Results 1 - 10 of 10
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Iam having some questions | John 17:1 | MJH | 212539 | ||
I suppose I can try this again. :-) The Oral Law is the traditions handed down by sages of old and passed from disciple to disciple down through the ages. One of the Oral Laws was that it was not to be written down. But, around the year 200AD there was a growing fear that much of this information would be lost, so it was written down as the Mishna. The Talmud is a collection of commentary on the Mishna and while the Mishna is about the size of a Bible (maybe less) the Tamud is volumes and there are two, the Jerusalem (less used) and the Babylonian (most popular.) The Jewish tradition is that the Oral Law originated with Moses, who passed it to the Judges who passed it to the Prophets who passed it to the great Assembly etc.. The Pharisees in Jesus day and the "sages" can be traced back to Ezra who set up a system for making sure the people knew the Law. So, much of the beginnings of what the Jews have today can, at the least, be traced back that far. But, most of the added laws came years after Ezra. I am not saying Ezra made up the Oral Law, but he either passed parts along, or helped begin it. (Daniel in Babylon also is seen observing some of the Oral Law by praying three times in conjunction with the Temple sacrifices.) Since the Talmud contains what was taught over the course of some 1500 years, one can not simply pull something out and attribute it to the first century. I’m a strong believer in Historical context, and so learning what the theological beliefs in the first century were is important. It’s these beliefs that the first Christians would have been discussing as well. So practicing a careful study of the many sources to define with an acceptable level of probability what was accepted in the first century has been a course of study for me. It’s not easy. In defensive of the Talmud, Christians have the same things. We have commentary on the Bible. We discuss and disagree on what certain things in the Bible mean. The Bible does require interpretation, and the good in the Oral Law attempts to do this. Example: If we are to not work on the Sabbath, then what is work and what isn't? If we are to help a donkey that falls in a pit, then what are we to do if that happens on the Sabbath? Work, or wait? Also in defense, the Jews were sent into Babylon because they disobeyed God; they participated in Idolatry and broke the Sabbath. When they returned they attempted to fix this problem by putting “fences” around the written Law. You will find A LOT to do with Idolatry and the Sabbath in the Mishna. Like most things, the intention is good, but the result isn’t always. As Christians we need to be careful what additional laws we put on the congregations, because while we may intend well, the result may not be so good. And yes, Christians put additional laws on top of the Bible too, it’s just not as easy to see because it’s our tradition and it’s what we grew up knowing. Not that these as guides are bad, but they can become bad quickly. I do not live my life based on the Oral Law. I do not believe it to be authoritative. But the New Testament wasn’t written in a vacuum. There is a context of geography, Roman laws, Jewish laws and traditions, and Pagan deities, etc… All of this was a real life current situation for the first believers, and knowing it well helps us understand better. MJH |
||||||
2 | Iam having some questions | John 17:1 | DocTrinsograce | 212552 | ||
Amazing... The epistle to the Galatians continues to be ignored -- in letter and in principle. Meanwhile, as though no Christian in 20 centuries had ever thought of actually studying it, the Talmud gets trotted out as something marvelously edifying. Amazing that church history can be so completely ignored. Meshugeh ahf toit, as my grandmother used to put it. How about we get back to the study of the Bible? |
||||||
3 | Iam having some questions | John 17:1 | MJH | 212556 | ||
Doc, You're back. Good to see you again! I had a feeling I might get some feed back like this. Had I been writing to people who actually read the Talmud/Mishnah I'd probably write a lot differently. Don't forget, I said it was helpful as another source in knowing what the first Christians would have been dealing with. What did their contemporaries think, etc.. Have a great 2009. MJH |
||||||
4 | Iam having some questions | John 17:1 | stjohn | 212557 | ||
We may take note that Paul wisely did not use the talmud to show the Galatians their grievous error. Why should we take it up for study when we have the Bible-?! | ||||||
5 | Iam having some questions | John 17:1 | MJH | 212558 | ||
Paul didn't use the Talmud because it didn't exist in his day. And I didn't tell anyone to study the Talmud. I'm sorry if I led anyone to think that my answer to Val's question meant that I think Christians should take up study of Talmud. MJH |
||||||
6 | Iam having some questions | John 17:1 | stjohn | 212563 | ||
Oh sorry, (semantics?) the Mishna then, but their isn't much difference. How is posting a website that has writing from the Talmud, any different then out-and-out encouragement to study it? John |
||||||
7 | Iam having some questions | John 17:1 | MJH | 212570 | ||
John, I think you're missing my point. Do you read, or have you ever read Josephus? Or have you studied ancient Greek mythology, read Plato, or learned about Roman society? MJH ps - the Mishnah wasn't around when Paul was alive either. ;-) |
||||||
8 | Iam having some questions | John 17:1 | stjohn | 212574 | ||
Mjh I don't think I mised your point at all. But, The Talmud, is much more then just an historacal writing, fundamentaly, it's a book of rules and regulations, and we know how easily the human heart will glom onto that and shy away from the doctrines of grace and God's truth. Whether Talmud or Mishnah, were or were not around is irrelevant, we both know the oral law and tradition was around or you wouldn't have a case at all in arguing that the contemporaries of early Christianity were dealing with it. And by the way, Paul dealt with it very effectively in Galatians, and a thorough study of, that book, is all we need to understand how God feels about the oral laws and traditions. And If I may add, if we were to just stick to that (i.e. the Bible) we wouldn't be having this discussion now. ;-) John |
||||||
9 | Iam having some questions | John 17:1 | MJH | 212583 | ||
John, But this is my point. The Greek mythologies are more than just historical writing too. So is Plato. We don't studying them because we are going to follow them, but to understand the historical times. Since Christianity grew out of Judaism, and was a sect of Judaism for a period of time, I feel that knowing what first century Judaism was like and what they taught in regards to Gentiles, et al. is helpful in understanding the history. And history is a key part of the historical hermeneutic, and the historical hermeneutic is just one of many hermeneutical tools we use when studying the Bible, which is what this is all about. The only place to learn what early first century Judaism taught is by reading what they wrote. The Mishna/Talmud is only one source. The Dead Sea Scrolls is another, as are the Apocryphal and Pseudopigraphical works. Then Philo and Josephus also add to our understanding. I am not suggesting that every Christian ought to become Talmudic experts any more than I expect them to become experts in Hebrew and Greek. But there are people out there who are Christians and are experts in this area. They usually are professors at universities. I believe that their specialty can add to the discussion and understanding of the New Testament. Val asked a simple question and I tried my best to provide a simple answer. I am getting the impression, and correct me if I am wrong, but I get the sense that if I had made the same points earlier, but instead I used a non-Jewish source, then you would be alright with it. I can’t imagine that you would be apposed to the historical hermeneutic when studying the Bible. For example: if I made a point that Dionysius was the local deity in Cana where Jesus turned the water into wine, and that Dionysius happened to be the god of wine, that would be an acceptable connection to make to add to our understanding some. It is okay, not because I am using a religious writing that is not Christian, but because I am using one that didn’t come from the Jews. It’s the same point. I learned about the Greek myths and gods and culture and put the two together. (Side note: Don’t quote me on the Cana thing, I didn’t fact check.) MJH |
||||||
10 | Iam having some questions | John 17:1 | stjohn | 212587 | ||
MJH Please, let me be very clear, I'm not missing your point, but you are continually missing mine. THIS IS A BIBLE STUDY!!! So please, knock it off? Do your other stuff elsewhere, as every one else that comes here agrees to do when we agree with the Terms Of Use. John |
||||||