Why did the talmud never get into christianity?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Sublime_Prince
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
So the Talmud was “oral teaching” in the time of Jesus and the question was …

Why did the Talmud not make it into Christianity?

Well consider this … perhaps it did … the Christian Gospels represent the teachings of Jesus … as Jesus met the discipes on the road to Emmaus … and interpreted the hebrew scriptures for them …

So … do christians just have the 10 commandments? No we have all of the hebrew scriptures …Jesus said he came not to change the law but to fulfil it … not even changing one jot … so we have the 10 Commandments plus we have the interpretation of them …

Love thy neighbor as thy self …

True love is to lay down ones life for a friend,

The beatitudes …

Love God and serve God and your fellow man …

We have the Hebrew Texts and the Gospels and New Testament Letters … and the Church … the pillar and foundation of Truth 👍
 
The pharisees at the time taught the Talmud right?

Rather, the Talmud is the written form of the teachings of the Pharisees. It was not written down until the second century or so after the fall of the Second Temple (if memory serves).

There are more than 10 commandments in the Bible. According to traditional Jewish teaching there are 613, the first one being, “Be fruitful and multiply…”
 
Eden said:
He was anti-Christian, too. Just read the rest of the quotes on the link. He’s an equal opportunity offender and critic and he found the Talmud to be rubbish. Since he was certainly not offended by the heavy doses of anti-Christianity contained within the Talmud, it’s interesting that he found the quality to be low for other reasons.
Click to expand...
Is it more interesting than his quotes that found Christianity to be rubbish? I don’t understand what point you are trying to make with his quotes. Anyway, I don’t find it interesting.
 
elvisman said:
Perhaps it’s because the Talmud decrees that Jesus is in hell “boiled in hot excrement,” (Gittin 57a in the Soncino edition), and refers to his mother as a harlot ("**She played the harlot with carpenters.").
It also claims that "he practiced sorcery, incited and led Israel astray."

You see - we don’t believe that and that may be one of the reasons that the Talmud isn’t incorporated in Christianity.

Also the fact that the Talmud didn’t exist until after the death and resurrection of Jesus.
Click to expand...
The term/prhase “boiled in excrement” was applied to Jews who mislead other Jews in the tenants of their faith, especially by disrespecting and mocking the rabbis. In the Talmud, that story, if it applies to Jesus, was written in reaction to persecution of Jews that had already begun by his followers. It does not explain why Christians did not at least adopt the Mishna – the oral law – even without the later commentaries such as the one you cite.

btrw, here’s a link the the text in the Talmud you are concerend with. You can read it yourself(s) and decide if it is referring to Jesus. come-and-hear.com/gittin/gittin_56.html#56a_11
 
Valke2 said:
Is it more interesting than his quotes that found Christianity to be rubbish? I don’t understand what point you are trying to make with his quotes. Anyway, I don’t find it interesting.
Click to expand...
To me, the Talmud is uninspired and anti-Christian. But the question I was hoping the quote would raise was, is the Talmud even worthy of being considered “quality literature” worth reading for those outside Judaism? If not, the only category left to file the Talmud under is “historical curiosity”. What *is *certain, is that the Talmud doesn’t add anything to Christianity.
 
Eden said:
To me, the Talmud is uninspired and anti-Christian. But the question I was hoping the quote would raise was, is the Talmud even worthy of being considered “quality literature” worth reading for those outside Judaism? If not, the only category left to file the Talmud under is “historical curiosity”. What *is *certain, is that the Talmud doesn’t add anything to Christianity.
Click to expand...
To me, I could care less if the Talmud adds anything to christianity. I find Christianity to be uninspired and a historical cause for persecution of Jews. I’d hardly call the Gospels quality literature worth reading for anyone who is not a christian.
 
Valke2 said:
To me, I could care less if the Talmud adds anything to christianity. I find Christianity to be uninspired and a historical cause for persecution of Jews. I’d hardly call the Gospels quality literature worth reading for anyone who is not a christian.
Click to expand...
The topic of the thread is “Why did the talmud never get into christianity”. I’m just throwing my two cents in.
 
here’s a quote from Wikipedia that HaveMercy posted on the other thread that has been mentioned:

Despite the numerous mentions of Edom which may refer to Christendom, the Talmud makes little mention of Jesus directly or the early Christians. There are a number of quotes about individuals named Yeshu that once existed in editions of the Talmud; these quotes were long ago removed from the main text due to accusations that they referred to Jesus, and are no longer used in Talmud study. However, these removed quotes were preserved through rare printings of lists of errata, known as Hashmatot Hashass (“Omissions of the Talmud”). Some modern editions of the Talmud contain some or all of this material, either at the back of the book, in the margin, or in alternate print. These passages do not necessarily refer to a single individual and many of the stories are far removed from anything written in the New Testament. Many scholars are convinced that these people cannot be identified as the Christian Jesus.
 
Whether Yeshu in the Talmud (really in the Baraitha and Tosefta)refers to Jesus is a debatable manner. You will find plenty of people who think it applies to the Christian founder and plenty of people who disagree.

I think that “some” of it applies to the Jesus this whole site is about; but that it isn’t necessarily supposed to be taken as a literal account and has adopted traits and stories of other failed messiahs.

It is a bit incredulous to approach the Talmud as if it were anti-Christian- it was not created for apologetics, and I’d say any references to Jesus are roughly in parallel to what some Catholic writers have written about the Protestant Reformers and vice versa. Like it or not, Christianity and Judaism split somewhere down the line and each holds the other as the heretical.
 
Sublime_Prince said:
So why did that never get into christianity then?
Click to expand...
First af all because it’s anti-christian. It was made by and for those who already rejected Jesus (second century AD and later). So why should christians accept somothing like that? We already had our church authorities, especially papacy and there was no reason to obey people of a different religion, that was also “out of date”.
God bless
 
The reason the “Talmudic Teachings” and oral law in general was not adopted by Christianity is because the Christians who would’ve have followed those laws were absorbed by the Gentile Christian community.

Look at (I believe) Origen’s writings that mention several groups of “Jewish-Christians” some he mentions as heretical and others he doesn’t. This group, who probably followed some form of the oral law- as interpretted by Jesus and his teachings- was not for long since:
  1. The Romans persecuted all ethnic Jews (regardless of religion) especially after the Second Revolt.
  2. The number of Gentile Christians converting was in vast number to the number of Jewish Christians.
  3. The many many many religions competing in the Near East, which must have been vast even when compared to the mystery religions etc. that were in the Western part of the Empire.
The remnants of this group must have been absorbed into Gentile Christianity by 500 AD or so…🤷
 
HashemEchad said:
Yet Christianity largely rejected the teachings of its Jewish origin, and the so-called “messianic jews” for the most part do not keep either the Written or Oral Torah.
Click to expand...
What do you mean by “(they) do not keep either the Written or Oral Torah”? In its many details or in its essentials or both? Are you referring to those of today or to those of the early Church too? In the latter case, what do you base your opinion on?
 
Lapell said:
What do you mean by “(they) do not keep either the Written or Oral Torah”? In its many details or in its essentials or both? Are you referring to those of today or to those of the early Church too? In the latter case, what do you base your opinion on?
Click to expand...
I forgot to add, "In the latter case,if you include them also, what do you base your opinion on?
 
Della said:
Jesus was concerned with people following the lawful authority that then existed. He was not endorsing any particular school of rabbinic thought or teaching.

The Law of Love, the Gospel, that Christ gave us envelopes and fulfills the Oral Law and the Written Law that came before it. The Gospel is what He commanded his Apostles to preach to the whole world. Therefore, whatever was good and true of the Oral and Written Law are a part of the Gospel preached, taught, and practiced by the Catholic Church, which Christ founded.
Click to expand...
May I point out that compared to what existed before the Torah also is a Law of Love (though “Torah” means “teaching”, not “law”).
 
Eden said:
Well, I clearly remember Valke2 stated that these passages referred to Jesus and His Mother. I’m sure he wasn’t consulting white supremacist websites to come to that conclusion.
Click to expand...
Maybe he did, so that he could reply as accurately as he could. Takes a good shield around the stomach at times, I’d think…
 
elvisman said:
White supremacists and neo-Nazis?
The Princeton University Press?
Amazon Books?
Barnes and Noble?
Studies in Christian-Jewish Relations at Boston College?
These are some of the sites I gleaned these words from. They are hardly neo-nazi or White supremacist.
From the latter, I quote:
***". . . the talmudic passages about Jesus respond to Christian traditions about him with ******parody, inversion, deliberate distortion, and not least with the proud proclamation that what their ******fellow Jews did to this Jesus was right: that he deserved to be executed because of his ******blasphemy, that he will sit in hell forever, and that those who follow his example up until today ***will not, as he has promised, gain eternal life but will share his horrible fate."
Click to expand...
O.K., Eden, but still… who wrote this one article you quoted from?
 
Sorry, Eden! I should have looked up at the name above, it was Elvisman! My mistake…:o
 
bpbasilphx said:
The pharisees at the time taught the Talmud right?

Rather, the Talmud is the written form of the teachings of the Pharisees. It was not written down until the second century or so after the fall of the Second Temple (if memory serves).

There are more than 10 commandments in the Bible. According to traditional Jewish teaching there are 613, the first one being, “Be fruitful and multiply…”
Click to expand...
Maybe the first in order, but the first among others is:
“Hear, ô Israel! The Lord your God is the only Lord (or “is One Lord”) You shall love the Lord your God wholeheartedly, with all your soul and with all your might.” In his answer to the scribe, Jesus also said: The second one is similar to the first: “Love your neighbour like yourself.” All commandments are included in these two…
 
Lapell said:
O.K., Eden, but still… who wrote this one article you quoted from?
Click to expand...
**It was a review of the book, “Jesus in the Talmud” by Peter Schäfer. **
**The review was by Center for Christian-Jewish Learning, Boston College.
**
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top