Why didn't God disfellowship Jesus for breaking the laws of the Talmud?

by I_love_Jeff 50 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  King Solomon

  Jesus called the Talmud "the traditions" of men that makes the Word "null and void." And the Talmud contradicts the Tanakh.

  Uh, Jesus never called the Talmud ANYTHING, because the Talmud didn't even exist when Jesus was alive....

  Yes, Jesus referred to oral laws and traditions of men, and those MAY have found their way into written form of the Talmud. It's impossible to say for sure, as Jesus didn't specify what ones he was objecting to...

  Pragmatically, though, it is downright foolish to expect the Tanakh to be the end all and be all of civil and criminal code: principles don't replace statutes, and the idea of the Torah containing law that stands for all time is completely foolish (eg the slavery or rape codes being prime examples)....
• 

  Prognoser

  Yes, Jesus referred to oral laws and traditions of men, and those MAY have found their way into written form of the Talmud. It's impossible to say for sure, as Jesus didn't specify what ones he was objecting to...

  Well what other possible oral traditions could Jesus be referring to? Of course He was talking about the not-yet-codified Talmud. If not that then the Kabbalah. Do you know how huge the Babylonian Talmud is? There had to be tons of oral traditions in order to fill the voluminous Talmud.
• 

  King Solomon

  I love Jeff quoted:

  Exodus 31:14-15 "You shall keep the Sabbath, for it is holy unto you: every one that defiles it shall surely be put to death: for whosoever does any work therein, that soul shall be cut off from among his people. Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the Sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD: whosoever does any work in the Sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death.

  And that is straight from the TORAH, so Jesus violated the Torah by healing (considered working) on the Sabbath. I don't get your original point: are you saying healing is a violation of the Talmud, too?

  Granted, Jesus DID violate the Sabbath laws of the OT (which no doubt served as a stumbling block for Jews to follow Christ, BTW! Isn't that a later concern of Paul's, not to stumble faithful Xians who were Hebrews by not eating blood?)

  Jesus' defense to breaking Sabbath was something to the effect of, "well, My Dad makes the rules, so I can break them if I want to; it's his Will I am carrying out."

  So, I see your point: Why didn't God punish Jesus for violating the Torah? His defense only works in the eyes of men if Jesus had conclusively PROVEN his credentials as being the Messiah, but he hadn't (and hence the cross/stake).
• 

  King Solomon

  Well what other possible oral traditions could Jesus be referring to? Of course He was talking about the not-yet-codified Talmud. If not that then the Kabbalah. Do you know how huge the Babylonian Talmud is? There had to be tons of oral traditions in order to fill the voluminous Talmud.

  Sooo, were you THERE? If not, then how do you KNOW which specific oral traditions he was objecting to?

  Did Jesus read the future, and was making a prediction of what was to be written in the Talmud 150 yrs later, and gaving his thumbs-down review in advance? :)

  The NT contains examples of the specific oral laws he objected to (and ironically, one of the oral traditions which he objected to most vigorously was in fact one which makes good sense from a public health stand-point (and SHOULD'VE been in the Torah, instead of the shell-fish restrictions): hand-washing before eating!

  Nowadays we understand that handwashing is the single-most important means of preventing disease transmission, but Jesus objected to this hygienic practice as "a silly tradition of men", LOL! So much Jesus knowing anything about the germ theory of disease, as you'd expect if Jesus were an angel present during Genesis, when God created pathogenic bacteria.

  But back on point, to assume which unstated oral traditions Jesus was objecting to, where they were not specifically mentioned, is speculative, and coming to a conclusion that isn't valid.
• 

  I_love_Jeff

  Yes I made a mistake and meant to say Oral Traditions. My apologies.
• 

  yadda yadda 2

  Well he kind of was disfellowshipped by the Pharisees wasn't he, to the point they eventually killed him? But disfellowshipped from what - walking into a synagogue? The people of his own town tried to grab him and throw him off a cliff or something.
• 

  Prognoser

  Yadda, how can you be disfellowshipped from something you never belonged to in the first place? Pharisaism is not based in the Old Testament, it's based in the Talmud. Thus, Jesus' anger at the Pharisees. That was the whole point of Jesus chastizing the Pharisees: they had strayed from the Bible and taken up the traditions of men (Talmud, Kabbalah, etc.). The Pharisees didn't like being called out, so they had him arrested and brought before the Sanhedrin in the middle of the night when nobody was even awake. The rest, I'm sure you know.

  King, stop taking Jesus out of context. Jesus didn't say hand washing was a silly tradition. He stressed that obsession with the legalism of it was. Thus the "heart of the law." Man, didn't the Watchtower teach you anything? Were you sleeping through all the meetings?
• 

  Fernando

  Thanks for posting, I_love_Jeff.

  Very interesting parrallel between the Watchtower's extra-biblical traditions, rules, laws, interpretations, speculations and writings, and that of the Jews (which became the Talmud).

  Jesus did rebel against the Pharisees and Sanhedrin. By Watchtower reasoning, this was God's VISIBLE organisation.

  So Jesus was leading people away from God's VISIBLE organisation - and he continues to do so in our day. He still refuses to recognise a clergy-laity class distinction, and always will.
• 

  apostatethunder

  Jesus did follow the Law, but he put the focus on the spirit of the Law, not on the letter.

  He did not go out of his way to break the rules gratuitously, just denounced when these rules were followed in a way contrary to the purpose for which they were given in the first place.

  He did not condone slavery, he said love your neighbour as yourself. He also advised not to owe anything to anyone.
• 

  mP

  mP said:

  Except for his money changers incident, how exactly was Jesus a revolutionary ?

  King -> MP:

  I meant revolutionary as in "fomenting violent change", not as in "exciting and new" (as the word is used today, downplaying it's meaning).

  Oh, how about when he flipped over the tables of the money changers? What else do you want? :)

  mP -> King:

  Most people use "revolutionary" to mean that Jesus was preaching a new message of love, kindness and giving money to orphans. I have an issue with that because he did none of those, xians have taken a line of text and invented and ignored the remainder of his actions.

  Honestly i picture jesus as a traitor to his people and a pawn of the rich. His message about slaves being true to their masters, the payment of taxes and so on cannot be denied. Thereis also a story where he accepts a jar of oil and rebukes someone who asks if they should sell the oil and give it to the poor. Hardly the actions of a "good or caring" person.