The problem with sacraments

[Guest shiloh357]

9 minutes ago, Joline said:

Really, well Paul spoke concerning Gentiles in the body of Christ.

But you are saying the bible is very Pharasaic?

No, I said the Bible is Jewish. 

[Guest]

17 minutes ago, Qnts2 said:

 

Actually, that is incorrect. The Torah is the highest level of authority in Judaism. The Nach (Prophets and Writings) is second in authority. Third in authority is the Mishnah (Oral law). The Mishnah is supposedly more details on how to keep the Mosaic laws but if a Mishnah section contradicts the Tenakh, it is considered invalid.

Jesus criticized the Pharisees for expanding the law (fence around the law), which in some circumstances went to far and actually violated the Mosaic law. The fence around the law is actually in the Gemarah. The Gemarah is Rabbinical commentary and debates with disagreeing opinions presented in a manner for teaching.

I agree with Michael Brown that the Oral law was not given by God at Mt. Sinai. Messianic Judaism does not accept the Talmud as a revelation from God, but is man made. Much of the Talmud is a discussion about scripture so some might be interesting or even correct, but it is not from God. 

An excerpt from wiki

Oral Torah: Messianic Jewish opinions concerning the "Oral Torah" (the Talmud) are varied and sometimes conflicting between individual congregations. Some congregations are very selective in their applications of Talmudic law, or do so for the sake of continuity with tradition, while others encourage a serious observance of the Jewish halakha. Virtually all Messianic congregations and synagogues believe that the oral traditions are subservient to the written Torah.

It seems the doctrine of divine invitation is accepting of oral law then.

I am not surprised Dr Michael Brown does not accept it. Does Michael Brown confirm the doctrine of divine invitation?

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

not No, I said the Bible is Jewish. 

Jewish thought is not Pharisaic?

[Guest shiloh357]

2 minutes ago, Joline said:

Jewish thought is not Pharisaic?

Not theologically.  There are Jewish traditions that predate the Pharisees, as well.  It is also worth noting that not all Pharisees were hypocrites.   Jesus had both supporters and detractors among them and the Sanhedrin.  It is too easy to paint everyone with broad brush.   Not all Jewish traditions are bad and not all of them are good.   The Jewish people are not a monolith, any more than Christianity is a monolith.  You can't just throw them all in the same pot.

[Guest]

Just now, shiloh357 said:

Not theologically.  There are Jewish traditions that predate the Pharisees, as well.  It is also worth noting that not all Pharisees were hypocrites.   Jesus had both supporters and detractors among them and the Sanhedrin.  It is too easy to paint everyone with broad brush.   Not all Jewish traditions are bad and not all of them are good.   The Jewish people are not a monolith, any more than Christianity is a monolith.  You can't just throw them all in the same pot.

Never said any of those bad things Shiloh. Just quoting the scripture that they erred in the prophets. So I cannot see why you would look to their opinions to discern the prophetic events.

Any ways back to the subject. Whether following Jewish ritual, or Catholic Ritual, Anglican, Lutheran, for benefits of blessing, grace, and sanctification are all forms of sacramentalism.

[Guest shiloh357]

Just now, Joline said:

Never said any of those bad things Shiloh. Just quoting the scripture that they erred in the prophets. So I cannot see why you would look to their opinions to discern the prophetic events.

Any ways back to the subject. Whether following Jewish ritual, or Catholic Ritual, Anglican, Lutheran, for benefits of blessing, grace, and sanctification are all forms of sacramentalism.

I am not looking the Pharisees or the Rabbis for their opinions on prophetic events.  That's just the same type of lie you keep trying to assign to me just so you can have something to knock down.   You really cannot be trusted in a debate to be honest.

No, Jewish ritual cannot be included in that list.   As Judaism doesn't have sacramentalism in its theology.

[Guest]

35 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

I am not looking the Pharisees or the Rabbis for their opinions on prophetic events.  That's just the same type of lie you keep trying to assign to me just so you can have something to knock down.   You really cannot be trusted in a debate to be honest.

No, Jewish ritual cannot be included in that list.   As Judaism doesn't have sacramentalism in its theology.

Well, I don't know where Jewish thought comes from outside the Pharisees, as that is the Judaism which survived.

As for sacramentalism, a rose by any other name is still a rose. You all just call the results of what you obey to bring blessing, sanctification, grace.

So who here cannot be trusted?

Good day to you shiloh

[Qnts2]

54 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

According to Pirkei Avot in the Talmud, the Oral Law is of divine origin AND is more binding than the written Torah and takes precedence over it.  Jacob Neusner also confirms this as well in his book on the Talmud.   It is said that God gave two Torahs to Moses, the written and the oral. 

Yes, it does say that God gave two Torahs, the written and the oral. That is wrong. God only gave the written. I personally believe that much of the mishnah was court decisions.

Now, Judaism teaches a hierarchy of writings. I gave the first which is Torah, second is Nach, third is Mishnah (so called Oral law). 

I do not know of anywhere in Pirkei Avot which states that the Mishnah is more binding then the Torah. That is contrary to the teaching in Judaism.

 

[Qnts2]

Ok, I found a article by Jacob Neusner. In that article, he states that the Mishnah is secondary to the Tenakh. He cites various methodology to arrive at the authority of the Mishnah is based on the Tenakh which makes the authority of the Mishnah as secondary. Although he lists multiple supposed methods, they all can be summarized by saying the Mishnah is supported by referencing the Tenakh or quoting the Tenakh as the primary source.

His quote from Pirkei Avot is: Pirkei Avot 1"Moses received Torah from Sinai (and handed it on to Joshua, Joshua to the elders, and the elders to the prophets. And the prophets handed it on to the men of the great assembly"

This is a statement of the supposed chain of transmission. It was supposed given by God orally to Moses, and Moses told it to Joshua. Joshua passed it orally to the elders, etc. The men of the great assembly would be the Sanhedrin. So, that would be the claim that it came from God at Mt. Sinai. From there, quotes from scripture are used to show the source making scripture primary in the authority. 

http://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/the-formation-of-the-oral-torah/

A quote from the article 'Accordingly, the Bavli, subordinate as it is to the Mishnah, regards the Mishnah as subordinate to, and contingent upon, Scripture'

That is consistent with the view in Judaism of the hierarchy of authority of the various writings, with the Torah having the highest authority, the Prophets and Writing next in authority, then the Mishnah,

 

 

[Qnts2]

3 hours ago, Teditis said:

Well of course they've made strides forward... that is the nature of the passage of time.

I never said that they improved on what Christ taught...merely that they have taken His

teachings and put them into practice. They have in essence improved on OT/Rabbinic teachings

just as Christ has encouraged us to do... to expand and go beyond.

Ok, I would  strongly disagree. Since the scripture is from God and perfect, there is nothing better then was received by the Apostles. The Apostles being the first Christians had it all, put into practice, and the modern Christians have not made strides forward compared to the Apostles.

The OT teachings are not inferior since they were good and perfect from God. The fault wasn't with the OT, but the fault was with fallen man who was not good or perfect. Therefore the OT is not inferior, but man is inferior so the New Covenant, which does not depend on the practices of men to achieve it's purposes, is better.