Wisdom of the Sages, another look at what Yeshua was saying in Mathew 5:27-30

[The Revolting Man]

I just went and reread your original post and looked up Chinuch. You do realize that you are using a source that denies that Jesus is the Messiah, and may in fact deny that He even existed? It certainly denies the veracity of the very scripture you're using it to criticize. And you are using this source to explain away Jesus' words? This is the definition of making null the Word of God with the traditions of men, and in this case it isn't even the tradition of a Believer. This is very weak sauce indeed @Kevin and I wish I had caught on to that earlier so I could have pointed it out and left in a huff much sooner. I am forced to do so now after having actually debated whether the words of an unbeliever can be used to negate the teachings of the Messiah.

I am convinced that the modern Jews are the descendants of Israel. They are who they claim to be and I will back them to the hilt in almost any context. But even though the Truth came to them first, those who didn't accept Christ are not a reliable (note I did not say that they weren't valuable, just that they are not reliable) source for instruction on the New Testament. And the further the source is from the time of the New Testament the less valuable it is. Chinuch was published in the 1300's according to what I read so it has very little relevance to New Testament teachings and I don't think it claims any. If you really think this is an important topic then I ask that you find a teacher who believes in Jesus to help us interpret His words.

Look, this is the real danger in the Hebrew roots/Torah observant/Messianic movement. If Satan can't get us one way he'll try to use our momentum to get us the other way. As we come out of the mainstream church and start weighing and rejecting it's teaching we often look for replacements. That can be a harmless process. There's nothing wrong with traditions if they point us to the truth, but they can be very harmful if they start crowding out the truth. I have seen people end up rejecting Christ and leaving the faith because they have accepted non-believer's criticism of the New Testament. What you have done in this thread, completely rewrite a positive statement made by our very Jewish Messiah in to a meaningless mishmash of platitudes is very dangerous. And in fact it would rob the New Covenant of much of it's amazing message. Now we are to worship God in spirit and in truth. Now we have to add obedience of the heart to the obedience of the flesh. It's a beautiful and scary message and I for one see no reason to give it up, and certainly not on the word of someone who rejects the entire Gospel message to begin with.

 

[Nikud]

I just went and reread your original post and looked up Chinuch. You do realize that you are using a source that denies that Jesus is the Messiah, and may in fact deny that He even existed?

I thought that ever one understood, that practioners of Judaism, unless their messianic jews, don't beleive that Yeshua is the Messiah. I was showing the style of teaching that I believe that Yeshua as a Jewish Rabbi was using.

It certainly denies the veracity of the very scripture you're using it to criticize. And you are using this source to explain away Jesus' words?

I'm not critizing scripture just explaining my interpretation, showing a style of Torah Teaching, the same type of Torah teaching I beleive Yeshua was using. So Chinuch being a non beleiving Jew denies the veracity of the Torah scripture he was teaching about? Numbers 15:39 lesson is a Torah lesson. What Yeshua was teaching was a Torah lesson.

This is the definition of making null the Word of God with the traditions of men, and in this case it isn't even the tradition of a Believer.

That's your opinion, I see what your doing as the definition of adding to the Word of G-d.

I am forced to do so now after having actually debated whether the words of an unbeliever can be used to negate the teachings of the Messiah

That's the conflict your assuming that your interpretation is the words of the Messiah and that I'm trying to us a Torah teaching to negate your interpretation. I was showing the similarities between the teachings, giving my veiws my beleifs which your trying to negate with your beleifs.

Chinuch was published in the 1300's according to what I read so it has very little relevance to New Testament teachings and I don't think it claims any.

That stlye of teaching predates 1300, it predates Chinuch.

. If you really think this is an important topic then I ask that you find a teacher who believes in Jesus to help us interpret His words.

Wisdom of the Sages, you've been on the forum long enough to know that means Jewish Rabbis. Therefor the tittle told you what was going to be used. So if your not interested in what they have to say why read and comment on the topic?

I for one see no reason to give it up, and certainly not on the word of someone who rejects the entire Gospel message to begin with

ONE, Chinuchs lesson was about Numbers 15:39. Chinuch was not speaking on Matthew 5:28. I was showing my beleif that Yeshua was was giving a Torah lesson on adultery and where setting your mind to sin leads you to act and commit sin, and showing the similarities between the two teachings, let's add on Hillel who predates Yeshua and said the same thing almost word for word as Yeshua and was giving the same explaination I am, but wait he's not a beleiver in Yeshua who had not been born yet so his words aren't valid either. TWO, So that makes your statement directed at me. Unless you didn't understand the post and/or have been arguing for the sake of arguing, your questioning my beleif in the Gospel?

I ask that you find a teacher who believes in Jesus to help us interpret His words.

If you really want to find others who are believers saying the same thing I am, which I doubt, do the research for youself. Google will get you to about 10 easy but you actually have to read them.

In case I wasn't clear on my beleif. Temptation not a sin. Acting upon it a sin. Yeshua wasn't adding to the word changing the definition of anything. He was saying we have to change our hearts, so we are not tempted. So that temptation doesn't cause us to act and commit a sin. That's a lesson that didn't just appear in the Gospels but is all through the Tanahk aswell.

How dare this infidel hold different beliefs than G-ds Prophet Zec Austin who is never wrong and speaks with G-ds authority.

In the end with either my interpretation or yours a beleiver changes their heart as G-d wants us to. It just your interpretation brings condemnation.

Romans 8

8 Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Messiah Yeshua. 2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Messiah Yeshua has set you free from the law of sin and death. 3 For what was impossible for the Torah —since it was weakened on account of the flesh—G-d has done. Sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as a sin offering, He condemned sin in the flesh— 4 so that the requirement of the Torah might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk (an action) according to the flesh but according to the Ruach.

5 For those who live according to the flesh (acting upon sin leads to setting your mind to sin, where did I read that) set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Ruach set their minds on the things of the Ruach. 6 For the mindset of the flesh is death (because it leads you to commit sin), but the mindset of the Ruach is life and shalom. 7 For the mindset of the flesh is hostile toward G-d, for it does not submit itself to the law of G-d—for it cannot. 8 So those who are in the flesh (comiting sin) cannot please G-d.

 

[The Revolting Man]

After further reflection I would say that you're very premise is mistaken. Numbers 15:39 seems to support the statement made in Matthew 5:28. In Numbers we are warned against using our own heart and our own eyes to go whoring. In Matthew Christ tells us that looking on a (married) woman will lead to adultery. These two verses sound vey similar. Rather than disagreeing I would say that they harmonize quite nicely. Maybe Christ didn't enlarge on the Law in this instance, at least not according to these passages.

 

[Nikud]

I see your point. So now that you have shown why you beleive lust and anger is a a sin. I would like to bring up one pervious argument with you. A couple of months ago you said a wife should fear her husbands wrath (anger) now your saying according to Matthew 5 anger its self is a sin. How do you reconcile those beliefs?



Sometimes you need to lose small battles to win the war-Sun Tzu

 

[The Revolting Man]

I see your point. So now that you have shown why you beleive lust and anger is a a sin. I would like to bring up one pervious argument with you. A couple of months ago you said a wife should fear her husbands wrath (anger) now your saying according to Matthew 5 anger its self is a sin. How do you reconcile those beliefs?



Sometimes you need to lose small battles to win the war-Sun Tzu

You've misunderstood me somewhere Kevin. I don't believe that either anger or lust by themselves are sin. I think you're getting way ahead of the passage. Matthew 5 puts lust in the context of adultery and I don't think you can get simple anger out of the murder verse. Again, I'm going to have to disagree with both of your premises, what you think I say and what you think the passage says.

 

[Nikud]

If your saying that in these verses Yeshua is not warning about acting on temptation but saying that if your thinking about acting upon temptation (The definition of being tempted) is a sin you are arguing against Hebrews 4:15.
But let's role with your face value account of Yeshua expanding on sins and what we are supose to do and what's going to happen.
21 “You have heard it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not murder, and whoever commits murder shall be subject to judgment.’ 22 But I tell you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be subject to judgment. And whoever says to his brother, ‘Raca’ [empty headed, stupid] shall be subject to the council; and whoever says, ‘You fool!’ shall be subject to fiery Gehenna.
Have you ever been angry with someone. If so you have comited murder. Have ever lost your temper and called someone stupid or a fool, then your going to hell.
23 “Therefore if you are presenting your offering upon the altar, and there remember that your brother has something against you, 24 leave your offering there before the altar and go. First be reconciled to your brother, and then come and present your offering.
Have you ever presented your offering upon the alter and remember that your brother has something against you, did you leave your offering there before the altar and to first be reconciled to your brother, and then come and present your offering. What you've never presented an offering at the alter? He's expanding on a comand to make offerings. It can't be the spiritual kind, were taking it at face value.
25 “Make friends quickly with your opponent while you are with him on the way. Otherwise, your opponent may hand you over to the judge, and the judge to the assistant, and you will be thrown into prison. 26 Amen, I tell you, you will never get out of there until you have paid back the last penny!
Do you owe someone money?
27 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ 28 But I tell you that everyone who looks upon a woman to lust after her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
This is the point where most everyone who makes the face value expanded the law arguement for Mathew 5:27-28 explains that the the others where spiritual warnings about where those emotions can lead you and for some reason or another Matthew 5:27-28 is the only one you can take at face value. I'll add that if your going to make the arguement that he expanded the definition adultery to include thinking lustful about a woman you give validation to the modern church definition of Adultery because at face value it never says she was married and if the definition is being changed here's theperfect spot to do it. As a result you also validate the polygamy is a sin arguement because if you look at a single woman lustfuly (covetly is actually a better translation) your guilty of Adultery. Of course this happens only if you over look the context of who He was speaking to. Jews using a style of teaching as a Jewish Rabbi He did. To an audience who knew he was not adding to Torah. Thus not breaking the command of Duetornomy 4:2 which would have given them the ability to seize Him right there and giving us a completely different narative.

The answer to all of these questions (except for leaving my sacrifice on the altar) is yes. I am guilty of all of these sins and indeed have been condemned to death many times over. And I do take all of those examples literally, or at least at face value.

 

[The Revolting Man]

Is there suppose to be some new text or are the clips supposed to be self explanatory? If they are then I missed it.

 

[Nikud]

Tablet acting up.

But let's role with your face value account of Yeshua expanding on sins and what we are supose to do and what's going to happen.
21 “You have heard it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not murder, and whoever commits murder shall be subject to judgment.’ 22 But I tell you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be subject to judgment. And whoever says to his brother, ‘Raca’ [empty headed, stupid] shall be subject to the council; and whoever says, ‘You fool!’ shall be subject to fiery Gehenna.
Have you ever been angry with someone. If so you have comited murder. Have ever lost your temper and called someone stupid or a fool, then your going to hell.

The answer to all of these questions (except for leaving my sacrifice on the altar) is yes. I am guilty of all of these sins and indeed have been condemned to death many times over. And I do take all of those examples literally, or at least at face value.

Why call it a sin if you dont beleive it's a sin.

I don't think you can get simple anger out of the murder verse.

It's simple anger based on personal feelings of unjustice.

21 “You have heard it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not murder, and whoever commits murder shall be subject to judgment.’ 22 But I tell you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be subject to judgment.

who is angry ὀργιζόμενος
(orgizomenos) 3710: to make angry from orgé

orgé: impulse, wrath
Original Word: ὀργή, ῆς, ἡ
Part of Speech: Noun, Feminine
Transliteration: orgé
Phonetic Spelling: (or-gay')
Definition: impulse, wrath
Usage: anger, wrath, passion; punishment, vengeance.

3709 /orgḗ ("settled anger") proceeds from an internal disposition which steadfastly opposes someone or something based on extended personal exposure, i.e. solidifying what the beholder considers wrong (unjust, evil).

I don't believe that either anger or lust by themselves are sin

You dont beleive anger and lust (as long as its not directed at a married woman, which would be coveting your neighbors wife) are a sin without the desire to act upon it. Anger is the mental desire and willingness to justify a strong feelings of annoyance, displeasure, or hostility.

I wouldn't say that temptation would rise to the level of what Christ is talking about here. Christ is referring to a mental willingness and desire to sin. That is a very different thing than temptation.

temp·ta·tion
/tem(p)ˈtāSH(ə)n/
noun

1. a desire to do something, especially something wrong or unwise.

This is what I was pointing out. You keep saying temptation is not a sin but defining it as a sin.

You said you took theses at face value, that means anger/wrath is a sin, You previously argued that wives should fear their husband. Your arguement was based off they should fear his wrath. How do you reconcile the two beleifs.

 

[The Revolting Man]

Kevin I'm sorry but you're making leaps in logic that are incorrect.

21 “You have heard it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not murder, and whoever commits murder shall be subject to judgment.’ 22 But I tell you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be subject to judgment.

This isn't simple anger. It's anger with your brother. I could be angry with Hitler and be fine. I could be angry with my wife and children and not violate this passage. God could be angry and you couldn't accuse Him of sin. The anger in this case is modified by who it is directed at. That being said, I am guilty of being angry at my brother. I am condemned under this passage.

temp·ta·tion/tem(p)ˈtāSH(ə)n/noun 1. a desire to do something, especially something wrong or unwise.

Please tell me we're not back to elevating Daniel Webster to the level of inspired scripture. We know Jesus was tempted. We know that Jesus did not sin. Thus temptation is not sin. Jesus is talking about something other than temptation in Matthew 5:27.

You said you took theses at face value, that means anger/wrath is a sin.

Again, no it's not.

, You previously argued that wives should fear their husband. Your arguement was based off they should fear his wrath. How do you reconcile the two beleifs.

That debate was very long and drawn out and some time ago so I'm not going to make some definitive statement about what I may or may not have said. I can say that the idea that a woman should fear her husband because she is afraid of his wrath does not accurately reflect what I believe on the topic. Ideally she would fear her husband because God told her to. If she can't do that then it is in her best interest to Biblically fear him for some reason. All of which has nothing to do with the fact that a clear reading of Matthew 5:27-28 tells us that it is a very bad idea to covet your neighbor's wife which should not be controversial on any level, especially not to the Torah observant.

 

[Nikud]

All of which has nothing to do with the fact that a clear reading of Matthew 5:27-28 tells us that it is a very bad idea to covet your neighbor's wife which should not be controversial on any level, especially not to the Torah observant.

Finaly, thank you. That's right a clear reading do not covet your neighbors wife. One of the Ten comandments. The first 10 laws. Nothing new.

Exodus 20:17

17 “Do not covet your neighbor’s house, your neighbor’s wife, his manservant, his maidservant, his ox, his donkey, or anything that is your neighbor’s.”

You made me Chase my tail to get you to point out that he was restating Torah and not expanding the law about Adultery.

21 “You have heard it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not murder, and whoever commits murder shall be subject to judgment.’

Do not commit murder it's a sin. 10 comandment.

22 But I tell you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be subject to judgment. And whoever says to his brother, ‘Raca’ [empty headed, stupid] shall be subject to the council; and whoever says, ‘You fool!’ shall be subject to fiery Gehenna.

Numbers 20:10-14

10 Moses and Aaron gathered the assembly in front of the rock. He said, “Listen now, you rebels! Must we bring you water from this rock?”

11 Then Moses raised his arm and struck the rock twice with the staff. Water gushed out and the community and its livestock drank.

12 But Adonai said to Moses and Aaron, “Because you did not trust in Me so as to esteem Me as holy in the eyes of Bnei-Yisrael, therefore you will not bring this assembly into the land that I have given to them

Anger against sin good. Anger against another brings Judgement because it doesn't glorify G-d. Judgement for anger another Torah Lesson with plenty of examples.

23 “Therefore if you are presenting your offering upon the altar, and there remember that your brother has something against you,

24 leave your offering there before the altar and go. First be reconciled to your brother, and then come and present your offering.

Exodus 22:6-8

6“If a man entrusts his neighbor with money or items for safekeeping, and it is stolen out of the man’s house, when the thief is found, he must pay double.

7If the thief is not found, then the master of the house is to present himself to G-d, to see whether he has laid his hand on his neighbor’s goods.

8For any transgression—whether ox, donkey, sheep, clothing, or anything else lost—when someone says, ‘This is mine!’ the case of both parties is to be brought before G-d. The one whom G-d convicts is to pay double to his neighbor.

If your Brother has something against you how can you come before G-d alone. If your coming to the lord alone make it right with your Brother if not your being disobedient.

Make friends quickly with your opponent while you are with him on the way. Otherwise, your opponent may hand you over to the judge, and the judge to the assistant, and you will be thrown into prison.

26 Amen, I tell you, you will never get out of there until you have paid back the last penny!

Exodus 22:24

24 “If you lend money to any of My people, to the poor among you, you are not to act like a debt collector with him, and you are not to charge him interest. Yeshua was pointing out that Torah wasn't being followed. They had wholeheartedly accepted the Roman way and were sinning.

He was making a statement about sin. There is no difference between sins. No big ones or little ones all equal. They carry the same price. A price He would eventually pay for us.

should not be controversial on any level, especially not to the Torah observant.

What was controversial to me was the expanded the word of G-d statement.