Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Duvduv · 07-15-2012, 04:20 PM

If the leprosy was tzaraat in Greek then the authors surely knew that it did not exist in second temple times and that the priests did not cure it but only diagnosed its progress according to Leviticus. So a Jesus would have no role in it. He could have just as easily cured some other actual disease and gotten the same accolades without anyone knowing the better of it.

Iskander · 07-15-2012, 05:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

If the leprosy was tzaraat in Greek then the authors surely knew that it did not exist in second temple times and that the priests did not cure it but only diagnosed its progress according to Leviticus. So a Jesus would have no role in it. He could have just as easily cured some other actual disease and gotten the same accolades without anyone knowing the better of it.

You are right, the priest in Leviticus does not cure the disease, but Jesus does and in doing so he is staking a claim to be recognized as someone of special merit. The JANT uses the word “prophet”

The diseased man would have been processed (diagnosed) by a priest in the first instance and commanded by the priest to obey Leviticus 13

When the man is cured by someone with a power greater than that of a priest, he is commanded to obey Leviticus 14, showing that Jesus is a Torah observant Galilean.

Quote:

Leviticus 13
45 The person who has the leprous* disease shall wear torn clothes and let the hair of his head be dishevelled; and he shall cover his upper lip and cry out, ‘Unclean, unclean.’46He shall remain unclean as long as he has the disease; he is unclean. He shall live alone; his dwelling shall be outside the camp

14
The LORD spoke to Moses, saying:2 shall be the ritual for the leprous* person at the time of his cleansing:
He shall be brought to the priest; 3 priest shall go out of the camp, and the priest shall make an examination. If the disease is healed in the leprous* person,4the priest shall command that two living clean birds and cedar wood and crimson yarn and hyssop be brought for the one who is to be cleansed.

I accept that I don’t know which disease the man had, but what difference that would make is not clear to me.

Duvduv · 07-15-2012, 05:41 PM

I disagree. There would be no precedent for anyone healing the tzaraat OR for its existence in the second Temple period OR for anyone to be deemed curing it even if he were a prophet. Even Elisha did not go beyond the requirements of the Torah in which even priests themselves did not provide a cure.

outhouse · 07-15-2012, 05:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

I disagree. There would be no precedent for anyone healing the tzaraat OR for its existence in the second Temple period OR for anyone to be deemed curing it even if he were a prophet. Even Elisha did not go beyond the requirements of the Torah in which even priests themselves did not provide a cure.

you do realize that judaism evolved differently then the past under roman control as well as other cultural influeneces??

and these different sects all w anted judiasm there own way amd treated it differently.

Zeolots
Pharisees
Saducees
Essenes

and due to what we are left with, we dont have a lot of details

Iskander · 07-15-2012, 05:57 PM

2Kings 5

1-...The man [Naaman], though a mighty warrior, suffered from leprosy.*

10-Elisha sent a messenger to him, saying, ‘Go, wash in the Jordan seven times, and your flesh shall be restored and you shall be clean.’

14-So he went down and immersed himself seven times in the Jordan, according to the word of the man of God; his flesh was restored like the flesh of a young boy, and he was clean.

15-Then he returned to the man of God, he and all his company; he came and stood before him and said, ‘Now I know that there is no God in all the earth except in Israel; please accept a present from your servant

16-But he said, ‘As the LORD lives, whom I serve, I will accept nothing!’

I hope you can see where we differ.

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

07-15-2012, 04:20 PM	#11
Duvduv Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: USA Posts: 4,095	If the leprosy was tzaraat in Greek then the authors surely knew that it did not exist in second temple times and that the priests did not cure it but only diagnosed its progress according to Leviticus. So a Jesus would have no role in it. He could have just as easily cured some other actual disease and gotten the same accolades without anyone knowing the better of it.

07-15-2012, 05:41 PM	#13
Duvduv Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: USA Posts: 4,095	I disagree. There would be no precedent for anyone healing the tzaraat OR for its existence in the second Temple period OR for anyone to be deemed curing it even if he were a prophet. Even Elisha did not go beyond the requirements of the Torah in which even priests themselves did not provide a cure.

07-15-2012, 05:57 PM	#15
Iskander Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: United Kingdom Posts: 3,619	2Kings 5 1-...The man [Naaman], though a mighty warrior, suffered from leprosy.* 10-Elisha sent a messenger to him, saying, ‘Go, wash in the Jordan seven times, and your flesh shall be restored and you shall be clean.’ 14-So he went down and immersed himself seven times in the Jordan, according to the word of the man of God; his flesh was restored like the flesh of a young boy, and he was clean. 15-Then he returned to the man of God, he and all his company; he came and stood before him and said, ‘Now I know that there is no God in all the earth except in Israel; please accept a present from your servant 16-But he said, ‘As the LORD lives, whom I serve, I will accept nothing!’ I hope you can see where we differ.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.