Dear Readers,
For me, Yeshua the Anointed ( Jesus the Christ) from what I know about early Jewish life in 1st century Palestine, the historical Jesus, not the Biblical Jesus, he does not strike as this "loving" religious leader who preached about love and forgiveness, unfortunately. He strikes me as being a fanatical, apocalyptic and exclusionary Rabbi whose only concern was bringing about the Kingdom of Yahweh. The Romans saw him as a threat because the Jews believed that the Romans and all Gentiles were going to be destroyed soon and that the "world-to-come" would be the reward for all obedient and devout Jews who followed Torah law. The Jews did not expect the Messiah to get crucified which is what happened to the historical Jesus. A grave mistake on Jesus' part of you ask me. He caused a ruckus in the Temple by overturning the moneychanger's table. The High Priests saw Yeshua as a false teacher, probably a liar and a deceiver and his followers were unfortunately naïve enough to believe his claims and seem as if they were not sure of what to do after he was executed.
Jesus seemed to believe that his message was only for the Jews. "Feed the hungry, take care of the homeless, give your money away, because your not going to need all that once I have helped bring about Yahweh's kingdom". I can imagine the historical Jesus saying this. The Biblical Jesus may have some positive aspects but not a whole lot. It seems to me that in seminary, so many people really become devastated over the discoveries that they have learned behind Jewish and Christian history. The actual history is fascinating, but is far less inspiring or as positive as we might wish it to be, if you ask me. It seems to me that the early Jewish Christians believed in adhering to the rules of the Torah where as Christianity forever changed once Gentiles were allowed to convert. No doubt, the Jews that rejected Jesus' claims of being the Messiah had and still have to deal with persecution. I don't think the historical Jesus is that amazing of a person. I don't hate him of course, but I have to be honest and say he is NOT someone that I would want to look up to. I cannot look up to someone like him. He just strikes me as being a very negative figure. I imagine if more Christians knew and studied the history of their own religion, Judaism and Jewish life in 1st Century C.E. Israel that they would be utterly distraught and disappointed at who the historical Jesus was, compared to the stories of him contained in the four Gospels of the Christian texts.
Jews have gone through much enlightenment since the 1st Century. Christians have improved somewhat, but not enough in my opinion. Muslims really need to have an Islamic Enlightenment. I find the whole idea of having to be circumcised as a Jew in 1st Century to be somewhat disgusting. Gentile Christians seem to have felt this way, so they rejected much of the Torah it seems, except for things like dietary "laws". Jesus views on adultery and the rabbinical priesthood are appalling to me at best and entirely backward and wrong. I don't condone cheating on one's spouse of course, but his views on the issue are just insane. What's weird is that Paul of Tarsus the self-proclaimed "Apostle"/St. Paul cannot seem to decide in his letters/Epistles to the Middle-Eastern Christians of the time whether Jesus was given a new body or whether his old body had been reformed at his resurrection. What's weird is that Jesus' disciples and followers in the Gospels don't even recognize who he is and they mistake him for being other people. Paul doesn't seem to give much thought as to what happened to Jesus' body after he died. I think the historical Jesus would be disgusted by the invention of Christianity and would probably preach against it for being a heretical off-set of Judaism. Historians, biblical scholars and textual critics have noted that the four Gospels are not historically accurate and were not written by the accredited authors, in other words, the Four Gospels were NOT written by Matthew, Mark, Luke nor John. The Gospels are based on a real figure, but the real figure is hidden behind a lot of mythology, though they do give us a glimpse into what the historical Jesus would have been like and what he would have done.
The historical Jesus was a nobody. He was a Nazarene and the Messiah according to Judaism was supposed to be born in Bethlehem. He thought he was the Messiah that was prophesied to bring about Yahweh's kingdom, angered the Jewish High Priests with his teachings, including teachings on adultery and the priesthood, was put on trial by Pontius Pilate and executed by Roman authorities by being impaled on a stake. Then the religion of Christianity came into being. Early Christians had diverse views, the only form of Christianity that really managed to survive was Pauline Christianity. Who were the twelve disciples of Rabbi Yeshua Ben Joseph the Anointed? Historians see them as illiterate, lower-class peasants who spoke Aramaic. The authors of the Gospels were highly-educated Christians who lived outside of Palestine and spoke in Greek.
We have three historical references to Jesus in history by two historians: Tacitus and Josephus.
Josephus mentions James who was the blood-brother of Yeshua. Early Christian pastors in Palestine were talking of a man who had been crucified for less than a decade after causing a controversial disturbance in the Temple. I would like to give special thanks to Belgium atheist, lover of history and AtheistNexus.org forum member, Matt VDB for also sharing much of this same information on AtheistNexus.org. He's a really cool guy and I think that many atheists and religious people could learn a lot from him. His views are insightful and very thought-provoking. Thank you so much, Matt VDB! I will be borrowing a lot insights from Matt because he can really illuminate things better than I can concerning the history of Christianity and the historical Jesus, but I will try to put things in my own words for you.
Anyways, the authors of the Gospels attempt to put the historical Jesus into a Messianic role to try and make the crucifixion seem less humiliating then what it was, they sugarcoat Jesus' last words, they try to mention that Jesus came from Nazareth which was really a small and unimportant town at the time and the authors try to exempt the Romans from being blamed over Yeshua's crucifixion. Technically as Matt says, the early Christians had to put a spin on these stories to make them more believable to people and essentially came up with an "absurd and ahistorical story".
Tacitus refers to a Jew called the Christ who lived during Tiberius' reign as was crucified by the Procurator Pontius Pilate which means that Jesus' crucifixion occurred sometime between 26 to 36 C.E. One reason at Matt points out to other Nexus.org members ( in a discussion) who deny the existence of the historical Jesus, as to why many historians of the time didn't make more references to Yeshua who was a preacher and faith-healer living in an obscure province of the Roman Empire, is because historians of the time were Roman and Greek aristocrats and weren't interested in Galilean Jewish preachers and/or faith-healers. Which as Matt points out, is why Seneca and Pliny never mention them. The only aristocrat interested in Jewish issues was Flavius Josephus who wrote the book "Antiquities of the Jews" that explains to other aristocrats as to why a bunch of Jews decided to start a revolt against the Roman Empire in 66 C.E.
Tacitus mentions that Jesus was called the Messiah by some Jews, was crucified by Pontius Pilate during the reign of Tiberius and mentions how Jesus spawned what Tacitus referred to as a " vile and mischievous superstition". That Tacitus would say that about Christianity is not surprising, he was a First-Century Roman aristocrat who spoke Latin. Early Christian writer Origen mentions the references to Jesus by Josephus, but in Origen's writings, he adds that Josephus did not believe that
Jesus was the Messiah. You know how Christians think their exempt from following Jewish rules, well Jesus never mentions anything to his followers about dropping the "Laws". In the Book of Acts in the Christian Bible, Paul portrays an argument between Christians who are debating about whether they have to follow the Law to the letter or not and Paul writes that Jesus came down from the sky again and settles the dispute in Paul's favor as Matt states.
Matt. interestingly mention in his opinion that one reason why Gentiles who were called " God-Fearers" from joining Christianity was because of the practice of circumcision. Regarding Jesus' birth, the story of the Virgin Birth did not come around until later. Historians and scholars aren't sure whether the Gospel writers intended the story to be taken literally or as metaphorical way of saying that Jesus was an especially holy man like Isaac, Samuel and Samson. As Matt mentions, the Virgin Birth contradicts the supposed royal lineage of Jesus being a latter-day descendant of King David.
The reason the Christian bible was composed, is the same as why the Jewish bible was composed, the Christian bible is a complied versions of beliefs, practices and sayings of the supposed Messiah and some of his more influential followers which would include Paul. The books included when the Christian bible was compiled were viewed as being the most accurate and the one's closest to what Jesus would have thought which is why the Synoptic Gospels were chosen. It was a process that took two centuries and was fueled largely by influential Christians such as Irenaeus and Origen and ended by 250 C.E. The Christian texts were not composed of at the Council of Nicea under the orders of Constantine. What happened at the Council was that the Christians were debating about theological issues that are not really important to people of today. Constantine did urge Christians to start the Council because he was a Christian since the Battle of the Milivian Bridge and he became so tired of the theological "gibberish" as Matt states that he left the Council after a few days.
Governments had nothing to do with the formation of Christianity, other than persecuting the Christians and there a few passages in the Bible that inspire or make obedient citizens which is why the Romans didn't like the Christians very much as Matt states on AtheistNexus.org. When Constantine legalized Christianity, Christians only made up between 5 to 10% of the Roman Empire. What the Council of Nicea was supposed to do was decide the details of Jesus' divinity, whether his divinity was derived from proceeding from Yahweh as was written by Arian, or whether Jesus' divinity was fully independent which was the position help by 258 of 260 bishops in the Council. Theodosius I is responsible for making Christianity the state religion.
This is enough for now. Thanks for reading.
Sincerely,
B.W.
TORAH JESUS AND THE HYPOCRITES
ReplyDeleteThe Jesus/Yahsua of the Gospel of Matthew is a TORAH believer and rejected the Oral Tradition of the Pharisees (Matthew 15:1-20; 23:1-39;)
He is not the "Jesus meek and mild" character preached in Christendom. He was a preacher of Righteousness, just like the Prophets and John Baptist.
Because of the masochistic slaughterhouse theology preached by Roman Catholicism and Protestantism, people who swallow this garbage are left “spiritually castrated”!
Both Jew and Christian MUST return to TORAH and practice it; otherwise create a New Religion.
Talmudic Judaism (Oral Traditions) and Roman Catholicism/Protestantism are spiritual sewers, that have polluted the minds of millions of people.
TEL AVIV today would make the people of Sodom blush.
If there is a God, then Israel deserves to be destroyed!
MATTHEW 15
Jesus DEMANDED the death penalty for the son who curses his parents:
MATTHEW 15:1-9
Then some Pharisees and teachers of the law came to Jesus from Jerusalem and asked, “Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? They don’t wash their hands before they eat!”
Jesus replied, “And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition”?
For God said, ‘Honor your father and mother’[Exodus 20:12; Deuteronomy. 5:16] and ‘Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.’[Exodus 21:17; Leviticus. 20:9]
But you say that if anyone declares that what might have been used to help their father or mother is ‘devoted to God,’ they are not to ‘honor their father or mother’ with it. Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition.
You hypocrites! Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you:
“These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me.
They worship me in vain; their teachings are merely human rules.’[Isaiah 29:13]”
JESUS AND THE TRADITIONS OF THE ELDERS (Matthew 15:1-20)
The Reading of the Text
Then some Pharisees and teachers of the law came to Jesus from Jerusalem and asked, 2 “Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? They don’t wash their hands before they eat!”
3 Jesus replied, “And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition? 4 For God said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’ and ‘Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.’ 5 But you say that if a man says to his father and mother, ‘Whatever help you might otherwise have received from me is a gift devoted to God,’ 6 he is not to ‘honor his father’ with it. Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition. 7 You hypocrites! Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you:
8 ‘These people honor me with their lips,
but their hearts are far from me.
9 They worship me in vain;
their teachings are but rules taught by men’.”
10 Jesus called the crowd to him and said, “Listen and understand. 11 What goes into a man’s mouth does not make him ‘unclean,’ but what comes out of his mouth, that is what makes him ‘unclean’.”
12 Then the disciples came to him and asked, “Do you not know that the Pharisees were offended when they heard this?” 13 He replied, “Every plant that my heavenly Father has not planted will be pulled up by the roots. 14 Leave them; they are blind guides. If a blind man leads a blind man, both will fall into a pit.”
15 Peter said, “Explain the parable to us.” 16 “Are you still so dull?” Jesus asked them. 17 “Don’t you see that whatever enters the mouth goes into the stomach and then out of the body? 18 But the things that come out of the mouth come from the heart, and these make a man ‘unclean’. 19 For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander. 20 These are what make a man ‘unclean’; but eating with unwashed hands does not make him ‘unclean’.”
TORAH JESUS
ReplyDeletePART 2
OBSERVATION ON THE TEXT
The passage unfolds step-by-step. First there is the challenge by the teachers and the response to them by Jesus (1-9). Then there is the report that Jesus turned to teach the crowd on the real source of uncleanness (10, 11). Third, the disciples ask about offending the Pharisees, and Jesus answered them with a parable that then had to be explained (12-20). In effect, then, the teachers raise the question, and Jesus answers them, explains his answer to the crowds, and explains his dealings with the teachers to the disciples. There was one occasion, but Jesus has three separate audiences to address, with separate issues.
In the study it will be important to learn about the traditions of the elders on the subject of washing or purifying the hands. For this you may start with a good book on the backgrounds to the Gospel, but may in fact go to the primary source, the Mishnah.(1) While tracing down that issue in early Judaism, you will also want to learn more about the issue of “Korban” that Jesus discusses here—how they got out of supporting parents by making a dedicatory offering.
(1)The Mishnah is the collection of teachings from the sages from about 200 B.C. to about 250 A.D. It may be obtained as a separate publication, or it may be obtained with the Talmud for the Talmud includes Mishnah. The material is arranged topically, and so you would have to locate the discussions of washing hands and on vows (for “Korban”).
THE TORAH/TANACH/OLD TESTAMENT BACKGROUND
The two issues from the Old Testament that will need some clarification will be the laws on cleanness and uncleanness from Leviticus, and the citation from Isaiah about hypocrites. These too will be best treated in the context as they come up. But a good word study book (2) will certainly help with the difficulty of “clean” and “unclean,” and a commentary or two on Isaiah may be consulted for the passage used.
(2) There are a number of word study books that are quite good; but for someone who plans to do a lot of Bible study in Old Testament issues like this, the recent multi-volume set edited by Willem van Gemeren, The New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis (Grand Rapids: Zondervan). One volume provides topical studies, and one of the topical studies concerns “clean and unclean.” The set is arranged by the order of Hebrew words, but is so well cross-referenced that a person who has no Hebrew can use it easily.
THE ANALYSIS OF THE PASSAGE
Challenge and Response: In response to the challenge by the teachers about the disciples’ violation of their traditions, Jesus rebuked the teachers for their hypocrisy (15:1-9).
First, the accusation (1, 2). The men who bring the accusation are from Jerusalem, meaning that they were the best trained and most highly respected teachers in the land. They also had a good deal of zeal to be this far away from home. Their appearance here must be a deputation or mission of some kind. Whatever the reason for their presence, they were the source of the most direct confrontation and personal attack that Jesus had to endure.
The point of their accusation is telling: Jesus and his disciples had violated the “traditions of the elders” as if those traditions were now authoritative and could be sinned against. These traditions were still oral in Jesus’ days, but were written down a couple of centuries later. The traditions about washing would be found in the tractate called Yadayim or “Hands” (see Mishnah Yadayim 2:1). What this means is that the traditions of men had been elevated to the status of Scripture, so that one could be guilty of violating them. By the way, the same problem exists today as many groups have their “biblical” views, and to violate them means criticism or expulsion from the group. But some of those views are applications and not what the Bible actually teaches.
TORAH JESUS
ReplyDeletePART 3
Second, the Rebuke of Jesus (3-9). The reply of Jesus is more a counterattack than a reply to their question. He first accuses them of breaking the commands of God in order to keep their traditions. This puts the issue back to them—they were the sinners, not Jesus and his disciples, because they had broken God’s commands and not just some teachings of elders.
To press his point he reminds them of their tradition of getting around the law of God. They could pronounce a vow on their things with the word, “Korban,” meaning it is a gift (see tractate Nedarim in the Mishnah, chapters 1, 9, 11). The word “Korban” is based on the word in Leviticus for bringing something near to God. If because of greed, for example, a man did not want to help support his aging parents, he would announce “Korban.” That would mean the money was frozen, and could not be used for taking care of the parents. Thus, they could use their traditions to get out of taking care of their father and mother (which the Law required). Then, they might find a way of nullifying the vow so they ended up keeping the money. A clever tradition of swearing or taking oaths had grown up as a way around a clear cut teaching of the word of God.
This, Jesus says, is hypocritical, and thus they fulfill the prophecy of Isaiah. Here is the first place that Jesus called them hypocrites. Here he quotes Isaiah 29:13, which was clearly addressed to the prophet’s own audience. But by quoting it Jesus was saying that his generation was doing the same thing as Isaiah’s generation, and so the words are also addressed to this generation. In both contexts, Isaiah and Matthew, the people spoken to are Jews from Jerusalem who had a religion that was characterized by externals that often crowded out truths. The Jews in Jesus’ day were just preserving the spirit of the folks in Isaiah’s day. They said all the right things, giving the impression they were pious; but their hearts and wills were not obedient at all (they would not honor father and mother, for one example). They had a religious form, but not the reality that goes with it. So their teaching was in vain because there was nothing of God’s authority behind them.
The quotation from Isaiah generally follows the shorter form of the verse found in the Greek Old Testament, the Septuagint. The point is very clear: Jesus was saying to his audience what Isaiah said to his, that their worship was vain because they were far from God in their hearts.
II. Teaching: Jesus explained to the crowd that what went into a man’s mouth did not make him unclean, but what came forth (15:10,11). The Old Testament had a lot to say about clean and unclean (for which see the discussions in commentaries or in word study books). Everything was classified as either clean or unclean, and what was unclean was not allowed in the temple. So defilements, diseases, sins, contaminations, discharges and the like made a person unclean. The Pharisees were rigid in observing the laws of cleanness as well as the Sabbath observances and the tithes. In the process they were so concerned with the outward observance of these defilements and contacts with things unclean that they failed to realize that the real defilement was sin. The diseases, discharges, and defilements that made a person unclean were things in life that were the result of the presence of sin and death. To observe the outward rituals and miss the connection with sin was a waste of time. The real source of uncleanness was the human heart, as Jesus will say shortly. To harbor sin and wash hands with ritual washing was hypocritical.
TORAH JESUS
ReplyDeletePART 4
The ceremonial laws, including the dietary laws, were given to keep Israel distinct from the nations, but in the coming of the Messiah the believers from the nations would be united with believing Israel in the new covenant. Here Jesus would address the real source of uncleanness, which got to the heart of the matter. They were holding to externals and missed the real spirit of the law and the reason for the washing.
III. Question and Answer: Jesus answer’s the disciples’ question about his treatment of the Pharisees by stating that they were blind guides (15:12-20). The question of the disciples showed that the Pharisees must have understood what Jesus had said and taken offence at it. The people held these teachers in high regard, and so the disciples were worried that Jesus was too hard on them. They wanted to be exactly clear on what Jesus had said and meant that offended them; and Jesus wanted them to be clear on the unreliability of the Pharisees’ teaching. The basic issue was their misunderstanding of the Law—they dwelt on the externals as the source of uncleanness and did not realize that the source of the defilements was sin in the world, so uncleanness originated in the human heart.
In short: the human heart produced sin, and sin brought the curse, and the curse brought disease, defilement and death. God legislated rituals to deal with the defilements and the death as a way of reminding Israel of the fact that they were defiled by sin. And Jesus often healed people as a way of showing that He could deal with the cause of the sickness, sin, as well as the results.
To answer the disciples Jesus used a couple of images. The first was that any plant that the Father had not planted would be rooted up (v. 13). The image comes from the Old Testament again that pictures true Israel, the covenant believers, as God’s planting (see Isaiah. 5:1-7). Jesus was not saying that false teaching would be rooted out, but false teachers. In other words, the Pharisees are not part of God’s planting.
The second image is that the teachers of Israel saw themselves as guides for the blind (as Isaiah described the ignorant people of the land; Isaiah. 42:18). But Jesus says that these leaders were blind themselves, and so blind leaders of the blind, and both would fall into a pit. The leaders were blind because they failed to understand the Scriptures that they taught, and so majored on externals and missed the reality. And, since they were so weak in spiritual understanding, they also failed to perceive who Jesus was and failed to follow Him—that is the ultimate spiritual blindness (see John 5:39-40). Therefore, as leaders they will lead people away from Messiah, because they do not rightly discern the Scriptures.
TORAH JESUS
ReplyDeletePART 5
The disciples have faith in Jesus, but are still weak in their understanding of all that Jesus taught. So Peter asked the meaning of the parable mentioned in verse 11, and the disciples’ failure to understand shocked Jesus: “Are you so dull,” meaning, “Are you still without understanding?” This question draws greater attention to their failure to understand.
So Jesus explains in some detail what it is that defiles a person. What someone eats goes in the mouth and is cast out into a latrine eventually. That in one sense is eventually unclean, either the wrong foods being eaten, or what is excreted. But Jesus is saying that the real issue is not what enters the mouth but what comes out, because that comes from the heart. And what are the products of the heart or will? — murder, anger, immorality, etc. (following generally the order of the latter commandments).
The point that Jesus is making is that it is what a person actually is that brings defilement. The external laws of cleanness and uncleanness if properly understood to reflect the effects of sin in the world were helpful for a devout Israelite to avoid the impurities as a way of following a life of purity. But as is so often the case, it was easier to focus on the external rituals and forget the spiritual reality behind them. Jesus is teaching that true religion must deal with the true nature of men and women, not just the outer performances. The teachers would have known this if they had been concerned about inner purity.
Jesus finally ends this teaching by saying that eating with unwashed hands does not make a man spiritually unclean, but what comes from the heart does. This is a radical departure from not only the traditions of the elders but also the details of the Law. But Jesus has already made it clear (see Matthew. 5:21-48) that He has fully expressed what the Law is about, and therefore whatever the laws teach must be determined by their relationship to Him. Not only had Jesus rejected the Pharisees and the teachers of the Law as the authentic teachers of his day, but he had assumed that role for himself—he is the REAL teacher. The conflict between what he was teaching and what the traditions of the Jews taught would come to a head later. But now that the Messiah has come and gave the full expression of the Law, every detail of the Law has to be seen in that way, in the light of the fulfillment of the Old Testament in him. And that usually means that the external regulations of the Law are no longer binding, but what it revealed about God and about His will are.
After all, the spirit of the Law was to develop righteousness, not to provide a number of binding external regulations. Jesus was more concerned that people understand that to develop righteousness they would have to be transformed in their hearts so that they would produce righteousness and not uncleanness. Washing hands, therefore, ceased to be a significance step in that direction when the heart was unclean. And the only way that people could be transformed in their hearts was to accept the Message of Jesus and find forgiveness. But the Jewish teachers would have none of that.
TORAH JESUS
ReplyDeletePART 6
CONCLUSION AND APPLICATION
The passage focuses on the main idea that spiritual uncleanness is in the heart, the will, the mind, or whatever term is used for the spiritual nature of the person. It does not come from eating without washing the hands. The keeping of external regulations was to have directed the faithful to focus on inner spirituality, but it did not do this. And so external ritual replaced inner spiritual reality. And so Jesus took this opportunity to
teach that truth—at the expense of the teachers’ reputation. As far as he was concerned, they had failed in their task because they misunderstood the Scripture, and so they were useless as guides. They should be rooted out and destroyed.
One clear lesson, then, for this passage would concern external rituals. If people participate in Church services and follow all the ritual perfectly, religiously, that may represent a heart of faith, but it may not. Unbelievers can have the appearance of being devout, but if there is not faith their ritual will not help. Ritual without the reality of faith is worthless. It is more important for people to get their hearts right with God than to get the order of the ritual down; and getting the heart right with God begins with obeying the Message of Jesus, finding forgiveness and cleansing from God, and following faithfully Jesus’ teachings about the spiritual life.
One particularly telling witness of uncleanness in the heart comes from this business of Korban. If people are trying to legitimize ways of not fulfilling their spiritual duties then the heart needs cleansing.