hebrew, the HaMoshiach and lived out Tanack literally or he was a fake.
He is the "Real Thing" to me. He donned his Teffilin and said the daily Brachot. NO Doubt!

[simchat_torah]

Well, I don't see any evidence in scripture one way or the other. My guess is not, but I could be wrong.

tzitzit - I absolutely belive He wore :)I see this thought permeating all of MJ'ism, not just on these forums. It seems that if Jesus didn't "reaffirm" a specific mitzvah then that law does not apply. Each and every law that the NT does not reiterate can be tossed aside. If the NT mentiones it specifically then it must be followed, but if a law was not restated in the NT then it can be (or should be?) left behind.

It is an odd thought to me, and always has been.

Curious, why do Messianics think this way?

[A_Pioneer]

I see this thought permeating all of MJ'ism, not just on these forums. It seems that if Jesus didn't "reaffirm" a specific mitzvah then that law does not apply. Each and every law that the NT does not reiterate can be tossed aside. If the NT mentiones it specifically then it must be followed, but if a law was not restated in the NT then it can be (or should be?) left behind.

It is an odd thought to me, and always has been.

Curious, why do Messianics think this way?
I think it is because most of the posters are from the Gentile/Nations and their culture has been that the Torah was nailed to the cross, therefore we are not under the Torah, but free from from it.
Wrong headed thinking, but this has been the theme of the Christian Church.
I agree that in my opinion the Torah/Yeshua was nailed to the cross, but he is not the "handwritings of ordinances that were against us" we were freed from.
These were our transgressions.
I am afraid most of those people did not dump all the garbage and failed to fill their minds with Torah and have moved out Torah in favor of some favorite tender doctrines, when the Camel gets his nose in the tent, you will be living with a Camel. (unclean spirit)Mt 12:43


Shalom

[Henaynei]

I see this thought permeating all of MJ'ism, not just on these forums. It seems that if Jesus didn't "reaffirm" a specific mitzvah then that law does not apply. Each and every law that the NT does not reiterate can be tossed aside. If the NT mentioned it specifically then it must be followed, but if a law was not restated in the NT then it can be (or should be?) left behind.

It is an odd thought to me, and always has been.

Curious, why do Messianics think this way?NOT all of MJism, my friend. Not by a long shot! :wave:

but moving on to why some do...... most come from the church where it is believed the only commandments that remain are those that are seem in the NT, except the tithe, of course. Many folks who come into MJism have not out grown their Christian/Hellenistic mindset, some will, others will not. But until that process is complete they are still looking at Judaism through their old glasses. Thus as they begin to see the *many* commandments that are visible in the NT, that the Church will never see, they still apply that paradigm which they know - that if it is not in the NT it was put away. A fallacy, I know, and many grow beyond this to a more full understanding of Yeshua, who He is and what He did. As I said, others will not :( But then in the growing process we all bring along that which we have learned and to that we cling and through that we process the new information until we out grow the old or integrate it all into a new/old that is closer to the truth even yet... Some of us let go more easily than others, that's all :)

b'Shalom
Henaynei

b'Shalom
Henaynei

[simchat_torah]

I didn't say all, I said it is a permeating thing... something which is spreading ;)

[Henaynei]

I didn't say all, I said it is a permeating thing... something which is spreading ;)please see the highlighted sections of your quoted post in my reply.... did you say "permeating" yes, "permeating all of MJism" yes - but this is a small and inconsequential point. I answered your actual question as best I could :)

b'Shalom
Henaynei

[HeatherMicaela]

I see this thought permeating all of MJ'ism, not just on these forums. It seems that if Jesus didn't "reaffirm" a specific mitzvah then that law does not apply. Each and every law that the NT does not reiterate can be tossed aside. If the NT mentiones it specifically then it must be followed, but if a law was not restated in the NT then it can be (or should be?) left behind.

It is an odd thought to me, and always has been.

Curious, why do Messianics think this way?

WOW that is a lot to assume from my post.

Did I say if Yeshua did not reaffirm the mitzvah that he didn't do it? I was under the impression that the OP wanted proof from scripture.

As far as I can tell there *is* no proof in either the tanakh or the birt hadeshah. I believe that every law applies, but I *do* believe that Yeshua came to make a distinction between the law and some of the interpretations of it (Not that all of the talmud is wrong, either)
Even if one believes Yeshua would wear them would depend on when that practice came about - and I am ingnorant on that.

[simchat_torah]

Did I say if Yeshua did not reaffirm the mitzvah that he didn't do it?Pretty much, yeah.

Since "scripture doesn't reaffirm" he did, then it is up in the air, right? It IS kinda the whole point of the thread after all...

Would it even be a question if it was a Jewish Rabbi we were speaking of? Of course not.

[Bananna]

I see this thought permeating all of MJ'ism, not just on these forums. It seems that if Jesus didn't "reaffirm" a specific mitzvah then that law does not apply. Each and every law that the NT does not reiterate can be tossed aside. If the NT mentiones it specifically then it must be followed, but if a law was not restated in the NT then it can be (or should be?) left behind.

It is an odd thought to me, and always has been.

Curious, why do Messianics think this way?

? Think what way???

I know none in my group believe any ordiance from God should be tossed aside. We believe that when Yeshuah quoted the Shema He was advocating that all the torah be kept.


OP
Oh and yes I believe Yeshua wore a much smaller version of the Tefillin also. I forgot where I was going with my answer when I wrote it and I stopped with the Tzit Tzit. I believe what Yeshua wore was basically like a head band and arm band much like many asian martial artist would bind on themselves when setting them selves to a purposed task.

Sorry the verse for the Tefillin escapes me now.

Bananna

[HeatherMicaela]

Would it even be a question if it was a Jewish Rabbi we were speaking of? Of course not.

A Jewish Rabbi in 30 something CE - yes it would. When did it become understood that having the scriputes on the "frontlets of your eyes" meant telafim?

I believe the Torah and Tenach are supposed to be followed today - but I don't necessarily believe that they have be followed as the Rabbis say. (At the same time I do think many of the traditions ARE G-d inspired.) And I do believe that Yeshua came to show us the Torah more clearly. That is why he healed on Shabbat and such. Not because he was doing away with it (I believe Yeshua kept the Sabbath), but because it was the traditions/rules of Pharisees he was challenging.

Just because I question whether Yeshua followed those, doesn't mean I think only part of the Torah is applicable. That is a big leap of logic.

(Edited because I put BCE instead of CE first)

[simchat_torah]

A Jewish Rabbi in 30 something CE - yes it would. When did it become understood that having the scriputes on the "frontlets of your eyes" meant telafim?I'm not sure of the date of origin to this particular halacha, but suffice it to say it was more than a common practice among Jesus' contemporaries.
It was... dare I say... the norm.

[Sephania]

Ok back to the OP, if he did wear them, and he interpreted Exodus 13:9 and13:16 and Deut 6:8 and 11:18 the way the pharisees and others ( like what was found in qumran) interpreted this commandment then why weren't they found amoung his effects?

I found this:

Yeshua and Tefillin


Nowhere does any Pharisee call Yeshua a Pharisee in their interactions and confrontations. And it would have been very obvious that He would have been a Pharisee, if He were wearing tefillin, since we've seen that this was a distinctive mark of a Pharisee. For at that time, only they wore them. This excludes Yeshua from their sect, as is now becoming popular to say, that 'Yeshua was a Pharisee,' because some of His teachings seem to parallel Pharisaic teaching. Unfortunately, this understanding would also confuse the police with the Mafia because both have guns. Pharisaic teachings were qualitatively very different than what Yeshua taught. Alfred Edersheim states: 'We can recommend nothing better, to those who have heard that the teaching of the New Testament has been derived from that of the Rabbis, than to collate the revolting details on this subject, as well as those connected with prayer, in Ber. 23a to 25b; or else to study their interpretations of dreams, or such details as Ber. 62a, b. To those who have been told that Hillel might be compared with Jesus, we recommend the perusal of what at times engaged that great Jewish Rabbi's teaching; for example, in Ber. 23a.'The Pharisees wore them but Yeshua never did. For Yeshua to have worn them would have made Him a Pharisee. Everyone would have seen Him as such, and none would have questioned where He got His authority or teachings from (Matt. 7:29; 13:54; 21:23). They would have known! From the Pharisees! Yeshua was not a Pharisee, nor did He ever wear tefillin.


There's no mention of His followers ever coming upon Him and Him putting them on or taking them off. There's no Scripture that He wore either the head piece or the arm piece. There's also no mention of Yeshua praying, and Scripture speaks a number of times about Him doing so (Mt. 14:23; Mk. 4:26; Luke 6:12; 9:28, etc.), where tefillin are seen or written about. And when the Roman soldiers gamble for His clothes (John 19:23), tefillin are not listed as one of the things they took, even though He had just finished praying when the Jewish officials came for Him (Mt. 26:36ff, Mk. 14:32ff, Lk. 22:39ff). (They are called tefillin; prayer objects, so they should at the very least, be used in prayer. If Yeshua had just been praying, He should have had them on. They were worn all day long by the Pharisees to give the impression that they were pious men, always praying.) The Illustrated Bible Dictionary doesn't think Yeshua wore tefillin either: 'We have no reason for thinking that they were worn either by Christ or his disciples.'Alfred Edersheim was of the persuasion that Messiah never wore them either: 'For our part, we refuse to believe that Jesus, like the Pharisees, appeared wearing phylacteries every day and all day long, or at least a great part of the day. For such was the ancient custom, and not merely, as the modern practice, to wear them only at' (morning) 'prayer.'It's also interesting to note that recently discovered first century tefillin from Qumran and Murabba'at shed light on the phrase, 'they make their phylacteries broad' (Mt. 23:5): 'Previously this phrase had generally been understood to mean that the straps were made broad'. 'But these tefillin from the 1st cent. A.D. show that the head tefillin were not cubical, but rectangular, with the breadth across the forehead varying much more than the length.'It seems that the boxes on their heads were much larger than what is worn today. With the leather straps and the boxes protruding from arm and head, Edersheim writes that the 'wearer of them could not be mistaken.' This should not surprise us as Yeshua distinctly says that the Pharisees wore tefillin to be noticed: 'But they do all their deeds to be noticed by men. For they broaden their phylacteries and lengthen the tassels of their garments' (Mt. 23:5).Believers in Messiah have always understood the Exodus and Deuteronomy passages to be figurative and not literal. Ellison writes that there is no possibility that God intended for the passages to be taken literally: 'Though Christian exegesis has always understood the' 'passages as metaphorical, our increasing knowledge of the ancient Near East would not rule out their possible literal intent'. 'All available evidence suggests, however, that they were a late innovation brought in by the' Hasidim, the spiritual forefathers of the Pharisees, 'being intended as a counterblast to increasing Hellenistic influence. There is no mention of them in the OT, and they seem always to have been unknown to the Samaritans. LXX' (the Septuagint) 'clearly takes the passages on which the custom is based as metaphorical.'The actual dating of tefillin can be seen from the fact that in the generation before Yeshua, that of Hillel and Shammai, there wasn't any established tradition as to when they were to be worn and how many were to be worn. The Hasidim being spoken of could very well have lived a generation before Hillel. More than this and the wearing of tefillin would most likely have been already deeply entrenched among the people.
TEFILLIN: To Wear or Not to Wear? (http://www.seedofabraham.net/tefillin.html) Presents a pretty good case Yeshua did not wear them

[ChazakEmunah]

Yeshua and Tefillin


Nowhere does any Pharisee call Yeshua a Pharisee in their interactions and confrontations. And it would have been very obvious that He would have been a Pharisee, if He were wearing tefillin, since we've seen that this was a distinctive mark of a Pharisee. For at that time, only they wore them. This excludes Yeshua from their sect, as is now becoming popular to say, that 'Yeshua was a Pharisee,' because some of His teachings seem to parallel Pharisaic teaching. Unfortunately, this understanding would also confuse the police with the Mafia because both have guns. Pharisaic teachings were qualitatively very different than what Yeshua taught. Alfred Edersheim states:

'We can recommend nothing better, to those who have heard that the teaching of the New Testament has been derived from that of the Rabbis, than to collate the revolting details on this subject, as well as those connected with prayer, in Ber. 23a to 25b; or else to study their interpretations of dreams, or such details as Ber. 62a, b. To those who have been told that Hillel might be compared with Jesus, we recommend the perusal of what at times engaged that great Jewish Rabbi's teaching; for example, in Ber. 23a.'

The Pharisees wore them but Yeshua never did. For Yeshua to have worn them would have made Him a Pharisee. Everyone would have seen Him as such, and none would have questioned where He got His authority or teachings from (Matt. 7:29; 13:54; 21:23). They would have known! From the Pharisees! Yeshua was not a Pharisee, nor did He ever wear tefillin.


There's no mention of His followers ever coming upon Him and Him putting them on or taking them off. There's no Scripture that He wore either the head piece or the arm piece. There's also no mention of Yeshua praying, and Scripture speaks a number of times about Him doing so (Mt. 14:23; Mk. 4:26; Luke 6:12; 9:28, etc.), where tefillin are seen or written about. And when the Roman soldiers gamble for His clothes (John 19:23), tefillin are not listed as one of the things they took, even though He had just finished praying when the Jewish officials came for Him (Mt. 26:36ff, Mk. 14:32ff, Lk. 22:39ff). (They are called tefillin; prayer objects, so they should at the very least, be used in prayer. If Yeshua had just been praying, He should have had them on. They were worn all day long by the Pharisees to give the impression that they were pious men, always praying.) The Illustrated Bible Dictionary doesn't think Yeshua wore tefillin either:

'We have no reason for thinking that they were worn either by Christ or his disciples.'

Alfred Edersheim was of the persuasion that Messiah never wore them either:

'For our part, we refuse to believe that Jesus, like the Pharisees, appeared wearing phylacteries every day and all day long, or at least a great part of the day. For such was the ancient custom, and not merely, as the modern practice, to wear them only at' (morning) 'prayer.'

It's also interesting to note that recently discovered first century tefillin from Qumran and Murabba'at shed light on the phrase, 'they make their phylacteries broad' (Mt. 23:5):

'Previously this phrase had generally been understood to mean that the straps were made broad'. 'But these tefillin from the 1st cent. A.D. show that the head tefillin were not cubical, but rectangular, with the breadth across the forehead varying much more than the length.'

It seems that the boxes on their heads were much larger than what is worn today. With the leather straps and the boxes protruding from arm and head, Edersheim writes that the 'wearer of them could not be mistaken.' This should not surprise us as Yeshua distinctly says that the Pharisees wore tefillin to be noticed:

'But they do all their deeds to be noticed by men. For they broaden their phylacteries and lengthen the tassels of their garments' (Mt. 23:5).

Believers in Messiah have always understood the Exodus and Deuteronomy passages to be figurative and not literal. Ellison writes that there is no possibility that God intended for the passages to be taken literally:

'Though Christian exegesis has always understood the' 'passages as metaphorical, our increasing knowledge of the ancient Near East would not rule out their possible literal intent'. 'All available evidence suggests, however, that they were a late innovation brought in by the' Hasidim, the spiritual forefathers of the Pharisees, 'being intended as a counterblast to increasing Hellenistic influence. There is no mention of them in the OT, and they seem always to have been unknown to the Samaritans. LXX' (the Septuagint) 'clearly takes the passages on which the custom is based as metaphorical.'

The actual dating of tefillin can be seen from the fact that in the generation before Yeshua, that of Hillel and Shammai, there wasn't any established tradition as to when they were to be worn and how many were to be worn. The Hasidim being spoken of could very well have lived a generation before Hillel. More than this and the wearing of tefillin would most likely have been already deeply entrenched among the people.
TEFILLIN: To Wear or Not to Wear? Presents a pretty good case Yeshua did not wear them
Knowing the leadership of the "Seed of Abraham" I can tell you that they are certainly not an authoritative source, and definitely not one that I would quote. I will hold off on commenting on the rest, since this is an internal messianic issue and will not give my opinion unless asked.


EDIT: Now that I have gone and looked at the link I must say that what was written was completely repulsive. This guy (maybe a member of the Erev Rav) says that tefillin are counterfit to the "mark of G-d" and "satanic." He even goes on to say that it is a "sin" to wear tefillin. It doesn't get much worse than that.

[HadassahSukkot]

Yikes, I had to stop reading that link 1/4th the way down.... not very well researched if you ask me....

Tefillin are ''from old'' and we do know they were around before Hellenistic influence, as well as Babylonian.

IMHO, Y'shua would have worn them during the three set times of prayer. The only comment I find that he makes of Tefillin was countering the improper use thereof.

Absence of comment doesn't preclude something not being in practice. Remember, the whole of Scripture was written to a Jewish audience... everyone else observes from the culture they are in, and may not know what markers to look for.

I believe there would also be commentary by his contemporaries if he failed to comply in a rite such as this while being a rabbi..

[ContraMundum]

Knowing the leadership of the "Seed of Abraham" I can tell you that they are certainly not an authoritative source, and definitely not one that I would quote. I will hold off on commenting on the rest, since this is an internal messianic issue and will not give my opinion unless asked.


EDIT: Now that I have gone and looked at the link I must say that what was written was completely repulsive. This supposed Jew (maybe a member of the Erev Rav) says that tefillin are counterfit to the "mark of G-d" and "satanic." He even goes on to say that it is a "sin" to wear tefillin. It doesn't get much worse than that.


That article misquotes Edersheim too. I'm so sick of the fundies misquoting real scholars to prove their bizzare ideas.

Lord, save us from the unstable..

[Steve Petersen]

Why would an MJ post a link to such a bizarre site?

We are marginalized enough without showing the world this kind of stuff.

[simchat_torah]

Why would an MJ post a link to such a bizarre site?Weirdness is kinda the norm for online MJ'ism...

I might address something else entirely false:
Pharisees were not the "only sect" that wore tefillin. That is utterly ridiculous. We also know, for starters, that the Sadducees and Essenes wore them as well.

That article is pure goofiness in the highest sense.

[simchat_torah]

Why would an MJ post a link to such a bizarre site?Weirdness is kinda the norm for online MJ'ism...

I might address something else entirely false:
Pharisees were not the "only sect" that wore tefillin. That is utterly ridiculous. We also know, for starters, that the Sadducees and Essenes wore them as well.

That article is pure goofiness in the highest sense.

[stone]

Ok back to the OP, if he did wear them, and he interpreted Exodus 13:9 and13:16 and Deut 6:8 and 11:18 the way the pharisees and others ( like what was found in qumran) interpreted this commandment then why weren't they found amoung his effects?

I found this:

Yeshua and Tefillin



Nowhere does any Pharisee call Yeshua a Pharisee in their interactions and confrontations. And it would have been very obvious that He would have been a Pharisee, if He were wearing tefillin, since we've seen that this was a distinctive mark of a Pharisee. For at that time, only they wore them. This excludes Yeshua from their sect, as is now becoming popular to say, that 'Yeshua was a Pharisee,' because some of His teachings seem to parallel Pharisaic teaching. Unfortunately, this understanding would also confuse the police with the Mafia because both have guns. Pharisaic teachings were qualitatively very different than what Yeshua taught. Alfred Edersheim states:'We can recommend nothing better, to those who have heard that the teaching of the New Testament has been derived from that of the Rabbis, than to collate the revolting details on this subject, as well as those connected with prayer, in Ber. 23a to 25b; or else to study their interpretations of dreams, or such details as Ber. 62a, b. To those who have been told that Hillel might be compared with Jesus, we recommend the perusal of what at times engaged that great Jewish Rabbi's teaching; for example, in Ber. 23a.'The Pharisees wore them but Yeshua never did. For Yeshua to have worn them would have made Him a Pharisee. Everyone would have seen Him as such, and none would have questioned where He got His authority or teachings from (Matt. 7:29; 13:54; 21:23). They would have known! From the Pharisees! Yeshua was not a Pharisee, nor did He ever wear tefillin.



There's no mention of His followers ever coming upon Him and Him putting them on or taking them off. There's no Scripture that He wore either the head piece or the arm piece. There's also no mention of Yeshua praying, and Scripture speaks a number of times about Him doing so (Mt. 14:23; Mk. 4:26; Luke 6:12; 9:28, etc.), where tefillin are seen or written about. And when the Roman soldiers gamble for His clothes (John 19:23), tefillin are not listed as one of the things they took, even though He had just finished praying when the Jewish officials came for Him (Mt. 26:36ff, Mk. 14:32ff, Lk. 22:39ff). (They are called tefillin; prayer objects, so they should at the very least, be used in prayer. If Yeshua had just been praying, He should have had them on. They were worn all day long by the Pharisees to give the impression that they were pious men, always praying.) The Illustrated Bible Dictionary doesn't think Yeshua wore tefillin either:'We have no reason for thinking that they were worn either by Christ or his disciples.'Alfred Edersheim was of the persuasion that Messiah never wore them either:'For our part, we refuse to believe that Jesus, like the Pharisees, appeared wearing phylacteries every day and all day long, or at least a great part of the day. For such was the ancient custom, and not merely, as the modern practice, to wear them only at' (morning) 'prayer.'It's also interesting to note that recently discovered first century tefillin from Qumran and Murabba'at shed light on the phrase, 'they make their phylacteries broad' (Mt. 23:5):'Previously this phrase had generally been understood to mean that the straps were made broad'. 'But these tefillin from the 1st cent. A.D. show that the head tefillin were not cubical, but rectangular, with the breadth across the forehead varying much more than the length.'It seems that the boxes on their heads were much larger than what is worn today. With the leather straps and the boxes protruding from arm and head, Edersheim writes that the 'wearer of them could not be mistaken.' This should not surprise us as Yeshua distinctly says that the Pharisees wore tefillin to be noticed:'But they do all their deeds to be noticed by men. For they broaden their phylacteries and lengthen the tassels of their garments' (Mt. 23:5).Believers in Messiah have always understood the Exodus and Deuteronomy passages to be figurative and not literal. Ellison writes that there is no possibility that God intended for the passages to be taken literally:'Though Christian exegesis has always understood the' 'passages as metaphorical, our increasing knowledge of the ancient Near East would not rule out their possible literal intent'. 'All available evidence suggests, however, that they were a late innovation brought in by the' Hasidim, the spiritual forefathers of the Pharisees, 'being intended as a counterblast to increasing Hellenistic influence. There is no mention of them in the OT, and they seem always to have been unknown to the Samaritans. LXX' (the Septuagint) 'clearly takes the passages on which the custom is based as metaphorical.'The actual dating of tefillin can be seen from the fact that in the generation before Yeshua, that of Hillel and Shammai, there wasn't any established tradition as to when they were to be worn and how many were to be worn. The Hasidim being spoken of could very well have lived a generation before Hillel. More than this and the wearing of tefillin would most likely have been already deeply entrenched among the people.
TEFILLIN: To Wear or Not to Wear? (http://www.seedofabraham.net/tefillin.html) Presents a pretty good case Yeshua did not wear them

The 1st 3 sentences indicate this is mis-information.

[stone]

Yes indeed! I tell you that until heaven and earth pass away, not so much as a yud or a stroke will pass from the Torah -- not until everything that must happen has happened.

[Sephania]

Knowing the leadership of the "Seed of Abraham" I can tell you that they are certainly not an authoritative source, and definitely not one that I would quote. I will hold off on commenting on the rest, since this is an internal messianic issue and will not give my opinion unless asked.


EDIT: Now that I have gone and looked at the link I must say that what was written was completely repulsive. This supposed Jew (maybe a member of the Erev Rav) says that tefillin are counterfit to the "mark of G-d" and "satanic." He even goes on to say that it is a "sin" to wear tefillin. It doesn't get much worse than that.
Saying that you know the leadership and they are not an authoritive source leaves it wide open for anyone to interpret what you mean, perhaps you should back that up with evidense? From what I have read of this man, and his articles seem to appear in many MJ sites for articles on certain things, He was born Jewish and he also doesn't believe In Christianity or Judaism or even the Messianic Movement, he believes that none have it right, and I rather agree.

And as far as saying this supposed Jew ( which is against the rules BTW) said this:

We are not saying that tefillin are the mark of the beast, even though there is a parallel here. But tefillin are a literal perversion of God's Word. Is tefillin commanded by Yahveh? No. Is it sin to wear tefillin? Yes. One of sin's definition's is 'to miss a mark.' If God never intended for us to wear tefillin than those who do are certainly missing the mark as to proper interpretation and walking out of God's Word (i.e. His Will). In Judaism what you understand as sin and what a Christian or Messianic understands as sin apparently are two different things. He is just giving the NT definition as given by Paul.

[HeatherMicaela]

Stone - I agree (obviously since it is scripture)

I am just wanting clarification:

Was that scripture posted to refute the thing Keli quoted? I did not go to the site to see the errors or understand what the problem is with it.

But just for the record since I am new here, the last thing I want to do is divide MJs. I believe in the Torah and that it should be followed - but don't necessarily believe that the rabbinical interpretation thereof has to be followed. I am fine with those who believe differently, and I hope people do not think *me* as lesser for my POV:(

[Sephania]

The 1st 3 sentences indicate this is mis-information.You've made a serious accusation stone, I ask that you back it up.

[Sephania]

Yikes, I had to stop reading that link 1/4th the way down.... not very well researched if you ask me....

Tefillin are ''from old'' and we do know they were around before Hellenistic influence, as well as Babylonian.

IMHO, Y'shua would have worn them during the three set times of prayer. The only comment I find that he makes of Tefillin was countering the improper use thereof.

Absence of comment doesn't preclude something not being in practice. Remember, the whole of Scripture was written to a Jewish audience... everyone else observes from the culture they are in, and may not know what markers to look for.

I believe there would also be commentary by his contemporaries if he failed to comply in a rite such as this while being a rabbi..Not very well researched? That is strange since the articles has over 90 footnotes and cites where this info was gathered from. I think the problem people are having in thinking he didn't wear them means he broke the law, but what if this were just like the breaking of Shabbat he was accused of, and he explained to them what really was breaking the Shabbat and what wasn't or about tithing and how they got that wrong too? The reason he may not have worn them was because it was an incorrect interpretation of that commandment.

You said we know that they were around before Babylon, I would like to see evidence of this claim please.

His failure to comply may indicate that only Pharisees wore them thus they knew he was not a Pharisee and would not be wearing them.

I guess the thing that touched something off in my mind was that when they arrested him and they parted his garments, teffilin or little boxes were not found among them. Also the Greek word phylacteries means

'The word 'phylacteries' occurs in the Bible only in Mt. 23:5. The Greek word means 'safeguard,' 'means of protection,' 'amulet,' and as used in Mt. 23:5 is generally identified as the tefillin (lit. 'prayers'), small boxes containing Scripture verse'. 'Rabbinic literature indicates that the tefillin were equivalent to amulets or charms for some wearers, yet for many others they were a memorial of God's commandments'

After reading all this I just don't know if interpreting the passages in Exodus and Deut meant to tie a box to your head and arm, it sounds more superstitious than anything and there are many in that area back then that did things like this and HaShem said not to worship him the way the heathens worshiped their gods.

It's very hard to say this is correct being they are only mentioned once in the whole Christian bible and not at all in the Tenach.

[stone]

You've made a serious accusation stone, I ask that you back it up.

I'm still working on my time machine.

[stone]

I'm thinking your not going to sense the humor intended in my last post?

As my claims go, i would think that he who makes the claims, as say the 1st 3 sentences, should 1st prove what they say as true.

It's already been agreed that what is composed in what you pasted here, is false information by many.

[talmidim]

I am so encouraged to see MJs back to digging deep to prove their positions rather than politicking. There have been some emphatic statements made in this thread. So it stands to reason that there are some strong feelings held. Now lets see if we can dispassionately and rightly divide the Word in this matter.

Just a note on websites: There are a number of whack sites out there and there are some that simply hold to positions that we do not agree with. In any case, we should be willing to verify the sources quoted and impartially apply the material without demeaning the author of the website or the person that used those references.

The OP is a good one. And I see many that are serving up opinions and feelings as responses. Keli is trying to dig deep and prove her position. So let's take a little more time to refute her position if you do not agree. If someone was misquoted, show us where and how that we might all be blessed. I don't think that Keli is unteachable. She appears to be trying to learn about this topic too. And I too will try to be teachable in this. Hopefully we can all be uplifted by this exchange of ideas and information. That is the point isn't it?

Thank you Keli for all of you hard work on this topic. I will research what I can and get back to you later (I've got the grandkids today).

In His Love,

[simchat_torah]

As my claims go, i would think that he who makes the claims, as say the 1st 3 sentences, should 1st prove what they say as true.
Don't worry about it Stone... We know straight off that this guy is either:
A) Lying
or
B) Highly uninformed, but makes up innacurate statements to "back up" his false claims

There have been phylactaries discovered in Qumran, the Sadducees had their own halachic formation of how to wrap tefillin, etc. To claim that the Pharisees were the only group is both uneducated and lying to the audience in order to "prove" a point (that Jesus wasn't a pharisee?).

Not very well researched? That is strange since the articles has over 90 footnotes and cites where this info was gathered from. Dear Keli...
The number of footnotes are meaningless when the author makes up footnotes. Moreover, it doesn't take a scholastic researcher with 10's of millions to do archeological digs to prove him wrong. A simple google search, a slight (and I mean very slight) bit of knowledge concerning the timeframe, and a critical eye can easily dismiss the entire article as bunk.


I can do what your bogus uninformed lying author did too. Here, watch:

Christian Forums (1) is a place where one can buy shoes online (2). It is owned by a girl named Sally Dawkins (3), but she has two left feet and can't dance (4).


1) www.christianforums.com (http://www.christianforums.com) is a subsidy of time warner media
2) They sell all varieties of shoes from Nike, to Converse, to Prada.
3) See: Matthew 5:17
4) Everyone knows Sally can't dance, duh.




Now, I have provided 4 footnotes, therefore my short story MUST be accurate!

[stone]

this is an interesting topic Keli.

And thou shalt bind them for a sign upon thine hand, and they shall be as frontlets between thine eyes.

[simchat_torah]

Proof:
http://www.abu.nb.ca/Courses/NTIntro/images/Phylactery.htm
http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/scrolls/scr2.html

http://www.abu.nb.ca/Courses/NTIntro/images/DSSphylac-a2.gif
The Essenes at Qumran (NOT PHARISEES, the Essenes were a wholly different sect) wore phylacteries. The above picture is a piece of parchment that was inside of a Tefillin box worn by the Qumranic peoples.

[Sephania]

That article misquotes Edersheim too. I'm so sick of the fundies misquoting real scholars to prove their bizzare ideas.

Lord, save us from the unstable..

Where is Edersheim misquoted? And why are you calling this man who is a non Messianic, non Christian Jewish man a fundie? That is rather derogatory isn't it? Also comparing him juxtaposed to 'real scholars'? That is a lot of condemnation without back up.

First quote from the article I posted by Avram Yehoshua:
Alfred Edersheim writes of their mystical significance:'for their value and importance in the eyes of the Rabbis, it were impossible to exaggerate it. They were reverenced as highly as the Scriptures'. 'It was said that Moses had received the law of their observance from God on Mount Sinai; that the 'tephillin' were more sacred than the golden plate on the forehead of the high-priest, since its inscription embodied only once the sacred name of' Yahveh, while the tefillin 'contained it not less than twenty-three times'.And from online source of Edersheims works Sketches of Jewish Social life: ( chapter 13) (http://www.bible-history.com/pharisees/PHARISEESSketches_of_Jewish_Social_Life.htm)

for their value and importance in the eyes of the Rabbis, it were impossible to exaggerate it. They were reverenced as highly as the Scriptures, and, like them, might be rescued from the flames on a Sabbath, although not worn, as constituting "a burden!" It was said that Moses had received the law of their observance from God on Mount Sinai; that the "tephillin" were more sacred than the golden plate on the forehead of the high-priest, since its inscription embodied only once the sacred name of Jehovah, while the writing inside the "tephillin" contained it not less than twenty-three times;There is no misquoting, he only left out the part in red which doesn't change the context at all. Otherwise it is word for word.

Second quote:

The irony of all this is that Aristeas, writing of the glory of the Septuagint and the 'ancient practice' of tefillin, doesn't seem to realize that the Septuagint marks the four passages out to be metaphorical. Edersheim writes about what can only be described as the beginning practice of tefillin, and what the Septuagint says about the passages:


'It is remarkable that Aristeas seems to speak only of the phylacteries on the arm, while Philo of those for the head, while the LXX' (Septuagint), 'takes the command entirely in a metaphorical sense.From CHAPTER VI. POLITICAL AND RELIGIOUS LIFE OF THE JEWISH DISPERSION IN THE WEST - THEIR UNION IN THE GREAT HOPE OF THE CO (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/edersheim/lifetimes.vi.vi.html)

This is a footnote 342:
342 It is remarkable that Aristeas seems to speak only of the phylacteries on the arm, and Philo of those for the head, while the LXX. takes the command entirely in a metaphorical sense. This has already been pointed out in that book of gigantic learning, Spencer, De Leg. Heb. p. 1213. Frankel (Uber d. Einfl. d. Pal. Exeg., pp. 89, 90) tries in vain to controvert the statement. The insufficiency of his arguments has been fully shown by Herzfeld (Gesch. d. Volk. Isr. vol. iii. p. 224). Again he has exactly quoted this, word for word.

3rd quote

In wearing tefillah all day long, they would have always confronted Yeshua with the head piece or the arm piece. Edersheim tells us that it was worn all day (in day-light hours). He writes,'the members of the Pharisaic confraternity wore them all day long. The practice itself, and the views and ordinances connected with it, are so characteristic of the party'Again, from Sketches of Jewish Social life - chapter 13 (http://http://philologos.org/__eb-sjsl/chap13.htm)

It is part of this paragraph, again not misquoted:

Although the words of our Lord seem only expressly to condemn the making broad of the phylacteries, for purposes of religious ostentation, it is difficult to believe that He Himself had worn them. At any rate, while any ordinary Israelite would only put them on at prayer or on solemn occasions, the members of the Pharisaic confraternity wore them all day long. The practice itself, and the views and ordinances connected with it, are so characteristic of the party, that we shall add a few further particulars.


Quote 4

Alfred Edersheim also affirms that why the Pharisees wore them:

'The admission that neither the officiating priests, nor the representatives of the people wore them in the Temple (Zebach. 19a,b), seems to imply that this practice was not quite universal.This non misquoted quote is from Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah - (http://philologos.org/__eb-lat/book326.htm)Alfred Edersheim Book 3 chapter 26

Here is the quote from the Edersheim site above

The admission that neither the officiating priests, nor the representatives of the people, wore them in the Temple,69 seems to imply that this practice was not quite universal. The 69 footnote is : 69. Zebhach. 19 a, b. as Avraham posted in his quote. All which is correct.

Do I have to continue? All these quotes can be found online and compared for falsely quoting. The only false hood I see is you falsely accusing him of wrong doing.

Lord, save us from the unstable.. Yes, please L-RD!

[ChazakEmunah]

Saying that you know the leadership and they are not an authoritive source leaves it wide open for anyone to interpret what you mean, perhaps you should back that up with evidense? From what I have read of this man, and his articles seem to appear in many MJ sites for articles on certain things, He was born Jewish and he also doesn't believe In Christianity or Judaism or even the Messianic Movement, he believes that none have it right, and I rather agree.
My mistake. My mother attends a congregation called "Seed of Abraham (unfortunately). So I mistook this one as the same one. Yes, many Xtians were born Jewish and ended up leaving the faith of their fathers. It's usually because they don't have an understanding of Judaism. And after reading this guy's story, this is most certainly the case here.

And as far as saying this supposed Jew ( which is against the rules BTW)
It was my understanding that the prohibition only applied to members of the forum, but I edited my original post just the same.

In Judaism what you understand as sin and what a Christian or Messianic understands as sin apparently are two different things. He is just giving the NT definition as given by Paul.
Sin is violation of the mizvot. This is quite clear in the Tanakh. Even the NT defines sin as such. Paul, however, is a different story.

[simchat_torah]

It was my understanding that the prohibition only applied to members of the forum, but I edited my original post just the same.Yes, that is correct. The rule was intended to protect those from hurt feelings who post here in this forum... it was not intended to apply to anyone and everyone outside of CF.

[stone]

Therefore shall ye lay up these my words in your heart and in your soul, and bind them for a sign upon your hand, that they may be as frontlets between your eyes.

[Sephania]

Don't worry about it Stone... We know straight off that this guy is either:
A) Lying
or
B) Highly uninformed, but makes up innacurate statements to "back up" his false claims

There have been phylactaries discovered in Qumran, the Sadducees had their own halachic formation of how to wrap tefillin, etc. To claim that the Pharisees were the only group is both uneducated and lying to the audience in order to "prove" a point (that Jesus wasn't a pharisee?).

Dear Keli...
The number of footnotes are meaningless when the author makes up footnotes. Moreover, it doesn't take a scholastic researcher with 10's of millions to do archeological digs to prove him wrong. A simple google search, a slight (and I mean very slight) bit of knowledge concerning the timeframe, and a critical eye can easily dismiss the entire article as bunk.


I can do what your bogus uninformed lying author did too. Here, watch:

Christian Forums (1) is a place where one can buy shoes online (2). It is owned by a girl named Sally Dawkins (3), but she has two left feet and can't dance (4).


1) www.christianforums.com (http://www.christianforums.com) is a subsidy of time warner media
2) They sell all varieties of shoes from Nike, to Converse, to Prada.
3) See: Matthew 5:17
4) Everyone knows Sally can't dance, duh.




Now, I have provided 4 footnotes, therefore my short story MUST be accurate!
Thank you for treating me like an airheaded blonde.

A simple google search, a slight (and I mean very slight) bit of knowledge concerning the timeframe, and a critical eye can easily dismiss the entire article as bunk. Do you always talk down to women this way? I think I have more than a slight bit of knowledge, Biblical Archeology is a favorite pastime. It is not about wheither they existed or not, it is about If Yeshua wore them, thus deeming them proper interpretation of the Exodus and Deut. passages. You complain about rabbit trails, you are the one sending others down on them by misdirecting my OP, if Yeshua wore them or not.

I find it very interesting they are only mentioned in the bible one time, how do you explain that?

And your attempt at totally discrediting that man with your CF 'analogy' is way off the mark, as can be seen by my looking up the Edersheim quotes, his footnotes regrading that are all reliable. I don't have time to look up the other 90 or so, but you are welcome to and then you can justly condemn his whole work.

:)

[stone]

These commandments are not to anyone or any group in particular, i think that is enough to refute your article.

"Moreover, it will serve you as a sign on your hand and as a reminder between your eyes, so that ADONAI's Torah may be on your lips; because with a strong hand ADONAI brought you out of Egypt.

[Sephania]

Therefore shall ye lay up these my words in your heart and in your soul, and bind them for a sign upon your hand, that they may be as frontlets between your eyes. yes, dear stone, I am very aware of the scripture that speak of this, and all four that go into them. I have studied this a bit, dispite the accusation I haven't even a slight knowledge of what I am speaking of. :)

The point is, that many seem to be missing or feel threatened by is Did Yeshua interpret this commandment as to be done physically or metaphorically?

Were we really to physically bind all the commandments on our head and hand to do them, or just the command to bind them? Do you understand the difference? :)

[stone]

My knowledge of Talmud is extremely green, but i would think that any commandment specifically for pharisees would be found within it?

[stone]

Were we really to physically bind all the commandments on our head and hand to do them, or just the command to bind them? Do you understand the difference? :)


Its similar to Mezuzah:

6:4 Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD: 6:5 And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might. 6:6 And these words, which I command thee this day, shall be in thine heart: 6:7 And thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up. 6:8 And thou shalt bind them for a sign upon thine hand, and they shall be as frontlets between thine eyes. 6:9 And thou shalt write them upon the posts of thy house, and on thy gates.

[Sephania]

Weirdness is kinda the norm for online MJ'ism...

I might address something else entirely false:
Pharisees were not the "only sect" that wore tefillin. That is utterly ridiculous. We also know, for starters, that the Sadducees and Essenes wore them as well.

That article is pure goofiness in the highest sense.

Where did you get this from?

Pharisees were not the "only sect" that wore tefillin. I searched the whole pages leading up to your post here and did not find this once. I even word searched the whole article and it is not found there either. Who is the false one here?

And why would it matter to you, one who Doesn't believe in Yeshua to say he did not wear phylacteries?

[stone]

Nowhere does any Pharisee call Yeshua a Pharisee in their interactions and confrontations. And it would have been very obvious that He would have been a Pharisee, if He were wearing tefillin, since we've seen that this was a distinctive mark of a Pharisee. For at that time, only they wore them.

here it is

[A_Pioneer]

Don't you think once is enough? In my house if you repeat yourself every day for a week, we call that nagging! I never read where he made any condemnation of them, except enlarging them to make them prominant to be seen by man.
If he ever nagged it was about vanity!

Shalom

[ChazakEmunah]

Where did you get this from?
Because that's what André said in his article.

I searched the whole pages leading up to your post here and did not find this once. I even word searched the whole article and it is not found there either. Who is the false one here?
André obviously. He's the one who tried (rather poorly) to prove that P'rushim were the only ones to wear tefillin. Please go back and look ath the article again Keli. It's there clear as day. {Along with all the other false and hateful words.}

And why would it matter to you, one who Doesn't believe in Yeshua to say he did not wear phylacteries?
Why does it matter when someone writes something that is obviously false? The guy obviously dislikes Pharisees (typical Xtian attitude towards them) and makes up stuff like "only the Pharisees wore tefillin." Which Simchat_Torah has proven false.

[Sephania]

I'm still working on my time machine. you accuse me of false information and this is your defense? Would you so flippantly say this to a judge in a courtroom? You made a serious accusation and I am asking you to define it and back it up, else why even post here except to cause trouble? Isn't part of your job as a moderator this:

A well-timed post can steer conversation away from inflammatory statements and calm the mood in the thread. You are to participate and help to keep conversation from inflamatory statements, yet you are making them yourself.

[Sephania]

I'm thinking your not going to sense the humor intended in my last post?

As my claims go, i would think that he who makes the claims, as say the 1st 3 sentences, should 1st prove what they say as true.

It's already been agreed that what is composed in what you pasted here, is false information by many. So instead of reaseaching this yourself you are just jumping in with the rest of them to attack this man for what he wrote and myself for posting it? Iincredible!

[Sephania]

I am so encouraged to see MJs back to digging deep to prove their positions rather than politicking. There have been some emphatic statements made in this thread. So it stands to reason that there are some strong feelings held. Now lets see if we can dispassionately and rightly divide the Word in this matter.

Just a note on websites: There are a number of whack sites out there and there are some that simply hold to positions that we do not agree with. In any case, we should be willing to verify the sources quoted and impartially apply the material without demeaning the author of the website or the person that used those references.

The OP is a good one. And I see many that are serving up opinions and feelings as responses. Keli is trying to dig deep and prove her position. So let's take a little more time to refute her position if you do not agree. If someone was misquoted, show us where and how that we might all be blessed. I don't think that Keli is unteachable. She appears to be trying to learn about this topic too. And I too will try to be teachable in this. Hopefully we can all be uplifted by this exchange of ideas and information. That is the point isn't it?

Thank you Keli for all of you hard work on this topic. I will research what I can and get back to you later (I've got the grandkids today).

In His Love,

Thank you talmidim for being the only seemingly voice of reason here. I am frankly shocked at the display of hostility on this subject. I think it is absurd to think that even if Yeshua did not wear them because he didn't interpret the scripture that way but knew it meant to always keep the commandments of G-d before him in his mind and in what he did, this sign was in what you did in your actions everyday, not that you just had a little box on your head or arm, that he wouldn't be following all Torah. But I guess some would feel threatened that he didn't do everything they would suspect he would.

I see the man that wrote this article as one who truly loves HaShem and Yeshua and wants to truly follow his real word. He does not want to be deceived from any camp, wither Jewish, Christian or Messianic, but he is only searching for the truth, I think we all should aspire for that.

:) Bless you!

[HeatherMicaela]

Its similar to Mezuzah:

6:4 Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD: 6:5 And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might. 6:6 And these words, which I command thee this day, shall be in thine heart: 6:7 And thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up. 6:8 And thou shalt bind them for a sign upon thine hand, and they shall be as frontlets between thine eyes. 6:9 And thou shalt write them upon the posts of thy house, and on thy gates.

wow - good point:scratch:

Now just to be fair - if I pick the verse apart (in english since I only know the Hebrew we sing at congregation:D ) it appears that you should bind them on your hand but because of the word "as" the between your eyes part *could* be figurative.

Just pondering out loud here - don't throw tomaotes

[Sephania]

Proof:
http://www.abu.nb.ca/Courses/NTIntro/images/Phylactery.htm
http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/scrolls/scr2.html

http://www.abu.nb.ca/Courses/NTIntro/images/DSSphylac-a2.gif
The Essenes at Qumran (NOT PHARISEES, the Essenes were a wholly different sect) wore phylacteries. The above picture is a piece of parchment that was inside of a Tefillin box worn by the Qumranic peoples.I think you are twisting what he said. And FAIK, no one here said they were the only ones wearing them, I am well aware of the find at Qumran.

What he said was

It seems that the Pharisees were the first group to wear tefillin. The Illustrated Bible Dictionary tells us: 'Both the somewhat later Talmudic acknowledgment that they were not worn by the common people (am ha'aretz) and the failure of pagan writers to mention them indicate that in the time of Christ they were still worn only by a minority of the people. We may be sure that all Pharisees wore them, not merely during morning prayer but throughout the hours of daylight. Their later restriction to the time of prayer was due to their providing an all too easy mark of recognition of the Jew in ties of persecution.'30 (http://www.seedofabraham.net/tefillin.html#30)Emphasis mine.

Alfred Edersheim also affirms that why the Pharisees wore them: 'The admission that neither the officiating priests, nor the representatives of the people wore them in the Temple (Zebach. 19a,b), seems to imply that this practice was not quite universal.

This is the conclusion he came to:
Edersheim, in typical British understatement says, 'this practice was not quite universal.' If the common people, the Elders of Israel and the priests didn't wear tefillin, there isn't anyone left who could except the Pharisees. The wearing of tefillin was one of several distinct marks of a Pharisee. As such, no 'ordinary' Jew wore them.

From the above link:

Jews of the second-Temple period wore phylacteries (Tefillin). Both phylactery cases and their contents have been found in the Qumran region, the earliest such remains.

And the second link:

In the Second Temple period the sages established that "tefillin" (phylacteries; amulets in Greek) would include four scriptural passages inscribed on parchment placed in box-like containers made of black leather. One of the phylacteries was worn one on the left arm and the other on the forehead.

That kinda shoots down the claim that they were wore pre-Babylonian captivity somewhat.

But I would ask about the finding of these, since they are the only one found, how does that prove that this was a practice of all Essences, or those who lived at Qumran (depending on your view of who lived there)? If there is only one found, and from finding one surviving then that gives precedent that others should be able to be found, then why weren't more found if this was something all of them wore? Could it not be as plausible that they came off a Pharisee who sought out the truth and came to Qumran to study and brought them with him?

Just something to think about.

[Sephania]

Yes, that is correct. The rule was intended to protect those from hurt feelings who post here in this forum... it was not intended to apply to anyone and everyone outside of CF. Says who? Why do you feel you alone can interpret the rules and the intention of them, they were written by MJ's. They are to protect anyone that is a Jew from not being called a Jew. And for this forum that includes Yeshua, and any other person that says they were born a Jew, as was the man who wrote this article. But lets not distract from this topic anymore shall we? :)

[Sephania]

My mistake. My mother attends a congregation called "Seed of Abraham (unfortunately). So I mistook this one as the same one. Yes, many Xtians were born Jewish and ended up leaving the faith of their fathers. It's usually because they don't have an understanding of Judaism. And after reading this guy's story, this is most certainly the case here.


It was my understanding that the prohibition only applied to members of the forum, but I edited my original post just the same.


Sin is violation of the mizvot. This is quite clear in the Tanakh. Even the NT defines sin as such. Paul, however, is a different story.Yes, there are many misguided Messianic congregations out there. I am glad you cleared this up and were humble enough to admit the mistake. :hug: thank you for your edit too.

now I agree, maybe he went too far in calling this a sin, but he was using the Greek definition of missing the mark as Paul used. And if they were to be in the mind and done by the hand as a sign instead of a physical sign of them, then I see his point, It may not be a sin but a shadow maybe of the actuality of what it meant? I realize many things were left for interpretation of the elders, but I don't agree they got it all right. else they would be G-d, and that is blasphemy to me.

---------------------------------

I think too many are jumping to conclusions here and I just have to wonder why?http://www3.christianforums.com/images/mood/Curious.gif

[simchat_torah]

Where did you get this from?

It is right here, in the very article you quote! Go back and read your post. In fact, it is the crux of the entire article:Nowhere does any Pharisee call Yeshua a Pharisee in their interactions and confrontations. And it would have been very obvious that He would have been a Pharisee, if He were wearing tefillin, since we've seen that this was a distinctive mark of a Pharisee. For at that time, only they wore them.It is a matter of simple reading comprehension my dear, I did not make it up.

I searched the whole pages leading up to your post here and did not find this once. I even word searched the whole article and it is not found there either. Who is the false one here?
I don't know what you're overlooking. It wasn't some small rabbit trail of the article, it was the main point of the article!

Thank you for treating me like an airheaded blonde. Do you always talk down to women this way?What a silly accusation. You're the one quoting from dubious sources. Then you're not able to find the main point of the article within your own post????

When I question the sources, your reply is "But there's so many footnotes".... which had nothing to do with questioning the vailidity of the sources!

If you're going to post in a simple manner, expect me to reply in a simple manner. If you're going to rebut with "There's lots of footnotes!" I'm going to reply in kind...

To assume it has anything to do with your gender is just silly. It has everything to do with your posting manner, and your lack to argue your point with clarity and simplicity.


I think I have more than a slight bit of knowledge, Biblical Archeology is a favorite pastime. Then you would know as a very basic level of elementary archeological knowledge that tefillin were used by all Jewish sects in the first century. It was not something specific to the Pharisees (a point which the entire article you quoted leaned upon).

You complain about rabbit trails, you are the one sending others down on them by misdirecting my OP, if Yeshua wore them or not.
Quite hardly, I only replied to your article.
I find it very interesting they are only mentioned in the bible one time, how do you explain that?
The Shema, which is the quintessential statement of Faith for the Jewish religion, is only quoted in full once in the Torah. Tefillin, Mezzuzot, etc... are all mentioned within reference to this passage. Oddly enough, Messianics don't seem to question Mezzuzot. They seem to pick and choose what they want to toss out the window and what they want to keep.

And your attempt at totally discrediting that man with your CF 'analogy' is way off the mark, as can be seen by my looking up the Edersheim quotes, his footnotes regrading that are all reliable. The footnotes may or may not be reliable, I haven't even bothered to check. THE MAIN POINT OF HIS ARTICLE, however, is highly dubious and can instantly be disregarded with the slightest bit of first century Judaica. The statements he makes throughout the article that aren't footnoted are dubious in nature.

I don't have time to look up the other 90 or so, but you are welcome to and then you can justly condemn his whole work.
No need. If someone claims that Jesus lived to be 897 years old and then cites as a footnote that the Sears Tower is over 1,000 stories tall, I don't need to check the footnotes. They are wholly unrelated as the claim the individual is making is completely off base and untrue. All of the article's footnotes have NOTHING TO DO with the claim that the Pharisees were the only ones to wear phylactaries. The author makes this bold faced lie then quotes random scriptures and church historians to back up his claim, but none of the source material addresses his claim at all!

So instead of reaseaching this yourself you are just jumping in with the rest of them to attack this man for what he wrote and myself for posting it? Iincredible!
Please take to heart your own advice... do some reasearch. Especially before posting a supposed "authoritative" article.

[simchat_torah]

I think you are twisting what he said. And FAIK, no one here said they were the only ones wearing them,
Oh?

Let me quote you the very first paragraph of the articleNowhere does any Pharisee call Yeshua a Pharisee in their interactions and confrontations. And it would have been very obvious that He would have been a Pharisee, if He were wearing tefillin, since we've seen that this was a distinctive mark of a Pharisee. For at that time, only they wore them.
That time, the emphasis was mine.

[simchat_torah]

Says who? Why do you feel you alone can interpret the rules and the intention of them, they were written by MJ's.Then if there is a question about a rule, ask the moderators. Don't assume you know what it means. If you're going to say I can't assume, then you had better not do the same.

[simchat_torah]

Could it not be as plausible that they came off a Pharisee who sought out the truth and came to Qumran to study and brought them with him?
Why make a gigantic leap, a stretch of logic if you will? Why claim that no other text, except this one, which happened to fall off of a passing Rabbi, was of Pharisee origin in the Qumranic community? How is it that every other Qumranic text of the DSS came from the Essenes, but this one?

How do we leap in logic to disregard other Qumranic texts that describe how one should tie a phylactary? Which prayers one should state while binding one upon the arm and head?

[stone]

maybe someone here could be kind enough to provide a pic?

[simchat_torah]

A pic of what Stone?

[talmidim]

Is there a REAL Moderator in this forum? We have a Moderator participating in this debate calling his sarcasm, humor, Jews calling Christians "xtians" and few participants are even attempting to address the actual points that the OP is trying to make. Most critical posts in this thread criticize the messenger rather than the message. Where is the love of Adonai? This behavior is perverse. This lack of intervention is reprehensible.

Good Night!

[ContraMundum]

Not very well researched? That is strange since the articles has over 90 footnotes and cites where this info was gathered from.

Sure- footnoting can help a lot to see the qulaity of the work in question. In this case, the sources quite often are mis-quotes, out of context and working counter to the intentions of the writers cited.

So, it's not just about the sources cited, or how many, but what the author did with them.

I guess the thing that touched something off in my mind was that when they arrested him and they parted his garments, teffilin or little boxes were not found among them. Also the Greek word phylacteries means

........*Greek stuff*....

After reading all this I just don't know if interpreting the passages in Exodus and Deut meant to tie a box to your head and arm, it sounds more superstitious than anything and there are many in that area back then that did things like this and HaShem said not to worship him the way the heathens worshiped their gods.

Oh no no no! Keli! :sigh:

What's with that? :o

All of the sudden you want to cite the Greek, but not according to the "Hebraic mindset", like you do every other time you want to *prove* something "Hebraic"? Now, because you want to disprove something, you decide to use the "Greek Mindset" version of NT words. (Mind you, sometimes the Greek mindset is the correct one)

Clearly, the word "phylactery" in relation to a Jew is not about an amulet, or such things, but in reference to Tefillin, as we have seen already demonstrated.

[GerTzedek]

Therefore shall ye lay up these my words in your heart and in your soul, and bind them for a sign upon your hand, that they may be as frontlets between your eyes.
That says it all. There are seven pages in this thread. I have no idea why.

[ContraMundum]

Where is Edersheim misquoted?

Edersheim stated that the practice was not universal, however, in his works, he never states that only the Pharisees wore phylacteries- that bit is the authors abuse of his words.

And why are you calling this man who is a non Messianic, non Christian Jewish man a fundie? That is rather derogatory isn't it? Also comparing him juxtaposed to 'real scholars'? That is a lot of condemnation without back up.

Keli, the term "fundie" is short for "fundamentalist". It is not necessarily a derogatory word.

It applies universally to all religions, not just Christianity.

In the case of this author, I am using the word correctly. He uses the fundamentalist method, through and through. A literalist, sola scriptura approach to scripture, the complete disregard of the traditional witness of the Jews and the Christians alike, the logical leaps intended to bring about a conclusion already settled in the mind of the author and the highly selective quoting from sources already agreeable to the author, while leaving unsuitable sources completely out.

Yep. He's a fundie. Perhaps he doesn't know it?

Do I have to continue? All these quotes can be found online and compared for falsely quoting. The only false hood I see is you falsely accusing him of wrong doing.

Yes, please L-RD!

Before I let that "Avram" destroy the good name of Alfred Edersheim I'd suggest you personally go and read Ederseim from the shelf, not from the internet - if you already haven't. Why? Because what is really interesting is Edersheim's footnotes and also his later works. Also, you will need access to the Talmud and other traditional sources. If you've done this, ignore that plea.

Edersheim makes clear in "The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah", Book 1, Chapter 6, that a) Tefillin were used at the time of Christ [with extensive, properly indexed and cited footnotes esp from ancient Jewish witnesses] and b) he postulates that perhaps not all of the observances were incumbent on every Jew at the time. This of course is still true even now- not every Jew wears Tefillin.

Likewise, in Book 5, Chapter 4, he deals with the issue of Tefillin, stating that the wearing of Tefillin could be abused (worn for show and vanity) and that the Rabbis had "to lay it down as a principle, that the phylacteries were not to be worn for show". He refers to the Talmud in support of that, and the Talmud clearly shows that Tefillin were worn by many Jewish men, not just Pharisees, at the time of the Second Temple.

To jump to the conclusion that Jesus did not wear Tefillin because not everybody did is another thing altogether- and it is just illogical. I hate to say it, but that "Avram" guy is has a barrow to push. Alfred Edersheim beleived it was "unlikely" that Jesus wore Tefillin, but to say He did not is just stretching logic too far, so Edersheim makes no such claim.

Even Edersheim agrees that not only Pharisees wore Tefillin-

You cited this already:

"At any rate, while any ordinary Israelite would only put them on at prayer or on solemn occasions, the members of the Pharisaic confraternity wore them all day long. The practice itself, and the views and ordinances connected with it, are so characteristic of the party, that we shall add a few further particulars."

This is the problem, Keli- in the zeal to find a "new" truth about Yeshua some people miss the mark. There's a zeal for "new" truths in the movement.

The fact of the matter is that Edersheim, the Church from days of Old, the Jews from days of old, all believe that many Jews wore Tefillin at the time of the Second Temple, not just the Pharisees, but even the "ordinary Israelite".

As for Christ not having Tefillin in His possesion when they divided his garments- that's just a rather crude attempt to prove something that is from silence. He may not have had them with him when He was arrested, just like He didn't have a plate or a loaf of bread. Such things would prpbably usually be left behind in an aggresive arrest. You would agree we can't argue from silence in this case.

Edersheim *speculated* that Christ may not have worn Tefillin- that's as far as honesty can allow.

[ContraMundum]

Is there a REAL Moderator in this forum? We have a Moderator participating in this debate calling his sarcasm, humor, Jews calling Christians "xtians" and few participants are even attempting to address the actual points that the OP is trying to make. Most critical posts in this thread criticize the messenger rather than the message. Where is the love of Adonai? This behavior is perverse. This lack of intervention is reprehensible.

Good Night!


No one has reported anything! We can't always act of our own volition because we get called all kinds of names- and its tough because I don't know how the readers are taking this thread- seems like most are ok with the level of dispute at this point.

But I take note of your comments!

[ContraMundum]

People- keep it nice!

Don't attack posters on the thread- only the object of debate/discussion.

[ContraMundum]

I think too many are jumping to conclusions here and I just have to wonder why?http://www3.christianforums.com/images/mood/Curious.gif


Poorly worded points? That's the main culprit most of the time- that, and deep rooted religious prejudices. We all have them- admit it! :)

[Sephania]

here it isThanks, that really didn'[t help as you never stated a link or post number but my find search worked this time, not sure why it didn't before, it went pink on me:scratch:

I think I addressed that about the Qumran ones earlier before CF went down for a while.

[ContraMundum]

Sorry Keli....I've had to edit my last post to you. Taking notice of my own words.

[simchat_torah]

Thanks, that really didn'[t help as you never stated a link or post number but my find search worked this timeI don't think it really matters if a post number or link was provided. Why? Because what was quoted and debated was the very crux and point of the article. Had it been a minor rabbit trail, or a small matter, I would understand the need to point out where in the article one was quoting. But to request someone to quote the very essence and main point of the article was.... well... I have to wonder, did you even read what you posted?

[simchat_torah]

Talmidim,

Jews calling Christians "xtians"First, I don't care what kind of point you're trying to make, can you please use normal font next time?

But, as to this specific matter...

It is according to some Jewish faiths that they not render the names of any other g-ds upon their lips. Thus, the word "Christ" is often viewed as the name of another deity. Please respect the beliefs of others who post here, they are NOT trying to offend or belittle christianity, but it is out of respect and faith to G-d that they use the "X".

[Sephania]

That's ok, whatever you said. This thread took off and it was hard for me to keep up. I am having a very mournful day here so all please excuse any ungodly behavior.

I just wanted to explore this to see if this is valid today for Jews, even Messianic Jews to be doing. I have always taken that passage about binding figuratively, not literally.

Either way to help settle everyones 'concerns' on what was written in the article I have written the author and asked him to come here to comment. I don't know if he will, he lives in Israel and I had a hard time sending the email, and not sure still if it went through. I guess I will have to wait to see if it got returned.

[simchat_torah]

Poorly worded points?Probably more than poor wording would be a lack of reading comprehension.

[simchat_torah]

I just wanted to explore this to see if this is valid today for Jews, even Messianic Jews to be doing. I have always taken that passage about binding figuratively, not literally.
I think it would be a fine topic of discussion...
Is it a proper interpretation to wear Tefillin? Good thing to discuss.

However, rather than focusing on that, the article in question focused on rather odd make believe, wanting us to think that the Pharisees were the only sect that wore Tefillin in order to justify the author's contention. I hate it when someone lies in order to justify their beliefs.

But, yes... a good discussion, and one probably better saved for another thread... would be....
Are Tefillin an appropriate interpretation of the passage in Deut.?

-Yafet

[Tishri1]

Yes.
From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tefillin

As Talmidim showed that; Excavation of the Dead Sea (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Sea) area in the Judean Desert (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judean_Desert) known as Qumran (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qumran) in 1955 revealed the earliest tefillin known, they were used by a non-Pharisee (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharisee) sect indicating widespread use during the Second Temple (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Temple) period.
He was a Rabbi, has had talmidim and would have done all the Shema, Talmidim, has shown they were done in his time, he was a Hebrew, the HaMoshiach and lived out Tanack literally or he was a fake.
He is the "Real Thing" to me. He donned his Teffilin and said the daily Brachot. NO Doubt!I saw these at the Dead Sea Scrolls exhibition in San Diego last month:thumbsup: little boxes yep they were there

[HeatherMicaela]

I think it would be a fine topic of discussion...
Is it a proper interpretation to wear Tefillin? Good thing to discuss.

However, rather than focusing on that, the article in question focused on rather odd make believe, wanting us to think that the Pharisees were the only sect that wore Tefillin in order to justify the author's contention. I hate it when someone lies in order to justify their beliefs.

But, yes... a good discussion, and one probably better saved for another thread... would be....
Are Tefillin an appropriate interpretation of the passage in Deut.?

-Yafet

That would be a good discussion. And, for me, would answer whether or not Yeshua wore Tefillin.

And FWIW, simchat_torah, - I understand your use of the word Xtian.:) I infact, know Chritians who abbreviate that way anyway. I appreciate your discussion and am looking forward to getting to know you better

[talmidim]

Talmidim,

First, I don't care what kind of point you're trying to make, can you please use normal font next time?

Sorry, but witnessing the cavalier attitude of some towards other posters' character, reputation and feeling I simply presumed they missed my first post. It did not cross my mind that they would simply ignore a call to civility. OK, that might not be completely true.
But, as to this specific matter...

It is according to some Jewish faiths that they not render the names of any other g-ds upon their lips. Thus, the word "Christ" is often viewed as the name of another deity. Please respect the beliefs of others who post here, they are NOT trying to offend or belittle christianity, but it is out of respect and faith to G-d that they use the "X".Ah! Now I understand. You are saying that these Jews that use this abbreviation, regard "Christ" as a deity. Wow, that is big news! Strike up the band!

And now you say that I am the one that is being disrespectful? I am sorry, that is not my intent. But I would have thought they would write it "Chr-stianity" instead of "x", if that is truly their belief. Also, calling Christ, "x" is offensive to me. So shouldn't they be more respectful of my beliefs?

According to your logic and in consideration of the recent thread equating Torah to Yeshua, I should abbreviate your name too. Just to be respectful, mind you. You can get some armed bodyguards, a wide brimmed fedora, an old suit with a skinny tie and glasses and we'll just call you "simchat_x".

[simchat_torah]

It did not cross my mind that they would simply ignore a call to civility. You have a lot to learn about discourse on the internet. Simply because someone disagrees does not mean they have lost all civility. It seems anytime someone disagrees with you you jump and shout as if there's a sin being committed. Then, to top it all off, you are usually the one to start with the name calling and general disrespect towards others.

Anyway, let's move on...
You are saying that these Jews that use this abbreviation, regard "Christ" as a deity. Wow, that is big news! Strike up the band!*sigh* will it always be this disrespectful tone whenever you post? I mean, every freakin time? For real?

Anyway, most aren't familiar with this concept, and that's why I gave background to it. Even publically someone appreciated the explanation. (By the way Michela, I don't really use "xtian" myself)

And now you say that I am the one that is being disrespectful?Yeah, pretty much every time there's green text on my screen this is true.

I am sorry, that is not my intent. But I would have thought they would write it "Chr-stianity" instead of "x", if that is truly their beliefThere is a difference that obviously goes over your head. Using the dash " - " signifies respect. A Jew will refrain from using vowels in the name of G-d or in a title for G-d (there, just as I did). However, they will use an X in place of the name of another deity that is not their own. As G-d commands in the Torah, we are not to have the names of any other deities upon our lips. Thus many Jews will use an X in place of the word Christ.
The dashes and the X's are used for different purposes.

It is not intended to offend you, and has nothing to do with you whatsoever. It has to do with the conscience of the individual and the manner in which they follow the Torah. If you want to mock the way someone else follows G-d's commands, then I certainly don't think you have any respect for those who you "borrow" from.

Also, calling Christ, "x" is offensive to me. Well, like I said in another thread "Get over yourself". It isn't about you, its about the relationship of the Jew to G-d, and how they observe the Torah. It has nothing to do with you.
According to your logic and in consideration of the recent thread equating Torah to Yeshua, I should abbreviate your name too. Just to be respectful, mind you.The Torah is not G-d himself. There is no mitzvah (law) regarding the useage of the name "torah", only of G-d himself.

You can get some armed bodyguards, a wide brimmed fedora, an old suit with a skinny tie and glasses and we'll just call you "simchat_x".
I have no idea what you're saying here.
You truly are a weirdo.

[simchat_torah]

Just for clarity's sake:

I am not one who uses X in place of the word Christ. To me, the word Christ is merely the Greek translation of the word Messiah. Thus, to me it is not the name of another deity.

The explanation I gave above (in post #74) was to inform others why certain Jews (not me) would choose to use X in place of Christ, or Xtian in place of Christian.

shalom,
Yafet

[simchat_torah]

I also don't view the command as literally "don't ever let these names be spoken". In scholastic terms I can use the name Mithra, or Jesus, or Zues and not feel as though I am honoring them. This is simply a matter of historical study, or discussion. Personally, I think the Torah reference was merely there to keep the people from actually worshipping these deities as g-ds.

In my opinion, that is the heart of the matter. However, my opinion is not necessarily that of normative Judaism. But I am familiar with Jewish thought and feel as a Jew I can elaborate on their behalf ;)

[simchat_torah]

It is of increasing concern to me that many Messianics want to Judge the very people from whom they borrow customs and theologies from.

I am disheartened right now. :(

[ChazakEmunah]

Just for clarity's sake:

I am not one who uses X in place of the word Christ. To me, the word Christ is merely the Greek translation of the word Messiah. Thus, to me it is not the name of another deity.

The explanation I gave above (in post #74) was to inform others why certain Jews (not me) would choose to use X in place of Christ, or Xtian in place of Christian.

shalom,
Yafet
Yes, and I am one such Jew who does so. Thank you for explaining our reasons for this Yafet.

[ChazakEmunah]

It is of increasing concern to me that many Messianics want to Judge the very people from whom they borrow customs and theologies from.

I am disheartened right now. :(
Don't be disheartened. It's the age old Replacement Theology rearing it's ugly head again. Trust in HaShem and follow his Torah. Take heart in that and don't worry about what someone says or does.

[visionary]

Not all jews "X", some gentiles "X" too.

I thought the catholics started it as pertaining to the cross.

[scapeg0at]

I've often spelled christmas as X-mas and i've never seen anyone be offended by that. I've also never seen anyone become offended by useing the spelling of x-tian.


Regarding the op, if you teach others to not obey a commandment then you are teaching lawlessness.

[ContraMundum]

My goodness...

The "X" is a reference to the Greek letter "Chi" which is the first letter in the word "Christos", meaning Messiah- a word, incidentaly, used both by Greeks and Hellenized Jews.

Therefore "Xtians" is just an Greek-Anglo abbreviation of Christians.

NEXT.

[simchat_torah]

My goodness...

The "X" is a reference to the Greek letter "Chi" which is the first letter in the word "Christos", meaning Messiah- a word, incidentaly, used both by Greeks and Hellenized Jews.

Therefore "Xtians" is just an Greek-Anglo abbreviation of Christians.

NEXT.Quite true of the Greek folk ;)

The Hebrew folk though, use it differently...

But I always thought it was funny how both chose to use the "X" for different purposes, but for the exact same thing ;)

[HeatherMicaela]

Just for clarity's sake:

I am not one who uses X in place of the word Christ. To me, the word Christ is merely the Greek translation of the word Messiah. Thus, to me it is not the name of another deity.

The explanation I gave above (in post #74) was to inform others why certain Jews (not me) would choose to use X in place of Christ, or Xtian in place of Christian.

shalom,
Yafet
gotcha;) I get what your are saying

[HeatherMicaela]

It is of increasing concern to me that many Messianics want to Judge the very people from whom they borrow customs and theologies from.

I am disheartened right now. :(
This *is* sad and I think it is very wrong.

[ContraMundum]

Quite true of the Greek folk ;)

The Hebrew folk though, use it differently...

Jews also spoke, read and used the same Greek as the Gentiles. This is why you have a LXX and the NT is written in Greek.

Jews have always been multi-lingual. In other words, Jews have used the "X" for the Greek reasons and the reasons you gave are a more recent development/excuse.

[simchat_torah]

Jews also spoke, read and used the same Greek as the Gentiles. This is why you have a LXX and the NT is written in Greek.Quite true.... 2,000 years ago.

But not so today. Jews don't use "X" in place of "Christ" today because of a Greek custom. They do it because of the name they are omitting in their speech.

In other words, Jews have used the "X" for the Greek reasons and the reasons you gave are a more recent development/excuse.Recent development, yes.

Excuse? No.

It is because of their conviction that they do so.

Again, this is not something I do or believe I should do. I'm merely giving you the reasons behind Jewish thought (and some here hold to this practice this have agreed with me in this thread).

-yafet

[ChazakEmunah]

Jews also spoke, read and used the same Greek as the Gentiles. This is why you have a LXX and the NT is written in Greek.

Jews have always been multi-lingual. In other words, Jews have used the "X" for the Greek reasons and the reasons you gave are a more recent development/excuse.
Yep, especially the Hellenists. Torah Jews have never accepted the LXX over the Mesorah.

[simchat_torah]

Yes, interesting the LXX was used by the Jews. And the Torah observant... but here's how:
The LXX was merely a translation for the simpleton. One who was not studied and well versed in Judaica. Your average commoner would use the LXX, but those under Rabbinic training continued to use Hebrew texts. As well, the LXX was never used during the Parsha reading at temple.

The NT was (for the most part) a set of letters written to common folk, and for the most part written in a common tongue. Thus it is only natural that the LXX was used 70% (slight more) of the time when quoting the Torah/Tenach.

my 2 cents.