Why did the talmud never get into christianity?

[Sepharad]

They had been removed out of fear of persecution/retaliation etc. But whether the passages themselves were referring to Jesus remains disputed. I tend to believe that there were stories that were supposed to be about him in the Talmud. This view is suppored by Klinghoffer in “Whythe Jews Rejected Jesus” and I found his assertions convincing.

I had occasion to speak yesterday to a rabbi I met…not an Orthodox rabbi, because it was a ‘she’. She belongs to a very liberal branch of Judaism, and I chose to ask her because I felt she might provide a more open-minded view of this than an Orthodox rabbi, whom you’d expect to defend the Talmud at all costs.

She told me that in her movement, they look at things like this through the lens of history. She said that even if there is anything in the Talmud that does speak of Jesus the Nazarene negatively (remember, there were MANY people with the name “Jesus” in ancient times, he was not the only one), it was most likely influenced by the persecution of Jews by Christians.

Looking at it from that angle, it makes sense. We cannot just pull passages out of their historical context, and make claims on one side or the other. Just as some of the most hideous antisemitic statements by people like St Cyprian and St John Chrysostom may have been made as a reaction to battles between Jews and Christians, any anti-Jesus comments most likely arose for the same reasons.

 

[elvisman]

I don’t abhor the Catholic church. I abhor ignorance, bigotry, stupidity and hatred.

Touché, my friend.
**If you truly abhor these things, then, you’ll stay off those anti-Catholic websites, won’t you? **

 

[Valke2]

I had occasion to speak yesterday to a rabbi I met…not an Orthodox rabbi, because it was a ‘she’. She belongs to a very liberal branch of Judaism, and I chose to ask her because I felt she might provide a more open-minded view of this than an Orthodox rabbi, whom you’d expect to defend the Talmud at all costs.

She told me that in her movement, they look at things like this through the lens of history. She said that even if there is anything in the Talmud that does speak of Jesus the Nazarene negatively (remember, there were MANY people with the name “Jesus” in ancient times, he was not the only one), it was most likely influenced by the persecution of Jews by Christians.

Looking at it from that angle, it makes sense. We cannot just pull passages out of their historical context, and make claims on one side or the other. Just as some of the most hideous antisemitic statements by people like St Cyprian and St John Chrysostom may have been made as a reaction to battles between Jews and Christians, any anti-Jesus comments most likely arose for the same reasons.

I think you and your beardless rabbi are correct. Anything that there is about Jesus, and most of anything that attacks or disparages non-jews, is a reaction to how Jews were treated. And we are not talking about “go to the back of the bus” treatment, but more of "let’s disembowel these jews to see if they swallowed jewels).

And, even then, the less than charitable discussions about christians were usually a recorded minority opinion and were not the basis of any halacha.

 

[Sepharad]

Touché, my friend.
**If you truly **abhor these things, then, you’ll stay off those anti-Catholic websites, won’t you?

And if you abhor these things also, then you’l stay off anti-semitic websites, won’t you?

 

[elvisman]

And if you abhor these things also, then you’l stay off anti-semitic websites, won’t you?

The Princeton University Press?
Amazon Books?
Barnes and Noble?
Studies in Christian-Jewish Relations at Boston College?
Like I said before – they are HARDLY anti-Semitic.
But, if it’ll inspire one less Anti-Catholic sentiment from anybody - I’ll do it.

 

[Sepharad]

The Princeton University Press?
Amazon Books?
Barnes and Noble?
Studies in Christian-Jewish Relations at Boston College?
Like I said before – they are HARDLY anti-Semitic.
But, if it’ll inspire one less Anti-Catholic sentiment from anybody - I’ll do it.

I was actually referring to the many Catholics on this site who often link to neonazi and white supremacist sites about the Talmud.

I guess that should enable me to link to Jack Chick?

 

[elvisman]

I was actually referring to the many Catholics on this site who often link to neonazi and white supremacist sites about the Talmud.

I guess that should enable me to link to Jack Chick?

I think that anybody who goes to those types of sites and gleans information from them deserves to be ignored.
**BUT - you were getting information from an anti-Catholic site, so it doesn’t fare much better. **

**We - including myself - should always strive to have respectful dialog. Debate yes, but being fair about it. **

 

[Sepharad]

I think that anybody who goes to those types of sites and gleans information from them deserves to be ignored.
BUT - you were getting information from an anti-Catholic site, so it doesn’t fare much better.

We - including myself - should always strive to have respectful dialog. Debate yes, but being fair about it.

Truthfully, I don’t always check to see what kind of site it is; there just isn’t that kind of time, all the time. Some sites are quite obviously 'what they are"; others, you really need to click around to figure them out, and I try to limit my online time as much as possible, esp. since some of these debates take up so much of my time as it is.

I usually look for a site that concisely lists what I am trying to show, and if the info fits as correct based on what I already know, I may link to it.

 

[wanner47]

Truthfully, I don’t always check to see what kind of site it is; there just isn’t that kind of time, all the time. Some sites are quite obviously 'what they are"; others, you really need to click around to figure them out, and I try to limit my online time as much as possible, esp. since some of these debates take up so much of my time as it is.

I usually look for a site that concisely lists what I am trying to show, and if the info fits as correct based on what I already know, I may link to it.

And would you accept these excuses from someone who linked to anti-Semitic websites?

It’s both sloppy and lazy to not authenticate one’s sources. It shows, IMO, a lack of respect to the persons participating in the thread. That goes for BOTH sides.

 

[Sepharad]

And would you accept these excuses from someone who linked to anti-Semitic websites?

It’s both sloppy and lazy to not authenticate one’s sources. It shows, IMO, a lack of respect to the persons participating in the thread. That goes for BOTH sides.

I probably would accept them, but too often, some of those linking to those sites had previously expressed antisemitic views, so in those cases, I assumed they linked to those sites because they believed in the sites.

 

[wanner47]

I probably would accept them, but too often, some of those linking to those sites had previously expressed antisemitic views, so in those cases, I assumed they linked to those sites because they believed in the sites.

And in turn, since you have previously expressed anti-Catholic views, others assume you link to those sites because you believe in them. It works both ways.

 

[Sepharad]

And in turn, since you have previously expressed anti-Catholic views, others assume you link to those sites because you believe in them. It works both ways.

Actually, if you would take the time to read all of my posts, dating back to March, you’d know I have often defended the Catholic church when I felt she deserved defending.

Why do people only notice the criticisms I gave after some Catholics here attacked me?

 

[wanner47]

Actually, if you would take the time to read all of my posts, dating back to March, you’d know I have often defended the Catholic church when I felt she deserved defending.

Why do people only notice the criticisms I gave after some Catholics here attacked me?

Are you saying that it’s acceptable for Catholics to be anti-Semitic as long as a Jewish person attacks them first?

 

[Eden]

I probably would accept them, but too often, some of those linking to those sites had previously expressed antisemitic views, so in those cases, I assumed they linked to those sites because they believed in the sites.

So speaks the one who provided us with the anti-Christian gem www.messiahtruth.com.

 

[sambos671]

In the book of Matthew when Jesus confronts the pharisees he says that we should follow the teachings of the pharisees, but not to do what they do because they do not do what they teach.

The pharisees at the time taught the Talmud right? So why did that never get into christianity then?

Why do Jews and chrsitians differ about the talmud? Jews claim moses recieved an oral law as well as the commandments, christians on the other hand say it was just the ten commandments.

I am really confused.

Well the talmud wasn’t compiled until christianity was well established. I think the Jerusalem Talmud was around 300 AD and the Bablylonian Talmud around 500 AD. I honestly think they were compliled because of the rise of christianity. So that Jews had a tool against further Jewish conversions to christianity as well as maintaining many rabbinic teachings.

 

[Valke2]

So speaks the one who provided us with the anti-Christian gem www.messiahtruth.com.

what exactly is there about this website that is anti-catholic? I understand it is a countermissionary website but I wouldn’t classify it as particularly anti-catholic. What am I missing?

 

[Eden]

what exactly is there about this website that is anti-catholic? I understand it is a countermissionary website but I wouldn’t classify it as particularly anti-catholic. What am I missing?

I went through quite a bit of this elsewhere. I’ll just point out the most blatant: the typical anti-Catholic/anti-Christian accusation that Christianity is the recycling of various pagan myths and that Jesus is Mithra/Mithras/Osiris/fill in the blank ancient pagan god. This is a blatant misrepresentation of not only Christianity, but these ancient mythical figures. No serious theologian would make these claims because they are based on embarrassingly erroneous information.

This article gives the basics on this classic anti-Catholic/anti-Christian claim:

"A certain strand of anti-Catholicism likes to claim that the Catholic faith is essentially a kind of repackaged paganism that supplanted biblical Christianity. In its most absurd form, it claims that Catholicism is the same as the religion of ancient Babylon, which is alleged to be the wellspring from which all paganism came. That’s the thesis of the book The Two Babylons by an eccentric, nineteenth-century Anglican, Alexander Hislop, whose work has been widely quoted and plagiarized by other anti-Catholics…

… Unfortunately, Hislop seems to have known almost nothing about actual pagan religions. His book contains a wild mish-mash of truths, half-truths, and falsehoods. Sometimes individual charges from the book get thrown up in the face of Catholics, who are at a loss to answer them. Often the best way to respond is to look at the text where the charge is made, find the errors in it (even if it means looking in a textbook on mythology), and then use these to demonstrate the unreliability of the source making the paganism charge…"

The rest of the article is here:

[catholic.com/thisrock/1999/9911chap.asp](http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1999/9911chap.asp\)

Basically, if you want to be taken seriously, please use only serious scholarship to present your viewpoint. The website www.messiahtruth.com can not be taken seriously because it uses this laughable paganism claim. But including this argument, amongst others that I’ve mentioned earlier, the website puts itself on the level of Jack Chick.

 

[Valke2]

I went through quite a bit of this elsewhere. I’ll just point out the most blatant: the typical anti-Catholic/anti-Christian accusation that Christianity is the recycling of various pagan myths and that Jesus is Mithra/Mithras/Osiris/fill in the blank ancient pagan god.

Well of course it is “anti-christian.” It is a site defending why Judaism has not been supplamented by Christianity and, specficily, setting forth Jewish arguments supporting the rejection of Jesus as Messiah. I don’t see this as being anti Catholic or anti Christian anymore than I would see a christian site that tells me I have to believe in Jesus to be saved as being anti-Jewish.

Certainly, I didn’t find anything on the site that attacks the Catholic Church or that makes up passages from christian scripture, as opposed to the antisemetic sites that routinely misquote Talmud or simply make up things that aren’t in the Jewish scripture.

Basically, if you want to be taken seriously, please use only serious scholarship to present your viewpoint. The website www.messiahtruth.com can not be taken seriously because it uses this laughable paganism claim. But including this argument, amongst others that I’ve mentioned earlier, the website puts itself on the level of Jack Chick.

The "paganism claim is hardly the main point of that website, from what I read. I’ll take a more thorough look.

 

[Sepharad]

So speaks the one who provided us with the anti-Christian gem www.messiahtruth.com.

That is one of many countermissionary websites, as I explained to you before. Each one has a different “tone” in how they explain their beliefs.

Maybe if Christians did not try so vehemently to convert Jews away from their Covenant with God (often using trickery and deception, as the “messianics” do), some Jews would not need to feel so hostile? Ever think of that?

 

[Sepharad]

Well the talmud wasn’t compiled until christianity was well established. I think the Jerusalem Talmud was around 300 AD and the Bablylonian Talmud around 500 AD. I honestly think they were compliled because of the rise of christianity. So that Jews had a tool against further Jewish conversions to christianity as well as maintaining many rabbinic teachings.

Do you understand the difference, I hope, between “compiled” and “passed down”?

Why do you think the teachings contained in what is now known as “the Talmud” were always called the ORAL law?

They were orally handed down, and with the destruction of the Temple, a need was felt to commit them to writing so they would not be lost.

That does not mean the teachings of what is now known as “the Talmud” BEGAN after the rise of Christianity; it simply means they were set into WRITING at that time.

Would it be fair for me to say the NT did not exist until long after Jesus died? The teachings existed, but they were not set into writing until much later.