Before Jesus did the Jewish faith injoy infallible authority?

[Shellac]

Ok as Cathilics the Church has authority from God to teach faith and morals, and in her teaching she is preserved from error by the special guidance of the Holy Ghost.

Did the Jewish faith also have infallible authority before Jesus was born? Did they lose it after the catholic Church was born?

 

[Newbie2]

As Christianity is based on and prefigured in the Jewish faith, yes. The Scriptures were then and are still now considered to be the infallible word of the very same God.

 

[jericho777]

Didn’t Jesus take to task the religous leaders for adding to the word of G-d? I think they were hardly infallible as are all men. Mark 7:1-13 1The Pharisees and some of the teachers of the law who had come from Jerusalem gathered around Jesus and 2saw some of his disciples eating food with hands that were “unclean,” that is, unwashed. 3(The Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they give their hands a ceremonial washing, holding to the tradition of the elders. 4When they come from the marketplace they do not eat unless they wash. And they observe many other traditions, such as the washing of cups, pitchers and kettles.a)

5So the Pharisees and teachers of the law asked Jesus, “Why don’t your disciples live according to the tradition of the elders instead of eating their food with ‘unclean’ hands?”

6He replied, “Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you hypocrites; as it is written:

“‘These people honor me with their lips,

but their hearts are far from me.

7They worship me in vain;

their teachings are but rules taught by men.

***8You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to the traditions of men.” ***

9And he said to them: ***“You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe your own traditions! ***10For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother, and, Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.’e 11But you say that if a man says to his father or mother: ‘Whatever help you might otherwise have received from me is Corban’ (that is, a gift devoted to God), 12then you no longer let him do anything for his father or mother. ***13Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition ***that you have handed down. And you do many things like that.”

 

[Newbie2]

Didn’t Jesus take to task the religous leaders for adding to the word of G-d? I think they were hardly infallible as are all men. Mark 7:1-13 1The Pharisees and some of the teachers of the law who had come from Jerusalem gathered around Jesus and 2saw some of his disciples eating food with hands that were “unclean,” that is, unwashed. 3(The Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they give their hands a ceremonial washing, holding to the tradition of the elders. 4When they come from the marketplace they do not eat unless they wash. And they observe many other traditions, such as the washing of cups, pitchers and kettles.a)

5So the Pharisees and teachers of the law asked Jesus, “Why don’t your disciples live according to the tradition of the elders instead of eating their food with ‘unclean’ hands?”

6He replied, “Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you hypocrites; as it is written:

“‘These people honor me with their lips,

but their hearts are far from me.

7They worship me in vain;

their teachings are but rules taught by men.

***8You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to the traditions of men.” ***

9And he said to them: ***“You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe your own traditions! ***10For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother, and, Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.’e 11But you say that if a man says to his father or mother: ‘Whatever help you might otherwise have received from me is Corban’ (that is, a gift devoted to God), 12then you no longer let him do anything for his father or mother. ***13Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition ***that you have handed down. And you do many things like that.”

It wasn’t that they were adding to the word of God, per se, rather that they were misapplying the word of God.

 

[wmscott]

Didn’t Jesus take to task the religous leaders for adding to the word of G-d? I think they were hardly infallible as are all men. Mark 7:1-13 1The Pharisees and some of the teachers of the law who had come from Jerusalem gathered around Jesus and 2saw some of his disciples eating food with hands that were “unclean,” that is, unwashed. 3(The Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they give their hands a ceremonial washing, holding to the tradition of the elders. 4When they come from the marketplace they do not eat unless they wash. And they observe many other traditions, such as the washing of cups, pitchers and kettles.a)

5So the Pharisees and teachers of the law asked Jesus, “Why don’t your disciples live according to the tradition of the elders instead of eating their food with ‘unclean’ hands?”

6He replied, “Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you hypocrites; as it is written:

“‘These people honor me with their lips,

but their hearts are far from me.

7They worship me in vain;

their teachings are but rules taught by men.

***8You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to the traditions of men.” ***

9And he said to them: ***“You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe your own traditions! ***10For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother, and, Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.’e 11But you say that if a man says to his father or mother: ‘Whatever help you might otherwise have received from me is Corban’ (that is, a gift devoted to God), 12then you no longer let him do anything for his father or mother. ***13Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition ***that you have handed down. And you do many things like that.”

And this “Tradition” you have cited is a man made tradition (ritual washing), not to be confused with Sacred Tradition.

 

[jericho777]

And this “Tradition” you have cited is a man made tradition (ritual washing), not to be confused with Sacred Tradition.

Hi Newbie2 and wmscott, I think this shows that they were not infallable because they added to G-ds law that was already delivered to them. Their job was to uphold and keep pure the word of G-d.

It goes way beyond ritual washings v 9-13. They had so added to and changed G-ds clear written instruction that it was almost unrecognisable. Jesus was saying the word that was delivered to them was made of no effect for them. Even quoting Isaiah saying that they were worshiping the Lord in vain because they were not worshiping G-d in the truth of His infallable word. Hope this clarifies what I said.

 

[CaptainPicard]

They had some sort of teaching authority. I’m not sure if it can be considered infallible teaching authority. Certainly it wasn’t the fullness of revealed truth like the Church enjoys because Jesus, and later the Holy Spirit through the apostles, hadn’t yet revealed everything that God wished to give to us.

Matthew 23: 2-3

“The scribes and the Pharisees have taken their seat on the chair of Moses. Therefore, do and observe all things whatsoever they tell you, but do not follow their example. For they preach but they do not practice.”

They had authority because they sat on the chair of Moses, even if what they practiced was wicked.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

Ok as Cathilics the Church has authority from God to teach faith and morals, and in her teaching she is preserved from error by the special guidance of the Holy Ghost.

Did the Jewish faith also have infallible authority before Jesus was born? Did they lose it after the catholic Church was born?

No one ever had it.

.

 

[CaptainPicard]

Hi Newbie2 and wmscott, I think this shows that they were not infallable because they added to G-ds law that was already delivered to them. Their job was to uphold and keep pure the word of G-d.

It goes way beyond ritual washings v 9-13. They had so added to and changed G-ds clear written instruction that it was almost unrecognisable. Jesus was saying the word that was delivered to them was made of no effect for them. Even quoting Isaiah saying that they were worshiping the Lord in vain because they were not worshiping G-d in the truth of His infallable word. Hope this clarifies what I said.

It is odd that in the same chapter (Matt 23) Jesus says to listen to the pharisees (quoted in my above post) and later gives an example of a false teaching of theirs:
“‘If one swears by the temple, it means nothing, but if one swears by the gold of the temple, one is obligated.’”

As a Catholic, I might guess that one possible explanation is that in their official capacity they had the authority and perhaps guidance from God to avoid error, while in their private lives would teach and practice many strange traditions that are foreign and even opposed to the word of God. This is just a guess. I say this as a Catholic, who would explain the evil deeds of some of the Catholic clergy in much the same way.

 

[wmscott]

It is odd that in the same chapter (Matt 23) Jesus says to listen to the pharisees (quoted in my above post) and later gives an example of a false teaching of theirs:
“‘If one swears by the temple, it means nothing, but if one swears by the gold of the temple, one is obligated.’”

As a Catholic, I might guess that one possible explanation is that in their official capacity they had the authority and perhaps guidance from God to avoid error, while in their private lives would teach and practice many strange traditions that are foreign and even opposed to the word of God. This is just a guess. I say this as a Catholic, who would explain the evil deeds of some of the Catholic clergy in much the same way.

My only intent was to distinguish between man made tradition and Sacred Tradition.

 

[KathleenGee]

That is a great question that can teach us more…Scriptures has the Oral Tradition that was passed down from recognized prophets through the gathering…

Good to know more…

 

[RoryMcKenzie56]

Ok as Cathilics the Church has authority from God to teach faith and morals, and in her teaching she is preserved from error by the special guidance of the Holy Ghost.

Did the Jewish faith also have infallible authority before Jesus was born? Did they lose it after the catholic Church was born?

I don’t think the Church has ever said one way or another. I think either school of thought could be defended by faithful Catholics who could not at this time be condemned for their speculations.

 

[KyivAndrew]

Hmm. I’m not sure Infallibility is necessarily the proper word to use here since you are using Papal Infallibility as the measuring stick and not the Tanakh itself. The Jews before, during, and after Christ had the Sanhedrin headed by the High-Priest. In the first century before Christ, the Great Sanhedrin was restored to its rightful place in the Chamber of Hewn Stone alongside the Temple; there they could once more lead the nation according to the laws of the Torah and regulate everyday life for the common good. The leaders of the Sanhedrin supervised the Temple service and disbursements from its treasury.

But the Sanhedrin quickly became a source of different opinions. The Sadducees who made up the majority of the Sanhedrin were considered to come from the aristocratic class who were quite willing to cooperate with the rulers from Rome to keep the status quo as is, including their privileged role. Unlike their competitors, the Pharisees, they rejected Oral Law and insisted on a literal interpretation of the Torah. They did not believe in an afterlife unlike the Pharisees who believed in the Oral Law that went on into the Talmud and Mishnah. The Pharisees also believed in an afterlife.

Some Jews, in their wish to avoid the deal making with the occupiers done by the Sanhedrin, went to the Dead Sea to seek ritual purity and set up their ascetic communities there - the Essenes, from where we have the Dead Sea Scrolls.

See the Jewish Encyclopedia: jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=229&letter=S&search=Gabinius

See Also: jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/sadducees_pharisees_essenes.html

There were of course differences of opinion and heated arguments between Pharisees and Sadducees and they did not see eye to eye on some big issues, like the afterlife.

There also developed concurrently two schools of thought on Judaism: the House of Shammai vs. the House of Hillel which came to the fore after the destruction of the Temple.

I’m not sure looking for similarities between the Vatican and the Sanhedrin is entirely illuminating into what each considered “infallible” or how they acted. If you mean was the Torah considered the Law given by God at Sinai then yes this is how we Christians understand it. How it was interpreted and how the Bible and Tradition was and is interpreted by us and the Jews is another story. But what do I know? I’m not Jewish.

 

[jericho777]

Hi Capta(name removed by moderator)icard, I was quoting from Mark 7:1-13 where it is clear that the religious leaders had added to the already delivered word of G-d .

In Mat 23 Moses’ seat was a place of authority for ruling as you showed. We see it was not occupied by only one person but by v. 2“The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat.” I’m not sure how this all worked. I have not studied this yet. Moses however never changed or added to the instruction of G-d. He administered it. (Ps 119:89 For ever, O Lord, thy word standeth firm in heaven.) The word of G-d is unchangeable and eternal. Jesus also pronounced “woe” to them seven times for their actions and told them they were in danger of hell fire. They were also going to be guilty of ALL righteous blood from Able to Zechariah son of Berekiah.

Jesus was pronouncing the woes on them because their judgements came did from Moses‘ seat. Their judgements would not carry weight unless they came from there. You made a good point and said “they had the authority and perhaps guidance from God to avoid error” I believe they did also but they chose their own way.

 

[geometer]

I don’t believe Rabbis teach that anyone is infalible. I don’t believe that is a Jewish idea. There are rules of courtesy afforded to Rabbis. If you ask a Rabbi for an oppinion you are supposed to be satisfied with that oppinion. You are never to argue with a Rabbi to change the Rabbi. If you can not agree with your Rabbi, you then should seek out another Rabbi.

Jews believe that god is infailible and anyone can ask him a question, even catholics.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

I don’t believe Rabbis teach that anyone is infalible.

I think this entire concept of one being “infallible” is foreign to Judaism, Jesus and the Apostles.

.

 

[CaptainPicard]

I think this entire concept of one being “infallible” is foreign to Judaism, Jesus and the Apostles.

.

It certainly wasn’t foreign to Jesus, He was infallible.

We both hold (or I assume that you do – some protestants would disagree) that a whole library of books, the Bible, was written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and was thus infallible. I’m not sure how the Jews at the time viewed the law and the prophets. I suppose that it would depend on who exactly we’re talking about. But I’m guessing that the term “infallible” wouldn’t miss the mark too terribly much as far as their view of what they considered to be scripture. They at least seemed to have a very high view of scripture.

Whether or not Jesus planned on founding a Church with infallible teaching authority is another discussion, but certainly the idea of infallible teaching wasn’t completely foreign.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

It certainly wasn’t foreign to Jesus, He was infallible.

He was God. I don’t know that this question was limited solely, exclusively with God.

We both hold (or I assume that you do – some protestants would disagree) that a whole library of books, the Bible, was written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and was thus infallible.

This is how my Catholic teacher explained it, and my new Protestant ones entirely agreed: The Bible is authoritative because of its Author, Who is God. And it is infallible because God is. Thus, the infalliblity of God extends to His inscripturated words.

But I understand the question not about God but about people.

But I’m guessing that the term “infallible” wouldn’t miss the mark too terribly much as far as their view of what they considered to be scripture. They at least seemed to have a very high view of scripture.

I don’t know, either. I do know the word “infallible” appears nowhere in the Bible - old or new testament. But as you point out, we do seem to agree that such would apply to GOD, and extension, to His words. Perhaps the ancient Jews concurred.

Now, does that mean that they considered the Pharisees to be INFALLIBLE/UNACCOUNTABLE? Or the Sanhedrin? Or the High Priest? Did Jesus? Did Jesus simply accept with docility whatever the Jewish leadership said - insisting such was infallible/unaccountable, incapable of error, to be accepted with docility?

.

 

[Splinker]

There was never an authority within Judiasm which was viewed as infallible. The Sanhedrin would be the final decision on contested points of law. But that doesn’t mean it’s decision could not be overturned in the future. One of the reasons that the Talmud contains minority opinions of rabbis on points of law which were not followed, was because we understood that there might come a time when the minority opinion became the proper one.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

There was never an authority within Judiasm which was viewed as infallible. The Sanhedrin would be the final decision on contested points of law. But that doesn’t mean it’s decision could not be overturned in the future. One of the reasons that the Talmud contains minority opinions of rabbis on points of law which were not followed, was because we understood that there might come a time when the minority opinion became the proper one.

Thank you. That’s what I’ve been told, as well.

I know of nothing in the NT or from the earliest Catholic Church Fathers about “infallibility” either in reference to any other than God (and God’s words of Scripture).

.