You know it occurs to me that my position on the Talmud may not have been clear. The Talmud has four elements within it and my view of each element is not the same. One element burried within it is Oral Law from Sinai. These are things like how far a sabbath days journey is, or the water libation ceremony. These things tend to be incidentally embedded in the Talmud. The second element is the case law from the Pharisee Sanhedrin at Jerusalem (disband in 70 CE). The third element is the case law of the restored Pharisee Sanhedrin at Yavneh (90 CE to 4th centurt) And the 4th element is commentary on this material by various Rabbis. I accept the Oral Torah from Sinai as always having been an organic companion to the written law. However I believe that around 30 CE Yeshua transferred the halachic authority to his talmidim (Matt. 18:18; Acts 15) that means the final 40 years of the Pharisee Sanhedrin at Jerusame it was not legitimately in authority. And that the Restored Pharisee Sanhederin at Yavneh was never legitimately in authority. However the case law from these two Sanhedrins still present us with valuable case law to review on its own merits. And this is what I mean by saying the Talmud is not accepted or obeyed, it is studied. In my writings I often quote from The Dead Sea Scrolls, Joesphus, Philo, the Targums, Mishna, Talmuds, Midrashim, Zohar and other Rabbinic writings. Be it know that I do not quote from these writings as canonicle. In fact the Talmud itself denies that any of these writings are inspired: Our Rabbis taught: Since the death of the last prophets, Haggai, Zechariah and Malachai, the Holy Spirit [of prophetic inspiration] departed from Israel. (b.San. 11a) I generally use these quotes to demonstrate that the way the NT understands a passage is the same way historic Judaism has understood that passage. For example in regards to Isaiah 53 the ZOhar says: In the Garden of Eden there is a hall that is called the hall of the afflicted. Now it is into this hall that the Messiah goes and summons all the afflictions and pains and sufferings of Israel to come upon him. And so they all come upon him. And had he not eased the children of Israel of their sorrows, and taken their burden upon himself, there would be none who could endure the suffering of Israel in the penalty of neglecting the Torah. Thus it is written: Surely our diseases he did bear and our pains he carried. (Is. 53:5) As long as the children of Israel dwelt in the Holy Land, they averted all afflictions and sufferings from the world by the service of the sanctuary and by sacrifice. But now it is the Messiah who is averting them from the habitants of the world, (Zohar 2:212a) This is not inspired, but it is a profound agreement from historic Judaism with the teaching of the NT concerning Isaiah 53. For the record, I came out of Rabbinic Judaism when I accepted Messiah in the first place. I do not believe Yeshua created a new religion (Christianity) but that he came to be the Messiah of Judaism. I did not leave Judaism to embrace the Jewish Messiah of Judaism.
Posted on: Sat, 30 Aug 2014 18:05:55 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015