Kosher Jesus

[irosie91]

If the Rabbi would put down the Talmud and start reading the Written Torah / compare it with the New Testament he would see that Moses spoke of the LORD, Isaiah spoke of LORD, David spoke of LORD, Ezekiel spoke of LORD and many other servants throughout the Old Testament / Torah all knew the Lord was the Son of God - Jesus Christ. Isaiah 53 is a prophecy of Jesus Christ. Psalm 22 is another prophecy of Jesus Christ. Jesus is in all 66 books of the King James Holy Bible. If the Rabbi spent as much time studying to learn the truth as he did fabricating a lie with his book he would have learned that Jesus Christ is the Messiah.

Why does the Rabbi believe in a book of lies (Talmud) that disagrees with the written Torah (Written Word of God)? Why would any Jew take the words of men over the Written Word of God Is it not foolishness to do this?

according to the NT----Jesus quotes the Talmud ---LEFT AND RIGHT -----if he rejected the Talmud-----he should have SAID SO. In fact----he specifically ENDORSED IT (sorry jere---but it is so)

Jesus did say so in no uncertain terms, that he rejected the Talmud, every time he upbraided the pharisees for maintaining the "traditions of men" while neglecting the deeper implications of the written law rendering it null and void.

"you strain at a gnat but swallow a camel" 'Why worry about what you eat or what you wear", "What goes into the mouth cannot defile you", etc.

Not quite the typical rabbi.

what does "you strain at a gnat but swallow a camel" mean---do you know the origin of the adage? I have no recollection of Jesus saying "Why worry about what you eat or what you wear" you got a link. What was a typical rabbi in the time
of Jesus? ----

 

[irosie91]

Lets remember all the Greek and Roman Philosphers of the time, and along with Philo of Alexandria (a jew follower of Plato and one who wanted to merge Judaism with Greek philiosphy, not everything was Judaism, and when we talk of Judaism at that time there were many sects.

lets remember-----Penelope KNOWS based on her personal sense that she KNOWS. At that time there were no actual
"sects" in Judaism in the sense that there are sects of Christianity today. There were lots of opinions tossed around. Philo had an interest in the works of the Greek philosphers---an interest very prevalent amongst jews of that time and SINCE. There is no evidence that he wanted to MERGE
Judaism with greek philosophy------religion and philosophy are not the same species-----they cannot MERGE ---he CERTAINLY did not seek the "merging" of greek religion with
Judaism----except in the twisted brain of Penelope. My grandfather was a baker in the STYLE OF AUSTRIA ---AUSTRIAN-KOSHER Cuisines MERGE all the time (called fusion cuisine)

 

[Penelope]

If the Rabbi would put down the Talmud and start reading the Written Torah / compare it with the New Testament he would see that Moses spoke of the LORD, Isaiah spoke of LORD, David spoke of LORD, Ezekiel spoke of LORD and many other servants throughout the Old Testament / Torah all knew the Lord was the Son of God - Jesus Christ. Isaiah 53 is a prophecy of Jesus Christ. Psalm 22 is another prophecy of Jesus Christ. Jesus is in all 66 books of the King James Holy Bible. If the Rabbi spent as much time studying to learn the truth as he did fabricating a lie with his book he would have learned that Jesus Christ is the Messiah.

Why does the Rabbi believe in a book of lies (Talmud) that disagrees with the written Torah (Written Word of God)? Why would any Jew take the words of men over the Written Word of God Is it not foolishness to do this?

according to the NT----Jesus quotes the Talmud ---LEFT AND RIGHT -----if he rejected the Talmud-----he should have SAID SO. In fact----he specifically ENDORSED IT (sorry jere---but it is so)

Jesus did say so in no uncertain terms, that he rejected the Talmud, every time he upbraided the pharisees for maintaining the "traditions of men" while neglecting the deeper implications of the written law rendering it null and void.

"you strain at a gnat but swallow a camel" 'Why worry about what you eat or what you wear", "What goes into the mouth cannot defile you", etc.

Not quite the typical rabbi.

in order to interpret the words spoken by Jesus---2000 years ago you have to 1) ---be fairly sure that he spoke them
2) know the vernacular in which he spoke. ---believe it or not------there are actually ordinary type people in the world today--
who have no interest in anything written in the New Testament who actually do KNOW the Aramaic which Jesus spoke---
That fact amazes even me. I have run into fairly young men who do Aramaic. They are the best source for knowing
what Jesus said ----in Aramaic----if the NT writing is available
in Aramaic. As to the refusal to wash his hands-----I have
NEVER believed that the event happened in the manner it is
reported in the NT. NO ONE at that time and place would refuse to wash his hands before eating. Something LIKE
it might have happened----sorta. But NOT----"nope ---I ain't
washing my hands" It would be something like blowing ones nose with the tablecloth.

That is what it says, and I do believe lots of people ate without washing their hands, I mean there was no running water at that time.
Matthew 15New American Bible (Revised Edition) (NABRE)
Chapter 15

The Tradition of the Elders.Then Pharisees and scribes came to Jesus from Jerusalem and said, 2“Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders?They do not wash [their] hands when they eat a meal.” 3 He said to them in reply, “And why do you break the commandment of for the sake of your tradition? For God said, ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and ‘Whoever curses father or mother shall die.’ But you say, ‘Whoever says to father or mother, “Any support you might have had from me is dedicated to God,” 6 need not honor his father.’ You have nullified the word of God for the sake of your tradition. 7 Hypocrites, well did Isaiah prophesy about you when he said:

 

[Penelope]

Lets remember all the Greek and Roman Philosphers of the time, and along with Philo of Alexandria (a jew follower of Plato and one who wanted to merge Judaism with Greek philiosphy, not everything was Judaism, and when we talk of Judaism at that time there were many sects.

lets remember-----Penelope KNOWS based on her personal sense that she KNOWS. At that time there were no actual
"sects" in Judaism in the sense that there are sects of Christianity today. There were lots of opinions tossed around. Philo had an interest in the works of the Greek philosphers---an interest very prevalent amongst jews of that time and SINCE. There is no evidence that he wanted to MERGE
Judaism with greek philosophy------religion and philosophy are not the same species-----they cannot MERGE ---he CERTAINLY did not seek the "merging" of greek religion with
Judaism----except in the twisted brain of Penelope. My grandfather was a baker in the STYLE OF AUSTRIA ---AUSTRIAN-KOSHER Cuisines MERGE all the time (called fusion cuisine)

Well they got the Logos from Philo, and Philo got it not from the OT. Of course they were merged, everything is merged. Lutherans are RC lites, meaning they just changed some things and got a new name. (main thing is they did not answer to the Pope.)

 

[irosie91]

I guess Jesus knew more than the Pharisees of his day. The man from Galilee. The Pharisees were suppose to be the teachers of the law, weren't they?

no. One did not have to be a teacher to be a Pharisee----nor was being a Pharisee something like a caste by occupation----like the castes of India, Pharisees did consider literacy mandatory--is being literate what you mean by 'being a teacher of the law'? One of my sisters-in-law----was descended from
people of APPALACHIA. Her grandmother was the town teacher ---of the little school house----because she was the one woman in town who could read and write. You seem to
imagine that Galilee was something like APPALACHIA. You
should TRY to read the NT

 

[irosie91]

If the Rabbi would put down the Talmud and start reading the Written Torah / compare it with the New Testament he would see that Moses spoke of the LORD, Isaiah spoke of LORD, David spoke of LORD, Ezekiel spoke of LORD and many other servants throughout the Old Testament / Torah all knew the Lord was the Son of God - Jesus Christ. Isaiah 53 is a prophecy of Jesus Christ. Psalm 22 is another prophecy of Jesus Christ. Jesus is in all 66 books of the King James Holy Bible. If the Rabbi spent as much time studying to learn the truth as he did fabricating a lie with his book he would have learned that Jesus Christ is the Messiah.

Why does the Rabbi believe in a book of lies (Talmud) that disagrees with the written Torah (Written Word of God)? Why would any Jew take the words of men over the Written Word of God Is it not foolishness to do this?

according to the NT----Jesus quotes the Talmud ---LEFT AND RIGHT -----if he rejected the Talmud-----he should have SAID SO. In fact----he specifically ENDORSED IT (sorry jere---but it is so)

Jesus did say so in no uncertain terms, that he rejected the Talmud, every time he upbraided the pharisees for maintaining the "traditions of men" while neglecting the deeper implications of the written law rendering it null and void.

"you strain at a gnat but swallow a camel" 'Why worry about what you eat or what you wear", "What goes into the mouth cannot defile you", etc.

Not quite the typical rabbi.

in order to interpret the words spoken by Jesus---2000 years ago you have to 1) ---be fairly sure that he spoke them
2) know the vernacular in which he spoke. ---believe it or not------there are actually ordinary type people in the world today--
who have no interest in anything written in the New Testament who actually do KNOW the Aramaic which Jesus spoke---
That fact amazes even me. I have run into fairly young men who do Aramaic. They are the best source for knowing
what Jesus said ----in Aramaic----if the NT writing is available
in Aramaic. As to the refusal to wash his hands-----I have
NEVER believed that the event happened in the manner it is
reported in the NT. NO ONE at that time and place would refuse to wash his hands before eating. Something LIKE
it might have happened----sorta. But NOT----"nope ---I ain't
washing my hands" It would be something like blowing ones nose with the tablecloth.

That is what it says, and I do believe lots of people ate without washing their hands, I mean there was no running water at that time.
Matthew 15New American Bible (Revised Edition) (NABRE)
Chapter 15

The Tradition of the Elders.Then Pharisees and scribes came to Jesus from Jerusalem and said, 2“Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders?They do not wash [their] hands when they eat a meal.” 3 He said to them in reply, “And why do you break the commandment of for the sake of your tradition? For God said, ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and ‘Whoever curses father or mother shall die.’ But you say, ‘Whoever says to father or mother, “Any support you might have had from me is dedicated to God,” 6 need not honor his father.’ You have nullified the word of God for the sake of your tradition. 7 Hypocrites, well did Isaiah prophesy about you when he said:[/

If the Rabbi would put down the Talmud and start reading the Written Torah / compare it with the New Testament he would see that Moses spoke of the LORD, Isaiah spoke of LORD, David spoke of LORD, Ezekiel spoke of LORD and many other servants throughout the Old Testament / Torah all knew the Lord was the Son of God - Jesus Christ. Isaiah 53 is a prophecy of Jesus Christ. Psalm 22 is another prophecy of Jesus Christ. Jesus is in all 66 books of the King James Holy Bible. If the Rabbi spent as much time studying to learn the truth as he did fabricating a lie with his book he would have learned that Jesus Christ is the Messiah.

Why does the Rabbi believe in a book of lies (Talmud) that disagrees with the written Torah (Written Word of God)? Why would any Jew take the words of men over the Written Word of God Is it not foolishness to do this?

according to the NT----Jesus quotes the Talmud ---LEFT AND RIGHT -----if he rejected the Talmud-----he should have SAID SO. In fact----he specifically ENDORSED IT (sorry jere---but it is so)

Jesus did say so in no uncertain terms, that he rejected the Talmud, every time he upbraided the pharisees for maintaining the "traditions of men" while neglecting the deeper implications of the written law rendering it null and void.

"you strain at a gnat but swallow a camel" 'Why worry about what you eat or what you wear", "What goes into the mouth cannot defile you", etc.

Not quite the typical rabbi.

in order to interpret the words spoken by Jesus---2000 years ago you have to 1) ---be fairly sure that he spoke them
2) know the vernacular in which he spoke. ---believe it or not------there are actually ordinary type people in the world today--
who have no interest in anything written in the New Testament who actually do KNOW the Aramaic which Jesus spoke---
That fact amazes even me. I have run into fairly young men who do Aramaic. They are the best source for knowing
what Jesus said ----in Aramaic----if the NT writing is available
in Aramaic. As to the refusal to wash his hands-----I have
NEVER believed that the event happened in the manner it is
reported in the NT. NO ONE at that time and place would refuse to wash his hands before eating. Something LIKE
it might have happened----sorta. But NOT----"nope ---I ain't
washing my hands" It would be something like blowing ones nose with the tablecloth.

Penelope>>>
That is what it says, and I do believe lots of people ate without washing their hands, I mean there was no running water at that time.

rosie>>> According to Penelope----people never washed in places in which "there was no running water"---I think she is
referring to the life-style of her own community where people
did not wash------if they had to carry the water or----well WHY BOTHER??


Matthew 15New American Bible (Revised Edition) (NABRE)
Chapter 15

The Tradition of the Elders.Then Pharisees and scribes came to Jesus from Jerusalem and said, 2“Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders?They do not wash [their] hands when they eat a meal.” 3 He said to them in reply, “And why do you break the commandment of for the sake of your tradition? For God said, ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and ‘Whoever curses father or mother shall die.’ But you say, ‘Whoever says to father or mother, “Any support you might have had from me is dedicated to God,” 6 need not honor his father.’ You have nullified the word of God for the sake of your tradition. 7 Hypocrites, well did Isaiah prophesy about you when he said:

I do not understand the gibberish which you posted, penny-dear

 

[guno]

It was paul, who never knew jesus and who came up with the cockamemi story about the road from damasus and visions,he started recruiting the pagans, came up the concept of original sin, don't have to eat kosher and that jesus did away with the law, it was paul who said it, to get even more pagans they adopted even more paganism and finally broke with changing the sabbath and naming jesus a part of a triune god

 

[irosie91]

I guess Jesus knew more than the Pharisees of his day. The man from Galilee. The Pharisees were suppose to be the teachers of the law, weren't they?

you do lots of GUESSING penny dear------most often based on no facts, whatsoever. Galilee was chock full of pharisees

 

[Penelope]

I guess Jesus knew more than the Pharisees of his day. The man from Galilee. The Pharisees were suppose to be the teachers of the law, weren't they?

no. One did not have to be a teacher to be a Pharisee----nor was being a Pharisee something like a caste by occupation----like the castes of India, Pharisees did consider literacy mandatory--is being literate what you mean by 'being a teacher of the law'? One of my sisters-in-law----was descended from
people of APPALACHIA. Her grandmother was the town teacher ---of the little school house----because she was the one woman in town who could read and write. You seem to
imagine that Galilee was something like APPALACHIA. You
should TRY to read the NT

I have what do you want me to read about , appalcchia is not in it. It was about a 20 hour hike in those days, longer is one avoided Samaria, which most did, but Jesus preached on his way.

 

[Penelope]

I guess Jesus knew more than the Pharisees of his day. The man from Galilee. The Pharisees were suppose to be the teachers of the law, weren't they?

you do lots of GUESSING penny dear------most often based on no facts, whatsoever. Galilee was chock full of pharisees

Obviously he did, so his teaching didn't coincide with theirs.

 

[irosie91]

I guess Jesus knew more than the Pharisees of his day. The man from Galilee. The Pharisees were suppose to be the teachers of the law, weren't they?

no. One did not have to be a teacher to be a Pharisee----nor was being a Pharisee something like a caste by occupation----like the castes of India, Pharisees did consider literacy mandatory--is being literate what you mean by 'being a teacher of the law'? One of my sisters-in-law----was descended from
people of APPALACHIA. Her grandmother was the town teacher ---of the little school house----because she was the one woman in town who could read and write. You seem to
imagine that Galilee was something like APPALACHIA. You
should TRY to read the NT

I have what do you want me to read about , appalcchia is not in it. It was about a 20 hour hike in those days, longer is one avoided Samaria, which most did, but Jesus preached on his way.

what was a 20 hour hike in what days? What does Samaria have to do with anything under discussion? Lots of people
talk on the road------so? I do not see anything at all in your post which is pertinent to the issues under discussion

 

[Penelope]

If the Rabbi would put down the Talmud and start reading the Written Torah / compare it with the New Testament he would see that Moses spoke of the LORD, Isaiah spoke of LORD, David spoke of LORD, Ezekiel spoke of LORD and many other servants throughout the Old Testament / Torah all knew the Lord was the Son of God - Jesus Christ. Isaiah 53 is a prophecy of Jesus Christ. Psalm 22 is another prophecy of Jesus Christ. Jesus is in all 66 books of the King James Holy Bible. If the Rabbi spent as much time studying to learn the truth as he did fabricating a lie with his book he would have learned that Jesus Christ is the Messiah.

Why does the Rabbi believe in a book of lies (Talmud) that disagrees with the written Torah (Written Word of God)? Why would any Jew take the words of men over the Written Word of God Is it not foolishness to do this?

according to the NT----Jesus quotes the Talmud ---LEFT AND RIGHT -----if he rejected the Talmud-----he should have SAID SO. In fact----he specifically ENDORSED IT (sorry jere---but it is so)

Jesus did say so in no uncertain terms, that he rejected the Talmud, every time he upbraided the pharisees for maintaining the "traditions of men" while neglecting the deeper implications of the written law rendering it null and void.

"you strain at a gnat but swallow a camel" 'Why worry about what you eat or what you wear", "What goes into the mouth cannot defile you", etc.

Not quite the typical rabbi.

in order to interpret the words spoken by Jesus---2000 years ago you have to 1) ---be fairly sure that he spoke them
2) know the vernacular in which he spoke. ---believe it or not------there are actually ordinary type people in the world today--
who have no interest in anything written in the New Testament who actually do KNOW the Aramaic which Jesus spoke---
That fact amazes even me. I have run into fairly young men who do Aramaic. They are the best source for knowing
what Jesus said ----in Aramaic----if the NT writing is available
in Aramaic. As to the refusal to wash his hands-----I have
NEVER believed that the event happened in the manner it is
reported in the NT. NO ONE at that time and place would refuse to wash his hands before eating. Something LIKE
it might have happened----sorta. But NOT----"nope ---I ain't
washing my hands" It would be something like blowing ones nose with the tablecloth.

That is what it says, and I do believe lots of people ate without washing their hands, I mean there was no running water at that time.
Matthew 15New American Bible (Revised Edition) (NABRE)
Chapter 15

The Tradition of the Elders.Then Pharisees and scribes came to Jesus from Jerusalem and said, 2“Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders?They do not wash [their] hands when they eat a meal.” 3 He said to them in reply, “And why do you break the commandment of for the sake of your tradition? For God said, ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and ‘Whoever curses father or mother shall die.’ But you say, ‘Whoever says to father or mother, “Any support you might have had from me is dedicated to God,” 6 need not honor his father.’ You have nullified the word of God for the sake of your tradition. 7 Hypocrites, well did Isaiah prophesy about you when he said:[/

If the Rabbi would put down the Talmud and start reading the Written Torah / compare it with the New Testament he would see that Moses spoke of the LORD, Isaiah spoke of LORD, David spoke of LORD, Ezekiel spoke of LORD and many other servants throughout the Old Testament / Torah all knew the Lord was the Son of God - Jesus Christ. Isaiah 53 is a prophecy of Jesus Christ. Psalm 22 is another prophecy of Jesus Christ. Jesus is in all 66 books of the King James Holy Bible. If the Rabbi spent as much time studying to learn the truth as he did fabricating a lie with his book he would have learned that Jesus Christ is the Messiah.

Why does the Rabbi believe in a book of lies (Talmud) that disagrees with the written Torah (Written Word of God)? Why would any Jew take the words of men over the Written Word of God Is it not foolishness to do this?

according to the NT----Jesus quotes the Talmud ---LEFT AND RIGHT -----if he rejected the Talmud-----he should have SAID SO. In fact----he specifically ENDORSED IT (sorry jere---but it is so)

Jesus did say so in no uncertain terms, that he rejected the Talmud, every time he upbraided the pharisees for maintaining the "traditions of men" while neglecting the deeper implications of the written law rendering it null and void.

"you strain at a gnat but swallow a camel" 'Why worry about what you eat or what you wear", "What goes into the mouth cannot defile you", etc.

Not quite the typical rabbi.

in order to interpret the words spoken by Jesus---2000 years ago you have to 1) ---be fairly sure that he spoke them
2) know the vernacular in which he spoke. ---believe it or not------there are actually ordinary type people in the world today--
who have no interest in anything written in the New Testament who actually do KNOW the Aramaic which Jesus spoke---
That fact amazes even me. I have run into fairly young men who do Aramaic. They are the best source for knowing
what Jesus said ----in Aramaic----if the NT writing is available
in Aramaic. As to the refusal to wash his hands-----I have
NEVER believed that the event happened in the manner it is
reported in the NT. NO ONE at that time and place would refuse to wash his hands before eating. Something LIKE
it might have happened----sorta. But NOT----"nope ---I ain't
washing my hands" It would be something like blowing ones nose with the tablecloth.

Penelope>>>
That is what it says, and I do believe lots of people ate without washing their hands, I mean there was no running water at that time.

rosie>>> According to Penelope----people never washed in places in which "there was no running water"---I think she is
referring to the life-style of her own community where people
did not wash------if they had to carry the water or----well WHY BOTHER??


Matthew 15New American Bible (Revised Edition) (NABRE)
Chapter 15

The Tradition of the Elders.Then Pharisees and scribes came to Jesus from Jerusalem and said, 2“Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders?They do not wash [their] hands when they eat a meal.” 3 He said to them in reply, “And why do you break the commandment of for the sake of your tradition? For God said, ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and ‘Whoever curses father or mother shall die.’ But you say, ‘Whoever says to father or mother, “Any support you might have had from me is dedicated to God,” 6 need not honor his father.’ You have nullified the word of God for the sake of your tradition. 7 Hypocrites, well did Isaiah prophesy about you when he said:

I do not understand the gibberish which you posted, penny-dear

Of course not, its taken from the NT.

 

[irosie91]

I guess Jesus knew more than the Pharisees of his day. The man from Galilee. The Pharisees were suppose to be the teachers of the law, weren't they?

you do lots of GUESSING penny dear------most often based on no facts, whatsoever. Galilee was chock full of pharisees

Obviously he did, so his teaching didn't coincide with theirs.

whose teachings did not coincide with whose?

 

[Penelope]

I guess Jesus knew more than the Pharisees of his day. The man from Galilee. The Pharisees were suppose to be the teachers of the law, weren't they?

no. One did not have to be a teacher to be a Pharisee----nor was being a Pharisee something like a caste by occupation----like the castes of India, Pharisees did consider literacy mandatory--is being literate what you mean by 'being a teacher of the law'? One of my sisters-in-law----was descended from
people of APPALACHIA. Her grandmother was the town teacher ---of the little school house----because she was the one woman in town who could read and write. You seem to
imagine that Galilee was something like APPALACHIA. You
should TRY to read the NT

I have what do you want me to read about , appalcchia is not in it. It was about a 20 hour hike in those days, longer is one avoided Samaria, which most did, but Jesus preached on his way.

what was a 20 hour hike in what days? What does Samaria have to do with anything under discussion? Lots of people
talk on the road------so? I do not see anything at all in your post which is pertinent to the issues under discussion

The Judeans and jews avoided Samaria as they were not on friendly terms. Jesus , of course could walk and talk (after all he is part of the trinity, God) , but many times he gave sermons where they stood listening to him.

 

[guno]

Essentially the gentiles have little concept about what it actually means to be a Jew or what is in the Tanakh and Talmud . Otherwise some of the stories of their Bible (the Gospels and the Epistles) would have been easy to identify as spurious as a ham at Passover. it was easy to get the pagans to accept paul's new religion as they had no idea of torah or required to keep it, so with the stories of virgin births man gods it was easy for them to join , and it continues today

 

[irosie91]

according to the NT----Jesus quotes the Talmud ---LEFT AND RIGHT -----if he rejected the Talmud-----he should have SAID SO. In fact----he specifically ENDORSED IT (sorry jere---but it is so)

Jesus did say so in no uncertain terms, that he rejected the Talmud, every time he upbraided the pharisees for maintaining the "traditions of men" while neglecting the deeper implications of the written law rendering it null and void.

"you strain at a gnat but swallow a camel" 'Why worry about what you eat or what you wear", "What goes into the mouth cannot defile you", etc.

Not quite the typical rabbi.

in order to interpret the words spoken by Jesus---2000 years ago you have to 1) ---be fairly sure that he spoke them
2) know the vernacular in which he spoke. ---believe it or not------there are actually ordinary type people in the world today--
who have no interest in anything written in the New Testament who actually do KNOW the Aramaic which Jesus spoke---
That fact amazes even me. I have run into fairly young men who do Aramaic. They are the best source for knowing
what Jesus said ----in Aramaic----if the NT writing is available
in Aramaic. As to the refusal to wash his hands-----I have
NEVER believed that the event happened in the manner it is
reported in the NT. NO ONE at that time and place would refuse to wash his hands before eating. Something LIKE
it might have happened----sorta. But NOT----"nope ---I ain't
washing my hands" It would be something like blowing ones nose with the tablecloth.

That is what it says, and I do believe lots of people ate without washing their hands, I mean there was no running water at that time.
Matthew 15New American Bible (Revised Edition) (NABRE)
Chapter 15

The Tradition of the Elders.Then Pharisees and scribes came to Jesus from Jerusalem and said, 2“Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders?They do not wash [their] hands when they eat a meal.” 3 He said to them in reply, “And why do you break the commandment of for the sake of your tradition? For God said, ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and ‘Whoever curses father or mother shall die.’ But you say, ‘Whoever says to father or mother, “Any support you might have had from me is dedicated to God,” 6 need not honor his father.’ You have nullified the word of God for the sake of your tradition. 7 Hypocrites, well did Isaiah prophesy about you when he said:[/

according to the NT----Jesus quotes the Talmud ---LEFT AND RIGHT -----if he rejected the Talmud-----he should have SAID SO. In fact----he specifically ENDORSED IT (sorry jere---but it is so)

Jesus did say so in no uncertain terms, that he rejected the Talmud, every time he upbraided the pharisees for maintaining the "traditions of men" while neglecting the deeper implications of the written law rendering it null and void.

"you strain at a gnat but swallow a camel" 'Why worry about what you eat or what you wear", "What goes into the mouth cannot defile you", etc.

Not quite the typical rabbi.

in order to interpret the words spoken by Jesus---2000 years ago you have to 1) ---be fairly sure that he spoke them
2) know the vernacular in which he spoke. ---believe it or not------there are actually ordinary type people in the world today--
who have no interest in anything written in the New Testament who actually do KNOW the Aramaic which Jesus spoke---
That fact amazes even me. I have run into fairly young men who do Aramaic. They are the best source for knowing
what Jesus said ----in Aramaic----if the NT writing is available
in Aramaic. As to the refusal to wash his hands-----I have
NEVER believed that the event happened in the manner it is
reported in the NT. NO ONE at that time and place would refuse to wash his hands before eating. Something LIKE
it might have happened----sorta. But NOT----"nope ---I ain't
washing my hands" It would be something like blowing ones nose with the tablecloth.

Penelope>>>
That is what it says, and I do believe lots of people ate without washing their hands, I mean there was no running water at that time.

rosie>>> According to Penelope----people never washed in places in which "there was no running water"---I think she is
referring to the life-style of her own community where people
did not wash------if they had to carry the water or----well WHY BOTHER??


Matthew 15New American Bible (Revised Edition) (NABRE)
Chapter 15

The Tradition of the Elders.Then Pharisees and scribes came to Jesus from Jerusalem and said, 2“Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders?They do not wash [their] hands when they eat a meal.” 3 He said to them in reply, “And why do you break the commandment of for the sake of your tradition? For God said, ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and ‘Whoever curses father or mother shall die.’ But you say, ‘Whoever says to father or mother, “Any support you might have had from me is dedicated to God,” 6 need not honor his father.’ You have nullified the word of God for the sake of your tradition. 7 Hypocrites, well did Isaiah prophesy about you when he said:

I do not understand the gibberish which you posted, penny-dear

Of course not, its taken from the NT.

really? not the NT I read-----you seem to have a either a very weird translation or something REALLY GARBLED to the point that it has no meaning at all What does 7 mean
"Hypocrites, well did Isaiah prophesy about you when he said.......?<nothing>
who is supposed to have made that meaningless remark?

lol "well" there is no Aramaic equivalent of the English "well"

 

[irosie91]

I guess Jesus knew more than the Pharisees of his day. The man from Galilee. The Pharisees were suppose to be the teachers of the law, weren't they?

no. One did not have to be a teacher to be a Pharisee----nor was being a Pharisee something like a caste by occupation----like the castes of India, Pharisees did consider literacy mandatory--is being literate what you mean by 'being a teacher of the law'? One of my sisters-in-law----was descended from
people of APPALACHIA. Her grandmother was the town teacher ---of the little school house----because she was the one woman in town who could read and write. You seem to
imagine that Galilee was something like APPALACHIA. You
should TRY to read the NT

I have what do you want me to read about , appalcchia is not in it. It was about a 20 hour hike in those days, longer is one avoided Samaria, which most did, but Jesus preached on his way.

what was a 20 hour hike in what days? What does Samaria have to do with anything under discussion? Lots of people
talk on the road------so? I do not see anything at all in your post which is pertinent to the issues under discussion

The Judeans and jews avoided Samaria as they were not on friendly terms. Jesus , of course could walk and talk (after all he is part of the trinity, God) , but many times he gave sermons where they stood listening to him.

first correct statement----jews did tend to avoid samaritins because of contentions regarding dogma----but the two groups
were not engaged in anything like war. Who is "they" in that
very garbled statement which is YOUR post? Jesus did
sermons for the SAMARITINS ... what did he say?

 

[Penelope]

I guess Jesus knew more than the Pharisees of his day. The man from Galilee. The Pharisees were suppose to be the teachers of the law, weren't they?

no. One did not have to be a teacher to be a Pharisee----nor was being a Pharisee something like a caste by occupation----like the castes of India, Pharisees did consider literacy mandatory--is being literate what you mean by 'being a teacher of the law'? One of my sisters-in-law----was descended from
people of APPALACHIA. Her grandmother was the town teacher ---of the little school house----because she was the one woman in town who could read and write. You seem to
imagine that Galilee was something like APPALACHIA. You
should TRY to read the NT

I have what do you want me to read about , appalcchia is not in it. It was about a 20 hour hike in those days, longer is one avoided Samaria, which most did, but Jesus preached on his way.

what was a 20 hour hike in what days? What does Samaria have to do with anything under discussion? Lots of people
talk on the road------so? I do not see anything at all in your post which is pertinent to the issues under discussion

The Judeans and jews avoided Samaria as they were not on friendly terms. Jesus , of course could walk and talk (after all he is part of the trinity, God) , but many times he gave sermons where they stood listening to him.

first correct statement----jews did tend to avoid samaritins because of contentions regarding dogma----but the two groups
were not engaged in anything like war. Who is "they" in that
very garbled statement which is YOUR post? Jesus did
sermons for the SAMARITINS ... what did he say?

Goodness you have not read the NT or the history, Samaritans and Judeans did not get along.

 

[Penelope]

I guess Jesus knew more than the Pharisees of his day. The man from Galilee. The Pharisees were suppose to be the teachers of the law, weren't they?

no. One did not have to be a teacher to be a Pharisee----nor was being a Pharisee something like a caste by occupation----like the castes of India, Pharisees did consider literacy mandatory--is being literate what you mean by 'being a teacher of the law'? One of my sisters-in-law----was descended from
people of APPALACHIA. Her grandmother was the town teacher ---of the little school house----because she was the one woman in town who could read and write. You seem to
imagine that Galilee was something like APPALACHIA. You
should TRY to read the NT

I have what do you want me to read about , appalcchia is not in it. It was about a 20 hour hike in those days, longer is one avoided Samaria, which most did, but Jesus preached on his way.

what was a 20 hour hike in what days? What does Samaria have to do with anything under discussion? Lots of people
talk on the road------so? I do not see anything at all in your post which is pertinent to the issues under discussion

The Judeans and jews avoided Samaria as they were not on friendly terms. Jesus , of course could walk and talk (after all he is part of the trinity, God) , but many times he gave sermons where they stood listening to him.

first correct statement----jews did tend to avoid samaritins because of contentions regarding dogma----but the two groups
were not engaged in anything like war. Who is "they" in that
very garbled statement which is YOUR post? Jesus did
sermons for the SAMARITINS ... what did he say?

Read the NT , he gave many sermons along his way, in his travels.

 

[irosie91]

no. One did not have to be a teacher to be a Pharisee----nor was being a Pharisee something like a caste by occupation----like the castes of India, Pharisees did consider literacy mandatory--is being literate what you mean by 'being a teacher of the law'? One of my sisters-in-law----was descended from
people of APPALACHIA. Her grandmother was the town teacher ---of the little school house----because she was the one woman in town who could read and write. You seem to
imagine that Galilee was something like APPALACHIA. You
should TRY to read the NT

I have what do you want me to read about , appalcchia is not in it. It was about a 20 hour hike in those days, longer is one avoided Samaria, which most did, but Jesus preached on his way.

what was a 20 hour hike in what days? What does Samaria have to do with anything under discussion? Lots of people
talk on the road------so? I do not see anything at all in your post which is pertinent to the issues under discussion

The Judeans and jews avoided Samaria as they were not on friendly terms. Jesus , of course could walk and talk (after all he is part of the trinity, God) , but many times he gave sermons where they stood listening to him.

first correct statement----jews did tend to avoid samaritins because of contentions regarding dogma----but the two groups
were not engaged in anything like war. Who is "they" in that
very garbled statement which is YOUR post? Jesus did
sermons for the SAMARITINS ... what did he say?

Goodness you have not read the NT or the history, Samaritans and Judeans did not get along.

GOODNESS ME!!!! penny's catechism whore said "nah nah nah----rosie does not know who Samaritans are. And penny
said yes yes yes ---da joooo does not know. so penny decided to repeat the lie. Penny---YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHO SAMARITANS ARE-----you aint nevah met one neither did the catechism whore. For those interested in reality---jews and Samaritans have never actually reconciled----their
history is not told in the NT The only thing Penny knows is that jesus talked to a Samaritan because that is all the catechism whore told her