Behold, It Was Leah!

[Ben_Masada]

But as to all Pharisees being Teachers of the Law? Or, as our translations of the Bible would say: “Doctors of the Law”?
Yes, now I remember Jesus having said to Nicodemus (John 3): “You are a doctor in Israel and you don’t know these things?” And you’re right, I don’t think Nicodemus was a scribe… But I think he also was a member of the Sanhedrin?

One did not have to be a Pharisee to be a member of the Sanhedrin, neither were all members of the Sanhedrin Pharisees. But usually they were all rich Jews. You must remember Joseph of Arimathea, a super well-to-do Jew. No, Nicodemus was not a Scribe. He was a very rich Pharisee.

 

[Lapell]

One did not have to be a Pharisee to be a member of the Sanhedrin, neither were all members of the Sanhedrin Pharisees. But usually they were all rich Jews. You must remember Joseph of Arimathea, a super well-to-do Jew. No, Nicodemus was not a Scribe. He was a very rich Pharisee.

Yes, there were both Saduccees and Pharisees in the Sanhedrin, I already knew that… but not all Pharisees were members of the Sanhedrin! So I doubt they were all “Doctors” of the Law!

 

[anthony022071]

So, you do believe that Jesus did brake the Sabbath? You know this for sure, or from just those Pharisees’ words? It was said that Jesus taught with authority, meaning that what he teaches he practices (according to a priest who taught a Bible Study on various texts of the NT).

Jesus did practice what he preached,but that is not what is meant when the gospel of Mark says that he spoke with authority and not as the scribes.

Now to those Pharisees He and His disciples were doing a thing forbidden on Shabbat. But my understanding is that not every Jewish rabbi agreed on what was considered forbidden work on Shabbat and what was allowed, even though there are basic criterias to help identify them. I think this case was one of the things considered to be in more of a grey zone… Was the “614th commandment” already in use back then?

Whether or not every rabbi agreed on what was considered forbidden work,there were those who accused Jesus of breaking the Sabbath – which he did,not as a rebel,but as one who had authority over the Sabbath.

 

[Ben_Masada]

Yes, there were both Saduccees and Pharisees in the Sanhedrin, I already knew that… but not all Pharisees were members of the Sanhedrin! So I doubt they were all “Doctors” of the Law!

**I believe they were all Doctors of the Law. The difference is that the Saduccees were more Biblical and much less Talmudic. I mean, they were too stuck to the letter, without that large margin of bending offered by the Oral Law. They were much like the Karaite Jews of today. **

 

[Lapell]

Jesus did practice what he preached,but that is not what is meant when the gospel of Mark says that he spoke with authority and not as the scribes.

Now to those Pharisees He and His disciples were doing a thing forbidden on Shabbat. But my understanding is that not every Jewish rabbi agreed on what was considered forbidden work on Shabbat and what was allowed, even though there are basic criterias to help identify them. I think this case was one of the things considered to be in more of a grey zone… Was the “614th commandment” already in use back then?

Whether or not every rabbi agreed on what was considered forbidden work,there were those who accused Jesus of breaking the Sabbath – which he did,not as a rebel,but as one who had authority over the Sabbath.Since when, dear Anthony, is someone automatically guilty just because some people have accused him?

 

[Lapell]

Jesus did practice what he preached,but that is not what is meant when the gospel of Mark says that he spoke with authority and not as the scribes.

Now to those Pharisees He and His disciples were doing a thing forbidden on Shabbat. But my understanding is that not every Jewish rabbi agreed on what was considered forbidden work on Shabbat and what was allowed, even though there are basic criterias to help identify them. I think this case was one of the things considered to be in more of a grey zone… Was the “614th commandment” already in use back then?

Whether or not every rabbi agreed on what was considered forbidden work,there were those who accused Jesus of breaking the Sabbath – which he did,not as a rebel,but as one who had authority over the Sabbath.Since when, dear Anthony, is the accused party automatically guilty just because he is accused?

 

[Lapell]

Sorry! I did twice the same thing, I hadn’t seen that my reply was printed, but after “(quote)” in the middle of the paragraph starting with the last part of Anthony’s quote],

 

[anthony022071]

The Torah was written by and in the language of man. They were Israelites, Jews, that is. The culture gave origin to the Torah and not the other way around. You are being too anthropomorphic in your views of God.

You are being too anthropological in your view of your religion.
The origin of the Torah is the revealed Word of God.

Scripture describes God in anthropomorphic terms because the Hebrews knew him to be a real person and alive who loves mankind and interferes with history. They did not speak of him as a concept.

 

[Ben_Masada]

You are being too anthropological in your view of your religion.
The origin of the Torah is the revealed Word of God.

Scripture describes God in anthropomorphic terms because the Hebrews knew him to be a real person and alive who loves mankind and interferes with history. They did not speak of him as a concept.

**God in Judaism is not a concept. He is real. God is the only Incorporeal thing that is understood as a real Being. All else which is incorporeal is but emanation.

With such ideas as you express in this post of yours above, I understand that your mind is not equipped to figure Incorporeal Reality.**

 

[anthony022071]

Since when, dear Anthony, is the accused party automatically guilty just because he is accused?

I never said that.

The middle part of my post was actually Ben Masada’s words.

 

[anthony022071]

Regarding authority with the option to break the Sabbath, mind you that to keep the Sabbath holy is the 4th commandment of the Law. If Jesus broke that law, he lied according to Matthew 5:19, and committed a sin. Therefore, he was not sinless.

It would only have been a sin if Jesus had no authority over the law – if he did it out of defiance or contempt for the law.

 

[anthony022071]

God in Judaism is not a concept. He is real. God is the only Incorporeal thing that is understood as a real Being. All else which is incorporeal is but emanation.

The angels are also incorporeal beings.

With such ideas as you express in this post of yours above, I understand that your mind is not equipped to figure Incorporeal Reality.

If God is personal and loves his creation and interferes with history,then it is allright to speak of him in figurative or anthropomorphic terms,as did the scripture writers.

 

[Ben_Masada]

The angels are also incorporeal beings.

If God is personal and loves his creation and interferes with history,then it is allright to speak of him in figurative or anthropomorphic terms,as did the scripture writers.

**Angels are emanations and not real beings.

God is not personal but we can strike a personal relationship with Him. Love is an emotion. God does not have emotions. But it’s perfectly allright to speak of God in figurative or antrhropomorphic terms, as we have in the Scriptures. It’s even psychologically healthy. The point is to be aware that the language is figurative. That in reality God is Incorporeal and there is nothing personal about incorporeality.**

 

[Ben_Masada]

It would only have been a sin if Jesus had no authority over the law – if he did it out of defiance or contempt for the law.

Again, I repeat, at least, until you get it. Jesus, according to Matthew 5:19 confirmed every one of the commandments of the Law down to the letter, and warned us all to do the same and teach them thus. If he broke the Sabbath, he committed two sins: The first for breaking the Law, and the second for lying that he had come to fulfill every commandment down to the letter.

 

[Lapell]

I never said that.

The middle part of my post was actually Ben Masada’s words.

Thanks for telling me. I believe you. I apologize.

 

[Lapell]

**Angels are emanations and not real beings.

God is not personal but we can strike a personal relationship with Him. Love is an emotion. God does not have emotions. But it’s perfectly allright to speak of God in figurative or antrhropomorphic terms, as we have in the Scriptures. It’s even psychologically healthy. The point is to be aware that the language is figurative. That in reality God is Incorporeal and there is nothing personal about incorporeality.**

Not even real, personal spiritual beings, Ben? I doubt all Jews agree with you here. You are just one Jew among others, you are not the whole of Judaism incarnate just by yourself. It can’t be!

 

[vacath]

Ben:

Again, I repeat, at least, until you get it. Jesus, according to Matthew 5:19 confirmed every one of the commandments of the Law down to the letter, and warned us all to do the same and teach them thus. If he broke the Sabbath, he committed two sins: The first for breaking the Law, and the second for lying that he had come to fulfill every commandment down to the letter.

Ben, you are a careful reader of the New Testament but not careful enough. Also, it is curious that you, an adherent of a non-evangelizing religion, Judaism, are attempting to get out the truth to Catholics on a Catholic board. Be that as it may. . . .

Your assumption that God’s incorporeal Being precludes personality is an assumption that’s fair in the context of Judaism that does not regard Jesus as the Messiah and Son of God.

However, if the New Testament is worth reading and discussing, then it reveals Jesus as Messiah and Son of God, the Second Person of the Triune Godhead become incarnate to redeem the creation that fell away from God’s ordained pattern.

So God is personal, he is creative, and his creative action has established a pattern that humanity (insofar as it’s subject to sin, suffering, and death) and the rest of creation (insofar as it’s subject to suffering and death) has fallen away from. The divinely established pattern is revealed in the Noahide Law, the Abrahamic Covenant, the Mosaic Law, and the Natural Moral Law.

The passage you cited from Matthew shows Jesus as the Lawgiver, the New Moses. As such, he has the sovereign ability to interpret the Law. What you style his breaking of the Mosaic Law is not a breaking but a correct interpretation of it in the circumstances, just as his healing people on the Sabbath was not a breaking of the Law but a fulfillment of the greater Law to love one’s neighbor as one’s self.

If you don’t believe me, see Pope Benedict XVI’s Jesus of Nazareth, which dialogues with Rabbi Jacob Neusner about this particular episode. Jesus’s violation of the Sabbath is really a trivial matter, Neusner notes, what really enrages the Pharisees of Jesus’s time is his claim to be Lord of the Sabbath. If he is the Incarnate Son of God, however, he most certainly is Lord of the Sabbath.

Also, on a side note, your assumption that angels are emanations rather than personal beings is incompatible with the Catholic teaching that they are personal beings, though they were emanated from, or created by God. Moreover, I don’t see how your argument for angels’ impersonality has any more claim to be a right interpretation of what the Jewish Scriptures say about angels than does our teaching. I’m not saying this proves anything either way; I’m just saying that this side point seems to muddy the water. But at the same time I’m relieved because it seems a solid bit of Judaism, which is refreshing after you dosed us with that -]Da Vinci Code-esqe /-]stuff about Jesus’s beloved disciple.

May God lead you to his highest truth, and please pray the same for me,

 

[Ben_Masada]

Ben:

Ben, you are a careful reader of the New Testament but not careful enough. Also, it is curious that you, an adherent of a non-evangelizing religion, Judaism, are attempting to get out the truth to Catholics on a Catholic board. Be that as it may.

On a non-Catholic board.

Your assumption that God’s incorporeal Being precludes personality is an assumption that’s fair in the context of Judaism that does not regard Jesus as the Messiah and Son of God.

That’s not an assumption. Jesus himself said to the Samaritan woman that God is Spirit, and that we must worship Him in spirit. (John 4:24)

However, if the New Testament is worth reading and discussing, then it reveals Jesus as Messiah and Son of God, the Second Person of the Triune Godhead become incarnate to redeem the creation that fell away from God’s ordained pattern.

And here is the reason why I am here in this non-Catholic forum. To try to fix the image of Judaism you guys distort in the eyes of the world by using a religious Jew in order to insert Hellenistic innovations into it.

So God is personal, he is creative, and his creative action has established a pattern that humanity (insofar as it’s subject to sin, suffering, and death) and the rest of creation (insofar as it’s subject to suffering and death) has fallen away from. The divinely established pattern is revealed in the Noahide Law, the Abrahamic Covenant, the Mosaic Law, and the Natural Moral Law.

We can indeed relate to God in a personal basis, but to expect that the Incorporeal act in a personal way with us is utopia.

The passage you cited from Matthew shows Jesus as the Lawgiver, the New Moses. As such, he has the sovereign ability to interpret the Law. What you style his breaking of the Mosaic Law is not a breaking but a correct interpretation of it in the circumstances, just as his healing people on the Sabbath was not a breaking of the Law but a fulfillment of the greater Law to love one’s neighbor as one’s self.

**I am not one to say that Jesus broke the Sabbath by healing people on the Sabbath. The opposite is true. That’s a good thing to do on the Sabbath. The accusation was made by people who knew close to zero about being Jewish is. **

If you don’t believe me, see Pope Benedict XVI’s Jesus of Nazareth, which dialogues with Rabbi Jacob Neusner about this particular episode. Jesus’s violation of the Sabbath is really a trivial matter, Neusner notes, what really enrages the Pharisees of Jesus’s time is his claim to be Lord of the Sabbath. If he is the Incarnate Son of God, however, he most certainly is Lord of the Sabbath.

There was no violation of the Sabbath by Jesus, and the Pharisees knew that. As I said above, this is an accusation by the gospel writer who was a Gentile who had no knowledge of Judaism. And with regards to being lord of the Sabbath, we all are, since the Sabbath was established for man and not man for the Sabbath. It means we can do to the Sabbath whatever we want. I chose to sanctify it. You chose to exchange it for another day, and others just don’t observe any at all. And everything is just fine.

Also, on a side note, your assumption that angels are emanations rather than personal beings is incompatible with the Catholic teaching that they are personal beings, though they were emanated from, or created by God. Moreover, I don’t see how your argument for angels’ impersonality has any more claim to be a right interpretation of what the Jewish Scriptures say about angels than does our teaching. I’m not saying this proves anything either way; I’m just saying that this side point seems to muddy the water. But at the same time I’m relieved because it seems a solid bit of Judaism, which is refreshing after you dosed us with that -]Da Vinci Code-esqe /-]stuff about Jesus’s beloved disciple.

When our Scriptures speaks about angels, it is either as a personification of emanations or when they are perceived in dreams or in visions, when everything is possible. Apart from this, angels are not real beings.

 

[Ben_Masada]

Not even real, personal spiritual beings, Ben? I doubt all Jews agree with you here. You are just one Jew among others, you are not the whole of Judaism incarnate just by yourself. It can’t be!

**In fact, they say, “Two Jews, three opinions.” Therefore, I speak only for myself, and I don’t like when people try to refute me with opinions of another man. We have the Scriptures for that. **

 

[Lapell]

**In fact, they say, “Two Jews, three opinions.” Therefore, I speak only for myself, and I don’t like when people try to refute me with opinions of another man. We have the Scriptures for that. **

Well, is your description of angels as “emanations of God” found anywhere in the TaNaKH? I thought the Hebrew word for “angels” meant “messengers”, not “emanations”! And you have the nerve to demand of us that we answer you from the Scriptures alone?