Freethought & Rationalism Archive

post tenebras lux · 10-11-2006, 08:48 AM

Quote:

The following would also be sins in Britain:

Boro Nut

It is? Praise the blessed Jackie Charlton for that one!

Excuse me for a while, I've suddenly got to go and stone my brother for his sins.

Anat · 10-11-2006, 08:59 AM

dzim77, the rabbis objected to a publicly heard heavenly voice declaring which interpretation was right. So even the Lord of Sabbath cannot interpret Sabbath laws. The rabbis' position was that the Law was given to Moses -> Joshua -> Elders -> members of the grand assembly -> later rabbis for them to interpret. Or one might say, the rabbis of each generation were 'lords of Sabbath'.

dzim77 · 10-11-2006, 09:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anat

dzim77, the rabbis objected to a publicly heard heavenly voice declaring which interpretation was right. So even the Lord of Sabbath cannot interpret Sabbath laws. The rabbis' position was that the Law was given to Moses -> Joshua -> Elders -> members of the grand assembly -> later rabbis for them to interpret. Or one might say, the rabbis of each generation were 'lords of Sabbath'.

So, are you saying that if God came to earth and told the Rabbis that they were in error, they would disagree with God?

Jesus is claiming the authority of God to interpret the law. Apparently so are the Rabbis.

So either Jesus is wrong, or the Rabbis are wrong. His innocence depends on which is true.

Anat · 10-11-2006, 09:36 AM

God does not come down to earth, according to their belief. In the distant past he revealed himself directly to some select people, then he appeared in visions, and by their times there would sometimes be heard a heavenly voice that made pronouncements (usually about who was right in some dispute).

The rabbis found evidence in scripture that one must rule by majority. Jesus by being in minority would have been wrong.

The story is the story of the Akhnai oven.

Quote:

Babylonian Talmud, Baba Metzia 59b:

If a man made an oven out of separate coils [of clay, placing one upon another], then put sand between each of the coils [1] — such an oven, R. Eliezer declared, is not susceptible to defilement, while the sages declared it susceptible.[2]

It is taught: On that day R. Eliezer brought forward every imaginable argument, but the Sages did not accept any of them. Finally he said to them: "If the Halakhah (religious law) is in accordance with me, let this carob tree prove it!" Sure enough the carob tree immediately uprooted itself and moved one hundred cubits, and some say 400 cubits, from its place. "No proof can be brought from a carob tree," they retorted.

And again he said to them "If the Halakhah agrees with me, let the channel of water prove it!" Sure enough, the channel of water flowed backward. "No proof can be brought from a channel of water," they rejoined.

Again he urged, "If the Halakhah agrees with me, let the walls of the house of study prove it!" Sure enough, the walls tilted as if to fall. But R. Joshua, rebuked the walls, saying, "When disciples of the wise are engaged in a halakhic dispute, what right have you to interfere?" Hence in deference to R. Joshua they did not fall and in deference to R. Eliezer they did not resume their upright position; they are still standing aslant.

Again R. Eliezer then said to the Sages, "If the Halakhah agrees with me, let it be proved from heaven." Sure enough, a divine voice cried out, "Why do you dispute with R. Eliezer, with whom the Halakhah always agrees?" R. Joshua stood up and protested: "The Torah is not in heaven!" (Deut. 30:12). We pay no attention to a divine voice because long ago at Mount Sinai You wrote in your Torah at Mount Sinai, `After the majority must one incline'. (Ex. 23:2)"

R. Nathan met [the prophet] Elijah [3] and asked him, "What did the Holy One do at that moment?" Elijah: "He laughed [with joy], saying, 'My children have defeated Me, My children have defeated Me.'"

According to the story they also got (hearsay) evidence that God approved of their method.

Of course it is all legend, but it is my favorite story about the development of Judaism, away from following divine pronouncements to human learning and understanding - which decreases the chances of atrocities like child-sacrifice and holy genocide. It also explains how in much later times there became room within Judaism for movements that doubted the divine origin of law.

dzim77 · 10-11-2006, 09:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anat

God does not come down to earth, according to their belief. In the distant past he revealed himself directly to some select people, then he appeared in visions, and by their times there would sometimes be heard a heavenly voice that made pronouncements (usually about who was right in some dispute).

The rabbis found evidence in scripture that one must rule by majority. Jesus by being in minority would have been wrong.

Of course it is all legend, but it is my favorite story about the development of Judaism, away from following divine pronouncements to human learning and understanding - which decreases the chances of atrocities like child-sacrifice and holy genocide. It also explains how in much later times there became room within Judaism for movements that doubted the divine origin of law.

Anat,

I understand your point and it is very enlightening as to the development of Judaism, so thanks

Getting back to the topic of the thread, though, you're basically saying that according to Rabinic tradition, Jesus broke the Sabbath.

I'm saying that according to Jesus' claims, he did not.

I really appreciate the info... but we're kinda going in circles here

My main point is that the Bible is not inconsistent in saying that Jesus was sinless.

Thanks.

Anat · 10-11-2006, 10:06 AM

You can see that Jesus' position was not different from that of Rabbi Eliezer backed by the divine voice. But since Eliezer wasn't claiming to be divine or a messiah or anything he was not sentenced to death, he was merely excommunicated until his last day, and all his rulings on matters of purity and impurity were overturned. Even that was probably excessive, and Gammaliel felt guilty enough that when once at sea his ship was in a foerce storm, he 'knew' he was being punished for mistreating Eliezer. He told God that he had not been acting selfishly but to prevent rifts from diverse interpretations, and immediately the storm ceased.

lpetrich · 10-11-2006, 10:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pharoah

Sending the demons into the farmers pigs and then allowing the pigs to go into the lake was deliberate destruction of someone else's property, which is almost certainly a violation of some command.

I don't know if theft would reasonably include vandalism; it certainly does not include cruelty to animals.

Quote:

Claiming that the mustard seed is the smallest of all seeds was a violation of the commandment not to bear false witness.

He could have been honestly mistaken, though if he was God, he'd be omniscient -- and would certainly have known better.

Quote:

Calling the scribes and Pharisees fools violated his own dicate not to call anyone a fool.

Yes, and he even said that calling someone a fool makes one risk being sent to Hell. That was part of how he forbade calling people insulting names, but he himself had done a lot of that -- "snakes and brood of vipers", "blind guides", "whitewashed tombs", ... So he was guilty of something he repeatedly denounced: hypocrisy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dzim77

Jesus defended himself here. He claims to be the Lord of the Sabbath. Who defines what it means to 'work' on the Sabbath - the Lord of the Sabbath or the Pharisees?

What would have made him "Lord of the Sabbath"? Simply claiming to be "Lord of the Sabbath" is not enough; he could have been mistaken in that. And being willing to make such claims is pride, which is one of the Seven Deadly Sins.

If he went through the trouble to demonstrate that he was the "Lord of the Sabbath", it would have been another story, but he asserts it without any attempt to demonstrate it.

Quote:

Nothing here indicates that Jesus did not honor his father and mother as is appropriate... by fulfulling his duty as a son.

Like forgetting about his parents for three days in the Jerusalem Temple?

Quote:

His view seems to be that there are situations and circumstances where God comes before family.

A god who taught that you must honor your parents? You can't have it both ways.

Quote:

Also, consider that Jesus went to the extent of assuring his mother was to be cared for even while he was being crucified: (...)

As if that cancels out all the disrespect for his parents in his teachings and actions, like his snottiness to his mother in John 2:4.

(Stealing some animals to ride on...)

Quote:

Amaleq explained this one.

Which I find unconvincing.

Quote:

I'm assuming this thread is a bit tongue-in-check (I hope??). If not, then perhaps you should add cannibalism to your list of sins because Jesus instructed his disciples to eat his flesh and drink his blood.

But I don't know if cannibalism is an Officially Recognized Sin.

dzim77 · 10-11-2006, 11:56 AM

My understanding of what you're trying to point out is that the NT is inconsistent in saying that Jesus was without sin. Is that correct?

My contention is that the NT is consistent in it's view of Jesus as sinless.

If your presupposition is that Jesus is not the Son of God, then I'll drop it, because that will render the thread pointless.

Quote:

Originally Posted by lpetrich

What would have made him "Lord of the Sabbath"?

If he was the one who instituted the Sabbath (God), that would make him Lord of the Sabbath.

Quote:

Simply claiming to be "Lord of the Sabbath" is not enough; he could have been mistaken in that. And being willing to make such claims is pride, which is one of the Seven Deadly Sins.

The point is that, if he is who he claims to be, then he is not sinning. Therefore, the Bible is not inconsistent in this matter.

You seem to miss the point in the same way that the Pharisees did... here comes a man curing the sick, healing the blind, forgiving sins, raising the dead, claiming to be the Son of God... and they say, 'umm... but you broke the Sabbath'. He is the Lord of the Sabbath! He is God. Therefore he has authority to interpret what is 'work' on the Sabbath.

Quote:

Originally Posted by lpetrich

If he went through the trouble to demonstrate that he was the "Lord of the Sabbath", it would have been another story, but he asserts it without any attempt to demonstrate it.

Healing the sick, raising the dead, resurrecting... he did all that according to the NT. What kind of demonstration would suffice? (this is still beside the point)

Quote:

Originally Posted by lpetrich

Like forgetting about his parents for three days in the Jerusalem Temple?

Jesus claims that he had to be in his Father's house. His Father wanted him there... teaching the law and such. He's honoring God before his family.

Quote:

Originally Posted by lpetrich

A god who taught that you must honor your parents? You can't have it both ways.

It's not having it both ways. It's prioritizing. God first. Family second. I will honor my employer, but if my employer calls me to compromise my religious beliefs, I will choose to honor God first. This is what Jesus was teaching and what the OT law teaches also.

Quote:

But I don't know if cannibalism is an Officially Recognized Sin.

It might help, also, to understand Jesus' use of hyperbole in his teachings and to understand the teachings of Jesus in their proper context.

lpetrich · 10-11-2006, 06:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dzim77

My understanding of what you're trying to point out is that the NT is inconsistent in saying that Jesus was without sin. Is that correct?

Yes. I showed that the Jesus Christ of the Gospels had committed several sins, according to some common statements of what is "sin".

Quote:

My contention is that the NT is consistent in it's view of Jesus as sinless.

I disagree.

Quote:

If your presupposition is that Jesus is not the Son of God, then I'll drop it, because that will render the thread pointless.

Why do you think I'm presupposing anything, one way or the other?

Quote:

If he was the one who instituted the Sabbath (God), that would make him Lord of the Sabbath.

He didn't exactly announce that he had been God in that occasion, however -- and he didn't try to be very humble about it.

Quote:

The point is that, if he is who he claims to be, then he is not sinning. Therefore, the Bible is not inconsistent in this matter.

Where does he say that he is God? And how can we be sure that it isn't a case of followers putting words in his mouth? Which in any case can be said of all the content of the Gospels.

Quote:

You seem to miss the point in the same way that the Pharisees did... here comes a man curing the sick, healing the blind, forgiving sins, raising the dead, claiming to be the Son of God... and they say, 'umm... but you broke the Sabbath'. He is the Lord of the Sabbath! He is God. Therefore he has authority to interpret what is 'work' on the Sabbath.

If he broke the Sabbath, he broke the Sabbath, and that means that he did not abide by his own laws. Or did he say -- "I am God, therefore I am exempt from the laws I had laid down"?

Quote:

Healing the sick, raising the dead, resurrecting... he did all that according to the NT. What kind of demonstration would suffice? (this is still beside the point)

Appearing to me in person, standing right next to me as I sit at my desk typing my reply. Which cannot be too much for an omnipotent being.

Quote:

Jesus claims that he had to be in his Father's house. His Father wanted him there... teaching the law and such. He's honoring God before his family.

That's no excuse for leaving them all worried about what had happened to him. If he had been God, then it would have been no trouble for him to appear to them and tell them that he'll be studying at the Temple and that they need not worry about him.

(God before family...)
So if God tells you to horribly torture your family to death, you will immediately start doing so without even bothering to question that?

Quote:

It might help, also, to understand Jesus' use of hyperbole in his teachings and to understand the teachings of Jesus in their proper context.

Did he say that he was using hyperbole?

And there must be something seriously wrong with the Bible if it does not include all this alleged proper context.

Jack the Bodiless · 10-12-2006, 01:53 AM

dzim77:

Quote:

There was also his refusal to cure the Gentile woman (until nagged by his followers). Nowadays, we'd call bigotry a sin, and it's also implied by "love thy neighbor".

Jack,

reference please?

Matthew 15:22-28, Mark 7:25-30. I misremembered one detail: it was a non-Jewish woman whose daughter was "possessed". Jesus says " I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel", and likens foreigners to dogs trying to scavenge scraps of food intended for the children of Israel.

It might be assumed that Jesus the "nice guy" would want to feed starving dogs anyhow: but apparently not. He has to be talked into it.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-11-2006, 08:59 AM	#22
Anat Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: home Posts: 3,715	dzim77, the rabbis objected to a publicly heard heavenly voice declaring which interpretation was right. So even the Lord of Sabbath cannot interpret Sabbath laws. The rabbis' position was that the Law was given to Moses -> Joshua -> Elders -> members of the grand assembly -> later rabbis for them to interpret. Or one might say, the rabbis of each generation were 'lords of Sabbath'.

10-11-2006, 10:06 AM	#26
Anat Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: home Posts: 3,715	You can see that Jesus' position was not different from that of Rabbi Eliezer backed by the divine voice. But since Eliezer wasn't claiming to be divine or a messiah or anything he was not sentenced to death, he was merely excommunicated until his last day, and all his rulings on matters of purity and impurity were overturned. Even that was probably excessive, and Gammaliel felt guilty enough that when once at sea his ship was in a foerce storm, he 'knew' he was being punished for mistreating Eliezer. He told God that he had not been acting selfishly but to prevent rifts from diverse interpretations, and immediately the storm ceased.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.