JPII now baptised by proxy by LDS

  • Thread starter Thread starter flameburns623
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
New thread guys?

This is drifting from the :whacky: LDS ritual a bit. But I would like to hear about this as long as majic underwear does not come into play.
 
What I understand these two bullet points to mean, is that even if we reinsert the passages “expurgated”, this still produces only a few mentions of Yeshu, written at a time when “Christianity was first emerging”. If that is the case, it would only make sense that the Jews would rearrange some of their earlier works to color Jesus as a false prophet. If these expurgated passages are somehow supposed to be convincing evidence that Jesus was predicted as a false prophet, I’m not convinced.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judaism’s_view_of_Jesus
I wasn’t posting the info as proof of Jesus’ “falseness”. Obviously Jews believe he was a false or failed messiah and Christians believe he was/is the Messiah. You are right when you say there is very little mentioned in Talmud of Jesus. And what is mentioned may or may not be references to him. Rambam does mention that Jesus was a predicted false prophet, but I’m unfamilar with that writing. The turth is that Jews don’t put too much emphaisis on this subject, usually.
 
New thread guys?

This is drifting from the :whacky: LDS ritual a bit. But I would like to hear about this as long as majic underwear does not come into play.
Agreed. The topic has strayed* just a little*. :confused:
 
There was a short reference to Jesus in the Talmud. I can’t remember the exact quote but I believe it called him a false messiah and briefly discussed his death. It may or may not have questioned his birth. I don’t know. It was removed from the Talmud in fear of angering Christians. It has since been added back in to most translations, usually as an endnote. I’ll try to find more specific information about it. There’s a reference to it in a book I’m reading at home. (I’m at the office now).
Actually, I did a search, and found quite a bit of information about Talmudic references to Christ and Christians:

biblebelievers.org.au/talmud1.htm

biblebelievers.org.au/talmud2.htm

biblebelievers.org.au/talmudx.htm

zerinus
 
Thanks Z.

Notice who wrote it?

Why cant the LDS come up with this stuff? Too busy with the empty ritual thing huh?
What are you talking about? In any case, this is pretty ancient stuff. It is not a reflection of what Jews believe in or practice today. I referenced it to show that we do know what the Talmud’s opinion is (or was) about Christ and Christians.

zerinus
 
What are you talking about? In any case, this is pretty ancient stuff. It is not a reflection of what Jews believe in or practice today. I referenced it to show that we do know what the Talmud’s opinion is (or was) about Christ and Christians.

zerinus
Once again Z - Jews (not the Jews that became Catholics and started the Church) do not believe Jesus was the Messiah…
walk into any synagogue and you can find this out for yourself!
 
What are you talking about? In any case, this is pretty ancient stuff. It is not a reflection of what Jews believe in or practice today. I referenced it to show that we do know what the Talmud’s opinion is (or was) about Christ and Christians.

zerinus
I only have to look at the title of the link to know it is nothing but lies half truths and misdirection. If you’d like, I can start a “Falsifiers of the Talmud” thread, but I would hope it really isn’t necessary and that we are all smart enough to recognize hate sites when we come across them.
 
Actually, I did a search, and found quite a bit of information about Talmudic references to Christ and Christians:


You should search some more and maybe ask a couple of questions about the priest who wrote “The Talmud Unmasked”.

The reference to Jesus that is made in your link, calling him a bastard and son of a harlot, etc., and refered to as tractate “Kallah, 1b”, is, well, a lie. There is no such quote in Kallah 1b. It is a total fabrication.

The poster also says that "Jesus is blasphemed as a fool (Schabbath 104b), a conjurer (Toldoth Jeshu), and an idolater (Sanhedrin 103a), and a seducer (Sanhedrin 107b).

First of all “Schabbath” is supposed to be Shabbath. It does not make an evaluation of Jesus or anyone else. It reports a discussion between Rabbi Elizer and the sages. He asks the sages, “But did not Ben Stada bring forth witchcraft from Egypt by means of scratches (in the form of charms) upon his flesh? He was a fool, answered they, and proof cannot be adduced from fools.” Antisemites rely on the theory that the Talmudic scholars meant Jesus when they referred to Ben Stada. A British scholar, R. Travers Herford, gives it as his opinion in “Christianity in Talmud and Midrash” (p. 37) that Ben Stada means Jesus of Nazareth. Further on, however, he says “…The Talmud has preserved only a very vague and confused recollection of Jesus” (. And he points out that some people argue “that there are in the Talmud two persons called Jesus, neither of whom is the historical Jesus of Nazareth” (p. 347).

Regarding Toldoth Jeshu, it is a book from the Middle Ages. It is not a part of the Talmud. The Oxford Dictionary of Jewish Religion says of it, “…the work is an expression of vulgar polemics written in reaction to the no less vulgar attacks on Judaism in popular Christian teaching and writing [of that time]”. Ok. So this has nothing to do with anything. It’s a red herring.

The claim that Sanhedrin 103a calls Jesus an idolator is a complete lie.

Sanhedrin 107b. This is a distortion of the truth by Van Hyning based upon a legendary story in this portion of the Talmud. As it is actually related, Jesus and his teacher met a woman at a wayside inn; Jesus admired her extreme beauty. For this the teacher severely admonished him and dismissed him as a pupil. The rabbis in the Talmud sharply criticized the teacher for his harshness and severity towards Jesus.

I can go point by point down the whole article, I’m sure. I think we’re all smart enough here to see this stuff for what it really is.

You should know that “Rev. I. B. Pranaitis”, the author from your link, is routinely quoted by Nazi/supremists websites. He represents the absolute worst of anti-semites. Truthfully, his quotes have about as much authority concerning Judaism as Mein Kampf. I’ll assume you didn’t know any of this when you posted the links.​
 
You should search some more and maybe ask a couple of questions about the priest who wrote “The Talmud Unmasked”.

The reference to Jesus that is made in your link, calling him a bastard and son of a harlot, etc., and refered to as tractate “Kallah, 1b”, is, well, a lie. There is no such quote in Kallah 1b. It is a total fabrication.

The poster also says that "Jesus is blasphemed as a fool (Schabbath 104b), a conjurer (Toldoth Jeshu), and an idolater (Sanhedrin 103a), and a seducer (Sanhedrin 107b).

First of all “Schabbath” is supposed to be Shabbath. It does not make an evaluation of Jesus or anyone else. It reports a discussion between Rabbi Elizer and the sages. He asks the sages, “But did not Ben Stada bring forth witchcraft from Egypt by means of scratches (in the form of charms) upon his flesh? He was a fool, answered they, and proof cannot be adduced from fools.” Antisemites rely on the theory that the Talmudic scholars meant Jesus when they referred to Ben Stada. A British scholar, R. Travers Herford, gives it as his opinion in “Christianity in Talmud and Midrash” (p. 37) that Ben Stada means Jesus of Nazareth. Further on, however, he says “…The Talmud has preserved only a very vague and confused recollection of Jesus” (. And he points out that some people argue “that there are in the Talmud two persons called Jesus, neither of whom is the historical Jesus of Nazareth” (p. 347).

Regarding Toldoth Jeshu, it is a book from the Middle Ages. It is not a part of the Talmud. The Oxford Dictionary of Jewish Religion says of it, “…the work is an expression of vulgar polemics written in reaction to the no less vulgar attacks on Judaism in popular Christian teaching and writing [of that time]”. Ok. So this has nothing to do with anything. It’s a red herring.

The claim that Sanhedrin 103a calls Jesus an idolator is a complete lie.

Sanhedrin 107b. This is a distortion of the truth by Van Hyning based upon a legendary story in this portion of the Talmud. As it is actually related, Jesus and his teacher met a woman at a wayside inn; Jesus admired her extreme beauty. For this the teacher severely admonished him and dismissed him as a pupil. The rabbis in the Talmud sharply criticized the teacher for his harshness and severity towards Jesus.

I can go point by point down the whole article, I’m sure. I think we’re all smart enough here to see this stuff for what it really is.

You should know that “Rev. I. B. Pranaitis”, the author from your link, is routinely quoted by Nazi/supremists websites. He represents the absolute worst of anti-semites. Truthfully, his quotes have about as much authority concerning Judaism as Mein Kampf. I’ll assume you didn’t know any of this when you posted the links.
You could be right. I am not a student of the Talmud. It is quite possible that some people have tried to distort its teachings–as many have tried to do with LDS. However, going by what little I know, there is probably more than a grain of truth in it. In very distant past hatred of Christ and dislike of Christians was fairly common among the Jews; although during the past 100 years or so that has changed considerably.

zerinus
 
So the rabbi, Maimonides loved Jesus and Christianity when he wrote “Jesus the Nazarene, may his bones be ground to dust?”

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judaism’s_view_of_Jesus
who said anything about jews loving jesus. ANd Rambam wrote much later than when the Talmlud was written, in a time when Jews had plenty to complain about regarding how Christians were treating them. And Rambam’s writings are not the Talmud, which is what we were discussing.

From your link: Jesus is mentioned in Maimonides’ Epistle to Yemen, written about 1172 to Rabbi Jacob ben Netan’el al-Fayyumi, head of the Yemen Jewish community during a time when Jews of that country were passing through a crisis, namely a forced conversion to Islam, inaugurated about 1165 by ‘Abd-al-Nabi ibn Mahdi, and a campaign conducted by a recent convert to win them to his new faith. The context of Maimonides’ mention of Jesus is during a portion retelling the history of those who tried to destroy Judaism 1) by the sword, 2) by controversies, and 3) by both conquest and controversy. The latter category begins with Jesus, and goes on to mention Paul, and then Muhammad.

He writes; “Ever since the time of Revelation, every despot or slave that has attained to power, be he violent or ignoble, has made it his first aim and his final purpose to destroy our law, and to vitiate our religion, by means of the sword, by violence, or by brute force, such as Amalek, Sisera, Sennacherib, Nebuchadnezzar, Titus, Hadrian, may their bones be ground to dust, and others like them. This is one of the two classes which attempt to foil the Divine will.”
 
who said anything about jews loving jesus.
Exactly. 👍 Glad to see we’re on the same page.
ANd Rambam wrote much later than when the Talmlud was written, in a time when Jews had plenty to complain about regarding how Christians were treating them.
When was the time when they did not have much to complain about regarding how Christians were treating them? Perhaps we can work only within that timeframe so as not to have tainted testimonies about Christians (in another thread of course, since this is going way off topic).
From your link: Jesus is mentioned in Maimonides’ Epistle to Yemen, written about 1172 to Rabbi Jacob ben Netan’el al-Fayyumi, head of the Yemen Jewish community during a time when Jews of that country were passing through a crisis, namely a forced conversion to Islam, inaugurated about 1165 by 'Abd-al-Nabi ibn Mahdi, and a campaign conducted by a recent convert to win them to his new faith.
So, persecution of Yemenis by Muslims = Complaints about Christians mistreating Maimonides, how?
The context of Maimonides’ mention of Jesus is during a portion retelling the history of those who tried to destroy Judaism 1) by the sword, 2) by controversies, and 3) by both conquest and controversy. The latter category begins with Jesus, and goes on to mention Paul, and then Muhammad.
Again this was from a letter to a Jewish man being persecuted by Muslims in Yemen. I still don’t get why mentioning his desire to crush Jesus’ bones (good luck finding them) to dust is relevant. It was indicative of a larger cultural anti-Christianity that goes back to the time of early Christianity when certain passages supposedly referring to Jesus were inserted into the Talmud.
He writes; “Ever since the time of Revelation, every despot or slave that has attained to power, be he violent or ignoble, has made it his first aim and his final purpose to destroy our law, and to vitiate our religion, by means of the sword, by violence, or by brute force, such as Amalek, Sisera, Sennacherib, Nebuchadnezzar, Titus, Hadrian, may their bones be ground to dust, and others like them. This is one of the two classes which attempt to foil the Divine will.”
Once again, what does this have to do with Jesus or Christianity?
Jesus did not destroy anything by the sword, by violence or by brute force. I don’t see the quotes you provided from my link as a defense of Maimonides’ anti-Christianity. Nowhere is it indicated that he is being persecuted by Christians in these excerpts you shared. Further, it is completely absurd, if he is indirectly referring to Jesus, to say that Christ used “the sword” for anything.
 
Exactly. 👍 Glad to see we’re on the same page.

When was the time when they did not have much to complain about regarding how Christians were treating them? Perhaps we can work only within that timeframe so as not to have tainted testimonies about Christians (in another thread of course, since this is going way off topic).

So, persecution of Yemenis by Muslims = Complaints about Christians mistreating Maimonides, how?

Again this was from a letter to a Jewish man being persecuted by Muslims in Yemen. I still don’t get why mentioning his desire to crush Jesus’ bones (good luck finding them) to dust is relevant. It was indicative of a larger cultural anti-Christianity that goes back to the time of early Christianity when certain passages supposedly referring to Jesus were inserted into the Talmud.

Once again, what does this have to do with Jesus or Christianity?
Jesus did not destroy anything by the sword, by violence or by brute force. I don’t see the quotes you provided from my link as a defense of Maimonides’ anti-Christianity. Nowhere is it indicated that he is being persecuted by Christians in these excerpts you shared. Further, it is completely absurd, if he is indirectly referring to Jesus, to say that Christ used “the sword” for anything.
What in the world does this have to do with Mormons running around baptising dead people? If Valke feels that it is more insulting to Jews than to anyone else, let him start a new thread on that. this is way off topic here and Valke has had his day in the sun. Let’s move back to the topic. Which was Mormonism bapitisng the dead.
 
What in the world does this have to do with Mormons running around baptising dead people? If Valke feels that it is more insulting to Jews than to anyone else, let him start a new thread on that. this is way off topic here and Valke has had his day in the sun. Let’s move back to the topic. Which was Mormonism bapitisng the dead.
You are right. I apologize for being a party to completely derailing this thread.
 
You are right. I apologize for being a party to completely derailing this thread.
No problem. But Valke is an extremely faithful Jew and he tends to bring all things into a discussion of Judaism. Gotta watch him for that. It gets confusing after a while, especially when people come on who don’t like Jews and then we are all mired up. so back to Mormons. 😃
 
No problem. But Valke is an extremely faithful Jew and he tends to bring all things into a discussion of Judaism. Gotta watch him for that. It gets confusing after a while, especially when people come on who don’t like Jews and then we are all mired up. so back to Mormons. 😃
Mormons dont want to grind Jesus’ bones up.
Mormons dont burn up holy books.
Mormons did not …
I dont have to say it.

Mormons dont get my undies in a bundle. God loves the Mormons!🙂
I have no problem with this ritual.
What the hey, if they did it to me once I am dead I could care less.
God love em!👍

Godspeed Z!🙂

Keep up the good work!
 
Speaking of baptisms, do Latter Day Saints baptize infants?

I’m not familiar with their practices.
 
Again this was from a letter to a Jewish man being persecuted by Muslims in Yemen. I still don’t get why mentioning his desire to crush Jesus’ bones (good luck finding them) to dust is relevant. It was indicative of a larger cultural anti-Christianity that goes back to the time of early Christianity when certain passages supposedly referring to Jesus were inserted into the Talmud.
Rambam uses Jesus as an example of one who tried to destroy Judaism/Torah. He is responding to a muslim threat and saying, “Look. This is nothing new. History is full of people who have done things to try and harm Judaism. Look at Jesus, x, y, etc., may their bones be ground to dust”"
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top