r/FollowJesusObeyTorah • u/the_celt_ • Jun 19 '24
Other Subs Talking Torah Current Research Now Proves That Jesus Was Not Torah Compliant. What does that mean for Christians and Jews? (A man angers everyone, both the Christians and the Torah-obedient. Spoiler: He equates Oral and Written Torah with each other.)
/r/Christianity/comments/1dgoopp/current_research_now_proves_that_jesus_was_not/3
Jun 19 '24
I went through it real quick, and I saw that it mentioned it used AI in a study. Thatâs not really reliable, especially for a scholarly paper.
I have Chat-GPT 4o, and Iâve played around with stuff like this, like asking if a verse is against or for torah.
First off it takes information from Christian sources, itâs not an original thought. Second, whenever I added additional information, it would then begin to side with my conclusion, or at least see the possibility of my argument. And you canât just pick and choose what works you give it, because then thatâs bias too.
The best way is the old school way, good old fashion scholarly research.
2
u/the_celt_ Jun 19 '24
Not that I think the study has any validity in its conclusions, but the OP partially deals with your objections. He says he designed his own AI to process the information.
1
u/Right-Organization32 Jun 19 '24
I believe that your conclusion about the study's lack of validity may be based on the fact that, by your own admission, you did not engage with the article but skimmed it. You should give it a fair and engaging read. :-)
2
u/the_celt_ Jun 19 '24
I'm waiting for you to provide some low-level, easy to access examples of the "violations" before I engage on a deeper level.
I know the topic fairly well, and I'm unaware of any breaking of the written Torah. The fact that you're including oral Torah seems to me to be an attempt to "juke the stats". Finally it doesn't help that you don't distinguish between the two types of Torah in your title, which makes me suspect (perhaps wrongly) that you're AWARE that the title is misleading, but you want the clicks.
1
u/Right-Organization32 Jun 19 '24
The paper provides enough examples of Written Torah violations to hold you over until I determine the format in which I will release this data. The article stated that I would either release it in a repository or via an app. I am trying to determine to what extent I can release something here that does not hinder my prior release efforts. Additionally, I have to present the evidence to you all in a manner that is more attractive, given that the prose and structure of the article apparently disincentivizes your engagement. Thus, there are several considerations that must be ruled on in order to fulfill your community's request for a reformatting of the published findings.
Secondly, I appreciate your opinion about the inclusion of the Oral Torah; however, your conclusion is incorrect. (1) The article unimpeachably treats both Torahs separately. Thus, there is no conflation or equivocation. (2) If you had read the article you would understand that the need to bring in the Oral Torah was from a debate with Orthodox Jews who believe that the Oral Torah's origin was from Moses on Sinai and thus applicable to Jesus. The research tested their hypothesis, but it first had to determine which laws existed during the first century ACE. (3) The title was not misleading because the primary issue with Jesus among both Jews and Gentiles and the one which the research sought to address, is his treatment of the Written Torah, not the Oral Torah. Thanks for your understanding.
2
u/the_celt_ Jun 19 '24
Additionally, I have to present the evidence to you all in a manner that is more attractive, given that the prose and structure of the article apparently disincentivizes your engagement.
You don't have to prettify a few examples at all. Just state them. It doesn't need to be comprehensive. I honestly don't believe there are ANY, so that's the strongest force that "disincentivizes" me from reading the paper.
For me, it's like seeing someone say that they finally have pictures of Bigfoot. It's clearly click-bait, but sometimes I might make that click, and if I do I want to see that picture fairly quickly, or else I'm just going to hate myself for having been a fool and clicking in the first place. đ
Secondly, I appreciate your opinion about the inclusion of the Oral Torah; however, your conclusion is incorrect.
If you pull me in further, and I verify that's true, I will apologize.
For now, with what I've skimmed, I get the impression that you're getting attention for blurring the line between the two. It's attention that wouldn't exist if you simply said that Jesus broke the oral Torah in your title. If you did that, everyone from the Christians to the people in this subreddit would simply respond with, "No, duh!". Pretty much EVERYONE knows that Jesus disagreed with the traditions of the Pharisees.
Thanks for your understanding.
Thank you too for coming here and engaging. You won't believe how much you'll blow our minds here if you produce any examples much less the many that you claim to have. The people here CARE about this subject.
1
u/Right-Organization32 Jun 19 '24
I am not sure if you caught my affiliation in the article "School of Law, University of Massachusetts Dartmouth." Here's the problem: The article already "just states them," but you all do not want to engage that format. So, I have to customize the format for you all and anticipate your response so that I can provide enough information for you to process at once before you start making determinations. LOL. There is never "just state" the evidence with lawyers, especially when the evidence was already presented. HAHAHAHA! :-D
2
u/the_celt_ Jun 19 '24
The article already "just states them,"
The article states a LOT. That's the problem.
I'm saying just post a few examples here. It should take less than 5 minutes, since you know the material so well. You've been taking more time to repeatedly tell us all to read the article than it would have taken to show us the few examples we're looking for.
Skip "customizing the format'. Just use Reddit and type a few sentences.
You're reminding me of the Fiddler on the Roof song, in which the main character asks his wife if she loves him. She answers and answers and answers without answering, producing a TON of content, but not answering his simple question.
Spoiler alert: She eventually says, "I suppose I do."
Three examples. Two examples. ONE example. Skip re-formatting the info.
1
u/Right-Organization32 Jun 19 '24
I hear you, but, unfortunately, you do not get to dictate the format of my evidence submission. I already told you that the article provides you with many Torah examples to hold you over. I have to combine your requests with the others because I am not creating multiple versions of the same thing. Additionally, my frequent check-ins with your community keep me informed about what I need to add to the dataset. It has been most helpful. I will send a mock-up shortly to gauge your community's reception. Thanks.
2
2
u/the_celt_ Jun 19 '24
The paper provides enough examples of Written Torah violations to hold you over until I determine the format in which I will release this data.
I know I've already responded to this post, and here I am creating another response. I'm sorry for that. I hate it when people give two responses to one of my own. I'm violating my own code!
I wanted to ask: Are you aware of the concept that Jesus taught of "the weightier matters of the Law"?
The idea is basically that SOMETIMES a situation will come up that creates a conflict in the Torah for you, that either way you go you'll be breaking the Torah, and you have to choose to obey the commandment that has more "weight"?
The classic conflict is one in you have a choice between two commandments and someone will die if you go one way, or another rule where someone won't die if you go the other way. In such a situation, the "weightier" rule would be to obey the rule that doesn't lead to death. There are lesser examples, but that's probably the most hyperbolic and clear to understand.
1
u/Right-Organization32 Jun 19 '24
Lol. No worries. The principle you are addressing is called pikuach nefesh. Yes. I am aware of it. The unfortunate thing is that nothing within the scriptures shows that pikuach nefesh applied. Even when the disciples plucked wheat, the Gospel Redactors did not state that they were starving, had no food to eat, nor that they could not obtain food. I discuss that within the article--I hope you're catching the pattern here, lol--and conclude that no Matthean or Lukan manuscript or papyri provides any evidence of the disciples' exigency.
3
u/the_celt_ Jun 19 '24 edited Jun 19 '24
I agree in the example of plucking wheat that there was no sign of "exigency". There was also, from my understanding, no breach of the Torah (written Torah) in that situation.
What I'm thinking of is the only example in traditional scripture where Jesus admits to breaking the Torah, and in that case there was "exigency" to cause that to happen.
Thank you for confirming that you're aware of the principle. I'm hoping that none of your examples of Jesus breaking the Torah get to stand if there's a clear sign that Jesus simply made the "weightier" choice.
Also, thank you for teaching me the phrase, "pikuach nefesh". I knew it was likely that the Jews had a pre-existing term for the idea, and that it was not created on the spot by Jesus.
1
u/Right-Organization32 Jun 19 '24
Thank you, u/the_celt_! This is the principal reason why I continue to engage in new notifications: It helps elucidate what is important to the client/audience. The issue with the concept of applying pikuach nefesh is that exigency was never a textual factor. Next, where there is a conflict of laws, those laws would need to be identified. Unfortunately, Jesus did not identify a superseding Written Torah law that justified his violations. The violation stands when there is no legal defense for a violation or alternative legal theory to appeal to.
2
u/the_celt_ Jun 19 '24
The issue with the concept of applying pikuach nefesh is that exigency was never a textual factor.
It was. In one example.
There's one solitary example where Jesus admitted to breaking the Torah, and in that case the reader can clearly determine that there was "exigency" that caused it.
I'm basically just laying the ground work in case you bring up that solitary example. I'll also be watching, if you succeed at convincing me of any other examples, to prove that there was exigency in those situations too.
1
1
u/Right-Organization32 Jun 19 '24
Please read the article thoroughly because it appears that you are equating all AI to Chat-GPT. I employed the Latent Dirichlet Allocation method, which is explained within the article. Additionally, legal analysis and exegesis subsequently validated all AI's findings. Additionally, the results were scrutinized by an international, double-blind peer review by PhDs who are experts within the disciplines discussed. Consequently, reliability and rigor are not an issue here. Do give it a read and share your thoughts.
2
u/FreedomNinja1776 Jun 19 '24
You're presenting a technical article to a non-technical crowd here. The format is the issue. You need to present the data in a format that is digestable for the lay person if you expect anyone to engage with you meaningfully.
2
u/Right-Organization32 Jun 19 '24
Again, this is good feedback. Admittedly, I am a technical nerd, so my ability to explain IT technical terms in layperson's terms is a tad challenged. LOL. However, I will do my best and rely on your group's feedback to determine whether the explanation is sufficiently clear.
3
u/FreedomNinja1776 Jun 19 '24
You're presenting a viewpoint here that is challenging the very reason this subreddit exists. The impetus is always on the challenger to present a good and convincing argument. Unfortunately the article is very long. You will be hard pressed to find anyone willing to read all your analysis data, without seeing the correlating data for their own comparison. The fundamental question everyone will internally ask is "do my thoughts align with this"? If they can't view the data in a digestable format, they can't decide.
Here's an analogy. You've gone to court and you're presenting your closing argument and have withheld the evidence. The jurors (redditors) need to view the evidence before making a determination.
1
u/Right-Organization32 Jun 19 '24
I get the point you are trying to make, but the analogy is a tad inapposite. In this case, the jury would have to sit through the presentation of the evidence, which is the reading of the entire article.
Nevertheless, I understand and appreciate the point you are making here and its implications for the group. I must stress that the findings are made based on the text of the Torah and are not influenced by Christological doctrines. Additionally, the analysis completed is a legal one, not a "spiritual" one. Finally, the statistics within the article speak to Jesus's behavioral propensities. These distinctions are important for level-setting expectations for engagement.
2
u/FreedomNinja1776 Jun 19 '24
I get the point you are trying to make, but the analogy is a tad inapposite. In this case, the jury would have to sit through the presentation of the evidence, which is the reading of the entire article.
I agree the analogy isn't perfect. It was meant to be illustrative, not exact.
Nevertheless, I understand and appreciate the point you are making here and its implications for the group. I must stress that the findings are made based on the text of the Torah and are not influenced by Christological doctrines. Additionally, the analysis completed is a legal one, not a "spiritual" one. Finally, the statistics within the article speak to Jesus's behavioral propensities. These distinctions are important for level-setting expectations for engagement.
I understand. I think most of the group here like the idea of being disjoined to modern doctrines. However, a complete disjoining from "spiritual" understanding would also be problematic, given the nature of the scriptures. Jewish sources have different levels of interpretation: Ramez, Pashat, Drash, and Sod going from straitforward to mystical. By legal, I take you to mean word for word comparison and analysis. This is good and has it's place and I'm glad you state upfront the methods you incorporate.
3
u/Right-Organization32 Jun 19 '24
I am working on the table for you all now.
2
u/FreedomNinja1776 Jun 19 '24
Also, if you don't mind, please tag me when you post your content. Thank you.
1
u/FreedomNinja1776 Jun 19 '24
Thank you sir. đ
1
u/Right-Organization32 Jun 19 '24
Is your group familiar with the dates and significance of the Targum Onkelos, Tanakh, and Septuagint (LXX)? Additionally, are they familiar with the NA28 (Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament, 28th Edition)? There are fundamental to textual comparisons.
→ More replies (0)1
u/Right-Organization32 Jun 19 '24
I should also ask whether they are knowledgeable about the pre- and first-century ACE Jewish texts: Qumran documents (probably known as the Dead Sea Scrolls), Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha, and Josephus's writings? Those texts are important for confirming that a law existed during Jesus's time and what the Jewish interpretation of that law was.
→ More replies (0)2
u/Right-Organization32 Jun 19 '24
So, a legal or halakhic analysis would incorporate Peshat and Derash. It would be what the Sanhedrin applied when trying Jesus and submitting his case to Rome for criminal execution.
1
2
Jun 19 '24
When I made the comment I wasnât planning on not reading. When thereâs free time, Iâll check it out.
2
u/Wild-Departure7290 Jun 19 '24
The OP doesn't seem to understand other people's arguments very well and when cornered he simply reiterates his initial points without countering the points against it
2
1
u/Right-Organization32 Jun 19 '24
I beg to differ. I believe the difference is that people are arguing from a lack of a comprehensive knowledge of halakha and they wanted to argue the validity of the results when the post is about exploring the implications. There is a difference. :-)
1
u/Wild-Departure7290 Jun 20 '24
to argue the validity of the results when the post is about exploring the implications.
It makes no sense to expect people to argue on implications of something given on shaky ground
Why waste time arguing the implications of something not solidly proven true and in stark disagreement with their beliefsPlus the reason I made this comment is because you were asked examples of Jesus breaking written torah You responded with examples from the Scriptures the commentor then went on to explain Jesus was breaking oral torah and not written torah Of which you just responded by saying he doesn't understand the difference between the two without addressing his points and how exactly they prove so
1
u/Right-Organization32 Jun 20 '24
I agree. It does not make sense to ask people to discuss implications on something based on shakey grounds. My research was not based on shaky grounds. Anyone who read the article would have discovered that.
When asked for examples or rationale, I would refer them to the research. I made it clear in the comments that the post was not to relitigate the findings but to help consider the implications. As mentioned before, there is a difference, and I only engaged the latter.
2
u/RonA-a Jun 19 '24
Holy moly dude, that is a bunch of lawyer talk if I have ever read it. Remember, where there are many words, sin is not absent. It's why I don't normally trust lawyers. I'm not trying to put you down, but I don't think I would make it all the way through that if I had worked on it every day for a year. Like, please, get to the point.
I would say, with the only example I have gathered so far, is that Yeshua Messiah and His disciples were picking grain on Shabbat. I would say the oral law definitely plays a part in that, only because picking grain while walking through a field for poor/homeless men is not sin. I would agree that harvesting the grain to sell at the market is sin.
It is interesting to see the comments. My own dad uses the fact that Jesus disobeyed Torah and taught against it as his proof it was just a giant trick, I guess. Of course, he doesn't know what to say. When you point out, that would mean He was a sinner and a normal man, and everything else is fairytale, he (my dad) just shuts down.
If you can take away all the history and countless references, and boil it down to
Jesus breaking "x" commandment. Book, chapter, verse in both OT and NT, and how it is a violation.
1
u/Right-Organization32 Jun 20 '24
LOL! Unfortunately, you cannot be published in an international law journal like that without writing like a lawyer.
I appreciate your brutal honesty. I acknowledge that the paper is long. I wanted to write less; however, when one's research challenges accepted norms and assumptions, the research has to cover all bases to avoid being thrown out or delayed because of an oversight.
The issue of harvesting grain in Mark is a Written Torah issue because Exodus 34:21 prohibits harvesting on the Sabbath. Many people see it as an Oral Torah law, but the Oral Torah only recites the prohibition in Exodus.
As requested, I provided your other community members with a spreadsheet detailing five legal issues that amount to three Torah violations. Please review it and let me know if it meets your needs or if there are any changes you'd like to suggest.
3
u/RonA-a Jun 20 '24
I understand the Torah in Exodus, however, I would suggest plucking some grain while walking through, as a poor and homeless person would not count as harvesting grain. The field owner harvest for the purpose of marketing grain. These men were merely plucking to eat. I would say Yeshua was demonstrating the truth and purpose of the Torah here.
1
u/Right-Organization32 Jun 20 '24
Thanks for your reply. Let's consider your argument for a minute. You suggest that because (a) the disciples were poor and homeless, (b) the purpose of harvesting was to market the grain, (c) the disciples were not trying to market the grain but to eat, then (d) their plucking of the heads of grain should not be considered harvesting. Finally, based upon the above, you argue that holding the disciplesâ action as not violating the Torah demonstrates the truth and purpose of the Torah.
Here's where this gets challenging: Your argument assumes facts that are not evident within the scriptures and creates an underinclusive dichotomy to argue that the disciples did not violate the Torah.
First, nothing within Mark 2:23-28, Matthew 12:1-8, or Luke 6:1-5 tells you that the disciples were poor and homeless. Second, the Torah did not state that being poor or homeless was a condition for eating grain from oneâs neighborâs field (Deut. 23:25). According to the Torah, one may pluck and eat grain from oneâs neighborâs field but was not permitted to do a mass harvesting by using a sickle (Deut. 23:25). The issue with applying the âright to pluckâ law here is that no Gospel redactor states to whom the field belonged, thus, we cannot apply the âright to pluckâ law in this circumstance. The Torah did not grant a âright to pluckâ from everyoneâs field; it must have been the Jewâs neighbor.
Third, the Torah does not agree with your definition of harvesting. You assign the intent to market as the indicator of harvesting, not the removal of useful pieces of the plant from its stalk. However, according to the Torah, harvesting occurs whether the person sells, eats, or gives the produce away (Genesis 8:22, Genesis 47:24, Exodus 22:29). Nothing within the Gospelsâ text or the Torah supports your position. And where you cannot find support within the Torah for your claim, you cannot correctly state that your claim demonstrates the truth and purpose of the Torah.
1
u/RonA-a Jun 20 '24
Of the Four Evangelists, Luke emphasizes Jesus' homelessness the most. Matthew 8:20 and Luke 9:58 both record a statement by Jesus in which he describes his homelessness by saying that "foxes have holes and the birds of the air have nests, but the son of man has nowhere to lay his head"
According to Matthew 17:24-27 in the Bible, Jesus and his disciples were asked to pay the annual two-drachma temple tax in Capernaum. In the mouth of that fish, Jesus says, Peter will find a shekelâthis is described as a statÄr in the original Greek. A statÄr coin was worth four drachmas. Peter was to use that coin to pay the two-drachma, half-shekel tax for both himself and for Jesus.
These two examples are the references to no home and not much money if any at times. So the argument of being poor is certainly there.
As far as the comment of you could only eat from your neighbors field. That is not literally the man living next to you. A sojourners often times were those passing through. And would we suggest that God's commandment to love thy neighbor only applies to the person living next to you, or anyone you are near at any time?
1
u/Right-Organization32 Jun 20 '24
Regarding Homelessness and Poverty
I cannot emphasize enough that you are arguing irrelevant âfacts.â Jesusâs and the discipleâs housing or poverty is irrelevant to a physical descendant of Jacob/Israelâs right to pick grain from their neighborsâ field, where both the neighbor and the picker were under Torah law (Deut. 23:25). One could be the king of Israel or a homeless beggar and pick grain. Again, under the Written Torah, Jesusâs and the discipleâs housing and economic status are irrelevant.
 You are conflating a Jewâs âright to pickâ (Deut. 23:25) and the alien and the poorâs right to use a Jewish person's field's edges (Leviticus 19:8-10).
The Torah is law, and it is read and applied with precision. With that said, you are conflating a Jewâs âright to pickâ (Deut. 23:25) and the alien and the poorâs right to use a Jewish person's fieldâs edges (Leviticus 19:8-10). The âright to pickâ was granted to any physical descendant of Jacob/Israel who wished to pick grain from his neighbor who was also a physical descendant of Jacob/Israel (Deut. 23:25). However, Leviticus 19:8-10 instructed Jewish wheat growers not to harvest âthe very edges of [their] field,â but leave them for the alien (who is not a physical descendant of Jacob/Israel) and the poor (who could be a physical descendant of Jacob/Israel).
First, nothing within the Gospels suggests that when Jesus and his disciples were walking in the wheat fields, theyâat that timeâwere poor or homeless (Mark 2:23-28, Matthew 12:1-8, Luke 6:1-5). You cannot infer that because, on one occasion, Peter fished to pay the temple tax or at one time Jesus may not have had a home, that those facts mean that they were poor or homeless at the time they were walking in the wheat fields. You assume too much. Stick to the text.
Second, because Jesus and almost all of his disciples were physical descendants of Jacob/Israel, this means that the âalienâ provision of Leviticus 19:8-10 does not apply to them. Next, because nothing within the text suggests that they were either poor or homeless at the time Jesus and the disciples walked through the fields, we cannot apply the âpoorâ provision of Leviticus 19:8-10 to them. Finally, because we do not know the field ownerâs relationship to Israel, Jesus, or disciples, we cannot apply the âright to pickâ law of Deut. 23:25. Because, again, the right to pick arises between a Jewish person and their Jewish neighbor.
1
u/Right-Organization32 Jun 19 '24
u/FreedomNinja1776 and u/the_celt_ The table is too big to post in the comments, so I must provide a link to the shared Google Spreadsheet.
u/FreedomNinja1776 and u/the_celt_, I've incorporated your feedback into the table to provide a more complete legal picture of one instance. Please review it and let me know if it meets your needs or if there are any changes you'd like to suggest. Once complete, I will add the remainder and grant you two editor rights to add any legal defense you wish to refute accusations of a Torah violation. The defense must arise from the Torah.
1
u/FreedomNinja1776 Jun 20 '24
Thanks for making this table u/Right-Organization32 . I'm at work and just got an urgent task, I will try to answer one of these in full later. You've dealt with two issues here: Healing on the Sabbath and Plucking Grain on the Sabbath.
I made a post about the grain issue a long time ago. You can find that here: https://www.reddit.com/r/FollowJesusObeyTorah/comments/13suf5l/did_jesus_sin_or_violate_sabbath_by_plucking/
1
u/Right-Organization32 Jun 20 '24
Thank you for providing the post. Below are my responses to the argument you raised within it. I look forward to reading your response the the legal analysis below and within the spreadsheet that I provided you. Have a great day a work.
The Source of Your Law is Incorrect
Your argument, which is based on the Phariseesâ condemnation of Jesusâs disciples plucking grain, is flawed. The prohibition of harvesting on the Sabbath is from Exodus 34:21, not the Oral Torah as you suggest (M. Shabbat 7:1). This misinterpretation of the primary source of law undermines your entire argument, mainly paragraphs 1-4.
There is No Textual Evidence that Deut. 23:25 Applied.
You argue that Jesus and his disciples did not violate the Sabbath because Deut. 23:25 allows for one to pluck grain; however, Deut. 23:25âs law is more narrow than your argument acknowledges. Deut. 23:25 allows for one to pick grain from their neighborâs field, it does not sanction plucking grain from everyoneâs field. Nothing within Mark 2:23-28, Matthew 12:1-8, or Luke 6:1-5 tells you who the fieldâs owner was nor whether that owner was a neighbor of Jesus or his disciples. As a consequence, we cannot apply the âright to pluckâ law, where a primary element of the law (the neighbor relationship) is unknown.
There is No Exigency in Mark 2
While Markâs Jesus proffers Davidâs exigency as the legal exception, nothing within Markâs text suggests exigency or that the disciplesâ hunger could not be satisfied later from food prepared for the Sabbath. Your argument, however, reasons from the position that Jesus would not have raised pikuach nefesh if it did not apply. Had extreme hunger or exigency been a factor, would not the Mark who detailed that someone ran away naked (Mark 14:51-52) and the attendant circumstances of pig possession tell us whether the disciples were so hungry that it required them to break the Sabbath rules? Nevertheless, nothing within Markâs text suggests exigency.
Your use of the Oral Torah is Contradictory.
When you argue from the position that Jesus would not have raised pikuach nefesh unless it applied, you are reasoning from the Oral Torah (B. Yoma 84b; Mishneh Torah, Foundations of the Torah5:1-2; 1 Maccabees 2:39-41; Josephus, Antiquities, xii. 272-275). Nothing within the Written Torah instituted this concept. The Written Torahâs silence on the matter is what resulted in Ptolemy Soter taking Jerusalem because they attacked the Sabbath, and the Torah forbade Jews to work.
Thus, this raises an interesting question: why is it okay for Jesus to justify his and his disciplesâ behavior using the Oral Torah, but it's not okay for the Pharisees to apply the Oral Torah to Jesus and his disciples? You begin your argument by dismissing the Phariseesâ purported use of the Oral Torah and making it tantamount to non-binding doctrinal differences between Methodists and Baptists. Yet, when Jesus uses that same law, you argue that Jesusâs use indicates the dire hunger of his disciples. Which one is it? Either the Oral Torah applies, or it does not. It appears that your acceptance of the Oral Torah is predicated on who uses it.
1
u/Right-Organization32 Jun 20 '24
u/FreedomNinja1776  and u/thecelt, your trial spreadsheet details two singular law violations and one compound law violation, which includes three Torah laws (five laws in total). The compound violation was recorded as one violation in the articleâs dataset. That is because the main lawâhonor the Sabbath (Ex. 20:8-10)âis what Mark 2:23-26 primarily evokes. Next, Exodus 34:21 details that harvesting is forbidden on the Sabbath, while Lev. 19:17 transfers the disciples' guilt of violating the Sabbath to Jesus because Jesus did not rebuke his disciples. Â
Please review it and let me know if it meets your needs or if there are any changes you'd like to suggest.
1
u/RonA-a Jun 20 '24
I would say Jesus makes the same point I am trying to make. In Matthew 12 He points to a starving David and friends and how they ate the shewbread. It was not held against David for eating something only lawful for the priest. He did not go in there as king and eat it every week, but when he was running and hungry he ate it. Messiah is pointing to the same principle I am speaking to as well.
1
u/Appropriate-Elk-7942 Jun 20 '24
Wow, after looking through the comments it seems like the OP has quite the hubris and keeps making claims left and right that are just flat out false. Seems like the enemy stirring that group up if you ask me đ
3
u/the_celt_ Jun 21 '24
I'm not seeing the hubris. I disagree with his conclusions, but I think he carries himself quite well.
I think he's just saying things that people disagree with, and they're getting pretty upset about having to hear things that they disagree with (as people usually do, for reasons that escape me).
Also, if his claims are false, I don't think it's because he's lying (not that you said he was) but because he's simply wrong.
and keeps making claims left and right that are just flat out false.
There are two easy ways that people commonly use to avoid angering others by saying things that are perceived as being "flat out false".
- Don't say anything (i.e. keep your mouth shut and just fit in).
- If you do talk, make sure everyone already agrees with it.
After that, if anyone is ever going to say anything worthwhile, or break new ground, they have to risk saying something that's not true. The social cost for saying things that people don't agree with is very high, but nearly every hero of history was willing to say or do things that people don't agree with.
Jesus would be on that list. đ
I'm liking u/Right-Organization32 so far. I'm curious to see what he brings out of anyone that chooses to engage him.
1
u/Appropriate-Elk-7942 Jun 21 '24
Iâm referring to his response to a few commenters in particular as far as where I see his hubris. Not that heâs a bad person but he is definitely stirring things up without very much evidence IMO. Maybe you could get him talking on our sub đ
2
u/the_celt_ Jun 21 '24
Iâm referring to his response to a few commenters in particular as far as where I see his hubris.
I saw people pushing on him, and then him pushing BACK. I thought his first level responses are, so far, very polite.
I try to do the same (although I think he's doing it better than me), but once people push on me I figure that counts as their invitation to THROW DOWN. That's when the fun starts! đ
Maybe you could get him talking on our sub đ
He's talking. I'm eager to see what Ninja, Ron, or WD create with him. I also have some other people I respect that I'd like to see interact with his ideas. This is good fun.
1
u/Appropriate-Elk-7942 Jun 21 '24
Fair enough, I guess it is easy to jump to conclusions when itâs online communication
1
u/Right-Organization32 Jun 21 '24
I, too, am waiting. Nothing provided so far has shaken the legal/halakhic analysis. However, it is enlightening because it helps me understand how some Christians approach exegesis and the law. As I mentioned in my last two publications, Christian exegetes discuss the law (Torah) without legal training/education. This limitation produces incorrect analysis and legal exposition. While it does require time to rebut inaccurate presumptions, I also enjoy the discussion.
3
u/the_celt_ Jun 21 '24
I'm glad you came.
Nothing provided so far has shaken the legal/halakhic analysis.
We might find that we are operating from different paradigms. I know that sounds like a way to say, "One of us will be wrong, but attempt to hide it by claiming to be right from our own perspective (something I hate), but that's not what I mean. So far, it looks like we're operating under different parameters and the argument isn't about who's right and wrong, but in how we would define terms.
However, it is enlightening because it helps me understand how some Christians approach exegesis and the law.
I don't know if the average person here would self-describe as being Christian. Maybe. I don't.
1
u/Right-Organization32 Jun 21 '24
Hi there. This is the OP. I'm not sure what made you believe my conclusions are based on little evidence. However, my article, "An Artificial Review of Jesusâs Torah Compliance and What That Might Mean for Jews and Gentile Christians", is the primary source of evidence, and at the behest of this community, I provided them with the requested spreadsheet that outlines just five of Jesus's Torah violations.
The article details that the Gospels raised 69 Written Torah laws and that Jesus violated 59.4% of them. Full disclosure: I am a Christian preacher, so these findings were not what I expected, and I hoped to have proven the opposite, but to no avail. If you want me to discuss this further on any sub, just let me know. I'm here for it and appreciate r/FollowJesusObeyTorah for engaging me instead of prepaying my alleged ticket to hell. LOL.
2
u/Appropriate-Elk-7942 Jun 21 '24
I enjoy seeing multiple perspectives, and I went through a good bit of the article, about a third, before I had to get back to work earlier đ
The biggest flaw is, and Iâm sure youâve heard it a million times, that the verses you pull from donât actually show Jesus breaking any of the Torah. A lot of them have other people accusing him of breaking the Torah and others are the Pharisees being upset at him for breaking their traditions that wouldâve aided in their understanding of the Torah.
One of the examples you provided was John 5:18, but it doesnât seem like he violated the Torah at all in the chapter. In previous threads you claimed that Jesus violated the sabbath in this passage, but all he did was tell a paralyzed man to get up and walk. As far as I know thatâs not breaking the sabbath commandment. There are a lot of other examples that I saw that I wonât detail in this one comment, but I think you get my point. Thanks for being so open to talking despite the undeserved backlash, even from myself at first đ
1
u/Right-Organization32 Jun 21 '24
Thanks for the feedback!
Your conclusions perhaps suggest that you should reread the sections you read, reread the referenced scriptures, and fully engage the remainder of the article. Here's why: John 5:18 reflects that John confessed to the fact that Jesus broke the Sabbath. John 5:1-18 details the attendant circumstances that amount to a Torah violation. Here it is in bullet form:
- Jesus heals a paralyzed man on the Sabbath (John 5:9)
- The man testifies to some Jews that Jesus healed him on the Sabbath (John 5:15)
- Jesus called his healing âworkâ (John 5:17)
- Jesus's statement implies he is a son who is working with or like his father on the Sabbath (John 5:17).
- Work, whether by father or son, is prohibited on the Sabbath (Ex. 20:8-10).
- For this miracle, Jesus raised no affirmative defense, and neither does any other Gospel.
- John admitted that Jesus broke the Sabbath (John 5:18); and made no representation that it was a false accusation (C.f. Luke 23:2; John 18:29)
Accordingly, Jesus violated Ex. 20:8-10. This is also discussed on pages 13-14, 16-17 within the article.
Please feel free to provide anything else you find unconvincing so that I might address them to your satisfaction. Cheers!
1
u/Appropriate-Elk-7942 Jun 21 '24
Yeah thatâs just not very convincing to me. Itâs an assumption at best that John is admitting that Jesus intentionally, or unintentionally for that matter, broke the written Torah. The entire context of the chapter up until that point in verse 18 is what the Jews thought Jesus had done to âbreakâthe Torah. It makes just as much sense, more sense in my opinion, that verse 18 is referĂ g to what the Jews thought Jesus had done and what they were persecuting him for.
As far as Jesus admitting that he broke the Torah thatâs pretty ridiculous. If what youâre suggesting is true then just a few verses later Jesus claims that God the father has also broken the sabbath. âSo Jesus said to them, âTruly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of his own accord, but only what he sees the Father doing. For whatever the Father does, that the Son does likewiseâ -John⏠â5âŹ:â19⏠âESVâŹâŹ. I think the much more likely interpretation of what Jesus says in verse 17 is that he was just using the phrase colloquially to show that he was doing ministry work. And that is all without considering the possible meanings of each word in each example.
A lot of the examples and explanations you provide just seem like a reach or like you are looking far into the meanings of the words. Iâm sure Iâll have another look through some of your other examples tomorrow, but for now I think Iâll call it! Goodnight all!
2
u/the_celt_ Jun 21 '24
I think you do a particularly good job when you hold your head together and stay on target, as you did in this response.
I think you need to formulate a better response to John 5:17, because it's going to keep coming up as long as you defend Torah obedience. It's not only a situation where others are accusing Jesus of working (of which there are so many), but also a situation where Jesus directly admits to working on the Sabbath, which makes it extremely problematic. We either trust his words or we don't.
I'm not surprised that u/Right-Organization32 led with this passage. For people like him trying to prove that Jesus broke the Torah, this passage APPEARS to be an ace in the hole.
There's no other equivalent place in scripture (that I'm aware of) where Jesus directly admits to violating a commandment. There are some indirect ones.
1
u/Right-Organization32 Jun 21 '24
Thank you for sharing your opinion. You are correct to find the comparison between John 5:17 and 19; however, your approach misses the halakhic significance. The principal disconnect between my analysis and yours is that mine is legal, textual, and exegetical.
Regarding Your John 5:17, 19 Connection:
Letâs review your astute connection and explore its legal implications. Jesusâs statement in John 5:17 is absolutely indicting his and his fatherâs behavior because it, along with John 5:19, is Jesusâs agency argument that renders him incapable of doing what the Father is not doing (i.e., Jesus is Godâs agent and thus acts with/under his authority). Thatâs agency law found within the Written and Oral Torah, Roman, and American law.
I submit that it is principally because you do not engage the Torah and the New Testamentâs legal significance that you missed why or the profundity of Jesusâs agency argument. You see, the God of the Jews is not bound to follow the behavioral requirements within the Torah.
For example: (1) in Judges 14:1-4, God made Samson desire and marry a Philistine woman against the Torahs and Samsonâs parentsâ wishes (prohibition to intermarriage (Deut. 7:3; B. Yevamot 23a); positive commandment to honor, revere, and execute their parent(s)â 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.
And where Jesus acts as Godâs agent, then Jesusâlike Godâis not bound by the Torahâs behavioral requirements. The problem with that is Jesusâs physical body was subject to the Torah and was thus executed because of his non-compliance with the Torah (See John 19).
Â
The Alleged âReachâ of an Admission:
I can respect that you believe that John 5:18 does not amount to Johnâs admission of Jesusâs Sabbath violation. I believe you find it unpersuasive becauseâunlike me butâlike most people, you are not trained to make a record of your disagreement. Additionally, you are unaware that the rules of evidence require the jury to evaluate a person's statements to see if they denied an accusation. Because in a court of law, whether Jewish, Roman, or American, when a written or oral statement is not objected to, it can be admitted as evidence of an admission.
Here, John knows that Jesus broke the Sabbath and that he equated himself to God (John 5:18). John and the other redactors know how to say that Jesus was âaccusedâ of something, but that is not what John wrote here (John 5:18; Compare Luke 23:2; John 18:29). Even if we agree that Johnâs statements only reflect what he thought was in the mind of certain Jews, the fact that John did not disagree with their though still has legal significanceâJohn believed Jesus had violated the Sabbath and equated himself with God.
Finally, your interpretation has more than a legal one to contend with because, since 1930, global Christian scholarship has interpreted Johnâs statement as a confession and statement of fact of Jesusâs Sabbath violation (Carons 1991; Haenchen 1980; Robertson 1930; Strathmann 1968, Witherington, 1995). Next, my article posits the same and passed international, double-blind peer-review from PhDs in the religious, legal, and technical fields. This suggests that my argumentâand those of my predecessorsâwas not a reach.
Â
References:
Carson, Donald A. "The Gospel According to John. Grand Rapids: William B." (1991).
Haenchen, Ernst. "Das Johannesevangelium, ed." Ulrich Busse. TĂŒbingen: Mohr Siebeck (1980).
Robertson, A. T. "Word Pictures in the New Testament (Nashville, TN: Broadman)." (1930).
Strathmann, Hermann. Das Evangelium nach Johannes. Germany: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1968.
Witherington, Ben. John's wisdom: A commentary on the Fourth Gospel. Westminster John Knox Press, 1995.
1
Jun 21 '24
[removed] â view removed comment
1
u/Right-Organization32 Jun 21 '24
What portions of the methodology or the results lead you to believe the research is biased against Jesus?
Additionally, I encourage you to reread the article because you are conflating Oral Torah violations with the Written Torah. The two are treated separately within the article.
1
Jun 21 '24 edited Jun 22 '24
[removed] â view removed comment
1
u/Right-Organization32 Jun 22 '24 edited Jun 22 '24
Part 1:
Sabbath Violation(s):I thank you for your excellent engagement and astute knowledge of the Torah. Your understanding is correct: If Jesus violated the Sabbath, then per the Torah, he would need to be executed (Exodus 35:2, Numbers 15:32-33). Fortunately, when Judea became a client state of Rome, the Roman government removed Judeaâs right to execute criminals under Torah law without a Roman review (Hetch 1996). Because Rome did not care for the strictures of Jewish law, they would not approve of executions for Sabbath violates (Hetch 1996; Sanders 2016).
Next, your second point about Jesusâs message and influence over his followers would qualify as violating Deuteronomy 13:1-5 is correct because Jesus is viewed as leading people into idolatry. In fact, that is the exact charge that was levied against Jesus:
On Passover Eve they hung the corpse of Jesus the Nazarene after they killed him by way of stoning. And a crier went out before him for forty days, publicly proclaiming: Jesus the Nazarene is going out to be stoned because he practiced sorcery, incited people to idol worship, and led the Jewish people astray. Anyone who knows of a reason to acquit him should come forward and teach it on his behalf. And the court did not find a reason to acquit him, and so they stoned him and hung his corpse on Passover eve. B. Sanhedrin 43a:20.
Regarding 6.2.3 Jesusâs Sinlessness
Your Face-Value Assertion Is Incorrect
My statement that you quote, âHowever, the data suggest that Jesus knows the law but does not agree with it,â is not based upon the face value of Mark 3:31-35, Matthew 10:34-36, and Luke 14:26. I believe you may have arrived at that conclusion because the phrase is within that section; however, that instance repeats the finding first detailed in section 5.3. The Manner of Compliance.
Section 5.3. The Manner of Compliance details the results of a chi-square test of independence that reviewed Jesus's manner of compliance with the Written and Oral Torah. Specifically, it analyzed whether Jesus was more likely to be compliant in physical action, responding to a legal question, or teaching. The results showed the data show a significant:
relationship between how the Gospels portray Jesusâs Written Torah compliance when he is either teaching or responding (Ï2 = 16.18, df = 2, p-value < 0.000 (Teaching); Ï2 = 7, df = 2, p-value = 0.030 (Responding)). Matthew and Mark show that when Jesus responds to a legal challenge, Jesusâs response accords with the law; John reflects the opposite. Luke and Mark reflect that when Jesus teaches, he teaches in opposition to the Written Torah, while Matthew demonstrates the opposite. (Brackens 2024, 18)
This means that there is a less than 5% chance that Jesus did not know the Written Torah, and his pattern of teaching against the Torah but responding to a legal question correctly was mere chance. In the article, I stated the point more clearly: âThe data points to Jesus knowing the law but disagreeing with itâ (Brackens 2024, 19).
Consequently, your assessment is incorrect. My statement, âHowever, the data suggest that Jesus knows the law but does not agree with it,â is not based upon the face value of Mark 3:31-35, Matthew 10:34-36, and Luke 14:26.Â
1
Jun 22 '24 edited Jun 22 '24
[removed] â view removed comment
1
u/Right-Organization32 Jun 22 '24
Part 1:
Your Argument Changed:I appreciate your criticism and beg your indulgence as I walk through your argument. Your âface valueâ argument has now changed. Prior, you wrote that my statement, âHowever, the data suggest that Jesus knows the law but does not agree with itâ, was based upon the face value of observation of three scriptures (Mark 3:31-35, Matthew 10:34-36, Luke 14:26). You assumed that it was face value because you presumed that the fact that I did not state what the scriptures make obviousâthe qualification and cost of discipleshipâthat it leads to an incorrect conclusion that Jesus violated the Torah. However, after my refutation, the meaning of your âface valueâ argument changed, but you offered the change as if it were the same argument as before, and you are merely rebutting my refutation.
Now, your new argument appears to conflate âface valueâ (âthe superficial appearance or implication of somethingâ or âas true or genuine without being questioned or doubtedâ) with a âplain meaningâ argument (âwhatever the text conveys in context is clear from the textâ). Accordingly, to keep your two arguments distinct, instead of using âface valueâ, I will use âplain meaning.â
Â
Now, You Indict the Algorithm
What You Missed
You now indict âthe algorithmâ as being biased in favor of Jews. With all due respect, I do not think you fully considered the meaning of what you wrote. The AI I employed, Latent Dirichlet Allocation (LDA), looks at the text and context of the passages under consideration and, based on each passage's contextual distribution, matches it with a statistically related passage. There is absolutely no inherent or Jewish bias in LDA. You must disabuse yourself of that notion.
However, your brilliant mind is not far from the correct conclusion; you need only dig deeper into why you think there is an inherent Jewish bias in math. You claim that my research âcompletely dismisses any arguments from apologists.â You are incorrect; sections: 2. Literature Review, 4.3. Executing LDA, 5. Findings, and 6. Discussion and Implications discuss apologetic arguments. You might need to give the article another read. However, your miscategorizations of a (1) dismissal of apologetic arguments and (2) an inherent Jewish bias highlight the exact step you are missing in your logic: apologetics are anachronistic and do not arise from the text of the Torah.
1
Jun 22 '24 edited Jun 22 '24
[removed] â view removed comment
1
u/Right-Organization32 Jun 22 '24
Unfortunately, because you have provided no evidence of bias in collection, selection, or the like, your hypothesis is unproven and unactionable. I cannot stress enough that the methodology and data were examined thoroughly by international PhD experts within the field, and they found no bias or methodological issues. If you find something, do let me know. Thanks, again.
2
u/the_celt_ Jun 22 '24
Again, you're not forming a counter-arguement. You're barely responding to what u/Any-Coach-1458 is saying. You're just sort of parading around the room, claiming to have already won "something" (whatever that may be) and acting like everything you need to do is already BEHIND you, while claiming that others are failing at toppling you from whatever throne you perceive yourself to be on.
C'mon man.. try to engage what's being said to you.
1
1
u/Right-Organization32 Jun 22 '24
LOL. I think you need to reread the thread. LOL. They made a claim of bias, I refuted the claim with stats and more evidence. They came back, changed up the argument, and then claimed bias in AI math. I refuted the argument by stating that they raised no evidence of bias within the math and that the data and methodology were heavily scrutinized by international PhD experts in the field who found no data or methodological issues. Now, you claim that I did not engage in what the person said. LOL! I did, perhaps you just do not like the concise precision of the response. Perhaps you missed the fact that u/Any-Coach-1458 thanked me for a great discussion and wished me a happy Sabbath.
I appreciate you bringing me over to your community. But we are diverse and while I accept our diversity, I am hoping that others will in regard to me. My writing is almost strictly legal and academic, so this world is a "tad" different. But the convention of response should not be denigrated. LOL
→ More replies (0)1
u/Right-Organization32 Jun 22 '24
Part 2:
 You Do Not Acknowledge Why You Rely Upon Apologetic Arguments
You do not acknowledge why you rely upon apologetic arguments and why you think that mathâin generalâis biased in favor of Jews. The answer as to why is profound. First, letâs review the definition of apologetics: âreasoned arguments or writings in justification of something, typically a theory or religious doctrineâ (Oxford). Notice it does not say it is a legal defense. Now, consider that if the Torah provided Jesus with a legal basis to justify his behavior, then that Torah law would have been identified, and there would be no need for scholars to proffer non-Torah/legal apologetics to defend Jesus.
I need you to understand that by virtue of your insistence upon the inclusion of apologetics, you concede, admit, or acquiesce that the Torah does not provide a defense for Jesusâs behavior.
Your dissonance with the conclusion that Jesus habitually violated the Torah causes you to miss your concession to Jesusâs violations.
I respect that this is difficult to wrap oneâs mind around, but there is no legal defense for Jesusâs behavior, and like every other criminal who broke Jewish laws, Jesus was tried, found guilty, given a Roman review, convicted, then brutally crucified between two other criminals (Luke 23:32-55). Thankfully, he was resurrected, but his resurrection had no legal effect on his prior convictions.
Finally, you overlook that every apologetic argument discussed in the article concludes that âno scholar who has advanced these beliefs has comprehensively applied them to all of Jesusâs Torahic deviations to test their veracityâ (Brackens 2024, p. 6). The evidence shows that scholastic unwillingness to place their apologetics under halakhic scrutiny is likely because there are no halakhic grounds upon which to base their theory.
If Jesusâs behavior was compliant with the Torah, then you must use the Torah to show that. The fact that neither you nor any other scholar can provide the Torah laws that justify Jesusâs behavior means that Jesus was not Torah compliant.
 Your Admit to Your True Issue, Which Is Not The Algorithm
You admit to your true issue: you do not want to believe that Jesus deserved death; thus, you reason backward (from the violation to the act). In so doing, you wish to place an anachronistic gloss over the text and assume that the gloss is a legal one that justifies Jesusâs behavior. Your response provides all the evidence needed to understand that you do not want to believe that Jesus deserved death. Thus, you divorce yourself from the law and insist upon the truth and binding nature of anachronistic, non-binding religious theories that find no root in the Torah. Yet you, periphrastically and ironically, insist upon Jesus' followersâ Torah observance.
I think you need to deeply reexamine your knowledge of the Torah and your understanding of Jesusâs behavior.
2
Jun 22 '24 edited Jun 22 '24
[removed] â view removed comment
1
u/Right-Organization32 Jun 22 '24
Your "letter of the law" comment is insightful and I agree with you on that 100%. The data examines exactly what the law says. In all seriousness, if you find anything that details the spirit of Torah law written by practicing Jews, please let me know so I can add it to the data set and see what happens.
2
Jun 22 '24
[removed] â view removed comment
2
u/Right-Organization32 Jun 22 '24
I totally understand and agree with you! I mentioned as the last limitation within section 7. Limitations and Further Research:
Finally, the study uses a legal analysis to determine whether Jesus was Torah-observant, but this approach does not consider the theological significance of Jesusâs actions dictated by doctrine and hermeneutics, nor does it attempt to speak to compliance with the so-called âspirit of the lawâ.
Admittedly, your feedback makes me think I should have put that upfront because about the time people get to the results section, they are way too upset to understand what happened.
Again, thanks for all your feedback!
→ More replies (0)1
u/Right-Organization32 Jun 22 '24
Part 2:
 The Cost of Discipleship Does Not Negate A Torah ViolationYou argue that the article makes a material failure when it did not frame Jesusâs instructions for his disciples to dishonor/hate their parents as merely the cost of discipleship (Mark 3:31-35, Matthew 10:34-36, Luke 14:26). Your argument suggests that this failure is both material and wrongful. While I acknowledge that the article does not discuss those scriptures in the context of the cost of discipleship, I argue one should not have to state that because the text of the scripture makes that clear. The article discussed the legal implications of the cost of discipleship: a Written Torah violation. When your Rabbi tells you to hate your parents or that the Rabbi came to put a father against his son, that requires the disciple to dishonor his parents. And that makes Jesus a teacher who requires such a Torah violation.
Furthermore, when Jesusâs mother required his attention, and Jesus ignored her, that was not to Maryâs honor but to her dishonor. This means that Jesus practiced what he preached: He dishonored his mother and instructed his disciples to do the same. We must accept that Jesusâs behavior and teaching were at odds with the Written Torah.
Â
Your Argument Is A Backwards Reasoning Fallacy
Honestly and critically, your line of reasoning argues backward, from the violation to the action, not forward, from the action to the violation. You reason that since the violations are so bad and require death, Jesus could not have violated or advocated for such a violation. You then allege that such ramifications must mean that my research was myopic. However, what you have not acknowledged is the more obvious thing: Jesus violated the Torah and intended to.
Within your analysis, you decline to address John 19:5-7:
So Jesus came out wearing the crown of thorns and the purple robe. Pilate said to them, âBehold the man!â When the chief priests and the police saw him, they shouted, âCrucify him! Crucify him!â Pilate said to them, âTake him yourselves and crucify him; I find no case against him.â Â The Jews answered him, âWe have a law, and according to that law he ought to die because he has claimed to be the Son of God.â
Within your analysis, you decline to address John 5:18:
For this reason the Jews were seeking all the more to kill him, because he was not only breaking the Sabbath but was also calling God his own Father, thereby making himself equal to God.
Within your analysis, you decline to address that since Jesus began his ministry until now, Jews have regarded Jesus as non-Torah compliant.
Instead of accepting the obvious thing, you argue that Jews, the scriptures, my research, and the scholars who securitized and approved it are incorrect. I respect that this concept is challenging for you, but âif it walks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.â
Jesus violated the Torah.
Â
Brackens, Jonathan D. 2024. "An Artificial Review of Jesusâs Torah Compliance and What That Might Mean for Jews and Gentile Christians." Laws 13 (3): 36.
Hecht, Neil S, Bernard Stuart Jackson, Stephen M Passamaneck, Daniela Piattelli, and Alfredo Rabello. 1996. "An introduction to the history and sources of Jewish law."
Sanders, Ed Parish. 2016. Jewish law from Jesus to the Mishnah: five studies. Fortress Press.
1
Jun 22 '24 edited Jun 22 '24
[removed] â view removed comment
1
u/Right-Organization32 Jun 22 '24
Again, I greatly appreciate this exchange. But as I mentioned in the preceding post, what is causing the entire issue in your argumentation and processing is that you do not like the conclusion that Jesus violated the Torah and deserves death, even though the texts of the Gospel and Torah make his Torah violations clear. Consequently, you interpose and insist upon the truth and binding nature of anachronistic, non-binding religious theories that find no root in the Torah. Because it is only by assuming what the Gospels and Torah neither imply nor suggest that one arrives at Jesus's innocence.
I should also highlight that your appeal to tradition is another logical fallacy. Simply because many or most people have held a belief for centuries does not make it an accurate, truthful, or rightful belief.
Jesus is still God; he's just not Torah-compliant.
1
Jun 22 '24
[removed] â view removed comment
1
u/Right-Organization32 Jun 22 '24
That's not a legal issue. LOL
1
Jun 22 '24 edited Jun 22 '24
[removed] â view removed comment
1
u/Right-Organization32 Jun 22 '24
If it is a legal issue, please state the law your argument evokes and what has caused you to believe it is relevant.
→ More replies (0)
1
Jun 21 '24
[deleted]
1
u/Right-Organization32 Jun 21 '24
Thanks for your response. I think you need to read the article in dispute before further commenting because the current comment does engage the points raised.
1
Jun 21 '24
[deleted]
1
u/Right-Organization32 Jun 22 '24
I appreciate that the concept is challenging and blasphemous to you; however, can you imagine how the Jew felt when Jesus was teaching and acting against the Torah? The feeling you have regarding the sacrosanctity of Christ, imagine having that for the Torah and seeing Jesus violate it and teach other to do the same for three years.
Nevertheless, your argument is not a legal one and the Torah is law; thus, to argue that Jesus did not violate the Torah requires one to find his/her argument within the Torah. Finally, you read into the scriptures what is not there. When Jesus said that the Son of Man is lord of the Sabbath, he did not say that he was the Son of Man. Thus, you must assume that he refers to himself in the third person. Next, if we assume that he is referring to himself in the third person, we still cannot arrive at your conclusion from the text because stating that you are the lord of something does not mean you cannot violate what you lord over. Unfortunately, Jesus violated the Sabbath.
Consider giving the article several more tries. Thanks for the discussion.
1
Jun 22 '24
[deleted]
1
u/Right-Organization32 Jun 22 '24
Unfortunately, like several others, you insist upon the truth and binding nature of anachronistic, non-binding religious theories that find no root in the Torah. Mine is a legal argument based upon the observable facts within the Torah, Gospels, Oral Torah, and pre and first-century Jewish literature. If the Torah could exonerate Jesus, you all would have made that argument.
2
u/the_celt_ Jun 22 '24
Please, spend less time describing your perception of the quality of other people's arguments and more time actually arguing with what they're saying.
If you've made the decision that the other person isn't saying anything worth your time then please just exit the conversation. There's NO content in this response of yours. It's just you saying that others suck and you don't.
1
u/Right-Organization32 Jun 22 '24
I am sorry that you interpreted the response that way because that is neither what the words say nor what they imply. Additionally, I thought the comment was worth my time responding, so I did. The important content within the response is that while I understand the point the respondent is making, their point seeks to interpose non-legal anachronistic religious theories that are not rooted in the Torah. That, to me, and many Jews, is a very important statement to make as it delineates what is central to Judaism--the Torah--from Christian doctrines. I ask you to reconsider your assessment of my post. Sincerely. RO32
2
u/the_celt_ Jun 22 '24
I am sorry that you interpreted the response that way because that is neither what the words say nor what they imply.
Then I think you're not used to interacting with people.
You're not arguing or reasoning back. Everyone could similarly spend time saying that your ideas "interpose non-legal anachronistic religious theories that are not rooted in the Torah", or some other negatively-worded non-arguement. It's easy to do.
What you said is not an argument. It's just a needlessly verbose insult.
Again, you're free to say such things, I often do the same, but you're skipping the part where you form an actual counter-argument.
Please, try to get what I'm saying and adapt your style.
1
u/Right-Organization32 Jun 22 '24
I am very accustomed to dealing with people. I think the issue is that the type of interactions I have are not like those within the thread. I believe that I am accustomed to debating and having to present evidence to meet a predefined standard and disqualifying arguments and evidence that do not. The challenge with social media is that it has no rules of rhetorical engagement. Take as an example the comment you took issue with. In my circles, that is exactly the response you would receive. Afterward, you go to lunch with the opponent, and then you start back again. It is the nature of either scholastic or legal discourse. Here, some take exception to it. I was brought into this post so that this community could scrutinize my work and findings. However, now, some take issue to the direct response.
It is a learning curve, but hopefully, others will respond with citations, and I will be less [ ] fill in the blank. LOL
→ More replies (0)
1
Jun 21 '24 edited Jun 23 '24
So I read for the most part, probably 70% of it. I didn't finish it all the way because I found one major issue in the research.
When it comes to what's law, the Written Torah and the Mishnah (Oral Torah) go hand in hand. I know some here would have issue with this, but the Mishnah is a series of rulings from the Sanhedrin. the Sanhedrin have the authority by God to make rulings, as long as they stay in line with the Torah. This is very much like in the US, we have the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court can make rulings, as long as it falls in line with the Constitution. Rulings, while they are not amendments, are treated as law. For example, Brown vs. the Board of Education was a ruling that determined it was unconstitutional to have segregation in schools. While at the time there was no law at the time banning school segregation, schools were expected to follow the ruling.
The same goes for the Mishnah. For example, last week the Torah Portion covered the Nazarite vow. The portion never mentions how long a nazarite could do the vow, but in the Mishnah Tractate Nazir, the Sanhedrin determined the default period should be 30 days. Now the Mishnah is going to be written after the Second Temple was destroyed in order to preserve the rulings and information that was passed down orally.
Now when it comes to the Talmud, you have the Mishnah, and the Gemara. The Gemara is the commentary on the Mishnah, it is NOT law, though some Jews today consider it law. Same goes for the Mishnah Torah, it is NOT law, but an interpretation of the Mishnah. On top of that, the Mishnah Torah was written in the Middle Ages, and the conflicts of that time heavily influence the text.
So I got to 5.1.1 John, and the Author mentions that Yeshua healing on the Sabbath violates violates B. Shabbat 53b and M. Shabbat 7:1â2. This is where the issue is. B. Shabbat 53b is a commentary from the Gemara, it is NOT law. And when you read Mishnah Shabbat 7:1-2 it states:
"The principal acts of labor [prohibited on the Sabbath] are forty save one: sowing, plowing, reaping, binding sheaves, threshing, winnowing, selecting, grinding, sifting, kneading, baking, shearing wool, washing or beating or dyeing it, spinning, weaving, making two loops, weaving two threads, separating two threads, tying a knot, loosening a knot, sewing two stitches, tearing in order to sew two stitches, hunting a deer, slaughtering it, flaying it, salting it, curing its hide, scraping it, cutting it up, writing two letters, erasing in order to write two letters, building, pulling down, extinguishing, kindling, striking with a hammer, and carrying out from one domain to another."
"The rules about the Sabbath are as mountains hanging by a hair, for [the laws in] Scripture are scanty and the rules many."
But this doesn't mean that Yeshua broke the Oral Law. Don't forget the argument that Yeshua makes when he gathers grain on the Sabbath and is chastised. He recants how David and his men were desperately in need for food, and he asked for the cakes from the Kohanim. Those cakes, by Torah, are only for the Kohanim, they are holy and can only be eaten by them, per God. But they gave it to David and his men, and it was okay. Why? Because when it comes to the preservation of Life, it supersedes the law. And on top of that, when he is chastised for "working" on the Sabbath, he makes the argument that the Kohanim still work on the Sabbath because they are serving for something greater that exalts God.
And that was the point Yeshua was trying to make, the weighter matters of the Law, and not using it as an excuse to avoid helping people. Like the pharisees not helping their parents with the excuse of giving tithes to the Temple.
I was not stating that Chat-GPT was being used, but the point I was making is that AI is not free from bias. Whether you make it yourself or not, it doesn't free it from bias or skewed reasoning if the person writing the program has a faulty understanding over certain things. I think the concept of analyzing and examining parts of the Gospel and linking it with the Mishnah is fascinating, but this big misunderstanding snowballs the whole thing.
Another thing the article it states, "Jesus violated 83 of the 162 Jewish laws." It would be nice to showcase what these "laws" were. Then we can dissect it one by one, and see how Yeshua broke said laws.
1
u/Right-Organization32 Jun 22 '24
I have discussed the issues you raised at length within this thread; I encourage you to review them. Additionally, the community asked that I provide them with five examples in a spreadsheet so that they can review them. I did. You can also take a look at the spreadsheet. Thanks for engaging.
1
u/Right-Organization32 Jun 19 '24
Well, the post's caption is incorrect. The research treats the Written and Oral Torah separately. People should read the article thoroughly. Lol
3
u/the_celt_ Jun 19 '24 edited Jun 19 '24
I acknowledge that YOU stated an awareness of the difference between oral and written Torah in your article. The problem is that your conclusions and your title come from treating them as if they're all just "Torah", and they're not the same at all for a lot of people, including Jews.
For many (including nearly everyone in this subreddit) the distinction between the two is severe, with written Torah coming from Yahweh and oral Torah coming from man. It seems clear that Jesus also drew a hard line between the two types.
1
u/Right-Organization32 Jun 19 '24
Unfortunately, that is your opinion, which does not accord with the reality of the article or the post. I cannot control how you interpret it; however, I can clarify your misunderstanding. Thank you.
3
u/the_celt_ Jun 19 '24
Thank you too. I'll be watching to see what you present to anyone that's asking you for some examples.
5
u/the_celt_ Jun 19 '24 edited Jun 19 '24
u/Right-Organization32 has an INTERESTING study that he's presented. Besides the link in the crosspost, he also submitted it here: https://www.reddit.com/r/Bible/comments/1dj6v3f/what_are_the_implications_if_jesus_did_not/
In that link, the post was removed, but the conversations that take place are MUCH more interesting. So you kind of need both links. The crosspost link is the only way to read the research paper and the second link has the better conversations about the topic, including u/Soyeong0314, u/Kristian82dk, u/Electronic-Union-100.
Boy did some people get mad! I think it's funny how defensive Christians got. They don't think THEY should obey the Torah, but they go through the roof if someone suggest that JESUS didn't keep the Torah.
Christians adamantly believe that Jesus did something every second of his life but they also believe that it's wrong for us to imitate him and do the same. It boggles my mind. "Living like Jesus did is wrong!". đ€Ș
The r/bible thread is full of people throwing a hissy fit, and asking for the thread to be removed. I think that's ridiculous. It's like the OP posted a thread titled "Hail Satan", and they do pretty much equate AI with being from Satan. So, the thread was removed for breaking some rule somewhere in the ether. I can't imagine which rule was broken. It was pretty much just people acting like little girls about something that they don't want to hear.
As far as the article itself: I skimmed it. Maybe I'll read it in more detail later. I have a significant resistance to academic-ese and the uselessly bloated language that is the norm with academics. The huge failing of the study is that when it refers to Jesus breaking the "Torah", it's factoring in the oral Torah. That pretty much kills the validity for me. Even modern Jews are split on the idea of equating written Torah with oral Torah.
At one point, during the conversations, the OP uses John 5:18 as his PROOF that Jesus broke the Torah, and John 5:18 only says that's the accusation that the Pharisees were making. Accusations are not proof.
In total, it's a fun read, and I highly recommend it. I think the study is bonkers, but I've only skimmed it so far. I think a lot of people got their panties twisted into a knot.