@rickgill
“You quoted the last part of the text but failed to quote what was above it. It mentions ” malacious witness”
And DIgilent inquiry done by the priests…was jesus on about malacious witnesses? was he on about slanderers? Was he on about false witnesses? you talk about slappjng across the face? What has this got to do with false witnesses, malacious witness…?”
The passage in Deut ends with a general moral teaching take-away from the specific case of false-witnesses. That the evil should be purged from the society, the people will hear of the punishment of refrain from the evil – an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.
The topic of discussion is whether Matthew’s Jesus knowingly contradicts the torah. “you have heard it said … I however say …”
Seems like an open and shut case.
@Robert
*-That’s clearly your interpretation, and it may even be what a given author intended, but the rabbis, Jesus included, were a bit more broad minded than you.*
The question is does Matthew’s Jesus (not the historical Jesus) knowingly contradict a teaching of the torah. Are there any instances of rabbis knowingly contradicting the torah? “you have heard it said … I however say to you …
*-So what. The rabbis saw themselves as having the authority to issue binding interpretations, even in opposition to what might be said or thought to be God’s own intent, whether as written in the law or even as recounted as God’s own declared will from heaven.*
Matthew’s Jesus is not issuing an interpretation – he is declaring himself to be in contradiction to the torah. ” … I however say”
*-Sure, but Jesus was simply agreeing with Shammai, or vice-versa. The rabbis were not encumbered by a modern Christian fundamentalist sense of literal inerrancy. They disagreed about most everything written in the law. Even the interpretation and implications of the very first verse of the bible could be interpreted in a diametrically opposed manner by contemporary authorities.*
Matthew’s Jesus is not disagreeing here with someone else’s interpretation of the law, he is disagreeing with his own interpretation of the law, ie he is stating clearly his own opposition to what he believes the law is saying.
*-“How can you be so obtuse? … Is it deliberate?”*
Every instance of “son of man” in the gospel of Jesus is referring to Jesus himself. Jesus is claiming to be the Lord of Sabbath in Matthew. This contradicts the law.
*-We’re not talking about how Mark understood it, but what was the actual context of the discussion as recounted by Mark and then Matthew. And then let’s go back further to what the historical Jesus may have meant in such a debate, if it ever occurred.*
Whatever the context, its the same discussion recounted in Matthew and Mark – I’m just saying my interpretation of the statement is the same as Mark’s (which is that Jesus is claiming all foods are clean). And we have to assume that Mark had a better understanding of the context than either of us.
*-In the parable, if originally told by Jesus, he is not declaring himself to be the Son of Man. Nor is there anything here contradicting the Torah.*
We’re discussing Matthew’s Jesus – and in every instance of Matthew’s gospel “son of man” refers to jesus.
did jesus mean a simple slap in the face or did he mean hitting the face using anything? Did jesus mean that one should turn the cheek even if they get their jaw broken? maybe jesus is not talking about severe injuries when he said “turn the other cheek”
he said “the pharisees sit in moses seat”
Sitting in moses seat means they help you get justice.
he said “i have come to obey the law”
that the pharisees sit in moses seat in jesus’ eyes must mean that they had authority to give out interpretation of torah.
@rickgill
“the sribes and pharisees sit in moses seat so you must do what they say” is akin to “render on to Caesar what is Caesar’s”
Sitting in Moses seat gives them secular power so you must do what they say – christianity was not intended to be a subversive or revolutionary organisation.
But they have no moral authority – “Woe to you scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when you have succeeded, you make them twice as much a son of hell as you are.”
What rickgill and Robert said. If the sentiments expressed by the Matthean Jesus go back to the historical Jesus then in the controversies of his time about the best interpretation of the Law he is taking stringent, hard-core, dare I say “fundamentalist”, positions. But he also places personal ethics above rote practice. Like most of the Prophets! Jesus wasn’t creative. He had good writers!
brenmcg, of course Jesus is being given authority to make pronouncements about how best to obey the law. That’s Matthew’s major theme. Jesus is a new Moses. But by his own confession, he is not doing away with the Law, Jesus is FULFILLING it. Only in conservative protestant Christianity does “fulfilling” become synonymous with “doing away with”.
What does it mean that religious pharisees who interpret torah have “secular pwr” ?
the torah is supposed to be divine revelation which requires clarification.
Quote:
When you read the Torah, you are getting a limited view of the laws and instructions as they were worded, but you have no idea how they’re to be actually practiced or understood without the assistance of the Oral Traditions. For example, You can read, “Eye for an Eye” and think the judgement is quite obvious, but only after Rabbinic tradition forces you to examine the statement more closely do you realize that what is written doesn’t necessarily work out in practice (e.g. can a blind person go around putting out people’s eyes with impunity?)
end quote
also jesus makes a case for his work on sabbath based on oral tradition pertaining to circumsicion on sabbath. jesus entire argument would collapse had he not used amunition from oral torah.
@Stephen
*- If the sentiments expressed by the Matthean Jesus go back to the historical Jesus then in the controversies of his time about the best interpretation of the Law he is taking stringent, hard-core, dare I say “fundamentalist”, positions.*
No he’s not. Matthew 11:28-30 “Come to me all you who are weary and burdened and I will give you rest … for my yoke is easy and my burden is light.”
Your understanding of Matthew’s Jesus is different from Matthew’s understanding of Jesus.
*- brenmcg, of course Jesus is being given authority to make pronouncements about how best to obey the law. That’s Matthew’s major theme. Jesus is a new Moses.*
No he’s not – “all authority in heaven and earth has been given to me” – this is not the new Moses.
“Drink from it all of you. This is my blood of the covenant which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins” that’s not the new Moses.
*- But by his own confession, he is not doing away with the Law, Jesus is FULFILLING it. Only in conservative protestant Christianity does “fulfilling” become synonymous with “doing away with”.*
No – if you want to understand what Jesus means by “fulfilling” you must quote the verse entirely.
“Think not that I have come to abolish the law or **the prophets**, I have not come to abolish but to fulfill”.
He “fulfills” the prophets by fulfilling their prophecies.
“And so was fulfilled what the Lord had said through the prophet: Out of Egypt I called my son.”
“Then what was said through the prophet Jeremiah was fulfilled”
“So was fulfilled what was said through the prophets, that he would be called a Nazarene.”
The reason he has come is to fulfill the prophecies in the law and prophets – abolishing the law may or may not be a side-consequence. What he certainly doesn’t do in Matthew is tell his disciples they need to follow the law – they need to follow him (whose yoke is easy and burden is light).
It may or may not be prophesied in that torah that it will be upheld – all prophecies are open to interpretation.
Is Jesus actually fulfilling what was said by the prophets that “out of egypt I have called my son”?
But the relevant point to this discussion is that Jesus does not claim in Matthew 5:17 that the commandments of the torah must be followed (he gives commands in contradiction to them). He claims only to be fulfilling the prophecies of the torah and prophets.
But the relevant point to this discussion is that Jesus does not claim in Matthew 5:17 that the commandments of the torah must be followed…
Congrats brenmcg you’ve reached a position where you can interpret the scripture to mean just the opposite of what it actually means. You accomplish this by assuming a prior faith position which forms a lens through which you view it.
Once again we reach an impasse. I have no problem discussing these matters but I do get tired of going around in a circle.
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets (ie the scriptures) I have not come to abolish but to fulfill (plērōsai). For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not one iota not the least stroke of a pen will by any means disappear from the Law until everything has happened (genētai)”.
Mat 26:53-54 “Do you think I cannot call on my Father and he will give me now more than twelve legions of angels? But how then would the Scriptures (ie the law and prophets) be fulfilled (plērōthōsin) that say it must happen (genesthai) so?”
Far from interpreting this in just the opposite way to what it actually means this is clearly what Matthew has in mind. Jesus has come to fulfill the scriptures’ prophecies and not one iota of them will change until everything they prophesy has happened.
Matthew 13:52 “Therefore every scribe (teacher of the law) who has been a discipled into the kingdom of heaven is like the owner of a house who brings out of his treasure new as well as old.”
ie when scribes are brought into the kingdom they start to teach new things.
Matthew 9:17 “Neither do people pour new wine into old wineskins. If they do, the skins will burst the wine will run out and the wineskins will be ruined. No they pour new wine into new wineskins and both are preserved.”
ie Jesus is bringing something new.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)