Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
markdohle

Doubt and faith

151 posts in this topic

So, why did the Pharisees criticize Jesus for healing on the Sabbath?

Hateful BS by the Hellenist who wrote that gospel. On the contrary, the Pharisees themselves would work on the Sabbath to save a life. Instead of criticizing Jesus they rather went out of their way to save Jesus from the cross by asking him to stop his disciples acclaiming him king of the Jews at the entrance of Jerusalem because that could end up with him on the cross. (Luke 19:37-40) Since Jesus' answer was that he could not, he was arrested and crucified by the Romans. Evidence that his own disciples caused Jesus to be crucified was his verdict nailed by Pilate on the top of Jesus' cross: INRI.

If they are obeying God's Laws, why are they still being punished after 2,000 years? It seems to me that robotically obeying laws doesn't bring much spiritual solace. Do you think obeying laws necessarily makes you a 'good' person?

I don't have to think; I am sure. Let us assume here a situation. A law-abiding Jew is driving his car alongside a grace-abiding Christian who claims Jesus has sacrificed himself for him to be above the law. Before an intercession the Jew stops for the signal to turn green while the Christian went right ahead and got photographed. After 3 days the christian gets a letter with a ticket to show up in Court to explain why he broke the law. No need to go over the troubles he went through, don't you think much worth was to obey the law?

You mentioned previously that you don't believe in hell and that obeying God's Laws gives you peace of mind. So, you just obey them to give you peace of mind? That is the most inane, egocentric, unspiritual view I think I have ever come across on any forum.

Jesus was also a Jew and he didn't believe in hell either aside from the grave; and to have a peaceful state of mind for the reason to obey the Law, Jesus himself said that the kingdom of heaven is to be found within ourselves and not a place to go to. (Luke 17:21) Now compare my reason to obey the Law and yours for fear of hell or with an eye in the reward of heaven. Which one is the insane here? No offense meant but only dogs and slaves behave better with a treat as a reward.

Edited by Ben Masada

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't necessarily agree with your assertion (the reason the Northern kingdom of Israel was destroyed in 722 BC was because of their own sin in going against God), but presuming your comments here reflect your own beliefs, doesn't that contradict your interpretation of Jeremiah 31:30?

No, it does not. Jeremiah is speaking about an individual having to be sacrificed for the sins of another and not that of a people by another. (Ezek. 18;20) Throughout the History of Israel every year a prophetic scapegoat had to be chosen by lots from two goats and to be sent to "Azazel" which means to the desert eastward so that the other would remain in Jerusalem. There was a time during the kingdom of Ahaz king of Judah when Syria and Samaria were ganged up to make war against Judah and Ahaz by sheer fear rejected God's Covenant and made one with Assyria to protect Judah by making war against Syria and Samaria. Ahaz was so serious with his decision that even immolated his own son to the Assyrian god. Judah had become doomed but since the Lord had promised David that his Tribe would remain as a Lamp in Jerusalem forever according to I Kings 11:36, the lots were thrown and when God's decision was to fall upon Judah, it fell upon Israel instead according to Isaiah 9:8. Israel had to go and Judah remained in Jerusalem. It was then that atonement of Judah was effected by Israel. That's why Israel had to be removed from the Land of Israel and sent eastward to Assyria as the Scapegoat into the desert to Azazel. That's when the Lord rejected Ephraim and confirmed Judah. (Psalm 78:67-69)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are totally wrong on Jewish culture in two counts. In the case of a life being in danger whether of my family or that of anyone else that depends on me to save it, even the life of an animal, we have the concept of "Pichuach Nephesh" that allows us to work on the Sabbath or break any other commandment to save that life. Jews don't obey God's Law because they are afraid to be punished but because it is part of the Jewish second nature.

Jesus did not save a life when he healed on the Sabbath, he cured a shrivelled hand. According to you he was not following "Pichuach Nephesh", but broke the Law of the Sabbath.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jesus did not save a life when he healed on the Sabbath, he cured a shrivelled hand. According to you he was not following "Pichuach Nephesh", but broke the Law of the Sabbath.

Balderdash! This is a lie of the Hellenist who wrote that gospel who was trying to promote the Pauline policy of Replacement Theology. Otherwise you are simply telling us that Jesus was not a Jewish man. A Jewish man most definitely would have told that man to come "tomorrow" to him. Most definitely he would if he really wanted to get his shriveled hand fixed. There was no danger of life which means that the whole thing was a lie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Baloney is to admit that an individual can die for the sins of another. You quote the right texts above and don't even understand why you have quoted them. I agree with Jeremiah and Ezekiel. You are the one whom I cannot agree with. I spoke about a people (Ephraim) being sacrificed for the sins of another (Judah) as ancient Israel was rejected by God so that Judah be confirmed. My assertion is historically documented when Ephraim the Ten Tribes were removed by Assyria in 622 BCE for good from the Land of Israel and Judah stayed as the real proprietor over the whole Land of Israel for the next 131 years according to Josephus. (Psalm 78:67-69)

No, Israel had sinned greatly before the Lord and Judah was well on its way there too. Basically Israel fell into decline quicker than Judah.

And what about Isaiah 1:1-17?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, Israel had sinned greatly before the Lord and Judah was well on its way there too. Basically Israel fell into decline quicker than Judah.

And what about Isaiah 1:1-17?

First of all, sorry for my mistake above when I typed 622 BCE for the taken over of Israel by Assyria. The year was 722 BCE.

Yes, Israel had her sins too but she "died" for the sins of another and not hers. Of her own sins she could be worse that Judah but of the sins of Judah she was a lamb.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, it does not. Jeremiah is speaking about an individual having to be sacrificed for the sins of another and not that of a people by another. (Ezek. 18;20) Throughout the History of Israel every year a prophetic scapegoat had to be chosen by lots from two goats and to be sent to "Azazel" which means to the desert eastward so that the other would remain in Jerusalem. There was a time during the kingdom of Ahaz king of Judah when Syria and Samaria were ganged up to make war against Judah and Ahaz by sheer fear rejected God's Covenant and made one with Assyria to protect Judah by making war against Syria and Samaria. Ahaz was so serious with his decision that even immolated his own son to the Assyrian god. Judah had become doomed but since the Lord had promised David that his Tribe would remain as a Lamp in Jerusalem forever according to I Kings 11:36, the lots were thrown and when God's decision was to fall upon Judah, it fell upon Israel instead according to Isaiah 9:8. Israel had to go and Judah remained in Jerusalem. It was then that atonement of Judah was effected by Israel. That's why Israel had to be removed from the Land of Israel and sent eastward to Assyria as the Scapegoat into the desert to Azazel. That's when the Lord rejected Ephraim and confirmed Judah. (Psalm 78:67-69)

So God approves of genocide in order that one race/nation can die for another, but not an individual dying for a race/nation?

I don't necessarily agree with that assertion either, I'll have to look into it later to give you my own opinion. Right now, my comments are based solely on your own input to this. And to be frank, it sounds a bit skirty to say that one person cannot die for another person, but a whole race can die for another race. The Bible seems "mum" on the matter as to whether a person can die for an entire race, or whether an entire race can die for a single individual. All are equally viable reference points, but I doubt you're going to accept them all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First of all, sorry for my mistake above when I typed 622 BCE for the taken over of Israel by Assyria. The year was 722 BCE.

Yes, Israel had her sins too but she "died" for the sins of another and not hers. Of her own sins she could be worse that Judah but of the sins of Judah she was a lamb.

Please cite your scripture, please, in the areas I bolded?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

snapback.pngjoc, on 09 November 2013 - 09:30 AM, said:

Fine. You just made my point. God had nothing to do with anything. The Prophets gave the commandments...in the name of God...in the name of ...God...whom the Prophets also created after a dream or vision.

Thank you for validating!

All right 'joc', I am glad you got the point as it is all down in Numbers 12:6. I am saying nothing out of the top of my head.

The Point therefore is that the Bible is all made up by the Prophets...everyone had a God except Israel...so they created one...

a God that was alive...like people...that had emotions like people, and who, through the Prophets tells Israel what to do...it is all about control by and for the Prophets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Balderdash! This is a lie of the Hellenist who wrote that gospel who was trying to promote the Pauline policy of Replacement Theology. Otherwise you are simply telling us that Jesus was not a Jewish man. A Jewish man most definitely would have told that man to come "tomorrow" to him. Most definitely he would if he really wanted to get his shriveled hand fixed. There was no danger of life which means that the whole thing was a lie.

I see. So you can post the original passage from the Hebrew then?

I mean, I presume there is a Hebrew, or Aramaic, original which confirms Jesus healed on the sabbath to save a life, and not merely to cure a shrivelled hand - correct?

Because you have been arguing that Jesus was a good Jewish man, and performed healing on the Sabbath to save a life, not cure a shrivelled hand - because the former would be acceptable for a 'good Jewish man'. So you have evidence for your argument - right?

Edited by Leonardo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hateful BS by the Hellenist who wrote that gospel. On the contrary, the Pharisees themselves would work on the Sabbath to save a life. Instead of criticizing Jesus they rather went out of their way to save Jesus from the cross by asking him to stop his disciples acclaiming him king of the Jews at the entrance of Jerusalem because that could end up with him on the cross. (Luke 19:37-40) Since Jesus' answer was that he could not, he was arrested and crucified by the Romans. Evidence that his own disciples caused Jesus to be crucified was his verdict nailed by Pilate on the top of Jesus' cross: INRI.

Which 'Hellenist' gospel writer are you referring to, Mark or Luke?

Mark says in 3:16

4 Then Jesus asked them, "Which is lawful on the Sabbath: to do good or to do evil, to save life or to kill?" But they remained silent.

Why did they remain silent if the Pharisees could work on the Sabbath to save a life?

Similarly , Luke describes Jesus freeing a crippled woman of an evil spirit on the Sabbath ( and her life may well have been in danger).

Luke 13. 10:17.

But the leader in charge of the synagogue was indignant that Jesus had healed her on the Sabbath day. "There are six days of the week for working," he said to the crowd. "Come on those days to be healed, not on the Sabbath."

15 But the Lord replied, "You hypocrites! Each of you works on the Sabbath day! Don’t you untie your ox or your donkey from its stall on the Sabbath and lead it out for water? 16 This dear woman, a daughter of Abraham, has been held in bondage by Satan for eighteen years. Isn’t it right that she be released, even on the Sabbath?"

The point is, the Pharisees were looking for a way to trap Jesus by trying to prove that he was breaking the Jewish law. He was an embarrassment to them, a threat to them. They wanted him out of the picture.

I don't have to think; I am sure. Let us assume here a situation. A law-abiding Jew is driving his car alongside a grace-abiding Christian who claims Jesus has sacrificed himself for him to be above the law. Before an intercession the Jew stops for the signal to turn green while the Christian went right ahead and got photographed. After 3 days the christian gets a letter with a ticket to show up in Court to explain why he broke the law. No need to go over the troubles he went through, don't you think much worth was to obey the law?

I think you have got your laws in a bit of a twist. If you are talking about a man-made law, like stopping at a red light, a law-abiding Jew/Christian/Atheist would stop as he is 'law-abiding', obviously. Do you seriously think a Christian would go through a red light, in the belief he was above the law?

If we are talking about Jewish laws from the OT, what Jesus was trying to teach was that love for God and mankind comes first, even if it breaks one of those laws like not healing on the sabbath, not eating pork, or any other of the myriad laws from Leviticus, designed to reign in an obstinate, obdurate, primitive, spiritually-challenged, not very savvy, desert tribe, prone to worshipping golden calves, committing incest, etc.

Jesus was also a Jew and he didn't believe in hell either aside from the grave

I can't believe you wrote that.

Matthew 13:50

... throwing the wicked into the fiery furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. (NLT)

Matthew 3:12

"His winnowing fan is in His hand, and He will thoroughly clean out His threshing floor, and gather His wheat into the barn; but He will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire." (NKJV)

Matthew 13:41–42

The Son of Man will send his angels, and they will remove from his Kingdom everything that causes sin and all who do evil. And the angels will throw them into the fiery furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. (NLT)

Matthew 25:41

"Then the King will turn to those on the left and say, 'Away with you, you cursed ones, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his demons.' " (NLT)

Matthew 16:18

Now I say to you that you are Peter (which means 'rock'), and upon this rock I will build my church, and all the powers of hell will not conquer it. (NLT)

Mark 9:43

If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It's better to enter eternal life with only one hand than to go into the unquenchable fires of hell with two hands. (NLT)

Now compare my reason to obey the Law and yours for fear of hell or with an eye in the reward of heaven. Which one is the insane here? No offense meant but only dogs and slaves behave better with a treat as a reward

Again, you have missed my point. The true Christian has overcome the law in the sense that he loves God and mankind so much that he naturally obeys it anyway, without fear. He/she no longer thinks about it and if he/she unwittingly breaks it, like healing someone on the Sabbath, God will forgive them.

The true Christian doesn't robotically obey the 10 commandments for 'peace of mind'. Anyone can obey laws for peace of mind, whether they believe in God or not - and it doesn't necessarily make them 'good'.

What I'm picking up from you is that a 'good' Jew is someone who obeys all the Jewish laws, feels smug about himself, and thinks that is all there is to spiritual life, and yet, still has a heart of stone, thinks he has been saved, and secretly despises others.

Edited by Philangeli

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would suggest abandoning the Jesus as Jew notion -- it is not supported by the Gospels, as you should by now see from the Bible. The reality is more like Jesus is the Greek mythical notion of a Jew.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would suggest abandoning the Jesus as Jew notion -- it is not supported by the Gospels, as you should by now see from the Bible. The reality is more like Jesus is the Greek mythical notion of a Jew.

Or, the Gospels were written by radical Jews and were subtly (or not-so-subtly) promoting a break from the current Law and authority.

Edited by Leonardo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or, the Gospels were written by radical Jews and were subtly (or not-so-subtly) promoting a break from the current Law and authority.

Well it's hard to see why they would write them in Koine Greek.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well it's hard to see why they would write them in Koine Greek.

Because that happened to be the lingua franca for the peoples in that time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because that happened to be the lingua franca for the peoples in that time.

Yes but they were Jews. Their audience was not the Hellenistic world (at least the Gospels). You said as much.

I also point out the numerous geographical errors in the Gospels and the clear use of Neo-Platonic sayings in Jesus' mouth. These all point to a Greek authorship.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would suggest abandoning the Jesus as Jew notion -- it is not supported by the Gospels, as you should by now see from the Bible. The reality is more like Jesus is the Greek mythical notion of a Jew.

I disagree The life of jesus in the gospels is exactly that of a jew, but from one particular rabbinical school or philosophy. You can identify the statements Christ makes as often coming from the leader of that jewish movement, and later his son, who lived contemporaneously with jesus and was probably his teacher.

Christ worshiped on the seventh day for example, and in jewish temples among jewish people, But he was in conflict with the much more hardline and zealous rabbinical school whose members made up most of the Pharisees at that time, and who were opposed to christ's teachings.Their conflict with christ was part of a much larger conflict between the two schools of Judaism. In the end this school of teaching/thought and interpretation became both the origin of christianity and of modern Judaism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course you repeat what almost everyone has heard from childhood. The story does no particular harm and right now I don't feel like beating my head against bricks. You might do a little research on the subject of the Greek Jesus though if you have any propensity to want to know what really happened.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes but they were Jews. Their audience was not the Hellenistic world (at least the Gospels). You said as much.

I also point out the numerous geographical errors in the Gospels and the clear use of Neo-Platonic sayings in Jesus' mouth. These all point to a Greek authorship.

Yet it is obvious from the Gospels that the audience they were intended for was not exclusively Jewish. It included the Jews, but was not solely directed at that group of people.

I agree the person(s) who wrote the Gospels had at least some education from the Greek, but that would have not been uncommon for non-Greeks (well, non-Greeks who were educated) at that time.

And I didn't say the audience was the Jews, but I do suggest the Jews - who were part of the intended audience - were being encouraged to depart from the current Law and authority.

Edited by Leonardo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course you repeat what almost everyone has heard from childhood. The story does no particular harm and right now I don't feel like beating my head against bricks. You might do a little research on the subject of the Greek Jesus though if you have any propensity to want to know what really happened.

I do not have to do much research on that. It gets forced down my throat by certain people :innocent: (not you) Certainly paul "Hellenised" the original jewish teachings of christ and did so overtly and with deliberate purpose. The early catholic church sometime later also "evolved" the original teachings into a version more accessible to the romans and clients of the roman empire.

But the words of Christ as recorded in the gospels are the same words and teachings independently recorded by the father and son rabbis who would have been christ's teachers at that time and in that place They are Judaic in nature. And in the gospel stories, Christ WAS a jew and lived just like a jew. I don't see any discrepancy. I live a life like christ's and it is a lot closer to Judaism than catholicism, for example

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would you say to trust in God requires faith ? maybe I'm wrong but I don't think it's faith . I think it's something you just know, like it's in our nature to know. I think faith is more like to hope for something , like having an uncertainty of an outcome or something but then placing faith in prayer over it.

Edit- I was looking around for a topic on Jesus Deity. And I could not find an exact topic. Being that you mention faith and doubt here , I have doubts in understanding Jesus as God in some ways and in some ways I think I get it.

There's something he said , he said in prayer - Father glorify me in your presence , with the glory I had with you before the world began.

And there's Isaiah - For unto us a child is born , to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful counselor, MIGHTY GOD, Everlasting Father, Prince of peace.

Edited by Reann

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So God approves of genocide in order that one race/nation can die for another, but not an individual dying for a race/nation?

I don't necessarily agree with that assertion either, I'll have to look into it later to give you my own opinion. Right now, my comments are based solely on your own input to this. And to be frank, it sounds a bit skirty to say that one person cannot die for another person, but a whole race can die for another race. The Bible seems "mum" on the matter as to whether a person can die for an entire race, or whether an entire race can die for a single individual. All are equally viable reference points, but I doubt you're going to accept them all.

First of all, there was no genocide. There was a war between Assyria and Israel when Israel was vanquished and exiled to Assyria. That's how Psalm 78:67-69 is interpreted as God rejected Ephraim and confirmed Judah in terms of the Atonement of Judah by the Scapegoat Israel. No genocide. Exile as Judah himself went into exile 130 years later to Babylon. Only that Israel was forever and Judah was for 70 years.

So, you say that a person can die for an entire race and Jeremiah who knew a little better than you says that no one can die for the sins of another. (Jer. 31:30) He meant an individual dying for another or for a people. Again, Israel did not physically die for Judah. Israel was removed from the Land in a final exile forever and got lost among the Gentiles. And not by means of a genocide. With that removal of Israel the tribal system was over and Judah was confirmed to take over the whole Land as one People even as we have today. Read Ezekiel 37:22.

The Bible does not seem mum at all on the matter if you check the right texts: Jeremiah 31:30; Ezekiel 18:4,20; Exodus. 32:33; and II Chronicles 25:4.

You can bring me all the references you have to substantiate your assertion and never mind if I'll be able to accept them all or not. If they contradict the Tanach I will simply reject them all. That's all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

is

Please cite your scripture, please, in the areas I bolded?

All right. According to Jewish interpretation which is the most credible one, considering that the text is Jewish, Isaiah 53 is about the Suffering Servant Israel. That servant is identified in Isaiah 41:8,9; 44:1,2,21 as being Israel. Based on this introduction, you can read the whole chapter of Isaiah 53 and you will have Israel being removed as an atonement for the sins of Judah. "And he shall take away the sins of MANY to mean Judah. The Christian claim about Jesus is that he took away the sins of all. (Isa.53:12) Which disqualify Jesus as an individual besides Jeremiah 31:30.

If you prefer a more detailed account of what really happened, read this:

Messiah ben Joseph versus Messiah ben David

The whole chapter 53 of Isaiah is about the dramatic epic of two Messiahs: Messiah ben Joseph and Messiah ben David. The drama that culminated in the "death" of Messiah ben Joseph for the sins of Messiah ben David. Properly speaking, Messiah ben Joseph is Ephraim or Israel, the Ten Tribes of the Northern Kingdom. And Messiah ben David is Judah, the Southern Kingdom.

The sins of Judah had filled the Divine cup, and in God's judgment, the day had arrived for the removal of Judah. (Isa. 9:8) But according to I Kings 11:36, God had promised David that Judah, whose Tribe he had come from, would stay as a Lamp in Jerusalem forever. Therefore, according to Isaiah 9:8, the final judgment that was supposed to come upon Judah fell upon Israel instead, and Messiah ben Joseph had to go instead of Judah, or Messiah ben David.

But Isaiah says in 53:9 that the Suffering Servant was without guile, and sinless. That's exactly what Israel was: Pure of the sins he died for, since they were the sins of Judah and not his. Messiah ben Joseph therefore, did not die for his sins but for the sins of Messiah ben David. Therefore, Israel was removed because of the sins of another. He was pierced so to speak, by the sins of Judah. The sacrifice of Israel or Messiah ben Joseph meant the salvation of Judah or Messiah ben David. That's why Zechariah in 12:10 says that they (Judah) shall look upon him (Israel) whom they (Judah) had pierced with their sins, and mourn for him (Israel) as the one who mourns for his firstborn.

Now, let me explain by way of an analogy how Israel, or Messiah ben Joseph, who was the Suffering Servant died innocent of the sins of Judah or Messiah ben David:

"A" and "B". "A" has committed a crime punishable with death, and "B", by mistake was condemned for that crime. It doesn't matter how evil is "B" in his life or how bad are his sins. The point is that he was condemned to die for the crime of "A". Therefore "B" was killed innocent and pure of the crimes and sins of "A". "A" got saved by the death of "B". So, "B" was the Suffering Servant that brought salvation to "A". Now matching the analogy to reality, "A" was Judah that pierced "B" with his crimes and sins.

Now, with the removal of Messiah ben Joseph, according to Psalm 78:67-70, Messiah ben David occupied the place of Messiah ben Joseph, but as the Triumphant Servant with reference to the rest of Mankind, because of God's promise to Noah that humanity would never be destroyed again in an universal manner. (Gen. 8:21) The People-redeemer was the pledge and on his way in the near future with the choice of Abraham through Isaac. That's what sustains the world and allows it to keep going. Now, there is a small detail worthy keeping in mind. The blood of the Suffering Servant was shed once and for all. Now, Mankind is kept safe with the existence of Judah, the Triumphant Servant, according to Jeremiah 31:35-37.

Edited by Ben Masada

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Point therefore is that the Bible is all made up by the Prophets...everyone had a God except Israel...so they created one...

a God that was alive...like people...that had emotions like people, and who, through the Prophets tells Israel what to do...it is all about control by and for the Prophets.

Yes, you finally got the idea. At least they were Jewish prophets. What did you want, that a god came down from the Olympian Pantheon of Greek Mythology to write a Bible for the Jews to organize and live in society? I am somehow glad that you got the right idea this time. Yes again, our Bible was written by wise Jews and I am glad to live according to it. Furthermore, God did not choose us; we chose God. Since we took it serious, we became known as God's chosen People. Do you know something? I am much happier that such a wise People organized the whole thing than the myth that God wrote the Law with His "own finger" as if God was like a man to write laws. All the anthropomorphic attributions to God in the Bible are all parts of the pious minds of the authors of the books.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see. So you can post the original passage from the Hebrew then?

I mean, I presume there is a Hebrew, or Aramaic, original which confirms Jesus healed on the sabbath to save a life, and not merely to cure a shrivelled hand - correct?

Because you have been arguing that Jesus was a good Jewish man, and performed healing on the Sabbath to save a life, not cure a shrivelled hand - because the former would be acceptable for a 'good Jewish man'. So you have evidence for your argument - right?

Yes, the name is "Pichuach Nephesh." That's the exception to the rule when a Jew is allowed to break the Law to save a life. And the evidence that I have is even personal when even an animal that has fallen in a big hole on the Sabbath, Jews, religious or not are allowed to set the Shabbat rules aside and get down to the business to save that animal from his predicament. Yes, Jesus had all the permission in the world to save a human life by curing on the Sabbath if the sick person was in danger to lose his or her life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.