Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I was with you until you got to Luke's dubious account of the adolescent Jesus lecturing the elders in the Temple - a paassge we can trace to Josephus, like quite a bit of what Luke comes up with.
It is hardly likely that Jesus' take on 'David and the Shewbread' would have impressed those learned in the Law, or his argument that this invalidates the Sabbath, but of course we never get to hear what the Pharisees have to say about it. The arguments are only one -sided.
I was with you until you got to Luke's dubious account of the adolescent Jesus lecturing the elders in the Temple - a paassge we can trace to Josephus, like quite a bit of what Luke comes up with.
It is hardly likely that Jesus' take on 'David and the Shewbread' would have impressed those learned in the Law, or his argument that this invalidates the Sabbath, but of course we never get to hear what the Pharisees have to say about it. The arguments are only one -sided.
I was lost once he mentioned Jesus having been educated in Scripture. Didn't he supposedly dictate the Hebrew Scripture to the authors?
I was lost once he mentioned Jesus having been educated in Scripture. Didn't he supposedly dictate the Hebrew Scripture to the authors?
The idea is that Jesus learned the scriptures as a youngster and learned them better than most of the teachers of the law. (Josephus says the same about himself in his "Life" - and Luke uses Josephus for his nativity and Gamaliel's speech, though he ballsed them both up) and he 'saw' (following Paul, of course) what was wrong with it. Too much attention to ritual and too little to good behaviour. Which is why he spends so much time castigating the Pharisees for observing the minutiae of Mosaic ritual while being sinful in their own lives, and teaches a New Law which is more based on human ethics, though making a bit of a Pig's ear of it in trying to do more than usual ethics and making himself the focus of social morality.
Coinciding, we will not be in the least bit surprised to hear, with Post Paulinist Christianity, in exactitude, including the misunderstanding and misrepresentation of the Torah, which the real Jesus would have known would never get past the Real teachers of the Law.
But Luke knew it would impress his Christian readers no end - as it still does.
So we both agree it can be proven Stephen Hawking is real. Can't say the same for a god.
Steven Hawking is no longer real.
Are you saying that something that you can't see nor touch in reality is real?
I'm shocked. You sound like someone with Religion. After all, the original gods were deceased Heroes and Kings. By your definition, gods that were very "real" even though they couldn't be perceived.
I was with you until you got to Luke's dubious account of the adolescent Jesus lecturing the elders in the Temple - a paassge we can trace to Josephus, like quite a bit of what Luke comes up with.
It is hardly likely that Jesus' take on 'David and the Shewbread' would have impressed those learned in the Law, or his argument that this invalidates the Sabbath, but of course we never get to hear what the Pharisees have to say about it. The arguments are only one -sided.
Judaism and Christianity are fundamentally differing concepts, with this root difference going far deeper than pedantic arguments about "who knows da real law, yo, represent".
Its like arguing about the supposed fact that the difference in color between an apple and an orange is what makes one a more legitimate fruit. Their color doesn't matter to the argument, because they are so fundamentally different in (theological) concept.
The idea is that Jesus learned the scriptures as a youngster and learned them better than most of the teachers of the law. (Josephus says the same about himself in his "Life" - and Luke uses Josephus for his nativity and Gamaliel's speech, though he ballsed them both up) and he 'saw' (following Paul, of course) what was wrong with it. Too much attention to ritual and too little to good behaviour. Which is why he spends so much time castigating the Pharisees for observing the minutiae of Mosaic ritual while being sinful in their own lives, and teaches a New Law which is more based on human ethics, though making a bit of a Pig's ear of it in trying to do more than usual ethics and making himself the focus of social morality.
He was God. He had an innate understanding of his law.
That's a common rabbinical habit, no? To think that they know and argue better than god? In fact, I know that to be an actual theme for them. Which is the fundamental Christian issue with the Talmud.
Last, what he castigated the pharisees for was far beyond application of the law. It was in regard to their new interpretation of religion (the station of "Rabbi" being a prime indication of such), which Christ came to correct back to its intended state via a New Covenant.
Quote:
Coinciding, we will not be in the least bit surprised to hear, with Post Paulinist Christianity, in exactitude, including the misunderstanding and misrepresentation of the Torah, which the real Jesus would have known would never get past the Real teachers of the Law.
What? Better go back and read your sentence again, ace. Respectfully, it makes zero semantic nor syntactic sense. I think that you omitted the object.
Judaism and Christianity are fundamentally differing concepts, with this root difference going far deeper than pedantic arguments about "who knows da real law, yo, represent".
Its like arguing about the supposed fact that the difference in color between an apple and an orange is what makes one a more legitimate fruit. Their color doesn't matter to the argument, because they are so fundamentally different in (theological) concept.
You're missing the point. I'm not saying which one is correct, but that a Jesus who knew his scripture could not have got away with a bad argument like that and wouldn't have expected to.
He was God. He had an innate understanding of his law.
That's a common rabbinical habit, no? To think that they know and argue better than god? In fact, I know that to be an actual theme for them. Which is the fundamental Christian issue with the Talmud.
Last, what he castigated the pharisees for was far beyond application of the law. It was in regard to their new interpretation of religion (the station of "Rabbi" being a prime indication of such), which Christ came to correct back to its intended state via a New Covenant.
Still missing the point. Given the evidence that the Jesus and the Shewbread example shows that the argument would never stand up to question by teachers of the law, the claim that the jesus of the gospels was learned in it will not stand up and neither does the claim of the young Jesus teaching the elders in the Temple.
To explain why this is, I argue that the gospel was written by Christians, expressing Christian views and they did not argue in a valid way against Judaism, nor did they care whether it was valid or not, just so it was convincing to the Christian audience.
Quote:
What? Better go back and read your sentence again, ace. Respectfully, it makes zero semantic nor syntactic sense. I think that you omitted the object.
I did.
"Coinciding, we will not be in the least bit surprised to hear that it matches with Post Paulinist Christianity, in exactitude, including the misunderstanding and misrepresentation of the Torah, which the real Jesus would have known would never get past the Real teachers of the Law."
Corrected, though I doubt you will take the point any more for my having done so.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
