sharon45

I first posted most of this in GRD and got avoided there so I thought I would try a second time in a more appropriate section.

Starting in matthew 15:
1 Then some Pharisees and teachers of the law came to Jesus from Jerusalem and asked,
2 "Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? They don't wash their hands before they eat!"

Of course it is quite sensible to wash one's hands, especially before they eat. This is also true because in these cultures, many mainly ate and served themselves with their bare hands. Even more so in a time period that was without the abundant health standards and medical care that are available in more modern times. If one has a meager diet, they also might not be getting enough nutrition to help their body to better fight off diseases.

Whether the disciples are actually doing this, we don't know, because this is the NT's assertion for the Pharisees to make this accusation. So then, where is the evidence of this happening? Where is either a rebuttal, denial, or at least some acknowledgement from the disciples with regard to this charge? So based on hearsay only, are we really to just take the NT for its word?

3 Jesus replied, "And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition?
4 For God said, 'Honor your father and mother' and 'Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.'

So then jesus once again tries to answer a question by instead asking one of his own.

5 But you say that if a man says to his father or mother, 'Whatever help you might otherwise have received from me is a gift devoted to God,'
6 he is not to 'honor his father' with it. Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition.

Besides jesus just merely stating this, where is his evidence? Where is either a rebuttal, denial, or at least some acknowledgement from the Pharisees in regard to this charge? So based on hearsay only, are we really to just take the NT for its word?

7 You hypocrites! Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you:
8 'These people honor me with their lips,
but their hearts are far from me.
9 They worship me in vain;
their teachings are but rules taught by men.'

Again, jesus is just merely stating this, but now he is using a version of Isaiah. Still, where is his evidence that they are actual doing this and that this passage is actually pertaining to ones like he is addressing? Where is either a rebuttal, denial, or at least some acknowledgement again from the Pharisees in regard to this latest charge? So, again based on hearsay only, are we really to just take the NT for its word?

10 Jesus called the crowd to him and said, "Listen and understand.
11What goes into a man's mouth does not make him 'unclean,' but what comes out of his mouth, that is what makes him 'unclean.' "

Yet again, jesus is just merely stating this and he still refuses to produce any evidence.

12 Then the disciples came to him and asked, "Do you know that the Pharisees were offended when they heard this?"

Were the Pharisees actually offended by that statement? Where is the evidence besides the NT asserting so by how the disciples supposedly had understood the situation and with concern also to another's thoughts and feelings? Maybe they were pleased with how jesus keeps revealing his ignorance? Where is either a rebuttal, denial, or at least some acknowledgement again from the Pharisees with regard to this statement? So, again based on hearsay only, are we really to just take the NT for its word?

13 He replied, "Every plant that my heavenly Father has not planted will be pulled up by the roots.
14 Leave them; they are blind guides. If a blind man leads a blind man, both will fall into a pit."

So now jesus proclaims that he has a "heavenly Father". Who is this and where is his evidence of this? This "heavenly Father" has a certain amount of control as proclaimed once again by jesus, but where is his evidence of this besides him just blatantly stating it? Are we really to just take the NT for its word?

Jesus plainly asserts that the Pharisees are "the blind leading the blind", but he does not back this up with any evidence. Does jesus really think this is some kind of an obvious fact that he doesn't have to even bother to back it up? Jesus reveals himself as a "blind leader" leading "blind followers" and they are "falling into a pit" in this passage, but that doesn't seem to be noticed by the NT or its believers.

Also, again where is either a rebuttal, denial, or at least some acknowledgement from the Pharisees in regard now to this latest charge? So, yet again based on hearsay only, are we really to just take the NT for its word?

15 Peter said, "Explain the parable to us."

16 "Are you still so dull?" Jesus asked them.
17 "Don't you see that whatever enters the mouth goes into the stomach and then out of the body?
18 But the things that come out of the mouth come from the heart, and these make a man 'unclean.'
19 For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander.
20 These are what make a man 'unclean'; but eating with unwashed hands does not make him 'unclean.' "

First jesus again breaks matthew 5:21-22 as well as continuing to break matthew 7:1-5 leftover from his tirade against the Pharisees and their followers. Then he states his explanation again as though it were fact while without providing any evidence yet again.

Not everything that enters into the mouth goes into the stomach. One can breathe through their mouth which will enter the lungs. One can put objects into the mouth to be taken out also through the mouth afterwards like a toothpick. One can put food or water into their mouth and then spit it out if the taste is awful or is spoiled.

Obviously not everything the comes out of the mouth comes from the 'heart'. Besides what I've just given, air and saliva can come out. Of course what one says also does not have to come from the 'heart'. One has to completely be aware of what they are saying for this to be truly as intended or at least sincere in either a positive or negative way. Yes, much that one says does indeed come from the 'heart', but by far not everything. What one says in all honestly to their character can be good or bad, not just bad as jesus implies.

What he should have said by his supposed example is: Some of what one says can come from the 'heart' and this can either leave this person 'clean' or 'unclean'.
Then, For out of the 'heart' can come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, and slander.
These are some of what can make a person 'unclean'; Eating with unwashed hands can make a person in both cases, unclean and also 'unclean.'

Jesus was giving false testimony and using slander against the Pharisees, so does that count as evil coming from his 'heart', or is he exempt from having to obey his own teachings?

Of course it is quite sensible to wash one's hands, especially before they eat. This is also true because in these cultures, many mainly ate and served themselves with their bare hands. Even more so in a time period that was without the abundant health standards and medical care that are available in more modern times. If one has a meager diet, they also might not be getting enough nutrition to help their body to better fight off diseases.

One should not put themselves or others needlessly at risk. Just because they might be thoughtless of their own personal health, they shouldn't be also thoughtless of others' health and welfare by acting on and teaching them things that are not quite true.
Afterall, when one does harm to others, they do harm to god.

GakuseiDon

FWIW I think the standard answer is that the Gospel writers were writing to a first century audience, and not to a 21st C one. But perhaps you could post your OP on the TheologyWeb forum. I'd be interested in seeing how they reply, though I don't expect them to be kind: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/forumdisplay.php?f=15

andrewcriddle

Matthew's account is presumably good evidence that the Christian community at his time (and at the time of Mark which in chapter 7 gives the earliest form of this pericope) was less concerned than the Pharisees with the minor forms of ritual impurity. How far this goes back to the historical Jesus is another matter.
There is a discusion in the late 2nd century Mishnah tractate Nedarim concerning vows and their validity.

The rabbis appear reluctant to say that vows are null and void purely because they contravene the honour due to the vower's mother and father, partly due to a concern that this is a slippery slope to saying that all vows that were better not made are null and void. see Nedarim 9:1.

If, as seems likely, the broad discretion given to sages to loose from vows is a late element in the Mishnah then the position in Jesus' time may have been stricter than that in the present Mishnah.
It seems clear from Josephus and the Mishnah that the Pharisees recognised 'observances by succession from their fathers' which they regarded as a/ authoritative b/ Of human origin.

Andrew Criddle

sharon45

That might be, but hardly an excuse for what is believed to be inspired writing, and as such, should easily last the test of time. I didn't say anything that complicated that those of that time period wouldn't have to know either. If it really were for such an audience though, it would have been arranged even far simpler than it actually was.

It is about how the NT presents itself as some kind of apparent authority, but still uses such common errors in communicating its supposed cause.

Thank you for the link and I will look into it.

sharon45

Yes, what christians might have thought, but this is after the supposed fact. The NT is talking about a supposed event from the past on its own behalf to forward its own opinions and beliefs while using characters that are suppose to represent people of another belief. It would show some evidence of honest seriousness on their part if the NT gave a much greater apparence of fairplay.Whether it were actually true or not or positive or negative is not as important as it is not shown inside the book that makes the charges. This is simply stated and there is no actual response to this from those it was directed towards. This is just another example of irresponsible narrative from the NT.Jews are of people that are religious, but they are also a community. There are of course going to be many rules and customs that are going to be of human origin. The leaders put together ways that they thought would help them stay in unity in order to survive. If jesus had a problem with any of what they created from the community, then maybe he can say something about it, but there has to also be an equal record of some discussion from the other side at least or it just further shows the NT's obvious bias and disingenuous form of construction.

andrewcriddle

As a general point, controversy, in the Ancient World, usually did not involve giving a full and objective account of your opponents views.

Andrew Criddle

Amaleq13

Based on my extensive television viewing habit that includes various news programs and political debates, I would have to say that there is no need to limit this general point to "the Ancient World".

sharon45

I looked through that forum and judging by their responses posted there, they don't exactly provide much of a challenge worth my time.

sharon45

The NT doesn't even attempt anywhere near that extreme. It simply reveals itself as severely ignorant and bias.