Yeshua and Tradition
Yeshua and Tradition
by
James Scott Trimm
Yeshua himself seems to have also accepted the “traditions of our fathers” which had been passed down orally.
In John 7:37-38 we read:
“And on the great day, which is the last of the feast, Yeshua stood and cried out and said, If anyone thirsts, let him come to me and drink. Whoever believes in me, as the Scriptures have said, rivers of water of life will flow from his belly.”
The occasion is the last great day of Sukkot (Jn. 7:2) and the setting appears to be the water libation ceremony at the Temple as prescribed by the Oral Law. A priest had a flask of gold filled with water and another has a flask of gold filled with wine. There were two silver bowls perforated with holes like a narrow snout. One was wide for the water the other is narrow for the wine. The priests poured the wine and water into each of their bowls. The wine and water mixed together. The wine flowing slowly through the narrow snout and the water flowing quickly through the wider snout. (m.Sukkot 4:9) Yeshua said that this ritual from the Oral Law was actually prophetic and symbolic of himself!
In all four Gospels Yeshua participates in the Passover Sader. The elements of the sader, such as the “cup of redemption”; dipping in bitter herbs; and the afikomen (the last piece of unleavened bread passed around and eaten at the end) all come from the Oral Law as recorded in the Mishna (m.Pes. 10). Yeshua not only accepted and kept these Oral Law rituals, but also spoke of them being prophetic of himself.
In Matthew 23:35 Yeshua says "…upon you may come all the righteous blood which has been shed upon the earth, from Hevel the righteous, to Z’kharyah Ben Berekhyah, whom you slew between the Temple and the alter."
Yeshua here relies heavily on the Oral Law in this passage in that he ties together two separate Oral Law traditions to make his point. The first is an Oral Law tradition concerning the murder of Havel (Able) that understands the plural word “bloods” crying out from the ground in Gen. 4:10 to signify that whoever kills one person is guilty of killing everyone:
…it is said , “The bloods of your brother cry” (Gen. 4:10)
It does not say, “The blood of your brother,” but.
“The bloods of your brother”—his blood and the blood
of all those who were destined to be born from him.
Another matter—the bloods of your brother—
for his blood was splattered on trees and stones….
whoever destroys a single Israelite soul
is deemed by Scripture as if he had destroyed the whole world
and whoever saves a single Israelite soul
by Scripture as if he had saved the whole world…
(m.San. 4:5)
The second Oral Law tradition is one surrounding Zechariah ben Jehoidai (2Chron. 24:20-21). The extant text of Matt. 23:35 reads “Zechariah ben Berechiah”. This, however, seems to be a scribal error. A scribe seems to have confused “Zechariah ben Jehoidai”(2Chron. 24:20-21) with “Zechariah ben Berechiah” (Zech. 1:1). The original Hebrew text used by the ancient Nazarenes read correctly with “Zechariah ben Jehoidai”
The fourth century “Church Father” Jerome writes:
In the Gospel which the Nazarenes use,
instead of “son of Barachias”
we have found written “son of Joiada.”
(Jerome; Commentary on Matthew 23:35)
Yeshua draws on a tradition surrounding Zechariah ben Jehoidai which is recorded in the Talmud. This tradition parallels the tradition concerning Abel above. In this tradition Zechariah’s blood also cries out for vengence but ceases its cry lest all Israel be destroyed. The Babylonian Talmud records the story this way:
Nebuzaradan, [After that] he saw the blood of Zechariah
seething. ‘What is this?’ cried he. ‘It is the blood of sacrifices,
which has been spilled,’ they answered. ‘Then,’ said he,
‘bring [some animal blood] and I will compare them, to see
whether they are alike.’ So he slaughtered animals and
compared them, but they were dissimilar. ‘Disclose [the secret]
to me, or if not, I will tear your flesh with iron combs,’ he
threatened. They replied: ‘This is [the blood of] a priest and a
prophet, who foretold the destruction of Jerusalem to the
Israelites, and they killed him.’ ‘I,’ said he, ‘will appease him.’
So he brought the scholars and slew them over him,
yet it did not cease [to boil]. He brought schoolchildren
and slew them over him, still it did not rest; he brought the
young priests and slew them over him, and still it did not rest,
until he had slain ninety four thousand, and still it did not rest.
Whereupon he approached him and cried out, ‘Zechariah,
Zechariah, I have destroyed the flower of them: dost thou
desire me to massacre them all?’ Straightway it rested.
Thoughts of repentance came into his mind: if they, who killed
one person only, have been so [severely punished], what will
be my fate? So he fled, sent his testament to his house, and
became a proselyte.
(b.San 96b)
While the Jerusalem Talmud has:
Rabbi Jochanan said, Eighty thousand priests were slain
for the blood of Zachariah.
Rabbi Judas asked Rabbi Achan, Where did they kill
Zachariah? Was it in the woman’s court, or in the court of
Israel? He answered: Neither in the court of Israel, nor in the
court of women, but in the court of the priests; and they did not
treat his blood in the same manner as they were wont to treat
the blood of a ram or a young goat. For of these it is written,
He shall pour out his blood, and cover it with dust. But it is
written here, The blood is in the midst of her: she set it upon
the top of the rock; she poured it not upon the ground. (Ezek.
xxiv. 7.) But why was this? That it might cause
fury to come up to take vengeance: I have set his blood upon
the top of a rock, that it should not be covered. They
committed seven evils that day: they murdered a priest, a
prophet, and a king; they shed the blood of the innocent: they
polluted the court: that day was the Sabbath : and the day of
expiation. When therefore Nebuzaradan came there (viz.
Jerusalem), he saw his blood bubbling, and said to them,
What meaneth this? They answered, It is the blood of calves,
lambs, and rams, which we have offered upon the altar. He
commanded them, that they should bring calves, and lambs,
and rams, and said I will try whether this be their blood:
accordingly they brought and slew them, but the blood of
(Zachariah) still bubbled, but the blood of these
did not bubble. Then he said, Declare to me the truth of the
matter, or else I will comb your flesh with iron combs. Then
said they to him, He was a priest, prophet, and judge, who
prophesied to Israel all these calamities which we have
suffered from you; but we arose against him, and slew him.
Then, said he, I will appease him: then he took the rabbis
and slew them upon his (viz. Zachariah’s) blood, and he was
not yet appeased. Next he took the young boys from the
schools, and slew them upon his blood, and yet it bubbled.
Then he brought the young priests and slew them in the same
place, and yet it still bubbled. So he slew at length ninety-four
thousand persons upon his blood, and it did not as yet cease
bubbling. Then he drew near to it and said,
O Zachariah, Zachariah, thou hast occasioned the death of the
chief of thy countrymen; shall I slay them all? Then the blood
ceased, and did bubble no more.
(j.Ta’anit 69)
Notice Yeshua says "between the Temple and the alter" Here Yeshua specifies the location of Zechariah’s murder more specifically than the written Tanak does. The Tanak says only that the murder occurred “in the court of the House of YHWH”. However the oral tradition recorded in the Talmud is more specific:
Rabbi Judas asked Rabbi Achan, Where did they kill
Zachariah? Was it in the woman’s court, or in the court of
Israel? He answered: Neither in the court of Israel,
nor in the court of women, but in the court of the priests
(j.Ta’anit 69)
While the Tanak places the murder simply “in the court of the House of YHWH”, Yeshua places it more specificly in the Court of Priests located “between the Temple and the alter” just as the Talmud proclaims it. Yeshua’s source here is Oral tradition and not the written Tanak.
These two murders are connected by the tradition that their blood cried out for vengence, but this is a connection built upon TRADITION.
I could go on and on with examples, but I think I have made my point.
Some of you may be wondering why Tom Mitchel was standing in for me for this weeks Truth Talk Live. The reason is that I was dealing with an emergency plumbing situation.
Friends we seriously need your financial support. This month we have been recovering from low donations in January and February. Now our plumbing is backed up on the main line and will require a plumber with a roto-rooter to clear the line. This will cost between $100 and $200 that we just do not have right now. Now is the time to support this ministry with your tithes and offerings. Is this work worthy of your support?
To make a donation, go to http://www.nazarenespace.com, click on the Pay Pal box and give whatever you can afford. (You can also donate directly thru PayPal by sending paypal donations to donations@wnae.org . You can also mail donations to
Nazarene Judaism
PO Box 471
Hurst, TX 76053
If everyone would do this, imagine what this ministry could accomplish.
James Trimm
Worldwide Nazarene Assembly of Elohim
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Chandler Fulton on -
Yeshua's source for knowing where Zechariah was murdered: He is the Son of Elohim and He knows all things. He did not need tradition to know anything. His disciples said, "Now we know that you know ALL THINGS and do not need any man to ask anything from you".
-
Permalink Reply by James Trimm on
-
You are not reading... of course Yeshua knew he was murdered, the Tanak records that he was murdered... Read the material you are responding to and comprehend it before you reply.
In Matthew 23:35 Yeshua says "…upon you may come all the righteous blood which has been shed upon the earth, from Hevel the righteous, to Z’kharyah Ben Berekhyah, whom you slew between the Temple and the alter."
Yeshua here relies heavily on the Oral Law in this passage in that he ties together two separate Oral Law traditions to make his point. The first is an Oral Law tradition concerning the murder of Havel (Able) that understands the plural word “bloods” crying out from the ground in Gen. 4:10 to signify that whoever kills one person is guilty of killing everyone:
…it is said , “The bloods of your brother cry” (Gen. 4:10)
It does not say, “The blood of your brother,” but.
“The bloods of your brother”—his blood and the blood
of all those who were destined to be born from him.
Another matter—the bloods of your brother—
for his blood was splattered on trees and stones….
whoever destroys a single Israelite soul
is deemed by Scripture as if he had destroyed the whole world
and whoever saves a single Israelite soul
by Scripture as if he had saved the whole world…
(m.San. 4:5)
The second Oral Law tradition is one surrounding Zechariah ben Jehoidai (2Chron. 24:20-21). The extant text of Matt. 23:35 reads “Zechariah ben Berechiah”. This, however, seems to be a scribal error. A scribe seems to have confused “Zechariah ben Jehoidai”(2Chron. 24:20-21) with “Zechariah ben Berechiah” (Zech. 1:1). The original Hebrew text used by the ancient Nazarenes read correctly with “Zechariah ben Jehoidai”
The fourth century “Church Father” Jerome writes:
In the Gospel which the Nazarenes use,
instead of “son of Barachias”
we have found written “son of Joiada.”
(Jerome; Commentary on Matthew 23:35)
Yeshua draws on a tradition surrounding Zechariah ben Jehoidai which is recorded in the Talmud. This tradition parallels the tradition concerning Abel above. In this tradition Zechariah’s blood also cries out for vengence but ceases its cry lest all Israel be destroyed. The Babylonian Talmud records the story this way:
Nebuzaradan, [After that] he saw the blood of Zechariah
seething. ‘What is this?’ cried he. ‘It is the blood of sacrifices,
which has been spilled,’ they answered. ‘Then,’ said he,
‘bring [some animal blood] and I will compare them, to see
whether they are alike.’ So he slaughtered animals and
compared them, but they were dissimilar. ‘Disclose [the secret]
to me, or if not, I will tear your flesh with iron combs,’ he
threatened. They replied: ‘This is [the blood of] a priest and a
prophet, who foretold the destruction of Jerusalem to the
Israelites, and they killed him.’ ‘I,’ said he, ‘will appease him.’
So he brought the scholars and slew them over him,
yet it did not cease [to boil]. He brought schoolchildren
and slew them over him, still it did not rest; he brought the
young priests and slew them over him, and still it did not rest,
until he had slain ninety four thousand, and still it did not rest.
Whereupon he approached him and cried out, ‘Zechariah,
Zechariah, I have destroyed the flower of them: dost thou
desire me to massacre them all?’ Straightway it rested.
Thoughts of repentance came into his mind: if they, who killed
one person only, have been so [severely punished], what will
be my fate? So he fled, sent his testament to his house, and
became a proselyte.
(b.San 96b)
While the Jerusalem Talmud has:
Rabbi Jochanan said, Eighty thousand priests were slain
for the blood of Zachariah.
Rabbi Judas asked Rabbi Achan, Where did they kill
Zachariah? Was it in the woman’s court, or in the court of
Israel? He answered: Neither in the court of Israel, nor in the
court of women, but in the court of the priests; and they did not
treat his blood in the same manner as they were wont to treat
the blood of a ram or a young goat. For of these it is written,
He shall pour out his blood, and cover it with dust. But it is
written here, The blood is in the midst of her: she set it upon
the top of the rock; she poured it not upon the ground. (Ezek.
xxiv. 7.) But why was this? That it might cause
fury to come up to take vengeance: I have set his blood upon
the top of a rock, that it should not be covered. They
committed seven evils that day: they murdered a priest, a
prophet, and a king; they shed the blood of the innocent: they
polluted the court: that day was the Sabbath : and the day of
expiation. When therefore Nebuzaradan came there (viz.
Jerusalem), he saw his blood bubbling, and said to them,
What meaneth this? They answered, It is the blood of calves,
lambs, and rams, which we have offered upon the altar. He
commanded them, that they should bring calves, and lambs,
and rams, and said I will try whether this be their blood:
accordingly they brought and slew them, but the blood of
(Zachariah) still bubbled, but the blood of these
did not bubble. Then he said, Declare to me the truth of the
matter, or else I will comb your flesh with iron combs. Then
said they to him, He was a priest, prophet, and judge, who
prophesied to Israel all these calamities which we have
suffered from you; but we arose against him, and slew him.
Then, said he, I will appease him: then he took the rabbis
and slew them upon his (viz. Zachariah’s) blood, and he was
not yet appeased. Next he took the young boys from the
schools, and slew them upon his blood, and yet it bubbled.
Then he brought the young priests and slew them in the same
place, and yet it still bubbled. So he slew at length ninety-four
thousand persons upon his blood, and it did not as yet cease
bubbling. Then he drew near to it and said,
O Zachariah, Zachariah, thou hast occasioned the death of the
chief of thy countrymen; shall I slay them all? Then the blood
ceased, and did bubble no more.
(j.Ta’anit 69)
Notice Yeshua says "between the Temple and the alter" Here Yeshua specifies the location of Zechariah’s murder more specifically than the written Tanak does. The Tanak says only that the murder occurred “in the court of the House of YHWH”. However the oral tradition recorded in the Talmud is more specific:
Rabbi Judas asked Rabbi Achan, Where did they kill
Zachariah? Was it in the woman’s court, or in the court of
Israel? He answered: Neither in the court of Israel,
nor in the court of women, but in the court of the priests
(j.Ta’anit 69)
While the Tanak places the murder simply “in the court of the House of YHWH”, Yeshua places it more specificly in the Court of Priests located “between the Temple and the alter” just as the Talmud proclaims it. Yeshua’s source here is Oral tradition and not the written Tanak.
These two murders are connected by the tradition that their blood cried out for vengence, but this is a connection built upon TRADITION.
-
Permalink Reply by Chandler Fulton on
-
My point was that Messiah did not rely on knowledge from the Talmud or any other oral tradition to know that Zechariah was murdered in a specific place. He KNEW because he saw the murder first-hand as the omniscient Son of Elohim, before he ever came to the earth and assumed a fleshly body. I read your material, I guess I was not clear enough in presenting my thoughts.
-
-
Then you are STILL not comprehending, because there is a lot more to it than just where Zechariah died, that is only part of it.
In Matthew 23:35 Yeshua says "…upon you may come all the righteous blood which has been shed upon the earth, from Hevel the righteous, to Z’kharyah Ben Berekhyah, whom you slew between the Temple and the alter."
Yeshua here relies heavily on the Oral Law in this passage in that he ties together two separate Oral Law traditions to make his point. The first is an Oral Law tradition concerning the murder of Havel (Able) that understands the plural word “bloods” crying out from the ground in Gen. 4:10 to signify that whoever kills one person is guilty of killing everyone:
…it is said , “The bloods of your brother cry” (Gen. 4:10)
It does not say, “The blood of your brother,” but.
“The bloods of your brother”—his blood and the blood
of all those who were destined to be born from him.
Another matter—the bloods of your brother—
for his blood was splattered on trees and stones….
whoever destroys a single Israelite soul
is deemed by Scripture as if he had destroyed the whole world
and whoever saves a single Israelite soul
by Scripture as if he had saved the whole world…
(m.San. 4:5)
The second Oral Law tradition is one surrounding Zechariah ben Jehoidai (2Chron. 24:20-21). The extant text of Matt. 23:35 reads “Zechariah ben Berechiah”. This, however, seems to be a scribal error. A scribe seems to have confused “Zechariah ben Jehoidai”(2Chron. 24:20-21) with “Zechariah ben Berechiah” (Zech. 1:1). The original Hebrew text used by the ancient Nazarenes read correctly with “Zechariah ben Jehoidai”
The fourth century “Church Father” Jerome writes:
In the Gospel which the Nazarenes use,
instead of “son of Barachias”
we have found written “son of Joiada.”
(Jerome; Commentary on Matthew 23:35)
Yeshua draws on a tradition surrounding Zechariah ben Jehoidai which is recorded in the Talmud. This tradition parallels the tradition concerning Abel above. In this tradition Zechariah’s blood also cries out for vengence but ceases its cry lest all Israel be destroyed. The Babylonian Talmud records the story this way:
Nebuzaradan, [After that] he saw the blood of Zechariah
seething. ‘What is this?’ cried he. ‘It is the blood of sacrifices,
which has been spilled,’ they answered. ‘Then,’ said he,
‘bring [some animal blood] and I will compare them, to see
whether they are alike.’ So he slaughtered animals and
compared them, but they were dissimilar. ‘Disclose [the secret]
to me, or if not, I will tear your flesh with iron combs,’ he
threatened. They replied: ‘This is [the blood of] a priest and a
prophet, who foretold the destruction of Jerusalem to the
Israelites, and they killed him.’ ‘I,’ said he, ‘will appease him.’
So he brought the scholars and slew them over him,
yet it did not cease [to boil]. He brought schoolchildren
and slew them over him, still it did not rest; he brought the
young priests and slew them over him, and still it did not rest,
until he had slain ninety four thousand, and still it did not rest.
Whereupon he approached him and cried out, ‘Zechariah,
Zechariah, I have destroyed the flower of them: dost thou
desire me to massacre them all?’ Straightway it rested.
Thoughts of repentance came into his mind: if they, who killed
one person only, have been so [severely punished], what will
be my fate? So he fled, sent his testament to his house, and
became a proselyte.
(b.San 96b)
While the Jerusalem Talmud has:
Rabbi Jochanan said, Eighty thousand priests were slain
for the blood of Zachariah.
Rabbi Judas asked Rabbi Achan, Where did they kill
Zachariah? Was it in the woman’s court, or in the court of
Israel? He answered: Neither in the court of Israel, nor in the
court of women, but in the court of the priests; and they did not
treat his blood in the same manner as they were wont to treat
the blood of a ram or a young goat. For of these it is written,
He shall pour out his blood, and cover it with dust. But it is
written here, The blood is in the midst of her: she set it upon
the top of the rock; she poured it not upon the ground. (Ezek.
xxiv. 7.) But why was this? That it might cause
fury to come up to take vengeance: I have set his blood upon
the top of a rock, that it should not be covered. They
committed seven evils that day: they murdered a priest, a
prophet, and a king; they shed the blood of the innocent: they
polluted the court: that day was the Sabbath : and the day of
expiation. When therefore Nebuzaradan came there (viz.
Jerusalem), he saw his blood bubbling, and said to them,
What meaneth this? They answered, It is the blood of calves,
lambs, and rams, which we have offered upon the altar. He
commanded them, that they should bring calves, and lambs,
and rams, and said I will try whether this be their blood:
accordingly they brought and slew them, but the blood of
(Zachariah) still bubbled, but the blood of these
did not bubble. Then he said, Declare to me the truth of the
matter, or else I will comb your flesh with iron combs. Then
said they to him, He was a priest, prophet, and judge, who
prophesied to Israel all these calamities which we have
suffered from you; but we arose against him, and slew him.
Then, said he, I will appease him: then he took the rabbis
and slew them upon his (viz. Zachariah’s) blood, and he was
not yet appeased. Next he took the young boys from the
schools, and slew them upon his blood, and yet it bubbled.
Then he brought the young priests and slew them in the same
place, and yet it still bubbled. So he slew at length ninety-four
thousand persons upon his blood, and it did not as yet cease
bubbling. Then he drew near to it and said,
O Zachariah, Zachariah, thou hast occasioned the death of the
chief of thy countrymen; shall I slay them all? Then the blood
ceased, and did bubble no more.
(j.Ta’anit 69)
Notice Yeshua says "between the Temple and the alter" Here Yeshua specifies the location of Zechariah’s murder more specifically than the written Tanak does. The Tanak says only that the murder occurred “in the court of the House of YHWH”. However the oral tradition recorded in the Talmud is more specific:
Rabbi Judas asked Rabbi Achan, Where did they kill
Zachariah? Was it in the woman’s court, or in the court of
Israel? He answered: Neither in the court of Israel,
nor in the court of women, but in the court of the priests
(j.Ta’anit 69)
While the Tanak places the murder simply “in the court of the House of YHWH”, Yeshua places it more specificly in the Court of Priests located “between the Temple and the alter” just as the Talmud proclaims it. Yeshua’s source here is Oral tradition and not the written Tanak.
These two murders are connected by the tradition that their blood cried out for vengence, but this is a connection built upon TRADITION.
-
Permalink Reply by Chandler Fulton on
-
I understand the traditions above that say things like "blood bubbling" and that the blood "did not rest"--like the blood had a life of its own apart from the body. The Talmud is full of traditional stories that scribes and rabbis embellished. If you accept them as inspired scripture like the rest of the extra-biblical literature then you are way out on a limb. I remember something in the apocrypha about dead fish keeping away evil spirits. Do you embrace stuff like that too?
I'm not wanting to go back and forth with you on this James. Tell me what you believe to be inspired Scripture from Elohim and what is not? I'd sincerely like to know this.
-
-
Well this is a total change of subject. I never said the Talmud was inspired... even Rabbinic Jews do not believe the Talmud is inspired... the Talmud itself states that it is not inspired. It is like you are so bogged down in the shell of what you believe that you have not even been listening (reading) what I have said as you are continually non-responsive.
No one ever said anything about the Talmud being inspired (I am not sure anyone EVER has since it claims not to be inspired) yet you say things like "if you accept them as inspired Scripture"... are we even having the same discussion? Where did THAT come from cause it sure did not come from me... its like you are debating someone else entirely.
You seem to totally miss the fact that Yeshua brings together two different Oral Law traditions about murders where the blood was crying out for vengeance and brings them together... pure coincidence? You also ignored everything I said about the water Libation ceremony and the Passover Seder.... like I said, like we are having two different conversations.
Now if you want to discuss a DIFFERENT subject concerning the Apocrypha, I will start a new thread on that topic, so we can keep this thread on topic.
-
-
The Talmud says:
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)So why would anyone think the Talmud claims inspiration?
-
Permalink Reply by 命 on
-
Wordplay. Simply replace "inspired" with "authoritative" and Chandler's point is still clearly made.
"The Talmud is full of traditional stories that scribes and rabbis embellished. If you accept them as authoritative (scripture) like the rest of the extra-biblical literature then you are way out on a limb."
Furthermore, anything can be accepted as inspired scripture without being or claiming to be inspired.
James Trimm said:The Talmud says:
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)So why would anyone think the Talmud claims inspiration?
-
-
There is a big difference between authoritative and inspired.
-
-
BTW Solomon, are you claiming to have some earlier record of the same traditions to compare as a baseline so as to demonstrate specific embellishments or are you just pulling that out of a hat? I am not saying that there are not embellishments, but you say there are so firmly as if you can demonstrate such embellishments with empirical evidence....
If someone claims the Scriptures have been embellished, for example, I would ask that they be specific and show earlier or more authoritative copies as a baseline as evidence.
-
-
From the preface to my book Nazarene Theology:
The purpose of this book is to publish a working systematic theology. The key term here is a working systematic theology. For the work itself I take sole and full responsibility. However there is room for Nazarenes to disagree with many of my points. There are many points for which there is room in the movement for in house debate. I hope that disagreement with any portion of this work, will not prevent anyone from benefiting from the overall work.
Samuel J Caswell Jr said:To all who are in this discussion, Shalom to you. May the berakah of our Elohim (Father, Son & Ruah ha Qodesh) rest mightily upon you.
Matthew, Mark, Luke & John only. (although I accept The Gospel According to the Hebrews as well) In these "cannonical" Gospels of our Master's life, teaching, death, burial & resurrection there are episodes where Yahshua seems to accept the traditions of the Elders, such as the murder of Zechariah. Then there are episodes where our Master blatantly rejects the traditions of the Elders, such as in the washing of the hands, and the plucking the heads of grain on the Sabbath.
Is the Talmud inspired scripture? NO! I reject the Talmud in every way, but there are some of this qodesh Sect of the Nazarenes (Acts 24:5) that accept the authority of the Talmud. I too am a member of this qodesh people. Now I ask: "Who are you to judge the house servant of another? To his own master he stands or falls. Indeed, he will be made to stand; for Yahweh can make him stand." (Romans 14:4)
The apostle Shaul/Paul admonishes us: "But if you bite and devour each other, beware lest you be consumed by each other." (Galatians 5:15 The Emphatic Diaglott. 1942 Edition)
The Main Page of Nazarene Space says; "NazareneSpace is an open forum. The opinions expressed in posts represents those of the posters and may not express those of NazareneSpace or the Worldwide Nazarene Assembly of Elohim."The above posted blog represents the OPINION of JAMES TRIMM. It does NOT necessarily represent the view of NazareneSpace or the Worldwide Nazarene Assembly of Elohim. Brothers and Sisters we need to remember that when posting our comments to anyone, James Trimm included, and those of us who post blogs, James Trimm included, needs to state, in the blog, that this is a personal opimion unless it is held as the teaching of the Worldwide Nazarene Assembly of Elohim.
Let's stop biting and devouring each other over personal opinions, and Let's also stop forcing personal opinions upon the Nazarene Assembly as Gospel truth. "Let each one be fully convinced in his/her own mind." (Romans 14:5)
-
Permalink Reply by Chandler Fulton on
-
Shalom Samuel,
I think our whole debate is centered around this question:
Did Messiah accept Oral tradition and practice it?
Don't think we are biting and devouring one another. As long as the discussions remain civil, then we are simply discussing the Scriptures and oral tradition.
© 2013 Created by James Trimm.
