Bible Options Bible Study Software
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
In the body of Christ no Hanukkah?
#11
Yehudiah of Yeshua Thanks.

But I don't see the connection. Not even between Hanukkah and Christmas or the day of the Holy Saints.

My point question is: was Paul not Hellenistic by that...? A Synagogue doesn't have to be a Jew only thing. The main service might be... o.k. So that are our Laws...

But even let's say that it wasn't like that, and suddenly not Levites and others can become Priests??? That equality is allready Hellenistic.
Plus in a Synagogue it will not be allowed to put a Decorative Tree (partly for taking that and other cultural expressions where allready forbidden in Babylon).
So than still the question stays. Should Jews even if they believe in Yeshua celebrate Hanukkah then if it is about anti-Greek culture? Should the ''Greeks'' give up their ''greek'' tradition in Messianic synagogues?
And are according to Romans 14:5 Jews and Greeks equal? Nobody can say who The Almighty chooses here 1 above the other person. But Equal does seem also here a not-normal word.
For the rest I don't see statements in Romans 14. Maybe you mean all flesh is kosher??? Well anyway it says that for who see certain meat non-kosher (Jews and God) should not eat it... So there is difference.
I can't say of force Greeks to keep the same Laws. Jews incl. Messianic Jews should keep them, that was and is the commandment.
Maybe that is even clear in Romans 14, it can be about (like in the Talmud) certain fats or parts of the lungs that might not or be kosher or not. There are more options possible.

Greetings
#12
"Okay, what about fringes on the corners of our garments? ... Or is your answer going to be that they weren't contradicted by the nt?"

You might want to read the Torah one more time.  Apparently you missed Numbers 15:37-39 and Deuteronomy 22:12.  I would also answer with the second statement.

"Then it's neccesary not to devide Love into 3 elements, like the Greeks do, but should people go back to Jesus upbringing, and understand the different Hebrew words for Love???"

You should be talking about two elements, because the Greek word Eros is not found in the New Testament.  The fact that the New Testament used two words while not using the third tells me that, whatever philosophy is behind the Greek language, it was filtered by the New Testament writers, not adopted  I do not know Hebrew so I cannot comment on the Hebrew words for love, but I don't see what fault a Hebrew could find in distinguishing between friendly love and committed love.  
#13
"Should those in the body off Christ, not give away a lot of their possessions (like in NT), and start to live as 1 group in a commune/communism, getting away from certain types of Burocracy and Democracy that the Greeks wantend, with their tradingwars??"

This is a good point about how close Christians can come to the complete sharing that occurred in the early Christian groups.  First of all, it was never commanded, but was simply observed that it occurred.  I believe that it can happen only if there is complete love and trust.  It does happen on local levels at times.  We definitely should get away from Greek governmental philosophy, and indeed the New Testament is definitely UN-Greek in its precepts on leadership among Christians.

"But even let's say that it wasn't like that, and suddenly not Levites and others can become Priests??? That equality is allready Hellenistic."

Read Hebrews 8:4 to clarify that the Levitical priesthood is not annulled in the present age.  The equality taught in the New Testament is NOT the Greek democracy, but is the equality observed in a body, where each member has distinct but equally important functions.  Read I Corinthians 12 and I Timothy 3 for clarifications on this. Only certain qualified men are to have leadership in the church.  In the future age, in the new heavens and new earth, the church of Christ is to comprise a new priesthood, but this is simply harkening back to the original plan of God in Exodus 19:6.  Compare that verse to I Peter 2:9.
#14
Thomas,

You said;
"You might want to read the Torah one more time.  Apparently you missed Numbers 15:37-39 and Deuteronomy 22:12."

SMR:
12 Thou shalt make thee twisted cords upon the four corners of thy covering, wherewith thou coverest thyself.

38 'Speak unto the children of Israel, and bid them that they make them throughout their generations fringes in the corners of their garments, and that they put with the fringe of each corner a thread of blue.



Okay, where does it say how many "twists" or how many fringes?

Are the tzizit worn today as described in Torah?

You have to admit, it was the Rabbi's or leaders ( whatever you want to call them) of the time that MADE THE DETERMINATION of exactly what they would look like.

That is a "rabbinical law". It comes right from the Oral Torah. And if they weren't contradicted in the nt as you said you agree with, then the followers of jc also followed the Oral Law.
#15
SMR~

Our view of Oral Torah isn't that it can't be followed, but that it is not Torah and cannot be forced as Torah. It should be treated as simple tradition, not the word of God.

To my knowledge, there is not an exact description of anyone's Tzitzits in the HT or GT. So, who knows for certain what any of them looked like: Moses', or Jesus'??
#16
"Okay, where does it say how many "twists" or how many fringes?

Are the tzizit worn today as described in Torah? "

It is commanded in the Torah.  It does not contradict the New Testament.  There is no problem.  Make you tzizit according to the Oral Law.  I fully realize that unspecified details were to be defined by those who sat in Moses' seat, since the Torah cannot specify all of them.  It is quite another thing to extend that Oral Law to include any statement made by any learned Rabbi, especially when they are used to deny statements made by the prophets of the New Testament.
#17
Ripley's

Ah! I didn't say your view was that it couldn't be followed, I thought your view was that it shouldn't be followed since in your belief it was all made up by rabbi's and not the Word of Hashem.

There is NO exact description in the Written Torah, only in the Oral Torah. We know exactly what they looked like thousands of years ago. It is written in the Oral Torah.

So the question is why would anyone who rejects the Oral Torah as being inspired by Hashem, want to follow any of it's "traditions" as you call it?

So if jc wore tzizit's, then he must have followed the Oral Law, no?
#18
SMR~
Quote:So if jc wore tzizit's, then he must have followed the Oral Law, no?

He might have, and He might not have...neither of us know. You can no more say that all Jews of His time had exact same tzitzits than I could say they didn't. Each group might have had their own...we don't know, precisely BECAUSE it was NOT WRITTEN DOWN. No evidence to support either view.

If you will notice, each time Jesus refutes Oral Torah/Pharisees, it is a matter of Torah being brought up by others. They challenged Him; made accusations. He states that "traditions of men" do not equal or supersede Torah.

And it isn't even that tradtions shouldn't be followed...the point is they are NOT Torah. There is one Torah: WRITTEN, as directed by God, recorded in Torah as a command (no parallel/similar verses WRITTEN by Moses that authorize Oral Torah) to Moses to write down for exactly this reason.

And what I *really* find ironic, is that the importance of keeping it "pure" and "universal" necessitated the NEED to ULTIMATELY WRITE IT DOWN....not during the wandering, not during Babylonian exile, not during the two empires...no, not until hundreds of years later (IMO, in response to the claims of Yeshua HaMashiach and His subsequent followers). So, now what you really have is TWO WRITTEN TORAHS vying for authority. And they aren't even always in concert with eachother...which makes me suspect that one of them is an imposter, since God does not contradict Himself. (Guess which one?)

#19
Ripley's Wrote:SMR~

Our view of Oral Torah isn't that it can't be followed, but that it is not Torah and cannot be forced as Torah. It should be treated as simple tradition, not the word of God.

To my knowledge, there is not an exact description of anyone's Tzitzits in the HT or GT. So, who knows for certain what any of them looked like: Moses', or Jesus'??

The actually-Orthodox Jews do not follow Oral Torah.

DaatEme Wrote:Dear Ziv,

Halacha has, in practice, relegated the Scriptures to the Jewish bookshelf as a book which no one reads.
First we will bring a number of examples of the many which have already been presented on the site, and then we will bring an additional example.

1. According to the Scriptures children are attributed to their fathers, not their mothers. Halacha came along and changed the Scriptural law, ruling that affiliation is based on the mother. See the answer to In the Scriptures, the children are related to the father.
2. According to the Scriptures a person who is not a Jew yet affiliates himself with the Jewish people has "entered the community" with no let or hindrance. Halacha came along and created new rules for those who wish to join Judaism. See our answer to Is being a Jew based on the mother or on the father?.
3. According to the Scriptures transgressors are to be punished with 40 lashes. Halacha came along and ruled only 39. See our answer to The Sages distort the plain meaning of the Scriptures.
4. According to the Scriptures one should not sow nor reap on the Sabbath day. Halacha interpreted this to mean the Sabbatical year. See our answer to The Oral Torah was not given at Sinai.
5. The Scriptures permit the eating of pure animals without ritual slaughter. Halacha came along and gave the rules of ritual slaughter. See the Daily Pilpul How do we know the throat must be cut in ritual slaughter?
6. And many, many other examples can be found on the site. The sages explicitly ruled "The majority is sages' interpretation and the minority Scriptures" (Gittin 60b). See our words on the portion of Shoftim and on the portion of Vaetchanan...
#20
Ripley's Wrote:And what I *really* find ironic, is that the importance of keeping it "pure" and "universal" necessitated the NEED to ULTIMATELY WRITE IT DOWN....not during the wandering, not during Babylonian exile, not during the two empires...no, not until hundreds of years later (IMO, in response to the claims of Yeshua HaMashiach and His subsequent followers). So, now what you really have is TWO WRITTEN TORAHS vying for authority. And they aren't even always in concert with eachother...which makes me suspect that one of them is an imposter, since God does not contradict Himself. (Guess which one?)

As a point of information about the Oral Torah, what we have as written (i.e. the Talmud) is not the whole Oral Torah, merely notes on what it contains.

It has always been prohibited to write down the Oral Torah (I'm not sure what the source for the prohibition is).

The first part of the written Oral Torah is the Mishnah. This was compiled by Rabbi Judah the Prince (R' Yehuda HaNasi) at a time when there was a concern that the Oral Torah would be forgotten. If you were to look at the Mishnah you would find that there isn't a great deal of information. It is merely an aide memoire to learning the actual Oral Toral, much of which still remains oral.

Later on the discussions of the Rabbis on the Mishnah were compiled into two books; the Jerusalem Talmud and the Babylonian Talmud. Although these go into much more detail, nevertheless they do not contain the whole Oral Torah.

Bottom line - there are not two Written Torahs.


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 4 Guest(s)