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

by I_love_Jeff 50 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  King Solomon

  mP said:

  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.

  If a historical (i.e. real) Jesus even existed, it's likely that his message had been heavily modified and redacted so as to put words in his mouth. If Jesus WERE an observant Jew, he'd probably be ashamed of ever claiming to be the Jewish Messiah, as history has proven without doubt that he WAS just another False Jewish Messiah (unless someone wants to claim that the second temple destruction never occurred, or that Isreal has been restored to it's former glory).
• 

  TD

  What a funny thread...

  Jesus did not break the Sabbath. The dispute is never over whether the Sabbath should be kept. It is always over how the Sabbath should be kept. Big difference. It's one of the reasons many Jewish scholars believe that Jesus of the Bible was a Pharisee himself, albeit a reformer.

  Laws do not exist individually. Laws exist as a body. And when a conflict exists between two laws, the greater of the two takes precedence. Denying this is a logical fallacy called dicto simpliciter.

  With that in mind, the circumstances of the situation can render the Sabbath either hutra (abrogated) or dechuya (suspended) Obvious examples would include delivering a baby, treating a life threatening injury and rescuing someone from a life threatening situation. This was an established principle of the Oral Law at the time Jesus of the Bible lived and taught.

  Today this is interpreted liberally enough to include filling a tooth or even satisfying the food cravings of a pregnant woman.
• 

  King Solomon

  TD said:

  This was an established principle of the Oral Law at the time Jesus of the Bible lived and taught.

  Today this is interpreted liberally enough to include filling a tooth or even satisfying the food cravings of a pregnant woman.

  Hopefully everyone sees the irony of Jesus denoucing Pharisees for their citing "man-made oral traditions", while ALSO claiming exemptions from the same "oral laws and traditions" to do the "work" of healing on the Sabbath. It's called talking out of both sides of one's mouth.

  In so doing, Jesus was setting an example that Xians follow to this day: cherry-picking whatever rules they choose to follow.

  Blondie said:

  I do believe the Torah was said to be given by God to the Israelites.

  The Talmud were man-made rules not from God. So was Jesus obligated to keep the laws of men especially when the went against God's law?

  'make the word of God invalid'? So did God support those man-made laws? Based on the account, no.

  It's a bit more complicated than that, as Jews believe that YHWH gave Moses an "oral Torah" which is necessary to explain the missing "gaps" in the written Torah:

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oral_Torah

  There's some compelling reasons to accept that concept, from the wikipedia page:

  Written texts require some explanation and interpretation. (See, hermeneutics.) The significance of the Oral Torah is that Rabbinic Judaism felt it was given by God along side the Torah to Moses therefore binding. To the Rabbis in late antiquity, the Oral Torah is as authoritative as the written law itself (contrast with Karaism below). For more detail here, see Rabbi Nathan Cardozo, The infinite chain: Torah, masorah, and man (ISBN 0-944070-15-9), and Rabbi Gil Student, Proofs for the Oral Torah.

  • Biblical verses assuming an oral tradition: Many verses in the Torah require interpretation. Some even presuppose that the reader understands what is being referred to. Many terms used in the Torah are totally undefined, and many procedures are mentioned without explanation or instructions, assuming familiarity on the part of the reader. Some examples follow. [ 6 ] [ 7 ] [ 8 ] The discussion of shechita (kosher slaughter) in Deuteronomy 12 states "you shall kill of your herd and of your flock which God Lord has given you, as I have commanded you," yet the only earlier commandment given by the Torah is "you shall not eat the blood." Similarly, Deuteronomy 24 discusses the laws of divorce in passing; they are assumed knowledge in a discussion about when remarriage would be allowed. Also, that the blue string of tekhelet on the tzitzit is to be dyed with a dye extracted from what some scholars believe to be a snail is a detail only spoken of in the oral Torah. [ 9 ]

  • Consistency between the oral tradition and biblical verses: The phrase "An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a hand for a hand, a foot for a foot" Ex 21:22–27 is held in the oral tradition to imply monetary compensation – as opposed to a literal Lex talionis. [ 10 ] This is the only interpretation consistent with Numbers 35:31. Further, personal retribution is explicitly forbidden by the Torah (Leviticus 19:18 ), such reciprocal justice being strictly reserved for the magistrate. A second example: The marriage of Boaz to Ruth as described in the Book of Ruth appears to contradict the prohibition of Deuteronomy 23:3–4 against marrying Moabites – the Oral Torah explains that this prohibition is limited to Moabite men. A third example: The rabbinic practice for the Counting of the Omer (Leviticus 23:15-16 ) is at odds with the Karaite Practice, which appears to accord with a more literal reading of these verses, but is in fact borne out by Joshua 5:10-12 . [ 11 ] The Targum Onkelos (1st century CE) is largely consistent with the oral tradition as recorded in the midrash, redacted into writing only in the 3rd or 4th century. [ 12 ]

  • Consistency with archaeological findings: The rabbinic debate of the 1100s between Rabbeinu Tam and Rashi regarding the Parchment scrolls in the Tefillin, was, in fact, current as least as early as the Qumran community, 1200 years before. [ 13 ] Likewise, the Mikvah at Masada – see Map - is consistent with the Rabbinic requirements per tractate Mikvaot, but was constructed approx. 120 years before the Mishna was compiled. [ 14 ] A clay seal discovered in Jerusalem in 2011 is consistent with the tradition recorded in tractate Shekalim chapter 5 . [ 15 ] The Elephantine papyri 419 BCE include a "Passover letter" which already included many of the pesach observances of today; [ 16 ] Among the papyri is the first known text of a Ketubah (Jewish marriage contract) from about 440 B.C.E.

  Prognoser said:

  King Solomon, there is a ton of evidence of the Talmud's existence in Jesus time, even though it wasn't codified until many years later.

  Then use the correct term: oral law, NOT Talmud. Use the term 'Talmud' improperly with anyone who knows what it refers to (eg any Jew), and they'll laugh at your ignorance, and nerve for daring to edumacate (sic) them on finer points of Judaism when their 10 y.o. child could correct you on the point.

  Think of the advantages to the Pharisaic power structure by not having the Talmud codified. They could act just like the WTBTS and say they received "new light" yet nobody could actually check out the Talmud to verify it.

  Maybe you're unaware that there were strict prohibitions AGAINST writing the oral law: read the link above to learn.

  Also remember that the oral laws stemmed from a time BEFORE literacy was common, where MUCH of cultural identity HAD to be handed down in oral form. Again, people are superimposing their modern concepts of the World, where literacy is widely taken for granted and assumed to exist, and projecting that to a time when it wasn't the case.
• 

  TD

  Jesus was setting an example that Xians follow to this day: cherry-picking whatever rules they choose to follow.

  How so?

  What any particular law says is not always what the law actually means. You encounter this even in something as mundane as Traffic Court. The idea might sound like doublethink at first, but it's a basic principle of every legal system and there are several very valid reasons for this.

  First: A simple, mechanical reading of law can run counter to what the law was actually intended to accomplish. Here's a simple example to illustrate this:

  There are certain plants in the American southwest that are protected by law. These plants may not be moved or transported without a permit. Let's assume you're walking your dog around a construction site after hours one evening and you see a young saguaro cactus that has been toppled by a bulldozer and then rolled into a trash heap. The saguaro is one of these protected plants. Let's further assume that you're outraged by this and you put this doomed saguaro in your truck and take it miles and miles out into the desert and replant it. Have you broken the law? Based on the facial evidence, a police officer might think so, but if you can clearly document what you did, (Pictures would be a good idea) it's doubtful if a judge would ever agree with him. The purpose of the law is to protect that plant and in this hypothetical situation that is exactly what you did. A police officer knows what the law says. A police officer does not necessarily know what the law means.

  Second: A law may be applied to a situation beyond its intended limits. Let's take another example:

  Suppose that a backpacker is stranded in a remote area by an unexpected blizzard. He breaks into an unoccupied cabin and waits for two days until the storm abates and he may safely leave. During this time, he consumes his unknown benefactor’s food, burns his wood to keep warm, and even sleeps in his bed. While we would recognize that this individual would be obligated to monetarily compensate the owner of the cabin, he would not automatically be adjudged as a thief. American law, through such rulings as Vincent v. Lake Erie Transportation Co. and Ploof v. Putnam has long recognized that laws whose purpose is to protect property are not intended to do so at the expense of life.
• 

  King Solomon

  TD SAID:

  Jesus was setting an example that Xians follow to this day: cherry-picking whatever rules they choose to follow.

  How so?

  Since I quoted the specific example of Xians picking which rules they choose to follow, consider examples where they, just like Jesus did, decide to cherry-pick whichever rules they wish to follow (including some of Jesus' own commandments and advice):

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5mLOUWl-L-s

  And as you well know, the way an average citizen (which Jesus was) fights a law or rule they feel is misapplied is to fight it via the system (whether religious or civil/criminal law, seeking to have the law modified), NOT to violate it and hope for the best...
• 

  TD

  Since I quoted the specific example of Xians picking which rules they choose to follow, consider examples where they, just like Jesus did, decide to cherry-pick whichever rules they wish to follow.

  That was one of he most humorous illustrations of the fallacy of the invisible interpreter I've ever seen. I still don't quite understand the notion that Jesus cherrypicked the Law though. Jesus' devotion to Law was almost fanatical.

  And as you well know, the way an average citizen (which Jesus was) fights a law or rule they feel is misapplied is to fight it via the system (whether religious or civil/criminal law, seeking to have the law modified), NOT to violate it and hope for the best...

  Jesus as an 'average citizen' is the Christian perspective. But there's plenty of things in the Gospels that make Jews go 'Hmmmmm' though.

  For example, the Pharisees were forbidden to eat or fellowship with anyone outside of their order, (cf. Berakot 43b) In the Lucan account, Jesus was extended (And accepted) the dinner invitation of a Pharisee on multiple occasions. (7:36; 11:37; 14:1) Jesus has other friendly contact with Pharisees as well. (Mark 12:28-34) Also among the Pharisees were some who admired and respected Jesus. Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea, who become followers of Jesus, were almost certainly Pharisees and a number of other early converts to Christianity were definitely Pharisees. (John 3:1; 7:50;: 19:38,39) In the early years of Christianity, the boundary between Christian and Pharisee appears to have been at least semi-permeable. (Acts 15:5)

  The Pharisess are supposed to absolutely hate Jeses (At least according to Matthew) but it is the Pharisees (Who allegedly wanted him dead) who warned Jesus of Herod's intent to kill him (13:31; cf. Acts 5:34). Jesus is criticized because his disciples do not follow ritual and wash their hands. Yet this is not the criticism of a Pharisee to an average citizen. It's the criticism of one Pharisee (i.e. A teacher of the Law) to another.

  When Jewish scholars look at Jesus, they don't see an average citizen. They see a teacher right at the cusp of the transformation between Pharisee and Rabbi.
• 

  King Solomon

  TD said:

  That was one of he most humorous illustrations of the fallacy of the invisible interpreter I've ever seen. I still don't quite understand the notion that Jesus cherrypicked the Law though. Jesus' devotion to Law was almost fanatical.

  Yup, if by "Law" you are referring to the Torah.

  My point was that while Jesus undoubtedly had a lawyeresque knowledge of the Torah, he was talking out of both sides of his mouth by decrying the Pharisees for their unwritten oral laws (traditions of the elders, eg handwashing before eating) while citing the same oral laws as his excuse to heal on the Sabbath. You DO see that point, right?

  My OTHER point was he couldn't have picked a WORSE example of a meaningless oral rule to decry as worthless, since hand-washing ACTUALLY HAD public-health BENEFITS (unlike some other laws found in the Torah, eg "Neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woolen come upon thee." -- Leviticus 19:19 or the prohibition against being around women during their menstrual periods).

  Jesus as an 'average citizen' is the Christian perspective. But there's plenty of things in the Gospels that make Jews go 'Hmmmmm' though.

  Perhaps a poor choice of words on my part: by 'average citizen' I was referring to him as being a human, a citizen of Galilee, just another homo sapien who happened to have a Messiah Complex. That is NOT a Xian view (I'm atheist, in fact), and surely as a Jew you'd agree with that view of him being not the Hebrew or Xian Messiah (acknowledging it's possible that you are a Jew for Jesus)?
• 

  TD

  You DO see that point, right?

  I understand.

  My perspective on these type of threads is this: Nobody who's even had casual contact with modern Judaism could help but notice that Jesus' liberal approach to the Law is very similar to what is taught by Rabbis today. So it's puzzling when it's asserted that Jesus 'broke' the Sabbath. The corollary would be that practicing Jews today are also breaking Sabbath law, which would certainly offend them a little bit.
• 

  King Solomon

  TD said:

  "My perspective on these type of threads is this: Nobody who's even had casual contact with modern Judaism could help but notice that Jesus' liberal approach to the Law is very similar to what is taught by Rabbis today."

  And as is witnessed even by this thread, professed Xians don't shy away from telling Jews that their understanding of Judaism is lacking, lol! I recently saw a thread on a multi-faith forum where a fundie tried to lecture a long-suffering rabbi on a point re: kashrut, and things went downhill predictably after the Xian started quoting NT scriptures to a Jew to support his point. It ended predictably: fundie played the "you reject the Savior?" card, and it was over.... I wasn't a participant in the thread, but I was embarrassed for the Xian.....

  "So it's puzzling when it's asserted that Jesus 'broke' the Sabbath. The corollary would be that practicing Jews today are also breaking Sabbath law, which would certainly offend them a little bit."

  I don't need to tell you that beliefs evolve with time, and some acts that were disallowed 2,500 yrs ago by Torahic Law are acceptable (or overlooked) today....

  Of course, if the Sanhedrin felt Jesus HAD violated Sabbath, they wouldn't have needed to convict him of blasphemy. The NT states they scrutinized him for any violation of Law, but found nothing (no doubt relying on the Oral law exemptions for breaking Sabbath, which would be common knowledge amongst the population), so they went with blasphemy...

  But again, my point is that Jesus comes off as hypocritical, relying on some oral laws to violate the written Law, and even benefitted from the approach, whilst denouncing the Pharisees and their same flawed "man-made rules". That's what I meant by cherry-pinking which laws he respects: he wanted to have it both ways, when it served his purpose (which sounds like any forum discussion I've ever seen, lol!)
• 

  TD

  And as is witnessed even by this thread, professed Xians don't shy away from telling Jews that their understanding of Judaism is lacking, lol!

  It's funny for sure, especially the idea that the Pharisees had any power in the 1st century. But XJW's come by it honestly. It's what they were taught and nobody ever teaches them anything else.

  But again, my point is that Jesus comes off as hypocritical, relying on some oral laws to violate the written Law, and even benefitted from the approach, whilst denouncing the Pharisees and their same flawed "man-made rules".

  I'm still curious about the point of authority for that statement. What written law did he violate and who, besides the annoying Christian in the time machine (From the video you posted) would agree that he violated it?