|
|
Post by zionlion on Dec 2, 2010 15:42:36 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by David Ben Yosef on Jan 3, 2011 13:57:59 GMT -8
How about some reality about Nehemia Gordon? CLICK MEHis ignorance in matters of  are exposed to all who wish to see the truth. |
|
|
|
Post by jimmie on Jan 4, 2011 15:07:28 GMT -8
David, If I understand the article which you linked to above correctly, there were good and bad Pharisees which in turn produced good and bad oral law. The good oral law is that which Jesus and his followers lad down (the new testament?) and the bad oral is the one in which the Pharisees said that if you read the new testament you will have no part in the Kingdom of God. Is that it in a nut shell?
|
|
|
|
Post by David Ben Yosef on Jan 4, 2011 20:44:35 GMT -8
David, If I understand the article which you linked to above correctly, there were good and bad Pharisees which in turn produced good and bad oral law. Well, yes and no. I am a little baffled that's all you got out of the article though. Like I had suggested earlier [in another thread] you really should study up on first century Judaic history. It was a very tumultuous time for Judaism, and if one doesn't know what's going on behind the scenes, the NT will be impossible to understand correctly. I would encourage you to study the 18 measures of Shammai. This is the "wall of separation" refered to in the NT, not a literal Temple wall. It was Bet Shammai who was in control of the majority vote [Sanhedrin] while Hillel was in the minority [after the disciples of Shammai murdered many Hillel disciples, and those are the "prophets" Yeshua refers to in the Gospel accounts, not the prophets of the Tanakh]. There's so much history to cover, I can't possibly do it in a single post. But I think it's important for you to know that not everything Shammai taught made it into the Oral . On the contrary, it sided with Hillel overwhelmingly. I'm convinced that Yeshua was a Bet Hillel Pharisee, and even spent some time with the Essene community at Quamran, along with his cousin John the immerser before their public ministries. Plus, if you look closely at his talmidim, some were assasins [Judas for sure] some were mercenaries [the Zealots] and others were Essenes, and Pharisees. The truth of the Brit Chadasha CANNOT be found within Christianity, or modern Messianic interpretations. It's a historical documentation of Judaism. Period. I know I just kinda' threw some stuff out there without any rhyme or reason, but I'll write some more on this a little later, I'm kinda' pressed for time right this minute. If anything, you should have come away with the realization that Nehemia Gordon is NOT a reliable source of information, and is completely ignorant of much of what he attempts to teach. He also badly misrepresents Judaism, as I've pointed out in the other "YouTube threads" that Zionlion started on Nehemiah Gordon. He's in the same league as Michael Rood. A couple of false teachers pretending they know something. Shalom |
|
|
|
Post by David Ben Yosef on Jan 4, 2011 22:55:58 GMT -8
Jimmie, here's a link to the first of two pages of audio teachings: LINKFor a better understanding of Yeshua, and the traditions of the [Pharisaic] Elders, please begin with the selfsame entitled teaching. It will shed much light, if you persist in listening to them. The historicity of what this guy teaches can easily be verified as factual too. Enjoy!  |
|
|
|
Post by David Ben Yosef on Jan 5, 2011 14:18:45 GMT -8
Also Jimmie, I don't know how well versed you are in Kabbalah, the Tree of Sephirot [Tree of Life] or the four levels of Scriptural interpretation known as PaRDeS, but this image will give you an idea of how the written cannot exist without the Oral , and vise versa... Attachments:
|
|
|
|
Post by jewishjediguy on Jan 7, 2011 15:53:50 GMT -8
Also Jimmie, I don't know how well versed you are in Kabbalah, the Tree of Sephirot [Tree of Life] or the four levels of Scriptural interpretation known as PaRDeS, but this image will give you an idea of how the written cannot exist without the Oral , and vise versa... The information on the following link is something to be taken into consideration...  <~ cLiCk_Me I would like to also add along with this article that when tradition, whether halakhah, aggadah or any other thing called tradition, becomes the basis of comparison to establish righteousness, then one has effectively added to the of the living God, being also in danger of nullifying words thereof. A tradition may not actually be wrong, but the emphasis of a tradition can lead down a dark path. The of Hashem is t'mimah (BDB/STR#8549) - perfect - that is, it is literally entire, complete, without blemish or spot, completely sound, whole, unimpaired, accomplished and having integrity, without need of addition or modification – converting the soul...etc. - T'hillim 19:7B'rakhoth! |
|
|
|
Post by David Ben Yosef on Jan 7, 2011 23:45:07 GMT -8
As much as I like what Tim Hegg teaches, I have to side with Mark Kinzer on this subject. The article you linked to, is not impressive at all, especially for Hegg. His argument that Sha'ul only meant the written when referring to "Scripture" is weak. In fact, he doesn't really have a basis, or an argument at all. He just says it matter of factly, and leaves it at that. However, if you consider the fact that Sha'ul was a Pharisee, and taught by Gamaliel, it would be foolish to think he wasn't also referring to the oral traditions as well, when discussing "Scripture." Why else would Sha'ul have said that the Jew has an advantage much in every way, because they were given the Sages? [Rom 3:2] A Greek oracle, like the one at Delphi, orally transmitted words from the gods. Sha'ul chose this word for a reason, and it doesn't mean the written word of G-d. He's referring to the Sages who orally transmitted HaShem's word. Shalom |
|
|
|
Post by jewishjediguy on Jan 14, 2011 2:18:03 GMT -8
As much as I like what Tim Hegg teaches, I have to side with Mark Kinzer on this subject. I had to look up Mark Kinzer, I don’t know who he is. I only read a line that he has something to do with the Messianic Movement in general. But whomsoever Mark Kinzer is, he neither adds nor takes away any thing from me. As for myself, I’m Jewish. Though a believer in Yeshua, I consider myself to simply be Jewish. I do not ascribe to many “Messianic” notions of what Judaism should be, even with Yeshua included. I’m unaffiliated with any particular Messianic doctrine, dogma or belief system, or even any organization. Although I follow Written Scriptural Primacy, I’m not Karaite, I do refer to the Chazal as well. The article you linked to, is not impressive at all, especially for Hegg. Well, I wasn’t trying to impress you. But it is something to be considered by those who would like to have a chance at perceiving the truth for themselves. His argument that Sha'ul only meant the written when referring to "Scripture" is weak. In fact, he doesn't really have a basis, or an argument at all. He just says it matter of factly, and leaves it at that. However, if you consider the fact that Sha'ul was a Pharisee, and taught by Gamaliel, it would be foolish to think he wasn't also referring to the oral traditions as well, when discussing "Scripture." Of course Tim can say it matter of factly. Simply put, the subject matter and word usage of Paul speaking of the Scriptures is clear. When Paul was referring to the Scriptures, he meant the , N’vi’im and Kethuvim, singularly or collectively. NOT the oral emendations, which ultimately became the Mish’nayot and eventually the Tal’mud. However, when Paul mentions Law/ , depending upon context and subject matter, he could be referring to either the Scriptures or the Oral or both. In the mainstream of Rabbinical Judaism it is considered that the Talmud, as an extension of , is equal with the . But they do not look at the Talmud as Scripture, only as a written record of the Oral emendations. As an added note: I no longer hold to belief that Talmud/Rabbinical commentary and are equal. Why else would Sha'ul have said that the Jew has an advantage much in every way, because they were given the Sages? [Rom 3:2] A Greek oracle, like the one at Delphi, orally transmitted words from the gods. Sha'ul chose this word for a reason, and it doesn't mean the written word of G-d. He's referring to the Sages who orally transmitted HaShem's word. Why indeed! In the context of Jewish thought, having its foundation upon the D’var Elohim, and even the teachings of the Chazal themselves, the Oracles are not the Sages! As for “Oracle”, while it may very well refer to a person such as a prophet or seer, as well as stone or wood or whatever the message from a divinity comes or is conveyed, the essential meaning of “Oracle” pertains to that message, which for us as believers is the Word of God itself, being the Written Scriptures of , N’vi’im and Kethuvim, given by prophecy. Also, by your statement: “ A Greek oracle, like the one at Delphi, orally transmitted words from the gods,” you have unintentionally offended me, as a Jew, The reason I find this an offense is because you are trying to say that Hashem allowed a pagan mannerism to be utilized to give his Word to His people, despite the fact that His explicitly tells us not to receive any such thing or do such a thing. The Chazal spoke from their own knowledge and wisdom. None were prophets, and none oracles. Shalomie Homie! |
|
and one ordinance for you and for the alien who sojourns with you. [Numbers 15:16]
