JESUS = Rabi?

[traveller]

Fascinating, Shiloh! I'll just sit over here by the door and listen, brother. You keep on telling me about the past.

[Guest shiloh357]

I understand that. Shiloh's point comes from the point of normal operations in the normal world with normal people.

JESUS may have overcome the norm in more ways than rising from the dead.

Jesus lived just like the people of His time. Part of the problem is that people fail to see that Jesus gave up many of the perogatives of Deity when He came to earth. He had to. If Jesus relied on His deity to get through life, then He could not have provided a righteous model for others to follow.

Jesus lived as a Jew, and that is evidenct even from the Scriptures. Jesus did not use His amazing superatural powers for his own benefit, in fact, according to Phillipians chapter 2, he emptied Himself completely and became a servant.

I think it is hard for many Christians to really accept "Jesus the Jew." For centuries art, literature and more recently the advent of movies have always depicted Jesus as the ultimate antogonist of all things Jewish. Jesus has always been depicted as the enemy of the Jewish people, early church writings and art often portrayed Jesus soft, meek, mild and tenderhearted while the Jews were portrayed as venemous, treachorous and deceitful, fueling the pogroms and inquisitions of midieval and Renassiance Europe.

Unfortunately a residue of that still exists, coupled with a view of Jesus and the disciples as uneducated a rag tag lot from whom many "anti-intellectuals" in the church take solace and find justification for their own lack of studiousness when it comes to the Scriptures.

Neither Jesus nor his disciples were dummies, nor were they "uneducated." That is a popular misconception. They were called "unlearned" by their enemies. But any knowledge of history will tell you that observant Jews even if they are not Rabbis or secular teachers in secular colleges are VERY educated where things pertaining to Jewish law are concerned.

Just because Peter was a fisherman does not mean He did not attend a beit Hamidrash on a weekly basis, it does not mean He was not well educated in matters pertaining to Torah and even Jewish law. He might not have been Rabbi, but He neither was anyone's dummy.

Perhas the fact that it is not mentioned in the scriptures is reason enough not to mention it now.

It alluded very strongly and that should spur us on to further study, not as a reason to just brush it off.

[kross]

I understand that. Shiloh's point comes from the point of normal operations in the normal world with normal people.

JESUS may have overcome the norm in more ways than rising from the dead.

Jesus lived just like the people of His time. Part of the problem is that people fail to see that Jesus gave up many of the perogatives of Deity when He came to earth. He had to. If Jesus relied on His deity to get through life, then He could not have provided a righteous model for others to follow.

Jesus lived as a Jew, and that is evidenct even from the Scriptures. Jesus did not use His amazing superatural powers for his own benefit, in fact, according to Phillipians chapter 2, he emptied Himself completely and became a servant.

I think it is hard for many Christians to really accept "Jesus the Jew." For centuries art, literature and more recently the advent of movies have always depicted Jesus as the ultimate antogonist of all things Jewish. Jesus has always been depicted as the enemy of the Jewish people, early church writings and art often portrayed Jesus soft, meek, mild and tenderhearted while the Jews were portrayed as venemous, treachorous and deceitful, fueling the pogroms and inquisitions of midieval and Renassiance Europe.

Unfortunately a residue of that still exists, coupled with a view of Jesus and the disciples as uneducated a rag tag lot from whom many "anti-intellectuals" in the church take solace and find justification for their own lack of studiousness when it comes to the Scriptures.

Neither Jesus nor his disciples were dummies, nor were they "uneducated." That is a popular misconception. They were called "unlearned" by their enemies. But any knowledge of history will tell you that observant Jews even if they are not Rabbis or secular teachers in secular colleges are VERY educated where things pertaining to Jewish law are concerned.

Just because Peter was a fisherman does not mean He did not attend a beit Hamidrash on a weekly basis, it does not mean He was not well educated in matters pertaining to Torah and even Jewish law. He might not have been Rabbi, but He neither was anyone's dummy.

Perhas the fact that it is not mentioned in the scriptures is reason enough not to mention it now.

It alluded very strongly and that should spur us on to further study, not as a reason to just brush it off.

You are probably right. There are a million and one other things I consider more important before I get to it. Plus, you have given an excellant class of study.

[Guest shiloh357]

To me a fact is something that has been proven beyond the shadow of a doubt.

Not even our legal system operates under that standard.

You have not PROVEN that Jesus was a formally trained rabbi and you never will because it is not stated anywhere that he was.

Following your standard of proof, we cannot "prove" that Jesus even existed. Sorry, but you are opertating from standard of proof that no one in a serious debate operates under.

the fact is I have provided sufficent evidence to establish the facts beyond a reasonable doubt.

your evidence is compelling and it makes your opinion a well informed one, but in the end it is still just an opinion and there is the possibility you could be wrong.

The problem is that this is not philosophy. If were discussing philosophical pardigms and frames of reference your "opinion" argument would be valid. The problem is that history is real, and is not something open to opinion. Either what I say is wrong or it is right. There is no "opinion" involved. Either somethng happened or it didn't . There is no middle ground.

I understand you think it is impossible for you to be wrong, but sadly it is possible.

It's not that I think it is impossible to be wrong, but the problem is that you are erecting a standard that no one could meet and then acting as if the argument falls short of being "factual." The problem is not a lack of evidence or fact, the problem lies with your unreasonable standard of "proof."

[Guest shiloh357]

QUOTE (shiloh357 @ Oct 20 2008, 08:19 PM)

Following your standard of proof, we cannot prove that Jesus even existed. Sorry, but you are opertating from standard of proof that no one in a serious debate operates under.

not true, the Bible tells me that Jesus existed and it is the word of God. The Bible does not tell me that Jesus was formally trained as a Rabbi, all I have for that is the word of Shilo. Sorry, but while it is a good word, it is not scripture.

You don't seem to understand. Your standard of "proof" makes any argument about the existance of Jesus simply "opinion" and not evidentiarily based. You fail to see how your "standard of proof" pretty much fails in other contexts. Your standard is unreasonable in that it makes in apologetic argument in favor of Christianity impossible to maintain.

Your standard of proof were it applied in a secular context would paralyze our legal system.

yes and no. You are correct that you are either wrong or right, but at this moment in time we have no way to know for sure, that is what makes it an opinion.

We do have the ability to know. The the problem is that you cannot provide on shred of evidence that would demonstrate that the evidence I have provided is faulty. I have provided sufficient evidence that you are incapable of contradicting by showing other evidence that is inconsistent with the points I have raised.

I admit it, I have a high standard for calling something a fact.

No, you have a impossible, irrational and unreasonable standard that no one could meet and it would not matter if they were on the internet or not.

What you have done I have seen done by atheists and unbelievers on the other part os the board. You erect a standard of proof that you know can't be met in order to avoid having to deal with something you don't want to believe or consider. It is a textbook evasive tactic and it happens all of the time.

according to this guy on this website, you have it pretty much all wrong.

http://www.followtherabbi.com/Brix?pageID=2753

The people of Galilee were the most religious Jews in the world in the time of Jesus. This is quite contrary to the common view that the Galileans were simple, uneducated peasants from an isolated area

Actually, I never said anything that contradicts that. What I said was that the Judeans considered the Galileans as uneducated. I never made the claim that they were simple or uneducated. To the contrary, I have stated that Jesus and His Galilean disciples were well educated.

The term rabbi in the time of Jesus did not necessarily refer to a specific office or occupation. That would be true only after the Temple in Jerusalem was destroyed (70 AD).

Again, I never said anything that contradicts this either. Earlier in this thread, in post #14, I pointed out that the Rabbis had secular occupations in addition to being Rabbis. Being a Rabbi was not a full time or paid occuapation. That however does not mean it was a position that required no formal education.

Hillel who was the leader of the Sandhedrin earned his living as a wood cutter, His rival Shammai was a builder and a metal worker. Jesus was a carpenter, Paul was a tent maker. Rabbis did not live off of being a Rabbi. They had jobs just like everyone else. Rabbis were tailors, scribes, lawyers, butchers, builders, merchants, craftsmen of every kind. So, yeah, this guy is right but you are misunderstanding him just a bit.

In one sense then, calling Jesus ?Rabbi? is an anachronism. In another sense the use of this term for him by the people his day is a measure of their great respect for him as a person and as a teacher and not just a reference to the activity of teaching he was engaged in.

Yes it was a title of respect. I never said otherwise. What he is not saying is that it was pleasent term of endearment passed out to anyone who was a good speaker. That cannot be inferred from his remarks.

The title of Rabbi was very much respected, but it was respected because it was earned. It takes a lot to become a Rabbi. It takes a lot of study and a lot of discipline and as much drive and desire it does to achieve a high level degree in any of our modern universities.

Now, why should I believe you over this guy?

You should believe him. He is not wrong, neither does he contradict me.

Your problem is that you don't know the facts well enough, but you carrying on as if you do.

[Botz]

I can't help feeling as if the whole point we have been trying to establish as to whether Jesus was a formally educated and recognised scholastic Rabbi, or whether He was recognised as a Rabbi simply through His ministry is getting lost....

RG's contention that I share, is that it cannot be proved that Jesus was this bona fide Galilean Rabbi, approved and earned through specific rabbinical training. I do believe that He was a Rabbi endorsed by Rabbi John, recommended by the Father, and filled with the Spirit... and the evidence of His knowledge and wisdom dispensed through His teaching was in itself enough to earn the respect of many of those that knew Him.

In those formative days before the destruction of the Temple, I believe there is some evidence to show that a person who was able to teach, draw disciples to himself and make pronouncements on aspects of Jewish law, was equipped enough to elicit the title Rabbi/Teacher/Master.... from what I have understood it was only later consolidated and adopted to signify an academically qualified status.

Some people might get hot under the collar, and wonder what all the fuss is about, and does it really matter... but it all helps in trying to gain a true perspective and get a better understanding of life at that time, and I totally agree with Shiloh that the Church is still willfully and woefully ignorant of its proper heritage...often preferring a cardboard cut-out to the real thing, because it has got comfortable with it.

I am not Jewish, I do not have the advantage of a Jewish background, but I am absolutely passionate about the necessity to regain a complete Jewish historical context to everything found in the whole of the Scriptures, and to be prepared to give up and kick into touch any pre-conceived gentile-christian misconceptions and mis-interpretations that attempt to rob the Church of much of her foundational strength.

Am I worried if I post something and get it wrong?....not really the worst it can do is make me learn from my mistake and try to do better next time... and I think if used properly that is the strength and the safety factor of life on these boards.

[Guest shiloh357]

I still have questions about it and as you stated I don

[Guest shiloh357]

RG's contention that I share, is that it cannot be proved that Jesus was this bona fide Galilean Rabbi, approved and earned through specific rabbinical training.

I am not as loose and free with the word "prove" as other people are. Different people operate from different standards of proof, some are more reasonable than others. I have not even claimed that I can "prove" Jesus was a bonefide Rabbi.

When we use the term "proof" it sets up a certain level of expectation. People expect something pretty spectacular and overwhelming. My point is that the available facts both from history and the Scriptures themselves taken together demonstrate the likelihood that Jesus was real, bonefide Rabbi.

We as Christians believe other things with less evidence to go on that what I have provided to make my case about Jesus being a Rabbi. For example, most scholars agree that Luke wrote the book of Acts, but the NT never tells us who wrote Acts, and Luke never claims to have written it. Now they have their reasons but none them are conclusive or "prove" that Luke is the author, but Christians have no problem believing Luke was the author in fact, it never gets challenged or disputed nowadays as far as I know.

Now whether or not Jesus was Rabbi or whether Luke was the actual author of the book of Acts, changes nothing. Neither issue has the potential to shipwreck Christianity, but one is accepted regardless of the lack of "proof," but the other rejected on the same grounds that it cannot be "proven" even though there is more internal and external evidence for it. Depending on the issue and on what we are prone towards, our "standards" of proof tend to change.

[Botz]

RG's contention that I share, is that it cannot be proved that Jesus was this bona fide Galilean Rabbi, approved and earned through specific rabbinical training.

I am not as loose and free with the word "prove" as other people are. Different people operate from different standards of proof, some are more reasonable than others. I have not even claimed that I can "prove" Jesus was a bonefide Rabbi.

When we use the term "proof" it sets up a certain level of expectation. People expect something pretty spectacular and overwhelming. My point is that the available facts both from history and the Scriptures themselves taken together demonstrate the likelihood that Jesus was real, bonefide Rabbi.

We as Christians believe other things with less evidence to go on that what I have provided to make my case about Jesus being a Rabbi. For example, most scholars agree that Luke wrote the book of Acts, but the NT never tells us who wrote Acts, and Luke never claims to have written it. Now they have their reasons but none them are conclusive or "prove" that Luke is the author, but Christians have no problem believing Luke was the author in fact, it never gets challenged or disputed nowadays as far as I know.

Now whether or not Jesus was Rabbi or whether Luke was the actual author of the book of Acts, changes nothing. Neither issue has the potential to shipwreck Christianity, but one is accepted regardless of the lack of "proof," but the other rejected on the same grounds that it cannot be "proven" even though there is more internal and external evidence for it. Depending on the issue and on what we are prone towards, our "standards" of proof tend to change.

Er...I have always believed that it is probable that Luke wrote Acts, and I expect many others would say the same...

but taking up what you have previously stated...from having read and re-read the whole thread you seemed pretty adamant that you had provided enough relevant historical information to convince us pretty strongly that Jesus was in fact a full-blown Rabbi in the true scolastic definition, and not just given the title due to the evidence of His works and words. I don't dispute the possibility, but I simply did not find the evidence you gave was enough to seal shut the case... and I have certainly not found sufficient biblical evidence or extra-biblical evidence to convince me, but naturally I am very open to it.

What I know...is that Jesus was a Rabbi in the fullest sense of the word...more so than any other person who has ever been given or assumed the title... and yes I believe He was educated to a degree, just like all Jewish children in learning Torah, and the oral traditions.

I think many times we all need sufficient proof about something before we will embrace it as fact, and what to some people is evidence enough, requires a little more digging and convincing for others, but again I understand what you are getting at.

For example, earlier on you mentioned the 'eye of the needle' being the small inset gate of a larger gate, but scholars that I have studied generally find this a christian 'misinterpretation' and 'myth'. There are several explanations that are possible, but the one I lean towards is that it was pure hyperbole. Doesn't change anything, but I am sure if you weigh up the available evidence you might reconsider the definition you gave.

[Guest shiloh357]

Er...I have always believed that it is probable that Luke wrote Acts, and I expect many others would say the same...

I am speaking in a general sense, Botz.

but taking up what you have previously stated...from having read and re-read the whole thread you seemed pretty adamant that you had provided enough relevant historical information to convince us pretty strongly that Jesus was in fact a full-blown Rabbi in the true scolastic definition, and not just given the title due to the evidence of His works and words.

Actually what I said what that I have given enough evidence to convince anyone that I was not operating solely off of opinion, but that no amount of evidence provided would convince anyone unwilling to be convinced. I also asserted that there is no historical case of someone being acclaimed "Rabbi" simply because they liked what He had to say. In fact, the fact that His enemies and detractors called Him Rabbi would indicate that it was not merely a term of endearment or a friendly title of respect as an acknowledgment of his words or works. His enemies were trying discredit and diminish His words and works. If the title Rabbi was some positive affirmation of those things, it is unlikely they would have referred to Him in such a manner.

I don't dispute the possibility, but I simply did not find the evidence you gave was enough to seal shut the case... and I have certainly not found sufficient biblical evidence or extra-biblical evidence to convince me, but naturally I am very open to it.

I purposely avoided claiming to be able to prove or "seal shut the case" so the assertion that I feel I have done that is basically blowing smoke over something I never said or even implied.

What I know...is that Jesus was a Rabbi in the fullest sense of the word

In the fullest sense as defined by whom? That is the problem. What I find recurring is the insistance on some to define on their own, the parameters of what "Rabbi" means when it is applied to Jesus. There is something about Jesus being entirely relevant to His culture, operating through the normal channels and fully participating within the life of 1st century Israel as a 1st century Jew that seems to raise the hackles.

What I find interesting is that if we were talking about ANYONE else, there would be no question as to what degree they were actually a Rabbi. If I were discussing any other historical Rabbi and discussing what kind of training they would have gone through not only would I not be challenged, but no one would care and would probably not even read the thread as they would not care about how and or where someone they have never heard of studied to become a Rabbi.