Leading German Rabbi Condemns Pope's Good Friday Prayer

[Lapell]

I am truly sorry that a number of Jews believe this lie, I know Elie Wiesel learned it from a Catholic writer, François Mauriac… and believed it. I don’t know whether he still does or not, but anyway… and he is not the only one, of course. I can’t truly be angry at them because they are sincere, only I’m angrier at the people who knowingly spread this awful calumny!
I remember having read somewhere that according to Jewish tradition (maybe the Talmud), calumny kills the one whom is talked about, plus the one whom it’s told to, and ultimately the one who tells it! Very good insight!

 

[Valke2]

A combination of both religious and secular. Some were wedded to secular law and ethics. Others had a kind of warped sense of “specialness.” They saw themselves as a ruling/superior race over the gentile world.

I don’t know where you got this idea from. But it clearly was not from reading the Talmud.

 

[CarolsDaughter]

Interesting, CarolsDaughter! From this I have 2 questions…
1-Since you said the passage is “almost identical”… how is it written in that Sanhedrin passage?
2-Can you give other examples involving the Zohar or the Talmud or both? I am interesed…

What it says in the Talmud is: “But I say to you that whether a man be Jew or Gentile, slave or free, male or female, the same Ruach ha Kodesh (Holy Spirit) rests upon him, upon all who call upon God in truth”.

As you see, its very very similar to Galatians 3:28. (There are other similar passages too, but off the top of my head I can’t give you chapter and verse without looking them up.)

 

[saylo]

What it says in the Talmud is: “But I say to you that whether a man be Jew or Gentile, slave or free, male or female, the same Ruach ha Kodesh (Holy Spirit) rests upon him, upon all who call upon God in truth”.

Chronology aside. St. Paul uttered these words but he was referring to embracing God’s Son.

Could these words have been “prophetic” words that would be spoken by St. Paul and thus to the whole world?

Are not quotes from the OT also quotes said in the NT as prophetic fulfillment?

Once said by St. Paul it has to refer to God’s Son as the unifying base of Jew and gentile.

As you see, its very very similar to Galatians 3:28. (There are other similar passages too, but off the top of my head I can’t give you chapter and verse without looking them up.)

Ironically, St. Paul was a Jewish zealot who persecuted the Early Christians. He was on the road to Damascus to decimate the Christian community there.

God works in mysterious ways.

 

[CarolsDaughter]

Ironically, St. Paul was a Jewish zealot who persecuted the Early Christians. He was on the road to Damascus to decimate the Christian community there.

God works in mysterious ways.

The only historical record of Paul even doing or saying that is from the Christian Bible, which only Christians recognize as authoritative, so…

 

[rlg94086]

The only historical record of Paul even doing or saying that is from the Christian Bible, which only Christians recognize as authoritative, so…

Hmm…this discussion reminds me of one I had with my brother-in-law years ago. I mentioned to him that Jews don’t believe that Jesus is the Son of God, and he responded…“How can that be? It is written in the Bible!”

Of course, there is no reason for anyone, Jew or Christian, to doubt the accounts of Paul being a Christian-persecuting, Jewish zealot…it has no bearing on the Truth of Christ from a historical perspective.

 

[saylo]

The only historical record of Paul even doing or saying that is from the Christian Bible, which only Christians recognize as authoritative, so…

So, this is a Christian/Catholic Forum isn’t that what it is all about? Should Christian meaning be disallowed here? Just wondering. …

All are invited to this Forum but there are protocols to be followed by all (believers and non-believers alike). This Forum’s main mission is to spread the Gospel; non-believers should not take exception to that or denigrate it. To do so is intolerance to the Host/Forum. That is OK on an entirely different forum. No disagreement there. Right?

Catholic thought and beliefs is the sign-on-the-front door, so to speak. It is there for a purpose. One can harbor their own personal doubts but it does not show cordiality or etiquette to tell the host of his/her doubt/disbelief. “Rude” would be a mild term.

If we visit a site that has opposing dogmas shouldn’t we be cognizant of what is held in their heart of hearts? After all, that is basic etiquette for a guest.


I think so; and I think you do also.

Besides, it’s common courtesy, at the very least. agree?

 

[Kaninchen]

So, this is a Christian/Catholic Forum isn’t that what it is all about? Should Christian meaning be disallowed here? Just wondering. …

Have you a source for your comments on the Talmud?

 

[Lapell]

ONCE AGAIN, the Talmud DOES NOT mention Jesus or Christians…PERIOD…

I haven’t read the whole Talmud, very far from it. But I do remember having read either in it or in the Mishnah (I found one in the University library) a statement about Jesus having been a magician and another about his having had but five disciples with names very different from those in the Gospels… So yes, there IS something there, I didn’t make it up.
(I don’t remember, though, whether it was a Jerusalem or a Babylonian Talmud. I think it was the Babylonian one, but I am not sure… And my, I had some kind of headache the first time I leafed in it. So much knowledge, and so much hairsplitting about so many details. It’s quite demanding, it seems. So I have to admire the Jews who chose to be observant ones…)

 

[Lapell]

What it says in the Talmud is: “But I say to you that whether a man be Jew or Gentile, slave or free, male or female, the same Ruach ha Kodesh (Holy Spirit) rests upon him, upon all who call upon God in truth”.

As you see, its very very similar to Galatians 3:28. (There are other similar passages too, but off the top of my head I can’t give you chapter and verse without looking them up.)

Well, if you can quote passages, I don’t mind if I don’t have the name and number for each passage. I share the same flaw, if it is one, in quoting Biblical passages. I would nearly nearly need to have a Bible right in front of me most of the time!!

 

[Lapell]

Have you a source for your comments on the Talmud?

I agree we should do what we ask of others. I just hope you’re not trying to justify a wrong by pointing out some wrongs of ours… I try to avoid doing this myself, I don’t know that I have completely succeeded. We must all try to improve in this area. Agreed?

 

[Kaninchen]

I agree we should do what we ask of others. I just hope you’re not trying to justify a wrong by pointing out some wrongs of ours… I try to avoid doing this myself, I don’t know that I have completely succeeded. We must all try to improve in this area. Agreed?

Why have you introduced this diversion?

 

[Kaninchen]

I haven’t read the whole Talmud, very far from it. But I do remember having read either in it or in the Mishnah (I found one in the University library) a statement about Jesus having been a magician and another about his having had but five disciples with names very different from those in the Gospels… So yes, there IS something there, I didn’t make it up.
(I don’t remember, though, whether it was a Jerusalem or a Babylonian Talmud. I think it was the Babylonian one, but I am not sure… And my, I had some kind of headache the first time I leafed in it. So much knowledge, and so much hairsplitting about so many details. It’s quite demanding, it seems. So I have to admire the Jews who chose to be observant ones…)

Yeh, Yeshua was such a rare name wasn’t it? About as rare as ‘Dave’ now.

More ‘make it up as you go along Talmud’ but without the ‘Jews eat babies’ ring to it that one becomes used to.

 

[Valke2]

I haven’t read the whole Talmud, very far from it. But I do remember having read either in it or in the Mishnah (I found one in the University library) a statement about Jesus having been a magician and another about his having had but five disciples with names very different from those in the Gospels… So yes, there IS something there, I didn’t make it up.
(I don’t remember, though, whether it was a Jerusalem or a Babylonian Talmud. I think it was the Babylonian one, but I am not sure… And my, I had some kind of headache the first time I leafed in it. So much knowledge, and so much hairsplitting about so many details. It’s quite demanding, it seems. So I have to admire the Jews who chose to be observant ones…)

Here are the traditional arguments for Jesus appearing in the Talmud:

Mishnah Yevamot 4:18
R. Shimon ben Azzai said: I found a book of geneologies in Jerusalem and in it is written “The man Plony is a bastard.”
It is a pretty long stretch to view this as referring to Jesus. Anyway, there’s no reason to assume it is referring to Jesus.

Sanhedrin 106a : R. Yochanan said (regarding Balaam): In the beginning a prophet, in the end a sorcerer.
Rav Papa said: As people say, “She was the descendant of princes and rulers, she played the harlot with carpenters.”
Some argue that Balaam is a disguised reference to Jesus. But Balaam acutally means… Balaam. The second line is simply a saying used to explain how one goes from being a good guy (prophet) to a badguy (sorcerer). It is explaining the quote right above it. Balaam had a lot of potentional but he ended up being evil in the end.

there are a couple of more references with similar explanations. Is it beneficial to continue to post them?

 

[iamrefreshed]

The only historical record of Paul even doing or saying that is from the Christian Bible, which only Christians recognize as authoritative, so…

Well, where else might you expect to find it?

In 1000 years will I have not been catholic because it’s not preserved in some written history?

 

[Lapell]

Here are the traditional arguments for Jesus appearing in the Talmud:

Mishnah Yevamot 4:18
R. Shimon ben Azzai said: I found a book of geneologies in Jerusalem and in it is written “The man Plony is a bastard.”
It is a pretty long stretch to view this as referring to Jesus. Anyway, there’s no reason to assume it is referring to Jesus.

Sanhedrin 106a : R. Yochanan said (regarding Balaam): In the beginning a prophet, in the end a sorcerer.
Rav Papa said: As people say, “She was the descendant of princes and rulers, she played the harlot with carpenters.”
Some argue that Balaam is a disguised reference to Jesus. But Balaam acutally means… Balaam. The second line is simply a saying used to explain how one goes from being a good guy (prophet) to a badguy (sorcerer). It is explaining the quote right above it. Balaam had a lot of potentional but he ended up being evil in the end.

there are a couple of more references with similar explanations. Is it beneficial to continue to post them?

I probably should have written them down when I encountered them, heh? I don’t recognize anything I had read among the quotes. The ones I read was specifically about Yeshua of Nazareth (it might say Natsret or Nasret, I don’t remember, but I remember that the reference to our Jesus was quite clear to me! I acknowledge, though, that they were very few. At least two, the ones that I described.
I also acknowledge that the Talmud was not written by people of the last millenium. So the rabbis of after the year it was published had nothing to do with those few texts. I would not be sure that all the rabbis mentioned in the Talmud necessarily would have signed those texts. I am not one to generalise and accuse a whole people because of two or three people, don’t worry!

 

[Lapell]

Here are the traditional arguments for Jesus appearing in the Talmud:

Mishnah Yevamot 4:18
R. Shimon ben Azzai said: I found a book of geneologies in Jerusalem and in it is written “The man Plony is a bastard.”
It is a pretty long stretch to view this as referring to Jesus. Anyway, there’s no reason to assume it is referring to Jesus.

Sanhedrin 106a : R. Yochanan said (regarding Balaam): In the beginning a prophet, in the end a sorcerer.
Rav Papa said: As people say, “She was the descendant of princes and rulers, she played the harlot with carpenters.”
Some argue that Balaam is a disguised reference to Jesus. But Balaam acutally means… Balaam. The second line is simply a saying used to explain how one goes from being a good guy (prophet) to a badguy (sorcerer). It is explaining the quote right above it. Balaam had a lot of potentional but he ended up being evil in the end.

there are a couple of more references with similar explanations. Is it beneficial to continue to post them?

No need to post what doesn’t explicitly concern Jesus of Nazareth, or Yeshua (I don’t remember if they called him Rabbi Yeshua? Oh well!!)

 

[Lapell]

Yeh, Yeshua was such a rare name wasn’t it? About as rare as ‘Dave’ now.

More ‘make it up as you go along Talmud’ but without the ‘Jews eat babies’ ring to it that one becomes used to.

My! I won’t believe any “Jews eat babies” stuff, don’t have any fear about it! I didn’t find any in the Moment Magazine either…

 

[brandymmiller]

Then why can’t I just forget Catholicism and become Jewish?

It’s a lot easier because you just have to do certain things which are very much within a man’s power, and you get to be Jewish, which is a cool ethnicity to be a part of with an amazing history and culture. I could even immigrate to Israel and live in a warm climate.

I’d also be able to make some cracking jokes and get away with it. Ever watch Seinfeld?

Actually I have to back that statement. The catechism does teach that there is divine mercy which may allow those outside of the Catholic faith to reach heaven through methods unknown to us. Why stay Catholic? If you want to get some place, there may be several different roads to get there, but you want to chose the quickest route with the fewest detours. It may be that there are a few “back country” roads to heaven, but those are usually full of pot holes and wrong ways, which lessons the chance that the person will get to heaven.

 

[Valke2]

Actually I have to back that statement. The catechism does teach that there is divine mercy which may allow those outside of the Catholic faith to reach heaven through methods unknown to us. Why stay Catholic? If you want to get some place, there may be several different roads to get there, but you want to chose the quickest route with the fewest detours. It may be that there are a few “back country” roads to heaven, but those are usually full of pot holes and wrong ways, which lessons the chance that the person will get to heaven.

But there’s a lot less traffic and the scenery is much nicer.