Jews, the Talmud, and Jesus

[Sepharad]

In the few months since I’ve been here, I’ve noticed that many Catholics seem to believe that the Jewish religion as it has existed since the time of Jesus is not the same as the one that existed prior.

I have also noticed that some Catholics believe that it is the teachings of the Talmud (the Jewish formerly-oral law, now set into writing) which prevent Jews from believing in Jesus.

(I’ve gathered this from not only this forum, but a number of other Catholic websites, blogs, etc which I’ve been reading over.)

I’d like to offer some explanations, and some food for thought.

1. Judaism has always been an evolving religion. Judaism is the same religion as it has always been, but it does change and evolve over time.

The Judaism that existed in the time of Jesus, for example, was quite different in some ways from the Judaism that existed in the time of Moses. Circumstances and situations often brought about changes and evolutions, as did different schools of thought within Judaism.

1. The Talmud alone is not the reason why Jews do not accept Jesus. The Medieval chuch did not understand this; they ordered public burnings of the Talmud (notably, in France in the 1200s), because they felt the Talmud contained insults against Jesus (it did not), and that it was what was preventing Jews from entering the church.

There are a number of groups of Jews which have existed for many centuries, and that never had any exposure to the Talmud. The Karaite Jews are one such group; the Ethiopian Jews and Chinese Jews of Kaifeng are another.

While some might claim that the Karaite Jews of Lithuania and Egypt did, somewhere along the line, have exposure to the Talmud (yet they rejected it), the Jews in Ethiopia were cut off from the rest of world Jewry for many centuries…in fact when they were first discovered by explorers who were Jewish, they refused to let them enter their Ethiopian synagogues because they felt sure they were not Jews because they were white!

They had absolutely no exposure to the Talmud at all, and their Judaism consisted solely of following the Torah and the rest of the “Old Testament”…yet they too strongly always rejected a belief in Jesus. They were persecuted terribly by Christians over the centuries, for refusing to convert, in fact.

The Jews of Kaifeng, China, were first discovered by Catholic missionaries in the Middle Ages…they too had never heard of the Talmud, yet strongly resisted any attempts to convert them to Christianity.

So there is something which prevents Jews, no matter where they are, from accepting a belief in Jesus…and evidently, it does not come from the teachings of the Talmud.

 

[ralphinal]

From what I can tell, and I have looked at this a little, it can be best to see Judaism as a city of sorts. It started with one house and grew and grew, with some parts losing population and other parts growing. The city today may or may not be recognizable to someone from years ago at first glance, but it would not take long for them to see how it is the same.

I had never heard that the Talmud contained insults towards Jesus before a few months ago on here.

I can think of several reasons that Jews then did not accept Jesus as well as Jews today not accepting him. There is no one reason that applies across the board.

 

[inJESUS]

Would a Jew rejected Jesus from simply reading the OT? history till now says no. Isn’t it the interpretation found in Talmud/mishna?

 

[KingAlfred]

In the few months since I’ve been here, I’ve noticed that many Catholics seem to believe that the Jewish religion as it has existed since the time of Jesus is not the same as the one that existed prior.

I have also noticed that some Catholics believe that it is the teachings of the Talmud (the Jewish formerly-oral law, now set into writing) which prevent Jews from believing in Jesus.

(I’ve gathered this from not only this forum, but a number of other Catholic websites, blogs, etc which I’ve been reading over.)

I’d like to offer some explanations, and some food for thought.

1. Judaism has always been an evolving religion. Judaism is the same religion as it has always been, but it does change and evolve over time.

The Judaism that existed in the time of Jesus, for example, was quite different in some ways from the Judaism that existed in the time of Moses. Circumstances and situations often brought about changes and evolutions, as did different schools of thought within Judaism.

1. The Talmud alone is not the reason why Jews do not accept Jesus. The Medieval chuch did not understand this; they ordered public burnings of the Talmud (notably, in France in the 1200s), because they felt the Talmud contained insults against Jesus (it did not), and that it was what was preventing Jews from entering the church.

There are a number of groups of Jews which have existed for many centuries, and that never had any exposure to the Talmud. The Karaite Jews are one such group; the Ethiopian Jews and Chinese Jews of Kaifeng are another.

While some might claim that the Karaite Jews of Lithuania and Egypt did, somewhere along the line, have exposure to the Talmud (yet they rejected it), the Jews in Ethiopia were cut off from the rest of world Jewry for many centuries…in fact when they were first discovered by explorers who were Jewish, they refused to let them enter their Ethiopian synagogues because they felt sure they were not Jews because they were white!

They had absolutely no exposure to the Talmud at all, and their Judaism consisted solely of following the Torah and the rest of the “Old Testament”…yet they too strongly always rejected a belief in Jesus. They were persecuted terribly by Christians over the centuries, for refusing to convert, in fact.

The Jews of Kaifeng, China, were first discovered by Catholic missionaries in the Middle Ages…they too had never heard of the Talmud, yet strongly resisted any attempts to convert them to Christianity.

So there is something which prevents Jews, no matter where they are, from accepting a belief in Jesus…and evidently, it does not come from the teachings of the Talmud.

The Jews don’t believe Jesus was the Messiah.

 

[Sepharad]

Would a Jew rejected Jesus from simply reading the OT? history till now says no. Isn’t it the interpretation found in Talmud/mishna?

Well, my own rejection came solely from a study of the Torah and the rest of the Tanakh (“Old” Testament). Talmudic arguments would not have been enough to persuade me because truth be told, I’ve always had more of a Karaite mindset anyway.

A Christian might then wonder, How is it that Christians see Jesus in the OT, when for Jews, they do not see him, and in fact see warnings not to accept anything like Jesus?

Because Christians adopt Jesus FIRST, and then LOOK BACK at the Jewish Bible to try to “find” Jesus in there. Another Jewish poster once explained it very well, better than am doing right now!

If I’d never heard of Jesus FIRST, I would not ‘see’ him in the Jewish Bible, the thought would never have occurred to me. But AFTER having heard of him and what Christians believe about him, I can see how they see him in there. But that’s because the idea of Jesus was planted in their minds FIRST.

This online book is a polemical work written by Rabbi Isaac of Troki, in the Middle Ages. He was a Karaite Jewish rabbi (Karaites do not believe in the Talmud, only the “Old Testament”.) He gives in this book Chizzuk Emunah, a complete explanation of why Jews do not accept Jesus, and he does it solely with Biblical references: faithstrengthened.org

 

[inJESUS]

Because Christians adopt Jesus FIRST, and then LOOK BACK at the Jewish Bible to try to “find” Jesus in there. Another Jewish poster once explained it very well, better than am doing right now!

this is normal…likewise, you will look at what a man does and go back to your teachings to see if he fits the Messiah description or not. If 2 Jews reach different opinions reading the OT, what would be the reference to see who is right if it is not the OT ? the interpretation of it?

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Well, my own rejection came solely from a study of the Torah and the rest of the Tanakh (“Old” Testament). Talmudic arguments would not have been enough to persuade me because truth be told, I’ve always had more of a Karaite mindset anyway.

A Christian might then wonder, How is it that Christians see Jesus in the OT, when for Jews, they do not see him, and in fact see warnings not to accept anything like Jesus?

Because Christians adopt Jesus FIRST, and then LOOK BACK at the Jewish Bible to try to “find” Jesus in there. Another Jewish poster once explained it very well, better than am doing right now!

If I’d never heard of Jesus FIRST, I would not ‘see’ him in the Jewish Bible, the thought would never have occurred to me. But AFTER having heard of him and what Christians believe about him, I can see how they see him in there. But that’s because the idea of Jesus was planted in their minds FIRST.

This online book is a polemical work written by Rabbi Isaac of Troki, in the Middle Ages. He was a Karaite Jewish rabbi (Karaites do not believe in the Talmud, only the “Old Testament”.) He gives in this book Chizzuk Emunah, a complete explanation of why Jews do not accept Jesus, and he does it solely with Biblical references: faithstrengthened.org

this doesn’t address the problem of how all the first and earliest Christians were Hebrews, and many, like St. Paul, of the same bent that produced Judaism.

Of the New Testament, only St. Luke and Acts were written by a gentile. and the Church was built up the first generation, 20 years, only on the Old Testament.

 

[ralphinal]

Well, my own rejection came solely from a study of the Torah and the rest of the Tanakh (“Old” Testament). Talmudic arguments would not have been enough to persuade me because truth be told, I’ve always had more of a Karaite mindset anyway.

A Christian might then wonder, How is it that Christians see Jesus in the OT, when for Jews, they do not see him, and in fact see warnings not to accept anything like Jesus?

Because Christians adopt Jesus FIRST, and then LOOK BACK at the Jewish Bible to try to “find” Jesus in there. Another Jewish poster once explained it very well, better than am doing right now!

If I’d never heard of Jesus FIRST, I would not ‘see’ him in the Jewish Bible, the thought would never have occurred to me. But AFTER having heard of him and what Christians believe about him, I can see how they see him in there. But that’s because the idea of Jesus was planted in their minds FIRST.

This online book is a polemical work written by Rabbi Isaac of Troki, in the Middle Ages. He was a Karaite Jewish rabbi (Karaites do not believe in the Talmud, only the “Old Testament”.) He gives in this book Chizzuk Emunah, a complete explanation of why Jews do not accept Jesus, and he does it solely with Biblical references: faithstrengthened.org

There is but one hole in the logic: the first Christians were Jews who knew the Jewish Teachings first and saw Jesus in them.

 

[Sepharad]

There is but one hole in the logic: the first Christians were Jews who knew the Jewish Teachings first and saw Jesus in them.

They were Jewish, but do we know for certain that they were Jewishly educated/knowledgeable Jews? There is a difference, just as today we have secular/unlearned Jews, and Jewishly knowledgeable Jews (who are usually Orthodox in practice and belief.)

Some will mention Saul/Paul, having been a student of Rabban Gamaliel, but even he could not be convinced by reasoning, but claimed to ‘see a vision’ of Jesus. That tells me something.

Just being Jewish doesn’t mean anything. In my research I have found that the vast, overwhelming majority of Jews who convert to the various forms of Christianity, did so from highly secular, Jewishly uneducated or otherwise non-religious backgrounds. In fact I have lurked on a number of forums for Jewish converts to Christianity (including ones for Jewish Catholics), and many times, they lament the fact that it is so hard to find Jewish converts from religious backgrounds, that most of them are from secular or Jewishly uneducated backgrounds. There is a reason for this.

Perhaps this is the reason why so many of them (usually “messianic Jews”) will fudge things a bit when giving their testimonies, and a great great grandfather who was an Orthodox Jew in Russia, suddenly transforms the entire family into “an Orthodox family”.

I don’t doubt the same was true in those days as well.

 

[ralphinal]

They were Jewish, but do we know for certain that they were Jewishly educated/knowledgeable Jews? There is a difference, just as today we have secular/unlearned Jews, and Jewishly knowledgeable Jews (who are usually Orthodox in practice and belief.)

Some will mention Saul/Paul, having been a student of rabban Gamaliel, but even he could not be convinced by reasoning, but claimed to ‘see a vision’ of Jesus. That tells me something.

Just being Jewish doesn’t mean anything. In my research I have found that the vast, overwhelming majority of Jews who convert to the various forms of Christianity, did so from highly secular, Jewishly uneducated or otherwise non-religious backgrounds. I don’t doubt the same was true in those days as well.

Well, we know that at least one of the first 12 was. He was called while reading the law under a fig tree. True, most were fishermen and the like, but there were educated followers, such as Joseph of Aramathia and Nicodemus, who were both in the San Hedron. Jesus attracted a wide assortment of people, including tax collectors, prostitutes, workers, farmers, fishermen, and yes, even Jewish Religious leadership.

 

[reen12]

I think, too, that Saul of Tarsus depicted Torah
as an onerous burden. Which puts me in mind of a Hasid,
who near death, was weeping.

When asked why this good and holy man was weeping,
near the doorway of Olam Haba [heaven] he replied, through his tears,
that he was weeping because - in Olam Haba, he would not be able
to demonstrate his love of God through the keeping of His Torah.

Far from an onerous burden, the Torah is treasured.

I delight in Thy law… Psalm 119

While it was said by Saul that - if Jesus has not risen,
then our faith is in vain - the more critical point is Saul’s
introduction of the notion of original sin - as ontologic sin -
sin in one’s very being, ‘inherited’ from Adam.

Saul was a brilliant theologian, I think. Brilliant enough
to understand that - without original sin - there would
be no need for a savior from same.

Saul saw Torah as having been ‘propaedeutic,’ functionally.
The human impossiblity of keeping Torah, totally,
being seen - by Saul - as a preparatory ‘learning experience’ -
in terms of defining Jesus as liberator from this
asserted ‘burden’ of Torah, and liberator from the
posited ‘original sin.’

reen12

 

[Angelos]

Well, my own rejection came solely from a study of the Torah and the rest of the Tanakh (“Old” Testament). Talmudic arguments would not have been enough to persuade me because truth be told, I’ve always had more of a Karaite mindset anyway.

A Christian might then wonder, How is it that Christians see Jesus in the OT, when for Jews, they do not see him, and in fact see warnings not to accept anything like Jesus?

Because Christians adopt Jesus FIRST, and then LOOK BACK at the Jewish Bible to try to “find” Jesus in there. Another Jewish poster once explained it very well, better than am doing right now!

If I’d never heard of Jesus FIRST, I would not ‘see’ him in the Jewish Bible, the thought would never have occurred to me. But AFTER having heard of him and what Christians believe about him, I can see how they see him in there. But that’s because the idea of Jesus was planted in their minds FIRST.

This is completely natural. Israelites knew Moses first to learn about their patriarchs and the creation of the universe. The Book of Genesis makes more sense when read in close association with the Exodus.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

They were Jewish, but do we know for certain that they were Jewishly educated/knowledgeable Jews? There is a difference, just as today we have secular/unlearned Jews, and Jewishly knowledgeable Jews (who are usually Orthodox in practice and belief.)

Some will mention Saul/Paul, having been a student of Rabban Gamaliel, but even he could not be convinced by reasoning, but claimed to ‘see a vision’ of Jesus. That tells me something.

Just being Jewish doesn’t mean anything. In my research I have found that the vast, overwhelming majority of Jews who convert to the various forms of Christianity, did so from highly secular, Jewishly uneducated or otherwise non-religious backgrounds. In fact I have lurked on a number of forums for Jewish converts to Christianity (including ones for Jewish Catholics), and many times, they lament the fact that it is so hard to find Jewish converts from religious backgrounds, that most of them are from secular or Jewishly uneducated backgrounds. There is a reason for this.

Perhaps this is the reason why so many of them (usually “messianic Jews”) will fudge things a bit when giving their testimonies, and a great great grandfather who was an Orthodox Jew in Russia, suddenly transforms the entire family into “an Orthodox family”.

I don’t doubt the same was true in those days as well.

How about the Chief Rabbi of Rome Israel Zolli (+Eugenio)?

And I seem to remember quite a few prophets seeing visions (Moses didn’t go to a Yeshiva on Sinai). Isn’t that what Joel prophecized? (See Acts 2, Joel 3)

 

[Sepharad]

How about the Chief Rabbi of Rome Israel Zolli (+Eugenio)?

And I seem to remember quite a few prophets seeing visions (Moses didn’t go to a Yeshiva on Sinai). Isn’t that what Joel prophecized? (See Acts 2, Joel 3)

Looks like you’re not that familiar with the full story on Zoller (his real name, btw.) I’ve had to tell this so many times I should make a website about it.

OK…my mother was in the process of converting to Orthodox Judaism (from an Italian Catholic background) at the same time Zoller was becoming controversial in Italy. She followed the story in the media of the day, and even saved some of the articles which I still have. The real story was covered up or forgotten, but there was a book written about the entire situation in 1945, entitled, “The Chief Rabbi of Rome Becomes A Catholic” by Louis I Newman (Renascence Press, c 1945). I suggest you get an old copy of it.

Zoller was a Galician (not Italian) Jew who moved to Italy and got himself hired as the chief rabbi of the Rome Jewish community. He Italianized his name to “Zolli” to fit in better.

From published reports, he was a mediocre rabbi at best, and was barely holding onto his position when the Nazis began rounding up the Jews of Rome.

In Judaism a rabbi is expected to stay with his people in times of trouble, as a shepherd stays with his sheep.

Zoller’s response was to run and hide in the Vatican, of all places.

After the war, the survivors of the Rome Jewish community straglled back to Rome, and Zoller had the audacity to present himself to them to be “re-hired”. They adamantly refused, due to his abandonment of their community. He replied to the leader of the Jewish community of Rome: “The Italian Jews will regret this, they will pay for this”.

The next thing anyone knew, a mere few months later, it was widely announced by the church that the “chief rabbi of Rome”, Israel Zolli, was being baptized into the Roman Catholic Faith.

The baptism was made into a very public spectacle, perhaps to fulfill the promise Zoller made to the head of the Rome Jewish community.

One article I remember reading said that a reporter interviewed Zoller’s daughter Miriam after her father’s conversion (she converted also, as did her mother)…he found her to be incredibly ignorant of even the most basic Jewish rituals and laws.

Anything else you want to know about him?

 

[1stChristian]

This is the part that Sepahard didn’t tell you:
In 1944, while in the synagogue celebrating Yom Kippur, Zolli experienced a mystical vision of Jesus Christ.
Within a year he was Baptized a Catholic at which he changed his name from Israel to Eugenio, the same Christian name as pope Pius XII.
He did this to honor the pope for the help he gave Jews trying to escape the Nazi’s extermination program during World War II.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Looks like you’re not that familiar with the full story on Zoller (his real name, btw.) I’ve had to tell this so many times I should make a website about it.

OK…my mother was in the process of converting to Orthodox Judaism (from an Italian Catholic background) at the same time Zoller was becoming controversial in Italy. She followed the story in the media of the day, and even saved some of the articles which I still have. The real story was covered up or forgotten, but there was a book written about the entire situation in 1945, entitled, “The Chief Rabbi of Rome Becomes A Catholic” by Louis I Newman (Renascence Press, c 1945). I suggest you get an old copy of it.

Zoller was a Galician (not Italian) Jew who moved to Italy and got himself hired as the chief rabbi of the Rome Jewish community. He Italianized his name to “Zolli” to fit in better.

From published reports, he was a mediocre rabbi at best, and was barely holding onto his position when the Nazis began rounding up the Jews of Rome.

In Judaism a rabbi is expected to stay with his people in times of trouble, as a shepherd stays with his sheep.

Zoller’s response was to run and hide in the Vatican, of all places.

After the war, the survivors of the Rome Jewish community straglled back to Rome, and Zoller had the audacity to present himself to them to be “re-hired”. They adamantly refused, due to his abandonment of their community. He replied to the leader of the Jewish community of Rome: “The Italian Jews will regret this, they will pay for this”.

The next thing anyone knew, a mere few months later, it was widely announced by the church that the “chief rabbi of Rome”, Israel Zolli, was being baptized into the Roman Catholic Faith.

The baptism was made into a very public spectacle, perhaps to fulfill the promise Zoller made to the head of the Rome Jewish community.

One article I remember reading said that a reporter interviewed Zoller’s daughter Miriam after her father’s conversion (she converted also, as did her mother)…he found her to be incredibly ignorant of even the most basic Jewish rituals and laws.

Anything else you want to know about him?

Soooo talent was so wanting in the rabbinate in Italy that he got the job? Doesn’t say much about the Jewish community’s ability to judge, either before or after it would seem.

Galicia was somewhat a backwater (the Church were I converted was filled with people from there), but I guess more sophisticated than Rome.

I do recall quite a few Jews hiding in the Vatican (and elsewhere). What happened to them?

Btw, how observant was Edith Stein?

 

[Isa_Almisry]

This is the part that Sepahard didn’t tell you:
In 1944, while in the synagogue celebrating Yom Kippur, Zolli experienced a mystical vision of Jesus Christ.
Within a year he was Baptized a Catholic at which he changed his name from Israel to Eugenio, the same Christian name as pope Pius XII.
He did this to honor the pope for the help he gave Jews trying to escape the Nazi’s extermination program during World War II.

Yes, I didn’t respond to that as she already made some comment about visions. I assume she already knew that, but I don’t know why she didn’t bring it up. Btw, I understand that some Jews deny he had a vision.

Pius? My, you’re opening a can of worms, aren’t you? His detractors don’t let the facts get in the way of a good condemnation either.

 

[Sepharad]

This is the part that Sepahard didn’t tell you:
In 1944, while in the synagogue celebrating Yom Kippur, Zolli experienced a mystical vision of Jesus Christ.
Within a year he was Baptized a Catholic at which he changed his name from Israel to Eugenio, the same Christian name as pope Pius XII.
He did this to honor the pope for the help he gave Jews trying to escape the Nazi’s extermination program during World War II.

If he truly had a “mystical vision of Jesus” in 1944, then why, pray tell, did he remain in his job as chief rabbi? Wasn’t that being dishonest?

And why did he want his job back after the war, if he truly was converted to Jesus before then?

You just enabled me to see another side of Zoller than I’d not seen before: dishonesty!

 

[Sepharad]

Soooo talent was so wanting in the rabbinate in Italy that he got the job? Doesn’t say much about the Jewish community’s ability to judge, either before or after it would seem.

Galicia was somewhat a backwater (the Church were I converted was filled with people from there), but I guess more sophisticated than Rome.

I do recall quite a few Jews hiding in the Vatican (and elsewhere). What happened to them?

Btw, how observant was Edith Stein?

There are not that many Jews in Italy, though there were a bit more during the war. I suppose they didn’t have much to choose from, which is how they wound up with Zoller. Their mistake.

If you want to find a Jewish convert to parade about, you can surely find a more reputable one than Zoller. There is too much controversy and questions surrounding his situation, esp. the poor timing of his “conversion”.

As for Edith Stein, I remember her saying in some of her writings that she was an atheist before she became a Catholic. Her conversion seems to me to be far more sincere (although someone on this forum once claimed that she “became angry with her mother for not telling her before about the New Testament” (why a Jewish daughter would become angry at her Jewish mother for not telling her about a Christian book she knew nothing about, is beyond me, but anyway…)

 

[Isa_Almisry]

There are not that many Jews in Italy, though there were a bit more during the war. I suppose they didn’t have much to choose from, which is how they wound up with Zoller. Their mistake.

By the time he was appointed in Rome, he had served as the Chief Rabbi in Trieste for over two decades. He got his degree at Florence. They didn’t see his credentials?

If you want to find a Jewish convert to parade about, you can surely find a more reputable one than Zoller. There is too much controversy and questions surrounding his situation, esp. the poor timing of his “conversion”.

You seem to have just discovered the dishonesty angle (or accusation) of the vision. Since you said you knew so much, I thought for sure that would have crossed your mind before.

I’m not interested in parades, as I care more what they did after they got out of the bapistry. Father Alexander Menn (soon to be St. I am sure) would be a case in point: it seems that he was martyred in part for being Jewish.

As for Edith Stein, I remember her saying in some of her writings that she was an atheist before she became a Catholic. Her conversion seems to me to be far more sincere (although someone on this forum once claimed that she “became angry with her mother for not telling her before about the New Testament” (why a Jewish daughter would become angry at her Jewish mother for not telling her about a Christian book she knew nothing about, is beyond me, but anyway…)

I seem to recall the same about her atheism, but something about that her family was observant and that was how she was raised until she went to college. And I know from personal observation, atheism don’t prevent one from being observant (no, I don’t understand it).