Why did the talmud never get into christianity?

[sambos671]

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.

I did say compiled or put together. I meant from sayings and writings already made. I understand the rabbinic teachings were passed orally. However, I see a couple of things at work. The Jewish OT seperated from the more comonly heald LXX. Occured around 70 AD. Indicating which books could defile the hand. I wonder why at that time the Talmud was not compiled. Why three hundred years later? My suspicion is the growth of christianity and Jewish converts that the rabbis felt didn’t understand their own faith. I mean the diaspora began long before. BTW the NT as we have it was compiled long after Jesus and wasn’t nailed down (so to speak) until Athenasius except for the gosples. And yes the teachings began with Jesus.

 

[Sepharad]

I did say compiled or put together. I meant from sayings and writings already made. I understand the rabbinic teachings were passed orally. However, I see a couple of things at work. The Jewish OT seperated from the more comonly heald LXX. Occured around 70 AD. Indicating which books could defile the hand. I wonder why at that time the Talmud was not compiled. Why three hundred years later? My suspicion is the growth of christianity and Jewish converts that the rabbis felt didn’t understand their own faith. I mean the diaspora began long before. BTW the NT as we have it was compiled long after Jesus and wasn’t nailed down (so to speak) until Athenasius except for the gosples. And yes the teachings began with Jesus.

I realize this is very difficult for a committed Christian to accept but…Jesus really did not mean that much by way of impact to the Jewish religion and people.

While the Nazarenes were doing their thing at that time, there were also a number of other pseudo-Jewish sects competing for the attention of Jews as well.

Their numbers were mostly miniscule, and they really had no bearing on Judaism as a whole.

We certainly would not revise our own writings in a major way due to a tiny insignificant sect.

Why was the Talmud not set into writing until 300 years later? I don’t know, but I could ask the same about the NT.

Why did they wait so long after Jesus died to compile it? I could wonder the same things…maybe they needed more time to figure out ways to make Jesus “fit” with Jewish teachings? But I don’t say that because I really don’t think each religion got that concerned about the other.

 

[inJESUS]

Why was the Talmud not set into writing until 300 years later? I don’t know, but I could ask the same about the NT.

 

[sambos671]

maybe because oral tradition was as important. The need to write things down may be determined by exterior factors like heresies, expansions ecc

That kind of makes my point for me. Though there is something to the Jews not really caring about an insignificant sect. Except by 300 AD it really wasn’t. By the end of the centrury it changed the Roman empire entirely. And christians didn’t really have to “fit” Jesus’ teaching into anything. Christians had their oral tradition through the apostles. Christians actually had writings very early on due to heresies popping up all over the place. The NT (except for the synoptic gospels already accepted) were already accepted in chruches throughout the empire and each church with their own copies but few had all of them. The canonization settled that for everyone.

 

[Sepharad]

That kind of makes my point for me. Though there is something to the Jews not really caring about an insignificant sect. Except by 300 AD it really wasn’t. By the end of the centrury it changed the Roman empire entirely. And christians didn’t really have to “fit” Jesus’ teaching into anything. Christians had their oral tradition through the apostles. Christians actually had writings very early on due to heresies popping up all over the place. The NT (except for the synoptic gospels already accepted) were already accepted in chruches throughout the empire and each church with their own copies but few had all of them. The canonization settled that for everyone.

Generally, Jews did not pay much attention to insignificant sects…until those sects grew much larger, became the state religion (under Constantine), and began persecuting Jews for not joining this religion.

Its just like my presence on Christian forums where some or a lot of proselytization attempts are being made toward Jews…I generally don’t bother focusing on Christian groups that are not trying to convert Jews…I figure if they leave us alone, we should leave them alone.

We generally don’t get involved unless it impacts us somehow.This is why Jews did not really start paying any serious attention to Christianity until it began affecting US.

 

[sambos671]

Generally, Jews did not pay much attention to insignificant sects…until those sects grew much larger, became the state religion (under Constantine), and began persecuting Jews for not joining this religion.

Its just like my presence on Christian forums where some or a lot of proselytization attempts are being made toward Jews…I generally don’t bother focusing on Christian groups that are not trying to convert Jews…I figure if they leave us alone, we should leave them alone.

We generally don’t get involved unless it impacts us somehow.This is why Jews did not really start paying any serious attention to Christianity until it began affecting US.

Sure, (I’m not anti-semetic just so your sure) however, it also help that the christians at the end of the century were also holding all the power cards too. Not persecuting the Jews. That became more prevelant later. (A horrible thing for christianity to be sure.) And christians are supposed to effect everybody but in a positive way. healing the sick, helping the down trodden. We’re not to keep to ourselves. So by your statement christianity will always effect the Jews because we may effect you positively.

 

[Sepharad]

Sure, (I’m not anti-semetic just so your sure) however, it also help that the christians at the end of the century were also holding all the power cards too. Not persecuting the Jews. That became more prevelant later. (A horrible thing for christianity to be sure.) And christians are supposed to effect everybody but in a positive way. healing the sick, helping the down trodden. We’re not to keep to ourselves. So by your statement christianity will always effect the Jews because we may effect you positively.

No, we only have a problem when some Christians try to convert us, sometimes in very deceptive ways (JWs and “messianics” are infamous for this.)

 

[Valke2]

I did say compiled or put together. I meant from sayings and writings already made. I understand the rabbinic teachings were passed orally. However, I see a couple of things at work. The Jewish OT seperated from the more comonly heald LXX. Occured around 70 AD. Indicating which books could defile the hand. I wonder why at that time the Talmud was not compiled. Why three hundred years later? My suspicion is the growth of christianity and Jewish converts that the rabbis felt didn’t understand their own faith. I mean the diaspora began long before. BTW the NT as we have it was compiled long after Jesus and wasn’t nailed down (so to speak) until Athenasius except for the gosples. And yes the teachings began with Jesus.

Your post is a partial answer to a complicated question. Originally, the oral law was easier to remember because it clarified how to interpret the written law. In the beginning, it was easier to do this because custom and lifestyle hadn’t changed much. That is, at the time of the written Torah the oral Torah did not need to clarify how to comply with the written Torah because the written Torah was written, in a sense, for a current generation of Jews. They didn’t need so much to be told how to apply the written Torah to their lives because their lives hadn’t changed much from the time they received Torah. But as time went on it became necessary to clarify more and more laws as new problems/issues arose, so the oral torah, which became more important and more intricite. Not so much in the way it was written, but in what it stood for. The Mishna had to apply to more and more evolving situations.

What I’m trying to say is that the Mishna was a core/memory device that was meant to trigger other memories/teachings. So one line of Mishna could be referring to two situations that a Jew might find him or herself in. As time went on, that same line might have to be applied to half a dozen different situations.

Then there was the fact that around the time of the destruction of the Temple, there arose different schools of Jewish learning, the first two being Hillel and Shammi (sp?). With different schools, came different ways of teaching. So the oral teaching started to vary from school to school. One teacher might express the prohibtions of Shabbat differently from another teacher, for example. This further complicated what was already a difficult process. Now you had students learning the same thing in many different ways.

Compound this with the threat posed by Christianity – both physical and theological – it became necessary to redact and put the Mishna in writing. The Mishna being the central core of Talmud.

 

[sambos671]

Your post is a partial answer to a complicated question. Originally, the oral law was easier to remember because it clarified how to interpret the written law. In the beginning, it was easier to do this because custom and lifestyle hadn’t changed much. That is, at the time of the written Torah the oral Torah did not need to clarify how to comply with the written Torah because the written Torah was written, in a sense, for a current generation of Jews. They didn’t need so much to be told how to apply the written Torah to their lives because their lives hadn’t changed much from the time they received Torah. But as time went on it became necessary to clarify more and more laws as new problems/issues arose, so the oral torah, which became more important and more intricite. Not so much in the way it was written, but in what it stood for. The Mishna had to apply to more and more evolving situations.

What I’m trying to say is that the Mishna was a core/memory device that was meant to trigger other memories/teachings. So one line of Mishna could be referring to two situations that a Jew might find him or herself in. As time went on, that same line might have to be applied to half a dozen different situations.

Then there was the fact that around the time of the destruction of the Temple, there arose different schools of Jewish learning, the first two being Hillel and Shammi (sp?). With different schools, came different ways of teaching. So the oral teaching started to vary from school to school. One teacher might express the prohibtions of Shabbat differently from another teacher, for example. This further complicated what was already a difficult process. Now you had students learning the same thing in many different ways.

Compound this with the threat posed by Christianity – both physical and theological – it became necessary to redact and put the Mishna in writing. The Mishna being the central core of Talmud.

Awsome recount. Thanks.

 

[Lapell]

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

Would you think it to be acceptable yourself? “If you love only those who already love you, what’s extraordinary? Even the sinners do that!” “Love your enemies, bless those who say bad things against you, be good to your persecuters…” Must I go on? It’s all from the Christ Jesus. So in Him it is not acceptable to be anti-Semitic! Period.

 

[Eden]

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.

One can be pro-Jewish or pro-Christian without being “anti” the other. The misrepresentations of passages of Scripture on that site are profuse. For instance, claiming that St. Paul was deceitful in saying that he became like those that he was evangelizing is entirely absurd. He was referring to the fact that we don’t need to eliminate elements of a culture that are not in conflict with Christianity. They can be incorporated into the faith. One example of this would be the famous story about St. Patrick teaching the concept of the Trinity with the shamrock or the incorporation of the pagan circle into the Celtic cross, now used to illustrate the eternal nature of God.

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

Accusing the Catholic Church (and/or by extension all of Christianity) of being pagan is anti-Catholic. The fact that you don’t realize this illustrates how deeply ingrained this teaching must be within your community. It’s very Jack Chick.

 

[Sepharad]

One can be pro-Jewish or pro-Christian without being “anti” the other. The misrepresentations of passages of Scripture on that site are profuse. For instance, claiming that St. Paul was deceitful in saying that he became like those that he was evangelizing is entirely absurd. He was referring to the fact that we don’t need to eliminate elements of a culture that are not in conflict with Christianity. They can be incorporated into the faith. One example of this would be the famous story about St. Patrick teaching the concept of the Trinity with the shamrock or the incorporation of the pagan circle into the Celtic cross, now used to illustrate the eternal nature of God.

Accusing the Catholic Church (and/or by extension all of Christianity) of being pagan is anti-Catholic. The fact that you don’t realize this illustrates how deeply ingrained this teaching must be within your community. It’s very Jack Chick.

What if a person truly and sincerely feels some of the Catholic rituals, etc are of pagan origin, due to extensive research into the matter? What if its not due to bigotry but something they learned historically?

 

[Eden]

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?

Neither I, nor any other Christian, is going to take a site seriously that characterizes Christianity as pagan.

 

[Valke2]

The misrepresentations of passages of Scripture on that site are profuse.

But I could say the same thing about all Christian commentary on Jewish scripture.

For instance, claiming that St. Paul was deceitful in saying that he became like those that he was evangelizing is entirely absurd.

I don’t find that to be an absurd statement. Your interpretation is just that, an interpretation. From a plain reading, the use of deceit is a more rational conclusion than an embracing of other cultures.

 

[Eden]

I clicked reply and then Sepharad’s comment was gone. It was about the belief that Christianity is pagan.

No serious scholar believes this. Believe me when I say, that you will not be taken seriously by any Christian with this argument. If that is your intention, which I believe it was, otherwise you would not have referred me to that laughable site.

This article will introduce you to the concept of “genetic fallacy”:

The pagan influence fallacy is committed when one charges that a particular religion, belief, or practice is of pagan origin or has been influenced by paganism and is therefore false, wrong, tainted, or to be repudiated. In this minimal form, the pagan influence fallacy is a subcase of the genetic fallacy, which improperly judges a thing based on its history or origins rather than on its own merits (e.g., “No one should use this medicine because it was invented by a drunkard and adulterer”).

catholic.com/library/is_catholicism_pagan.asp

 

[Sepharad]

But I could say the same thing about all Christian commentary on Jewish scripture.

I don’t find that to be an absurd statement. Your interpretation is just that, an interpretation. From a plain reading, the use of deceit is a more rational conclusion than an embracing of other cultures.

I agree 100% with what you said. Its all a matter of how one interprets it. The direct, plain reading, I feel, fits with what you said.

 

[Eden]

But I could say the same thing about all Christian commentary on Jewish scripture.

I don’t find that to be an absurd statement. Your interpretation is just that, an interpretation. From a plain reading, the use of deceit is a more rational conclusion than an embracing of other cultures.

If you were familiar with Catholic moral teaching on lying and deceit, you would realize why your interpretation is in error.

 

[Sepharad]

You know, this whole “pagan roots of Christianity” issue is interesting.

Years ago, when I got into archaelogy, I remember reading some reference works about customs and rites of some pagan religions. I noticed that some of them bore similarity to some Christian customs and rites (Yule log, Christmas tree, and a few others.)

I shared my findings with a Catholic priest I knew then, who was active in the parish of a friend of mine.

He said he was aware of it, and that many Christians were. He said the earlier Christians had a practice of “Christianizing” ancient pagan places of worship and groves, to show that Jesus had triumphed over the ancient ways. He didn’t see it as a bad thing at all.

 

[inJESUS]

He said he was aware of it, and that many Christians were. He said the earlier Christians had a practice of “Christianizing” ancient pagan places of worship and groves, to show that Jesus had triumphed over the ancient ways. He didn’t see it as a bad thing at all.

why should he? after all, circumcision was practiced by pagans…it does not mean God chose a pagan ritual, does it?

 

[Eden]

You know, this whole “pagan roots of Christianity” issue is interesting.

Years ago, when I got into archaelogy, I remember reading some reference works about customs and rites of some pagan religions. I noticed that some of them bore similarity to some Christian customs and rites (Yule log, Christmas tree, and a few others.)

I shared my findings with a Catholic priest I knew then, who was active in the parish of a friend of mine.

He said he was aware of it, and that many Christians were. He said the earlier Christians had a practice of “Christianizing” ancient pagan places of worship and groves, to show that Jesus had triumphed over the ancient ways. He didn’t see it as a bad thing at all.

Again, I invite you to read the articles on this in the CA library:

catholic.com/thisrock/1999/9911chap.asp

catholic.com/library/is_catholicism_pagan.asp

Specifically on Christmas:

catholic.com/thisrock/1993/9312fea1.asp

Please don’t try to defend that silly website and it’s Jack Chick-level claims that Catholicism and/or all of Christianity is pagan. As many ways as you’d like to repackage the intention, any site that includes these claims as a means to defend itself is a joke.