Jews, the Talmud, and Jesus

  • Thread starter Thread starter Sepharad
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Sepharad said:
The Jesus Christians worship is not in the Talmud, as far as I know. The name Jesus was very, very common in Biblical times and 2nd Temple times…it was as common then as “Joe” is now.

The Talmud condemns the “akum”, which is an Aramaic term for “idolater”. It refers to the pagan polytheists that existed in 2nd Temple times and before.

The only way it can apply to Christians is if Christians believe it applies to them.

This site can give you more info: talmud.faithweb.com
Click to expand...
The minim are mentioned and condemned, and it is well established that the term is used for Christians.

No, there are quite a bit of specific information on the Yeshu’ in question, for instance the slander that His father was a Roman soldier Panther (it has been speculated <“Parthenos” Virgin in Greek). There also is a mention which might refer to His brother Jude. Josephus mentions the brother James, but I do not recall if the Talmud does.
 
Kaninchen said:
Obviously you believe that, on the other hand, as far as I’m concerned, the NT is just ‘Lord of The Rings’. Now, we can either continue saying these things to one another or not but, since neither of us is going to move an inch, there would seem to be little point.
Click to expand...
You could back up your statement.

All those cross references in my NT to the OT back up mine.
 
Why is it that its always the Holocaust deniers and Holocaust revisionists who sponsor the “expose the Talmud” sites?
 
Isa_Almisry said:
Wrong. A handy summary in the Encyclopedia Judaica, on “Jesus”

Btw, another concept, which I did not get from the Talmud but form Jewish summaries: about the Messiah ben Yoseph, a suffering messiah, which seems to fit quite nicely with the NT on this theme. Any comments?
Click to expand...
The Zohar (Jewish mysticism) says that there will be TWO Messiahs…Messiah ben Joseph, who will fight and die for the Jewish people; and after him comes Messiah ben David, who will usher in an era of universal peace.

The early Christians evidently knew of this belief (from the Kabbalah), and decided that instead of believing in two Messiahs, they would believe it was one messiah, who comes TWO times. So the concept of a second coming actually originated in a Jewish mystical teaching, albeit one that was re-arranged.

But Jesus did not fight for the Jewish people, did he? He died, true, but the Messiah ben Joseph was to be a military leader.
 
Sepharad said:
The Zohar (Jewish mysticism) says that there will be TWO Messiahs…Messiah ben Joseph, who will fight and die for the Jewish people; and after him comes Messiah ben David, who will usher in an era of universal peace.

The early Christians evidently knew of this belief (from the Kabbalah), and decided that instead of believing in two Messiahs, they would believe it was one messiah, who comes TWO times. So the concept of a second coming actually originated in a Jewish mystical teaching, albeit one that was re-arranged.
Click to expand...
This first assumes the Zohar and the Kabbalah are as old as they claim (sounds a lot like Masonic claims), not without problems.

Note, I do not say that Christian beliefs are based on the Talmud. For one, the NT predates the redaction of the Talmud. But they do share a number of ideas not often admitted.

A quick look found a citation Sukka 52a,b on the messiah ben Yoseph. More details are supposedly in Midrash.
But Jesus did not fight for the Jewish people, did he? He died, true, but the Messiah ben Joseph was to be a military leader.
Click to expand...
Define fight. He died “King of the Jews.”

Again, since Chrisitianity is not based on the Talmud, the figure of the messiah ben Joseph as described there is not determinative.
 
Isa_Almisry said:
This first assumes the Zohar and the Kabbalah are as old as they claim (sounds a lot like Masonic claims), not without problems.

Note, I do not say that Christian beliefs are based on the Talmud. For one, the NT predates the redaction of the Talmud. But they do share a number of ideas not often admitted.

A quick look found a citation Sukka 52a,b on the messiah ben Yoseph. More details are supposedly in Midrash.

Define fight. He died “King of the Jews.”

Again, since Chrisitianity is not based on the Talmud, the figure of the messiah ben Joseph as described there is not determinative.
Click to expand...
When I say “fight”, I mean that Messiah ben Joseph will be a military leader who will do battle for the Jewish people against their enemies, but be killed while doing so.
 
Isa_Almisry said:
You could back up your statement.

All those cross references in my NT to the OT back up mine.
Click to expand...
Since, to me, the NT is a confection based on searching the Tanakh for any and every reference that could be (even vaguely) made to fit Jesus and (to me remember) obviously manipulating text where that was difficult, there wouldn’t exactly be much point.

"II Samuel 25: King David sat down.

Isaiah 67: A young woman will conceive a child who will sit down.

Matthew 25:47: Jesus sat down.

Christian apologist: Look how Jesus fulfilled . . . . ."

This may be fascinating stuff to you but after a decade and a half of Christian apologists trying to persuade me of their ‘proof texts’, it isn’t to me.
 
Kaninchen said:
Since, to me, the NT is a confection based on searching the Tanakh for any and every reference that could be (even vaguely) made to fit Jesus and (to me remember) obviously manipulating text where that was difficult, there wouldn’t exactly be much point.

"II Samuel 25: King David sat down.

Isaiah 67: A young woman will conceive a child who will sit down.

Matthew 25:47: Jesus sat down.

Christian apologist: Look how Jesus fulfilled . . . . ."

This may be fascinating stuff to you but after a decade and a half of Christian apologists trying to persuade me of their ‘proof texts’, it isn’t to me.
Click to expand...
Devoted readers of the Lord of Rings have tendency to basing their theories on hyperboles. 😃

God wants our comments to be childlike, not childish, but few can understand the difference.
 
Angelos said:
Devoted readers of the Lord of Rings have tendency to basing their theories on hyperboles. 😃

God wants our comments to be childlike, not childish, but few can understand the difference.
Click to expand...
I expect that comment means something to you.
 
Angelos said:
Devoted readers of the Lord of Rings have tendency to basing their theories on hyperboles. 😃

God wants our comments to be childlike, not childish, but few can understand the difference.
Click to expand...
Yes indeed.

Of course, another problem our friend has is that besides the OT (Masoretic or LXX), Talmud and NT, a lot of other Jewish literature survives (e.g. the Dead Sea Scrolls). Jewish in the sense that it is written by those that the synagog would welcome. Now an examination of that literature shows that the NT is well within the spectrum of Jewish/Hebrew thought of the time. So again, the priority our friend gives to the Talmud’s interpretaton is his choice, but that doesn’t dislodge the NT from the OT context. For one, the interpretation of the NT of the Eucharist as the Sacrifice puts Christianity one up from Judaism, the latter a vestige of a religion gutted of its central cult and beliefs, i.e. the Temple and its sacrifices (a reason why the Babylonian Talmud, the main one used, is deficient in these areas compared to the Jerusalem Talmud). How’s s/he feel about Reformed Judaism?
 
If the last was directed towards me, I’d like to point out that the rabbit in the dress (Kaninchen is German for ‘rabbit’) should be noted.
 
Kaninchen said:
I expect that comment means something to you.
Click to expand...
For us grown ups, it does.

We understand that the NT and Christiianity do not meet up with your standards as to what is a valid interpretation of the OT. But since you do not have Temple, High Priesthood, the Davidic monarchy, any Prophet (stopped with Ezra no?), a Sanhedrin with semicha (ordination from Moses) etc., i.e. all the sources of authority named by the OT, and YOUR OT Testament/Tanakh has NO mention of the rabbinate, by what authority should we care what your opinion is?
 
Isa_Almisry said:
For us grown ups, it does.
Click to expand...
Awesome.
We understand that the NT and Christiianity do not meet up with your standards as to what is a valid interpretation of the OT. But since you do not have Temple, High Priesthood, the Davidic monarchy, any Prophet (stopped with Ezra no?), a Sanhedrin with semicha (ordination from Moses) etc., i.e. all the sources of authority named by the OT, and YOUR OT Testament/Tanakh has NO mention of the rabbinate, by what authority should we care what your opinion is?
Click to expand...
I’m not aware of ever having suggested that it mattered to me in the slightest what your opinion of Judaism, one way or another, might be - there’s certainly no question of Jewish posters trying to do anything other than explain why we’re not buying what Christians are selling.
 
Kaninchen said:
Awesome.

I’m not aware of ever having suggested that it mattered to me in the slightest what your opinion of Judaism, one way or another, might be - there’s certainly no question of Jewish posters trying to do anything other than explain why we’re not buying what Christians are selling.
Click to expand...
They seem to think that they hold the copyright to the OT. That they have their own brand name we all concede.
 
Isa_Almisry said:
They seem to think that they hold the copyright to the OT. That they have their own brand name we all concede.
Click to expand...
That Christians have appropriated the Tanakh to their own devices is something of which we’re, obviously, well aware.
 
Kaninchen said:
That Christians have appropriated the Tanakh to their own devices is something of which we’re, obviously, well aware.
Click to expand...
And that the Rabbis have appropriated the OT to their own devices is what we’re discussing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top