SeekGod.ca Discussion Forum

Hello

As a "good" jewish young manHe supposed to wear a tallit i guess, with the fringles on it ......
But i don t think the bible mentions this expliciet.
However in messianic circles they claim He did, because of the woman with blood issues. I have been told she touched his fringles of tallit.
So i looked it up in english and dutch, and it does nt say tallit!

Mat 9:20 And, behold, a woman, which was diseased with an issue of blood twelve years, came behind him, and touched the hem of his garment: Mat 9:21 For she said within herself, If I may but touch his garment, I shall be whole.
Mat 9:22 But Jesus turned him about, and when he saw her, he said, Daughter, be of good comfort; thy faith hath made thee whole. And the woman was made whole from that hour.

Mat 9:20 (En ziet, een vrouw die twaalf jaren het bloedvloeien gehad had, komende tot Hem van achteren, raakte den zoom Zijns kleeds aan;

In dutch it means the bottom of his robe or "dress"'(not a feminine dress lol)
or even coat.

We asume alot of things that are not written in bible how he lived , what he wear etc, because he was jewish He will have hehaved like a jew for instance.
So we don t know if He wear a tzit tzit.

I also found it amazing that the messianics say the sheet from the vision of peter was a tzit tzit!!!

So she touched the bottom of what He was wearing. Whatever it was.



EMJE

I do suspect that the commandment to wear prayer shawls of whatever kind, or to bond their heads and hands with phylacteries etc was to show that the most zealous of human effort to remember the commandments of God would in fact never work .

They did all these things but forgot the real commandments, being obsessed instead with trivial minutiae which did not address the issue. I think this can be seen in Jesus' angry denounciations of the Pharisees (and you know, I almost sympathize with them for feeling insulted. I have worked my trail off for years and God tells me my effort is a sinful waste also. Yet i am not pleased to hear it even though it means rest and peace)

As being commanded to be loving highlights the fact that we are selfish so being commanded to remember highlights the fact that we are wilfully forgetful.

And I say "willfully" as, in my own experience, when God sometimes speaks to me by his spirit, i forget it within seconds. I dont thijnk i am that close to dementia yet, but i do think it is my own deceitful way of hiding from the question. All I can do is see this happen and marvel that He bothers to continue with me . . . .

My much vaunted honesty is nothing llike it seems .

Trying to remember is as dangerous mentally (it put my mind under intolerable stress) as trying to believe or obey.

It is easier and more honest to admit the contrary, but will we?

Will we heck!!!

(01-01-2009 06:19 PM)Emjesown Wrote: [ -> ]Hello

As a "good" jewish young manHe supposed to wear a tallit i guess, with the fringles on it ......
But i don t think the bible mentions this expliciet.
However in messianic circles they claim He did, because of the woman with blood issues. I have been told she touched his fringles of tallit.
So i looked it up in english and dutch, and it does nt say tallit!

Mat 9:20 And, behold, a woman, which was diseased with an issue of blood twelve years, came behind him, and touched the hem of his garment: Mat 9:21 For she said within herself, If I may but touch his garment, I shall be whole.
Mat 9:22 But Jesus turned him about, and when he saw her, he said, Daughter, be of good comfort; thy faith hath made thee whole. And the woman was made whole from that hour.

Mat 9:20 (En ziet, een vrouw die twaalf jaren het bloedvloeien gehad had, komende tot Hem van achteren, raakte den zoom Zijns kleeds aan;

In dutch it means the bottom of his robe or "dress"'(not a feminine dress lol)
or even coat.

We asume alot of things that are not written in bible how he lived , what he wear etc, because he was jewish He will have hehaved like a jew for instance.
So we don t know if He wear a tzit tzit.

I also found it amazing that the messianics say the sheet from the vision of peter was a tzit tzit!!!

So she touched the bottom of what He was wearing. Whatever it was.



EMJE

Good questions, emje!

I should probably explain something. A tallit is a garment, a prayer shawl that has fringes on it. The fringes are called tzitzit in Hebrew. It the tzitzit that were commanded in Torah and were to be placed on existing garments. There was no such thing as a prayer shawl in the Bible - either the OT or the NT.

Yes, the woman touched the fringes or tzitzit that Jesus wore. The greek shows this:

Mat 9:20 And, behold, a woman, which was diseased with an issue of blood twelve years, came behind him, and touched the hem [G2899 - kraspedon = fringes, outer edge] of his garment:

Yes, some Messianics say that the sheet in Peter's vision was a tallit. But as was shown in the article, there were no tallits in the NT. It is a man-made garment based in kabbalistic concepts from the middle ages CE, and not of God.

(01-01-2009 08:23 PM)Emjesown Wrote: [ -> ]]Hi

Some thoughts and a Q......

Do you think that jesus lived excectly like a jewish men should?
In everything i mean.

The mesisianics use that fact as prove that we also have to live torah.
My answer is then:
Off course He did...he was born from a woman under the law, bible sais.
If he had n t lived torah 100% He could not have been messiah....right?

But after He died.....the laws of the "husband"did not aply to the "bride"anymore....she was no longer under His laws.
Marriege.....husband dead......she is allowed to marrie again with a new husband
i see that in a way like:
Jesus died, Christ ressorected(new husband new laws)
Since He shed His blood for a new convenant (marriege-contract)
Do i see this correctly or am i rambling? :what:

EMJE[/size]

Hi Emje,

He likely was exemplary at being obedient, but when His ministry started, things changed. And we know that, because the Scriptures tell us that.

I'm swiping some things I have on another thread, so if it looks familiar:

Jesus had the authority to give new commandments, which He did, when He said things like "it has been said,... but I say unto you"--my paraphrase. We also know that He did in fact change some of the application of the Mosaic law--which we know came down from God. So we know He also had the authority to change it, and did in fact, on many occasions, from touching dead bodies, being with non Jews, and becoming unclean etc.

Mat 5:27-28
(27) Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:
(28) But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

Here is an example of changing the Mosaic Law--before He was crucified and the New Covenant enforced.


Joh 8:3-11
(3) And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst,
(4) They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.(5) Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?
(6) This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not.
(7) So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.(8) And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.
(9) And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.
(10) When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?
(11) She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.

No longer could it be that they were judge of sin and then carrying out the sentence. Instead it became a very personal issue, and that was --each of us is guilty and responsible before Him for our own sins. He was transitioning from the sacrficial system to His final sacrfice for all sins, and He had the authority and showed it--that He alone could forgive sins.

So, did anyone break the Mosaic Law? Did the accusers who caught her in adultery , break the law by not stoning her, which should have been done? Did Jesus break the Mosaic Law? Or, did He in fact, show that He was bringing in the promised New Covenant?

Jesus constantly forgave sins--even before He was crucified, and that is not in Torah. But it is in the New Covenant because of Him.

Lev 4:20 And he shall do with the bullock as he did with the bullock for a sin offering, so shall he do with this: and the priest shall make an atonement for them, and it shall be forgiven them

Lev 4:26 And he shall burn all his fat upon the altar, as the fat of the sacrifice of peace offerings: and the priest shall make an atonement for him as concerning his sin, and it shall be forgiven him

Lev 17:11 For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.

2Ch 29:24 And the priests killed them, and they made reconciliation with their blood on the altar, to make an atonement for all Israel: for the king commanded that the burnt offering and the sin offering should be made for all Israel.

Heb 10:1-4
(1) For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.
(2) For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins.
(3) But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year.
(4) For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins. ...Heb 10:6 In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure.
Heb 10:10-12
(10) By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
(11) And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins:
(12) But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;

Everything changed when Christ died for us. But even during His ministry He was showing that God's law encompassed more than what was given to Moses... and we know that because even Abraham obeyed God--and there had been no law given. He was faithful. Every jot and tittle is His law and His words---not just the Mosaic law--His words will never pass away, but we know that Bibles and manuscripts will pass away. We know the Pharisees failed miserably because they added to the law and added burdens that shouldn't have been and they failed to teach the things of God, the things necessary to walk with God--faith, mercy and and His perfect judgment.


Jesus was not guilty of any sin, and yet we see Him presenting new things, which appear to contradict the Mosaic law and showing the Spirit of the law instead of the letter. What do you think?

Here is an example of changing the Mosaic Law--before He was crucified and the New Covenant enforced (here follows the woman taken in adultery account . . . .).


Stref: I am troubled by the notion that He was changing the Mosaic Law. Did He change the Law by exercising his prerogative as Emperor to forgive? I dont think so. God has always had mercy on those who He came to if they would receive it, even in the OT. He also said that not one jot or title of the LAw would pass away.

In stripping away the inevitiable carnal minded interpretation which is the only thing we hypocrites will produce when we try the only way we can to keep the Law, was He changing the Law? Or was He removing the barnacles that had encrusted the stone tablets of Laws, so to speak, that had been immersed in a sea of flesh for centuries

The question here is this: If Jesus fulfilled the Law where does this leave us?

The thing i think to remember is what the Law forshadowed. Did it foreshadow another Law? Well, if so that does me no good because i can no more love God than i can keep the 10 commandments. All too often christians just told me to love people, as if such superficial string of pat answers solved anything. Because I knew that I didnt and couldn't love in a godly manner, and the help they told me to seek did not exist a new Law is no better than an old one. I say no help existed as their reification of grace as an impersonal power i could receive with enough "faith" is superstiton. Or, if it were real I was irretrievably damned for refusing it, and clearly I was refusijng it for i was still defeated. James's slightly differing perspective does not contradict me, I hold.

Or did the Law foreshadow a Person- A living person who will lead me to the repentance I cannot possibly conjure up.

If Jesus wore tallit, if he fulfilled the Law and, if tallit was commanded, must I wear tallit?

If not the question here is really only of historical interest.

Must i show humility and rememberance by wearing certain garments, or will thes things come through if we have a changed heart, without the need for the externals.

If they do not then the externals are useless, if they do they are irrelevant. Does not this answer the question?

HR focusses on the externals. They are stil pharisees

(01-01-2009 09:57 PM)strefanash Wrote: [ -> ]Here is an example of changing the Mosaic Law--before He was crucified and the New Covenant enforced (here follows the woman taken in adultery account . . . .).


Stref: I am troubled by the notion that He was changing the Mosaic Law. Did He change the Law by exercising his prerogative as Emperor to forgive? I dont think so. God has always had mercy on those who He came to if they would receive it, even in the OT. He also said that not one jot or title of the LAw would pass away.....
The question here is this: If Jesus fulfilled the Law where does this leave us?

The thing i think to remember is what the Law forshadowed. Did it foreshadow another Law? ... Or did the Law foreshadow a Person- A living person who will lead me to the repentance I cannot possibly conjure up.

If Jesus wore tallit, if he fulfilled the Law and, if tallit was commanded, must I wear tallit?

If not the question here is really only of historical interest.

Must i show humility and rememberance by wearing certain garments, or will thes things come through if we have a changed heart, without the need for the externals.

If they do not then the externals are useless, if they do they are irrelevant. Does not this answer the question?

HR focusses on the externals. They are stil pharisees

Hey Stref,
Jesus didn't wear a tallit---that's a later addition.

Re: the woman taken in adultery. That Jesus showed compassion and mercy and ended the incident by telling her to go and sin no more--does not change that in the Mosaic Law, if enforced in this instance, she would have been stoned.

Exo 20:14 Thou shalt not commit adultery.

Lev 20:10 And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.

Deu 5:18 Neither shalt thou commit adultery.

Of course, the woman taken in adultery accusation lacked the man who was also committing the sin.

Since God gave the laws, He alone had the authority to not enforce, change or add to them. Just as He had the perogative to offer a better way.

Jesus was exhibiting mercy, but also His authority, else, why didn't they challenge HIm and stone her? He also demonstrated the coming New Covenant in action--and the Spirit of the law. Perfect Love. And Forgiveness.

I posted a nice article on the tallit on my blog - click and read

http://fortheloveoftruth.wordpress.com/

Vic,

I think my point was not dependent on whether Jesus did wear such a garment. Did they have special agarments for prayer back then. I know they had phylacteries. Are we to wear them?

I think the answer is clearly "no"