JESUS = Rabi?

[Botz]

Infighting??? This is just a mild debate, no one has seriously pulled out their daggers....yet!

[Guest Biblicist]

Jesus was/is God, tis true, but He humbled Himself as a man and followed the "laws of the land". He was fully human, meaning that He would have done everything that a young Jewish child would have, just sinlessly. Considering Christ's relationship to the Word, it is very easy for me to believe that He would have been interested in studying it, throughly, and submitting Himself to the authority of those who had studied it too.

He is our example.

Philippians 2

5Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus:

6 Who, being in very nature God,

did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,

7 but made himself nothing,

taking the very nature of a servant,

being made in human likeness.

8 And being found in appearance as a man,

he humbled himself

and became obedient to death

[Guest shiloh357]

It is not a FACT that Jesus was a formally trained Rabbi. It is possible that he was, but the only FACT is that we dont know for sure.

The problem is lies in how you go about establishing "fact."

Your basis for claiming that it is not something we can know for sure is that the Bible doesn't stop and say, "Oh and BTW, Jesus was trained as a Rabbi."

However, we can examine history and find no references to Rabbis who simply called "Rabbi" because they were good public speakers. Rabbinic formal education may not have taken on the form that it does today, but there is no historical basis for Jesus simply being called Rabbi on the grounds that people liked what He had to say.

If "Rabbi" was simply a title of respect and nothing more as you and others have suggested, then why did Jesus enemies, who were constantly trying to publically embarrass Him and later conspired to kill Him, acknowledge Him as Rabbi? If anything would they have not set about to discredit those claimed He was deserviing of such a respectful title? Jesus was acknowledged as a Rabbi by both his friends AND His enemies, which pretty torpedoes the assertion that it was a friendly title of "respect.

Have you until today, by reading the Bible, thought to yourself...hmmm I bet that Jesus was a formally trained Rabbi? I know I have not

There is knowledge about the Bible that cannot be gained by simply reading the Bible itself. The Bible has a context, and that context flavors things it says.

For example, without studying the historical/cultural dynamics surrounding the Bible, we would not know that "eye of the needle" was a reference to a small gate in the city walls. Without studying history, and geography, would not understand that the church of Laodecia had to have its water piped in from Hieropolis and Colosse which played into Jesus' remarks about them being lukewarm just like the parasite laden "lukewarm" water they received from those other cities.

It is not a case of having to know these things to be saved, but the fact is there is a dynamic within the Scripture that is unlocked for us when we able to bridge the gaps of language, culture, history and geography that was frankly, assumed knowledge by the original authors. The purpose of study and especially proper hermeneutics is that we are able to bridge those gaps and fill in the gaps left by a lack of understanding of the culture which God did not circumvent when He inspired the Bible to be written.

[Guest Biblicist]

Have you until today, by reading the Bible, thought to yourself...hmmm I bet that Jesus was a formally trained Rabbi? I know I have not

I, for one, never did, simply because I do not know the history of Jewish tradition. Frankly, it never even entered my mind the reason they would have called Him Rabbi. Again I say, it makes sense to me since His enemies called Him Rabbi. If He were not one, if He had no formal training, would they have not been the FIRST ones to point that out?

I found this here...Judaism 101

Rabbi

A rabbi is not a priest, neither in the Jewish sense of the term nor in the Christian sense of the term. In the Christian sense of the term, a priest is a person with special authority to perform certain sacred rituals. A rabbi, on the other hand, has no more authority to perform rituals than any other adult male member of the Jewish community. In the Jewish sense of the term, a priest (kohein) is a descendant of Aaron, charged with performing various rites in the Temple in connection with religious rituals and sacrifices. Although a kohein can be a rabbi, a rabbi is not required to be a kohein.

A rabbi is simply a teacher, a person sufficiently educated in halakhah (Jewish law) and tradition to instruct the community and to answer questions and resolve disputes regarding halakhah. When a person has completed the necessary course of study, he is given a written document known as a semikhah, which confirms his authority to make such decisions.

When I speak generally of things that were said or decided by "the rabbis" or "the sages," I am speaking of matters that have been generally agreed upon by authoritative Jewish scholars over the centuries. When I speak of rabbinical literature, I speak of the writings of the great rabbis on a wide variety of subjects.

Since the destruction of the Temple, the role of the kohanim has diminished, and rabbis have taken over the spiritual leadership of the Jewish community. In this sense, the rabbi has much the same role as a Protestant minister, ministering to the community, leading community religious services and dealing with many of the administrative matters related to the synagogue. However, it is important to note that the rabbi's status as rabbi does not give him any special authority to conduct religious services. Any Jew sufficiently educated to know what he is doing can lead a religious service, and a service led by such a Jew is every bit as valid as a service led by a rabbi. It is not unusual for a community to be without a rabbi, or for Jewish services to be conducted without a rabbi, or for members of the community to lead all or part of religious services even when a rabbi is available.

[Botz]

There is a difference between the so-called preponderance of evidence that formed the basis of the teaching on the nature of G-d as formulated through the doctrine of the Trinity, and the idea of Jesus as educated Rabbi. One is hard factual evidence sourced through biblical revelations on the nature and person of G-d. The other evidence that leans towards the possibility of Jesus being an actual rabbinically educated teacher is largely circumstantial in the light of the fact that the Bible is not catagoric, and the historical frame-work we have to work from is not vast and is not exhaustive.

Nothing I presented can be considered "circumstantial." Furthermore the historic framework is far more vast that you probably willing to admit.

Perhaps 'circumstantial' does not adequately explain the difference in the point you were trying to make, but I think you can probably see past the semantics and get the gist of the argument.

As for 'historic framework' ...I cannot say that what I have discovered so far is vast...and what evidence, (and commentary on the evidence,) we have to go on, is open to numerous interpretations and speculations.

Also I am actually extremely flexible and willing to absorb more teaching and very happy to be challenged or corrected when I make an unfounded supposition or have my facts mixed up or inadequately developed, and I have really benefited over the years from so much that you have taught about and argued strongly for.

I think there are a number of open-ended possibilities especially as it is unclear to what extent the term Rabbi was used at the time.

What evidence can you supply that shows that "Rabbi" means more or means something different than what it means?

The evidence that I have looked for, looked at and studied has led me to believe so far that in Jesus' day the term 'Rabbi' as used today, was in flux...in other words it did not necessarily carry with it rabbinical endorsement from a particular school of learning.... and all the scholarly expositions do not agree. Therefore I am left to conclude from my study of Scripture, and everything else I have read, that opinion is divided.

[Guest shiloh357]

QUOTE (yod @ Oct 20 2008, 02:18 AM)

Yeshua was born in a very different culture and grew up as any jewish boy in the small village of Nazareth would have. The Pharisees and Saducees and Sanhedrin and Essenes and Zealots were all competing interpretations of the scriptures. The Pharisees were the far right and the Saducees would be the far left.

Formal training would have come in a different way than you might imagine it now in modern times, but the scene at the Temple when He was 12 years old was to show that He was ready for bar-mitzvah at age 13. He wowed the Pharisees with his knowledge of the Law, the Writing, and Prophets! Are you assuming that He never had to study the Torah? Wouldn't that take away from His humanity? Where would He do this if not some community center (synagoge) with a Torah?

I am sure he studied the Torah, just not so sure it was formal Rabbi training. There was so much that all of the religious people of the day got wrong that I just cant picture Jesus sitting there being taught things that were wrong.

Jesus in the book of Matthew told the people to listen to them as they sit in the seat of Moses. What He warned against was people emulating the hypocrisy of some of them. Jesus never claimed that everything they believed was wrong.

Furthermore, all Torah study was done in the form of "formal training." No one owned a copy of Torah they could study at home. You HAD to go and sit under a Rabbinical scholar at the house of study in order to learn Torah. Formal study was the only option available.

I dont think anyone respected Jesus because of his education, but because of what came out of his mouth.

Yeah, what came out of his mouth would have been a reflection to some degree of His education. Jesus demonstrated a high degree of talmudic knowledge. Many things Jesus said echoed talmudic statements.

QUOTE

And that wasn't a charge mentioned at His trial...that He was a Rabbi under false pretenses.

because it was not under false pretenses, he was a teacher, which is what the word Rabbi means.

The problem is that it was not a term they threw around like we do with the "word teacher."

We tend to project our culture onto the Bible. Rabbi was not a generic word like the english word "teacher." It is an academic word. WE use the term teacher in various contexts to refer to someone who has a lot of knowledge. "Rabbi" was not and is not used in such a manner.

[Guest Biblicist]

Herman Newtics

[Guest Biblicist]

Are you assuming that He never had to study the Torah?

Jesus was not born wisdom, he "grew in wisdom" [after the temple incident]. Which means he learned. Rabbi is a trained teacher. Someone who learned, grew in wisdom...

[Guest Biblicist]

I seem to recall them asking on what authority he spoke.

Mark 11: 27They arrived again in Jerusalem, and while Jesus was walking in the temple courts, the chief priests, the teachers of the law and the elders came to him. 28"By what authority are you doing these things?" they asked. "And who gave you authority to do this?"

31They discussed it among themselves and said, "If we say, 'From heaven,' he will ask, 'Then why didn't you believe him?' 32But if we say, 'From men'...." (They feared the people, for everyone held that John really was a prophet.) 33So they answered Jesus, "We don't know."

Jesus said, "Neither will I tell you by what authority I am doing these things."

They had to ask, "By who's authority?" They would have known, if it were not teaching, they would have pointed that out. But they had to ask. And they did not know what to say, Man's or God's.

[Guest shiloh357]

QUOTE (shiloh357 @ Oct 20 2008, 06:22 AM)

[ Jesus in the book of Matthew told the people to listen to them as they sit in the seat of Moses. What He warned against was people emulating the hypocrisy of some of them. Jesus never claimed that everything they believed was wrong.

do you believe that Jesus would have sat by and been taught even a couple of things that were wrong without speaking up?

Debates are characteristically Jewish and Jesus engaged in debates all of the times. Even today, Yeshiva students are encouraged to challenge what they are taught.

QUOTE

Furthermore, all Torah study was done in the form of "formal training." No one owned a copy of Torah they could study at home. You HAD to go and sit under a Rabbinical scholar at the house of study in order to learn Torah. Formal study was the only option available.

but you said that all Jewish boys had training in the Torah . So are they all Rabbis?

Of course not. All training in Torah was formal. Every Jew is a student of Torah and strives to be an expert in Torah. It is considered by them to be the highest form of worship to God.

QUOTE

Yeah, what came out of his mouth would have been a reflection to some degree of His education. Jesus demonstrated a high degree of talmudic knowledge. Many things Jesus said echoed talmudic statements.

did what came out of his mouth when he was 12 reflect his degree of His formal education?

To some degree, yes. You need to understand that when Jesus was 12, He was already studying Talmud. When Jesus took on flesh, He was made like his brethren in every way. Learning and study would have been just as much a part of His life as anyone else's.

QUOTE

The problem is that it was not a term they threw around like we do with the "word teacher."

We tend to project our culture onto the Bible. Rabbi was not a generic word like the english word "teacher." It is an academic word. WE use the term teacher in various contexts to refer to someone who has a lot of knowledge. "Rabbi" was not and is not used in such a manner.

this is the crux of the issue for me, you have not shown that the term Rabbi was not used as I and others have suggested.

The fact that His enemies, who did not respect Him called Him "Rabbi" means that it was not a title of "respect." They would not characteristically heaped pleasantries on a person they hated so much that they wanted dead.

you have stated it as fact, but you have not backed it up, and I am sure you could not as it would be about impossible to do so.

I have backed it up. I cannot "prove" the earth is round to a person who is dead set on believing it is flat. Intellectual sucide cannot be reasoned with. You will believe what you want to believe and no amount of evidence that can be provided that will convince anyone who is unwilling to be objective about the evidence already provided.

It seems to me you are projecting your culture onto the Bible, even though things have changed in the last 2000 years

Which patently absurd. The Bible is reflection of Hebraic culture. I cannot "project" the Bible's own cultural mileu upon itself. That doesn't even make sense.