Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 32 of 32
  1. #21  
    Quote Originally Posted by whmurray View Post
    The implication is that if one is to take any part of Leviticus as an ethical mandate, then one should take it all. Are you sure that you want to say that?
    The Penteteuch was/is more than a set of laws. They represent covenant terms, more aptly a marriage contract. So, one would be hard pressed to take bits and pieces (Christians' approach not withstanding). Certainly one can cherry pick favorite topics from an ethical standpoint, but if one is to present any portion as the "will of God," they would have a difficult time disqualifying the rest.
    Quote Originally Posted by whmurray View Post
    People selct from Leviticus so that they can condemn their neighbor while protecting themselves. I know of no one who supports Leviticus in its entirety while accepting any part of the New Testament.
    Probably due to the new testament being interpreted through the eyes of a Roman Christianity, as opposed to being read in the Judeo context in which it was written
    Quote Originally Posted by whmurray View Post
    Not only do Christians not do as Jesus would do, they do not seem to even understand what he would do.
    Indeed
    Quote Originally Posted by whmurray View Post
    Perhaps the question "What would Jesus do?" is the most important ethical question confronting modern Christians.
    Indeed
    Quote Originally Posted by whmurray View Post
    Even those who claim to speak in his name do not seem to get it.
    3 for 3
  2. #22  
    Quote Originally Posted by backbeat View Post
    Lacks any foundation.
    Given Jesus' affirmation of the law and prophets in Matthew 5, the contrast he presents regarding eye for an eye would not be a refutation of Leviticus 24. I'm open to other explanations.
    Quote Originally Posted by backbeat View Post


    Therefore, this lacks foundation also.
    Which edition of the NeoCon's Bible of Convenience are you studying?
    I'm currently reading "Galatians: A Torah-Based Commentary in First Century Hebraic Context" by Avi ben Mordechai.

    His premise is that the "Galatians" has been misinterpreted because the modern Christian reader lacks understanding of the context in which it was written.

    The notion that Jesus and Paul, in particular, were combatting Rabbinic tradition reconciles better with how they lived than the notion that they were negating the Torah. It would be peculiar for them to trash the very lifestyle they each lived. If in fact they were setting aside the Torah, you would think that they would not have continued adherence to the same.
  3. backbeat's Avatar
    Posts
    55 Posts
    Global Posts
    138 Global Posts
    #23  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim View Post
    I thought you of all people would appreciate that the common, poor, and illiterate would be most susceptible to the whims of those who (claim to) "speak for God."

    As a point of clarification, the "Jews" of that day (from all social circumstances) were very familiar with the Rabbinic traditions.
    Familiarity with Rabbinic traditions never taught one to read or write. Many of today's commoners who claim special ethos speak for and hide behind little tin gods.
  4. #24  
    Quote Originally Posted by backbeat View Post
    Familiarity with Rabbinic traditions never taught one to read or write. Many of today's commoners who claim special ethos speak for and hide behind little tin gods.
    As you have already noted, my deductive reasoning leaves much to be desired. So, please help me understand how the ability to read or write factors into the matter.
  5. backbeat's Avatar
    Posts
    55 Posts
    Global Posts
    138 Global Posts
    #25  
    ^ Refer back to your original statement regarding literacy ... then follow the little bouncing ball of logic forward.
  6. #26  
    My initial statement was not about literacy. I highlighted the phrase you have heard, to contrast it against other statements where Y'shua says "it is written" or inquires "how do you read?" (when talking to a leader).

    I do see, however, how my comments could have been perceived differently, given that the common, poor and illiterate would have only "heard" the Torah, versus reading it for themselves.

    Thank you for the opportunity to clarify that semantics issues. Having addressed it (hopefully, satisfactorily) let me get back to the case for why I suggest that Y'shua was not refudiating Leviticus.

    Practical Judaism in that period consisted of Torah observance via adherence to oral laws built as a "fence around the Torah." The religious leaders had developed guidelines for how to obey the Torah.

    An example would be directions as to when and how to wash hands so as to remain ceremonially "clean." This was so ingrained that when Y'shua's followers were observed eaten grain without washing their hands, it was noted that they failed to follow the traditions.

    The traditions were so firmly established that violation of one was equated to violation of the actual Torah. In fact, it was treated as a more severe infraction. Further, there were some cases where the Torah could be set aside in deference to the tradition (Y'shua called them on this as well).

    {See the account in Matthew 15}

    It is likely this failure to prioritize the Torah over the traditions that fueled Y'shua's commentary.
  7. backbeat's Avatar
    Posts
    55 Posts
    Global Posts
    138 Global Posts
    #27  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim View Post
    It is more likely (especially given that he says, 'you have heard' rather than 'you have read' or 'it is written) that he was contrasting his teaching with the oral traditions of the religious leaders, rather than the written Torah.
    History hasn't changed. The commoners of Jesus' time were illiterate and therefore, would've only been told the repeated and ever-changing stories of old. The written Torah was irrelevant to them, except as a holy book which contained mysteries only the special could understand.
  8. #28  
    Quote Originally Posted by backbeat View Post
    History hasn't changed. The commoners of Jesus' time were illiterate and therefore, would've only been told the repeated and ever-changing stories of old. The written Torah was irrelevant to them, except as a holy book which contained mysteries only the special could understand.
    I see that point. In fact, in some ways it underscores what I'm suggesting. Namely that in removing the "fence" from around the Torah, Y'shua was making it accessible to the people once again, rather than having understanding be reserved for the special.
  9. backbeat's Avatar
    Posts
    55 Posts
    Global Posts
    138 Global Posts
    #29  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim View Post
    I see that point. In fact, in some ways it underscores what I'm suggesting.
    Agreed.

    Namely that in removing the "fence" from around the Torah, Y'shua was making it accessible to the people once again, rather than having understanding be reserved for the special.
    Ironically, Peter established the formal christian church by that same model which created a circular concrete barrier around the mystery of Jesus.
  10. #30  
    Quote Originally Posted by backbeat View Post
    Agreed.



    Ironically, Peter established the formal christian church by that same model which created a circular concrete barrier around the mystery of Jesus.
    I'm not sure Peter would appreciate that attribution. There is a line of succesion that is traced to Peter, however the manner in which the church operates today seems significantly distinct from the 1st century model.

    Today's model has replaced one set of specialists (rabbis, etc) with another (priests, etc). The former augmented the Torah. The latter largely abandoned it, with exception of select text in Leviticus
  11. #31  
    a visit to the creation museum (many pictures):

    http://crazytalk.typepad.com/bluegra..._the_crea.html
  12. #32  
    Wow. The only thing missing is Benny Hinn curing some suckers at the end of this ride.

    Last edited by moderateinny; 06/11/2007 at 06:46 PM.
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions