Sodaiho Sodaiho

Was Jesus just following an existing myth?

▼

Was Jesus just following an existing myth?

staging a messiahship

from JoeUser Forums

With palms together,

 

There is an interesting article in the N Y Times today about a stone tablet found amid the Dead Sea Scrolls.  Apparently it suggests that the notion of a suffering messiah who would rise in three days was a common belief in the century prior to the Christian Jesus.

 

The article suggests:

If such a messianic description really is there, it will contribute to a developing re-evaluation of both popular and scholarly views of Jesus, since it suggests that the story of his death and resurrection was not unique but part of a recognized Jewish tradition at the time.

 

Hmmm. The death and resurrection myth prior to Jesus' birth?  It would seem this adds to the notion advance some decades ago by a Jewish scholar suggesting this whole Jesus script was a scheme to get Jesus recognized as the Messiah, that Jesus was aware of the things that needd to happen before they happened in order to meet the criteria.

 

And later:

 

Mr. Knohl said that it was less important whether Simon was the messiah of the stone than the fact that it strongly suggested that a savior who died and rose after three days was an established concept at the time of Jesus. He notes that in the Gospels, Jesus makes numerous predictions of his suffering and New Testament scholars say such predictions must have been written in by later followers because there was no such idea present in his day.

But there was, he said, and “Gabriel’s Revelation” shows it.

“His mission is that he has to be put to death by the Romans to suffer so his blood will be the sign for redemption to come,” Mr. Knohl said. “This is the sign of the son of Joseph. This is the conscious view of Jesus himself. This gives the Last Supper an absolutely different meaning. To shed blood is not for the sins of people but to bring redemption to Israel.”

 

Strange.

Link

Be well

 

 

 

 

religion
923,997 views 969 replies
Reply #76 from JoeUser Forums Top

In the town of Barea Paul was preaching the OT scriptures. (Acts 17) The Bareans would not believe Paul until they searched the scriptures to verify if what he was speaking was true. They did find out he was telling them the truth and Paul commended the Bareans for searching out the truth. I consider myself a Barean. I take no one's word for anything unless I search it out for myself.
End of quote

 

Searching for the truth is always a good thing. I commend your effort. Yet, an authentic spiritual seeker does not look for signs and symbols, but rather the truth itself.  Searching scripture, as Christians too often do, for something that corresponds, looks like, or has parallels to something else, is not seeking the truth, in my opinion.  Its tea leaf divination.

The scripture is written in such a way that it is entirely open to wide and disparate interpretation. One cannot go to it to verify anything and have that verification be sound. One should not study scripture as if it is a window to the future. Scripture has a context.  There are lessons within that context, but it is an error to lift them out of context.

An authentic spiritual seeker leads a disciplined spiritual life examining what is right here, right now. This is done through practice; the practices of study, prayer/meditation, and acts of loving-kindness.  

Be well.

Reply #77 from JoeUser Forums Top
Lula posts:
For over 2000 years the OT prophets declared that God had revealed to them the coming of Jesus, the Messias, who was to be the Redeemer of the world.
God promised a Redeemer to Adam in Genesis 3:15. He's to be the stock of Sem 9:26, of Abraham, 22:18, of Isaac 26:4, of Jacob 28:14 , numbers 29:17, of the tribe of Juda 49: 8-10; Heb. 7:14; and of the family of David Isa. 9:7; Rom. 7:3; 2Tim 2:8.

Moses declares that He will be a great Prophet, Deut. 18:15, 18. Isaias 2:4 says that His coming will be proceeded by a universal peace and that He will be born of a Virgin 7:14 in the city of Bethlehem, Micheas 5:2, before the complete subjugation of Israel and the destruction of the 2nd temple Gen. 49:10, Dan. 9: 24-27. Malachais 3:1 writes of His precursor.

The OT prophets continually style the Messias the Lord, Ps. 2:2, Jesus or the Savior Is. 2:5, Habac. 3:8, the Mighty God Is. 9:6, the Emmanuel or God with us 7:14, the father of the world to come, the Prince of Peace 9:6.

They tell us of His poverty, Ps. 86:16, His obedience and meekness, 39:9, 119:7. His public preaching, Is. 9:1-2, St.Matt. 4:15, His miracles, Is. 35:5-6; His founding of a universal, eternal kingdom, Ps. 44:7-8; 2:7-8.

They tell us that Christ will be a rock of scandal and the occasion of ruin of many Is. 8:14 cf, St.Luke 2:34, That He will be sold for 30 peices of silver Zach. 11:12; led as a lamb to the slaughter, Is. 53:7; to be crucified 11:6; while the people mock Him Jer. 20:7; Ps. 21:8, cf St. Matt. 37: 40-42; the soldiers cast lots for His garments Ps. 21:19; cf. St.Matt. 27:34; and offer Him vinegar to drink 68:22 cf St. Matt. 27:34; His sepulchre shall be glorious Isa. 11:10; His body free from corruption Ps. 15:10 and He shall dwell at the right hand of God 15:11, to pour forever His Spirit upon all flesh Joel 2:28.

In light of the NT, these many prophecies prove that Christ was divine. Job identifies the Messias with God: "I know that my Redeemer liveth, and in the last day I shall rise out of the earth...and in my flesh I shall see my God.

The Psalms the sublime hymnbook of Israel declare that the Messias is the Eternal God whose reign shall be for everlasting. Thou art My Son, this day I have begotten Thee" 2:7, Acts. 8:33 and Hebrews 1:5. Jesus Christ was "the Expectation of Israel, the Savior" as the prophet Jeremias foretold 14:8, the "COnsolation of Israel so confidently awaited by the aged Simeon. St. Luke 2:25.

Most of all, Christ Himself always claimed to have fulfilled the prophecies. He said, "Search the Scriptures...the same are they that give testimony of Me. Quoting Isaias 61:1, in the synagague of Nazareth, Christ said, "This day is fulfilled the Scriptures in your ears". when the woman of Samaria spoke of the Messias to come, Christ said to her, "I am He who am speaking with thee." When the disciples on the road to Emmaus didn't recognize Him as the Risen Christ, Christ "beginning at Moses and all the prophets expounded to them in all the Scriptures the things that were concerning Him."
End of quote


SODAIHO POSTS:
Good Morning Lula, may you be a blessing in the universe.
End of quote


Good Day or Good evening to you, Sodaiho....May God bless you and all who participate in JU land. :)

Sodaiho posts:
You must understand, test has a context. In most cases they prohet is responding to a current situation. He may be talking about a king, such as David or Solomon. He may be taking about a hope for the future, giving solace to the people in the throes of hardship.
End of quote


I agree. The text, context, different literary forms, the times, geographical settings and cultures in which the inspired writer was writing all have great bearing and must be given consideration in understanding the meaning of Sacred Scripture.

But to suggest that citations from the Tanakh point to a single individual is like making sense of a horoscope.
End of quote


Prophacy focused Christians seem to do this all the time: ignore the historical context in favor of a contemporanious application. They are like modern day fortune tellers. Which, in my view, is an insult to the prophets and blasphemy of the text.
…..To read Jesus into these texts is like reading tea leaves. Not wise as it demeans the text itself.
End of quote


For what it’s worth, I never read horoscopes, never, ever would go to fortune tellers, and use tea leaves for drinking only! Having gotten that out of the way, it is without doubt that not only the Tanakh, but throughout the OT, different prophets at different times prophesied the Messias Christ. You may not see it and likewise may not believe it, but Christ is the One and only One Who fulfilled these prophesies.

Back to a starting point….When we read Sacred Scripture we’re not reading a mere secular tome, but interacting with God’s precious Word, His Supernatural revelation to us and this is why we should read it with great humility. The Sacred Writings are free from all error and intricately wrapt in a certain religious obscurity.

How Almighty God chose to reveal Himself to us in a supernatural way over the course of history is summed up in Hebrews 1:1 which tells us that “in many and various ways God spoke of old to our Fathers by the prophets; but in these last days He has spoken to us by a Son.” God revealed His saving design or plan first to the people of Israel through the prophets, who spoke in His name, but His definitive word He spoke through Jesus Christ, the Word of God made man. Both oral tradition and Sacred Scripture reveal God’s plan was designed to reach its climax with the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Sodaiho posts:

I'll repeat myself: No where in the Torah, the Writings, or the Prophets is Jesus mentioned or even alluded to.
End of quote


There are 16 prophetical books in the biblical canon which shows that prophecy was an integral part of the religious heritage of ancient Israel. In Scripture, the Hebrew word pro-phetes “prophet” is nabi, and its reference is religious. Prophet and its derivatives prophecy, prophecying, primarily refer to the idea of “speaking in the name of God”.

For over 2000 years, God’s many prophets declared that God had revealed to them numerous things about the coming of a very Unique Person who was to be the Redeemer of the world. Yes, His name, Jesus Christ, isn’t specifically mentioned, but all these prophecies converged upon and met in Christ. He was to be a real man, of the seed of Adam, of Abraham and of David. According to Daniel 7:9-14, He was to be nevertheless, a pre-existing Supernatural Being. His life had been prophetically written in advance in amazing detail. Isaias prophesies that although He was the only “Just One”, He was to suffer for the sins of His people, thereby redeeming them, and He was to establish an everlasting kingdom and to rule over the whole earth.

Further, it was through the Savior that the non-Jewish people were to know and worship the God of the Jews, and through Jesus Christ all that happened. Therefore, prophecy culminated in Christ and with Him the Old Testament Jewish revelation stopped.

---Christ claimed to be the Messiah: “I am He”.
---Christ claimed to be God, the Judge of all men: “When the Son of man comes in His glory and all nations shall be gathered into his presence..
---Christ claimed to be the Lord of the Sabbath: “The Son of man is Lord even of the Sabbath.
---Making Himself equal to God, the Lawgiver of the Old Law, Christ claimed the right to enlarge and interpret the Ten Commandments on His own personal authority: “You have heard that it was said to the men of old…For I tell you…”
---Christ claimed to be All-powerful, a Divine Person, equal to the Father in power, and to be in fact God the Son: “All power is given to me in heaven and in earth.” All things are delivered to me by my Father; and no one knoweth who the Son is, but the Father, and who the Father is, but the Son, and to whom the Son will reveal Him.”
---On the occasion of His trial before the High Priest, Jesus was asked: “Art thou the --------Christ, the Son of the Blessed God?”, Jesus answered him, “I am.”
---Christ made similar claims, “Before Abraham was made, I am.” “For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and giveth life: so the Son also giveth life to whomsoever He will.” “Now glorify thou me, O Father with thyself…all my things are thine, and thine mine.”

It’s clear that the Jews understood Jesus to be claiming to be God: “For a good work we stone thee not, answered the Jews, “but for blasphemy; and because that thou being a man, makest thyself God.” Hereupon the Jews sought to kill Him, because He said God was His Father, making Himself equal to God. Then Jesus answered, “As the father raises up the dead, and giveth life, so the Son also giveth life to whom He will.”
---Before Pilate: “The Jews answered him: We have a law; and according to the law, he ought to die because He made Himself the Son of God.”

Christ allowed certain acts which are in themselves an implicit claim to the Divinity. He forgave sins as of His own power and accepted adoration.
Offworld Trading Company
Reply #78 from JoeUser Forums Top
Sodaiho posts:
Moses never mentioned Jesus.


Lula posts: Here's the quote from Deuteronomy 18:15, 17-19

15 The Lord thy God will raise up to thee a PROPHET of thy nation and of thy brethren like unto me: him thou shalt hear."
17-19 And the Lord said to me: they have spoken all things well. 18 I will raise them up a prophet out of the midst of their brethren like to thee: and I will put My words in His mouth, and He shall speak to them all that I shall command Him. 19 And he that will not hear his words, which He shall speak in My name, I will be the revenger."

So there you have it....straight from God to Moses.

By golly, you're correct...Moses never mentioned Christ by name, but he did talk about a Prophet. You say that Jews lives are always God centered. OK, then how are they presently obeying what God said to Moses here? If not Christ, who is the prophet that God told Moses He would raise up and that all Jews should hear?
End of quote



Sodaiho,

I just logged on and haven't read the latest comments. Forgive me if you've already answered my question (in bold). If not, please do. Thanks.
Reply #79 from JoeUser Forums Top
Kfc posts:
Jesus is all thru the OT. A common saying is the OT is the NT concealed and the NT is the OT revealed. The Apostles used the OT scriptures to reach the first century Jews. They spent many Sabbaths in the Temple reasoning the scriptures with the Jews. They were showing them that Christ fit all the criteria. He was the much anticipated Messiah and this can be seen plainly by comparing his life with the Prophets predictions.
End of quote



KFC,

Shhhh! Don't tell anybody, but Sodaiho protests too much that Christ's name isn't specifically mentioned by the OT prophets. Perhaps it's his way of being coy. If between the 2 of us, people can't see that Christ fulfilled these Old Testament prophecies, then it's time "to shake the dust off our sandals" and move on, doncha' think?  :D 

Regarding what I highlighted...

I know what you're saying here and agree 100%, but just want to clear up your use of the word "predictions". OT prophets weren't in the business of "predictions" per se for prophecy has nothing to do with predicting the future, rather the prophets were strictly very special people chosen by God to speak in His name. The prophets from Samuel onwards made known God's will at key moments in the salvation history of the people of ancient Israel.




Reply #80 from Stardock Forums Top

OK, then how are they presently obeying what God said to Moses here? If not Christ, who is the prophet that God told Moses He would raise up and that all Jews should hear? Sodaiho, I just logged on and haven't read the latest comments. Forgive me if you've already answered my question (in bold). If not, please do. Thanks.
End of quote

Dear Lula,

This text outlines the criteria for a prophet, not a particular prophet,  among the nation of Israel. Any prophet should be like Moses, coming from the people and speaking God's word on behalf of God.  The second test of a prophet should be whether his prophecy comes to pass. A false prophet is subject to the wrath of God.   (BTW, an excellent resource for understanding the Tanakh is "The Jewish Study Bilble" Jewish Publication Society, Oxford University Press)

Responding to Christian Evengelicals in Israel, but apropos, Rabbi Emanuel Feldman says the following:

"In Judaism, the Messiah will not be a divine creature but a man born of a man and woman; he will inaugurate an era of universal peace, spirituality and enlightenment, and will gather in all Jewish exiles to the land of Israel, as outlined in Isaiah 11."

"Jesus has not fulfilled any of these prophecies. Furthermore, he is worshipped as a deity by another faith."

"We welcome genuine evangelical love and friendship and cherish evangelical support for the State of Israel. But evangelicals must realize that words like "love and friendship" are very hollow when they come at the price of apostasy and betrayal of the millennia-old faith of the Jewish people."

Be well.

 

Reply #81 from JoeUser Forums Top
I love these threads! People following a man-made erroneous religion arguing with other people following other man-made erroneous religions all trying to convince each other that their's is the right belief system while all of them are wrong. Hilarious!

The only one that even comes close is the Buddhists and that's only because they were smart enough to avoid the whole God concept.

If you're arguing for a religion, you're wrong. That's just the way it is folks, you're just wrong. Get over it and leave everyone else alone.
Reply #82 from JoeUser Forums Top
Well Mason I agree with you to a point about man-made religions but see, I don't follow any religion, I follow Christ. It has nothing to do with "my" religion because I don't really have one.

I've been there and threw my hands up in the air vowing never to join a denomination again. Well I did end up joining one many years later but with a much different approach and it had nothing to do with one being right over another. Nobody has the corner on truth except for Christ.

For me it came down to what C.S. Lewis said..... either Jesus was a lunatic, a liar or Lord. Either he was deceived, deceiving us or deity. I found out he was indeed Lord and I've been following him ever since. I don't need a religion to do so.

It's not about religon anyhow. It's all about having a relationship with the God who created me.



Reply #83 from JoeUser Forums Top
"Jesus has not fulfilled any of these prophecies. Furthermore, he is worshipped as a deity by another faith."
End of quote


no, he didn't fulfill the prophecies you're speaking of but he did fulfill many others. The reason he didn't fulfill what you're speaking of is because the Jews didn't accept him. He came for his own but they didn't receive him.

Jesus said himself about this subject:

"If you will receive it (the words of the Prophets) this is Elijah (John) which was to come. He who has ears to hear let him hear." Matt 11:14

The Jews knew that Elijah had to come back first because Malachi wrote about this and every Passover a seat was prepared in case Elijah showed up. If they had accepted the words of the prophets Christ would have fulfilled the rest of the prophecy but they did not. But he will fulfill those prophecies when he gathers the Jews to himself in his second coming.

Back to "the prophet" Moses wrote about in Deut...I forgot about this....when John the Baptist showed up on the scene he was asked by the people "Are you Elijah? When he said no, they asked him are you "that prophet?" They were referring to and waiting for "the prophet" that Moses wrote about to show up.
Reply #84 from JoeUser Forums Top
Leauki posts:
Have you read the Talmud? The "source" for Jesus being a "bastard" is Christian faith. It was Christians who claimed that Mary's husbands was not Jesus' father. Traditional Jews would NEVER make a claim like that about another Jewish family.
End of quote


I tend to agree, Leauki, "traditional" Jews wouldn't say such of another Jewish family. My point all along has been over the differences between Old Testament("traditional")Jewish Aaronic priests and Pharisiac Jews who do not believe as Moses believed. The unspeakable blasphemies and "strange aberrations" against Christ and against His Mother and non-Jews that are written in the Talmud doesn't come from "traditional" Jews, does it?

A LESSON FROM LEAUKI ON WHAT THE TALMUD IS:[quote]I'll give you a head start: "Talmud" means "that which is to be learned". It is based on the root LMD which means "study" or "learn". Thence derive "lilmod" ("to learn") and "talmid" ("student"). Arabic for "student" is "talib". The Talmud are commentaries on the Bible based on the Oral Torah, the parts of the Bible that were not originally written down. The Oral Torah framework has existed for as long as the Torah.[/quote]

Meanwhile there are others, some converts from Talmudism, who have exposed the Talmud for what it is..."a systematic deformation of the Holy Bible". According to the Archives Israelites: "The absolute superiority of the Talmud over the Bible of Moses must be recognized by all." So, here you have it....modern day Judaism is primarily based upon the Talmud, and not on the Old Testament.

Leauki posts:
I really recommend that you read the Talmud before you continue making statements about it.
End of quote


Well...Mr. Israel Shahak, an Israeli Jew born in Poland and who lived in Palestine from 1945 until his death in 2001 has certainly read the Talmud and speaks openly about the Talmud's anti-Christian teachings. What is your response to what he writes in his book, Jewish History, Jewish Religion, The weight of Three Thousand Years,

"It must be admitted at the outset that the Talmud and Talmudic literature ..contains very offensive statements and precepts directed specifically against Christianity. ... In addition to a series of scurrilous sexual allegations against Jesus, the Talmud states that His (Jesus') punishment in hell is to be immersed in boiling excrement...

The Edito Princeps of the complete Code of Talmudic Law, Maimonides' Mishneh Torah, is replete with the most offensive precepts against all Gentiles but also with explicit attacks on Christianity and on Jesus (after Whose name the author adds with agreement, 'May the name of the wicked persih'...)"?








Reply #85 from JoeUser Forums Top

Well...Mr. Israel Shahak, an Israeli Jew born in Poland and who lived in Palestine from 1945 until his death in 2001 has certainly read the Talmud
End of quote


You don't get it.

I mean that YOU should read the Talmud, not rely on other people to tell you what to think.
Reply #86 from JoeUser Forums Top

I tend to agree, Leauki, "traditional" Jews wouldn't say such of another Jewish family.
End of quote


No, but the Christians did. They did indeed claim that Jesus' father was not Joseph.



The unspeakable blasphemies and "strange aberrations" against Christ and against His Mother and non-Jews that are written in the Talmud doesn't come from "traditional" Jews, does it?
End of quote


No, it comes from "Christian" liars and that one nutcase you keep referring to.

It didn't even bother you when I looked up the text you lied about and found that it was referring to not Jesus but another man who lived 100 years later.


Reply #87 from JoeUser Forums Top

People following a man-made erroneous religion arguing with other people following other man-made erroneous religions all trying to convince each other that their's is the right belief system while all of them are wrong.
End of quote


Read the thread again. I am not trying to convince anybody to believe what I believe. If you don't believe in the Bible, Jewish or Christian, I don't necessarily want to persuade you to start believing in it and wish you all the best. You might be right about it all.

But if somebody spreads anti-Semitic lies, I WILL confront them (if it can be done without fear), and that has nothing to do with religious beliefs, I would think.


Reply #88 from JoeUser Forums Top
Leauki posts: #32
And as for Judaism being not the same today as it was 2000 years ago: that's true. The religion of the Jewish people evolved. But it is much closer to the Judaism of 2000 years ago
End of quote


It still prays in Hebrew, doesn't acknowledge gods walking the earth, and still promotes honesty among its adherents. And it kept the Oral Torah, which Christianity discarded.
End of quote


Please help me get this. What do you mean by saying that modern Judaism keeps the Oral Torah? How? Oral Torah...that's the Talmud, right?

SODAIHO POSTS: #35
...The Judaism of today, as Leuki says, has evolved. With the destruction of the Temple, rabbinic Judaism arose, converting sacrifice to prayer.
End of quote


Let's discuss Rabbinic Judaism that arose with the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple in 70AD.

If I'm reading Leauki correctly, he's trying to sell the ideas that contemporary, Rabbinic Judaism is close to Mosaic Judaism of 2000 years ago and "much closer" than Catholicism is.

Rabbinic Judaism that came after the destruction of the Temple sprung not from the Jews practicing Mosaic Judaism but rather from the Pharisaic (revolutionary) Jews who refused to accept Christ. Yes, the Pharisees "sat on Moses seat", but they didn't believe as Moses believed. The Pharisees voided God's law, substituting their own traditions.

It is exactly these "oral traditions" of men that are preserved in the Talmud.

Christ certainly didn't recognize the Pharisees as practicing Mosaic Judaism and it is that Pharisee lineage, the oral "traditions of men", that modern (Talmudic) Judaism claims.




Reply #89 from JoeUser Forums Top
Lula posts:
Well...Mr. Israel Shahak, an Israeli Jew born in Poland and who lived in Palestine from 1945 until his death in 2001 has certainly read the Talmud and speaks openly about the Talmud's anti-Christian teachings. What is your response to what he writes in his book, Jewish History, Jewish Religion, The weight of Three Thousand Years,

"It must be admitted at the outset that the Talmud and Talmudic literature ..contains very offensive statements and precepts directed specifically against Christianity. ... In addition to a series of scurrilous sexual allegations against Jesus, the Talmud states that His (Jesus') punishment in hell is to be immersed in boiling excrement...

The Edito Princeps of the complete Code of Talmudic Law, Maimonides' Mishneh Torah, is replete with the most offensive precepts against all Gentiles but also with explicit attacks on Christianity and on Jesus (after Whose name the author adds with agreement, 'May the name of the wicked persih'...)"?
End of quote


LEauki posts:
You don't get it.

I mean that YOU should read the Talmud, not rely on other people to tell you what to think.
End of quote


Point is you refuse to respond to what a fellow Jew has to say about the Talmud becasue he disagrees with your assessment of it. He says the blasphemy against Christ and insults against His mother and non-Jews are there while you sing a different tune...one of you is correct...I go with him becasue I know that there are other sincere coverts from Talmudism who have also exposed its contents in much the same way he has.



Reply #90 from JoeUser Forums Top
Please help me get this. What do you mean by saying that modern Judaism keeps the Oral Torah? How? Oral Torah...that's the Talmud, right?
End of quote


The Oral Torah is the Mishnah.
The Talmud is basically Rabbinic commentary/debate through the ages.
Reply #91 from JoeUser Forums Top

Point is you refuse to respond to what a fellow Jew has to say about the Talmud because he disagrees with your assessment of it.
End of quote


Asking you to read for yourself is the best response I can give you.

Reply #92 from JoeUser Forums Top
Leauki posts:
Have you read the Talmud? The "source" for Jesus being a "bastard" is Christian faith. It was Christians who claimed that Mary's husbands was not Jesus' father. Traditional Jews would NEVER make a claim like that about another Jewish family.
End of quote



Of TRADITIONAL JEWS, LULA POSTED #4:

How then would you define "traditional" Jew?

Speaking from a religious or biblical sense, I always thought of the "traditional" Jews as the Israelites...Abraham, Moses, Isaias, etc.

When you think about it, didn't the coming of Christ change Jewish identity forever? From the time of Christ and particularly after 70 AD, the terms "Israelite" and "Jews" were no longer synonymous.

From then on there were no more Israelites only those Jews who either accept Christ as the Messiah or those who in effect create a new identify for themselves insofar as they want to remain "Jews" reject Christ....thus, when I use the term "revolutionary" Jew, I mean the one who shows systematic hostility or rejection of Christ as the Messiah.
End of quote


Talmudic Jews, Pharisic Jews, and Revolutionary Jews all have the same identity they created for themselves...they reject Christ.

But if somebody spreads anti-Semitic lies, I WILL confront them (if it can be done without fear), and that has nothing to do with religious beliefs, I would think.
End of quote


You of course are referring to me as spreading "anti-Semitic" lies...which shows there's a lot of confusion as to what constitutes "anti-Semitism".

If you will note that throughout this discussion I have always and everywhere kept Jewish ethnicity out of it...and always spoke from a religious or biblical understanding of Judasim...biblical Judaism of 2000 years ago compared to Rabbinic, Talmudic or Pharisic Judasim of today.

Your charge of anti-Semitism against me is groundless. All you've confirmed is that it's next to impossible nowadays to write about the Jews without opening oneself to this charge.


Reply #93 from JoeUser Forums Top

Point is you refuse to respond to what a fellow Jew has to say about the Talmud becasue he disagrees with your assessment of it. He says the blasphemy against Christ and insults against His mother and non-Jews are there while you sing a different tune...one of you is correct...I go with him because I know that there are other sincere coverts from Talmudism who have also exposed its contents in much the same way he has.
End of quote

 

Lula, you are beating a dead horse.  The Talmud is not "anti-Christian"  It has nothing to do with Christianity.  Comments in the Talmud regarding gentiles are tangential at best and have more to do with Jewish survival in a hostile Christian world than anything else. As to blasphemy, it is not blasphemy to deny the divinity of a Jesus, from a Jewish POV its just plain common sense.

There are lots of former Jews, apostates, who are now Christian, who have their own axe to grind. They are no longer Jews and their word about Judaism is always suspect, as any apostate's word should be.

As Leuki suggests, please go to the original source, but to do so would mean you would have to learn something about how the Jewish mind works. Dialogue in the Talmudic discussions, for example, are filled with what is called pilpul, a playful giva and take, weaving through time and multiple texts, to get at the real meaning of something.  You cannot take anything on a literal level in spiritual contexts, ever. Which is how fundamentalists get into such trouble with the bible. So, open your mind, get one of the 27 volumes of the Talmud and take an honest look.

Be well.

 

Reply #94 from JoeUser Forums Top

Your charge of anti-Semitism against me is groundless. All you've confirmed is that it's next to impossible nowadays to write about the Jews without opening oneself to this charge.
End of quote


Yeah, it's a pity! And unfortunately there is no way to write about the Jews except by lying about their faith and misquoting their holy books, right?

I have ASKED you to stop lying about Judaism and Jewish beliefs. You refused to do that.

I have ASKED you to go read for yourself whether you have been lied to by your sources or not. You refused that.

I'm afraid making up or propagating lies about Jews or Judaism _is_ anti-Semitism.

And your "defence" was quite predictable.

It is not my duty to allow you to make up lies about Jews and then refute them one by one.

Reply #95 from Stardock Forums Top

Your charge of anti-Semitism against me is groundless. All you've confirmed is that it's next to impossible nowadays to write about the Jews without opening oneself to this charge.
End of quote

 

Lula, let me add this.  Just like you say we Jews who deny Jesus' messiahship and divinity are "anti-Christian," we might say those who cannot accept that Jews might have a different, but equally valid, point of view are anti-Jewish.  Does this rise to the level of anti-semitism?  No.  However, a constant malignment of the Jewish clergy, its holy texts, and practices, comes very close. 

 

I have never said you are wrong to be a Catholic, but you say consistently I am wrong to be a Jew.  What am I to make of this?

Be well.

Reply #96 from JoeUser Forums Top
Lula, you are beating a dead horse. The Talmud is not "anti-Christian" It has nothing to do with Christianity. Comments in the Talmud regarding gentiles are tangential at best and have more to do with Jewish survival in a hostile Christian world than anything else
End of quote


Wait! In the Christian text itself, the new testament, there is a story about a gentile being rewarded for saying that she was like a dog under the table, eating the scraps of its masters (in this instance they would be the jews). If anything, parts of the new testament are still anti-european. The Christian text itself favors jews.

I think there was also something about other white people being grafted onto an olive plant tossed in because someone in the catholic church realized that having jews be superior to the majority within the religion wasn't going to fly.
Reply #97 from JoeUser Forums Top
Talmudic Jews, Pharisic Jews, and Revolutionary Jews all have the same identity they created for themselves...they reject Christ.
End of quote


Lula do you have the foggiest idea why they reject your (Catholic depiction of) Christ?

Reply #98 from JoeUser Forums Top
In alot of my studies I come across excerpts from the Talmud. I'm not an expert on the Talmud but I understand the Talmud as being two? The Jerusalem Talmud and the Babylonian Talmud. The Babylonian Talmud is considerably younger than that of the Jerusalem and its traditions far more deeply tinged with superstition and error of every kind according to Alfred Edersheim.

For historical purposes the Jerusalem Talmud is of much greater value and authority than that of the Eastern Schools.

What I find interesting is that even in strictly Rabbinic documents, the premundane, if not the external existence of the Messiah appears as matter of common belief. Such is the view expressed in the Targum on Isa 9:6 and Micah 5:2. The Midrash on Pov 8:9 expressly mentions the Messiah among the seven things created before the world (Throne of Glory, Messiah the King, the Torah, Israel, the Temple, repentace and Gehenna.)

In the Talmud (Jer. Ber. 2.4 p. 5a)it is not only implied, that the Messiah may already be among the living, but a strange story is related, according to which He had actually been born n the royal palace at Bethlehem, bore the name Menachem (comforter), was discovered by one R. Judan thru a peculiar device, but had been carried away by a storm. Also the Babylonian Talmud represents Him as sitting at the gate of Imperial Rome.

In general the idea of the Messiah's appearance and concealment is familiar to Jewish tradition but the Rabbis go much further back and declare that from the time of Judah's marrage (Gen 38) God busied Himself with creatng the light of the Messiah, it being significantly added that 'before the first oppressor (Pharaoh) was born, the final deliverer (son of David-Messiah) was already born' (Ber. R. 85, ed. Warsh. p 151b).

In another passage the Messiah is identified with Anani and therefore represented as pre-existent long before his actual birth.

It is true that the Messiah is throughout compared with that of Moses, the "first" with "the last Redeemer." So it's not just us Christians seeing Christ in Moses.

As Moses was educated in the court of Pharaoh, so the Messiah dwells in Rome among His enemies (Shem. R. 1,ed. W. vol. 2, p.5b; Tanch. Par. Tazrya, 8, ed. W. vol. 2, p.20a).

Like Moses He comes, withdraws, and comes again,(interesting isn't it?) (Pesiqta, ed. Buber, p49b; Midr. Ruth, Par. 5, ed. W. p 43b) Like Moses He works deliverance. But here the analogy ceases, for, whereas the redemption by Moses was temporary and small, that of the Messiah would be eternal and absolute. All the marvels connected with Moses were to be intensifed in the Messiah (and they were) when He would gather the outcasts of Israel, Isa 27:13 (Pirqe de R. El. u.s., p39a, close.) The rod of the Messiah was that of Aaron, (the priest) which had budded, blossomed and burst into fruit.

So the princile that the later Delierer would be like the first' was carried into every detail. As the first Deliverer brought down the Manna, so the Messiah (Ps 72;16); as the first Deliverer had made a spring of water to rise, so would the second (according to the last clause of Joel 3:18 (Midr. on Eccles 1:9, ed. Warsh. vol. 4 p.80b)

So when we read Matthew's account of the Messiah (written to the Jews) it's very clear that the Messiah (Jesus) was exactly who the Prophets and Writings pointed to. He fulfilled many of the prophecies concerning Himself with the rest to come when he comes again.
Reply #99 from JoeUser Forums Top
As to blasphemy, it is not blasphemy to deny the divinity of a Jesus, from a Jewish POV its just plain common sense.
End of quote


So now it's divinity of "a" Jesus!!!

Lula, you are beating a dead horse. The Talmud is not "anti-Christian"
End of quote


Perhaps you can explain in Gittin 57a, I found that Bilam boils in excrement in hell. Is Bilam a Jewish term for Jesus Christ? Be honest.

Sodaiho, what "context" excuses the pervasive treatment of non-Jews as non-humans? Among many, "...the Goyim are not called men." Kerithuth 6b.

"The issue of the Gentiles is like animals." Ketuboth 3b.

"Jews" owe us non-humans no debt of morality, not honesty. Baba Kamma 113a, not property Baba Mezia 24a, not even life."

"The best of the Gentiles should be killed" Sopherim 15, rule 10.



Reply #100 from Stardock Forums Top

Perhaps you can explain in Gittin 57a, I found that Bilam boils in excrement in hell. Is Bilam a Jewish term for Jesus Christ? Be honest. Sodaiho, what "context" excuses the pervasive treatment of non-Jews as non-humans? Among many, "...the Goyim are not called men." Kerithuth 6b. "The issue of the Gentiles is like animals." Ketuboth 3b. "Jews" owe us non-humans no debt of morality, not honesty. Baba Kamma 113a, not property Baba Mezia 24a, not even life." "The best of the Gentiles should be killed" Sopherim 15, rule 10.
End of quote

 

Lula, many primitive societies, including the Ancient Israelites, referred to themselves as "men" or "the people" and looked down upon -- or feared -- outsiders.  That is the context the rabbis wrestle with, the context of when the Torah itself was written. But even so, Jews have always welcomed strangers and have very open rules about relating to them.  In the end, as the ancients matured so to speak, they came to terms with civilized life and its necessities.  They argued ways in which it would be OK to do business, for example, with the goyim.  Understand, the prohibitions against contact with idolaters was very serious. Christians were considered idolaters.   But this has not been the case for a long time.  As I said several times, Judaism has continued to evolve, partly due to its deep respect and love for learning and dialogue, and partly due to necessity.