No Robots

It was the hey-day of oral literature, which we shall examine in some detail later, oral tradition concerning doctrine, explaining the written doctrine of the Torah. There was no other literature than that of the Torah. Apart from the Torah literature there were only the “Prophets” and the “Writings.” For the parts of this oral tradition that were written down – the Talmud and the New Testament – we can see how very much people of that time lived in the Torah, the Prophets and the Writings of the Old Testament, how, with their oral literature, they lived first and foremost in the literature of the Torah. Christ's own words are thoroughly permeated and impregnated with quotations from the Old Testament. Fundamentally, the Torah was everything. The Writings were based on the Torah; the Prophets guarded the Torah, they were the primary oral explanation of the Torah, the doctrine of Jahve.--Our Christ / Constantin Brunner, p. 56-7.

IamJoseph

The point here is - it was not scrutinised for truth - which is obligatory of a people's genuine quest for truth at any cost. I see this syndrome displayed in today's political arena: the world does not want to know the truth. There is another thread which asks why are christians silent when the Jerusalem temple is openly touted as a myth in Arabia today - what does this do for the Gospels and the truth shall set you free?

IamJoseph

The oral law, handed down via Moses, has equal status with the written law. The reason the Oral law was not accepted by Christianity is it did not allign with anything in the NT, while alligning with everything in the written law - as evdenced by the Prophetic writings.

IamJoseph

Had Christianity observed that rule - millions of innocent lives would have been saved. Instead, this rule was totally overturned with WHAT IS GOOD FOR YOU DO UNTO OTHERS. This gave free licence for mass murder:

'BETTER TO DESTROY THEIR BODIES AND SAVE THEIR SOULS' - Isabel of Spain.


Slavery was turned into contracted worker exclusively by the Hebrew laws. Mandated freedom after limited service; compensation for ill-treatment and damage; the right to marry and have children; a retirement fund after 7 years of service [superannuation], reguge citites [welfare], and equal laws applicable for slave or master. These are found nowhere but in the Hebrew bible. Admittedly, this took a while for humanity for these laws to be formalised - but this debt is owed to the Hebrew laws.

storytime

More likely the subtle pointer was inferring an arms length from those ignorant Jews. Why would it be expected that the writers would compliment the Jews they so wanted to distance themselves from?

In the story it seems Jesus was separating the tradition of Pharisees from law of Moses. There's nothing to suggest that non Jews were involved in the argument between Jews about their laws.

IamJoseph

Compared to which other less ignorant people: have you ever checked the Nobels list?



Exactly. You prove my case: the writers were Romans.

On whose authority? Would Christians except such separation from another religion 2000 years later - I think christianity rejected Islam even after just 400 years. So why tell others to do what you cannot?

Did Moses, who brought us the law - tell you they are now fullfiled away? In any case this is a lost battle: the law is not fullfiled and fully active today - every one of them. Now tell us which law did christianity give the world?

Clivedurdle

On this alleged oral history, the first example of this is of course the illiad, which was in a very special form of sung hexamic poetry.

I find it strange that the biblicists who go on and on about oral traditions being written down in the gospels do not acknowledge that they are actually discussing a sung poetic form of story telling, that is done publicly as a form of entertainment for the long dark evenings that evolved into theatre and drama.

And they somehow find it very difficult to state that they are looking at myth and story all the way down, and that any historic core may go back to others like the teacher of righteousness.

The hodge podge of views in the gospels surely is evidence of a process like flotsam gathering on a sea shore, or the great pacific rubbish dump.

bacht

Clive do you have your own webpages? I'd like to see your stuff all together. imo you consistently present challenging ideas that I find myself thinking about away from here (like the bi-cameral mind thesis)

IamJoseph

Re. Did Jesus not know his Bible?

Is there another way of determining this other than whatever contradicts Moses is incorrect? Its a hypothetical question, but what if Moses re-appeared and corrected or affirmed to the world what he meant by what he wrote - who would loose credibility?

storytime

Can you name those ancient Jews who would be on today's Nobel list? Or, are you trying to disguise the ignorance of those ancient Jews by covering their superstitions with todays learned Jewish minds?

Why would Romans have had need of Jewish laws when their own laws were far more superior? The world had laws and traditions that instructed them such as "you shall not kill your countrymen[brethren]", "you shall not steal or bear false witness", and "you shall not covet, or take another man's wife for she is not your property, or steal slaves from your brethren", etc.. And, Rome had its own gods also, and to them, just as powerful as Yaheh if not superior to him in their minds. In fact, from the bible story, your Jewish god was jealous of all the other gods in the world and demanded blood of Jews who should go after those other gods to worship them. The loyalty to the Jewish god and Jewish people from Jewish people was expected. Why would you think the same loyalty and patriotism would not have been expected from the Roman people to their own gods and defense of their own people? It seems to me Joseph, that you want all Gentile nations to become traitors to their own country and their own interest. Isn't this why you can't win for losing, the argument?

"Now tell us which law Christianity gave the world?"

Have you not read in the story where it says "Gentiles are a law unto themselves"? What do you think this means? I think it means that Gentiles can make laws necessary to the times they are in. In other words, Gentiles have never needed Jewish laws but Jewish people needed Jewish laws because they never had any laws until Moses gave them at Sinai.

Remember Joseph, it was Moses who gave Jewish people the law. He didn't give the law to any other people. Try as you might, you cannot force Gentiles into your law or expect Gentiles to accept what was not given to them as judge and jury. Jews have their own god and their own laws and of which intelligent people want nothing to do with. And, you can't judge Gentiles by your Jewish laws as being unfit humans, nor execute Gentiles by your Jewish laws. Not in todays world anyway.