PDA

View Full Version : Comparing Judaism with Christianity: (moved from WR to Contro)



Jerome1
Sep 2nd 2008, 06:46 PM
These questions are with SFASH in mind but anybody can feel free to respond.

I have noticed a lot of the criticisms aimed at catholicism could have also been aimed at Judaism.

People claim for example that the bible interprets the bible and God would'nt establish an outside body to interpret the law, whether you believe that is the Orthodox, Anglican,RCC etc....

The majority of Jews adhered to the oral Torah or the Mishnah which was used by the scribes and Pharisees to interpret the Torah. The Jews who rejected oral tradition were known as the Karaites. This group came to prominence in Babylon(present day Iraq). They rejected the priestly office established by God, and the oral law. Most Jews believe the oral Torah was given to Moses along with the written law on Mount Sinai.

Christ himself told the crowds to obey everything that the scribes and Pharisees taught them(Matthew23:2-3)

This is because the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God(Romans3:2-3). The key word here is were.

So those that accuse catholics of using sacred tradition and the magisterium to interpret the law, must also admit that the Jews used sacred tradition and their priestly heirarchy to determine the meaning of the Torah.

The person at the top of this heirarchy was the Jewish high priest.

David Taylor
Sep 2nd 2008, 07:02 PM
What's your point here Jerome?

For us to say, 'yep, the leaders of Judaism' were wrong in some of their teachings; just like the leaders of RCC?

Or

Since the leaders of Judaism can't be wrong, then RCC must also be correct?


Can't really see the point of your comparison.

From a Protestant perpsective, both the Jewish leaders and the RCC get alot of teachings wrong, and that too is seen too often enough in many Protestant groups as well.

That's why this board does its best to put the focus on the Holy Bible and the teaching of the Holy Spirit; and not the traditions of men who are so flawed.

Judaism, RCC, and Protestantism all have many flawed doctrines and teachings. Holding to traditions however, external to Scriptures, only makes things worse off; not better.

I can only advise that we all follow the suggestion of Paul to the Colosse church:

Colossians 2:6 "As ye have therefore received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk ye in him: Rooted and built up in him, and stablished in the faith, as ye have been taught, abounding therein with thanksgiving. Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ."

We do this by following His Word which is truth, and the teaching of the Holy Spirit; not embracing the traditions of men we are warned to avoid.

DanDMan64
Sep 2nd 2008, 08:24 PM
Jerome1, please forgive my ignorance, but could you tell me what SFASH stands for?:confused

As to the post in general, I would like to offer these thoughts.

I don't know who are the people that "claim for example that the bible interprets the bible and God wouldn't establish an outside body to interpret the law" but I would guess they're probably us, the protestants, because I wholly agree with that statement.

In comparing Jews, the RCC, and sadly many of our own protestant denominations, I would argue that they all have fallen into the same trap, of establishing hierarchies or priestly schools of thought or theological seminaries or what ever you want to call them, but basically, establishing groups of men who were charged to try to interpret the scriptures on behalf of the rest of the people, thus setting themselves-up as more knowledgeable and more "enlightened" than the rest of us "dumb sheep", and in doing so they deprived the people from the joy of discovering the hidden treasures of the revelation of God's own mind that can only be experienced when each individual believer, in a personal relationship with his Creator and Saviour, is instructed by The Holy Spirit into all truth.

God gave the law to the Jews not only to keep it, but to memorize it and to meditate upon it day and night, and to delight in doing so. He established Levi and his sons as priests to perform the rituals mandated by the law, but He never charged them with becoming "interpreters" of the law to explain it to the people and to tell them what it all meant.

Paul and the Apostles didn't write their letters to a few appointed leaders here and there, to have them argue about what they thought was being said and then filter-out the parts they thought the rest of the congregation should know about, but they wrote them to the whole congregation, and many copies of their letters were made because that was the will of God, and I believe they understood it that way.

It is true that "Christ himself told the crowds to obey everything that the scribes and Pharisees taught them(Matthew23:2-3)" but in almost the same breath He told them not to honor their leadership by doing as they did, because they were hypocrites that taught the people one thing, but they themselves didn't do it and actually all they did was a religious show, they were so given to interpreting the letter of the law, they totally missed the spirit that was in the law. In fact Christ went on to tell them in the following verses, "But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren. 9 And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven. 10 Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ. 11 But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant."

In short what I'm trying to say is this, to try to justify the Hierarchy in the RCC and a lot of our protestant denominations as well, by comparing it to the priestly Hierarchy of the Jews, and claim that it must be OK, is totally missing the mark, that God is a personal God, who has to be experienced personally by each believer and related to personally, and we are not to leave any interpretation to others, but humbly give ourselves over to the task that Paul charged Timothy with when he said " Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth." 2 Timothy 2:15. And I don't think he meant, in a seminary.:hmm:

Jerome1
Sep 2nd 2008, 08:25 PM
The point in comparing, is to show the inconsistent criticisms aimed at the RCC by some people, who claim that this is some kind of RCC invention(ie. having the magisterium interpret and promulgate laws)

Jews did exactly the same thing with the written law, they also believed the oral law was given to Moses on Mount Sinai to instruct them how to use the written law.

That is just one of many examples, Jews also circumcised infants, had purification laws before a person could participate in certain rituals, and had a heirarchical system with the high priest at it's head.

The point is that if you are going to critisize the RCC for it's observance of similar traditions, then you must accept that Judaism had similar traditions before the RCC ever existed.


From a Protestant perpsective, both the Jewish leaders and the RCC get alot of teachings wrong, and that too is seen too often enough in many Protestant groups as well.

How can the oracles of God delivered to Moses on Mount Sinai, which many Jews believe included the oral Torah be wrong?

David Taylor
Sep 2nd 2008, 09:11 PM
How can the oracles of God delivered to Moses on Mount Sinai, which many Jews believe included the oral Torah be wrong?


Because the creation has been, was, continues to be, plagued by sin.

We all fall short.

The Jews practicing Judaism were way wrong...because many of them missed the day of their visitation, and crucified their King promised by the Fathers and Prophets.

But even throughout the failings of the Jewish rulers, God provided a way and a remnant to hold strongly to the truth, and to remain faithful to Him and reject the traditions that trapped and caused so many to miss their Messiah.

IMINXTC
Sep 2nd 2008, 11:51 PM
Jerome1, please forgive my ignorance, but could you tell me what SFASH stands for?:confused

Don't worry! Its just my username!

Jerome1
Sep 3rd 2008, 12:26 AM
Because the creation has been, was, continues to be, plagued by sin.

We all fall short.

The Jews practicing Judaism were way wrong...because many of them missed the day of their visitation, and crucified their King promised by the Fathers and Prophets.

But even throughout the failings of the Jewish rulers, God provided a way and a remnant to hold strongly to the truth, and to remain faithful to Him and reject the traditions that trapped and caused so many to miss their Messiah.

The laws God gave to Moses were inerrant, and tradition holds that he recorded them and that is how we got the first five books in our Old Testaments.

Tradition also holds that God gave Moses the Oral Torah which was passed on faithfully, and eventually had to be written down when Judaism came under threat from persecution.

The Jewish rulers didn't fail in interpreting or teaching the laws of the Old Covenant, otherwise Jesus would not have told the crowds to obey everything the scribes and Pharisees taught them,(Matthew23:2-3). They did however fail to recognize that Christ was the fulfillment of the Old Covenant, and many of them as Christ taught, did not practice what they taught.

Fenris
Sep 3rd 2008, 11:57 AM
Ah...a topic I can really sink my teeth into! :lol:


These questions are with SFASH in mind but anybody can feel free to respond.Don't mind if I do...


I have noticed a lot of the criticisms aimed at catholicism could have also been aimed at Judaism.Do go on...


People claim for example that the bible interprets the bible and God would'nt establish an outside body to interpret the law, whether you believe that is the Orthodox, Anglican,RCC etc....I'm not sure what you mean when you say "the bible interprets the bible". Anyway, are you suggesting that multiple religious groups can be correct? Or are you saying that you're the only one who's right?


The majority of Jews adhered to the oral Torah or the Mishnah which was used by the scribes and Pharisees to interpret the Torah.True...in a way. The oral law is used to interpret the written law. But it wasn't an invention of the rabbis. We believe it was given to Moses at Sinai- at the same time as the written law. The oral law are facts and a logical toolset that is used to divine the true meaning of the written law.

So Jews believe.


The Jews who rejected oral tradition were known as the Karaites. This group came to prominence in Babylon(present day Iraq). They rejected the priestly office established by God, and the oral law. Most Jews believe the oral Torah was given to Moses along with the written law on Mount Sinai.Yes, true. very good!


Christ himself told the crowds to obey everything that the scribes and Pharisees taught them(Matthew23:2-3)

This is because the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God(Romans3:2-3). The key word here is were.I can't comment on this.


So those that accuse catholics of using sacred tradition and the magisterium to interpret the law, must also admit that the Jews used sacred tradition and their priestly heirarchy to determine the meaning of the Torah.

The person at the top of this heirarchy was the Jewish high priest.This is actually untrue. The Jewish High Priest was a Temple functionary- no more than that. The legal issues were settled by the Sanhedrin, a body where the High Priest (and the king, for that matter) had no power.

David Taylor
Sep 3rd 2008, 02:45 PM
I moved this thread from WR to Contro, because Fenris being a non-Christian is allowed to engage in discussions in Contro; but shouldn't be doing to in WR.

Want him to have a chance to participate in this discussion with Jerome; and Jerome can post in Contro just as easily as WR.

..continue..

Fenris
Sep 3rd 2008, 02:52 PM
Thank you, David! :)

Fenris
Sep 3rd 2008, 03:05 PM
Ah, here's the quote I was looking for. In the Talmud, it is said that "A bastard who is a Torah scholar takes precedence over a High Priest who is an ignoramus". This is not only a statement about the value of Torah study, but also a dig at the High Priests of the First Century, who were ignoramuses (and Roman toadies!)

DanDMan64
Sep 3rd 2008, 03:31 PM
[quote=DanDMan64;1773378]Jerome1, please forgive my ignorance, but could you tell me what SFASH stands for?:confused

Don't worry! Its just my username!Thank you for the clarification, I thought it might be a user name, but I wasn't sure since it also sounded like an acronym for something. :D

Jerome1
Sep 3rd 2008, 08:30 PM
I'm not sure what you mean when you say "the bible interprets the bible". Anyway, are you suggesting that multiple religious groups can be correct? Or are you saying that you're the only one who's right?


No i'm saying that God established the Levitical priesthood and gave Moses the Oral Torah as well as the written Torah for them to correctly interpret the written law.



This is actually untrue. The Jewish High Priest was a Temple functionary- no more than that. The legal issues were settled by the Sanhedrin, a body where the High Priest (and the king, for that matter) had no power.


He had specific functions that only he could carry out, for example the high priest was the only one who could appear before the ark of the covenant during the day of atonement. It is fair to say that he was regarded as the most important functionary in the priestly heirarchy.

Fenris
Sep 3rd 2008, 09:14 PM
No i'm saying that God established the Levitical priesthood and gave Moses the Oral Torah as well as the written Torah for them to correctly interpret the written law.Yeah, that's what I think too.




He had specific functions that only he could carry out, for example the high priest was the only one who could appear before the ark of the covenant during the day of atonement. It is fair to say that he was regarded as the most important functionary in the priestly heirarchy.
That he did...

Jerome1
Sep 4th 2008, 09:25 AM
Thanks for moving this David, as Fenris would probably be the best person to confirm what i was saying.

Hi Fenris iv'e seen you posting before, what is your background, are you an Orthodox Jew? If so you're probably in a better position to answer some questions on a discussion i'm having with a fellow catholic(i think he is catholic).

The point of the thread was to look at the Jewish roots in Catholicism, i'll get back to that, hopefully after you answer some of these questions.

Jewish males have to go through the formal process of circumcision as an infant, either a male born to a Jewish Mother, or a person who wants to convert to Judaism. Is circumcision obligatory for all Jewish males(born to Jewish parents, or converts) if they want to participate in all the Jewish rituals/festivals?

I know there is a formal process for Jewish males(ie. circumcision), but are females simply considered Jewish by ethnicity(ie. their Mother is Jewish)?

Would a non circumcised Jew, whether they have converted, or were born to Jewish parents be allowed to participate in all Jewish festivals(ie passover), or would they have to be circumcised before they could participate?

Can children of converts choose to renounce their Judaism when they reach an appropriate age(ie. i believe they can around the age of 12/13)?

Can children who are also born to Jewish parents also formally declare(ie. at a Bar Mitzvah for example) that they no longer wish to practice Judaism? Would this be considered a formal declaration that they are no longer regarded as Jewish?

If you have any references from the Mishnah/Talmud, or other references from Rabbi's it would be appreciated.

Thanks in advance.

Fenris
Sep 4th 2008, 12:32 PM
Hi Fenris iv'e seen you posting before, what is your background, are you an Orthodox Jew?Yes, I am.


The point of the thread was to look at the Jewish roots in Catholicism, i'll get back to that, hopefully after you answer some of these questions.That's fine. Although my contention is that all of Christianity has Jewish roots. I think Catholicism is separated rather far, chronologically, for it to claims stronger Jewish roots than any other part of Christianity. But I suppose that really isn't my place to say...


Jewish males have to go through the formal process of circumcision as an infant, either a male born to a Jewish Mother, or a person who wants to convert to Judaism.Correct.


Is circumcision obligatory for all Jewish males(born to Jewish parents, or converts) if they want to participate in all the Jewish rituals/festivals?I believe so. :hmm: That's a good question, actually.


I know there is a formal process for Jewish males(ie. circumcision), but are females simply considered Jewish by ethnicity(ie. their Mother is Jewish)?Yes. But a boy born of a Jewish mother who is not circumsized is still Jewish. He is just missing an important commandment. Now, a convert who has not been circumsized is not Jewish.


Would a non circumcised Jew, whether they have converted, or were born to Jewish parents be allowed to participate in all Jewish festivals(ie passover), or would they have to be circumcised before they could participate?
They could participate. Actually, I've even had non-Jews at some of my Passover Seders...


Can children of converts choose to renounce their Judaism when they reach an appropriate age(ie. i believe they can around the age of 12/13)?Good qquestion. Were they born after their parents converted, or before? If they were born before their parents converted, then they are converts themselves...and a minor who converts may choose to be a gentile (Bnei Noah is the term) at age of majority.


Can children who are also born to Jewish parents also formally declare(ie. at a Bar Mitzvah for example) that they no longer wish to practice Judaism?
No. They are born into the covenant and have no choice in the matter.


Would this be considered a formal declaration that they are no longer regarded as Jewish?Not technically possible for someone born a Jew.


If you have any references from the Mishnah/Talmud, or other references from Rabbi's it would be appreciated.The topic is very complex. I'll try to do some research if you like.


Thanks in advance.
You are quite welcome.

Jerome1
Sep 4th 2008, 02:26 PM
Yes, I am.


Excellent.


That's fine. Although my contention is that all of Christianity has Jewish roots. I think Catholicism is separated rather far, chronologically, for it to claims stronger Jewish roots than any other part of Christianity. But I suppose that really isn't my place to say...

I'll go through some of the similarites when i get time.



I believe so. :hmm: That's a good question, actually.


I have read that Jews who aren't circumcised were not allowed to participate in the passover?


Yes. But a boy born of a Jewish mother who is not circumsized is still Jewish. He is just missing an important commandment. Now, a convert who has not been circumsized is not Jewish.

If a woman converts do they have to agree to abide by the Mosaic law, and satisfy a group of Rabbi's that she will. And in some cases are both the male/female converts immersed in the mikvah?


They could participate. Actually, I've even had non-Jews at some of my Passover Seders...

I know the nature of the passover has changed since there is no longer a Jewish temple, but do the non-Jews or those that are uncircumcised participate in the Haggadah?


Good qquestion. Were they born after their parents converted, or before? If they were born before their parents converted, then they are converts themselves...and a minor who converts may choose to be a gentile (Bnei Noah is the term) at age of majority.

Does that mean a minor who was born before their parents converted has the opportunity to renounce his/her Judaism at a certain age? Is that age around 12/13 for both boys and girls?


No. They are born into the covenant and have no choice in the matter.

Are there any circumstances were a person born to Jewish parents would know longer be recognized as a Jew?

Is there a form of excommunication in Judaism? If so, if a person who is born to Jewish parents is excommunicated are they no longer considered Jewish?


Not technically possible for someone born a Jew.

My previous question sort of covers this, so technically a person who is born to Jewish parents cannot renounce their Judaism?



The topic is very complex. I'll try to do some research if you like.


There are just two specific questions i'd like references for if you have them.

Can a non-circumcised Jew participate in the passover, i know the nature of the passover has changed since there is no Jewish temple.

They couldn't for example eat the passover meal if they weren't the one obligated to bring the offering, is that correct?

It is most likely different now, because many Jews who celebrate the passover now, would no longer bring an obligatory sacrifice to a preist/Rabbi to perform the sacrificial service.

Males are obliged to be circumcised when they covert, is the formal process for a woman, to agree to abide by Jewish law before a council of Rabbi's, and to sometimes be immersed in the mikvah?


You are quite welcome.

Thanks again

Fenris
Sep 4th 2008, 02:40 PM
I have read that Jews who aren't circumcised were not allowed to participate in the passover?
In Temple times, they were not permitted to eat the Passover sacrifice I believe. Nowadays the point is moot.



If a woman converts do they have to agree to abide by the Mosaic law, and satisfy a group of Rabbi's that she will. And in some cases are both the male/female converts immersed in the mikvah?Yes, and in all cases the convert must immerse in the Mikvah.




I know the nature of the passover has changed since there is no longer a Jewish temple, but do the non-Jews or those that are uncircumcised participate in the Haggadah?Sure, why not? My non-Jewish friends found the whole night fascinating.




Does that mean a minor who was born before their parents converted has the opportunity to renounce his/her Judaism at a certain age? Is that age around 12/13 for both boys and girls?Yes to both questions.




Are there any circumstances were a person born to Jewish parents would know longer be recognized as a Jew?No, they are always bound by the covenant and have the obligation to follow the law, just as any other Jew. An apostate Jew would be denied participating in various religious rituals and cannot be counted as part of a quorum for prayer though.


Is there a form of excommunication in Judaism?Yes. Although since there is no central religious authority, an excommunication generally only applies for the followers of the rabbi performing it.


If so, if a person who is born to Jewish parents is excommunicated are they no longer considered Jewish?An excommunicated individual is still Jewish.




My previous question sort of covers this, so technically a person who is born to Jewish parents cannot renounce their Judaism?Correct.




There are just two specific questions i'd like references for if you have them.

Can a non-circumcised Jew participate in the passover, i know the nature of the passover has changed since there is no Jewish temple.

They couldn't for example eat the passover meal if they weren't the one obligated to bring the offering, is that correct?No, they may eat the Passover meal.


It is most likely different now, because many Jews who celebrate the passover now, would no longer bring an obligatory sacrifice to a preist/Rabbi to perform the sacrificial service.There is no more sacrificial service.

Jerome1
Sep 4th 2008, 04:08 PM
Thanks, you pretty much answered all my questions.

In temple times, the non circumcised or non-Jewish person wouldn't have been able to eat the passover meal, if they were not the ones obligated to bring the sacrifice for sacrificial service by a priest or Rabbi.

Like you said this is a moot point now, so a non-Jew, or uncircumcised person could share in the passover meal now.

Just one more point, male Jewish infants are required to be circumcised, but do female infants or children have a formal procedure akin to circumcision(ie. are they immersed in a mikvah during infancy, childhood)?

And do females have something similar to a bar mitzvah, or is this ritual usually only required of male children?

Fenris
Sep 4th 2008, 05:20 PM
Thanks, you pretty much answered all my questions.
I'm glad I could be helpful.



Just one more point, male Jewish infants are required to be circumcised, but do female infants or children have a formal procedure akin to circumcision(ie. are they immersed in a mikvah during infancy, childhood)?No.

I should add that the reason a convert is circumsized is to enter the covenant. A boy born Jewish is already in the covenant; the circumcision is merely a sign of that.


And do females have something similar to a bar mitzvah, or is this ritual usually only required of male children?
Females have a Bat Mitzvah but it is far less formalized since they are exempt from most rituals.

Jerome1
Sep 4th 2008, 06:18 PM
Thanks again you've been very helpful.

When i get time today or tomorrow, i'll make a brief list of catholic traditions/sacraments which are rooted in Judaism, and which many people criticize the RCC for.

Fenris
Sep 4th 2008, 06:20 PM
When i get time today or tomorrow, i'll make a brief list of catholic traditions/sacraments which are rooted in Judaism, and which many people criticize the RCC for.
OK, and I'll give you my opinion on whether they are rooted in Judaism or not...:)

DanDMan64
Sep 4th 2008, 08:12 PM
The point of the thread was to look at the Jewish roots in Catholicism, i'll get back to that, hopefully after you answer some of these questions. I thought the point of this thread was stated in post # 4 where you stated this...

The point in comparing, is to show the inconsistent criticisms aimed at the RCC by some people, who claim that this is some kind of RCC invention(ie. having the magisterium interpret and promulgate laws)

Jews did exactly the same thing with the written law, they also believed the oral law was given to Moses on Mount Sinai to instruct them how to use the written law.

That is just one of many examples, Jews also circumcised infants, had purification laws before a person could participate in certain rituals, and had a heirarchical system with the high priest at it's head.

The point is that if you are going to critisize the RCC for it's observance of similar traditions, then you must accept that Judaism had similar traditions before the RCC ever existed. I guess since you are the OP you are free to change the point of the thread anytime you like, but I'd rather you do stay in topic.

Quite frankly I find all these questions about Jewish traditions to be irrelevant, Christ came to fulfill the Law, but sadly Judaism in general doesn't want to accept the fact that their Messiah already came, but as the Bible says, "they missed the time of their visitation".

Jerome, do you have any questions for me? was there anything about my post that you'd like to comment about? I tell you what, since we're in the controversial issues board now, how about bringing in a little "controversy" into the discussion, or do you plan to address only Fenris from now on. If you're not afraid of a good debate then why don't we do this. In post #21 you said
When i get time today or tomorrow, i'll make a brief list of catholic traditions/sacraments which are rooted in Judaism, and which many people criticize the RCC for. Can you also make a list of catholic traditions/sacraments which are rooted in the pagan worship of ancient Babylon? :hmm:...those are the ones I mostly criticize the RCC for, not the Jewish ones.

Since we're in the subject of Judaism, I'd like to ask Fenris a question of my own. How does a Jewish person keep his/her peace with YHWH today, and is assured of attaining salvation, since there hasn't been a Temple to offer animal sacrifices for atonement of sins in almost 2000 years now? :confused

And please, don't be offended by these questions either one of you, I just want to make the point, as a protestant and in the love of Christ, that I don't believe that the keeping and practicing of any type of religious "traditions", whether they be Catholic, Jewish, Hindu, Muslim, whatever is enough to attain salvation, only by accepting the invitation of the one who said "I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." (John 14:6) to have a personal relationship with Him who gave His own life as prophesied by many "Jewish" prophets, so that "...whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." (John 3:16). ;)

Fenris
Sep 4th 2008, 08:48 PM
Since we're in the subject of Judaism, I'd like to ask Fenris a question of my own. How does a Jewish person keep his/her peace with YHWH today, and is assured of attaining salvation, since there hasn't been a Temple to offer animal sacrifices for atonement of sins in almost 2000 years now? :confused
Why do you think that I need sacrifice to attain 'salvation', whatever that is...?


And please, don't be offended by these questions either one of you, I just want to make the point, as a protestant and in the love of Christ, that I don't believe that the keeping and practicing of any type of religious "traditions", whether they be Catholic, Jewish, Hindu, Muslim, whatever is enough to attain salvation, only by accepting the invitation of the one who said "I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." (John 14:6) to have a personal relationship with Him who gave His own life as prophesied by many "Jewish" prophets, so that "...whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." (John 3:16). ;)You're entitled to your beliefs. I am entitled to mine.

Jerome1
Sep 5th 2008, 12:16 AM
I guess since you are the OP you are free to change the point of the thread anytime you like, but I'd rather you do stay in topic.


I'm back on topic now, i just wanted to confirm a few things with Fenris because i was debating with someone else on the similarities between Judaism and Catholicism.

As Fenris already pointed out, the RCC probably more than any other christian denomination claims to derive more of it's traditions, rituals, and sacraments from Judaism than any other denomination.

Some of the criticism's aimed at the RCC were also practiced in Judaism.

Some of the points i'll cover when i get more time are, repetitious prayers, a hierarchical preisthood, priestly vestments, infant baptism, purification ceremonies, sacred tradition and the oral law, i think even the term ex cathedra(from the chair) is taken frm Judaism(seat of Moses, Matthew23:2-3).

DanDMan64
Sep 5th 2008, 02:22 AM
Why do you think that I need sacrifice to attain 'salvation', whatever that is...?By "whatever that is...?" I assume you mean "sacrifice" and not salvation.

Are you telling me that Judaism doesn't believe in Genesis, Adam, the Garden of Eden, The fall of man, SIN, and the provision of God for the forgiveness of SIN so that we may enter into His rest, to be SAVED from eternal punishment? Is this all Jews or just you in particular?

If you mean "sacrifice", then {what} about the establishment of animal sacrifices to be performed by the sons of Levi? first in the Tabernacle and later in the Temples of Solomon and Herod? Which ended by force in 70AD after Rome destroyed the last Temple, do you believe that all those had no meaning and were just for show?


You're entitled to your beliefs. I am entitled to mine.You're quite right about that, however I've been commanded by my master, (a Jewish Rabi named Yashua), perhaps you've heard of him, to go into the whole world and challenge the beliefs of all men, and present them with a new set of beliefs, and that included the Jewish traditions as well. So don't be shocked when we "Christians" bring those-up every once in a while in these "Christian Forums" at Bibleforums.org. We only do that because we love you, as Christ loved you enough to become the ultimate "SACRIFICE" for you to make atonement for your sins and provide for you "SALVATION" from eternal damnation in "Gehenna", and that is something you shouldn't brush-off so lightly as just "whatever". :mad:

Fenris
Sep 5th 2008, 09:52 AM
By "whatever that is...?" I assume you mean "sacrifice" and not salvation.No, I mean 'salvation'. The word doesn't feature in my bible.


Are you telling me that Judaism doesn't believe in Genesis, Adam, the Garden of Eden, The fall of man, SIN, and the provision of God for the forgiveness of SIN so that we may enter into His rest, to be SAVED from eternal punishment? Where's this 'eternal punishment' you speak of? I can't find that in my bible, either.


Is this all Jews or just you in particular?Pretty much all Jews.


If you mean "sacrifice", then {what} about the establishment of animal sacrifices to be performed by the sons of Levi? first in the Tabernacle and later in the Temples of Solomon and Herod? Which ended by force in 70AD after Rome destroyed the last Temple, do you believe that all those had no meaning and were just for show? Oh, they obviously had meaning. As part of a process, they were capable of achieving atonement for certain sins. Namely, accidental sins. But they were not the only way and they didn't function for all sins anyway.


You're quite right about that, however I've been commanded by my master, (a Jewish Rabi named Yashua), perhaps you've heard of him, to go into the whole world and challenge the beliefs of all men, and present them with a new set of beliefs, and that included the Jewish traditions as well.
None of that makes him or you right. As I said, I am entitled to my beliefs and you are entitled to yours.


So don't be shocked when we "Christians" bring those-up every once in a while in these "Christian Forums" at Bibleforums.org.
Oh, I'm not.:lol:
You guys are much more interesting when you're not proselytizing though.


We only do that because we love you, as Christ loved you enough to become the ultimate "SACRIFICE" for you to make atonement for your sins and provide for you "SALVATION" from eternal damnation in "Gehenna", and that is something you shouldn't brush-off so lightly as just "whatever". :mad:
As I have become fond of saying, this is a point of faith and not fact.

Jerome1
Sep 5th 2008, 03:14 PM
First off, the accusation that Catholics use repetitious prayers(ie. in the Rosary for example), Catholics would say this is a meditation on scripture. In the Catholic liturgy often times a litany in used(a prayer which involves a recurring refrain). In Psalm 136 for example, Jews in the Temple would have used the refrain, "For his mercy, or his steadfast love endures forever." This would have been repeated many times.

The heirarchical priesthood is similar to that of Catholicism, the head of this heirarchy in Judaism was the high priest, the head of the Catholic Church is the pope. I believe the term ex cathedra(from the chair) is taken from the term, "seat of Moses,"(Matthew23:2-3). The only seat i am aware of is the mercy seat on the arc of the covenant, which was kept in the Holy of Holies, which only the high priest could enter.

Catholic preistly vestments like Jewish priestly vestments are different depending on the ceremony being undertaken, and the importance of the priest. For example the high preist was given special garments distinct from those of the other preists(Exodus39:1-30). I say this because of the accusation aimed at the pope from the Book of Revelation17:4.

As a sign of the Old Covenant Jewish infants on the eigth day were circumcised, their faith was reaffirmed at their Bar Mitzvahs. Catholics baptize infants as a sign of the New Covenant, and children reaffirm their faith during Confirmation.

I'll include more when i get more time.

Fenris
Sep 5th 2008, 03:36 PM
First off, the accusation that Catholics use repetitious prayers(ie. in the Rosary for example), Catholics would say this is a meditation on scripture. In the Catholic liturgy often times a litany in used(a prayer which involves a recurring refrain). In Psalm 136 for example, Jews in the Temple would have used the refrain, "For his mercy, or his steadfast love endures forever." This would have been repeated many times.Jews do have codified prayer.


The heirarchical priesthood is similar to that of Catholicism, the head of this heirarchy in Judaism was the high priest, the head of the Catholic Church is the pope.I disagree that the High Priest had the same role as the Pope. As I stated above, the High Priest was a Temple functionary, no more. Judaism did not and does not have any hierarchy that is analogous to the Catholic church.


Catholic preistly vestments like Jewish priestly vestments are different depending on the ceremony being undertaken, and the importance of the priest. For example the high preist was given special garments distinct from those of the other preists(Exodus39:1-30). I say this because of the accusation aimed at the pope from the Book of Revelation17:4.Well, every religion has special garments.


As a sign of the Old Covenant Jewish infants on the eigth day were circumcised, their faith was reaffirmed at their Bar Mitzvahs. Catholics baptize infants as a sign of the New Covenant, and children reaffirm their faith during Confirmation.
Again, many religions have entrance ceremonies.

DanDMan64
Sep 5th 2008, 05:41 PM
No, I mean 'salvation'. The word doesn't feature in my bible.Well, I'm pretty sure the concept of salvation is in your Bible, even if the word itself is not there, which I believe it is, though it is probably there in the form of a synonym. In any event before I try to correct you, if I may, I need to know how big is your Bible? is it just Torah? or is what I consider to be "The Old Testament" Genesis to Malachi free game?


Where's this 'eternal punishment' you speak of? I can't find that in my bible, either. Again, what are we talking about when you say, "my bible", I believe it's in there too.


Pretty much all Jews.Darn, I was hoping it was just you!

Oh, they obviously had meaning. As part of a process, they were capable of achieving atonement for certain sins. Namely, accidental sins. But they were not the only way and they didn't function for all sins anyway.Well, wouldn't intentional sins carry more weight than accidental sins, like taking any of the 10 commandments and making it a point to break it on purpose? what kind of atonement would not involve the spilling of blood in those cases, other than the blood of the sinner? Even in "Yom Kippur" The day of atonement, animal sacrifices were involved, or am I wrong? :hmm:



None of that makes him or you right. As I said, I am entitled to my beliefs and you are entitled to yours.Beliefs are one thing, they're based on interpretation and they can be influenced by a lot of factors, the truth is just that, it is what it is, and only God knows what it is for sure, so shouldn't it be the desire of every seeker of truth who claims to love God, to be willing to lay aside his/her beliefs if they suddenly were presented with the truth in such a way that it couldn't be denied?

I know if God appeared to me in a vision in such a way that I couldn't deny it was Him talking to me, and told me only the Jewish traditions held the truth, and if I ever wanted to meet Him in Heaven I had to become Jewish and listen to no one but Jewish Rabis from now on, I would drop my Christianity in a second and run to my nearest Synagogue and beg to be converted on the spot, circumcision and all. Would you be willing to do the same if the reverse were to happen? Or would you stubbornly hold to your traditions and say back to God, "Nice try God, but you're entitled to your beliefs and I'm entitled to mine, so no matter what you say I'll never become a Christian." Think about it.:hmm:

Now I know I'm no Oracle of God, at least not as far as you can tell, and such an event will probably never happen to either one of us, but my point is you have to keep an open mind if you believe that there is a God and that He's willing to speak to us today, and that He already gave us His truths in written form, as both you and I believe He did, or am I wrong on that point?


Oh, I'm not.:lol:
You guys are much more interesting when you're not proselytizing though. Well, then I guess you'll probably not find me very interesting at all, cause I'm always proselytizing, even when I don't seem to be doing it. However when I believe I've said enough and I'm talking to a "lost cause" I'll move on to other threads in search of another soul to save, hopefully and atheist. ;)


As I have become fond of saying, this is a point of faith and not fact.On that point I've gotta admit we're getting way-off topic as far as Jerome's points are concerned, so I'll give you an open invitation to continue this discussion privately if you'd like. If not then I bid you fare well and good luck, though I don't really believe in luck. I will however try to stay on topic with Jerome and his thread. :OFFT:

Jerome1
Sep 5th 2008, 06:10 PM
I disagree that the High Priest had the same role as the Pope. As I stated above, the High Priest was a Temple functionary, no more. Judaism did not and does not have any hierarchy that is analogous to the Catholic church.


The High Priest presided over the Sanhedrin(The Pope presides over Ecumenical Councils).

The High Priest had a central residence, usually beside the Jewish Temple.
Catholicism unlike many other denominations has a centralized heirarchy(centered in Rome), this is apposed to the autonomous system adopted by many other denominations.

The High Priest was elected in the Sanhedrin by his fellow priests, similar to the Popes election by Cardinals.

The High Priest was the only one who could enter the Holy of Holies and atone for the peoples sins on Yom Kippur. The High Priest was afforded greater honor than any other priest in the Levitical hierarchy. To simply call him a Temple functionary is to vastly understate his importance within Judaism.


Well, every religion has special garments.

I mentioned this more because of the accusation aimed at the Pope from the Book of Revelation. There are vestments i believe specifically derived from Judaism in the Catholic Church. I don't know what these specifically are though.


Again, many religions have entrance ceremonies.

True the Orthodox Church also practices infant baptism, i mentioned this because of the dispute over infant baptism in christianity.

DanDMan64
Sep 5th 2008, 07:28 PM
First off, the accusation that Catholics use repetitious prayers(ie. in the Rosary for example), Catholics would say this is a meditation on scripture. In the Catholic liturgy often times a litany in used(a prayer which involves a recurring refrain). In Psalm 136 for example, Jews in the Temple would have used the refrain, "For his mercy, or his steadfast love endures forever." This would have been repeated many times.Good point Jerome, however the "accusation" as you call it is not without merit, and in fact I can see that you admit that it is the case in your effort to justify it by bringing-up how it is done in the Jewish tradition as well.

Personally, I don't have a problem with repetitious prayers as long as they are directed at God the Father or The Son, such as "The Lord's Prayer", however I do have a problem with "Hail Mary's" or any other prayers directed at Mary or any other "Saints", I believe that is idolatry as does most of Protestantism, as I'm sure you're aware.

Also personally, I look at prayer as being much more productive and fulfilling when it is spontaneous or unplanned, such as any other conversation you might get into. Repetitious prayers have a tendency to let your mind wonder away from the significance of what the prayer is intended to convey, and I believe God is not fooled because He knows when your heart is not in it. IMHO.


The hierarchical priesthood is similar to that of Catholicism, the head of this hierarchy in Judaism was the high priest, the head of the Catholic Church is the pope. I believe the term ex cathedra(from the chair) is taken from the term, "seat of Moses,"(Matthew23:2-3). The only seat i am aware of is the mercy seat on the arc of the covenant, which was kept in the Holy of Holies, which only the high priest could enter.Hierarchies of any type are a bad idea, and since I don't think God is into coming-up with bad ideas, it must be something that was invented by man, as can be attested to by history in general. For example, no where in Torah do you read of commandments concerning the establishment of "sects" such as the Pharisees, Saducees, Scribes, and when it came to the priesthood, their function was to carry-out the commandments dealing with worship, and to stick to them to the letter without deviation, using the urim and tumin as instruments of consulting God when there was questions as to how any particular point should be carried out. In other words God was saying, I am in charge, I have the last word, "Father knows best" This is what I want and how it needs to be done and it's not open for discussion.

Christ said pretty much the same thing right there in Matthew 23, as I pointed-out before, when He said: "8 But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren. 9 And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven. 10 Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ. 11 But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant. 12 And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted."

You use verses 2 and 3 to make it sound like He (Christ) approved of their hierarchy, but when you read the rest of the chapter, particularly verses 4-7 and on after 13, it is quite clear He didn't approve of it at all, which is why they disliked Him so much to the point they wanted to kill Him, which they eventually succeeded in doing.

As for the Pope, I guess you probably know how I feel about that, you can call him "your head" all you like, but for me and my house, we will serve The Lord, He is my head, and I'll bow down to no man, or angel or any other creature, and the only "seat" I take orders from is in Heaven, it is the eternal Throne of God the Father and His Son Jesus Christ, of which the mercy seat you mentioned was just a symbol.


Catholic preistly vestments like Jewish priestly vestments are different depending on the ceremony being undertaken, and the importance of the priest. For example the high preist was given special garments distinct from those of the other preists(Exodus39:1-30). I say this because of the accusation aimed at the pope from the Book of Revelation 17:4.Priestly vestments where white just like wedding dresses, which is the color representative of "purity" so in the Jewish tradition it had some meaning and a purpose. In ancient Babylon priests wore red and purple, as did many Roman Emperors, so it's not our fault that they happen to be the same colors the CRC picked for it's higher-ups in their Hierarchy, which are the same colors John saw in his vision of the woman in Revelation 17:4. If the Pope doesn't like to be identified as, or associated with Babylon or the Roman emperors, perhaps he should consider changing the color code of their garments to green and yellow perhaps? I think that would be a good way to counter that accusation. ;)

As a sign of the Old Covenant Jewish infants on the eigth day were circumcised, their faith was reaffirmed at their Bar Mitzvahs. Catholics baptize infants as a sign of the New Covenant, and children reaffirm their faith during Confirmation.We like to do a presentation of the child before The Lord and the congregation, kind a like in "The Lion King". In all three cases these acts only have significance to the parents, but not so much to the infant child who has no idea of what's going on, and are generally annoyed by the whole ordeal.

By the way, isn't confirmation or "First Communion" the sacrament by which children are acknowledged as having attained salvation and membership into the Catholic Church. Does that mean that our kids have no chance of being saved unless they convert to Catholicism?


I'll include more when i get more time.Please do!:)

Fenris
Sep 5th 2008, 09:33 PM
Well, I'm pretty sure the concept of salvation is in your Bible,Not in the Christian sense, it isn't.


even if the word itself is not there, which I believe it is, though it is probably there in the form of a synonym. In any event before I try to correct you, if I may, I need to know how big is your Bible? is it just Torah? or is what I consider to be "The Old Testament" Genesis to Malachi free game?
Yes, exactly.


Again, what are we talking about when you say, "my bible", I believe it's in there too.You're going to have to show me where, then.


Darn, I was hoping it was just you!:lol:


Well, wouldn't intentional sins carry more weight than accidental sins, like taking any of the 10 commandments and making it a point to break it on purpose?
Yes. But read Leviticus.It tells the sins and the corresponding sacrifice. It only mentions unintentional and accidental sins.



what kind of atonement would not involve the spilling of blood in those cases, other than the blood of the sinner?
Uh, for theft and such repaying the victim. For some sins 40 lashes. Just examples.


Even in "Yom Kippur" The day of atonement, animal sacrifices were involved, or am I wrong? :hmm:In a sense. But the bible reads as though the day itself is what atones.



Beliefs are one thing, they're based on interpretation and they can be influenced by a lot of factors, the truth is just that, it is what it is, and only God knows what it is for sure, so shouldn't it be the desire of every seeker of truth who claims to love God, to be willing to lay aside his/her beliefs if they suddenly were presented with the truth in such a way that it couldn't be denied?

I know if God appeared to me in a vision in such a way that I couldn't deny it was Him talking to me, and told me only the Jewish traditions held the truth, and if I ever wanted to meet Him in Heaven I had to become Jewish and listen to no one but Jewish Rabis from now on, I would drop my Christianity in a second and run to my nearest Synagogue and beg to be converted on the spot, circumcision and all. Would you be willing to do the same if the reverse were to happen? Or would you stubbornly hold to your traditions and say back to God, "Nice try God, but you're entitled to your beliefs and I'm entitled to mine, so no matter what you say I'll never become a Christian." Think about it.:hmm:

Now I know I'm no Oracle of God, at least not as far as you can tell, and such an event will probably never happen to either one of us, but my point is you have to keep an open mind if you believe that there is a God and that He's willing to speak to us today, and that He already gave us His truths in written form, as both you and I believe He did, or am I wrong on that point?We live in the post-prophecy era. All we have is out holy books and the words of those who came before us. That, and personal observations.


Well, then I guess you'll probably not find me very interesting at all, cause I'm always proselytizing, even when I don't seem to be doing it. However when I believe I've said enough and I'm talking to a "lost cause" I'll move on to other threads in search of another soul to save, hopefully and atheist. ;)Ah. Are you proselytizing me right now? :hmm:

Fenris
Sep 5th 2008, 09:35 PM
The High Priest presided over the SanhedrinNo, he didn't.


The High Priest had a central residence, usually beside the Jewish Temple.
Catholicism unlike many other denominations has a centralized heirarchy(centered in Rome), this is apposed to the autonomous system adopted by many other denominations.Yeah, ok. Not a big deal either way I guess...


The High Priest was elected in the Sanhedrin by his fellow priests, similar to the Popes election by Cardinals.The High Priest wasn't a member of the Sanhedrin.


The High Priest was the only one who could enter the Holy of Holies and atone for the peoples sins on Yom Kippur. The High Priest was afforded greater honor than any other priest in the Levitical hierarchy. To simply call him a Temple functionary is to vastly understate his importance within Judaism.He was a Temple functionary. A very important one, to be sure. But not a teacher and not a judge.




I mentioned this more because of the accusation aimed at the Pope from the Book of Revelation. There are vestments i believe specifically derived from Judaism in the Catholic Church. I don't know what these specifically are though.They don't look like the Levitical garments...:hmm:

RoadWarrior
Sep 5th 2008, 09:42 PM
Hi Fenris,

:wave:

I'm following this thread with some interest. Hope I'm not de-railing with my question.

What was the function of the high priest? How did he acquire his position?

Thanks.

:hug:

Fenris
Sep 5th 2008, 09:50 PM
Hi Fenris,

:wave:Hi there RW :)


I'm following this thread with some interest. Hope I'm not de-railing with my question. No, not at all!


What was the function of the high priest?
His main function was the Yom Kippur service, although he brought daily sacrifice too.



How did he acquire his position?Usually it was inherited, when possible. Otherwise appointed by the king.

By the 1st century, when israel was ruled by the Romans, they usually did the appointing. Which is why the Pharisees held the the position in such low esteem...

DanDMan64
Sep 6th 2008, 12:18 AM
Not in the Christian sense, it isn't.Care to elaborate, I know you are active on these boards and have probably done so many times before, if so a link to a past post would be OK.

Yes, exactly.Oh come-on, don't play games now, which is it?

You're going to have to show me where, then. Again I say, where should I go look? Torah only? all of OT OK?


:lol: What's so funny? Are you laughing with me or at me?


Yes. But read Leviticus.It tells the sins and the corresponding sacrifice. It only mentions unintentional and accidental sins.I will, though I think the key is not in Leviticus.



Uh, for theft and such repaying the victim. For some sins 40 lashes. Just examples. I think these are examples of restitution and slaps in the hand, not atonement or pardons.


In a sense. But the bible reads as though the day itself is what atones.No, the day is an appointed feast (if you could call it that) but specific rituals had to be performed, mainly by the High Priest, only this particular day, and in the Holy of Holies.


We live in the post-prophecy era. All we have is out holy books and the words of those who came before us. That, and personal observations.Oh come-on, take a walk on the wild side, I'm sure you've been asked to answer hypotheticals before?

Ah. Are you proselytizing me right now? :hmm: Always, till the day I die or get "raptured", which ever comes first. :saint:

Jerome1
Sep 6th 2008, 01:04 AM
No, he didn't.


Iv'e read from quite a few sources that the High Priest presided over the Sanhedrin, it seems evident that this was also the case from the New Testament. For the sake of clarity i'll quote some sources.


The high priest, who from the time of Simeon wasalso the head of the state, officiated as president of the Sanhedrin. He bore the title "nasi" (prince), because the reins of government were actually held by him. Subsequently, when they were transferred to other hands, the high priest retained the title of nasi as president of the Sanhedrin. The powers of the latter official were restricted under the procurators, without whose permission the body could not be convened ("Ant." xx. 9, § 1). This Sanhedrin, since it was a political authority, ceased to exist when the Jewish state perished with the destruction of Jerusalem (70 C.E.).


The governor
tried three more high priests within the next three years until he
appointed Caiaphas, in A.D. 18, a man he found cooperative.
Nevertheless, Annas was the patriarch and real power behind the high
priesthood. While the title was used later for Annas as an honorific,
the Jews still saw the high priesthood as an office for life, whether
the Romans felt that way or not. He was the senior ex-high priest and
may have presided over the council at times. This is why Jesus was
first brought to him during his trial.



The Sanhedrin was presided by the high priest. The historical Joseph Caiaphus was appointed to that function by Pilate's predecessor, Valerius Gratus, in the year 18.



The Great Sanhedrin alone had the right to appoint, or confirm the appointment of, the high priest. His consecration might take place only in the day-time. Two high priests must not be appointed together. Every high priest had a "mishneh" (a second) called the Segan, or "memunneh," to stand at his right; another assistant was the "catholicos"("Yad," l.c. 16-17). The right of succession was in the direct, or, the direct failing, the collateral, line, provided the conditions concerning physical fitness were fulfilled (ib. 20; Ket. 103b; Sifra, Ḳedoshim).



However, a careful reading of the sources ("Ant." xx. 10; "Contra Ap." ii., § 23; comp. "Ant." iv. 8, § 14; xiv. 9, §§ 3-5 [Hyrcanus II. as president]; xx. 9, § 1 [Ananus]), as well as the fact that in the post-Maccabean period the high priest was looked upon as exercising in all things, political, legal, and sacerdotal, the supreme authority, shows it to be almost certain that the presidency of the Sanhedrin was vested in the high priest

Jerome1
Sep 6th 2008, 03:51 PM
I just wrote out a very long essay, and deleted it by mistake. I'll rewrite it when i get a chance.:lol:

Basically the theme was that if the old covenant prefigured the new. And Christ was the new high priest described by Paul in Hebrews. Then it would make sense for Christ to appoint someone to succedd him.

I also drew parallels between the passover and the Eucharist. And Jewish requirements before they could participate in the passover, as well as Catholic requirements before they can participate in the taking of Communion.

Fenris
Sep 7th 2008, 12:47 PM
Care to elaborate, I know you are active on these boards and have probably done so many times before, if so a link to a past post would be OK.When a Christian says 'salvation', he means being saved from sin and/or the fires of hell.


Again I say, where should I go look? Torah only? all of OT OK?All OT is ok.


What's so funny? Are you laughing with me or at me?With you, don't worry. :)


I will, though I think the key is not in Leviticus.Do tell...



I think these are examples of restitution and slaps in the hand, not atonement or pardons.It's all part of the same process though.


No, the day is an appointed feast (if you could call it that) but specific rituals had to be performed, mainly by the High Priest, only this particular day, and in the Holy of Holies.There were specific rituals done on the day. But the text strongly implies that it is the day itself that atones, and that's certainly how Jews have always seen it.

Fenris
Sep 7th 2008, 01:02 PM
Iv'e read from quite a few sources that the High Priest presided over the Sanhedrin, it seems evident that this was also the case from the New Testament. For the sake of clarity i'll quote some sources.Your sources are wrong.


Originally Posted by Jewish Encyclopedia
The high priest, who from the time of Simeon was also the head of the state, officiated as president of the Sanhedrin.
No, this is wrong.



He bore the title "nasi" (prince), because the reins of government were actually held by him.The head of the Sanhedrin was called Nasi. But it was never the High Priest.


Subsequently, when they were transferred to other hands, the high priest retained the title of nasi as president of the Sanhedrin.Wrong.


The powers of the latter official were restricted under the procurators, without whose permission the body could not be convened ("Ant." xx. 9, § 1). I am unfamiliar with this fact.


This Sanhedrin, since it was a political authority, ceased to exist when the Jewish state perished with the destruction of Jerusalem (70 C.E.).
Also wrong.The Sanhedrin as a body existed for at least 100 years after 70AD.

Lets do with a real-life example. Remember Gamliel, who came to Stephen's defense at his sanhedrin trial? The NT text doesn't say it, but he was the head of the Sanhedrin. He was also descended from King David. That means he couldn't have been a priest.

Fenris
Sep 7th 2008, 02:14 PM
OK, the Sanhedrin met as a body until at least the year 358. Possibly later.

Jerome1
Sep 7th 2008, 04:23 PM
Your sources are wrong.

They are not wrong they are right, and i can post dozens more from Jewish historians, Rabbi's and Talmudists.

I will when i get time, care to post any sources from any of the above to the contrary?

The Sanhedrin did continue to exist hundreds of years after the Jewish Temple was destroyed, but not to the same capacity.

Fenris
Sep 7th 2008, 04:25 PM
They are not wrong they are right, and i can post dozens more from Jewish historians, Rabbi's and Talmudists.You can post hundreds more. If they're wrong it doesn't matter.


I will when i get time, care to post any sources from any of the above to the contrary?That will require some research first.


The Sanhedrin did continue to exist hundreds of years after the Jewish Temple was destroyed, but not to the same capacity.
SO what? Either it existed or it didn't.

Jerome1
Sep 7th 2008, 07:16 PM
You can post hundreds more. If they're wrong it doesn't matter.


I'll wait on your sources before i post anymore sources to contradict you.

Zechariah3:6 Then the angel of the Lord assured Joshua saying "Thus says the LORD of hosts: If you will walk in my ways and keep my requirements, then you shall rule my house and have charge of my courts, and I will give you the right of access among those who are standing here.

(Emphasis added)

Solomon appointed Ahimanaz as one of twelve officials over all Israel,1Kings:4:15.

Sounds like some of these high priests bore a lot more responsibility than your assertion that they were mere Temple functionaries.

Also those sources i gave you, list where some of the information comes from such as:

Josephus's, Antiquities of the Jews, and Contra Apionem.

Fenris
Sep 7th 2008, 07:21 PM
Zechariah3:6 Then the angel of the Lord assured Joshua saying "Thus says the LORD of hosts: If you will walk in my ways and keep my requirements, then you shall rule my house and have charge of my courts, and I will give you the right of access among those who are standing here.

(Emphasis added)

Solomon appointed Ahimanaz as one of twelve officials over all Israel,1Kings:4:15.Yes, I know Solomon appointed a High Priest after having one removed.


Sounds like some of these high priests bore a lot more responsibility than your assertion that they were mere Temple functionaries.In the First Temple era this was possibly true. By the time of Jesus and the corresponding influence on the Christian church the High Priest was appointed by Rome and had minimal affect on anything beyond the boundaries of the Temple mount. Except, I suppose, when performing some service for his Roman masters.:hmm:

Jerome1
Sep 7th 2008, 09:08 PM
Yes, I know Solomon appointed a High Priest after having one removed.


It states in 1Kings2:27 that Solomon has Abiathar banished to fulfill the word of the Lord that he had spoken concerning the house of Eli in Shiloh.


In the First Temple era this was possibly true. By the time of Jesus and the corresponding influence on the Christian church the High Priest was appointed by Rome and had minimal affect on anything beyond the boundaries of the Temple mount. Except, I suppose, when performing some service for his Roman masters.

Josephus attributes different forms of government adopted by the high priests in, "The Antiquites of the Jews," but there is no doubt that the high priests presided over the Sanhedrin.

This is akin to the various levels of political influence that popes have had throughout the centuries, but in essence their role remained the same. Namely that they were the head of a religious heirarchy which was expected to lead Judaism and Catholicism respectively.

Fenris
Sep 7th 2008, 10:44 PM
Josephus attributes different forms of government adopted by the high priests in, "The Antiquites of the Jews," but there is no doubt that the high priests presided over the Sanhedrin.

This strains credibility. The High Priests were all Saducees and the Sanhedrin was composed of Pharisees. The two groups er.. did not play together well. To put it mildly. :lol:

Jerome1
Sep 7th 2008, 11:23 PM
This strains credibility. The High Priests were all Saducees and the Sanhedrin was composed of Pharisees. The two groups er.. did not play together well. To put it mildly.


Are you questioning the credibility of the historical information recorded by Josephus, or the assertions by Isidore Loeb?

Heres the reference from, "The Antiquities of the Jews."

Book XX Chapter X: http://www.christianwalks.org/miscwriters/AntiquitiesJews/antjews.html

All of the high priests were Saducees?!

How do you figure that seeing as how the Saducees only existed for around 300 years and they rejected the authority of the Oral Torah?

Were all the high priests from Aaron to Joseph Caiaphas Saducees?

The Saducees were a political group who came to prominence during the Hasmoean dynasty, and who were used as a political tool by the Romans.

Fenris
Sep 8th 2008, 11:17 AM
Are you questioning the credibility of the historical information recorded by Josephus, or the assertions by Isidore Loeb?

Heres the reference from, "The Antiquities of the Jews."

Book XX Chapter X: http://www.christianwalks.org/miscwriters/AntiquitiesJews/antjews.html

All of the high priests were Saducees?!In the period you are looking at, yes.

You're attempting a connection between the Jewish religious structure and the Catholic Church's religious structure. So the first temple/early second temple Jewish religious structure is irrelevant. We need to know what the Jewish structure was like in the era around Jesus's lifetime or, even better, after his lifetime.

What date do you ascribe to the formation of the Catholic church? Not before 325 I presume?

Jerome1
Sep 8th 2008, 10:46 PM
In the period you are looking at, yes.

You're attempting a connection between the Jewish religious structure and the Catholic Church's religious structure. So the first temple/early second temple Jewish religious structure is irrelevant. We need to know what the Jewish structure was like in the era around Jesus's lifetime or, even better, after his lifetime.

What date do you ascribe to the formation of the Catholic church? Not before 325 I presume?

I'm looking at the structure and the lineage from the first Jewish High Priest, Aaron to Joseph Ciaiphas, because after Joseph Ciaiphas there was no further need for a High Priest, because Christ's sacrifice means there was no further need for year on year sacrifices under the Old Covenant.

However like the Old Covenant, i believe Christ choose a successor, obviously no one could replace Christ(but a replacement as a visible head of the New Covenant).

I ascribe the day of Pentecost as the beginning of the Church in 33AD.

Fenris
Sep 8th 2008, 11:40 PM
The question is still open. When did the Catholic church form?

Jerome1
Sep 9th 2008, 01:33 AM
The question is still open. When did the Catholic church form?

The day of Pentecost in 33AD.

Fenris
Sep 9th 2008, 11:04 AM
The day of Pentecost in 33AD.
That seems rather early. I mean, a lot of what we call Christianity wasn't even decided before 325. Or am I mistaken?

DanDMan64
Sep 9th 2008, 05:35 PM
Fenris, to be fair to Jerome1 I think we need to take our debate elsewhere, because it's getting way-off topic of what I believe he intended this thread to be about.

I will go ahead and reply to your replies for the last time here, but look for me to start posting on your thread about "Why didn't the Jews believe in Jesus", which is currently addressing the subject of salvation, unless you want to start a new thread which is entirely up to you.


When a Christian says 'salvation', he means being saved from sin and/or the fires of hell.I believe this is close, but not entirely correct, so please allow me to clarify it a bit.

When you think of it in scientific terms, it's kind a like the physical law of "cause and effect", so that "sin" is the cause and "the fires of hell" are the effect. In societal terms, the terms most closely related are "crime and punishment" so I won't insult your intelligence by trying to explain which is which. If you permit me to use my Bible, Paul said it this way, " For the wages of sin is death" death being "the fires of hell" or the ultimate death.

In the OT, we see the same idea when God Himself declared, speaking through the Prophet Ezequiel " The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him." Ezek 18:20 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=26&CHAP=18&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=20).

Now that I've cleared that-up, you still haven't explained what salvation means to a Jewish person, if not from the fires of hell? then from what?


All OT is ok. OK then, though my OT only has 39 books. I'm not sure but I believe your OT may have a few more.


With you, don't worry. :) Oh I know, I hope we can keep it friendly then.

Do tell... Well, Ezequiel 18:20 which I quoted above is a good example. I haven't finished reading through Leviticus yet, but it is clear to me your argument stated earlier on post# 27, and I quote: "Oh, they obviously had meaning (animal sacrifices). As part of a process, they were capable of achieving atonement for certain sins. Namely, accidental sins. But they were not the only way and they didn't function for all sins anyway." ...is quite misleading and unfounded, by that I mean that the opposite is quite obvious, animal sacrifices were called for in almost every case where sin of any kind was committed, regardless of whether it was accidental or not, and in some instances even when the sin was unintentional, such as women going through the natural menstrual cycle, or even child birth.

Now I can understand why Judaism today would want to make light of the need for animal sacrifices and "explain it away" as not that important any more, being that you don't have a Temple to carry them-out, but it seems to me it was quite important to God at one point, being that He had Moses write a whole book about it.


It's all part of the same process though.If you mean the process of establishing rules of fairness and justice, I agree, but justice demands different levels of punishment depending on who was wronged, so when brother sinned against his brother, restitution and "an eye for an eye" types of punishment were in order, but there's only one punishment for sining against God, knowingly or not, and that was death, either that of the unrepentant sinner, or through atonement by using an animal to take-on the death penalty that the sinner should have suffered.

There were specific rituals done on the day. But the text strongly implies that it is the day itself that atones, and that's certainly how Jews have always seen it.Well, I would argue that that only proves Jews are not beyond coming-up with alternate interpretations of a particular text to make it fit what they believe it should mean, which sadly is the case for many of us as "Christians" as well, though I personally try to stay true to the text as much as possible.

Fenris
Sep 9th 2008, 05:44 PM
Fenris, to be fair to Jerome1 I think we need to take our debate elsewhere, because it's getting way-off topic of what I believe he intended this thread to be about.

I will go ahead and reply to your replies for the last time here, but look for me to start posting on your thread about "Why didn't the Jews believe in Jesus", which is currently addressing the subject of salvation, unless you want to start a new thread which is entirely up to you.OK, I'm not going to respond to this post here then... it's just going to drag the whole thread OT.

Emanate
Sep 9th 2008, 06:19 PM
That seems rather early. I mean, a lot of what we call Christianity wasn't even decided before 325. Or am I mistaken?


no, you are right. There was no "universal church (borg)" until Constantine

Jerome1
Sep 9th 2008, 07:16 PM
That seems rather early. I mean, a lot of what we call Christianity wasn't even decided before 325. Or am I mistaken?

The Church became structured enough to convene Councils. This is because Constantine signed the, "Edict of Milan," forbiding the persecution of christians. Councils couldn't be convened before then because many of the Roman Emperor's before Constantine persecuted the Church to such a degree, that openly convening a Council would have been too dangerous.

Fenris
Sep 9th 2008, 07:45 PM
So is it really realistic to say that the Catholic church borrowed organizational ideas from Judaism, when said church did not become organized itself for many hundreds of years?

Jerome1
Sep 10th 2008, 02:15 AM
So is it really realistic to say that the Catholic church borrowed organizational ideas from Judaism, when said church did not become organized itself for many hundreds of years?

The Church was organised from the beginning, but it obviously grew in numbers as the years went on. It even became the de facto religion of the once pagan Roman Empire. It's evident that the Church from the writings of the early Church fathers, had a ecclesiastical heirarchy before the first Council was convened.

The Catholic Church is rooted in Judaism, that is why we call it the Judeo/Christian faith.

Emanate
Sep 10th 2008, 03:53 AM
The Church was organised from the beginning, but it obviously grew in numbers as the years went on. It even became the de facto religion of the once pagan Roman Empire. It's evident that the Church from the writings of the early Church fathers, had a ecclesiastical heirarchy before the first Council was convened.

The Catholic Church is rooted in Judaism, that is why we call it the Judeo/Christian faith.


Actually, The Catholic Church is based on various pagan entities that were conglomerated into one church.

Jerome1
Sep 10th 2008, 10:00 AM
Actually, The Catholic Church is based on various pagan entities that were conglomerated into one church.

I hope you've read this thread from the start. What pagan customs did the RCC adopt?

Fenris
Sep 10th 2008, 11:26 AM
The Church was organised from the beginning, but it obviously grew in numbers as the years went on. It even became the de facto religion of the once pagan Roman Empire. It's evident that the Church from the writings of the early Church fathers, had a ecclesiastical heirarchy before the first Council was convened.Nu, nu. Is possible. It's also possible that any organized religion would have a similar structure.


The Catholic Church is rooted in Judaism, that is why we call it the Judeo/Christian faith.
Christianity is rooted in Judaism, not just the Catholic church.

Jerome1
Sep 10th 2008, 11:56 AM
Nu, nu. Is possible. It's also possible that any organized religion would have a similar structure.


What other organized religion has a centralized heirarchy with a visible head claiming infallibility?

Can trace it's origins back to 33AD?

Can show an unbroken line of apostolic succession from Peter to Benedict?

Has not changed or contradicted it's doctrines in over two thousand years?



Christinaity is rooted in Judaism, not just the Catholic church


Yes christianity is rooted in Judaism, but Catholicism has more similarites specific to Judaism. Such as a centralized heirarchy. Most protestant churches are autonomous by their nature. The Orthodox Church also does not have a centralized authority, each Bishop is responsible for disputes within his jurisdiction, which may then be refered to the Patriarch responsible for that jurisdiction. The problem with this is that there is no conformity in decisions, one Patriarch may decide one thing, another may decide something different. This concept of autonomy is alien to Judaism.

Exodus18:22 Let them sit as judges for the people at all times; let them bring every important case to you, but decide every minor case themselves. So it will be easier for you, and they will bear the burden with you.

Which branch of christianity has a visible head to refer back to, when there is disagreement in the different jurisdictions? What other branch has a visble head that makes decisions binding on all of it's members?

Emanate
Sep 10th 2008, 12:20 PM
I hope you've read this thread from the start. What pagan customs did the RCC adopt?


Pontifex Maximus, Holy Days and associated customs, Superiority to Jewish people and things.

Jerome1
Sep 10th 2008, 12:27 PM
Pontifex Maximus, Holy Days and associated customs, Superiority to Jewish people and things.

Could you be more specific, i am pretty sure that a Pontiff was a title used to describe the religious leaders of many religions(including those within Judaism).

Fenris
Sep 10th 2008, 01:41 PM
What other organized religion has a centralized heirarchy with a visible head claiming infallibility?Judaism doesn't have that either.


Can trace it's origins back to 33AD?It seems to me that the RCC hierarchy didn't start in 33. I don't think I'm alone in that opinion, either.


Can show an unbroken line of apostolic succession from Peter to Benedict?So what?


Has not changed or contradicted it's doctrines in over two thousand years?I think both Jewish and RCC doctrines have changed over the last 2000 years.




Yes christianity is rooted in Judaism, but Catholicism has more similarites specific to Judaism. Such as a centralized heirarchy.Right, but again, perhaps any organized religion would have s imilar structure.


Most protestant churches are autonomous by their nature. The Orthodox Church also does not have a centralized authority, each Bishop is responsible for disputes within his jurisdiction, which may then be refered to the Patriarch responsible for that jurisdiction. Yes, I am aware of this.


The problem with this is that there is no conformity in decisions, one Patriarch may decide one thing, another may decide something different. This concept of autonomy is alien to Judaism.Hmm. Conservative and reform Judaism is automonous from Orthodox Judaism. Technically, any Orthdodox rabbi may make any ruling; in practice, they rule more or less alike because all the ruling are based on the same logical strucure, not because they answer to the same person.




Which branch of christianity has a visible head to refer back to, when there is disagreement in the different jurisdictions? What other branch has a visble head that makes decisions binding on all of it's members?

Again, any organized religion could have such a structure.

Jerome1
Sep 10th 2008, 03:20 PM
Judaism doesn't have that either.


Not anymore, but from the time of Aaron to the destruction of the second Temple, yes it was a centralized heirarchy.



It seems to me that the RCC hierarchy didn't start in 33. I don't think I'm alone in that opinion, either.


The papacy can trace it's origins back to Peter and the apostles. Ofcourse the difference between catholicism and protestantism, is that one believes Christ bestowed the leadership of the apostles to Peter and his successors, the other doesn't.

That is a different argument.


So what?

An unbroken line of succession is how the High Priesthood was succeeded.


I think both Jewish and RCC doctrines have changed over the last 2000 years.

Jews believe the Oral Torah was handed down faithfully to each generation. It was written down because of persecution, when it was feared it might be forgotten.

Fenris
Sep 10th 2008, 05:17 PM
Not anymore, but from the time of Aaron to the destruction of the second Temple, yes it was a centralized heirarchy.
The historical record does not bear that out. In Jesus's time, for example, you had Pharisees, Saducees, Essenes, Samaritans, etc etc, all following different customs and laws as laid out by their respective leaderships.



The papacy can trace it's origins back to Peter and the apostles. Ofcourse the difference between catholicism and protestantism, is that one believes Christ bestowed the leadership of the apostles to Peter and his successors, the other doesn't.:hmm: Good to know.



An unbroken line of succession is how the High Priesthood was succeeded.True. But again, so what?




Jews believe the Oral Torah was handed down faithfully to each generation. It was written down because of persecution, when it was feared it might be forgotten.I'm not sure where I want to go with this point, so I'm going to leave it be for now...:hmm:

Jerome1
Sep 10th 2008, 06:34 PM
The historical record does not bear that out. In Jesus's time, for example, you had Pharisees, Saducees, Essenes, Samaritans, etc etc, all following different customs and laws as laid out by their respective leaderships.


I think this link might help. It's historical information discussing the differences between the Pharisees and Sadducees.

Link: http://users.aristotle.net/~bhuie/pharsadd.htm


True. But again, so what?

It's specific to Catholicism.


I'm not sure where I want to go with this point, so I'm going to leave it be for now...:hmm:

I think the link i gave you might answer this.

Fenris
Sep 10th 2008, 07:18 PM
I think this link might help. It's historical information discussing the differences between the Pharisees and Sadducees.

Link: http://users.aristotle.net/~bhuie/pharsadd.htm (http://users.aristotle.net/%7Ebhuie/pharsadd.htm)OK, the information there is pretty good. Thank you for the link, it was an interesting read. The Jesus facts aside, the one thing mentioned that I think is wrong is that it claims Herod was on better terms with the Pharisees than with the Saducees, which I do not think is true. I think he was on bad terms with both of them.

But your article does not disprove what I said, namely that "In Jesus's time, for example, you had Pharisees, Saducees, Essenes, Samaritans, etc etc, all following different customs and laws as laid out by their respective leaderships.".





I think the link i gave you might answer this.
No, and I'm going to leave the point open for now.

DanDMan64
Sep 11th 2008, 01:01 AM
What other organized religion has a centralized hierarchy with a visible head claiming infallibility?It is true of the RCC, I'm not sure about Judaism though, However this is not something Catholics should brag about, I think claiming infallibility is heresy for any one, specially the Popes of Rome, who have been proven through-out history to make mistakes, some so detrimental to humanity that other Popes had to make apologies for them latter on.


Can trace it's origins back to 33AD?This is true, but it would do better to trace it back further to 5BC, when Christ was born, and it would do even better to abide more by the words of Christ during His lifetime, than by the many councils that it convened, and the opinions of "fallible" men including the Popes.


Can show an unbroken line of apostolic succession from Peter to Benedict?Actually, wasn't there a time when up to three Popes claimed to be only one, (And I have read-up on the story about them and what the Church's official stance is on the matter) still for me that broke the line right there, not that it matters much to me anyhow.

Has not changed or contradicted it's doctrines in over two thousand years?No, that's why Protestantism came about to try to point-out how some of your doctrines needed to be contradicted, but there's been plenty of contradiction of doctrines in the RCC even without outside interference.



[/quote]... Most protestant churches are autonomous by their nature. The Orthodox Church also does not have a centralized authority, each Bishop is responsible for disputes within his jurisdiction, which may then be refered to the Patriarch responsible for that jurisdiction. The problem with this is that there is no conformity in decisions, one Patriarch may decide one thing, another may decide something different...[/quote]You say that as if this was a bad thing, but in reality this is closer to the pattern that Christ would prefer than that of a Hierarchy, smaller groups tend to make for a closer knit family of loving members that care for each other's needs and are more willing to serve one another, of which the leader fulfills his/her role best when he/she is servant of all.


Which branch of christianity has a visible head to refer back to, when there is disagreement in the different jurisdictions? What other branch has a visble head that makes decisions binding on all of it's members? I would hope that head you refer to is Christ, even though He's not visible for the time being, He's still alive and well is very interested in being involved in all decisions binding on all of the members of His church, but I take it you mean someone else, which is why I'm not a Catholic. ;)

Jerome1
Sep 11th 2008, 10:06 PM
But your article does not disprove what I said, namely that "In Jesus's time, for example, you had Pharisees, Saducees, Essenes, Samaritans, etc etc, all following different customs and laws as laid out by their respective leaderships.".

I'm more concerned with the Pharisees because Christ told the crowds in Matthew23:2 to do whatever the scribes and Pharisees taught them, because they sit on the seat of Moses. The Pharisees adhered to oral and written tradition, the Sadducees did not.


This is true, but it would do better to trace it back further to 5BC, when Christ was born, and it would do even better to abide more by the words of Christ during His lifetime, than by the many councils that it convened, and the opinions of "fallible" men including the Popes.

Christ is the High Priest and no one could have did what Christ did. Were Catholics and Protestants differ is, one believes he appointed Peter and his successors as the visible head of the Church, the other does not.


Actually, wasn't there a time when up to three Popes claimed to be only one, (And I have read-up on the story about them and what the Church's official stance is on the matter) still for me that broke the line right there, not that it matters much to me anyhow.

Yes there have been people who have claimed to be the Pope who have been invalidly elected, they are called antipopes, and there has been quite a few of them.


No, that's why Protestantism came about to try to point-out how some of your doctrines needed to be contradicted, but there's been plenty of contradiction of doctrines in the RCC even without outside interference.

Thats a point of contention, i'm not talking about practices, i'm specifically talking about promulgated doctrines.


You say that as if this was a bad thing, but in reality this is closer to the pattern that Christ would prefer than that of a Hierarchy, smaller groups tend to make for a closer knit family of loving members that care for each other's needs and are more willing to serve one another, of which the leader fulfills his/her role best when he/she is servant of all.

Christ prayed for unity in the Church(John17:20-22).

Fenris
Sep 11th 2008, 11:57 PM
I'm more concerned with the Pharisees because Christ told the crowds in Matthew23:2 to do whatever the scribes and Pharisees taught them, because they sit on the seat of Moses. The Pharisees adhered to oral and written tradition, the Sadducees did not.
That's right. Thus proving my point that there was no unified religious leader.

Jerome1
Sep 12th 2008, 12:02 PM
That's right. Thus proving my point that there was no unified religious leader.

Did you read the link i gave you? Saying that the people obeyed the Pharisees and not the Sadducees? There clearly was a central heirarchy within Judaism, that does not mean there wasn't disagreements.

Is your point, there were disagreements on the interpretation of scripture, therefore there was no unified religious leader?

That is a very weak argument, there have been various schisms in the RCC, but that does not mean it stopped having a centralized heirarchy.

You could make the argument that there was never a unfied religious leader, because people also rebelled against Moses. The Pharisees even though they differed in the interpretation of the Written Torah, were still members of the Sanhedrin.

Fenris
Sep 12th 2008, 12:47 PM
Did you read the link i gave you? Saying that the people obeyed the Pharisees and not the Sadducees? The Saducees didn't obey the Pharisees. Neither did the Essenes. Nor the Samaritans.


There clearly was a central heirarchy within Judaism, that does not mean there wasn't disagreements.

Is your point, there were disagreements on the interpretation of scripture, therefore there was no unified religious leader?No, my point is that there was no unified leader. You claim it was the High Priest, who was a Saducee, but then you say the Jews followed the Pharisees.


That is a very weak argument, there have been various schisms in the RCC, but that does not mean it stopped having a centralized heirarchy.Judaism had nothing analogous to the pope. Even the head of the Sanhedrin was just an ordinary member when it cames to voting.


You could make the argument that there was never a unfied religious leader, because people also rebelled against Moses. The Pharisees even though they differed in the interpretation of the Written Torah, were still members of the Sanhedrin.
They were apparently a majority of the sanhedrin. And what do you mean, they differed in their interpretation? Differed from who?

Jerome1
Sep 12th 2008, 11:21 PM
The Saducees didn't obey the Pharisees. Neither did the Essenes. Nor the Samaritans.


You obviously didn't study that link i posted carefully.



By downgrading the importance of the high-priest, a hated Sadducee, Herod automatically raised in importance his deputy, the segan, a Pharisee, who got control over all the regular Temple functions and ensured that even the Sadducee high-priests performed the liturgy in a Pharisaical manner. (pp. 117-118, A History Of The Jews)




During Salome's reign (76-67 BCE), the Sadducees lost much of their authority. Although Salome was the recognized leader of the nation, it soon became obvious that the Pharisees had gained significant influence. They were brought into the Sanhedrin and became the major force in national politics. In reality, they became the actual power behind the throne.




. . . Any light that might be cast on the history of the Pharisees and their teachings in the pre-destruction period would be critically important. With new evidence from the Dead Sea Scrolls it is now possible to demonstrate that for much of the Hasmonean period Pharisaic views were indeed dominant in the Jerusalem Temple . . . (pp. 30-31, Bible Review, June 1992, "New Light on the Pharisees: Insight from the Dead Sea Scrolls")




Even greater importance attached to differences on ritual questions, although the controversy here was purely theoretical. For, the Sadducees, when in office, always conformed to the prevailing Pharisaic practices (p. 320, ch. II, bk. III, The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah)




They are able to do almost nothing of themselves; for when they become magistrates, as they are unwillingly and by force sometimes obliged to be, they addict themselves to the notions of the Pharisees, because the multitudes would not otherwise bear them." (bk. 18, ch. 1, sec. 4, The Antiquities of the Jews)



No, my point is that there was no unified leader. You claim it was the High Priest, who was a Saducee, but then you say the Jews followed the Pharisees.

Read the link again, they only tolerated the High Priest because the Sadducees conformed to the prevailing Pharisaic practices. There is ample evidence, with references supplied in the link i gave you.


Judaism had nothing analogous to the pope. Even the head of the Sanhedrin was just an ordinary member when it cames to voting.


We've been through this already, and i have clearly shown from several sources, including the bible, that the High Priest was not an ordinary member of the Sanhedrin. May i also ask when voting for what exactly?


They were apparently a majority of the sanhedrin. And what do you mean, they differed in their interpretation? Differed from who?

They differed from the Pharisees in their interpretation of the Torah.

Emanate
Sep 13th 2008, 01:16 AM
We've been through this already, and i have clearly shown from several sources, including the bible, that the High Priest was not an ordinary member of the Sanhedrin. May i also ask when voting for what exactly?


Where did you find the reference that the High Priest was no ordinary member of the Sanhedrin. Please give me the scripture.

Jerome1
Sep 13th 2008, 03:03 AM
Where did you find the reference that the High Priest was no ordinary member of the Sanhedrin. Please give me the scripture.

Iv'e quoted scripture, read the thread from the start.

Fenris
Sep 14th 2008, 11:43 AM
You obviously didn't study that link i posted carefully.
Yes, I did.





Read the link again, they only tolerated the High Priest because the Sadducees conformed to the prevailing Pharisaic practices. There is ample evidence, with references supplied in the link i gave you.
That isn't what it says and that isn't what happened. The High Priest , when doing his duties AS the High Priest, conformed to Pharisee practice. One time when he erred from normal practice on Sukkot he was apparently pelted with Etrogim.

Saducees who were not the High Priest did their own thing.



We've been through this already, and i have clearly shown from several sources, including the bible, that the High Priest was not an ordinary member of the Sanhedrin.And that makes him like the Pope?


May i also ask when voting for what exactly?Legal rulings, obviously.

Jerome1
Sep 14th 2008, 07:55 PM
That isn't what it says and that isn't what happened. The High Priest , when doing his duties AS the High Priest, conformed to Pharisee practice. One time when he erred from normal practice on Sukkot he was apparently pelted with Etrogim.

Saducees who were not the High Priest did their own thing.

I'm not arguing that Sadducees didn't have a different view from Pharisees, i'm saying that they were forced into conforming to Pharisaic practices. In other words there may have been a Sadducee High Priest, but they were still forced into practicing Pharasical customs, "because the miltitudes would not otherwise bear them".( Josephus Antiquities of the Jews).

The multitudes would not otherwise bear them, because they knew they were Roman puppets, given their positions by the Romans.


And that makes him like the Pope?


In terms of being at the top of a priestly hierarchy and presiding over the Sanhedrin, yes it makes him like the Pope.


Legal rulings, obviously.

Israel form the time of Aaron had a theocratic system of government, meaning under the direction and guidance of God. Joshua's appointment was ratified by Eleazar(Number27:21). Solomons accession to the throne was ratified by Nathan and Zadok(1Kings1:34). The High Priest was the only one to my knowledge who could consult the Urim and Thummim(i believe meaning faultless or infallible). As far as the legal rulings of the Sanhedrin, i am unaware of whether or not the High Priest could ratifiy or veto it's decisions. Presummably if he presided over the Councils he had a greater say in it's decisions. I know during the time of Christ the Sanhedrin had to have decisions regarding capital punishment refered to the Romans.

Fenris
Sep 14th 2008, 08:31 PM
In terms of being at the top of a priestly hierarchy and presiding over the Sanhedrin, yes it makes him like the Pope.

So the High Priest had to do as the Pharisees wished, and yet he was still in charge of legal decisions?

The Sanhedrin decided legal cases by a vote. Majority rules. Regardless of how the Nasi voted. And the Nasi was not the High Priest in any case. There was nothing in Judaism anything like the Pope, who is (allegedly) infallible.


I don't know how many times I have to say the same thing.

Jerome1
Sep 14th 2008, 09:51 PM
So the High Priest had to do as the Pharisees wished, and yet he was still in charge of legal decisions?

The Sanhedrin decided legal cases by a vote. Majority rules. Regardless of how the Nasi voted. And the Nasi was not the High Priest in any case. There was nothing in Judaism anything like the Pope, who is (allegedly) infallible.


I don't know how many times I have to say the same thing.

Dude, you can say the same things as many times as you like, you started off by claiming the High Priest didn't preside over the Sanhedrin, but was a mere Temple functionary.

You aren't reading carefully, the governmental system adopted by the Jewish State in relation to religious affairs changed several times(Josephus, antiquities of the Jews), i already gave you the reference.

There are clearly many similarites between the Levitical priestly hierarchy, and that of the RCC.

Ofcourse they are different, as one represented the Old Covenant, and one represents the New Covenant. But, the Old Covenant prefigured the New, which you do not accept, so obviously you are going to try and undermine the similarities.

Jerome1
Sep 14th 2008, 10:01 PM
The Sanhedrin decided legal cases by a vote. Majority rules. Regardless of how the Nasi voted. And the Nasi was not the High Priest in any case. There was nothing in Judaism anything like the Pope, who is (allegedly) infallible.


When the High Priest consulted the Urim and Thummim, were the oracles faultless?

Fenris
Sep 15th 2008, 12:43 AM
When the High Priest consulted the Urim and Thummim, were the oracles faultless?
There was no Urim and Tummim in the second temple.

Jerome1
Sep 15th 2008, 01:03 AM
There was no Urim and Tummim in the second temple.

Kindly answer the question I posed.

I am aware that there was no Urim and Tummin in the second temple, but even Joseph Caiaphas was given a prophecy regarding Jesus. In other words, God still communicated through the high priest without the use of the Urim and Thummim.

John11:49 But one of them, Ca'i-a-phas, who was high priest that year, said to them, "You know nothing at all! You do not understand that it is better for you to have one man die for the people than to have the whole nation destroyed." He did not say this on his own, but being high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus was about to die for the nation, and not for the nation only, but to gather into one the dispersed children of God.

Fenris
Sep 15th 2008, 11:38 AM
I am aware that there was no Urim and Tummin in the second temple, but even Joseph Caiaphas was given a prophecy regarding Jesus. In other words, God still communicated through the high priest without the use of the Urim and Thummim.That would make the High Priest a prophet. There was no prophecy in the Second Temple, either.

Jerome1
Sep 15th 2008, 05:20 PM
That would make the High Priest a prophet. There was no prophecy in the Second Temple, either.

That depends whether you believe the New Testament to be inerrant, which you obviously don't.

For the third time, when the high priest consulted the Urim and Thummin were the oracles given faultless?

Fenris
Sep 15th 2008, 05:34 PM
That depends whether you believe the New Testament to be inerrant, which you obviously don't.Regardless, Jews did not believe that the High Priest was a prophet in the second temple era. So he was not a 'Pope-like' figure in Judaism.


For the third time, when the high priest consulted the Urim and Thummin were the oracles given faultless?
Yes. Although later in the first temple era, prophecy became God's primary way of communicating with man.

What's your point? Because the High Priest consulted with God prior to 586BC, the Catholic church, that formed no earlier than 325AD copied his role? A role that the High Priest didn't have for more than 800 years?

Jerome1
Sep 15th 2008, 05:45 PM
Regardless, Jews did not believe that the High Priest was a prophet in the second temple era. So he was not a 'Pope-like' figure in Judaism.


Can you give me a reputable source that states Jews knew that the High Priest did not prophecy during the second temple era?



Yes. Although later in the first temple era, prophecy became God's primary way of communicating with man.


So the High Priest after consulting the Urim and Thummim, could render an infallible judgment.


What's your point? Because the High Priest consulted with God prior to 586BC, the Catholic church, that formed no earlier than 325AD copied his role? A role that the High Priest didn't have for more than 800 years?

Iv'e already stated that the RCC was formed in 33AD.

My point in bringing up the High Priest consulting the Urim and Thummin when rendering a decision, is to show that the decision was binding, because it was believed to be faultless. RC's have a similar view of the popes authority over the RCC.

Fenris
Sep 15th 2008, 05:55 PM
Can you give me a reputable source that states Jews knew that the High Priest did not prophecy during the second temple era?
There was no prophecy at all during the second temple era, High Priest or otherwise. It probably crops up in the Talmud, but I don't know where.



So the High Priest after consulting the Urim and Thummim, could render an infallible judgment.Uhm, about what to do, yes. About legal issues? No.





My point in bringing up the High Priest consulting the Urim and Thummin when rendering a decision, is to show that the decision was binding, because it was believed to be faultless. RC's have a similar view of the popes authority over the RCC.The Pope makes binding legal rulings. I do not believe the Urrim/Tumim was used in that capacity.

Anyway, there is still a 600 year gap between Urrim/Tummim use and your date for the formation of the RCC...

Jerome1
Sep 15th 2008, 06:19 PM
There was no prophecy at all during the second temple era, High Priest or otherwise. It probably crops up in the Talmud, but I don't know where.


I regard the New Testament, as well as the Old Testament as inerrant, and there is at least one case were Joseph Caiaphas prophesied regarding Jesus. We will have to agree to disagree.:D


Uhm, about what to do, yes. About legal issues? No.

Israel had a theocratic form of government, the judges rendered decisions according to the Torah.

Deuteronomy33:8 And of Levi he said: Give to Levi your Thum'mim and your U'rim to your loyal one, whom you tested as Mas'sah with whom you contended at the waters of Mer'i-bah; who said of his father and mother, "I regard them not"; he ignored his kin, and did not acknowledge his children. For they observed your word, and kept your covenant. They teach Jacob your ordinances, and Israel your law; they place incense before you, and whole burnt offerings on your altar.


The Pope makes binding legal rulings. I do not believe the Urrim/Tumim was used in that capacity.

One opinion i am aware of, is that they could be used to render a person innocent or guilty.

Fenris
Sep 15th 2008, 06:26 PM
I regard the New Testament, as well as the Old Testament as inerrant, and there is at least one case were Joseph Caiaphas prophesied regarding Jesus. We will have to agree to disagree.:D
Obviously.



Israel had a theocratic form of government, the judges rendered decisions according to the Torah.That's right. That means logical exposition, not voices from heaven.





One opinion i am aware of, is that they could be used to render a person innocent or guilty.
I've never heard that.

Jerome1
Sep 15th 2008, 06:36 PM
That's right. That means logical exposition, not voices from heaven.


Yes, because they had already received the voices from heaven on Mount Sinai, but it is clear throughout the Old Testament that devine oracles were still sought out and received.


I've never heard that.

It's one of many opinions on how they were used, i believe information is scant about their use. Saul seeks the guidance of the Urim and Thummim in 1Samuel14:41. It's unclear from 1Samuel whether Saul consulted the High Priest, or whether he used his own form of divination to determine who the guilty party was.

Fenris
Sep 15th 2008, 06:48 PM
Yes, because they had already received the voices from heaven on Mount Sinai, but it is clear throughout the Old Testament that devine oracles were still sought out and received.Yes, but not for exposition on the Law.




It's one of many opinions on how they were used, i believe information is scant about their use. Saul seeks the guidance of the Urim and Thummim in 1Samuel14:41. It's unclear from 1Samuel whether Saul consulted the High Priest, or whether he used his own form of divination to determine who the guilty party was.Uhm, Jonathan didn't break any law that could be tried by a court. Saul made a foolish oath and Jonathan unknowingly broke it. Not quite the same as trying to deduce some fine point in the Law.

Jerome1
Sep 15th 2008, 09:12 PM
Yes, but not for exposition on the Law.


No but for the proper rendering of the law, the Old Covenant was fulfilled in Christ. The New Covenant replaced the Old Covenant.


Uhm, Jonathan didn't break any law that could be tried by a court. Saul made a foolish oath and Jonathan unknowingly broke it. Not quite the same as trying to deduce some fine point in the Law.

I used the verse in 1Samuel to demonstrate that the Urim and Thummim could have been used in connection with a question on the law. Information regarding it's use is scant, Josephus and Talmudic writings mention it's use, but i havn't read those sources.

Fenris
Sep 15th 2008, 09:23 PM
No but for the proper rendering of the law, the Old Covenant was fulfilled in Christ. The New Covenant replaced the Old Covenant.
Irrelevant in this context. We're discussing the time before Jesus.



I used the verse in 1Samuel to demonstrate that the Urim and Thummim could have been used in connection with a question on the law.
'Who violated Saul's oath' is not really a legal issue.

Jerome1
Sep 15th 2008, 10:53 PM
Irrelevant in this context. We're discussing the time before Jesus.



Whence do we deduce this? — Said R. Abbahu: Scripture states, And he shall stand before Eleazar the Priest [who shall inquire for him by the judgment of the Urim before the Lord. At his word shall they go out and at his word they shall come in, both he and all the children of Israel with him even all the Congregation].37 (http://www.come-and-hear.com/sanhedrin/sanhedrin_16.html#16a_37) 'He', refers to the King;38 (http://www.come-and-hear.com/sanhedrin/sanhedrin_16.html#16a_38) 'And all the children of Israel with him,' to the Priest anointed for the conduct of war;39 (http://www.come-and-hear.com/sanhedrin/sanhedrin_16.html#16a_39) and, 'all the Congregation,' means the Sanhedrin.40 (http://www.come-and-hear.com/sanhedrin/sanhedrin_16.html#16a_40) But perhaps it is the Sanhedrin whom the Divine Law instructs to inquire of the Urim and Tummim?

Source: http://www.come-and-hear.com/sanhedrin/sanhedrin_16.html

Here is some quotes from Tractate Yoma chapter VII, regarding the use of the Urim and Thumimm



MISHNA: The high-priest ministers in eight articles of dress; a common priest in four: in a robe and breeches, a mitre and a girdle. To the high-priest's are added: a breastplate and an ephod, and a coat and a tsits [plate on the forehead, [Ex. xxviii. 36]. The Urim and Tumim were inquired of only when he was thus attired; but inquiries were not made for a common man: only for the king, the chief of the Beth Din, and for a person of whom the public had need.



The rabbis taught: How was the ceremony of inquiring of the Urim and Tumim? The inquirer turned his face toward the priest (who inquires), but the priest's face is turned toward the Shekhina. The inquirer asks, as e.g. in 1 Samuel xxx. 8: "Shall I pursue after this troop?" And the priest answers him: "So has said the Lord. Go, and thou wilt succeed." R. Jehudah, however, said: He need not say: "So has said God." He has only to say: "Go, and thou wilt succeed."


And although the decision of a prophet can be revoked, the decision of the Urim and Tumim cannot be changed, as it is written [Num. xxvii. 21]: "The judgment of the Urim."

Source: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Talmud/yomatoc.html


'Who violated Saul's oath' is not really a legal issue.

It seems from briefly reading the two tractates that the Urim and Thummim could be consulted at the request of the king, or for a person of whom the public had need.

IPet2_9
Sep 15th 2008, 11:35 PM
Jerome,

Good work there, dude.

Fenris
Sep 15th 2008, 11:47 PM
None of your quotes have proved that the High Priest was a pope-like figure. The High Priest was not infallible on legal rulings. He was a Temple functionary, no more. Certainly in the second temple era, with no prophecy and no Urrim-Tummim, there was little he could do aside from carry out ritual. Since you like to quote the Talmud so much, here's a quote for you: "A learned bastard takes precedence over an ignorant High Priest" (Horayot 3:8). Not the stuff of infalliability, now is it?

Jerome1
Sep 23rd 2008, 07:55 PM
None of your quotes have proved that the High Priest was a pope-like figure. The High Priest was not infallible on legal rulings. He was a Temple functionary, no more. Certainly in the second temple era, with no prophecy and no Urrim-Tummim, there was little he could do aside from carry out ritual. Since you like to quote the Talmud so much, here's a quote for you: "A learned bastard takes precedence over an ignorant High Priest" (Horayot 3:8). Not the stuff of infalliability, now is it?

Sorry Fenris have been busy. Iv'e shown from Jewish sources that when the High Priest consulted the Urim and Thummim his decisions could not be revoked. As you don't accept the New Testament, you aren't going to agree that Caiaphas prophesied either, on that we are going to have to agree to disagree. But your assertion that the High Priest was a mere Temple functionary, could not be further from the truth. Iv'e given you several reliable sources confirming that. Whether the High Priest was ignorant or not is a moot point because he was still the only one who could still carry out specific functions.

Jerome1
Sep 23rd 2008, 07:59 PM
Jerome,

Good work there, dude.

Thanks, i'm glad someone appreciates the research.:pray:

Fenris
Sep 24th 2008, 11:42 AM
Sorry Fenris have been busy. Iv'e shown from Jewish sources that when the High Priest consulted the Urim and Thummim his decisions could not be revoked. Meaningless. They were not present in the second temple. The high priest did not weigh in on legal rulings in the second temple either. So you're saying that because the high priest did those things in 586BC, the church that you claim started in 33AD must have followed the same concepts. That's a 600 year gap. If the Catholic church started in 325AD it's a 900 year gap.


Whether the High Priest was ignorant or not is a moot point because he was still the only one who could still carry out specific functions.
My barber is the only one who can cut my hair. That doesn't make him inerrant.

Jerome1
Sep 24th 2008, 12:46 PM
Meaningless. They were not present in the second temple. The high priest did not weigh in on legal rulings in the second temple either. So you're saying that because the high priest did those things in 586BC, the church that you claim started in 33AD must have followed the same concepts. That's a 600 year gap. If the Catholic church started in 325AD it's a 900 year gap.

For the sake of repeating myself, Caiaphas prophesied without the use of the Urim and Thummim. I get it, you don't accept the New Testament, do you accept that i do?



My barber is the only one who can cut my hair. That doesn't make him inerrant.


Lol, that has to be one of the worst analogies i have ever heard:rofl:

There could only be one high priest at any given time. Anyone who has trained as a barber can cut your hair!

Fenris
Sep 24th 2008, 01:04 PM
For the sake of repeating myself, Caiaphas prophesied without the use of the Urim and Thummim. I get it, you don't accept the New Testament, do you accept that i do?One prophecy makes someone inerrant?

In any case, prophecy was used to deliver divine messages, not rule on law.




Lol, that has to be one of the worst analogies i have ever heard:rofl:

There could only be one high priest at any given time. Anyone who has trained as a barber can cut your hair!
A barber has a specific role. A high priest has a specific role.

Jerome1
Sep 24th 2008, 01:24 PM
One prophecy makes someone inerrant?

In any case, prophecy was used to deliver divine messages, not rule on law.


From the Talmudic writings i have shown you, when he consulted the Urim and Thummim, the oracle received could not be revoked. I don't know if it was used to rule on the law, it could well have been. I need to research more Talmudic writings.


A barber has a specific role. A high priest has a specific role.

There was only ever one high priest, and he was usually chosen because of his geneology. Are you going to tell me next that your barber was specifically chosen after careful consideration of his familes geneology?:lol:

Fenris
Sep 24th 2008, 01:34 PM
From the Talmudic writings i have shown you, when he consulted the Urim and Thummim, the oracle received could not be revoked.But again, there was no such device during this era.

Even assuming that the NT is correct, a single prophecy by a single high priest does not make the position inerrant. That prophecy would have been the first one by a high priest since well before 586BC. Even the NT doesn't have the tradition of many high priests having many prophecies.


I don't know if it was used to rule on the law, it could well have been. I need to research more Talmudic writings.You do that.






There was only ever one high priest, and he was usually chosen because of his geneology.During the Roman era the High Priest was chosen based on who paid off the Romans the most. Surely someone who has read as much as you have knows that.


Are you going to tell me next that your barber was specifically chosen after careful consideration of his familes geneology?:lol:
No, I usally pick mine by low bid. The High Priest was chosen by high bid (to the Romans).

Teke
Sep 24th 2008, 01:53 PM
These questions are with SFASH in mind but anybody can feel free to respond.

I have noticed a lot of the criticisms aimed at catholicism could have also been aimed at Judaism.

People claim for example that the bible interprets the bible and God would'nt establish an outside body to interpret the law, whether you believe that is the Orthodox, Anglican,RCC etc....



Haven't read the whole thread Jerome. But I have to ask what is the point of this. Judaism is a natural religion (ex. holy wars on land) and Christianity is a spiritual one (ex. spiritual warfare). Both follow the law. Both are conciliar in approach to scripture (rabbis vs bishops).

This is not to say that Israel didn't get the spiritual, they did with Deuteronomy (meaning second law, which was spiritual to explain the law already given). But spiritual warfare wasn't their choice and still isn't.

TrustingFollower
Sep 24th 2008, 02:21 PM
Both follow the law.

Are saying that Christians need to follow the law of Moses? I hope not because that would be in contrary to what the scriptures teach us.

Galatians 5

13 ¶For you were called to freedom, brethren; only do not turn your freedom into an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another.
14 For the whole Law is fulfilled in one word, in the statement, "YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF."

Teke
Sep 24th 2008, 02:46 PM
Are saying that Christians need to follow the law of Moses? I hope not because that would be in contrary to what the scriptures teach us.

Galatians 5

13 ¶For you were called to freedom, brethren; only do not turn your freedom into an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another.
14 For the whole Law is fulfilled in one word, in the statement, "YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF."

Why ask me that and then quote the law?

More than likely we disagree on what the law is and means. Yet that is no excuse to accuse me as did the Jews of Paul, accusing him of sedition. We are free and at liberty in Christ.

Act 24:14 But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets:

TrustingFollower
Sep 24th 2008, 04:54 PM
Why ask me that and then quote the law?

More than likely we disagree on what the law is and means. Yet that is no excuse to accuse me as did the Jews of Paul, accusing him of sedition. We are free and at liberty in Christ.

Act 24:14 But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets:
To make a blanket statement that we as Christians are to live by the laws of Moses is as I stated before contrary to what is in the scriptures. It is not required anymore. Christ full filled the law, we are in Christ and Christ is in us. Christ set us free from having to maintain the ways of the law. Now if you want to maintain the law that is your decision not what the scriptures say for all Christians though.

Romans 2

12 ¶For all who have sinned without the Law will also perish without the Law, and all who have sinned under the Law will be judged by the Law;

Galatians 5

1 It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery.
2 ¶Behold I, Paul, say to you that if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no benefit to you.
3 And I testify again to every man who receives circumcision, that he is under obligation to keep the whole Law.

Teke
Sep 24th 2008, 05:46 PM
To make a blanket statement that we as Christians are to live by the laws of Moses is as I stated before contrary to what is in the scriptures. It is not required anymore. Christ full filled the law, we are in Christ and Christ is in us. Christ set us free from having to maintain the ways of the law. Now if you want to maintain the law that is your decision not what the scriptures say for all Christians though.



First, I didn't say "law of Moses", I said law in the general sense. Paul explains in Romans 7 what I mean.

Rom 7:12 Wherefore the law [is] holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.

I did not say that the law will make a person righteous (that would be self righteousness), only God can make us righteous.

Jesus did not say to disregard the law. You posted, "YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.", which is a condensed version. Do you think that this is the first time it was presented in a condensed version. It was presented in versions such as this in the OT also.
Also, many believe that the law couldn't be changed in any form or fashion, this to is a fallacy.

A good article to read to better understand this is at the Christian Think Tank (http://www.christian-thinktank.com/finaltorah.html). It contains factual information both Christian and rabbinic.

TrustingFollower
Sep 24th 2008, 06:45 PM
Teke, Thank you for the link. I don't have time to read the article right now, but I will read it later tonight.

IPet2_9
Sep 24th 2008, 06:48 PM
You know the mantra: "It's all about context...". Jesus spelled it out for us: "Love your God..." and "love your neighbor...". That's the context. If the Law, as we read it is somehow not loving God or loving our neighbor, then by definition we've got it out of context.

There's this easy trap to fall into which says, "I am loving God by obeying Scripture, therefore I am loving God no matter how I read it," and it's not so. That would be circular reasoning. To seek God (Jer. 29:13), we need to seek to understand WHY God gave us the command, because it's rooted in love somehow. That's why arguments over which day is the Sabbath, or sticking the shema on your doorstep are so silly. That's why Jesus and his disciples ate consecrated bread on the Sabbath.

Fenris
Sep 24th 2008, 06:56 PM
There's this easy trap to fall into which says, "I am loving God by obeying Scripture, therefore I am loving God no matter how I read it," and it's not so.
Well, that's an important contrast right there- assuming that loving God is enough, even without doing as He commands.

IPet2_9
Sep 24th 2008, 07:02 PM
assuming that loving God is enough, even without doing as He commands.

"Love" is a verb. You can follow the letter of the Law and yet neither love God nor be doing as He commands. And if that's what you're doing, then by definition you are NOT following the Law. You've got it out of context. That's what legalism is all about.

Fenris
Sep 24th 2008, 07:12 PM
"Love" is a verb. You can follow the letter of the Law and yet neither love God nor be doing as He commands.That's true. And yet, doing the right thing for the wrong reason is still doing God's will.


And if that's what you're doing, then by definition you are NOT following the Law. That is not so. Loving God is only one out of 613 things we are commanded to do. If I follow the Law but I don't love God, one is missing. If I love God but don't follow the law, 612 are missing. :hmm:


You've got it out of context. That's what legalism is all about.
Well, why can't one do both?

Fenris
Sep 24th 2008, 07:24 PM
You know, I feel like the whole 'legalism' argument is based on a false premise. Trying to follow the law perfectly is not in place of loving God. It is because we love God.

We love God so much that we don't want to follow the law in a haphazard manner. Rather, we want to follow it exactly and precisely as God desires it.

I don't understand how this can be considered a bad thing...

Jerome1
Sep 24th 2008, 08:39 PM
But again, there was no such device during this era.

Even assuming that the NT is correct, a single prophecy by a single high priest does not make the position inerrant. That prophecy would have been the first one by a high priest since well before 586BC. Even the NT doesn't have the tradition of many high priests having many prophecies.


Any oracle given by God is inerrant. I have to keep the discussion about the High Priest within Judaism. The fact that when he consulted the Urim and Thummim the oracle could not be revoked, shows that the Jewish community believed they were devinely given by an inerrant God.


During the Roman era the High Priest was chosen based on who paid off the Romans the most. Surely someone who has read as much as you have knows that.

I know the Romans chose who the high priests were, but there was still only one high priest, so it's a moot point.


No, I usally pick mine by low bid. The High Priest was chosen by high bid (to the Romans).

As far as i am aware there were two people/Empires who forcibly replaced the high priests, the Seleucid Empire under Antiochus and the Roman Empire under various Emperors.

Fenris
Sep 24th 2008, 08:49 PM
Any oracle given by God is inerrant. I have to keep the discussion about the High Priest within Judaism. The fact that when he consulted the Urim and Thummim the oracle could not be revoked, shows that the Jewish community believed they were devinely given by an inerrant God.Not on legal issues, which were decided by a majority vote.

The Pope has the final say-so on legal issues.




I know the Romans chose who the high priests were, but there was still only one high priest, so it's a moot point.So the Romans picked the high bidder, and as if by magic he became holy and inerrant?

Jerome1
Sep 24th 2008, 09:07 PM
Not on legal issues, which were decided by a majority vote.

The Pope has the final say-so on legal issues.


I have to keep this discussion about the high priest's role within Judasim.;)

As iv'e already stated, the high priest presided over the Sanhedrin. I would really have to find Talmudic examples of the high priests rulings during meetings of the Sanhedrin.


So the Romans picked the high bidder, and as if by magic he became holy and inerrant?

I wouldn't use the word, "Holy," to describe some of the high priests, but yes, they were still given devine oracles by God. Inspite of them being worthy or not to hold their position.

Romans3:3 What if some were unfaithful? Will their faithlessness nullify the faithfulness of God? By no means! Altough everyone is a liar, let God be proved true as it is written, "So that you may be justified in your words, and prevail in your judging."

Fenris
Sep 24th 2008, 09:22 PM
One point that we're dancing around here is that the line "It is not in heaven..." (Deuteronomy 30:12) is taken very seriously by Jews. There is no part of the Law that was not given to man. Consequently, no new laws from heaven are expected. Even from prophets.

Fenris
Sep 24th 2008, 09:28 PM
I have to keep this discussion about the high priest's role within Judasim.;)

As iv'e already stated, the high priest presided over the Sanhedrin. I would really have to find Talmudic examples of the high priests rulings during meetings of the Sanhedrin.Yes, you do.




I wouldn't use the word, "Holy," to describe some of the high priests, but yes, they were still given devine oracles by God. Inspite of them being worthy or not to hold their position.
Well, since I don't believe that there were prophets in the era at all, you have to convince me of two things: 1)That there were indeed prophets; and 2)that someone unworthy would still get revelation from God.

Because both of those points run counter to Jewish understanding.

Jerome1
Sep 24th 2008, 09:39 PM
One point that we're dancing around here is that the line "It is not in heaven..." (Deuteronomy 30:12) is taken very seriously by Jews. There is no part of the Law that was not given to man. Consequently, no new laws from heaven are expected. Even from prophets.


It states in one of the Talmudic writings that i quoted for you earlier, that when the high priest consulted the Urim and Thummim, he turned towards the Shekhinah(which means the presence of God). So devine oracles were still sought and received, i would need Talmudic references to see what devine oracles were sought by the high priest.



Well, since I don't believe that there were prophets in the era at all, you have to convince me of two things: 1)That there were indeed prophets; and 2)that someone unworthy would still get revelation from God.

Because both of those points run counter to Jewish understanding.


I will answer these when i get more time.

Fenris
Sep 24th 2008, 09:41 PM
It states in one of the Talmudic writings that i quoted for you earlier, that when the high priest consulted the Urim and Thummim, he turned towards the Shekhinah(which means the presence of God). So devine oracles were still sought and received, i would need Talmudic references to see what devine oracles were sought by the high priest.
What does that have to do with introducing new laws?



I will answer these when i get more time.
Please do.

Fenris
Sep 25th 2008, 12:25 PM
There is a ton of information at this site: http://www.thesanhedrin.org/en/index.php/Historical_Overview

Look at the chart at the bottom of the page. According to this site, the last time the High Priest was a member of the Sanhedrin was 260BC.

Jerome1
Sep 29th 2008, 12:59 PM
What does that have to do with introducing new laws?


Christ was the new High Priest, he fulfilled the Old Covenant, including the law. He also expounded on existing laws, for example, to commit adultery included to look at a woman lustfully(Matthew5:27-30). A woman who was caught in adultery was also acquitted when Jesus said to the people who were accusing her, "Let anyone among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her."



Please do.


I don't really see the need to explain this. There are countless examples in the bible where the people appeal to God's faithfullness, and admit their own faithlessness.

Daniel9:7 "Righteousness is on your side, O Lord, but open shame, as at this day, falls on us, the people of Judah, the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and all Israel, those who are near and those who are far away, in all the lands to which you have driven them, because of the treachery that they have committed against you.

Jeremiah14:7 Altough our iniquities testify against us, act, O Lord, for your name's sake; our apostasies indeed are many, and we have sinned against you.

Isaiah25:1 O Lord, you are my God; I will exalt you, I will praise your name; for you have done wonderful things, plans formed of old, faithful and sure.

Deuteronomy7:9 Know therefore that the Lord your God is God, the faithful God who maintains covenant loyalty with those who love him and keep his commandments, to a thousand generations,

Jerome1
Sep 29th 2008, 01:14 PM
I also found this interesting from the Bablyonian Talmud: Tractate Sanhedrin.


The Emperor said to Rabban Gamaliel: 'Ye maintain that upon every gathering of ten [Jews] the Shechinah rests:28 (http://www.come-and-hear.com/sanhedrin/sanhedrin_39.html#39a_28) how many Shechinahs are there then?' Rabban Gamaliel called [Caesar's] servant, and tapped him on the neck,29 (http://www.come-and-hear.com/sanhedrin/sanhedrin_39.html#39a_29) saying, 'Why does the sun enter into Caesar's house?'29 (http://www.come-and-hear.com/sanhedrin/sanhedrin_39.html#39a_29) 'But,' he30 (http://www.come-and-hear.com/sanhedrin/sanhedrin_39.html#39a_30) exclaimed, 'the sun shines31 (http://www.come-and-hear.com/sanhedrin/sanhedrin_39.html#39a_31) upon the whole world!' 'Then if the sun, which is but one of the countless myriads of the servants of the Holy One, blessed be He, shines on the whole world, how much more the Shechinah of the Holy One, blessed be He, Himself!'

(Emphasis added)

Source: http://www.come-and-hear.com/sanhedrin/sanhedrin_39.html

A great rebuttal by Rabban Gamaliel it has to be added.

This reminded me of this quote from the New Testament.

Matthew18:20 For where two or three are gathered in my name, I am there among them."

Fenris
Sep 29th 2008, 09:17 PM
I also found this interesting from the Bablyonian Talmud: Tractate Sanhedrin.

Uh, yeah, that's why we pray with 10 men in a quorum.

Fenris
Sep 29th 2008, 09:18 PM
Jerome, any comment on the fact that according to the site i showed, the last time the High Priest was a member of the Sanhedrin was 260BC?

Jerome1
Sep 30th 2008, 02:16 AM
Uh, yeah, that's why we pray with 10 men in a quorum.


Lol, interesting because it is similar to Matthew18:20.


Jerome, any comment on the fact that according to the site i showed, the last time the High Priest was a member of the Sanhedrin was 260BC?

I'll read it when i get more time.

Fenris
Oct 1st 2008, 11:29 PM
I'll read it when i get more time.
let us know when you do.

Jerome1
Oct 2nd 2008, 11:12 AM
Jerome, any comment on the fact that according to the site i showed, the last time the High Priest was a member of the Sanhedrin was 260BC?

I read it, could you quote the specific part, i can't see the part you are talking about?

Could you also give me the reference to which part of the document it is on.

Fenris
Oct 2nd 2008, 11:21 AM
I read it, could you quote the specific part, i can't see the part you are talking about?The large chart at the bottom of the page. You can't miss it.


Could you also give me the reference to which part of the document it is on.From the site:
Nassi and Av Beis Din information from "History of the Jewish People", based on Seder Olam Zuta.
High Priest information based on Josephus

Jerome1
Oct 2nd 2008, 11:39 AM
Ahhhhhhh, i see what the problem was Fenris, i was reading the wrong link, i must have clicked on my link instead of yours.:blush:

I'll read the one you posted later.

Fenris
Oct 2nd 2008, 11:50 AM
That would be great.

Jerome1
Oct 8th 2008, 12:08 AM
I'll read it tomorrow Fenris, i have been really busy. There are only another couple of points i want to make, but i'll read the article first and tell you what i think.

Jerome1
Oct 8th 2008, 08:27 PM
Jerome, any comment on the fact that according to the site i showed, the last time the High Priest was a member of the Sanhedrin was 260BC?

The site you linked agrees with what i have already stated, for the most part. That the High Priest presided over the Sanhedrin but had various levels of political control throughout the history of the Sanhedrin.

I believe the date you have picked is probably because various Gentile rulers from around this period disposed of, and elected representatives to the office of High Priest. Jews obviously had a problem with puppet High Priests. My argument is that if they were validly put in place whether they were puppets or not, God still worked through them. They were still obliged to carry out their daily functions, but yes i accept that Jews were wary of High Priests who had been put in place by various ruling Emperors, or their Governors. I also accept that the Jewish people, such as in the case of Caiaphas, would pay more attention to the Pharisees, than they did to Caiaphas(a Sadducee who the Romans gave the office to).


Another important point to make when discussing the role of the High Priest, is that his initial role(ie when Moses ordained Aaron as High Priest) was to take control of religious affairs(functions), and to seek out the oracles of God. The other person to succeed Moses was Joshua, who was more of a political leader, who was meant to enforce the Mosaic law. The form of government was entirely theocratic. As i have already stated the High Priest had various levels of political influence throughout Jewish history, especially during periods like the Hasmonean dynasty, were he basically fulfilled both roles.

Likewise Christ is compared to Moses and Melchizedek, because Christ is both High Priest and King. In other words he fulfills both roles like Melchizedek and Moses did, religious and political.

Teke
Oct 9th 2008, 02:41 PM
"if they were validly put in place whether they were puppets or not, God still worked through them. "

That's always a hard pill to swallow.

Jerome1
Oct 9th 2008, 07:17 PM
"if they were validly put in place whether they were puppets or not, God still worked through them. "

That's always a hard pill to swallow.

I agree, it's a very hard one to swallow. Basically it boils down to trusting in God. If he has made a promise then he can even use wicked people to accomplish that promise. It's not about trusting in people, it is about trusting in God, regardless of people.

It's like Paul writes in Romans:

Romans3:3 What if some were unfaithful? Will their unfaithfulness nullify the faithfulness of God? By no means! Although everyone is a liar, let God be proved true, as it is written, "So that you may be justified in your words, and prevail in your judging."