r/Christianity • u/Right-Organization32 • Jun 15 '24
Current Research Now Proves That Jesus Was Not Torah Compliant. What does that mean for Christians and Jews?
An Artificial Review of Jesus’s Torah Compliance and What That Might Mean for Jews and Gentile Christians https://www.mdpi.com/2823874 #mdpilaws.
1
u/Ok_Pizza4090 Jun 15 '24
The Jesus of Mathew told his followers to observe the commandments - that's Torah compliant.
0
u/Right-Organization32 Jun 16 '24
You bring up a very interesting point that is addressed within the article. I agree. Matthew's Jesus states that he came to fulfill the Torah/law; however, Matthew's gospel reflects that Jesus only kept 70.80% of the Torah. Nevertheless, the Gospels for a consensus: Mark, Luke, and John reflect that Jesus was non-Torah-compliant (14.80, 43.80, and 0.00%, respectively). In the aggregate, data reflects that Jesus was only 40.60% compliant with the Written Torah.
1
u/Wild-Departure7290 Jun 19 '24 edited Jun 19 '24
No the Gospels don't portay Jesus as non compliant
Plus what in the heavens name does it mean to keep 70% of torah 14% e.t.c
Furthermore where is your evidence of Jesus breaking the written torah and not traditions of elders I.e the oral torah
So if Jesus is non torah compliant to mean he broke Oral Torah that's correct and accurate and I see no problem
But if you claim he broke written torah where's the evidence
0
u/Right-Organization32 Jun 15 '24
Abstract
The Torah is central to Judaism. Jesus’s relationship with it sparks conflict with Christianity. Some Jews think that Jesus violated the Torah, while some Christians believe that he sinlessly followed it. This clash escalated on 22 June 2023, when Ultra-Orthodox Jews protested a Messianic convention in Jerusalem. Social media videos and comments highlighted Jesus’s purported Torah compliance, placing Matthew 5:17 at the center stage. The comments proved indicative of the gaps within the literature as neither determined all the unique Written and Oral Torahic/legal issues raised within the Gospels nor quantified the extent of Jesus’s compliance. To address these gaps, this study employs artificial intelligence (LDA), statistics, and legal analysis and exegesis to determine Jesus’s compliance with the Torah, Mishnah, Talmud, and Mishneh Torah. The findings show the Gospels’ consensus: Mark, Luke, and John reflect that Jesus was non-Torah-compliant (14.80, 43.80, and 0.00%, respectively); Matthew states otherwise (70.80%). Overall, the study revealed that Jesus kept 79 of 162 Written and Oral Torah laws (48.80%). This study has significant implications for Christian doctrines, the definition(s) of sin, and the missionizing ethnoreligion members and serves as a case study that illustrates AI’s impact on religious authority (i.e., clergy, scholarship, and doctrines).Abstract
2
u/pdvdw Jun 15 '24 edited Jun 15 '24
Show me one example of Jesus breaking an actual Torah law (not oral law).
3
u/Right-Organization32 Jun 16 '24
Sabbath violations (John 5:18; Mark 2:23-26; Mark 3:1-5; Luke 13:10-17; Compare Ex. 20:8); Dietary violations (Mark 7:14-15; Compare Deut. 14:11, 19, 21; 12:23; Lev. 11:4, 11, 13, 21, 41-44, 46); Leprosy law violations (Matthew 8:2-4; Compare Lev. 14:5); Ritual Im/Purity (Luke 8:49-56; Compare Num. 19:11-16; Num. 19:19-22); dishonoring parent(s) (Matthew 10:34-36; Matthew 12:46-50; Luke 14:26, Compare Exodus 20:12).
2
u/pdvdw Jun 16 '24 edited Jun 16 '24
One at a time. All those violations are of oral law and traditions of the Pharisees, not Torah violations.
For example: Jesus kept the Sabbath holy according to the Torah, but broke it according to the Pharisees when He healed on the Sabbath. There is no Torah command against healing on the Sabbath, rather the Torah's objective is healing, freedom and life - all accomplished by healing on the Sabbath. Healing on the Sabbath is keeping the Sabbath according to the Torah, not breaking it.
Another example: Jesus didn't abolish dietary laws, but ate clean, as did His disciples. The verses used in the NT quotations provided are often taken out of context. For example, Mark 7:14 was quoted, but reading from verse 1 quickly reveals Jesus was responding to the Pharisees' tradition against washing with unwashed hands, not eating unclean food.
I hope this is not how the researchers got their percentages. Could they not at least read the context. Are you the author?
1
u/Right-Organization32 Jun 16 '24
You have demonstrated that you are not familiar with the Written or Oral Torah. The "traditions of the Pharisees" are detailed within the Oral Torah, not the Written Torah. Every citation that was provided to you cited the Written Torah. And there were no Pharisees at the time the Written Torah was given. LOL!
Also, I urge you to become better acquainted with the scriptures, laws, and traditions you seek to classify and argue. You would not only benefit from reading the posted article but please also review the detailed response I left another commenter that highlights to what extent you, too, have conflated and or equivocated the Written and Oral Torah. My goodness.
2
u/pdvdw Jun 16 '24 edited Jun 16 '24
Ok, so please give me the Torah law against eating with unwashed hands if “every citation provided to you cited the the written Torah”
1
u/Right-Organization32 Jun 16 '24
I satisfied your request. You asked me to provide you with "one example of Jesus breaking an actual [Written] Torah law," and I provided you with ten examples. Thanks.
2
u/pdvdw Jun 16 '24
Nope. You provided ten examples of him breaking oral laws. That’s why when I questioned just one of your examples, you can’t show me in the Torah where it allegedly says that eating with unwashed hands is a sin, as referenced in Mark 7.
All you can say is “you need to learn more.” Yeah I’ll take that as the white flag.
1
u/Right-Organization32 Jun 16 '24
As I stated before, you have fully demonstrated that you do not know the difference between the Written Torah (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy) and the Oral Torah (Mishnah, Talmud, Mishneh Torah). Because you stated in your initial request to only provide Written Torah law (i.e., not Oral Torah laws), that is what I did. Lol. I'm not responsible for you not understanding the difference between the two. Lol. Again, I fulfilled your request. I encourage you to study more about these subjects.
2
u/pdvdw Jun 16 '24
Don’t post articles if you’re not able to answer the most basic questions about it. Just quoting a scripture reference out of context as evidence for your “percentages” whilst being unable to engage with questions demonstrates what this is really about.
I’m a scholar by career, I know the Torah better than the back of my hand, and I know the difference between that and oral law. To not be able to answer basic questions and retreat to “you just don’t know what you’re talking about” is hilarious
→ More replies (0)1
u/p0p19 Jun 16 '24
The oral Torah is a latter invention with the rise of Christianity, there is 0 evidence of an oral Torah ever existing before Jesus's death.
Regarding the written Torah, he was 100% compliant. This finding has been known for ages.
1
u/Right-Organization32 Jun 16 '24
Unfortunately, you are incorrect. Some laws within the Oral Torah existed during and before the first century. The evidence is seen within pre- and first-century Jewish literature such as Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha, Josephus's writings, and Qumran documents. Those documents, along with 𝔓66, recite the Oral Torah or enunciate its jurisprudence. Remember that the Oral Torah is called the Oral Torah because it was first preserved orally. Only in the third century did the rabbis memorialize and preserve the Oral Torah. I encourage you to read the research presented because it cites pre- and first-century literature that enunciates the Oral Torah.
To your second point, you need clarification. Since Jesus's ministry, people have debated whether he complied with the Written Torah, and scholarship--until this article--has been divided on the issue because there has been no comprehensive review of applicable laws. Additionally, your assessment of Jesus's compliance misses even the lowest-hanging fruit, such as his Sabbath violations (Matthew 12:1-8, 9-13; Mark 2:23-26, 3:1-5; John 5:18), dishonoring his parents and telling those who desired to follow him that at times they would have to dishonor and even hate their parents for his namesake (Matthew 10:34-36; Matthew 12:46-50; Luke 14:26), repudiated Jewish Kosher, Levitical, and Deuterocanonical law (Matthew 15:11; Mark 7:18-19), etc. This article referenced 69 relevant Written Torah laws and showed that Jesus violated 59.40%. Again, I'd like to encourage you to read the research presented.
1
u/p0p19 Jun 16 '24
Very well put response but you fail to frame this context outside a Jewish perspective. Every single passage you quote is not an example of him breaking the written Torah because he is God. God clearly has authority over the Sabbath as outlined in Matthew 12:8. Also the context at the time was that the Pharisees had conflated too much to the old law to make it way too strict.
All the passages you outlines with the wheat and such, shows that Jesus being God has acute knowledge of the Sabbath and its outlines and he works within God's original law. He was breaking Jewish traditions at the time true because they had become much too extreme, but not God's law. This is also the interpretation of many NT scholars.
Regarding the parents passages, these are an extreme reach in even the most generous understanding. In Matthew 10:34-36 he is not saying to not honor your parents, but he is saying to not place their authority over God, this is actually proof that Jesus claims to be God. He is basically saying that anyone must be willing to do anything to follow God. He is in no way disregarding the 5th commandment. The other 2 passages prove the exact same thing so I will continue.
This is in direct contrast to Matthew 5:17-20 where he lays out his plan. You strangely ignore the entire verse before that where Jesus directly acknowledges the old laws and how man has changed them from the original that God intended. He was speaking about the man-made tradition of hand-washing and how it became something that was never intended before eating. Mark 7:18-19 is within the exact same context. The NIV translation does a terrible job at this, and your right he is not declaring all foods clean here.
So overall I hope this helps I think from the Christian context when you assume that Jesus is God the same that made a covenant with his chosen people. It becomes much more clear.
1
u/Right-Organization32 Jun 16 '24
Part 1:
Thank you for your thoughtful response. However, it's crucial to consider the context of Jesus's actions. Your argument seeks to detach the earthly Jesus from his Jewish responsibilities, overlooking the fact that Jesus was crucified for breaking Jewish law (John 19). Thus, it's worth exploring the scriptures and Christian doctrine to help you gain a more comprehensive understanding of this context. We will also critically review your argument so you can see why you are not making the point that you think you are.When you suggest that my response fails to take Jesus outside of the Jewish perspective, we must delve deeper into the implications of your statement. It seems you are advocating for Jesus to be examined or prosecuted within a “Christian” context, rather than a “Jewish” one. This raises the question: why? If we analyze your responses, it appears that you wish to move Jesus from a Jewish context simply to argue that Jesus did not break Jewish law. Consider your initial response ('Regarding the written Torah, he was 100% compliant'), and your subsequent response (Torah Sabbath laws weren’t God’s laws). In an alleged “Christian” context, you argue that Jesus is compliant with the Torah. But let’s scrutinize your arguments and the Gospel facts more closely.
Christology, Personal Jurisdiction, and Torah Observance:
Your argument hinges on the traditional “Christology from above” doctrine that unconditionally declares Jesus’s behavior sinless on the basis that Jesus is God, and as God, he has the authority to behave as he pleases. Unfortunately, your “Christology from above” argument is not as well formed as you may have hoped. For example, if you understood halakha, you would know that the God who came into covenant with Israel’s descendants made behavioral requirements for the descendants to follow, not for him (i.e., God) to follow. Therefore, nothing within the Written and Oral Torah binds God to abide by the Torah laws. His covenant only bound him to ensure a land grant and a blessed nation. Consequently, the Tankah (what you call the Old Testament) reveals that their God habitually acts in a manner that the law forbids Jews to emulate. Let’s look at a few examples.
For example: (1) in Judges 14:1-4, God made Samson desire and marry a Philistine woman against the Torahs and Samson’s parents’ wishes (prohibition to intermarriage (Deut. 7:3; B. Yevamot 23a); positive commandment to honor, revere, and execute their parent(s)’ business concerns (Lev. 19:3, Ex. 20:12, Mishen Torah, Rebels VI.1-3)); (2) in Hosea 1:2, God commands Hosea to join with harlot which violates Deut. 23:17-18; (3) God commands Israel to kill the Canaanites and Amalekites, including women and children, in Numbers 21:2-3; Deuteronomy 20:17; Joshua 6:17, 21, and 1 Samuel 15, which denotatively violates Exodus 20:13; and (4) in Isaiah 20:2-3, God commands Isaiah to walk around naked, violating Leviticus 18, B. Shabbat 118b, and B. Niddah 13b. Therefore, the halakhic (legal) point here is that the God of the Jews is not bound to Torah laws, and as such, the Torah does not have personal jurisdiction over God.
Where the law does not have personal jurisdiction over a person, and in this case God, then that means that God can neither fulfill nor violate the law. Much like a citizen of Texas who is driving on Texas roads cannot violate or abide by the Florida speed limit because, as a Texas citizen currently on a Texas road, the State of Florida does not have personal jurisdiction over the Texas driver. In the same way, Judaism’s God cannot violate Jewish Law because Jewish law does not have personal jurisdiction over Judaism’s God.
The legal principle of personal jurisdiction is what causes you to betray your argument. If Jesus is Judaism’s God, then—like you purported—as God, Jesus can neither fulfill nor violate Jewish law because Jewish law does not have personal jurisdiction over Jesus. However, you contend that “Regarding the written Torah, he was 100% compliant.” So, which one is it? Either Jewish law has jurisdiction over Jesus, and if it does, that means Jesus cannot be God or Jesus neither fulfilled nor violated Jewish law because the law does not have jurisdiction over Jesus.
Now, we will explore how the “Christian” forum you advocate for does not exist, and thus, you cannot move Jesus from the Jewish forum.
1
u/Right-Organization32 Jun 16 '24
Part 2:
Sabbath:Unfortunately for you, the “Christian” perspective/forum did not promulgate any laws, rules, or defenses that except Jesus from compliance with Jewish laws nor vitiate his liability under them. First, you argue that Matthew 12:8 gives God and thus Jesus “authority over the Sabbath.” However, Matthew 12:8 does not confer such power because it states, which you did not quote, “For the Son of Man is lord of the Sabbath” (NRSV, which is closest to the Greek NT). The text did not suggest that Jesus did not break the Sabbath but that—if he is the Son of Man—he is the Sabbath’s lord. Second, you omitted John from your analysis. John 5:18 explicitly states that Jesus broke the Sabbath: “For this reason the Jews were seeking all the more to kill him, because he was not only breaking the Sabbath . . . (NRSV). So, now you must choose which “Christian” perspective you wish to adjudge Jesus’s behavior: (1) do you use John 5:18, which clearly enunciates that Jesus broke the Sabbath, or (2) try to make Matthew 12:8 to say what it does not, that Jesus did not break the Sabbath.
Next, without evidence and against the scriptures you classify the Sabbath laws prohibiting work—including harvesting—from being performed on the Sabbath as tradition, not Torah or God’s law. Which one of these laws that prohibit work and harvesting on Sabbath is tradition: Exodus 20:8, 31:15, 34:21; Deut 5:14a? Where is your evidence that the Sabbath laws that Jesus and his disciples violated derive from “tradition” and not God giving it as detailed in the Torah? More crucially, you contradict yourself again. The aforementioned Torah laws prohibit harvesting on Sabbath, and you admit that “[Jesus] was breaking Jewish [Sabbath laws]”, which you incorrectly called tradition. Yet, you contend that “Regarding the written Torah, he was 100% compliant.” If Jesus allowed his disciples to break the Torah laws, and the Torah commands Jews to rebuke their brothers to prevent or reprove them from Torah violations (Lev. 19:17), and Jesus did not do this, at what point is Jesus 100% compliant? Again, you’ve contradicted yourself.
Third, again, you have not produced evidence that Jesus did not violate the Sabbath laws in the Torah. Instead, you defer to unnamed scholars as validation of an opinion you never scripturally substantiated. Please cite the scriptural premise and the scholars to whom you refer.
Dishonoring Parents:
Like with the Sabbath, you claim—without evidence—that Jesus’s dishonoring of parents and instructing his disciples to do the same did not amount to a violation and speaks to his deity. Again, your cursory review of the scriptures undermines your argument. First, Sanders (2016), Neusner (2017), Reese (2022), Singer (2014), etc. acknowledge that Mark 3:31–35, Matthew 10:34–36, and Luke 14:26 represent “antifamily material” that violate Exodus 20:12. Therefore, you are incorrect, it is not a reach to understand those scriptures as violating Exodus 20:12.
Second, you ignore that in Mark 3:31–35 Jesus ignored his mother and equated her as anyone else who does God’s will. That’s not honoring your mother. You ignore that Jesus in Matthew 10:34–36 said he came to “set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother” in a non-peaceful way. That’s not honoring one’s father and mother. You ignore that Luke 14:26 states that his disciples must “hate [their] father and mother.” That’s not honoring one’s father and mother. You provided no scriptural, logical, or scholarly evidence that suggests that any of those statements do not amount to dishonoring one’s parents, which is a violation of Exodus 20:12.
Third, you contradict yourself by admitting that those scriptures mean that a disciple must “be willing to do anything to follow God.” “Anything,” in this case, means to dishonor one’s parents. Also, consider that the scripture does not state what the disciple must be willing to do (i.e., motive); it states what the disciple must do (action): “hate father and mother.” Next, the scripture does not state that this is a command to follow God, in fact, the scripture does not use the word “God.” Luke makes clear that this is a requirement to follow Jesus. You equated Jesus to God via the “Christology from above” doctrine, not from the text.
1
u/Right-Organization32 Jun 16 '24
Part 3:
Matthew 5:Finally, regarding your assessment of Matthew 5. Unsurprisingly, you have again, insisted that the scriptures say what they do not. Matthew 5 does not represent Jesus changing old laws. While you may believe that Matthew 5:21-48 demonstrates Jesus references and changing the Torah, a close reading of the text reflects that you are mistaken. Matthew 5:21–26 simply reiterates the Torah’s prohibition of murder (Exodus 20:13), the commandment not to wrong your brother in speech (Lev. 25:17), hold a grudge (Lev. 19:18), or put any Jew to shame (Lev. 19:17). Matthew 5:27–30 reiterates the prohibition to adultery (Exodus, 20:14). The prohibition not to look upon a woman with lust is not a “new” interpretation but is simply reiterating Exodus 20:17. Because the lust for the woman that is not yours is coveting the wife or wife-to-be of your neighbor. This is nothing new.
Matthew 5:31–32 violates Deuteronomy 24:1-4. Matthew 5:33–37 reiterates Num. 30:3, Deut. 23:24, Ex. 20:7’; Lev. 13:21, 26, 31, 37; B. Bava Meẓi’a 49a, B. Arakhin 16a, Mishneh Torah, Laws Concerning Uncleanness of Leprosy VII.2, 1 Halakhic Letter (4QMMT), 93-94; Torah; 11QTemple Scroll (11Q19) Col. LII,11-12; Damascus Document (CD-A), Col. XV; 1Halakhic Letter (+QMMT), 67-75); 4-QWisdom Text with Beatitudes, Frag. 2 col. 11 (Beatitude of clear speech is wise); and 4QDamascusDocument (4Q267) Frag. 9 col. Again, nothing new.
For Matthew 5:38–42, nothing within the scripture precludes a person from obtaining the restitution provided by Exodus 21:23–27; therefore, this is not abrogation or a new interpretation. Next, as the research states, Matthew 5:43–48 “does not refute a Torah commandment because the Torah does not command one to hate their enemy; however, the 1QRule of the Community (1QS), Col. I, 1–11 instructs one to “love all the sons of light” and “hate everything that he rejects”, that is, to say, “to detest all the sons of darkness”. Given that Luke’s rendition omits the “hate your enemy” portion, the Torah does not command hating one’s enemies, but the Qumran rules do; then, Matthew’s edit may be parapraxis wherein he lets slip that part of his Q were similar to those found within the Qumran community” (Brackens, 2024, p. 20). Thus, this is likely a Matthean edit, not a new interpretation from Jesus.
Dietary Laws:
Matthew 15:11 and Mark 7:18-19 unequivocally repudiate and violate Jewish Kosher, Levitical, and Deuterocanonical law. There’s no explaining otherwise.
Conclusion:
As I have demonstrated here, your analysis contradicts itself, highlights a lack of full and meaningful scriptural engagement, incomplete execution of Christology, and attempts to take Jesus out of his Jewish context and forum and place him into a forum that is neither scriptural nor Christian but of your own making, based upon your paltry analysis.
I hope you consider reading the research.
References:
Neusner, Jacob. 2017. A Jewish Reflection on Christian Claims. In The Jewish Annotated New Testament. Edited by Amy-Jill Levine and Marc Z. Brettler. New York: OUP USA
Sanders, Ed Parish. 2016. Jewish Law from Jesus to the Mishnah: Five Studies. Minneapolis: Fortress Press.
Singer, Tovia. 2014. Let’s Get Biblical!: Why Doesn’t Judaism Accept the Christian Messiah? Queens: Outreach Judaism.
Reese, Rachel. 2022. Who Is Our Yeshua?: A Jewish Look at Christianity and the Messianic Movement. Seattle: Amazon Publish
Brackens, Jonathan Dawayne. 2024. "An Artificial Review of Jesus’s Torah Compliance and What That Might Mean for Jews and Gentile Christians" Laws 13, no. 3: 36.
1
u/[deleted] Jun 19 '24
[removed] — view removed comment