Dio:1. "Please cite chapter and verse in the Gospels where Jesus said to kiss his butt."
Matthew 7:21-27. John 15:4-7. Matthew 10:32
***

Matthew 7:21-27

Matthew 7 (ESV)
21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ 23 And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’

V 21 The ones who will enter the kingdom of heaven as those who do the will of the Father. Not kissing the butt of Jesus but doing what the Father said. What did the Father say to do? What is in the written Torah, the word of God.

Matthew 19 (ESV)
16 And behold, a man came up to him, saying, “Teacher, what good deed must I do to have eternal life?” 17 And he said to him, “Why do you ask me about what is good? There is only one who is good. If you would enter life, keep the commandments.” 18 He said to him, “Which ones?” And Jesus said, “You shall not murder, You shall not commit adultery, You shall not steal, You shall not bear false witness, 19 Honor your father and mother, and, You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”

Which commandments are to be followed? The ones in the Torah- these are all quotes from the Torah - and especially the ones that actually accomplish something good- like the particular ones cited - and not just meaningless ritual like for example the oral Torah of the Pharisees that Jesus called ‘commandments of men’ in Matthew 15. Notice that in Matthew 19:17 above, Jesus directs attention to God and away from himself, a nice lead in to quoting the Torah.

Who are those in 7:22 who prophesy and cast out demons and do mighty works in the name of Jesus? Who are the workers of lawlessness (7:23) that Jesus rejects as his followers? The Pauline epistles mention prophesying, miracle working etc. but also reject the Law. Paul and his followers are the workers of lawlessness.

Matthew 7 (ESV)
24 “Everyone then who hears these words of mine and does them will be like a wise man who built his house on the rock. 25 And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house, but it did not fall, because it had been founded on the rock. 26 And everyone who hears these words of mine and does not do them will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand. 27 And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell, and great was the fall of it.”

What are the words of Jesus that are to be done? Go back and read the quote from Matthew 19 again. It is the Torah. Those who heard them and do them (follow Jewish Law) are those whose house was founded on a rock which stood. Those who hear them and do not do them are those whose house will collapse. Mathew is having Jesus argue against Pauline Christianity.

We can see here an echo of an earlier passage in Matthew.

Matthew 5 (ESV)
17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. 19 Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

The entire written Law is here to say, Matthew has Jesus say. Whoever relaxes any of the Law and teaches others the same is the pits. Anyone who accepts the entire Law goes to the head of the class. Take that Paul.

Let’s backtrack a little to Matthew 7:24 and the “wise man who built his house on the rock”. Compare that to this:

Matthew 16:18 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church,

Is Matthew authorizing the Catholic Papacy here? No. In the Pauline epistles, Paul is the apostle to the Gentiles and Peter is the apostle to the Jews. Matthew is having Jesus side with Peter, apostle of the Jewish Christian church. Once again, a slap at ‘lawless’ Paul.

That is what Matthew 7:21-27 is all about.

Matthew 10:32

In context:

Matthew 10 (ESV)
23 When they persecute you in one town, flee to the next, for truly, I say to you, you will not have gone through all the towns of Israel before the Son of Man comes.
24 “A disciple is not above his teacher, nor a servant above his master. 25 It is enough for the disciple to be like his teacher, and the servant like his master. If they have called the master of the house Beelzebul, how much more will they malign those of his household.
26 “So have no fear of them, for nothing is covered that will not be revealed, or hidden that will not be known. 27 What I tell you in the dark, say in the light, and what you hear whispered, proclaim on the housetops. 28 And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell. 29 Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? And not one of them will fall to the ground apart from your Father. 30 But even the hairs of your head are all numbered. 31 Fear not, therefore; you are of more value than many sparrows. 32 So everyone who acknowledges me before men, I also will acknowledge before my Father who is in heaven, 33 but whoever denies me before men, I also will deny before my Father who is in heaven.

V 23 Who is it that is persecuting Matthew’s Jewish Christian community in Israel?
V 24 Who is it that said that Jesus’ master is Beelzebul?

Matthew 12 (ESV)
22 Then a demon-oppressed man who was blind and mute was brought to him, and he healed him, so that the man spoke and saw. 23 And all the people were amazed, and said, “Can this be the Son of David?” 24 But when the Pharisees heard it, they said, “It is only by Beelzebul, the prince of demons, that this man casts out demons.”

It is the Pharisees. In the time when Matthew wrote, ca. 80 CE or so, that would be the equivalent of the Pharisees that would be opposed to Jewish Christianity? It would be the new rabbinic Judaism, founded by Pharisees and denying that Jesus was the Messiah. But those who acknowledge Jesus as the Jewish Messiah – the theme of Matthew – will be acknowledged before the Father.

This is what Matthew 10:32 is about: encouraging Jewish Christians to keep the faith that Jesus really was the Messiah. No butt kissing involved.

John 15:4-7

In context.:

John 15
1 “I am the true vine, and my Father is the vinedresser. 2 Every branch in me that does not bear fruit he takes away, and every branch that does bear fruit he prunes, that it may bear more fruit. 3 Already you are clean because of the word that I have spoken to you. 4 Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit by itself, unless it abides in the vine, neither can you, unless you abide in me. 5 I am the vine; you are the branches. Whoever abides in me and I in him, he it is that bears much fruit, for apart from me you can do nothing. 6 If anyone does not abide in me he is thrown away like a branch and withers; and the branches are gathered, thrown into the fire, and burned. 7 If you abide in me, and my words abide in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be done for you. 8 By this my Father is glorified, that you bear much fruit and so prove to be my disciples.

Jesus is the vine. His disciples, the people he is talking to, are the branches, the extensions of Jesus that will go out into the world preaching. Jesus has been gone a long time when John wrote. Unlike the other Gospels, John has abandoned the idea of a near-term return of Jesus. It is now around the end of the 1st century and that idea does not sell any more. To keep the faith alive, a continuing connection to (the absent) Jesus is stressed. The disciples – and by extension everyone – must keep their minds connected t Jesus. They must abide in Jesus and Jesus will abide in them. Two-way street here. A kind of equality and even equivalence, not butt kissing.

Any of the disciples (original or later Christian) who do not acknowledge this intimate connection to Jesus is going to be removed by the Father. Some of those who do acknowledge this connection are going to be pruned (martyred), their faith serving as an example to others of keeping the faith. This was the age of the so-called Domitian persecutions, which were actually carried on more or less unofficially in the provinces and only vaguely authorized by Rome. Earlier there had been a serious persecution of Christians in Rome under Nero, which Mark refers to. John 21 refers to the crucifixion of Peter, which tradition has happening in Rome under Nero,

4. "It was only by the strict interpretation of the rule-obsessive Shammai Pharisees that Jesus was perceived to break the Law. His disciples were hungry and they pulled off some heads of grain to eat. According to rabbinical interpretation reaping is work. Whether this really counts as reaping is the question."

You are ignoring the story in Exodus 16:14-35 about the manna. They had to collect enough of it on the 6th day so that they would have enough for the Sabbath. In Exodus 16:29 it says that on the sixth day they were to gather enough manna for the Sabbath and that they were not to go out. Moses would have had the disciples stoned to death for being too stupid to not have enough food for the Sabbath without having to gather it on the day of rest.

***

Exodus 16
4 Then the Lord said to Moses, “Behold, I am about to rain bread from heaven for you, and the people shall go out and gather a day's portion every day, that I may test them, whether they will walk in my law or not.

Preparing a meal is work. Gathering a day’s portion of manna is like preparing a meal to be eaten later. It is not eaten on the spot. Eating is not work. In fact, Jewish Sabbath is very much about eating. Manna was eaten on the Sabbath. Not work.

The word translated as ‘work’ is melachah.

“Melachah generally refers to the kind of work that is creative, or that exercises control or dominion over your environment.”
http://www.jewfaq.org/shabbat.htm

Recall the distinction between gathering and simply eating that is drawn in Deuteronomy.

Deuteronomy 23 (ESV)
24 If you go into your neighbor's vineyard, you may eat your fill of grapes, as many as you wish, but you shall not put any in your bag. 25 If you go into your neighbor's standing grain, you may pluck the ears with your hand, but you shall not put a sickle to your neighbor's standing grain.

Putting the grapes in a bag would be harvesting, implying dominion over the environment. Likewise, putting a sickle to standing grain. Simply eating, even though it is not even yours, is of no consequence other than satisfying hunger. And that is definitely allowed on the Sabbath. Harvesting your neighbor’s crops for other than eating on the spot is exercising dominion over your neighbor’s environment and therefore not allowed ever.

Shammai was a stickler for strict interpretation of the Law. His followers were just plain fanatical about over-interpretation. Rabbinic Judaism, which is the basis of today’s Orthodox Judaism, was founded by the Hillel Pharisees who mostly followed Hillel’s interpretations rather than Shammai’s. But it was the Shammai Pharisees who were predominant in the era in question.

Gathering manna and not eating it all on the spot is like putting grapes in a bag or cutting down grain. It is work because it exercises dominion over the environment, gathering food for later use. Exodus is irrelevant to the case at hand.

Diotrephes

#2
You said a particular passage represented Jesus having something and refusing to give it up when asked. Jesus never had the perfume and was never asked to give it up. Judas said that it should have gone to the poor, meaning his own pocket. Now you want to turn it into something else other than what you said. Face it, your claim was wrong. You picked the verses, not me.

BTW with your ‘move the goalposts’ style of argument, you would do well as a Christian apologist.

#5
Dio: "Jesus was not a Pharisee. Pharisees believed in the oral Torah. Jesus did not. Christians and Muslims do not believe in the oral Torah Pharisaic rules. "

Of course Jesus, Christians, and muslims and you believe in what the Pharisees believed in. They believed in ghosts, angels, demons, spirits, and resurrections. Jesus believed in those same things. Christians believe in those same things. Muslims believe in those same things. And you believe in those same things. That qualifies you and people who believe in those things as Pharisees. Sadducees don't believe in that crap.
***

Careful with lugging those goalposts around. You could get a hernia. The subject was whether Jesus subscribed to the excessively strict rules and regulations of the Shammai Pharisees. He did not as is very plain from a number of passages. Belief in ‘ghosts, angels, demons, spirits, and resurrection’ are irrelevant to that. Orthodox Jews believe in eating. You believe in eating. Therefore you believe the same things as Orthodox Jews. Duh…

You are getting really desperate in your ‘arguments’ and everyone sees it.

BTW where did you ever get the idea that I believe in the supernatural? If you look at my profile, you will see that I am an atheist. I am just well informed about the subject matter as you are clearly not.

Dio: “Wrong. In Jewish law, obtaining necessary medical treatment is always allowed even if it contravenes almost all other laws."

Can you give one instance from the Old Testament when someone was given medical treatment on the sabbath?
***

I linked a Jewish rabbinical source, which quoted Leviticus, Tractate Yoma of the Talmud and the Halakha, for my claim about what Jewish beliefs and practices are in this regard. You did not want to include that link in your quote because it destroyed your argument.

Here is that link again.
https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/saving-a-life-pikuach-nefesh/

Can you give one instance from the Old Testament where someone is refused medical treatment because it is the Sabbath? Mitzvah 263 says “To make a parapet for your roof”. This helps prevent people from falling off and being hurt. Can you give one instance from the Old Testament where someone made a parapet?

Dio: "Mitzvah 263 says “To make a parapet for your roof”. This helps prevent people from falling off and being hurt. Can you give one instance from the Old Testament where someone made a parapet?"

Well, as a matter of fact =

Deuteronomy 22:8 (NKJV) = “When you build a new house, then you shall make a parapet for your roof, that you may not bring guilt of bloodshed on your household if anyone falls from it."

1 Kings 10:12 (CEB) = "The king used the almug wood to make parapets for the Lord’s temple and for the royal palace as well as lyres and harps for the musicians. To this day, that much almug wood hasn’t come into or been seen in Israel."

Sirach 9:13 (CEB) = "Keep far away from people who have the authority to kill, and you won’t be worried by the fear of death. If you do approach them, don’t make a mistake, or they might take away your life. Be aware that you are stepping among traps and that you are walking on the parapet of the city’s walls."

Can you give an example from the Old Testament when someone gave a person medical treatment on the sabbath?
***

Deuteronomy 22:8 is the law that is expressed in Mitzvah 263. It is not itself an example of anyone building a parapet.

I noticed that you quoted this from the NKJV rather than your usual CEB. The CEB words it a little differently.

Deuteronomy 22:8 (CEB)
8 Whenever you build a new house, you must build a railing for the roof so that you don’t end up with innocent blood on your hands because someone fell off of it.

There is no difference in meaning. A parapet in the intended sense is a railing around the roof to keep people from falling off.

In the Hebrew for Deuteronomy 22:8, the word translated as ‘parapet’ is מַעֲקֶ֖ה (Strong’s H4624).
https://biblehub.com/interlinear/deuteronomy/22.htm
https://biblehub.com/hebrew/4624.htm

In the Hebrew for 1 Kings 10:12, the word that the CEB translates as ‘parapet’ is מִסְעָ֤ד (Strong’s H4552), which actually translates as ‘supports’. Parapets are on the roof, supports hold up the roof.
https://biblehub.com/interlinear/1_kings/10.htm
https://biblehub.com/hebrew/4552.htm

The NKJV, which you used to get the word ‘parapet’ in Deuteronomy 22:8, translates this verse as follows:

1 Kings 10:12 (NKJV)
12 And the king made [d]steps of the almug wood for the house of the Lord and for the king’s house, also harps and stringed instruments for singers. There never again came such almug wood, nor has the like been seen to this day.

The word becomes ‘steps’ with a footnote [d] that reads ‘or supports’. But not ‘parapets’.

Chabad Lubavitch translates this verse as:

Melachim I :10
12 And the king made of the almog-wood a path to the House of the Lord and to the king's palace, harps and psalteries to [accompany] the vocalists, there had come no such almog-wood nor has there been seen to this day.
https://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/15894

A path, which could be steps. But not a parapet.

It is unusual to use Sirach to determine the meaning of the Tanach, since it is not canonical. But let’s look at it anyway.

There is no Hebrew text of Sirach available. We must look to the Greek Septuagint instead.

The word that CEB translates as parapet is ἐπάλξεων.
http://en.katabiblon.com/us/index.php?text=LXX&book=Sir&ch=9&interlin=on

To find the meaning of ἐπάλξεων, requires going to the Greek classics. The good old Perseus project at Tufts University to the rescue! The word ἐπάλξεων means ‘breastwork’ or ‘battlement’. The battlements on a city wall usually were the stone crenellations – alternating high and low stonework – that allow defenders to fire arrows, throw stones etc. through the gaps then duck behind the high stonework for cover. The word parapet is sometimes used for this but it is not at all what Mitzvah 263 had in mind. it is not to keep people from falling off but from getting hit by arrows or slings.
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.00...)%2Fpalcis

Breastwork is a low temporary fortification that is breast high. Similar idea – shoot then duck. But Sirach refers to a city wall so ‘battlement’ is the applicable word.

Let’s see how this applies to Sirach.

Sirach 9:13 (CEB) = "Keep far away from people who have the authority to kill, and you won’t be worried by the fear of death. If you do approach them, don’t make a mistake, or they might take away your life. Be aware that you are stepping among traps and that you are walking on the parapet of the city’s walls."

‘Walking on the parapet of the city walls’ clearly does not mean walking up and down on the crenellations. Nobody could possibly do that. It means walking on top of the city wall where the crenellations are. In other words, liable to be subjected to attack. Don’t make a mistake or they might take away your life.

The application of Mitzvah 263 is not found in the OT, not even in non-canonical Sirach.

So have you found an example of someone being refused medical treatment on the Sabbath? Once more, here is a link to a Jewish rabbinical source, which quoted Leviticus, Tractate Yoma of the Talmud and the Halakha, for my claim about what Jewish beliefs and practices are in this regard. To argue against that you need a counter-example, not just demand an example.
https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/saving-a-life-pikuach-nefesh/