Jews, the Talmud, and Jesus

[Lapell]

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’.

Well said!

 

[Lapell]

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’.

But as far as applying that to people, does baptism make someone “kosher”? When a Jew is circumcised, is he made “kosher”? I thought he was made a segullah for the Lord God? Same with baptism in the Christian faith…

 

[Lapell]

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?

With a name such as “Unmasked Talmud”, it must have been seen as a mean thing according to the author of the link!

 

[Kaninchen]

But as far as applying that to people, does baptism make someone “kosher”? When a Jew is circumcised, is he made “kosher”? I thought he was made a segullah for the Lord God? Same with baptism in the Christian faith…

We don’t baptize people - in your own scriptures it’s Mary who goes to be purified, isn’t it?

Circumcision is symbolic of the ‘contract’ it doesn’t render the boy ‘ritually clean’.

Converts, of course, have to enter the Mikveh which sort of turns them into being in the state of a Jewish newborn - a tabula rasa - it doesn’t clean away ‘original sin’ because we don’t have the concept.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Sorry, Isa…
But, really, “he” could have meant anything!

Nothing of importance to us.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

We don’t baptize people - in your own scriptures it’s Mary who goes to be purified, isn’t it?

Circumcision is symbolic of the ‘contract’ it doesn’t render the boy ‘ritually clean’.

Converts, of course, have to enter the Mikveh which sort of turns them into being in the state of a Jewish newborn - a tabula rasa - it doesn’t clean away ‘original sin’ because we don’t have the concept.

Oh? What’s the poison from the serpent on Eve all about, in the passage as yet untranslated? Or explained.

Circumcision doesn’t render the boy clean. Of course! I forgot. He was cleansed way back when he was on Sinai and got the venom zapped out of him.

How about a ger? Does circumcision make him clean?

Converts have to enter a mikveh (btw, for those who don’t know, a mikveh as a ritual bath means more than a wash. The immersion has to be complete, and the water is suppossed to be “living,” but usually this was done by having tanks set up so they “kissed,” joined so water flowed)? I thought you don’t baptize people?

 

[Kaninchen]

Oh? What’s the poison from the serpent on Eve all about, in the passage as yet untranslated? Or explained.

Circumcision doesn’t render the boy clean. Of course! I forgot. He was cleansed way back when he was on Sinai and got the venom zapped out of him.

How about a ger? Does circumcision make him clean?

Converts have to enter a mikveh (btw, for those who don’t know, a mikveh as a ritual bath means more than a wash. The immersion has to be complete, and the water is suppossed to be “living,” but usually this was done by having tanks set up so they “kissed,” joined so water flowed)? I thought you don’t baptize people?

Awesome.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Your “knowledge” of the Talmud is only exceeded by your “knowledge” of Judaism

Tov me’od, maran! Care to explain the passage in post #201?

 

[Kaninchen]

Tov me’od, maran! Care to explain the passage in post #201?

Perhaps you might try to convince me to talk to you at all?

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Perhaps you might try to convince me to talk to you at all?

No. So far I don’t recall you demonstrating any knowledge of Talmud. Or for that matter, of Judaism.

 

[Lapell]

We don’t baptize people - in your own scriptures it’s Mary who goes to be purified, isn’t it?

Circumcision is symbolic of the ‘contract’ it doesn’t render the boy ‘ritually clean’.

Converts, of course, have to enter the Mikveh which sort of turns them into being in the state of a Jewish newborn - a tabula rasa - it doesn’t clean away ‘original sin’ because we don’t have the concept.

I said: “like baptism in the Christian faith”. Where did you leave your glasses?
Circumcision in Judaism means to enter in the Covenant between God and His chosen people, the Sons of Israel, isn’t it? Baptism to us Catholics (and to all Christians) means the same thing. This is what I had meant, and this only!
However, thank you for your side-note concerning what the converts into Judaism have to do.

 

[Valke2]

I said: “like baptism in the Christian faith”. Where did you leave your glasses?
Circumcision in Judaism means to enter in the Covenant between God and His chosen people, the Sons of Israel, isn’t it? Baptism to us Catholics (and to all Christians) means the same thing. This is what I had meant, and this only!
However, thank you for your side-note concerning what the converts into Judaism have to do.

There’s no redemption or washing away of sin associated with circumcision.

 

[chosen_people]

Tov me’od, maran! Care to explain the passage in post #201?

If you are an idol worshiping pagan engaged in religious rituals including abuse of animals as was prevalent during the time of the formulation of the Talmudic discussion than this applies to you.

 

[chosen_people]

No. So far I don’t recall you demonstrating any knowledge of Talmud. Or for that matter, of Judaism.

Well then it was pointless to ask me to explain the Talmudic passage.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

If you are an idol worshiping pagan engaged in religious rituals including abuse of animals as was prevalent during the time of the formulation of the Talmudic discussion than this applies to you.

The sections I specify in post #201 talks of the serpent, Eve, Mt. Sinia, Israel, gentiles and 'foulness." that section isn’t talking about pagan rituals (yes I know other parts are) but this is the part that was posted and Sepharad poo-pooed.

Well then it was pointless to ask me to explain the Talmudic passage.

sorry didn’t realize that the 'little rabbit" was the chosen people.

 

[Kaninchen]

I said: “like baptism in the Christian faith”. Where did you leave your glasses?

It wasn’t just ‘not enough carrots’, it was my attempt to stress the conceptual differences.

Circumcision in Judaism means to enter in the Covenant between God and His chosen people, the Sons of Israel, isn’t it?

It’s symbolic of the contract - ‘Sons’ are not more ‘chosen’ than ‘Daughters’ (being a daughter and having daughters, I would say that!), just supposed to be joyful at having more required of them ‘ritually speaking’.

Baptism to us Catholics (and to all Christians) means the same thing. This is what I had meant, and this only!

I just thought you were trying deftly to sneak in a bit of ‘original sin’.

 

[chosen_people]

The sections I specify in post #201 talks of the serpent, Eve, Mt. Sinia, Israel, gentiles and 'foulness." that section isn’t talking about pagan rituals (yes I know other parts are) but this is the part that was posted and Sepharad poo-pooed.

sorry didn’t realize that the 'little rabbit" was the chosen people.

In one thread you made the erroneous statement that the basis for Rabbinical Judaism came about only after the the “New Testament” (by the way the name for the Bible is not Tankah but Tanach coming from the hebrew Torah Prophets and Writings.) On another thread you made the incomprehensible statement that the Talmud was not not meant to be written down as it dealt with the oral law (sic!). Now you wish, for reasons that could not possibly lead to a proper understanding, to have an empty meaningless out of context discussion.divorced of the form of the Talmudic discussion, divorced of the the basis for the discussion -Avodah Zarah (idolatry)- and divorced of the people to which it referred,

If you are interested in a real discussion about the Talmud may I suggest you begin learning the basics from various Jewish websites.

Incidentally, my name is Dov, so “Little Bear” is perhaps more appropriate than calling me “little rabbit”

 

[Kaninchen]

Incidentally, my name is Dov, so “Little Bear” is perhaps more appropriate than calling me “little rabbit”

I’m the rabbit (‘Kaninchen’ is German for rabbit).

 

[Isa_Almisry]

In one thread you made the erroneous

correct

statement that the basis for Rabbinical Judaism came about only after the the “New Testament”

I’ve made the statement that the Talmud, the basis of rabbinical Judaism was not redacted until after the NT, which is true.

(by the way the name for the Bible is not Tankah but Tanach coming from the hebrew Torah Prophets and Writings.)

My, my. Aren’t we worried about every jot (yod) and tittle (tag)? Sort of like Sepharad focusing on the missing “a” of my citing Yoma 39b instead of evidence to Matthew 27:51 and Hebrews.

It was a typo. Yes I’m aware that it’s תנ״ך‎ (Torah, Nevi’im, Ketuvim).

On another thread you made the incomprehensible statement that the Talmud was not not meant to be written down as it dealt with the oral law (sic!).

This was the claim of the Tannaim (part of this obsession with NOT writing it down was the canonizing of the NT and the closing of the Tanakh in reaction, over the LXX). The Talmud itself states that it was redacted about 200 AD by Judah haNasi (of do you prefer Yehudah ha-Nasy?) when, the persecution of the Jews and the passage of time raised the possibility that the details of the oral traditions would be forgotten.

Now you wish, for reasons that could not possibly lead to a proper understanding,

you mean a rabbinic?

to have an empty meaningless out of context discussion.divorced of the form of the Talmudic discussion, divorced of the the basis for the discussion -Avodah Zarah (idolatry)- and divorced of the people to which it referred,

It refers to Mother (Imenu) Eve, mother of us all, the Gentiles, and the Hebrews at Sinai, among whom were my ancestors, and into whom the Gentiles have been grafted (Romans 11). What do you mean “divorced?”

Btw, the rabbis speculate that Adam was hermaphrodite. (Midrash Rabbah - Genesis VIII:1), from Genesis 1:27. As this verse early on was a proof text for the Christians of the Trinity, including a discussion on the male and female being an image and likeness (v. 1:26) (and yes, to pre-empt you, I know that teh rabbis explain that otherwise) of the consubstantial Persons of the Trinity, I wonder if this is too a reaction.

If you are interested in a real discussion about the Talmud may I suggest you begin learning the basics from various Jewish websites.

Just because I reject it, doesn’t mean I don’t know the “basics” of Judaism or the Talmud.

And what is a “real” discussion? No, it’s not going to be like the Yeshiva(h) (or do you say Bet(h) Midrash?). (I’m being extra careful for spelling, since that is the crux of the argument ). The same shared presumptions don’t apply on this forum.

Incidentally, my name is Dov, so “Little Bear” is perhaps more appropriate than calling me “little rabbit”

Kaninchen, (who has only appealed to the Lord of the Rings, not a rabbinic work last I checked) who intruded on our tete-a-tete, has already explained this I see.

Do you prefer Dodl or Dodon?

Just out of pure curiosity, where in the Holy Land are you?

 

[chosen_people]

correct
I’ve made the statement that the Talmud, the basis of rabbinical Judaism was not redacted until after the NT, which is true.

My, my. Aren’t we worried about every jot (yod) and tittle (tag)? Sort of like Sepharad focusing on the missing “a” of my citing Yoma 39b instead of evidence to Matthew 27:51 and Hebrews.

It was a typo. Yes I’m aware that it’s תנ״ך‎ (Torah, Nevi’im, Ketuvim).

This was the claim of the Tannaim (part of this obsession with NOT writing it down was the canonizing of the NT and the closing of the Tanakh in reaction, over the LXX). The Talmud itself states that it was redacted about 200 AD by Judah haNasi (of do you prefer Yehudah ha-Nasy?) when, the persecution of the Jews and the passage of time raised the possibility that the details of the oral traditions would be forgotten.

you mean a rabbinic?

It refers to Mother (Imenu) Eve, mother of us all, the Gentiles, and the Hebrews at Sinai, among whom were my ancestors, and into whom the Gentiles have been grafted (Romans 11). What do you mean “divorced?”

Btw, the rabbis speculate that Adam was hermaphrodite. (Midrash Rabbah - Genesis VIII:1), from Genesis 1:27. As this verse early on was a proof text for the Christians of the Trinity, including a discussion on the male and female being an image and likeness (v. 1:26) (and yes, to pre-empt you, I know that teh rabbis explain that otherwise) of the consubstantial Persons of the Trinity, I wonder if this is too a reaction.

Just because I reject it, doesn’t mean I don’t know the “basics” of Judaism or the Talmud.

And what is a “real” discussion? No, it’s not going to be like the Yeshiva(h) (or do you say Bet(h) Midrash?). (I’m being extra careful for spelling, since that is the crux of the argument ). The same shared presumptions don’t apply on this forum.

Kaninchen, (who has only appealed to the Lord of the Rings, not a rabbinic work last I checked) who intruded on our tete-a-tete, has already explained this I see.

Do you prefer Dodl or Dodon?

Just out of pure curiosity, where in the Holy Land are you?

The diminutive form of Dov is Dubi (Doobie) but only one of my sisters calls me that.

I live in Israel. Due to the nature of the position I hold please forgive me if for reasons of personal safety and personal privacy I cannot be more specific as to my area of residence.

My conceptions as to the source, nature and development of Jewish law and the Talmudic discussion are apparently quite different from yours. (My academic background in Jewish Law is under Professor Menachem Eilon). This should not be surprising as we follow different religions which, despite the original Jewish source of Christianity, are quite dissimilar (Christianity being a universal dogmatic religion). As I have stated before these dissimilarities are also the basis for the rejection of Christianity of the Law (Torah in its wider sense).

These conceptual differences make a discussion difficult though of course not impossible. Your example above is a good demonstration. The Tanach to me is an affirmation of Judaism. You seek to interpret it as an affirmation of your beliefs.