Jews, the Talmud, and Jesus

  • Thread starter Thread starter Sepharad
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Sepharad said:
I doubt seriously she posted that because she believes in it; after all she is an Orthodox Christian!

I don’t know why she posted it but I’m still wigged out because until now, I’d thought only my husband thought that!
Click to expand...
She’s a he.

Yes. I don’t believe a word, but Pure Gold fears no fire, and the Gospel of Orthodoxy is as pure as it gets.

My, you’re behind.

The Ebionites, a Jewish sect which believed that Jesus was the messiah but not God, accused St. Paul of undermining Christianity, i.e. their version of it (note, these were Jews in Sepharad’s and the rabbis’ sense of the word, but they did believe that Jesus was the Messiah, and did want to add their books to the OT). The used a truncated version of St. Matthew’s original Aramaic (much like Marcion used a truncated version of St. Luke to deny the OT: Marcionism and the Ebionites were opposites sides of the same coin), some literature on St James (whom they took as their hero). A modern scholar Robert Eisenman (1997). “James the Brother of Jesus: The Key to Unlocking the Secrets of Early Christianity and the Dead Sea Scrolls” makes much of them and the “Pauline consiracy.” The book is odd but he has a lot of sources (his interpretation is at fault). John Painter. “Just James.” Columbia: University of South Carolina, 1997, and Hershel Shanks and Ben Witherington, “The Brother of Jesus,” and the book “James the Just and the Origins of Christianity”(which I think I mentioned a number of posts ago), have a more accurate analysis of the data. One I think was written by a French Latin priest.

These Jewish Christian sects (the Ebionites were not the only ones, so much for your majority of Jews theory) have been in much scholarship, much of which have been picked up by Muslim polemicists (welcome to your allies Sepharad) to show that Paul founded the Church, not Jesus.
 
Robbinson said:
Sadly, there isn’t much love or respect in this post. We need not all agree on this forum, but you do appreciate, I’m sure, that there are many believers in this forum. Lets keep it on the high road - I’m always up for a respectful debate.

As to Paul’s theology - I’ll respectfully disagree. As you apparently are not a Christian, have you in fact read the entire New Testament (and/or the Old Testament)? As to original sin - is there any Jew who really believes themselves righteous in the eyes of the Lord (that’s a rhetorical question - at least I’ve always throught so as Jew (though I now believe in Christ - so a Jewish Christian if you like) and if not, why not? Perhaps its a hang up with the word “original sin” - but even Jews will admit (I believe) that we live in an imperfect world and what would be the explanation for the peversity of the world and constant sin even by the most righteous nonChrisitian (I.e, Jew)? What was the need of the day of atonement without sin and why did even the high priest need atonement? (original sin, of course).

Blessings,

Brian
Click to expand...
Yes, note that what I posted above from a JEWISH blog, citing JEWISH sources, speaks of ORIGINAL SIN (the Eve and snake poison story).

And we have discussed above, the scarlet thread, according the rabbis, showed that after the time of the Crucifixion the sacrifice of the Day of Atonment did not take away Israel’s sins. Why not? Consult the Epistle to the Hebrews (even if you aren’t lucky enough to be Hebrew:D ).
 
I would like to see this thread go back to the original subject, which (as I understand it) is the fullness of why the Jews reject Jesus as the Messiah. It seems to have degenerated into an “is too - is not” fight.

Sepharad is not trying to convert us, but to educate us, and has done an admirable job of maintaining charity. Some of my fellow Christians have not done so well.

Sepharad, we seem to agree that Paul was a well-educated Jew. What about the other Apostles? I have heard that universal education was the norm, and that all Jewish children around the time of Jesus (boys and girls) went to school from age 5 to 14, learning books by heart. (Selected students went on after age 14 to study more deeply with their Rabbis. Of the rest, the girls went into housewifery and the boys into learning their trades.)

This would seem to imply that the Apostles had at least a firm grounding in Judaism.

…I find the whole subject of Rabbinic teaching methods fascinating, and would be happy to learn more. That might be a subject for a different thread, though.

Ruthie
 
Just returned to the OP, after the glee over my post. Interesing.
Sepharad said:
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.
Click to expand...
Yes, and it seems that one of those evolutions was to change things so the Jews wouldn’t except Christ, according to what the rabbid said.
  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.
Click to expand...
The rabbis quoted, and over whom you rejoiced, say otherwise.

Seems the Talmuc does contain less than complimentary material about Jesus.
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.
Click to expand...
Not exactly true, but we’ll pass over this.
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!
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
Actually the Ethiopians all claim to be Hebrews, all the way up to the Emperor, who claimed descent from the Queen of Sheba and Solomon. This Solomonic dynasty was only replaced by one, the Zagwe, who claimed to be descendants of Moses.

Btw. Falasha and Palestinian come from the same Semitic root (for foreignor).
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
Evidently not, otherwise the rabbis wouldn’t have been “very scared of Christianity” (after all, its leader had been killed, and the followers weak, few and powerless), and had to take action lest the Jews face “definite assimilation.”
 
Isa_Almisry said:
Just returned to the OP, after the glee over my post. Interesing.

Yes, and it seems that one of those evolutions was to change things so the Jews wouldn’t except Christ, according to what the rabbid said.

The rabbis quoted, and over whom you rejoiced, say otherwise.

Seems the Talmuc does contain less than complimentary material about Jesus.

Not exactly true, but we’ll pass over this.

Actually the Ethiopians all claim to be Hebrews, all the way up to the Emperor, who claimed descent from the Queen of Sheba and Solomon. This Solomonic dynasty was only replaced by one, the Zagwe, who claimed to be descendants of Moses.

Btw. Falasha and Palestinian come from the same Semitic root (for foreignor).

Evidently not, otherwise the rabbis wouldn’t have been “very scared of Christianity” (after all, its leader had been killed, and the followers weak, few and powerless), and had to take action lest the Jews face “definite assimilation.”
Click to expand...
So, has Frodo reached the Cracks of Doom yet, or what?
 
Yehoshua bar Yosef is not mentioned in the Talmud. A figure whom some people believe may be a reference to him and who was hung from a tree appears to the best of my recollection three times in the Talmud among the thousands of pages. The possibility is that the reference has nothing to do with Yehoshua bar Yosef or is perhaps indicative that the modern figure of Yehoshua bar Yosef is in fact a composite of historical figures of the time.

In previous threads I have dealt with in length the various so called “quotes” form the Talmud as published on various antisemitic websites. As I showed, almost all the “quotes” do not exist in the Talmud and the references are either fictitious or impossible.

Even where in the few places something may be found that seemingly is not complimentary in the eyes of the non Jewish reader, the surrounding discussion and interpretation is omitted, misleading the reader. The Talmudic discussion and interpretation is seemingly beyond the ken of these people, but of course they are searching for something derogatory against Jews not for Talmudic wisdom.

Finally, it takes a certain amount of audacity to even bring the charge of derogatory comments by Jews against Gentiles. I would ask that the reader, in fairness, first examine the following things said about Jews by Church leaders and in Church writings and rulings.

Church Leaders and Writers - John Chrysostom (386), Pope Gregory IX (1240), Thomas Aquinas (1260), Pope Clement VI (1264), Pope Nicholas III (1278), John Pectin (1282), Martin Luther (1543, 1546), Pope Paul IV (1555), Pope Pius IV (1559), Pope Sixtus V (1586), Pope Clement VIII (1593), Pope Pius VI (1775), Pope Pius VII (1815), Pope Pius IX (1871)

Church Rulings - First Ecumenical Council of Nicea (325), Code of Theodosius II (429), Council of Vannes (465), Council of Clermont (535), Third Council or Orleans (538), Council of Narbonne (589), Third Council of Toledo (589), Fifth Council of Paris (614), Twelfth Council of Toledo (681), Council of Trullo (692), Council of Narbonne (1050), Seventeenth Council of Toledo (694), Council of Gerona (1078), Third Lateran Council (1179), Fourth Lateran Council (1215), Council of Oxford (1222), Pope Innocent IV (1244), Synod of Ofen (1279), Pope Julius III (1553), Cardinal Carafa (1553)
 
Sepharad said:
What website did you copy that from?

I assume you got that from the I B Pranatis forgery?
Click to expand...
dunno what you’re talking about but i took it from a website called unmaskedtalmud or something of the like…don’t have the link now…so what doesit mean?
 
inJESUS said:
dunno what you’re talking about but i took it from a website called unmaskedtalmud or something of the like…don’t have the link now…so what doesit mean?
Click to expand...
Since you’re lubnaaniyyah, I’ll explain it this way. All us none Jews (being part goy;Gentile/non-Jew myself) are impure in the Muslim sense of najis (think the Shi’i mtwalli sense of the word) because the serpent had sex with Mother Eve, spat poison on her זוהמא (“foulness”) and we all inherited that. btw, this all happens in the context of trying to figure out why only Jews are human beings. Because the Jews were on Sinai (and there’s tradition that the souls of all Jews who will ever live were there) the revelation of the Torah cleansed them of this “foulness.” I know, sounds a lot like Original Sin which we are told Jews don’t believe, so obviously Chrisitanity blah blah blah.
 
inJESUS said:
dunno what you’re talking about but i took it from a website called unmaskedtalmud or something of the like…don’t have the link now…so what doesit mean?
Click to expand...
The Talmud Unmasked is based on the english version of the I B Pranatis forgery.
 
Isa_Almisry said:
Since you’re lubnaaniyyah, I’ll explain it this way. All us none Jews (being part goy;Gentile/non-Jew myself) are impure in the Muslim sense of najis (think the Shi’i mtwalli sense of the word) because the serpent had sex with Mother Eve, spat poison on her זוהמא (“foulness”) and we all inherited that. btw, this all happens in the context of trying to figure out why only Jews are human beings. Because the Jews were on Sinai (and there’s tradition that the souls of all Jews who will ever live were there) the revelation of the Torah cleansed them of this “foulness.” I know, sounds a lot like Original Sin which we are told Jews don’t believe, so obviously Chrisitanity blah blah blah.
Click to expand...
Your “knowledge” of the Talmud is only exceeded by your “knowledge” of Judaism 🤷
 
inJESUS said:
does anyone know what this means?
Click to expand...
Do you know the difference between unclean and ritually unclean?

If I remember from your scriptures, after Jesus was born, Mary goes to the Temple for ‘purification’ - does this mean that she was dirty before? No, she was ‘ritually unclean’ after childbirth and needed, under Jewish custom, to enter the ritual bath (‘Mikveh’).

For heaven’s sake, if one is Orthodox and buys a new pan, washing it will ensure that it’s clean, it won’t make it kosher, it has to be ‘koshered’.
 
Isa_Almisry said:
Actually I don’t believe he ever claimed to be, and since he spent his last days paralyzed and unable to speak, he wouldn’t be able to quite his claims.
Click to expand...
Sorry, Isa…
But, really, “he” could have meant anything!
 
reen12 said:
The only one who could ‘interpret’ Saul’s teaching was Saul.

Since he distorted Torah, winged it on ‘original sin’ - only this
master wordsmith could ‘interpret’ himself. [Saul was a brilliant man,
I’ll give him that. Finest theologian Christianity has ever had.]

As to Saul being a legitimate apostle, the Christian churches
can have him, with my best wishes. :coffeeread:

As to his episode on the road to Damascus [a faith-based belief]
doing a bootlegger’s turn is not unknown to history.

First he’s a passionate Pharisee, then a passionate Christian,
who can’t seem to stay in the saddle - noting a ‘thorn in his flesh’
[maybe he got it when he fell off his horse.] http://bestsmileys.com/nono/9.gif

reen12reen12, where is there a horse in the passage of Saul’s conversion on the road to Damascus (Acts 9)?.. I don’t see any!!! 😃
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top