mikew wrote:David, I found the article useful for some details about the Romans and a good listing of the fulfillment of prophecy that occured in the first century with respect to that generation of Jews.
Which section?
That article was mainly about following the Law of Moses and in many ways about taking on Jewish culture, plus their non-Bible literature.
That's confusing because I didn't see where the author made any such connection. Maybe you could elaborate.
The author didn't really present a case, based upon NT scripture, why anyone should be obligated to the Law of Moses. And worse, he didn't show any reason why someone under the Law of Moses should follow Jesus. The most assertive statement of Paul's writing was Rom 8:7 "because the mind of the flesh is hostile towards God; for it is not subject to God’s law, neither indeed can it be." And this was used to allege a converse statement that "those in the Spirit are subject to Torah."Most of the argument was saying that the Torah was unchanging and hence the NT must be interpreted as requiring people to follow the Law of Moses.
An astute observation. But I think it would be incumbent upon anyone insisting the Torah has been done away with to demonstrate as much, , using the New Testament, when discussing the topic or making any assertion. Simply saying "we are saved by grace through faith" isn't enough. Hebrews 11 makes the point that this, being saved by grace, has always been the case.
Also, the argument was made that Jesus spoke many things out of the Talmud. Such an argument fails both by the ludicrous examples shown (most Talmud "matches" were not worth listing). Even if similarities occur in a few instances, Jesus never endorsed any books or writers of the Talmud, if even the Talmud existed in the form being mentioned by the author.
Most Messianics believe and have a great deal of documentary proof that Jesus did in fact use the teachings of the Talmud in discussing scripture with the Pharisees. Jesus was a Jewish boy and as a result Jesus would have been subject to both learning and understanding the Torah, Tanakh and Talmud. In fact it was Jesus Himself that actually conversed with learned men of His day when He was a boy is obviously common scriptural knowledge.
Your arguments are fascinating simply because they really amount to "did not." If you wish to offer something of proof that Jesus didn't know the Talmud I'd be all ears. Otherwise I'll choose to side with those that know. Oh, and also please don't think I'm "supporting" the teachings of the Talmud by simply understanding that Jesus knew them - I do not.
But I will give you an example of Jesus knowing the Talmud. In Mark 7 Jesus was called to the carpet for not having his disciples wash their hands. This was no ordinary hand washing but an elaborate spectacle. This type of teaching is not found anywhere in the Torah but in the Talmud. Verse 3 confirms this by saying plainly that this was a "tradition of the elders."
Mark 7:3 For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, except they wash [their] hands oft, eat not, holding the tradition of the elders. Talmud.
Jesus knew this. Verse 4 in fact tells one just how "ritual" this washing was. The Pharisees questioned him about this, being He was a Rabbi, and He answered them by quoting Isaiah. And then Jesus plainly tells them what they are doing is a "tradition of men" (Talmud) and not a commandment from God.
Mar 7:7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching [for] doctrines the commandments of men. 8 For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, [as] the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do. 9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
When you see the word "tradition" in the Gospel think Talmud.
Luk 2:46 And it came to pass, that after three days
they found him in the temple, sitting in the midst of the doctors (Doctors of the law, Torah and Talmud), both hearing them, and asking them questions. 47 And all that heard him were astonished at his understanding and answers.
The word "doctor" here is the same word for "master." This was an extremely high position in Jewish culture of the time and one where a great deal of learning and understanding had to take place. Nicodemus was a "Master of Israel."
Jesus answered and said unto him,
Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things ?
So the best benefit of the article was the evidence that Deut 29:22-29 and Song of Moses Deut 32 (also shown below, in part) had been fulfilled. These are good reason not to be get too enthralled with the culture of the first century.
Unfortunately you make the authors point for him here and don't even realize it. You're basically saying that since everyone is speeding on the freeway at 90 the speed limit sign that says 70 doesn't matter. The author is making the point that just because people believe their is no more Torah doesn't mean that is true. Just because those in the first century didn't understand the spirit of the law doesn't mean that there is no law. If you need any proof of this see the Sermon on the Mount. Or look for all the examples where Jesus taught what the proper observance of the sabbath involved.
We see that Deut 29 prophesied of the treatment of Judaism under the Roman Empire. Their attitudes may not be what we like to endorse today, but the actions taken by Romans and other groups was inevitable.
Deuteronomy 29 was fulfilled when first Israel, and then Judah, were carried off into captivity, not when Jesus began His ministry.
The curse of the law is ignoring it. That's also true in think one can be saved by it. Doesn't change the law however.
There of course were many other errors of the author's argument. But Moses gave the most important response.
Care to list a few so we can discuss them?
It is interesting about Paul's question "What advantage does the Jew have?" (Rom 3:1) in light of the Song of Moses...
Paul was reminding the Jews what their role was and what that role entailed. They were responsible for teaching the nations about the goodness of God. Instead, they ignored Him.
and I would say that in the first century, and before, that they had an obvious advantage in coming to the faith, so more became believers there, percentagewise, than anywhere else in the world. Maybe now they just have the same likelihood of coming to faith in Jesus as does the average person around the world.
God is not a respecter of persons. Happy Sabbath.