I
Isa_Almisry
Guest
Perfectly agree.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
S
Sepharad
Guest
To everyone: Sorry I have not been online, we had an unusual family emergency situation, and my time will be limited online until it is resolved.
I might post about it on a separate thread in this forum, until then, carry on without me!
I might post about it on a separate thread in this forum, until then, carry on without me!
R
reen12
Guest
Sorry to hear of a family emergency situation, Sepharad.
In line with carrying on, I’m still waiting for an answer to the
question, which I posed last week:
Is the Non-Catholic Religions forum graced with one who has proficiency in
ancient Hebrew? or modern Hebrew?
Because if one does not speak Hebrew, and relies on
expert sources - debate then comes down to ‘my experts,’
‘your experts.’
I have no understanding of the Hebrew language, and have no
problem admitting to that fact.
reen12
In line with carrying on, I’m still waiting for an answer to the
question, which I posed last week:
Is the Non-Catholic Religions forum graced with one who has proficiency in
ancient Hebrew? or modern Hebrew?
Because if one does not speak Hebrew, and relies on
expert sources - debate then comes down to ‘my experts,’
‘your experts.’
I have no understanding of the Hebrew language, and have no
problem admitting to that fact.
reen12
T
tmgiebel
Guest
A well-researched book regarding the Jews and the Talmud can be viewed here;
come-and-hear.com/dilling/dcontents.html#I
Elizabeth Dilling (d. 1967) did painstaking research using source documents and the teaching of modern Jews themselves, including the Jewish Encyclopedia and the Talmud.
When I began studying Judaism I was offended at what claims were made about the Talmud, believing such characterization to be hate mongering. I subsequently purchased the Babylonian Talmud and found that Jesus Christ’s condemnation of the oral traditions of the Pharisees (codified in the Talmud) was well deserved.
It is important to remember that Jesus Christ’s Passion narrative has been kept alive for over 2000 years and is based on a real historical event. We forget or miss the point at our own peril.
The new evangelization should be the old evangelization and without apologies to offended parties.
come-and-hear.com/dilling/dcontents.html#I
Elizabeth Dilling (d. 1967) did painstaking research using source documents and the teaching of modern Jews themselves, including the Jewish Encyclopedia and the Talmud.
When I began studying Judaism I was offended at what claims were made about the Talmud, believing such characterization to be hate mongering. I subsequently purchased the Babylonian Talmud and found that Jesus Christ’s condemnation of the oral traditions of the Pharisees (codified in the Talmud) was well deserved.
It is important to remember that Jesus Christ’s Passion narrative has been kept alive for over 2000 years and is based on a real historical event. We forget or miss the point at our own peril.
The new evangelization should be the old evangelization and without apologies to offended parties.
R
Robbinson
Guest
Please be careful - Ms. Dilling was an admirer of Adolph Hitler (that speaks for itself) and vehment anti-semite. You should read any of her work (if you read it) with significant reservation and caution.A well-researched book regarding the Jews and the Talmud can be viewed here;
come-and-hear.com/dilling/dcontents.html#I
Elizabeth Dilling (d. 1967) did painstaking research using source documents and the teaching of modern Jews themselves, including the Jewish Encyclopedia and the Talmud.
When I began studying Judaism I was offended at what claims were made about the Talmud, believing such characterization to be hate mongering. I subsequently purchased the Babylonian Talmud and found that Jesus Christ’s condemnation of the oral traditions of the Pharisees (codified in the Talmud) was well deserved.
It is important to remember that Jesus Christ’s Passion narrative has been kept alive for over 2000 years and is based on a real historical event. We forget or miss the point at our own peril.
The new evangelization should be the old evangelization and without apologies to offended parties.
Blessings,
Brian
R
Robbinson
Guest
Related to the prior post -for those who might read Ms. Dilling’s work, please see talmud.faithweb.com/ for a different perspective. The fact that Ms. Dilling is the poster child for white supremist groups I think should be a heads up that something is askew.Please be careful - Ms. Dilling was an admirer of Adolph Hitler (that speaks for itself) and vehment anti-semite. You should read any of her work (if you read it) with significant reservation and caution.
Blessings,
Brian
Blessings,
Brian
C
chosen_people
Guest
It’s good to know that the false anti-Semitic characterization of the Talmudic Jew is alive and well. Father Oreglia would be proud.A well-researched book regarding the Jews and the Talmud can be viewed here;
come-and-hear.com/dilling/dcontents.html#I
Elizabeth Dilling (d. 1967) did painstaking research using source documents and the teaching of modern Jews themselves, including the Jewish Encyclopedia and the Talmud.
When I began studying Judaism I was offended at what claims were made about the Talmud, believing such characterization to be hate mongering. I subsequently purchased the Babylonian Talmud and found that Jesus Christ’s condemnation of the oral traditions of the Pharisees (codified in the Talmud) was well deserved.
It is important to remember that Jesus Christ’s Passion narrative has been kept alive for over 2000 years and is based on a real historical event. We forget or miss the point at our own peril.
The new evangelization should be the old evangelization and without apologies to offended parties.
For those who are interested in the the truth:
talmud.faithweb.com/
T
tmgiebel
Guest
I need to correct my earlier post. Elizabeth Dilling died in 1966, not 1967.
It appears that there are members of Catholic Answers who disagree with Mrs. Dilling. These people would most likely disagree with the condemnations of Jesus Christ, so I am not at all distracted at their disapproval of Mrs. Dilling. Consider the source!
The attacks on Mrs. Dilling start with the claim that Mrs. Dilling was an admirer of Adolf Hitler (that speaks for itself). Or does it? Mrs. Dilling traveled to Russia in 1931 and observed the godless, Communist regime there in the first person. She had a life-changing and visceral reaction to it (Communism) and admired Adolf Hitler’s dealings with it (Communism). Does this mean Mrs. Dilling admired Adolf Hitler, the person? No, but we don’t know that. This poster does not give us any reason to believe or disbelieve his/her claim. We are left with an unsubstantiated smear, an ad hominem attack, one of the cheapest (and effective) forms of debate taktiks. Read Mrs. Dilling’s writings and judge for yourself. Go deep in history and understand the real nature of this debate. I challenge you.
Originally Posted by tmgiebel
A well-researched book regarding the Jews and the Talmud can be viewed here;
come-and-hear.com/dilling/dcontents.html#I
Elizabeth Dilling (d. 1967) did painstaking research using source documents and the teaching of modern Jews themselves, including the Jewish Encyclopedia and the Talmud.
When I began studying Judaism I was offended at what claims were made about the Talmud, believing such characterization to be hate mongering. I subsequently purchased the Babylonian Talmud and found that Jesus Christ’s condemnation of the oral traditions of the Pharisees (codified in the Talmud) was well deserved.
It is important to remember that Jesus Christ’s Passion narrative has been kept alive for over 2000 years and is based on a real historical event. We forget or miss the point at our own peril.
talmud.faithweb.com/
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robbinson
Please be careful - Ms. Dilling was an admirer of Adolph Hitler (that speaks for itself) and vehment anti-semite. You should read any of her work (if you read it) with significant reservation and caution.
Blessings,
Blessings,
Brian
Today 10:35 am
Robbinson Re: Jews, the Talmud, and Jesus
It appears that there are members of Catholic Answers who disagree with Mrs. Dilling. These people would most likely disagree with the condemnations of Jesus Christ, so I am not at all distracted at their disapproval of Mrs. Dilling. Consider the source!
The attacks on Mrs. Dilling start with the claim that Mrs. Dilling was an admirer of Adolf Hitler (that speaks for itself). Or does it? Mrs. Dilling traveled to Russia in 1931 and observed the godless, Communist regime there in the first person. She had a life-changing and visceral reaction to it (Communism) and admired Adolf Hitler’s dealings with it (Communism). Does this mean Mrs. Dilling admired Adolf Hitler, the person? No, but we don’t know that. This poster does not give us any reason to believe or disbelieve his/her claim. We are left with an unsubstantiated smear, an ad hominem attack, one of the cheapest (and effective) forms of debate taktiks. Read Mrs. Dilling’s writings and judge for yourself. Go deep in history and understand the real nature of this debate. I challenge you.
+
It might be important to point out the fact that the Bolsheviks, the Communist regime in Russia, murdered 30-40 million of the Bourgeoisie class. No Holocaust here. Move along. Remember that ‘Bourgeoisie’ is synonymous with ‘Christian’ for the founders of Bolshevik Communism. The Orthodox (and all Christian churches) in Russia was (were) systematically decimated, year after year, starting in 1917. The Orthodox Church has been referred to as the ‘other lung’ of Christendom. She is only now getting up off of her knees after almost 100 years of ritual abuse. I pray for the day of a united Christendom. (that they all may be one)
+
The next attack on Mrs. Dilling is more general. She just doesn’t admire Hitler, she is a poster child for white supremacist groups. What exactly does ‘poster child for white supremacist groups’ mean? Did Mrs. Dilling become a klansman? Did she become a National Socialist? Did she misrepresent facts regarding specific racial groups? I have not been able to find any examples of this. Mrs. Dilling appears to be a fact and truth finder. I strongly suggest that you read her writings, especially the references before you accept a smear against her work.
+
I need to ask the obvious question: If Mrs. Dilling quotes sources, including documents and people, and makes honest observations of the behavior of certain peoples, does that make her unreliable or a pariah? I don’t think so. Calling Mrs. Dilling an antisemite holds no power. Mrs. Dilling’s link between Communism and Talmudic Judaism came almost as an accident…Imagine how surprised she was to make the link. Probably as surprised as you will be.
+
Have you read the Talmud?
+
Have you read the New Testament?
+
Have you asked any Jews (of any persuasion) which of these they revere?
+
Does your local synagogue have a copy of the Talmud in its library? A New Testament? Go check it out.
+
Please do not attack people. Provide an argument with facts.
+
Then there is the claim that Mrs. Dillings writings are ‘false anti-semitic characterization of the Talmudic Jew.’ But what now is semitic, anti-semitic and false anti-semitic? And most importantly, what is a ‘Talmudic Jew?’ I start to recall the movie, ‘The Life of Brian’ where the Judean Peoples Front becomes bitter enemies of the People’s Front of Judeah. Oy Vey. You have a goy kopf!
+
Wouldn’t false anti-semitic characterizations be accurate characterizations? Or does just talking about semitism become forbidden? Not in the US yet.
+
To the uninformed and badly formed: Don’t wander into this area. It is ugly and dangerous.
+
I look forward to getting on to the most important part of my earlier post. But no person has addressed it.
Originally Posted by tmgiebelA well-researched book regarding the Jews and the Talmud can be viewed here;
come-and-hear.com/dilling/dcontents.html#I
Elizabeth Dilling (d. 1967) did painstaking research using source documents and the teaching of modern Jews themselves, including the Jewish Encyclopedia and the Talmud.
When I began studying Judaism I was offended at what claims were made about the Talmud, believing such characterization to be hate mongering. I subsequently purchased the Babylonian Talmud and found that Jesus Christ’s condemnation of the oral traditions of the Pharisees (codified in the Talmud) was well deserved.
It is important to remember that Jesus Christ’s Passion narrative has been kept alive for over 2000 years and is based on a real historical event. We forget or miss the point at our own peril.
The new evangelization should be the old evangelization and without apologies to offended parties.
It’s good to know that the false anti-Semitic characterization of the Talmudic Jew is alive and well. Father Oreglia would be proud.
For those who are interested in the the truth:
talmud.faithweb.com/
Today 11:17 am
Robbinson Re: Jews, the Talmud, and Jesus
Quote:Originally Posted by Robbinson
Please be careful - Ms. Dilling was an admirer of Adolph Hitler (that speaks for itself) and vehment anti-semite. You should read any of her work (if you read it) with significant reservation and caution.
Blessings,
Brian
Related to the prior post -for those who might read Ms. Dilling’s work, please see talmud.faithweb.com/ for a different perspective. The fact that Ms. Dilling is the poster child for white supremist groups I think should be a heads up that something is askew.Blessings,
Brian
Today 10:35 am
Robbinson Re: Jews, the Talmud, and Jesus
K
Kaninchen
Guest
You know, one of the awesome things about the Great Jewish World Conspiracy is that it appears to be invisible to everybody but the paranoid, cranks, paranoid cranks and the deranged.I need to correct my earlier post. Elizabeth Dilling died in 1966, not 1967.
It appears that there are members of Catholic Answers who disagree with Mrs. Dilling.
Why is that, do you think? Is there something about being even vaguely sensible that blinds people to the awful naughtiness of us Jews?
C
chosen_people
Guest
Well speaking for myself, I can read Aramaic, Hebrew and Rashi script as well as any English translation such as Soncino. I do not have to go to any library further than my study at home to find the Babylonian or Jerusalem Talmud or a copy of the Christian scriptures for that matter. As I stated earlier I studied Jewish law at the Hebrew University under Professor Menachem Eilon, the former deputy chief justice of the Supreme Court of Israel and one of the foremost experts in the field of Jewish law. I also have an extensive academic background in the history of the Jewish people between 70 c.e. - 1948 including the history of Zionism. The ideas you express, from the Talmudic Jew to the Jew as Bolshevik, in other words the Jews as a detrimental anti-Christian force, gained increasing credence under the Catholic Church in dealing with the changes brought about after Napoleon. The separation of Church and State, freedom of religion, the end of the Papal State, the competition with socialist services, the identification as the Jew who began to receive citizenship in their respective countries and to receive civil rights denied them under Papal laws as the harbinger of these forces as well as identifying Jews with the forces of socialism, liberalism and communism, brought about vicious anti-Semitic attacks in the Catholic press in Italy, France and elsewhere throughout Europe, reaching its zenith at the latter part of the 19th century. Included in these attacks was the notorious blood libel accusing Jews of murdering and taking the blood of young Christians to use in making of Matzah and Jewish rituals. See my reference to Father Oreglia above. It is the reason that the Catholic Church was so tolerant of Fascist movements, both in Italy (see the 1922 agreement) as well as Germany 1933. To scholars such as Kertzer, these attitudes and attacks were an instrumental force that led to the formation of modern anti-Semitism culminating with the Shoah.
C
chosen_people
Guest
To understand about Dilling’s ideas about the Jews please read page 168 at this link:
books.google.com/books?id=vLaYq0ynoRsC&pg=PA168&lpg=PA168&dq=dilling+talmud&source=bl&ots=ZptMKgsA-c&sig=n8FQLykdbD-HvED5-o6DnYl1nKU&hl=en&ei=9536Svj3J421sgbnmYmdCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CAoQ6AEwADgK#v=onepage&q=dilling%20talmud&f=false
books.google.com/books?id=vLaYq0ynoRsC&pg=PA168&lpg=PA168&dq=dilling+talmud&source=bl&ots=ZptMKgsA-c&sig=n8FQLykdbD-HvED5-o6DnYl1nKU&hl=en&ei=9536Svj3J421sgbnmYmdCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CAoQ6AEwADgK#v=onepage&q=dilling%20talmud&f=false
T
tmgiebel
Guest
Thanks for the links. I did visit the site talmud.faithweb.com/ and this is what I found regarding the claim that Balaam is a ‘codeword’ for Jesus in the Talmud:
Balaam
Balaam in rabbinic literature is one of the archetype villains. As we shall see, he was a powerful man whose prophecy and closeness with G-d gave him potential to do much good. However, he chose to use those gifts towards evil. Because of his terrific potential that was utterly twisted, his heavenly abilities that were perverted towards wrongdoing, he is considered the prime example of corruption.
“The Strategy of Balaam;”
…
“Henceforth he became the type of false prophets seducing men to lewdness and obscene idolatrous practises (Rev. ii. 14; II Peter ii. 15; Jude 11; Abot v.19). The name “Nicolaitanes,” given to the Christian heretics “holding the doctrine of Balaam” (Rev. ii. 6, 15), is probably derived from the Grecized form of Balaam, = Nικο-γάος, and hence also the pseudonym “Balaam,” given to Jesus in Sanh. 106b and Giṭ. 57a. See Geiger, “Bileam and Jesus,” in “Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift für Jüdische Theologie,” vi. 31-37).”
You can read the entire article at jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=161&letter=B&search=balaam
So the living traditions of the Pharisees, codified in the Talmud and referenced in the Jewish Encyclopedia clearly give the pseudonym “Balaam” to Jesus. And to what end? See; Sanhedrin 106b and Gittin 57a.
come-and-hear.com/sanhedrin/sanhedrin_106.html#E111
come-and-hear.com/gittin/gittin_57.html#T163
Now I don’t think that you can have a discussion about Jews, the Talmud, and Jesus without reading the Talmud and viewing it from a Jewish perspective.
Doing so should not be met by name calling or threatening to be ‘reported, warned and banned’ from the CA forum.
I am convinced that Jesus Christ himself would be threatened in the same or worse ways if He were to speak the truth on this site. The Truth, after all, is not very popular in these days of Relativism.
Balaam
Balaam in rabbinic literature is one of the archetype villains. As we shall see, he was a powerful man whose prophecy and closeness with G-d gave him potential to do much good. However, he chose to use those gifts towards evil. Because of his terrific potential that was utterly twisted, his heavenly abilities that were perverted towards wrongdoing, he is considered the prime example of corruption.
Some scholars have suggested that Balaam is a codeword in talmudic literature for Jesus. However, we will show that Balaam is considered the paragon of evil in passages that cannot refer to Jesus and from these passages we can see that there is no compelling reason to read other similar passages as referring to Jesus. Indeed, reading these passages as referring to Jesus would be breaking with the established understanding of the talmud.
A quick look to the Jewish Encyclopedia reveals this contradictory quote under the heading“The Strategy of Balaam;”
…
“Henceforth he became the type of false prophets seducing men to lewdness and obscene idolatrous practises (Rev. ii. 14; II Peter ii. 15; Jude 11; Abot v.19). The name “Nicolaitanes,” given to the Christian heretics “holding the doctrine of Balaam” (Rev. ii. 6, 15), is probably derived from the Grecized form of Balaam, = Nικο-γάος, and hence also the pseudonym “Balaam,” given to Jesus in Sanh. 106b and Giṭ. 57a. See Geiger, “Bileam and Jesus,” in “Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift für Jüdische Theologie,” vi. 31-37).”
You can read the entire article at jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=161&letter=B&search=balaam
So the living traditions of the Pharisees, codified in the Talmud and referenced in the Jewish Encyclopedia clearly give the pseudonym “Balaam” to Jesus. And to what end? See; Sanhedrin 106b and Gittin 57a.
come-and-hear.com/sanhedrin/sanhedrin_106.html#E111
come-and-hear.com/gittin/gittin_57.html#T163
Now I don’t think that you can have a discussion about Jews, the Talmud, and Jesus without reading the Talmud and viewing it from a Jewish perspective.
Doing so should not be met by name calling or threatening to be ‘reported, warned and banned’ from the CA forum.
I am convinced that Jesus Christ himself would be threatened in the same or worse ways if He were to speak the truth on this site. The Truth, after all, is not very popular in these days of Relativism.
R
robsully
Guest
Hello all.
I popped in to say great thread. And thank you to all the Jews that have responded and offered, for me, a great insight into the Jewish faith.
Thank you again.
I popped in to say great thread. And thank you to all the Jews that have responded and offered, for me, a great insight into the Jewish faith.
Thank you again.
C
chosen_people
Guest
Okay just for the record this is what Dilling says and what you apparently believe:
The purpose of Judaism is to exterminate or enslave Christians
Jews study the Talmud to carry out this purpose
Jews believe that Christians are consigned to eternal Hell
The Talmud permits sex with children, corpses and dogs
The Talmud permits burning of babies as human sacrifice
The Talmud permits killing and cheating of Christians
Jews seek world domination through communism and the civil rights movement
Now I find it hard to believe that any sane rational person would believe such nonsense much less try to argue for its veracity
The purpose of Judaism is to exterminate or enslave Christians
Jews study the Talmud to carry out this purpose
Jews believe that Christians are consigned to eternal Hell
The Talmud permits sex with children, corpses and dogs
The Talmud permits burning of babies as human sacrifice
The Talmud permits killing and cheating of Christians
Jews seek world domination through communism and the civil rights movement
Now I find it hard to believe that any sane rational person would believe such nonsense much less try to argue for its veracity
T
tmgiebel
Guest
Let’s not get too far down the road to making the same conclusions that Elizabeth Dilling has. I believe that in the interest of fair debate and pursuit of truth to start out with small steps that we can agree upon.Okay just for the record this is what Dilling says and what you apparently believe:
The purpose of Judaism is to exterminate or enslave Christians
Jews study the Talmud to carry out this purpose
Jews believe that Christians are consigned to eternal Hell
The Talmud permits sex with children, corpses and dogs
The Talmud permits burning of babies as human sacrifice
The Talmud permits killing and cheating of Christians
Jews seek world domination through communism and the civil rights movement
Now I find it hard to believe that any sane rational person would believe such nonsense much less try to argue for its veracity
The issue of Pharisaical Oral Law is an incendiary one. Jesus Christ is the most vocal opponent of the system. We must either believe Him entirely or not at all. Only we cannot have it both ways. We cannot call Jesus Christ ‘divine’ and then claim He lied to us.
So a major first step is to agree who Jesus Christ is. This is probably the most important question a person can answer. And indeed we must answer it. Jesus Christ asked his apostles, “Who do you say that I am?”
It is important to note that Christians did not accept Pharisaical Law and did not codify the Talmud. Rabbinical Jews did. So there is a deep, organic history that can be grasped. This makes discussion of historical facts regarding the Talmud possible. It is said that we may have different opinions but we should have the same facts.
Now it is probably not useful to begin a discussion of Christ’s words if we cannot agree as to who He is. And this is the conundrum of a forum open to anyone. Many of the forum members have different opinions masquerading as facts.
So who do you say Christ is?
K
Kaninchen
Guest
We should never forget the terrible damage inflicted on traditional Jew-hatred by the Nazis.Now I find it hard to believe that any sane rational person would believe such nonsense much less try to argue for its veracity
There they were, noisy proponents of attitudes quietly shared by lots and lots of people, next they were left behind like handloom-weavers in the industrial revolution by ‘scientific anti-Semitism’ and industrialized annihilation.
Probably seemed like a good thing at the time but then, horror of horrors, the Reich was defeated and hating Jews became distinctly unfashionable.
What are they left with? All that old-fashioned, carefully-crocheted at home or small-workshop ‘Protocols’ production.
K
Kaninchen
Guest
There’s only one interesting question, what’s in it for the individual Jew-hater?
R
Robbinson
Guest
With respect - this is not the quesiton at issue (though I am a Catholic and Christian and of course believe that Jesus is Lord and Messiah).Let’s not get too far down the road to making the same conclusions that Elizabeth Dilling has. I believe that in the interest of fair debate and pursuit of truth to start out with small steps that we can agree upon.
The issue of Pharisaical Oral Law is an incendiary one. Jesus Christ is the most vocal opponent of the system. We must either believe Him entirely or not at all. Only we cannot have it both ways. We cannot call Jesus Christ ‘divine’ and then claim He lied to us.
So a major first step is to agree who Jesus Christ is. This is probably the most important question a person can answer. And indeed we must answer it. Jesus Christ asked his apostles, “Who do you say that I am?”
It is important to note that Christians did not accept Pharisaical Law and did not codify the Talmud. Rabbinical Jews did. So there is a deep, organic history that can be grasped. This makes discussion of historical facts regarding the Talmud possible. It is said that we may have different opinions but we should have the same facts.
Now it is probably not useful to begin a discussion of Christ’s words if we cannot agree as to who He is. And this is the conundrum of a forum open to anyone. Many of the forum members have different opinions masquerading as facts.
So who do you say Christ is?
Nor is the question really whether the Talmud says unflattering things about Jesus (we might expect it to, as Jews (other than messianic jews) do not accept Jesus as the Christ and thus believe he was committing blasphemy). Of course we, as Christians, don’t agree with this, but that does not “condemn” the Talmud or the Jews (other than being consistent with their not believing in Christ as the Messiah).
The debate/issue raised by Ms. Dillings work (which you appear to be advocating) is that it makes a number of incendary allegations about what the Talmud says and what Jews think it means which most honest scholars would acknowledge are errant, at best, and at worst, intentionally deceptive.
By way of analogy, the gospels report Jesus saying that we must hate our mother and father. A non-Christian reading those words out of context would think this to be literal, no? (and some non-christians do take that literal). Whereas most Christians understand this verse as not teaching us to “hate” our mother and father but rather to demonstrate how much we must “love” Christ. So it is with the Talmud - teachings take the form of parables understood and taught as such by the jews, but often miscontrued by others.
If someone with an agenda (e.g., an antisemetic agenda, for example) reads the Talmud out of context, they can make it say all types of nasty things. This is equally true for the Bible and many athiests in fact do this with verse in the Old and New Testament.
I hope you reflect on your beliefs regarding the Jewish people. The history of antisemetism in the Church has almost certainly been an obstacle to the Jewish people (as a collective) coming to faith in Christ.
Paul prayed for the conversion of his brethern, Jesus did not condem the Jewish nonbelievers, but prayed for them.
BTW - I am a Jewish believer (now Catholic).
Blessings,
Brian
A
Anna_Scott
Guest
For most of my 54 years, I have been told from the pulpits of Christian Churches all the reasons the Jews rejected Jesus.
A few years ago, I decided to seek the Jewish viewpoint, and I began reading Jewish authors.
I was really quite surprised by what the Jewish authors had to say about Jesus and the role of the Messiah. I was also intrigued by the particular issue of sacrifice for the atonement of sins. Christianity hangs upon the atonement of Christ. So, this is a critical issue.
One Jewish author asked a question that I have not been able to answer: The question paraphrased: If God is God, and He makes the rules, why did anyone have to die for our salvation?
The O.T. does reveal a point, when God seemed to no longer desire a sacrifice or blood atonement for sins.
Micah 6: 6 “With what shall I come before the LORD, and bow myself before God on high? Shall I come before him with burnt offerings, with calves a year old? 7 Will the LORD be pleased with thousands of rams, with ten thousands of rivers of oil? Shall I give my firstborn for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul?” 8 He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?
**Proverbs 21: **2 Every way of a man is right in his own eyes, but the LORD weighs the heart. 3 To do righteousness and justice is more acceptable to the LORD than sacrifice.
**Jeremiah 7: **22 **For in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, I did not speak to your fathers or command them concerning burnt offerings and sacrifices. **23But this command I gave them: ‘Obey my voice, and I will be your God, and you shall be my people. And walk in all the way that I command you, that it may be well with you.’
Even in the N.T. we find Jesus quoting Hosea 6:6:
Matthew 9: 12 But when he heard it, he said, “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. 13 **Go and learn what this means, ‘I desire mercy, and not sacrifice.’ **For I came not to call the righteous, but sinners.”
Hosea 6: 4 What shall I do with you, O Ephraim? What shall I do with you, O Judah? Your love is like a morning cloud, like the dew that goes early away. 5 Therefore I have hewn them by the prophets; I have slain them by the words of my mouth, and my judgment goes forth as the light. 6 For I desire steadfast love and not sacrifice, the knowledge of God rather than burnt offerings.
One of the most intriguing passages in the NT reveals Jesus agreeing that loving God and your neighbor is more important than “all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices.”
Mark 12: 29 Jesus answered, “The most important is, ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. 30 And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ 31 The second is this: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.”
32 And the scribe said to him, “You are right, Teacher. You have truly said that he is one, and there is no other besides him. 33 And to love him with all the heart and with all the understanding and with all the strength, and to love one’s neighbor as oneself, is much more than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices.” 34 And when Jesus saw that he answered wisely, he said to him, “You are not far from the kingdom of God.” And after that no one dared to ask him any more questions.
This seems to be a very strange thing for Jesus to say, since he came as the ultimate sacrifice for our sins.
Also, throughout the NT, Jesus forgave sins. Not once did he tell those he forgave to go and make a sacrifice to complete the forgiveness.
In addition, John proclaimed Baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.
Luke 3: 2 during the high priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas, the word of God came to John the son of Zechariah in the wilderness. 3 And he went into all the region around the Jordan, proclaiming a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.
Mark 1: 4 **John appeared, baptizing in the wilderness and proclaiming a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. **5 And all the country of Judea and all Jerusalem were going out to him and were being baptized by him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins.
I think the Jewish writer posed a very important question: If God is God, and He makes the rules, why did anyone have to die for our salvation?
I welcome comments from both the Jewish and Christian perspective.
To the OP: If this issue is too far from the topic of the Talmud and Jesus, I will start a new Thread. Just let me know.
Respectfully,
Anna
A few years ago, I decided to seek the Jewish viewpoint, and I began reading Jewish authors.
I was really quite surprised by what the Jewish authors had to say about Jesus and the role of the Messiah. I was also intrigued by the particular issue of sacrifice for the atonement of sins. Christianity hangs upon the atonement of Christ. So, this is a critical issue.
One Jewish author asked a question that I have not been able to answer: The question paraphrased: If God is God, and He makes the rules, why did anyone have to die for our salvation?
The O.T. does reveal a point, when God seemed to no longer desire a sacrifice or blood atonement for sins.
Micah 6: 6 “With what shall I come before the LORD, and bow myself before God on high? Shall I come before him with burnt offerings, with calves a year old? 7 Will the LORD be pleased with thousands of rams, with ten thousands of rivers of oil? Shall I give my firstborn for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul?” 8 He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?
**Proverbs 21: **2 Every way of a man is right in his own eyes, but the LORD weighs the heart. 3 To do righteousness and justice is more acceptable to the LORD than sacrifice.
**Jeremiah 7: **22 **For in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, I did not speak to your fathers or command them concerning burnt offerings and sacrifices. **23But this command I gave them: ‘Obey my voice, and I will be your God, and you shall be my people. And walk in all the way that I command you, that it may be well with you.’
Even in the N.T. we find Jesus quoting Hosea 6:6:
Matthew 9: 12 But when he heard it, he said, “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. 13 **Go and learn what this means, ‘I desire mercy, and not sacrifice.’ **For I came not to call the righteous, but sinners.”
Hosea 6: 4 What shall I do with you, O Ephraim? What shall I do with you, O Judah? Your love is like a morning cloud, like the dew that goes early away. 5 Therefore I have hewn them by the prophets; I have slain them by the words of my mouth, and my judgment goes forth as the light. 6 For I desire steadfast love and not sacrifice, the knowledge of God rather than burnt offerings.
One of the most intriguing passages in the NT reveals Jesus agreeing that loving God and your neighbor is more important than “all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices.”
Mark 12: 29 Jesus answered, “The most important is, ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. 30 And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ 31 The second is this: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.”
32 And the scribe said to him, “You are right, Teacher. You have truly said that he is one, and there is no other besides him. 33 And to love him with all the heart and with all the understanding and with all the strength, and to love one’s neighbor as oneself, is much more than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices.” 34 And when Jesus saw that he answered wisely, he said to him, “You are not far from the kingdom of God.” And after that no one dared to ask him any more questions.
This seems to be a very strange thing for Jesus to say, since he came as the ultimate sacrifice for our sins.
Also, throughout the NT, Jesus forgave sins. Not once did he tell those he forgave to go and make a sacrifice to complete the forgiveness.
In addition, John proclaimed Baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.
Luke 3: 2 during the high priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas, the word of God came to John the son of Zechariah in the wilderness. 3 And he went into all the region around the Jordan, proclaiming a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.
Mark 1: 4 **John appeared, baptizing in the wilderness and proclaiming a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. **5 And all the country of Judea and all Jerusalem were going out to him and were being baptized by him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins.
I think the Jewish writer posed a very important question: If God is God, and He makes the rules, why did anyone have to die for our salvation?
I welcome comments from both the Jewish and Christian perspective.
To the OP: If this issue is too far from the topic of the Talmud and Jesus, I will start a new Thread. Just let me know.
Respectfully,
Anna
L
Lapell
Guest
First, from Jesus’ time the Jewish authorities never believed Jesus to be God takingthe form of a man.I was really quite surprised by what the Jewish authors had to say about Jesus and the role of the Messiah. I was also intrigued by the particular issue of sacrifice for the atonement of sins. Christianity hangs upon the atonement of Christ. So, this is a critical issue.
One Jewish author asked a question that I have not been able to answer: The question paraphrased: If God is God, and He makes the rules, why did anyone have to die for our salvation?
The O.T. does reveal a point, when God seemed to no longer desire a sacrifice or blood atonement for sins.
Also, throughout the NT, Jesus forgave sins. Not once did he tell those he forgave to go and make a sacrifice to complete the forgiveness.
Second, it never was God’s desire that there should be sacrifices, but so many sins committed by man could not be fully repaired. Hence “an eye for an eye, atoot for a tooth, blood for blood”. It CALLED FOR fuller satisfaction. So even though God never WANTED blood sacrifices, the situation of humanity piling up the serious sins CALLED FOR them.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.