Rabbi Y'hoshua - HaP'rushi (The Pharisee)

[Nachshon]

Y"n. 9:6, going back to the Aramaic, early on, in Syriac, the aleph suffix became common on every noun. This is the suffix meaning "the." It is the equivalent of the hey prefix in Hebrew. So it is not possible to say with authority that this is "a Sabbath" as opposed to "the Sabbath."
Note that the argument of the other P'rushiym was not that this was not normally considered a sin, but how could he sin and do miracles? their sole argument was based on Yehoshu'a's actions, not on Oral .

Mattai 12, that is not the point. The point is that the P'rushiym disagreed with him. See verse 2. My point is not that He violated . My point is that He disagreed with the halacha of the P'rushiym.

Y"n 5:8, it comes down to this: which do you trust more, the Good News related by Yokhanan, or the Mishna? Take your pick.

Marqus 7, were some eating bread, or were some eating without their hands washed? That is the conclusive question. If they were goyim, why is it not mentioned? Does not Sha'ul teach that those who are of the faith are no longer goyim, but b'ney Avraham? Marqus 7:4-5, read, understand, and be made wise. vv 5, "And the scribes and P'rushiym asked him, 'Why do your disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders, but eat with their hands unwashed?" (Lamsa)

Mattai 23, on the contrary. In verses 2-3, He upholds their authority only when they are confirming (I.E. reading) the words of the Scribe/Scroll. Who/what is that? In the Peshitta it is not "Scribes and Pharisees" but "The Scroll and Pharisees" and it is not "tell" but "confirm." "The Scroll and Pharisees sit on the Seat of Mosheh. Therefore, whatever they confirm you to keep, keep and do it." Whenever the P'rushiym confirm the words of the Scribe, the Writer, or the Scroll, then obey. This is specifically referring to that which is written.

You are just like Chri*tians. They have no idea what they're doing. When they try to convince me that Yehoshu'a didn't teach , they are trying to convince me that He wasn't Mashiyakh. You are doing the same thing.

And who gave them authority to add to ? Yah Almighty expressly forbade adding to . Anyone who adds even one command is a heretic, and I want nothing to do with him. If they added commands regarding Hanukkah and Puriym, then they are Yeshu.

No. But we are absolutely certain that not all of them did. How do we know who to trust and who not to trust? Also, it is highly unlikely that any of them were. The N'tzariym, according to my historical research, were alienated from most of the Jewish community beginning as early as 70 C.E. This is well before the Mishna came into existence.

"It had to be written down or it would have been lost." My point exactly.

Yes, but the writers of Scripture were inspired. We know that the Mishna is not inspired, as it openly contradicts itself, without even pretending otherwise. But God is not a man that He should lie. Whether or not there is an Oral , this book is not inspired, so I want nothing to do with it.
The was copied by the Massoretes, who were Karaites. The succession didn't even begin until Babylon. So yes, it is unbroken, but it is not eternal.

So what? If He added to the He would have invalidated Himself as Mashiyakh. Flip side.

Shalom,
Nachshon

[Mpossoff]

Mattai 12, that is not the point. The point is that the P'rushiym disagreed with him. See verse 2. My point is not that He violated . My point is that He disagreed with the halacha of the P'rushiym.

Nachson that is exactly what I was trying to ask.

He disagreed with them.

For He was saying that they For laying aside the commandment of God, you hold the tradition of men

So by the text His disagreement was with their tradition.

Marc

[Chizuk Emunah]

Shalom Nachshon,

Y"n. 9:6, going back to the Aramaic, early on, in Syriac, the aleph suffix became common on every noun. This is the suffix meaning "the." It is the equivalent of the hey prefix in Hebrew. So it is not possible to say with authority that this is "a Sabbath" as opposed to "the Sabbath."
Note that the argument of the other P'rushiym was not that this was not normally considered a sin, but how could he sin and do miracles? their sole argument was based on Yehoshu'a's actions, not on Oral .

I think you missed the point. Their argument was based on whether or not Rabbi Y'hoshua's actions constitued a halachic violation.

Mattai 12, that is not the point. The point is that the P'rushiym disagreed with him. See verse 2. My point is not that He violated . My point is that He disagreed with the halacha of the P'rushiym.

Remember that it was only some who disagree with him. Since he primarily relied on the teachings of Hillel, I would surmise that those who disagreed were those of Beit Shammai. Again, he only disagreed with the halacha of some not all. It's important to understand that, as most have ended up lumping all the P'rushim in the same category.

Y"n 5:8, it comes down to this: which do you trust more, the Good News related by Yokhanan, or the Mishna? Take your pick.

I use them both.

Marqus 7, were some eating bread, or were some eating without their hands washed?

Since one only performs netilat yadayim before eating bread (though bread is served with nearly every meal), I believe that the halachic issue was based on why some were eating without washing first.

If they were goyim, why is it not mentioned? Does not Sha'ul teach that those who are of the faith are no longer goyim, but b'ney Avraham?

There are many occasions where the text does not give the full details. I only stated my opinion that I believe that they were Goyim. I also stated that it's possible that those who did not werer newly observant. We're not discussing Paul here. He was not present at the time of the halachic argument.

Marqus 7:4-5, read, understand, and be made wise.

I hold you in great regard Nachshon, for though you are young, you are very learned. That being said, considering you are my junior, I find that statement to be disrespectful and not indicative of your character.

Mattai 23, on the contrary. In verses 2-3, He upholds their authority only when they are confirming (I.E. reading) the words of the Scribe/Scroll. Who/what is that? In the Peshitta it is not "Scribes and Pharisees" but "The Scroll and Pharisees" and it is not "tell" but "confirm." "The Scroll and Pharisees sit on the Seat of Mosheh. Therefore, whatever they confirm you to keep, keep and do it." Whenever the P'rushiym confirm the words of the Scribe, the Writer, or the Scroll, then obey. This is specifically referring to that which is written.

I know that this is Nehemiah Gordon's interpretation of that passage. However, I disagree with that interpretation. Tim Hegg has written some excellent material on this. I don't agree with all the articles he writes, but I did find his explanations to be pretty solid. You can find his papers on Matityahu 23 on www.torahresource.com.

You are just like Chri*tians. They have no idea what they're doing. When they try to convince me that Yehoshu'a didn't teach , they are trying to convince me that He wasn't Mashiyakh. You are doing the same thing.

Not quite. Remember I am not out to convince you of anything. I created this thread not to convince anyone, but to publish my findings and then answer/debate comments or questions. And I certainly wouldn't try to convince anyone that he wasn't the Mashiach. Quite the opposite, I would try to convince one that he was the Mashiach.

And who gave them authority to add to ? Yah Almighty expressly forbade adding to . Anyone who adds even one command is a heretic, and I want nothing to do with him.

It is not a matter of adding to , it is a matter of interpreting it. Be careful about condemning anyone who interprets the in a like manner, because the Mashiach also interpreted in the same manner as well.

If they added commands regarding Hanukkah and Puriym, then they are Yeshu.

And what of Rebbe Y'hoshua who observed Chanukah?

The N'tzariym, according to my historical research, were alienated from most of the Jewish community beginning as early as 70 C.E. This is well before the Mishna came into existence.

My research, only partially presented here, begs to the contrary. The Chri*tians fled to Pella, not the Netzarim. In fact, my research shows that they maintained close ties with the Jewish Community until they were expelled from Yerushalyim in 135 CE along with the other Jews. Actually, the Mishna began to be written down in 900BCE, almost 100yrs before Rabbi Y'hoshua was even born.

Yes, but the writers of Scripture were inspired. We know that the Mishna is not inspired, as it openly contradicts itself, without even pretending otherwise. But God is not a man that He should lie. Whether or not there is an Oral , this book is not inspired, so I want nothing to do with it.

Correct, but I never said that the Mishna was Scripture. The Talmud contains both halacha and aggadah. I do not consider aggadah to be on the same level of halacha. And yes, G-d is not a man, but that was already debated in another thread.

So what? If He added to the He would have invalidated Himself as Mashiyakh.

Interpreting it is not the same as adding to it. The Karaites have their own interpretations right? So have they added to the as well?



Shalom Marc,

But did He?

Natanel I'm not understanding. I can see from scripture that the Pharisee's said He broke it but he didn't. So they had to base Him breaking against?

Sorry for being confusing. What I have been trying to present was that some P'rushim said that Rabbi Y'hoshua and his talmidim violated halacha (as based on Oral ), but he argues successfully that neither he nor they have done any such thing. It's important not to lump all P'rushim into that category. Remember, that #1, Rabbi Y'hoshua was a P'rush himself, and #2, that the biggest group of those to identify him as the Mashiach were the P'rushim.

He disagreed with them.


So by the text His disagreement was with their tradition.

Rabbi Y'hoshua disagreed with the halacha of some P'rushim, though certainly not all. Keep in mind that these are halachic arguments. As I said to Nachshon, I believe that his arguments were largely with Beit Shammai and certainly not with all P'rushim. If one considers that, then we can see them for what they are, and not something else.


Shalom,
Natanel

[Nachshon]

Doesn't it bug the phooey out of you when you've just typed up a long reply, and then your internet connection has a hiccough? *bang head on desk* I'll get back to this at a later date. Sorry about that, guys.

[Nachshon]

No, no. I wasn’t very clear there, I think. I’m sorry. Let me try to explain what I was saying. Reading the account, the P’rushiym who defended Rabbiy Yehoshu’a did not argue based on what the Oral said. They merely asked how the Rebbe could perform miracles if He were sinning. This was clearly a departure from normative Phariseeic halacha, because they had no other basis for it.

In Mattai 12, it does not say some, which is very important because it often does say “some.” This time it did not.

“I use them both.” I rest my case.

Again, I think you misunderstood what I was saying. I was saying that the text could either say that “some of the disciples ate bread” or “some of the disciples ate bread with their hands unwashed.” Do you see what I mean? Were only some of them eating, and all who ate had unwashed hands, or did all of them eat, and only some with unwashed hands? Even if only some had unwashed hands, Rabbiy Yehoshu’a argued that it wasn’t necessary for them to wash their hands. (Also note that Lakhma is idiomatic for food in general.)

I did not intend to sound disrespectful, but I will not be a reed in the wind because of my youth. Timothy, Yirmeyahu, and Elihu Ben-Barachel were also youthful.

This is in agreement (sort of) with Nehemiah’s interpretation, but not at all with his translation. Compare the two. Mine is based on every known Peshitta/Peshitto ms. It is also very close to the Greek, and it is clear how the Greek reading could be obtained from the Aramaic one. Please do not assume that an article about Nehemiah’s translation has any bearing on the research I have done on the Peshitta. They are drastically different.

I am not referring to halacha. I am specifically referring to Oral . If someone adds to the , or supports adding to the , he cannot be Mashiyakh. I think we can agree on that. We merely disagree on what qualifies as adding to the . Disagreeing over whether Tephillin are literal or metaphorical is a difference of halacha. We are talking about whether or not it is permisseable to add a commanded holiday. That is not an issue of halacha, but an issue of Oral .

He celebrated Dedications. So does my family. But we don’t believe it is a command, so I don’t think that the fact that He went up to it means that He believed it was a command.

According to the sources I have examined, there were not Chri*tians in 70 C.E. They didn’t come along until a later date.

And I am sick and tired of anything that is not Scripture, because men are basically liars. Me included. You admit that it is not inspired, so I’m not interested in it.

Again, I am talking about Oral , not halacha. I don’t care if He agreed in most places with Rabbinic halacha, though I think there are clear cases in which He disagreed with the standard halacha. However, Oral is another thing altogether.

Shalom,
Nachshon

[Mpossoff]

Hi Nachson can you elaborate just a bit.

Even if only some had unwashed hands, Rabbiy Yehoshu’a argued that it wasn’t necessary for them to wash their hands.

They said it was necessary and He said it wasn't. So For me I conclude that it isn't necessary to wash hands.

Maybe I'm missing something....

Where are they getting their basis that it is necessary to wash hands? Seems to me they are making washing hands a commandment?

Another note: Yeshua is the 'authority' so to speak. Since He said it wasn't necessary.... I assume washing of hands isn't in written ?

Is that how Yeshua based His 'conclusion'?

Disagreeing over whether Tephillin are literal or metaphorical is a difference of halacha

Tephillin is a command. So we can agree on that.

Since Tephillin is a command, whether literal or metaphorical you are saying that is a matter of halacha, correct?

So my question is since it's a matter of halacha, there really is no right or wrong with Tephillin?

Am I clear?

Real life example:

Looking back I now realize that my grandmother was a observant Jew. BUT not in the same manner as Orthodox or Hasidic Jews. Looking back my grandmother with no doubt followed the written and not Oral Laws, etc.

Growing up I didn't really have a clear understanding. I compared my grandmothers obedience with those of Orthodox and Hasidic Jews. Therefore using Orthodox and Hasidic as a 'benchmark' if you will. Since my grandmother obedience wasn't in the same manner as Orthodox and Hasidic Jews unfortuantely I got a 'obscure' thinking/view.

Why did I think like this? I grew up in a family business that was primarily a Jewish industry. So I was in contact with all 'sects' of Jews. My grandmother would often talk Yiddish.

Now the Orthodox and Hasidic didn't really consider my grandmother 'Jewish' because she didn't follow in the manner of the Orthodox and Hasidic 'sects'. She would tell me they didn't.

My grandmother was definately Kosher without a doubt but wasn't Glatt Kosher. Without a doubt she fullfilled the requirements of written . But like I said she was kind of looked down upon the various 'sects'.

Would I consider her observant and obedient? OBSOLUTELY. But the 'sects' didn't consider her to be so. What a !!!!!!!!!!!

So my question is I wonder how, why in my grandmothers life, what was Orthodox and Hasidic basis for saying that she's not really following and obeying ?

Am I clear?

Marc

[Nachshon]

That is one possible reason for Rabbiy Yehoshu'a's conclusion.

[Mpossoff]

It just seems to me at least that one of Yeshua's main purposes if you will was to 'proclaim' that man's ordinances held no ground.

Whether you call it Oral Law or what, there were alot who were making the man made ordinance hold more ground than the actual 'mitvah' itself.

I've said this before in another thread tradition is great and the Talmud and such can be great but when it starts to 'hold more weight' then IMHO that's the problem.

I believe the was given to judge ourselves by.

Marc

nachshon said:

That is one possible reason for Rabbiy Yehoshu'a's conclusion.

[Chizuk Emunah]

No, no. I wasn’t very clear there, I think. I’m sorry. Let me try to explain what I was saying. Reading the account, the P’rushiym who defended Rabbiy Yehoshu’a did not argue based on what the Oral said. They merely asked how the Rebbe could perform miracles if He were sinning. This was clearly a departure from normative Phariseeic halacha, because they had no other basis for it.

But again, if sin is defined by and is defined by halacha, then it all comes back to a halachic argument as to whether or not Ribi Y'hoshua violated Sheba'al Peh.

In Mattai 12, it does not say some, which is very important because it often does say “some.” This time it did not.

I understand that the Peshitta may not use the word "some", though certain manuscripts do use the modifier "some" which I tend to lean towards, as it agrees with the general theme of the accounts of Ribi Y'hoshua's halachic discussions and arguments.

Again, I think you misunderstood what I was saying. I was saying that the text could either say that “some of the disciples ate bread” or “some of the disciples ate bread with their hands unwashed.” Do you see what I mean? Were only some of them eating, and all who ate had unwashed hands, or did all of them eat, and only some with unwashed hands? Even if only some had unwashed hands, Rabbiy Yehoshu’a argued that it wasn’t necessary for them to wash their hands. (Also note that Lakhma is idiomatic for food in general.)

Ah, I see what you're saying. And yes, I would agree that Ribi Y'hoshua defended those who didn't wash by completely ignoring their complaint. I would surmise that lakhma is idiomatic for food because it is derived from the Hebrew "lechem." And since prepared food is not considered a meal unless bread is present, as according to Jewish Law, all meals are known as "lechem" or "lakhma."

I did not intend to sound disrespectful, but I will not be a reed in the wind because of my youth. Timothy, Yirmeyahu, and Elihu Ben-Barachel were also youthful.

Consider it forgotten.

This is in agreement (sort of) with Nehemiah’s interpretation, but not at all with his translation. Compare the two. Mine is based on every known Peshitta/Peshitto ms. It is also very close to the Greek, and it is clear how the Greek reading could be obtained from the Aramaic one. Please do not assume that an article about Nehemiah’s translation has any bearing on the research I have done on the Peshitta. They are drastically different.

I understand and laud your research. Although I am an Aramaic Primacist myself, one has to remember that the Peshitta was later redacted to agree with existing Greek manuscripts. Also, I can't remember the manuscripts Tim Hegg uses, but it was a solid, non-Greek, textual argument and presentation. It's worth a look at the very least.

I am not referring to halacha. I am specifically referring to Oral . If someone adds to the , or supports adding to the , he cannot be Mashiyakh. I think we can agree on that. We merely disagree on what qualifies as adding to the . Disagreeing over whether Tephillin are literal or metaphorical is a difference of halacha. We are talking about whether or not it is permisseable to add a commanded holiday. That is not an issue of halacha, but an issue of Oral .

Yes, but I believe that halacha is derived from Sheba'al Peh, so therefore I do not consider that to be adding anything. Yes, I think that is where the disagreement is, whether or not halacha constitutes as "adding" to . So, if it were not permissible to add commanded holydays, then no-one would have done it, much less have asked anyone to observe it. And most certainly, Ribi Y'hoshua would not have upheld that practice. Yes, such a disagreement is a matter of halacha, and we actually have that preserved here somewhere on this forum.

I know that there is a lot of distrust of all things when one starts to come out of Chri*tianity. But, when we examine these things, we have to sit back and take a look at the whole picture. Once we do, we begin to realize that there wasn't some sort of mass conspiracy of the Rabbonim to hold onto power by just making stuff up. When we read the accounts of their lives we see that these were G-dly, G-d fearing men, who walked upright in the ways of . They wouldn't just go around making things up. All believed that their authority was derived from HaShem as per D'varim 17. And one of the most telling things is that millions of Jews all over the world wouldn't be observing these holydays if they felt that the Rabbonim had no authority to instruct them.

He celebrated Dedications. So does my family. But we don’t believe it is a command, so I don’t think that the fact that He went up to it means that He believed it was a command.

Yes, but as per my above comment, why would Ribi Y'hoshua uphold it if it was not commanded? If it is not commanded then it no longer serves a purpose and may as well be discarded.

According to the sources I have examined, there were not Chri*tians in 70 C.E. They didn’t come along until a later date.

There were the beginnings of a schism within the Netzarim as early as 63 C.E. Keep in mind too that Yerushalayim wasn't destroyed until 135 C.E. These were the very beginnings of Chri*tianity. Amazingly too, if you read some of the works of the very early "Church Fathers" they were virulently anti-Semitic. "Replacement theology" abounds in their writings.

And I am sick and tired of anything that is not Scripture, because men are basically liars. Me included. You admit that it is not inspired, so I’m not interested in it.

That is certainly your perogative.

Again, I am talking about Oral , not halacha. I don’t care if He agreed in most places with Rabbinic halacha, though I think there are clear cases in which He disagreed with the standard halacha. However, Oral is another thing altogether.

Yes, but as I said earlier, I consider halacha to be derived from Sheba'al Peh. I dont' consider them to be two separate things.

They said it was necessary and He said it wasn't. So For me I conclude that it isn't necessary to wash hands.

Maybe I'm missing something....

Where are they getting their basis that it is necessary to wash hands? Seems to me they are making washing hands a commandment?

Another note: Yeshua is the 'authority' so to speak. Since He said it wasn't necessary.... I assume washing of hands isn't in written ?

Is that how Yeshua based His 'conclusion'?

It is a mitzvah to perform netilat yadayim and it can be found in the Oral . I would be careful here. Ribi Y'hoshua never explicitly said that it wasn't necessary, he only disregarded the complaint. Please note again that only some did not wash while others did. I think it is best described as either they were newly observant and forgot or didn't know, or they were Goyim and therefore not required to do so.

Tephillin is a command. So we can agree on that.

Since Tephillin is a command, whether literal or metaphorical you are saying that is a matter of halacha, correct?

So my question is since it's a matter of halacha, there really is no right or wrong with Tephillin?

Am I clear?

There are a lot of intricacies involved with tefillin. There certainly are right and wrong ways to wear it. For instance, one should never wear them into a bathroom, communal shower, etc...

It just seems to me at least that one of Yeshua's main purposes if you will was to 'proclaim' that man's ordinances held no ground.

Not true. Please read the comparative chart I posted on the 1st page. Ribi Y'hoshua not only taught and upheld them, he also passed along this same authority to his talmidim. [See Acts 15 for usage]

Whether you call it Oral Law or what, there were alot who were making the man made ordinance hold more ground than the actual 'mitvah' itself.

There was only one intstance in which he accused some P'rushim of bypassing the honoring of mothers and fathers with the halacha of korbanot. Which basically stated that if one were to have something in their possession that was to be later used to support their parents, they could declare an oath that it was to be instead used as a korban at the Beit HaMikdash. This is what Ribi Y'hoshua did not approve of. As we see later in Matt. 23:23, he did not condemn the P'rushi application of halacah, only the hypocrisy with which some carried it out.

I believe the was given to judge ourselves by.

You've almost got it. The was given to us as our standard of righteous living. Through it's study, we can examine our lives, see where we are lacking, and correct it.



Shavua Tov,
Natanel

[Mpossoff]

But again, if sin is defined by and is defined by halacha, then it all comes back to a halachic argument as to whether or not Ribi Y'hoshua violated Sheba'al Peh.

Could it be interpretation of (halacha) as to whether or not Yeshua violated ?

Marc

[Chizuk Emunah]

mpossoff said:

Could it be interpretation of (halacha) as to whether or not Yeshua violated ?

Marc

Yep, you nailed it Marc. It was a halachic argument between two parties arguing whether or not Ribi Y'hoshua violated the Oral .

[Mpossoff]

Natanel what I meant was... was it interpretation of the written ?

Marc

[Nachshon]

notzriyehudi said:

But again, if sin is defined by and is defined by halacha, then it all comes back to a halachic argument as to whether or not Ribi Y'hoshua violated Sheba'al Peh.

So why did they not cite the Oral ? Why did they give no argument based on the tradition that was passed down? Their only argument was based on what they saw before their eyes. Either I'm tired, or you're talking nonsense. I'm definately leaning toward the former.

I understand that the Peshitta may not use the word "some", though certain manuscripts do use the modifier "some" which I tend to lean towards, as it agrees with the general theme of the accounts of Ribi Y'hoshua's halachic discussions and arguments.

So we must agree to disagree, unless we want to really get into textual criticism, which I'm not particularly interested in doing.

Ah, I see what you're saying. And yes, I would agree that Ribi Y'hoshua defended those who didn't wash by completely ignoring their complaint. I would surmise that lakhma is idiomatic for food because it is derived from the Hebrew "lechem." And since prepared food is not considered a meal unless bread is present, as according to Jewish Law, all meals are known as "lechem" or "lakhma."

So I suppose no meal is complete without meat, either, since basar is also idiomatic for food.

I understand and laud your research. Although I am an Aramaic Primacist myself, one has to remember that the Peshitta was later redacted to agree with existing Greek manuscripts. Also, I can't remember the manuscripts Tim Hegg uses, but it was a solid, non-Greek, textual argument and presentation. It's worth a look at the very least.

I have read one article refuting Nehemia's point of view, actually using the 21 Shem Tov mss that Nehemiah ignores. I think it was Hegg's, though I haven't gone back and looked. However, the Aramaic reading is in agreement with the readings of both the vast majority of Hebrew, and of Greek mss, except in the fact that "Sopher" is singular, rather than plural. (I think that Aramaic is S'phara, but don't quote me on that.) This would not be a place in which it would have been revised to agree with the Greek.

Yes, but I believe that halacha is derived from Sheba'al Peh, so therefore I do not consider that to be adding anything. Yes, I think that is where the disagreement is, whether or not halacha constitutes as "adding" to . So, if it were not permissible to add commanded holydays, then no-one would have done it, much less have asked anyone to observe it. And most certainly, Ribi Y'hoshua would not have upheld that practice. Yes, such a disagreement is a matter of halacha, and we actually have that preserved here somewhere on this forum.

No one would have done it were it not permisseable? By that logic, no one would have stopped obeying were it not permisseable by the teachings of Yeshua. 2+2 does not always equal 4. Like I said, men are basically liars.
So, do you celebrate the fourth of July?

I know that there is a lot of distrust of all things when one starts to come out of Chri*tianity. But, when we examine these things, we have to sit back and take a look at the whole picture. Once we do, we begin to realize that there wasn't some sort of mass conspiracy of the Rabbonim to hold onto power by just making stuff up. When we read the accounts of their lives we see that these were G-dly, G-d fearing men, who walked upright in the ways of . They wouldn't just go around making things up. All believed that their authority was derived from HaShem as per D'varim 17. And one of the most telling things is that millions of Jews all over the world wouldn't be observing these holydays if they felt that the Rabbonim had no authority to instruct them.

You know what, though? I have an extreme ammount of distrust for Chri*tians, but I have studied their lives and works. I have a lot of respect for Deitrich Bonhoeffer, does that mean I think he was right on everything? To use the old Texas expression, heck, no! Mother Theresa was a pagan, a Catholic. But was she still a God-fearing woman? Yes. Have you seen "Pirates of the Caribbean"? "He's a pirate!" "And a good man."
They had the same problem the Chri*tians have. "Our fathers have inherited lies..."

Yes, but as per my above comment, why would Ribi Y'hoshua uphold it if it was not commanded? If it is not commanded then it no longer serves a purpose and may as well be discarded.

Going back to the 4th of July, the Feast of Dedications originally commemorated the Maccabeean rebellion. We know that it wasn't originally about the mythical miracle of the oil. How do we know? Because it is never recorded in the book of Maccabees. It was a national, not a religious, holiday. Could Rabbiy Yehoshu'a have celebrated the national holiday?

There were the beginnings of a schism within the Netzarim as early as 63 C.E. Keep in mind too that Yerushalayim wasn't destroyed until 135 C.E. These were the very beginnings of Chri*tianity. Amazingly too, if you read some of the works of the very early "Church Fathers" they were virulently anti-Semitic. "Replacement theology" abounds in their writings.

I know. I've read a lot of them.

Yes, but as I said earlier, I consider halacha to be derived from Sheba'al Peh. I dont' consider them to be two separate things.

[Chizuk Emunah]

Nachshon,

I owe you a response, but have not had the time to put one together. B'zrat HaShem, I will have some time this week.

Chag Pesach Sameach achi,
Natanel

[Nachshon]

No worries.

Todah rabbah. v'od khag Matzot sameakh l'attah v'mishpakhatecha. (I hope I didn't just referr to you in the femenine. I think I got it right, but I'm not sure.)
Nachshon