Net2004

Matthew 15

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!”

3Jesus replied, “And why do you break the command of God for the sake
of your tradition? 4For God said, ‘Honour your father and mother’ and
‘Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.’ 5But
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,’ 6he
is not to ‘honour his father’ with it. Thus you nullify the word of
God for the sake of your tradition. 7You hypocrites! Isaiah was right
when he prophesied about you:

8″ ‘These people honour me with their lips,
but their hearts are far from me.
9They worship me in vain;
their teachings are but rules taught by men.’”





it looks like jesus is in agreement with god about putting to death people who curse their parents. putting to DEATH of children who CURSE their parents is not MAN MADE /rules of men, but according to jesus from the highest authourity called god almighty.
imagine if there was a case where a person cursed his parents and did not receive the punishment , then is the nullification of the law of god? imagine if there was a tradition which allowed the pharisees to reinterpret the harsh laws then isn't this exactly what jesus is arguing against? their rules are from men . so they are not going by gods rules but rules of men.how can it be that jesus is more FOCUSED on the obediance of the child than the punishment? if the child curses his mother or father then according to jesus the punishment has the SAME LEVEL OF IMPORTANCE AS the OBEDIANCE.
otherwise jesus would be NULLIFYING WHAT GOD SAID ,

4For God said, ‘Honour your father and mother’ and[B]
‘Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.’

YOU don't include the PUNISHMENT part IF IT was not IMPORTANT , right?

i think that according to jesus, gods harsh laws DO NOT have a sell by date.

judge

How do ypou get that. The jesus of Matthews gospel just uses that to point out what hypocrites they are.
Its a common theme in the gospels, Jesus often doesn't care for the ridiculous laws of the torah. The religious folk found in the gospels are unable to break away from the strong hold religion has over them though.
Same story today, which is one point that makes the gospels interesting.

While supposedly freeing man, religion often just makes him a hypocrite. But the hypnotising effect of religion can be a hard spell to break.

seyorni

Interesting Jesus considered a tu quoque a legitimate response to their accusations.

Doug Shaver

I think that if Jesus was a real person, we have no idea what his actual teachings were. The gospel authors could have gotten a few things right, but we have no reliable method of determining which things those were.

If you think you have such a method, feel free to let us know what it is.

outhouse

exactly

it was just a parable/allegory that literal readers twist to meet their biased needs.

outhouse

I find this correct.


Except

we can deduce some things from the biased one sided literature we are left with.


Take into account the NT went a direction away from jesus original movement within judaism.

Take into account were left with a roman version of jesus life from what amounts to his enemies telling all his tales.

jesus hated romans and the roman infection to judaism.




with this knowledge first, and then using anthropology in Galilee can you even begin to recontruct historical jesus, and what he may have taught. And what is known with certainty is very little other then he taught in parables and was a speaking of the kingdom of god, how he taught the kingdom of god is still in debate. he also would have taught against roman taxation, and singled out tax collectors to preach to so they would quit extorting money for the roman empire from their fellow countrymen. When he could

PhilosopherJay

Hi Outhouse,

Based on the confused syntax in:

we can also suggest that whoever translated this from Aramaic to Greek was using Google Language Translate

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Net2004

how do you explain this?

quote:

For Matthew being Jewish:

The fundamental affirmation of the Law (cf. Matt 5.17-20; 23.3a,
23b).

The sustained reference to the Old Testament and the emphatic
application of the idea of fulfilment (cf. e.g. Matt 1.22-23;2.5-6,
15, 17-18; 3.3; 4.4-16; 8.17 and others).

The fundamental limitation of Jesus’ mission to Israel (cf. Matt
10.5-6; 15.24).

The Matthean community still keeps the Sabbath (cf. Matt 24.20).
The Matthean community still lives within the jurisdiction of Judaism
(cf. Matt 17.24-27; 23.1-3).

The Moses typology in Matt 2.13ff.; 4.1-2; 5.1 and the five great
discourses in the Gospel present Jesus as having an affinity to
Moses.

The language, structure, reception of the Gospel of Matthew point to a
Jewish Christian as its author.

Against:

The Gospel’s offer of salvation to all clearly points to a Gentile
mission that has been underway for some time (cf. Matt 28.18-20;
8.11-12; 10.18; 12.18, 21; 13.38a; 21.43-45; 22.1-14; 24.14; 25.32;
26.13).

The nullification of ritual laws (cf. Matt 15.11, 20b; 23.25-26).
The Matthean critique of the Law. Especially in the Antitheses of the
Sermon on the Mount (Matt 5.21-48) Jesus places his own authority
higher than that of Moses, for which there is no parallel in ancient
Judaism.

Matthew presents a thoroughgoing polemic against Pharisaic casuistry
(cf. Matt 5.20; 6.1ff.; 9.9ff.; 12.1ff., 9ff.; 15.1ff.; 19.1ff.;
23.1ff.)

Matthew avoids Aramaisms (cf. Mark 1.13/ Matt 4.2; Mark 5.41/ Matt
9.25; Mark 7.34/ Matt 15.30; Mark 7.11/ Matt 15.5).

The Matthean community understands its life to be at some distance
from that of the synagogue (cf. Matt 23.34b ἐν ταῖς συναγωγαῖς ὑμῶν
[in your synagogues]; Matt 7.29b καὶ οὐχ ὡς οἱ γραμματεῖς αὐτων [and
not as their scribes]).

Ritual prescriptions for the Sabbath have lost their significance (cf.
Matt 12.1-8).

The rejection of Israel, i.e. that Israel has lost its distinct place
in the history of salvation, has been accepted by Matthew as reality
for some time (cf. Matt 21.43; 22.9; 8.11-12; 21.39ff.; 27.25; 28.15).


why mention the punishment if there was no importance to the punishment?
and if the pharisees nullify the word of god for the sake of their man made tradition then jesus nullifies the word of god because he thinks it is ridiculous .why did matthews jesus make use of that which he thinks is ridiculous?

either he agress with what god said or he disagrees with god and puts himself in the same boat as the pharisees.

outhouse

the author of Matthew wrote for a jewish movement of the sect, more then mark or luke or paul who wrote to a roman audience

Net2004

so he woudn't piss them of by telling them that thier laws are ridiculous , right?
if i recall correctly there is a verse in which jesus says to his deciples to obey the pharisees because they sit in moses' seat but not to obey thier hypocracy or something like that.